The historicity of the Church

[Bernard_Lyons]

This always bothered me too. Acts pretty clearly set the precedent that when an apostle dies, his office is refilled by ordination of a new apostle (i.e. replacing Judas Iscariot) and Christ himself set the precedent for moving beyond 12 apostles when Saul was knocked off his horse, renamed Paul and commissioned as an apostle (not coincidentally becoming the apostle famous for preaching the gospel beyond the12 tribes of Israel).

If people want to claim that apostolic authority ended with the death of the last apostle, shouldn’t they have some sort of Scriptural basis for that? Especially since Scripture itself actually seems to illustrate the opposite?

Mysterious.

The Revelation of Jesus Christ chapter 21:2

“And I John saw the holy city ,new Jerusalem,coming down from God out of heaven,prepared as a bride adorned for her husband”

Verse 12 “And had a wall great and high,and had twelve gates ,and at the gates twelve angels,and names written therein,which are the names of the twelve tribes of of the children of Israel:”

Verse 14 " And the wall of the city had twelve foundations,and in them the names of the twelve apostles of the Lamb"(KJV)

Did Jacob ( or Israel ) go on to have another son : providing for the succeeding 13 Th : tribe of Israel?

Then there also remains only the names of the 12 apostles of the Lamb in “the holy city”.

Regarding your evidence from the Acts:

Luke24:49 “but tarry ye in the city of Jerusalem ,until ye be endued with power from on high”

This was the command of Jesus to the eleven: wait ! “in the city of Jerusalem” ( for the Holy Spirit) not ,I believe,that which in their impatience ,they did : clutch at straws.

For me ,the evidence of Scripture shows the twelve “and last of all” was kept in reserve ,the least of all that we humans might expect.A persecutor and hater of Gods people ; but chosen directly by Him who had had picked the other eleven. That is Saul of Tarsus .

 

[spina1953]

Understand the Jews did not canonize till 1st century late. So Jesus never quoted scripture ? Does Holy Writ have to be canonized to be Holy Writ ? When St. Paul wrote to the Corinthians it was not Holy Writ till end of 3rd century and canonization ? I thought it was “Holy” as soon as the Spirit put it to man who put it to pen. Recognizing it as such, or not, does not make it or not make it God breathed. But I would also add that it is also God’s gift to recognize it “Holy”

Actually According to Jerome’s commentary the Old testament canon was not closed at Jamnia at the end of the first century, which a school of teachers who were studying the Law, and there is no evidence of any Old testament books being drawn up for any canonization and there is no definite list that had been made. The safest statement that can be made from it about the closing of the Old testament Jewish canon s one which recognizes that although in the 1st. century AD there was popular acceptance of 22 or 24 books as sacred, there was no rigidly fixed Hebrew canon until the end of the 2nd or early 3rd century AD. In that time various Jewish groups continued to read as sacred books that were not included in the 22/24 count.

Also, the authors of the various books that eventually became the Old Testament, did not think their writing sacred or even inspired, they wrote for a particular community and event thy felt the community needed to understand. it was the catholic Church that decided which books would become sacred Scripture and ere inspired before the Jewish religious leaders decided on their canon.

 

[spina1953]

Exactly! If the Apostles were practicing Sola Scriptura and SS ONLY, then why didn’t they say all gentiles MUST be circumcised? SS advocates are always exclaiming:

Cannot go outside anything written.

Fact of the matter is, the Apostles did go beyond what was written because they were given such authority by God Himself in the flesh. Likewise, they knew they were under the new covenant…not the old.

Hi Nicea 325: I agree! There just no way that the Apostles could have used SS in deciding the issue at the council of Jerusalem. had they done so as you have so correctly stated everyone would have had to been circumcised according to the Scriptures.

I would like to add this about Luke’s Acts: As Luke presents the event, the Council handled two issues; circumcision and the dietary problems. He did this to stress the break with Judaism without conditions being laid on Gentiles converts by Apostolic decree. Luke presents Peter as the one whose voice prevails in the question of circumcision through an appeal to his experience. What is important is that Peter is not depicted as simply accepting a decision but as having played a part in forming it, and James and the rest agreed with Peter’s teaching on the matter.

