So Many Denominations.

Tone

"Whenever Thou humblest me, Thou makest me great."
Supporter
Dec 24, 2018
15,128
6,906
California
✟61,140.00
Country
United States
Faith
Messianic
Marital Status
Private
Is there a significant group or movement who will openly and knowingly reject some sections of Sacred Scripture? If so, who?

Islam.

*all other unbelievers...many christians...
 
Upvote 0

basilbear76

Active Member
May 25, 2019
69
60
73
Phoenix, AZ
✟9,296.00
Country
United States
Faith
Eastern Orthodox
Marital Status
Private
As i study God's Word, i can't help but notice that the early church did everything together as one, and where told to be likeminded.

Philippians 2:2 KJV — Fulfil ye my joy, that ye be likeminded, having the same love, being of one accord, of one mind.

Acts 2:44,46
44 And all that believed were together, and had all things in common; 46 And they, continuing daily with one accord in the temple, and breaking bread from house to house, did eat their meat with gladness and singleness of heart.

Acts 15:25 KJV — It seemed good unto us, being assembled with one accord, to send chosen men unto you with our beloved Barnabas and Paul,

Romans 15:5 KJV — Now the God of patience and consolation grant you to be likeminded one toward another according to Christ Jesus:

Acts 4:32
And the multitude of them that believed were of one heart and of one soul: neither said any of them that ought of these things which he possessed was his own; but they had all things in common.

We are pretty much commanded to be of the same mind. Here is what Apostle Paul wrote on the matter.

1 Corithians 1:10-13
10 Now I beseech you, brethren, by the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that ye all speak the same thing, and that there be no divisions among you; but that ye be perfectly joined together in the same mind and in the same judgment.
11 For it hath been declared unto me of you, my brethren, by them which are of the house of Chloe, that there are contentions among you.
12 Now this I say, that every one of you saith, I am of Paul; and I of Apollos; and I of Cephas; and I of Christ.
13 Is Christ divided? was Paul crucified for you? or were ye baptized in the name of Paul?

Is Christ divided?

Mark 3:24-25
24 And if a kingdom be divided against itself, that kingdom cannot stand.
25 And if a house be divided against itself, that house cannot stand.

The only purpose for these different denominations, to me, is confusion, and scriptures state:

1 Corinthians 14:33 KJV — For God is not the author of confusion, but of peace, as in all churches of the saints.

I personally long for the way the church operated in the Book of the Acts. The only way that is possible is for everyone to go back to the source, that is the Word of God. Remember:

2 Timothy 3:16 KJV — All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:

Isaiah 48:17 KJV — Thus saith the LORD, thy Redeemer, the Holy One of Israel; I am the LORD thy God which teacheth thee to profit, which leadeth thee by the way that thou shouldest go.

With Love, In Christ
That's why I'm Orthodox.

We are PRE-denominational.
 
Upvote 0

Guojing

Well-Known Member
Apr 11, 2019
11,773
1,309
sg
✟214,746.00
Country
Singapore
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
There is neither Jew nor Greek in the kingdom of heaven, we will all be one. Jews and Greeks fellowshiped together in the latter end as well.

Yes, after the Jewish nation rejected Christ, then the Gentiles were incorporated into the Abrahamic covenant, as Romans 9-11 explained.
 
Upvote 0

Tone

"Whenever Thou humblest me, Thou makest me great."
Supporter
Dec 24, 2018
15,128
6,906
California
✟61,140.00
Country
United States
Faith
Messianic
Marital Status
Private
Yes, after the Jewish nation rejected Christ, then the Gentiles were incorporated into the Abrahamic covenant, as Romans 9-11 explained.

Ephesians 2
"14For He Himself is our peace, who has made the two one and has torn down the dividing wall of hostility 15by abolishing in His flesh the law of commandments and decrees. He did this to create in Himself one new man out of the two, thus making peace"

The division is how Torah is viewed. What was that wall...and...what are the "law of commandments and decrees"? Until the whole Body knows and agrees...denominationalism will reign.

