Why are Protestants afraid of Christian history?

[Mannyfit75]

Why are Protestants afraid of Christian history?

I use to stereotype that they are afraid and many hardcore Protestants today refuse the many explanation of how we got the Bible, and claim history is man-made.

That concept seems erroneous since the Bible itself is a historical document of the Jewish people, and God.

Why are you Protestants afraid of Christian History? Did you revealized that the first Christian Church is indeed Catholic, and just came up with later theories that the Christ’s Church fell into complete apostacy, which would contradict Jesus’ promise that gates of hell shall not prevail against it."

Why couldn’t couldn’t you Protestants admit that Christianity has its founding in the Catholic Church.

Look at these dates.

36 A.D. The Church in Antioch, the followers of Jesus Christ are called Christians.

107 A.D. St. Ignatius of Antioch wrote the following;

1. Some disown Him through ignorance, or, rather, were disowned by Him, being advocates of death rather than the truth. They were not convinced by the prophecies or by the Law of Moses; no, not even to this day by the Gospel or the sufferings of our own people; for they entertain the same view of us. Really, what good does anyone do me if he praises me, but blasphemes my Lord by not admitting that He carried living flesh about Him? He who does not admit this, has absolutely disowned Him, and what he carries about him is a corpse. Their names–names of unbelievers they are!–I do not think advisable to write down. In fact, I even wish I did not remember them, until they change their mind concerning the Passion, which is our resurrection.
2. Let no one be deceived! Even the heavenly powers and the angels in their splendor and the principalities, both visible and invisible, must either believe in the Blood of Christ, or else face damnation. Let him grasp it who can. Let no rank puff up anyone; for faith and love are paramount–the greatest blessings in the world. Observe those who hold erroneous opinions concerning the grace of Jesus Christ which has come to us, and see how they run counter to the mind of God! They concern themselves with neither works of charity, nor widows, nor orphans, nor the distressed, nor those in prison or out of it, nor the hungry or thirsty.
3. From Eucharist and prayer they hold aloof, because they do not confess that the Eucharist is the Flesh of our Savior Jesus Christ, which suffered for our sins, and which the Father in His loving-kindness raised from the dead. And so, those who question the gift of God perish in their contentiousness. It would be better for them to have love, so as to share in the resurrection. It is proper, therefore, to avoid associating with such people and not to speak about them either in private or in public, but to study the Prophets attentively and, especially, the Gospel, in which the Passion is revealed to us and the Resurrection shown in its fulfillment. Shun division as the beginning of evil.
4. You must all follow the lead of the bishop, as Jesus Christ followed that of the Father; follow the presbytery as you would the Apostles; reverence the deacons as you would God’s commandment. Let no one do anything touching the Church, apart from the bishop. Let that celebration of the Eucharist be considered valid which is held under the bishop or anyone to whom he has committed it. Where the bishop appears, there let the people be, just as where Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church. It is not permitted without authorization from the bishop either to baptize or to hold an agape; but whatever he approves is also pleasing to God. Thus everything you do will be proof against danger and valid.
5. It is consonant with reason, therefore, that we should come to our senses, while we still have time to change our ways and turn to God. It is well to revere God and bishop. He who honors a bishop is honored by God. He who does anything without the knowledge of the bishop worships the devil. May all things, then, be yours in abundance through grace, for you deserve it. You have brought relief to me in every respect, and may Jesus Christ do so to you! Whether I was absent or present, you have shown me love. Your reward is God, to whom you will come if you endure all things for His sake.
6. As to Philo and Rheus Agathopus, who accompanied me in the name of God, it was good of you to give them a warm reception as to servants of Christ God. For their part, they thank the Lord on your behalf, because you offered them losers. A ransom for you are my life and my chains, which you did not despise and of which you were not ashamed. Neither will Jesus Christ, our consummate hope, be ashamed of you. -Saint Ignatius (Apostle of St. John and St. Peter, of Antioch Letter to Smyrnean 107 A.D.

