Christianity's First Dark Age

[mesl4]

Where are these standard lists of this alphabetical hierarchy that all Christian denominations have agreed to? Your personal view doesn’t cut it. If many other denominations disagree with this, your theory is broken–they cannot all be “the true church” in the manner in which God intended it to exist if they disagree so.

I was using the letters to show there are core doctrine, and less core doctrine. There is no teaching of A, B, C, etc. You have to agree though that there are things that all Christians believe(Christ as savior) , and other things that they disagree with that are less important. Whether it’s between one Baptist to another, one pentecostal to presbyterian, or one Catholic to another. The trinity belief is universal (catholic) among Christians. That is why we consider JWs/LDS cults. They claim Christianity, while differing in it’s core doctrine. You would not call Protestants cults, you would admit they are Christians. Whether we believe in predestination or not, or whether we believe the Earth was created in 7 literal days, or eras, does not change our salvation. It does not change who we believe Christ is, and what he did for us. So, we can argue about those things, but it’s not going to matter. Now, we don’t have a Catechism of Protestants, or Baptists, or Pentecostals, or non-denom. etc, so this is just common knowledge I would assume most people would agree with. Christ is our judge, and we leave it in his hands.

 

[mesl4]

What are these supposed “strange doctrines” anyway, and why do you (mesl) consider them strange? I hope, if you answer this, that you’ll do some homework and at least see that every single Catholic belief can be and has been defended Scripturally and historically. Whether you agree with the Scriptural basis or not does not change the fact that there are rational evidences for their support in Scripture. So the claim that “such and such isn’t supported by Scripture” is not effective as a dismissal. It only highlights the fact that by your personal interpretation, you pick and choose what you consider as “strange doctrine.” Well, Catholics obviously see the post-1500 sects as proliferating “strange doctrines,” often times rehashes of failed heretical groups from times past.

I think anything I’d say then you will say is MY interpretation . Or, you could say, it’s all Protestant’s interpretation, as well as every other religion that is not Catholic. The ones I mentioned before: recipe for the bread in the Eucharist. I don’t have a reference, but any educatated Catholic I’ve asked, says it’s true. And not to chew it because it will get stuck in your teeth and maybe spit out accidentally.I can’t imagine the apostles treated the bread and wine with such reverence. I can’t imagine they thought of it so literally as having Jesus’ body there even after the ceremony. Again, I’m just going from the impression I get from the Bible, so I have no other authoritative source, but they are the most authoritative…of course, in Protestant opinion. So, it’s really impossible to have this debate because it will always come down to my side being un-authoritative so doesn’t count.

 

[Ecoclimber]

Tertullian against Marcion

Let the heretics contrive something of the same kind. For after their blasphemy, what is there that is unlawful for them (to attempt)? But should they even effect the contrivance, they will not advance a step. For their very doctrine, after comparison with that of the apostles, will declare, by its own diversity and contrariety, that it had for its author neither an apostle nor an apostolic man; because, as the apostles would never have taught things which were self-contradictory, so the apostolic men would not have inculcated teaching different from the apostles, unless they who received their instruction from the apostles went and preached in a contrary manner.

To this test, therefore will they be submitted for proof by those churches, who, although they derive not their founder from apostles or apostolic men (as being of much later date, for they are in fact being founded daily), yet, since they agree in the same faith, they are accounted as not less apostolic because they are akin in doctrine. Then let all the heresies, when challenged to these two That is, the succession of bishops from the apostles, and the identity of doctrine with the apostolic. tests by our apostolic church, offer their proof of how they deem themselves to be apostolic. But in truth they neither are so, nor are they able to prove themselves to be what they are not. Nor are they admitted to peaceful relations and communion by such churches as are in any way connected with apostles, inasmuch as they are in no sense themselves apostolic because of their diversity as to the mysteries of the faith.

