Evangelical Christians closer to authentic Christianity?

[Smoke]

My proposal is not that Evangelical Christianity is exactly like, or even closely similar to the original Jesus movement. My proposal is that it may be closer to the fact than traditional Christianity. My intention though is more to show that there is no reason to assume that traditional Christianity is some how superior, or even what the original Jesus movement was truly about.

Since Jesus was not a Christian but a Jew, and since -- outside of the Gospel According to John -- he didn't really say much (if anything) that was alien to the Pharisaism of his day, I still disagree.

While traditional Christianity is radically different from the Judaism -- any expression of Judaism -- of Jesus' day, I think it's still closer to that Judaism than the Darbyite insanity that calls itself Evangelical Christianity today. Evangelical Christianity has a religious sensibility and a religious aesthetic that's completely alien to anything seen in first-century Judaism or Christianity. Evangelical spirituality is a direct descendant of Calvinism through the religious enthusiasm of the 19th century -- the same religious enthusiasm that produced Mormonism and Seventh-Day Adventism and (a half century later) Christian Science, the Salvation Army, Jehovah's Witnesses, and the Pentecostal movement. It no more reflects the beliefs, practices, or religious sensibility of Jesus' followers than Tenrikyo reflects the beliefs and practices of Gotama Buddha.

(And by the way, it's no coincidence that the religious movements most derided as cults by the Evangelicals are the very movements that are most closely related to Evangelicalism. They're warring factions within the same broad movement.)

Restorationist movements in Christianity always claim to be restoring the purity of some posited original, authentic Christianity. In fact they're always highly innovative, generally display a dramatic ignorance of history, and in most cases don't actually even draw their central teachings from the Bible.

Illustrating Evangelical ignorance or disregard of history is the fact that they often regard John Wesley as one of their own, though there's little doubt Wesley would be scandalized by modern Evangelicalism. It's sometimes forgotten that Wesley was an Anglican priest who believed in things that are anathema to modern Evangelicals -- apostolic succession, the perpetual virginity of Mary, and the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist, for instance. But with Wesley as with the Bible, they see what they want to see.

 

[Rainbow Mage]

Your thread title says: Evangelical Christians closer to authentic Christianity

 

[Rainbow Mage]

Exactly Smoke, and that's why I argue that evangelicals can't even be considered authentic Protestants, because of what you just pointed out about Wesley. Wesley was an Anglican Priest.

 

[fallingblood]

Well falling blood you basically destroyed the argument that evangelicalism is more authentic by saying you never said Christianity should be scripture only based, which is how evangelical churches are based. I did not say Peter was a Christian, I said Peter's lineage can be verified. It was always known, as shown by Tertullian, and in the Constitutions of the Holy Apostles, that Peter's lineage came through Clement of Rome. This is a historical fact.

Incorrect. Evangelical Churches are not just scripture only based. They also follow certain traditions, and have additional revelations supposedly from God that local congregations do follow.

The Church claims that the first Pope was Peter. That is part of their tradition. That part of the tradition is incorrect. More so, many of the following Popes were not actually Popes, or even leader of the Church as the Church did not exist. Paul himself never talks about a Pope, and from what we know of what he said, does not even promote a central figure. During the first forming years, there was no church, and there was no central figure.

More so, when one considers how many Popes came and gone, and how it was a political position, the idea that it is an Apostolic Succession is quite ridiculous. Since it's founding simply wasn't there, and there has been so much debate about it later on, I can't see how it can be seen as historical fact.

The fact is, the Jesus movement was a Jewish movement. Paul and Peter were in opposition. And even then, what they were teaching was not what the Church later taught.

 

[Rainbow Mage]

Um falling blood, you said Paul never talked about Popes? He does talk about bishops. Where do you think bishops come from? Peter technically would have been bishop of Rome, of course Pope is a later title, it's Latin for Papa, calling him Father.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

The Church claims that the first Pope was Peter. That is part of their tradition. That part of the tradition is incorrect. More so, many of the following Popes were not actually Popes, or even leader of the Church as the Church did not exist. Paul himself never talks about a Pope, and from what we know of what he said, does not even promote a central figure. During the first forming years, there was no church, and there was no central figure.

