LOST HISTORY OF THE EARLY CHURCH

/ Subject >  Re: Mystery Writers, etc / Newsgroup > alt.religion.christian.biblestudy / ChristWatch - Bible: Biblical History / 14 Dec 1999 /
.
> Babalorixa wrote: I've just now considered reading in the christian fiction genre.
> I'm trying to determine what it takes to be in this genre.
.
 textman say: Dear Babalorixa, quite a lot I should think, as few (if any) Christians these days have anything even remotely resembling a healthy imagination.
.
> Is there a list of christian writers with brief descriptions according to genre anywhere?
.
 I don't think so. And even if there were, it's most likely to be woefully incomplete and inadequate (not to mention inaccurate).
.
> Specifically I'm looking to see if there were any christian mystery writers.
.
 How about G.K.Chesterton?
.
> Also does anyone have recommendations on books about the history of the early church? Thanks,
.
 Books on the history of the early Greek churches, you mean? Ha! Talk about Christian fiction! That's the problem with books on early church history; they tend to be far more fiction than history. Of course, this is a tradition that has lived long through the centuries; beginning with the first efforts at Christian historical-fiction in the second century with the book that was split in two, Luke-Acts. But if you're looking for a more factual, complete, and objective account of the progress of the pre-Constantinian churches, then I'm afraid you're just plain out of luck!
.
 Now I know that most readers will not believe me when I say this, yet the fact remains that the popular scholarly understandings of the people and events that shaped the early churches is horribly inadequate (even just to the evidence provided by the New Testament itself). This failure of historical imagination is not just the problem of church-historians, but actually stems from an even greater failure of imagination on the part of bible-scholars in general. Few even recognize that the NT documents are our best and most reliable source of information about the early churches; and those that do, usually take this to mean a slavish and literal interpretation of Acts of Apostles!
.
 Please allow me demonstrate the truth of my outrageous claims. I have been lately browsing a fairly recent book on the history of the Faith. It is written in a popular style for a general audience, and yet it's credentials are impeccable (eg. it is the result of a collaboration of several well-renowned scholars). This is also a big book covering the wide range of past and present church history. It is entitled: 'The Oxford History of Christianity', and is edited by John McManners, published by the Oxford University Press, 1990. This book very well illustrates the flaws and shortcomings that beset the general popular understanding of the shape and course of early church history. The chapter of interest to us comes from the first part of the book (From the Origins to 1800), and is entitled 'The Early Christian Community'. This chapter is written by Henry Chadwick, and is just over 50 pages long. Here he covers the main people and events from Jesus, the Apostles, and Paul to Arius and the Emperor Constantine.
.
 What then is wrong with Chadwick's vision of early church history? Quite a lot actually, but it all boils down to a fundamental ignorance about the early Christian prophetic traditions. Thus the author follows the general bias against the prophets by repeating the inane "fact" that the epistle miscalled 'First Clement' was written by "Rome's presiding cleric named Clement" (39). Here Chadwick demonstrates a gross inability to handle his sources in anything approaching a critical and balanced manner. His priestly bias soon shows that the history of the early churches turns upon the Roman church and its popes and bishops; and the defeat of Gnosticism in the second century is credited to Catholic clerics (which is monumental LIE well worthy of Romish propaganda)!
.
 Thus, for Chadwick, the Christian prophetic tradition begins and ends with Montanism, and the following comment is typical of his pro-priestly, anti-prophetic attitude: "To Irenaeus, the normal ministry of word and sacrament is in principle the point where the Spirit of God is encountered, not at emotional ecstasies which reject rationality and tradition" (33). In this statement we see the full depths of ignorance about the Christian prophetic tradition. There is no awareness whatsoever that the prophetic traditions of Egypt (which produced Hebrews, the Gospel of John, the epistles of James, Jude and 2Peter) were very much founded on rationality and tradition. Thus it should come as no surprise that Chadwick is utterly ignorant of the fact that Paulos of Damascus was himself a prophet, and that the word 'apostle' means precisely a 'Christian prophet'.
.
