|
Post by faune on Apr 22, 2014 10:56:49 GMT -5
I came across this site regarding the development of the canon of the New Testament and information on the Early Church Fathers and how they all contributed to Christianity as we know it today. I felt you might find it quite interesting to review some of the facts surrounding the creation of the New Testament and the Early Christian Church going back to the first centuries for its historical aspects. Please feel free to submit your comments about anything that you find interesting about this particular site or the extensive information provided here. I plan to check it out more thoroughly myself after just discovering its existence today.
www.ntcanon.org/authorities.shtml
|
|
|
Post by faune on Apr 22, 2014 11:10:49 GMT -5
To begin this discussion, I would like to share something I learned about Eusebius, whose writings are associated with the historical beginnings of the early church.
www.ntcanon.org/Eusebius.shtml
|
|
|
Post by faune on Apr 22, 2014 11:32:51 GMT -5
Among the early writers of the Church, Origen definitely out shines the others as a theologian and prolific Biblical scholar! Since he was such a brilliant scholar and undoubtedly way ahead of his time in presenting his views on Christianity, he later was ex-communicated by the RCC and many of his writings were later categorized as heresy by the Church. Since Origen was such a controversial figure in Church history, I find him an interesting subject to explore, especially considering his take on church eschatology. No doubt Origen would be praised today by many liberal minded Christians in regards to his opinions relating to scripture, especially Rob Bell, the author of "Love Wins." Just check out this short video at Rob Bell's site for an illustration of his point in logic, which I find most interesting.
www.robbell.com/lovewins/
I couldn't help noticing how the hierarchy within the early Church didn't like being challenged by the popularity of Origen and his teachings. Just check out what happened to Origen by his superior, Demetrius, one of the early bishops of the Church as shown in this article below. As you can see from the dates given, this was over 100 years before Christianity was established as an accepted religion under Emperor Constantine during 4th century, around 380 A.D.
www.ask.com/question/when-did-christianity-become-the-official-religion-of-rome
www.ntcanon.org/Origen.shtml
|
|
|
Post by Greg on Apr 22, 2014 12:03:03 GMT -5
I formerly thought how odd that the apostles were not the church fathers, but men after them were.
|
|
|
Post by faune on Apr 22, 2014 12:33:00 GMT -5
I formerly thought how odd that the apostles were not the church fathers, but men after them were. Greg ~ Ditto! However, I find it amazing that you can find so much information at this site regarding these Early Church Fathers and historians who left their imprint upon Christianity over 100 years before Christianity ever became even accepted as a religion in the early 300's under Emperor Constantine and later became the accepted religion of the Roman Empire by 380 A.D. That's quite a feat for a religion to develop so rapidly in acceptance within a culture!
Also, the part that each one of these men played in the carrying forward of Christian traditions within the Church is also a fascinating study in itself.
I'm so elated over discovering this site today, which I find very well documented and filled with information I have been seeking for about a year now on the historical roots of Christianity and how the New Testament came into existence along with the ECF's church teachings passed down through the centuries.
|
|
|
Post by StAnne on Apr 22, 2014 12:39:44 GMT -5
I formerly thought how odd that the apostles were not the church fathers, but men after them were. It is why the Early Fathers who were directly discipled by an Apostle are called the Apostolic Fathers.
|
|
|
Post by StAnne on Apr 22, 2014 12:50:24 GMT -5
I couldn't help noticing how the hierarchy within the early Church didn't like being challenged by the popularity of Origen and his teachings. the hierarchy within the early Church"You are Peter and on this rock I will build My Church." (Mt 16:18) "The gates of hell will not prevail against it."(Mt 16:18) “I will give you the keys of the Kingdom of heaven." ( Mt 16:19) "Whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven." (Mt 16:19) [Later to the Twelve]. Sole authority: "Strengthen your brethren." (Lk 22:32) "Feed My sheep."(Jn 21:17). If he refuses to listen to them, tell the church.* If he refuses to listen even to the church,... (Mt 18:17) "The Advocate, the holy Spirit that the Father will send in my name, he will teach you everything and remind you of all that I told you." (Jn 14:26) I dealt with all that Jesus did and taught until the day he was taken up, after giving instructions through the holy Spirit to the apostles whom he had chosen. (Acts 1:1-2) That Church then is personified through Sacred Scripture as: The Church is "the pillar and bulwark of the truth (1 Tim 3:16)." St. Paul says also, "through the Church the manifold wisdom of God might now be made known to the principalities and powers in the heavenly places (Eph 3:10)." The Church teaches even the angels! This is with the authority of Christ! Why? Complete unity; perfect unity of doctrinal teaching. "I pray for them ... I in them and you in me, that they may be brought to perfection as one, that the world may know that you sent me, and that you loved them even as you loved me." Jn 17 (parts taken from a post at another board to which I have added some scripture references...)
|
|
|
Post by faune on Apr 22, 2014 13:02:22 GMT -5
I couldn't help noticing how the hierarchy within the early Church didn't like being challenged by the popularity of Origen and his teachings. the hierarchy within the early Church"You are Peter and on this rock I will build My Church." (Mt 16:18) "The gates of hell will not prevail against it."(Mt 16:18) “I will give you the keys of the Kingdom of heaven." ( Mt 16:19) "Whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven." (Mt 16:19) [Later to the Twelve]. Sole authority: "Strengthen your brethren." (Lk 22:32) "Feed My sheep."(Jn 21:17). If he refuses to listen to them, tell the church.* If he refuses to listen even to the church,... (Mt 18:17) "The Advocate, the holy Spirit that the Father will send in my name, he will teach you everything and remind you of all that I told you." (Jn 14:26) That Church then is personified through Sacred Scripture as: The Church is "the pillar and bulwark of the truth (1 Tim 3:16)." St. Paul says also, "through the Church the manifold wisdom of God might now be made known to the principalities and powers in the heavenly places (Eph 3:10)." The Church teaches even the angels! This is with the authority of Christ! Why? Complete unity; perfect unity of doctrinal teaching. "I pray for them ... I in them and you in me, that they may be brought to perfection as one, that the world may know that you sent me, and that you loved them even as you loved me." Jn 17 (parts taken from a post at another board to which I have added some scripture references...)StAnne ~ Thanks for your input here. However, I was referring to the hierarchy, namely Demetrius, who had originally appointed Origen as a bishop within the Church and later appeared threatened by Origen's accepting of lay duties as a teacher within the Church. It seemed that Demetrius felt his authority was challenged in this area from the account I presented previously?
However, later on Origen's teachings did come into dispute within the Church due to Origen's personal leanings towards another interpretation of scriptures that conflicted with the teachings laid down by the early church.
|
|
|
Post by faune on Apr 22, 2014 13:15:21 GMT -5
Perhaps one of the most memorable of the early leaders in the Christian church was Ignatius of Antioch and his writings are often cited as the groundwork for the creation of the early church traditions. I would highly recommend you read this portion for some fascinating information on this man and the role he played in the creation of Christianity and its early teachings.
In my second quote below you will find references to the Gospels of Matthew and Luke along with the Acts of the Apostles among a few epistles that Ignatius quoted in his writings. In order for this to have occurred, these writings obviously had to be in circulation within the Church at this time, although some modern day scholars would have us believe that these gospel accounts appeared much later in Church history and not within the first century as supposed. This has been something I have wondered about myself from my own research into the dating of the Gospels and found this an interesting find today!
However, I'm still confused over the Gospel of John which exemplifies many areas of differences in the story lines between itself and the synoptic gospels written earlier? Here's just a sampling of what I mean in a comparison between the earlier Gospel of Mark and the late Gospel of John:
answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20090217151009AAi9aWm
www.ntcanon.org/Ignatius.shtml
|
|
|
Post by StAnne on Apr 22, 2014 13:29:14 GMT -5
StAnne ~ Thanks for your input here. However, I was referring to the hierarchy, namely Demetrius, who had originally appointed Origen as a bishop within the Church ... Not exactly what I'm reading ... priest, not bishop - and not ordained by Demetrius - which seemed to be part of the problem. Also, not only Demetrius, but dismissed from the priesthood following two Church councils. Finally, at a much later period, under Pontian of Rome and Zebinus of Antioch (Eusebius, VI, xxiii), he journeyed into Greece, passing through Caesarea where Theoctistus, Bishop of that city, assisted by Alexander, Bishop of Jerusalem, raised him to the priesthood. Demetrius, although he had given letters of recommendation to Origen, was very much offended by this ordination, which had taken place without his knowledge and, as he thought, in derogation of his rights. If Eusebius (VI, viii) is to be believed, he was envious of the increasing influence of his catechist. So, on his return to Alexandria, Origen soon perceived that his bishop was rather unfriendly towards him. He yielded to the storm and quitted Egypt (231). The details of this affair were recorded by Eusebius in the lost second book of the "Apology for Origen"; according to Photius, who had read the work, two councils were held at Alexandria, one of which pronounced a decree of banishment against Origen while the other deposed him from the priesthood (Biblioth. cod. 118). St. Jerome declares expressly that he was not condemned on a point of doctrine. www.newadvent.org/cathen/11306b.htm Summed up this way from the forum at catholic.com Origen is not considered to be either a saint or a Father of the Church because he embraced a heresy known as the apokatastasis (the belief that all must necessarily be saved). However, because of his importance as an early Christian writer and because of his orthodoxy on most issues, he is often quoted alongside early Church Fathers when demonstrating the antiquity of orthodox Christian belief. forums.catholic.com/showthread.php?t=66790
|
|
|
Post by StAnne on Apr 22, 2014 13:39:03 GMT -5
Differences: Mark regarded as earliest written, John as latest. Mark very narrative, John usually thought to be very theological. John includes the fact that Jesus preexisted the incarnation as a baby in Mary's womb The selection of miracles is different, John's are often miracles with particular individuals. The miracles in John are also 'signs' so have a spiritual significance that can be thought over. In Mark Jesus is recorded often using the messianic title Son of Man, in John he is recorded using the title Son of God frequently. Some different things drawn out in passion account. The money-changer expulsion event is in different places time-wise, although even though people have thought it must be in the passion week, John gives some historical moorings and places it at the start of ministry - maybe it happened twice In John's gospel, Jesus' visits to Jerusalem during the many festivals is recorded. Mark concentrates on his ministry in Galilee until the passion week. answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20090217151009AAi9aWm Perhaps I didn't read on far enough, but what about these so-called differences bother you? They are differences, yes, but they are not contradictory.
Conclusion. It is this disciple who testifies to these things and has written them,* and we know that his testimony is true. There are also many other things that Jesus did, but if these were to be described individually, I do not think the whole world would contain the books that would be written. (Jn 21:24-25)
|
|
|
Post by faune on Apr 22, 2014 13:47:12 GMT -5
StAnne ~ Thanks for your input here. However, I was referring to the hierarchy, namely Demetrius, who had originally appointed Origen as a bishop within the Church ... Not exactly what I'm reading ... priest, not bishop - and not ordained by Demetrius - which seemed to be part of the problem. Also, not only Demetrius, but dismissed from the priesthood following two Church councils. Finally, at a much later period, under Pontian of Rome and Zebinus of Antioch (Eusebius, VI, xxiii), he journeyed into Greece, passing through Caesarea where Theoctistus, Bishop of that city, assisted by Alexander, Bishop of Jerusalem, raised him to the priesthood. Demetrius, although he had given letters of recommendation to Origen, was very much offended by this ordination, which had taken place without his knowledge and, as he thought, in derogation of his rights. If Eusebius (VI, viii) is to be believed, he was envious of the increasing influence of his catechist. So, on his return to Alexandria, Origen soon perceived that his bishop was rather unfriendly towards him. He yielded to the storm and quitted Egypt (231). The details of this affair were recorded by Eusebius in the lost second book of the "Apology for Origen"; according to Photius, who had read the work, two councils were held at Alexandria, one of which pronounced a decree of banishment against Origen while the other deposed him from the priesthood (Biblioth. cod. 118). St. Jerome declares expressly that he was not condemned on a point of doctrine. www.newadvent.org/cathen/11306b.htm Summed up this way from the forum at catholic.com Origen is not considered to be either a saint or a Father of the Church because he embraced a heresy known as the apokatastasis (the belief that all must necessarily be saved). However, because of his importance as an early Christian writer and because of his orthodoxy on most issues, he is often quoted alongside early Church Fathers when demonstrating the antiquity of orthodox Christian belief. forums.catholic.com/showthread.php?t=66790 StAnne ~ Thank you for correcting my error regarding Origen's original appointment by Demetrius as a priest, not as a bishop, to replace Clement in Alexandria. I just assumed that Clement was also a bishop in the early church at this time when Origen was selected as his replacement at the School in Alexandria. However, upon re-reading the quote below, I see no mention was made of Origen receiving a promotion in the ranks and he was just regarded as a layman priest when the controversy arose with Demetrius.
