When did the early fathers begin to go askew?

[GoldenKingGaze]

Good day, I am interested in knowing about when the early church fathers, in apostolic succession, began to err, to miss the right and true? And also perhaps, grow cold?
I know the apostolic succession is heavily important, John the apostle's disciple Polycarp for example, a great passing on of the baton. If Polycarp went wrong, John failed as a father. Paul and Peter and all the apostles made converts and had inner circles. But over time, decade after decade, when did they lose speed?

By the eighth century the Roman church had become political. And they may have needed a revival of the healings and prophecies mentioned going into the fifth century?

By the fifth century end, the fathers had addressed each possible kind of heresy. I think last to go was modalism.

I think the concept of an anthropomorphic God was rubbished not counter explained, true? And pre-conception existence? I am interested in others' views?

 

[True Science]

Good day, I am interested in knowing about when the early church fathers, in apostolic succession, began to err, to miss the right and true? And also perhaps, grow cold?
I know the apostolic succession is heavily important, John the apostle's disciple Polycarp for example, a great passing on of the baton. If Polycarp went wrong, John failed as a father. Paul and Peter and all the apostles made converts and had inner circles. But over time, decade after decade, when did they lose speed?

By the eighth century the Roman church had become political. And they may have needed a revival of the healings and prophecies mentioned going into the fifth century?

By the fifth century end, the fathers had addressed each possible kind of heresy. I think last to go was modalism.

I think the concept of an anthropomorphic God was rubbished not counter explained, true? And pre-conception existence? I am interested in others' views?

The problem that happened was early Greek, Platonic and Gnositic philosophical ideas influenced Christians of the nations, and even some Jewish believers, like the Essenes. The first part of this great falling away was very early when they started making the Law of none effect: https://2kgsha.bn1304.livefilestore.com/y3mMXqXR1SW0HjDKCggFkVxo_8TuMk2F-XzNp8V98d0lhHBT8i5DnwFZuuUCoMbT2fbOM3CvHYovTYrZe1zMgboqcsLWKIeF7HPxxtKC5eumQMDq3BXDty_1CLvgmaJnMWsfFPIxLfEO3n6yCYqs0KbkltQ-STP9d2J8I-kji0PcWY/Extra-Biblical Historical Proof That The Early Orthodox Christian Assembly Of God Was Torah Observant.pdf?psid=1

They were embracing slowly more and more Greek, platonic and gnostic philosophical ideas and syncing them with the faith. Thus later many more heresies entered into the faith, a lot of which was due to gnostic allegorization of Scripture (allegory is not bad but they sacrifice literalness and plain context for it to invent new things), Trinitarianism/Modelism (except for details, they really are the same platonic pantheism--the Truth is Semi-Arianism which is both Scripturally sound and philosophically sound without sacrificing the biblical text), Amillennialism (which brought forth other later heresies like Preterism, Post Millennialism and Dispensationalism), and later with Augustine you have the mainstream heretical version of Original Sin/Inability. They also started becoming very mystical and monkish monastics. Their disregard for the Law ended up bringing in sin, like pagan syncing and idol worship. Later in the Reformation it would be worse where we got Faith Alone, OSAS, Calvinism (Theistic Fatalism). and in the enlightenment libertarian thought, Christian anarchism, "love" is the Law, mixing worldly morals with the faith even more because no foundation in the Law which defines sin. We also have the Christians mixing with worldly states to the degree that they are willing to compromise the faith for unity with the world. This happened starting with Constantine. I have no problem with a Christian state if God gives it but it should be run by the Law of God, a true righteous theocracy, and with pure doctrine, like King Abgar, who you can read about in my article. Of course there is also the serious problem that people started disobeying Paul and despising prophecy, and the gifts, and Holy Spirit power, saying that God changed and doesn't do anything anymore and it is all tradition or Bible. This happened the most with later Protestants. Catholics a little too, but not so much. Certainly it can be backed up in Judges that the Holy Spirit power would sometimes be not very visible for a while like in those days, which are the type of the New Covenant times that have come, but there is no evidence of an utter cessation once we got a manmade canon in the text and people made it up because they didn't like truth. Just like how the canon is manmade. There is absolutely no support in Scripture for the Protestant canon and Sola Scriptura. And all the canons of major Christian groups are wrong according to their own bibles. People just stopped loving God's word and they explained it away with manmade traditions. It happened slowly more and more and now we are in utter full blown apostasy.

