The Early Church is the Catholic Church

[keltoi]

I probably do need to do some more study in this area, it's true.

Before the Roman empire fell it is believed literacy levels were quite good. Even slaves had to be able to read so they could fulfil their masters wishes. After Rome fell literacy levels dropped drastically to a point that only the "Patricians" were literate, and even then not all of them were. Places like Ireland, which wasn't untouched by the old Roman Empire, had great libraries and the people were still literate but with the Viking conquests of Europe and the British Isles literacy levels collapsed. Before this the last vestiges of what was called the Keltic Church disappeared from the British Isles and the people were not longer educated by the church and Britain was again pagan due to the Angles, Saxons and Jutes bringing in their native religions.

The RCC slowly moved into Britain through missionary work and various kings converted to Christianity. Now Britain had lost its libraries, Ireland still had them but that was going to change with Vikings starting to attack around the 790s, and the people were not longer educated as they had been during the days of the Empire. In Europe Charlemagne was crowned Holy Roman Emperor on "Christmas" day 800AD, there really is no evidence of that but its the date they say it happened and not to far in the past he had brought an end to the Merovingian dynasty, Charlemagne was Carolingian.

The only people in Dark Ages and medieval Europe who were educated were people who were employed (or a better word would be made) to work for the Emperor, vassal Kings, or the Church and even then many in the Church could not read well enough to read a letter let alone the Bible. Families of Free Men generally tried to get at least 1 child into the church so they could learn to read a little bit. Henry VIII was trained as a theologian because his brother Arthur was supposed to be King Arthur of England, Prince of Wales and Lord of Ireland so Henry was taught theology. There are various times during Medieval British history were events come to a push and shove and one of them was the Peasants revolt. The peasants were revolting, pun not intended, because they were not treated as equals they wanted what the Nobles had, they weren't after riches but they were after the opportunity to better themselves and they knew an education could hep them. The King at the time agreed to meet with their representative a man called Watt Tyler, who was able to speak and read a bit, and the King, whose name escapes me right now, agreed to the demands but when the peasants would not let up Watt Tyler was killed and the King said "surf you are and surf you shall remain". Now it was called the Peasants revolt but it was surfs (slaves) who were revolting mostly.

Now think about this, why would you keep the majority of the population uneducated? The church come up with an idea called the "Divine right to rule" which meant the ruling classes, the Nobility and the Church, were given the divine right by God himself to do what they pleased with the lower classes. How do you keep people lower than you if you ant to remain on top? Deny them an education so they cannot learn to read and see what the Bible itself says. People like the Lollards didn't agree with this idea so they had the Bible written in English, some of the Nobility and Church did not like this so they were driven underground, much like the Church in the Soviet Union. It was another 4-500 hundred years before the Reformation and before commoners were able to legally get their hands on a Bible written in their own language. What happened after that? people began to get educations.

 

[samir]

Actually, my pastor hasn't told me to do anything, I can think for myself as well. The most a pastor should do, as a leader is lovingly offer guidence, direction and encouragement. If he is giving orders like a dictator that MUST be followed, (such as telling congregants what Bible translation to read) well I would worry that such a church was becoming a cult.

The church I attend references several translations, as I do myself. I try to always do my best to understand what I'm reading. That being said, I know I'm not perfect, and I know that human understanding and human wisdom alone is not enough.

Glad to hear you think for yourself. I wouldn't assume otherwise. I wasn't referring to translations. I was referring to bibles with different books. For example, the Catholic bible has 73 books and has been the same from the 4th century when the canon was determined until the present. The most popular Protestant bible only has 66 books and wasn't used by anyone until the 16th century so I'd like to know why Protestants follow a bible not used by anyone during the first 1,500 years after Christ. Also, some Protestants such as Martin Luther, the founder of Protestantism, rejected some books like Revelation yet other Protestants accept it and I'd like to know why.

You do make a lot of assumptions about me just from one post. I wonder why you feel the need to jump to conclusions that I blindly follow anything. How do you know I'm not trying to use my mind and also pray for discernment? You have no idea who I am.

