• Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!

The Catholic Church can't be THE Church because...

Status
Not open for further replies.

Matt Black

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
The Apocrypha was only rejected by the Jews in the post-Temple period (Jamnia/Yavneh). Therefore what the Bereans were reading included the Apocrypha. Are you sure you still want to commend their example?
 

annsni

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Thinkingstuff said:
Sorry your wrong. When Paul spoke about the scriptures they were talking about the LXX because that was the one in use. I referrenced Jude because it is obvious he takes passages from the Assumption of Moses and 1 Enoch which are not Canon. The first several hundred years of christianity used the books which are in the LXX (which includes the apocrypha) OT canon had not been established by the earliest christians as yet. The Protestant Bible which we all use follows the Jewish scholars canon (they didn't call it that but had the same import) contains 39 books of the OT which you are familiar with in AD 70. It is strange though that they did not follow the Jewish scholars organization of the OT but the LXX. That says something. It is evident from early christian writings that they used the LXX (apostles and bishops) because quotes from the OT are done in greek which is the translation of the LXX. The first bible canon was with the Apocrypha. Even the earliest protestant bibles contained the apocrhypha though as an appendix. (including the KJB) But it was taken out in the 1800's. So the eveidence is that the Bareans were using the LXX which included the apocryphal books.


I'm sorry but there is no evidence that the Apocrypha was included in the LXX before the 4th century. Josephus (30AD to 100AD) speaks a lot of the OT yet specifically mentions just 22 books (which includes our 39 books but many are combined such as both Kings, Samuel and Chronicles, the 12 minor prophets, and Ezra/Nehemiah. Jesus Himself spoke of the "Law of Moses, the prophets and psalms" (Luke 24:44 ). Many others of that time period confirm this - that there were 3 parts to the OT and many named them. This would include Sirach, Philo, Origen, Jerome and even the Counsel of Jamnia. We have no evidence of the LXX containing the Apocrypha before the 4th century.

As for Jude, in the "Assumption of Moses", we have no manuscript evidence that what we ascribe to it was actually in that book. It is most likely that what Jude wrote was historical and he put down the facts of that. Reading Zechariah 3:1-2 sheds some light onto the subject, IMO.

And for the "Assumption of Enoch", the book of Enoch is even questioned as to when it was written. It is quite probable that Jude is older than the book of Enoch. Besides which, even wrong books have some truth to it. So both the book of Enoch and Jude having similar statements doesn't mean that the book of Enoch is canon - and since the Jews didn't accept it as such, we shouldn't either.
 

Bro. James

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Apocryphal books notwithstanding, the Word of God commends the Bereans for checking out the doctrine in the scripture. This would certainly seem a good example for those who followed them even to today. What they had in their library beside scripture is irrelevant. The Word of God is infallible and is like a two-edged sword which the Holy Spirit uses to get to the seat of our secrets to show us what we really are: depraved, lost, that without remedy--of ourselves. We could join and get baptized in every church in the world--and still go to hell. Now what?

Do we really understand the power of the Holy Spirit bearing witness to the Word of God? We seem to make light of this promise which was fulfilled at Pentecost, abiding even through toay. God's people have never had to have a council nor conclave to determine what the Scripture might say. God's people are preserved and guided by the Holy Spirit through The Word and the power of God.

Who will be able to stand?

What's in your wallet?

Selah,

Bro. James
 

Agnus_Dei

New Member
Bro. James said:
God's people have never had to have a council nor conclave to determine what the Scripture might say. God's people are preserved and guided by the Holy Spirit through The Word and the power of God.

Who will be able to stand?

What's in your wallet?
Hmmm, except that pesky little Council recorded in Acts 1 that determined what Psalm 69:25 and Psalm 109:8 might say about replacing Judas...

I know what's in my wallet...maybe you should know what's in yours...

