An brief unofficial history of the New Testament and...

[Mutty]

rise of Christianity and the church.

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

It is believed by many Christians that the fact that we have the Bible today after all these centuries prove that God oversaw the upkeep and preservation of his word. It has survived extermination hence a miracle from God. This is a nice smug "faith based" for the Christian community to build their faith upon but there are people out there who prefer a historical answer and there is one. The Bible did not fall from the sky. It was written within the framework of history by men who were products of their environment. This means that there is a history to its compilation and perhaps underlying reasons, biases and agendas behind the various books. I will not deal with the Old Testament in this piece. The focus will be on the New Testament.

It has been my experience from observation and contact with many Christians that the great majority of Christians (this includes the many nominal ones) have no idea how their faith evolved over the centuries. Many can tell you what T.D Jakes or John McArthur or their local pastor or priest said, but then there are many who cannot locate the book of Nahum or know that there is a verse in the Bible that says a prophet of God was instructed by God to eat human excrement. The world that the New Testament was formulated in is either of no concern to them, seen as anything important or just not even thought of, yet it is within the volatile world of that era and the many competing religions and religious thoughts of that day the New Testament and its main characters - Jesus and Paul come to us.

Somehow some people consciously and/or subconsciously believe the writers of the New Testament were immune to these influences and wrote their accounts completly independent of said influences. This does not seem to have been the case.

In the 300s B.C.E Greek Hellinism had become a major cultural influence in the biblical world. With the advent of the Roman Empire which had absorbed much of Greek thought, the influence spread even more. Greek philosophy, skeptical and secular in may ways, made a whole lot of sense so much so we are still influened by it to this very day. It of course came in conflict with Jewish religion and culture so much so that it led to outright war, but just before the alleged time of Jesus it had gain major support.

One person responsible for reconciling Jewish thought with Greek Hellenism was the Jewish philosopher Philo of Alexandria. Still conflict remained as many Jews could not reconcile Greek Hellinsim with Judaism, however in northern Palestine it took root.

Northern Palestine (Galilee) had seen it's share of conquests, invasions, migrations and supplantings. At times they did not even consider themselves Jewish, but rather a separate nation that had been annexed, apparently involuntarily, by the Maccabean rulers of Jerusalem in the south. So what we had here were Greek influenced Galileans and Samaritans under the control of Jewish rulers, political and religious, holding to the old faith. This was a tension filled mix.

It was into this atmosphere that a certain Jesus, later to be called the Christ, allegedly grew up in the town of Nazareth. He is a subject unto himself, but it is key to keep in mind the world in which he grew up in. There was Greek Hellinism on one end, the path of the educated and enlightened, Roman dominance with their laws and system of government and Judaism. Each eyed the other with suspicion, but all influenced each other if only to react.

Popular during that time were all kinds of myths of gods born of virgins, dying gods who came back to life - in short Mystery Religions dedicated to one of any amount of gods. They were ancient private clubs. One major thing that was also clear was that the once welcomed Romans who cleared out the hated Greeks were now the hated enemy by the Jews.

About 20 or so years after Jesus was said to have lived , died and rose from the grave there came a claim by a Jew by the name of Saul who said he had an life changing experience on a road to Damascus. He eventually put pen to paper and wrote a few books which has laid the groundwork for much of what Christianity, in relation to doctrines, is today. These writings are widely believed to be the earliest Christian writings that have survived intact, however the books generally attributed to him are noticeably absent of much to do with Jesus from a historical standpoint. There is no mention of cornerstone themes like the Virgin Birth or mention of his childhood, the place where he was born or grew up. None of the major stories of Jesus' life are dwelt upon in detail as if he was ignorant of them. Some have suggested that those stories were added to the Christian movement after Paul's writings. Those stories are found in what we call the Gospels.

Contrary to what some may think, there were literally dozens of Gospels most of which were lost, but some have come down to us other than those we have in the current canon. These are of course Matthew, Mark, Luke and John.

