Where can I find early Christian history?

[pointer]

People are questioning Ignatius and doubting him

Because he is an outsider, a heretic, an emperor's poodle? Who can the wolves in sheep's clothing be, if not the likes of Ignatius and 'Clement'?

How does he respond to this.

You tell me. How many times do I have to ask? Ignatius' response seems like a liar's, to me. Mealy mouthed, confused, unconvincing. And heretical, of course!

In the second part we see Ignatius using the world catholic for the first time to describe the universal Christian Church.

Seems very redundant, if so. Otoh, there was some point to using the word if, in later centuries, the emperor wanted to establish his outfit as the true church as distinct from, and as opposed to, the real church. The Catholic Church organisation shoots itself in the foot.

He also uses the word Eucharist.

That is a word that English-speaking high church people and catholics generally seem to think has some sort of mystic, magical power, but it just means 'thanksgiving'- or 'Thanksgiving', perhaps. If people want to call breaking of bread, the Lord's supper 'thanksgiving' I can see no advantage in that. The word can be used of many things, as Americans know, and so is less useful.

These are of great value to show what the early church was like.

Are you quite sure there is not other material in those quotes that you value much more than those two words? Ideas that cannot be found in Scripture? Ideas that Jesus and the apostles, in many thousands of words, forgot to pass on?

I also want to add Pointer when you doubt whether or not Ignatius even existed is a similar mind set to the Atheist who doubts whether or not the apostles who wrote the Gospels ever existed. Ignatius lived during the same time, yet you have no problem believing in the apostles.

Whoever wrote 'Ignatius' had a great deal of agony trying to deal with the fact that very many people, including themselves, believed in the apostles. That is why people, including atheists, should read this apocryphal stuff of the false church. By reflection, it validates the real one. And it's blindingly obvious that it is false, too.

And no I am not promoting the AntiChrist

Prove it.

'I wrote to the church, but Ignatius, who loves to be first, will have nothing to do with us. So if I come, I will call attention to what he is doing, gossiping maliciously about us. Not satisfied with that, he refuses to welcome the brothers. He also stops those who want to do so and puts them out of the church.'

Why not?

[Guest godgivesall4us]

pointer, please, make up your mind.

On the one hand you say there is not enough proof that he existed, on the other hand you call him the emperors poodle and other slander.

Do you believe he existed or not? you have said both.

I believe he did just as much as i believe Jesus did.

You will defend tyndale, yet did you know him personally? you will use his and other reformers information, and they are all outside of scripture and about 1500 years too late for truth, yet you defend them and then act like anyone that has a catholic slant in the first and second century is a heretic.

who called him a heretic in the second century? do you have the writings of someone within the real church of Christianity calling him a heretic while he lived?

then you have no proof of anything, only post 1000 year here say.

please stop your anti catholic slander and lets see the actual writings of persons in the church in the first four centuries instead of using 16th century late comers for your proof, outside of scripture.

I am anti catholic, yet i keep an open mind to the writings of the earliest church found outsaide of scripture. to not is to be contempt prior to investigation. Investigation is not taking everyone of the reformers word for the truth and ignoring the actual writings of the people who came before them, in the first 2/3 of Christianity.

Investigation is listening to both sides of the story and making a judgement based on the facts. Not just the facts of the wrongdoings of the early christians, but take both bad and good. Could you imagine if the courts used this type of test to judge accused criminals? they would all be hanged before they received a fair trial.

Can you tell us something that the Roman catholic church did that was good? or haven't you focused on anything except the propoganda of reformists?

I think it is the latter from what you have stated in your posts.

That is sad, for you never had an open mind to be a true critic to begin with.

Edited September 24, 2006 by godgivesall4us

[pointer]

On the one hand you say there is not enough proof that he existed, on the other hand you call him the emperors poodle and other slander.

Jesus called the political agent Herod, 'fox'. And the law teachers and Pharisees, 'vipers'. Paul called supposed Christians, 'dogs'. And...

Jude

Was rude.

So take legal proceedings against the four of us. Oh, and John the Baptist!

You will defend tyndale, yet did you know him personally?

I defend Tyndale's right to make a translation, which right followers of Ignatius murdered him for exercising. I wrote that Wyclif's writings were, imv, worth reading, but for their historical significance, not as Scripture. They are also spiritually edifying, imv, more so than the writings of several who came later who are better known.

you will use his and other reformers information, and they are all outside of scripture and about 1500 years too late for truth

When is too late? Who decides?

you... act like anyone that has a catholic slant in the first and second century is a heretic.

