The Early Church

I’m not sure what early Christianity was, but it wasn’t Catholic, Orthodox or Protestant:
>monarchical episcopate is a development
>image veneration unknown in early church
>subordinationist Christology clearly taught
>charismatic elements clearly present (tongues, prophecy, etc)
>high Mariology absent
>Rome didn’t even have a monarchical episcopate until the late 2nd century (no pope)
>elders / overseers wouldn’t even absolve sinners of severe sins after baptism
>no auricular confession
Why do Christians keep gaslighting each other over Le True Church when none of them belong to it?

Beware Cat Shirt $21.68

Rise, Grind, Banana Find Shirt $21.68

Beware Cat Shirt $21.68

  1. 3 months ago
    Anonymous

    It was Baptists

    • 3 months ago
      Anonymous

      lmao

      • 3 months ago
        Ο Σολιταίρ

        One stupid minor doctrine that they're wrong on. Are you so in love with booze that you need magic alcohol to make it "real" communion?

        • 3 months ago
          Anonymous

          Are you American?

          • 3 months ago
            Anonymous

            Please tell me what makes you believe that packaging is a primary issue.

        • 3 months ago
          Anonymous

          lets say we're wrong, its still disrespectful
          if itd be up to me, itd be wine made by the people in the congregation of the church the eucharist is being held at so it comes from the fruits of the people

      • 3 months ago
        Anonymous

        do americans really have walmart eucharist

    • 3 months ago
      Anonymous

      Well for one thing you certainly can't say that it was Protestant. Most of the ideas of the Reformation aren't even known to exist prior to the actual Reformation itself.

      As for Orthodox or Catholic you could say that the early Church was both and neither. Both of them derive their traditions and heritage from the Early Church and both could say that the other split off from them. There was no divide between East and West back then for Chrisitianity so the distinction wouldn't have mattered pre-schism. The idea of the True Church I think definitely would have existed, as there were Popes/Bishops of Rome back then but it wasn't as high of an office as it would become later on. I definitely belive there was a "primacy" there, but the whole hierarchy wasn't nearly as developed, after all Christianity was still being persecuted at that time.

      NIFB most closely matches.
      Not exact match.
      But exactly matching the form and not the substance was never the point.
      OH also, you can dismiss "charismatic elements" immediately. Not sure what you're arguing there. Are you referring to the Montanists?

      This.

      >it wasn’t Catholic, Orthodox or Protestant:
      Yes, they were closest to Baptists, generally speaking. Faith alone in Christ alone, baptism of believers only, no idolatry, no silly hats and robes, congregational worship, no Mary worship etc.

      >NIFB most closely matches.
      NIFB are nutjobs for the most part.

      NIFB are closer to early Christianity than other Independent Baptists in that they are post-trib and reject dispensationalism in favour of traditional covenant theology. The Old IFB are all zionists and dispies, which are completely a-Biblical positions.

      Pure delusion.

      Traditions develop over time that doesn't somehow break people off from thy church unless its explicitly heretical

      Agreed.

      • 3 months ago
        Anonymous

        The point is not where it comes from but whether or not it’s the closest match.
        Obviously “Protestantism” was caused by specific events in history long after the apostolic period

      • 3 months ago
        Anonymous

        >Well for one thing you certainly can't say that it was Protestant. Most of the ideas of the Reformation aren't even known to exist prior to the actual Reformation itself
        Even Luther's opponent wouldn't agree to that as the later accused the former of being a Hussite.

      • 3 months ago
        Anonymous

        >Pure delusion
        >Thinks priests in dresses and pointy hats, idolatry of saints and sprinkling babies is an authentic expression of Biblical Christianity

        • 3 months ago
          Anonymous

          >priests in dresses
          Comes from Second Temple Judaism
          >saints
          Comes from veneration of israeli prophets and praying to the dead described in Maccabees
          >sprinkling babies
          Comes from John's baptism of Jesus

          • 3 months ago
            Anonymous

            >Comes from veneration of israeli prophets
            Holding in high esteem =/= saint
            >praying to the dead described in Maccabees
            Verse?

          • 3 months ago
            Anonymous

            For Catholics and Orthos a "saint" is literally just someone who is with God in heaven. The Old Testament explicitly says Elijah and Enoch entered heaven prior to Jesus' sacrifice, so they are literal biblical examples of Saints.
            >Verse?
            https://quod.lib.umich.edu/cgi/r/rsv/rsv-idx?type=citation&book=2+Maccabees&chapno=12&startverse=39&endverse=45
            Protip, it was removed from Protestant Bibles because israelites didn't like this enough to allow it in the Masoretic Text, even though it was canonical to early Christians and Second Temple israelites like Josephus.

          • 3 months ago
            Anonymous

            >The Old Testament explicitly says Elijah and Enoch entered heaven prior to Jesus' sacrifice
            >No one has gone up to heaven except the Son of Man
            John 3:13
            Sounds like an interpretation issue.

          • 3 months ago
            Anonymous

            I've actually been wondering about this particular contradiction for a few weeks.

            It's not an issue of interpretation.

          • 3 months ago
            Anonymous

            It was not canonical.

          • 3 months ago
            Anonymous

            >For Catholics and Orthos a "saint" is literally just someone who is with God in heaven
            Execpt you also pray to saints, have images of them, use the images in worship, associate the saints with cities (patron saints) and occupations/objects, and have relics of them. None of this was ever done with any OT prophet.

            As for the verses, prayer for the dead is not a prayer to the dead. Also, if the saints are already in heaven why would you pray and sacrifice to remove their sins?
            >he sent twelve thousand drachms of silver to Jerusalem for sacrifice to be offered for the sins of the dead
            >It is therefore a holy and wholesome thought to pray for the dead, that they may be loosed from sins.

          • 3 months ago
            Anonymous

            We ask the intercessory prayers of the saints. We pray for the souls in purgatory that they be released from it.

            Well for one thing you certainly can't say that it was Protestant. Most of the ideas of the Reformation aren't even known to exist prior to the actual Reformation itself.

            As for Orthodox or Catholic you could say that the early Church was both and neither. Both of them derive their traditions and heritage from the Early Church and both could say that the other split off from them. There was no divide between East and West back then for Chrisitianity so the distinction wouldn't have mattered pre-schism. The idea of the True Church I think definitely would have existed, as there were Popes/Bishops of Rome back then but it wasn't as high of an office as it would become later on. I definitely belive there was a "primacy" there, but the whole hierarchy wasn't nearly as developed, after all Christianity was still being persecuted at that time.

            [...]
            [...]
            [...]
            [...]
            Pure delusion.

            [...]
            Agreed.

            All this. Plus there is Peterine primary in the gospels. St Peter is called the first or chief or head of the apostles. As well as being given the keys, our Lord praying for him to be strengthened and telling him to feed His sheep etc.

          • 3 months ago
            Anonymous

            >We ask the intercessory prayers of the saints.
            Right, which is praying to the dead. The Bible reference was talking about sacrificing and praying to God for the dead, not praying to the dead themselves.

