HELLO - It's Been A While... Bridging the Gaps

[david_ruiz]

david ruiz;7500770:

There were both Protestants and Jews present at the Second Vatican Council - as observers, of course, since they are not in full communion with the Church. But the demographics of the Second Vatican Council were certainly very similar to those of the Council of Jerusalem - Jews, Christians in schism, and all those in full communion with Peter - and Protestants have always

been invited to attend Councils, throughout the existence of Protestantism - ever since Trent, although Vatican II was the first time any of them actually showed up.

You would find The Document of Vatican II by Walter M. Abbott, S. J. to be interesting reading, I think.
Thank -you for not being “offended”, and answering the question, to which I will hopefully respond later. But this is the type of info I was hoping to see and discuss.Thanks

 

[benedictus2]

Hello Jim Dandy. Shall I say , here Catholics, as usual, are reading Acts as if the Church in Acts is the same Roman Catholic Church 20 centuries later ?

Okay David, I throw a challenge to you.

Can you please show by timeline where that Church in Acts is now?

I mean surely, since that Church was founded by God Himself she would still be here today.

So please, since you are so sure that the Catholic Church is not the Church that was born at Pentecost, then kindly show us which current church it is by a timeline.

Eagerly waiting for your reply.

 

[Dokimas]

Okay David, I throw a challenge to you.

Can you please show by timeline where that Church in Acts is now?

I mean surely, since that Church was founded by God Himself she would still be here today.

So please, since you are so sure that the Catholic Church is not the Church that was born at Pentecost, then kindly show us which current church it is by a timeline.

Eagerly waiting for your reply.

Seems I remember that God always has a remnant. Elijah didn’t know of 7000. I guess they were ‘invisible’.

 

[JustaServant]

From an old thread:

As one puts together a timeline of Church history, including in that works written that are not included in the New Testament, one must reach a conclusion that the early Church was indeed Catholic. By the time the Gospel of John was written for example, the Church was already 50 years old (which forces a Catholic view of John 6). But more importantly, the Christians that lived at the time all have very Catholic views. Not a Baptist among them.
I have concocted a timeline here deliberately within a 100 year period between the Resurrection of Christ to Justin Martyr (roughly 130 AD.) Think of it from World War 2 on. There are people still alive to remember the events.
I do not claim this timeline to be exact, but its pretty close:

c. 30-33 - The death and resurrection of Jesus
c. 35 - The conversion of Paul
40s or 50s - James
c. 45-49 - Paul’s first missionary journey
Sometime between 48 and 58 - Paul writes Galatians
c. 50-53 - Paul’s second missionary journey
50s - Paul writes Titus
50s or 60s - Mark written (based on oral tradition set down by Peter).
50s or 60s - Matthew written
51 - Paul writes 1 and 2 Thessalonians
c. 53-57 - Paul’s third missionary journey
Spring of 55 - Paul writes 1 Corinthians
56 - Paul writes 2 Corinthians
c. 57 - Paul writes Romans
c. 60 - Paul writes Colossians, probably while in prison in Rome
c. 60 - Paul writes Philemon, probably while in prison in Rome
c. 60 - Paul writes Ephesians, probably while in prison in Rome
c. 61 - Paul writes Philippians, while in prison in Rome
Early 60s - Luke written
c. 60-70 - The Didache is written.
c. 62 - Paul is free
c. 62-64 - Luke writes Acts
c. 62-64 - Paul writes 1 Timothy
July 18-19, 64 - The Great Fire of Rome. Emperor Nero blamed the Christians, and a great persecution ensued.
Mid 60s - 1 Peter written
c. 64-68 - Paul writes 2 Timothy from prison
c. 67-68 - 2 Peter
c. 68 - Hebrews is written
June 9, 68 - The death of Nero. Sometime between the Great Fire of Rome and the death of Nero, both Peter and Paul were martyred.
c. 69 - Jude
70 - The Seige of Jerusalem and the destruction of the temple
c. 70-80- The Epistle of Barnabus is written.
c. 85 - John written
Late First Century - 1, 2, and 3 John
95- The Epistle of Clement is written…
c. 95-96 - John writes Revelation
c. 60-120- The writings of Papias (only fragments remain).
c. 105- The Epistles of Ignatius are written as he heads for Rome for execution.
c. 105-125- The Epistle of Polycarp is written.
c. 125-130- The Letter to Diognetus is written.
c. 125-130- The Epistle of Aristides is written.
c. 130- The Martyrdom of Polycarp is written.
c. 130-150- The Shepherd of Hermas is written.
c.100-165- The writings of Justin Martyr, much of it written in the 130s.

So tell us Protestants, why is it within a 100 year period, does the Church look so Catholic?

 

[JustaServant]

Seems I remember that God always has a remnant. Elijah didn’t know of 7000. I guess they were ‘invisible’.

Most reputable historians prefer real history, not make believe.

 

[Brian_Culliton]

As one puts together a timeline of Church history, including in that works written that are not included in the New Testament, one must reach a conclusion that the early Church was indeed Catholic. By the time the Gospel of John was written for example, the Church was already 50 years old (which forces a Catholic view of John 6). But more importantly, the Christians that lived at the time all have very Catholic views.

…

So tell us Protestants, why is it within a 100 year period, does the Church look so Catholic?

Which of the many “sacred traditions” of the Catholic Church would you care to demonstrate as being believed in the first 100 years of church history?

 

[david_ruiz]

Okay David, I throw a challenge to you.

Can you please show by timeline where that Church in Acts is now?

I mean surely, since that Church was founded by God Himself she would still be here today.

