Evidence of a great doctrinal apostasy

[RichardBurger]

This is the background of Christ's instruction to Gentiles (through Paul) during the dispensation of grace (that's us):

1 Cor 3:10 According to the grace of God which is given unto me [Paul], as a wise masterbuilder, I have laid the foundation, and another buildeth thereon. But let every man take heed how he buildeth thereupon...

1 Cor 4:14-16 For I write not these things to shame you, but as my beloved sons I warn you. For though ye have ten thousand instructors in Christ, yet have ye not many fathers: for in Christ Jesus I have begotten you through the gospel. [the Kingdom Gospel? No, the Grace Gospel? Yes.] Wherefore I beseech you, be ye followers [of whom? All the apostles? No...] of me. For this cause have I sent unto you Timotheus, who is my beloved son, and faithful in the Lord, who shall bring you into remembrance of my ways which be in Christ, as I teach everywhere in every church.

1 Cor 11:1-2 Be ye followers of me, even as I also am of Christ. Now I praise you, brethren, that ye remember me in all things, and keep the ordinances as [who? Peter? John? James? No...] I delivered them to you.

Eph 3:2 If ye have heard of the dispensation of the grace of God which is given [to who? All the apostles equally? No...] to me for you...

Phil 3:17 Brethren, be followers together of me, and observe them which walk according to the pattern you have in us...

Phil 4:9 Those things which you have learned and received and heard and seen [in who? the circumcision apostles? No...] in me, practice these things, and the God of peace shall be with you.

Col 1:25 Whereof I am made a minister, according to the dispensation of God which is given to me for you, to fulfil [Gr. pleroo, complete] the word of God;

2 Tim 1:13 Hold fast the form of sound words which thou hast heard from me, in faith and love which is in Christ Jesus.

Finally...

2 Tim 2:2 And the things that thou hast heard from me among many witnesses, the same commit thou to faithful men, who shall be able to teach others also.
***

Looking at the record of history...did "faithful men" continue Paul's teaching? ------ Judge for yourself after examining the doctrines that cropped up soon after the apostolic era.

THE LORD'S SUPPER

Three of the "church fathers" --Ignatius, Justin, and Irenaeus--said the Lord’s Supper had some positive mystical influence on your spirit and physical body when you ate it. Ignatius went as far as to call the bread “The medicine of immortality and the antidote that we should not die but have life forever in Jesus Christ.â€Â

These folks weren’t into transubstantiation as we know it, but they had an early form of it (more like consubstantiation).

QUESTION: Is that what Paul taught?

Paul clearly taught that it’s a memorial (1 Cor 11:23-26)...an important, solemn memorial, yes, but it’s still just bread and wine with no mention of any mystical presence of the Lord. So who was right -- these early church "fathers," or Paul?

SALVATION, SUFFERING AND PERSERVERENCE

Ignatius longed for animals to tear him to bits because he seemed to have believed that suffering and martyrdom would prove his Christianity and ensure his salvation. He seems to have exhibited an attitude of "I must endure to the end to be saved." While Kingdom saints had to believe such dreadful truths (Matt. 24:13), Paul never did.

THE MYSTERY

Did Ignatius really have a grasp on the Mystery? He knew that the body of professing believers was comprised of Jews and Gentiles, but that was a fact clearly evident even to unbelievers. As to Paul's Mystery, he saw it as something else entirely:

"Ye are associates in the mysteries with Paul, who was sanctified, who obtained a good report, who is worthy of all felicitation..." (Eph. 12)

That's as close as can be found that Ignatius got to mentioning Paul's mystery revelation. But he did go into detail on this:

"And hidden from the prince of this world were the virginity of Mary and her child-bearing and likewise also the death of the Lord---three mysteries to be cried aloud--which were wrought in the silence of God." (Eph. 19)

Ignatius did not have a clue regarding the Pauline revelation, judging by what he wrote. Yet he considered the virgin birth and the death of Messiah to have been hidden from Satan. But they weren’t hidden, for both were prophesied in the O.T. What WAS hidden from Satan (and from the whole world) was the full scope of the Cross (1 Cor 2:6-8), which was not known until Christ revealed it to Paul as part of the Mystery. Timothy knew it. Titus knew it. The Ephesians knew it. But Ignatius appears to never have understood it. That scope being that through the atonement work of the cross mankind can be saved by the grace of God based on faith in what God (Jesus) did on the cross to pay for their sins.