I did not make any assumptions about you. I simply asked a question whether you accepted the bible you were given without questioning it (like I did - at the time I thought there was only one bible) or whether you did some research first. If you have, I'm interested in hearing why you accept the book of Revelation and Hebrews as scripture.

 

[keltoi]

By that, I meant Christians who emphasize Tradition as a key tool for understanding religion.
In this case, Christians who follow the Bible as understood by Tradition would say that the Christian community or else their visible Church is Christ's body , based on Paul's statements to his audience that they were Christ's body in his epistles.

Another thing I think we need to ponder is what if the tradition the people were understanding the Bible by was wrong? What if Christ never said "You are Peter and on this rock (meaning Peter) I will build my church"? What if Christ meant you are peter and on this Rock (meaning Christ himself) I will build my church"? Did not Christ say "Tear down this temple and I will rebuild it in 3 days"? Wasn't he talking about his own crucifixion and resurrection?

 

[samir]

This is the real point. The RCC does not believe its members have the authority to do this with regards to the Bible.

Are you saying your denominations allows you to accept or reject whichever books you choose? They would have no problem if you rejected the gospel of John and accepted the Shepherd of Hermas as scripture?

 

[samir]

You need to learn history before you make such bold pronouncements that Luther is the founder of Protestantism.

It is accepted history and can be found in every encyclopedia. Though there were heretics who protested the Church before Luther, they had a variety of beliefs, many of which were much different than Lutheranism agreeing only on the rejection of the Church. I'm aware of the Waldensians and a few other groups who shared a little more beliefs in common that go back to the 10th or 11th centuries.

It is very clear to me that you have already taken the RCC line and I can respect that becuse God gave tyo the freedom of choce to do so. Just be aware the RCC doesn't allow that. You are not free to question them like you are us here, you are not free to read and consider the Bible yourself, you are not free to follow Christ alone because you must follow Mary and the Pope as well. So before you keep asking questions that you already know the answer to because I have already told you think about those things.

I'm not RC, never have been. I haven't decided which church to join. I'm still considering Protestant sects but so far haven't seen any evidence to support their claims.

Also Martin Luther is not the founder of any religion let alone mine.

Who do you think founded Lutheranism?

Christ is the founder of Christianity and he is my Lord and Saviour.

Every heretic says Christ founded their religion yet all their sects can be shown to be founded by men who lived long after Christ.

Again read my reply to you before about why I believe the "extra" books that the RCC and other non-Protestant groups have. Don't ignore what I have already said and keep asking the same questions over and over because my answer will not change.

I read your reply twice. You didn't answer my question. You mentioned the books Protestants removed from their bibles but didn't address how you determined Revelation is scripture which is the question I asked. Luther explained why he rejected it. Can you explain why you accept it? It's okay if you can't. Just be honest and don't tell me you already told me.

 

[samir]

You told me to look it up for myself. Not happening, if it important enough to you to trust it you should share it.

It's accepted church history. If you don't care whether the books you follow are scripture then I'm not interested in considering your sect.

 

[samir]

Another thing I think we need to ponder is what if the tradition the people were understanding the Bible by was wrong?

Excellent point. The early Christians were unanimous that water baptism and good works were necessary for salvation. I agree it's worth pondering whether the bible is so unclear and so difficult to interpret that no one during the first 1,000 years after Christ was able to understand it. Those who claim to have the true interpretation that disagrees with everyone before them definitely need to prove their authority to interpret scripture and explain why we should follow them and their novel interpretations instead of the church.

 

[keltoi]

Are you saying your denominations allows you to accept or reject whichever books you choose? They would have no problem if you rejected the gospel of John and accepted the Shepherd of Hermas as scripture?

Nope

 

[samir]

Nope

To which question? Are you saying they don't allow you to pick and choose which books to follow or that they will consider you a Christian even if you reject the gospel of John in favor of the Shepherd of Hermas?

 

[keltoi]

It is accepted history and can be found in every encyclopedia. Though there were heretics who protested the Church before Luther, they had a variety of beliefs, many of which were much different than Lutheranism agreeing only on the rejection of the Church. I'm aware of the Waldensians and a few other groups who shared a little more beliefs in common that go back to the 10th or 11th centuries.

Lollards protested the RCCs unwillingness to let people have the Bible in their own language. A Protestant is merely someone who Protests against the excesses of the RCC.

I'm not RC, never have been. I haven't decided which church to join. I'm still considering Protestant sects but so far haven't seen any evidence to support their claims.

Your style of questioning doesn't indicate a willingness to discuss or learn but rather a desire to refute anything that anyone tells you.

Who do you think founded Lutheranism?

Lutheranism isn't a religion as such, although if it was made a way of life it could be considered a religion. Lutheranism is merely a denominational point of view. Just like Presbyterianism is a denominational point of view. They are only religions IF they are held in higher esteem than Christianity itself. A few posters on here have posted quite categorically that Roman Catholicism is the only church yet Christ never made any such claim so you tell me what Christian denomination is putting itself higher than any other when we are in reality 1 church united through Christ (not Peter).

Every heretic says Christ founded their religion yet all their sects can be shown to be founded by men who lived long after Christ.

Define heretic and define sect. I doubt you know what the words really mean.

I read your reply twice. You didn't answer my question.

I did.

You mentioned the books Protestants removed from their bibles but didn't address how you determined Revelation is scripture which is the question I asked.

Here's what I said I have highlighted the relevant part for you because it is obvious you have not read it even though you said you have.

The apocryphal books are contradictory of other sections of the Bible, also other sections of the Bible do not reference the apocryphal books yet they do reference other books. I recommend you do some study and read the Bible and see what I mean.

Luther explained why he rejected it.

Whoopdydoo for Luther.

Can you explain why you accept it?

I already have and I even quoted it again and highlighted the relevant section for you.

It's okay if you can't.

But I did, and have done it again for you.

Just be honest and don't tell me you already told me.

So now you are calling my honesty into question? Not very Christian of you. Just because you don't understand something doesn't mean you must be rude to someone who is trying to help you.

 

[keltoi]

It's accepted church history.

What church?

IIf you don't care whether the books you follow are scripture then I'm not interested in considering your sect.

Again define what you mean by sect. I do not not belong to any sect, nor do I belong to any denomination. I am a Christian I do not follow Peter or any particular denomination, I follow Christ. If you don't want to consider doing that I don't understand why you are even here.

 

[keltoi]

Excellent point.

I know that's why I made it.

The early Christians were unanimous that water baptism and good works were necessary for salvation.

Can you provide any scriptural reference that requires baptism with water and good works for salvation?

I agree it's worth pondering whether the bible is so unclear and so difficult to interpret that no one during the first 1,000 years after Christ was able to understand it.

It wasn't unclear, the message of Christ was twisted by a geopolitical military empire.

Those who claim to have the true interpretation that disagrees with everyone before them definitely need to prove their authority to interpret scripture and explain why we should follow them and their novel interpretations instead of the church.

No those who claim to have the true interpretation based on 1 or 2 thousand years of tradition need to prove that their tradition follows the message and example of Christ. Those that inject things after the fact have not relied on the Bible but rather on man.

 

[keltoi]

To which question? Are you saying they don't allow you to pick and choose which books to follow or that they will consider you a Christian even if you reject the gospel of John in favor of the Shepherd of Hermas?

Nope to the 1st question, the 2nd question is a game and I have already told you that I am not playing your games.
If you know as much about Protestantism as you are trying to make out you would know that the Shepherd of Hermas was rejected. Instead of grilling me about Protestantism why don't you grill some "catholics" about Catholicism? I already know why, you have already pretty much made up your mind.

Let me ask you something. Why is someone, so interested in learning, hiding? Your profile is hidden to me so I cannot see anything about you yet my profile is not hidden to you and you can see everything about me that is available. I'm starting to think you're a ring-in. I'd love to know your IP and check it against a couple of others

 

[StanJ]

http://www.biblebelievers.com/jmelton/Catholic.html

http://www.bible.ca/catholic-start.htm

 

[samir]

Lollards protested the RCCs unwillingness to let people have the Bible in their own language.

