Showing posts with label early church. Show all posts
Showing posts with label early church. Show all posts

Monday, November 16, 2015

Review of Iranaeus' The Proof Of The Apostolic Preaching

Subtitled: Towards a much more simple and basic theology
Find it hard to get your head around Calvinism, Armenianism, Original Sin, Predestination and other focal points of Augustinian theology? Try simplifying things by shifting your focus to much earlier in history -- the time of Irenaeus.

Mind you, St. Augustine was a deserving of the honour of sainthood. His dedication and devotion to God are exemplary, and his testimony of his conversion is a great inspiration. The story of his mother's dedication and unceasing prayer is especially inspiring.

But his Bible teaching....?

St. Augustine lived in the fourth century, was heavily influenced by his Greek style education -- though he never learned the Greek language. In other words, he based his theology on the Latin scriptures (with all their translation errors), and used his Greek style reasoning to interpret it. Many of the doctrines that he passed down to us, we are hard put to find in the writings of earlier Church Fathers.

St. Irenaeus, on the other hand, lived in the second century. He was well versed in the Greek scriptures in their original (or closer to the original) texts, but interpreted it in the Hebraic style rather than Greek. In fact, he was the pupil of St. Polycarp, who was the pupil of St.John.

A great piece of work is St. Irenaeus' THE PROOF OF THE APOSTOLIC PREACHING. He goes systematically through what the early believers had received directly from the Apostles. Free will vs determinism wasn't even a question yet. Original Sin isn't mentioned, nor alluded to. Instead, the emphasis is on death and resurrection. Sin -- or disobedience -- resulted in death. Jesus came to bring life, and the resurrection.

Overall, you'll be edified by a challenge to walk the life of faith, worded in the simple language of the earliest believers.

You can read it for free at www.tertullian.org/fathers/irenaeus_02_proof.htm
Or download a copy here: www.ccel.org/ccel/irenaeus/demonstr.html

Monday, June 12, 2006

Relationships -- not something to mess around with

In my last blog entry, I said, "The church is only as strong as the relationship between you, as a believer, and that member of your local congregation to whom you feel the least inclination to express your love." I believe that 100 per cent.

It's quite obvious that our relationships are something we are to take very seriously. Yeshua says in Matthew 5:23 and 24, If you are offering a saccrifice at the alter, and you remember that someone has a grudge against you, then leave your offering, go make up with that person, and then come back and finish the sacrifice.

Consider the expense people went through in Yeshua's day just to comply with the the Torah regulations regarding the offering of their sacrifices at the Temple. It was serious business. It would easily compare with just about anything we'd do in ministry or any form of worship or service we'd do in the church today. Yet, Yeshua says, "Stop. Put it all on hold. Make sure your relationships with your brothers and sisters are right first. Then go ahead with your act of worship/ministry/spiritual obligation."

Yet, look how much priority we give to relationships today. When we hear that brother so-and-so and sister whoever had a falling out, we shrug and say it's none of our business.

That's not how the early church reacted. They took it seriously, as this passage from the Didache indicates. The Didache is like a handbook for doing church, issued towards the end of the first century. It probably dates to before the Gospels began to circulate. The full title of the document is, THE DIDACHE or THE TEACHING OF THE LORD TO THE GENTILES BY THE TWELVE APOSTLES. Anyway, here is a quote from section 14 of that document:
Let no man who has a dispute with his fellow join your assembly until they have been reconciled, so that your sacrifice may not be defiled; for it was this sacrifice that was spoken of by the Lord; "In every place and at every time offer Me a pure sacrifice; for I am a great king, says the Lord, and My name is wonderful among the nations."
What would you think of a church that applied this rule in their congregation today?

Sunday, November 03, 2002

Letter to a Moslem

The following is an answer to an anonymous Moslem who wrote in to the discussion board of Next-Wave. His message was too long to reproduce here, was evangelistic (on behalf of Islam), and was signed, "Your Brother in Humanity". The following with a few edited changes, was a response. I decided to also post this here as an open letter to all Moslems. Footnotes are at the bottom.

MY DEAR BROTHER IN HUMANITY...

