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.
The offering of the Eucharist is a participation in the eternal, ever present, sacrifice of Jesus. We enter in to his sacrifice.
Because by the eighth century the Roman Catholic church became too political. Because they seemed to lose spiritual practice of healings, love feasts, prophecy and tongues.What makes you think that they did?
What you have said has a lot of merit and is promoted in Catholicism as well. We are called to unite ourselves through the Eucharist to the original sacrifice of Jesus on the cross. Ritual without intent is meaningless; but what is our intent when we do this. It seems that Paul was trying to address this very concern in 1 Corinthians. The Corinthians were eating the Eucharist as just another meal and he correctly pointed out that it has much deeper spiritual significance.Yeah, I have no problem with this in a ritualistic typological sense and maybe even if there is some empowerment that God gives us through this. Surely it is a commandment. BUT, truly participating in the sacrifice of Jesus is to present our bodies as a living sacrifice, holy and acceptable to the Lord, not only doing an ordained ritual. We must deny ourselves daily and pick up our crosses daily and follow Christ daily by walking as he walked in order to participate in the truly in Christ's sacrifice.
April 9, 1906Good 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?
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?
Actually after looking at the history of the schism, I would say both sides were at blame, but the history spans nearly a thousand years and is not a straight line to schism. The odd thing is that today we are entrenched in theological debates, when at that time the main factors were linguistic and geopolitical.Keep in mind that the Roman church was never "the Church". The early Church comprised the Sees of Rome, Constantinople, Jerusalem, Antioch, and Alexandria. As you correctly point out, I think, the Roman church did become heavily politicized (under Charlemagne). By the 5th century, the western Roman empire had largely fallen to the western "barbarians", but the eastern empire - which embraced the four remaining Sees - was intact and remained intact through the 15th century.
I would suggest that we consider the hypothesis that the true Church Fathers never did go astray, but rather that a schism developed in which part of the original Church went astray. Orthodox Christians would argue that the Roman Church was the one that went into schism, whereas Roman Catholics would argue that the Orthodox went into schism.
Actually after looking at the history of the schism, I would say both sides were at blame, but the history spans nearly a thousand years and is not a straight line to schism. The odd thing is that today we are entrenched in theological debates, when at that time the main factors were linguistic and geopolitical.
Bull hockeyBecause by the eighth century the Roman Catholic church became too political. Because they seemed to lose spiritual practice of healings, love feasts, prophecy and tongues.
There was no longer evidence of the Holy Spirit in their works. So young ones had to learn that the eucharist was blessed and that the Holy Spirit moves people into good works. There were no longer signs and wonders, secret thoughts revealed.
As time went by, the laying on of hands in apostolic succession became a ritual without impartation. The Fathers had true teaching and less and less gifting. They made elaborate allegories of Bible passages. The Russian church, the Roman church and the Greek church all discerned a different seven names of the seven archangels.
The teacher who advocated pre-conception existence was defeated in debate rather than proven wrong. The love in the fathers and monks seemed to become cool. And anathematization became a tool. And this tool was taken to the point of pope killing heretic, brother killing brother.
The true believers were so persecuted that the succession was strained.
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.
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.
I'd say it began to happen from around January 41 AD to January 53 AD.
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?
http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/articles/12816-romeEarly Settlement in Rome.
Capital in ancient times of the Roman republic and empire; in modern times, of the papal dominions and of the kingdom of Italy. Jews have lived in Rome for over 2,000 years, longer than in any other European city.
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.
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".
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/
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."
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.
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.
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?