The Disciple and Politics

[Tri Unity]

You're speaking of fragments, I'm speaking of nearly complete texts.

I thought that would have been self-evident

Did you know that the Epistle of Barnabas, along with Hermas, was included in the canon of the earliest complete text, Codex Sinaiticus? The earliest christians held Barnabas' epistle in extremely high regard. Most of our modern NT bibles are now based on Codex Sinaiticus! The discovery of this text at the Monastery of Saint Catherine at Sinai was a miracle. Ironically, the Muslims are far more knowledgeable than are (average) Christians about this book! (http://www.shiachat.com/forum/index.php?/topic/234952941-epistle-of-barnabas/)

I really appreciate the level of reading you have done Butch... it is the only way to have an informed opinion. Everything else is on par with gossip and banter (in my opinion). Well done brother!

 

[Asyncritus]

I believe the Biblical evidence is powerfully that the kingdom of God is present and is certainly not imaginary:

But if it is by the Spirit of God that I drive out demons, then the kingdom of God has come upon you.

In the context of that passage, it's quite clear that this is a hypothetical, argument-style response to the Jews' quite foolish accusation that He is casting out demons by Beelzebub.

That the kingdom is yet to come is emphasised by the number of future tenses in the following passages, whose meaning is quite incontrovertible:

Mark 14:25 Verily I say unto you, I will drink no more of the fruit of the vine, until that day that I drink it new in the kingdom of God.

Luke 13:28 There shall be weeping and gnashing of teeth, when ye shall see Abraham, and Isaac, and Jacob, and all the prophets, in the kingdom of God, and you yourselves thrust out.

Luke 9:27 But I tell you of a truth, there be some standing here, which shall not taste of death, till they see the kingdom of God.

Luke 13:29 And they shall come from the east, and from the west, and from the north, and from the south, and shall sit down in the kingdom of God.

Luke 14:15 And when one of them that sat at meat with him heard these things, he said unto him, Blessed is he that shall eat bread in the kingdom of God.

Luke 17:20 And when he was demanded of the Pharisees, when the kingdom of God should come, he answered them and said, The kingdom of God cometh not with observation:

Luke 17:21 Neither shall they say, Lo here! or, lo there! for, behold, the kingdom of God is within you.

Just a comment here: if you believe that the kingdom of God was within such people, then you disappoint me deeply.

Luke 18:24 And when Jesus saw that he was very sorrowful, he said, How hardly shall they that have riches enter into the kingdom of God!

Luke 19:11 And as they heard these things, he added and spake a parable, because he was nigh to Jerusalem, and because they thought that the kingdom of God should immediately appear.

It clearly hadn't appeared YET, AND WAS CERTAINLY NOT INSIDE THE DISCIPLES. iF IT WAS, THEY CERTAINLY DIDN'T KNOW ABOUT IT.

Luke 21:31 So likewise ye, when ye see these things come to pass, know ye that the kingdom of God is nigh at hand.

Luke 22:16 For I say unto you, I will not any more eat thereof, until it be fulfilled in the kingdom of God.

Luke 22:18 For I say unto you, I will not drink of the fruit of the vine, until the kingdom of God shall come.

Acts 14:22 Confirming the souls of the disciples, and exhorting them to continue in the faith, and that we must through much tribulation enter into the kingdom of God.

Meaning: they weren't there yet.

Acts 28:31 Preaching the kingdom of God, and teaching those things which concern the Lord Jesus Christ, with all confidence, no man forbidding him.

Interesting juxtaposition of ideas here. It seems to be saying that Jesus IS the kingdom of God - which in a sense, He is.

1 Corinthians 6:9 Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind,

1 Corinthians 6:10 Nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners, shall inherit the kingdom of God.

1 Corinthians 15:50 Now this I say, brethren, that flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God; neither doth corruption inherit incorruption.

Hasn't done so yet, clearly.

Galatians 5:21 Envyings, murders, drunkenness, revellings, and such like: of the which I tell you before, as I have also told you in time past, that they which do such things shall not inherit the kingdom of God.

