When do you think the Church got corrupted?

[Tree of Life]

Find one example in Acts not according to this procedure.

It's an open question as to whether or not the household baptisms described in places like Acts 11 and Acts 16 included children and even infants. It's possible, although that's an argument from silence. What's more significant is the connections between baptism and circumcision. We know that circumcision was for children. If the covenant sign in the New Testament suddenly excludes children you would think that someone would've said something about that more explicitly.

 

[Dave L]

It's an open question as to whether or not the household baptisms described in places like Acts 11 and Acts 16 included children and even infants. It's possible, although that's an argument from silence. What's more significant is the connections between baptism and circumcision. We know that circumcision was for children. If the covenant sign in the New Testament suddenly excludes children you would think that someone would've said something about that more explicitly.

We have no direct reference to build on. Only conjecture.

 

[Dave L]

Well, just a quick note here: Scripture does say that entire households were received into the Church by baptism, and it's reasonable to guess their were children in those households. Infants, for centuries before, had been circumcised to be received into Israels holy Covenant with God, and God's own law did not give them the option of waiting to decide if they would be Jews or not. Jesus said to let the little children come to Him, and do not hinder them, so we really ought to think about whether we are doing as Christ wants by keeping them little children of ours from fully participating in the Life the Church when they are small. The Gospel records that Jesus had instructed his disciples to baptize in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, so this practice was being done somewhere in the Church at the time that Scripture was penned, without at doubt.

Not suggesting anything here, other than that these things be given a tad bit of consideration.

Scripture only supports believer's baptism by immersion in water in the name of Jesus Christ. The rest is purely conjecture.

 

[Ignatius the Kiwi]

Why did you not answer the question as to the justification Paul is writing of in Gal2:16&17. Surely one of the scholars and theologians you have read of could give you the answer. They don't have superficial understanding of the message do they? I haven't read of any great theological minds, no, however, the most rapid growth ever seen in the Christian church, and the greatest power ever displayed in it, was seen before the emergence of people with ''Great theological minds'' as you put it, not after.
No, the Holy Spirit has not been absent, he comes to those who accept the message as little children, but he cannot help people who rely on their great academic minds to learn can he

Because this is not a thread about the interpretation of Galatians but the supposed corruption of the Church you lay at the feet of the learned without any justification except your bias against those who devote their lives to study of the Bible and divine things. It's as if you think the mind God gave us is not worthy of use, in which case why should we take your words seriously when they aren't directly the Spirit speaking but your own thoughts and logic built on a bad reading of the bible?

Also, I would suggest that since there has always been men and women of quick intellect throughout the Church's history in any century and that the growth of Christendom has been constant that you cannot justify the claim that the most rapid growth happened before there were great intellects in the Church.

The Holy Spirit obviously has been absent for 1900 years because the Church followed the educated in their theology. I presume you are a trinitarian? Which was a theological position the result of internal reflection in the Church over the issues of Arianism. So if the Holy Spirit has always been present, where has it been present? Show us in history where we might find the faithful preaching Christ against the learned. Show us how the learned actually corrupted Christianity. Give examples instead of general assertions.

 

[daydreamer40]

Because this is not a thread about the interpretation of Galatians but the supposed corruption of the Church you lay at the feet of the learned without any justification except your bias against those who devote their lives to study of the Bible and divine things. It's as if you think the mind God gave us is not worthy of use, in which case why should we take your words seriously when they aren't directly the Spirit speaking but your own thoughts and logic built on a bad reading of the bible?

Also, I would suggest that since there has always been men and women of quick intellect throughout the Church's history in any century and that the growth of Christendom has been constant that you cannot justify the claim that the most rapid growth happened before there were great intellects in the Church.

The Holy Spirit obviously has been absent for 1900 years because the Church followed the educated in their theology. I presume you are a trinitarian? Which was a theological position the result of internal reflection in the Church over the issues of Arianism. So if the Holy Spirit has always been present, where has it been present? Show us in history where we might find the faithful preaching Christ against the learned. Show us how the learned actually corrupted Christianity. Give examples instead of general assertions.