 

[Soyeong]

Good day, I am interested in knowing about when the early church fathers, in apostolic succession, began to err, to miss the right and true? And also perhaps, grow cold?

I'd say it began to happen from around January 41 AD to January 53 AD.

 

[True Science]

I'd say it began to happen from around January 41 AD to January 53 AD.

Why and what?

 

[Soyeong]

Why and what?

That's when Emperor Claudius expelled the Jews from Rome. Paul wrote his letter to them to deal with issues that arose upon their return with the Gentiles not wanting to come back under Jewish leadership, and they either did not understand or heed his words.

 

[Thursday]

Good day, I am interested in knowing about when the early church fathers, in apostolic succession, began to err, to miss the right and true? And also perhaps, grow cold?
I know the apostolic succession is heavily important, John the apostle's disciple Polycarp for example, a great passing on of the baton. If Polycarp went wrong, John failed as a father. Paul and Peter and all the apostles made converts and had inner circles. But over time, decade after decade, when did they lose speed?

By the eighth century the Roman church had become political. And they may have needed a revival of the healings and prophecies mentioned going into the fifth century?

By the fifth century end, the fathers had addressed each possible kind of heresy. I think last to go was modalism.

I think the concept of an anthropomorphic God was rubbished not counter explained, true? And pre-conception existence? I am interested in others' views?

What makes you think that they did?

 

[Thursday]

The problem that happened was early Greek, Platonic and Gnositic philosophical ideas influenced Christians of the nations, and even some Jewish believers, like the Essenes. The first part of this great falling away was very early when they started making the Law of none effect: https://2kgsha.bn1304.livefilestore.com/y3mMXqXR1SW0HjDKCggFkVxo_8TuMk2F-XzNp8V98d0lhHBT8i5DnwFZuuUCoMbT2fbOM3CvHYovTYrZe1zMgboqcsLWKIeF7HPxxtKC5eumQMDq3BXDty_1CLvgmaJnMWsfFPIxLfEO3n6yCYqs0KbkltQ-STP9d2J8I-kji0PcWY/Extra-Biblical Historical Proof That The Early Orthodox Christian Assembly Of God Was Torah Observant.pdf?psid=1

They were embracing slowly more and more Greek, platonic and gnostic philosophical ideas and syncing them with the faith. Thus later many more heresies entered into the faith, a lot of which was due to gnostic allegorization of Scripture (allegory is not bad but they sacrifice literalness and plain context for it to invent new things), Trinitarianism/Modelism (except for details, they really are the same platonic pantheism--the Truth is Semi-Arianism which is both Scripturally sound and philosophically sound without sacrificing the biblical text), Amillennialism (which brought forth other later heresies like Preterism, Post Millennialism and Dispensationalism), and later with Augustine you have the mainstream heretical version of Original Sin/Inability. They also started becoming very mystical and monkish monastics. Their disregard for the Law ended up bringing in sin, like pagan syncing and idol worship. Later in the Reformation it would be worse where we got Faith Alone, OSAS, Calvinism (Theistic Fatalism). and in the enlightenment libertarian thought, Christian anarchism, "love" is the Law, mixing worldly morals with the faith even more because no foundation in the Law which defines sin. We also have the Christians mixing with worldly states to the degree that they are willing to compromise the faith for unity with the world. This happened starting with Constantine. I have no problem with a Christian state if God gives it but it should be run by the Law of God, a true righteous theocracy, and with pure doctrine, like King Abgar, who you can read about in my article. Of course there is also the serious problem that people started disobeying Paul and despising prophecy, and the gifts, and Holy Spirit power, saying that God changed and doesn't do anything anymore and it is all tradition or Bible. This happened the most with later Protestants. Catholics a little too, but not so much. Certainly it can be backed up in Judges that the Holy Spirit power would sometimes be not very visible for a while like in those days, which are the type of the New Covenant times that have come, but there is no evidence of an utter cessation once we got a manmade canon in the text and people made it up because they didn't like truth. Just like how the canon is manmade. There is absolutely no support in Scripture for the Protestant canon and Sola Scriptura. And all the canons of major Christian groups are wrong according to their own bibles. People just stopped loving God's word and they explained it away with manmade traditions. It happened slowly more and more and now we are in utter full blown apostasy.

