Did the true church ever vanish or completely fall away?

[sincerly]

The NT church was not a hierarchy. At the Council in Jerusalem, Different apostles had different say. There was no one apostle over any one church. Peter was not over Paul, and James was not over Peter. There was no head apostle. They were just there to serve in whatever capacity God decided. To set up a highly regimented hierarchical church structure with someone at the top goes against the pattern of the NT church.

E.R.M., Didn't the "church" have the "Apostles"=delegate; one sent with orders.
Didn't they add Deacons and Overseers/Bishops; Evangelist, Teachers, Prophets, etc. as the need arose?
At that Jerusalem Council, James was the one to be " in Charge".(along with the Holy Spirit) Therefore, James was considered the "head"/ of the organized work.
Creation, itself, confirms that GOD is a GOD of order---not chaos/confusion. Until Jesus becomes Kings of king and LORD of lords in the new earth, we will be subject to leadership which is set up by GOD to bring about that New earth.

 

[e.r.m.]

E.R.M., Didn't the "church" have the "Apostles"=delegate; one sent with orders.
Didn't they add Deacons and Overseers/Bishops; Evangelist, Teachers, Prophets, etc. as the need arose?
At that Jerusalem Council, James was the one to be " in Charge".(along with the Holy Spirit) Therefore, James was considered the "head"/ of the organized work.
Creation, itself, confirms that GOD is a GOD of order---not chaos/confusion. Until Jesus becomes Kings of king and LORD of lords in the new earth, we will be subject to leadership which is set up by GOD to bring about that New earth.

I agree God is a God of order and that James seemed to have the final voice in the council, and that they appointed elders, deacons, and overseers etc. as the need arose. What I'm saying is, there was no kingdom wide hierarchy.

 

[sincerly]

e.r.m. said: ↑
So you're saying a lot of what wasn't documented in John was documented in the other three.

I'm saying that the source material is different between the synoptics and John.

Sojourner, As Luke(1:1) stated, "Forasmuch as many have taken in hand to set forth in order a declaration of those things which are most surely believed among us," and that concerning the life and teachings of Jesus Christ, Matthew, Mark and Luke took the humanistic side of that declaration and John took the Divinity side of the declaration--as is evidenced by the first three verses.
Neither was JOHN slake in showing the human side of Jesus.
The "source material" wasn't "different", but the Point of view of Matthew and John as to expressing their "declaration of beliefs" with that material was.
As was expressed by another---parables was dominate in the synoptics , but John used the physical activity which proved/revealed the Divinity of Jesus.
John's last words were(21:25), "And there are also many other things which Jesus did, the which, if they should be written every one, I suppose that even the world itself could not contain the books that should be written. Amen."

 

[sincerly]

I agree God is a God of order and that James seemed to have the final voice in the council, and that they appointed elders, deacons, and overseers etc. as the need arose. What I'm saying is, there was no kingdom wide hierarchy.

Has there been a "kingdom wide" nation/"body" for such a hierarchy to exist? Scriptures say that will not exist until the "kingdoms of this world become the kingdoms of our Lord". That at HIS Coming.

That doesn't stop the "Body of Jesus Christ"/HIS Church to have the above functioning officers. ( Whether the "church" is true or false).

 

[e.r.m.]

Has there been a "kingdom wide" nation/"body" for such a hierarchy to exist? Scriptures say that will not exist until the "kingdoms of this world become the kingdoms of our Lord". That at HIS Coming.

That doesn't stop the "Body of Jesus Christ"/HIS Church to have the above functioning officers. ( Whether the "church" is true or false).

I use kingdom and body of Christ synonymously Revelation 1:5-6, but that's not my point here. I'll rephrase. In the NT Church, there was no Body of Christ wide hierarchy with anyone at the top, except Christ.

 

[sincerly]

I use kingdom and body of Christ synonymously Revelation 1:5-6, but that's not my point here. I'll rephrase. In the NT Church, there was no Body of Christ wide hierarchy with anyone at the top, except Christ.

E.R.M., While Jesus Christ is the head if HIS Church, HIS subjects are scattered throughout many governments of the world. GOD had established the "Spiritual" leadership in the OT and 1Pet.2:9, 13-15 says, "But ye are a chosen generation, a royal priesthood, an holy nation, a peculiar people; that ye should shew forth the praises of him who hath called you out of darkness into his marvellous light:...
Submit yourselves to every ordinance of man for the Lord's sake: whether it be to the king, as supreme;
Or unto governors, as unto them that are sent by him for the punishment of evildoers, and for the praise of them that do well.
For so is the will of God, that with well doing ye may put to silence the ignorance of foolish men:"

A Child of GOD can not go contrary to GOD'S Laws., but for the functioning of the church, as stated previously, officers were put in place to allow the church to function properly.
Not with the idea that anyone is "superior to another."--- Everyone has a place in HIS "field of labor".

 

[e.r.m.]

E.R.M., While Jesus Christ is the head if HIS Church, HIS subjects are scattered throughout many governments of the world. GOD had established the "Spiritual" leadership in the OT and 1Pet.2:9, 13-15 says, "But ye are a chosen generation, a royal priesthood, an holy nation, a peculiar people; that ye should shew forth the praises of him who hath called you out of darkness into his marvellous light:...
Submit yourselves to every ordinance of man for the Lord's sake: whether it be to the king, as supreme;
Or unto governors, as unto them that are sent by him for the punishment of evildoers, and for the praise of them that do well.
For so is the will of God, that with well doing ye may put to silence the ignorance of foolish men:"

A Child of GOD can not go contrary to GOD'S Laws., but for the functioning of the church, as stated previously, officers were put in place to allow the church to function properly.
Not with the idea that anyone is "superior to another."--- Everyone has a place in HIS "field of labor".

Agreed. But the issue of church government is still relevant.

 

[sincerly]

Agreed. But the issue of church government is still relevant.

The Church of Jesus Christ was set in motion with the "Go Ye" and as prophesied has gone through much persecution and attempted slaughter by its enemies, but is still alive and well . It is nearing the being called home.

 

[e.r.m.]

The Church of Jesus Christ was set in motion with the "Go Ye" and as prophesied has gone through much persecution and attempted slaughter by its enemies, but is still alive and well.

Agreed.

It is nearing the being called home.

We don't know when. It could be within the next two hundred years for all we know.

Do you belong to a completely independent church or to a group of churches by the same name? This applies even though disciples are scattered worldwide. If you do belong to a group of churches, what is the structure of this group?

 

[sojourner]

The "source material" wasn't "different", but the Point of view of Matthew and John as to expressing their "declaration of beliefs" with that material was.

No. The source material was different. That's why the synoptics are called the synoptics, and John is excluded from that group -- the stuff in John is different from the other three.

As was expressed by another---parables was dominate in the synoptics , but John used the physical activity which proved/revealed the Divinity of Jesus.

Why do you think the parables don't appear in John as they do in the others? The source material is different.

 

[sincerly]

Agreed.

We don't know when. It could be within the next two hundred years for all we know.

Do you belong to a completely independent church or to a group of churches by the same name? This applies even though disciples are scattered worldwide. If you do belong to a group of churches, what is the structure of this group?

E.R.M., Right! However, since Jesus gave some convincing indication of the nearness of that event, how much worse could the evil conditions become??

It isn't my "belonging", but each one's determination of who Jesus Christ is and one's relationship to the GOD of the Scriptures that will count when the "book of life is opened".

 

[sincerly]

sincerly said: ↑
The "source material" wasn't "different", but the Point of view of Matthew and John as to expressing their "declaration of beliefs" with that material was.

No. The source material was different. That's why the synoptics are called the synoptics, and John is excluded from that group -- the stuff in John is different from the other three.

Sojourner, Luke says you are wrong. (1:1), "Forasmuch as many have taken in hand to set forth in order a declaration of those things which are most surely believed among us,(1:3), It seemed good to me also, having had perfect understanding of all things from the very first, to write unto thee in order, most excellent Theophilus,"

There is no collaboration with other of the writers for their "witness"/knowledge as to the events or how to order the events other than "most surely believed".
Each writer did just that---and, therefore, the cause for the "doubting", "criticism", etc. of all the "scholars" who want to dismantle the history, life, and teachings of Jesus Christ.

What was "most surely believed" was the "source" by all.
John's POV was to insure that readers grasped the understanding that Jesus Christ was more than a humanitarian---HE "Was/Is" GOD with the Father and the Holy Spirit. HIS mission was/did come to save mankind from the penalty of sin and restore mankind to the fellowship with GOD.

Therefore, John brings balance to the overall understanding to the Loving Characteristics of the GODHEAD.
The general public sees GOD as a tyrant and evil as these posts evidence.

 

[outhouse]

That has a lot to do with the nature of the source material for the synoptics, as opposed to John. .

The whole thing about John. is John has the possibility to have earlier source material geographically closer then the gospel traditions.

Now in reality it is unknown who was the earliest. Some aspects of Johns traditions contradict the synoptics and make more sense. Others are obviously later traditions.

The source material for the synoptics is a collection of quotations (teachings).

One source is a collection of sayings. It certainly is not the foundation IMHO. Like John it Is a compilation of traditions. John just being a compilation put together over a longer period of time, by our best guesses.

 

[outhouse]

The NT church was not a hierarchy

No not early on. Early on there was no church, church is the wrong word used. Assembly is correct for these early years.