Ephesians 4
"15Instead, speaking the truth in love, we will in all things grow up into Christ Himself, who is the head. 16From Him the whole body is fitted and held together by every supporting ligament. And as each individual part does its work, the body grows and builds itself up in love. 17So I tell you this, and testify to it in the Lord: You must no longer walk as the Gentiles do, in the futility of their thinking."
 
Upvote 0

dqhall

Well-Known Member
Supporter
Jul 21, 2015
7,547
4,171
Florida
Visit site
✟766,603.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
So basically you are pointing out that man divides over his traditions (science, schisms, schizo)?
Division is better than every one conforming to error and fiction.
 
Upvote 0

GOD Shines Forth!

Well-Known Member
Supporter
Jan 6, 2019
2,615
2,061
United States
✟355,297.00
Country
United States
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Single
x
If anything at all, the scriptures which were designed to unify professors of the faith actually reveal and make manifests the divisions that were already there. Just because there may be an appearance of unity, does not necessarily mean that there is unity.

TRUTH! Excellent post overall, but this excerpt explains it. Once the Sword begins to cut, there is a scattering AWAY from the Word and an appeal to all manner of other sources. "Division" is not bad, per se. In fact, using the spectre of division much evil is introduced via subterfuge.

When one is steeped in God's Word this nonsense is not fallen for.
 
  • Useful
Reactions: Tone
Upvote 0

FEZZILLA

Well-Known Member
Jun 24, 2003
1,031
131
53
Wisconsin
✟16,495.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Republican
For the first 1000 years of Christianity there was only one church. Then there was the great schism of 1054 where Eastern Orthodox split from Western Orthodox. This was never intended to become a permanent split. The Western church, while rude and inconsiderate to their Eastern brothers, were in the right. Though what was believed to be a temporary split became permanent during the crusades when the west were being rude and inconsiderate as usual and this time in the wrong.

Then comes Luther and Tyndale and the original Protestant movement. Had it just remained focused on removing heresy from the church the movement could have been successful. The Protestant reformation picks up again in 1560 and this time the movement turns on Luther and Tyndale. The worst translation of the Bible in the 16th century was the Geneva Bible which was not translated by high churchman like Tyndale or Cranmer. It was translated by not so skilled scholars who wrote radical notes throughout the Bible. These notes would be the beginning of thousands of conspiracy driven Protestant denominations to follow.
Today there is said to be something like 33,000 denominations. But 99% of them come from the Puritan movement who translated the Geneva Bible. The notes in the Geneva Bible just demonized the hell out of Roman Catholics and it wasn't long and being Protestant meant being anti-Catholic. Well this was a very emotionally dumb and driven movement that is actually forbidden in true Christianity as we are to shun division as the beginning of evil. But the Puritans turned Protestantism into a cult.

Once you shave away all stupidity you only have a grand total of two Protestant churches today. Those would be the Lutheran and Anglican Churches. We never needed more than two denominations. The Puritans were far too anti-Catholic for the good of the Protestant movement. The Anglicans had it right.
 
Upvote 0

Contenders Edge

Well-Known Member
Supporter
May 13, 2019
2,615
370
43
Hayfork
✟167,447.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
Oh?

Thank you for agreeing with me.

I, at least have not claimed otherwise.

There is strong reason to believe that St. Mark's gospel was in circulation by the mid-50's AD.

Believe me, I don't. Luckily though, I've done my own research.

I, at least, have not claimed that centuries passed before the NT canon was written. You're responding to an argument that I haven't made.

That's an awful lot of words to say that you agree with me when I said that it took centuries to compile a universally recognized NT canon.



Claiming that the Gospels were spread by oral tradition from the Apostles to their successors implies that at least two centuries went by before that which was passed on orally before finally being written down.


“There is strong reason to believe that St. Mark's gospel was in circulation by the mid-50's AD.”


Glad that you haven’t disregarded that.


“I've done my own research.”


I’m sure you have and if that is the case, there’s more hope for you than those who rely solely on a college professor for their education and the mainstream media establishments for their information.

