"The Catholic Church was made by Constantine"

[stray bullet]

Here are some passages from a Bishop of what protestants generally call the "early Church". He is Cyprian of Carthage (a city in Northern Africa).
This was written in the third century (long before Constantine was even born [and legalized Christianity in the 4th Century]).

"If any will consider this, there is no need of a long treatise and of arguments. 'The Lord saith to Peter: 'I say unto thee that thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build My Church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it; to thee I will give the keys to the kingdom of heaven, and what thou shalt have bound on earth shall be bound in heaven, and what thou shalt have loosed shall be loosed in heaven.' Upon one He builds His Church, and though to all His Apostles after His resurrection He gives an equal power and says: 'As My Father hath sent Me, even so send I you: Receive the Holy Ghost, whosesoever sins you shall have remitted they shall be remitted unto them, and whosesoever sins you shall have retained they shall be retained', yet that He might make unity manifest, He disposed the origin of that unity beginning from one. The other Apostles were indeed what Peter was, endowed with a like fellowship both of honour and of power, but the commencement proceeds from one, that the Church may be shown to be one. This one Church the Holy Ghost in the person of the Lord designates in the Canticle of Canticles, and says, One is My Dove, My perfect one, one is she to her mother, one to her that bare her. He that holds not this unity of the Church, does he believe that he holds the Faith? He who strives against and resists the Church, is he confident that he is in the Church?"

" . . . bound in heaven. Upon one He builds His Church, and to the same He says after His resurrection, 'feed My sheep'. And though to all His Apostles He gave an equal power yet did He set up one chair, and disposed the origin and manner of unity by his authority. The other Apostles were indeed what Peter was, but the primacy is given to Peter, and the Church and the chair is shown to be one. And all are pastors, but the flock is shown to be one, which is fed by all the Apostles with one mind and heart. He that holds not this unity of the Church, does he think that he holds the faith? He who deserts the chair of Peter, upon whom the Church is founded, is he confident that he is in the Church? "

Thus, this whole "Catholic Church and the Pope was made in the 4th Century by Constantine" is total nonsense.

 

[Imagican]

What you offer is irrelevant to the change that took place in the RCC from the original teachings of Christ and the apostles. I don't believe ANYONE believes that Constantine created Christianity in the Roman empire. What is debatable is the influence he had on issues and doctrine concerning Christianity. I don't believe that there are ANY that don't realize that much doctrine was ULTIMATELY decided by the emperor. Matters such as the 'trinity' were debated and the final judgement was made by this pagan Constantine.

Four hundred years is a LONG time. Look at this country and how different it has become from that created by fore fathers. Do you think that they would even recognize America if they were to somehow be brought back to experience it now?

It's no different than the changes that took place in Christianity during Roman rule over a four hundred year period of time. What was origially taught by the apostles was slowly but surely changed by the leaders, just as the truth brought to the Hebrews by Moses was changed over time by those seeking wealth and power to control the masses.

It's obvious to anyone that reads the words written in the Bible that the RCC has chosen to follow something much altered from the original teachings. Just as the Jewish people of today follow a different religion than that originally brought to them by Moses. Even during the time of Christ, two thousand years ago, He warned His people that they had been tricked into following the teachings of men rather than God. Can't you clearly see that the same thing has happened to Christianity?

The falling away isn't a lack of belief in religion, but a following after a 'false religion'. It isn't a destroying of the name of Jesus, but a changing of what that name means.

 

[Orthodox Christian]

What you offer is irrelevant to the change that took place in the RCC from the original teachings of Christ and the apostles. I don't believe ANYONE believes that Constantine created Christianity in the Roman empire. What is debatable is the influence he had on issues and doctrine concerning Christianity. I don't believe that there are ANY that don't realize that much doctrine was ULTIMATELY decided by the emperor. Matters such as the 'trinity' were debated and the final judgement was made by this pagan Constantine.

It would be convenient for you as a non-Trinitarian if this were true. Unfortunately for you, it simply is not the case. Of the 318 bishops present, 316 were Trintarian. Ultimately, Constantine reversed his position and ordered the reinstatement of Arius. Thereafter, both the pagan Julius and the Arians heavily persecuted the Trintarians, who faced death or exile.

Constantine's long-term effect on Christianity was NOT Trinitarian theology, therefore, but was the re-kindling of the notion of one, holy, universal and apostolic church, governed by concilliar rule- just as displayed in Acts 15.

