Where can I find early Christian history?

[Pax]

godgivesall4us,

If you get a chance to read The Epislte to the Smyrnaeans please do. This will open up your eyes even more.

[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?

Very much so. Ignatius personally knew the Apostles.

That has not been proved, by a very, very long way. There are scholars who believe he did not exist, and I tend to that view myself. And it does nothing to answer the question.

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.

I certainly don't. Please avoid circularity, one of the oldest traditions of the RCC, imv. We cannot write about church fathers until we can prove that such men were members of the true church- even if it is not blasphemy to call any religious leader a 'father'.

What I asked for is to know what contribution these two authors made to Christian understanding. I am particularly interested to know what a Protestant thinks this contribution is.

[Smalcald]

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.

That has not been proved, by a very, very long way. There are scholars who believe he did not exist, and I tend to that view myself. And it does nothing to answer the question.

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.

I certainly don't. Please avoid circularity, one of the oldest traditions of the RCC, imv. We cannot write about church fathers until we can prove that such men were members of the true church- even if it is not blasphemy to call any religious leader a 'father'.

What I asked for is to know what contribution these two authors made to Christian understanding. I am particularly interested to know what a Protestant thinks this contribution is.

Well they give a glimpse into what Pax correctly identifies as a very interesting and really much less settled life of the early Church. Those first people who came after the Apostles, those who knew the Apostles. I think it is very interesting. They also can give us help in how we should respond to a largely pagan culture which rejected and persecuted Christians. So for that reason I think they are worth looking at.

I have found great comfort and help in reading the "Sayings of the Desert Fathers", which is another fascinating book which I highly recommend.

http://books.google.com/books?vid=ISBN0472...qksXD3RJmMsiDlU

But you know on your point about being Christian or not, we don't know, we don't really know if anyone on this board is Christian or not. Only true faith in Christ will make one members of the true and eternal Christian Church. We know that among those who claim this faith, there are those among us who are hypocrites who do not truly share this faith. We get some hints, and Christ shows us how to test our own hearts for our own true faith. This true faith is much deeper than mouthing some words or simply believing that Christ is true intellectually it is created by the Holy Spirit and transforms us. So I won't argue with you about proving one way or another if Ignatius or Jerome or Benedict were true Christians, we don't know anymore than we know if you are a true Christian or I am.

All we can go on is what they profess, and all of these men professed faith in Christ alone as part of the eternal Trinity.

[Guest godgivesall4us]

pointer, it seems you are bent on going against a roman catholic position no matter what.

The Roman Catholic Church is not what I am looking for, I have been against catholic teaching my whole adult life. But if Ignatius was catholic(roman) i guess I have warmed up to it a bit because I don't disagree with a word he said.

My entire point of this discussion is to find as much early Christian writings as I can to pray about and decide with scripture and common sense, what the early Christians believed according to the scriptures.

Your argueing and insulting a particular denomination is not going to influence me.

After looking through other areas of this forum, it seems to me that most of those in here are somehow against the Catholic church.

It seems to be a no-no to speak about such things unless you speak negatively about them.

Maybe they should make one posted area for Catholic discussion and argument only, and no where else. that might keep things like this from happening. Some other forums I have been in do that and it seems to work great.

Pointer, why don't you tell me which writers from the first few centuries you like and show me their take on the scriptures and their interpretation of it. You seem to really hate Ignatius and anyone else sounding catholic. Why don't you post the ones you do like and then we can discuss it.

[pointer]

What I asked for is to know what contribution these two authors made to Christian understanding. I am particularly interested to know what a Protestant thinks this contribution is.

Well they give a glimpse into what Pax correctly identifies as a very interesting and really much less settled life of the early Church. Those first people who came after the Apostles, those who knew the Apostles. I think it is very interesting. They also can give us help in how we should respond to a largely pagan culture which rejected and persecuted Christians. So for that reason I think they are worth looking at.

Rest assured, I do not say that they should not be read. What I ask for, particularly from Protestants, is to know what can usefully be taken from them. I can see how Catholics trace the growth of sacerdotal hierarchy in them, but Protestantism, which from its inception was based on the priesthood of all believers, has much less of value to find, I think; if anything.

But you know on your point about being Christian or not, we don't know, we don't really know if anyone on this board is Christian or not.

Indeed we do not. The same goes for every human in history.

All we can go on is what they profess

Which, as you have just pointed out, is nothing reliable at all.

[pointer]

Pointer, why don't you tell me which writers from the first few centuries you like and show me their take on the scriptures and their interpretation of it.

As I have written at least twice before (iirc), there is no-one from the end of Acts until Wyclif who has represented the church. I recommend for historical purposes the reading of Wyclif's writings, though not as Scripture, of course. Bunyan's Pilgrim's Progress is a later development that has yet to be surpassed, I think. Both are of spiritual value, imv.

There is one small but revealing slice from the 1st or 2nd century Didache which I think is relevant for those who value Ignatius. The Didache was undiscovered until the 19th century, and one wonders why it went out of circulation. It may have been because of these few words:

'Elect for yourselves bishops and helpers worthy of the Lord.'