From this, therefore, do we draw up our rule. Since the Lord Jesus Christ sent the apostles to preach, (our rule is) that no others ought to be received as preachers than those whom Christ appointed; for “no man knoweth the Father save the Son, and he to whomsoever the Son will reveal Him.” Nor does the Son seem to have revealed Him to any other than the apostles, whom He sent forth to preach—that, of course, which He revealed to them. Now, what that was which they preached—in other words, what it was which Christ revealed to them—can, as I must here likewise prescribe, properly be proved in no other way than by those very churches which the apostles founded in person, by declaring the gospel to them directly themselves, both vivâ voce, as the phrase is, and subsequently by their epistles. If, then, these things are so, it is in the same degree manifest that all doctrine which agrees with the apostolic churches—those moulds and original sources of the faith must be reckoned for truth, as undoubtedly containing that which the (said) churches received from the apostles, the apostles from Christ, Christ from God.

Whereas all doctrine must be prejudged as false which savours of contrariety to the truth of the churches and apostles of Christ and God. It remains, then, that we demonstrate whether this doctrine of ours, of which we have now given the rule, has its origin in the tradition of the apostles, and whether all other doctrines do not ipso facto proceed from falsehood. We hold communion with the apostolic churches because our doctrine is in no respect different from theirs. This is our witness of truth. Tertullian against Marcion

A good study of sound orthodox doctrine is reading the early church fathers those that were taught by the disciples and Apostles of the Lord. The writings of Justin Martyr the first Christain Apologist and Irenaeus are good books to read concerning doctrine of the church during and after the apostolic age. In fact if you read the liturgy written by James, who first received the episcopate of the church at Jerusalem from the Saviour himself that James was appointed bishop of Jerusalem by Christ himself was an old and wide-spread tradition.and the apostles, and who, as the divine records show, was called a brother of Christ, it is quite similar to what is being used in the church todday.

Also searcgh on the writings of Flavius Josephus for the Jewish/Roman War.

An excellent collection of the writings of the early church fathers can be found at:
**
ccel.org/fathers.html**

 

[Bubba_Switzler]

A good study of sound orthodox doctrine is reading the early church fathers those that were taught by the disciples and Apostles of the Lord. The writings of Justin Martyr the first Christain Apologist and Irenaeus are good books to read concerning doctrine of the church during and after the apostolic age. …Also searcgh on the writings of Flavius Josephus for the Jewish/Roman War.

I’ve been looking into these. They are all, though apologies, not histories. (At best, some history can be inferred from the apologetic arguments.)

Josephus, of course, provides a history of the Jewish/Roman War but he has virtually nothing to say about the Christians of the day.

Narratively speaking, nobody at that time bothered to construct a history of Christianity after the Gospels and Acts.

 

[JRKH]

I’ve been looking into these. They are all, though apologies, not histories. (At best, some history can be inferred from the apologetic arguments.)

Josephus, of course, provides a history of the Jewish/Roman War but he has virtually nothing to say about the Christians of the day.

Narratively speaking, nobody at that time bothered to construct a history of Christianity after the Gospels and Acts.

At least nothing that has survived.
That is one thing we need also consider.
It’s possible, even probable that a considerable number of writings, letters, etc were made that have were destroyed.
Or perhaps there are still things hidden in the deserts for future generations to uncover.
Or perhaps the early Christians figured that Jesus was coming back soon, so “Recording History” for future generations was not important.
Or Perhaps God set it up this way to give us a chance to build a greater faith.



Peace
James

 

[mesl4]

At least nothing that has survived.
That is one thing we need also consider.
It’s possible, even probable that a considerable number of writings, letters, etc were made that have were destroyed.
Or perhaps there are still things hidden in the deserts for future generations to uncover.
Or perhaps the early Christians figured that Jesus was coming back soon, so “Recording History” for future generations was not important.
Or Perhaps God set it up this way to give us a chance to build a greater faith.



Peace
James

Yeah I thought under Nero’s persecution, he commanded all Christian writings to be burned, some of course survived. I always wonder what those writings contained. What a shame.

 

[mesl4]

And since the Bible was canonized by the CATHOLIC Church (whose bishops also left plenty of writings – including the Didache – at the same time), it would make little sense that the Catholic Church would approve books that so “clearly” contradict what she teaches. Rolling my eyes here.

