1st Century Church

  • Thread starter Thread starter Ginger2
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Rightlydivide said:
I do not believe in disciplines. It is not a word I find in scripture. There were no restrictions on gentile Christians. The gentiles were not under the old covenant. Jewish Christians could not decide. So they met to decide. Peter had a direct visions from God earlier and then they also use scripture to help decide. What you are saying does not make sense.
Click to expand...
As a human being you DO believe in disciplines. You discipline yourself to not eat 12 big macs in one day, even though you could. Well, in the same way, being a Christian takes discipline. Catholics hava discipline in ways you may not, but you cannot say you don’t have disciplines.

Also, didn’t Christ have 12 Disciples? Or, you could say, 12 people who claimed a discipline of Christianity?
 
The letters of Ignatius around 110AD show that the Church was indeed highly structured at this time.
 
NotWorthy said:
James placed the Noahide eating restriction on the Gentile converts. Acts 15:19-20 - These restrictions were later lifted, as evidenced in Pauls letters to the Galations (at least I think it was Galations).

Eating blood was allowed? You have to show me.
That is what the Church calls Disciplines, rather than dogma. Disciplines can change according to societal influences. In this case, the eating of the meat of strangled animals is merely a sign of obedience. This ban was later lifted, because we both know that eating this type of meat is not inherantly evil.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
 
cascherman said:
As a human being you DO believe in disciplines. You discipline yourself to not eat 12 big macs in one day, even though you could. Well, in the same way, being a Christian takes discipline. Catholics hava discipline in ways you may not, but you cannot say you don’t have disciplines.

Also, didn’t Christ have 12 Disciples? Or, you could say, 12 people who claimed a discipline of Christianity?
Click to expand...
Uh, I don’t think that’s what we mean by Discipline.

The Church could have married priests. The Pope then makes it to where priest aren’t married, due to variius reasons, among them the problem with the widows of priests and church property. The Pope could at any time, lift the marriage restriction should he so choose.

This is a Discipline.
 
NotWorthy said:
The letters of Ignatius around 110AD show that the Church was indeed highly structured at this time.
Click to expand...
Ignatius points to a monoarchial bishop, which many historians dispute. If the church has already slipped into this much error, I am not sure.
I have said time and time again they are interpolated in many peoples opinion. No one can prove it either way. Next.
 
Rightlydivide said:
Ignatius points to a monoarchial bishop, which many historians dispute. If the church has already slipped into this much error, I am not sure.
I have said time and time again they are interpolated in many peoples opinion. No one can prove it either way. Next.
Click to expand...
OK, you already believe a UT professor over actual proof.

Now, you are claiming the knowledge that a bishop who learned from Peter and John is a heretic.

You play a poor game of poker, RD.
 
Rightlydivide said:
Ignatius points to a monoarchial bishop, which many historians dispute. If the church has already slipped into this much error, I am not sure.
I have said time and time again they are interpolated in many peoples opinion. No one can prove it either way. Next.
Click to expand...
Some may dispute it. But it requires you to demonstrate that it was foreign to what the state of the Church really was at that time (as opposed to an a priori belief that it could not be that way) and also requires you to demonstrate that it was contrary to the intent of Christ.
 
NotWorthy said:
Uh, I don’t think that’s what we mean by Discipline.

The Church could have married priests. The Pope then makes it to where priest aren’t married, due to variius reasons, among them the problem with the widows of priests and church property. The Pope could at any time, lift the marriage restriction should he so choose.

This is a Discipline.
Click to expand...
I didn’t know my examples of disciplines were not applicable. I think there are different way to direct your discipline and having unmarried priests is a religious discipline just like not eating 12 big macs a day and instead having a healthy diet is a health discipline.

Whatever example you choose a discipline is a ‘way of living’ that is believed to optimize success in whatever you stand for.

In which case I STILL believe he may say he doesn’t believe in disciplines but he practices what he believes in Christian disciplines everyday, I hope. They may be different, but discipline no less.

But, I guess may be I’m off base.
 
