Jump to content

Recommended Posts


  • Group:  Royal Member
  • Followers:  6
  • Topic Count:  5
  • Topics Per Day:  0.00
  • Content Count:  4,413
  • Content Per Day:  2.36
  • Reputation:   2,347
  • Days Won:  1
  • Joined:  05/03/2020
  • Status:  Offline

Posted

Was not the filioque also one the main drivers of the East/West schism?


  • Group:  Worthy Ministers
  • Followers:  32
  • Topic Count:  676
  • Topics Per Day:  0.09
  • Content Count:  59,941
  • Content Per Day:  7.65
  • Reputation:   31,343
  • Days Won:  327
  • Joined:  12/29/2003
  • Status:  Offline

Posted
27 minutes ago, teddyv said:

Was not the filioque also one the main drivers of the East/West schism?

Seems like I have read that.


  • Group:  Diamond Member
  • Followers:  7
  • Topic Count:  4
  • Topics Per Day:  0.00
  • Content Count:  2,114
  • Content Per Day:  1.49
  • Reputation:   885
  • Days Won:  1
  • Joined:  07/29/2021
  • Status:  Offline

Posted (edited)
4 hours ago, teddyv said:

Was not the filioque also one the main drivers of the East/West schism?

Yes, but I only thought of that after I posted. And i do not believe the Church which is the focus of this thread disagrees with Rome, so I did not add it

From what I recall of reading a couple of their books. That was also what really set off the schism, because the actually changed the council on the doctrine of the trinity. The other Bishops seen it as semi modalistic. Which reading the concepts behind the terms they used, the issue  was the relationship each person had with the other within the Godhead, distinguishing each one without confounding or confusion. When adding "and from the son", There was no longer the distinction of that relationship. So they did have a point there. So it was quite bold of the Pope to actually alter what had been agreed in the very first council/s all on his own.

Edited by Anne2

  • Group:  Members
  • Followers:  0
  • Topic Count:  12
  • Topics Per Day:  0.02
  • Content Count:  71
  • Content Per Day:  0.09
  • Reputation:   27
  • Days Won:  0
  • Joined:  04/09/2023
  • Status:  Offline

Posted
On 4/5/2023 at 8:44 PM, portlie said:

This has been bothering me for a while now, most records seem to state that the early church was catholic. Where can i find knowledge of the actual history of our church? 

 

Was the early church catholic? Yes. Was it orthodox? Yes.

Was it Roman Catholic? Yes, in Rome.

The Apostles Creed: I believe in the holy catholic* church

(*that is, the Christian church of all times and all places)

The Great Schism of 1054 divided the catholic church in two: The Eastern Orthodox and the Western Roman Catholic.

  • Thumbs Up 1

  • Group:  Members
  • Followers:  0
  • Topic Count:  12
  • Topics Per Day:  0.02
  • Content Count:  71
  • Content Per Day:  0.09
  • Reputation:   27
  • Days Won:  0
  • Joined:  04/09/2023
  • Status:  Offline

Posted (edited)
On 4/9/2023 at 6:08 PM, Anne2 said:

Yes, but I only thought of that after I posted. And i do not believe the Church which is the focus of this thread disagrees with Rome, so I did not add it

From what I recall of reading a couple of their books. That was also what really set off the schism, because the actually changed the council on the doctrine of the trinity. The other Bishops seen it as semi modalistic. Which reading the concepts behind the terms they used, the issue  was the relationship each person had with the other within the Godhead, distinguishing each one without confounding or confusion. When adding "and from the son", There was no longer the distinction of that relationship. So they did have a point there. So it was quite bold of the Pope to actually alter what had been agreed in the very first council/s all on his own.

The filioque was added in response to some dispute. I don't remember the details, but they were trying to head off some potential misunderstanding or heresy.  That it was added without a council was the real sticking point. No one had the right to add to what the council had agreed upon.

 

Edited by MichaelSnow

  • Group:  Diamond Member
  • Followers:  7
  • Topic Count:  4
  • Topics Per Day:  0.00
  • Content Count:  2,114
  • Content Per Day:  1.49
  • Reputation:   885
  • Days Won:  1
  • Joined:  07/29/2021
  • Status:  Offline

Posted (edited)
45 minutes ago, MichaelSnow said:

The filioque was added in response to some dispute. I don't remember the details, but they were trying to head off some potential misunderstanding or heresy.  That it was added without a council was the real sticking point. No one had the right to add to what the council had agreed upon.

 

Yes, that is my understanding of it. The other stuff, are doctrines that came about after the split. But the filioque, he reached back in time to the ecumenical councils of the very early Church. That did it. But the western reformers also have no problem with the addition and use it themselves (evidenced also on this site). So, I did not mention it because it didn't seem to speak the subject here.

Edited by Anne2

  • Group:  Removed from Forums for Breaking Terms of Service
  • Followers:  0
  • Topic Count:  6
  • Topics Per Day:  0.00
  • Content Count:  1,628
  • Content Per Day:  0.90
  • Reputation:   306
  • Days Won:  0
  • Joined:  06/23/2020
  • Status:  Offline

Posted

The early church was entirely Jews.  Gentiles only came in later, primarily because of Paul's activity.  The Catholic (capitalized) denomination was formed later, as was the Orthodox denomination, the Coptic denomination, and others.

One only needs to read Paul's epistles and Revelation to learn that there was no single, centralized denomination.  There were numerous groups of Christ people scattered throughout the Mediterranean region with different rituals, doctrines, and religious texts.

 

(catholic (not capitalized) means universal).

  • Thumbs Up 1

  • Group:  Members
  • Followers:  0
  • Topic Count:  12
  • Topics Per Day:  0.02
  • Content Count:  71
  • Content Per Day:  0.09
  • Reputation:   27
  • Days Won:  0
  • Joined:  04/09/2023
  • Status:  Offline

Posted
1 hour ago, JimmyB said:

The early church was entirely Jews.  Gentiles only came in later, primarily because of Paul's activity.  The Catholic (capitalized) denomination was formed later, as was the Orthodox denomination, the Coptic denomination, and others.

One only needs to read Paul's epistles and Revelation to learn that there was no single, centralized denomination.  There were numerous groups of Christ people scattered throughout the Mediterranean region with different rituals, doctrines, and religious texts.

 

(catholic (not capitalized) means universal).

Of course, you are talking about the beginning, the early New Testament church.  In general usage early church refers to post New Testament period.

"Early church is not a technical term, so it can be used fairly loosely, but generally follows the history and writings of church leaders which are divided by time period into the Ante-Nicene era (prior to the council of Nicaea in 325AD) and the Nicene/Post-Nicene era"


  • Group:  Removed from Forums for Breaking Terms of Service
  • Followers:  0
  • Topic Count:  6
  • Topics Per Day:  0.00
  • Content Count:  1,628
  • Content Per Day:  0.90
  • Reputation:   306
  • Days Won:  0
  • Joined:  06/23/2020
  • Status:  Offline

Posted
1 hour ago, MichaelSnow said:

Of course, you are talking about the beginning, the early New Testament church.  In general usage early church refers to post New Testament period.

"Early church is not a technical term, so it can be used fairly loosely, but generally follows the history and writings of church leaders which are divided by time period into the Ante-Nicene era (prior to the council of Nicaea in 325AD) and the Nicene/Post-Nicene era"

Right.  The early New Testament church.  It means exactly that, regardless of how it is generally used -- often to deny the truth.  The early church was comprised of Jews; Gentiles came in later.  The church is now primarily Gentiles, so it is handy to rewrite history to change the reality.


  • Group:  Diamond Member
  • Followers:  7
  • Topic Count:  4
  • Topics Per Day:  0.00
  • Content Count:  2,114
  • Content Per Day:  1.49
  • Reputation:   885
  • Days Won:  1
  • Joined:  07/29/2021
  • Status:  Offline

Posted
10 hours ago, MichaelSnow said:

Of course, you are talking about the beginning, the early New Testament church.  In general usage early church refers to post New Testament period.

"Early church is not a technical term, so it can be used fairly loosely, but generally follows the history and writings of church leaders which are divided by time period into the Ante-Nicene era (prior to the council of Nicaea in 325AD) and the Nicene/Post-Nicene era"

It is still applicable to the concerns in this thread. There was no "reformation" in the Eastern part of the Church. Disagreements, sure, but not anything like the reformers. So I am questioning how far back these groups go?

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
  • Our picks

    • You are coming up higher in this season – above the assignments of character assassination and verbal arrows sent to manage you, contain you, and derail your purpose. Where you have had your dreams and sleep robbed, as well as your peace and clarity robbed – leaving you feeling foggy, confused, and heavy – God is, right now, bringing freedom back -- now you will clearly see the smoke and mirrors that were set to distract you and you will disengage.

      Right now God is declaring a "no access zone" around you, and your enemies will no longer have any entry point into your life. Oil is being poured over you to restore the years that the locust ate and give you back your passion. This is where you will feel a fresh roar begin to erupt from your inner being, and a call to leave the trenches behind and begin your odyssey in your Christ calling moving you to bear fruit that remains as you minister to and disciple others into their Christ identity.

      This is where you leave the trenches and scale the mountain to fight from a different place, from victory, from peace, and from rest. Now watch as God leads you up higher above all the noise, above all the chaos, and shows you where you have been seated all along with Him in heavenly places where you are UNTOUCHABLE. This is where you leave the soul fight, and the mind battle, and learn to fight differently.

      You will know how to live like an eagle and lead others to the same place of safety and protection that God led you to, which broke you out of the silent prison you were in. Put your war boots on and get ready to fight back! Refuse to lay down -- get out of bed and rebuke what is coming at you. Remember where you are seated and live from that place.

      Acts 1:8 - “But you will receive power when the Holy Spirit has come upon you, and you will be my witnesses … to the end of the earth.”

       

      ALBERT FINCH MINISTRY
        • Thanks
        • This is Worthy
        • Thumbs Up
      • 3 replies
    • George Whitten, the visionary behind Worthy Ministries and Worthy News, explores the timing of the Simchat Torah War in Israel. Is this a water-breaking moment? Does the timing of the conflict on October 7 with Hamas signify something more significant on the horizon?

       



      This was a message delivered at Eitz Chaim Congregation in Dallas Texas on February 3, 2024.

      To sign up for our Worthy Brief -- https://worthybrief.com

      Be sure to keep up to date with world events from a Christian perspective by visiting Worthy News -- https://www.worthynews.com

      Visit our live blogging channel on Telegram -- https://t.me/worthywatch
      • 0 replies
    • Understanding the Enemy!

      I thought I write about the flip side of a topic, and how to recognize the attempts of the enemy to destroy lives and how you can walk in His victory!

      For the Apostle Paul taught us not to be ignorant of enemy's tactics and strategies.

      2 Corinthians 2:112  Lest Satan should get an advantage of us: for we are not ignorant of his devices. 

      So often, we can learn lessons by learning and playing "devil's" advocate.  When we read this passage,

      Mar 3:26  And if Satan rise up against himself, and be divided, he cannot stand, but hath an end. 
      Mar 3:27  No man can enter into a strong man's house, and spoil his goods, except he will first bind the strongman; and then he will spoil his house. 

      Here we learn a lesson that in order to plunder one's house you must first BIND up the strongman.  While we realize in this particular passage this is referring to God binding up the strongman (Satan) and this is how Satan's house is plundered.  But if you carefully analyze the enemy -- you realize that he uses the same tactics on us!  Your house cannot be plundered -- unless you are first bound.   And then Satan can plunder your house!

      ... read more
        • Oy Vey!
        • Praise God!
        • Thanks
        • Well Said!
        • Brilliant!
        • Loved it!
        • This is Worthy
        • Thumbs Up
      • 230 replies
    • Daniel: Pictures of the Resurrection, Part 3

      Shalom everyone,

      As we continue this study, I'll be focusing on Daniel and his picture of the resurrection and its connection with Yeshua (Jesus). 

      ... read more
        • Praise God!
        • Brilliant!
        • Loved it!
        • This is Worthy
        • Thumbs Up
      • 13 replies
    • Abraham and Issac: Pictures of the Resurrection, Part 2
      Shalom everyone,

      As we continue this series the next obvious sign of the resurrection in the Old Testament is the sign of Isaac and Abraham.

      Gen 22:1  After these things God tested Abraham and said to him, "Abraham!" And he said, "Here I am."
      Gen 22:2  He said, "Take your son, your only son Isaac, whom you love, and go to the land of Moriah, and offer him there as a burnt offering on one of the mountains of which I shall tell you."

      So God "tests" Abraham and as a perfect picture of the coming sacrifice of God's only begotten Son (Yeshua - Jesus) God instructs Issac to go and sacrifice his son, Issac.  Where does he say to offer him?  On Moriah -- the exact location of the Temple Mount.

      ...read more
        • Well Said!
        • This is Worthy
        • Thumbs Up
      • 20 replies
×
×
  • Create New...