Early Church

[MamaZ]

I like early Church... We start Orthros at 9AM.

Forgive me...

 

[Chesterton]

Sure it matters. This is why we read the full context of scripture and keep it in the context for which is was written. We read about confess your sins to one another but we do not read confess your sins to a priest.

But the early church you disagree with on such things, were men who were taught by the men who walked with God in the flesh. They were the disciples of the 12 apostles, the disciples of the disciples of the 12 apostles, the disciples of the disciples of the disciples of the 12 apostles, etc.

 

[MamaZ]

But the early church you disagree with on such things, were men who were taught by the men who walked with God in the flesh. They were the disciples of the 12 apostles, the disciples of the disciples of the 12 apostles, the disciples of the disciples of the disciples of the 12 apostles, etc.

We do not read this in the writings of any of the Disciples.. We do confess our sins to one another. I can confess my sin to a sister in the Lord or a brother. It does not need to be a priest. I go back to the earliest we have on the Church which is the scriptures and what they teach us.

 

[Chesterton]

We do not read this in the writings of any of the Disciples.. We do confess our sins to one another. I can confess my sin to a sister in the Lord or a brother. It does not need to be a priest. I go back to the earliest we have on the Church which is the scriptures and what they teach us.

But MamaZ, the men who wrote your Scriptures are the men whose disciples you disagree with, and you disagree with the men who declared the writings to be "Scripture". You have a conundrum.

 

[OrthodoxyUSA]

We do indeed confess our sins to one another and to Christ. The Priest is only a witness to others that we have done so.

Nothing wrong with the way MamaZ is confessing. (ref to post #43)

Forgive me...

 

[OrthodoxyUSA]

Seems important to remember that the clergy have no POWER. They have "authority"... God alone has power. Big difference.

Forgive me...

 

[Chesterton]

Nothing wrong with the way MamaZ is confessing. (ref to post #43)

I was going to mention that too, that there is nothing wrong with that. Just a matter of practical procedure, you could say.

 

[OrthodoxyUSA]

Confessions in public before the whole body spread scandal. It was abandoned early for a more practical solution at the laity's request.

Forgive me...

 

[Chesterton]

Confessions in public before the whole body spread scandal. It was abandoned early for a more practical solution at the laity's request.

Reminds me of a vulgar old joke. At a loud and raucous Baptist revival meeting where the preacher is excitedly exorting the congregation to stand up and confess their sins before all present...(to cut a vulgar joke short)...the third person stands up and confesses a sin which causes the crowd to fall silent, at which point the preacher says "Whoa, brother. I believe I'd have kept that to myself."

 

[Aeyamar]

Because Christianity was essentially an illegal underground cult until emperor Constantine converted and legalized its practice in the Roman Empire in the 300s, there are naturally very few writings that have survived through history to today. Plus, the 300s also saw the first ecumenical councils which precipitated an explosion of Christian writings related to those events and determining what exactly Christianity was.

 

[Montalban]

We can read through the scriptures now though.. And from the scripture we can see the earliest of the body of Christ So why not start there instead of 70-90 AD?

Which is when Scripture was written

 

[MamaZ]

Which is when Scripture was written

So Paul was not sending letters to the Church as He lived here on earth? Peters letter was written after his death? This makes no sense..

 

[GratiaCorpusChristi]

So Paul was not sending letters to the Church as He lived here on earth? Peters letter was written after his death? This makes no sense..

The New Testament was written at various stages, from Galatians (c. AD 50) to the Gospel of John (c. 95). By 95, the earliest traditional writings, 1 Clement (94) and the Didache (c. 100) are already making their appearances.

There's an unbroken chain between Scripture and the earliest fathers of the church, the Apostolic Fathers.

St. Clement was the personal disciple of Paul and Peter. St. Ignatius was the disciple of John. And St. Polycarp, too, was the disciple of John; and in the disciple of Polycarp, St. Irenaeus, we're already in the full flowing of orthodoxy and catholicity.

 

[christianmomof3]

Because Christianity was essentially an illegal underground cult until emperor Constantine converted and legalized its practice in the Roman Empire in the 300s, there are naturally very few writings that have survived through history to today. Plus, the 300s also saw the first ecumenical councils which precipitated an explosion of Christian writings related to those events and determining what exactly Christianity was.

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.

 

[MrPolo]

We can read through the scriptures now though.. And from the scripture we can see the earliest of the body of Christ So why not start there instead of 70-90 AD?

I used Scripture in the debate too. And so do the Apostolic Churches. This whole thread is based on a false premise that Apostolic Churches only get their teaching from 367 and after.

 

[MrPolo]

Clement of Rome? If so, which part? Or someone else?

Debate link.

 

[Chesterton]

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.

On behalf of my Church: "You're welcome."

 

[MrPolo]

they supressed and often destroyed whenever possible, the literature of other Chrisitan groups.

For our curiosity, what is your evidence that the early Catholic Church destroyed the documents of the "true" Church?

 

[christianmomof3]

For our curiosity, what is your evidence that the early Catholic Church destroyed the documents of the "true" Church?

Well, it would seem that the early Catholic Church only considered themselves to be the "true" church and apparantly they still do. So they would not consider that they destroyed documents of any "true" church.

However, since they persecuted other groups and suppressed their literature, the only way to know about the other groups is often from the writings that were directed against the other Christian groups and that writing was biased against them and not always truthful. Even in the first 3 centuries, there were groups of Christians who were working for reform and functioning outside of the Catholic Church group.

 

[MrPolo]

Well, it would seem that the early Catholic Church only considered themselves to be the "true" church and apparantly they still do. So they would not consider that they destroyed documents of any "true" church.

However, since they persecuted other groups and suppressed their literature, the only way to know about the other groups is often from the writings that were directed against the other Christian groups and that writing was biased against them and not always truthful. Even in the first 3 centuries, there were groups of Christians who were working for reform and functioning outside of the Catholic Church group.

Ok, go ahead and provide the evidence that the early Catholic Church destroyed literature of other Christians. So far you have provided speculation. And if you could provide as a bonus some of the Christians outside the early Catholic Church working for reform, I'd like to know whose names you have in mind.