I think the only appropriate way for me to begin this is with an apology:
I don't know your background, whether you are from the Middle East, from the Far East, from Central Asia, North Africa or a European who has embraced Islam. You no doubt feel, as I would acknowledge, that your identification with the faith of Islam makes you a son of Ishmail, just as my embracing of faith in Isa* [there are footnotes below], the Word of Allah**, makes me spiritually a son of Isaac.
For myself, I am only a spiritual son, not a natural offspring of Isaac (having come by faith in Isa, not a convert to Judaism). I therefore feel a debt of honour to the physical sons of Isaac and Ishmail. The book of Geneses records blessings for both Ishmail and Isaac. For the gentile nations, to which I belong, no blessing is given at all -- only an opportunity to receive a blessing through the sons of Abraham, as it says, "In you, all the nations of the earth will be blessed", and "I will bless those who bless you, and and curse those who curse you."
I'm afraid that we gentile believers in Isa deserve a curse both for our past and for our present sins against you, the children of Abraham. The Crusades are definitely a blotch on our history. In those dark times, we destroyed whole communities and slaughtered, without mercy, many more Moslems than can even be measured by the recent terrorist attacks. I realise that most Moslems are equally appalled by what happened to the WTC and other attacks, and do not consider terrorism as a good thing, but if that were to be used as a measuring stick, we Christians have still done far more wrong to the Muslim community than the Muslim have, to us.
That is only one example of our past atrocities against the children of Abraham. As for the present: We loudly sing "G-d Save the Queen" at our football matches, and then proceed to bash up anyone supporting the opposite team. We put "In G-d we Trust" on our currency, and with it we finance pornographic and blasphemous films and literature with which we corrupt the rest of the world, including much of the Muslim world.
Although these examples only cover the tip of the iceberg, and my knowledge of history fails me for more, please accept my humble apologies on behalf of the Christian community for our sins. I'm sure other members of this discussion board will also affirm this confession and apology.
Having said that, I must now allude to a point on which your religion doesn't agree -- in which Islam states that no mediator is necessary in order to gain access to Allah. Because of our sins against the rest of humanity, and against the Muslim world in particular, I find I have no choice but to acknowledge our absolute dependence on the intermediary role of Isa, the Word of Allah, in obtaining forgiveness for our sins. In light of what we have done, how we've miss-used the grace of Allah in the past, the only way I feel I can proceed is to humbly acknowledge that it is only because of His mercy that I deserve to be alive, let alone be talking to you. With that in mind please allow me to speak my heart:
HOW WE GOT THIS WAY:
Looking at us now, it's hard to believe that we were, once-upon-a-time, a simple down-to-earth Middle Eastern religion, similar to Islam. In fact, we were not a religion at all, in our own right, but only one of many sects within Judaism. Messiah Isa had revealed Allah to us in a more profound way than we had known Him before, and then, had opened up the way for us to come yet closer to Him -- closer than was possible through simple Torah observance (though we believe that Isa fulfilled the Torah in that regard, so that the final veil between Allah and man was lifted in a way stimulated by the Torah. Thus true Torah observance is the acknowledging of Messiah).
So, we began with a knowledge of Allah as revealed through Isa, Allah's Word.
I think we can be open and honest here. In describing Isa as Allah's Word, of course, I'm simply using a "Islamically Correct" phrase in place of the usual Christian usage, "Son of G-d". Islam states that Allah has no offspring, and no one can be referred to as a son of Allah. Whatever the assumption was, we don't necessarily think of Isa's "Sonship" as being the result of his birth to a human mother. Rather, we see it in the same sense as His being the "Word", spoken by Allah, emanated from Allah in much the same way that the rays of the sun are emanated from the sun itself. If it's only a matter of terminology, I have no trouble on my part in dropping the phrase "Son of G-d", for the sake of this discussion.
In using the analogy of the sun, I think we are on somewhat common ground. The sun, the closest star to earth, is so hot and so full of energy that a human could never even hope to approach it directly. Yet, the rays of the sun are the primary source of sustenance to all life on earth. You have no doubt noticed, in the West, our obsession with turning our skin dark so as to look more like Middle Easterners and North Africans :-) Driven by that, we flock to the beach on our days off, where we can enjoy pure sunlight, so we can come home with darker looking skin. Even though that's as close as we can get to it, we call it being "in the sun".
As the Word of Allah, Isa revealed Him to us in much the same way. In Jewish terminology, He would be the "Shechinah" of Allah, or the "dwelling" of Allah among us. The rabbis speak of the Shechinah of G-d being present among His congregation, or among the two who gather to study Torah, or three who sit to judge, etc. We believe Allah spoke His Word, which emanated to earth in same way as the rays of the sun, and became Shechinah, in the form of a person, Isa.
