toldailytopic: Why are there so many Christian denominations? And is that necessarily
- Thread starter Nathon Detroit
- Start date
Nope, he established churches under the Way.
he answered to James, same as Peter and Barnabas did. Acts 23ish...
Even close to his death, 1, 2 Peter show he was still in good standing, not making his own denom.
mitchellmckain
New member
The spiritual aspect of reality is irreducibly subjective and thus the diversity of thought with regards to it is naturally diverse. This diversity is a good thing for it becomes a source for diversity in human thought more generally.
The idea of the "meme" is in analogy to genes as the components of information in the process of life, but in this case mental life rather than biolgogical life. Just as the diversity of the gene pool is essential for the survival of the human species, the diversity of the "meme" pool is essential for the survival of human civilization.
The idea of the "meme" is in analogy to genes as the components of information in the process of life, but in this case mental life rather than biolgogical life. Just as the diversity of the gene pool is essential for the survival of the human species, the diversity of the "meme" pool is essential for the survival of human civilization.
Typical Christian Trope. Or is that troll.
The Christ prayed for unity in the CHURCH, you say disunity is the way it should be. I guess you feel JESUS' didn't get his prayer answered for? That's an interesting theological discussion in it's self.
Gal 5:19-21 says divisions and factions are of the flesh.
You say they are necessary for the Church.
I'm thinking I'm sticking with scripture on this one. Sorry dude.
Krsto
Well-known member
You are partially correct except that in real practical terms with the geographic isolation of churches in different regions they would eventually become their own denominations, some claiming to be followers of Paul, some followers of Peter, etc, depending on who had founded their church or who had the most influence, even though Paul chastized them for doing so. One can not assume Paul was successful in stemming the inevitable human tendency to follow visible charismatic leaders rather than follow the Christ they could not see. We see this in the development of the various bishoprics and metropolitan bishoprics which at first were not legislated by anyone but happened by default, again due to human tendencies and the nature of being a persecuted sect in which central beaurocratic control was needed for survival.
Nobody "answered to James," if by that you mean James was their head. They answered to James in the same way a surgeon might answer to the person who invented and perfected a new surgical technique. He would recognize the wisdom and influence of the expert and defer to him out of respect and political expediency, which is what we see happening at the Council of Jerusalem in Acts. To assume James was the pope or pastor or bishop over other apostles is just that, an assumption. Paul calls him, along with Peter and John, one of the "men of reputation," and a "superapostle," but that does not mean Paul wasn't free to minister as he felt led of the spirit, even if that meant butting heads with others like Peter, which he tended to do. James was certainly an influential apostle since he was the one who walked with Jesus longer than anyone, having been his brother (or cousin, if you prefer the Catholic take on that), but you shouldn't read anything more into James than greater influence and respect. The facts just don't warrant any more than that.
The progression of this denominalizing is seen in the several sees that developed with some being more influential than others, the one centered at Jerusalem becoming practically non-existant after the Roman sacking of Israel in 70 AD and following. Many sees were developing after that time and during the turn of the century between the 3rd and 4th centuries we see three Metropolitan bishops that had the greatest influence in the church which had spread out quite a bit. These were the bishops of Rome, Antioch, and Alexandria (the largest city in the world at that time), but even these three did not contain all of the church since many smaller bishoprics existed outside their territories, but they were of little import due to their small size and isolation from the big cities.
If you follow the events leading up to the First Ecumenical Council (Nicea) of 325 AD you will see these three bishops acted independently of each other and at times in conflict with each other as one might exonerate and welcome an elder which another had anathematized and banished from fellowship. This is in essence denominationalism and developed further into the various Orthodox Churches with one of them splitting from the rest for good, anathemas flying in all directions. I am of course speaking of the Great Schism of 1054 AD when the Bishop of Rome removed himself from fellowship with the other Metropolitan bishops or was kicked out, depending on how you want to look at it.
To look at the various bishoprics scattered around the world during the 3rd and 4th centuries and see how they operated one would have to be seriously biased to conclude they did not operate like denominations do today, though with more attempts at unity. The whole debate between the various Orthodox sees and the See of Rome was about each see's right to determine truth (orthodoxy) for itself vs. being dominated and governed by one see as the Roman see insisted for the purpose of uniformity (universality). From that it can only be concluded that the sees were not in 100% unity to begin with or there would not have been any reason to object to Rome's attempts at usurping power over the rest.
Last edited:
Quote:
Originally Posted by zippy2006
John 17:21 that they all may be one, as You, Father, are in Me, and I in You; that they also may be one in Us, that the world may believe that You sent Me.
"that they all may be" means they are not. It's a process......
It's a process expected to be completed in their life of the individuals not the life of the Church.
Quote:
There is one truth, not many.
agreed
Quote:
Claiming that the doctrinal differences are a good thing is modern nonsense.
doctrinal differences are not nonsense, they are needed to reveal that one truth you were talking about.
Gal 5:19-21 divisions are of the flesh. And you wish to argue that is good, thus to a biblical stand point, you have lost all credibility.
An example of this offense would be, if you were Gideon, you would drop the crock pots and horns, call your army back, get the shields and swords and attack. Period.
Originally Posted by zippy2006
John 17:21 that they all may be one, as You, Father, are in Me, and I in You; that they also may be one in Us, that the world may believe that You sent Me.
"that they all may be" means they are not. It's a process......
It's a process expected to be completed in their life of the individuals not the life of the Church.
Quote:
There is one truth, not many.
agreed
Quote:
Claiming that the doctrinal differences are a good thing is modern nonsense.
doctrinal differences are not nonsense, they are needed to reveal that one truth you were talking about.
Gal 5:19-21 divisions are of the flesh. And you wish to argue that is good, thus to a biblical stand point, you have lost all credibility.
An example of this offense would be, if you were Gideon, you would drop the crock pots and horns, call your army back, get the shields and swords and attack. Period.
unknown
New member
Who died and made you god?
Such diverse locations, walking Paul visited them 2x and on boat makes a third. Ummm yeah. Impossibly diverse. That's like saying since we have email now, you could not possibly get a letter from Dallas in the AM to Los Angeles next day in the PM. We know at 100AD after the deaths of all but John, the Church was still policing each other over vast differences of space, miles. And after that it only got better, not worse. Sorry, your claim is unfounded. You are applying your logic to THEIR reality 2K years ago. A world so different your logic pretty much disqualifies itself. PLUS we have proof they were in contact so apparently it wasn't as big a deal as you said. AND PAUL wrote the chastisement about under Paul, Peter, Apollos, to the members of ONE CHURCH. Not several different churches that were different denominations. AND PAUL wrote the bits about unity iand n knowledge and full maturity for those led by the Church to their works of service. So, Ummm I think I'm beyond partly right, and your comment doesn't pass the posturing stink test.
.
But you feel you can assume he wasn't. You are consistent, the logic you've presented in previous chats was about this sound. Paul wrote to not follow the charismatic teachers, his letters condemned them. I wish they would cut their below the belts parts and mutiliate them. They were DOGS the zealot called them somewhere else. cough cough. I read a lot of fantasy novels, but I'm not sure I would buy this book of yours. :|
.
Timothy wasn't tutored and directed to be a bishop? Amazing. He was over an area, coached to teach those that taught in his area, and to keep them straight, so he had authority, and... IN PAUL'S TIME HE WAS TRAINING PEOPLE WITH THE ROLE OF A BISHOP. AND WE KNOW in JOhn's life there were bishops. AND they still communicated to police each other.
.
Sigh you are right, HUMAN TENDENCIES over power the Son's prayers. :| You really rely on your justification a lot more than facts and history. I'm sorry for you.
.
SO, when the Bible says he passed judgement it's a lie. He had no authority to pass judgement. I see. I gotta admit, that's pretty hard to defend against. That is, you know more than the Bible would deduce. :|
.
They answered like a doctor being trained by the person that developed the technique, that is, listen to his words, and follow his directions, why? He had the authority.
.
You are right, of course. Of the churcheS in Jerusalem, that james was over, he wasn't a bishop in any way that the word is described. :juggle: <<<< keep throwing them, someone will start to believe you.
.
The fact he sit at the head of that meeting, and it had the top minds in the Church at that time together and HE was the one, singularly that made JUDGEMENT, says something. But, don't let the facts get in the way.
.
Wasn't James not one that walked with Him but came around later in life? I think that I'm right there, but not sure enough to enforce it with a hyperbolic response.
.
HEY when you start redacting scripture, do you tell the publishers of their mistakes... like the james past judgement part?
.
When you present those facts, and answer the comments above, I'll consider it. Until then, here's a sharpie for you to finish redacting the Biblios.
Krsto
Well-known member
That and eisogesis rather than exogesis.
No one, I'm not the one making DECLARATIONS WITH NO PROOF< SUBSTANCE< OR REASONING. You are.
That's a province GOD might hold, but if a human being is going to accuse me of something, then they have a burden of proof. Lacking that, they are a slanderous liar. Imean that not as a cut down but the literal english words for their actions.
And while cussing isn't mentioned in the bible, slander and lies is several times.
:shut::shut:
I was spelling it wrong too, I used an I. it's eisegesis/exegesis.
And yet again, you presume GODHOOD and can DECLARE something, to be and it is, without fulfilling a burden of proof, showing an example, reasoning, etc... etc... etc... (intrepret blah.... blah.... blah....)
Which in my experience is the avenue every person who is shown wrong and has no answer takes. That's why it's falling into the ad hominem family of offenses.
Krusty, truly, if you can't back it up, don't make a fool of yourself. I'm embarassed for you.
I was spelling it wrong too, I used an I. it's eisegesis/exegesis.
And yet again, you presume GODHOOD and can DECLARE something, to be and it is, without fulfilling a burden of proof, showing an example, reasoning, etc... etc... etc... (intrepret blah.... blah.... blah....)
Which in my experience is the avenue every person who is shown wrong and has no answer takes. That's why it's falling into the ad hominem family of offenses.
Krusty, truly, if you can't back it up, don't make a fool of yourself. I'm embarassed for you.
unknown
New member
I think I mentioned that in the "reason for editing" box of my post, it was an after-thought.
unknown
New member
ok, I'm listening, tell me again how this oneness with God has been accomplished? oh yeah, because Paul said so.....
alright then, where is this oneness with God? and the glory? I'm all ears..
Krsto
Well-known member
The church was not "policing each other over vast differences of space, miles," at 100 AD any more than it was in the book of Acts or elsewhere in the bible. How did the Apostle John deal with an errant pastor in 3 Jn.? Remove him from office? No, he just told his friend not to listen to him. Churches were governed by their local board of elders, not the apostles. The apostles had influence in the churches they founded, naturally, yet Paul was careful not to even try to influence churches he did not found. When Paul left one of his own churches he left it in the hands of the elders to govern, teach, pastor, oversee, etc. If he needed to bring correction he did so by letter or in person but it was always up to the elders to take his advice and implement it as they saw fit. If Paul didn't like what they did his warning to them was that he would come back with sharp words, like a father to his adult son in today's culture. I have no authority over my adult children but I certainly have influence and I will certainly tell them a thing or two. Sometimes they see the wisdom in what I am saying and sometimes they don't and don't follow. I can't take their keys to their cars away like I can with my sons who are still minors because I don't run their lives like before.
Church history proves me right.
.
No, bishops in the bible oversaw singular churches in the absence of a founding apostle along with other elders who were equal with them, though some like James had more gifting and influence than the others. You can not find a single person called a bishop in the bible who oversaw by himself much less oversaw more than one church by himself. Timothy was not called a bishop, btw, unless you take the King James translators to be inpired of God and infallible when they added text not found in any manuscript.
No, Timothy was Paul's apostolic right hand man, his "man on the ground" when Paul could not be everywhere, sent to one church in Ephesus to admonish them. Titus was another right hand man sent to an island with a few churches which did not have elders sufficiently mature enough to lead their churches because Paul did not have the time to spend with them until they grew up. Read Timothy's mission to Crete and you will see what I mean. "For this cause left I thee in Crete, that thou shouldest set in order the things that are wanting, and ordain elders in every city, as I had appointed thee."
Again, church history is on my side of this argument.
.
It doesn't take authority to "pass judgement" as James did at the
Council of Jerusalem. It takes expertise, respect, influence, and wisdom from God.
.
A doctor who invents, tests, and improves a surgical technique does not have governmental authority over other surgeons. We are talking about governmental authority, per Catholic teaching, and James did not have that. He had authority based on his ability to influence others, as all the apostles had, and as a doctor has who has invented a surgical technique for other surgeons to use.
.
He was not a bishop as the term is used in the bible. He was the most influential person and the only apostle left in Jerusalem because the rest of the apostles heeded Jesus' commission to go to the nations. If you want to redefine the term for the sake of discussion that's one thing, but don't give him the title "Bishop of Jerusalem" (which btw, was probablystill one local body at the time) because what he was is not what a bishop was if you study the term episcopos.
.
Yes, it speaks of his influence as the only remaining apostle at that church which was a very influential church before Rome destroyed it. They didn't have the best minds in the church, btw. They had the elders and deacons of that one church, and James. The other apostles were off doing the Great Commission. His singular judgement wouldn't have meant a hill of beans if the others hadn't agreed too, meaning the others had to sense that what James was saying was from the Holy Spirit. "It seemed good to us (plural) and the Holy Spirit . . . "
That depends on whether he was James the Elder or James the Lesser and I do get them mixed up at times but both were quite influential in their own rights.
.
Okeedokee.
Why thank you :e4e:
Yazichestvo
New member
As someone who has seen people argue endlessly about the meaning of the old and new testaments, I think the simple answer is that the Bible is often vague.
Ok, 1) do you always eliminate vss you don't like so.Scripture will fit in your box?
2) both john, and paul stated they were there.
3) why did God, deny Christ's prayer? Was His faith.week?
4) I'm not oneness, bigot, but thanks for showing your, colors.
5) don't you think Scripture should tell YIU why it means, rather than yiu telking it what to mean?
6) admit it, you didn't touch the vss given you.
John 17, eph 4:12-16.
You argue at me like I said it. I'm just repeating Scripture. If you don't like it, take it yup with Paul.
Now, are yiu going to back up your slanderous lies, or defend them? After we get that done I will discuss with you, Xian maturity in what ever venue you wish. Preferably in a one on one debate. That makes it easier to show you your errors, and for you to show me mine.
Well, don't you just take the fun outta thangs!
mitchellmckain
New member
You must be the typical cookie cutter "christian robot" using religion as no more than a tool of his gang's power manipulations.
I also pray for the unity of the church, but I know this comes from the love we have for each other and not from the arrogant sods who confuse unity with uniformity and insist that the world be remade in the image of their own dark minds.
I say that Jesus DID have His prayer answered and that God DID have His way even though the suck ups who use religion for power and manipulation of others, lament the loss of the days when their kind ruled the world in the dark ages of mankind. But we know what Jesus said of this sort in Matt 7:22.
Indeed because pride in ones doctrines and beliefs are things of the flesh and when one puts ones faith in these rather than in God and make this a gnostic legalism by which to say who goes to heaven and who goes to hell (against Romans 10), that is when a diversity of thought becomes division, and religion becomes a tool of hate and power rather than love and unity.
I say that the diversity of human thought is necessary for the survival of human civilization.
Once the world was united in thought and since man is full of sin that can only mean a world were there was no hope for good anywhere. So God destroyed that world with a flood. Afterwards when men sought to unite themselves once and prevent themselves from being divided, God knew exactly where this would lead, saying, "Behold they are one people and they have all one language; and this is only the beginning of what they will do..." Since God promised that He would never again destroy the world as He did with the flood, He had to intervene to save us from ourselves, so He confused their language and divided them into the many cultures and nations upon the earth. Thus you can say that God is the origin of war because He prevented the unity of mankind and the reason is that war is NOT the greatest evil there is. The greater evil is all of mankind united in a society where there is no possiblity for good anywhere but only evil continually.
Yes it is all too likely that you will stick to your use of scripture for bad habits die hard. But I care not whether you listen to or follow me for I indeed I am not the one you should listen to. But I am sorry for your lack of understanding.
@@@@yeah, I'm a regular idiot. You are right. So my idiotic points I made should be.easy.to acknowledge and show my error. Why not do.that now, or hush. O
@@@@