Paul: What Were His Churches, Really?
Vložit
- čas přidán 25. 05. 2024
- Saint Paul: many think they rightly understand him. Do they? Who was Paul in relation to the Jesus Movement? What exactly were the churches he established? And what does it mean to claim that Paul and his circle belonged to "the second generation"?
#jesus #bible #christianity #gospel
Thank you for this. Great video! Very informative.
Very informative , keep it up!, and outro rap beat is absolutely based! Jesus is King☦️
All personal opinions, being portrayed as facts. Not really backed up by anything.
Personal opinion? Or scholarly research?
What is your justification for marginalizing scholarly results as being mere opinion? You aren't watching these presentations correctly given your conclusion.
A couple questions I have. I have never heard the term "sky-vault" where kingdom of heaven would be. Where can I learn more about that? Also, I never knew that Paul had disputed letters, is that because of different writing styles in the texts?
Thank you for engaging! When I have some time later today, I will go into why scholars doubt that the historical Paul wrote all the documents attributed to him found in the New Testament.
Here is a presentation on Biblical cosmologies and the sky-vault/s. Sources are included.
czcams.com/video/6i7SR81uJOI/video.html
Want to see what the early church was really like? Go to an Orthodox Christian church, unchanged since its establishment, where the books of the Bible were used before the Bible.
If you read the Church Fathers, (so venerated by the modern Orthodoxy), you'd find many of them teaching a "protestant" understanding of Justification by Faith alone, the Lord's Supper, etc, and you'd also find others teaching a more "Catholic" and a more "Orthodox" understanding of them too. That's why I think a more humble acceptance of each other is wiser than smugly thinking that 'my group' is the authentic Church and the others are Heretics.
This ^. Wisdom... be attentive!
Absolutely not. You do not know the cult of Eastern Orthodoxy. I grew up in it. It is rife with idolatry, necromancy, iconolatry, mariolatry, the blasphemous cannibalistic recrucifying of Christ with the damnable doctrine of transubstantiation, pridefulness, and ignorance of God's Word.
hear ye hear ye. todays story is about paul. come back in the morrows to hear about, peter n mary n joshua n of course jesus n moses the superstars
The bit about not calling Paul and other first-century followers "Christian" because it's akin to the n word seems a stretch. "Little Christ", even if used mockingly, is still a tremendous honor. We've just lost sight of the value of the title. Messianist or whatever is nearly the same thing (equiv. Greek would be… what, Christist?)
I don't have the capacity to argue the letters you're claiming came after Paul died, so I'll leave it at "I disagree."
Then you disagree with the overwhelming majority of biblical scholars about Paul's letters.
@@erichwentz2866 bet
@@AdamLeis bet what ? Is that slang for something. No offense, but I'm old and don't know modern slang.
@@erichwentz2866 oh, yes, forgive the slang please. Its an acceptance to a challenge. I'm going to hunt down more scholarly articles of authorship of the NT epistles in an attempt to weigh out your assertion that the "overwhelming majority" of modern scholars think Paul didn't write those letters. (I obviously don't have the capacity to evaluate the accuracy of 51%+ scholars holding that position, but if I find from my research a large volume of writings, I'll be swayed.)
Let's define "scholarly." Scholarly positions get expressed by reputable SCHOLARS, people who produce a body of articles meeting the publishing standards of the professional biblical journals. Not hit best sellers, or 10 million views. Or they are people whose books have been reviewed favorably in such journals by other SCHOLARS. It is not sufficient, therefore, that someone with a biblical or theological degree and/or teaching position in biblical studies or theology express and defend “Opinion X” for that point of view to be SCHOLARLY. So when you count your scholars, do so prudently, because Professor Jim over at the HOLY LAND theme park is not a Biblical scholar no matter how many fundamentalists are deluded into thinking he is.
There are both NONSCHOLARLY conservatives and NONSCHOLARLY liberals. Don’t count them.
The Orthodox church
"MY CHURCH IS THE BEST!"
Wow, I've never heard a Christian say that before!
