Here is your chance Protestants!

[dennisknapp]

CatherineofA:

As I stated earlier, primary sources are the best. By all means use them. Use any information that is accepted in the community of historians. Again, I am not talking about Catholic theology or a church account of events. I am talking about verifiable and documented information accepted as actual history by historians. The floor is yours!

Goating me on another thread is not charitable.

In order to satisfy your request I have to do research on non-catholic sources. This may take some time, so be patient.

BTW I want non-Baptist souces that support the Baptist claim that the early Church practiced symbolic baptism, symbolic Eucharist, the Baptist form of church government, once saved alwasy saved, scripture alone and faith alone. It is only fair.

Peace

 

[dennisknapp]

oriel36:

Unless you suffer from a severe reading comprehension I strongly suggest that you and the remaining Catholics/Protestants here take note that Jesus addresses two types of Christians before you congratulate yourselves and each other on your worldly education.I will even accentuate where the difference exists.

“I am the resurrection and the life. He who believes in me will live, even though he dies; AND whoever lives and believes in me will never die. Do you believe this?”

biblegateway.com/passage…r=11&version=31

I do not ask this question,Jesus does !.

This has no relevents to the issue at hand, and we have moved on. If you choose to keep harping on this one point, it will be falling on deaf ears.

You have not even responded to a simple question, which shows your lack respect to those on this thread. We are here to learn from eachother, not to call people names or declare that they are from the devil.

Peace

 

[oriel36]

CatherineofA:

I don’t think anyone doubts that Jesus said that. That is more over the message of Christ. This discussion is over the documented evidence we have concerning the actions and whereabouts of ancient peoples who described themselves as Christian.

The question of Jesus is addressed to all Christians at all times,it is central to any faith where Christ and Christianity is present .

“I am the resurrection and the life. He who believes in me will live, even though he dies; AND whoever lives and believes in me will never die. Do you believe this?”

biblegateway.com/passage…r=11&version=31

You want to condition that Question of Jesus with trivia so you can get on with your so-called ‘discussion’ then so be it but you are no longer in the realms of Christ or Christianity if you do not know why there are two types of Christians present within the Apostolic Church.

The wrath of God is not knowing there is a difference for while Jesus prays for those good and decent Christians who are present within a community,he conditions that prayer with ‘ALSO’ signifying the other type of Christian present.

"And I consecrate myself for them, so that they also may be consecrated in truth.I pray not only for them, but also for those who will believe in me through their word,"usccb.org/nab/bible/john/john17.htm

The scribes and Pharisees were always looking for evidence while those with a simple faith found themselves looking at life with an new set of eyes for the gift of Jesus is availible to all and at all times.

“I am the resurrection and the life. He who believes in me will live, even though he dies; AND whoever lives and believes in me will never die. Do you believe this?”

biblegateway.com/passage…r=11&version=31

Martha believed how about you.

 

[CatherineofA]

dennisknapp:

Goating me on another thread is not charitable.

In order to satisfy your request I have to do research on non-catholic sources. This may take some time, so be patient.

BTW I want non-Baptist souces that support the Baptist claim that the early Church practiced symbolic baptism, symbolic Eucharist, the Baptist form of church government, once saved alwasy saved, scripture alone and faith alone. It is only fair.

Peace

I think there is something I need to clarify as far as my comments in the posts. I am not asking what I have because I think the Catholic Church has a case or that the Protestant Church has a case. I am not arguing one over the other. I have just noticed that you have stated that your examination of historical evidence has lead you to the Catholic Church. I asked you to clarify here and on another thread what that evidence was. Asking you to discuss what historical evidence lead you to your decision is not goating or uncharitable. I was not attacking your feelings or interpretations. I just asked you for the information that leads you to your conclusion. I am very interested in the church’s claims on the early Christians. I am more so looking for accurate information to back the theology and church tradition. Not to argue the Protstant point of view.

