Christ and Christianity 1st Centuary

soterpisc

I see dozens of empty threads on the forum... No going to point them out... Locked icon says it all on some.

On other threads its veiled bigotry and no so veiled at times.

Why not expand on the Christian heritage that underpins this forum.

Would like to Focus on who Christianity grew in the 1st Century.
I would call it the century of the revelation because most of the new testament was written during those 100 years. During this era, most Christians spoke Greek. Many scholars agree that Peter had an authority that superseded that of the other apostles. Peter is their spokesman at several events, he conducts the election of Matthias, his opinion in the debate over converting Gentiles was crucial.

.. I am a Catholic, but I don't want that to govern the thread, I want all of your views.

wolfsbane

soterpisc wrote: »

I see dozens of empty threads on the forum... No going to point them out... Locked icon says it all on some.

On other threads its veiled bigotry and no so veiled at times.

Why not expand on the Christian heritage that underpins this forum.

Would like to Focus on who Christianity grew in the 1st Century.
I would call it the century of the revelation because most of the new testament was written during those 100 years. During this era, most Christians spoke Greek. Many scholars agree that Peter had an authority that superseded that of the other apostles. Peter is their spokesman at several events, he conducts the election of Matthias, his opinion in the debate over converting Gentiles was crucial.

.. I am a Catholic, but I don't want that to govern the thread, I want all of your views.

Peter was there with James and John, as key leaders of the Jewish Church. He took the initiative many times. But Paul also became a key leader, taking the same role as Peter, only to the Gentiles.

There is no suggestion in the Bible that Peter was head of the Church.


***********************************************************************
Galatians 2:6 But from those who seemed to be something—whatever they were, it makes no difference to me; God shows personal favoritism to no man—for those who seemed to be something added nothing to me. 7 But on the contrary, when they saw that the gospel for the uncircumcised had been committed to me, as the gospel for the circumcised was to Peter 8 (for He who worked effectively in Peter for the apostleship to the circumcised also worked effectively in me toward the Gentiles), 9 and when James, Cephas, and John, who seemed to be pillars, perceived the grace that had been given to me, they gave me and Barnabas the right hand of fellowship, that we should go to the Gentiles and they to the circumcised.

soterpisc

wolfsbane wrote: »

Peter was there with James and John, as key leaders of the Jewish Church. He took the initiative many times. But Paul also became a key leader, taking the same role as Peter, only to the Gentiles.

There is no suggestion in the Bible that Peter was head of the Church.

I didn't suggest Peter was the head of the Church, but from what Christ said in the Gospels Peter seems to be the only apostle Christ Prayed for? "I have prayed for you, Peter, that your faith may not fail. You in turn must confirm your brethren". Also in the Acts if I am not mistaken it was Peter who initiated looking for a replaced for Judas?

lets not let this descend beyond the 1st Century.. But Wolfsbane in your opinion who was the head of the apostles? From a mundane/Human point of view who took the decisions after Pentecost? Was it a case that they said each do their own or did Peter have the ultimate say?

prinz

soterpisc wrote: »

From a mundane/Human point of view who took the decisions after Pentecost? Was it a case that they said each do their own or did Peter have the ultimate say?

Human nature being what it is, probably a bit of both.

PDN

soterpisc wrote: »

but from what Christ said in the Gospels Peter seems to be the only apostle Christ Prayed for?

Not at all. In John 17 we find Jesus praying for all His disciples.

We certainly see Peter playing a major role on the Day of Pentecost and in many events following. However, in the account of the Council of Jerusalem in Acts 15 it appears that James took the lead. And of course in Galatians we read about Paul rebuking Peter in public.

antiskeptic

soterpisc wrote: »

During this era, most Christians spoke Greek. Many scholars agree that Peter had an authority that superseded that of the other apostles. Peter is their spokesman at several events, he conducts the election of Matthias, his opinion in the debate over converting Gentiles was crucial.

The reason most Christians spoke Greek was that most Christians weren't located where Peter was located. They were the product of Paul's activities and so Paul can be said to be most influential in the growth of the early church both through his church planting and in his circulated writings. He can be said to be the most influential in the development of the church to the present day.

The idea of Peter pre-eminent is something laid onto scripture (through highly selective reading). It is not possible to draw that notion exegetically from scripture.

Condatis

In the early church how did the notion of authority develop? The concept that some had a role in deciding what Christianity is?

Christ himself did not write so much as he pontificated.

wolfsbane

soterpisc wrote: »

I didn't suggest Peter was the head of the Church, but from what Christ said in the Gospels Peter seems to be the only apostle Christ Prayed for? "I have prayed for you, Peter, that your faith may not fail. You in turn must confirm your brethren". Also in the Acts if I am not mistaken it was Peter who initiated looking for a replaced for Judas?

lets not let this descend beyond the 1st Century.. But Wolfsbane in your opinion who was the head of the apostles? From a mundane/Human point of view who took the decisions after Pentecost? Was it a case that they said each do their own or did Peter have the ultimate say?

No, Peter did not have the ultimate say - nor did any of the apostles.

Each led with the support of the rest, as the occasion demanded. Peter sometimes, James or Paul at others. I'm sure John and the others had their lead followed on occasions. The apostles had each their roles to follow, as God chose. Some were more prominent than others, but none had supremacy over the rest.

*******************************************************************
Galatians 2:6 But from those who seemed to be something—whatever they were, it makes no difference to me; God shows personal favoritism to no man—for those who seemed to be something added nothing to me. 7 But on the contrary, when they saw that the gospel for the uncircumcised had been committed to me, as the gospel for the circumcised was to Peter 8 (for He who worked effectively in Peter for the apostleship to the circumcised also worked effectively in me toward the Gentiles), 9 and when James, Cephas, and John, who seemed to be pillars, perceived the grace that had been given to me, they gave me and Barnabas the right hand of fellowship, that we should go to the Gentiles and they to the circumcised.

wolfsbane

Condatis wrote: »

In the early church how did the notion of authority develop? The concept that some had a role in deciding what Christianity is?

Christ himself did not write so much as he pontificated.

Christ delegated to the apostles authority to infallibly teach His truth. Their authority was like that of the OT prophets: they spoke from God.

The rest of the church had no authority to deliver a new teaching, or speak infallibly. They only had the task of interpreting what the apostles had taught. The apostles were on call to confirm or correct the pastors of the local churches. When they died out, their words remained in the Scriptures. The Spirit uses the Scriptures to continue the apostles doctrine down the ages.

*********************************************************************
Galatians 2:6 But from those who seemed to be something—whatever they were, it makes no difference to me; God shows personal favoritism to no man—for those who seemed to be something added nothing to me. 7 But on the contrary, when they saw that the gospel for the uncircumcised had been committed to me, as the gospel for the circumcised was to Peter 8 (for He who worked effectively in Peter for the apostleship to the circumcised also worked effectively in me toward the Gentiles), 9 and when James, Cephas, and John, who seemed to be pillars, perceived the grace that had been given to me, they gave me and Barnabas the right hand of fellowship, that we should go to the Gentiles and they to the circumcised.

alex73

wolfsbane wrote: »

Christ delegated to the apostles authority to infallibly teach His truth. Their authority was like that of the OT prophets: they spoke from God.

The rest of the church had no authority to deliver a new teaching, or speak infallibly. They only had the task of interpreting what the apostles had taught. The apostles were on call to confirm or correct the pastors of the local churches. When they died out, their words remained in the Scriptures. The Spirit uses the Scriptures to continue the apostles doctrine down the ages.

I hear what you are saying, but when the apostles died there was no formal scripture. Several accounts were written, but it wasn't for another 200 years before the church formalised what today we call the bible.

gimmebroadband

Which is why the bible should not be interpreted without referring to Oral Tradition, with both there is fullness of the Truth!

1 Cor. 15:1,11 - faith comes from what is "preached" (not read). For non-Catholics to argue that oral tradition once existed but exists no longer, they must prove this from Scripture. But no where does Scripture say oral tradition died with the apostles. To the contrary, Scripture says the oral word abides forever.

http://www.scripturecatholic.com/oral_tradition.html

PDN

alex73 wrote: »

I hear what you are saying, but when the apostles died there was no formal scripture. Several accounts were written, but it wasn't for another 200 years before the church formalised what today we call the bible.

The word 'formal' there is pretty superfluous. The Church of Jesus Christ was organic rather than formal in the First Century.

In 2 Peter 3:15-16 we find these words: "Bear in mind that our Lord’s patience means salvation, just as our dear brother Paul also wrote you with the wisdom that God gave him. He writes the same way in all his letters, speaking in them of these matters. His letters contain some things that are hard to understand, which ignorant and unstable people distort, as they do the other Scriptures, to their own destruction."

Do you see what this is saying? Paul's writings were, in the First Century, already considered Scripture. They weren't floating around in some undeterminate state waiting for a Church Council to make them Scripture. So, by the time of the death of the last apostle (John sometime around 95-100 AD) all of the New Testament books were already written, were in circulation in the churches, and were recognised by most believers as being Scripture.

alex73

PDN wrote: »

The word 'formal' there is pretty superfluous. The Church of Jesus Christ was organic rather than formal in the First Century.

In 2 Peter 3:15-16 we find these words: "Bear in mind that our Lord’s patience means salvation, just as our dear brother Paul also wrote you with the wisdom that God gave him. He writes the same way in all his letters, speaking in them of these matters. His letters contain some things that are hard to understand, which ignorant and unstable people distort, as they do the other Scriptures, to their own destruction."

Do you see what this is saying? Paul's writings were, in the First Century, already considered Scripture. They weren't floating around in some undeterminate state waiting for a Church Council to make them Scripture. So, by the time of the death of the last apostle (John sometime around 95-100 AD) all of the New Testament books were already written, were in circulation in the churches, and were recognised by most believers as being Scripture.

So who and how was it determined what was scripture, what was the correct teaching after the apostles died.

PDN

alex73 wrote: »

So who and how was it determined what was scripture, what was the correct teaching after the apostles died.

