Materialists

This I would be interested in hearing more about. If I remember right the Athanasians (sic?) did kill of some of the Arians. But it's been so long that I cannot remember...

 

While it's true that the gnostic "Christians" can be traced back very early in church history, I want to point out a few of their teachings. I am doing this not because I think that you are unfamiliar with them, but to make a point at the end:

1. The virgin birth and resurrection of Jesus were not literal, physical events but representations of higher truths. (The Gospel of Philip)
2. Jesus was a spirit being who only appeared human. He did not suffer pain, die on the cross or rise from the dead. (The Coptic Apolcalypse of Peter)
3. Creation is evil. Most gnostics taught that the God of the Old Testament, who created the world, is not the Supreme Being. Instead he is a less god and everything he created is evil. (Testimony of Truth, for example, portrays the creator as a villain and The Gospel of the Egyptians says that one should "trample the shameful garment", i.e. the body which was regarded as inferior or even evil.)
4. Jesus speaks of illusion and enlightenment not sin and repentance. Jesus is more of a guide than an Savior. (The Gospel of Thomas)
5. There is knowledge available to immature outsiders (ordinary Christians) and esoteric knowledge available only to insiders (the gnostics). (The Gospel of Philip) The Epistle to the Apostles explains that Jesus provided secret, true teachings to the followers that differed significantly from his standard, public teaching.
6. Gnostics taught that once the student could become the master, i.e. equal with Jesus once he or she achieved spiritual understanding. (The Gospel of Thomas for example has Jesus saying: "I am not your master...He who will drink from my mouth will become as I am: I myself shall become he, and the things that are hidden will be revealed to him.")
7. The goal is to know oneself. (The Gospel of Thomas has Jesus saying, "The kingdom of God is within you and outside of you: once you come to know yourselves, you will become known.")

Here's my point: like the extrabiblical writings of Joseph Smith, these have much more in common with Eastern thought and the occult. In other words, these teachings clearly contradict what is today regarded as New Testament canon.

Would you not agree that the gnostic presentation of the gospel was SO different that it required a choice? You could not really live in both worlds - the views are simply too contrasting...

 

I agree that most Christians have no idea about the many choices that had to made over several centuries as to what was in canon and what was not in canon, namely the Old Testament apocrypha, New Testament apocrypha, gnostic gospels and even certain books that ended up in the canon such as James, II Peter and II/III John.

But I don't understand your point about the consensus being "weak"?

 

I am assuming that you're talking about the Old Testament Apocrypha since you mentioned the Catholics several times. (Plus, in my opinion the New Testament Apocrypha with a couple of exceptions is so inferior as to not even warrant consideration.)

The OT Apocrypha is again imo of little practical apologetic potency for this simple reason: they simply do not add/subtract or even challenge any major (or semi-major) doctrines. Let me ask you this: if I shoved these books into my Bible, how it would change my faith or practice? I don't know of anything that it would change.

 

And I think, not to offend any Catholics on board, that "common sense" can eliminate these books anyway. Here's some of the basic reasons that Protestants have chosen to ignore them:

1. These books were never included in the Hebrew canon.
2. Josephus limited Jewish canon to 22 books (i.e. our current 39 books).
3. As far as is known, no Jewish community ever accepted OTA.
4. Jesus and apostles never cited Apocrypha yet often cited Hebrew canon.
5. Jesus in Luke 24:44 speaks of "the law of Moses and the prophets and the psalms." This undoubtedly corresponds to our divisions of the Law, the Prophets and the Writings.
6. Other great Jewish and Christian leaders including Philo, Josephus, the Jamnian Jewish Council (AD90), Origen, Jerome did not include OTA. (Jerome in particular was very outspoken about it.)
7. Great portions of the books are legendary and fictitious and often contain historical, chronological and geographical errors.
8. In Judith Holofernes is described as being the general of "Nebuchadnezzar who ruled over the Assyrians in the great ciyt of Nineveh" Actually, Holofernes was a Persian general and, of course, Nebuchadnezzar was ruler of Babylon. The book has other mistakes as well. Plus, Judith advocates doing evil to achieve good.
9. I Maccabess has historical mistakes.
10. Tobit, like Judith, records a number of errors.
These books also abound with exaggerated exploits, fanciful stories and fiction.
11. Baruch pretends to have been written by Jeremiah's companion during the Babylonina exile but was actually written much later.

 

Well, I agree that it is more involved than is generally known in the Christian community. And I also admit that, for example, some early churches included a few of the New Testament Apocrypha in their "approved" list, etc.

But, again, I still think that this is of little practical apologetic value, because there are only two general kinds of materials for Christians to have considered adding to what has become our standard canon:

1. Material that is blatantly contradictory to standard doctrine.
2. Materials that have little to no impact to standard faith and practice (and generally are late dated and error-ridden).

But let me know if you disagree...

 

Btw, I hope that the term Old Testament is not offensive. I certainly don't mean it that way. I just don't know what other term to use...

 

Yes, the differences between Catholics and evangelicals have, as far as I know anyway, nothing to do with the OT Apocrypha.

And as far as calling the papacy "the work of Satan", I can only tell you that the great majority of Christians that I know definitely do not feel that way.

I grew up and went to college in New Mexico and most of my closest friends were Catholic. I can tell you that I have no issues with their faith (of those that were Christian of course).

Now I do have to admit that if they were a "third world" Catholic that was burning votive candles and believed Mary and saying the Rosary was going to save them, then yes we would have some fundamental differences. But, again, I don't know any Catholics whose doctrine is that far out there to where I don't feel comfortable with their faith...

 

Again, I hang around evangelicals all the time and I don't know one of them that think that the Roman Catholic system is satanic in any way. Most of them would laugh at such a characterization...

I'm afraid that once again the liberal media has taken the extreme element in a movement and projected it as normative.