The Rise of a Counterfeit Christianity

The Church Jesus Built ^ | 1997? | Various

[DouglasKC]

So if I'm reading this correctly, only about 10 people will be raptured - and those will be folks who've read scripture in every original language and managed to get every detail exactly right along the way

No. God has a plan for those who may have been deceived. Scripture indicates that the number of those ultimately saved will be a great number:

Rev 7:9 After this I beheld, and, lo, a great multitude, which no man could number, of all nations, and kindreds, and people, and tongues, stood before the throne, and before the Lamb, clothed with white robes, and palms in their hands;

[DouglasKC]

Can someone just let me know if this is more Judaizer propaganda? That way I know I can skip the thread and not waste my time.

It's not, so read away.

[DouglasKC]

This document that someone posted is just wishful thinking and speculation with no documentation (because none is possible) from actual early Christian writings. My advice: read the early Church fathers, and you will see that they were biblical Christians defending biblical truths.

If you're Roman Catholic then I understand that you hold the traditions of your church to be more of an authority than scripture because you do consider your church to be the one, true, church. Is that a correct understanding? If it is, then I liken it to the Jewish religion of Christ's time. They too considered their interpretations of scripture and the traditions passed down by their elders as a higher authority than scripture. Not surprisingly, Jesus chastisted them for this and tried to explain to them that scripture, not their tradition, should be the authority.

The premise of the article is that Christianity started to become corrupted during biblical times and that it's corruption continues to this day. The evidence of that corruption is astoundingly apparent. Homosexual priests, both in the Catholic and Protestant church, women in authority over men in a vast majority of Protestant churches, sexual immorality run amuk. Acceptance and embracement of homosexuality by many sects. Acceptance of abortion by Christians. The examples are too numerous to mention. It all stems from trusting in the judgement and authority of men, rather than the judgement and authority of God as passed down in his holy scriptures.

Pro 14:12 There is a way which seemeth right unto a man, but the end thereof are the ways of death.

2Ti 4:3 For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine; but after their own lusts shall they heap to themselves teachers, having itching ears;
2Ti 4:4 And they shall turn away their ears from the truth, and shall be turned unto fables.

[ichabod1]

Nice post. But what I was really looking to see was examples of how modern day churches are turning from the truth of the gospel. Such as ordaining homosexuals, accepting homosexuality, redefining marriage, etc.

I had to read through most of the article just to find out if they were denouncing the immorality of modern "mainstream" denominations, or if it was just another attempt at Catholic bashing. Unfortunately it was the latter. What's that saying about the hammers of the bashers blunting themselves over the centuries against the anvil of the Church? I wish I could remember the saying.

[DouglasKC]

Is the Eucharist also a memorial? Yes, but that is the least important facet of this holy mystery. As I say, the Eucharist is an anamnesis rather than a memory, despite many faulty translations suggesting the two words are synonyms. They are not.

I really don't want to rehash this subject and take the thread off course. I understand what you're saying and I agree completely. However, that's a long way from the concept of transubstantiation no matter how you define anamesis.

My point was that the symbols of wine and bread WERE established on Passover, a festival of God. God had a reason for creating the days he considers holy. Traditional Christianity, by bypassing the example of Christ, has lost the meaning and purpose of these days.

The other point relates to the Canon of Scripture. You have stated that God canonized Scripture long before men did. This probably has significant analysis behind it, but for humans to know that a given text is canonized or not, some human or group of humans is going to have to say that the text is canonized, so everybody else will know. That group is going to have to have authority to say that this text is canonized while that one is not and the Church as a whole is going to have to then ratify that the decision is valid.

Again, I want to address this but only so far as it pertains to the point of the article.

My view, based upon scripture, is that the books that became the new testament were compiled by the first disciples and deemed authoritative. Since the disciples actually personally knew Christ while in the flesh, and/or were taught by him after the resurrection, there was no question that they had the authority to deem what was God breathed AND to be used for the future edification of the church. The canon was closed after that.

By insisting on the view that men 300 years later "canonized" scripture a subtle subverting of the authority of scripture and of the teaching of the original disciples began to creep into theology.

[Krista33]

Not quite. It's threefold:. Scripture, Sacred Tradition, and the Magesterium. Like a checks and balances system. Any one of these three on their own is insufficient. One area cannot be in conflict with another. So a pope can't decree that homosexuality is now 'okay', this would be against scripture. Scripture cannot be interpreted without the light of Sacred Tradition. It's about as oderly as it can get... Sola scriptura scares the daylights out of me... one, because the bible does not teach Sola scriptura and two, because I believe it is what causes anarchy!!! If someone doesn't like the way scripture is interpreted they go start their own church, and then another, and another, and another...etc. It's how we ended up with certain denominations okaying homosexual leaders... this is clearly their own interpretation of scripture. Homosexuality is just one example.

Personally, I don't think it really matters to argue these points. I don't believe that this is what Jesus intended us to be doing. And I don't think it does anything for spreading the Good Word. People on the fence, who hear this kind of thing, will run for their lives! :)

[DouglasKC]

Scripture cannot be interpreted without the light of Sacred Tradition.

I would say that scripture can't be interpreted or understood without the guidance of the holy spirit. Your understanding, as stated, relies more on the interpretation of men who may or may not have had God's spirit.

It's about as oderly as it can get... Sola scriptura scares the daylights out of me... one, because the bible does not teach Sola scriptura and two, because I believe it is what causes anarchy

I don't believe in soloa scriptura either because salvation only comes through Christ. And I do believe that teachers are a good thing...BUT, scripture does say that scripture alone CAN make one wise to salvation:

2Ti 3:14 But continue thou in the things which thou hast learned and hast been assured of, knowing of whom thou hast learned them;
2Ti 3:15 And that from a child thou hast known the holy Scriptures, which are able to make thee wise unto salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus

Personally, I don't think it really matters to argue these points. I don't believe that this is what Jesus intended us to be doing. And I don't think it does anything for spreading the Good Word. People on the fence, who hear this kind of thing, will run for their lives! :)

I think Jesus intended us to make discples out of all nations and to preach the gospel. If there's a difference of opinion on what that gospel is, we should follow Paul's advice:

2Ti 4:2 preach the word; be ready in season and out of season; reprove, rebuke, exhort, with great patience and instruction.
2Ti 4:3 For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine; but wanting to have their ears tickled, they will accumulate for themselves teachers in accordance to their own desires,
2Ti 4:4 and will turn away their ears from the truth and will turn aside to myth

[OLD REGGIE]

"...At the end of His earthly ministry, He then ordained the Apostles, laying His hands upon them and breathing the Holy Spirit into them and directed them to go into the world, baptizing all people and teaching them to follow all of His commandmenets. That He comannded them to celebrate the Eucharist must certainly be one of those commandments. That He ordained them AND NO OTHERS to do this meant that they were empowered through Him to do this. That we must always do this is why we inferred that the authority to do so could be passed on, SO LONG AS IT WAS PASSED ON IN THE SAME WAY AS IT WAS ORIGINALLY GRANTED..."

Unless I misunderstand what you are saying you miss the exceptions of Paul and James (Acts 15). How were they "ordained"? When" By whom?

[DarkSavant]

All these people who complain about about pagan influences in the early church have obviously never read or never understood the Nicene Creed. That is the core of Catholic teaching, and I can't find anything even close to pagan influence in it.

[DouglasKC]

All these people who complain about about pagan influences in the early church have obviously never read or never understood the Nicene Creed. That is the core of Catholic teaching, and I can't find anything even close to pagan influence in it.

The holy bible is the core of my teaching. Creeds postulated by men don't particulary hold much weight, imo. But maybe you just worded it wrong.

[DarkSavant]

Which part of the Creed is unbiblical?

[DouglasKC]

Which part of the Creed is unbiblical?

Which creed? The one forumulated in 325 AD (nearly 300 years after the death of Christ), the one in 381 AD (Over 300 years after the death of Christ) or the one containing the filioque (first proposed in 447 AD, over 400 years after the death of Christ).

[Larry Lucido]

Good catch. Thanks.

[Larry Lucido]

I thought so! :-)

[DarkSavant]

The full Nicene creed containing the filoque.

[DouglasKC]

The full Nicene creed containing the filoque.

On it's face, I don't see anything unbiblical about it. But it's not inspired literature and the problem with using it as the basis of faith, since it's not inspired, is that it can be interpreted however one likes.

[vladimir998]

You wrote: "...it can be interpreted however one likes."

Isn't that exactly how you Protestants treat the Bible? Get ten Protestants in a room, give them one verse and you'll get eleven interpretations!

Can infants be baptized?

Bible only Presbyterians say yes.
Bible only Lutherans say yes.
Bible only baptists say no.

Make up your mind! How you Protestants can say that the creed can be interpretated every which way and ignore the fact that you Protestants do that with inspired scripture every day is beyond me. Hypocrisy.

[DouglasKC]

"...it can be interpreted however one likes." Isn't that exactly how you Protestants treat the Bible?

I'm not a Protestant. It's not my belief that the church that Christ built is synonomous with the Catholic church and therefore I don't consider myself as belonging to any group that split off in protest against Rome.

Get ten Protestants in a room, give them one verse and you'll get eleven interpretations!
Can infants be baptized?
Bible only Presbyterians say yes. Bible only Lutherans say yes. Bible only baptists say no.
Make up your mind! How you Protestants can say that the creed can be interpretated every which way and ignore the fact that you Protestants do that with inspired scripture every day is beyond me. Hypocrisy.

I would actually agree with your assesment of protestantism for the most part. Protestantism is often built upon tradition and the opinions of men. Just look at the example of the Episcopal Church.

