There is only one true church

[Brakelite]

Brakelite,

I have never said that there were not any sabbath keeping churches in early Christianity. Historically we know there was, but a majority were not. The Church, via Church Councils, addressed that issue. But you already know that.

Also, you said, "here are the footnotes of just one chapter in one book I have read". What book was that? Footnotes in a book is not evidence of predominate Sabbath keeping by Christians.

Two of those people in your footnotes, Eusebius and Tertullian, wrote how Sunday worship was the norm for Christianity.

Mary

Hi MoG, I wasn't citing those footnotes as evidence for Sabbath keeping. They were simply indicative of the broad base of research carried out by the writer of that particular book, who I respect as an historian for that very reason. The book itself is written not primarily to provide evidence for Sabbath keeping in the early church, although that does enter into the equation, it was written as an historical account of the Apostolic roots of churches throughout the world and not deriving their authenticity from Rome.

 

[Marymog]

Col 1:15--Gods words.

Well, I was being serious and wanted a serious answer, but I can see you are not being serious so thank you for your time.

 

[Marymog]

No trinity was served in the 2nd century=100% fact. It was created in 381 ce at the council of Constantinople= recorded history fact.

I think you are confusing the FACT that The Church taught and talked about the Trinity BEFORE 381AD when it was officially put into doctrine by The Church.

But I get the gist of your argument.

Mary

 

[Johann]

I think you are confusing the FACT that The Church taught and talked about the Trinity BEFORE 381AD when it was officially put into doctrine by The Church.

But I get the gist of your argument.

Mary

You are correct but isn't the topic of the Trinity banned?
J.

 

[BreadOfLife]

unworthy manner= not of the little flock who will sit on thrones. Only those of the little flock were present at the Lords evening meal.

WRONG.

Pau is specifically referring to the sinful behavior (drunkenness, etc.) of some of the congregants. That’s why he says that they need to examine themselves before receiving the Lord’s Supper:

1 Cor. 11:28
EVERYONE ought to examine themselves before they eat of the bread and drink from the cup.

IF there was some hard and fast rule that it was only for some “little flock” to receive it – they would have known who they were. Paul says that “EVERYONE” needs to examine themselves before receiving the Bread and the Cup.,

 

[BreadOfLife]

So now it is up to you to prove that keeping Sunday, a tradition of the Catholic Church, is more moral than obeying a specific commandment of God.
Also, I would be interested if you care to defend Sunday as merely "ceremonial"? No-one I know, either Jewish or Seventh Day Adventist or Seventh Day Baptist, thinks the Sabbath is, or ever was, "ceremonial".

The Sabbath is NOT part of the Moral Law – no matter how much YOU try to make it. That would be like saying that the Commandment against adultery is a ceremonial Law.

Show me a SINGLE verse to let NO man judge you in matters of adultery or theft or murder - as Col. 2:16-17 does about the Sabbath and other ceremonial aspects of the Law.

In the end, you reject the words of Jesus Christ, when He bestowed complete earthly Authority on His Church.

Matt 16:19, Matt. 18:18
Amen, I say to you, WHATEVER YOU BIND on earth shall be bound in heaven, and WHATEVER YOU LOOSE on earth shall be loosed in heaven.

John 16:13-15
But when he comes, the Spirit of truth, he will guide you to ALL truth. He will not speak on his own, but he will speak what he hears, and will declare to YOU the things that are coming.
He will glorify me, because he will TAKE from what is MINE and declare it to YOU.
Everything that the Father has is MINE; for this reason I told you that he will TAKE from what is MINE and declare it to YOU.

Luke 10:16
Whoever listens to YOU listens to ME. Whoever rejects YOU rejects ME. And whoever rejects ME rejects the ONE who sent ME."

 

[BreadOfLife]

I'm just not understanding your continual reference to a letter other than the sole letter I THOUGHT we were discussing: 2 Tim. 3:16, where Paul DOES mention graphē (= Scripture). Can you please focus on Second Timothy and nothing else for a moment? What did Paul mean by graphē here? I say the OT. How could it be anything else?

First of all – the word Paul uses in 2 Thess. 2:15 is επιστολε (ep-is-tol-ay'), which means “a letter”.

Secondly – the reason I brought up 2 Pet. 3:16 is because you cannot simply cherry-pick the Scriptures and post verses out of context to make a point. ALL Scripture must be read IN CONTEXT with the other verses.

ALL that being said – 2 Thess. 2:15 is about ORAL and WRITTEN Tradition – and that they are equally binding.
One is NOT more binding than the other . . .

 

[RedFan]

First of all – the word Paul uses in 2 Thess. 2:15 is επιστολε (ep-is-tol-ay'), which means “a letter”.

Secondly – the reason I brought up 2 Pet. 3:16 is because you cannot simply cherry-pick the Scriptures and post verses out of context to make a point. ALL Scripture must be read IN CONTEXT with the other verses.

ALL that being said – 2 Thess. 2:15 is about ORAL and WRITTEN Tradition – and that they are equally binding.
One is NOT more binding than the other . . .

