Primitive Christianity

Ignoring the phenomenon of denominations and movements ostensibly after the age of the Apostles and the New Testament, what are the hallmarks of a decent-to-good, run-of-the-mill New Testament style congregation of the sort perhaps most prevalent among orthodox streams of the church between approximately the mid-1st century through the very early second century AD? What is a congregation required to include? Generally, what did they typically include during their meetings, and, conversely, what is notable for being excluded, despite latter developments seeming to insist themselves upon the numerous denominations of the world, since after the Apostles? What are aspects of the very early, primitive state of the church that would surprise or even utterly mystify modern observers of such a meeting held as they would have during such ancient times for the faith? In your opinion, are post-biblical innovations to be considered valid or invalid towards influencing the general conduct of the Christian life, even dogmatically imposed as though written in the original, inspired scriptures? How do proponents of sacred traditions handle justifying their perspectives when their traditions very often post-date the 1st century, historically and archaeologically? What is the basis for relying upon councils of fallible men after the Apostles lived and died? Do most Christians really believe the Ecumenical Councils are somewhere at or very near divinely-inspired, or just that they happen to line up with good scriptural interpretations?

UFOs Are A Psyop Shirt $21.68

Yakub: World's Greatest Dad Shirt $21.68

UFOs Are A Psyop Shirt $21.68

  1. 6 months ago
    Anonymous

    There's no real liturgy outlined in the NT. The four primary things that characterize early worship services are:

    >Call to Worship
    >Confession of Sins
    >Reading of the Word
    >Sacrament of the Lord's Supper

    I can't speak for other denominations but in my own congregation we confess the creeds together weekly. They teach the things which are necessary to be believed by all Christians. We don't believe the authors of them were inspired though.

    • 6 months ago
      Anonymous

      Many, if not necessarily most of the proto-orthodox, probably drew many influences from the ongoing liturgies of the Temple and the synagogues, as well. In fact, very early on, many Christians would go to a israeli meeting to learn the Old Testament, as such lessons were simply available there. The Christians gradually stopped doing that, and, by the 2nd century, it fell out out normal practice.

  2. 6 months ago
    Anonymous

    Primitive Christianity was absolutely wacky in terms of cults and factions

    Kinda like Second Temple Judaism with all manner of freaky sects

  3. 6 months ago
    Anonymous

    >what are the hallmarks of a decent-to-good, run-of-the-mill New Testament style congregation of the sort perhaps most prevalent among orthodox streams of the church between approximately the mid-1st century through the very early second century AD?
    Scroll publishing on YouTube. That's what you want. A contract lawyer going over the writings of the first and second and third century Christians to illustrate what the church actually believed and how they operated back then. If you want more fine detail you can read the 10 volumes of the Ante Nicene Fathers. I'm well versed in all of this if you have any specific questions I'd be happy to answer.

    • 6 months ago
      Anonymous

      What do you think are the likely origins of practices (later?) such as prayers to and/or for deceased saints, Mary, and the worshipful-looking venerations of them, even utilizing imagery/icons depicting these individuals?

      • 6 months ago
        Anonymous

        >What do you think are the likely origins of practices (later?) such as prayers to and/or for deceased saints, Mary, and the worshipful-looking venerations of them, even utilizing imagery/icons depicting these individuals?
        Well, I'm not Orthodox. Since align myself with the customs and ways of the original church I cannot be Orthodox. But Orthodox does maintain a lot of their ways. That said, the things you question are modern inventions that the original church would never take part in. So I do not either.

        You will likely find this interesting:

        ?si=gERXTF5D7PL10FnN

        • 6 months ago
          Anonymous

          >Since align myself with the customs and ways of the original church I cannot be Orthodox.
          Orthodox means right opinion, soundness of faith. Of course the original church was orthodox back then and still is. The church also hasn't stopped ceasing to exist, according to the Gospel of Matthew and elsewhere in the New Testament.

          • 6 months ago
            Anonymous

            >The church also hasn't stopped ceasing to exist
            The church also hasn't stopped existing, nor ceased to exist.*

            "And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it."
            - Matthew 16:18

          • 6 months ago
            Anonymous

            He refers to the Eastern Orthodox Church denomination, which has its own problems with innovations beyond the Apostolic era, and, if one wishes to preserve this, even beyond the pre-Council of Nicaea Patristic era.

          • 6 months ago
            Anonymous

            >He refers to the Eastern Orthodox Church denomination, which has its own problems with innovations beyond the Apostolic era, and, if one wishes to preserve this, even beyond the pre-Council of Nicaea Patristic era.
            Yes, this.

          • 6 months ago
            Anonymous

            >The church also hasn't stopped ceasing to exist, according to the Gospel of Matthew and elsewhere in the New Testament.
            Of course, but the church just means the body of followers of Christ. That will never perish.

          • 6 months ago
            Anonymous

            You have the correct understanding of what the church means.

          • 6 months ago
            Anonymous

            >Of course, but the church just means the body of followers of Christ.
            The church is the institution that was set up by Christ about two thousand years ago now. It has two offices and two ordinances as laid down by the New Testament. It's more specific than just the total followers of Christ, because it is a local and visible congregation that assembles as an institution and practices baptism and the Lord's supper, holding communion together, keeping the scripture and practicing church discipline with a pastor and deacons. This is what has continued to exist since the time Jesus started with the apostles, and has spread via church planting and continuing to assemble as visible, local congregations, according to what we now call congregational church polity, as expressed in the New Testament.

        • 6 months ago
          Anonymous

          Thank you for that video. It was very informative on the prevalent stances towards iconography.

      • 6 months ago
        Anonymous

        But to further answer your question. The introduction of iconography to Christianity may have been a response to Islam's banning of such things. The church had a proclivity to do the opposite of what contenders did. For instance, when the church was getting started, israeli fasting days where I believe Wednesday and Friday, so the church moved theirs to Tuesday and Thursday to differentiate themselves. They also assembled on the Lord's day instead of the Sabbath, two differentiate themselves. When Islam started picking up steam, they became well known for being so vehemently against icons and imagery of things of heaven or Muhammad. The Roman church then wanted to differentiate themselves by embracing such a thing -- perhaps forgetting the reason why such a position was instituted in the first place.

        • 6 months ago
          Anonymous

          Wednesday and Friday are still fasting days in Greek Orthodoxy. Also don't forget about iconoclasm, it had a significant impact on the history of the Byzantine Empire.

          • 6 months ago
            Anonymous

            I believe he implied that time period in his post.

    • 6 months ago
      Anonymous

      >A contract lawyer going over the writings of the first and second and third century Christians
      The Bible was completed by the first century though. Are you including that with uninspired writings here, or are you only talking about extrabiblical writings? And if the latter, why exclude the Bible?

    • 6 months ago
      Anonymous

      From what I can tell they come from a Mennonite Anabaptist perspective. Would you say that is a good representation of primitive Christianity? Genuine question

      • 6 months ago
        Anonymous

        I am not him, but the Anabaptists are mostly (though, perhaps not entirely) right about Christian attitudes towards violence. Personally, I am of the opinion that self-defense is at least permitted to Christians. Imagine a murderous man charging at you and your family with a weapon. It would seem the Christian thing to do in protecting your family first, and then yourself in all of that trouble by at least attempting to subdue the man if not kill him. I don't get the impression that Christians are meant to just stand by, helplessly against would-be-murderers striking them.

  4. 6 months ago
    Anonymous

    >What are aspects of the very early, primitive state of the church that would surprise or even utterly mystify modern observers of such a meeting held as t
    >And on the day called Sunday, all who live in cities or in the country gather together to one place, and the memoirs of the apostles or the writings of the prophets are read, as long as time permits; then, when the reader has ceased, the president verbally instructs, and exhorts to the imitation of these good things. Then we all rise together and pray, and, as we before said, when our prayer is ended, bread and wine and water are brought, and the president in like manner offers prayers and thanksgivings, according to his ability, and the people assent, saying Amen; and there is a distribution to each, and a participation of that over which thanks have been given, and to those who are absent a portion is sent by the deacons. And they who are well to do, and willing, give what each thinks fit; and what is collected is deposited with the president, who succors the orphans and widows and those who, through sickness or any other cause, are in want, and those who are in bonds and the strangers sojourning among us, and in a word takes care of all who are in need. But Sunday is the day on which we all hold our common assembly, because it is the first day on which God, having wrought a change in the darkness and matter, made the world; and Jesus Christ our Savior on the same day rose from the dead. For He was crucified on the day before that of Saturn (Saturday); and on the day after that of Saturn, which is the day of the Sun, having appeared to His apostles and disciples, He taught them these things, which we have submitted to you also for your consideration. Justin Martyr (A.D. 160) Ante-Nicene Fathers vol.1 pg.186

  5. 6 months ago
    Anonymous

    The OG Christians were just israelites who thought Jesus was the Messiah. Then the religion spread to gentiles who read their hellenic philosophy into the Bible and that snowballed into Christianity. The canonical gospels are an allegory loosely based on the historical Jesus.

  6. 6 months ago
    Anonymous

    >How do proponents of sacred traditions handle justifying their perspectives when their traditions very often post-date the 1st century, historically and archaeologically?
    Clinging to primitivism is a problem of epistemology. I'd wager it's simply impossible from a historical perspective. Push primitivism back far enough in time and you get to a point where considering the gospels to be sacred scripture could itself be considered an innovation. You mention many sacred traditions post-dating the 1st century, but the canon of scripture wasn't even confirmed in a council until the late 4th century just a few years before Christianity became the official religion of the Roman Empire. Even then, that was just a local council. This is roughly the equivalent of the US Constitution being written in 1787 and not being standardized in all 50 states until the year 2100.

    I highly suggest anyone interested in the early Church read the Apostolic Fathers.
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apostolic_Fathers

    • 6 months ago
      Anonymous

      >Push primitivism back far enough in time and you get to a point where considering the gospels to be sacred scripture could itself be considered an innovation.
      Paul quoted the Gospel of Luke as Scripture in 1 Timothy 5:18 (Luke 10:7 quoted alongside Deuteronomy 25:4).

      Jesus, as the only begotten Son in the Gospels, also identified His own words as having divine authority, equal in authority in that regard with that of the Old Testament, in numerous places such as John 12:48 for one example. As it says in Matthew 7:29, "For he taught them as one having authority, and not as the scribes."

      >the canon of scripture wasn't even confirmed in a council until the late 4th century
      No it was already confirmed before that. People in the 1st century accepted it as God's word, as we see in numerous places in the New Testament.

      • 6 months ago
        Anonymous

        >No it was already confirmed before that. People in the 1st century accepted it as God's word, as we see in numerous places in the New Testament.
        There was no set canon of scripture in the first century, different churches used different canons

        • 6 months ago
          Anonymous

          There were non-Christian groups that used non-inspired or manmade literature, just as there are now. There has always been a set, fixed word of God, whether you want to call it canon or not it doesn't matter. In Psalm 119:160, for example, it says: "Thy word is true from the beginning: and every one of thy righteous judgments endureth for ever."

      • 6 months ago
        Anonymous

        1 Tim is a mid 2nd century forgery along with the other pastorals.

      • 6 months ago
        Anonymous

        >Paul quoted the Gospel of Luke as Scripture in 1 Timothy 5:18 (Luke 10:7 quoted alongside Deuteronomy 25:4).
        You have to first assume 1 Timothy is scripture to make this appeal.

        >Jesus, as the only begotten Son in the Gospels, also identified His own words as having divine authority, equal in authority in that regard with that of the Old Testament, in numerous places such as John 12:48 for one example. As it says in Matthew 7:29, "For he taught them as one having authority, and not as the scribes."
        You have to assume John and and Matthew are scripture to make this appeal.

        >No it was already confirmed before that.
        >People in the 1st century accepted it as God's word, as we see in numerous places in the New Testament.
        No. There was no solid definition of what was and was not the inspired word of God, but again you have to assume those books we know as the New Testament are scripture to make that appeal.

        Think epistemologically. Stop making assumptions and be sure to not assert anything a priori. Ask yourself why we think certain books are scripture and others aren’t. Ask yourself why we think New Testament scriptures are supposed to exist at all. 99% of people inherit these presuppositions as a tradition. Most people don’t believe the canon is the canon because they studied the history of the Church. Most people believe it because someone taught it to them when they were kids and it’s an inherent part of their faith. The early Church couldn’t do this. The New Testament didn’t yet exist. The Church that existed prior to the writing of the New Testament was what began confirming what was and was not holy scripture and passed it down to us through tradition. The confirmation wasn’t closed until centuries later. The Church that existed prior to the writing of the New Testament innovated when confirming the New Testament as the inspired word of God. On a long enough timescale innovation and development becomes orthodoxy. Primitivism doesn’t allow for this.

        • 6 months ago
          Anonymous

          The person I was responding to and OP both mentioned Scripture themselves and the thread topic is Christianity, so getting at primitive Christianity involves as OP already suggested, looking at the Scripture, that is already established as the premise. OP did not open the thread asking about non-Christian opinions or beliefs for the subject.

          • 6 months ago
            Anonymous

            >The person I was responding to and OP both mentioned Scripture themselves and the thread topic is Christianity, so getting at primitive Christianity involves as OP already suggested, looking at the Scripture, that is already established as the premise.
            I’m the person you responded to. OP’s premise is flawed, as primitivism is incompatible with the presumption that the Bible is the only thing we are to measure our faith against. Christians existed and practiced the faith for decades prior to the existence of even the earliest of what we today consider New Testament writings.
            >OP did not open the thread asking about non-Christian opinions or beliefs for the subject.
            Analyzing the reasoning and origin behind one’s beliefs isn’t non-Christian. If your faith requires you to plug your ears and put on blinders in response to epistemological interrogation, then its foundation is little better than quicksand.

          • 6 months ago
            Anonymous

            Anon, this is disingenuous and is wasting all of our time posing/posting as a Christian when you're not one

            >Regarded as Scripture
            you're just restating 'they accepted it'
            what does accepting it / Regarded as Scripture look like? because you're being incredibly vague
            > Peter speaks of Paul's epistles as such in 2 Peter 3:16 as one example. Unless you are acting obtuse and just trying to make things more complicated than they really are, the situation is quite simple.
            so are you saying that scripture referencing other scripture is the basis for scripture? that is circular

            >so are you saying that scripture referencing other scripture is the basis for scripture?
            This is disingenuous. I was answering the previous question, which was what it means to say that the New Testament was recognized by believers. Have you forgotten what the discussion was about in the previous post?

          • 6 months ago
            Anonymous

            >stop asking questions I don’t have answers for
            >you’re not a Christian

          • 6 months ago
            Anonymous

            >This is disingenuous. I was answering the previous question, which was what it means to say that the New Testament was recognized by believers
            I already addressed this
            you're just restating 'they accepted it'
            what does accepting it / Regarded as Scripture look like? because you're being incredibly vague

          • 6 months ago
            Anonymous

            >what does accepting it / Regarded as Scripture look like?
            See

            >can you explain what 'recognized by believers' looks like?
            Regarded as Scripture, as Peter speaks of Paul's epistles as such in 2 Peter 3:16 as one example. Unless you are acting obtuse and just trying to make things more complicated than they really are, the situation is quite simple.

            When combined with this [...] explanation, OP's question about both church continuity as well as this thread's questions on Scripture continuity have hopefully been pretty well answered, from a biblical perspective.

            , wherein it says "Peter speaks of Paul's epistles as such in 2 Peter 3:16 as one example." That's the answer to the question of what regarding the New Testament as Scripture looks like. Peter did it in the book of 2 Peter itself! This explains what was said before here

            The New Testament was recognized by believers in Christianity as God-breathed and Scripture before the moment that it was all placed into a single bound volume. That was certainly not the moment when the New Testament or any given part of it was first realized or recognized as inspired by God.

            where the New Testament was recognized by believers in Christianity, which Peter is a good example of. He himself recognized Paul's epistles as Scripture, which is inspired and God-breathed (a reference to 2 Timothy 3:16). This shows how the New Testament was recognized as Scripture long before anyone held a council in the 4th century.

          • 6 months ago
            Anonymous

            >See

            >can you explain what 'recognized by believers' looks like?


            Regarded as Scripture, as Peter speaks of Paul's epistles as such in 2 Peter 3:16 as one example. Unless you are acting obtuse and just trying to make things more complicated than they really are, the situation is quite simple.

            When combined with this [...] explanation, OP's question about both church continuity as well as this thread's questions on Scripture continuity have hopefully been pretty well answered, from a biblical perspective. , wherein it says "Peter speaks of Paul's epistles as such in 2 Peter 3:16 as one example." That's the answer to the question of what regarding the New Testament as Scripture looks like
            to which I already responded to saying
            > Peter speaks of Paul's epistles as such in 2 Peter 3:16 as one example. Unless you are acting obtuse and just trying to make things more complicated than they really are, the situation is quite simple.
            so are you saying that scripture referencing other scripture is the basis for scripture? that is circular

          • 6 months ago
            Anonymous

            >so are you saying that scripture referencing other scripture is the basis for scripture? that is circular
            The question was what does it look like for someone to recognize the New Testament as Scripture, and the answer was given. The fact is that 2 Peter 3:16 recognizes Paul's epistles as Scripture, and Paul references Luke 10:7 when writing in 1 Timothy 5:18. That is a simple fact being pointed out. Anyone can check it for themselves, that's what it looks like. I gave an answer. That's the answer. If you don't like it, that's not the same thing as me being vague. I am being very clear in what I'm saying.

          • 6 months ago
            Anonymous

            >The question was what does it look like for someone to recognize the New Testament as Scripture, and the answer was given
            you just restates the same position then tried to say scripture is scripture because scriptures refers to it as scripture which is circular

          • 6 months ago
            Anonymous

            You do know that Peter and Paul where actual people, right? Peter and Paul's various writings were letters to communities of believers. This shows that there was some body of knowledge that they agreed upon. Just because the letters themselves are scripture doesn't nullify this.

          • 6 months ago
            Anonymous

            nothing you said counters the point against what logic being circular

          • 6 months ago
            Anonymous

            You're discounting something just because it's in the same body of works. They were written at different times and all packaged together later. It shows there was some common consensus between early believers. Are you trying to say they're forgeries or something?

          • 6 months ago
            Anonymous

            so for clarification are you trying to say that scripture is scripture because scripture references scripture?

          • 6 months ago
            Anonymous

            Yes, but I'm looking at the context in which scripture was written. It isn't a body of texts that manifested out of nothing or was written by one person. The epistles are a collection of letters from several different authors. Just because they're packaged with the Gospels and other books of the Bible doesn't contradict the historical reality in which they were written.

            Are you saying they're forgeries or doctored?

          • 6 months ago
            Anonymous

            >so for clarification are you trying to say that scripture is scripture because scripture references scripture?
            >Yes
            then why are you inconsistant with this premise in regard to the deuterocanon?

          • 6 months ago
            Anonymous

            Because we know the historical people who wrote the epistles.

          • 6 months ago
            Anonymous

            That doesn't answer the question

          • 6 months ago
            Anonymous

            The people who wrote those 1st century documents referred to parts of the New Testament as Scripture. The fact that those 1st century documents are also part of the New Testament does not change the fact that this shows people who in that early age pointed to the New Testament as Scripture, long before any 4th century council.

            The fact that these documents are also Scripture only tends to help boost their authority, because it shows that the early church necessarily held to this point as a matter of faith. If you reject both, that is up to you, but it doesn't change the point.

          • 6 months ago
            Anonymous

            >The people who wrote those 1st century documents referred to parts of the New Testament as Scripture.
            Many also considered what we know today to not be scripture to be scripture, like the shepherd of hermas, and considered what we consider scripture today to not be scripture, like Revelation.
            >The fact that those 1st century documents are also part of the New Testament does not change the fact that this shows people who in that early age pointed to the New Testament as Scripture, long before any 4th century council.
            It very much does change things when we understand that non-canonical works are often cited as scriptural in those early centuries.
            >The fact that these documents are also Scripture only tends to help boost their authority,
            This can only be said if one already believes those particular works to be scriptural. It’s circular reasoning. It’s just presupposing what we today consider to be the canon to indeed be the canon and then going back and looking through the historical record to pick and choose writings that support what we already believe to be the canon. This is a shaky foundation for any belief.

          • 6 months ago
            Anonymous

            >Many also considered what we know today to not be scripture to be scripture
            Yes, such as Gnostics and non-Christian groups. These aren't representative of the early church because they're non-Christian. The fact that non-Christian groups existed doesn't do much to disprove any of the points cited.

            >It’s circular reasoning.
            Doesn't matter because it's a 1st century document, as mentioned before. That's the important point.
            >It’s just presupposing what we today consider to be the canon
            Oh so you agree with what the Holy Bible is, all 66 books? Why didn't you just say so in the first place, anon?
            >going back and looking through the historical record to pick and choose writings that support what we already believe to be the canon.
            Not exactly. OP and others asked the question about "what are the hallmarks of a decent-to-good, run-of-the-mill New Testament style congregation of the sort perhaps most prevalent among orthodox streams of the church between approximately the mid-1st century through the very early second century AD?"

            That question has been answered. We weren't talking about heretic groups. Paul even mentions that people were corrupting the word of God already. John said that the spirit of Antichrist was already in the world at the time of writing 1 John. So the existence of heretic groups isn't a valid counterpoint, as if it somehow disproves what the church believed just because non-Christian heretic groups existed.

            I'm also not sure why someone who considers the 66 books of the Holy Bible to be canon, as we have just discussed, to think that gnostic groups were Christians and to be trying to argue that the early church itself was wrong, yet still trying to pretend to be Christian rather than non-Christian despite having clearly taken a non-Christian position. And a non-Christian position isn't what OP asked for, so it's kind of pointless to offer it.

            >This is a shaky foundation for any belief.
            My foundation for belief isn't the thread topic.

          • 6 months ago
            Anonymous

            >being this defensive
            If your response to someone questioning your presuppositions is to employ ad hominem and question their faith, then you should probably examine your presuppositions some more.

  7. 6 months ago
    Anonymous

    Keep your covenant - get circd

    • 6 months ago
      Anonymous

      Paul addressed that issue. To make a longer story short, some of the earliest Christians thought it was required, but it is in fact optional, and we should not force it upon Christians.

  8. 6 months ago
    Anonymous

    The "New Testament' is also a 'phenomenon of movements ostensibly after the age of the Apostles' by your logic.
    Christ didn't hand us a Bible like a lot of protestants seem to think

    • 6 months ago
      Anonymous

      Christ did inspire the Scripture as He is God the Son. As such, it is all inspired by Him. Paul even explicitly says this in Galatians.

      "But I certify you, brethren, that the gospel which was preached of me is not after man.
      For I neither received it of man, neither was I taught it, but by the revelation of Jesus Christ."
      (Galatians 1:11-12)

      • 6 months ago
        Anonymous

        yes but to have it consolidated into the new testament as a standardize canon for all christians happened in the 4th century

        • 6 months ago
          Anonymous

          The New Testament was recognized by believers in Christianity as God-breathed and Scripture before the moment that it was all placed into a single bound volume. That was certainly not the moment when the New Testament or any given part of it was first realized or recognized as inspired by God.

          • 6 months ago
            Anonymous

            >The New Testament was recognized by believers in Christianity as God-breathed and Scripture before the moment that it was all placed into a single bound volume
            can you explain what 'recognized by believers' looks like?
            >That was certainly not the moment when the New Testament or any given part of it was first realized or recognized as inspired by God.
            well prior to it been written,
            and groups that didn't hold to every book in its final canon.
            and groups that held to different books that other churches do not

          • 6 months ago
            Anonymous

            >can you explain what 'recognized by believers' looks like?
            Regarded as Scripture, as Peter speaks of Paul's epistles as such in 2 Peter 3:16 as one example. Unless you are acting obtuse and just trying to make things more complicated than they really are, the situation is quite simple.

            When combined with this

            >Of course, but the church just means the body of followers of Christ.
            The church is the institution that was set up by Christ about two thousand years ago now. It has two offices and two ordinances as laid down by the New Testament. It's more specific than just the total followers of Christ, because it is a local and visible congregation that assembles as an institution and practices baptism and the Lord's supper, holding communion together, keeping the scripture and practicing church discipline with a pastor and deacons. This is what has continued to exist since the time Jesus started with the apostles, and has spread via church planting and continuing to assemble as visible, local congregations, according to what we now call congregational church polity, as expressed in the New Testament.

            explanation, OP's question about both church continuity as well as this thread's questions on Scripture continuity have hopefully been pretty well answered, from a biblical perspective.

          • 6 months ago
            Anonymous

            >Regarded as Scripture
            you're just restating 'they accepted it'
            what does accepting it / Regarded as Scripture look like? because you're being incredibly vague
            > Peter speaks of Paul's epistles as such in 2 Peter 3:16 as one example. Unless you are acting obtuse and just trying to make things more complicated than they really are, the situation is quite simple.
            so are you saying that scripture referencing other scripture is the basis for scripture? that is circular

          • 6 months ago
            Anonymous

            Good points, thank you.

  9. 6 months ago
    Anonymous

    They were israelites who thought israelitesus was the israeli messiah torah had promised.

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *