Questioning the origins of Christianity

[lucimay]

CONSTANTINE'S CONVERSION
One of the most surprising Christian heroes in the entire tradition, I think, is Constantine. He is, first of all, a successful general. He is also the son of a successful general and at the head of the army at the West. And he's fighting another successful general, struggling for who is going to be at the top of the heap of the very higher echelons of Roman government. What happens is that Constantine has a vision. Luckily for the Church, there's a bishop nearby to interpret what the vision means. Constantine ends not converting, technically, to Christianity, but becoming a patron of one particular branch of the church. It happens to be the branch of the church that has the Old Testament as well as the New Testament as part of its canon. Which means that since this branch of Christianity includes the story about historical Israel as part of its own redemptive history, it has an entire language for articulating the relationship of government and piety. It has the model of King David. It has the model of the kings of Israel. And it's with this governmental model that the bishop explains the vision to Constantine.

In a sense Constantine becomes the embodiment of the righteous king. And once he consolidates his power by conquering, eventually, not only the West, but also the Greek East where there are many more Christians [who are] concentrated in the cities, which are the social power packets of this culture, [he] is in this amazing position of having a theology of government that he can use to consolidate his own secular power. And it works both ways. The bishops now have basically federal funding to have sponsored committee meetings so they can try to iron out creeds and get everybody to sign up.

CONSTANTINE'S IMPERIAL CHRISTIANITY
One of the first things Constantine does, as emperor, is start persecuting other Christians. The Gnostic Christians are targeted...and other dualist Christians. Christians who don't have the Old Testament as part of their canon are targeted. The list of enemies goes on and on. There's a kind of internal purge of the church as one emperor ruling one empire tries to have this single church as part of the religious musculature of his vision of a renewed Rome. And it's with this theological vision in mind that Constantine not only helps the bishops to iron out a unitary policy of what a true Christian believes, but he also, interestingly, turns his attention to Jerusalem, and rebuilds Jerusalem just as a righteous king should do. But what Constantine does is take the city, which was something of a backwater, and he begins to build beautiful basilicas and architecturally ambitious projects in the city itself. The sacred space of the Temple Mount he abandons. It's not reclaimable. And what he does is [to] religiously relocate the center of gravity of the city around the places where Christ had suffered, where he had been buried, or where he [had] been raised. So that in the great basilicas that he built, Constantine has a new Jerusalem, that's splendid and beautiful and... his reputation as an imperial architect resonates with great figures in biblical history like David and Solomon. In a sense, Constantine is a non-apocalyptic Messiah for the church. ...

The bishops are terribly grateful for this kind of imperial attention. It's not the western Middle Ages. The lines of power are unambiguous. Constantine is absolutely the source of authority. And there's no question about that. But the bishops are able to take advantage of Constantine's mood and his curious intellectual interest in things like Christology and the Trinity and Church organization. They're able to have bibles copied at public expense. They are finally able to have public Christian architecture and big basilicas. So there's a comfortable symbiotic relationship between the empire and the church, one that, in a sense, is what defines the cultural powerhouse of Europe and the West.

it's all Constantine's fault!

[Avatar]

Yeah...and it could as easily have been Mithraicism too...which at the time also used a cross as a symbol. If it had been a priest of Mithras nearby, history may have been very different. (Or maybe not... )

--A

[lucimay]

i like constantine for this one Av.

[rusmeister]

Yeah...and it could as easily have been Mithraicism too...which at the time also used a cross as a symbol. If it had been a priest of Mithras nearby, history may have been very different. (Or maybe not... )

--A

I'd say not.
There are things that can be seen as paralleling Mithraism. There are other things that in no way parallel Mithraism. The likeness are not the whole story, and it is precisely what was different that ensured that Christianity overtook the Roman world, and it was decidedly NOT just because "Constantine told them to". The fact that Christians insistently accepted martyrdom for 300 years is a fact that few really wrap their heads around. It is something that Mithrains did not do, and nobody else did either. It was the thing that made the average person admire the Christians, who had something worth dying for in an age when it seemed like nothing was left worth living for.

The painting of Constantine above (source not indicated) relies heavily on assuming that the faith was a thing to be manipulated from the start - when the Roman emperors had failed to manipulate it for the aforementioned 300 years. It assumes that that one man was the sum of the faith, and pretty much the exclusive representative of it, when in fact there were thousands and thousands of the faithful, and their bishops, all existing before Constantine's rise to power, and again, some of them accepting martyrdom. That picture ignores the essential problem of heresy and what heresy means. I wonder if anybody (who champions such a vision of the early Church)knows what heresy means from inside of a religious structure of doctrine or is aware of the necessity of dogma?

Hi, Soulbiter - on the show you watched, I supposed a lot would depend on who put on the show, and what were their sources of authority. I happen to know of reasonable objections/explanations supporting the ever-Virginity of Mary that ignore nothing from Scripture and are, in fact, directly supported by my experiences abroad as an adult. One direct example that I have to deal with all the time is that in the eastern languages I know of - including (a little) Greek and (a lot of) Russian, the same word is used both for brother or sister and for cousin. I have to go to a good deal of trouble, teaching Russian children English using only English, to make it clear that when I ask them "How many brothers do you have?" they may NOT count cousins. The word "brat" (/braht/) is used equally for both. And that is true for Greek as well, and as far as I know, for Hebrew. Thus, an English-speaker, limited to English only, would conclude from an English translation of Scripture that Jesus had brothers in the English sense, something not necessarily the case at all in the original language. Authorities that assume that English translations "make everything clear" are clearly themselves sadly lacking in authority.

There are other things I could probably comment on, but if many of those posters are no longer here there's probably no point.

