This Forum is now inactive and has been replaced by a new Christogenea Forum. You may browse here but there are no updated threads or new posts since January 1st 2017. Forum members please see THIS NOTICE for information concerning your account at the new forum.

When did the church go wrong?

Discussions about mainstream "jew-dei-ized" religions

When did the church go wrong?

Postby disciplemate » Wed May 13, 2015 7:21 pm

Hello everybody, I was wondering when the church became corrupted and apostatized. Also, does anyone know the theology of the early church fathers. Thanks
disciplemate
 
Posts: 79
Joined: Wed May 13, 2015 7:13 pm

Re: When did the church go wrong?

Postby brucebohn » Thu May 14, 2015 9:58 am

The "Catholic church" was Pagan, basically from it's inception!
Some 1500 years running.. The early Church fathers { pre-
Catholicism} thru the 300 years of persecution were without
doubt, CHRISTIAN IDENTITY....Paul being the first.
"Do you not know that with those running in a race,while all run,
but one takes the prize? In that manner you run, in order that you shall obtain."
1Cor. 9:24
User avatar
brucebohn
 
Posts: 689
Joined: Mon Feb 18, 2013 1:22 pm
Location: GEORGIA

Re: When did the church go wrong?

Postby disciplemate » Thu May 14, 2015 7:29 pm

I have heard it mentioned the church was good up until the council of Nicea (325ad)
Since the catholic church (post Constantine) it became Pagan.
But in regards to the early church father, were their writings mostly in line with Christian Identity? Are there any quotes that match CI from their writings? Thankyou.
disciplemate
 
Posts: 79
Joined: Wed May 13, 2015 7:13 pm

Re: When did the church go wrong?

Postby wmfinck » Thu May 14, 2015 9:19 pm

Some writings of the earliest Christians were in line with aspects of Christian Identity. And certainly Paul of Tarsus was an Identity Christian, as I have shown over and over again in my expository presentations of his epistles.

However early Christian writers were all over the map concerning many aspects of Christianity, while they were in general agreement on many others.

Ostensibly, this is because of the persecution and the difficulty Christians had in communicating the minutiae of the faith with one another under the circumstances.

Some things were also taken for granted that are a matter of dispute today. For instance, and as I have recently pointed out, to Martin Luther, the all of the Gentiles of the "whole world", as he explicitly said, had already accepted Christ.

Luther knew about all the alien peoples and other religions outside of Europe who were certainly NOT Christian, and therefore Luther's "whole world" must have only included Christian Europe!
Image
If a jew is moving his lips, he's lying. If you see a rabbi, there has already been a crime!
User avatar
wmfinck
Site Admin
 
Posts: 2775
Joined: Fri Jul 03, 2009 2:09 am

Re: When did the church go wrong?

Postby MichaelAllen » Fri May 15, 2015 1:04 am

disciplemate wrote:Hello everybody, I was wondering when the church became corrupted and apostatized. Also, does anyone know the theology of the early church fathers. Thanks


disciplemate... PM me if you like. I'd like to talk to someone privately who has this same nagging question b/c I want to pitch ideas back and forth before I stir up anything on a public forum. But to keep an interesting conversation... I'll give my thoughts.

I believe that by the end of the first century, something alarming had happened. Personally, I do not date Revelation in the 90s (which goes against how Eusibias interpreted a statement by Irenaus and many others who follow Eusibias' opinion on this matter), but this is just my opinion. So, in my viewpoint, from AD70, until about 120 AD, there is roughly a period of 50 years where we have no Christian documents that give us any kind of information about the condition of the early church. All of the apostles (save one) had been martyred or assassinated. Jesse Hurlbut calls this period the age of shadows in his book "The Story of the Christian Church," and he states that this period is the one period of church history about which we know the least - virtually nothing in fact.

Also, Sir James Frazer, who wrote "The Golden Bough" said that by the end of the second century, Christianity's original teachings of Christ and the Apostles had disappeared.

This is significant, because what we can read in Patrologica Grecae (Greek Fathers) has a very similar undertone to what you would find in almost any orthodox kind of church today.

At the same time, there was a jewish rabbi in the 1950s named Gerson D. Cohen who admitted that the theology of the apostolic church in the first century had given up its claim as Israel in favor of some sort of "spriritual succession."

I've posted that statement on the forum before, but for you to read it, I'll post again.

