Did the true church ever vanish or completely fall away?

[outhouse]

Could you supply a credible source?

 

[metis]

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

Not up for debate how diverse early followers were.

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

Please learn the proper translation of the Greek word
Is aged and dated and not credible, nor is he an expert on the evolution from this period.

In other words, no one fol
lows his work.
False.

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



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

Total, nonsensical balderdash. I've studied theology for some 40 years now, and the above is nothing short of sheer nonsense. You're seeing only what you want to see, can't post a single source for your "information", and then making the "cardinal sin" of posting opinions as facts. You believe what you want to believe, and I have no interest in your fabrications.

 

[outhouse]

Total, nonsensical balderdash.

You have no sources.

and then making the "cardinal sin" of posting opinions as facts

That is what your doing based on a known unreliable apologetic source.

I've studied theology for some 40 years now

Then its time you updated your knowledge base.

Things have changed and many old apologetic scholarships are worthless.


There was no structure. That is why Mark was written to a Roman audience, it is why Luke and Matthew copied Mark, and wrote contradictory versions to each other.

Its why John was based on for the most part different traditions then the gospels. Because there was no orthodoxy or organization what so ever for a few hundred years.


This shows a complete lack of knowledge on early Christianity and how what most scholars show as a very diverse evolution and factual compilation of different traditions.


Next thing you will claim the NT books were all written by eyewitnesses ??????????????

 

[metis]

My ignore list just expanded by one.

 

[outhouse]

My ignore list just expanded by one.

Thank you. Someone this far removed from credible scholarships furthers nothing for anyone here.

And it seems fitting you run when faced with having to substantiate your claim.

 

[outhouse]

can't post a single source for your "information

Ridiculous. Im the one with ALL of the sources.


The Diversity Of Early Christianity | From Jesus To Christ - The First Christians | FRONTLINE | PBS

Holland Lee Hendrix:

President of the Faculty Union Theological Seminary

We really can't imagine Christianity as a unified coherent religious movement.

And this was not universal by any means.

Harold W. Attridge:

The Lillian Claus Professor of New Testament Yale Divinity School


The Christian movement probably began not from a single center but from many different centers


Helmut Koester:

John H. Morison Professor of New Testament Studies and Winn Professor of Ecclesiastical History Harvard Divinity School

Christianity did not start out as a unified movement.

L. Michael White:

Professor of Classics and Director of the Religious Studies Program University of Texas at Austin

when in fact the opposite is true. Christianity was extremely diverse during this period, and we probably ought to think of it as a kind of regional diversity; that is, the Christianity of Rome was different than Christianity in North Africa in certain ways, and that was different from what we find in Egypt, and that different from what we find in Syria or back in Palestine. We have, in effect, different brands of Christianity living often side by side, even in the same city. So, it's a great deal of diversity.

 

[Unification]

Iti s the basis of many sects and cults that the Christian church fell into apostasy, and their founder/prophet/teacher was given special insight or revelation to restore it, could this be true?
Jesus said He would build His church and the gates of hell would not prevail against it, so for me if what these great latter day prophets surmised to be true, Jesus must have been wrong. Charles Taze Russel, Ellen G White, Joseph Smith, Mohammed, Bahá'u'lláh, all taught in one way or another that what Jesus started became corrupted and that the bible had also become corrupted or very badly translated or parts lost from it, so they came up with their correct words of God, koran,nwt,book of mormon, pearl of great price,the great controversy and Bahá'u'lláhs writings etc.

My position is there has always been a faithfull true remnant of Christians even through the so called dark ages who adhered to simple biblical faith. I know that many departed from the faith and that heresy and apostasy have been wide spread throughout christendom at times but my question is did it completely vanish?

The true church is the body of spiritual believers around the world that have found the truth and the life. Divine unity and oneness. One truth, yet we see thousands of different Christian sects. Church buildings and people oppressing people with their own laws and regulations and they use the bible and their carnal minded interpretations in doing so. Most mean well, but are deceived. Man doctrine has flooded mankind and it was all written by murderers. There is only one truth and unity, and all of this divide amongst people is grieving. Scripture is all about the human body internally and coming to God. It's amazing what mans carnal minds have imagined and taught. If we want to know the truth, we have to earnestly seek the Lord who is within us and forget everything we know and have been taught over the generations. We have to shut our minds and meditate on the Lord. He is our one and true teacher of one truth. There is no such thing as gender, race, anything in the Lord. Christianity has fallen because we are taught that we can have one foot in the Lord and the other in the world. And yet hey once saved always saved right? Negative, couldn't be farther from the truth. The true transformation of a man is within. The Lord reigns inside of us. All religions around the world have a piece to the truth. It's a puzzle. I can assure that any man teaching or preaching for a price, teaches tithing, accepts a penny, teaches with fear, teaches a female subjecting to a male, teaches any kind of division whatsoever, that the Bible is the Word of God, doesn't purely possess all fruit of the Spirit... Was not called by the Lord. The list is endless. Dream of unity. Peace to all.

 

[sojourner]

The true church is the body of spiritual believers around the world that have found the truth and the life. Divine unity and oneness. One truth, yet we see thousands of different Christian sects. Church buildings and people oppressing people with their own laws and regulations and they use the bible and their carnal minded interpretations in doing so. Most mean well, but are deceived. Man doctrine has flooded mankind and it was all written by murderers. There is only one truth and unity, and all of this divide amongst people is grieving. Scripture is all about the human body internally and coming to God. It's amazing what mans carnal minds have imagined and taught. If we want to know the truth, we have to earnestly seek the Lord who is within us and forget everything we know and have been taught over the generations. We have to shut our minds and meditate on the Lord. He is our one and true teacher of one truth. There is no such thing as gender, race, anything in the Lord. Christianity has fallen because we are taught that we can have one foot in the Lord and the other in the world. And yet hey once saved always saved right? Negative, couldn't be farther from the truth. The true transformation of a man is within. The Lord reigns inside of us. All religions around the world have a piece to the truth. It's a puzzle. I can assure that any man teaching or preaching for a price, teaches tithing, accepts a penny, teaches with fear, teaches a female subjecting to a male, teaches any kind of division whatsoever, that the Bible is the Word of God, doesn't purely possess all fruit of the Spirit... Was not called by the Lord. The list is endless. Dream of unity. Peace to all.

...Or not. Your "assurance" is paper thin.

 

[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.

AH yes, one has to consider the half truths---and in this case what is the "source". your "source" is the "scholarly conclusive suppositions of "some unknown Q", etc.
I take the Scriptures as guided by the Holy Spirit. Some of whom were eyewitnesses to the Activity of Jesus Christ for 3 1/2 years.
Being "ministers of the word".
Of course, those who have no belief in the Creator GOD and HIS plan for salvation would rather believe it all a myth.

The synopsis(synoptic) of the life and teachings of Jesus Christ was given in those four books/Gospels as written.That is a brief summary.
However, three of then deal more with the humanitarian side of the teachings and John's deal with the divine aspects of Jesus relationship with mankind. Each writer wrote as they wanted to express the events in Jesus' life. It isn't strange the many things are expressed in the same words/thoughts.
Such accusations is only a smokescreen to cause doubt and rebellion against the truth.

Therefore, one sees the Loving GOD who Created all that is seen and the Joy by all of creation and the Creator when Sin/disobedience and the arrogant/defiant ones are eventually totally dealt with as GOD Planned.

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

John recorded the very events which Jesus did, which proved HIS divinity. The parables were told to the people to illustrate a principle. Therefore, the teachings of Jesus was seen by the people as taught by Authority.
It had nothing to do with today's "scholarly" conclusions/reasons. Their's(scholars) opinions were geared to scriptural bias---either Myths or non-belief.

 

[Unification]

...Or not. Your "assurance" is paper thin.

You are indeed correct. My assurance is always thin. The Lord's, however... Is not.

 

[sojourner]

You are indeed correct. My assurance is always thin. The Lord's, however... Is not.

I have no assurance from the Lord that stipendiary ministers don't possess the Spirit.

