Reading the Church Fathers discussion

10 Misconceptions about the NT Canon

In a blog series (and his book The Heresy of Orthodoxy), New Testament scholar Dr. Michael J. Kruger argues (convincingly to me) that the early Christians were committed to the Canon despite some common misconceptions such as the following:

Misconception #8: “Early Christianity was an Oral Religion and Therefore Would Have Resisted Writing Things Down”

Nemo wrote: "10 Misconceptions about the NT Canon

In a blog series (and his book), New Testament scholar Dr. Michael J. Kruger argues (convincingly to me) that the early Christians were commit..."

I have never heard of or thought that early Christians were 'averse' to writing things down....? Even taking early Christianity as an oral religion...why would anyone necessarily make a jump to think that -> a resistance in writing things down? They held the OT in such high regard...? I don't really understand the point of the whole issue.

Susan wrote: "I have never heard of or thought that early Christians were 'averse' to writing things down....? Even taking early Christianity as an oral religion...why would anyone necessarily make a jump to think that -> a resistance in writing things down? They held the OT in such high regard...? I don't really understand the point of the whole issue."

LOL! I don't follow some of the thought processes either.

Though Kruger does have a point, some biblical scholarship is pushing the dates of the writing of the New Testament Canon to later dates. The whole issue of Mark being the first Gospel written whereas tradition holds it was Matthew comes to mind here.

The "resistance" of writing things down sounds to me as a general dismissal of literacy. I don't think you will find that anywhere in the ancient world. The high illiteracy rates were simply a fact of life. Only the upper classes could afford having their children educated. This is true into modern times, and still true in developing countries. In the West the turning point came in the late Middle Ages when the Church established the first schools for everyone, such as St. Angela Merici, the foundress of the Ursulines.

Did the Apostles believe Jesus would return in their lifetimes? Tradition certainly holds that view. Kruger refers to two sources here to the contrary, that's not overwhelmingly convincing to me.

Kerstin wrote: ".....Did the Apostles believe Jesus would return in their lifetimes? Tradition certainly holds that view. Kruger refers to two sources here to the contrary, that's not overwhelmingly convincing to me."

That’s also the view I took for granted, until I came across Kruger. His argument was an eye-opener to me, because he showed that I was making invalid inferences from (alleged) historical facts, mistakes students of history often make, scholars not excepted.

The main point of Kruger’s argument is that illiteracy or expectation of end times do not mean lack of “textuality”. In other words, even if we grant that the early Christians were largely illiterate or expecting the end of the world in their lifetime, it doesn’t mean that they are not committed to writing/copying scriptures (i.e., Gospels and Pauls’a epistles) and living by them. He also provides sources and evidence that suggest that early Christians were indeed committed to the canon.

In another thread, Clark recommended
Lord Jesus Christ: Devotion to Jesus in Earliest Christianity by Larry W. Hurtado, who is Kruger’s doktorvater.

Nemo wrote: "The main point of Kruger’s argument is that illiteracy or expectation of end times do not mean lack of “textuality”. In other words, even if we grant that the early Christians were largely illiterate or expecting the end of the world in their lifetime, it doesn’t mean that they are not committed to writing/copying scriptures (i.e., Gospels and Pauls’a epistles) and living by them. He also provides sources and evidence that suggest that early Christians were indeed committed to the canon."

As I said above in so many words, that makes sense to me. And the reference to the canon you are making. The texts we have been reading so far, the biblical references the Church Fathers are using are all familiar. Some may be unfamiliar to Protestants simply because Protestant Bibles don't always have the Deuterocanonical books, i.e., Justin Martyr used the book of Wisdom in his apologies. So which writings became the New Testament crystalized themselves pretty quickly. If we found much discrepancy here, then scholars who believe in extensive diversity within the early Church would have a much stronger argument.
The Church knew whose writings were legit and whose wasn't much more so than we do today. They were contemporary writings to them. And to think that the New Testament canon was simply plucked out of thin air in the 4th century makes no sense either. The Church made it official to delineate the Bible from all the Gnostic writings that had sprung up by this time.

Where I hold out on is the question on whether the Apostles believed Christ would return in their lifetimes. I certainly believe this is true, and tradition holds this as well. Over time I have come to realize that tradition is remarkably accurate.

Now here is a follow-up question that occurred to me. How many issues regarding the early Church that Protestant biblical scholars address are specific to debates within Protestantism?

Kerstin wrote: "Where I hold out on is the question on whether the Apostles believed Christ would return in their lifetimes. I certainly believe this is true, and tradition holds this as well.."

I haven't given it any thought before. But now that I think about it, I don't recall anything in the Scripture or the writings of the early Church Fathers we've read so far that strongly suggest the Apostles believed Christ would return in their lifetime.

