Thousands of Invalid Baptisms Reek Havoc

[Scooter]

This should have been an easy one to get "right" because Matthew 28:19 is pretty direct and clear, and yet somehow various Christian sects have seen fit to complicate it in their own way.

Of course, older texts speak of baptizing in the name of Jesus only, trinitarianism presumably not becoming a thing until some decades later.

[MajGenl.Meade]

Been at it a lot longer than the RCC. I have heard many claims of not having any genetic history with them whatsoever.

No, I'm just not understanding banter at all well today. Give us it slower.

Who has been at what longer than the RCC?

What many claims and what's genetics got to do with it?

Big RR you ask "what early church?" Answer: all the ones there were.

The concept we have today of a completed Bible was formulated early in the history of the church. By the end of the second century all but seven books (Hebrews, 2 and 3 John, 2 Peter, Jude, James, and Revelation) were recognized as apostolic, and by the end of the fourth century all twenty-seven books in our present canon were recognized by all the churches of the West. After the Damasine Council of Rome in A.D. 332 and the third Council of Carthage in A.D. 397 the question of the Canon was closed in the West. By the year 500 the whole Greek-speaking church had also accepted all the books in our present New Testament.

I was careless with the words "Eastern mob" when I should have been more precise: the Eastern Church, a specific group which is not the current Greek Orthodox (or Russian etc). As shown above, the Greek churches and the Western churches did concur on the 27 books.

One thing that's quite remarkable, given rampant cynicism of some, is that neither the Roman nor the Greek church enshrined their own writings. There's nothing (other than tedious length) to object to in Clement's letter to the Corinthians - all very orthodox stuff - but as with all the other early church fathers' writings, not accorded the honor of being "apostolic".

I must say that the Bass-o-matic version of faith, opinion and Christ is very popular, as Paul predicted in 2Timothy4:3

[Crackpot]

Many domestic Protestant groups claim to have not originated from the RCC.

Absolute bull I know but as a always say “Never underestimate the human ability for self-delusion”

[Big RR]

Meade--once things become accepted by those in control (such as the early catholic church) they tend to remain so. This happens in academics (look how many so-so writers are still extolled as "great" because they always were, e.g.) and many other disciplines including religion. For example, there is nothing in the Bible that says that the date of Easter should be the first Sunday after the first full moon after the vernal equinox (as the RC church decreed), but most protestant churches follow right along without question. Indeed, the Greek/Russian method of calculation at least seems to be more historically created (at least it's nominally tied to Passover), yet when there was a convocation to try and reconcile these dates some protestant churches (who had no say in how the date was originally reckoned) saying they would not accept it (FWIW, some in the RC church did as well, but then they don't claim to be sola scritura, they accept tradition as important). I think the same is true of books of the Bible. Resistance to change is strong.

[MajGenl.Meade]

CP - Do they indeed? Never heard such a ridiculous thing. Thanks and quite agree

Big RR - yeah, uh, OK. Not sure why you brought those things up. The point (I think) is that once "the church", the catholic church (small c), consisted of Christian groups in Antioch, Ephesus, Philippi, Corinth, Rome, Alexandria, Jerusalem and so on and so forth. And they share various writings / testaments / whatever and eventually "they" generally recognized 27 of 'em as apostolic. Took a while since not everyone wanted for or five in there. I don't know of any Christian denomination that does not recognize the same 27 books of the NT - but maybe there is. Even the Mormons and JWs have the same ones, although they of course are both famous for "adding" to the word.

FWIW, the silliness about "I" vs "we" in baptism is not "adding" to the word, merely choosing to apply the word in a certain formula - as would be true of the date of Easter which is singularly nothing to do with the Bible, as you write. Neither, of course, is either of those "against" the Bible. Altho' the first we would agree (with BSG) is surely mean-spirited which isn't very Christian of 'em.

However, I was more intrigued with Gob's failure to launch on the matter of hypocrisy - blaming God for not writing better instructions when he does not apply the same to those who wrote the law against murder. That is, the fact that people do commit murder has nothing to do with a lack of clarity in instructions. There he blames the actor and not the author - when it comes to religious matters, it's t'other way around more often than not. (Odd how he seems to think God should have written more and more rules . . .)

[Big RR]

I don't know of any Christian denomination that does not recognize the same 27 books of the NT

That's my point; once they became generally recognized, people just accepted them and resisted change. Oh, there were a few who revised/added to it , such as the JWs and Mormons to emphasize there differences (and there may be others), but most people tend to want to keep what they have familiarity with.

[MajGenl.Meade]

I don't know of any Christian denomination that does not recognize the same 27 books of the NT

That's my point; once they became generally recognized, people just accepted them and resisted change. Oh, there were a few who revised/added to it , such as the JWs and Mormons to emphasize there differences (and there may be others), but most people tend to want to keep what they have familiarity with.

Or what is true and correct. What would you like to add?

(and the Mormons and JWs are not Christians but + something else)

[Big RR]

What would you like to add?

That's a good question; nothing that immediately comes to mind, but then I think god is revealed to us through many things, not just scripture.

[Crackpot]

Most of the non-canonical books I know of were scrubbed for good reason from being blatantly Gnostic to being nothing but a collection of Jesus’ best one-liners. (Words attributed to Jesus but devoid of any context)

1st and to a much lesser extent (if memory serves) Maccabees are good for giving some historical context for the events of the NT but otherwise aren’t much for doctrine.

I have a chart somewhere that show when and where the canonized texts were accepted and disputed but doesn’t list any of the books that were eventually dropped. (I would like to know what they were and the reason for dropping them)

One of the last books to be included was Revelation which to my understanding was not disputed due to it’s perceived validity but due to its questionable value. In other words it being so steeped in symbolism on an event that is yet to come that it detracts from the idea of how one should act in favor of speculation on if the ending is now. (A totally understanding concern in hindsight)

[Big RR]

from being blatantly Gnostic

Is that really so bad? It's a different perspective in the same events and teachings. Sure, the early church rejected it, but that was for a number of reasons, not all of which were related to the gnostic views. If anything, it opens lines of discussion.

[Crackpot]

Sort of like (or exactly like) asking if the prosperity gospel is really that bad.

[Big RR]

I don't really see that parallel, but if you do, fine.

FWIW, as I understand the prosperity gospel, it came about fairly recently (In the last century or so)..Further, it's not so much anything new as a different way to look at the existing gospel. Further, while many have disagreed or even ridiculed it, I have not heard of any religion banning discussion of it or destroying texts referring to it. It is openly discussed and agreed or disagreed with.

On the other hand, the gnostic movement, at its core, says Jesus came to earth to impart information about god to humans to free them. Yes, there's a mysticism involved, but I don't see it as something worthy of being banned or judged apostasy, with texts being destroyed. You can''t discuss or argue against something that a major organization is trying to stamp out of existence.

[Burning Petard]

"The Revelation" was supported in the Canon because it was "Apostolic' that is, traditionally authored by one of the original Apostles. Dogma always trumps data. All the letters traditionally written by Paul are thus non-Apostolic.
It was disputed because (and other reasons) it was not prophetic of the final end days, but it had already been completely fulfilled. It was taken to be written to inform and inspire contemporaries when it was written about the fall of the Roman Empire, which had happened by the time the canon discussion had its official conclusion.

Martin Luther disputed the place of the letter of John. Mormons don't accept a finality of canon at all--they hold that the canon may be continually expanded.

snailgate

[Burning Petard]

Big RR, book burning has a long and noble tradition at least in the culture of Western Christianity. Wikipedia says this about the Cathars:

"The lack of any central organization among Cathars, regional differences in beliefs and practices as well as the lack of sources from the Cathars themselves has prompted some scholars to question whether Catharism existed."

Wikipedia includes it as part of Gnosticism. but the surviving contemporary arguments against it, hint at very 'modern' views, even egalitarian and democratic.

Unhappily the orthodox were very efficient in the destruction all things Cathar.

snailgate

[Big RR]

All the letters traditionally written by Paul are thus non-Apostolic.

Don't tell Paul that; at the beginning of his letter to the Galatians (I'm pretty sure) he refers to himself as an apostle sent by jesus and god.

[Long Run]

I had a Bible with many of the Apography books included. My recollection was that they were far more interesting than most of the Old Testament and the New Testament. The story of those figuring out what to include and not is an interesting topic, but books like the Maccabees deserve some air time too.

[Joe Guy]

I have a Bible with God's autograph. I just happened to catch him when he was on his book tour and appeared at our local Barnes & Noble.

[Burning Petard]

All the letters traditionally written by Paul are thus non-Apostolic.

Yes, Paul claimed two be an apostle from Jesus and from God. But he never made theses claims until was Jesus was long gone from the scene.

Almost daily I see a billboard informing me that I am invited to a local church to see and listen to a self-described Apostle from Jesus and from God.

None of the Roman Catholic, Eastern Orthodox, Lutheran, or any other Christian denomination I know about is anxious to include this person's pronouncements as Apostolic. Again, dogma trumps data.

snailgate

[BoSoxGal]

I have a Bible with God's autograph. I just happened to catch him when he was on his book tour and appeared at our local Barnes & Noble.

You know Trump signed many Bibles at his rallies and while visiting with folks after natural disasters and such.

It would explain a lot about the fuckery of religion if he’s really the chosen one.

Incidentally I gather some of those Bibles made it to eBay and other online sales sites. What’s worse, asking Trump to sign your Bible, or selling it afterward?

[Scooter]

All the letters traditionally written by Paul are thus non-Apostolic.

Yes, Paul claimed two be an apostle from Jesus and from God. But he never made theses claims until was Jesus was long gone from the scene.

Almost daily I see a billboard informing me that I am invited to a local church to see and listen to a self-described Apostle from Jesus and from God.

None of the Roman Catholic, Eastern Orthodox, Lutheran, or any other Christian denomination I know about is anxious to include this person's pronouncements as Apostolic. Again, dogma trumps data.

snailgate

Not sure what your point is here. Paul has been counted among the apostles, not just by himself, since at least the time of the writing of the book of Acts. The term apostle is not limited to the original Twelve.