Four hundred years is a LONG time. Look at this country and how different it has become from that created by fore fathers. Do you think that they would even recognize America if they were to somehow be brought back to experience it now?

It's no different than the changes that took place in Christianity during Roman rule over a four hundred year period of time. What was origially taught by the apostles was slowly but surely changed by the leaders, just as the truth brought to the Hebrews by Moses was changed over time by those seeking wealth and power to control the masses.

Certainly things can change over 400 years- or even 300. The Church and her theology developed and modified quite significantly in the first 160 years of her development. I could be specific, but first, I'd like you to be specific about what changes the rulers of Rome brought over the next 400 years in the Church. And while you're at it, be specific about which Rome you are speaking of, since there was no Western Emperor in Rome proper between mid 5th century and Charlemagne.

It's obvious to anyone that reads the words written in the Bible that the RCC has chosen to follow something much altered from the original teachings. Just as the Jewish people of today follow a different religion than that originally brought to them by Moses. Even during the time of Christ, two thousand years ago, He warned His people that they had been tricked into following the teachings of men rather than God. Can't you clearly see that the same thing has happened to Christianity?

It is a very good thing that the Jews understood God differently than Moses, for it was only to Moses that God revealed His ways...it was His acts that He revealed to the people. Over the generations God revealed Himself to Israel in many and diverse ways (Hebrews 1:1). After Moses came the Davidic kingdom, Solomon, the Psalms, the prophets of the Messiah, and so forth.

God revealed Himself to Israel over time, building the house of God. Yet everything that He revealed finds an echo in the Pentateuch- it just isn't spelled out as clearly.

Likewise in the Church. Trinitarian theology and orthodox Christology have their origin in the scripture, but they are not found expressly and verbatim there. Likewise, scripture itself, which was not revealed in its present form until 400 years had passed.

Teachings of men are those that go against the spirit of what has already been taught by the Lord. For example, the lawlessness of the Paulists and OSAS crowd. Or the teachings of those who teach Christ was not divine, or is the Father. Teachings of men, inspired of the devil.

The falling away isn't a lack of belief in religion, but a following after a 'false religion'. It isn't a destroying of the name of Jesus, but a changing of what that name means.

Thanks for that interpretation. "False religion" is still to be intrpreted, but I bet you believe that you know what that is. So did Arius, Nestorius, Simon Magus....

 

[fcs25]

Anyone that bothers to read and study the early church fathers will learn very quickly that what they taught and believed is very catholic in nature.The reformation[protestant]changed the gospel message into a cheap easy believerism that didn't exist in the history of the first 1500yrs of christian thought.

 

[Imagican]

Ok, but you already know these specifics and choose to excuse them as 'ok' because those that created them were bishops and popes.

Trinitarianism, Idolatry in the temples, personal confesionals used to manipulate the populace, ultimate authority of one man other than Jesus, altering of dates and celebrations, literal forcing of their views upon ALL of Christianity within their realm or sphere of power.

The timeline is variable of course, but most of this was within the first four hundred years of the RCC. It got worse and worse though. Especially the persecution of those that refused to follow 'their' ways.

And am I to take it from your beginning statement that you feel the Nicene Creed had NO long term effects on the RCC? That the choices and decisions made by Constantine were NOT relevant to the formation and design of the RCC as we know it today?

And let me add this: Up until the time of Constantine the Christian community at large was still confined mostly to secrecy due to the nature of their persecution when their religious practices were open to the public. Therefore it becomes obvious that the organization of the RCC was very loose and diverse before Constantine and therefore of an unorganized nature prior to the acceptance of their beliefs.

You folks that defend this faith continually try and alter the fact that the church in Rome would have been splintered and fragmented for centuries before Constantine allowed them to begin worshipping openly as one group.

We have epistles to many churches in that part of the world written by Paul indicating that there were divisions in the beliefs of those that accepted Christ that began only months or years after their being brought the 'good news'.

To hear you guys tell it, from the moments that Peter and Paul brought this news to Rome, the RCC was formed and has followed their lead ever since. This is simply not true and history proves without a doubt that it is simply NOT the case.