|
|
|
Post by faune on Apr 22, 2014 13:52:29 GMT -5
StAnne ~ In response to your question regarding what bothered me about John's gospel compared to the Mark and the other synoptic gospels, perhaps this article will best explain my concern on this matter? There are actually a number of major differences that stand out between John's gospels and the early synoptic gospels of Matthew, Mark, and Luke. Just check out this article below to see what I mean here? There are 12 specific areas of differences between the Gospel of John and the Synoptic Gospels and the first five (5) categories are of major significance in contents. The remaining eight (7) categories deals with his other areas of contention and also brings out major differences in his absence of references to the "Kingdom of God" and his presented "Eschatology" as well as differences in his grammatical and literary styles which is quite different from the earlier synoptic gospels.
bible.org/seriespage/major-differences-between-john-and-synoptic-gospels
Major Differences Between John and the Synoptic Gospels
Here are some of the differences in writing style which you discover within the Gospel of John:
Here are three more major areas of differences between the Gospel of John and the Synoptic Gospels that stand out to bible scholars:
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 22, 2014 14:03:48 GMT -5
I formerly thought how odd that the apostles were not the church fathers, but men after them were. That's because the "early church fathers' were the first Protestants. Just the very fact that the term "fathers" is used and accepted affirms that it was a protestant-like movement and a new church. The results, in comparison to Jesus, speak for themselves.
|
|
|
Post by StAnne on Apr 22, 2014 14:09:39 GMT -5
I formerly thought how odd that the apostles were not the church fathers, but men after them were. That's because the "early church fathers' were the first Protestants. Just the very fact that the term "fathers" is used and accepted affirms that it was a protestant-like movement and a new church. The results, in comparison to Jesus, speak for themselves. You mean like St Paul refered to himself as a spiritual father - and Abraham was called father long, long before that?
|
|
|
Post by StAnne on Apr 22, 2014 14:30:45 GMT -5
StAnne ~ In response to your question regarding what bothered me about John's gospel compared to the Mark and the other synoptic gospels, perhaps this article will best explain my concern on this matter? There are actually a number of major differences that stand out between John's gospels and the early synoptic gospels of Matthew, Mark, and Luke. Just check out this article below to see what I mean here? There are 12 specific areas of differences between the Gospel of John and the Synoptic Gospels and the first four (4) categories are of major significance in contents. The remaining eight (8) categories deals with his literary style of writing among other concerns.
bible.org/seriespage/major-differences-between-john-and-synoptic-gospels
Major Differences Between John and the Synoptic Gospels
1. Because John wrote later, why should he include everything that had already been written about? 2. 25 There are also many other things that Jesus did, but if these were to be described individually, I do not think the whole world would contain the books that would be written.3. Why is it disturbing to you if Gospel of John includes some of Jesus' travels for the High Holy Days, for instance ... At the Feast of Booths, the Jewish holiday Sukkoth, Jesus returns to Jerusalem with the pilgrims and begins preaching in the temple.Why should it be exactly the same as the synoptics? John was with Jesus the entire time - Mark and Luke were not (although Mark was a disciple of Peter the Apostle). 4. Compare Mark who begins his Gospel with Jesus’ baptism and Matthew and Luke who begin theirs with Jesus’ birth. John begins with eternity past (“In the beginning the Word already was…”). Thank God for John's beautiful account. Why does it matter that it begins differently. Mark also tells us that Christ is God - in the very first verse - The beginning of the good news about Jesus the Messiah, the Son of God, ... John does it more in depth by telling us 'how' Jesus is the Son of God, the Word who was God who took on human flesh ... We will see at least fifteen distinct ways that Mark identifies Jesus with the highest of honors and, in multiple, interlocking ways, identifies Jesus as God. And keep in mind, we are primarily examining only the first thirteen verses of Mark! www.reasonsforgod.org/2013/06/does-the-gospel-of-mark-claim-that-jesus-is-god/
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 22, 2014 14:38:00 GMT -5
That's because the "early church fathers' were the first Protestants. Just the very fact that the term "fathers" is used and accepted affirms that it was a protestant-like movement and a new church. The results, in comparison to Jesus, speak for themselves. You mean like St Paul refered to himself as a spiritual father - and Abraham was called father long, long before that? Neither referred to themselves as "church fathers". That came later with the development of the new movement.