ICXC NIKA
-
 

Zenas

Active Member
annsni said:
I'm sorry but there is no evidence that the Apocrypha was included in the LXX before the 4th century. Josephus (30AD to 100AD) speaks a lot of the OT yet specifically mentions just 22 books (which includes our 39 books but many are combined such as both Kings, Samuel and Chronicles, the 12 minor prophets, and Ezra/Nehemiah. Jesus Himself spoke of the "Law of Moses, the prophets and psalms" (Luke 24:44 ). Many others of that time period confirm this - that there were 3 parts to the OT and many named them. This would include Sirach, Philo, Origen, Jerome and even the Counsel of Jamnia. We have no evidence of the LXX containing the Apocrypha before the 4th century.
Annsni, I'm curious where you got this information because I have never heard of this. Everything I have read says the apocryphal books were written in and around Alexandria during the last two centuries B.C., and they were an integral part of the LXX.
 

Doubting Thomas

Active Member
annsni said:
I'm sorry but there is no evidence that the Apocrypha was included in the LXX before the 4th century.
Where did you hear that from? Early Christians such as Polycarp, Irenaeus and Tertullian (among others) quote from the Deuterocanonicals from the LXX as Scripture making no distinction from the other OT books. Noted Church historian JND Kelly in his book Early Christian Doctrines demonstrates that the Hellenistic Jews of the Diaspora had a bulkier bible than the Palestinian Jews, as they included all of the books of the LXX included the DCs. This larger OT passed into early Christian usage and there are no recorded doubts about their status until Melito of Sardis (who had contacts with Palestinian Jews) in the late second century.

And for the "Assumption of Enoch", the book of Enoch is even questioned as to when it was written. It is quite probable that Jude is older than the book of Enoch. .
Most scholars I've read believe that the first part of the book of Enoch, from which Jude quoted, was from the 2nd century BC. Having read that part of 1 Enoch (I have a copy at home), I can tell you Jude quotes it verbatim in verse 14 and 15 of his epistle.
 

Bro. James

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
By councils and conclaves is meant what was born at Nicea in 325 A.D., called by the Emperor of Rome, the Pontifex Maximus, aka Constantine the Great. There were others later on, called to expose heresy so they say, to re-establish the orthodoxy. Just who the heretics were is not readily apparent. Then came the inquisitions. Recant or die. Many refused to bow to Rome. They were burned, sawn assunder, drowned and beheaded; their unbaptized children thrown to their deaths at the behest of the "holy see." Now what? The Vatican has apologized profusely in recent years--that does not change the facts.

The first chapter in the Book of Acts is a scriptural example of a church business meeting, having no resemblence to the proceedings from Rome and other places for over 1200 years.

We ought to obey God rather than men.

Selah,

Bro. James
 

Agnus_Dei

New Member
Bro. James said:
By councils and conclaves is meant what was born at Nicea in 325 A.D., called by the Emperor of Rome, the Pontifex Maximus, aka Constantine the Great. There were others later on, called to expose heresy so they say, to re-establish the orthodoxy. Just who the heretics were is not readily apparent. Then came the inquisitions. Recant or die. Many refused to bow to Rome. They were burned, sawn assunder, drowned and beheaded; their unbaptized children thrown to their deaths at the behest of the "holy see." Now what? The Vatican has apologized profusely in recent years--that does not change the facts.
Keep your eye on your wallet Bro. James, show me in history where any of these acts were a result of any of the first Seven Ecumenical Councils of the Early Church. All persecutions of the Early Church were of pagan nature and granted many Early Fathers were skeptical of the Roman (not catholic Church, b/c there was no "Roman" Catholic Church) Emperor, still they saw this period as a great awaking of the Church. Finally the Church persevered and now was able to worship and finally grow the Church free from persecution and address many heresies openly...hence the Ecumenical Councils.

These acts you specifically mentioned are not the result of the Early Ecumenical Councils, but were the result of the Protestant Reformation at the hands of the Western Roman Catholic Church well after the split in 1054. And don't forget the Eastern Orthodox Church suffered just as much during the Crusades at the hands of the West. The Eastern Church suffered and continues to suffer under Moslem rule to this day, all but one See is under Moslem rule. Not to mention the conservative 4 million Russian Orthodox Christians that perished at the hands of Communist Russia.

So let's stop with the exaggeration of the facts and realize that the Early Ecumenical Councils are Biblical and are modeled after the Council in Acts. If you want to reduce Church to a business as you put it, then that's solely your opinion.

ICXC NIKA
-
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Bro. James

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
The early persecution of New Testament Churches was done by the Jews, with Saul of Tarsus leading the way. The Lord turned him around on the road to Damascus. Paul was persecuted by the Jews and killed by the Romans.

Not sure what you mean about the Western Roman Church. Are you saying they are basically apostate after the 4th century, with the Eastern-Orthodox having the real key for the right lock? I am still trying to understand some of this ecclessiastic, legalistic mambo jambo. There is a group who say Vatican II was unauthorized and that the Holy See has been usurped by heretics. What say you?

Are you saying that the council of Nicea was not called by the Roman Emperor, Constantine?

Shalom,

Bro. James
 
Last edited by a moderator:

David Lamb

Well-Known Member
Agnus_Dei said:
LOL David, read my post again…I never stated you or your parents were “Baptist”, only that I was raised a “Baptist”.
-
Sorry, Agnus, if I misunderstood. But you did write, "Since you were knee high to a grasshopper you were taught what to believe", which I thought meant, especially in view of what you had previously posted, that what I believe now is a result of what I was taught in my childhood.
Agnus_Dei said:
As a kid YOU were taught what to believe, you just admitted it…But I highly doubt you suddenly read the Bible and poof, realized that the Baptist Church was the Church, without first having a sense of Baptist Theology or having someone greatly influence you. Something wasn’t sitting well with you as an Anglican that set you on your journey. The same applies to me as a former Baptist now Orthodox Christian.
In XC
-
No, I didn't "first have a sense of baptist theology" - indeed, at that time I had very little idea of the theology of the various groupings within the non-conformist denominations. But when I started attending services of a baptist church, I found that for everything they believed and did, they gave scriptural support. (I am not saying that every baptist church operates that way, or that no church that is not baptist seeks to use the bible as its final authority). And no one exerted even the smallest inflence on me to go to, and become a member of, a baptist church. Indeed, I did not even know any baptists before going to a baptist church.
 

Agnus_Dei

New Member
Bro. James said:
The early persecution of New Testament Churches was done by the Jews, with Saul of Tarsus leading the way. The Lord turned him around on the road to Damascus. Paul was persecuted by the Jews and killed by the Romans.

Bro. James said:
Are you saying that the council of Nicea was not called by the Roman Emperor, Constantine?

Not at all, its fact that Constantine called the first Council due to heresy that was running amuck in the Church, namely Arianism.

A note on Constantine, sure he persecuted the early Church, just as Saul (Paul) did in Acts…both had a conversion experience and both Constantine and Paul were a little un-trust worthy at first.

Bro. James said:
Not sure what you mean about the Western Roman Church.
There was a split in 1054…the Patriarchate of Rome essentially excommunicated herself from the remaining four (4) Patriarchates of Constantinople, Alexandria, Antioch and Jerusalem. Thus, the year 1054 is the year scholars tag as being the official split,that resulted in the Western and Eastern Church…being the Roman Catholic Church in the West and the Eastern Orthodox Church.

Bro. James said:
Are you saying they are basically apostate after the 4th century,
It’s my determination that yes, the Patriarchate of Rome is Apostate and sadly seeing herself cut away from the Truth, we see many erroneous doctrines seep into the Western Church…Papal Infallibility, Purgatory, Immaculate Conception of Mary to name a few. We see a new view develop concerning Sacramental Theology. We see the Doctrine of Original Sin develop in which the Reformers built upon and developed farther.

Bro. James said:
…with the Eastern-Orthodox having the real key for the right lock?
Basically yes. I didn’t leave the Baptist Church and eventually become an Eastern Orthodox Christian for nothing.

Bro. James said:
There is a group who say Vatican II was unauthorized and that the Holy See has been usurped by heretics. What say you?
Vatican II has no bearing on the Eastern Orthodox Church, nor is the Eastern Church concerned with what councils Rome convenes. Many Roman Catholics have left and continue to leave Catholicism due to Vatican II.

