Reading the Church Fathers discussion
Church normative texts
>
Didache: open discussion [Inactive]
date
newest »
newest »
Clark wrote: "An experiment.Sounds good. These writers seemed to write because they are important issues, are meant to be known and thought about, and have application to the way one lives their lives...otherwise there doesn't seem to be any real point in reading them....but from a discussion and organization point of view, certainly this can become unwieldy...this seems to be a reasonable solution to that.
I'm using the Android app so I'm limited in formatting, etc.In a post in the Didache thread Kerstin said there's no mention of presbyters in the NT. I hunted for πρεσβύτερος in the NT and got 66 hits. So I'm confused what exactly Kerstin means.
My understanding is that in NT translations πρεσβύτερος is usually translated "elder." But it's still πρεσβύτερος.
Clark wrote: "I'm using the Android app so I'm limited in formatting, etc.In a post in the Didache thread Kerstin said there's no mention of presbyters in the NT. I hunted for πρεσβύτερος in the NT and got 66 ..."
I think she meant presbyter as an office in the church, not "elder" in the more general sense. I found one such occurrence in 1 Timothy 4:14, where πρεσβυτερίου is translated as presbytery, elders or council of elders.
Nemo wrote: "I think she meant presbyter as an office in the church, not "elder" in the more general sense."Yes, that's what I meant, the ministerial priesthood. Since you and Clark brought this up, I will ask for clarification.
I did find in the notes of the Ignatius Bible for 1 Tim 4:14 that the elders "includes Paul, along with the assembled bishops of the Ephesian Church." Would this mean that the 'elders' and the bishops are the same people? And then it says, " Timothy's consecration as a bishop gives him the fullness of priestly and apostolic authority to ordain others as well." When I looked up what we know of Timothy, it it is Eusebius (HE, 3.4.6) who says that "Timothy, so it is recorded, was the first to receive the episcopate of the parish in Ephesus."
Nemo said, 'I think she meant presbyter as an office in the church, not "elder" in the more general sense.'Yes, that's what she meant, she says. More precisely I would say she meant that the word "presbyter" or "priest" does not appear in her translations of the NT.
My point is that the difference is not in the Greek word but in the translation. What sort of thing πρεσβύτερος was is not specified by the word appearing or not appearing in text, since that word is in both the NT and the later texts. It is not her fault that the folks she was citing are at this level using circular logic: the absence of "presbyter" in NT translations shows that the formal office of presbyter came later; but "presbyter" is not used in NT translations because the consensus says that the formal office of presbyter came later. Again, not Kerstin's fault.
I am making the limited and precise point the word that "πρεσβύτερος" was used both in the NT and in later texts, and that translating it as "elder" in one case and "presbyter" in another arises not from the use of a different word in the text but from interpretation based on the context and on other historical knowledge. The interpretations may be well reasoned and true. But the consensus of beliefs that are determining the word's translations changed in the past and and may well change again; the word that is being translated won't.
Kerstin said, 'I did find in the notes of the Ignatius Bible for 1 Tim 4:14 that the elders "includes Paul, along with the assembled bishops of the Ephesian Church." Would this mean that the 'elders' and the bishops are the same people? ...' Per my previous note I would answer this way: All three of the terms had a generic meaning and what came to be an institutional role. "Deacon" means "one who serves." "Presbyter" means "an elder." "Bishop" means "an overseer."
The transition from the generic meaning to the institutional meaning took place over time. During the transition time the boundaries between the words (e.g., between "bishop" and "elder") were not uniform and precise. People differ as to how and when the transition took place; and they differ about the boundaries between the words over time and in different situations. The differences cannot be discerned exclusively from the words themselves.
"Do not neglect the gift that is in you, which was given to you by prophecy with the laying on of the hands of the eldership." NKJV Since the "bishop" word was used a lot earlier in the letter, and since that verse refers to some people laying hands on others, and the letter here uses the "elder" word stem to refer to these people, it seems that right here in this case the "elder" word is being applied to bishops.