2 Thessalonians 1:5 Which is a manifest token of the righteous judgment of God, that ye may be counted worthy of the kingdom of God, for which ye also suffer:

No doubt, you will try to argue that by "kingdom of God", Jesus is referring to something entirely other than a conventional "political" kingdom, but rather to some "smaller" kingdom that is limited to the realm of interior spirituality. Well, I see no Biblical evidence whatsoever for such an argument.

That is what I thought YOU are saying...???

One sees this a lot - people take a plain Biblical assertion like "the kingdom of God is upon you", and then, in this case anyway, re-define the term kingdom to mean something other than what the world would clearly mean its setting.

The 6 or so passages above clearly show that the kingdom is a distinctly future structure with God at the top, Jesus as King, the saints as rulers in it, and the mortal population as its people.

Same thing with "Lord". Paul repeatedly writes that Jesus is Lord. In that cultural context, the term "lord" would denote a political leader. So what do many modern Christians do to preserve this idea that Jesus is not a political king? They re-define "lord" to mean "the leader of my personal, interior, spiritual life".

I think you've missed the point again.

Jesus answers it here:

11 ¶ And as they heard these things, he added and spake a parable, because he was nigh to Jerusalem, and because they thought that the kingdom of God should immediately appear.

They were obviously looking for a political kingdom, to be established immediately. They were wrong, because its establishment is yet future:

12 He said therefore, A certain nobleman went into a far country to receive for himself a kingdom, and to return.

Which kingdom do you suppose that means?

In other words, despite His being the annointed King, He hadn't received the kingdom as yet. You may recall that Samuel annointed David as king of Israel - a LONG time before he actually was crowned.

It is the same here. Jesus has been appointed and annointed as King, but has not yet returned to establish the Kingdom.

The apostles clearly believed that too:

Acts 1.6 ¶ When they therefore were come together, they asked of him, saying, Lord, wilt thou at this time restore again the kingdom to Israel?

Clearly, it hasn't happened YET. It has not yet been restored.

And, I suggest, in such cases, there is no Biblical justification for such a re-definition.

See above.

I am more than happy to get into this in more detail - I believe there is a wealth of Biblical evidence that the "kingdom of God" is a real kingdom in every sense of the word, and that it is here right now. And has been for 2000 years.

Fond imaginings, Drew!

 

[Butch5]

I thought that would have been self-evident

Did you know that the Epistle of Barnabas, along with Hermas, was included in the canon of the earliest complete text, Codex Sinaiticus? The earliest Christians held Barnabas' epistle in extremely high regard. Most of our modern NT bibles are now based on Codex Sinaiticus! The discovery of this text at the Monastery of Saint Catherine at Sainai was a miracle. Ironically, the Muslims are far more knowledgeable than are (average) Christians about this book! (http://www.shiachat.com/forum/index.php?/topic/234952941-epistle-of-barnabas/)

I really appreciate the level of reading you have done Butch... it is the only way to have an informed opinion. Everything else is on par with gossip and banter (in my opinion). Well done brother!

Hi Tri Unity,

Thanks for the kind words. I too compliment you on your understanding of this early history. I wasn't aware that Barnabas was included in the early manuscripts. I knew the Early Christians held it in high regard though. Actually, I do more listening than reading, reading puts me to sleep. I have searched and do search out as many of the early writing I can find in audio format. I spend a lot of time driving and this allows me to listen for hours a day.

 

[Tri Unity]

quite foolish accusation...

That is a good selection of scriptures, Asyncritus. Christ came to bring a two-edged sword - it cuts both ways. It divides between bone and marrow, soul and spirit. We, His followers, are also divided among ourselves. We separate the smallest features into distinguishable patterns. Christians have always done this, and always will. Even the Apostles had done this to each other while the Kingdom was “in their midst”.

Many of the disciples had split off into geographical locations that still bear their unique perceptions till this day. Mark went to Alexandria; Peter went to Rome; and Asyncritus went to Persia. Asyncritus, along with Nicolas and Stephen, were among the seventy disciples. Nicolas and Stephen may have even been paired together. Nicolas later founded the Nicolaitans. Tertullian states that the Nicolaitans became attached to the gnostic umbrella under Simon Magus. The Nicolaitans were a symbol of this gnostic brand of Christianity merging into the churches (Rev 2:15); forcing us into divisions. This information can only be known, naturally, by searching the histories and writings of the earliest Christians, which you do not believe is relevant. This is like plucking out your own eye because it sometimes winks. Foolishness! Oh well, we Christians have not been known to be the smartest bunch... We can be "quite foolish". Thank God for His mercy!