          • 3 months ago
            Anonymous

            >[39] On the next day, as by that time it had become necessary, Judas and his men went to take up the bodies of the fallen and to bring them back to lie with their kinsmen in the sepulchres of their fathers.
            >[40] Then under the tunic of every one of the dead they found sacred tokens of the idols of Jamnia, which the law forbids the israelites to wear. And it became clear to all that this was why these men had fallen.
            >[41] So they all blessed the ways of the Lord, the righteous Judge, who reveals the things that are hidden;
            >[42] and they turned to prayer, beseeching that the sin which had been committed might be wholly blotted out. And the noble Judas exhorted the people to keep themselves free from sin, for they had seen with their own eyes what had happened because of the sin of those who had fallen.
            [>43] He also took up a collection, man by man, to the amount of two thousand drachmas of silver, and sent it to Jerusalem to provide for a sin offering. In doing this he acted very well and honorably, taking account of the resurrection.
            >[44] For if he were not expecting that those who had fallen would rise again, it would have been superfluous and foolish to pray for the dead.
            >[45] But if he was looking to the splendid reward that is laid up for those who fall asleep in godliness, it was a holy and pious thought. Therefore he made atonement for the dead, that they might be delivered from their sin.

            No one is praying to dead people here.

          • 3 months ago
            Anonymous

            >Comes from Second Temple Judaism
            The Second Temple was corrupt.
            >Comes from veneration of israeli prophets and praying to the dead described in Maccabees
            Corrupt. 1 Maccabees is a propaganda piece from the Hasmoneans in which they elevate their achievements above the grace of God, who does nothing throughout the book for their rebellion. The author of 2 Maccabees doesn't even know how to finish the book, it ends with him saying he tried.
            >Comes from John's baptism of Jesus
            Jesus was a man there.

          • 3 months ago
            Anonymous

            >The Second Temple was corrupt.
            You'll need some serious examples to point out how individual corruption overwrites the covenant they had with God. Jesus did not want to abolish the Law.
            >1 Maccabees is a propaganda piece
            If you go by this logic the entire OT is propaganda pieces.
            >Jesus was a man there.
            If being a consenting adult is the only thing that matters in the covenant then the Israelites would not have circumcised infants. Baptism has an element (but not an exact parallel) of being the Christian succession to Israelite circumcision.

          • 3 months ago
            Anonymous

            >You'll need some serious examples to point out how individual corruption overwrites the covenant they had with God
            The coming of Christ and the institution of the new covenant.

      • 3 months ago
        Anonymous

        >both could say that the other split off from them.
        Augustine and John of Damascus both refer to the Church as "the Catholic Church" centuries before the East-West schism. "Orthodox" describes a set of broadly non-heretical practices whereas "Catholic" describes the Church itself.

  2. 3 months ago
    Ο Σολιταίρ

    NIFB most closely matches.
    Not exact match.
    But exactly matching the form and not the substance was never the point.
    OH also, you can dismiss "charismatic elements" immediately. Not sure what you're arguing there. Are you referring to the Montanists?

    • 3 months ago
      Anonymous

      This.

    • 3 months ago
      Worker

      >it wasn’t Catholic, Orthodox or Protestant:
      Yes, they were closest to Baptists, generally speaking. Faith alone in Christ alone, baptism of believers only, no idolatry, no silly hats and robes, congregational worship, no Mary worship etc.

      >NIFB most closely matches.
      NIFB are nutjobs for the most part.

      • 3 months ago
        Ο Σολιταίρ

        >NIFB are nutjobs for the most part.
        source? Do you mean all the yelling?

        • 3 months ago
          Worker

          I mean the fact that Anderson runs it like a cult and calls other Christians devils for having minor disagreements with him. And their "all homosexuals are reprobate" doctrine, which is utter nonsense. And the fact that many NIFB leaders are narcissistic freaks who don't meet the criteria for church leadership.

          • 3 months ago
            Anonymous

            Reprobate doctrine is Biblical and Romans 1 associates it with homosexuality specifically . The rest of what you said is just slander.

          • 3 months ago
            Worker

            ???
            uhh
            source?
            I had thought all Anderson did was yell loudly, drink grape juice, and kick out oneness pentecostals.

            The way that Pastor Anderson treated Adam Fannin and the rest of Stedfast Baptist church was despicable. It's fair enough that you hadn't heard of it before, so here it is:

            NIFB churches are meant to be INDEPENDENT, which means that the churches run themselves. But Anderson then tried to push one of his buddies into a church, despite the church not wanting him. And when the church said no, Anderson freaked out and basically excommunicated everyone in the church.

            Anderson is smart and entertaining to listen to, but he's also very prideful, has very poor-self control, and has said really awful things about other believers.

          • 3 months ago
            Anonymous

            I remember when this happened. I don't know all the ins-and-outs, but it seemed like Fannin was a pretty shady character and was involved in some questionable things with the disgraced former pastor Donny Romero. He was heading a church plant in Florida and had a falling out with the guy who was sent to replace Romero in Texas because he wouldn't ordain him as a pastor. He then went on to try and subvert the church until he lost the support of his own congregation and decided to just self-ordain.

            I know people who attend Steadfast and they all support Anderson's position since he was Romero's sending pastor.

          • 3 months ago
            Worker

            >I remember when this happened. I don't know all the ins-and-outs, but it seemed like Fannin was a pretty shady character
            Fannin and the majority of Stedfast rejected Anderson's new choice of pastor, and Pastor Anderson's response was to claim that Fannin and the rest of Stedfasts were "reprobates". Anderson and his minions also began a campaign of harassment against Fannin.

            I'm not involved with this at all (I'm not even American), so I don't care much, but the fact is that Anderson has a long track record of slandering believers who he has minor disagreements with. Like Sam Gipp, for example. The fact that Anderson can say really horrible things against other Christians while having temper tantrums is more than enough proof that he isn't qualified to be a leader.

          • 3 months ago
            Anonymous

            >Anderson has a long track record of slandering believers who he has minor disagreements with.
            >Like Sam Gipp
            Sam Gipp has taught that Jesus wasn't supposed to be called Jesus and that Jesus is not the Messiah of the gentiles. He's also a hyper-dispensationalists that believes in five different modes of salvation. The guy is a damnable heretic who no normal Evangelical Christian would touch with a ten-foot pole.

          • 3 months ago
            Anonymous

            It's not biblical

          • 3 months ago
            Ο Σολιταίρ

            ???
            uhh
            source?
            I had thought all Anderson did was yell loudly, drink grape juice, and kick out oneness pentecostals.

          • 3 months ago
            Anonymous

            Shut up israelite

          • 3 months ago
            Worker

            ?
            Are you calling me a israelite for saying that Anderson calls other Christians devils for having disagreements with him? Are you denying this?

          • 3 months ago
            Anonymous

            >NIFB are nutjobs for the most part.
            source? Do you mean all the yelling?

            Shut up israelite

            The "New IFB" are nutjobs, but the Reprobate Doctrine is pretty solid. Steven Anderson doesn't even actually believe the Reprobate Doctrine, because in his interview with Bryson Gray he stated that he believes those who have only experimented in Homosexuality (aka Lusting after Men) are not Reprobates. Total clownshow.

          • 3 months ago
            Dirk

            >all homosexuals are reprobate
            That might be the most logical thing Anderson says. Romans 1 seems to say being given over to a debased/reprobate mind is a precondition to doing "those things" (incl. homosexual acts)
            What it doesn't say is that reprobate means irredeemable, hence the "such were some of you" passage

          • 3 months ago
            Anonymous

            Anderson taught that the "such as some of you" passage was about Homosexuals in 2013, then taught it was not about Homosexuals in 2016. Total clownshow.
            Proof: https://www.bitchute.com/video/miAfvPfInFWY/

            And for the record, I believe it is NOT about Homosexuals.

          • 3 months ago
            Dirk

            How does it not include homosexuals?

            >“Do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: neither the sexually immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor men who practice homosexuality, nor thieves, nor the greedy, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God. And such were some of you. But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of our God.” (1Cor 6:9-11, ESV)

          • 3 months ago
            Anonymous

            In the King James it says "abusers of themselves with mankind". I believe that is referring to being completely "asleep" in the slumber of the wicked world. Uttrrly given over to vices, etc. Normal vices, not abominations.