And yes, some monastic’s, especially on Mount Athos would say that the Patriarchate of Rome is usurped by heretics.

As for myself, I had many choices within Protestantism in addition to Roman Catholicism or Eastern Orthodoxy. God granted me the patience of four years to prayerfully discern the right path for me to lead my family and He showed me the way.

PS. If you are still having issues using the “quote” function, I’d be happy to show you an easy way I use the function.

In XC
-
 

Bro. James

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
That is a very edifying testimony Bro. Lamb. I like the one in scripture where the man born blind was given sight by Jesus. The man told the Pharisees he knew not how but he once was blind but now sees. The man also gave the credit to Jesus.

I was born and raised through age 12 under the pervue of the "holy see". Yet the marriage from which I resulted was annulled when I was less than a year old. I guess I must be a phantom. Wandered in the wilderness for forty years, following: John Wesley, Joseph Smith Jr., Mary Baker, Glover, Patterson, Eddy, etal,--all false religionists.

Then I heard the real gospel. Jesus paid the price I could not pay.
"you shall know the truth, the truth will make you free".

"Lord help me Jesus, I have wasted it so..."

Have a blessed day,

Bro. James
 

Bro. James

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Yes, I need a step/step direction for quoting.

Back to history class: Constantine the Great, 4th century Czar of Rome, born to pagan parents, died a pagan, says he has a divine vision. He favors a religious group some call Christian. He moves his government and religion to Constantinople (Istanbul, Turkey today) in his lifetime. Now we have East and West. What was this relationship in the next 700 years? Are we saying the big schism did not occur until 1054? What was the substance of this schism?

I visited, circa 1975 A.D., an Eastern Orthodox meeting house in Antokya, Turkey, near the birthplace of Saul of Tarsus. The only difference I noted between East and West was more icons and bones of dead men--in the East--it certainly was an awesome sight. What this has to do with true, undefiled religion is not readily apparent.

Selah,

Got to toil in the vineyard.

Selah,

Bro. James
 

mrtumnus

New Member
Alive in Christ, this is a response to your post back on page 21 -- #205, requesting a scripture that indicates once saved all our sins, past, present and future are forgiven. What I see are many scriptures testifying to the faithfulness of God. Yet there are even more scriptures that warn us to be concerned about our own faithfulness. The question is not whether God will keep us securely; the question is whether we can still choose to break away from that security. Scripture certainly supports that we can. And the only Scripture I have yet to find regarding forgiveness of sins in terms of any placement in time is the one from Peter regarding our “past” sins having been cleansed.

You must be aware that in terms of belief about eternal security and OSAS – those who profess a “Bible-alone” stance fall pretty equally on both sides of the issue, correct? From what I can tell, Southern Baptists, Presbyterians and Pentecostals take the position that salvation cannot be lost. Lutherans, General Baptists, Free Will Baptists, Church of Christ take the position that it can be. Independent Baptists seem to generally fall with the OSAS but not always I have found, and this seems to depend more on the views of the individual pastor. The Calvary Chapel folks seem to put themselves right in the middle. To be frank, this particular issue is the one that drove home for me the authority that is placed in the church, because so many people interpret scripture so differently on something that is hardly less than essential.

To state that the multitude of verses that speak of losing one salvation all really mean that one never really was ‘saved’ contradicts the words themselves. Jesus himself says that there are those ‘in him’ who will be cut out for not bearing fruit. He tells his beloved apostles to “remain” in him. The Bible is clear that those who are ‘in Christ’ are those who are saved. Paul follows up with this analogy and speaks to those of us who are branches who have been ‘grafted in’ and may later be removed. Jesus says that there are those who ‘believe for a while and then fall away’. If the standard for salvation is ‘belief’ – Jesus did not say there are those who ‘pretend to believe for a while’, or ‘think they believe for a while’ but really don’t. And if they truly were never believers, there is nothing to ‘fall away’ from. It also denies that the many admonitions from Peter and Paul to remain firm were being written to those who were already 'believers', not those they were trying to convert.