 

[Traverse]

No one is saying the apostles stuck to sola scriptura. The bible wasn’t even complete yet and everyone acknowledges their special teaching authority through inspiration of the Holy Spirit. What is being argued is whether or not that condition continued or not.

In regards to the council of Jerusalem, it was still the bishop of Jerusalem which made the pronouncement, which would be weird if there was an idea of a pope at the time. But whatever. That passage is read with different emphasis if you ask a catholic or ask a non catholic.

 

[Bernard_Lyons]

Hi Nicea 325:

I would like to add this about Luke’s Acts: As Luke presents the event, the Council handled two issues; circumcision and the dietary problems. He did this to stress the break with Judaism without conditions being laid on Gentiles converts by Apostolic decree. Luke presents Peter as the one whose voice prevails in the question of circumcision through an appeal to his experience. What is important is that Peter is not depicted as simply accepting a decision but as having played a part in forming it, and James and the rest agreed with Peter’s teaching on the matter.

Although Peter an apostle, later jointly ,played his part : in establishing the truth of the matter; Peter as you will know ,even though to him was appointed “the ministry to the circumcision” , it was by the hand ( or mouth) of one , who was in like manner appointed for “the ministry to the Gentiles” ,that Peter through painful experience ,was himself to learn the truth of this matter( circumcision )

As the following verses reveal ,I believe,Peter is “depicted as simply accepting a decision” Judge for yourself.
Galations 2:7

“But contrariwise,when they saw that the gospel of the uncircumcision was committed unto me,as the gospel of the uncircumcision was unto Peter”

Verse 9: " And when James,Cephas,and John,who seemed to be pillars"

Verse11-13. "But when Peter was come to Antioch,I withstood him to his face,because he was to be blamed.
For before that certain came from James he did eat with the Gentiles:but when they were come,he withdrew and separated himself,fearing them which were of the circumcision .

And the other Jews dissembled likewise with him ;insomuch that even Barnabas also was carried away with their dissimulation"(KJV)

Is there any doubt either that the James in verse 9, is he who stood up at the end of the Jerusalem " council" ;and summarised the findings?

I am not claiming Paul an apostle was above the rest ; but in regards to his ministry,he certainly on this matter is at the forefront.

 

[Nicea325]

Hi Nicea 325: I agree! There just no way that the Apostles could have used SS in deciding the issue at the council of Jerusalem. had they done so as you have so correctly stated everyone would have had to been circumcised according to the Scriptures.

I would like to add this about Luke’s Acts: As Luke presents the event, the Council handled two issues; circumcision and the dietary problems. He did this to stress the break with Judaism without conditions being laid on Gentiles converts by Apostolic decree. Luke presents Peter as the one whose voice prevails in the question of circumcision through an appeal to his experience. What is important is that Peter is not depicted as simply accepting a decision but as having played a part in forming it, and James and the rest agreed with Peter’s teaching on the matter.

Precisely! SS is and always will be known as a late novelty, no where to be found in the early church.

 

[Isaiah45_9]

I am not claiming Paul an apostle was above the rest ; but in regards to his ministry,he certainly on this matter is at the forefront.

We don’t say Sola Petrus. What we say is Prima Petrus

I think you are missing the whole point of Paul’s ministry, which it is preach the Gospel under with the authority of the Church, for which the head is Christ.

When Paul is blinded on the road to Damascus, what did Jesus tell him?

[bibledrb]Acts 9:5-7[/bibledrb]

Christ didn’t say, go alone and make yourself an authority. No, he sent Paul where? To the Church.

After his vision is restored, Paul joins the Church. Later he went to Jerusalem and attempted to join the disciples and they were not too sure about him, considering Paul’s history. Barnabas takes Paul in and then advocates/intercedes for Paul to the disciples. And after Barnabas intercession, Paul joins the Church. And what happened?

[bibledrb]Acts 9:31[/bibledrb]

The Church throughout the area was edified and filled with the Holy Spirit.

