local church v Acts 15

[Thinkingstuff]

Thinkingstuff: you just made it harder for me to believe you are not just pulling stunts.

The "Pastorals" = 1 Timothy, 2 Timothy, Titus WERE EXACTLY what was being discussed when you brought up Hebrews. Anyone can look up and see that.

Please do not waste my time with games. I am too busy for that.

My original inquiry was to this exact quote that was posted by DHK I think. This is what I was referring to

Originally Posted by billwald
I find it simply amazing that some people confuse scriptural authority with authorship. Doesn't matter who wrote them as long the Holy Spirit included them in the Bible. Do you reject "Hebrews" because the authorship is unknown? No one knows which "John" wrote "Revelation."

I bolded the first part because it was that statment that caught my eye. When we study how the bible was actually formed and assembled it not what it seems at face value or what I've been told time and again in pulpits by pastor over simplifing things.
BTW if I was pulling a stunt. To what end would it be? Like I said the first sentence bolded in this quote is what I was considering. So when we look at books like Hebrews and Revelation and Daniel I've always questioned the authenticity of authorship with these. But if we don't hold to the traditional views with these does that mean we automatically invalidate the bible? I don't think so. BTW there are debates on the author of Pastoral Letters, however, I'm inclined to agree with you and DHK that I think these are genuinely Paul.

 

[Thinkingstuff]

Thinkingstuff: I am going to give you the benefit of the doubt on this one.

Hebrews makes no claims to its authorship. It does not matter if Paul wrote it, or did not.

1 Timothy, 2 Timothy, and Titus all state that they have Paul for author. If Paul did not write these epistles, then Scripture's reliability and authority are compromised.

Therefore, yes it matters. To deny that Paul wrote 1 Timothy, 2 Timothy, and Titus is to deny that Scripture is to be believed.

By the way. I appreciate you giving me the benefit of the doubt. Though, it seems you think I'm just about tweeking peoples noses. Sometimes I am to be fair but far less than you think.

 

[DHK]

But those weren't the books quoted in the quote. Which John wrote the book of Revelation? John the Apostle or John the Revelator? Who wrote the book of Daniel. Is Daniel really one book or a compilation? Does that lessen its impact on the Scriptures? I wonder if it really was Nebucanezzer that went mad or was it Nabonius; Belshazzar's father? And for DHK what about the books that aren't directly referred to in scripture? By the way thats circular reasoning but I'll accept it for the purpose of this discussion.

Which John wrote the Book of Revelation?
It was the Apostle John.
Revelation 1:9 I John, who also am your brother, and companion in tribulation, and in the kingdom and patience of Jesus Christ, was in the isle that is called Patmos, for the word of God, and for the testimony of Jesus Christ.
--All of the apostles were martyred except for one, the apostle John, and he was exiled to the Island of Patmos. You can check this out with secular history.

Who wrote the Book of Daniel?
Daniel of course. That one is a no-brainer. There was only one Daniel. He is mentioned in other books, and was well known to the other prophets.

Ezekiel 14:14 Though these three men, Noah, Daniel, and Job, were in it, they should deliver but their own souls by their righteousness, saith the Lord GOD.
Matthew 24:15 When ye therefore shall see the abomination of desolation, spoken of by Daniel the prophet, stand in the holy place, (whoso readeth, let him understand)
--Would Jesus lie about Daniel?

Those who question the authenticity of Daniel are those who do not believe in the inspiration of the Bible, and do so because they fail to believe in the supernatural. They want to discredit the veracity of Daniel's prophecies. They can't accept the Bible as the Word of God. Their's is not true scholarship but an attack on the Word of God. Daniel's authorship is attested by its internal evidence: his friends, when he was taken into captivity, who he served and when, the length of his life and the different government officials he was connected with. All of these events have some verification in history. It is interesting that as time moves on the more information that we find out about the Bible, the more history and archeology verifies what happened in the Bible as true.

What about books that aren't directly referred to in Scripture? Do they matter? Paul quoted from a Greek poet in Acts 17 and a Cretian philosopher in Titus 1. Does that make either one of them inspired? No. Inspiration means that the words spoken were accurately recorded the way that God wanted them recorded. The words of Satan are inspired--recorded just the way that God wanted them.

 

[Thinkingstuff]

Which John wrote the Book of Revelation?
It was the Apostle John.
Revelation 1:9 I John, who also am your brother, and companion in tribulation, and in the kingdom and patience of Jesus Christ, was in the isle that is called Patmos, for the word of God, and for the testimony of Jesus Christ.
--All of the apostles were martyred except for one, the apostle John, and he was exiled to the Island of Patmos. You can check this out with secular history.

Who wrote the Book of Daniel?
Daniel of course. That one is a no-brainer. There was only one Daniel. He is mentioned in other books, and was well known to the other prophets.

Ezekiel 14:14 Though these three men, Noah, Daniel, and Job, were in it, they should deliver but their own souls by their righteousness, saith the Lord GOD.
Matthew 24:15 When ye therefore shall see the abomination of desolation, spoken of by Daniel the prophet, stand in the holy place, (whoso readeth, let him understand)
--Would Jesus lie about Daniel?

Those who question the authenticity of Daniel are those who do not believe in the inspiration of the Bible, and do so because they fail to believe in the supernatural. They want to discredit the veracity of Daniel's prophecies. They can't accept the Bible as the Word of God. Their's is not true scholarship but an attack on the Word of God. Daniel's authorship is attested by its internal evidence: his friends, when he was taken into captivity, who he served and when, the length of his life and the different government officials he was connected with. All of these events have some verification in history. It is interesting that as time moves on the more information that we find out about the Bible, the more history and archeology verifies what happened in the Bible as true.

What about books that aren't directly referred to in Scripture? Do they matter? Paul quoted from a Greek poet in Acts 17 and a Cretian philosopher in Titus 1. Does that make either one of them inspired? No. Inspiration means that the words spoken were accurately recorded the way that God wanted them recorded. The words of Satan are inspired--recorded just the way that God wanted them.

