False teaching by separating Scripture from Scripture

[ATG]

I don’t feel the need to question something I have in full faith.


Could you specify the contradictions? I don’t know of any, but am always open to see things.

Again, plz be more specific?


Oh, so you think that people/ translators purposely changed things to fit some of today’s lies? This is not surprising, since I’ve read about other things that have happened. Lol


Aah, this is where my ears kind of turn off. In God’s house, any man who knows enough Scripture can get up and preach, or lead a Bible study.

My point, you don’t need to go to seminary school to become a preacher. This insures that only Bible knowledge is handed down and taught, and not some type of dogma from a school.

Exactly! This is to my point in my upper statements made:

[
Aah, this is where my ears kind of turn off. In God’s house, any man who knows enough Scripture can get up and preach, or lead a Bible study.

My point, you don’t need to go to seminary school to become a preacher. This insures that only Bible knowledge is handed down and taught, and not some type of dogma from a school. ]


Orthodox Xmas? I didn’t hear anything pertaining to this. I also don’t know who are those people?

Puzzle:
-Jn 2:1-11 oh, my favorite!
Jesus turns the water to the best wine ever at the wedding feast in Cana, according to the wedding master.
-1 Cor. 11:6-15
Yes, the head coverings! Lol
This seems to be a BIG controversy in the church, and frankly so is drinking wine. Lol

I think it is pretty clear, on both subject matters. However, there is one verse about the hair that seemed to negate the need for covering. To me that verse seemed out of place, because it actually contradicted what it said earlier. Who am I to ask, being a woman; I try to always cover anyway.

There's a Christian site that specifically invites unbelievers with accusations of Bible error.

Looks like we have one here. You're doing good to demand specifics. That's when you can show the Bible is unerring, by the Bible itself disproving any accused error.

 

[ATG]

I think it is pretty clear, on both subject matters. However, there is one verse about the hair that seemed to negate the need for covering. To me that verse seemed out of place, because it actually contradicted what it said earlier. Who am I to ask, being a woman; I try to always cover anyway.

There's not an error. The Scripture simply says the hair of a woman is given her by God, as all the head covering she needs to please Him.

1 Cor 11 is moving women away from needing artificial head-coverings to honor God. Which coverings were never commanded by God, but only by men.

It's sufficient for a woman to honor God by the hair given her, and so don't get a man's haircut that doesn't cover the head.

Along with clothing, there is one outer physical trait of men and women, that God seeks to honor him: Long hair on a woman enough to cover the head, and short hair on men that doesn't cover the head.

Women with men's haircuts ought just shave it like the temple whores, and men with long hair like women belong with the beasts:

Rev 9:7
And the shapes of the locusts were like unto horses prepared unto battle; and on their heads were as it were crowns like gold, and their faces were as the faces of men. And they had hair as the hair of women, and their teeth were as the teeth of lions.

 

[ATG]

We are reading ancient histories in the Bible, histories written at a time when a good history, a history worth preserving, placed more emphasis on delivering a message than reporting the truth.

Tit 1:14
Not giving heed to Jewish fables, and commandments of men, that turn from the truth.

2Pe 1:16
For we have not followed cunningly devised fables, when we made known unto you the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, but were eyewitnesses of his majesty.

So, we have an unbeliever preaching fault in Scriptures of God and Jesus Christ. No problem.

Got any specific accusations of error in the Bible, that can be proven untrue?

 

[ATG]

in Acts Paul is made out to be a fool. Paul goes to the Jewish High Priest for permission to detain people in Damascus. Now the Jewish High Priest was appointed by the Imperial Legate of Syria and thus had only the authority granted him by this individual. But the Imperial Legate had zero authority in Damascus, so he was incapable of giving anyone else authority there. Why would Paul approach someone asking for authority when everyone would have known the man had none? Now the account would play well to Roman authorities, but the account, as recorded, could not have happened.

Act 9:2
And desired of him letters to Damascus to the synagogues, that if he found any of this way, whether they were men or women, he might bring them bound unto Jerusalem.

You inject a false assumption by revising history at the time:

Rome allowed religious freedom in the Provinces, that did not need legate approval. Which especially included letters of authority within the religious community. Which for the Jews included all their synagogues, whether in Jeruslaem or Damascus. They were only forbidden to execute law outside of Roman provincial law.

We see they were only binding and bringing Jews back to Jerusalem, where the High Priest had already proved his influence with the Roman Governor, for his own religious persecutions. While Rome did not endorse crime and murder among provincial subjects, in Judea particular, they only sought to put down public mayhem and open revolt.

While Saul of Tarsus did consent to an illegal execution of Stephen, the Roman Governor was already manipulated by the Jewish High Priest. Therefore, Saul travelling to Damascus under religious authority was doubly not an issue with Roman authority.

Act 18:14
And when Paul was now about to open his mouth, Gallio said unto the Jews, If it were a matter of wrong or wicked lewdness, O ye Jews, reason would that I should bear with you:

The Roman Governor here shows that such religious matters should be handled within their own community, and only should be brought to himself to execute crimes against Roman law. He cared nothing for their inner squabbles, including manhandling one another, so long as it did not become public disturbance, nor executing sentences without Roman authority.

You're just another example of people who think they know something, and misapplying their ignorance to the Bible, in order to make the Bible appear just as ignorant. But the Bible always shines through the revisionism, because the Bible is only recording exactly what happened in that day, time, and place.

 

[rewriter]

You asked how we know what Scripture is, and I quoted from Scripture what Scripture is. You say you have no problem with that, but you don't believe what the Scriptures says is Scripture is truth.





And so, we go back to the Bible I read, that is unerring in all it's words from beginning to end, with no 'different verses' from one another. Which fulfills God's words about His Scriptures, that cannot be claimed by humans.

Psa 119:160
Thy word is true from the beginning: and every one of thy righteous judgments endureth for ever.

Jhn 17:17
Sanctify them through thy truth: thy word is truth.

One word of God with many Scriptures of truth, completely untied and undivided.


I don't argue with unbelievers, that seek to confuse the true Scriptures of God, with the false musings and myths of men.

2Pe 1:16
For we have not followed cunningly devised fables, when we made known unto you the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, but were eyewitnesses of his majesty.

2Pe 1:19
We have also a more sure word of prophecy; whereunto ye do well that ye take heed, as unto a light that shineth in a dark place, until the day dawn, and the day star arise in your hearts:



My Bible does.

You're more than welcome to your own versions of writings, whether from one book or another, according to your own will alone.

I'm not interested in arguing with anyone speaking of 'scriptures' of other Gods.

I only argue from the true Scriptures of the God of the Bible, that I read, believe, and do.

My big question is, what do you base your understanding of what qualifies as scripture on? If you cite 2 Timothy 3:16 that is fine, but then you have excluded it from scripture because that would become a circular argument which is illogical. To be logical about what is scripture you need a source outside of scripture, and the only one I am aware of is purely human in nature, hence flawed

As for what I claim as scripture, can you cite where I made a statement beyond recognizing that what qualifies depends on whose definition you cite? The Protestant bible's 66 books is the smallest among Christian scriptures and has not been formally closed by most Protestant denomination. Even worse, the Protestant movement initially wanted to include the Apocrypha as those works were included as scripture in the Septuagint, a source widely used in the early church, but ended up rejected because of just one verse.

Knowing history can really complicate some issues, you learn that what is declared nice and clear is anything but nice and clear. But those ignorant, or unwilling to investigate become their own sources based on their own will alone, no matter who they falsely claim as the support.

 

[ATG]

Now for contradictions between Paul and Acts, In Acts 9 Paul has a very dramatic conversion experience and then learns about the Christian faith later.

This is either given in a wrong way, or just a wrong accusation.

Saul of Tarsus knew plenty about the Christian faith before Acts 9. He had one man killed for preaching the Christian faith to himself. And along with all the other unbelieving Jewish leaders, he had heard the preachings of the apostles in public, if not the words of Jesus Himself.

In Acts 9, Saul of Tarsus first knew the Lord Himself and recieved His faith. And was later renamed Paul as a preacher of the faith, and apostle of Jesus Christ.

In 1 Corinthians 15 Paul references what he learned about things of the Christian faith and then recounts his experience of the risen Christ, but makes it sound as if his experience was no different than anyone else's.

No different that any of the other of the disciples, that saw Jesus on earth after His resurrection. Which He then says, that he was the last one to se Jesus alive.

Which of course was before John saw Jesus alive on Patmos.

In any case, Paul does not say in 1 Cor 15, that he had no different experience with Jesus Christ personally, than anyone else's.

Now was it dramatic like Luke describes and far different than anyone else, or as Paul describes, was it very much like what everyone else experienced, including 500 at one time.

Paul is not recounting the manner of seeing Jesus alive, but only the record of who saw Jesus alive.

This is typical of unthinking fault-finders with any book: Sloppy without any integrity and discipline with the text itself.

2Co 4:2
But have renounced the hidden things of dishonesty, not walking in craftiness, nor handling the word of God deceitfully; but by manifestation of the truth commending ourselves to every man's conscience in the sight of God.

 

[rewriter]

Act 9:2
And desired of him letters to Damascus to the synagogues, that if he found any of this way, whether they were men or women, he might bring them bound unto Jerusalem.

You inject a false assumption by revising history at the time:

Rome allowed religious freedom in the Provinces, that did not need legate approval. Which especially included letters of authority within the religious community. Which for the Jews included all their synagogues, whether in Jeruslaem or Damascus. They were only forbidden to execute law outside of Roman provincial law.

We see they were only binding and bringing Jews back to Jerusalem, where the High Priest had already proved his influence with the Roman Governor, for his own religious persecutions. While Rome did not endorse crime and murder among provincial subjects, in Judea particular, they only sought to put down public mayhem and open revolt.

While Saul of Tarsus did consent to an illegal execution of Stephen, the Roman Governor was already manipulated by the Jewish High Priest. Therefore, Saul travelling to Damascus under religious authority was doubly not an issue with Roman authority.

Act 18:14
And when Paul was now about to open his mouth, Gallio said unto the Jews, If it were a matter of wrong or wicked lewdness, O ye Jews, reason would that I should bear with you:

The Roman Governor here shows that such religious matters should be handled within their own community, and only should be brought to himself to execute crimes against Roman law. He cared nothing for their inner squabbles, including manhandling one another, so long as it did not become public disturbance, nor executing sentences without Roman authority.

You're just another example of people who think they know something, and misapplying their ignorance to the Bible, in order to make the Bible appear just as ignorant. But the Bible always shines through the revisionism, because the Bible is only recording exactly what happened in that day, time, and place.

Actually, the Jewish high priest had authority only over the Jerusalem temple, not over individual synagogues and not in foreign territory. Rome did not have authority in Damascus and neither did the High Priest. But in Rome's eyes, Tiberius had authority over Caiaphas the High Priest in Jerusalem during the 30's CE, but in Jewish eyes, the unofficial high priest likely had more authority.

And the entire discussion is ignoring the archeological evidence that Caiaphas was actually pro-Christian in contrast to what the gospel accounts claim, following well-established Roman protocols, but again, one has to know their history to know such.

 

[rewriter]

This is either given in a wrong way, or just a wrong accusation.

Saul of Tarsus knew plenty about the Christian faith before Acts 9. He had one man killed for preaching the Christian faith to himself. And along with all the other unbelieving Jewish leaders, he had heard the preachings of the apostles in public, if not the words of Jesus Himself.

In Acts 9, Saul of Tarsus first knew the Lord Himself and recieved His faith. And was later renamed Paul as a preacher of the faith, and apostle of Jesus Christ.



No different that any of the other of the disciples, that saw Jesus on earth after His resurrection. Which He then says, that he was the last one to se Jesus alive.

Which of course was before John saw Jesus alive on Patmos.

In any case, Paul does not say in 1 Cor 15, that he had no different experience with Jesus Christ personally, than anyone else's.




Paul is not recounting the manner of seeing Jesus alive, but only the record of who saw Jesus alive.

This is typical of unthinking fault-finders with any book: Sloppy without any integrity and discipline with the text itself.

2Co 4:2
But have renounced the hidden things of dishonesty, not walking in craftiness, nor handling the word of God deceitfully; but by manifestation of the truth commending ourselves to every man's conscience in the sight of God.

Your charge of sloppy without integrity is as broad as it is long. I can make the same charge back at you, and then with several tens of thousands words, provide the support from the NT, archeology and history. All provide evidence that the early church actively distorted the recorded history to remove as much evidence of conflict between the church and Rome as possible.

Knowing history matters, not knowing just what history supports your version, but looking deeper to make certain that you know the actual history, and to do that, one needs to look at contradictions in the record.

 

[GWH]

Denominations: The facts~

There are nowhere near as many denominations in Christianity as some suppose/believe.

The numbers thrown around are a terrible miscalculation based on a
lack of understanding perpetuated by, um, well, a dearth of knowledge.

Many sources say many things and many of those things are blatant falsehoods .

I have posted this before so am simply copy/pasting from an earlier post:

33,000 or 45,000, or 20,000, or 49,000 --- these are false numbers based on an egregious misunderstanding.

That misunderstanding gets thrown around as if it were truth when it is not.
Even under the most liberal definition of what constitutes a denomination, there are
nowhere close to 33,000 - 45,000 denominations. Many of these groups are merely subgroups
of larger denominational groups such as Presbyterians, Methodists, Lutherans, or Baptists.

Evangelical apologist Eric Svendsen exposes the falsehood of this fabrication. Briefly:

Svendsen shows that the source of this figure is the World Christian Encyclopedia (David A. Barrett; Oxford
University Press, 1982). Barrett cites a figure of 20,780 denominations. Still, not all of them are Protestants.
According to Barrett, Protestants account for 8,196 (and incidentally, Roman Catholics account for 223).

However, even this figure of eight thousand Protestant denominations is misleading, for Barrett defines
"distinct denominations" as any group that might have a slightly different emphasis than another group.
The distinction is made on the basis of jurisdiction, rather than differing beliefs and practices.

Barrett breaks down the Protestant bloc into twenty-one major "traditions" which are much closer to what we usually
mean by the word "denominations." It is interesting that Roman Catholics are subdivided into sixteen such "traditions."

Svendsen concludes, "In short, Roman Catholic apologists have hurriedly, carelessly - and, as a result, irresponsibly - glanced
at Barrett's work, found a large number (22,189), and arrived at all sorts of absurdities that Barrett never concluded." source

Yes, and per GW there is only one body of Christ composed of all who believe the Gospel, so denominations must differ only regarding secondary issues such as worship styles.

 

[Journey_man]

Teachings going back 1200 years are fine, to an extent, except over the past 1200 years, most denominations that even go back that far have changed their teachings. In fact, there are clear changes in Christian teachings going back to at least 325 CE and there is recognized a "quiet" period in the late 1st century to early 2nd and what suggests hints that changes were made in the teachings from before the early 70's, about 40 years after Jesus's death, to what was taught after. This post-70 change is not proven, but it looks plausible. There is even very plausible evidence that Mark and John were changed from their original forms at some early date and Revelation makes the most sense if there were three editions, each new edition largely preserving its predecessor but adding in new material.

Now who dares look at the evidence and determine its validity and who chooses to cower and cling fast to an unproven, because it dare be challenged (what would happen to this faith it if was truly tested), belief that nothing has changed.

Christianity was an underground movement in the first and second centuries. It was banned by the Romans and practicing Christians were executed.
It was very difficult to have Bible studies and Church services in secret. True Christians have always suffered persecution and execution, nothing has changed in 2026. An average of 800 Christians are Martyred around the world, every week and most never even make the news.

The quite period never ended, Christians are still meeting in secret in many countries. The Lord Jesus did promise that we would be persecuted and killed for His Names sake. That's a very different promise to the one that the "Prosperity Preaches" offer.

God has raised up faithful men in every generation, who preach the gospel faithfully. The Devil mimics everything God does and he also has his men preaching the fake counterfeit gospel which leads their followers to hell.

Our generation is the most blessed of all in human history. We know far more than the Prophets and Apostles knew. They only had types and shadows, but we have the benefits of the completed canon of scripture and 2000 years of Church history. We can see the whole picture, the Apostles didn't believe that the Lord Jesus is God and that He would be resurrected and ascend to heaven.

The Apostle Thomas, had to put his fingers in Jesus' wounds and the Apostle John didn't know what all those visions meant that he received on the isle of Patmos. They all abandoned Him in His hour of need, Peter denied Him three times in one night.

The Lord Jesus said "blessed are they who believe, but have not seen Me", that's us, He said we are blessed.

I don't believe that there's a problem with finding the truth, if we are seeking it. The problem seems to be that most professing believers are looking for "seeker friendly" preachers, who will tickle their ears, with what they want to hear.

 

[rewriter]

Christianity was an underground movement in the first and second centuries. It was banned by the Romans and practicing Christians were executed.
It was very difficult to have Bible studies and Church services in secret. True Christians have always suffered persecution and execution, nothing has changed in 2026. An average of 800 Christians are Martyred around the world, every week and most never even make the news.

The quite period never ended, Christians are still meeting in secret in many countries. The Lord Jesus did promise that we would be persecuted and killed for His Names sake. That's a very different promise to the one that the "Prosperity Preaches" offer.

God has raised up faithful men in every generation, who preach the gospel faithfully. The Devil mimics everything God does and he also has his men preaching the fake counterfeit gospel which leads their followers to hell.

Our generation is the most blessed of all in human history. We know far more than the Prophets and Apostles knew. They only had types and shadows, but we have the benefits of the completed canon of scripture and 2000 years of Church history. We can see the whole picture, the Apostles didn't believe that the Lord Jesus is God and that He would be resurrected and ascend to heaven.

The Apostle Thomas, had to put his fingers in Jesus' wounds and the Apostle John didn't know what all those visions meant that he received on the isle of Patmos. They all abandoned Him in His hour of need, Peter denied Him three times in one night.

The Lord Jesus said "blessed are they who believe, but have not seen Me", that's us, He said we are blessed.

I don't believe that there's a problem with finding the truth, if we are seeking it. The problem seems to be that most professing believers are looking for "seeker friendly" preachers, who will tickle their ears, with what they want to hear.

You are quite right about Rome persecuting the Christians. Now the question is, did the Christians decide that they did not mind getting persecuted and stick to the pure truth or did they seek to adjust the truth to make it more palatable to the Romans and thereby avoid persecution?

Which option would you choose if your life and the lives of all those you love were on the line? Especially if, just to make it more interesting for the audience, the youngest members of your group are the first to suffer gruesome deaths, and then progress up in age with you being the final one to suffer, after having been forced to watch everyone else die. Would the prospect of that not encourage you to fudge the truth a little to try to reduce chances of persecution?

And by the way, the RCC has declared the canon of scripture closed, very few, if any, other denominations have done so. And as for Thomas and John on Patmos, these incidents occurred after the resurrection and the gift of the Holy Spirit. The NT was also written after Jesus's death and resurrection, so they knew, likely far more than we do because we only have what they saw fit to record, not all that they experienced. As for "seeker friendly" preachers, if the early church decided that they did not want persecuted and adjusted the truth, then there is an excellent chance that we are living with "seeker friendly" (aka, Roman friendly) preachers.

 

[Journey_man]

Well, please share what you now believe regarding the doctrines you mentioned, because I also have studied them and would like to compare our insights.

I won't be able to summarise it adequately, so I apologize in advance. There's isn't enough space to write a detailed summary so this will just be skimming the surface.

I'll begin with my failure to understand Genesis 3 which speaks about Adam's fall, the introduction of sin into the world, and the consequential enslavement of humanity to sin. The "Fall of Man" and "Original Sin," where Adam, acting as the covenant representative (or federal head) of all humanity, disobeyed God, resulting in the corruption of human nature and the alienation of mankind from God.
I was of the view that our inherited corrupt human nature didn't prevent us from choosing to turn from our sin to repent, and place our trust in the Lord Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of our sin to receive salvation.
I have since learned that, because of the fall, man is unable of himself to savingly believe the gospel. The natural man (unregenerated) is dead, blind and deaf to the things of God. He is not free to choose, because he is enslaved to his evil nature so he can't choose good over evil in the spiritual realm.
I used to believe that the bible doctrine of "election" was based on God looking into the future to see how we respond to His gospel call. Then He only chose those who He knew would of themselves freely believe by their own faith in the gospel. So I believed that election was determined by the faith that man already had by his will.

I obviously don't believe that anymore, now I believe salvation is all of the Lord, He is the Author and the Finisher of my salvation.
I don't believe man has a "free will", because every part of our constitution has been corrupted. Our soul, mind, heart, and body have all been corrupted. we don't have the means by which we can restore our being to a state of sinless righteous state. It's like saying a bad tree can produce good fruit, it just can't happen unless God intervenes.

I used to believe that God would save the whole world, as in John 3:16 "for God so loved the world that he gave His only begotten Son, so whosever believes on Him shall not perish but have everlasting life". But there were major red flags with that idea, namely all of those passages of scripture that declare that the majority are not going to be saved. So, God either contradicts Himself or my understanding of that doctrine was wrong.

I used to believe that man ultimately had the choice to either believe or reject, the gospel. I have since come to believe that God regenerates those he chose to save, and He changes their nature and gives them the gift of faith, so they will gladly believe.

I used to believe that a born again believer, can die spiritually again and lose their salvation. I have since come to believe that God keeps His people saved forever. If salvation was left in our hands, the Devil would snatch it from us at some point. That's why God has to hold us in His hand, so nothing can snatch us out of His hand.

I would have liked to list many verses of scripture to support these views but, I'll need to do that in a future post

 

[Journey_man]

Denominations: The facts~

There are nowhere near as many denominations in Christianity as some suppose/believe.

The numbers thrown around are a terrible miscalculation based on a
lack of understanding perpetuated by, um, well, a dearth of knowledge.

Many sources say many things and many of those things are blatant falsehoods .

I have posted this before so am simply copy/pasting from an earlier post:

33,000 or 45,000, or 20,000, or 49,000 --- these are false numbers based on an egregious misunderstanding.

That misunderstanding gets thrown around as if it were truth when it is not.
Even under the most liberal definition of what constitutes a denomination, there are
nowhere close to 33,000 - 45,000 denominations. Many of these groups are merely subgroups
of larger denominational groups such as Presbyterians, Methodists, Lutherans, or Baptists.

Evangelical apologist Eric Svendsen exposes the falsehood of this fabrication. Briefly:

Svendsen shows that the source of this figure is the World Christian Encyclopedia (David A. Barrett; Oxford
University Press, 1982). Barrett cites a figure of 20,780 denominations. Still, not all of them are Protestants.
According to Barrett, Protestants account for 8,196 (and incidentally, Roman Catholics account for 223).

However, even this figure of eight thousand Protestant denominations is misleading, for Barrett defines
"distinct denominations" as any group that might have a slightly different emphasis than another group.
The distinction is made on the basis of jurisdiction, rather than differing beliefs and practices.

Barrett breaks down the Protestant bloc into twenty-one major "traditions" which are much closer to what we usually
mean by the word "denominations." It is interesting that Roman Catholics are subdivided into sixteen such "traditions."

Svendsen concludes, "In short, Roman Catholic apologists have hurriedly, carelessly - and, as a result, irresponsibly - glanced
at Barrett's work, found a large number (22,189), and arrived at all sorts of absurdities that Barrett never concluded." source

I got the figure of 49,000 Christian Denominations in 2026 from a google search. I've been checking it every year for the past 4 or 5 years. The number has been growing fast in the past 3 years and it's set to continue climbing.

The reason for so many denominations are; primarily due to disagreements over authority, theology, and interpretation of scripture, compounded by cultural, political, and geographical divides over nearly 2,000 years.
Differences in whether the church is governed by a central figure (e.g., Pope), bishops (synods), or local congregations (congregationalism).

Divergent views on salvation (e.g., Calvinism vs. Arminianism), baptism (infant baptism vs. believer's baptism), and the nature of the sacraments.
Variations in liturgical practices, the role of spiritual gifts (e.g., Pentecostalism vs. cessationism), and traditionalism.

Roman Catholic Centers authority on the Pope and Scripture + Tradition.
Eastern Orthodox Emphasizes tradition, Councils, and mystical union with God.
Protestants are divided into denominations like Lutheran, Reformed/Calvinist, Baptist, Methodist, and Pentecostal, largely emphasizing salvation by faith alone.

It's sad to see the Church so divided, we're supposed to be united in Christ. He said that we should be known for the love we have for one another. But that's far from the case, as there's been a lot of hatred and even wars with tens of thousands killed by fellow Christians in the 15&1600's. Their only crime was they belonged to a different denomination.

 

[GWH]

My big question is, what do you base your understanding of what qualifies as scripture on? If you cite 2 Timothy 3:16 that is fine, but then you have excluded it from scripture because that would become a circular argument which is illogical. To be logical about what is scripture you need a source outside of scripture, and the only one I am aware of is purely human in nature, hence flawed

As for what I claim as scripture, can you cite where I made a statement beyond recognizing that what qualifies depends on whose definition you cite? The Protestant bible's 66 books is the smallest among Christian scriptures and has not been formally closed by most Protestant denomination. Even worse, the Protestant movement initially wanted to include the Apocrypha as those works were included as scripture in the Septuagint, a source widely used in the early church, but ended up rejected because of just one verse.

Knowing history can really complicate some issues, you learn that what is declared nice and clear is anything but nice and clear. But those ignorant, or unwilling to investigate become their own sources based on their own will alone, no matter who they falsely claim as the support.

Yes, and the two strongest arguments for the veracity of the Christian faith involve History: the fact that current events still revolve around Israel and spiritual warfare with antiChristian beliefs, and that the best hope for salvation still stands on the probability of Christ’s resurrection.

 

[Journey_man]

You are quite right about Rome persecuting the Christians. Now the question is, did the Christians decide that they did not mind getting persecuted and stick to the pure truth or did they seek to adjust the truth to make it more palatable to the Romans and thereby avoid persecution?

Which option would you choose if your life and the lives of all those you love were on the line? Especially if, just to make it more interesting for the audience, the youngest members of your group are the first to suffer gruesome deaths, and then progress up in age with you being the final one to suffer, after having been forced to watch everyone else die. Would the prospect of that not encourage you to fudge the truth a little to try to reduce chances of persecution?

And by the way, the RCC has declared the canon of scripture closed, very few, if any, other denominations have done so. And as for Thomas and John on Patmos, these incidents occurred after the resurrection and the gift of the Holy Spirit. The NT was also written after Jesus's death and resurrection, so they knew, likely far more than we do because we only have what they saw fit to record, not all that they experienced. As for "seeker friendly" preachers, if the early church decided that they did not want persecuted and adjusted the truth, then there is an excellent chance that we are living with "seeker friendly" (aka, Roman friendly) preachers.

From what I understand Rome, executed between 50-100 million Christians. Most were executed by the Vatican (RCC). All the martyrs had to do to save their lives is renounce their faith in the Lord Jesus and they would have been spared.

I believe I would gladly lose my life and that of my family, before I denied the Lord Jesus. I know the apostle Peter claimed the same thing and he denied knowing the Lord Jesus three times. I don't believe that I would crack under that kind of pressure. In any case, if I am faced with something like that, it will be because God preordained it.

I don't believe that anything can happen apart from Gods will, so even the evil things work together to bring Gods plans to fruition.

The Prophets and Apostles did not know nearly as much as we do, everything hit them like a ton of bricks and they couldn't make sense of anything at the time. But we have this wonderful thing called hindsight. So we are without excuse., because "to whom much is given, more is expected from"

 

[Magenta]

I got the figure of 49,000 Christian Denominations in 2026 from a google search.

No two people agree 100% on all issues. That does not mean we are all separate denominations.
Protestants can be separated into twenty-one major "traditions" which are much closer to what
we usually mean by the word "denominations."

 

[rewriter]

From what I understand Rome, executed between 50-100 million Christians. Most were executed by the Vatican (RCC). All the martyrs had to do to save their lives is renounce their faith in the Lord Jesus and they would have been spared.

I believe I would gladly lose my life and that of my family, before I denied the Lord Jesus. I know the apostle Peter claimed the same thing and he denied knowing the Lord Jesus three times. I don't believe that I would crack under that kind of pressure. In any case, if I am faced with something like that, it will be because God preordained it.

I don't believe that anything can happen apart from Gods will, so even the evil things work together to bring Gods plans to fruition.

The Prophets and Apostles did not know nearly as much as we do, everything hit them like a ton of bricks and they couldn't make sense of anything at the time. But we have this wonderful thing called hindsight. So we are without excuse., because "to whom much is given, more is expected from"

It is an open question as to how many have been killed for their faith and by whom. However, one big question to my mind is, why dd the Romans persecute Christians, a d why during the 1st Jewish War did both Christians and Jews get treated in the same fashion. Additionally, why was this treatment for Jews and Christians different than what was done to most other rebelling groups or opponents in the Roman Empire?

As for the RCC being a major killer of Christians, the Protestants are likely not very far behind the RCC. The Protestants got very bloodthirsty also, it just depended on who had the most troops in the area at any given time.

 

[GWH]

It is an open question as to how many have been killed for their faith and by whom. However, one big question to my mind is, why dd the Romans persecute Christians, a d why during the 1st Jewish War did both Christians and Jews get treated in the same fashion. Additionally, why was this treatment for Jews and Christians different than what was done to most other rebelling groups or opponents in the Roman Empire?

As for the RCC being a major killer of Christians, the Protestants are likely not very far behind the RCC. The Protestants got very bloodthirsty also, it just depended on who had the most troops in the area at any given time.

No murderer is a Christian of any denomination per GW

 

[Journey_man]

No two people agree 100% on all issues. That does not mean we are all separate denominations.
Protestants can be separated into twenty-one major "traditions" which are much closer to what
we usually mean by the word "denominations."

All of that is true and I'm sure most Christians are well aware of it. But not many are willing to discuss the reasons why so many denominations, teach radically different and opposing doctrines.

So far we have considered those denominations which share those foundational, non negotiable core doctrines. But there are hundreds if not thousands which don't accept them. They teach very different versions of the gospel.

I don't believe that the denominations will ever reach a consensus, and unite as One Church. The opposite is true, the Church is disintegrating into more and more separate denominations.

The Vatican invented the "Ecumenical Movement", decades ago. Their goal was to try and unite as many Christian Denominations as they possibly could. Their efforts are ongoing with varied results over the decades. I view the ecumenical meetings, as a "race to the bottom". They're all supposed to leave their "Denominational Flags" at home and come to the meeting as a neutral or impartial participant in "spiritual fornication".

 

[Journey_man]

It is an open question as to how many have been killed for their faith and by whom. However, one big question to my mind is, why dd the Romans persecute Christians, a d why during the 1st Jewish War did both Christians and Jews get treated in the same fashion. Additionally, why was this treatment for Jews and Christians different than what was done to most other rebelling groups or opponents in the Roman Empire?

As for the RCC being a major killer of Christians, the Protestants are likely not very far behind the RCC. The Protestants got very bloodthirsty also, it just depended on who had the most troops in the area at any given time.

We know the Roman Emperors didn't tolerate anyone who's loyalty was divided. The Jews and Christians, obviously placed God above the Emperors and that crime incurred the death penalty.

The other ethnic groups in the Roman Empire, such as the Greeks were all pagan. The Emperor had no problem with the pagan Greeks and their false gods, since false gods posed no threat. Everyone could see that the pagan Greek statues were dead and those who worshipped them were delusional.

It's no different today, Christians and Jews are the two most hated groups in the entire world, because we have always been seen as a threat to the rulers of the world.

The Devil is not challenging or threatening false teachers, in any way. Since they're doing His bidding for Him.

The RCC v Protestants, is a complexed subject. I'd rather not get too deep into it here and now. But I would like cover it one day.