Bible contradictions

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Sorry, but it is true that the Catholic church was the first Christian denomination.

The truth of this statement depends quite a bit on what you mean by "the Catholic Church."

Yes, the current Catholic Church can trace its lineage back very early, but it's not like that early church would have had much similarity to the modern Catholic Church.

I mean, we're talking a few centuries before the Council of Nicea, so it's questionable how much those early Christians would have agreed with the Nicene Creed if they had known about it.

I think it's debatable how much any of them were even trinitarian.

 

[Anne1]

Never heard of Bower -- and the claim that Paul was not much a part of the Church of Jerusalem .. that gentile christians and Jewish Christians .. Judeo Christians were different sects is simply church History - no idea where you are getting this "One church Idea" That Peter and Paul were executed in Rome does not show there was not two Traditions .. call them the same church if you like .. but two very different sects .. the first two books Mark and Matt a function of the Judeo Tradition Luke Acts John the Pauline Tradition .. along with most of the rest of the Bible which is all Paul.

This is not something debated in serious circles .. A good example of one difference is adherence to Jewish Law .. but hearken unto James 2..

James Brother of Jesus is speaking to early Christians are preaching some "Faith Alone" ideology .. James has no use for this ideology calling this ideology Foolish .. Usless .. echoing Jesus who says the same at the end of the Sermon on the mount Matt 7. The emphasis on works puting one right with God .. no free pass through judgement.

Hi, I think you have not noticed the evidence I mentioned. By 95 AD there is the Bishop of Rome telling the church in Corinth what to do. There is not so much as a whisper that there are two types of Christians.

Luke Acts and John are indistinguishable from Matthew and Mark in belief, and have been regarded that way since the beginning, unless you can prove to the contrary.

Then, by 115 AD there is the Bishop of Antioch
See that you all follow the bishop, even as Jesus Christ does the Father, and the presbytery as you would the apostles; and reverence the deacons, as being the institution of God. Let no man do anything connected with the Church without the bishop. Let that be deemed a proper Eucharist, which is administered either by the bishop, or by one to whom he has entrusted it. Wherever the bishop shall appear, there, let the multitude of the people also be; even as wherever Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church. ((Letter to the Smyrnaeans, Chapter 8).

The churches he wrote to were clearly all in communion with the church in Rome.

Further, there is still one head Bishop of Rome/pope by the time of Marcion, when Marcion was expelled. The line in the sand was the Eucharist; those churches in the city who were in communion received the Eucharist, whereas Marcion and his followers were forbidden to take the Eucharist.

Where is there evidence of a second party of Christians, unless you want to count the later heretics?

As for the mention of works, surely that was an argument made during the Protestant Reformation. I see no evidence of it in early Christianity, unless you can present some letters or documents to that effect. i

 

[Anne1]

Here is your post with emphasis added ...



I was simply noting that they were wrong / they were right claim facts rather than propose articles of faith. Didn't you get that?

I am sorry if I was unclear or if I sounded sharp.

I hope I can explain more fully. The Christians were claiming they now had the full truth. Jesus Christ came, and revealed the truth that fulfilled Judaism, explained it, showed which truths in Judaism were right, and expanded the covenant to include all people on earth.

 

[Anne1]

The truth of this statement depends quite a bit on what you mean by "the Catholic Church."

Yes, the current Catholic Church can trace its lineage back very early, but it's not like that early church would have had much similarity to the modern Catholic Church.

I mean, we're talking a few centuries before the Council of Nicea, so it's questionable how much those early Christians would have agreed with the Nicene Creed if they had known about it.

I think it's debatable how much any of them were even trinitarian.

About the early Catholic Church. Have you read 1 Clement, written in 95 AD? Pretty clear to me the Bishop of Rome telling the church in Corinth, and repeating standard Catholic belief after Catholic belief, shows that the early Catholic Church existed.

The earliest creed is found in Paul 1 Cor 15 ”For what I received I passed on to you as of first importance: that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures, and that he appeared to Cephas, and then to the Twelve. After that, he appeared to more than five hundred of the brothers and sisters at the same time, most of whom are still living, though some have fallen asleep. Then he appeared to James, then to all the apostles, and last of all he appeared to me also, as to one abnormally born.”

There is much early evidence for the trinity. Among others: John 16:23, Romans 8:27, Romans 1:4, Cor 13:14,Ephesians 1-13, 1 These 1-3, John 14, 26, 16.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

About the early Catholic Church. Have you read 1 Clement, written in 95 AD? Pretty clear to me the Bishop of Rome telling the church in Corinth, and repeating standard Catholic belief after Catholic belief, shows that the early Catholic Church existed.

The earliest creed is found in Paul 1 Cor 15 ”For what I received I passed on to you as of first importance: that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures, and that he appeared to Cephas, and then to the Twelve. After that, he appeared to more than five hundred of the brothers and sisters at the same time, most of whom are still living, though some have fallen asleep. Then he appeared to James, then to all the apostles, and last of all he appeared to me also, as to one abnormally born.”

