Many 'different' Churches of the first century?

[YADA]

I don’t like either option actually.

We know that in 52 AD (St.) Thomas founded an assembly of believers in Kerela India.

We also know that due to travel and distance limitations, if there was a central authority in the West (Rome) that the Christians in Kerela were not plugged into it.

The article I: cited indicates the next contact the Kerela Christians had with outsiders is with the Syrian Orthodox (presumably Oriental Orthodox) in 345.

So my point being to the extent that Christianity developed in the west after 52 AD, there is no guarantee that it would have developed the same for the Christians in Kerela.

Your "We Know … " and the article you linked is less then comprised of true knowledge …

Missing from the article is any discussion of what writings were used by the people between 52AD and 345AD [if they had discussed scriptures then they would also have neede to state how they determined what these writings were - extant, archeological evidence, etc] but the article mentioned belief in tradition of the story …

I saw a liturgy mentioned as being “continued to this day” but nno information on what that liturgy looks like, nor how that liturgy would be determined to have been practiced from some point [52 AD, 345 AD, 1500’s] to the present day. No discussion of the language used: aramaic, hebrew, greek, latin, comon tongue … No discussion of core beliefs or creeds, no presentation of ancient art, artifacts. No discussion on burial sites [a common source of evidence like inscriptions and artifacts, etc] …

Thus your position regarding there being lots of denominations [churches] based upon what was presented comes down to “lots that we don’t know” not what we do …

 

[aquabatix]

Here is an easy page to describe the difference in the Pope being infalible and the teachings of the Church that could be viewed as such.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Infallibility_of_the_Church

Read the whole thing. It’s wikipedia, so it is user submitted, so bear with it.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

I have not had much confidence in the “sanitized” religious history most “believers” embrace. The early church was fragmented and spread through out the Roman Empire by the mid 2nd century with competing groups each claiming to be “authentic” Christianity. Those first decades after Pentacost are really quite “fuzzy”…Acts is not the most reliable source of “how the church grew”…but reflects the views of the writer of Acts and the gospel of Luke…his “group”.

Each of the gospels…all the synoptics stemming from “Mark” with “revisions” and additions to his story reflect a different “version” of the life of Jesus of Nazareth…each writer speaking through the voice of their particular “Christian” community and what they had come to believe about Jesus.

“John’s” gospel, written by the end into the beginning of the 2nd century has a developed Christology the other Synopics simply do not share…the “Johanine communtiy” reflected a group of Christians who took those first steps into actually claiming Jesus of Nazareth was God incarnate.

Paul’s letters were written first…but as they progressed begin to deepen in their Christology as well. “Mark” obviously was familiar with 1 Corinthians as he incorporated Paul’s “version” of the eucharist into his gospel. John either was not familiar with the “liturgy” or didn’t consider it important enough to incorporate in his gospel…the liturgy which was adopted by the proto-catholic/orthodox groups IS reflected in the synoptics…since each of them use “Mark” as their “springboard” for their version of the “Last Supper”…how do we know this?..the Didache also provides it’s own “liturgy” and symbolism for the eucharist…and does not ascribe it the same meanings as did Paul and “Mark”.

By the mid second century the “proto-catholic/orthodox” had began to consolidate itself into a loose organization…with it’s own liturgy and developing doctrinal stands propagated by “the early church fathers”…but the struggle for who was the “voice” of authentic Christianity would not be resolved until the fourth century under Constantine. The “proto-orthodox/catholic” movement called all who opposed their doctrinal stands as “heretic”.

Marcion’s group in the second century “competed” with the “proto-orthodox/catholics” for dominion as Marcion’s followers were dominant in Asia Minor.

The “Markan” Christians and Valentinian Christians all competed for primacy…but these cometing groups didn’t embrace the same doctrinal base as did the “proto-catholic/orthodox”…one of the “tools” used to their advantage was “apostolic succession” and the development of the heirarchy of “deacon, priest, bishop” and a separation between “clergy” and “laity”.

One of the complaints the “proto-orthodox/catholics” used against the “heretics” was that each Lord’s Day a different representative would be chosen from the assembly to preside…“even women”.

