Many 'different' Churches of the first century?

[Gabriel_of_12]

American Josia:
** We understand that all Christian believers are PEOPLE, thus the mystical union of believers is PEOPLE, and the “gathering/assembly” of believers is PEOPLE, thus the church is PEOPLE. The church is not a denominational IT, the church is US. All of us. TOGETHER. Past and present. All one body. His body. You and I are EQUALLY parts of the same church, the one and holy and catholic church. We are not officially registered in the same congregation, and our two congregations are not legally affiliated with the same denomination, but that’s entirely moot to the issue that we are all parts of the same church, the same body. **

Saying you are Catholic is not the same as in practice? The Roman Catholic Church was founded by Jesus Christ himself upon Peter and his unbroken succession line of Popes, this is a fact of history from both religious and secular historical accounts. Your catholicity has broken off from Apostolic succession and valid holy orders and sacraments, when your founder “Changed” from the Apostolic Catholic belief’s and his apostolic successor of Peter in the Popes and invented new Christian gospel of Sola theologies.

In fact our Catholic members including Popes lived and practiced this faith since the resurrection unchanged. I don’t find any of your member denomination affiliation in the first 1500 years of Christianity? In fact I don’t find any Protestant affiliations from today in the first century just heretics.

Now, in the First Century, there were perhaps dozens (maybe even hundreds by the end of that century) of congregations. It is not forbidden for Christians to gather together in a given place and time, which in theology we call “congregations.” We have several of these mentioned in the NT itself. The Bible uses the term “church” for these, too (a secondary meaning, often found in the plural). These can (and often do) in time take on institutional aspects (buildings, budgets, officers, constitutions, bylaws, articles of incorporation, etc.) but the “church” is not the institution, but church is US. The believers in that congregation are a tiny subset of the church, the institution is a legal entity that has no heart or soul and cannot believe, thus cannot be a believer, thus cannot be the church (or even a part of it). Again, there were many congregations in the First Century

.

The Catholic Church is the body of Jesus Christ, she lives and breathes. You have introduced some terms here that without the Apostolic Traditional teachings from the first century and biblical apostolic interpretations. Protestants and non catholics try to force 20th century meaning into biblical translations without knowing the true Apostolic first century faith and understanding. For example; what you call and interpreted “Church” is not the biblical interpretations. Church comes from the Greek Latin translation of “ecclesia” which comes from the Hebrew root word “qahal”, which formed a juridical and political entity, which you blatantly deny the Church Jesus built is. Secondly you confuse “Church” with the biblical Apostolic teaching of “oikonomia” with the biblical apostolic teaching of “Koinonia”. I think here is where protestantism and non catholics “think” they have the freedom to believe what ever and how ever they please.

Oikonomia deals with the economy of God’s divine plan which is confused with protestant theology which misses the biblical apostolic teachings and revelation. This is confused with the “Koinonia” which Paul alludes to in “communion”. When protestants read the word “Church” without the Apostles Hebrew understanding of “qahal” which includes the “oikonomia” and the “Koinonia” from which the Catholic Church teaches and understands from “ecclesia” includes all of the above when we use the word Church, that is summarized in the biblical teaching and Catholic belief is the body of Jesus Christ.

Personally I don’t think judging the first century is going to help protestants and non catholics prove they never existed only the Catholic church did. Protestants and non catholics need to be taught the Apostolic teaching of the biblical translation of Church is? Study what “oikonomia”, Koinonia", “qahal”, “ecclessia” meanings are, and then you may get an Apostolic understanding of what the biblical translation of the word “Church” really means to the first century Christian. I can assure you, “Church” from the bible does not mean what you are forcing it to mean by generalizing evey Christian of different belief’s as one body. I wish what you personally believe is true, but it is not biblical Apostolic teaching (interpretation) of Church.
Peace be with you

 

[BrianH]

The Church does not claim that Peter was in Rome from 42-49 AD. During that time he was probably in Antioch, as he is also considered the first bishop of that city.

