A Simple Timeline Proves the Early Church was Catholic---revised

[JustaServant]

I think your last two arguments, setting non-canonical and canonical passages side by side, are really good and help me understand what your argument as a whole is getting at.

My criticisms are meant to be constructive. Trying to prove too much is always a problem in apologetics, and a blanket claim “look how Catholic the early Christians are” is less effective than specific points about specific issues, particularly the sacraments. (But do bear in mind that not all Protestants reject sacrametnal grace.)

Edwin

Thanks for your imput Edwin, I am probably more able to accept that criticism now than five years ago. You always give us a good challenge, and I appreciate that. Here’s what I wrote four years ago when I revised the thread:

If I am from Mars and am trying to put this ‘Christianity’ thing together…where do I start? What do I go back to? How do I understand the world Jesus lived in? The Apostles? The disciples of the Apostles?
I can’t pull it out of the air, I have to go back to the original source material. The people who were there AT THE TIME OF THE EVENTS.
We simply use the tools any honest, unbiased historian would use.
Lets use the American Civil War as an example. People from that era didn’t have long life expectancies . But they had children and grandchildren who were still very much alive 100 years after the Civil War. So, we don’t have to ‘fill in the blanks’.
We know what happened, because they TOLD us what happened.
The forensic evidence is what we are relying on, nothing else.

Agree or disagree Edwin?

 

[Contarini]

Thanks for your imput Edwin, I am probably more able to accept that criticism now than five years ago. You always give us a good challenge, and I appreciate that. Here’s what I wrote four years ago when I revised the thread:

If I am from Mars and am trying to put this ‘Christianity’ thing together…where do I start? What do I go back to? How do I understand the world Jesus lived in? The Apostles? The disciples of the Apostles?
I can’t pull it out of the air, I have to go back to the original source material. The people who were there AT THE TIME OF THE EVENTS.
We simply use the tools any honest, unbiased historian would use.
Lets use the American Civil War as an example. People from that era didn’t have long life expectancies . But they had children and grandchildren who were still very much alive 100 years after the Civil War. So, we don’t have to ‘fill in the blanks’.
We know what happened, because they TOLD us what happened.
The forensic evidence is what we are relying on, nothing else.

Agree or disagree Edwin?

I don’t think it was that clear-cut. Take the Civil War (also, don’t confuse life expectancy with lifespan–there have always been people who lived to 100 or close to it). People who survived the Civil War would have all kinds of different experiences of what happened. There wouldn’t be one simple answer derived at by asking the people who were there.

But basically, yes I agree. As I said above, this is one of the ways in which I came to abandon the kind of radical Protestant theology I grew up with.

Edwin

 

[JustaServant]

I don’t think it was that clear-cut. Take the Civil War (also, don’t confuse life expectancy with lifespan–there have always been people who lived to 100 or close to it). People who survived the Civil War would have all kinds of different experiences of what happened. There wouldn’t be one simple answer derived at by asking the people who were there.

But basically, yes I agree. As I said above, this is one of the ways in which I came to abandon the kind of radical Protestant theology I grew up with.

Edwin

That’s how I think as well, at least in terms of recent American history. Just because someone lived at that time, does not mean they got all their facts correct, or were embellishing certain facts. But the overall picture is what I am looking at.

 

[Randy_Carson]

Back in the early '90s I was a Pentecostal, and I obtained a DVD-ROM containing the 37 volumes of the Early Church Fathers. I was delighted; my thought was this: Now I’m going to find out what the early Church was really like. As I got into the first volume (and not very far into it), my thought had changed to this: Wow, the Apostle John isn’t even cold in his grave, and already the Church has fallen into Catholic heresies!

That was the first step of a 20-ish-year journey that ended at the Easter Vigil Mass 10 years ago

(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)

 

[DaveBj]

http://bloximages.newyork1.vip.town...434-994d-22b241e70343/53aba2ac3575a.image.jpg

Aww, blush

 

[JustaServant]

Back in the early '90s I was a Pentecostal, and I obtained a DVD-ROM containing the 37 volumes of the Early Church Fathers. I was delighted; my thought was this: Now I’m going to find out what the early Church was really like. As I got into the first volume (and not very far into it), my thought had changed to this: Wow, the Apostle John isn’t even cold in his grave, and already the Church has fallen into Catholic heresies!

That was the first step of a 20-ish-year journey that ended at the Easter Vigil Mass 10 years ago

That was my reaction as well. Then I went on a quest to find an EXACT time when infant Baptism started…and that failed.

 

[benjohnson]

The difficult bit for Catholic apologetics is that there are other communions that will look at this evidence and remark “sounds like our church.” Or at least some pesky Lutherans will.

 

[gazelam]

So tell us, why is it **within a 100 year **period, does the Church look so Catholic?

The first century Christian Church doesn’t look so Catholic to some of us, and here’s why.

It is well know by historians that Greek Philosophy seeped into the thinking of the Church over the centuries. This caused the meaning of scripture to change over time.

The English theologian Edwin Hatch stated:

It is impossible for any one, whether he be a student of history or no, to fail to notice difference of both form and content between the Sermon on the Mount and the Nicene Creed. The Sermon on the Mount is the promulgation of a new law of conduct ; it assumes beliefs rather than formulates them; the theological conceptions which underlie it belong to the ethical rather than the speculative side of theology; metaphysics are wholly absent. The Nicene Creed is a statement partly of historical facts and partly of dogmatic inferences ; the metaphysical terms which it contains would probably have been unintelligible to the first disciples; ethics have no place in it. The one belongs to a world of Syrian peasants, the other to a world of Greek philosophers. The contrast is patent. If any one thinks that it is sufficiently explained by saying that the one is a sermon and the other a creed, it must be pointed out in reply that the question why an ethical sermon stood in the forefront of the teaching of Jesus Christ, and a metaphysical creed in the forefront of the Christianity of the fourth century, is a problem which claims investigation. It claims investigation, but it has not yet been investigated. There have been inquiries, which in some cases have arrived at positive results, as to the causes of particular changes or developments in Christianity—the development, for example, of the doctrine of the Trinity, or of the theory of a Catholic Church. But the main question to which I invite your attention is antecedent to all such inquiries. It asks, not how did the Christian societies come to believe one proposition rather than another, but how did they come to the frame of mind which attached importance to either the one or the other, and made the assent to the one rather than the other a condition of membership. In investigating this problem, the first point that is obvious to an inquirer is, that the change in the centre of gravity from conduct to belief is coincident with the transference of Christianity from a Semitic to a Greeksoil. The presumption is that it was the result of Greek influence. (Introduction, The Influence of Greek Ideas and Usages Upon the Christian Church)

J G Davies (The Early Christian Church pg 54) wrote:

The Hebrew, unlike the Greek, was not interested in things in themselves but only in things as they are called to be. He is not concerned with an object as such but with what it becomes in relation to its final reference according to the divine purpose. the meaning of an object therefore does not lie in its analytical and empirical reality but in the will that is expressed by it. Hence, Jesus could say of a piece of bread: ‘This is my body.’ The bread does not cease to be bread, but it becomes what it is not, namely the instrument and organ of his presence, because through His sovereign word He has given it a new dimension.

Edwin Hatch asserts; “it is among the Gnostics that there appears for the first time an attempt to realize the change of the elements to the material body and blood of Christ”. (pg 308, The Influence of Greek Ideas and Usages Upon the Christian Church)

 

[wmscott]

Justa; I am interested if you have the earliest evidence of someone calling themselves “A Catholic” and not just a part of the Catholic Church?

Ignatius lived from around A.D. 35 to 107. He was the third bishop of Antioch and tradition records that he was a disciple of the apostle John.

The Greek root of the term catholic means “according to the whole” or “universal.” Ignatius uses the term to refer to the visible and authoritative Church:

See that you all follow the bishop, even as Jesus Christ does the Father, and the presbytery as you would the apostles; and reverence the deacons, as being the institution of God. Let no man do anything connected with the Church without the bishop. Let that be deemed a proper Eucharist, which is administered either by the bishop, or by one to whom he has entrusted it. Wherever the bishop shall appear, there let the multitude of the people also be; even as wherever Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church. —Letter to the Smyrnaeans, Ch 8

 

[wmscott]

Ignatius lived from around A.D. 35 to 107. He was the third bishop of Antioch and tradition records that he was a disciple of the apostle John.

The Greek root of the term catholic means “according to the whole” or “universal.” Ignatius uses the term to refer to the visible and authoritative Church:

See that you all follow the bishop, even as Jesus Christ does the Father, and the presbytery as you would the apostles; and reverence the deacons, as being the institution of God. Let no man do anything connected with the Church without the bishop. Let that be deemed a proper Eucharist, which is administered either by the bishop, or by one to whom he has entrusted it. Wherever the bishop shall appear, there let the multitude of the people also be; even as wherever Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church. —Letter to the Smyrnaeans, Ch 8

Sorry I just reread the posts and saw that this was already answered.

 

[ericc]

By request I am starting a new thread based on this subject. The original thread is five years old. Keep in mind I was a little more zealous back then than I am now. So I edited it a little so I don’t come off like triumphalist jerk.

One of the areas of Church history that has always fascinated me is the study of New Testament era chronology. Many non-Catholic scholars act as if the Bible was written like a modern novel. Starting with Matthew on. However, the writing of the New Testament was not that cut and dry. As one puts together a timeline of Church history, including works written that are not in the New Testament, one must reach a conclusion that the early Church was indeed Catholic. By the time the Gospel of John was written for example, the Church was already 50 years old (which forces a Catholic view of John 6). But more importantly, the Christians that lived at the time all have very Catholic views.

I have concocted a timeline here deliberately within a 100 year period between the Resurrection of Christ to Justin Martyr (roughly 130 AD.) Think of it from World War 2 on. There are people still alive to remember the events.
I do not claim this timeline to be exact, but its pretty close:

c. 30-33 - The death and resurrection of Jesus
c. 35 - The conversion of Paul
40s or 50s - James
c. 45-49 - Paul’s first missionary journey
Sometime between 48 and 58 - Paul writes Galatians
c. 50-53 - Paul’s second missionary journey
50s - Paul writes Titus
50s or 60s -** Mark** written (based on oral tradition set down by Peter).
50s or 60s - Matthew written
51 - Paul writes 1 and 2 Thessalonians
c. 53-57 - Paul’s third missionary journey
Spring of 55 - Paul writes 1 Corinthians
56 - Paul writes 2 Corinthians
c. 57 - Paul writes Romans
c. 60 - Paul writes Colossians, probably while in prison in Rome
c. 60 - Paul writes Philemon, probably while in prison in Rome
c. 60 - Paul writes Ephesians, probably while in prison in Rome
c. 61 - Paul writes Philippians, while in prison in Rome
Early 60s - Luke written
c. 60-70 - The Didache is written.
c. 62 - Paul is free
c. 62-64 - Luke writes Acts
c. 62-64 - Paul writes 1 Timothy
July 18-19, 64 - The Great Fire of Rome. Emperor Nero blamed the Christians, and a great persecution ensued.
Mid 60s - 1 Peter written
c. 64-68 - Paul writes 2 Timothy from prison
c. 67-68 - 2 Peter
c. 68 - Hebrews is written
June 9, 68 - The death of Nero. Sometime between the Great Fire of Rome and the death of Nero, both Peter and Paul were martyred.
c. 69 - Jude
70 - The Seige of Jerusalem and the destruction of the temple
c. 70-80- The Epistle of Barnabus is written.
c. 85 - John written
Late First Century -** 1, 2, and 3 John**
95- The Epistle of Clement is written…
c. 95-96 - John writes Revelation
c. 60-120- The writings of Papias (only fragments remain).
c. 105- The Epistles of Ignatius are written as he heads for Rome for execution.
c. 105-125- The Epistle of Polycarp is written.
c. 125-130- The Letter to Diognetus is written.
c. 125-130- The Epistle of Aristides is written.
c. 130- The Martyrdom of Polycarp is written.
c. 130-150- The Shepherd of Hermas is written.
c.100-165- The writings of Justin Martyr, much of it written in the 130s.

So tell us, why is it **within a 100 year **period, does the Church look so Catholic?

Is it possible add alongside your timeline the early Christians who were around then? I think that would visually help to place who’s who of the times. It could help to confirm who is around to confirm/verify the writings.

 

[thetazlord]

40s or 50s - James
c. 45-49 - Paul’s first missionary journey
Sometime between 48 and 58 - Paul writes Galatians
c. 50-53 - Paul’s second missionary journey
50s - Paul writes Titus
50s or 60s -** Mark** written (based on oral tradition set down by Peter).
50s or 60s - Matthew written
51 - Paul writes 1 and 2 Thessalonians
c. 53-57 - Paul’s third missionary journey
Spring of 55 - Paul writes 1 Corinthians
56 - Paul writes 2 Corinthians
c. 57 - Paul writes Romans
c. 60 - Paul writes Colossians, probably while in prison in Rome
c. 60 - Paul writes Philemon, probably while in prison in Rome
c. 60 - Paul writes Ephesians, probably while in prison in Rome
c. 61 - Paul writes Philippians, while in prison in Rome
Early 60s - Luke written
c. 60-70 - The Didache is written.
c. 62 - Paul is free
c. 62-64 - Luke writes Acts
c. 62-64 - Paul writes 1 Timothy
July 18-19, 64 - The Great Fire of Rome. Emperor Nero blamed the Christians, and a great persecution ensued.
Mid 60s - 1 Peter written
c. 64-68 - Paul writes 2 Timothy from prison
c. 67-68 - 2 Peter
c. 68 - Hebrews is written
June 9, 68 - The death of Nero. Sometime between the Great Fire of Rome and the death of Nero, both Peter and Paul were martyred.
c. 69 - Jude
70 - The Seige of Jerusalem and the destruction of the temple
c. 70-80- The Epistle of Barnabus is written.
c. 85 - John written
Late First Century -** 1, 2, and 3 John**
95- The Epistle of Clement is written…
c. 95-96 - John writes Revelation
c. 60-120- The writings of Papias (only fragments remain).

So tell us, why is it **within a 100 year **period, does the Church look so Catholic?

I think a better question to ask, is that since many Christians believe that the non-canonical writings listed above were written contemporary with the NT Inspired writings, then “why” weren’t they included in the NT? I would be curious to hear your answer. And with the exception of the Didache, the “alleged” Epistle of Barnabas, 1 Clement, & the fragments of Papias, the only writings you’ve listed were the NT Scriptures - which is what sola scriptura Protestants believe in anyways.

 

[LivingWaters7]

Edwin Hatch asserts; “it is among the Gnostics that there appears for the first time an attempt to realize the change of the elements to the material body and blood of Christ”. (pg 308, The Influence of Greek Ideas and Usages Upon the Christian Church)

Cite evidence for this assertion.

 

[spedteacherita]

Justa; I am interested if you have the earliest evidence of someone calling themselves “A Catholic” and not just a part of the Catholic Church?

I’m interested as well. The other question I have is when is the earliest evidence of Mary being referred to as Theotokos and Queen of Heaven?

I don’t have much of a problem with the earliest church being Catholic because the use of that word then meant more in the universal sense of it. It was, then, a catholic church because they had not strayed from Jesus’ and the Apostles teachings. It is other doctrines - such as the Marian doctrines that seemed to be filtered in over some years.

Please, everyone, let’s not get into name-calling, anger, hostility towards one another…let’s just have a healthy conversation/debate. I’m seriously wanting to learn…

In Christ’s Peace!

Rita

 

[spedteacherita]

By request I am starting a new thread based on this subject. The original thread is five years old. Keep in mind I was a little more zealous back then than I am now. So I edited it a little so I don’t come off like triumphalist jerk.

One of the areas of Church history that has always fascinated me is the study of New Testament era chronology. Many non-Catholic scholars act as if the Bible was written like a modern novel. Starting with Matthew on. However, the writing of the New Testament was not that cut and dry. As one puts together a timeline of Church history, including works written that are not in the New Testament, one must reach a conclusion that the early Church was indeed Catholic. By the time the Gospel of John was written for example, the Church was already 50 years old (which forces a Catholic view of John 6). But more importantly, the Christians that lived at the time all have very Catholic views.

I have concocted a timeline here deliberately within a 100 year period between the Resurrection of Christ to Justin Martyr (roughly 130 AD.) Think of it from World War 2 on. There are people still alive to remember the events.
I do not claim this timeline to be exact, but its pretty close:

c. 30-33 - The death and resurrection of Jesus
c. 35 - The conversion of Paul
40s or 50s - James
c. 45-49 - Paul’s first missionary journey
Sometime between 48 and 58 - Paul writes Galatians
c. 50-53 - Paul’s second missionary journey
50s - Paul writes Titus
50s or 60s -** Mark** written (based on oral tradition set down by Peter).
50s or 60s - Matthew written
51 - Paul writes 1 and 2 Thessalonians
c. 53-57 - Paul’s third missionary journey
Spring of 55 - Paul writes 1 Corinthians
56 - Paul writes 2 Corinthians
c. 57 - Paul writes Romans
c. 60 - Paul writes Colossians, probably while in prison in Rome
c. 60 - Paul writes Philemon, probably while in prison in Rome
c. 60 - Paul writes Ephesians, probably while in prison in Rome
c. 61 - Paul writes Philippians, while in prison in Rome
Early 60s - Luke written
c. 60-70 - The Didache is written.
c. 62 - Paul is free
c. 62-64 - Luke writes Acts
c. 62-64 - Paul writes 1 Timothy
July 18-19, 64 - The Great Fire of Rome. Emperor Nero blamed the Christians, and a great persecution ensued.
Mid 60s - 1 Peter written
c. 64-68 - Paul writes 2 Timothy from prison
c. 67-68 - 2 Peter
c. 68 - Hebrews is written
June 9, 68 - The death of Nero. Sometime between the Great Fire of Rome and the death of Nero, both Peter and Paul were martyred.
c. 69 - Jude
70 - The Seige of Jerusalem and the destruction of the temple
c. 70-80- The Epistle of Barnabus is written.
c. 85 - John written
Late First Century -** 1, 2, and 3 John**
95- The Epistle of Clement is written…
c. 95-96 - John writes Revelation
c. 60-120- The writings of Papias (only fragments remain).
c. 105- The Epistles of Ignatius are written as he heads for Rome for execution.
c. 105-125- The Epistle of Polycarp is written.
c. 125-130- The Letter to Diognetus is written.
c. 125-130- The Epistle of Aristides is written.
c. 130- The Martyrdom of Polycarp is written.
c. 130-150- The Shepherd of Hermas is written.
c.100-165- The writings of Justin Martyr, much of it written in the 130s.

