Apokatastasis in the early church

[St. SteVen]

Who cares what the early church thought? I don't. Christians shouldn't either. We follow Jesus Christ.

You can't be serious. But I think you are.

/

 

[St. SteVen]

You have a Bible. Why don't you read it?

That was uncalled for.

/

 

[marks]

That was uncalled for. Inferring that UR proponents aren't saved? (boo)

The fact is you are "believing" a different Gospel, which is no gospel at all, and that being the case, well, it's a very reasonable conclusion one might reach.

You are believing in a god whom you think will save everyone, without regard for His Own Word, which clearly states otherwise, all your sophistry aside.

You have a way of telling people their comments were uncalled for when you don't like them, but that's not the same thing.

Much love!

 

[CadyandZoe]

You can't be serious. But I think you are.

/

There you go again. Raising doubt. You can't seem to speak frankly or straightforwardly about much. I defended my statement with reasons. Try that if you can.

 

[Wick Stick]

The argument in support of the ECF's reliability is based on the assumption that they are trustworthy sources of information due to their proximity in time and location to the Apostles. However, I disagree with this assumption since the New Testament epistles were written to people who were even closer in time and location than the ECF's, yet these earlier Christians still required Apostolic correction. Therefore, proximity alone cannot guarantee reliability.

This isn't related to what I said. The previous conversation was about ruling out ideas based on their recency. Maybe you're saying this for someone else?

I believe that the Early Church Fathers (ECF) made mistakes because they interpreted the Apostolic writings based on the philosophy of Greek philosophers like Plato and Philo.

Paul uses Aristotle quite a bit in his New Testament epistles. Using Greek language or ideas isn't necessarily an arbiter of truth, either.

Today, we still struggle with the consequences of those mistakes as we work hard to undo the false doctrines passed down from the ECFs.

Most of the doctrinal errors that came to pollute catholicism originated much later, notably with Augustine. The early writings are pretty basic, doctrinally. You aren't likely to find any profound new doctrines in them, but if you wanted to... say, demonstrate that the early church was indeed baptizing people in water... you can find a chapter in Justin Martyr or the Didache describing exactly how early Christians performed baptisms. I think I quoted it last week in a topic here.

I have found that It is easier and less work to study the writings of the Apostles myself and learn directly from them.

The so-called Early Church Fathers weren't actually Fathers and these men have nothing to offer me.

Suit yourself. I don't quite get it - why are people more than willing to read modern pastors, but not ancient ones?

 

[CadyandZoe]

That was uncalled for.

/

I will be the judge of what is necessary or justified. Why would someone raise doubts about the reliability of the Bible, and/or it's translations, believe in a god of his own making, and believe that God hands out participation trophies in the afterlife? Such a person doesn't read the Bible. Thus, my suggestion that you do.

 

[CadyandZoe]

This isn't related to what I said. The previous conversation was about ruling out ideas based on their recency. Maybe you're saying this for someone else?

My argument is against the suggestion that we rule out ideas based on their recency. First of all, each generation is required to come to terms with the truth of the Bible on it's own. Secondly, we are just now filtering out all the bad and false information we inherited.

Paul uses Aristotle quite a bit in his New Testament epistles.

I disagree. If you see Aristotle in Paul, you are wearing Aristotle glasses.

Using Greek language or ideas isn't necessarily an arbiter of truth, either.

Don't underestimate the value of reading the New Testament (or the classics) in the original language.

Most of the doctrinal errors that came to pollute catholicism originated much later, notably with Augustine. The early writings are pretty basic, doctrinally. You aren't likely to find any profound new doctrines in them, but if you wanted to... say, demonstrate that the early church was indeed baptizing people in water... you can find a chapter in Justin Martyr or the Didache describing exactly how early Christians performed baptisms. I think I quoted it last week in a topic here.

Suit yourself. I don't quite get it - why are people more than willing to read modern pastors, but not ancient ones?

We believe those we trust. I have no basis on which to trust the ECF's.

 

[Wick Stick]

My argument is against the suggestion that we rule out ideas based on their recency. First of all, each generation is required to come to terms with the truth of the Bible on it's own. Secondly, we are just now filtering out all the bad and false information we inherited.

What if I told you that Jesus was coming... in His UFO... to beam us up? Wouldn't you would rule that out based on recency... becaues the Biblical authors had no concept of UFO's or teleportation?

I disagree. If you see Aristotle in Paul, you are wearing Aristotle glasses.

