How do protestants explain the 1500 year gap.

[FathersKnowBest]

Yep. Don’t doubt it for a minute. But to get into the details, how they explain a 1500 year gap, one needs a restorationist on hand, to engage. It isn’t going to help to engage Lutherans, Anglicans, Orthodox, etc, and demand to know how they explain the gap.

Well, maybe Anglicans. I hate to over-generalize about Anglicans.

GKC

I agree with you.

HOWEVER, that leaves us with this problem:

Major premise 1: Jesus promised that He would guide His Church
Major premise 2: We are told to listen to that Church (the pillar & bulwark of the Truth, the Body of Christ)
Major premise 3: The Holy Spirit and therefore the Church’s Authority is passed on through the laying on of hands for the specific intention of passing on the office
Minor Premise: there was no gap
Conclusion: the Church from which the Protestants dissented had Christ’s full authority, and they therefore dissented from Christ (He who hears you, hears me…)

 

[spina1953]

Books. It’s about books. Books are good. I bought 19 yesterday. Of course, you have to find which books are needed and useful.

GKC

Hi GKC: Yes! Books are always good. However one does need to be careful of the authors as some tend to distort what they write in order to promote their viewpoint. I generally go to the Library to do my research though at times but sometimes its just not there. I agree that one needs to find which books are indeed needed and useful as hopefully non bias.

 

[GKC]

Hi GKC: Yes! Books are always good. However one does need to be careful of the authors as some tend to distort what they write in order to promote their viewpoint. I generally go to the Library to do my research though at times but sometimes its just not there. I agree that one needs to find which books are indeed needed and useful as hopefully non bias.

Which is why one reads all sides. Like a laser forming a hologram, you need to read from many perspectives. Eventually, you will learn to recognize and assess the impact of biases. And eventually, you arrive at a consensus bias of your own. An informed one.

GKC.

 

[GKC]

I agree with you.

HOWEVER, that leaves us with this problem:

Major premise 1: Jesus promised that He would guide His Church
Major premise 2: We are told to listen to that Church (the pillar & bulwark of the Truth, the Body of Christ)
Major premise 3: The Holy Spirit and therefore the Church’s Authority is passed on through the laying on of hands for the specific intention of passing on the office
Minor Premise: there was no gap
Conclusion: the Church from which the Protestants dissented had Christ’s full authority, and they therefore dissented from Christ (He who hears you, hears me…)

Which would suggest you need to know no more of the folk who are conjectured as holding that there was a 1500 year gap.

GKC

 

[spina1953]

Which is why one reads all sides. Like a laser forming a hologram, you need to read from many perspectives. Eventually, you will learn to recognize and assess the impact of biases. And eventually, you arrive at a consensus bias of your own. An informed one.

GKC.

Hi GKC: You made a lot of sense in what you posted, as there are plenty of side to an issue. it is by reading different authors on the subject that one decides which one to accept and which ones not accepted. As one posted once said" All historians are bias, that may be true, but at some point one does have to decide who to accept and who not to accept. As you state hopefully an informed one.

 

[JonNC]

OK. If there was no gap, then the Church that Martin Luther dissented from was the one that held Jesus’ divine authority, right?

Well, of course, though not only and exclusively. IOW, the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church, founded by Christ at Pentecost is not only and exclusively in communion with the Bishop of Rome.

Jon

 

[JonNC]

I agree with you.

HOWEVER, that leaves us with this problem:

Major premise 1: Jesus promised that He would guide His Church
Major premise 2: We are told to listen to that Church (the pillar & bulwark of the Truth, the Body of Christ)
Major premise 3: The Holy Spirit and therefore the Church’s Authority is passed on through the laying on of hands for the specific intention of passing on the office
Minor Premise: there was no gap
Conclusion: the Church from which the Protestants dissented had Christ’s full authority, and they therefore dissented from Christ (He who hears you, hears me…)

conclusion: Protestants dissented from that part of the Church, which has Christ’s authority, that is in communion with the Bishop of Rome.

Jon

 

[GKC]

Hi GKC: You made a lot of sense in what you posted, as there are plenty of side to an issue. it is by reading different authors on the subject that one decides which one to accept and which ones not accepted. As one posted once said" All historians are bias, that may be true, but at some point one does have to decide who to accept and who not to accept. As you state hopefully an informed one.

I’ve been at that for roughly 60 years.

Imagine the books.

Oh, and thanks.

GKC

 

[spina1953]

I’ve been at that for roughly 60 years.

Imagine the books.

Oh, and thanks.

GKC

Hi GKC: I agree. I only been at for about roughly 50 years now as a history buff, so I understand where you are coming from. I find it amazing how so many different historians can come up different interpretations of an historical issue or event. And by the way, you are welcome!!!

 

[GKC]

Hi GKC: I agree. I only been at for about roughly 50 years now as a history buff, so I understand where you are coming from. I find it amazing how so many different historians can come up different interpretations of an historical issue or event.

But, in concentrating on those historical points that genuinely are of interest, the various viewpoints gradually coalesce into a picture, which may be clear, or may admit of some ambiguity. One grows to spot the out of bounds biases, along the way.

I started with several topics, mainly WWII, around age 10. I still have those first books.

There was a discussion in another thread of a book by Diane Moczar. I’ll be ordering it this week. In truth, I don’t expect to learn something new, but you never can tell.

