Satan and the End Times

[Ooberman]

OK, I think I understand most of Xp'n theology, but I can't wrap my head around the Satan/End Times part.

1. Satan is Evil
2. Jesus is the Prince of Peace
3. World peace will be brought by Satan
4. and this is bad because it leads to Judgment Day
5. which is Good because there is a Godly massacre
6. so "Real" Xp'n's can go to Heaven
7. Huh?


Also, it seems every world leader has been declared the Anti-Christ at one point. Bush was, now Obama - and this is bad? Why? Because it will bring a millennia of Peace to the world, and hasten the End Times?

Or, is it bad, and we DON'T want to get to the End Times...

Honestly, I can't figure this out at all.

Satan, bad - but brings Peace
Jesus, good - but brings destruction

or, was Jesus really Satan?

And why do people claim we are in the final days? There hasn't been peace on Earth - EVER.

Are we supposed to help bring Peace to the World or not? Are we supposed to fight Satan, or help him? Are we supposed to turn the other cheek and love our neighbor - thus bringing peace, or not?

Help!

[Catharsis]

I see no evidence of a clergy-laity distinction in the New Testament. All Christians are members of the royal priesthood (1 Peter 2:5-10). All the titles, honor, and costumes associated with the clergy are condemned by Jesus (Matthew 23:5-11).

I have lots and lots of doctrinal issues with the Catholic Church. I'm not as familiar with the Eastern Orthodox Church, but I know I can't read about an Eastern Orthodox Church in the New Testament.

The reason why different denominations, with very different forms of church government, can all claim to be based on the "New Testament model" is that the New Testament is not very specific about how the Church is to be organized or how services are to be conducted. It would be a grave mistake, however, to infer from this that the early Church had no definite structure or patterns of worship.

The New Testament does not give a detailed plan of Church government, because the Church already existed when the books of the New Testament were written. The epistles were not written to be an "owner's manual."

Because of this, if we want to know more about the early Church, we must look beyond the pages of the Scriptures to the earliest documents of the post-apostolic Church. This is not to suggest that these other documents are more important-or even as important-as the Divine Scriptures; they certainly are not. Their importance lies in the fact that they tell us how the earliest Christians interpreted the Bible and applied those interpretations to their lives. In doing so, they answer many of the questions that modern protestants have about Church life.

Four documents from the first two centuries help understand how the early Church was organized and how She worshiped: I Clement, the Letters of St. Ignatius of Antioch, the Apologies of St. Justin the Philosopher, and Against Heresies by St. Irenaius of Lyons. To be sure, there are other documents from the second century, but these contain the most specific information about Church life.

I Clement is a letter that was sent from the Church in Rome to the Church in Corinth around A.D. 95-96. Although St. Clement is not mentioned by name in the letter, early tradition is unanimous in assigning it to Clement. There is now no serious scholarly challenge to this attribution. St. Irenaius of Lyons, writing in the latter half of the second century, tells us that Clement was the third bishop of Rome and that he personally knew Sts. Peter and Paul. He has also been connected with the Clement mentioned in Phil. 4:3. This letter, therefore, stands as a bridge between the apostolic and post-apostolic ages.

Around A.D. 107, St. Ignatius, the bishop of Antioch, was sent, under arrest, to Rome for execution. During his sojourn, he wrote letters to several Churches. Seven of those letters are extant. They provide an invaluable insight into Church life at the beginning of the second century.

The Apologies of St. Justin the Philosopher are somewhat unique in that they are addressed not to fellow Christians, but to the pagan emperor. Dating from the middle of the second century, their value for our purpose lies in the fact that Justin describes Church life to the emperor in order to dispel various myths that were circulating through the Roman world. I Clement and the Letters of Ignatius are similar to the epistles of the New Testament in that they are occasional letters. Justin, however, describes in some detail things that these letters only hint at.

St. Irenaius' Against Heresies is a gold mine of information. This work dates from the second half of the second century. Though he is known as the bishop of Lyons in Gaul (France), he was originally from Asia Minor and knew St. Polycarp of Smyrna, who was himself a disciple of St. John the Apostle. Thus, Irenaius was a spiritual grand-child of the Apostles.

From these documents we learn that the Church of the first two centuries had a definite governing structure, consisting of four principle offices: the bishop, the presbyters, the deacons, and the laity. The Church worshiped according to a pattern based upon types set forth in the Old Testament. Furthermore, both Church government and worship were firmly rooted in the doctrine of the Incarnation; that is, in the belief that God had truly become man so that man might be able to truly share in the life of God.