These competing groups were eventually “silenced” and most of their writings destroyed.

A completely different history of the development of the Christian church is found in the writings of Bart Erhman, Eilene Pagels, Joan O’Grady, John Domminic Crossan, Marcus Borg among others. To me the historical evidence is on their side…not the cleaned up, sanitized, sacred-story of the established church.

Are you stating there are conflicts, or contradictions, between the authors of the Bible?

Please provide writings of any dissenting group that you would be willing to affliate your own beliefs with.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

… it’s hard to work within the denomination when it has excommunicated you.

It’s not as cut and dry as that statement makes it sound. Excommunication was a choice given to Martin Luther.

But Luther had a bigger problem than that, and one that (surprisingly) he didn’t realize at first. An institution that insists that it (exclusively) is INFALLIBLE, incapable of error, unaccountable and must just be accepted with docility - is one that CANNOT be reformed. And that IS, it seems, why he was excommunication: he regarded it as accountable. That was not tolerable.

He became a Catholic priest without realizing it at first?

Now, yes - I DO realize - that The Catholic Church itself has not only permitted but on rare occasions even instituted what it calls “reforms.” But these are typically minor twicking of praxis, not reformation in any broad sense.

How much ‘reformation’ was necessary?

I’m not a historian (my training is in math and physics), but from my limited studies, that whole chapter was messy, dirty, tragic and sad. And I think a lot of mistakes were made on all sides. But I also think it was unavoidable. There was simply a clash that The Catholic Church itself brought about (and 1054 was, in many ways, the same clash). Self declared self to be infallible/unaccountable, exempt from norming and thus reform - and even the open discussion of such for self imposes the demand that all be accepted with docility. This leaves one - inevitable - consequence. It happened in 1054 and again in 1521 and likely will again. Like one of my Catholic teachers put it, “The history of The Catholic Church is like the history of the San Andreas Earthquake fault. The Church cannot “give” or it undermines it’s whole claim of being infallible. Finally, we have a 10.0 - and MUCH damage is done on all sides. Ultimately, the Catholic Church may move - a bit, although it denies it - but it breaks everything in the process.” I think of that whenever I enter these chats about the Reformation. Yes, the Catholic Church has shattered much, including itself, and nearly every time it can be traced back to a Catholic Pope excommunicating one who is challenging infalliblity of self.

You may not realize it, but I do not fault Martin Luther for seeking reform, his mistake was leaving the Church to begin a ‘new’ one. As I mentioned previously, it appears to be a man thinking he could improve over what the Lord had started.

Does Christ not demonstrate the infalliblity of God’s truth through those fallible people who sit in authority over His people in Matthew 23?

Mat 23:1 Then Jesus spoke to the multitudes and to his disciples,
Mat 23:2 Saying: The scribes and the Pharisees have sitten on the chair of Moses.
Mat 23:3 All things therefore whatsoever they shall say to you, observe and do: but according to their works do ye not. For they say, and do not.

But back to the issue here. As a Lutheran, I believe that the church was/is/ever will be one and holy and catholic, the communion of saints, the mystical union of believers. That’s why we confess that in the Creed, because we believe it IS true. Literally. Neither Hell or any Pope has been able to destroy that. And I beleive that all Christians are PEOPLE, and thus the communion of Christians is PEOPLE, the gathering of Christians is PEOPLE - the church is PEOPLE. Now, PEOPLE can come together in a given place and time in something that in theology we call “congregations” (although Scripture uses the word “church” or more typically “churches” in a secondary sense to speak of these). These can (and often do) in time take on instititional components, but the institutions are not the communion of saints, the PEOPLE in them are a tiny subset of such. And yes, after the 4th century, many congregations choose to form associations of them in what is technically called “denominations” but these are unknown in Scripture and there’s no evidence that such suggested in the earliest church. IMHO, Catholics and Mormons impose a very late, very western institutionalistic paradigm on Scriptures that’s just not there, each in an effort to somehow suggest that it is that. Again, I think “church” refers to Christians - not a geopolitical/legal, institutional, organizational denomination. It’s Jesus and WE - not Jesus and IT (pardon the grammar). Christians are PEOPLE, not a denomination.

