History and "Biblical" Christianity


#1

“Bible” Christians claim that their Church is MORE like the early Church then say the Roman Catholic Church, correct? (And by early Church I mean 33 to 315 A.D.)

So, let’s see how this logic plays out, shall we.

  1. Early Christian were more like the “Bible” Christians of today, then the Roman Catholic Church.

  2. We have historical records of these early Christian by way of pagans, Jews and the early Christians themselves.

  3. In the historical records is revealed what early Christians thought, believed and practiced.

  4. In the historical records it reveals what the early Christians thought, believed and practiced are in line with Roman Catholic Teaching.

  5. Therefore, premise 1 is false.

Any thoughts?

Peace


#2

I second the motion!

Jesus didn’t leave us a book – He left us the Catholic Church – when the Church speaks, one hears the voice of Christ (Luke 10:16).

The Church, in turn, wrote the New Testament; she canonized and named the OT and the NT and formed and named the Bible when she was nearly 400 years old.

Sola Scriptura? It’s not historical, not tenable, not workable, and not true.

JMJ Jay
Ex-Southern Baptist, ex-agnostic, ex-atheist, ecstatic to be Catholic!


#3

[quote=dennisknapp]“Bible” Christians claim that their Church is MORE like the early Church then say the Roman Catholic Church, correct? (And by early Church I mean 33 to 315 A.D.)

So, let’s see how this logic plays out, shall we.

  1. Early Christian were more like the “Bible” Christians of today, then the Roman Catholic Church.

  2. We have historical records of these early Christian by way of pagans, Jews and the early Christians themselves.

  3. In the historical records is revealed what early Christians thought, believed and practiced.

  4. In the historical records it reveals what the early Christians thought, believed and practiced are in line with Roman Catholic Teaching.

  5. Therefore, premise 1 is false.

Any thoughts?

Peace
[/quote]

Peace Dennis
It’s the one thing non-Cath’s refuse to look at, that is history. The Cath Church looks at the history first, to determine the validity of anything pertaining to faith and morals. How can you not? There were ninety million (not really, of course and there weren’t that many people even in that land to die, during the Inquisition) things being heretically written during the first years, as you mark, and yet there also was orthodoxy forging a persicuted path down the middle. History, just like the Bible, becomes a convoluted myriad of half non-truths spoken by self proclaimed ministers of God’s infallible word. They don’t know their own belief system history let alone read the Fathers and Saints, to see how the Acts and the first centuries’ Cath teachers actually, factually, can’t be disputedably, OVERLAAAAP.Hello? Generation after generation of blindness.Parents WHO DON’T CARE, people thinking EVERYONE GOES TO HEAVEN. The sad thing about the lack of respect to history is that we wind up being lumped in with every other form of so called christianity. So many to choose from, I guess they are all the same. An interesting thought is that the New Test has the light of revelation, the incarnation, but much of it is still under the shadow of the day, waiting to be reavealed, so to speak, in it’s fullness of glory. We are living as an integral part of salv history(not many think about this)and paradoxically, those who don’t reap that which has already been revealed will most probobly as St. John says,“die in their sins”. How can a man see what lies ahead without knowing from whence it came. How great is their darkness, who refused to witness the mornings of light past.
peace and love
He is All in All for All
I am nothing


#4

It is true also that we actually do the same as the first Christians.
Mass,Eucharist, readings…why don’t they? How does bible school, or whatever it is, every Sunday, supplant the liturgy?? I’m wondering what they would say is the greatest sin? What is their take on the sin against the Holy Spirit? Utter refusal to see the truth because they know better(the teachers). And I can’t leave out, in all charity that if someone actually really believes what they believe and haven’t come to the fullness, they can be saved…That’s the one thing about us Cath’s, we never play God. Can Bible Christians or will they say the same for us?


#5

One thing is wrong with this thesis why would the church necessarily look like it did 20 centuries ago. Prots want to take back the church to a few house churches like it looks in Acts with their own pastor playing Paul and another pastor branching out as Peter etc. Wouldn’t have Christ church actually grown and changed over 20 centureis into something more mature and developed yet have the same DNA ie apostolic succession.

For example lets say you doing a study of genetics you take a picture of a baby along with a dna sample and in thirty years you wonder whatever became of that baby would you still look for a bald little guy weighing 8 pounds? WOuld you expect him to look diferent to be more mature and more developed yet have the same dna. You would look for the guy that matched the dna sample you took 30 years ago. It come down to this which church has the dna that church in the Bible has.
Which church has apostolic succession which church has the Rock which church is one like Christ described?
Protestants are looking for that baby and expecting him to be bald and still weigh 8 pounds that makes no sense and neither is trying to recreate the church in acts 20 centureis later with a church has no dna connection to the church in acts. This is a tradtiion of man starting your own church. Christ founded one church and that’s it and you can’t improve on that. Thousands of denomiantion and church splits testify to this.


#6

Protestantism has no history prior to 1517…
Post # 1 is correct. :smiley:


#7

Excellent reasoning, Dennis…

It seems to me that “Bible” Christians often start with some paricular tenet “near and dear” to their hearts and then go on to develop their entire doctrinal system around it.

One major factor which drew me out of “Bible” Christianity into the “fullness of the faith” was the “comprehensive nature” of the teachings of the Catholic Church. The “Bible” Christian may indeed look at one specific passage of Scripture and find a resemblance to his practice, but the Catholic looks at the entirety of Scripture and 2000 years of faithful Tradition and finds himself consistent with it all. Everytime a new “Bible” Sect springs up it “reinvents the wheel” around its doctrinal center. Catholicism, on the other hand, continues to build upon the solid foundation of its 2000 years consistent doctrinal system.

But I wonder what my “Bible” friends would think???

Grace and Peace

quaysman


#8

one of the reasons for a human conduit of laying on of hands and an unbroken tradition keeping the Church intact and linked to the apostles is that it was going to look different than it did in the beginning.

I notice people trying to revive old pagan religions that have died because there is no historical link let alone a tradition. There is no way because how that spirituality would be responding to the modern world manifesting it’s appearance is unknown.


#9

Great thread…One of the hardest things I’ve found to overcome. This is largely, in my experience, because Bible Christians tend to believe that history is false, any document you quote has Catholic influence, (as the Catholic Church was the only christian Church pre reformation) and therefore immisable as evidence. Surely they kid themselves?


#10

[quote=Maccabees]One thing is wrong with this thesis why would the church necessarily look like it did 20 centuries ago. Prots want to take back the church to a few house churches like it looks in Acts with their own pastor playing Paul and another pastor branching out as Peter etc. Wouldn’t have Christ church actually grown and changed over 20 centureis into something more mature and developed yet have the same DNA ie apostolic succession.

For example lets say you doing a study of genetics you take a picture of a baby along with a dna sample and in thirty years you wonder whatever became of that baby would you still look for a bald little guy weighing 8 pounds? WOuld you expect him to look diferent to be more mature and more developed yet have the same dna. You would look for the guy that matched the dna sample you took 30 years ago. It come down to this which church has the dna that church in the Bible has.
Which church has apostolic succession which church has the Rock which church is one like Christ described?
Protestants are looking for that baby and expecting him to be bald and still weigh 8 pounds that makes no sense and neither is trying to recreate the church in acts 20 centureis later with a church has no dna connection to the church in acts. This is a tradtiion of man starting your own church. Christ founded one church and that’s it and you can’t improve on that. Thousands of denomiantion and church splits testify to this.
[/quote]

While I agree with your conclusion, the thesis is correct. I never said the current Church had to look exactly like the early Church.

I used terms like “more like” and “in line with” not “exactly” or “100%” because I believe that there is proper doctrinal development within the context of the deposite of faith.

Peace


#11

What I find is that when faced with the writings of the ECF they
a)claim that these writings are not in line with the Roman Catholic church but the catholic church that was suppressed after Constantine declared Christianity the official religion of Rome

b)pick and choose anything that did not become official Catholic dogma and use them to dispute what did become dogma. They especially like to spout Tertullian or Origen. Not understanding that not everything becomes defined as a doctrine we are to hold as truth.

c)Misinterpret the ECF in the same way they misinterpret the Bible.

What I have also observed in the past few years is so many of these new denominations that are introducing Catholic worship into their own empty services. I have seen the “communion” kit offered by one minister so that you could take daily communion in your own home. I have seen prayer cloths hawked as a way to stay focused on your prayers. I have seen “miracle water” offered by yet another.