Mark is considered to be the oldest and was written by someone not highly literate in Greek. He makes no mention of the virgin birth, wise men, angels talking to shepherds, etc or anything about Jesus' youth and goes to great lengths to bring out the human side of Jesus. Some say this was because Mark was not concerned with those trivial insignificant things while others maintain that when Mark wrote his book, the legend of Jesus was still gaining steam and such things were not added to the story as yet. Considering the fact that it almost seemed that a qualification for being a god in that era was virgin or miraculous births and horrible deaths and sometimes grand resurrections, one would wonder why Mark would not add these items about Jesus to establish his qualification.

Mark claims to be a follower of Peter and for some time it was called the Petrine gospel. Chances are he never met Jesus. His book was apparently written for an audience of Roman Christians who were at the time enduring serious persecution in Rome. The book was written to give hope to Christians during that time with promises of Jesus soon return during their time. The book emphasized the sufferings of Jesus and also his miracles. It also ends abruptly with the last few verses, including the Great Commission, being added at a much later date by some Christian scribe.

More to come...

[Diplomat]

Re: An brief unofficial history of the New Testament and...

A carefully crafted piece that is supposed to reflect the new found 'revelation' mentioned recently in various threads, and dismiss Christ, and by extension the entire New Testament, from the scriptures? There are several veiled 'not quite true' statements in that piece, but I neither have the time nor the inclincation to correct them.

[Guest]

Re: An brief unofficial history of the New Testament and...

And up till now you still haven't answered the question: On what do you now base your belief in the existence of a supreme God. I would like to hear your response to that. And bear in mind that while you are saying all the above that you yourself have been deeply influenced by your Christian upbringing, and I believe I saw a question on anther one of your threads which poses the question: How does someone go from having faith rooted in the gospels to faith without which you have also ignored. You keep saying that this is not about you, but obviously since you were once a Christian and now you say you are not then all these peices are a by product of your new "enlightenment" so I do believe that these questions merit an answer.
And btw. I noticed you go as far as to make mention of the ignorant Christians, is that to say that you are writing these things in the hope that all Christians are ignorant?

Yes I am giving you a hard time. [img]/forums/images/graemlins/laugh.gif[/img]

[servant]

Re: An brief unofficial history of the New Testament and...

This is a nice smug "faith based" for the Christian community to build their faith upon…

Why the pejorative term smug Mutty ? Many Christians find the survival of the Bible over the centuries to be affirming and a validation of their beliefs. Does the fact that you now reject the basis of Christian beliefs mean that you, too , also have to join the chorus of those who attack Christian as well ?

….but there are people out there who prefer a historical answer and there is one.

"Prefer" ? The faith of Christianity has both spiritual and historical underpinnings.

The Bible did not fall from the sky.

Mutty, please.

It was written within the framework of history by men who were products of their environment. This means that there is a history to its compilation

Nothing revelatory here.

…..and perhaps underlying reasons, biases and agendas behind the various books.

I see we plan to ascribe speculatory motives to shore up our arguments. At least you are transparent in that regard.

It has been my experience from observation and contact with many Christians that the great majority of Christians (this includes the many nominal ones) have no idea how their faith evolved over the centuries.

You need to get out more. That is not my experience. But I understand your need to lay a particular foundation for what follows.

Many can tell you what T.D Jakes or John McArthur or their local pastor or priest said, but then there are many who cannot locate the book of Nahum or know that there is a verse in the Bible that says a prophet of God was instructed by God to eat human excrement.

And these two particular bits of information are critical to the foundational beliefs of Christianity how ?

The world that the New Testament was formulated in is either of no concern to them, seen as anything important or just not even thought of……

Straw man alert !!!!!

….yet it is within the volatile world of that era and the many competing religions and religious thoughts of that day the New Testament and its main characters - Jesus and Paul come to us.

A fact that is adequately addressed in Scripture by both “main characters”, which makes your initial assertion nonsense.

Somehow some people consciously and/or subconsciously believe the writers of the New Testament were immune to these influences and wrote their accounts completly independent of said influences. This does not seem to have been the case.

Straw man alert (Number Two) !!!!!!!

In the 300s B.C.E Greek Hellinism had become a major cultural influence in the biblical world. With the advent of the Roman Empire which had absorbed much of Greek thought, the influence spread even more.

OK.

Greek philosophy, skeptical and secular in many ways, made a whole lot of sense so much…..so we are still influenced by it to this very day.