One cannot ignore that salvation is spoken of in Scripture in all 3 tenses – been saved, being saved, will be saved. My thoughts (and I do think for myself) is that one of the Screwtape letters by CS Lewis explains why. The master devil is instructing the junior tempter to make sure that his project always seeks to live in the past or the future, but never the present. Why? Because the present is the only moment we have that touches eternity and we can truly live in God. We truly are saved in the present moment of grace and our eternal security is assured. In this present moment. This is why Jesus taught us to ask our father for our ‘daily bread’. Everything we need to sustain us in this present moment.

In my next post I am going to provide some of the many scriptures that support that we must indeed ‘stand firm’ to the end for our salvation to be secure, and that it is indeed possible to fall away and be cut off from the vine.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

mrtumnus

New Member
Scriptures that indicate salvation can be lost:

John 15:1-10 "I am the true vine, and my Father is the gardener. He cuts off every branch in me that bears no fruit, while every branch that does bear fruit he prunes so that it will be even more fruitful. You are already clean because of the word I have spoken to you. Remain in me, and I will remain in you. No branch can bear fruit by itself; it must remain in the vine. Neither can you bear fruit unless you remain in me. "I am the vine; you are the branches. If a man remains in me and I in him, he will bear much fruit; apart from me you can do nothing. If anyone does not remain in me, he is like a branch that is thrown away and withers; such branches are picked up, thrown into the fire and burned. If you remain in me and my words remain in you, ask whatever you wish, and it will be given you. This is to my Father's glory, that you bear much fruit, showing yourselves to be my disciples. "As the Father has loved me, so have I loved you. Now remain in my love. If you obey my commands, you will remain in my love, just as I have obeyed my Father's commands and remain in his love.


Romans 11:17-24 If some of the branches have been broken off, and you, though a wild olive shoot, have been grafted in among the others and now share in the nourishing sap from the olive root, do not boast over those branches. If you do, consider this: You do not support the root, but the root supports you. You will say then, "Branches were broken off so that I could be grafted in." Granted. But they were broken off because of unbelief, and you stand by faith. Do not be arrogant, but be afraid. For if God did not spare the natural branches, he will not spare you either. Consider therefore the kindness and sternness of God: sternness to those who fell, but kindness to you, provided that you continue in his kindness. Otherwise, you also will be cut off. And if they do not persist in unbelief, they will be grafted in, for God is able to graft them in again. After all, if you were cut out of an olive tree that is wild by nature, and contrary to nature were grafted into a cultivated olive tree, how much more readily will these, the natural branches, be grafted into their own olive tree!


2 Peter 1:9-11 But if anyone does not have them, he is nearsighted and blind, and has forgotten that he has been cleansed from his past sins. Therefore, my brothers, be all the more eager to make your calling and election sure. For if you do these things, you will never fall, and you will receive a rich welcome into the eternal kingdom of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ.

1 Cor 10:12 So, if you think you are standing firm, be careful that you don't fall!

1 Cor 15:1-2 Now, brothers, I want to remind you of the gospel I preached to you, which you received and on which you have taken your stand. By this gospel you are saved, if you hold firmly to the word I preached to you. Otherwise, you have believed in vain.

1 John 2:28 And now, dear children, continue in him, so that when he appears we may be confident and unashamed before him at his coming.

1 Thess 5:8 But since we belong to the day, let us be self-controlled, putting on faith and love as a breastplate, and the hope of salvation as a helmet.

1 Tim 4:1 The Spirit clearly says that in later times some will abandon the faith and follow deceiving spirits and things taught by demons.

1 Tim 4:16 Watch your life and doctrine closely. Persevere in them, because if you do, you will save both yourself and your hearers.

1 Tim 5:15 Some have in fact already turned away to follow Satan

1 Tim 6:10 For the love of money is a root of all kinds of evil. Some people, eager for money, have wandered from the faith and pierced themselves with many griefs.

