CHRISTIAN- MUSLIM DIALOGUE
Exodus 20:3 Thou shalt have no other gods before me.
Exodus 20:4 Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image, or any likeness of any thing that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth.
https://youtu.be/-x4Bz60irJo Christian- Muslim dialogue
https://youtu.be/0i-V7qr7Kbg Corpus Christi- Questions [I posted the video yesterday- but wanted to tag it to a post- Because I talked about current world issues as well, things that I feel are relevant right now]
.Muslim encounter at Kingsville Fire Dept.
.What makes Christianity unique?
.Muslims shared some of the same concerns as many Protestants
.Expressions of the Trinity
.The development of the office of Bishop- 5 main cities
.The ‘pre’ renaissance that took place within Islam
.Aquinas responds to Islamic apologists [13the century]
.Florence Italy- the Medici’s
.I bought him a Persian bible
.My Muslim friend [at Timons]
.Who gave Bobby a ride?
.Wycliffe- Huss- Coverdale
.Guttenberg came just in time
.Catholic church warned ‘you will have too many splits’.
.They indeed were correct
.I quote from the Quran at the end
PAST TEACHING [Past teaching I did that relates to today’s video- verses below]
John 6:63 It is the spirit that quickeneth; the flesh profiteth nothing: the words that I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are life.
https://youtu.be/--3fJK_dqiU John 6
.See the quads
.it was a test
. ‘We don’t have enough money for the ministry Jesus’?
.What did Jesus do- multiply the money- or the bread?
.Don’t leave the crumbs behind
.Nungesser’s bowling alley
.The acid trip
.Manna a sign
.A little Greek stuff
.Proof texting a no no
MY LINKS [verses below]
MY LINKS ON JOHN
The renaissance was the 13-14th century revival of culture and learning that was lost for centuries- It began in Florence Italy.
The catch phrase for it was ‘Ad Fontes’ meaning ‘back to the sources’- both in philosophy- as well as in Christian learning.
This began a revival of studying the Greek New testament again from its original language.
The Catholic Humanist- Desiderius Erasmus [15-16th century] - re introduced the New Testament in the Greek version [He was referred to as a Dutch renaissance Humanist- as well as a Catholic Priest and scholar]
Now- Erasmus was a critic of the Church- like Luther- but chose a ‘middle road’- he did not join the breakaway Protestant Reformers- but chose to stay within the fold of Rome- while speaking out against the abuses he saw.
But his first Greek translation of the New Testament did indeed set a spark- because it allowed the Priests to see the bible in its original language.
And Luther was actually teaching this book of Romans to his students in Germany when the Reformation began.
Today the Catholic Church [as you can see in the official Catechism that I have been posting] does indeed teach the bible as God’s Word.
The divisions between Protestants and Catholics are many- but they did agree that the bible was the Word of God.
Some Protestants do not know this- they think the church holds Tradition higher than the bible.
No- the church does believe that God speaks both thru tradition- and scripture.
They see the tradition of the church as simply another means by which God uses the church [Magisterium] to explain scripture- but the Catholic Church does not elevate tradition over the bible.
And indeed- it was a catholic scholar- Erasmus- who introduced the first Geek version of the New Testament.
NOTE- Erasmus disagreed with Luther on the doctrine of Predestination- which I covered in the last video. Luther was for it- Erasmus was what we would call ‘Free Will’.
In his writings- which were very influential- he wrote in Greek and Latin- the language of the elites.
He did this on purpose- for his target was the influential leaders of the Church.
He rejected offers of money- because he did not want to align himself with any particular movement- so he could be an independent writer with no strings attached.
He had many criticisms of the Catholic Church- and was very influential for the later reforms- those we see at the Council of Trent [Though the church criticized him- they said he ‘Laid the egg that hatched the Reformation’].
He taught that the church/priests/popes should be the servants of the people-
He rejected the idea that the Priests/leaders made up the ‘whole of the church’- but he believed all believers made up the true church.
Erasmus was a firebrand in his own way- rejecting the language that Luther and some of the reformers used [they were vulgar at times]-
Luther respected the works of Erasmus- he thanked Erasmus for debating with him on the nature of Justification by Faith-
He disagreed in the end- but said this debate was at the heart of the gospel- and was glad that Erasmus was willing to engage.
The famous renaissance artists- DaVinci- Michelangelo- Raphael- used their artwork as a form of knowledge- the images taught things- they were not just paintings.
DaVinci’s most famous work was his painting on the ceiling of the Sistine chapel in the Vatican.
It took him 4 years to complete.
The renaissance period- from about the 13/14th century to the 17th- [though there was a sort of Renaissance that took place- yes- in the Islamic world before the European Renaissance] was marked by what we term Humanism.
Today we associate this term with ‘secular Humanism’ which often has a bad connotation- especially among Christians.
But it meant something different back then.
It was a new focus on breaking the limits off of man- and for man to excel in knowledge and skill- and to see man as having value.
There was somewhat of a break away from the church in a sense- in that the church and its teachings were not the only source of wisdom for man.
But- Jesus himself taught that ‘the Sabbath was made for man- not man for the Sabbath’- so- the Humanist spirit- elevating the value of man- does have a Christian basis in my view.
Leonardo daVinci [15/16th century] was what we refer to as a true Renaissance man- meaning his knowledge was in many fields- not just art.
He actually considered himself a sculptor first- then an artist- though he is most famous for his Fresco mentioned above.
Here’s my study on The Reformation-
And my past teaching on the Western intellectual tradition-
Who is blind, but my servant? or deaf, as my messenger that I sent? who is blind as he that is perfect, and blindas the Lord's servant?
Hebrews 11:3 Through faith we understand that the worlds were framed by the word of God, so that things which are seen were not made of things which do appear.
(For we walk by faith, not by sight:)
13 Then cometh Jesus from Galilee to Jordan unto John, to be baptized of him.
14 But John forbad him, saying, I have need to be baptized of thee, and comest thou to me?
15 And Jesus answering said unto him, Suffer it to be so now: for thus it becometh us to fulfil all righteousness. Then he suffered him.
16 And Jesus, when he was baptized, went up straightway out of the water:
HISTORY OF EVERYTHING- 3
These all died in faith, not having received the promises, but having seen them afar off, and were persuaded of them, and embraced them, and confessed that they were strangers and pilgrims on the earth. Heb. 11:13
https://youtu.be/qJ5mLkAvdbQ 3minute tour
https://youtu.be/VZcQte2_7kU 3 History of everything
.CNN- what’s worse- Golf talk- or actual golf?
.Do you know the way to San Jose- I mean Diego
.Church- world history
.Luther and Erasmus
.Saint Ann- save me!
.Hippo North Africa
.Holy Roman Empire
. CNN- Martians or Golf?
Yesterday I wrote on the Brexit- https://ccoutreach87.wordpress.com/2016/06/25/the-well-john-4/ and don’t want to rehash the whole thing again.
But Today’s video goes a bit more in depth on the whole subject.
The history of man- and his desire to have an independent state [country].
From the era of the Reformation https://ccoutreach87.wordpress.com/protestant-reformation-luther/ - to the Puritans coming to America- to our breaking away from ‘our king’.
Yes- we too were Brits at one time- British colonies to be specific.
And we didn’t like Parliament taxing us- without representation.
So- we didn’t just ‘vote’ to have the Brits off our back- we shot and killed them!
When president Obama sided with Cameron [the British Prime minister] and sort of threatened ‘if you break away- you will be at the back of the line as trading partners’.
This upset the Brits- because it was coming from a country- that broke away from them!
But it is in the nature of man to want his own- independent- country.
In the bible- we see this accomplished- not by might-
Jesus had some men on his team- who were called Zealots.
The wanted a radical revolution- but Jesus said the kingdom was not about physical violence.
But we would gain our ‘independence’ by him going to the Cross for us.
We would then be beholden to no earthly empire- but become strangers and pilgrims in the earth- we would be citizens of a heavenly kingdom.
So yes- all people lean towards independence- and it seems like the Brexit will expand to other EU nations.
Whether that’s a good- or bad thing- time will tell.
But it seemed kind of condescending for the American media- and president- to give them a lecture on how they were a bunch of bigoted rebels- when we continue to celebrate every July 4th.
