Evidence of a great doctrinal apostasy

[H. Richard]

This writing is offered as a study of Apostasy and is to be considered the view of the writer, me. If it offends any I am sorry, but just as I give others the right to believe and write as they see it I claim that same right for myself. This writing is not a claim, by me, that I know everything. It is my effort to try and understand the truth.
-
Evidence of a great doctrinal apostasy
-
This is the background of Christ's instruction to Gentiles (through Paul) during the dispensation of grace (that's us):

1 Cor 3:10 According to the grace of God which is given unto me [Paul], as a wise masterbuilder, I have laid the foundation, and another buildeth thereon. But let every man take heed how he buildeth thereupon..
.
1 Cor 4:14-16 For I write not these things to shame you, but as my beloved sons I warn you. For though ye have ten thousand instructors in Christ, yet have ye not many fathers: for in Christ Jesus I have begotten you through the gospel. [the Kingdom Gospel? No, the Grace Gospel? Yes.] Wherefore I beseech you, be ye followers [of whom? All the apostles? No...] of me. For this cause have I sent unto you Timotheus, who is my beloved son, and faithful in the Lord, who shall bring you into remembrance of my ways which be in Christ, as I teach everywhere in every church.

1 Cor 11:1-2 Be ye followers of me, even as I also am of Christ. Now I praise you, brethren, that ye remember me in all things, and keep the ordinances as [who? Peter? John? James? No...] I delivered them to you.

Eph 3:2 If ye have heard of the dispensation of the grace of God which is given [to who? All the apostles equally? No...] to me for you.

Phil 3:17 Brethren, be followers together of me, and observe them which walk according to the pattern you have in us.

Phil 4:9 Those things which you have learned and received and heard and seen [in who? the circumcision apostles? No...] in me, practice these things, and the God of peace shall be with you.

Col 1:25 Whereof I am made a minister, according to the dispensation of God which is given to me for you, to fulfil [Gr. pleroo, complete] the word of God;
2 Tim 1:13 Hold fast the form of sound words which thou hast heard from me, in faith and love which is in Christ Jesus.

Finally...

2 Tim 2:2 And the things that thou hast heard from me among many witnesses, the same commit thou to faithful men, who shall be able to teach others also.
***

Looking at the record of history...did "faithful men" continue Paul's teaching? ------ Judge for yourself after examining the doctrines that cropped up soon after the apostolic era.

THE LORD'S SUPPER
Three of the "church fathers" --Ignatius, Justin, and Irenaeus--said the Lord’s Supper had some positive mystical influence on your spirit and physical body when you ate it. Ignatius went as far as to call the bread “The medicine of immortality and the antidote that we should not die but have life forever in Jesus Christ.”
These folks weren’t into transubstantiation as we know it today, but they had an early form of it (more like consubstantiation).

QUESTION: Is that what Paul taught?

Paul clearly taught that it’s a memorial (1 Cor 11:23-26)...an important, solemn memorial, yes, but it’s still just bread and wine with no mention of any mystical presence of the Lord. So who was right -- these early church "fathers," or Paul?

SALVATION, SUFFERING AND PERSERVERENCE

It is reported that Ignatius longed for animals to tear him to bits because he seemed to have believed that suffering and martyrdom would prove his Christianity and ensure his salvation. He seems to have exhibited an attitude of "I must endure to the end to be saved." While Kingdom saints had to believe such dreadful truths (Matt. 24:13), Paul never did.

THE MYSTERY

Did Ignatius really have a grasp on the Mystery? He knew that the body of professing believers was comprised of Jews and Gentiles, but that was a fact clearly evident even to unbelievers. As to Paul's Mystery, he saw it as something else entirely:

"Ye are associates in the mysteries with Paul, who was sanctified, who obtained a good report, who is worthy of all felicitation..." (Eph. 12)

That's as close as can be found that Ignatius got to mentioning Paul's mystery revelation. But he did go into detail on this:

"And hidden from the prince of this world were the virginity of Mary and her child-bearing and likewise also the death of the Lord---three mysteries to be cried aloud--which were wrought in the silence of God." (Eph. 19
)
Ignatius did not have a clue regarding the Pauline revelation, judging by what he wrote. Yet he considered the virgin birth and the death of Messiah to have been hidden from Satan. But they weren’t hidden, for both were prophesied in the O.T. What WAS hidden from Satan (and from the whole world) was the full scope of the Cross (1 Cor 2:6-8), which was not known until Christ revealed it to Paul as part of the Mystery. Timothy knew it. Titus knew it. The Ephesians knew it. But Ignatius appears to never have understood it. That scope being that through the atonement work of the cross mankind can be saved by the grace of God based on faith in what God (Jesus) did on the cross to pay for their sins.

WATER BAPTISM

This early doctrinal slide is most grossly evident when one examines these writer's opinions of water baptism. Ignatius wrote:
"It is not lawful apart from the bishop either to baptize or hold a love-feast; but whatsoever he shall approve, this is well-pleasing also to God; that everything which ye do may be sure and valid." (Smy. 8)

"Let your baptism abide with you as your shield... (Poly. 6). Elsewhere he said, "...as your arm..."

