Understanding Church History

[Nehemiah6]

i think its cause of things like that so many churches stick to simple topics and avoid preaching from OT

Very true. But it is a simple matter to tie the OT with the NT while preaching from the NT, which also keeps things in perspective. The OT was being constantly quoted by Christ and the apostles, and there are numerous *types* of Christ from Genesis to Malachi. Joseph the son of Jacob is one of the outstanding types.

 

[UnitedWithChrist]

I so agree that learning history is necessary to understanding scripture. The people who God used to explain God to us lived as much as 6,000 years ago. If we don't understand the way they thought or their customs we simply don't understand scripture.

We live in a world that even the bible tells us has lots of information in it. We can use this wealth of information to be prideful and arrogant, or we can use it to gain understanding.

The dead sea scrolls has turned up information about ancient times that had been lost. There are people who has searched this and teach it, with the net we can find these people.

A necessary study must be done of the first few hundred years after Christ. Just after Christ, the first 70 years of the church, it was led by church fathers were all men who knew the history of Gods teaching, It is necessary to know this history in order to understand the world Christ lived and taught in if we are to understand the gospels. In the wars following Christ, these men were killed off and the men who established our church policies were men who looked down on the Jews, did not want to learn about God as he taught before Christ, only Christ. There were even laws made against Jews. If you study Christian church councils it shows how this mindset created policies that have influenced church to this day to distort the truth.

Here are some names of men whose study of history and scripture has been a search for truth without bias so they can be trusted. Tom Bradford, John Klein, and Adam Spears. I found that it is necessary to closely check the background of authors of ancient history. These men need to have worked with the dead sea scrolls so they are familiar with the latest findings.

I recommend checking out backgrounds, too. By the way, "Torah observers" have bought into a conspiracy theory level view of Christianity. So, they have to be taken with a grain of salt, too. It is undeniable that the early Church had to deal with Judaizers. The Mosaic Covenant cannot be observed without the Temple and the Levitical priesthood, so their claim is incoherent. The Mosaic system has become an idol that some have tried to perpetuate, either in whole or in part. Worship the Reality (Jesus), not the Shadow (Mosaic Law ceremonial observances).

 

[UnitedWithChrist]

History is difficult, but the most dangerous is the history we are ignorant of.

Most who writes history has some sort of bias. It is up to us to learn what that is. It is also necessary to check the background and training of any writer of history. Often the more modern accounts of history are the most accurate because of new information that is discovered.

Yes, and I think distance from the actual events can actually prove beneficial, because those caught up in the events tend to make emotional overstatements. For instance, I don't believe all the Reformers' rhetoric concerning Roman Catholicism. They were too close to the situation, and experiencing persecution from the Roman Catholics, so they were prone to overstatements such as claiming the RC Church is the Babylonian whore. This may be a possibility but I think it's referring to this world's system as a whole, and not specifically to Roman Catholicism. It also sounds a lot like the Jews, because they are called "whores" by God in several OT verses due to their idolatry.

I respect the Reformers, but they were prone to overstatements in this regard. A good example of this type of rhetoric is the book "Two Babylons" by Alexander Hislop. He wrote a few centuries after the Reformers, but his propaganda and reasoning is obviously affected by his own anti-RC hatred.

By the way, I do believe Roman Catholicism is an apostate faith. I want to be clear on that. I simply don't believe all the propaganda which issues forth from the mouths of cultic groups and some Christian groups. For instance, it is absurd to claim that Roman Catholicism is the worship of Nimrod, Semiramis and Tammuz, and the methodology used by Hislop to prove it is juvenile. Yet cults and some Christians refer to Hislop as a credible source of information

 

[UnitedWithChrist]

I so agree that learning history is necessary to understanding scripture. The people who God used to explain God to us lived as much as 6,000 years ago. If we don't understand the way they thought or their customs we simply don't understand scripture.

We live in a world that even the bible tells us has lots of information in it. We can use this wealth of information to be prideful and arrogant, or we can use it to gain understanding.

The dead sea scrolls has turned up information about ancient times that had been lost. There are people who has searched this and teach it, with the net we can find these people.

