1st Century Church

  • Thread starter Thread starter Ginger2
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Ginger2,
You made a good point - I was thinking more in lines of heresies that took place after the Apostolic Age when there were no Apostles around to correct them and the Church had to begin defining her beliefs. Heresies such as the Docetism which seems to be the fisrt great heresy the Church faced after the time of the Apostles.
 
Rightlydivide said:
No they got quiet because what Paul had to say was very important.
Click to expand...
Interesting… and your proof?

Or is it your interpretation of what the Scripture means?

But what makes your interpretation more valid than a Catholic interpretation? Seems to me one can say that perhaps your view came later just as easily as you say this of our interpretation…
 
cascherman said:
ginger,

Okay, do us a favor, answer SOMETHING instead of passing it off.

We have brought up many things about you believing in the Trinity (assuming you do) and finding extra-biblical proof for it. Because it is implicit and had to be interpreted and the very same supporting verses have been used to prove another idea.
Click to expand...
Please do me a favor. Stick to the topic of this thread.

I promise, if you stop trying to take this thread off topic and if you start a new thread on Trinity and send me the link, I will respond.

Fair enough?
 
TOME said:
Ginger2,
Your made a good point - I was thinking more in lines of heresies that took place after the Apostolic Age when there were no Apostles around to correct and the Church had to begin defining her beliefs. Heresies such as the Docetism which seems to be the fisrt great heresy the Church faced after the time of the Apostles.
Click to expand...
Actually, Docetism was one of the forms of Gnosticism.
 
Ginger2 said:
Isn’t the papacy of Rome the main reason the for the split in the church between East and West.

How do I know which church is the “true” church founded by Jesus?

The Orthodox claim Rome was claiming power for itself that it was not legitimately given.

If they were correct, and it is the Orthodox church that remained faithful while the RC changed…

Then it is the Orthodox Church that is the true church founded by Christ.

So, How do I know which church remained true to history and which church changed?
Click to expand...
"Well… there was a time when the Orthodox followed the rule of the Pope. Then, there became a time when the Orthodox appealed to the Secular rulers to resolve disputes.

So, which Church changed?
 
Ginger2 said:
Please do me a favor. Stick to the topic of this thread.

I promise, if you stop trying to take this thread off topic and if you start a new thread on Trinity and send me the link, I will respond.

Fair enough?
Click to expand...
I’m not sure that it is off topic. Since you said everything should be traceable to the first century, the issue of where “Trinity” was mentioned in the First Century is a valid question.
 
Ginger2 said:
Please do me a favor. Stick to the topic of this thread.

I promise, if you stop trying to take this thread off topic and if you start a new thread on Trinity and send me the link, I will respond.

Fair enough?
Click to expand...
Obviously, you feel threatened, because we’ve made our cases solidly, and presented you with questions that you can not answer. Rather than, trying to change the topic back to, “I’m attacking you. You have no right to attack me, because that’s not the topic,” why don’t you look at what we are saying and realize that the Catholic Church is right, and you are wrong. Open your heart to the truth.
 
Ginger2 said:
Isn’t the papacy of Rome the main reason the for the split in the church between East and West.
Click to expand...
Doesn’t matter. Splitting is not a valid way of documenting error within the Church. Show me, using the valid way of documenting error, the ecumenical (that is, speaking for the entire Church) council that declares “the papacy of Rome” to be wrong.
 
Arnobius said:
Interesting… and your proof?

Or is it your interpretation of what the Scripture means?

But what makes your interpretation more valid than a Catholic interpretation? Seems to me one can say that perhaps your view came later just as easily as you say this of our interpretation…
Click to expand...
The way to interpret this passage begins with understanding Jewish custom.

When someone with authority speaks, and the whole assembly falls silent, it is a sign that the case has been resolved and no further argument is necessary.

Acts 15:12 is “Jewish Speak” for the matter has been settled. Notice Paul does not offer any further arguments. He simply tells of physical evidence that backs up Peter’s statement.
 
Arnobius said:
Interesting… and your proof?

Or is it your interpretation of what the Scripture means?

But what makes your interpretation more valid than a Catholic interpretation? Seems to me one can say that perhaps your view came later just as easily as you say this of our interpretation…
Click to expand...
Please provide proof that this interpretation of Acts 15 is infallible Catholic dogma before I proceed. I was not aware the Catholic church had an infallible interpretation of Acts 15. Please provide it. Infallible proof. And then I can still argue the point but I want to see if I am arguing your opinion as well or am I arguing against an infallible interpretation of said verse.
 
Rightlydivide said:
Wrong, I will trust a professor of relgious studies at UT over some “source”. No historian thinks the catacombs had artwork or such in the 1st century. That is a basic historical error that no one would make. You are quoting a reverend from 105 years ago. There has been a little work since then
Click to expand...
So, archaeological proof is not proof anymore?

That’s interesting.

But you’re right. College professors have never used personal bias to refute real proof before. My bad.

And besides, I never mentioned artwork, I simply showed proof of inscriptions. When the artwork began, I could care less, for it’s got nothing to do with the point.
 
NotWorthy said:
The way to interpret this passage begins with understanding Jewish custom.

When someone with authority speaks, and the whole assembly falls silent, it is a sign that the case has been resolved and no further argument is necessary.

Acts 15:12 is “Jewish Speak” for the matter has been settled. Notice Paul does not offer any further arguments. He simply tells of physical evidence that backs up Peter’s statement.
Click to expand...
Proof of that statement please. I read a similiar comment months ago and it was not supported then either. Not sure if it was you who made that statment then as well. Proof. Jewish source. Or reliable neutral historian
 
Ginger2 said:
I joined a thread that asked this question:

“Please provide proof of one doctrine, dogma, discipline, or anything that comes from the early Christian church not found in the Bible. Prove that it comes from … the first century.”

The thread didn’t seem to be addressing that specific issue, so I asked about it and was told:

Then the thread fell silent. So, I am starting this thread.
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?
Click to expand...
I’m re-reading the thread and I’ve come to this conclusion.

“Please provide proof of one doctrine, dogma, discipline, or anything that comes from the early Christian church not found in the Bible”

would a rephrase for this sentence be: prove that the early Christians before the end of the first century believed in one of the Catholic doctrine that is not in the Bible?

If this is where you are going with this you are going to have to be specific on what doctrine you find the be not biblical in origin and why, and THEN if we might be able to get somewhere.
 
Rightlydivide said:
Please provide proof that this interpretation of Acts 15 is infallible Catholic dogma before I proceed. I was not aware the Catholic church had an infallible interpretation of Acts 15. Please provide it. Infallible proof. And then I can still argue the point but I want to see if I am arguing your opinion as well or am I arguing against an infallible interpretation of said verse.
Click to expand...
How would your argument differ? Why not cover all the bases by arguing both against his opinion and also as though it were an infallible Catholic teaching? Couldn’t hurt.
 
TOME said:
Ginger2,
You made a good point - I was thinking more in lines of heresies that took place after the Apostolic Age when there were no Apostles around to correct them and the Church had to begin defining her beliefs. Heresies such as the Docetism which seems to be the fisrt great heresy the Church faced after the time of the Apostles.
Click to expand...
I had to look that up.

The Catholic Encyclopedia says:

"A heretical sect dating back to Apostolic times. Their name is derived from dokesis, “appearance” or “semblance”, because they taught that Christ only “appeared” or “seemed to be a man, to have been born, to have lived and suffered. Some denied the reality of Christ’s human nature altogether, …”

The Bible says:
2Jo 1:7 For many deceivers are entered into the world, who confess not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh. This is a deceiver and an antichrist.

I agree with your point about new heresies after the Apostles. Heresies were addressed as the came up. If the church was clarifying to oppose a heresy, it could be the first mention of the doctrine for the very reasons I stated earlier: you don’t speak out against something that does not yet exist.
 
VociMike said:
How would your argument differ? Why not cover all the bases by arguing both against his opinion and also as though it were an infallible Catholic teaching? Couldn’t hurt.
Click to expand...
Because arguing against someone else personal interpretation puts us on the same footing. It was a fair request.
 
Rightlydivide said:
Proof of that statement please. I read a similiar comment months ago and it was not supported then either. Not sure if it was you who made that statment then as well. Proof. Jewish source. Or reliable neutral historian
Click to expand...
Evidently, you don’t trust my sources. Is it worth it to go through and find out where I discovered this, with the chance that a professor at UT Austin disagrees?
 
Rightlydivide said:
Please provide proof that this interpretation of Acts 15 is infallible Catholic dogma before I proceed. I was not aware the Catholic church had an infallible interpretation of Acts 15. Please provide it. Infallible proof. And then I can still argue the point but I want to see if I am arguing your opinion as well or am I arguing against an infallible interpretation of said verse.
Click to expand...
What you are doing is shifting the burden of proof. You claim that your interpretation is the true one, but you have not provided any evidence to prove it

You are also creating a straw man argument, misrepresenting my statement. I have not said it was a Catholic doctrine after all.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top