I would also like to add that the abbreviated versions of the life and effects on Christianity of Constantine that the RCC offers on web sites and publications is certainly a 'one-sided' and, (in my opinion), mostly altered and bias version of the 'true' Constantine. I would suggest to anyone that has a concern or desire to know the 'truth' about this man, to consider alternate sources of information in order to have a better understanding of this man and his legacy. The library is rife with 'factual' sources that are neither religious in their nature, nor biased from a religious perspective.

And I like the way you point out that the church has grown from the original scriptures that we have as our guide. That through time, more and more of God's will has been revealed to the RCC, and through this revelation, their beliefs in the Word has changed from that followed by the apostles.

If you were to ask me, I would say that those ideas and the messages offered by the apostles were probably much more inspired than anything offered since.

I DO know what false religion is. Any religion that teaches anything other than the truth as doctrine. There will always be misunderstandings of man in any religion, but to make false interpretations and then teach this as a 'must' is certainly false religion.

I certainly don't have ALL the answers as to the nature of God or His will for us other than what is revealed to all. But I do have the ability to understand when His Word has been altered beyond recognition. And, I know that our relationship with God is not determined by an organized church that demands that we follow their will rather than that of the Father.
So, any church that places itself above the Father or the Son is a 'false religion'.

 

[Aloha Joe]

For example, the lawlessness of the Paulists...

I'm not quite sure what you mean by this.

 

[Imagican]

Anyone that bothers to read and study the early church fathers will learn very quickly that what they taught and believed is very catholic in nature.The reformation[protestant]changed the gospel message into a cheap easy believerism that didn't exist in the history of the first 1500yrs of christian thought.

Your first statement is such an open ended one that it really means little.

Your second statement is one that is totally contradictory to the Word. As you see it, meaningful perhaps, but the truth of the matter is that the new covenant is based entirely on 'believerism', (nice one), as you put it. The organization of worship by man was predisposed to fall in the wrong direction from the will of God and Christ himself warned us of this.

I will agree however, that the Protestant movement offers little that is better than that offered by the RCC other than this 'believerism'. Different no doubt, but just as corrupt in its organization and nature regardless.

 

[cj]

How wonderful it is,.... the way the Lord, God, moves to open up that which He desires to lay bare.

Yes,...... come and let us speak about the following deception of the religionists,

God revealed Himself to Israel over time, building the house of God. Yet everything that He revealed finds an echo in the Pentateuch- it just isn't spelled out as clearly.

Likewise in the Church. Trinitarian theology and orthodox Christology have their origin in the scripture, but they are not found expressly and verbatim there. Likewise, scripture itself, which was not revealed in its present form until 400 years had passed.

Teachings of men are those that go against the spirit of what has already been taught by the Lord. For example, the lawlessness of the Paulists and OSAS crowd. Or the teachings of those who teach Christ was not divine, or is the Father. Teachings of men, inspired of the devil.

First, reject the "add-ons" of religion in preference of the pure word of God.

Lets read what Paul,..... the apostle of God (not his own declaration, but God's declaration of who Paul was/is) had to say aboutjust what was revealed by him in his teaching....

Ephesians 1:17, "That the God of our Lord Jesus Christ, the Father of glory,.... [/b]may give to you a spirit of wisdom and revelation in the full knowledge of Him,"[/b]

What was that?

"... may give..... to you..... a spirit of wisdom and revelation.... in the full knowledge.... of Him."

Sure sounds like Paul is saying there was no need to wait on anything called "Trinitarian theology and orthodox Christology" doesn't it.

For nothing of these two apostate false doctrines was included in Paul's speaking.

Now don't get me wrong, just as Satan took the scriptures and twisted them so to has the apostate institutions taken Paul's speaking form themselves, but twisting it to suit their own fleshly and fleshy lusts.

Paul's speaking is not "his speaking plus the added thoughts of men over the first few centuries. No, Paul's speaking is just his speaking as found in the scriptures. Punto finale.

Nothing more.

But the religionist cannot accet this, they cannot and will not receive the pure word, since doing so would only serve to undermine their human efforts.

Remember, the builders of the Tower of babel were on a quest to reach God; they just were doing it out of their own fallenness.

God will not receive any corrupt thing, thus never will He receive these works of men, no matter how much the perpetrators of these works attempt to falsely connect themselves to Him through Christ.


Lets expose the subtle deceipt in OC's presentation......

First the set-up....

"Look at how God dealt with His people in the OT, this is the same principle as He is using now."

First untruth.

Christ, the full revelation of God,...... has come to men.