|
|
|
Post by StAnne on Apr 22, 2014 14:44:09 GMT -5
You mean like St Paul refered to himself as a spiritual father - and Abraham was called father long, long before that? Neither referred to themselves as "church fathers". That came later with the development of the new movement. Do the early church fathers refer to themselves as 'church fathers'? St Paul was a bishop - who ordained Timothy a bishop - so in that way he is very much like the early fathers of the church. And does indeed refer to himself as a father. "To Titus, my true child in a common faith: grace and peace from God the Father and Christ Jesus our Savior" (Titus 1:4); "I appeal to you for my child, Onesimus, whose father I have become in my imprisonment" (Philem. 10). All of orthodox christianity recognizes and teaches the early fathers in seminary. The Church Fathers, Early Church Fathers, Christian Fathers, or Fathers of the Church are ancient and generally influential Christian theologians, some of whom were eminent teachers and great bishops. The term is used of writers or teachers of the Church not necessarily ordained[1] and not necessarily "saints" en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Church_Fathers
|
|
|
Post by faune on Apr 22, 2014 14:47:37 GMT -5
I formerly thought how odd that the apostles were not the church fathers, but men after them were. That's because the "early church fathers' were the first Protestants. Just the very fact that the term "fathers" is used and accepted affirms that it was a protestant-like movement and a new church. The results, in comparison to Jesus, speak for themselves. Clearday ~ I believe you just opened "Pandora's Box" in your statement above? However, the later established Roman Catholic Church within the 4th century would undoubtedly contest your conclusion above, since they claim to go back in time to Peter as their first Pope in a long line of successors which followed as the heads of the first Christian Church.
|
|
|
Post by faune on Apr 22, 2014 15:12:53 GMT -5
Neither referred to themselves as "church fathers". That came later with the development of the new movement. Do the early church fathers refer to themselves as 'church fathers'? St Paul was a bishop - who ordained Timothy a bishop - so in that way he is very much like the early fathers of the church. And does indeed refer to himself as a father. "To Titus, my true child in a common faith: grace and peace from God the Father and Christ Jesus our Savior" (Titus 1:4); "I appeal to you for my child, Onesimus, whose father I have become in my imprisonment" (Philem. 10). All of orthodox christianity recognizes and teaches the early fathers in seminary. The Church Fathers, Early Church Fathers, Christian Fathers, or Fathers of the Church are ancient and generally influential Christian theologians, some of whom were eminent teachers and great bishops. The term is used of writers or teachers of the Church not necessarily ordained[1] and not necessarily "saints" en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Church_Fathers Didn't Paul also referred to himself as a "father" to Timothy in regards to mentoring him in the church teachings that he felt should be upheld and passed down as "sound doctrine" within the early church?
Also, I found these two enlightening articles in my search for answers regarding when church traditions came into play in relation to Christian teachings. The second one really stood out to me regarding the reference that Catholics give to their priests as "fathers." I never understood the reason behind this designation until now, which acknowledges "the spiritual fatherhood of the priesthood."
www.christiantruth.com/scriptureandchurchfathers.html
www.catholic.com/tracts/call-no-man-father
|
|
|
Post by StAnne on Apr 22, 2014 15:34:55 GMT -5
Didn't Paul also referred to himself as a "father" to Timothy in regards to mentoring him in the church teachings that he felt should be upheld and passed down as sound doctrine within the Church?
I know that he referred to Timothy as his son - but I don't know that it is written directly of Timothy that St Paul calls himself his (spiritual) father.
Although there is this: "I do not write this to make you ashamed, but to admonish you as my beloved children. For though you have countless guides in Christ, you do not have many fathers. For I became your father in Christ Jesus through the gospel" (1 Cor. 4:14–15)
Closely followed by vs 17: 17For this reason I have sent to you Timothy, my son whom I love, who is faithful in the Lord.
|
|
|
Post by StAnne on Apr 22, 2014 15:39:46 GMT -5
Also, I found these two enlightening articles in my search for answers regarding when church traditions came into play in relation to Christian teachings. The second one really stood out to me regarding the reference that Catholics give to their priests as "fathers." I never understood the reason behind this designation until now, which acknowledges "the spiritual fatherhood of the priesthood."
|
|
|
Post by faune on Apr 22, 2014 15:49:59 GMT -5
Didn't Paul also referred to himself as a "father" to Timothy in regards to mentoring him in the church teachings that he felt should be upheld and passed down as sound doctrine within the Church?
I know that he referrred to Timothy as his son - but I don't know that it is written directly of Timothy that St Paul calls himself his (spiritual) father.
Although there is this: "I do not write this to make you ashamed, but to admonish you as my beloved children. For though you have countless guides in Christ, you do not have many fathers. For I became your father in Christ Jesus through the gospel" (1 Cor. 4:14–15)
Closely followed by vs 17: 17For this reason I have sent to you Timothy, my son whom I love, who is faithful in the Lord.