2:30 - 2:51
I can see why you call it anachronistic, but I respectfully disagree with your analogy that referring to Paul and the other Apostles as "Christians" today is as disrespectful as referring to pre-American-Civil-War African slaves by the N-word would be today.
The reason for this is that the N-word today remains a hateful slur, whereas "Christian" simply is not a slur anymore. No one - not a single person - who calls Paul an "early Christian" today is intending to disrespect Paul. Wrong, maybe, but NOT disrespectful. Whereas I would not assume the same of someone who called African slaves by the N-word, because in my society, (basically) anyone who uses that word is thereby INTENDING to signal malice and contempt.
For the overwhelmingly majority of people, I think it's okay for them to be "a little bit wrong" on minor details like this, since the distinction between "Christian" and "Messianist" pretty much only really matters when getting into serious scholarship. They have to be really into theology and/or Biblical archaeology for this distinction to even begin to matter. (And of course, people who are into theology and Biblical archaeology are your target audience, so it makes sense for YOU to be careful with this distinction.)
But to accuse everyone else of actively being disrespectful to the venerable Saints (by suggesting they are referring to the Saints with all the disdain that would be implied of calling someone by the N-word) is a pretty serious charge, and I think an unjust one, simply because of what the title "Christian" has come to mean today.
I think it really helped my ability to be a Christlike when I learned to accept that some people will simply never be as into theology and philosophy as I am, and that that's okay.
Thank you for your reply. We disagree. Anachronism is never okay. But it sure happens a lot!
These presentations are meant for everyone. A whole lot of nonscholarly people right now think terrible thoughts via anachronism. They think, for example, that first-century people who condemned Jesus were Jewish, the same like Jewish people they know. And they use this anachronism for "theological justification" to genocidally hate Jewish people. No, that's not okay.
And others think, via anachronism, that Palestinians are the modern representation of the "Sons of Amalek" and the Philistines, and find "biblical" and "theological justification" for genocidal hatred against Palestinians. No, that's not okay either.
I am not saying YOU do that, but plenty of nonscholarly, regular people do. It needs to stop.
FORGERIES ?!?!!?!?! This is blasphemy
No, nothing so fancy as that. It's just facts.
As Context Group scholars Bruce Malina and John Pilch explain in their SOCIAL-SCIENCE COMMENTARY ON THE DUETERO-PAULINE LETTER, "A forgery is any piece of writing, according to the intention of its producer(s), that purports to be something other than what it really is. Two key elements of a forgery are: effacement of the document’s real identity, and the intention of the forger to deceive. Thus 2 Thessalonians may not have been directed to the Jesus-group(s) in Thessalonica at all. It may well have been directed to second Pauline generation Jesus-groups [i.e., Third Wave/Generation since the Jesus Movement] who were upset and confused by Paul’s unexpected death. He assured them that he would be alive when Jesus returned (1 Thessalonians 4:15; 1 Corinthians 15:51). However, Paul died, and Jesus has not returned. Thus, 2 Thessalonians may be a circulatory letter addressed to many Jesus-groups, all of whom could identify with Thessalonica. It was indeed the intention of the letter writer (not Paul) to deceive the recipients into thinking that Paul wrote the letter."
Being inspired (which does not mean "God-dictated") or canonized doesn't guarantee that the historical Paul actually wrote the document that bears his name.
Sure, in our Christian Tradition, "2 Thessalonians" and the other nonauthentic letters of Paul have been dubbed Deutero-Paulines (secondary Paulines). And we have Old Testament documents written in the name of another, better-known person, called called pseudepigrapha. As Malina and Pilch explain, "A pseudepigraph is a book or writing bearing a false title or ascribed to a writer other than the genuine one. For nonfundamentalists, the five books of Moses in the Bible (the Torah) are pseudepigrapha. They were written by Persian scribes for immigrants to the Persian colony, Yehud."
