P
panevino
Guest
read philo of Alexandria who lived around 50ad.
And
Josephus Flavius
also
read didache, some say was written before revelations was complete.
Can YOU prove that the Church existed *before* the NT was written?
- Status
And
Josephus Flavius
also
read didache, some say was written before revelations was complete.
T
Theophorus
Guest
Sacred Scripture comes from the prexistence of Sacred Tradition. This Tradition was laid down during the life of Christ and the 12 Apostles. This was later written down in what has become the canon of Scripture. as someone said earlier the author precedes the text.
Roman historians writing late in the late first century and early in the second make reference to Christians and Christianity, Pliny the Younger, Tacitus, and Suetonius all comment on the early Church.
Among the earliest of the church fathers Ignatius of Antioch (ca. 35 or 50-between 98 and 117) and Polycarp (ca. 70 – ca. 156) lived and wrote in the early Christian communities the writings they leave behind are not part of the canon of scripture yet they discuss the life of Christ and also the Christian communities of the time. Indeed Ignatius makes reference to Christ, his resurrection, the Eucharist, bishops, priests etc.
As for C.S Lewis I’m not sure, I haven’t read too much of his stuff
Roman historians writing late in the late first century and early in the second make reference to Christians and Christianity, Pliny the Younger, Tacitus, and Suetonius all comment on the early Church.
Among the earliest of the church fathers Ignatius of Antioch (ca. 35 or 50-between 98 and 117) and Polycarp (ca. 70 – ca. 156) lived and wrote in the early Christian communities the writings they leave behind are not part of the canon of scripture yet they discuss the life of Christ and also the Christian communities of the time. Indeed Ignatius makes reference to Christ, his resurrection, the Eucharist, bishops, priests etc.
As for C.S Lewis I’m not sure, I haven’t read too much of his stuff
D
DCNBILL
Guest
Is this not like asking someone for proof that something happened in history but one can not use a history book to prove it?
J
James_S_Saint
Guest
Consider something with this kind of challenge.
If you were to collect up ALL of the references to the establishment of the king of England into a single book that people used to teach of such an event, but then in an effort to insist of the proof of it, you disqualified the book for being possibly biased, could you prove that the king of England ever existed at all?
The early Catholic church DID collect up all reputable references to the best of their ability at the time and from those formed the book you now call the Bible. But then by rejecting the Bible as a whole for possibly being biased, what is left to provide any proof of anything pertinent?
In effect, you are asking that someone prove something, but do so without using any of the available evidence.
{I have had this debate before
}
If you were to collect up ALL of the references to the establishment of the king of England into a single book that people used to teach of such an event, but then in an effort to insist of the proof of it, you disqualified the book for being possibly biased, could you prove that the king of England ever existed at all?
The early Catholic church DID collect up all reputable references to the best of their ability at the time and from those formed the book you now call the Bible. But then by rejecting the Bible as a whole for possibly being biased, what is left to provide any proof of anything pertinent?
In effect, you are asking that someone prove something, but do so without using any of the available evidence.
{I have had this debate before
}
W
wardrandolph
Guest
N
NHInsider
Guest
Hmm. You should read Lewis instead of thinking that you read something about him somewhere. Begin with his essay “Myth Became Fact,” and then if you are really interested, try Pilgrim’s Regress and the Perelandra books. But be aware that Lewis was a scholar and professor of literature first and a writer of popular fiction second. His exploration of the question of mythology is that of a man who spent his life studying myth as a literary form in many different cultures. So be prepared for some fairly esoteric discussion.
G
guanophore
Guest
Not just any history book, either, but the primary source material that was written by the people who lived the experiences about which they wrote!
I don’t think these things can be “proved”. We can’t even “prove” the dates Jesus was born and died. For that matter, this is the case for many things we accept as historical fact.
We don’t have that information about Ozymandias either, but accept that he is an actual historical figure.