A different way to say exactly the same thing might be: People of authority in the church were referred to as "overseers" (bishops") and "elders" (presbyters). Over time the two terms came to be applied institutionally to two different groups of people. In 1 Timothy it appears that both terms are used to denote the same people, at least some of the time.
Kerstin wrote: " I did find in the notes of the Ignatius Bible that the elders "includes Paul, along with the assembled bishops of the Ephesian Church." Would this mean that the 'elders' and the bishops are the same people? ...it it is Eusebius (HE, 3.4.6) who says that "Timothy, so it is recorded, was the first to receive the episcopate of the parish in Ephesus." ."If Timothy was the first bishop in the church of Ephesus, then the elders laying hands on him couldn't be "the assembled bishops of the Ephesian Church".
And to respond to Clark's point in msg. 8, Paul wrote about the qualifications of bishop and deacons in 1 Timothy 3. Although it is possible that "the eldership" in 1 Tim 4:14 refers to them, i.e. bishop and deacons, it is not evident from the text itself, and also unlikely for the reason just mentioned.
Nemo wrote: "If Timothy was the first bishop in the church of Ephesus, then the elders laying hands on him couldn't be "the assembled bishops of the Ephesian Church".Well, then we need to ask someone who knows more than I do :)
Nemo said, 'If Timothy was the first bishop in the church of Ephesus, then the elders laying hands on him couldn't be "the assembled bishops of the Ephesian Church".'According to the material quoted by Kerstin, it was Eusebius who said that Timothy was the first to receive the episcopacy of Ephesus. The note quotes Eusebius. I don't think the note stated in its own voice that Timothy was the first to receive the episcopacy of Ephesus. Please correct me if I'm wrong.
Nemo said, "Paul wrote about the qualifications of bishop and deacons in 1 Timothy 3. Although it is possible that "the eldership" in 1 Tim 4:14 refers to them, i.e. bishop and deacons, it is not evident from the text itself, and also unlikely for the reason just mentioned."Neither the note nor I claimed that the eldership in 4:14 refers to the bishops and deacons discussed earlier.
The eldership is explicitly said to lay hands on people to grant them the gift. We presume this is an ordination. Deacons didn't have that role or power. So the eldership must refer to what we would call bishops or bishop-presbyters (to emphasize the roles hadn't fully and formally separated yet).
The earlier discussion was a generic one about candidates to be bishop or deacon. 4:14 is about a particular bunch of people, those who laid hands on Timothy.
So for all those reasons there is no claim that 4:14 refers in any direct way to the generic bishops and deacons discussed earlier.
However, the terms "bishop" and "deacon" are in the wider context of 4:14.
What I did say was that the terms bishop and presbyter were in flux; the person with authority to celebrate the Eucharist and to ordain and do similar functions was sometimes referred to as an "overseer" (bishop) and sometimes as an "elder" (presbyter). Hence there is no big problem having "eldership" refer to people having the role discussed earlier under the heading of "bishop".
This comment relates to Clark's message 13 in the other Didache thread..I think it was around that section also, or maybe I am mixing things up, that there was clarity again why there was such an importance and effort to the death sometimes, to maintain fidelity to what was taught them...because their words, that initial Deposit of Faith, 'was God's words/information', not merely man's... I still think trying to ascertain exactly what that is/was, in full accord with the Scriptures, is of the utmost importance, as I don't think any of us intentionally want to pick or choose heresy. I don't! :).
Susan said, "I still think trying to ascertain exactly what that is/was, in full accord with the Scriptures, is of the utmost importance,"Here is a question for my made-up alien.
Where do you find the idea of Scripture in the Didache? By "the idea of Scripture" I am trying to mean what you said above -- that there exists a body of writings that is preeminently important and preeminently authoritative for determining what is true belief or not.
Certainly the Didache quotes from writings we call Scripture. Certainly it says at one point that we are to pray as "the Lord commanded in his Gospel."
And certainly it says we are not to stray from the "teaching."
But in the Didache what is the relationship between written Scripture and "the teaching"?
One might ask, for instance: According to the Didache, how does one tell a true prophet from a false one?