So tell us, why is it **within a 100 year **period, does the Church look so Catholic?

Thank you for doing this…a great place to begin for study. I hope it was all right to copy and save to my documents!

Rita

 

[DaveBj]

snip

Edwin Hatch asserts; “it is among the Gnostics that there appears for the first time an attempt to realize the change of the elements to the material body and blood of Christ”. (pg 308, The Influence of Greek Ideas and Usages Upon the Christian Church)

Cite evidence for this assertion.

The only assertion was “Edwin Hatch asserts,” and gazelam provided the evidence for that assertion, the book title and page number from which the quote was taken.

 

[LivingWaters7]

The only assertion was “Edwin Hatch asserts,” and gazelam provided the evidence for that assertion, the book title and page number from which the quote was taken.

You may not be aware, but gazelam has repeatedly cited this quote (which is used in LDS apologetics in relation to a supposed great apostasy and the corrupting influence of Greek philosophy on ancient Christianity) over the years, and I have yet to see actual evidence that what Hatch is asserting (and what gazelam presumably also believes) is really the case. Hatch’s book gives no source for substantiation of his claim. So, I challenge the citation of this quote whenever I see it, and I have yet to see gazelam actually provide further evidence that the real presence belief originated with the Gnostics. Hatch’s claim without a source to back it up is meaningless.

 

[JustaServant]

I think a better question to ask, is that since many Christians believe that the non-canonical writings listed above were written contemporary with the NT Inspired writings, then “why” weren’t they included in the NT? I would be curious to hear your answer. And with the exception of the Didache, the “alleged” Epistle of Barnabas, 1 Clement, & the fragments of Papias, the only writings you’ve listed were the NT Scriptures - which is what sola scriptura Protestants believe in anyways.

You missed the point.
First, until the coming of the printing press most people did not read, everything was through oral communication. Since we obviously cannot have a record of oral communication, all we can rely upon is what was written at the time. If I am an archaeologist trying to piece together the world of the first century, I have to look at all the evidence, whether it is in the NT or not.
Second there was no “New Testament” in the first century, all we have are the writings listed above. The canon was not decided until centuries later. That is not what this thread is about.
This thread is about the first 100 years from the Resurrection of Christ to Justin Martyr, exactly 100 years. What did they believe? What kind of world did they walk in? How did they think? Why do the quotes I cited earlier in the thread point to Christianity that is very much in alignment with the Catholic Church?

 

[JustaServant]

I’m interested as well. The other question I have is when is the earliest evidence of Mary being referred to as Theotokos and Queen of Heaven?

I don’t have much of a problem with the earliest church being Catholic because the use of that word then meant more in the universal sense of it. It was, then, a catholic church because they had not strayed from Jesus’ and the Apostles teachings. It is other doctrines - such as the Marian doctrines that seemed to be filtered in over some years.

Please, everyone, let’s not get into name-calling, anger, hostility towards one another…let’s just have a healthy conversation/debate. I’m seriously wanting to learn…

In Christ’s Peace!

Rita

Post number 10.

 

[spedteacherita]

Post number 10.

Cool! Okay, what about the Marian doctrines? When did the early church fathers allude to Mary being queen of heaven, being immaculately conceived, assumed into heaven?

I’m sure this has been discussed other times but I can’t find any posts or threads that discuss this. This doctrine is probably the biggest stumbling block in my even conceiving the notion of converting to Catholicism.

Again, everyone, no disrespect is meant here. In my research into Catholicism I’ve had some quote me the ECF and some tell me to read the ECFs.

Thanks and God bless!!