[SoulBiter]

Hi, Soulbiter - on the show you watched, I supposed a lot would depend on who put on the show, and what were their sources of authority. I happen to know of reasonable objections/explanations supporting the ever-Virginity of Mary that ignore nothing from Scripture and are, in fact, directly supported by my experiences abroad as an adult. One direct example that I have to deal with all the time is that in the eastern languages I know of - including (a little) Greek and (a lot of) Russian, the same word is used both for brother or sister and for cousin. I have to go to a good deal of trouble, teaching Russian children English using only English, to make it clear that when I ask them "How many brothers do you have?" they may NOT count cousins. The word "brat" (/braht/) is used equally for both. And that is true for Greek as well, and as far as I know, for Hebrew. Thus, an English-speaker, limited to English only, would conclude from an English translation of Scripture that Jesus had brothers in the English sense, something not necessarily the case at all in the original language. Authorities that assume that English translations "make everything clear" are clearly themselves sadly lacking in authority.

There are other things I could probably comment on, but if many of those posters are no longer here there's probably no point.

I figured that was the direction that you would come from because on this show they talked to the orthodox church and thats pretty much what they said.

However the bible speaks quite a few times of Jesus' siblings. In some instances it says Jesus' brothers. And there are a few times where it says Mary the mother of James or Mary the mother of James and Joses.

There is nothing to indicate that Mary remained a virgin after Jesus birth and the fact that she was married would indicate that she would not have remained a virgin.

Whats interesting is the many interpretations of the word 'brother' that are brought out depending on who you want to believe. Even going back to the greek it isnt made clear whether these were brothers, cousins or step children. However just because it doesnt say that she remained a virgin doesnt mean that she did or didnt.

But one of the many things Ive learned over the years is that the church, the rulers of England (king James)spend alot of time and effort to 'interpret the bible' from the answer backwards. They started at the conclusion they wanted and then tried to back into it and even went as far as to re-write things if they didnt agree with it. There were also interpretational differences. Unless you were especially fluent in both languages (the one you are translating from and the one you are translating to) you translate a word improperly that can alter the entire meaning of a sentence.

So I do think that there are some problems with the different versions of the Bible and their translations but I think the crux of the Bible has remained unchanged.

[Orlion]

Whats interesting is the many interpretations of the word 'brother' that are brought out depending on who you want to believe. Even going back to the greek it isnt made clear whether these were brothers, cousins or step children. However just because it doesnt say that she remained a virgin doesnt mean that she did or didnt.

This is an interesting statement, namely because I'm under the impression that Greek was (maybe still is ) a very concise language. My theologian friend often talks about how hard it is sometimes to translate and interpret the Hebrew in the Old Testament because of its vagueness and will often follow the statement with "unlike the Greek in the New Testament, which is pretty clear." However, that's not to say that there aren't some unclear parts, and I'll have to inquire of him on this point.

[Orlion]

Hey ya, Rus! I tend to agree with you, at least in respect to Lucimay's posting. I think it's a fairly simplistic explanation and doesn't take into account that the vast majority of Christians did believe and utilize Old Testament as well as New Testament scripture, not just a "branch." In fact, when whatever council decided on which scripture were canon, most of the books that were widely considered as authentic were included. Some exceptions were the epistles of Clement of Rome, which wasn't included namely because he was not a direct witness of Christ (the rest of the "writers" of the New Testament could have made the claim of seeing Jesus preach, or in the case of Paul, just seeing him). There were some that did not want to include the Hebrew scripture, but they were in the miniority (if I remember correctly ) Gnostics I have a hard time with, since I do not know if they would be technically Christian or not, but that's another debate. Constantine prosecuted these other Christians after he got power and was attempting to unify the Christian church, which leds up to my next point: Why would he want to do that?

There are many different reasons, but one that I find interesting is that the Christian faith had values other religions did not at the time: Christians believed in respecting the laws of the country. As a result, it could be said that having an empire of law-abiding Christians was preferable to the other often chaotic (and possibly fun ) religions at that time.

[rusmeister]

Hi, Soulbiter - on the show you watched, I supposed a lot would depend on who put on the show, and what were their sources of authority. I happen to know of reasonable objections/explanations supporting the ever-Virginity of Mary that ignore nothing from Scripture and are, in fact, directly supported by my experiences abroad as an adult. One direct example that I have to deal with all the time is that in the eastern languages I know of - including (a little) Greek and (a lot of) Russian, the same word is used both for brother or sister and for cousin. I have to go to a good deal of trouble, teaching Russian children English using only English, to make it clear that when I ask them "How many brothers do you have?" they may NOT count cousins. The word "brat" (/braht/) is used equally for both. And that is true for Greek as well, and as far as I know, for Hebrew. Thus, an English-speaker, limited to English only, would conclude from an English translation of Scripture that Jesus had brothers in the English sense, something not necessarily the case at all in the original language. Authorities that assume that English translations "make everything clear" are clearly themselves sadly lacking in authority.

There are other things I could probably comment on, but if many of those posters are no longer here there's probably no point.

I figured that was the direction that you would come from because on this show they talked to the orthodox church and thats pretty much what they said.

However the bible speaks quite a few times of Jesus' siblings. In some instances it says Jesus' brothers. And there are a few times where it says Mary the mother of James or Mary the mother of James and Joses.

There is nothing to indicate that Mary remained a virgin after Jesus birth and the fact that she was married would indicate that she would not have remained a virgin.

Whats interesting is the many interpretations of the word 'brother' that are brought out depending on who you want to believe. Even going back to the greek it isnt made clear whether these were brothers, cousins or step children. However just because it doesnt say that she remained a virgin doesnt mean that she did or didnt.