 Now I do not say all this simply to bash Mr Chadwick, but rather to illustrate the fact that this sort of massive blind spot regarding the prophets (and the corresponding and revolting bias against the fundamental importance of Alexandria and Egypt to the early Greek churches) is very *typical* of church historians in general, and clearly demonstrates the gross stupidity which obtains in this field of study. Thus I would strongly urge the Reader to always bear in mind that what we don't know about early church history far exceeds what these idiot church historians *think* they know!

/ Re: Lost History of the Early Church / ChristWatch Forum: Bible - Biblical History / NG: alt.religion.christian.biblestudy / 27Dec99 /
.
>> textman previously wrote: <snip> Now I know that most readers will not believe me when I say this, yet
>> the fact remains that the popular scholarly understandings of the people and events that shaped the
>> early churches is horribly inadequate (even just to the evidence provided by the New Testament itself).
>> This failure of historical imagination is not just the problem of church-historians, but actually stems from
>> an even greater failure of imagination on the part of bible-scholars in general. Few even recognize that
>> the NT documents are our best and most reliable source of information about the early churches; and
>> those that do, usually take this to mean a slavish and literal interpretation of Acts of Apostles! <snip>
.
> On 24Dec99 Brent Batson replied: Perhaps your vice may be too much imagination.
.
 textman say: Dear Brent, to those who are utterly bereft of all imagination it must indeed seem as if I have far too much imagination to be an effective and worthy commentator on the sacred texts; but those who understand the difficulties of a coherent and comprehensive hermeneutics also know that one simply cannot do the Bible justice without a goodly dose of *disciplined* historical imagination.
.
> The New Testament book of Luke is an ancient writing corroborated
> by at least 3 other writings (Matthew, Mark and John)
.
 This statement demonstrates how little you know about the Bible. In fact, the Gospel of Luke is not a book at all, but rather half a book. It was written as the first part of a two-part 'history' of the Faith showing how the center of the universe shifted from Jerusalem (the former "Holy City") to Rome (the new "Holy City"). One cannot read the Gospel of Luke apart from Acts of Apostles (or vis versa) and still expect to understand it. It was the second century churches that split the scrolls apart and made two books out of one. Needless to say, they were very wrong to do so. Yet another demonstration of the error and inadequacy of the canonical format (which many foolish Christians fancy is itself divinely ordained)!
.
 As to Luke being corroborated by the other three gospels: this is hardly surprising in light of the fact that the author of Lk-Acts used all three of these books as his main sources for his gospel. This is what he means when he says: "Now many have undertaken to compile an account of the events that have been fulfilled among us, like the accounts passed on to us by those who were eyewitnesses and servants of the word from the beginning. So it seemed good to me as well, because I have followed all things carefully from the beginning, to write an orderly account for you ..." (Lk 1:1-3 / NETbible). To my mind, these words very clearly demonstrate that Lk-Acts was the last of the canonical accounts to be written (ie. in the early second century). Those who disagree with this assessment are obviously incapable of understanding the meaning of simple words and phrases.
.
> of the same time period (a rarety in texts of antiquity)
.
 Wrong again, Brent. Now you may imagine that all four gospels were written simultaneously (and many Christians will agree with thee; for it pleases them to think that impossible happenings attended the genesis of the New Testament), but history has a logic all its own that is not dependent upon the infantile whimperings of ignorant and superstitious people. In fact, the NT documents offer abundant evidence that they were composed over a period of about a century (ie. from the four Thessalonian letters c.50CE to the universal epistle called Second Peter c.150CE). In the same way, the gospels follow one another logically and gradually with about a 15 year spread between one and the next one following: Mark -> Matthew -> John -> Luke-Acts. Any other scheme is simply untenable and contrary to the facts.
.
> and harmonious with all the rest of the compiled 66 books included in the cannonized Bible.
.
 You are very very wrong, sir. If you are utterly ignorant of the fact that Luke contradicts the other gospels, and also the authentic epistles of Paul, in many instances, then this is doubtless due to your silly romantic notions and inattentive reading of the sacred texts. Of course, you may claim that Luke is "harmonious with all the rest of the compiled 66 books", but anyone at all serious about studying the sacred scriptures can hardly agree with you. ... Ah yes, ignorance doth surely be bliss!