Let’s continue…

[bibledrb]Acts 11:25-26[/bibledrb]

Again Paul goes to the Church. He didn’t go alone and planted a Church by himself. No, he joined the Church that already was. One Church.

Let’s keep going:

[bibledrb]Acts 13:1-3[/bibledrb]

The Holy Spirit tells the Church to separate Paul and Barnabas. Not one guy but the Church. And Paul and Barnabas are sent away by the Church from the Holy Spirit.

Not Paul by himself doing what he thinks apart from the Church. No, in obedience to the Church as She is led by the Holy Spirit.

It’s only getting better, let’s move on:

[bibledrb]Acts 15:1-4[/bibledrb]

What just happened?

Paul and others are sent by the Church to Jerusalem. The Church sent them. Then at Jerusalem they are received by the Church.

The rest of Acts 15 is just amazing! The Church’s 1st Council, where the Church sets norms for the faithful!

[bibledrb]Ephesians 3:10[/bibledrb]

The wisdom of God known through the Church!

 

[benhur]

No one called me - gifted me with the notion of starting my own church and calling my church the church established by Jesus. Jesus founded just one church (I will build my church - singular) and that is where the laying on of hands would take place - where we see ordained presbyters/bishops, going all the way back to Jesus.

Today we see so many different churches (community of believers worshipping God) all founded by men and women, and not Jesus. I once, long ago, tried to prove that someone else other than Jesus, established the CC; I failed miserably and ended up converting.

Understand. I would rather you take the same approach or attitude as you do with judging who goes to heaven and who does not, to who is ultimately saved or not. (Most Catholics say that is in God’s hand and far be it from them to judge such things)…So you want to judge just whose laying of hands is valid ? Luther was validly ordained as well as a few other reformers, were they not ? They were not lay folk. If so would not Lutherans and a few others have a physical “hand” to true historicity ? …The apostles tried to be clique but Jesus corrected them and said “they are for me”, though they are not of the inner circle of twelve. But, if that is what historicity is, judging God’s anointing and validity of one’s laying on of hands, then so let the discussion and judging follow.

 

[spina1953]

Hi Bernard Lyons: Acts 15:1-35, This episode falls designedly in the middle of Acts, for it is the turning point of Luke’s story, when the Apostolic and presbyteral college of Jerusalem officially recognizes the evangelization of the Gentiles, which has been initiated by Peter, Barnabus and Paul. So the Christian Church officially breaks out of it Jewish matrix. In the first half of Acts it is mostly about Peter and what Peter says and does. Peter was the first to convert Gentiles not Paul although from Paul in his Letter to the Galatians Chpt.2:7 Paul says that he went to the Gentiles while Peter was for the Jews, is not accurate on Paul’s part but was trying to show that he was just as important as Peter, and that he Paul was sent by God to them(Gentiles).

 

[benhur]

Why can’t he just call on his congregation to lay hands on him?

He could. It is totally possible that happened in some of the early churches. It can not be ruled out . We know the churches were told to appoint themselves elders and deacons and presbyters/bishops, especially when many were executed, and those that the apostles put in place "departed’… A congregation could, along with existing elders appoint themselves a presbyter/bishop.

Hint: if it wasn’t someone who had been given Authority, then they didn’t have any Authority to pass on.

As per previous post, understand the CC beauty and linear logic. I humbly disagree, and as some Protestants feel more assured in judging our ( and others) salvation in Christ now, we also feel just as assured in judging not just the physical but spiritual validity/historicity of God’s anointing on it’s leaders.

 

[benhur]

Actually According to Jerome’s commentary the Old testament canon was not closed at Jamnia at the end of the first century, which a school of teachers who were studying the Law, and there is no evidence of any Old testament books being drawn up for any canonization and there is no definite list that had been made. The safest statement that can be made from it about the closing of the Old testament Jewish canon s one which recognizes that although in the 1st. century AD there was popular acceptance of 22 or 24 books as sacred, there was no rigidly fixed Hebrew canon until the end of the 2nd or early 3rd century AD. In that time various Jewish groups continued to read as sacred books that were not included in the 22/24 count.