But one of the many things Ive learned over the years is that the church, the rulers of England (king James)spend alot of time and effort to 'interpret the bible' from the answer backwards. They started at the conclusion they wanted and then tried to back into it and even went as far as to re-write things if they didnt agree with it. There were also interpretational differences. Unless you were especially fluent in both languages (the one you are translating from and the one you are translating to) you translate a word improperly that can alter the entire meaning of a sentence.

So I do think that there are some problems with the different versions of the Bible and their translations but I think the crux of the Bible has remained unchanged.

But again, I know, from personal experience, that that is not the case regarding the Orthodox Church. So again, the question of who put together that program - the information that you get and henceforth assume to be true - arises. It's best when you know the dogmas of the people who are teaching you. There is no such thing as non-dogmatic teaching. A teacher who isn't being dogmatic is simply a teacher who isn't teaching.

On "brothers", et al - it could be suggested that you are starting at the conclusion you want. I've already shared direct experience of eastern languages that force you to seriously consider the question of what exactly translated words mean (and don't see that you have responded to that). It is NOT cut-and-dried simply by reading it - this is a foundational failure of Sola Scriptura - the idea that one can simply pick up the Bible and "figure everything out for themselves" - iow, the Protestants (ultimately) did not "eliminate the Pope" - they made each person their own Pope.

It is true that, if you wish to know anything at all, you must refer to some kind of authority. That is why we refer to Holy Tradition as an Authority that no one can reinterpret as they wish - that all of the hierarchy must abide by and teach - they CAN'T "make up whatever they want" - and when they do, they become heretics or schismatics. That is what passing on the traditions (paradosis) means - to pass down what has been handed down from the beginning. All things that were "added" (even the Epistles were "additions" in a sense) to clarify what was necessary to support the Gospel - the central thing - of Christ crucified and risen. But you have to identify the authority. Some may point to this scholar or that, most tend to have themselves as the authority (while claiming the very Book we dispute about as the authority), others point to something bigger than themselves, as I do. Scripture MUST be interpreted by someone or something, just as a legal document does not "interpret itself" in a court of law.

Mary's ever-virginity is supported by extra-Scriptural Tradition - see 2 Thess 2:15. Martin Luther believed in the ever-virginity of Mary. Ironic that protestants look to him as a hero, but go on to throw him out as an authority, too.

Just trying to point out that, at least, the waters are deeper than you seem to suspect.

[SoulBiter]

But only when you come from a worldview of...

Rule 1 Orthodoxy authority is always correct.
Rule 2 When in doubt refer back to Rule 1

[rusmeister]

But only when you come from a worldview of...

Rule 1 Orthodoxy authority is always correct.
Rule 2 When in doubt refer back to Rule 1

Not at all! Most of what I said there was objective. You can debate my comment on Sola Scriptura, but my comments on the program you got your information from, understanding what words in Scripture mean, identifying what authority is and what your dogma is are all objectively true and hardly debatable. They would remain true whatever your POV was. Your response simply ignores those points. I am a long way from assuming that you accept the truth of what I believe and am trying to come from what we might be able to agree upon and what the roots of disagreement are.

[SoulBiter]

But only when you come from a worldview of...

Rule 1 Orthodoxy authority is always correct.
Rule 2 When in doubt refer back to Rule 1

Not at all! Most of what I said there was objective. You can debate my comment on Sola Scriptura, but my comments on the program you got your information from, understanding what words in Scripture mean, identifying what authority is and what your dogma is are all objectively true and hardly debatable. They would remain true whatever your POV was. Your response simply ignores those points. I am a long way from assuming that you accept the truth of what I believe and am trying to come from what we might be able to agree upon and what the roots of disagreement are.

You are making the assumption that all my information came from this one documentary that I watched and nothing can be further from the truth. Sorry. Im at the airport and wont have the time to respond until later this evening. But basically I dont see that any human person or even one church is the one 'true' authority on Christianity or the Bible.

[Fist and Faith]

Hi, Soulbiter - on the show you watched, I supposed a lot would depend on who put on the show, and what were their sources of authority. I happen to know of reasonable objections/explanations supporting the ever-Virginity of Mary that ignore nothing from Scripture and are, in fact, directly supported by my experiences abroad as an adult. One direct example that I have to deal with all the time is that in the eastern languages I know of - including (a little) Greek and (a lot of) Russian, the same word is used both for brother or sister and for cousin. I have to go to a good deal of trouble, teaching Russian children English using only English, to make it clear that when I ask them "How many brothers do you have?" they may NOT count cousins. The word "brat" (/braht/) is used equally for both. And that is true for Greek as well, and as far as I know, for Hebrew. Thus, an English-speaker, limited to English only, would conclude from an English translation of Scripture that Jesus had brothers in the English sense, something not necessarily the case at all in the original language. Authorities that assume that English translations "make everything clear" are clearly themselves sadly lacking in authority.

Is there an English Bible that has this correct translation?

[rusmeister]

Hi, Soulbiter - on the show you watched, I supposed a lot would depend on who put on the show, and what were their sources of authority. I happen to know of reasonable objections/explanations supporting the ever-Virginity of Mary that ignore nothing from Scripture and are, in fact, directly supported by my experiences abroad as an adult. One direct example that I have to deal with all the time is that in the eastern languages I know of - including (a little) Greek and (a lot of) Russian, the same word is used both for brother or sister and for cousin. I have to go to a good deal of trouble, teaching Russian children English using only English, to make it clear that when I ask them "How many brothers do you have?" they may NOT count cousins. The word "brat" (/braht/) is used equally for both. And that is true for Greek as well, and as far as I know, for Hebrew. Thus, an English-speaker, limited to English only, would conclude from an English translation of Scripture that Jesus had brothers in the English sense, something not necessarily the case at all in the original language. Authorities that assume that English translations "make everything clear" are clearly themselves sadly lacking in authority.