PAST POSTS [verses- news links- below]
https://youtu.be/pNQPQXvK3PU The Cross
https://youtu.be/1FiOQ0GVPA0 Fix it
https://youtu.be/Ag22VN7G2IU Hayden case
https://youtu.be/AbKv3FxqiEs Simple man
https://youtu.be/hnGmk0Lr32I Devil went in
Note- I’ve commented on the Hayden case the last few weeks. At the end of this post I pasted some of
I have taught in the past how some of our Founding Fathers were influenced- heavily- by Enlightenment thinking.
Alexander sought to implement the ideals of his teacher- he wanted to unify the known world under one people/culture- a belief that Aristotle held- a sort of ‘unified theory’ [Einstein] that would seek to bring all learning/knowledge together under one supreme [Divine] principle.
Alexander’s experiment was called Hellenization- which was the Greek worlds attempt to impose Greek culture/language on all their conquered enemies- and at the same time allow them to hold on to the their own culture too. Alexander did amazingly well at this experiment- at the young age of around 24 he had accomplished most of his mission. The cities were a sort of composite of Greek culture mixed in with their own culture- this is where we get the modern term Cosmopolitan.
Alexander died young and his kingdom was divided between 4 generals- one of them- Ptolemy- would himself make it into the history books because of his keen intellect.
The system of cosmology developed under him would last [and work!] until some 17-18 hundred years later when it was overthrown by the Copernican revolution during the time of Copernicus and Galileo.
Alexander’s generals would do their best to carry on the system of Hellenization- and other nation’s generals would keep the system going even after Greece fell. One of them- Octavian [Roman general] makes it into the history books by another famous name- Julius Caesar.
Alexander established a great library in the Egyptian city of Alexandria [named after him] and many of the great writings were preserved during this time.
The writings of Aristotle would be discovered again during the time of Thomas Aquinas [13th century Catholic genius/scholar] and this would lead to Scholasticism [a peculiar school of thought developed/revived under Aquinas] and give rise to the Renaissance.
Okay- before the birth of Christ- the Jewish people resisted the imposing of Greek culture upon them- you had the very famous resistance under the Jewish Maccabean revolt- where the Jews rose up and fought the wicked ruler Antiochus Epiphanies- and till this day the Jewish people celebrate this victory at Hanukah.
Eventually Rome would conquer the Greek kingdom and the Jewish people were allowed to keep their culture and temple- yet they were still a people oppressed. Hassidism [getting back to the beginning] developed during this attempt to not lose their Jewish roots- the Pharisees of Jesus day came from this movement.
Alexander was pretty successful in his attempt to unify language- even though the bible [New Testament] was written by Jewish writers- living under Roman rule- yet the original bible is written in the Greek language.
Bible scholars till this day study the Greek language to find the truest meaning of the actual words in the bible [I have a Greek Lexicon sitting right in front of me].
It would take a few centuries before a Latin version appeared on the scene [the great church father- Jerome- would produce the Latin Vulgate].
Yet it would be the re- discovery and learning of the Greek texts [under men like Erasmus- and the Protestant Reformers] that would lead to the Reformation [16th century] and other movements in church history.
The Jews had various responses to the empires that ruled over them during various times.
Alexander the Great instituted Hellenization- a sort of cultural compromise over the people he conquered.
They could keep their religious/cultural roots- but would be subservient to Alexander and Greek rule.
Some Jewish people rejected any compromise- we call them the Essenes- they moved out of town- so to speak, and lived in what we refer to as the Qumran community.
This was a few centuries before the time of Christ- and this was where the Dead Seas Scrolls were found in the 20th century.
A Bedouin boy was looking for his goats- threw a rock in a cave right off the Dead Sea- and that’s how we found the scrolls.
The scrolls might have been hidden there by the Essenes-
Now- when my friends asked me about them- I told them that it’s been a while since I read up on any of this- but to the best of my memory the thing that made them significant was the fact that they were very old manuscripts- from the bible- and they backed up what we had had all along.
