What differences? What dude? Who are "John's peeps"? Who are "the others"?
What differences? What dude? Who are "John's peeps"? Who are "the others"?
Circumcision springs to mind as a big doctrinal difference between early churches.
"The man who stands for nothing is likely to fall for anything"
www.swindonkungfu.co.uk
Right: and didn't the Apostles convene the Council of Jerusalem in 51 AD where the issue was discussed, and the Judaizers anathematized? (Acts 15)
so why did we stop feeding christians to lions?
i bet there are a lot of hungry lions out there. there are a lot of hungry lions and living christians. i dont know which makes me sadder.
where's my beer?
And Paul left that meeting and promptly circumcised Timothy. I'm at work, and also not really a scholar of the apostolic age, so it's kind of difficult for me to operate at this level at the moment.
"The man who stands for nothing is likely to fall for anything"
www.swindonkungfu.co.uk
But anyway, the point being that they worked it out in a reasonable manner.
"The man who stands for nothing is likely to fall for anything"
www.swindonkungfu.co.uk
Jesus was a Jew also. Also Dan wasn't fed to the lions, he just kind of hung out with them. And it was Darius who unwittingly put him there.Originally Posted by Ben Gash
I quit after getting my first black belt because the school I was a part of was in the process of lowering their standards A painfully honest KC Elbows
The crap that many schools do is not the crap I was taught or train in or teach.
Dam nit... it made sense when it was running through my head.
DM
People love Iron Crotch. They can't get enough Iron Crotch. We all ride the Iron Crotch for the exposure. Gene
Find the safety flaw in the training. Rory Miller.
Indeed, but as Daniel lived 5-600 years before Jesus, I think it would be a bit difficult to argue that he was a Christian.
"16So the king gave the command, and they brought Daniel and cast him into the den of lions." Not really just hanging out with them. Darius didn't do it unwittingly, he just found himself trapped by his own rules.
"The man who stands for nothing is likely to fall for anything"
www.swindonkungfu.co.uk
You're confusing the issue -- no one opposed circumcision. The issue was whether or not circumcision was an act required of Christians according to their covenant with God; the decision was that it was not. But it continued as cultural practice, principally among Jewish Christians.Originally Posted by Ben Gash
I don't think that was the point. Your claim was that the early churches "were doctrinally different, but all recognized each other." But this incident demonstrates that from the very beginning there were points of doctrine upon which agreement was required for mutual recognition. Indeed, this concept was formalized in the Creeds which Christians of all denominations continue to recite as the core of their faiths today.But anyway, the point being that they worked it out in a reasonable manner.
The dude... was like the emperor (tough guy that pimps all)...Originally Posted by Christopher M
I dont remember it was John or Peter the guys name (or however you call it in english)... but there were 3 or 4 lineages know what im saying... Not all of the apostoles spread out the exact same things and therefore there were diferent forms of christianism at some point (dont ask me the exact date... but it was before Catholicism became the official religion in Rome, dude)
Speciffic diferences, i read them on a magazine (science based) we got in here. But i dont got it with me right now so what can one do, i dont remember the specifics.
Remember there were some evangelic books that were rejected by the "main catholics"? And those got called the "apocrif" (im translating from portuguese, unsure how you call these) evangelics... well those books for example were present on those other catholicisms.
Resistance is futile, teh Clerus is done. He awaits for the end aknowledging its presence everyday. When it comes he hopes to feel like being in the womb again.
I am not here at the forum therefore, got nothing more to say and cannot save anyone (me included).
I know i can resist for a good while, uknown is the value of while. Impermanence might be the only truth to life.
Bye, peeps
__________________
Right: many people of all religious persuasions, including atheists, are currently circumcised as a cultural practice.
Most of the world and also most of the Roman Catholics dont pratice cicumcision. In fact... we (most of the world) find it rather funny when people cut off an anatomic part of their peepees.Originally Posted by Becca
The protestants and other christians groups also dont pratice circumcision in here either. Buddhists dont do it, Taoists dont do it...
Only the jewish do.
Im not sure about the muslims though, but i imagine they dont do (i dunno much about islam).
Resistance is futile, teh Clerus is done. He awaits for the end aknowledging its presence everyday. When it comes he hopes to feel like being in the womb again.
I am not here at the forum therefore, got nothing more to say and cannot save anyone (me included).
I know i can resist for a good while, uknown is the value of while. Impermanence might be the only truth to life.
Bye, peeps
__________________
And oh yeah i ment Peter (Pedro), not John, i was doing crack when i wrote that
god is going to punish me for this and delay my first humping activity for 2 more years, therefore i will only make it in 2019.
Resistance is futile, teh Clerus is done. He awaits for the end aknowledging its presence everyday. When it comes he hopes to feel like being in the womb again.
I am not here at the forum therefore, got nothing more to say and cannot save anyone (me included).
I know i can resist for a good while, uknown is the value of while. Impermanence might be the only truth to life.
Bye, peeps
__________________
I assume you're thinking of Constantine. However, in that case you'd be wrong -- Constantine didn't make Christianity the state religion.Originally Posted by BibitClerus
Well if you can't remember what the traditions were called, who started them, who practiced them, what they believed, or anything else about them, then I don't think anyone can reasonably accept or critically consider your claim.I dont remember it was John or Peter the guys name (or however you call it in english)... but there were 3 or 4 lineages know what im saying..
Roman Catholicism didn't exist as a distinct religion until 1054, which is after the (Western) Roman Empire fell. The Christianity which became the state religion of the Roman Empire was not Roman Catholicism, but included all of the Christian churches.it was before Catholicism became the official religion in Rome
No, they were rejected by all Christians -- an act which took place in Egypt, not Rome. Again, Roman Catholicism didn't exist as a distinct religion until 1054. Seven centuries after the canon had been formed.Remember there were some evangelic books that were rejected by the "main catholics"?