Thank you for your attention in this matter as I am very interested in the subject. However, I cannot quite understand why you have to research when you have already had convincing historical evidence to back up your conversion or faith. You should already have it if you have explored all the historical evidence. Church’s have their own evidence based on theolgy and tradition. Which one doesn’t? However, that is not really historical evidence. True documentation of what occurred is a priamry source that can be verified no matter what your faith or lack of it. If it doesn’t exist or does not spcifically clarify, there is no substantial historical evidence supporting a church’s view on history. However, that does not say the theology is incorrect. It just doesn’t have historical evidence on its side and is more of a faith or theory of truth.

Baptist is not necessarily one denomination. Baptists are comprised of Southern Baptists, Freewill Baptists, and the like. The term Baptist is not one group. Any type of Baptists in the denominations we know today did not exist in the early church. We all know that the term and the groups affiliated with it were born after the Reformation. Therefore, there was obviously no Baptist form of church government in the early church. Because of that, it has to be examined whether or not evidence exists that there were people amongst the early Christians who believed in things later used or carried on by the Protestant denominations that later evolved. Did these occur with any of the early Christians? Symbolic Eucharist, ( I am not sure what you mean by symbolic baptism.) emersion baptism, once saved always saved, faith alone (Somewhat overblown as it really isn’t faith alone amongst Baptists. This has been somewhat taken out of context or misunderstood on these boards.)

One thing we can consider is that the Bible can be regarded as one document from an oral history standpoint. What did they people say about themselves and what did they do? Who disagreed? Who took on positions? What did they say about themselves? This can be compared to what we know about early Christian documented history accepted by any faith and the secular world as well as what the early Christians have documented about themselves in their theology and church tradition.

I have really just begun looking into the early church period. Most of my reading has been during the period of the early Reformation and early changes in England that lead to the English Reformation. Much of what we know of Protestantism today is a strong reflection of religious changes and influences out of that country.

One thing with the Biblical text is that there appeared to be disagreement and running for positions just after the death of Christ. There appeared to be various schools of thought on conversion requirements and practices from the onset. Even if Peter were the first pope and Christ designated him as such, it was not enough for Paul who disagreed with him on many basic philosophies much of which eventually landed in Paul’s favor. If Peter were the first pope, his ideas and structural view of Christian conversion did not prevail. Therefore, could a pope be infallible? Could the basic tennants of Catholicism have started with Christ if there were various schools of thought? Why didn’t Christ establish a structural hierarchy in a physical church prior to his leaving?
When you compare this oral history to actual documented history and church tradition of history, when did the Catholic Church first establish its interpretations and tradition and what was their explanation for the set-up?

 

[CatherineofA]

dennisknapp:

This has no relevents to the issue at hand, and we have moved on. If you choose to keep harping on this one point, it will be falling on deaf ears.

You have not even responded to a simple question, which shows your lack respect to those on this thread. We are here to learn from eachother, not to call people names or declare that they are from the devil.

Peace

I meant to ask you, are you also Spacecadet? I saw a recent posting on the Apologetics board asking for links to nonbiased historians that say the RCC goes back to Peter.

 

[dennisknapp]

CatherineofA:

Baptist is not necessarily one denomination. Baptists are comprised of Southern Baptists, Freewill Baptists, and the like. The term Baptist is not one group. Any type of Baptists in the denominations we know today did not exist in the early church. We all know that the term and the groups affiliated with it were born after the Reformation. Therefore, there was obviously no Baptist form of church government in the early church. Because of that, it has to be examined whether or not evidence exists that there were people amongst the early Christians who believed in things later used or carried on by the Protestant denominations that later evolved. Did these occur with any of the early Christians? Symbolic Eucharist, ( I am not sure what you mean by symbolic baptism.) emersion baptism, once saved always saved, faith alone (Somewhat overblown as it really isn’t faith alone amongst Baptists. This has been somewhat taken out of context or misunderstood on these boards.)

One thing we can consider is that the Bible can be regarded as one document from an oral history standpoint. What did they people say about themselves and what did they do? Who disagreed? Who took on positions? What did they say about themselves? This can be compared to what we know about early Christian documented history accepted by any faith and the secular world as well as what the early Christians have documented about themselves in their theology and church tradition.