The debates about the early Church I'm aware of and interested in are not within Protestantism per se, but between Christians and non-Christians, they are about the reliability of the New Testament manuscripts, and how the NT Canon came to be recognized as such.

For those who are interested in the New Testament canon, I made a table listing the earliest dated manuscripts of all 27 books of the New Testament. It is based on and linked to scholarly resources available online, so people can verify the information on their own if they wish.

https://nemoslibrary.com/2018/06/05/e...

I just noticed this question on whether the early Christians and the apostles expected Jesus's immediate return. This is something that I have been wondering about lately as well.

Perhaps it depends on how you interpret their writings? As for example the saying 'the kingdom is near' could mean somewhere in the near future, or also it could mean that it is close to our heart?

I always learned that they did expect his return during their lives. I think for example on 2Pet3 where it seems to me that Saint Peter is saying that they were in the end times.

Or see 1Cor7:29, I took that to mean that there was no time to get married, since more important things must be done before Jesus's return. (I grew up in a congregation where some people actually refrained from marriage for this reason, and they were then later in life very disappointed that it all came to nothing)

Or see 2th2:1-2 where Saint Paul is telling them not to be so easily shaken by words of prophecy announcing that Jesus has returned.
This was always explained to me as obviously indicating that in fact they did have a very lively expectation of his coming again.

Also 1cor15:51 where Saint Paul says that we shall not all sleep. And then follows with explaining that at Jesus's return the dead shall be raised, and we (the then living) shall be changed.
If he says 'we' then surely he expected to be alive at Jesus's return?

The trouble with the whole point, is that making statements about the imminent start of the end seems to me such a symptom of a bad sect. It is almost always used to manipulate people. I just hope that the first Christians did no such thing.

Ruth wrote: "I just noticed this question on whether the early Christians and the apostles expected Jesus's immediate return. This is something that I have been wondering about lately as well..."

The first Christians seemed to have a strong expectation of Jesus' return, just as they had a strong experience of His death and resurrection. These two convictions seem to correlate with one another. Peter corrected those who doubted Jesus' return, and Paul those who doubted the Resurrection. Come to think it, these were very likely the same group of people, perhaps new converts who had no personal experience of Jesus' resurrection, and were not yet fully persuaded of the truth of the Christian hope. Hence Paul's use of the word "we", i.e., Christians, when writing to the Corinthians of the final Resurrection.

Being vigilant and always prepared for the imminent end, in and of itself, is not a sign of manipulative sect. Remember the thief in the night. I think what marks a manipulative sect is extremely unsound teaching, combined with brainwashing, i.e., depriving their members of the power of reason and self-determination.

I think the key here is that with Jesus you have an intersection or meeting of the eternal with the temporal. When he says that "the kingdom is at hand", then what are we talking about? Is it meant in the eternal sense and/or the temporal? Both are true.

I think what marks a manipulative sect is extremely unsound teaching, combined with brainwashing, i.e., depriving their members of the power of reason and self-determination.

Very true. God gave us free will.

Thanks! That's a good point about the resurrection and the return being related. These are both very physical, real, facts or expectations.

And they are both difficult to grasp or believe. Indeed the intersection of time and eternity. Quite incomprehensible.

I think my own church background took things way too literally (including calculations when Jesus would return, and detailed explanations of prophecies and revelations, which didn't come true, needless to say). Plus I know from experience the effects of brainwashing and limited freedom of thinking. My church/sect believed in twelve new apostles who claimed to be the right hand of Jesus and the ultimate judge of what is true doctrine. Thinking for yourself was considered dangerous, especially for women who were supposed to ask their husband instead.
But they did base all their sayings on scripture, and also on church tradition, albeit with subtle differences in interpretation, as I am now beginning to see, since I am reading the church fathers for myself. (Sorry if I throw in too many personal details about my church background, but I just wanted to explain why it's so refreshing to me to be able to hear about how other Christians read the same Bible texts and church fathers, plus it helps me taking my distance by saying these things in public)

Anyway, I am trying to throw away what was wrong without losing my faith altogether. I realize now that perhaps I was beginning to over-spiritualize things. Good to remember that some things (like the resurrection, and thus the hope of the return) are indeed very real.

The historical accounts of Jesus' resurrection do strike me as trustworthy. Also I know that some people in this century have actually seen Jesus in a vision. (some Muslims were converted that way).

Ruth wrote: "Anyway, I am trying to throw away what was wrong without losing my faith altogether. "

You're not alone in that.

This is a challenging time for Christians worldwide. Many believers are struggling with their faith, and the traditional teachings of the Church they received growing up, e..g, the historicity of the Resurrection, the divinity of Jesus, the reliability of the Scripture, and so on.

Interestingly, most, if not all, the militant critics of Christianity today were once Christians.

This is also one of the main reasons I started this group: I wanted to go back to the root of Christianity, and see for myself what the earliest Christians believed and practiced, and why. I've benefited immensely from reading the Church Fathers.

I find it astonishing how much of the Church Father's writings survive. I also find it astonishing how many Christians have never heard of them.

Ruth wrote: "Thanks! That's a good point about the resurrection and the return being related. These are both very physical, real, facts or expectations.

And they are both difficult to grasp or believe. Indeed..."

It is always difficult to discern what rings true and what doesn't, especially with the enormous proliferation of Protestant denominations. It looks like everyone is just hobbling their own Christian message together and runs with it - much of it contradictory. The Church Christ founded is supposed to be the messenger, not the message. He is the message. And if the message is true, then there isn't all that much wiggle room for interpretation to suit one's whim.

God is love, and anything that goes contradictory to love can't be of God. So when a sect - as they always do - disregards the free will of the individual, the innate dignity of every person, the right to self-determination, then that can't be of God.

Yes, a comforting thought, I am not alone in my struggles. And, come to think of it, this is probably a very necessary process. We need the struggles to make the faith really our own. It is necessary to grapple with things, experiment, try and fail, before you really get a feeling for what is valuable and why.

The Church really needs critics and struggles. Many of the teachings that we now still have from the church fathers were once written in response to heresies/critics/questions. I think that is what makes their writings so interesting, you can see that they were on the frontiers of new thought.
I've been thinking about how often we say things like: 'but remember the time in which they were writing'. They had to find their way, making statements that then were nuanced later. I think this is an ongoing process.

Nowadays the trouble is perhaps not so much on what is really true doctrine, but much more: how do we live that doctrine in practice. As for example my own congregation certainly did not deny the free will. More to the contrary I was always taught very explicitly how important that was. But only in theory. I really missed this attitude in practice. And then the words really lose their meaning.

For me it was really an eye-opener when I read Josef Pieper's treatise on prudence. For the first time I read how a man with great faith stressed the importance of the fact that God gave us a brain to reason with. It was as if the light turned on in my head. This gave me a foothold to start reasoning about my own faith.

To come back to the original topic of this thread: the New Testament Canon, I wonder in how far we can say that even the letters of Saint Paul and Saint Peter contain things that were later adjusted, or explained with more nuance. (I'm thinking of some of the more practical things like the man-woman relations, or perhaps what Saint Paul said on death penalty in Rom 13:4.)

Ruth wrote: "To come back to the original topic of this thread: the New Testament Canon, I wonder in how far we can say that even the letters of Saint Paul and Saint Peter contain things that were later adjusted, or explained with more nuance. (I'm thinking of some of the more practical things like the man-woman relations, or perhaps what Saint Paul said on death penalty in Rom 13:4.)"

I heard a former Presbyterian pastor once say that in their tradition the Gospels are all viewed through the lens of Paul, and the discussion went into the direction of how lopsided this is. Now I can't verify this. I've only been to a Presbyterian church once for a funeral. But if what he said is true, then Paul's letters take precedence over the Gospels and these are the nuances that can get one mightily off track in the long run.

Ruth wrote: "Yes, a comforting thought, I am not alone in my struggles. And, come to think of it, this is probably a very necessary process. We need the struggles to make the faith really our own. It is necessary to grapple with things, experiment, try and fail, before you really get a feeling for what is valuable and why."

This is exactly what is meant by 'continuous conversion'. Being a Christian is a life-long process of deepening our understanding, and also to get to know Christ. The Christian faith is not merely a set of philosophical concepts but a relationship with a person, Jesus. And if a relationship is to be fruitful, we have to spend time with Him. This is why in the monastic traditions the day is carefully balanced between prayer and work. The religious spend several hours a day with Scriptures on top of Mass and other prayers (aka liturgy of the hours).
I was recently back in Germany, and we happened to visit the monastery of St. Ottilien (in Bavaria), and during noon hour all monks gather in church and chant psalms for their noon prayer. We said in the pews in complete awe, it was so beautiful. And then they all filed out and continued their various tasks. There is a centering aspect of this that I wish I would be better at.

What you say about prayer reminds me of another thing that really helped me see things in a new light in the past years, namely my Anglican priest taught me the Jesus prayer. So, on the one hand, Josef Pieper taught me to use my mind, and on the other hand, by praying the Jesus Prayer I learned to surrender my mind (and heart) to Jesus, in the full trust that he would not abuse this power.

I would love to be in a monastery once, just to be able to be in church so often, and breathe the atmosphere!

