My latest book, The Church & the Pope, explains why I returned to Orthodox Christianity. You can order it here.
Here is the publisher’s description:
Today, the place and authority of the bishop of Rome in the first millennium has become a matter of great interest and importance not only for the official dialogue but for all serious seekers of the true Church. One such seeker is the prolific New York Times Bestselling Author Robert Spencer, who applied his analytical acumen to a thorough examination of The Church & The Pope.
From the New Testament and the Apostolic Fathers through the Oecumenical Councils and the filioque controversy in the time of St. Photios the Great, on up to the Great Schism, all of the “flash points” of church history indicate the same conciliar nature of the Church as witnessed in Acts: “it seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us.”
The whole “cloud of witnesses” give testimony to the truth of the Church vis-a-vis the post-schism papal claims: the Apostle Peter himself and the choir of the Apostles, St. Clement of Rome, St. Ignatius of Antioch, St. Polycarp of Smyrna, St. Irenaeus of Lyons, St. Cyprian of Carthage, St. Cyril of Jerusalem, St. Athanasius the Great, St. John Chrysostom, Blessed Augustine, St. Gregory the Great, St. Photios the Great and others.
Viewing the life and nature of the Church throughout the first millennium through the spiritual vision of these great saints, Spencer first walked, and now walks us, out of the weeds of innovation and division and back into the garden of the Church Fathers where unity and continuity shine.
gravenimage says
Robert Spencer’s new book ‘The Church & the Pope’: available now
…………………………
This sounds really interesting! I didn’t even know that Mr. Spencer was working on a new book. I’m reading a book right now dealing with the expansion of papal power under Pope Innocent III in the 12th and 13th centuries.
somehistory says
Most likely as it seems…well-written and well-thought out. As for having been on “both sides,” so were all of the Apostles…and even the Son of Man, Jesus.
Jesus was a Jew and abided by the Law, He understood the Law and obeyed it as far as He was meant to do, and then set up a “new covenant.”
The Apostles Peter, John, James, and Paul helped to explain the principles and commands of the New Covenant to the early disciples and all of them had been, as Jews, raised with a knowledge and obedience to the Law. Other Jews who became Christian, also wrote parts of the instructions and commandments laid upon Christians. All of these men could be said to have been on “both sides.”
I’m sure all who have belonged to the Catholic church will gain from reading this book.
All Christians should “speak in agreement.” “There is one body, one spirit, One Lord, one faith, one baptism.”
One “way, one truth, one life.”
GreekEmpress says
I can’t wait to read it!
mortimer says
A welcome addition to this much-debated subject. Robert Spencer has a brilliant way of explaining such complex issues to the laity … people who have the ability, but not the time or application to do the extensive reading on such a disputed topic. Robert Spencer no doubt produces the goods here for people who want accurate information combined with cogent and well-reasoned interpretation of the issues.
The best estimate is that there are between about 160 and 225 million people who profess to be Orthodox Christians in the world today. They follow the patriarch of Constantinople, rather than the pope.
Understanding Orthodoxy is important for anyone studying Islam, since Orthodox Christians bore much of the brunt of Islamic expansionism (as did the Hindus who bore even more).
It is to be hoped that more Orthodox Christians will be moved to follow Robert Spencer’s example and become scholars and ‘explainers’ of Islam to the world in general. Their viewpoint from the Orthodox history of persecution is invaluable in explaining Islam. Unfortunately, very few of the Orthodox are doing just this. I hope that changes dramatically. We need their voices.
Gregory D. says
This sounds amazing!
Andrew Blackadder says
I could hardly hear or understand what Robert was saying as the background music was so intrusive.
I was born and raised in the Church of Scotland, left it when I was around 10 years old, 1958, and now see that Jesus was a Jew practicing Buddhism, unless you all think he was making Tables and Chairs and then at the grand old age of 30 woke up one sunny morning and declared… ” I knew there was something I wanted to tell ya,ll ”…
There is much proof that Jesus with his disciples walking to India, Nepal,Tibet, and back to Israel.
He took the Buddhist and Hindu Scriptures and put his own spin on them, a good sin, but a spin nonetheless..
I was at the graveside of Thomas in South India, in an old Church Yard, and I asked the Indian Minister if this was indeed the Thomas of the Gospels… He nodded his head, as Indians often do, and replied… ”Oh yes Sir I have no doubt that this is the same Thomas”… Followed by a huge laugh…
How did he get there?.
somehistory says
If a person doesn’t want to believe in Jesus or what the Bible says about Him, how He lived and what He did and said, no Christian is going to try to force the person to believe. there may be some who try too hard to change the mind of another, but it’s with the sense of caring that they make this mistake.
Jesus sent His disciples to “all the nations” to declare the “good news.” someone of those may have gone to the land that became India, or some disciple later on, and not one of the very first disciples may have been the one traveling there. I don’t believe anyone can say for sure; the Bible doesn’t tell us where Thomas went. He may have travelled that far.
But, there is nothing in the Bible that says Jesus left the Land of Israel. His Apostle John says that if all that Jesus did had been written down, the “world could not contain” the writings. But He only preached for about three years…beginning in Israel and ending with His death in Israel. No time to go world travelling as they didn’t have any mode of transportation that would be fast enough. And Jesus was not Buddhist and He didn’t use other writings to tell Christians how to live. His words were based on the Hebrew part of the Bible.
What I can’t figure out, is why so many who don’t believe, find so much to complain against those who do. Why is there so much ridicule and mockery against Christians by those who choose atheism? Christians are taught to show love and kindness, and if one shows this to another, or even just expresses a belief in Jesus and His Father, how does this do injury to a non-believer?
Mari Forever says
I agree with you 100% … Jesus was not ever a Buddhist haha.
somehistory says
Thank you very much.
Kepha says
I cannot help but note, to all those who would make Jesus a disciple of Tibetan Buddhists, that Tibet didn’t even become Buddhist until about the 600’s A.D.
CSKing says
𝘽𝙪𝙩… the basic tenets of Christianity (as brought by Jesus, n͟o͟t Saul/Paul of Tarsus, who put his own personal spin on His Teachings-do your own compare & contrast), Judaism, and Buddhism are the same. Just using different wording for the people of the particular time.
His ministry didn’t begin ‘til He was 30, plenty of time to travel East. I doubt He walked all that way, alternative modes of travel were available, i.e. ships, caravans…
ᴛʜɪs sᴇᴇᴍs ᴛᴏ ʜᴀᴠᴇ ɢᴏᴛᴛᴇɴ ᴏғғ ᴛᴏᴘɪᴄ
somehistory says
Not off topic as Mr. Spencer, seems to me, to be addressing points of disagreement between those who profess to be Christian and that these things need to be discussed openly.
Jesus came for the very purpose that He undertook when He reached **manhood** which in the Law was thirty. He came to bring mankind back to God and to demonstrate that even with the Law, people needed God’s forgiveness.
He went to the Jews and even told the lady who was Greek, that He came to preach and offer salvation to the Jews.
When He sent his apostles and disciples out to preach…in one account, He sent 70 individuals…He sent them to the people of Israel.
At the time He was ascending to heaven, He told His disciples gathered there to “go and preach to all the people of all the nations and to make disciples.”
When He had returned to heaven, He spoke to Saul who became Paul, who was a Pharisee familiar with the Law, and when Paul accepted the fact of Jesus being the Messiah Who had been promised to come…in Isaiah, Jesus is fully described…Paul was instructed to be an “Apostle to the Nations.”
Jesus would not have gone to other countries to preach before He became an adult and it was the time for Him to preach, because He came to preach to the “lost sheep of the House of Israel.” His disciples were to do “works greater than this” because they would “preach to all the nations.”
john smith says
I also agree with you Jesus was not a Buddhist, but I have to admit, that the stories, and the many similarities between Jesus and Krishna are uncanny to say the least.
Infidel says
Except that Krishna happily went to war w/ most of his enemies, and acted as a charioteer as well as a major advisor to one of the sides in the greatest war ever fought in Hindu mythology, which lasted 18 days. His major message in the Gita was “Whenever whenever there is the decay of dharma, O Bharata, And there is the exaltation of unrighteousness, then I Myself come forth”
Major similarity was King Herod conducting an infanticide of Bethlehem, if not all of Palestine, vs King Kansa killing the first 6 of Krishna’s brothers b’cos it was foretold that the 8th son of his mother (Kansa’s sister Devaki) would kill Kansa. While Jesus never killed Herod, Krishna did kill Kansa, and earned a whole range of enemies by that act
Colin Broughton says
There is a lot more evidence that Jesus was who he thought he was than that he went off on a hike to Nepal like some new age hippy.
somehistory says
I agree with you. thank you.
Kepha says
Indeed.
For much of the 20th century, liberalized Protestant churches turned Jesus into an undefined banner, into which anyone could pour any meaning he liked.
gravenimage says
There is absolutely no indication that Jesus ever went to central Asia. Jesus mentioned the tenets of Judaism frequently; the idea that he would have been silent about Buddhism if this was an influence is bizarre.
Then, Tibet wasn’t Buddhist at the time Jesus lived.
As for St. Thomas, there is indeed a tradition that says he went to India to preach the Gospel. Whether this is historically accurate or not, there is no reference to his having been in India with Jesus previously.
overman says
There are only a few catholic saints i admire. Mostly, it would be Padre Pio [probably their greatest saint]. The church harrassed and persecuted him for over 50 years.
Kuhnkat says
Of course, your modern advanced “science” has convinced you that Hindu, Buddhist, and other groups came first and wrote first so the Hebrews and Christians MUST HAVE copied them like Islam did.. Do you also believe in evolution, big bang, and the vaccine will save us??
gravenimage says
Your idea that Christians all reject science is mistaken. In fact, many important scientists have been devout Christians.
somehistory says
I didn’t get that from the comment by Kuhnkat. I understand it to be that people who reject the Bible and Jesus do so from an erroneous idea that science proves otherwise.
Science actually supports the Bible more often than detractors can find that seem to be out of line with science. But, the Bible is not a science book. It is a book for those interested in Spiritual matters.