The Catholic Church fought against and defeated gnostic heresies.

Here's evidence from Ignatius writing in about 105 AD. Ignatius was a disciple of John and he is addressing the errors of the gnostics here:

"Consider how contrary to the mind of God are the heterodox in regard to the grace of God which has come to us. They have no regard for charity, none for the widow, the orphan, the oppressed, none for the man in prison, the hungry or the thirsty. They abstain from the Eucharist and from prayer, because they do not admit that the Eucharist is the flesh of our Savior Jesus Christ, the flesh which suffered for our sins and which the Father, in His graciousness, raised from the dead."

"Letter to the Smyrnaeans", paragraph 6. circa 80-110 A.D.

 

[True Science]

That's when Emperor Claudius expelled the Jews from Rome. Paul wrote his letter to them to deal with issues that arose upon their return with the Gentiles not wanting to come back under Jewish leadership, and they either did not understand or heed his words.

Okay so you are saying that at this time the Jews were expelled from Rome? Then Paul wrote Romans to them to tell them not to be Jew haters and submit to Jewish leadership and they did not listen? And so were the Jews allowed to come back to Rome at some point around this time and yet they were not received by the Gentiles as leadership or at all?

 

[True Science]

The Catholic Church fought against and defeated gnostic heresies.

Here's evidence from Ignatius writing in about 105 AD. Ignatius was a disciple of John and he is addressing the errors of the gnostics here:

"Consider how contrary to the mind of God are the heterodox in regard to the grace of God which has come to us. They have no regard for charity, none for the widow, the orphan, the oppressed, none for the man in prison, the hungry or the thirsty. They abstain from the Eucharist and from prayer, because they do not admit that the Eucharist is the flesh of our Savior Jesus Christ, the flesh which suffered for our sins and which the Father, in His graciousness, raised from the dead."

"Letter to the Smyrnaeans", paragraph 6. circa 80-110 A.D.

No actually Rome embraced many gnostic elements later slowly more and more. Obviously not in regards to the Eucharist. With that they went into some hyper mystical direction and made it literally the Body and Blood of Christ. Ironically, I have read some awesome refutations of Ignatius teaching transubstantiation by Protestant writers. I must say they are much more in keeping with the context of Ignatius than Roman Catholics. Ignatius was not Catholic. He was just catholic. He was part of the true Nazarene Catholic Assembly of God. He was not an anti-Torah wicked heretic like Rome says he was.

 

[JackRT]

I believe that the early church began to lose focus when it ceased the be primarily a Jewish movement and became a Gentile movement late in the first century. This meant that Christians increasingly lost the ability to read scripture "with Jewish eyes" and began to increasingly read literally rather than allegorically. We could call this the "Gentile heresy".