It seems that there are many Christians who are beginning to understand the emptiness of these churches without the Eucharist but instead of coming home to the true Church, they are becoming poor imitations of it.

I thank God that He has granted me the grace to be a part of the Body of Christ. I say to all outside the true church, “Come home. Taste and see the goodness of the Lord!”


#12

[quote=FightingFat]Great thread…One of the hardest things I’ve found to overcome. This is largely, in my experience, because Bible Christians tend to believe that history is false, any document you quote has Catholic influence, (as the Catholic Church was the only christian Church pre reformation) and therefore immisable as evidence. Surely they kid themselves?
[/quote]

You should tell them their premise is exactly that of the Davinci Code that histroy is written by the winners and history can’t be trusted if that’s the case all christianity including their own version of it is a sham based on lies not history. Christianity and its basic creeds which even protestants agree with are based on historical evidence and eyewitness if we can’t trust the early church’s testimony on these things which are all catholic by the way as is the Bible a catholic document that your faith is based on sand and the Davinici Code is right.


#13

[quote=reggie]What I find is that when faced with the writings of the ECF they
a)claim that these writings are not in line with the Roman Catholic church but the catholic church that was suppressed after Constantine declared Christianity the official religion of Rome

b)pick and choose anything that did not become official Catholic dogma and use them to dispute what did become dogma. They especially like to spout Tertullian or Origen. Not understanding that not everything becomes defined as a doctrine we are to hold as truth.

c)Misinterpret the ECF in the same way they misinterpret the Bible.

What I have also observed in the past few years is so many of these new denominations that are introducing Catholic worship into their own empty services. I have seen the “communion” kit offered by one minister so that you could take daily communion in your own home. I have seen prayer cloths hawked as a way to stay focused on your prayers. I have seen “miracle water” offered by yet another.

It seems that there are many Christians who are beginning to understand the emptiness of these churches without the Eucharist but instead of coming home to the true Church, they are becoming poor imitations of it.

I thank God that He has granted me the grace to be a part of the Body of Christ. I say to all outside the true church, “Come home. Taste and see the goodness of the Lord!”
[/quote]

Coummunion kit? Do it yourself mass? I don’t remember that in the Bible nor in the early church fathers. THis was a church community celebration and commemoration never an individual do it yourself eucharistic kit.
Tertullian later writings were heretical protestants like to point to his heretical writings instead of referring to his writings as a catholic. Origen was catholic excecpt he was in error on the preesitance of souls and his eschatology was all messed up. But he’s catholic in all respects he heresey was condemned later on. You should ask them why do you point ot the heresey that the church condemned but not the unanimous catholic orthodoxy the other catholic church fathers witness to in hundreds of of passages. The best they can do is point to our heretics? That’s kinda like pointing out the errors of catholcism by pointing to Luther and Calvin becasue once upon a time they were catholic.
Yes Tertullian was catholic once upon a time but he clearly has his own opinions that seperated himself from the church.


#14

Protestants who denounce the Church and Her authority usually try to support their position with the statement that the RCC did not exist until Constantine and even then, it was steeped in error and the other churches throughtout the region did not depend on the church in Rome for doctrinal questions. They claim that the church is invisible, the symbolic unity of Christians throughout the world. My question for them, especially any on this thread, is to explain to me, if this were true, then why were letters written and passed around from community to community if there was no tangible link between them. Why did so many send their questions and internal problems to Rome’s bishops for answers?Why were Peter, Paul, James et al concerned with whether the believers in Antioch taught differently from the believers in Ephesus? Why would they care if the Corinthians proclaimed one thing and the Phillipians another? Because they knew that Jesus spoke of one faith, one church and one belief. Without a central authority, one who can be trusted to preach truth, there could be no unity. They understood that in the “historical church” but that seems to be a premise that today’s biblically based churches have overlooked in their search for history.


#15

[quote=reggie]Protestants who denounce the Church and Her authority usually try to support their position with the statement that the RCC did not exist until Constantine and even then, it was steeped in error and the other churches throughtout the region did not depend on the church in Rome for doctrinal questions. They claim that the church is invisible, the symbolic unity of Christians throughout the world. My question for them, especially any on this thread, is to explain to me, if this were true, then why were letters written and passed around from community to community if there was no tangible link between them. Why did so many send their questions and internal problems to Rome’s bishops for answers?Why were Peter, Paul, James et al concerned with whether the believers in Antioch taught differently from the believers in Ephesus? Why would they care if the Corinthians proclaimed one thing and the Phillipians another? Because they knew that Jesus spoke of one faith, one church and one belief. Without a central authority, one who can be trusted to preach truth, there could be no unity. They understood that in the “historical church” but that seems to be a premise that today’s biblically based churches have overlooked in their search for history.
[/quote]

Have any of you guys noticed that the accusations slung at the Catholic Church seem to be the very things, that whatever particular branch the accuser belongs too, that they are guilty of? You can mark down the accusations as a list of items to look into in regards to what their faith is misunderstanding. I’m sure you’ve read the man made traditins thing? Most definitely a projection. A Jehova Witness at work once told me We aren’t like the Catholics Where ever you go around the world Jehovas Witnesses are believing the same thing worshipping the same way. You can go anywhere in the world and walk into a kingdom hall and not tell the difference everything will look the same and the people will act and believe the same things.(and I kinda stared back blankely in disbelief) Every Sunday we are teaching the same lessons all around the world he said.This was a reverse handoff for me and it took a second to respond. I thought this guy grew up Catholic is he for real? freeminds.org/psych/beel.htm

I found this sight that explained how a mind can be bent like my co-workers was. I have a couple of friends who experienced some of this and they said it pretty much how this research paper tells it.


#16

[quote=Benadam]Have any of you guys noticed that the accusations slung at the Catholic Church seem to be the very things, that whatever particular branch the accuser belongs too, that they are guilty of? You can mark down the accusations as a list of items to look into in regards to what their faith is misunderstanding. I’m sure you’ve read the man made traditins thing? Most definitely a projection. A Jehova Witness at work once told me We aren’t like the Catholics Where ever you go around the world Jehovas Witnesses are believing the same thing worshipping the same way. You can go anywhere in the world and walk into a kingdom hall and not tell the difference everything will look the same and the people will act and believe the same things.(and I kinda stared back blankely in disbelief) Every Sunday we are teaching the same lessons all around the world he said.This was a reverse handoff for me and it took a second to respond. I thought this guy grew up Catholic is he for real? freeminds.org/psych/beel.htm

I found this sight that explained how a mind can be bent like my co-workers was. I have a couple of friends who experienced some of this and they said it pretty much how this research paper tells it.
[/quote]

The technique you’re refering to is called “TURNSPEAK”. It was develloped by the Nazis into an Art form right before WW II. I still fee this site gives about the best BRIEF description of “TURNSPEAK” and how it functions - I have to warn you that it’s a political site from my wanderings under another Screen name. It’s just that the description of the CONFUSION produced by the knowing use of knowing false accusations which the accusser knows to be true of his/her own organization is so accurate…And we may sometimes be victimes of this technique.

eretzyisroel.org/~jkatz/turnspeak.html

Blessings to all.

In Christ, Michael


#17

[quote=Traditional Ang]The technique you’re refering to is called “TURNSPEAK”. It was develloped by the Nazis into an Art form right before WW II. I still fee this site gives about the best BRIEF description of “TURNSPEAK” and how it functions - I have to warn you that it’s a political site from my wanderings under another Screen name. It’s just that the description of the CONFUSION produced by the knowing use of knowing false accusations which the accusser knows to be true of his/her own organization is so accurate…And we may sometimes be victimes of this technique.

eretzyisroel.org/~jkatz/turnspeak.html

Blessings to all.

In Christ, Michael
[/quote]

That’s it. I didn’t consider it as something done on purpose. It makes the person doing it look so foolish .Intense emotion from a more central perspective makes it more difficult to distinguish
Thank you Michael.


#18

I see no Protestant has come forward to refute this claim… To bad, I thought it would be a nice dialog.

Peace


#19

[quote=dennisknapp]I see no Protestant has come forward to refute this claim… To bad, I thought it would be a nice dialog.

Peace

[/quote]

That would indeed be interesting. The notion of it being done purposely has my world in a state of possible redefinition…:whacky:


#20

Is this where I get to test the Trail of Blood and other tracts that have used it as a source and refute the bad history?

Maggie


DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit www.catholic.com.