Now this is eternal life: that they know you(the Father), the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom you have sent John17:3
You heard me say, “I am going away and I am coming back to you.” If you loved me, you would be glad that I am going to the Father, for the Father is greater than I. John14:28

Who gave the council of Nicea the right, to in reality state, that anyone who believed the plain words of Christ when he walked this earth is condemned?

 

[daydreamer40]

Because this is not a thread about the interpretation of Galatians but the supposed corruption of the Church

In truth you cannot answer the question can you, yet you have read much of theologians and scholars

 

[Ignatius the Kiwi]

Now this is eternal life: that they know you(the Father), the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom you have sent John17:3
You heard me say, “I am going away and I am coming back to you.” If you loved me, you would be glad that I am going to the Father, for the Father is greater than I. John14:28

Who gave the council of Nicea the right, to in reality state, that anyone who believed the plain words of Christ when he walked this earth is condemned?

God gave the Bishops, the leaders he put in charge of the Church, to sort out the doctrinal confusion seeping in. Lest we believe in unmitigated chaos in which there is no Church but everyone is an individual unto themselves and then the whole idea of assembly becomes impossible. Just look at yourself, You are all alone in your perfection and understanding of God.

Since you seemingly deny historic Christendom despite not having even read any of the Fathers who defended the doctrine of the Trinity (Athanasius, Augustine, Basil and others) I am still left to wonder why anyone should take you seriously. You haven't demonstrated corruption in anyone's learning, nor have you demonstrated their actions to be immoral. Just what is your case against learned people? Or better yet, what is your case against learning? Is it wrong to learn the original language of the Gospels and Hebrew bible? Is it wrong to learn the historic context? Is it wrong to learn about the textual transmission of the bible (which was done by learned monks and scribes so how can you trust the bible you so cherish)?

 

[Ignatius the Kiwi]

In truth you cannot answer the question can you, yet you have read much of theologians and scholars

Let me private message you and I will. Don't derail the discussion.

 

[daydreamer40]

God gave the Bishops, the leaders he put in charge of the Church, to sort out the doctrinal confusion seeping in. Lest we believe in unmitigated chaos in which there is no Church but everyone is an individual unto themselves and then the whole idea of assembly becomes impossible. Just look at yourself, You are all alone in your perfection and understanding of God.

Since you seemingly deny historic Christendom despite not having even read any of the Fathers who defended the doctrine of the Trinity (Athanasius, Augustine, Basil and others) I am still left to wonder why anyone should take you seriously. You haven't demonstrated corruption in anyone's learning, nor have you demonstrated their actions to be immoral. Just what is your case against learned people? Or better yet, what is your case against learning? Is it wrong to learn the original language of the Gospels and Hebrew bible? Is it wrong to learn the historic context? Is it wrong to learn about the textual transmission of the bible (which was done by learned monks and scribes so how can you trust the bible you so cherish)?

Would you like to answer the question now?
Who gave the council of Nicea the right, to in reality state, that anyone who believed the plain words of Christ when he walked this earth is condemned?

 

[daydreamer40]

Let me private message you and I will. Don't derail the discussion.

Go ahead

 

[PeaceByJesus]

I meant the Church has always been a ship of fools.

Peter and Paul had sharp disagreements, that is agreed by scholars.

Whatever certain scholars read into Scripture does not mean it says that. It was the Lord to corrected Peter on his kosher Judaism as regards both food and Gentiles, which the Lord Himself revealed to Paul, and thus both were on the same page in Acts 15, while in Galatians 2 Peter was reproved by Paul for not acting consistent with what Peter himself taught, and not because Peter actually taught as the Judaizers.

But when I saw that they walked not uprightly according to the truth of the gospel, I said unto Peter before them all, If thou, being a Jew, livest after the manner of Gentiles, and not as do the Jews, why compellest thou the Gentiles to live as do the Jews? (Galatians 2:14)

And which declension was because Peter was "fearing them which were of the circumcision." (Galatians 2:12)

 

[daydreamer40]

God gave the Bishops, the leaders he put in charge of the Church, to sort out the doctrinal confusion seeping in. Lest we believe in unmitigated chaos in which there is no Church but everyone is an individual unto themselves and then the whole idea of assembly becomes impossible. Just look at yourself, You are all alone in your perfection and understanding of God.