A necessary study must be done of the first few hundred years after Christ. Just after Christ, the first 70 years of the church, it was led by church fathers were all men who knew the history of Gods teaching, It is necessary to know this history in order to understand the world Christ lived and taught in if we are to understand the gospels. In the wars following Christ, these men were killed off and the men who established our church policies were men who looked down on the Jews, did not want to learn about God as he taught before Christ, only Christ. There were even laws made against Jews. If you study Christian church councils it shows how this mindset created policies that have influenced church to this day to distort the truth.

Here are some names of men whose study of history and scripture has been a search for truth without bias so they can be trusted. Tom Bradford, John Klein, and Adam Spears. I found that it is necessary to closely check the background of authors of ancient history. These men need to have worked with the dead sea scrolls so they are familiar with the latest findings.

Glancing at info on Tom Bradford, John Klein and Adam Spears through a quick search..it seems like they are "Torah observers"? If so, I don't consider them to be credible sources of information. Again, those types of guys want to weave a narrative that comports with their presuppositions concerning the requirement for Christians to observe ceremonial elements of the Mosaic Covenant.

If I'm mistaken let me know. I haven't heard of any of these men, and I looked for some of the best volumes on church history. Again, I would warn against alternate narratives that are more akin to conspiracy theories. Such individuals have presuppositions that they are trying to support through their analysis of the historical facts. They reject what doesn't fit their presuppositions, and overexaggerate what fits their presuppositions.

 

[UnitedWithChrist]

One must be careful in regards to real and professing Christians and how they use history to support their teachings.

For instance, dispensationalists will commonly claim that their view was taught by early church fathers, but this isn't true. Some early church fathers taught chiliasm, but this is not dispensationalism. Dispensationalism claims that there are two separate people of God, the Jews and the Gentiles, and God has a separate plan for each group. In their theology, the Jews could have accepted Jesus, and the millennial kingdom would have started at his first advent. Because they rejected Jesus, the church age began, which is predominantly a Gentile movement. The early church fathers taught no such view. Some believed that there was going to be a literal 1000 year reign of Christ at his return, but none of them taught that Jews have a separate plan apart from the Church.

In the USA, dispensationalism is the predominant view amongst evangelicals. I don't think most Christians understand the four different views, but their default is dispensationalism because their pastor taught it to them implicitly. I have been studying this topic for a few years and I believe amillennialism is the most coherent view. I wouldn't be surprised if historical premillennialism is true, but I definitely don't believe in dispensationalism.

Most simply trust their pastor and/or church and don't look at the facts themselves. They are incapable of evaluating the facts because of their understanding of the Bible and church history.

 

[TheLearner]

I'd like to recommend a four-volume set of books by Nick Needham called '2000 Years of Christ's Power".

I have completed volume 2 of this set, and it is fantastic.

A knowledge of church history is very important because 1) it acquaints the reader with the sources of lots of modern-day heresies (there is nothing new under the sun) and 2) it forms a connection between us and our Christian brothers from the past.

There is an assumption in our society that "modern is better". Well, I don't agree with that when it comes to matters of the faith. In fact, Scripture prophesies that a great apostasy will occur, and I believe part of the reason is due to a lack of understanding concerning the history of Christianity.

As well, knowing church history is one of the most important tools to understanding the distortions that cults use in their propaganda. A well-respected Christian apologist has said that understanding church history is one of the main tools that is needed in order to understand the nature of cultic errors.

Nick Needham taught Nigerian seminary students church history. He found this was very difficult due to language barriers. So, when he authored these books, he used understandable English. The series is very thorough yet written in an understandable manner for the common reader. I have read other church history books and he is by far the best author I've read.

How much does he quote primary sources with correct citation?

 

[JohnRH]

The Pilgrim Church
by Edmund Hamer Broadbent

In this classic work Edmund Broadbent guides you through the trials, tribulations and triumphs in church planting through the centuries. He shows that there have indeed been relatively unknown and misunderstood groups of believers since the close of the New Testament, who have either left or maintained separation from the institutional church as a matter of child like faith in the Lord..

(available at Amazon)

 

[UnitedWithChrist]

How much does he quote primary sources with correct citation?

He gives proper references in the endnotes for each chapter.

Additionally, at the end of each chapter, he reproduces sections of original writings by individuals mentioned in the chapter, particularly on the topics mentioned in the chapter. I am guessing that the additional readings by church fathers and others are about ten percent of the book.

He has a separate book which is like a devotional, where he focuses on one early church father each month. You read a page per day by the church father of the month. I really like this additional book too. In the course of a year, you will learn something about twelve major church fathers.

