Personally I don't find it all that complex. Ole Socrates implied that the beginning of wisdom was when we realize we do not know. As far as mythology is concerned, I just consider what the moral of the story might be. Even then we all don't see things the same way. I guess that tells us we each have our own journey, which is unique to us.
First Love
- Thread starter Motar
- Start date
"See to it that no one takes you captive through hollow and deceptive philosophy, which depends on human tradition and the elemental spiritual forces of this world rather than on Christ." (Colossians 2:8 NIV)
Motar you remind me of my beloved aunt. We wrote each other for more than thirty five years. She hung on to the same thing you do. She was pretty special to me.
Motar sometimes I feel like there is a fly in the ointment. Just not my place to point that out. in the long run I feel everything will be okay. 
You've been had by the primier hollow deceptive philosophy of the age so it's doubley amusing to read your warning.
All those hollow deceptive philosophys have at there center Christ.
We've all been had at one time or another in this life. Doesn't effect anything one way or another. A good heart is known, as well as bad one.
Massey Lectures
The founders of Historic Christianity taught and enforced the
doctrine that their Jesus the Christ had risen from the dead, body, bones, and all, and that he demonstrated the fact to his followers when he declared that he was not a spirit! The resurrection, therefore, was physical from the first! In a confession found in the Apostolic Creed, in the year 600, the convert has to say, "I believe in the resurrection of the flesh"; and only the other day Canon Gregory declared in St. Paul's Cathedral, that if you took away the physical resurrection of Jesus, the one foundation of their spiritual life was gone! If the Christ did not rise corporeally from his tomb, then that tomb would be the grave of Christianity. But Paul's doctrine of the resurrection is totally opposed to this cardinal doctrine of the Christian creed, the resurrection of the body. He does not expect to rise corporeally because of any physical resurrection of the Christ. His doctrine is that of the Gnostics, and consequently identifiable by the comparative process. It is also entirely opposed to that which was proclaimed by his contemporaries, Hymenœus and Philetus, who taught that the resurrection was past already, and who had overthrown the faith of some in the doctrine preached by Paul. He says "they are in error," and "their word will eat as doth a gangrene." Now, the sole way in which the resurrection could be set forth as already past was the same then as it is to-day--namely, as the resurrection once for all of a personal and historical Saviour, who there and then arose from the dead for the first time and instituted the resurrection. Paul's own resurrection from the dead was not assured by any such miraculous, non-natural, or impossible means! On the contrary, in a passage which shows a cleavage in the context, he breathes an aspiration thus: "If by any means I may attain unto the resurrection from the dead"--therefore, not the means set forth by Historical Christianity--and he continues: "Not that I have already attained, or am already made perfect, but I press on." Again, this is pure Gnostic doctrine. The Perfect were those who had reached the octave, or height of attainment, in a sense which can only be understood by the Gnosis.http://pc93.tripod.com/gmlectrs.htm
I agree.
Such doctrine being impossible to the Gnostic, I hold these texts to have been falsely fathered upon Paul. The two doctrines cannot co-exist in one mind, or system of thought; and we have to ascertain which of the two is the genuine Pauline doctrine before we can deter- mine the nature of his Christology. Again he says, "wherefore let us cease to speak of the first principles of Christ, and press on unto perfection, not laying again a foundation of repentance from dead works, and of faith towards God, of the teaching of baptisms, and of laying on of hands, and of resurrection from the dead, and of eternal judgment, and this will we do!" Here we find a complete repudiation by Paul of certain cardinal doctrines of Historic Christianity elsewhere ascribed to him! These are called first principles, or those belonging to an exoteric or exterior interpretation of the Gnosis, which is looked upon as a pernicious and deadly heresy. They were a part of those "beggarly rudiments" which kept men in bondage to the Petrine gospel of the flesh. Paul positively repudiates, and most distinctly denies, salvation by means of these Christian Sacraments! Those who have taken up with this teaching are treated as backsliders from the true faith, which is that of Paul's own gospel, and of the esoteric interpretation. "For as touching those who were once enlightened, and tasted of the heavenly gift, and were made partakers of the Holy Ghost, and tasted the good word of God, and the powers of the age to come, and then fell away, it is impossible to renew them again." Every special phrase reveals the Gnostic and the Gnosis. Those who fell away have lapsed from the interior teaching of Paul, and gone over to those who now preach the externalised history, the "other gospel" of the "other Jesus," with its corporeal resurrection. Having been fed on solid food they have become such as have need of milk. This repudiation of dogmas culminates in his banishing the resurrection of the dead, and the Eternal Judgment or punishment at the Last Day. Here the resurrection of the dead must include that of the historic Jesus, if there had been one, and therefore this also is denied. He rejects any foundation laid on that, and says, "let us cease to speak of it." Paul, like all Gnostics, taught the resurrection from the dead in this life; not the resurrection OF the Dead in the life hereafter. Now, it is quite certain that these Gnostic doctrines could not have been interpolated in Paul's writings by the founders of the Fleshly Faith. Therefore, it is the physical dogmas that have been foisted into the Epistles of Paul.
