Historical Christianity - What Is It Anyways?

[HeatherAnn]

Just what IS "Historical" about any of today's Christian faiths?

It depends on how far you want to go back in "his-story."

I watched something (I think it was PBS) about the origins of Christianity & how Gnostics are believed to be among the first Christians.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gnosticism

Although there are some aspects that seem culturally influenced & less applicable today, many Gnostic beliefs make a lot of sense - even more than the politically-driven traditional Christianity.

[HeatherAnn]

Because these commentators don't have modern revelation clarifying what it says.

As Joseph Smith taught, we are ALL entitled to personal "Modern" revelation.

It's like the story of the a bunch of blind men - who felt & smelt small parts of an elephant. Each claimed it to be something different... until they compared notes - then they realized a more accurate definition of what it was.

[3DOP]

3DOP,

I wasn't attempting to declare what Catholics actually believe on this subject. I was only trying to show that they could, if they so desired, legitimately reject this doctrine because they are not "sola scriptura".

Sorry, if I gave any other impression.

No worries mate.

I guess I don't follow you though, Vance. Even though Catholics have another authority in Tradition, how does that excuse us from accepting a New Testament biblical teaching in a way different from Protestants? Like them, we have to have a way to say that the passage is true, and ideally that the practice mentioned to refer to the Resurrection is praiseworthy. Other than having a different way of interpreting Scripture, are we not similarly obligated to adhere to Scripture, as you understand the situation?

I know you are not trying to teach me about my faith, and I hope you won't be put off by my pursuit of what you said, especially when it was favorable to my faith. But it seemed like it might be a too lenient evaluation of how Catholics are allowed to understand biblical revelation. If you can explain better what you are driving at, great. But hey...its Friday...I'm home off work early...No big deal if you have other stuff more pressing to get done before the day is through. But if you have a minute, I'll be peeking in.

Thanks much. God bless.

3DOP

[altersteve]

As Joseph Smith taught, we are ALL entitled to personal "Modern" revelation.

It's like the story of the a bunch of blind men - who felt & smelt small parts of an elephant. Each claimed it to be something different... until they compared notes - then they realized a more accurate definition of what it was.

I agree, but I'm not talking about personal revelation. I only meant that they are not aware of what God has revealed to humanity as a whole about baptism for the dead. Sorry, should have made that clear.

Edited October 14, 2011 by altersteve

[HeatherAnn]

I agree, but I'm not talking about personal revelation. I only meant that they are not aware of what God has revealed to humanity as a whole about baptism for the dead. Sorry, should have made that clear.

I know that's what you meant.

And what I mean is you or I, or the president of the Catholic church or Mormon church cannot force personal revelation on anyone.

They sell their own illusion... if you want to buy it, that's your choice. But just because one person believes one way... doesn't mean God intends that to be the truth for everyone. (ie Mormons extracting names of & have temple work done for Jews despite the family's desire not to.)

[diglot]

edited: nevermind

Edited October 14, 2011 by diglot

[Vance]

No worries mate.

I guess I don't follow you though, Vance. Even though Catholics have another authority in Tradition, how does that excuse us from accepting a New Testament biblical teaching in a way different from Protestants?

Because they don't have your traditions for one thing.

Like them, we have to have a way to say that the passage is true, and ideally that the practice mentioned to refer to the Resurrection is praiseworthy.

The problem I have with them is that they clearly and plainly have extra-Biblical presumptions through which the read and interpret scripture which the deny.

Catholics, on the other hand, freely admit that tradition (presumptions) guide them in their understanding. Theoretically those traditions came from the unrecorded practices and teachings of the early church.

Other than having a different way of interpreting Scripture, are we not similarly obligated to adhere to Scripture, as you understand the situation?

Absolutely. (The key there is "different way of interpreting Scripture"). They just won't honestly admit that there are other reasonable interpretations of scripture, because they won't honestly admit that they have extra-Biblical presumptions through which they look.

I know you are not trying to teach me about my faith, and I hope you won't be put off by my pursuit of what you said, especially when it was favorable to my faith.

Not at all.

But it seemed like it might be a too lenient evaluation of how Catholics are allowed to understand biblical revelation.

Perhaps so. But my understanding is that the Pope has authority to change or declare doctrine, even new doctrine. If that is a "too lenient" understanding the I will have to be harder on you in the future.

(I will admit that in my youth I had a more favorable opinion of "Evangelicalism" than Catholicism. Experience and maturity has changed my opinion. )

If you can explain better what you are driving at, great. But hey...its Friday...I'm home off work early...No big deal if you have other stuff more pressing to get done before the day is through. But if you have a minute, I'll be peeking in.

Thanks much. God bless.

3DOP

I hope what I have written above is a start.

Don't get me wrong. I am a firm believer in "Mormonism" and the LDS Church. It is just that I have a lot more respect for the Catholic theology (as I understand it) than I do for the Protestant one.