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

[metis]

I very much agree that the early Christian religion saw themselves as a worldwide group that was gathering around a single set of principles (Jesus and his teachings). This is part of the point that Paul is attempting to make in the scripture you refer to (1 Cor 12:12-31). Though Christians differed in languages, back-ground, gifts, circumstances, etc., they were unified in their purpose and principles to which they assembled.


Unity vs independence
Despite gathering to and for the same principles and beliefs, each congregation was independent of another congregation. That is, if the Roman congregation was destroyed, all others would survive independently. If the congregation in Corinth was destroyed, it would not cause the Roman congregation to die. They were independent at that level. For example : Hegesippus, quoted by Eusebius in Historia Ecclesiastica 2.23, says, “The brother of the Lord, James, took over the church along with the apostles.” (PG 20:197), However, James and the Jerusalem saints reportedly fled to Pela upon the destruction of Jerusalem. Still, the other Church congregations survived without this earliest and most important Christian congregation.


Dependence and Hierarchy
However, as the scripture you refer to points out, there was a hierarchy. “And God has placed in the church, chiefly apostles, secondly prophets, third teachers…etc.

“First” or "πρωτος" in this greek usage is not a reference to “sequence", (an apostle did not exist before prophets…) but to heirachy. In the Church administration, under Jesus, the Apostles were highest in rank and they appointed others of lessor rank. For example, A deacon did not choose and appoint another deacon and a Bishop did not choose and appoint another Bishop, rather the higher offices appointed the lower offices.

So, while each congregation, with its own Bishop and deacons, teachers, etc. could survive independent of another similar congregation, it could not survive in the same form without its own Bishop or apostles to appoint Bishops.

This is why the concept of authority became such a critical issue upon the death of the apostles (and why the claim that Peter was a Bishop and gave an obscure Bishop his apostolic power).

Clear
ειτζτζακω

There's nothing that I disagree with here even though it's not complete enough historically, imo. So, let me add one point.

The Jewish model was and is what's called "a rope of sand", namely independent congregations tied together through relatively common beliefs and traditions, only somewhat organized into various branches minus any centralized authority (there is an exception with the charidim).

This model was not used by the early church, however, including going back to the relationship between Jesus and the apostles. That model instead was an "authoritarian model" with a more central figure. In the gospels it says "Jesus taught with authority", and the first "authority" obviously was Jesus. Upon his death, Peter had that spiritual designation, at a lower level of course, even though the CEO was James.

When you get to the early 2nd century, it is clear through various writings that they did not want the "rope of sand" model, and for very good reason, namely that the "authority" and the unity could all too easily get lost, especially since there was no agreed upon biblical canon. Therefore, it was generally agreed upon that the "chair of Peter", the Bishop of Rome, would have a special designation, but not as a powerful authority figure like it would later become. It was more like today's Orthodox Christian model than than today's Catholic model.

And the rest is a continuation of that history.

 

[Clear]

POST ONE OF THREE
Metis said :

There's nothing that I disagree with here even though it's not complete enough historically, imo. So, let me add one point.

The Jewish model was and is what's called "a rope of sand", namely independent congregations tied together through relatively common beliefs and traditions, only somewhat organized into various branches minus any centralized authority (there is an exception with the charidim).

This model was not used by the early church, however, including going back to the relationship between Jesus and the apostles. That model instead was an "authoritarian model" with a more central figure. In the gospels it says "Jesus taught with authority", and the first "authority" obviously was Jesus. Upon his death, Peter had that spiritual designation, at a lower level of course, even though the CEO was James. hen you get to the early 2nd century, it is clear through various writings that they did not want the "rope of sand" model, and for very good reason, namely that the "authority" and the unity could all too easily get lost, especially since there was no agreed upon biblical canon. Therefore, it was generally agreed upon that the "chair of Peter", the Bishop of Rome, would have a special designation, but not as a powerful authority figure like it would later become. It was more like today's Orthodox Christian model than than today's Catholic model. ...

1) I agree with you that posts are incomplete historically.

2) Though I cannot tell if you meant to say that jesus "was the first authority", still it is a good example of historical incompleteness and historical incorrectness.


1) REGARDING THE SOURCE AND TRANSFER OF RELIGIOUS AUTHORITY

In early Christianity, Jesus was not the “first authority”, but instead, in early Christian texts, the source of religious authority always rested with God the Father. In early Christian literature, The Father chose Jesus, thus he was referred to as the “chosen” messiah. God the Father delegated specific authority to Jesus to accomplish the Fathers’ purposes and God the Father then sent Jesus to earth to accomplish the purposes of God the Father. God the Father delegated specific authority to Jesus who delegates specific authority to the Apostles who delegates specific authority to Bishops and others. Etc. Authority, gnosis, and position were given in this specific cascade from it’s source.

“To James the Just and to John and Peter, the Lord gave the gnosis after his resurrection,” says Clement. “They gave it further to the apostles, and the rest of the apostles gave it to the seventy,” (Eusebius, Historia Ecclesiastica 2.1.4 in P.G. 20:136) (There is no record of it being given any further...)


A) PRE-MORTAL JESUS IS CHOSEN AS THE MESSIAH BY THE FATHER

2 At that hour, that Son of Man was given a name, in the presence of the Lord of the Spirits, the Before-Time (Lit “before the beginning [or “head”] of days,”), 3 even BEFORE THE CREATION of the sun and the moon, before the creation of the stars, he was given a name in the presence of the Lord of the Spirits. 4 He will BECOME a staff for the righteous ones in order that they may lean on him and not fall. He is the light of the gentiles and he will become the hope of those who are sick in their hearts. 5 All those who dwell upon the earth shall fall and worship before him: they shall glorify, bless, and sing the name of the Lord of the Spirits. 6 For this purpose he BECAME the Chosen One; he was concealed in the presence of (the Lord of the Spirits) prior to the creation of the world, and for eternity.” (1st Enoch 48:1-6)

The concept that Jesus was ever a servant of his Father is consistent with the early Christian Model and their early literature.



B) REGARDING THE SENDING OF JESUS BY HIS FATHER

It is clear in the early texts in this hierarchy, the Father Chooses Jesus as the Messiah and then the Father SENDS Jesus and that Jesus COULD NOT simply take this position of Redeemer onto himself without it being given him By God the Father. The house of God the Father has ALWAYS been a house of ordered Government and the concept of authority is distinct and clear.

“And I heard the voice of the Most High, THE FATHER OF MY LORD, as he SAID TO MY LORD Christ, who will be called Jesus, “GO OUT AND DESCEND through all the heavens...12 and they shall not know that you (are) with me when with the voice of the heavens I SUMMON YOU...14 And afterwards you shall ascend from the gods of death to your place, .... but in glory you shall ascend and sit at my right hand, and then the princes and the powers of that world will worship you. 16 This COMMAND I heard THE GREAT GLORY GIVING TO MY LORD.” (Martyrdom and Ascension of Isaiah . 10:6-16)

Such EARLY texts make obvious the early doctrine that it is the FATHER who names and who commands and who sends the Son. The Father has authority and administrative powers that the son did not have. EARLY CHRISTIANITIES understood statements such as “the Father is greater than I" (Jn 14:28) differently than Later Christian movements.



C) SPECIFIC SACRED AUTHORITY IS DELEGATED FROM GOD THE FATHER (OFTEN THROUGH HIS SERVANTS) TO OTHER BEINGS WHO THEN POSSESS WHATEVER SPECIFIC DEGREE OF AUTHORITY HE GAVE THEM.


1) GOD THE FATHER DELEGATED AUTHORITY TO JESUS TO ACCOMPLISH GOD THE FATHERS PURPOSES

Though the angel tells the prophet Enoch “... All these things which you have seen happen by the Authority of his Messiah so that he may give orders and be praised upon the earth. (1st Enoch 52:4) still, the Messiah himself is given whatever authority he has and is sent by God, his father : “I will send my chosen one, having in him one measure of all my power, and he will summon my people... (The Apocalypse of Abraham 31:1)

Isaiah describes his Pre-creation vision of seeing God the Father sending of the pre-mortal Messiah to earth to accomplish the atonement : “I heard the voice of the Most High, the Father of my Lord, as he said to my Lord Christ, who will be called Jesus, “Go out and descend through all the heavens...14 And afterwards you shall ascend from the gods of death to your place, and ....in glory you shall ascend and sit at my right hand, ... 16 This command I heard the Great Glory giving to my Lord.” (Martyrdom and Ascension of Isaiah 10:6-16) According the ancient Christians, Jesus did not take authority unto himself nor did he send himself, but he was given authority by and sent by God, the Father to accomplish his role as redeemer.

This doctrine was integral to early Christianity. For example, A frightened Bartholomew fell at Jesus’ feet and prayed :

Quote: “...Lord Jesus Christ, everlasting one, who gave grace for the whole world to those who love you, ... who at the command of the Father gave up your life above and completed your work, who changed the dejection of Adam into joy and overcame the sorrow of Eve with gracious countenance...” (The Gospel of Bartholomew chap IV)

Jesus confirms this doctrine that he is sent. “Jesus said to him: “Bartholomew, the Father named me Christ, that I might come down on earth and anoint with the oil of life everyone who came to me.” (The Gospel of Bartholomew CH IV )



D) BIBLICAL LITERATURE PARALLELS THE EARLY WORLDVIEW THAT JESUS WAS SENT BY THE FATHER

I believe that even a very superficial survey of Jesus' statements confirm the early Christian doctrine that Jesus was not only SENT, but that Jesus Understood that he was sent and did not come of his own arbitrary design.

For examples :

Matt 10:40 he that receiveth me receiveth him that sent me.

I am not sent but unto the lost sheep of the house of Israel. Matt 15:24

The parable of the householder has him sending servants, “But last of all he sent unto them his son, saying, They will reverence my son. Matt 21:33 (see also mk12 lk 20)

Jesus references that he teaches what the Father sent him to teach. “my doctrine is not mine, but his that sent me.”

Though the son will become judge, he is given this ability by his Father : "For the Father judgeth no man, but hath committed all judgment unto the Son.” Jn 5:22 In this same way, he does not seek his own will, but is given over to obey the Fathers will and not his own. “I can of mine own self do nothing: as I hear, I judge: and my judgment is just; because I seek not mine own will, but the will of the Father which hath sent me. Jn 5:30

POST TWO OF THREE FOLLOWS

 

[Clear]

POST TWO OF THREE

D) BIBLICAL LITERATURE PARALLELS THE EARLY WORLDVIEW THAT JESUS WAS SENT BY THE FATHER (Continued)

Part of our work we were sent here to do, Jesus explained : This is the work of God, that ye believe on him whom he hath sent. Jn 6:19

“...I came down from heaven, not to do mine own will, but the will of him that sent me. And this is the Father's will which hath sent me, that of all which he hath given me I should lose nothing, but should raise it up again at the last day. And this is the will of him that sent me, that every one which seeth the Son, and believeth on him, may have everlasting life: and I will raise him up at the last day. Jn 6:38-40

No man can come to me, except the Father which hath sent me draw him: and I will raise him up at the last day. Jn 6:44

As the living Father hath sent me, and I live by the Father: so he that eateth me, even he shall live by me. Jn 6:55

Jesus answered them, and said, My doctrine is not mine, but his that sent me. Jn 7:16

Then cried Jesus in the temple as he taught, saying, Ye both know me, and ye know whence I am: and I am not come of myself, but he that sent me is true, whom ye know not. 29 But I know him: for I am from him, and he hath sent me. Jn 7:29-29

Then said Jesus unto them, Yet a little while am I with you, and then I go unto him that sent me. Jn 7:33

And yet if I judge, my judgment is true: for I am not alone, but I and the Father that sent me. 17 It is also written in your law, that the testimony of two men is true. 18 I am one that bear witness of myself, and the Father that sent me beareth witness of me. Jn 8:16-18

I have many things to say and to judge of you: but he that sent me is true; and I speak to the world those things which I have heard of him. 27 They understood not that he spake to them of the Father. Jn 8:26-27

jn 8:29 And he that sent me is with me: the Father hath not left me alone; for I do always those things that please him.

I proceeded forth and came from God; neither came I of myself, but he sent me. Jn 8:42

I must work the works of him that sent me, while it is day: the night cometh, when no man can work. Jn 9:3

After raising Lazarus Jesus spoke to his father, saying : Father, I thank thee that thou hast heard me. 42 And I knew that thou hearest me always: but because of the people which stand by I said it, that they may believe that thou hast sent me. jn 11:41-42

44 Jesus cried and said, He that believeth on me, believeth not on me, but on him that sent me. 49 For I have not spoken of myself; but the Father which sent me, he gave me a commandment, what I should say, and what I should speak.Jn 12 49-44 &50

16 Verily, verily, I say unto you, The servant is not greater than his lord; neither he that is sent greater than he that sent him..... 20 Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that receiveth whomsoever I send receiveth me; and he that receiveth me receiveth him that sent me. Jn 13:16&20

21 But all these things will they do unto you for my name's sake, because they know not him that sent me. Jn 15:12

5 But now I go my way to him that sent me; and none of you asketh me, Whither goest thou? Jn 16:5

3 And this is life eternal, that they might know thee the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom thou hast sent. 8 For I have given unto them the words which thou gavest me; and they have received them, and have known surely that I came out from thee, and they have believed that thou didst send me Jn 17:3 & 8

18 As thou hast sent me into the world, even so have I also sent them into the world. 21 That they all may be one; as thou, Father, art in me, and I in thee, that they also may be one in us: that the world may believe that thou hast sent me. 23 I in them, and thou in me, that they may be made perfect in one; and that the world may know that thou hast sent me, and hast loved them, as thou hast loved me. 25 O righteous Father, the world hath not known thee: but I have known thee, and these have known that thou hast sent me. Jn 17:18, 21, 23, 25

21 Then said Jesus to them again, Peace be unto you: as my Father hath sent me, even so send I you. Jn 20:21

I submit that early Christianity understood that Jesus did possess his own authority independent of the Father, but that he was chosen by the Father, Given Authority by the Father and then Sent by the Father to “do the Fathers’ will” and accomplish the Fathers’ purpose. It is in the Later Christianities that the issue of hierarchy evolves, becomes muddled and endlessly debated.

The early Judao-Christian texts, describe many profound things that Jesus did in relation to God’s plan. However, whether the early christian descriptions refer to Jesus’ actions before creation (e.g. his role in creation or his role in casting lucifer out of heaven); or Jesus’s actions while in mortality (e.g. his being sent by the Father, and both having and delegating God’s authority), or descriptions of Jesus’ post mortal acts (e.g. the decensus literature and Jesus visit to Hades or "sheol" or "world of spirits" during the three days after his death), all such descriptions seem to remain in the context Jesus having done all under authority delegated to him by his Father.

Thus, Ultimate authority remained with God the Father who then delegates to others (including his son Jesus, or Prophets) the specific degree of authority he desires them to have. No man takes this authority or it’s honor unto himself. Individuals do not HAVE God’s authority to act in the name of God on any other basis.




E) THE FATHER COMMANDS AND SENDS THE SON. THE SON IS OBEDIENT TO THE FATHER, (THE SON NEVER SENDS OR COMMANDS THE FATHER)

Jesus did NOT possess the same level of authority (and sovereignity) as his Father did.

For example: When asked by his disciples to allow them to sit next to him in heaven, Jesus declined and defers to another will, that of his Father :

Quote: ...Ye shall drink indeed of my cup, and be baptized with the baptism that I am baptized with: but to sit on my right hand, and on my left, is not mine to give, but it shall be given to them for whom it is prepared of my Father. (Matthew 20:23)

Jesus did NOT take unto himself the same authority as the Father, but admits the father is greater : “Ye have heard how I said unto you, I go away, and come again unto you. If ye loved me, ye would rejoice, because I said, I go unto the Father: for my Father is greater than I. (John 14:28)

“But that the world may know that I love the Father; and as the Father gave me commandment, even so I do. Arise, let us go hence. ( John 15:31)

The ancient christians understood that God the Father delegates to Jesus and others, whatever level of authority he desires and they understood this principle. Jesus did NOT "anoint himself" with divine power, but GOD the Father anointed him. Thus it was spoken “ How God anointed Jesus of Nazareth with the Holy Ghost and with power: who went about doing good, and healing all that were oppressed of the devil; for God was with him. (Acts 10:38)

It is NOT Jesus who “raised up himself”, but God the Father raises him : “And God hath both raised up the Lord, and will also raise up us by his own power. Cor 6:14

Paul, an apostle, (not of men, neither by man, but by Jesus Christ, and God the Father, who raised him from the dead Gal 1:1

“...how ye turned to God from idols to serve the living and true God; 10 And to wait for his Son from heaven, whom he [the father] raised from the dead, even Jesus, which delivered us from the wrath to come. 1 Thess 1:9-10

Christians spoke of the power of God “ Which he wrought in Christ, when he raised him from the dead, and set him at his own right hand in the heavenly places,.... 22 And hath put all things under his feet, and gave him to be the head over all things to the church, Eph 1:20-22; “

It is God the Father who gives jesus authority; who sends Jesus and whom Jesus obeys. Quote: ...the head of the woman is the man; and the head of Christ is God. 1 Cor 11:3

Not only does Jesus have less authority and less knowledge than God the Father, but it is Jesus, who is servant of the father. This was very clear in the earliest Christianities.
Quote: “Let all the nations know that you are the only God, “that Jesus Christ is your servant, and that “we are your people and the sheep of your pasture.” (1 Clement 59:4)

They spoke of the Father as “the creator of the universe...through his beloved servant Jesus Christ, through whom he called us from darkness to light, ....among all of them have chosen those who love you through Jesus Christ, your beloved Servant, through whom you instructed us, sanctified us, honored us. (1 Clement 59:2-3)

The earliest Judao-christian understood and spoke of “...the all-seeing God and Master of spirits and Lord of all flesh, who chose the Lord Jesus Christ,. 1 Clement 64:1;

POST THREE OF THREE FOLLOWS

 

[Clear]

POST THREE OF THREE


F) JESUS DELEGATES SPECIFIC PORTIONS OF AUTHORITY TO OTHER MEN (UNDER THE DIRECTION OF HIS FATHER) TO ACCOMPLISH GOD’S PURPOSES.

The ancient Christians understood that men who had authentic authority, such as the prophets, received authority from God. Quote: “May the God under whose authority my fathers, Abraham and Isaac, served in reverence, ...may he bless these lads, Manasseh and Ephraim. (testament of Jacob 4:11-16)

This doctrine of Testament of Jacob is confirmed to continue in the Christian Apocalypse of Abraham : Quote: “And the angel said to me, “Abraham!” And I said, “Here I am, your servant.” And he said, “Know from this that the Eternal One whom you have loved has chosen you. Be bold and do through your authority whatever I order you against him who reviles justice.” (The Apocalypse of Abraham 14:1-4)

In the early literature, when the pre-mortal Jesus is sent to Abraham, he makes clear that he is sent by God to bless Abraham “in the name of God” (i.e. in God’s place and stead he is doing this) : 5 And he said to me, “Stand up, Abraham, friend of god who has loved you, let human trembling not enfold you!” For lo! I am sent to you to strengthen you and to bless you in the name of God, creator of heavenly and earthly things, who has loved you....8 I am Iaoel (a euphamism for Jehovah)...11 I am ordered to loosen Hades ....13 I am sent to you now to bless you and the land which he whom you have called the Eternal One has prepared for you. .... I am assigned (to be) with you and with the generations which is predestined (to be born) from you. (The Apocalypse of Abraham 10:5, 11,14-17)


The vast descension literature confirms the descension of Jesus into Sheol during the three days between his death and resurrection. And many of the saints arose and were resurrected with him. The Prophet enoch (“the great scribe”), when told by God to write, was given authority both to write and to judge, according to his specific station. Quote: “...I sat upon a great throne at the door of the seventh palace, and I judged all the denizens of the heights on the authority of the Holy One...The princes of kingdoms stood beside me, to my right and to my left, by authority of the Holy One blessed be he” (3rd Enoch 16:1)

It was not just Enoch who kept records by authority of the holy one, but enoch observed that angels that “keep the heavenly books” do so by authority they are Given : Quote: " ... he is in charge of the books of the living, for he records in the books of the living everyone whom the Holy One, blessed be he, is pleased to bring into life, by authority of the Omnipresent One.” (3rd Enoch 18:24)

It is not just Apostles of Jesus who have been delegated specific and limited authority, but just as God the Father, delegates specific authority to Jesus, and as Jesus delegates specific authority to the Apostles; the Apostles delegate specific authorities to others, such as bishops (who then issue authority to deacons, etc). “For the Father anointed the Son, and the Son anointed the apostles, and the apostles anointed us. (The gospel of Phillip)


This descending delegation of sacred authority was the same process God had always used. "... God gave Levi the authority, and to Judah with him [as well as to me and to Dan and to Joseph], to be rulers. It is for this reason that I command you to give heed to Levi, because he will know the law of God and will give instructions concerning justice and concerning sacrifice for Israel until the consummation of times; he is the anointed priest of whom the Lord spake. “ (Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs - Reuben 6:7-8)

It is inside this early context that the earliest Christian text describe that the apostles delegated specific local authority to church offices anciently. Quote: “Be subject to the Bishop and to one another, as Jesus Christ in the flesh was to the Father, and as the apostles were to Christ and to the Father, that there might be unity, both physical and spiritual. (Ignatius to the Magnesians 13:2)

And : Quote: “Therefore, as the Lord did nothing without the Father, either by himself or through the apostles (for he was united with him), so you must not do anything without the bishop and the presbyters. (Ignatius to the Magnesians 7:1)

It was also clear that the Bishop could delegate descending authority for certain sacred functions to others below his own position. Regarding the Eucharist, Ignatius taught : Quote: “Let no one do anything that has to do with the church without the bishop. Only that Eucharist which is under the authority of the bishop (or whomsoever he himself designates) is to be considered valid. .... It is not permissible either to baptize or to hold a love feast without the Bishop. (Ignatius to the Smyrnaeans 8:1-2)


This all relates to the authority as it describes the Hierarchy within those individuals who make up the ancient Trinity / God Head. The point is, that sacred authority centers in God the Father; who, sends others to accomplish a task (such as when the Father sends his son Jesus to accomplish the Atonement), and Jesus may, (in accordance with his Father's will), give to others a portion of authority to accomplish a task Jesus sends them to do; and thus authority is given in a very organized, "descending" fashion.

I have to apologize for the disorganization. I am two thousand miles away from where I was two days ago and have put this together at the end of a long, disorganized day. In two days I will travel another two thousand miles and will then have dependable internet.



Metis said : "When you get to the early 2nd century, it is clear through various writings that they did not want the "rope of sand" model, and for very good reason, namely that the "authority" and the unity could all too easily get lost, especially since there was no agreed upon biblical canon."


REGARDING YOUR REFERENCE TO “THE EARLY 2ND CENTURY” WRITINGS.

Metis : I think you are correct to place this specific issue of authority in the specific context of the “early 2nd century writings” since that is the period of time when the Apostles have died and their specific Apostolic Authority has been lost and the early congregations with their Bishops are trying to determine what they will do about this level of authority which has already been lost. The Jews had been through such loss before, They no longer had prophets, no longer had a temple, no longer had priests. The Christians faced similar difficulties and the 2nd century literature describes their struggles.


Perhaps you can describe the specific quotes from the “early second century literature” that makes you think Peter was ever “Bishop of Rome” as you claim or that Christianity took the Sanhedrin (the “Chair” of Peter) as their model at that time period? And then we can discuss them in their historical, context.


I hope your spiritual Journey is wonderful and satisfying

Clear
ειτζφιφιω

 

[metis]

@Clear I can only respond when you stick to the point and not write essays-- too many points and I have not enough time, which is my problem. Sorry.


Added: I had a few minutes before signing off for a couple days as I'm going on a mini-vacation, so here's something that relates to one point you mention:

Structure and the episcopacy[edit]
In the post-Apostolic church, bishops emerged as overseers of urban Christian populations, and a hierarchy clergy gradually took on the form of episkopos (overseers, bishops), presbyters (elders), and then deacons (servants).

While Clement and New Testament writers use the terms overseer and elder interchangeably, an episcopal structure becomes more visible in the 2nd century. This structure was enforced by the teaching of apostolic succession, where a bishop becomes the spiritual successor of the previous bishop in a line tracing back to the apostles themselves.

