What is the History of the Early Church from Christ to about 400 A.D.

What was Peter's role in that Church.

JoeT

The earliest Christians relied on the apostles, led by Saint Peter, as their authority in settling questions of doctrine and government. After the death of the apostles, the church faced the problem of where to turn for authority in such matters. In the 100's, two developments helped solve the problem. First, the church gradually recognized the books of the New Testament as sources of authority in doctrine. Second, the basic orders of Christian ministry--bishops, presbyters (later called priests), and deacons--became more clearly defined.

Source :- Article by Contributor: Robert P. Imbelli, Ph.D. Associate Prof. of Theology, Boston College.

The earliest Christians relied on the apostles, led by Saint Peter, as their authority in settling questions of doctrine and government. After the death of the apostles, the church faced the problem of where to turn for authority in such matters. In the 100's, two developments helped solve the problem. First, the church gradually recognized the books of the New Testament as sources of authority in doctrine. Second, the basic orders of Christian ministry--bishops, presbyters (later called priests), and deacons--became more clearly defined.

Source :- Article by Contributor: Robert P. Imbelli, Ph.D., Associate Prof. of Theology, Boston College.

I would agree on most, except for two points.

1) There is no evidence of Peter being led by Peter.

2) The Bible was recognized and quoted, even the NT, in the 1st century. We have evidence within the Bible to that fact.

I would agree on most, except for two points.

1) There is no evidence of Peter being led by Peter.

2) The Bible was recognized and quoted, even the NT, in the 1st century. We have evidence within the Bible to that fact.

What about all the evidence given in Rick's post https://www.askmehelpdesk.com/christianity/what-scripture-verse-show-peter-leader-part-2-a-325543.html#post1587706

What about all the evidence given in Rick's post https://www.askmehelpdesk.com/christianity/what-scripture-verse-show-peter-leader-part-2-a-325543.html#post1587706

That link does not go to a post by Rick, but one by me.

The earliest Christians relied on the apostles, led by Saint Peter, as their authority in settling questions of doctrine and government. After the death of the apostles, the church faced the problem of where to turn for authority in such matters. In the 100's, two developments helped solve the problem. First, the church gradually recognized the books of the New Testament as sources of authority in doctrine. Second, the basic orders of Christian ministry--bishops, presbyters (later called priests), and deacons--became more clearly defined.

Source :- Article by Contributor: Robert P. Imbelli, Ph.D., Associate Prof. of Theology, Boston College.


Nicely put. However, I would suggest that there is scriptural evidance of bishops, presbyters from the ascension of Christ.

JoeT

That link does not go to a post by Rick, but one by me.


It's linked to that post number? It should

See page 1 post 9 "What Scripture verse show that Peter was the leader? Part (2)"

it's linked to that post number? it should

For some reason it does not. Why don't you tell us the post number?

For some reason it does not. Why don't you tell us the post number?

I did

I did

I did not see your edit.

Do you mean the page full of opinions of various men? I commented on that in the thread. I go by what scripture says. Men can err, the Bible does not.

I did not see your edit.

Do you mean the page full of opinions of various men? I commented on that in the thread. I go by what scripture says. Men can err, the Bible does not.

Well yes. Does it bother you that men give evidence. Are not the Gospels meant (in part) as evidence? So too, can not a man give evidence of what he knows to be true?

JoeT

Well yes. Does it bother you that men give evidence.

No. If we want to deal with opinions, as many can be found in opposition to what you believe as in support of. But scripture is the word of God and does not vary in its "opinion".


Are not the Gospels meant (in part) as evidence? So too, can not a man give evidence of what he knows to be true?

The gospels are God's word, not man's word.

No. If we want to deal with opinions, as many can be found in opposition to what you believe as in support of. But scripture is the word of God and does not vary in its "opinion".



The gospels are God's word, not man's word.

To the point Tom! What is the evidence that the Church started in the era of Constantine. If you don't respond with the evidence promised I'll never respond to a single one of your posts again. I'll know you're not debating in good faith – just a spoiler. But, maybe that's why you engage Catholics; to break-up and confuse the conversation? This is something I've long suspected.

JoeT

To the point Tom! What is the evidence that the Church started in the era of Constantine.

There is so much, but I thought that you would like this one from one of your best known leaders:

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"We are told in various ways by Eusebius that Constantine, in order to recommend the new religion to the heathen, transferred into it the outward ornaments to which they had been accustomed in their own. It is not necessary to go into a subject which the diligence of Protestant writers has made familiar to most of us. The use of temples, and those dedicated to the particular saints, and ornamented on occasion with branches of trees, incense, lamps, and candles; votive offerings on recovery from illness, holy water, asylums, holy days and seasons, use of calendars, processions, blessings on the fields, sacerdotal vestments, the tonsure, the ring in marriage, turning to the East, images at a later date, perhaps the ecclesiastical chant and the Kyrie Eleison are all of pagan origin, and sanctified by adoption into the Church."

Source: J. H. Newman, An Essay on the Development of Christian Doctrine, Chapter 8.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Interestingly, when I posted one of the prior times on this board, one of the fellow members of your denomination said that he would have to reject Newman for making this statement because it disagreed with what he wanted to believe.


If you don’t respond with the evidence promised I’ll never respond to a single one of your posts again. I’ll know you’re not debating in good faith – just a spoiler. But, maybe that's why you engage Catholics; to break-up and confuse the conversation? This is something I've long suspected.


Why don't you hold the abuse until you seen the answer - or maybe it is just boiling up within you and you just cannot wait to jump the gun and post abuse.