So does the fact that OTHER AUTHORS, pretending to be Paul or writing in his name the documents we call "2 Thessalonians," "Colossians," "Ephesians," "Titus," "1 Timothy," and "2 Timothy" make them invalid as Scripture? Not at all. Malina and Pilch continue: "Validity has to do with an authorizing authority. For the Torah, a Persian-appointed high priest or court prophet was the authorizing authority. For Pauline letters, the Jesus-groups that agreed with the letters and kept them as special or normative in some way were the authorizing authority. Jesus-groups preserved the letters not because they considered them 'authentic,' that is, truly written by the reputed author, but rather because the documents had authority to deal with relevant problems of the group. They were authorized, and that made them authentic."
When first, second, and third century Jesus-group people heard "authentic" they understood by that AUTHORIZED and ACCEPTED by the respected authority in their Jesus-group. That's not what we 21st-century Western people mean by "authentic" -- we mean "genuine." As Pilch and Malina convincingly show, “authentic” signifying “genuine” was a much later development of the word.
The first generation follows Jesus as a Hebrew Messiah. And they do follow Jewish laws. Jesus doesn’t fulfill the Jewish scriptures of being the Messiah. Second generation invent the basis of a different religion that doesn’t fulfill not the rules of Judaism nor the existence of a Messiah that Jesus is not. Later that religion is converted into Roman practices and Greek practices of worship so you get Catolic church witch is almost all based on Roman worship or the Orthodox end other eastern churches with mostly Greek and other influences of the Roman way of worship.
Brother, you are repeating a lot of platitudes and opinions that lack proper context and supporting evidence. If you're not going to present Christianity fairly, don't call this video "education." Call it "speculation."
Help me out, brother. List the so-called opinions and "platitudes" I'm leaving unsupported without evidence or good reason. I give my sources. Or is just that you dismiss what you don't already agree with?
This video is about Paul and his life and mission. Paul wasn't an adherent of Christianity (325 CE and later). For education to work, it takes at least two to tango. Both dancers need to be open to it.
Reducing what is presented here as mere "speculation" is dishonest. And scholarly opinion does not equal mere opinion.
@@BibleAlivePresentations Of course, brother. I'm more than happy to have a friendly discussion. I'm personally biased towards the dogmas of the Eastern Orthodox Church, since I'm a catechumen in their church. I mention that fact because I want you to be aware of my personal biases.
1) You say that Jesus came to preach the message that the "God of Israel would soon establish Israelite theocracy," citing Mark 1:15, Matthew 4:17, and Luke 4:42-44. Technically, you're correct. However, I'm not sure that your viewers will walk away with a proper impression of Jesus' message. You seem to be saying that Jesus came to announce that the God of Israel would soon establish a dictatorship, like a cosmic Kim Jong Un. However, Jesus was speaking about something much, much more nuanced and lofty than that. Look at Matthew 5:8, where Jesus says "blessed are the pure in heart, for they shall see God." Jesus wasn't strictly talking about an Earthly kingdom (John 18:36, Matthew 22:15-21). He was talking about a new reality, where the pure of heart will come to see God face to face. The Kingdom of Heaven is the reunification of Earth (the material universe) and Heaven (the domain of God). In the verses you cite, Jesus tells people "repent, for the Kingdom of Heaven is at hand", because His arrival onto Earth is moment that Heaven and Earth begin to reunite with each other (since Jesus is fully God and fully human). Earth and Heaven separated from each other during the Fall due to man's sin (Book of Genesis), and they will be fully reunited with the 2nd Coming of Christ (Book of Revelation). I'm aware that I'm highly oversimplifying. However, I think that the explanation I've given does a far better job than yours at giving a more honest portrayal of Jesus' message.
2) You're correct that the term "Christian" was originally a slur. However, it doesn't really make sense to say that we shouldn't call the original followers of Jesus "Christians." It's clear that the followers of Jesus quickly embraced the label of "Christians," as evidenced by the fact that Saint Ignatius of Antioch, a direct disciple of the Apostle John, said "I pray that I may not only be called a Christian, but be found as one" (Ignatius' Epistle to the Romans 3:2). Another disciple of the Apostle John, Saint Polycarp, confessed "hear me declare with boldness, I am a Christian" on the eve of his martyrdom (Martyrdom of Polycarp Chapter 10).