As I said, it was organic. No one person decided it. Churches used writings that were helpful to them, whose authorship was apostolic, whose doctrine was in line with that of the apostles, and as the Holy Spirit led them. Some books, like Romans or Galatians, were so obvious that everyone accepted them as Scripture right away. With others it took a bit longer for a consensus to develop. The later Councils basically rubber-stamped what was already common practice among most churches.

It's most likely that the need for a formal Canon only developed in the Third Century because heretical groups such as the Gnostics were trying to pretend that obviously spurious books of much later authorship were in fact Scriptural.

Condatis

wolfsbane wrote: »

Christ delegated to the apostles authority to infallibly teach His truth. Their authority was like that of the OT prophets: they spoke from God.

The rest of the church had no authority to deliver a new teaching, or speak infallibly. They only had the task of interpreting what the apostles had taught. The apostles were on call to confirm or correct the pastors of the local churches. When they died out, their words remained in the Scriptures. The Spirit uses the Scriptures to continue the apostles doctrine down the ages.

That doesn't answer my question. Christ did not institute a hierarchy – that evolved. Scripture is based for the most part on the writings of many people. I do not know of any which proscribe a 'command structure' – the hierarchy which has evolved.

How did this come about? Was it a gradual process of men jockeying for position and authority each over the other?

Was it a response to the challenges faced by the early church in dealing with civil authorities which were structured on authoritarian principles?

Onesimus

PDN wrote: »

Not at all. In John 17 we find Jesus praying for all His disciples.

We certainly see Peter playing a major role on the Day of Pentecost and in many events following. However, in the account of the Council of Jerusalem in Acts 15 it appears that James took the lead. And of course in Galatians we read about Paul rebuking Peter in public.

Yes once. Of course Christ cared about the other disciples but he focused a lot more on Peter in the NT which gives us reason to point to Peter as being the leader.

As for james taking the lead, you may find this interesting.

Many theologians rebuke the Popes behaviour/sinfulness down through the centuries but it still does not take away from his leadership and authority.
So your use of Paul rebuking Peter just doesnt hold water.

soterpisc

Ok. Lets keep this thread on what we know from 1st century based on scrupture or writtings from the period (what little ther is)

One point that always impressed me was Christs active role, calling St Paul in the manner he did.

gimmebroadband

soterpisc wrote: »

Ok. Lets keep this thread on what we know from 1st century based on scrupture or writtings from the period (what little ther is)

One point that always impressed me was Christs active role, calling St Paul in the manner he did.

What about Sacred Tradition, not everything was written down?

gimmebroadband

2 Thess 2:15: "Stand firm and hold fast to the Traditions you were taught, whether by an ORAL STATEMENT or by a letter from us.

soterpisc

gimmebroadband wrote: »

2 Thess 2:15: "Stand firm and hold fast to the Traditions you were taught, whether by an ORAL STATEMENT or by a letter from us.

I agree, Problem we face is that US Catholics have many traditions, A lot of what became Dogma regarding Mary was tradition on the Church for Centuries.. (for example her ascension) We have it as Dogma, Orthodox have it as part of their faith, but not a Dogma as such. Our Protestant friends reject this as an alteration to the original faith.

Given this is a Thread on the 1st Century Its good you have quoted the above as that is from scripture.

I think there was much that was practised in the early church that was evident and accepted which was not written down, or was written down but lost.

Tradition in Latin means - transmit, to hand over, to give for safekeeping- Tradere.

Another Quote is:- 2 Thessalonians 3:6

But we charge you, brothers, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, to stay away from any brother who conducts himself in a disorderly manner and not according to the tradition (paradosin | παράδοσιν | acc sg fem) that they received from us.

Monty.

gimmebroadband wrote: »

What about Sacred Tradition, not everything was written down?

The Sign of the Cross is one simple example.

Monty.

The real presence of Christ in the Eucharist was central to early Christians

http://www.therealpresence.org/eucharst/father/a5.html

antiskeptic

Onesimus wrote: »

Many theologians rebuke the Popes behaviour/sinfulness down through the centuries but it still does not take away from his leadership and authority.

Why not?

(avoid assuming that which is being supposedly supported by your statement (i.e. Peter/Pope is leader) in your answer)

soterpisc

Lets not let this thread result in a Catholic/Protestant debate. Its about Christianity in the 1st 100 years.

One interesting question I always had. Why did Mary leave Israel?

wolfsbane

Monty. wrote: »

The real presence of Christ in the Eucharist was central to early Christians

http://www.therealpresence.org/eucharst/father/a5.html

As was circumcision, if we are to accept all the innovations Christian churches developed:
Galatians 2:1 O foolish Galatians! Who has bewitched you that you should not obey the truth, before whose eyes Jesus Christ was clearly portrayed among you as crucified? 2 This only I want to learn from you: Did you receive the Spirit by the works of the law, or by the hearing of faith? 3 Are you so foolish? Having begun in the Spirit, are you now being made perfect by the flesh? 4 Have you suffered so many things in vain—if indeed it was in vain?

In the following century, priestcraft and other foolish and harmful doctrines were emerging. But it seems the love of the works of the law was already at work in Paul's day.