BTW, I get a laugh with your comments about me and Catholics. If only you knew some of my personal history with Catholics:p

But details like that would ruin a good story for you.

There is so much, but I thought that you would like this one from one of your best known leaders:

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"We are told in various ways by Eusebius that Constantine, in order to recommend the new religion to the heathen, transferred into it the outward ornaments to which they had been accustomed in their own. It is not necessary to go into a subject which the diligence of Protestant writers has made familiar to most of us. The use of temples, and those dedicated to the particular saints, and ornamented on occasion with branches of trees, incense, lamps, and candles; votive offerings on recovery from illness, holy water, asylums, holy days and seasons, use of calendars, processions, blessings on the fields, sacerdotal vestments, the tonsure, the ring in marriage, turning to the East, images at a later date, perhaps the ecclesiastical chant and the Kyrie Eleison are all of pagan origin, and sanctified by adoption into the Church."

Source: J. H. Newman, An Essay on the Development of Christian Doctrine, Chapter 8.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Interestingly, when I posted one of the prior times on this board, one of the fellow members of your denomination said that he would have to reject Newman for making this statement because it disagreed with what he wanted to believe.



Why don't you hold the abuse until you seen the answer - or maybe it is just boil,ing up within you and you just cannot wait to jump the gun and post abuse.

Let's see some more evidence. You've quoted someone, now let's see some historical evidence.

Let's see some more evidence. You've quoted someone, now let's see some historical evidence.

Heh heh - you trusted quotes from church leader before - what? You don't like Newman now? Or is it Eusebius the historian that you don't like?

I expected no less from you.

heh heh - you trusted quotes from church leader before - what? You don't like Newman now? Or is it Eusebius the historian that you don't like?

I expected no less from you.

You just haven't really said anything yet. You've got a snippet of Newman talking about Eusebius. You had promised us scholars, leading scholars.

Why don't you start by explaining why you take this bit from Newman to show that the Catholic Church was begun by Constantine in the fourth century. That was the question. How does the bit of text you've quoted prove that? A perfectly reasonable question.

You just haven't really said anything yet. You've got a snippet of Newman talking about Eusebius. You had promised us scholars, leading scholars.

So you reject Eusebius and Newman as scholars. That is interesting. So if you reject them, why should I think that you will accept anyone who disagrees with you? After all, so far you have claimed that the top Greek experts are wrong, so why should I think that the same pattern will not exhibit itself here?


Why don't you start by explaining why you take this bit from Newman to show that the Catholic Church was begun by Constantine in the fourth century. That was the question. How does the bit of text you've quoted prove that? A perfectly reasonable question.

What church exactly do you think resulted from Constantine combining pagan elements and Christian elements?

You just haven't really said anything yet. You've got a snippet of Newman talking about Eusebius. You had promised us scholars, leading scholars.

Why don't you start by explaining why you take this bit from Newman to show that the Catholic Church was begun by Constantine in the fourth century. That was the question. How does the bit of text you've quoted prove that? A perfectly reasonable question.


Lord Have Mercy, Now wait a minute Akoue, 'Kyrie Eleison' is really profound stuff. Why, if it ever got around that Catholic said 'Kyrie Eleison' it might look bad.

JoeT

So you reject Eusebius and Newman as scholars. That is interesting. So if you reject them, why should I think that you will accept anyone who disagrees with you? Afterall, so far you have claimed that the top Greek experts are wrong, so why should I think that the same pattern will not exhibit itself here?



What church exactly do you think resulted from Constantine combining pagan elements and Christian elements?

I haven't rejected anything. You quoted a short snippet from Newman, in which he mentions Eusebius. This isn't evidence that the Catholic Church was begun by Constantine in the fourth century. This is just Newman talking about Eusebius. What do you take this to prove about anything? Explain.

Oh, and I do reserve the right to reject what I believe to be false. If I find myself in that position, I will happily provide reasons for rejecting it. But so far, you haven't really said anything.

There is so much, but I thought that you would like this one from one of your best known leaders:
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"We are told in various ways by Eusebius that Constantine, in order to recommend the new religion to the heathen, transferred into it the outward ornaments to which they had been accustomed in their own. It is not necessary to go into a subject which the diligence of Protestant writers has made familiar to most of us. The use of temples, and those dedicated to the particular saints, and ornamented on occasion with branches of trees, incense, lamps, and candles; votive offerings on recovery from illness, holy water, asylums, holy days and seasons, use of calendars, processions, blessings on the fields, sacerdotal vestments, the tonsure, the ring in marriage, turning to the East, images at a later date, perhaps the ecclesiastical chant and the Kyrie Eleison are all of pagan origin, and sanctified by adoption into the Church."

Source: J. H. Newman, An Essay on the Development of Christian Doctrine, Chapter 8.

Lord Have Mercy, So how does this prove that there was no Catholic Church prior to Constantine? This quote says that Constantine used these perfectly acceptable methods to spread a new religion among the heathen.


JoeT

Lord Have Mercy, Now wait a minute Akoue, 'Kyrie Eleison' is really profound stuff. Why, if it ever got around that Catholic said 'Kyrie Eleison’ it might look bad.

JoeT

Yeah. That prayer dates to the second century.

Yeah. That prayer dates to the second century.


Oh! You mean its not a pagan chant?

Oh! you mean its not a pagan chant?

Nope, not by a long shot. The "Agnus Dei" also dates from the second century. Tertullian writes about making the sign of the Cross--in the second century. Etc. I don't know what this evidence will turn out to be, but I'm sure it will be... interesting.

