“If any brother has a wife who is not a believer and she is willing to live with him, he must not divorce her And if a woman has a husband ho is not a believer and he is willing to live with her, she must not divorce him. For the unbelieving husband has been sanctified through her believing husband. Otherwise your children would be unclean, but as it is, they are holy. But if the unbeliever leaves, let him do so. A believing man or woman is not bound in such circumstances; God has called us to live in peace.” 1 Corinthians 7:12-15

If a believer, Catholic or Christian alike, is stuck in a one way marriage where one partner is unwilling to make it work (and if you are really a Christian, you would be willing to do everything to save your marriage and treat your spouse like Christ Himself), the Christian is not bound to remain married to the unbeliever. Divorce is bad and is certainly overused as the first way out when things get hard, but in some cases, it is the best option.

I suggest, before you make any permanent decisions about your beliefs in God, that you talk to a priest that is part of a religious grouped called the Legionaries of Christ. They are a great community and have always been there for me and my family and friends. I think they could help you as they have always helped me and everyone I know for my whole life.

You are in my prayers, God Bless

I wondered why you felt the need to “marry” your present partner, knowing that your marriage wouldn’t be recognised by the Church.

I imagine, also, there is the added guilt, that you are living in sin (adultery) as far as the Church is concerned.

I suggest you live apart from your husband or refrain from any “physical” contact until you get married in the Catholic Church…on the condition you get your annulment.

Remember, Nicki, Jesus Christ, comes before everything.

Another thing… a few times a year, we visit friends from out of state. They are Christian, but non-demoninatinal. As guests in their home, we always oblige and go with them to thier church. Besides, the nearest Catholic church is in a neighboring town. This little Christian church is filled with people eager and happy to be there. They sing!! I try taking the good parts of their church and bring them to ours. I’m driven to bring life into our congregation. I don’t know…

I could use some advice. Thank you.

One has to be filled with the Spirit!

http://youhearitssound.blogspot.com/

No problem. I hope this was helpful for you on your journey.

God bless,

Chris

According to a reasonable interpretation of the chronological evidence, Polycarp (while a bishop of Smyrna) was writing in AD 115 about the extensiveness of Marcion’s teachings in Asia Minor (Pol. Phil. 2:18,19). What we fail to realize is the extensiveness of Marcion’s religious beliefs as shared with other believers who constituted the “first” Christians. The “first” Christians were Gnostic Christians and not of the later “Western Christianity”.

About the year AD 138, Justin Martyr (a resident of Rome) wrote about Marcion’s unusually long and effective teaching career. Understand that the polemics of the Early Church Fathers are often harsh and untrue regarding those that they attacked as being “heretics”. That being said we need to listen closely to what is said by Justin Martyr in and around 150 C.E. Justin is known as the first Christian apologist, called also Justin the Philosopher. Born in Samaria of pagan parents, he studied philosophy, and after his conversion in Ephesus to Christianity at about the age of 38, he went from place to place trying to convert men of learning by philosophical argument. He opened a school of Christian philosophy at Rome, where he and some disciples were finally martyred under Marcus Aurelius for practicing an unauthorized religion. Of his writings (in Greek), only two undisputed works remain, the Apology (with an appendix called the Second Apology) and the Dialogue.

Now let us listen very carefully to what Justin has to say.

“And there is Marcion, a man of Pontus, who is even at this day alive, and teaching his disciples to believe in some other god greater than the Creator. And he, by the aid of devils, has caused many of every nation to speak blasphemies, and to deny that God is the maker of this universe, and to assert that some other being, greater than He, has done greater works. All who take these opinions from these men are, as we before said, called Christian” (Justin’s [First] Apology. I.26. ANF. vol. 1. p. 171). The reason for dating this statement to the year AD 138 is discoverable in Blackman’s study (Marcion and His Influence,. p. 21).

What you should take notice of is not that Justin had an extreme dislike for those that did not agree with his religious belief system but the fact that those who revered Marcion and were like Gnostic believers in “the Christ” were recognized as early as 140 C.E. as “Christians” even by their opponents. What we have here is an “in-house” debate and disagreement on just who this “Christ” really is. We call this Christology today.

One of the most startling things in Justin’s unfavorable review of Marcion is the surprising appearance of the word “Christians” as a commonly used title to describe the members of Marcionite churches. By AD 138, Marcionites could be found in “every nation.”

THE CHRISTIAN “CHRIST” OR “CHRESTOS”?
At this early time, there is some confusion about the correct spelling for “Christian.” It is known that Marcion preferred to call Jesus the “Chrestos” (which means the Kind or Helpful One). The spelling for “Chrestos” (the Good one) is derived from an ancient inscription to a Marcionite synagogue (Daniel Jon Mahar, English Reconstruction and Translation of Marcion’s version of To The Galatians, p. 1).

Let us take note of the fact that those “orthodox” believers who were more allied with the Roman Ecclesia and who were opposed to Gnostic Christianity were already at this time proudly bearing the title “Catholic.” By the time when The Acts of the Apostles was formally published about the middle of the Second Century, the word “Christian” had become very popular as a designation for believers in Jesus. Because of this, there was needed some kind of explanation about its origin.

We are all familiar with the word “Christian” but it will surprise you to know that this is not the designation by which the earliest believers in “the Christ” were know:

Not many know that the Sinaiticus manuscript has a peculiar way of spelling the word Christian. Everywhere this title appears, that Fourth Century manuscript spells it “Chrestian”.
Vaticanus, a manuscript of the same age, utilizes a slightly transitional spelling “Chresistian”.
This surely is strong evidence about Marcion’s real role. Not only is Marcion’s original spelling for “Christian” still evident in such important manuscripts, this also indicates directly the strength and extent of Marcionite effects on the entire Christian community, including its scholars; even as late as the fourth century!!!

There is still some bifurcation between the words “Catholic” and “Christian” today.

LET HISTORY SPEAK TO US AND LET US LISTEN CAREFULLY
In AD 49, Rome experienced disturbances in the Jewish community that had been provoked by the preaching of “Chrestus” (based on the account of Suetonius in J. Steven’s New Eusebius. no. 2, p. 1).

Acts 18:2 2 And found a certain Jew named Aquila, born in Pontus, lately come from Italy, with his wife Priscilla; (because that Claudius had commanded all Jews to depart from Rome:) and came unto them. (KJV)

It seems notable at this time (C.E. 49) that “Jews” in general were expelled, and not simply followers of “Chrestus” or “Chrestians.”

Answer for yourself: Why is this important and what should we learn from this?

The reason why all the Jews were expelled from Rome at this very early date is that the Roman authorities did not or could not clearly differentiate between the Christians and the Jews (Wilson, Marcion… p. 25). It was over disturbances involving this “Chrestus” that Rome expelled them from the city. Notice how early this is; we are talking about 49 C.E. and the existence of “Chrestus” as this early date. If we can come to understand just who or what “Chrestus” refers to at this early date then we will have an accurate picture of what these Jews or earliest believers actually had “faith in” that prompted Rome to rid themselves of them. The presence of the Gentile title “Chrestus” in Rome implies also the presence of an accompanying Gentile-oriented religious belief as well. So we are actually looking at both Jews and Gentiles who had a faith concerning “Chrestus”.

Nobody knows how the Church of Rome was established. Neither the Book of Acts nor the writings of the early Fathers explain how Christianity arrived in Rome. As has been discovered, Suetonius, the Roman historian, mentions the expulsion of followers of Chrestus from Rome, during the time of Emperor Claudius c. AD 40-50. This indicates that a flourishing Christian community existed in Rome, even before Paul went to Corinth or Ephesus in AD 49. By the time of Nero (AD 54-68), the Christian community in Rome was already of a considerable size.

Answer for yourself: How did Christianity reach Rome at that very early date and before Paul? Could this “Christianity” we see be something other than what we have come to understand Christianity today? You bet it was. Long before Paul, the apostle of the Gentiles ever went to Rome we find there in that city a belief in “Chrestus” and the Divine Logos within each person which unites him with God. What we find here is that we have in fact Jewish and Gentile Gnosticism instead of a historical Jesus as a form of the later expression of Christianity in Rome which transforms this spiritual ”
Christ” into a historical Christ as previously seen in the Second New Testament. This is further testimony that the earliest expression of what we call “Christianity” was not a faith in a historical Jesus or a historical Christ but one in the Spiritual Mediation of the “Chrestus”. This Gnostic faith held in common a belief that within all men dwelled God’s Spirit whom they called “Chrestus”. We call it “the Christ” today. But understand back then they did not see nor understand this “Chrestus” to be a human being as we have come to understand it today.