.
> Acts is likewise in harmony with the rest of scripture, including the epistles which Paul
> wrote to the early churches.
.
 I cannot say that you are a liar, for you no doubt believe such theological drivel (suitable only for children); but no one but a total fool would willingly believe this nonsense. Even a casual comparison of Acts and Galatians will very quickly demonstrate that Paul's account of the Jerusalem council has very little in common with Luke's almost sadistic white-washing of those momentous events.
.
> As there is also much extra-biblical evidence to support the geography, the politics, the leaders
> and their actions, etc., as it was recorded in scripture, it would be irresponsible to take Acts or
> any other portion of the Bible as less than literal.
.
 On the contrary, what is grossly irresponsible is to imagine that Luke was writing an objective and scientific historical account many centuries before historians developed their scientific approach to history. Moreover, to read the Bible literally (everywhere and at all times) is a sure sign of a childish and simple-minded reader who is fundamentally unable to adopt the critical attitude that the scriptures require of *all* mature readers. ... So drink your milk, little babe in Christ; and leave the meat and potatoes of the scriptures to those who have the necessary love and respect that are required of those wholly dedicated to the Word of God.
.
> Further, as the promises of Acts were open ended, and have been realized today by millions,
> it takes more fantasy than I am capable of to pretend that it was allegory. - Brent
.
 Open-ended promises are NOT historical facts, sir. Thus while Lk-Acts certainly witnesses to the state of the Roman church (and her theology) in the early second century, its value to historians seeking to trace the course of the Faith in its earliest decades remains doubtful at best. Hey, this is just the nature of the beast, Brent. Nobody knows better than church historians that what we don't know about the first two centuries of the Faith vastly outweighs what we do know. Revision, revision, revision! That's what church history is all about. Anyone who imagines that the history of the early Greek churches is long since set in stone is a baboon, and utterly unworthy to bear the Name.

P.S. The gnosis of the Christian prophets is not based on ignorance and arrogance (the first two pillars of fundamentalism), but on humility (for much eludes us) and gratitude (for the evidence we have within the sacred texts).

/ Subject >  Re: Religious tradition? / TheologyOnLine - Religion / 24 Dec 1999 / Newsgroup: alt.religion.christian.biblestudy /

> On 11Dec99 Damon Martin wrote: Textman, 'Tis really none of my business, but I'm a bit curious.
.
 erasmian say: Dear Damon, I'm a lot curious (about many things). It's what keeps me young (at heart).
.
> You said in one of your posts that you had been RC for 40 years [I think it was you anyway],
.
 Yes, it was.
.
> but I noticed a distinctive slant toward the past tense.
.
 Right; 'was' as in: 'That's all over now, SIR!'
.
> I'm curious as to how you describe yourself in terms of religious tradition.
.
This is not difficult. The one Christian tradition that most determines the nature and spirit of my faith is the Christian prophetic tradition of the early Greek churches. After all, it was the early prophets from Paulos to Jacob and Judas who gave us the meat and bone of the New Testament documents (and many other important non-canonical early Christian literature as well). These early Christian prophets were also the same ones who saw the Faith through its first critical conflicts with Judaism (first century) and the Gnostics (second century). Thus while I have considerable sympathy for many of the churches that appeared after the third century, the touchstone of my belief remains the faith of the early Greek prophets (up to and including Clement, and Origen, of Alexandria).
.
> You seem to hold the traditions and history of the church in high regard,
.
One can hardly study the long history of the Faith and fail to generate some level of respect for the many and various traditions and histories of the churches. But some churches and traditions I respect more than others. 4X: the early Anabaptists (16C) and Quakers (17C) were very remarkable in many ways as both tradition-breakers and tradition-makers (eg. separation of church and state); and I certainly respect these 'free churches' much more than the Romish Cummunion.
.
> so I was just a little curious.
.
 That's okay by me, Damon.  :)
.