I’m not sure about the other sources you provided, but the one from Acts 18:2 is not correct since that verse refers to Paul, not Peter.

Interesting enough, in Peter’s First Epistle he says that “[t]he church that is in Babylon [code name for Rome], elected together with you, saluteth you…” (1 Pet 5:13), which implies that he possibly wrote this letter from Rome.

I believe Peter was in Rome. I just had never heard that early of a date.

 

[chessmane4e5]

Where did you get your source? Sources have to be germane. If you do not actually own the book, then you got it off a link that I am sure you can provide.

I own the book I listed, Warren Carroll’s History of Christendom.

 

[chessmane4e5]

I’m not sure about the other sources you provided, but the one from Acts 18:2 is not correct since that verse refers to Paul, not Peter.

Sorry. Acts 18:2 was to show that Claudis had indeed expelled all the Jews from Rome, which helps us to date that event.

Interesting enough, in Peter’s First Epistle he says that “[t]he church that is in Babylon [code name for Rome], elected together with you, saluteth you…” (1 Pet 5:13), which implies that he possibly wrote this letter from Rome.

True, although the letter of Peter were written near the end of life.

Corinth may also have been evangelized by Peter on his way from Asia back to Rome after the Apostolic Council. Peter’s presence in Corinth is explicitly attested by Bishop Dionysius of Corinth, writing about 170 (Eusebius, Ecclesiastical History, II, 25; IV, 23) and clearly implied by 1 Cor 1:12.

 

[BrianH]

I own the book I listed, Warren Carroll’s History of Christendom.

Then what does it say before it?

 

[chessmane4e5]

Then what does it say before it?

What does what say before it? Sorry, I do not know what “it” you are referring to.

 

[AmericanJosiah]

I must disagree with you, The Church Jesus built (instituted) upon Peter is not a democracy, it is a Kingdom with our King Jesus Christ who is the head and we the Catholic Church is his body both in the Church militant on earth with the Church Triumphant in heaven. We confess our member Saints and Martrys who professed and lived this Eucharistic/Sacramental life in the Catholic Church live in the presence of God.

We do disagree.

I believe that Christians are people. Thus, the communion of Christians would be people. The mystical union of Christians would be people. The “gathering/assembly/union” of Christians would be people. Simply put, the church that is one and holy and catholic is people - the full corpus of believers, the communion of saints, the mystical union of us all. I don’t agree that is - or ever was - a geopolitical/economic/legal institutional, denominational entity. When Lutherans confess the Creed, we mean it literally. There is one holy and catholic church, the communion of saints - not that there once was but now it is fragmented.

Yes, I agree that Jesus is the Head of the church. I don’t agree that the bishop in Rome is. I agree that Jesus is infallible, I don’t agree that that bishop is (or any other human being).

Jesus gave Peter the keys to the kingdom of God along with power to excercise its legal claims on binding and loosing on earth as Jesus our head binds and loose in heaven. Jesus Christ has divinely ordained his Church and consecrated her in Truth, organizing her in himself.

Of course, only The Catholic Church affirms that about The Catholic Church.

And such has nothing to do with any “successors” or institution. And none of that has anything to do with anyone or any organizational denomination being “infallible.”

Again, I see Christians as believers. I don’t see Christianity as an institutional it. And while I agree that Christians have certain authorities, I don’t agree that that makes any one “infallible/unaccountable.” In fact, I tend to affirm the exact opposite: with greater authority comes more accountability.

Again, I think there have been believers since Adam and Eve (certainly Abraham), and I suppose we could call them specifically CHRISTIANS since The Annunciation (perhaps Our Lady being the first Christian!). The corpus of such, the communion of such, is the church. And such is, was and ever will be one and holy and catholic. THAT church is one. In the first century, there were also what are technically known as “congregations.” Gatherings of Christians in a given place and time. There were at least dozens of these in the first century. But there was no denominations at all, and that includes The Catholic Church.

