Was the Pre-Nicene Church Orthodox?

DrBubbaLove

Roman Catholic convert from Southern Baptist
Supporter
Aug 8, 2004
11,336
1,728
63
Left coast
✟55,100.00
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
Food is important if one wants to stay alive, but that was not my point. My point was there is a tie between His supernaturally filling a physical need with the fish and the supernatural spiritual food He speaks about physically eating in John 6. Not that hard to comprehend.
 
Upvote 0

DrBubbaLove

Roman Catholic convert from Southern Baptist
Supporter
Aug 8, 2004
11,336
1,728
63
Left coast
✟55,100.00
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
"I am the living bread which came down from heaven: if any man eat of this bread, he shall live for ever: and the bread that I will give is my flesh, which I will give for the life of the world."

"Then Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, ye have no life in you."

"Whoso eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, hath eternal life; and I will raise him up at the last day."

"For my flesh is meat indeed, and my blood is drink indeed. He that eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, dwelleth in me, and I in him."

"As the living Father hath sent me, and I live by the Father: so he that eateth me, even he shall live by me."

"This is that bread which came down from heaven: not as your fathers did eat manna, and are dead: he that eateth of this bread shall live for ever."
 
Upvote 0

Phantasman

Newbie
May 12, 2012
4,953
226
Tennessee
✟34,626.00
Faith
Christian Seeker
Marital Status
Married
"I am the living bread which came down from heaven: if any man eat of this bread, he shall live for ever: and the bread that I will give is my flesh, which I will give for the life of the world."

"Then Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, ye have no life in you."

"Whoso eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, hath eternal life; and I will raise him up at the last day."

"For my flesh is meat indeed, and my blood is drink indeed. He that eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, dwelleth in me, and I in him."

"As the living Father hath sent me, and I live by the Father: so he that eateth me, even he shall live by me."

"This is that bread which came down from heaven: not as your fathers did eat manna, and are dead: he that eateth of this bread shall live for ever."

All spiritual. No physical eating. Fill spiritual hunger with Christs flesh (wisdom and knowledge, the Word) and his blood (Holy Spirit). This is why the Word became flesh (Jn 1:1).
 
Upvote 0

DrBubbaLove

Roman Catholic convert from Southern Baptist
Supporter
Aug 8, 2004
11,336
1,728
63
Left coast
✟55,100.00
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
If He was meant to be understood as touting the virtues of gaining wisdom, knowledge, reading/hearing the Word or receiving the Holy Spirit then why convey this in a manner that turns people away in disgust by His very graphic expressions of gnawing on His Flesh and drinking His Blood?
Are you suggesting He was going thru a Marilyn Manson phase perhaps?
 
Upvote 0

Phantasman

Newbie
May 12, 2012
4,953
226
Tennessee
✟34,626.00
Faith
Christian Seeker
Marital Status
Married
If He was meant to be understood as touting the virtues of gaining wisdom, knowledge, reading/hearing the Word or receiving the Holy Spirit then why convey this in a manner that turns people away in disgust by His very graphic expressions of gnawing on His Flesh and drinking His Blood?
Are you suggesting He was going thru a Marilyn Manson phase perhaps?

You sound like Nicodemus when Christ said to be born again.

Nicodemus saith unto him, How can a man be born when he is old? can he enter the second time into his mother's womb, and be born?-John

If one doesn't see the spiritual, maybe they weren't meant to.

If you see Marilyn Manson, there is a "knowledge and wisdom" problem. I can only "pray" it revealed.
 
Upvote 0

timbo3

Newbie
Nov 4, 2006
581
22
East Texas
✟18,582.00
Faith
Jehovahs Witness
Marital Status
Married
Hmm. Is this the "official" JW position?
The first beast of Revelation 13 has the beast parts of the 4 kingdoms before it. It is an amalgamation of them.
It represents the new kingdom within the 2 legs of the image of Daniel 2. But this kingdom tho strong as steel is "partly broken." It becomes divided in two - the legs. Geographically it grows to comprise the land of Babylon, Persia, and Greece to become the beast of Revelation 13.
The image of the beast is not this same power but rises out of the wilderness rather than the sea and makes fire reign down from the sky ie bombs. This image of the beast is the United States which will become more corrupt, and causes persecution of the people of God. So although I appreciate your input, we differ in the interpretation of the law of Revelation.
Cheers

Many are like yourself that are independent in their view of the Bible, resulting in some 41,000 different denominations and sects of Christendom. However, those who are God's "sons" are taught by Jehovah God as an organization, being "perfected into one".(John 17:23)

Jesus told the Jews that "I do nothing of my own initiative; but just as the Father taught me, I speak these things."(John 8:28) Jesus was taught by the Father and on another occasion, Jesus said: "If anyone desires to do His will, he will know whether the teaching is from God or I speak of my originality."(John 7:17) Jesus did not teach any thoughts of his own "originality", but always taught what the Father expressed.

