Early Church Fathers - Lets be honest

[Hisalone]

If you follow Hisalone’s link to Wikipedia.org and read the article about the Biblical Cannon you will find a section entitled “Earliest Christian Communities”, and the early Christian writers it references were Christian Saints. One of them Clement of Rome was the bishop of Rome. So, the defining criteria for what is scripture and what isn’t was established by Christian. The earliest Christian writers the article talks about were in fact Christian. There was only one Christian Church in the 1st century, and it was Christian.

Fixed it for you

 

[Hisalone]

I can’t tell you the number of Protestants that I have spoken to over the years who did not know the origins of the scriptures. They have been taught that the early Church was of course was Christian, and the scriptures were handed down from generation to generation. They have not been taught that these early Christians were Catholic. Why would they be? The vast majority of evangelical Christians believe that at the very least the Catholic Church is apostate, and at the worst satanic. When confronted with the historical fact that the scriptures were assembled into the cannon by the Catholic Church in the 4th century they look astonished and reply with utter disbelief. When asked what evidence they have they to support their contention they quickly change the subject, or end the discussion all together.

Here is one prostestant that wont run away but will correct your error.

 

[greggy53]

Here is one prostestant that wont run away but will correct your error.

What error? Please be specific

 

[Stephen168]

When confronted with the historical fact that the scriptures were assembled into the cannon by the Catholic Church in the 4th century they look astonished and reply with utter disbelief. When asked what evidence they have they to support their contention they quickly change the subject, or end the discussion all together.

Here is one prostestant that wont run away but will correct your error.

Hisalone has already run away by not answering the questions in post 211

 

[greggy53]

Fixed it for you

Please don’t change my words in my posts. I don’t want to have to report you to the monitor, but if you change my posts again I will…Not very Christian behavior I must say. Breaking one of the 10 commandments…“Thou shall not bear false witness…”

This is what my original statement said:
“If you follow Hisalone’s link to Wikipedia.org and read the article about the Biblical Cannon you will find a section entitled “Earliest Christian Communities”, and the early Christian writers it references were Catholic Saints. One of them Clement of Rome was a Pope. So, the defining criteria for what is scripture and what isn’t was established by Catholics. The earliest Christian writers the article talks about were Catholic. There was only one Christian Church in the 1st century, and it was Catholic.”

I know how it must feel to have your references used against you, but rude behavior is never the answer.

 

[Hisalone]

Please don’t change my words in my posts. I don’t want to have to report you to the monitor, but if you change my posts again I will…Not very Christian behavior I must say. Breaking one of the 10 commandments…“Thou shall not bear false witness…”

This is what my original statement said:
“If you follow Hisalone’s link to Wikipedia.org and read the article about the Biblical Cannon you will find a section entitled “Earliest Christian Communities”, and the early Christian writers it references were Catholic Saints. One of them Clement of Rome was a Pope. So, the defining criteria for what is scripture and what isn’t was established by Catholics. The earliest Christian writers the article talks about were Catholic. There was only one Christian Church in the 1st century, and it was Catholic.”

I know how it must feel to have your references used against you, but rude behavior is never the answer.

Greggy you were in error

I rewrote your post so you would not be in error

If you follow Hisalone’s link to Wikipedia.org and read the article about the Biblical Cannon you will find a section entitled “Earliest Christian Communities”, and the early Christian writers it references were Christian Saints. One of them Clement of Rome was the bishop of Rome. So, the defining criteria for what is scripture and what isn’t was established by Christian. The earliest Christian writers the article talks about were in fact Christian. There was only one Christian Church in the 1st century, and it was Christian.

 

[Hisalone]

Hisalone has already run away by not answering the questions in post 211

I answered post 211 in post 213.

 

[Stephen168]

I answered post 211 in post 213.

No completely

As for NT cannon I dont think the wheel has to be reinvented.

Who (more specifically) was the New Testament ( ‘wheel’) invented the first time?

No Answer

These sites can help you with an answer
orthodoxwiki.org/Athanasius_of_Alexandria
ntcanon.org/Athanasius.shtml
tertullian.org/decretum_eng.htm

How was the New Testament ( ‘wheel’) invented the first time?
Hisalone;5833996:

Many modern Protestants point to the following four “Criteria for Canonicity” to justify the selection of the books that have been included in the New Testament:………

Partial credit. This criteria was applied by Catholic Bishops at various councils.

When was the New Testament ( ‘wheel’) invented the first time?
Hisalone;5833996:

Although the books of the NT were not officially defined until the fourth century,

Correct. Defined by Catholic Bishops.

 

[Hisalone]

No completely

No Answer

These sites can help you with an answer
orthodoxwiki.org/Athanasius_of_Alexandria
ntcanon.org/Athanasius.shtml
tertullian.org/decretum_eng.htm

Partial credit. This criteria was applied by Catholic Bishops at various councils.

Correct. Defined by Catholic Bishops.

The Christian Church are the ones who formalized the NT scriptures you say they were Catholic I disagree.

That is like saying the Puritans were American.

 

[greggy53]

Greggy you were in error

I rewrote your post so you would not be in error.

You keep saying I’m in error but refuse to be specific. That then is your unsubstantiated opinion. You might try rewriting your own posts.

 

[greggy53]

The Christian Church are the ones who formalized the NT scriptures you say they were Catholic I disagree.

That is like saying the Puritans were American.

Do you know who these Christians were?..Can you be specific as to who they were and what they believed? We need to see some historical evidence or you are not going to get anywhere. More likely than not you don’t have any evidence, and you just don’t want to admit that the early Christians were indeed Catholic in nature and practice. Look at it from our point of view. The Church has shown us ample written evidence that the cannon was formalized by the Catholic Church as early as 382 AD. Do you believe this evidence was falsified? If so you need to show us some evidence for that as well.

 

[Stephen168]

The Christian Church are the ones who formalized the NT scriptures you say they were Catholic I disagree.

Yes, they were 4th century Christians, who called themselves Catholic. They had Catholic beliefs consistent with Catholic/Orthodox Church today.

That is like saying the Puritans were American.

Puritans were 16th century Christians; other than that I’m not sure what you mean by that. Please clarify.

 

[Stephen168]

The Church has shown us ample written evidence that the cannon was formalized by the Catholic Church as early as 382 AD.

And this was used to translate the Bible into the common language of the western Church.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vulgate

I’m surprised that Hisalone doesn’t know what the 4th century Christians believed or how they were organized.

 

[gmcbroom]

Uhhh… guys/gals i hate to throw gas on the fire but the term Catholic was first coined in Antioch I believe around 100 A.D.(give or take a few years)

Now if The holy books OT and NT, where brought together to form the Bible in in 300 A.D. …It would seem to imply that the early church fathers were attempting to make a framework of books to best spread the message of Christ to the masses

Oh, and they were Catholic(Remember Catholic simply means universal). This is not meant to mock our Protestant brothers and sisters in Christ, far from it.

Look for whatever reason the books in the Protestant Bible were removed Martin may not have done it, but someone clearly did. This should not be used to beat them up side the head. Instead this should be used to help bring us all together as a family. Why? You ask, because someone caused strife in the house of Christ. The answer is to find out why they were removed. Was there a good reason? And does their removal help or hurt the Protestants? if it doesn’t then its acceptable to keep it status quo. If on the other hand, if uniting the books brings the Protestants home…well then I can’t think of a more worthy goal? Can you.

Peace Brothers and Sisters in Christ.

 

[Contarini]

Oh, and they were Catholic(Remember Catholic simply means universal). This is not meant to mock our Protestant brothers and sisters in Christ, far from it.

Mocking or not, you’re playing word games with “Catholic.”

To make the point that online apologists want to make, you have to show not only that the early Church used the word “Catholic” (not a point in dispute, and hence trivial) but that the early Catholic Church was identical in every relevant detail with the body of Christians in communion with Rome today.

And to do that you have to address all the specific issues that the OP is trying to sidestep. There is no shortcut.

Edwin

 

[CHESTERTONRULES]

Mocking or not, you’re playing word games with “Catholic.”

To make the point that online apologists want to make, you have to show not only that the early Church used the word “Catholic” (not a point in dispute, and hence trivial) but that the early Catholic Church was identical in every relevant detail with the body of Christians in communion with Rome today.

And to do that you have to address all the specific issues that the OP is trying to sidestep. There is no shortcut.

Edwin

There are two equally important points here.

The first is the claim that the Church was at one time catholic and united.

The second is to claim that this original catholic Church is the modern Catholic Church.

 

[greggy53]

There are two equally important points here.

The first is the claim that the Church was at one time catholic and united.

The second is to claim that this original catholic Church is the modern Catholic Church.

I for one have no problem saying Yes to both.

 

[greggy53]

Mocking or not, you’re playing word games with “Catholic.”

To make the point that online apologists want to make, you have to show not only that the early Church used the word “Catholic” (not a point in dispute, and hence trivial) but that the early Catholic Church was identical in every relevant detail with the body of Christians in communion with Rome today.
And to do that you have to address all the specific issues that the OP is trying to sidestep. There is no shortcut.

Edwin

Yes indeed the modern Catholic Church is essentially the same as it was in the 1st century. We have been citing evidence to back that claim all along. The Protestants as I see it want us to believe that the early Church was loosely organized with no real structure or defined leadership. The reality of the physical evidence that an organized hierarchal Church existed in the 1st century plays havoc with any claim they have to legitimacy. In order for any Protestant Church to be correct in its dogma, we (Catholics) must be wrong. That is why they will routinely reject our evidence even though they have none to support their own position.

 

[qui_est_ce]

To make the point that online apologists want to make, you have to show not only that the early Church used the word “Catholic” (not a point in dispute, and hence trivial) but that the early Catholic Church was identical in every relevant detail with the body of Christians in communion with Rome today.

Edwin

Are you talking Tradition or tradition. Some details have changed over the centuries. We now have the mass in the vernacular instead of in Latin.
We take communion standing up, rather than kneeling.

The basics remain the same:

• Authority of Church in Rome

BIBLE
Matthew 16:18
18
And so I say to you, you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church, 13 and the gates of the netherworld shall not prevail against it.

• St. Irenaeus:
• “But since it would be too long to enumerate in such a volume as this the succession 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 which comes down to us after having been ANNOUNCED TO MEN by the apostles. WITH THAT CHURCH, because of its superior origin, ALL THE CHURCHES must agree, that is, THE FAITHFUL IN THE WHOLE WORLD, and it is in her that the faithful EVERYWHERE have maintained the apostolic tradition” (Against Heresies 3:3:2 [A.D. 189]).

**

• Apostolic Succession

**

BIBLE

• The office of priests was passed on with the “laying on of hands”, beginning with the Apostles, and then passed on to there successors. For instance, Paul to Timothy.
• 1 Tim. 4:14 - Apostolic authority is transferred through the laying on of hands (ordination). Do not neglect the gift you have, which was conferred on you through the prophetic word with the imposition of hands of the presbyterate.
• 1 Tim. 5:22 - Paul urges Timothy to be careful in laying on the hands (ordaining others). The gift of authority is a reality and cannot be used indiscriminately. - Do not lay hands too readily on anyone, and do not share in another’s sins. Keep yourself pure.

**

• Ignatious of Antioch

**

• St. Ignatius of Antioch, thought to be a disciple of the Apostle of John writes:
• “See that you all follow the bishop, even as Jesus Christ does the Father, and the presbytery as you would the apostles; and reverence the deacons, as being the institution of God. Let no man do anything connected with the Church without the bishop.”
• “Wherever the bishop shall appear, there let the multitude [of the people] also be; even as, wherever Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church. It is not lawful without the bishop either to baptize or to celebrate a love-feast; but whatsoever he shall approve of, that is also pleasing to God, so that everything that is done may be secure and valid.”

 

[qui_est_ce]

continued

• The Real Presence

**

• BIBLE

**

• John 6:49-62 (Discourse on the Bread of Life)

• I am the bread of life.

• 49 Your ancestors ate the manna in the desert, but they died;
• 50 this is the bread that comes down from heaven so that one may eat it and not die.
• 51 I am the living bread that came down from heaven; whoever eats this bread will live forever; and the bread that I will give is my flesh for the life of the world."
• 52 The Jews quarreled among themselves, saying, “How can this man give us (his) flesh to eat?”
• 53 Jesus said to them, "Amen, amen, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you do not have life within you.
• 54 Whoever eats 19 my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him on the last day.
• 55 For my flesh is true food, and my blood is true drink.
• 56 Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood remains in me and I in him.
• 58 This is the bread that came down from heaven. Unlike your ancestors who ate and still died, whoever eats this bread will live forever."
• 59 These things he said while teaching in the synagogue in Capernaum.
• 60 20 Then many of his disciples who were listening said, “This saying is hard; who can accept it?”
• 61 Since Jesus knew that his disciples were murmuring about this, he said to them, "Does this shock you?
• LUKE 22
• 19And he took bread, gave thanks and broke it, and gave it to them, saying, “This is my body given for you; do this in remembrance of me.”
• 20In the same way, after the supper he took the cup, saying, "This cup is the new covenant in my blood, which is poured out for you.
• Matthew 26
• 27Then he took the cup, gave thanks and offered it to them, saying, “Drink from it, all of you. 28This is my blood of the** covenant, which is poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins. 29I tell you, I will not drink of this fruit of the vine from now on until that day when I drink it anew with you in my Father’s kingdom.”

**

• Ignatius of Antioch Letter to Smyrneans

**
Chapter 7. Let us stand aloof from such heretics
They abstain from the Eucharist and from prayer, because they confess not the Eucharist to be the flesh of our Saviour Jesus Christ, which suffered for our sins, and which the Father, of His goodness, raised up again. Those, therefore, who speak against this gift of God, incur death in the midst of their disputes. But it were better for them to treat it with respect, that they also might rise again. It is fitting, therefore, that you should keep aloof from such persons, and not to speak of them either in private or in public, but to give heed to the prophets, and above all, to the Gospel, in which the passion [of Christ] has been revealed to us, and the resurrection has been fully proved.** But avoid all divisions, as the beginning of evils**.**