2 Cor 2:15 For we are to God the aroma of Christ among those who are being saved and those who are perishing.

2 Cor 6:1 As God's fellow workers we urge you not to receive God's grace in vain.

2 Cor 11:2-3 I am jealous for you with a godly jealousy. I promised you to one husband, to Christ, so that I might present you as a pure virgin to him. But I am afraid that just as Eve was deceived by the serpent's cunning, your minds may somehow be led astray from your sincere and pure devotion to Christ.

2 John 1:8-9 Watch out that you do not lose what you have worked for, but that you may be rewarded fully. Anyone who runs ahead and does not continue in the teaching of Christ does not have God; whoever continues in the teaching has both the Father and the Son.

Hebrews 10:20-22 If we deliberately keep on sinning after we have received the knowledge of the truth, no sacrifice for sins is left, but only a fearful expectation of judgment and of raging fire that will consume the enemies of God. Anyone who rejected the law of Moses died without mercy on the testimony of two or three witnesses. How much more severely do you think a man deserves to be punished who has trampled the Son of God under foot, who has treated as an unholy thing the blood of the covenant that sanctified him, and who has insulted the Spirit of grace? For we know him who said, "It is mine to avenge; I will repay," and again, "The Lord will judge his people." It is a dreadful thing to fall into the hands of the living God. Remember those earlier days after you had received the light, when you stood your ground in a great contest in the face of suffering. Sometimes you were publicly exposed to insult and persecution; at other times you stood side by side with those who were so treated. You sympathized with those in prison and joyfully accepted the confiscation of your property, because you knew that you yourselves had better and lasting possessions. So do not throw away your confidence; it will be richly rewarded. You need to persevere so that when you have done the will of God, you will receive what he has promised.

2 Peter 3:16-17 He writes the same way in all his letters, speaking in them of these matters. His letters contain some things that are hard to understand, which ignorant and unstable people distort, as they do the other Scriptures, to their own destruction. Therefore, dear friends, since you already know this, be on your guard so that you may not be carried away by the error of lawless men and fall from your secure position.

2 Tim 2:11-13 Here is a trustworthy saying: If we died with him, we will also live with him; if we endure, we will also reign with him. If we disown him, he will also disown us; if we are faithless, he will remain faithful, for he cannot disown himself.

Acts 13:43 When the congregation was dismissed, many of the Jews and devout converts to Judaism followed Paul and Barnabas, who talked with them and urged them to continue in the grace of God.

Colossians 1:22-23 But now he has reconciled you by Christ's physical body through death to present you holy in his sight, without blemish and free from accusation-- if you continue in your faith, established and firm, not moved from the hope held out in the gospel. This is the gospel that you heard and that has been proclaimed to every creature under heaven, and of which I, Paul, have become a servant.

Colossians 2:18-19 Do not let anyone who delights in false humility and the worship of angels disqualify you for the prize. Such a person goes into great detail about what he has seen, and his unspiritual mind puffs him up with idle notions. He has lost connection with the Head, from whom the whole body, supported and held together by its ligaments and sinews, grows as God causes it to grow.

Galatians 5:4-5 You who are trying to be justified by law have been alienated from Christ; you have fallen away from grace. But by faith we eagerly await through the Spirit the righteousness for which we hope.

Hebrews 3:6 But Christ is faithful as a son over God's house. And we are his house, if we hold on to our courage and the hope of which we boast.

Hebrews 3:12-14 See to it, brothers, that none of you has a sinful, unbelieving heart that turns away from the living God. But encourage one another daily, as long as it is called Today, so that none of you may be hardened by sin's deceitfulness. We have come to share in Christ if we hold firmly till the end the confidence we had at first.

Hebrews 6:4-12 It is impossible for those who have once been enlightened, who have tasted the heavenly gift, who have shared in the Holy Spirit, who have tasted the goodness of the word of God and the powers of the coming age, if they fall away, to be brought back to repentance, because to their loss they are crucifying the Son of God all over again and subjecting him to public disgrace. Land that drinks in the rain often falling on it and that produces a crop useful to those for whom it is farmed receives the blessing of God. But land that produces thorns and thistles is worthless and is in danger of being cursed. In the end it will be burned. Even though we speak like this, dear friends, we are confident of better things in your case--things that accompany salvation. God is not unjust; he will not forget your work and the love you have shown him as you have helped his people and continue to help them. We want each of you to show this same diligence to the very end, in order to make your hope sure. We do not want you to become lazy, but to imitate those who through faith and patience inherit what has been promised.
 

mrtumnus

New Member
And more....

