Why do we do things not written in the Bible?

The Liturgist · Saturday at 10:08 PM

Bro.T said:
I don't need to go back that far 600 A.D. for this situation. My focus is staying close to the word of God and if it doesn't fit....throw it out!

So tell me where in Scripture it says St. Constantine and not St. Theodosius made Christianity (or a form of it you might find objectionable, which you would probably call the Catholic Church, which would be accurate, even if you meant the Roman Catholic Church, which would be inaccurate and anachronistic, since the Roman Catholic Church and the Papacy as such did not exist in the fourth century, Papal Supremacy not being a thing dogmatically speaking until the tenth century, and the proximate cause of the schism between the Orthodox and Catholics in 1054, since unlike the Episcopate, it is the case that Papal Supremacy is not Scriptural, no matter how many times Matthew 16:18 is quoted out of context, just as it is the case that Sabbatarianism is not Scriptural no matter how many times Mark 7:13 is quoted out of context and Colossians 2:16, Galatians 3:15-5:15, Ephesians, Romans, etc, ignored entirely (also 2 Thessalonians 2:15 and 2:37 and 1 Corinthians 11:2, which expressly bless church tradition).

Appeal to ignorance, a logical fallacy, also a red herring, since as it happens Volume 2 of the Cambridge History of Christianity is not specifically about what happened in the very unpleasant year of 600 AD but rather covers the period of time from the era of St. Constantine the Great, who you falsely accused of having made Christianity the religion of the Roman Empire (he didn’t, he merely legalized it, and then was persuaded to admit Arius, the man anathematized at Nicaea, back into communion despite Arius have apostasized, and under the influence of Eusebius of Nicomedia, an Arian bishop, his son Constantius was converted to the Arian religion, a non-Christian cult which claimed to be Christian but differed in that it denied the Holy Trinity and the Incarnation (of the Word of God) and the Nicene Creed and was therefore definitely not Christian.

Thus the issue is you made an inaccurate claim based on a polemical website affiliated with various Sabbatarian movements and an out of reference quote of an edict of St. Constantine pertaining to Sunday, which did nothing to make Christianity the state religion of Rome.

Now regarding whether or not St. Constantine made Christianity the state religion of Rome or not, Scripture is silent on that issue, since St. Athanasius, who led the group St. Constantine was aligned with at the Council of Nicaea in supporting the decision of the elderly Patriarch St. Alexander of Alexandria to anathematize Arius, and adopt the Nicene Creed, made the decision that works post-dating the Apostolic period such as 1 Clement and The Shepherd of Hermas, while important, would not be included in the canon of Scripture. However the actual 27 book New Testament canon was written by St. Athanasius, who also helped draft the original version of the Nicene Creed (and the more expansive creed known as Quincunque Vult or the Athanasian Creed is taken from two of his writings). So St. Athanasius is someone you can’t get around regarding the issue of the early church, whereas St. Constantine does become of reduced relevance, because while he did not, contra your claims, convert the Roman Empire to Christianity (this having been done by St. Theodosius), St. Athanasius was imperative in ensuring the survival of the Trinitarian faith and he did define the 27 book New Testament canon adopted everywhere.

Since no book of the New Testament provides a complete list of all other scriptural books of the New Testament, instead making only somewhat oblique references, or in the case of Acts referring to the Gospel According to Luke as essentially volume 1 in a two part history, we always loop back to St. Athanasius with reference to what belongs in the New Testament, since the contents thereof is one of the few things everyone is agreed upon, and that contents was first proposed by St. Athanasius (now to be clear, the use of the four canonical Gospels was first clearly articulated by St. Irenaeus of Lyons in the fourth century, but deciding which of the Epistles, and also deciding that Revelation was in fact Scripture, those were controversial issues. Likewise excluding 1 Clement and The Shepherd of Hermas and the Didache / Disacalia, books widely regarded as very important but recognized as Patristic; but included in the oldest Greek manuscripts we have of the entire Bible (such as Codex Sinaiticus).

So this takes us to the important issue - you’re simply attempting to cut me off in this manner: you made an inaccurate claim regarding the actions of St. Constantine, I said that was incorrect, you asked for sources, I provided them and you then said “ah but those aren’t in the Bible” which is rich considering your accusation regarding St. Constantine wasn’t in the Bible either; the issue of what St. Constantine did or did not do in the fourth century not being defined in Scripture - because St. Athanasius defined Scripture as consisting only, with respects to the New Testament, of the writings of the Holy Apostles and Evangelists, the 27 books that all Christian churches use (just as all Christian churches can be differentiated from cults by the extent to which their doctrine agrees with the Nicene Creed , it being a defining characteristic of cults that they reject the Nicene Creed and the doctrines of the Triinity, the deity of Christ, the humanity of Christ, the deity and personhood of the Holy Spirit, and so on).