The RCC translated bibles into many languages. Their problem was people like Wyclif and other heretics who twisted the bible to support their heresies.

Your style of questioning doesn't indicate a willingness to discuss or learn but rather a desire to refute anything that anyone tells you.

I'm willing to learn but I won't blindly accept something just because someone tells me it is true. I will question and ask for evidence before I accept it.

Lutheranism isn't a religion as such, although if it was made a way of life it could be considered a religion. Lutheranism is merely a denominational point of view. Just like Presbyterianism is a denominational point of view. They are only religions IF they are held in higher esteem than Christianity itself. A few posters on here have posted quite categorically that Roman Catholicism is the only church yet Christ never made any such claim so you tell me what Christian denomination is putting itself higher than any other when we are in reality 1 church united through Christ (not Peter).

You are correct it's a denomination and not a separate religion. I meant Luther founded the Lutheran denomination.

Define heretic and define sect. I doubt you know what the words really mean.

From Merriam-Webster dictionary:

"a dissenter from established religious dogma; especially : a baptized member of the Roman Catholic Church who disavows a revealed truth"

Can you find a legitimate dictionary that agrees with your definition?

I did.
Here's what I said I have highlighted the relevant part for you because it is obvious you have not read it even though you said you have.

I see it now. Revelation is scripture because it references other books in your bible. That's circular logic because you'd have to know what other books are scripture to know what is referenced. The book of Jude quotes the apocrypha so do you reject that book? Barnabas references scripture so do you consider it to be God's word? I'm not trying to refute your claims, just asking legitimate questions because if I followed your reasoning I'd have to reject books all Christians accept and accept dozens of other books all Christians reject. I wouldn't accept the book of Mormon or any Catholic books without question either.

 

[samir]

What church?

The one founded by Jesus that all Christians were part of. The only one that can be supported by history. And it's not the Gnostic church.

Again define what you mean by sect. I do not not belong to any sect, nor do I belong to any denomination. I am a Christian I do not follow Peter or any particular denomination, I follow Christ. If you don't want to consider doing that I don't understand why you are even here.

Sect = denomination. I got it that you're non-denominational. You might want to change your faith category to non-denominational if that's what you are so people know.

 

[samir]

I know that's why I made it.
Can you provide any scriptural reference that requires baptism with water and good works for salvation?

Yes, probably close to 100 if not more. For starters, "Repent and be baptized FOR the remission of your sins (Acts 2:38)" Hebrews says "baptism now saves you" Titus says Christians are saved by the "bath of rebirth and renewal" which is water baptism.

It wasn't unclear, the message of Christ was twisted by a geopolitical military empire.

I wouldn't rely on Jack Chick tracts or conspiracy theories or anti-catholic websites. They are very biased and most not even Christian if that's where you get your history. It appears very distorted.

No those who claim to have the true interpretation based on 1 or 2 thousand years of tradition need to prove that their tradition follows the message and example of Christ. Those that inject things after the fact have not relied on the Bible but rather on man.

The same folks that taught salvation by faith and works determined that Hebrews is the word of God. If the early Christians were wrong about salvation then I'm not willing to rely on them to tell me which books are scripture.

The fact is the apostles appointed bishops as successors to preserve the Christian faith and those bishops scattered throughout the world all passed on the same Christian faith. That's evidence it is authentic. Contrast that with the followers of Luther who divided and scattered into hundreds of different sects/denominatons/whatever you want to call it which is evidence it's not from God.

 

[samir]

Nope to the 1st question, the 2nd question is a game and I have already told you that I am not playing your games.
If you know as much about Protestantism as you are trying to make out you would know that the Shepherd of Hermas was rejected. Instead of grilling me about Protestantism why don't you grill some "catholics" about Catholicism? I already know why, you have already pretty much made up your mind.

Not a game. The Shepherd of Hermas was one of the books accepted as scripture by early Chrisians. Here's what Wikipedia says about it: "The Shepherd of Hermas is a Christian literary work of the late 1st or mid-2nd century, considered a valuable book by many Christians, and considered canonical scripture by some of the early Church fathers such as Irenaeus.[1][2] The Shepherd was very popular amongst Christians in the 2nd and 3rd centuries.[3] It was bound as part of the New Testament[1][4] in the Codex Sinaiticus, and it was listed between the Acts of the Apostles and the Acts of Paul in the stichometrical list of the Codex Claromontanus."

I question catholics about Catholicism just as I do Protestants.

Let me ask you something. Why is someone, so interested in learning, hiding? Your profile is hidden to me so I cannot see anything about you yet my profile is not hidden to you and you can see everything about me that is available. I'm starting to think you're a ring-in. I'd love to know your IP and check it against a couple of others

I didn't bother filling out a profile because it's not relevant. Discussion should be based on the merits of the arguments, not on the poster's personal life.

 

[samir]

http://www.biblebelievers.com/jmelton/Catholic.html

http://www.bible.ca/catholic-start.htm

Those are blatantly anti-catholic sites full of malicious gossip and slander. I'm amazed how the authors of those sites have no conscience as shown by them repeatedly bearing false witness against Christians. They are worse than atheists.

I encourage you to read the Catechism of the Catholic Church if you want to know what the Catholic Church teaches and refute the actual teachings if you are able. It would make for a relevant and fruitful discussion.

 

[keltoi]

The RCC translated bibles into many languages. Their problem was people like Wyclif and other heretics who twisted the bible to support their heresies.

Yep and that is why one of the biggest bible translating groups today is known as Wycliffe Bible Translators.

I'm willing to learn but I won't blindly accept something just because someone tells me it is true. I will question and ask for evidence before I accept it.

I don;t ask or expect you to blindly believe, what I do expect is that you 1, read the Bible, and 2. grill "catholics" in the exact same way as you are trying to grill me. I'll tell you now they wont be as patient with you as I have been.

You are correct it's a denomination and not a separate religion. I meant Luther founded the Lutheran denomination.

Say what you mean and mean what you say. If you have to change things halfway througha discussion because you've been caught out it says to me that 1, you don't know what you are talking about, and/or 2, you are just here to grill non-catholics.

From Merriam-Webster dictionary:

"a dissenter from established religious dogma; especially : a baptized member of the Roman Catholic Church who disavows a revealed truth"

I asked you to define it not to grab it from Merrian-Webster.

Can you find a legitimate dictionary that agrees with your definition?

What definition have I given that I need to provide a dictionary to support it?

I see it now.

I expect an apology from you because you called my honesty into question because you were to blind to see the words in front of your face. As I said I had answered your question but you kept on insisting I hadn't and then you told me to be honest.

Revelation is scripture because it references other books in your bible.

You need to get 1 thing clear here, it is not MY Bible, it is the Word of God and it was inspired by God. The RCC and the EO and OO have Revelation in it you are singling me out and by doing so you are quickly loosing any credibility.

That's circular logic because you'd have to know what other books are scripture to know what is referenced.

You don't think someone like me has read these apocryphal books?

The book of Jude quotes the apocrypha so do you reject that book?

Does the apocrypha reference Jude? Do the apocryphal books include writing styles that are similar to other books in the Bible?

Barnabas references scripture so do you consider it to be God's word?

The Pope references scripture, my own father used to reference scripture, do I think their writing are part of the Bible? nope. why? because the Bible didn't reference their writings.

I'm not trying to refute your claims,

What rubbish.

just asking legitimate questions because if I followed your reasoning I'd have to reject books all Christians accept and accept dozens of other books all Christians reject.

Define Christian, be careful you may end up breaking the rules doing so.

I wouldn't accept the book of Mormon or any Catholic books without question either.

Yet I have not seen you ask any "catholics" any questions like you are asking me. Seems a little sus to me.