Many 'different' Churches of the first century?

[Ad_Gentes]

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.

This doesn’t seem enough proof that he was preaching to the Jews in Rome at that time. The Church itself (Catholic and Orthodox) believes that Peter arrive at Rome at a later date and was bishop of Antioch before traveling to Rome. The New American Bible Introduction to the Epistle to the Romans states that this letter was written by Paul “between A.D. 56 and 58”. This letter makes no mention of a ministry of Peter in Rome, which would seem to indicate that Paul wasn’t aware of such ministry. The Council of Jerusalem, in which both Peter and Paul participated (Acts 15), occurred around 50 A.D.

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

I believe you’re referring to Peter, not Paul. I already provided one source on Post #90: Liber Pontificalis. You should be able to search it online. The Introduction to Paul’s Epistle to the Galatians states that it was written “around A.D. 54 or 55” or “perhaps A.D. 48-50.” In this letter, Paul mentions Peter’s trip to Antioch (Gal 2:11-14), which must have occurred much earlier. A History of Antioch in Syria by Glanville Downey also points to Peter’s presence in Antioch around this time. Syriac tradition also holds that Peter was the first Patriarch of Antioch from 37-67 A.D. (see link). The Antiochian Orthodox Christian Archdiocese of North America list Peter’s episcopacy in Antioch from 45-53 A.D. Because we know that Peter was martyred in Rome sometime between 64-67 A.D., it is more likely his episcopacy in Antioch ended before 54 A.D. (see link).

 

[chessmane4e5]

This doesn’t seem enough proof that he was preaching to the Jews in Rome at that time. The Church itself (Catholic and Orthodox) believes that Peter arrive at Rome at a later date and was bishop of Antioch before traveling to Rome. The New American Bible Introduction to the Epistle to the Romans states that this letter was written by Paul “between A.D. 56 and 58”. This letter makes no mention of a ministry of Peter in Rome, which would seem to indicate that Paul wasn’t aware of such ministry. The Council of Jerusalem, in which both Peter and Paul participated (Acts 15), occurred around 50 A.D.

The silence by Paul of Peter in Rome has also been used as “evidence” that Peter was not in Rome. Obviously, it could be that or it could be that Paul was trying to protect Peter from being targeted had that letter fell into the wrong hands. I mean, if Peter was there, their would be no need of Paul to specifically tell the Romans whom to listen to

I believe you’re referring to Peter, not Paul. I already provided one source on Post #90: Liber Pontificalis. You should be able to search it online. The Introduction to Paul’s Epistle to the Galatians states that it was written “around A.D. 54 or 55” or “perhaps A.D. 48-50.” In this letter, Paul mentions Peter’s trip to Antioch (Gal 2:11-14), which must have occurred much earlier. A History of Antioch in Syria by Glanville Downey also points to Peter’s presence in Antioch around this time. Syriac tradition also holds that Peter was the first Patriarch of Antioch from 37-67 A.D. (see link). The Antiochian Orthodox Christian Archdiocese of North America list Peter’s episcopacy in Antioch from 45-53 A.D. Because we know that Peter was martyred in Rome sometime between 64-67 A.D., it is more likely his episcopacy in Antioch ended before 54 A.D. (see link).

Yes, sorry, I meant Peter

Well, from what I have read, Peter did go to Antioch first, but then went to Rome. At least, according to Warren Carroll. This is the first history book I have read on this subject, so it is all I know. I will definitely check out your sources when I have some time.

 

[Ad_Gentes]

Well, from what I have read, Peter did go to Antioch first, but then went to Rome. At least, according to Warren Carroll. This is the first history book I have read on this subject, so it is all I know. I will definitely check out your sources when I have some time.

I’m not questioning that Peter went to Rome after Antioch, but the date in which he did.

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

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

Hello Pawel, the Popes and the Bishops do not use the word “institution” the way the world views or understands it; If the magisterium of the Catholic Church did use it as the world does we would not be having this discussion. A little insight here, the Catholic Church has existed 2000 years now since the resurrection. She does not take to change very easily such as word “Translations” and original meanings.

Jesus spent 3 years teaching his disciples. When he began to build his Church upon Peter (see Matthew 16:16-19) after Jesus died and resurrected from the dead. Jesus instituted his Church with his teachings, sacraments and commandments. Confirming his apostles that he will always be with them.

