1st Century Church

[Church_Militant]

From your list:

Iraneus 130 to 202 AD.

"We have learned from none others the plan of our salvation, than from those through whom the Gospel has come down to us, which they did at one time proclaim in public, and, at a later period, by the will of God, handed down to us in the Scriptures, to be the ground and pillar of our faith.

For it is unlawful to assert that they preached before they possessed “perfect knowledge,” as some do even venture to say, boasting themselves as improvers of the apostles." (Irenaeus, Against Heresies, book 3, 1, 1)Too bad he actually directly contradicts scripture which says, " But if I tarry long, that thou mayest know how thou oughtest to behave thyself in the house of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and ground of the truth." (1st Timothy 3:15)

 

[NotWorthy]

Those things are not disciplines, they are found in the Bible.
Yes, they were head coverings, which according to the text is long hair.

I’ve never heard this one. Where in the Greek does it say head coverings are not head coverings but hair. Isn’t the description for long hair something else in Greek?

 

[ChangingHeart]

So we are not Christians? Interesting.

I never used the word invisible. You can see saved people so I am not sure what you are talking about.

This is the applicable verse.

 

[Church_Militant]

A big Christian :hug3: right back atcha!

Later -

 

[NotWorthy]

The Bible shows Jesus establishing a Church. What in the Bible would make anyone think for one second that they can up and start their own new church that conflicts with His? Martin Luther started this tradition of man and 100% of new Protestant denominations followed this example. There is absolutely no Scriptural support behind this whatsoever.

To lend credence to this point, simply watch the Corinthian Church. They were soundly chastised for deviating from the norms of the Church in Paul’s Epistles, and later on by Pope St. Clement circa 90AD, for not following the bishop and priests that the Apostles had set up. In Clement’s letter the Corinthians had ordained priests and ministers of their own because they didn’t like what the Apostolic priests and bishop had to say. After reading Clement’s letter, they repented and returned to the Church hierarchy set up by the True Church.

 

[Rolltide]

I’m with the Catholics on this one! I think it is supported in Scripture. It is one of those God things that can not fully be understood or explained.

I would like to see the documents anyway.

Ginger2, I posted a link to the documents and my argument in favor of the Real Presence (from another thread) back on post #107 of this thread.

 

[Bishopite]

I do not devulge personal information on the internet. We are not connected to any denominations. We do not give money to other denominations. We are not under any organization outside of the church we belong to. It was started by my pastor in his house. It has grown considerably but is still small. We follow the Bible. Your statement is not correct.

You are a product of the reformation whether you like it or not which means you come from Martin Luther’s movement.
And you are a denomination youselves.

 

[NotWorthy]

You are a product of the reformation whether you like it or not which means you come from Martin Luther’s movement.
And you are a denomination youselves.

Man, that things sure looks like a duck. And it sounds like one, too. I’ll bet it’s a duck!!!

 

[Rightlydivide]

You are a product of the reformation whether you like it or not which means you come from Martin Luther’s movement.
And you are a denomination youselves.

You cannot by definition have a denominaton by yourself

: a religious organization whose congregations are united in their adherence to its beliefs and practices

m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?book=Dictionary&va=denomination

You cannot change the meanings of words to meet your arguments.

 

[Arnobius]

You cannot by definition have a denominaton by yourself

m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?book=Dictionary&va=denomination

You cannot change the meanings of words to meet your arguments.

That definition seems to be designed to be too limited.

Perhaps we can look at the Oxford English Dictionary?
denomination
■ n.
1 a recognized autonomous branch of a church or religion.
2 the face value of a banknote, coin, or postage stamp.
† the rank of a playing card.
3 (formal) a name or designation.

Soanes, C., & Stevenson, A. (2004). Concise Oxford English dictionary (11th ed.). Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Definition 1 and 3 both seem to match your situation.

 

[Mannyfit75]

Wow! I think that was very insightful. But I disagree that there were no heresies in the first century. Paul spoke about being on guard and not being deceived.

Oh there were. The Judiazers, who didn’t adhere to the Council of Jerusalem. They insist that Gentiles be circumcised. The Nicholetians is the other. The Gnostic also were present in those days.

 

[Arnobius]

Sure just look up bishop on the Catholic encyclopedia. It is a very long article and it supports my view.

newadvent.org/cathen/02581b.htm

How interesting that the sections you cite mainly deal with the opinions of some scholars and not something universally held.

I see here two major fallacies, of Composition and of Affirming the Consequent

Fallacy of Composition:
Because the parts of a whole have a certain property, it is argued that the whole has that property. That whole may be either an object composed of different parts, or it may be a collection or set of individual members.

If the terms were used interchangeably at the earliest times, you still have not proven that the bishops were merely at the level of presbyter, instead of that the term of presbyter was applied to the bishops first and later to the priests.

The article points out that ambiguity as well, so you have not disproved the idea of the monarchial bishop.

It is also the fallacy of Affirming the Consequent, which you use in implying that since Bishops were referred to by the term that later became associated with priests, it meant Priests were referred to as bishops.

That does not work any more than the reasoning of:
If I am in Calgary, then I am in Alberta. I am in Alberta, thus, I am in Calgary. (Of course, even though the premises are true, I might be in Edmonton, Alberta.)

In short, while your citing of the Catholic Encyclopedia in this manner may sound convincing to those who do not know otherwise, your point is not proven in arguing that the Monarchial Bishop is against scripture or was a later addition.

 

[Mannyfit75]

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.

I beg to differ, my friend.

Peter did settle the issue. The question in the Council of Jerusalem was to decide whether or not Gentile should be circumcised and adhere to the Mosaic Law. Peter when he spoke and said,

…“Brethen, you know that in the early days God made a choice amongst you, that by by mouth the Gentiles should hear the word of the gospel and believe. And God who knows the heart bore witness to them, giving them the Holy Spirit just as he did us; and he made no distinction between us and them, but cleansed their hearts by faith. Now therefore why do you make trial of God by putting a yoke upon the neck of the disciples which neither our fathers nor we have been able to bear? But we believe that we shall be saved through the grace of the Lord Jesus, just as they will.” And all the assembly kept silence; and they listened to Barnabas and Paul as they relate what signs and wonders of God has done through them amongst the Gentiles. (Acts of the Apostle 15:7-12)

James, as the bishop of the Church in Jerusalem issued recommendations made after Peter gave his decree concerning the Gentiles. I don’t see why you are blind to see this. Of course, there are numerous Bible reference supporting Peter as the Apostle in charge in the Book of Acts, as well as the Gospel (after Jesus).

 

[Arnobius]

Oh there were. The Judiazers, who didn’t adhere to the Council of Jerusalem. They insist that Gentiles be circumcised. The Nicholetians is the other. The Gnostic also were present in those days.

The Nicolaitans are mentioned twice in Revelations (2:6 and 2:15) in addressing the Church in Ephesus and Peragum, and mentioned in the Epistle of St Ignatius to the Trallians Chapter 11:

Do ye also avoid those wicked offshoots of his,81 Simon his firstborn son, and Menander, and Basilides, and all his wicked mob of followers,82 the worshippers of a man, whom also the prophet Jeremiah pronounces accursed.83 Flee also the impure Nicolaitanes, falsely so called,84 who are lovers of pleasure, and given to calumnious speeches. Avoid also the children of the evil one,
Roberts, A., Donaldson, J., & Coxe, A. C. (1997). The Ante-Nicene Fathers Vol.I : Translations of the writings of the Fathers down to A.D. 325. The apostolic fathers with Justin Martyr and Irenaeus. (71).

 

[Mannyfit75]

The Nicolaitans are mentioned twice in Revelations (2:6 and 2:15) in addressing the Church in Ephesus and Peragum, and mentioned in the Epistle of St Ignatius to the Trallians Chapter 11:

Do ye also avoid those wicked offshoots of his,81 Simon his firstborn son, and Menander, and Basilides, and all his wicked mob of followers,82 the worshippers of a man, whom also the prophet Jeremiah pronounces accursed.83 Flee also the impure Nicolaitanes, falsely so called,84 who are lovers of pleasure, and given to calumnious speeches. Avoid also the children of the evil one,
Roberts, A., Donaldson, J., & Coxe, A. C. (1997). The Ante-Nicene Fathers Vol.I : Translations of the writings of the Fathers down to A.D. 325. The apostolic fathers with Justin Martyr and Irenaeus. (71).

Yes, exactly. I think most Catholics here who discuss history are amateur historians like myself… hehehe

 

[Rightlydivide]

How interesting that the sections you cite mainly deal with the opinions of some scholars and not something universally held.

I see here two major fallacies, of Composition and of Affirming the Consequent

Fallacy of Composition:
Because the parts of a whole have a certain property, it is argued that the whole has that property. That whole may be either an object composed of different parts, or it may be a collection or set of individual members.

If the terms were used interchangeably at the earliest times, you still have not proven that the bishops were merely at the level of presbyter, instead of that the term of presbyter was applied to the bishops first and later to the priests.

The article points out that ambiguity as well, so you have not disproved the idea of the monarchial bishop.

It is also the fallacy of Affirming the Consequent, which you use in implying that since Bishops were referred to by the term that later became associated with priests, it meant Priests were referred to as bishops.

That does not work any more than the reasoning of:
If I am in Calgary, then I am in Alberta. I am in Alberta, thus, I am in Calgary. (Of course, even though the premises are true, I might be in Edmonton, Alberta.)

In short, while your citing of the Catholic Encyclopedia in this manner may sound convincing to those who do not know otherwise, your point is not proven in arguing that the Monarchial Bishop is against scripture or was a later addition.

So specifically what part of the Catholic encyclopedia do you disagree with?

 

[Rightlydivide]

That definition seems to be designed to be too limited.

Perhaps we can look at the Oxford English Dictionary?
denomination
■ n.
1 a recognized autonomous branch of a church or religion.
2 the face value of a banknote, coin, or postage stamp.
† the rank of a playing card.
3 (formal) a name or designation.

Soanes, C., & Stevenson, A. (2004). Concise Oxford English dictionary (11th ed.). Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Definition 1 and 3 both seem to match your situation.

Dueling defintions.

 

[Arnobius]

So specifically what part of the Catholic encyclopedia do you disagree with?

I disagree with your selective interpretation of it. You are reading into it a meaning not intended by exaggerating some elements and neglecting others.

 

[Arnobius]

Dueling defintions.

OED is more authoritative than M-W generally

 

[oneseeker]

Wrong and wrong.

It doesn’t even remotely refute Apostolic Succession. It says nothing of the sort of the parishioners selecting their own leaders. There is nothing in the Didache that denies Apostolic Succession**. What it does show, however, is that the process of Apostolic Succession does not guarantee that all who received valid Holy Orders are guaranteed to infallibly speak the truth**, and that we therefore need to test that what they say is consistent with the Apostolic faith. On the grounds that the New Testament was not canonized for another three centuries, however, the Bible was not the litmus test, but the consistency of the verbal preaching, the Didache, clearly being written to those who had received previous verbal instructions regarding the faith.

I am confused. Are you saying that the Didache does not guarantee papal infallibility?

oneseeker