What you say about seeing things through Saint Paul's lens, and how that is lopsided, that is interesting.. I was more expecting a reaction along the lines of how dare I question scripture :-)
As explained in the blog with which this thread began, https://www.michaeljkruger.com/10-mis...
Saint Paul did say that his authority was God given. How do you see that then? Does that still leave room for some human unbalancedness?

I want to read more of Josef Pieper. So far I've read his Leisure: The Basis Of Culture, which can be a bit dense, but its impact was huge. He describes how we in an increasingly secularized world become de-humanized and are mere functionaries, cogs really, in a world that only values production.

I would love to be in a monastery once, just to be able to be in church so often, and breathe the atmosphere!
Many of them have retreats. I have yet to do one myself, but that is something I definitely want to do.

Saint Paul did say that his authority was God given. How do you see that then? Does that still leave room for some human unbalancedness?

Yes. Jesus is the only begotten Son of God, and Paul isn't. Paul confirms Jesus, and with the authority of an apostle, even though he never met Jesus in person. So the flow is from Jesus to Paul, not the other way round, if that makes any sense.

Ruth wrote: "... I would love to be in a monastery once..."

You ARE in a Monastery. :)

Nemo wrote: "Ruth wrote: "... I would love to be in a monastery once..."

You ARE in a Monastery. :)"

Of course! :-D

Ruth wrote: " To come back to the original topic of this thread: the New Testament Canon, I wonder in how far we can say that even the letters of Saint Paul and Saint Peter contain things that were later adjusted, or explained with more nuance. ..."

That is another issue hotly debated among Christians today.

One lesson I took to heart in the past few months is that, in order to challenge authority in any field, one needs to know the subject matter under question as well as, if not better than, the authority s/he is challenging. Otherwise, the person simply speaks from ignorance and has no credibility.

It is certainly possible that Paul could be wrong, after all he was not yet perfect by his own admission. But, on what ground can anyone judge Paul wrong? It wouldn't do to pit Jesus against Paul, for that is to presume one knows Jesus better than Paul; To say that Paul was the product of his time wouldn't do either, for how do we know that we're not the product of our time and therefore are biased ourselves?

Yes, absolutely. I just came to realize that a little better now that I am listening to a course on western philosophy and religion. For the first time I heard what Plato really said, which is vastly different from what I was always taught that he said.

So, besides needing to know the subject matter very well, like you said, it is also very necessary to make sure that you understand what the others really did say.

This is hard, because unfortunately we cannot enter into conversation with Saint Paul, or see how he lives out his words. We do not know (usually) how much our perception is tainted with our own experiences, so that we think we understand what he said, whereas in reality he said something else.

For me, the word 'authority' has become tremendously tainted. I really need to figure out what Saint Paul would have understood by that word, because at the moment I can only say that I am quite aware that I probably have a wrong idea about that.

Ruth wrote: "For me, the word 'authority' has become tremendously tainted. I really need to figure out what Saint Paul would have understood by that word, because at the moment I can only say that I am quite aware that I probably have a wrong idea about that."

In our time we certainly question authority, even disdain it when one thinks of the mood of the 1960s which still lingers today. Authority in and of itself isn't a bad thing. It is the abuse of authority that causes real and tangible harm.

Maybe the question needs to be reformulated. Who is a reliable teacher? Regardless of discipline, we have always recognized certain individuals who've reached the pinnacle of their chosen discipline. The Church does too. We would naturally include the Apostles. After the Apostles there are a number of individuals who were/are held in highest esteem, recognized as eminently reliable teachers. These are now called "Doctors of the Church." There are at this time 36 men and women according to Wikipedia.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doctor_...

Protestantism, naturally, has their heroes too.

I think we will never be able to bridge a certain amount of ambiguity. Meaning, the way we formulate questions in our minds and not finding the exact answers - or it takes a long time before we get there. It doesn't mean the answers aren't there somewhere. There is bound to be some teacher over the past 2000 years who formulated things in a way that opens the door to deeper understanding.

Ruth wrote: "...This is hard, because unfortunately we cannot enter into conversation with Saint Paul, or see how he lives out his words..."

Yes, it is very difficult, but not impossible. This is what makes the Christian life very challenging, but also exhilarating. :)

When I read Plato's Phaedo, I had a strong desire to go back in time and converse with Socrates in person, to pry as much as possible out of him before he slips away.

It is a rare opportunity and privilege to be able to converse with a living author. God is the Author of the Scriptures, and He is living.

Ruth wrote: "For me, the word 'authority' has become tremendously tainted. I really need to figure out what Saint Paul would have understood by that word, because at the moment I can only say that I am quite aware that I probably have a wrong idea about that. .."

