[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

[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.

[Tj3]

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.

[JoeT777]

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

[Tj3]

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.

[JoeT777]

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

[JoeT777]

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)"

[Tj3]

it's linked to that post number? it should

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

[JoeT777]

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

I did

[Tj3]

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.

[JoeT777]

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

[Tj3]

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.

[JoeT777]

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

[Tj3]

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.

[Akoue]

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.

[Tj3]

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.

[Akoue]

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.

[Tj3]

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?

[JoeT777]

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

[Akoue]

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.