When did the "early Christians become Catholic"

[firstmode]

Let me ask you this:
How do you reject the authority given to the Catholic Church by Jesus because of this 75 year period, yet accept the authority of that same Church some 250 years later when canon of Scripture was compiled?
We have Church history and secular history to support this.

Your point against authority is moot when you trust the Catholic Church to decide the* very* canon of scripture that you glean your information from.
How do you, nay - how does ALL of Protestantism reconcile this?

Sorry man, the Old testament of the Protestants and Most all of the New Testament were already in use by the church way before canonization as proven by the muratorian fragment and Melito’s Cannon.

These were both just gatherings of what was popularly used across all the Christian Churches. the muratorian fragment left out some books, but it is a clear sign that the majority of scripture, including all the pauline letters, acts, and the gospels were used by the early churches way before someone decided to cannonize them.

I agree with Jerome and Melito about the Old testament cannon. I think they definitely were lead by the Holy Spirit.

 

[elvisman]

Sorry man, the Old testament of the Protestants and Most all of the New Testament were already in use by the church way before canonization as proven by the muratorian fragment and Melito’s Cannon.

These were both just gatherings of what was popularly used across all the Christian Churches. the muratorian fragment left out some books, but it is a clear sign that the majority of scripture, including all the pauline letters, acts, and the gospels were used by the early churches way before someone decided to cannonize them.

I agree with Jerome and Melito about the Old testament cannon. I think they definitely were lead by the Holy Spirit.

Doesn’t matter.
"Part" or “most” of the New Testament doesn’t mean a thing to the final canon - which was declared by the Catholic Church. The bible you use today is the product of the authority of the Catholic Church.
Perhaps you should read, “Where We Got the Bible - Our Debt to the Catholic Church” by Henry G. Graham - a Protestant minister. That may shed some light for you.

Also - consider the Old Testament of the “Protestants”. Jesus studied from the Septuagint Old Testament which contained 1st and 2nd Macabees and all of the other books later thrown out by Jewish leaders AFTER the fall of Jerusalem when they convened at Jabneh. This was AFTER the destruction of the Temple - some 50 years AFTER the death, Resurrection and Ascension of our Lord.

After the fall of Jerusalem, a group of Jewish rabbis, after obtaining permission from the Roman government, convened at Jabneh and threw out these books because of their so-called Hellenistic influence.
Why on earth would the Protestant Rebels accept this “new” Old Testament Canon - some 15 centuries later, instead of the one Jesus grew up with?
Because it was necessary in their break from the Catholic Church because they couldn’t reconcile some of their new renegade beliefs had they kept the books.

So much for the Old Testament of the “Protestants”.

 

[Soutane]

Doesn’t matter.
"Part" or “most” of the New Testament doesn’t mean a thing to the final canon - which was declared by the Catholic Church. The bible you use today is
Perhaps you should read, “Where We Got the Bible - Our Debt to the Catholic Church” by Henry G. Graham - a Protestant minister.

Also - consider the Old Testament of the "Protestants". Jesus studied from the Septuagint Old Testament which contained 1st and 2nd Macabees and all of the other books later thrown out by Jewish leaders AFTER the fall of Jerusalem when they convened at Jabneh. This was AFTER the destruction of the Temple - some 50 years AFTER the death, Resurrection and Ascension of our Lord.

After the fall of Jerusalem, a group of Jewish rabbis, after obtaining permission from the Roman government, convened at Jabneh and threw out these books because of Hellenistic
Why on earth would the Protestant Rebels accept this “new” Old Testament Canon - some 15 centuries later, instead of the one Jesus grew up with?
Because it was necessary in their break from the Catholic Church because they couldn’t reconcile some of their new renegade beliefs had they kept the books.

So much for the Old Testament of the "Protestants".