This is a misrepresentation, and also much too simple to accord with the facts. There was written a large quantity of literature, mostly in the first two centuries, as it happens, that cannot be squared with Scripture. Those parts of it that took up the old paganisms of Rome in Christian guise were incorporated into the state religion of the Roman Empire, and the rest were dismissed officially as spurious or heretical (including one work that was subsequently used to support Catholic doctrine!). There is virtually nothing before Wyclif that can be squared with Scripture that has survived, and Wyclif's work survived only because the Vatican could not destroy it (or him). From Wyclif's time there has been much written in accordance with Scripture, especially since the advent of democracy, when people are free to write more or less as they wish. There is no comparison of Pilgrim's Progress with anything written before Wyclif, except Scripture. We can reasonably suppose that the writings of the true church were destroyed by that Empire, or survive in the Vatican Library, along with contemporary references to them.

To God, a thousand years is but a day, and we should not be taken in by the ideas of the first two days.

who called him a heretic in the second century?

I've already written that Ignatius et al. are obviously false. All born again people did so, imv.

I am anti catholic

Why?

Can you tell us something that the Roman catholic church did that was good?

Rome preserved Scripture, but because it had no option. I can't think of anything else. Can you?

What is there in Ignatius' letters that you think is of value but not already in Scripture?

[Guest godgivesall4us]

you sound like an anti catholic author.

You like Tyndales version of scripture, yet you don't give credit to the church that saved the scriptures from destruction. There is historical proof of one single church protecting the scriptures and then deciding which belong in the Bible. You are so anti catholic and propogandist, that you can't see the forest for the trees.

In fact, the more I listen to you, and the more I read the actual writings of the early Christians such as ignatius and clement, the less I believe your propoganda, and the more I like the Catholic Church. And I am an anti catholic myself.

I did not come i here to listen to you rant and rave about catholicism, I am asking for history from the early church.

thats all.

nothing more.

[pointer]

you sound like an anti catholic author.

As you are 'anti catholic' yourself, that cannot be a bad thing, surely? You forgot to to tell us why, btw. I really can't imagine what you can object to about the RCC, except that it has failed to keep its grip on Western civilisation. If 'civilisation' is the right word.

There is historical proof of one single church protecting the scriptures

Where?

and then deciding which belong in the Bible.

A decision that Protestants rejected.

I am asking for history from the early church.

Start with Wyclif, 'the morning star of the Reformation'.

'If a man believe in Christ, and make a point of his belief, then the promise that God hath made to come into the land of light shall be given by virtue of Christ, to all men that make this the chief matter.' Wyclif Christ stilling the Storm

What is there in Ignatius' letters that you think is of value but not already in Scripture?

[Guest godgivesall4us]

what is in tyndales writings that is of value and not already in scripture?

We could go in circles on this one. In fact, we could go in circles asking the same question to each other over and over again and never get anywhere.

I am not looking for new and invented doctrines, or canons of scripture from the 16th century. I am looking for what God revealed first to His people, for He has the power to guide His church into all Truth in the first years of Christianity and I do not believe that He made a mistake necessarily when he made the Bible the first time.

After reading the writings of Luther , it seems to me that Luther was self will and trying to remove the book of james alone is a definitly red light. He also tried to remove revelation and ruth and some others but melanchton did not allow him. These were men, not some apostolic church men given the ordained positio to decide so. The apostles were handpicked by God, literally, and then had successors.

I am now seeking the history of the succession of the apostles, especially Peter who headed the list of the apostles everywhere in the NT. Peter was guided by God and commanded by God to do things for Christ and to guide the apostles and strengthen them and feed Christs sheep and tend them. I take these specific commands more strongly than you do.

This is an exciting journey for me, to be opened up to the actual history of Christian writers i the first century.

You asked about what Ignatius wrote that is of value and not already in scripture?

Well, the teaching in John 6 concerning the eating of the flesh and blood of our Lord for one.

It is IN scripture, stated very literally and when challenged, He gave a very literal explanation(command) even unto death if you don't eat His flesha and drink his blood.

ignatius clarifies what the first Christians and heretics believed on this subject. It was taken literally, and believed that way, and the ones who were the heretics are those who did not confess that it(eucharist) was the flesh of our Lord.

I believe this. I have read nothing to the contrary otherwise previous to this.

[pointer]

what is in tyndales writings that is of value and not already in scripture?

I wonder why you keep mentioning Tyndale the translator rather than Wyclif the exegete. Puzzling.

Tyndale's work was mostly translation of Scripture, as you know. Wyclif's writings were aimed at exegesis of Scripture, just as Pilgrim's Progress very plainly was. That has always been the Protestant (and Biblical) tradition- to explain, not to add. Ignatius seemingly attempted to create Scripture by writing letters in apostolic style, very often plagiarising Paul (in a way that is comic at times). The most salient fact is that he failed.

I am not looking for new and invented doctrines, or canons of scripture from the 16th century. I am looking for what God revealed first to His people, for He has the power to guide His church into all Truth in the first years of Christianity

No doubt he did. What is inexplicable is how a faith grew so rapidly and widely, enough to force the mighty Roman Empire to give up paganism (ostensibly), but is represented for hundreds of years by such a tiny total number of writers.

It seems to me irresponsible, at best, to put souls in danger by playing with the fire of unScriptural writing, especially in view of the warnings from Jesus, John, Peter, Paul and Jude about false teachers already having heavy-handed influence in the church, as they wrote! It seems highly irresponsible to take as reliably worthy anything written at a time when Christianity was illegal, when the Roman Empire was run with spies and infiltrators as a police state, when any professed Christian document that was permitted to be circulated was almost certain to be Satan's version of how things should be. It seems irresponsible, unless it comes from from a false teacher, if a rather clumsy one.

If you really want to take that risk, poster, that is your prerogative. Readers here should know that they put their eternal destinies at risk by taking anything but Scripture as the touchstone of faith. They can reasonably take the Roman version of the New Testament as the correct one, as even the emperor's men, who hated every word of Scripture, could not get away with leaving out the letters of Paul and Peter, or slipping in the works of their own heretical stooges.

The apostles were handpicked by God, literally, and then had successors.

How do you know that?

I am now seeking the history of the succession of the apostles, especially Peter who headed the list of the apostles everywhere in the NT. Peter was guided by God and commanded by God to do things for Christ and to guide the apostles and strengthen them and feed Christs sheep and tend them. I take these specific commands more strongly than you do.

What I am puzzled by is how you can take these commands more strongly than I but also be an 'anti-catholic'. I have asked about this twice already. Would it be too much trouble for you to make your position quite clear? I think people should know.

This is an exciting journey for me, to be opened up to the actual history of Christian writers i the first century.

Journeys can end in tears, and one must tread very carefully. There are those who find the message of the Bible too challenging, and the message of the emperors' mock-up 'church' to be a lot easier to deal with. Eating a piece of bread once in a while is much easier than committing one's whole life to Christ.

Well, the teaching in John 6 concerning the eating of the flesh and blood of our Lord for one. It is IN scripture

Of course it is. The disciples who left Jesus were very sensibly not intending to be cannibals, and the twelve who stayed were expecting to eat Jesus, presumably alive.

[Smalcald]

Well I have argued against you in this debate pointer. However I am afriad our good friend here is Catholic, and it saddens me that he uses these tricks.

Peace.

[Pax]

I think that for Protestants an understanding of early Church History will actually show why Luther did what he had to do, it will strengthen your faith and commitment to the ideals we hold.

Of course I know Pax would disagree! But regardless why deny that history? Are we that afraid as Protestants of what Luther did of understanding it?

I think we have an obligation to understand our own history, if we do not we could end up barking like dogs or praying for money on TBN.

Please expand on this smalcald. What would we learn from reading the early fathers epistles that would make us think that such a radical change was needed to reform the Church. You must admit Smalcald, Luthers teachings were a radical change from the first 1500 years of Christianity.

Some were more radical than others. But what Luther was saying was in the works for some time, in fact Luther sounds much like Augustine, which is why I encourage people to read both (which would make sense as Luther was an Augustinian Monk). I find much of what Luther has to say, in its core much more like what I read in the early Church Fathers and councils, than I do in reading what some of the pronouncements and actions coming out of the Church between 1100 and 1500 sound like. For me the radical change is looking at the difference between the opulence, worldliness and corruption of the hierarchy in 1500 and the Desert Fathers of 350, now that is a radical difference.

Now, what Luther unleashed was something that bothered him as much as the Roman Church bothered him. He honestly thought that he may convince the Church to change, he wanted to remain a part of the Roman Church but would not back down on what he believed, giving of course rise to his most famous comments about recanting.

There was and is a cost to the Reformation. That cost comes in the lack of Christian unity, splintering, and the bizarre idea of everyman being their own pope, a spiritual authority unto themselves. We can read this very board today and see that cost. However I maintain that the cost was worth it. But it does no good to pretend that there was not a cost and we must read the history of our Church to understand what has happened and where we are today.

You can't change the Church established by Christ. If Luther would of stopped at trying to clean up the corruption he very well could of been one of the greatest saints in the Church. However, Luther decided he would change the doctrines of the Church...this can't be done. I too would encourage people to read Augustine. St. Augustine talks of Transubstantiation, Luther decided to change this to Consubstantiation. Two very different things.

[Guest godgivesall4us]

I am not catholic. far from it. I believe some things that scripture and Christ teaches.

if they happen to be catholic, so be it.

you ask about the successors of the apostles, acts 1:20 shows judas being succeeded by matthias. this is general biblical knowledge. nothing catholic about it. i don't think.

Jesus was God, he hand picked the apostles, therefore they were hand picked by God, that is how I know.

peace, godgivesall4us