Adamski
Member
Off topic
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
how do Protestants explain history?
- Thread starter Adamski
- Start date
History isn't an attack. Its a fact.
siti
Well-Known Member
But he didn't - a few months later (reportedly) he "yielded up his spirit" and expired...then in Acts 3 we find Peter and John still attending the Temple in Jerusalem for worship and at the end of Acts 5 "in the temple and at home"...and in Acts 21 Paul went "into the Temple" after performing customary Jewish purification rites...by which time Jesus had (reportedly) been dead about 30 years and Christians were still worshiping at the Temple, in synagogues (when they hadn't been thrown out of them) or in private homes under the watchful eyes of local "presbyters" and "episkopos" - it was a very, very long time before the "Episkopos" of Rome emerged - centuries after Christ's (reported) death and long after any chance of direct apostolic succession had died out with the last of Jesus' (reported) apostles - almost certainly before the sack of Jerusalem by the Romans in 70CE.
Last edited:
Neo Deist
Th.D. & D.Div. h.c.
Off topic?
You were talking about Protestant beliefs while others were talking about Catholic beliefs in rebuttal, and there is a shared collection of beliefs between both camps. My questions are based on traditional beliefs that are often expressed by both. How exactly is that off topic?
It's not, but nice dodge. You knew what was coming.
Neo Deist
Th.D. & D.Div. h.c.
If you throw gas on a fire, don't be surprised if you get burned.
siti
Well-Known Member
I presume you mean answers to your question: "how can they [protestants] believe it is the true Christian faith when there is no archeological or historical evidence for their belief system?"
I have twice mentioned that I believe you are really claiming that there is no evidence for apostolic succession and I have answered that by pointing out that there is no evidence fro apostolic succession between Jesus and the Apostles in 1st century and the emergence of the RC Church in the 4th.
It is true that Irenaeus (about the end of the 2nd century) writes of Linus holding the episcopate of Rome immediately after Peter's death but what does that prove except that there was a Church in Rome and it had a bishop? The history is confused and inconclusive - and given that most of it was written by "Church Fathers" intent on establishing the apostolic credentials of their own Church. In fact, the main point of Irenaeus' writings was to refute the "heresies" of gnosticism - which claimed direct "hidden" information from Jesus himself. He countered with the idea of apostolic succession as an authoritative basis for establishing doctrine and the rest, Jerome, Eusebius etc. followed. There's nothing about apostolic succession in the Bible of course.
So here's the point: there is no evidence for apostolic succession in the writings or art of early Christians who were not in line with what was to become the Roman Catholic Church because that was not the basis of their faith.
That there was a long line of faithful Christians who rejected official Roman Church teachings from before the establishment of the "Catholic" Church in 325 through 5th to 7th century Arianism in central Europe and Africa and even parts of Italy, through to the early protestant precursors like Arnold of Brescia, Hus and Wycliffe in the 12th-13th centuries - this is beyond question and a matter of historical record. But don't take my word for it - look it up.
Last edited:
roger1440
I do stuff
this movie may answer your question. There are a few movies out there on Luther. I think this one is the best.
Skwim
Veteran Member
Said like the truly defeated. Next time I suggest you ask the choir when you want answers that agree with your own.
.
jaybird
Member
Protestants dont worship Luther they follow Jesus.
Terrywoodenpic
Oldest Heretic
How do you know ?
God has never abandoned us. He has been in constant contact with us.
How do you know anyone has had a mandate from God?
Terrywoodenpic
Oldest Heretic
Lutherans like Anglicans are centered on worship. Rather more Protestant churches base their teachings on Calvin, which to an extraordinary extent follow his concepts of sola scriptura, predestination, and once saved always saved and saved by faith alone.
Though it must be said almost nothing new was said by calvin, that had not been said previously by some one else.
Though it must be said almost nothing new was said by calvin, that had not been said previously by some one else.