Thank you.

Pax

• Josiah

.

 

[BrianH]

What does what say before it? Sorry, I do not know what “it” you are referring to.

I assume this is a citation or is it part of the text? If the first, one would give the sentence that the citation refers to. If it is part of the text, you would provide the sentence before it to establish the subject that it is referring to. It reads like a citation to me though.

 

[chessmane4e5]

I assume this is a citation or is it part of the text? If the first, one would give the sentence that the citation refers to. If it is part of the text, you would provide the sentence before it to establish the subject that it is referring to. It reads like a citation to me though.

I can type out the paragraph if you really want, but it is talking about Peter being in Rome from 42-49, which is what we were discussing. So, I provided you the sources that he uses, which I think would be more useful to you than me just copying his statement about Peter being in Rome.

 

[Ad_Gentes]

I can type out the paragraph if you really want, but it is talking about Peter being in Rome from 42-49, which is what we were discussing. So, I provided you the sources that he uses, which I think would be more useful to you than me just copying his statement about Peter being in Rome.

I would like to see that paragraph and the sources used to support that Peter was in Rome during that time since my understanding is that Peter did not arrive at Rome until much later. The Liber Pontificalis (9th century) states that Peter served as bishop of Antioch before he went to Rome. That is also held by the traditions of the Syriac Orthodox Church, the Greek Orthodox Church of Antioch, the Melkite Greek Catholic Church, the Syriac Catholic Church, and the Maronite Catholic Church.

And I am 10 and a half BTW

Are you really 10 years old?

 

[BrianH]

I can type out the paragraph if you really want, but it is talking about Peter being in Rome from 42-49, which is what we were discussing. So, I provided you the sources that he uses, which I think would be more useful to you than me just copying his statement about Peter being in Rome.

No. I would prefer to see the paragraph or sentence. It should reference just a sentence I would think.

 

[chessmane4e5]

No. I would prefer to see the paragraph or sentence. It should reference just a sentence I would think.

No, it’s a paragraph. But here is everything all together.

Seven years had now passed since the dispersion of the Apostles. So successfully had Peter evangelized in Rome that the resulting controversies among Christian converts, follows of Simon Magus who had now come to Rome, and those holding to traditional Judaism rose to the threshold of public consciousness, probably causing Emperor Claudius, in this very year 49, to banish all Jews from Rome because (a pagan historian tells us) of “tumults” raised by “Chrestus”. 78 We know that Peter was in Jerusalem by late 49 or in 50. He may have come, with other Jewish Christians expelled from Rome by this edict, by way of the rich and decadent Greek city of Corinth, planting the seeds of Christianity there. 79

78 Acts 18:2; Cambridge Ancient History, X, 500-501; Hubert Jedin and John Dolan, eds., History of the Church, Volume I: “From the Apostolic Community to Constantine” (New York, 1965), pp. 128-129 (this volume was originally published under the title Handbook of Church History for general series); Momigliano, Claudius, pp. 32-33, 36. The pagan authority is Seutonius in his life of the Emperor Claudius. The date is given by Orosius, History Against the Pagans, VII, 6. “Chrestus” was a natural Latin misspelling of the Greek Christos (Edmundson, Church in Rome, pp. 9-10). The plausibility of Orosius’ date is point out by Vincent M. Scramuzza, The Emperor Claudius (Cambridge MA, 1940), p.287: “For it was just in the period 47-52 A.D. that Claudius was engaged in his campaign to restore the old Roman rites and check the growth of foreign cults.” It is also brilliantly defended by Smallwood, Jews under Roman Rule, pp. 210-216. For an excellent argument for the historical authenticity of Simon Magus’ visit to Rome (often denied) see Edmundson Church in Rome pp. 60-65.

