Is it Biblical for a Church to Call Itself-THE CHURCH OF CHRIST? (testimony, myth)

[Julian658]

Originally Posted by Clear lens

Clear lens said in post # 157 " I hope this simple correction will be allowed to stand. If we have to review the reasons and history as to the differences between Ignatius Church reference and the Roman Catholic Church, I think the discussion will be counterproductive, painful and a frustrating process involving public discussion of uncomfortable points. Please accept this friendly and simple adjustment of the use of καθολικοσ rather than have to go through the unpleasant process of detailed discussion as to why this correction needs to be made. "

Julian658 said in post # 159 " Actually, I did made a mistake by using the term RCC. R meaning Roman "


Perhaps it has become necessary, in order to discuss in greater context, the simple correction of proper use of καθολικοσ circa 100 a.d. Julian658 perhaps you and I can discuss some points differentiating the religion that became the Roman religious movement and churches from the original Christian movement and churches.


The Roman movement did not have Petrine Authority

There are some Protestants that claim to practice Christianity as it was 33 AD. Bit, in reality Christianity at the onset was practiced by Jews and they worshiped in the Jewish style.

Obviously Christianity evolved and grew. The original church did not have a printed New Testament and relied on Apostolic oral tradition.

Ignatius was a second generation apostle and replaced Peter as Bishop of Antioch. He was a disciple of John. He wrote many letters and he describes a religion that is very much like early Catholicism. He describes the Eucharist and the hierarchy in the church which included bishops and priests. And he used the word Catholic even if you insist in giving the word a different meaning.

The issue of Peter being the first Pope is simply extracted fro that famous bible passage. However, the word pope had not been coined at the time of Jesus. So perhaps Peter never knew he was the Pope, ha, ha. But, this is moot. The original church of Christ evolved and eventually the Romans adopted Christianity.

Sometimes I listen to Protestants and they want to believe the church was Bible centric for the first 300 years. The Bible only concept came into play 1500 years later. Lastly, as you know the printing press was invented in 1450.

[godofthunder9010]

Originally Posted by Clear lens

If it is agreeable to you, can we discuss one of the most common and most basic claims of the Roman Church first, that is, the nature of the historical claim that Peter ever gave special authority to an obscure bishop of a roman congregation. And then afterwards, discuss the other examples of differences I am claiming, from a historical context?

Clear
ειειτςεισιω

The validity of the much touted RCC link to Peter is something that seldom comes up in Protestant vs Catholic debates. In my experience, it's just not something most Catholics have ever needed to really establish as factual. It is just assumed to be true for some reason.

Protestant vs Catholic debates usually pit two Biblical passages against each other:

1 Peter 3:9
9 But you are a chosen people, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, God’s special possession, that you may declare the praises of him who called you out of darkness into his wonderful light.

Thusly, all believers have the priesthood and there is no separate social order of priesthood, and the creation of such in the RCC is purely an invalid invention by the RCC and politicians.

-- VS --

Matthew 16:15-19
15“But what about you?” he asked. “Who do you say I am?”
16 Simon Peter answered, “You are the Messiah, the Son of the living God.”
17 Jesus replied, “Blessed are you, Simon son of Jonah, for this was not revealed to you by flesh and blood, but by my Father in heaven.
18 And I tell you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of Hades will not overcome it.
19 I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven; whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven.”

Thusly, Peter (whom they claim is the first Pope) is the first of the line of authority directly from God. Whatever the Pope and Church does or says or does on earth, it is the will of God in heaven, etc.

Other passages get thrown in of course, but that's the gist of the debate: Papal authority vs universal authority of all believers.

In my various historical religious studies, I remember distinctly realizing how weak the connection between Peter and Pope really is. Now in retrospect, every Catholic citing Petrine authority was basing their claim on -- in effect -- 1+1+1 = 5000. Every time I point this out to Catholics, they seem completely baffled that I'm even challenging them on something they've always assumed was completely obvious. Apparently, they're not used to hearing that particular angle on the matter. It's not the usual Protestant rhetoric I guess.

