If you don't trust the Catholic Church, why do you trust the Bible?

[UpperLimits]

All the councils of the third century did was....

I should probably correct my mistake before it becomes an issue with some individuals.

All the councils of the FOURTH century did was...

 

[metis]

EXACTLY!!! Just because they started calling them Christians didn't change the reality that they were Jewish!

Moses is recognized in Judaism as being a prophet even though he's not labeled as such in Torah itself. Why? Glad you asked. Because he acted like a prophet acts.

The reason I mention this is because we can do much the same with "Christians" and "Christianity", namely attach those names, even though they were not labeled as such back during the time of the apostles, to the very early church. Same is true with "Catholic" because it eventually became the most commonly used name for the apostolic church around the end of the 2nd century, and it became more extensively used as being the main name in the 3rd century. This in part was probably done because of "heretical" churches emerging, thus the label "Christianity" was also being used by them as well.

Well... let's break that down. I think you are relating a modern terminology to something that was totally different 2,000 years ago. 2,000 years ago you could be of any national origin but you were Jewish because of the faith they had. Thus being Jewish was not a "nationality" but rather a faith.

It was assumed as such but often didn't work out that way, especially with Jews who were non-observant and were railed against in Tanakh especially. Also, there were some Jews who probably converted to maybe Roman or Greek or some other religion, which helps to explain how these "idol worshipers" and "pagans" were considered in such disdain by observant Jews.
The issue then in early Christianity when "God-Fearers" (gentiles who believed in God as found in Torah) not only joined the Christian synagogues but eventually became the majority sometime after 70 c.e., created another dilemma, namely were they then to be considered "Jews"? After all, if one converted to Judaism, they are to be accepted fully as "Jews". The "mark" of that was the circumcision of males, so now what to do? This is why I believe Paul eventually insists that a member of the Way should do be circumcised. Matter of fact he says it's not to be done as it would be in defiance of a belief in Jesus.

So, what you say above is true, but as things got more complicated it became necessary to not assume that simply because one was a "Jew" that this means that they are observant in "Judaism", the latter of which is another label that had to be created to differentiate the two. However, like we did with Moses being a prophet even though he's not named as such, we can do much the same with "Jew" and "Judaism", neither of which were terms used 3000 years ago.

BTW, Who's on first?

I hope you had a most blessed weekend.

 

[metis]

That would depend on what part of the "person" you're looking at, as well as "how" you're defining the term. Technically, the Roman Catholic Church, as we know and love it today, didn't really even come into existence until the great schism of 1054.

Actually it was much later than that as the prefix "Roman" was not by and large used until the Uniate churches reconnected with the Catholic Church.

As I mentioned in my previous post back to @KenS, "Catholic" actually became the most commonly used label for the apostolic church, especially by the end of the 3rd century. Here, this can help you: Catholic Church - Wikipedia [scroll down to "History"]

 

[metis]

All the councils of the third century did was to simply ratify what was already basically considered common knowledge among Christians.

If it was all that easy, then why did it take the church over 1/2 century to make their choice, and with the Apocrypha they couldn't even come to a decision?

We know from written records taken then that it was a terribly difficult decision, often marked with dissension and bitter arguing. Accepted books like Hebrews and Revelation were hotly contested, as were some books that weren't accepted like Clement's letters.

 

[Kenny]

Moses is recognized in Judaism as being a prophet even though he's not labeled as such in Torah itself. Why? Glad you asked. Because he acted like a prophet acts.

Not to be technical.... but:

Deut 34:10 Since then, no prophet has risen in Israel like Moses, whom the LORD knew face to face,

I think the Torah just called him a prophet. And I think Moses called himself a prophet

Deut 18:15 The LORD your God will raise up for you a prophet like me from among you, from your fellow Israelites. You must listen to him.

The reason I mention this is because we can do much the same with "Christians" and "Christianity", namely attach those names, even though they were not labeled as such back during the time of the apostles, to the very early church. Same is true with "Catholic" because it eventually became the most commonly used name for the apostolic church around the end of the 2nd century, and it became more extensively used as being the main name in the 3rd century. This in part was probably done because of "heretical" churches emerging, thus the label "Christianity" was also being used by them as well.

But my "technicality" doesn't change the reality of what you just said. Yes... they were labeled Christians.

It was assumed as such but often didn't work out that way, especially with Jews who were non-observant and were railed against in Tanakh especially. Also, there were some Jews who probably converted to maybe Roman or Greek or some other religion, which helps to explain how these "idol worshipers" and "pagans" were considered in such disdain by observant Jews.

The issue then in early Christianity when "God-Fearers" (gentiles who believed in God as found in Torah) not only joined the Christian synagogues but eventually became the majority sometime after 70 c.e., created another dilemma, namely were they then to be considered "Jews"? After all, if one converted to Judaism, they are to be accepted fully as "Jews". The "mark" of that was the circumcision of males, so now what to do? This is why I believe Paul eventually insists that a member of the Way should do be circumcised. Matter of fact he says it's not to be done as it would be in defiance of a belief in Jesus.

Yes you have given a historical account from when it was faith and nationality to where it was a nationality and not a faith.

But I think we can look at this with historical verification and see that regardless of today, being Jewish is ultimately still about faith regardless of nationality. It is what binds them together.

In the exile during Nebuchadnezzar, God told Israel to marry and build in the nations that they were living in for 70 years of exile. When the God opened the doors to rebuilt the temple, it did not matter what nationality the children had been born in, the were Jews by birth and by faith.

No matter what country you go to, the homes are celebrating the Shabbat.

I think thos who are not of the faith are more of an exception that the rule until recent times.

As far as circumcision, I think Paul simply was saying, if you have a Jewish culture, do it. If you don't have a Jewish culture, you don't have to. As a Gentile, they did it to me and I did it to my son... but we weren't Christians or Jewish back then. What did that make me?