Thus, you are using the scripture compiled and declared scriptural by St. Athanasius, the same man whose contribution to history you are ignoring, and indeed to some extent overwriting with the mythologized camp villain of alternate ecclesiastical histories substituted for St. Constantine in what amounts to a historical smear of three important early church figures, St. Constantine, who is charged with nationalizing Christianity, when he merely invented the idea of the modern weekend, St. Theodosius, who actually did make Christianity the state religion, which you seem to regard as being a bad thing (apparently Pagan animal sacrifices and false psuedo-Christian cults like the Arians operating rampantly and seizing control of and persecuting actual Christians was preferable), St. Athanasius, who actually organized the key events at the Council of Nicaea as prosecutor on behalf of the Church of Alexandria, and also early Christians such as the second century St. Justin Martyr who clearly declared that the First Day was the primary day of worship but are ignored, so that everything can be blamed on St. Constantine and his alleged commitment to the Mithras cult (which did not actually have a sacred day of the worship, not being the same thing as the Sol Invictus people; also by the way this entire thing is one spectacular ad hominem fallacy because it presupposes if someone is wrong about one thing they must be wrong about all other things. St. Athanasius did not seek to be worshipped, but to ensure that Christ our True God, together with His Father and the Holy Spirit, rather than an idol, such as the Arian idea of Christ as a created demigod, was worshipped.

So no, you don’t get to do this thing where you say Constantine did X, I say he did not, you say prove it, I provide sources and you say “those aren’t in the Bible” because neither was your initial claim about St. Constantine, but the man behind all this controversy, Arius, denied Christ was God incarnate, and St. Athanasius defined the Nicene Creed and the 27 book New Testament Canon primarily in opposition to the heresy of Arius. So if you want fourth century villains, Arius and Eusebius of Nicomedia are the closest you’ll find, but even then, one finds delusion rather than the kind of camp cartoon villain, Emperor Palpatine figure that it is implied St. Constantine was (I suppose soon someone will claim St. Constantine liked to shoot demonic lightning out of his fingers to torment his enemies while cackling gleefully; that is absolutely the next stop on this train wreck of logical fallacy and historical inaccuracy and copy-pasted polemicism.

The Liturgist · Saturday at 10:15 PM

Bro.T said:
Thanks for recognizing that, but it's still connected in some way.

According to what? Provide us with tangible evidence. I’m not taking your word on that, and Scripture is silent on the issue of specific fourth century events.

Also you still have not answered my question concerning the nature of God the Holy Spirit.

Jan001 · Sunday at 1:40 PM

The Liturgist said:
....... since the Roman Catholic Church and the Papacy as such did not exist in the fourth century, Papal Supremacy not being a thing dogmatically speaking until the tenth century, and the proximate cause of the schism between the Orthodox and Catholics in 1054, since unlike the Episcopate, it is the case that Papal Supremacy is not Scriptural, no matter how many times Matthew 16:18 is quoted out of context,

God pointedly changes the names of the men he chooses to be the preeminent spiritual leaders of his people.

Abram to Abraham Genesis 17:5
Jacob to Israel Genesis 32:28
Simon to Cephas/Peter Matthew 16:17-19

"Roman Catholic" is not legally correct. The official name is "Catholic Church." The Latin or Roman Rite is the largest rite of the 20+ rites that comprise the Catholic Church. "Roman Catholic" became the nickname for the Latin/Roman rite of the Catholic Church.

[The first known use of the term "Catholic Church" appears in a letter written around AD 107 by Ignatius of Antioch, the Bishop of Antioch, to the Christians in Smyrna. In this letter, he wrote: "Wherever the bishop shall appear, there let the people be, even as where Jesus may be, there is the universal [katholike] Church." This is the earliest surviving written record of the phrase katholike ekklesia ("the universal church"), which later evolved into "Catholic Church." (Catholic is the English word for katholike.)

While the term was used by Ignatius, it likely had been in oral or informal use for some time before being written down. The word catholic (from Greek katholikos, meaning "universal") was used to emphasize the Church’s global, unified nature, distinguishing it from local or heretical groups. By the 4th century, the term became more formally established, especially after Emperor Theodosius I declared Nicene Christianity the state religion in 380 AD with the Edict of Thessalonica. Summary by BRAVE AI.]

[The Latin word for catholic is catholicus (masculine), catholica (feminine), or catholicum (neuter), derived from the Greek katholikos, meaning "universal" or "on the whole." It was used in early Christian writings to denote the universal Church, as seen in the Letter to the Smyrnaeans by Ignatius of Antioch (circa 110 AD), where he refers to "the Catholic Church" as the universal body of believers.

catholicus – adjective, meaning "universal" or "general"
catholica – feminine form of the adjective
catholicum – neuter form, often used in phrases like catholicum principium ("universal principle")

This term entered Latin through Late Latin and became foundational for theological terms such as catholicismus (catholicism) and catholicitas (catholicity). Summary by BRAVE AI.]

The Council of Trent used the legal name "Catholic" in its English translation documents.