***************************************************************
Acts 20: 29 For I know this, that after my departure savage wolves will come in among you, not sparing the flock. 30 Also from among yourselves men will rise up, speaking perverse things, to draw away the disciples after themselves.

PDN

soterpisc wrote: »

One interesting question I always had. Why did Mary leave Israel?

She did? Is there a First Century source for that?

wolfsbane

Condatis said:

Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfsbane
Christ delegated to the apostles authority to infallibly teach His truth. Their authority was like that of the OT prophets: they spoke from God.

The rest of the church had no authority to deliver a new teaching, or speak infallibly. They only had the task of interpreting what the apostles had taught. The apostles were on call to confirm or correct the pastors of the local churches. When they died out, their words remained in the Scriptures. The Spirit uses the Scriptures to continue the apostles doctrine down the ages.
That doesn't answer my question. Christ did not institute a hierarchy – that evolved. Scripture is based for the most part on the writings of many people. I do not know of any which proscribe a 'command structure' – the hierarchy which has evolved.

The structure is that which the apostles gave: elders in every church, and councils of these when major issues arose. No emperor elder at the top, king elders in an area and local commander elders in each church. That was what evolved as large sections of the Church drifted into error and apostatized.

How did this come about? Was it a gradual process of men jockeying for position and authority each over the other?

Yes.

Was it a response to the challenges faced by the early church in dealing with civil authorities which were structured on authoritarian principles?

Yes, the Lord Jesus pointed out the natural mindset of the world:
Matthew 20:25 But Jesus called them to Himself and said, “You know that the rulers of the Gentiles lord it over them, and those who are great exercise authority over them. 26 Yet it shall not be so among you; but whoever desires to become great among you, let him be your servant. 27 And whoever desires to be first among you, let him be your slave— 28 just as the Son of Man did not come to be served, but to serve, and to give His life a ransom for many.”

The papacy is thoroughly ' rulers of the Gentiles' in nature.

*******************************************************************
John 18:36 Jesus answered, “My kingdom is not of this world. If My kingdom were of this world, My servants would fight, so that I should not be delivered to the Jews; but now My kingdom is not from here.”

PDN

wolfsbane wrote: »

The structure is that which the apostles gave: elders in every church, and councils of these when major issues arose. No emperor elder at the top, king elders in an area and local commander elders in each church. That was what evolved as large sections of the Church drifted into error and apostatized.

It is interesting that Christians tend to copy the leadership structures that see around them in the world. The Church in the Roman Empire set up a leadership structure that mirrored Imperial Rome - complete with 'princes of the Church'. Calvinism & Presbyterianism adopted the system in 16th Century city states where a council of merchants or 'elders' held political power.

Today many African churches have pastors who like to act 'the big man' in the manner of an African politician. And, in the US, many churches are run like businesses with pastors behaving like CEOs.

In my opinion (subjective and fallible of course) the true New Testament model of leadership is that of servants who serve the congregation.

Monty.

wolfsbane wrote: »

As was circumcision, if we are to accept all the innovations Christian churches developed:

There we have it folks, the wish to demote and conflate the Last Supper and the Eucharist with circumcision.

Caulego

soterpisc wrote: »

I didn't suggest Peter was the head of the Church, but from what Christ said in the Gospels Peter seems to be the only apostle Christ Prayed for? "I have prayed for you, Peter, that your faith may not fail. You in turn must confirm your brethren". Also in the Acts if I am not mistaken it was Peter who initiated looking for a replaced for Judas?

lets not let this descend beyond the 1st Century.. But Wolfsbane in your opinion who was the head of the apostles? From a mundane/Human point of view who took the decisions after Pentecost? Was it a case that they said each do their own or did Peter have the ultimate say?

The followers of Jesus (Joshua) were originally called Nazarenes, and were also known as the followers of The Way, being first called 'Christian' at Antioch, in or around the late decades of the what we now call the 1st Century AD. Peter went to Antioch, and there is no reference to his ever being in Rome, even if popular tradition has him portrayed as going around with Saul-Paul, who used his Roman citizenship to avoid being lynched by the community in Jerusalem and other Jewish cities, as he was involved in the murder of Stephen, a Way follower.
There are many biblical references to Paul-Saul being accused of being a member of the 'sect of Nazarenes', which he denied, thus asking why he would do so if he did follow The Way, as that's what the early Christians were also called before being named Christian.
The Way groups operated on a localised basis, under 'bishops', which word derives from the Greek 'episcobus' or epi-scopus, meaning 'watcher' or 'overseer'. There were no 'popes' as we now know them, as that was a much later Graeco-Roman title, meaning 'father'.

santing

gimmebroadband wrote: »

2 Thess 2:15: "Stand firm and hold fast to the Traditions you were taught, whether by an ORAL STATEMENT or by a letter from us.

This only complicates things. The Apostle clearly limits the tradition to the apostolic tradition, so only a handful of people could "make" this tradition. As we have their written words (Gods Word), and we often cannot agree on the meaning of Gods Word, how can we possibly agree on something that the Apostles handed down but never bothered to write down?
This is not evolving "tradition," this is handed down "tradition." I would like to think that the oral traditions were part of the cultural requirements for the Christians in those days, but not part of the Christian faith in general. The Bible is enough.

PDN

santing wrote: »

This only complicates things. The Apostle clearly limits the tradition to the apostolic tradition, so only a handful of people could "make" this tradition. As we have their written words (Gods Word), and we often cannot agree on the meaning of Gods Word, how can we possibly agree on something that the Apostles handed down but never bothered to write down?
This is not evolving "tradition," this is handed down "tradition." I would like to think that the oral traditions were part of the cultural requirements for the Christians in those days, but not part of the Christian faith in general. The Bible is enough.

2 Thessalonians was most likely written before any of the Four Gospels (which is why Paul refers to 'letters' and oral communications). So the stuff we now have written in the Gospels was passed on for several decades orally. (This, btw, does not mean that they are unreliable - societies that transmit history orally often preserve that history more accurately than those who write it down.)

At first there was no need to write down the stories of Jesus. Most of the apostles were still alive, as were other eye-witnesses, and they would visit churches in various cities and share their experiences. Why bother with a written Gospel when you regularly get to listen to the apostles themselves? Besides, most early Christians expected Jesus to return in their own lifetimes - so why preserve anything for future generations?

This is why the first New Testament Scriptures written were Paul's epistles - they were addressing contemporary issues and problems rather than trying to preserve history.

All this changed, for several reasons.

1. The Church grew geographically and numerically to a point where regular visitation from the apostles became an impossibility.

2. The apostles were gradually being martyred under persecution. The Church would become aware of the impending danger that soon the eye-witnesses to Jesus' life, death and resurrection would no longer be around.

3. It began to become apparent that the Second Coming might not happen as soon as they thought. So how could they ensure the stories of Jesus were preserved accurately for future generations.

It is entirely understandable why, 25-50 years after Christ's death, the Four Gospels came to be written.

So, the most sensible interpretation of that verse from 2 Thessalonians is that the 'traditions' or oral teachings were the accounts of Jesus' life and teaching which today we have in the Gospels.

wolfsbane

Monty. said:

Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfsbane
As was circumcision, if we are to accept all the innovations Christian churches developed:
There we have it folks, the wish to demote and conflate the Last Supper and the Eucharist with circumcision.

It is Rome that has demoted and conflated the Lord's Table with Mosaic sacrifice. A separate priesthood, repeated sacrifices, incense, robes - none of which are part of NT Church doctrine and practice.

*********************************************************************
Colossians 2:8 Beware lest anyone cheat you through philosophy and empty deceit, according to the tradition of men, according to the basic principles of the world, and not according to Christ.

alex73

wolfsbane wrote: »

It is Rome that has demoted and conflated the Lord's Table with Mosaic sacrifice. A separate priesthood, repeated sacrifices, incense, robes - none of which are part of NT Church doctrine and practice.

Historically Factually wrong. For example Incense was used during the time of the Apostles, records exists from the 1st century that attest to it. Robes evolved from the Jewish era and were used in 1st Century. Use of incense would make sense, given that it was gifted to Jesus as is written in the Bible.

wolfsbane

PDN wrote: »

It is interesting that Christians tend to copy the leadership structures that see around them in the world. The Church in the Roman Empire set up a leadership structure that mirrored Imperial Rome - complete with 'princes of the Church'. Calvinism & Presbyterianism adopted the system in 16th Century city states where a council of merchants or 'elders' held political power.

Today many African churches have pastors who like to act 'the big man' in the manner of an African politician. And, in the US, many churches are run like businesses with pastors behaving like CEOs.

In my opinion (subjective and fallible of course) the true New Testament model of leadership is that of servants who serve the congregation.

Yes, all of us are prone to worldly thinking. That's why we need the Scriptures to inform and sanctify us.

Elders are indeed servants of the church - but rulers in that. They are subject to the authority of the congregation, but are there to lead, teach and rebuke from the word of God.

In a properly functioning church, the elders shepherd the flock and the flock prosper spiritually under their nurture and discipline.

In a malfunctioning church, the sheep are rebellious and /or the elders abusive or neglectful.

*****************************************************************
Acts 20:28 Therefore take heed to yourselves and to all the flock, among which the Holy Spirit has made you overseers, to shepherd the church of God which He purchased with His own blood.

wolfsbane

alex73 wrote: »

Historically Factually wrong. For example Incense was used during the time of the Apostles, records exists from the 1st century that attest to it. Robes evolved from the Jewish era and were used in 1st Century. Use of incense would make sense, given that it was gifted to Jesus as is written in the Bible.

Records? No Scripture? Records can exist of many perversions and follies in professing churches. Scripture in fact records the practice of Christian Jews, Peter and Barnabas among them, refusing to eat with Christian Gentiles. Doesn't make it right. In fact, it is very sinful.

Robes did indeed 'evolve' - as did the priesthood itself. It was not NT practice.

If the gifts to the infant Jesus are the measure of Church ritual, that would explain the papacy's love of gold.

********************************************************************
Colossians 2:8 Beware lest anyone cheat you through philosophy and empty deceit, according to the tradition of men, according to the basic principles of the world, and not according to Christ.