Forgive me if this is a bad assumption, but I'm guessing you haven't actually read Aristotle? De Anima?

Don't underestimate the value of reading the New Testament (or the classics) in the original language.

I was talking about disqualifying ideas for their Greekness.

We believe those we trust. I have no basis on which to trust the ECF's.

I mean, you shouldn't trust them as if they were part of the Bible. That probably should go without saying. But should you trust them as much as any modern Christian author? Sure. Some more or less, perhaps, depending on their credentials.

 

[St. SteVen]

I will be the judge of what is necessary or justified.

Judge not lest ye be judged, plank-eye.
I thought you claimed to follow Jesus. ???

/

 

[St. SteVen]

Much love!

Every post ends with a joke. - LOL

/

 

[CadyandZoe]

What if I told you that Jesus was coming... in His UFO... to beam us up? Wouldn't you would rule that out based on recency... becaues the Biblical authors had no concept of UFO's or teleportation?

The term "recency" has been used by several theologians over the years with different meanings. However, I firmly believe that the Bible has a coherent and objective meaning and should not be reinterpreted based on modern circumstances. The idea that God is doing something new and surprising in the present is also not acceptable to me. I reject the notion that recent ideas have a greater impact on our understanding of the Bible than earlier times. Furthermore, it is unacceptable to challenge the authority and relevance of the scriptures because they are based on past events. Throughout history, mankind has remained unchanged, and therefore, the scriptures are as relevant today as they were yesterday.

Forgive me if this is a bad assumption, but I'm guessing you haven't actually read Aristotle? De Anima?

What is your point? Does Paul quote Aristotle? (I don't think he does.) Where does Paul and Aristotle overlap? I think they have different metaphysics. Paul understood, and I believe him, that God creates everything; Aristotle was looking for a cause in nature.

I was talking about disqualifying ideas for their Greekness.

Sorry if I misunderstood.

I mean, you shouldn't trust them as if they were part of the Bible. That probably should go without saying. But should you trust them as much as any modern Christian author? Sure. Some more or less, perhaps, depending on their credentials.

As I say, I don't bother with them because they are a waste of time. I would rather devote my time to the study of the Bible.

 

[CadyandZoe]

Judge not lest ye be judged, plank-eye.
I thought you claimed to follow Jesus. ???

/

I do follow Jesus. And this is why I know you are taking his words out of context to deflect the conversation away from the truth. Jesus talking about condemning people to hell. He certainly wasn't advocating for foolishness or a lack of discernment. He wants me to discern the false teacher from the true teacher.

 

[Wick Stick]

However, I firmly believe that the Bible has a coherent and objective meaning and should not be reinterpreted based on modern circumstances. The idea that God is doing something new and surprising in the present is also not acceptable to me. I reject the notion that recent ideas have a greater impact on our understanding of the Bible than earlier times. Furthermore, it is unacceptable to challenge the authority and relevance of the scriptures because they are based on past events.

It sounds like we agree on at least some things, then.

Throughout history, mankind has remained unchanged, and therefore, the scriptures are as relevant today as they were yesterday.

God is unchanging. Mankind... nah, we change all the time. Sometimes for the better, sometimes for the worse.

Where does Paul and Aristotle overlap?

Aristotle wrote a 1000-page tome (De Anima) that is an exploration of the ideas of soul and spirit, the higher and lower nature of a man, and how these interact with the body/flesh. Paul writes about the same thing, and when he does, he uses the same words as Aristotle - psuchikos and pneumatikos and sarx - and he uses Aristotle's definitions for them. Paul was very educated; this shouldn't be surprising.

I think they have different metaphysics. Paul understood, and I believe him, that God creates everything; Aristotle was looking for a cause in nature.

They don't come to the same conclusions.

Aristotle seeks to classify... for him, people are higher than animals because they have a higher nature (spirit) that moves them. And, some people are better than others because they act out of their intellect/spirit rather than their baser instincts/soul. (Also, I tapped out of that book about halfway through and used the Cliff's notes... not exactly a page-turner).

Paul recognizes both the higher and lower nature in all men. But his focus is behavioral... he's telling the churches to shape-up, and use their heads!

 

[St. SteVen]

I do follow Jesus. And this is why I know you are taking his words out of context to deflect the conversation away from the truth. Jesus talking about condemning people to hell. He certainly wasn't advocating for foolishness or a lack of discernment. He wants me to discern the false teacher from the true teacher.