Also, the authors of the various books that eventually became the Old Testament, did not think their writing sacred or even inspired, they wrote for a particular community and event thy felt the community needed to understand. it was the catholic Church that decided which books would become sacred Scripture and ere inspired before the Jewish religious leaders decided on their canon.

Well…How did the Catholic Church know then which Jewish books to include if there was no Jewish consensus as you say ? I think there was consensus amongst Judaism. Jerome (the CC) consulted with Jewish leaders and scholars and accordingly put them in the Vulgate. He coined the “apocrypha”(hidden) which he did not want to include initially (based on his discernment from Jewish scholarship and even from Josephus). He was pressured, (some think by Augustine) to include them but again they were prefaced by Jerome as noted above. I think at Trent (1500’s) the apocrypha were solidified as equal to the rest of the books.

 

[benhur]

Precisely! SS is and always will be known as a late novelty, no where to be found in the early church.

True, but so to was the big sway of the pope over concilarism at the time. SS would never had to be mentioned or Holy Writ authority repositioned had not the three legged “stool” (balance) gone amuck, if I may humbly put forth from our perspective…Rome was much stronger in the 1500’s than say in 100 ad…The three authoritative legs were- the apostles were authoritative even **Peter **as a leader in the early church. The Jerusalem council was authoritative in the earl church. Holy Writ was authoritaive in the early church, as it was being written onward. Did council power grow more from there on out ? (No). Did Holy Writ grow more from there on out ? (No) Did centralized power in one Chair of Peter grow more from then on out ? I think most historians would say only the last grew more powerful. It was a tenuous balance but by the 15 th century, a cry for the other two “legs” to assert themselves was inevitable . …All I am saying is to keep SS in context of the balance of power amongst the three at the time. It is unfair to compare only one leg (role of scripture) to the early church without the others being compared also.

 

[benhur]

No one is saying the apostles stuck to sola scriptura. The bible wasn’t even complete yet

 

[spina1953]

Well…How did the Catholic Church know then which Jewish books to include if there was no Jewish consensus as you say ? I think there was consensus amongst Judaism. Jerome (the CC) consulted with Jewish leaders and scholars and accordingly put them in the Vulgate. He coined the “apocrypha”(hidden) which he did not want to include initially (based on his discernment from Jewish scholarship and even from Josephus). He was pressured, (some think by Augustine) to

include them but again they were prefaced by Jerome as noted above. I think at Trent (1500’s) the apocrypha were solidified as equal to the rest of the books.

First the word apocrypha was not a word coined by Jerome but is the Greek word used for the Hebrew word hisonim meaning hidden. In Catholic parlance, the term apocrypha designate ancient Jewish or Christian books from the biblical period or pretending to be from the biblical period that have not been accepted as genuine Scripture by the Church, and so far the catholic Church has not included them in any canon.

In Protestant parlance, the apocrypha designate 15 works, all but one of which are Jewish in origin and found in the LXX. Although some of them were composed in Palestine in Aramaic or Hebrew, they were not accepted into the Jewish canon formed in the late 2nd or 3rd century AD. The Reformers influenced by the Jewish canon of the OT, did not consider these books on par with the rest of the Scriptures; so the custom arose of making the apocrypha a separate section in the Protestant Bible. The catholic view expressed as a doctrine of faith are that 12 of the books are canonical Scripture called Deuterocanonical books meaning secondary. The three books of the Protestant Apocrypha that are not accepted by Catholic’s are 1-2 Esdras and the Prayer of Manasseh.

 

[spina1953]

I would also like to point out that the matter of inspiration of Scripture means many things to different people. How exactly inspiration works is another question. This is not an open issue and has been explained by many theories throughout the centuries. Scholars continue to develop and refine their theories.
Israel came to recognize the Bible’s special authority even though nowhere in the Old Testament is a book said to be inspired by God. What the OT contains is Israel’s belief that God revealed Himself in history and that history was guided by God’s Spirit. The writers of the OT teach that the Breath of God came upon Moses, the Judges, Saul, David, the prophets etc. These specially chosen persons, with the help of God’s Spirit, interpreted Israel’s history

The fact of inspiration is one thing; the nature of it, or how it works, is another. Early Christian writers, such as Clement of Alexandria and Origen, borrowed biblical language when they called the Bible holy writings, sacred books, or the divine word. However, some of the learned Fathers and Doctors of the Church, such as Ambrose and Augustine, went a step further. They began to say that God is the author of Sacred Scripture.

