Ask Angellous about his beliefs (Christianity)

[angellous_evangellous]

I'm sorry. I was not challenging the continuity between Paul and the Synoptics but between the early Jerusalem church and Paul.

[I may be offline until late tonight or tomorroiw. Thanks for the dialogue.]

Thank you as well. No worries. Sometimes I approach things rather fast. When I read the appendix in Bauer, I had a better idea of what you were asking. I may be offline for a few days - if I am online it will most likely be breif. Take care.

 

[cturne]

If I died today, I'd be just as shocked as everyone else who sees what's on the other side.

Reason: I've never died before.

Sorry, you misunderstood my question. I didn't ask you what you think is on the other side - I asked IF you BELIEVE you would go heaven, and, if you do believe that, why? In other words, if you belive you will go to heaven when you die, what reasons do you have for believing that?

 

[angellous_evangellous]

Sorry, you misunderstood my question. I didn't ask you what you think is on the other side - I asked IF you BELIEVE you would go heaven, and, if you do believe that, why? In other words, if you belive you will go to heaven when you die, what reasons do you have for believing that?

I understood the question the first time, and that's how I respond to the question when I'm asked. I should have prefaced my answer with that clarification.

I have no reason to believe that I will go to heaven when I die. I can only have faith in God and hope for the best. When I die, I'll be just as surprised as everyone else. I'll be thankful for any mercy that I receive from the Maker. May God have mercy on us all!

 

[sushannah]

Why do you think Jesus never fulfilled any of the scriptures that were traditional attributed to the Messiah?

 

[angellous_evangellous]

Why do you think Jesus never fulfilled any of the scriptures that were traditional attributed to the Messiah?

I never posted anything to that effect on RF or anywhere else.

Being that this question is entirely unrelated to any of my posts, I really think that you have me confused with someone else.

 

[sushannah]

Sorry, I didn't mean to say you said this. What I mean is, most messianic scriptures still remain to be fulfilled. Why as a Christian, do you think this is so?

 

[angellous_evangellous]

Sorry, I didn't mean to say you said this. What I mean is, most messianic scriptures still remain to be fulfilled. Why as a Christian, do you think this is so?

I will then adopt the apostle's understanding of the role of Jesus as a teacher of the Hebrew Bible. Jesus (or the apostles) simply changed the interpretation of what was expected from the Messiah. Judas Maccabeaus came closer to fulfilling the nature of the Messiah than Jesus did, but Jesus simply re-interpreted these messianic scriptures. Evidentally, the book of Revelation took some of these unfulfilled scriptures and places them in the eschaton - Jesus does come back in the last days as an eschatological judge.

With the re-interpretation of Jesus as Messiah and the deferment of some scriptures to the return of Christ, I think just about everything will be covered. The only other way is to discuss the scriptures that you have in mind one by one, but this may answer your question.

 

[Evelyn]

AA, unless I misunderstood you, why do you think there was several churches (denominations) in early Christendom?

 

[angellous_evangellous]

AA, unless I misunderstood you, why do you think there was several churches (denominations) in early Christendom?

It is an historical fact.

We can classify James and Peter, John, Paul, and Judiazers in the NT as seperate denomenations, and of course the Ebionites, and in Rome we have evidence of several groups that rally around different leaders: Cerdo, Tatian, Marcion, Appelles, Syneros, and Lucanus. All of these churches thought that they were the geniune expression of Christianity.

Bauer lists more. Take a look at the link above, post #18 - it will provide historical evidence. Also, wikipedia will have articles on most of the folks that I listed and will mention a "school" that followed them. Their school is the "denomenation."

 

[Quiddity]

It is an historical fact.

We can classify James and Peter, John, Paul, and Judiazers in the NT as seperate denomenations, and of course the Ebionites, and in Rome we have evidence of several groups that rally around different leaders: Cerdo, Tatian, Marcion, Appelles, Syneros, and Lucanus. All of these churches thought that they were the geniune expression of Christianity.

Bauer lists more. Take a look at the link above.

I will respect that this is a discussion and will simply disagree with you. We can discuss this further if you'd like.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

I will respect that this is a discussion and will simply disagree with you. We can discuss this further if you'd like.

Perhaps on another thread.

Just FYI -

1) We cannot deny that there are some theological differences between the Pauline school, the school of James, and the Johannine school. We can view these as denomenations who fully accepted eachother, and were the representatives of one faith - E. Earle Ellis can trace the teachings of Paul to the teachings of Christ in his excellent and seminal work Paul's Use of the Old Testament by showing a common teaching method that he detects in the quotes of the OT in Paul, and if memory serves me correctly, the same method produces the same result in the other NT writings.

In any event, Elllis has an excellent work.

2) We can detect a strand of orthodoxy that reaches all the way back to Christ, so I don't dispute the EO or Catholic claims that they are gaurdians of orthodoxy, even though their "doxy" is different. :jiggy: There has always been some leniancy and ability to shape orthodoxy to fit the needs of the church.

 

[Quiddity]

Of course there was differences. Although I'm not sure why a) this equals a different denomination b) The mountain of early Church writings show that Councils were used to resolve any real differences.

The first real split was not until the 1450's. Anything outside of that is ONE Church squabbling about issues.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

Of course there was differences. Although I'm not sure why a) this equals a different denomination b) The mountain of early Church writings show that Councils were used to resolve any real differences.


The first real split was not until the 1450's. Anything outside of that is ONE Church squabbling about issues.

Weren't there two great schisms before 1450?

This post, I think incorrectly, makes it look like you're unaware of the existence of the Eastern Orthodox Church, established by mutual excommunication of Rome and Constantinople in 1054. The result of those excommunications, made final at another time, caused a split in orthodoxy that was never fully healed, even to this day. Granted, the Catholic church absolved their excommunication of the Eastern Church, allowing Easterners to have communion in Catholic churches, but Catholics to my knowledge are not welcome in EO churches.

=====

From wiki http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eastern_Orthodox#The_Church_today:


The Great Schism

In the 11th century the Great Schism took place between Rome and Constantinople, which led to separation of the Church of the West, the Roman Catholic Church, and the Churches of the East. There were doctrinal issues like the filioque clause and the authority of the Pope involved in the split, but these were exacerbated by cultural and linguistic differences.

The final breach is often considered to have arisen after the sacking of Constantinople by the Fourth Crusade in 1204. This Fourth Crusade had the Latin Church directly involved in a military assault against the Byzantine Empire, Constantinople, and the Orthodox Patriarchate. The sacking of the Church of Holy Wisdom and establishment of the Latin Empire in 1204 is viewed with some rancor to the present day. In 2004, Pope John Paul II extended a formal apology for the sacking of Constantinople in 1204; the apology was formally accepted by Patriarch Bartholomew of Constantinople. Many things that were stolen during this time: relics, riches, and many other items, are still held in various Catholic churches in Western Europe.

In 1453, the last of the Roman Empire (with its capital at Constantinople) fell to the Ottoman Turks. By this time Egypt had been under Muslim control for some seven centuries, but Orthodoxy was very strong in Russia; and so Moscow, called the Third Rome, became a major new center of the Church at that time.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Let me ask again: What is your view of the Ebionites? On what grounds do you assume/argue that the "church ... established immediately after his death" finds its continuity in Pauline Christianity rather than in something akin to the Ebionites?

 

[angellous_evangellous]

Let me ask again: What is your view of the Ebionites? On what grounds do you assume/argue that the "church ... established immediately after his death" finds its continuity in Pauline Christianity rather than in something akin to the Ebionites?

Did you see my earlier edit? I had edited my earlier response just before you left.

I don't know much about the Ebionites, so I'm going to have to do some reading. I was under the impression that some of the Synoptic traditions originated in Jerusalem (especially Matthew and Mark), so continuity with Paul is important... Ebionite Christianity was not the only choice in Jerusalem just after the death of Christ. We have Peter and James as representatives of Jewish Christians in Jerusalem in Acts, with James presiding over the council in Acts 15 that brings continuity with Paul and Jerusalem. Hope that helps until I do some reading...

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

I believe your information is inaccurate, but we can discuss it at some other time.

Nice thread: you're doing a good job.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

I believe your information is inaccurate, but we can discuss it at some other time.

Nice thread: you're doing a good job.

That is a very meaningful compliment. Thank you.

I'll look forward to addressing the issue in the future.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

A friendly bump for the evening crowd - I'll be online for a little while

 

[Quiddity]

Weren't there two great schisms before 1450?

I'm well aware of this AA. The issues surronding the split of our brothers in the East has it's roots even before 1054 and after 1204. It wasn't official until the 1450's. Perhaps some bishops in the East saw the split happening in 1204 but the majority of the people (both east and west) were unaware of Church politics.

 

[SoliDeoGloria]

I have not read these books, but obviously I disagree with their fundamental presuppositions. I have no respect whatsoever for Christian Apologetics. None. I find it intellectually dishonest and revolting.

Can you please explain why in detail? BTW For you to need a separate thread for explaining your own personal interpretatin of "christianity" says quite a bit in itself.

Sincerely,
SoliDeoGloria