What Ignatius meant by "shield" is clear - it's a reference to defense, possibly spiritual armor. However, Paul gave water baptism no such significance. Ignatius is paving the way for a ritualistic, salvational approach to baptism [i.e., Rome's] which is with us to this day, especially when he says only the bishop can perform it or approve of it. No where in the scriptures does it say that only bishops can perform it.

Justin also said that one could believe but wasn’t actually saved until he/she was dunked. That’s a form of baptismal regeneration, from as early as 150 A.D. (some say they used the terms “baptism” and “regeneration” interchangeably). But did Paul EVER teach this? No! These Gentile philosophers sound far more familiar with Mark 16:16 and Acts 2:38 than with Eph 4:5.

NOTE: The point of this post is that all this doctrinal confusion happened within ONE GENERATION of Paul, the Apostle to the Gentiles and dispenser of the mystery. Not 100 years after his death, gross doctrinal distortion had already set in and the Church believed, and practiced a mix of two dispensations, as well as things not even found in the Bible.

One thing is certain from what I’ve read -- the Asian fathers largely failed to acknowledge the uniqueness of the revelation Christ gave to Paul. Why? Because, as Paul himself wrote, Asia had already turned away from him even while he was yet alive. Those in Asia were even then “turning aside unto myths.” These church “fathers,” with their compounded mythical doctrines, are only the fruit of the apostasy that began in the first century before Paul died.

2 Tim 1:15
15 This you know, that all those in Asia have turned away from me, among whom are Phygellus and Hermogenes.
(NKJ)

Act 20:29 For I know this, that after my departing shall grievous wolves enter in among you, not sparing the flock.

Act 20:30 Also of your own selves shall men arise, speaking perverse things, to draw away disciples after them.
This is exactly what happened: from among the Gentile believers of Asia, false teachers DID arise, DID speak perverse things and DID draw away disciples unto themselves. All within 100 years of Paul's death and these apostate teachings are still with us today.

I write this so that some might be able to see what happened to the grace gospel that Paul revealed to the world. I know that some will fault me for writing it but they can not refute history.

 

[iakov]

NOTE: The point of this post is that all this doctrinal confusion happened within ONE GENERATION of Paul, the Apostle to the Gentiles and dispenser of the mystery. Not 100 years after his death, gross doctrinal distortion had already set in and the Church believed, and practiced a mix of two dispensations, as well as things not even found in the Bible.

Thank you for your personal opinion.

 

[Barrd]

This writing is offered as a study of Apostasy and is to be considered the view of the writer, me. If it offends any I am sorry, but just as I give others the right to believe and write as they see it I claim that same right for myself. This writing is not a claim, by me, that I know everything. It is my effort to try and understand the truth.
-
Evidence of a great doctrinal apostasy
-
This is the background of Christ's instruction to Gentiles (through Paul) during the dispensation of grace (that's us):

1 Cor 3:10 According to the grace of God which is given unto me [Paul], as a wise masterbuilder, I have laid the foundation, and another buildeth thereon. But let every man take heed how he buildeth thereupon..
.
1 Cor 4:14-16 For I write not these things to shame you, but as my beloved sons I warn you. For though ye have ten thousand instructors in Christ, yet have ye not many fathers: for in Christ Jesus I have begotten you through the gospel. [the Kingdom Gospel? No, the Grace Gospel? Yes.] Wherefore I beseech you, be ye followers [of whom? All the apostles? No...] of me. For this cause have I sent unto you Timotheus, who is my beloved son, and faithful in the Lord, who shall bring you into remembrance of my ways which be in Christ, as I teach everywhere in every church.

1 Cor 11:1-2 Be ye followers of me, even as I also am of Christ. Now I praise you, brethren, that ye remember me in all things, and keep the ordinances as [who? Peter? John? James? No...] I delivered them to you.

Eph 3:2 If ye have heard of the dispensation of the grace of God which is given [to who? All the apostles equally? No...] to me for you.

Phil 3:17 Brethren, be followers together of me, and observe them which walk according to the pattern you have in us.

Phil 4:9 Those things which you have learned and received and heard and seen [in who? the circumcision apostles? No...] in me, practice these things, and the God of peace shall be with you.

Col 1:25 Whereof I am made a minister, according to the dispensation of God which is given to me for you, to fulfil [Gr. pleroo, complete] the word of God;
2 Tim 1:13 Hold fast the form of sound words which thou hast heard from me, in faith and love which is in Christ Jesus.

Finally...

2 Tim 2:2 And the things that thou hast heard from me among many witnesses, the same commit thou to faithful men, who shall be able to teach others also.
***

Looking at the record of history...did "faithful men" continue Paul's teaching? ------ Judge for yourself after examining the doctrines that cropped up soon after the apostolic era.

THE LORD'S SUPPER
Three of the "church fathers" --Ignatius, Justin, and Irenaeus--said the Lord’s Supper had some positive mystical influence on your spirit and physical body when you ate it. Ignatius went as far as to call the bread “The medicine of immortality and the antidote that we should not die but have life forever in Jesus Christ.”
These folks weren’t into transubstantiation as we know it today, but they had an early form of it (more like consubstantiation).