So please, since you are so sure that the Catholic Church is not the Church that was born at Pentecost, then kindly show us which current church it is by a timeline.

Eagerly waiting for your reply.

Howdy b2. Not sure what you mean by timeline. A brother above lists "writings"and another asks about “traditions”. This is good .However, we must be sure later, unbiblical epistles are not spurious,for some were… My main point stands at to how a council today should look like if it were to be as in Acts . I see no indication that being in “full communion with Peter” was any different than in my description of that first council. That is to say , your definition and qualification of such a “communion with Peter” evolved over centuries ,in my, and other humble historians viewpoint…Furthermore ,I would say a church is defined by it’s deeds and dogmas (apostolic is as apostolic does). I would not go by names such as “catholic” or baptist per say .Catholic means universal ,and can but not necessarily describe a specific church and baptist is more to the point of focussing on dogma (baptism for instance).So dogmas can be compared to the first church as highlighted by scrpiture,for the most part .So we can do a timeline on just one dogma ,say the Papacy.or on "confession’

 

[david_ruiz]

From an old thread:

As one puts together a timeline of Church history, including in that works written that are not included in the New Testament, one must reach a conclusion that the early Church was indeed Catholic. By the time the Gospel of John was written for example, the Church was already 50 years old (which forces a Catholic view of John 6). But more importantly, the Christians that lived at the time all have very Catholic views. Not a Baptist among them.
I have concocted a timeline here deliberately within a 100 year period between the Resurrection of Christ to Justin Martyr (roughly 130 AD.) Think of it from World War 2 on. There are people still alive to remember the events.
I do not claim this timeline to be exact, but its pretty close:

c. 30-33 - The death and resurrection of Jesus
c. 35 - The conversion of Paul
40s or 50s - James
c. 45-49 - Paul’s first missionary journey
Sometime between 48 and 58 - Paul writes Galatians
c. 50-53 - Paul’s second missionary journey
50s - Paul writes Titus
50s or 60s - Mark written (based on oral tradition set down by Peter).
50s or 60s - Matthew written
51 - Paul writes 1 and 2 Thessalonians
c. 53-57 - Paul’s third missionary journey
Spring of 55 - Paul writes 1 Corinthians
56 - Paul writes 2 Corinthians
c. 57 - Paul writes Romans
c. 60 - Paul writes Colossians, probably while in prison in Rome
c. 60 - Paul writes Philemon, probably while in prison in Rome
c. 60 - Paul writes Ephesians, probably while in prison in Rome
c. 61 - Paul writes Philippians, while in prison in Rome
Early 60s - Luke written
c. 60-70 - The Didache is written.
c. 62 - Paul is free
c. 62-64 - Luke writes Acts
c. 62-64 - Paul writes 1 Timothy
July 18-19, 64 - The Great Fire of Rome. Emperor Nero blamed the Christians, and a great persecution ensued.
Mid 60s - 1 Peter written
c. 64-68 - Paul writes 2 Timothy from prison
c. 67-68 - 2 Peter
c. 68 - Hebrews is written
June 9, 68 - The death of Nero. Sometime between the Great Fire of Rome and the death of Nero, both Peter and Paul were martyred.
c. 69 - Jude
70 - The Seige of Jerusalem and the destruction of the temple
c. 70-80- The Epistle of Barnabus is written.
c. 85 - John written
Late First Century - 1, 2, and 3 John
95- The Epistle of Clement is written…
c. 95-96 - John writes Revelation
c. 60-120- The writings of Papias (only fragments remain).
c. 105- The Epistles of Ignatius are written as he heads for Rome for execution.
c. 105-125- The Epistle of Polycarp is written.
c. 125-130- The Letter to Diognetus is written.
c. 125-130- The Epistle of Aristides is written.
c. 130- The Martyrdom of Polycarp is written.
c. 130-150- The Shepherd of Hermas is written.
c.100-165- The writings of Justin Martyr, much of it written in the 130s.

So tell us Protestants, why is it within a 100 year period, does the Church look so Catholic?

Great list (did not ignatius have some spurious epistles ?) Anyways ,I do not think one of those addresses papacy or quotes Petrine scripture. Do they cite the "confessional "as we know it today? Maybe half are specific on "real presence ’ in the eucharist, the other half could very well be stating protetsant views on the eucharist. Do any cite infant baptism ? do any site Purgatory ? do any cite Mary’s assumption ? The power of relics or saints? How about “confirmation” or unwed priests ?or even monasticism ? How about the sacrament of last rites ? Did they badmouth Jews ? Do they state that you can not know the meaning of some scripture except thru the church ? Do they state that “tradition” is equally authoratative as Divine Scripture ?..Bottom line ,it is in the eye of the beholder ,for if we read the same scriptures and come away with different inspirations ,so it is with these other beautiful saintly wrings- we will not totally agree. No, you do not pull things /dogmas out of thin air , nor do we.Yes, you claim apostolic origins ,as we do also ,even earlier .Remember also when we criticize your dogmas ,we do not hold it responsible to the first century church. We do not see your church as being from 33ad on. I know that at first that seems bad to you ,but the silver lining is that we do both admire much of church history in those first five centuries and some down to today -be it catholic,orthodox protestant etc. And “protesting” has ocurred from Cyprian to Tertullian(3-4th C) to Waldo(11-12) to Tyndale(14) to Luther(15) etc .Not easy to put in timeline ,as i could not put a timeline easily on just when the Roman Catholic Church , was just such a church as she is today…but thank-you for this forum .it is all fascinating.