Schisms in Christianity

Exploring the details of Christianity

Moderator: Moderators

Post Reply
User avatar
McCulloch
Site Supporter
Posts: 24063
Joined: Mon May 02, 2005 9:10 pm
Location: Toronto, ON, CA
Been thanked: 3 times

Schisms in Christianity

Post #1

Post by McCulloch »

fredonly wrote: The Great Schism (East/West), the Protestant Reformation, the LDS, Restorationist movements, fundamentalism " all are driven by the same engines that drove the earliest diversity.
WinePusher wrote: The Great Schism was the result of disagreements over Easter and Communion and the Protestant Reformation was the result of disagreements over the achievement of salvation. All minor doctrinal differences, not major doctrinal differences.
Are all these and other schisms in Christianity all the result of minor doctrinal differences?
Examine everything carefully; hold fast to that which is good.
First Epistle to the Church of the Thessalonians
The truth will make you free.
Gospel of John

postroad
Prodigy
Posts: 2882
Joined: Tue Oct 04, 2011 9:58 am

Post #41

Post by postroad »

teddy_trueblood wrote:
I take it that you are not holding to the belief that the Catholic church is the supernatural unity referenced in John 17?
I honestly don't see how any objective person could.

John 17:1,3 not only shows that the only true God is the Father, it makes it clear that such knowledge of God and the one he sent to earth is eternal life for us. The 4th century trinity doctrine by the Roman Church does not agree with this.


http://examiningthetrinity.blogspot.co ... -god.html

Please elucidate.
There was a proposal that the Catholic Church was in fact the perfect supernatural harmony of believers that Jesus prayed for as recorded in John 17.

Would you accept as reasonable the premise that Jesus would pray for something he knew or should have known would not happen. Especially considering that the prophecies concerning the new covenant indicate that such a unity was to be accomplished directly through the will of God. If Christianity can not claim such a supernatural unity of belief and action does it discredit itself as actually being the new covenant?

teddy_trueblood
Apprentice
Posts: 178
Joined: Thu Aug 18, 2011 10:15 pm

Post #42

Post by teddy_trueblood »

Quotes from chestertonrules
The doctrine of the Trinity has always been part of Christian teaching. It is a key factor that distinguishes Christians from heretics.
I agree that the trinity distinguishes Christians from heretics, but not in the sense you intend.

The beginning of the trinity came into the Church at the Council of Nicaea in 325 A.D. It did not speak of three being equally God, but only two: the Father and Son. And this was forced upon a reluctant Church by the Emperor Constantine who was persuaded by his Advisor, Hosius. The vast majority of Bishops present did not believe that Jesus was equally God. Later, in 381, the Holy Spirit was added to the mix to make a trinity as decreed in another Council presided over by a Roman Emperor.
http://examiningthetrinity.blogspot.co ... ncil.html
John 1
1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. 2 He was with God in the beginning. 3 Through him all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made... 14 The Word became flesh and made his dwelling among us.
NT Greek grammar of John, scriptural usage of God/god, the understanding of Logos at that time, context, and writings of early Christians, all make the rendering and the Word was a god the proper rendering for John 1:1.

http://examiningthetrinity.blogspot.co ... r_21.html
http://examiningthetrinity.blogspot.co ... tudy.html
http://examiningthetrinity.blogspot.co ... word.html
From the letter of St. Ignatius to the Ephesians in approximately 107 AD:
"There is one Physician of flesh and spirit, begotten and unbegotten, God in man, true life in death, son of Mary and son of God, first suffering and then beyond suffering, Jesus Christ our Lord."
First, the relatively late copies in existence of Ignatius letters [seventh or eighth century] and many of the rest of the early Christian writers make it likely that later Trinitarian copyists have had there way with his original writings. The question of the accuracy of the late manuscripts of the early Fathers being corrupted by Trinitarian copyists is admitted by the Trinitarian translators and publishers of The Ante-Nicene Fathers (See Introductory Note to the Epistle of Ignatius to the Ephesians, for example. Just looking at the short form and the long form of his letter to the Ephesians shows the results of such tampering with the original. Furthermore, since the existing sources for his letters are copies of copies, etc. which have come down to us through TRINITARIAN copyists during a time when those who did not confess the trinity doctrine as essential truth were severely punished, even killed by the Church, we would not expect any of the later copyists to add NON-Trinitarian material. But it is clear that Trinitarian phrases have been added and some non-Trinitarian passages have been changed into Trinitarian statements in the writings of the ante-Nicene Fathers!

