Early Deceivers?

[mortify]

Budge,

Can you name someone you'd consider a true early Christian (other than the Apostles of course)?

[Socrates]

[quote name='Budge' post='1267926' date='May 8 2007, 08:44 AM']The early faithful now in heaven were not religious celebs.

The world loves those who are against Christ, the majority of REAL CHRISTIANS died unknown and uncelebrated by the world.

Here are my posts on early deceivers so I dont have to rewrite everything I believe here.

I used to go far more in depth on this stuff years ago, Edict of Milan ect...

past posts on them of mine...

****************************
**********************************

Tron why do you accept the Catholic Church version of history so readily? All this talks of creeds and defending their version of history, it makes one wonder. It seems some Reformed churches was to lay claim to something the Catholic Church believes it holds the monopoly on, with many of the same errors within. Still makes me think of Luther why he got many things right he still retained the Catholic historical errors and more.



FROM AN ENCYLOPEDIA.

[url="http://www.bartleby.com/65/co/Constnt1Rom.html"]http://www.bartleby.com/65/co/Constnt1Rom.html[/url]

[u]Someone that can murder their son and wife is not a true Christian by any stretch of the imagination:[/u]
Constantine was the founder of the beauracratic Catholic Church church and its political power.

[url="http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/source/const1-laws2.html"]http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/source/const1-laws2.html[/url]



Development of special seperated priesthood of the Catholic Church:

from same document:

"

This one is by Galerius but telling about how the Romans formed a new Church and skewed the Christian church:

[url="http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/source/edict-milan.html"]http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/source/edict-milan.html[/url]

I used to read the bootlicking stuff {Constantines lapdog} written by Eusebius from Fordham and want to throw up.[/quote]
You've avoided the question here, Budge. Your opinions about the Early Church Fathers being "early deceivers" are already well established here. The question was about who are the "Early Faithful."

Surely there would be [i]some[/i] record of their existance during the first 3-4 centuries of the Church!

Or is their existance a matter of faith alone?

[GodChaser]

I have to agree with Budge here, with the early decievers.

Alexandria was nothing but a cesspool for Satan.

Upto the 4th century AD, people were baptized in Jesus name and in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost, and then rome enforced only baptizm in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost.

I guess most of the people who were baptized in Jesus name made the conclusion that Jesus was the fulness of the Godhead bodily.

[quote name='"Colossians 2:8-12' date=' KJV"']Beware lest any man spoil you through philosophy and vain deceit, after the tradition of men, after the rudiments of the world, and not after Christ.

For in him dwelleth all the fulness of the Godhead bodily.

And ye are complete in him, which is the head of all principality and power:

In whom also ye are circumcised with the circumcision made without hands, in putting off the body of the sins of the flesh by the circumcision of Christ:

Buried with him in baptism, wherein also ye are risen with him through the faith of the operation of God, who hath raised him from the dead.[/quote]

Get baptized in his only name, like I was, you realize he is the head of all principality and power, and he is the fulness of the Godhead bodily, then you can't be decieved, and you know whose name you can utter to bring all the forces of Satan under your dominion.

Too much power for those people, so Satan decieved many to create a world where he could have free reign. Oh well, he will get his soon enough, him and his idiot children.

Edited May 9, 2007 by GodChaser

[Thy Geekdom Come]

[quote name='Budge' post='1268431' date='May 8 2007, 08:00 PM']History is a biased field.

Even recent history....

Considering what is left out, and what the official stories are and the real.

History as a foundation of faith, is SINKING SAND.

Development of doctrine--making it up as you go along....[/quote]
History is biased on the side of those who historically win, isn't that right? So then...why do we know about Arianism, which lost completely, even when all of Arius' letters were burned? How is it that we know anything about them, Budge, since they were soundly defeated, and yet not know anything about your early Christians?

[kenrockthefirst]

[quote name='Budge' post='1268431' date='May 8 2007, 08:00 PM']History is a biased field.

Even recent history....

Considering what is left out, and what the official stories are and the real.

History as a foundation of faith, is SINKING SAND.