James 1:12 Blessed is the man who perseveres under trial, because when he has stood the test, he will receive the crown of life that God has promised to those who love him.


Luke 8:11-13 "This is the meaning of the parable: The seed is the word of God. Those along the path are the ones who hear, and then the devil comes and takes away the word from their hearts, so that they may not believe and be saved. Those on the rock are the ones who receive the word with joy when they hear it, but they have no root. They believe for a while, but in the time of testing they fall away.

Luke 15:32 But we had to celebrate and be glad, because this brother of yours was dead and is alive again; he was lost and is found.'"

Mark 13:13 All men will hate you because of me, but he who stands firm to the end will be saved.

Matthew 10:22 All men will hate you because of me, but he who stands firm to the end will be saved.

Matthew 24:12-13 Because of the increase of wickedness, the love of most will grow cold, but he who stands firm to the end will be saved.

Phil 2:12-13 Therefore, my dear friends, as you have always obeyed--not only in my presence, but now much more in my absence--continue to work out your salvation with fear and trembling, for it is God who works in you to will and to act according to his good purpose.

Phil 3:10-14 I want to know Christ and the power of his resurrection and the fellowship of sharing in his sufferings, becoming like him in his death, and so, somehow, to attain to the resurrection from the dead. Not that I have already obtained all this, or have already been made perfect, but I press on to take hold of that for which Christ Jesus took hold of me. Brothers, I do not consider myself yet to have taken hold of it. But one thing I do: Forgetting what is behind and straining toward what is ahead, I press on toward the goal to win the prize for which God has called me heavenward in Christ Jesus.


Romans 13:11 And do this, understanding the present time. The hour has come for you to wake up from your slumber, because our salvation is nearer now than when we first believed.

Titus 1:1-2 Paul, a servant of God and an apostle of Jesus Christ for the faith of God's elect and the knowledge of the truth that leads to godliness-- a faith and knowledge resting on the hope of eternal life, which God, who does not lie, promised before the beginning of time,

Titus 3:4-7 But when the kindness and love of God our Savior appeared, he saved us, not because of righteous things we had done, but because of his mercy. He saved us through the washing of rebirth and renewal by the Holy Spirit, whom he poured out on us generously through Jesus Christ our Savior, so that, having been justified by his grace, we might become heirs having the hope of eternal life.
 

Agnus_Dei

New Member
Bro. James said:
Yes, I need a step/step direction for quoting.
I’ll PM you later today or tomorrow… Do you have Microsoft Word? I can send you a step by step Word Document free of charge. PM me your email or I can try and walk you through it though PM's...whatever works best for you.
Bro. James said:
Back to history class: Constantine the Great, 4th century Czar of Rome, born to pagan parents, died a pagan, says he has a divine vision. He favors a religious group some call Christian. He moves his government and religion to Constantinople (Istanbul, Turkey today) in his lifetime. Now we have East and West.
Still no Eastern Church or Western Church as we know it today, once Istanbul became threaten by Islam, back to the safe haven of Rome they went.
Bro. James said:
What was this relationship in the next 700 years?
Depends on the Emperor at the time, some favored Christianity, some didn’t…the Persians persecuted the Church relentlessly.
Bro. James said:
Are we saying the big schism did not occur until 1054? What was the substance of this schism?
Again, 1054 is the year scholars tag as the defining year of the Schism, due to the Bull of excommunication.

A little unknown fact, is that the Bishop of Rome that issued the Bull actually died before the Bull could be delivered to the Bishop of Constantinople...mail ran slow in 1054...so actually the Bull became voided at his death.