          • 3 months ago
            Dirk

            That's a euphemism. It means sodomite.
            Go back to the Greek.

            >ESV

            The esv is the most conservative translation on this passage jsyk. It plainly says "those who practice homosexuality", then the footnote further states
            >The two Greek terms translated by this phrase refer to the passive and active partners in consensual homosexual acts

            To get around the progressive argument that this is some power dynamic problem, like catamites or something

          • 3 months ago
            Anonymous

            >go back to the Greek
            It's inconclusive in the Greek unless you erroneously claim it's the same word in Leviticus. Leviticus wasn't written in Greek, and if it was written by the Seventy, you have no idea what word they used because the original doesn't exist.

          • 3 months ago
            Dirk

            Are you saying we don't know what the LXX (a translation) said because we don't have the autographs of that document? You realize we don't have the autographs of 1 Corinthians either right?

          • 3 months ago
            Anonymous

            You literally cannot know what the LXX said. It is currently impossible. The only way is if a Saint who claimed to have it quoted it in their writings.

          • 3 months ago
            Dirk

            >because the original doesn't exist

          • 3 months ago
            Anonymous

            The original doesn't exist and all existing Recensions are acknowledged by one party or another as corruptrd. Saint Lucian tried to fix it, and ~~*Jerome*~~ said Lucianic LXX are all corrupt copies.

          • 3 months ago
            Dirk

            The original of 1 Corinthians also no longer exists. Comment?

          • 3 months ago
            Anonymous

            Are there not 5000 copies of 1 Corinthians that agree with one another? Now find two 3rd century LXX that agree.

          • 3 months ago
            Dirk

            Irrelevant
            The use of the term in the LXX is a legitimate indicator of how we ought to translate the term in the NT, if nothing more than other non-biblical ancient Greek sources

            I accept your concession about the autographic texts

          • 3 months ago
            Anonymous

            "The LXX". Doesn't exist. There has been an effort to force pseudo-scholars to specify Lucianic, Hexaplarix, Hesychian, etc. but you are too dishonest to do so.

          • 3 months ago
            Dirk

            I'm happy to agree that there's not a definitive manuscript tradition called "the Septuagint", and that this is just the general term for Greek translations of the Hebrew bible. It's still true that those translations in use at the time of Paul used this term, we know what they meant by it, and we can import that understanding to 1 Corinthians. This is just one of the ways we know to translate the term in question.

          • 3 months ago
            Anonymous

            When you appeal to "the Greek word used in Leviticus LXX" it means absolutely nothing unless a Saint quoted it.

          • 3 months ago
            Dirk

            Are you aware that every English translation of the Greek new testament consults non-biblical, non-christian sources to get a sense of the semantic meaning of particular terms?

          • 3 months ago
            Anonymous

            Jerome had access to the Hebrew originals moron
            The Lucianic recension is a 19th century conspiracy theory by grifters

          • 3 months ago
            Anonymous

            Probably the dumbest thing I've read today. Jerome was a liar. There is also no "conspiracy" about the Lucianic Recension.

          • 3 months ago
            Anonymous

            It's up to you to prove that Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13 said anything different originally from how they've read for the past 2000 years between the Latin Vulgate, the Greek Septuagint, the Hebrew Masoretic Text, the Syriac Peshitta (an independent translation from the Hebrew) and the Samaritan Pentateuch. You have no argument so you can offer weak circumstance evident and ad hominem.

          • 3 months ago
            Anonymous

            *can only offer weak circumstantial evidence and ad hominem.

          • 3 months ago
            Anonymous

            Kek, what are you even talking about? Why would I have to prove what it says in Latin or Hebrew?

          • 3 months ago
            Anonymous

            Because it says the same thing in every language that it was put into, and you're arguing that it said something different, with no evidence. Those passages are what Paul was paraphrasing in 1 Corinthians.

          • 3 months ago
            Anonymous

            You are completely lost. You are so blinded with desire to shoehorn gays into the Church that you forgot the logic. If you want to claim the Greek word used in the New Testament is the "same Greek word in the Old Testament", you have to prove it. And you can't.

          • 3 months ago
            Anonymous

            >you can't

            Arsenokoitai - ἀρσενο κοῖται
            From arsen, ἄρσεν, meaning male, masculine
            Koitai, bedder, from koite, κοίτη, bed
            "Man-bedder", paraphrased from Leviticus 18:22, 20:13 LXX:
            >καὶ μετὰ [ ἄρσενος ] οὐ κοιμηθήσῃ [ κοίτην ] γυναικός· βδέλυγμα γάρ ἐστιν.
            >kai meta [arsenos ] ou koimethese [koiten ] gynaikos bdelygma gar estin
            And with a male you shall not sleep with in bed as with a woman; an abomination for it is.

            >καὶ ὃς ἂν κοιμηθῇ μετὰ [ ἄρσενος κοίτην ] γυναικός, βδέλυγμα ἐποίησαν ἀμφότεροι· θανατούσθωσαν, ἔνοχοί εἰσιν.
            >kai hos an koimethe meta [arsenoskoiten ] gynaikos bdelygma epoiesan amphoteroi thanatousthōsan enochoi eisin
            And who ever sleeps with a man as with a woman, an abomination committed both; to be put to death, deserves it.

            The Geneva Bible, 1599, before King James censored it to produce "his" version:
            >Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor wantons, nor [ buggerers, ]

          • 3 months ago
            Anonymous

            >It says right here in my 2013 edition of the Greek Old Testament...
            You are insane.

          • 3 months ago
            Anonymous

            Show proofs moron
            >inb4 it's lost!!!!
            God preserves his word

          • 3 months ago
            Anonymous

            You israelites are so annoying. Can you really say God preserved your Greek Leviticus when Sinaiticus and Vaticanus contradict each orther?

          • 3 months ago
            Anonymous

            israelites use the Masoretic Text and deny the authority of the Septuagint schizo. Take your meds.

          • 3 months ago
            Anonymous

            Looks like the Roman Catholic Jerome was using it.

          • 3 months ago
            Anonymous

            First you say in

            Probably the dumbest thing I've read today. Jerome was a liar. There is also no "conspiracy" about the Lucianic Recension.

            that Jerome is a liar, then when you're proven wrong you post in

            You israelites are so annoying. Can you really say God preserved your Greek Leviticus when Sinaiticus and Vaticanus contradict each orther?

            that Jerome is based. Why do you change your beliefs based on the convenience of the argument? Which is it, is Jerome an untrustworthy liar or is he based? Do you even have any beliefs at all? Why do you accuse others of being a israelite when you've done nothing but elusive pilpul with everyone here?

          • 3 months ago
            Anonymous

            Jerome is a liar. People were using Hebrew before Jerome, like Lucian, and you discredit them. You won't even announce yourself as a Catholic or whatever you are because you're probably a israelite or Homosexual larping contrarian positions.

            Jerome accepted the deuterocanon as canonical once the Council of Rome settled it. He explicitly calls the deuterocanonical Sirach "scripture" in one of his letters.
            >https://taylormarshall.com/2008/08/saint-jerome-on-deuterocanonical-books.html

            Not a fan of Jerome, but LXX Catholic shills fall into their own snare by badmouthing him.

          • 3 months ago
            Anonymous

            You don't have to like Jerome, but at least you can understand how it influences the argument that Orhos and Catholics have for the Protestant Bible being compromised.