You affirm what I do not deny. Sure, oral and written tradition are equally binding. Sure, 2 Thess. 2:15 (unlike 2 Tim. 3:16) is about both oral and written tradition. I'm the last person to disagree with either of those propositions!

The ONLY thing I have been concerned with here -- and the thing you just can't seem to focus on, no matter how hard I try to focus you -- is the meaning of "graphe" in 2 Tim. 3:16. It means the OT, and nothing else. I'm not taking 2 Tim 3:16 out of context. There is just nothing in the context of the letter to suggest otherwise.

Is all Scripture, both OT and NT, God-breathed and useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness? Absolutely! Did Paul so declare? I don't know, I haven't read everything he's ever written, nor was I around to hear him preach. Did Paul so declare in 2 Tim: 3:16? NO WAY!

 

[Johann]

You affirm what I do not deny. Sure, oral and written tradition are equally binding. Sure, 2 Thess. 2:15 (unlike 2 Tim. 3:16) is about both oral and written tradition. I'm the last person to disagree with either of those propositions!

The ONLY thing I have been concerned with here -- and the thing you just can't seem to focus on, no matter how hard I try to focus you -- is the meaning of "graphe" in 2 Tim. 3:16. It means the OT, and nothing else. I'm not taking 2 Tim 3:16 out of context. There is just nothing in the context of the letter to suggest otherwise.

Is all Scripture, both OT and NT, God-breathed and useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness? Absolutely! Did Paul so declare? I don't know, I haven't read everything he's ever written, nor was I around to hear him preach. Did Paul so declare in 2 Tim: 3:16? NO WAY!

Paul concludes this section with an appeal to Timothy to remain loyal to all the teaching he had received. On his mother’s side Timothy was a Jew, although his father had been a Greek (Act_16:1); and it is clear that it was his mother who had brought him up. It was the glory of the Jews that their children from their earliest days were trained in the law. They claimed that their children learned the law even from their swaddling clothes and drank it in with their mother’s milk. They claimed that the law was so imprinted on the heart and mind of a Jewish child that he would sooner forget his own name than he would forget it. So from his earliest childhood Timothy had known the sacred writings. We must remember that the scripture of which Paul is writing is the Old Testament; as yet the New Testament had not come into being. If what be claims for scripture is true of the Old Testament, how much truer it is of the still more precious words of the New.
DSB.

J.

 

[Keiw]

I see Col. 1:15-16 differently. I view "firstborn of all creation" as a declaration of primacy over creation rather than a statement about the Son itself being created. "Firstborn" (πρωτότοκος) is used again two verses later in Col. 1:18. where the Son is referred to as "firstborn of the dead." Both usages of the word appear to me to be primacy declarations, not declarations of inception.

There is 0 doubt, Jesus was created first direct and last direct. All creation occurred at the beginning.

 

[Keiw]

I think you are confusing the FACT that The Church taught and talked about the Trinity BEFORE 381AD when it was officially put into doctrine by The Church.

But I get the gist of your argument.

Mary

Catholicism who was there back then says in their own encyclopedia--No trinity was served prior till the end of the 4th century. And the Apostolic Fathers knew 0 of God being a trinity. New Catholic encyclopedia-Vol XIV page 299. 1967

 

[Keiw]

Well, I was being serious and wanted a serious answer, but I can see you are not being serious so thank you for your time.

Nothing more serious than Gods truth. So why do you reject the truth i share?

 

[Keiw]

WRONG.

Pau is specifically referring to the sinful behavior (drunkenness, etc.) of some of the congregants. That’s why he says that they need to examine themselves before receiving the Lord’s Supper:

1 Cor. 11:28
EVERYONE ought to examine themselves before they eat of the bread and drink from the cup.

IF there was some hard and fast rule that it was only for some “little flock” to receive it – they would have known who they were. Paul says that “EVERYONE” needs to examine themselves before receiving the Bread and the Cup.,

Luke 22:29-30= a covenant made to those who will sit on thrones--proves you are wrong about what Paul said.

 

[Keiw]

The Pope just declared to Catholics in the USA--Vote for the lesser of 2 evils---Jesus would condone 0 votes cast for an evil, proving The Pope does not know Jesus and vica versa.

 

[Marymog]

Catholicism who was there back then says in their own encyclopedia--No trinity was served prior till the end of the 4th century. And the Apostolic Fathers knew 0 of God being a trinity. New Catholic encyclopedia-Vol XIV page 299. 1967

Really? I can't seem to find that on page 299. Can you provide a link to that?

I found this:

“The doctrine of the Holy Trinity is not taught in the OT. In the NT the oldest evidence is in the Pauline epistles, especially 2 Cor 13:13, 14 and 1 Cor 12:4-6)” (New Catholic Encyclopedia, Volume 14 page 306,

 

[Johann]

Catholicism who was there back then says in their own encyclopedia--No trinity was served prior till the end of the 4th century. And the Apostolic Fathers knew 0 of God being a trinity. New Catholic encyclopedia-Vol XIV page 299. 1967

Think again.