I have really just begun looking into the early church period. Most of my reading has been during the period of the early Reformation and early changes in England that lead to the English Reformation. Much of what we know of Protestantism today is a strong reflection of religious changes and influences out of that country.

One thing with the Biblical text is that there appeared to be disagreement and running for positions just after the death of Christ. There appeared to be various schools of thought on conversion requirements and practices from the onset. Even if Peter were the first pope and Christ designated him as such, it was not enough for Paul who disagreed with him on many basic philosophies much of which eventually landed in Paul’s favor. If Peter were the first pope, his ideas and structural view of Christian conversion did not prevail. Therefore, could a pope be infallible? Could the basic tennants of Catholicism have started with Christ if there were various schools of thought? Why didn’t Christ establish a structural hierarchy in a physical church prior to his leaving?
When you compare this oral history to actual documented history and church tradition of history, when did the Catholic Church first establish its interpretations and tradition and what was their explanation for the set-up?

My conversion to the Catholic Church came by exploring the writing of the early Church Fathers. I investigated to see if my Protestant beliefs were found in their writings, they were not.

I was a very anit-Catholic Protestants who would have never converted if not for the evidence.

The writers I read most were Ignatius, Justine, Irenaeus, Tertullian, Cyprian of Carthage, Cyril of Jerusalem, Ambrose of Milian and Augustine, Gregory of Nyssa and Basil the Great. I was also a Religious Studies major at Iowa State University, and studied under a Patristic scholar named David Hunter, who sponsored my entrance into the Catholic Church.

Peace

 

[dennisknapp]

CatherineofA:

I meant to ask you, are you also Spacecadet? I saw a recent posting on the Apologetics board asking for links to nonbiased historians that say the RCC goes back to Peter.

No, I am not spacecadet, but some people think I am a “spacecadet.”

Peace

 

[Mickey]

Okay, here’s my take on it Catherine:

The way I see it, you either have a history based on Christian sources and faith, or a history based on non-Christian academic secular scholars, which is going to to have an (atheistic, buddhist, hindu, agnostic, etc) bias.

The patristic writers who were documenting history as well as their faith, did not do it so that they might propose a skewed and biased picture of Chritianity that would endure for all time. These Church Fathers were being murdered because of these beliefs and writings, yet that did not deter them. Personally I stand by this “version” of history.

I highly recommend that you begin studying the early Church Fathers beginning with St Polycarp. Also, the first seven ecumenical councils contain a plethora of information.

God Bless

 

[CatherineofA]

dennisknapp:

My conversion to the Catholic Church came by exploring the writing of the early Church Fathers. I investigated to see if my Protestant beliefs were found in their writings, they were not.

I was a very anit-Catholic Protestants who would have never converted if not for the evidence.

The writers I read most were Ignatius, Justine, Irenaeus, Tertullian, Cyprian of Carthage, Cyril of Jerusalem, Ambrose of Milian and Augustine, Gregory of Nyssa and Basil the Great. I was also a Religious Studies major at Iowa State University, and studied under a Patristic scholar named David Hunter, who sponsored my entrance into the Catholic Church.
Peace/

Thanks for sharing. So, you really converted based on the church’s presentation of Christian history and not necessarily the history of Christianity presented by the community of historians and researchers or even archaeologists. I guess we view historical evidence differently. I see a church’s tradition and theology and personal view of historical events more faith based than evidence based. I see historical documentation as historical evidence because it is something that cannot be argued because it can be verified when pinned down. No matter what you believe. I think the sources you mentioned are definitely worth considering and the writings I am sure warrant strong consideration and contribution to the time period. However, I wonder how much what they say affects or supports what is known about the overall time period.
If the academic community has never completely supported the overall claim of Catholicism based on the lack of physical evidence in regards to place, time, and events, then we can consider one thing. Tthe Catholic claims of being there from the beginning and the only ones from the beginning is theory and faith. Not evidence proof that disproves other approaches to faith.

 

[CatherineofA]

Mickey:

Okay, here’s my take on it Catherine:

The way I see it, you either have a history based on Christian sources and faith, or a history based on non-Christian academic secular scholars, which is going to to have an (atheistic, buddhist, hindu, agnostic, etc) bias.