But you did not say it took several centuries for the NT scriptures to be compiled and canonized. But again, you did say that Christians for two generations spanning the course of two centuries relied solely on oral tradition to spread the Gospel of Jesus Christ, and the manner in which your statement presents itself implies that the written Gospel accounts and Apostolic Epistles did not exist until at least the third century A.D.

You can deny that you were implying that, and I do expect that you will, but I am simply taking the context of your statements for how they are presented.

And as I said before, that there was a canonization process underway which began shortly after the Apostolic generation had passed, only goes to show that our New Testament scriptures were already in existence and being circulated throughout the Church. They just hadn’t all been canonized.

The vast majority of the New Testament was canonized at fairly rapid pace by the way. There were just a few of the Apostolic Epistles around which swirled much debate about whether they were divinely inspired for some time until they too were finally canonized as early as the third century.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Pioneer3mm
Upvote 0

BABerean2

Newbie
Supporter
May 21, 2014
20,614
7,484
North Carolina
✟893,665.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Christ does not wish for us to be divided.

All religions and all sectors within a religion are "man made" and, as a result, are flawed.

You will see, the more threads on this forum that you read, all the varied ideas and views inside the varied denominations.

That is man's error.

Christ just wants a relationship with you. He wants you to love and believe in Him and treat others like you want to be treated....

The rest is up to you as you follow Christ's ways and examples.

The failure of the Church to embrace the New Covenant is one of the biggest reasons for this division.

My wife and I once attended a church where we never heard a Sunday School lesson, or a sermon on the New Covenant found in Hebrews 12:22-24.

The battle line between the Old Covenant and the New Covenant is found in the verse below.

Act 15:24 Forasmuch as we have heard, that certain which went out from us have troubled you with words, subverting your souls, saying, Ye must be circumcised, and keep the law: to whom we gave no such commandment:

Paul compelled the Galatian believers to "cast out" the Sinai Covenant of "bondage" in Galatians 4:24-31.

In Galatians 3:16-29 Paul reveals the temporary nature of the Sinai Covenant.
Paul said the law was "added" 430 years "after" the promise made to Abraham "until" the seed(Christ) could come to whom the promise was made.




The New Covenant: Bob George

.
 
Upvote 0

thecolorsblend

If God is your Father, who is your Mother?
Supporter
Jul 1, 2013
9,199
8,425
Gotham City, New Jersey
✟308,231.00
Country
United States
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
Claiming that the Gospels were spread by oral tradition from the Apostles to their successors implies that at least two centuries went by before that which was passed on orally before finally being written down
No it doesn't. If you inferred that, that's on you.

But since we're getting sidetracked into a meaningless tangent, allow me to say that I see no reason to doubt the historicity or the authorship of the gospels or the epistles. However, there's a lot of empty ground between those texts being written (which I believe they were, mostly during the mid first century) and their being recognized as Sacred Scripture and then compiled into a New Testament canon (a process which was not complete for centuries).

Even after it was complete, (A) most people remained illiterate and (B) copies of scripture remained expensive. So, again, the Church's unity was not predicated upon a recognized canon of scripture. That has never been the animating feature of Christianity.
 
  • Winner
Reactions: TuxAme
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

TuxAme

Quis ut Deus?
Supporter
Dec 16, 2017
2,422
3,264
Ohio
✟169,197.00
Country
United States
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Celibate
The early Church was united because the early Church was Catholic. Whenever a question arose about doctrine, representatives were sent from the different territories the Church had evangelized, and they came together just like the council in Jerusalem to find the truth. The entire Church was involved, not just one (or a few) men as was the case with Luther and those who came after him.
 
Upvote 0

ViaCrucis

Confessional Lutheran
Oct 2, 2011
37,341
26,785
Pacific Northwest
✟728,115.00
Country
United States
Faith
Lutheran
Marital Status
In Relationship
Politics
US-Others
That is what makes their unity so amazing. They didn't have the new testament scriptures as we do, and they still had the same mindset and worked through problems as one. We have both the old and new in hand and still find a way to be different.

Things weren't as rosey as one may think. Read through the epistles of Paul for example and it's obvious that even with the apostles--who received everything they had from Christ directly--there were those intent on sabotaging the apostolic message. The ideal was always unity, but it's clear that this unity was never perfectly experienced, otherwise Paul wouldn't be talking about it so often in his letters.

So we need to take off our rose-tinted glasses to recognize that the Christian Church has always been in a state of struggle to defend truth from error, and maintain unity. There was never, and has never, been a "perfect church". The only perfect church is the Church Triumphant, the dearly departed saints who have gone before us who are now in the presence of the Lord, with whom we share Communion in Christ by the power of the Spirit, i.e. the Communion of Saints mentioned in the Apostles' Creed. But as for here, the Church Militant, Christianity is a struggle.

-CryptoLutheran
 
  • Like
Reactions: Pioneer3mm
Upvote 0

FEZZILLA

Well-Known Member
Jun 24, 2003
1,031
131
53
Wisconsin
✟16,495.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Republican
I think the key of understand denominations is to study translations. This is something I've done and it had a profound effect on how I see denominations. I see a couple categories.

1. The Tyndale Bibles. These Bibles consist of the 1535 Coverdale Bible, 1537 Matthew's Bible, 1539 Great Bible, and 1568 Bishop's Bible.
These are Anglican Bibles.

2. 1560/1599 Geneva Bible. This Bible was revised over 100 times in roughly a 50 year span of time. All Protestant denominations after Anglicanism followed the Geneva Bible notes. This Bible was strongly opposed by the Anglican Church.

3. 1611 King James Bible.
This is a compromise between the Anglicans and Puritans (the Puritans make up all non-Lutheran & non-Anglican churches today). The KJV was only accepted by Puritans when their Geneva Bible went out of print.

I consider myself a Tyndale Protestant. I am a continuing Anglican, so the KJV is our pulpit Bible and our Psalter comes from the 1539 Great Bible. As an Anglican I love the KJV Bible. But historically and theologically I prefer the 1537 Matthew's Bible, 1539 Great Bible, and 1568 Bishop's Bible over the KJV. This is because I do not agree with the Geneva Bible scholars. Sure, they did manage to get some things right. But their mistakes slowly led us to our divided situation today.

From the 1560 Geneva Bible: The Puritan Bible with anti-Catholic notes:

Zechariah 9:9,

♦Geneva Bible:
"Rejoice greatly, O daughter Zion: shout for joy, O daughter Jerusalem: behold, thy king cometh unto thee: he is just, and saved himself ..." :flushed:
Bible Gateway passage: Zechariah 9:9 - 1599 Geneva Bible

Saving Himself is what Satan wanted Jesus to do! Sounds like a Gnostic influenced verse.

Now from Anglican translated Bibles:

♦Matthew Bible and Great Bible:
"Rejoice thou greatly, O daughter Zion; be glad, O daughter Jerusalem. For lo, thy king cometh unto thee, even the righteous and Saviour ..."

♦️King James Bible:
"Rejoice greatly, O daughter of Zion; shout, O daughter of Jerusalem: behold, thy King cometh unto thee: he is just, and having salvation..."

Huge difference!

Most of our churches derive from the Geneva Bible and the Puritan movement that translated it. Good things did come from the Puritan movement. They discovered our country for one. The first Bible to enter American soil was the Geneva Bible. So there is deep historical reverence here that can't be ignored. The good comes from the hearts of the Puritans but the bad comes from the doctrines based on a bad translation with bad study notes.

From the Geneva Bible notes would follow even more radical translations like the New World Translation, Book of Mormon, and now the line-up of flat earth Bibles such as NAB, NABRE, NRSV, NIV'11 and others.

Why did the Geneva Bible lead to flat earth? Lets look at the better translated Tyndale Bibles.

:earthamericas:Psalm 89:11,

"The heaues are thine, the earth is thine: thou hast layed the foundacio of the roude worlde and all that therin is" (1535 Coverdale Bible).