One other source for the self-conscious assertion of the election must be mentioned, for here strangely enough the Jews were the cause of their own embarrassment. The effectiveness of Jewish missionary activity, it is well known immeasurably facilitated Christian preaching of the Gospel to the Gentiles. What is often glossed over is the claim of the Christian preachers to represent the true Israel, their contention that the new sect was the rightful heir to God's revelation to the Patriarchs, Moses, and the Prophets. The Talmudic community, beginning with the second century often found itself forced to defend its claim to the title of Israel. One of the deep sources of tension between Judaism and Christianity - one that never appeared in Jewish-Muslim relations - was the debate of two pretenders to the same title. For reasons of prudence, the Christian Church later chose not to emphasize the question of the Israelite name; but the claim to succession is one which the Church never has given up. The Jew, in turn, all the more aggressively affirmed his lineage and his election against all pretenders. Jacob was again at war with Esau over the primal birthright.

So, what appears to have happened, in my thinking... the jews won the theological subversion by the second century. Now, this jew rabbi tells you that by the second century the jews found themselves forced to defend their claim to the title of Israel. Now, he says that the jews never had this problem with muslims... only the Christians. And that makes perfect sense, because the converts to mohammedism were generally speaking mixed race arab/canaanite/ishmaelites. This struggle only took place between Jacob and Esau, and with that in mind, if the study of Judea's ethnographic history in the inter-testamental period were a required course by all seminary students today, we would not have anywhere near the confusion that abounds today in the mainstream churches, and they could finally understand why both the edomite king Herod and "ALL JERUSALEM WITH HIM" were upset that Baby Jesus had been born. They knew who God was going to reaffirm His covenant with...

And when Paul states that his mission was to take the gospel to the "nations" (and we know he means Israel nations), it is the jews who say that he shouldn't be allowed to live.

You put all these things together and a picture begins to be painted for us.

One day when I have about $10K to drop on Patrologica Grecae, I'd love to buy copies in full. I don't know if there has ever been within CI an exhaustive search in the early church fathers for anything that would give us some insight as to whether or not these men knew who Israel really was... but isn't it very odd, and it's an unsolved mystery to me, that this jew rabbi says that "FOR REASONS OF PRUDENCE THE CHURCH LATER CHOSE NOT TO EMPHASIZE THE QUESTION OF THE ISRAELITE NAME."

Could this have been the very singular dogma that they sought to destroy out of the assemblies which Paul had helped establish during his ministerial years? What might those reasons of prudence be? Perhaps, the early church conceded to this - maybe a bargain was struck. Who knows?

You think about every dogma that the judaizers tried to hoist on early Christians. Paul fought off all of that non-sense, and took it right back to Abraham, Isaac, Jacob and his sons, and this was Paul's capstone: the covenants of God are established via a specific lineage. Well, the jews (of edomite/canaanite stock) have no place in the kingdom of God, and cannot be accepted. This is what they were confronted with, and so they naturally fought against it.

So, it would be in our interests to exhaustively research the early church fathers, but I honestly doubt that any of these men really understood it.

It is interesting though that the legends of Christianity in Britain state that several members of the family of Jesus went to Britain after his life and ministry. They began what we know today as the Celtic Church. I know an abbott in the Celtic Church of Scotland personally... but guess what they all know? They all know who Israel is.
MichaelAllen
 
Posts: 253
Joined: Mon Jul 08, 2013 1:35 pm

Re: When did the church go wrong?

Postby disciplemate » Fri May 15, 2015 6:55 am

fascinating topic really, especially the celtic church origins and what they believe today.
disciplemate
 
Posts: 79
Joined: Wed May 13, 2015 7:13 pm

Re: When did the church go wrong?

Postby Gaius » Fri May 15, 2015 9:04 am

Michael, an interesting quote from Gerson D. Cohen --

1) "Jews" are responsible for the spread of Christianity ... :shock:

2) Just a guess, but "reasons of prudence" could refer to the persecutions of Christianity, apparently instigated by Edomites themselves according to Bill's historical accounts.

If so, an interesting juxtaposition of ideas in old Gerson's writing .... :D

As said, interesting additional information on the church of our Islands here.
It's been a while since entering any one of them, but some of the present-day assemblies here claim a connection to the original Celtic Church. This is often coupled with their justifications to "reach out" to non-Europeans in order to "save" them ...
Glad to hear of your Scottish connection, however, which bucks the unwholesome trend.
What shall we then say to these things? If God be for us, who can be against us?
(Romans 8 v 31)
User avatar
Gaius
 
Posts: 343
Joined: Wed Mar 12, 2014 8:27 am
Location: Ulster

Re: When did the church go wrong?

