1st Cen. Christianity - One Organization

by StandFirm 144 Replies latest watchtower beliefs

• 

  ProdigalSon

  maksym:Secondly, the books of the New Testament were not canonized and recognized by the Apostolic church until close to the end of the 4th century. The Church came together through Holy Tradition. Those Traditions were handed down from the Apostles and then later to the Bishops. The Bible is even clear on this at 2 Thess 2:14. The New Testament gives us therefore a “history” of how the church functioned to some extent but that format came about before the New Testament books were identified as Holy and inspired for all. The Church actually came before the New Testament.

  First of all, do you have any evidence of this alleged "spiritual osmosis", such as a consistent canon down through those first three centuries?

  Secondly, you are here admitting that the Church- CONSTANTINE'S CHURCH... came BEFORE the New Testament. (Ever seen Constantine's Bio?) So, they get to back up their own bullshit with "Inspired Scripture" AFTER THEY MAKE IT UP!! And we're supposed to believe this is HOLY TRADITION?

  Here's an interesting little excerpt from "The Christian Scheme" by Blavatsky....

  Magic in the Church

  http://www.blavatsky.net/magazine/theosophy/ww/additional/christianity/MagicInTheChurch.html

  We must not forget that the Christian Church owes its present canonical Gospels, and hence its whole religious dogmatism, to the Sortes Sanctorum. Unable to agree as to which were the most divinely-inspired of the numerous gospels extant in its time, the mysterious Council of Nicea concluded to leave the decision of the puzzling question to miraculous intervention. This Nicean Council may well be called mysterious. There was a mystery, first, in the mystical number of its 318 bishops, on which Barnabas (viii, 11, 12, 13) lays such a stress; added to this, there is no agreement among ancient writers as to the time and place of its assembly, nor even as to the bishop who presided. Notwithstanding the grandiloquent eulogium of Constantine, Sabinus, the Bishop of Heraclea, affirms that "except Constantine, the emperor, and Eusebius Pamphilus, these bishops were a set of illiterate, simple creatures, that understood nothing;" which is equivalent to saying that they were a set of fools. Such was apparently the opinion entertained of them by Pappus, who tells us of the bit of magic resorted to to decide which were the true gospels. In his Synodicon to that Council Pappus says, having "promiscuously put all the books that were referred to the Council for determination under a communion-table in a church, they (the bishops) besought the Lord that the inspired writings might get upon the table, while the spurious ones remained underneath, and it happened accordingly." But we are not told who kept the keys of the council chamber overnight!
• 

  wobble

  Standfirm fell over, he did not stand, not firm either, rather a squishy mess.

  I like to play devils advocate sometimes, I half wonder if some like SF are doing that, getting a thread going based on JW false teachings and reasonings, and then letting US expose them for what they are.

  If unmasked, Standfirm could not be accused of Apostasy by the JW's. Not yet.
• 

  maksym

  I was thinking of another hole to place the JW's in regards to what Standfirm is saying.

  The Jehovah's Witnesses believe that a great apostasy overtook the church (organization) after the Apostles died off. In a nuthshell they believe that a huge span of history was left in a vacuum without this guidance of a church (organization), but that there was always "true" believers. Then the church (organization) was restored in modern times. In a simple way they believe something like this.

  Let us concede to this for the moment.

  If this is true then what they have done is put themselves in a big barrel with every other modern day religion. Who is to say the Jehovah's Witnesses are not all apostates and that the Mormon church, Seventh day Adventist, Church of God, or even Lutherans are correct. Who is even to say that the Jehovah's Witnesses were the actual restored church in the beginning during Bible student days but they themselves fell into apostasy. How does a member of a church such as Jehovah's Witnesses know if they are following an apostate church today or that God turned it over to another group? The questions from this are endless.

  From an outsiders perspective one would need to analyze over 33 000 religions to see which one is correct. How does one then determine which church becomes that one "true church" of the first century that was aparently lost in apostasy?

  Just because something makes "sense" to one person does not mean another will find it to have value and believe it to be true. Therefore as an outsider we are left with all religions and endless Biblical interpretations.

  Jehovah's Witnesses may counter and say, "we are unique and not like the others". I will give them that, but uniquness does not necessarilly preclude being "right" or "in the truth", nor does there simpleton literal approach to scriptures.

  Their argument reduces them to nothing!
• 

  JustHuman14

  Really good points maksym. The problem with the Protestant movement it is they have complete ignorance of the East Orthodox Church. In their effort for reformation in the Roman Catholic Church, they ignored fundamental facts of Christianity and instead of looking at the origins of Christianity they proceed with new ideas. Unfortunately the time of reformation there wasn't East Roman Empire, due to the fall of Constantinople at 1543 A.D by the Othoman Turks and the Orthodox Church was now under the Turks.

  A basic mistake is to ignore the Biblical Canon consisting 76 Books. How come all protestant groups, including JW's, claim that they follow the Bible, but they ignore 10 books from the Old Testament that they are included in the Canon?