(1235) 2ND CORINTHIANS 12- Before I get into a long history discussion with you guys, let’s hit a few verses. Paul says ‘when I was with you, did I gain a profit from you, take advantage of you?’ or ‘when I sent Titus, did he gain a profit from you?’ He then goes on and says the fathers lay up money for the kids, not the other way around. He says he has spent out of his own pocket for them, and he will continue to do so. He says he does all this so people won’t have the excuse ‘he’s just in it for the money’. Notice, Paul himself did not have the common mindset we see in ministry today. Often times financial appeals are made from Paul’s writings in Corinthians, these appeals often say ‘we are not asking for ourselves, but for you’ it is put in a way that says it would be wrong to not take money from people. That in some way not taking an offering would violate scripture. Paul flatly said he did not take money from them for personal use, nor would he. When the modern church uses Paul’s other sayings in this letter to appeal to giving, we need to share ‘the whole counsel of God’ not just a few verses that fit in with what we practice. Now, Paul speaks about being caught up into ‘heaven’ [Gods realm-Paradise] and hearing truths from God that were not lawful for men to speak. He states that God gave him truth that came from Divine revelation. If you skip a few pages over in your bible, you will hit Galatians. In the first chapter he says how after he was converted he did not confer with the other leaders at
but received teaching straight from God. Let’s discuss what revelation is, how
we come to know things. The last few centuries of the first millennium of
Christian history you had the ‘ Holy Roman Empire’
which was a political/religious union of church and state. Under the emperor
Charlemagne the territories of the empire were vast. Those who came after him
did not have the same control over the regions that were vast. Eventually you
had a form of rule arise that was called Feudalism; the sections of the empire
that were too far to benefit directly from Rome would simply come under the
authority of the local strongman [much like the present dilemma in Afghanistan,
I think it’s time to get our boys out of that mess]. People would come under
the authority of a ruler and he would lease out land to the citizens and they
would benefit from his protection. The citizens were called Vassals and the
land was called a Fief. At one point king John of England would do public
penance in a disagreement he had with the Pope and all of England would become a Fief under
the rule of the Pope. Now, this would eventually lead up to the development of
the strong nation states, an independent identifying with your state/region as
opposed to being under Rome
and the papacy. This type of independence would allow for the 16th
century reformation to happen under Luther. If it were not for Frederick
the Wise, the regional authority in Germany where Luther lived, he
would have never had the protection or freedom to launch his reformation.
Luther also had the influence of being a scholar at Wittenberg. Around the 12th-13th
centuries you had the first university pop up at the great cathedral of Notre
Dame in Paris.
The word university simply meant a co-operative effort from two or more people.
It applied to many things besides learning. It was also during this time that
the church began to develop a system of harmonizing Christian doctrine; she
began to do systematic theology. The writings of the Greek philosophers
[Aristotle] were rediscovered after centuries of them being hidden, and the
great intellectual Saint Thomas Aquinas would wed Aristotle’s ideas with
Christian truth. This became known as Scholasticism. Aquinas believed that men
could arrive at a true knowledge of God
from pure reason and logic. But man could not know all the truths about God and
his nature without ‘special revelation’ [the bible and church tradition]. All
Christians did not agree with Aquinas new approach to Christian truth, the very
influential bishop Bernard would initially condemn Aquinas over this. Bernard
said ‘the faith that believes unto righteousness, believes! It does not doubt’.
The Scholastic school taught that the way you arrive at knowledge was thru the
continuous questioning and doubting of things until you come to some basic
conclusions. These issues would be debated for centuries, and even in the present
hour many argue over the issue of Divine revelation versus natural logical
reasoning. Tertullian, an early North Afrcian church father, said ‘I believe
because it is preposterous, illogical’ he became famous for his saying ‘what
does Jerusalem have to do with Athens’ meaning he did not believe that Greek
philosophy should have any part with Christian truth. Origen, his contemporary,
believed the other way. So the debate rages on. Why talk about this here? Some
believers ‘believe’ in a type of knowledge called ‘revelation knowledge’ they
mean something different than the historic use of the term. Historically
‘revelation’ meant that which God revealed to us THRU THE BIBLE, not something
outside of the bible. For instance, the first canon of scripture put together
was by a man called Marcion. His ‘bible’ contained the letters of Paul and
parts of :Luke. He believed the revelation God gave Paul was for us today, not
the Old Testament or the historical gospels. He was condemned by the church as
a heretic. The point being some took Paul’s writings about receiving knowledge
from God as an indicator that what God showed Paul was different than what the
church got thru the other apostles. In point of fact the things that God
revealed to Paul, or to you or me; all truth is consistent, it will not
contradict any other part of Gods truth. Paul’s letters are consistent with the
gospels, not in contradiction. When believers cling to an idea that their
teachers are sharing ‘special revelation’ or a Rhema word that is somehow above
the scrutiny of scripture, then they are in dangerous territory. Paul did
appeal to his experience with God as a defense of his gospel, but he backed up
everything he said with Old Testament scripture. God wasn’t ‘revealing’ things
to Paul that were outside of the realm of true knowable ‘truth’. You could
examine and test the things Paul was saying, he wasn’t saying ‘because God
showed it to me, that’s why I’m correct’. So in today’s church world, we want
all the things we learn and believe to be consistent with what the church has
believed thru out the centuries. Sure there are always things that are going to
be questioned and true reform entails this, but beware of teachers who come to
you with ‘revelation knowledge’ or a ‘Rhema word’ that goes against the already
revealed word of truth.