Development of doctrine--making it up as you go along....[/quote]

Budge, as a "Bible-believing Christian," you must surely understand the irony of this statement. The NT, the Gospels and Acts in particular, are [i]historical[/i] documents. That is why interpretation of sacred scripture by an authoritative institution is necessary, in order to properly understand its historical, cultural, and linguistic context. Otherwise you just end up with Budgianity.


[quote name='Budge' post='1268449' date='May 8 2007, 08:12 PM']Hmm the Holocaust...

was a modern Inquistion....

but thats a subject for another thread.[/quote]

This is nothing more than the specious conflation of Catholicism with anything bad. Use of Ouija boards + Catholic upbringing = bad experience; Holocaust + Catholicism = something bad. BTW, Budge, since you're such a stickler for historical niceties, why no condemnation of persecution of Catholics by Protestants?

[Budge]

I dont defend everything Protestants do....

[in fact the same standards I apply to you guys, I apply to them}

Any protestants who practiced the Catholic art of inquistion...Calvin for instance are to be condemned.

[mortify]

Budge, those "early deceivers" wrote, preserved, and passed down Apostolic writing (so they claim), furthermore they defined what books constitute the bible. With this in mind why do you hold on to the authenticity of the bible? You have to realize a protected and authentic bible requires an authentic and protected Church.

[Socrates]

[quote name='Budge' post='1268431' date='May 8 2007, 08:00 PM']History is a biased field.

Even recent history....

Considering what is left out, and what the official stories are and the real.

History as a foundation of faith, is SINKING SAND.

Development of doctrine--making it up as you go along....[/quote]
(When you return) perhaps you can provide some concrete evidence of the "real story." So far you've provided nothing, nada, zero, zip.

If you're going to refute a "biased" version of history, you've got to at least provide solid historical facts which refute it.
Thus far, you've hardly been convincing.

You're essentially telling everybody: Ignore history, forget the facts, check your brain at the door - just take my word for it!

As for foundations, what you are saying is akin to looking for a site to construct a house, and when survey show where you want to build is based on sand and silt, rather than a firm foundation where it should be built, you cry, "Don't be deceived by the vain deceptions of geology!"

[GodChaser]

Here's an unbiased historical point

[quote name='http://www.thunderministries.com/history/triad/triref.html']The Catholic Handbook, 1988:

"The Catholic Church teaches that the fathomless mystery we call God has revealed himself to human-kind as a Trinity of Persons -- the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit.

Three Persons, One God

The Mystery of the Trinity is the central doctrine of Catholic faith. Upon it are based all the other teachings of the Church. The church studied the mystery with great care and, after four centuries of clarification, decided to state the doctrine in this way:

"In the unity of the Godhead there are three persons, the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit, truly distinct from one another."

The Church of our Fathers - 1950, pg. 46:

"The day was to come when the Nicene party won out completely and then the emperors, who wished to prevent any more such quarrels, [b]decreed that one who denied the Trinity should be put to death[/b]. This law was later to be used against the Unitarians (Oneness Faith Believers). At the earlier time, however, the bishops were horrified that the truth should be defended by the shedding of blood."[/quote]

How kind the emporers who wanted to make people obey only what they wanted. I'm glad the The Trinitarian didn't agree with this.

[quote name='http://www.thunderministries.com/history/triad/triref.html']History of Dogma, 1950:

"As to Baptism, which was administered in the name of the Father, Son, and Spirit, though Cyprian, Ep. 73:16-18, felt compelled to oppose the custom of baptizing I the name of Jesus."[/quote]

Hmmm. . . that means there must have been people who were baptized in Jesus name at the time. Oh, that can also be found in Acts 2:38 too. I'm honoured to be baptized in the holy name of Jesus Christ!

[quote name='http://www.thunderministries.com/history/triad/triref.html']The Encyclopedia Americana - 1956, VOL. XXVII, PAGE 294L:

"Christianity derived from Judaism and Judaism was (and still is) strictly Unitarian (Oneness - believing that God is only one). The road which led from Jerusalem to Nicea was scarcely a straight one. Forth century Trinitarianism did not reflect accurately early (Originally Apostolic) Christian teaching regarding the nature of God; it was on the contrary, and deviation from this teaching."

