Where can I find early Christian history?

[pointer]

There is only one person who decides what I consider to be Scripture, and that is me. Emperor's councils are invalid and indeed invariably heretical, to me.

This line from Pointer sums it all up. He thinks that he is going to have a more accurate understanding of scripture than the early Church fathers who hand first hand contact with the apostoles. How logical does that sound?

The emperor's church decided on the Scriptural canon after hundreds of years (and indeed, one might date their decision to the 16th century Council of Trent). They could have had no direct contact with the apostles by then. It cannot even be proved that their predecessors had any contact with the apostles, or if they did, that they were approved by the apostles. They may even have been their persecutors and murderers. In other words, they may well have been mere usurpers. The terrible silence of the last half of the first century is the most deafening, most damning silence in the whole cosmos. There is a fatal break in continuity, and anyone who claims 'descent' must therefore be in ignorance or a false teacher.

[Pax]

There is only one person who decides what I consider to be Scripture, and that is me. Emperor's councils are invalid and indeed invariably heretical, to me.

This line from Pointer sums it all up. He thinks that he is going to have a more accurate understanding of scripture than the early Church fathers who hand first hand contact with the apostoles. How logical does that sound?

The emperor's church decided on the Scriptural canon after hundreds of years (and indeed, one might date their decision to the 16th century Council of Trent). They could have had no direct contact with the apostles by then. It cannot even be proved that their predecessors had any contact with the apostles, or if they did, that they were approved by the apostles. They may even have been their persecutors and murderers. In other words, they may well have been mere usurpers. The terrible silence of the last half of the first century is the most deafening, most damning silence in the whole cosmos. There is a fatal break in continuity, and anyone who claims 'descent' must therefore be in ignorance or a false teacher.

The cannons of Scripture were decided on long before the Council of Trent. Among other things, the Council of Trent was held to dispute the Protestant Reformation which was taken place at this time. The cannons of Scripture that had been recognized for the last 1500 years were being removed from the Bible by the Protestant reformers so the Catholic Church publically defined what books were in the Bible, this is common practice in the Church when Heresy is taking place.

[Smalcald]

Sure we can quibble about Sirach etc, but the fact is that the New Testament was decided in the first 400 years. Now those writings which make up the New Testament which we have today were critical, because at that time in the first several hundred years, there were alternative Gospels floating around. Things like the Gospels of Thomas, Mary, now we see writings called Judas, we also see Gnostic Gospels. Now thanks to those living in that time period, but actually thanks to the Holy Spirit working through those people, we have our New Testament today, the Gospel of Christ was preserved and protected so we today could hear the Gospel of Jesus Christ and His salvation. No where else do we have this knowledge except in this cannon and that cannon or accepted books, was decided by early Church Councils meeting several hundred years after the resurrection.

Pointer are you arguing that the New Testament that we have today is not necessarily the Word of God, that we should read all of these other random writings with the same eye that we view the New Testament from Matthew through Revelation?

If Christianity died after the last apostle died, then the bible we have today cannot be claimed to be inspired by God, inerrant and infallible, as what was chosen for the New Testament that we hold today was totally determined by Church Councils meeting several hundred years after the resurrection. There were indeed guided by the Holy Spirit, and if you listen to their criteria for their selections, it makes sense. The main one being which epistles was life changing, which had the power of conversion! We of course still see that today as these words in this Holy Bible continue to convert people today to faith in Christ.

Of course if we fast forward to what was happening in the year 1500, I would have an entirely different take, particularly since the Christian Church had already divided around the year 1000, with the Eastern Churches leaving.

[pointer]

Pointer are you arguing that the New Testament that we have today is not necessarily the Word of God, that we should read all of these other random writings with the same eye that we view the New Testament from Matthew through Revelation?

A person hears the gospel, or reads it, in a book or leaflet, or even from a few scribbled words. He or she rejects it, or accepts it. In the latter case, he or she becomes the temple of the Holy Spirit, becomes the pillar and foundation of the truth. As such, he or she recognises the Word of God, without needing anyone to identify it. He or she does this more or less instantly, certainly with the New Testament, and most of the Old. This is what happened in the first century, just as soon as each book of the NT was written and read, or read out.

One of the greatest mysteries is how the emperors' 'church' took hundreds of years to work out the canon of the New Testament. Or it would be, if it was a church at all.

[Smalcald]

So then, the New Testament we have today, Matthew through Revelation is not really the Word of God in that it was developed into the New Testament by this evil rotten bunch of guys back in the year 350 or so, and the fact that they waited until that date further shows that they were wrong? But if they were wrong then we are wrong in reading and accepting Matthew through Revelation as truth. How could truth even if it took to long, how could the essential Christian truth, the Holy bible, come out of such an evil thing? How could the core of our faith, the Gospel itself have come from a false Church?