The Apostolic Fathers were early Christian leaders who were closely associated with the apostles or their immediate successors. These figures include Clement of Rome, Ignatius of Antioch, Polycarp, and the author of the Didache.
While their writings do not contain a systematic doctrine of the Trinity, they do express beliefs that suggest a recognition of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit as divine, even if not fully elaborated in the later theological framework.

Ignatius of Antioch (c. 35-108 AD):

Ignatius wrote about the deity of Christ and the Holy Spirit in a way that is consistent with a Trinitarian understanding. For example, in his letters, he emphasizes the divinity of Christ and refers to the Holy Spirit in a way that aligns with the later development of Trinitarian theology. In his letter to the Ephesians, he writes:
“There is one physician who is possessed both of flesh and spirit; both made and not made; God existing in flesh; true life in death; both of Mary and of God; first passible and then impassible, even Jesus Christ our Lord."

This suggests an understanding of Jesus as both human and divine, an important aspect of the later Trinitarian doctrine.

Justin Martyr (100-165 AD):

While not technically one of the Apostolic Fathers, Justin Martyr represents the second generation of Christian apologists and wrote extensively about the relationship between the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. He described the Logos (Word) as pre-existent and divine, referring to Christ as the second person of the Godhead, though he did not yet use the term Trinity.
The Trinity and Its Development:

The fully developed doctrine of the Trinity was formally articulated later, especially at the Council of Nicaea (325 AD) and the Council of Constantinople (381 AD), where theological terms like homoousios (meaning "of the same substance") were used to describe the relationship between the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.
However, the seeds of this doctrine—belief in the divinity of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit—are present in earlier writings, even if not explicitly formulated as the "Trinity."

J.

 

[Keiw]

Really? I can't seem to find that on page 299. Can you provide a link to that?

I found this:

“The doctrine of the Holy Trinity is not taught in the OT. In the NT the oldest evidence is in the Pauline epistles, especially 2 Cor 13:13, 14 and 1 Cor 12:4-6)” (New Catholic Encyclopedia, Volume 14 page 306,

There is no trinity, that is why it is not taught in the OT. Catholicism added error to translating to fit false council teachings. They removed Gods name in over 7000 places against Gods will to mislead, and it does just that.. Catholicism= 2 Thess 2:3)-0 doubt in all creation.

 

[RedFan]

There is 0 doubt, Jesus was created first direct and last direct. All creation occurred at the beginning.

0 doubt in your mind, perhaps. In my mind, I am far from concluding that the Son was "created." (Why do you keep calling Him "Jesus?" That name applies only to the incarnate Son.)

The "eternally begotten" formulation at Nicaea has a point to make about how "the beginning" is a poor fit for a being that had no beginning in the temporal sense. Your mistake is Arius's mistake, thinking that there was a "time" when the Son was not. Eternity has no temporal beginning or end.

 

[Keiw]

0 doubt in your mind, perhaps. In my mind, I am far from concluding that the Son was "created." (Why do you keep calling Him "Jesus?" That name applies only to the incarnate Son.)

The "eternally begotten" formulation at Nicaea has a point to make about how "the beginning" is a poor fit for a being that had no beginning in the temporal sense. Your mistake is Arius's mistake, thinking that there was a "time" when the Son was not. Eternity has no temporal beginning or end.

Daniel 7:13-15--Someone like a son of man( Jesus)( = a created being) was given a kingship) appointed by the Ancient of days=God=YHVH(Jehovah).

 

[Brakelite]

The Sabbath is NOT part of the Moral Law – no matter how much YOU try to make it. That would be like saying that the Commandment against adultery is a ceremonial Law.

Show me a SINGLE verse to let NO man judge you in matters of adultery or theft or murder - as Col. 2:16-17 does about the Sabbath and other ceremonial aspects of the Law.

In the end, you reject the words of Jesus Christ, when He bestowed complete earthly Authority on His Church.

Matt 16:19, Matt. 18:18
Amen, I say to you, WHATEVER YOU BIND on earth shall be bound in heaven, and WHATEVER YOU LOOSE on earth shall be loosed in heaven.

John 16:13-15
But when he comes, the Spirit of truth, he will guide you to ALL truth. He will not speak on his own, but he will speak what he hears, and will declare to YOU the things that are coming.
He will glorify me, because he will TAKE from what is MINE and declare it to YOU.
Everything that the Father has is MINE; for this reason I told you that he will TAKE from what is MINE and declare it to YOU.

Luke 10:16
Whoever listens to YOU listens to ME. Whoever rejects YOU rejects ME. And whoever rejects ME rejects the ONE who sent ME."

No. I reject utterly your church's misuse of Scripture and historical political power and fraudulent documents to support the exercise of tyrannical imposition of church tradition and man-made decrees that denied religious liberty to millions over many centuries. I also reject your so called authority that persecuted those who your church arbitrarily designated heretics. Jesus did not give anyone authority to judge.