Question about the history of Christianity

Chemical_Jacket said:

I think it's safe to say anyone who would say "1611 only" is not including the Apocrypha.

Click to expand...

Not necessarily. I hate making assumptions

rjcruiser said:

When people say "1611 only" it shows their ignorance on the subject....that the person can't deal rationally. Impossible to reason with someone like that...but it keeps me from wasting my time.

Click to expand...

True

rjcruiser said:

tsk tsk tsk. it is the deuterocanonical books.


And I'll add...if it is the 1611 KJV less the deutero books, it ain't the 1611 KJV.

Click to expand...

Swamp Runner said:

By whose authority were they removed?

Click to expand...

They did not "mesh" with a particular famous Protestant's "new ideas" on religious reformation. They were a stumbling block to his newfound intepretations.

It was the Archbishop of Canterbury .

Not to change the subject, but this is a good read. History is SO important for so many reasons, yet many don't know the foundations or histories of their faith.


http://www.greatsite.com/timeline-english-bible-history/
The Anglican Church’s King James Bible took decades to overcome the more popular Protestant Church’s Geneva Bible. One of the greatest ironies of history, is that many Protestant Christian churches today embrace the King James Bible exclusively as the “only” legitimate English language translation… yet it is not even a Protestant translation! It was printed to compete with the Protestant Geneva Bible, by authorities who throughout most of history were hostile to Protestants… and killed them. While many Protestants are quick to assign the full blame of persecution to the Roman Catholic Church, it should be noted that even after England broke from Roman Catholicism in the 1500’s, the Church of England (The Anglican Church) continued to persecute Protestants throughout the 1600’s. One famous example of this is John Bunyan, who while in prison for the crime of preaching the Gospel, wrote one of Christian history’s greatest books, Pilgrim’s Progress. Throughout the 1600’s, as the Puritans and the Pilgrims fled the religious persecution of England to cross the Atlantic and start a new free nation in America, they took with them their precious Geneva Bible, and rejected the King’s Bible. America was founded upon the Geneva Bible, not the King James Bible.

Protestants today are largely unaware of their own history, and unaware of the Geneva Bible (which is textually 95% the same as the King James Version, but 50 years older than the King James Version, and not influenced by the Roman Catholic Rheims New Testament that the King James translators admittedly took into consideration). Nevertheless, the King James Bible turned out to be an excellent and accurate translation, and it became the most printed book in the history of the world, and the only book with one billion copies in print. In fact, for over 250 years...until the appearance of the English Revised Version of 1881-1885...the King James Version reigned without much of a rival. One little-known fact, is that for the past 200 years, all King James Bibles published in America are actually the 1769 Baskerville spelling and wording revision of the 1611. The original “1611” preface is deceivingly included by the publishers, and no mention of the fact that it is really the 1769 version is to be found, because that might hurt sales. The only way to obtain a true, unaltered, 1611 version is to either purchase an original pre-1769 printing of the King James Bible, or a less costly facsimile reproduction of the original 1611 King James Bible.

I've read and studied some of the ECF's writing but I'm very careful with all of them.
I know there were already false teachers in the church even before the apostles began their record.
So I consider the ECF's writings as providing information about the day to day climate of and in the church,
but frankly, I'm just not willing to trust any of them when it comes to leaning me in one direction or another.
As RJ, I think, said, The 4 gospels and the book of Acts includes an awful lot of information concerning early church life.
Once I've totally and completely mastered the book of Acts, I might seek information someplace else.

Ronnie T said:

I've read and studied some of the ECF's writing but I'm very careful with all of them.
I know there were already false teachers in the church even before the apostles began their record.
So I consider the ECF's writings as providing information about the day to day climate of and in the church,
but frankly, I'm just not willing to trust any of them when it comes to leaning me in one direction or another.
As RJ, I think, said, The 4 gospels and the book of Acts includes an awful lot of information concerning early church life.
Once I've totally and completely mastered the book of Acts, I might seek information someplace else.

Click to expand...

How about the teachings of the Apostolic Fathers who were around before 200A.D.?

Surely they would have something of value being that some of them were taught and trained by the Apostles of Jesus. I would consider them an invaluable source of information.

I am not saying toss your Bible. I am saying, step over the line and read about the founders of Christianity. The Apostolic Fathers were actually there.

partial quote Ronnie
''I know there were already false teachers in the church even before the apostles began their record.''

I am curious about how that determination was made. Example of polar opposite may be Billy Graham and the guy praying for Obama. They both have people that believe them and they both claim to be men of God. Do you think it was that clearcut to the men putting the bible together ?

The founders of Christianity are contained in God's Holy Word. Paul warned me about those who would come later.
Those of the 2nd and 3rd century provide great insight, just like CS Lewis.

Ronnie T said:

I'm just not willing to trust any of them when it comes to leaning me in one direction or another.

Click to expand...

I am more willing to trust them since they were closer to the source. I would much rather read the letters of St. Ignatius of Antioch (a disciple of the Apostle John) than A Purpose Driven Life.

centerpin fan said:

I am more willing to trust them since they were closer to the source. I would much rather read the letters of St. Ignatius of Antioch (a disciple of the Apostle John) than A Purpose Driven Life.

Click to expand...

I would have to agree. How could those that were directly in contact with the Apostles and trained by them, be false prophets. I would be more leery of those who appeared in more contemporary times.

Absolutely mind boggling...

There are two ways to look at things when it comes to Christianity and that is Protestant vs Catholic. Bible alone or Bible with historical context. If you look at it as bible alone you will be one of the many hundreds of protestant denominations or sections of denominations. If you look at is as bible with historical context you will be catholic. As a famous theologian once put it: "to be steeped in history is to cease to be protestant." So it depends on how you look at it. One thing I would like to mention is that the bible itself was put together by men who decided what would be in it and what would not be in it. If we can't trust the men who put it together for the proper interpretation, then how can we trust that they put it together right in the first place?

CapeFearCatfish said:

There are two ways to look at things when it comes to Christianity and that is Protestant vs Catholic. Bible alone or Bible with historical context. If you look at it as bible alone you will be one of the many hundreds of protestant denominations or sections of denominations. If you look at is as bible with historical context you will be catholic. As a famous theologian once put it: "to be steeped in history is to cease to be protestant." So it depends on how you look at it. One thing I would like to mention is that the bible itself was put together by men who decided what would be in it and what would not be in it. If we can't trust the men who put it together for the proper interpretation, then how can we trust that they put it together right in the first place?

Click to expand...

What is the proper interpretation? Protestants themselves can not even agree amongst themselves. Why not look at a historical reference

centerpin fan said:

I am more willing to trust them since they were closer to the source. I would much rather read the letters of St. Ignatius of Antioch (a disciple of the Apostle John) than A Purpose Driven Life.

Click to expand...

For me, both must be tested against what Jesus and His apostles left for me.
I can learn from both, but I can live without either.

dawg2 said:

I would have to agree. How could those that were directly in contact with the Apostles and trained by them, be false prophets. I would be more leery of those who appeared in more contemporary times.

Absolutely mind boggling...

Click to expand...

I'll tell you what's mind boggling.
That my insistance on total adherance to Jesus and the original 12 would cause you to bang your head into a brick wall.

Ronnie T said:

I'll tell you what's mind boggling.
That my insistance on total adherance to Jesus and the original 12 would cause you to bang your head into a brick wall.

Click to expand...

You misundertsood, that is not what I meant

dawg2 said:

What is the proper interpretation? Protestants themselves can not even agree amongst themselves. Why not look at a historical reference

Click to expand...

Well, I'm a bit slow tonight. I just realized that you want to debate the everloving Prot vs Cath issue again.
I got more important things to do.

Ronnie T said:

Well, I'm a bit slow tonight. I just realized that you want to debate the everloving Prot vs Cath issue again.
I got more important things to do.

Click to expand...

That was not my intent either

My questioning is why the study ENDS at the Bible and doesn't continue with the "early Christians."