Holy Tradition

[Jane_the_Bane]

Oh, and I suppose you forgot about Simon Magus as well.
Simonianism naturally receives some *extremely* bad press in the "Acts of the Apostle"-version of history; but the fact remains that this rivaling form of Christianity existed at such an early date that books of the later New Testament could actively reference and malign it.

 

[Jane_the_Bane]

Let's also not forget that Mary Magdalene, the first witness of the Resurrection and apostle of the apostles even according to the canonical New Testament, COMPLETELY disappears from the account after announcing that Jesus has risen. She's not even mentioned in Acts of the Apostles, and her fate remains undocumented.

Couple that with the observation that in apocryphal texts, she is usually depicted as a visionary and leader of the early movement whom Jesus loved more than he loved the other disciples, and what you get is a rather curious picture.

 

[BluhdoftheLamb]

Of course they did.
The gospel of John is clearly influenced by gnosticism

But not by an Apostolic source. And why is it that the Gnostic Gospels claim Apostolicity?

And the (less ingenious but almost certainly more authentic) Judaic Christianity that venerated Jesus as a mortal messiah rather than god incarnate existed before Paul even appeared on the stage.

There is nothing authentic about denying the resurrection.

And they appeared his rival even after they'd established a truce at the Jerusalem council, apparently sending out counter-missionaries who challenged Paul's authority over and over again (as can be seen in Paul's authentic epistles, including the ones written after the council).

And why do you conveniently omit how that was handled? Your anti-Paul bias has the better of you.

 

[BluhdoftheLamb]

Oh, and I suppose you forgot about Simon Magus as well.
Simonianism naturally receives some *extremely* bad press in the "Acts of the Apostle"-version of history; but the fact remains that this rivaling form of Christianity existed at such an early date that books of the later New Testament could actively reference and malign it.

And what is it you'd like to reveal about this so-called 'Simonianism form of Christianity?'

 

[Ishraqiyun]

Bogus. This is a modern idea. An anachronism that doesn't pertain top this genre in the least

What doesn't apply to this genre? Common standards regarding burden of proof?

Written statements were by nature held suspect, while testimony from a trusted individual was highly esteemed. T

People may very well esteem testimony from an individual they trust. I do myself. I esteem the four Gospels as well.

That really doesn't mean the "traditional" attributions of authorship to eye witnesses are in fact accurate. Modern textual analysis and criticism has raised a good deal of doubt there to say the least. Church history shows that doubts of that nature are not anything new either but local churches and individuals were arguing back and forth for centuries.

If a person makes an attribution of authorship as part of their argument it's up to them to provide the evidence they have to support the claim. Until then we haven't even established whose testimony is in the particular writing for certain let alone if the person is "trusted" or not.

Like I noted a few posts back it was incredibly common for religious texts to be written in the name of authoritative religious figures. Both for reasons of humility and for the sake of giving the text a greater amount of prestige. In terms of humility an author might not want to take credit for such a wonderful teaching and would rather give it to a spiritual father (mother) of the community in question. The prestige thing is self explanatory.

You can see this with most of the so called "Gnostic" scriptures. I mention those because we would probably both agree that the Secret Book of John (for example) wasn't really authored by St John the Apostle. The Gospel of Mary was most likely not written by the Mary it's attributed too either. It was a common thing for text to be written pseudo- anonymously like that . It can't be taken for granted that the attributions given by 2nd and 3rd century Church Fathers or in the texts themselves are historically accurate.

 

[Jane_the_Bane]

But not by an Apostolic source. And why is it that the Gnostic Gospels claim Apostolicity?

Thomas, Mary Magdalene, etc.

There is nothing authentic about denying the resurrection.

Who says they denied the resurrection? They most likely did not regard Jesus as divine, but that does not mean they also did not believe he rose from the dead. Those two issues are almost entirely separate, just like being the messiah and being God incarnate.

And why do you conveniently omit how that was handled? Your anti-Paul bias has the better of you.

"Conveniently omit"?
I referenced both the Jerusalem council and the letters Paul wrote AFTER the council (which more than hint an ongoing conflict even *after* the truce). There's nothing to omit, really. When Paul went to Jerusalem again, he was arrested and supposedly brought to Rome. What happened after that point is mostly up for speculation, with only some narrative traditions to draw on (as in the case of pretty much every other notable figure in the New Testament).

As for my "anti-Paul bias": I've got nothing of the sort. I do believe he was a charlatan, but as I said, his take on Christianity was infinitely more inspired than anything the Jerusalem pillars came up with. Without him, the movement would probably have been dead by the turn of the third century, like so many other fledgling religions that never quite got off the ground.

 

[Ishraqiyun]

But not by an Apostolic source. And why is it that the Gnostic Gospels claim Apostolicity?