Clark wrote: "...The eldership is explicitly said to lay hands on people to grant them the gift. We presume this is an ordination. Deacons didn't have that role or power.."Why do you say that deacons didn't have the power to lay hands on people and grant them spiritual gift? This is not mentioned anywhere in 1 Timothy. Nor does it say that bishops have the power.
Nemo wrote: "Clark wrote: "...The eldership is explicitly said to lay hands on people to grant them the gift. We presume this is an ordination. Deacons didn't have that role or power.."This seems to point out a little information:
II. Authority is Transferred by the Sacrament of Ordination
Acts 1:15-26 – the first thing Peter does after Jesus ascends into heaven is implement apostolic succession. Matthias is ordained with full apostolic authority. Only the Catholic Church can demonstrate an unbroken apostolic lineage to the apostles in union with Peter through the sacrament of ordination and thereby claim to teach with Christ’s own authority.
Acts 1:20 – a successor of Judas is chosen. The authority of his office (his “bishopric”) is respected notwithstanding his egregious sin. The necessity to have apostolic succession in order for the Church to survive was understood by all. God never said, “I’ll give you leaders with authority for about 400 years, but after the Bible is compiled, you are all on your own.”
Acts 1:22 – literally, “one must be ordained” to be a witness with us of His resurrection. Apostolic ordination is required in order to teach with Christ’s authority.
Acts 6:6 – apostolic authority is transferred through the laying on of hands (ordination). This authority has transferred beyond the original twelve apostles as the Church has grown.
Acts 9:17-19 – even Paul, who was directly chosen by Christ, only becomes a minister after the laying on of hands by a bishop. This is a powerful proof-text for the necessity of sacramental ordination in order to be a legitimate successor of the apostles.
Acts 13:3 – apostolic authority is transferred through the laying on of hands (ordination). This authority must come from a Catholic bishop.
Acts 14:23 – the apostles and newly-ordained men appointed elders to have authority throughout the Church.
Acts 15:22-27 – preachers of the Word must be sent by the bishops in union with the Church. We must trace this authority to the apostles.
2 Cor. 1:21-22 – Paul writes that God has commissioned certain men and sealed them with the Holy Spirit as a guarantee.
Col 1:25 – Paul calls his position a divine “office.” An office has successors. It does not terminate at death. Or it’s not an office. See also Heb. 7:23 – an office continues with another successor after the previous office-holder’s death.
1 Tim. 3:1 – Paul uses the word “episcopoi” (bishop) which requires an office. Everyone understood that Paul’s use of episcopoi and office meant it would carry on after his death by those who would succeed him.
1 Tim. 4:14 – again, apostolic authority is transferred through the laying on of hands (ordination).
1 Tim. 5:22 – Paul urges Timothy to be careful in laying on the hands (ordaining others). The gift of authority is a reality and cannot be used indiscriminately.
2 Tim. 1:6 – Paul again reminds Timothy the unique gift of God that he received through the laying on of hands.
2 Tim. 4:1-6 – at end of Paul’s life, Paul charges Timothy with the office of his ministry . We must trace true apostolic lineage back to a Catholic bishop.
2 Tim. 2:2 – this verse shows God’s intention is to transfer authority to successors (here, Paul to Timothy to 3rd to 4th generation). It goes beyond the death of the apostles.
Titus 1:5; Luke 10:1 – the elders of the Church are appointed and hold authority. God has His children participate in Christ’s work.
1 John 4:6 – whoever knows God listens to us (the bishops and the successors to the apostles). This is the way we discern truth and error (not just by reading the Bible and interpreting it for ourselves).
Exodus 18:25-26 – Moses appoints various heads over the people of God. We see a hierarchy, a transfer of authority and succession.
Exodus 40:15 – the physical anointing shows that God intended a perpetual priesthood with an identifiable unbroken succession.
Numbers 3:3 – the sons of Aaron were formally “anointed” priests in “ordination” to minister in the priests’ “office.”
Numbers 16:40 – shows God’s intention of unbroken succession within His kingdom on earth. Unless a priest was ordained by Aaron and his descendants, he had no authority.