 

[Blik]

I recommend checking out backgrounds, too. By the way, "Torah observers" have bought into a conspiracy theory level view of Christianity. So, they have to be taken with a grain of salt, too. It is undeniable that the early Church had to deal with Judaizers. The Mosaic Covenant cannot be observed without the Temple and the Levitical priesthood, so their claim is incoherent. The Mosaic system has become an idol that some have tried to perpetuate, either in whole or in part. Worship the Reality (Jesus), not the Shadow (Mosaic Law ceremonial observances).

I don't think your grain of salt theory is a good one to apply to learning what has happened to Christianity. The bottom line for Christians is scripture. It is idol worship, the worship of the sun as a God that historically started worship on the day labeled of the sun or Sunday and scripture the started worship on the day later labeled for Saturn, or Saturday. that it is scripture to worship on the seventh day of the week.

 

[Nehemiah6]

It is idol worship, the worship of the sun as a God that historically started worship on the day labeled of the sun or Sunday and scripture the started worship on the day later labeled for Saturn, or Saturday. that it is scripture to worship on the seventh day of the week.

Evil Saturn was a lot, lot worse than Sol. So take you pick.

And it is disingenuous to claim that Christians are worshipping the sun, simply because they worship on the first day of the week. That would be the same as saying Sabbatarians are worshipping Saturn, which is plain nonsense.

 

[UnitedWithChrist]

I don't think your grain of salt theory is a good one to apply to learning what has happened to Christianity. The bottom line for Christians is scripture. It is idol worship, the worship of the sun as a God that historically started worship on the day labeled of the sun or Sunday and scripture the started worship on the day later labeled for Saturn, or Saturday. that it is scripture to worship on the seventh day of the week.

Christians don't worship the Sun. This is ludicrous as saying that Sabbath observers worship Saturn. And, the requirement to observe the Sabbath is not in effect since the Mosaic Covenant is not in effect. See Acts 15, Gal 3-4, Rom 7:1-6, Eph 2:13-15, Heb 7,8, Col 2:16-17.

Christians meet on the first day of the week because of the resurrection. Jesus rose from the grave on the first day of the week. His resurrection body is the beginning of the new creation. Christians are participating in the "age to come" now, in one sense, so they identify with their Lord and Savior by attending services on the eighth day. The eighth day is the first day of the new week.

This was foreshadowed through the use of the number "8" and "50" in Scripture. For instance, Hebrew babies were circumcised on the eighth day, which is 7+1. This symbolizes a new creation, and was a foreshadow of regeneration through the Holy Spirit. The number "50", which is the same as (7x7)+1, is used in a similar manner. For instance, Pentecost was observed on the 50th day after the Sabbath within the Days of Unleavened Bread, and it relates to the beginning of a new humanity, possessing the Holy Spirit and in union with Christ.

Believers are not under the Mosaic economy, which is typified by 7. They are under the New Covenant, not the Old Covenant. They are participants of the age to come, and not the present evil age.

This transition began in the New Testament church. Jesus appeared on Sunday, and not on the Sabbath, after the Resurrection. Why, if it continues to be such an important day?

We meet with Jesus on the first day, just like the believers after the Resurrection.

By the way, here's a letter I wrote to a friend on this issue:

The number “8” has to do with the new creation, and so does the number “50”….which is (7X7) + 1.

Jesus worked 6 days (symbolically) in his ministry, and finished his work on the cross on Friday (“It is finished”) then rested in the grave on Saturday. He was resurrected on Sunday (day 8) as a new creation (in terms of his resurrection body; not in terms of being YHVH).

Jesus is the BEGINNING of the new creation; the firstfruits (I Corinthians 15, Revelation 3:1).

Hebrew children were physically circumcised on the 8th day, which is a physical type of the new birth or the new creation or being born again (Leviticus 12:3).

On the first Pentecost after the Exodus (which is calculated as the 50th day from the weekly Sabbath during Passover), the Israelites received the Law on Mount Sinai (by Jewish tradition), and became a new physical nation that typified the Church.

On the first Pentecost after the resurrection of Jesus, the Holy Spirit was received by the apostolic church, and the Church became a new spiritual nation; a kingdom of priests (Acts 2).