Sorry DHK thats just rhetoric. Consider if you will the writing style of Daniel Chapter 4 as compared to the rest of the books. Look at the Greek forms when considering Susanna and Bel and the Dragon. Though we even have these forms in Hebrew at the Qumran find. Just because I don't necissarily believe Daniel Wrote the whole book of Daniel doesn't mean I don't believe in the prophesies in them. Though certainly my conclusion of Daniels 70 weeks prophesy ends in 70 Ad rather than eschatalogical for our days. I don't believe in a Church age that will end in a premillenial rapture. Your definition of inspired is not what I consider inspired. Inspired for me means God Breathed. As in this definition for the phrase

When people speak of the Bible as inspired, they are referring to the fact that God divinely influenced the human authors of the Scriptures in such a way that what they wrote was the very Word of God. In the context of the Scriptures, the word “inspiration” simply means “God-breathed.” Inspiration means the Bible truly is the Word of God and makes the Bible unique among all other books.

And with this I keep in mind this aspect of the Inspired word of God in context where 2 Pet 1:21 shows what that inspiration means

to understand that even though God used men with their distinctive personalities and writing styles, God divinely inspired the very words they wrote

But I don't confuse inerrant with impeccable as Archer clearly points out. You seem to think inerrant is impeccable. I don't. The fact that Daniel may have writen some of the book but not all doesn't affect the inspiration of the book of Daniel. For instance consider these questions

One of the musical instruments mentioned in Daniel 3:5 and in subsequent passages did not exist until developed in 2nd century BCE Greece.

Daniel 1:4 refers to the "Chaldeans" as a priestly class in Babylon. This term did not attain this meaning until much later than the 6th century

Though we see Jesus referring to Daniel as primary author in Matthew. Does it mean that there were not

that numerous alterations have been introduced into the primitive text of the book in the course of ages

Not necissarily. Chapter 4 has me asking this question

The problem here is that even though good records exist from his reign, there is no record of Nebuchadrezzar going crazy... But this makes no sense. The account in the book of Daniel is from the point of view of Nebuchadrezzar himself. If it is true, then obviously he wanted people to know about it. Why then is it not recorded elsewhere?

and this

Nabonidus, the last Babylonian king, did have a reputation of acting erratically. Some scholars think that stories concerning his behavior and not that of Nebuchadrezzar are the ultimate source for this story

 

[DHK]

Sorry DHK thats just rhetoric. Consider if you will the writing style of Daniel Chapter 4 as compared to the rest of the books. Look at the Greek forms when considering Susanna and Bel and the Dragon.

I won't consider looking at Bel and the Dragon. They aren't part of Daniel, nor are they part of the Hebrew Scriptures at all. They aren't written in Hebrew, but in Greek, which disqualifies them right away. A second disqualification is that they were written between the testaments (in the intertestamental period) when the Old Testament canon was already completed. A third disqualification (similar to the above) is that they were written after 400 A.D. Any book to even be considered for the canon of the O.T. had to be written before 400 A.D. Every one of the books of the Apocrypha fail this test. A fourth disqualification is that none of these books made their way into the canon accepted by the Jews. The Jews never accepted the books as canonical. Why should we? To this day they remain outside of the Masoretic Text, the text which the Hebrews use, and did use.

Though we even have these forms in Hebrew at the Qumran find. Just because I don't necissarily believe Daniel Wrote the whole book of Daniel doesn't mean I don't believe in the prophesies in them. Though certainly my conclusion of Daniels 70 weeks prophesy ends in 70 Ad rather than eschatalogical for our days.

It doesn't matter what your eschatology is at this point. Daniel and his three friends, were taken captive into Babylon approximately 605 B.C. in the first deportation. Even if it was the last deportation it would be 586 B.C. But it wasn't. The dates of the rulers don't line up that way. Either way, Daniel was written a long time ago during the deportation of Judah. Chapter one makes that point quite evident.
Concerning one Daniel, you put the integretiy of both Ezekiel (a contemporary of Daniel) and of Christ, at stake if more than one Daniel or one person wrote this book. Ezekiel refers to the person. Christ refers to the person and the book, for he refers to the book of Daniel or his prophecy. He attaches the name to the book. He never infers that there could be another author.

Your definition of inspired is not what I consider inspired. Inspired for me means God Breathed. As in this definition for the phrase And with this I keep in mind this aspect of the Inspired word of God in context where 2 Pet 1:21 shows what that inspiration means But I don't confuse inerrant with impeccable as Archer clearly points out. You seem to think inerrant is impeccable. I don't.

I have the same definition as inspired as you, and could have quoted all the same sources. I was only clarifying some points, when you asked about "other books." I assumed you were referring to other books that were quoted from that were already in the Bible, not outside of the Bible.

The fact that Daniel may have writen some of the book but not all doesn't affect the inspiration of the book of Daniel. For instance consider these questions

If you disbelieve the entire Bible and blaspheme the name of God, it will not alter the inspiration of the Bible. There is nothing that you can say or do that will alter the inspiration of the Bible. It will remain forever an inspired book no matter what men say or do. The fact that it is under attack matters not. It is God's book, not man's.
Nevertheless the evidence is there that Daniel wrote the book of Daniel.
It is your right to contend it if you so desire.

Though we see Jesus referring to Daniel as primary author in Matthew. Does it mean that there were not Not necissarily. Chapter 4 has me asking this question and this

In the NT, there have been charges of corruption, changes, etc. We have over 5,000 MSS extant of the NT or parts thereof.
However, there never has been much of a problem with the OT. We have the Masoretic Text in tact, and there is not much dispute in regard to textual variants. Nothing has changed. To put forth the charge:

numerous alterations have been introduced into the primitive text of the book in the course of ages

is about as ridiculous a charge as I have ever heard. What changes? Point to them. Who changed what, and where, when?

 

[Thinkingstuff]

What changes? Point to them. Who changed what, and where, when?

I think I've already mentioned a few questionable items about Daniel. Leave aside the LXX we still have a problem with these things I've put foreward already

One of the musical instruments mentioned in Daniel 3:5 and in subsequent passages did not exist until developed in 2nd century BCE Greece.

Daniel 1:4 refers to the "Chaldeans" as a priestly class in Babylon. This term did not attain this meaning until much later than the 6th century

Which the captivity would have been in 604 or 605. These are questionable as is Chapter 4. Who made these changes or additions and when is speculative. But it begs the question.

