Early Church not Catholic

  • Thread starter Thread starter Barbkw
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
You seem to forget about the rest of the Apostles. What about Paul? How many more of his writings are Scripture than Peter’s? And too, why would Paul never even mention not one time the death of Peter in Rome? If Peter was everything you say he was, it would have been one of the high points if not THE high point of Pauls writings, but yet Scripture is totally Silent here. Why?
So, where in the Bible does it say that to be a leader, one has to have more writings than Paul?

And now too, you are imposing your own conditions on what Paul should have written?

Why, was paul writing about history?
 
The problem with using the word “heretic” when it comes to talking about the early Christian groups in the first 400 years is that…for those first 4 centuries, these groups were not considered heretic!
They were considered groups that followed holy words.

Proof? Well, many writings from early christians have been uncovered that show various degrees of alignment or non-alignment to the church teachings today.
The Gospel of Thomas is one…found in 1945, as you all know. And those dozens upon dozens of Gnostic ones that were found and published recently. I’m just doing my research now on the Ebonites, etc…there are writings from them, too, and the other groups.

These other gospels–stories and words from and about Jesus–were not included in the official bible put together in 4th century.
But they are words that may have come directly from Jesus.
From what I’ve read, these were not included because either some of the words and teachings did not fully agree with then-decided-upon “official” church teaching…or some were thought to be forgeries (tho ironically, it is common belief in the last hundred years by top biblical scholars, as I’m sure you all know, that several of the books in the bible that we thought were written by certain people, indeed were not.)

Unfortunately, once the official book was decided upon in the 4th Century…I think these other books were burned and banned? And those who were found with them or believing/following them were severely punished.
One might say they were “persecuted” for their beliefs.
That is why they are so rare, hard to find.
And the groups were forced to die out.

But I for one am very emotionally and spiritually moved by some of the early Christians who personally fought to save them.
They must have felt very strongly about them.
Like that monk in Egypt who was buried with The Gospel of Peter in his coffin. And those who hid scripture on papyrus in vases and buried them deep into the ground or in caves. I envision those people, hoping and wondering if some day someone would find them.
These people certainly had passion for their scriptures.

Amazingly, isn’t the Gospel of Peter one of the few–if not the only one-- that actually identifies itself as being the writer of the gospel?
*“But I Simon Peter and Andrew my brother took our nets and went to the sea;” *

Ah, well.
As one other poster said…we were not there.
Wish we were.
(with video cameras, tape recorders, news photographers, etc, etc…)
I believe I heard Fr. Mitch Pacwa say on Catholic radio that the Gospel of Peter was written about 100 or 200 years after the death of the last Apostle (John). But also that the Gospel of Mark is pretty much the Gospel of Peter, as it was Mark, Peter’s companion, that wrote down what Peter preached. The Catholic Church decided that the Gospel of Mark was inspired, while the later Gospel of Peter was not inspired, and thus, left out of the Canon of the Bible.

Again, its just from what I remember of Fr. Pacwa saying, so I may be off a little on what he said, but that is the jist.
 
You seem to forget about the rest of the Apostles. What about Paul? How many more of his writings are Scripture than Peter’s? And too, why would Paul never even mention not one time the death of Peter in Rome? If Peter was everything you say he was, it would have been one of the high points if not THE high point of Pauls writings, but yet Scripture is totally Silent here. Why?
Well if you studied your Church history you would know. Please see here for details, newadvent.org/cathen/11744a.htm It is most likely that Paul was Martyred at a time in close proximity to Peter and if Paul did write concerning the death of Peter the letter(s) did not survive.

Note that Sacred Scripture itself states that even all the things concerning Christ are not written in scripture John 21:25 “There are also many other things that Jesus did, but if these were to be described individually, I do not think the whole world would contain the books that would be written.”
 
King Henry draws no correlation to the practice and doctrine of the Anglican church today.
I think you’re correct except for how Henry’s break did affected your church. For instance in the Anglican acceptance of women into the priesthood.

And then, with the continuing break in the Episcopal church with the ordination of non-celibate homosexuals and the blessing of homosexual ‘marriages’.
 
You seem to forget about the rest of the Apostles. What about Paul? How many more of his writings are Scripture than Peter’s? And too, why would Paul never even mention not one time the death of Peter in Rome? If Peter was everything you say he was, it would have been one of the high points if not THE high point of Pauls writings, but yet Scripture is totally Silent here. Why?
Omar,

I believe that you see a cup half empty and I see a cup half full. Many Protestants cannot prove that Scripture is Scripture. One of the many proof texts is Peter declaring the writings of Paul to be Scripture. As you may or may not know Hebrews has no author and other writings of Paul have dubius authorship. If you read any papal encylical they are exhortations and teachings. Here I see Peter declaring Ex-cathedra that you, me, and every Christian should consider the writings of Paul as Scripture. I would challenge any Mormon, JW, Athiest, Protestant Scholar that told me that they could not be sure that the writings of Paul are Scripture by pointing to this verse…
4Wherefore, beloved, seeing that ye look for such things, be diligent that ye may be found of him in peace, without spot, and blameless. 15And account that the longsuffering of our Lord is salvation; even as our beloved brother Paul also according to the wisdom given unto him hath written unto you; 16As also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things; in which are some things hard to be understood, which they that are unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other scriptures,
unto their own destruction. 17Ye therefore, beloved, seeing ye know these things before, beware lest ye also, being led away with the error of the wicked, fall from your own stedfastness. 18But grow in grace, and in the knowledge of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ. To him be glory both now and for ever. Amen.