It just does not wash. I think you go so far in your anti-Catholic theology, that you actually help the Catholic argument. I am not Catholic because the Church that existed in 350 was not the same organization which had grown up in 1500, and I am confident of the theological reasons for my dissent to the Council of Trent.

But I don't deny that Roman Catholics are a legitimate Christian denomination, I just think they are wrong, I also think Baptists and Pentecostals are wrong on points also. Big deal.

I am much much more concerned by the those who deny the Trinity, by those who think you can pray and demand God give them wealth, or peddle the Word of God or don

[Guest godgivesall4us]

wow, this has really gotten off the topic,, i guess. I didn't mean for that to happen. It seems that this is the type of frustration that Luther experienced when he started saying that the scriptures alone were his authority, and then everyone started to come up with differing interpretation of the scriptures and split again and again. Then he watched in frustration I would imagine at the divisions that followed.

Maybe i am wrong about this.

I simply was looking for some early writings from christians so that I could see what they taught and believed back then, closer to the source who is Christ and the first apostles.

Isn't clement mentioned in scripture> I thought I saw a Clement spoken of when I was searching for early writings from christians. Is it the same clement?

hmmm....

I have read much of Ignatius now, and do not disagree with what he has said so far.

Do any of you disagree with what he preached or taught, or whatever you want to call his writings?

[Pax]

wow, this has really gotten off the topic,, i guess. I didn't mean for that to happen. It seems that this is the type of frustration that Luther experienced when he started saying that the scriptures alone were his authority, and then everyone started to come up with differing interpretation of the scriptures and split again and again. Then he watched in frustration I would imagine at the divisions that followed.

Maybe i am wrong about this.

I simply was looking for some early writings from christians so that I could see what they taught and believed back then, closer to the source who is Christ and the first apostles.

Isn't clement mentioned in scripture> I thought I saw a Clement spoken of when I was searching for early writings from christians. Is it the same clement?

hmmm....

I have read much of Ignatius now, and do not disagree with what he has said so far.

Do any of you disagree with what he preached or taught, or whatever you want to call his writings?

I have a wonderful book that talks about the early Church History. It gives a discription of St. Ignatius of Antioch that I would like to share with all of you.

"After the Apostles themselves, there is no more famous name connected with the early Church than that of Ignatius; yet about his career we know almost nothing. The little we do know is gathered from the seven Epistles which he wrote after he had been sentenced to death and was being sent in charge of a band of soldiers to Rome "to fight the beasts in the Arena." It seems that he had been converted from paganism late in life. But if the Epistles tell us little of his life, they give us an excellent picture of the man himself, of his heroic soul, and his hatred of heresy and schism, of his solicitude for the unity of the Church, and of his ardent desire for martyrdom. Ignatius is the first to use the term "Catholic Church", and for him the Catholic Church without the episcopacy is unthinkable: "Where ever the bishop is, there let the people be, as where Jesus is, there is the Catholic Church."

No, I don't disagree with anything Ignatius wrote.

[pointer]

So then, the New Testament we have today, Matthew through Revelation is not really the Word of God in that it was developed into the New Testament by this evil rotten bunch of guys back in the year 350 or so, and the fact that they waited until that date further shows that they were wrong?

There can be very little doubt that Satan recognises his Enemy's Word just as readily as Christians do. So one might wonder why anyone took so long to decide a canon. One reason is of course, that the RCC did not formally exist until quite shortly before discussions took place. Only a few years before, the Bible was officially an illegal book in the Empire. Another reason for delay may have been that the emperor's 'church' wanted to smuggle into their canon the likes of 'Clement', Irenaeus and Ignatius, and possibly exclude books that were eventually included - but found that the true church, whom the emperor was madly keen to represent, would not accept those exclusions, or those other authors.

the Church that existed in 350 was not the same organization which had grown up in 1500

The emperor's 'church' in 350 claimed authority through the perpetual Vicarate of Peter in Rome, so if it was orthodox then, it must be orthodox now.

[pointer]

The intent of the OP was to ask wherehe could read regarding the history of the early church. Lets limit the discussion to some good sources for such reading.

What would you recommend, Eric?

Many good ones have been rcommended here already.

The ones most mentioned are Ignatius and 'Clement'. Can you say what these authors contributed to Christian understanding?

[Pax]

The intent of the OP was to ask wherehe could read regarding the history of the early church. Lets limit the discussion to some good sources for such reading.

What would you recommend, Eric?

Many good ones have been rcommended here already.

The ones most mentioned are Ignatius and 'Clement'. Can you say what these authors contributed to Christian understanding?

Very much so. Ignatius personally knew the Apostles. Pointer you are playing down the fact that they early Church fathers gave us a glimpse at the much less settled, and less defined, life of the early Church. Of course these writings are not devinely inspired to the extent scripture is, but they are important from a history standpoint. You can't forget or dismiss history.