|
|
Post by Cepha on Aug 13, 2009 8:18:49 GMT -5
Very True! The OT wasn't canonized by the Jews until 90 AD. So, what does that mean about The Chrisitan OT? Did The Holy Spirit "inpsire" The Pharisees' Canon (those that outrightly rejected Christ and actively persecuted and martyred Christians)? The most extraordinarily fact of all this, and many Protestants are unaware, is that the decision of the Jewish Council of 90AD was NOT binding to the entire Jewish or Christian communities. The Ethiopian Jews, to this day, regard the Deuterocanonical books as Holy Scripture and include them in there canon. The Early Christians did not regard this council as binding, otherwise they would have rejected the NT! To this day, Jews are not in agreement in the OT canon (the majority accept only 39 books of the OT), let alone there interpretation of the texts! Why Protestants always mention the Jews when dealing with this discussion is beyond my understanding. The Jews had no authority to dictate to the Church the canonical list of the OT. In IC.XC, Ramon Well, maybe for them, those who reject Christ are worthy teachers.  I could never trust a Jew to teach me about Christianity. Makes no sense. That's like America taking lessons from Russia on how to run a country!  |
|
|
|
Post by Cepha on Aug 13, 2009 8:20:20 GMT -5
But hey, if they want to follow those that to this very day reject Jesus Christ as The Messiah, well, we all know that there'll be no excuse for them when they get to heaven and see that they got it wrong.
They'll have to deal with the consequences of following those who beat and who spit upon His Son.
Me?
I'll follow The Apostles thank you very much!
;D
|
|
|
|
Post by Cepha on Aug 13, 2009 8:23:44 GMT -5
It is perhaps good to quote some Protestant sources: Renowed Protestant Historian Philip Schaff says: History of the Christian Church vol. II 138. The Holy Scriptures and the Canon The first express definition of the New Testament canon, in the form in which it has since been universally retained, comes from two African synods, held in 393 at Hippo, and 397 at Carthage, in the presence of Augustin, who exerted a commanding influence on all the theological questions of his age. By that time, at least, the whole church must have already become nearly unanimous as to the number of the canonical books; so that there seemed to be no need even of the sanction of a general council… Soon after the middle of the fourth century, when the church became firmly settled in the Empire, all doubts as to the Apocrypha of the Old Testament and the Antilegomena of the New ceased, and the acceptance of the Canon in its Catholic shape, which includes both, became an article of faith. Vol. III 118. Sources of Theology. Scripture and Tradition. In the Western church the canon of both Testaments was closed at the end of the fourth century through the authority of Jerome (who wavered, however, between critical doubts and the principle of tradition), and more especially of Augustine, who firmly followed the Alexandrian canon of the Septuagint, and the preponderant tradition in reference to the disputed Catholic Epistles and the Revelation; though he himself, in some places, inclines to consider the Old Testament Apocrypha as deutero-canonical books, bearing a subordinate authority. The council of Hippo in 393, and the third (according to another reckoning the sixth) council of Carthage in 397, under the influence of Augustine, who attended both, fixed the catholic canon of the Holy Scriptures, including the Apocrypha of the Old Testament… This canon remained undisturbed till the sixteenth century, and was sanctioned by the council of Trent at its fourth session. Another Protestant scholar F. F. Bruce in his book The Canon of Scripture (page 97) says: "In 393, a church council held in Augustine’s see of Hippo laid down the limits of the canonical books along the lines approved by Augustine himself. The proceedings of this council have been lost but they were summarized in the proceedings of the Third Council of Carthage (397) a provincial council. These appear to have been the first Church Councils to make a formal pronouncement on the canon. When they did so they did not impose any innovation on the churches; they simply endorsed what had become the general consensus of the churches of the west and the greater part of the east. Still another Protestant, Harry Y. Gamble, says the following in his book The New Testament Canon: Its Making and Meaning (page 55-56) – The final resolution of the many variations [in the New Testament canon] we have noted began to take place in the late fourth century, primarily through the actions of ecclesiastical councils… In the west, two North African synods of the late fourth century promulgated lists of authoritative books. The Council of Hippo (393) and the Council of Carthage (397) both named the 27 books of our New Testament…. A broad uniformity of usage which closely approximates our [New Testament] canon cannot therefore be dated before the close of the fourth century… The canons of Hippo were recognized in later Church history for their orthodoxy and importance." Canon II of the Quinisext (Trullan) Council included explicit affirmation for all of the canons from Council of Carthage in 418 AD including the one on the Canon of Scripture from Hippo. So in short, the Early Church didn't believe the Holy Bible contains 66 books or affirm the Protestant OT canon. In IC.XC, Ramon  Outstanding! Know something? We really need some more Anti-Catholics here! Debating really brings out the worst (in arguing) and the best (in being exposed to new ideas and knowledge) in all of us both Universal & Denominational Christians! Well done Ramon. Well done. ;D |
|
|
|
Post by alfie on Aug 13, 2009 8:58:41 GMT -5
Which church is the oldest... the Ethiopian Orthodox or the Roman Catholic?