Each Christian community had presbyters or "elders," as was the case with Jewish communities, who were also ordained and assisted the bishop; as Christianity spread, especially in rural areas, the presbyters exercised more responsibilities and took distinctive shape as priests. Deacons performed certain duties, such as tending to the poor and sick.

Role of the bishop
Much of the official organizing of the ecclesiastical structure was done by the bishops of the church. This tradition of clarification can be seen as established by the Apostolic Fathers, who were bishops themselves.

The Didache, dating from AD 70–140,states "Appoint for yourselves therefore bishops and deacons worthy of the Lord".

Irenaeus wrote On the Detection and Overthrow of the So-Called Gnosis.
The Catholic Encyclopedia argues that although evidence is scarce in the 2nd century, the primacy of the Church of Rome is asserted by Irenaeus of Lyons' document Against Heresies (AD 189). In response to 2nd century Gnostic teaching, Irenaeus created the first known document considered to be describing apostolic succession, including the immediate successors of Peter and Paul: Linus, Anacleutus, Clement, Evaristus, Alexander, and Sixtus. which the Catholic Church currently considers these the successors of Peter and the first popes, and through whom latter popes would claim authority. -- Christianity in the 2nd century - Wikipedia [there's much more but I gotta bug out]

 

[Desert Snake]

There's nothing that I disagree with here even though it's not complete enough historically, imo. So, let me add one point.

The Jewish model was and is what's called "a rope of sand", namely independent congregations tied together through relatively common beliefs and traditions, only somewhat organized into various branches minus any centralized authority (there is an exception with the charidim).

This model was not used by the early church, however, including going back to the relationship between Jesus and the apostles. That model instead was an "authoritarian model" with a more central figure. In the gospels it says "Jesus taught with authority", and the first "authority" obviously was Jesus. Upon his death, Peter had that spiritual designation, at a lower level of course, even though the CEO was James.

When you get to the early 2nd century, it is clear through various writings that they did not want the "rope of sand" model, and for very good reason, namely that the "authority" and the unity could all too easily get lost, especially since there was no agreed upon biblical canon. Therefore, it was generally agreed upon that the "chair of Peter", the Bishop of Rome, would have a special designation, but not as a powerful authority figure like it would later become. It was more like today's Orthodox Christian model than than today's Catholic model.

And the rest is a continuation of that history.

Not really. You have diffetent churches with different ideas that literally developed over time.
Your comparison doesn't work because judaism barely even makes the pie chart as a religion, and "christianity" is the worlds largest religion.

The 'obscure' christian ideas are recognized, by different groups, it's just that you or even most xians what have you may not recognize the ideas. So it's relative and circumstantial. There is traditionally recognized concepts that are inherent to xianity, then others that vary. There certainly isn't the 'main authority' 'physical church'' thing that you seem to imagine.
The bible wasn't even written in latin.
The parts of the NT, that have a Hebrew meaning, however were written in Greek, are not even understood by some churches, because of the translation not having a explanation.

Now, the modern rcc isn't the :same: church that put together the canon anyways, so the op premise is ridiculous.

Have a good day

 

[metis]

Not really. You have diffetent churches with different ideas that literally developed over time.
Your comparison doesn't work because judaism barely even makes the pie chart as a religion, and "christianity" is the worlds largest religion.

The 'obscure' christian ideas are recognized, by different groups, it's just that you or even most xians what have you may not recognize the ideas. So it's relative and circumstantial. There is traditionally recognized concepts that are inherent to xianity, then others that vary. There certainly isn't the 'main authority' 'physical church'' thing that you seem to imagine.
The bible wasn't even written in latin.
The parts of the NT, that have a Hebrew meaning, however were written in Greek, are not even understood by some churches, because of the translation not having a explanation.

Now, the modern rcc isn't the :same: church that put together the canon anyways, so the op premise is ridiculous.

Have a good day

There are some faults with the above, but I don't have the time to go through them.

Needless to say, I came from a fundamentalist Protestant background, but when I did some quite intense historical research when in my mid-thirties from many different sources, I realized that what you wrote above simply is bogus.

The early church absolutely believed in what eventually came to be known as "apostolic succession" that is clearly evidence in Acts and some of the epistles, but it also was continued onward into the 2nd centuries and beyond. See: Apostolic succession - Wikipedia

 

[Faithofchristian]

First, Why should People not trust the bible?

 

[metis]

First, Why should People not trust the bible?

What has this got to do with anything that I've seen posted by anyone above?

 

[Clear]

Metis said : “I can only respond when you stick to the point and not write essays-“

Hi Metis : You have no obligation to respond. Much of what I write is for other readers who have an interest in details concerning early Christian history. I was responding to your claim that “the first "authority" obviously was Jesus” (Metis, in post #81). There is a great deal of data that demonstrates this is an incorrect historical claim.

All comments and references in posts # 82-84 demonstrated the error and explained early Christian worldviews regarding the source and transfer of religious authority. Since you claimed to have taught Christian religion classes, I assumed you realized the thread was going to offer better data than cut and pastes from Wikipedia.

To summarize posts #82-84 : In early Christianity, Jesus was not the “first authority”, but instead, the source of religious authority in early Christianity always rested with God the Father. Jesus was chosen and sent by God the Father from whom Jesus received authority. Jesus chose others to who me delegates specific portions of authority (under direction of his Father). This authority then descends further down a chain of religious servants including Bishops, elders, teachers, deacons, etc.

The rest of the posts were 57 examples from the early literature that demonstrated these points and why your claim was incorrect.




Clear said : “Perhaps you can describe the specific quotes from the “early second century literature” that makes you think Peter was ever “Bishop of Rome” as you claim or that Christianity took the Sanhedrin (the “Chair” of Peter) as their model at that time period? And then we can discuss them in their historical, context. (Clear, post #84)

Metis : Are you really going to respond with a cut and paste from Wikipedia? The Cut and Paste simply repeats the Catholic rhetorical position but none of it supports your position of Peter as Bishop of Rome or that Christianity at this age took the Sanhedrin (the “chair” or Peter) as their model at that time period. If Wikipedia is going to be your source, so be it, but even you must see that your single quote of a uncontexted statement doesn’t help your position.

It is ironic for you to complain that I have too much data supporting my claims while I must complain that you have not offered a single quote from “the early 2nd century literature” that supports your specific position. If you do not really have such quotes, now is the time to admit it before we spend several posts until readers come to this conclusion for themselves.

You spoke of “early 2nd century literature”. Do you actually HAVE quotes from “the early 2nd century literature” that you want to offer that show Peter was Bishop and/or that he transferred specific authority to the Roman congregation that others did not have?

Clear
ειεισεειω

 

[metis]

To summarize posts #82-84 : In early Christianity, Jesus was not the “first authority”, but instead, the source of religious authority in early Christianity always rested with God the Father.

You've gotta be kidding.

First of all, God did not create a church nor a religion, and I was referring to the community that Jesus started that saw itself as being one. Do you honestly believe that I don't realize that the church recognized God as being the one to be prayed to? I find that terribly insulting of you.

Are you really going to respond with a cut and paste from Wikipedia?

Because it's hard to find a theological source that isn't linked to a denomination. Also, as I mentioned numerous times before, I simply do not have the time to both go through your essays and then also go through early church sources one by one to find what I know and have previously read.

The Cut and Paste simply repeats the Catholic rhetorical position but none of it supports your position of Peter as Bishop of Rome or that Christianity at this age took the Sanhedrin (the “chair” or Peter) as their model at that time period.

How many times must I repeat that it's not just about Peter but the issue of the apostles themselves and their appointing of bishops. Why do you keep referring back to the issue of Peter whereas at least on two other occasions I have mentioned this? The issue of "apostolic succession" simply does not hang on us knowing exactly who came after Peter, so what is so difficult about this to understand?

It is ironic for you to complain that I have too much data supporting my claims while I must complain that you have not offered a single quote from “the early 2nd century literature” that supports your specific position

I showed you through Wiki, which obviously you don't like, so it's not my problem.

I did the homework over 30 years ago, reading from the patriarchs of the 2nd and 3rd centuries mostly, and they saw the church as one and not some hodge-podge of fully independent church all doing their own thing exclusive of the others. Distance and communication made coordination of the churches very difficult, plus the recognition of the "chair of Peter" was pretty much variable, but the patriarchs simply still felt the church was one and needed to stay that way.

If this wasn't the case, then what were they writing about that was sent to others? Why would they be concerned about what was going on in other churches than their own if they're all fully independent? Why have debates on which books to use? Why have debates on the nature of Jesus vis-a-vis God? Why have discussions on how to accept new members? Why have debates on the nature of the bread & wine? Just do your own thing and let the others do their own thing? No, that's not what was happening.

Anyhow, I grew up believing in what you have been pushing but began to realize that it was bogus, left my Protestant church and eventually converted to Catholicism, left that denomination a couple of decades later and am currently unaffiliated and have no plans to affiliate with any religious body.

I literally have spent thousands of hours studying this, and I certainly cannot claim inerrancy, but I know enough about the larger picture to have the general idea of what was happening in those early centuries and why. Mine is not a Catholic bias, nor a bias of any other source, but simply a result of my studies. That information led me to change my denomination, which was quite painful, btw. But when I looked at the big picture, it was clear what the intent of the apostles and the early church in seeking to keep the church as being "one", as Paul said, and not some loosey-goosey mix & match. And it was this church that chose the canon of the Bible and not the other way around.

Anyhow, I'm done with you on this as I find your approach to be rather insulting, and I'm not going to be dealing any longer with you on this.

Take care.

 

[metis]

BTW, for any whom are interested [please note the part I underlined]:

Christian groups and congregations first organized themselves loosely. In Paul's time, although certain decisions by Elders and Apostles were binding, as in the Council of Jerusalem, there were no precisely delineated functions yet for bishops, elders, and deacons. A Church hierarchy, however, seems to have developed by the late 1st century and early 2nd century (see Pastoral Epistles, c90–140). These structures were certainly formalized well before the end of the Early Christian period, which concluded with the legalization of Christianity by Constantine's Edict of Milan in 313 and the holding of the First Council of Nicea in 325, when the title of Metropolitan bishop first appears.

In the post-Apostolic church, bishops emerged as overseers of urban Christian populations, and a hierarchy of clergy gradually took on the form of episkopoi (overseers), presbyteroi (elders), and diakonoi (ministerial servants). This hierarchy emerged slowly and at different times for different locations. Clement, a 1st-century bishop of Rome, refers to the leaders of the Corinthian church in his epistle to Corinthians as bishops and presbyters interchangeably. The New Testament writers also use the terms "overseer" and "elder" interchangeably and as synonyms. The Didache (dated by most scholars to the early 2nd century), speaks of "appointing for yourself bishops and deacons".

Disputes regarding the proper titles and roles of church leaders would later become one of the major causes of schism within the Christian Church.[citation needed] Such disputes include the roles of bishops and presbyters. Churches such as the Catholic and Orthodox use the word "priest" of all the baptized, but apply it in a more specific sense ("ministerial priesthood") to bishops and presbyters[28] and sometimes, somewhat loosely, treat "presbyter" and "priest" as synonyms, applying both terms to clergy subordinate to bishops. In congregational churches, the title "priest" is rejected, keeping only "presbyter" or "elder". Some congregational churches do not include a role of bishop in their organizational polity.

Post-apostolic bishops of importance include Polycarp of Smyrna, Ignatius of Antioch and Clement of Rome . These men reportedly knew and studied under the apostles personally and are therefore called Apostolic Fathers. Each Christian community also had presbyters, as was the case with Jewish communities, who were also ordained and assisted the bishop; as Christianity spread, especially in rural areas, the presbyters exercised more responsibilities and took distinctive shape as priests. Lastly, deacons also performed certain duties, such as tending to the poor and sick. In the 2nd century, an episcopal structure becomes more visible, and in that century this structure was supported by teaching on apostolic succession, where a bishop becomes the spiritual successor of the previous bishop in a line tracing back to the apostles themselves.

By the end of the early Christian period, the church within the Roman Empire had hundreds of bishops, some of them (Rome, Alexandria, Antioch, "other provinces") holding some form of jurisdiction over others.

Jerusalem was the first church and an important church center up to 135. The First Council of Nicaea recognized and confirmed the tradition by which Jerusalem continued to be given "special honour", but did not assign to it even metropolitan authority within its own province, still less the extraprovincial jurisdiction exercised by Rome and the other sees mentioned above.

Constantinople came into prominence only after the early Christian period, being founded officially in 330, five years after the First Council of Nicaea, though the much smaller original city of Byzantium was an early center of Christianity largely due to its proximity to Anatolia. -- Early Christianity - Wikipedia

Just a reminder that many, if not most, of these more distant churches eventually came back into either the Catholic or Orthodox churches once communication and transportation because more efficient.

 

[Clear]

A) REGARDING EARLY CHRISTIAN MODELS OF RELIGIOUS AUTHORITY

1) Metis said : “In the gospels it says "Jesus taught with authority", and the first "authority" obviously was Jesus.” (Metis, post #81)
2) Clear pointed out God the Father was the chief authority in early Christian worldview and described the early model of descending authority (posts #82-84)
3) Metis replied : “Do you honestly believe that I don't realize that the church recognized God as being the one to be prayed to? I find that terribly insulting of you. “

Metis, You have variously claimed to be “Jewish”, then claimed to have come from a “fundamental Protestant” background which you left and then “converted to Catholicism” which you left and are now claiming to be “unaffiliated”. Your approach to history is naïve and simplistic despite your claim to have taught religion for years. You claim familiarity with early 2nd Century writings, yet cannot quote any of them other than from a cut and paste from Wikipedia (which itself, doesn’t support your historical claim).

Metis, I don’t know what you actually know or don’t know about the earliest Christian Movement.

Whether you “feel insulted” or not, do you actually HAVE any quotes from the “early 2nd century” literature which you want to refer to that support your position?

When I ask why you used Wikipedia to support your claim that “it was generally agreed upon that the "chair of Peter", the Bishop of Rome, would have a special designation” instead of from the early literature you claim to have familiarity with you said “Because it's hard to find a theological source that isn't linked to a denomination. “. This is another historically naïve statement since there is a great deal of early peri-ce literature that you could refer to. It simply doesn't clearly support your position. This is why you cannot refer to it in detail. We are in the Scriptural Debates section of religious discussion. Surely you can expect me to ask for literature/scripture to support your position?

Metis, YOU were the one who suggested “early 2nd century” literature supported your position, not me. I gave you 57 examples from early literature including “early 2nd century” to support my position. Why can’t you find any from the literature to support yours?


READERS : I offered more than 50 direct quotes from early literature that informs the concept of authority and its cascade. There is a LOT of early Judeo-Christian literature from the peri- c.e. a historian may refer to as source data. The fact that Metis has been unable to find ANY supporting data, MEANS SOMETHING historically.

If historical data supports one position and not another, it means the historically supportable position has a greater chance of being correct than the one having less or no historical support.



B) THERE IS A GREAT DEAL OF EARLY LITERATURE THAT WITNESSES REGARDING EARLY JUDEO-CHRISTIANITY, THEIR DOCTRINES AND PRACTICES


For example, consider a single volume from Charlesworth. He gives almost 2000 (two thousand) pages of examples from Jewish pseudoepigraphs. These represent ONLY those discovered when he compiled this collection and ONLY “Jewish” pseudoepigraphs (though they are syncretic) and ONLY those translated into English at the time of the collection and ONLY those that he thought significant enough to include and ONLYthe major recension and ONLY one translation of the recension (with a few exceptions).

That is, it represents a small portion of the entire genres that have existed and are being discovered and translated.

Consider :
A) apocalyptic literature of this specific time period :
1st Enoch (2nd century b.c. to 4th century a.d and beyond) – It is syncretic, having Jewish origins and used by Christians (biblical writers also used Enochian references),
Sybylline Oracles (2nd century b.c. to 7th century a.d.),
Treatise of Shem (1st century b.c.),
Apocryphon of Ezekiel,
Apocalypse of Zephaniah, Late first century a.d.
4th Book of Ezra (not to be confused with the “vision of Ezra” or the “Questions of Ezra, or “Revelation of Ezra” - religious texts of later eras),
3rd Baruch (1st to 3rd century c.e.),
Apocalypse of Abraham (1st to 2nd century c.e.),
Apocalypse of Elijah (1st to 4th century c.e.).

Consider
B) Testament literature from this time period :
Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs (2nd century b.c.),
Testament of Job (1st century b.c. to 1st Century a.d.),
Testament of Abraham (1st to 2nd century a.d.),
Testament of Moses (1st century a.d.),
Testament of Solomon (1st to 3rd century a.d.)

Consider
C) Expansion documents, misnashas, textual traditions, lectionaries, etc from this time period :
The Letter of Aristeas (3rd century b.c. – 1st century a.d.)
Jubilees (2nd century b.c. and it remains in the eastern canon today)
Martyrdom and Ascension of Isaiah (2nd century b.c. – 4th century a.d.)
Joseph and Aseneth (1st century b.c. – 2nd century a.d.)
Life of Adam and Eve (1st Century a.d.)
Pseudo-Philo (1st century a.d.)
The lives of the Prophets (1st century a.d.)
Ladder of Jacob (1st century a.d.)
4th Baruch (1st to 2nd century a.d.)
Jannes and Jambres (1st to 3rd centuries a.d.)
History of the Rechabites (1st to 4th centuries a.d.)
Eldad and Modad (prior to 2nd century a.d.) (this one is fragmented)

Consider
D) Wisdom and Philosophical literature from this time period :
3rd Maccabees (1st century b.c.)
4th Maccabees (1st century a.d.)
Pseudo-Phocylides (1st century b.c. – 1st Century a.d.)
More Psalms of David (3rd century b.c. – 1st century a.d.)
Prayer of Manasseh (2nd century b.c. – 1st century a.d.)
Psalms of Solomon (1st century b.c.)
Hellenistic Synagogal Prayers (2nd to 3rd century a.d.)
Prayer of Joseph (1st century a.d.)
Prayer of Jacob (1st – 4th century a.d.)
Odes of Solomon (late 1st to early 2nd century a.d.)

Consider
E) fragments of lost Judeo-Hellenistic works :
Theodotus (2nd to first century b.c.)
Orphica (2nd century b.c. – 1st century a.d.) – an oracular document
Ezekiel the tragedian (2nd century b.c.) – a drama
Fragments of Pseudo-Greek poets (3rd to 2nd century b.c.) – a mixed set of documents but, if you are familiar with the church fathers, then you will see the church fathers quote these documents frequently :
Examples include Hesiod, Pythagoras, Aeshylus, Sophocles, Euripides, diphilus/Philemon/Euripedes, Diphilus/Menander, Philemon/Menander

Within this genre is a subset of historical documents
Aristeas the Exegete (NOT the letter of Aristeas) (prior to 1st century b.c.) -
Eupolemus and pseudo-Eupolemus and Cleodemus Malchus (whome Josephus, another jewish historian of the time period quotes) (all are prior to first century b.c.)

Another subset is the ‘romance” or “fictional stories”
Artapanus (3rd to 2nd century b.c.)
Pseudo-Hecataeus (2nd century b.c. to 1st century a.d.) he was quoted by Josephus and by Origen

The above texts ONLY represent Charlesworths group, i.e. ONLY Jewish epigraphs,and ONLY those within the per-c.e. era (I left out all documents before 3rd century b.c. and after 2nd century a.d.) I have not yet touched upon the Dead Sea Scroll library, the linguistic texts, papyri, etc. Most of the Charlesworth texts exists in MULTIPLE versions and in multiple languages and from differing geological origin. I've left out important early c.e. Christian documents such as the didache and 1 clement and haven't added any of the apostolic fathers either.

Also, specific linguistic texts with their own insights have added much to our understanding of how language (specifically, koine greek) before, during and after this time period was used and how it changed. Moulton and Milligan examined thousands of papyi from multiple sources that have changed the way we view the text. This is not only secular usage, but early Christian enclaves such as Oxyrhynchus and their papyri have added to specific Christian usage of words that changed basic greek dictionaries.

As one coordinates the various parallel doctrines and practices found in various pre and post c.e. era documents. One can see how the doctrines of one era flow into and continue to be represented in the literature of the early Christian movement as well as indicate which doctrines were lost and which evolved and which remained intact. In this way, these early Judeo-Christian documents become textual witnesses of the early Judeo-Christian doctrines and frequently, these textual witnesses are more clear and more detailed than the biblical text in describing early Judeo-Christian doctrines.

If ANYONE wants examples of how parallel doctrines between multiple early documents coordinate to describe and support early Judeo-Christian doctrines, you may refer to Posts 82-84 for examples of how such literature describes the Christian model of Authority. Does ANYONE see any historical support for Metis’ in any of the earliest literature?


3) REGARDING THE "CHAIR OF PETER" AND BISHOP OF ROME
Metis claimed : “ …it was generally agreed upon that the "chair of Peter", the Bishop of Rome, would have a special designation, but not as a powerful authority figure like it would later become. “ (post # 81)
Metis RE-explains : “How many times must I repeat that it's not just about Peter but the issue of the apostles themselves and their appointing of bishops. Why do you keep referring back to the issue of Peter…” (post #91)

Metis, It is illogical for you to make a claim regarding Peter and then complain that it is inappropriate for me to refer to Peter and “the chair of Peter”.

However, If you are now reversing your claim and are saying that “the Chair of Peter” has nothing to do with the later Roman "Catholic Church", then we are in agreement since Peter was never Bishop of Rome and he never gave Rome any apostolic level authority, nor did the Roman congregation receive apostolic level of authority from any other apostle.

Even the concept of the “Chair of Peter” (Sanhedrin / “with Chair”) was not an early invention, but came in later centuries and went through it’s own evolution. For example, in the early Apostolic Constitutions the presbyters represent the apostles “as counselors of the bishop and crown of the church, for THEY are the sanhedrin and council of the church.” (τοις δε πρεσβυτεροις...ως συμωουλοι του επισκοπου και της εκκλησιας στεφανος εισιν γαρ συνεδριον και βουλη εης εκκλησιας..” (Cons Apost 2.28.4, in P.G. 1:673) The later versions of this doctrine is one you are speaking of. It is NOT in the “early 2nd century literature in the form you imply, and that is why you cannot find nor quote it from the "early 2nd century" literature.

In any case, I hope your claim of feeling insulted is simply "posturing" because I do not intend to insult you. I honestly hope your spiritual journey in life is satisfying and enlightening and joyful. Be at peace on these issues. This is simply a debate.

Clear
ειτωειει

 

[metis]

You have variously claimed to be “Jewish”, then claimed to have come from a “fundamental Protestant” background which you left and then “converted to Catholicism” which you left and are now claiming to be “unaffiliated”.

Did you ever stop and think about the fact that I may have converted to Judaism, which I did 25 years ago, and that if one does as such they are considered "Jewish" as if they were borne that way? Also, my last post did cover where some of the 2nd and 3rd century patriarchs thought about the church, so your claim that I avoided this is simply a bold-faced lie.

I told you before that I simply did not and do not have the time to go through so many of these texts, often not even having the time to read all of your posts. But what I did do was to post from Wikipedia what many of them had written about the early church being one, so I covered it in another way.

BTW, you insults above I consider quite a badge of honor, so thanks. It seems that your main motive was to impress people through your endless essays that all too often went well beyond what we were discussing. I complained about it before but all you would do is to come back and just ramble and ramble and... And, btw, if you were so concerned about historical accuracy, then what are you doing in a LDS church that defies both historical and theological accuracy?

And to show another indication of your dishonesty with the above, you say earlier in your post that I am "naive and simplistic" on the history, and then you end with "I do not intend to insult you". I hardly think that saying one is "naive and simplistic" is a compliment, Clear.

But to not waste any more of our time, I'm going to put you on ignore for a short while to try and stop me from responding to you on this thread.

So, take care. [btw, one characteristic of me is that I can't hold grudges]

 

[Clear]

1) REGARDING BEING OFFENDED BECAUSE SOMEONE DOESN’T KNOW HOW MUCH KNOWLEDGE YOU MAY OR MAY NOT HAVE
Metis, you are taking offense when none is intended.

You said you felt insulted because I didn’t assume you knew that Jesus was not "first in authority" in early Christianity (as opposed to God the Father being chief in authority). Your having claimed to have adopted Protestantism, then Judaism, then Catholicism then adopting an “unafilliated” religious stance means that despite your having committed to and then abandoned four fundamental religious stances, I am aware that you have a wide exposure to specific religious claims but this still does not tell me how much you know about original historical Christianity.

You now clarify that you feel you are “Jewish”, yet, “unaffiliated". This still tells me nothing about your basic historical knowledge or what I can assume about what you know or do not know.


2) REGARDING BEING OFFENDED BECAUSE SOMEONE ASKS FOR ACTUAL QUOTES INSIDE A DEBATE ABOUT LITERATURE
Metis, You first brought up “early 2nd century literature” and what it said as an attempt to support your point. I asked for specific quotes. When you failed to give specific quotes, I pointed this out. And, I again asked for quotes : “Do you actually HAVE quotes from “the early 2nd century literature” that you want to offer that show Peter was Bishop and/or that he transferred specific authority to the Roman congregation that others did not have?” (Clear, post #90)

You now claim “ …my last post did cover where some of the 2nd and 3rd century patriarchs thought about the church, so your claim that I avoided this is simply a bold-faced lie.”

Re-read your post. Again, there was STILL, not a single quote from “2nd and 3rd Century patriarchs” in your cut and paste. I might also point out that your own claim had to do with “early 2nd century” literature and not late second century and beyond. Readers can read your post and see whether there is a quote in it to see if I lied or not.


3) REGARDING BEING OFFENDED WHEN ONE’S POSITION IS CRITICIZED INSIDE A DEBATE
Metis, authentic religious historians spend years, often a lifetime in specific studies of huge genres of historical literature and linguistics in their chosen area of religious history. The great Catholic Historian Duchesne spent almost his entire Career, trying to prove the point underlying your claim to authority and was never able to do it. Authentic religious historians are usually able to offer some specific data that supports any historical conclusions they make (even when they are wrong, they usually have DATA upon which they based their claims).

I admit that, to me, it seems naïve and simplistic for you to simply “cut and paste” from a Wikipedia article and assume it represents critical and specific historical knowledge of the type you claim to have in-depth knowledge and understanding of.

Trying to learn deep and specific history by "cutting and pasting" a wiki article seems naïve and simplistic to me. If that impression is correct or incorrect, readers can judge.

Metis, I am sorry you feel offended and I am glad to hear you say that you do not hold a grudge. I think this is a wise and good characteristic. I still wish a wonderful spiritual journey for you and a good life with wonderful insights.


Clear
ειτωτωσεω

 

[Clear]

POST ONE OF TWO

1) THE PROBLEM WITH LEARNING OR TEACHING SPECIFIC RELIGIOUS HISTORY BY WIKIPEDIA

Wikipedia articles are often written by individuals who have interest in the specific history they are writing and in it’s message. I as a Christian might write an article but, the article would contain my bias. While I do not have specific interest in Catholic Theology, I am aware of Wikipedia articles regarding Catholic themes that contain Catholic Bias but are quite incorrect historically. For example, a cut and paste from the Wikipedia article concerning Anacletus (the second Bishop of Rome after Linus) has him as third Bishop of Rome and Peter as First Bishop of Rome. The cut and paste is below in red :

“Pope Anacletus (died c. 92), also known as Cletus, was the third Bishop of Rome, following Saint Peter and Pope Linus. Anacletus served as pope between c. 79 and his death, c. 92.” (Cut and Paste from Wikipedia - article on Anacletus)

The article looks well written with wonderful Pictures. However, it is false. Cletus was NOT, historically, the "third Bishop of Rome, following Saint Peter".

Historically, Peter was never a standing Bishop of Rome. Ever. Wikipedia is, in this case, simply repeating the dogma of its writer. Wikipedia may be a good way for a religionist to advertise dogma or doctrine, it is often (not always) a very poor source for specific religious history. If you want good history, there is no shortcut to looking at authentic historical sources. For examples :

Eusebius, in his history of the Christian religion tells us that Linus, NOT peter, was the first Bishop to the Roman congregation, then Anacletus, third Clemens, fourth Evaristus.

Anastasius' also confirms that Linus was the first Bishop of the Roman congregation, then 2. Cletus; 3. Clemens; 4. Anacletus; 5. Evarestus.

The Liberian Catalogues also confirm that Linus was the first Bishop of the Roman Congregation, then Clemens; 3. Cletus; 4. Anacletus; 5. Evarestus.

Eusebius tells us that after Paul and Peter were martyred, "Linus was the first to obtain the episcopate of the church at Rome." (eusebius of caesaria - eclesiatical hx). This specific quote comes from chapter two entitled "The first ruler of the Church of Rome". Eusebius repeats this same claim in chapter thirteen which is entitiled "Anacletus, the second Bishop of Rome".

Perhaps it is important to discuss historical context of the inconsistencies as well. For example, "The book of Pontiffs" claims Cletus follows Clement whereas the liberian catalog reverses this order. The difficulty is in making some sense of the conflicting data sets. In liber Pontificalis, peter suffers martyrdom "in the 38th year after the Lord suffered (68 c.e.) And Linus "was bishop in the time of Nero from the consulship of Saturninus and scipio (56 c.e.)

To that of Capito and Rufus (67.c.e.) Linus was bishop of Rome for 11 years from 56 c.e and by wonderful historical coincidence, Paul arrives in Rome (under house arrest) at this approximate time. Though Bishop Irenaeus indicates that both "the blessed apostles, St. Peter, and St. Paul, upon founding and erecting the church at Rome committed the office of administering the church at Rome to Linus", it may be that it was Paul alone who was responsible for Linus ordination (we simply don't know if one or both ordained Linus). The 11 years attributed to Linus makes complete sense if he held office from that time until just before Peter was martyred in 68 c.e. since this time table allows Peter to ordain Clement (since Bishops did not ordain bishops in original christianity, but rather one in a higher rank would ordain bishops). Clement succeeding Linus as the first real bishop is in agreement with the testimony of the Apostolic constitutions and it's list of who were the first bishops of various cities in the first century.

"Now concerning those bishops which have been ordained in our lifetime, we let you know that they are these : - James the bishop of Jerusalem, the brother of our Lord; upon whose death the second was simeon the son of Cleopas; after whom the third was Judas the son of James. Of Caesarea of Palestine, the first was Zacchaeus, who was once a publican; after whom was Cornelius, and the third Theophilus. Of Antioch, Euodius, ordained by me Peter; and Ignatius by Paul. Of alexandria, Annianus was the first, ordained by Mark the evangelist; the second Avilius by Luke, who was also an evangelist. Of the church of Rome, Linus the son of Claudia was the first, ordained by Paul; and Clemens, after Linus' death, the second, ordained by me Peter (Constitutions of the Holy Apostles 4:46 [ANF 7:477-8]).

The lists placing Linus as first Bishop ordained by Paul (and not by Peter), followed by the second bishop of Rome, Clement (ordained by Peter) reflects the earliest tradition and may be preferred over the conflicting traditions. As I say, the history becomes a bit murky.

It is suspected that it is Irenaeus' text that first makes famous the later claim that Linus and Cletus followed the dead Peter while other texts claim Peter was alive and, in fact, ordained Clement, the third in line. It is, obviously, inconsistent with History to claim Linus received the bishopric upon the death of Peter when Peter ordained another bishop years after Linus and Cletus served as bishops.

Not only do Eusebius, Anastasius and the Liberian Catalogs list Linus as the first Bishop of rome, but Irenaeus tells us that BOTH Peter and Paul were involved in founding the Roman congregation and that Linus was their first Bishop. The early Apostolic constitutions tell us it was Paul who Ordained Linus and not Peter. (ANF 7:477-8)

Whether it is Paul who ordained Linus, or if it was Peter who ordained Linus, Still, All of these early witnesses consistently agree that Linus was the first bishop of the Christian congregation in Rome and thus the Apostle Peter was never a standing bishop of Rome. The later tradition that was started regarding the apostle Peter serving as a standing bishop of a single congregation was a "back claim" made in later years as the roman congregation sought justification for pre-eminence.

I think the first Bishop of Rome (Linus, ), and his successors Anacletus and Clement were extraordinarily good people who were trying to do the best they could in the state of confusion and lack of authority after Jesus and the Prophets and the Apostles all died off. I do NOT think Linus, Anacletus nor Clement would inaugurated the false claim to having been given authority from Peter, but instead, I think this myth was instituted in the years when Rome was vying for political and religious pre-imminence over other cities and congregations. And there were pressures which caused Rome to seek religious authority.

POST TWO OF TWO FOLLOWS

 

[Clear]

POST TWO OF TWO

2) THE LOSS OF APOSTOLIC LEADERSHIP CAME AMIDST STRUGGLES WITH APOSTASY WITHIN THE CHRISTIAN MOVEMENT

In the Clementine Recognitions, the Apostle Peter explains that lest Jesus restore true doctrines to the earth, Satan was creating apostasy in the early Christian movement. The Apostle Peter said that Satan,. Being “terrified” by Christ and “fearing lest the true religion of the one and true God should be restored, hastened straightway to send forth into this world false prophets, and false apostles, and false teachers, who should speak indeed in the name of Christ, but should accomplish the will of the demon." (Clementine Recognitions, bk 4, chapt 34, P.G. 1:1330)

Apostasy and confusion was rife in the churches following the loss of apostolic authority. The “early second century” apostolic Fathers makes this specific point quite clear.



3) THERE WERE COMPLICATED AND COMPETING CLAIMS FOR CHURCH LEADERSHIP.

While historians have noted that bishops, priests, teachers, and deacons had functioned for many years as leaders during the lifetimes of the apostles, the other offices did not directly compete with or duplicate the specific work of apostles. The other offices had their own functions and their own work to accomplish. Because the Bishop was a local overseer of a congregation, no one expected the bishop of any city to take over the work of an apostle. The great historian Meyer describes the base historical assumption that “the highest authority was held by the Twelve, and at their head was Peter.” Upon the death of the Apostles, the terrible issue of who could take their place was forced upon the early Christians.

The congregation in Rome was not particularly pre-eminent or powerful in its infancy. Antioch, Jerusalem and other congregations were more “apostolic” than Rome. They were older than Rome. They were more established than Rome. They had better claims to leadership than Rome. And, there were indications that they had greater authority than Rome.

For example, the Apostle Peter, in the Clementine Recognitions gives indication that Jerusalem and James had authority. “Wherefore, observe the greatest caution, that you believe no teacher, unless he bring from Jerusalem the testimonial of James the Lord’s brother, or of whosoever may come after him. For no one, unless he has gone up thither, and there has been approved as a fit and faithful teacher for preaching the word of Christ, unless I say, he brings a testimonial thence, is by any means to be received. But let neither prophet nor apostle be looked for by you at this time, besides us. (Clem Recognitions, Book 4, chapt 35). Notice that Peter does not look to Rome and Linus for authority, but to Jerusalem and to James.

Even the wonderful Catholic historian Duchesne comments that the bishopric of Rome, while having offices and machinery necessary for the administration of a city congregation, did not have the equipment, offices, and traditions required to run a church. (Origines du Culte Chretien 15-16). However, Jerusalem from the beginning did have such an administrative setup and authority.

It’s not just a question of a city having pre-eminence, but there were other individuals who had claim to authority besides James in Jerusalem. Eusebius specifically states that “John the beloved returned from Patmos and continued to govern the churches.” (Historia Ecclesiatica 3.23.6 I nPG. 20:257) If John was alive, it would make no sense to have a Bishop of a congregation have leadership over a living Apostle of Jesus. The Apostle ordains and directs a Bishop but the Bishop does not ordain nor direct an Apostle.

When the apostles were removed, a substitute had to be found. And, as the historian Sohm observed, this was the important crisis and “from this necessity arose the episcopate”. However it was not clear who should become the substitute for apostles. Part of the confusion is that all offices were engaged in the same sacred basic calling and their work contributed to the same basic purpose. The fact that the work each did resembles one another does not mean the offices were the same

While it was claimed that a bishop was “a highly spiritual substitute, the direct predecessor of our present-day pastors.” Still, Christ told the apostles “…You did not choose me, but I chose you and ordained you…” (jn 15:16) and thus, the position should be done by a calling and ordination. Which office would then become the substitute for apostles?

As I pointed out, Eusebius, quoting Clement, tells us “To James the Just and to John and Peter, the Lord gave the gnosis after his resurrection,”…“They gave it further to the apostles, and the rest of the apostles gave it to the seventy,” (Eusebius, Historia Ecclesiastica 2.1.4 in P.G. 20:136)

However, if the seventy were the true successors of the apostles, then the bishops had less claim to authority than the seventy.

OR, does one make the elders a substitute for apostles? For example, in the early Apostolic Constitutions the presbyters represent the apostles “as counselors of the bishop and crown of the church, for THEY are the sanhedrin and council of the church.” (τοις δε πρεσβυτεροις...ως συμωουλοι του επισκοπου και της εκκλησιας στεφανος εισιν γαρ συνεδριον και βουλη εης εκκλησιας..” (Cons Apost 2.28.4, in P.G. 1:673)

The point is, that naïve and simplified history make it seem as though the substitute of the office of Apostle by that of the office of Bishop was clear. It was not. There was a great deal of controversy even as the Roman Congregation sought to offer their obscure Bishop as a replacement for the prior office of Chief of all Apostles.


Clear
ειτωσιτωω

 

[12jtartar]

The question is for Christians. 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?

PopeADope,
The Apostles are the ones in the first century that knew which of the writings were Inspired by God, 2Timothy 3:16,17, 2Peter 1:20,21.
If the Catholics put together the Bible canon, they were used by God. Remember, God promised to protect His word, from all generations, Psalms 12:6,7.
The Catholics also have one of the very best Bible encyclopedias in the world. The problem is, they do not obey what the Bible says. Catholic leaders are just like Jesus stated about the Scribes, and Pharisees, they have the Bible, but non of them obey it, John 7:19.
In Paul’s writings he told Christians that after the Apostles died there would be a great falling away from the truth of God’s word, Acts 20:28-30, 2Thessalonians 2:1-15. As time went on, down to our time, more and more false doctrines we’re slowly introduced into the Christian Congregation, until it has been completely Adulterated, it has no resemblance to true Christianity, taught in the first century.
Today, if you try to find the ONE true religion, Ephesians 4:4-6, the Bible speaks of, you will have to search diligently!!! 1Corinthians 1:26-29, Luke 6:20-26, John 15:15-21, 2Timothy 3:12. Agape!!!

 

[metis]

The Catholics also have one of the very best Bible encyclopedias in the world. The problem is, they do not obey what the Bible says.

Such as?

Now keep two things in mind before answering, with one of them being the variability of interpretation and the other being adjustments over time that can affect but not negate the scriptures.

As time went on, down to our time, more and more false doctrines we’re slowly introduced into the Christian Congregation, until it has been completely Adulterated, it has no resemblance to true Christianity, taught in the first century.

Then Jesus must have lied because he said he would "guide the church until the end of time", and only the Catholic, Anglican, and Orthodox Churches can trace their leadership back to the apostles and their appointees. Can your denomination do that?

Secondly, do you believe in John 3:16 ? What does it say about belief and salvation? Does the CC teach about the necessity of having faith in Jesus? Does the CC teach that salvation is from Jesus? What do you think? Have you ever gone to a Catholic or Orthodox or Anglican service to see and hear for yourself? And do you believe in Jesus' teaching to "judge ye not..." as well as Paul's statement that he won't even judge himself let alone others?

 

[1213]

...If you don't trust the church, why do you trust that they made the right decision putting together your new testament Canon?...

Because it shows the heresies, bad non-Biblical things in Catholic Church, like for example:

For they bind heavy burdens that are grievous to be borne, and lay them on men's shoulders; but they themselves will not lift a finger to help them. But all their works they do to be seen by men. They make their phylacteries broad, enlarge the fringes of their garments, and love the place of honor at feasts, the best seats in the synagogues, the salutations in the marketplaces, and to be called 'Rabbi, Rabbi' by men. But don't you be called 'Rabbi,' for one is your teacher, the Christ, and all of you are brothers. Call no man on the earth your father, for one is your Father, he who is in heaven. Neither be called masters, for one is your master, the Christ. But he who is greatest among you will be your servant. Whoever exalts himself will be humbled, and whoever humbles himself will be exalted.
Mat. 23:4-12