And on yet another time, Jesus, after telling the Jews that he was "the bread that came down from heaven" and quoting from Isaiah 54:13, said that "It is written in the Prophets: ‘They will all be taught by Jehovah.’ Everyone who has listened to the Father and has learned comes to me."(John 6:45) Jehovah's Witnesses are taught by the Father, Jehovah God, just as Jesus is. They are able to "mentally put the pieces together" (Greek syniemi, used by Jesus at Matthew 13) and thus have the privilege of unveiling the Bible book of Revelation.

Hence, Revelation 13: 1, 2 says that the "dragon" or Satan "stood on the sand of the sea (the restless masses of mankind especially after the global deluge always seeking to establish their political government apart from God's sovereignty)", and is thus at the helm of seeing that political governments come into existence. He is the creator of the "wild beast", the entire political system of things on earth that encompasses every single political government from start to finish.

The "immense image" at Daniel 2 is only a part of the "wild beast" at Revelation 13: 1, for the "image" consists of the 7 world powers that has directly affected God's people (1-Egypt, 2-Assyria, 3-Babylon, 4-Medo-Persia, 5-Greece, 6-Rome, 7-Anglo-American dual world power), while the political "wild beast" at Revelation 13: 1 is every political government (including the 7 world powers at Daniel 2) that has ever been formed under the composite name "wild beast" since after the global flood.

But it need be noted that the book of Revelation's setting is "the Lord's day" (Rev 1:10), the time period since Jesus was enthroned as king of God's kingdom in 1914. So, "the ten horns" are the political governments particularly existing after 1914, who "have not yet received a kingdom (at the time of John writing the book of Revelation), but they do receive authority as kings one hour (during the Lord's day from 1914 onward until their demise at Armageddon) with the wild beast".(Rev 17:12)

The political "immense image" (that looked like a man) at Daniel 2 is not spoken of as having an "image" of itself like the political "wild beast" at Revelation 13.(Rev 14:9) At the behest or lead of another "wild beast", the Anglo-American dual world power, it ' makes an image ' of the "first wild beast" (Rev 13:12), Satan's complete political system, by supporting the formation (by giving it "breath" or life, Rev 13:15) of the League of Nations in 1920 (that "mirrored" all political governments on earth like an "image"), which went "into the abyss" in 1939 and came "out of the abyss" in 1945 as the United Nations.(Rev 17:8)

True Christians remain politically neutral ("no part of the world", John 15:19), not involving themselves in any form or fashion with Satan's political system, not even in thought, having no symbolic "mark" on "their right hand or on their forehead."(Rev 13:16)
 
Upvote 0

RevelationTestament

Our God is a consuming fire.
Apr 26, 2013
3,727
46
United States
✟19,404.00
Faith
Mormon
Marital Status
Married
***

The "immense image" at Daniel 2 is only a part of the "wild beast" at Revelation 13: 1, for the "image" consists of the 7 world powers that has directly affected God's people (1-Egypt, 2-Assyria, 3-Babylon, 4-Medo-Persia, 5-Greece, 6-Rome, 7-Anglo-American dual world power), while the political "wild beast" at Revelation 13: 1 is every political government (including the 7 world powers at Daniel 2) that has ever been formed under the composite name "wild beast" since after the global flood.
Thank you for your consideration.
Which of the 5 parts of the image of Daniel 2 would be Egypt? Right off the bat we are told that Nebuchadnezzar or Babylon is the head of gold. Didn't Egypt rule that area before and not after Nebuchadnezzar? Do you agree?
Where do you find Egypt and Assyria in the first beast of Revelation or the beasts of Daniel 7?

Just FYI - the 7 powers you discuss are figured here in scripture:
http://www.christianforums.com/t7744743-13/#post65088273
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

DrBubbaLove

Roman Catholic convert from Southern Baptist
Supporter
Aug 8, 2004
11,336
1,728
63
Left coast
✟55,100.00
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
You sound like Nicodemus when Christ said to be born again.

Nicodemus saith unto him, How can a man be born when he is old? can he enter the second time into his mother's womb, and be born?-John

If one doesn't see the spiritual, maybe they weren't meant to.

If you see Marilyn Manson, there is a "knowledge and wisdom" problem. I can only "pray" it revealed.
LOL, we switch from talking about a Sacrament instituted by God Himself with the Apostles to Baptism. Baptism is indeed a spiritual re-birth and not just a symbolic "gesture". And the food which Jesus offered is also to our spiritual benefit, a food which (like He said) is more than just a manna from Heaven to feed our bodies. All examples of the Grace of God being applied to humans, made possible because of what Jesus did.
 
Upvote 0

Phantasman

Newbie
May 12, 2012
4,953
226
Tennessee
✟34,626.00
Faith
Christian Seeker
Marital Status
Married
LOL, we switch from talking about a Sacrament instituted by God Himself with the Apostles to Baptism. Baptism is indeed a spiritual re-birth and not just a symbolic "gesture". And the food which Jesus offered is also to our spiritual benefit, a food which (like He said) is more than just a manna from Heaven to feed our bodies. All examples of the Grace of God being applied to humans, made possible because of what Jesus did.


A Sacrament instituted by God himself?

(sigh) I give up.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

RevelationTestament

Our God is a consuming fire.
Apr 26, 2013
3,727
46
United States
✟19,404.00
Faith
Mormon
Marital Status
Married
Right after the Nicene Council in 325 A.D. and the first imposed creeds we find the first major changes in practice and doctrine which I believe run contrary to the Bible:

approx 375 - Veneration of angels and dead saints in prayer.
394 A.D. - The Mass is adopted as a daily celebration (the Bible gives no indications of a daily sacrament).
431 - The veneration of Mary, the mother of Jesus, and the use of the term, “Mother of God”, as applied to her, originated with the Council of Ephesus - the RCC later called her a mediatrix
500 - Priests began to separate themselves from the laity by different dress
593 - Gregory the Great establishes the doctrine of Purgatory
600 - Gregory I also imposes the use of the Latin language, as the language of prayer and worship in churches
1 Cor 14:19 Yet in the church I had rather speak five words with my understanding, that by my voice I might teach others also, than ten thousand words in an unknown tongue.
20 Brethren, be not children in understanding: howbeit in malice be ye children, but in understanding be men.


None of these things appear in the pre-nicene church
 
Upvote 0

Unix

Hebr incl Sirach&epigraph, Hermeneut,Ptolemy,Samar
Supporter
Nov 29, 2003
2,567
84
42
ECC,Torah:ModeCommenta,OTL,AY BC&RL,Seow a ICC Job
Visit site
✟139,217.00
Faith
Anglican
Marital Status
Single
Some of the Jews in the Second Temple Era, see for example 2 Mc, believed in Purgatory, so it didn't originate in the 6th century AD:
...
593 - Gregory the Great establishes the doctrine of Purgatory
...
 
Upvote 0

RevelationTestament

Our God is a consuming fire.
Apr 26, 2013
3,727
46
United States
✟19,404.00
Faith
Mormon
Marital Status
Married
Some of the Jews in the Second Temple Era, see for example 2 Mc, believed in Purgatory, so it didn't originate in the 6th century AD:

Hi Unix
I am not (yet) a student of pre-christian Judaism per se. So please go ahead and illuminate me with what they taught. I know little of the Kabbalah etc. I know some things I find a little repugnant. What I am speaking of here is the Catholic Doctrine of Purgatory. I do believe the scriptures teach that for the most part we reside in a spirit world while awaiting resurrection and that Christ taught the gospel in this spirit world and that those who have not heard the gospel in this life can accept it. The Bible uses the term spirit prison, but there is also a spirit paradise for believers. I do not find the notion of "purgatory" totally repugnant, but I do find some of the teachings and practices regarding it to be contrary to my belief.
 
Upvote 0

Phantasman

Newbie
May 12, 2012
4,953
226
Tennessee
✟34,626.00
Faith
Christian Seeker
Marital Status
Married
Right after the Nicene Council in 325 A.D. and the first imposed creeds we find the first major changes in practice and doctrine which I believe run contrary to the Bible:

approx 375 - Veneration of angels and dead saints in prayer.
394 A.D. - The Mass is adopted as a daily celebration (the Bible gives no indications of a daily sacrament).
431 - The veneration of Mary, the mother of Jesus, and the use of the term, “Mother of God”, as applied to her, originated with the Council of Ephesus - the RCC later called her a mediatrix
500 - Priests began to separate themselves from the laity by different dress
593 - Gregory the Great establishes the doctrine of Purgatory
600 - Gregory I also imposes the use of the Latin language, as the language of prayer and worship in churches
1 Cor 14:19 Yet in the church I had rather speak five words with my understanding, that by my voice I might teach others also, than ten thousand words in an unknown tongue.
20 Brethren, be not children in understanding: howbeit in malice be ye children, but in understanding be men.


None of these things appear in the pre-nicene church


Yeah. The power of the church was evident by the non scriptural additions they added and forced people to believe. Once the Bible was in Latin only, there was full control for over 800 years (by the Catholic priests). One needs to go to the beginning, around 2nd century, to see that men started to see a great following, and a great opportunity (ie We'll take it from here).
 
Upvote 0

NumberOneSon

The poster formerly known as Acts6:5
Mar 24, 2002
4,138
478
49
Pennsylvania
Visit site
✟22,170.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
Part of the issue here is what constitutes a tribe. Sometimes several different names were given the same people by the Romans. Unfortunately, the Teutonic/Germanic tribes left us no or virtually no written history of themselves. Most of our history is given through Roman eyes, and they sometimes had multiple names for the same peoples due to geographic reasons, etc.

That may have been the case, but these “same peoples” eventually created their own distinct tribal identities regardless of any close family ties (like the Visigoths and Ostrogoths for example).

My research indicated to me that the Angles and Jutes were Suebian tribes - that is essentially the same as the Seuvi, and from the same area of N. Germany.
Even if they had shared the same Suebian roots, they developed into distinct tribes. A couple years ago, a poster insisted his research showed most of the Gothic tribes were originally Vandelic …but even if that were true they still ended up developing their own identity separate from the Vandal name.

The Rugii did settle a small area in the very N edge of the Roman empire, named Rugiland, but were defeated by the Heruli at the time of the fall of Rome, and therefore did not take part in the fall of the Roman Empire to fulfill the prophecy.
Rugiland was taken by Odoacer over a decade after 476AD (around 487AD), so the Rugi did play a small part dividing the empire at the time of the fall of Rome.

The other tribes you mentioned were, as you note, "native" tribes. That is, they were native peoples living under Roman rule who simply were able to re-establish their independence and were not conquerors. For instance the Moors had lived in the tip of Africa at the time they came under Roman rule, and simply reestablished their own kingdom when Rome began to crumble. However, the Vandals did defeat the Moors.
I’m not sure I understand why the distinction should matter; whether they were native or foreign, the tribes I listed carved their own kingdoms out of the Roman Empire and divided it. Neither Daniel nor Revelation claim the ten toes/kingdoms had to be foreign invaders.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums
Feb 19, 2014
310
20
✟15,545.00
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Engaged
Politics
US-Libertarian
The idea that the Early Church had no idea what was orthodox and what was heresy is a recent invention by a man named Walter Bauer. It has long been refuted.

Source for your perusal: 10 Misconceptions about the NT Canon: #7: “Christians Had No Basis to Distinguish Heresy from Orthodoxy Until the Fourth Century.” | Canon Fodder


In the book of Galatians, Paul contends against false doctrine put forth by the Judaizers. 1 John was written in part to contend against Gnosticism.

If you want scholarly study and you're interested in deep reading I suggest you pick up this book: The Heresy of Orthodoxy by Andreas Kostenburger. or the older and more voluminous: The Pattern of Christian Truth: A Study in the Relations between Orthodoxy and Heresy in the Early Church
 
Upvote 0
Feb 19, 2014
310
20
✟15,545.00
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Engaged
Politics
US-Libertarian
FYI "gnosticism" was orthodoxy back then:


Uhm....no. Read the link. Read the books I listed. The strain of Gnosticism contended against in 1 John was the belief that Christ did not have a human body (Something denied by the Gospels and 1 John itself.
) and some other early Gnostic ideals.

Due to the acceptance of the Gospels, Paul's letters, etc. the theological trajectory of early Christianity had already been determined prior to Gnosticism and other heresies.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Unix

Hebr incl Sirach&epigraph, Hermeneut,Ptolemy,Samar
Supporter
Nov 29, 2003
2,567
84
42
ECC,Torah:ModeCommenta,OTL,AY BC&RL,Seow a ICC Job
Visit site
✟139,217.00
Faith
Anglican
Marital Status
Single
Yes it had, but "Gnosticism" thrived in the first three quarters of the 2nd Century, not the first, and was not a heresy. What we think of as orthodox Early Christianity was the heresy back then and had fewer adherents. Also, I'm not referring to the kind of "gnosticism" which was opposed in 1 Jn. (Also, some of the material in the Gospels is later than 1 Jn):
Due to the acceptance of the Gospels, Paul's letters, etc. the theological trajectory of early Christianity had already been determined prior to Gnosticism and other heresies.
 
Upvote 0