Actually cracks started a lot earlier. Culture, language (Latin, Greek), the Churches in the East were being constantly threatened by Islam. But the addition to the Creed by Rome and the Bishop of Rome starting to exhort his perceived authority on the other Patriarchates, didn’t sit too well. But still relations between Rome and the other Patriarchates were favorable.

The straw that broke the camels back were the two Sackings of Constantinople at the hands of the Crusaders.
Bro. James said:
I visited, circa 1975 A.D., an Eastern Orthodox meeting house in Antokya, Turkey, near the birthplace of Saul of Tarsus. The only difference I noted between East and West was more icons and bones of dead men--in the East--it certainly was an awesome sight.
I also visited a Monastery in Sinai, Egypt in 1994 while in the Navy and witnessed the same…icons and relics and as a young Sailor thought how could people separate themselves from the outside world…honestly I was looking for the bar…But I did see the “Burning Bush” and drink the waters from the well God gave Moses.

The differences you see are visual, as I said earlier; there are many differences under the surface…Liturgy, Sacramental theology…

In XC
-
 

Thinkingstuff

Active Member
Bro. James said:
By councils and conclaves is meant what was born at Nicea in 325 A.D., called by the Emperor of Rome, the Pontifex Maximus, aka Constantine the Great. There were others later on, called to expose heresy so they say, to re-establish the orthodoxy. Just who the heretics were is not readily apparent. Then came the inquisitions. Recant or die. Many refused to bow to Rome. They were burned, sawn assunder, drowned and beheaded; their unbaptized children thrown to their deaths at the behest of the "holy see." Now what? The Vatican has apologized profusely in recent years--that does not change the facts.

The first chapter in the Book of Acts is a scriptural example of a church business meeting, having no resemblence to the proceedings from Rome and other places for over 1200 years.

We ought to obey God rather than men.

Selah,

Bro. James

First of all this is just not true. If you want to blame someone for the 1st eccuminical council you have your choice between Arius, Alexander, Ossius (spelling?) the bishop of Cordoba. Actually just before Nicea a synod at Antioch already anathemized Arius. Constantine wanting to have christianity unite to keep peace in the empire but it was the bishops who did so not Constantine. I believe the the bishop of Cordoba probably had more to do with things than Constantine.
It is a myth to believe the trail of blood. There is no evidence of a coinciding church that resembled baptist churches progressing through history outside of the mentioned churches. There were gnostics and other heresies but christiandome was united before Constantine. I actually challenge anyone to show proof of a church before the 4th century that was not using a Liturgy or practicing the "sacraments". If you follow the trail of blood then you associate yourselves with heretics. Sorry it is just the truth.
 

Thinkingstuff

Active Member
annsni said:
I'm sorry but there is no evidence that the Apocrypha was included in the LXX before the 4th century. Josephus (30AD to 100AD) speaks a lot of the OT yet specifically mentions just 22 books (which includes our 39 books but many are combined such as both Kings, Samuel and Chronicles, the 12 minor prophets, and Ezra/Nehemiah. Jesus Himself spoke of the "Law of Moses, the prophets and psalms" (Luke 24:44 ). Many others of that time period confirm this - that there were 3 parts to the OT and many named them. This would include Sirach, Philo, Origen, Jerome and even the Counsel of Jamnia. We have no evidence of the LXX containing the Apocrypha before the 4th century.

As for Jude, in the "Assumption of Moses", we have no manuscript evidence that what we ascribe to it was actually in that book. It is most likely that what Jude wrote was historical and he put down the facts of that. Reading Zechariah 3:1-2 sheds some light onto the subject, IMO.

And for the "Assumption of Enoch", the book of Enoch is even questioned as to when it was written. It is quite probable that Jude is older than the book of Enoch. Besides which, even wrong books have some truth to it. So both the book of Enoch and Jude having similar statements doesn't mean that the book of Enoch is canon - and since the Jews didn't accept it as such, we shouldn't either.

This is not accurate. There is all sorts of evidence showing the use of the apocrypha with in church use back to 90 AD. Actual evidence. The statements made here are to push an agenda that history does not bare out.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top