Catholics: How important is studying Church history to being a Christian?

[Fidelibus]

Again for the 3rd time, I gave it to you!

Come on now Major1, I know being a sola scripturists, these questions are difficult for you to answer, but yelling is uncalled for. Back to the matter at hand. Now when you say "the moment it was penned by men" thats what I've been asking of you from the get-go! Just saying the "moment" is painting time with a wide brush, I'm looking for specifics.....the years, centuries it was penned by these men. Now for the sixth time:

In what year or years do you think Paul’s first and second letter's to the Thessalonians, the Gospel of Luke, or again, Paul’s first letter to the Corinthians writings would be a part of the New Testament?

Was the year 15 a.d.? 25 a.d.? 36 a.d?

when do you believe the Bible to be codified, and when do you beleive the first writings that would be a part of the New Testament were finally written down? (Chronologized)

Again, I'm talking about specific year/years or century/centuries.
Dates with actual numbers.

if the Apostles wanted to leave as their legacy, after they all died out that Christians were supposed to practice the doctrine of the "Bible alone", wouldn’t they have at least left a list telling Christians in the future, which books and letters were in fact supposed to belong in the bible?

Again.....Don't you think this would have been a very important thing to do if the Apostles believed in the Bible Alone Doctrine? So where does one found this list in Scripture? Or will you admit such a list does not exist in the bible?

When you say " the canon was a process conducted first by Jewish rabbis" are you speaking of the Palestinian canon, or the Alexandrian canon?

This is probably the simplest question I aske you. The only answer required is either the Alexandrian canon or the Palestinian canon.
You know Major1, deflecting the way you are only hurts your credibility. If you don't know, or would rather not say, just say so. Like I said before, I'd be more than happy to help you out with the dates. Welp..... I off to Mass! Have a great Sunday!

 

[Fidelibus]

That would be my mistake, then, for thinking you were asking serious question of me in a serious discussion. Had I known you were just looking for some "rah rah for our team" opportunity, I wouldn't have bothered.

Sorry you feel that way Albion, but that wasn't my intent at all.

If you feel I am in error, please tell me what other church at that time it would have been.

Again, my apologies.

 

[Albion]

If you feel I am in error, please tell me what other church at that time it would have been.

Again, my apologies.

I answered that question in my earlier post. This was the era before the great breakups occurred. It's often called the era of the 'Undivided Church.' If anything, it would be identified with the Eastern Orthodox churches, not the Roman Catholic Church, but any good historian would say that the church of that time period was not one of today's denominations or communions to the exclusion of all others.

Now the questions that might be asked would be "Did you not know this?," and/or "Did you mean something else by the use of the word Catholic?"

The rest of us grow weary of having people promoting their own denominations to us as being the one and only one Christ founded, whether that comes from Roman Catholics, Eastern Orthodox Christians, Seventh-Day Adventists, Mormons, or Jehovah's Witnesses. That's really a disrespectful way to "discuss" any of these topics, even when we are discussing some substantial doctrinal issues that separate all of us.

 

[Major1]

I answered that question in my earlier post. This was the era before the great breakups occurred. It's often called the era of the 'Undivided Church.' If anything, it would be identified with the Eastern Orthodox churches, not the Roman Catholic Church, but any good historian would say that the church of that time period was not one of today's denominations or communions to the exclusion of all others.

Now the questions that might be asked would be "Did you not know this?," and/or "Did you mean something else by the use of the word Catholic?"

The rest of us grow weary of having people promoting their own denominations to us as being the one and only one Christ founded, whether that comes from Roman Catholics, Eastern Orthodox Christians, Seventh-Day Adventists, Mormons, or Jehovah's Witnesses. That's really a disrespectful way to "discuss" any of these topics, even when we are discussing some substantial doctrinal issues that separate all of us.

Amen brother, amen!

 

[Major1]

Come on now Major1, I know being a sola scripturists, these questions are difficult for you to answer, but yelling is uncalled for. Back to the matter at hand. Now when you say "the moment it was penned by men" thats what I've been asking of you from the get-go! Just saying the "moment" is painting time with a wide brush, I'm looking for specifics.....the years, centuries it was penned by these men. Now for the sixth time:

Was the year 15 a.d.? 25 a.d.? 36 a.d?

Again, I'm talking about specific year/years or century/centuries.
Dates with actual numbers.

Again.....Don't you think this would have been a very important thing to do if the Apostles believed in the Bible Alone Doctrine? So where does one found this list in Scripture? Or will you admit such a list does not exist in the bible?