There is no know author of the DIdache. There are many thoughts on who wrote it. This excerpt shows they thought of the Eucharist as “spiritual food” and received it as a thanksgiving bread and wine, no mention of literal body and blood.:

Chapter 9. The Eucharist. Now concerning the Eucharist, give thanks this way. First, concerning the cup:

We thank thee, our Father, for the holy vine of David Thy servant, which You madest known to us through Jesus Thy Servant; to Thee be the glory for ever…

And concerning the broken bread:
We thank Thee, our Father, for the life and knowledge which You madest known to us through Jesus Thy Servant; to Thee be the glory for ever. Even as this broken bread was scattered over the hills, and was gathered together and became one, so let Thy Church be gathered together from the ends of the earth into Thy kingdom; for Thine is the glory and the power through Jesus Christ for ever…

But let no one eat or drink of your Eucharist, unless they have been baptized into the name of the Lord; for concerning this also the Lord has said, “Give not that which is holy to the dogs.”

Chapter 10. Prayer after Communion. But after you are filled, give thanks this way:

We thank Thee, holy Father, for Thy holy name which You didst cause to tabernacle in our hearts, and for the knowledge and faith and immortality, which You modest known to us through Jesus Thy Servant; to Thee be the glory for ever. Thou, Master almighty, didst create all things for Thy name’s sake; You gavest food and drink to men for enjoyment, that they might give thanks to Thee; but to us You didst freely give spiritual food and drink and life eternal through Thy Servant. Before all things we thank Thee that You are mighty; to Thee be the glory for ever. Remember, Lord, Thy Church, to deliver it from all evil and to make it perfect in Thy love, and gather it from the four winds, sanctified for Thy kingdom which Thou have prepared for it; for Thine is the power and the glory for ever. Let grace come, and let this world pass away. Hosanna to the God (Son) of David! If any one is holy, let him come; if any one is not so, let him repent. Maranatha. Amen.

But permit the prophets to make Thanksgiving as much as they desire.

And what do you define as “disciplines”?

The practices the RCC teaches as having to be done (fasting on certain days/times, kneeling in certain position, receiving Eucharist in certain way/position, going to Church on a certain day for it to count as honoring the Sabbath,(even though it’s not even the traditional Sabbath),etc.

What’s more, “disciplines” have nothing to do with doctrine. Bear in mind the Church’s “binding and loosing” authority as they exercised in Acts.

It’s still an extra burden the Church puts on it’s members and Peter and James thought the burdens should be minimal and it seemed like there was a purpose - of not upsetting the Judaizers in the instance I’m thinking of (abstaining from meat sacrificed to idols, blood of stanguled animals, sexual immorality,). ALthough I’d say the sex. immorality would still apply today…I"ve always wondered why that one was put in there and kept, while the others are not an issue now.Then again, I don’t remember ever being offered dinner that came from a sacrificed animal.

Justin Martyr in A.D. 150 talks in great detail as well about the worship of the early Church. And what about YOUR church? Where were they? I am willing to bet that they don’t resemble anything of the primitive Church. If I’m wrong, prove it.:rolleyes

My Church (big C) is not a denomination, the Baptist church (little c) I attend (or attended, since I mainly go to RCC now) resembles the primitive church because it has a similar hierarchy with pastors and elders, teachers, it has communion w/bread and wine (also juice, which I’m sure wasn’t in the early church), it prays, sings, worships the Lord, preaches the gospel, studies the letters of the apostles, as well as the OT scriptures, strives to follow the teachings of Jesus and the apostles that they’ve left us in their letters and the Bible, annoints the sick with oil at times, teaches us to confess our sins (to God and others) , repent, change our lives, let Jesus come in and lead us, flee from immorality, share our posessions, give to those in need, baptize in the name of the Father, Son , and Holy Spirit, for all who accept Christ, etc. This is why Protestants are also an apostolic church. It’s because we were taught by the apostles (through their letters). Now, like back then, there are people that don’t take to heart the teachings of the apostles, but that is not a problem with their church often times, it’s a problem with the believer. If the pastor has that problem, then the congregation may also follow suit.

 

[mesl4]

Thanks for the response.

That brings us back to number 1. Now, again, the list of dogmas is pretty short, and there is no requirement really that Catholics have any greater knowledge of doctrines than the Nicene Creed contains. We are not like Protestant churches that imply that God requires everyone to be eminently literate and scholarly and truly understand the Bible in great depth in order to really say that you know the truth.

I know the RCC doesn’t require us to know the Bible, but my RCIA teacher said I’d be asked if I agree w/the doctrines of the church. I can honestly say that I can accept that they may be true, but not that they are definitly true. I always want to leave space for human error because, well,…we’re human. So I would say all the claims are certainly possible, I wouldn’t reject them, but I don’t feel comfortable going around preaching the immaculate conception. I could say why Catholics believe in it, but would not be able to say , “Mary was definitly sinless her whole life.” So, according to what you say below, this is acceptable, but according to my teacher, it is not.

No, Catholics need not have great knowledge of the Catechism to be in a state of grace. You need not even be comfortable with everything the Church teaches. Even belief differing from that of the Church is not heresy until you start knowingly advocating it. And if you willfully reject the Church’s teaching and go around preaching a message in rebellion against it, well, what church of any denomination would accept such a thing and retain your membership?

The point about belief is that God ensures that the Church does not teach falsehood in matters of faith and morals (under specific circumstances). We can thus be sure such teachings are God’s Truth.

See, I would join the RCC now because there is much evidence that it is true, but to put all my trust in human teachers to never err, doesn’t settle with me. I feel like I can accept their being our teachers, but I’d still be on the look out for falsehood just to make sure.

.

 

[Arandur]

There is no know author of the DIdache. There are many thoughts on who wrote it. This excerpt shows they thought of the Eucharist as “spiritual food” and received it as a thanksgiving bread and wine, no mention of literal body and blood.:

The way the Didache speaks of the Eucharist is in no way contrary to the Real Presence and Transubstantiation, however. Indeed, to call the sacrifice a “pure offering” (as in the Didache’s reference to Malachi), and to say that it is “holy” and not to be given to the dogs implies much more than it merely being symbolic bread. It must be transformed in some manner. Since nothing is truly pure or holy but God, it makes sense that they also thought the bread and wine were transformed into Jesus himself.

The practices the RCC teaches as having to be done (fasting on certain days/times, kneeling in certain position, receiving Eucharist in certain way/position, going to Church on a certain day for it to count as honoring the Sabbath,(even though it’s not even the traditional Sabbath),etc.
It’s still an extra burden the Church puts on it’s members and Peter and James thought the burdens should be minimal and it seemed like there was a purpose - of not upsetting the Judaizers in the instance I’m thinking of (abstaining from meat sacrificed to idols, blood of stanguled animals, sexual immorality,). …

I thought you accepted those things after I explained them earlier. You were claiming that they had to be done to remain in a state of grace. With few exceptions, I pointed out that that wasn’t true. Heck, I don’t even know what you’re talking about as far as “kneeling in a certain position,” or “receiving Eucharist in a certain way/position,” and I’ve been Catholic all my life. Yes, there are suggested acts of reverence, but they’re nothing more than that. What’s wrong with that?

As for fasts and celebrations of Sabbath and other things, there is plenty of Scriptural evidence of these being legitimately prescribed and practiced, as well as the observation of Feasts.

Think about it this way. If we are supposed to be imitators of Christ, what was Christ’s religious life like? His life was full of ritual, liturgy, communal celebration and acts of prayer and fasting. If we discard all that we deny imitation of Christ in that extent, deny that shared experience with him, and deny that all of that was good and given for a purpose, all of that helps enhance our spiritual awareness and relationship with God. So what could be so wrong with it?

My Church (big C) is not a denomination, the Baptist church (little c) I attend (or attended, since I mainly go to RCC now) resembles the primitive church because it has a similar hierarchy with pastors and elders, teachers, it has communion w/bread and wine (also juice, which I’m sure wasn’t in the early church), it prays, sings, worships the Lord, preaches the gospel, studies the letters of the apostles, as well as the OT scriptures, strives to follow the teachings of Jesus and the apostles that they’ve left us in their letters and the Bible, annoints the sick with oil at times, teaches us to confess our sins (to God and others) , repent, change our lives, let Jesus come in and lead us, flee from immorality, share our posessions, give to those in need, baptize in the name of the Father, Son , and Holy Spirit, for all who accept Christ, etc. This is why Protestants are also an apostolic church. It’s because we were taught by the apostles (through their letters). Now, like back then, there are people that don’t take to heart the teachings of the apostles, but that is not a problem with their church often times, it’s a problem with the believer. If the pastor has that problem, then the congregation may also follow suit.

How many Scriptural letters were written by original Apostles?