Most Christian scriptures were written in the name of the Apostles. Like 1st Peter being attributed to Apostle Peter for example. It wasn't something unique to the "gnostics". If the proto-orthodox were allowed to do it why not the "gnostics" too?

Personally I'm starting to doubt the whole category of "Gnosticism" though. A few of the proto-orthodox heresy hunters invented a catch all category to lump together an incredibly diverse range of Christian churches, schools of thoughts, and individuals many of whom didn't even agree with one another. The main thing linking them together was the fact that they were all targets of the disapproval of the people who invented the category. It eventually caught on so it's hard to not use but it still seems questionable none the less.

 

[MorkandMindy]

Of course they did.
The gospel of John is clearly influenced by gnosticism (even if it not a gnostic text), and even Paul's epistles show signs of that particular brand of Christianity - so much so that some scholars have even suggested that they ARE gnostic (which I find somewhat unconvincing, but the presence of these other perspective can be clearly felt).
And the (less ingenious but almost certainly more authentic) Judaic Christianity that venerated Jesus as a mortal messiah rather than god incarnate existed before Paul even appeared on the stage. And they appeared his rival even after they'd established a truce at the Jerusalem council, apparently sending out counter-missionaries who challenged Paul's authority over and over again (as can be seen in Paul's authentic epistles, including the ones written after the council).

Hi Jane,

Have you heard of Buddhism being included in the Gospels or other Biblical texts? As one example sending out the disciples telling them to take nothing but a bag and sandals and to eat whatever was put before them is in a practice Buddhists follow.

There could be other Indian influences such as 'Abraham the father of the Jews' sounds a lot like 'Brahman the father of the Hindus' and the text mentions Abram coming from further East along what I guess would be a trading route to India.

kindest regards, Morky

 

[Jane_the_Bane]

Personally I'm starting to doubt the whole category of "Gnosticism" though. A few of the proto-orhtodox heresy hunters invented a catch all category to lump together an incredibly diverse range of Christian churches, schools of thoughts, and individuals many of whom didn't even agree with one another. The main thing linking them together was the fact that they were all targets of the disapproval of the people who invented the category. It eventually caught on so it's hard to not use but it still seems questionable none the less.

I agree.
The only thing they apparently had in common (and that earned them that label) was an emphasis on direct "knowledge" (γνῶσι&#962, a trait that clashed profoundly with the authority- and hierarchy-based approach of the most successful faction.

 

[Jane_the_Bane]

Hi Jane,

Have you heard of Buddhism being included in the Gospels or other Biblical texts? As one example sending out the disciples telling them to take nothing but a bag and sandals and to eat whatever was put before them is in a practice Buddhists follow.

There could be other Indian influences such as 'Abraham the father of the Jews' sounds a lot like 'Brahman the father of the Hindus' and the text mentions Abram coming from further East along what I guess would be a trading route to India.

kindest regards, Morky

"Jews" and "Hindus", eh? They do not sound THAT much alike, and what little there is in terms of similarity only works in contemporary English. Take any other language (preferably even the classical ones that would have been spoken in antiquity), and any such resemblance disappears altogether.
I do not doubt that there were cultural contacts between the subcontinent and the mediterranean, and there was a Buddhist sect called the "therapeutos" in Egypt during the first century BCE, apparently.
But I greatly doubt that these influences are that blatant, or that the New Testament constists of Buddhist texts in disguise.

 

[Ishraqiyun]

The popular medieval Christian story of Barlaam and Josaphat was found to have been based on the life of the Buddha. Josaphat even earned a place on the calender of saints in the Greek and Roman churches.

The story of Barlaam and Josaphat or Joasaph is a Christianized and later version of the story of Siddhartha Gautama, who became the Buddha.[2] In the Middle Ages the two were treated as Christian saints, being entered in the Greek Orthodox calendar on 26 August,[40] and in the Roman Martyrology in the Western Church as "Barlaam and Josaphat" on the date of 27 November.[3] In the Slavic tradition of the Eastern Orthodox Church, these two are commemorated on 19 November (corresponding to 2 December on the Gregorian calendar).[41][42]
According to the legend, King Abenner or Avenier in India persecuted the Christian Church in his realm, founded by the Apostle Thomas. When astrologers predicted that his own son would some day become a Christian, Abenner had the young prince Josaphat isolated from external contact. Despite the imprisonment, Josaphat met the hermit Saint Barlaam and converted to Christianity. Josaphat kept his faith even in the face of his father's anger and persuasion. Eventually Abenner converted, turned over his throne to Josaphat, and retired to the desert to become a hermit. Josaphat himself later abdicated and went into seclusion with his old teacher Barlaam.[43]
Name

Ioasaph (Georgian Iodasaph, Arabic Yūdhasaf or Būdhasaf) is derived from the Sanskrit Bodhisattva.[2][3][44] The Sanskrit word was changed to Bodisav in Persian texts in the 6th or 7th century, then to Budhasaf or Yudasaf in an 8th-century Arabic document (possibly Arabic initial "b" ﺑ changed to "y" ﻳ by duplication of a dot in handwriting).[45] This became Iodasaph in Georgia in the 10th century, and that name was adapted as Ioasaph in Greece in the 11th century, and then as Iosaphat or Josaphat in Latin.

Barlaam and Josaphat - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[MorkandMindy]

But I greatly doubt that these influences are that blatant, or that the New Testament consists of Buddhist texts in disguise.

I was thinking of the ideas not actual texts

"Jews" and "Hindus", eh? They do not sound THAT much alike, and what little there is in terms of similarity only works in contemporary English. Take any other language (preferably even the classical ones that would have been spoken in antiquity), and any such resemblance disappears altogether.

I meant between Abram and Brahman and also between the names of their consorts Sarai and Saraiswati who were both half sisters, as well as that Abram and Brahman were both referred to the fathers of their people.

 

[BluhdoftheLamb]

What doesn't apply to this genre?

I addressed that in the same post, before you had the chance to ask.

That really doesn't mean the "traditional" attributions of authorship to eye witnesses are in fact accurate.

Immaterial. All you refer to is the hand that wrote it down. It just doesn't matter.

we haven't even established whose testimony is in the particular writing for certain let alone if the person is "trusted" or not.

Utter nonsense. The Church met in the Temple daily. Everyone knew the same things. No one could squeeze some falsehood into it. Before being written down and after being written down it was all subject to the same scrutiny, for more than a few years.

 

[BluhdoftheLamb]

Thomas, Mary Magdalene, etc.

You didn't answer the question. You refer to known fakes, but didn't answer the question of why they claimed Apostolicity.

Who says they denied the resurrection? They most likely did not regard Jesus as divine, but that does not mean they also did not believe he rose from the dead. Those two issues are almost entirely separate

No Ma'am, they are one and the same. Conquering death and all that. Only way to do that is to be the giver of life; i.e., God. This is a central tenet. That some groups failed to grasp the ramifications - yeah, obviously. The Apostles themselves didn't get it, despite how many times Jesus went over all this with them before hand.

And who put these pieces together first? The man you so dearly love to hate - Saul of Tarsus. And why was he approved by the other Apostles? Because he knew what only they knew, and were taught directly by Jesus Himself. They were more than a little reluctant to accept him into their inner circle, for obvious reasons.

And your claim is something like:

I only think this because Constantine spread Christianity by the sword. (Gross over-simplification, I know) But nothing could be further from the Truth! I rejected every form of tradition at the age of 4. I met the Lord personally at age 16, under circumstances totally apart from any Church. I never went to any Church for over 3 years, over 800 miles away. And I independently arrived at the same conclusions the Orthodox have taught all along, which are entirely foreign to anything I was raised in or ever taught. And only recently, via this very website, have I even considered giving any credence to any Tradition. Truth be told it still bugs the snot out of me, but some of it undeniably makes sense. That and people do love their traditions so, so I've come a long way in not holding that against them.

You can't make your theory jibe with my facts. Yes, I realize my facts are subjective and only valid to me, and no, there's no way you can independently verify them. But to take people at face value you simply have to come to some other conclusion, even if its "I don't know."

Now, traditions? How Christians worship, the architecture, art, music, etc? Sure! The influence of the winning army prevails. And I like to think that's why I have such a distaste for tradition. Maybe even some periphery detail? Ok. The main guts of the Gospel? Not a chance. And this is being proven more and more with physical evidence.

And personally, I am not at the mercy of any Church councils to determine for me what to read, what to think, or anything else. The basics of the Gospel are really quite simple, and were known by all (in the Church) LONG before anyone ever tried to codify anything, or even to write it down. At least you recognize it was Paul who started that process, and it had nothing to do with recording the Gospels. I'll also point out that just this much is an increase of knowledge over what we had most of the time since.

Here's what might be an incredible challenge for you: think your way through what it would mean for God to deliberately use Paul that way. I think you know enough of the relevant details, but it would force you to consider what you automatically reject. And there's some underlying reason for that rejection.

As for my "anti-Paul bias": I've got nothing of the sort. I do believe he was a charlatan

That's bias. And charlatan means someone in it for money. He specifically wouldn't take people's money. LOGIC FAIL.

Without him, the movement would probably have been dead by the turn of the third century, like so many other fledgling religions that never quite got off the ground.

Why? You don't know the depths of how he connected Messiah to Judaism. You content yourself with hand waving it away. I can understand that as a teen, maybe as a young married, but sooner or later, if you're going to devote this much time discussing it with strangers, don't you think you should actually peer into that void?

Look at the progression: Jews accepted Him post resurrection, which is kinda shallow. Yes I'm including the first Bishop of the first Church who looked just like Jesus, His half-Brother James. What made that movement continue? There were some Gentiles in the Church at that point, but it was still almost entirely Jewish. They never stopped going to Temple services. They were constantly barraged with doubts from their peers who didn't believe Jesus was Messiah.

It took Paul to connect those dots, and point out how Christ was throughout the OT. The other Disciples knew this via the road to Emmaus, but they weren't nearly so knowledgeable abut Judaism as Paul was, neither were they so incredibly brilliant as to put it all together. And to be fair, most Christians today still don't get all that! While that's no barrier to Salvation, you have repeatedly admitted it is the mystics who 'really get it.' Obviously there must be some substance there! You even clearly see the life - death - rebirth cycle wherever it exists in human experience as relevant; why not examine his source for yourself and see if the connection is valid, or to be dismissed?

 

[BluhdoftheLamb]

I agree.
The only thing they apparently had in common (and that earned them that label) was an emphasis on direct "knowledge" (γνῶσι&#962, a trait that clashed profoundly with the authority- and hierarchy-based approach of the most successful faction.

Rejection of gnosticism is not so sinister as you make it appear. This aspect of gnosticism (and I have always suspected that much that doesn't fit the label has been tossed into that bin) had the message that you had to go to them to get special insight, which your salvation depended on.

The Christian message is exactly the opposite: all people can freely go to our Great High Priest, and our Salvation depends on Him alone. I must include that the claim of Pope has caused every other Church in the world to separate themselves from Rome, and it is this very same issue, as I see it. (Which doesn't make RC gnostic, but still)

 

[BluhdoftheLamb]

I meant between Abram and Brahman and also between the names of their consorts Sarai and Saraiswati who were both half sisters, as well as that Abram and Brahman were both referred to the fathers of their people.

Interesting! Are you familiar with Thomas Merton?

 

[Ishraqiyun]

had the message that you had to go to them to get special insight, which your salvation depended on.

That could be true for some of groups labeled "gnostic" but certainly wasn't universal.

Those who taught such things were hardly much different from the orthodox in that regard though. True the orthodox might not have spoke of their special insight in particular but they were all about the importance of joining the one true Church, the need to receive the true sacraments, etc... To do so you had to follow the teaching and instruction of the orthodox Bishop/s. So they had their own "you have to come to us" thing too.

Certain so called "gnostics" taught that pneumatics were saved by nature. Such an idea would actually be a hindrance to anyone trying to sell the idea "you need me and my special insight, sacrament, true church, orthodox creed, bishop with apostolic succession, etc... if you want to be saved." They would simply say "no thanks it's already covered."

Other groups might teach that salvation requires introspection and self discovery ("lf you know yourself then you will be known" Gospel of Thomas) rather than simply hearing the right words or meeting the right people as helpful as those things might be.

You could probably find a wide range of views among people labeled "Gnostic" on that issue precisely because of the nature of the category.

 

[BluhdoftheLamb]

T
Those who taught such things were hardly much different from the orthodox in that regard though. True the orthodox might not have spoke of their special insight in particular but they were all about the importance of joining the one true Church, the need to receive the true sacraments, etc... To do so you had to follow the teaching and instruction of the orthodox Bishop/s. So they had their own "you have to come to us" thing too.

What time period are you referring to?

 

[Jane_the_Bane]

Rejection of gnosticism is not so sinister as you make it appear. This aspect of gnosticism (and I have always suspected that much that doesn't fit the label has been tossed into that bin) had the message that you had to go to them to get special insight, which your salvation depended on.

As opposed to the official tradition with its emphasis on apostolic authority, baptism and ecclesial hierarchy?
To this day, even the most unorthodox Christians believe that you'll face eternal damnation if you do not join them. The "free gift" of salvation applies only to those who meet all the conditions attached to it.

Of course, I have referenced Gnostic elitism before: gnosis took some effort to achieve, and that was certainly not a good selling point with lots of mass appeal.
But it was more of an experiential, personal approach than anything official Christian tradition has to offer: "contemplate this and see what happens" as opposed to "this is what we teach; if you do not agree, you are damned".

 

[BluhdoftheLamb]

As opposed to the official tradition with its emphasis on apostolic authority, baptism and ecclesial hierarchy?
To this day, even the most unorthodox Christians believe that you'll face eternal damnation if you do not join them. The "free gift" of salvation applies only to those who meet all the conditions attached to it.

Of course, I have referenced Gnostic elitism before: gnosis took some effort to achieve, and that was certainly not a good selling point with lots of mass appeal.
But it was more of an experiential, personal approach than anything official Christian tradition has to offer: "contemplate this and see what happens" as opposed to "this is what we teach; if you do not agree, you are damned".

You have not addressed the post. You have made more stuff up. Is this a pattern?