WATER BAPTISM

This early doctrinal slide is most grossly evident when one examines these writer's opinions of water baptism. Ignatius wrote:

"It is not lawful apart from the bishop either to baptize or hold a love-feast; but whatsoever he shall approve, this is well-pleasing also to God; that everything which ye do may be sure and valid." (Smy. 8)

"Let your baptism abide with you as your shield... (Poly. 6). Elsewhere he said, "...as your arm..."

What Ignatius meant by "shield" is clear - it's a reference to defense, possibly spiritual armor. However, Paul gave water baptism no such significance. Ignatius is paving the way for a ritualistic, salvational approach to baptism [i.e., Rome's] which is with us to this day, especially when he says only the bishop can perform it or approve of it.

Justin also said that one could believe but wasn’t actually saved until he/she was dunked. That’s a form of baptismal regeneration, from as early as 150 A.D. (some say they used the terms “baptism†and “regeneration†interchangeably). But did Paul EVER teach this? No! These Gentile philosophers sound far more familiar with Mark 16:16 and Acts 2:38 than with Eph 4:5.

NOTE: The point of this post is that all this doctrinal confusion happened within ONE GENERATION of Paul, the Apostle to the Gentiles and dispenser of the mystery. Not 100 years after his death, gross doctrinal distortion had already set in and the Church believed, and practicing a mix of two dispensations, as well as things not even found in the Bible.

One thing is certain from what I’ve read -- the Asian fathers largely failed to acknowledge the uniqueness of the revelation Christ gave to Paul. Why? Because, as Paul himself wrote, Asia had already turned away from him even while he was yet alive. Those in Asia were even then “turning aside unto myths.†These church “fathers,†with their compounded mythical doctrines, are only the fruit of the apostasy that began in the first century before Paul died.

2 Tim 1:15
15 This you know, that all those in Asia have turned away from me, among whom are Phygellus and Hermogenes.
(NKJ)

 

[Vic C.]

NOTE: The point of this post is that all this doctrinal confusion happened within ONE GENERATION of Paul, the Apostle to the Gentiles and dispenser of the mystery. Not 100 years after his death, gross doctrinal distortion had already set in and the Church believed, and practicing a mix of two dispensations, as well as things not even found in the Bible

We read in the Bible that gross distortions in the form of heresies were happening as Paul wrote and taught. :yes

 

[unclejed]

Hi, as a former Catholic (before I was "born again" I saw very clearly all the heresies and false doctrine associated with the Catholic religion as well as all orthodox religions. The "communion" as it is so often called in these religions is a grave distortion of the true Seder. The Lords supper as some call it is actually the Jewish Seder that Jesus celebrated with his Apostles the night before he died. As my wife and I now attend the Seder yearly as Jesus did we have found the true meaning of communion with Jesus and the Father and the Holy Spirit as we (with our Jewish friends) celebrate this great tradition of over 2000 years. I encourage every follower of Jesus to attend a Seder, not out of obligation, but to have a true communion with our savior.

 

[RND]

NOTE: The point of this post is that all this doctrinal confusion happened within ONE GENERATION of Paul, the Apostle to the Gentiles and dispenser of the mystery. Not 100 years after his death, gross doctrinal distortion had already set in and the Church believed, and practicing a mix of two dispensations, as well as things not even found in the Bible.

Doctrinal confusion happened during the apostles preaching to the gentiles. The letters to the Corinthians, Colossians and Galatians and the letters of John are proof positive of that. Doctrinal error began almost immediately with the doctrine of Simon Magus.

 

[RND]

Hi, as a former Catholic (before I was "born again" I saw very clearly all the heresies and false doctrine associated with the Catholic religion as well as all orthodox religions. The "communion" as it is so often called in these religions is a grave distortion of the true Seder. The Lords supper as some call it is actually the Jewish Seder that Jesus celebrated with his Apostles the night before he died. As my wife and I now attend the Seder yearly as Jesus did we have found the true meaning of communion with Jesus and the Father and the Holy Spirit as we (with our Jewish friends) celebrate this great tradition of over 2000 years. I encourage every follower of Jesus to attend a Seder, not out of obligation, but to have a true communion with our savior.

Question: Where can the rites and customs of Talmudic Rabbinicalism be found in the NT account of the passover meal? For example, where is the Beitzah or Karpas found anywhere in scripture? These are "man-made" traditions and customs (Talmud) and not Torah rites.

 

[Bick]

Well said, Richard.

The mysteries revealed to Paul concerning the Church/body of Christ is missing or miss-understood from so many Protestant preachers and theologian's teachings.

 

[francisdesales]

Hi, as a former Catholic (before I was "born again" I saw very clearly all the heresies and false doctrine associated with the Catholic religion as well as all orthodox religions. The "communion" as it is so often called in these religions is a grave distortion of the true Seder. The Lords supper as some call it is actually the Jewish Seder that Jesus celebrated with his Apostles the night before he died. As my wife and I now attend the Seder yearly as Jesus did we have found the true meaning of communion with Jesus and the Father and the Holy Spirit as we (with our Jewish friends) celebrate this great tradition of over 2000 years. I encourage every follower of Jesus to attend a Seder, not out of obligation, but to have a true communion with our savior.

This appears to be an attack vs. Catholicism and High Protestantism that practices the Eucharist. The Eucharist is based IN PART upon the Jewish Seder, since it is the background of the first Eucharist. I would advise you, unclejed, that the Seder was PART of the "shadown of the good things to come" that are DONE AWAY WITH... Participating in a Seder is not a bad thing, per sec. But claiming that Catholics/Protestants got it wrong because it is not done IN THE SAME WAY as the Jewish seder is a mistake. The Christian Eucharist is the NEW Covenant, the Seder deals with the Old Covenant. The Old does not apply to Christians any longer, according to Paul. Animal sacrifices POINTED TO THE Sacrifice of Christ, which of course, is done within the context of the Paschal Mystery.

I believe in your rush to judge the Eucharist, you are not familiar with the fact that the Seder POINTS to the Eucharist, not the other way around.

Regards

 

[Vic C.]

Hi Joe, I didn't see it as an out and out attack, though I do agree with most of what you said. :yes I understand the elements of the bread and wine to be just 'parts' of the sedar. Paul did a good job in 1 Cor 10 & 11 making sure they understood this wasn't "just" a meal, but an observance and remembrance of the sacrifice, resurrection and upcoming advent of our Christ.

What the Jews did and still do (keeping in mind they don't know their Messiah jet) concerning the Passover is not necessary for the follower of Christ. We don't have the exodus of Egypt in our past to be thankful for, we have Christ here and now as our Deliverer, once and for all. :amen

As RND pointed out, their Passover traditions are just as man-made as many Christian traditions. We are asked to observe two specific elements, no more, no less:

1 Cor 11:23 For I have received of the Lord that which also I delivered unto you, That the Lord Jesus the same night in which he was betrayed took bread:
1 Cor 11:24 And when he had given thanks, he brake it, and said, Take, eat: this is my body, which is broken for you: this do in remembrance of me.
1 Cor 11:25 After the same manner also he took the cup, when he had supped, saying, This cup is the new testament in my blood: this do ye, as oft as ye drink it, in remembrance of me.
1 Cor 11:26 For as often as ye eat this bread, and drink this cup, ye do show the Lord's death till he come.

Where did Paul get these instructions? Well he got them from Jesus:

Mat 26:26 And as they were eating, Jesus took bread, and blessed it, and brake it, and gave it to the disciples, and said, Take, eat; this is my body.
Mat 26:27 And he took the cup, and gave thanks, and gave it to them, saying, Drink ye all of it;
Mat 26:28 For this is my blood of the new testament, which is shed for many for the remission of sins.