What complicated it is the questions of now both God and man were being referred to as authors of Sacred Scripture. Were they authors in the same sense? Was God to be thought as a literary author? Did God actually write down words? Did God dictate thoughts to a scribe who wrote them down? Or is God the author of Scripture in the sense that He is the authority or cause who called Israel and the Church into existence and in doing so willed that Sacred Scriptures would constitute an essential element of their foundation.

The first thing one must remember is that one is dealing with a mystery. The Church has never put forth an official teaching which explained the nature of the divine-human collaboration that produced the Sacred Scriptures. Over time it was to the Catholic Church to determine by Tradition their use in the various Church’s as well as by the Apostles themselves and also by Tradition that Jesus quoted from them that they became to be considered inspired. Many books were used and many were discarded because they were not considered inspired and did not reveal anything that was not already revealed in those books that were considered inspired. The Church had need to decide which book were inspired and which books were not. It was not an easy process as some books were debated as to whether or not they are inspired while other books were accepted as inspired from the start. This took many centuries to decide and in the end it was at Trent that it was decided and the canon was closed an no other books would be considered.

 

[benhur]

First the word apocrypha was not a word coined by Jerome but is the Greek word used for the Hebrew word hisonim meaning hidden. In Catholic parlance, the term apocrypha designate ancient Jewish or Christian books from the biblical period or pretending to be from the biblical period that have not been accepted as genuine Scripture by the Church, and so far the catholic Church has not included them in any canon.

In Protestant parlance, the apocrypha designate 15 works, all but one of which are Jewish in origin and found in the LXX. Although some of them were composed in Palestine in Aramaic or Hebrew, they were not accepted into the Jewish canon formed in the late 2nd or 3rd century AD. The Reformers influenced by the Jewish canon of the OT, did not consider these books on par with the rest of the Scriptures; so the custom arose of making the apocrypha a separate section in the Protestant Bible. The catholic view expressed as a doctrine of faith are that 12 of the books are canonical Scripture called Deuterocanonical books meaning secondary. The three books of the Protestant Apocrypha that are not accepted by Catholic’s are 1-2 Esdras and the Prayer of Manasseh.

Thank you . I’ll stick to my story . Jerome called non-hebrew books as “apocrypha”, that the CC included in Vulgate canon (minus3). “This prologue to the Scriptures may be appropriate as a helmeted introduction to all the books which we turn from Hebrew into Latin, so we may be able to know whatever is outside of these 54is to be set apart among the apocrypha. Therefore, Wisdom, which is commonly ascribed to Solomon, and the book of Jesus son of Sirach, and Judith and Tobias, and The Shepherd are not in the canon.then by this to have twenty-four books of the Old Law” bombaxo.com/prologues.html

 

[Nicea325]

True, but so to was the big sway of the pope over concilarism at the time. SS would never had to be mentioned or Holy Writ authority repositioned had not the three legged “stool” (balance) gone amuck, if I may humbly put forth from our perspective…Rome was much stronger in the 1500’s than say in 100 ad…The three authoritative legs were- the apostles were authoritative even **Peter **as a leader in the early church. The Jerusalem council was authoritative in the earl church. Holy Writ was authoritaive in the early church, as it was being written onward. Did council power grow more from there on out ? (No). Did Holy Writ grow more from there on out ? (No) Did centralized power in one Chair of Peter grow more from then on out ? I think most historians would say only the last grew more powerful. It was a tenuous balance but by the 15 th century, a cry for the other two “legs” to assert themselves was inevitable . …All I am saying is to keep SS in context of the balance of power amongst the three at the time. It is unfair to compare only one leg (role of scripture) to the early church without the others being compared also.