This is a fact, apostate institutions like the Romanist and the Orthodox actually deny Christ has come, and thus deny God has fully revealed Himself. Just as those believer who fell back into Judaism did.

The Romanist and the Orthodox in essence seek to continually crucify Christ. They revel in the Beloved Son hanging on the cross.

Even visually, in the wickedness of their graven images, we can see this is true.

This is a fact,..... in the OT Christ had not come, in the NT Christ has come.

There is no more needed, only that we receive this One who has come.

Listen carefully as you read this subtle wickedness....

".... have their origin in the scripture, but they are not found expressly and verbatim there."

As did Satan's words,.... but God tells us to reject his words and Satan himself,...... just as God tells us to utterly reject the words of the apostate institutions, and even those who speak them.

And it got worse....

"Likewise, scripture itself, which was not revealed in its present form until 400 years had passed.

Sounds as if OC is suggesting that because the scriptures were not compiled as they became some 400 years after Paul's time, that we have something more than Paul and other believers did.

If this is what OC is suggesting (and I fully expect him to deny it in an attempt to wiggle out from under it) then what more do we need for the lie to be exposed.

The scriptures tell us that from the begining of the gospel ministry men could be fully saved without even directly hearing the speaking of the apostles, yet OC would seek to tell us that something better came 400 years later.

What is better than being fully saved? Having a thing called the bible?

Tell Paul that,... or John,.... or Peter,..... or any of the other thousands and thousands of bron-again, saved, and transformed saints,.... and watch as they look at you in "marvel" (incredulous wonder, a negative response to what they see), just as John "marveled with great marvel" when he saw the "MYSTERY, Babylon The Great, The MOTHER Of The HARLOTS And The ABOMINATIONS Of The EARTH."

For this is the lie of the apostate institution,..... that "more" is needed for men to be saved.



And then OC ends it with the typical conclusion of the Mystery,......

He says.... "Teachings of men are those that go against the spirit of what has already been taught by the Lord (read, the false doctrines OC holds to)."

But it gets worse, for with the following words he slanders the Holy Spirit....

"For example, the lawlessness of the Paulists and OSAS crowd. Or the teachings of those who teach Christ was not divine, or is the Father. Teachings of men, inspired of the devil."

.... deliberately mixing truth with untruth; just as the Pharisees did not deny the healing work of the Lord but said that it was of the devil.

Listen to his concluding words.... "inspired of the devil."

This, from a religionist in the mold of the Pharisee.

Matthew 12 : 24, "But the Pharisees, hearing this, said, This man does not cast out the demons except by Beelzebul, ruler of the demons."

Sounds the same yes; it should, its the same spirit.



And yes, I have said similar things, that some speak from Satan. Bt there is a great difference between us, for my motive is not to uphold an apostate religion, I don't bring a name other than Christ to these boards.

But those who come in the name of something other than Christ, a religion no less, and declare "the speaking of others must be of Satan", these only declare what is true of themself. Darkness only produces darkness.


In love,
cj

 

[Orthodox Christian]

How wonderful it is,.... the way the Lord, God, moves to open up that which He desires to lay bare.

Yes,...... come and let us speak about the following deception of the religionists,

God revealed Himself to Israel over time, building the house of God. Yet everything that He revealed finds an echo in the Pentateuch- it just isn't spelled out as clearly.

Likewise in the Church. Trinitarian theology and orthodox Christology have their origin in the scripture, but they are not found expressly and verbatim there. Likewise, scripture itself, which was not revealed in its present form until 400 years had passed.

Teachings of men are those that go against the spirit of what has already been taught by the Lord. For example, the lawlessness of the Paulists and OSAS crowd. Or the teachings of those who teach Christ was not divine, or is the Father. Teachings of men, inspired of the devil.

First, reject the "add-ons" of religion in preference of the pure word of God.

Lets read what Paul,..... the apostle of God (not his own declaration, but God's declaration of who Paul was/is) had to say aboutjust what was revealed by him in his teaching....

Ephesians 1:17, "That the God of our Lord Jesus Christ, the Father of glory,.... [/b]may give to you a spirit of wisdom and revelation in the full knowledge of Him,"[/b]

What was that?

"... may give..... to you..... a spirit of wisdom and revelation.... in the full knowledge.... of Him."

Sure sounds like Paul is saying there was no need to wait on anything called "Trinitarian theology and orthodox Christology" doesn't it.