QUESTION: Is that what Paul taught?

Paul clearly taught that it’s a memorial (1 Cor 11:23-26)...an important, solemn memorial, yes, but it’s still just bread and wine with no mention of any mystical presence of the Lord. So who was right -- these early church "fathers," or Paul?

SALVATION, SUFFERING AND PERSERVERENCE

It is reported that Ignatius longed for animals to tear him to bits because he seemed to have believed that suffering and martyrdom would prove his Christianity and ensure his salvation. He seems to have exhibited an attitude of "I must endure to the end to be saved." While Kingdom saints had to believe such dreadful truths (Matt. 24:13), Paul never did.

THE MYSTERY

Did Ignatius really have a grasp on the Mystery? He knew that the body of professing believers was comprised of Jews and Gentiles, but that was a fact clearly evident even to unbelievers. As to Paul's Mystery, he saw it as something else entirely:

"Ye are associates in the mysteries with Paul, who was sanctified, who obtained a good report, who is worthy of all felicitation..." (Eph. 12)

That's as close as can be found that Ignatius got to mentioning Paul's mystery revelation. But he did go into detail on this:

"And hidden from the prince of this world were the virginity of Mary and her child-bearing and likewise also the death of the Lord---three mysteries to be cried aloud--which were wrought in the silence of God." (Eph. 19
)
Ignatius did not have a clue regarding the Pauline revelation, judging by what he wrote. Yet he considered the virgin birth and the death of Messiah to have been hidden from Satan. But they weren’t hidden, for both were prophesied in the O.T. What WAS hidden from Satan (and from the whole world) was the full scope of the Cross (1 Cor 2:6-8), which was not known until Christ revealed it to Paul as part of the Mystery. Timothy knew it. Titus knew it. The Ephesians knew it. But Ignatius appears to never have understood it. That scope being that through the atonement work of the cross mankind can be saved by the grace of God based on faith in what God (Jesus) did on the cross to pay for their sins.

WATER BAPTISM

This early doctrinal slide is most grossly evident when one examines these writer's opinions of water baptism. Ignatius wrote:
"It is not lawful apart from the bishop either to baptize or hold a love-feast; but whatsoever he shall approve, this is well-pleasing also to God; that everything which ye do may be sure and valid." (Smy. 8)

"Let your baptism abide with you as your shield... (Poly. 6). Elsewhere he said, "...as your arm..."

What Ignatius meant by "shield" is clear - it's a reference to defense, possibly spiritual armor. However, Paul gave water baptism no such significance. Ignatius is paving the way for a ritualistic, salvational approach to baptism [i.e., Rome's] which is with us to this day, especially when he says only the bishop can perform it or approve of it. No where in the scriptures does it say that only bishops can perform it.

Justin also said that one could believe but wasn’t actually saved until he/she was dunked. That’s a form of baptismal regeneration, from as early as 150 A.D. (some say they used the terms “baptism” and “regeneration” interchangeably). But did Paul EVER teach this? No! These Gentile philosophers sound far more familiar with Mark 16:16 and Acts 2:38 than with Eph 4:5.

NOTE: The point of this post is that all this doctrinal confusion happened within ONE GENERATION of Paul, the Apostle to the Gentiles and dispenser of the mystery. Not 100 years after his death, gross doctrinal distortion had already set in and the Church believed, and practiced a mix of two dispensations, as well as things not even found in the Bible.

One thing is certain from what I’ve read -- the Asian fathers largely failed to acknowledge the uniqueness of the revelation Christ gave to Paul. Why? Because, as Paul himself wrote, Asia had already turned away from him even while he was yet alive. Those in Asia were even then “turning aside unto myths.” These church “fathers,” with their compounded mythical doctrines, are only the fruit of the apostasy that began in the first century before Paul died.

2 Tim 1:15
15 This you know, that all those in Asia have turned away from me, among whom are Phygellus and Hermogenes.
(NKJ)

Act 20:29 For I know this, that after my departing shall grievous wolves enter in among you, not sparing the flock.
Act 20:30 Also of your own selves shall men arise, speaking perverse things, to draw away disciples after them.
This is exactly what happened: from among the Gentile believers of Asia, false teachers DID arise, DID speak perverse things and DID draw away disciples unto themselves. All within 100 years of Paul's death and these apostate teachings are still with us today.

I write this so that some might be able to see what happened to the grace gospel that Paul revealed to the world. I know that some will fault me for writing it but they can not refute history.

I'm not exactly sure what you are trying to prove, here.

Are you saying that the rest of the Apostles should be ignored?

Are you a Christian....or a Paulian?

 

[brakelite]

I'm not exactly sure what you are trying to prove, here.

Are you saying that the rest of the Apostles should be ignored?

Are you a Christian....or a Paulian?