The early Church relied on the Apostles appointing and training successors, demonstrating by the laying on of hands and by bringing up successors that those men they appointed to fill the apostolic office knew Christ’s teachings and were gifted with the Pentecostal Spirit and the apostolic keys so that they would teach rightly. That was a verification of reliability. Only the Catholic and Orthodox today can claim this sort of apostolicity.

I always want to leave space for human error because, well,…we’re human…

See, I would join the RCC now because there is much evidence that it is true, but to put all my trust in human teachers to never err, doesn’t settle with me. I feel like I can accept their being our teachers, but I’d still be on the look out for falsehood just to make sure.

At some point you have to trust the Spirit, God’s plan, and Christ’s Shepherding of his flock, his Husbandship of his Bride, his leadership of his Body. It is not merely humans that teach these things. It is the Spirit that guides us into all truth.

Do you believe that the Scriptures are Divinely Inspired? That God teaches through them? That the Spirit spoke through the prophets? So too does He speak through the Church! And why not? How could it not be so? After giving His Son who made the Church his Body, and after sending the Holy Spirit to the Church in a brand new way, how could God not speak through the Church inerrantly similarly (even in lesser fashion, for infallibility is a very limited charism) to how He did in Scripture, to never leave us in the darkness to be led astray by falsehood without an assurance of truth?

 

[Bubba_Switzler]

I know the RCC doesn’t require us to know the Bible, but my RCIA teacher said I’d be asked if I agree w/the doctrines of the church. I can honestly say that I can accept that they may be true, but not that they are definitly true. I always want to leave space for human error because, well,…we’re human. So I would say all the claims are certainly possible, I wouldn’t reject them, but I don’t feel comfortable going around preaching the immaculate conception. I could say why Catholics believe in it, but would not be able to say , “Mary was definitly sinless her whole life.” So, according to what you say below, this is acceptable, but according to my teacher, it is not.
See, I would join the RCC now because there is much evidence that it is true, but to put all my trust in human teachers to never err, doesn’t settle with me. I feel like I can accept their being our teachers, but I’d still be on the look out for falsehood just to make sure.

The essential dogma of the Catholic Church is that the Catholic Church cannot err in proclaiming dogma irrespective of the human failings of individual Catholics, including not only priests but even popes. I don’t know why this isn’t tought more directly. Anyone who tells you different is peddling Catholic-lite.

And, furthermore, as this thread has demonstrated, this is a matter of faith. The dogma of infallible dogma cannot be tested historically or logically, which is not to say that it is ahistorical or illogical, only that history and logic are insufficient.

 

[elvisman]

There is no know author of the DIdache. There are many thoughts on who wrote it. This excerpt shows they thought of the Eucharist as “spiritual food” and received it as a thanksgiving bread and wine, no mention of literal body and blood.:

The practices the RCC teaches as having to be done (fasting on certain days/times, kneeling in certain position, receiving Eucharist in certain way/position, going to Church on a certain day for it to count as honoring the Sabbath,(even though it’s not even the traditional Sabbath),etc.
It’s still an extra burden the Church puts on it’s members and Peter and James thought the burdens should be minimal and it seemed like there was a purpose - of not upsetting the Judaizers in the instance I’m thinking of (abstaining from meat sacrificed to idols, blood of stanguled animals, sexual immorality,). ALthough I’d say the sex. immorality would still apply today…I"ve always wondered why that one was put in there and kept, while the others are not an issue now.Then again, I don’t remember ever being offered dinner that came from a sacrificed animal.

My Church (big C) is not a denomination, the Baptist church (little c) I attend (or attended, since I mainly go to RCC now) resembles the primitive church because it has a similar hierarchy with pastors and elders, teachers, it has communion w/bread and wine (also juice, which I’m sure wasn’t in the early church), it prays, sings, worships the Lord, preaches the gospel, studies the letters of the apostles, as well as the OT scriptures, strives to follow the teachings of Jesus and the apostles that they’ve left us in their letters and the Bible, annoints the sick with oil at times, teaches us to confess our sins (to God and others) , repent, change our lives, let Jesus come in and lead us, flee from immorality, share our posessions, give to those in need, baptize in the name of the Father, Son , and Holy Spirit, for all who accept Christ, etc. This is why Protestants are also an apostolic church. It’s because we were taught by the apostles (through their letters). Now, like back then, there are people that don’t take to heart the teachings of the apostles, but that is not a problem with their church often times, it’s a problem with the believer. If the pastor has that problem, then the congregation may also follow suit.

WRONG.
You see - Jesus didn’t establish more than ONE Church - he just didn’t. On top of that, he prayed for the unity of His Church that we remain ONE as the Father and he are ONE.
**In Acts 9:4-5, Jesus equates his very self with his Church:**He fell to the ground and heard a voice saying to him, "Saul, Saul, why are you persecuting me?"
**He said, “Who are you, sir?” The reply came, "I am Jesus, whom you are persecuting."

**Did you notice that he didn’t say, "Saul, why are you persecuting my Churches?" That’s because there is only ONE Church that Jesus identifies himself with.

---

One dead giveaway for somebody seeking a Christian church is that the Church would not look the same as it did in the New Testament. If yours does, then it was an invention of man.

The Catholic Church has grown from the acorn into the oak - the mustard seed into the “largest of all plants” (Matt. 13:32). It CAN’T stay the same with the Holy Spirit guiding it.

Carefully read the words of 1 Cor. 11:26-30. Here Paul is telling the Church at Corinth about the seriousness of the eucharist. This is not just bread and grape juice here, friend:
***"For as often as you eat this bread and drink the cup, you proclaim the death of the Lord until he comes. ***
Therefore whoever eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord unworthily will have to answer for the body and blood of the Lord.
***A person should examine himself, and so eat the bread and drink the cup. ***
**For anyone who eats and drinks without discerning the body, eats and drinks judgment on himself. **
That is why many among you are ill and infirm, and a considerable number are dying."

If you want to believe that this is just bread and grape juice - and nothing else - then I don’t understand why you want to be Catholic. The Holy Eucharist is the source and summit of our faith.

Paul says in 1 Cor. 10-16:
"The cup of blessing that we bless, is it not a participation in the blood of Christ? The bread that we break, is it not a participation in the body of Christ?"

---

Tell me he doesn’t mean just what he is saying and I’ll direct to you 2000 years of documentation that he did.

 

[mesl4]

WRONG.
**You see - Jesus didn’t **establish more than ONE Church - he just didn’t. On top of that, he prayed for the unity of His Church that we remain ONE as the Father and he are ONE.
In Acts 9:4-5, Jesus equates his very self with his Church:He fell to the ground and heard a voice saying to him, "Saul, Saul, why are you persecuting me?"
**He said, “Who are you, sir?” The reply came, "I am Jesus, whom you are persecuting."

**Did you notice that he didn’t say, *"***Saul, why are you persecuting my Churches?" That’s because there is only ONE Church that Jesus identifies himself with.

---

One dead giveaway for somebody seeking a Christian church is that the Church would not look the same as it did in the New Testament. If yours does, then it was an invention of man.

The Catholic Church has grown from the acorn into the oak - the mustard seed into the "largest of all plants" (Matt. 13:32). It CAN’T stay the same with the Holy Spirit guiding it.

Carefully read the words of 1 Cor. 11:26-30. Here Paul is telling the Church at Corinth about the seriousness of the eucharist. This is not just bread and grape juice here, friend:
***“For as often as you eat this bread and drink the cup, you proclaim the death of the Lord until he comes. ***
Therefore whoever eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord unworthily will have to answer for the body and blood of the Lord.
***A person should examine himself, and so eat the bread and drink the cup. ***
For anyone who eats and drinks without discerning the body, eats and drinks judgment on himself.
That is why many among you are ill and infirm, and a considerable number are dying.”

If you want to believe that this is just bread and grape juice - and nothing else - then I don’t understand why you want to be Catholic. The Holy Eucharist is the source and summit of our faith.

Paul says in 1 Cor. 10-16:
"The cup of blessing that we bless, is it not a participation in the blood of Christ? The bread that we break, is it not a participation in the body of Christ?"

---

Tell me he doesn’t mean just what he is saying and I’ll direct to you 2000 years of documentation that he did.

Oh Elvisman, I can see you just aren’t going to get it. As long as Catholics keep seeing “The Church” as being a denomination, there will always be division. There were many churches, even with differing practices, in the New Testament, yet one Church. Things were not defined as much as they are now, which allowed for more unity. The more humans try to figure out God and put him into a box, and giving everyone labels, the more there will be division. The more they stick to Jesus’ words alone, the more unity there will be. If all the denominations accept eachother’s differences, as long as they were not condemned by Christ or his apostles, they can all be one. I feel unidifed with all Christians, despite some doctrinal/denominational differences because we all love Christ and try to follow him. Of course, the more we see eye to eye, the more we have in common, but we all are one body in Christ. As for Paul’s references to the Eucharist in 1 Cor. Our pastor has preached a year on 1 Cor, and we spent a day on that verse. We understand perfectly well that taking tthe bread and wine in an unworhty manner is sinful and goes against the body and blood of Christ. I’ve read the early church writings that also use this language. But it just seems so non-spiritually minded to think of this as bread actually being God. Jesus always called us to think spiritually and see beyong the physical into the spirtual reality. That is what we do when we have communion. We fully acknowldedge the body and blood of Christ. We acknowledge it in our heart, minds, and souls. We acknowledge what he did with his body and blood. That he atoned for our sins …suffered and died for our sake. And yes, by doing this, we proclaim the body and blood of Christ until he returns. I see what we do much more in line w/Scripture than what Catholics do. There were NO references to ever treating the bread and wine like we’d treat God. Only to eat it and to remember him. He never said to bow down and pray to the bread. I think he would scold the followers for being too carnally minded for doing that. He would reiterate to them that HE is the bread, HE is true food, He is what satisfies, not the bread. To come to HIM, not the bread. As manna fell from heaven, HE came from heaven, HE is the manna, the bread, and we remember him when we eat it. That seems to be exactly what Paul, Jesus, and the early fathers meant and somehow, people got way too literal as things progressed.

 

[allhers]

elvisman is not the one that doesn’t get it.

 

[elvisman]

Oh Elvisman, I can see you just aren’t going to get it. As long as Catholics keep seeing “The Church” as being a denomination, there will always be division. There were many churches, even with differing practices, in the New Testament, yet one Church. I’ve read the early church writings that also use this language. Jesus always called us to think spiritually and see beyong the physical into the spirtual reality. And yes, by doing this, we proclaim the body and blood of Christ until he returns. I see what we do much more in line w/Scripture than what Catholics do. There were NO references to ever treating the bread and wine like we’d treat God. To come to HIM, not the bread. As manna fell from heaven, HE came from heaven, HE is the manna, the bread, and we remember him when we eat it. That seems to be exactly what Paul, Jesus, and the early fathers meant and somehow, people got way too literal as things progressed.

The Catholic Church has never claimed to be a “denomination”. It is the One, true Church established by our Lord Jesus (Matt. 16:15-19).

The Early Church Fathers** didn’t**** claim that the Bread and Wine become the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ?**
Oh REALLY?**

Ignatius of Antioch
They (heterodox) abstain from the Eucharist and from prayer because they do not confess that the Eucharist is the flesh of our Savior Jesus Christ, flesh which suffered for our sins and which that Father, in his goodness, raised up again. They who deny the gift of God are perishing in their disputes (Letter to the Smyrnaeans 6:2-7:1 [A.D. 110]).

Justin Martyr
We call this food Eucharist, and no one else is permitted to partake of it, except one who believes our teaching to be true and who has been washed in the washing which is for the remission of sins and for regeneration * and is thereby living as Christ enjoined. For not as common bread nor common drink do we receive these, but since Jesus Christ our Savior was made incarnate by the word of God and had both flesh and blood for our salvation, so too, as we have been taught, the food which has been made into the Eucharist by the Eucharistic prayer set down by him, and by the change of which our blood and flesh is nurtured, is both the flesh and the blood of that incarnated Jesus (First Apology* 66 [A.D. 151]).

Cyril of Jerusalem
The bread and the wine of the Eucharist before the holy invocation of the adorable Trinity were simple bread and wine, but the invocation having been made, the bread becomes the body of Christ and the wine the blood of Christ (Catechetical Lectures 19:7 [A.D. 350]).

Aphraahat
After having spoken thus [at the Last Supper], the Lord rose up from the place where he had made the Passover and had given his body as food and his blood as drink, and he went with his disciples to the place where he was to be arrested. But he ate of his own body and drank of his own blood, while he was pondering on the dead. With His own hands the Lord presented his own body to be eaten, and before he was crucified he gave his blood as drink (Treatises 12:6 [A.D. 340]).

Augustine
That bread which you see on the altar having been sanctified by the word of God is the body of Christ, That chalice, or rather, what is in that chalice, having been sanctified by the word of God, is the blood of Christ (Sermons 227 [A.D. 411]).
What you see is the bread and the chalice, that is what your own eyes report to you. But what your faith obliges you to accept is that the bread is the body of Christ and the chalice is the blood of Christ. This has been said very briefly, which may perhaps be sufficient for faith, yet faith does not desire instruction (ibid. 272).

Shall I go on??**

 

[elvisman]

elvisman is not the one that doesn’t get it.

 

[mesl4]

The Early Church Fathers** didn’t**** claim that the Bread and Wine become the Body and Blood** of Jesus Christ?
Oh REALLY?**

I never said the ECF didn’t claim the bread and wine BECOME the body and blood, I said they didn’t claim to adore it the way Catholics do today. It was to be eaten, not prayed to and adored.

 

[mesl4]

Back on the topic of the dark age…are there any writings from anyone stating to have seen and apostle killed? I know they write of how Peter/Paul or others were killed, but any of them actually see it? Since Bubba’s link had to do w/a possible rapture of the apostles, I thought , well, if someone saw them die, and stay buried, that would show that they were not raptured. I know Stephen was stoned because it’s in Acts, but any other apostles?
Also, what do you all think of Constantine?

 

[Bubba_Switzler]

Since Bubba’s link had to do w/a possible rapture of the apostles,…

Just to be clear, I am not advocatig that view (or even defending it as devil’s advocate).

Also, what do you all think of Constantine?

Clearly Constantine marked a major change in Christianity but the question is what was the nature of the change? Minimally, Constantine legitimized Christianity and initiated the courtship between Christianity and state.

It used to be the view of Protestants that Constantine was somehow involved in creating Church dogma. That’s not well supported by history. At most he, and the emperors who followed, wanted to end Christian disputes and so put the state power behind the Church’s efforts to achieve concensus and stamp out heresy.

 

[elvisman]

I never said the ECF didn’t claim the bread and wine BECOME the body and blood, I said they didn’t claim to adore it the way Catholics do today. It was to be eaten, not prayed to and adored.

**If they believed that it was actually Jesus - why *wouldn’t *they give it due reverence. If Jesus was standing in front of you, wouldn’t you fall to your knees? **
Ummmm . . . I would.

Read the words of Irenaeus - one of the greatest of the Early Church Fathers. He wrote this because he considered it ouright heresy to deny that the bread and wine are the body and blood of our Lord Jesus Christ:

Irenaeus
**“He has declared the cup, a part of creation, to be his own blood from which he causes our blood to flow; and the bread, a part of creation, he has established as his own body, from which he gives increase unto our bodies. When, therefore, the mixed cup [wine and water] and the baked bread receive the Word of God and become the Eucharist, the body of Christ, and from these the substance of our flesh is increased and supported how can they say that the flesh is not capable of receiving the gift of God, which is eternal life — flesh which is nourished by the body and blood of the Lord and is in fact a member of him?” (Against Heresies 5:2 [A.D. 189]).
**
**Can it be put ANY clearer? Or will you still reject the truth?

**Also, consider Matt. 28:20.
"And behold, I am with you always, until the end of the age."
Jesus’ advocate has been with us ever since and he has been with us physically and will continue - until the end of the age.

 

[elvisman]

Back on the topic of the dark age…are there any writings from anyone stating to have seen and apostle killed? I know they write of how Peter/Paul or others were killed, but any of them actually see it? Since Bubba’s link had to do w/a possible rapture of the apostles, I thought , well, if someone saw them die, and stay buried, that would show that they were not raptured. I know Stephen was stoned because it’s in Acts, but any other apostles?
Also, what do you all think of Constantine?

In Acts 12:2, James (brother of John) was put to death by Herod.

As for Constantine - he ended Christian persecution and legalized Christianity. He was baptized into the Catholic Church on his deathbed.
What else do you want to know?