The patristic writers who were documenting history as well as their faith, did not do it so that they might propose a skewed and biased picture of Chritianity that would endure for all time. These Church Fathers were being murdered because of these beliefs and writings, yet that did not deter them. Personally I stand by this “version” of history.

I highly recommend that you begin studying the early Church Fathers beginning with St Polycarp. Also, the first seven ecumenical councils contain a plethora of information.

God Bless

In my opinion, you should use both. Isn’t that the most realistic and honest? If the Catholic Church and writings have a documented history, there will be evidence to support it that are easily verified by anyone. That’s the beauty of documented history. It isn’t biased. That’s the whole point. It consists of primary sources in which they can be verfied. It doesn’t matter who you are or what you believe. You cannot alter it and it cannot be made to lean towards a particular view. It can support the Catholic Church. It may not. It might give an overall view outside of church influence. It may not. If all of Catholic presented history is documented and verifiable history, no one can deny it. If Catholic history does or does not conflict with the overall evidence that exists about the time period, it cannot be altered. It just is. That is why there is known history, assumed history, and faith based on personal reports about history.
You say that the church fathers were writing about history. Do you know if what they wrote conflicts with what is generally known about the time period? Does it conflict with the idea that the traditions of the church were not necessarily held by the, or all of the, early church participants? Thanks for your recommendation as to resources. However, what does the historical community and archaeology say about this? What was going on outside the person and the council? That is where you find whether or not the Catholic Chuch was the only church and if the church then is what it became.

 

[reggie]

Catherine,

I appreciate your position. Are there non-catholic proofs of the primacy of the Catholic church? It makes sense to want to know this as it is true that the victors write history. I have to apologize as I am unfamiliar with any, however, it is true that we know today of many heresies and unaccepted theologies from the first years after Christ ascended into heaven. The Bible itself addresses some of them, so to any objective reader, it’s obvious there were differing opinions right from the start. The Catholic church is a great source for a lot of these heresies and unaccepted theologies since it is in answer to most of them that official doctrine is defined even to this day. Some of what the church disavowed is found in protestant theologies in our time; for example the belief that Jesus wasn’t God, that His humanity and diety were separate, and that He didn’t actually die or didn’t rise bodily etc…

What I find compelling is the fact that sources for beliefs outside those of the church are scarce. Most as I stated above, come from the church itself. The church’s records from the earliest times is impressive. This shows that there must have been a fairly sound organization from the beginning. Afterall, someone had to be responsible for keeping these writings, copying them and seeing that they were passed around so that all could use them for preaching the faith in unity. It is plain that it was important to the NT writers and the early church that all should be of one mind concerning Jesus and His Gospel. That much of the writings of first century Christians has been preserved by the church shows effort was made early on to see that this unity would be handed on. This is another example of a strong organization. Obviously not to the effect of today’s church, but a structured process none the less.

Now you mention that Peter was rebuked by Paul. Many protestants do this in trying to show that Peter was not in fact the first among the Apostles and that the “pope” is not infallible. It is a common misunderstanding of what infalliblity is and what the office of pope is. When a pope speaks infallibly, he does not do so in a vacuum. It is done only after a great deal of prayer, thought, and discussion between the pope and other bishops over a great deal of time. The pope, while the visible head of the church, is not its ruler like a king, or an emperor or a dictactor. He does not make edicts on a whim that must be obeyed or believed by all. As I said, it is much more complicated and deeper than that. Also, not all of what a pope says is infallible, only that which is declared as binding to the faithful.

Lastly, I would mention that the church does not hide any of her history. It is there, warts and all, for all to see. Even some of the theology by her greatest thinkers and teachers has been rejected.
Some, like Tertullian, who wandered too far away from the core were expelled. The church is not afraid of free thinkers, but it looks at all theology in light of Scripture, Tradition and the teachings of the Magisterium to determine if theology contradicts any of those three before formally accepting it.