The way I read his post was to reveal how early the church began its slide into apostasy. Those men he mentions are Catholic saints. Revered by Rome and cited often is support of Catholic teachings. Christianity came under attack from the enemy not just by way of persecution from Rome, but through deception from the prevailing cultures of the time. We can see in Revelation how the beast of Revelation 13:1-3 is a composite of the same beasts from Daniel. John however was looking back while Danile was looking forward, anyway, those beasts represented nations, and their continuing existence and influence can be found in the philosophies that were carried over from one nation to the next.
Babylonian (necromancy/astrology) culture endures until today. Media-Persian culture through Mithraism (sun worship) endures until today. Greek culture endures to today in many areas, particularly the mind sciences. Roman culture endures to today in our justice systems. This goes along way to explaining how the entire statue of Daniel 2, all four empires, plus the inheritors to those philosophies and cultures, us, was destroyed by the rock (Christ). When He comes again, all the inherited errors and deceptions of paganism will be utterly done away with. And many of these were passed on to apostate Christianity...the above post tells us how early on those errors began to creep in.

 

[Barrd]

The way I read his post was to reveal how early the church began its slide into apostasy. Those men he mentions are Catholic saints. Revered by Rome and cited often is support of Catholic teachings. Christianity came under attack from the enemy not just by way of persecution from Rome, but through deception from the prevailing cultures of the time. We can see in Revelation how the beast of Revelation 13:1-3 is a composite of the same beasts from Daniel. John however was looking back while Danile was looking forward, anyway, those beasts represented nations, and their continuing existence and influence can be found in the philosophies that were carried over from one nation to the next.
Babylonian (necromancy/astrology) culture endures until today. Media-Persian culture through Mithraism (sun worship) endures until today. Greek culture endures to today in many areas, particularly the mind sciences. Roman culture endures to today in our justice systems. This goes along way to explaining how the entire statue of Daniel 2, all four empires, plus the inheritors to those philosophies and cultures, us, was destroyed by the rock (Christ). When He comes again, all the inherited errors and deceptions of paganism will be utterly done away with. And many of these were passed on to apostate Christianity...the above post tells us how early on those errors began to creep in.

Your point is taken, Brakelite.
However, it grieves my heart to see how many so-called "Christians" can freely quote from Paul (although they twist and mangle his words)...but have no idea what Jesus and the rest of the Apostles taught.

It is Jesus Who is the Head of the Church.
It is Jesus Whose blood is on the Altar of God in Heaven.
It is Jesus Who sacrificed Himself for our sins.
It is Jesus Who is the Way the Truth and the Life
It is Jesus Who gives us eternal life.
It is not Paul.

Most of us could stand a bit more time in the red writing...

 

[iakov]

I write this so that some might be able to see what happened to the grace gospel that Paul revealed to the world. I know that some will fault me for writing it but they can not refute history.

What you have accomplished with flying colors is the demonstration of your complete lack of knowledge of history and of how history is done.

If I may be so bold, where did you receive your training as an historian?

just curious.

iakov

 

[Barrd]

What you have accomplished with flying colors is the demonstration of your complete lack of knowledge of history and of how history is done.

If I may be so bold, where did you receive your training as an historian?

just curious.

iakov

I have to confess...I am not as well educated in the early history of the church as I ought to be.
It just doesn't sound quite right, the way Richard seems to be telling it.
Much too much focus on Paul....

Am I wrong about this?

 

[H. Richard]

I'm not exactly sure what you are trying to prove, here.

Are you saying that the rest of the Apostles should be ignored?

Are you a Christian....or a Paulian?

I am neither. I am a child of God.

Rom 8:15-17
15 For you did not receive the spirit of bondage again to fear, but you received the Spirit of adoption by whom we cry out,"Abba, Father."
16 The Spirit Himself bears witness with our spirit that we are children of God,
17 and if children, then heirs — heirs of God and joint heirs with Christ, if indeed we suffer with Him, that we may also be glorified together.
NKJV

Suffering with Him is not suffering the in the flesh but is suffering for proclaiming the truth of God just as Paul did.

A Christian can be any one that has a theology based on what men make the scriptures say by their interpretations rather than what they really say. Being called a Christian does not make any one a child of God. God makes a person His child "in Christ".

 

[H. Richard]

I'm not exactly sure what you are trying to prove, here.

Are you saying that the rest of the Apostles should be ignored?

Are you a Christian....or a Paulian?

What I am saying is that you do not ignore the scriptures.

Gal 2:9
9 and when James, Cephas (Cephas = Peter), and John, who seemed to be pillars, perceived the grace that had been given to me (me = Paul), they gave me and Barnabas the right hand of fellowship, that we should go to the Gentiles and they to the circumcised = (Jews).
NKJV

 

[H. Richard]

The way I read his post was to reveal how early the church began its slide into apostasy. Those men he mentions are Catholic saints. Revered by Rome and cited often is support of Catholic teachings. Christianity came under attack from the enemy not just by way of persecution from Rome, but through deception from the prevailing cultures of the time. We can see in Revelation how the beast of Revelation 13:1-3 is a composite of the same beasts from Daniel. John however was looking back while Danile was looking forward, anyway, those beasts represented nations, and their continuing existence and influence can be found in the philosophies that were carried over from one nation to the next.
Babylonian (necromancy/astrology) culture endures until today. Media-Persian culture through Mithraism (sun worship) endures until today. Greek culture endures to today in many areas, particularly the mind sciences. Roman culture endures to today in our justice systems. This goes along way to explaining how the entire statue of Daniel 2, all four empires, plus the inheritors to those philosophies and cultures, us, was destroyed by the rock (Christ). When He comes again, all the inherited errors and deceptions of paganism will be utterly done away with. And many of these were passed on to apostate Christianity...the above post tells us how early on those errors began to creep in.

That for your understanding.

 

[H. Richard]

Your point is taken, Brakelite.
However, it grieves my heart to see how many so-called "Christians" can freely quote from Paul (although they twist and mangle his words)...but have no idea what Jesus and the rest of the Apostles taught.

It is Jesus Who is the Head of the Church.
It is Jesus Whose blood is on the Altar of God in Heaven.
It is Jesus Who sacrificed Himself for our sins.
It is Jesus Who is the Way the Truth and the Life
It is Jesus Who gives us eternal life.
It is not Paul.

Most of us could stand a bit more time in the red writing...

If you will read Acts you will see that it was the risen Jesus that gave Paul the gospel of God's grace FOR US. You would do well to be able to see that there was a reason for it.

Acts 9:14-16
14 And here he has authority from the chief priests to bind all who call on Your name."
15 But the Lord said to him, "Go, for he is a chosen vessel of Mine to bear My name before Gentiles, kings, and the children of Israel.
16 For I will show him how many things he must suffer for My name's sake."
NKJV

You would do well to listen to what Paul says in the scriptures.

 

[iakov]

I have to confess...I am not as well educated in the early history of the church as I ought to be.
It just doesn't sound quite right, the way Richard seems to be telling it.
Much too much focus on Paul....

Am I wrong about this?

I think you are right.

There are people who attempt to separate the Gospel into "Paul's Gospel for the Gentiles" and "the Gospel for the Jews." There is no such division. Paul's teaching agrees with every other teaching found in the New Testament.

Pauline theology is not in conflict with the teaching or Jesus, John, James, Jude, or Peter.

And the idea that the church leadership deviated from the teaching of Jesus within 100 years does not even rise to the level of being absurd.

iakov

 

[Barrd]

I think you are right.

There are people who attempt to separate the Gospel into "Paul's Gospel for the Gentiles" and "the Gospel for the Jews." There is no such division. Paul's teaching agrees with every other teaching found in the New Testament.

Pauline theology is not in conflict with the teaching or Jesus, John, James, Jude, or Peter.

And the idea that the church leadership deviated from the teaching of Jesus within 100 years does not even rise to the level of being absurd.

iakov

I completely agree with you.

It makes absolutely no sense at all that Jesus would go and recruit Paul and send him with a completely different message than He had entrusted to the rest of the Apostles that had walked with Him for three years.

 

[H. Richard]

I completely agree with you.

It makes absolutely no sense at all that Jesus would go and recruit Paul and send him with a completely different message than He had entrusted to the rest of the Apostles that had walked with Him for three years.

So, in your opinion, Jesus would never sent the Gentiles a gospel that did not contain the requirement that we keep the law. Then tell me which part of the law must we keep? According to the scriptures those who are under the law MUST keep all of it.

 

[Barrd]

So, in your opinion, Jesus would never sent the Gentiles a gospel that did not contain the requirement that we keep the law. Then tell me which part of the law must we keep? According to the scriptures those who are under the law MUST keep all of it.

Mat 28:19 Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost:
Mat 28:20 Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and, lo, I am with you alway, even unto the end of the world. Amen.

Now, the question is...what things did Jesus command them? I'm pretty sure He never once said to any of them, in any of His teachings, that He was "doing away" with the Law. In fact, as I have shown, He not only kept His Father's commandments, He also taught His disciples to do the same thing.
Here, then, are His last words to the men who had walked with Him for over three years.

Now, why would anyone even imagine that He would go and recruit this new guy, who had been persecuting and killing Christians, and send him with a different message? Obviously, He wouldn't.

This seems so obvious that I'm embarrassed for you that you need it explained to you. Paul never taught anyone that they need not concern themselves with the God's law. That is not what he was called to do.

 

[H. Richard]

Mat 28:19 Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost:
Mat 28:20 Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and, lo, I am with you alway, even unto the end of the world. Amen.

Now, the question is...what things did Jesus command them? I'm pretty sure He never once said to any of them, in any of His teachings, that He was "doing away" with the Law. In fact, as I have shown, He not only kept His Father's commandments, He also taught His disciples to do the same thing.
Here, then, are His last words to the men who had walked with Him for over three years.

Now, why would anyone even imagine that He would go and recruit this new guy, who had been persecuting and killing Christians, and send him with a different message? Obviously, He wouldn't.

This seems so obvious that I'm embarrassed for you that you need it explained to you. Paul never taught anyone that they need not concern themselves with the God's law. That is not what he was called to do.

Jesus said this to His Jewish Apostles. They were to teach the whole word that Jesus was the Jewish Messiah and King. They were to start in Israel. There is only one event where any of them went to the Gentiles that was recorded and where does the Bible say he went after that?
Answer this?

In Acts 15 where were the Apostles?

In Acts 21 where were the Apostles?

Gal 2:9
9 and when James, Cephas, and John, who seemed to be pillars, perceived the grace that had been given to me, they gave me and Barnabas the right hand of fellowship, that we should go to the Gentiles and they to the circumcised. (circumcised = Jews)
NKJV

Are you saying they made this agreement and then ignored it?

 

[iakov]

This writing is offered as a study of Apostasy and is to be considered the view of the writer, me. If it offends any I am sorry, but just as I give others the right to believe and write as they see it I claim that same right for myself. This writing is not a claim, by me, that I know everything. It is my effort to try and understand the truth.
-
Evidence of a great doctrinal apostasy
-
This is the background of Christ's instruction to Gentiles (through Paul) during the dispensation of grace (that's us):

1 Cor 3:10 According to the grace of God which is given unto me [Paul], as a wise masterbuilder, I have laid the foundation, and another buildeth thereon. But let every man take heed how he buildeth thereupon..
.
1 Cor 4:14-16 For I write not these things to shame you, but as my beloved sons I warn you. For though ye have ten thousand instructors in Christ, yet have ye not many fathers: for in Christ Jesus I have begotten you through the gospel. [the Kingdom Gospel? No, the Grace Gospel? Yes.] Wherefore I beseech you, be ye followers [of whom? All the apostles? No...] of me. For this cause have I sent unto you Timotheus, who is my beloved son, and faithful in the Lord, who shall bring you into remembrance of my ways which be in Christ, as I teach everywhere in every church.

1 Cor 11:1-2 Be ye followers of me, even as I also am of Christ. Now I praise you, brethren, that ye remember me in all things, and keep the ordinances as [who? Peter? John? James? No...] I delivered them to you.

Eph 3:2 If ye have heard of the dispensation of the grace of God which is given [to who? All the apostles equally? No...] to me for you.

Phil 3:17 Brethren, be followers together of me, and observe them which walk according to the pattern you have in us.

Phil 4:9 Those things which you have learned and received and heard and seen [in who? the circumcision apostles? No...] in me, practice these things, and the God of peace shall be with you.

Col 1:25 Whereof I am made a minister, according to the dispensation of God which is given to me for you, to fulfil [Gr. pleroo, complete] the word of God;
2 Tim 1:13 Hold fast the form of sound words which thou hast heard from me, in faith and love which is in Christ Jesus.

Finally...

2 Tim 2:2 And the things that thou hast heard from me among many witnesses, the same commit thou to faithful men, who shall be able to teach others also.
***

Looking at the record of history...did "faithful men" continue Paul's teaching? ------ Judge for yourself after examining the doctrines that cropped up soon after the apostolic era.

THE LORD'S SUPPER
Three of the "church fathers" --Ignatius, Justin, and Irenaeus--said the Lord’s Supper had some positive mystical influence on your spirit and physical body when you ate it. Ignatius went as far as to call the bread “The medicine of immortality and the antidote that we should not die but have life forever in Jesus Christ.”
These folks weren’t into transubstantiation as we know it today, but they had an early form of it (more like consubstantiation).

QUESTION: Is that what Paul taught?

Paul clearly taught that it’s a memorial (1 Cor 11:23-26)...an important, solemn memorial, yes, but it’s still just bread and wine with no mention of any mystical presence of the Lord. So who was right -- these early church "fathers," or Paul?

SALVATION, SUFFERING AND PERSERVERENCE

It is reported that Ignatius longed for animals to tear him to bits because he seemed to have believed that suffering and martyrdom would prove his Christianity and ensure his salvation. He seems to have exhibited an attitude of "I must endure to the end to be saved." While Kingdom saints had to believe such dreadful truths (Matt. 24:13), Paul never did.

THE MYSTERY

Did Ignatius really have a grasp on the Mystery? He knew that the body of professing believers was comprised of Jews and Gentiles, but that was a fact clearly evident even to unbelievers. As to Paul's Mystery, he saw it as something else entirely:

"Ye are associates in the mysteries with Paul, who was sanctified, who obtained a good report, who is worthy of all felicitation..." (Eph. 12)

That's as close as can be found that Ignatius got to mentioning Paul's mystery revelation. But he did go into detail on this:

"And hidden from the prince of this world were the virginity of Mary and her child-bearing and likewise also the death of the Lord---three mysteries to be cried aloud--which were wrought in the silence of God." (Eph. 19
)
Ignatius did not have a clue regarding the Pauline revelation, judging by what he wrote. Yet he considered the virgin birth and the death of Messiah to have been hidden from Satan. But they weren’t hidden, for both were prophesied in the O.T. What WAS hidden from Satan (and from the whole world) was the full scope of the Cross (1 Cor 2:6-8), which was not known until Christ revealed it to Paul as part of the Mystery. Timothy knew it. Titus knew it. The Ephesians knew it. But Ignatius appears to never have understood it. That scope being that through the atonement work of the cross mankind can be saved by the grace of God based on faith in what God (Jesus) did on the cross to pay for their sins.

WATER BAPTISM

This early doctrinal slide is most grossly evident when one examines these writer's opinions of water baptism. Ignatius wrote:
"It is not lawful apart from the bishop either to baptize or hold a love-feast; but whatsoever he shall approve, this is well-pleasing also to God; that everything which ye do may be sure and valid." (Smy. 8)

"Let your baptism abide with you as your shield... (Poly. 6). Elsewhere he said, "...as your arm..."

What Ignatius meant by "shield" is clear - it's a reference to defense, possibly spiritual armor. However, Paul gave water baptism no such significance. Ignatius is paving the way for a ritualistic, salvational approach to baptism [i.e., Rome's] which is with us to this day, especially when he says only the bishop can perform it or approve of it. No where in the scriptures does it say that only bishops can perform it.

Justin also said that one could believe but wasn’t actually saved until he/she was dunked. That’s a form of baptismal regeneration, from as early as 150 A.D. (some say they used the terms “baptism” and “regeneration” interchangeably). But did Paul EVER teach this? No! These Gentile philosophers sound far more familiar with Mark 16:16 and Acts 2:38 than with Eph 4:5.

NOTE: The point of this post is that all this doctrinal confusion happened within ONE GENERATION of Paul, the Apostle to the Gentiles and dispenser of the mystery. Not 100 years after his death, gross doctrinal distortion had already set in and the Church believed, and practiced a mix of two dispensations, as well as things not even found in the Bible.

One thing is certain from what I’ve read -- the Asian fathers largely failed to acknowledge the uniqueness of the revelation Christ gave to Paul. Why? Because, as Paul himself wrote, Asia had already turned away from him even while he was yet alive. Those in Asia were even then “turning aside unto myths.” These church “fathers,” with their compounded mythical doctrines, are only the fruit of the apostasy that began in the first century before Paul died.

2 Tim 1:15
15 This you know, that all those in Asia have turned away from me, among whom are Phygellus and Hermogenes.
(NKJ)

Act 20:29 For I know this, that after my departing shall grievous wolves enter in among you, not sparing the flock.
Act 20:30 Also of your own selves shall men arise, speaking perverse things, to draw away disciples after them.
This is exactly what happened: from among the Gentile believers of Asia, false teachers DID arise, DID speak perverse things and DID draw away disciples unto themselves. All within 100 years of Paul's death and these apostate teachings are still with us today.

I write this so that some might be able to see what happened to the grace gospel that Paul revealed to the world. I know that some will fault me for writing it but they can not refute history.

<<THE LORD'S SUPPER
Three of the "church fathers" --Ignatius, Justin, and Irenaeus--said the Lord’s Supper had some positive mystical influence on your spirit and physical body when you ate it. Ignatius went as far as to call the bread “The medicine of immortality and the antidote that we should not die but have life forever in Jesus Christ.”>>

Jesus said: (Jhn 6:54) “Whoever eats My flesh and drinks My blood has eternal life,"
That is what the fathers were also saying. If you have a problem with that, tell Jesus.

<<WATER BAPTISM>>
The "Bishop" (English for the Greek word "Episcopos" meaning "overseer") was the presiding elder of the church. It was his responsibility to insure that everything was done properly. IF you have a problem with everything being done properly it is YOUR problem.

<<gnatius is paving the way for a ritualistic, salvational approach to baptism [i.e., Rome's]>>

Your anti-Roman bigotry is duly noted.
It is Jesus and Paul who connect baptism with salvation.
Jesus said: (Jhn 3:5 NKJV) “Most assuredly, I say to you, unless one is born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God."
Paul said: (ROM 6:3-7) Or do you not know that as many of us as were baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into His death? Therefore we were buried with Him through baptism into death, that just as Christ was raised from the dead by the glory of the Father, even so we also should walk in newness of life. For if we have been united together in the likeness of His death, certainly we also shall be in the likeness of His resurrection, knowing this, that our old man was crucified with Him, that the body of sin might be done away with, that we should no longer be slaves of sin. For he who has died has been freed from sin."
That's the "born of water" part.

<<NOTE: The point of this post is that all this doctrinal confusion happened within ONE GENERATION of Paul,>>

The point of my response is that it is YOU who are confused.

There was no doctrinal confusion.

 

[H. Richard]

<<THE LORD'S SUPPER

Jesus said: (Jhn 6:54) “Whoever eats My flesh and drinks My blood has eternal life,"
That is what the fathers were also saying. If you have a problem with that, tell Jesus.

<<WATER BAPTISM>>
The "Bishop" (English for the Greek word "Episcopos" meaning "overseer") was the presiding elder of the church. It was his responsibility to insure that everything was done properly. IF you have a problem with everything being done properly it is YOUR problem.

<<gnatius is paving the way for a ritualistic, salvational approach to baptism [i.e., Rome's]>>

Your anti-Roman bigotry is duly noted.
It is Jesus and Paul who connect baptism with salvation.
Jesus said: (Jhn 3:5 NKJV) “Most assuredly, I say to you, unless one is born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God."
Paul said: (ROM 6:3-7) Or do you not know that as many of us as were baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into His death? Therefore we were buried with Him through baptism into death, that just as Christ was raised from the dead by the glory of the Father, even so we also should walk in newness of life. For if we have been united together in the likeness of His death, certainly we also shall be in the likeness of His resurrection, knowing this, that our old man was crucified with Him, that the body of sin might be done away with, that we should no longer be slaves of sin. For he who has died has been freed from sin."
That's the "born of water" part.

<<NOTE: The point of this post is that all this doctrinal confusion happened within ONE GENERATION of Paul,>>

The point of my response is that it is YOU who are confused.

There was no doctrinal confusion.

That wafer that is given was baked by man out of corruptible material and is certainly not the body of Christ. The body of Christ today is each and every child of God and has been placed in that body by the Holy Spirit (God).

Eph 5:30
30 For we are members of His body, of His flesh and of His bones.
NKJV

Looks to me that if we are the body of Christ eating a wafer is eating yourself.

I take it that TO YOU every time the scriptures say "baptism" it mean by water.

Look up the word in the Dictionary.

Baptism = a dipping in, immersion in, these two examples have to have an object or material to be placed in. but this one is what PAUL MEANT =ANY EXPERIENCE OR ORDEAL THAT INITIATES, TESTS, ETC. EXAMPLE a soldier in war that has had his baptism of fire.

My post stands

 

[iakov]

That wafer that is given was baked by man out of corruptible material and is certainly not the body of Christ. The body of Christ today is each and every child of God and has been placed in that body by the Holy Spirit (God).

Eph 5:30
30 For we are members of His body, of His flesh and of His bones.
NKJV

Looks to me that if we are the body of Christ eating a wafer is eating yourself.

I take it that TO YOU every time the scriptures say "baptism" it mean by water.

Look up the word in the Dictionary.

Baptism = a dipping in, immersion in, these two examples have to have an object or material to be placed in. but this one is what PAUL MEANT =ANY EXPERIENCE OR ORDEAL THAT INITIATES, TESTS, ETC. EXAMPLE a soldier in war that has had his baptism of fire.

My post stands

<<That wafer that is given was baked by man out of corruptible material and is certainly not the body of Christ.>>

When Jesus broke the bread and said "This is my body", the bread was his body. Then He said to do it in remembrance of Him. So we do what he said. You do whatever you like based on the anti-Catholic religious bigotry you have been taught to embrace.

Jesus also said: (Jhn 6:53-58 NKJV) “Most assuredly, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink His blood, you have no life in you. Whoever eats My flesh and drinks My blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day. For My flesh is food indeed,fn and My blood is drink indeed. He who eats My flesh and drinks My blood abides in Me, and I in him. As the living Father sent Me, and I live because of the Father, so he who feeds on Me will live because of Me. This is the bread which came down from heaven—not as your fathers ate the manna, and are dead. He who eats this bread will live forever.”

You do as you like as you don't answer to me. You don't have to believe Jesus if you don't want to.

<<The body of Christ today is each and every child of God and has been placed in that body by the Holy Spirit (God).>>

And that's a totally different subject.

 

[H. Richard]

<<That wafer that is given was baked by man out of corruptible material and is certainly not the body of Christ.>>

When Jesus broke the bread and said "This is my body", the bread was his body. Then He said to do it in remembrance of Him. So we do what he said. You do whatever you like based on the anti-Catholic religious bigotry you have been taught to embrace.

Jesus also said: (Jhn 6:53-58 NKJV) “Most assuredly, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink His blood, you have no life in you. Whoever eats My flesh and drinks My blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day. For My flesh is food indeed,fn and My blood is drink indeed. He who eats My flesh and drinks My blood abides in Me, and I in him. As the living Father sent Me, and I live because of the Father, so he who feeds on Me will live because of Me. This is the bread which came down from heaven—not as your fathers ate the manna, and are dead. He who eats this bread will live forever.”

You do as you like as you don't answer to me. You don't have to believe Jesus if you don't want to.

<<The body of Christ today is each and every child of God and has been placed in that body by the Holy Spirit (God).>>

And that's a totally different subject.

Do you know what a "metaphor" is? How about an "allegory?

1 Cor 11:23-26
23 For I received from the Lord that which I also delivered to you: that the Lord Jesus on the same night in which He was betrayed took bread;
24 and when He had given thanks, He broke it and said, "Take, eat; this is My body which is broken for you; do this in remembrance of Me."
25 In the same manner He also took the cup after supper, saying, "This cup is the new covenant in My blood. This do, as often as you drink it, in remembrance of Me."
26 For as often as you eat this bread and drink this cup, you proclaim the Lord's death till He comes.
NKJV

There is nothing in the above that says the bread and wine are anything except symbols. Those that do it are doing it in "REMEMBRANCE" of Him. It is to REMEBER what he did on the cross. Nothing in the above says it is done for salvation.