3) It is disingenous to say that the Trinity is a late doctrine that comes from the "4th and later centuries." It's true that the Bible doesn't contain the word "Trinity", but the early Church Fathers (czcams.com/video/O_2iYSyus5I/video.htmlsi=rS64zQYuRYV82s9R) all taught the doctrine of the Trinity. The New Testament (czcams.com/video/OaXjVU05odE/video.html) teaches the Trinity. And you could make an extremely good case that even the Old Testament (czcams.com/video/BNt5NKSse0Y/video.htmlsi=FZJwOvCwtFffc5Hd) teaches the Trinity.
4) Your distinction between a "First Wave" of Jesus followers and a "Second Wave" under the leadership of Saint Paul is arbitrary. Saint Paul collborated with and knew Jesus' direct disciples.
5) I'll concede that Hebrews is an anonymous book. However, it's dishonest to state that Ephesians, Colossians, 2 Thes, 1 Tim, 2 Tim, and Titus are definitive "forgeries". This brief article will break the ice on this discussion: www.craigladams.com/archive/files/nt-wright-on-pauline-authorship.html
6) Why do you say that Romans "isn't a doctrinal letter at all?" That's a strange point.
“Of course, brother. I'm more than happy to have a friendly discussion. I'm personally biased towards the dogmas of the Eastern Orthodox Church, since I'm a catechumen in their church. I mention that fact because I want you to be aware of my personal biases.”
May God bless your journey! I share your joy from the Western Lung. And I respect that you saying what you have about your biases-we all have them.
“1) You say that Jesus came to preach the message that the "God of Israel would soon establish Israelite theocracy," citing Mark 1:15, Matthew 4:17, and Luke 4:42-44. Technically, you're correct.”
I would say historically correct. By the way, what I am doing here is not theology or catechesis. This is culturally-informed, historically-critical exegesis and study. I am not at all opposed to critical reflection of the faith-theology-mind you! But that’s not what BIBLE ALIVE PRESENTATIONS does except on rare occasions where it will be explicitly stated as such.
“However, I'm not sure that your viewers will walk away with a proper impression of Jesus' message. You seem to be saying that Jesus came to announce that the God of Israel would soon establish a dictatorship, like a cosmic Kim Jong Un.”
I appreciate you say “seems”-but I am not describing the Theocracy, and if I were to, I would never do so with North Korea in mind. I don’t favor theocratic rule-but I don’t think anything related to North Korea and its dictatorship would be a fitting analogy. Iran would be a much closer parallel if I was pressed into making a comparison with Jesus’ project and 20th/21st-century regimes, but the comparison would still be far, far apart on many levels.
However, all that being said, it is important to understand that “freedom” in what Christians refer to as both Old and New Testaments is always and without exception “freedom to SERVE.”
Biblical (ancient Israelite) freedom is unlike the way our 21st-century Western cultures understand and express freedom. While synonymous with liberty, freedom in the biblical sense is specifically the freedom of the Israelite group and its members not to be under the dominion of any other group and directed to the service of God. That last part is the key. Biblical “freedom” means political freedom maintained by and in the service of God, the God of Israelites. In the entire library of Sacred Scripture, the Exodus (“bringing out”) story articulates this political concept best. Here a group of Hebrews in Egyptian bondage (Exodus 2:23;6:5-9) are delivered by their ancestral patron God. Sending a message to the Egyptian Pharaoh through his spokesmen, Moses and Aaron, this God commands: “Let my people go, that they may hold a feast to me in the wilderness” (Exodus 5:1); or more usually, Moses alone: “The Lord, the God of the Hebrews, sent me to you, saying, ‘Let my people go, that they may SERVE ME in the wilderness’” (Exodus 7:16 and repeatedly: 8:1, 20, 21; 9:1, 13; 10:3). Subsequently. the Israelite group is “brought out” by its ancestral God from bondage for the service of this God. The “bringing out” is a “redemption” (Deuteronomy 7:8; 13:5), i.e. an action that restores the honor of a group by restoring its proper social status. Because of the Exodus narrative, biblical freedom ( = to serve God) becomes a core value in the Scriptures. It is a LIMITED FREEDOM lacking submission to alien peoples defined by the goal of this group freedom. The goal? To serve the God of Israelites.