1054 A.D. Western Christian split with the Orthodox Church (Greek Orthodox)

1517 A.D. Protestant Reformation started by Martin Luther, which soon was followed by other Reformers like Calvin…today’s forunners of Evangelical Christians. The doctrine of Faith Alone, Scripture Alone is defined…

 

[bengal_fan]

i don’t know any that are afraid of history. in face, i embrace it. church history is fascinating and rich and there is so much to learn about our faith. why do many on here lump all people into little groups? “all muslims are this… all protestants do this… (and yes even) all catholics think this…” protestants and catholics and orthodox have much, much more in common than any of us like to admit. there is more that unites than divides (of course the gap can grow and shrink depending on which groups you are talking about). i love what Augustine had to say: “in essentials, unity. in non-essential, charity.” we would all do well and the world would be better served by Christians if we practiced this (myself included) more.

 

[servus]

Why are Protestants afraid of Christian history?

They are not. In fact some of the greatest Church historians have beem Protestants.

 

[happygal]

Well i’m not one of those protestant who are afraid to read the Christian history, in fact i love in so much, so much to learn about our begining…Praise the Lord

 

[BrianH]

Manny
Maybe you can answer this question. When is the letter from Ignatius from? Where was it found? What century was it found and when have they dated it from. While you contend that Ignatius was writing in 107 AD, I understand this version that was found dates hundreds of years after the fact and is open to interpolation or outright forgery. Do not give me one of your long cut and paste, just an answer, no one has been able to, maybe Edwin can?

 

[runandsew]

Manny
Maybe you can answer this question. When is the letter from Ignatius from? Where was it found? What century was it found and when have they dated it from. While you contend that Ignatius was writing in 107 AD, I understand this version that was found dates hundreds of years after the fact and is open to interpolation or outright forgery. Do not give me one of your long cut and paste, just an answer, no one has been able to, maybe Edwin can?

You can look it up on wikipedia, it covers the question you asked.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ignatius_of_Antioch

My guess why the 7 letters of St. Ignatius are considered authentic, and not others attributed to him is that they are referred to by other early writings. And that they were widely accepted by the early church as being authentic.

 

[wahey]

who started that rumour ?
ive never thought knew that my faith was afraid of church history i am awear that cahtolic church has been around for longer
what do you count as church history

 

[BrianH]

You can look it up on wikipedia, it covers the question you asked.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ignatius_of_Antioch

My guess why the 7 letters of St. Ignatius are considered authentic, and not others attributed to him is that they are referred to by other early writings. And that they were widely accepted by the early church as being authentic.

Well actually…it says ;

By the 5th century, this authentic collection had been

enlarged by spurious letters, and the original letters had been changed with interpolations, created to posthumously enlist Ignatius as an unwitting witness in theological disputes of that age, while the purported eye-witness account of his martyrdom is also thought to be a forgery from around the same time.

 

[O.S.Luke]

Where are all these Protestants that are afraid of Christian history? I’ve been one all my life, and never once heard anyone “afraid” of Christian history.

Christian history is informative and painful, by the way. Christians have not always been Christ-like, and the Church has made some mistakes and gaffes from time to time. That’s a part of history, too.

O+

 

[believers]

Why are Protestants afraid of Christian history?

Simply put, there’s only ONE truth in the world… The Word of God.

Rom 3:4
God forbid: yea, let God be true, but every man a liar; as it is written, That thou mightest be justified in thy sayings, and mightest overcome when thou art judged.

 

[runandsew]

Well actually…it says ;

By the 5th century, this authentic collection had been

Ok so I can’t read the fine print.
Still what he is writing matches up with what the other early church fathers wrote, and the early church documents mention.

 

[suupah]

I have not experienced dialogue with protestants that seemed afraid of Church history. BUT, i have found many that do not care. Whether they are part of the historical church or not has absolutely no bearing on which church they belong to. To them the truth has to do with what they feel is correct based on their own study of scripture and not on the teachings of an organization.

I think that approach ignores the fact that wide spread literacy is a new phenomenon and that there was no guarantee that what you were learning was authentic. Even for those reading writings and scripture, there was no guarantee of it being authentic or truly inspired. And if it was authentic and God inspired there was no guarantee that they could interpret it the way God intended.

So my question is: Why did Jesus have apostles? Was there anything special about them?

 

[estesbob]

Simply put, there’s only ONE truth in the world… The Word of God.

