Church History In Plain Language (4th edition)

Im thinking that if a guy had just studied church history and observed dishonest televangeliats thwy would conclude that apologetics is all about making it up.

Yes. A lot of it is obviously made up.

Phat writes: Im thinking that if a guy had just studied church history and observed dishonest televangeliats thwy would conclude that apologetics is all about making it up.

If someone has actually studied church history and read the Bible how could they not conclude that apologetics is all about making it up? Are there any televangelists that are not dishonest?

jar writes: Are there any televangelists that are not dishonest?

How would we test them? That's a bit like asking whether any politicians are honest...or any lawyers. Indeed...one could then ask if any humans are honest.

Upon reading the Bible, I concluded that the people known as the believers--in the Book of Acts...were by and large honest(because they were believers after all) and ringo and I have discussed Ananias and Sapphira and what happened to them and why. A lot is determined by what it means to "become a believer".

Is it as simple as saying

quote:

---

I am a Christian because I am a registered member of the Episcopal Church.

---

The believers in Acts had no church. One could argue that it was the beginning of one of the Orthodox churches (which included Rome) or one could argue that it was the Ecclessia but even then we have questions. Take these scripture in context from the Book of Acts:

Acts 1:15 writes: In those days Peter stood up among the believers (a group numbering about a hundred and twenty)

Were these 120 "believers" merely registered members of the Orthodox "church" of that day? I would argue that they were believers because they all had the Holy Spirit and were called out.

My point is that the "church" (aka the believers) became rapidly watered down as to their commitment, their anointing , and their purpose in life. If you recall, the very first Disciples left all that they had.( ringo seems to think that anyone calling themselves a believer should do likewise) We can deduce, however, that by the time the Roman Catholic Church had broken away from the Eastern Orthodox churches--indeed long before---the Christians and their leaders were already behaving very carnally, politically, and divisively.

Wiki(Christian Church) writes: Christian Church is a Protestant ecclesiological term referring to the church invisible comprising all Christians, used since the Protestant Reformation in the 16th century. In this understanding, "Christian Church" (or "catholic church") does not refer to a particular Christian denomination but to the "body" or "group" of believers, both defined in various ways. A prominent example of this is the branch theory maintained by some Anglicans. This is in contrast to the one true church applied to a specific concrete Christian institution, a majority Christian ecclesiological position maintained by the Catholic Church, the Eastern Orthodox Church, the Oriental Orthodox churches, Assyrian Church of the East and the Ancient Church of the East. Most English translations of the New Testament generally use the word "church" as a translation of the Ancient Greek: ἐκκλησία, romanized: ecclesia, found in the original Greek texts, which generally meant an "assembly" or "congregation".[1] This term appears in two verses of the Gospel of Matthew, 24 verses of the Acts of the Apostles, 58 verses of the Pauline epistles (including the earliest instances of its use in relation to a Christian body), two verses of the Letter to the Hebrews, one verse of the Epistle of James, three verses of the Third Epistle of John, and 19 verses of the Book of Revelation. In total, ἐκκλησία appears in the New Testament text 114 times, although not every instance is a technical reference to the church.[2] As such it is used for local communities as well as in a universal sense to mean all believers.[3] "Christianity", on the other hand, was first by the Church Father Saint Ignatius of Antioch (c. 35–108/140 AD). The Four Marks of the Church first expressed in the Nicene Creed (381) are that the Church is one, holy, catholic (universal), and apostolic (originating from the apostles).[4]

I guess my question to you is this: Does a "registered member" equate to a "believer" or in some instances is the term merely a formality based upon a onetime public affirmation?

Edited by Phat, : No reason given.

Edited by Phat, : spelling

So much to argue here! But then I expect that from you.