This is probably the simplest question I aske you. The only answer required is either the Alexandrian canon or the Palestinian canon.
You know Major1, deflecting the way you are only hurts your credibility. If you don't know, or would rather not say, just say so. Like I said before, I'd be more than happy to help you out with the dates. Welp..... I off to Mass! Have a great Sunday!

I am aware of what you are looking for and the reason. You see, you are attempting to give the RCC more authority than the Scriptures by the circular reasoning that if the RCC made the Bible it is more important than the Bible.

The bottom line however is that no one church is responsible for canonizing the books we have today in the bible. Several churches did and still do have their own sets of canon. It is my understanding that it was the Council of Nicea ordered by Constantine in Aug. 25, 325 AD that established a wider spread convention of what was canon.

Not one church, or disparate bishops. Constantine was tired of the constant bickering amongst priests and theologians so he ordered them to come to a decision. There would have been no need for this if there was unity in 'the church' in the first place.

 

[bbbbbbb]

Yes.... The Catholic Church!

Really now? Do you actually think the Eastern Orthodox Christians consider themselves to be part and parcel of your denomination prior to the Great Schism?

 

[Constantine the Sinner]

I'm Orthodox, but we consider studying Church history to be very important, because it is fundamental to our continuity with the Church of Apostolic times and even the Old Testament. The Bible includes a lot of history because it's important.

 

[prodromos]

The bottom line however is that no one church is responsible for canonizing the books we have today in the bible.

How many Churches were there at the time the New Testament canon was closed?

Several churches did and still do have their own sets of canon.

I'm only aware of one New Testament canon. Who are the other Churches you are referring to and what are their canons?

It is my understanding that it was the Council of Nicea ordered by Constantine in Aug. 25, 325 AD that established a wider spread convention of what was canon.

And it is my understanding that Nicea was a council of ONE Church with many bishops attending from all over.

 

[Major1]

How many Churches were there at the time the New Testament canon was closed?

I'm only aware of one New Testament canon. Who are the other Churches you are referring to and what are their canons?

And it is my understanding that Nicea was a council of ONE Church with many bishops attending from all over.

From (F. F. Bruce, The New Testament Documents: Are They Reliable?, Grand Rapids, Eerdmans, 1960, p. 27)............
"One thing must be emphatically stated. The New Testament books did not become authoritative for the Church because they were formally included in a canonical list; on the contrary, the Church included them in her canon because she already regarded them as divinely inspired, recognizing their innate worth and generally apostolic authority, direct or indirect. The first ecclesiastical councils to classify the canonical books were both held in North Africa-at Hippo Regius in 393 and at Carthage in 397-but what these councils did was not to impose something new upon the Christian communities but to codify what was already the general practice of these communities".

There is the Catholic canon.
The Protestant canon.
Anglican Church.
Coptic Church.
Armenian Church.
Ethiopic Church.
Greek Orthodox Church.
Syriac Church.

From The Christian Research Institure at ............
http://www.equip.org/article/what-really-happened-at-nicea/

"The council was divided into three groups. Arius was in attendanceThis group represented the viewpoint that Christ was of a different substance than the Father, that is, that He is a creature.

The “orthodox” group was led primarily by Hosius of Cordova and Alexander of Alexandria.They represented the view that Christ was of the same substance as the Father, that is, that He has eternally shared in the one essence that is God and in full deity.

The middle group, led by Eusebius of Caesarea and hence often called the “Eusebian” party.

This was before the creation of the Catholic church. The origin of the Catholic Church is the tragic compromise of Christianity with the pagan religions that surrounded it. Instead of proclaiming the gospel and converting the pagans, the Catholic Church “Christianized” the pagan religions, and “paganized” Christianity. By blurring the differences and erasing the distinctions, yes, the Catholic Church made itself attractive to the people of the Roman Empire. One result was the Catholic Church becoming the supreme religion in the Roman world for centuries. However, another result was the most dominant form of Christianity apostatizing from the true gospel of Jesus Christ and the true proclamation of God’s Word.

 

[Fidelibus]

I am aware of what you are looking for and the reason.

Are you sure about that? All I was asking were your thoughts/beliefs when (year/years:approx.) the New Testament writings were produced. Do you believe it occured before or after the Council of Jerusalem in 50 a.d.? As I asked you before, what do you beleive the chronology of the first writings are? For example, (for the fifth or sixth time) In what year of Early Church history do you think Paul’s 1st Letter and 2nd letter to the Thessalonians was written? Or maybe his Letter to the Galatians.



Now for me, The study of early church history has shown me that Paul's first letter to the Thessalonians was written in the year 51a.d. His second, 52 a.d. And his letter to the Galatians in 54 a.d. Would you agree with these dates Major1? If not, could you explain why not, and show why not. One important thing to keep in mind Major1, some scholars say that these are the absloute earliest dates, where as many historians push the dates even further into the future by a few years.

You see, you are attempting to give the RCC more authority than the Scriptures by the circular reasoning that if the RCC made the Bible it is more important than the Bible.

Am I now. Hmmm.... Well let me ask you somthing, Who or what is it that the Bible tells us where are we to go to seek the Pillar of Fire, and the Pillar of Truth?

 

[Thursday]

How important is it to study the Church founders and do you think one can be a proper Catholic (by extension, a proper Christian) if they do not nor have desire to study Church founders and the development of doctrines from a Roman Catholic standpoint?

Lemme know!

Jesus is the Truth. We should want the truth, and studying history helps us learn the truth, which is very important.

Quoting John Henry Newman, a 19th century convert to Catholicism, "to be deep in history is to cease being protestant".

 

[Fidelibus]

Really now? Do you actually think the Eastern Orthodox Christians consider themselves to be part and parcel of your denomination prior to the Great Schism?

Why don't you ask them.


As for myself, I believe that there is one catholic (universal) Church founded by Jesus Christ and built up by the apostles. Can you show me if your church, or any other Protestant church that can trace it's lineage back to the apostles?


p.s. There are many rites within the Catholic Church. we are all united under one head and believe in one common faith, and we, by no means, call our different rites or churches (sui iuris). We don't call ourselves a denomination.

 

[Albion]

Why don't you ask them.

Oh, they haven't been shy about saying that they were the original church and Rome later entered into schism.

As for myself, I believe that there is one catholic (universal) Church founded by Jesus Christ and built up by the apostles. Can you show me if your church, or any other Protestant church that can trace it's lineage back to the apostles?

Absolutely. Mine can, for example.

We don't call ourselves a denomination.

Right. There are more than a few denominations that don't call themselves denominations.

 

[Fidelibus]

Absolutely. Mine can, for example.

Intresting, could you elaborate? I would be most interested to see what the Apostolic Succession of the Anglican Church looks like. Thanks!

 

[Albion]

Intresting, could you elaborate? I would be most interested to see what the Apostolic Succession of the Anglican Church looks like. Thanks!

Truthfully, there are lots of charts showing these lineages and I have a number of them in my files and books, but as for a tidy internet website, here's one from an American branch that is particularly detailed. It should be noted that every bishop in the world, no matter what his communion or denomination, has many lines of succession.

Holy Catholic Church Anglican Rite

 

[friend of]

The problem that Pope Francis has at times is that he assumes too much from his audience. And this has been a gripe of many Catholics concerning him, because he will say something, and not clarify what he meant. I think he is trying to force people to think a little on their own, but he just doesn't realize that most people don't take the time to get past the words.

His comment was directly contrary to the gospel. You are treating heresy as a thought-experiment.

Francis is a Jesuit, and Jesuits are thinkers and teachers, and the problem that Francis has is that he forgets who he is teaching to at times.

If this is supposed to be a defense for the Deposit of Faith or Sacred Tradition I am so unimpressed with your answer.

 

[amariselle]

How important is it to study the Church founders and do you think one can be a proper Catholic (by extension, a proper Christian) if they do not nor have desire to study Church founders and the development of doctrines from a Roman Catholic standpoint?

Lemme know!

I think it would be very helpful to study Catholic history, absolutely. I also think it is very important to understand "apostolic succession" and to research the history of the Papacy.

 

[Erose]

His comment was directly contrary to the gospel. You are treating heresy as a thought-experiment.

It isn't contrary to the Gospel, if you understand where he is coming from.

If this is supposed to be a defense for the Deposit of Faith or Sacred Tradition I am so unimpressed with your answer.

It isn't a defense of Deposit of Faith or Sacred Tradition, it is helping you to understand where Pope Francis is coming from.

 

[friend of]

It isn't a defense of Deposit of Faith or Sacred Tradition, it is helping you to understand where Pope Francis is coming from.

What you have offered is pure conjecture. You think that this is what Francis was thinking at the time he made those comments. You have presented nothing that would substantiate his thoughts at said time.

 

[Erose]

What you have offered is pure conjecture. You think that this is what Francis was thinking at the time he made those comments. You have presented nothing that would substantiate his thoughts at said time.

Correct it is pure conjecture on my part. But on my part, I've read quite a few of his writings and interviews (not just quotes here and there), and that is my impression on how his mind works.