Dark Ages

[Elvisman]

So you are saying all these churches are Catholic churches...all the churches in the Bible are Catholic churches..Ephesians, Corinthians etc?

So what started the persecution? If all the churches were Catholic then....Did the Catholics divide amongst themselves?

In one word:  HERESY.

Heretics arouse from the outside (Gnostics) as well as from the inside (Arian, Nestorius, Pelagius).
Remember - Jesus warned that there would be false prophets and teachers from within (John 7:15-20).

[grace]

So you are saying all these churches are Catholic churches...all the churches in the Bible are Catholic churches..Ephesians, Corinthians etc?

So what started the persecution? If all the churches were Catholic then....Did the Catholics divide amongst themselves?

In one word:  HERESY.

Heretics arouse from the outside (Gnostics) as well as from the inside (Arian, Nestorius, Pelagius).
Remember - Jesus warned that there would be false prophets and teachers from within (John 7:15-20).

Yes, I understand about false prophets and teachers! Who were these Gnostics?

I am trying to understand from the Catholic view...because I have heard the Baptist view.

Certain Baptist (not called Baptist then) say they never were apart of the Catholics so therefore they are not protestants?
They say that is why the persecutions started because they would not join the Catholics. They spoke out against some of their teachings! They say it was the Catholics that came in and tried to change things. I guess they call the Catholics the false teachers from within.

[Elvisman]

Yes, I understand about false prophets and teachers! Who were these Gnostics?

I am trying to understand from the Catholic view...because I have heard the Baptist view.

Certain Baptist (not called Baptist then) say they never were apart of the Catholics so therefore they are not protestants?
They say that is why the persecutions started because they would not join the Catholics. They spoke out against some of their teachings! They say it was the Catholics that came in and tried to change things. I guess they call the Catholics the false teachers from within.

First of all, the Gnostics went all the way back to the 1st century.  The believed that all possessions were evil and rejected marriage.  They held to strict dietary laws and rejected the Eucharist.  It is said that John's Gospel was written as a response to the Gnostic heresy.  The Eucharist is a MAIN theme in John's Gospel.

Ignatius of Antioch wrote about them right before his death at the beginning of the 2nd century:

Ignatius of Antioch
Take note of those who hold heterodox opinions on the grace of Jesus Christ which has come to us, and see how contrary their opinions are to the mind of God. . . . They abstain from the Eucharist and from prayer because they do not confess that the Eucharist is the flesh of our Savior Jesus Christ, flesh which suffered for our sins and which that Father, in his goodness, raised up again. They who deny the gift of God are perishing in their disputes (Letter to the Smyrnaeans 6:2-7:1 [A.D. 107]).

This was written less than 75 years after Christ and about 40 years after Peter and Paul.
Ignatius was a student of the Apostle John and learned the faith firsthand from him..

As for the Baptists - they simply did not exist until the 17th century when John Smyth founded them in Amsterdam.  In the Early Church, there were those who went into heresy by teaching "Re-Baptism" when a person fell away into sin.  The Church's prescription for this was always Confession for those who sinned or fell away - not Re-Baptism. 
It is from this heretical practice that the word, "Anabaptist" (re-Baptixer) comes from.

However - these are NOT the Baptists.  They didn't come along until 1600 years later.

[grace]

Yes, I understand about false prophets and teachers! Who were these Gnostics?

I am trying to understand from the Catholic view...because I have heard the Baptist view.

Certain Baptist (not called Baptist then) say they never were apart of the Catholics so therefore they are not protestants?
They say that is why the persecutions started because they would not join the Catholics. They spoke out against some of their teachings! They say it was the Catholics that came in and tried to change things. I guess they call the Catholics the false teachers from within.

First of all, the Gnostics went all the way back to the 1st century.  The believed that all possessions were evil and rejected marriage.  They held to strict dietary laws and rejected the Eucharist.  It is said that John's Gospel was written as a response to the Gnostic heresy.  The Eucharist is a MAIN theme in John's Gospel.

Ignatius of Antioch wrote about them right before his death at the beginning of the 2nd century:

Ignatius of Antioch
Take note of those who hold heterodox opinions on the grace of Jesus Christ which has come to us, and see how contrary their opinions are to the mind of God. . . . They abstain from the Eucharist and from prayer because they do not confess that the Eucharist is the flesh of our Savior Jesus Christ, flesh which suffered for our sins and which that Father, in his goodness, raised up again. They who deny the gift of God are perishing in their disputes (Letter to the Smyrnaeans 6:2-7:1 [A.D. 107]).

This was written less than 75 years after Christ and about 40 years after Peter and Paul.
Ignatius was a student of the Apostle John and learned the faith firsthand from him..

As for the Baptists - they simply did not exist until the 17th century when John Smyth founded them in Amsterdam.  In the Early Church, there were those who went into heresy by teaching "Re-Baptism" when a person fell away into sin.  The Church's prescription for this was always Confession for those who sinned or fell away - not Re-Baptism. 
It is from this heretical practice that the word, "Anabaptist" (re-Baptixer) comes from.

However - these are NOT the Baptists.  They didn't come along until 1600 years later.

It says take note of those who...  do not confess that the Eucharist is the flesh of our Savior Jesus Christ, flesh which suffered for our sins...
This is when the Catholics started believing that the wine and bread was really his blood and body..not just picture of it, right? Also when the teaching of baptism saves you and infant baptism started.

Around 270 AD is when the separations started. When others would not except the Eucharist was real and not a type.

Wasn't it Galerius that passed toleration-permission to live the religion of Jesus Christ? ...but until that He persecuted Christians.
about churches that believed like the baptist?

[Elvisman]

It says take note of those who...  do not confess that the Eucharist is the flesh of our Savior Jesus Christ, flesh which suffered for our sins...
This is when the Catholics started believing that the wine and bread was really his blood and body..not just picture of it, right? Also when the teaching of baptism saves you and infant baptism started.

Around 270 AD is when the separations started. When others would not except the Eucharist was real and not a type.

Wasn't it Galerius that passed toleration-permission to live the religion of Jesus Christ? ...but until that He persecuted Christians.
about churches that believed like the baptist?

Grace - I don't know where you're getting your information but it's historically and Scripturally incorrect.

The "separations" started back in the First Century with the Judaizers and Gnostics.  Remember in Acts 15 at the Council of Jerusalem when the Apostles had to send out a letter because of the false message the Judaizers were spreading to new Christians?

Remember a few posts back when we discussed the Montanist Heresy, when Montanus claimed to be the Paraclete - the Holy Spirit?  This happened in the Second Century.  I don't know where you're getting this date of 270 AD.

You also stated - after reading the Letter from Ignatius - that this is when the Cathoics "started believing that the wine and bread was really his blood and body".  This was already an established belief from the Apostles.  Remember - Ignatius was a student of John the Apostle.  He learned everything from John, who was there with Christ for three years.  Belief in the Real Presence of Jesus in the Eucharist was not new when Ignatius wrote this letter right befor his death.  It was an established Christian belief.

This is why we read from FIRST century historians that the Romans would accuse the Christians of "cannibalism" because they claimed to "eat their Lord and drink his blood".  It's all there in the historical writings of Josephus, Pliny, and other historians of the time.

[mclees8]

It says take note of those who...  do not confess that the Eucharist is the flesh of our Savior Jesus Christ, flesh which suffered for our sins...
This is when the Catholics started believing that the wine and bread was really his blood and body..not just picture of it, right? Also when the teaching of baptism saves you and infant baptism started.

Around 270 AD is when the separations started. When others would not except the Eucharist was real and not a type.

Wasn't it Galerius that passed toleration-permission to live the religion of Jesus Christ? ...but until that He persecuted Christians.
about churches that believed like the baptist?

Grace - I don't know where you're getting your information but it's historically and Scripturally incorrect.

The "separations" started back in the First Century with the Judaizers and Gnostics.  Remember in Acts 15 at the Council of Jerusalem when the Apostles had to send out a letter because of the false message the Judaizers were spreading to new Christians?

Remember a few posts back when we discussed the Montanist Heresy, when Montanus claimed to be the Paraclete - the Holy Spirit?  This happened in the Second Century.  I don't know where you're getting this date of 270 AD.

You also stated - after reading the Letter from Ignatius - that this is when the Cathoics "started believing that the wine and bread was really his blood and body".  This was already an established belief from the Apostles.  Remember - Ignatius was a student of John the Apostle.  He learned everything from John, who was there with Christ for three years.  Belief in the Real Presence of Jesus in the Eucharist was not new when Ignatius wrote this letter right befor his death.  It was an established Christian belief.

This is why we read from FIRST century historians that the Romans would accuse the Christians of "cannibalism" because they claimed to "eat their Lord and drink his blood".  It's all there in the historical writings of Josephus, Pliny, and other historians of the time.

Elvis wants to say that Ignatius was taught the reall presence from John. Yet that is an assumtion and not a fact. In all this there is controversy as to the literal and the spiritual interpritation John 6. The catholics want to legalise their interpretation, but what truly  honors the Lord is what we do in spirit and in truth. Remember what Jesus said, it is the spirit that qickens (makes alive) the flesh profits nothing. My words are spirit and they are life.(John 6:63) Jesus also said those who want to honer God must worship Him in spirit and in truth.  It is not wether one believes it is litteral or it is symbloic rememberance. It is what one does from his heart.

Elvis is a man salvation weighed in the balance of this controversy. does formal ritual out weigh what is done in the spirit?  would you condemn the body of Christ with legalism.

[Elvisman]

Elvis wants to say that Ignatius was taught the reall presence from John. Yet that is an assumtion and not a fact. In all this there is controversy as to the literal and the spiritual interpritation John 6. The catholics want to legalise their interpretation, but what truly  honors the Lord is what we do in spirit and in truth. Remember what Jesus said, it is the spirit that qickens (makes alive) the flesh profits nothing. My words are spirit and they are life.(John 6:63) Jesus also said those who want to honer God must worship Him in spirit and in truth.  It is not wether one believes it is litteral or it is symbloic rememberance. It is what one does from his heart.

Elvis is a man salvation weighed in the balance of this controversy. does formal ritual out weigh what is done in the spirit?  would you condemn the body of Christ with legalism.

Spoken like a true Protestant - just like the ones who walked away from Christ in John 6:66 because they couldn't handle what he was telling them.  Do you HONESTLY believe that Jesus' flesh profits us nothing?
WRONG.

It profits us SALVATION because it was by the sacrifice of his FLESH and BLOOD that we even have a chance of Salvation.  How can you call yourself a Christian if you deny tis fact?  This is a basic tenet of the faith that ALL Christians should believe in.

What an APPALLING lack of faith.

Aas for Ignatius being a student of John - are you saying that you can prove the Church wrong about this? 
I await your reply with GREAT eagerness . . .

[Scott1]

Elvis wants to say that Ignatius was taught the reall presence from John. Yet that is an assumtion and not a fact. 

It would be fair to question this if it was the only evidence as to the teaching of the Apostles.

Some addtional evidence:

The Didache (written in Syria between 70 A.D. and 110 A.D.) 
"Let no one eat and drink of your Eucharist but those baptized in the name of the Lord; to this, too the saying of the Lord is applicable: 'Do not give to dogs what is sacred'".   -Ch. 9:5

"On the Lord's own day, assemble in common to break bread and offer thanks; but first confess your sins, so that your sacrifice may be pure. However, no one quarreling with his brother may join your meeting until they are reconciled; your sacrifice must not be defiled. For here we have the saying of the Lord: 'In every place and time offer me a pure sacrifice; for I am a mighty King, says the Lord; and my name spreads terror among the nations.'"  -Ch 14

--------------------------

180 AD–St. Irenaeus
“He (Jesus) has declared the cup, a part of creation, to be His own Blood, from which He causes our blood to flow; and the bread, a part of creation, He has established as His own Body, from which He gives increase to our bodies.