The pope’s sway over councils? Why not read what the early church taught about Peter’s primacy. I said primacy,not supremacy. Of course Rome was more influential in 1500 as oppose to 100 AD. Is the U.S. more influential now as oppose to 1800? Of course.

 

[Nicea325]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Nicea325 View Post
No one is denying inspiration.

benhur:
So was the OT inspired and authoritative at the time it was received, and even at the time of our Lord ?

Inspiration does not equate into official canonization. Again,there was no formal official Jewish canon in 1st century Palestine. The fact OT was quoted does not support or prove Jesus had an official canonized Bible. As I ask SS advocates:

How many books did the Jewish Bible contain in 20 AD? Which group of Jews authorized its canonization?

NiceaQuote:
It was canonized for that precise reason because it was through God’s Church (Catholic./Orthodox) via its bishops who determined which scriptures were of divine origin or not. And how did they know? Through the guidance of the Holy Spirit.

benhur:
Understand the “final” canonization . But did not the holy Spirit guide their reception way before then ? Also are you saying it was the bishop of Corinth or the bishop of Galatia or the bishop of Ephesus orthe bishop of Philipi that decided upon arrival of St. Paul’s letters that they were “Holy”, as above the entire "city’ church to whom the letter was addressed ?

The fact Paul’s letters were “holy” does not change the fact it was the church…who decided what constituted “holy” or not. The Bible no where declares which books/epistles are to be considered inspirational. You seem to want to reject the church all together from the process. There exists scores of writings and some were considered inspirational by specific communities. The church as whole determined,not individuals or a specific community.

NiceaQuote:
Christianity is not a religion of the book, but of the person: Christ.

benhur:
Is it either or ? Is it not about the correct historical church ? No, I like your emphasis. It is about a personal Jesus. Christianity is above Lutheranicity or Catholicity etc.

It is a both/and dichotomy. The church and scripture. Not scripture verses the church or vice versa.

Quote:
Are we Jews or Muslims?

Don’t get this. I thought Judaism was about Jehovah and the coming Messiah and their (our) Holy Writ and Islam about Allah and his prophet Mohammed as described in the Quran.

Yes. Our entire faith revolves around the Messiah and his fulfillment of the law. Jesus said to preach unto all nations. Never said: write a Bible and only follow the Bible.

 

[Isaiah45_9]

Understand. I would rather you take the same approach or attitude as you do with judging who goes to heaven and who does not, to who is ultimately saved or not. (Most Catholics say that is in God’s hand and far be it from them to judge such things)…So you want to judge just whose laying of hands is valid ? Luther was validly ordained as well as a few other reformers, were they not ? They were not lay folk. If so would not Lutherans and a few others have a physical “hand” to true historicity ? …The apostles tried to be clique but Jesus corrected them and said “they are for me”, though they are not of the inner circle of twelve. But, if that is what historicity is, judging God’s anointing and validity of one’s laying on of hands, then so let the discussion and judging follow.

But there is no record of those preaching Christ saying anything against Christ and His Apostles.

There is a big difference between sharing the Good News and being against the Church.

Also, sharing the Good News conveys no authority to ordain. This is clear even within the limits of Scriptures.

Your own argumentation is against the authority of the Church in Scriptures. By trying to minimize the importance of Church doctrine and authority, you are placing yourself outside and against Scriptures.

The laying of on hands is done by the Church. It’s all over the New Testament.

It’s not about being clique, it’s about being truthful in intent and purpose.

 

[Isaiah45_9]

Thank you . I’ll stick to my story . Jerome called non-hebrew books as “apocrypha”, that the CC included in Vulgate canon (minus3). “This prologue to the Scriptures may be appropriate as a helmeted introduction to all the books which we turn from Hebrew into Latin, so we may be able to know whatever is outside of these 54is to be set apart among the apocrypha. Therefore, Wisdom, which is commonly ascribed to Solomon, and the book of Jesus son of Sirach, and Judith and Tobias, and The Shepherd are not in the canon.then by this to have twenty-four books of the Old Law” bombaxo.com/prologues.html

Jerome was one dude. The Church has spoken. Jerome obeyed. Others don’t want to. As simple as that.