> If it's none of my business just tell me to go away or something.
> I'm just curious as to where you are coming from. -- Damon
.
 I'm coming from the ancient Christian prophetic traditions that shaped the Faith and the scriptures into the soul-saving truth that it once was. This Faith, the faith of the early saints, is nowhere to be found among this arrogant and ungrateful generation. Yes, Christians there be in abundance, but true believers will always remain a small and hard to find remnant. Thus while the Cats pretend that all who say 'Lord, Lord' will be saved, I hold fast to the truth that the Way of Truth is narrow, and that while many are called, few are chosen.

P.S.  Here's the cyber-prophet wishing a very prophetic Christmas to all the Lord's Cyber-Saints!
May peace, love, and hope be yours in abundance; now and in the year 2000 . . .

/ Subject > Re: Paul says oral Tradition is the word of God / 5 Dec 1998 / Newsgroups > alt.religion.christian.roman-catholic /
.
> Teresita Mercado wrote: "And for this reason we too give thanks to God unceasingly, that, in receiving
> the word of God from hearing us, you received not a human word, but, as it truly is, the word of God,
> which is now at work in you who believe." (1 Thess 2:13)  -- Ruby
.
 Dear Ruby, and where does Paul say that "oral Tradition" is the very sum and substance of what is meant by the curious phrase "Logos of God"? Hmmmm? Certainly nowhere in this verse, no. In this verse it is clear that "the word of God" is much more than mere oral traditions, mere verbal teachings and theologies. Oh yes. The word of God is the good news about salvation in Christ Jesus ... IF you but believe! If you believe the words of the prophets Paulos and Silvanus, then the word is alive and at work within you (ie. within your heart and mind) ... For the gospel is the word of life and truth! And Jesus is the Way!

/ Topic > Re: Paul says oral Tradition is the word of God / 7Dec98 / Newsgroup > alt.religion.christian.roman-catholic /
.
>> textman wrote: <snip>  the almost Thessalonian:  textman  ;>
.
> Rhett wrote:
.
 huh? "rhett wrote"!? ... Sheesh! Where do they get these names?!
.
> I would put you in the category of the Thessalonians, who rejected
> Paul's oral teaching, depending instead on Scripture alone.
.
 tx: How's that again? What scriptures are you referring to, please? There was no New Testament in those days. Nor was there an official canon of Hebrew scriptures. Do you mean the Torah, then? Or the whole Tanakh? Aren't you forgetting that the Thessalonian church was largely composed of poor and working Greek men? ... But if you're referring to the early letters of Paul and Silvanus, I don't really think that they were declared "sacred scripture" as such the moment they arrived.
.
 In any case, those Thessalonians who admired and accepted and took very seriously the letters they received from their founding fathers necessarily include the entire congregation, oh yes. btw: the church in Thessalonika was born from hearing the word of God, which you erroneously equate with "oral teaching". You seem not much aware that this so-called oral teaching was not a fixed entity. Paul's ideas were constantly changing and developing this way and that.
.
 Hence the confusion and confounding that he heaps upon interpreters even today. And hence the many misunderstandings still caused by careless readings of the Apostle's Epistles. In the same way, one can hardly blame those who prefer their gospel on papyrus. Paul often rubbed people the wrong way. Even those closest to him could not always tolerate the miserable SOB.
.
> "Now when they had passed through ... they let them go." (Acts 17:1-9)
.
 Ah yes, a fine and dramatic story we have here. But that's all it is. If you want to know about Paul and the Thessalonians, I would strongly advise the Reader to steer clear of Acts, and focus directly on the four Thessalonian letters themselves. Yes, I do believe that would be the proper way to proceed. Right, Rhett?

/ Re: Paul says oral Tradition is the word of God / 9Dec98 / Ngz: a.r.c.roman-catholic, alt.religion.christian.biblestudy /

] textman wrote: <snip>  the almost Thessalonian:  textman  ;>
.
>>> Rhett wrote:
.
>> tx: huh? "rhett wrote"!? ... Sheesh! Where do they get these names?!
.