The underlying assumption being that this influence is based upon its “making sense”. Question: Who are the “we” in that sentence? Therein Mutty, lies your answer to why it is still influential. Has nothing to do with it “making sense”.

It of course came in conflict with Jewish religion and culture so much so that it led to outright war, but just before the alleged time of Jesus it had gain major support.

One person responsible for reconciling Jewish thought with Greek Hellenism was the Jewish philosopher Philo of Alexandria. Still conflict remained as many Jews could not reconcile Greek Hellinsim with Judaism, however in northern Palestine it took root.

Northern Palestine (Galilee) had seen it's share of conquests, invasions, migrations and supplantings. At times they did not even consider themselves Jewish, but rather a separate nation that had been annexed, apparently involuntarily, by the Maccabean rulers of Jerusalem in the south. So what we had here were Greek influenced Galileans and Samaritans under the control of Jewish rulers, political and religious, holding to the old faith. This was a tension filled mix.

OK.

It was into this atmosphere that a certain Jesus, later to be called the Christ, allegedly grew up in the town of Nazareth. He is a subject unto himself, but it is key to keep in mind the world in which he grew up in. There was Greek Hellinism on one end, the path of the educated and enlightened, Roman dominance with their laws and system of government and Judaism. Each eyed the other with suspicion, but all influenced each other if only to react.

Popular during that time were all kinds of myths of gods born of virgins, dying gods who came back to life - in short Mystery Religions dedicated to one of any amount of gods. They were ancient private clubs. One major thing that was also clear was that the once welcomed Romans who cleared out the hated Greeks were now the hated enemy by the Jews.

OK.

About 20 or so years after Jesus was said to have lived , died and rose from the grave there came a claim by a Jew by the name of Saul who said he had an life changing experience on a road to Damascus. He eventually put pen to paper and wrote a few books which has laid the groundwork for much of what Christianity, in relation to doctrines, is today. These writings are widely believed to be the earliest Christian writings that have survived intact, however the books generally attributed to him are noticeably absent of much to do with Jesus from a historical standpoint.

OK.

There is no mention of cornerstone themes like the Virgin Birth or mention of his childhood, the place where he was born or grew up.

And the fact that he chose to concentrate on other issues means what exactly ?

None of the major stories of Jesus' life are dwelt upon in detail as if he was ignorant of them.

First of all your conclusion is speculation and your initial assertion is untrue. Unless you consider His Davidic dscent, His poverty, His Messiahship, His moral teaching, His preaching of the kingdom of God, His calling of the apostles, His miraculous power, His claims to be God, His betrayal, His institution of the Holy Eucharist, His passion, crucifixion, burial, and resurrection, not to be “major stories of Jesus' life”.

Some have suggested that those stories were added to the Christian movement after Paul's writings.

So ?

Those stories are found in what we call the Gospels.

Contrary to what some may think….

Straw man alert (number Three) !!!!


…there were literally dozens of Gospels most of which were lost, but some have come down to us other than those we have in the current canon. These are of course Matthew, Mark, Luke and John.

OK.

Mark is considered to be the oldest and was written by someone not highly literate in Greek. He makes no mention of the virgin birth, wise men, angels talking to shepherds, etc or anything about Jesus' youth and goes to great lengths to bring out the human side of Jesus.

Again, that a Gospel writer chooses to concentrate on a particular aspect of Jesus’ life means what exactly ?

Some say this was because Mark was not concerned with those trivial insignificant things while others maintain that when Mark wrote his book, the legend of Jesus was still gaining steam and such things were not added to the story as yet.

Your reliance upon unattributed speculation (“some say”) is beginning to wear thin from overuse.

Considering the fact that it almost seemed that a qualification for being a god in that era was virgin or miraculous births and horrible deaths and sometimes grand resurrections, one would wonder why Mark would not add these items about Jesus to establish his qualification.

How about an obvious answer Mutty. It is addressed elsewhere.

Your premise seems to be that unless a book of the New Testament is exhaustive and encyclopedic in scope, on matters to do with the life of Christ, it is automatically suspect in some way. This of course is sheer nonsense.

Mark claims to be a follower of Peter and for some time it was called the Petrine gospel.

OK.

Chances are he never met Jesus.

Speculation.

His book was apparently written for an audience of Roman Christians who were at the time enduring serious persecution in Rome. The book was written to give hope to Christians during that time with promises of Jesus soon return during their time. The book emphasized the sufferings of Jesus and also his miracles. It also ends abruptly with the last few verses including the Great Commission….

OK.

…..being added at a much later date by some Christian scribe.

Can you tell us about the source of this ?

[Mutty]

Re: An brief unofficial history of the New Testament and...

And I'll still write on.

Thanks for the opinions.

[Mutty]

Re: An brief unofficial history of the New Testament and...

Continuing....

The author of Matthew appears to have been a well educated and conservative Jew who appears to have very familiar with the Jewish Levitic tradition. His clear intent was to qualify Jesus in the eyes of his countrymen as the promised Messiah. His conservatism beams through in his "difficult" passages and hellfire and damnation scriptures. Without Matthew in the biblical canon there would be few other biblical references to it.

Matthew's passion to prove Jesus to the Jews outran his qualifications as a scholar. In his attempt to qualify Jesus he quoted prophecies he felt referred to Jesus OR he thought his readers illiterate enough not to notice. His geneology of Jesus leaves out details in order to break down the generations between Abraham and Jesus into perfect three perfect sevens. His geaneolgy conflicts with other geneologies in the Old Testament. He links Herod's Massacre of the innocents to Jeremiah's prophecy of Rammah crying for her exiled children (Israel). He is also the only one to mention this alleged massacre. He refers to Isaiah's prophecy regarding an Emmanuel as being a refernce to Jesus who is never called Emmanuel beyond that first chapter of Matthew or in any other Gospel.

What Matthew attempted to do for the Jews, Luke atttempted for the Gentiles. Luke was the consummate scholar and apparently fluent in Greek since he was almost certainly a Gentile himself. He saw the need to explain the new religion to the Gentile community and so he went out and wrote it. Like Matthew, he used Mark as his source and made new twists to fit his need to communicate to the gentiles.

Luke was also an evangelist. His mission was take the new religion of a Jewish sect and make it appealing to the gentiles. After all, Judaism and the Jews tended to lean toward racial discrimination in which gentiles were considered heathens and were not to be entertained by Jews. But in trying to appeal to the Gentiles and with the growing persecution by emperor Domitian (Titus' brother and successor) on the Christian community, Luke tried to make sure he did not paint gentiles (Romans) in a bad light and that the new sect was a harmelss outgrowtth of respected Jewish tradition not out to stir up any trouble. This is evident with how Luke begins another book attributed to him, the book of Acts. He starts with the salutation to "The most excellent Theophilus."

Because he was writing for an offical Roman audience as much for a prospective gentile audience, he was careful to present Rome in as good a light as possible. Luke has Herod's soldiers beating Jesus where Mark says they were Romans. Jesus' kingdom is "not of this world," an obvious attempt to head off or quiet Roman suspicion of any suspected uprisings from this new emerging sect.

We now come to John's Gospel. Some scholars put the book somewhere in the early second century which would be almost 100 years after the events in which they supposedly records. John employs much symbolisms (drink blood, eat flesh, vines and branches, eating words, bread of life, etc.) intended to appeal to those gentiles in mystical relgions that used a lot of symbolic language, but in doing so, he tried to link these symbolisms to Jewish consciousness which from the stories within his book revolted the Jews. His hope was that his Jewish readers would be more accepting now that Jesus was pictured as fulfilment of the law. In John's Gospel Jesus did not come to fulfill the law - He was THE fulfilment to the law. In fact, he was God himself.

With the Jesus movement on the rise and spreading like wildfire, there arose Christian philosophers and preachers everywhere across the vast Roman empire along with novel and unfamiliar ideas far removed from places like Jerusalem and Antioch. This helped to spawn "heresies" that were even present at the time the Gospels and various epistles were being written. As Christianity spread, so did its heresies. This is where a whole other history of Christianity comes in, a history that has influenced us today.

More to come...

[Mutty]

Re: An brief unofficial history of the New Testament and...