 

[unclejed]

May I calrify; The Seder was ordained by God to Moses so its' origins are devine not man made, this is elementary teaching not worth debating. It is clear also from the New Testament that Rabbi Paul was talking about the Seder when he said; "When you come together (showing sarcasm) it is not the Lords' supper you eat (the Lords supper, the Seder) .........one remains hungry while another gets drunk", taken from 1 cor. 11:20-22. Clearly they were attending the Seder here per the references to a meal and wine. Four cups of wine are in the Seder as is a full meal. Definition; The Eucharist, also called Holy Communion, Sacrament of the Table, the Blessed Sacrament, or The Lord's Supper and other names, is a Christian sacrament or ordinance, generally considered to be a commemoration of the Last Supper, the final meal that Jesus Christ shared with his disciples before his arrest and eventual crucifixion. The consecration of bread and a cup within the rite recalls the moment at the Last Supper when Jesus gave his disciples bread, saying, "This is my body", and wine, saying, "This is my blood".[1][2]
The eucharist is a man made commemoration of the Lords' Supper (the Seder). When Jesus said the words; "this is my blood" He was lifting the third cup of the Seder, the cup of "redemption and blessing".
Quote; (from the Seder); The third cup symbolizes the miraculous way God saved us out of egypt. Yeshua took this third cup after supper and gave it additional meaning when He said; "Drink from it, all of you, this cup which is poured out for you is the New Covenant in my blood, which is poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins". For the believer in Yeshua, this cup represents Messiahs' blood that was shed for our sins to bring us into the New Covenant with God that brings us complete and everlasting redemtion. For the one who does not believe, (non Messianic Jews)this cup is only a redemption from Egypt."
The Afikomen is the middle piece of the Matzatash. It is unleavened, striped, pierced, broken and wrapped up and hidden. Just as He was hidden away in the tomb. He the second (middle) person of the trinity. The children look for this Afikomen and the one who finds it is given a reward by their father just as we who find Christ are rewarded with eternal life by our heavenly Father. I think it is clear that the Catholic and protestant memmorial is far lacking as far as the enriching, devine quality of the God given Seder. As Rabbi Loren puts it; "we are not obligated to attend the Seder, we are privileded and free to attend it."

 

[RND]

May I calrify; The Seder was ordained by God to Moses so its' origins are devine not man made, this is elementary teaching not worth debating.

It's worth debating because nowhere in the Torah will anyone find the "tradition" of the sedar meal referenced. This is strictly a man-made tradition based on the Talmud and the Talmud alone.

It is clear also from the New Testament that Rabbi Paul was talking about the Seder when he said; "When you come together (showing sarcasm) it is not the Lords' supper you eat (the Lords supper, the Seder) .........one remains hungry while another gets drunk", taken from 1 cor. 11:20-22. Clearly they were attending the Seder here per the references to a meal and wine.

The Lord's supper is representative of the bread and wine or the grain and drink offerings that the ancient Israelites were to offer.

It looks as if you went from one groups false teaching and false ceremonies to another groups false teaching and false ceremonies.

 

[unclejed]

Exodus 12:1-30 the first Passover or Seder. Exodus is in the Torah and the Lords' Supper is acknowledged by all believers to be the Passover or Seder. Matthew 26:17-30 describes the Passover. Read it, you are the first believer I know who is has denied the Passover. I hope you are not being argumentative. I don't know where you are coming from?

 

[RND]

Exodus 12:1-30 the first Passover or Seder.

I know all about Exodus 12 and the Passover. Show me the individual components of the Sedar meal in Exodus 12.

Exodus is in the Torah and the Lords' Supper is acknowledged by all believers to be the Passover or Seder.

Really? I'm a believer and I certainly don't acknowledge the sedar meal as being represented anywhere in the story of the Passover. Show me from Exodus 12 where each and every component of the sedar meal is and I'll be the first to say I was wrong. Yet you won't find an egg, your won't find herbs dipped in salt water, you won't find anything but a lamb roasted with herbs (that's for flavoring) and unleavened bread. What you will find is Rabbinic tradition based on the teachings of the Talmud.

Matthew 26:17-30 describes the Passover. Read it, you are the first believer I know who is has denied the Passover.

I'm not dening the Passover. I'm denying the Talmudic tradition of the sedar meal. Huge difference.

I hope you are not being argumentative. I don't know where you are coming from?

I'm not attempting to be argumentative and if you feel I am my apologies. I am simply stating that what you consider as being the sedar meal and associating it with Passover is entirely incorrect. There is nothing in the Torah that explains the modern understanding of the sedar meal as Talmudic Rabbinicalism teaches. Nothing. Now, you are free to suggest I don't know what I am talking about but I challenge you to find any scriptures in the Torah that lay out the components of the sedar meal as it is presently observed. It just can't be done.