Since you seemingly deny historic Christendom despite not having even read any of the Fathers who defended the doctrine of the Trinity (Athanasius, Augustine, Basil and others) I am still left to wonder why anyone should take you seriously. You haven't demonstrated corruption in anyone's learning, nor have you demonstrated their actions to be immoral. Just what is your case against learned people? Or better yet, what is your case against learning? Is it wrong to learn the original language of the Gospels and Hebrew bible? Is it wrong to learn the historic context? Is it wrong to learn about the textual transmission of the bible (which was done by learned monks and scribes so how can you trust the bible you so cherish)?

Let me help you here. The Holy Spirit would lead no-one to state, in effect, people would be condemned if they stand on the plain words of Christ when he walked this earth

 

[Ignatius the Kiwi]

Let me help you here. The Holy Spirit would lead no-one to state, in effect, people would be condemned if they stand on the plain words of Christ when he walked this earth

Let me correct you, that you do not actually understand the Gospel if you reject the faith of Nicaea. Jesus Christ, God incarnate, died for our sins and rose from the dead to give us life.

Also, i answered your question regarding the council God gave them authority because they were the appointed leaders of the Church. Since you have no Church and are the only one who believes what your believe you likely cannot accept that.

 

[Mountainmike]

I used to think only Muslims and Mormons thought that but I realized some Christians have this idea. Even I used to think the reason for the Reformation was that the Church became corrupted. So I want to know the date and reason that damaged the Church.

It is a fascinating subject:

Those wanting to point Christianity in a different direction, are obliged to point to an era in which the church went corrupt so they contend they are returning Christianity to how it was before it was corrupted.
But none of the apostasies they claim ever stack up in history.

Take One of the ideas repeated ad Nauseam is constantine was the bad guy, who mixed up christianity with paganism and took it off the rails. Those that study it could never believe that. Study of such as anasthasius "life of Anthony" or a good book "the apostasy that never was" shows it was simply not true. The doctrine did not change.

There is a wide variety of bad guys identified, but no evidence ever succeeds. Some groups even contend that Paul took it off the rails! The problem they then have , is deciding what they can trust. Because without such as Iraneus, we would not know who the gospel writers were, so reject Iraneus, and you no longer have gospels. Accept him ,and not only accept Paul, but alos you must accept tradition "stay true to tradtion we taught you" and the church as the vehicle of passage ie "the foundation of truth is the church"


Indeed one approach taken at the reformation is that "sola scriptura" is by itself is a return to early church from a corrupted one..
There are several problems of course:
Firstly the church never was sola scriptura, in respect of new testament, indeed way back with such as Iraneus the truth handed down by apostolic succession , ie tradition "paradosis, handing down" is seen as the early church vehicle.

Second- the doctrines that "sola scriptura "buffs proclaim are never those of the early church anyway. Reading such as ignatius to Smyrneans, those taught by the apostles, believed both in a sacramental eucharist, which was the real flesh of Jesus - and that the sacrament is only valid if performed by a bishop in succession!

Third that losing all but scriptura: all seem to think scripture means different even opposite things, so how can it be a return from a corruption, if it ends in many different places on doctrine?

Fascinating to study.

 

[PeaceByJesus]

Not a good translation.

NASB: who are outstanding among the apostles,

Meaning they are both part of the group of apostles.

Which is an unwarranted and even absurd extrapolation.

Salute Andronicus and Junia, my kinsmen, and my fellowprisoners, who are of note among the apostles, who also were in Christ before me. (Romans 16:7)

Andronicus is a Greek name found even in the imperial household, and Junias can be either masculine or feminine. (Robertson's), while "note among the apostles" if referring to them, simply does not mean they were apostles, but who were long-time servants of Christ, who, as with Mary, would have bestowed much labour on them and or otherwise helped them. (Romans 16:6) The distinction is btwn btwn apostles and those who laboured with them as servants.

And I intreat thee also, true yokefellow, help those women which laboured with me in the gospel, with Clement also, and with other my fellowlabourers, whose names are in the book of life. (Philippians 4:3)

Working with and ministering to apostles does not mean one has the office of an apostle. And the sound rule is that unless Scripture describes notable exceptions to the norm, which the Holy Spirit characteristically does, and which exception female ministers and apostles would be, then the norm is to be presumed.

 

[daydreamer40]

Let me correct you, that you do not actually understand the Gospel if you reject the faith of Nicaea. Jesus Christ, God incarnate, died for our sins and rose from the dead to give us life.

Also, i answered your question regarding the council God gave them authority because they were the appointed leaders of the Church. Since you have no Church and are the only one who believes what your believe you likely cannot accept that.

God would lead no one through the Holy Spirit to preach condemnation for anyone standing on the plain words of Christ when he walked this earth. But scholars and theologians may well do so, those led of their natural mind in their theological thinking

 

[Dave-W]

Andronicus a Greek name

Is a LATIN name. Masculine. ...-us is Latin.

Junias can be either masculine or feminine.

The name in the oldest manuscripts is Junia (no s) - Latin feminine. Editors and scribes apparently added an s to make it Greek and masculine.

while "note among the apostles" if referring to them, simply does not mean they were apostles, but who were long-time servants of Christ, who, as with Mary, would have bestowed much labour on them.

Probably written by either a commentator who did not believe in women being in church leadership, or bound up by the thought that there were only 12 apostles. (or both)

I have not read Robertson's commentary.

 

[Ignatius the Kiwi]

God would lead no one through the Holy Spirit to preach condemnation for anyone standing on the plain words of Christ when he walked this earth. But scholars and theologians may well do so, those led of their natural mind in their theological thinking

Except yours isn't the plain Gospel. Nicaea is the plain Gospel. I don't even know what your saying. At least the Church has defined her faith, yours is too vague to say anything for certain about.

 

[PeaceByJesus]

Because without such as Iraneus, we would not know who the gospel writers were, so reject Iraneus, and you no longer have gospels. Accept him ,and not only accept Paul, but alos you must accept tradition "stay true to tradtion we taught you" and the church as the vehicle of passage ie "the foundation of truth is the church".

Which is both erroneous and a logical fallacy. If knowing the identity of the gospel writers is essential, then so it is for all books of the Bible. However, we do not need to know who the all the writers of Scripture were, nor does Irenaeus tell us, and the unique heavenly character and supernatural attestation is what is essentially responsible for the enduring establishment of inspired books as Scripture among people free to read and assess them.

Moreover, despite whatever weight may be given to Irenaeus , he was not writing as wholly inspired of God, and unless one is then we are not bound to accept what they say unless validly collaborated, any more than we are of all information from sources of Jewish tradition.

But perhaps you would even argue that being the historical instruments and stewards of Divine revelation (oral and written) means that Rome is that assuredly infallible magisterium. Thus any who knowingly dissent from the latter must be in rebellion to God.

 

[PeaceByJesus]

Is a LATIN name. Masculine. ...-us is Latin.

You should know that the NT was written in Greek. And Andronicus is the latinized form of Greek Ανδρονικος. "Andronicus or Andronikos (Greek: Ἀνδρόνικος) is a classical Greek name. The name has the sense of "male victor, warrior". The female is Andronike (Ἀνδρονίκη)."
The name in the oldest manuscripts is Junia (no s) - Latin feminine. Editors and scribes apparently added an s to make it Greek and masculine.
Oldest mss are not necessary the most accurate (later mss can be copies of even earlier mss), and are reported to actually have the most discrepancies. In any case, such sparse support for a major exception to the norm is actually an argument against it.

PeaceByJesus said: ↑

while "note among the apostles" if referring to them, simply does not mean they were apostles, but who were long-time servants of Christ, who, as with Mary, would have bestowed much labour on them.

Probably written by either a commentator who did not believe in women being in church leadership, or bound up by the thought that there were only 12 apostles. (or both)

Here is more , by the grace of God. Likewise desperate is dismissing the most logical warranted conclusion based on bias. In dept study here . In asserting a major exception to the norm, the burden of proof is on you to provide it.