Postby wmfinck » Fri May 15, 2015 10:26 am

I have a copy of the writings of the early "Church Fathers", as they are called, in a computer program called Logos Bible Software, which I have used for researching various topics, but because I can only run it on one old Windows computer (it won't run on Linux) it is not very comfortable to sit and read. It is not like having an actual book.

But I have quoted them in Christreich and several other writings. I have read portions of Origen and Irenaeus from them, but not enough to make any valid assessment in this regard.

Except for Bede, Eusebius, and a copy of Tertullian's Apology and Against Spectacles I had no access to any of the early Christian writings during my studies, and was only interested in concentrating on earlier histories anyway. I have, however, read those.

Tertullian alluded to a few things that we profess in CI, and so did Justin Martyr, and I have quoted them, but I have not read all of their writings. However Michael is right, that much of what Tertullian says is found in the doctrines of modern churches.

But I think Eusebius is far worse. When I read his Ecclesiastical History, I got the impression that he could probably be a Catholic priest today and not have to change much from the things he had written so many years ago.

Of course, Bede was every bit an early Catholic. From his simplistic accounts one may get the impression that the only major contention he had with the Celtic Church was the calculation of the day for Easter (not Passover).

MichaelAllen wrote:I believe that by the end of the first century, something alarming had happened....


Something did, no doubt, happen by the 3rd century. And that is where we see writers such as Tertullian and Origen, who are among the more popular of the "Church Fathers". Irenaeus wrote in the mid-2nd century. Polycarp and Justin Martyr were earlier. But even if we studied them, we have no amount of certainty that we are studying exactly what they had actually written.

If what remains of their writings does not continue the tradition of the Gospel of Reconciliation carried forth by the apostles, then we can be certain that something is missing.

However in my first post here I did want to stress that terms such as "world" used by early writers did not mean what they are believed to mean today. For that reason, I can imagine that early Christians may have taken some things for granted which we do not understand today.

It is also evident to me, that early Christians understood the letters of Paul. The Romans and Greeks, all of whom could read Greek, could read Romans 4, Galatians 3&4 or 1 Corinthians chapter 10 and know exactly what Paul was saying. So they did not have to repeat it. The meanings of those epistles may well have also been taken for granted, until they were forgotten or purposely obfuscated.

MichaelAllen wrote:One other source for the self-conscious assertion of the election must be mentioned, for here strangely enough the Jews were the cause of their own embarrassment. The effectiveness of Jewish missionary activity, it is well known immeasurably facilitated Christian preaching of the Gospel to the Gentiles. What is often glossed over is the claim of the Christian preachers to represent the true Israel, their contention that the new sect was the rightful heir to God's revelation to the Patriarchs, Moses, and the Prophets. The Talmudic community, beginning with the second century often found itself forced to defend its claim to the title of Israel. One of the deep sources of tension between Judaism and Christianity - one that never appeared in Jewish-Muslim relations - was the debate of two pretenders to the same title. For reasons of prudence, the Christian Church later chose not to emphasize the question of the Israelite name; but the claim to succession is one which the Church never has given up. The Jew, in turn, all the more aggressively affirmed his lineage and his election against all pretenders. Jacob was again at war with Esau over the primal birthright.


Any well-grounded Identity Christian who has a basic understanding of Daniel, Paul, and the Revelation from our historicist viewpoint can see that the Jew who wrote this is right, merely by comparing the surviving epistles of Peter and Paul to the clueless Ecclesiastical History of Eusebius. Except that we won't agree with "for reasons of prudence". Prudence my ass!

There is a greater dynamic here that we cannot forget, and that is the hand of God.

Isaiah 42 wrote:16 And I will bring the blind by a way that they knew not; I will lead them in paths that they have not known: I will make darkness light before them, and crooked things straight. These things will I do unto them, and not forsake them. 17 They shall be turned back, they shall be greatly ashamed, that trust in graven images, that say to the molten images, Ye are our gods. 18 Hear, ye deaf; and look, ye blind, that ye may see. 19 Who is blind, but my servant? or deaf, as my messenger that I sent? who is blind as he that is perfect, and blind as the LORD'S servant? 20 Seeing many things, but thou observest not; opening the ears, but he heareth not. 21 The LORD is well pleased for his righteousness' sake; he will magnify the law, and make it honourable.