 

[unclejed]

I have consulted with Rabbi Loren, he and Rabbi Glen Harris (wmuz, host for Bob Duko) are acquaintances of mine they are with the "Jews for Jesus" org. I will get back to this dialogue in a bit.

 

[RND]

I have consulted with Rabbi Loren, he and Rabbi Glen Harris (wmuz, host for Bob Duko) are acquaintances of mine they are with the "Jews for Jesus" org. I will get back to this dialogue in a bit.

I have spoken with Rabbi Loren on the radio before and I have to conclude that even there are Messianics that can be deceived regarding dispensationalism.

I hope they can get back with you soon. I am interested in seeing where they believe Exodus 12 points out the modern sedar meal.

 

[unclejed]

I have consulted with Rabbi Loren, he and Rabbi Glen Harris (wmuz, host for Bob Duko) are acquaintances of mine they are with the "Jews for Jesus" org. I will get back to this dialog in a bit.

I have spoken with Rabbi Loren on the radio before and I have to conclude that even there are Messianics that can be deceived regarding dispensationalism.

I hope they can get back with you soon. I am interested in seeing where they believe Exodus 12 points out the modern Seder meal.

Seems you will are a biased already? If you can beforehand conclude that people (Rabbis) are deceived then it matters not what anyone says. If, on any given subject, we have already concluded what we think and/or believe, learning is therefore shut out as the mind is made up. I will let you know what Rabbi Loren tells me, however, from your tone it does not seem as if it will matter. If at that given point in time that happens, I will stop responding to this thread. After all, it isn't anything that hinders our salvation, I picked up on this thread because I like to debate, not to force an issue or push any belief. Out of curiosity, have you attended a Seder?

 

[TheCatholic]

Hi, as a former Catholic (before I was "born again" I saw very clearly all the heresies and false doctrine associated with the Catholic religion as well as all orthodox religions. The "communion" as it is so often called in these religions is a grave distortion of the true Seder. The Lords supper as some call it is actually the Jewish Seder that Jesus celebrated with his Apostles the night before he died. As my wife and I now attend the Seder yearly as Jesus did we have found the true meaning of communion with Jesus and the Father and the Holy Spirit as we (with our Jewish friends) celebrate this great tradition of over 2000 years. I encourage every follower of Jesus to attend a Seder, not out of obligation, but to have a true communion with our savior.

This appears to be an attack vs. Catholicism and High Protestantism that practices the Eucharist. The Eucharist is based IN PART upon the Jewish Seder, since it is the background of the first Eucharist. I would advise you, unclejed, that the Seder was PART of the "shadown of the good things to come" that are DONE AWAY WITH... Participating in a Seder is not a bad thing, per sec. But claiming that Catholics/Protestants got it wrong because it is not done IN THE SAME WAY as the Jewish seder is a mistake. The Christian Eucharist is the NEW Covenant, the Seder deals with the Old Covenant. The Old does not apply to Christians any longer, according to Paul. Animal sacrifices POINTED TO THE Sacrifice of Christ, which of course, is done within the context of the Paschal Mystery.

I believe in your rush to judge the Eucharist, you are not familiar with the fact that the Seder POINTS to the Eucharist, not the other way around.

Regards

Well said!

 

[unclejed]

To "the catholic", well said? The orthodox and/or catholic "eucharist" is believed (by catholics) to be the "actual" body and blood of Jesus Christ, what they call "trans-substantiation", this is not only sacrilegious it is steeped in the occult and blasphemous. This eucharist as practiced by catholics and orthodox religions has absolutely nothing to do with the Seder. I was raised old catholic, went to Mass everyday and was indoctrinated with the false belief that if you do not observe the sacraments you would burn in hell, miss Mass...you could go to hell, eat food less than an hour before you partook of the "sacred eucharist".....you could go to hell. Catholicism is steeped in paganism i.e. the "mother-child" pagan cult (Isis and others) was introduced into the catholic religion, hence, the "madonna and child". I am currently writing a book about religion and the contrast between religion and the real church which is all "born again" followers of Jesus. I know literally "everything" about the catholic religion. I know some Christians think they can deal with the falsehoods in the catholic religion and worship there, I tell you, you should depart from her, have no part in that. Light has nothing to with darkness.