On the land sabbath year, at the end of the year, all debt was forgiven, and there is a new beginning starting in the eighth year (Deuteronomy 15:1-6). This is symbolic of Jesus and the forgiveness of our sins to begin a new life.

On the Jubilee year, which is the 50th year in the Israelite calendar system, all debts were forgiven and the land was returned back to the original property owners; in essence a new life and a restoration (Leviticus 25:8-15). For the believer, this relates to the liberation that we receive in Jesus, where our spiritual debt is forgiven.

So, these things point toward the new creation, which starts with Jesus’ resurrection. For us, regeneration (being born again) is the beginning of our new life. Ultimately, the new creation reaches fulfillment in a New Heavens and New Earth/New Jerusalem (Revelation 21-22).

I believe this is the theological justification for the day of worship being on Sunday rather than the Jewish Sabbath. I am convinced that the early church had SOLID THEOLOGICAL REASONS for the practice.

Jesus our Lord, the Church, and each individual Christian, is a new creation.

 

[GaryA]

Often the more modern accounts of history are the most accurate because of new information that is discovered.

I have to disagree. I definitely have to question the 'Often' part of that statement. Also, very often in the modern day, the "new information" is invented (i.e. - "made up").

 

[garee]

Why do you believe that this is true today

Thanks!

~Deut

Scripture God's word provides the faith by which I can know it is true it never stops be true. Why would the blood of the first martyr not be crying out to show spirit life was given as the favor of God ? The church as the bride of Christ did not begin at Pentecost .It became under a new or restored government .

The time of reformation came. It would appear Abel was the first acknowledge as a member of His bride the church. It is when people try and defend two brides where trouble comes in the one church .

 

[Deuteronomy]

[Abel's] blood still cries out longing to be clothed with the righteousness of Christ...

Hi Garee, someone whose, "blood cries out longing to be clothed with the righteousness of Christ", is someone who is not saved (at least as I understand that statement anyway). Like other OT saints, God withheld His righteous judgment against Abel until the day his sins could be atoned for and forgiven by the blood of Christ, but that occurred 2,000+ years ago, yes?

Thus my original question to you, since I believe that Abel is ~already~ "clothed with the righteousness of Christ". Surely I am misunderstanding what you are saying however, at least in part (especially considering what you just said in the post above), so where does my misunderstanding lie

Thanks for your help

~Deut

 

[Blik]

Glancing at info on Tom Bradford, John Klein and Adam Spears through a quick search..it seems like they are "Torah observers"? If so, I don't consider them to be credible sources of information. Again, those types of guys want to weave a narrative that comports with their presuppositions concerning the requirement for Christians to observe ceremonial elements of the Mosaic Covenant.

If I'm mistaken let me know. I haven't heard of any of these men, and I looked for some of the best volumes on church history. Again, I would warn against alternate narratives that are more akin to conspiracy theories. Such individuals have presuppositions that they are trying to support through their analysis of the historical facts. They reject what doesn't fit their presuppositions, and overexaggerate what fits their presuppositions.

I don't think there is any hope of orthodox Christians learning about Christianity. People who study the history of God in our world are labeled Torah observers. If you know the history of our Sunday worship, you are saying Christians worship the sun!!! You may learn that it was discovered that Christ rose on Sunday, but you must assume that means he actually rose on Sunday, not that it was discovered that day. To learn of ancient Hebrew history it would require learning the language they spoke, and that would make them "torah observers". That leaves any of the findings of the dead sea scrolls out as history,.

 

[Dino246]

I don't think your grain of salt theory is a good one to apply to learning what has happened to Christianity. The bottom line for Christians is scripture. It is idol worship, the worship of the sun as a God that historically started worship on the day labeled of the sun or Sunday and scripture the started worship on the day later labeled for Saturn, or Saturday. that it is scripture to worship on the seventh day of the week.

It's idol worship for Christians to worship on the day named for a star, but it's not idol worship for 'Torah observers' to worship on the day named for a false god? That is classic circular reasoning, and it is fallacious.

Christians worship on the day commonly known as Sunday, because that is the day on which the early Church worshiped. It's that simple. Any claim of idol worship is merely an accusation looking for a reason.