"The heauens are thine, the earth is thine: thou hast layed the foundation of the rounde world, and al that therin is" (1537 Matthew's Bible).

"The heauens are thyne, the earth also is thyne: thou hast layed the foundacyon of the rounde worlde, and all that therin is" (1539 Great Bible).

In 1560 the Geneva Bible was translated and look at the new change on this verse (and all others like it). So here is the 1560/1599 Geneva Bible:

"The heavens are thine, the earth also is thine: thou hast laid the foundation of the world, and all that therein is."

The word is no longer round. This is a weaker translation because both Coverdale and Tyndale knew the importance in translating the Psalms correctly. The Hebrew word tebel is a definitive word and it does mean the round world or habitable globe in Hebrew as well as Greek and Latin.

Queen Elizabeth I tries to restore the English Bible by authorizing a new Bible to counter the Geneva Bible's popularity.

"The heauens are thine, the earth also is thine: thou hast layde the foundation of the rounde worlde, and of all the plentie that is therin" (1568 Bishop's Bible).

The King James scholars went with Geneva renderings.

"The heavens are thine, the earth also is thine: as for the world and the fulness thereof, thou hast founded them."

Julia Smith tried to fix the error

"To thee the heavens, also to thee the earth; the habitable globe and its fulness thou didst found them" (1876 Julia E. Smith Bible).

Every translation after this would use Geneva Bible rendering. In all fairness, the word "world" does mean globe.
Websters Dictionary 1828 - Webster's Dictionary 1828 - World

But how many people today know that "world" means "globe"? Hardly anyone. Coverdale and Tyndale were wise to this which is why they chose the more accurate rendering of tebel which ended up "round world" in many verses. Here is a list from the Tyndale Bibles of accurately translated verses omitted by Geneva scholars as well as KJV scholars.

1 Samuel 2:8,

"He reyseth vp the poore out of the duste, and lyfteth vp the begger from the dong hill: to set them among princes, and to enheret them with the seate of glory. For the pyllers of the earth are the Lordes, and he hath set the rounde worlde vpon them" (Strong's H8398: תֵּבֵל têbêl -- 1537 Matthew-Tyndale Bible).

Psalm 18:15,

"The sprynges of waters were sene, & the foundacions of the round worlde were discouered at thy chydinge, O Lorde, at the blastynge of the breth of thy displeasure" (1539 Great Bible).

Psalm 24:1,

"A Psalme of Dauid. The earth is the Lordes, and all that therin is: the compasse of the worlde, and they that dwell therin" (1539 Great Bible).

Psalm 93:1,

"The Lorde is kyng, and hath put on glorious apparell, the Lorde hath put on his apparell, & gyrded him selfe with strengthe: he hath made the rounde world so sure, that it can not be moued" (1537 Matthew's Bible).

Psalm 96:10,

"Tell it out amonge the Heathen, that the Lorde is kynge: and that it is he, which hath made the rounde worlde so faste, that it can not be moued, and howe that he shall iudge the people righteously" (1537 Matthew's Bible).

Proverbs 8:31,

"As for the rounde compase of his worlde, I make it ioyfull: for my delyte is to be among the chyldren of men" (1537 Matthew's Bible).

Isaiah 18:3,

"Yea, al ye that syt in the compasse of the worlde, and dwell vpon the earthe, when the token shalbe geuen vpon the mountaynes, then loke vp: & when the horne bloweth, then herken to" (1537 Matthew's Bible).

Isaiah 34:1,

"Come ye Heithen & heare, take hede ye people. Herken thou earth & all that is therin: thou rounde compasse & all that groweth there vpon" (1537 Matthew's Bible).

Jeremiah 10:12,

"But (as for oure God) he made the earth with his power, and with his wisdome hath he fynished the whole compasse of the worlde, with his discrecion hath he spred out the heauens" (1535 Coverdale Bible).

Jeremiah 51:15,

"Yea euen the Lorde of hoastes that with his power made the earth, with his wisdome prepared the round world, and with his discretion spread out the heauens" (1568 Bishop's Bible).