After the 4th century? Please provide some writings from those denominations of the 4th century and let’s explore their teachings.

In your honest opinion? Catholics and ‘Mormons’, a questionable connection in my honest opinion. The Catholic Church and the hierarchy existed long before the connection you’re trying to impose.

The first Christians were persecuted, with the penalty of death, up until Constantine legalized Christianity and made it the official state religion.

So, from my perspective, there was ONE church in the first century - just as there is in the 21st. But there thousands of Christians then (billions today), hundreds of congregations then (millions today), no denomination then (thousands today). Christians MAY form institutional organizations - Scripture does not forbid this, in fact we see this modeled in the NT itself, but I don’t confuse the institutions Christians formed with the church Jesus founded. You and I are both equally, fully a part of the one, holy and catholic church, the Body of Christ, the communion of saints. We are not formally registered in the same congregation and our congregations are not legally affiliated with the same denomination.

Scriptures teach against institutional ‘organizations’ that are not of the same mind and judgment. It’s that simple.

 

[AJTheMan]

Well, there were a few churches forming around the first century, to my knowledge:

Church of Armenia
Syriac Orthodox Church
Coptic Orthodox Church
Ethiopian Tewahedo
Malankara Church

These, along with the churches founded in the Eastern and Western Roman Empire, are some of the oldest Christian churches in existence.

 

[adstrinity]

Forgive me for half derailing this thread but, I would like to point out that I read somewhere (I didn’t check for a source here on the Internet prior to posting this, though), a few things about Martin Luther:

1. There’s modern (revisionist?) history coming out that is stating Martin Luther was (might have been) bi-polar.

2), and, I think this is most important, when Martin Luther was a priest, he was a very scrupulous one at that. It is said that he would spend up to six hours in the confessional. It is no wonder he had the break and disconnect with God’s Church if this is how he viewed it. Pity.

I do have a book on Martin Luther, I have not yet read it.

 

[AJTheMan]

Forgive me for half derailing this thread but, I would like to point out that I read somewhere (I didn’t check for a source here on the Internet prior to posting this, though), a few things about Martin Luther:

1. There’s modern (revisionist?) history coming out that is stating Martin Luther was (might have been) bi-polar.

2), and, I think this is most important, when Martin Luther was a priest, he was a very scrupulous one at that. It is said that he would spend up to six hours in the confessional. It is no wonder he had the break and disconnect with God’s Church if this is how he viewed it. Pity.

I do have a book on Martin Luther, I have not yet read it.

Popes had their problems too. The leader of Lutheranism may have had problems but plenty of popes also had their problems.

I’m not trying to dissuade you from Catholicism, merely point out that while one can criticize Luther on the basis of his mental deficiency, one cannot then turn a blind eye to the deficiencies of the popes.

 

[CMatt25]

Here is an easy page to describe the difference in the Pope being infalible and the teachings of the Church that could be viewed as such.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Infallibility_of_the_Church

Read the whole thing. It’s wikipedia, so it is user submitted, so bear with it.

Mike, thanks for the link.

According to the link: “The Magisterium (Latin: magister, “teacher”) is the teaching office of the Catholic Church. Catholic theology divides the functions of the teaching office of the Church into two categories: the infallible Sacred Magisterium and the fallible Ordinary Magisterium. The infallible Sacred Magisterium includes the extraordinary declarations of the Pope speaking ex cathedra and of ecumenical councils (traditionally expressed in conciliar creeds, canons, and decrees), as well as of the ordinary and universal Magisterium. Despite its name, the “ordinary and universal Magisterium” falls under the infallible Sacred Magisterium, and in fact is the usual manifestation of the infallibility of the Church, the decrees of popes and councils being “extraordinary”.”

I was under the impression when you said the Pope has spoken only twice infallibility in ex cathedra from the Chair which is the only time he speaks infallibly, that you meant only those times is when the Church is considered infallible. But I see here I think you meant the Pope is infallible only when speaking from the Chair but there is more than one way the Church is considered infallible. Thanks again.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

Well, there were a few churches forming around the first century, to my knowledge:

Church of Armenia
Syriac Orthodox Church
Coptic Orthodox Church
Ethiopian Tewahedo
Malankara Church

These, along with the churches founded in the Eastern and Western Roman Empire, are some of the oldest Christian churches in existence.