Here is a 1st century belief of the Church, not taught in scripture (found in the Didache)

Chapter 2. The Second Commandment: Grave Sin Forbidden. And the second commandment of the Teaching; You shall not commit murder, you shall not commit adultery, you shall not commit pederasty, you shall not commit fornication, you shall not steal, you shall not practice magic, you shall not practice witchcraft, you shall not murder a child by abortion nor kill that which is born. You shall not covet the things of your neighbor, you shall not swear, you shall not bear false witness, you shall not speak evil, you shall bear no grudge. You shall not be double-minded nor double-tongued, for to be double-tongued is a snare of death. Your speech shall not be false, nor empty, but fulfilled by deed. You shall not be covetous, nor rapacious, nor a hypocrite, nor evil disposed, nor haughty. You shall not take evil counsel against your neighbor. You shall not hate any man; but some you shall reprove, and concerning some you shall pray, and some you shall love more than your own life.

See how the Christians believed it to be a part of the commandment not to kill?
 
NotWorthy said:
Rightlydivide;3036488 said:
No, I don’t understand. Where does the Bible say that the Bible handles every form of sin and salvific act?
Click to expand...
2Ti 3:16 All scripture [is] given by inspiration of God, and [is] profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:
Click to expand...
2Ti 3:17 That the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works.
Click to expand...
There is no additional information needed to furnish us to all good works.
You don’t see a need for Church authority to help determine the need to condemn contraception? Besides, even if it’s not a term used in the Bible, it was a very real issue back in ancient Rome and Greece, as was abortion.
Click to expand...
The Bible does not speak about contraception. I have heard the verse about Onan used but that is stripped of its context.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
 
cascherman said:
I didn’t know my examples of disciplines were not applicable. I think there are different way to direct your discipline and having unmarried priests is a religious discipline just like not eating 12 big macs a day and instead having a healthy diet is a health discipline.

Whatever example you choose a discipline is a ‘way of living’ that is believed to optimize success in whatever you stand for.

In which case I STILL believe he may say he doesn’t believe in disciplines but he practices what he believes in Christian disciplines everyday, I hope. They may be different, but discipline no less.

But, I guess may be I’m off base.
Click to expand...
I was only showing that Disciplines can be fed from the top down. Maybe we’re on the same base. But if RD can accept your type of discipline, where it grows from within, I don’t believe he can accept my type of discipline, where it is downloaded from the Vatican.
 
Rightlydivide said:
2 Tim 3:16 does not declare scripture to be the sole source of this
The Bible does not speak about contraception. I have heard the verse about Onan used but that is stripped of its context.
Click to expand...
If you mean the violating of the Levirate marriage, Onan was not the only one to break the law. But he was the only one to be slain for it… and there is nothing in the Bible calls for the Death penalty for the violation of it. if not contraception, then why was that vulgar detail necessary?
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
 
Arnobius said:
Some may dispute it. But it requires you to demonstrate that it was foreign to what the state of the Church really was at that time (as opposed to an a priori belief that it could not be that way) and also requires you to demonstrate that it was contrary to the intent of Christ.
Click to expand...
I hated my epistemology class.
The pattern of the NT is not only plural elders and bishops, it is what Clement, Polycarp and many others reference. Boring. Next. No offence.
 
Rightlydivide said:
I hated my epistemology class.
The pattern of the NT is not only plural elders and bishops, it is what Clement, Polycarp and many others reference. Boring. Next. No offence.
Click to expand...
Who is denying there was plural elders and bishops? But the elders (presbeteroi) were there to assist the bishops and the bishops were considered the leaders of the faithful.

Your dismissal is not a disproval.
 
Rightlydivide said:
NotWorthy;3036501 said:
There is no additional information needed to furnish us to all good works.
Click to expand...
Really? The Bible also says patience is profitable for all these things. Are you “Sola Patienca” as well? 🙂
The Bible does not speak about contraception. I have heard the verse about Onan used but that is stripped of its context.
Click to expand...
And yet every Church Faith believed it to be sinful prior to the 1930’s and then magically it changed? What happened in all these “Bible Only” faiths? What gave them the authority to declare it sinful, and then reverse it? Could this be a discipline that you don’t believe in?
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top