 

[Darron Steele]

One of the musical instruments mentioned in Daniel 3:5 and in subsequent passages did not exist until developed in 2nd century BCE Greece.

Daniel 1:4 refers to the "Chaldeans" as a priestly class in Babylon. This term did not attain this meaning until much later than the 6th century

Well, evidently the musical instruments did exist before the 2nd century BCE. We evidently do not have extra-biblical record or trace of their existence. Still, Daniel lived in the decades surrounding 600 BCE, and Daniel is Scripture and authorship is attributed to him. As the Scriptures of this date refer to them, they must have existed back then.

On the same basis, it is evident that "Chaldeans" referred to a priestly class in Babylon in the decades surrounding 600 BCE also.

You see, our understandings of history are flawed as we are human. The Bible is always true. If human theories on history conflict with Scripture, it is the Scriptures that are true.

The human theories need to be lined up with Scripture, or discarded. The Bible settles it. The Bible settles it every time.

___________________________________________

What does this discussion over Old Testament authorship have to do with the thread's topic?

Has it been hijacked into an attempt to get Bible-believing Christians to doubt the Bible?

Sure looks like it. One person brings in an off-topic comment against authenticity of certain New Testament books. Another person seizes on this and challenges the authorship of Daniel -- a favorite target of Bible detractors.

As those of us who have dealt with or deal with Bible detractors know, challenging authenticity is used to plant a smidge of doubt in Scripture. Another approach is to suggest that the printed Bible does not have the `right' books in it, and we have little or no way to be sure. Another approach is to exaggerate textual variants and claim we cannot trust that what we read has any semblance to what was written. After this doubt is planted, the Bible detractors escalate their attacks on God's Book. Often, they deny what they are doing, claiming `We just want to explore some issues.' The goal: get people to not believe the Bible, and instead be complicit with agendas that discord with Scripture.

Leeway to Bible detractors has caused great harm. It is one thing to want to treat them generously, but history shows that this is dangerous to the church and to unbelievers. The church giving leeway to Bible detractors has given `reason' for unbelievers to stay that way. The church giving leeway to Bible detractors has paved the way for denomination leaderships that hijack church groups for private left-wing agendas.

I do not think this is the place for Bible detractors to proselytize. This board is for Bible-believing Christians. Bible-believing Christians should not be placed in a position where they have to waste their time showing why God's Book ought to be believed.

Perhaps the moderators can delete the off-topic threads and send private messages to the offenders to be more careful in the future? If it continues, handle them like the administration handled those who were seeking to proselytize to Catholicism. I dare say that Bible detractors can cause a lot more harm to the salvation of souls and the larger cause of Christ.

 

[Darron Steele]

Correction to above; I meant "posts" and not "threads" and I want to add something:

Perhaps the moderators can delete the off-topic posts and send private messages to the offenders to be more careful in the future? Maybe direct them to keep their opinions against Scripture to themselves, and to restrict their posts to other topics? If it continues, handle them like the administration handled those who were seeking to proselytize to Catholicism. I dare say that Bible detractors can cause a lot more harm to the salvation of souls and the larger cause of Christ​

 

[Thinkingstuff]

Correction to above; I meant "posts" and not "threads" and I want to add something:

Perhaps the moderators can delete the off-topic posts and send private messages to the offenders to be more careful in the future? Maybe direct them to keep their opinions against Scripture to themselves, and to restrict their posts to other topics? If it continues, handle them like the administration handled those who were seeking to proselytize to Catholicism. I dare say that Bible detractors can cause a lot more harm to the salvation of souls and the larger cause of Christ​

Sure we might have gotten a little off topic. I accept that. And maybe another thread can be started out of it but to lable someone who questions aspects of the bible as against scriptures is invalid and not an accurate assesment. I have never been against scriptures. I've never denied the inspiration of the scriptures. I just ask these things because I'm interested. Now I don't want people to discard Christ or the bible. On the contrary I want them to embrace both. However, man has a mind and questions things and wonders how things operate. God is not worried about those who believe questioning these things. It often helps people to grow in their faith. However, to do as you suggest is to act like the KGB in the USSR and to disallow reasonable debate. If the Moderators think its off topic. Ok thats reasonable. But to suggest (which you did) That I'm proselytizing people to Catholicism or away from Christianity is simply wrong and shameful on your part. Must people who question things in their churches hang their head low and hope the question goes away without reasonable reply? I hope not. There is a failing their if that is how you see our churches. People with questions should be welcomed and answered!

 

[DHK]

Sure we might have gotten a little off topic. I accept that. And maybe another thread can be started out of it but to lable someone who questions aspects of the bible as against scriptures is invalid and not an accurate assesment. I have never been against scriptures. I've never denied the inspiration of the scriptures. I just ask these things because I'm interested. Now I don't want people to discard Christ or the bible. On the contrary I want them to embrace both. However, man has a mind and questions things and wonders how things operate. God is not worried about those who believe questioning these things. It often helps people to grow in their faith. However, to do as you suggest is to act like the KGB in the USSR and to disallow reasonable debate. If the Moderators think its off topic. Ok thats reasonable. But to suggest (which you did) That I'm proselytizing people to Catholicism or away from Christianity is simply wrong and shameful on your part. Must people who question things in their churches hang their head low and hope the question goes away without reasonable reply? I hope not. There is a failing their if that is how you see our churches. People with questions should be welcomed and answered!

It was post #25 that derailed this thread:
http://baptistboard.com/showpost.php?p=1419617&postcount=25

In Paul's real letters he describes local churches who elect their leadership which includes women. In the "Pastorals," probably written after Paul's death, a top down organization is described and women are second class members.

This is the unbelief that Darron refers to, and that has nothing to do with the thread title Local Church vs. Acts 15.
We were not discussing the inspiration of Scripture but denominationalism as it is found in the Bible (and it isn't.) I have made a number of posts to this end, largely ignored, except by Brian. For Baptists this is an important issue. How important? Do you really believe that Peter was the pope for 25 years ruling from Rome? The RCC does. That is where denominationalism leads.

