The Church didn't just know' the Gospel books were authentic, but often depended on the writings of people such as Ignatius
The fact that the early fathers recognized who the first apostles were (which of course the NT itself cited anyway) is not in question. What is in question is that the writings of the first generation, those of the apostles, were rejected for doctrinal reasons. That was your contention. That they would not canonize those works that disagreed with them. Well first of all they disagree with themselves as in the case of Ignatius and later fathers. And secondly they canonized them on the basis of authorship and recognized inspiration, not on the basis of simply theological suppositions.The point is this, you yourself said that the basis was
a. the first generation
b. noted inspiration and usage by the community from the time of their writings.
Now, given that was the case, why would you put these attested to writings in a subordinate position to later authors by interpreting them according to the latter? Especially when the later works show evidence of development, progression, etc? I prefer the original faith, not the later version informed by anti-jewish sentiment. And if you question the anti-Jewish sentiment, then take a look at all of those apologies etc. It was practically all they could talk about. Why? Because the Jews were reviled in the empire at this time, and the Christians began to separate themselves.
I am bound to speak the truth.
Tradition and Scripture not conflicting may be the truth to you, it is certainly not to others. And you in fact have yet to show that tradition even agrees with itself, as Ignatius and later ones are saying two different things.
Not at all. It remains to be seen that they do not conflict. It is your contention they don't, but that is not something that can simply be proven by stating it. Until you first resolve the conflicts in tradition itself, and then show that the apostles agreed with it, then it is simply your contention.
I haven't reversed' anything. You have. The teachings of Christ came BEFORE the Gospels were written. Paul urges people to keep to the traditions, either by written word, or by mouth. He even quotes a saying of Jesus not contained in any of the Gospels.
The Church made the Bible, not the other way around.
Yes, Jesus and the apostles taught before the written Scriptures . But the church fathers wrote AFTER . You can say that it accurately preserves the oral tradition. But again, that needs to be verified. And any contradiction in fact must be settled by the Scriptures which were inspired before the other.
As to the church making the Bible, the Scriptures say that God inspired the Bible. The church recognized that. That does not make the church the originator of the Bible.
It doesn't have to. There's no Trinity formula in the Bible either. There's a limitation to what's in the Bible as noted, the Bible itself says that the Bible doesn't contain all of Jesus' teachings.
Indeed, but why won't you quote what the Bible calls the new covenant? Perhaps because the actual new covenant not only doesn't mention the 8th day, but in fact DOES mention that the law is written on the heart. It DOES mention that the new covenant was given because of the failure on the part of the receivers of the old covenant to keep their promise. It does in fact affirm the laws that God always gave, but changes the manner of keeping them to the Spirit, in the heart, not the written code.
Moreover, the elements of the trinity were in the Bible. The name was not. I can believe the teaching, and even refer to it by the name Trinity without saying that the church somehow instituted it by their authority.
Jesus gives the Apostles authority
Mark 16:17
And these signs will accompany those who believe: In my name they will drive out demons; they will speak in new tongues;
John 14:13
And I will do whatever you ask in my name, so that the Son may bring glory to the Father.
John 14:14
You may ask me for anything in my name, and I will do it.
John 14:26
But the Counselor, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my name, will teach you all things and will remind you of everything I have said to you.
John 16:23
In that day you will no longer ask me anything. I tell you the truth, my Father will give you whatever you ask in my name.
John 16:24
Until now you have not asked for anything in my name. Ask and you will receive, and your joy will be complete.
Now here we are in fact getting somewhere. So you are saying that the change was made by the authority of later apostles and did not originate with Jesus or with the founding apostles? (Which does go against your implied assertion that Jesus founded it at the last supper).
The newness of the covenant is explicit in the fact that we are Christians, not Messianic Jews.
Jesus commissioned His Apostles (above) and called a new covenant
The new covenant was in the OT and was written to Jews. So I don't really see how that would in fact follow. Moreover all of Jesus' apostles were Jews, and those that joined were grafted into the Jews, and were heirs of Abraham. Jesus was the Jewish Messiah, and the ultimate goal of Judaism. Did the death of Jesus do away with the sacrificial service, etc.? Sure. But not with the moral law of God that was in fact said to be written on the heart and mind in that very covenant according to Hebrews 8. Moreover the title Christian was one later applied to the church in Antioch.
The apostles, as stated before did not even realize the gentiles could receive the Spirit. They were in all respects an extension of, and the goal of Judaism. The radical separation is one that occurred in history. A progression if you will. What to you was obvious was surely not to them. And it was not because Christianity was the goal of Judaism, not a departure from it. They used Jewish Scriptures, had a Jewish Messiah, adopted the promises of the Jews as a part of the covenant, were called the True Israelites not after the flesh etc. Now they did recognize that the sacrificial system was done away with, etc. because the true sacrifice had been made. But they were thoroughly Jewish. Jewish believers who were privileged to see God bring about what He had promised long ago to the...Jews.
Paul spoke in Romans about the advantages of the Jews, and how they were His countrymen and how God had not given up on them but they could be grafted back into their own vine, which we were in. Perhaps you should re-examine how non-Jewish the early church really was.
Luke 22:20
In the same way, after the supper he took the cup, saying, "This cup is the new covenant in my blood, which is poured out for you
"
Indeed. And the new covenant is covered in some detail in Hebrews, where it is quoted from Joel. But it says nothing of an 8th day.
Which is Sunday. Which I pointed out to you.
Afraid not since he mentions Sunday following the Sabbath and that it should be kept to. See in my response above.
I've already noted that He said that the Sabbath was not made for God, but for Man.
Try reading Matthew 12
Or
Mark 2:27
Then he said to them, "The Sabbath was made for man, not man for the Sabbath."
Indeed. How did that break the Sabbath? Note the tense...it was MADE. It was always for man. It was not to be laden down with the needless, near endless requirements that had been put upon it by the Pharisees during the intertestamental period as a hedge against breaking the law. Jesus got rid of the traditions. But He kept the Sabbath. And He kept it as it was MADEfor man.
Ignatius taught Sunday. You need to decide whether you're going to call him on as an expert, or not.
Indeed, and also Sabbath. And he is definitely on as a witness. Because he contradicts both the Scriptures and later tradition. He is a stepping stone in the progression. See above.
Many Christians still don't get it on many different issues. That does not negate the truth.
ah, but then that cuts both ways doesn't it? Your whole argument regarding the day is that certain church fathers advocated it. Obviously many other people didn't. And it was so persistent that they had to keep making efforts to change it.
Besides that I am not the one saying that Ignatius is in fact a rule of faith. But since you made him one, and he argues for Sabbath keeping, then why are you not keeping it? I simply accept Ignatius as a representative of himself, his own understanding. What he writes is to me what he Gets' of what the original apostles write. If you believe he is more than that, then it is up to you to reconcile his statements with later tradition and the Scriptures. So to me if he doesn't get lots of things, just as doubtless others didn't, no big deal. He is one witness to the early church. And as you know, even today disciples do not think all the same things as their masters, or get it all.
No, you were addressing her based on what you think she believes as a Catholic. She cited a Church Father
She believes he became a heretic, which you were not even aware that the western church taught. I also addressed the evidence of the church father's writings, and still am with you. But it IS important what she thinks. Because what she accepts as an authority shapes her whole view. As it does with all of us.
I don't accept all popes as Church Fathers. I don't accept all patriarchs, either.
And here again you assume that what you accept should shape my discussion with her. Why would it? If she accepts that the popes are infallible when issuing certain writings then it is helpful to address what those popes say in said writings when talking to her. What does that have to do with you? And if the western church called him a heretic, then that enters into it too.
Now she can clarify and say that writings before that are alright. Ok, fair enough. But the point is he was STILL a Christian in the line of the apostles even AFTER he was a heretic. So to dismiss him because he disagrees with one point is hardly helpful.
You said all Catholics and Protestants disagree on this.
Here is in fact what I said:
tall73 said:
The Sabbath discussion is different for protestants, catholics and orthodox as their views of the Sabbath is different.
And what I said is quite true. A papal letter changes the understanding of the western church. Differing protestant traditions change their view, and the eastern view is different again. Is it Sunday to all? No, it is not. To some protestants it is not Sunday.
See above; you seem to believe that Popes are Church Fathers.
No, not at all. But I do believe that popes write about church fathers in official letters, and that becomes dogma to the western church. And the pronouncement that the church father in question was a heretic also comes into play.
You might also note that Debi already replied to my response long ago and clarified her view, which was informed by her tradition. So this is a fairly pointless part of our discussion.
Good for her, and there we disagree, so I didn't address it. However my question to you was over your ideas on Tertullian, and the Church Fathers.
And my response to her was regarding the western church's rejection of him as a heretic.
Excepting your confusion over Church Fathers.
I could also cite on issues the findings of several Ecumenical Councils which she would also believe in
even if I don't follow the Pope.
I have no confusion over the church fathers in this regard , though you seem to be ignorant of how the western church at least views this particular one.
And the councils themselves are yet more evidence of continual Sabbath keeping even to that time. Hardly an argument for Jesus setting them all straight on the issue from the beginning.
It has to do with the fact that when people were confused on issues, the Church, inspired by God, and authorised by Jesus could rule on something and this was not contrary' to the Bible, which they themselves authorised.
In fact the question was on selecting writings, not promulgating new notions. So it has nothing to do with it.
This is totally illogic. The fact that I accept that Jesus died on the cross, and so does a Lutheran does not mean that the Lutheran and I have to agree on every other issue. I have stated those things we (Catholics and Orthodox ) accept, and hold in common. You seem to think that because I accept these I must have a take all, or none' approach, which is simply really dumb.
I can defend the Holy Fathers, the Eucharist, Baptism, sacramental life, holy orders etc, without having to be Catholic. I'm sorry that you can't see this and continually find it difficult that I would defend what I believe in, regardless that someone else believes in other things as well.
You continually demand that because I accept Church Fathers held in common that I must also accept Papal Authority! And this is your problem in dealing with the Catholic author here, you continually debate not on the evidence presented, but what you suppose should be believed!
who said I demanded you accept anything? You began posting about my reply to Debi as though I should be addressing your issues, which at that time were only in your head, not posted on the forum. I addressed BOTH the ECF evidence itself AND her view of it. Your view is your own. And I am more than willing to discuss that. But this whole rehash of what I said to Debi, which she clearly understood and clarified her stance on is pointless.
My statement that started this little bit of the conversation was that I agreed with the orthodox church in rejecting such things as papal succession, etc. Note...I AGREED with you. So why you keep arguing as though I didn't is beyond me.
I think it is clear that seventh-day Sabbath keeping is easily established using only two or three verses while it takes a short book for someone to try and slide Sunday observance under the door.
