V
vsedriver
Guest
do you think the Holy Spirit might have had something to do with that ‘prominence’?
are you saying the Church history is invalid because it is Church history?
A Simple Timeline Proves the Early Church was Catholic---revised
- Status
are you saying the Church history is invalid because it is Church history?
P
Publisher
Guest
No, I am not saying church history is “invalid”…I am saying it is not as pristine and as clear cut as the church presents it to be.
Do you think that in a time such as today, where religious beliefs are being questioned that the discovery of “alternate” histories of Christianity being uncovered is not the work of the Holy Spirit?
God’s True Church is not found in an earthly organization…but is a People living in communion with Christ and ministering to our hurt and needy world.
If accepting your churches belief concerning itself brings you joy, makes your walk with God better, causes you to speak more kindly, lovingly, inspires you to service to others…wonderful…I simply do not find the claims of the Catholic church compelling.
E
Eric_Hilbert
Guest
Remain on topic please.
J
JustaServant
Guest
Again, the foundation for this thread is:
- The first 100 years after the Resurrection.
- The events and writings in chronilogical order (as much as we can)
- Accepted historical facts only. Not “alternative” or “revisionist” history.
N
Nine_Two
Guest
Taking a list of books that you’ve selected rather than listing every single book of the period is exegesis. Using it to prove a point it doesn’t really touch on is exegesis at its worst.
As for your challenge to find books that scholars date to that time, why am I required to abide by criteria you will not? That is dishonest argument. While I tend to agree to the early authorship, it has not been proven for the vast majority of those texts.
Just because something was written very soon after an event does not make it accurate, nor does it prove that your view of it is correct simply because you claim lineage from that time.
D
david_ruiz
Guest
O.K. I think I read all of Polycarp.and found everything quite universal .Again , quotes nothing but scripture. Does not mention tradition. “Saved by faith not works”, “Paul taught you the word of truth, then sent you a letter…which you studied carefully,…as a means to build you up”. It seems everybody studied scripture ,and it’s interpretation was not left to presbyters ,who were to visit sick and care for flock…“Forsake false doctrines, and RETURN TO THE WORD”, (Is not this what Luther somewhat held as a defense ?)… He says to be subject to the presbyters , AND one to another, AND to the word of righteousness… "Be well versed in the Sacred Scriptures, that nothing is hid from you "…I feel that statement is somewhat contrary to Catholic teaching, which says some things are hard to understand (hid), except thru the Church…So far so good-100% alignment with scripture.
L
lampstand
Guest
The Word of God is not just a book. (The Biblical canon was fixed at a Catholic council.) Long before that, the Word was (and is) a Person.
John 1
1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. 2 He was in the beginning with God. 3 All things were made through Him, and without Him nothing was made that was made. 4 In Him was life, and the life was the light of men. 5 And the light shines in the darkness, and the darkness did not comprehend it.
6 There was a man sent from God, whose name was John. 7 This man came for a witness, to bear witness of the Light, that all through him might believe. 8 He was not that Light, but was sent to bear witness of that Light. 9 That was the true Light which gives light to every man coming into the world.
10 He was in the world, and the world was made through Him, and the world did not know Him. 11 He came to His own, and His own did not receive Him. 12 But as many as received Him, to them He gave the right to become children of God, to those who believe in His name: 13 who were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God.
14 And the Word became flesh and dwelt among us, and we beheld His glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father, full of grace and truth.
15 John bore witness of Him and cried out, saying, “This was He of whom I said, ‘He who comes after me is preferred before me, for He was before me.’”
John 1
1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. 2 He was in the beginning with God. 3 All things were made through Him, and without Him nothing was made that was made. 4 In Him was life, and the life was the light of men. 5 And the light shines in the darkness, and the darkness did not comprehend it.
6 There was a man sent from God, whose name was John. 7 This man came for a witness, to bear witness of the Light, that all through him might believe. 8 He was not that Light, but was sent to bear witness of that Light. 9 That was the true Light which gives light to every man coming into the world.
10 He was in the world, and the world was made through Him, and the world did not know Him. 11 He came to His own, and His own did not receive Him. 12 But as many as received Him, to them He gave the right to become children of God, to those who believe in His name: 13 who were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God.
14 And the Word became flesh and dwelt among us, and we beheld His glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father, full of grace and truth.
15 John bore witness of Him and cried out, saying, “This was He of whom I said, ‘He who comes after me is preferred before me, for He was before me.’”
C
Curious_Hobbit
Guest
When reading Polycarp, did you come across this?
“[A]ll the people wondered that there should be such a difference between the unbelievers and the elect, of whom this most admirable Polycarp was one, having in our own times been an apostolic and prophetic teacher, and bishop of the Catholic Church which is in Smyrna. For every word that went out of his mouth either has been or shall yet be accomplished.” Martyrdom of Polycarp, 16:2 (A.D. 155).
Ignatius and Polycarp were both companions of the apostles and they both speak of the Catholic Church. We only have 2 of Polycarp’s writings, but we do have writings from his student St. Irenaeus. St. Irenaeus says many Catholic things but he is well in to the 2nd century and out of the boundaries set by the OP.
J
JustaServant
Guest
Where did you get that idea?
P
placido
Guest
It is not clear to me whether you accept or reject the Catholic teaching. If you reject it, then you reject scripture: “speaking of these things as he does in all his letters. In them there are some things hard to understand that the ignorant and unstable distort to their own destruction, just as they do the other scriptures.” (2 Peter 3:16)
placido
V
vsedriver
Guest
‘hidden’ and ‘hard to understand’ are not the same thing. Because the Church says something is hard to understand doesn’t mean they are hiding anything. Without authoritative teaching, many have been finding ‘hidden’ meanings all through the Bible.
E
elvisman
Guest
So, because one Father, among dozens of others, doesn’t speak much about tradition – it somehow*** nullifies***** it? What kind of logic is that? Polycarp is writing directly to the Philipians and so mentions Paul’s letter to them. Philipians was not written to each individual Philipian – it was written to the body of Christians in Philipi. The entire case for Christianity was not summed up in that letter – or ANY individual Letter.**
As for the interpretation of Scripture not being left to the presbyters – you’re wrong. the Scriptures themselves support this practice:
Acts 8:30-31
***Philip ran up and heard him reading Isaiah the prophet and said, “Do you understand what you are reading?” ***
**He replied, "How can I, unless someone instructs me?" So he invited Philip to get in and sit with him. **
**That is the main problem with Protestantism in a nutshell: Everybody interpreting for themselves and ALL claiming that the Holy Spirit inspired them to interpret it differently than their neighbor. The Holy Spirit cannot lead one into error, yet the various denominations ALL have errors that stems from a particular leader’s personal interpretations . . .
As for some things being hard to understand – this is ALSO supported by Scripture:
2 Pet. 3:15-16
And consider the patience of our Lord as salvation, as our beloved brother Paul, according to the wisdom given to him, also wrote to you, speaking of these things as he does in all his letters. In them there are some things hard to understand that the ignorant and unstable distort to their own destruction, just as they do the other scriptures.
Since you believe that Scripture is our final authority - how could you have missed this?
D
david_ruiz
Guest
I know .A Roman Cathoilc must be warmed by the word "catholic ",gaining connection to the early beginnings…It means universal here ,and anything else is conjecture .For sure ,by Augustines time you have more of a visible heirarchy ,and the term could be inclisuve of that ,but not here so early. Even if it did it is a connection for all of us , for even from your viewpoint ,we (protetstants) are out of Catholicism. Again ,when I see"Catholic Church ",in Polycarp ,I see "Universal Church ".
D
david_ruiz
Guest
get back to you.Quickly ,we are going in order of writers and it is to be taken only up to polycarp .That is all. Taking one writer at a chronological time .I am not discussing the whole shabang here.