Therefore, while any Trinitarian statement carries a healthy degree of doubt, any non-Trinitarian statement would certainly not have been added by the Trinitarian copyists, but is most likely to be original. - http://examiningthetrinity.blogspot.co ... eeds.html

Second, the part you quoted is found in Epistle of Ignatius to the Ephesians, Chapter 7, (Shorter Version). It says in The Ante-Nicene Fathers (ANF): There is one Physician who is possessed both of flesh and spirit; both made and not made; God existing in flesh; true life in death; both of Mary and of God.

The Longer Version (on the same page) says: But our Physician is the only true God [see link in my last post], the unbegotten and unapproachable, the Lord of all, the Father and Begetter of the only-begotten Son. [Most likely to be original] We have also as a Physician the Lord our God, Jesus Christ [less likely to be original].

Also, from St. Irenaeus (115-190).
"The Church, though dispersed throughout the whole world, even to the ends of the earth, has received from the apostles and their disciples this faith: ...one God, the Father Almighty, Maker of heaven, and earth, and the sea, and all things that are in them; and in one Christ Jesus, the Son of God, who became incarnate for our salvation; and in the Holy Spirit, who proclaimed through the prophets the dispensations of God, and the advents, and the birth from a virgin, and the passion, and the resurrection from the dead, and the ascension into heaven in the flesh of the beloved Christ Jesus, our Lord, and His manifestation from heaven in the glory of the Father to gather all things in one,' and to raise up anew all flesh of the whole human race, in order that to Christ Jesus, our Lord, and God, and Savior, and King, according to the will of the invisible Father, every knee should bow, of things in heaven, and things in earth, and things under the earth, and that every tongue should confess; to him, and that He should execute just judgment towards all...'" (Against Heresies X.l) [Book 1, Ch. 10, verse 1]
The first part which is in bold print above makes the second part in bold print unlikely (possibly and God added by Trinitarian copyists to the latter).

Or it is certainly possible for Jesus to be called god in the subordinate sense as were angels and human judges in scripture (and men and angels by the early Christian writers themselves - see the link above concerning God and gods).

Ignatius also wrote (obviously not changed by later Trinitarian copyists): It is proper, then, that I should begin with the first and most important head [cf. 1 Cor. 11:3], that is God the Creator, who made the heaven and the earth, and all things that are therein . And to demonstrate that there is nothing either above Him or after Him; nor that, influenced by any one, but of His own free will, He created all things, since He is the only God, the only Lord, the only Creator, the only Father, alone containing all things, and Himself commanding all things into existence. - Against Heresies, Book 2, chap. 1, verse 1. (ANF)

Also, It is easy to prove from the very words of the Lord, that He acknowledges one Father and Creator of the world, and fashioner of man, who was proclaimed by the Law and the prophets [YHWH, who alone is the Father], while He knows no other, and that this One is really God over all; - Book 2, Ch. 11, verse 1. (ANF)

And, But there is one only God, the Creator - He who is above every Principality, and Power, and Dominion, and Virtue, He is the Father, He is God, He the Founder, He the Maker, He the Creator, who made those things by Himself, that is through His Word and Wisdom . - Book 2, Ch. 30, Verse 9.

chestertonrules
Scholar
Posts: 380
Joined: Sun Oct 02, 2011 9:18 pm

Post #43

Post by chestertonrules »

teddy_trueblood wrote:Quotes from chestertonrules
The doctrine of the Trinity has always been part of Christian teaching. It is a key factor that distinguishes Christians from heretics.
I agree that the trinity distinguishes Christians from heretics, but not in the sense you intend.

The beginning of the trinity came into the Church at the Council of Nicaea in 325 A.D. It did not speak of three being equally God, but only two: the Father and Son. And this was forced upon a reluctant Church by the Emperor Constantine who was persuaded by his Advisor, Hosius. The vast majority of Bishops present did not believe that Jesus was equally God. Later, in 381, the Holy Spirit was added to the mix to make a trinity as decreed in another Council presided over by a Roman Emperor.
http://examiningthetrinity.blogspot.co ... ncil.html
John 1
1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. 2 He was with God in the beginning. 3 Through him all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made... 14 The Word became flesh and made his dwelling among us.
NT Greek grammar of John, scriptural usage of God/god, the understanding of Logos at that time, context, and writings of early Christians, all make the rendering and the Word was a god the proper rendering for John 1:1.