One might be inclined to think you're denying the Trinity, but I'm more inclined to think you're simply objecting to terminology. Trinitarian theology is just a shorthand way of saying 'belief in the Father, Son, Holy Spirit as three persons, co-eternal, co-equal." Some us prefer brevity over wordiness.
Likewsie for "orthodox Christology." This is another way of saying "Jesus- fully God, fully man, born of a Virgin."

The reason why these doctrines were established is that there have been many who have systematically attacked and refuted each of those points.
Apparently you also object to systematic theology.

For nothing of these two apostate false doctrines was included in Paul's speaking.
:roll: :roll: :roll:

Now don't get me wrong, just as Satan took the scriptures and twisted them so to has the apostate institutions taken Paul's speaking form themselves, but twisting it to suit their own fleshly and fleshy lusts.

Paul's speaking is not "his speaking plus the added thoughts of men over the first few centuries. No, Paul's speaking is just his speaking as found in the scriptures. Punto finale.

Nothing more.

But the religionist cannot accet this, they cannot and will not receive the pure word, since doing so would only serve to undermine their human efforts.

Remember, the builders of the Tower of babel were on a quest to reach God; they just were doing it out of their own fallenness.

God will not receive any corrupt thing, thus never will He receive these works of men, no matter how much the perpetrators of these works attempt to falsely connect themselves to Him through Christ.


Lets expose the subtle deceipt in OC's presentation......
word to the wise: deceit has no 'p' in it. I wouldn't mention it if you used it once, as in a typo.

First the set-up....

"Look at how God dealt with His people in the OT, this is the same principle as He is using now."
Who are you quoting there? It ain't me, so what's this dog and pony show?

First untruth.
Told by whom? You, in this case

Christ, the full revelation of God,...... has come to men.

This is a fact, apostate institutions like the Romanist and the Orthodox actually deny Christ has come, and thus deny God has fully revealed Himself. Just as those believer who fell back into Judaism did.
This is simply a lie.

The Romanist and the Orthodox in essence seek to continually crucify Christ. They revel in the Beloved Son hanging on the cross.
Jesus hanging on a cross- that was "wonderful"

Even visually, in the wickedness of their graven images, we can see this is true.

This is a fact,..... in the OT Christ had not come, in the NT Christ has come.

There is no more needed, only that we receive this One who has come.

Listen carefully as you read this subtle wickedness....

".... have their origin in the scripture, but they are not found expressly and verbatim there."

As did Satan's words,.... but God tells us to reject his words and Satan himself,...... just as God tells us to utterly reject the words of the apostate institutions, and even those who speak them.
Says the guy who puts several scriptures together to form his favorite expression, "regenerated spirit." : : :

And it got worse....

"Likewise, scripture itself, which was not revealed in its present form until 400 years had passed.

Sounds as if OC is suggesting that because the scriptures were not compiled as they became some 400 years after Paul's time, that we have something more than Paul and other believers did.
No, we have something less. There were about 600 documents, including Jewish apocalyptic literature, that gained wide use. There were many gospels, and some from Apostles, which were not included. Excluded also was the Book of Enoch, mentioned as it is in Jude's epistle and featured in symbolism as it is in Revelation.

If this is what OC is suggesting (and I fully expect him to deny it in an attempt to wiggle out from under it) then what more do we need for the lie to be exposed.
You should expect me to deny what I wasn't saying.

The scriptures tell us that from the begining of the gospel ministry men could be fully saved without even directly hearing the speaking of the apostles, yet OC would seek to tell us that something better came 400 years later.

What is better than being fully saved? Having a thing called the bible?

Tell Paul that,... or John,.... or Peter,..... or any of the other thousands and thousands of bron-again, saved, and transformed saints,.... and watch as they look at you in "marvel" (incredulous wonder, a negative response to what they see), just as John "marveled with great marvel" when he saw the "MYSTERY, Babylon The Great, The MOTHER Of The HARLOTS And The ABOMINATIONS Of The EARTH."

For this is the lie of the apostate institution,..... that "more" is needed for men to be saved.
Actually, it is not the bible that saves, it is the person of Jesus Christ that does. He doesn't point to the book, the book points to Him.
More strawman arguments.



And then OC ends it with the typical conclusion of the Mystery,......

He says.... "Teachings of men are those that go against the spirit of what has already been taught by the Lord (read, the false doctrines OC holds to)."

But it gets worse, for with the following words he slanders the Holy Spirit....

"For example, the lawlessness of the Paulists and OSAS crowd. Or the teachings of those who teach Christ was not divine, or is the Father. Teachings of men, inspired of the devil."

.... deliberately mixing truth with untruth; just as the Pharisees did not deny the healing work of the Lord but said that it was of the devil.

Listen to his concluding words.... "inspired of the devil."

This, from a religionist in the mold of the Pharisee.
Apparently you object when pages are torn from your own book.


Matthew 12 : 24, "But the Pharisees, hearing this, said, This man does not cast out the demons except by Beelzebul, ruler of the demons."

Sounds the same yes; it should, its the same spirit.


And yes, I have said similar things, that some speak from Satan. Bt there is a great difference between us, for my motive is not to uphold an apostate religion, I don't bring a name other than Christ to these boards.

:roll: :roll: :roll:
The difference is YOU SAY SO. You claim that our motive is different. How convenient that yours is correct and mine not. That claim is worth as much as the paper i's not recorded upon.
You don't even know what name- onoma- is. It's more than a title, it has to do with the very nature and personhood. You say the name of Jesus, but the personhood and nature is absent. To do something in the Name of Christ is to do it as He would, or rather, to have Him do it through you.

But those who come in the name of something other than Christ, a religion no less, and declare "the speaking of others must be of Satan", these only declare what is true of themself. Darkness only produces darkness.


In love,
cj
Since we're all grandstanding here, a word to the wise: When Paul says that the deceiving apostles preach a "different gospel," he says it is a different gospel "than which you received from US." Note the plurality. When you have one man arguing for his murky version of the gospel, remember that one is not plural, and is therefore not "us"...although CJ is fond of saying "we" when he really means 'me.'

 

[cj]

One might be inclined to think you're denying the Trinity, but I'm more inclined to think you're simply objecting to terminology. Trinitarian theology is just a shorthand way of saying 'belief in the Father, Son, Holy Spirit as three persons, co-eternal, co-equal." Some us prefer brevity over wordiness.
Likewsie for "orthodox Christology." This is another way of saying "Jesus- fully God, fully man, born of a Virgin."

The reason why these doctrines were established is that there have been many who have systematically attacked and refuted each of those points.
Apparently you also object to systematic theology.

No OC, I am not denying that God is triune nor am I objecting to your terminology.

Yet I understand why you would seek to seem so simple.

See, the Romanist and the Orthodox come with far more than the triune and incarnation doctrine. They come with a multitude of other baggage, from which they cannot be seperated.

The triune doctrine did not come after the apostles, and neither did the incarnation doctrine.

Be honest, what you have said concerns that which was added to the speaking of the apostles.


Now, having expose once more your love of deception,..... lets jump to the end as the middle of your speaking is useless.

Since we're all grandstanding here, a word to the wise: When Paul says that the deceiving apostles preach a "different gospel," he says it is a different gospel "than which you received from US." Note the plurality. When you have one man arguing for his murky version of the gospel, remember that one is not plural, and is therefore not "us"...although CJ is fond of saying "we" when he really means 'me.'

And here again, you falter.

What did Paul say?

"We say?"

No, Paul said "I say."

Yet Paul was absolutely for the body.


You know OC, as the days pass you really show yourself to be quite incompetent at this.

You really have nothing to offer as a genuine response.

In love,
cj

 

[Orthodox Christian]

One might be inclined to think you're denying the Trinity, but I'm more inclined to think you're simply objecting to terminology. Trinitarian theology is just a shorthand way of saying 'belief in the Father, Son, Holy Spirit as three persons, co-eternal, co-equal." Some us prefer brevity over wordiness.
Likewsie for "orthodox Christology." This is another way of saying "Jesus- fully God, fully man, born of a Virgin."

The reason why these doctrines were established is that there have been many who have systematically attacked and refuted each of those points.
Apparently you also object to systematic theology.

No OC, I am not denying that God is triune nor am I objecting to your terminology.

Yet I understand why you would seek to seem so simple.

See, the Romanist and the Orthodox come with far more than the triune and incarnation doctrine. They come with a multitude of other baggage, from which they cannot be seperated.

The triune doctrine did not come after the apostles, and neither did the incarnation doctrine.
You objected to the doctrines. These same doctrines that you now say you accept, just not everything else attached to them. But no one except you spoke of other doctrines, just those.

Be honest, what you have said concerns that which was added to the speaking of the apostles.
That was YOUR concern, so you say.


Now, having expose once more your love of deception,..... lets jump to the end as the middle of your speaking is useless.
What you reveal is that when I contradict you, you accuse me of lying.

[quote="Orthodox Christian":574a5]Since we're all grandstanding here, a word to the wise: When Paul says that the deceiving apostles preach a "different gospel," he says it is a different gospel "than which you received from US." Note the plurality. When you have one man arguing for his murky version of the gospel, remember that one is not plural, and is therefore not "us"...although CJ is fond of saying "we" when he really means 'me.'

And here again, you falter.

What did Paul say?

"We say?"

No, Paul said "I say."
2 Cor 11:4
For if he that cometh preacheth another Jesus, whom we have not preached, or [if] ye receive another spirit, which ye have not received, or another gospel, which ye have not accepted, ye might well bear with [him].
Yet Paul was absolutely for the body.


You know OC, as the days pass you really show yourself to be quite incompetent at this.
What exactly is "this?"

You really have nothing to offer as a genuine response.
I'm not twisting your arm to respond.

In love,
cj[/quote:574a5]

 

[cj]

Romans 11:1, "I say"

Romans 11:11, "I say"

Romans 12:3, "For I say,"

Romans 15:8, "For I say"

And there are many more instances that can be quoted.


All scripture OC, you need to consider all scripture..... something I know you don't do.

Paul's spoke for himself, just as scripture tells us; each man is responsible for himself.

Yet, in the receiving of his teaching, and their fellowship that issued from their receiving of his teaching, Paul was able to say "we".


But all of this is besides the point, for your motive was to attempt to present me as one who's speaking is not supported by others, in comparison to your speaking which is backed up by the "Othodox" institution of believers.


You are exposed naked in your motive OC, for God is not impressed by numbers of men but by content of truth.


In love,
cj


In love,
cj

 

[Orthodox Christian]

Romans 11:1, "I say"

Romans 11:11, "I say"

Romans 12:3, "For I say,"

Romans 15:8, "For I say"

And there are many more instances that can be quoted.


All scripture OC, you need to consider all scripture..... something I know you don't do.

Paul's spoke for himself, just as scripture tells us; each man is responsible for himself.

Yet, in the receiving of his teaching, and their fellowship that issued from their receiving of his teaching, Paul was able to say "we".


But all of this is besides the point, for your motive was to attempt to present me as one who's speaking is not supported by others, in comparison to your speaking which is backed up by the "Othodox" institution of believers.


You are exposed naked in your motive OC, for God is not impressed by numbers of men but by content of truth.


In love,
cj


In love,
cj

I won't speculate on your motives, but you seem bent on labeling me a liar/deceiver. That's all good and well, I'm familiar with your particular etiquette deficits.

Nowhere did I deny that Paul uses the word "I" in connection with speaking of/proclaiming the gospel. I know also that he referred to the gospel as "his" gospel- something you failed to mention, unless I missed it.

Here is what I actually said

Since we're all grandstanding here, a word to the wise: When Paul says that the deceiving apostles preach a "different gospel," he says it is a different gospel "than which you received from US." Note the plurality. When you have one man arguing for his murky version of the gospel, remember that one is not plural, and is therefore not "us"...although CJ is fond of saying "we" when he really means 'me.'

Note that I tied the "we" to that particular passage. Your argued the point, and I posted the passage as it was written. Case closed, my point stands, and you've done nothing more than argue and call me a liar. I guess we both got what we wanted out of the deal.

 

[cj]

I know also that he referred to the gospel as "his" gospel- something you failed to mention, unless I missed it.

I said this on many many occasions.

Paul's gospel is the completeing gospel of God.

Note that I tied the "we" to that particular passage. Your argued the point, and I posted the passage as it was written. Case closed, my point stands, and you've done nothing more than argue and call me a liar. I guess we both got what we wanted out of the deal.

Your statement was more than just a particular point,... it was you supporting all that you have been saying on this board. At least that's what I understood it to be; we are speaking about certain things.

But I tell you what, when you go off-topic with a comment or point let me know, and also, let me know what your new point is.

In this way we will be on the same page.

That is, if i didn't read it right in the first place.


In love,
cj