StAnne ~ Yes, my statement was based upon conjecture, due to Paul's reference to Timothy as his (spiritual) son, which could also suggest, I feel, that he regarded himself as Timothy's "spiritual father." However, Paul also speaks to the Corinthian Church in the above verse as becoming their "father in Christ Jesus through the gospel." (I Cor. 4:14-15).
|
|
|
Post by faune on Apr 22, 2014 15:55:32 GMT -5
Also, going back to Ignatius of Antioch, I would like to provide a listing of the Popes going back to St. Peter according to information that StAnne supplied me earlier regarding this Early Church Father. Reviewing this ECF's writings can be very enlightening, to say the least regarding the early church. As you can see form the dates given, there does appear to be a line of succession which we can trace back to St. Peter and Rome after all. I was not aware of this fact until just now as I reviewed the list provided by StAnne below. However, the Church didn't become legalized until Emperor Constantine came into the picture around the 4th century.
www.ntcanon.org/Ignatius.shtml (Ignatius of Antioch as Early Church Father)
The Church was already called Catholic in writing by Ignatius in 110.
The the first 20 - and we haven't reached the 4th century yet ...
St. Peter (32-67) St. Linus (67-76) St. Anacletus (Cletus) (76-88) St. Clement I (88-97) St. Evaristus (97-105) St. Alexander I (105-115) St. Sixtus I (115-125) Also called Xystus I St. Telesphorus (125-136) St. Hyginus (136-140) St. Pius I (140-155) St. Anicetus (155-166) St. Soter (166-175) St. Eleutherius (175-189) St. Victor I (189-199) St. Zephyrinus (199-217) St. Callistus I (217-22) Callistus and the following three popes were opposed by St. Hippolytus, antipope (217-236) St. Urban I (222-30) St. Pontain (230-35) St. Anterus (235-36) St. Fabian (236-50)
|
|
|
Post by StAnne on Apr 22, 2014 16:01:31 GMT -5
I know that he referrred to Timothy as his son - but I don't know that it is written directly of Timothy that St Paul calls himself his (spiritual) father.
Although there is this: "I do not write this to make you ashamed, but to admonish you as my beloved children. For though you have countless guides in Christ, you do not have many fathers. For I became your father in Christ Jesus through the gospel" (1 Cor. 4:14–15)
Closely followed by vs 17: 17For this reason I have sent to you Timothy, my son whom I love, who is faithful in the Lord.
StAnne ~ Yes, my statement was based upon conjecture, due to Paul's reference to Timothy as his (spiritual) son, which could also suggest, I feel, that he regarded himself as Timothy's "spiritual father." However, Paul also speaks to the Corinthian Church in the above verse as becoming their "father in Christ Jesus through the gospel." (I Cor. 4:14-15). Right. The context is there - and is understood in the context of spiritual father. But I attempted to answer to the specific wording of your question.
|
|
|
Post by faune on Apr 22, 2014 16:22:14 GMT -5
In reference to the Resurrection of Jesus and his being seen by his disciples, I noticed this reference found within Ignatius of Antioch's earlier quotes. It's a timely quote just after Easter celebration, don't you think? This quote would also causes one to believe that the Gospel of Luke was written during Ignatius lifetime and not at a later date, as some modern Bible scholars seem to claim?
|
|
|
Post by faune on Apr 22, 2014 16:22:24 GMT -5
In reference to the Resurrection of Jesus and his being seen by his disciples, I noticed this reference found within Ignatius of Antioch's earlier quotes. It's a timely quote just after Easter celebration, don't you think? This quote would also causes one to believe that the Gospel of Luke was written during Ignatius lifetime and not at a later date, as some modern Bible scholars seem to claim?
carm.org/when-were-gospels-written-and-by-whom
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 22, 2014 16:28:26 GMT -5
That's because the "early church fathers' were the first Protestants. Just the very fact that the term "fathers" is used and accepted affirms that it was a protestant-like movement and a new church. The results, in comparison to Jesus, speak for themselves. Clearday ~ I believe you just opened "Pandora's Box" in your statement above? However, the later established Roman Catholic Church within the 4th century would undoubtedly contest your conclusion above, since they claim to go back in time to Peter as their first Pope in a long line of successors which followed as the heads of the first Christian Church.
When we see significant developments that change the essential character of the organization away from Jesus' movement (the descending hierarchy for instance along with new theologies such as the trinity), you can be sure you have the First Protestant Church.
|
|