Yahshua Christ Himself prophesied universalism, for instance in the Parable of the Net.

But He is the same God who gave us these words through Obadiah: "15 For the day of the LORD is near upon all the heathen: as thou hast done, it shall be done unto thee: thy reward shall return upon thine own head. 16 For as ye have drunk upon my holy mountain, so shall all the heathen drink continually, yea, they shall drink, and they shall swallow down, and they shall be as though they had not been." Ezekiel chapters 37 through 39 are a parallel prophecy.

How could these things happen, how could the words of the prophets be fulfilled, if we had not suffered a universalist church? If the ancient sins of Israel can be boiled down to one word, I would say "idolatry", and Identity Christians should know all that encompasses, but the world would not. So for the world, I will call it "egalitarianism". All the heathens are eating upon the mountains of Israel, and in the end Yahweh will cure us of our egalitarianism once and for all.

The blindness was imposed on Israel for her sins, and it is necessary in order that the Word of God to be fulfilled. The persecution of Christians to the point where the Apostles themselves are ignored in favor of a universal church accomplishes several things:

1) It ensures that Israel would be blind and therefore these prophecies would be fulfilled.

2) The truth of the Word of God was nevertheless preserved in His apostles, and in spite of their epistles that blindness for most of us has not yet been lifted.

3) That God is true, only He can save us, and only He can rule over us. These are the lessons we must learn in our period of blindness, wherein every scheme of government by man has failed.

Therefore, if one does not find Identity Christianity in the early Church writers, it matters not. What matters are the Gospels, the law, the prophets and the apostles. Identity Christians must represent themselves as the awakening from blindness portrayed by the Elijah ministry of Malachi chapter 4, because that is what we are.
Image
If a jew is moving his lips, he's lying. If you see a rabbi, there has already been a crime!
User avatar
wmfinck
Site Admin
 
Posts: 2775
Joined: Fri Jul 03, 2009 2:09 am

Re: When did the church go wrong?

Postby MichaelAllen » Fri May 15, 2015 11:05 pm

Gaius wrote:Michael, an interesting quote from Gerson D. Cohen --

1) "Jews" are responsible for the spread of Christianity ... :shock:


Gaius, I'm not sure you caught this rabbi's deceptive undertone...

He's saying that it was only because "Jews" were out making converts that Christians (whose original members were all Jews) were able to make converts in the "new sect" --- Now, this is how he'd prefer that we understand it. In reality, we know that there were Israelites in Judea (translated in the NT as jews), and there were non-Israelites in Judea (also... translated as jews). But nonetheless, he's trying to connect in your head the idea that Christianity came from edomite jewry - he does this by using words where he knows semantic meanings have been imposed upon them. So, he uses the word Jew - but that is part of the deception.

The fact is, there were some sincere efforts on the part of the true Judahites in the aftermath of the Babylonian exile to set up synagogues and teach the laws of Moses. This is stated by the apostles in Acts 15:21... "For from ancient generations Moses has had in every city those who proclaim him, for he is read every Sabbath in the synagogues."

So, there was some sort of effort by the real Judahites to proselytize pagans of Europe (their scattered Israelite kinsmen) back into the teachings, the ethics, and the religion of Hebraism. But we must recognize above all though that Hebraism, and NOT judaism, is the forerunner theology to Christianity. This began to deviate though heavily in the aftermath of the Hasmonean dynasty as non-Israelites were brought into the community of Judeans as "brethren" - even though they were rejected by Yahweh. The idea of "spiritual Israel" actually began LONG before the orthodox churches taught it. In that time, you became Israel if you followed the law. Paul says hogwash. Today, we have a similar situation. Churchgoers think that you become "spiritual Israel" if you go to church. To this, we Identity Christians say: hogwash. If Edomites could not be accepted by God into the covenant 2000 years ago, then how in the world does the modern church intend to explain their efforts to convert niggers, asians, mestizos, middle easterners, etc. etc. etc.??? That makes not one bit of sense to me.
MichaelAllen
 
Posts: 253
Joined: Mon Jul 08, 2013 1:35 pm

Re: When did the church go wrong?

Postby disciplemate » Fri May 15, 2015 11:22 pm

Really enjoy reading these gems of information, so many things to get educated on! :)
disciplemate
 
Posts: 79
Joined: Wed May 13, 2015 7:13 pm

Next

Return to Churchianity

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 4 guests

cron