E
elvisman
Guest
**Fair enough. **
**Polycarp doesn’t condemn Tradition becaue the canon of Scripture *itself *is a Tradition. Polycarp was alive when the books of the NT were being written. **
Some - or most of the Scripture he was referrring to was OT text as well as many letters, gospels and epistles that never made it into the final canon. Many of those that didn’t make it are part of Tradition.
Also - you never addressed my other 2 responses which answered your false claims about individual interpretation of Scripture and the things that are difficult to understand without authoritative Magesterial interpretation.
C
Curious_Hobbit
Guest
david,
Both Ignatius and Polycarp were students of St. John the evangelist and both described their church as the Catholic church. There are many instances of other church fathers referring to the Catholic church before the time of St. Augustine. There are also many signs of Hierarchy pior to the time of St. Augustine as well. We have consistent references to the Catholic church from Ignatius all the way through history up to present day. At which point does the term Catholic cease to mean only “universal” and begin to describe the Catholic church?
E
elvisman
Guest
PRECISELY.
There was (and IS) only ONE Universal Church - not thousands of offshoots with differing doctrines and belief systems.
J
JustaServant
Guest
Actually David, a more logical way of reading these books from where you are is this chronilogical order:
Scripture is bolded.
The Epistle of Barnabus
Gospel of John
1, 2, and 3 John
Epistle of Clement
**Revelation **
The writings of Papias
The Epistles of Ignatius
The Epistle of Polycarp
The Letter to Diognetus
The Epistle of Aristides
The Martyrdom of Polycarp
The Shepherd of Hermas
The writings of Justin Martyr
S
steveb1
Guest
Not to be the skunk at the garden party, but I’ve read one fundie-Prot excuse, namely that yes, these early references are highly Traditional and Liturgical if not standardly Catholic. Therefore, they insist that the Great Apostasy began early, immediately, directly, with the waning of the Apostolic generation. That’s the only way they can reject the strong historical resemblance of the early Gentile church to the later Catholic Church: they admit its “catholicity” but claim that this is merely a very early, very ancient apostasy from “pure Bible-Jesus religion”. It’s a poor excuse and an example of very implausible historical “reasoning”, but it’s all they have in the face of the overwhelming catholicity of the early Greco-Roman church.
S
Sufjon
Guest
Yes, by that time, Christianity had reached Egypt, probably via St. Mark, where the religions of the ancient Egyptians and early Christians likely underwent their first encounter and melding. Many of the concepts of Christianity were already familiar to the Egyptians by the time Mark arrived, because they were already present in their own ancient religion. This would include such things as the death and resurrection of Osiris and the Eucharist of Osiris, which was already being practiced in Egypt for at least a thousand years prior. In the Eucharist, Osiris was considered to be the “bread of life,” and the bread was thought to be the very body of Osiris (transubstantiation). It is within this same very narrow window of time (when Mark encountered Egyptian culture) that terms like this start showing up in Christian thought (i.e. Bread of Life, Body of Christ). I would conclude that the idea of the Eucharist was present among Christians from very early on. This was well in advance of the time when the gospels started to be written (70-90 CE), so these ideas would have been pretty firmly rooted by then, and would have appeared in the first codices of the gospels. Since Mark is generally thought to be the first gospel written, and Mark was also likely to have been the one who encountered Egyptian culture, it follows that if the authors of the Gospel of Mark were actually influenced by Mark, they would probably have conveyed these influences in what they wrote. This is at least supported in part by the fact these ideas are indeed expressed in chapter 14, verses 22 through 25 of that gospel as it exists today. I used the disclaimer “as it exists today,” because there are no known existing gospels earlier than a fragment of John from about 150 CE. Because of this, it cannot be known for certain what the first permutation of Mark or any of the gospels actually said. I am going on the assumption that they at least followed the same basic story line.
Your friend
Sufjon
- Status