http://examiningthetrinity.blogspot.co ... r_21.html
http://examiningthetrinity.blogspot.co ... tudy.html
http://examiningthetrinity.blogspot.co ... word.html
From the letter of St. Ignatius to the Ephesians in approximately 107 AD:
"There is one Physician of flesh and spirit, begotten and unbegotten, God in man, true life in death, son of Mary and son of God, first suffering and then beyond suffering, Jesus Christ our Lord."
First, the relatively late copies in existence of Ignatius letters [seventh or eighth century] and many of the rest of the early Christian writers make it likely that later Trinitarian copyists have had there way with his original writings. The question of the accuracy of the late manuscripts of the early Fathers being corrupted by Trinitarian copyists is admitted by the Trinitarian translators and publishers of The Ante-Nicene Fathers (See Introductory Note to the Epistle of Ignatius to the Ephesians, for example. Just looking at the short form and the long form of his letter to the Ephesians shows the results of such tampering with the original. Furthermore, since the existing sources for his letters are copies of copies, etc. which have come down to us through TRINITARIAN copyists during a time when those who did not confess the trinity doctrine as essential truth were severely punished, even killed by the Church, we would not expect any of the later copyists to add NON-Trinitarian material. But it is clear that Trinitarian phrases have been added and some non-Trinitarian passages have been changed into Trinitarian statements in the writings of the ante-Nicene Fathers!

Therefore, while any Trinitarian statement carries a healthy degree of doubt, any non-Trinitarian statement would certainly not have been added by the Trinitarian copyists, but is most likely to be original. - http://examiningthetrinity.blogspot.co ... eeds.html

Second, the part you quoted is found in Epistle of Ignatius to the Ephesians, Chapter 7, (Shorter Version). It says in The Ante-Nicene Fathers (ANF): There is one Physician who is possessed both of flesh and spirit; both made and not made; God existing in flesh; true life in death; both of Mary and of God.

The Longer Version (on the same page) says: But our Physician is the only true God [see link in my last post], the unbegotten and unapproachable, the Lord of all, the Father and Begetter of the only-begotten Son. [Most likely to be original] We have also as a Physician the Lord our God, Jesus Christ [less likely to be original].

Also, from St. Irenaeus (115-190).
"The Church, though dispersed throughout the whole world, even to the ends of the earth, has received from the apostles and their disciples this faith: ...one God, the Father Almighty, Maker of heaven, and earth, and the sea, and all things that are in them; and in one Christ Jesus, the Son of God, who became incarnate for our salvation; and in the Holy Spirit, who proclaimed through the prophets the dispensations of God, and the advents, and the birth from a virgin, and the passion, and the resurrection from the dead, and the ascension into heaven in the flesh of the beloved Christ Jesus, our Lord, and His manifestation from heaven in the glory of the Father to gather all things in one,' and to raise up anew all flesh of the whole human race, in order that to Christ Jesus, our Lord, and God, and Savior, and King, according to the will of the invisible Father, every knee should bow, of things in heaven, and things in earth, and things under the earth, and that every tongue should confess; to him, and that He should execute just judgment towards all...'" (Against Heresies X.l) [Book 1, Ch. 10, verse 1]
The first part which is in bold print above makes the second part in bold print unlikely (possibly and God added by Trinitarian copyists to the latter).

Or it is certainly possible for Jesus to be called god in the subordinate sense as were angels and human judges in scripture (and men and angels by the early Christian writers themselves - see the link above concerning God and gods).

Ignatius also wrote (obviously not changed by later Trinitarian copyists): It is proper, then, that I should begin with the first and most important head [cf. 1 Cor. 11:3], that is God the Creator, who made the heaven and the earth, and all things that are therein . And to demonstrate that there is nothing either above Him or after Him; nor that, influenced by any one, but of His own free will, He created all things, since He is the only God, the only Lord, the only Creator, the only Father, alone containing all things, and Himself commanding all things into existence. - Against Heresies, Book 2, chap. 1, verse 1. (ANF)

Also, It is easy to prove from the very words of the Lord, that He acknowledges one Father and Creator of the world, and fashioner of man, who was proclaimed by the Law and the prophets [YHWH, who alone is the Father], while He knows no other, and that this One is really God over all; - Book 2, Ch. 11, verse 1. (ANF)

And, But there is one only God, the Creator - He who is above every Principality, and Power, and Dominion, and Virtue, He is the Father, He is God, He the Founder, He the Maker, He the Creator, who made those things by Himself, that is through His Word and Wisdom . - Book 2, Ch. 30, Verse 9.
Christians believe in just one God, so I'm not sure what you think these quotes you've provided prove.


What evidence do you have that Ignatius' writings were changed?

I have plenty of evidence that the JW bible quotes you've provided are fraudulent. Would you be interested in reading them?

