1st Century Church

[guanophore]

No he did not. He made a general point and James specifically answered the question. What are you talking about? It never says Peter decided.

Why do you suppose that it was Peter who was sent to the house of Cornelius in the first place? Why not James, or another Apostle? What do you think it means to have the “keys of the kingdom”?

 

[guanophore]

I do not believe in disciplines. It is not a word I find in scripture. There were no restrictions on gentile Christians. The gentiles were not under the old covenant. Jewish Christians could not decide. So they met to decide. Peter had a direct visions from God earlier and then they also use scripture to help decide. What you are saying does not make sense.

There are many disciplines in the NT church. One of these was the dietary practice of Jews and Gentiles. Another is the wearing of veils by women in the church. Another is the practice of celibacy. Perhaps you do not think of them as disciplines. They are also referred to as “practice”.

 

[Church_Militant]

There are many disciplines in the NT church. One of these was the dietary practice of Jews and Gentiles. Another is the wearing of veils by women in the church. Another is the practice of celibacy. Perhaps you do not think of them as disciplines. They are also referred to as “practice”.

Exactly! Paul often makes a case for them and then says things like, " If any one is disposed to be contentious, we recognize no other practice, nor do the churches of God." (1st Corinthians 11:16)

 

[Ginger2]

It most certainly does!

But Ginger2 did not distinguish. She asked for a dogma or a discipline, so the baptismal procedure should be sufficient.

RIGHTLYDIVIDE & GUANOPHORE,

This is the question:

Can you provide proof, from the 1st century, of dogma held by the Catholic Church that is not found in the Bible? Can you prove that it was practiced in the 1st century?

I think Guano was remembering the background I provided for the reason I was posting the question.

I do not care to discuss disciplines.

 

[Ginger2]

The changes after about 100AD were due to one specific reason .
The leadership in the church began to change from Jewish to gentile hands.

The new leaders of the church had one deficiency , they were not jews and therefore did not the jewish old testament background for many of the practices in the church. Also this is a time after 70 AD when the roman army destroyed the temple in Jerusalem . Because the christians did not help the jews defend the city and the temple the jewish / Christian riff only grew .
It grew to the point that some of the gentile leaders in the church began to refer to jews as the wicked race.

The sad result of this is that the CC lost the needed background to many church practices.
an example the communion is based on the 3rd cup of wine in a jewish passover seder. The church by losing it’s jewish part lost the knowledge of the passover seder and therefore did not fully understand communion.

I don’t think that is entirely accurate…

The Apostles were ministering to both Jews and Gentiles. Both groups were converting to Christianity. As a result of the New Covenant, some Jewish traditions were no longer necessary.

So, I’d say that, within the first century, the church was a blended church that was sorting through the changes that came about do to the fulfillment of prophecy. Both Jews and Gentiles became Christians and with that change, came changes in religious traditions.

When you think about it, it seems rather odd that more Jewish customs were not preserved because the Christian church was founded and built by Jews.

I hope this isn’t too far off topic, but I think Christians forget how much we owe to the Hebrew peoples. It is the Hebrew God - the One and Only God - that we worship. It is the Hebrew God whom opened His doors to include us in His plan for salvation. And it is the Hebrew people whom God chose and used to fulfill His prophecy from start to finish.

 

[Ginger2]

Quit dodging, Ginger2. This IS the topic of the thread! It was pointed out to you that the Trinity is one of the beliefs of the early church that is not mentioned in the Bible. The Didache was also given to you as an example of both Apostolic Succession and how baptism is to be done. You have not responded to any of these.

The Trinity is off topic, but I will answer for you anyway. The word “Trinity” was first coined by Tertullian (c.155-230) to help the church understand the Deity of Christ Jesus.

Two points:

1. Tertullian is not from the 1st century
2. Since the word “Trinity” did not exist as a word in Biblical times, it could not be used in the Scriptures. Just like the word “homosexual” does not appear in the Bible because that term did not exist, either.

However, the Trinity is a very clear Biblical concept in both OT and NT.

 

[DLC]

It would be helpful if you could ask for specific examples, being that the Mass and all the Sacraments are found in the Bible, as is Purgatory. One Tradition of the Catholic Church that did not come to be until the end of the Fourth Century, however, is the specific New Testament canon, as Christianity knows it, today.

Question: Where are theses items above found in the Bible?

 

[NotWorthy]

Question: Where are theses items above found in the Bible?

The Mass? The Road to Emmaus. All throught Acts, as well.

Sacramentals? Didn’t people touch Jesus’ hem? Paul’s hankerchief? Peter’s Shadow?

Purgatory? Maccabees would be a good example.

But the NT Canon? Nope, I don’t see it anywhere in Scripture. You, my friend, are accepting the teaching authority of the Catholic Church when you accept the NT Canon.

 

[joe370]

My question is:

Can you provide proof, from the 1st century, of dogma held by the Catholic Church that is not found in the Bible? Can you prove that it was practiced in the 1st century?

I think you are asking if there was a teaching, of the 1st century church, that is not mentioned in the Bible?

Wouldn’t that make it a tradition? I can’t think of any. Can you?

Or are you asking if there are Catholic beliefs today that didn’t exist in the 1st century Church?

 

[akasseb]

How did a four year old thread get revived?? But I guess it warrants an answer.

Without looking at the other posts, I can think of two distinctively Catholic teachings off the top of my head that come from the first century. The first is infant baptism. In the New Testament infant baptism is implied but never explicitly taught. Yet, it was a teaching of the Apostles as can be gleaned from these quotes from two illustrious Church Fathers:

Here is a quote from Origen:

The Church received from the apostles the tradition of giving baptism even to infants. The apostles, to whom were committed the secrets of the divine sacraments, knew there are in everyone innate strains of [original] sin, which must be washed away through water and the Spirit (Commentaries on Romans 5:9 [A.D. 248]).

And here is another from Augustine:

“The custom of Mother Church in baptizing infants is certainly not to be scorned, nor is it to be regarded in any way as superfluous, nor is it to be believed that its tradition is anything except apostolic” (The Literal Interpretation of Genesis 10:23:39 [A.D. 408]).

The second is the primacy of the bishop of Rome as found in 1 Clement (c. 96 A.D.). This letter was included in some early codices as inspired, but was not included in the New Testament when the Catholic Church determined the canon.

Finally, we have the letters of St. Ignatius, who was a disciple of the Apostle John. While his letters were written in the very early second century, their content reflects the commonly held beliefs of 1st century Christians. In Ignatius’s letters we find clear teachings on the Eucharist, and on Church hierarchy (deacons, priests, and bishops).