So, what you say above is true, but as things got more complicated it became necessary to not assume that simply because one was a "Jew" that this means that they are observant in "Judaism", the latter of which is another label that had to be created to differentiate the two. However, like we did with Moses being a prophet even though he's not named as such, we can do much the same with "Jew" and "Judaism", neither of which were terms used 3000 years ago.

BTW, Who's on first?

LOL... yes, things got more complicated over time... but when was the word "Jew" used? At least in the English version of the Tanakh... it was used in the books of Esther, Jeremiah and Zechariah - that means almost 2600 years ago.

Of course the designation of Hebrew was used on Abraham.

 

[Clear]

... The Catholic Church decided which books would be in your Bible at the councils of Rome, Carthage, and Hippo. The Bible is a Catholic book. If you don't trust the church, why do you trust that they made the right decision putting together your new testament Canon?

Furthermore, how do you know they didn't tamper with it throughout the centuries. For centuries there were no other Christian churches on the face of the Earth but the Catholic Church.

If the Catholic church is so evil, that shows what a terrible job God does at guiding and shepherding his people. How could God be so pitiful? The only churches on the face of the Earth preaching that Jesus is Lord were catholic.

God lets centuries of people become totally deceived and didn't introduce protestantism to the world until the 16th century. Protestants who claim that the Catholic church is the whore of Babylon, are stating that the Bible they love so much was put together by the whore of Babylon. How is that Bible trustworthy?

While I think the O.P. is attempting to raise some legitimate questions, the O.P. makes too many historically irrational and incorrect assumptions to use it as a basis for a historical discussion. I cannot tell if the historical mistakes are from historical naivete or intentional.

For examples :

1) The O.P. assumes that readers "trust" that readers believe the Catholic Canon is correct and/or that the Roman Congregation did not tamper with it's version of the text.

Historians of the various canons do NOT assume this. Obviously the Orthodox (Ethiopian) use a different Canon and the early Christians used many texts not included in the Catholic Canon. It assumes regular readers “trust” the choices made in the current canon. I for one wish they had left out Songs and included an Enoch or Jubilees or Barnabas (the Modern Eastern Ethiopian canon includes all three).


2) The O.P. makes the incredibly silly statement that “For centuries there were no other Christian churches on the face of the Earth but the Catholic Church.”
This incredibly naive claim is repeated in post #5 so one assumes it is an intentional historical mistake and adds another historical error by Claiming Linus was the “second” “pope”.

Obviously there were multiple Christian Congregations that were much older than the Roman Congregation and there was no "Pope" (historically) before Linus was ordained as Bishop of the Roman Congregation (The later Myth of Peter as a Standing Bishop is a back claim from later centuries...). In the face of such irrational history, how does one then have a Historically coherent conversation or conclusion if a historical conversation is not to remain grounded in historical facts?


3) Upper limits correctly pointed out that the Roman organisation of 400 a.d. was NOT the same organization of Bishop Linus’ age (first century) and that multiple writings existed which were considered sacred in the early Christian movement. For example, Jude quotes from Enoch and thus the Enochian source text becomes part of the New Testament text.


My point is simply that PopeADope is making so many incorrect historical assumptions that the O.P. and his supporting statements have removed the conversation from historical mooring points on multiple basic historical points.

While I think it is perfectly fine for the Roman Catholic Church to determine or create or limit the textual sources from which their membership is to gain inspiration and understanding and religious insight, as a non-Catholic, I don’t feel any obligation to adopt their canon. I assume Protestants who have criticized the deuterocanon feel similar as do the Ancient Eastern Churches who have a different canon than either western Protestants or Roman Catholics.


Clear
φιφισεω

 

[metis]

Deut 34:10 Since then, no prophet has risen in Israel like Moses, whom the LORD knew face to face,

Yes, but notice which book it appears in and when that book was composed. When you go through Exodus, Moshe is not mentioned as being a prophet.

But I think we can look at this with historical verification and see that regardless of today, being Jewish is ultimately still about faith regardless of nationality. It is what binds them together.

Tell that to the Jews For Jesus, which is obviously a Christian group. Or tell that to most Jews in Israel, whom are largely secular. Again, "Jew" is a nationality, "Judaism" is the religion. Yes, there's some intertwining but they simply are not one and the same.

but when was the word "Jew" used? At least in the English version of the Tanakh... it was used in the books of Esther, Jeremiah and Zechariah - that means almost 2600 years ago.

And what date did I use in post #42?

What did that make me?

Oh, I gotta few in mind, but I think I'll wait for Halloween to mention them.

 

[metis]

Historians of the various canons do NOT assume this. Obviously the Orthodox (Ethiopian) use a different Canon and the early Christians used many texts not included in the Catholic Canon. It assumes regular readers “trust” the choices made in the current canon.

I'm gonna be really short on this as some of these items have already been covered here and on some other threads.

The reference to the canon chosen by the CC is because most Catholics and Protestants use that canon. Yes, there were other canons but they aren't really part & parcel of this discussion.

Obviously there were multiple Christian Congregations that were much older than the Roman Congregation and there was no "Pope" (historically) before Linus was ordained as Bishop of the Roman Congregation

The title of "Pope" was given in retrospect, but the title "Bishop of Rome", which is a reference to the latter used title, was used by the very beginning of the 2nd century and almost undoubtedly before that.

Secondly, it's important to realize that this is not just about the "Pope" but also about the bishops, whereas the "mark" of the "true church" was not the canon one used but whether the appointment of one's bishops could be traced back to the apostles. Therefore, Peter and subsequent appointees are only one element within this picture, and even if that aspect were to be not entirely correct historically, the appointment process still is paramount as it show's up in Acts and some of the epistles, and also 2nd century documents. IOW, it's really a "package deal".

Upper limits correctly pointed out that the Roman organisation of 400 a.d. was NOT the same organization of Bishop Linus’ age (first century) and that multiple writings existed which were considered sacred in the early Christian movement.