Julia Smith correctly translated:

Job 37:12,

"Being turned by his guidance to their doing all that he commanded them upon the face of the habitable globe of the earth" (Strong's H2015 הָפַךְ hâphak, H4524 מֵסַב mêçab, H8398 תֵּבֵל têbêl, H776 אֶרֶץ ʼerets -- 1876 Julia E. Smith Bible).

Psalm 19:4,

English:
:handpointright: "Their line went forth into all the earth, and their words into the ends of the habitable globe. In them he set a tent for the sun" (H8398 תֵּבֵל têbêl - 1876 Julia E. Smith Bible).

So the Puritans lost all those globe earth verses!! There are more in the NT! So today we have flat earth Bibles and they all trace their roots back to Geneva Bible.

Again, the English word "world" means globe. But a good translator will not gamble with such understanding. Tyndale and Coverdale both understood the purpose of translating was so the English reader will understand what the Bible is saying. The Hebrew word tebel means the habitable globe so naturally good translations will bring out the meaning. But today more and more Christians are being tricked into accepting flat earth lies. These lies were made possible through a bad translation in the 16th century that caused all other denominations after it.

So after all this research I became Anglican. I will not attend flat earth churches.
 
Upvote 0

chevyontheriver

Well-Known Member
Supporter
Sep 29, 2015
19,168
16,008
Flyoverland
✟1,223,725.00
Country
United States
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-American-Solidarity
The "Fathers" and the bishops were not called by Jesus Christ to be an apostle to the Gentiles. That would be Paul. Hmm, wonder where we can find his writings?
Clever answer. But then the people who follow Paul and the Bible alone never disagree with each other. Except they do. And they have no way to resolve these disagreements except to have nothing to do with each other. I'll go with Bible and Fathers and bishops appointed by the Church all together as the key to figuring it all out. The Bible alone seems not to work.
 
Upvote 0

FEZZILLA

Well-Known Member
Jun 24, 2003
1,031
131
53
Wisconsin
✟16,495.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Republican
Clever answer. But then the people who follow Paul and the Bible alone never disagree with each other. Except they do. And they have no way to resolve these disagreements except to have nothing to do with each other. I'll go with Bible and Fathers and bishops appointed by the Church all together as the key to figuring it all out. The Bible alone seems not to work.
The Bible only works when we know it as good as the Apostles and church fathers. The flat earth conspiracy quickly changed me from a Puritan Protestant to an Anglican Protestant (aka, Catholic). I was looking for the best of both worlds and I found it in the Anglican Church. I no longer have to call myself a Protecath :sweatsmile::tearsofjoy::sweatsmile::innocent:
Anyway, back to my point. Less than 99% of all Protestants were able to solve the flat earth scam on the Bible. This is because all Protestants cut from the Puritan tree throw out their own history. With Christian history banned by all the various Puritan Protestant sects, these Christians had no way to understand ancient and obsolete expressions, or even English words that no longer carry the same meaning. The Bible only contains ancient terminologies and expressions, and they don't always correspond well in modern English.

For example, "the earth shall not be moved." If you're Catholic you know it means that the earth will not fall down from its suspended position in space, nor will it go into corruption by floating out of its orbit. The expression means that the earth will not deviate from the natural laws God ordained for it. This is the ancient understanding of the expression. But the Protestant reads it and does not even try to consult tradition to see what it means. The Protestant is forced to reason by today's logic and reason as well as how we understand words and expressions today. The Protestant then is backed into a corner because according to today's logic the expression means the earth is stationary. But that's not what it means.

I solved the entire flat earth scam on my own. But without tradition I would still be at square 1 ... nowhere.