Bingo bubba:thumbsup:

 

[Seeking12]

Doesn’t matter.
"Part" or “most” of the New Testament doesn’t mean a thing to the final canon - which was declared by the Catholic Church. The bible you use today is the product of the authority of the Catholic Church.
Perhaps you should read, “Where We Got the Bible - Our Debt to the Catholic Church” by Henry G. Graham - a Protestant minister. That may shed some light for you.

Also - consider the Old Testament of the "Protestants". Jesus studied from the Septuagint Old Testament which contained 1st and 2nd Macabees and all of the other books later thrown out by Jewish leaders AFTER the fall of Jerusalem when they convened at Jabneh. This was AFTER the destruction of the Temple - some 50 years AFTER the death, Resurrection and Ascension of our Lord.

After the fall of Jerusalem, a group of Jewish rabbis, after obtaining permission from the Roman government, convened at Jabneh and threw out these books because of their so-called Hellenistic influence.
Why on earth would the Protestant Rebels accept this “new” Old Testament Canon - some 15 centuries later, instead of the one Jesus grew up with?
Because it was necessary in their break from the Catholic Church because they couldn’t reconcile some of their new renegade beliefs had they kept the books.

So much for the Old Testament of the "Protestants".

**Perhaps the canonization of the Catholic Church would be a better description because there are Bibles, which include and exclude because of acceptance or rejection of certain books; therefore correct question to ask is which canonization is correct? We can eliminate the Catholic canonization because of some of the books that were included that clearly have errors and in the case of 2 Maccabees, the writer explicitly states it was not inspired. But because of an agenda, 2 Maccabees is included because praying for the dead and purgatory are vaguely supported. Who canonized this or that and who wrote the Bible are almost laughable because the Holy Spirit is the author of the truly inspired books. Of course at the time of the Catholic canonizations, which officially took 1500 years to officially complete because of the reformation rebuttal agenda which allowed for uninspired books to creep in. On the original canonizations, there was nothing known as the Catholic Church, but rather the catholic church, much different in context and content you are blind to the truth or have bought into a revisionist history or are ignorant on history.

Everyone will know the truth in the end, but for many that will be too late and there will be no plea of ignorance.**

 

[Soutane]

**Hi Spirit,

He is a little short on substance and much on arrogance and pride, but a day is coming where the goats will be separated from the sheep. He has done the same thing to me and has said he has made it known…that was after he said he forgave; yet cannot seem to let it go and move on, but what can you do except pray for the poor soul, which I will do right now as I send this. God bless you; you did nothing wrong.**

This is nothing more than a not so veiled reference to my damnation.I forgave you for your transgression(even though you did not man up and apologise,nor have you to date,which is why I will accept no communication from you until you apologise) but you required discipline by the moderator for breaking the rules.Your slanderous personal judgement of me has again been reported to the moderator.

 

[Bill_Pick]

It’s an interesting question, but one that most don’t spend a lot of time on. It seems extremely important to a few RC’s here to establish their primacy. Having been RC for a number of years, I was never taught that primacy was necessary to my faith, but it seems that some do demand that they be recognized as so. It seems some linchpin, although I cannot understand why.

I have found nothing so far that indicates that Rome was accepted as the leader of the early church. As good a claim certainly would have come from Jerusalem it seems to me. Paul never mentions Peter as being in Rome, certainly not as it’s bishop when he wrote Romans. Nor is there reference in Acts to this. I have read some of the ECF, and I have so far seen no evidence that Rome was deferred to as authority, although certainly a particular bishop may have been requested to give his opinion on some matter in another church. I don’t see any orders eminating. I believe the very first reference to the world Catholic occured in 110 or so.

It seems odd of course that Constantine, a civil ruler should be calling the Church to council if indeed the Bishop of Rome was in charge of the entire church.

As I said, I don’t find a lot of Protestants or other catholic communities expending much energy on this issue. But I haven’t spent time on Protestant forums. Perhaps there they have the same intense need to prove something.

In the end, it seems that many think the psalmist and other gospels inaccurate in claiming that God judges the heart. Some apparently think he judges the form and ritual as more important.

I have been told here that there is nothing but the Roman church. All others are by definition heretical. That means there is nothing to Christendom, it consists of only the Roman Church, all others being less than Christian by definition. That would be a sad thing indeed, because it would suggest that the mission has fallen far short of what most believe today. Worse yet, I have seen RC’s profess that any RC who is not in full agreement with all dogma is not really RC at all… This further reduces the church to several millions it would seem.

The upshot is that it is most hard to know what RC’s believe, since there are so many many interpretations. In this they are not alone of course. The same could be said of nearly every denomination.

You say You was Cathloic for a # of years but you do not know what they teach,did I read that right ? here is most of what they believe believe in God, the Father almighty, creator of heaven and earth;
and in Jesus Christ, his only Son, our Lord; who was conceived of the
Holy Spirit, born of the Virgin Mary, suffered under Pontius Pilate,
was crucified, died and was buried.
He descended into hell; on the third day he rose again from the dead.
He ascended into heaven, and is seated at the right hand of the Father.
From thence he shall come again to judge the living and the dead.
I believe in the Holy Spirit, the Holy Catholic Church, the communion

of saints, the forgiveness of sins, the resurrection of the body,
and life everlasting. Amen.

(C)

 

[Hisalone]

Let me ask you this:
How do you reject the authority given to the Catholic Church by Jesus because of this 75 year period, yet accept the authority of that same Church some 250 years later when canon of Scripture was compiled?
We have Church history and secular history to support this.

Your point against authority is moot when you trust the Catholic Church to decide the* very* canon of scripture that you glean your information from.
How do you, nay - how does ALL of Protestantism reconcile this?

Our trust is in God. God handed down His inspired word we have the cannon because of Him in Him is our trust.

 

[Seeking12]

This is nothing more than a not so veiled reference to my damnation.I forgave you for your transgression but you required discipline by the moderator for breaking the rules.Your personal judgement of me has again been reported to the moderator.

**Why are so so bitter and angry? We have been praying that God will soften your heart. I am not the only person you have been bitter toward without notice. I do not know your final destination; only God knows and ultimately makes that decision.

I would also caution you on publicly announcing your administrative actions as I have already because they are against the forum rules. I have first hand knowledge of this rule and you may want to PM an admin. to verify what the rule is.

Please move on and answer the questions to the previous posts where you claim that sola scriptura is a heresy and their you stated “Christ founded the Catholic Church which was to continue and has continued his mission of spreading the gospel and the good news since His Resurrection.Had Christ not founded the Catholic Church there would not be Christianity in any form nor would you have received the Bible or at least part of it.”

Can you elaborate these claims rather than just talking about it?**

 

[elvisman]

Perhaps the canonization of the Catholic Church would be a better description because there are Bibles, which include and exclude because of acceptance or rejection of certain books; therefore correct question to ask is which canonization is correct? We can eliminate the Catholic canonization because of some of the books that were included that clearly have errors and in the case of 2 Maccabees, the writer explicitly states it was not inspired. But because of an agenda, 2 Maccabees is included because praying for the dead and purgatory are vaguely supported. Who canonized this or that and who wrote the Bible are almost laughable because the Holy Spirit is the author of the truly inspired books. Of course at the time of the Catholic canonizations, which officially took 1500 years to officially complete because of the reformation rebuttal agenda which allowed for uninspired books to creep in. On the original canonizations, there was nothing known as the Catholic Church, but rather the catholic church, much different in context and content you are blind to the truth or have bought into a revisionist history or are ignorant on history.

Everyone will know the truth in the end, but for many that will be too late and there will be no plea of ignorance.

**The Bible was compiled at the councils of Carthage and Hippo in the 4th and 5th centuries.
It needed to be declared at Trent because of all of the bizarre inventions and scriptural perversions by the so-called “Reformers”.

The writer of Macabees "explicitly states it was not inspired"? Where?
Mac. 15:38 only says:
"If it is well written and to the point, that is what I wanted; if it is poorly done and mediocre, that is the best I could do."
**
You are right about ONE** thing: The Holy Spirit IS the author Scripture - The Catholic Church is the visible means by which the Holy Spirit conveyed it. (John 16:13-15). I wouldn’t call that “laughable” - it’s the truth.
**
As for “catholic” and “Catholic” - I already explained this - read my post #62:

When I read all of this capital and lowercase stuff it reminds me that this wasn’t and isn’t always the case.
**In many ancient text - “god” isn’t even capitalized. In some languages, this is a relatively new thing. In other languages, there are NO capitals or lowercase. **
The reason I bring this up is because “catholic church” and “Catholic Church” have always been the same entity and always meant the same thing - regardless of whichever vernacular you’re speaking or writing in.

**God’s truth doesn’t depend on whether or not you accept it. **
The truth is the truth.

 

[elvisman]

Our trust is in God. God handed down His inspired word we have the cannon because of Him in Him is our trust.

Right - he handed it down to his Church - who, by the way was here before the New Testament scriptures were written.

If this is not the case - who did he “hand it down” to? A cornfield?
Nope - he handed it down to His church that is the pillar and foundation of truth (I Timothy 3:15).

 

[Contarini]

Most protestants would say the Catholic Church as it is now was slowly infiltrated false teachings evidence by the Early Church Fathers but culminated in Constantine making an unholy aliance between the Secular Civil Government in Rome and the Christian church shortly after the eddict of Milan. .

No, that would be most free-church/fundamentalist Protestants. The Protestant Reformers had no problem with Constantine.

Edwin

 

[Soutane]

**Why are so so bitter and angry? We have been praying that God will soften your heart. I am not the only person you have been bitter toward without notice. I do not know your final destination; only God knows and ultimately makes that decision.

I would also caution you on publicly announcing your administrative actions as I have already because they are against the forum rules. I have first hand knowledge of this rule and you may want to PM an admin. to verify what the rule is.

Please move on and answer the questions to the previous posts where you claim that sola scriptura is a heresy and their you stated “Christ founded the Catholic Church which was to continue and has continued his mission of spreading the gospel and the good news since His Resurrection.Had Christ not founded the Catholic Church there would not be Christianity in any form nor would you have received the Bible or at least part of it.”

Can you elaborate these claims rather than just talking about it?**

“He is a little short on substance and much on arrogance and pride, but a day is coming where the goats will be separated from the sheep.”

No of course that’s no reference AT ALL to my personal judgement.
To assert otherwise is being disingenuous and dishonest and speaks volumes about you…

Apologise for your hateful comments or do not address me.

 

[Contarini]

Lots of protestants seem to be happy with the early teaching of the chirch and call those that were involved the first Christians etc but never seem able to attribute the collation and protection of the bible or anything else that is good to the Catholic church. So what i was wondering is when do non catholics see as Catholicism starting?

Well, historically Protestants claim to be Catholic, although of course many have been suckered into lowercasing the word. So the question is a bit incoherent from the start.

Traditional Protestants generally accept the first five hundred years as orthodox and more or less authoritative. More free-church Protestants may only accept the first three hundred, and many Anglicans, like the Orthodox, see the entire first millennium as authoritative. But bear in mind that Protestants do not believe in the infallibility of the Church, so they have no problem saying that even the essentially orthodox early Church already had some error present within it. Protestants generally see an increasing pattern of error and corruption, beginning early on (and indeed always present in all churches) but culminating in the later Middle Ages, leading to the Reformation. Ecumenical Protestants recognize that the Reformation brought its own problems, and free-church Protestants often think it didn’t go far enough (these too categories are not mutually exclusive). But most Protestants do make some kind of distinction between an “early” Church which they look up to and a medieval Church which they regard with some degree of suspicion (though often with considerable respect for selected elements which they admire). In the nature of things, they don’t see a sharp line between the two, and they vary on just when they would draw the line even in a rough sense.

Edwin

 

[Michael_Francis]

***Thread closed pending Moderator review. ***