The New Catholic Encyclopedia - 1967, VOL. XIV, PAGE 299:

The formulation "one God in three Persons" was not solidly established, certainly not fully assimilated into Christian life and its profession of faith, PRIOR TO THE END OF THE 4TH CENTURY. But it is precisely this formulation that first claimed to title "The Trinitarian Dogma. AMONG THE APOSTOLIC FATHERS, THERE HAD BEEN NOTHING EVEN REMOTELY APPROACHING SUCH A MENTALITY OR PERSPECTIVE.

The Noveau Dictionary Universal - Edited by M. Lachatre, (1856-1870), VOL. 2, PAGE 1467:

"The Platonic trinity, itself merely a rearrangement of the older trinities dating back to earlier peoples, appears to be the rational philosophic trinity of attributes that gave birth to the three hypostases or divine persons taught by Christian churches… This Greek philosopher's (Plato) conception of the divine trinity… can be found in all the ancient (Pagan) religions."

Dictionary of the Bible - by John L. McKenzie S.J., (1965), PAGE 899:

"The Trinity of persons within the unity of nature is defined in terms of persons and nature which are GREEK PHILOSOPHICAL TERMS; ACTUALLY THE TERMS DO NOT APPEAR IN THE BIBLE. The Trinitarian definitions arose as the result of long controversies in which these terms and other such as essence and substance were erroneously applied to God by some theologians."

The Dictionary of the Bible - Edited by James Hastings (1963), PAGE 1015:

TRINITY, THE: The Christian doctrine of God (q.v.) as existing in three Persons and one Substance IS NOT DEMONSTRABLE BY LOGIC OF BY SCRIPTURAL PROOFS,… The term Trias was FIRST USED BY THEOPHILUS OF ANTIOCH (c. A.D. 180),… NOT FOUND IN SCRIPTURE… The chief Trinitarian text in the New Testament is the baptismal formula in Mt. 28:19. Note: (No on was baptized in this spirit, every one in the bible was rather baptized in the name of Jesus Christ. Trinitarians do not know the name of the one spirit (God). Mt. 28:19 says baptize in the NAME OF.

"Mt. 28:19: Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost:"

In the HASTING BIBLE DICTIONARY UNDER BAPTISM, PAGE 88, we find the following true statements:

In order to rediscover the earliest statements on Christian baptism we must turn to Paul… 1Cor. 6:11: "But you were washed, (OR BAPTIZED) you were sanctified, you were justified IN THE NAME OF THE LORD JESUS CHRIST and in the Spirit of our God." The primitive church baptized "IN" and "INTO" the name of "JESUS".

The Two Babylons - by Alexander Hislop (1916) - [ Framed Version - Non Framed Version ]
Choose from the above link options to view this outstanding Study.

In Rev. Hislop's Original Book - Page(s) 17-18 we find: "The Babylonians used the equilateral triangle to symbolize the Trinity just like the (Orghodox and Catholic Churches) do today. Many ancient pagan nations had three headed gods and a trinity doctrine. All these have existed from ancient times. While overlaid with idolatry, the recognition (and worship) of a Trinity was universal." You can also find this quote in Rev. Hislop's Online Book provide on this site by going to the section [ Trinity in Unity ]. Click the "Trinity in Unity" text link to visit that page now.

The Bible Almanac (1980), PAGE 540-541:

THE EARLY CHURCH UNDER CHRISTIAN BAPTISM - The early Christians were baptized in JESUS' NAME following Jesus example (cf. Mark 1:10, Gal. 3:27).

Kerygma of the Hellenistic Church (1950), PAGE 133:

UNDER THE SACRAMENTS - "As to the rite of baptism, it was normally consummated as a bath in which the one receiving baptism completely submerged, and if possible in flowing water as the allusions of Acts 8:36, Heb. 10:22, Barn. 11:11 permit us to gather, and as Did. 7:1-3 specifically says." Also we find this confession of what really happened to Matthew 28:19, and how the real early Church of the bible baptized. "The one's baptizing names over the one's being baptized in the name of "THE LORD JESUS CHRIST", later expanded (OR CHANGED) to the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit-first attested in Did. 7:1.[/quote]

I'm not defending budge, but I am defending truth.