Numbers 27:18-20 – shows God’s intention that, through the “laying on of hands,” one is commissioned and has authority.
Deut. 34:9 – Moses laid hands upon Joshua, and because of this, Joshua was obeyed as successor, full of the spirit of wisdom.
Sirach 45:15 – Moses ordains Aaron and anoints him with oil. There is a transfer of authority through formal ordination.
Although I understand this comes from a Catholic perspective, it seems to have a lot of Scripture places for people to review themselves to see about this topic.
Susan wrote: "Nemo wrote: "Clark wrote: "...The eldership is explicitly said to lay hands on people to grant them the gift. We presume this is an ordination. Deacons didn't have that role or power.."This seems..."
Susan, is this from the Trent Horn book?
Susan wrote: "..Although I understand this comes from a Catholic perspective, it seems to have a lot of Scripture places for people to review themselves to see about this topic....."It would take an entirely separate discussion to review those proof-texts, whether they are related to ordination or what valid inferences we can draw from them. I don't think this is the proper thread for that type of discussion.
Kerstin wrote: "Susan wrote: "Nemo wrote: "Clark wrote: "...The eldership is explicitly said to lay hands on people to grant them the gift. We presume this is an ordination. Deacons didn't have that role or power...."No. I was trying to find the verse(s) where they wait for the Apostles/Bishops to 'lay on hands' (I forget where that was that I am thinking of....) and in trying to locate that, I found this..so I just thought it gave a lot of pertinent sections for anyone to review if they were interested.
Susan wrote: "No. I was trying to find the verse(s) where they wait for the Apostles/Bishops to 'lay on hands' (I forget where that was that I am thinking of....) and in trying to locate that, I found this..so I just thought it gave a lot of pertinent sections for anyone to review if they were interested."I was thinking in the same direction when you posted this fabulous list, the development of the order of the priesthood from the Old Testament into to New.
Coming back to the Diaconate, as Nemo wondered why deacons cannot "lay on hands". Only bishops have the authority to ordain. The deacon's role is to serve/assist bishops and priests. Their ordination does not carry the full apostolic authority, that is reserved to bishops only, but into ministry. (CCC #s 1569, 1570, 1593, 1596, 1600)
Nowhere in the NT does it speak directly of the authority of “bishop” or “overseer”, with regard to ordination or administering the Lord’s Supper. Neither does the Didache speak of it (in chapters IX on the Eucharist or XV on Bishops and Deacons). The texts do not say that bishops have authorities or powers which deacons don’t have.It is one thing to explain Catholic, Eastern Orthodox or Protestant perspectives, but quite another to read one’s own perspective into the biblical or patristic texts. The latter is bad exegesis.
Nemo said, "Why do you say that deacons didn't have the power to lay hands on people and grant them spiritual gift? This is not mentioned anywhere in 1 Timothy. Nor does it say that bishops have the power."No, these statements are general and are not from 1 Timothy alone.
I won't be pursuing this line of discussion.
Nemo said, "Nowhere in the NT does it speak directly of the authority of “bishop” or “overseer”, with regard to ordination or administering the Lord’s Supper. Neither does the Didache speak of it (in chapters IX on the Eucharist or XV on Bishops and Deacons). The texts do not say that bishops have authorities or powers which deacons don’t have."I'm not going to address your blanket claims, nor your claim about proper exegesis.
Susan said, "Although I understand this comes from a Catholic perspective, it seems to have a lot of Scripture places for people to review themselves to see about this topic."Thanks for posting those, Susan. They are useful and interesting references for people to look at on their own, as you suggested.
I saw in 1 Tim 5:17 "Let the elders who rule well....."
The word used for 'elder' is 'prebyteri'......
1 Tim 5:22 "Do not be hasty in the laying on of hands..."
- 'laying on of hands' must be something specific and important
- this job must be assigned to some certain subset of people, who? Or, can it be shown that anyone could do it?