First of all lets address this term "subjective". How do *you* know that the Holy Spirit is subjective? I suppose you can argue that whether or not the Holy Spirit even exists is subject to your evidence, but "spirit" cannot be measured nor quantified though many *do* insist that it exists. One problem is that you guys insist that evidence must be available to everyone whereas the Bible Thunkers insist that few will actually get it. You have dismissed it all as a story anyway, which protects your spiritual responsibility. (Yet you insist that since I take it literal or claim to do so, I must sell everything...which is a clever way to back me into a corner )

And even if we agree with your arguments that they all are characters in a book (or books) we then must determine why the books were written to begin with. (Hint: Treasure Island was never meant to describe actual events)

It has no more relevance than my favorite movie or my favorite flavor of ice cream.

And that was your choice--to assign "it" the relevance that you chose to give it. If I, as a character in a book described by many as eternally alive .. tell ringo to sell all that he has, he can simply write me off as Elmer Gantry.

Everybody has their own subjective experiences. They're all colored by the environment we grew up in. There is no universal truth to anybody's subjective experiences.

And yet there may be a singular universal truth that not everyone can or will see due to their experiences and conclusions thus far. Reality is often muddied up as a perception due to experiences.

Phat, the believers in Acts are simply characters in a story.

Once again, instead of actually addressing the question you wander off into totally unrelated areas. The characters in the stories found in Acts have absolutely NOTHING to do with the Apologists today.

You ask once again how the Apologists could be tested and the answer is really, really, really, really, really simple; you compare what they say the Bible says to what is actually written in the Bible.

Phat writes: I guess my question to you is this: Does a "registered member" equate to a "believer" or in some instances is the term merely a formality based upon a onetime public affirmation?

Once again, that has been answered again and again and again and again and again and again ...

A "registered member" means that you have been acknowledged as being a member of an organization.

Being a "believer" has NO uniform meaning whatsoever.

Again, basic Christian History is a perfect example. All of the people that make up the "Church Christian" (or Muslim or Hebrew or Buddhist or Satanist or Hindu or ...) are believers.

All are believers.

That is a fact.

But there is no universal or uniform or correct or TRUE belief.

The Aryan Christian Church was not Trinitarian.

The Roman Church was Trinitarian. Both were believers, believers in the same God and in Jesus but one group claimed that Jesus was God and not a separate individual while at the very same time claiming that Jesus sat at the Right Hand of God.

That mutually exclusive set of claims is simply crazy and an example of the long existing dishonest that is characteristic of the Romanized Church (almost all modern Evangelical and Fundamentalist cults are certainly and verifiably part of the Romanized Church).

Yes, since the Episcopal Church is a recognized chapter of Club Christian then if someone is a registered member of that Chapter that person is a Christian. It really is that simple. Yes, since the Episcopal Church through the Anglican Communion is part of the Romanized Christian Church and so yes even it exhibits the schizophrenia common to the Romanized Christian Church.

Now a member of some unrecognized club that claims to be a Chapter of Club Christian may or may not have a right to identify as being a Christian. Unless the "church" you claim to be a member of is among the recognized chapters of Club Christian your identification as a "Christian? certain can and should be questioned.

You might believe you are a Christian but I can provided testable and verifiable evidence of being a Christian. Evidence always trumps belief.

Beliefs are just beliefs. They have no meaning or value or rational or reality beyond being what you believe.

The issue in this thread is twofold. To discuss Church History and human attempts to define Orthodoxy through various Councils vs Heresey and whether the truth of Jesus Christ as written is absolute or simply relative.

jar writes: Phat, the believers in Acts are simply characters in a story.

No shit Sherlock. Books are stories. Some books are intended as fiction, some as propaganda, and some as historical narrative.
So lets address your question in Message 17

If someone has actually studied church history and read the Bible how could they not conclude that apologetics is all about making it up? Are there any televangelists that are not dishonest?

I feel that I began to address your question. You are quite brash at times. Must be how you behaved on the Masters porch 65 years ago.

jar writes: Once again, instead of actually addressing the question you wander off into totally unrelated areas.

We can let the peanut gallery determine that.

jar writes: The characters in the stories found in Acts have absolutely NOTHING to do with the Apologists today.

