Christian Forums

Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

  • Christian Forum aspires to be an online community where Christians can come together in fellowship with the purpose to encourage, inspire and build up our faith in Christ Jesus. John 13:34-35
  • Focus on the Family

    Strengthening families through biblical principles.

    Focus on the Family addresses the use of biblical principles in parenting and marriage to strengthen the family.

  • Guest, Join Papa Zoom today for some uplifting biblical encouragement! --> Daily Verses
  • The Gospel of Jesus Christ

    Heard of "The Gospel"? Want to know more?

    There is salvation in no other, for there is not another name under heaven having been given among men, by which it behooves us to be saved."

Early Church Doctrine

Do early Church writings hold any value in determining truth?

  • No. The Early Church failed doctrinally

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • Total voters
    12

Bible

 
Member
From
Dallas
Gender
Male
Messages
516
Joined
Feb 22, 2021
Um - you DO realize that neither the original Hebrew or Greek have upper and lower case letters?
Capitalization is strictly COMMENTARY?
All scripture verses s inspired not Hebrew or Greek or context or capital letters
 

OzSpen

C F Martin D28 acoustic guitar
Member
From
Brisbane, Qld, Australia
Gender
Male
Christian
Yes
Messages
5,754
Joined
Jun 13, 2014
Wouldn't it be hard for people to be teaching "Arminian" theology before "Calvinism"..... as the dude was born afterwards?

If you really want to learn alot about church history, I suggest you purchase The Early Church Fathers Published by, I believe, Hendrickson Publisher and wrote by Philip Schaff. Its like an encyclopedia but goes from the earliest churches, the disagreements they had, major events that ocurred, etc.... Huge collection of books, but well worth it.

Theres alot to learn and understand from studying the Early Church, but remember, alot of them were dealing with heretics and gnostics of the day. To often we see people "picking and chooseing" who they side with depending on the argument they're trying to push. Studying is good, listening to the Holy Spirit though.... 👼

There is no need to purchase the "huge collection of books" on the early church fathers when you can read them online at:
  1. Early Church Writings, and
  2. New Advent.
Oz
 

OzSpen

C F Martin D28 acoustic guitar
Member
From
Brisbane, Qld, Australia
Gender
Male
Christian
Yes
Messages
5,754
Joined
Jun 13, 2014
Jason,


Of course they did! Many errors corrupted the Church from 325 A.D. on. I would'nt trust any doctrine taught in history after 325 A.D. Any truth that was taught rose out of corruption, while before 325 A.D. (mainly during the first 2 centuries) truth was not corrupted, but in its pure, undefiled form in most all Churches.
Here is one of MANY quotes like it:

Pastor,

There was much in the early church before A.D. 325 that was false doctrine. I'm thinking particularly of Gnosticism/Docetism that Irenaeus corrected in Against Heresies.

Oz
 

D-D-W

Member
From
Maryland
Gender
Male
Messages
313
Joined
Jul 27, 2021
Then why is "Satan", the proper name, used repeatedly throughout both Testaments? Multiple times!!

It's used by God over and over in Job -- ten times by my count --, and Jesus said in Matthew 4:10, “Go away, Satan! For it is written: ‘You are to worship the Lord your God and serve only him.’” If Jesus and God call the devil by his name "Satan" that's proof enough for me that it is his proper name.
You first assume a proper name and that is how you read it. Therefore it becomes its own proof. That is circular.

An equally valid translation of what you quoted is this: “Go away, adversary! For it is written: ..."
 

D-D-W

Member
From
Maryland
Gender
Male
Messages
313
Joined
Jul 27, 2021
There was much in the early church before A.D. 325 that was false doctrine. I'm thinking particularly of Gnosticism/Docetism that Irenaeus corrected in Against Heresies.
Unfortunately, the early church fathers' errors of antisemitism and replacement theology had no one to correct them; so they just continued to grow.
 

jaybo

 
Supporter
From
Santa Fe NM
Gender
Male
Messages
1,183
Joined
Jun 22, 2020
You first assume a proper name and that is how you read it. Therefore it becomes its own proof. That is circular.

An equally valid translation of what you quoted is this: “Go away, adversary! For it is written: ..."
The proper name of "Satan" is used many times in the Bible. Your point is flawed...

If my brother gives me a gift, I can say "thank you brother" or "thank you Tom". The meaning is the same.

You first assume a title and that is how you read it. Therefore it becomes its own proof. That is circular.

Satan is the devil's name.
 

D-D-W

Member
From
Maryland
Gender
Male
Messages
313
Joined
Jul 27, 2021
The proper name of "Satan" is used many times in the Bible. Your point is flawed...
If my brother gives me a gift, I can say "thank you brother" or "thank you Tom". The meaning is the same.
You first assume a title and that is how you read it. Therefore it becomes its own proof. That is circular.
Satan is the devil's name.
Let me refer you to someone more versed in this issue than either of us.
Discussing the term "satan" as used in Job:

Now let’s stop here: who or what is “the satan?” Let’s first set the record straight, this word is not a proper name, like our modern translations that use the capital letter (“Satan”) might lead us to conclude. The Hebrew word satan is a descriptive noun, describing any person that stands “opposed to” or as “an adversary” to someone else. For example, King Solomon faced multiple invading enemies near the end of his reign, Hadad the Edomite and Rezon, son of Eliada (1 Kings 11:14, 11:23). Both of these men are called in Hebrew “a satan,” that is, an adversary. King David himself is called “a satan” by the Philistines (1 Sam 29:4). The word “satan” can be used to describe an accusing attorney in a courtroom (see Ps 109:6-7). And pay attention to this one, “the angel of the Lord” is described as “a satan,” who opposes the infamous Balaam (see Num 22:22, 32). So even the angelic messenger who represents the will and authority of God himself can take on the function of a satan. One conclusion from this short Hebrew word study is that a variety of people or heavenly beings can be described by the word satan. This means that the satan who appears in Job 1-2 is not necessarily identical with the full-orbed evil being called by that same title in the New Testament (see, for example, Mark 1:13).

In fact, a heavenly figure called “the satan” appears only twice in the Old Testament. Both stories take place in the heavenly courtroom where a “good guy” stands before God and his staff and is then accused by “the one opposed” (or, the satan). In Zechariah 3:1-5, the satan is a figure in the divine throne room accusing the high priest of Israel for being guilty of sin (symbolized by dirty clothes). And God’s response is that Israel and its representative priest are no longer guilty because Israel’s exile has been sufficient punishment for breaking their covenant with God (see Zechariah 1-2). Now that the exile is over, God is giving Israel a “new chance,” so to speak, symbolized by giving the high priest a new, clean set of clothes. In this context, the satan is not evil or sinister. Rather, he represents the just and right accusation that Israel is guilty before God, and God counters this member of his staff by saying that Israel stands forgiven.
 

jaybo

 
Supporter
From
Santa Fe NM
Gender
Male
Messages
1,183
Joined
Jun 22, 2020
Let me refer you to someone more versed in this issue than either of us.
Discussing the term "satan" as used in Job:
Sorry but there is disagreement on this issue. It's easy to find sources on the Internet that agree with your preformed opinion no matter what your point of view.

Take for example Matthew 16:23, "But he turned and said to Peter, “Get behind me, Satan! You are a stumbling block to me, because you are not setting your mind on God’s interests, but on man’s.” Jesus addressed Peter as "Satan", the proper name.

"Satan" is mentioned forty-six times in Scripture. Here is a single example from the OT...

Zechariah 3:2, "The Lord said to Satan, “May the Lord rebuke you, Satan! May the Lord, who has chosen Jerusalem, rebuke you! Isn’t this man like a burning stick snatched from the fire?”

and another one from the NT...

Matthew 4:10, "Then Jesus said to him, “Go away, Satan! For it is written: ‘You are to worship the Lord your God and serve only.’”

Regardless of how his name is punctuated in Greek and Hebrew, we speak/read/write in English, where people's names are capitalized. I will stick with the clear use of the name as it's written in both Testaments.
 

D-D-W

Member
From
Maryland
Gender
Male
Messages
313
Joined
Jul 27, 2021
I am not arguing that there are not specific instances of it being used as a proper name.
What I am arguing is that much of the time it is NOT used that way.
 

jaybo

 
Supporter
From
Santa Fe NM
Gender
Male
Messages
1,183
Joined
Jun 22, 2020
I am not arguing that there are not specific instances of it being used as a proper name.
What I am arguing is that much of the time it is NOT used that way.
Satan is the devil's name. It is used many times in the Bible -- both Testaments.
You first assume it's a title and that is how you read it. Therefore it becomes its own proof in your mind. That is circular.
 

OzSpen

C F Martin D28 acoustic guitar
Member
From
Brisbane, Qld, Australia
Gender
Male
Christian
Yes
Messages
5,754
Joined
Jun 13, 2014
Unfortunately, the early church fathers' errors of antisemitism and replacement theology had no one to correct them; so they just continued to grow.

You gave not one example of anti-semiticism and replacement theology, so I have no samples to examine whether the theology is orthodox or unorthodox.

Oz
 

D-D-W

Member
From
Maryland
Gender
Male
Messages
313
Joined
Jul 27, 2021
OzSpen - Go read Euseubius' writings about the "Sect of the Nazoreans." They were Jewish believers in Messiah, not unlike the Messianic Jews of today. He applauds their belief as orthodox; but condemns their practice as being "jewish." His evaluation of them meant that they were NOT INVITED to the Nicene council, so there was no Jewish voice at all in those discussions.
 
Top