Rom 3:4
God forbid: yea, let God be true, but every man a liar; as it is written, That thou mightest be justified in thy sayings, and mightest overcome when thou art judged.

The Word of God as codified and passed on from generation to generation for 2,000 years by the Catholic Church.

 

[Mannyfit75]

Manny
Maybe you can answer this question. When is the letter from Ignatius from? Where was it found?

Background of St. Ignatius. Also called Theophorus (ho Theophoros); born in Syria, around the year 50; died at Rome between 98 and 117.

What century was it found and when have they dated it from?

Most patrologists today accept the authenticity of seven letters of Ignatius. Because of Ignatius’s emphasis on the importance of the office of bishop, a dispute arose among patristic scholars during the fifteenth and then during the sixteenth centuries concerning the authenticity of the letters.

Although there are four versions of these letters, the dispute has settled on the authenticity of the so-called long recension and short recension.

The first contains thirteen letters and the second only three (those to the Ephesians, Romans, and Polycarp). Through vigorous discussion and debate by John Pearson (1672), Joseph B. Lightfoot (1885), and others, the authenticity of the seven letters has been accepted.

While you contend that Ignatius was writing in 107 AD, I understand this version that was found dates hundreds of years after the fact and is open to interpolation or outright forgery.

See statement above.

Do not give me one of your long cut and paste, just an answer, no one has been able to, maybe Edwin can?

The authencity of these Epistles can be debated. Most Christian historians today continue to debate if these letters were forgeries as claimed by some historians.

Yet the New Testament we have, the original manuscript cannot be found. The only we have of those NT MS are copies. Most Biblical scholars tell you that.

The most well know documented case regarding the ECF’s martyrdom is St. Polycarp. His document has been noted by scholars and historians to be authentic and geniune.

I don’t think a deep study into Christian history would be someone we should fear. One Christian must ponder where the doctrine of the Trinity came from? The doctrine was not set until 325 A.D in the Council of Nicea. Trinity in general is a core Christian doctrine accepted by the majority of Christians though some Protestants deny it because its not explicitly said in the Bible.

((not finished, I have more to write))

 

[Mannyfit75]

You may also want to ponder what list of the Bible do we consider inspired? The Bible did not fell out of the sky and landed on the Apostles lap.

In the time of the Apostle, the only Scripture that was used was the Tanakh (Mesoretic Text, aka Hebrew Text), and the Septuagint used widely by Helenistic Jews, as well as Palestine Jews (Septuagint was translated by 70 Helenistic Jews who translated the Hebrew text into Greek around about around 200 B.C in the Alexandria, Egypt.

These two Scripture Books were widenly used by the Jews at the time of Christ until the Jews rejected the Septuagint in the Council of Jamnia around 90-100 A.D. In that Council, they rejected the Christianity as a heresy.

Such a mode of living might be fine for gentiles, but Jews were the “chosen people”, meaning they were required by God to uphold the agreements of their covenant with him, negotiated through Abraham and Moses, which required the very customs and observances that Christians were ignoring. Moreover, it might be said that the common thread (and threat) that ran throughout Jewish scripture was the idea that God abandons his chosen people when they forget to honor that covenant. Without God’s support, they would repeatedly found themselves helpless before their enemies – a point which was surely on their minds after Rome destroyed the Second Temple in 70 A.D.

In response to this disturbing development, Jewish religious leaders convened the Council of Jamnia in 92 A.D., determined to separate true scripture from wannabe texts and outright heresy, Christian or otherwise. According to the Council, for a text to be retained as official scripture, it must:

Conform to the Torah (a.k.a the Pentateuch)
Be written in Hebrew.
Have been written in Palestine.
Have been generated before 400 B.C.

The texts excluded by these criteria, which had been present in the Septuagint, included Baruch, Judith, Sirach, Tobit, Wisdom, 1 and 2 Maccabees, and parts of Daniel and Esther. The Council also excluded a number of other books that once were in circulation as part of the Writings portion of the Tanach, though it is not clear whether any of these were ever truly deemed scripture.