Here's one good collection of many of the errors in the JW translation, which was produced by those who couldn't read Greek or Hebrew:

http://www.thoughts.com/mckenzie2467/jw ... ranslation

teddy_trueblood
Apprentice
Posts: 178
Joined: Thu Aug 18, 2011 10:15 pm

Post #44

Post by teddy_trueblood »

Christians believe in just one God, so I'm not sure what you think these quotes you've provided prove.


What evidence do you have that Ignatius' writings were changed?

I have plenty of evidence that the JW bible quotes you've provided are fraudulent. Would you be interested in reading them?
Your first two questions are answered in the post and links provided above.

I am interested in discussing the identity of God Almighty whom we must worship in truth and whom we are to make known to all.

I'm not especially interested in defending any Bible translation. I can find errors or questionable translations in most, if not all, of them.

I would be interested in defending the "JW Bible quotes [I've] provided." Please list them and expose the 'fraudulence' therein. I'm only interested in the "JW Bible quotes [I've] provided."

chestertonrules
Scholar
Posts: 380
Joined: Sun Oct 02, 2011 9:18 pm

Post #45

Post by chestertonrules »

teddy_trueblood wrote:
Christians believe in just one God, so I'm not sure what you think these quotes you've provided prove.


What evidence do you have that Ignatius' writings were changed?

I have plenty of evidence that the JW bible quotes you've provided are fraudulent. Would you be interested in reading them?
Your first two questions are answered in the post and links provided above.

I am interested in discussing the identity of God Almighty whom we must worship in truth and whom we are to make known to all.

I'm not especially interested in defending any Bible translation. I can find errors or questionable translations in most, if not all, of them.

I would be interested in defending the "JW Bible quotes [I've] provided." Please list them and expose the 'fraudulence' therein. I'm only interested in the "JW Bible quotes [I've] provided."

What leading Greek scholars say about the N. W. T. :

British scholar H.H. Rowley stated, From beginning to end this volume is a shining example of how the Bible should NOT be translated.

Dr. Bruce M. Metzger, a professor of New Testament Language and Literature at Princeton University, calls the N. W. T. a frightful mis-translation, erroneous and pernicious, reprehensible. If the Jehovahs Witnesses take this translation seriously, they are polytheists.

Dr. William Barclay, a leading Greek scholar, said, It is abundantly clear that a sect which can translate the New Testament like that is intellectually dishonest.

Dr. Julius Mantey, author of A Manual Grammar of the Greek New Testament, calls the N. W. T. a shocking mis-translation, obsolete and incorrect. It is neither scholarly nor reasonable to translate John 1 : 1 The Word was a god. As a backdrop, I was disturbed because they (Watchtower) had misquoted me in support of their translation. (These words were excerpted from the tape, Martin and Julius Mantey on The New World Translation, Mantey is quoted on pages 1158-1159 of the Kingdom interlinear Translation) I have never read any New Testament so badly translated as The Kingdom Interlinear Translation of The Greek Scriptures... it is a distortion of the New Testament. The translators used what J. B. Rotherham had translated in 1893 in modern speech, and changed the readings in scores of passages to state what Jehovahs Witnesses believe and teach. That is a distortion not a translation. The translators of the N. W. T. are diabolical deceivers.

teddy_trueblood
Apprentice
Posts: 178
Joined: Thu Aug 18, 2011 10:15 pm

Post #46

Post by teddy_trueblood »

I have plenty of evidence that the JW bible quotes you've provided are fraudulent. Would you be interested in reading them?


My response indicated that I was not interested in reading the smears from anti-JW sites. However,
I would be interested in defending the "JW Bible quotes [I've] provided." Please list them and expose the 'fraudulence' therein. I'm only interested in the "JW Bible quotes [I've] provided."
Apparently you are unable to back up your statement and reply to my requests. I assume, then, that you don't intend to discuss honestly with me.

chestertonrules
Scholar
Posts: 380
Joined: Sun Oct 02, 2011 9:18 pm

Post #47

Post by chestertonrules »

teddy_trueblood wrote:
I have plenty of evidence that the JW bible quotes you've provided are fraudulent. Would you be interested in reading them?


My response indicated that I was not interested in reading the smears from anti-JW sites. However,
I would be interested in defending the "JW Bible quotes [I've] provided." Please list them and expose the 'fraudulence' therein. I'm only interested in the "JW Bible quotes [I've] provided."
Apparently you are unable to back up your statement and reply to my requests. I assume, then, that you don't intend to discuss honestly with me.

Please read my post and respond. It addresses your bible, which is not taken seriously by any biblical scholar.

