History and "Biblical" Christianity

[Coptic]

Dave,

I believe that if Christ would have wanted us to believe that in communion it is actualy his body and blood that he would have torn off a piece of skin and bled into a cup, but he didnt . Christ took BREAD and broke it and gave thanks and said take this, this is my body

Study John 6 carefully.

There, Jesus tells the people that he is the living bread that came down from Heaven.

Then the Jews asked amongsts themselves,
How can this man give us his flesh to eat?

Then what did Jesus say?
Did he say—guys, I didn’t mean that literally.
No, he didn’t.

He **repeated himself, **saying:

That his flesh is food indeed and his blood is drink indeed. And that whomever eats of His flesh abides in Him and vice versa.

Why? Why, would Jesus repeat himself if that is not what he meant? Wouldn’t he word it another way so not to confuse people if he meant something else? The fact of the matter is he didn’t mean something else.

This is what the Apostles practiced, and established in the first churches, which have thus continued this practice to this day.

God Bless,
Elizabeth

 

[Benadam]

MaggieOH:

Is this where I get to test the Trail of Blood and other tracts that have used it as a source and refute the bad history?

Maggie

Maggie, I just now comprehended the meaning of this post.

There are organizations that use ‘Turnspeak’ as a method to convert people to a ‘so called’ christian faith?

I’m still of the mind that my coworker friend … he may be innocent but it is probable that the JW chiefs know what they are doing.

is there substance to this ? Somehow I have given even the leadership of the JW’s the benefit of the doubt as misguided but sincere. Could they be using these techniques with good intentions?

 

[dennisknapp]

oudave:

“Bible” Christians claim that their Church is MORE like the early Church then say the Roman Catholic Church, correct? (And by early Church I mean 33 to 315 A.D.)

Hi Dennis
I appreciate the invite to this thread, I will try to explain why some Bible Christians feel this way, I cant speek for everyone. I feel that thru the history of the church man has changed and added things to the belief system of the church. I did a word search in a Bible program I have on tradition, and in all but one verse it warns against upholding the traditions of man before God. Alot of us also feel that you worship Mary and many Saints, my Mother inlaw was told to bury a statue of a peticular Saint to help her sell her house. I think the Castholic church removing the second commandment from the CCC helps further this belief. We also feel that the wrote and repetitious prayer takes on less meaning than that of a prayer from the heart. I feel that your method of penance is way off the mark and does not lead to repentance.
I think that the form of leadership in the Catholic church is a perfect example of mans desire to be highly reguarded, revered, honored and even praised, and I think that is a pride issue.
I believe that if Christ would have wanted us to believe that in communion it is actualy his body and blood that he would have torn off a piece of skin and bled into a cup, but he didnt . Christ took BREAD and broke it and gave thanks and said take this, this is my body. Bible Christians believe that by going back to the Bible and following the scriptures is more like the church Christ intended.
This is just my opinion and I hope to have not offended anyone.
Dave.

What about premise 4 of my argument? Is it false? Can you show that it is?

What do you make of the fact that no one held your view of the Eucharist or baptism until fairly resently in history? To me this would bring up some major red-flags. Why does it not for you?

You say that “thru the history of the church man has changed and added things to the belief system of the church.” How do you know that you are not doing the same thing in your belief system? Is not the whole testamony of Christian history against you?

Peace

 

[Benadam]

oudave:

dennisknapp I did a word search in a Bible program I have on tradition:

I don’t know how reliable that method would be, but if it were true, and I don’t doubt the possibility, it would be in the inherent stability of a tradition started on earth by God Himself.

Since Christ is God a tradition directly linked to Him and what He taught through a body of teachers in sucession(sp) would not be subject to becoming a tradition of man. Consequently, any other tradition other than one directly rooted to that sucession would without exception be a tradition of man.

The guarantees are kept securely with very simple concepts layed out by St Paul in his letters to the Church’s.

 

[puzzleannie]

“Bible” Christians claim that their Church is MORE like the early Church then say the Roman Catholic Church, correct? (And by early Church I mean 33 to 315 A.D.)

with the important exception that the Romans are not rounding them up and throwing them to the lions

 

[mtr01]

Benadam:

I don’t know how reliable that method would be, but if it were true, and I don’t doubt the possibility, it would be in the inherent stability of a tradition started on earth by God Himself.

If he did a word search for “tradtion” using a Protestant translation, his results would be seriously skewed. In the NIV, for instance, any positive readings of “tradition”(Gr. paradoseis) is purposely changed to “teachings” (Gr. didaskalias). There is no valid grammatical reason for doing so; it is motivated by bad theology (as evidenced by the fact that paradoseis is always translated as tradition when used in a negative sense.

Furthermore, the King James translation renders paradoseis as “ordinances” for whatever reason. As a result, only negative instances of “tradition” will be found.

 

[Benadam]

mtr01:

If he did a word search for “tradtion” using a Protestant translation, his results would be seriously skewed. In the NIV, for instance, any positive readings of “tradition”(Gr. paradoseis) is purposely changed to “teachings” (Gr. didaskalias). There is no valid grammatical reason for doing so; it is motivated by bad theology (as evidenced by the fact that paradoseis is always translated as tradition when used in a negative sense.

Furthermore, the King James translation renders paradoseis as “ordinances” for whatever reason. As a result, only negative instances of “tradition” will be found.

is there any evidence that they used some kind of rationalization that served their agenda to make the switch or does it seem as if they had no reason except to be right even if being deceptive were necessary to do so?

 

[mtr01]

Benadam:

is there any evidence that they used some kind of rationalization that served their agenda to make the switch or does it seem as if they had no reason except to be right even if being deceptive were necessary to do so?

Although I have no direct evidence, I am inclined to believe the former. If you look up tradition in an NIV concordance, you get 10 hits: Mt 15:2,3,6; Mk 7:3,5,8,9,13; Gal 1:14; Col 2:8. Check out the context for yourself. Contrast that with the passages in which tradition is put in a favorable light, especially 2 Th 2:15 and 1 Cor 11:2. In these texts, the same Greek word paradoseis is translated as “teachings”, which again is an entirely different Greek word (didaskalias, from which we get “Didache”). I believe this to be doctrinally motivated because it is not a case of a Greek word having multiple definitions, it is a case where the Greek word in the texts are substituted for an entirely different Greek word - one that was not originally there! The translators of the NIV have deliberately changed the word of God to serve their own theological opinions

 

[jimmy]

mtr01:

Although I have no direct evidence, I am inclined to believe the former. If you look up tradition in an NIV concordance, you get 10 hits: Mt 15:2,3,6; Mk 7:3,5,8,9,13; Gal 1:14; Col 2:8. Check out the context for yourself. Contrast that with the passages in which tradition is put in a favorable light, especially 2 Th 2:15 and 1 Cor 11:2. In these texts, the same Greek word paradoseis is translated as “teachings”, which again is an entirely different Greek word (didaskalias, from which we get “Didache”). I believe this to be doctrinally motivated because it is not a case of a Greek word having multiple definitions, it is a case where the Greek word in the texts are substituted for an entirely different Greek word - one that was not originally there! The translators of the NIV have deliberately changed the word of God to serve their own theological opinions

Maybe the translators confused the word with the verb paideuo - to teach.

 

[mtr01]

jimmy:

Maybe the translators confused the word with the verb paideuo - to teach.

Possibly, but that wouldn’t explain why somethimes it is translated as tradition and other times as teachings. I’m by no means a Greek scholar but it appears to me that to render 2 Th 2:15 the way it is in the NIV you would have to do some serious gramatical gymnastics.

I’ll stick to non-Catholic translations to be consistent:

KJV: “Therefore, brethren, stand fast, and hold the traditions which ye have been taught, whether by word, or our epistle”

NIV: "So then, brothers, stand firm and hold to the teachings we passed on to you, whether by word of mouth or by letter "

The key phrase is “hold the traditions which ye have been taught.” Traditions (paradoseis) is a noun in the objective case. It is derived from the verb to hand over (paradidomi). The phrase, which ye have been taught (edidachthate), is a form of to teach (didasko). The NIV turns the verb into the noun - hold to the teachings - and turns the noun into the verb - we passed on to you. If we were to translate the NIV translation back into Greek, instead of paradoseis, we would have didaskalias, and instead of edidachthate we would have paredothate.

 

[jimmy]

mtr01:

Possibly, but that wouldn’t explain why somethimes it is translated as tradition and other times as teachings. I’m by no means a Greek scholar but it appears to me that to render 2 Th 2:15 the way it is in the NIV you would have to do some serious gramatical gymnastics.

I’ll stick to non-Catholic translations to be consistent:

KJV: “Therefore, brethren, stand fast, and hold the traditions which ye have been taught, whether by word, or our epistle”

NIV: "So then, brothers, stand firm and hold to the teachings we passed on to you, whether by word of mouth or by letter "

The key phrase is “hold the traditions which ye have been taught.” Traditions (paradoseis) is a noun in the objective case. It is derived from the verb to hand over (paradidomi). The phrase, which ye have been taught (edidachthate), is a form of to teach (didasko). The NIV turns the verb into the noun - hold to the teachings - and turns the noun into the verb - we passed on to you. If we were to translate the NIV translation back into Greek, instead of paradoseis, we would have didaskalias, and instead of edidachthate we would have paredothate.

I agree, to translate that verse like that, it would take some “grammatical gymnastics”. I did not look at the verse for my last post. To translate the noun as a verb and the verb as a noun is a pretty big change.

 

[mtr01]

jimmy:

Maybe the translators confused the word with the verb paideuo - to teach.

Perhaps, but I think the fact that it is translated correctly in those verses where traditions of men are condemned would indicate otherwise. Not to mention the translators had to do some serious gramatical gymnastics to get their translation of 2 Th 2:15. Let’s compare it with the King James (to be consistent)

KJV: Therefore, brethren, stand fast, and hold the traditions which ye have been taught, whether by word, or our epistle

NIV: So then, brothers, stand firm and hold to the teachings we passed on to you, whether by word of mouth or by letter

The key phrase is “traditions which ye have been taught”. Traditions is a noun (paradoseis) derived from the verb meaning to hand over (paradidomi); “have been taught” (edidachthate) is a form of the verb “to teach” (didasko).

See what they did in the NIV? they took the verb and made it a noun (“teachings”) and made the noun a verb (“passed on to you”). Like I mentioned before, in Greek this would now give us *didaskalias *for the noun and *paredothate *for the verb. Neither of these words appears in the original.

 

[MaggieOH]

Benadam:

Maggie, I just now comprehended the meaning of this post.

There are organizations that use ‘Turnspeak’ as a method to convert people to a ‘so called’ christian faith?

I’m still of the mind that my coworker friend … he may be innocent but it is probable that the JW chiefs know what they are doing.

is there substance to this ? Somehow I have given even the leadership of the JW’s the benefit of the doubt as misguided but sincere. Could they be using these techniques with good intentions?

They all use these techniques to trick people. That is why the LDS for example claim that the Church was in a Great Apostasy until Jesus came and gave Joseph Smith the mission to revitalize the Church. The JWs have done the same kind of thing. One thing is for certain, I do not believe that the leadership of the JWs is misguided. You only have to go and view some of the sites of those who have left Kingdom Hall to get an understanding of the methodology that is used to suck people into their system. Yet even they are not as insidious as the Scientologists.

My point is that the bad revisionist history needs to be refuted. What these people (including J.M. Carroll) have done is to try and attempt to claim Apostolic Succession for themselves by making false claims about the orthodoxy of the heretics.

What I am beginning to understand, is that by accepting the tract “The Trail of Blood” as being some kind of truth about history, there are many who are being deceived about the heresies that were espoused by the groups that get specific mention in “The Trail of Blood”. I would even suggest that is one of the reasons why in the Evangelical circles there is a surge in the neo-Helvidius heresy, the neo-Arian heresy, and the neo-Nestorius heresy, as well as a variety of other heresies that are too numerous to name.

You only have to go to some of the subjects that have been discussed recently to see the damaging effects of people being taken in by the tract “The Trail of Blood” and all similar tracts that have been produced.

Maggie

 

[MaggieOH]

Traditional Ang:

The technique you’re refering to is called “TURNSPEAK”. It was develloped by the Nazis into an Art form right before WW II. I still fee this site gives about the best BRIEF description of “TURNSPEAK” and how it functions - I have to warn you that it’s a political site from my wanderings under another Screen name. It’s just that the description of the CONFUSION produced by the knowing use of knowing false accusations which the accusser knows to be true of his/her own organization is so accurate…And we may sometimes be victimes of this technique.

eretzyisroel.org/~jkatz/turnspeak.html

Blessings to all.

In Christ, Michael

TURNSPEAK is very well illustrated in the book 1984. Just remember the writer of the book 1984 was a Catholic man (even if not a strong Catholic) and he had the vision to see what could happen if the world kept on this particular slippery slope. Now is a good time to review the contents of that book, because I think that he was correct about the doublespeak or TURNSPEAK that has been used as a method to turn people away from what they believe. It is a technique that is used by the JWs, the LDS and also the Fundamentalist Baptists.

Maggie

 

[Xavier]

“Bible” Christians claim that their Church is MORE like the early Church then say the Roman Catholic Church, correct? (And by early Church I mean 33 to 315 A.D.)

So, let’s see how this logic plays out, shall we.

1. Early Christian were more like the “Bible” Christians of today, then the Roman Catholic Church.
2. We have historical records of these early Christian by way of pagans, Jews and the early Christians themselves.
3. In the historical records is revealed what early Christians thought, believed and practiced.
4. In the historical records it reveals what the early Christians thought, believed and practiced are in line with Roman Catholic Teaching.
5. Therefore, premise 1 is false.

Any thoughts?

Peace

I just now read your message in regards to this thread.

When I read 1Corinthians an New Testament service. It sounds like no mass I ever attended.

1 Now concerning spiritual gifts, brethren, I do not want you to be ignorant: 2 You know that F38 you were Gentiles, carried away to these dumb idols, however you were led. 3 Therefore I make known to you that no one speaking by the Spirit of God calls Jesus accursed, and no one can say that Jesus is Lord except by the Holy Spirit. 4 There are diversities of gifts, but the same Spirit. 5 There are differences of ministries, but the same Lord. 6 And there are diversities of activities, but it is the same God who works all in all. 7 But the manifestation of the Spirit is given to each one for the profit of all: 8 for to one is given the word of wisdom through the Spirit, to another the word of knowledge through the same Spirit, 9 to another faith by the same Spirit, to another gifts of healings by the same F39 Spirit, 10 to another the working of miracles, to another prophecy, to another discerning of spirits, to another different kinds of tongues, to another the interpretation of tongues. 11 But one and the same Spirit works all these things, distributing to each one individually as He wills. 12 For as the body is one and has many members, but all the members of that one body, being many, are one body, so also is Christ. 13 For by one Spirit we were all baptized into one body–whether Jews or Greeks, whether slaves or free–and have all been made to drink into F40 one Spirit.
27 Now you are the body of Christ, and members individually. 28 And God has appointed these in the church: first apostles, second prophets, third teachers, after that miracles, then gifts of healings, helps, administrations, varieties of tongues. 29 Are all apostles? Are all prophets? Are all teachers? Are all workers of miracles? 30 Do all have gifts of healings? Do all speak with tongues? Do all interpret? 31 But earnestly desire the best F41** gifts. And yet I show you a more excellent way.**

 

[Xavier]

**1Corinthians13 **The love chapter.
Kudos to Catholics for loving the poor and the afflicted and the downtrodden. Catholic charities for the most part must be praised.

but lets get back on subject.

1Cor 14
1 Pursue love, and desire spiritual gifts, but especially that you may prophesy. 2 For he who speaks in a tongue does not speak to men but to God, for no one understands him; however, in the spirit he speaks mysteries. 3 But he who prophesies speaks edification and exhortation and comfort to men. 4 He who speaks in a tongue edifies himself, but he who prophesies edifies the church. 5* I wish you all spoke with tongues, but even more that you prophesied; for F43 he who prophesies is greater than he who speaks with tongues, unless indeed he interprets, that the church may receive edification. *

