History Ping...
“How much is your church like the ancient church?”
Well, if we are talking about Protestantism, then very little.
http://www.oodegr.co/english/biblia/episkopos1/perieh.htm
“for a new generation of non-conformers”
Says a lot about the posts from this site.
Excellent article.
“Justin was born toward the end of the first century. He died in 165 as a martyr for his faith in Jesus Christ.
Around 150, he wrote a defense of the faith to the Roman emperor—called his First Apology—arguing that Christianity should not be illegal. In the course of his defense, he describes what a typical church service was like in his day.”
If I wanted to find out what the meaning of the Constitution as written was, and to find out how those who debated and ratified it would conduct government business, who would be better to ask, one of those founders or a Supreme Court Justice who served some 50 or 60 years later?
There are plenty of direct statements in the NT and plenty of strong hints in canonized Epistles to know a lot about the “faith once delivered to the saints”. That is the faith that I seek, and there are tens of thousands in the US who practice that faith, not some paganized or Gnostic substitute.
In technical language such people are called “primitive Christians”. The first hallmark of this group is simple: do they accept what the Bible plainly says or do they accept what some later authority claims it says.
A good first few questions would be to ask:
1) did the Church that met on the first Pentecost keep the other Holy Days too such as the Sabbath?
2) did the Church that met on the first Pentecost also observe Xmas and Ishtar, or would they reject Xmas and Ishtar as being pagan, syncretic, abominations?
3) did the Church that met on the first Pentecost believe that man had in innate immortal soul, so that without a savior humans would still have eternal life, just not in heaven?
4) did the Church that met on the first Pentecost know that Jesus had conveyed a body of beliefs that was not to be altered and they only had His permission to elaborate and explain, not to abrogate and nullify.
5) did the Church that met on the first Pentecost know that Jesus was indeed going to return to earth to sit on the throne of His father David? That this means the royal lineage of David must continue to the day He returns? (Luke 1:32, Acts 2:29-30!, Acts 15:16, Amos 9:11)
Not a single mainline Church can answer these questions in the affirmative. People who are committed to practicing the exact faith of the Church that met on the first Pentecost will.
Pastor makes it clear that he is no different/better than anyone attending and that his primary purpose is to educate folks on Jesus and to make sure everyone understands who He is and why they should absolutely love Him. All this delivered in a regular speaking tone and interspersed with current societal examples. Pastor also made it clear that we will never be told what his political leanings are because the purpose of the Church is to get people to know, love, trust, and rely on Jesus.
But wait!
There’s more!
And it’s actually right there where the OP gets his snips. Leaves out this whole section. Now, why in the world do you suppose this whole section is IGNORED??
CHAPTER LXVI — OF THE EUCHARIST.
And this food is called among us Eukaristia [the Eucharist], of which no one is allowed to partake but the man who believes that the things which we teach are true, and who has been washed with the washing that is for the remission of sins, and unto regeneration, and who is so living as Christ has enjoined. For not as common bread and common drink do we receive these; but in like manner as Jesus Christ our Saviour, having been made flesh by the Word of God, had both flesh and blood for our salvation, so likewise have we been taught that the food which is blessed by the prayer of His word, and from which our blood and flesh by transmutation are nourished, is the flesh and blood of that Jesus who was made flesh. For the apostles, in the memoirs composed by them, which are called Gospels, have thus delivered unto us what was enjoined upon them; that Jesus took bread, and when He had given thanks, said, “This do ye in remembrance of Me, this is My body;” and that, after the same manner, having taken the cup and given thanks, He said, “This is My blood;” and gave it to them alone. Which the wicked devils have imitated in the mysteries of Mithras, commanding the same thing to be done. For, that bread and a cup of water are placed with certain incantations in the mystic rites of one who is being initiated, you either know or can learn.
http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/text/justinmartyr-firstapology.html
And this food is called among us Eukaristia [the Eucharist], of which no one is allowed to partake but the man who believes that the things which we teach are true
isn’t ironic, Justin Martyr would not allow the author of this piece Nathan Busewitz, nor the other followers of the 16th century tradition of men to share the Eucharist with the second century Church since he and the others deny the Eucharist is the Body of Christ.
no one is allowed to partake but the man who believes the things we teach are true.........
as A. Morrisette sang “isn’t it ironic, don’t you think?”
Your stalker continues her infatuation with you!
Ya know he was Catholic right?
From Wikipedia: Justin Martyr, also known as Saint Justin (c. 100 – 165 AD), was an early Christian apologist, and is regarded as the foremost interpreter of the theory of the Logos in the 2nd century.[2] He was martyred, alongside some of his students, and is considered a saint by the Roman Catholic Church,[3] the Anglican Church,[4] and the Eastern Orthodox Church.[5]