This is true in the context of the differing times, customs and experiences that each group was exposed to. ringo argues that the book clearly says that the early church was willing to lay it all at the Apostles feet, but the economic and political realities of thoise times were indeed very different from the life that you, I, or any modern apologist lead.

jar writes: A "registered member" means that you have been acknowledged as being a member of an organization.

True. The 120 believers mentioned in Acts were acknowledged by the Apostles themselves and the clear reference was to a belief in the life, death,burial and resurrection of Jesus Christ.

jar writes: Being a "believer" has NO uniform meaning whatsoever.

Note the definition of the word you used.
Being a "believer" only has no uniform meaning in a generic sense of the word. We are talking about believers in Jesus Christ both then and now.

jar writes: All of the people that make up the "Church Christian" (or Muslim or Hebrew or Buddhist or Satanist or Hindu or ...) are believers.

There is no uniformity between those groups. Except that they all are human.

jar writes: But there is no universal or uniform or correct or TRUE belief.

And this, sir is where your train left the tracks. Episcopalians have at least some uniformity6 with any other recognized Christian Church. They have (or should have) NO uniformity with Islam, Hinduism, Jainism, Mormonism or Atheism. And THAT is reality.

jar writes: The Aryan Christian Church was not Trinitarian. The Roman Church was Trinitarian. Both were believers, believers in the same God and in Jesus but one group claimed that Jesus was God and not a separate individual while at the very same time claiming that Jesus sat at the Right Hand of God.

And one group was correct..Orthodox...and the other group were heretics. Relativism does not apply as a path to the truth.

Edited by Phat, : No reason given.

Think Phat, really try to think.

The uniformity is that they all believe and all believe that their beliefs are the right beliefs.

Phat writes: And this, sir is where your train left the tracks. Episcopalians have at least some uniformity6 with any other recognized Christian Church. They have (or should have) NO uniformity with Islam, Hinduism, Jainism, Mormonism or Atheism. And THAT is reality.

And yet, they do. Many support ecumenicalism and so acknowledge that other religions can be equally valid which is why Imams and Rabbis and Monks have led worship in the National Cathedral.

And Phat, when it came to the Aryan Christians and the Roman Christians BOTH groups were orthodox. What determined which dominated was might and power and economics and politics and not truth.

I would argue that of the 120 mentioned in Acts all were orthodox believers. Since that time, the unity of orthodoxy was challenged by the enemy infiltrating human understanding. The Aryans became heretics.....even if you argue that it was due to might and power. God is the only orthodox might and power and His Spirit has mercy on whom it so chooses. At one time He cxhose the Jews alone and unique among human peoples. At a later time He included the Gentiles who became believers(and doers) while some now argue that He includes everyone. I disagree. Its not that easy. He surely does His part and has mercy on whomsoever He chooses. And yes He could choose the other beliefs first...before the Club:Christians if we fail to accept the invitation. Or He may even choose to include everyone due to His endless mercy. But I think you are jumping the gun.

Sheeszh.

World Salad Phat. And no, you do not argue you simply assert.

So can you argue that you and the registered members of your church could even hold a candle to the 120 believers in Acts? They believed that Jesus was eternally alive with us. They did not believe in relativism. The modern day critical thinker is clueless towards absolute truth, likely believes that it(He) does not even exist, and if so that it is a product of their imagination and thus allowably relativistic.

Edited by Phat, : spelling

There is no evidence that Absolute Truth exists and the evidence is what is written in the Bible stories. They are filled with relativistic truth.

Phat writes: So can you argue that you and the registered members of your church could even hold a candle to the 120 believers in Acts?

The 120 believers in Acts are characters in a story.

Phat writes: The modern day critical thinker is clueless towards absolute truth, likely believes that it(He) does not even exist, and if so that it is a product of their imagination and thus allowably relativistic.

Once again Phat this has been explained to you a brazillion times.