ADDITION:

I have the vague impression that this little snippet was supposed to cause our eyes to roll back in our heads or something. Of course, Newman (a former Anglican who converted to Catholicism because, he said, his study of early Christianity persuaded him that it was the True Church and authentic Christianity) is talking about the "New" religion of Christianity, which during Constantine's reign came to supplant the "Old" religion of pagan and emperor worhip. It's not at all clear to me how this could be taken even to be relevant, let alone prove that the Catholic Church originated in the fourth century.

ROMCAM.
Very Good.
Right your are Scripture and History prove it.
Peace and kindness,
Fred

Nope, not by a long shot. The "Agnus Dei" also dates from the second century. Tertullian writes about making the sign of the Cross--in the second century. Etc. I don't know what this evidence will turn out to be, but I'm sure it will be... interesting.

ADDITION:

I have the vague impression that this little snippet was supposed to cause our eyes to roll back in our heads or something. Of course, Newman (a former Anglican who converted to Catholicism because, he said, his study of early Christianity persuaded him that it was the True Church and authentic Christianity) is talking about the "New" religion of Christianity, which during Constantine's reign came to supplant the "Old" religion of pagan and emperor worhip. It's not at all clear to me how this could be taken even to be relevant, let alone prove that the Catholic Church originated in the fourth century.

Yeah, I was a little taken back by this bit of ‘evidence’ also. The only thing I could think of was ‘so what’. Maybe after Tj has a chance to work on it a bit, he can clue us in.

New Advent suggests that ‘Kyrie Eleison’ actually is bibilical and is found in part in the Old Testament in Psalm 4:2, 6:3, 9:14, 25:11, 121:3; Isaiah 33:2; Tobit 8:10; and in the New Testament in Matthew 9:27, 20:30, 15:22; Mark 10:47; Luke 16:24, 17:13.

I’ve heard Protestant Apologists discuss ‘Kyrie Eleison’ before as if it was a dirty name or something. I haven’t quite figured out what the objection is. Have you got any idea?

Yeah, I was a little taken back by this bit of ‘evidence’ also. The only thing I could think of was ‘so what’. Maybe after Tj has a chance to work on it a bit, he can clue us in.

New Advent suggests that ‘Kyrie Eleison’ actually is bibilical and is found in part in the Old Testament in Psalm 4:2, 6:3, 9:14, 25:11, 121:3; Isaiah 33:2; Tobit 8:10; and in the New Testament in Matthew 9:27, 20:30, 15:22; Mark 10:47; Luke 16:24, 17:13.

I’ve heard Protestant Apologists discuss ‘Kyrie Eleison’ before as if it was a dirty name or something. I haven’t quite figured out what the objection is. Have you got any idea?

Not really. "Kyrie eleison" is Greek for "Lord have mercy". "Christe eleison" is Greek for "Christ have mercy".

Not really. "Kyrie eleison" is Greek for "Lord have mercy". "Christe eleison" is Greek for "Christ have mercy".

I knew that, you lost me in the significance of your post.

I knew that, you lost me in the significance of your post.

You asked if I have any idea why some people have a problem with the Kyrie. Hence the "Not really". I can't see what would be wrong with it.

You asked if I have any idea why some people have a problem with the Kyrie. Hence the "Not really". I can't see what would be wrong with it.

Ok, poor joe. It's past his bed time.

ROMCAM.
Very Good.
Right your are Scripture and History prove it.
Peace and kindness,
Fred


I'll be happy to open 'What Scripture verse show that Peter was the leader? Part (3)' if you want. I don't know how much more information we can get out this; we got a fairly exhaustive list on the first 2 or 3 pages. . We could branch off to a corollary of some sort.

JoeT

But, in the morning.

What is the History of the Early Church from Christ to about 400 A.D.

What was Peter's role in that Church.

JoeT

Entire volumes have been written on that subject...
One thing you might find helpful is reading the works of the early Christian writers. Here's a nice list that you can read online and/or print.
CHURCH FATHERS: Home (http://newadvent.org/fathers/index.html)

I haven't rejected anything. You quoted a short snippet from Newman, in which he mentions Eusebius. This isn't evidence that the Catholic Church was begun by Constantine in the fourth century. This is just Newman talking about Eusebius. What do you take this to prove about anything? Explain.

Can you tell me any other church that Eusebius and newman might be speaking of other than the Roman catholic Church?

Did not Constantine live in the 4th century?

Was Constantine not the Pontif of the pagan Roman religion?

What was the "new religion" that Newman speaks of?

Ponder those questions for a bit.


Oh, and I do reserve the right to reject what I believe to be false. If I find myself in that position, I will happily provide reasons for rejecting it. But so far, you haven't really said anything.

Yes, you have the right to reject anything false. But so far, since I first ran into you on this board, you have rejected anything that does not agree with what you want to believe, no matter who or what the source is. That is not the same thing.

Lord Have Mercy, So how does this prove that there was no Catholic Church prior to Constantine?

First, let's be clear what we are talking about - we are discussing the Roman catholic denomination.


This quote says that Constantine used these perfectly acceptable methods to spread a new religion among the heathen.

So, incorporating paganism into the church is, in your view an acceptable approach?

Okay - clearly we disagree.

First, let's be clear what we are talking about - we are discussing the Roman catholic denomination.

There WERE no denominations in the first 4 centuries.

One needs to understand what "catholic" means:

The first known use of the term “the catholic church” (note the small “c”) was about 110 A.D.; in a letter from an early Christian leader, Ignatius, to the [Church of the] Smyrnaeans:

“…even as where Jesus may be, there is the katholike ekklesia“…katholike ekklesia is translated “universal church” or “the catholic church” or “the one and only church”.

For the full text of the letter, click here (http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/0109.htm). All Christians can enjoy reading what Christian leaders of the generation following the Apostles wrote.

By the beginning of the 4th century, the descriptive (adjective) “catholic” became the popular name (noun) of the Church of the Christians: The Catholic Church.

There WERE no denominations in the first 4 centuries.

325 AD was the first.


One needs to understand what "catholic" means:

The first known use of the term “the catholic church” (note the small “c”) was about 110 A.D.; in a letter from an early Christian leader, Ignatius, to the [Church of the] Smyrnaeans:

“…even as where Jesus may be, there is the katholike ekklesia“…katholike ekklesia is translated “universal church” or “the catholic church” or “the one and only church”.

For the full text of the letter, click here (http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/0109.htm). All Christians can enjoy reading what Christian leaders of the generation following the Apostles wrote.

By the beginning of the 4th century, the descriptive (adjective) “catholic” became the popular name (noun) of the Church of the Christians: The Catholic Church.

Prior to 325AD, the term catholic referred to the Christian church, and yes it was small "c", not a denomination, and did not always agree and was not under one leader. In 325, Constantine (not the man who the Roman catholic denomination claims was pope) called and presided over the Council of Nicea and subsequently issued decrees to the churches.

This was a key change.

325 AD was the first [denomination].

We'll have to agree to disagree. There is no historical info to back that up. There were schisms galore even before that, but no "denominations".

We'll have to agree to disagree. There is no historical info to back that up. There were schisms galore even before that, but no "denominations".

No historical information to back what up? How could there be a schism if there was no denomination to break off from?

We agree that there are no denominations prior to 325 (you may think it extends further, I don't know).

We do have historical evidence regarding what Constantine did to the church at and after the council of Nicea. It seems to me that we may only disagree on what the definition of a denomination is.

The schism's broke off from the one and only church. They taught other than what Christ and the apostles taught. That's what made them schisms.

Today we call schisms "denominations".

The schism's broke off from the one and only church.

There was not just one and only church from an organizational perspective. There was if we are speaking of the body of Christ, but that is not what we are discussing here. The body of Christ does not have denominations, nor does membership in an organization whether it be a local church or denomination make one a member of the body of Christ.


They taught other than what Christ and the apostles taught. That's what made them schisms.

Today we call schisms "denominations".

I think that you'd have a hard time getting any expert in the English language accepting your definition equating the word "schism" to "denomination". Can you find any recognized dictionary that say that?

A denomination exists essentially when a manmade organization establishes a central authority under which all other churches are bound. That did not exist until 325AD.

I don't agree with any of your suppositions. They are not what either Christ or his apostles spoke about.

I just don't find it in what "the church" was thinking or doing in those early days.

... so again, we'll just have to agree to disagree :)

No actually it is your issue with words and not wanting to accept that what is the catholic church today came from the original group started by Christ, lead latter by Peter and continued by all the Popes.

But yes schism, if there was no schism there would be no other denominations today. Since if all were still in communion there would still be only one church.

So since there was only ONE church, if anyone started a new church it indeed would have been in schism with the main church since being in union was part of it.

No actually it is your issue with words and not wanting to accept that what is the catholic church today came from the original group started by Christ, lead latter by Peter and continued by all the Popes.

I did not say that it did not come from the original group. The majority of denominations came from the original group, but since there was no denomination in the 1st century, no denomination IS the original group.

Second, there is no evidence in the Bible of Peter being the leader nor is there evidence of a pope in the 1st century. That is why I reject those points.


So since there was only ONE church, if anyone started a new church it indeed would have been in schism with the main church since being in union was part of it.

Scripture and history does not indicate that there was a single church organization. There was one true church but that is the body of Christ. In the Bible we see that there were unbelievers in the organized churches, which means that the organized churches are not the body of Christ, but may contain members who are also members of the body of Christ.

So when we see references to one church, we cannot assume that is speak of a church organization because we know that was not the case.

Can you tell me any other church that Eusebius and newman might be speaking of other than the Roman catholic Church?

Christianity, which had just been given legal recognition by the Roman Empire.


Did not Constantine live in the 4th century?

Yes.


Was Constantine not the Pontif of the pagan Roman religion?

What do you mean by "Pontiff"?


What was the "new religion" that Newman speaks of?

Chrisianity, which had just been given legal recognition by the Roman Empire.


Ponder those questions for a bit.

Thanks, I'm good.

So where is all this historical evidence that the Catholic Church began in the fourth century? So far you haven't introduced any.

Christianity, which had just been given legal recognition by the Roman Empire.

Yes, of course they had, once Constantine decided the it was useful to him.


What do you mean by "Pontiff"?

Look it up. It is not like there are a lot of definitions of "pontiff" relative to this context.



Chrisianity, which had just been given legal recognition by the Roman Empire.

Actually, it was Constantine's version of Christianity - changed as indicated by Newman.


So where is all this historical evidence that the Catholic Church began in the fourth century? So far you haven't introduced any.

Exactly the response that I expected. I have just established that One of your best known and best respected denominational Cardinals says that Constantine started a new religion, and Constantine lived in the 4th century.

Entire volumes have been written on that subject...
One thing you might find helpful is reading the works of the early Christian writers. Here's a nice list that you can read online and/or print.
CHURCH FATHERS: Home (http://newadvent.org/fathers/index.html)

Yes, this is a excellent source – I use it often and would recommend it to everybody.

Thanks,


JoeT

Yes, of course they had, once Constantine decided the it was useful to him.

Okay, so Constantine converted to Christianity and gave it legal recognition because it was useful to him. That doesn't come close to demonstrating that he started the Catholic Church.


Look it up. It is not like there are a lot of definitions of "pontiff" relative to this context.

It's just not at all clear what the force of this is supposed to be. Is it your idea that the title "Pontifex Maximus" shows us that Constantine founded the Catholic Church? If so, that would be a massive non sequitur. The title "Pontifex Maximus" was used in pagan religion, and then came to be used as one of a number of titles for the bishop of Rome. Similarly, the title "Kurios" had been used for pagan Gods (esp. Apollo and Zeus) and for pagan religious leaders, and yet Christians have always used the title "Kurios" to refer to Christ. So what do you think this shows?


Actually, it was Constantine's version of Christianity - changed as indicated by Newman.

Are you going to give historical evidence that Constantine founded the Catholic Church, or are you doing Newman exigesis? Explain, if you can, how what you've said about Newman's remarks about Eusebius demonstrates that Constantine founded the Catholic Church.

Have you any historical evidence for your historical claims?


I have just established that One of your best known and best respected denominational Cardinals says that Constantine started a new religion, and Constantine lived in the 4th century.

You haven't yet established anything. All you've done is to quote a snippet of Newman. Yes, Newman was a Cardinal. And yes, he is a respected theologian (though it would be a gross exaggeration to say that he is one of the "best respected" Catholic theologians--he is a respected theologian), but he is not an especially eminent Church historian. Do you know of any eminent historians who hold the view that the Catholic Church didn't exist until the fourth century? If so, please name and quote them here.

In any event, Newman wasn't claiming that Constantinte started a new religion. That is a rather dramatic misreading of his very simple point, which is that Constantine replaced the "old" pagan religion of the Roman Empire with the "new" religion of Christianity. This is what Newman is talking about, and this is why he refers to Eusebius--because this is what Eusebius was talking about as well. Neither Newman nor Eusebius is making the claim that Constantine began a new religion: It was new in the sense that Christianity supplanted the old pagan religion of the empire. Surely you can tell that from even a casual perusal of the text.

So again, I'll ask you to present historicall evidence for your claim. The musings of a nineteenth century English bishop don't by any stretch of the imagination constitute historical evidence--even if those musings could reasonably taken to imply what you have suggested. But, of course, they don't imply that; you are misrepresenting Newman. So maybe you want to leave the Newman exigesis to one side and bring something relevant to bear on the topic. You have yet to do so, though I'm sure it won't be difficult for you, since you claim to have an enormous wealth of evidence in store for us.

Okay, so Constantine converted to Christianity and gave it legal recognition because it was useful to him.

I note that you added a claim - that he converted to Christianity. That is, at very best, a matter of controversy. There appears to have been as much political convenience in the supposed conversion as anything. The other claim that you made here was a premise in your argument, not mine.


That doesn't come close to demonstrating that he started the Catholic Church.

I note that in your syllogism above, you ignored everything that either I or Newman or Eusebius said and then stated a conclusion based upon that. So you post two premises, both yours, neither of which had anything to do with what I said, one not validated, and then you claim that the conclusion agrees with you.

Surprise! Can you say "circular reasoning"?

If you had no intend of even considering the facts placed before you, why bother wasting your time and time?



It's just not at all clear what the force of this is supposed to be. Is it your idea that the title "Pontifex Maximus" shows us that Constantine founded the Catholic Church? If so, that would be a massive non sequitur.

Once again, you rush to conclusion. So far there have been two logic fallacies posted in your post, two conclusions and neither based upon anything that I posted.

No wonder we cannot have any value added dialogue when you completely avoid discussing what I post. If this is the approach that you intend to take, clearly even if I had Constantine stand in front of you and tell you that he did it, you'd claim that he was senile and didn't mean what he said.

Originally Posted by Tj3
Yes, of course they had, once Constantine decided the it was useful to him.
Okay, so Constantine converted to Christianity and gave it legal recognition because it was useful to him. That doesn't come close to demonstrating that he started the Catholic Church.

I think the response to TJ here is so obvious that one normally wouldn't think of it. The contention is that there was no “Catholic Church” until Constantine was converted. Well duh! If there were no Catholics in existence what did Constantine convert to? In order to make this statement Tj would need to advance the concept that Constantine is the FOUNDER of the Catholic Church. On other sites, this argument is used by Tj to mislead those who don't know the history of the Catholic Church.



Originally Posted by Tj3
Look it up. It is not like there are a lot of definitions of "pontiff" relative to this context.

It's just not at all clear what the force of this is supposed to be. Is it your idea that the title "Pontifex Maximus" shows us that Constantine founded the Catholic Church? If so, that would be a massive non sequitur. The title "Pontifex Maximus" was used in pagan religion, and then came to be used as one of a number of titles for the bishop of Rome. Similarly, the title "Kurios" had been used for pagan Gods (esp. Apollo and Zeus) and for pagan religious leaders, and yet Christians have always used the title "Kurios" to refer to Christ. So what do you think this shows?

This has been discussed before on other threads. The underlying contention here is that the Catholic Church took on a (pagon) Latin name Pontiff (pontifex) which was also the name of the pagan high priest of the Roman Republic. But, there is also another meaning ignored, pontifex is drevied form the words 'bridge' + 'facere' or 'to make' making the word pontifex mean “bridge-builder”. This objection has to do with using the vulgar (or common) language of the day. And the Tj contention is that if you use a pagon name for your leader you must be pagon.




Originally Posted by Tj3
Actually, it was Constantine's version of Christianity - changed as indicated by Newman.