Monty.

wolfsbane wrote: »

If the gifts to the infant Jesus are the measure of Church ritual, that would explain the papacy's love of gold.

And who owns that Gold ?

It is also fitting to decorate his Fathers house.




The fine arts, including music and hymns are rightly classed among the noblest activities of man's genius; this is especially true of religious art and of its highest manifestation, sacred art. Their dedication is to the increase of God's praise and of his glory.

soterpisc

Anyway getting this Thread back on track...

I don't see much on the thread about the Apostolic Fathers. Clement of Rome, Tertullian, Ignatius of Antioch, Polycarp of Smyrna and - Didache and Shepherd of Hermas-

What can they tell us of the early church, Its probable they were in direct contact with the apostles.

Keylem

ST. IRENAEUS OF LYONS (c. 180 AD):

"So forceful are these arguments that no one should henceforth seek the truth from ANY OTHER SOURCE since it would be simple to get it from THE CHURCH ....On this account are we bound to avoid them, but to make choice of the things pertaining to the Church with utmost diligence, and to lay hold of the TRADITION OF TRUTH ..For how should it be if the Apostles themselves had not left us writing? Would it be necessary [in that case] to follow the course of Tradition which they handed down to those whom they committed the Churches?" (Against the Heresies 3:4:1)

"Though none others know we the disposition of our salvation, than those through whom the Gospel came to us, first heralding it, then by the will of God delivering us the Scriptures, which were to be the foundation and pillar of our faith. ...But when the heretics use Scriptures, as if they were wrong and unauthoritative, and we variable, and the truth could not be extracted from them by those who were IGNORANT OF TRADITION. And when we challenge them in turn with that TRADITION, which is FROM THE APOSTLES, which is guarded by the succession of presbyters in the churches, they oppose themselves to TRADITION, saying they are wiser, not only than those presbyters but even than the Apostles! The TRADITION OF THE APOSTLES manifested, on the contrary, in the whole world, is open in every church to all who seeks the truth ...And since it is a long matter in a work like this to enumerate these successions, we will confute them by pointing to the TRADITION of the greatest and most ancient and universally-known Church founded and constituted at Rome by the two most glorious Apostles, Peter and Paul, a TRADITION which she has had and a faith which she proclaims to all men FROM THOSE APOSTLES." (Against the Heresies 3:1-3)

"It comes to this, therefore, these men do not consent to either Scripture nor TRADITION." (Against the Heresies 3:2:2).

http://www.archive.org/details/VsHeresies

wolfsbane

Keylem wrote: »

ST. IRENAEUS OF LYONS (c. 180 AD):

"So forceful are these arguments that no one should henceforth seek the truth from ANY OTHER SOURCE since it would be simple to get it from THE CHURCH ....On this account are we bound to avoid them, but to make choice of the things pertaining to the Church with utmost diligence, and to lay hold of the TRADITION OF TRUTH ..For how should it be if the Apostles themselves had not left us writing? Would it be necessary [in that case] to follow the course of Tradition which they handed down to those whom they committed the Churches?" (Against the Heresies 3:4:1)

"Though none others know we the disposition of our salvation, than those through whom the Gospel came to us, first heralding it, then by the will of God delivering us the Scriptures, which were to be the foundation and pillar of our faith. ...But when the heretics use Scriptures, as if they were wrong and unauthoritative, and we variable, and the truth could not be extracted from them by those who were IGNORANT OF TRADITION. And when we challenge them in turn with that TRADITION, which is FROM THE APOSTLES, which is guarded by the succession of presbyters in the churches, they oppose themselves to TRADITION, saying they are wiser, not only than those presbyters but even than the Apostles! The TRADITION OF THE APOSTLES manifested, on the contrary, in the whole world, is open in every church to all who seeks the truth ...And since it is a long matter in a work like this to enumerate these successions, we will confute them by pointing to the TRADITION of the greatest and most ancient and universally-known Church founded and constituted at Rome by the two most glorious Apostles, Peter and Paul, a TRADITION which she has had and a faith which she proclaims to all men FROM THOSE APOSTLES." (Against the Heresies 3:1-3)

"It comes to this, therefore, these men do not consent to either Scripture nor TRADITION." (Against the Heresies 3:2:2).

http://www.archive.org/details/VsHeresies

An example of Christians using false arguments in a good cause. It may have seemed a good idea to Irenaeus to use tradition to back up his use of Scripture - but it established an authority for error in the future, when tradition veered from the truth. Like giving all civil liberties into the hands of the State in order to protect us from terrorism - good in the short term, evil in the longer term.

The Church was bothered with wilful error and honest mistakes from the apostolic days. Some of the apostles epistles were written to cure that. After the apostles' day, error was rampant and the struggle great. Each church and each generation had its struggle - some lost totally, some crippled, some victorious. But the seeds of corruption emerged not only from evil men, but good men too.

This has been the case right down to today. Doctrine and practice get skewed by prejudice, passion, poor logic, and cowardice - even among God's people. The pretence that the RCC has never erred in its dogma is delusional. Their claim to it is no different from that of the J.W's and Mormons. The reality is read in the lives of its leaders and the general nature of its Church. Unrecognisable as the Bride of Christ.

*****************************************************************
Matthew 7:15 “Beware of false prophets, who come to you in sheep’s clothing, but inwardly they are ravenous wolves. 16 You will know them by their fruits. Do men gather grapes from thornbushes or figs from thistles? 17 Even so, every good tree bears good fruit, but a bad tree bears bad fruit.

wolfsbane

Monty. wrote: »

And who owns that Gold ?

It is also fitting to decorate his Fathers house.




The fine arts, including music and hymns are rightly classed among the noblest activities of man's genius; this is especially true of religious art and of its highest manifestation, sacred art. Their dedication is to the increase of God's praise and of his glory.

Since when did God require these of His Church of the New Covenant? Our money, by NT pattern, is to be used to support the full-time workers in the gospel and to provide for the needy. Not for the leaders to live in luxury nor to gild the buildings in which we meet as if they are the Old Covenant temple.

Acts 3:6 Then Peter said, “Silver and gold I do not have, but what I do have I give you: In the name of Jesus Christ of Nazareth, rise up and walk.”

Revelation 3:17 Because you say, ‘I am rich, have become wealthy, and have need of nothing’—and do not know that you are wretched, miserable, poor, blind, and naked— 18 I counsel you to buy from Me gold refined in the fire, that you may be rich; and white garments, that you may be clothed, that the shame of your nakedness may not be revealed; and anoint your eyes with eye salve, that you may see.

********************************************************************
Matthew 7:15 “Beware of false prophets, who come to you in sheep’s clothing, but inwardly they are ravenous wolves. 16 You will know them by their fruits. Do men gather grapes from thornbushes or figs from thistles? 17 Even so, every good tree bears good fruit, but a bad tree bears bad fruit.

alex73

wolfsbane wrote: »

Since when did God require these of His Church of the New Covenant? Our money, by NT pattern, is to be used to support the full-time workers in the gospel and to provide for the needy. Not for the leaders to live in luxury nor to gild the buildings in which we meet as if they are the Old Covenant temple.

Christ clearly said what should be done with money. The wealth and the art of the Church.. esp in Rome, is the vestige of another era. It has nothing to do with the Central teachings of the church. However the art forms part of history inherited.

As for the Leaders living in Luxury.. As someone who actually knew Cardinal Ratzinger he was very simple person and not accustomed to luxury.

However the use of Gold for Chalices is a sign of respect towards Christ.

soterpisc

1st Century Thread related post please.. Makes no sense otherwise we might as well post what we like in every thread.

antiskeptic

soterpisc wrote: »

What can they tell us of the early church, Its probable they were in direct contact with the apostles.

What would their having direct contact with the apostles necessarily mean? alex73 (in a different context) seemed to be hinting as you seem to be hinting here: that the church fathers are somehow to be considered more (likely to be) accurately practicing apostolic Christianity simply because of their proximity to events or the apostles.

Such a view (first-up-best-dressed-ism) was queried in alex's case to no avail. If you're coming from the same place, perhaps you could give the question a stab? I've elaborated on it below.

alex73 wrote:

Also you are you calling the Priesthood a false title and you cling to a protestant reformed church that was founded more than a millennium later and based it on the bible taking it out of context from what was established.

antiskeptic wrote:

Your position is based on an approach that might be called "first up, best dressed-ism". And there is certainly an argument to be made that something that comes earlier is more accurate than something that comes later.

However, there is this issue of the NT's clear claims of error creeping into the NT-era church. That's before the church fathers views.

The existance of error from the start (potentially) negates FUBD-ism, since the establishment of a practice from early days is no guarantee that it is a true Christian practice - since the practice in question could stem from and have grown from .. error. The fact that an erroneous practice has lasted until the present day (in the case that it has) isn't a testimony to it's being a true Christian practice. A wrong path taken isn't any more right merely because folk have travelled it a long time.

What technique/approach to you apply to circumvent this problem so as to be able to rely on FUBD-ism?

alex73

antiskeptic wrote: »

What would their having direct contact with the apostles necessarily mean? alex73 (in a different context) seemed to be hinting as you seem to be hinting here: that the church fathers are somehow to be considered more (likely to be) accurately practicing apostolic Christianity simply because of their proximity to events or the apostles.

So are you saying (because you don't accept XYZ) what we should ignore all the writings of the early Church Fathers?

wolfsbane

alex73 wrote: »

Christ clearly said what should be done with money. The wealth and the art of the Church.. esp in Rome, is the vestige of another era. It has nothing to do with the Central teachings of the church. However the art forms part of history inherited.

As for the Leaders living in Luxury.. As someone who actually knew Cardinal Ratzinger he was very simple person and not accustomed to luxury.

However the use of Gold for Chalices is a sign of respect towards Christ.

The NT church is our example in use of money, and of images, and any other trappings later introduced as Christian. Purity was the standard - no palaces, other than prisons; no incense other than prayers; no images other than in our minds; no priests other than the people of God.

*****************************************************************
Matthew 7:15 “Beware of false prophets, who come to you in sheep’s clothing, but inwardly they are ravenous wolves. 16 You will know them by their fruits. Do men gather grapes from thornbushes or figs from thistles? 17 Even so, every good tree bears good fruit, but a bad tree bears bad fruit.

antiskeptic

alex73 wrote: »

So are you saying (because you don't accept XYZ) what we should ignore all the writings of the early Church Fathers?

What I'm doing is kicking into touch, the position that points to the early church fathers for automatic authority. Which in turn, kicks into touch so called sacred tradition as an authority if such tradition stems from the early church.

I mean, what is the point of pointing to what the early church fathers said (as a way of supporting the validity of a current day practice) if the early church fathers might well have been wrong in their view? You can't assume the early church fathers are correct simply because of their proximity to events. I mean, the NT states the early church capable of gross error.

Is the question clarified enough for you to answer it?

alex73

wolfsbane wrote: »

The NT church is our example in use of money, and of images, and any other trappings later introduced as Christian. Purity was the standard - no palaces, other than prisons; no incense other than prayers; no images other than in our minds; no priests other than the people of God.

Again that is your interpretation, there was a longing in the early church to visualise who Christ was, what he looked like... Thus images,We don't worship the image, we worship Christ in heaven. Yes there is no need for palaces. Incenses was used from the beginning.. As in Bible..Accepted are my prayers as incense before Thee... Did Christ say it was not to be used?

As for there being no Priests... There are many stated references to them in the early church, you interpret your way and I in another.

alex73

antiskeptic wrote: »

What I'm doing is kicking into touch, the position that points to the early church fathers for automatic authority. Which in turn, kicks into touch so called sacred tradition as an authority if such tradition stems from the early church.

I mean, what is the point of pointing to what the early church fathers said (as a way of supporting the validity of a current day practice) if the early church fathers might well have been wrong in their view? You can't assume the early church fathers are correct simply because of their proximity to events. I mean, the NT states the early church capable of gross error.

Is the question clarified enough for you to answer it?

Ok, I know you may not like me quoting the "on this rock" quote, but Christ did say this to his disciples that whatever the bound on earth would be bound in heaven, correct? Power binding and loosing. So were they given authority or not by Christ? I argue they did have authority. This they passed to men they selected to oversee they communities. And these men, Bishops/priests are present in the writings of early Church fathers.

So if you take if the the Church was formed and deformed at the same time, then that is your view. My view ( and i am just your ordinary lay Catholic here) is that the church was formed from the Apostles who passed the faith where they preached. The Apostles selected a man to replace Judas... They didn't go and preach you are all disciples and you call can pray you all they the authority that Christ passed to Us. They choose a person who would be custodian of the same Authority that they had.

So to disregard the structures of the early Church as deformed is to disregard what the Apostles initiated.

antiskeptic

alex73 wrote: »

Ok, I know you may not like me quoting the "on this rock" quote, but Christ did say this to his disciples that whatever the bound on earth would be bound in heaven, correct? Power binding and loosing. So were they given authority or not by Christ? I argue they did have authority. This they passed to men they selected to oversee they communities. And these men, Bishops/priests are present in the writings of early Church fathers.

I don't mind you quoting on this rock at all. It illustrates two things:

1) an inordinate amount of complex doctrine standing upon a pinprick of scripture (a technique formally known as eisegesis).

2) your rely on sola scriptura. It is from scripture that you extract the belief expressed here. Just as it is from scripture that I extract a belief contrary to yours.


But your failure to address the core question is the issue to hand. You've not said as much but you seem to be assuming that selection by apostles renders the men selected infallible in what they do, say .. or understand. This in the face of the rock-like apostle demonstrating himself capable of error unto rebuke by Paul (or Paul incorrectly rebuking Peter - whichever you prefer)

So if you take if the the Church was formed and deformed at the same time, then that is your view.

That is scriptures view.

wolfsbane

alex73 wrote: »

Again that is your interpretation, there was a longing in the early church to visualise who Christ was, what he looked like... Thus images,We don't worship the image, we worship Christ in heaven. Yes there is no need for palaces. Incenses was used from the beginning.. As in Bible..Accepted are my prayers as incense before Thee... Did Christ say it was not to be used?

As for there being no Priests... There are many stated references to them in the early church, you interpret your way and I in another.

The use of images, even when knowing they only represented the person behind them, was forbidden in the OT. Would the apostles have brought in a means of worship that only the heathens used?

Incense was not used in the NT. Prayer is the incense of God's people in the New Covenant. No types and shadows of sacrifices, incense and priests.

Did Christ forbid it? Yes - in that His apostles established how God is to be worshipped today, and they say nothing about it. We are not to devise means of worship from our own imagination.

The Early Church gradually embraced the ways of the world, as did Israel from the surrounding nations. We see the same approach to introducing popular thinking into churches today. But the real Church is called to test all things and reject the false. We do it imperfectly, but we press on. Those who sink under heathenism have apostatized.

*********************************************************************
Matthew 7:15 “Beware of false prophets, who come to you in sheep’s clothing, but inwardly they are ravenous wolves. 16 You will know them by their fruits. Do men gather grapes from thornbushes or figs from thistles? 17 Even so, every good tree bears good fruit, but a bad tree bears bad fruit.