Correct interpretion only comes through prayer, listening, and obeying the holy spirit. Sometimes this goes against what is popular and sometimes it means going against tradition and culture.

2Pe 1:20 Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the Scripture is of any private interpretation.
2Pe 1:21 For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost.

[Uri’el-2012]

XS>You wrote: "Would you not consider the introduction of Easter in place of Passover or the introduction of Christmas as Paganism?"

v998> No, since that isn't what happened. As anyone, who has ever actually studied Church history knows, Christmas, for instance, was set at the date it was to combat paganism not become it. Don't believe me? Read Manfred Claus THE ROMAN CULT OF MITHRAS where he quotes an early Christian author who gives ample evidence of exactly that.

XS> "The Traditions of man replacing the Holy Word of G-d."

v998> No, just your silly assertions without evidence.

XS> "The sabbath as outlined in the Holy Word of G-d in Leviticus 23 is replaced by man's tradition of Sunday, the day to worship the Sun god as directed by Constantine."

v998> Oh, please learn some history! The Church began worshipping on Sundays LONG BEFORE CONSTANTINE WAS EVEN BORN. Even other anti-Catholics get this right: http://home.earthlink.net/~ronrhodes/qworshipsunday.html

Look, you're just embarrassing yourself here. DO YOU HAVE ANY EVIDENCE OR NOT?

37 posted on 07/08/2006 9:46:58 PM MDT by vladimir998

Did Y'shua celebrate Easter ?
Of cause not. It is a Pagan feast.

Did Y'shua celebrate Passover ?
of cause He did ; He commanded it.( Leviticus 23:5)

Matthew 26:17 Now on the first {day} of Unleavened Bread the disciples came to Jesus and asked, "Where do You want us to prepare for You to eat the Passover?"

Matthew 26:18 And He said

, "Go into the city to a certain man, and say to him,
'The Teacher says, "My time is near; I {am to} keep the Passover at your house with My disciples.'""

Matthew 26:19 The disciples did as Jesus had directed them; and they prepared the Passover.

Matthew 26:20 Now when evening came, Jesus was reclining {at the table} with the twelve disciples.

....

Matthew 26:26 While they were eating, Jesus took {some} bread, and after a blessing, He broke {it} and gave {it} to the disciples, and said,
"Take, eat; this is My body."

Matthew 26:27 And when He had taken a cup and given thanks, He gave {it} to them, saying,
"Drink from it, all of you;

Matthew 26:28 for this is My blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many for forgiveness of sins.

Matthew 26:29 "But I say to you, I will not drink of this fruit of the vine from now on until that day when I drink it new with you in My Father's kingdom."

Matthew 26:30 After singing a hymn, they went out to the Mount of Olives.

During the celebration of His last Passover Seder,
Y'shua and His disciples were eating the roasted lamb
( a metaphor for the Lamb of G-d; see Genesis 22:8)
as described in Leviticus 23

Hebrew tradition states the the Messiah will be revealed
at Passover after he has been announced by Elijah,
many believe that John the Immerser
was the archetype of Elijah announcing to the world
"Behold, the Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world!"

After Y'shua made a blessing, He broke the matzo saying
"Take eat this is my body"

Y'shua then took the third cup of the fruit of the vine
which is the cup of redemption in the Hill-el Passover Haggadah
He made a blessing and gave it to his disciples and said
"Drink from it, all of you

As they left to go to the Mount of Olives
were singing the Hill-al psalms sung at
the end of the Passover Seder ( Psalms 114- 118 )

In Luke 22:19, Y'shua says:

"This is My body which is given for you; do this in remembrance of Me."

What is your understanding of Y'shua commanding us to "do this in remembrance of Me"?

Was it not to celebrate one of His commanded Feasts i.e. Passover?

Or have you superseded the Holy Word of G-d with a Tradition of man?

b'shem Y'shua

[vladimir998]

You wrote:

"I'm not a Protestant. It's not my belief that the church that Christ built is synonomous with the Catholic church and therefore I don't consider myself as belonging to any group that split off in protest against Rome."

You're a Protestant if you believe in sola scriptura or sola fide. You definitely believe in sola scriptura. You are, therefore, a Protestant. You don't have to like it. You don't have to agree with this reality. It is a reality nonetheless. It doesn't surprise me that a Protestant would try to play the nominalism game. Sorry, it won't work.

"I would actually agree with your assesment of protestantism for the most part. Protestantism is often built upon tradition and the opinions of men. Just look at the example of the Episcopal Church."

Yes, THE PROTESTANT EPISCOPAL CHURCH. The word PROTESTANT was actually part of its name when it was founded in the USA after the American Revolution.

"Correct interpretion only comes through prayer, listening, and obeying the holy spirit. Sometimes this goes against what is popular and sometimes it means going against tradition and culture."

There are literally millions of Protestants who do what you mentioned to the best of their ability with God's grace and they still contradict one another. The Church was founded as an authoritative teacher.