The biblical term comes from the Greek word “oikonomia” simply translated to mean “household and law”, it is the law of God’s Kingdom both on earth which Peter and the apostles with their successors “Oversee” in the body of Jesus Christ with our Head Jesus in heaven our King and savior.

To believe as the world believes that God did not give us his Kingdom on earth as it is heaven, and instituted his Church with his divine teachings, revelations, sacraments and commandments is lead one to believe “every wind of doctrine that blows in the wind” in every age.

Read Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger “Called to Communion”, his excellency explains the biblical difference between a “popular church” and the Church Jesus “instituted”.

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.

The first enemies of the followers of “The Way” were Jewish zealots, who persecuted Jesus followers, incarcerated them, and hunted them down by authority of the Sanhedrin. Maybe revisit Acts, and the Stephen when he was stoned to death, James beheaded, Bartholomew who was flayed alive.

Iam not disagreeing with your commentary, I agree with you, I believe there is more to the picture you portrayed.

Peace be with you

 

[MyRdmrLvs]

Through some of the discussions on these forums, I’ve seen some Protestants claim there were different Churches in Asia, following the death and resurrection of Christ, which is being used to insinuate a validation of all the Protestant denominations of today. I’ve also seen some Protestants claim that the letters and epistles of the New Testament were in circulation between those Churches and that the canon only defined what was already known to be scriptures. In my mind, the two claims conflict with each other.

If all the letters and epistles were in circulation between ‘different’ Churches, why is it justifiable to have any differences in beliefs?

Number one, all the letters and epistles support the same view with no contradictions.

Number two, if all the letters and epistles were circulated, certainly the Churches were receiving the same exact teachings.

How does this validate the many Churches as different, as Protestant Churches are today and not the one Church of many locations as the Catholic Church is today?

From what I see in scriptures, we are all to be ONE and of the same mind and judgement, as our Lord prayed for our Apostles to be.

**Joh 10:16 And I have other sheep, that are not of this fold; I must bring them also, and they will heed my voice. So there shall be one flock, one shepherd.

Eph 4:3 eager to maintain the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace.
Eph 4:4 There is one body and one Spirit, just as you were called to the one hope that belongs to your call,
Eph 4:5 one Lord, one faith, one baptism,
Eph 4:6 one God and Father of us all, who is above all and through all and in all.

Rom 16:17 I appeal to you, brethren, to take note of those who create dissensions and difficulties, in opposition to the doctrine which you have been taught; avoid them.

1Co 1:10 I appeal to you, brethren, by the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that all of you agree and that there be no dissensions among you, but that you be united in the same mind and the same judgment.

Php 2:2 complete my joy by being of the same mind, having the same love, being in full accord and of one mind.

Rom 15:5 May the God of steadfastness and encouragement grant you to live in such harmony with one another, in accord with Christ Jesus,
Rom 15:6 that together you may with one voice glorify the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ.

Joh 17:17 Sanctify them in the truth; thy word is truth.
Joh 17:18 As thou didst send me into the world, so I have sent them into the world.
Joh 17:19 And for their sake I consecrate myself, that they also may be consecrated in truth.
Joh 17:20 "I do not pray for these only, but also for those who believe in me through their word,
Joh 17:21 that they may all be one; even as thou, Father, art in me, and I in thee, that they also may be in us, so that the world may believe that thou hast sent me.
Joh 17:22 The glory which thou hast given me I have given to them, that they may be one even as we are one,
Joh 17:23 I in them and thou in me, that they may become perfectly one, so that the world may know that thou hast sent me and hast loved them even as thou hast loved me.

1Co 12:13 For by one Spirit we were all baptized into one body–Jews or Greeks, slaves or free–and all were made to drink of one Spirit.

Rom 12:4 For as in one body we have many members, and all the members do not have the same function,
Rom 12:5 so we, though many, are one body in Christ, and individually members one of another.

Eph 4:4 There is one body and one Spirit, just as you were called to the one hope that belongs to your call,

Col 3:15 And let the peace of Christ rule in your hearts, to which indeed you were called in the one body. And be thankful.**

Please take note that I said, some Protestants claim… This is not a generalization of what I think all Protestants believe. With that caveat in mind, all are invited to join the discussion with their view.