In Vaticanus and Sinaiticus it is not possible to discover how Jesus’ main title (Christ) was spelled. A scribal device called “nomina sacra” was employed as a emphatic technique to highlight special words. The highlighted words were shortened. Because of this, the scribes left out the main vowel every time. Most Greek editions restore the vowel as an iota (“i”).

By making a back formation from the Sinaiticus’ “Chrestian,” the word “Chrestos” appears as the proper title for belief in Jesus. Through this logical method, it can be reasonably argued that Jesus’ normal title should be fully spelled “Chrestos” throughout Sinaiticus.

Besides the two oldest Greek New Testaments from the Fourth Century, and in addition to the oldest dated church inscription (C.E. 318), there is an abundance of ancient testimony that shows that the title “Chrestus” for Jesus was very popular among “common” Christians.

As if we don’t have enough testimony already to see without a doubt that the earliest Jewish and Gentile believers had a faith in “Chrestus” we only have to look at the two titles “Chrestus” or “Chrestian” which we find also recorded in the following written sources:

Tertullian (C.E. 210), The Eighth Sibyl (C.E. 200)
Theophilos of Antioch (C.E. 170)
Marcus (C.E. 145) Apocalypse of Elijah (AD 100),
Suetonius (AD 124) and
Tacitus (AD 116).
There is even a disputed inscription (now lost) from Pompei (AD 79) that is believed to have contained a reference to this lost title of Jesus.

The ruling theologians of orthodoxy denounced the spelling “Chrestus” as based on ignorance. Lactantius (AD 310) said: “The ignorant are accustomed to call Him ‘Chrestus’” (ANF. Vol. 7, p. 106).

Answer for yourself: But was it just ignorance or could “Chrestus” have a special meaning that we are overlooking?

Let us now take note that the Gnostic Marcion, who as typical Gnostic believers did not believe in a human Christ but a Docetic Christ, used the term “Chrestus” in the oldest New Testament which he collected and produced.

The theological reason for the Orthodox scribes carefully and stealthily introducing the word “Christ” as Jesus’ main title for “Chrestus” is explainable for several different reasons:

First they were obscuring the fact that the earliest believers in the “Chrestus” understood this as a Divine religious concept only and not as a human being.
Secondarily we look to the etymology of the word “Christ”. “Christ” in Greek means “anointed” (or royal). This meaning matches that of the Hebrew word “Messiah.” The Church Fathers preferred their understanding of this Divine Mediator designated by them as the historical Jesus to be known as Israel’s coming King. The Jews of course reject this concept and view and maintain even today that the true Hebrew Scriptures have not been fulfilled and they yet await the coming of a human anointed Messiah from the line of David.
Paul put his Gnostic Christ Jesus in the forefront of his preaching, and they [the early Gentile churches] can hardly have done otherwise. It is no accident, indeed, that over time the true understanding of this Divine Mediator as a Divine Concept as the indwelling Logos as held and taught by the earliest Jewish and Gentile believers to whom we look as the earliest Christians were really “Chrestus-ians” instead. They held completely opposite views concerning this Divine Mediator between God and man than what the later “orthodox” Roman Christians would hold as seen when they changed the name of “Chrestus” to “Christ” and in so doing changed the Gnostic “Christ” into a human being whom is known today as “the Christ” and not “Chrestus”. We lose completely by changing this name the original concepts of the Logos, Sophia, Hochmah, Holy Spirit, etc. Again over time and the manipulation of the words “Chrestus” and “Christ” the adherents of the new faith were now called and recognized as Christians” (Arthur Cushman McGiffert, The God of the Early Christians, p. 44).

Thanks for the feedback. The readings should be back shortly.

The body of Christ can surely resist any desecration by a mere man! I have faith, that when he attempts to even desecrate even one of his holy organs, the magical body/food will FLY away! And it will viciously attack and smite him with its supernatural godly powers! So do not worry, let god do his thing. God is letting this happen, who are we to interfere?