[Council of Trent:

The opening document of the Council of Trent was the Bull of Indiction, issued by Pope Paul III on May 22, 1542. This papal bull formally called for the convening of the ecumenical council, which ultimately opened on December 13, 1545, in Trent, northern Italy. The bull cited the urgent need for Church reform and doctrinal clarification in response to the Protestant Reformation, emphasizing the necessity of a general council to restore unity, defend Catholic doctrine, and address widespread abuses within the Church. The Council’s opening session, held on December 13, 1545, was presided over by Pope Paul III’s legates, marking the formal commencement of the council’s work. Summary by BRAVE AI.]

Early Christian writers and the papacy:

[Papias, bishop of Hierapolis (c. 110–130), one of the Apostolic Fathers, provides early testimony on the origins of the Gospels and the authority of apostolic tradition. He stated that Mark wrote down the teachings of Peter from memory, and Matthew compiled the sayings of Jesus in Hebrew, reflecting an early recognition of authoritative apostolic sources.

Ignatius of Antioch (d. 107), in his letter to the Romans, referred to the Church of Rome as προκαθημένη τῆς ἀγάπης ("pre-eminent in love"), suggesting a high regard for Rome, though he did not explicitly mention the bishop.

Irenaeus of Lyons (c. 180–202), a disciple of Polycarp and a key Church Father, was the first to clearly affirm the preeminence of the Roman Church. He called Rome "the greatest, the oldest, and the most universally known Church," founded by Peter and Paul, and stated that all churches must agree with it due to its "more important precedence" (potiorem principalitatem).

Clement of Rome (c. 88–101), in his letter to the Corinthians, is cited as the first known example of papal authority being exercised. Though sent in the name of the Roman Church, not himself, the letter was highly respected and considered authoritative, even by some who viewed it as part of the New Testament canon.

Cyprian of Carthage (d. 258) affirmed the bishop of Rome as the successor of Peter, recognizing his unique authority in matters of faith and unity, especially in his letter to Pope Cornelius.

These early Christian writers collectively demonstrate a growing recognition of the Roman Church’s leadership role, rooted in apostolic foundation and the authority of Peter, forming the basis for the later development of papal primacy. Summary by BRAVE AI.]

Bro.T · Monday at 4:05 PM

The Liturgist said:
According to what? Provide us with tangible evidence. I’m not taking your word on that, and Scripture is silent on the issue of specific fourth century events.

Also you still have not answered my question concerning the nature of God the Holy Spirit.

I don't have to provide you guys with nothing else concerning history! I prove my point and it's to bad that you guys have a problem with my sources, that on you guys, because y'all ask me to give a source and I did. So I'm done with all that, and I will continue to post my history! I don't a question concerning the Holy Spirit, I do remember posting a verse that says three bare witness and are one....something like that.

Bro.T · Monday at 4:08 PM

The Liturgist said:
So tell me where in Scripture it says St. Constantine and not St. Theodosius made Christianity

Show me in scriptures where it says keep the first day of the week, (Sunday) like it's written in (Ex 20:8-10) (v.8) Remember the Sabbath day, to keep it holy. (v.9) Six days shalt thou labour, and do all thy work: (v.10) “But the seventh day is the Sabbath of the LORD thy God”.

The Liturgist said:
(or a form of it you might find objectionable, which you would probably call the Catholic Church, which would be accurate, even if you meant the Roman Catholic Church, which would be inaccurate and anachronistic, since the Roman Catholic Church and the Papacy as such did not exist in the fourth century, Papal Supremacy not being a thing dogmatically speaking until the tenth century, and the proximate cause of the schism between the Orthodox and Catholics in 1054, since unlike the Episcopate, it is the case that Papal Supremacy is not Scriptural, no matter how many times Matthew 16:18 is quoted out of context, just as it is the case that Sabbatarianism is not Scriptural no matter how many times Mark 7:13 is quoted out of context and Colossians 2:16, Galatians 3:15-5:15, Ephesians, Romans, etc, ignored entirely (also 2 Thessalonians 2:15 and 2:37 and 1 Corinthians 11:2, which expressly bless church tradition).

Appeal to ignorance, a logical fallacy, also a red herring, since as it happens Volume 2 of the Cambridge History of Christianity is not specifically about what happened in the very unpleasant year of 600 AD but rather covers the period of time from the era of St. Constantine the Great, who you falsely accused of having made Christianity the religion of the Roman Empire (he didn’t, he merely legalized it, and then was persuaded to admit Arius, the man anathematized at Nicaea, back into communion despite Arius have apostasized, and under the influence of Eusebius of Nicomedia, an Arian bishop, his son Constantius was converted to the Arian religion, a non-Christian cult which claimed to be Christian but differed in that it denied the Holy Trinity and the Incarnation (of the Word of God) and the Nicene Creed and was therefore definitely not Christian.

Thus the issue is you made an inaccurate claim based on a polemical website affiliated with various Sabbatarian movements and an out of reference quote of an edict of St. Constantine pertaining to Sunday, which did nothing to make Christianity the state religion of Rome.

