Ask Me Help Desk - History of the Church?

History of the Church?

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.

Quote:

Originally Posted by ROLCAM

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.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tj3

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/christ...ml#post1587706

Quote:

Originally Posted by JoeT777

What about all the evidence given in Rick's post https://www.askmehelpdesk.com/christ...ml#post1587706

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

Quote:

Originally Posted by ROLCAM

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

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tj3

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)"

Quote:

Originally Posted by JoeT777

it's linked to that post number? it should

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

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tj3

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

I did

Quote:

Originally Posted by JoeT777

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.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tj3

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

Quote:

Originally Posted by JoeT777

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".

Quote:

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.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tj3

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

Quote:

Originally Posted by JoeT777

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.

Quote:

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.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tj3

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.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Akoue

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.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tj3

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.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Akoue

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?

Quote:

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?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Akoue

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

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tj3

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.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tj3

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

Quote:

Originally Posted by JoeT777

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.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Akoue

Yeah. That prayer dates to the second century.

Oh! You mean its not a pagan chant?

Quote:

Originally Posted by JoeT777

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

Quote:

Originally Posted by Akoue

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?

Quote:

Originally Posted by JoeT777

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".

Quote:

Originally Posted by Akoue

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.

Quote:

Originally Posted by JoeT777

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.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Akoue

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.

Quote:

Originally Posted by arcura

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.

Quote:

Originally Posted by JoeT777

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

Quote:

Originally Posted by Akoue

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.

Quote:

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.

Quote:

Originally Posted by JoeT777

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.

Quote:

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.

Quote:

Originally Posted by tj3

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. 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.

Quote:

Originally Posted by RickJ

There WERE no denominations in the first 4 centuries.

325 AD was the first.

Quote:

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. 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.

Quote:

Originally Posted by tj3

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".

Quote:

Originally Posted by RickJ

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".

Quote:

Originally Posted by RickJ

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.

Quote:

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.