I'm glad you said "multiple writings", because that obviously is correct because the CC made the decision to make it "correct". IOW, they still had to choose, even though some of these books undoubtedly were pretty much a slam-dunk. However, with roughly around 1000 letters to choose from according to Anglican theologian William Barclay, their task was still quite daunting, which is why it took over 1/2 century to complete.

as a non-Catholic, I don’t feel any obligation to adopt their canon.

I don't think anyone here thinks you must, nor do I.

BTW, the Orthodox canon did not vary from the Catholic canon until long after the Great Schism. See: Development of the Christian biblical canon - Wikipedia

 

[Kenny]

Yes, but notice which book it appears in and when that book was composed. When you go through Exodus, Moshe is not mentioned as being a prophet.

I'm not sure when a person is determined to be a prophet is of consequence IMV. David was anointed King years before he became one. Elijah became a prophet after serving Elijah. So, for me, the difference between Ex. and Deut is just a matter of years.

My point was simply that you said he wasn't mentioned as a prophet. I simply showed he was.

Tell that to the Jews For Jesus, which is obviously a Christian group. Or tell that to most Jews in Israel, whom are largely secular. Again, "Jew" is a nationality, "Judaism" is the religion. Yes, there's some intertwining but they simply are not one and the same.

You are right... about today. I'm not sure you could separate the two 2,000 years ago.

And what date did I use in post #42?

.

LOL... I thought for sure you were just rounding off. You are such a literalitst.

 

[metis]

My point was simply that you said he wasn't mentioned as a prophet. I simply showed he was.

Guilty as charged! I did not remember that there was reference to Moshe being a prophet in Dt.

BTW, "just a matter of years" is debatable since Dt. had a very late and mysterious appearance in the Temple. I have to go right now, but I'll try and get the approx dates of their writings later today-- if I remember.

BTW, ever hear of "glottochronology", which is pretty extensively used in anthropology to give approximate dates as to when X may have been written? Fascinating field of study, even though it's not my area. Some Bible commentaries use their conclusions in their introductions to the various books of the Bible.

LOL... I thought for sure you were just rounding off. You are such a literalitst.

Ya, and my wife says I'm literally crazy, and my response back to her is that I know who has made me this way. Then she hits me.

 

[metis]

I have to go right now, but I'll try and get the approx dates of their writings later today-- if I remember

@KenS, ah, I remembered! I'm really sharp today!

OK, as you're undoubtedly aware of, dating a book like "Exodus" is problematic since the study of the language used seems to suggest different sources written at different times probably by different groups. And then there's the problem of plugging in the idea that some of it was possibly carried orally before being submitted to writing.

According to a couple different sources I used, the span of time for "Exodus" may be as broad as three centuries when all is considered, with some indications that some part(s) may have been written ir passed orally all the way back to the 9th century b.c.e. and some of the more recent sources as late as the 6th century b.c.e. It's not just the evolution of Hebrew that's used but also what the narratives are covering.

With the book of Deuteronomy, most of it appears to have a roughly 7th century b.c.e. writing, but some of the Laws that are given appear to likely have been added later, quite possibly an inclusion of some of the "Oral Law" into the text, maybe as midrashim.

Now, don't ask me how they determine this because that's way past my area of knowledge, but also just let me add that these numbers obviously should not be taken as being written in stone as there are too many variables to draw any solid conclusion.

So, as Gandhi said, "the truth is rarely simple".

 

[Kenny]

@KenS, ah, I remembered! I'm really sharp today!

OK, as you're undoubtedly aware of, dating a book like "Exodus" is problematic since the study of the language used seems to suggest different sources written at different times probably by different groups. And then there's the problem of plugging in the idea that some of it was possibly carried orally before being submitted to writing.

According to a couple different sources I used, the span of time for "Exodus" may be as broad as three centuries when all is considered, with some indications that some part(s) may have been written ir passed orally all the way back to the 9th century b.c.e. and some of the more recent sources as late as the 6th century b.c.e. It's not just the evolution of Hebrew that's used but also what the narratives are covering.

With the book of Deuteronomy, most of it appears to have a roughly 7th century b.c.e. writing, but some of the Laws that are given appear to likely have been added later, quite possibly an inclusion of some of the "Oral Law" into the text, maybe as midrashim.

Now, don't ask me how they determine this because that's way past my area of knowledge, but also just let me add that these numbers obviously should not be taken as being written in stone as there are too many variables to draw any solid conclusion.

So, as Gandhi said, "the truth is rarely simple".

I'm sure the "written in stone" was a punn and well placed

But THAT is the best statement one can have. It is incredible how so many people hold that the position mentioned is "the gospel truth". Even when we don't have the original documents and we have no idea when they stopped the "oral tradition".

I find that 7th centruy BC is so preposerous, if I can get dogmatic here for a minute... I'm a grandpa, remember!! Granpa's have the right to get dogmatic every once in a while.

I find it logical that those things written down should have some import and should be taken into consideration. (Not how old a document is since it could be a copy of a copy due to natural deterioration)

Take, for an example, the 10 commandments etched into stone. I would have to come to the conclussion that they fabricated the story. If I take that approach, look at what else I would have to fabricate:

"Write them on the doorframes of your houses and on your gate" - A common practice that started... when? and the statement inscribed in Deuteronomy fabricated to match it?

"On the staff of Levi write Aaron’s name, for there must be one staff for the head of each ancestral tribe." A very common practice... Am I suppose to assume that it was oral? On a staff?

"When he takes the throne of his kingdom, he is to write for himself on a scroll a copy of this law, taken from that of the Levitical priests." Again, did they mean - relate it orally? or write?

These are from Deuteronomy.

Then from Exodus: "There were twelve stones, one for each of the names of the sons of Israel, each engraved like a seal with the name of one of the twelve tribes." ... how can one etch a name into stone if there is no writing?


So, in my way of thinking, we must also factor in what is said and it just seems too far fetched to say that it was written in 700BC from oral tradition.

I have no problem with "it was written over time by more than one person"... but I think their dating is WAY off. As a wise person said, "too many variable to draw any solid conclusion".

Of course, except my conclusion, because we have orally determined that I am always correct! It's when I write that it gets messed up!

 

[Clear]

Metis replied : “The reference to the canon chosen by the CC is because most Catholics and Protestants use that canon. Yes, there were other canons but they aren't really part & parcel of this discussion.”

Hi Metis :

I think you are correct on the point that the O.P. is probably referring to a modern western canon and only to a specific, but unspecified audience.

It is the connection of this O.P. statement with so many unqualified inaccuracies and confusing mixture of themes that seems to have caused criticism from posters, including myself.


1) For example, the claim that : “The Bible is a Catholic Book” does not make sense historically without explanation.

Though the organization that became the Roman Catholic had great influence over its choice of books that it included in its canon, the roman Catholic organization did not create the base text but simply determined it's position toward a specific group of texts already in existence. The Roman Catholic Organization cannot demonstrate it's text is the original text nor does it have the same text as multiple other churches as Terry Woodenpic pointed out in post #20

All the ancient churches were at those councils, including the Coptic and Ethiopian. However the Rome/Orthodox split came later. To day the Orthodox Roman Coptic and Ethopian and the later Protestant bibles all differ as to translations and number of included books.

I like Pcarls point that :

Not until the 4th cent, 367, that a list of Chtistian Scriptures as known today in the NT finlly appeated. Athanasius, then Bishop of Alexandria, listed the 27 books as the "springs of salvation" and as included in the "canon", which in the judgment of the church at large contained the purist form of the apostolic traditions (Latin; regula fidei: "rule of faith").
The canon grew out of the Christian community during its first three centuries of their existence.
In Alexandria and Antioch Rev was disputed and never received canonical status in the Syrian churches. Syria was the holdout in accepting the canon. It never did accept some of the Catholic Epistles or Apocalypse. The final acceptance of the 27 NT books was really by common consent rather than any formal pronouncement of a church council.

Once printing increased availability of bibles and masses were able to access them as opposed to clergy only and as education increased and the ability to read spread, then the desire of the different movements to have their own text was bound to occur.

2) Another example of historical inaccuracy is the claim “For centuries there were no other Christian churches on the face of the Earth but the Catholic Church.” (PopeADope in the O.P. )
Obviously the new Testament Test itself mentions multiple congregations such as Jerusalem, Corinth, Antioch, Galatia, Ephesus and other places, many that were older than the roman congregation. There were others that are simply less well known or unknown to western Christians. The early Christian literature mentions other congregations and other Bishops besides those of the west. If the Jerusalem Christians fled to Pella before the destruction of Jerusalem at 70 a.d. then they and their subsequent spreading Christianity existed but was simply less known in the west. The Coptic (African) Churches existed, but were simply less well known to the west.


3) Another lapse in logic was pointed out by Upper Limits An important historical fact is that the early Roman Congregation of 100 a.d. is NOT the same organization that existed 300-400 years later. Upper Limits said :

I believe there is a fatal flaw in the logic of the OP. The poster is making the presumption that the Roman Catholic Church of today is the same entity that compiled the scripture as it is currently known and accepted. To put it succinctly: It isn't. There's been more than 1600 years of history in the meanwhile.

Over this period of time the church has changed its historical position on many doctrines. There have been councils. The Eastern church split from the Western church. There has been the split of the Protestant Reformation. And so on and so forth. Today we have inherited the result of this history. Basically, what you see ISN'T what you had; So there's really no fair comparison that can be made in regards to the opening premise.

I agree with Upper Limits' points regarding the evolution of this roman organization. The simple early Church of Jesus Christ as a Christian congregation of Rome developed into a different organization with different doctrines and different goals and different characteristics in the later centuries.


4) Another example is the silly historical error that Linus was the “second pope”. Historically, Linus was ordained as FIRST Bishop of the Roman Congregation (The later Myth of Peter as a Standing Bishop is a back claim from later centuries...). Peter was never a standing bishop of Rome for over 20 years. In the face of such irrational history, how does one then have a Historically coherent conversation or conclusion if a historical conversation is not to remain grounded in historical facts?

I don't fault the tenor of the original Question. That is, trust vs distrust and how that affects other issues. However, if a simple premise adds historical errors and does not remain on authentic historical grounds it cannot come to authentic historical conclusions and it contaminates the historical concepts of individuals who are in the process of learning religious history.


Clear
φυακειω

 

[pearl]

Though the organization that became the Roman Catholic had great influence over its choice of books that it included in its canon, the roman Catholic organization did not create the base text but simply determined it's position toward a specific group of texts already in existence.

Even considering the diversity of the NT churches they were one church. When there were serious disagreements, as with Peter and Paul, they sought Jerusalem for an authoritative decision. They did not break koinonia with another. They were this one church before any NT writing. It is this church that gathered the oral tradition and whose evangelists, a generation later, wrote. The NT is a product of the Church. That's not to say the Church of Rome, but the Catholic Church, for East and West are one Church, Catholic and Apostolic. The Roman Catholic Church does not claim to be the 'same' church of the NT, but that church 'subsists' today in the Catholic Church.

 

[metis]

I'm a grandpa, remember!! Granpa's have the right to get dogmatic every once in a while.

Ya, and it goes with dementia.

Take, for an example, the 10 commandments etched into stone. I would have to come to the conclussion that they fabricated the story

I'm gonna play devil's advocate on this and the remaining posts here-- which some say goes with what I am.

Did God actually give Moshe the Decalogue or did it derive out of ancient Jewish beliefs borrowed from other cultures but then tweaked to reflect Jewish mores and folkways? How could we tell today which it is, or maybe even something else? Instead, I have a different approach that I've posted before but will repeat later in this post because of you being a "grandfather".

So, in my way of thinking, we must also factor in what is said and it just seems too far fetched to say that it was written in 700BC from oral tradition.

Why "too far fetched", especially when those who analyze the scriptures tell us that this is more likely than attributing it to supposed events that may well predate Jewish writings? IOW, was Moshe an actual historical figure or was he a mythological character carried forth in an oral tradition? And how can we tell today which it is?

I have no problem with "it was written over time by more than one person"... but I think their dating is WAY off.

Based on what? Is this based on what you and I were taught to believe over many decades? Has your brain and mine been patterned to accept what we were probably taught as a kid, thus anything different just seems wrong?

Of course, except my conclusion, because we have orally determined that I am always correct! It's when I write that it gets messed up!

It's sorta like "If I say nothing, people will think I'm ignorant; but if I say something, they will know I'm ignorant".

Quite a while back, I decided I would no longer play the "did this really happen" game, and the reason is that it's simply too hard to tell with any certainty of being correct events that supposedly took place thousands of years ago based on the writings of subjective people living in a very superstitious world.
Does this mean what is written I believe to be false? No, just that we can't tell for sure. So, I took a page out of the Buddhist approach, namely to try and get myself to realize that I have to shuck what I was brought up to believe and try to look at all of this as objectively as possible. IOW, question everything and let the chips fall where they may. Because of this, I've become extremely proficient at writing "I don't know" a lot.

But what about the morality that's taught? This is a different matter with me as I can take these seriously, and contemplate on if they seem to make sense both cognitively and morally [I'll talk about the latter after you ask where does my supposed "morally" come from on your next post? ]. Then if it "works" for me, I use it-- or at least try to.

Therefore, discussions on when something is written is strictly an academic activity with me, but I just don't allow myself to get too much hung-up on it-- at least most of the time.

OK, now it's your turn to "correct" me.

 

[metis]

the roman Catholic organization did not create the base text but simply determined it's position toward a specific group of texts already in existence.

First of all, I'm going to be sorta picky because when we are talking about the or an early church, it's not "Roman Catholic Church", it's "Catholic Church" as "Roman" wasn't added until the Uniate churches began to reunite.

Also, the issue of the evolution of the church I'll allude to later in this post.

The Roman Catholic Organization cannot demonstrate it's text is the original text nor does it have the same text as multiple other churches as Terry Woodenpic pointed out in post #20

But it was this confusion that Constantine demanded in the 4th century needed to be decided upon and resolved, especially since there were "heretical" churches that were claiming that their texts that were the right ones from the apostles, which often rejected texts used today, such as the gospels themselves.

Obviously the new Testament Test itself mentions multiple congregations such as Jerusalem, Corinth, Antioch, Galatia, Ephesus and other places, many that were older than the roman congregation.

Of course, but that's irrelevant to the discussion. The question under consideration is how was the canon used by most Christians worldwide put together and who did it? Since records were well kept on this process, we know what the answers are, namely by the CC during the 4th and 5th centuries. Did all congregations back then accept this canon? No. Have congregations since then all use the basic CC text? No. So, I'm not talking about complete conformity here.

Another lapse in logic was pointed out by Upper Limits An important historical fact is that the early Roman Congregation of 100 a.d. is NOT the same organization that existed 300-400 years later.

Demonstrably false, and I had to go through this process myself almost four decades ago since I was brought up in a fundamentalist Protestant church. By spending gobs of time going through early historical records from many sources, it because abundantly clear that there was a continuation of appointments of bishops. If the CC of the 4th century was supposedly not related to the early church, which church supposedly is, and where's the evidence to support that position?

This appointment process clearly shows up in Acts and some of the epistles, and it was this, not the scriptures, that was the "mark" of the early church. It was the church, not the scriptures themselves, that chose the canon that most use today.

And, to be clear, it is not just the CC that is a by-product of this process as the Anglicans, the Orthodox (includes Coptics), and some European Lutheran congregations that are also a by-product of what theologians call "apostolic succession". It is real, not imagined, and one can see this process at work through the writings of the 2nd century church forward til today.

I agree with Upper Limits' points regarding the evolution of this roman organization. The simple early Church of Jesus Christ as a Christian congregation of Rome developed into a different organization with different doctrines and different goals and different characteristics in the later centuries.

All organizations evolve, as they must, largely to adjust to new situations and challenges. No church today resembles the 1st century church.

Myth of Peter as a Standing Bishop is a back claim from later centuries...). Peter was never a standing bishop of Rome for over 20 years. In the face of such irrational history, how does one then have a Historically coherent conversation or conclusion if a historical conversation is not to remain grounded in historical facts?

I mentioned previously that the claims of the CC simply does not rely on the questionable accuracy as to who was the Bishop of Rome way back then. It is the appointment of bishops that is what needs to be considered, and because the communities were scattered over much of the Old World, unification and recognition of the Bishop of Rome as at least the informal leader of the apostolic church wasn't always possible with the more distant churches. But much later in time, when communication and transportation was eventually much easier, what did these churches mostly do? Answer: most rejoined either the CC or the OC for what should be obvious reasons that relate to their awareness of Christian history.

Obviously, many Protestants don't like this and some try and rewrite history. I was one who was misled, and the process for me to realize this literally took years..BTW, if you want an extremely excellent book on this, even though it's very old, see if you can get your mitts on "Tradition In the Early Church" by Dr. Hanson (Anglican). He heavily documents this process using historical records. It's the best book I've read thus far on early church history.

BTW, just to be clear , I'm neither Catholic nor Christian, but I love studying history, probably because I'm old enough to be history itself. Hey, beats the alternative.

 

[pearl]

I mentioned previously that the claims of the CC simply does not rely on the questionable accuracy as to who was the Bishop of Rome way back then. It is the appointment of bishops that is what needs to be considered

From reading 'Peter in the New Testament', written by Roman Catholics and Protestants together, 'The connection between a Petrine function in the first century and a fully developed Roman papacy required several centuries of development, it is anachronistic to think of the early Roman church leaders functioning as later popes.' Still operative in the end of the first century in Rome was the twofold order of presbyter-bishop and deacons. Interesting is the writing of I Clement, written from Rome in the 90's, 40yrs after Romans in the late 50's. It does not simply repeat but reformulates the Jewish cultic heritage and offers a peculiarly Roman view of church order leading to Christian hierarchical patterns for centuries to come.
I have noticed many references in the various studies of
I Clement to Fuellenbach's Ecclesiastical Office and the Primacy of Rome.