 

[sojourner]

I take the Scriptures as guided by the Holy Spirit.

Of course you do, which you believe entitles you to misrepresent them as you do.

The synopsis(synoptic) of the life and teachings of Jesus Christ was given in those four books/Gospels as written.That is a brief summary.

That isn' what the term "synoptic" means. The term "synoptic" means "seen together."

However, three of then deal more with the humanitarian side of the teachings and John's deal with the divine aspects of Jesus relationship with mankind.

More misrepresentation?

It had nothing to do with today's "scholarly" conclusions/reasons. Their's(scholars) opinions were geared to scriptural bias---either Myths or non-belief.

You're alone in your -- ah -- "analysis."

 

[sincerly]

sincerly said: ↑
I take the Scriptures as guided by the Holy Spirit.

Of course you do, which you believe entitles you to misrepresent them as you do.

That is projecting your own doings.

sincerly said: ↑
The synopsis(synoptic) of the life and teachings of Jesus Christ was given in those four books/Gospels as written.That is a brief summary.

That isn' what the term "synoptic" means. The term "synoptic" means "seen together."

Not according to the dictionary.

sincerly said: ↑
However, three of then deal more with the humanitarian side of the teachings and John's deal with the divine aspects of Jesus relationship with mankind.

More misrepresentation?

Your answer is showing who is doing the misrepresenting. The Gospel of John starts off showing Jesus as divinity. His record shows Jesus as the SON of GOD the Father.

sincerly said: ↑
It had nothing to do with today's "scholarly" conclusions/reasons. Their's(scholars) opinions were geared to scriptural bias---either Myths or non-belief.

You're alone in your -- ah -- "analysis."

That is your opinion. There are millions with the same understanding. And the vast numbers who reject are the ones on the "broad way to destruction" which Jesus spoke of (Matt.7:13).

The true church of GOD( Believers) will be continue to function and remain alive when the last trumpet sounds.

 

[outhouse]

carnal minded interpretations

A bit dramatic there?

 

[sincerly]

Unification said: ↑
carnal minded interpretations

A bit dramatic there?

Unfortunately, Jesus did say one of the signs of HIS Second coming would be "as it was in the days of Noah"---when the minds of the people were "only evil continually".
Misrepresenting the messages of GOD falls into that realm of activity.
Since one sees it as a bit drastic, why would one want to bring the wrath of GOD upon them self?

 

[sojourner]

Not according to the dictionary.

Both Greek words, synoptikos and synopsis, derive from σύνsyn (prep.), meaning "together, with", and etymologically related words pertaining to sight, vision, appearance, i.e. ὀπτικόςoptikos (adj.; cf. English optic), meaning "of or for sight", and ὄψιςopsis (n.), meaning "appearance, sight, vision, view"

The gospels of Matthew, Mark, and Luke are referred to as the Synoptic Gospels because they include many of the same stories, often in a similar sequence and in similar wording. They stand in contrast to John, whose content is comparatively distinct. The term synoptic(Latin: synopticus; Greek: συνοπτικός synoptikos) comes via Latin from the Greek σύνοψις synopsis, i.e. "(a) seeing all together, synopsis";[n 1] the sense of the word in English, the one specifically applied to the three aforementioned Gospels, of "giving an account of the events from the same point of view or under the same general aspect" is a modern one.[1]

This strong parallelism among the three gospels in content, arrangement, and specific language is widely attributed to literary interdependence.[2] The question of the precise nature of their literary relationship — the "synoptic problem" — has been a topic of lively debate for centuries and has been described as "the most fascinating literary enigma of all time".[3] The longstanding majority view favors Marcan priority, in which both Matthew and Luke have made direct use of the Gospel of Mark as a source, and further holds that Matthew and Luke also drew from an additional hypothetical document, called Q.

Courtesy Wikipedia.

 

[sojourner]

Your answer is showing who is doing the misrepresenting. The Gospel of John starts off showing Jesus as divinity. His record shows Jesus as the SON of GOD the Father.

