Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 19, 2009 9:54:30 GMT -5
I don't think the idea of the Catholic Church existed in Polycarp's time. I think what grew to become the RCC drew lines through certain dots, if you know what I mean. And Polycarp used the term "saintly" in a sparing manner. It was left to later rogues to fully develop the idea. But I take it that you do accept that Polycarp was an imitator, and that should bother you. I wouldn't know 1% of the workers. Even those at convention I struggle to recall (and my eyes are going, like my memory!) I don't know much of the earliest Australian workers, and certainly, we wouldn't be writing books or giving courses on them ;D
|
|
|
Post by Jesse_Lackman on Aug 19, 2009 10:03:35 GMT -5
But there wasn't really such a thing as the dark ages. It's a received myth. Wow, I'd like to hear more about this. History is history, and tells a very dark story of the depravity of man during mid-evil times. History preserves the horrible treatment man inflicts on his fellow man, treatment that reached a nearly unquestionable low point when authoritarian and totalitarian religious power invented and sadistically used torture instruments like breast rippers, the Judas chair, and the pear. I'd like to know exactly how all that history is a "received myth". Clay, I'm not pretending on your account, that's your opinion. It's bigger than you, me, Bert, any polarized debate or discussion on TMB, it's about the age old battle between totalitarianism vs freedom. Totalitarian power is totalitarian power no matter who holds it; governments, those who crucified Jesus, the Catholic church, factions of Islam, or Martin Luther - “To kill a peasant is not murder; it is helping to extinguish the conflagration. Let there be no half measures! Crush them! Cut their throats! Transfix them. Leave no stone unturned! To kill a peasant is to destroy a mad dog!” – “If they say that I am very hard and merciless, mercy be damned. Let whoever can stab, strangle, and kill them like mad dogs." ( ->Source<). Man is his own worst enemy. Man wielding authoritarian totalitarian power over his fellow man has always revealed man at his absolute worst. This is born out by the fact that over six times the number of people killed in wars this century have been killed by their own authoritarian, totalitarian leaders. That right, war dead times six! ( (->Democide<) I don't know for sure but I woudn't expect previous centuries to be much different.
|
|
|
Post by ClayRandall on Aug 19, 2009 10:16:54 GMT -5
But I take it that you do accept that Polycarp was an imitator, and that should bother you. I'm afraid that I don't understand what you mean by Polycarp being an imitator. Do I agree that doctrines, like the Church, develop over time? Of course. Surely you don't think that God dropped KJV bibles from the sky at Pentecost for everyone to start having Sunday morning meetings and Wednesday night bible studies? The development of the canon of Sacred Scripture could be considered an example of legitimate development, as Jesus compared the kingdom to a mustard seed which would grow larger over time. www.angelfire.com/ok3/apologia/develop.html
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 19, 2009 10:22:48 GMT -5
Polycarp drew up his epistle in copy and paste fashion. He didn't have a lot to say himself, but what IS his own kind of obscures what the original texts were trying to say. Seriously, I would like to map out every word he wrote, and show where he got it from.
|
|
|
Post by What Hat on Aug 19, 2009 10:25:39 GMT -5
I think the 'myth' part is in thinking that things have gotten any better now than they were then. All those horrible things still happen in most of the world. The only difference between now and then is that in Western countries the church has gradually separated from the State and lost much of its power and influence within society. And if you go back to 'Dark Ages' times the church was itself a seat of earthly power; there were no nation-states or countries as we now know them. With the gradual decline of the "earthly power" of the church in 2000 years of Western history, so too do we see a decline in its deadly instruments. But those instruments are still used outside of the church. And at times and in places, the church is still complicit in their use.
|
|
|
Post by What Hat on Aug 19, 2009 10:29:10 GMT -5
But I take it that you do accept that Polycarp was an imitator, and that should bother you. I'm afraid that I don't understand what you mean by Polycarp being an imitator. Do I agree that doctrines, like the Church, develop over time? Of course. Surely you don't think that God dropped KJV bibles from the sky at Pentecost for everyone to start having Sunday morning meetings and Wednesday night bible studies? The development of the canon of Sacred Scripture could be considered an example of legitimate development, as Jesus compared the kingdom to a mustard seed which would grow larger over time. www.angelfire.com/ok3/apologia/develop.htmlNice piece of writing at that link, Clay. As you know essentially the idea behind any Restorationist movement has to be that at some point historical developments in the main body of the church are negative. I've heard the occasional worker comment that the Christian church was fine until the Council of Nicene. It's hard to say if that opinion is widely held; I suspect it is. Even the Reformation essentially tried to roll back from a perceived state of corruption and "start over". But the Reformation for the most part accepted developments well into the 4th and 5th century. You kind of imply, correct me if I'm wrong, that if we accept the Bible as canonical (that is, books in it are divine and infallible and books outside it are not) then we implicitly trust developments beyond the Council of Nicene. For to be able to trust those councils to decide what went into the Bible we should also accept their judgements on such matters as the Trinity. The other way to run with this is to relax some our ideas about canonicity. That there may be 0 to 2nd century writings that are of value, and that some of the NT writings in the Bible should not be taken literally or are of less value. In other words, we conclude that the councils that settled on the canonicity of the NT (as opposed to the Septuagint) were not infallible. Personally, I like this view, because in our quest to understand Jesus why not consider writings like the Gospel of Thomas or other early church writings not in the Bible. No doubt some of the accounts like Gnostic writings are completely bogus, so this is not a carte blanche to take all apocryphal writings as equal. Yet another view would be that God directed those men to choose the right books, but that does not make those men correct in some of their other decisions. Although it would be difficult to see why God would give them this dispensation in some things and not in others which concern church doctrine. Unfortunately, I don't know enough about the early Fathers to sort out which of these views might be correct.
|
|
|
Post by Jesse_Lackman on Aug 19, 2009 11:08:36 GMT -5
What happened to that foundation church? IMO there are only two possibilities. It vanished from historical records, or it simply vanished - period. All those famous figures which came after it bear little resemblance to it. I don't think it "vanished - period"... At its essense what Jesus brought is Freedom. Looking across time at man's lust for power over his fellow man it seems that Freedom is but a blip on the radar screen. We see what seems like totalitarian power lust (sometimes wearing a badge of religion) not missing a beat. Totalitarian power is very visible - tooting it's own horn - making itself very well known - look at ME! - respect ME! - obey ME! Freedom isn't that way at all. What's happened is those who love the Freedom Jesus brought went underground like freedom lovers/fighters always do, sometimes within the structures of authoritiarian religious powers, sometimes without, weaving in and out of history like the wind - like the Spirit itself. .... The spiritual family is one generation with a Father who is also the author of their primary source reference material. In that sense there should be no reason for man to develop "doctrine" over time. Saying that there is a reason for further doctrinal development over time is like saying what Jesus brought was incomplete and God's capability of writing His Doctrine on the hearts and minds of individual men and women as he has promised is an impossibility. Faith like a mustard seed and growing helps us believe that God will do what he has promised.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 20, 2009 6:43:56 GMT -5
IMO, I believe that church doctrines would have grown outward like a bush from the central church. Eventually one or two lines would dominate.
AND NO MATTER WHICH CHURCH GAINED ASCENDANCY, IT COULD "PROVE" ITS ANCESTRAL ROOTS TO JESUS.
That's how it works in Evolutionary Theory and the principles apply to many things people do, such as philosophy, engineering, social "memes," political systems, fashions etc..
As to those of the central church: they were not based on social or political structures. I suspect a lot of this church would have escaped Roman persecution because it was so low on the radar compared to many Christian groups.
|
|
|
Post by Rob O on Aug 20, 2009 6:54:52 GMT -5
But there wasn't really such a thing as the dark ages. It's a received myth. Wow, I'd like to hear more about this. History is history, and tells a very dark story of the depravity of man during mid-evil times. History preserves the horrible treatment man inflicts on his fellow man, treatment that reached a nearly unquestionable low point when authoritarian and totalitarian religious power invented and sadistically used torture instruments like breast rippers, the Judas chair, and the pear. I'd like to know exactly how all that history is a "received myth". I'd like to know how you conjured that interpretation out of my post. The myth is that there was a period of time during which the advance of knowledge was suppressed by those terrible Catholics. As an aside, What correctly notes, inhumanity was not confined to some arbitrary period of western history. And since you are aware of the Democide project, I would seriously question the characterisation of various atrocities from European history as "a nearly unquestionable low point" when they are put in the perspective of the Holocaust and Russia's socialist revolution and repression. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dark_Agesjameshannam.com/articles.htmGod's Philosophers: How the Medieval World Laid the Foundations of Modern Science
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 20, 2009 7:25:19 GMT -5
Rob. You read of two Grand Theories about the so-called "Dark Ages."
Theory one posits it was the RCC which suppressed knowledge, destroyed books and persecuted heretics.
Theory two says that the RCC held Europe together, became a repository for knowledge and advanced science.
Because BOTH views are entrench and ancient, so one can safely surmise both are correct. This suggests to me that the RCC didn't have much effect on European civilization at all - it merely reflected the culture and opinions of its times.
|
|
|
Post by Rob O on Aug 20, 2009 7:48:10 GMT -5
Theory one posits it was the RCC which suppressed knowledge, destroyed books and persecuted heretics. The only place I read this theory is in Neo-Enlightenment writers attempting to create a disconnect between historical philosophers and early scientists over and against a kind of caricatured anti-intellectual church hierarchy. And this theory is too simplistic. The fact of the matter is, science and the progression of knowledge moved in fits and starts, suffered setbacks and great discoveries and was variously supported and limited by church hierarchy. There is no neat progression, but very few historians would now accept the value-laden appellation of the so-called 'Dark Ages'.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 20, 2009 8:15:28 GMT -5
The most famous conflict between faith and science was in Galileo, supposedly. But this man was under house arrest, more or less, for mocking the Pope. His own work was sponsored by the church. His own discoveries were published and promoted by the church. In fact, the RCC could boast to the Chinese emperor their Galilean system was superior to what they had.
|
|
|
Post by ClayRandall on Aug 20, 2009 9:01:42 GMT -5
The most famous conflict between faith and science was in Galileo, supposedly. But this man was under house arrest, more or less, for mocking the Pope. His own work was sponsored by the church. His own discoveries were published and promoted by the church. In fact, the RCC could boast to the Chinese emperor their Galilean system was superior to what they had. Huh? 1) the Galilean theory was just that, a theory. 2) the Galilean theory went against other contemporary scientific understanding of the universe 3) the Galilean theory was wrong, because he proposed a heliocentric model in which the sun was the center of the universe. 4) the Galilean theory did not belong to the RCC. It was not "theirs" because the Church does not claim to be infallible in matters of science. It only objected to Galilean claims that his theory disproved parts of the Bible.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 20, 2009 9:19:41 GMT -5
Yes, the Pope could claim the Galilean model was his because this derived not from Galileo but Western philosophy, and the church sponsored science. And in a sense Galileo is wrong, for the sun, the moon and the entire universe DO revolve around the earth - its just, as Einstein would put it, a matter of where the observer is standing. I must go to bed...
|
|
|
Post by What Hat on Aug 20, 2009 10:23:23 GMT -5
This historian claims that the Christian church of the day caused the Dark Ages. The other book of his I read makes a convincing case ... and I believe that the culture created by Augustine combined with the fall of Rome to the Goths and other factors caused this to happen. Basically, all thought other than monotheistic, single orthodoxy began to be suppressed and persecuted. The work of the Greeks in science and philosophy was also suppressed. Just condensing this writers thesis ... Something had to cause it.
|
|
|
Post by What Hat on Aug 20, 2009 10:28:40 GMT -5
IMO, I believe that church doctrines would have grown outward like a bush from the central church. Eventually one or two lines would dominate. AND NO MATTER WHICH CHURCH GAINED ASCENDANCY, IT COULD "PROVE" ITS ANCESTRAL ROOTS TO JESUS. That's how it works in Evolutionary Theory and the principles apply to many things people do, such as philosophy, engineering, social "memes," political systems, fashions etc.. As to those of the central church: they were not based on social or political structures. I suspect a lot of this church would have escaped Roman persecution because it was so low on the radar compared to many Christian groups. I can't quite catch what you mean by the last paragraph. "As to those" ... 'those' being ? And "a lot of this church" ... 'this church' being ?
