Would the apostolic fathers have had motivation to lie ?

[Bikewer]

The Gnostics pretty much thought that.... They considered the OT version of God to be an insane rogue who broke away from the proper gods and created the Earth as an act of cosmic spite.
This is not an unreasonable notion if one is familiar with the OT....

 

[Ethnikos]

Jews do not utter the name of God, not even in prayer. Why Christians feel the need to address their Lord in an informal manner is baffling.

Bafling to who, you?
You don't understand Christians?
Informal, not exactly and may seem to be to you.
Jewish treatment is not baffling to me but not something I am interested in doing myself.
Christians are not commanded to pay particular care for the name because we will be given the new name of God when we go to heaven.
We are commanded to love one another and in that way we show reverence to god because we were made in his image.
That was what Jesus was all about, the Pharisees and priests being so concerned about honoring God that they ignored the needs of the people.

 

[bikerdruid]

Are you trying to be helpful or are you concerned about proper reverence.
If I was on a strictly Jewish forum I would not use any form, like what you say, "not at all", would be appropriate in that situation out of regard for the people. But I don't have concern towards God because I know my God has no such name and if anyone does, it would be a particular angel. If a religion wants to worship an angel but give it God attributes then that's their business and not my concern. If these people want me to name my God that, then I have a problem.
I mean not disrespect towards you and actually hold you in a certain regard for your integrity.

fair enough.
do you follow the gnostic concept of the demiurge?

 

[Dayan81]

...Christians are not commanded to pay particular care for the name because we will be given the new name of God when we go to heaven.
We are commanded to love one another and in that way we show reverence to god because we were made in his image....

Christians are commanded to cast-out liars, adulterers, thieves, prostitutes, idolaters, and the sexually-immoral from their communities.

Christian love appears to be dependent upon fair-weather.

 

[Ethnikos]

The Gnostics pretty much thought that.... They considered the OT version of God to be an insane rogue who broke away from the proper gods and created the Earth as an act of cosmic spite.
This is not an unreasonable notion if one is familiar with the OT....

Let us make man in our image. (meaning by consensus and not rouge)
I think that was written in to counteract that idea.
The gnostics and that type of idea is as old as man and predated the writing of Genesis 1.
They left it intact otherwise than adding that chapter, and then it continues where you do have this spiteful God wiping out the population with the flood.

 

[Ethnikos]

fair enough.
do you follow the gnostic concept of the demiurge?

No. The god was kept in line until a ways after creation because it was not something he could do by himself. Later, after he went bad, he did claim to have done it alone.

 

[Dayan81]

No. The god was kept in line until a ways after creation because it was not something he could do by himself. Later, after he went bad, he did claim to have done it alone.

What sort of God is "kept in line"?

 

[Ethnikos]

Christians are commanded to cast-out liars, adulterers, thieves, prostitutes, idolaters, and the sexually-immoral from their communities.
Christian love appears to be dependent upon fair-weather.

And. . . are you suggesting there is someone else out there not like that?
I think not.
What you need to keep in mid, these were home churches and it was the duty of the owner of the house to decide who to let in the door. Paul is suggesting how to make such a determination.

 

[Dayan81]

And. . . are you suggesting there is someone else out there not like that?
I think not.
What you need to keep in mid, these were home churches and it was the duty of the owner of the house to decide who to let in the door. Paul is suggesting how to make such a determination.

Therefore the philosophy of "hate the sin but love the sinner" isn't exactly binding? It is simply feel-good propaganda to give the illusion of unflinching love to non-believers?

 

[Ethnikos]

What sort of God is "kept in line"?

The Elohim, to make it simple, which I would say was a god with a lower case G.

 

[Ethnikos]

Therefore the philosophy of "hate the sin but love the sinner" isn't exactly binding? It is simply feel-good propaganda to give the illusion of unflinching love to non-believers?

There is no illusion because Paul says to disassociate with them who engage in sin.
God may still love that person but we need to employ tough love.
If someone is putting out propaganda, you need to consider the source.
Most likely they are not authorized to do so and are acting independently.

 

[dude]

Uhhh.....guys. When you get done I had, like, some questions about some stuff.

 

[Dayan81]

The Elohim, to make it simple, which I would say was a god with a lower case G.

Are you suggesting that the God of the New Testament is "God" while the God of the Old Testament is "god"?

This makes no sense whatsoever. The God of Abraham, Isaac & Jacob is the same God of Jesus, Paul & Peter. The understanding of his nature has been altered but it is still the same God.

 

[Ethnikos]

Are you suggesting that the God of the New Testament is "God" while the God of the Old Testament is "god"?

This makes no sense whatsoever. The God of Abraham, Isaac & Jacob is the same God of Jesus, Paul & Peter. The understanding of his nature has been altered but it is still the same God.

well, that is your opinion and I am told you are entitled to your opinion.
My opinion is that opinion is not based on the New Testament.
I have yet to have anyone demonstrate that to me.

 

[bikerdruid]

Are you suggesting that the God of the New Testament is "God" while the God of the Old Testament is "god"?

This makes no sense whatsoever. The God of Abraham, Isaac & Jacob is the same God of Jesus, Paul & Peter. The understanding of his nature has been altered but it is still the same God.

i dunno.
i always maintained that there was more thn one god in the bible.
i figured that the angry, jealous yhwh could not be the same god that john says,"..is love."

 

[Ethnikos]

i dunno.
i always maintained that there was more thn one god in the bible.
i figured that the angry, jealous yhwh could not be the same god that john says,"..is love."

Their terminology is different in the OT where they have various names for gods. In the OT, anyone higher than an ordinary person was considered a god.
In the NT it just uses one word for God and that is about a single person, the Father of Jesus, who is not directly linked to the national god of Israel.
That is not to say that God was not at work through His messengers but they operated independently from Yahweh god, who was not all-knowing.

 

[Ethnikos]

*snip*
was it possible or common for to claim succession from a known apostle (a claim I read against the gnostics claim that they had knowledge or secret apostles) or was the apostolic church fathers' position seen as unassailable ?

I thought a way to figure this out would be to know would be if there were heretics who claimed succession from the 12.

I'm trying to figure out if the whole thing was bottom up (the resurrection and what not originated from the disciples) or top down (different churches with different claims sprung up and claimed succession to lend credence to their doctrines).

I would say that the actual people who were in the succession were declared heretics by the official Roman Church and done away with and replaced by party men who were brought up from the old schools in the classical gods, and not coming from Christian teachers or teachers who were themselves mentored by Christians. In other words, real Christians with a clear line of succession from the Apostles were replaced by men with no more than a single generation removed from pure paganism, in the name of "orthodoxy".

 

[Craig B]

Ethnikos

Can we agree that nobody on this thread cares what name people give to their gods, if they have any, so they can name their gods anything you like, formal or informal?

For me, the religious text I most admire is the Buddhist Kalama Sutta.

3. The Kalamas who were inhabitants of Kesaputta sitting on one side said to the Blessed One: "There are some monks and brahmins, venerable sir, who visit Kesaputta. They expound and explain only their own doctrines; the doctrines of others they despise, revile, and pull to pieces. Some other monks and brahmins too, venerable sir, come to Kesaputta. They also expound and explain only their own doctrines; the doctrines of others they despise, revile, and pull to pieces. Venerable sir, there is doubt, there is uncertainty in us concerning them. Which of these reverend monks and brahmins spoke the truth and which falsehood?"

The criterion for rejection

4. "It is proper for you, Kalamas, to doubt, to be uncertain;uncertainty has arisen in you about what is doubtful. Come, Kalamas. Do not go upon what has been acquired by repeated hearing; nor upon tradition; nor upon rumor; nor upon what is in a scripture; nor upon surmise; nor upon an axiom; nor upon specious reasoning; nor upon a bias towards a notion that has been pondered over; nor upon another's seeming ability; nor upon the consideration, 'The monk is our teacher.' Kalamas, when you yourselves know: 'These things are bad; these things are blamable; these things are censured by the wise; undertaken and observed, these things lead to harm and ill,' abandon them. ...

 

[Craig B]

And he also tells them, who cares what you believe, because you know how to behave anyway:

17. "The disciple of the Noble Ones, Kalamas, who has such a hate-free mind, such a malice-free mind, such an undefiled mind, and such a purified mind, is one by whom four solaces are found here and now.

"'Suppose there is a hereafter and there is a fruit, result, of deeds done well or ill. Then it is possible that at the dissolution of the body after death, I shall arise in the heavenly world, which is possessed of the state of bliss.' This is the first solace found by him.

"'Suppose there is no hereafter and there is no fruit, no result, of deeds done well or ill. Yet in this world, here and now, free from hatred, free from malice, safe and sound, and happy, I keep myself.' This is the second solace found by him.

"'Suppose evil (results) befall an evil-doer. I, however, think of doing evil to no one. Then, how can ill (results) affect me who do no evil deed?' This is the third solace found by him.

"'Suppose evil (results) do not befall an evil-doer. Then I see myself purified in any case.' This is the fourth solace found by him.

"The disciple of the Noble Ones, Kalamas, who has such a hate-free mind, such a malice-free mind, such an undefiled mind, and such a purified mind, is one by whom, here and now, these four solaces are found."

 

[Ethnikos]

Ethnikos
Can we agree that nobody on this thread cares what name people give to their gods, if they have any, so they can name their gods anything you like, formal or informal?

I don't come on this forum to come to an agreement, if that is what you are wondering. I don't want people to agree with me. I don't want to agree with others, other than to agree that people are more important than gods. What need does God have of us and what can we give him, who made the universe? I would rather say there is no God before depriving people of what they need to live. If I injure their pride, the pride they have in their god, then it is a good thing for them and their pride should be put to death, along with their god because a god who creates pride is not a god but a devil.