I realized that Protestants were just the rebellious punk rocker type you still see in Britain today. The only legitimate Protestant movements were Luther and Tyndale. All movements after that led us to countless heretical sects -- thousands of them. I never used to speak this way until the last year. I really did solve the denomination issue. Protestantism led to atheism. True, many great scientists were Protestants. Most of the greatest scientists were Protestants. But the Geneva Bible removed the multiple globe earth verses found in the Septuagint, Masoretic, and Latin Vulgate. The Vulgate not only dominated the church language, but it also shaped much of our scientific knowledge. But Protestantism broke away from the clear and definitive language of the Vulgate. Had Darwin read "reptile terrae" in Genesis 1 in the Vulgate, he would have re-channeled his energies elsewhere doing something to help out the growth of the church. But Darwin didn't know dinos were in the Bible or how countless verses say we live on a moving sphere.

The Protestant problem is an English problem.
 
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

Albion

Facilitator
Dec 8, 2004
111,138
33,258
✟583,842.00
Country
United States
Faith
Anglican
Marital Status
Married
The Bible only works when we know it as good as the Apostles and church fathers. The flat earth conspiracy quickly changed me from a Puritan Protestant to an Anglican Protestant (aka, Catholic). I was looking for the best of both worlds and I found it in the Anglican Church. I no longer have to call myself a Protecath :sweatsmile::tearsofjoy::sweatsmile::innocent:
Hi. Because you have said so much about your church, may I ask which one it is?
 
Upvote 0

Contenders Edge

Well-Known Member
Supporter
May 13, 2019
2,615
370
43
Hayfork
✟167,447.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
No it doesn't. If you inferred that, that's on you.

But since we're getting sidetracked into a meaningless tangent, allow me to say that I see no reason to doubt the historicity or the authorship of the gospels or the epistles. However, there's a lot of empty ground between those texts being written (which I believe they were, mostly during the mid first century) and their being recognized as Sacred Scripture and then compiled into a New Testament canon (a process which was not complete for centuries).

Even after it was complete, (A) most people remained illiterate and (B) copies of scripture remained expensive. So, again, the Church's unity was not predicated upon a recognized canon of scripture. That has never been the animating feature of Christianity.


I do not wish to go off on meaningless tangents either, but again, if my rendering of anything you’ve said is wrong, you may wish explain exactly what you’ve mean because there may be others who might share similar conclusions about your intended meaning, but if not, then that is your prerogative.

I know I would want to make sure there was no confusion about the intent behind anything I say knowing that we are judged by what we say and even perceived to have said.

But on matters more meaningful, if you have no doubt in the historicity and authorship of the canonized Gospels and Epistles, then there should be no reason to doubt that they were divinely inspired and may your confidence in their historical reliability also strengthen your confidence in their inerrancy, and in turn, strengthen your faith in Jesus.

As for the empty spaces you speak of, I will admit that I do not know what you mean by the “empty spaces” since that could infer any number of things.

And the claim that most people in the days of the Apostles and the early church were illiterate holds no merit. I suspect the “illiteracy” claim is founded in the fact that information did not travel nearly as fast in those days as compared to now or even after the invention of the printing press in the days of the Reformation, but just because information was not as widely circulated does not mean that the people at large were illiterate. It just means that more time was taken for things to be written down and then copied.

Scripture clearly indicates that people were in fact far more literate than what the so-called historical experts give them credit for. After all, why would God command Moses to instruct a people to write down His law, even on the posts of their gates and houses (Deut. 6:9 ) if they couldn’t read? That command was not given to just the priests but to all the people.

Why would Pontius Pilate have nailed a sign over the head of our Lord when He was crucified declaring Him to be the King of the Jews in three languages (Jn. 19:19-20) if the majority of the people present were not able to read?

And remember that Apostles Peter and John, both of whom were of a class that typical historians would claim to be have been illiterate, obviously knew how to read and write.

And lastly, in order for there to be a unifying faith, there had to have been scriptures that the early church had to have recognized as being divinely inspired in order for the faith to which they held to receive validation.

Even before the canonization process, as we know it, took place, if there had not been scriptures that were recognized as being divinely inspired, there would have been no way by which the Gospel could have been validated and nothing around which the early church could be united.
 
