http://christianforums.com/showthread.php?t=6730673
This poster stated that the ECF's knew the scriptures far better than we do today.
So I would like to ask if this is true and if their interpretations of the Scriptures could have been faulty, perhaps because of bad translations or because of some of them not being well versed in the Hebrew/Greek of the Bible to determine correct interpretations.
It's quite possible that modern scholarship makes for a level of understanding of Scripture that surpasses that of these men. But that is not so important. They knew the Scripture well enough to know that it was dangerous, particularly for the rich patricians of the Roman Empire. Moreover, they knew enough of Scripture to know that they were themselves condemned by it.
Three things should be noted about these men. First, there are very few of them. In a religion that grew so popular that it forced a great empire to change its religion, in name if nothing else, the tiny handful of spokesmen it apparently produced is simply incredible, and historians have lied in a most disgraceful and cowardly manner in not pointing out this notorious fact. Even if these writers had all been alive at the same time, their paucity would hardly be convincing, but this handful was scattered in time over several centuries. This is a very strange fact that can only really be explained by a process of censorship that made the writing of genuinely Christian opinions dangerous, and the likelihood of survival of such writing almost impossible. (The New Testament survived simply because there were so many copies made that it became impossible to destroy them all.) But the fact that they were so few in number, and that they
knew that they cannot have been any part of the true church, means that these men cannot have been Christians. Everyone must have known it, but of course to say so, particularly after Constantine's 'conversion', would have been to ask for sudden death.
The second fact of significance is that almost all of these surviving writers were monarchical, 'bishops' of something labelled the 'church'. They ruled their congregations, and expected deference from the people 'under' them who called themselves Christians. Now there is not one reference to a monarchical bishop in the New Testament- the reference is always to plural bishops for any one congregation. But the monarchs were soon not even members of local congregations. They took charge of 'dioceses', geographical regions often coterminous with Roman civil administrations, within which they were expected to control all that called itself Christian. Now this all grew up in conditions of illegality of Christianity! Despite any appearances to the contrary, these men were under the thumb of the Roman emperors, and their writings reflect the views of emperors, whose interests were in extracting the maximum material wealth from the unstable empire for the benefit of the rich of Rome, otherwise
they were in danger. This hierarchical 'church' was so very different from the church in Jerusalem, which democratically elected the successor to Judas. And of course, these men read their NTs and knew all about that, and that is another reason why they were not Christians.
The third fact of importance is that not one of these 'bishops' could claim any authority from anyone provable to have had authority in the apostolic church. There is no indication of any named person being given authority
by an apostle as a bishop of any place, and even there was, such a man would be part of a team of bishops, and would have no authority invested in him working apart from others. There are Scriptural references to those taught by apostles becoming apostate, though. Anyone could
claim to have been taught by an apostle, but that does not mean that the pupil
was Christian; or even that the apostle was! All these people had was the pathetic witness of their own, tiny number of illicit persons, mere rumor, or hearsay.
Now in this context, hearsay is heresy. To claim connexion with the original church when no proof can be offered is itself disqualification as Christian, because not even decent citizens of the world do such a thing.
] Thanks.