 

[Mannyfit75]

Part of the reasoning behind the “written in Hebrew” requirement was surely the exclusion of Christian influenced works, as almost all of these were written in Greek. But a larger purpose must have been to preserve Jewish culture from annihilation through assimilation. If the Jews could not maintain their national identity as a political entity (that having been already crushed by Rome), then they would need to preserve a cultural identity or risk disappearing as a people. Ultimately, this goal was achieved through maintaining their own separate language, as well as other distinctive practices which set them apart no matter where they emigrated.

The irony here is that the Greek language Septuagint, which had originally come into being in order to preserve Jewish culture, was now being abandoned hundred of years later for the same purpose – to preserve Jewish culture.

Meanwhile, Christians had no problem with using the Septuagint. In fact, its usage was vital to the spread of their religion, as it would be nearly 500 years before the Hebrew language texts of the Tanach/Hebrew Bible became accessible as a stand-alone text – that is, without requiring oral instruction by a Rabbi. Rabbinical instruction was generally not available nor desirable to gentile Christian converts, but the Septuagint was already available, not to mention highly accessible, being written in a language they already knew, Greek. Christians also found the Septuagint version to be in greater accord with their own doctrines: specifically, only the Septuagint contained references and turns of phrase that supported their own claim that Jesus was the Messiah.

For example, according to Christian mythology, Jesus had been the product of a virgin birth. The prediction that the savior would be of virgin birth could only be found in the Septuagint:

“‘Look, the virgin shall conceive and bear a son, and they shall name him Emmanuel’ which means, ‘God is with us.’”
(Isaiah 7:14; Matthew 1:23)

Interestingly, while Greek translators interpreted the word almah as “virgin” in this passage, it actually means “the young woman”. The word which meant “a virgin”, was actually besulah. Oddly, elsewhere in the Septuagint, translation is in more in accord with this usage. Not surprisingly, Christian theologians who have acknowledged the error have attributed it to divine action, that is, to God paving the way for correct understanding of Jesus’ role. Jews do not share this interpretation.

Ultimately Christianity would retain the Septuagint, paired with assorted New Testament texts, for many centuries to come, although it would modify it drastically by translating it a second time – this time into Latin. The later revisions of this Latin translation would come to be known as the Catholic Bible.

1,000 years later, the Septuagint would become even more identified with the newly emergent Orthodox Christian Church. Shaking off the Roman Catholic Church’s demand of total subservience and obedience, the Greek speaking Orthodox Church established itself as a thoroughly independent entity. Naturally, to avoid the taint of heresy, the Orthodox Church portrayed itself as remaining true to the original Christian Church while the Catholic Church broke away in a strange and offensive new direction. This schism between Rome and Constantinople (formerly heads of the Western and Eastern branches of the Church) would serve as a model for later schisms in the faith, 1500 years after the birth of Christ.

But of course, long before any of these developments came to pass, the Christian faith would continue to fall ever more heavily under the influence of the Roman Catholic Church, a body which would profoundly change the nature and purpose of Christian worship, the politics of Western Civilization, and the usage and content of the Bible.

 

[exoflare]

Simply put, there’s only ONE truth in the world… The Word of God.

Rom 3:4
God forbid: yea, let God be true, but every man a liar; as it is written, That thou mightest be justified in thy sayings, and mightest overcome when thou art judged.

Does that mean we shouldn’t put any stock in what you tell us?

 

[BrianH]

Well, I guess you cannot answer my question Manny. And the long post that STILL does not answer my question.

 

[Mannyfit75]

Well, I guess you cannot answer my question Manny. And the long post that STILL does not answer my question.

I did. re-read my post regarding St. Ignatius and the claim that some of his writings were forgeries. Of all of his epistles, only four were regarded as authencitic.

 

[BrianH]

I did. re-read my post regarding St. Ignatius and the claim that some of his writings were forgeries. Of all of his epistles, only four were regarded as authencitic.

I did not ask if some scholars thought they were authentic Manny. Did I? I asked WHERE they were found, when was the translation they found written? If you dont know, say it or just ignore me. I am asking for facts, not a scholars opinion please. UNLESS that scholar is giving an opinion of exactly when they were found etc etc
I know some scholars consider them real but some also consider them interpolated. Based upon that, I am asking when and where did the translations come from.
Thanks