 

[BRIANH]

To attempt to get the thread on track.DHK posted two very substantive answers to my original question. If a proponent of denominationalism could take a crack at them, or admit they were convincing (they were to me), go right ahead.

 

[Thinkingstuff]

It was post #25 that derailed this thread:
http://baptistboard.com/showpost.php?p=1419617&postcount=25

This is the unbelief that Darron refers to, and that has nothing to do with the thread title Local Church vs. Acts 15.
We were not discussing the inspiration of Scripture but denominationalism as it is found in the Bible (and it isn't.) I have made a number of posts to this end, largely ignored, except by Brian. For Baptists this is an important issue. How important? Do you really believe that Peter was the pope for 25 years ruling from Rome? The RCC does. That is where denominationalism leads.

Ok, for a brief review. Where are you saying denominationalism leads? To Rome? I'm not sure I'm understanding. What I think. And its just my best assessment from my research and historical studies is that Christians primarily initially pulled out from Judaism. That before Paul there were gatherings in certain specified homes of usually wealthy people. To get and idea of what those homes were like take a look at a Roman villa. It was huge! And ornate. There are two finds that date back to the 200 AD. One in Dura Europa and the other at Meggido. That shows this type of house. One at Meggido was a Roman commanders special villa with a table in the center of an ornate room with greek inscriptions listing the soldies that contributed to the building of it. The reason I bring it up is I want to get away from the small suburban home type of house church consept. It wasn't quite like that. Also note that I don't think Christian theology was well spelled out. That there were many cross overs from Judaism. So what was familiar in a Jewish synagogue setting would have been such with the early church to include reading scrolls from the old testiment. All teaching was initially oral with the occassional referrence to the OT to show the Jews that Jesus was prophesied. So I believe there was a revised Jewish/liturgical type of service with teaching of Jesus and the communion. Note reading Pliny's letter to Trajan the communion was celebrated after their Liturigical singing and preaching service. Still though I say liturgical I don't imagine it looked anything like a Catholic or Orthodox service but a Jewish one. There is evidence that they wrote their own songs. However, like I said apart from Jesus Crucified for our sins and ressurection and hope for the believer I'm not certain Christian theology became as spelled out except the very basics such as Jesus was God. Which is why the apostles are constantly defining and reviewing topics with regard to salvation and why it was so easy for differing opinions and heresy to develop. There were allusions to the trinity but I don't think a specific definition was required. For the earliest Christian it was about belief in Jesus and their relationship with him. I think as time passed on people began to attempt to define things more specifically and at greater precision which has its own problem. So apart from what we see in the NT we don't have theology developed beyond that until later when the more members become christian and it expands and educated greek philosophers become christian and try to explain certain consepts from their western outlook. This leads to discension, discussion, in fighting, and pretty much meetings on whats considered correct. By the time of the passing of the apostles and into the next 200 years questions that the apostles probably couldn't have foreknown were being asked and people were scrambeling to determine the answers. When you compare eastern and western churches there were differences. I think this leads to denominations and eventually to Rome and Orthodox which leads to the Refomation and some where along the way to baptist. No one today looks like the first Churches. We have their core beliefs and we have the scriptures but thats about it. Culture, society, scientific knowledge, and even theology has changed significantly since then. My only desire is that our churches today were as giving and self sacrificing as the early churches.

 

[Eric B]

Great post!
This pretty much sums up what I've been trying to say for years on this subject. This refutes both the "trail of blood" and "Catholic apostolic tradition" theories, which both assume that present day organizations or "fellowships", theologies, polities and liturgies/services were handed down intact from the apostles.

 

[DHK]

Ok, for a brief review. Where are you saying denominationalism leads? To Rome?

That is what the Roman Catholic's would have us believe. Remember--Peter being the first Pope, ruling from Rome for 25 years--an historical impossibility BTW.

I'm not sure I'm understanding. What I think. And its just my best assessment from my research and historical studies is that Christians primarily initially pulled out from Judaism.

This is a fallacy. Look at what Saul (later Paul) was doing before he was saved. He was persecuting Christians to the death. Stephen was stoned at the hands of the Jews. After his salvation Paul also was stoned, but miraculously lived through it. The Jews never stopped persecuting the Christians. Christianity is NOT an extension of Judaism!

That before Paul there were gatherings in certain specified homes of usually wealthy people.

No, not necessarily. The church in Jerusalem met in the Temple. But their welcome was short lived. They then went to the synagogues, until that was no longer possible. It was then that they met in homes, but even then it was not always possible, because of persecution. In Acts 12 the church met in the house of the mother of John Mark, praying for the deliverance of Peter. There are a number of house-churches mentioned in Romans 16, such as that of Aquilla and Priscilla. But they also met in open fields. There is much speculation that the building in Acts 20 where Paul preached a very long sermon was something akin to a barn. Later the Christians met in the Catacombs, secretly for fear of persecution. They met wherever they could to avoid persecution.

To get and idea of what those homes were like take a look at a Roman villa. It was huge! And ornate. There are two finds that date back to the 200 AD. One in Dura Europa and the other at Meggido. That shows this type of house. One at Meggido was a Roman commanders special villa with a table in the center of an ornate room with greek inscriptions listing the soldies that contributed to the building of it. The reason I bring it up is I want to get away from the small suburban home type of house church consept. It wasn't quite like that. Also note that I don't think Christian theology was well spelled out.

These were houses of the rich, not typical of Christians most of whom were poor. Nicodemus and Joseph of Arimathea would have had such houses. But because of pressure from the Jews they were secret believers. It is doubful that they opened their houses for public meetings. That would be the equivalent of a converted Muslim opening his house for a meeting in a Muslim nation today. It would be an automatic death sentence. It just isn't done.
It is true that most all houses, even poor houses in the east, have some sort of courtyard. But among the poor they are not that big, and certainly are not ornate. If anything that is where they would keep the family goat or sheep.

That there were many cross overs from Judaism.

I doubt that. A good example is music. There is no evidence that the early church even used musical instruments, while the Jews did. It was a complete break from Judaism.

