The reason why there is no record of the 'wheat' individually standing up for the truth is because, like Jesus, they were opposed and brutally murdered to silence them......in ways that no Christian disciple could ever have entertained.
Did the church keep a record of every person they tortured and killed in the inquisition?
Maybe, maybe not, but that's irrelevant since inquisitions
didn't become a thing until the 1100's in France. So the "wheat" would have had centuries to spread their teachings with relative impunity in all corners of the Christian world, from Ireland in the northwest to China in the east and Ethiopia in the south. Even if we were to say that the Roman Empire cracked down on the "wheat" for whatever reason, big whoop, there was still Armenia, Persia, Arabia, China and Ethiopia for you guys to have taken root in during those centuries. Not to mention the rest of Europe outside of Rome's control. Heck, even during the time of the pagan Roman Empire, they would have had it just as rough as any other Christian sect, so for the first three hundred years there would have been very much a level playing field where you guys could have easily won out. No doubt your ideas would have been very attractive to many Jewish Christians and Noahides/God-fearers.
Spanish Inquisition Torture Methods
The Spanish Inquisition was only during the late 1400's, and actively went against the wishes of several Popes. Unfortunately, the Papacy was in too weak a position to do anything about it. Spain strong-armed Rome numerous times during the whole affair.
The Catholic people I have encountered in over 40 years of personal visits to their homes, by and large have no clue about very much at all pertaining to their beliefs. Many don't even know the difference between a Bible and the Catechism. Like a lot of people in Christendom, they are not taught to do anything but simply to perform what they are told to do. Christendom breeds the laziest "Christians" because they are taught a very hazy outline of doctrines defined by their church, and given the impression that if they show up, put their money in the box and eat a piece of bread...and maybe take a sip of wine, that all will go well for them with God. They don't have to know much, because their priest or minister knows it all for them.
Not sure what to say here about this whole anecdote, other than thanks for proving my point about some Catholics being poorly educated in their faith or poorly trained in certain ministries.
They were distinguishable only by their opposition to the 'orthodox' view of God's word....and paid dearly for daring to voice their concerns.
K, then distinguish them for me. But wait, you can't show me any documentation about this stuff. Awkward.
Since the weeds were planted by the devil all those centuries ago, and there is now an infinite variety as Protestantism sprouted lots more, he has catered to every religious taste.....from the apathetic puppets, all the way to the rigid fundamentalists and everything in between. Look at the charismatic churches....all doing their tricks but nothing resembling the miracles performed in the first century.....
The devil doesn't care what persuasion entraps you, as long as you are not on the 'cramped and narrow road' to life.
The big picture is very clear to me, but seems to escape a lot of people who seem so focused on small details that they have lost sight of where we are, and why we are here. Like Israel, we are poised on the brink of our 'Promised Land'.....satan will only keep applying the pressure as this world sinks to its lowest moral and spiritual ebb ever. If you do not know what is coming, there is no way that you can prepare for it. We all have a choice to be part of the problem....or part of the solution.....its a bit sad when you can't tell the difference.
I could take this entire rant of yours and say it as an Orthodox Christian and literally no one would know the difference. Or a Muslim could say it, even. Things like this are just words with no real content.
Please think for a moment how long it had been since God sent a prophet to Israel when Jesus arrived. Over 400 years had elapsed since Jehovah's last prophet was sent to warn Israel of God's displeasure with them......
They were told.....
Malachi 3:13-18:
When Jesus came, he was not sent to the Jewish religious leaders....he was sent to "the lost sheep of the house of Israel" because those leaders were incorrigibly wicked. . .
When Israel's leaders became corrupt, they corrupted the whole nation. . .
Alright, there was corruption among the clergy. But you haven't proven that Israel was in apostasy during the first century. They only worshiped God. They obeyed the Commandments (even if some Pharisees and Sadducees were off their rockers with their priorities and pride).
That is an excuse....another justification. There were no images used in Israel's worship
You mean asides from the incense offering before the mercy seat of the Ark in the Holy of Holies, and where blood is smeared on the mercy seat? (Leviticus 16:12-13)
"The Jews answered him: For a good work we stone thee not, but for blasphemy; and because that thou, being a man, maketh thyself God." (Douay)
Please remember who made the accusation......Jews only knew one God. To claim divinity was blasphemy, a breach of the first Commandment....an excuse to stone Jesus to death. Translation issues notwithstanding, the Jews wanted an excuse to get rid of Jesus the only way the Romans would let them...legally. He had to be shown to be breaking their law.
No, Jesus had to be found to be breaking Roman law in order to kill Him (John 20:31), which is why the Sanhedrin had to accuse Him of encouraging the Jews not to pay taxes and to rebel against Caesar. (Luke 23:1-3) Again, Jesus could have very easily rebuffed the Jewish claims by saying "Guys, I'm not claiming to be God, chill already". But He doesn't. He instead turns it back around on them and effectively says in John 10:33-36 "If God calls those who hear His Word 'gods', then how much more of Him Who was sanctified and sent into the world to do His works? I am in the Father, and the Father is in me." He kept continually stressing His
perichoresis with the Father.
Is that what he said?
John 10:30...."I and the Father are one......
John 17:11....“Holy Father, keep them in your name that you have given to me, that they may be one just as we are one."
John 17:22...."And the glory which thou hast given me, I have given to them; that they may be one, as we also are one" (Douay)
This isn't "one" as in combining three persons in a triune godhead.....this is a unity of thought and purpose shared by all who worship the true God.....unless you see all Christians as part of the godhead too....?
We see our union with God as a perichoresis, or a mutual indwelling. The Father dwells in the Son (Colossians 1:19, Colossians 2:9), and the Son is in the Father (John 17:21). We are called to share in the holiness of the Trinity, to be perfect as our Father is perfect (Matthew 5:48), to be partakers of the divine nature (2 Peter 1:4), ascending from glory to glory in the image of Christ (2 Corinthians 3:18), being conformed to the image of His Son (Romans 8:29). Our union with God and with Christ is a communion, wherein we share in the inner life of the Holy Trinity, which is a communion of love. We always remain human, and yet we participate in the perichoresis--God in us, us in God (John 14:20-23).
"Proskyneo" can be translated either way....both as "worship" such as directed to God and as "respectful honor" directed to someone who merits it. In the instances you quoted, those receiving the 'proskyneo' are aware of which way that honor is directed. If it was rejected, then it was done in a wrong way. If it was accepted, then the honor was merited. Who merited respectful honor more than the son of God?
You would be able to make this argument if your translation of the Bible rendered "proskyneo" as "worshiped" in Acts 10:25 and Revelation 19:10. But it doesn't, so you are left to conjecture about different extents of what proskyneo means in terms of not being worship.
Additionally, if the magi really were Babylonians, then their proskyneo of Jesus was in fact worship of Him, since kings and emperors were seen as gods on earth in those times. We have but to look to the Roman imperial cult Hence why the Magi brought the offerings that they did--gold, frankincense and myrrh. But no, in every single case in your translation where proskyneo is rendered to anyone other than God, it is rendered as "obeisance" 100% of the time, even in the above-named instances where rendering it as "worship" would actually make more sense. Point being, it's not always immediately clear how "proskyneo" should be rendered in any given instance.
The 'magi' who visited the child Jesus, were not bringing gifts to a god...they were honoring the son of royalty, as was their custom.
To them, the two were one and the same.
Kings were effectively gods in the ancient world, and worshiped as such.
Read Matthew ch. 2....the magi were never at the stable.
Okay cool, I never said they were. So your next points here are irrelevant.
The star was sent by the devil to trick unbelieving pagans into getting Jesus killed...
You got Scripture to back this up?
Why would God use pagan practicers of what he condemns to herald the birth of his son?
IDK, maybe for the same reason you think He used "apostates" to decide the canon of the New Testament.
Show me a trinity from the Bible? Show me Christ ever saying that he was God and should be worshiped?
I've already been over John 1:1 and John 10:38 with you, but fine, I can quote others. Let's go over Hebrews 1, where it is said of the Son, "Thy throne, O God, is forever and ever". St. Paul is quoting the Septuagint, and that is how Psalms 45:6 is rendered in the Septuagint. Had St. Paul intended the Masoretic reading, he could have easily used that instead.
Jesus calls Himself "the first and the last, the beginning and the end". Tell me what that could possibly mean, if not a reference to Isaiah 44:6?
As I have said before,Show me where the holy spirit is ever called "God".
@djhwoodwerks also did a solid job of this, and I totally stole his point. Jesus does accept worship, such as from the Apostles (Luke 24)
These arguments are so easily shot down Shiranui....why do you persist in trying to promote them?
Your defense is looking very thin IMO.
It's simple, really. Like St. Paul told the Thessalonians to do in 2 Thessalonians 2:15, I hold to the traditions that have been given to me, whether by what they said verbally (the Apostles' teachings which never got written down) or by what they wrote (the writings of the New Testament). You only hold to their epistles, but deprive yourself of what was passed down by word of mouth and then slowly got written down by succeeding generations. If my defenses look thin, it's only because I'm choosing to do this with one arm tied behind my back. Were I to quote for you from those who were handpicked by the Apostles to succeed them, this case would be open-and-shut. Unless you think the Apostles handpicked apostates to succeed them?
But, show me from Scripture where it says that Scripture alone should be used as the source of Christian doctrine? Because right now I can use Scripture to prove that Scripture is NOT the only source of Christian doctrine.