Titus 1: 5 "...appoint elders...." the word used again is 'presbyters' and for "bishop" in verse 7, 'episcopum'
Navarre states: (for verses 5 - 9) "Here the words used for "elders", priests (presbyteroi) and bishops (episkopoi) seem to refer to the same people. In the first case the emphasis is more on the maturity and experience expected of "elders" (presbyteros means "elder"), and in the other the stress is on the function of the overseeing (episkopos means 'watchman'): they have to "watch out for", look after, the faithful. But in both cases the terms refer to those who preside over each Christian community."
Ignatius says: "The Threefold Pastoral Ministry" : Scripture tells us that Jesus Christ transformed and fulfilled the institutions of the Old Covenant once entrusted to Israel. The hierarchy of covenant leadership is no exception to this rule. Yahweh established three tiers of Levitical ministry to lead the sacrificial worship of the Temple, and later three levels of leadership were established in the Jewish synagogue to preach the Scriptures and and serve the community of faith. The liturgies that revolved around sacrifice (Temple) and Scripture (synagogue) were eventually brought together in Christian worship, where the Word is proclaimed and the Sacraments are administered. For good reason then, the three-tiered leadership of the Temple and synagogue was a fitting model for the threefold structure of the Church's own pastoral ministry, established to lead, teach, and sanctify the People of God.
Temple. Synagogue. Church
High Priest. Ruler of the Synagogue. Bishop
Priests. Board of Elders. Presbyters (priests)
Levites. Servants. Deacons
For deacons, it is pointed to Acts 6, the apostles' establishment of the Seven (they seemed to need more help at this point). Luke uses the term diakonia (help, service, ministry; vv 1,4) and the verb form diakonein (to serve; v 2), though he does not call "deacons" the seven men picked "to serve tables". Are the Seven, the first ordained deacons of the Church?
serve v 2, preaching Acts 8:5 and baptizing Acts 8:12
Phil 1:1 "...with the bishops and deacons..."...even at this early stage, local churches did have some form of hierarchical structure.
Hippolytus
"When a deacon is to be ordained, he is chosen after the fashion of those things said above, the bishop alone in like manner imposing his hands upon him as we have prescribed. In the ordaining of a deacon, this is the reason why the bishop alone is to impose his hands upon him: he is not ordained to the priesthood, but to serve the bishop and to fulfill the bishop’s command. He has no part in the council of the clergy, but is to attend to his own duties and is to acquaint the bishop with such matters as are needful. . . .
"On a presbyter, however, let the presbyters impose their hands because of the common and like Spirit of the clergy. Even so, the presbyter has only the power to receive [the Spirit], and not the power to give [the Spirit]. That is why a presbyter does not ordain the clergy; for at the ordaining of a presbyter, he but seals while the bishop ordains.
"Over a deacon, then, let the bishop speak thus: ‘O God, who have created all things and have set them in order through your Word; Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, whom you sent to minister to your will and to make clear to us your desires, grant the Holy Spirit of grace and care and diligence to this your servant, whom you have chosen to serve the Church and to offer in your holy places the gifts which are offered to you by your chosen high priests, so that he may serve with a pure heart and without blame, and that, ever giving praise to you, he may be accounted by your good will as worthy of this high office: through your Son Jesus Christ, through whom be glory and honor to you, to the Father and the Son with the Holy Spirit, in your holy Church, both now and through the ages of ages. Amen’" (The Apostolic Tradition 9 [A.D. 215]).
(Sorry, I was writing this before seeing your most recent posts Clark. Aren't we all on a quest just to understand better? I am grateful for any contributions anyone has.)
Clark wrote: "Nemo said, "Nowhere in the NT does it speak directly of the authority of “bishop” or “overseer”, with regard to ordination or administering the Lord’s Supper. Neither does the Didache speak of it ..."I made a universal negative statement, which can be corrected/refuted by a single positive example. It was meant as an invitation, a challenge, to correct me if I'm wrong. :) My initial question to you about the deacons in msg.13 was also meant as an invitation for dialogue. You're of course free to decline.
Re: deacon (servant)Paul writes to Timothy, "In pointing out these things to the brethren, you will be a good servant of Christ Jesus, constantly nourished on the words of the faith and of the sound doctrine which you have been following." (1 Tim. 4:6 NASB)
The Greek word for servant here, διάκονος, is the same word that is translated as deacon in the previous chapter.