So what was familiar in a Jewish synagogue setting would have been such with the early church to include reading scrolls from the old testiment. All teaching was initially oral with the occassional referrence to the OT to show the Jews that Jesus was prophesied. So I believe there was a revised Jewish/liturgical type of service with teaching of Jesus and the communion.

This is all speculation on your part. Remember in many of these churches, there were just as many Gentiles as there were Jews. You must study the pastoral epistles to find more about church order. You do have some examples from the book of Acts as well. But these accounts differ greatly from what your imagination is telling us. Acts 17:11, for example, tell us that all things were compared to the Bible. There was no tradition at all. All things were based on the Word of God, the very revelation that God had given Paul, the Word of God, verified by OT Scriptures. There is no tradition here.

Note reading Pliny's letter to Trajan the communion was celebrated after their Liturigical singing and preaching service. Still though I say liturgical I don't imagine it looked anything like a Catholic or Orthodox service but a Jewish one. There is evidence that they wrote their own songs.

This is why the ECF are totally unreliable, and our standard of practise is after the Bible and not on the basis of man.

However, like I said apart from Jesus Crucified for our sins and ressurection and hope for the believer I'm not certain Christian theology became as spelled out except the very basics such as Jesus was God. Which is why the apostles are constantly defining and reviewing topics with regard to salvation and why it was so easy for differing opinions and heresy to develop.

Heresy developed because there were heretics which Paul, Jesus, Peter, Jude, John all wrote about. All the writers of the NT wrote about false teachers and their heresies. They were to beware of them. They had the teachings of the apostles. They were to compare both OT and NT teaching to the teachings of others. So are we today.

Acts 2:42 And they continued stedfastly in the apostles' doctrine and fellowship, and in breaking of bread, and in prayers.

There were allusions to the trinity but I don't think a specific definition was required. For the earliest Christian it was about belief in Jesus and their relationship with him. I think as time passed on people began to attempt to define things more specifically and at greater precision which has its own problem. So apart from what we see in the NT we don't have theology developed beyond that until later when the more members become christian and it expands and educated greek philosophers become christian and try to explain certain consepts from their western outlook. This leads to discension, discussion, in fighting, and pretty much meetings on whats considered correct. By the time of the passing of the apostles and into the next 200 years questions that the apostles probably couldn't have foreknown were being asked and people were scrambeling to determine the answers. When you compare eastern and western churches there were differences. I think this leads to denominations and eventually to Rome and Orthodox which leads to the Refomation and some where along the way to baptist. No one today looks like the first Churches.

Independent Baptist Churches pattern themselves after NT churches. So your statement is not true. The only thing that has changed is technology.

We have their core beliefs and we have the scriptures but thats about it. Culture, society, scientific knowledge, and even theology has changed significantly since then. My only desire is that our churches today were as giving and self sacrificing as the early churches.

What makes you think that our theology has changed if we pattern everything after the NT, and the Bible is our final authority?

 

[Thinkingstuff]

That is what the Roman Catholic's would have us believe. Remember--Peter being the first Pope, ruling from Rome for 25 years--an historical impossibility BTW

Uh. Thats not what the Catholics are saying. This is what they say:

It is an indisputably established historical fact that St. Peter laboured in Rome during the last portion of his life, and there ended his earthly course by martyrdom. As to the duration of his Apostolic activity in the Roman capital, the continuity or otherwise of his residence there, the details and success of his labours, and the chronology of his arrival and death, all these questions are uncertain, and can be solved only on hypotheses more or less well-founded

So they only assert that he was there for a time near the end of his life. 25 years is an exageration of the Catholic position.

This is a fallacy. Look at what Saul (later Paul) was doing before he was saved. He was persecuting Christians to the death. Stephen was stoned at the hands of the Jews. After his salvation Paul also was stoned, but miraculously lived through it. The Jews never stopped persecuting the Christians. Christianity is NOT an extension of Judaism!

I find this funny since the next thing you say is

The church in Jerusalem met in the Temple. But their welcome was short lived. They then went to the synagogues, until that was no longer possible.

Obviously, they come out from Judaism. I never said extention which is a misrepresentation. They came out and took some things with them as we can see in the council at Jerusalem. It almost isolated the gentiles from the faith. Fortunately it wasn't permitted to.

It was then that they met in homes, but even then it was not always possible, because of persecution. In Acts 12 the church met in the house of the mother of John Mark, praying for the deliverance of Peter. There are a number of house-churches mentioned in Romans 16, such as that of Aquilla and Priscilla. But they also met in open fields.

Yes and these are villa type houses not shanties. Jesus relied on his wealthy disciples to support his ministies as we see with Mary and Martha also with Joseph of Arimathea. These places while used would have been favored over other meeting places though as you said the synagogue would have been the initial meeting point.

These were houses of the rich, not typical of Christians most of whom were poor.

Yes so the poor were welcomed in these peoples homes. Which is why James says

3If you show special attention to the man wearing fine clothes and say, "Here's a good seat for you," but say to the poor man, "You stand there" or "Sit on the floor by my feet," 4have you not discriminated among yourselves and become judges with evil thoughts?

Your assertion here

I doubt that. A good example is music. There is no evidence that the early church even used musical instruments, while the Jews did. It was a complete break from Judaism.

his highly debatable and speculative. Just as speculative as anything I've said. Remember

1At Iconium Paul and Barnabas went as usual into the Jewish synagogue. There they spoke so effectively that a great number of Jews and Gentiles believed

if it was such a departure from Judaism there would not have been this responce in the synagogue. It would have been considered another religion altogether. Though there was a contingent intent on going agianst Paul there was debate.

You must study the pastoral epistles to find more about church order.

I have and I've been in a Jewish Synagogue I don't see how they diverge.

This is why the ECF are totally unreliable, and our standard of practise is after the Bible and not on the basis of man.

Pliny the younger was not a ECF. He was a Roman governer in North Eastern Turkey who was writing to his emperor about these Christians and their practices because he was having a hard time classifying them. Which he needed to do in order to bring civil order back. If he could say they were indeed criminals (believing the lies passed around about christians) eating babies in bread and were political activist he would immediatley have killed them. But he sent and independent commission (for lack of a better term ) to discover who these people were and did. This is what they did and what he wrote back to the emperor. The source is reliable.