50 years is a good start. Don’t stop now.

GKC

 

[spina1953]

But, in concentrating on those historical points that genuinely are of interest, the various viewpoints gradually coalesce into a picture, which may be clear, or may admit of some ambiguity. One grows to spot the out of bounds biases, along the way.

I started with several topics, mainly WWII, around age 10. I still have those first books.

There was a discussion in another thread of a book by Diane Moczar. I’ll be ordering it this week. In truth, I don’t expect to learn something new, but you never can tell.

50 years is a good start. Don’t stop now.

GKC

Hi GKC: I too started with WWII; the Pacific, since my dad and uncle were both there at that time. I also read the Greek and Roman myths and the histories of both, and went on to early Church history, as well as other histories that interest me. You are correct that along the way one starts to see the ambiguities and biases some historians have. I still also reread and also view films of WWII as well as WWI and Korea. I am not familiar with Dr. Moczar’s book but have been following it in the thread it is mentioned in. I find that sometimes rereading or seeing the films over and over brings new light and new thoughts about what is read or seen that were missed the first time around. I also read a lot of the history of the Civil War especially the western theater.

 

[FathersKnowBest]

conclusion: Protestants dissented from that part of the Church, which has Christ’s authority, that is in communion with the Bishop of Rome.

Jon

How many “parts” does Christ’s Body have?

Who has the authority to determine that?

Can one dissent from that part of Christ that one disagrees with?

 

[GKC]

Hi GKC: I too started with WWII; the Pacific, since my dad and uncle were both there at that time. I also read the Greek and Roman myths and the histories of both, and went on to early Church history, as well as other histories that interest me. You are correct that along the way one starts to see the ambiguities and biases some historians have. I still also reread and also view films of WWII as well as WWI and Korea. I am not familiar with Dr. Moczar’s book but have been following it in the thread it is mentioned in. I find that sometimes rereading or seeing the films over and over brings new light and new thoughts about what is read or seen that were missed the first time around. I also read a lot of the history of the Civil War especially the western theater.

You and I are somewhat similar. Of all the mega-categories I collect, WWII (Pacific theater, primarily) is the largest. Several thousands of titles, at least. Four or five more bought yesterday. And having the books, to compare the assertions in later books, and to integrate and assess, is essential. So no libraries for me. Though I worked in the university library for 5 years.

Though I live in the heart of the Rebels, the Civil War has never caught my fancy.

GKC

 

[FathersKnowBest]

You and I are somewhat similar. Of all the mega-categories I collect, WWII (Pacific theater, primarily) is the largest. Several thousands of titles, at least. Four or five more bought yesterday. And having the books, to compare the assertions in later books, and to integrate and assess, is essential. So no libraries for me. Though I worked in the university library for 5 years.

Though I live in the heart of the Rebels, the Civil War has never caught my fancy.

GKC

Isn’t this discussion just a wee bit off-topic?

 

[spina1953]

You and I are somewhat similar. Of all the mega-categories I collect, WWII (Pacific theater, primarily) is the largest. Several thousands of titles, at least. Four or five more bought yesterday. And having the books, to compare the assertions in later books, and to integrate and assess, is essential. So no libraries for me. Though I worked in the university library for 5 years.

Though I live in the heart of the Rebels, the Civil War has never caught my fancy.

GKC

Hi GKC: I do not have that big of a personal library, but have as I am able to get. Otherwise I go to the library and also go inter library loan. I also compare what different authors say to see if they are similar in context or have something that is germane. It is mostly about Grant and the battles that were fought, though the history of how people thought back then seems strange to me.

 

[JonNC]

How many “parts” does Christ’s Body have?

Who has the authority to determine that?

Can one dissent from that part of Christ that one disagrees with?

Actually, we are kind of new at this, compared to Rome and Orthodoxy.
With that in mind, who does have the authority, and is there agreement between the patriarchates on that issue?

Jon

 

[FathersKnowBest]

Actually, we are kind of new at this, compared to Rome and Orthodoxy.

That’s actually the point.

With that in mind, who does have the authority, and is there agreement between the patriarchates on that issue?

Jon

There used to be, and will be again.

Care to join us in the Church that Jesus started?

 

[GKC]

Hi GKC: I do not have that big of a personal library, but have as I am able to get. Otherwise I go to the library and also go inter library loan. I also compare what different authors say to see if they are similar in context or have something that is germane. It is mostly about Grant and the battles that were fought, though the history of how people thought back then seems strange to me.

Oddly, though I have read only a little in the area, the Confederate generals always seemed the more interesting.

But it’s WWII for me.

GKC

 

[JonNC]

=FathersKnowBest;12259491]That’s actually the point.

Are you agreeing that you guys and Orthodoxy are better at division than Lutherans are?

There used to be, and will be again.

Pray for the day.

Care to join us in the Church that Jesus started?

I’m already in it, but I appreciate the invite. Nothing would please me more than for you and I to share the same altar. Here’s my response to that very question, in a new thread

forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=12259458&postcount=4

Jon

 

[spina1953]

Oddly, though I have read only a little in the area, the Confederate generals always seemed the more interesting.

But it’s WWII for me.

GKC

Hi GKC: While I do study the Civil War it is for me WWII also. I will say this the Civil war in some ways changed how wars were to be fought until after WWI, which in some ways mirrored the American Civil War at least in its later stages.