Paul uses the same word to refer to himself in Eph. 3:7, "of which I was made a minister, according to the gift of God’s grace which was given to me according to the working of His power". and 2 Cor. 6:4, "but in everything commending ourselves as servants of God, in much endurance, in afflictions, in hardships, in distresses,"(NASB).
My understanding is that words such as "overseer" and "servant" signify not a hierarchy, but different aspects of the apostolic ministry, of the priestly or pastoral ministry. This is modelled on Christ Himself, who is both Lord and Servant.
Nemo wrote: "My understanding is that words such as "overseer" and "servant" signify not a hierarchy, but different aspects of the apostolic ministry, of the priestly or pastoral ministry. This is modelled on Christ Himself, who is both Lord and Servant."Nemo, this is very true from the pastoral aspect. Let's look at the leadership part, the shepherd of the flock. It all begins with Jesus' great commission. He left the apostles in charge, his designated shepherds in his absence, our first bishops. It was him who established the hierarchy. Nothing else really makes sense. For if he didn't, then the apostles and their immediate successors would have made up stuff out our thin air. For if the hierarchy is made up, then we would have to conclude that the apostle John veered off the path with Polycarp and Ignatius of Antioch, and subsequently Polycarp with Irenaeus of Lyons, unless the office of bishop is an integral part of the life of the Church.
"Nemo said, "Nowhere in the NT does it speak directly of the authority of “bishop” or “overseer”, with regard to ordination or administering the Lord’s Supper. Neither does the Didache..."I read Kerstin's message 28 and agree. Obviously we are all supposed to humble ourselves to be servants, does that prove that no other system was put in place?
It seems sometimes as if you don't really seem to address the mountain of information that is brought up, waiting or expecting an answer to a specific question to be answered precisely in just the wordage you feel appropriate, almost like, unless it was stated in the Gospel, that "I Jesus, have established a three-tiered hierarchy to aid in the organization and propagation of My Church", that that can not be a consideration for you.
I am somewhat confused about how you do think it was all arranged (I know I am very confusing too!! :)), and I respect your opinion. Do you think there is any actual specific significance to laying on of hands? Who do you think the evidence points to that could do that? Why? You don't think there were any levels?, or just two, Bishops and something else (priests and deacons were equal?), or there were no priests?
I feel like 'I' may not be seeing something....again, I grew up with a certain faith all around me, so I don't know, what I don't know...so I look forward to others explaining what they think/find/read to make a more well-rounded educated conclusion as to what I believe based on more information. Again, unless others discuss things like this, I never really hear another side or possibility. So don't reply if you don't want to Nemo, just interested if you have time or interest, thanks. Or anyone else, if they do not believe in the three-tiered hierarchy that seems to be clear to me, but maybe is not to others. Thanks.
Kerstin wrote: "It all begins with Jesus' great commission. He left the apostles in charge, his designated shepherds in his absence, our first bishops. It was him who established the hierarchy. Nothing else really makes sense. ."I suppose you wouldn't have converted to Catholicism if it didn't make sense to you somehow, though I for my part just don't see how. :) As I said before, I don't expect we'll resolve our differences in this forum. Since you were once a Protestant, you don't need me to explain our beliefs to you, do you? So I'm not sure there is any real point in carrying on this conversation.
Susan wrote: "It seems sometimes as if you don't really seem to address the mountain of information that is brought up, "You're quite right. I don't address "mountain of information", when I don't think they are relevant, and frankly I'm not terribly interested in discussing the "hierarchy".
If you truly want to understand my point of view, please address your questions to me one at a time. Preferably in a separate thread with a proper title. As I said earlier, this is not the thread for that type of discussion.
Nemo wrote: "Susan wrote: "It seems sometimes as if you don't really seem to address the mountain of information that is brought up, "Thank you for responding. If you are not interested in it or think it is relevant than I wouldn't want to encourage a discussion. It seems very relevant to me, when speaking about the early Church, to discuss fully the differing views on the early Church one; and that it is such a paramount issue separating Christians, when we are conversing within a parallel thread of Church unity two. I personally feel that if I love Jesus, I want to follow Him in the way 'He' wanted us to...in the way 'He' established His Church. It is all about 'Him', not what 'I' may think. So I am open always, to more fully discuss things to ensure I am understanding things to the best of my ability. As a parent also, I am responsible somewhat for the education/model to my children...I certainly do not want to lead them in error either...Anyone can always email me if they are interested in discussing anything further than the group is interested in doing. Thank you again.
Nemo wrote: "I suppose you wouldn't have converted to Catholicism if it didn't make sense to you somehow, though I for my part just don't see how. :) As I said before, I don't expect we'll resolve our differences in this forum. Since you were once a Protestant, you don't need me to explain our beliefs to you, do you? So I'm not sure there is any real point in carrying on this conversation."That's fine. Conversion, which ever form it may take, is always a personal journey, and one you have experienced as well. The factors playing into it cannot be duplicated by anyone else, even though there may be similarities. And it may surprise you, I don't deliberately pin Protestant vs. Catholic constantly against each other, at least not in my head. How it comes across in a forum like this is another matter...
We all make the judgement call of whether or not something rings true to us. How we get there depends on our personal circumstances and knowledge. This either expands our understanding or it limits it. Since I have always been a lover of history, the historical aspects of the Church were never a hurdle to me. And having grown up in Europe where church buildings abound that are over a thousand years old the physical continuity of Christianity is manifest right before you in stone and mortar. My ease with all this is because I've been familiar with Catholicism from an early age. The typical clash points many Protestants have, even some in my own family who were and are far more solidly Protestant than I ever was, were never part of my universe simply by the sheer accident of where we lived. When all your playmates are Catholic, it rubs off. :)
Kerstin wrote: "depends on our personal circumstances and knowledge" - this is what I find so sad about things not being discussed. I can't know another's circumstances, or share in their specific knowledge....that is what I meant when I say, I don't know what I don't know....I would think someone who believes something would love to explain how and why they believe such a thing, and be open to discussing the finer points, especially if something we come across seems to conflict with it...but I am a talker and love to think....and again, feel a responsibility to my kids. So anything anyone points out to me from what is being brought up in what we read, is taken with interest and gratitude. I read the things to truly learn about the early Church, not just as a literary piece.
Susan,Your comments prompted me to create the "All Questions Considered" folder. You can post your questions about Protestant or Orthodox beliefs and practices there, if you like.
Nemo wrote: "Susan,Your comments prompted me to create the "All Questions Considered" folder. You can post your questions about Protestant or Orthodox beliefs and practices there, if you like."
That was kind, thank you.
Nemo said, "I made a universal negative statement, which can be corrected/refuted by a single positive example."The problems are two:
1. You think this is an appropriate way to think about Scripture, and
2. You think that the answer is really important, possibly definitive.
Please feel free to reword #1 and #2 so I don't misrepresent your ideas.
Anyhow, I don't think I can get across why and how I dissent from both of those. So I decline to undertake a response I judge would produce no light, only heat.
Clark wrote: "Please feel free to reword #1 and #2 so I don't misrepresent your ideas...."I don't see any resemblance of my ideas in your post.
We have all noticed that discussion threads evolve (or devolve):
1. The thread starts out discussing the text.
2. People post their own belief or opinion on a topic in the text, or they post some source about some topic that is in the reading.
3. People post their agreement or disagreement with the opinions and quotations, and voice their own opinions, and quote other sources.
At this point the text supposedly being discussed is nowhere to be seen.
This discussion topic is a place to post things that are not directly contributing to discussing the text itself. Postings can arrive here by two routes:
a) Steps 2 and 3 above. Or a person posts here for the sheer joy of it. Judging by previous discussions, these messages will by far outnumber messages in the narrow topics. :-) Have at it! Knock yourselves out!
b) A moderator moves a message from a text discussion thread to this thread, on the grounds that the message doesn't directly contribute to discussing the text itself. This does not mean it's a bad post, it means only that the moderator judges it out of scope for that discussion thread.
This is an experiment.