Are we living under the New Covenant??

For you and grasshopper,

So now dispies make God a liar. Great! Does it ever occur to you that God has NOT finished His program with ISRAEL?? You see them "cut out" but you don't see them "grafted back in??"

YOU, child, are IMPATIENT with God.

skypair

 

Balonie! You equate all Israel with all scripture and say TC doesn't account for the "whole??!"

Uh, try "CAUSE IT DOESN'T SAY THAT." Why are YOU being so obtuse?

Sorry, TC, for answering for you but BBOb is playin' space cadet lately.

skypair

 

OK, who is "Israel and Judah?" Are you them? Where among the Jews do you see them in the gospels and epistles? Did they even all accept Christ?

And "a" branch broken off? Which one, Bobby?

Your arguments are so irrelevant to scripture I'm not sure I should even answer you if I didn't hope to help unify the body of Christ "in the knowledge and faith of the Lord Jesus." Eph 4:13.

[poster WARNED to keep civil or keep quiet]

skypair

 

Brother Bob,
How are you doing? I believe he meant (or I hope he meant) denomination abbreviated.

Skypair, if you meant demon, you owe this man an apology. This is a true man of God, and you had no right.

 

In fairness, skypair said "what denom" are you from.
He didn't say demon.

 

:thumbs:

amen to that, bbob...most of them black brethren are good exhorters.

 

Don't you ever give up any of this stuff?? Why do you just keep blithely repeating it?? Even when a statement is shown to be a false statement?? I really do want to know.

Justin was never brought before any church council, good, bad, or indifferent, for teaching anything. (This is, I believe, the third time I have said this, FTR.) Nor were Polycarp, Tertullian, Papias, Irenaeus, Hippolytus, et al. brought before a church council.

There was, in fact, no major "church council", of any sort, between the Jerusalem council in Acts 15 of around 50 A.D., and the Council of Nicea in 325 A.D. That is a 275 year interval. (Justin was born in 100 A.D. and died in 165 A.D.) And even the next relatively minor one at Smyrna did not happen until 250 A.D., which was concerned with the rebaptism of heretics before being 're-received' into the local church.

Not even the presence of such notable heretics as Marcion, the Heretic, Simon Magus, Montanus, and Cerinthus, to name but four, nor the celebrated heresies of Gnosticism, Mithraism, and Sabellianism, to name but three, served to gather another church council. That would not happen until the teachings of Arius, where basically the teachings of those orthodox believers such as Papais, Tertullian, Ignatius, Hippolytus, Polycarp, and Justin and even Origen, were affirmed against those of Arius and some of his more extreme (than even he was) followers.

BTW, if you want a good example of modern day Arianism, consider the teachings of the Jehovah's Witnesses, as to the person of Jesus. Straight out of the playbook, 1700 years later! Jesus is the son of God, but not God, the Son, in their view, and less than God, the Father, in any 'JW' reckoning.

Historically, it (the Arain controversy and the Council of Nicea) was the difference between 'homoousias' and 'homoiousias'. Only one little Greek "iota subscript", the smallest of all the Greek letters (and only a third of the size in 'subscript' at that), of difference between the two. But exactly how big was that one little "iota"? The difference is whether Jesus was "of like nature (or essence)" as God, or only "of a similar nature (or substance)" as God. That's a pretty big difference, wouldn't you agree? The Nicea council declared Jesus to be "very God of very God", or one in essence with the Father, which is exactly who we believe He is.

Back to the point. It is well known, and easily found, for one who wishes to actually look it up, that the leading Apostolic and church fathers', when they did actually speak or write on this subject, mostly were all millenialists of one sort or another, except for Marcion, the Heretic, for the first two centuries A.D., and in fact, even some of those who were heretical in some areas, were in accord on this one, including Cerinthus, and Montanus, who were heretics, with those considered basically orthodox, such as Justin, Irenaeus, Papias, Hippolytus, and Tertullian, to name a few. Others are not as outspoken on this, including such as Igantius, and Polycarp.

Just to save myself further annoyance, (so as not to have to answer this when it will no doubt be tossed out, again) I'll mention, and yet once again, that Justin's "Apologies", the titles of his major works, are not written as "an apology" in the sense we would use the term today, but as Apologetics, in the sense of "a defense of the faith".

But it is ludicrous to keep on implying that these earliest "millenialists" were "brought before the church" when there was no such thing as a "church council" in operation, during any of their lifetimes.