79 Corinth may also have been evangelized by Peter on his way from Asia back to Rome after the Apostolic Council. Peter’s presence in Corinth is explicitly attested by Bishop Dionysius of Corinth, writing about 170 (Eusebius, Ecclesiastical History, II, 25; IV, 23) and clearly implied by 1 Cor 1:12.

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

QUOTE=AmericanJosiah;6219519]We do disagree.

I believe that Christians are people. Thus, the communion of Christians would be people. The mystical union of Christians would be people. The “gathering/assembly/union” of Christians would be people. Simply put, the church that is one and holy and catholic is people - the full corpus of believers, the communion of saints, the mystical union of us all. I don’t agree that is - or ever was - a geopolitical/economic/legal institutional, denominational entity. When Lutherans confess the Creed, we mean it literally. There is one holy and catholic church, the communion of saints - not that there once was but now it is fragmented.

A Christian is one who is sealed with the Christian seal of God on their foreheads with the sign of the “Tau” + as foretold by Ezekiel 9:4…, Revealed in heaven from the book of Revelations 7:3, 14:1-4 which can only be recieved through the divine touch from God in the sacrament of baptism and confirmation which completes the Christian initiatiation into the “qahal”, “ecclesia”, body of Jesus Christ which is his Catholic (universal) church. Some Protestants retain entry into the Kingdom but refuse the “qahal” “koinonia” Church communion with the body of Jesus Christ. These are “catholic” by baptism but are not “church” = koinonia (communion with the body of Christ), practice as “qahal” (legal authority and religious rites instituted by Jesus Christ himself) which is made up and included in the “oikonomia” divine plan of God which is the Kingdom of God.

It is said; God promised a Kingdom, what we got was the “Catholic Church”.

Yes, I agree that Jesus is the Head of the church. I don’t agree that the bishop in Rome is. I agree that Jesus is infallible, I don’t agree that that bishop is (or any other human being).

Now I can agree with you here; The Catholic Church does not teach the bishop of Rome is infallible. When the Pope, not the bishop of Rome, speaks from Peter’s Chair which Jesus built and gave the keys to bind and loose (Matthew 16:18-19), to forgive sins, baptise, feed and tend his flock (see John 21:15-17) is protected from error in the Holy Spirit so as not teach error to Jesus flock on faith and morals. The Pope is not impeccable as you have been misinformed. To reject God’s divine plan (church = oikonomia) is to isolate one outside of the Apostolic Catholic Church. Your christian community has its own founder, has its own set of belief’s, has its own date of inception, has its own community of believers, which does not have its root to the biblical Apostolic Catholic Church.

Peace be with you

 

[Pawel_J]

.
I think you are imposing an institutionalism upon Christianity that simply is not present in the First Century.

You are right. Christianity of the First Century was not institutional at all.

Since Christianity was extremely informal, largely an underground movement, illegal and “on the run” - it did not lend itself to institutional, geopolical/legal entities. It meet secretly in homes.

Right. Christianity was informal, but I would not say it was illegal. Christians were persecuted not because they were Christians, the followers of Jesus, but because of their critical attitude towards the state, other pagan religions and the emperor-god. They could not accept the divinity of the emperor, they refused to serve in the army, they separated themselves from public and social life, so they were treated with suspicion, constituing an easy object for persecution. The reason was not that they preached another religion. Besides, the persecutions were not so severe and long lasting as it is usually supposed.

I don’t think we can speak of anything denominational until the 4th century - so in THAT sense, there was no “church” in the first century.

I fully agree!

 

[YADA]

You got the wrong man. I never said that and I never provided a link.

Mea culpa in confusing you with that the poster who stated that "we knew St Thomas went to India in 52 AD and provided the link … however you do seem to accept that posters assertions … all I was asking for was eveidence beyond the folklore … it is not that I dis-believe that St Thomas wen [or some other Christians] I just am not buying the folk lore - lost community of Christians left alone without influence from that “roman” church …

Infant baptism is a good example. I do not seek to find denominations. Why do you say that? Is there a reason?

This thread is about whether or not the early church had ‘denominations’ or not …as in “were there many ‘different’ churches or one church in the first century?” and this St Thomas evangelization solely without any communication with other Christians was posited as proof that there had to be multiple churches because how could the community he founded be one with others they did not know of

I do not have an article. Yes. In fact, I do believe that we do have an Indian community that used primarly Hebrew or Aramaic texts. Or so I have heard anyway but just on Wikipedia. I hope someone who knows more and has credible sources will weigh in. You see the things about threads is sometimes we actually do engage in them to learn more

I too believe that there were Christians in India early on but the questions become: what was their faith, what did they believe, what form of liturgy did they have and what writings … etc

I do not know that there was no communication. I wondered how there could be. Sending letters the distance from Rome to India would have been something. As such, if it had occured, I was hoping to find such a thing.

People engaged in commerce and communicaiton then just as they do today … just without the instantaneious gratification of the internet and jet planes and telephones … long before the time of Christ … in fact the Wise Men are said to have come form the east …

I know that the general consensus is that there were competing forms of Christianity. Mack, Brown, Crossan, Funk, and others has written in popular literature about this. Like I said, I am not really sure what "one’ means yet. I think that perhaps it involves beliefs in central doctrines. What those were in the early second century is interesting to me.

I do not know about your ‘concensus’ … there was controversy and hersy [gnosticism, arianism, et al] if that is what you mean by competing forms of Christianity … but the Church itself - as intended by Jesus was one … they discussed the beliefs in light of what had been given to them and made decisions on what was aithentically the “Christian belief” … as for two of the names listed - though I may read and listen to the Jesus Seminar folks - I don’t take their views seriously … Crossan and Funk are right up there with Spong … when one takes the Scriptures and reduces the actual words of Jesus to 18% of what the Bible has it just seems silly - like these scholars are so much bbrighter then the early Christians … when you add in the Mary was raped by a Roman Soldier scenario all credibility is lost … I mean why remain Christian at all at that point … and that is from Me - the catholic … we are not the Sola Scriptura folks - that is your side of the aisle …

Mack, hes the guy who wrote about the Christian Myth and as for Brown - would that be Dan Brown of the Da Vinci Code or some other biblical scholar

 

[Ad_Gentes]

We know that Peter was in Jerusalem by late 49 or in 50. He may have come, with other Jewish Christians expelled from Rome by this edict, by way of the rich and decadent Greek city of Corinth, planting the seeds of Christianity there.

This may be a reference to Peter’s participation in the Council of Jerusalem. However, it doesn’t account for all the sources that indicate that around this time Peter was in Antioch. In addition, Paul makes no references about Peter in his letter to the Romans, which would seem to support a later date for Peter’s arrival to Rome. Let’s also not forget that it was Paul who ordained Linus a bishop (Peter ordained Cletus). If Peter established the Church in Rome in the mid 40’s AD, then why would he not leave a bishop there to pastor the Church there after his departure just as he did (presumably) in Jerusalem by appointing James as its bishop?

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

Infant baptism is a good example. I do not seek to find denominations. Why do you say that? Is there a reason?

While it is off topic, you seem to be the type to seek a validation through historical evidence, from your request of something specifically stating Thomas was in communion with the Church, so I’d like to share the following with you:

Archeological discoveries in the Roman catacombs have long-ago proven that infant baptism was common in the primitive Roman Churches. Two clear examples, among dozens of similar inscriptions, are all that we really need to support this claim. A man with the resounding Roman/Latin name of Murtius Verinus placed on the tomb of his children the inscription: “Verina received Baptism at the age of ten months, Florina at the age of twelve months.” The date of this tomb has been firmly established by radio-carbon dating of the children’s bones as being 105 AD +/- 4 years. Another tomb, not far away from this one, has the inscription: “Here rests Achillia, a newly-baptized infant; she was one year and five months old, died February 23rd…” and then follows the year of the reigning emperor, which dates her death to 91 AD. [see W. Wall, “History of Infant Baptism”, 2 Vols., London, 1900. and other related articles in various archeological journals from early this century.]