In those early days, we weren't so intent on defining things, but were content to simply bask in the Shechinah of Allah, in the same way as many today like to bask in the sun. We had come to know Allah as revealed in Isa, and that seemed enough for us, as it should be. As time went on, from being a simple Middle Eastern religion, we began to try to go "up market" by explaining it all to Greek and Roman minds. Oriental religion is of the heart, but Western religion emphasises the mind. We began to search for answers using our heads instead of our hearts, thereby becoming "Westernised". In trying to have it all figured out with our rational minds, and to protect ourselves from a barrage of rational ideas from just about every source imaginable, we came up with creeds. With it, we defined the "Trinity".
To be honest, I do not find any fault with the doctrine of the Trinity*** in and of itself. But I should clarify, the "Trinity" is not about three separate individuals who came together and decided to be "G-d". To me, the word "One" goes much further than the word "Three" in describing Him. It's just that, by offering a scientific sounding definition, people began to depend on what their minds could fathom instead of what their hearts told them. They began to apply it rationally, and began approaching G-d as though there were three gods, or a family of gods. It was very simple matter, then, to add Mary as a fourth member of the "family". That just about describes the state of things when the Prophet Muhammed began his career, so to me it's quite understandable that someone of his calibre would decide to throw out the whole thing and seek to find his revelation directly from Allah Himself. If the word "Son" were to be understood as being a part of a family of gods, then I fully understand the Prophet in his rejection of the idea of Allah having a son.
"One" is an apt description of G-d. If Isa is a part of the G-dhead, then he is inseparable from that oneness. Just as the rays of the sun can't suddenly decide to move to a different part of the universe, and have no more to do with the actual sun -- they would then cease to be rays, or anything for that matter -- so the Word of Allah could never be thought of in isolation of Allah Himself. At the same time, the sun, by its nature, must have rays, or it would become a black hole. Therefore, the sun and its rays are one. The Holy Spirit is the breath of Allah, and the Word is His Shechinah, or radiance. As for His being a person, I would say that Allah can be what He wants. The rabbis say that G-d creates angels, complete with personalities, simply by giving a command, and the angel formed by that command exists for as long as it takes to fulfil that command, and then returns and merges again with the substance of G-d****. Being One G-d isn't about His person-hood, whether one or many, but being One G-d.
The Torah says man is created in G-d's image. I think we could safely say man is a very simplified and abbreviated image of G-d. Man is at his healthiest when he is "one" with himself. Some people are diagnosed with multiple personalities, but such people cannot be described as being "one". Being abbreviated and simplified, that's all man was designed for. Man is limited, but G-d is infinite. Just as the sun is composed of pure energy and too hot and radiant for man to approach any closer than the circle of earth's orbit, so are G-d's ways far above our ways and His thoughts than our thoughts -- so much so that His thoughts could be animated with personalities if He chose. As many of such thoughts G-d would choose to have, they would all agree, as G-d is infinitely "one", far exceeding man's attempts at being "one".
I know you won't agree with most of what I'm saying, but at least I think it's a way of presenting our beliefs in a way that would be of least offence to your sensibilities, and show that Christianity honours Allah as a true expression of monotheism.
As far as I see it, that leaves only one other fundamental area of disagreement: the death of Isa on the cross, and His ressurection*****.
Unlike the issues I've discussed above, this is one that I cannot play down, skirt around, explain away or even apologise for. The "offence of the cross", according to Rabbi Sha'ul, is the offence that defines us. Before the Prophet arrived on the scene, it was already offensive. To the thinking Greeks it was offensive, to the organic Jewish mind it was offensive. Unfortunately, it also offends some of us!
The offence of the cross is the only offence we are allowed (indeed, required) to maintain, but our problem is, we've offended in just about every way BUT that. We've offended you in many ways, so that we now have no choice, before Allah, but to come to you in deep sorrow and repentance. But it is through the cross, our only legitimate offence, that we can, by humbly repenting, receive forgiveness and cleansing from all our other offences that are filthy blotches on our history.
ACTIONS SPEAK LOUDER THAN WORDS
I know that nothing I can say right now can make up for the evil that has been done in the name of Messiah. I can only speak for myself, but others of us continue to offend, with militant, nationalistic, racist attitudes towards the Moslem community, while continuing to flaunt sexual and moral permissiveness in a way that would make most in the Moslem world blush.
Yet, there is so much we could learn from you: your morality, your simple faith, your furverancy, your close family unions, honouring of one another (why, in Afghanistan, which we in the West consider the most "backward" of countries, the traditional family unit is still a remarkably solid foundation for society at large, and an example we should be studying for our own benefit). This is not to mention praying three times a day and fasting one month out of the year. Most of us Christians, if we pray once a day, or fast the whole weekend, we think we've achieved sainthood.
But my personal belief is, we are slowly learning that or own ways have got us nowhere. Our only strength is in the offence of the Cross of Isa, the Messiah. Once we learn to not be offended by that ourselves, but to fully rely on that for our strength, and our way forward -- as we thus learn the humility of Isa -- you will see a profound change in us.
In Isa, the Messiah,
baruch

----------------------------------------

FOOTNOTES:
* "Isa" is simply Arabic for "Yeshua", which is Hebrew for "Jesus". Jesus is believed by Moslems as a prophet, and as Messiah, and the Word of Allah.
** "Allah" is simply Arabic for G-d. Even Christian Bibles in Arabic and in Bahasa-Malayu and other Moslem languages use "Allah" as the generic term for the creator of the universe. The only fundamental difference in Moslem belief is their insistence that Allah cannot have children. I personally believe it is a mistake to insist that the Moslems worship a different god than the Christians.
*** Lest any of this is taken as questioning the doctrine of the Trinity, let me just clarify. What I'm saying is simply this: at that point in history, when we sat down and begin rationalising everything and laying down creeds, we lost our innocence.
At the time, it seemed like a necessary move, both to be able to explain it all to Greek and Roman minds, and to protect ourselves from a host of rationalists who tried to steer everything in a totally different direction (ie. Marcion, Arius of Alexandria, Nestorius and others). What SHOULD we have done? I don't know. I'm not even sure that had I lived then, I would have done any better. Never the less, we lost our innocence
Once we've lost our innocence, it's hard to gain it back again. That's why it would be a mistake, at this point in history, to try to backtrack and UN-docterinalise the trinity.
Instead of trying to UN-do 1800 or so years of ecclesiastical evolution, I'd suggest that the challenge for us now, is to try to see where our original innocence (that we lost) would have taken us, and try to steer a course towards that. That is, simply, a clearer revelation of G-d as revealed in Yeshua/Isa/Jesus.
**** That's not to say Isa is no more than one of many angels created by a command of G-d. As the Word of Allah, He is permanent in the same way as the rays that eternally emanate from the sun are permanently part of the sun.
***** Islam states that though the Jews attempted to crucify Isa, they didn't succeed, as Allah rescued Isa at the last minute, so He didn't die on the cross nor rise from the dead.

Wednesday, February 27, 2002

If It Were'nt for God, I'd be an Atheist

Christmas has come and gone. We had a good time, we put up a tree, bought presents, made sure we got cards to the right people, had friends over and had a time of it.
What was it all for?
Celebration of Christ's birth.
And why do we celebrate Christ's birth on December 25th every year?
Did Jesus ask us to?
That's one of the questions I stick in the same catagory as, why such a big hoopla on January 1st 2000? What's so significant about the anniversary of Jesus turning 3 years old (as the true historical date of His birth is around 4 BC)? And if it was important that we celebrate His birthday, why were we never given an exact date -- other than somebody's arbitrarily picking the date of Winter Solstice (a Roman pagan holiday) for the occasion, and then miss-guessing the year...?
Many believers in Messiah don't celebrate Christmas, and they give excellent reasons for their stand. A couple of them are linked to this web site.
So why, you ask, did we celebrate Christmas?
In my case, as I'm surrounded on every side by wonderful believers in Messiah of the more traditional sort, and as I haven't received a direct personal word from the Lord regarding Christmas, I think that the waves that would result from my refusal to celebrate would be more destructive than creative. Romans 14:5ff is applicable here.
So, we celebrated Christmas simply because everyone else was celebrating, and we didn't want to miss the fun.
Apart from that, it's hard for me to take Christmas very seriously, especially when we're not commanded in the Bible to celebrate it, nor even given enough information on how and when to celebrate it.
Especially when there are a number of feasts that are described in the Bible in great detail with instructions about how and when to celebrate them, that we totally ignore.
Why do we pay so much attention to so-called Christian holidays that the Bible doesn't even mention, and so little attention to the Jewish feasts that are mentioned?
Are we afraid of being 'under the law'?
Then why are we virtually under the law regarding Christmas, Easter and other holidays?
The answer to that is, because of a religious system which, it seems, could go on propagating itself whether God existed or not.
Whether God shows any signs of life or not, hymns are sung and sermons are preached every Sunday, Christmas happens at the end of the year, people get upset when you spell it 'Xmas' because you're 'taking Christ out of Christmas', and the coloured eggs and Easter bonnets come out around April or so.
More Christians are sure of the necessity of celebrating Easter, than are absolutely sure that Jesus did, in fact, die on the cross around 2000 years ago, and rise again three days later.
Is God pleased with a system that can go on without any action on His own part, run by people who aren't 100% sure of the resurrection, and even less sure of the Sinai experience?
Personally, I believe He's more pleased with a self proclaimed Atheist. That's what I understand from Revelation 3:15 anyway. If you can't be hot, it's better to be cold.
Why celebrate the resurrection if one doesn't believe in it? If anything is essential to the Christian message, it's the resurrection of Jesus.
I've told my friends, if you want to stop me being a Christian, all you have to do is prove conclusively that 2000 years ago, Jesus didn't actually and physically die, and then rise again from the dead three days later. In order for us to gain power over sin through the born again experience and be thus enabled to live the Christian life, it was necessary for the death and resurrection to actually happen physically to Messiah. An inspiring story of human goodness triumphing over evil just won't do.
Some of my friends have talked about discoveries that are supposedly suppressed by the Catholic church, such as the actual nature of 'the Holy Grail', or something about a grave somewhere in France closely guarded by the Knights Templar, containing the body of Jesus who actually grew to an old age, or something like that.
My answer is, why suppress it?
If there is proof to the effect that Jesus didn't actually die and rise again from the dead, I want to be the first to know. I could then stop wasting my time with this 'Christianity' thing.
If Jesus is still a corps, then so is all this stuff about 'church' and Christian religion. Moreover, it stinks to high heaven - literally. Religion without a living Lord being the central driving force is a stench in God's nostrils. The only thing that should keep the honest conscientious person around the church scene is the presence of Jesus.
So what would I do if they disproved the resurrection?
Probably convert to Judaism and study to become a rabbi. At least they have a living God. I'd probably go Lubbavitch Chavad. They seem to have the most personal experience of any non-Messianic Jewish group I know of (also linked on this site).
...Unless someone also proved that God didn't actually give the Torah to Moses at Mt. Sinai 1500 years before that -- another vitally important event.
The reason why the death and resurrection of Jesus fits into the scheme of things, is the Exodus and the Sinai experience. That (and perhaps you could add, the call of Abraham) is what set the foundation for the other to happen. The two are what I would call the most important events in history.
What I find remarkable is how both events are recorded.
Even if Moses didn't write the whole Torah, as some claim, someone had the audacity to say, 'All of our forefathers witnessed the Exodus, and heard God's voice thunder from Mt. Sinai, and saw His glory in a cloud over the congregation' (I heard this reasoning from an Orthodox rabbi, by the way).
Why did that take such audacity?
Because anyone who heard or read such a statement could simply go to any corner of Palestine, and asked any elderly gentleman of the Hebrew race, 'Did this really happen to your forefathers?' The answers one would get from the various tribes and villages of Israel would say whether there was substance to what was said or if it was simply a made up story.
If it didn't really happen, it would certainly conflict with their oral tradition.
To try to fabricate a story like the Exodus would be like telling all non-native Americans that their forefathers really arrived in North America on alien spacecraft. Even without school textbooks, most families know how their grandparents or their great grandparents arrived in North America. Some date it all the way back to the Mayflower. Some to the slave ships. Most of them also know which country they originated from, so how could anyone put a story over like that and have it uniformly believed throughout the whole nation?
Apparently someone managed to pull it off in ancient Israel -- either that or God really did appear to them in Sinai.
Regarding the resurrection of Jesus, Paul had the same audacity. He stated in I Corinthians 15 that Jesus, after his resurrection, was seen by 300 people, most of them still alive. All the reader had to do was go and find several of them and ask. Some of the Corinthians, whom he was addressing were beginning to doubt the resurrection, and where there's doubt, someone's bound to check out the source.
So, Paul either knew something, or he was stupid.
So, back to the issue of Christmas, and the other so-called Christian holidays. At least, the Jewish holidays, largely ignored by the Christian community, celebrate the vital role of the Exodus and the Sinai experience, and the actual presence of God in the midst of the congregation of Israel.
What about Easter?
I think we were originally meant to be celebrating Passover, which is the Jewish feast during which Jesus was crucified and resurrected (actually He was resurrected on the feast of First Fruits, a few days after the Passover meal).
But isn't Easter the Christian version of Passover?
No. One of the popes decided that he didn't like the idea of Christians following the Jewish lunar calendar (it was too 'Jewish') and replaced it with that of an nearby date on the solar calendar of what used to be a Roman pagan holiday of - you guessed it - 'Easter'. The thing is, we Christians hated the Jews so much that we'd rather be pagan than Jewish, so that's why we, today, don't celebrate the Lord's resurrection on Passover, but on a pagan holiday, complete with rabbit eggs.
Maybe that's why we ended up with such an empty religion...?