6 But now, brethren, if I come to you speaking with tongues, what shall I profit you unless I speak to you either by revelation, by knowledge, by prophesying, or by teaching? 7 Even things without life, whether flute or harp, when they make a sound, unless they make a distinction in the sounds, how will it be known what is piped or played? 8 For if the trumpet makes an uncertain sound, who will prepare himself for battle? 9 So likewise you, unless you utter by the tongue words easy to understand, how will it be known what is spoken? For you will be speaking into the air. 10 There are, it may be, so many kinds of languages in the world, and none of them is without significance. 11 Therefore, if I do not know the meaning of the language, I shall be a foreigner to him who speaks, and he who speaks will be a foreigner to me. 12 Even so you, since you are zealous for spiritual gifts, let it be for the edification of the church that you seek to excel. **13 Therefore let him who speaks in a tongue pray that he may interpret. 14 For if I pray in a tongue, my spirit prays, but my understanding is unfruitful. **15 What is the conclusion then? I will pray with the spirit, and I will also pray with the understanding. I will sing with the spirit, and I will also sing with the understanding. 16 Otherwise, if you bless with the spirit, how will he who occupies the place of the uninformed say “Amen” at your giving of thanks, since he does not understand what you say? 17 For you indeed give thanks well, but the other is not edified. 18 I thank my God I speak with tongues more than you all; 19 yet in the church I would rather speak five words with my understanding, that I may teach others also, than ten thousand words in a tongue. 20 Brethren, do not be children in understanding; however, in malice be babes, but in understanding be mature.

26 How is it then, brethren? Whenever you come together, each of you has a psalm, has a teaching,** has a tongue, has a revelation, has an interpretation. Let all things be done for edification. 27** If anyone speaks in a tongue, let there be two or at the most three, each in turn, and let one interpret. 28 But if there is no interpreter, let him keep silent in church, and let him speak to himself and to God. 29 Let two or three prophets speak, and let the others judge. 30 But if anything is revealed to another who sits by, let the first keep silent. 31 For you can all prophesy one by one, that all may learn and all may be encouraged. 32 And the spirits of the prophets are subject to the prophets. 33 For God is not the author of confusion but of peace, as in all the churches of the saints.
36 Or did the word of God come originally from you? Or was it you only that it reached? 37 If anyone thinks himself to be a prophet or spiritual, let him acknowledge that the things which I write to you are the commandments of the Lord. 38 But if anyone is ignorant, let him be ignorant. F47 39 Therefore, brethren, desire earnestly to prophesy, and do not forbid to speak with tongues. 40 Let all things be done decently and in order.

 

[Xavier]

Can anyone honestly say that this resembles the mass?

More than this examble the early church was made up of Jews. jesus and the apostles were Jews. The early sabboth meetings would more resemble a Jewish meeting than a mass.

 

[dennisknapp]

Xavier:

Can anyone honestly say that this resembles the mass?

More than this examble the early church was made up of Jews. jesus and the apostles were Jews. The early sabboth meetings would more resemble a Jewish meeting than a mass.

What is your point with this? It does not even deal with the argument in question. All you did was quote a bunch a Scriptural passages and underlined those dealing with tongues… I don’t get it?

My argument was about history and “biblical” Christianity. Where is the historical proff for your form of Christianity before the 16th-18th century? You need to disprove premise 4.

Peace

 

[Xavier]

“Bible” Christians claim that their Church is MORE like the early Church then say the Roman Catholic Church, correct? (And by early Church I mean 33 to 315 A.D.)

So, let’s see how this logic plays out, shall we.

1. Early Christian were more like the “Bible” Christians of today, then the Roman Catholic Church.
2. We have historical records of these early Christian by way of pagans, Jews and the early Christians themselves.
3. In the historical records is revealed what early Christians thought, believed and practiced.
4. In the historical records it reveals what the early Christians thought, believed and practiced are in line with Roman Catholic Teaching.
5. Therefore, premise 1 is false.

Any thoughts?

Peace

Again the early church looked like 1Corinthians not the present day mass.
How much more historical do you want than 1Corinthians

 

[Mickey]

Xavier:

Again the early church looked like 1Corinthians not the present day mass.
How much more historical do you want than 1Corinthians

1 Cor 11:23-29

sounds real Catholic to me!