Can YOU prove that the Church existed *before* the NT was written?

[HappyRevert]

Maybe you should start with Four Witnesses by Rod Bennett. I know it was earthshaking for me. Not only did they know the apostles or direct descendants of them, they had extremely Catholic views of the Eucharist which is always the clincher for me. It isn’t expensive and may give you a view into that very early church history which I think you are seeking.

 

[Cristiano]

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.

Why do you care about the mentioning of either Jesus or Christ in the documents. If you are really interested in the early Church you should only look for Christians or Followers of the Way. Even if we were to assume that the Church is based on something untrue, that does not make its existence untrue.

 

[Mintaka]

Around the time of our Jesus’ birth, Jesus/Yehoshua/Joshua was a very very common and popular name in all the Jewish communities of the world. (So was Mary. So was John.)
So to a Jewish writer, it would have been like saying “And then, there was this super important historical figure – Joe Normal!” (Thus all the nicknames and genealogies and qualifying terms.)

Greeks and Romans also saw that practically every other Jew in their town was named Jesus or John or Mary. So for them too, it just didn’t stand out.

Christos/Christus was a lot easier to say, and a lot easier to remember. It also sounded like the Greek word for “golden”, chrestos. Obviously, a much cooler name.

Since it meant "anointed one’ in Hebrew, and since being anointed was either like signing up to be a rebel against the Romans or it meant you were one of thousands of priests, there weren’t a lot of other people at that time being nicknamed or identified by the name Christ. To the Jews, then, this also stood out.

 

[NHInsider]

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…

I am perhaps missing what you are trying to ask - but even within the Scriptural canon there is no assertion that “Paul and Peter were always together.” They weren’t, in fact, together very much at all, and Paul of course reports on their confrontation.

The only gospel writer whose account is definitely Peter’s is Mark. Luke explicitly says he is working from numerous accounts and witnesses. John asserts his own eyewitness credentials. Matthew is traditionally attributed to the Apostle of that name, probably actually recorded by someone who learned it from him.

I don’t know which “historians” you’ve been reading. My own take is that I think it’s pretty presumptious for us moderns to think that from this distance we can make a better assessment of the veracity of sources than those who weighed the evidence within two centuries of the actual events, while the connection back to the eyewitnesses was still fresh and traceable.

 

[grndslm]

Why do you care about the mentioning of either Jesus or Christ in the documents.

Because if your God became man, and he was named Yeshua… I’d want to write that down in the books.

The real reason I want it is because Catholics claim that “sacred tradition” is so strong. They had a memory like elephants. Well… if they didn’t write down the name Yeshua in the original gospels… what does that say about sacred tradition?

That’s why I want to know whether the name Yeshua was actually written down or not in the ancient Aramaic [Greek?] texts.

Around the time of our Jesus’ birth, Jesus/Yehoshua/Joshua was a very very common and popular name in all the Jewish communities of the world. (So was Mary. So was John.)

Makes sense to me.

Christos/Christus was a lot easier to say, and a lot easier to remember. It also sounded like the Greek word for “golden”, chrestos. Obviously, a much cooler name.

Since it meant "anointed one’ in Hebrew, and since being anointed was either like signing up to be a rebel against the Romans or it meant you were one of thousands of priests, there weren’t a lot of other people at that time being nicknamed or identified by the name Christ. To the Jews, then, this also stood out.

Good stuff. Understanding that Jesus and his followers were rebels of the Roman empire definitely puts things in perspective for me.

Sacrificing your life for your followers in such a situation would probably be expected if you came under the revelation that there was no other option.

People always ask the common man, who knows not what it means to fight for freedom (because we take it for granted!): “Is there any story or lie that you’d be willing to die for?” No… but if there was a Roman empire that can only be stopped one way in order to save future generations…

Sure, I’d DEFINITELY die with a smile on my face.

I don’t know which “historians” you’ve been reading. My own take is that I think it’s pretty presumptious for us moderns to think that from this distance we can make a better assessment of the veracity of sources than those who weighed the evidence within two centuries of the actual events, while the connection back to the eyewitnesses was still fresh and traceable.

All of them!! Or… as many as I can find, at least.

I’m looking for the effect of Jesus, alright. Understanding EVERYTHING that you guys know about the first two centuries is EXACTLY what I want to know.

 

[Cristiano]

Because if your God became man, and he was named Yeshua… I’d want to write that down in the books…

Now I understand, one more case of changing the rules during the game. What is next? The answer can only be posted on a baptist web site and not on CAF!

 

[steve_b]

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?

Technically, the upper room, where Jesus instituted the Eucharist would predate even that “place of Christian worship”…true? And people have been able to visit the upper room in Jerusalem for centuries.

 

[steve_b]

.

Christians have existed since at least The Annunciation. So, yes, the church predates 45 AD when the first NEW Testament Scripture was written by some 50 years.

Now, whether any denomination predates that is a whole other matter. There is no clear evidence that ANY denomination existed before the 4th century (I’ll let others fight over whether that was the OO or the EO or the CC or some proto to them all - that’s moot). .

The Church Jesus established isn’t a denomination.

 

[steve_b]

The author always precedes his text.

I like your brevity

 

[Lampo]

The author always precedes his text.

Brilliant! That response ends the discussion in my opinion.

 

[FCEGM]

I like your brevity

 

[FCEGM]

Brilliant! That response ends the discussion in my opinion.

Wow! Thanks to you and Steve for noticing my little post.

 

[Corki]

grndslm,

Can you tell us what grade you are in and/or what history classes you already have taken? It would be easier to point you to references with that information. I am guessing you are very young since, at least here in Texas, the origins of world religions including Christianity are covered in either 6th or 8th grade depending on the school district. The historical account of early Christianity is not really debated by anyone, even completely athiest historians. The earliest dates given for most of the NT is somewhere in the 60s and many say they weren’t written until much later. That clearly puts the Christian Church before the NT writings.

I can recommend some middle or high school texts that cover this if you want.

 

[ratios]

Do you mean not written or not put in a bible form?

 

[Mannyfit75]

Seems like a pretty self-explanatory title.

People always say things like “the Church existed before the NT books were written by Paul, et al.”

Well… can you PROVE that? Obviously, you cannot use sacred scripture to prove this sacred tradition.

The Gospel were preached by the Apostles ORALLY and it was before the entire Scripture was put together. The Bible was not put together in its current form until the 4th Century.

The regional or local Catholic Church Synods of Hippo, 393 A.D., and Carthage, 397 A.D.,and later, Carthage, 419 A.D., gave us the canon of Sacred Scripture,as we know it today. Although these were just local councils, Saint Augustine did insist that the list given by these councils be sent to Rome for approval. Pope Saint Siricius (384-399 A.D.) approved the canon just as his papal predecessor Pope Damasus 1 had done in a synodin 382 A.D. with a formal writing “Decretal of Gelasius”, derecipiendis et non recipiendis libris. (The archeological findings and analysis pertaining to the Council of Rome, 382 A.D., and some of the Popes may not be a settled fact.) A friend of Saint Jerome, Saint Exuperius of Toulouse, a Gallican bishop, wrote to Pope Innocent I in a formal letter requesting the list of canonical books. The Pope replied in February of 405 A.D. with a letter (Consulenti Tibi) confirming and reaffirming the canon given at Hippo and Carthage. The decrees of the regional or local Catholic Church Synods of Hippo, 393 A.D., and Carthage, around 400 A.D., were submitted to the “transmarine Church”(Rome) and approved by the Popes and are considered official Church teachings by official Church councils or synods. Although these synods were merely local, and they in themselves did not have universal binding authority, their decrees were submitted to various Popes. That is how we got the Bible.

How can you prove that the NT exist before the Church when the Church Leaders themselves put the Bible in its current Canon?

The Apostles were orally preaching the Gospels and wrote letters to churches through the empire. They travel throughout Roman Empire, spread the message of Jesus Christ. Second, the Epistles were addressed to Roman, Corinth, etc. If the Church did not exist in those days, whom did St. Paul wrote his letters too? How about St. Peter’s Epistles?

 

[Ignatius]

People always say things like “the Church existed before the NT books were written by Paul, et al.”

Well… can you PROVE that?

Sure, it works like this:

1. Jesus said that He would found His Church.
2. Jesus ascended to heaven 40 days after His resurrection.
3. Therefore, Jesus founded His Church, at the latest, 40 days after His resurrection.
4. The first NT writings were not done until A.D. 40-50 at the earliest.
   Hence: The Church that Jesus Christ founded was founded before the NT writings.

 

[adstrinity]

I didn’t read this entire fourth page, but, Matthew wasn’t a Pauline influenced authour. He was a Disciple of Jesus. He was one of the two Gospel writers to know Jesus personally.

 

[grndslm]

Well… I still say it’s fishy that they all added on to Mark and are called the Synoptic Gospels because of it!!

You just make me more curious about what the other 13+ known gospels/compilations say in reference to Jesus.

 

[rwillenborg]

I don’t understand the question.
Of course the church existed before the NT was written.
Most of the NT consists of letters…to…churches, so, certainly the church existed before the NT.
See what I mean? I don’t understand the question.

 

[rwillenborg]

Well… I still say it’s fishy that they all added on to Mark and are called the Synoptic Gospels because of it!!

You just make me more curious about what the other 13+ known gospels/compilations say in reference to Jesus.

Are you talking about the gnostic gospels?
Even before the ACTUAL gnostic writings were found in 1945, you have the Church fathers like Irenaeus (130-200), Hippolytus (170-236) and Tertullian (160-220) and Epiphanius (310-403) talking about the Gnostics and what they believed in their writings.

So, even before the actual texts were found you could easily get some idea of what the gnostics were all about. You can find the writings of those church fathers by the way in many Catholic publications, and I have found them on the vatican website before (though I think they’re website is really clumsy. Sorry!)
The gnostic texts are called things like ‘Gospel of Phillip, Gospel of Mary, Wisdom of Jesus Christ’ to name a few. You can use your google machine and easily find them all onilne. The were written from the 2nd or 3rd century AD, although it is suspected that some bits come from earlier writings. Keep in mind that Christian scholars put the date of the last of the gospels which are currently in the Bible at 70 AD, while some others put it as late as 100 AD. Either way, all of the gospels which are in the Bible are believed to have been written while people who were witnesses to Jesus’ resurrection would still have been alive, or the first generation after that.

In my opinion, the gnostic gospels are really hard to explain. I’ll give it a stab. Only those with the ‘gnosis’ or knowledge can appreciate the mysteries, and therefore only those select few have access to an afterlife. They beleived in a dualism. Christ did not die on the cross because he did not directly enter into creation. They believed in a dualism. The TRUE God was a God of light, and this world, the fleshy one we live in is a prison. And in christianity, women are men are consdiered equals (males and females created in God’s image in Gen 1:27) whereas according to gnostic texts such as the Gospel of Thomas Peter said ‘Let Mary leave us, for women are not worthy of Life’
There’s ALOT more to the gnostic gospels than that, but I just thought that might be a helpful overview.