metis
aged ecumenical anthropologist
It was called the "Catholic Church", the "Christian Church", and "the Way" (the latter actually was first). "Roman" wasn't added until the Uniate churches rejoined the CC many centuries later.
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
how do Protestants explain history?
- Thread starter Adamski
- Start date
and irenaeus and a bunch of other ecumenicals perverted the WAY. it was gnostic from the beginning, or knowing. now it is agnosti, god gone away, or without god.
metis
aged ecumenical anthropologist
Maybe it's best to do some reading first before posting on the early history of the church, and even Wikipedia can help you out: Catholic Church - Wikipedia [click on #7, which deals with the "History" in brief, but then there are links to sites that give much more detail than just what's found at Wikipedia]
I think, as others have stated, you have a misunderstanding of what Protestantism is.
They never claimed to be "The True Christian Faith" in the way that Roman Catholicism does, because that implies that the church leadership gets to decide what is true and the followers must merely submit to their decisions. Protestantism, in contrast, merely said "The Bible is the basis for determining what is true from what is false. So we trust the Bible over the Roman Catholic leadership."
In that sense, Protestantism is on firm ground: Because the Bible they are appealing to has been around for thousands of years and reliably preserved - The historical documentation of the Bible is the archeological and historical evidence for their faith, because they put their faith in what the Bible says.
In the same way, Jesus quoted from the Bible to appeal to authority - He didn't quote from the teachings of the Rabbis or temple leadership.
The only word that has authority is the word that comes from God, and anyone claiming to speak from God in the present will never go against what God has already revealed in the past.
That's why the Roman Catholic church got into trouble: They were rejecting the word of God in favor of the word of the pope. That is the same problem the Pharisees and later Rabbis developed; they began to think that their rulings on law superceded the word of God.
Last edited:
metis
aged ecumenical anthropologist
Most Protestant sects have submitted that it is they that know the truth, and many have continuously bad-mouthed the RCC and any other denominations that they disagree with, including other Protestants. See an earlier post of mine in terms of just my own experience with that growing up Protestant. And further evidence of such a claim can be seen in your own post that I'm responding to now.
The Bible was selected by the 4th-5th century Catholic Church, not the other way around.
Secondly, the CC certainly does not teach blind obedience to their leadership, with only a few exceptions (teachings considered "ex cathedra"), but operates more like how a Roman traffic cop would operate. If you've ever been to Rome, then you know what I'm talking about. If not, I can explain.
Only the Tanakh ("O.T."), and even the gospels have Jesus saying for his flock to obey what the Jewish leaders say but not to do what some of them do-- remember?
And exactly what do you think the RCC rejects that's in the Bible, and please be specific?
As one who grew up Protestant, studied both Protestant and Catholic theology but is neither, I'm gonna tell you right now that you are wrong with only one exception and that deals with a more liberal bent when it comes to interpretation than what's found word-for-word in a literalistic approach to the Bible, such as the Torah mandate to stone "disobedient sons", adulterers, and many others.
Matter of fact, one of the very important items found in Canon Law is that no proposed church teaching can go against that which is in the N.T.
Finally, I actually do appreciate you putting your two cents in on this because if gives some of us the opportunity to correct the record like how I was brought up and being told by my own father that he would kick my &$# if he ever caught me attending a Catholic Church, and by my own pastor telling us about the "evils of the papists".
If there are nearly 40,000 protestant denominations, you'll never be able to prove or even realistically claim that "most" of them go around telling people that their leaders are the only gateway to truth like the Roman Catholic church does. The truth is, they don't.
In fact, you really couldn't be called protestant once you start doing that, because the Bible is no longer your authority.
That's usually the point at which churches start being referred to as a cult of personality.
The fact that some protestant denominations may think they are more correct than others on their interpretation of scripture doesn't change the fact that they are still debating the same authority source: The Bible. They can't appeal to men as their authority when it contradicts the Bible.
You don't know the history of the Bible.
Historical documentation, such as early fathers and things like the Muratorian fragment, prove the NT as we have it was recognized as authentic scripture already in the 2nd century.
We already know your interpretation is wrong based on other things Jesus said:
Matthew 15:2-3
Mark 7:13
Matthew 16:11-12
Jesus did not do what the Rabbinical authorites thought he should do according to their law (not the law of Moses). Jesus rebuked them for putting their own laws above the law of God.
Jesus would be contradicting Himself if he were telling people in Matthew 23:3 to obey what the Pharisees taught.