The founders of Historic Christianity taught and enforced the
36
I agree.
Such doctrine being impossible to the Gnostic, I hold these texts to have been falsely fathered upon Paul. The two doctrines cannot co-exist in one mind, or system of thought; and we have to ascertain which of the two is the genuine Pauline doctrine before we can deter-
37
sounds pretty complex in reference to someone writing a few letters to folks,
ever wonder where he got a pen and paper, or did he have a typewriter
ever wonder where he got a pen and paper, or did he have a typewriter
In the OP, the Lord Jesus addresses the loveless orthodoxy of the Ephesian believers. They were defenders of the Truth, who had lost their affection for Him and those He came to restore.
In the same way, Paul addresses loveless orthopraxy in the Corinthian believers.
"If I speak in the tongues of men or of angels, but do not have love, I am only a resounding gong or a clanging cymbal. If I have the gift of prophecy and can fathom all mysteries and all knowledge, and if I have a faith that can move mountains, but do not have love, I am nothing. If I give all I possess to the poor and give over my body to hardship that I may boast, but do not have love, I gain nothing." (1 Corinthians 1:13 NIV)
In my experience, LL, Christian conduct speaks a better word about Christ than Christian confession.
Ludlow, are you familiar at all with the works of Joseph Campbell, like The Hero's Journey or The Hero of a Thousand Faces?
Yes I've read Campbell's books on mythology. Not those though. Also a fan of Karen Armstrong, Kenneth Davis and some others. I found Ms. Armstrong's books to be more informative but maybe because she was my first on the subject of historical religion .
Not familiar with those two. Bill Moyer did a series of interviews with Campbell for PBS. Brilliant man and mind. In The Hero's Journey he shows how the basic story line of all myths, including the Christ myth all follow the same pattern. He is still considered the world's foremost authority on mythology.
I'm familiar with Campbell's , and many others research Cliffy. Very intelligent people.
George Lucus based Start Wars on The Hero's Journey. They were good friends. In fact, I believe the Moyer interviews took place on Skywalker Ranch.
Cool. Next time I'm close to a public library I'll check those out. I've been interested in history most of my life. I read a lot of different things. Biblical Literacy by Rabbi Joseph Telushkin is a good one too for those who are interested in a Jewish viewpoint. Studied some on the five Pillars of Islam and of course been studying the history of Christianity for a long time. Also read some on other religions apart from the Abrahamic Religions. Been slacking off lately but I still remember a few things.
"I know your deeds, your love and faith, your service and perseverance, and that you are now doing more than you did at first. Nevertheless, I have this against you: You tolerate that woman Jezebel, who calls herself a prophet. By her teaching she misleads my servants into sexual immorality and the eating of food sacrificed to idols." (Revelation 2:19-20 NIV)
The congregation in Thyatira was loving to a fault. Their extreme sense of charity included tolerance of a false prophetess who promoted sexual immorality and idolatry.
How are Christians to maintain a balance of grace and truth in their belief and practice?
I would tell you this though Cliffy. Although I've read several books by several different people , including Susan Jacoby a brilliant author who is an atheist, , I am not an atheist, A heathen maybe, but not an Atheist.
If there were only two words I was allowed to share with you Motar, they would be these. " Cultural Context". Be well.
Then he is a post mortem authority. He wrote some pretty good stuff.
Jacoby also wrote some good stuff. Edith Hamilton, Rick Riordan, there are lots of good writers of fiction and non-fiction mythology stuff.