About Mary

[~Anastasia~]

I believe that there were multiple branches of Christianity beginning soon after Jesus' life and death. Some of these verbal communications, about Christ, among people were accurate and true and some were not. Some of these supposed "Christian" leaders of groups of people wanted power, money and notoriety. Jesus was tempted with these Himself by Satan. These things are not new to this world.

What do you mean by "branches" and when?

All of this is known, and documented, btw. We know who the 70 were (it's actually printed in many Protestant Bibles), we know who the first overseers of each local Church were, and each one following them. There are multiple letters between Church leaders that didn't get put in the Bible but copies were maintained. The Church was expected to hold to the faith without changing anything.

There were heresies that developed, and we know who suggested them, what they believed, why they were determined to be wrong. I'm not sure if that's what you mean by "branches".

The first real Schism was the one that separated the Oriental Church from the Eastern Church in the 5th century. We know what that was caused by as well.

The major Schism was the one where Rome separated from the rest of the Church in 1054.

The history is available, if you're interested. I'm not sure how that lines up with what you believe.

 

[HandstoWorkHeartstoGod]

except that is not what you said earlier. you (not me) said nothing can be added to the Bible. you (not me) said nothing from an extra Biblical source. Trinity was first found in the writings of Tertullian, which is an extra Biblical source. so you are not being very consistent.

and, Marian veneration is in Scripture as well.

The nature of God, Jesus and the Holy Spirit being one is described in Scripture. Mankind (Tertullian) put the label Trinity on it. I never mentioned the Trinity in my writings. Maybe someone else did. Mary was so blessed to be able to serve God in the capacity she was created for (a created being, loved by God).

 

[HandstoWorkHeartstoGod]

What do you mean by "branches" and when?

All of this is known, and documented, btw. We know who the 70 were (it's actually printed in many Protestant Bibles), we know who the first overseers of each local Church were, and each one following them. There are multiple letters between Church leaders that didn't get put in the Bible but copies were maintained. The Church was expected to hold to the faith without changing anything.

There were heresies that developed, and we know who suggested them, what they believed, why they were determined to be wrong. I'm not sure if that's what you mean by "branches".

The first real Schism was the one that separated the Oriental Church from the Eastern Church in the 5th century. We know what that was caused by as well.

The major Schism was the one where Rome separated from the rest of the Church in 1054.

The history is available, if you're interested. I'm not sure how that lines up with what you believe.

By branches I meant what Eastern Orthodox would call heresies. Some of these were heresies in Eastern Orthodox language.

 

[HandstoWorkHeartstoGod]

I am interested in when Rome left Eastern Orthodox in 1054. Need to do some research on my own. I am very good at research. Peace and blessings in Christ. Goodbye.

 

[prodromos]

By branches I meant what Eastern Orthodox would call heresies. Some of these were heresies in Eastern Orthodox language.

Which of those heresies do you ascribe to and why?

 

[HandstoWorkHeartstoGod]

prodromos, you are purposely being disrespectful. I am not doing that to others in my posts. Discussing faith issues does not have to dissolve into disrespect for other viewpoints.

 

[~Anastasia~]

By branches I meant what Eastern Orthodox would call heresies. Some of these were heresies in Eastern Orthodox language.

There were all kinds.

That Christ was just a man essentially "possessed" by God, that Christ didn't physically die on the cross, that Christ's body wasn't flesh and blood but something like a phantom, and so on. Most of the heresies were Christologicsl.

Those weren't what I'd call "branches" though, and you were concerned it was about a grab for power?

There were some who wanted power - Simon Magus for example. Some who were greedy for both esteem and money, like Ananias and Sapphira. But heresies were about doctrine, and there were sometimes fierce disputes for the sake of Truth - for which I am grateful, since the Apostles and their direct descendants were in the best position to advocate for the truth as the Church was being established. So that today, we have access to both the controversies, and how they were solved.

I am interested in when Rome left Eastern Orthodox in 1054. Need to do some research on my own. I am very good at research. Peace and blessings in Christ. Goodbye.

I hope you find what you're looking for.

By the way, if you want access to some of that earlier material, there's a good collection of the parts that have been translated at ccel.org.

Peace to you.

 

[prodromos]

prodromos, you are purposely being disrespectful. I am not doing that to others in my posts. Discussing faith issues does not have to dissolve into disrespect for other viewpoints.