(1427) THE LORD GAVE THE WORD; GREAT WAS THE COMPANY OF THOSE THAT PUBLISHED IT- Psalms 68:11 In the 14th century you had the Oxford scholar, John Wycliffe, challenge the church and publish an English bible that would be understood by the common man. His view of the true church was that all those who believed in Christ comprised the mystical Body of Christ thru out the ages; he held to the same view that many believers would later embrace. His works would eventually influence John Huss, the great Bohemian priest, and Huss too would preach a doctrine of the universal church which transcended institutional boundaries. In the 16th century William Tyndale would take up the charge to get the bible into the hands of the common man; he longed for the day that the simple plowman would know the scriptures as well as the trained clergy; Tyndale would die for the faith [as Huss] but would pray/prophesy that God would touch the heart of the king of England and make his word known. Henry the 8th would eventually place an English bible into every church building thru out his realm. The history of God getting his word into the hands of the common man is great, many divine interventions [or inventions!] came along just at the right time to aid in the efforts. Guttenberg would invent the printing press in the 15th century and Luther’s reformation would take off as his books and tracts would get published by the boat loads [as well as many other great teachers’ stuff- like Erasmus Greek New Testament bible]. The institutional church would resist the free flow of these writings, they feared that the people might teach wrong doctrine, or that the masses might interpret the bible in a wrong way. Were these fears groundless? Not really. Many did mess up in their reading of the bible, and others would start their own sects based on faulty interpretations. But for the most part God was in the business of getting his word out to as many people as possible. I have found over the years that believers have a sort of blind spot when it comes to the ‘sacred’ modes of transmitting the bible. For instance many well meaning men believe that the process of meeting in a building on Sunday, and the bible being preached to as many as you can get to come to the meeting; many feel that this expression [being only one of many] is the actual God ordained way of getting the bible taught to the people. Many who hold to this singular idea, to the point where they feel the doing of this is actually called ‘the local church’ will look down upon other means of getting the word out. The explosion of the internet has truly been the printing press of modern times. Many average believers now have the ability to reach the world from their computers; are their dangers with this process? Sure. Will some teach wrong stuff? As Sarah Palin would say ‘you betcha’. But all in all people should embrace the reality that we live in a day where once again the average saint has the ability to get the word out to the masses with little, or no cost. I don’t want people to get me wrong, going to ‘church’ to hear the sermon is fine [most of the times!] but the bible does not teach the concept that the meeting of believers in buildings on Sunday is actually called ‘the local church’. For sure this is an expression of ‘local church’ it is a way that many believers have come to practice their faith; but it would be wrong to exalt this view of church to the point where we hinder others who are getting the word out in many different ways. In the New Testament, the ‘local churches’ referred to communities of believers who lived in your city/region- the term does not refer exclusively to meeting in a lecture hall environment to hear a lecture! Psalms says God gave the word and great was the company of those that published it; lets rejoice in the fact that we live in a time where a great company of people can ‘publish it’.