Luke also records a divine birth, closely paralleling the divine birth of Augustus. The four gospels simply don't break down in that simplistic way, and to assert they do is to misrepresent what's really taking place in the minds of the writers.

That is your opinion.

Yes. It's my informed opinion.

There are millions with the same understanding.

Oh, you mean the ones who trust the people who are peer-reviewed biblical scholars -- the ones who provided the English translation you use? Those people?

The true church of GOD( Believers) will be continue to function and remain alive when the last trumpet sounds.

Not cogent to the topic.

 

[outhouse]

Luke also records a divine birth, closely paralleling the divine birth of Augustus.

Why don't you club him over the head, with the parallel that Augustus was first called the "son of god" just before Jesus birth.

How about the possible parallel of the star of Bethlehem to the coins found from Augustus celestial event

Me ? I keep him on ignore.

 

[Unification]

Unification said: ↑
carnal minded interpretations



Unfortunately, Jesus did say one of the signs of HIS Second coming would be "as it was in the days of Noah"---when the minds of the people were "only evil continually".
Misrepresenting the messages of GOD falls into that realm of activity.
Since one sees it as a bit drastic, why would one want to bring the wrath of GOD upon them self?

Luke Chapter 21 in a spiritual nutshell:
Christ warning a return is not seen with eyes, anything outward, physical, any sign. Do not follow them that teach such a thing as a physical conquering second coming of the Lord. THE KINGDOM OF GOD IS WITHIN YOU. The coming of the Lord is His resurrection in the heart of an individual. One part under heaven shines to the other part under heaven is spiritual marriage (the husband-spirit-Lord and the wife-human body)
And as it was in the days of Noe: Noe entered the ark (the Lord's rest-the ark, tabernacle, temple, are all INSIDE a human body wherein the Lord dwells. The flood came (washing away and cleansing by the Word (Christ) and destroyed them all (sin within a man).
Lot went out of Sodom-(slavery to sin) it rained fire and brimstone from heaven and destroyed them all (sin within a man).
Remember Lots's wife (human body)...
Do not look back, do not go back to the same old you and sin in your house (body).
Seek to save his life shall lose it.
Shall lose his life will preserve it.
Two men in one bed, the one shall be taken and the other shall be left.
(Old man of sin left behind, new creature created-the two men in one bed refers to same individual)
Where Lord? Wheresoever the BODY is.... Thither will the Eagles be gathered together. (Father and Son making home in human body) .... The Lord (Spirit) dwelling in the temple (human body)
If I were to believe in a physical second coming of the Lord to wisk me away and destroy human beings, that would make me an anti-christ, selfish, and sick. Peace to you.

 

[sincerly]

metis said: ↑
. 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.

Outhouse, you are wrong!(I apologize for the lateness--been away from my computer) The Hebrew called the assembling of the people for worship---"migra"=convocations(Lev.23:2); the Greek for the same assembling is ekklesia=church. (Matt.16:18)
Since the Jewish Nation had broken the covenant and rejected their Messiah, Jesus was re-establishing the covenant(new) with those who would have GOD as their GOD(according to GOD'S agreement(covenant) and that covenant was ratified by HIS death upon the cross. GOD'S LAW(Decalogue) would be written in their hearts and minds(not on the tablets of stone).Those Believers would submit to the Will of the Father.

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

The structures which were present were dedicated to the true GOD before the at the building of them. The leaders in their own "traditions and false commandments" assumed ownership. Just as Satan did of "dominion of the earth".
A "structure is nothing". The Creator GOD meets with HIS People anywhere.

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.

Wrong again. The epistles are the result of the command to "Go Ye and teach the whatsoever I have told you". Those epistles record that "leaders were left in charge" of each established group of Believers.
Your assessment(argument) is that of Satan to Eve. What was written in those epistles is/was for our learning. I choose not to believe your myth.

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.

Wrong again, Peter and James were selected from that region. However, the Messages they distributed to the then known world came from GOD the SON--In HIS "GO YE".

And that was not the "traditions of men", but the truths of GOD.
Even Jesus Christ stated, what HE taught was from the Father and not from Himself.