Originally posted by Jedi l:
[qb] And up till now you still haven't answered the question: On what do you now base your belief in the existence of a supreme God. I would like to hear your response to that. And bear in mind that while you are saying all the above that you yourself have been deeply influenced by your Christian upbringing, and I believe I saw a question on anther one of your threads which poses the question: How does someone go from having faith rooted in the gospels to faith without which you have also ignored. You keep saying that this is not about you, but obviously since you were once a Christian and now you say you are not then all these peices are a by product of your new "enlightenment" so I do believe that these questions merit an answer.
And btw. I noticed you go as far as to make mention of the ignorant Christians, is that to say that you are writing these things in the hope that all Christians are ignorant?

Yes I am giving you a hard time. [img]/forums/images/graemlins/laugh.gif[/img] [/qb]

I know all Christians are not ignorant Jedi, but is has been my experience that quite a few don't know their own Bibles much less the history of their faith.

Granted, you, CEW and Servant are above that (I think) and I know I am writing something that will come off as threatening your positions, however, this is how I see it. I always knew these things, but I kept them at bay with "faith" - faith in the midst of the obvious sometimes. The funny things is, these things are tame. When you start dealing with some of the antics God allegedly commanded in the Old Testament, Christians (including myself once upon a time) become mum. God commanding Ezekiel to eat human dung??? C'mon now, Jedi! And that's just one example.

[servant]

Re: An brief unofficial history of the New Testament and...

"I know I am writing something that will come off as threatening your positions..."

That's hilarious Mutty.

Anyway my friend, let me say this for the record, nothing I have ever come across in this forum has ever, even for a millisecond, shaken my faith. Indeed, compared to the people I have dealt with and circumstances that I have been through in life, this forum is child's play.

Furthermore, you have yet to post anything that I have not seen before.

Carry on.

[evanovitch]

Re: An brief unofficial history of the New Testament and...

A third sign describes additional punishments to come upon Jerusalem. It is the sign of the defiled bread:


And thou shalt eat it as barley cakes, and thou shalt bake it with dung that cometh out of man, in their sight.

And the Lord said, Even thus shall the children of Israel eat their defiled bread among the Gentiles, whither I will drive them [Ezek. 4:9–13].

These instructions would be overwhelming to most of us, but they were especially difficult for Ezekiel to follow because he was a priest and had never eaten anything unclean:

Then said I, Ah Lord God! behold, my soul hath not been polluted: for from my youth up even till now have I not eaten of that which dieth of itself, or is torn in pieces; neither came there abominable flesh into my mouth [Ezek. 4:14].

However, this was to be a sign from the Lord of the famine the people would experience at the time of the destruction of the city of Jerusalem.

Despite the continued promises of the false prophets, the city and the people were going to be lost.

These various signs described the horrors that were to come.

Then He said unto me, Lo, I have given thee [b]cow's dung for man's dung and thou shalt prepare thy bread therewith[/B v 16

please note that at no time was Ezekiel told to eat of the dung or excrement...rather he was to use it as the FUEL with which the bread was to be baked.... ] just as wood would be used to produce the wherewithal to feed the fire needed to prepare food, excrement of animals was an option....i believe the modern day terminology is 'patties'....

and please note that when Ezekiel cried out to God about the use of human excrement, God in His infinite compassion , heard the cry of a faithful servant, who, although wanting to follow His God in all things, cried for mercy if not total deliverance of the dictate, and in keeping with His merciful nature and heeding a cry from a good and faithful servant, the compromise was made to use animal as opposed to human excrement as the fuel source....

[evanovitch]

Re: An brief unofficial history of the New Testament and...

HAPPY is he to whom truth manifests itself, not in signs and words that fade, but as it actually is. Our opinions, our senses often deceive us and we discern very little.

What good is much discussion of involved and obscure matters when our ignorance of them will not be held against us on Judgment Day? Neglect of things which are profitable and necessary and undue concern with those which are irrelevant and harmful, are great folly.

We have eyes and do not see.

What, therefore, have we to do with questions of philosophy?

He to whom the Eternal Word speaks is free from theorizing. For from this Word are all things and of Him all things speak—the Beginning Who also speaks to us. Without this Word no man understands or judges aright. He to whom it becomes everything, who traces all things to it and who sees all things in it, may ease his heart and remain at peace with God.

O God, You Who are the truth, make me one with You in love everlasting.

I am often wearied by the many things I hear and read, but in You is all that I long for.

Let the learned be still, let all creatures be silent before You; You alone speak to me.

The more recollected a man is, and the more simple of heart he becomes, the easier he understands sublime things, for he receives the light of knowledge from above.

The pure, simple, and steadfast spirit is not distracted by many labors, for he does them all for the honor of God. And since he enjoys interior peace he seeks no selfish end in anything. What, indeed, gives more trouble and affliction than uncontrolled desires of the heart?

A good and devout man arranges in his mind the things he has to do, not according to the whims of evil inclination but according to the dictates of right reason. Who is forced to struggle more than he who tries to master himself? This ought to be our purpose, then: to conquer self, to become stronger each day, to advance in virtue.

Every perfection in this life has some imperfection mixed with it and no learning of ours is without some darkness.

Humble knowledge of self is a surer path to God than the ardent pursuit of learning. Not that learning is to be considered evil, or knowledge, which is good in itself and so ordained by God; but a clean conscience and virtuous life ought always to be preferred.

Many often err and accomplish little or nothing because they try to become learned rather than to live well.

If men used as much care in uprooting vices and implanting virtues as they do in discussing problems, there would not be so much evil and scandal in the world, or such laxity in religious organizations. On the day of judgment, surely, we shall not be asked what we have read but what we have done; not how well we have spoken but how well we have lived.

Tell me, where now are all the masters and teachers whom you knew so well in life and who were famous for their learning? Others have already taken their places and I know not whether they ever think of their predecessors. During life they seemed to be something; now they are seldom remembered.

How quickly the glory of the world passes away! If only their lives had kept pace with their learning, then their study and reading would have been worth while.

How many there are who perish because of vain worldly knowledge and too little care for serving God. They became vain in their own conceits because they chose to be great rather than humble.

He is truly great who has great charity. He is truly great who is little in his own eyes and makes nothing of the highest honor. He is truly wise who looks upon all earthly things as folly that he may gain Christ. He who does God’s will and renounces his own is truly very learned.

Thomas A Kempis, The Imitation of Christ, .

[evanovitch]

Re: An brief unofficial history of the New Testament and...

TRUTH, not eloquence, is to be sought in reading the Holy Scriptures;

and every part must be read in the spirit in which it was written

For in the Scriptures we ought to seek profit rather than polished diction.

Likewise we ought to read simple and devout books as willingly as learned and profound ones.

We ought not to be swayed by the authority of the writer, whether he be a great literary light or an insignificant person, but by the love of simple truth.

We ought not to ask who is speaking, but mark what is said.

Men pass away, but the truth of the Lord remains forever.

God speaks to us in many ways without regard for persons.

Our curiosity often impedes our reading of the Scriptures, when we wish to understand and mull over what we ought simply to read and pass by.

If you would profit from it, therefore, read with humility, simplicity, and faith, and never seek a reputation for being learned.

Seek willingly and listen attentively to the words of the saints;

do not be displeased with the sayings of the ancients, for they were not made without purpose.

Thomas A Kempis, The Imitation of Christ,

[evanovitch]

Re: An brief unofficial history of the New Testament and...

The Example Set Us By the Holy Fathers

CONSIDER the lively examples set us by the saints, who possessed the light of true perfection and religion, and you will see how little, how nearly nothing, we do.

What, alas, is our life, compared with theirs?

The saints and friends of Christ served the Lord in hunger and thirst, in cold and nakedness, in work and fatigue, in vigils and fasts, in prayers and holy meditations, in persecutions and many afflictions.

How many and severe were the trials they suffered—the Apostles, martyrs, confessors, virgins, and all the rest who willed to follow in the footsteps of Christ! They hated their lives on earth that they might have life in eternity.

How strict and detached were the lives the holy hermits led in the desert!

What long and grave temptations they suffered! How often were they beset by the enemy!

What frequent and ardent prayers they offered to God!

What rigorous fasts they observed!

How great their zeal and their love for spiritual perfection!

