Here is another one of my observations:

It is common for the Catholic Forefathers to have their writings critisized by many non-Catholics. Those writings are not considered too significant by some Protestanst. But, have you visited a bookstore lately? Look at all the books that have been writing about Christianity. Somebody is buying that stuff. Somebody is taking those writings very seriously. How do those books compare to the early writings ?

Are contemporay writers more important than those old time Catholics?

........

-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), March 01, 2004

Answers

[bookstores and stored books]

...........

-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), March 01, 2004.

Most people who object to the early non-canonical writings are really just complaining about their content. After all, the early church writers believe that Jesus is actually present in the Eucharist. Because this doesn't jive with the biases of most fundys, they make the blanket assertion that they are wrong. Of course Catholic recognize that they are not canonical, it doesn't imply that they are wrong.

If the early church fathers denied that Jesus is really present in the Eucharist, then we would see them quoting from the fathers extensively.

-- James (stinkcat_14@hotmail.com), March 01, 2004.

Hey Rod, I picked up on that too! Interesting isn't it. There is more heresy being sold in Christian bookstores NOW than ever before! Blatant heresy. And people suck it up like water in a dry land!

-- Gail (rothfarms@socket.net), March 01, 2004.

What is a Church Father, Rod?

Who qualifies to be one?

Last time I checked, The Catholic Church made use of "heretics" and "non-canonical writings" to prove their dogmas: Books: The Protoevangelion of James,(virginity of Mary, Mary conceived without sin) The Acts of Pilate,(Jesus went to Hell) The Preaching of Peter,(Peter at Rome) The pseudoclementines .......

"Fathers": Tertullian (became a Montanist) Hegessipus (An Ebinite or Nazorean) for Jesus family Eusebius (a semi-Arrian) For history Origen Clement of Alexandria

Not Fathers? - Arrius : (believed Jesus came out of Virgin. Denied he was with God since Day 1. -Paul of Samosata: Believed Jesus was human, from human parents. -Theodore of Mopsuestia: Believed Jesus wasn't God - Nestorius- Believed Mary wasn't God Yahweh's mom.

Saintly Fathers!!!! -Athanasius- Beat up opponents. Credited with making the Trinity triumph. I give him credit for that. -Augustine- Lover man who left lover, left wife, then said sex was all evil after tasting it himself. Catholic church's main man with infant baptism.

The Christian Yahwist

The Man of Yahweh

-- Elpidio Gonzalez (egonval@yahoo.com), March 01, 2004.

Yes, but my point was directed at today's contemporary Christian "doctors" and "authors". How accurate are their inspirational theologies and doctrines when placed face to face with those early writings? How much reinventing of the wheel--if any--is going on? How much of this new stuff is sound or just plain fun stuff to read?

How much of this new stuff is simply feel good philosophy extracted or formulated to "fit" Scriptural teaching? And, has it been done before in the early times? (the "other gospels" come to mind.)

...................

-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), March 01, 2004.

Some of these contemporary critics like Schweitzer, Kung, Spong, Strauss, Helms, Eisenman, Funk,....touch on some good points we as believers can't see.

They treat the Bible like a court case. They try to find holes in the evidence presented. I think this is healthy criticism. If you survive their analysis with you faith, whatever is left, still intact, then you tuly have a strong faith.

The Man of Yahweh

The Christian Yahwist

-- Elpidio Gonzalez (egonval@yahoo.com), March 01, 2004.

This may suprise the Catholics in here, but I'm actually with y'all on this.

We have hundreds of thousands of "Christian books" written for many purposes. Some address family issues, some spiritual and some emotional. There are books that target mothers, while some teens and even single people. Still, some of the most popular are simple Bible study materials designed to feed the mind and spirit. The variety is amazing. Of course, these are all presented in a biblical way (in theory) to help, if nothing else, a person to appreciate the infinate God.

There is nothing wrong with reading a book. If it strengthens our relationship with God, it is good. If the book lies, then of course we cannot be strengthened anyway (despite how we feel) because God does not lie.

I do have a problem with external books, even true ones, being preached as if the Holy Word. Lots of these books have denominational agendas anyway, presenting truths and untruths in the same book. Confusing? Yes. The beliefs that the writer holds steadfast to, even the wrong ones, are presented as truth, which lead people astray. I think much of the Bible study material is designed to make people think a certain way. This seems like passive brainwashing to me.

That being said, I do appreciate those who do teach the truth. Though these books should never become biblical replacements, some really can teach the truth that is already written.

-- Luke Juarez (hubertdorm@yahoo.com), March 02, 2004.

PS. Kevin, Just a humorous thought... Perhaps the questions over the complete or perfect which has come explains the supposed out-pourings of spiritual gifts.

-- Luke Juarez (hubertdorm@yahoo.com), March 02, 2004.

Luke,

Yea, with this supposed "out pouring" of the "spiritual gifts", why can't people drink poison today and not die??? (Mark 16:17-20).

-- Kevin Walker (kevinlwalker572@cs.com), March 03, 2004.