A Simple Timeline Proves the Early Church was Catholic

  • Thread starter Thread starter JustaServant
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
thechristian said:
Yes acts 2:42 does say that…and yes Acts 20:28 does also say that…my point exactly,
that is why we need to look at at acts as model for the church today.

God loves you…God bless
Click to expand...
That is the model for today - in the Catholic Church 😉
Passed on down straight from the Apostles

Apostolic succession is very Biblical Acts 1:20-26
Paul passes his office to Timothy 2 Tim 4:1-6 Apostolic succession was a belief held from the beginning in the Church.
 
St_Aloysius said:
Thing is, the Orthodox have the timeline wrong. Prior to the schism, they had no problem supporting the Pope and recognizing the primacy of the Bishop of Rome.

There were several theological battles over the centuries and the Orthodox quit the Church more than once, only to return and swear fidelity to Rome and Christ’s Church. Finally, they split for good.

While the Bishop of Rome has always been the head of the Church and recognized as such, by all, for the first 1000 years of Christianity, there is no such parallel figure in the Orthodox Church. The Eastern Bishops were all under the authority of the Pope until the schism and only had regional authority. This is a fact of history that makes the Orthodox timeline a bit of a fabrication.
Click to expand...
They agreed that the Pope had a special role to play, as the Bishop of Rome. If, as they claim, the Bishop became apostate and left the Church, then until there is a new Bishop of Rome who is part of the Church, that is really a moot point.

The break between East and West clearly didn’t happen overnight, and there were many issues involved. But increasing claims about the role of Rome were really the big, divisive issue. They never accepted the role of Rome as it stands now, even if you disregard infallibility of Rome or the Pope. So it isn’t accurate to say they ever accepted that.
 
The Great Schism was one that took a while to actually happen, but the fact remains that Eastern Orthodoxy always saught Roman Orthodoxy, and Leadership. The whole semantics of Primacy and Supremacy is just a fancy way of Protesting what was de facto Roman Leadership in the first milenia of the Church. It’s primacy and supremacy are evident in how the east sought out Roman help and approval in doctrinal matters, one such example Iconoclasts. Another, the re-Instatement of St. John Chrystomo (I might be wrong) to the See in Constatinople. 1054 A.D. s the date used to identify the formal schism, but in spite of this formal split, the fact remains that Orthodoxy retained its ORTHODOXY! They retained their Apostolic Succession, they strictly adhere to the Seven Eccumenical Councils (which are accepted by both Roman and Greeks), and retain their beliefs in the Holy Mysteries of Faith (Holy Sacraments), the beliefe in the Holy Trinity (with the exception of the Filioque), and several other key points. All this is more than what the PROTESTants retained.

What remains in contention between Rome and Greece is being ironed out via appointed church leaders. It is amazing how we can hold talks, as it is, that we do have cleregy that does speaks for the laity in matters of faith and morals, which protestantism clearly lacks. The other issue is that of Russian Orthodoxy. It is not the Greeks or the other Sees that hold a big contention against Rome per-se, it is Russia. These issues are being addressed and the Church “must breathe with both lungs” (JP II the Great).

As for Anglicanism, how are they truly Catholic? How do they retain their Apostolicity when it is evident that they willingly trounce on the teachings of the Apostles? How is the ArchBishop of Canturberry leading this denomination? How can he allow for The Episcopal Church to subsist in the Anglican Communion? Lord, have mercy on us!!!
 
Analyticalpoet said:
The Great Schism was one that took a while to actually happen, but the fact remains that Eastern Orthodoxy always saught Roman Orthodoxy, and Leadership. The whole semantics of Primacy and Supremacy is just a fancy way of Protesting what was de facto Roman Leadership in the first milenia of the Church. It’s primacy and supremacy are evident in how the east sought out Roman help and approval in doctrinal matters, one such example Iconoclasts. Another, the re-Instatement of St. John Chrystomo (I might be wrong) to the See in Constatinople. 1054 A.D. s the date used to identify the formal schism, but in spite of this formal split, the fact remains that Orthodoxy retained its ORTHODOXY! They retained their Apostolic Succession, they strictly adhere to the Seven Eccumenical Councils (which are accepted by both Roman and Greeks), and retain their beliefs in the Holy Mysteries of Faith (Holy Sacraments), the beliefe in the Holy Trinity (with the exception of the Filioque), and several other key points. All this is more than what the PROTESTants retained.

What remains in contention between Rome and Greece is being ironed out via appointed church leaders. It is amazing how we can hold talks, as it is, that we do have cleregy that does speaks for the laity in matters of faith and morals, which protestantism clearly lacks. The other issue is that of Russian Orthodoxy. It is not the Greeks or the other Sees that hold a big contention against Rome per-se, it is Russia. These issues are being addressed and the Church “must breathe with both lungs” (JP II the Great).

