Church History

[BobRyan]

I am looking for info on Church History, from the time of Christ's resurrection until now. Such things as how the churches have changed through the centuries. There is the Reformation Movement, Pentecostal/Charismatic Movement and Emergent Movement.

Here is a commentary on the NT Apostolic letters -

Online Books - The Acts of the Apostles

Here is a book about the 2000 years of church history from the resurrection of Christ to the future point of the 2nd coming and beyond.

Online Books: The Great Controversy

Good site for timelines - charts
The Statue in King Nebuchadnezzar's Dream
Daniel and Revelation Prophecy Study Plan

2000 year timeline -- and entire 6000 year timeline of earth.
Bible Time Lines and Chronology

Want to discuss some detail in that timeline?



in Christ,

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

Consider this question- If Adam didn't exist then where did we come from? And why does the bible trace David, Moses, Noah and Even the Lord back to Adam? Are these men only metaphors?

indeed - no fall of mankind from monkey...
no need for God to come and die for monkey children.
no need for paradise restored to monkey-status


Darwin, Dawkins, Provine, P.Z. Meyers and many others start out as Christians -- figure out that their new faith in evolutionism does not fit with the Bible account of origins and thus with the Gospel itself and then totally leave the Christian church - like many have done in the EU as they figured this out when embracing their new faith in evolutionism.

in Christ,

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

My only point is that if Adam didn't exist then the bible is a lie. I must believe that Adam existed because the bible teaches us that Abraham and the Lord came from Adam. Isn't this what the bible records?

And of course that is a good point. Irrefutable.

 

[BobRyan]

And my point is, rather then saying that the creation story is a lie, as Creations always rally to when they can't rationalize the Biblical narrative in a less literalistic way when confronted by evolutionary science, what if...

That is called eisegesis... wrenching the Bible to fit an externally motivated agenda not at all available to the author of the text or to his primary intended readers.

Many Christians figured out that that idea is flawed -- not only Bible believing Christians can see the flaw in it - so also can atheist evolutionists who used to be Christians prior to "doing the math" and working out the solution showing that the religion of evolutionism simply does not fit the Bible author's POV or the context for their readers.

in Christ,

Bob

 

[Targaryen]

That is called eisegesis... wrenching the Bible to fit an externally motivated agenda not at all available to the author of the text or to his primary intended readers.

Many Christians figured out that that idea is flawed -- not only Bible believing Christians can see the flaw in it - so also can atheist evolutionists who used to be Christians prior to "doing the math" and working out the solution showing that the religion of evolutionism simply does not fit the Bible author's POV or the context for their readers.

in Christ,

Bob

Yawn

 

[BobRyan]

Perfect contrast between paying attention to the details of the Bible - and fleeing in fear of them. Very helpful for the unbiased objective readers.

Thanks.

 

[Tzaousios]

That is called eisegesis... wrenching the Bible to fit an externally motivated agenda not at all available to the author of the text or to his primary intended readers.

Many Christians figured out that that idea is flawed -- not only Bible believing Christians can see the flaw in it - so also can atheist evolutionists who used to be Christians prior to "doing the math" and working out the solution showing that the religion of evolutionism simply does not fit the Bible author's POV or the context for their readers.

Then this is called "projection"...

 

[Rick Otto]

=80

 

[Harbingr]

My only point is that if Adam didn't exist then the bible is a lie. I must believe that Adam existed because the bible teaches us that Abraham and the Lord came from Adam. Isn't this what the bible records?

Adam simply means 'red', and Eve simply means 'life'.

Just like the Serpent, which is a symbol of being fallen or of deceit, so to can Adam and Eve be symbolic.

Even in the Flood, the dove and the olive branches are symbolic, rooted interestingly in Greek myth. Milk and honey, again, are foods of the gods in mythology.

A lot of Genesis is cryptic, and so your point is simply wrong.

 

[Restoresmysoul]

Adam simply means 'red', and Eve simply means 'life'.

Just like the Serpent, which is a symbol of being fallen or of deceit, so to can Adam and Eve be symbolic.

Even in the Flood, the dove and the olive branches are symbolic, rooted interestingly in Greek myth. Milk and honey, again, are foods of the gods in mythology.

A lot of Genesis is cryptic, and so your point is simply wrong.

I believe Adam and Eve are both symbolic and real. Just as a woman represents the Church, a woman is both symbolic and real because women are real. The church is also represented as Christ's own body which seems like a contradiction with the previous symbol. I think that sometimes we may get carried away with symbolism and miss the truth that it represents.

 

[simonthezealot]

My second book, and a far larger read (but very accessible) was Church History in Plain Language by Dr. Bruce Shelley

This book is well written and in laymens terms, the late Dr. Shelley did a fantastic job of spelling things out fairly and in-depth. I would highly recommend this read, I was fortunate enough to gleen much information from him before his passing a few years back.

 

[Gxg (G²)]

This book is well written and in laymens terms, the late Dr. Shelley did a fantastic job of spelling things out fairly and in-depth. I would highly recommend this read, I was fortunate enough to gleen much information from him before his passing a few years back.

I agree - it's a really good study

 

[MoreCoffee]

I found this.

Chart of Early Church Fathers - ReligionFacts

Origin was not a Church Father ... but the chart has good names in it too.

 

[Standing Up]

Origin was not a Church Father ... but the chart has good names in it too.

Tertullian is on the chart, yet RC portrays him as a heretic. What's the difference?

PS Origen

 

[MoreCoffee]

Tertullian is on the chart, yet RC portrays him as a heretic. What's the difference?

PS Origen

Turtullian is an ecclesiastical writer but not a church father because his trajectory was away from the unity of the church into schism and heresy so his writings from the time when he was a Catholic are more orthodox than his writings from his Montanist period. He died out of fellowship with the Catholic Church thus he is not accounted as a father of the church.

 

[WisdomTree]

Turtullian is an ecclesiastical writer but not a church father because his trajectory was away from the unity of the church into schism and heresy so his writings from the time when he was a Catholic are more orthodox than his writings from his Montanist period. He died out of fellowship with the Catholic Church thus he is not accounted as a father of the church.

I thought prominent theologians who contributed heaps towards Church theology were counted as being Church Fathers regardless of their orthodoxy or status as a saint?

 

[Rick Otto]

I thought prominent theologians who contributed heaps towards Church theology were counted as being Church Fathers regardless of their orthodoxy or status as a saint?

I thought it depended on who you ask.

 

[MoreCoffee]

I thought prominent theologians who contributed heaps towards Church theology were counted as being Church Fathers regardless of their orthodoxy or status as a saint?

Being called a father of the church is intended to imply theological orthodoxy for the times in which the father lived. Turtullian departed from the Catholic Church and joined the Montanists and Montanism was regarded as heresy almost from its outset.

 

[Standing Up]

Turtullian is an ecclesiastical writer but not a church father because his trajectory was away from the unity of the church into schism and heresy so his writings from the time when he was a Catholic are more orthodox than his writings from his Montanist period. He died out of fellowship with the Catholic Church thus he is not accounted as a father of the church.

He opined his trinity ideas while a Montanist.

Prior to his Montanist association, he rejected Rome's usurping of the keys given solely to Peter who opened the doors to Jew and Gentile once and forever at his first preachings.

 

[Standing Up]

I thought it depended on who you ask.

Or when Believe Tertullian is on the up and up with Rome nowadays.