Heresy developed because there were heretics which Paul, Jesus, Peter, Jude, John all wrote about

Some heresy was malicious intent but not all look at the problem with Apollos. Things weren't defined. Not like they are today.

Acts 2:42 And they continued stedfastly in the apostles' doctrine and fellowship, and in breaking of bread, and in prayers

the very evidence of oral doctrine and teaching.

Independent Baptist Churches pattern themselves after NT churches. So your statement is not true. The only thing that has changed is technology.

Idependent baptist pattern themselves after what they believe is a NT church not in actuality. A disciple of an Apostle would be confused by Independent Baptist churches. (And wonder what forsaken language you're speaking :tongue3

What makes you think that our theology has changed if we pattern everything after the NT, and the Bible is our final authority?

Because it has. We pattern everything after our modern understanding of the bible in our culteral context of Today. Plus this question is a misrepresentation of what I said. The core beliefs are there. That hasn't changed. What has changed are the details of theology. Dispensationalism, Covenant theology, Calvins 5 points, Armenianism, ad infinitum.

 

[DHK]

Uh. Thats not what the Catholics are saying. This is what they say:

So they only assert that he was there for a time near the end of his life. 25 years is an exageration of the Catholic position.

Here is an exact quote:

I have presented several early Church writings in this letter, and there are many others to show that Peter was indeed in Rome, that he and Paul founded the Church there, that he was the first Bishop of Rome, now called the Pope, and that he died there.
For those who charge that Peter was never in Rome, I challenge them to provide genuine historical documents as proof of support for their position. If they have no genuine proof of what they charge, then they have only false charges.

The twenty-five years is mentioned earlier on in the same article. It is written by a Catholic apologist refuting an evangelical Christian position.

I find this funny

The truth is not humorous, especially when it involves the persecution and death of innocent believers.

since the next thing you say is Obviously, they come out from Judaism. I never said extention which is a misrepresentation. They came out and took some things with them as we can see in the council at Jerusalem.

Christianity did not come out of; nor was an extension of Judaism. As it says in John 1:11, "He came to his own and his own received him not." Israel rejected Christ. Christianity has little to do with the religion of Judaism. Israel rejected Christ; crucified him, and persecuted those that followed him.
The coucil at Jerusalem has nothing to do with Judaism. It was a meeting presided over by Pastor James. The church had a congregation. There were some theologians (apostles) that came together to discuss an important theological issue, and then to make a final decision on it. To be perfectly clear the Bible was already clear on the subject, but this decision had to be made public for the sake of all. The heretics, known as Judaizers, needed to be publicly silenced. Works (or adherence to the law) does not save. All of the apostles were in agreement to this. It needed a public declaration so that there would be absolutely no confusion. There was no hint on anything even close to Judaism here. It was a "Baptist Business Meeting," not a meeting of the Sanhedrin. :BangHead:

Yes and these are villa type houses not shanties.

And they met in both, and the cemetaries as well.

Jesus relied on his wealthy disciples to support his ministies as we see with Mary and Martha also with Joseph of Arimathea.

There is nothing to suggest that Mary and Martha were wealthy.
Joseph of Armiathea was a wealthy person. But Christ did not always rely on wealthy people; to say such is a mistake. He was known as one to frequent the places of the poor. That is the reputation that he had.

Jesus spoke of his own poverty:
Matthew 8:20 And Jesus saith unto him, The foxes have holes, and the birds of the air have nests; but the Son of man hath not where to lay his head.
--He didn't stay in the houses of the wealthy. He says otherwise.
Luke 9:23 And he said to them all, If any man will come after me, let him deny himself, and take up his cross daily, and follow me.

These places while used would have been favored over other meeting places though as you said the synagogue would have been the initial meeting point. Yes so the poor were welcomed in these peoples homes. Which is why James says

3If you show special attention to the man wearing fine clothes and say, "Here's a good seat for you," but say to the poor man, "You stand there" or "Sit on the floor by my feet," 4have you not discriminated among yourselves and become judges with evil thoughts?

By your own words, they were not welcomed. James pointed that out. "Have you not discriminated among yourselves!!!!!!!!!!!"
It was a strong rebuke agaisnt what they were doing. The poor were not welcome there and James was rebuking them for it. The rich did not welcome the poor. It was evident. It was evident in 1Cor.11:30, when for that reason (tying into the abuse of the Lord's Supper) the Lord actually killed some of the Corinthians! Why? The rich separated themselves from the poor. They engaged in drunkenness and gluttonny, and let the poor starve; they didn't care about the poor. Then, with that gluttonous and evil, biased spirit they expected to partake of the Lord's Supper?? No way! The Lord in his judgment made many of them sick, and killed some of them.

If anything Christianity began in the houses of the poor rather than the rich. Now if you are speaking of the RCC, then that is a different story.

Your assertion here his highly debatable and speculative. Just as speculative as anything I've said.

There has been a great deal of research done on music. Musical instruments were not well received into the church until the time of the Reformation. Start a thread in the music forum if you wish. Of recent history: Spurgeon, John Wesley, Adam Clarke, all refused to have any musical instrument played in their church, and that includes the piano or organ. It was not commonly received until well after the Reformation.

Remember if it was such a departure from Judaism there would not have been this responce in the synagogue. It would have been considered another religion altogether.

It was another religion altogether. Paul first went to the synagogue. But Paul was widely known in Jewish circles and respected as to his credentials, his learning, his fame. He was one of the most educated (if not the most educated) person on the face of the known world at that time. It would have been difficult even for a Jew to say no to Paul, if Paul were asking to speak. But once Paul started preaching the resurrection that stirred the pot. Then the Jews became angry, and Paul and company were often kicked out.
Christianity has a living Saviour. Judaism murdered their's.

Though there was a contingent intent on going agianst Paul there was debate.