|
|
|
Post by Rob O on Aug 20, 2009 18:36:59 GMT -5
what, Have you read other historians on the topic? Have a look at some of the articles of James Hannam I linked to above, and consider his book Gods Philosophers. jameshannam.com/literature.htmIncidentally, you can read "Hannam on Freeman", Freeman on "Hannam on Freeman" and on and on here.
|
|
|
Post by What Hat on Aug 20, 2009 22:22:52 GMT -5
what, Have you read other historians on the topic? Have a look at some of the articles of James Hannam I linked to above, and consider his book Gods Philosophers. jameshannam.com/literature.htmIncidentally, you can read "Hannam on Freeman", Freeman on "Hannam on Freeman" and on and on here. Not really, Rob. I'm relatively new to the subject of early church history. I do find though that I enjoy reading atheists in this area because they have no particular view point to support. It's not that the other accounts aren't truthful, but they can't avoid some amount of bias. Still, I'll keep an open mind, and if you recommend this fellow as an alternative, I will give him a try. Incidentally, on your recommendation I purchased Philosophical Foundations for a Christian Worldview a few months ago and have found it quite useful. I've now read a number of chapters in it, using it to browse and satisfy my curiousity on several points. I do find though that it's very much centred in evangelical Christianity (well, Protestantism anyway). So, you might get a treatment of Arianism, a reasonable description, then a critique, but then the book always goes back to its center in the evangelical Christian domain. But it is a survey book, so you know if you want to drill down you have to obtain the primary texts and read them.
|
|
|
Post by Rob O on Aug 20, 2009 22:35:05 GMT -5
But it is a survey book, so you know if you want to drill down you have to obtain the primary texts and read them. There is a strong Catholic philosophical influence in there, which one could easily miss if they're not versed in the topics, but yes, it is a survey or primer and helpfully covers a large area. Oh, and don't forget to account for the bias of atheistic or secular writers because too many have a vested interest in painting Christian history in a less than charitable light. I would think if post-modernism has taught us anything it is that the notion of a neutral observer is a myth.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 21, 2009 3:06:15 GMT -5
The "central church" was the apostolic church and those who followed the doctrine to-the-letter. They are known only because of their letters. The apostolic letters circulated widely. Many groups were not faithful to the itinerant or "apostle" style of ministry for long, and according to the epistles held to "worldly" things. It is this latter group which would have been more visible to Roman persecutors.
Yes, they do have a point to support - atheism. They would not, for instance give credence to Paul's vision, let alone tolerate the idea of Jesus as the Son of God. And Roman Catholicism is a big fat target to revisionists in general, and Christianity haters in particular.
|
|
|
Post by What Hat on Aug 21, 2009 9:13:21 GMT -5
Bert, I don't take much stock of atheists when it comes to Biblical exegesis of any sort ... the date, authorship and so on. One smells a rat at times. Thus, my study Bible(s) are not written by atheists. You'd think there wouldn't be any such thing, but I have a 1950s analysis of the OT that was used in Teacher's College in Canada back in the day. The man who wrote it was ostensibly a Christian, but I would say he was an atheist. It's fortunate they don't teach the Bible in schools anymore based on what is in that book, anyway. But when it comes to unvarnished historical fact I will take an exposition by an atheist over any stripe of Christianity. There are other factors to weigh in, of course.
|
|
|
Post by What Hat on Aug 21, 2009 9:14:51 GMT -5
Much-maligned post-modernism, but I think there's a lot of good in it. Modernism was much worse.
|
|
|
Post by Jesse_Lackman on Aug 22, 2009 13:13:35 GMT -5
Remember the basic struggle; totalitarianism vs freedom. The Dark Ages were a time when the balance was tipped to the side of totalitarianism instead of freedom. That made them dark for all freedom loving Christians, non-Christians, and atheists.
|
|
|
Post by Rob O on Aug 25, 2009 2:39:28 GMT -5
what, Have you read other historians on the topic? Have a look at some of the articles of James Hannam I linked to above, and consider his book Gods Philosophers. jameshannam.com/literature.htmIncidentally, you can read "Hannam on Freeman", Freeman on "Hannam on Freeman" and on and on here. Ps. I should clarify that Hannam's book is about a later period, after 1000AD, but I think he raises some pertinent questions in his exchange re: Freeman's work.
|
|