VERNON KUHNS says
Only in modern times have “christians” been deluded into believing in evolution, long ages, etc.
While the Bible isn’t a “science” book, it also is not contradicted by real science. It is contradicted by the modern corrupt consensus science with few facts behind their beliefs and assmuptions.
gravenimage says
Actually, evolution was only proven in modern times, so citing Christians (and everyone else) only having learned this in modern times is reductive.
And I suppose by “long ages” you either mean that Hinduism and Buddhism are older than Christianity, or that the universe is older than 6,000 years. There is ample historical and scientific proof for both. In fact, *most* Christians acknowledge this.
Can you cite proof that either of these things are *not* true? I’ll wait…
VERNON KUHNS says
Evolution has never been, and never will be proven as it was a figment of Darwin’s imagination. Current Genetic and biological research seems to have disproven this fake science. Since the early sixties the best thinkers have been looking for an alternative as even then it was obvious it was a failed theory.
Y’all really should familiarize yourselves with the latest research. I can recommend a few books if you don’t know where to start.
somehistory says
I don’t agree that anyone can rightly say what “most” Christians believe or “acknowledge.” regarding evolution or other things regarded as science.
If one wants to say that God created the universe and everything in it, then some things “evolved”…changing due to conditions faced, then many might believe that.
However, a Christian who understands the Bible, would never “acknowledge” that man got here by evolving from something in a “soup” of far long ago and crawled out onto land and kept changing until here we are…walking upright and talking.
And, the Bible says God created the sun, moon, stars, earth and everything on it, and He began a part of that on the “first day.” then, the “second day.” but, it never says how long each “day” was…even up to and including the “seventh” on which He rests from creating.
Many who claim Christianity believe that God’s days of creation happened in a week, and some say six thousand years ago man was created. But, the Bible does not give any particular length to those days. It does say, later on, that “a day with God is like a thousand years, and a thousand years, like a day.” But, this has not been applied to the words of Genesis by Bible writers.
but, there is much science stuff in the Bible which “true” science has proven is correct. Like what Solomon wrote about the immoral man who gets “arrows” to the liver, and modern medicine has proven that std’s affect the liver.
Or that man needs to properly dispose of waste to keep from becoming ill, and other things one can find with diligent study.
VERNON KUHNS says
Apparently you haven’t studied the Bible much like most people. Here is a very good article explaining why it really is 24 hour days.
https://answersingenesis.org/days-of-creation/why-i-believe-in-24-hour-days/
gravenimage says
Somehistory, I never meant to imply that acknowledging that the earth can and has changed since its inception somehow rules out the creation of the universe by God. I should have been clearer.
somehistory says
g, I wasn’t sure, but I was just clarifying for any who take the word “evolution’ to mean that everything just began on its own…and that is not logical as trying to say from where those first atoms of ?? came gets one deeper and deeper…and that no Creator was involved. Way back when darwin wrote his ‘origin of species’ and floated the idea of evolution without a Creator, he said his book should be read as fiction.
But many read it as fact and somehow believe that something can come from nothing…even something as complicated as *life* could come from nothing. So I think ‘adaptive change’ is a better word when discussing the facts of creation and science support of that fact. Just because the word ‘evolution’ implies in many minds, a life form coming from nothing and ‘evolving’ until man appeared.
Glad we cleared that up.
btw, did you see my message to you on the help you gave to the young girl?
somehistory says
“Apparently”….you have no idea. and “most people” haven’t *studied* the Bible. Most people who believe the Bible, just listen to someone else explain some verses, sing ,say amen and go home.
You have no idea what I have done or not done. And since the Bible does not say how long the creative days were, and archelogy has shown that it was not just 24 hours between layers of life, no article or book or web site will make a hill of a beans difference with an “explanation” that is wrong.
If you notice the wording in your link you’ll find that it says someone “believes” it was 24 hour days. I say baloney.
Laverne says
The whole idea of a pope is alien to the New Testament. I & II Timothy and Titus lay out specific qualifications for leaders, and there is nothing about celibacy. The lchurch members in good standing must be able to remove immoral clergy and have knowledge and control of all church dealings. Sincere donors sacrificed to give to the Catholic Church, but the property bought had to be sold to pay $2 billion in damages to sexual abuse victims because the Church refused to call the police after the first victim. Parochial schools closed because of the cash shortfall. I wonder how many religious in the Church who left really left because they didn’t like the financial corruption and rampant homosexualiyy and alcohol abuse.
gravenimage says
Sadly, there is corruption among any large group of humans, including in all denominations–not just Catholicism.
somehistory says
the Apostle Paul even said, “In later periods of time, some will fall away from the faith, ..forbidding to marry…”
It was never a part of the commands of Jesus. He said if one can “make room for it,” then staying single was okay, but no one was told they had to stay unmarried. And the Apostle Peter…who Catholics claim was the ‘first’ pope…had a wife and daughters.
All large groups of people eventually have problems, because people are imperfect and people abuse power and authority. No denomination is without those who do wrong behind closed doors. But those who know and can “disfellowship” these abusers of children, (and other serious wrongs) should do so as Paul said, and if not, they are also guilty.