Tri

 

[Tri Unity]

I have searched and do search out as many of the early writing I can find in audio format.

Hi Butch, have you got any URL’s where I could download these audio files?

 

[Butch5]

Hi Butch, have you got any URL’s where I could download these audio files?

Hi Tri Unity,

Sure, I've found some at Librivox.

http://librivox.org/

Just search their catalog for the authors. I've also found some at Internet Archive.

http://archive.org/index.php

I've also found some by just typing combinations into Google such as Ante-Nicene and mp3.

 

[Free]

You know my view of theologians, and I can't change that.

This suggests that you aren't interested in searching for truth. Anyone truly interested in the truth will be capable of changing their views.

 

[Tri Unity]

Let me put it this way: of those that are fluent in Greek, not only will they understand the Bible significantly better, they will understand the writings of the early church fathers better.

Sorry, this idea is extremely naive. Most people, including you, belong to a denomination. Each and every denomination is like a club – it has club rules and club ideologies. It doesn’t matter how educated you are, it matters what club you belong to. If you are a Protestant you are hardly going to be agreeing with the worship of Mary. It goes against club rules. A protestent will read the Early Church Fathers from his club-perspective only. Catholics do the same; SDA do the same; JW’s do the same; Pentecostals do the same; Evangelicals do the same. We all read into the source data (the bible; early church fathers) to find evidence to support our pre-existing beliefs and ideologies (rules). This is not exactly objective research – it is propaganda!

We need more people who are bold enough to examine the facts without being predisposed to a denominational bias. That is what objectivity is. This is how John the Baptist and the Apostles started – outside of the umbrella of the big banks! Church is big business, and big business protects its assets. Information is the assets of the denomination, and each denomination seeks to protect their mindset at all costs. To think otherwise is extremely naïve. Sorry if you find this insulting. I am trying to reason with you that the used car salesman is not always going to tell you the truth. While you are infatuated with the pin stripe on your ’73 Mazda, you are not noticing that it doesn’t have a motor. This is not intended to insult, it is common sense intended to protect you from being foolish. Religion (theologians) and used car salesman share a lot in common. They will both try to sell you a lemon.

The Pharisees, Sadducees, Herodians and Essenes were the lemons in the 1st century. These were all in bed with politics (Herod, Pilate and Caesar). They were all trying to sell you the same religious lemon. Jesus and the Apostles were unique in that they were not worldly and politically minded as the other religions were. If you are worldly and politically minded, then you have become children of the Pharisees, not of the Apostles. Check the bonnet! (No insult has been endorsed or intended by this broadcast).

 

[Grazer]

People always try to put others in boxes, to pigeon hole them. I've always resisted doing this to others, resisted this being done to me. I'm a member of a church that is linked to a denomination but that doesn't mean I agree with all their theology and views. Indeed recent conversations have shown how much I don't agree with people in my church but they welcome me. I listen to various theologians and apologists because I do not presume that my own limited understanding of scripture is enough.

 

[Butch5]

That there may appear to be nothing in the NT telling Christians to get involved in politics does not mean that Christians shouldn't get involved in politics. This is a common argument used by many in all sorts of disagreements about Scripture but if it were valid, we could argue that Christians shouldn't do all sorts of things, like go to school, go see a doctor, etc. Arguing to the silence of Scripture is usually not a good argument.

That wasn’t my argument. I gave compelling evidence as to why Christians shouldn’t be involved in government. The question was in light of the overwhelming evidence against participation.

I have perhaps misunderstood something I had read as here it is worded differently: http://carm.org/manuscript-evidence

However, if the accuracy of the documents we have is 99.5%, then the likelihood of them being close to the originals is very high. It is highly doubtful that the manuscripts would be 99.5% accurate but only, say, 60% when compared the originals.