At the Council in Jerusalem

We know very little about this, and my best guess is that is was just another Hellenistic sect that wanted to hold on to more of the laws of Judaism then what Paul did.

, Different apostles had different say

Yes, you mean different opinions.

But defining apostle might be tricky.

There was no head apostle.

Correct.

 

[sojourner]

sincerly said: ↑
The "source material" wasn't "different", but the Point of view of Matthew and John as to expressing their "declaration of beliefs" with that material was.



Sojourner, Luke says you are wrong. (1:1), "Forasmuch as many have taken in hand to set forth in order a declaration of those things which are most surely believed among us,(1:3), It seemed good to me also, having had perfect understanding of all things from the very first, to write unto thee in order, most excellent Theophilus,"

There is no collaboration with other of the writers for their "witness"/knowledge as to the events or how to order the events other than "most surely believed".
Each writer did just that---and, therefore, the cause for the "doubting", "criticism", etc. of all the "scholars" who want to dismantle the history, life, and teachings of Jesus Christ.

What was "most surely believed" was the "source" by all.
John's POV was to insure that readers grasped the understanding that Jesus Christ was more than a humanitarian---HE "Was/Is" GOD with the Father and the Holy Spirit. HIS mission was/did come to save mankind from the penalty of sin and restore mankind to the fellowship with GOD.

Therefore, John brings balance to the overall understanding to the Loving Characteristics of the GODHEAD.
The general public sees GOD as a tyrant and evil as these posts evidence.

You have no idea what we're talking about, do you! The reason why the synoptics are called the synoptics ("seen together") is because there is material that is common to all. Matt and Lk copy huge portions of Mark. They also share a lot of common material from an unknown, earlier source we call "Q." John doesn't share that source material. That's why John isn't one of the synoptics.

 

[outhouse]

You have no idea what we're talking about, do you!

The ignore feature will save you a lot of headache

 

[metis]

I'll rephrase. In the NT Church, there was no Body of Christ wide hierarchy with anyone at the top, except Christ.

Actually that's quite false. The early church did not ever view itself and it's followers as a "do your own thing" kind of sect. There was structure with the apostles, appointees by the apostles, and a recognition of such that went into the 2nd century and beyond. This is one reason why Paul refers to and insists there's only "one body", and he certainly didn't mean it in any kind of loosey-goosey way.

Cults, and Christianity started out that way, not only have a leader but are pretty much certain to have follow-up leaders to carry on the message of the leader.

 

[outhouse]

. The early church did not ever view itself and it's followers as a "do your own thing" kind of sect.

Define early church.

There was no early so called church for hundreds of years.

There was structure with the apostles, appointees by the apostles, and a recognition of such that went into the 2nd century and beyond

Thee was no structure we can pinpoint from any of Jesus first followers.

We cannot say there were or was appointees. People threw those names around rhetorically, and we have pseudepigrapha with names attributed. But there was no organization early on what so ever.

Every bit of writing we have came from the traditions developed in the Diaspora from Hellenist. Nothing at all has specific origins from Galilean Aramaic Jews.

 

[metis]

Define early church.

There was no early so called church for hundreds of years.

Thee was no structure we can pinpoint from any of Jesus first followers.

We cannot say there were or was appointees. People threw those names around rhetorically, and we have pseudepigrapha with names attributed. But there was no organization early on what so ever.

Every bit of writing we have came from the traditions developed in the Diaspora from Hellenist. Nothing at all has specific origins from Galilean Aramaic Jews.

Sorry, but the above simply is wrong and is not based on any information whatsoever. And even basic logic posits that cults need to spread "the word", so the idea that Christianity was some sort of loosey-goosey bunch of congregations simply is absurd.

An excellent book, if anyone can get their hands on it, is "Tradition In the Early Church" whereas Hanson (Anglican theologian) heavily documents various sources to show that the early church did not see itself as some sort of non-distinct system, but tried it's best to conduct itself as "one body", as Paul called it.

 

[outhouse]

", so the idea that Christianity was some sort of loosey-goosey bunch of congregations simply is absurd.

Christianity FACTUALLY evolved from multiple traditions that were combined through popularity after hundreds of years.

Not up for debate how diverse early followers were.

"Tradition In the Early Church"

There were traditions in communities, there was no early church.

Please learn the proper translation of the Greek word

Hanson (Anglican theologian)

Is aged and dated and not credible, nor is he an expert on the evolution from this period.

In other words, no one follows his work.

and is not based on any information whatsoever

False.

Every credible historian and scholar backs what Im trying to explain to you.

but tried it's best to conduct itself as "one body", as Paul called it.

There was no church in Pauls days. There was no one body.