So what is really being said in Matthew 23?
He refers to those who sit in the "seat of Moses".
Contextually he's talking about those who teach from the law of Moses but don't live by it.
Shem Tob's Hebrew Matthew:
“Upon the seat of Moses the Pharisees and Sages sit, and now, all which he (Moses) will say unto you-keep and do; but their ordinances and deeds do not do, because they say and do not.”
You're trying to change what I said.
I said the Roman Catholic church has put the words of man over the word of God.
Much like the Pharisees, they might not overtly reject any part of the scriptures, but they feel they have the right to add on to it with equal weight and even declare what the only right way the understanding the scripture is (not by way of being able to show from scripture why what they say is more true, but simply by appeal to their position of authority to decree themselves to be right). The Roman Catholic Church has many times flagrantly violated God's revealed will in scripture with their own decrees, relying on ignorance of the people to perpetuate obedience.
Were they obeying God's law, or mans, when they:
-Would not teach the common person the scripture.
-Executed people of God who tried to translate the scripture into the common tongue.
-Would not allow the common person to take of the blood of communion, but only the bread.
-Encouraged the people to pay the church bribes so they could continue sinning.
-Conned the people into claiming they could rescue their loved ones from suffering in the afterlife by paying the church leadership to intercede on their behalf.
-Forbid priests to marry.
-Call priests "father".
-Teach that Mary was a perpetual virgin who shares the role of her son in salvation and mediating between God and man, as "Queen of heaven".
This is the kind of stuff you open the door to once you start regarding the words of men over the Word of God as your authority.
The clergyman asserted to Tyndale, "We had better be without God's laws than the Pope's." Tyndale responded: "I defy the Pope, and all his laws; and if God spares my life, ere many years, I will cause the boy that driveth the plow to know more of the Scriptures than thou dost!"
They are the enemies of Christ and the pope who forbid altogether the preaching of the Word of God in some churches in order that indulgences may be preached in others.
-Martin Luther
Last edited:
Adamski
Member
There would be no bible if it wasn't for the Catholic Church writing and preserving it for 2000 years it is their book that 38,000 different Protestants and heratics like jw's and Mormons fight over its meaning.
As acts 8 says you can't understand the bible without an authoritative teacher
As acts 8 says you can't understand the bible without an authoritative teacher
Adamski
Member
You have no sources
metis
aged ecumenical anthropologist
I have little time to adequately respond to what you posted, so sorry for the brevity.
I did not say nor imply that Protestants tell their people "their leaders are the only gateway to truth like the Roman Catholic church does", and neither does the RCC teach that, so you've really fabricated two stories that are strawmen.
I taught theology for 16 years and some seminars since then. My area of specialization is the 2nd century church, and I honestly have no clue as to how many books from all different sources that I've read for roughly four decades on just this topic.
I also have studied and read many books, again from varied source, on how the Bible was selected by the CC that you so obviously despise. If you wish to debate this, we can do this on a separate thread.
So, you are going to have to do better than just offer personal insults, and please notice that I have not done this to you.
You are conflating different things in response to what I wrote. The Law, all 613 of them, is not the same being referenced to Jesus' statement as "laws made by men", the latter of which were interpretations and applications of the Law, which all Jewish and Christian groups did and still do today.
Again, we could spend some time on this if you'd like.
If I had the time, I would like to debate some of these because you are conflating different issues here, and some of those you post above actually reflect different interpretations.
Let me finish this off by saying this, and that is what did Jesus say about judging others that may have a speck in their eye? I'm not referring to this in regards to you personally, but I would have to ask you what things have your denomination/church taught or done that may not have been the most moral thing to teach and/or do? Would you whitewash your own denomination while criticizing others?
Generally speaking, you will find plenty of atrocities committed within your own ranks over history, and you will find them teaching items that may be considered by others as being falsehoods. And they are all too often believed by those who don't do their homework and/or are heavy into "confirmation bias".
As a non-Catholic and a non-Christian, I don't have irons in the fire except to try and encourage people to be less judgmental towards others and to realize that just because a person or a church or an entire religion is different from you or yours that this doesn't make them blind fools. For example, do you have any idea how much education it takes to become a Jesuit priest, including myriads of theology classes? or a rabbi? Try having a debate with one of these and see how you fare.
If history is too sensitive a subject for you, maybe you should try your missionary work on some people who haven't been to school yet.
jaybird
Member
we have no pre roman source text because rome burned them all. rome destroyed more spiritual knowledge than the Nazis.
metis
aged ecumenical anthropologist
I think I have the number correct as it's coming from my memory (of dubious quality at my age), but there are roughly 3000 non-canonized books commonly referred to as the "pseudepigrapha", with around 2000 being O.T.-type books and the rest being N.T.-type books, and a very significant portion of them are in the Vatican library. My source for this was the Anglican theologian Sir William Barclay. Yes, there were some books that were destroyed, but I've never seen an estimate on that.
If you have some respectable sources that take off on this, I'd appreciate that as it's been a long time since I read this. BTW, only a few of the books have I read through, but I have done more reading from them being quoted as found in some of the theology books I've read.
May God then help whoever you taught while lacking basic knowledge about the recognition of the New Testament canon in the 2nd century.
The new testament canon is represented almost in it's entirety by the Muratorian fragment of the 2nd century.
Which is also confirmed by every 2nd and 3rd century early church writing we have concerning what was scripture.
Tertullian, in the mid 2nd century, mentions or references almost every NT book in his writings. He also refers to the idea that there is already an existing and recognized body of scripture when he says Valentinus uses the "entire volume" of scripture yet still teaches lies by twisting the meaning of the words. He says this is contrast to Marcion, who has advanced his heresy by claiming three of the four gospels are not authentic, rejecting all letter's except Paul's, and rejecting all of the OT along with it. Marcion, by virtue of rejecting that which was already recognized, further demonstrates the idea that the early church already recognized a body of scripture that was considered canonical long before councils started issuing recorded decrees in the 4th and 5th centuries.
Any early church document of the 2nd century is going to be found to making quotes from or allusions to the canon we have today.
We have further book listings by those like Ireneous, Clement of Alexandria, Origin, and Eusebius (all prior to nicea), which match the canon we have today aside from a handful of differences in smaller letters.
The idea that the canon was not decided until the 4th or 5th century, because some council decreed it, is not true according to what historian shows us. History shows us that all the councils did was affirm what the churches had already known to be scripture long before the Council of Nicea.
Even if you want to quibble over a handful of books that may have been disputed (like 3 John or 2 Peter), as a whole the canon was already established before those councils - and in the cases of "disputed" books, they were already known and used on a wide scale.
It would be wrong to paint the impression that there were all these different gospels and letters floating freely around, which taught contradictory things, but they were all believed equally by the church - but then along comes the Roman church, in the 4th century, who starts making decrees about which ones are or not scripture based on a desire to craft the theology that is most desirable to them.
The truth is that, even if you were to remove the handful of disputed books, or add the handful of books that have reference to being read (like Shepherd of Hermas); the end result is that your theology of Jesus, salvation, and God's plan of redemption is going to remain completely unchanged - because of the large body of writings which we know were undisputed as recognized canon from a very early date.
It wasn't meant to be an insult, but a simple statement of fact: You don't know what you're talking about when you try to claim that Christians did not have a set list of accepted scriptures prior to the 4th and 5th century.
This is where you're going wrong. You don't recognize in all this the key distinction I've tried to point out for you: What happens when someone takes the position of saying they have authority from God, by virtue of their position in a man made organization, to declare what the word of God means and how it must be applied?
To help you understand the difference, I posed a question to you, which you ignored:
Was the catholic church obeying God's law, or man's law, when they did all those things I listed?
You must not be aware that according to Rabbincal tradition, even to this day, that they claim God has delegated to the Rabbis the authority to make and interpret and apply God's law on His behalf. Which is why they spend most of their time in Yeshiva studying Rabbinical documents rather than the scriptures themselves.
That is what the Pharisees were doing when they made the word of God no effect by teaching the word of men as though it were authoritative, contradicting the word of God by the decrees of men. Jesus accused them of barring the way to salvation by their manmade teaching, preventing people from coming to a knowledge of God.
This is basically the same thing the Roman Catholic church did: Declaring they have authority, on behalf of God, to rule and make law, and declare what God's word means. Which is also why those who go to Catholic seminaries, like John Dominic Crossan, say it was years into their studies before they even opened the Bible. Prior to that they spent all their time studying what the Catholic church had historically taught or decreed. Even going back as far as Tyndale, he went through his Catholic seminary education having never been taught a thing from the Bible. It was only afterwards he started to read the Bible and realized the people needed to know what was in it.
You must recognize that there is a manifest difference, not just in intent, but in result, when comparing someone who says "I think God meant this, and believe you should abide by that" versus someone who says "God means this, I am God's authority on earth, because this man made institution says I am, and I will force you by man's power to obey what I decree".
