A Simple Timeline Proves the Early Church was Catholic

  • Thread starter Thread starter JustaServant
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
ctkrcia said:
I love the fact that Protestants hold the Bible above all else, without regard that it was not assembled in its current format until around the year 400 AD.
Who assembled the Bible in its current format? The Catholic Church.
Click to expand...
This is an error I see often on this forum. Claiming that the Roman church gave us the Bible shows ignorance of early church history. Study the process of canonization for yourself. It was a formality to identify which books were scripture based on their use and acceptance in churches established by the apostles.

It was formalized to keep out false gospels and letters. It’s said that Origen who lived from 185–254AD used the same 27 books we have in our new testament today. Did the roman catholic church tell him what books to use? No, he used the accepted and circulated scrolls that were considered scripture because they came from the apostles… NOT because they came from some political power who adopted christianity because it was popular at the time.
 
As for the so called pagan Obelisk – It is considered a memorial to all the Christian martyrs including Saint Peter (according to Tradition) who died/ were killed under it. It also is a reminder of the fall of the Pagan Roman Empire to Christianity. Well that is my understanding anyway.
 
GenuineCatholic said:
As for you, you are obviously as ignorant as the rest.
All these “paganistic” ideals you are mentioning have been taken by the Church and PURIFIED, just as God’s people would capture Pagan temples and turn them to Houses of God.
Click to expand...
You really think God wants that? Consider Israel coming into the promised land. What were they commanded to do. Destroy everything, even all the women and children. Why? That seems very harsh and not loving. But it was so the pagan religions of Canaan would not be adopted by Israel. But Israel sinned and brought in other gods and they were judged for it.

Now do you really think God (who never changes) would now want us to purify pagan idols to be used in some kind of monument for Him? The God of the Old Testament, who is the God of today would NEVER want that.

We are to worship in spirit and in truth. (John 4:23-24)
 
drtimstephens said:
No, he used the accepted and circulated scrolls that were considered scripture because they came from the apostles… NOT because they came from some political power who adopted christianity because it was popular at the time.
Click to expand...
Unfortunately there was no consensus by the Christian community/ Local Churches of what was considered Scripture. Some included more books and some included less. It took church councils Infallibly guided and protected by the Holy Spirit to declare a final canonized list of accepted inspired books.
 
Uh, you just oblitterated your whole point. He does NEVER change, true, and yes, he destroyed things, but yet He still converted those temples. And the person above you just pointed out another good reason for having it.
 
GenuineCatholic said:
Uh, you just oblitterated your whole point. He does NEVER change, true, and yes, he destroyed things, but yet He still converted those temples. And the person above you just pointed out another good reason for having it.
Click to expand...
Can someone point me to these God ordained temple conversions?
 
drtimstephens said:
This is an error I see often on this forum. Claiming that the Roman church gave us the Bible shows ignorance of early church history. Study the process of canonization for yourself. It was a formality to identify which books were scripture based on their use and acceptance in churches established by the apostles.

It was formalized to keep out false gospels and letters. It’s said that Origen who lived from 185–254AD used the same 27 books we have in our new testament today. Did the roman catholic church tell him what books to use? No, he used the accepted and circulated scrolls that were considered scripture because they came from the apostles… NOT because they came from some political power who adopted christianity because it was popular at the time.
Click to expand...
No one has questioned the 27 books of the NT. I think Athenasius first listed them. Though note many other books were in use at the time. So a rule had to be established. Where I see this striking point towards Catholicism is the canonization of the OT. Note each of the councils establishing this rule (canon) includes works from the LXX. Note Origens Hexpala had 6 translations of the entire LXX. the council of Laodecia, of Rome, Of Hippo, and Carthage have included books that were found in the LXX. Where as the Protestants hold to a Jewish Convention 500 years after Christ to rely on as their OT. It seems a purposeful divergence. The Massoretic text were copied around 500 AD. And certainly included Jewish oral tradition that was specifically anti-christian in nature. The first Talmud was writen around 300 AD in Jerusalem and the more accepted Talmud was writen around 500 AD which interestingly enough is the same period we have the Massorites copying their Tankh (TNK). Where christian Tradition has consitently used the expanded OT. The NT was never in question though there was some hold outs for the Sheperd.
 
Thank you Sambos

And since you’re a protestant and hold the Bible above the Lord Himself, wouldn’t you be expected to know where to find all those refferences? If you don’t know them you aren’t much of a Protestant.
 
GenuineCatholic said:
Justaservant, no i will not go away.

And to you, de, how dare you compare me to Baptists and the like. I do not hate speech individuals such homosexuals or anything like that. First of all i am one but i am celibate.
And yes, the Holy Spirit does do that, but He also uses people to do so. It does not matter what you or anyone else says, the people who insult the Catholic Faith not only insult me, but they insult the Lord and i will NOT stand for that, so tell me to leave if you must, but i will not. Tell me i am a hyppocrite, but i am not. I love the Lord, and THAT is how people will see Him, is because someone actually has the guts to stand up for Him. Not that He The Almightly needs standing up for, but i am sure He Is Pleased at seeing some people who are loyal enough to fight back insults made against him.
Judge me how you will, it only makes you the hyppocryte (or however you spell that). It is only my life’s experience and it is what i know.
How do you expect me to love those who curse and insult and mock the One Who has saved me from myself as well as my enemies. Your an idiot if you expect that.
Click to expand...
Your post has been reported. You insult Bluegoat and other NCs on this forum. You have no right to do that. You are not debating and discussing, you are attacking posters. You do not represent the Catholic Church or any Catholic on this forum with this type of attitude. You should at least apologize to Bluegoat.
 
sambos671 said:
No one has questioned the 27 books of the NT. I think Athenasius first listed them. Though note many other books were in use at the time. So a rule had to be established. Where I see this striking point towards Catholicism is the canonization of the OT. Note each of the councils establishing this rule (canon) includes works from the LXX. Note Origens Hexpala had 6 translations of the entire LXX. the council of Laodecia, of Rome, Of Hippo, and Carthage have included books that were found in the LXX. Where as the Protestants hold to a Jewish Convention 500 years after Christ to rely on as their OT. It seems a purposeful divergence. The Massoretic text were copied around 500 AD. And certainly included Jewish oral tradition that was specifically anti-christian in nature. The first Talmud was writen around 300 AD in Jerusalem and the more accepted Talmud was writen around 500 AD which interestingly enough is the same period we have the Massorites copying their Tankh (TNK). Where christian Tradition has consitently used the expanded OT. The NT was never in question though there was some hold outs for the Sheperd.
Click to expand...
The septuagint(LXX) was quoted from by the apostles, (although some times they did their own translation from the hebrew) yet they never quoted the apocryphal books. This is one of the greatest reasons for their exclusion from the canon.
 
I think this thread is getting a bit derailed- Is Catholicism mixed with Paganism is a topic for a new thread- But here is a Catholic Answers article that addresses some of it
Is Catholicism Pagan?
 
sambos671 said:
Was not Jerusalem originally a pagan city? Now is it not now the Holy City?
Click to expand...
What was adopted and purified by the Jews in Jerusalem? David and Solomon built the temple from scratch, not refurbished from an existing temple designated for pagan worship.
 
JustaServant said:
Your post has been reported. You insult Bluegoat and other NCs on this forum. You have no right to do that. You are not debating and discussing, you are attacking posters. You do not represent the Catholic Church or any Catholic on this forum with this type of attitude. You should at least apologize to Bluegoat.
Click to expand...
hah. report it if you like, but i am only defending. You should learn the difference between attacks and Faith Defence.
I won’t appologive to anyone who opposes the Faith.
I do represent the Catholic Church, its people like you who will allow heresy who have no representation.
 
GenuineCatholic said:
Thank you Sambos

And since you’re a protestant and hold the Bible above the Lord Himself, wouldn’t you be expected to know where to find all those refferences? If you don’t know them you aren’t much of a Protestant.
Click to expand...
What are you talking about? I was protestant. I’m Catholic now. If you want me to quote scripture to you I’ll be glad to skip over to Joshua to show you that Jerusalem was pagan city steeped in idolatry and converted to a Holy Use much like the Catholic Church convert certain pagan places to Christian uses.
 
GenuineCatholic said:
hah. report it if you like, but i am only defending. You should learn the difference between attacks and Faith Defence.
I won’t appologive to anyone who opposes the Faith.
I do represent the Catholic Church, its people like you who will allow heresy who have no representation.
Click to expand...
Well, we’ll see if the moderators agree.:rolleyes:
 
lol, not you Sambos. Lol i will make sure be sure to refference who i am talking to more clearly
 
drtimstephens said:
The septuagint(LXX) was quoted from by the apostles, (although some times they did their own translation from the hebrew) yet they never quoted the apocryphal books. This is one of the greatest reasons for their exclusion from the canon.
Click to expand...
Obviously you missed the Hebrews chp ll reference to 2 Macc. 7. This is not a reason for their exclusion. The real reason is that the reformers wanted to take out Catholic Authority from the Scriptures. They knew arguments for certain time honored traditions could be gleaned from these books. So, much like the Jews did many years before (like ensureing the Isaiah referrence to the virgin will give birth was translated young woman. I think using the LXX organization of Scripture and the only the Jewish T39 books is speaking out of both sides of their mouths.
 
The History of the New Testament Canon
Sources for the New Testament Canon Chart (all Protestant): J. D. Douglas, ed., New Bible Dictionary (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Eerdmans, 196), 194-198;F.L. Cross and E.A. livingstone, ed., The Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1983), 232, 300, 309-310, 626, 641, 724, 1049, 1069; Norman L. Geisler and William E. Nix, From God To Us: How We Got Our Bible (Chicago Moody Press, 1974), 109-112, 117-125.

Explanation of Symbols:
  • Book accepted (or quoted)
    ? Book personally disputed or mentioned as disputed
    x Book rejected, unknown or not cited
New Testament Period and Apostolic Fathers (30-160)

**Summary: **The New Testament is not clearly distinguished from other Christian writings.
Gospels: Generally accepted by 130
Justin Martyr’s “Gospels” contain apocryphal material
Polycarp first uses all four Gospels now in Scripture
Acts: Scarcely Known or quoted
Pauline Corpus: Generally accepted by 130, yet quotations are rarely introduced
as scriptural
Philippians, 1 Timothy: x Justin Martyr
Hebrews: Not considered canonical; not even quoted
x Polycarp, Justin Martyr
James: Not considered canonical; not even quoted
x Polycarp, Justin Martyr
1 Peter: Not considered canonical
2 Peter: Not Considered conaoninical, nor cited
1,2,3 John: Not considered canonical
x Justin Martyr
Revelation: Not canonical
x polycarp

Iranaeus to Origen (160-250ad)

Summary: Awareness of Canon begins toward the end of the second century
Tertullian and Clement of Alexandria first use the phrase
“New testament”
Gospels: Accepted
Acts: Gradually Accepted
Pauline Corpus: Accepted with some exceptions
2 Timothy: x Clement of Alexandria
Philemon: x Irenaeus, Origen, Tertullian, Clement of Alexandria
Hebrews: Not canonical before the fourth century in the West
? Origen
* First accepted by Clement of Alexandria
James: Not canonical
? First mentioned by Origen
x Irenaeus, Tertullian, Clement of Alexandria
1 Peter: Gradual acceptance
* First accepted by Irenaeus, Clement of Alexandria
2 peter: Not Canonical
?First mentioned by Origen
x Irenaeus, Tertullian, Clement of Alexandria

1 John: Gradual acceptance
* First accepted by Irenaeus
x Origen
2 John: Not Canonical
? Origen
x tertullian, Clement of Alexandria
3 john: Not cononical
? Origen
x Irenaeus, Tertullian, Clement of Alexandria
Jude: Gradual Acceptance
*Clement of Alexandria
x Origen
Revelation: Gradual acceptance
* First accepted by Clement of Alexandria
x Barococcio Canon, c.206
Epistle of Barnabas: * Clement of Alexandria
Shepherd of Hermas: *Irenaeus, Tertullian, Origen, Clement of Alexandria
The Didache: * Clement of Alexandria, Origen
The Apocalypse of Peter: *Clement of Alexandria
The Acts of Paul: *Origen
* Appears in Greek, Latin Syriac, Armenian, and Arabic translations
Gospel of Hebrews: * Clement of Alexandria
Muratorian Canon (c.190)
Excludes Hebrews, James, 1 peter, 2 Peter
Includes the Apocalypse of Peter, Wisdom of Solomon

Origen to Nicaea (250-325)

Summary: The “Catholic epistles” and Revelation are still being disputed
Gospels, Acts, pauline Corpus: Accepted
Hebrews: * Accepted in the East
x,? Still disputed in the West
James: x, ? Still disputed in the East
x Not accepted in the West
1 Peter: Fairly well accepted
2 Peter Still disputed
1 john: Fairly well accepted
2,3 John, Jude: Still disputed
Revelation: Disputed, especially in the East
x Dionysis

Council of Nicaea (325)
Questions canonicity of James, 2 peter, 2 John, 3 john, and Jude

From 325 to the Council of Carthage (397)

**Summary: **St Athanasius first lists our present twenty-seven new testament books as such in 367. Disputes still persits concerning several books, almost right up until 397, when the Canon is authoritatively closed.

Gospels, Acts, pauline Corpus, 1 peter, 1 john: Accepted
Hebrews: Eventually accepted in the West
James: Slow acceptance
Not even quoted in the West until around 350!
2 Peter: Eventually accepted
Revelation: Eventually Aaccepted
x Cyril of Jerusalem, john Chrysostom, Gregory Nazianzen
Epistle of Barnabas: * Codex Sinaiticus- late fourth century
Shepherd of Hermes: *Codex Sinaiticus- late fourth century
1 Clement, 2 Clement: *Codex Alexandria-- early fifth century
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top