The word 'elect' and the plural 'bishops' should be noted.

[Pax]

Pointer, why don't you tell me which writers from the first few centuries you like and show me their take on the scriptures and their interpretation of it.

As I have written at least twice before (iirc), there is no-one from the end of Acts until Wyclif who has represented the church. I recommend for historical purposes the reading of Wyclif's writings, though not as Scripture, of course. Bunyan's Pilgrim's Progress is a later development that has yet to be surpassed, I think. Both are of spiritual value, imv.

There is one small but revealing slice from the 1st or 2nd century Didache which I think is relevant for those who value Ignatius. The Didache was undiscovered until the 19th century, and one wonders why it went out of circulation. It may have been because of these few words:

'Elect for yourselves bishops and helpers worthy of the Lord.'

The word 'elect' and the plural 'bishops' should be noted.

Pointer you are never going to convience a logical person that God gave the world no spiritual guidance between the apostles and Wyclif. And to say that Ignatius never existed is totally unfounded. That would be like a person today saying the Holocaust never happened, and yes there are people who take this position. Or why not say George Washignton never existed? Pointer you are threatend by this thread, because as soon as anyone starts reading the writings of the early church fathers it becomes very clear to them that the early church that they speak of, looks like only one church today. And it isn't the one Wycliff talks about.

[pointer]

Pointer, why don't you tell me which writers from the first few centuries you like and show me their take on the scriptures and their interpretation of it.

As I have written at least twice before (iirc), there is no-one from the end of Acts until Wyclif who has represented the church. I recommend for historical purposes the reading of Wyclif's writings, though not as Scripture, of course. Bunyan's Pilgrim's Progress is a later development that has yet to be surpassed, I think. Both are of spiritual value, imv.

There is one small but revealing slice from the 1st or 2nd century Didache which I think is relevant for those who value Ignatius. The Didache was undiscovered until the 19th century, and one wonders why it went out of circulation. It may have been because of these few words:

'Elect for yourselves bishops and helpers worthy of the Lord.'

The word 'elect' and the plural 'bishops' should be noted.

Pointer you are never going to convience a logical person that God gave the world no spiritual guidance between the apostles and Wyclif.

There are Protestants who believe that there was no true teaching between the apostles and Luther, so I am conservative in comparison.

And to say that Ignatius never existed is totally unfounded.

There are professional scholars who don't agree.

That would be like a person today saying the Holocaust never happened.

The cases are as different as they can be. Even basic encyclopedia entries say that very little is known about Ignatius other than the letters themselves. But this is a side issue, and is certainly irrelevant if those letters contain nothing of value, which, imv, is the case as far as Protestantism is concerned.

[Guest Stone]

I have been a Christian for about 14 years now. I have attended many churches after having the rude awakening that everyone doesn't believe the same thing. I went to many churches that preach from scripture alone and they all say that God is leading them, and yet they all have differing interpretation of scripture and it is frustrating.

How can there be two or three or four totally contradicting positions on the same exact subject in scripture? And who is correct? And who is the judge of who is correct? My goodness, didn't Jesus promise his ministers, the apostles that He would lead them into ALL Truth? ANd didn't he pray the night before he was betrayed by Judas that they remain One as He and the Father are one? jn 17:17-23

And aren't He and the Father perfectly one? I was reading in John and it says There shall be one fold and one shepherd. jn 10:16

I was reading in eph 4:3-6 one Lord one Faith etc... I was reading in romans 16 and it says to avoid those who created division(dissentions).vs17

I was reading in 1 cor 1:10 and it says that there be no divisions among you.

I was reading in 1 cor 12:13 and it says in one Spirit we were baptized into one body, does Christ have more than one body with contradicting teaching? wouldn't that mean he contradicts himself if there are contradicting teaching? My pastors have said again and again, "we look to scripture" when i ask them these questions. But it seems the more I see these men look to scripture, the more answers we get, and they almost all contradict each other. Can this be God? and again, I ask my pastor, "who is the judge of which interpretation is correct"? and they say that it isn't important, God is leading us, or they say that their interpretation is correct, but how can I believe that when many many other pastors with differing views of scripture say it is correct?

It just seems to me that Jesus made it clear that there is one faith, and one body with the same solid teaching and that we are to avoid dissenters and divisions. It seems that division is all I can see in the churches. I have gone to four churches that divided while I went to them. whew! this is frustrating.

Can't we see some history to see what the first centuries of christians believed to see what was being taught according to scripture? please help!

thank you,

godgivesall4us

[Pax]

I guess if we are throwing out book titles I will put my two cents in. I would start with a book titled "Church History" by Fr. John Laux, M.A. There is another book out there called "Early Christian Writings" The Apostolic Fathers. Published by Penguin Books. You will have the epistles of Clement, Ignatius, Polycarp, Diognetus, Barnabas, and The Didache. Then you can see for yourselves how the early Church looked.