          • 3 months ago
            Anonymous

            >DUH THE HEBREW IS BAD AND JEROME AND LXX ARE GOOD
            >OF COURSE I KNOW JEROME USED THE HEBREW
            You shills make 0 sense.

          • 3 months ago
            Anonymous

            >Not a fan of Jerome, but LXX Catholic shills fall into their own snare by badmouthing him.
            No one did that in the thread but you. Jerome put the Bible into the common tongue for the Latin church in the Western Mediterranean. The church in the Eastern Mediterranean, where Lucian was based, used Greek, continued to use the Septuagint, and the Orthodox preserved it to this very day. Jerome's Latin Vulgate wasn't used there and wasn't an influence because they never needed it. Your argument that the genuine LXX was lost is fantasy nonsense.

          • 3 months ago
            Anonymous

            You are a complet3 idiot. It is stunning.

          • 3 months ago
            Anonymous

            Here's as simple as I can state it for you. If the LXX has been preserved, which one is the LXX?

            Joshua 24:33

            LXX Codex A:
            buried him in a hill that pertained to Phinehas his son

            LXX Codex B:
            buried him in Gabaath that belongeth to Phinees his son

            LXX Codex א:
            *lost*

          • 3 months ago
            Anonymous

            Those aren't the only manuscripts stupid.

          • 3 months ago
            Anonymous

            Why don't you answer the question, israelite?

          • 3 months ago
            Anonymous

            None of the options you gave moron.

          • 3 months ago
            Anonymous

            ~~*You*~~:
            "Codex A is not the Septuagint.
            Codex B is not the Septuagint.
            Codex א is not the Septuagint."

            "The idiot you're supporting by attacking me:
            Your argument that the genuine LXX was lost is fantasy nonsense." -

            >Not a fan of Jerome, but LXX Catholic shills fall into their own snare by badmouthing him.
            No one did that in the thread but you. Jerome put the Bible into the common tongue for the Latin church in the Western Mediterranean. The church in the Eastern Mediterranean, where Lucian was based, used Greek, continued to use the Septuagint, and the Orthodox preserved it to this very day. Jerome's Latin Vulgate wasn't used there and wasn't an influence because they never needed it. Your argument that the genuine LXX was lost is fantasy nonsense.

          • 3 months ago
            Anonymous

            The RECEIVED Septuagint.

          • 3 months ago
            Anonymous

            That's the same thing as GENUINE, dumbass.

          • 3 months ago
            Anonymous

            You don't know what you're talking about. Why are Westcott and Hort wrong for the New Testament but right on the Old, and with the SAME manuscripts? If Westcott and Hort's texts are accurate for the Old Testament then they are also accurate for the New. If they are inaccurate for the New then they are also inaccurate for the Old. Can you pea brain understand that?

          • 3 months ago
            Anonymous

            Wescott and Hort are accurate in the Old Testament, you say? Hort claimed that Codex Vaticanus (B) is the "purest form" of the LXX, and you say here that it isn't

            Those aren't the only manuscripts stupid.

            ~~*You*~~:
            "Codex A is not the Septuagint.
            Codex B is not the Septuagint.
            Codex א is not the Septuagint."

            "The idiot you're supporting by attacking me:
            Your argument that the genuine LXX was lost is fantasy nonsense." -[...]

            The RECEIVED Septuagint.

            You idiot pharisees do nothing but hurt people's faith.

          • 3 months ago
            Anonymous

            Do you think Vaticanus and Sinaticus are the New Testament too then?

          • 3 months ago
            Anonymous

            And there are NO variants between A and B in the relevant verses for 1 Corinthians.

          • 3 months ago
            Anonymous

            We're not talking about the New Testament. Wake up. If you're going to "go back to the Greek Leviticus", we're talking about the LXX.

          • 3 months ago
            Anonymous

            And I'm talking about the Received LXX not Westcott and Hort, for which are over 2000 manuscripts
            https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Septuagint_manuscripts

            Wescott and Hort are accurate in the Old Testament, you say? Hort claimed that Codex Vaticanus (B) is the "purest form" of the LXX, and you say here that it isn't [...] [...] [...]

            You idiot pharisees do nothing but hurt people's faith.

            And they claimed the same about their texts being the purest form of the New Testament. They are wrong on both.

            You have contradictory positions and refuse to accept it.

          • 3 months ago
            Anonymous

            You actually believe that a copy of the Received LXX exists, let alone 2000 of them. You are a complete pseudo-scholar. There is no point.

          • 3 months ago
            Anonymous

            >modern critical scholarship
            LOL LMAO YOU ACTUALLY BELIEVE THEIR GARBAGE

          • 3 months ago
            Anonymous

            >shilling Wescott and Hort
            >simultaneously badmouthing critical scholars

          • 3 months ago
            Anonymous

            >shilling Wescott and Hort
            Bro, where did you even get that from. I support the TR/MT with an LXX OT.

          • 3 months ago
            Anonymous

            If you're this anon,

            You don't know what you're talking about. Why are Westcott and Hort wrong for the New Testament but right on the Old, and with the SAME manuscripts? If Westcott and Hort's texts are accurate for the Old Testament then they are also accurate for the New. If they are inaccurate for the New then they are also inaccurate for the Old. Can you pea brain understand that?

            , the you're a liar. If not, you're just squeezing into this conversation and you didn't even rebuke him.

          • 3 months ago
            Anonymous

            You are insane, end of story.

          • 3 months ago
            Anonymous

            Cope.

          • 3 months ago
            Anonymous

            Not an argument.

          • 3 months ago
            Anonymous

            Jerome accepted the deuterocanon as canonical once the Council of Rome settled it. He explicitly calls the deuterocanonical Sirach "scripture" in one of his letters.
            >https://taylormarshall.com/2008/08/saint-jerome-on-deuterocanonical-books.html

          • 3 months ago
            Anonymous

            In fact, you are just pushing the Wescott and Hort (2 Occultists) text by attempting to discredit Lucian.

          • 3 months ago
            Anonymous

            Lucian didn't do anything, you are literally promoting Westcott and Hort theory

          • 3 months ago
            Anonymous

            You are a pseud, my man. It discredits Wescott and Hort.

          • 3 months ago
            Anonymous

            This should say *matches more closely with Codex Sinaiaticus, Codex Aleph א

          • 3 months ago
            Anonymous

            In the Greek it's literally a paraphrase of the Septuagint Old Testament law against sodomy.

          • 3 months ago
            Anonymous

            Exactly what I said here

            >go back to the Greek
            It's inconclusive in the Greek unless you erroneously claim it's the same word in Leviticus. Leviticus wasn't written in Greek, and if it was written by the Seventy, you have no idea what word they used because the original doesn't exist.

          • 3 months ago
            Anonymous

            In the first century the LXX Torah was considered inspired in the same way as the MT.

          • 3 months ago
            Anonymous

            The LXX doesn't exist. You have no idea what is said. The ONLY realiable verses we can clean from the real LXX are if the Saints quoted them.

          • 3 months ago
            Anonymous

            Laughable.

            It's always hilarious watching Baptists stumble around kvetching about the primeval Genesis chronology.

            Meanwhile, both Josephus and Philo agree with the LXX timeline. Oops.

          • 3 months ago
            Anonymous

            Josephus and Philo agree with the Lucianic, yet you LXX shills are obsessed with א, A, and B. You should be sent to labor camps and your Synagogue-Seminary poison mills burned down.

          • 3 months ago
            Anonymous

            >ESV

          • 3 months ago
            Worker

            >>all homosexuals are reprobate
            >That might be the most logical thing Anderson says.
            I agree that homosexuals are reprobate, but not in the sense that they have committed some sort of unpardonable sin that will forever prevent their salvation. The idea that homosexuals are absolutely irredeemable is one of the NIFB's main doctrines. Every other NIFB sermon (especially by Anderson's minions) seems to devolve into "Let's turn to Romans 1, and I'll show you all that homosexuals cannot be saved".

            [...]
            [...]
            The "New IFB" are nutjobs, but the Reprobate Doctrine is pretty solid. Steven Anderson doesn't even actually believe the Reprobate Doctrine, because in his interview with Bryson Gray he stated that he believes those who have only experimented in Homosexuality (aka Lusting after Men) are not Reprobates. Total clownshow.

            >Steven Anderson doesn't even actually believe the Reprobate Doctrine, because in his interview with Bryson Gray he stated that he believes those who have only experimented in Homosexuality are not Reprobates
            He does believe it. Just because he says that certain kinds of homosexuals can be saved doesn't mean that he doesn't think that most homosexuals have committed an unpardonable sin.

          • 3 months ago
            Anonymous

            Steven Anderson has "never had a drop of alcohol", but he thinks people who have willingly experimented with homosexual sex as adults, sober or drunk, are not necessarily reprobates. As if alcohol just magically makes you gay for 1 night.

          • 3 months ago
            Ο Σολιταίρ

            >have committed an unpardonable sin.
            This is not the reprobate doctrine bro

      • 3 months ago
        Anonymous

        NIFB are closer to early Christianity than other Independent Baptists in that they are post-trib and reject dispensationalism in favour of traditional covenant theology. The Old IFB are all zionists and dispies, which are completely a-Biblical positions.

        • 3 months ago
          Worker

          IFB is made up of a massive range of different views. You can be IFB and believe in post-trib and reject dispensationalism.

          The NIFB is very, very small compared to the IFB, and the NIFB is more like a denomination controlled by Anderson.

          • 3 months ago
            Anonymous

            You would've been kicked out of your average Old IFB for being post-trib until very recently.

            The New IFB is not a denomination, you are just making things up. No one considers PSA a pope and he has called out the "Andersonite" mentality.

          • 3 months ago
            Ο Σολιταίρ

            It's ironic that a Baptist(presumably) is derailing a thread with Anderson hate.

          • 3 months ago
            Anonymous

            Typical. So many Old IFBs want to attack genuine preachers who are actually doing things for petty personal gripes.

          • 3 months ago
            Worker

            I'm not old IFB. It's a fact that NIFB is not closest to the early church. And now I'm accused of derailing the thread with "Anderson hate"? Weird fanboy mentality. Anderson is a charismatic leader who lacks the Biblical criteria for being a pastor.

            With that being said, there are NIFB like Adam Fannin who reject Anderson's leadership. Although Anderson claims that those people are satanic.

      • 3 months ago
        Anonymous

        >Yes, they were closest to Baptists, generally speaking
        Objectively false.

      • 3 months ago
        Anonymous

        Umm...the early Christians were still doing sin offerings in the Temple for 40 years until it was destroyed.

        • 3 months ago
          Anonymous

          This. Sometimes I wonder if they missed the point, when Jesus said he left the Temple desolate. Other times, I'm reminded that they're the apostles.

          People seem to forget James and the whole Church of Jerusalem existed. And they shouldn't, because they survived the destruction of their city by heeding the prophetic words of Jesus to head for the hills at speed and to leave everything behind (Matthew 24).

    • 3 months ago
      Anonymous

      >you can dismiss "charismatic elements" immediately

      1 Corinthians 12

      One stupid minor doctrine that they're wrong on. Are you so in love with booze that you need magic alcohol to make it "real" communion?

      If it's good enough for Jesus it's good enough for me.

    • 3 months ago
      Anonymous

      >OH also, you can dismiss "charismatic elements" immediately. Not sure what you're arguing there. Are you referring to the Montanists?
      The Montanists were a continuation of an element in the early church that reflected the legitimate practices of the church of Corinth (as one example). They spoke in ecstatic utterances, i.e. tongues, which is NOT simply xenoglossia. The non-Christian work ‘The Testament of Job’ confirms this, as Job’s daughter speaks in an angelic dialect, which is parallel to the tongues of angels described by Paul.

      Also if one reads the Didache, they will see that there were wandering prophets who were able to preside at the Eucharist. This is utterly foreign to the Catholic / Orthodox tradition. Not to mention the Apostolic Tradition of Hippolytus said that confessors don’t even need ordained as presbyters because of the virtue of their suffering for the faith. Again, totally foreign to anything we see Catholic and Orthodox allow.

      • 3 months ago
        Anonymous

        Nta. Wasn't that that tertullian cult? Didn't have priestesses or something?

        • 3 months ago
          Anonymous

          Tertullian is said to have aligned himself with the Montantist / New Prophecy movement in his later years due to its rigorism and similar things. Don’t get me wrong, Montantism (if reported accurately) had heresies in it like Montanus being the Holy Spirit or what you mentioned, but what I mean to say is that the charismatic element was in some sense a holdover from the spirit of the early Christian church

          • 3 months ago
            Anonymous

            It seems to me that just isn't enough written about them to really get much of any kind of detail in what they were all about.

  3. 3 months ago
    Anonymous

    Okay, have you read the Didache, Clement or even Diognetus before you made your post?

  4. 3 months ago
    Anonymous

    The Early Church was:
    1.Roman
    2.Catholic
    3.Apostolic

    • 3 months ago
      Anonymous

      Chapter and verse?

      • 3 months ago
        Anonymous

        >Chapter and verse?
        I'll give you John 21:25.

        It was Roman because it was (among other things) firstly propagated to the Roman subjects and, by how the Empire was connected, it was swiftly spread.
        It was Catholic because, as

        1.Roman
        >kicked out 20 years later by the Empiror
        2.Catholic
        >which meant "universal" in the early church and why you're called papists
        3.Apostolic
        >using semantics again

        pointed out, it was universal; It meant universal (and was moreover believed so) then, as it does now.
        Apostolic, because it inherited the teachings which the apostles learned from Christ; and that those that are intrinsically part of it, are the apostles' successors. First and foremost, the bishop of Rome, whose office comes from the apostle Peter.

        >The Early Church was:
        >1.Roman
        The Romans were the ones murdering Christians in the early church, which is a tradition that Roman Catholics continued for over a thousand years.

        You mean pagan Romans murdering Christian Romans.

        • 3 months ago
          Worker

          >You mean pagan Romans murdering Christian Romans.
          Yes. And Rome is still pagan today.

        • 3 months ago
          Anonymous

          In no way does John 21:25 convey any of your points and you know it, you're just being ridiculous. Everything else you said is just your own reasoning.

          • 3 months ago
            Anonymous

            I suppose the message "not everything that was done by Christ was written" didn't cross your mind; implying that not every doctrinal teaching, custom or action was recorded. Also, if you don't want a stupid answer, don't ask stupid questions.

            >You mean pagan Romans murdering Christian Romans.
            Yes. And Rome is still pagan today.

            Not according to contemporary statistics.

            I know this is pedantic... BUT
            The vast majority of early Christians wouldn't have had Roman citizenship.
            But their persecutors as magistrates and lawyers probably did.
            I suppose the Italian ones would have been, but still.

            You are correct. I used the term "subjects" for that very reason; compliant to Roman Law and rule.