As one who has brought up the many different churches, let me make my point clear. these were all one church in different locations and they were Christs church. My point was they were in fact in various conditions, some good and some not so good and some were in errors that the letter warned them to repent from.
Yes the epistles were widly destributed, does that mean everyone would naturally come to the same exact conclusions from them? Like say Vatican 2 ? widely available yet Catholics seem to differ quite alot about what they mean for the church, why because people are not all the same and they are not perfect.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

As one who has brought up the many different churches, let me make my point clear. these were all one church in different locations and they were Christs church. My point was they were in fact in various conditions, some good and some not so good and some were in errors that the letter warned them to repent from.
Yes the epistles were widly destributed, does that mean everyone would naturally come to the same exact conclusions from them? Like say Vatican 2 ? widely available yet Catholics seem to differ quite alot about what they mean for the church, why because people are not all the same and they are not perfect.

The books of the New Testament were written from around 55 to 100AD. Christians were under persecutions, under penalty of death, for around 400 years. Yet, the Church Christ built never missed a beat. That is, it grew, not only grew, it flourished.

Now, look at Paul’s writings. How many are letters of corrections? Now, if those letters of corrections were ‘widely circulated’, those Churches all received the same message. You also have to take into account that the leaders in those Churches were appointed/ordained by the Apostles, who had all been taught by Christ.

The Apostles themselves had disciples to send out. The Church was a network, began by Christ Himself.

There were 12 Apostles, but why didn’t all 12 writes ‘scriptures’? Only Matthew, John, James, Peter and Jude were ‘eyewitness’ Apostles. They were doing what Christ commanded them to do. They were ‘preaching’ the Gospels. Christ Himself never wrote a thing, nor did He command anyone to scribe anything.

**Mat 28:18 And Jesus coming, spoke to them, saying: All power is given to me in heaven and in earth.
Mat 28:19 Going therefore, teach ye all nations: baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost.
Mat 28:20 Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you. And behold I am with you all days, even to the consummation of the world. **

Christ had a plan the whole time. He knows He can protect His truth, through the Church He started, gave the keys to the kingdom of heaven too, gave the authority to bind and loose on earth too and gave the authority to forgive and retain sins too.

 

[Hesychios]

Raymond not Dan.

Father Raymond Brown.

Awesome!

 

[MyRdmrLvs]

History shows that since the time of Peter, there has been one Church. Around 100 A.D. St Ignatius first used the word Catholic, which simply means universal. I have just read “Upon This Rock” by Stephen Ray, very good read There is every indication from the writings of the Early Church Fathers that all the Churches were one, and they all submitted to the Authority of the Church in Rome. There is not one piece of evidence to suggest otherwise. I know an argument from silence is not 100% proof, but makes me wonder

rather than cherry picking a few statements in a few letters that can be almost taken to indicate the supremacy of the Roman Bishop. Consider how simple and quick it would have been to settle the Deity of Christ. Instead of the Counsel of Nicea an hundreds of fallible bishops voting. they would have had the one infallible bishop with the keys to heaven settle it. Biship of Rome: “Arrius! Jesus IS God now go home and tell your people” Arrius: "Yes, Your Eminence!

 

[MyRdmrLvs]

Easy, everyone should just follow Christ

Especially Matt 16:13-19 where Jesus appointed Peter as the Pope (leader) of the Church, and which the RCC has continued to maintain.

I think something as important as the leadership of one person and that that one person would hand down that leadership and that that person would be infalible. Has far to great of ramifications to arrive at it with vague inferences.

 

[totallylost]

I’ve read the History of the Catholic Church book (borrowed from a friend, now I’ve returned it back, didn’t take notice who wrote it).
Yes, indeed there were different churches in the 1st century. They were not the apostolic Church. The Church was aware of this so they use the word Catholic Church to distinguish Herself from the other Church.

But there’s nothing to worry about. These churches were not even the churches that St. Peter intended. It was just like “protestant churches”, it’s not apostolic but soon Catholic Church managed to suppress these churches.

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

I think something as important as the leadership of one person and that that one person would hand down that leadership and that that person would be infalible. Has far to great of ramifications to arrive at it with vague inferences.

Sure if man believes himself to do all things? But what man doubts that God can do all things, when Jesus prayed for Peter “singular”; and promised to remain with him and his apostles “ALWAYS”.Which has been the case throughout the ages when ever the Church fell in Crisis, history proves the Popes in Peter’s Chair have always defended and brought back his brethern;

Luke 22:31
10 11 “Simon, Simon, behold Satan has demanded to sift all of you like wheat,
32
but** I have prayed that your own faith may not fail;** and once you have turned back, you must strengthen your brothers.”