As for Anglicanism, how are they truly Catholic? How do they retain their Apostolicity when it is evident that they willingly trounce on the teachings of the Apostles? How is the ArchBishop of Canturberry leading this denomination? How can he allow for The Episcopal Church to subsist in the Anglican Communion? Lord, have mercy on us!!!
Click to expand...
OK, the word Protestant doesn’t prove anything, just because it has the word PROTEST in it. I am not sure why people use that argument. There were, after all, issues worthy of protest in the Church at that time. But it is just a convenient title which everyone understands and is conventional, and one could argue how appropriate it really is, or what it really means, without coming to any conclusions about the theology of Protestantism itself.

The two lungs theory is accepted by many Catholics. It is much less popular among the Orthodox, including the leadership. I would be very suprised to see any reconciliation between Catholics and the Orthodox - God works miracles of course, but I can see no way forward from where they are now. And Rome talks with other Christian Churches too, about reconciliation - I think this is a good thing even if there is never reconciliation, but it doesn’t prova anything particular for the Orthodox/Catholic relation.

Undoubtedly the Orthodox have retained orthodoxy (and not just because it’s in their name). The question is, in the end, whether Catholicism has. I have no idea, I find the claims of both sides hard to judge, but it seems to me the burden of proof for orthodoxy is on the Catholic side, as the Orthodox have retained their dogma quite intact and without controversial additions.

Additionally - although Catholics feel Anglicans, from the beginning (and I will address modern Anglicanism in a moment) have lost their episcopacy and all that goes with it, Anglicans do not. The theological arguments to say they did are very technical - not nearly as obvious as most Catholics believe. But remember, the Orthodox make similar claims about Catholicism. I would hope Catholics would maintain their views on Anglicanism with the same level of respect they would like to receive from the Orthodox. Clearly, they aren’t all correct - I guess everyone can agree on that.

If indeed the Anglicans had maintained their episcopacy, they would be in the position of having had a very catholic, Western, theology, with a very similar understanding of governance and to the Orthodox. That’s a somewhat broad way of putting it, but correct so far as it goes, I think.

Modern Anglicanism - well, they appear to be buggered, but we’ll see in a hundred years. I think it is too soon to say how they will sort themselves, if indeed they do.

I also would say - Orthodoxy has a vastly different approach to theology than the West does, and I think Catholics often miss this. It’s not the oft mentioned things like governance and the filioque, its energies vs attributes and different takes on the meaning of original sin, and what we can say about God and what we can’t, and even the limits of human understanding.
 
deanarrca said:
That is the model for today - in the Catholic Church 😉
Passed on down straight from the Apostles

Apostolic succession is very Biblical Acts 1:20-26
Paul passes his office to Timothy 2 Tim 4:1-6 Apostolic succession was a belief held from the beginning in the Church.
Click to expand...
The only problem with that is who can prove who the sucessor is? There is alot of false teaching in the church today…alot of wolves dressed like sheep.

God loves you…God bless
 
thechristian said:
The only problem with that is who can prove who the sucessor is? There is alot of false teaching in the church today…alot of wolves dressed like sheep.

God loves you…God bless
Click to expand...
Yep, but all the history and evidence seem to support the Catholic Church at least over any other group. Their history is verifiable, more so than any other group. It actually can be traced all the way back to the Apostles by a preponderance of evidence. Beyond that you are right it is sheer faith. But by a preponderance of evidence my bets are on them over any protestant church you are attending. 🙂

Give me any reason why I should believe the Church (denomination) you are attending is a Church founded by Jesus and the Apostles with the correct Apostolic interpretation and correct understanding of scripture and prove to me that the Catholic church is not.

Your problem is that you can’t prove your Church is the “true” church so your only option is to say that No Church can be proven to be 100% the true church that Christ founded.
 
thechristian said:
The only problem with that is who can prove who the sucessor is? There is alot of false teaching in the church today…alot of wolves dressed like sheep.

God loves you…God bless
Click to expand...
Uh… no…it is a matter of recorded history who the successors of the Apostles were.

Clement

“Through countryside and city [the apostles] preached, and they appointed their earliest converts, testing them by the Spirit, to be the bishops and deacons of future believers. Nor was this a novelty, for bishops and deacons had been written about a long time earlier. . . . Our apostles knew through our Lord Jesus Christ that there would be strife for the office of bishop. For this reason, therefore, having received perfect foreknowledge, they appointed those who have already been mentioned and afterwards added the further provision that, if they should die, other approved men should succeed to their ministry” (*Letter to the Corinthians *42:4–5, 44:1–3 [A.D. 80]).