            It’s not called the Roman Catholic Church because it was spread by the Roman Empire;
            It’s because to this very day they believe that the bishop of the church of the City* of Rome is the absolute monarch of Christianity

            >It’s not called the Roman Catholic Church because it was spread by the Roman Empire;
            I agree, and I didn't say that.
            >It’s because to this very day they believe that the bishop of the church of the City* of Rome is the absolute monarch of Christianity
            Untrue. The absolute monarch is Jesus Christ, indisputably. If anything, the successors of St.Peter, the bishop of Rome, would be Christ's regent on earth.

            >It was Roman because it was (among other things) firstly propagated to the Roman subjects
            Aside from the fact that disciples went out to all nations from the beginning, Roman is referring to Rome in this context not the empire as a whole.

            I concede to your point as a primary reason; though not as the singular reason.

          • 3 months ago
            Anonymous

            >implying that not every doctrinal teaching, custom or action was recorded.
            That is such a twisting of scripture. If you have a teaching you can't back up with a Bible verse, it's false. Many Catholic doctrines are not only absent from scripture but even contradict it.

          • 3 months ago
            Anonymous

            >That is such a twisting of scripture.
            It is merely the truth, which I assert.
            >If you have a teaching you can't back up with a Bible verse, it's false.
            A statement which you yourself aren't capable to irrefutably defend.

          • 3 months ago
            Anonymous

            Who are these teachers whose doctrines are not recorded of? They are no teachers for Jesus Christ speaks:
            "8 “But you are not to be called ‘Rabbi,’ for you have one Teacher, and you are all brothers. 9 And do not call anyone on earth ‘father,’ for you have one Father, and he is in heaven. 10 Nor are you to be called instructors, for you have one Instructor, the Messiah. 11 The greatest among you will be your servant. 12 For those who exalt themselves will be humbled, and those who humble themselves will be exalted."

        • 3 months ago
          Anonymous

          >It was Roman because it was (among other things) firstly propagated to the Roman subjects
          Aside from the fact that disciples went out to all nations from the beginning, Roman is referring to Rome in this context not the empire as a whole.

        • 3 months ago
          Anonymous

          It’s not called the Roman Catholic Church because it was spread by the Roman Empire;
          It’s because to this very day they believe that the bishop of the church of the City* of Rome is the absolute monarch of Christianity

        • 3 months ago
          Ο Σολιταίρ

          I know this is pedantic... BUT
          The vast majority of early Christians wouldn't have had Roman citizenship.
          But their persecutors as magistrates and lawyers probably did.
          I suppose the Italian ones would have been, but still.

      • 3 months ago
        Anonymous

        Timothy

    • 3 months ago
      Worker

      >The Early Church was:
      >1.Roman
      The Romans were the ones murdering Christians in the early church, which is a tradition that Roman Catholics continued for over a thousand years.

    • 3 months ago
      Anonymous

      1.Roman
      >kicked out 20 years later by the Empiror
      2.Catholic
      >which meant "universal" in the early church and why you're called papists
      3.Apostolic
      >using semantics again

  5. 3 months ago
    Worker

    [...]

    Ok? I'm not a Calvinist.

    You would've been kicked out of your average Old IFB for being post-trib until very recently.

    The New IFB is not a denomination, you are just making things up. No one considers PSA a pope and he has called out the "Andersonite" mentality.

    >You would've been kicked out of your average Old IFB for being post-trib until very recently.
    Again, the IFB are such a large group that there'd be plenty that wouldn't make a massive deal out of that doctrine, or might hold a different position. And Anderson holds his eschatology as being one of the "main doctrines", so you would get kicked out of NIFB for being opposed to it.

    • 3 months ago
      Anonymous

      >And Anderson holds his eschatology as being one of the "main doctrines", so you would get kicked out of NIFB for being opposed to it.
      Not true! Pastor Anderson has always stated that pre-tribbers are welcome in his congregation and no one has ever been kicked out of FWB for believing in it.

      • 3 months ago
        Worker

        You can't be an NIFB pastor and hold to another view on eschatology.

  6. 3 months ago
    Anonymous

    Traditions develop over time that doesn't somehow break people off from thy church unless its explicitly heretical

  7. 3 months ago
    Anonymous

    >monarchical episcopate is a development
    Nope, St Ignatius' letters.
    >image veneration unknown in early church
    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dura-Europos_church
    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dura-Europos_synagogue
    >subordinationist Christology clearly taught
    Nope.
    https://orthodoxchristiantheology.com/2021/08/06/a-history-of-trinitarian-theology-before-200-ad/
    >high Mariology absent
    Nope. The oldest surviving prayer to the Theotokos, “Beneath Thy Protection”, dates back to AD 250 and after the martyrdom of St Ignatius of Antioch, around 106-117AD, there are writings that attest to him showing in a vision to christians, so we can assume the same about the Theotokos.
    >Rome didn’t even have a monarchical episcopate until the late 2nd century (no pope)
    St Clement kinda makes this null.
    >charismatic elements clearly present (tongues, prophecy, etc)
    People didn't twitch on the ground, run around in a state of ecstacy with no control over themselves.
    >elders / overseers wouldn’t even absolve sinners of severe sins after baptism
    >no auricular confession
    "For as many as are of God and of Jesus Christ are also with the bishop. And as many as shall, in the exercise of penance, return into the unity of the Church, these, too, shall belong to God, that they may live according to Jesus Christ” (Letter to the Philadelphians 3 [A.D. 110]).
    “For where there is division and wrath, God does not dwell. To all them that repent, the Lord grants forgiveness, if they turn in penitence to the unity of God, and to communion with the bishop” (ibid., 8, St Ignatius."
    "[The Gnostic disciples of Marcus] have deluded many women. . . . Some of these women make a public confession, but others are ashamed to do this, and in silence, as if withdrawing from themselves the hope of the life of God, they either apostatize entirely or hesitate between the two courses” (Against Heresies 1:22 St Irenaeus [A.D. 189]).

    • 3 months ago
      Anonymous

      >https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dura-Europos_church
      >https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dura-Europos_synagogue
      Those were likely the influence by Carpocrates a heretical group that traveled from Alexandria to Rome and was noted to "venerate" imagines according to irenaeus of lyons.

      Plus the western church has condemn the practice from Synod of Elvira to the council of Frankfurt.

      • 3 months ago
        Anonymous

        Yeah, but St irenaeus never says veneration is bad, mostly focuses on what their treatement of them, which is way different than most catholics and orthodox, is bad.
        “They also possess images, some of them painted, and others formed from different kinds of material; while they maintain that a likeness of Christ was made by Pilate at that time when Jesus lived among them. They crown these images, and set them up along with the images of the philosophers of the world that is to say, with the images of Pythagoras, and Plato, and Aristotle, and the rest. They have also other modes of honoring these images, after the same manner of the Gentiles.”
        He mostly focuses on them having an icon made pontius Pilate (no proof), putting crowns on them (different from most catholics and orthodox) and put them along images of philosophers.
        >inb4 the philosophers are depicted in christian paintings
        They are presented with no halos in literally one or two churches. They aren't canonised, venerated or mentioned in prayers. He also talks about honoring them in the manner of gentiles (which was meant as non-believer since St Irenaeus was a non-israelite), so this is different.
        This isn't an overt condemnation of veneration in general.
        The synod of Elvira likely functioned on similar logic against pagan practices regarding images, especially since this was in a town full of non-believers from what I know and this was a jurisdictional canon.

  8. 3 months ago
    Anonymous

    .

  9. 3 months ago
    Anonymous

    Nooo! I'm the real israelite and my cult is the one true way to obey and worship the israeli king of Zion!