There is much early evidence for the trinity. Among others: John 16:23, Romans 8:27, Romans 1:4, Cor 13:14,Ephesians 1-13, 1 These 1-3, John 14, 26, 16.

I'm sure there was some proto-trinitarianism in the mix, but there would have been a diversity of beliefs in the early Church that isn't reflected in the modern Catholic Church.

I mean, most things that are considered "heresies" now were just part of the spectrum of Christian belief until Christianity got codified and institutionalized much later.

 

[Sargonski]

Hi, I think you have not noticed the evidence I mentioned. By 95 AD there is the Bishop of Rome telling the church in Corinth what to do. There is not so much as a whisper that there are two types of Christians.

Luke Acts and John are indistinguishable from Matthew and Mark in belief, and have been regarded that way since the beginning, unless you can prove to the contrary.

Then, by 115 AD there is the Bishop of Antioch
See that you all follow the bishop, even as Jesus Christ does the Father, and the presbytery as you would the apostles; and reverence the deacons, as being the institution of God. Let no man do anything connected with the Church without the bishop. Let that be deemed a proper Eucharist, which is administered either by the bishop, or by one to whom he has entrusted it. Wherever the bishop shall appear, there, let the multitude of the people also be; even as wherever Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church. ((Letter to the Smyrnaeans, Chapter 8).

The churches he wrote to were clearly all in communion with the church in Rome.

Further, there is still one head Bishop of Rome/pope by the time of Marcion, when Marcion was expelled. The line in the sand was the Eucharist; those churches in the city who were in communion received the Eucharist, whereas Marcion and his followers were forbidden to take the Eucharist.

Where is there evidence of a second party of Christians, unless you want to count the later heretics?

As for the mention of works, surely that was an argument made during the Protestant Reformation. I see no evidence of it in early Christianity, unless you can present some letters or documents to that effect. i

??? Good Clement comes to us 3 decades after the fall of the Temple of Jerusalem ~ 100 AD ... at that time there are not just more than one Church there are 10 or 20 different groups

Look -- in Acts we learn that the Church of Jesusalem is the church of the disciples --- founded and led by James .. brother of Jesus. We are told of interactions between the Church and Paul .. there is no interaction between the gentile churches founded by Paul and the Church of Jerusalem -- in on of the meetings . one of the topics of discussion is the fact that Jewish Christians are not even to eat at the same table as a gentile .. should their paths cross .. the Judeo Christians follow one set of rules .. the Pauline Christians another .. completely different theology .. this is all right in the Bible for anyone to read .. spelled out some detail in Acts. Paul's church is not the church of Jerusalem .. Jews - Gentiles .. who did not associate on a religious basis.

After the destruction of the temple .. the Church of Jerusalem disappears from the history books --the Pauline christians are the group left standing .. but Paul is now dead for quite some time and all kinds of other christian groups spring up by 100 AD .. these early church fathers spend most of their time trying to sort out one heresy from the next .. Clement is a letter to one of the main churches that existed .. in one part trying to convince them the resurrection is real ... using exampes from nature .. and the egyptian bird "The Pheonix" .. showing the cycle of death and rebirth .. the fellow has no knowledge of the physical resurrection stories we find in Matt .. perhaps these stories has not yet been added ? .. who knows .. it is a big time of transition.. ever since the destruction of the Temple .. now 30 years back .. the Pauline Church distances itself from the synagogue .. and anything Jewish .. even the OT .. the Jews are made pariah's on Roman society .. a heavy tax levied on them .. just for being Jewish .. Fiscus Judaicus" -- the Gospel of John which is composed around 100-120 AD - is very anti Jewish ... unlike the Gospels of Mark and Matt .. and so scholars separate the text along those lines Mark/Matt on one side .. everything else on the other. and of course the huge difference in theology .. Paul vs Jesus essentially ... later muddled further by Demon Lord Martin .. and his "Free Pass" ideology akd "Sola Fide"


ahem ?? You see no evidence of works based salvation formulation in Gospels Mark and Matt (early Christianity) or how about we be more specific and just say the Sermon on the Mount .. summing up early Christianity as far as Jesus is concerned ?

Once gain . you mean to say you see no evidence of works based salvation formulation in the Sermon on the Mount Matt 5-7 ? This gonna be a tough cross to hold up for very long.

 

[Dimi95]

About the early Catholic Church. Have you read 1 Clement, written in 95 AD? Pretty clear to me the Bishop of Rome telling the church in Corinth, and repeating standard Catholic belief after Catholic belief, shows that the early Catholic Church existed.

Order ? What orders ?


'The church of God which sojourns at Rome, to the church of God sojourning at Corinth, to them that are called and sanctified by the will of God, through our Lord Jesus Christ: Grace unto you, and peace, from Almighty God through Jesus Christ, be multiplied.

Owing, dear brethren, to the sudden and successive calamitous events which have happened to ourselves, we feel that we have been somewhat tardy in turning our attention to the points respecting which you consulted us;

 

[Dimi95]

As for the Orthodox Church itself, it is inextricably bound to the foundation of Constantinople.

What? Are you seriois?

There couldn't be an Orthodox bishop in Constantinople until it had been founded.

We don't have one Orthodox bishop , we have many as the Church had in the begining.

Bishop of Rome , Bishop of Antioch , Bishop of Alexandria , Bishop of Corinth , Bishop of Jerusalem etc etc..

Even now , the title in Orthodoxy is 'first among equals'.It is only a honorable title for the patriarch of Constantinople,nothing more.
But he is not infallible.

 

[Anne1]

I'm sure there was some proto-trinitarianism in the mix, but there would have been a diversity of beliefs in the early Church that isn't reflected in the modern Catholic Church.

I mean, most things that are considered "heresies" now were just part of the spectrum of Christian belief until Christianity got codified and institutionalized much later.

Trinity: Matthew 28:19 Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit,
What heresies became dogma?

 

[Anne1]

-- the Gospel of John which is composed around 100-120 AD - is very anti Jewish ... unlike the Gospels of Mark and Matt .. and so scholars separate the text along those lines Mark/Matt on one side .. everything else on the other. and of course the huge difference in theology .. Paul vs Jesus essentially ... later muddled further by Demon Lord Martin .. and his "Free Pass" ideology akd "Sola Fide"

Please elucidate. Name scholars.

 

[Anne1]

What? Are you seriois?


We don't have one Orthodox bishop , we have many as the Church had in the begining.

Bishop of Rome , Bishop of Antioch , Bishop of Alexandria , Bishop of Corinth , Bishop of Jerusalem etc etc..

Even now , the title in Orthodoxy is 'first among equals'.It is only a honorable title for the patriarch of Constantinople,nothing more.
But he is not infallible.

Yes that is how Orthodoxy has evolved. Are you a supporter of Patriarch Kyrill of Moscow or Patriarch Bartholomew?

For anyone out there who has never been, the Orthodox have the most beautiful liturgy in the world. It is truly a blessing to attend one of their services.

 

[Sargonski]

Please elucidate. Name scholars.

Elucidate on what ? --- Tell me of these doubts ... is it that John is more anti Jew than the Gospels Mark/Matt ?

Over 12 years ago Samuel Sandmel correctly observed, “John is widely regarded as either the most anti-Semitic or at least the most overtly anti-Semitic of the gospels.” Little has been done to ameliorate that harsh judgment since it was first written. While efforts have been made to soften the tone of the Gospel of John when it comes to Jews and Judaism, a reading of the Gospel tends to confirm Sandmel’s judgment.

John’s Anti-Jewish Polemic - The BAS Library

In the previous article, Professor Charlesworth calls the Gospel of John the most Jewish of the Gospels. This means, not that it is pro-Jewish or sympathetic to Jewish interests, but that it is by and about Jews acting in a Jewish environment. In fact, the Gospel of John is also probably the...

library.biblicalarchaeology.org

Is it the dating of John that troubles you or the authorship (not likly the disciple by that name) ? 90-120 AD Gospel of John

Or is it that after the destruction of the Temple ... things were rough for Jews .. and those associated with Jews .. and the Church distanced itself from Jews - the synagogue .. and Judaism in general. Part of a typical Sermon in the early second century is as follows --

"Be not deceived with strange doctrines, nor with old fables , which are unprofitable. For if we still live according to Jewish law, we acknowledge that we have not received grace… Christianity did not embrace Judaism but Judaism Christianity. If any one preach the Jewish law unto you, listen not to him. For it is better to hearken to Christian doctrine than to Judaism"

"These are not the doctrines of Church Reformers, Midievil Catholic Priests, or even of Constantine’s court. These instructions come from the earliest years of the post-Apostolic church around 107 C.E. To most Messianic believers this comes as a great shock. How did the church develop an understanding of itself that was so anti-Torah and so anti-Jewish so early in its development ?"

http://www.torahresource.com/EnglishArticles/Fiscus Judaicus.pdf

and you can read further modern scholarship at the link provided ..

and last ? -- what more would you like to know about Lord Martin and "Free Pass" ideology aka "Sola Fide" - Salvation by Faith alone ? and of course Lord Martin is the author of this work of one of the minions of the dark side. .. aka "Wolf in Sheeps Clothing" ... "The Bad Fruit that must be thrown into the fire" .. according to Lord Jesus.

 

[Soapy]

Trinity: Matthew 28:19 Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit,
What heresies became dogma?

Well, Matthew 28:19 certainly is not true.

There was never a command, instruction, rule, of law from Jesus to baptise in the name of the Father. And for sure, there is no baptism in ‘the name’ of the Spirit of God since the Spirit of Hod is just that: The SPIRIT of God… which is The Spirit of the Father (i.e. the same Spirit since God IS the Father and The Father IS God … ‘THE ONLY TRUE GOD’.

Can you produce a verse from the Bible scriptures where anyone baptised in ‘the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the ‘Holy Spirit’.

 

[Kathryn]

Do you stand the whole time in an Orthodox service? Or most of the time?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Do you stand the whole time in an Orthodox service? Or most of the time?

Depends on the specific church. Some Orthodox churches don't even have pews.