“We are of opinion, therefore, that those appointed by them, or afterwards by other eminent men, with the consent of the whole church, and who have blamelessly served the flock of Christ, in a humble, peaceable, and disinterested spirit, and have for a long time possessed the good opinion of all, cannot be justly dismissed from the ministry. (ibid.)

Hegesippus
“When I had come to Rome, I [visited] Anicetus, whose deacon was Eleutherus. And after Anicetus [died], Soter succeeded, and after him Eleutherus. In each succession and in each city there is a continuance of that which is proclaimed by the law, the prophets, and the Lord” (Memoirs, cited in Eusebius, *Ecclesiastical History *4:22 [A.D. 180]).

Irenaeus
"1It is possible, then, for everyone in every church, who may wish to know the truth, to contemplate the tradition of the apostles which has been made known to us throughout the whole world. And we are in a position to enumerate those who were instituted bishops by the apostles and their successors down to our own times, men who neither knew nor taught anything like what these heretics rave about.

"2But since it would be too long to enumerate in such a volume as this the successions of all the churches, we shall confound all those who, in whatever manner, whether through self-satisfaction or vainglory, or through blindness and wicked opinion, assemble other than where it is proper, by pointing out here the successions of the bishops of the greatest and most ancient church known to all, founded and organized at Rome by the two most glorious apostles, Peter and Paul—that church which has the tradition and the faith with which comes down to us after having been announced to men by the apostles. For with this Church, because of its superior origin, all churches must agree, that is, all the faithful in the whole world. And it is in her that the faithful everywhere have maintained the apostolic tradition.

"3The blessed apostles [Peter and Paul], having founded and built up the church [of Rome], they handed over the office of the episcopate to Linus. Paul makes mention of this Linus in the epistle to Timothy [2 Tim. 4:21]. To him succeeded Anencletus, and after him, in the third place from the apostles, Clement was chosen for the episcopate. He had seen the blessed apostles and was acquainted with them. It might be said that he still heard the echoes of the preaching of the apostles and had their traditions before his eyes. And not only he, for there were many still remaining who had been instructed by the apostles. In the time of Clement, no small dissension having arisen among the brethren in Corinth, the Church in Rome sent a very strong letter to the Corinthians, exhorting them to peace and renewing their faith. . . To this Clement, Evaristus succeeded. . . and now, in the twelfth place after the apostles, the lot of the episcopate [of Rome] has fallen to Eleutherus. In this order, and by the teaching of the apostles handed down in the Church, the preaching of the truth has come down to us.

“4Polycarp also was not only instructed by apostles, and conversed with many who had seen Christ, but was also, by apostles in Asia, appointed bishop of the church in Smyrna, whom I also saw in my early youth, for he tarried [on earth] a very long time, and, when a very old man, gloriously and most nobly suffering martyrdom, departed this life, having always taught the things which he had learned from the apostles, and which the Church has handed down, and which alone are true. To these things all the Asiatic churches testify, as do also those men who have succeeded Polycarp down to the present time” (*Against Heresies *3:3:1-4 [A.D. 189])…
 
macroom2 said:
Traditional Catholic scholars don’t agree among themselves on the dates and order of the writing of the books of the New Testament. The destruction of the Temple is predicted but the actual destruction is never mentioned, and that would indicate that all or most were written before 70 AD.
Click to expand...
In our NT writings no. It is mentioned in the epistle of Barnabus, who speaks of it as relativley recent event. I personally believe it was written not too soon after the events of 70AD. As Josephus records, the destruction of Jerusalem was a major upheaval in the Jewish and Christian world. It was the 9/11 of its day.
 
Great timeline. Here is an expanded version.

c. 6-4 BC - Jesus is born
c. 27 - Jesus baptism and start of His ministry
c. 30-33 - The death and resurrection of Jesus
c. 34 - St. Stephen, first Christian martyr stoned to death in Jerusalem
c. 35 - The conversion of Paul
40s or 50s - James written
c. 45-49 - Paul’s first missionary journey
Sometime between 48 and 58 - Paul writes Galatians
c. 49-50 - Council at Jerusalem (Acts 15) establishes precedent for addressing Church disputes in Council.
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
c. 50-70 - ***The Didache *** (The Lord’s Teaching of the Twelve Apostles) is written.
51 - Paul writes 1 and 2 Thessalonians
c. 52 - Traditional arrival of St. Thomas, the Apostle in India.
c. 53-57 - Paul’s third missionary journey
c. 54 - Nero becomes Caesar
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. 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 - Peter and Paul martyred during the Neronian persecutions
c. 64-68 - Paul writes 2 Timothy from prison
c. July 66 - Jews revolt against Rome
c. Feb 67 - August 70 (42 months) Jewish - Roman war
c. 67-68 - 2 Peter
c. 68 - Hebrews is written
c. 68 - John writes Revelation (early dating)
June 9, 68 - The death of Nero by suicide just before being arrested by the Praetorian Guards.
July 69 - Vespasian declared Caesar. Followed by nine years of peace and prosperity (Pax Romana)
c. 69 - Jude
c. 69 - Bishop Ignatius consecrated in Antioch in heart of New Testament era–St. Peter had been the first bishop there.
70 - The siege of Jerusalem and the destruction of the temple (August 10th 70 AD)
Sept 70 Jerusalem completely destroyed. Jews are either dead or been made slaves to be hauled off to Rome - help to build the Colosseum.
c. 72 - Martyrdom of St. Thomas the Apostle at Mylapore.
c. 70-80- The Epistle of Barnabus is written.
c. 85 - John written
Late First Century - 1, 2, and 3 John
c. 95-96 - The Epistle of Clement (Fourth Bishop of Rome) is written…
c. 95-96 - John writes Revelation (late dating)
c. 60-120- The writings of Papias (only fragments remain).
c. 100 - The last Apostle St. John dies in Ephesus.
c. 105- The Epistles of Ignatius (Bishop of Antioch) 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.
 
sleeper987 said:
Great timeline. Here is an expanded version.

c. 6-4 BC - Jesus is born
c. 27 - Jesus baptism and start of His ministry
c. 30-33 - The death and resurrection of Jesus
c. 34 - St. Stephen, first Christian martyr stoned to death in Jerusalem
c. 35 - The conversion of Paul
40s or 50s - James written
c. 45-49 - Paul’s first missionary journey
Sometime between 48 and 58 - Paul writes Galatians
c. 49-50 - Council at Jerusalem (Acts 15) establishes precedent for addressing Church disputes in Council.
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
c. 50-70 - ***The Didache *** (The Lord’s Teaching of the Twelve Apostles) is written.
51 - Paul writes 1 and 2 Thessalonians
c. 52 - Traditional arrival of St. Thomas, the Apostle in India.
c. 53-57 - Paul’s third missionary journey
c. 54 - Nero becomes Caesar
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. 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. 64-67 - Peter and Paul martyred during the Neronian persecutions
c. 64-68 - Paul writes 2 Timothy from prison
c. July 66 - Jews revolt against Rome
c. Feb 67 - August 70 (42 months) Jewish - Roman war
c. 67-68 - 2 Peter
c. 68 - Hebrews is written
c. 68 - John writes Revelation (early dating)
June 9, 68 - The death of Nero by suicide just before being arrested by the Praetorian Guards.
July 69 - Vespasian declared Caesar. Followed by nine years of peace and prosperity (Pax Romana)
c. 69 - Jude
c. 69 - Bishop Ignatius consecrated in Antioch in heart of New Testament era–St. Peter had been the first bishop there.
70 - The siege of Jerusalem and the destruction of the temple (August 10th 70 AD)
Sept 70 Jerusalem completely destroyed. Jews are either dead or been made slaves to be hauled off to Rome = help to build the Colosseum.
c. 72 - Martyrdom of St. Thomas the Apostle at Mylapore.
c. 70-80- The Epistle of Barnabus is written.
c. 85 - John written
Late First Century - 1, 2, and 3 John
c. 95-96 - The Epistle of Clement (Fourth Bishop of Rome) is written…
c. 95-96 - John writes Revelation (late dating)
c. 60-120- The writings of Papias (only fragments remain).
c. 100 - The last Apostle St. John dies in Ephesus.
c. 105- The Epistles of Ignatius (Bishop of Antioch) 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.
Click to expand...
I see you added that early date for Revelation.😃
There are some very good arguments by preterists for that early date, but they have yet to convince me 100%,
 
For anyone who wants to look at the written history and the abundent forensic evidence of the Catholic church buildings all around the world (in particular St. John Lateran - the papal church given by Constantine, the tomb of St. Peter, The Vatican etc.) there is no plausible way any Protestant can make a credible claim of legitimacy to the early church - NONE.

There is no spiritual precedence in all of the bible (OT or NT) to give a single scriptural case to justifying a rebellion in God’s Church. One has to go all the way back to Korah’s rebellion in Numbers 16 to see the single case of an attempt at a power-play between the universal priesthood (the laity) against the ministerial priesthood (the priests and Moses) that is eerily similar to the Protestant uprising. And The Lord acted swiftly - holy fire from heaven incinerates 250 of Korah’s followers who try to use the consecrated incense burners to worship God and then earth swallows their families alive along with tents and materials. The people foolishly grumble & The Lord destroys 14,700 to make it clear that only God’s anointed/priests will be permitted to approach God and offer Him sacrificial worship. Not even David dared to strike corrupt King Saul as God’s anointed. Yet we have Luther being used as a convenient and naive stooge by the German nobles to usurp power from the Church to give it to the state. And Luther’s no fool and swiftly turn-coats on his original peasant supporters and backs the nobles. He orders the slaughter of 10s of thousands of “mad animals”. Later Luther is rewarded by the nobles for helping usurp The Church and given the entire religious monastery that his Catholic religious order used to own. It is to be his new personal manor-house to raise his new family with his new wife (a Catholic nun who he talked into revoking her religious vows to sire his children).

I admit I really can’t even “relate” to the Protestant physchology at all. HOW can any Protestant (especially Anglicans who were ALL Catholic till King Henry just took it over and his successors reinvented it in their own image) who knows the history be Protestant??? It’s a completely fabricated religious system with NO apostolic pedigree that does not agree in any aspect of the early Church. Except for old-line Protestant denominations that came directly out of the CC they have no similar form of worship, belief, or any historical linkage at all to the early church. A secular priesthood was NEVER in the early church. EVERY early church father believed in real presence and the apostolic authority of the priests and bishops to confect the sacraments. NO ONE in the early church ever believed in sola scriptura or sola fide - few could even read or write even in Luther’s time!

One must see the truth behind the so called reformation. It was less about religion as it was changes in secular moods and social mores about authority. Theologically speaking it’s utter insanity that Protestantism even happened and can still exist in this day and age. Protestantism was just a state solution to dis-empowering the Catholic Church and keeping the pope and bishops power and the moral conscience out of state affairs and out of their coffers - the monarchs wanted to control all taxing and tithing.

Protestantism is a completely illogical system that has not an ounce of spiritual legitimacy. No Protestant has ever been able to explain to me just how “totally depraved” reformers who would ALL swear on the new Protestant Bible (missing 7 books and a tithe lite of truth) that they are all corrupt sinners who can do no good on their own imagined that they could come up with a perfect blueprint for a revised-reformed Church??? What an oxymoronic concept. Of course if one could put any 2 Protestants in a room and get them to both agree on anything other than rejection of the Catholic Church and papal authority they would both claim their reformation was a work of God’s grace. They would probably also say they were just the arms and fists the wielded the new mortar boards, and hammers and saws (… and swords, guns, pikes, nooses and torture/flailing racks) and they were the most divinely favored men who prevailed over the other competing Protestant sects (who they treated like Catholics and simply burned at the stake e.g. Servetus via the tyrant John Calvin). :rolleyes:

What is clear in contemporary times though is that God is pulverizing Protestantism into 10’s of thousands of denominational shards to dis-empower them. It is going to be “interesting” to watch as gravity starts to topple of the whole heterodox tower of babel that Luther and the reformers tried to build high enough to cast a shadow down over Christ’s Church. But its a structure built on the zeitgeist of the age - shifting sands of social mores. Can anyone say “Timberrrrr”?

Every bible preacher and his brother is now spinning off all new denominations and new novel new teachings to accommodate every fringe combination of tastes and preferences to appeal to the surge in Protestant “church shoppers”. It’s amazing for us Catholics to watch. Now the mega bible-only churches are swooping in like birds of prey to opportunistically aggregate all the disenfranchised heterodoxy into a generic one-stop-shop “franchise Christianity” by using a very clever not-for-profit tax-free business plan and social networking. And people are really falling for it! It’s now very hard for mom-n-pop bible churches to compete with the corporate one-stop-shop mega services such as: bible-study/fellowship to keep their “minds right and happy” - and salvation too!, marriages/funerals/divorce-counseling, entertainment, resume services job-networking, book store/gift-shop, day care service, cafeteria, Internet lounges, blood-pressure check/health advise, dating/social networking services etc… :rolleyes: The bookstores are the real gold mine - selling all combinations of protestant belief (pre-trib rapture, OSAS, prosperity gospel etc.).

I don’t think the circus can go on much longer. The core issue to us Catholics is spiritual apathy - few really want to know the truth anymore as long as stress levels are low and people “feel” like they are “in the groove” (even if its a stuck record ;)). Everyone wants to stay in their “happy zones” and imagine that they are saved irrespective of what the facts and the history and the saints writings really bear out. To orthodox-conservative Catholics who follow the Fatima devotions and the saints writings its all very sobering since we care for you Protestants and are very concerned about your salvation. Repentance, penance and real non-presumptuous forgivness of sins really does matter…

I won’t precisely say what I know must come out of this circus but a lot of what is masquerading right now under the banner of “Christianity” is not at all recognizable to apostolic Christianity nor is it sustainable. Huge painful changes must come soon…

James
 
Arguments for the early dating of Revelation around 68 AD.
  1. The Syriac version of the Book of Revelation begins by stating that it was written in Patmos where John was sent by Nero, who committed suicide on June 9, 68 AD. Also another Syriac work " The History of John, the Son of Zebedee" states that John had been exiled to Patmos by Nero.
  2. Revelation was written during a time of persecution (Rev 1:9, 2:10, 12:11, 13:15). The Christian persecutions under Nero were very severe. The persecutions under Domitian were relatively mild and there is no evidence that they were widespread.
  3. Rev 17:9-10 “…there are also seven kings, five of whom have fallen, one is, the other has not come, and when he comes he must remain for a little while” fits nicely with how ancient historians numbered the first emperors (Julius Caesar, Augustus Caesar, Tiberius, Caligula, Claudius, Nero who is alive and Galba who served just seven months).
  4. The infamous beast whose number is 666 (Rev 13:18). When the Greek form of the name Nero Caesar is transliterated into Hebrew its gematrian number is 666. The Latin form of Nero Caesar transliterated into Hebrew gives the number as 616 (the number given in a fragment of papyrus 115).
  5. God’s judgment is coming SOON (Rev 1:1, 1:3, 22:6-7, 22:10, 22:12). If written around 68 AD then that judgment did come soon to the persecutors of the early Christians (To Nero June 68 and the Jews and the Jewish Sanhedrin August 10th 70 AD). If written in 95-96 AD nothing of significance took place anytime “soon”.
  6. By 96 AD John was an invalid, who according to St. Jerome, had to be carried with difficulty into Church and could speak only with great difficulty. It is doubtful that he would have had the strength to write Revelation much less have time to prophesy it to many peoples and nations (Rev 10:11).
  7. In Rev 11:1-2 John is told to measure the Temple. That Temple was destroyed in 70 AD so there would have been nothing to measure in 95-96 AD.
  8. The language that Revelation is written in rapidly disappeared after the destruction of the Temple in 70 AD. Scholars proficient in this critical analysis of language claim that St. John wrote Revelation first then his Gospel and finally his three epistles.
  9. An early dating of Revelation fits nicely with Daniel’s final week and Jesus’ Olivet Discourses (Matt 24, Mark 13, Luke 21) which describe the destruction of the Temple within a generation (40 years). The Jewish historian Josephus wrote that the Christians all fled Jerusalem before its destruction. Obviously they took to heart Jesus’ warnings.
  10. Rev 11:2 "…for it has been handed over to the Gentiles, who will trample the holy city (Jerusalem) for forty two months. The war against Jerusalem lasted 42 months (Feb 67-August 70).

    The late dating of Revelation (95-96 AD) is favored by modernist who reject the possibility of Biblical prophesy and dispensationalists who have a strong desire to have everything in Revelation be about the future. The proponents of a late date determine their conclusion mostly from a statement by the early church father Irenaeus (AD 130 to AD 202), which was quoted by the church historian Eusebius in AD 325, where he writes:
“We will not, however, incur the risk of pronouncing positively as to the name of Antichrist; for if it were necessary that his name should be distinctly revealed in this present time, it would have been announced by him who beheld the apocalyptic vision. For that was seen not very long time since, but almost in our day, towards the end of Domitian’s reign.”

If John had seen these visions toward the end of the reign of Caesar Domitian, the years 95/96 AD would be good candidates for the time of writing. Domitian died in 96 AD after having reigned 14 years as Caesar and Roman emperor.

However, there are a number of things about this quote from Irenaeus which are not as clear and somewhat ambiguous. A question remains about “who” or “what” was seen. Was John seen still at that time? Or did John see the vision which then was recorded in the Book of Revelation at that time? A difficulty is that the statement comes to us as a third party quote of what someone else quoted that someone else supposedly said about two centuries earlier. We read what Eusebius had heard or knew from some source about Irenaeus, but the statement by Irenaeus is actually a “second hand” report, in that he makes reference to Polycarp. It was not Irenaeus himself, but Polycarp, who according to Irenaeus’ recollection saw “that” sometime toward the end of Domitian’s reign. It is not clear from this statement what Polycarp was referring to as “that was seen”, for he could be referring to John and the visions John saw, he could be referring to the name of the Antichrist, he could also be referring to the book without it being clear if he actually meant that the book was written then or that it already existed. This quote is not as clear as some want to make it, when they base their dating of the writing of the Book of Revelation on this source.

All the above was plagiarized from other writers (David Currie, Michael Barber, Wolfgang Schneider and Wikipedia) who deserve the full credit for this.
 
JustaServant said:
I could, but the fundamentalist/evangelical response is ‘well, Constantine changed the Church and all these pagan elements came in after 300 years’. I limit this to one generation (roughly 80 to one hundred years). That way we can see the events through the eyes of the people who actually experienced them, or were the children and grandchildren of those early christians. What were they like? How did they think? What did they experience. To walk in their shoes for a short time and see what it was like from the horse’s mouth. How did they view two most important issues that divide Catholics and evangelicals: the Eucharist and Baptism?
Staying within that first generation reveals much.
Click to expand...

Very few Protestants are Fundamentalists. As for Evangelicals - again,only some Evangelicals are Fundamentalists. Unless, of course, one equates Protestants with Protestantism in the USA. :cool: If people want to convince most Protestants, & not just Fundamentalists, more convincing arguments will be necessary than a list of early Christian practices. Equally interesting would be a list of early things in which Catholics differ from the first few generations. :cool:​

BTW - what happened to faith ? Or is that not needed these days, because everything can be proved ?
 
While allegations are made from Moscow and certain fringes of Orthodoxy, Catholicism has maintained its Orthodoxy, and it is not incumbuent on the Romans to prove it, but rather on Orthodoxy to prove otherwise.The “Filioque” was at stake with Orthodoxy (which they misinterpret to mean strictly “Father AND Son,” rather than as how the Romans and Greeks prior to the Schism have always meant it as, "From the Father THROUGH the Son) as well as Roman Primacy (which they Misrepresent as Roman Supremacy). With issues of Original Sin they also misunderstand what Catholicism means by the “stain” of Original Sin. They allege that we hold the child culpable of Adam’s sin, which Catholicism does not. Orthodoxy may approach the Mysteries of Faith from a different philosophy than Catholicism, but this does not mean that we are incompatible. Orthodoxy’s other contention is that Catholicism is too legalistic and too rational (which is why they don’t like Augustine and Aquinas). They leave things at the mystical realm (e.g. Transubstantiation, they deny the word but not the reality that happens during the epiclesis) which is fine, Catholicism never denies the Mystery that Underilies every Sacrament.

Protestantism is in no way orthodox and don’t hold the same contentions against Catholicism as Orthodoxy, as the very premise of any protestant (including Aglicanism) organization is Sola Scriptura. While reform was needed in the Church, it was needed only in regards to church discipline and not Theology. Protestantism, from Agnlicanism to Lutheranism, did not reform the the Church, they deformed it! Matters of theology regarding marriage were at issue with Anglicanism (and many protestants don’t regard this as a Sacrament anymore, while Romans and Greeks have always regarded it is as such). When denouncing the Roman Pontiff, and claiming the reigning Enlgish sovreing as the head of their Church they lost Apostolicity. And with Luthernaism, the issues of indulgences (which lead to their dismisal of Purgatory) and also denouncing the Roman Pontiff and the need of the Episcopate, led to them to the loss of their Apostolicity.

It does not matter what protestants feel they are, history speaks against Anglicanism, and Lutheranism, and any other form of Protestantism. This thread shows how the very early years of Christianity looked and what they taught. None, and I mean none of Modern Protestatntism holds True to the Tradition handed on whether written or by word of mouth by the Apostles themselves, and this is a result of the “re(de)formation” and them being PROTESTant.
 
deanarrca said:
Genuine Catholic I can tell you are passionate and mean well–

But remember
2 Timothy 4:2 (New American Standard Bible)
2preach the word; be ready in season and out of season; reprove, rebuke, exhort, with great patience and instruction.

I might add you need to correct misconceptions with love too- Saying you wish a protestant Church to burn down is maybe not the way to go in winning hearts or credibility to your side.

I have known strong and wonderful Christians in all the Protestant Churches I have been a member of. I learned to trust and love Jesus in a protestant church. Those who are seeking will find and be led home.

I have seen anti-Catholic fundamentalists go the hate route about the Catholic church.

Using hate is a sure fire way to turn people away from your cause. They will think you are filled with hate and not listen to you and I am sure you don’t want that.

You need to remember we have Christian brothers in the Protestant Churches that just aren’t in full communion with the Church yet. Trust God to lead them home.
Click to expand...
I still believe that we are brothers/sisters in Jesus’ Name, we better stop arguing and just pray that the protestants will one day come home, I believe all those protestants who are in the Catholic Forum are genuinely interested to know more about our True faith and will someday come home …
 
deanarrca said:
Christslife,

I am a former Fundamentalist who is now Catholic- The main reason is the Study of History and the Study of the Bible. It is because amazingly the early Church looks a lot closer to the Catholic Church today than the reinvented Church of the Reformers or modern fundamentalism.

What were the early Christians like? What were the first churches like? What were the churches like that the Apostles founded? What did those early Christians believe? Did they just baptize adults or did they also baptize infants? Did they pour, immerse or both? Did they believe in Jesus’s real presence in the Eucharist?

Yes I can go to the Bible, but I need to interpret and understand the things written in the Bible the way Jesus and the Apostles understood and taught them.

I can’t ask Jesus directly. For instance, I can’t say “Hey Jesus what did you mean when you said this?” or "Apostles what did Jesus really mean?

One way to get the answers to these questions is to see how the early Christians understood what Jesus and the Apostles taught. What did they believe? These early Christians were taught by the Apostles who were in turn taught directly by Jesus. How did they Interpret Scripture. An Infallible Bible can be interpreted fallibly- so it is indeed important to ask how the Apostles and early church interpreted Scripture.

Yes not all the documents written in the above timeline became canonized scripture. Some of them are more like finding ancient Church bulletins, ancient Church service outlines, the Pastor’s notes, or music hymnals. These things aren’t scripture, but you can learn what the early Christians believed and how they interpreted Scripture from them. Just like you can understand how modern fundamentalists understand and interpret the Bible by looking at Scofield and Moody’s notes.

Simple logic tells me I need to go closer in time to the source to discover the true interpretation. If a writer writes a book but then dies, those who want to understand the mind of the author and his book are going to go to the people that were the closest to him to understand him better. Waiting 1500 years after the fact to figure it out is not logical.
Click to expand...
And don’t forget that the Holy Spirit is there always to protect the doctrine of the One, Holy, Catholic & Apostolic Church that Jesus Christ founded. If we can’t trust the Holy Spirit, who can we trust?? God Bless, Memaw
 
Gottle_of_Geer said:

Very few Protestants are Fundamentalists. As for Evangelicals - again,only some Evangelicals are Fundamentalists. Unless, of course, one equates Protestants with Protestantism in the USA. :cool: If people want to convince most Protestants, & not just Fundamentalists, more convincing arguments will be necessary than a list of early Christian practices. Equally interesting would be a list of early things in which Catholics differ from the first few generations. :cool:​

BTW - what happened to faith ? Or is that not needed these days, because everything can be proved ?
Click to expand...
Yes that is true. Not all Protestants are Fundamentalists or Evangelicals, but all have the same problem when it comes to proving or justifying their Interpretation of Scripture as correct. They need to prove what they are currently teaching is the same as the Apostles and the Early Church.

All Protestantism must maintain that the Catholic Church (the one that has traceable roots all the way back to the Apostles) has indeed ceased to be the true church. Otherwise it would not have been justifiable for them to rebel and leave the Church and create their own. The Reformation is a misnomer. The reformers didn’t “reform” the Church they broke away and divorced themselves from her.

To justify this they had to reinterpret certain passages of Scriptures in ways they had never been interpreted or understood before for close to 1500 years.

They had to reinterpret for instance
Matthew 16:18
“I also say to you that you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build My church; and the gates of Hades will not overpower it.
Matthew 16:19
I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven; whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven.”

There are many more-

Also since they divorced themselves from the Church they needed another authority to replace it- In comes Sola Scriptura.

Sola Gratia & Sola Scriptura are about the only things All Protestant Churches (Anglicans, Lutherans, Fundamentalists, Evangelicals, Pentecostals) have in common

(Note: Catholics 100% believe in Sola Gratia too but not Sola Fide or Sola Scriptura) Most Protestant Churches also believe in Sola Fide.
Code: 
 Regardless, the burden rests on All Protestants to p(name removed by moderator)oint when the Church, that was founded on Peter with roots going all the way back to the Apostle and Jesus, ceased to be that Church to justify reinventing it.

 Protestants want to insist they didn't reinvent it, but want to claim they restored it to what the Apostles and Early Christians taught- Well if that is true they should be able to show that the early Church believed like them, but they can't. 

The Early Church simply did not believe or teach Sola Scriptura or Sola Fide.
But from a fundamentalist viewpoint it also did not teach: Adult Believers Baptism only. It did not teach that the Eucharist was just a symbolic memorial meal. It did not teach OSAS etc.

You mentioned that it is not all about what can be proved, but what about Faith.

I have Faith absolutely in God and in Matt 16:18 that the Church that was founded by Christ has a Visible and unbroken line. That it’s doctrines have not changed from the beginning. But that can also be backed up quite well from History.

And like another person said- The Church is constantly being reformed from the inside out- The chaff and wheat grow together. However, the Deposit of Faith that it protects with the the Help of the Holy Spirit is miraculously untouched and has not and cannot be changed.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top