  End another important issue. Most of Protestant groups claim that they are only following the Bible, and due to that they are the only ones who are correct in Christian faith. But here comes the big question that they must answer:

  Who gave you the Bible? Or from who did you borrowed the Bible? The answer is clear: From the Orthodox/Catholic Church! So how come they claim that the Apostolic Church turned into apostate Church, but THEY ACCEPT THE BIBLICAL CANON defined by apostate Church around 425 A.D a time that according to them, true Christian faith lasted only 200 years??? Does it make sense? You cannot have the Bible alone with out the Church because it was from the Church that Bible was delivered. Besides we have lot of Church Fathers writings from the first three centuries that the Church accepts them and the Bible is not the only Book that defines Christian faith, but the entire Church. Apostle states this very clearly, in his Epistle to Timothy I, chapter 3:15: "..and if I should be delayed, (I am writing to you) so that you may know how to conduct yourself in the house of God, which is the Church of the Living God, the pillar and the basis of the truth."

  After the Schisma occurred at 1080AD as I said previously at my post, the West Roman Church fall into serious mistakes, while the East Roman Church, now named Holy Catholic Orthodox Apostolic Church continued to hold the faith and tradition of the Apostles , along with Apostolic Succession going 2000 years back, something that no protestant group has.

  So the Apostolic Church is always here for last 2000 years and never sized to exist. In fact the Bible that is used at the Orthodox Churches are the Original Greek Texts, because translations can lead into interpretation mistakes (like Catholics and Protestants) and to avoid that they are using the Original Texts that the meaning is clear.

  P.S. Peter was in Rome. For Early Christians the code name for Rome was Babylon due to the pagan
  God's that Romans used to worship.
• 

  PSacramento

  Justhuman,

  May I ask what the Holy Catholic Orthodox Apostolic Church is?
• 

  JustHuman14

  There is a difference between the terms "Divine" and "Divinely Inspired". Not every Book in the Holy Bible is Divine and Divinely Inspired. Nor are all the "Venerable" books "Divine". Orthodox Church make's very careful distinctions in expressions, which is something that Protestants do not perceive, hence their assertion that all the books in the Holy Bible are Divinely Inspired.

  But the Bible does not contain only Divinely Inspired Books.
  The Books of the Bible are referred to in the Canonizing sources either as Divine, or Divinely Inspired, or Canonical (Regulation), or Proposed Reading, or Beneficial, or Venerable, or Canonized. These characterizations are not incidental. Differences do exist, hence, all books do not belong to every category. In the Church of Christ we speak with precision and make very delicate distinctions; we do not resort to coarse distinctions such as "Canonic" (Regulation) and "Deuterocanonic" (Secondary).

  Summarizing the above, we could say that : The Holy Bible contains books ( such as the three Books of the Maccabees ) which are only Venerable, but not Divinely Inspired or Divine or Canonical. The Bible contains books ( such as Judith and Tobit ) which are Canonical, but not Divinely Inspired or Divine. And the Bible also contains Divine books ( such as Solomon's Wisdom ) which are not however Divinely Inspired.

  Below there is a list of a number of important clarifications of the Church's canons that relate to the Canon on the Holy Bible:

  Venerable is a book that Christians have a duty to respect.

  Proposed Reading is a book that can be read by all.

  Church Text is that which can be read in Churches.

  Newcomer Reading is that which is useful for the newly catechized.

  Canonical is that which belongs to a Canon (regulation).

  Canonized refers to those texts that may belong to a canon, but for which the final decision on their selection has not yet been reached, in order to validate the canon.

  Reputable canon is a canon worthy of acceptance.
• 

  yknot

  Just a thought....(an uneducated one at that regarding 1st century Xians)

  Wouldn't they have been a bit more similar to Russell's way of organizing? The Ecclesias were independent and used WT material, whereas the 1st cen xians were independent and used letters or oral renditions of Christ's teachings and stories of his life.

  When a traveling person came to town they would hear what he had to say and go from there....

  Beyond that I would like to think that SF has a job and in his off-hours time allotted for web-activity is forumlating a well-thought out response after thoroughly researching and mediatating on the stuff yall presented.

  Huggles yall!
• 

  JustHuman14

  The Holy Catholic Apostolic Orthodox Church is the complete name of the East Orthodox Church
• 

  tec

  There is a difference between the terms "Divine" and "Divinely Inspired". Not every Book in the Holy Bible is Divine and Divinely Inspired. Nor are all the "Venerable" books "Divine". Orthodox Church make's very careful distinctions in expressions, which is something that Protestants do not perceive, hence their assertion that all the books in the Holy Bible are Divinely Inspired.

  I find that very interesting. It is similar to what I believe. Thanks for sharing.

  Tammy
• 

  PSacramento

  The Holy Catholic Apostolic Orthodox Church is the complete name of the

  East

  Orthodox Church

  AH, understood, which eastern orthodox church?

  I ask because I didi a google and one of them cam eup that was an arian church so I was a bit confused there for a second.