Why do you believe these guys who just made this stuff up?

teddy_trueblood
Apprentice
Posts: 178
Joined: Thu Aug 18, 2011 10:15 pm

Post #48

Post by teddy_trueblood »

Since you are unable to back up your statement (I've asked you twice), I can only assume you are unwilling to admit your error. In fact, it would appear that you haven't even carefully read my post which caused your criticism.

I seldom (if ever) quote the NWT when discussing on-line! I have down-loaded and read your link and your post concerning the NWT. Since there was a time, years ago, when I was concerned about the accuracy of the NWT, I have studied the criticisms of Mantey, Martin, Countess, Bowman, Ankergberg and Weldon, etc.

The vast majority of this 'evidence' is simply wrong. Some of it the critic must know is false (a lie, in other words). A very few criticisms seem justified, but not of essential importance.

I have no wish to tie up honest discussion with the never-ending red herrrings concerning the NWT (especially since I rarely even refer to it on-line anyway).
I have plenty of evidence that the JW bible quotes you've provided are fraudulent.
So for the last time: If you will expose the 'fraudulent JW Bible quotes I've provided,' (or admit that I have not done so), I will give you links to my studies concerning your misinformation concerning the NWT. This is provided that you promise to read them carefully as I have read yours.

And that will be it. I will return to my intended subject of who is the God we must worship in truth (the knowledge of whom is eternal life).
Last edited by teddy_trueblood on Thu Oct 13, 2011 3:25 pm, edited 1 time in total.

chestertonrules
Scholar
Posts: 380
Joined: Sun Oct 02, 2011 9:18 pm

Post #49

Post by chestertonrules »

teddy_trueblood wrote:Since you are unable to back up your statement (I've asked you twice), I can only assume you are unwilling to admit your error. In fact, it would appear that you haven't even carefully read my post which caused your criticism.

I seldom quote the NWT when discussing on-line! I have down-loaded and read your link and your post concerning the NWT. Since there was a time, years ago, when I was concerned about the accuracy of the NWT, I have studied the criticisms of Mantey, Martin, Countess, Bowman, Ankergberg and Weldon, etc.

The vast majority of this 'evidence' is simply wrong. Some of it the critic must know is false (a lie, in other words). A very few criticisms seem justified, but not of essential importance.

I have no wish to tie up honest discussion with the never-ending red herrrings concerning the NWT (especially since I rarely even refer to it on-line anyway).
I have plenty of evidence that the JW bible quotes you've provided are fraudulent.
So for the last time: If you will expose the 'fraudulent JW Bible quotes I've provided,' (or admit that I have not done so), I will give you links to my studies concerning your misinformation concerning the NWT. This is provided that you promise to read them carefully as I have read yours.

And that will be it. I will return to my intended subject of who is the God we nust worship in truth (the knowledge of whom is eternal life).
If you want to hold to a flawed interpretation of scripture that is rejected by all serious historians then there is nothing further to discuss.

Can you name a single non JW scholar who accepts your interpretations?

teddy_trueblood
Apprentice
Posts: 178
Joined: Thu Aug 18, 2011 10:15 pm

Post #50

Post by teddy_trueblood »

Quotes from chestertonrules

The doctrine of the Trinity has always been part of Christian teaching. It is a key factor that distinguishes Christians from heretics.



I agree that the trinity distinguishes Christians from heretics, but not in the sense you intend.

The beginning of the trinity came into the Church at the Council of Nicaea in 325 A.D. It did not speak of three being equally God, but only two: the Father and Son. And this was forced upon a reluctant Church by the Emperor Constantine who was persuaded by his Advisor, Hosius. The vast majority of Bishops present did not believe that Jesus was equally God. Later, in 381, the Holy Spirit was added to the mix to make a trinity as decreed in another Council presided over by a Roman Emperor.
http://examiningthetrinity.blogspot.co ... ncil.html

John 1 1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. 2 He was with God in the beginning. 3 Through him all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made... 14 The Word became flesh and made his dwelling among us.



NT Greek grammar of John, scriptural usage of God/god, the understanding of Logos at that time, context, and writings of early Christians, all make the rendering and the Word was a god the proper rendering for John 1:1.

http://examiningthetrinity.blogspot.co ... r_21.html
http://examiningthetrinity.blogspot.co ... tudy.html
http://examiningthetrinity.blogspot.co ... word.html
How about responding to the above earlier post in answer to your own statements? A little actual personal research would be appreciated rather than the 'red herring' approach of saturating the discussion with an entirely different subject from anti-JW sites.

Post Reply