The debate was: Paul is being stoned vs. those those throwing the stones.
You have a weird idea of a debate. It parallels the same change of ideas in modern day times of some Islamic nations:

LAHORE, PAKISTAN (Worthy News)-- A loose Pakistan-based umbrella group of factions linked to the militant Taliban organization has threatened to kill or rape all non-Muslims to enslave their children and take away their properties, unless they meet tough conditions.

http://www.worthynews.com/5928-pakistan-taliban-threatens-to-kill-rape-non-muslims

Yes, that is a real debate isn't it. Paul faced quite a few of them. So did Jesus when he was crucified. I just didn't know that you called them "debates."

 

[Thinkingstuff]

The twenty-five years is mentioned earlier on in the same article. It is written by a Catholic apologist refuting an evangelical Christian position

I don't know this apologist but I did quote from the Catholic Encyclopedia. The fact is at some point Peter was there. 25 years seems to me to be an exageration. The Catholic encyclopedia suggest that the dates aren't precisely known. Either way Peter was there at some point.

The truth is not humorous, especially when it involves the persecution and death of innocent believers.

What I found humorous was that by your own statement you show that Christianity came out of Judaism. And your verse about him calling to his own is a non-sequitur. Don't forget what he told the Sameritan woman who needed Jesus why should he give dogs the childrens food. See we can both play this game. Jesus is the salvation of the Jews and the promise to the Jews but it doesn't stay with them it goes into all the world. The debate at that 1st council in Jerusalem was how Jewish do we need to be? Should the gentiles be circumsised? Hey, Paul even had Timothy circumcised though it wasn't needed. You seem to think that Jesus gave his disciples a gideons bible or a King James bible and and had alter calls. Thats not how it worked. We see in Peters sermon in Jerusalem that the new believers were baptised they didn't come forward for prayer in a Billy Sunday type of tent.

It was a "Baptist Business Meeting," not a meeting of the Sanhedrin.

it was nothing like a baptist meeting except that people got together and discussed an issue. They didn't even have the three high backed Chairs you see in some churches. Though I daresay it probably was just as heated.

And they met in both, and the cemetaries as well.

They met in places that could hold large groupings of people though the cemetaries were more prone to Turkey and Rome.

There is nothing to suggest that Mary and Martha were wealthy

Au Contraire

Yet, surprisingly (as we already indicated in chapter 2), the Gospels and Acts do refer to rich persons who still owned property as among those who believed in him and helped him. These references are scattered across several sources, indicating this theme is not the work of an editor. There are several named ...Luke 10:31-42 (Mary and Martha; cf John 11:20, 12:1-2) .... - David A. Fiensy Ph.D. - Jesus the Galilean

So I think you'll find yourself in the minority there.

Jesus spoke of his own poverty

No one ever questioned Jesus own poverty or that he ministered to the poor. Just that he made use of his wealthy followers. Your point here is also an evasion or a non-sequitur

By your own words, they were not welcomed. James pointed that out. "Have you not discriminated among yourselves!!!!!!!!!!!"

Though I'm flattered the words are not my own put the Apostle James. See you have a problem of context in the 1st Century. Wealthy people as we can see reflected in the gospel showed favoritism to people of their same class. Giving preference. And in a villa style home this would be prevelant. Slaves (who might have also been christian) we often over looked or even ignored.

Then, with that gluttonous and evil, biased spirit they expected to partake of the Lord's Supper

this is an example of rhetoric. The Last supper has nothing to do with the discussion.

If anything Christianity began in the houses of the poor rather than the rich

This is pattantly untrue as even you yourself mentioned Joseph of Aramathea. Its is fair to say Jesus pulled disciples from all walks of life.

There has been a great deal of research done on music. Musical instruments were not well received into the church until the time of the Reformation.

Careful or you'll end up going the way of the Church of Christ. There is evidence that there were musical instruments involved throughout history but the favored type for worship was acapella.

You have a weird idea of a debate. It parallels the same change of ideas in modern day times of some Islamic nations:

again rhetoric. FYI. My idea of debate is this I or you put forward a position. The other person contest it. We both put forward arguments and data to support our position. That is debate. I think you view debate as rhetoric or aligation throwing. And occasionally throwing scripture (in context or out) with accusatory rhetoric. Anyway thats how it seems to me. I'm ok with you disagreeing with me. I don't have a problem with it. I think Landmarkist view is fantasy and I've explained why I think its the case. You obviously disagree with me and have made your points but to include rhetoric and accusations. I hope you see the difference.

 

[DHK]

this is an example of rhetoric. The Last supper has nothing to do with the discussion. This is pattantly untrue as even you yourself mentioned Joseph of Aramathea. Its is fair to say Jesus pulled disciples from all walks of life.

Let's look at just this much of what you have said. Throughout your response your standard rebuttal was "this is an example of rhetoric...more rhetoric, etc." You seem to like that word.
Nothing I said about the Lord's Supper was untrue. So let's take this one passage and see what was happening, and hopefully that will prove my point, at least one of them. If I have to, I will go through each one of them in detail like this point by point.

1 Corinthians 11:17-18 Now in this that I declare unto you I praise you not, that ye come together not for the better, but for the worse.
18 For first of all, when ye come together in the church, I hear that there be divisions among you; and I partly believe it.
--The church was divisive. This accusation was mentioned in chapter one, and again here. It was divided into different factions. When the believers came together it was not for good, it was for the worse. The result was worse than had they not gathered at all!
Why was that?

1 Corinthians 11:20-21 When ye come together therefore into one place, this is not to eat the Lord's supper.
21For in eating every one taketh before other his own supper: and one is hungry, and another is drunken.
--Paul has not yet addressed the issue of the Lord's Supper. What he is addressing is a customary "love feast" (modern day pot-luck) that the church had before they gathered to have the service and partake of the Lord's Supper. This is what Paul is addressing. In this feast (not a part of the Lord's Supper), they gathered together is cliques. The rich gathered in their corner, and the poor in theirs. That is what verse 21 indicates. It indicates that the rich would not share of their own with the poor.

Young's Literal Translation put's it this way:
1 Corinthians 11:21 for each his own supper doth take before in the eating, and one is hungry, and another is drunk;
--Each one his OWN supper does take.
One is hungry; the other drunk. Why is one hungry or one group hungry?
Because the rich won't have anything to do with him. They shun them.