Matthew 28:18
11 Then Jesus approached and said to them, “All power in heaven and on earth has been given to me.
19
Go, therefore, 12 and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the holy Spirit,
20
teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you. 13** And behold, I am with you always, until the end of the age.” **

This promise from Jesus himself is enough to prove that Jesus lives in his body the Catholic Church just as he promised Peter and his apostles.

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

QUOTE=totallylost;6225580]I’ve read the History of the Catholic Church book (borrowed from a friend, now I’ve returned it back, didn’t take notice who wrote it).
Yes, indeed there were different churches in the 1st century. They were not the apostolic Church. The Church was aware of this so they use the word Catholic Church to distinguish Herself from the other Church.

But there’s nothing to worry about. These churches were not even the churches that St. Peter intended. It was just like “protestant churches”, it’s not apostolic but soon Catholic Church managed to suppress these churches.

Correction; The Catholic church excommunicated all heretics and heretical teachings from Jesus flock, during this time and ever since the first century. The excommuncation is a divine key given to Peter and the apostles which was excercised to refute false teachers and false teachings which “Protested” or brought “another gospel”.

 

[Libertarian_FL]

The fact that there was a Gnostic Movement in the first century there clearly were other “different” churches in the first century. The fact the RCC declared these heretical doesn’t change the simple fact that there were these other denominations active in the faith and rather early on.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

The fact that there was a Gnostic Movement in the first century there clearly were other “different” churches in the first century. The fact the RCC declared these heretical doesn’t change the simple fact that there were these other denominations active in the faith and rather early on.

Are you willing to affliate your beliefs with the Gnostics?

Paul clearly called teachings outside the Church, heresies.

1Co 11:19 For there must be also heresies: that they also, who are approved may be made manifest among you.

Are there any Churches of today you’re not willing to affliate with whatsoever? Why, if they all profess Christ?

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

QUOTE=Libertarian_FL;6230442]The fact that there was a Gnostic Movement in the first century there clearly were other “different” churches in the first century. The fact the RCC declared these heretical doesn’t change the simple fact that there were these other denominations active in the faith and rather early on.

Ok, let’s see if we can narrow it down here; Gnostics, Arians, Maricians, were all “Catholic” Christians either of “The Way” when it was just Jews becoming followers of the risen Jesus Christ, then “Catholic” after both Jew and Gentile consisted of the same community of believers. Your gnostics and other anti-christ came from these Catholic Communities but teaching another Jesus in contrast to the Apostles. These gnostics and others were exposed by the Apostles themselves or by their immediate successors in the Bishops and Popes. So Gnosticism and other anit-christ movements grew into their own communities for a while because they were “excommunicated” from the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church.

Now I can agree with you that there were excommunicated heretics which came from the Catholic Church (specifically from the Eastern Catholic Churches for the first 400 years) who began a populace of followers outside the Apostolic Catholic Church. But these were excommunicated (some apostates) members from the Catholic Church. History repeats itself in Protestantism, but this time these excommunicated members came from the Western Catholic Church in the 16th century. (Just a little insight to history; The EOC will not have nothing to do with Protestants from the Western Catholic Catholic Church except convert them, and the Western Catholic Church defeated the early Eastern Gnostics and Arian heresies.)

In essence the One Holy Catholic Apostolic Church remains intact with her same apostolic teachings and faith in Jesus Christ unchanged. Gnostics and others have fizzled in and out of history, because the same anti-christ spirit is in the world.

 

[Ad_Gentes]

The fact that there was a Gnostic Movement in the first century there clearly were other “different” churches in the first century. The fact the RCC declared these heretical doesn’t change the simple fact that there were these other denominations active in the faith and rather early on.

You are right, there were other heretical churches and movements in the first centuries of Christianity in addition to the true Church founded by Jesus Christ through the Apostles. However, those “churches” and believes were condemned by the early Church. There’s plenty of evidence of this. First, we have the letters written by the Apostles (Paul, Peter, John, etc.). Second, we have the writings of the early Church Fathers. Finally, we have the Ecumenical Councils.

Just because there were many heretical movements in the first centuries (just like there are many heretical “churches” today), it doesn’t mean that there was not a unified Church that was build on and through the Apostles. That Church subsists today in the Catholic and Orthodox Churches. God bless.