  10. 3 months ago
    Anonymous

    I agree with most of what you said, and some "Protestant" denominations are far closer to these beliefs than the Roman Catholic or "Orthodox". But where exactly do you find the Charismatic doctrine of "tongues" in the Early Church? I believe "tongues" is clearly a reference to using other existing languages to further elucidate the meaning of Scripture, which obviously has no effect if the hearer can't understand whatever language that is a fluent/competent level.

    • 3 months ago
      Anonymous

      I'm not a Charismatic, but Paul clearly implies that speaking in tongues isn't an ordinary language in 1 Corinthians 14 and even warns the Corinthians that outsiders might think they're mad if they enter and hear everyone speaking in tongues.

      >For one who speaks in a tongue speaks not to men but to God; for no one understands him, but he utters mysteries in the Spirit. 3 On the other hand, the one who prophesies speaks to people for their upbuilding and encouragement and consolation. 4 The one who speaks in a tongue builds up himself, but the one who prophesies builds up the church. 5 Now I want you all to speak in tongues, but even more to prophesy. The one who prophesies is greater than the one who speaks in tongues, unless someone interprets, so that the church may be built up.

      However, he also puts speaking in tongues very low down on the heirarchy of spiritual gifts, taking on leadership roles is placed at the top. In 1 Corinthians 12 he even says that each of the gifts isn't for everybody, directly contradicting the Charismatic claim that everyone needs to speak in tongues.

      >And God has appointed in the church first apostles, second prophets, third teachers, then miracles, then gifts of healing, helping, administrating, and various kinds of tongues. 29 Are all apostles? Are all prophets? Are all teachers? Do all work miracles? 30 Do all possess gifts of healing? Do all speak with tongues? Do all interpret? 31 But earnestly desire the higher gifts.

      • 3 months ago
        Anonymous

        I will write in tongues for you right now
        >αἱ λαμπάδες ἡμῶν σβέννυνται.
        >αἱ λαμπάδες ἡμῶν σβέννυνται.

        Do you understand what that means? If not, then I am like a barbarian to you. But I will provide interpretation: the error of the 5 foolish virgins manifested in that their oil was not sufficient for the coming of the LORD.
        >Luke 12:37 KJV
        >Blessed are those servants, whom the lord when he cometh shall find watching: verily I say unto you, that he shall gird himself, and make them to sit down to meat, and will come forth and serve them.

        • 3 months ago
          Anonymous

          Paul says that "no one understands him", it doesn't sound like it's a language that even the well educated or foreigners would understand.

          • 3 months ago
            Ο Σολιταίρ

            He's talking to Greeks.
            If the language were Hebrew, for example, no one would understand him.
            Or if Paul knew a Native Anatolian Language no one would understand it.

      • 3 months ago
        Anonymous

        I will write in tongues for you right now
        >αἱ λαμπάδες ἡμῶν σβέννυνται.
        >αἱ λαμπάδες ἡμῶν σβέννυνται.

        Do you understand what that means? If not, then I am like a barbarian to you. But I will provide interpretation: the error of the 5 foolish virgins manifested in that their oil was not sufficient for the coming of the LORD.
        >Luke 12:37 KJV
        >Blessed are those servants, whom the lord when he cometh shall find watching: verily I say unto you, that he shall gird himself, and make them to sit down to meat, and will come forth and serve them.

        this
        A real life example of what Paul is saying NOT to do is Latin Mass. They're only speaking to God when the congregation doesn't speak Latin

  11. 3 months ago
    Anonymous

    you just described Oneness Pentecostalism

    • 3 months ago
      Anonymous
  12. 3 months ago
    Anonymous

    [...]

    St Hippolytus of Rome, Tertullian, the Didache and Matthew 28:19 would like a word with you.

    • 3 months ago
      Anonymous

      Matthew 28:19 does not prove modalism, you are just grammatically moronic.

      • 3 months ago
        Anonymous

        Tertullian was not a Modalist or the Polytheistic version of Trinitarianism taught by many today. Read Genesis 18. Jesus Christ was is omniscient.

        • 3 months ago
          Anonymous

          Jesus Christ was not/is not Onniscient.

      • 3 months ago
        Anonymous

        I was talking against modalism. Both tertullian and Hippolytus talked against it.
        My bad if I didn't make it clear.

        >Tertullian
        He literally became a Montanist aka a Pentecostal in later life

        Yeah, but I doubt he would change his trinitarian idea of God, so he likely joined the groups that were trinitarian and not the modalists one, which I am aware both were part of montanism.

    • 3 months ago
      Anonymous

      >Tertullian
      He literally became a Montanist aka a Pentecostal in later life

      • 3 months ago
        Anonymous

        Pentecostals are mainly defined by their demon-possessed tongue-talking. Do you have evidence Saint Tertullian did picrel?

        • 3 months ago
          Dirk

          Uncovered footage of tertullian from an SD card at an excavation site

  13. 3 months ago
    Dirk

    If there's one that's nearest it's obviously protestantism. If you're really persuaded each of those positions are the most ancient there's probably a church out there in line with you.

  14. 3 months ago
    Anonymous

    >And from those who say, "We are Christians" We took their covenant; but they forgot a portion of that of which they were reminded. So We caused among them animosity and hatred until the Day of Resurrection. And Allah is going to inform them about what they used to do.
    unironically what did the quran mean by this?

  15. 3 months ago
    Anonymous

    >Why do Christians keep gaslighting each other over Le True Church when none of them belong to it?
    You're just talking about denomination bickering. Actual Christians are in the denomination "Christianity". That is their church. And they carry out their worship and assemblies just as they did in the first century. Pic related is Hippolytus illustrating what the actual original church is. If you're not this, then you're not Christian.

    • 3 months ago
      Anonymous

      Alright but, how does picrel, statements on what professions are appropriate for Christians, relate to what you said about making clear what church truly means?

  16. 3 months ago
    Anonymous

    >I’m not sure what early Christianity was, but it wasn’t Catholic, Orthodox or Protestant
    Whatever you say, buddy.

  17. 3 months ago
    Anonymous

    >elders / overseers wouldn’t even absolve sinners of severe sins after baptism

    That's inaccurate. They practiced confession and absolution.

    The difference is that they did it publicly in front of the whole congregation, and were much less lenient on repeat offenders. You could be thrown out of that church if you were persistent in a certain sin.

  18. 3 months ago
    Anonymous

    Anabaptists are by far the closest group to the social practices of the Early Church. If they had Baptismal regeneration and real presence, they would be near perfect.

    • 3 months ago
      Anonymous

      I think this is fairly close to the truth. The evidence for early Christian pacifism is overwhelming, and didn’t change until the post-Constantine era or even the 5th century—the only thing I would add is that infant baptism has pretty good evidence behind it, even if it wasn’t universal prior to the 4th or 5th century either—the circumcision parallels are too strong though

      • 3 months ago
        Anonymous

        Well to be fair, what I did write was the "social practices" were the closest to the early church! Separation from the world, pacifism, excommunication and the ban, etc. are all things that seemingly the Anabaptists practice that have all been lost by most of Christendom. Theologically, anabaptists definitely are different in a lot of ways. From what I've researched infant baptism was sort of an open question, something that was fully settled for a few centuries. It seems you have writers who were for and against infant baptism. I don't know if anybody really shares the early church's view of baptism (which isn't a bad thing.) The fact that deathbed baptism was a very common practice, and it was also seemingly the common belief that if someone sinned after baptism show that even the catholic/orthodox/lutherans who hold to a strong view of infant baptism are definitely different then what the early church believed.