More so, when one considers how many Popes came and gone, and how it was a political position, the idea that it is an Apostolic Succession is quite ridiculous. Since it's founding simply wasn't there, and there has been so much debate about it later on, I can't see how it can be seen as historical fact.

Um falling blood, you said Paul never talked about Popes? He does talk about bishops. Where do you think bishops come from? Peter technically would have been bishop of Rome, of course Pope is a later title, it's Latin for Papa, calling him Father.

BTW, fallingblood: when the Catholics talk about apostolic succession, they're talking about bishops generally, not the Pope specifically (though the Pope himself is a bishop as well). Apostolic succession is a claim about the continuity of the Sacrament of Holy Orders, not a claim about the elections of Popes.

... and going back to the second part of it:

The fact is, the Jesus movement was a Jewish movement. Paul and Peter were in opposition. And even then, what they were teaching was not what the Church later taught.

Wait... so are you saying that any Christian who isn't also a Jew, or who follows Paul and Peter, isn't "authentically" Christian in the sense we're talking about here?

 

[Rainbow Mage]

9-10th I get the feeling falling blood hardly knows a lick about historical Christianity, or he wouldn't be using such bad arguments. Of course Christianity was originally Jewish, and then the Pharisees started inserting anathemas against Christians into the temple liturgy, trying to push the Christians out before the fall of the temple even happened. And then more and more Gentiles started to come into the movement, and it became less dependent on Judaism, and started developing it's own practice, but the apostolic sucession was still there.

 

[fallingblood]

Since Jesus was not a Christian but a Jew, and since -- outside of the Gospel According to John -- he didn't really say much (if anything) that was alien to the Pharisaism of his day, I still disagree.

I didn't quote your whole post simply for length consideration.

I will agree with much of what you said. Evangelical Christianity has many problems. However, I also see how it had some similarities with the Jesus movement. It being radical being one of the similarities. Many of the teachings are also based on the supposed teachings of the Early Christians.

Now, I would personally say that both Evangelical Christianity and Traditional Christianity are way off the actual mark. But I also believe that each have their own things that can be added and should not just be dismissed. Especially when it is not logical to assume that Traditional Christianity is a continuation of the original Jesus movement.

 

[fallingblood]

Um falling blood, you said Paul never talked about Popes? He does talk about bishops. Where do you think bishops come from? Peter technically would have been bishop of Rome, of course Pope is a later title, it's Latin for Papa, calling him Father.

You're taking the meaning of Bishop incorrectly in that form. As I've already explained, when you quoted, I believe it was Acts, what was actually being referred to. First of all, the word Bishop is not a very good translation. Second, it was referring to the elders of one particular congregation, not as the "Church" as a whole. Also, the fact that there was more than one bishop for one particular congregation goes against the idea of the modern Bishop.

The idea of a church hierarchy is an invention of the second century, after Paul was already dead.

 

[Wannabe Yogi]

Why todays American Fundamentalists are nothing like the early church (proto-orthodox church) for the following reasons:

-Early Christians refused to fight and join the Army. They were nonviolent.
-Had no concept of of Sola scriptura (Latin ablative, "by scripture alone") I believe that tis concept came from the Muslims.
-Believed that riches were of the world. They believe Christ showed that Christians should be poor.
-Did not believe that Genesis was a scientific document.
-Had a dim view of all types of sex not only Gay sex or adultery. Sex was not for fun. Only for reproduction. Some believed that a mature christian would not even engage in sex for reproduction.
-They were not anti-science or anti-intellectual.
-Did not believe in a pre tribulation rapture.

I have much respect for many of the early Church Fathers.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

-Did not believe that Genesis was a scientific document.

What makes you say that?

IMO, it would be more accurate to say that they didn't adhere to a literal interpretation of Genesis in the face of contradictory evidence, but potentially only because they didn't have the evidence.

-Had a dim view of all types of sex not only Gay sex or adultery. Sex was not for fun. Only for reproduction. Some believed that a mature christian would not even engage in sex for reproduction.

They did? The only Christian denomination I've ever heard of who believed this was the Shakers, who aren't exactly "early" Christians.

 

[Rainbow Mage]

falling blood if bishop isn't supposed to mean what it has meant in the historical context, then why have the leaders of the church always been called bishops from the first century onward as we see in the Ante-Nicene fathers volumes 1 & 2?

 

[fallingblood]

BTW, fallingblood: when the Catholics talk about apostolic succession, they're talking about bishops generally, not the Pope specifically (though the Pope himself is a bishop as well). Apostolic succession is a claim about the continuity of the Sacrament of Holy Orders, not a claim about the elections of Popes.

That's besides the point. There were no Bishops during the time of Peter and Paul. The Church hierarchy was an invention of the second century, decades after the apostles were already dead.

Wait... so are you saying that any Christian who isn't also a Jew, or who follows Paul and Peter, isn't "authentically" Christian in the sense we're talking about here?

Not at all. That quote was in regards to apostolic succession. And that since Peter and Paul, both who were Jews (not Christians), and disagreed on many issues, could not logically be said to have started the Church.

 

[Rainbow Mage]

How was the church hierarchy an invention of the church? You've failed to show that bishops weren't leaders and merely meant overseers. We haven't even touch on Presbyters yet, which are basically the modern day Priests.

 

[Rainbow Mage]

Falling blood Bishops as leaders of the church appears in the 1st century in Ante-Nicene fathers Volume I: the epistles of Clement of Rome, Matthetes, Polycarp, and Ignatius of Antioch.

 

[LoTrobador]

First of all, the word Bishop is not a very good translation.

Is it even a translation? From what I've read, the etymology might be:

Greek: episkopos -> Latin: episcopus -> Vulgar Latin: ebiscopus -> Old English: bisceope -> Middle English: bishop

I think it would be an Anglicization of an already Latinized (not translated) term, rather than translation.

 

[fallingblood]

9-10th I get the feeling falling blood hardly knows a lick about historical Christianity, or he wouldn't be using such bad arguments. Of course Christianity was originally Jewish, and then the Pharisees started inserting anathemas against Christians into the temple liturgy, trying to push the Christians out before the fall of the temple even happened. And then more and more Gentiles started to come into the movement, and it became less dependent on Judaism, and started developing it's own practice, but the apostolic sucession was still there.

Except that isn't fully how it happened. There were Jewish Christians until at least the 4th century. Judaism and the Jesus movement existed relatively peacefully for centuries in some parts. Yes, in other parts there were problems, but those problems didn't fully come to being until around the time of the Second Revolt.

It was also after the first revolt, when the Temple fell, that some groups of Pharisees (later Rabbinic Judaism), started pushing members of the Christian movement out. However, it was not happening everywhere. And there were no actual Christians at that time. They were still consider Jewish. During all of this time, there was no Apostolic Succession as there was no reason to. By the accounts we have, it shows that those of the Jesus movement were expecting the Kingdom of God to happen relatively shortly, and this world to end in a way.

It wasn't until moving into the second and third century that Christianity began to really form. And even then, at least in the beginning, the word Christian was a titled they were called by others, such as law figures or people insulting them. There was still a very large Jewish Jesus movement though.

The Apostolic Succession didn't come into being until long after the fact.

 

[Rainbow Mage]

Falling blood I think you're purposely ignoring other things I've posted based on your bias. What about the anti-Nicene fathers?

 

[fallingblood]

falling blood if bishop isn't supposed to mean what it has meant in the historical context, then why have the leaders of the church always been called bishops from the first century onward as we see in the Ante-Nicene fathers volumes 1 & 2?

End of the first century, mostly second and third century. That should be mentioned. And if memory serves me right, they weren't called Bishops (in the way you are intending), as I've already said, until the second century, going into the third century. So no, those volumes do not disagree with what I'm saying.

Also, the first time we even here of the Church of Rome having some type of authority isn't until The First Epistle of Clement, probably written about 96 C.E., at the very end of the first century. Decades after the apostles were dead.

 

[Rainbow Mage]

Falling blood 96 CE is a very late date for the epistle of Clement. Most place it in the 80's CE.