Early Church

[MamaZ]

So you've not answered me at all, instead you've asked me questions that don't mean an answer given that this is besides the point. You and I don't believe in the same reasons why a priest would speak to me. I believe in a sacramental life - to live by Jesus' example, and I differ from you in ideas about salvation, justification, faith and works, etc.

If you don't want to answer me, then so be it.

Yes, I know you're a sola scriptura Christian. You've repeated yourself again and again on this matter. You've not shown at all why you are, or why your interpretation of what is written is more correct than mine.

If you don't want to answer me, then so be it.



This makes no sense at all.

If you answer, that would be great. If not, no matter.

I answered you but just not the way you wanted it answered. It was important to those to whom he spoke to face to face.. Just as the reasoning I have pointed out. When my husband comes to me face to face it is important. He may even write in down in a letter to me that he has alot to say to me but did not want to pen it but will speak to me face to face.. What is the point?

 

[MamaZ]

At least you've moved back from circular reasoning to re-pronouncing your just-so statements.

As pointed out by others, these are mantras you fall back on.

If you don't want to answer that is fine. I won't press you further.

Started a thread where it can be discussed.

 

[Montalban]

I frankly don't think earlieness matters much other than it was likely more free of the corruption of doctrine because there were people who were actually there with Christ himself

Pedigree is important.

One of the assurances that we're being taught correctly is that we can point to a line of transmitters/teachers going all the way back to Jesus' first hand-picked bunch we call the Apostles

 

[MamaZ]

I answered you but just not the way you wanted it answered. It was important to those to whom he spoke to face to face.. Just as the reasoning I have pointed out. When my husband comes to me face to face it is important. He may even write in down in a letter to me that he has alot to say to me but did not want to pen it but will speak to me face to face.. What is the point?

Montalban are you going to address this?

 

[Montalban]

Also, the fact that the Catholic Church system (which later split into RCC and Orthodox) became the dominant church system means that their literature was preserved while they supressed and often destroyed whenever possible, the literature of other Chrisitan groups.

Yet we know what gnostics, Nestorians, Arians, etc believed in

 

[christianmomof3]

Pedigree is important.

yes it is especially if you are referring to race horses or show dogs.

One of the assurances that we're being taught correctly is that we can point to a line of transmitters/teachers going all the way back to Jesus' first hand-picked bunch we call the Apostles

There were heresies creeping into the church even in the first century. The epistles of John and Paul adressed some of those. Early is not necessarily correct.

 

[Brennin]

the didache was considered inspired too for a long time in the early Church. So why don't you include the didache? or the Shepard of hermas??

I don't have a problem with either of those, really.

You realize many of the early Christians did not even know how to read, and there were not printing presses. Paper was harder to come by. And many Christians, and even early fathers quoted from books they thought might be inspired that aren't in our bibles right now. So no, it wasn't as directly straight cut as you think..The book of Hebrews and the Revelation of John almost did not make it into the bible..

Did I claim canonization was "directly straight cut?" There were disputes over some books but many of the books of the Bible were widely accepted as inspired and authoritative long before your councils.

By what authority do you not consider 2 Peter to be inspired??

The Authority that commands us not to engage in deception. Although I think it was written with the best of intentions, I do not accept it was written by the person by whom it claims to have been written, and that's a problem.

 

[Montalban]

yes it is especially if you are referring to race horses or show dogs.

Not just that. When you have a expert witness who is able to show their qualifications you know they're an expert.

There were heresies creeping into the church even in the first century.

So what?

There's people in the US today that want to bring down the US. Doesn't make the US un-democratic simply because there's elements within it that are against it.

The epistles of John and Paul adressed some of those. Early is not necessarily correct.

I don't know what other basis you have for knowing that Christ's truth has been properly transmitted. It seems a challenge for you in discerning the truth

Given that you acknowledge the presence of heresies this seems to make the challenge even greater for you.

 

[heymikey80]

After another 16 pages, it's still people talking about a position they don't know about.

If you have issues with Sola Scriptura as it's represented in a confession, that'd be interesting. But claiming authority for an unacknowledged office in a church, however historic, isn't really going to accomplish much for those who are trying to look at what the early church actually held to -- a church prior to 100, which vested certain authority in some groups of people, but didn't vest authority in these groups more than what was in Scripture, or what was said by an Apostle.

If you have real evidence -- not storybook items -- that an Apostle said something, I'd be interested. Otherwise it's just not going to be that interesting to me. You may have complaints about some books considered acceptable by one church or another, too. I understand the arguments, but again, don't find them entirely convincing. Strip 2 Peter? Mmm. Maybe, maybe not. Having "the least" evidence doesn't mean it has insufficient evidence.

The authority of a church is pretty much vanquished on that point, by the way. If you're saying the church is authoritatively claiming Petrine authorship for what's clearly not Petrine -- I'd say the church is losing its authority to speak for the truth.

And thus doesn't deserve the authority to state such a thing.

 

[Montalban]

Heymikey80 has spoken. The case is ended

 

[Montalban]

Can I place an ad here...?

 

[heymikey80]

Heymikey80 has spoken. The case is ended

No, the case is submitted to all for evaluation as to its truth. No more, no less.

That's the basic problem here. We're not working with "nobody has authority", we're working with a different model of authority. Not authoritarian. Authoritative. Not legitimate-power. Derivative observation of the truth.

It's a different view of authority, and apparently it's not noticed by your view of authority. But the fact that you don't see it -- it doesn't mean it's not there.