> Rhett replies: From my mother you idiot, I don't feel the need to hide behind an alias.
.
 textman answers: Dear Rhett, well now there are names, and then there are names. Most names don't mean much of anything, and are therefore pretty darn useless; even as names. Yes, most names are simply nothing more than strange senseless noises. 4X: barking sounds even a dog could make:  grrrret
.
 As for hiding "behind an alias" ... Having an alias suggests that one is using an 'assumed' or fake name; and having this alias thus frees one for criminal actions (and other shady activities), and also allows one to 'hide' behind it. Well, none of this applies to me, I'm afraid; although I'm sure you would like to think it so. Since (in the first place) textman (not being a criminal ;) is not hiding from anyone, he therefore has no need (or use for) an alias.
.
 Moreover, my name, rather than hiding me (as you imply), actually identifies and reveals me (ie. tells others something about me). In other words, it is my true and real name. Certainly it is more true and real than the meaningless sounds and letters on my driver's license.
.
 I guess all you 'nameless' cyber-saints out there can't really grasp the significance of any of this; and frankly I'm at a loss as to how to best explain it. All I can say is that it's important to know who and what you are ... Especially if one of your 'assumed' names is 'Christian'. 4X: See what Silvanus has to say about the Wicked One ...
.
>>> R: I would put you in the category of the Thessalonians, who rejected
>>> Paul's oral teaching, depending instead on Scripture alone.
.
>> tx: How's that again? What scriptures are you referring to, please? There was no New Testament
>> in those days. <snip> I don't really think that they were declared "sacred scripture" as such the
>> moment they arrived.
.
> R: Re-read what I posted, your rebuttal so far does not address my assertion.
> Paul followed his usual pattern in Thessalonika.
.
 tx: "his usual pattern"?! Have you taken leave of your senses? There was no 'pattern'! Paul had never been to Macedonia before, and everything was still very new and strange to the courageous little band of explorers and missionaries. Certainly they didn't know what to expect from these weird and proud Greek Gentiles. Indeed, the NT begins with Paul's outburst of joy at receiving the good news that the Tempter hadn't crushed the Thessalonian assembly after all.
.
> He went first to the synagogue and preached to the Jews first.
> The Jews rejected his message so he took it to the Gentiles.
.
 This is Luke's version of the events as he wrote them sixty years or so after the fact. The evidence within the genuine pauline epistles suggests that the missionaries were not quite so brazenly gung-ho, but rather preached as they worked to any who would stop to listen. Thus the bulk of the assembly in Thessalonika was not composed of former Jews and/or God-fearers, as Rhett erroneously infers from his preferred lukan sources,  but was made of ordinary men and women of the city; no rich ones, no powerful ones, none with higher higher status and means. You 'comfortably wealthy' types haven't got a fraggin clue what the Gospel sounded like when it was still fresh and new ...
.
> The Jews rejected his message because it did not fit into their interpretation of scripture.
.
 The small Jewish communities in Macedonia (few and far between) would, of course, have resisted the strange 'good news' of a crucified messiah. But the evidence in the earliest Pauline epistles suggests that the main opposition came from other local sources.
.
> In a Greek speaking city this would have been one of the versions of the Septuagint.
.
 Not necessarily. The LXX was but one of dozens of translations available. Poorer synagogues might not always be able to afford a nice new LXX, and would have to get along with more meager fare. In any case, the infant church of Thessalonika very probably did NOT come equipped with a complete set of well-translated Hebrew scriptures. Maybe this is why they were the first church to fully appreciate the enduring significance of those first primitive letters ... ???
.
> (The council of jamnia did not meet until approx.. AD90)
.
 Somewhere between 80-90CE, yes. But, of course, that "council" was far in the future when Paul first met the Thessalonians c.49CE.
.
> Oh and it would have been hard to declare Paul's letters to Thessalonika as Scripture
> since he hadn't written any yet.
.
 Your logic doth astound us.
.
>> tx: In any case, those Thessalonians who admired and accepted and took very seriously the
>> letters they received from their founding fathers necessarily include the entire congregation,
>> oh yes. btw: the church in Thessalonika was born from hearing the word of God, which you
>> erroneously equate with "oral teaching".