 

[garee]

I don't think there is any hope of orthodox Christians learning about Christianity. People who study the history of God in our world are labeled Torah observers. If you know the history of our Sunday worship, you are saying Christians worship the sun!!! You may learn that it was discovered that Christ rose on Sunday, but you must assume that means he actually rose on Sunday, not that it was discovered that day. To learn of ancient Hebrew history it would require learning the language they spoke, and that would make them "torah observers". That leaves any of the findings of the dead sea scrolls out as history,.

The first day of the week Sunday became the new era of ceremonial sabbaths . The day He said let there be light and the presence of God appeared.

The word rest (sabbath) is a completely non time sensitive word. That meaning rest as a foundation of the word was taken away by the translators changing it into a time sensitive word .

Moving it from the last day to the first was performed by the Holy Spirit . Again a non time sensitive word was changed as in most other translations to. . . towards first of week

Matthew 28 Young's Literal Translation (YLT) And on the eve of the sabbaths, at the dawn, toward the first of the sabbaths, came Mary the Magdalene, and the other Mary, to see the sepulchre,

Its sabbaths (plural) towards sabbaths . Not sabbath (singular ) toward first day of the week, But the new era as the first day of the week. Wednesday could of worked just as well . One out of seven as a shadow of the unseen eternal rest.

Matthew 28 King James Version (KJV) 28 In the end of the sabbath, as it began to dawn toward the first day of the week, came Mary Magdalene and the other Mary to see the sepulchre.

 

[iamsoandso]

One must be careful in regards to real and professing Christians and how they use history to support their teachings.

For instance, dispensationalists will commonly claim that their view was taught by early church fathers, but this isn't true. Some early church fathers taught chiliasm, but this is not dispensationalism. Dispensationalism claims that there are two separate people of God, the Jews and the Gentiles, and God has a separate plan for each group. In their theology, the Jews could have accepted Jesus, and the millennial kingdom would have started at his first advent. Because they rejected Jesus, the church age began, which is predominantly a Gentile movement. The early church fathers taught no such view. Some believed that there was going to be a literal 1000 year reign of Christ at his return, but none of them taught that Jews have a separate plan apart from the Church.

In the USA, dispensationalism is the predominant view amongst evangelicals. I don't think most Christians understand the four different views, but their default is dispensationalism because their pastor taught it to them implicitly. I have been studying this topic for a few years and I believe amillennialism is the most coherent view. I wouldn't be surprised if historical premillennialism is true, but I definitely don't believe in dispensationalism.

Most simply trust their pastor and/or church and don't look at the facts themselves. They are incapable of evaluating the facts because of their understanding of the Bible and church history.

You were doing fine until you wandered away to one of the four major groups...

 

[Blik]

The first day of the week Sunday became the new era of ceremonial sabbaths . The day He said let there be light and the presence of God appeared.

The word rest (sabbath) is a completely non time sensitive word. That meaning rest as a foundation of the word was taken away by the translators changing it into a time sensitive word .

Moving it from the last day to the first was performed by the Holy Spirit . Again a non time sensitive word was changed as in most other translations to. . . towards first of week

Matthew 28 Young's Literal Translation (YLT) And on the eve of the sabbaths, at the dawn, toward the first of the sabbaths, came Mary the Magdalene, and the other Mary, to see the sepulchre,

Its sabbaths (plural) towards sabbaths . Not sabbath (singular ) toward first day of the week, But the new era as the first day of the week. Wednesday could of worked just as well . One out of seven as a shadow of the unseen eternal rest.

Matthew 28 King James Version (KJV) 28 In the end of the sabbath, as it began to dawn toward the first day of the week, came Mary Magdalene and the other Mary to see the sepulchre.

The problem is not the day that is chosen to worship God, the problem is in reading scripture and believing in it. The topic we are discussing is understanding church history, not what day to worship. Scripture is the manual for the church. The manual plainly and completely tells us to worship on the seventh day, and also that the DISCOVERY of Christ having risen was on Sunday. In Acts we learn that the first members of the Christian church were Jews who followed Jewish customs. Scripture does not say to now change your worship day. There are postings here saying be careful of anyone studying the Torah, they are labeled Torah observers if they study these scriptures and that, they say, (Paul agrees about the rituals) discredits that study.

Actually, what this post is advocating is the study of how the church has interpreted scripture, not a study of how the Lord tells us our church should be.

 

[Dino246]

The manual plainly and completely tells us to worship on the seventh day

Where does it forbid worshiping on the first day?