Is there an English Bible that has this correct translation?

By definition (the fact that you are using English) there can't be. The concept is lost in translation. In English, the best you can do is footnote it. It involves explaining how eastern cultures perceive familial relations. The natural assumption for the English speaker is to apply the English understanding of the translated word - in this case, "brother" as being someone born to the same parents. We even have the term "half-brother", because our understanding of "brother" is so narrow. Because people who embrace Sola Scriptura (which is much of western Christianity) effectively abandon tradition that would explain those kinds of things, and reduces understanding to what an individual can understand, based on his own knowledge, or lack thereof, from what he reads, perceptions in the west are widespread that Mary could not have remained a virgin, and that all Jewish marriages are necessarily what they are in the West today (assumptions that Joseph was the same age as Mary, that they were young and in love, that Jesus was born in a western-type stable, etc etc). The assumptions are based on the limitations of translation and personal knowledge - unless you find a reliable outside authority that knows more than you do, it's not possible to avoid error.

[rusmeister]

You are making the assumption that all my information came from this one documentary that I watched and nothing can be further from the truth. Sorry. Im at the airport and wont have the time to respond until later this evening. But basically I dont see that any human person or even one church is the one 'true' authority on Christianity or the Bible.

Just for clarification (especially as you are so often an ally )I didn't really assume that - I just spoke of that program because that is what you yourself referred to, and to others, it could seem from your words that that was what you were getting your information from, or the reliable authority you depend upon. (Ready to grant that it's not; it's just that that's what you were talking about.)

[rusmeister]

Hey ya, Rus! I tend to agree with you, at least in respect to Lucimay's posting. I think it's a fairly simplistic explanation and doesn't take into account that the vast majority of Christians did believe and utilize Old Testament as well as New Testament scripture, not just a "branch." In fact, when whatever council decided on which scripture were canon, most of the books that were widely considered as authentic were included. Some exceptions were the epistles of Clement of Rome, which wasn't included namely because he was not a direct witness of Christ (the rest of the "writers" of the New Testament could have made the claim of seeing Jesus preach, or in the case of Paul, just seeing him). There were some that did not want to include the Hebrew scripture, but they were in the miniority (if I remember correctly ) Gnostics I have a hard time with, since I do not know if they would be technically Christian or not, but that's another debate. Constantine prosecuted these other Christians after he got power and was attempting to unify the Christian church, which leds up to my next point: Why would he want to do that?

There are many different reasons, but one that I find interesting is that the Christian faith had values other religions did not at the time: Christians believed in respecting the laws of the country. As a result, it could be said that having an empire of law-abiding Christians was preferable to the other often chaotic (and possibly fun ) religions at that time.

Hi, Orlion!
Two comments, in reverse order (while agreeing with and appreciating your post in general):
1) Christians are law-abiding as long as they are not ordered by law to contradict their faith. When a state demands that a Christian render unto Caesar the things that are God's, then civil disobedience becomes necessary. (Have you heard of the recent Manhattan Declaration?) In Roman times that meant refusing to acknowledge Caesar as a god. Today that would mean disobeying laws requiring doctors or clinics to perform abortions, or churches and faith organizations to recognize that same-sex couples can be "married", just as a couple of quick examples.

2) On your question of why Constantine or anyone would want to stop Gnostics, I would ask about how scientists would feel if they were required by law to treat Creation science on an equal footing with modern evolutionary theory. I think a clear majority would want to prevent creationist teachings in the public arena as something that actually leads people away from the truth. (Assuming, for purposes of this discussion, that most people accept evolutionary theory as the truth.) The same goes for teachings on the true nature of man. If people perceive that truth has been revealed, then they do not want to give ideas inconsistent with that equal footing on a dogma of egalitarianism in the field of truth.

But the most important thing I would say about Constantine is that he was not the Church, nor was he even in control of the Church. People that conflate him with the Church do so because they can rightly point out that he was human, a sinner, and even did nasty things, but wrongly assume that he shaped Church doctrine. It is true that he convened the first Ecumenical Council, but he did not even vote. So whatever he did in his reign, it cannot be considered as equal to Church policy and teaching, even in its formation.

[SoulBiter]

But again, I know, from personal experience, that that is not the case regarding the Orthodox Church.

What is not the case?... you arent being clear what part of what I posted you know from personal experience with the orthodox church is not the case.

So again, the question of who put together that program - the information that you get and henceforth assume to be true - arises. It's best when you know the dogmas of the people who are teaching you. There is no such thing as non-dogmatic teaching. A teacher who isn't being dogmatic is simply a teacher who isn't teaching.

It was a documentary and they were getting information from many sources and not pointing toward any one being true or not. They did spend part of the program taking to the Greek Orthodox church and the reprentative from the orthodox church spoke always in absolutes with words like "of course' and 'yes' and 'no' and 'absolutely'... he never used a grey word or statemenet like 'maybe' or 'could be'.

On "brothers", et al - it could be suggested that you are starting at the conclusion you want. I've already shared direct experience of eastern languages that force you to seriously consider the question of what exactly translated words mean (and don't see that you have responded to that).

According to what I was able to find the Greek word they used is 'brother' not 'cousin'.

“When the word is used in any but its proper sense, the context prevents the possibility of confusion…. If, then, the word ‘brethren’…really means ‘cousins’ or ‘kinsmen,’ it will be the only instance of such an application in which no data are given to correct the laxity of meaning” (1968, 895, emp. in orig.). Lewis stated even more decisively: “ ‘Brothers’ (adelphoi) never means ‘cousins’ in New Testament Greek” (1976, 1:181, emp. added). Indeed, the Greek language had a separate and distinct word for “cousins”—anepsioi (e.g., Colossians 4:10). When a nephew was meant, the relationship was clearly specified (e.g., Acts 23:16). To summarize: “There is therefore no adequate warrant in the language alone to take ‘brethren’ as meaning ‘relatives,’ and therefore the a priori presumption is in favor of a literal acceptation of the term”

It is NOT cut-and-dried simply by reading it - this is a foundational failure of Sola Scriptura - the idea that one can simply pick up the Bible and "figure everything out for themselves" - iow, the Protestants (ultimately) did not "eliminate the Pope" - they made each person their own Pope.

Actually I am OK with the elimination of the Pope. These are the same popes that 'create' doctrine. Popes over the years have been political and have sent out instruction that doesnt necessarily have any biblical meaning. They have also been very lax in 'teaching'. Having spent about 10 years going to the catholic church and spending many hours talking to priests about doctrine.. very often the answer isnt biblical its more.. because the pope said so or because this is what the catholic church beleives.

It is true that, if you wish to know anything at all, you must refer to some kind of authority.

I agree and I disagree... If you wish to know anything at all you must have some authority that you go to to get information. However if you wish to 'learn' then you must dig deeper sometimes than the authority is willing to go or perhaps go to a different authority. Thats where I go away from what you have been saying... I dont think the Greek Orthodox, or the Pope, or any one human is the keeper of all things knowable concerning Christianity. IMHO There is actually more to learn about Christianity and spiritualism of Christianity than you can compress into a lifetime. I agree that if you have a question there should be some authorities that you can go to to get answers but that doesnt preclude the idea that they could be wrong in their own interpretation.

Mary's ever-virginity is supported by extra-Scriptural Tradition - see 2 Thess 2:15.

Therefore, brothers, stand firm and hold fast to the traditions that you were taught, either by an oral statement or by a letter of ours

There was no 'bible' per'se so the teaching of Jesus' message was more int he way of oral teaching or sending a letter from Paul to the different Churches. In this case someone has written a letter (that said it was from Paul but wasnt) saying that the day of the Lord was already come. It was a warning about false teaching. But that would have been before they even had a written bible to work from.

Just trying to point out that, at least, the waters are deeper than you seem to suspect.

I know the waters are deep but Im not scared to tread into those waters. Part of my journey with God is learning...and you learn by asking and by reading....and not always from one source. I know that you believe that there needs to be one 'authority' that you must always go back to... and I only agree in the sense that you must always go back to the bible and its teachings. But Im also not ready to throw out the English version of the Bible based on my own limited knowledge. That would be like throwing the baby out with the bathwater.

[rusmeister]

Hey, Soulbiter, and a blessed Epiphany to you!

But again, I know, from personal experience, that that is not the case regarding the Orthodox Church.

What is not the case?... you arent being clear what part of what I posted you know from personal experience with the orthodox church is not the case.

Sorry that it wasn't clear. i was referring most specifically to this:

But one of the many things Ive learned over the years is that the church, the rulers of England (king James)spend alot of time and effort to 'interpret the bible' from the answer backwards. They started at the conclusion they wanted and then tried to back into it and even went as far as to re-write things if they didnt agree with it. There were also interpretational differences. Unless you were especially fluent in both languages (the one you are translating from and the one you are translating to) you translate a word improperly that can alter the entire meaning of a sentence.

which may have some relevancy to the Church of England, but none to the Orthodox Church. To question anything about its handling of doctrine, translations, etc, you have to go back to the first millennium, and mostly the first half of the first millennium.

So again, the question of who put together that program - the information that you get and henceforth assume to be true - arises. It's best when you know the dogmas of the people who are teaching you. There is no such thing as non-dogmatic teaching. A teacher who isn't being dogmatic is simply a teacher who isn't teaching.

It was a documentary and they were getting information from many sources and not pointing toward any one being true or not. They did spend part of the program taking to the Greek Orthodox church and the reprentative from the orthodox church spoke always in absolutes with words like "of course' and 'yes' and 'no' and 'absolutely'... he never used a grey word or statemenet like 'maybe' or 'could be'.

Of course, any statements of certainty or uncertainty depend on the questions asked. If there are definitive answers, then it is appropriate to supply them.

On "brothers", et al - it could be suggested that you are starting at the conclusion you want. I've already shared direct experience of eastern languages that force you to seriously consider the question of what exactly translated words mean (and don't see that you have responded to that).

According to what I was able to find the Greek word they used is 'brother' not 'cousin'.

“When the word is used in any but its proper sense, the context prevents the possibility of confusion…. If, then, the word ‘brethren’…really means ‘cousins’ or ‘kinsmen,’ it will be the only instance of such an application in which no data are given to correct the laxity of meaning” (1968, 895, emp. in orig.). Lewis stated even more decisively: “ ‘Brothers’ (adelphoi) never means ‘cousins’ in New Testament Greek” (1976, 1:181, emp. added). Indeed, the Greek language had a separate and distinct word for “cousins”—anepsioi (e.g., Colossians 4:10). When a nephew was meant, the relationship was clearly specified (e.g., Acts 23:16). To summarize: “There is therefore no adequate warrant in the language alone to take ‘brethren’ as meaning ‘relatives,’ and therefore the a priori presumption is in favor of a literal acceptation of the term”

I'll grant that there are scholars who disagree, and that some of them are even partisan. I would say, based on my own personal experience, that such a claim as your source makes is partisan. I know for a fact that writers can use multiple and differing words for the same or different concepts. The fact that a distinctive term is available doesn't even help guarantee anything. In Russian, you can say "brat" or "dvoiurodny brat" - the latter being distinctly "cousin". But people don't use it very often - because it's cumbersome, and inconvenient, and easier just to say "brat" (or the feminine "sestra" equivalents. IOW, the relationship is NOT always clearly specified.) In fact, it is a sweeping claim that it is that makes me suspect the scholar.