(527) I was reading on a movement of Christians out of Austin who left the concept of ‘church’ as being the ‘place we go to on Sunday’ and have relocated their families to the lower class areas of town. These are Chinese believers who are seeing ‘church’ as community. I also remember reading an article a few years ago on ‘out of church Christians’. The article spoke on why so many people are ‘leaving church’ and addressed a lot of good things. Later in the article the writer then talked about ‘coming back from the wilderness journey into the church’. He still ‘saw’ church as the Sunday meeting. He misread what God was doing. Those who have left the ‘Sunday church model’ are not ‘in the wilderness’ so to speak. They are seeing ‘church’ as the entire community action that they are involved with. This is much different than simply ‘seeing’ the people who are ‘leaving Sunday church’ as disgruntled or dissatisfied believers. The new paradigm [really not new, it was around for the first few centuries] sees the actual community of people as ‘the church’. So for these to then see ‘going back to the Sunday model’ as coming out from the wilderness is not seeing the heart of the movement. I also read the critics who are against the ‘emergent model’. Some feel that they are giving in to liberal trends in theology [I am sure some are] and are fighting against the community model thinking they are ‘defending the faith’. You don’t have to embrace theological liberalism to see this new way of doing church. The first century Apostles were certainly not theological liberals, but they viewed church as community. I just thought I would share these few thoughts today, hope it helped. NOTE; Another interesting fact about the ‘out of the church building’ movement is that the Lord allowed for there to be a whole new way to communicate this truth thru the internet. During the time of the reformation you recently had the printing press invented by Guttenberg. It’s like the Lord opened up a door of mass communication right at the time of him raising up prophetic voices who would speak into the church at large. There were new groups of believers for the first time publishing all these small articles [Tractarians] and these writings were having a tremendous impact on the church. So today you have the availability of the net to allow the ‘common voices’ to speak into the church at large. This is actually part of the concept of the corporate voice versus the singular one [Pastor]. Many home church movements see the teaching of Paul in Corinthians as telling the church to all have an input, not just one main speaker. This is what is happening thru the net. Many voices are being heard. You then of course have the danger that our Catholic brothers raised during the reformation. The Catholics [some] believed if the bible was translated from Latin into the common language there would be all sorts of interpretations and stuff. Some of this came true! You had certain radical people who started ‘Waco’ [Muenster Prophets? If I remember well] type cults during this time. And it was a result of individuals coming up with their own ‘private’ interpretation of scripture. But the answer wasn’t to stifle the church, but to allow all believers to freely read and see the truth of God, despite the danger of a few going off track. So in the world of ‘being on line’ you can see a real revolution take place, are there possible areas of danger? Sure. But overall the internet has become a ‘printing press’ for the modern reformation! NOTE; another result of the reformation was the fact that many new believers would no longer ‘pay tithes’ into the old system. The instigating factor of the reformation was the abuse of indulgences, a money issue! So likewise today you are also seeing the strong ‘tithe or you are under the curse’ versus ‘give to your brothers in need’ mentality. It is only normal for those dependant on the tithe to fight against this. They see all the good things they want to accomplish, and they realize it can’t be done unless so many people tithe. The new churches are getting away from this. They see the actual concept of all Gods people living every day as ‘the church’ to be the real ‘change factor’ in the world. They don’t view the need for lots of money to come into the institution, they see all the people as the ‘institution’ and therefore the act of releasing them into the harvest will have a greater effect than all the money in the world.