 

[True Science]

This is one that I like that shows how Roman Catholics take Ignatius out of context, CLEARLY: http://www.whitehorseblog.com/2014/07/27/eating-ignatius/

 

[Thursday]

No actually Rome embraced many gnostic elements later slowly more and more. Obviously not in regards to the Eucharist. With that they went into some hyper mystical direction and made it literally the Body and Blood of Christ. Ironically, I have read some awesome refutations of Ignatius teaching transubstantiation by Protestant writers. I must say they are much more in keeping with the context of Ignatius than Roman Catholics. Ignatius was not Catholic. He was just catholic. He was part of the true Nazarene Catholic Assembly of God. He was not an anti-Torah wicked heretic like Rome says he was.

Christian teaching on the Eucharist has not changed.

From Jesus to Ignatius to Aquinas.

At the time of Ignatius there was a single Church. It was called Catholic then and it is still called Catholic.

 

[True Science]

I believe that the early church began to lose focus when it ceased the be primarily a Jewish movement and became a Gentile movement late in the first century. This meant that Christians increasingly lost the ability to read scripture "with Jewish eyes" and began to increasingly read literally rather than allegorically. We could call this the "Gentile heresy".

Did you just say that the heresies came by Gentiles reading Scripture literally instead of allegorically? If anything it was vice versa, as I stated, but mine was an oversimplification.

The following response to a post-millennialist kingdom now dominionist will illustrate my point:

"“"Pardes" refers to (types of) approaches to biblical exegesis in rabbinic Judaism or to interpretation of text in Torah study. The term, sometimes also spelled PaRDeS, is an acronym formed from the same initials of the following four approaches:


· Peshat (פְּשָׁט) — "surface" ("straight") or the literal (direct) meaning.[1]

· Remez (רֶמֶז) — "hints" or the deep (allegoric: hidden or symbolic) meaning beyond just the literal sense.

· Derash (דְּרַשׁ) — from Hebrew darash: "inquire" ("seek") — the comparative (midrashic) meaning, as given through similar occurrences.

· Sod (סוֹד) (pronounced with a long O as in 'sore') — "secret" ("mystery") or the esoteric/mystical meaning, as given through inspiration or revelation.


Each type of Pardes interpretation examines the extended meaning of a text. As a general rule, the extended meaning never contradicts the base meaning. The Peshat means the plain or contextual meaning of the text. Remez is the allegorical meaning. Derash includes the metaphorical meaning, andSod represents the hidden meaning. There is often considerable overlap, for example when legal understandings of a verse are influenced by mystical interpretations or when a "hint" is determined by comparing a word with other instances of the same word.”

—https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pardes_(Jewish_exegesis)


This is unfortunately something that the Jews do not actually subject themselves to and follow, because if they did, they would have no problem with how the NT interprets things. It is only because they don't like the Truth of how things really are.


But here is the thing, none of those other ones ever contradict or nullify the Peshat unless it is impossible or obvious that the Peshat cannot be. Every other system other than biblical Premillennialism (not the Darby kind or its offshoots) makes the OT Prophecies subjective. There is no logical rule to how to interpret whether or not something is literal or not except for the vague basis of "in light of the NT" or many times what people think the NT says with their presuppositions into what the text says, which are a lot of times wrong, because they don't have a good foundation in the OT ( and this can happen in reverse too, which is something that the "Ebionites" as you call them all do not realize). But this is the same thing people do with the NT in regards to the Law. The Law is subjected to the "NT" (supposedly). But here is the thing, if people were testing the Apostles' message to see if these things are so, then the OT couldn't have really helped them much, because they would have just had to subject clear literal things in the text to whatever they say or else be heretics and wrong. But those who did test by the Scriptures of the OT those says were said to be more noble, the Bereans that is. In reality if we are to take what you guys (Amills, Post-Mills, Preters, Darby Dispies, and so on) say, then anyone could make the OT say a huge variety of interpretations they want, and they could all be right, because it is subjective, and no one could question, because it is "divine revelation" that I got that I'm right. And the miracles confirming their message is really not going to help much since evil people can do them too, and we have to test the spirits, and also you don't even believe they happen anymore, which would be convenient, because now we have no way of knowing if all that wasn't made up for sure because we weren't there, and it could have been all a lie in order to give authority to a flawed pseudo fullfillment of prophecy.


