Is the Apostle John a Heretic?

[Thinkingstuff]

Still, the simplest exegesis of scripture is a symbolic one. In order to uphold this "real presence" doctrine, you have to do all sorts of logical wrangling, and pick up a piece of bread or vial of juice and say "this looks like regular food, and is physically no different than the bread or juice that had been on the shelf next to it when purchased, but there is something else here that you can't see". Yet this is not articulated in the text of scripture, but we see the interpretation slowly become more articulated over the centuries afterward.
I have been mentioning a logical principle called "Occam's Razor". I have always held this principle, but did not know the name of it when debating this stuff before my year long break (I had seen the name in science books, but did not retain what it was). I learned the name in other online technical theory discussions this past year, and it came in handy for this debate.
This states that in cases like this when we cannot see point 0, and we have to basically reconstruct the history leading from 0 to the present, we should assume the simplest explanation of the data we have. And that is that the doctrine deveopled. You only say that "it was a fully formed interpretation that the apostles handed orally only, but then the ECF's began writing more and more about it", because you choose to follow a certain church body, and IT tells you this; having concocted it to justify their practices and authority that are not quite articulated in scripture. I'm sorry, but with that same principle, this looks too fishy. Of course, men will concoct anything to justify themselves. And then they tell you "by faith", and "the Church is an object of faith" to top it off. As it is, the world we are supposed to witness to thinks we will "believe the sun is a big chocolate square if we are told to believe that", and it's hard enough to get them to believe in God or the supernatural, (which they liken as being as unprovable as a "flying spaghetti monster" or "pink unicorn" or "purple martian ice cream truck"), so we do not need to add all this stuff that's not even expounded in scripture.
Sorry, but I do not see any reason to trust those men.

How do you verify the validity of any historical document?

 

[bound]

How do you verify the validity of any historical document?

There is no empirical means of doing so.

 

[Thinkingstuff]

There is no empirical means of doing so.

Not entirely true.

 

[Matt Black]

I never knew that Bible-believers (including Catholics and Anglicans) questioned whether all the Johannine writings were from the same person. I know I've heard the question raised by Muslims, "higher critics", and other skeptics who question everything. I think most here in evangelical circles hold them all to be the same.

Forgive me, but you may well be conflating 'most evangelical circles' with 'here' on that one. It's a fairly widespread belief amongst Catholic, Anglican and some evangelical scholars.

Since I've always found it hard to believe that John, who was already pretty much grown when he was with Christ (had to be born before 20AD, and thus in his mid-to-late 70's in the 90's; did people even live that long then?

Oh, I don't know; Augustus, the first Roman Emperor lived until 78, and Tiberius his successor until 79, and both were probably murdered.

That's generally beyond active age in our day, though it's probably changing as health improves); I'm wondering if this second John was the one who came into contact with the second century fathers. Maybe some mistook him for the Biblical John, or maybe he even impersonated him. In that case, the ECF's are further removed from the Apostolic age than we thought. This would go along with the whole notion of a "period of darkness" between AD70 and the second century.

Sounds a bit Mormon to me...

Everyone else died before then, and it seems strange that noone else wrote between then, and John waited almost 30 years to write his epistles and Revelation. (And if there is so much of a cloud as to which one wrote what, then this should not be so improbable).

Clement? The Didache?

But the power associated with the offices had been added long before the end of the first millenium, so the questions remain. I'm sure the other four patriarchs live almost as kingly as the Pope, so is that what the Apostles intended for the bishops?

I'm not so sure; to be a Patriarch (in the west as well as the east) was a pretty dangerous occupation, even after the establishment of Christianity under Theodosius; Patriarchs were often deposed, forced into exile, and generally menaced by the Emperor particularly in the East (and by barbarians in the West later).

Where in Revelation would that be?

The message ot the Seven Churches

Revelation was a book of prophetic symbols, and let's say the emerging "catholic" church was the Great Harlot, then in a sense, this could have been in reaction to what was then growing out of Rome. (I've actually sort of moved away from this sort of retrospective interpretation in favor of what it must have meant to the original readers, but for the sake of argument, that could have been a way an indirect rebuke could have been given).

I very much doubt it that the Roman church was the Great Harlot; far more likely to be the Roman civil power which was busy persecuting that church; plus when Jesus, speaking through John, is quite able to specifically rebuke seven congregations in Asia, I don't think He'd have much trouble in adding Rome to that list (I know it would mean messing up the 'magic number' of seven, but still...)

 

[Matt Black]

Still, the simplest exegesis of scripture is a symbolic one.

Er...I think most fundamentalists would take issue with you on that one!!

In order to uphold this "real presence" doctrine, you have to do all sorts of logical wrangling, and pick up a piece of bread or vial of juice and say "this looks like regular food, and is physically no different than the bread or juice that had been on the shelf next to it when purchased, but there is something else here that you can't see".

Wot no miracles then? Jairus' daughter wasn't really dead but was just in a coma? The feeding of the 5000 came about because the crowd (some of whom secretly did have food on them but were unwilling to share it) were shamed into handing out their food by the small boy?

Yet this is not articulated in the text of scripture, but we see the interpretation slowly become more articulated over the centuries afterward.

Except that for me it's there already in Scripture eg: in John 6:32-59 (and for Luther it was "This is My Body, this is My Blood")and the ECF's writings on the Real Presence are entirely consistent with that Scripture. So there's no 'development' by the ECFs, merely an expanded explanation of what those Scriptures mean.

I have been mentioning a logical principle called "Occam's Razor". I have always held this principle, but did not know the name of it when debating this stuff before my year long break (I had seen the name in science books, but did not retain what it was). I learned the name in other online technical theory discussions this past year, and it came in handy for this debate.
This states that in cases like this when we cannot see point 0, and we have to basically reconstruct the history leading from 0 to the present, we should assume the simplest explanation of the data we have. And that is that the doctrine deveopled. You only say that "it was a fully formed interpretation that the apostles handed orally only, but then the ECF's began writing more and more about it", because you choose to follow a certain church body, and IT tells you this; having concocted it to justify their practices and authority that are not quite articulated in scripture. I'm sorry, but with that same principle, this looks too fishy. Of course, men will concoct anything to justify themselves. And then they tell you "by faith", and "the Church is an object of faith" to top it off. As it is, the world we are supposed to witness to thinks we will "believe the sun is a big chocolate square if we are told to believe that", and it's hard enough to get them to believe in God or the supernatural, (which they liken as being as unprovable as a "flying spaghetti monster" or "pink unicorn" or "purple martian ice cream truck"), so we do not need to add all this stuff that's not even expounded in scripture.
Sorry, but I do not see any reason to trust those men.

Except that dear old William of Occam flies out the window when faced with the miraculous. Yes, it's difficult to separate the miraculous wheat from the counterfeit spaghetti-monster chaff*, but let's not throw the miraculous baby out with the 'pink unicorn' bathwater!

*An inaccurate analogy, I know, since spaghetti is made from wheat!

 

[Eric B]

Sounds a bit Mormon to me...

What sounds Mormon?

Clement? The Didache?

Clement was believed to have been written around 96. I'm talking about the three decades before that. And the Didache also is probably no earlier than that. That it was actually written earlier, by actual apostles, is just a legend.

I'm not so sure; to be a Patriarch (in the west as well as the east) was a pretty dangerous occupation, even after the establishment of Christianity under Theodosius; Patriarchs were often deposed, forced into exile, and generally menaced by the Emperor particularly in the East (and by barbarians in the West later).

It may have still been dangerous in the larger secular context. But within the church, they still were given way more status and power than in the NT. Then once the seculat state completely accepted them, they did become as kings.

The message ot the Seven Churches I very much doubt it that the Roman church was the Great Harlot; far more likely to be the Roman civil power which was busy persecuting that church; plus when Jesus, speaking through John, is quite able to specifically rebuke seven congregations in Asia, I don't think He'd have much trouble in adding Rome to that list (I know it would mean messing up the 'magic number' of seven, but still...)

Forgot to mention before, the letters to the 7 churches followed a mail route all in the same general area in Asia Minor. It was not an exhaustive rebule too every congregation in the Church. So it would not mention Rome or anywhere else off of that route. And yes, the number 7 was significant there, in that these were used to represent the entire church (completeness).

Er...I think most fundamentalists would take issue with you on that one!!

I meant "scriptures like this".

Wot. no miracles then? Jairus' daughter wasn't really dead but was just in a coma? The feeding of the 5000 came about because the crowd (some of whom secretly did have food on them but were unwilling to share it) were shamed into handing out their food by the small boy?

Except that dear old William of Occam flies out the window when faced with the miraculous. Yes, it's difficult to separate the miraculous wheat from the counterfeit spaghetti-monster chaff, but let's not throw the miraculous baby out with the 'pink unicorn' bathwater!

What you're arguing for would be more analogous to the girl still lying there stiff and lifeless, without a pulse even, and saying "she really is alive, It doesn't look like it, but there really is a living 'presence' in this body". Or that instead of the fish actually being shared by the 5000, it ran out, and Jesus declares that they were still fed, even though it did not look like it. They were fed "spiritually". While both spiritual feeding and the dead being alive are biblical, still, these are specific instances of visible miracle that sre not stated as "spiritual". So the analogies do not fit. The Communion is spiritual, so then it's not about some "supernatural change" to the physical food.
And my point about the world is that it is hard enough to get them to believe the real supernatural miracles. We don't need to fabricate even more stuff and call it a miracle.

Except that for me it's there already in Scripture eg: in John 6:32-59 (and for Luther it was "This is My Body, this is My Blood")and the ECF's writings on the Real Presence are entirely consistent with that Scripture. So there's no 'development' by the ECFs, merely an expanded explanation of what those Scriptures mean.

It's the "expansion" I'm concerened about, and where it appears the specific insistance on the bread and wine being somehow different comes from.

 

[Eric B]

Double post

 

[Matt Black]

What sounds Mormon?

Your comment about the 'great darkness' from 70AD sounds a lot like the Mormon concept of 'the Great Apostasy' of the similar period.

What you're arguing for would be more analogous to the girl still lying there stiff and lifeless, without a pulse even, and saying "she really is alive, It doesn't look like it, but there really is a living 'presence' in this body". Or that instead of the fish actually being shared by the 5000, it ran out, and Jesus declares that they were still fed, even though it did not look like it. They were fed "spiritually". While both spiritual feeding and the dead being alive are biblical, still, these are specific instances of visible miracle that sre not stated as "spiritual". So the analogies do not fit. The Communion is spiritual, so then it's not about some "supernatural change" to the physical food.

I'm not arguing for that at all; it's just that your earlier denial of the supernatural in Communion sounds a lot to me like 'higher critical' liberal theology's denial of the supernatural in the Gospel narratives.

And my point about the world is that it is hard enough to get them to believe the real supernatural miracles. We don't need to fabricate even more stuff and call it a miracle.

I don't regard it as a fabrication at all, but in any event the Gospel is the Gospel; we have to accept that, as St Paul warns us, it's foolishness to the wise and a stumbling block to them. That shouldn't be a reason to dumb it down.

It's the "expansion" I'm concerened about, and where it appears the specific insistance on the bread and wine being somehow different comes from.

Not so much an expansion as an explanation.

 

[Eric B]

Your comment about the 'great darkness' from 70AD sounds a lot like the Mormon concept of 'the Great Apostasy' of the similar period.

Oh, I didn't know whether they taught that or not. There are some historians who point out that apostolic writings drop out after a certain point, and then pick up with the ECF's, but by then, things have changed in the Church.

I'm not arguing for that at all; it's just that your earlier denial of the supernatural in Communion sounds a lot to me like 'higher critical' liberal theology's denial of the supernatural in the Gospel narratives.
I don't regard it as a fabrication at all, but in any event the Gospel is the Gospel; we have to accept that, as St Paul warns us, it's foolishness to the wise and a stumbling block to them. That shouldn't be a reason to dumb it down.

But I'm not denying the supernatural. Again, your teaching is nothing like any supernatural miracle. I know you then try to argue for a new kind of "miracle" then, but there is still nothing miraculous about it. You even admit the bread and wine is physically no different than any other. For it to be changed into something different would be a supernatural miracle. Or for a single wafer or vial to feed thousands. What you're doing is essentially just redesignating a substance; calling it something else (as well as it still being the original thing at the same time). Again, like the sun being a big chocolate square! That's not a supernatural act of God; it's just our own mental process. Nothing has really changed; we only look at it and name it differently.

The Church has gotten hung up in teaching all sorts of stuff, tagging it "supernatural", and then easily falling back on that when people question it. Just like saying the earth was flat or the center of the earth despite all observation. The church was able to control people's minds with this "Miracle, Mystery and Authority" tactic for centuries, but much of it was wrong. (and then the world reacted and "threw the baby out with the bathwater" in rejecting all supernatural claims! Can we really blame them?)
So appealing to the supernatural is no excuse for just any teaching the Church comes up with. That's why, at least among those who agree on the authority of Scripture, clear scriptural statements are more sure to go by, and unless the text (a statement or the description itself) clearly shows something is a miracle, we cannot be dogmatic on it. A symbolic interpretation fits the scriptural statement just as well. And it better fits the way things work out. It explains why there is no apparent change in the material. The spiritual 'presence' is in us.
So the debate then becomes one of a symbolic interpretation that makes sense according to all the other facts, or a "supernatural" interpretation justified by Church "tradition", ignoring the historical evidence of the specifications doctrine developing, purely by the authority of the Church that teaches that tradition.

(Also forgot, the issue was not Sir Occam denying the supernatural, but rather in a case like this, where we're not even agreed on the supernatural nature of the teaching in question, and are trying to trace it, we should go with the simplest view based on the evidence, which shows the teaching developing, rather than concoct some "oral tradition", based on a few proof-texts, yet other evidence shows it was the same basic information as the written record. (I.e. it doesn't even look like a fully developed teaching that was oral only and simply leaked out in writing more and more as time went on).

Not so much an expansion as an explanation.

And the "explanations" WERE "expansion". It goes beyond what the text says and adds some new claim of a miracle even though there is nothing that occurs for it to be a miracle.

 

[Matt Black]

For the record I don't hold to transubstantiation but I do hold to some kind of Real Presence in the Eucharist.