It is NOT cut-and-dried simply by reading it - this is a foundational failure of Sola Scriptura - the idea that one can simply pick up the Bible and "figure everything out for themselves" - iow, the Protestants (ultimately) did not "eliminate the Pope" - they made each person their own Pope.

Actually I am OK with the elimination of the Pope. These are the same popes that 'create' doctrine. Popes over the years have been political and have sent out instruction that doesnt necessarily have any biblical meaning. They have also been very lax in 'teaching'. Having spent about 10 years going to the catholic church and spending many hours talking to priests about doctrine.. very often the answer isnt biblical its more.. because the pope said so or because this is what the catholic church beleives.

Not sure if you caught my meaning there - I was speaking about every person becoming their own pope - their own authority. (I also do not support papism, but the dangers of the individual as the final arbiter of truth are at least as great as papism.)
Also, a new piece of information could transform your (individual) understanding of what is "Biblical" and what isn't. It could change from time to time, as your knowledge grows. But it would still be not nearly enough to make oneself a final authority on every question arising from the study of Scripture.

It is true that, if you wish to know anything at all, you must refer to some kind of authority.

I agree and I disagree... If you wish to know anything at all you must have some authority that you go to to get information. However if you wish to 'learn' then you must dig deeper sometimes than the authority is willing to go or perhaps go to a different authority. Thats where I go away from what you have been saying... I dont think the Greek Orthodox, or the Pope, or any one human is the keeper of all things knowable concerning Christianity. IMHO There is actually more to learn about Christianity and spiritualism of Christianity than you can compress into a lifetime. I agree that if you have a question there should be some authorities that you can go to to get answers but that doesnt preclude the idea that they could be wrong in their own interpretation.

As a statement of faith, that's fine. And I certainly agree that there is more to learn than we can learn in the time given to us (in fact, I've said it over and over). The question is, "Can there be an authority that is (generally speaking) not wrong?" Can there really be a Church established by Christ that isn't ephemeral, "somewhere out there" that has no real impact on our lives or our faith, but is physically there and you can go to and learn from it (meaning the sum of its Tradition, not merely its living representatives)? An ephemeral Church is one that does nothing. It has no practical effect. A physical Church can be rallied around, it is something that must be dealt with, being a tangible thing. An ephemeral Church is a convenient thing if I want to do and believe whatever I want.

Mary's ever-virginity is supported by extra-Scriptural Tradition - see 2 Thess 2:15.

Therefore, brothers, stand firm and hold fast to the traditions that you were taught, either by an oral statement or by a letter of ours

There was no 'bible' per'se so the teaching of Jesus' message was more int he way of oral teaching or sending a letter from Paul to the different Churches. In this case someone has written a letter (that said it was from Paul but wasnt) saying that the day of the Lord was already come. It was a warning about false teaching. But that would have been before they even had a written bible to work from.

You've lost me here.
"In this case"? What case? I don't know what you are referring to in the underlined text.
It seems you recognize that Christians had to get along without Bibles, (and that often, even without epistles, hopefully), but all that does is stress the need to accept some kind of oral transmitted tradition from a definite authority.

Just trying to point out that, at least, the waters are deeper than you seem to suspect.

I know the waters are deep but Im not scared to tread into those waters. Part of my journey with God is learning...and you learn by asking and by reading....and not always from one source. I know that you believe that there needs to be one 'authority' that you must always go back to... and I only agree in the sense that you must always go back to the bible and its teachings. But Im also not ready to throw out the English version of the Bible based on my own limited knowledge. That would be like throwing the baby out with the bathwater.

I agree that the Bible - even in English - should not be thrown out! It holds the most important place in Orthodox Tradition. But the one thing it cannot do is arbitrate itself in the event of dispute or disagreement, when two or more sides are liberally cherry-picking quotes from it. That is where you do need an acknowledged authority greater than any of the participants - one that can speak and say which understanding of scripture is accurate. If that authority is not a unified, universally acknowledged authority, then Christendom will always be divided by the actual authority - the individual, the thing divided from everything else and that, when placed supreme, divides all from all.

[SoulBiter]

I'll grant that there are scholars who disagree, and that some of them are even partisan. I would say, based on my own personal experience, that such a claim as your source makes is partisan.

When you think about it, when you accept a certain source as your 'authority' then you are being partisan by always assuming that the authority is always right when there is any disagreement in translation or meaning of scripture or doctrine.

Not sure if you caught my meaning there - I was speaking about every person becoming their own pope - their own authority. (I also do not support papism, but the dangers of the individual as the final arbiter of truth are at least as great as papism.)

I understood what you were saying.

Also, a new piece of information could transform your (individual) understanding of what is "Biblical" and what isn't. It could change from time to time, as your knowledge grows.

Correct.... In my walk with God and as a Christ follower I am trying to grow my knowledge all the time and there are many things that I have found my understanding to be lacking and in some cases just wrong. But in many of those cases it wasnt due to a lack of translation but a lack of the history of the time and a few times it was the deeper meaning or understanding that I was missing. Many things for me have changed over the years as I gain in knowledge and wisdom. I expect that will continue.

But it would still be not nearly enough to make oneself a final authority on every question arising from the study of Scripture.

True...but that also means that any group (no matter how well meaning) cant be the final authority on every question....unless you are saying that all the knowledge of the ages resides within a certain group (which I know you arent). So that being the case, as part of learning you should read and understand and dig in to learn meaning. But also be willing to challenge your own understanding based on new information.

An ephemeral Church is one that does nothing. It has no practical effect. A physical Church can be rallied around, it is something that must be dealt with, being a tangible thing. An ephemeral Church is a convenient thing if I want to do and believe whatever I want.

But see now you are saying that any church that hasnt been around for a long time does nothing or is in existance so that people can do and believe what they want. Its also not true. Its a strong statement to make that only Churches that have been around for a certain length of time (or even from the begining)can hold truth or true doctrine. Consider how many non-ephemeral churches have lost their way over the years and did things outside of Jesus' teaching(regardless of whether or not they were able to bring their church back into focus with the word of God).

You've lost me here.
"In this case"? What case? I don't know what you are referring to in the underlined text.
It seems you recognize that Christians had to get along without Bibles, (and that often, even without epistles, hopefully), but all that does is stress the need to accept some kind of oral transmitted tradition from a definite authority.

That letter from Paul was written to the Thessalonians. It was written because false teaching concerning the day of the Lord had entered the
church and was causing confusion. So it was a warning against false teaching or false doctrine.

If that authority is not a unified, universally acknowledged authority, then Christendom will always be divided by the actual authority - the individual, the thing divided from everything else and that, when placed supreme, divides all from all.

The problem with choosing one 'worldly' authority above all other worldly authority is that you put yourself and then entire Church in the position of having to trust that what you are being taught is indeed true. Thus we had the crusades and such and no one questioned the Church because thats what they were taught. It also puts the Church in the position when being questioned of saying, when there is a dispute, and no proof otherwise exists for the interpretation of scripture or doctrine, that its because this is what the Church believes. (The Church being built on centuries of interpretational data). I understand 'why' the Church would want to do that. But I would also remind you that Jesus went as far as to critisize the Church of the time for being too caught up the in the 'rules' and their own doctrine and in some cases following the 'rules' but not the 'spirit' that those rules were created for.

[rusmeister]

I'll grant that there are scholars who disagree, and that some of them are even partisan. I would say, based on my own personal experience, that such a claim as your source makes is partisan.

When you think about it, when you accept a certain source as your 'authority' then you are being partisan by always assuming that the authority is always right when there is any disagreement in translation or meaning of scripture or doctrine.

Correct. Obviously, the key question is the reliability of the authority. As GKC put it, "it was right, not only where I was right, but right where I was wrong." If you find the authority to be consistently right, and yourself to be periodically wrong, you are better off than merely being dependent on yourself.

Not sure if you caught my meaning there - I was speaking about every person becoming their own pope - their own authority. (I also do not support papism, but the dangers of the individual as the final arbiter of truth are at least as great as papism.)

I understood what you were saying.

Does that mean you are ignoring my meaning, then? Or that you see no danger in each individual being their own authority?

Also, a new piece of information could transform your (individual) understanding of what is "Biblical" and what isn't. It could change from time to time, as your knowledge grows.

Correct.... In my walk with God and as a Christ follower I am trying to grow my knowledge all the time and there are many things that I have found my understanding to be lacking and in some cases just wrong. But in many of those cases it wasnt due to a lack of translation but a lack of the history of the time and a few times it was the deeper meaning or understanding that I was missing. Many things for me have changed over the years as I gain in knowledge and wisdom. I expect that will continue.

The problem with this approach is, if you consciously adopt it, to know that anything you think you know may be transformed into something that shows that you were completely wrong. It is certainly not superior to the idea of accepting authority that you find trustworthy.

But it would still be not nearly enough to make oneself a final authority on every question arising from the study of Scripture.

True...but that also means that any group (no matter how well meaning) cant be the final authority on every question....unless you are saying that all the knowledge of the ages resides within a certain group (which I know you arent). So that being the case, as part of learning you should read and understand and dig in to learn meaning. But also be willing to challenge your own understanding based on new information.

There is one obvious exception - if the "group" happens to be the actual Church established by Christ and really is guided by the Holy Spirit into all truth. The Orthodox claim is that the Church contains the fullness of the truth - of revealed truth. Other Christian Churches/groups have greater or lesser parts of that fullness, but they don't have the fullness. Thus, nothing that is dogma can be "challenged". Period. Conversely, if it is not dogma, it is open to challenge.

An ephemeral Church is one that does nothing. It has no practical effect. A physical Church can be rallied around, it is something that must be dealt with, being a tangible thing. An ephemeral Church is a convenient thing if I want to do and believe whatever I want.

But see now you are saying that any church that hasnt been around for a long time does nothing or is in existance so that people can do and believe what they want. Its also not true. Its a strong statement to make that only Churches that have been around for a certain length of time (or even from the begining)can hold truth or true doctrine. Consider how many non-ephemeral churches have lost their way over the years and did things outside of Jesus' teaching(regardless of whether or not they were able to bring their church back into focus with the word of God).

I don't mean either of your suppositions. Other Churches/groups DO do things, and most of them do not simply choose to believe "what they want". But they, as divided groups, are unable to come together and agree what Scripture (or other Tradition) does mean. They interpret it as they see fit.

I believe that, if Christ established a Church at all, it had to be something continuous - no Christian tradition makes any sense if they are not passing down what was handed down from the beginning; that the Holy Spirit would never abandon the Church, that it can not be eliminated for any period of time, and that the gates of hell will not prevail against it. Thus, the Church MUST be the same one that was worshiping in the 2nd, 5th, 9th, 14th, 18th and 21st centuries. And it is not a question of whether the Apostles and ancient Church fathers would be "part of our Church" - the question is whether we are part of theirs.

I do agree that many corporeal churches fell, have fallen, and are falling into error and actually fall away - and the Church itself is a divine institution that God has humans running, so there can be no such thing as a "perfect" Church, without sin and error.

When you say "Word of God", what do you mean? I believe I know the answer, but don't want to be presumptuous. The Orthodox use of the term differs from the Protestant one. In Orthodoxy, the Word of God is Jesus Christ Himself. We take His saying that He is the Way, the Truth and the Life quite literally. We venerate the Bible - especially the Gospels. But we worship Jesus Christ.

You've lost me here.
"In this case"? What case? I don't know what you are referring to in the underlined text.
It seems you recognize that Christians had to get along without Bibles, (and that often, even without epistles, hopefully), but all that does is stress the need to accept some kind of oral transmitted tradition from a definite authority.

That letter from Paul was written to the Thessalonians. It was written because false teaching concerning the day of the Lord had entered the
church and was causing confusion. So it was a warning against false teaching or false doctrine.

Precisely. And that warning is as relevant today as it was 2,000 years ago. Making it something, not merely for the Thessalonians, but for all of us.

If that authority is not a unified, universally acknowledged authority, then Christendom will always be divided by the actual authority - the individual, the thing divided from everything else and that, when placed supreme, divides all from all.

The problem with choosing one 'worldly' authority above all other worldly authority is that you put yourself and then entire Church in the position of having to trust that what you are being taught is indeed true. Thus we had the crusades and such and no one questioned the Church because thats what they were taught. It also puts the Church in the position when being questioned of saying, when there is a dispute, and no proof otherwise exists for the interpretation of scripture or doctrine, that its because this is what the Church believes. (The Church being built on centuries of interpretational data). I understand 'why' the Church would want to do that. But I would also remind you that Jesus went as far as to critisize the Church of the time for being too caught up the in the 'rules' and their own doctrine and in some cases following the 'rules' but not the 'spirit' that those rules were created for.

Trust. That is the key point. And it comes down to the Christian virtues of faith and hope.
You say "we had the Crusades". Who is "we"? the Orthodox Church didn't "have" Crusades, although Orthodox Christians certainly suffered from them, right down to the sacking of Constantinople. (I'm just trying to point out the occidental-centric view of history most folk in the West hold.)

The Church doesn't just say "because this is what the Church believes". When there is a question, they point to the relevant parts of Tradition, from Scripture to the Ecumenical Councils to the Church fathers , etc, everything that hammered out exactly what everything in Scripture and faith means.

Of course, Jesus didn't "criticize the Church of the time", although He did criticize the Pharisees and other Jewish leaders as you describe. As to"the spirit of the law", without some kind of check and control, it can come to mean whatever people want it to mean. Thus, in the orthodox Church, there is Church doctrine, which teaches all that has been defined, and then there is economia - the power of Church leaders to grant local - and limited - exceptions to general rules. That IS how the spirit of the law is both enacted and controlled.

I realize that we can't agree on these issues (even though we agree on some VERY important things). But I think, as an ex-Baptist myself, that I can show how the position of ancient Churches like the Catholic and Orthodox Churches, can make more sense than they seem to from the outside. I certainly had the rug pulled from under me when I began learning what Catholics actually believe, as opposed to what the Baptists, with their Jack Chick tracts, told each other.

[SoulBiter]

Thanks for the well thought out reply Rus! Granted we wont agree on some things but we do agree on many things. I thank you for the time you take to post your replies. I dont discount what you say at all. In fact I take it at face value because you do believe it very strongly. I just accept that there will be things that we will disagree on based on where we are both at in our journey and the differing things we have been exposed to.

I hold my beliefs just as strongly as anyone else holds theirs.. well maybe stronger than some and weaker than others. So a few things...

I do see the danger of everyone being their own authority but I also dont believe that anyone who is truly a Christ follower is their own authority. I believe that Jesus himself is the one authority.. Matthew 28:18"All authority has been given to Me in heaven and on earth."

Of course, Jesus didn't "criticize the Church of the time", although He did criticize the Pharisees and other Jewish leaders as you describe.

Of course he did. Yes he directed it at the Pharisees and the Jewish leaders but keep in mind that these were the same leaders that were the 'authority' for the Jews. Thus they were the 'Church' for all intent and purposes. Thats especially when you consider that you yourself told me that:
When there is a question, they point to the relevant parts of Tradition, from Scripture to the Ecumenical Councils to the Church fathers , etc, everything that hammered out exactly what everything in Scripture and faith means.
And that you hold that this authority is 'true' because you trust it.. Well the people in that era were also trusting the Church authority in much the same way. However Jesus in many cases was very critical of the information that everyone else was 'trusting'.

The problem with this approach is, if you consciously adopt it, to know that anything you think you know may be transformed into something that shows that you were completely wrong. It is certainly not superior to the idea of accepting authority that you find trustworthy.

I think you misunderstand what Im saying. I dont hold that Im wrong about something until I can be shown otherwise. I trust that the authority that I learned things from or from my own readings are correct. But Im open to the idea that I dont understand everything and/or that I may have misunderstood something at some point in my life and held that as a truth until shown otherwise. It could be something simple and it might be based on something that you have spoken about... the way the media portrays becoming facts in peoples minds.

Example: I grew up thinking that all the animals coming to Noah's are were coming in twos. Two giraffes and two hippos and two wolves, etc etc...In fact there are songs and movies that says they came two by two. There are tons of literature out there that say the same thing. However if you read the text in Genisis it says that depending on the kinds of animals they were they came in 7's.

So I dont sit there questioning everything I know thinking that at some point that I might be wrong but Im open to the idea that I dont know everything and have mis-learned many things along the way. And Im open to furthering my understanding of the Bible and Gods teaching.