There were early decievers, as there are later day decievers.

They will use the word to prove just about everything they want. The decievers may have protected the Bible, out of fear of what God would do to them if they touched his word, but they can twist the meanings of things, and make people believe just about anything.

Historicly, Baptism in Jesus Name came before Baptism in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost. So go just a little more deeper than what you have been told!

[jeffpugh]

[quote name='Budge' post='1268431' date='May 8 2007, 10:00 PM']History is a biased field.

Even recent history....

Considering what is left out, and what the official stories are and the real.

History as a foundation of faith, is SINKING SAND.

Development of doctrine--making it up as you go along....[/quote]

What would have in replacement of the current doctrine? And based upon what?

Edited May 10, 2007 by Sacred Music Man

[Socrates]

[quote name='GodChaser' post='1270114' date='May 10 2007, 01:15 PM']Here's an unbiased historical point
How kind the emporers who wanted to make people obey only what they wanted. I'm glad the The Trinitarian didn't agree with this.
Hmmm. . . that means there must have been people who were baptized in Jesus name at the time. Oh, that can also be found in Acts 2:38 too. I'm honoured to be baptized in the holy name of Jesus Christ!
I'm not defending budge, but I am defending truth.

There were early decievers, as there are later day decievers.

They will use the word to prove just about everything they want. The decievers may have protected the Bible, out of fear of what God would do to them if they touched his word, but they can twist the meanings of things, and make people believe just about anything.

Historicly, Baptism in Jesus Name came before Baptism in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost. So go just a little more deeper than what you have been told![/quote]
The words of Jesus Christ Himself to His Apostles: [quote]Going therefore, teach ye all nations: [b]baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost[/b].[/quote]Matthew 28:19.

Trinitarian Baptism was instituted by Christ Himself. Don't believe those articles written by those who don't believe the historical truth of the Gospels.

[GodChaser]

[quote name='Socrates' post='1270660' date='May 10 2007, 08:12 PM']The words of Jesus Christ Himself to His Apostles: Matthew 28:19.

Trinitarian Baptism was instituted by Christ Himself. Don't believe those articles written by those who don't believe the historical truth of the Gospels.[/quote]
Peter obeyed Jesus on the day of Pentecost, and that is all I am going to say.

The Bible says Jesus name Baptism in four places in scripture. You're not going to discredit that truth very easily.

People wanted historical proof of early deception, and when I provide it, you discount it. How predictable!

I am truly blessed to be baptized in the name of the son of God. I am truly glad the son's name is the name of the Father who is in heaven, because the son's name is YHWH our saving cry, and that through the son I have access to the father - through his name. For there is no other name in heaven and earth in which a man MUST BE SAVED!

You can deny all you want, but it got changed!

History proves it.

The only reason why most protestant denominations are going back to rome, is that very simple fact. I am glad I know the truth that it is in the name of the Son that I should be baptized, because I can know that Rome is full of it, and is an abomination that I will gladly see passed judgement on along with its queen.

[Socrates]

[quote name='GodChaser' post='1270668' date='May 10 2007, 08:21 PM']Peter obeyed Jesus on the day of Pentecost, and that is all I am going to say.

The Bible says Jesus name Baptism in four places in scripture. You're not going to discredit that truth very easily.

People wanted historical proof of early deception, and when I provide it, you discount it. How predictable!

I am truly blessed to be baptized in the name of the son of God. I am truly glad the son's name is the name of the Father who is in heaven, because the son's name is YHWH our saving cry, and that through the son I have access to the father - through his name. For there is no other name in heaven and earth in which a man MUST BE SAVED!

You can deny all you want, but it got changed!

History proves it.

The only reason why most protestant denominations are going back to rome, is that very simple fact. I am glad I know the truth that it is in the name of the Son that I should be baptized, because I can know that Rome is full of it, and is an abomination that I will gladly see passed judgement on along with its queen.[/quote]
Way to ignore Matthew 28:19, which I just quoted you.
Going therefore, [b]teach ye all nations: baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost.[/b]

So was Jesus Christ "deceiving" there, or was St. Matthew?

[GodChaser]

[quote name='Socrates' post='1270669' date='May 10 2007, 08:26 PM']Way to ignore Matthew 28:19, which I just quoted you.
Going therefore, [b]teach ye all nations: baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost.[/b]

So was Jesus Christ "deceiving" there, or was St. Matthew?[/quote]
Neither.

Here's a question, is it wrong to baptize in Jesus Name. It was a common practice from the times of the Apostles up until the 4th century.

I'm not saying you have to be baptized in Jesus name, but if someone, like myself, was baptized in Jesus name, and I won't be re-baptized by any faith if I choose to become a part of that faith, am I going to go to hell for believing a teaching that is "Not from the catholic religion"

Edited May 11, 2007 by GodChaser

[TotusTuusMaria]

[quote name='GodChaser' post='1270689' date='May 10 2007, 09:59 PM']Neither.

Here's a question, is it wrong to baptize in Jesus Name. It was a common practice from the times of the Apostles up until the 4th century.

I'm not saying you have to be baptized in Jesus name, but if someone, like myself, was baptized in Jesus name, and I won't be re-baptized by any faith if I choose to become a part of that faith, am I going to go to hell for believing a teaching that is "Not from the catholic religion"[/quote]

If you don't have to be baptized in Jesus' name and Trinitarian baptism is wrong, as you say, then how is one supposed to be baptized? It doesn't matter? One can pick and choose... whatever suits them?

[mortify]

[quote]Here's a question, is it wrong to baptize in Jesus Name. It was a common practice from the times of the Apostles up until the 4th century.[/quote]Don't pursue this type of argument if you're not prepared to be consistent.

[quote]I'm not saying you have to be baptized in Jesus name, but if someone, like myself, was baptized in Jesus name, and I won't be re-baptized by any faith if I choose to become a part of that faith, am I going to go to hell for believing a teaching that is "Not from the catholic religion"[/quote]

In "The Teaching of the Apostles" (Didache) which served as guide book for the early Church we read the following under the section of Baptism:

"The procedure for baptizing is as follows. After repeating all that has been said, immerse in running water [b]'In the Name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost'[/b]."


Does this contradict the bible?

Take a look at Acts 19, how did St Paul respond to those who said they never heard of the Holy Ghost? [b]"Into what then were you baptized?"[/b], he asked. They received "John's Baptism," but had they received "The Baptism in the name of Christ" they would have known the Holy Ghost because He is part of the formula, both verbally and spiritually. Thus the phrase "Baptism in the name of Jesus" is used to distinguish it from the baptism of St John.

Edited May 11, 2007 by mortify

[Aloysius]

Godchasser, are we to assume you consider the Arians to have been the early believers? Though it is theologically terrible and heretical, your opinion is much less open to historical attack because indeed there are records of Arians and people who denied the Christological and Trinitarian Truths set down by the Apostles.

Budge's position is that there were obscure christians who were never written into history anywhere who did not even participate in the debate about arianism, who were trinitarians (as she is) and who were not arians.

So Godchaser/Fulltruth, I will say you have a much more historically defensible position. I would disagree with it, and argue history with you to show that the Arians were not of the same faith as the Apostles; but we could both unite and say to Budge "whilst we both have predecessors in this time period who believed as we do now, you do not. why is that?"

[Groo the Wanderer]

hmm...just checking in to see if Budge had found any long lost early non-catholic christians yet...


still ducking the question i see...pity. i had popcorn ready and everything

Edited May 11, 2007 by Groo the Wanderer

[Phoenix Reborn]

[quote name='Groo the Wanderer' post='1270942' date='May 11 2007, 02:34 AM']hmm...just checking in to see if Budge had found any long lost early non-catholic christians yet...
still ducking the question i see...pity. i had popcorn ready and everything [/quote]

Groo, Homeschoolmom put Budge on a 'vacation' for a little while for breaking the guidelines. She isn't gonna be back until her vacation is over.

Edited May 11, 2007 by Phoenix Reborn

[jeffpugh]

Where did she go for her vacation? (Yes I get it... I hope she will be back in a better mood... maybe she'll bring back some souvenirs... ie have read a few history books).