Are you going to give historical evidence that Constantine founded the Catholic Church, or are you doing Newman exigesis? Explain, if you can, how what you've said about Newman's remarks about Eusebius demonstrates that Constantine founded the Catholic Church.

Have you any historical evidence for your historical claims?
I'm not sure Tj3 understands who Eusebius or for that matter understands that Neman converted. The piece quoted is one of his pre-conversion works. I think Tj3 is forcing contextual interpretations to support his arguments.



Originally Posted by Tj3
I have just established that One of your best known and best respected denominational Cardinals says that Constantine started a new religion, and Constantine lived in the 4th century.
You haven't yet established anything. All you've done is to quote a snippet of Newman. Yes, Newman was a Cardinal. And yes, he is a respected theologian (though it would be a gross exaggeration to say that he is one of the "best respected" Catholic theologians--he is a respected theologian), but he is not an especially eminent Church historian. Do you know of any eminent historians who hold the view that the Catholic Church didn't exist until the fourth century? If so, please name and quote them here.

In any event, Newman wasn't claiming that Constantinte started a new religion. That is a rather dramatic misreading of his very simple point, which is that Constantine replaced the "old" pagan religion of the Roman Empire with the "new" religion of Christianity. This is what Newman is talking about, and this is why he refers to Eusebius--because this is what Eusebius was talking about as well. Neither Newman nor Eusebius is making the claim that Constantine began a new religion: It was new in the sense that Christianity supplanted the old pagan religion of the empire. Surely you can tell that from even a casual perusal of the text.

So again, I'll ask you to present historicall evidence for your claim. The musings of a nineteenth century English bishop don't by any stretch of the imagination constitute historical evidence--even if those musings could reasonably taken to imply what you have suggested. But, of course, they don't imply that; you are misrepresenting Newman. So maybe you want to leave the Newman exigesis to one side and bring something relevant to bear on the topic. You have yet to do so, though I'm sure it won't be difficult for you, since you claim to have an enormous wealth of evidence in store for us.

Newman exegesis? I didn't know you could do this – did Newman write a bible?

JoeT

I note that you added a claim - that he converted to Christianity. That is, at very best, a matter of controversy. There appears to have been as much political convenience in the supposed conversion as anything.

Okay, so instead of "conversion" lets say "supposed conversion". Still, nothing that you've said comes within a country mile of demonstrating that Constantine founded that Catholic Church. So give some historical evidence that he did.


I note that in your syllogism above, you ignored everything that either I or Newman or Eusebius said and then stated a conclusion based upon that. If you had no intend of even considering the facts placed before you, why bother wasting your time and time?

First, I didn't provide a syllogism.

Second, I haven't ignored anything. I simply explained that what you provided is not evidence that Constantine founded the Catholic Church. Neither is it evidence that the Catholic Church originated in the fourth century. Where is this evidence you claim to have?


Once again, you rush to conclusion. So far there have been two logic fallacies posted in your post, two conclusions and neither based upon anything that I posted.


If I have, indeed, committed any *logical* (that's the term) fallacies, please point them out. I notice you are now avoiding the subject matter and instead engaging in a kind of meta-discussion. Explain how anything you have said demonstrates that the Catholic Church wad begun by Constantine in the fourth century. My only interest is in seeing the compelling evidence you claim to have. I'm not talking with you for the fun of it; I want to see your evidence.


No wonder we cannot have any value added dialogue when you completely avoid discussing what I post.

"Value added" doesn't mean what you appear to think it means.

I have addressed your posts point by point. I have discussed the claims made in your posts, demonstrating that--so far at least--they do no support your assertion that the Catholic Church was founded, or otherwise begun, by Constantine. If you'd like to stay on topic, then you might rather present your evidence rather than complaining about me. I have addressed your posts your claims in a sober and clear way. So far, what you've offered falls far short of supporting your claim. So by all means, provide some evidence that will so that we can evaluate it.

I note that you added a claim - that he converted to Christianity. That is, at very best, a matter of controversy. There appears to have been as much political convenience in the supposed conversion as anything. The other claim that you made here was a premise in your argument, not mine.



I note that in your syllogism above, you ignored everything that either I or Newman or Eusebius said and then stated a conclusion based upon that. So you post two premises, both yours, neither of which had anything to do with what I said, one not validated, and then you claim that the conclusion agrees with you.

Surprise! Can you say "circular reasoning"?

If you had no intend of even considering the facts placed before you, why bother wasting your time and time?



Once again, you rush to conclusion. So far there have been two logic fallacies posted in your post, two conclusions and neither based upon anything that I posted.

No wonder we cannot have any value added dialogue when you completely avoid discussing what I post. If this is the approach that you intend to take, clearly even if I had Constantine stand in front of you and tell you that he did it, you'd claim that he was senile and didn't mean what he said.


Another edited post.

Please, explain what syllogism I constructed and how it is guilty of circularity.

I am unaware of having offered a syllogism. I merely explained why your "evidence" is not in fact evidence for your claim. But if I am mistaken, and am guilty of some form of circularity, kindly explain what that circularity is and how my post is guilty of it.

Okay, so instead of "conversion" lets say "supposed conversion".

No, let's not discuss that at all. That is not something that even put forward as a premise. It is something that you put forward to distract away from what I posted.



First, I didn't provide a syllogism.

Not a good one, and not one that complied with the rules of logic, I agree.


Second, I haven't ignored anything. I simply explained that what you provided is not evidence that Constantine founded the Catholic Church.

What you examine where premises that you created and posted.

Do you actually intend to discuss the topic at hand, or just post up your own ideas and congratulate yourself on how good you can impress yourself at the quality of your argument?