What did you understand by 'authority', if you don't mind sharing?

The word "authority" comes from the Latin root "auctor", meaning "father, writer, progenitor", literally "one who causes to grow". (https://www.etymonline.com/word/autho...)

What then is Apollos? What is Paul? Servants through whom you came to believe, as the Lord assigned to each. I planted, Apollos watered, but God gave the growth. So neither the one who plants nor the one who waters is anything, but only God who gives the growth. The one who plants and the one who waters have a common purpose, and each will receive wages according to the labor of each. For we are God’s servants, working together; you are God’s field, God’s building.
1 Corinthians 3:5-9 (NRSV)

Nemo wrote: "The word "authority" comes from the Latin root "auctor", meaning "father, writer, progenitor", literally "one who causes to grow". "

O thanks for sharing that! That means a lot to me. I think my current pastor is something like that for me. Someone who causes me to grow.

This is quite opposite from what I was used to. My own experience with authority actually was that it kept me small. Constant warnings for all sorts of dangers, and then telling me exactly what to do and think. It is good to reflect that this is a sure sign that it cannot have been right.

I don't mind sharing at all, actually it is really helpful for me to be able to speak on these things. In really short summary, I believed in twelve new apostles, who were sent out in 1835, and the last one died in 1901. There is a really good book about it, just came out last year. The Lord’s Work: A History of the Catholic Apostolic Church

So my idea about what 'authority' is, is based on how these apostles used their authority. And also on how people in my congregation acted. And these apostles said that God had given them the gift of discernment. So they were the ultimate judges of what was right/wrong. Yes, I was explicitly told about the human dignity, free will, etc. But in practice everyone would do exactly only what we were sure was once approved by apostles.

The negative consequences of such a culture are hard to explain to outsiders, because nothing really illegal happened (at least not more than in the rest of the world/church), but still I do think the emotional/spiritual abuse is very serious. There is just such a culture of fear of doing/thinking something wrong. And I saw the consequences of what happened when people decided important things (marriage,having children, work) not for themselves, but based on what others told them.

I've started my blog because I wanted to make some of these things public, and the Anglican newsletter wasn't quite the place. Just in case you're interested, my text that deals mainly with what this culture did to me is here: http://www.consideringlilies.nl/rambl...

Kerstin wrote: "In our time we certainly question authority, even disdain it when one thinks of the mood of the 1960s which still lingers today. Authority in and of itself isn't a bad thing. It is the abuse of authority that causes real and tangible harm."

(See also my comment above)
My congregation basically stopped living when our last apostle died in 1901, so I grew up listening to sermons that were mostly over 100 years old (some nearly 200) . You'd be surprised how often they said precisely what you just said: "in these days when authority is so much questioned... " and then some terrible consequence. I'm inclined to think this is something that is also referred to in Ecc 7:10. :-)

I've been thinking all day about the word authority, and reflected that it is used for two different things.
1) if someone knows a lot about a certain subject, he is called an authority in that field.
2) if someone has the power to impose his will on others.

Now I think that the latter type of authority is quite against what Jesus taught on how the disciples should serve one another. Or perhaps I should add: if the type 1 (better knowledge of what would be good) is missing.

Ruth wrote: "I've been thinking all day about the word authority, and reflected that it is used for two different things.
1) if someone knows a lot about a certain subject, he is called an authority in that field.
2) if someone has the power to impose his will on others. "

I think there is also a third option, that of legitimate authority of a hierarchy, for instance. For societies or entities within society to function you have to have leaders. When I think of 'authority' this is usually what I think of. When leaders do their job well, i.e., are the first servants, then everyone within the hierarchy has a chance to flourish. From this perspective option 2 above is its abuse.

Ruth wrote: "I've started my blog because I wanted to make some of these things public, and the Anglican newsletter wasn't quite the place. Just in case you're interested, my text that deals mainly with what this culture did to me is here: http://www.consideringlilies.nl/rambl..."

This is a very brave post! I cannot even imagine having to sort out reality like this. My father was a very outspoken atheist, but other than that I never had to face anything like it. I think the sense of betrayal must be very strong. It would be with me. I have been very angry at times when discovering more and more of the Christian Faith and realizing what had been withheld from me all these years, the only reason being the accident of the confession I was baptized into. That the leaders of these do this on purpose, whether now or 500 years ago doesn't matter. Someone made the decision.

"brave" is not really the right word... It was more like a wild leap because I was so very frightened. I felt so very far removed from God, and thought that probably my following false teachers had come in between me and God. So I figured that making a formal confession might solve my problem of feeling so tremendously alone. So I started writing this letter to my priest, because I always think more clearly when writing, and I wanted to make sure that I wouldn't forget anything important. But whilst writing I noticed that I ended up saying that it wasn't really my fault. And then I started thinking that this letter could be turned into a text that might be published in order to help the other persons in there who feel just like me but aren't as courageous (or silly, or obstinate) to speak up.

Kerstin wrote: "Did the Apostles believe Jesus would return in their lifetimes? Tradition certainly holds that view. Kruger refers to two sources here to the contrary, that's not overwhelmingly convincing to me."

Nemo, I meant to comment on this again. I actually asked our (history-loving) priest what his take was on Kruger's thinking, and lo and behold, he said Kruger is probably right. Now I've heard it the other way round so many times hence my earlier scepticism. That's history! You always have to make room for adjustments. :)

Kerstin wrote: "Nemo, I meant to comment on this again. I actually asked our (history-loving) priest what his take was on Kruger's thinking, and lo and behold, he said Kruger is probably right...."

Did your priest change his mind (after reading Kruger), or has he always held the same belief?

Ruth wrote: "...I do think the emotional/spiritual abuse is very serious. There is just such a culture of fear of doing/thinking something wrong. And I saw the consequences of what happened when people decided important things (marriage,having children, work) not for themselves, but based on what others told them.. .."

Where does the fear come from? Is it the fear of being punished by church leaders and excommunicated?

As you probably know by now, I was raised an atheist, and have no idea what it is like growing up in a church. I've come across many people (online and in the news, but not in person), who were raised as Christians and taught things that they now reject as false and harmful. I have to admit it is hard for me to understand, as my experience is the opposite.

Nemo wrote: "Where does the fear come from? Is it the fear of being punished by church leaders and excommunicated?"

No, it's the fear of ending up in total outer darkness. It's like a tremendous existential fear, but more personal. The fear that God doesn't want me to exist. Certain very dysfunctional aspects in my family also attributed to that. But our family is certainly not the only one like that. I think the root cause is the doctrine.

The more I talk with other ex-CA members, the more I come across the same silly fears about things that don't frighten other people. Just a silly example to illustrate that fear. In the past years I have begun talking regularly to an Anglican priest about all my questions of faith. Now to illustrate to him what I meant, I sent him some sermons from my own congregation. But we have always been taught that we shouldn't do that, since the death of the last apostle in 1901 we are in a time of silence and should keep these things quiet (note the introduction to Tim Grass' book, where they say how notoriously difficult it has been to investigate our branch of the church), anyway, I thus went against what I had been taught, and this led to some severe panic attacks, nights without sleep, I felt as if now I had cut myself off completely from God.
The people aren't personally threatening, but they say God will be angry.
But then this fear was very helpful, because actually I can think, and I realized this was totally ridiculous, so if this was the effect of my upbringing, something must be really wrong with it.

I also remember that it was explained that clergy wear black clothes underneath the more beautiful vestments in order to indicate that human is nothing, but all glory must come from God. When I first read Josef Pieper, about the four virtues, where he said something like God created nature good, I thought he was wrong.

Then the idea that the brain of women is not trustworthy, is enough to drive me to insanity. Well, perhaps I do have a bit of an odd brain, because I tend to take things to the extreme, but if you'd be able to see for yourself how the man-woman relations are in our congregation, how big decisions are decided, how women behave in group biblestudies, then you'd see I had plenty of examples to show me that this was truly meant like that. The idea is that Eve was deceived, inevitably because she just wasn't fit to make decisions, Adam wouldn't have been because God gave him a brain to see through such things. But Adam was so large-minded and loving that he followed Eve in the sin. Anyway, this idea was expanded so that now the ultimate decisions were to be made by apostles, then bishops, priests and so on down to women.
I realize now that I write this, how often I have actually also be told that it was precisely NOT like that. In theory, there was a flowing back of ideas and inspiration just as well. But currently that is really not seen in any practical form, and it was an eye-opener to read that book of Tim Grass, when I saw that even in really early times the apostles used their status to enforce their ideas.
But to come back to this idea that your brain is untrustworthy, this is how gas-lighting works, I think. You try to make someone think he is insane, and then this person will become really dependent and frightened.

Yesterday, I did a google search on 'Katholiek Apostolisch' and found an interesting text by someone who investigated a church that was based on ours. They thought it was good what we did, and two people felt called to be an apostle as well, and they copied the whole work. Now in this branch there are some very serious abuses that have recently come to light. And this person analyzed: "This is what you get when apostles stop serving and start ruling". I think it applies to our branch just as well. Although I do not know of much physical abuse, only one case, I do know quite a few people who have been so belittled and ignored to the point they attempted suicide. Now even though no one ever touched them, I still think that is damn serious.

Just one thing; for me this all means a lot, and I get a bit emotional when I write about these things. But please don't worry about that, or feel responsible to reply or anything. I am fine, I have good friends, my marriage is stable, (husband not from CA). But I really do appreciate your questions, and thanks for your interest.

Nemo wrote: "Kerstin wrote: "Nemo, I meant to comment on this again. I actually asked our (history-loving) priest what his take was on Kruger's thinking, and lo and behold, he said Kruger is probably right...."..."

He didn't read Kruger, as you'll see in his answer. I had sent him and email for clarification with Kruger's thesis that there is no evidence the apostles waited for the second coming of Christ within their lifetimes. His full answer is as follows:

"What he says is probably true to a great extant.
However it is clear in Paul's 1&2 Thess that paul early on in the 50's thought the second coming of christ was to be very soon.

I think what is going on here is the dating of the gospels and this protestant is going for an early dating -all before 68 ad and he is correct.
The idea among catholic scholars that the gospels were written after the apostles and first christians decided the lord's return was not in their life times is to try and support the view of the gospels being written much later. The idea that the gospels where written late -thus not that historicall reliable-has been around since the sixties and has been thourghly disputed by both catholic and protestant scholars a like in the last 30 years.'s"

Kerstin wrote: "...The idea that the gospels where written late -thus not that historicall reliable-has been around since the sixties and has been thourghly disputed by both catholic and protestant scholars a like in the last 30 years..."

The fact that NT scholars can draw vastly different, even contrary conclusions, based on the same set of data, makes me curious, if not suspicious, about the entire discipline, truth be told.

Ruth wrote: "Nemo wrote: "Where does the fear come from? Is it the fear of being punished by church leaders and excommunicated?"

No, it's the fear of ending up in total outer darkness. It's like a tremendous e..."

Oh Ruth, I am so sorry you had to go through all of this! What you are describing (and the little bit I have read about CA) sounds to me more of a cult than a church. Shedding all the un-truths you were raised with must be painful and the betrayal of trust very real. One has to fine one's equilibrium all over again.

The assertion that men are superior to women is fundamentally unchristian. This is a mis-interpretation (willingly or not) of Scripture. Pope John Paul II, a big proponent of women who coined the phrase "female genius" wrote in his encyclical Fides et Ratio: On the Relationship Between Faith and Reason, "Christianity proclaimed from the first the equality of all men and all women before God."

Joseph Ratzinger/Pope Benedict XVI gave four superb homilies on the Genesis creation narratives which are compiled in the book 'In the Beginning...' A Catholic Understanding of the Story of Creation and the Fall. It has been a while since I read it, and I don't recall him going specifically into the equality of the sexes, but it has an excellent chapter on the meaning of being made in the image of God. He goes into how the concept of the innate dignity of man, which is inviolable, is rooted therein.

Nemo wrote: "The fact that NT scholars can draw vastly different, even contrary conclusions, based on the same set of data, makes me curious, if not suspicious, about the entire discipline, truth be told. "

It does make one curious. How is a lay person to separate the wheat from the chaff? Who has credibility? Who has an agenda?

Yes, come to think of it, that is really weird... I don't think there's much debate about when Plato or Aristotle wrote his books? Why is it so difficult to know exactly when the gospels were written?

I wonder if the pressure about possible conclusions about the credibility makes it difficult to keep a professional distance and form a nuanced opinion.

With Plato or Aristotle that is probably less important since it's more the ideas that count than the precise facts?

Ruth wrote: "Yes, come to think of it, that is really weird... I don't think there's much debate about when Plato or Aristotle wrote his books? Why is it so difficult to know exactly when the gospels were writt..."

Good point! And with Jesus Christ you have a real person. Our faith is a historical faith, and not just a collection of myths.

Nemo put up a chart of the oldest manuscripts surviving, which go back quite far, when you think about it. I don't mean to sound negative, but there has always been an element to discredit the Church and the Christian faith in general, 'someone' had an axe to grind. These days one of the big hobby horses is to question the historicity.

Kerstin wrote: "Oh Ruth, I am so sorry you had to go through all of this! What you are describing (and the little bit I have read about CA) sounds to me more of a cult than a church."

Thanks for your understanding!

And yes, there are cult like features, that did great harm. But I've been mentioning only the bad sides, because I am hurt.

However, I did learn about God there, and as a child also I did have an intimate relation with God. (at a deeper level than the rational teachings that I now object to).
Also, there have always been good connections with the Anglican church, and Tim Grass also writes how most Christians from other denominations have commented about the great and sincere faith they found in CA.

Sorry to be saying such contradictory things, I find it very confusing myself too...