Was there a reason these people had their children baptized in the first century, even before St. John authored the final book of the Bible?

Another thing to consider is in the Old Testament. How old were males to receive the sign of the Old Covenant?

Gen 17:10 This is my covenant which you shall observe between me and you, and thy seed after thee: All the male kind of you shall be circumcised.
Gen 17:11 And you shall circumcise the flesh of your foreskin, that it may be for a sign of the covenant between me and you.
Gen 17:12 An infant of eight days old shall be circumcised among you, every manchild in your generations: he that is born in the house, as well as the bought servant, shall be circumcised, and whosoever is not of your stock:
Gen 17:13 And my covenant shall be in your flesh for a perpetual covenant.
Gen 17:14 The male whose flesh of his foreskin shall not be circumcised, that soul shall be destroyed out of his people: because he hath broken my covenant.

Did an infant of eight days old recognize the sign of the old covenant anymore than an infant recognize the sacrement of baptism through the new and everlasting covenant?

Luk 18:15 And they brought unto him also infants, that he might touch them. Which when the disciples saw, they rebuked them.
Luk 18:16 But Jesus, calling them together, said: Suffer children to come to me and forbid them not: for of such is the kingdom of God.
Luk 18:17 Amen, I say to you: Whosoever shall not receive the kingdom of God as a child shall not enter into it.

Parents have their children baptized. Is that any different than the centurion asking the Lord to heal his servant? (Matthew 8) Is it any different than the mother asking for her daughter to be healed? (Matthew 15) In both instances, both were healed at that hour. When the centurion returned home, he found his servant healed. Who’s faith caused those healings?

Scriptures tell us of whole households being baptized. In 1 Corinthians 10, Paul baptized a household and didn’t know if he had baptized others outside the household. It must have been a crowd, but in 3 households, surely there were children in some, if not all, of the households.

**Act 16:15 And when she was baptized, and her household, she besought us, saying: If you have judged me to be faithful to the Lord, come into my house and abide there. And she constrained us.

Act 16:33 And he, taking them the same hour of the night, washed their stripes: and himself was baptized, and all his house immediately.

1Co 1:16 And I baptized also the household of Stephanus. Besides, I know not whether I baptized any other.**

If you’d like to start another thread on the subject, I’d be glad to join in the discussion.

 

[chessmane4e5]

This may be a reference to Peter’s participation in the Council of Jerusalem. However, it doesn’t account for all the sources that indicate that around this time Peter was in Antioch. In addition, Paul makes no references about Peter in his letter to the Romans, which would seem to support a later date for Peter’s arrival to Rome. Let’s also not forget that it was Paul who ordained Linus a bishop (Peter ordained Cletus). If Peter established the Church in Rome in the mid 40’s AD, then why would he not leave a bishop there to pastor the Church there after his departure just as he did (presumably) in Jerusalem by appointing James as its bishop?

As my quote from Warren Carroll stated, all the Jews were thrown out. Since at this time Peter was preaching to the Jews, it seems their would have been none left in Rome at that time. This is only hypothesis right now, I will look in the book and see if he addresses this at all. I have only started reading it, and actually jumped way ahead to grab those quotes, so please bear with me.

Also, what sources are you citing to show that Paul was in Antioch at that time?

 

[BrianH]

While it is off topic, you seem to be the type to seek a validation through historical evidence, from your request of something specifically stating Thomas was in communion with the Church, so I’d like to share the following with you:

Was there a reason these people had their children baptized in the first century, even before St. John authored the final book of the Bible?

Another thing to consider is in the Old Testament. How old were males to receive the sign of the Old Covenant?

Gen 17:10 This is my covenant which you shall observe between me and you, and thy seed after thee: All the male kind of you shall be circumcised.
Gen 17:11 And you shall circumcise the flesh of your foreskin, that it may be for a sign of the covenant between me and you.
Gen 17:12 An infant of eight days old shall be circumcised among you, every manchild in your generations: he that is born in the house, as well as the bought servant, shall be circumcised, and whosoever is not of your stock:
Gen 17:13 And my covenant shall be in your flesh for a perpetual covenant.
Gen 17:14 The male whose flesh of his foreskin shall not be circumcised, that soul shall be destroyed out of his people: because he hath broken my covenant.

Did an infant of eight days old recognize the sign of the old covenant anymore than an infant recognize the sacrement of baptism through the new and everlasting covenant?

Luk 18:15 And they brought unto him also infants, that he might touch them. Which when the disciples saw, they rebuked them.
Luk 18:16 But Jesus, calling them together, said: Suffer children to come to me and forbid them not: for of such is the kingdom of God.
Luk 18:17 Amen, I say to you: Whosoever shall not receive the kingdom of God as a child shall not enter into it.

Parents have their children baptized. Is that any different than the centurion asking the Lord to heal his servant? (Matthew 8) Is it any different than the mother asking for her daughter to be healed? (Matthew 15) In both instances, both were healed at that hour. When the centurion returned home, he found his servant healed. Who’s faith caused those healings?

Scriptures tell us of whole households being baptized. In 1 Corinthians 10, Paul baptized a household and didn’t know if he had baptized others outside the household. It must have been a crowd, but in 3 households, surely there were children in some, if not all, of the households.

**Act 16:15 And when she was baptized, and her household, she besought us, saying: If you have judged me to be faithful to the Lord, come into my house and abide there. And she constrained us.

Act 16:33 And he, taking them the same hour of the night, washed their stripes: and himself was baptized, and all his house immediately.

1Co 1:16 And I baptized also the household of Stephanus. Besides, I know not whether I baptized any other.**

If you’d like to start another thread on the subject, I’d be glad to join in the discussion.

We baptize infants. I must not have been clear. I think it is time for me to just give this thread up

 

[BrianH]

Mea culpa in confusing you with that the poster who stated that "we knew St Thomas went to India in 52 AD and provided the link … however you do seem to accept that posters assertions … all I was asking for was eveidence beyond the folklore … it is not that I dis-believe that St Thomas wen [or some other Christians] I just am not buying the folk lore - lost community of Christians left alone without influence from that “roman” church …

This thread is about whether or not the early church had ‘denominations’ or not …as in “were there many ‘different’ churches or one church in the first century?” and this St Thomas evangelization solely without any communication with other Christians was posited as proof that there had to be multiple churches because how could the community he founded be one with others they did not know of

I too believe that there were Christians in India early on but the questions become: what was their faith, what did they believe, what form of liturgy did they have and what writings … etc

People engaged in commerce and communicaiton then just as they do today … just without the instantaneious gratification of the internet and jet planes and telephones … long before the time of Christ … in fact the Wise Men are said to have come form the east …

I do not know about your ‘concensus’ … there was controversy and hersy [gnosticism, arianism, et al] if that is what you mean by competing forms of Christianity … but the Church itself - as intended by Jesus was one … they discussed the beliefs in light of what had been given to them and made decisions on what was aithentically the “Christian belief” … as for two of the names listed - though I may read and listen to the Jesus Seminar folks - I don’t take their views seriously … Crossan and Funk are right up there with Spong … when one takes the Scriptures and reduces the actual words of Jesus to 18% of what the Bible has it just seems silly - like these scholars are so much bbrighter then the early Christians … when you add in the Mary was raped by a Roman Soldier scenario all credibility is lost … I mean why remain Christian at all at that point … and that is from Me - the catholic … we are not the Sola Scriptura folks - that is your side of the aisle …

Mack, hes the guy who wrote about the Christian Myth and as for Brown - would that be Dan Brown of the Da Vinci Code or some other biblical scholar

Raymond not Dan.