How brave the fight they waged to master their evil habits!

What pure and straightforward purpose they showed toward God!

By day they labored and by night they spent themselves in long prayers. Even at work they did not cease from mental prayer.

They used all their time profitably; every hour seemed too short for serving God, and in the great sweetness of contemplation, they forgot even their bodily needs.

They renounced all riches, dignities, honors, friends, and associates. They desired nothing of the world. They scarcely allowed themselves the necessities of life, and the service of the body, even when necessary, was irksome to them.

They were poor in earthly things but rich in grace and virtue.

Outwardly destitute, inwardly they were full of grace and divine consolation.

Strangers to the world, they were close and intimate friends of God. To themselves they seemed as nothing, and they were despised by the world, but in the eyes of God they were precious and beloved. They lived in true humility and simple obedience; they walked in charity and patience, making progress daily on the pathway of spiritual life and obtaining great favor with God.

They were given as an example for all religious , and their power to stimulate us to perfection ought to be greater than that of the lukewarm to tempt us to laxity.

How great was the fervor of all religious in the beginning of their holy institution! How great their devotion in prayer and their rivalry for virtue! What splendid discipline flourished among them! What great reverence and obedience in all things under the rule of a superior!

The footsteps they left behind still bear witness that they indeed were holy and perfect men who fought bravely and conquered the world.

Today, he who is not a transgressor and who can bear patiently the duties which he has taken upon himself is considered great. How lukewarm and negligent we are! We lose our original fervor very quickly and we even become weary of life from laziness!

Do not you, who have seen so many examples of the devout, fall asleep in the pursuit of virtue!
Thomas A Kempis, The Imitation of Christ,

[evanovitch]

Re: An brief unofficial history of the New Testament and...

Behold, I know all men. I see everything that is done under the sun, and I know how matters stand with each—what is in his mind and what in his heart and the end to which his intention is directed.

Commit all things to Me, therefore, and keep yourself in good peace.

Let him who is disturbed be as restless as he will. Whatever he has said or done will fall upon himself, for he cannot deceive Me.

MY CHILD, trust firmly in the Lord, and do not fear the judgment of men when conscience tells you that you are upright and innocent. For it is good and blessed to suffer such things, and they will not weigh heavily on the humble heart that trusts in God rather than in itself.

Many men say many things, and therefore little faith is to be put in them.

Likewise, it is impossible to satisfy all men.

Although Paul tried to please all in the Lord, and became all things to all men, yet he made little of their opinions. He labored abundantly for the edification and salvation of others, as much as lay in him and as much as he could, but he could not escape being sometimes judged and despised by others.

Therefore, he committed all to God Who knows all things, and defended himself by his patience and humility against the tongues of those who spoke unjustly or thought foolish things and lies, or made accusations against him.

Sometimes, indeed, he did answer them, but only lest his silence scandalize the weak.

Who are you, then, that you should be afraid of mortal man?

Today he is here, tomorrow he is not seen. Fear God and you will not be afraid of the terrors of men. What can anyone do to you by word or injury? He hurts himself rather than you, and no matter who he may be he cannot escape the judgment of God. Keep God before your eyes, therefore, and do not quarrel with peevish words.

If it seems, then, that you are worsted and that you suffer undeserved shame, do not repine over it and do not lessen your crown by impatience.

Look instead to heaven, to Me, Who have power to deliver you from all disgrace and injury, and to render to everyone according to his works.

[Mutty]

Re: An brief unofficial history of the New Testament and...

Originally posted by servant:
[qb] "I know I am writing something that will come off as threatening your positions..."

That's hilarious Mutty.

Anyway my friend, let me say this for the record, nothing I have ever come across in this forum has ever, even for a millisecond, shaken my faith. Indeed, compared to the people I have dealt with and circumstances that I have been through in life, this forum is child's play.

Furthermore, you have yet to post anything that I have not seen before.

Carry on. [/qb]

It did not say "shaken." I simply said "threatening" which is something entirely different.

Also, that's cool you have seen it before. It's not meant for you then.

[Mutty]

Re: An brief unofficial history of the New Testament and...

Evan, thank you. I stand corrected on him eating it. I still find the command ridiculous but whatever floated their boat.