Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
Is there a significant group or movement who will openly and knowingly reject some sections of Sacred Scripture? If so, who?
That's why I'm Orthodox.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
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.
Division is better than every one conforming to error and fiction.So basically you are pointing out that man divides over his traditions (science, schisms, schizo)?
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.
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.
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.
No it doesn't. If you inferred that, that's on you.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
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.
Bible Gateway passage: Zechariah 9:9 - 1599 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 ..."
"Rejoice thou greatly, O daughter Zion; be glad, O daughter Jerusalem. For lo, thy king cometh unto thee, even the righteous and Saviour ..."
"Rejoice greatly, O daughter of Zion; shout, O daughter of Jerusalem: behold, thy King cometh unto thee: he is just, and having salvation..."
"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).
"The heavens are thine, the earth also is thine: thou hast laid the foundation of the world, and all that therein is."
"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 heavens are thine, the earth also is thine: as for the world and the fulness thereof, thou hast founded them."
"To thee the heavens, also to thee the earth; the habitable globe and its fulness thou didst found them" (1876 Julia E. Smith Bible).
"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).
"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).
"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).
"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).
"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).
"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).
"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).
"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).
"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).
"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).
"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).
"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).
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 "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?
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 ProtecathClever 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.
Hi. Because you have said so much about your church, may I ask which one it is?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
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.
Short of using pictures, I’ve explained myself just about as well as I can.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.
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.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?