[AVZ]

Do you HONESTLY believe that Jesus' flesh profits us nothing? WRONG.

It profits us SALVATION because it was by the sacrifice of his FLESH and BLOOD that we even have a chance of Salvation.  How can you call yourself a Christian if you deny tis fact?  This is a basic tenet of the faith that ALL Christians should believe in.

What an APPALLING lack of faith.

Are you not the person that claims not to know if he will be saved?
So if you yourself hold it possible that Jesus' flesh profits you nothing, then why the denigrating attitude towards others?

[AVZ]

Elvis wants to say that Ignatius was taught the reall presence from John. Yet that is an assumtion and not a fact. 

It would be fair to question this if it was the only evidence as to the teaching of the Apostles.

Some addtional evidence:

The Didache (written in Syria between 70 A.D. and 110 A.D.) 
"Let no one eat and drink of your Eucharist but those baptized in the name of the Lord; to this, too the saying of the Lord is applicable: 'Do not give to dogs what is sacred'".   -Ch. 9:5

"On the Lord's own day, assemble in common to break bread and offer thanks; but first confess your sins, so that your sacrifice may be pure. However, no one quarreling with his brother may join your meeting until they are reconciled; your sacrifice must not be defiled. For here we have the saying of the Lord: 'In every place and time offer me a pure sacrifice; for I am a mighty King, says the Lord; and my name spreads terror among the nations.'"  -Ch 14

--------------------------

180 AD–St. Irenaeus
“He (Jesus) has declared the cup, a part of creation, to be His own Blood, from which He causes our blood to flow; and the bread, a part of creation, He has established as His own Body, from which He gives increase to our bodies.

[Elvisman]

Are you not the person that claims not to know if he will be saved?
So if you yourself hold it possible that Jesus' flesh profits you nothing, then why the denigrating attitude towards others?

Jesus flesh and blood redeemed ALL mankind.  Without his flesh and blood NONE of us would have a chance of salvation.

If you had read my post C*A*R*E*F*U*L*L*Y, which you never do - you would have seen that I wrote:
"It profits us SALVATION because it was by the sacrifice of his FLESH and BLOOD that we even have a chance of Salvation."

Helpful hint:
READ before responding.

[Scott1]

Iranaeus being student of Polycarp, or Ignatius being a student of John is not necessary evidence that their teachers share their opinions.
Remember, Simon Magus also received his teaching directly from the apostles.

Fair point.... BUT:

In real life we are all too much aware that students seldom share the exact teaching of their teachers, especially when the subject is not exact matter.
Hence it would be assumptive to state that because Polycarp or Ignatius claim something, their claim has apostolic approval.

... many non-Christians I speak with employ the exact same argument for the Bible.  

Eventually, a mature/rational believer has to decide what they consider to be authentic Christian teaching... and look to the history of our faith and come to the obvious conclusion - no matter how difficult.

If your intellectual standard is simply to toss aside any history that happens to run counter to your theology that's fine by me --- just realize that it is not exactly a compelling way of thinking.

Just curious, why DO you accept the NT as part of your faith since Paul and other NT writers may not have been faithful to their teacher?

Do you just accept it as a matter of faith or is their some convincing evidence that causes you to support the NT and not other writers from the same period of history?

Your friend in Christ, 
Scott

[AVZ]

Iranaeus being student of Polycarp, or Ignatius being a student of John is not necessary evidence that their teachers share their opinions.
Remember, Simon Magus also received his teaching directly from the apostles.