 

[metis]

From reading 'Peter in the New Testament', written by Roman Catholics and Protestants together, 'The connection between a Petrine function in the first century and a fully developed Roman papacy required several centuries of development, it is anachronistic to think of the early Roman church leaders functioning as later popes.'

Absolutely, as it and the church itself was a "work in progress".

Still operative in the end of the first century in Rome was the twofold order of presbyter-bishop and deacons. Interesting is the writing of I Clement, written from Rome in the 90's, 40yrs after Romans in the late 50's. It does not simply repeat but reformulates the Jewish cultic heritage and offers a peculiarly Roman view of church order leading to Christian hierarchical patterns for centuries to come.

I have often used his and Ignatius' position in regards to the special designation the BoR had, but it certainly didn't stop with them as we read with the writings from the patriarchs in the 2nd century and beyond. Even Origen, who put heavy emphasis on increasingly feeling a need to rely more on the letters, said that the church was "the scarlet thread that binds", even questioning whether there was any salvation outside the church possible.

To your point above, yes the early church used the Roman model more and more, undoubtedly at least partially due to the conversion of the "God-Fearers" that eventually became the dominant force in the church, but also I think the confronting of "heretical" churches also drove that, especially since Paul repeatedly said that the church had to be "one faith" with one set of leaders. Therefore, the Jewish model simply would not work out that well with this in mind.

 

[Clear]

POST ONE OF TWO

Hi Metis;

1) Regarding the difference between the simple Roman congregation of Christians of the firsts century and the “Catholic Church” of the 4th and 5th centuries


I agree with your technical distinction between “Catholic Church” and “Roman Catholic Church”.

The reason I used other terms was to retain the distinction between a geographic constant which is ROME and the religious/political/monetary changes that took place in an organization called a CHURCH. The location stayed the same (Rome) but the church changed (original Congregation of Christians in Rome of 70 a.d. vs the Catholic Church of 4th century in Rome).

What I wanted to keep in historical context is the fact that there was a congregation of Christians in “Rome” that was similar to congregations elsewhere (In Antioch, Galatia, Ephesus, Corinth, etc.).

That is, the simple earliest Roman Congregation had no particular distinction from other churches/congregations except that it existed in a powerful and rich location (Rome). The original Congregation in Rome had no particular political power nor did it seek political power. The original congregation in Rome was not particularly rich nor were riches its’ goal. The leaders of the original congregation of Christians in Rome did not seem to seek pre-eminence over other congregations of Christians. The original congregation of Christians in Rome concentrated to a great extent on moral issues and spreading the message of Christ and this goal was not particularly contaminated with other issues (e.g. power and money, etc.)

However, this geographic spot, Rome, became the site of a much more powerful religious, financial, and political organization that was a church that had evolved into a political powerhouse seeking more power and an organization that sought riches through oppression. In the later periods it was not the same organization as it was in the earliest days. The later Roman organization was in the same spot and claimed to be the same church, but it did not have the same characteristics as the early congregation had. They were in historical fact, different types of organizations, separated by almost four centuries of time, yet sharing the same geographical location. This is a common historical pattern.


2) Regarding the O.P. Claim that “The Bible is a Catholic Book“

Metis pointed out : “But it was this confusion that Constantine demanded in the 4th century needed to be decided upon and resolved, “

I agree with you that that one motive for a canon was to create a standard set of texts. I was not addressing that point. I was addressing this specific OP claim.

The roman Catholic organization did not create the base text but simply determined it's position toward a specific group of texts already in existence. The Roman Church could take credit for creation of a canon, but not for the production of text. Inspired individuals from earlier ages and earlier editors created the text itself. The Catholic church merely accepted some texts and rejected others. The “The Bible is a Catholic Book” does not make sense historically without explanation.


3) Regarding the O.P. Claim that “For centuries there were no other Christian churches on the face of the Earth but the Catholic Church.” (PopeADope in the O.P. )

Clear responded to the O.P. Claim : “Obviously the new Testament Test itself mentions multiple congregations such as Jerusalem, Corinth, Antioch, Galatia, Ephesus and other places, many that were older than the roman congregation. There were others that are simply less well known or unknown to western Christians. The early Christian literature mentions other congregations and other Bishops besides those of the west. If the Jerusalem Christians fled to Pella before the destruction of Jerusalem at 70 a.d. then they and their subsequent spreading Christianity existed but was simply less known in the west. The Coptic (African) Churches existed, but were simply less well known to the west.”

Metis replied : “Of course, but that's irrelevant to the discussion. “

My reply was not a response to the issue of canon, but it was a response to the specific O.P. claim that no other Christian churches existed. Thus the relevance.


4) Regarding the historical evolution of the church in Rome from a small congregation of Christians to a powerful and rich political entity.

Clear claimed : “Another lapse in logic was pointed out by Upper Limits An important historical fact is that the early Roman Congregation of 100 a.d. is NOT the same organization that existed 300-400 years later.”

Metis replied : “Demonstrably false”

If you are going to demonstrate that the roman organization had not changed then lets discuss specifics and you can then demonstrate how the historical examples are "demonstrably false".


THE RISE OF THE ROMAN CHRISTIAN MOVEMENT TO POLITICAL/MILITARY/ECONOMICAL PRE-EMINENCE AMONG THE CHRISTIAN MOVEMENTS

The Roman congregation was not the first or most ancient congregation but was simply one of many schisms from the earliest Christian congregation in Jerusalem. Thus, there was a time when other cities in Christendom had pre-eminence (e.g. Jerusalem, Antioch, etc.) and a time when Rome wanted pre-eminence. Rome could not claim religious pre-eminence based on Prima-sedes, or being the oldest bishopric, nor due to apostolic origins (other cities held primacy there as well); nor upon many other characteristics. The earliest congregation in Rome did not seem to seek pre-eminence over other Christian Congregations.

It is inside this political dilemma that one sees the origin of the claim for Peters’ apostolic authority Rome never actually obtained. This is the reason existing texts were changed to benefit and support the roman claims to pre-eminence and New texts were created to support the emerging Roman Claims to pre-eminence. The earliest congregation in Rome did not seem desirous to create false documents in order to seek pre-eminence over other Christian Congregations.

The Roman Christian movement engaged in a Political fight for power and prominence that would not have characterized the authentic and original Christian movement. When the “rank of churches became determined by the prominence of cities as civil capitals,” it was inevitable that clashes between the rivals for prominence would take place.

You referred to a “continuation of appointments of bishops.” (post #56) as a sign that the church had remained unchanged. However, the Characteristics of the TYPE of office if Bishop created by this later Roman Organization were quite different and thus are also firm evidence that the later Roman Religious Movement was NOT the same as the early Christian movement.

For example, One saw increasingly political characteristics imbue the elections of the Bishop of Rome that did not characterize Bishoprics in the original Christian movement. One saw a characteristic of desires and goals to the accumulation of political / military power and wealth and influence that did not characterize the Early Christian Movement.

As power accrued in the leadership of the Roman Religious movement, one saw the almost immediate tendency to abuse power for the gain of property; for the increase in membership, and for the oppression of those unwilling to confirm. One need only review the early council canons to see the decisions were corrupted in ways that the original Christian movement had never been corrupted.

The nature of the office of Bishop in the Roman Religious Movement was different than a Bishop in the original Christian movement (though the Roman movement used the same name for the office they created).

I believe that there are reasons for the Roman Christian Movements' wonderful rise to pre-eminence that also demonstrate the difference between the Roman movement and the original Christian Movement. For examples:

The Romans were “Politically fortunate” since their religious movements spread was augmented by “politics of the age” in a manner that the original church could not; would not have been able to take advantage of. The Roman Christian movement was spread by active and aggressive missionary activities which, I think was similar to the original movement in many ways, but was contaminated by politico-economic considerations that did not contaminate the original Christian movement to the same degree. The Roman Christian Movement engaged in the Limitation and suppression of competing Christian messages in a manner characteristically different than the original Christian movement would have done (for example: Inquisitions, etc.).



THE ALMOST IMMEDIATE TENDENCY TO ABUSE POWER FOR THE GAIN OF PROPERTY, FOR THE INCREASE IN MEMBERSHIP AND THE OPRESSION OF THOSE UNWILLING TO CONFORM

Among the clergy, the bishop had all priority, and “any cleric who opposes a bishop in anything must be deposed with all his followers, as having attempted to seize power: he is a rebel. All the laymen who follow him must be excommunicated.” (127 canons of the Apostles 2.22, in PO 8:673)

Almost immediately, they shielded themselves from normal laws by use of their power and position. “Bishops are to be judged by God,” not by men. They are above all human law.” (Pius I, Epistola 1.2, in PG 5:1121. “Laymen are not to be heard if they bring charges [against bishops]….“No bishop may be refuted or accused of anything by the people or by vulgar persons.” “anyone who says a word against [a bishop], the eyese of the Lord, is guilty of the crime of lesemajeste…Those who accuse bishops are slain not by human but by divine agency.” “There is no worse crime than to bring a charge against a priest. The priest may be guilty, but even so, he must be left entirely to the jugement of God. For if all crimes are to be punished in this world, there will be nothing left for the exercise of divine judgment!” Such religious rules rendered the higher orders of priesthood immune to the normal responsibilities and retribution for evil acts.

“Anyone who kills his wife,” a letter of Pius I avers, “and does so entirely without reason must do public penance; but if he is disobedient toward a bishop, let him be anathemized.” (Pius I, Etis, in PG 5:1127)

'POST TWO OF TWO FOLLOWS

 

[Clear]

POST TWO OF TWO

Such aspirations of individual bishops for power and riches and authority is clearly seen through the rules coming out of synods they held. To decrease inter-bishopric antagonism, in 314 the council of Arles passed a rule that “no bishop should annoy another bishop”

Council of Nicaea, 325 :
Canon 15 Because of great disorder and rioting it will be necessary to abolish the old custom of allowing a bishop, priest, or deacon to move from one city to another. If any presumes to do this , he shall be sent back to the city in which he was ordained.

Canon 16 Priests, deacons, or others living under the canon who frivolously and irresponsibly leave their churches will be forced to return to them by all possible means. If they refuse to return they shall be deposed. If anyone steals a cleric against a bishop’s will and ordained him to serve in his own church, the ordination shall be void.”


Council of Encaeniss (Antioch), a.d. 341
Canon 3 A priest or deacon who moved permanently to another place and ignores his bishop’s appeal to return must lose the right to all office; if he goes to work for another bishop he must be punished to the bargain for breaking church law.

Canon 9 Bishops in every province must understand that the bishop in the metropolis has charge of the whole province because all who have business to transact come from all directions to the metropolis.

Canon 11 Any bishop, priests, or any churchman at all who dares to go to the emperor without a letter from his metropolitan shall be ejected utterly, not only from his church, but from his priesthood…

Canon 16 When a bishop seizes a vacant seat without the okay of a full synod, he must be deposed, even though the people have elected him.

Canon 18 A bishop who cannot take over a church because the congregation will not have him must remain in honor and office but may not meddle in the affairs of the church where he is forces to remain.


Sardika a.d. 347
Canon 1 No bishop ever moves from a larger to a smaller city but only in the other direction (the size of the city increasingly become the measure of ambition and domination).

Canon 2 If it can be proven that a man has bribed parties to stir up a clamor for him as bishop “so to make it seem that the people are actually asking him to be their bishop,” he shall be excommunicated. (the reason such a rule had to be established should be obvious)


Epaon, a.d. 517
Canon 3 If the king acts against us, all bishops will withdraw to monasteries, and no bishop shall stir out again until the king has given peace to each and all bishops alike.