People can sit there and try to fluff it up all they want and wrangle the Word to into as huge web of systematic theology all they want to try to explain this away all they want, but in the end, anyone with any sense can see that to do this makes the Prophecies incoherent and subjective, and therefore not much more useful and impressive then, say, the so-called "prophecies" (more like babble) of Nostradamus. And therefore you vindicate the Atheists who call the Bible the Babble, which they are right if what you say is true. No amount of vain reasoning this away will stop the truth of what I'm saying. There are many things in Post Millennialism I have heard you say that I like (or rather my likes and wants to be true) but I can't just ignore the clear reading of Scripture and reject its authority in favor of some inferences that people like you make off a few select verses here and there. P.S. I agree, the Torah does change as in Ezekiel 40-48. There are addendums to the Torah all over the place in the OT, which is something the HRM really needs to wake up to and realize that YHWH can change the Letter of his written Torah. This would save a lot of people from becoming rejecters of Yeshua."

 

[True Science]

Christian teaching on the Eucharist has not changed.

From Jesus to Ignatius to Aquinas.

At the time of Ignatius there was a single Church. It was called Catholic then and it is still called Catholic.

This is merely a claim with no evidence. And yes it was catholic then but you have hijacked the term. I agree with the true Catholic Assembly. I do not agree with the Great Apostasy. I do not agree with the Mother of Harlots or her daughter offshoots.

 

[Thursday]

This is merely a claim with no evidence. And yes it was catholic then but you have hijacked the term. I agree with the true Catholic Assembly. I do not agree with the Great Apostasy. I do not agree with the Mother of Harlots or her daughter offshoots.

You are poorly informed.

Regarding the Eucharist:

John 6
53Jesus said to them, “Very truly I tell you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you.54Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise them up at the last day.55For my flesh is real food and my blood is real drink.

1 Cor 11
27So then, whoever eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty of sinning against the body and blood of the Lord. 28Everyone ought to examine themselves before they eat of the bread and drink from the cup. 29For those who eat and drink without discerning the body of Christ eat and drink judgment on themselves.

Ignatius(107 AD)
"They abstain from the Eucharist and from prayer, because they do not admit that the Eucharist is the flesh of our Savior Jesus Christ, the flesh which suffered for our sins and which the Father, in His graciousness, raised from the dead."

Justin Martyr(150 AD)
"This food we call the Eucharist, of which no one is allowed to partake except one who believes that the things we teach are true, and has received the washing for forgiveness of sins and for rebirth, and who lives as Christ handed down to us. For we do not receive these things as common bread or common drink; but as Jesus Christ our Savior being incarnate by God's Word took flesh and blood for our salvation, so also we have been taught that the food consecrated by the Word of prayer which comes from him, from which our flesh and blood are nourished by transformation, is the flesh and blood of that incarnate Jesus."

Etc. There has been no change.

 

[True Science]

You are poorly informed.

Regarding the Eucharist:

John 6
53Jesus said to them, “Very truly I tell you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you.54Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise them up at the last day.55For my flesh is real food and my blood is real drink.

1 Cor 11
27So then, whoever eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty of sinning against the body and blood of the Lord. 28Everyone ought to examine themselves before they eat of the bread and drink from the cup. 29For those who eat and drink without discerning the body of Christ eat and drink judgment on themselves.

Ignatius(107 AD)
"They abstain from the Eucharist and from prayer, because they do not admit that the Eucharist is the flesh of our Savior Jesus Christ, the flesh which suffered for our sins and which the Father, in His graciousness, raised from the dead."