(594) . Let me cover some church history. I have had someone argue with me about the history of Islam. Not a Muslim, but a Christian who was saying ‘why do you say Islam started in the 7th century, it started around the 11th’. My answer was ‘Muhammad lived in the 7th century’. Not to hard to see this. So I thought I should cover some history. During the time of the rise of Islam, the Christian church was already dividing from east and west. After Constantine [4th century Roman emperor] consolidated the Roman Empire in the 4th century he set up the capital city of the eastern empire, Constantinople [named after him]. As time progressed the western church would take on the form of Roman Catholicism, the eastern [Constantinople area. Modern day Turkey-Istanbul] would be known as ‘Orthodox’. Though the official split of eastern and western [Catholic-Rome!] churches occurred in 1054 AD, yet the division started years before. The official split is called ‘the great schism’ of the 11th century; it would not be until 500 years later that the church would have her ‘reformation’. The official reason for this split was over a rather silly thing. For centuries the Catholic church had an expression that said ‘the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father’ than they included ‘he proceeds from the father and the Son’. Well the eastern brothers didn’t like Rome telling them what to believe and used this as the official reason to ‘have the schism’. To be honest the divisions were coming for years. After the Roman Empire consolidated under Constantine, he tried to strengthen the eastern territories of his empire and for centuries you had the struggle for which region would be the most influential. At first you had 5 major areas that were divided under 5 main Bishops. As time went on the argument would be ‘which bishop has the most say so’ and it was really a power struggle. Finally Rome said ‘the bishop of Rome is the FIRST AMONG EQUALS [a term that many in the Protestant strain of the discipling movement would later embrace] he holds Peters seat’ and this is really where the divisions started. Eventually Muhammad would rise and Islam would take control of the eastern capital. This later became the reason for the crusades. The Catholic church wanted to regain the territories that she lost in the east. The eastern churches are very much Catholic in many ways. They also hold to a view of Christianity that sees man being ‘joined’ with God and becoming pleasing to God thru Christ’s grace uniting with us and making us like him. A perfectly scriptural view, but a different emphasis from the strong intellectual power that you read about from the western fathers of the church. The Catholic church is noted for her social action in ways that the eastern church is not. So both of these communions have good things to bring to the table. The Orthodox [eastern] churches would not be affected by the major social and political upheavals that took place in the west. The Renaissance, the Reformation and the Enlightenment had major impacts on western Christianity, while not affecting the eastern church in the same way. During the 13th- 15th centuries you would have ‘pre reformers’ rise up in the western church. John Wycliffe, the great Catholic Priest who was at the center of learning in France would become known for his translating the scriptures into the common language. Then you have John Huss and John Knox [3 Johns, scripture says 3 fold cords are not easily broken!] who would have their own influence in western Christianity. At this time you had whole movements of believers who would be seen as neither ‘western or eastern’ but restorationist [the restoring of the early practices and beliefs of the church] Peter Waldo would be the Father of the Waldensians and in the 12th century you would have the Albigenses in the south of France. These groups would be looked upon as ‘cults’ [though the term was not used yet] by the traditional church. So you can see how the church has been growing and reforming ever since the first century. Even though we see many divisions that exist till this day, there are strides being made for unity. The eastern and western church are very close to‘re uniting’ once again. While I do not personally hold to the doctrine of the Pope being the occupier of Peter’s seat, I also see him as a Christian man who is striving for unity in Christ’s church. Some believe the whole attempt for outward unity is futile. The more ardent Protestants see it as ‘the one world church of the anti christ’ I reject that language out of hand. Well I hope you got something out of this short overview of world history [real short!].
Part of the achievements of Constantine was his development of the eastern half of the Roman empire- whose capitol was named after him- Constantinople.
Over a period of years the early Roman church fought over whose bishop would have more influence- the bishop of Rome [Pope] or the bishop in the east.
Many bishops in the Catholic Church have disagreed over the influence of one bishop being greater than the others [the idea that all the bishops should have an equal voice at the church councils is called Collegiality].
This has caused splits within the Catholic Church thru the centuries [the last big one in the 19th century].
Eventually the early church split- and the Eastern Church separated from Rome.
The eastern empire [called Byzantium- the seat of the Eastern Orthodox Church] officially split in the year 1054.
Now- in church history we call this the Great Schism- even though the Protestant split which took place in the 16th century was greater in effect.
Okay- the Protestant reformers split over various issues- I have an entire study on the blog about this.
But the main issue became what we call justification by faith.
Over the centuries many good men- and average church goers- lost the main message of the New Testament- which was a message of being saved by the grace of God.
Many well meaning Christians were struggling to do penance in a way that sort of earned them their salvation thru works.
.Why did Paul work to support himself and others?
2Samuel 1:1 Now it came to pass after the death of Saul, when David was returned from the slaughter of the Amalekites, and David had abode two days in Ziklag;2Samuel 1:2 It came even to pass on the third day, that, behold, a man came out of the camp from Saul with his clothes rent, and earth upon his head: and so it was, when he came to David, that he fell to the earth, and did obeisance.
2Samuel 1:3 And David said unto him, From whence comest thou? And he said unto him
And the light shineth in darkness; and the darkness comprehended it not.
Note- Please do me a favor, those who read/like the posts- re-post them on other sites as well as the site you read them on- Thanks- John.#