Peter has declared that the writings of Paul are Scripture. It is a done deal for me. Do you accept the writings of Paul as Scripture? If so now you have the Papal authority to prove beyond any doubt that anyone that challenges Paul can go pound sand…Case closed…

youtube.com/watch?v=QLcaHNw24lU
 
Note that Sacred Scripture itself states that even all the things concerning Christ are not written in scripture John 21:25 “There are also many other things that Jesus did, but if these were to be described individually, I do not think the whole world would contain the books that would be written.”
Thank you Bill for this passage. I have been looking for it. :thankyou:I think there are other threads that could use it also.

Peace!!
 
Omar Gatskill;8815933:
Here is what you do not see…Jerome expressed his opinion. But when Pope Damasus proclaimed what is to be in the Canon, Jerome followed and he was even commissioned to translate the writings in Latin.

Here is my challenge to you…show me a writing of Jerome where he opposes the Pope’s proclamation on the Bible canon?

Here is another thing you do not see…jereome does not separate himself from the Church…and does not establish his own religion…after the pope’s decision…and now, compare this with Henry VIII.

I am sorry pablope, I do not believe I wrote such a statement. I am very aware of Jerome and his position with the 7 books Protestants reject. Jerome put his own will aside for the will of the church,which is the difference between him and men like Martin Luther.
Rome need to concur with what? Why does the pope need to concur? When Peter made the decision, after the revelation to him, about doing away with circumcision for the Gentiles…did he concur with anybody? Or is it he made the proclamation and everybody followed?

In the end, did Bernard follow and obey the Pope after the decision? Or did Bernard rebel and founded his own religion, like Henry VIII? or Luther?
 
I said and let me repeat, where is the word TRINITY in the bible? It is not. The word TRINITY came from Sacred Tradition.

I never asked you to show me the truth of the Trinity in the bible I asked for the word.

And who but the Church with Sacred Tradition . . .
I believe you would have just as hard of a time, maybe harder, getting “Trinity” from Tradition as you would from scripture. From the “Church” yes, but from Tradition, prior to the Council of Nicaea, not so much.

Consider what an early writing, used often when things within it correlate with orthodoxy, but overlooked when things within it speak contrary to orthodoxy, namely, the “Clementine Homilies”:

THE CLEMENTINE HOMILIES. HOMILY XVI, CHAP. XV.–CHRIST NOT GOD, BUT THE SON OF GOD.
When Simon heard this, he said: “Since you say that we ought not to believe even the prophet that gives signs and wonders if he say that there is another god, and that you know that he even incurs the penalty of death, therefore your, teacher also was with reason cut off for having given signs and wonders.” And Peter answered: “Our Lord neither asserted that there were gods except the Creator of all, nor did He proclaim Himself to be God, but He with reason pronounced blessed him who called Him the Son of that God who has arranged the universe.” And Simon answered: “Does it not seem to you, then, that he who comes from God is God?”(1) And Peter said: "Tell us how this is possible; for we cannot affirm this, because we did not hear it from Him.
If there were in fact an established Tradition about the Holy Trinity that Tradition could have been used as effectively as Scripture could have been use to convince those who did not believe. But among the early Christian groups known, namely, Ebionites, Marcionites, Catholics, and Gnostics, only the Marcionites and the Catholics believed that Jesus was God; and most of the very early Catholics may not have believed this due to their early close relationship to the Ebionites. And as far as the “Trinity”, you don’t hear anything about it until the mid-second century from some Catholic Church Fathers who were at that time a small minority of all types of Christians. Although Marcionites believed that Jesus was God, they did not teach a doctrine of the Trinity.

In a sort of a contest between which came closer to teaching the Trinity in the early Church, Tradition or Scripture, I would vote on Scripture coming closer.
 
Regarding the following quote:
Peter on the other hand was a poor fisherman. He wasn’t even a bright guy. He stuck his foot in his mouth just as many times as he rightfully spoke. That’s an enormous contrast and honestly it cannot be denied.
Code:
And, may I ask why do you think God would choose someone who was poor, uneducated and full of faults?  How many times do we stick our foots in our mouths?  Do you think God is not capable of first forgiving us when we do sin and second, is God not capable of working thru us, incapable as we are, His Glory?  Of course, He is very capable and He does.  

He uses us, especially those who are poor, uneducated and sinful to reveal the fullness of His Glory, not ours!  Look at Moses as a perfect example.  Moses was concerned about his lack of eloquence in his speech to go before the elders, but God had a plan and used Moses to reveal that plan.  Just like He does in our own lives even today.  

How many times does God use those who are poor, uneducated and full of faults to reveal His message still today?  He does it all the time.  It is God working through us to bring about His Glory and His greatness not ours. He does desire us to share in His Glory and His fullness and to preach it to all people so they too can know God now. It is in His Church, the holy, Catholic Church that the fullness of His Son, Jesus Christ is revealed for all.  By saying that the Church is holy doesn’t mean that every member is always holy.  Jesus said in Scripture that there would be good and bad members in His Church (Jn. 6:70) and that not all of His members would go to Heaven (Mt. 7:21-23).  But the Church is holy because it is the source of holiness and is the guardian of the special means of grace Jesus established thru the Sacraments (Eph. 5:25-27).  

The Magisterium is infallible when it teaches officially because Jesus promised to send the Holy Spirit to guide and guard the apostles and their successors into all truths and you are not allowing yourself to understand this by thinking that the pope has to be “holy” in his daily thoughts and actions.  Why do you think clergy frequent confession. It is when he is teaching the truths of Jesus’ teachings that the pope is infallible. 

So are all the members of your Church holy?  They’re not in my Catholic Church and neither am I.  That is why Jesus instituted the Sacrament of Reconciliation to restore our relationship with God the Father and with our fellow man.
 
So, where in the Bible does it say that to be a leader, one has to have more writings than Paul?

And now too, you are imposing your own conditions on what Paul should have written?

Why, was paul writing about history?
using your logic, where does it say in the Bible that Peter was the first pope of the Roman Catholic church? Where does it say that the Roman Catholic church is the bride of Christ for that matter as well?
 
Well if you studied your Church history you would know. Please see here for details, newadvent.org/cathen/11744a.htm It is most likely that Paul was Martyred at a time in close proximity to Peter and if Paul did write concerning the death of Peter the letter(s) did not survive.

Note that Sacred Scripture itself states that even all the things concerning Christ are not written in scripture John 21:25 “There are also many other things that Jesus did, but if these were to be described individually, I do not think the whole world would contain the books that would be written.”/QUOTE

First off, Peter was martyed in Rome about the time Paul was there preaching to the Romans. It’s a very valid point that Paul and for the sake of argument, nobody else ever spoke of Peter’s martyrdom in Rome. Very very odd that Scripture would be dead silent on this if Peter truly was to be the supreme head of the Church.
 
Show me the word TRINITY! The scripture tell you the CHURCH is the Pilar of all truth, not the bible.

The bible tells you no scripture can be defined by the interpretation of Man, it is by the Holy Spirit that it is defined.

Jesus promised the Holy Spirit to the CHurch to teach in his name, Jesus never said write a book and let eveyone read it and receive the power of the Holy Spiirit.
But yet Jesus time and time again referenced the Scriptures when he preached and said, “it is written” on several occasions when trying to make points with people. You seem to forget the overall significance of Scripture in light of this.
 
if not catholic, was the early church anglican, luther, church of christ, fundamentalist, or what?
 
if not catholic, was the early church anglican, luther, church of christ, fundamentalist, or what?
It was the Early Christian Church.🙂

Not Anglican, not Roman, not Methodist, not Lutheran.

And

Certainly not Evangelical
 
It wasn’t considered Catholic but it “is” Catholic in the sense that the Catholic Church through the gift of Apostolic Succession can trace its roots to the very beginning and our Lord Christ Himself. That’s all there is to say about it 😉
 
It was the Early Christian Church.🙂

Not Anglican, not Roman, not Methodist, not Lutheran.

And

Certainly not Evangelical
Good. Now that we have finally answered that question I will start looking for one in my area and go tomorrow for true worship. I assume this Early Christian Church still exists right?
 
Good. Now that we have finally answered that question I will start looking for one in my area and go tomorrow for true worship. I assume this Early Christian Church still exists right?
Well, you’ll have to look for the things that were taught and practiced in the Early Church. Reading the Book of Acts will help out alot here.🙂
 
do you mean the same book of acts where entire households were baptised with water? I guess the early church and the scripture both supported water baptism of entire families, including babies, unless one considers babies not part of the family. Sounds RCCish.
 
using your logic, where does it say in the Bible that Peter was the first pope of the Roman Catholic church? Where does it say that the Roman Catholic church is the bride of Christ for that matter as well?
And following your logic…where does it say anything about the anglican church?

If the RCC is not the bride of Christ, what does that make the anglican church…which are a by-product of the RCC and the disobedience of Henry VIII?

First, you will have to prove that the Bible is the final and complete rule of faith. Start with that one…

But to answer your question…here is what your blindness and anti-Catholic bias keeps you from seeing…

The change of names…when a name is changed in the Bible, and in that culture at the time…it meant a change of status, of authority…and Simon’s name was changed to Cephas/Peter…the only one among the Apostles…both accounted for in John and Matthew.

And here are the significant changes in the Bible…

Abram to Abraham…and God’s command to Abraham…to be the father of nations

Jacob to Israel…and God’s command…to be the father of the nation of Israel

Simon to Peter/Cephas…and Jesus command…to build His Church…
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top