How different from Biblical freedom is our Western and American understanding of freedom! The Bible reflects the Mediterranean understanding of freedom, contrasting powerfully with that of American freedom, viewed as “freedom from obstacles,” or freedom from external forces. Whether conservative or progressive, the tendency in U.S. religion is to produce a God-symbol that limits God so that Americans might be totally unlimited. We are socialized that unlimited freedom is our symbolic birthright, so any God we will believe in and accept MUST be on board with that idea, or forget it! Thus, any HONEST discussion of New Testament freedom-in THEOCRATIC RULE-must take this serious contrast into consideration. This is because our understanding of freedom is so different that that of the “New Exodus” freedom of Jesus demanding his followers to choose to live under the right set of both internal and external restraints with particular emphasis on duty to neighbor as demanded by subjection to God in Messiah Jesus-THEOCRACY.
We don’t like Theocracy over here in the West. Therefore we remake Jesus in our image because we simply refuse to accept any Jesus that will not buy our cultural values. That’s true for “O” Orthodox over here btw, just like “C” Catholics, Anglicans/Episcopalians, and Protestants.
“However, Jesus was speaking about something much, much more nuanced and lofty than that. Look at Matthew 5:8, where Jesus says "blessed are the pure in heart, for they shall see God."
Here is a link that goes further into who Jesus is and how we can know:
czcams.com/video/B3VztTzftaA/video.html
Here is another link that explains the Matthean interpretation of “Q” sermonic material called “The Sermon on the Mount.”
czcams.com/video/RiLwdbIdp6M/video.html
"Jesus wasn't strictly talking about an Earthly kingdom (John 18:36, Matthew 22:15-21). He was talking about a new reality, where the pure of heart will come to see God face to face. The Kingdom of Heaven is the reunification of Earth (the material universe) and Heaven (the domain of God)."
You are mixing up "John" with the Synoptics. That's really a bad habit we Christians must kick.
"In the verses you cite, Jesus tells people "repent, for the Kingdom of Heaven is at hand", because His arrival onto Earth is moment that Heaven and Earth begin to reunite with each other (since Jesus is fully God and fully human). Earth and Heaven separated from each other during the Fall due to man's sin (Book of Genesis), and they will be fully reunited with the 2nd Coming of Christ (Book of Revelation). I'm aware that I'm highly oversimplifying. However, I think that the explanation I've given does a far better job than yours at giving a more honest portrayal of Jesus' message.
"Heaven" is a great word and important for our theologies, liturgies, prayers, and Christian language. But never English translations of the Bible. When Christians speak of "heaven," they often refer to the eternalized relationship and final beatitude between the saved and God. That is true! But that is not the proper translation of the Hebrew שָׁמַיִם (šāmayīm) or Aramaic šemayīn, or the Greek οὐρανοί (ouranoi). These all translate properly to SKY-VAULTS.
So Genesis 1:1 actually reads:
In the beginning, Elohim created the SKY-VAULTS and the earth.
Matthew 6:9
Our Patron in SKY-VAULT (Πάτερ ἡμῶν ὁ ἐν τοῖς οὐρανοῖς)
Matthew 5:16
Just so, your light must shine before others, that they may see your good deeds and glorify your SKY-VAULT Patron (πατέρα ὑμῶν τὸν ἐν τοῖς οὐρανοῖς)
Matthew 7:21
“Not everyone who says to me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter the kingdom of SKY-VAULT (τὴν βασιλείαν τῶν οὐρανῶν), but only the one who does the will of my Patron in SKY-VAULT (πατρός μου τοῦ ἐν τοῖς οὐρανοῖς).
According to the Oxford English Dictionary, the word "heaven" first appeared in eleventh-century translations of the Bible (Genesis 1:1, translating hashamayim), but its ulterior etymology is unknown.
In the various theologies of the Bible, "heaven" refers either to the physical sky above the earth (but seen through ancient, pre-scientific cosmologies) or to the realm of God beyond the vault of the sky.
In later theology, heaven usually refers to the eternal destiny and destination of believers, the ultimate goal of human existence.
Look here:
czcams.com/video/6i7SR81uJOI/video.html
"2) You're correct that the term "Christian" was originally a slur. However, it doesn't really make sense to say that we shouldn't call the original followers of Jesus "Christians." It's clear that the followers of Jesus quickly embraced the label of "Christians," as evidenced by the fact that Saint Ignatius of Antioch, a direct disciple of the Apostle John, said "I pray that I may not only be called a Christian, but be found as one" (Ignatius' Epistle to the Romans 3:2). Another disciple of the Apostle John, Saint Polycarp, confessed "hear me declare with boldness, I am a Christian" on the eve of his martyrdom (Martyrdom of Polycarp Chapter 10)."
We can debate whether of not Ignatius of Antioch was a "direct disciple of John, son of Zebedee -- more and more scholars place Ignatius in the 140s. And Christianity is not the term being used, especially not in the Nicene sense.
Magnesians 10:1
Let us, therefore, not be unreasonable to his goodness. For if God should imitate our actions, we are destroyed. On this account, becoming his disciples, let us learn to live according to the CUSTOMS OF THE CHRIST-LACKEYS (Χριστιανισμὸν). For he who is called by any other name than this is not of God.
It's important to note the difference between the terms Ignatius employs Χριστιανισμὸν/Χρῑστῐᾱνισμός (Magnesians 10:1; Romans 3:3; Philadelphians 6:1) which should not be translated as "Christianity" (although this anachronistic misunderstanding often is repeated). Ignatius means the customs and ways of those CALLED Christ-lackeys. Yes, this is an INSIDER step to the transformation of a derogatory slur into an INSIDER honorific, but there were many steps to get there, and by Ignatius' time we are still far from the meaning of Christianity you and I know. Ignatius isn't talking about fourth-century doctrines and practices.
As for martyrdom accounts and hagiographies, they are loaded with devotional freight that is after-the-fact by centuries. The Polycarp proof-text does not disprove the point in my video presentation.
Regarding Trinity (the mystery of three persons in one God), and the Divine Relations of Trinity (i.e., the ordering of the three Persons among themselves according to what constitutes them as three distinct Persons in one God in four distinct relations: paternity, filiation, active, and passive spiration), our Church’s understanding of this Holy and Absolute Mystery evolved over one thousand years of reflection, acrimonious debate, and scholarly reflection. To think that these understandings were ready-made and available for “Matthew” and his community in the poorly translated Matthew 28:19 is like any other fundamentalistic nonscholarly conservative nonsense. And holding, with SOME second-century Jesus-group people (now remembered as "Church Fathers") that God is SOMEHOW three and yet one is not the same thing as later Cappadocian understandings, or having those understandings EXALTED into standard, universal belief, distilled and crystalized.
Yes, for the Christian (we are talking post-Nicene), there is only one God, and that one God is triune. But how? To affirm that Holy and Absolute Mystery called “God” is “triune” with Nicaea ca. 325 (not everybody and Jesus-group at the time jumped on that bandwagon btw) is one thing; but what does it mean and how can it be? You hear no argument from me claiming THAT God is triune is NOT the clear and consistent teaching of the official magisterium of the Church down since 325 CE-THAT God is triune is clearly testified to since Nicaea as the official belief: “one God, the Father almighty…and in one Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God…and in the Holy Spirit.” So also Constantinople (381 CE) again confirmed this official belief, providing us with our so-called Nicene-Constantinopolitan Creed which so many Christians recite weekly. Yes, THAT God is triune is consistently presented as THE official belief for Christians-THAT as opposed to HOW. So HOW is God triune?
WAY later we encounter a group called Albigensians who deemed all matter as evil. Logically, this idea led the Albigensians to logically deny the Incarnation.
Against this heretical group, the Fourth Lateran Council (in 1215) confessed that “there is only one true God…Father, Son, and Holy Spirit: three persons indeed but one essence, substance, or wholly simple nature….” And against certain charges made against Peter the Lombard, the council also taught that “in God there is only Trinity, not a quaternity…”
Then regarding the great schism of East and West, the Second Council of Lyons (1274) and the Council of Florence (1438-1440) both reaffirmed the doctrine of the Trinity. At this point, the belief which is a DOCTRINE, is almost taken for granted! So now the business turns to concentrate instead onto more ecumenically sensitive matters, namely, how the procession of the Holy Spirit works. Is it from the Father THROUGH the Son? Or is it from the Father AND the Son?
Now, after Florence, the doctrine of Trinity (formerly a belief) is now the DOGMA of the Trinity, and is assumed by official church sources. Please note the difference of what had been done before this-a belief intrinsically developed and formally restated! Something new has happened. Yes, the ROOTS of the dogma defined at the Fourth Lateran Council (1215) are to be found at Nicaea (back in 325). But that wasn’t a dogma.
Faith > theologies > beliefs > doctrins/dogmas
Defining something as a dogma is not the same thing as mentioning something in credal statement or baptismal symbol (serious AND SACRED matters to be sure!). The DOGMA explains, clarifies, and defines what is meant sometimes even after centuries of otherwise AMBIGUOUS use. Words only mean what they mean where and when they are used. Move the language, you necessarily change the meaning. Old baptismal symbols mentioning “virgin” get re-contextualized. Father (or Patron?), Son (or Holy Man Broker/Folk-healer?), and a holy wind… and how many winds? How many spirits? Are there not seven spirits before the celestial Throne? Or are there 24 decan constellational elders (other-than-human persons)? Or myriads like ancients saw in the night sky-vaults and experienced personally when falling into trance and visions?
Biblical scholars agree that the theological notion of the Trinity is a later development with roots in Scripture. But let’s trace the theological evolution. Doing so we enter a morass of various disputes all over the first millennium CE. Lex orandi, lex credendi-so liturgists play a role here, and the Benedictine monasteries of the ninth and eleventh centuries were indeed instrumental in promoting liturgical prominence for the Trinity. And the Franciscan Pope John XXII decreed that the Divine Office of the Blessed Trinity should be observed by the entire Church (in 1334).We should not make-believe that these theological movements, often expressed in liturgical development are not important to count.
One church. The catholic one.
The eastern Catholic one. The west has lost the plot.
@katiek.8808 and @AS-np3yq
♫ “My religion is better than YOUR religion!! My religion is better than yours!” ♪
Who is denying the validity of "C" or "c" catholicism as it relates to the worldwide Body of Christ? Who is denying the Eastern or Western lungs? Who is denying the "O" Orthodox, Anglican, Protestant, and ancient Churches of the East?
You do know that individual parishes, a part of a diocese or metropolitan or other such larger group, can be rightfully called "church" yes? Like "St. Agatha Catholic Church" or "St. Sophia Greek Orthodox Church"?
In the same way, in the first-century, you have individual and local Jesus-groups and the "worldwide" Jesus-group or Body of Christ at that time.
@@BibleAlivePresentations I don’t know what any of this rambling means. There is the church and heretics. The Body of Christ is his church. If you are not going to church you are in a cult worshiping a man made God. A part of submission to the Lord is attending his church. Submission is not stomping your feet and starting a new church.
lol
Catholic hahaha that's not the church of the Messiah.
Where is your proof?
Have you got any?
Oh, you don't?
Yet you still want to keep telling lies?
Prove that I am telling lies.
What proof is there that would convince a fundamentalist against his pooled ignorance and sincere stupidity?
How about you define what you mean by ''proof'' first? Huh?
Stop trying to rig the debate, pal. Be honest. THEN we might talk.