Rather than post a few links from Wiki, why not provide some more information on the differences of those Churches and Catholic beliefs so they can be discussed specifically?

 

[AJTheMan]

Rather than post a few links from Wiki, why not provide some more information on the differences of those Churches and Catholic beliefs so they can be discussed specifically?

Because I’m not an advocate for their religion. I was merely providing some examples of churches that are close to or on par with the founding of the catholic faith.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

Because I’m not an advocate for their religion. I was merely providing some examples of churches that are close to or on par with the founding of the catholic faith.

Some of those mentioned are even closer or on par with Catholic teachings. At least one is heretical in it’s teachings that no Christian would even claim to affliate themselves with.

 

[Ad_Gentes]

Well, there were a few churches forming around the first century, to my knowledge:

Church of Armenia
Syriac Orthodox Church
Coptic Orthodox Church
Ethiopian Tewahedo
Malankara Church

These, along with the churches founded in the Eastern and Western Roman Empire, are some of the oldest Christian churches in existence.

If you’re going to post about Christian history, you should get your facts straight. During the first centuries of Christianity, all the local churches were in communion with each other; they were one Church. The schism that separated the Oriental Orthodox Churches (e.g. Coptic Orthodox, Syriac Orthodox, etc.) from the universal Church didn’t happen until after the Council of Chalcedon (451). The Great Schism, which divided the rest of the Church into Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox occurred in 1054.

 

[BrianH]

How exactly would churches in India have been in communion with churches in Rome in the first centuries? Lets start with this one

 

[adstrinity]

How exactly would churches in India have been in communion with churches in Rome in the first centuries? Lets start with this one

Because St. Thomas was an apostle to India.

 

[BrianH]

Because St. Thomas was an apostle to India.

Thomas had no way to communicate with any of the other apostles. I am not sure that Peter was even in Rome when Thomas went East yet. The churches had not practical way to communicate and as such the concept seems odd. Were any people from India represented at any of the earliest documents as having contact with those in the west? That could prove a communion of sort.

 

[CHESTERTONRULES]

Because I’m not an advocate for their religion. I was merely providing some examples of churches that are close to or on par with the founding of the catholic faith.

They were part of the Catholic Faith.

It wasn’t until later that they split.

All of the Churches you listed considered themselves to be part of the same Church.

 

[YADA]

How exactly would churches in India have been in communion with churches in Rome in the first centuries? Lets start with this one

Well - first why don’t you show how the Church in India was not in communion with Rome. First you are starting with a premise that Thomas - in fact -founded a community in India [a fact that is nothing of the sort -as most scholars truly doubt many of the lore regarding St Thomas in India] and then go on to state that Thomas had no communicatoin with any other Christian community via personal interaction nor letter AND that this christian community was vastly different in faith and practice then other early or first century Christian communities - so distinct in fath and practice that they would equate with the differences found in the various protestant denominatons - all of which you have failed to support and which is un-supported with objective historical records like archeological records, insriptions in graveyards, extant writings that date pre-350 AD, etc …

Thomas had no way to communicate with any of the other apostles. I am not sure that Peter was even in Rome when Thomas went East yet. The churches had not practical way to communicate and as such the concept seems odd. Were any people from India represented at any of the earliest documents as having contact with those in the west? That could prove a communion of sort.

Thomas certainly had the ability to send and receive representatives and written communications. If Thomas traveled East - he and others could also have traveled West - unless you truly believe that travel was only one way …

If there were written communicaitons [letters] in the West, certainly the East also knew how to write … Why do you believe that Thomas lacked this option?

There was only ONE CHURCH

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

What history, bible and the Apostles handed down and records is one faith, One baptism, One Lord, One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church.

In the Early Church all other Christian believers outside the living apostles including some Jewish sects who tried to conduct exorcisms in the name of Jesus the one Paul serves, who were exposed and revealed as heretics, teaching heretical teachings to the faithful.

These so called “other believers” were excommunicated including their writings which had apostles names attached to them. From the exposition of these early heretics, apostates is what truly marked the True Apostolic Catholic Church and its authoritative teachings that rejected all other new heretical christian teachings from non apostolic heretical teachers.

Arianism and Marcianism are the other “Christian” communities in existence during the early church. Either you belong to the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church or you belonged to a heretic founder of Christianity.

In any case, no honest truthful protestant, biblical scholar or historian cannot deny that the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church succeeded the Original Apostles from Jesus Christ and history records Popes, Patriarchs, Bishops, Deacons, Priests practicing Catholicism and sacraments during this time.

The Protestants today reflect the two early anti-Christ’s in Arianism and Marcianism. One wants to reject that Jesus left a Church which fulfilled the Old Testament by removing its authority, religious laws and precepts, the other believes that Jesus fulfilled the Old Testament by rejecting the Jewish God and covenant all together leaving no attachments of the fulfillment, both denying that Jesus fulfilled the Old Covenant law and precepts in his body, blood, which gives us a priest hood that remains in Jesus high priestly office and Kingship, From which his own divine authority is given to Peter and his Church to forgive sins, baptise and proclaim the Gospel in every age.

To my knowledge there is only one body of believers surviving these past two millennium who remain steadfast as stewards of the mysteries of God ( 1 Corinthians 4: 1 Thus should one regard us: as servants of Christ and stewards of the mysteries of God). (such as forgiving sins in the ministry of reconciliation) can be found only in the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church.

Protestants and non catholics wish Jesus did away with a real priesthood, and sacraments of which they have broken off from or never succeeded from the apostles to remain in the Priesthood of Jesus Christ, thus invent man made doctrines to justify their claims of Christianity in the Sola Fe, Sola Scriptura theologies.

Instead of heretics as from the first century Church, we now have what is called the “popular church” where anyone can believe what ever and how ever they want to believe and practice their own Christianity as they see it, and is susceptible to every wind of doctrine that comes in every age.

Or the “instituted Church” which is built by Jesus upon Peter and his apostles. Which fulfilled the old covenant with a new and real priesthood, a new and living sacrificial lamb in the Eucharist, a new circumcision which is fulfilled in the baptism of Jesus, which the gates of hell will “never prevail against”…

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

Well, there were a few churches forming around the first century, to my knowledge:

Church of Armenia

True these maybe all Catholic with Apostolic succession, but I would be careful when you date them that far back, because from some of these the True Catholic Apostolic faith battled against heretics and heresies that came from them. In fact some of these early on rejected their well known Saints and placed heretics in their Bishophoric, while the Pope recognized their excommunicated Saint as their bishop. These types of troubles existed in the early Church, when most heretics and heresy’s came from the Eastern Churches.

Just something to keep in mind, when you take these Eastern Churches that far back. The Popes and western Church do not experience heretics or heresy’s this early on, she remained Rock, at many times at the expense of the Popes life.

 

[BrianH]

Well - first why don’t you show how the Church in India was not in communion with Rome. First you are starting with a premise that Thomas - in fact -founded a community in India [a fact that is nothing of the sort -as most scholars truly doubt many of the lore regarding St Thomas in India] and then go on to state that Thomas had no communicatoin with any other Christian community via personal interaction nor letter AND that this christian community was vastly different in faith and practice then other early or first century Christian communities - so distinct in fath and practice that they would equate with the differences found in the various protestant denominatons - all of which you have failed to support and which is un-supported with objective historical records like archeological records, insriptions in graveyards, extant writings that date pre-350 AD, etc …
Thomas certainly had the ability to send and receive representatives and written communications. If Thomas traveled East - he and others could also have traveled West - unless you truly believe that travel was only one way …
If there were written communicaitons [letters] in the West, certainly the East also knew how to write … Why do you believe that Thomas lacked this option?
There was only ONE CHURCH

I cannot prove a negative that no correspondence existed. If you can prove it did, great. Do it. What archeological records are you referring to? What graveyards are you referring to? I am not aware that any of those things would deal with theological differences but you seem to know what you are talking about so please share.