K
KyivAndrew
Guest
From Jewish scholar Geza Vermes:
The Jesus notice is a veritable tour de force. Josephus plays the role of a neutral witness. We know that when he wants to disapprove of someone, he knows how to do it. In his description of two pseudo-Messiahs, Theudas and “the Egyptian”, both mentioned in the Acts of the Apostles (5:26; 21:38), Josephus calls them “imposters”.
So by portraying Jesus not unsympathetically, yet without fully embracing his cause, he achieved what none of his ancient Jewish successors managed to do: he sketched a non-partisan picture of Jesus. The Testimonium lies half way between the reverential portrait of the early church and the caricatures of the Talmud and of the early medieval Jewish lives of Jesus (Toldot Yeshu).
In conclusion, what seems to be Josephus’s authentic portrait of Jesus depicts him as a wise teacher and miracle worker, with an enthusiastic following of Jewish disciples who, despite the crucifixion of their master by order of Pontius Pilate in collusion with the Jerusalem high priests, remained faithful to him up to Josephus’s days.
Let me offer therefore the text that I believe Josephus wrote. The Christian additions, identified in the paragraph that follows the earlier reproduction of the English translation of Antiquities 18: 63-64, are excised and the deletions are indicated by …]. The dubious authenticity of the phrase “[and many Greeks?]” (see the same paragraph above) is signalled by the question mark. Finally, the word [called] is inserted into the sentence “He was [called] the Christ” on the basis of Josephus’s description of James as “the brother of Jesus called the Christ”.
About this time there lived Jesus, a wise man…For he was one who performed paradoxical deeds and was the teacher of such people as accept the truth gladly. He won over many Jews [and many Greeks?]. He was [called] the Christ. When Pilate, upon hearing him accused by men of the highest standing among us, had condemned him to be crucified, those who had in the first place come to love him did not give up their affection for him…And the tribe of the Christians, so called after him, has still to this day not disappeared.
Read full story at standpointmag.co.uk/node/2507/full
The Jesus notice is a veritable tour de force. Josephus plays the role of a neutral witness. We know that when he wants to disapprove of someone, he knows how to do it. In his description of two pseudo-Messiahs, Theudas and “the Egyptian”, both mentioned in the Acts of the Apostles (5:26; 21:38), Josephus calls them “imposters”.
So by portraying Jesus not unsympathetically, yet without fully embracing his cause, he achieved what none of his ancient Jewish successors managed to do: he sketched a non-partisan picture of Jesus. The Testimonium lies half way between the reverential portrait of the early church and the caricatures of the Talmud and of the early medieval Jewish lives of Jesus (Toldot Yeshu).
In conclusion, what seems to be Josephus’s authentic portrait of Jesus depicts him as a wise teacher and miracle worker, with an enthusiastic following of Jewish disciples who, despite the crucifixion of their master by order of Pontius Pilate in collusion with the Jerusalem high priests, remained faithful to him up to Josephus’s days.
Let me offer therefore the text that I believe Josephus wrote. The Christian additions, identified in the paragraph that follows the earlier reproduction of the English translation of Antiquities 18: 63-64, are excised and the deletions are indicated by …]. The dubious authenticity of the phrase “[and many Greeks?]” (see the same paragraph above) is signalled by the question mark. Finally, the word [called] is inserted into the sentence “He was [called] the Christ” on the basis of Josephus’s description of James as “the brother of Jesus called the Christ”.
About this time there lived Jesus, a wise man…For he was one who performed paradoxical deeds and was the teacher of such people as accept the truth gladly. He won over many Jews [and many Greeks?]. He was [called] the Christ. When Pilate, upon hearing him accused by men of the highest standing among us, had condemned him to be crucified, those who had in the first place come to love him did not give up their affection for him…And the tribe of the Christians, so called after him, has still to this day not disappeared.
Read full story at standpointmag.co.uk/node/2507/full
K
kepha1
Guest
June 12, 2008
JERUSALEM: Archaeologists believe they have found the world’s oldest church, dating from shortly after Christ’s crucifixion. If tests confirm that it dates back to between AD33 and AD70, as the archaeologists claimed this week, it would make it the earliest known place of Christian worship by about 200 years.
A report in The Jordan Times on Tuesday said a very early underground church had been found beneath the ancient St Georgeous Church, which itself dates back to AD230, in Rihab, northern Jordan, near the Syrian border.
“We have uncovered what we believe to be the first church in the world, dating from AD33 to 70,” said the head of the Rihab Centre for Archaeological Studies, Abdul Qader al-Husan.
“We have evidence to believe this church sheltered the early Christians - the 70 disciples of Jesus Christ.”
A mosaic found in the church describes them as “the 70 beloved by God and Divine”. Mr Husan said they were believed to have fled persecution in Jerusalem and founded churches in northern Jordan.
First Christian church a wonder down under
%between%
JERUSALEM: Archaeologists believe they have found the world’s oldest church, dating from shortly after Christ’s crucifixion. If tests confirm that it dates back to between AD33 and AD70, as the archaeologists claimed this week, it would make it the earliest known place of Christian worship by about 200 years.
A report in The Jordan Times on Tuesday said a very early underground church had been found beneath the ancient St Georgeous Church, which itself dates back to AD230, in Rihab, northern Jordan, near the Syrian border.
“We have uncovered what we believe to be the first church in the world, dating from AD33 to 70,” said the head of the Rihab Centre for Archaeological Studies, Abdul Qader al-Husan.
“We have evidence to believe this church sheltered the early Christians - the 70 disciples of Jesus Christ.”
A mosaic found in the church describes them as “the 70 beloved by God and Divine”. Mr Husan said they were believed to have fled persecution in Jerusalem and founded churches in northern Jordan.
First Christian church a wonder down under
%between%
R
RedBert
Guest
This post is about the creed mentioned in 1 Corinthians : it is not about 1 Corinthians,
1 Corinthians 15:3-4 reads: “For what I received I passed on to you as of first importance: that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures.”** This contains a Christian creed of pre-Pauline origin**
** The antiquity of the creed has been located by many Biblical scholars to less than a decade after Jesus’ death, originating from the Jerusalem apostolic community.**
Concerning this creed, Campenhausen wrote, “This account meets all the demands of historical reliability that could possibly be made of such a text,” whilst A. M. Hunter said, “The passage therefore preserves uniquely early and verifiable testimony. It meets every reasonable demand of historical reliability.” -
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historicity_of_Jesus#Ancient_Creeds
is this what the OP is looking for?
R
RedBert
Guest
World’s ‘oldest Christian church’ discovered in Jordan
If tests confirm that it dates back to between 33 AD to 70 AD, as the archaeologists claim, it would make it the earliest known place of Christian worship by around two hundred years.
telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/middleeast/jordan/2106752/Worlds-oldest-Christian-church-discovered-in-Jordan.html
is this what the OP is looking for?
If tests confirm that it dates back to between 33 AD to 70 AD, as the archaeologists claim, it would make it the earliest known place of Christian worship by around two hundred years.
telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/middleeast/jordan/2106752/Worlds-oldest-Christian-church-discovered-in-Jordan.html
is this what the OP is looking for?
G
grndslm
Guest
Forgive me for taking so long to reply. Not enough time yesterday and TOO MANY RESPONSES TODAY!!
So anyway… that’s why I was looking for anything OUTSIDE of scripture. I’d actually seen in numerous other threads about how “sacred tradition existed before sacred scripture” or “the Church existed before sacred scripture”… so I was just trying to throw the circular logic paradigm out the window, which would lead to my question:
“Can you prove that the Church existed before the NT books were written?”
The more that I can verify without the Bible… the more I think I’ll take Catholicism seriously. If everything depends on scripture, I might as well just be a Protestant, right?
JimG’s answer made a lot of sense. If Jesus instructed the Apostled to go preach, and they thought the Second Coming was near… I can at least understand why it took so long for the Gospels to be written.
That actually makes a good deal of sense.
I actually am starting with the presumption that the NT cannot be trusted. I am trying to be as big of a skeptic as I possibly can, and I was trying to use the angle that perhaps Paul wrote the NT books and made it appear, to his students, that there actually were Churches and other Apostles… and then from there teh story just spread like wildfire. Not the greatest theory in the world, I know… but I have NO knowledge of Church history at all, really, but I’d like to.
So anyway… that’s why I was looking for anything OUTSIDE of scripture. I’d actually seen in numerous other threads about how “sacred tradition existed before sacred scripture” or “the Church existed before sacred scripture”… so I was just trying to throw the circular logic paradigm out the window, which would lead to my question:
“Can you prove that the Church existed before the NT books were written?”
The more that I can verify without the Bible… the more I think I’ll take Catholicism seriously. If everything depends on scripture, I might as well just be a Protestant, right?
I didn’t say when they were compiled, collected… I said before they were written.
That is what I was looking for, actually. But I have found other things that I’m willing to accept after more deliberation… the church from 35-70 AD and everything that JimG stated above are really good answers that I am more than willing to accept, tho.
JimG’s answer made a lot of sense. If Jesus instructed the Apostled to go preach, and they thought the Second Coming was near… I can at least understand why it took so long for the Gospels to be written.
Early Church [to me] is, without a doubt, the first two centuries… preferably the First Century. But in this instance, I stated “before the NT books were written”, which would be ~45 AD.
I will get that book. There’s at least 15 other books I’m interested in buying after scouring Amazon for a couple hours, so I will probably list them somewhere to get opinions on my selections.
G
grndslm
Guest
Not exactly. Perhaps Paul was crazy and made it all up inside his little head and then his students never actually met the other Apostles and saw any other Churches, but took his text as evidence that there was more than what they’d seen. I’m sure that the lot of you will see it as a very poor theory, but it was a dual-edged stab in the dark – to discover how Catholics can prove to Protestants that sacred tradition is not derived from sacred scripture, and to discover secular (read: “verifiable”) reasons to believe that the Church is not the creation of some guy who escaped the looney bin.
Will look into it. One of the things that started this quest for me was coming across this movie: video.google.com/videoplay?docid=7785317849743909385
There’s a lotta stuff in there that I didn’t pick up the first time, and I’ll need to watch again. But lots of “archeological pursuit” was entertained in that movie, and the guy actually came to his own conclusion that things aren’t as most of you believe them to be. But, since I wasn’t really paying attention when I watched it the first time, I really don’t want to talk about that movie too much. I’d love it if anybody could tell me at what point the guy is talking to the wrong people or whatever, tho…
My only personal tradition is to never stop questioning.
Will do on the Philo of Alexandria bit. The writings of Josephus about “Jesus Christ”, on the other hand, I have heard to be forged… fore, he was the only secular historian to mention Jesus by name instead of only “Christ”. Here’s a bit about the alleged forgery of his writings on Jesus…
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Josephus_on_Jesus#Alleged_fabrication_by_Eusebius
Those folks weren’t even born until after most of the NT books were written. I do remember reading that none of those three secular historians actually mentioned a name, like Jesus or Yeshua, however. They merely mention “Christ”. Kinda fishy in itself, but not exactly what I’m looking for at the moment.
Yes, I see these names mentioned over and over again when looking at books on Amazon about “Church Fathers”. Will definitely look into their stuff soon.
Kinda… except you can use another history book, and preferablly another history book. But others managed to actually prove it to me for the most part thru a logical understanding of the times and thru this archealogical discovery of one of the first churches in existence.
Well… the problem comes when people always point to the Bible for EVERYTHING. At some point, you’ve gotta get tired of the circular logic, if you actually enjoy thinking to understand.Consider something with this kind of challenge.
…
The early Catholic church DID collect up all reputable references to the best of their ability at the time and from those formed the book you now call the Bible. But then by rejecting the Bible as a whole for possibly being biased, what is left to provide any proof of anything pertinent?
In effect, you are asking that someone prove something, but do so without using any of the available evidence.
{I have had this debate before
As others have pointed out to a logical understanding of the times and even archeological evidence of a super-early Church… I’d say there are answers out there not SOLELY dependant on scripture. I want “verifiable” answers.
G
grndslm
Guest
See above about how this text could have possibly been forged… and Josephus is the only secular historian to mention Christ with the name Jesus. I really find that peculiar that only one secular historian mentions the name “Jesus Christ”, as opposed to just “Christ”. Just one guy mentions the name Jesus??? … and then his work ends up possibly being forged?!? Great!
Nice!! I didn’t “think I’d read something about him somewhere”… I did read something about him HERE. That’s why I asked. I believe it was in the same thread where somebody was saying that the Church came before scripture… and then somebody else mentioned C.S. Lewis’ Mere Christianity and his assured belief that Christianity was NOT based on a myth.
Will look into your recommendations first, tho.
Some people managed to make a very strong case for the existence of churches without reverting to scripture. They succeeded, IMHO.
As for “the primary source material that was written by the people who lived the experiences about whith they wrote”… if Mark, Matthew, & Luke were all actually students of Paul, who never even met Jesus… then the experiences could have been created from Paul’s imagination alone. Doesn’t look that way after I’ve seen the responses in this thread…
But I just want to emphasize something that I’d read elsewhere last week. “If you remove ALL doubt about a relationship, then you remove the passion.” As long as we all have even just a tiny bit of doubt, we’ll always be searching for the Truth. And, likewise… this makes sense for why Jesus would say, “My God, my God, why have You forsaken me?” Just enough doubt there to keep Christ passionate for his Bride.
Nice. Presuming that Josephus’ work had not been forged, and he actually wrote the name “Jesus” in his texts… I wonder why the martyrdom of the Apostles was not enough to convert him.
Not exactly… but I will cheeck out that Wikipedia article. Thanks!
Yup!
I still think JimG gave a good bit of reasoning to the disciples of that day, which helps me understand why it took so long to write the biblical narratives…
J
John_Pascendi
Guest
One cannot 'prove’anything to a sceptic! The dictators who ran Italy ordered the execution of people for various reasons ie treason against the state. Archaeology does shed light on the New Testament in many ways.Inscriptions on walls and crypts. A fascinating acrostic appears in many places among the ruins of Pompeii…a city destroyed by an eruption ad 79.arranged in the form of a square it reads…ROTAS,OPERA,TENET,AREPO,SATOR…the hidden meaning is amazing.the letters add up to a repeated Pater Noster…the cruciform shape emphasizes the centrality of the cross of Jesus,the repeated A and O,alpha and omega,Christian belief in the cosmic significance of Jesus.The placing of the Ts shows the Christians saw the cross of Jesus as the mid-point in history…Tenet…means he holds…this also makes the sign of the cross. Only one Man in all history was executed in ghastly circumstances and yet rose triumphet!!! The fish was also a Christian symbol and can be seen in many burial niches. The Greek word for fish is ICHTHUS…and this stands for ,Jesus Christ,Son of God!!! Iesous,Christos,Theou,Hutos Soter.There were no printing presses for many years…around the 1500s they appeared,so all scripture had to be copied by hand…thus when the Church finally got around to place the authenic ones into one book form…Biblia…means books…then it was set…and this before 400ad. Jesus did not invent the printing press because instead He left a teaching authority,centered in Rome and called the Papacy.for over 2,000 years the worlds oldest line of authority,no other office has lasted so long,this in its self is ‘proof’ to those who have eyes to see and ears to hear. all the best,Pas (next week boys and girls we will discuss the age old practice of crossing ones fingers for ‘luck’ and what the means…be careful crossing the street,look both ways …)
G
grndslm
Guest
Anyway… Kinda getting off-topic at this point, since I got what I wanted outta this thread, but perhaps you guys could recommend which of these books are actually worth buying/reading??
- Geography of Religion : Where God Lives, Where Pilgrims Walk
- Where We Got the Bible… Our Debt to the Catholic Church
- Surprised By Truth 2: 15 Men and Women Give the Biblical and Historical Reasons For Becoming Catholic. (v. 2)
- The Mass of the Early Christians
- The Fathers of the Church, Expanded Edition
- Four Witnesses: The Early Church in Her Own Words
- Man and Woman He Created Them: A Theology Of The Body
- Faith of the Early Fathers: Three-Volume Set
- [Our Sunday Visitor] (-OR- [Ignatius Press] )
- [Our Sunday Visitor] (-OR- [Ignatius Press] )
- [Doubleday Religion; 7th edition] (-OR- [Ignatius Press] )
- A Study Guide for Joseph Ratzinger’s Jesus of Nazareth: From the Baptism in the Jordan to the Transfiguration
- [Ignatius Press]
- Church History Volume One: From Christ to Pre-Reformation: The Rise and Growth of the Church in Its Cultural, Intellectual, and Political Context
- The Teachings of the Church Fathers
- The Spirit of Early Christian Thought: Seeking the Face of God
- Things Hidden Since the Foundation of the World (-AND/OR- Violence and the Sacred)
I
Incomplete
Guest
But why would historians refer to him as “Jesus Christ”? You do realize that “Christ” was not his last name?
G
grndslm
Guest
Of course I know that. Christ means “Annointed One”.
Like I said, Josephus is the only one to mention the name Jesus at all. All the others only mention a generic Christ, with no specific name for the man.
Like I said, Josephus is the only one to mention the name Jesus at all. All the others only mention a generic Christ, with no specific name for the man.
N
NHInsider
Guest
Don’t make the mistake, in your quest for being a super-skeptic, of demanding from history what is unique to the modern world. The vast majority of people in the ancient world lived and died without leaving any written record whatsoever. Many, many historical figures are known of only because of one or two references. It is also essential to remember that in history as in other fields, the ABSENCE of evidence proves nothing except that there is an absence of evidence.
I am reminded that until a few years ago it was fashionable among some Biblical “scholars” of a certain stripe to assert that King David was a legendary king, because there was no archaelogical evidence of his existence outside of the Scriptural texts. Then someone dug up a stele, and the ground shifted. (Ok, I’m older than I think - the stele was found in 1993 . . .)
G
grndslm
Guest
The problem that I’m seeing is that everything we know about Jesus has some kinda Pauline influence it seems…
It’s quite obvious that the apostles went in all directions and started different “sects” of Christianity, but is there anything outside of this Pauline influence that proves Paul and Peter were always together?? Or that the authors of the biblical narratives did in fact meet Peter…
Now that I’m getting a better look at history, there’s a virtually limitless number of interpretations of the teachings of Jesus… that I just have a bad feeling about trusing everything from the guy who never actually even met the “real” Jesus at all.
How do Catholics know that Paul’s influence is actually truth without putting 100% faith into Paul’s writings and teachings and falling into that circular logic trap??
Is there any serious historical evidence that Paul and Peter were always together? Is the real reason that Paul and his students the only writers because Paul was fairly wealthy before his conversion and had plenty of “contacts” to help him with writing this Word down??
It’s quite obvious that the apostles went in all directions and started different “sects” of Christianity, but is there anything outside of this Pauline influence that proves Paul and Peter were always together?? Or that the authors of the biblical narratives did in fact meet Peter…
Now that I’m getting a better look at history, there’s a virtually limitless number of interpretations of the teachings of Jesus… that I just have a bad feeling about trusing everything from the guy who never actually even met the “real” Jesus at all.
How do Catholics know that Paul’s influence is actually truth without putting 100% faith into Paul’s writings and teachings and falling into that circular logic trap??
Is there any serious historical evidence that Paul and Peter were always together? Is the real reason that Paul and his students the only writers because Paul was fairly wealthy before his conversion and had plenty of “contacts” to help him with writing this Word down??
- Status