Now regarding whether or not St. Constantine made Christianity the state religion of Rome or not, Scripture is silent on that issue, since St. Athanasius, who led the group St. Constantine was aligned with at the Council of Nicaea in supporting the decision of the elderly Patriarch St. Alexander of Alexandria to anathematize Arius, and adopt the Nicene Creed, made the decision that works post-dating the Apostolic period such as 1 Clement and The Shepherd of Hermas, while important, would not be included in the canon of Scripture. However the actual 27 book New Testament canon was written by St. Athanasius, who also helped draft the original version of the Nicene Creed (and the more expansive creed known as Quincunque Vult or the Athanasian Creed is taken from two of his writings). So St. Athanasius is someone you can’t get around regarding the issue of the early church, whereas St. Constantine does become of reduced relevance, because while he did not, contra your claims, convert the Roman Empire to Christianity (this having been done by St. Theodosius), St. Athanasius was imperative in ensuring the survival of the Trinitarian faith and he did define the 27 book New Testament canon adopted everywhere.

Since no book of the New Testament provides a complete list of all other scriptural books of the New Testament, instead making only somewhat oblique references, or in the case of Acts referring to the Gospel According to Luke as essentially volume 1 in a two part history, we always loop back to St. Athanasius with reference to what belongs in the New Testament, since the contents thereof is one of the few things everyone is agreed upon, and that contents was first proposed by St. Athanasius (now to be clear, the use of the four canonical Gospels was first clearly articulated by St. Irenaeus of Lyons in the fourth century, but deciding which of the Epistles, and also deciding that Revelation was in fact Scripture, those were controversial issues. Likewise excluding 1 Clement and The Shepherd of Hermas and the Didache / Disacalia, books widely regarded as very important but recognized as Patristic; but included in the oldest Greek manuscripts we have of the entire Bible (such as Codex Sinaiticus).

So this takes us to the important issue - you’re simply attempting to cut me off in this manner: you made an inaccurate claim regarding the actions of St. Constantine, I said that was incorrect, you asked for sources, I provided them and you then said “ah but those aren’t in the Bible” which is rich considering your accusation regarding St. Constantine wasn’t in the Bible either; the issue of what St. Constantine did or did not do in the fourth century not being defined in Scripture - because St. Athanasius defined Scripture as consisting only, with respects to the New Testament, of the writings of the Holy Apostles and Evangelists, the 27 books that all Christian churches use (just as all Christian churches can be differentiated from cults by the extent to which their doctrine agrees with the Nicene Creed , it being a defining characteristic of cults that they reject the Nicene Creed and the doctrines of the Triinity, the deity of Christ, the humanity of Christ, the deity and personhood of the Holy Spirit, and so on).

Thus, you are using the scripture compiled and declared scriptural by St. Athanasius, the same man whose contribution to history you are ignoring, and indeed to some extent overwriting with the mythologized camp villain of alternate ecclesiastical histories substituted for St. Constantine in what amounts to a historical smear of three important early church figures, St. Constantine, who is charged with nationalizing Christianity, when he merely invented the idea of the modern weekend, St. Theodosius, who actually did make Christianity the state religion, which you seem to regard as being a bad thing (apparently Pagan animal sacrifices and false psuedo-Christian cults like the Arians operating rampantly and seizing control of and persecuting actual Christians was preferable), St. Athanasius, who actually organized the key events at the Council of Nicaea as prosecutor on behalf of the Church of Alexandria, and also early Christians such as the second century St. Justin Martyr who clearly declared that the First Day was the primary day of worship but are ignored, so that everything can be blamed on St. Constantine and his alleged commitment to the Mithras cult (which did not actually have a sacred day of the worship, not being the same thing as the Sol Invictus people; also by the way this entire thing is one spectacular ad hominem fallacy because it presupposes if someone is wrong about one thing they must be wrong about all other things. St. Athanasius did not seek to be worshipped, but to ensure that Christ our True God, together with His Father and the Holy Spirit, rather than an idol, such as the Arian idea of Christ as a created demigod, was worshipped.

So no, you don’t get to do this thing where you say Constantine did X, I say he did not, you say prove it, I provide sources and you say “those aren’t in the Bible” because neither was your initial claim about St. Constantine, but the man behind all this controversy, Arius, denied Christ was God incarnate, and St. Athanasius defined the Nicene Creed and the 27 book New Testament Canon primarily in opposition to the heresy of Arius. So if you want fourth century villains, Arius and Eusebius of Nicomedia are the closest you’ll find, but even then, one finds delusion rather than the kind of camp cartoon villain, Emperor Palpatine figure that it is implied St. Constantine was (I suppose soon someone will claim St. Constantine liked to shoot demonic lightning out of his fingers to torment his enemies while cackling gleefully; that is absolutely the next stop on this train wreck of logical fallacy and historical inaccuracy and copy-pasted polemicism.

Bro.T · Monday at 4:11 PM

Valletta said:
Your statement was simply historically incorrect, Christianity did not become the state religion under Constantine. That's not "connected" to anything. As to your take on Gentiles remember that the wise men, the Magi, were Gentiles. God revealed His Kingship to the Gentiles beginning at the birth of Christ.

It's incorrect because you want to feel good following mans tradition. Now any Christian in their right mind wouldn’t dare say that it’s okay to steal, kill or commit adultery or break any of the other seven commandments. But when it comes to the fourth commandment, people avoid it like a plague! You are just following the tradition of religion that was passed down through the family or maybe you have let some preacher give you other excuses for ignoring God’s true day of worship. In (Gen.2:2-5) (v.2) And on the seventh day God ended his work which he had made; and he rested on the seventh day from all his work which he had made. (v.3) And God blessed the seventh day (every seventh day of the week is a blessed and holy day) and sanctified it (it is a day that is separated (sanctified) for a purpose) because that in it he had rested from all his work which God created and made. (v.5) “and there was not a man to till the ground.” There was not a Jew, Catholic, Baptist, or Seventh Day Adventist; in fact, there was not a Christian when He constituted the Sabbath Day!

Bro.T · Monday at 4:23 PM

Hentenza said:
Is not a matter of God changing. God indeed does not change but God can usher in a new covenant. God can make the old go away and usher in the new.

Some of us actually address the 4th commandment head on.

The thing is that the only way you know about Gen. 2 is because Moses wrote it in the 15th century BCE. Prior to this no one knew about the creation story or about God resting on the seventh day. This is not surprising as scripture does not show a single instance of anyone keeping the sabbath before Moses. In fact the first instance of sabbath in scripture is Exodus 16. So the sabbath was given to Israel at Horeb and only to Israel. In fact it wasn’t even given to Israel forefathers (Deut. 5:1-5).

I believe I said I done fellowshipping with you.

Jan001 said:
Obviously, you do not understand that when there is a change in the Levitical priesthood with its Sabbaths for the Israelites only to the Melchizedekian priesthood of Jesus Christ for all people who have faith, regardless of nationality, the public worship day must also change.

This changing of the Saturday worship day for the first covenant Israelites to the Sunday worship day for the new covenant Christians is not a manmade tradition! It is a Scriptural fact.

Hebrews 7:12
For when the priesthood is changed, the law must be changed also. Acts 20:7, 1 Corinthians 16:2, Revelation 1:10

None of those verse have anything to do with the change of the Sabbath day or any royal laws. Jesus says in Matthew 5: 17 Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil. 18 For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled. 19 Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven: but whosoever shall do and teach them, the same shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven.

Jesus says Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled. Let's go back to grade school and ask a question or two. Is heaven and earth still here? Answer yes! Let’s go far in the future and see the beginning of the heaven pass away in Revelation 6: 12 And I beheld when he had opened the sixth seal, and, lo, there was a great earthquake; and the sun became black as sackcloth of hair, and the moon became as blood; 13 and the stars of heaven fell unto the earth, even as a fig tree casteth her untimely figs, when she is shaken of a mighty wind. 14 And the heaven departed as a scroll when it is rolled together; and every mountain and island were moved out of their places. This hasn’t happen yet, then all is not fulfill and the royal laws (Commandments) still good, which includes the Sabbath day.

Let's go and take a look at the reason why you don't understand whats going here. Jesus says in (Luke 24

25 Then he said unto them, O fool, and slow of heart to believe all that the prophets have spoken: 44 And He said unto them, These are the words which I spake unto you, while I was yet with you, that all things must be fulfilled, which are written in the law of Moses, and in the prophets, and in the psalms, concerning me. Now the prophets had spoke of many things that Jesus was to do when He came. Jesus makes it clear that all things written about Him in the Old Testament must be fulfilled. Knowing that all things must be fulfilled by Jesus, as long as heaven and earth is still here, tells us that the law (Commandments) are still here as well and must be kept. We have to understand that all things are not fulfilled because Jesus ministry was cut off, which will continue at his second coming.

Paul said in 2 Timothy 2:15 Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth.

Hentenza · Monday at 4:46 PM

Bro.T said:
I believe I said I done fellowshipping with you.

Well that’s rude. Maybe I’m touching a nerve regarding your legalism? I’ll continue posting for the benefit of others but it would be nice if you participated.

Jan001 · Monday at 4:51 PM

Bro.T said:
Jesus says Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled. Let's go back to grade school and ask a question or two. Is heaven and earth still here? Answer yes!

The answer is no!

What is Jesus talking about. Go back to Matthew 24:1-2

Jesus left the temple and was walking away when his disciples came up to him to call his attention to its buildings. 2 “Do you see all these things?” he asked. “Truly I tell you, not one stone here will be left on another; every one will be thrown down.”

The heaven and earth that Jesus was talking about was the Jews' temple in Jerusalem. He said it would pass away in their own generation. It did. It was destroyed in 70 AD, within 40 years of his prophecy. He also said that his words about the destruction of the temple and of Jerusalem would never pass away. 2000 years after Jesus made this prophecy, we are still reading his words, but the temple passed away in that first century, just as he said it would.

Matthew 24:33-35
Even so, when you see all these things, you know that it is near, right at the door. 34 Truly I tell you, this generation will certainly not pass away until all these things have happened. 35 Heaven and earth will pass away, but my words will never pass away.

Luke 21:32-33
Truly I tell you, this generation will certainly not pass away until all these things have happened. 33 Heaven and earth will pass away, but my words will never pass away.

"In ancient Hebrew thought, the Jewish temple was seen as a microcosm of creation, representing heaven and earth. It had three compartments that symbolized heaven, earth, and the deep, serving as a model of the cosmos and a place of mediation between God and man.23

The courtyard of the temple represented the cosmic spheres outside the organized cosmos, while the antechamber held representations of lights and food. The veil separated the earthly sphere from the heavenly sphere, where God dwelled.3

Moreover, the temple was considered the epitome of the world, a concentrated form of its essence, and a miniature of the cosmos. It was not just a place where heaven and earth met but was thought to correspond to, represent, or in some sense, be "heaven and earth" in its totality.3

In Jewish tradition, the seventh heaven, known as Araboth, is considered the holiest of the seven heavens because it houses the Throne of God and serves as the realm where God dwells." AI generated

Hentenza · Monday at 5:06 PM

Bro.T said:
Jesus says Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled. Let's go back to grade school and ask a question or two. Is heaven and earth still here? Answer yes!

How condescending. I answer this for you in another thread. I guess you forgot. Let me repeat it here.

Several passages of Scripture clearly establish that the coming of Christ has brought an end to the Mosaic Law.

Romans 10:4, “Christ is the end of the law for righteousness to everyone who believes.”

Christ fulfilled the Ten Commandments by living a perfect and sinless life and so when man trusts in Christ as his Savior, Christ’s righteousness is imputed to that individual so we have justification (Romans 4) resulting in the fact that the Law can’t condemn us (Romans 4:4-8; 5:1, 7:1-6, 8:1).

Christ fulfilled the ceremonial ordinances, the shadows and types of His person and work, by dying on the cross for us and in our place.

Christ also fulfilled the Social Law, but now He replaces it with a new way of life fitting to our new salvation.

The believer now is under God’s new law, the law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus (Romans 8:2-4).

Therefore, the doctrine of justification by means of faith in Jesus Christ upholds the Law for three reasons:

(1) Jesus Christ’s death on the Cross satisfied the demands of God’s Law that required that human sin be judged (Romans 3:26).

(2) Jesus Christ’s death on the Cross establishes the Law by fulfilling the purpose of the Law in driving men to Jesus Christ as their Savior (Galatians 3:24).

(3) Jesus Christ’s death on the Cross establishes the Law by providing believers the capacity to obey the Law through the ministry of the Holy Spirit (Romans 8:3-4).

This is why I have stated in the past that the Holy Spirit gives us the knowledge of sin and the way to repentance since the law is not able to. This is why there is no longer condemnation for those in Christ (Rom. 8:1).

concretecamper · Monday at 5:17 PM

Jan001 said:
God pointedly changes the names of the men he chooses to be the preeminent spiritual leaders of his people.

Abram to Abraham Genesis 17:5
Jacob to Israel Genesis 32:28
Simon to Cephas/Peter Matthew 16:17-19

"Roman Catholic" is not legally correct. The official name is "Catholic Church." The Latin or Roman Rite is the largest rite of the 20+ rites that comprise the Catholic Church. "Roman Catholic" became the nickname for the Latin/Roman rite of the Catholic Church.

[The first known use of the term "Catholic Church" appears in a letter written around AD 107 by Ignatius of Antioch, the Bishop of Antioch, to the Christians in Smyrna. In this letter, he wrote: "Wherever the bishop shall appear, there let the people be, even as where Jesus may be, there is the universal [katholike] Church." This is the earliest surviving written record of the phrase katholike ekklesia ("the universal church"), which later evolved into "Catholic Church." (Catholic is the English word for katholike.)

While the term was used by Ignatius, it likely had been in oral or informal use for some time before being written down. The word catholic (from Greek katholikos, meaning "universal") was used to emphasize the Church’s global, unified nature, distinguishing it from local or heretical groups. By the 4th century, the term became more formally established, especially after Emperor Theodosius I declared Nicene Christianity the state religion in 380 AD with the Edict of Thessalonica. Summary by BRAVE AI.]

[The Latin word for catholic is catholicus (masculine), catholica (feminine), or catholicum (neuter), derived from the Greek katholikos, meaning "universal" or "on the whole." It was used in early Christian writings to denote the universal Church, as seen in the Letter to the Smyrnaeans by Ignatius of Antioch (circa 110 AD), where he refers to "the Catholic Church" as the universal body of believers.

catholicus – adjective, meaning "universal" or "general"

catholica – feminine form of the adjective

catholicum – neuter form, often used in phrases like catholicum principium ("universal principle")

This term entered Latin through Late Latin and became foundational for theological terms such as catholicismus (catholicism) and catholicitas (catholicity). Summary by BRAVE AI.]

The Council of Trent used the legal name "Catholic" in its English translation documents.

[Council of Trent:

The opening document of the Council of Trent was the Bull of Indiction, issued by Pope Paul III on May 22, 1542. This papal bull formally called for the convening of the ecumenical council, which ultimately opened on December 13, 1545, in Trent, northern Italy. The bull cited the urgent need for Church reform and doctrinal clarification in response to the Protestant Reformation, emphasizing the necessity of a general council to restore unity, defend Catholic doctrine, and address widespread abuses within the Church. The Council’s opening session, held on December 13, 1545, was presided over by Pope Paul III’s legates, marking the formal commencement of the council’s work. Summary by BRAVE AI.]

Early Christian writers and the papacy:

[Papias, bishop of Hierapolis (c. 110–130), one of the Apostolic Fathers, provides early testimony on the origins of the Gospels and the authority of apostolic tradition. He stated that Mark wrote down the teachings of Peter from memory, and Matthew compiled the sayings of Jesus in Hebrew, reflecting an early recognition of authoritative apostolic sources.

Ignatius of Antioch (d. 107), in his letter to the Romans, referred to the Church of Rome as προκαθημένη τῆς ἀγάπης ("pre-eminent in love"), suggesting a high regard for Rome, though he did not explicitly mention the bishop.

Irenaeus of Lyons (c. 180–202), a disciple of Polycarp and a key Church Father, was the first to clearly affirm the preeminence of the Roman Church. He called Rome "the greatest, the oldest, and the most universally known Church," founded by Peter and Paul, and stated that all churches must agree with it due to its "more important precedence" (potiorem principalitatem).

Clement of Rome (c. 88–101), in his letter to the Corinthians, is cited as the first known example of papal authority being exercised. Though sent in the name of the Roman Church, not himself, the letter was highly respected and considered authoritative, even by some who viewed it as part of the New Testament canon.

Cyprian of Carthage (d. 258) affirmed the bishop of Rome as the successor of Peter, recognizing his unique authority in matters of faith and unity, especially in his letter to Pope Cornelius.

These early Christian writers collectively demonstrate a growing recognition of the Roman Church’s leadership role, rooted in apostolic foundation and the authority of Peter, forming the basis for the later development of papal primacy. Summary by BRAVE AI.]

The Council of Serdica in 343 AD

20 canons, 3 interesting canons pertaining to Rome's authority.

3. If a bishop is accused and a synod condemns him, he may appeal to the Bishop of Rome, who can judge or order a retrial.
4. Further provisions on appeals: If the Roman bishop deems it necessary, he may send presbyters to investigate and join the local synod.
5. Appeals to Rome are allowed in cases of deposition; the Roman see can confirm or reverse decisions.

Jan001 · Monday at 5:24 PM

Hentenza said:
This is why I have stated in the past that the Holy Spirit gives us the knowledge of sin and the way to repentance since the law is not able to. This is why there is no longer condemnation for those in Christ (Rom. 8:1).

Hello Hentenza,

What do you think "for those in Christ" means?

I'd like to read your opinion to see if it matches mine.

Jan001 · Monday at 5:27 PM

concretecamper said:
The Council of Serdica in 343 AD

20 canons, 3 interesting canons pertaining to Rome's authority.

3. If a bishop is accused and a synod condemns him, he may appeal to the Bishop of Rome, who can judge or order a retrial.
4. Further provisions on appeals: If the Roman bishop deems it necessary, he may send presbyters to investigate and join the local synod.
5. Appeals to Rome are allowed in cases of deposition; the Roman see can confirm or reverse decisions.

Thank you for enlightening me about this council. I had no idea!

Hentenza · Monday at 5:39 PM

Jan001 said:
Hello Hentenza,

What do you think "for those in Christ" means?

I'd like to read your opinion to see if it matches mine.

Hi Jan,

Those in Christ are believers that have accepted Jesus as their Lord and savior.

Jan001 · Monday at 6:49 PM

Hentenza said:
Hi Jan,

Those in Christ are believers that have accepted Jesus as their Lord and savior.

Thank you.

Paul tells the Christians that they need to examine themselves to see whether they are currently in the faith. Romans 16:10

2 Corinthians 13:4-5
Examine yourselves to see whether you are in the faith; test yourselves. Do you not realize that Christ Jesus is in you—unless, of course, you fail the test?

How do you think a Christian can fail the test of faithfulness to Jesus Christ and therefore not currently be in Christ?

Hentenza · Monday at 7:28 PM

Jan001 said:
Thank you.

Paul tells the Christians that they need to examine themselves to see whether they are currently in the faith. Romans 16:10

2 Corinthians 13:4-5
Examine yourselves to see whether you are in the faith; test yourselves. Do you not realize that Christ Jesus is in you—unless, of course, you fail the test?

How do you think a Christian can fail the test of faithfulness to Jesus Christ and therefore not currently be in Christ?

The parable of the soils tells you.

Jan001 · Monday at 7:51 PM

Hentenza said:
The parable of the soils tells you.

So, a person can be saved, be in Christ/believe for a while, and then fall away and not inherit eternal life?

Hentenza · Monday at 8:09 PM

Jan001 said:
So, a person can be saved, be in Christ/believe for a while, and then fall away and not inherit eternal life?

Not really. What the parable of the soil teaches is that initial faith can be lost if not planted on fertile soil (solid foundation as Paul calls it). Just like the immature new converts depicted in Heb. 6 fell away because they never reached solid foods. That’s why I’m opposed to altar calls since those can happen in the spur of the moment and don’t develop into a full faith. As a deacon I have seen many of these unfortunately.

Jan001 · Monday at 9:17 PM

Hentenza said:
Not really. What the parable of the soil teaches is that initial faith can be lost if not planted on fertile soil (solid foundation as Paul calls it). Just like the immature new converts depicted in Heb. 6 fell away because they never reached solid foods. That’s why I’m opposed to altar calls since those can happen in the spur of the moment and don’t develop into a full faith. As a deacon I have seen many of these unfortunately.

It seems to me that Jesus literally meant what he said. They believed/were in Christ for a while, but when tested by temptation, they did not endure in the faith.

Luke 8:13
Those on the rocky ground are the ones who receive the word with joy when they hear it, but they have no root. They believe for a while, but in the time of testing they fall away.

Matthew 10:22
You will be hated by everyone because of me, but the one who stands firm to the end will be saved.

Paul also preached that faithful endurance to the end of our life is necessary to be saved for eternal life.

2 Timothy 2:12
if we endure, we will also reign with him. If we disown him, he will also disown us;

Paul states that Christians can disown God/Jesus Christ. How can a person disown Jesus Christ?

Titus 1:16
They profess to know God, but in works they deny Him, being abominable, disobedient, and disqualified for every good work.

They deny him by doing evil works/deeds. They do not obey God's commandments.
I don't think these Christians will be saved for eternal life even though they had earlier accepted Jesus Christ as their Lord and Savior.

The Liturgist · Monday at 9:27 PM

Bro.T said:
I don't have to provide you guys with nothing else concerning history! I prove my point and it's to bad that you guys have a problem with my sources, that on you guys, because y'all ask me to give a source and I did.

Firstly, that sentence should read “I don’t have to provide you with anything else concering history!” You see, “I don’t have to provide you … with nothing …” is a double negative, which is grammatically incorrect and self-contradictory (in that double negatives are actually positive, for example, “I don’t have nothing” if you step through the sentence logically means “I have something.” Use of a double negative has the effect of undermining the credibility of your argument in the same way as relying on a logical fallacy or unsourced historical claims.

Grammar aside, your statement is also factually incorrect. To refresh your memory, you claimed that St. Constantine made the Roman Catholic Church the state religion of the Roman Empire, which is absurd (no form of Christianity became the official religion of the Roman Empire until Theodosius issued Cunctos Populos; a claim I backed up not just with a quotation from a single source, but from multiple sources). The document you claim made the Roman Catholic Church (which at the time existed only as part of a larger Orthodox Church, with the Council of Nicaea addressing an issue in what is now the Greek Orthodox Church of Alexandria and the Coptic Orthodox Church of Alexandria (due to the subsequent schisms between the Eastern Orthodox, Oriental Orthodox and the Church of the East, and of the Holy Fathers present at Nicaae, all of them spoke Greek, with only two Latin fathers present).

I have provided verifiable scholarly sources for all of my claims.

Your argument that the adoption of Roman Catholicism as the state religion by Emperor Constantine is not only anachronistic and incorrect, but rests on a non-sequitur argument from the edict of St. Constantine concerning making the first day of the week effectively a public holiday.

This act however did not apply exclusively to Christians, but rather applied to all religious and ethnoreligious groups, and what is more, did not mandate any kind of religious attendance, neither did it begin the process of closing Pagan temples and handing them over to Christians, or the destruction of idols (the mass closure of Pagan temples, the prohibition of Paganism and the establishment of the pre-schism Apostolic Church as the State Religion began with the decree Cunctos Populos, as I have shown, using actual evidence, not a non-sequitur claim from a document combined with quotations from polemical websites (which do not count; it should be noted that scholarly works on church history by the likes of Cambridge lack a sectarian bias, whereas in contrast books published by Catholics, Adventists and other denominations to articulate their specific doctrine have a sectarian bias, but when it comes to historical claims by the latter, it is right to verify them against the scholarly consensus, which takes into account factors such as archaeological and documentary evidence.

We hope the site problems here are now solved, however, if you still have any issues, please start a ticket in Contact Us

Why do we do things not written in the Bible?

Traditional Liturgical Christian

Traditional Liturgical Christian

Striving to win the prize...

Bible Christian

Bible Christian

Bible Christian

Bible Christian

I will fear no evil for You are with me

Striving to win the prize...

I will fear no evil for You are with me

I stand with Candice.

Striving to win the prize...

Striving to win the prize...

I will fear no evil for You are with me

Striving to win the prize...

I will fear no evil for You are with me

Striving to win the prize...

I will fear no evil for You are with me

Striving to win the prize...

Traditional Liturgical Christian

Similar threads