 

[dennisknapp]

CatherineofA:

Thanks for sharing. So, you really converted based on the church’s presentation of Christian history and not necessarily the history of Christianity presented by the community of historians and researchers or even archaeologists. I guess we view historical evidence differently. I see a church’s tradition and theology and personal view of historical events more faith based than evidence based. I see historical documentation as historical evidence because it is something that cannot be argued because it can be verified when pinned down. No matter what you believe. I think the sources you mentioned are definitely worth considering and the writings I am sure warrant strong consideration and contribution to the time period.
**However, I wonder how much what they say affects or supports what is known about the overall time period. **

If the academic community has never completely supported the overall claim of Catholicism based on the lack of physical evidence in regards to place, time, and events, then we can consider one thing. Tthe Catholic claims of being there from the beginning and the only ones from the beginning is theory and faith. Not evidence proof that disproves other approaches to faith.

Has the academic community ever unsubstantiated the claims made by the Catholic Church? No.

People my not agree with the Church’s theology, but its history is intact.

If this is not the case then it is up to you to show it is not, not me. I agree with the assessment of the academic community regarding the history of the Chuch. I find it hard to believe that you do not.

And are you questioning the whole discipline of Patristic Studies as being biased towards the Catholic Tradition if it favors the Church’s history of itself?

Can the only unbiased Patristic scholars be those who do not belong to the Catholic Church? Or will they be biased in another direction?

Peace

 

[Mickey]

CatherineofA:

In my opinion, you should use both. Isn’t that the most realistic and honest? If the Catholic Church and writings have a documented history, there will be evidence to support it that are easily verified by anyone. That’s the beauty of documented history. It isn’t biased. That’s the whole point. It consists of primary sources in which they can be verfied. It doesn’t matter who you are or what you believe. You cannot alter it and it cannot be made to lean towards a particular view. It can support the Catholic Church. It may not. It might give an overall view outside of church influence. It may not. If all of Catholic presented history is documented and verifiable history, no one can deny it. If Catholic history does or does not conflict with the overall evidence that exists about the time period, it cannot be altered. It just is. That is why there is known history, assumed history, and faith based on personal reports about history.
You say that the church fathers were writing about history. Do you know if what they wrote conflicts with what is generally known about the time period? Does it conflict with the idea that the traditions of the church were not necessarily held by the, or all of the, early church participants? Thanks for your recommendation as to resources. However, what does the historical community and archaeology say about this? What was going on outside the person and the council? That is where you find whether or not the Catholic Chuch was the only church and if the church then is what it became.

I am not privy to any information that contradicts Church history as documented by patristic writings, ecumenical councils, etc. However, there were many heretical groups who surfaced throughout history who disagreed with the Church in certain areas. Often, this is how doctrine was defined–by dealing with the heretics and gnostics. Examples include issues such as hypostasis, the Trinity, the canonical books, creeds, etc. I am not aware of archeological contradictions.

Do you have evidence that refutes the historical documentation of the patristic writers? If you do, I’m willing to bet it can be refuted. You see that is the problem. Any secular evidence you may find can most likely be refuted, not only by patristic documentation, but also by other secular historians. So who do you believe? Again, the patristic fathers were martyred because of their writings/beliefs. If you do not have contradictory evidence, then all we really have is patristic documentation and faith. And really now, what’s so bad about faith?

Blessings,
Mickey

 

[Mickey]

reggie:

Catherine,

I appreciate your position. Are there non-catholic proofs of the primacy of the Catholic church? It makes sense to want to know this as it is true that the victors write history. I have to apologize as I am unfamiliar with any, however, it is true that we know today of many heresies and unaccepted theologies from the first years after Christ ascended into heaven. The Bible itself addresses some of them, so to any objective reader, it’s obvious there were differing opinions right from the start. The Catholic church is a great source for a lot of these heresies and unaccepted theologies since it is in answer to most of them that official doctrine is defined even to this day. Some of what the church disavowed is found in protestant theologies in our time; for example the belief that Jesus wasn’t God, that His humanity and diety were separate, and that He didn’t actually die or didn’t rise bodily etc…

What I find compelling is the fact that sources for beliefs outside those of the church are scarce. Most as I stated above, come from the church itself. The church’s records from the earliest times is impressive. This shows that there must have been a fairly sound organization from the beginning. Afterall, someone had to be responsible for keeping these writings, copying them and seeing that they were passed around so that all could use them for preaching the faith in unity. It is plain that it was important to the NT writers and the early church that all should be of one mind concerning Jesus and His Gospel. That much of the writings of first century Christians has been preserved by the church shows effort was made early on to see that this unity would be handed on. This is another example of a strong organization. Obviously not to the effect of today’s church, but a structured process none the less.