The evidence shows that there is no Absolute Truth. It is not a matter of belief, it is the conclusion based on and supported by the evidence.

Phat writes: I am being transformed. I have not yet arrived. Care to argue?

Of course I care to argue. We are ALL "being transformed" - some for the better, some for the worse. The fact is that there is NO correlation between "transformation" and Christianity.

Phat writes: First of all lets address this term "subjective". How do *you* know that the Holy Spirit is subjective?

For one thing, you said it was.

For another thing, there are thousands of religions on earth and millions of "subjects", each of them with his/her own experiences.

Phat writes: I suppose you can argue that whether or not the Holy Spirit even exists is subject to your evidence...

Not "my" evodence. EVERYBODY's evidence, including yours. EVERYTHING depends on evidence, whether it's spooks - holy or unholy - or Bigfeet or leprechauns or electrons.

Phat writes: ... but "spirit" cannot be measured nor quantified though many *do* insist that it exists.

That's a king-sized cop-out. You've contrived your fictional entities so that they can not be quantified or measured.

Phat writes: One problem is that you guys insist that evidence must be available to everyone whereas the Bible Thunkers insist that few will actually get it.

That's a problem for the Bible Thumpers. The Qur'an Thumpers say the same thing and the Dyanetics Thumpers say the same thing. The only link to reality that we can rely on is evidence that we all agree on.

Phat writes: You have dismissed it all as a story anyway...

On the contrary, I embrace it as a story. You're the one who dismisses the story when it doesn't suit your own made-up wishes.

Phat writes: Yet you insist that since I take it literal or claim to do so, I must sell everything...which is a clever way to back me into a corner

You've backed yourself into that corner. I have never suggested that you should sell everything. I have asked you why you don't - and how you can claim to be a follower of Jesus when you don't follow what He said. YOU are the one who is dismissing the story.

Phat writes: And even if we agree with your arguments that they all are characters in a book (or books) we then must determine why the books were written to begin with.

Once upon a time, Charlie Brown wondered the same thing: Why did the author write the book? Linus replied, "Maybe he needed the money."

There are many reasons for writing books.

Phat writes: Hint: Treasure Island was never meant to describe actual events

What makes you think the Bible does?

And again for the umpteenth time, if you think the events are real, why do you deny what Jesus said?

Phat writes: And that was your choice--to assign "it" the relevance that you chose to give it.

Not at all. It has the relevance that the evidence gives it. Any thinking person gives it the same relevance.

Phat writes: If I, as a character in a book described by many as eternally alive .. tell ringo to sell all that he has, he can simply write me off as Elmer Gantry.

And rightly so. There is no evidence that you or any other character is "eternally alive", so the claim is assigned to fiction.

Phat writes: And yet there may be a singular universal truth that not everyone can or will see due to their experiences and conclusions thus far.

Once again, we fall back on, "By their fruits ye shall know them." If somebody claims to know "universal truth" and claims to see things that us ordinary peons don't see, we look for the fruits that they produce - i.e. we look for the evidence. Note that Jesus wasn't as contemptuous of evidence as you are.

Phat writes: Reality is often muddied up as a perception due to experiences.

Which is why we need to make every effort to be objective and not cling to our individual perceptions.

ringo writes: For another thing, there are thousands of religions on earth and millions of "subjects", each of them with his/her own experiences.

There are basically two groups of people on earth
1)The Body Of Christ.
2) The rest.(which will, if stubborn enough, end up being the children of the antichrist.) Think carefully before rejecting Christ.

The Holy Spirit is not your relativistic hippie spirit that you had in the sixties.
You may have been on the pathg, but you and AZPaul3 smoked too much weed and let your rational brains take over once you stopped. We will come by in a truck and pick you up from your acid trip by the pyramid once you come down.

Of course I care to argue. We are ALL "being transformed" - some for the better, some for the worse. The fact is that there is NO correlation between "transformation" and Christianity.

Newsflash: The mind does not transform itself. Better run...you missed the school bus.