I wasn’t questioning the manuscripts. However, we have testimony of earlier manuscripts and of the autographs themselves from the earliest writers. My point is that we shouldn’t reject these writers and yet claim that later manuscripts are 99%+ accurate.

Let me put it this way: of those that are fluent in Greek, not only will they understand the Bible significantly better, they will understand the writings of the early church fathers better.

That’s subjective. Either way it just because a few may have superior understanding doesn’t mean they all do.

Surely I need not mention Origen, who is labelled a heretic by many. The second half of the discussion here mentions some of the theological differences: http://www.tektonics.org/af/bercot01.html

What theological differences would that be? The author seems to show where some writers may have a different opinion than David Bercot, that however, does not constitute differences among the writers.
Concerning Origen, some people consider him a heretic, does that make him one? Were his contemporaries calling him a heretic or is it just modern theologians that consider him a heretic?

There is a lot of information on the web about this sort of thing. The first part of the tektonics article also agrees with my view that going closer to source does not necessarily mean that one is more correct or has a better understanding.

How does that further your argument? We both could probably find hundreds of people who agree with either of us, what does that prove?

 

[Tri Unity]

Surely I need not mention Origen, who is labelled a heretic by many.

Surely your opinion should suffice for us all

I absolutely love Origen’s writings. Jerome had stated that Origen was next after the Apostle Paul. Origen was greatly admired by all in the 3rd and 4th centuries (until about 380 AD) - even those who disagreed with him on minor issues. Basil the Great, Gregory Nazianzen, Gregory of Nyssa, Augustine, Dionysius of Alexander, Peter of Alexandria, Firmilian of Cæsarea, Lucian the LXX scholar, Rufinus, Eusebius of Cæsarea... they all had the greatest respect for this spiritual giant. Gregory Thaumaturgus (the miracle worker) wrote a treatise of how wonderful Origen was in every way. It is mostly those who have not read Origen, and who are ignorant of history, who claim Origen was a heretic (surely). As I said elsewhere, this attitude concerning Origen is the view of the “club”, so it is repeated verbatim without any wisdom or moral integrity. It is shameful how we Christians speak so openly about things we know nothing about.

 

[Free]

Sorry, this idea is extremely naive.

Extremely naive? We'll see that it isn't even a bit naive.

Most people, including you, belong to a denomination.

You have already presumed too much.

Each and every denomination is like a club – it has club rules and club ideologies. It doesn’t matter how educated you are, it matters what club you belong to. If you are a Protestant you are hardly going to be agreeing with the worship of Mary. It goes against club rules. A protestent will read the Early Church Fathers from his club-perspective only. Catholics do the same; SDA do the same; JW’s do the same; Pentecostals do the same; Evangelicals do the same. We all read into the source data (the bible; early church fathers) to find evidence to support our pre-existing beliefs and ideologies (rules). This is not exactly objective research – it is propaganda!

Grazer answered this well by pointing out the obvious--that not everyone in every denomination believes the same things, which points out that people are free to study and change their beliefs accordingly. And more than that, just because denominations may have disagreements about many issues, does not mean that none of them are correct on a given issue.

We need more people who are bold enough to examine the facts without being predisposed to a denominational bias. That is what objectivity is.

No, objectivity is to not have a bias of any sort, which is impossible. Everyone brings bias to the table when reading the Bible or anything theological or religious, including the church fathers.

This is how John the Baptist and the Apostles started – outside of the umbrella of the big banks! Church is big business, and big business protects its assets. Information is the assets of the denomination, and each denomination seeks to protect their mindset at all costs. To think otherwise is extremely naïve. Sorry if you find this insulting.

Not at all because not only have I not made such a claim, you're generalizing and taking things to a bit of an extreme. I do not think the naivety is my problem.

I am trying to reason with you that the used car salesman is not always going to tell you the truth. While you are infatuated with the pin stripe on your ’73 Mazda, you are not noticing that it doesn’t have a motor. This is not intended to insult, it is common sense intended to protect you from being foolish. Religion (theologians) and used car salesman share a lot in common. They will both try to sell you a lemon.

And yet the obvious here is that you are no different than any other used car salesman.

The Pharisees, Sadducees, Herodians and Essenes were the lemons in the 1st century. These were all in bed with politics (Herod, Pilate and Caesar). They were all trying to sell you the same religious lemon. Jesus and the Apostles were unique in that they were not worldly and politically minded as the other religions were. If you are worldly and politically minded, then you have become children of the Pharisees, not of the Apostles. Check the bonnet! (No insult has been endorsed or intended by this broadcast).

I really don't think you understood much of what Jesus said and did. Within the context of the society at the time, much of what he said and did was both religiously and politically subversive. Most get the religious part, not the political.

Surely your opinion should suffice for us all

It's not necessarily my opinion but one shared by many. He certainly seems to have taught heretical things.

The funny thing here is that you seem to be unaware of your own "denominational" bias. You are so certain that the earlier the writings the better--which I have pointed out several times, and will continue to do so as necessary, is fallacious--that it seems you cannot see that there are many disagreements and some heretical teachings by the early church fathers.

I absolutely love Origen’s writings. Jerome had stated that Origen was next after the Apostle Paul. Origen was greatly admired by all in the 3rd and 4th centuries (until about 380 AD) - even those who disagreed with him on minor issues. Basil the Great, Gregory Nazianzen, Gregory of Nyssa, Augustine, Dionysius of Alexander, Peter of Alexandria, Firmilian of Cæsarea, Lucian the LXX scholar, Rufinus, Eusebius of Cæsarea... they all had the greatest respect for this spiritual giant. Gregory Thaumaturgus (the miracle worker) wrote a treatise of how wonderful Origen was in every way.

And because some liked him and enjoyed at least some of his writings, doesn't mean that he didn't write anything heretical? That is not being reasonable.

It is mostly those who have not read Origen, and who are ignorant of history, who claim Origen was a heretic (surely). As I said elsewhere, this attitude concerning Origen is the view of the “clubâ€, so it is repeated verbatim without any wisdom or moral integrity. It is shameful how we Christians speak so openly about things we know nothing about.

Oh of course, let's poison the well instead of perhaps admitting that one's "denominational" bias may be clouding one's judgement of Origen's writings. Do you disagree then that Origen taught in the pre-existence of souls, universal reconciliation, subordinationism regarding the Trinity, that Jesus was not raised in a physical body (Gnostic belief) and that not all of Scripture was historical?

 

[Free]

That wasn’t my argument. I gave compelling evidence as to why Christians shouldn’t be involved in government. The question was in light of the overwhelming evidence against participation.

Interesting but neither compelling nor overwhelming. Again, just because that is what some early church fathers may have taught does not mean that it is the case that that is what the Bible teaches.

I wasn’t questioning the manuscripts. However, we have testimony of earlier manuscripts and of the autographs themselves from the earliest writers. My point is that we shouldn’t reject these writers and yet claim that later manuscripts are 99%+ accurate.

Based on the all the manuscript evidence, there is a 99.5% accuracy, and I doubt much, if any, of it disagrees with the early church fathers' quotations of the NT.

So in terms of the books of the Bible, there is little reason to believe that the ones we have are different then the ones they had. What it comes down to then is one's subjective understanding of what is written. And in that, everyone brings bias to the table, but this isn't necessarily a bad thing.

That’s subjective. Either way it just because a few may have superior understanding doesn’t mean they all do.

Hardly subjective. Being fluent in the language in which most of the NT was written gives one a significantly greater understanding of what was meant.

What theological differences would that be? The author seems to show where some writers may have a different opinion than David Bercot, that however, does not constitute differences among the writers.
Concerning Origen, some people consider him a heretic, does that make him one? Were his contemporaries calling him a heretic or is it just modern theologians that consider him a heretic?

See my post to Tri Unity. Origen had some heretical beliefs and I'm sure I could find others amongst early church fathers as well as disagreements between them.

How does that further your argument? We both could probably find hundreds of people who agree with either of us, what does that prove?

I don't think there would be many that would think the closer we get to the source the better off we will be. That is an error in reasoning. Paul even writes to those who were already disagreeing in his time. Gnostics were around earlier than the church fathers and much during the same time. Are they more correct? Peter says that Paul writes some things that are difficult to understand and some were distorting.

The point is that there has been disagreement right from the beginning, so going earlier does not necessarily mean more correct.

 

[Adullam]

Isa 40:15 Behold, the nations are as a drop of a bucket, and are counted as the small dust of the balance: behold, he taketh up the isles as a very little thing.
Isa 40:17 All nations before him are as nothing; and they are counted to him less than nothing, and vanity.
Isa 40:22 It is he that sitteth upon the circle of the earth, and the inhabitants thereof are as grasshoppers; that stretcheth out the heavens as a curtain, and spreadeth them out as a tent to dwell in:
Isa 40:23 That bringeth the princes to nothing; he maketh the judges of the earth as vanity.

 

[Tri Unity]

Isa 40:15 Behold, the nations are as a drop of a bucket, and are counted as the small dust of the balance: behold, he taketh up the isles as a very little thing.
Isa 40:17 All nations before him are as nothing; and they are counted to him less than nothing, and vanity.
Isa 40:22 It is he that sitteth upon the circle of the earth, and the inhabitants thereof are as grasshoppers; that stretcheth out the heavens as a curtain, and spreadeth them out as a tent to dwell in:
Isa 40:23 That bringeth the princes to nothing; he maketh the judges of the earth as vanity.

Good scriptures. They demonstrate the greatness of God, and the vanity of the nations. Although Romans says that we are to pray for our rulers, for "the powers that be are ordained of God", that does not mean that we are to participate within governments, merely to pray for them that God may grant us peace to practice our faith. A highly regulated and oppressive goverment is "ordained by God" as a test or cleansing of our faith. Governments have always been used to punish and cleanse God's sinful people; so we get what we deserve in a respect. Babylon became the prison of God's people, and Daniel was almost killed several times. Babylon the Great is also the prison of God's people. We do not recognise that we are in a cage because of our involvement through democracy. The government has learnt to seduce us, and it has become a sedative to us. We would pray against this if we were not so proud of ourselves.

 

[Butch5]

Interesting but neither compelling nor overwhelming. Again, just because that is what some early church fathers may have taught does not mean that it is the case that that is what the Bible teaches.

It’s what “ALL†of the Ante-Nicene writers taught.

Based on the all the manuscript evidence, there is a 99.5% accuracy, and I doubt much, if any, of it disagrees with the early church fathers' quotations of the NT.

So in terms of the books of the Bible, there is little reason to believe that the ones we have are different then the ones they had. What it comes down to then is one's subjective understanding of what is written. And in that, everyone brings bias to the table, but this isn't necessarily a bad thing.

Not at all. For one thing they had the oral teachings of the apostles which we don’t have. They had the other letter to the Corinthians which we don’t have. It’s likely that they had a good deal more than we do.

Hardly subjective. Being fluent in the language in which most of the NT was written gives one a significantly greater understanding of what was meant.

It’s subjective because you’re merely supposing it. Unless of course you know which theologians are fluent in Koine Greek

See my post to Tri Unity. Origen had some heretical beliefs and I'm sure I could find others amongst early church fathers as well as disagreements between them.

I’m not talking about the early church fathers, I’m talking about the Ante-Nicene fathers. Are you sure Origen taught those doctrines or did he speculate on them? I notice you didn’t post any quotes which leads me to believe you may have just read that somewhere as opposed to reading his actual writings

I don't think there would be many that would think the closer we get to the source the better off we will be. That is an error in reasoning. Paul even writes to those who were already disagreeing in his time. Gnostics were around earlier than the church fathers and much during the same time. Are they more correct? Peter says that Paul writes some things that are difficult to understand and some were distorting.

The point is that there has been disagreement right from the beginning, so going earlier does not necessarily mean more correct.

You didn’t answer my question. How does that further your argument?
My argument isn’t solely based on the idea that closer is better. You haven’t addressed the other issue. On this particular issue they are “all†in agreement. From the time of the apostles until the council of Nicaea all of the writers say the same thing. There is unity over the entire time period and geographical area. This is what was taught right from the beginning. If it is wrong then that means the teaching of Jesus and the apostles was immediately lost. Have you considered the implications of that idea?

 

[Tri Unity]

Have you considered the implications of that idea?

Among other things, it would mean we cannot trust the bible, or we cannot trust which books were canonised, or we cannot trust that the councils were correct, or we cannot trust that our doctrines, such as the trinity, are correct. The implications are staggering! Good point Butch

 

[Butch5]

Among other things, it would mean we cannot trust the bible, or we cannot trust which books were canonised, or we cannot trust that the councils were correct, or we cannot trust that our doctrines, such as the trinity, are correct. The implications are staggering! Good point Butch

Hi Tri Unity,

Actually, the implication I had in mind was much greater. If the teaching of Jesus and the apostles was immediately lost, that would mean that Jesus and the apostles were not able to establish the Christian faith or the Church. That's a concept that I do not accept. Look at the teachings of mere men such as Calvin, Luther, and Arminius, their doctrines have survived for roughly 500 years, those of Darby, roughly 200 years. Are we to believe that Jesus, the Son of God and the apostles filled with the Holy Spirit weren't able to establish their doctrines? That they were immediately lost at their deaths? Nah, sorry I'm not buying that. The reason we see the Ante-Nicene writers writing that they will not get involved in politics is because Jesus and the apostles "were" able to establish the Christian faith and the Church, and their disciples lived accordingly.

 

[Tri Unity]

If the teaching of Jesus and the apostles was immediately lost, that would mean that Jesus and the apostles were not able to establish the Christian faith or the Church. That's a concept that I do not accept.

Me neither. There are very many teachings, though, that the church has gone astray with. From what I can tell, they began to compositely go astray from about 250 AD. I admire many authors after this time; but the most reliable authors are before this time.

The major doorway to apostasy developed (in my opinion) when the Church of Rome, in 255 AD, decreed that the gnostics were now admissible to communion (Eucharist) without being baptised or repenting. Bishop (pope) Victor became sympathetic with the gnostic Valentinians at an earlier date (about 180 AD), and had accepted their gnostic version of the Trinity (which became adopted by Rome, but disputed by Alexandria and Carthage). This problem escalated until Bishop (pope) Stephen had ruled that the entire church was to now allow gnostics into fellowship. Firmilian and Cyprian (and about 200 other bishops) had strongly opposed this (and ignored it), but it became canonized at the Synod of Arles in 314 AD. At the same time (Synod of Arles) the church had, for the first time, asked the government (secular powers) to intervene in church affairs. This poisonous event has still not been rectified; for the government, once it got its venom into the church, has continued to infect the church more and more, until today, we see ourselves as an extension of the government (or the government an extension of the church). The only possible way out of this nightmare is to retrace our steps before we were infected; and we can do that with the guidance of the Church Fathers.

Trying to educate brothers and sisters about this affair is very difficult, as there is a lot of resistance due to the church developing “club” beliefs that are passed down and supported from generation to generation. These club beliefs circulate so easily because the gospel has been watered down so much and diluted to make it palatable for gnostics, evolutionists and atheists. There are brothers who believe they are being faithful to God by supporting this corrosive system. They mean well, but they are actually working against God. This is similar to when Jesus came and He found the entire nation of “God’s people” wanting to crucify Him. God could not even convince His own people that they had gone astray.

As sad as this is, it is also exciting. It is what we are meant to expect to be the climate within the churches in the end-times. In God’s due time He will again release the Power of His Spirit and manifest the way, the truth and the life. We will see even greater miracles than were done in the first century. That is exciting! The end is nigh!

 

[Free]

From the time of the apostles until the council of Nicaea all of the writers say the same thing. There is unity over the entire time period and geographical area. This is what was taught right from the beginning. If it is wrong then that means the teaching of Jesus and the apostles was immediately lost. Have you considered the implications of that idea?

All I have time for right now is this. The implication only effects you because you are presuming that Jesus and the apostles taught this, yet there has not been any substantial argument from the Bible to show that the Christian should not be involved in politics. As I pointed out previously, none of the quotes you provided from the ante-Nicene fathers quoted Scripture, which says a lot. I don't see it as a teaching of Jesus nor the Apostles so nothing has been lost.