|
|
|
|
Post by alfie on Aug 13, 2009 9:12:50 GMT -5
The books of the Apocrypha were not included in the Hebrew Bible, nor were they regarded
as canonical by the leaders of official Judaism anywhere. Even Jews who wrote in Greek at
the beginning of our era, like Philo and Josephus, recognized only the Canon of the Hebrew
Bible, although they used the ‘Septuagint’ translation. The books of the Apocrypha, while
they were written in Greek or translated into Greek by Jews, first received canonical
recognition from Greek-speaking Christians. The early Greek Fathers acknowledged in theory
that these books were not on the same canonical level as the books in the Hebrew Bible, but in practice they made little distinction between the two classes. The Latin Fathers in general
(with the notable exception of Jerome) made no distinction either in theory or in practice. In
the sixteenth century, while the Council of Trent affirmed the full canonical status of the
F.F. Bruce, “The Canon of Scripture,” Inter-Varsity (Autumn 1954): 19-22.
books of the Apocrypha. the Lutherans and Anglicans allowed them to be read in Church only
‘for example of life and instruction of manners’ but not as part of the rule of faith; and the
Churches that followed the lead of Geneva did not accord them even this meed of recognition.
Our Lord and the apostles certainly did not regard the apocryphal books as part of Holy
Scripture; the evidence is that they acknowledged as canonical only the books of the Hebrew
Bible.
|
|
|
|
Post by Cepha on Aug 13, 2009 9:30:42 GMT -5
The books of the Apocrypha were not included in the Hebrew Bible, nor were they regarded as canonical by the leaders of official Judaism anywhere. Even Jews who wrote in Greek at the beginning of our era, like Philo and Josephus, recognized only the Canon of the Hebrew Bible, although they used the ‘Septuagint’ translation. The books of the Apocrypha, while they were written in Greek or translated into Greek by Jews, first received canonical recognition from Greek-speaking Christians. The early Greek Fathers acknowledged in theory that these books were not on the same canonical level as the books in the Hebrew Bible, but in practice they made little distinction between the two classes. The Latin Fathers in general (with the notable exception of Jerome) made no distinction either in theory or in practice. In the sixteenth century, while the Council of Trent affirmed the full canonical status of the F.F. Bruce, “The Canon of Scripture,” Inter-Varsity (Autumn 1954): 19-22. books of the Apocrypha. the Lutherans and Anglicans allowed them to be read in Church only ‘for example of life and instruction of manners’ but not as part of the rule of faith; and the Churches that followed the lead of Geneva did not accord them even this meed of recognition. Our Lord and the apostles certainly did not regard the apocryphal books as part of Holy Scripture; the evidence is that they acknowledged as canonical only the books of the Hebrew Bible. Excellent post Alfie! This is what the Jews believed for their religion. Christians should stick to Christianity, because as we all know, the Jews are wrong when it comes to religion. ;D |
|
|
|
Post by Cepha on Aug 13, 2009 9:34:35 GMT -5
Which church is the oldest... the Ethiopian Orthodox or the Roman Catholic? Roman Catholic. |
|
|
|
Post by Cepha on Aug 13, 2009 9:40:31 GMT -5
Hey Steven. I been good, just came back from a little vacation! Question: Is there any historical evidence that any Christian Bible ever existed before the 1500's with only 66 books in them? I know that the oldest Bible (the Vaticanus) have the full canon (i.e. "not" only 66). Plus, the oldest Christian OT found contained all the books (including the Deuterocanonicals). But, before the Protestant Reformation, was there ever a Bible that only contained 66 books?  Nope, not that I am aware of. The Church (both West and East) in the first 1,000 years of Church History have never dogmatize the belief that the Bible contains only 66 books. Never. This issue arose during the Protestant Reformers. The Holy Early Church Fathers quoted from the Deuterocanonicals books as inspired Scriptures (attested by Protestant Historians/Scholars, such as Thomas C. Oden, Sir Brenton, etc). The very first canonical list of books ever published, The TaNaKh (the 39 books of the Jewish Bible and the Protestant O.T.) was published and enforced by people who rejected the books of the Apostles. Early local Church councils (such as the Council of Rome in 382AD, the Council of Cathage 397AD, Council of Hippo 393AD, etc) canonized the NT, as having 27 books (the list became official later), and in the OT, certain books Protestants reject was included in the canonical list. Besides this, The 7th Holy Ecumenical Council, Nicea II quoted from Sirach: Canon 16 (787) - Sirach 1:32 (scripture). In IC.XC, Ramon So, there is no argument by any Protestant that they base their canon in the KJV on The Pharisees' Canon, right? |
|
|
|
Post by Ramon on Aug 13, 2009 11:40:25 GMT -5
The books of the Apocrypha were not included in the Hebrew Bible, nor were they regarded as canonical by the leaders of official Judaism anywhere. Even Jews who wrote in Greek at the beginning of our era, like Philo and Josephus, recognized only the Canon of the Hebrew Bible, although they used the ‘Septuagint’ translation. Yes, that's what the majority of Jews believed (and still do). And? They also rejected the NT books in there profession what should be canonical. The African Jews still believed the OT "Apocrypha" are Holy Scriptures. Jews had no authority in deciding what should be included in the Christian OT. F.F. Bruce, “The Canon of Scripture,” Inter-Varsity (Autumn 1954): 19-22. books of the Apocrypha. the Lutherans and Anglicans allowed them to be read in Church only ‘for example of life and instruction of manners’ but not as part of the rule of faith; and the Churches that followed the lead of Geneva did not accord them even this meed of recognition. Our Lord and the apostles certainly did not regard the apocryphal books as part of Holy Scripture; the evidence is that they acknowledged as canonical only the books of the Hebrew Bible. That belief is based on the fallacy idea that since Christ and the Holy Apostles never actually quoted from them, then they must have regarded them as uncanonical (even though allusions are in the NT). The logic backfires when the fact that Christ and the Holy Apostles never quoted or alluded to several books in the Hebrew OT (such as Esther, 1-2 Chronicles, Obadiah, and others) comes to light. Finally, I suggest you to stop listening to the Jews, and start listening to what the One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church profess in the 1st-11th centuries. In IC.XC, Ramon |
|
|
|
Post by Cepha on Aug 13, 2009 11:43:46 GMT -5
The books of the Apocrypha were not included in the Hebrew Bible, nor were they regarded as canonical by the leaders of official Judaism anywhere. Even Jews who wrote in Greek at the beginning of our era, like Philo and Josephus, recognized only the Canon of the Hebrew Bible, although they used the ‘Septuagint’ translation. Yes, that's what the majority of Jews believed (and still do). And? They also rejected the NT books in there profession what should be canonical. The African Jews still believed the OT "Apocrypha" are Holy Scriptures. Jews had no authority in deciding what should be included in the Christian OT. F.F. Bruce, “The Canon of Scripture,” Inter-Varsity (Autumn 1954): 19-22. books of the Apocrypha. the Lutherans and Anglicans allowed them to be read in Church only ‘for example of life and instruction of manners’ but not as part of the rule of faith; and the Churches that followed the lead of Geneva did not accord them even this meed of recognition. Our Lord and the apostles certainly did not regard the apocryphal books as part of Holy Scripture; the evidence is that they acknowledged as canonical only the books of the Hebrew Bible. That belief is based on the fallacy idea that since Christ and the Holy Apostles never actually quoted from them, then they must have regarded them as uncanonical (even though allusions are in the NT). The logic backfires when the fact that Christ and the Holy Apostles never quoted or alluded to several books in the Hebrew OT (such as Esther, 1-2 Chronicles, Obadiah, and others). Finally, I suggest you to stop listening to the Jews, and start listening to what the One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic profess in the 1st-11th centuries. In IC.XC, Ramon ;D SEPTUAGINT QUOTES IN THE NEW TESTAMENTOf the approximately 300 Old Testament quotes in the New Testament, approximately 2/3 of them came from the Septuagint (the Greek translation of the Old Testament) which included the deuterocanonical books that the Protestants later removed. This is additional evidence that Jesus and the apostles viewed the deuterocanonical books as part of canon of the Old Testament. Here are some examples:Matt. 1:23 / Isaiah 7:14 - behold, a "virgin" shall conceive. Hebrew - behold, a "young woman" shall conceive.
Matt. 3:3; Mark 1:3; John 1:23 / Isaiah 40:3 - make "His paths straight." Hebrew - make "level in the desert a highway."
Matt. 9:13; 12:7 / Hosea 6:6 - I desire "mercy" and not sacrifice. Hebrew - I desire "goodness" and not sacrifice.
Matt. 12:21 / Isaiah 42:4 - in His name will the Gentiles hope (or trust). Hebrew - the isles shall wait for his law.
Matt. 13:15 / Isaiah 6:10 - heart grown dull; eyes have closed; to heal. Hebrew - heart is fat; ears are heavy; eyes are shut; be healed.
Matt. 15:9; Mark 7:7 / Isaiah 29:13 - teaching as doctrines the precepts of men. Hebrew - a commandment of men (not doctrines).
Matt. 21:16 / Psalm 8:2 - out of the mouth of babes and sucklings thou has "perfect praise." Hebrew - thou has "established strength."
Mark 7:6-8 – Jesus quotes Isaiah 29:13 from the Septuagint – “This people honors me with their lips, but their heart is far from me; in vain do they worship me, teaching as doctrines the precepts of men.”
Luke 3:5-6 / Isaiah 40:4-5 - crooked be made straight, rough ways smooth, shall see salvation. Hebrew - omits these phrases.
Luke 4:18 / Isaiah 61:1 - and recovering of sight to the blind. Hebrew - the opening of prison to them that are bound.
Luke 4:18 / Isaiah 58:6 - to set at liberty those that are oppressed (or bruised). Hebrew - to let the oppressed go free.
John 6:31 / Psalm 78:24 - He gave them "bread" out of heaven to eat. Hebrew - gave them "food" or "grain" from heaven.
John 12:38 / Isaiah 53:1 - who has believed our "report?" Hebrew - who has believed our "message?"
John 12:40 / Isaiah 6:10 - lest they should see with eyes...turn for me to heal them. Hebrew - shut their eyes...and be healed.
Acts 2:19 / Joel 2:30 - blood and fire and "vapor" of smoke. Hebrew - blood and fire and "pillars" or "columns" of smoke.
Acts 2:25-26 / Psalm 16:8 - I saw...tongue rejoiced...dwell in hope.. Hebrew - I have set...glory rejoiced...dwell in safety.
Acts 4:26 / Psalm 2:1 - the rulers "were gathered together." Hebrew - rulers "take counsel together."
Acts 7:14 / Gen. 46:27; Deut. 10:22 - Stephen says "seventy-five" souls went down to Egypt. Hebrew - "seventy" people went.
Acts 7:27-28 / Exodus 2:14 - uses "ruler" and judge; killed the Egyptian "yesterday." Hebrew - uses "prince" and there is no reference to "yesterday."
Acts 7:43 / Amos 5:26-27 - the tent of "Moloch" and star of god of Rephan. Hebrew - "your king," shrine, and star of your god.
Acts 8:33 / Isaiah 53:7-8 - in his humiliation justice was denied him. Hebrew - by oppression...he was taken away.
Acts 13:41 / Habakkuk 1:5 - you "scoffers" and wonder and "perish." Hebrew - you "among the nations," and "be astounded."
Acts 15:17 / Amos 9:12 - the rest (or remnant) of "men." Hebrew - the remnant of "Edom."
Rom. 2:24 / Isaiah 52:5 - the name of God is blasphemed among the Gentiles. Hebrew - blasphemed (there is no mention of the Gentiles).
Rom. 3:4 / Psalm 51:4 - thou mayest "prevail" (or overcome) when thou art judged. Hebrew - thou might "be clear" when thou judges.
Rom. 3:12 / Psalm 14:1,3 - they "have gone wrong." Hebrew - they are "corrupt" or "filthy."
Rom. 3:13 / Psalm 5:9 - they use their tongues to deceive. Hebrew - they flatter with their tongues. There is no "deceit" language.
Rom. 3:13 / Psalm 140:3 - the venom of "asps" is under their lips. Hebrew - "Adder's" poison is under their lips.
Rom. 3:14 / Psalm 10:7 - whose mouth is full of curses and "bitterness." Hebrew - cursing and "deceit and oppression."
Rom. 9:17 / Exodus 9:16 - my power "in you"; my name may be "proclaimed." Hebrew - show "thee"; may name might be "declared."
Rom. 9:25 / Hosea 2:23 - I will call my people; I will call my beloved. Hebrew - I will have mercy (love versus mercy).
Rom. 9:27 / Isaiah 10:22 - only a remnant of them "will be saved." Hebrew - only a remnant of them "will return."
Rom. 9:29 / Isaiah 1:9 - had not left us "children." Hebrew - Jehova had left us a "very small remnant."
Rom. 9:33; 10:11; 1 Peter 2:6 / Isaiah 28:16 - he who believes will not be "put to shame." Hebrew - shall not be "in haste."
Rom. 10:18 / Psalm 19:4 - their "voice" has gone out. Hebrew - their "line" is gone out.
Rom. 10:20 / Isaiah 65:1 - I have "shown myself" to those who did not ask for me. Hebrew - I am "inquired of" by them.
Rom. 10:21 / Isaiah 65:2 - a "disobedient and contrary" people. Hebrew - a "rebellious" people.
Rom. 11:9-10 / Psalm 69:22-23 - "pitfall" and "retribution" and "bend their backs." Hebrew - "trap" and "make their loins shake."
Rom. 11:26 / Isaiah 59:20 - will banish "ungodliness." Hebrew - turn from "transgression."
Rom. 11:27 / Isaiah 27:9 - when I take away their sins. Hebrew - this is all the fruit of taking away his sin.
Rom. 11:34; 1 Cor. 2:16 / Isaiah 40:13 -the "mind" of the Lord; His "counselor." Hebrew - "spirit" of the Lord; "taught" Him.
Rom. 12:20 / Prov. 25:21 - feed him and give him to drink. Hebrew - give him "bread" to eat and "water" to drink.
Rom. 15:12 / Isaiah 11:10 - the root of Jesse..."to rule the Gentiles." Hebrew - stands for an ensign. There is nothing about the Gentiles.
Rom. 15:21 / Isaiah 52:15 - been told "of him"; heard "of him." Hebrew - does not mention "him" (the object of the prophecy).
1 Cor. 1:19 / Isaiah 29:14 - "I will destroy" the wisdom of the wise. Hebrew - wisdom of their wise men "shall perish."
1 Cor. 5:13 / Deut. 17:7 - remove the "wicked person." Hebrew - purge the "evil." This is more generic evil in the MT.
1 Cor. 15:55 / Hosea 13:14 - O death, where is thy "sting?" Hebrew - O death, where are your "plagues?"
2 Cor. 4:13 / Psalm 116:10 - I believed and so I spoke (past tense). Hebrew - I believe, for I will speak (future tense).
2 Cor. 6:2 / Isaiah 49:8 - I have "listened" to you. Hebrew - I have "answered" you.
Gal. 3:10 / Deut. 27:26 - cursed be every one who does not "abide" by all things. Hebrew - does not "confirm" the words.
Gal. 3:13 / Deut. 21:23 - cursed is everyone who hangs on a "tree." Hebrew - a hanged man is accursed. The word "tree" does not follow.
Gal. 4:27 / Isaiah 54:1 - "rejoice" and "break forth and shout." Hebrew - "sing" and "break forth into singing."
2 Tim. 2:19 / Num. 16:5 - The Lord "knows" those who are His. Hebrew - God will "show" who are His.
Heb. 1:6 / Deut. 32:43 - let all the angels of God worship Him. Hebrew - the Masoretic text omits this phrase from Deut. 32:43.
Heb. 1:12 / Psalm 102:25 - like a "mantle" ... "roll them"... "will be changed." Hebrew - "raiment"... "change"..."pass away."
Heb. 2:7 / Psalm 8:5 - thou has made Him a little "lower than angels." Hebrew - made Him but a little "lower than God."
Heb. 2:12 / Psalm 22:22 - I will " sing" thy praise. Hebrew - I will praise thee. The LXX and most NTs (but not the RSV) have "sing."
Heb. 2:13 / Isaiah 8:17 - I will "put my trust in Him." Hebrew - I will "look for Him."
Heb. 3:15 / Psalm 95:8 - do not harden your hearts as "in the rebellion." Hebrew - harden not your hearts "as at Meribah."
Heb. 3:15; 4:7 / Psalm 95:7 - when you hear His voice do not harden not your hearts. Hebrew - oh that you would hear His voice!
Heb. 8:9-10 / Jer. 31:32-33 - (nothing about husband); laws into their mind. Hebrew - I was a husband; law in their inward parts.
Heb. 9:28 / Isaiah 10:22 - "to save those" who are eagerly awaiting for Him. Hebrew - a remnant of them "shall return."
Heb. 10:5 / Psalm 40:6 - "but a body hast thou prepared for me." Hebrew - "mine ears hast thou opened."
Heb. 10:38 / Hab. 2:3-4 - if he shrinks (or draws) back, my soul shall have no pleasure. Hebrew - his soul is puffed up, not upright.
Heb. 11:5 / Gen. 5:24 - Enoch was not "found." Hebrew - Enoch was "not."
Heb. 11:21 / Gen. 47:31 - Israel, bowing "over the head of his staff." Hebrew - there is nothing about bowing over the head of his staff.
Heb. 12:6 / Prov. 3:12 - He chastises every son whom He receives. Hebrew - even as a father the son in whom he delights.
Heb. 13:6 / Psalm 118:6 - the Lord "is my helper." Hebrew - Jehova "is on my side." The LXX and the NT are identical.
James 4:6 / Prov. 3:34 - God opposes the proud but gives grace to the humble. Hebrew - He scoffs at scoffers and gives grace to the lowly.
1 Peter 1:24 / Isaiah 40:6 - all its "glory" like the flower. Hebrew - all the "goodliness" as the flower.
1 Pet. 2:9 / Exodus 19:6 - you are a "royal priesthood." Hebrew - you shall be to me a "kingdom of priests."
1 Pet. 2:9 / Isaiah 43:21 - God's own people...who called you out of darkness. Heb. - which I formed myself. These are different actions.
1 Pet. 2:22 / Isaiah 53:9 - he "committed no sin." Hebrew - he "had done no violence."
1 Pet. 4:18 / Prov. 11:31 - if a righteous man "is scarcely saved." Hebrew - if the righteous "is recompensed."
1 Pet. 5:5 / Prov. 3:34 - God opposes the proud but gives grace to the humble. Hebrew - He scoffs at scoffers and gives grace to lowly.