Another helpful blog series by Dr. Kruger (whom I mentioned at the beginning of this topic):

Ten Basic Facts About the NT Canon that Every Christian Should Memorize

#1: “The New Testament Books are the Earliest Christian Writings We Possess”

#2: “Apocryphal Writings are All Written in the Second Century or Later”

#3: “The New Testament Books Are Unique Because They Are Apostolic Books”

#4: “Some NT Writers Quote Other NT Writers as Scripture”

#5: “The Four Gospels are Well Established by the End of the Second Century”

#6: “At the End of the Second Century, the Muratorian Fragment lists 22 of our 27 NT books”

#7: “Early Christians Often Used Non-Canonical Writings”

#8: “The NT Canon Was Not Decided at Nicea—Nor Any Other Church Council”

#9: “Christians Did Disagree about the Canonicity of Some NT Books”

#10 “Early Christians Believed that Canonical Books were Self-Authenticating.”

Origen’s List of New Testament Books

Thanks for these links. I've just read no.7 which is on a topic I had just begun to wonder about, namely the difference between just good Christian literature, or scripture. We can read both to our benefit, but Scripture has a different status.

It's actually rather strange, come to think of it, that there is a series of books "Scripture" that has such a special authority.
It's something I have always learned as a dogma, but now I appreciate more how special this is.

Ruth wrote: "Thanks for these links. I've just read no.7 which is on a topic I had just begun to wonder about, namely the difference between just good Christian literature, or scripture. We can read both to our benefit, but Scripture has a different status."

Having being raised by parents who encouraged me to question authority, I have to admit "status" and "authority" mean little to me. As I commented earlier, I tend to think of "authority" as an intrinsic quality, not conferred externally.

The Scripture is authoritative because of its intrinsic quality. It is different from other Christian writings, because the Author is different. We cannot recognize its true authority, unless we can discern its excellence. It is a learning process for Christians, both then and now. I think that is part of Dr Kruger's point.

when you say: "the Author is different" you mean that Scripture is inspired by the Holy Ghost, right? So that gave it this intrinsic quality that is so much higher than other literature.

But that's precisely what I had begun to wonder about, because I think other literature is inspired too. I just think that some writers are more pure or transparent, or more gifted, so that their words are more timeless. (I'm also thinking of Dante, for example)

So I began to wonder if perhaps there is just a gradual scale for less/more inspired literature. Scripture being the most inspired, and let's say Sherlock Holmes rather less. That would then lead to the conclusion that still there might be errors in scripture, after all it is still a human work.

But this blog posts seem to say that there is in fact a huge difference in quality, so that is what amazed me a little, that the gap between 'normal' literature and Scripture is so large.

Ruth wrote: "when you say: "the Author is different" you mean that Scripture is inspired by the Holy Ghost, right? So that gave it this intrinsic quality that is so much higher than other literature."

I agree that other literature may be inspired too, some more than others, but I also think the gap between Scripture and other literature is large. For me, it is like comparing God as an Artist vs. human artists -- there is no comparison. ( I wrote a short blogpost on the latter subject recently).

What I'm trying to say is that we cannot judge the (quality of) Scripture properly, unless we have plumbed its "width and length and depth and height". Only then, can we understand the gap between the Scripture and other literature. But as it stands now, we're only scratching a very small part of the surface, and comparing it against other literature, as a result, we think of them as similar in quality. It is like when people say that some writer is "a genius", only because they measure him by their own standard.

Yes, thanks again for pointing this out. I think it is a very helpful way of thinking about Scripture. To admire its quality, and let that be a pointer to the great Artist behind it.

I think for me the biggest reason for believing that the Bible is God's word, is that it happens relatively often that the words seem to 'speak' to me. Jump from the page, so to say. But then, I expect God to speak through it. I always start with a very accepting attitude. (Not completely true, because I do struggle with verses that I find difficult to swallow, and seek to understand these).

But your remark about the intrinsic quality challenges me to probe it much deeper, and test the boundaries. It seems different to me if you see the value from Scripture because you notice its quality, rather than assuming it must be true because it is dogmatically stated to be the truth. The latter view has made me a little lazy, no longer seeing the need (or, better said, the option) to question what I read. Whereas exploring objections might give me a deeper insight. Perhaps I have been too 'soft' with Scripture. (just a thought. will ponder this next time I read the Bible)

Both ways are valid, I suppose, because at first if we are still young and ignorant, we may not be able to judge, as you said we would then run the risk of judging it by our own standard.

Though, come to think of it, "plumbing the width and length and depth and height", as you said, could also mean just studying it more. Learning about the beautiful structures in the poetry and such. (Side note, I can really recommend this course: Biblical Wisdom Literature as most helpful in this respect!)