Now you mention that Peter was rebuked by Paul. Many protestants do this in trying to show that Peter was not in fact the first among the Apostles and that the “pope” is not infallible. It is a common misunderstanding of what infalliblity is and what the office of pope is. When a pope speaks infallibly, he does not do so in a vacuum. It is done only after a great deal of prayer, thought, and discussion between the pope and other bishops over a great deal of time. The pope, while the visible head of the church, is not its ruler like a king, or an emperor or a dictactor. He does not make edicts on a whim that must be obeyed or believed by all. As I said, it is much more complicated and deeper than that. Also, not all of what a pope says is infallible, only that which is declared as binding to the faithful.

Lastly, I would mention that the church does not hide any of her history. It is there, warts and all, for all to see. Even some of the theology by her greatest thinkers and teachers has been rejected.
Some, like Tertullian, who wandered too far away from the core were expelled. The church is not afraid of free thinkers, but it looks at all theology in light of Scripture, Tradition and the teachings of the Magisterium to determine if theology contradicts any of those three before formally accepting it.

Hey Reggie,

You posted this while I was writing my post, and you said many of the things I was trying to say except so much more eloquently.

Peace!

 

[reggie]

Oriel,

Still don’t get it. What does Martha have to do with the question of Jesus? Jesus does not speak of two types of Christians, just that those who die in Christ will rise again, those who are living when Christ returns will never die.
So, what does this have to do with Martha?

 

[dennisknapp]

For anyone who is interested he is a great Patristic sites:

moses.creighton.edu/NAPS/napslinks/index.htm

www2.evansville.edu/ecoleweb/

ccel.org/fathers2/

It has a great resources for all who are interested in primary sources.

Peace

 

[CatherineofA]

dennisknapp:

CatherineofA:

Has the academic community ever unsubstantiated the claims made by the Catholic Church? No.

People my not agree with the Church’s theology, but its history is intact.

If this is not the case then it is up to you to show it is not, not me. I agree with the assessment of the academic community regarding the history of the Chuch. I find it hard to believe that you do not.

And are you questioning the whole discipline of Patristic Studies as being biased towards the Catholic Tradition if it favors the Church’s history of itself?

Can the only unbiased Patristic scholars be those who do not belong to the Catholic Church? Or will they be biased in another direction?

Peace

I don’t really see how you can say no to the question that the academic community has never questioned claims made by the Catholic Church. I say this because you claimed in earlier posts you would have to research that point. A need to research it shows no previous travels down that road of research before you came to your origianl conclusion. How can you agree or make assumptions about the views of the assessment of an academic community you could not quote a few posts ago? It is unrealistic to assume that you came to a conclusion that quickly on something that you had to research just a few posts ago. Therefore, you cannot personally vouch for the intact natue of the history as viewed by the academic community. It is not actually up to me to prove or show anything because I am not arguing that I have an absolute truth on an historical event that has been proven. I stated that I am reading and looking into the period. You claimed to have historical verification to back up your point of view. When I asked you, you only had one piece in the overall pie of your consideration and that was the church viewpoint of its history. You did not have academic points of view accepted by the historian community as part of that pie.
I do not feel a bias against church leaders or writers. I think they do have to be considered. In many cases, what they write is part of the historical record. I am only asking how much of what they have said conflicts or is accepted by the study of the history of the period at large? If you have not looked into that and are happy with that then that is fine. I am not critisizing it. I am just asking questions of those who have actually examined the overall time period and how the writings of the early church compares with what is known about the overall time and events. How much is verifiable and how much is based on tradition and faith! I appreciate your sharing and any other references you could give I will be hapy to look into as part of my reading! I am making a list of suggestions now!