Jesus taught us to love our enemies.
Does he operate under a lower standard than he holds us to?
Or perhaps we should incinerate our enemies in a fit of unbridled rage to follow his example?

/

 

[Illuminator]

The argument in support of the ECF's reliability is based on the assumption that they are trustworthy sources of information due to their proximity in time and location to the Apostles. However, I disagree with this assumption since the New Testament epistles were written to people who were even closer in time and location than the ECF's, yet these earlier Christians still required Apostolic correction. Therefore, proximity alone cannot guarantee reliability.

I believe that the Early Church Fathers (ECF) made mistakes because they interpreted the Apostolic writings based on the philosophy of Greek philosophers like Plato and Philo. Today, we still struggle with the consequences of those mistakes as we work hard to undo the false doctrines passed down from the ECFs.

I have found that It is easier and less work to study the writings of the Apostles myself and learn directly from them.

The so-called Early Church Fathers weren't actually Fathers and these men have nothing to offer me.

It was the ECF who canonized the inspired books into what we have today, THE BIBLE! So your disdain for them is stupid and self-defeating.

 

[CadyandZoe]

Mankind... nah, we change all the time.

Not fundamentally. If the Bible says Jesus cried, I know what that means because I have sometimes been sad. Mankind has not changed at all from what I can see.

Sometimes for the better, sometimes for the worse.

Aristotle wrote a 1000-page tome (De Anima) that is an exploration of the ideas of soul and spirit, the higher and lower nature of a man, and how these interact with the body/flesh. Paul writes about the same thing, and when he does, he uses the same words as Aristotle - psuchikos and pneumatikos and sarx - and he uses Aristotle's definitions for them. Paul was very educated; this shouldn't be surprising.

While they write about the same things, they don't treat them the same. I don't think Paul uses Aristotle's definitions for body or soul or spirit.

Paul recognizes both the higher and lower nature in all men. But his focus is behavioral... he's telling the churches to shape-up, and use their heads!

I don't see Paul recognizing a higher and lower nature.

 

[CadyandZoe]

Jesus taught us to love our enemies.
Does he operate under a lower standard than he holds us to?
Or perhaps we should incinerate our enemies in a fit of unbridled rage to follow his example?

/

What's your point? You ask a lot of questions that are meant to deceive.

 

[CadyandZoe]

It was the ECF who canonized the inspired books into what we have today, THE BIBLE! So your disdain for them is stupid and self-defeating.

The ECF's asked the question, "What writings have we always accepted as being from an Apostle?" This is an entirely different question than answering "what does it mean?"

 

[St. SteVen]

What's your point? You ask a lot of questions that are meant to deceive.

I'll talk s l o w e r so you can understand.

Yes, or no?
Jesus taught us to love our enemies. - Yes, or no?
Jesus operates under a lower standard than he holds us to. - Yes, or no?
We should incinerate our enemies in a fit of unbridled rage to follow his example . - Yes, or no?

/

 

[Wick Stick]

While they write about the same things, they don't treat them the same. I don't think Paul uses Aristotle's definitions for body or soul or spirit.

No disrespect, but if you haven't even read one of them... how are you qualified to compare the two?

I don't see Paul recognizing a higher and lower nature.

Really? It's a major theme in several of his epistles. For instance...

1Corinthians 15:39-50 All flesh [is] not the same flesh: but [there is] one [kind of] flesh of men, another flesh of beasts, another of fishes, [and] another of birds. 40 [There are] also celestial bodies, and bodies terrestrial: but the glory of the celestial [is] one, and the [glory] of the terrestrial [is] another. 41 [There is] one glory of the sun, and another glory of the moon, and another glory of the stars: for [one] star differeth from [another] star in glory. 42 So also [is] the resurrection of the dead. It is sown in corruption; it is raised in incorruption: 43 It is sown in dishonour; it is raised in glory: it is sown in weakness; it is raised in power: 44 It is sown a natural body; it is raised a spiritual body. There is a natural body, and there is a spiritual body. 45 And so it is written, The first man Adam was made a living soul; the last Adam [was made] a quickening spirit. 46 Howbeit that [was] not first which is spiritual, but that which is natural; and afterward that which is spiritual. 47 The first man [is] of the earth, earthy: the second man [is] the Lord from heaven. 48 As [is] the earthy, such [are] they also that are earthy: and as [is] the heavenly, such [are] they also that are heavenly. 49 And as we have borne the image of the earthy, we shall also bear the image of the heavenly. 50 Now this I say, brethren, that flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God; neither doth corruption inherit incorruption.