Father Heathen
Veteran Member
Why would god even need middlemen? More likely they're self-appointed, and self-serving. Why should we need to rely upon other mere mortals to have a connection with god, especially when said mortals often tend to be among the worst examples of humanity (many of your priests rape children while the rest try to cover it up, for example)?
metis
aged ecumenical anthropologist
I agree with most of what you wrote above as well would so many Catholic theologians and historians.
Even though I wasn't Catholic, I took two Catholic theology classes taught by a brilliant Jesuit theologian that had also written the number-one most widely used adult Catholic catechism in the U.S. He pointed out that even from a Catholic point of view, the Reformation helped to bring about the much needed Counter-Reformation that did address many of the ills that had crept into the church.
My experience is that most Catholics at least now recognize what went wrong with the church and why, but the same doesn't seem to true with so many people within the Protestant churches. As a Lutheran, I was never told about the atrocities perpetrated by my church then, including some of the things that Luther had said and taught. I wasn't told about how we were involved in the genocide of Amerindians and also heavily involved with the slave trade. I wasn't told of the rampant anti-Semitism that Luther himself supported. I wasn't told by them of the terrible acts performed against "witches" and "heretics" by fellow Protestants.
Even today, the response I get from so many Protestants is a response like this: "Well, the Catholics were worse!", as if that somehow "sanctifies" what their denominations were complicit in. Even with the Holocaust, the RCC has admitted its complicity by what they had taught and what some of their leaders and people did, and they have taken serious steps to try and make certain this doesn't happen to any group again. Most Protestant denominations have not done the same, however.
However, with this, I am getting away from what the OP is about, so I'll try and just get back to what that's dealing with.
Thanks for your friendly input.
metis
aged ecumenical anthropologist
The fact, at least according to the Christian scriptures, is that Jesus appointed the Twelve who then in turn appointed others to follow their teachings. They clearly did not want a theological free-for-all whereas anyone could teach anything they want to teach and then claim it was from God through Jesus.
The mark of the early church was not which books you venerated but whether your leaders were appointed through this line of succession, and one can clearly see that process in action in the book of Acts and in some of the epistles. .
metis
aged ecumenical anthropologist
Please check post #56. Let also add that the evolution of the papacy was just that-- an evolution, not a revolution-- and Catholic theologians and historians are well aware of that. And it didn't evolve in some sort of vacuum but more did so for reasons of greater conformity and defending against "heresies". [I think you probably know why I put "heresies" in quotation marks]
But what was happening with these "heretical" groups is that they were not only using their own set of scriptures but that they were also formulating some teachings that simply could not be traced back as being taught by Jesus, the apostles, and those who came after them. These groups made their claims of authenticity of course, but correctly or not, they simply defied the teachings that were correctly or incorrectly passed down through the ages.
And just a reminder that, if you're Christian, your Bible is a by-product of what the CC chose during the 4th and early 5th centuries.
Kelly of the Phoenix
Well-Known Member
I kinda agree, though I know this is just a post to disparage Protestantism. However, I don't feel Catholics or the Orthodox of various flavors are original either. They were Jews, to start out with, after all.
I don't think Pete had one either. Having it claimed by some author is not the same thing as having proof it happened.
Catholics split from the Orthodox quite awhile back. We Protestants didn't invent "if you don't like it, leave" mentalities.
What I see is someone who can't be honest about his own theological history.
Meh. I'm too much of an American Protestant. God calls who God calls and buildings and clergy don't ultimately matter. Middle management ain't necessary.
Yeah. Jesus was still alive to complain the apostles didn't know squat. He sure knew how to pick 'em.
With that logic, the Pharisees and other clergy should have maintained their authority over us, because despite their fallen natures, it has nothing to do with the teachings ....
The roman catholicism didn't exist for over 300 yrs. The coptic precedes it as does the Syrian Malabar Nasrani
oldbadger
Skanky Old Mongrel!
There wasn't very much archeological or historical evidence for the Roman Catholic Church. Folks who delved too deeply into the foundations of RC ended up dead . A bible for all to read was held back for many centuries.
Protestantism might be more correct, even?
I'm not biased. I'm a deist.