Paradise Cafe Discussions - A Place For Bible Research And Christian Encouragement

I would say all Early Church Fathers, but i am a little partial to the Eastern Fathers.

Is there a listing of who , title of writings, where they were from & synopsus of what is in their writing, anywhere? I'd like to make a reading plan. Thanks if you can help.
Blithe

"Writings of the Syriac Church Fathers" is here: http://phoenicia.org/syriacwritings.html includes an "Index of Biblical & Other Ecclesiastical Writings"

You can find a list of Church Fathers here as well, with links to the writings http://www.tertullian.org/fathers/

With warm Christian love,
Stephen

Thank you!:reading:
BF

What I find interesting is that among the approximately 145 Syriac Church Fathers—some of whom wrote literally hundreds of epistles, the Didache pales next to the innumerable dissertations against heretics, catechisms, rules for Monks consolations, hymns, anthems, even treatises explaining or dissenting each other (not to mention Chronicon of Eusebius that takes us from Abraham to Constantine)—it reminds me of Solomon’s inspired words, “The words of the wise ones are like oxgoads, and just like nails driven in are those indulging in collections; they have been given from one shepherd. As regards anything besides these, my son, take a warning: To the making of many books there is no end, and much devotion is wearisome to the flesh. (Ecclesiastes 12:11-12)

If John concluded his gospel by saying, “There are, in fact, many other things also which Jesus did, which, if ever they were written in full detail, I suppose, the world itself could not contain the scrolls written,” then I suspect he also meant that our spending time on the more subtle, even subliminal nuances which drive these men into writing acres of speculations would be a waste of our precious time when of prime importance was getting the sense of what Jesus was really trying to teach—especially in the light of the fact that we already have legitimate gospel and epistle writers who weren’t all that complicated to understand.

Particularly those writing the epistles of Acts, James, Jude, Peter and all those letters Paul wrote to the congregations, do we really need more explanation? Many of these early church fathers were really doing little more than repeating what was already said—either for or against perceived heresies. Were they writing under the same inspiration as were those who gave us the inspired text? If so, then why weren’t they accepted into the Biblical canon? Maybe wishful thinking pushed some on? Others were a little more humble, but even they had their own followers. (If you want to gain some insight here, read Paul’s words at 1 Corinthians 1:10-31 in their entirety) I’ve read the apocrypha included in most Catholic Bibles and even they are placed there with dubious suspicion.

Another thing. The Biblical text was inspired as a transition from Judaism to Christianity. If any battle worn doctrines were being dealt with it was over the Law and circumcision. Neither the substance of Christ nor the issues of Lordship over Godship were even mentioned. Had it ever been, the epistles would have been literally filled with the controversy, and issues of Law and circumcision only a side show. And since the controversy over substance and Godhead and Christ arose decades later, in what way can we say this was inspired? Unless you take the church fathers as being inspired. And if the church fathers were inspired, then what they wrote was also inspired, so that what was decided by the Council of Nicaea was also inspired—which is beginning to sound like the Faithful and Discreet Slave Class action argument all over again. Are we getting the picture yet? A little presumption has gone a long way—centuries I would say. What say you?

love,

sw

And the Truth shall set you free...:thumbsup::clap:

Amen and ditto that!:thumbsup: I would say, though, that it has been far more than a little presumption and more like a landslide of pride.
Pride is the fight. :dueling:
I remember vividly the first time the thought popped into my head that: "they're all *gasp*... alike...":shocked: It was a long awaited epiphany.

:airkiss:Love you guys to pieces:grouphug:
:peace:

I was not raised “in the truth” – having began association in my mid-twenties after many years of 1960’s era what I saw as I free-spirited thinking about the meaning of life – yet embracing the existence of God from as early as I can remember.

I always felt genuine about my JW ministry, yet I always had this nagging feeling that I was on someone’s doorstep trying to sell them a vacuum cleaner. It always bothered me - because I was always about “I have the truth and you don’t” - even when ones would express what I now see as wonderful expression of faith.

Wow – they were ahead of me!

I betcha that Jesus didn’t see the people he spoke to in that manner that I did. Jesus embraced people as seeing the possibilities, not the present reality.

I hope that if we’ve learned anything out here, we’ve learned that…


v r

Hi v r,

And many were ahead of us. I felt much as you when engaged in "formal ministry" and ran into a few that were better informed and educated than me but were patient enough not to call me up on my errors. But then formal witnessing was never my forte. I did as much if not more incidental (accidental), so to me, what I was learning I was proclaiming genuinely, esp. when it came to the few years remaining before Armageddon (which came and went in 1975 leaving some fine young people we have today:thumbup:.)

But this never dampened my ideal. Christianity is a sharing belief system, and in my heart of hearts I cherish each moment I can 'inform' the uninformed and share what knowledge I have while encouraging others to do the same.

Like you say, the biggest problem with the "formal witnessing" ministry is our attitude we take with us. If we just stuck to sharing the basics and let those who receive them get baptized and thereafter 'press on to maturity' in the way the spirit moves them, then we have done our job.

The problem that now exists is the over-organized nature of what should have remained a spirit driven ministry. Now, even our insistence that meetings are necessary for all in the same regimen, ie., we will all fall away simultaniously if we stop attending ... this is bogus. Many survived isolation and concentration camps and came out stronger than when they went in. To say we need meetings to keep spiritually alive is just plain groupthink mentality. Basically there are only two reasons to 'gather together:' To receive instruction and encouragement, and for the seasoned who are mature or maturing, to give more than take, in 'an interchange.'

But in the controlled environment of the present WT mantra, that won't be happening anytime soon.

Love,

sw