Here's the stern rebuke:
1 Corinthians 11:22 What? have ye not houses to eat and to drink in? or despise ye the church of God, and shame them that have not? What shall I say to you? shall I praise you in this? I praise you not.
--Paul is not rebuking the Lord's Supper; but rather this "love feast."
They have their own houses to eat and drink in. They should stay home if they are going to act like this. In their actions "they despise the church of God," Paul says.
They "shame those that have not," he continues.
His hard lined rebukes continue throughout the verse.
The rich did not welcome the poor into their places of worship.
As far as they were concerned it was better if they had not showed up at all. That was their attitude.

From verses 23 to 26 he explains the importance of the Lord's Supper.
Then he comes back to his rebuke of the rich, and their abuse of the Lord's Supper in showing up in church with this attitude of partiality.

1 Corinthians 11:27 Wherefore whosoever shall eat this bread, and drink this cup of the Lord, unworthily, shall be guilty of the body and blood of the Lord.
--To drink of the cup; to eat of the bread unworthily, would bring judgment upon oneself.

Therefore it is important to examine your heart first. The Lord's Supper is a sacred institution, not to be taken lightly
1 Corinthians 11:28 But let a man examine himself, and so let him eat of that bread, and drink of that cup.
--Be sure and examine yourself. Don't take of the Lord's Supper if there is sin in your life. Make sure your heart is right before God. This is a serious and sacred ordinance that God has ordained.

1 Corinthians 11:29 For he that eateth and drinketh unworthily, eateth and drinketh damnation to himself, not discerning the Lord's body.
--If you have this flippant attitude and take things lightly you will certainly bring the judgment of God upon yourselves. That is what happened at the church of Corinth.

1 Corinthians 11:30 For this cause many are weak and sickly among you, and many sleep.
--Many were physically weak.
Many were sick.
And many were killed by God Almighty because of their attitude in coming to the church to have a good time, eating and drinking, and shunning the poor all that time, and then still expect to partake of the Lord's Supper afterward. Totally sacrilegious!

 

[Thinkingstuff]

Let's look at just this much of what you have said. Throughout your response your standard rebuttal was "this is an example of rhetoric...more rhetoric, etc." You seem to like that word.
Nothing I said about the Lord's Supper was untrue. So let's take this one passage and see what was happening, and hopefully that will prove my point, at least one of them. If I have to, I will go through each one of them in detail like this point by point.

1 Corinthians 11:17-18 Now in this that I declare unto you I praise you not, that ye come together not for the better, but for the worse.
18 For first of all, when ye come together in the church, I hear that there be divisions among you; and I partly believe it.
--The church was divisive. This accusation was mentioned in chapter one, and again here. It was divided into different factions. When the believers came together it was not for good, it was for the worse. The result was worse than had they not gathered at all!
Why was that?

1 Corinthians 11:20-21 When ye come together therefore into one place, this is not to eat the Lord's supper.
21For in eating every one taketh before other his own supper: and one is hungry, and another is drunken.
--Paul has not yet addressed the issue of the Lord's Supper. What he is addressing is a customary "love feast" (modern day pot-luck) that the church had before they gathered to have the service and partake of the Lord's Supper. This is what Paul is addressing. In this feast (not a part of the Lord's Supper), they gathered together is cliques. The rich gathered in their corner, and the poor in theirs. That is what verse 21 indicates. It indicates that the rich would not share of their own with the poor.

Young's Literal Translation put's it this way:
1 Corinthians 11:21 for each his own supper doth take before in the eating, and one is hungry, and another is drunk;
--Each one his OWN supper does take.
One is hungry; the other drunk. Why is one hungry or one group hungry?
Because the rich won't have anything to do with him. They shun them.

Here's the stern rebuke:
1 Corinthians 11:22 What? have ye not houses to eat and to drink in? or despise ye the church of God, and shame them that have not? What shall I say to you? shall I praise you in this? I praise you not.
--Paul is not rebuking the Lord's Supper; but rather this "love feast."
They have their own houses to eat and drink in. They should stay home if they are going to act like this. In their actions "they despise the church of God," Paul says.
They "shame those that have not," he continues.
His hard lined rebukes continue throughout the verse.
The rich did not welcome the poor into their places of worship.
As far as they were concerned it was better if they had not showed up at all. That was their attitude.

From verses 23 to 26 he explains the importance of the Lord's Supper.
Then he comes back to his rebuke of the rich, and their abuse of the Lord's Supper in showing up in church with this attitude of partiality.

1 Corinthians 11:27 Wherefore whosoever shall eat this bread, and drink this cup of the Lord, unworthily, shall be guilty of the body and blood of the Lord.
--To drink of the cup; to eat of the bread unworthily, would bring judgment upon oneself.

Therefore it is important to examine your heart first. The Lord's Supper is a sacred institution, not to be taken lightly
1 Corinthians 11:28 But let a man examine himself, and so let him eat of that bread, and drink of that cup.
--Be sure and examine yourself. Don't take of the Lord's Supper if there is sin in your life. Make sure your heart is right before God. This is a serious and sacred ordinance that God has ordained.

1 Corinthians 11:29 For he that eateth and drinketh unworthily, eateth and drinketh damnation to himself, not discerning the Lord's body.
--If you have this flippant attitude and take things lightly you will certainly bring the judgment of God upon yourselves. That is what happened at the church of Corinth.

1 Corinthians 11:30 For this cause many are weak and sickly among you, and many sleep.
--Many were physically weak.
Many were sick.
And many were killed by God Almighty because of their attitude in coming to the church to have a good time, eating and drinking, and shunning the poor all that time, and then still expect to partake of the Lord's Supper afterward. Totally sacrilegious!

You put a lot of work into that post but all you've done was confirm what I was saying. First of all My statement about rhetoric was that communion had nothing to do with the conversation about how the early church operated with respect to homes. Yet, I guess your saying it does. So instead of speaking about how communion was applied. It would be better to discuss what communion shows about their homes and places of worship. Which you do here confirming my use of James with regard to this topic. this is where you show it and why james has to say something about it as well:

His hard lined rebukes continue throughout the verse.
The rich did not welcome the poor into their places of worship.
As far as they were concerned it was better if they had not showed up at all. That was their attitude