.
> R: Hmm....oral teaching, hearing the Word, yet somehow not  "equitable"
.
 tx: The link is there, of course. All I'm suggesting is that there is a necessary distinction to be made between prophetic preaching that incites faith, and the oral teaching of doctrines, theology, philosophy, etc designed to affect the mind only. ... I hope this distinction is clear to *all* our Readers, for it is surely a very important one!
.
>> You seem not much aware that this so-called oral teaching was not a fixed entity. Paul's ideas
>> were constantly changing and developing this way and that.
.
> I would agree that Paul's teaching developed, but it never changed in that he never contradicted
> an earlier teaching.
.
 Well, Rhett, you may well be right about that. Paul was never one to easily admit his theological errors and/or oversights. However, I would ask you to carefully consider the fact that the first crisis to strike the Thessalonian church did involve a contradiction in the teachings they received. Apparently, Paul's views on the End Times were not quite the same as those of Silvanus (who doubtless got his views from the Antiochene traditions-in-the-making). It was this difference that eventually caused the team to split (with Paulos retaining Timothy), and (more importantly for the Reader to know) it is these differing eschatological teachings that lead most scholars today to the erroneous conclusion that Second Thessalonians is NOT a pauline document at all, but rather belongs amongst the Deutero-pauline literature of the late first century. ... What a bunch of boneheads! ... Warning to all readers of 1&2Thess: Please Do NOT place your trust in ANY commentaries on these epistles!
.
>> Hence the confusion and confounding that he heaps upon interpreters even today. And hence
>> the many misunderstandings still caused by careless readings of the Apostle's Epistles. <snip>
.
> And of course you have mastered the complex theology that is Paul's hallmark.
> I assume you have Ph.D. in Theology
.
  You assume wrong. I have not the financial means and resources to seek and obtain such a meaningless piece of paper. No, the People of God are much more important to me than fancy certificates and degrees. Even the antichrists within the Church are able to obtain those (and boy how they love to do so).
.
>>> R: "Now when they had passed through ... they let them go." (Acts 17:1-9)
.
>> tx: Ah yes, a fine and dramatic story we have here. But that's all it is.
.
> R: From this line I assume you reject the inspiration of Scripture.
.
 tx: Again, you assume wrong. I do not deny that Lk-Acts is an inspired book. On the contrary, it ought to be apparent to all that it is very inspired in many and various ways. ... What I do deny is that this largest book in the NT should be read as if it were a precise and scientific account of the early history of the Church. It is NOT! It is history after the manner of the ancient world, and its standards and methodology are very VERY different from those of modern scientific history. You cannot properly appreciate Lk-Acts without being very aware of all these things.
.
>> tx: If you want to know about Paul and the Thessalonians, I would strongly advise the Reader
>> to steer clear of Acts, and focus directly on the four Thessalonian letters themselves. Yes, I do
>> believe that would be the proper way to proceed. Right, Rhett?
.
> R: No, I'll take the whole Bible, and be guided by the teachings of the Church.
.
 You will? Great! I guess that means that all parts are equal then? Wouldn't you rather agree that some books are more important and valuable than others?
.
 "Guided by the teachings of the Church", eh? Well that could mean just about anything. The New Jerome Biblical Commentary is pretty good. So is the Anchor Bible series of commentaries. Is this what you mean by guidance? Or do you mean that if Paul's account of things doesn't quite square away with Luke's then you just blink and say that all contradictions are merely 'apparent'?
.
>> tx:  the one who lost his copy of 'Gone With the Wind':  textman  ;>
.
> R: Why do you feel the need to ridicule my name?
.
 Oh, there's no real 'need' as such. I just happen to think that names are important is all . . .
And I certainly don't mean to imply that your name is ridiculous. "Frankly, Scarlet, I don't give a damn!"
.
. . .  
.
> Have I attacked you personally?   --  Rhett
.
 Oh how soon we forget; of course you have. Have you already forgotten the opening line of your previous post? [see above]