[Ooberman]

Four documents from the first two centuries help understand how the early Church was organized and how She worshiped: I Clement, the Letters of St. Ignatius of Antioch, the Apologies of St. Justin the Philosopher, and Against Heresies by St. Irenaius of Lyons. To be sure, there are other documents from the second century, but these contain the most specific information about Church life.

This is certainly true. Even if we take out the interpolations and other problems with the copies of these authors (not only is there evidence of this, but certainly a Xpian can't claim, as they often do with the Bible, that these are "protected" words of God. These are absolutely works of men, for men, by men, etc...), we still have trouble discovering the practices of Early Xpians.

Just one example: Marcion (85-160) was an early Xp'n, developed the first Canon, and while other Xp'n's accused him of adding to the text, but so did Marcion accuse them of adding to the text. Further, they even admitted that things were being added to the text on their side of things.

Other examples would include:
1. the vast number of apocryphal texts
2. alternative Gospels that are not Canonical (something Xp'n's seem to ignore when they talk about the preservation of "gods word"),
3. the other early texts that were considered Xpian - until one church won out over the others and was able to claim supremacy,
4. the number of early Xpian fathers that were considered true leaders, but then declared heretical (Valentinus),
5. the early Xpian sects, like the Docetists and Montanists, that were killed off early by other Xpians, particularly the sects that were directly related to Jesus (not made in the vacuum after Jesus' death, like the Pauline sects) like the Essenes (the beginning of the John the Baptist/Jesus religion), the Jesus movement/Jerusalem church, and Zealots (Evidence points to Jesus being part of the Zealot sect)
6. Strong evidence (proof?) that some of the writers of the Bible were not as the original fathers thought (for example, the Pastoral Epistles. The church swore that they were written by Paul for 100's of years, but weren't)
7. The fact that the gospels are anonymous, and show that it is the same story (based on Mark), just re-written and embellished by later authors.


Again, none of this makes the mythology wrong, or any sect or brand of Xp'ity "wrong" (since any religion is never "wrong"), it just makes it impossible to figure out what early Xp'ians believed.

Especially considering that "Early Christian" means many things; many sects, many beliefs, many interpretations.

In the end, it seems the modern Believer simply picks one they like best, and interprets the Bible the way they prefer.



edit: BTW, here is the letter "I Clement" (Clement was the 3rd pope, after Linus and Cletus - of which nothing is known).

http://www.ccel.org/ccel/richardson/fat ... i.iii.html

What troubles me when people point to it as an early example of Xp-ity is that it never mentions any NT work except a few vague references to the Pauline letters. And, in fact, it draws from pagan sources, mentions the Phoenix as if it is a real bird, quotes from "extra-canonical sources", or butchers the original text of the OT.

If there is a better example of the early church fathers creating their own religion, I can't think of a better example.

It appears that Clement, even by 96CE, wasn't aware of any of the Gospels, but that he relied on Pauls letters (some 50 years earlier), extra-canonical writings and a different OT than what the current Bible uses.

[Catharsis]

Just one example: Marcion (85-160) was an early Xp'n, developed the first Canon, and while other Xp'n's accused him of adding to the text, but so did Marcion accuse them of adding to the text. Further, they even admitted that things were being added to the text on their side of things.

The first person on record who tried to establish a New Testament canon was the second-century heretic, Marcion. He wanted the Church to reject its Jewish heritage, and therefore he dispensed with the Old Testament entirely. Marcion's canon included only one gospel, which he himself edited, and ten of Paul's epistles. Sad but true, the first attempted New Testament was heretical. Many scholars believe that it was partly in reaction to this distorted canon of Marcion that the early Church determined to create a clearly defined canon of its own. The destruction of Jerusalem in A.D. 70, the breakup of the Jewish-Christian community there, and the threatened loss of continuity in the oral tradition probably also contributed to the sense of the urgent need for the Church to standardize the list of books Christians could rely on. During this period of the canon's evolution, as previously noted, most churches had only a few, if any, of the apostolic writings available to them. The books of the Bible had to be painstakingly copied by hand, at great expense of time and effort. The exposure of most Christians to the Scriptures was confined to what they heard in the churches-the Law and Prophets, the Psalms, and some of the Apostles' memoirs.

With the passage of time the Church discerned which writings were truly apostolic and which were not. It was a prolonged struggle, taking place over several centuries. As part of the process of discernment, the Church met together several times in council. These various Church councils confronted a variety of issues, among which was the canon of Scripture. It is important to note that the purpose of these councils was to discern and confirm what was already generally accepted within the Church at large. The councils did not legislate the canon so much as set forth what had become self-evident truth and practice within the churches of God. The councils sought to proclaim the common mind of the Church and to reflect the unanimity of faith, practice, and tradition as it already existed in the local churches represented. The councils provide us with specific records in which the Church spoke clearly and in unison as to what constitutes Scripture. Among the many councils that met during the first four centuries, two are particularly important in this context:

- The Council of Laodicea met in Asia Minor about A.D. 363. This is the first council which clearly listed the canonical books of the present Old and New Testaments, with the exception of the Apocalypse of Saint John. The Laodicean council stated that only the canonical books it listed should be read in church. Its decisions were widely accepted in the Eastern Church.

- The third Council of Carthage met in North Africa about A.D. 397. This council, attended by Augustine, provided a full list of the canonical books of both the Old and New Testaments. The twenty-seven books of the present-day New Testament were accepted as canonical. The council also held that these books should be read in the church as Divine Scripture to the exclusion of all others. This Council was widely accepted as authoritative in the West.

[Ooberman]

Catharsis, please don't cut and paste full text without citing the source. What ends up happening is that people will copy your text and add a little or take out a little and pass it on as "gospel", just as you have done by copying text out of a larger piece.

Your actions are exactly what scholars talk about when they question the preservation of text. People like you, with no malice intended, quoting what they like and taking out what they don't want.


BTW, adding to your quote from the Orthodox Xpian (and anti-Protestant, former Orthodox Jew) Father A. James Bernstein ("Which Came First: The Church or the New Testament," The Christian Activist, Vol. 9, Fall/Winter 1996)

Here is commentary by a Mormon:

While Marcion was excluding many books he did not like, many early Christians accepted other New Testament books that most modern churches no longer have or no longer accept. For example, there were many competing "gospels" besides Matthew, Mark, Luke and John. Before the Gospel of John had been written, Saint Luke wrote that there were many others writing related accounts, saying "Inasmuch as many have taken in hand to set in order a narrative of those things which have been fulfilled among us . . . it seemeth good to me also . . . to write to you an orderly account." (Luke 1:1,3). There would later be controversy over which of the Gospels to use, including controversy concerning the Gospel of John. The Roman Church resisted John, while the church in Asia Minor embraced John. The Syrian Church did not accept all four Gospels of the modern Bible until the fifth century, and "also ignored for a time the Epistles of John, 2 Peter, and the Book of Revelation" [Bernstein, p. 5]. As Stephen Robinson notes (pp. 52-53),

One of the most important of the Greek new Testament manuscripts, known as D or Codex Claramontanus, contains a canon list for both the Old and New Testaments. The manuscript itself is a product of the sixth century, but most scholars believe the canon list originated in the Alexandrian church in the fourth century. This canon omits Philippians, 1 and 2 Thessalonians, and Hebrews, but includes the Epistle of Barnabas, the Shepherd of Hermas, the Acts of Paul (not our Acts), and, like the Muratorian Canon, the Apocalypse of Peter. . . .

Before the fifth century the Syrian Christian canon included 3 Corinthians and Tatian's Diatessaron. . . .

The Abyssinian Orthodox church has in its canon the twenty-seven books of the modern New Testament, but adds the Synodos of Qalementos (both attributed to Clement of Rome), the Book of the Covenant (which includes a post-resurrection discourse of the Savior), and the Ethiopic Didascalia. To the Old Testament the Abyssinian canon adds the book of Enoch (cited as prophetic by the canonical book of Jude) and the Ascension of Isaiah.

Part of the problem may have been the rarity of authoritative writings, which had to be copied by hand. Few churches had a complete set of apostolic letters, and it was undoubtedly difficult to tell a correctly written copy from a forgery or an errant copy. Many members might be unfamiliar with a given work cherished by other saints in a different area. New or unfamiliar writings might have been rejected or questioned, and many controversies are easy to imagine.

Eusebius, known as the Father of Church History, was a fourth century bishop of Caesarea who disputed the books of James, Jude, 2 Peter, 2 John and 3 John [Bernstein, p. 5]. He absolutely rejected the book of Revelation. Origen in the third century questioned the authenticity of 2 Peter and 2 John. Here was a respected Christian leader who accepted a different canon than many modern Christians. Does that make him unchristian? An apostate? A cultist? Was he subtracting from the Word of God? Some modern Protestants condemn Latter-day Saints for such reasons. Ironically, that logic would not only condemn respected early Christians like Eusebius, but the father of Protestantism himself, Martin Luther.

http://www.jefflindsay.com/LDSFAQ/FQ_Bible.shtml


I might add that the "sad but true" comment is telling in Bernstein's piece. Why is it sad? Only a person committed to a certain Canon would be sad about facts in history.

There was nothing wrong about Marcion's Canon, except that another group of people didn't like it. This other group - the group that won - also added to the text. They admit to it.

In fact, you can find interpolations in the Bible today that were added to counter Marcion. For example, in Galatians 4:4

But when the fulness of the time was come, God sent forth his Son, made of a woman, made under the law,

The "made of a woman", or "born of a woman" in other translations.

Why would the writer mention this? It's like saying, "Jesus, born with two legs and a head"... it's so obvious that people are born of women.

Except to Marcion, who claimed that Jesus appeared (as gods often do) out of the blue in Capernaum and was NOT born of a woman.

However, Marcion was such a powerful figure at the time that most of the early church fathers spent oodles of time arguing against his claims.

This is why Gal 4:4 is considered an addition by early Xpians. It makes no sense to write this, unless you are trying to squelch the opposition. So, you write in what you need - especially considering that Pauls letters weren't considered "the Gospel" at the time, but just good commentary.

Even Paul refers to the OT as the Gospel (in Tim) and not his own writings.

In fact, many things in Pauls letters may be either Marcion's or in response to Marcion - well after Paul died.

[Ooberman]

St. Irenaius' Against Heresies is a gold mine of information. This work dates from the second half of the second century. Though he is known as the bishop of Lyons in Gaul (France), he was originally from Asia Minor and knew St. Polycarp of Smyrna, who was himself a disciple of St. John the Apostle. Thus, Irenaius was a spiritual grand-child of the Apostles.

From these documents we learn that the Church of the first two centuries had a definite governing structure, consisting of four principle offices: the bishop, the presbyters, the deacons, and the laity. The Church worshiped according to a pattern based upon types set forth in the Old Testament. Furthermore, both Church government and worship were firmly rooted in the doctrine of the Incarnation; that is, in the belief that God had truly become man so that man might be able to truly share in the life of God.

I have to comment again on your cutting and pasting without citing your source because it really reveals what occurred in the early ages of Xpianity.

Please see the above quote.

And now the original:

" One could say that St. Irenaios is the theologian par excellence of the second century. His Against Heresies is a gold mine of information. This work dates from the second half of the second century. Though he is known as the bishop of Lyons in Gaul (France), he was originally from Asia Minor and knew St. Polycarp of Smyrna, who was himself a disciple of St. John the Apostle. Thus, Irenaios was a spiritual grand-child of the Apostles. (Irenaios is also spelled Irenaeus. For background and bibliography see Quasten, pp. 287-313. We do not possess complete texts of Against Heresies. There is a translation in Vol. 1 of the Ante Nicene Fathers, pp. 315-578. For excerpts, see Bettenson, pp. 65-102.).

From these documents we learn that the Church of the first two centuries had a definite governing structure, consisting of four principle offices: the bishop, the presbyters, the deacons, and the laity. The Church worshipped according to a pattern based upon types set forth in the Old Testament. Furthermore, both Church government and worship were firmly rooted in the doctrine of the Incarnation; that is, in the belief that God had truly become man so that man might be able to truly share in the life of God."

http://www.fatheralexander.org/booklets ... ch_ext.htm

Now, Catharsis is not trying to be totally devious. He is well-meaning, but he has simply changed the text without anyone knowing and passed it on as if nothing happened.

In fact, his only deviousness is that he was probably trying to hide that he didn't write it and that the part about "par excellence" was probably too scholarly sounding for him, so he deleted it. He probably felt that it didn't sound like it might come from him, and that he could quickly shorten it without losing the meaning. We may never know.

Consider if he had to copy the quote word for word. He may have had time to mull over some of the other wording and may have changed it in other places.

In fact, I bet if we look over his posts we will find this occurring frequently.

When we look over the early Xpian writings we find this often.



Xpity will never be the same now that Google exists. And it probably never would have happened if Google existed 2000 years ago.

As it was, it was just a few people who had a few letters and texts here and there and tried to cobble something together. No wonder there were many different churches, sects, religions, etc at the time. Even before Jesus, for example with John the Baptist.

[Ooberman]

Catharsis, I am curious if you have a comment on this. Don't you find it interesting?

For example, your source (presumably Father Alexander) took his information from:

This article is an excerpted from Clark Carlton's book, The Way: What Every Protestant Should Know About the Orthodox Church, Regina Orthodox Press, P.O.Box 5288, Salisbury, MA 01952

And Father Alexander is attributed to be the editor as well as Donald Shufran in 2001.

So, i wonder if this is the original, or an altered copy of Carlton's book. Also, where did Carlton get his information? What sources was he drawing from? Did he get the information correct? Did he add his own twist?

It's been 8 years, so we could probably track down a few of the authors. Imagine the trouble of the early church fathers when they wrote 100's of years later! and no Google!