Fair point.... BUT:

In real life we are all too much aware that students seldom share the exact teaching of their teachers, especially when the subject is not exact matter.
Hence it would be assumptive to state that because Polycarp or Ignatius claim something, their claim has apostolic approval.

... many non-Christians I speak with employ the exact same argument for the Bible.  

Eventually, a mature/rational believer has to decide what they consider to be authentic Christian teaching... and look to the history of our faith and come to the obvious conclusion - no matter how difficult.

If your intellectual standard is simply to toss aside any history that happens to run counter to your theology that's fine by me --- just realize that it is not exactly a compelling way of thinking.

Just curious, why DO you accept the NT as part of your faith since Paul and other NT writers may not have been faithful to their teacher?

Do you just accept it as a matter of faith or is their some convincing evidence that causes you to support the NT and not other writers from the same period of history?

Your friend in Christ, 
Scott

I would say that non-Christians by definition will contradict almost everything the Bible says.
You and I believe that the Bible is God's Word and inspired by the Holy Spirit.
But then again, we are not being stopped from testing the Bible, we are encouraged to do so, so we have plenty of room to decide for ourselves.

Acts 17:11 "These were more noble than those in Thessalonica, in that they received the word with all readiness of mind, and searched the scriptures daily, whether those things were so."

I don't accept the NT purely as a matter of faith, but also not because it's evidentically convincing.
It should be a mix of both.

I also think that there was little room for any of the apostles to write down something incorrect.
The letters were distributed amongst the disciples. Evidentially the apostles do not contradict each other.
But if you were to take a book as Revelation, clearly you can only accept it through faith.

[Scott1]

I would say that non-Christians by definition will contradict almost everything the Bible says.

I think you missed my point... but it's not a big deal.  

You and I believe that the Bible is God's Word and inspired by the Holy Spirit.
But then again, we are not being stopped from testing the Bible, we are encouraged to do so, so we have plenty of room to decide for ourselves.

So nice to see this written: "You and I believe".... not enough on that on this forum!

I don't accept the NT purely as a matter of faith, but also not because it's evidentically convincing.
It should be a mix of both.

I agree.

I also think that there was little room for any of the apostles to write down something incorrect.
The letters were distributed amongst the disciples. Evidentially the apostles do not contradict each other.
But if you were to take a book as Revelation, clearly you can only accept it through faith.

Okey dokey.... I would have prefered a bit more detail on your faith, but I suppose in time I can learn a bit more about how non-Catholics worship.

Thanks for the chat!
-S

[AVZ]

I would say that non-Christians by definition will contradict almost everything the Bible says.

I think you missed my point... but it's not a big deal.  

Ok, let me rephrase. Non-Christians look at the Bible from a scientific perspective only.
They claim that the Scriptures is a biological inheritance from teacher to student, with human corruption in the process.
They do not take the Holy Spirit and God's direct guidance into the equation.

Okey dokey.... I would have prefered a bit more detail on your faith, but I suppose in time I can learn a bit more about how non-Catholics worship.

Fair request.
It is my unmovable faith that the Scriptures we have today are infallibe and endorsed by God, and that He has made it so that what is His Word has been pronounced canon.
But I also believe that subsequent teachings, interpretations, doctrines and dogma's are not infallible.

God has created humans, intentionally giving them free will.
This free will is an absolute necessity if God wants to be the God He is. Without free will everything we do would be by command, and none of us can be held responsible. Salvation can only be achieved by creatures of free will and similarly damnation is also a product of free will.

Therefore it is unavoidable that teachings, teachers, interpretations, doctrines and dogma's will be stained with fallible notions.
But it is also my believe that God, through His grace, will not account these fallible notions to us but forgive those who believe in Him.

Therefore, I do not think Catholics have a better chance to be saved than non-Catholics. (and vice versa)
The sins of a non-Catholic are not less than the sins of a Catholic, and the sins of a Catholic are not less accountable than the sins of a non-Catholic.