 

[Mickey]

CatherineofA:

dennisknapp:

I don’t really see how you can say no to the question that the academic community has never questioned claims made by the Catholic Church. I say this because you claimed in earlier posts you would have to research that point. A need to research it shows no previous travels down that road of research before you came to your origianl conclusion. How can you agree or make assumptions about the views of the assessment of an academic community you could not quote a few posts ago? It is unrealistic to assume that you came to a conclusion that quickly on something that you had to research just a few posts ago. Therefore, you cannot personally vouch for the intact natue of the history as viewed by the academic community. It is not actually up to me to prove or show anything because I am not arguing that I have an absolute truth on an historical event that has been proven. I stated that I am reading and looking into the period. You claimed to have historical verification to back up your point of view. When I asked you, you only had one piece in the overall pie of your consideration and that was the church viewpoint of its history. You did not have academic points of view accepted by the historian community as part of that pie.
I do not feel a bias against church leaders or writers. I think they do have to be considered. In many cases, what they write is part of the historical record. I am only asking how much of what they have said conflicts or is accepted by the study of the history of the period at large? If you have not looked into that and are happy with that then that is fine. I am not critisizing it. I am just asking questions of those who have actually examined the overall time period and how the writings of the early church compares with what is known about the overall time and events. How much is verifiable and how much is based on tradition and faith! I appreciate your sharing and any other references you could give I will be hapy to look into as part of my reading! I am making a list of suggestions now!

I have attempted that type of research many times, and have found nothing. Perhaps my research skills are flawed. Why do you chastise Dennis?

 

[dennisknapp]

CatherineofA:

dennisknapp:

I don’t really see how you can say no to the question that the academic community has never questioned claims made by the Catholic Church. I say this because you claimed in earlier posts you would have to research that point. A need to research it shows no previous travels down that road of research before you came to your origianl conclusion. How can you agree or make assumptions about the views of the assessment of an academic community you could not quote a few posts ago? It is unrealistic to assume that you came to a conclusion that quickly on something that you had to research just a few posts ago. Therefore, you cannot personally vouch for the intact natue of the history as viewed by the academic community. It is not actually up to me to prove or show anything because I am not arguing that I have an absolute truth on an historical event that has been proven. I stated that I am reading and looking into the period. You claimed to have historical verification to back up your point of view. When I asked you, you only had one piece in the overall pie of your consideration and that was the church viewpoint of its history. You did not have academic points of view accepted by the historian community as part of that pie.
I do not feel a bias against church leaders or writers. I think they do have to be considered. In many cases, what they write is part of the historical record. I am only asking how much of what they have said conflicts or is accepted by the study of the history of the period at large? If you have not looked into that and are happy with that then that is fine. I am not critisizing it. I am just asking questions of those who have actually examined the overall time period and how the writings of the early church compares with what is known about the overall time and events. How much is verifiable and how much is based on tradition and faith! I appreciate your sharing and any other references you could give I will be hapy to look into as part of my reading! I am making a list of suggestions now!

Wrong, you said:

“I want you to use information amongst historians (outside of the Catholic community) to demonstrate that evidence exists for your point of view.”

You asked for non-Catholic historians, which will take some time because I have to investigate which are not Catholic and then look into their work.

When I was doing my studies I did not limit the information to Catholic/non-Catholic historians, I just read credible historians in general.

Also, David Hunter is one of the foremost Patristic scholars in North America. His holds a Ph.d for Notre Dame in Church History and has studied under Robert L. Wilken, who is considered the foremost Patristic scholar in North America. Dr. Hunter is on the Advisory Board of The North American Patristics Society. He is a credible scholar and a Roman Catholic, the two are not mutuality exclusive.

Peace

 

[dennisknapp]

dennisknapp:

For anyone who is interested here are some great Patristic sites:

moses.creighton.edu/NAPS/napslinks/index.htm

www2.evansville.edu/ecoleweb/

ccel.org/fathers2/

It has a great resources for all who are interested in primary sources.

Peace

Horrible typos…,which I corrected.

Peace