Canon 20 No layman may arrest, question, or punish a cleric without okay of the church. When a cleric appears in court, it must be with okay of his bishop, and no sentence may be passed without the presence of his spiritual superior.

Canon 32 Descendants of church slaves who have found their way back to the original place of their ancestors must be brought back to the church slavery, no matter how long or for how many generations they have been free. (Increasingly, the canons will favor the accumulation of money, property and individual lives)


Paris, a.d. 557
Canon 1 No one may hold that church property changes political denominations : no one can claim that church property ever passes under another ruler “since the dominion of God knows no geographical bounderies.” No one may claim that he holds as a gift from the king property that once belonged to the church. All property given by King Chlodwig of blessed memory and handed down as an inheritance must now be given back to the church.


Macon. A.d. 585
Canon 15 Whenever a layman meets a higher cleric, he must bow to him. If both are mounted, the layman must remove his hat. If the layman alone is mounted, he must dismount to greet the cleric.


Toledo, a.d. 589
Canon 20 Many bishops burden their clerics with intolerable compulsory services and contributions. Clerics thus cruelly oppressed may complain to the metropolitan.


Nabonne, a.d. 589
Canon 13 Subdeacons must hold curtains and doors open for superior clergy. If they refuse to do so they must pay a fine; lower clergy who refuse must be beaten.


Reims, a.d. 624-625
Canon 13 No one, not even a bishop, may ever sell the property or slaves of the church.(such a rule would mean that the church can only continue to gain property and financial value but it can never decrease it’s holdings.)


Toledo, a.d. 633
Canon 67 Bishops may not free slaves of the church unless they reimburse the church out of their private fortunes, and the bishop’s successors can reclaim any thus freed.

Canon 68 A bishop who frees a slave of the church without reserving the patrocinium [financial holdings] for the church must give the church two slaves in his place. If the person freed makes any complaint about the way he was treated while he was a slave, he must again become a church slave


Toledo a.d. 638
Canon 3 Thank God for the edict of King Chintila banishing all Jews from Spain, with the order that “only Catholics may live in the land…Resolved that any future king before mounting the throne should swear an oath not to tolerate the Jewish Unglauben [unbelief]…If he breaks this oath, let him be anathema and maranatha [excommunicated] before God and food for the eternal fire.”


Toledo a.d. 656
Canon 6 Children over ten years of age may dedicate themselves to the religious life without consenting their parents. When smaller children are tonsured or given the religious garment, unless their parents lodge immediate protest, they are bound to the religious discipline for life.


Emerita a.d. 666
Canon 15 It often happens that priests who fall sick blame church slaves for their condition and torture them out of revenge. This must cease.

Canon 16 Bishops must stop taking more than their third. They must not take from the church’s third for their private use.


Toledo a.d. 694
Canon 8 Jews must be denied all religious practice. Their children must be taken from them at seven years ande must marry Christians.


Boniface a.d. 745
Statute 13 Pasquil [jokes about the authorities] must be severely punished, even with exile.


Paderborn a.d. 785
Canon 21 anyone engaging in pagan rites must pay a heavy fine. If he cannot pay, no matter what his station, he becomes a slave of the church until he has paid up.

Canon 23 Soothsayers and fortune-tellers shall be given to churches and priests as slaves.


Lateran IV, a.d. 1215
Canon 3 All condemned heretics must be turned over to the secular authorities for punishment…Their property must be confiscated by the church. Those who have not been able to clear themselves of charges of heresy are excommunicated and must be avoided by all. If they remain a year under the ban, they must be condemned as hereticks. All civic officers must take a public oath to defend the faith and expel from their territories all heretics. Whoever, when ordered to do so by the church, does not purify his district or domain of heretics will be put under the ban. If he does not give satisfaction within a year, he must be reported to the pope, who will absolve his vassals from all duty to him and declare his lands open to legitimate conquest by Catholics : those who participate in the attack will receive the same privileges as regular crusaders. …. Anyone who preaches without the authorization of a bishop is excommunicated…A bishop must inspect his diocese. His officers are authorized to have all inhabitants swear an oath to expose to the bishop all sectarians that can be discovered…anyone who refuses to take the oath automatically makes himself a traitor. ….


The pattern and goal of oppression, and gain of riches and control becomes clear as one reviews such canons.

The earliest congregation of Christians in the original small congregation in Rome did not engage in such acts of oppression and we have no historical evidence that riches and power and oppression were their goals.

I believe that such policies would, over a period of several hundred years, bring to the roman religious movement, the very things such rules and actions were designed to bring to them. As the clergy asserted greater and greater control of government, private life, and family life, the accumulation of power and resources would have happened at an increasing rate.

I believe that there were geopolitical reasons why, historically, the early Roman Christian Religious Movement became increasingly powerful and more influential and assumed greater numbers until the age when such overt policies could not survive in an increasingly educated world where individual freedoms increase to the point that only covert policies can remain active (at least in the more "modern" nations).

However, my point is, that this organization that developed their own type of Bishops; their own type of ecclesiastical line of authority; their own methods of reaching prominence and pre-imminence and power; influence and riches, was NOT the same type of oganisation that characterized the New Testament Christian Congregation that existed in Rome in the first century.

Mestis, I respect you and do not want you to think that I believe that, by creating a new and different organization the early Roman church leadership was evil. I think that many of them were dedicated and wonderful and honorable (Linus was chosen by an apostle). However, upon the death of the apostle leadership, I think many of the early leaders were simply trying to do they best that they could. Despite this, not all were good and the organization that oppressed and sought riches and political power through oppression was not the same organization as the earliest congregation of Christians that started in Rome.

I think you are incorrect to say that the claim that the two organizations were different in character is “demonstrably false”. You are welcome to demonstrate it is false.


In any case, I hope your personal spiritual journey in this life is good and satisfying and wonderful.


Clear
σεσιφυω