Looking for a 1st Century Christian assembly

[JackRT]

I'm curious. What are "progressive Christians"? Is that similar to the political definition of a "progressive"?

Progressive or Liberal Christianity:

By calling ourselves progressive or liberal, we mean that we are Christians who:

1. proclaim Jesus Christ as our gate to the realm of God;

2. recognize the faithfulness of other people who have other names for the gateway to God's realm;

3. understand our sharing of bread and wine in Jesus’ name to be a representation of God's feast for all peoples;

4. invite all sorts and conditions of people to join in our worship and in our common life as full partners, including (but not limited to):

· believers and agnostics,

· conventional Christians and questioning skeptics,

· homosexuals and heterosexuals,

· females and males,

· the despairing and the hopeful,

· those of all races and cultures, and

· those of all classes and abilities,

· without imposing on them the necessity of becoming like us;

5. think that the way we treat one another and other people is more important than the way we express our beliefs;

6. find more grace in the search for meaning than in absolute certainty, in the questions than in the answers;

7. see ourselves as a spiritual community in which we discover the resources required for our work in the world:

· striving for justice and peace among all people, and

· bringing hope to those Jesus called the least of his sisters and brothers;

8. recognize that our faith entails costly discipleship, renunciation of privilege, and conscientious resistance to evil --- as has always been the tradition of the church.

 

[Albion]

I'm curious. What are "progressive Christians"? Is that similar to the political definition of a "progressive"?

Yes, it is.

 

[SwordmanJr]

Progressive or Liberal Christianity:

By calling ourselves progressive or liberal, we mean that we are Christians who:...

Oh, I think I see. Universalism, kind of like Oprah-ism.

 

[Not David]

The problem is that what you think the early Church was is not like it really was:
-You didn't have the complete Bible, even some of the books wouldn't be finished yet.
-You would believe in the Real Presence.
-Have a liturgy similar to the Jewish one.
-Have the service in a house or in cemeteries because they were persecuting you.
-Have a lot of fake teachers trying to tell heresies.

You have to look at how the Church developed with people like Ignatius, Justin Martyr, Basil the Great, Athanasius, etc.

 

[Albion]

The problem is that what you think the early Church was is not like it really was:
-You didn't have the complete Bible, even some of the books wouldn't be finished yet.

All the books that made it into the Bible ultimately were in use in the first century. Meanwhile, there was no concept, at that time, of "Sacred Tradition" taking the place of Scripture.

 

[Albion]

Oh, I think I see. Universalism, kind of like Oprah-ism.

Hmm. There wasn't any mention of universalism in his post (#43), however.

 

[Not David]

All the books that made it into the Bible ultimately were in use in the first century. Meanwhile, there was no concept, at that time, of "Sacred Tradition" taking the place of Scripture.

Everything they did was oral: "Blessed is giving than receiving" is a Jesus' saying that appears in Acts but not in the Gospels so you have a small example there.
Why are you against Sacred Tradition? I thought Anglicans view it as part of their theology.

 

[JackRT]

All the books that made it into the Bible ultimately were in use in the first century. Meanwhile, there was no concept, at that time, of "Sacred Tradition" taking the place of Scripture.

Actually there are several Biblical scriptures that were written in the second century.

 

[Albion]

Actually there are several Biblical scriptures that were written in the second century.

Which did you have in mind?

 

[Not David]

Which did you have in mind?

He is probably going to mention "the Epistles of Paul that someone else wrote" and the Second Epistle of Peter

 

[JackRT]

Which did you have in mind?

Letter of James
Gospel of John
First Letter of Peter
First Letter of John
Acts of the Apostles
First Letter of Timothy
Second Letter of Timothy
Letter of Titus
Second Letter of Peter
Second Letter of John
For a brief discussion of each source, including the reasons for its proposed dating, see John Dominic Crossan, The Historical Jesus (HarperCollins, 1991)

 

[Albion]

He is probably going to mention "the Epistles of Paul that someone else wrote" and the Second Epistle of Peter

I've already seen his reply and know that the listing is quite unconventional. So, there are people who second guess almost everything in Christian history, and they of course write books about it. Yet the weight of the evidence leans the other way.

BUT, it also wouldn't make any significant difference to the topic we were working on with this thread whether some of these were late 1st century or early 2nd century instead.

And perhaps our friend was merely offering a piece of information, saying that some people argue that not every book that was included in the canon was, strictly speaking, a product of the 1st century as I had said in my post that they were.

 

[SwordmanJr]

Letter of James
Gospel of John
First Letter of Peter
First Letter of John
Acts of the Apostles
First Letter of Timothy
Second Letter of Timothy
Letter of Titus
Second Letter of Peter
Second Letter of John
For a brief discussion of each source, including the reasons for its proposed dating, see John Dominic Crossan, The Historical Jesus (HarperCollins, 1991)

JackRT, don't you find it interesting that some presume that the 6000+ texts we now have in the Textus Receptus is almost the totality of all the texts that they had back then? I mean, how can we possibly know how many manuscripts, letters, et al perished through the centuries, but some these days will assume what cannot possibly be confirmed, and that is actually an absurd assumption at best.

Jr.

 

[JackRT]

JackRT, don't you find it interesting that some presume that the 6000+ texts we now have in the Textus Receptus is almost the totality of all the texts that they had back then? I mean, how can we possibly know how many manuscripts, letters, et al perished through the centuries, but some these days will assume what cannot possibly be confirmed, and that is actually an absurd assumption at best.

Jr.

The King James Version of the New Testament was based upon a Greek text (the Textus Receptus) that was marred by mistakes, containing the accumulated errors of fourteen centuries of manuscript copying. It was essentially the Greek text of the New Testament as edited by Beza, 1589, who closely followed that published by Erasmus, 1516-1535, which was based upon a few medieval manuscripts. The earliest and best of the eight manuscripts which Erasmus consulted was from the tenth century, and yet he made the least use of it because it differed most from the commonly received text; Beza had access to two manuscripts of great value, dating from the fifth and sixth centuries, but he made very little use of them because they differed from the text published by Erasmus. We now possess many more ancient manuscripts (about 9000 compared to just 10) of the New Testament, and thanks to another 400 years of biblical scholarship, are far better equipped to seek to recover the original wording of the Greek text. Much as we might love the KJV and the majesty of it’s Jacobean English, modern translations are more accurate.

 

[Radagast]

-Have a liturgy similar to the Jewish one.

The Didache gives an indication of what 1st century Christian liturgy was like.

-Have a lot of fake teachers trying to tell heresies.

Well, that bit's still true.

 

[Radagast]

saying that some people argue that not every book that was included in the canon was, strictly speaking, a product of the 1st century as I had said in my post that they were.

Every canonical book was written in the 1st century. This is generally accepted. There certainly isn't a shred of evidence suggesting otherwise.