Both the Pharisees and the Catholic church have done this.
Protestants, by definition, can't, because they believe the Bible is the final authority - not any man. And that's the distinction you're failing to realize.
And anytime you get a pastor/preacher who starts acting that way, they get labeled a cult. With good reason. They are trying to get people to submit to their control, following their words, rather than teaching submission to God's word.
Last edited:
metis
aged ecumenical anthropologist
"By the early 3rd century, Origen may have been using the same twenty-seven books as in the present New Testament canon, though there were still disputes over the acceptance of the Letter to the Hebrews, James, II Peter, II John, III John,Jude and Revelation, known as the Antilegomena. Likewise, the Muratorian fragment is evidence that, perhaps as early as 200, there existed a set of Christian writings somewhat similar to the twenty-seven-book NT canon, which included four gospels and argued against objections to them. Thus, while there was a good measure of debate in the Early Church over the New Testament canon, the major writings are claimed to have been accepted by almost all Christians by the middle of the 3rd century...
Thus, some claim that, from the 4th century, there existed unanimity in the West concerning the New Testament canon, and that, by the 5th century, the Eastern Church, with a few exceptions, had come to accept the Book of Revelation and thus had come into harmony on the matter of the canon. Nonetheless, full dogmatic articulations of the canon were not made until the Canon of Trent of 1546 for Roman Catholicism, the Gallic Confession of Faith of 1559 for Calvinism, theThirty-Nine Articles of 1563 for the Church of England, and the Synod of Jerusalem of 1672 for the Greek Orthodox. -- Development of the New Testament canon - Wikipedia
First of all, I never stated that supposedly all or even most books were up for grabs as late as the 5th century, but as the last paragraph above states, the more formal selections came later, and it simply is wrong to suggest that the canon was agreed upon in the 2nd century.
Secondly, there was the issue of the Apocrypha books were left undecided.
Thirdly, the Protestant canon was undecided even by Luther, who had some issue with his feeling that Jame's epistle may be better off removed. To say that somehow the Bible as we know it had already been decided upon even within Protestant circles is obviously bogus.
And finally, I find your entire demeanor mean-spirited, therefore I have no desire to read your posts or respond to them as demeaning others is not in any way moral, according to the scriptures. Maybe you should do some soul-searching and ask yourself why you do this, and maybe Sunday at church would be a nice place to start.
Micah 6[8] He has showed you, O man, what is good;
and what does the LORD require of you
but to do justice, and to love kindness,
and to walk humbly with your God?
Take care.
Katzpur
Not your average Mormon
Perhaps you can tell me what the word "heretic" means and who gets to decide.
Heresy is any Christian belief that is at odds with the teachings of the Catholic faith. Mormonism by Catholic standards (heck, by the standards of nearly all sects of mainstream Christianity) is clearly heretical.Perhaps you can tell me what the word "heretic" means and who gets to decide.
However to be a heretic you have to have assented to the Catholic faith. So even though your beliefs are heretical, you obviously cannot be a heretic the proper sense of the word. Or rather, someone who has never held the truth cannot be guilty of heresy, even if their beliefs are heretical.
Let's take this back to the context in which you tried to challenge the protestant idea of appealing to the authority of the Bible:
You tried to imply that we would not know what Scriptures to appeal to as authorities without the catholic church decreeing which ones are authentic.
As I just demonstrated, that is a completely wrong understanding of history based on the documentation and evidence we have.
The NT, almost in it's entirety, can be documented to have already been accepted as a whole body of Scriptural works by at least the mid 2nd century - All without any central governing body to dictate it.
The church didn't need the councils of the 4th and 5th century to know what was Scripture from what wasn't. It was really only a confirmation of what the dispersed church had already been holding to.
So, Protestant appeals to the authority of the Bible don't rest on any post-Nicea ecumenical council.
You tried to imply that we would not know what Scriptures to appeal to as authorities without the catholic church decreeing which ones are authentic.
As I just demonstrated, that is a completely wrong understanding of history based on the documentation and evidence we have.
The NT, almost in it's entirety, can be documented to have already been accepted as a whole body of Scriptural works by at least the mid 2nd century - All without any central governing body to dictate it.
The church didn't need the councils of the 4th and 5th century to know what was Scripture from what wasn't. It was really only a confirmation of what the dispersed church had already been holding to.
So, Protestant appeals to the authority of the Bible don't rest on any post-Nicea ecumenical council.
Last edited: