What if Modern Christianity is just the other end of the telephone?

[NathanH83]

Have you ever played the telephone game?


We played it in church youth groups a lot. The way it goes is:

One person whispers a sentence or phrase into another’s ear. Then that person whispers it in the next person’s ear, then the next and the next on down the line. Finally, it reaches the last person who tells everyone out loud what they heard, and you can see how much it changed on down the line from the original phrase.

Usually the final phrase is extremely different from the original phrase.

I said all that to say this:

Have you ever thought that the Early Church was the origin end of the telephone, and that the Modern Church is the other end? And could it be that the “Christianity” that we have today is barely even recognizable to what the Early Church had?

If so…then I think I want to:

“E.T. Phone Home”

 

[Lamb]

That type of thinking doesn't trust that the Holy Spirit has guided mankind.

 

[Lanman87]

I do believe that there has been a lot of accretion in church history. Also, if you read the church fathers, there was a lot of different perspectives on different issues and then you can trace new teachings and practices that emerged in the church during the midieval period. . Since the church is made up of flawed humans who bring cultural, personal, and religious prejudices into their thinking then this isn't surprising.

However, I also believe in the indefectibility of the church. That throughout history there has always been and always will be a born again, spirit filled, people of God, following Christ, and preaching the Gospel. So while the "telephone game" may have added a bunch of things to the practice of the church through the centuries, the gospel message of redemption through Christ has remained.

As a protestant Christian, I believe the Reformation was an attempt to remove much of the medieval "accretion" and return the teachings and practice of the church to the deposit of faith that was given by Christ and the apostles.

 

[NathanH83]

That type of thinking doesn't trust that the Holy Spirit has guided mankind.

That’s an illogical conclusion. The Holy Spirit’s ability to lead is not the same thing as man’s willingness to obey and follow.

 

[Lamb]

That’s an illogical conclusion. The Holy Spirit’s ability to lead is not the same thing as man’s willingness to obey and follow.

My point is that the telephone game loses the translation entirely at the end so that you don't recognize the original message. Did you forget about that?

The original message that we are saved by grace through faith has been kept in the "game" by the Holy Spirit since Genesis. It has nothing to do with man's willingness to obey and follow, but everything to do with our triune God keeping His children in His fold. That's His job and what does man do? He strays. He distorts the message (such as Eve in the garden). Keeping the message clear has always been the Holy Spirit's duties.

 

[NathanH83]

My point is that the telephone game loses the translation entirely at the end so that you don't recognize the original message. Did you forget about that?

The original message that we are saved by grace through faith has been kept in the "game" by the Holy Spirit since Genesis. It has nothing to do with man's willingness to obey and follow, but everything to do with our triune God keeping His children in His fold. That's His job and what does man do? He strays. He distorts the message (such as Eve in the garden). Keeping the message clear has always been the Holy Spirit's duties.

The beliefs of the early church were drastically different than the beliefs of the modern church. That’s not supposed to happen in your view, yet here we are.

 

[Lamb]

The beliefs of the early church were drastically different than the beliefs of the modern church. That’s not supposed to happen in your view, yet here we are.

The early church believed we are saved by grace through faith. The modern church believes that too.

 

[NathanH83]

The early church believed we are saved by grace through faith. The modern church believes that too.

Yea, but there’s lots of other beliefs that are different

 

[Albion]

The beliefs of the early church were drastically different than the beliefs of the modern church. That’s not supposed to happen in your view, yet here we are.

It would be interesting to read your explanation, with evidence and examples, showing how that idea is true.

On the other hand, you don't do that, do you? Simply postulating some religious science fiction is all that you can offer.

 

[NathanH83]

It would be interesting to read your explanation, with evidence and examples, showing how that idea is true.

On the other hand, you don't do that, do you? Simply postulating some religious science fiction is all that you can offer.

There’s lots of examples, not just one.

Like for example, the way the modern church explains the two genealogies of Jesus is to say that one of them was of Mary. But Eusebius explains in his Ecclesiastical History that that both were of Joseph. The modern church doesn’t want to believe that. I made a video explaining Eusebius’ explanation, and most leaders in the church who I share it with don’t want to listen.

There’s many more examples.

The way that the early church defended the Septuagint as the only version the church approves of. Today many church leaders spit on the Septuagint like it’s worthless trash. Big difference in attitude.

 

[NathanH83]

The early church believed we are saved by grace through faith. The modern church believes that too.

“Remember therefore from where you have fallen; repent and do the first works, or else I will come to you quickly and remove your lampstand from its place—unless you repent.”
-Revelation 2:5 - Bible Gateway passage: Revelation 2:5 - New King James Version

“I will kill her children with death, and all the churches shall know that I am He who searches the minds and hearts. And I will give to each one of you according to your works.”
-Revelation 2:23 - Bible Gateway passage: Revelation 2:23 - New King James Version

“You see then that a man is justified by works, and not by faith only.”
-James 2:24 - Bible Gateway passage: James 2:24 - New King James Version

 

[Lamb]

“Remember therefore from where you have fallen; repent and do the first works, or else I will come to you quickly and remove your lampstand from its place—unless you repent.”
-Revelation 2:5 - Bible Gateway passage: Revelation 2:5 - New King James Version

“I will kill her children with death, and all the churches shall know that I am He who searches the minds and hearts. And I will give to each one of you according to your works.”
-Revelation 2:23 - Bible Gateway passage: Revelation 2:23 - New King James Version

“You see then that a man is justified by works, and not by faith only.”
-James 2:24 - Bible Gateway passage: James 2:24 - New King James Version

Misinterpreting verses doesn't make by grace through faith untrue.

 

[Albion]

“You see then that a man is justified by works, and not by faith only.”
-James 2:24 - Bible Gateway passage: James 2:24 - New King James Version

What this citation is telling us is simply that Nathan, along with other people, has misunderstood the words of Holy Scripture.

That being the case, it doesn't do anything to show that the Church changed beliefs over time, kept Hebrew ordinances going, or that the Holy Spirit either has kept the Church from the clutches of Satan (as Jesus promised), or allowed such a thing to happen. None of that.

 

[Albion]

NathanH83: The beliefs of the early church were drastically different than the beliefs of the modern church. That’s not supposed to happen in your view, yet here we are.

There’s lots of examples, not just one.

Like for example, the way the modern church explains the two genealogies of Jesus is to say that one of them was of Mary. But Eusebius explains in his Ecclesiastical History that that both were of Joseph. The modern church doesn’t want to believe that. I made a video explaining Eusebius’ explanation, and most leaders in the church who I share it with don’t want to listen.

There’s many more examples.

The way that the early church defended the Septuagint as the only version the church approves of. Today many church leaders spit on the Septuagint like it’s worthless trash. Big difference in attitude.

I see that you don't have any examples of DOCTRINAL changes, i.e. matters that define the faith. That's what is meant by "beliefs." There are an enormous number of ideas about incidental and often trivial geographical or historical matters that do not affect the faith.

But that--doctrines--is the issue. It's cults that worry about the shape of the Cross and not what the Cross is all about, and it's cults that make a big deal about how much water touches the person when he's baptized, and so on, but none of that kind of thing alters the faith one way or the other.

See the drift of the discussion here--

The early church believed we are saved by grace through faith. The modern church believes that too.

Yea, but there’s lots of other beliefs that are different

What, for example...that the Earthly lineage of Jesus might be traced through either Mary's or Joseph's family lines??

It would be interesting to read your explanation, with evidence and examples, showing how that idea is true.

 

[NathanH83]

I see that you don't have any examples of DOCTRINAL changes, i.e. matters that define the faith. That's what is meant by "beliefs." There are an enormous number of ideas about incidental and often trivial geographical or historical matters that do not affect the faith.

But that--doctrines--is the issue. It's cults that worry about the shape of the Cross and not what the Cross is all about, and it's cults that make a big deal about how much water touches the person when he's baptized, and so on, but none of that kind of thing alters the faith one way or the other.

See the drift of the discussion here--




What, for example...that the Earthly lineage of Jesus might be traced through either Mary's or Joseph's family lines??

I said that there’s lots of things.

The fact that we’re using a Bible which literally has Messianic prophecies removed from it. But the Septuagint had those prophecies included. Like Isaiah 61:1 for example. Our Bibles today are missing the phrase about healing the blind. The Septuagint had it. That’s something that affects beliefs, because these prophecies are crucial in convincing unbelieving Jews that Jesus is the promised Jewish Messiah. But the Jews removed many of those proofs. And we’re using the version of the Bible that follows the Jew’s corrupted Masoretic text which has prophecies removed.

Besides, there’s many different types of beliefs. Doctrinal beliefs is one. But there’s also historical beliefs. Beliefs about the scriptures. There’s lots of beliefs, doctrinal or not, that the early church differs from the modern church.

They believed back then that the Tower of Babel was 400 years after Noah’s flood. The modern church believes Babel was only 100 years after the flood. Why? Because they followed the Septuagint back then. Today we we don’t. Even though that’s not a major doctrinal difference, it DOES affect beliefs. It can affect the beliefs of an atheist who actually knows how to do math, and knows that 100 years is not enough time for the population to reproduce large enough to build the tower. This is factual stuff that can literally HINDER atheists from believing the Bible is true, and thus affect their beliefs in rejecting Christianity.

When David Bercot started reading the writings of the early church fathers, he was blown away with how different their beliefs back then were compared to accepted Christian beliefs today.

You’re trying to relegate it all down just to doctrinal disputes. But no, that’s not what I said. I said there’s lots of differing beliefs, whether doctrinal or not.

 

[Albion]

You’re trying to relegate it all down just to doctrinal disputes.

Only because you framed the issue that way before departing from it. Here is what you wrote at the start of the thread--

Have you ever thought that the Early Church was the origin end of the telephone, and that the Modern Church is the other end? And could it be that the “Christianity” that we have today is barely even recognizable to what the Early Church had?

It is clearly not the case that the modern church can be shown to be "barely even recognizable" when compared with the early church. (!)

...and certainly not on account of minor, non-doctrinal, questions like those you have tried again and again to make seem more important than they are.

 

[Lamb]

Only because you framed the issue that way before departing from it. Here is what you wrote at the start of the thread--



It is clearly not the case that the modern church can be shown to be "barely even recognizable" when compared with the early church.

...and certainly not on account of minor, non-doctrinal, questions like those you have tried again and again to make seem more important than they are.

Exactly. The knowledge of the Savior has not slipped through the cracks all these centuries. That's the most important thing, not some of the other stuff.

 

[NathanH83]

David Bercot made a dictionary of early Christian beliefs. If you take a look inside, you’ll find there’s lots of beliefs of the early church that were different than modern church beliefs.

 

[NathanH83]

Exactly. The knowledge of the Savior has not slipped through the cracks all these centuries. That's the most important thing, not some of the other stuff.

All of it is important to me. Even the small details.

Although it is kind of odd to me that using an entirely different Bible is a “small thing” in your eyes.

A Bible with missing books and missing chapters is insignificant to you? I thought Jesus cares very much about the smallest stroke of a pen?

 

[NewCreation435]

The analogy of the telephone doesn't work because we have the words of scripture and the Holy Spirit.