Where can I find early Christian history?

[Pax]

here is what wikipedia says concerning ignatius.

Saint Ignatius of Antioch (martyred between AD 98 - AD 117) was the third Bishop or Patriarch of Antioch, after Saint Peter and Evodius, who died around AD 68. Eusebius, (Historia Ecclesiastica, II.iii.22) records that Ignatius succeeded Evodius. Making his apostolic succession even more immediate, Theodoret (Dial. Immutab., I, iv, 33a) reported that Peter himself appointed Ignatius to the see of Antioch.

Ignatius, who also called himself Theophorus ("bearer of God"), was most likely a disciple of both Apostles Peter and John.

Ignatius is generally considered to be one of the Apostolic Fathers (the earliest authoritative group of the Church Fathers) and a saint by both the Roman Catholics, who celebrate his feast day on October 17, and the Orthodox and Eastern Catholic churches, who celebrate his feast day on December 20. Ignatius based his authority on living his life in imitation of Christ.

Ignatius was arrested by the Roman authorities and transported to Rome under trying conditions:

From Syria even to Rome I fight with wild beasts, by land and sea, by night and by day, being bound amidst ten leopards, even a company of soldiers, who only grow worse when they are kindly treated.

[Pax]

Indeed we are arguing.

Pointer is upset that you might read some Catholic writings. Ignatious was a Catholic or would be considered one today. So the only way he can stop that is to claim that there are no writings, that indeed there was no Christians between the Apostles and John Tyndale.

If that makes sense to you stop reading.

Yes, you will find out that all the early Church father and writers were Catholic......makes you think doesn't it.

[pointer]

God would not leave us alone for the majority of history since the resurrection.

I can't see why not. He left most of the world ignorant of the gospel for 1500 years, and for 200 000 years before there was a gospel.

In fact it is totally non-scriptural that the Holy Spirit, that Christ

[EricH]

Indeed we are arguing.

Pointer is upset that you might read some Catholic writings. Ignatious was a Catholic or would be considered one today. So the only way he can stop that is to claim that there are no writings, that indeed there was no Christians between the Apostles and John Tyndale.

If that makes sense to you stop reading.

Yes, you will find out that all the early Church father and writers were Catholic......makes you think doesn't it.

Lets keep it on the writings of the Fathers, and not attempt to take it another direction that will cause more work for yours truly

[pointer]

Indeed we are arguing.

Pointer is upset that you might read some Catholic writings. Ignatious was a Catholic or would be considered one today. So the only way he can stop that is to claim that there are no writings, that indeed there was no Christians between the Apostles and John Tyndale.

John Wyclif. Catholics murdered Tyndale, and Wyclif survived because they could not get at him.

[pointer]

Pointer is upset that you might read some Catholic writings.

I don't much care if people read those. People tend to bring their ideas to forums ready formed. If they believe these writings to be consonant with Scripture, they deserve everything they get. Whatever that may be.

Ignatious was a Catholic

There are scholars today who think he did not exist, but was an invention of the 3rd or 4th century. Whoever wrote those letters, he/they got more 'Obey your bishop' commands per square inch than in any other work. (There is not one in Scripture.)

Of course, this command is very likely to backfire on those who claim apostolic succession, because they cannot prove such a thing, so they may end up having to obey people like me. Which would not go down too well, I think. But it's up to them.

Not that it matters much who wrote these letters. Paul warned 'from among your own number' false teachers would arise, and 'Ignatius' would fit that bill precisely. After his strong warning, it seems irresponsible to take anything as safe that is not universally agreed to be Scripture.

[Smalcald]

Indeed we are arguing.

Pointer is upset that you might read some Catholic writings. Ignatious was a Catholic or would be considered one today. So the only way he can stop that is to claim that there are no writings, that indeed there was no Christians between the Apostles and John Tyndale.

John Wyclif. Catholics murdered Tyndale, and Wyclif survived because they could not get at him.

Well that is interesting history also.

But it is not on the topic of early Church writings and beliefs.

It is not scriptural that the Holy Spirit and the Lord's Church would leave the earth then return at some other date, as that is not what Christ promised. Beyond that, how would we have His Word with us today, if not for the early Church fathers deciding what books were truly inspired by the Holy Spirit and which were not? Who kept and protected the Word of God before Wyclif was born so that Wyclif could read it? As you know if we don't believe that the Fathers of the Church were operating under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit when they selected the books of the New Testament, then where indeed did our bible today come from, why not include all of the heretical writings, such as the Gospel of Thomas, etc? Do you claim that Wyclif decided which books would be included in the Bible?

By reading the early church fathers we can see what is important, we can also see how far for example the Catholic church of 1500 had drifted and was indeed in need of reform, we can see how important the Reformation was. Don't you see pointer that we can't run away from this history without denying our own Protestant history?

[pointer]

John Wyclif. Catholics murdered Tyndale, and Wyclif survived because they could not get at him.

Well that is interesting history also.

Indeed. Very revealing.

But it is not on the topic of early Church writings and beliefs.

It does help to answer your question, though.

It is not scriptural that the Holy Spirit and the Lord's Church would leave the earth then return at some other date, as that is not what Christ promised.

Where? I've had to ask twice.

Beyond that, how would we have His Word with us today, if not for the early Church fathers deciding what books were truly inspired by the Holy Spirit and which were not?

The Reformers did not agree with these people.

Who kept and protected the Word of God before Wyclif was born so that Wyclif could read it?

Who needed Matthew's gospel?

Do you claim that Wyclif decided which books would be included in the Bible?

Wyclif decided for himself, I decide for myself, you decide for yourself, everyone decides for themselves. There is no determination of Scriptural canon written in stone by divine hand. It is just that, whether one loves it or hates it, Scripture chooses itself. Christians recognise their Master's voice immediately, just as the sheep of Judaea recognised their own shepherd's voices straight away.

By reading the early church fathers we can see what is important

We can, we must, read God's Word for that, whatever we consider it to be.

we can also see how far for example the Catholic church of 1500 had drifted

The 'Catholic Church' was never the real church in the first place. The church does not make arrangements with political entities, as the 'bishops' did. The RCC is first and foremost a political operation, and we are mostly talking politics in reality, whether we know it, or like it, or not.

[pointer]

and was indeed in need of reform, we can see how important the Reformation was.

All of the prominent reformers declared the RCC to be the seat of AntiChrist, or similar. It was and is not nearly as simple an analysis as that, imv, but that it was said seems to me to be a very important fact indeed, that should not be forgotten.

[Leonard]

Well, the Lord Jesus said that when the Spirit was come He would "Lead you (the plural 'you' in Greek) into all truth...."

Our friend Pointer seems to believe either that the Apostles somehow appointed a bunch of very evil unbelievers as their successors, or that by some mechanism unknown to us, as soon as Apostle John kicked the bucket (ca. A.D. 98-100), their successors suddenly became a bunch of demon-possessed, raving nuts!

These theories seem a bit hard to swallow to me. Certainly the early Church Fathers were not perfect, and their writings all have to be evaluated in light of the Scriptures, but may I also say, that the Scriptural Commentaries of the men closest to the Apostles themselves, ought to be given more weight than commentaries written 1500 years later! It would probably come as a great surprise to Pointer to find out that the men who DECIDED WHAT BOOKS OF THE BIBLE HE WOULD BE READING, were ring-kissing, sign-of-the-cross-making, pointy-hat-wearing, be-robed BISHOPS!

However, don't have a coronary just yet; at that early age, there was no such thing as a Roman Catholic Church. We probably cannot intelligently speak of anything like a 'Roman Catholic Church until AT LEAST the 7th century, and quite probably not until the 8th century.

I hope this will clear some heads here a little.......