Justin Martyr(150 AD)
"This food we call the Eucharist, of which no one is allowed to partake except one who believes that the things we teach are true, and has received the washing for forgiveness of sins and for rebirth, and who lives as Christ handed down to us. For we do not receive these things as common bread or common drink; but as Jesus Christ our Savior being incarnate by God's Word took flesh and blood for our salvation, so also we have been taught that the food consecrated by the Word of prayer which comes from him, from which our flesh and blood are nourished by transformation, is the flesh and blood of that incarnate Jesus."

Etc. There has been no change.

Sir, you have no regard for the context. When Ignatius said he was the bread of God,are we to take that literally. When he said Christ is leaven, is Christ literally leaven? When Christ said he is the Lamb of God, is he really a lamb? Clearly you have not read the article I posted about this. Or you have and merely deny it because you have to to be Roman Catholic.

And obviously we do not receive the Eucharist as if it is just some common meal as any other but it is special and is in a symbolic way Christ Body and Blood and we receive is AS such. Yes God works through matter and we participate in God through his ordained ordinances but you guys take it too far and it is just balogna that this is the teaching of the earliest true believers. Even the Eastern Orthodox don't even take it as far as you guys do even though they have some similarities. And I'm pretty sure most historians would agree this is a later development.

 

[Thursday]

Sir, you have no regard for the context. When Ignatius said he was the bread of God,are we to take that literally. When he said Christ is leaven, is Christ literally leaven? When Christ said he is the Lamb of God, is he really a lamb? Clearly you have not read the article I posted about this. Or you have and merely deny it because you have to to be Roman Catholic.

And obviously we do not receive the Eucharist as if it is just some common meal as any other but it is special and is in a symbolic way Christ Body and Blood and we receive is AS such. Yes God works through matter and we participate in God through his ordained ordinances but you guys take it too far and it is just balogna that this is the teaching of the earliest true believers. Even the Eastern Orthodox don't even take it as far as you guys do even though they have some similarities. And I'm pretty sure most historians would agree this is a later development.

The bible and Christian history are quite clear. The bread becomes Jesus. He comes to us as the bread of life.

There has been no change in this teaching since the Last Supper. It is just that some have lost faith, like these:

John 6
60Therefore many of His disciples, when they heard this said, "This is a difficult statement; who can listen to it?"....66As a result of this many of His disciples withdrew and were not walking with Him anymore.

 

[Thursday]

The bible and Christian history are quite clear. The bread becomes Jesus. He comes to us as the bread of life.

There has been no change in this teaching since the Last Supper. It is just that some have lost faith, like these:

John 6
60Therefore many of His disciples, when they heard this said, "This is a difficult statement; who can listen to it?"....66As a result of this many of His disciples withdrew and were not walking with Him anymore.

1 Cor 11
27So then, whoever eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty of sinning against the body and blood of the Lord. 28Everyone ought to examine themselves before they eat of the bread and drink from the cup. 29For those who eat and drink without discerning the body of Christ eat and drink judgment on themselves.

 

[True Science]

So when you get sprinkled by the Blood of Christ. Does his blood from Calvary literally appear and fall on you so that you have his blood on you? Like seriously, use your common sense.

There is also no doubt that the early Assembly saw the Eucharist in a sacrificial sense, and I agree with them to the point, like what the Didache says. But how far the RCC takes this to me clearly is going against what Hebrews says about Christ offering himself once and not needing to be offered over an dover again.

 

[Thursday]

So when you get sprinkled by the Blood of Christ. Does his blood from Calvary literally appear and fall on you so that you have his blood on you? Like seriously, use your common sense.

There is also no doubt that the early Assembly saw the Eucharist in a sacrificial sense, and I agree with them to the point, like what the Didache says. But how far the RCC takes this to me clearly is going against what Hebrews says about Christ offering himself once and not needing to be offered over an dover again.

The offering of the Eucharist is a participation in the eternal, ever present, sacrifice of Jesus. We enter in to his sacrifice.