Upvote 0

thecolorsblend

If God is your Father, who is your Mother?
Supporter
Jul 1, 2013
9,199
8,425
Gotham City, New Jersey
✟308,231.00
Country
United States
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
I do not wish to go off on meaningless tangents either, but again, if my rendering of anything you’ve said is wrong, you may wish explain exactly what you’ve mean because there may be others who might share similar conclusions about your intended meaning, but if not, then that is your prerogative.

I know I would want to make sure there was no confusion about the intent behind anything I say knowing that we are judged by what we say and even perceived to have said.

But on matters more meaningful, if you have no doubt in the historicity and authorship of the canonized Gospels and Epistles, then there should be no reason to doubt that they were divinely inspired and may your confidence in their historical reliability also strengthen your confidence in their inerrancy, and in turn, strengthen your faith in Jesus.

As for the empty spaces you speak of, I will admit that I do not know what you mean by the “empty spaces” since that could infer any number of things.

And the claim that most people in the days of the Apostles and the early church were illiterate holds no merit. I suspect the “illiteracy” claim is founded in the fact that information did not travel nearly as fast in those days as compared to now or even after the invention of the printing press in the days of the Reformation, but just because information was not as widely circulated does not mean that the people at large were illiterate. It just means that more time was taken for things to be written down and then copied.

Scripture clearly indicates that people were in fact far more literate than what the so-called historical experts give them credit for. After all, why would God command Moses to instruct a people to write down His law, even on the posts of their gates and houses (Deut. 6:9 ) if they couldn’t read? That command was not given to just the priests but to all the people.

Why would Pontius Pilate have nailed a sign over the head of our Lord when He was crucified declaring Him to be the King of the Jews in three languages (Jn. 19:19-20) if the majority of the people present were not able to read?

And remember that Apostles Peter and John, both of whom were of a class that typical historians would claim to be have been illiterate, obviously knew how to read and write.

And lastly, in order for there to be a unifying faith, there had to have been scriptures that the early church had to have recognized as being divinely inspired in order for the faith to which they held to receive validation.

Even before the canonization process, as we know it, took place, if there had not been scriptures that were recognized as being divinely inspired, there would have been no way by which the Gospel could have been validated and nothing around which the early church could be united.
Short of using pictures, I’ve explained myself just about as well as I can.

You’re on your own.
 
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

CelticRebel

Well-Known Member
Supporter
May 21, 2015
623
64
69
✟60,615.00
Faith
Christian
For the first 1000 years of Christianity there was only one church. Then there was the great schism of 1054 where Eastern Orthodox split from Western Orthodox. This was never intended to become a permanent split. The Western church, while rude and inconsiderate to their Eastern brothers, were in the right. Though what was believed to be a temporary split became permanent during the crusades when the west were being rude and inconsiderate as usual and this time in the wrong.

Then comes Luther and Tyndale and the original Protestant movement. Had it just remained focused on removing heresy from the church the movement could have been successful. The Protestant reformation picks up again in 1560 and this time the movement turns on Luther and Tyndale. The worst translation of the Bible in the 16th century was the Geneva Bible which was not translated by high churchman like Tyndale or Cranmer. It was translated by not so skilled scholars who wrote radical notes throughout the Bible. These notes would be the beginning of thousands of conspiracy driven Protestant denominations to follow.
Today there is said to be something like 33,000 denominations. But 99% of them come from the Puritan movement who translated the Geneva Bible. The notes in the Geneva Bible just demonized the hell out of Roman Catholics and it wasn't long and being Protestant meant being anti-Catholic. Well this was a very emotionally dumb and driven movement that is actually forbidden in true Christianity as we are to shun division as the beginning of evil. But the Puritans turned Protestantism into a cult.

Once you shave away all stupidity you only have a grand total of two Protestant churches today. Those would be the Lutheran and Anglican Churches. We never needed more than two denominations. The Puritans were far too anti-Catholic for the good of the Protestant movement. The Anglicans had it right.

No church that persecuted others had it right. That ruled out Catholics and Magisterial Protestants.
 
  • Winner
Reactions: BABerean2
Upvote 0