Originally posted by robbie carrobieI am not implying that Christidelphians are bad people. They are just as good as Jehovah's Witnesses, but also deceived by false teachings of their cult leaders.
I have met one or two christidelphians in my public ministry, I liked them, in fact, one
Russian student who was selling pictures house to house told me he was a
christidelphian, i invited him in and we played a little chess and had some coffee, he
taught me the Benoni defence. I bought a picture of a wolf out of sympathy.
Originally posted by FMFIts about a precedence for christian neutrality viewed historically and whether they are
I can't imagine that you intend this thread to be [b]not about whether Christians should be neutral nowadays. Because if it is about whether Christians should be neutral nowadays, while the circumstances and interpretations of Christians centuries ago are certainly interesting, surely the stance of major Christian denominations nowadays is relevant also.[/b]
relevant remains to be established, me personal feeling is that they have adulterated
the pure essence of Christianity.
Originally posted by robbie carrobieWeren't there Christian groups in the 1st century who - for example - did not believe that Jesus was divine; what precedent does the history of such groups set for the present day?
Its about a precedence for christian neutrality viewed historically and whether they are
relevant remains to be established, me personal feeling is that they have adulterated
the pure essence of Christianity.
Originally posted by FMFwell it appears to me that such groups establish, by way of comparison, a kind of litmus
Weren't there Christian groups in the 1st century who - for example - did not believe that Jesus was divine; what precedent does the history of such groups set for the present day?
test for how much Christianity has moved away from its original precepts. One can see
the evolution from a pure form of worship to a kind of bastardisation of the reality.
Originally posted by robbie carrobieAs Bart D. Ehrman notes in his book Lost Christianities, there really wan't such a things as 'Christianity' in the first and second centuries, more like 'Christianities'. The Christianity we have today was one of numerous competing groups fighting for legitimacy. I wonder what the course of human history would have been like if say the Christian groups who practiced ritual group sex had won the battle for legitimacy instead?!
well it appears to me that such groups establish, by way of comparison, a kind of litmus
test for how much Christianity has moved away from its original precepts. One can see
the evolution from a pure form of worship to a kind of bastardisation of the reality.
Originally posted by Proper KnobI dont think its an accurate portrayal, clearly christians were organised to some extent,
As Bart D. Ehrman notes in his book Lost Christianities, there really wan't such a things as 'Christianity' in the first and second centuries, more like 'Christianities'. The Christianity we have today was one of numerous competing groups fighting for legitimacy. I wonder what the course of human history would have been like if say the Christian groups who practiced ritual group sex had won the battle for legitimacy instead?!
Paul speaks to Timothy of appointing older men in congregations, it continuing to give
public readings, etc etc The Christianity we have today is primarily a consequence of
the Romans substituting many of the offices associated with the pagan emperors, for
example, Pontifex Maximus, which is applied to the Pope, but was originally used with
regard to Caesar. Interesting is that the Bible counsels that such things as fornication
should not even be mentioned among christians, let alone practised.
Originally posted by robbie carrobieWell, 'original precepts' and 'historical precedence' can be essential and instructive sometimes. But their significance can also be overstated.
well it appears to me that such groups establish, by way of comparison, a kind of litmus test for how much Christianity has moved away from its original precepts.
1 edit
Originally posted by robbie carrobieI dont think its an accurate portrayal.
I dont think its an accurate portrayal, clearly christians were organised to some extent,
Paul speaks to Timothy of appointing older men in congregations, it continuing to give
public readings, etc etc The Christianity we have today is primarily a consequence of
the Romans substituting many of the offices associated with the pagan emperors, for ...[text shortened]... such things as fornication
should not even be mentioned among christians, let alone practised.
Sorry, what isn't?
Interesting is that the Bible counsels that such things as fornication should not even be mentioned among christians.
I'm talking about the period before the Bible existed.
Originally posted by Proper KnobI agree that factions arose, but these were the result of apostasy, or men seeking
There was no singular Christianity so to speak, rather a whole range of Christianities.
prominence, or in at least one instance, women, or in another because of some kind of
perception based on Greek schools, which had prominent leaders. Paul counselled
against this practice and the apostle John in 90 CE speaks of the christians not
tolerating sects.
-Removed-Care to explain why the early christians were also politically neutral, did the governing
body of Jehovahs witnesses have a time machine and transport themselves back in
time and deliver their mandates, do explain why the early christians were also
politically neutral, if you please.
Originally posted by FMFnot if one perceives that a bastardisation has occurred and one wishes to establish that
Well, 'original precepts' and 'historical precedence' can be essential and instructive sometimes. But their significance can also be overstated.
which has been lost, in fact, its significance can hardly be underestimated in such an
instance.
Originally posted by robbie carrobieFunny you should mention apostasy, the Ebionites thought that Paul was an apostate.
I agree that factions arose, but these were the result of apostasy, or men seeking
prominence, or in at least one instance, women, or in another because of some kind of
perception based on Greek schools, which had prominent leaders. Paul counselled
against this practice and the apostle John in 90 CE speaks of the christians not
tolerating sects.