It wasn't intended as disrespectful You said that "there were multiple branches of Christianity beginning soon after Jesus' life and death" and when asked to clarify, you said they were heresies in Eastern Orthodox language. Since you don't subscribe to Eastern Orthodoxy, I have to presume you identify with what we EO would describe as heresy, though presumably you would consider it orthodox yourself. I merely want to clarify what you believe and if you trace it back historically to 1st century beliefs.

 

[ArmyMatt]

The nature of God, Jesus and the Holy Spirit being one is described in Scripture. Mankind (Tertullian) put the label Trinity on it. I never mentioned the Trinity in my writings. Maybe someone else did. Mary was so blessed to be able to serve God in the capacity she was created for (a created being, loved by God).

you said you believe the Trinity can be inferred, which is not what you originally said. nowhere does Scripture actually say the nature of God, Jesus, and the Holy Spirit is one. you said we should not use the additions of mankind not used in Scripture. therefore, you should not use the word Trinity.

and you are right about Mary, which is why she is venerated even in Scripture.

 

[HandstoWorkHeartstoGod]

It wasn't intended as disresectful. You said that "there were multiple branches of Christianity beginning soon after Jesus' life and death" and when asked to clarify, you said they were heresies in Eastern Orthodox language. Since you don't subscribe to Eastern Orthodoxy, I have to presume you identify with what we EO would describe as heresy, though presumably you would consider it orthodox yourself. I merely want to clarify what you believe and if you trace it back historically to 1st century beliefs.

I have described in a previous post my belief's about Salvation and how it is obtained. Please look back and read if you care to.

 

[ArmyMatt]

and I should add, the formula that God is three Persons in one Nature, also originates with Tertullian.

 

[prodromos]

I have described in a previous post my belief's about Salvation and how it is obtained. Please look back and read if you care to.

I've looked and can't seem to find it. Are you sure it was in this thread?

 

[buzuxi02]

Many of the earliest sects were gnostic' they were never viewed as part of the Church (as a group that schismed). Docetism was extremely popular. Marcion was a member of the Church but the Marconites were completely different, I dont believe they ever viewed themselves as originating in the Jerusalem christian community. Sabellianists and Montanists were schismatics. Usually a schismatic offshoot is named after its founder or its specific teaching. So the same sect was refered by multiple name''s which can add to confusion. Novations were also called Puritans, Montanists were also called Phrygians (their headquarters in Asia Minor) and the New Prophecy etc.

And just a bit of a correction. Tertullian was the first to use a Latin equivalent of Trinity as Trinitas. Theophilus of Antioch in 180 AD also used the word Trinity (τριαδος) and there is even an apocryphal Acts which probably predates Theophilus that uses the word.

 

[ArmyMatt]

thanks, I guess then Tertullian was the one who earliest used Three Persons, One Substance.

 

[buzuxi02]

Correct. I believe Melito of Sardis in 177 AD was the first two describe the two natures of Christ.
Theophilus used the word Trinity as an already recognizable term. Those who read his writings would have been familiar with it.

I'll have to go back and reread my thick book containing apocryphal manuscripts. When I read one specific text years ago the word Trinity jumped out at me as that book is considered to have been written quite early. But I have since forgot which of the texts it came from.

 

[☦Marius☦]

Scripture alone. No human explanation or interpretation of God's Word should be elevated to the same authority as the text (The Holy Bible) itself.

Revelation 22:18-21. NIV I warn everyone who hears the the words of the prophecy of this book: If anyone adds anything to them, God will add to him the plagues described in this book. And if anyone takes words away from this book of prophecy, God will take away from him his share in the tree of life and in the holy city, which are described in this book.
He who testifies to these things says, "Yes, I am coming soon."
Amen, Come, Lord Jesus
The grace of the Lord Jesus be with God's people. Amen.

In the Old Testament, Moses gives a similar warning as well in Deuteronomy 4:1-4. We too must handle the Bible with care and great respect so that we do not distort its message, even unintentionally. We should be quick to put its principles into practice in our lives as followers of Christ alone. No human explanation or interpretation of God's Word should be elevated to the same authority as the Holy Bible itself.

You use Revelation 22 but forget that at the time the "Bible" was not put together in one volume. Each unique gospel or letter was a separate "book" John is referring to the prophecy of his own Book of revelation when he says do not add to it.

You might want to also read 2 Peter 1:20 "Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation."

And 2 Thess 2:15 "Therefore, brethren, stand fast, and hold the traditions which ye have been taught, whether by word, or our epistle."