One does not have to agree with what they taught [and be in "theological love" with one who is clearly a heretic (Marcion), and an Allegorist who would not even be born until 185 A.D. (Origen)] , but that alone does not give one any reason to attempt to re-write church history for a century and a half, after the Jerusalem Council!

BTW, none of this has anything to do with whether or not we are living under the New Covenant, FTR.

Ed

 

1. There were two strands of Chiliasm and Cerinthius is responsible for the perverted version:

"This doctrine was developed into what is called Chiliasm, which is basically the doctrine of so-called Premillenialism. Millennium is the term for a thousand years and there is also another term called a Chiliad and this also means a thousand years. But they were two separate terms. Chiliad was later applied to the doctrines of a thousand-year Millennium, which had excessive physical aspects to it. The Gnostics started to develop Chiliasm where there was an excessively physical and carnal form of living for the thousand years. It fell into disrepute because of the Gnostic writers."

2. In fact, Irenaeus and others, while being millennialists, were refuting the distortions of the Gnostics, who were promoting pleasures and nuptials festivals.

 

Denom - denomination, Bob. Sorry, I didn't even think about it the shortened form is used so much around here. :type: Anyway, what denomination am I dealing with in you?

I suppose by now you have noticed that there were "SOME" branches cut out -- not one.

Now, where were we?

skypair

 

All I can say at this point is the more you cite scripture, the more you err from the truth and I don't know how to discuss with your "wisdom."

I'm sorry. Maybe you will throw out a line" somewhere farther on that I can grab onto, but I'm afraid you're drifting too far from the "space station" for anyone to grab. :laugh:

skypair

 

Maybe, and maybe not. But the RCC find great solace in the writings of the ECF. So what does that prove? Perhaps it demonstrates that there might be more error than truth among their writings. Have you ever heard of progressive revelation or know what it is? Don't get me wrong. I believe that God stopped his revelation or that all revelation ceased when the Bible was complete. However as time "progresses" we learn more than those that have gone on before us for we can build on their knowledge and learning. Hindsight is better than foresight. Cyprian and others, for example, never had a Strong's concordance to study with. And Strong himself never had "Swordsearcher" or some other computer program. We have many things today that help us to study the Bible that those a few centuries ago never had. In fact before the advent of the printing press most everything was very difficult. We learn and build upon the foundation of the learning of others. No man is an island.

 

To whom addressed? "First Apology":

Entire translated text can be found here:

http://earlychristianwritings.com/text/justinmartyr-firstapology.html

"Second Apology" is addressed to the Roman Senate:

http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/text/justinmartyr-secondapology.html

Justin's third major surviving work is the "Dialogue with Trypho", which you mentioned above. However, you are misreading the intent of Justin, in this, IMO. As TCGreek has stated above correctly, there were at least two (and probably more) threads of 'Chiliaism' flloating around. Justin is arguing against the more extreme version, and not denying that there will be a 'literal kingdom'., at all.

Complete translated Text found here.

http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/text/justinmartyr-dialoguetrypho.html

Brother Bob, did you get all that, especially the three points emphasized? I'll help. First, one does not have to believe as I do (nor as Justin did) to be considered one with "true faith" and a "true Christian", as in the first part which I underlined. FTR, I am not defending Justin in all that He taught, for he was 'off' in some issues, clearly, IMO. But not here, in this dialogue. You and I do not agree in all aspects, yet I certainly consider you 'orthodox", as well. The tent is a bit larger than that, but it is not all inclusive. My above post mentioning Arianism is one example, and the teachings of Cerinthus of a sort of anti-nomian teaching of a sensous "neo-Gnosticism" is another example of some I will not allow my tent to ever be large enough to include.


Second, even in those days there were some known as "Baptists". Granted, the Baptists referred to were not as we know them today, being followers of those from John, and are probably of similar mind to those referred to in Acts 19:1-8, but I still found the reference interesting.

Third, I am still hoping you will soon join Justin, me, and others of like mind, in being one of those "right minded Christians on all points, who are assured that there will be a resurrection of the dead", but also assured that there will be "and a thousand years in Jerusalem, which wil then be built, adorned, and enlarged [as] the prophets Ezekiel, Isaiah, [John] and others declare." :thumbsup: :laugh: :laugh:

Ed

P.S. There are other writings of Justin that have apparently not survived, except in cites and quotes in other writings, such as ones referred back to in the "First Apology", "Dialogue with Trypho", and by Irenaeus in "Against All Heresies".