        • 3 months ago
          Anonymous

          Very true. Much of the evidence in the early church is quite ambiguous. Not even to mention the scant records of more marginal groups whose literature has not survived which seem to testify to a diverse spectrum of belief and practice

    • 3 months ago
      Anonymous

      Pretty sure the early church baptized babies as well

  19. 3 months ago
    Anonymous

    >call no man pater

  20. 3 months ago
    Anonymous

    Early Christians were the Catholic Church. Just simply reading a History of the Saints or following the lineage of Popes and you'll find a continuation from 30 AD to present.

    • 3 months ago
      Ο Σολιταίρ

      If you read the "lineage of the Popes" as told by Antenicene writers you'd find that Linus was the first bishop of Rome and not Peter

      • 3 months ago
        Anonymous

        And Linus was entrusted by the Apostles, specifically Paul and Peter. And Peter was entrusted with the Church by Christ.

        • 3 months ago
          Ο Σολιταίρ

          Again, there is no mention of Peter being the first "Bishop of Rome"
          >uhh uhh it was a given!
          Linus in the earliest texts is called the first bishop.
          That is to say; that Christ created the absolute monarchy known as the Roman Catholic Church is eisegesis at best.

          • 3 months ago
            Anonymous

            It really is a given, Beyond the tile itself, is the authority. And before Linus, this authority was given to Peter, who was given from Christ. In all purposes and contexts, Peter is the first pope. And regardless of what you believe on semantics, that doesn't really change the nature of Apostolic succession in which the Church has preserved.

          • 3 months ago
            Ο Σολιταίρ

            What did Peter receive besides the honorific "Peter"? That is, what did he receive that the other Apostles didn't?
            And WHY did Peter receive his honorific? It was conditional on a certain affirmation...

  21. 3 months ago
    Anonymous

    >image veneration unknown in early church
    How early are you walking about? We have Gregory of Nazianzus defending the use of relic veneration in the 300s against the criticisms of Julian and Eunapius. Pagan critics actually thought that the veneration of dead people was disgusting. In his work "“Ancient Roots for Reformed Polity" Vitringa admitted that it was a legitimate belief among the Hebrews:
    >Synagogues were sometimes built near the sepulchers of devout persons; sometimes they were built round sepulchers of devout persons; so as to enclose them within their walls. Synagogues thus circumstanced, were esteemed more sacred. There was a notion among the israelites, that the souls of the deceased hovered round the tombs in which their bodies were deposited, and that by their intercession, suppliants, who frequented their tombs, obtained the more easily their requests from God; and though some israelites strongly disclaim this notion, and assert, that they frequent these tombs to learn a lesson of humility, and to be put in mind of death, (the common lot of all); still there is little doubt, but that the general opinion was in favor of the intercession of departed spirits (pg 28)

    • 3 months ago
      Anonymous

      Relic veneration can be seen fairly early on, I think any honest reader of the sources will be able to admit this, but that’s not to say that some in the church such as Vigilantius (to give one example) criticized these practices.

      The record with image veneration, however, is far more ambiguous. We all know the names, but Justin Martyr, Tertullian, Origen, Augustine, Lactantius, Eusebius, Epiphanius, and many others were opposed to the veneration or use of images religiously.

      Some people will point to the Dura Europos synagogue, but I don’t think this does as much in favor of the pro-image veneration camp as some think. Having images =/= image veneration, and Hellenistic Judaism itself was highly diverse, and just because a group of israelites (in a Hellenized city, too) had a synagogue with much art, doesn’t prove that it is a correct application of Scripture.

      • 3 months ago
        Anonymous

        I think a person can argue that Image veneration was a development from the veneration of relics.

        • 3 months ago
          Anonymous

          I’ve heard the argument, but it’s really a non sequitur. A relic is not a type of image. Even modern israelites will kiss a mezuzah or a Torah scroll but will not allow for images / idols to be built.

          • 3 months ago
            Anonymous

            >I’ve heard the argument, but it’s really a non sequitur
            I don't think it is. If a person believes in a miraculous relic then he would most likely be open to the idea of a miraculous icon.

          • 3 months ago
            Anonymous

            I’m sure they would be more open to that, but Scripture forbids it

          • 3 months ago
            Anonymous

            >Scripture forbids it
            This is something I always bring up to Lutherans or Anglicans when they bow to crosses. They claim it's adiaphora, but it is clear that these actions are illicit in scripture.

  22. 3 months ago
    Anonymous

    There was no veneration of dead people in the early church. Nor did they have any objects they used "facilitate prayer". They didn't make images.

    • 3 months ago
      Anonymous

      So Gregory was wrong?

    • 3 months ago
      Anonymous

      >They didn't make images.
      Images in the first and second century are rare because Christians (1) came from a israeli zeitgeist that didn't allow images of human figures, (2) were persecuted by Romans, and (3) their image of God was a tortured human man which would have looked strange and disturbing to outsiders.

      If God carte-blanche hated images then there would have been no cherubim placed on the Ark of the Covenant.

  23. 3 months ago
    Anonymous

    Look I'm no early church / Christian historian by far but from my limited knowledge on the subject pretty much everyone was fighting with everyone and there was no really singular Christian church. No one really knew what they were doing back then.

  24. 3 months ago
    Anonymous

    I have mixed opinions on Jerome.

    His Vulgate is the best source we have on the proto-Masoretic text in addition to the DSS. On the other hand, he had a habit of uncritically accepting whatever hairbrained claims the rabbinics made about the LXX.

    He also found the Gospel of the Hebrews, which is cool. Too bad he didn't bother copying it for some reason. Who knows, maybe he did.

  25. 3 months ago
    Anonymous

    It was Catholic and then it divided into other Protestant groups, because they protested some alterations.
    Most Catholics and Protestants were israelites.

    • 3 months ago
      Anonymous

      The designation ‘Catholic’ makes no sense prior to Constantine

      • 3 months ago
        Ο Σολιταίρ

        The term "Catholic" was invented in response to heretical offshoots in the Antenicene Period.
        I'm sure some writers only had good intentions by labeling (at the time) Biblical Christianity as the "Catholic" faith to differentiate from Gnostics.
        That said, the word never occurs in the New Testament so I don't autistically feel the need to LARP as the "REAL Catholic" like Lutherans or Reformed.

  26. 3 months ago
    Anonymous

    >muh Dura Europos

  27. 3 months ago
    Anonymous

    Are there any good history books on Christianity that spans from the time of Christs birth to the protestant reformation or later?

    • 3 months ago
      Ο Σολιταίρ

      Eusebius' Church History is a good 1st and 2nd hand source for Christianity leading up to Constantine.

    • 3 months ago
      Anonymous

      Diarmad McCullough's 'A History of Christianity' is as sweeping an overview as you can get. He covers the israeli and Pagan background then goes all the way from Jesus to the 20th century.

      • 3 months ago
        Anonymous

        Is pic related the one you are talking about?

        • 3 months ago
          Anonymous

          Yes!

          • 3 months ago
            Anonymous

            Cool. Thanks! It seems like exactly what I was looking for.

  28. 3 months ago
    Anonymous

    "True Christianity" is the most convoluted mind numbing topic I've seen on this board. It's worse than indo European racial autism. It's like for every fact there are a half dozen conditional statements or counter facts that make this entire thing incomprehensible. As far as I can tell it just seems like there was just theological chaos that was later retconned into being a official brand of Christianity around 300 ad but then that fell apart about 700 years later and from that it fractured into thousands of different sects. I think the most defensible sect is Orthodoxy but I don't know much about it and there seems to be a lot of differing opinions on things within orthodoxy.

    Really it's a exhausting topic.

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *