I believe the book will attract adherents to Christianity from the secular masses who are now largely convinced that Christianity has somehow been discredited by science. Once a person accepts the reality of the resurrection, the Deity of Christ is the logical conclusion. From there, acceptance of the virgin birth, infallibility of Scripture, and other church doctrines are relatively small steps. This, I believe to be my contribution. Advocacy of my personal theological views would only detract from this message. And I hope to avoid such distraction at all cost.

This after he explained in the preceeding verses that the manner from heaven they Jews ate, was but a sign of the greater event which is now practiced (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=john%206:30-47;&version=31;)

This is not an effort to chastise you. Your love for God is evident from your works. But as is always the Case, when the demon of doubt sees you advancing degree by degree to a greater knowledge of Christ,and sees that he cannot use reason to overcome you as regards something as ‘implausible’ as the resurrection. He reports back, and thenceforth the demon of Pride is sent out. (in its/their capacity/power of suggestion). What it does is find ways to fetter you, that you might not want to “convert” and partake of Christ.

First, depending of what you think of Catholic/Orthodox view of the Eucharist, he tries to tie it to pagan rituals as best he can, if that doesnt’ work he suggests an exclusively non-literal meaning to the words in John 6. [if you've studied these "witnesses" that you called the Church fathers you will see that bar none, they held literal meaning, i mean the all held that Christ's physical body and blood were present once the "words of consecration" were said.]

Second, he tries, to puff you up by things that seem “abhorrent” to grown-ups. What i mean is the act of confessing your most intimate sins to a ‘man’. “how can you join a Church that does such a things?” He asks, by way of suggestion. “Is this not too embarrassing?” Hereby exhorting you against the very Child-like humility, that Christ proclaimed we needed to enter into the kingdom of heaven [Matt 18:3-4 ( http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matt%2018:3-4;&version=31; )

I hope the above words sound to you as an encouragement, to seek and participate in the greater truths of the resurrection. I’ve been wanting to create my own blog to write on subjects similar to yours but with a Catholic perspective. I suspect it takes a lot of time though.

God bless.

I have often been struck by the propensity of man to achieve greatness in one area of life, and to fall utterly short of God’s grace in another. Thus we find Elijah the Prophet running in fear from Jezebel in the very next chapter after calling down fire from heaven in the name of YHWH. Thus do we see St. Papias, St. Justin, and St. Irenaeus embracing the doctrine of chiliaism. Thus Origen, whose works so benefited the church, was later accused of the heresy which bears his name. And Tertullian, after penning so many brilliant treatises defending Christianity and exposing the errors of various heresies (e.g. the five books against Marcion), fell into the heresy of Montanism in his latter life.

Each of these men had moments of profound insight or inspiration, and each made contributions to the current theology of the church. And yet each fell into what most of us today would call error. I have great sympathy for the failings of these men who first worked out the systematic theology of the church. Had they not broached their opinions, and tried to explain questions as yet unexplained (in their time), we would not have the answers to these questions today. Somebody had to open the discussions on each of these issues, and in so doing, take the risk of failure.

I am not and have never claimed to be a Theologian. And the purpose of this site is not to resolve the differences between churches formed in the Reformation and the Catholic Church. The purpose of this site is to demonstrate to all the reality of the resurrection of Christ as an historical event. We could argue over whether the doctrine of chiliaism was somehow supported by Apostolic Succession, endorsed as it was by many of the greatest writers of the second century church (I have no chiliaistic tendencies); but the answer is subjective, and arguments could be made for either view. Such are the arguments for the primacy of the Roman Church. I believe that the Reformation has strengthened the Roman Church, forcing a reexamination of the values and doctrines rejected by the reformers; thus allowing the Church to prune away errors and excesses, while reaffirming the pure doctrine of Christ. But my views on this matter are merely a distraction from the truth which is the real issue.

Views espoused by various church leaders concerning the more esoteric aspects of Theology will always be open to discussion and interpretation; and in most cases divergent positions can be supported from the writings of the church fathers. BUT THE RESURRECTION IS A MATERIAL FACT! Either Jesus of Nazareth rose from the dead, an actual historical event, in no way subject to interpretation; or He did not rise, but remained in His tomb after crucifixion. If He rose, then He has proven His Deity, His claim to be the Anointed One of God, and all of His teachings concerning the relationship of man to God are affirmed; thus creating the foundation for the Christian church. If He rose not, then the Christian Church is false, based upon lies or delusion.

Here the testimony transmitted by Apostolic Succession is crucial. And on this point the testimony is in no way subjective. There are no shades of grey in the resurrection; a man cannot ‘sort of’ rise from the dead, or rise according to a certain viewpoint. If the witnesses to Christ’s resurrection each taught their followers that this miracle occurred, (and these teachings existed in every church founded by Christ’s Apostles, whether Alexandria in Egypt, Antioch in Syria, the various cities of Asia Minor, Rome in Italy, or Lyons in Gaul); then we have universal corroboration of the testimony of the 500+ witnesses to this world-changing, miraculous event. Whether a man ever accepts Christ or not, he needs to be exposed to the certainty of the resurrection as an actual phenomenon, an actual occurrence whose cause is inexplicable according to the knowledge of man. So armed, each person may make an informed decision as to the merits of following the risen Christ.

When you can literarily eat the Flesh and Blood of Christ (john 6) In either Church, Disagreement about the reach or authority of the Bishop of Rome is not excuse to stay in the protestant denom. Given as St. Athanasius put it: “he had not received his ordination according to ecclesiastical rule, nor had been called to be a Bishop by apostolical tradition”
http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf204.xx.ii.ii.html

God Bless

You are correct in your assertion that other fathers strongly endorsed the idea that the proper order of the church was passed from the Apostles to the church through the Apostles’ successors. Examples of this include: Clement of Rome, First Epistle to the Corinthians XLII & XLIV; Ignatius, Ephesians XII; Magnesians XIII ; Trallians VII; Polycarp, Epistle to the Philippians III & VI; Quadratus, Apology to Hadrian as preserved in Eusebius, Eccl. Hist . IV, iii; Polycrates, Epistle to Victor as preserved in Eusebius, Eccl. Hist. V, xxiv; Clement of Alexandria, Stromata I, i. Tertullian dwells on this concept at length.

However, even within the Catholic Church there have been disagreements concerning exactly what was ordained as church doctrine by the Apostles, and what was merely the personal practice of an Apostle. The paschal controversy of the second century AD is a prime example of disagreement in practice concerning traditions derived originally from Apostles. The custom of the Asiatic churches, based upon the practice of the beloved disciple during his tenure in Ephesus, was to celebrate Easter on 14 Nisan, according to the Jewish calender, regardless of which day of the week. The Roman Church, however, based upon the practices they received from the Apostles Peter and Paul, celebrated Easter only on the Lord’s day, or Sunday, the day of Christ’s resurrection. Obviously, the teachings of St. John, St. Peter, and St. Paul are all orthodox in every regard. And yet they disagreed on the details of this most important Christian Holy Day.

After discussion of excommunication under Bishop Victor of Rome, common sense prevailed and each side agreed to respect the Apostolic traditions of the other, (even Polycarp of Smyrna followed the Eastern custom!) I think the point is that either custom falls within the pale of the church. If this work leads people to a personal commitment to the truth of the Apostle’s Creed, then I am more than satisfied.

Given Eusebius’ and nearly all the Church fathers’ testimony as regards apostolic sucession, i wonder how long you will tarry in your protestant denomination. btw i saw your post in a catholic blog and followed the link you posted there (can’t remember which blog it was. Good work. Bt the way, not sure if you’ve noticed but it looks like you blog is not arranged New-old for some reason, the old articles are first. Maybe you wanted it that way?