Isaiah 11:2 - this verse describes the Seven Gifts of the Holy Spirit, but the seventh gift, "piety," is only found in the Septuagint.
|
|
|
|
Post by teresahrc on Aug 14, 2009 9:18:26 GMT -5
Which church is the oldest... the Ethiopian Orthodox or the Roman Catholic? alfie, If the Etiopian Orthodox Church is older, what would that say about the differences in theology between them and modern day Protestants? Why are the doctrines modern churches (those created after the middle ages) so drastically different from all the "ancient" churches (Eastern Orthodox, Ethiopian, Coptic, Catholic etc.)? |
|
|
|
Post by Cepha on Aug 14, 2009 9:29:22 GMT -5
Which church is the oldest... the Ethiopian Orthodox or the Roman Catholic? alfie, If the Etiopian Orthodox Church is older, what would that say about the differences in theology between them and modern day Protestants? Why are the doctrines modern churches (those created after the middle ages) so drastically different from all the "ancient" churches (Eastern Orthodox, Ethiopian, Coptic, Catholic etc.)?  |
|
|
|
Post by Ramon on Aug 14, 2009 16:56:22 GMT -5
Which church is the oldest... the Ethiopian Orthodox or the Roman Catholic? alfie, If the Etiopian Orthodox Church is older, what would that say about the differences in theology between them and modern day Protestants? Why are the doctrines modern churches (those created after the middle ages) so drastically different from all the "ancient" churches (Eastern Orthodox, Ethiopian, Coptic, Catholic etc.)? You have a point there Heather. Ancient Christianity (Eastern Orthodox, Ethiopian, Coptic, Catholic) is very different than post 16th century Protestant traditions. It's very amazing that most Protestant doctrines came into existence in the Protestant Reformation. Even a careful study into Early Christianity (1st-11th century) will show that it is Protestants who has disregarded ancient beliefs/practices and adding doctrines to the Apostolic Faith. Protestant doctrines can not be traced back to 1st-11th centuries. When I first start studying Church History and reading the Early Church Fathers, I finally realize the Early Christians were not Protestant in there doctrines and practices but in line with Roman Catholicism, Eastern Orthodoxy, Coptic, and others. In IC.XC, Ramon |
|
|
|
Post by Cepha on Aug 15, 2009 9:39:14 GMT -5
alfie, If the Etiopian Orthodox Church is older, what would that say about the differences in theology between them and modern day Protestants? Why are the doctrines modern churches (those created after the middle ages) so drastically different from all the "ancient" churches (Eastern Orthodox, Ethiopian, Coptic, Catholic etc.)? You have a point there Heather. Ancient Christianity (Eastern Orthodox, Ethiopian, Coptic, Catholic) is very different than post 16th century Protestant traditions. It's very amazing that most Protestant doctrines came into existence in the Protestant Reformation. Even a careful study into Early Christianity (1st-11th century) will show that it is Protestants who has disregarded ancient beliefs/practices and adding doctrines to the Apostolic Faith. Protestant doctrines can not be traced back to 1st-11th centuries. When I first start studying Church History and reading the Early Church Fathers, I finally realize the Early Christians were not Protestant in there doctrines and practices but in line with Roman Catholicism, Eastern Orthodoxy, Coptic, and others. In IC.XC, Ramon I guess that's kind of hard isn't it? When you wake up one day and begin to study history and realize that you were misled, how does one feel? Wow. I had the completely opposite effect. I woke up one morning and found out that I was initially "right" about my faith as I studied history. And the greatest comfort in the world is when "facts" match "scripture". There, you have truth. I'm not saying that other Christian religions are wrong. Not my place to judge that. I'm just saying that I know that mine is right. It must be difficult for one to belong to a religion that is completely contradicted by history. Then, they have to completely ignore actual historical facts in order to justify their faith in their religion. Me? I'd rather be as "wise as a serpent". That way, the "serpent" can't fool you.  |
|