Otherwise you are simply playing games and the message that I hear is that you have no interest in a serious examination of the facts.

I think the response to TJ here is so obvious that one normally wouldn’t think of it. The contention is that there was no “Catholic Church” until Constantine was converted. Well duh! If there were no Catholics in existence what did Constantine convert to? In order to make this statement Tj would need to advance the concept that Constantine is the FOUNDER of the Catholic Church. On other sites, this argument is used by Tj to mislead those who don’t know the history of the Catholic Church.

Thanks for the background info. I was unaware that he has used this very specious line in other venues.



This has been discussed before on other threads. The underlying contention here is that the Catholic Church took on a (pagon) Latin name Pontiff (pontifex) which was also the name of the pagan high priest of the Roman Republic. But, there is also another meaning ignored, pontifex is drevied form the words ‘bridge’ + ‘facere’ or ‘to make’ making the word pontifex mean “bridge-builder”. This objection has to do with using the vulgar (or common) language of the day. And the Tj contention is that if you use a pagon name for your leader you must be pagon.

And that would be a curious conclusion to draw, since by that reasoning the NT is guilty of importing paganism when it refers to Christ as "Ho Kurios".

No, let's not discuss that at all. That is not something that even put forward as a premise. It is something that you put forward to distract away from what I posted.



Not a good one, and not one that complied with the rules of logic, I agree.



What you examine where premises that you created and posted.

Do you actually intend to discuss the topic at hand, or just post up your own ideas and congratulate yourself on how good you can impress yourself at the quality of your argument?

Otherwise you are simply playing games and the message that I hear is that you have no interest in a serious examination of the facts.

Are you announcing with this that you do not intend to provide evidence for your thesis? If so, that is certainly your right. But then why are you still posting? This thread was begun in order to provide you ample room to present your case that the Catholic Church was founded by Constantine. So far, you have made a number of claims, but none of those claims substantiates your thesis. By all means, substantiate your thesis if you can.

Since I cannot find any syllogism, let alone any fallacy, in my posts, why don't you present what you take my syllogism to be in premise and conclusion form. That will make it much easier for you to demonstate that fallacy or fallacies of which you take me to be guilty.

I think the response to TJ here is so obvious that one normally wouldn’t think of it. The contention is that there was no “Catholic Church” until Constantine was converted.

No denomination. It all depends upon what you mean by "catholic". That is a point that I addressed earlier.


Well duh! If there were no Catholics in existence what did Constantine convert to?

I don't remember any claim that Constantine converted to Catholicism. I thought that he claimed to convert to Christianity. Perhaps you cabn show us the historical record where he claimed to convert to Catholicism rather than Christianity.


In order to make this statement Tj would need to advance the concept that Constantine is the FOUNDER of the Catholic Church. On other sites, this argument is used by Tj to mislead those who don’t know the history of the Catholic Church.

Ho hum - rather than address the points, you go after the person with false accusations. Compelling I suppose to some, but I would not expect discerning folk to be taken in by such a weak approach.


This has been discussed before on other threads. The underlying contention here is that the Catholic Church took on a (pagon) Latin name Pontiff (pontifex) which was also the name of the pagan high priest of the Roman Republic. But, there is also another meaning ignored, pontifex is drevied form the words ‘bridge’ + ‘facere’ or ‘to make’ making the word pontifex mean “bridge-builder”. This objection has to do with using the vulgar (or common) language of the day. And the Tj contention is that if you use a pagon name for your leader you must be pagon.

Perhaps you'd do better at arguing your own position (if you have anything to defend your position with). You do a lousy job at presenting mine. BTW, there was only one meaning for pontiff - bridge builder. What it meant in the pagan Roman religion was "priest" - the bridge between man and God.


I’m not sure Tj3 understands who Eusebius or for that matter understands that Neman converted.

Still going after the person with nothing to defend your position?


The piece quoted is one of his pre-conversion works. I think Tj3 is forcing contextual interpretations to support his arguments.

You might want to have another look at the dates.

Are you announcing with this that you do not intend to provide evidence for your thesis?

Why should I waste my time putting up more information when you won't even deal with the first points that I raised.

Why should I waste my time when you won't even deal with the first points that I raised.

But that's just it, you haven't really made any points. You quoted Newman and have gestured vaguely. What do you take the quote from Newman to prove? What makes you think that the Catholic Church began in the fourth century?

You are welcome to lash out at me all you like. But lashing out is a poor substitute for substantiating a claim that you are keen to make with some frequency. You appear to be convinced that you are right. So explain why you think that. What historical evidence justifies your claim that Constantine started the Catholic Church?

But that's just it, you haven't really made any points.

Ignoring them does not make them go away.

This is the same way that you deal with every discussion. If someone disagrees you distract and deny, along with demeaning personal comments. That approach says that you know that you cannot deal with the issue, so you avoid it.


You are welcome to lash out at me all you like. But lashing out is a poor substitute for substantiating a claim that you are keen to make with some frequency.

If you thought that the claim had no validity, you would not be using uch a deceptive approach to distract away from the points that were raised, and then follow-up with denial.

If you were so certain of your position, you would address the points head on.

But if you choose not to, I am under no obligation to waste my time when I have things to do, I have a life, and people who are actually interested in discussing points with respectful value-added dialogue.

Ignoring them does not make them go away.

This is the same way that you deal with every discussion. If someone disagrees you distract and deny, along with demeaning personal comments. That approach says that you know that you cannot deal with the issue, so you avoid it.



If you thought that the claim had no validity, you would not be using uch a deceptive approach to distract away from the points that were raised, and then follow-up with denial.

If you were so certain of your position, you would address the points head on.

But if you choose no to, I am under no obligation to waste my time when I have things to do, and people who are actually interested in discussing point with respectful value-added dialogue.

I have addressed each of your posts, and each of the claims made in them, head-on.

It appears you have once again chosen to resort to invective. But invective isn't evidence. Your claim needs you, Tom. It's it's out there just dying a painful death. Give it some help, back it up while there's still time.

I'll touch base later to see what historical evidence you've come up with the prove that the Catholic Church was founded in the fourth century by Constantine. Take a little time away from the computer and try to put something together.

I have addressed each of your posts, and each of the claims made in them, head-on.

You addressed YOUR points. I am actually surprised that you have struggled so much with the first points raised.

I'll come back later and see if you actually dare to address the points that raised.

Are you announcing with this that you do not intend to provide evidence for your thesis? If so, that is certainly your right. But then why are you still posting? This thread was begun in order to provide you ample room to present your case that the Catholic Church was founded by Constantine. So far, you have made a number of claims, but none of those claims substantiates your thesis. By all means, substantiate your thesis if you can.

Since I cannot find any syllogism, let alone any fallacy, in my posts, why don't you present what you take my syllogism to be in premise and conclusion form. That will make it much easier for you to demonstate that fallacy or fallacies of which you take me to be guilty.



I don't think Tj3 ever intended to advance his premise that the Catholic Church was founded by Constantine. His motives seem quite different to me. In my estimation what's being advanced is the anti-Catholic or hate-Catholic similar to the James White version in “The Roman Catholic Controversy” (it's the only way I can characterize it). The contention in White's book is that “Roman Catholics have no biblical defense for their beliefs.” And too, Catholics are not “biblically literate” especially when their interpretation doesn't support sola scriptora. In reference to the 'five solas' ; I don't think it ever occurred to them that if you have 5 of something sola it's no longer singular. It seems that the entire theological precepts put forward is 'bible only' combined with hate-Catholicolgy (if you can make such a word), the latter of which seems more the important issue. It seems to me that any theological arguments advanced by this type of rhetoric are not built on the love of God but rather hate for Catholics. In my opinion, the arguments are always specious, never based historical or sound theological concepts. They believe that everybody needs to base their faith on the bible only, individually guided by the Holy Spirit; of course unless being guided by the Holy Spirit you become Catholic – in this case you're a heathen.

JoeT

I don’t think Tj3 ever intended to advance his premise that the Catholic Church was founded by Constantine.

And we move into the usual next phase. The gossip, name-calling and personal attack phase.

Akoue,
I have seen NO, absolutely none, evidence from Tom Smith that the Catholic Church was stared in the fourth century by Constantine.
I suspect that though he has tried to duck the fact that he has NO historical evidence, that he has none that are valid.
Also His silly argument about Constantine converting to Christiaity is a laugh because if Constantine started the Catholic Church why didn't he convert to that ans also why did he proclaim that Christianity was the religion of the empire when the only Christian Church in Rome was the Catholic.
Peace and kindness,
Fred

Akoue,
I have seen NO, absolutely none, evidence from Tom Smith that the Catholic Church was stared in the fourth century by Constantine.
I suspect that though he has tried to duck the fact that he has NO historical evidence, that he has none that are valid.

Then you need to read the rest of the thread.


Also His silly argument about Constantine converting to Christiaity is a laugh

I agree that it is a silly argument. That was Akoue's argument, not mine. :D

Then you need to read the rest of the thread.



I agree that it is a silly argument. That was Akoue's argument, not mine. :D

Actually, Akoue made no argument regarding Constantine's purported conversion. Tj3 is once again trying to avoid the subject, which is his evidence (or apparent lack of evidence) for the thesis that the Catholic Church was begun by Constantine.

Still nothing to back up that claim, I see. You really should try to offer something other than an obvious misreading of Newman.

I'll check back again in a while to see if you have come up with anything to substantiate your claim other than bickering with other posters. (Of course, bickering is not evidence, so that doesn't help you to validate your claim that the Catholic Church was begun by Constantine.)

Every time you post without offering evidence for your claim you make that claim appear more indefensible.

Actually, Akoue made no argument regarding Constantine's purported conversion.

You raised it as one of your points. I have to correct you by pointing out that whether there was any conversion is a controversial point.

Deny if you wish. The facts won't change.


Tj3 is once again trying to avoid the subject, which is his evidence (or apparent lack of evidence) for the thesis that the Catholic Church was begun by Constantine.

Still nothing to back up that claim, I see. You really should try to offer something other than an obvious misreading of Newman.

I'll check back again in a while to see if you have come up with anything to substantiate your claim other than bickering with other posters. (Of course, bickering is not evidence, so that doesn't help you to validate your claim that the Catholic Church was begun by Constantine.)


I am still waiting for you to addressing the points that were raised. Or are you just going to play this silly game?

You raised it as one of your points. I have to correct you by pointing out that whether there was any conversion is a controversial point.

Deny if you wish. The facts won't change.


I am still waiting for you to addressing the points that were raised. Or are you just going to play this silly game?

Since I believe I have addressed all the points that you have made, why don't you take a moment to set the record straight by clearly spelling out which points you feel I have neglected.

Since I believe I have addressed all the points that you have made, why don't you take a moment to set the record straight by clearly spelling out which points you feel I have neglected.

You neglected all of them. So far all you did was create your own points and addressed them.

I think that you are likely an intelligent man, so I can only assume that you are deliberately avoiding them. I understand.

As ever has degenerated.
>Thread Closed<