I have never encountered any Catholic who can confidently establish that Peter was ever Bishop of Rome -- after all, the Pope and Bishop of Rome are exactly the same thing. Peter must be demonstrated to have been Bishop of Rome in order for the Popes to validate their presumed authority through him. I've never met anyone who can do that. Granted, it's hard to explain how Peter was Bishop over a See when he never lived anywhere near there. To make matters worse, Peter was apparently the Bishop of the See of Antioch at the same time. It is far more likely that he lived at Antioch, so Antioch's claim to apostolic succession trumps Rome's. They will sometimes point to Peter's martyrdom in Rome, but that in no way makes Peter the Bishop of Rome. If dying in a place invests your authority upon that place, the rightful leader of the ancient Church would of necessity been the Bishop of Jerusalem. Jesus Christ died there and you can't beat that for authority. Add James dying there and Jerusalem would have an absolute lock on rightful apostolic succession.

Whether Peter was the bishop of anywhere, I really couldn't say, but he most certainly was never the Bishop of Rome. That being the case, he cannot have been the first Pope.

[Julian658]

Originally Posted by godofthunder9010

The validity of the much touted RCC link to Peter is something that seldom comes up in Protestant vs Catholic debates. In my experience, it's just not something most Catholics have ever needed to really establish as factual. It is just assumed to be true for some reason.

Protestant vs Catholic debates usually pit two Biblical passages against each other:

Thusly, all believers have the priesthood and there is no separate social order of priesthood, and the creation of such in the RCC is purely an invalid invention by the RCC and politicians.

-- VS --

Thusly, Peter (whom they claim is the first Pope) is the first of the line of authority directly from God. Whatever the Pope and Church does or says or does on earth, it is the will of God in heaven, etc.

Other passages get thrown in of course, but that's the gist of the debate: Papal authority vs universal authority of all believers.

In my various historical religious studies, I remember distinctly realizing how weak the connection between Peter and Pope really is. Now in retrospect, every Catholic citing Petrine authority was basing their claim on -- in effect -- 1+1+1 = 5000. Every time I point this out to Catholics, they seem completely baffled that I'm even challenging them on something they've always assumed was completely obvious. Apparently, they're not used to hearing that particular angle on the matter. It's not the usual Protestant rhetoric I guess.

I have never encountered any Catholic who can confidently establish that Peter was ever Bishop of Rome -- after all, the Pope and Bishop of Rome are exactly the same thing. Peter must be demonstrated to have been Bishop of Rome in order for the Popes to validate their presumed authority through him. I've never met anyone who can do that. Granted, it's hard to explain how Peter was Bishop over a See when he never lived anywhere near there. To make matters worse, Peter was apparently the Bishop of the See of Antioch at the same time. It is far more likely that he lived at Antioch, so Antioch's claim to apostolic succession trumps Rome's. They will sometimes point to Peter's martyrdom in Rome, but that in no way makes Peter the Bishop of Rome. If dying in a place invests your authority upon that place, the rightful leader of the ancient Church would of necessity been the Bishop of Jerusalem. Jesus Christ died there and you can't beat that for authority. Add James dying there and Jerusalem would have an absolute lock on rightful apostolic succession.

Whether Peter was the bishop of anywhere, I really couldn't say, but he most certainly was never the Bishop of Rome. That being the case, he cannot have been the first Pope.

Peter was the leader of the disciples. An analysis of the NT shows that he is always named first. Jesus gave him the keys.

Matthew 16:18
New International Version (NIV)
18 And I tell you that you are Peter,[a] and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of Hades[b] will not overcome it.


Ephesians 2:17-22
New International Version (NIV)
17 He came and preached peace to you who were far away and peace to those who were near. 18 For through him we both have access to the Father by one Spirit.

19 Consequently, you are no longer foreigners and strangers, but fellow citizens with God’s people and also members of his household, 20 built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets, with Christ Jesus himself as the chief cornerstone. 21 In him the whole building is joined together and rises to become a holy temple in the Lord. 22 And in him you too are being built together to become a dwelling in which God lives by his Spirit.

1 Peter 2:5-6
New International Version (NIV)
5 you also, like living stones, are being built into a spiritual house[a] to be a holy priesthood, offering spiritual sacrifices acceptable to God through Jesus Christ.


John 21:15-19
New International Version (NIV)
Jesus Reinstates Peter

15 When they had finished eating, Jesus said to Simon Peter, “Simon son of John, do you love me more than these?”

“Yes, Lord,” he said, “you know that I love you.”

Jesus said, “Feed my lambs.”

16 Again Jesus said, “Simon son of John, do you love me?”

He answered, “Yes, Lord, you know that I love you.”

Jesus said, “Take care of my sheep.”

17 The third time he said to him, “Simon son of John, do you love me?”

Peter was hurt because Jesus asked him the third time, “Do you love me?” He said, “Lord, you know all things; you know that I love you.”

Jesus said, “Feed my sheep.

The biblical evidence suggests the primacy of Peter and that Jesus considered Peter to be the leader. He talks to all the Apostles, but Peter is clearly singled out and Peter is the one that gets the keys and Peter is the one to take care of his sheep.

Whether Peter was Bishop of Rome or the Bishop of Antioch is moot because the term Pope was not in vogue. The really important thing is that Jesus picked Peter as the leader of his church. Furthermore the remains of Peter were in Rome after he was crucified. His bones are supposed to be beneath the basement of Saint Peter's Basilica.

The church evolved during the 1st 300 years of Christianity and it was during this time that the concept of Peter being the first Pope probably developed.

Obviously the NT was not written yet when Jesus was preaching. Furthermore, the early Apostolic fathers preached by oral Tradition and if anything quoted the old testament.

Later when the books of the NT were written down they were in the company of many other writings that were not selected to be part of the NT by the church 300 years later.

Many years before the canon of the NT was put together there was a growing Catholic Church. Ignatius speaks of wherever there is Christ there is the Catholic church. There are extensive writings about the Eucharist which is the centerpiece of the mass. To this day many Protestant churches never do the Eucharist whereas others do an approximation of the Eucharist once a year.

It is not difficult to reach the conclusion that the early church was Catholic.

[godofthunder9010]

Originally Posted by Julian658

Peter was the leader of the disciples. An analysis of the NT shows that he is always named first. Jesus gave him the keys.



The biblical evidence suggests the primacy of Peter and that Jesus considered Peter to be the leader. He talks to all the Apostles, but Peter is clearly singled out and Peter is the one that gets the keys and Peter is the one to take care of his sheep.

Whether Peter was Bishop of Rome or the Bishop of Antioch is moot because the term Pope was not in vogue. The really important thing is that Jesus picked Peter as the leader of his church. Furthermore the remains of Peter were in Rome after he was crucified. His bones are supposed to be beneath the basement of Saint Peter's Basilica.

The church evolved during the 1st 300 years of Christianity and it was during this time that the concept of Peter being the first Pope probably developed.

Obviously the NT was not written yet when Jesus was preaching. Furthermore, the early Apostolic fathers preached by oral Tradition and if anything quoted the old testament.

Later when the books of the NT were written down they were in the company of many other writings that were not selected to be part of the NT by the church 300 years later.

Many years before the canon of the NT was put together there was a growing Catholic Church. Ignatius speaks of wherever there is Christ there is the Catholic church. There are extensive writings about the Eucharist which is the centerpiece of the mass. To this day many Protestant churches never do the Eucharist whereas others do an approximation of the Eucharist once a year.

It is not difficult to reach the conclusion that the early church was Catholic.

Catholic: The word catholic (with lowercase c; derived via Late Latin catholicus, from the Greek adjective καθολικός (katholikos), meaning "universal") comes from the Greek phrase καθόλου (katholou), meaning "on the whole", "according to the whole" or "in general", and is a combination of the Greek words κατά meaning "about" and όλος meaning "whole". The word in English can mean either "including a wide variety of things; all-embracing" or "of the Roman Catholic faith" as "relating to the historic doctrine and practice of the Western Church.". ("Catholicos, the title used for the head of some churches in Eastern Christian traditions, is derived from the same linguistic origin).

Ignatius usage of the word is not surprising. When it comes down to it, Catholic Church just means the universal, all-encompassing, world-wide body of all Christians. To simplify, "The Whole Church." The early Church fathers used the term as such. The use of the word "Catholic" to specifically denote the Roman Catholic Church was completely unknown to them. You have to fast forward to the Great Schism between East and West before it begins to reference the portion of the Church remaining loyal to the Roman Bishop (or Pope if you prefer.)

Whether Peter was Bishop of Rome or the Bishop of Antioch is moot because the term Pope was not in vogue.

Actually it is critically important. There were five great patriarchs that emerged in early Church history. One was obvious: Jerusalem, the city where Jesus taught, ministered, died and was resurrected. The remaining four were the population centers of the Empire: Alexandria, Antioch, Constantinople and Rome. Each of them laid claim to this apostle or that as the source of their authority, but it is not at all certain that any apostle invested their apostolic authority in any those cities. In reality, those were the politically powerful cities and as bishops because theocratic political figures, the political importance of their cities became the true source of their authority in the Church. In today's terms, the mayor of New York city is more politically important than the mayor of Casper, Wyoming. We are far more likely to know the mayor of New York City by name, and very unlikely to know the name of the mayor of Casper. Unsurprisingly, the two most powerful Patriarchs emerged in the two capital cities of the Empire: Rome and Constantinople.

Four Patriarchates were in the East. They spoke Greek, the language the New Testament was written in. Roughly 2/3 of the population of the Empire lived in their half of the Empire. The Christian population was even more disproportionately mostly located in the East. The four Greek Patriarchs would have viewed Rome and the oddball outlier, and this leads to something quite interesting. They choose the one Latin Patriarchate, the one that was no threat, to mediate disputes between the four of them. Later Popes would take this as deference and acknowledgement of the primacy of Rome, but that was not at all true.The early Church shows no signs of deference to Rome.

Each of the four Greek Patriarchates were diminished and gradually overrun by the Islamic Jihads. Islam made Rome the de facto leader of Christianity -- the one great Christian city still standing. Of course it should be noted that all four Greek Patriarchates remain and have their own unbroken succession back to the apostles. None of them defers to Rome's presumed primacy. None of them are loyal to the Pope. So actually, it matters a great deal whether Peter was Bishop of Rome. The Catholic Church as we know it today stands or falls on the presumed Petrine authority invested specifically in the See of Rome. If Peter never passed his apostolic authority on to the See of Rome, then the Roman Catholic Church's authority to add, adapt, change, modify and clarify scripture and doctrine is invalid. The Pope's authority to excommunicate the other four Patriarchs would also be invalidated.

More later.

[Julian658]

Originally Posted by godofthunder9010

Each of the four Greek Patriarchates were diminished and gradually overrun by the Islamic Jihads. Islam made Rome the de facto leader of Christianity -- the one great Christian city still standing. Of course it should be noted that all four Greek Patriarchates remain and have their own unbroken succession back to the apostles. None of them defers to Rome's presumed primacy. None of them are loyal to the Pope. So actually, it matters a great deal whether Peter was Bishop of Rome. The Catholic Church as we know it today stands or falls on the presumed Petrine authority invested specifically in the See of Rome. If Peter never passed his apostolic authority on to the See of Rome, then the Roman Catholic Church's authority to add, adapt, change, modify and clarify scripture and doctrine is invalid. The Pope's authority to excommunicate the other four Patriarchs would also be invalidated.

More later.

Thank you for such an eloquent post. From a historical point of view you are likely correct. At most Peter was the Bishop of Antioch also known as the cradle of Christianity. As you stated------ in the end Rome became the center of Christianity., but perhaps it was by default many years later.

I am going to assume you are a mainstream Protestant and do not heavily rely on the Bible. That is why you did not try to discuss the NT verses regarding the primacy of Peter. SO I will not say: "If you live by the sword, you die by the sword" with regards to the NT.

I am not a historian: I can only look these things up, read books about church history, or rely on the words of a Catholic Priest. Or even rely on the words you write here. In the end history reflects positively on the people writing the history books.

This is how I see it: Christianity evolved and picked things along the way. The Canon of the NT was put together, but at the same time there was an enormous collection of ancient writings that specified how to worship God. For example the term "mass" refers to the sacrament of the Eucharist and this was always heavily emphasized in the ancient writings. Protestants don't even use the term "mass" or "eucharist" but that is another debate.

In any event as the propagation of Christianity continued the theologians of the day probably came up with the concept that Peter was the first Pope. This solidified the apostolic succession concept which is HUGE in Catholicism. Furthermore, it gave the church more prestige. I understand that perhaps the history of Peter in Rome is shaky, but we cannot forget the NT passages where Jesus chooses Peter among the disciples.

So in the end the Petrine Primacy rules because of the NT even if the history is shaky.

It works out quite well to have St Peter's Basilica in Rome with the bones of Peter in the basement. And by the way: We will never know if those bones are real or not.



The floor above Saint Peter's Tomb.

[godofthunder9010]

Ultimately, it cannot demonstrated that any apostolic authority was passed on at all. While a general sense of unity remained, the Church was fragmented and profoundly divided on just about everything. The best evidence of this:
1.) The total cessation of canonical scripture at about 100 AD. Without warning, God apparently just stops talking.
2.) The profound disunity of Christendom prior to 325 AD.
3.) The leaders of the Church ceded authority to Constantine, a corrupt politician and warlord, to use the Church for his own ends.
4.) When controversy arose, nobody sought guidance via revelation from God. Instead, doctrinal uncertainties became a matter of public debate between bishops, who ultimately voted. Eternal truth was now subject to change and alteration by the popular vote of fallible mortal human beings.

I expect something terrible happened at some point in all of that. Something that put the early Church in the same boat as Rabbinical Judaism. Revelation from God simply ceases. And they make the same erroneous assumption as Judaism did: They concluded that God was no longer speaking because God had nothing left to say.

Matthew 16:15-19
15“But what about you?” he asked. “Who do you say I am?”
16 Simon Peter answered, “You are the Messiah, the Son of the living God.”
17 Jesus replied, “Blessed are you, Simon son of Jonah, for this was not revealed to you by flesh and blood, but by my Father in heaven.
18 And I tell you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of Hades will not overcome it.
19 I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven; whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven.”

Jesus tells Simon that he is Peter. The word Peter in Greek is petros, which means "a piece of rock; a stone; a single stone; movable, insecure, shifting, or rolling."

Jesus then uses a different word: Petra. "Upon this Petra, I will build my church." Petra, means "a rock; a cliff; a projecting rock; mother rock; huge mass; solid formation; fixed; immovable; enduring."

What is the sure, fixed, large, immovable stone that Christ will build his Church on? Go back to verse 17. The eternal truth that Jesus of Nazareth was in fact the Messiah and the Son of God was revealed to Peter by God himself. The big rock is direct revelation from God, both individually and to the Church as a whole. As long as direct revelation from God was the foundational element guiding the Church, the gates of Hell would not overcome it. And I think Simon was renamed Peter (little stone) probably designating him as a small part of that larger immovable foundational stone. There is also a possible reference to Simon being a seeing or scrying stone (sort of like a crystal ball) indicating he was to be a medium through which God would speak, though this reference is not certain.

In the end, I do accept that Peter was designated by Christ himself as the chief apostle. That is obvious from the scriptural record. But that has absolutely no connection whatsoever with the Roman Catholic Church today. And the genuine Church and Kingdom of God on Earth was not built upon Peter. The Church and Kingdom of God on Earth was build upon Christ, through continual direct revelation from God, both to authoritative leadership and to every individual believer. Specifically, revelation from God witnessing that Jesus Christ is who the NT says he is and is the Messiah, Son of God and Savior of the World. That revelation first and all pertinent revelation following thereafter. How else can we expect any religion making such lofty claims to be genuine? If God the Father, God the Son and God the Holy Ghost are not guiding the Church through direct revelation, how can it possibly be God's Church?

[Julian658]

Originally Posted by godofthunder9010

In the end, I do accept that Peter was designated by Christ himself as the chief apostle. That is obvious from the scriptural record.

Actually, Peter was rather goofy and he was the one that denied Jesus.

But that has absolutely no connection whatsoever with the Roman Catholic Church today. And the genuine Church and Kingdom of God on Earth was not built upon Peter. The Church and Kingdom of God on Earth was build upon Christ, through continual direct revelation from God, both to authoritative leadership and to every individual believer.

The issue of Peter is to solidify apostolic succession. Who knows if it has been broken or not, but every Catholic priest will say he is in line with the succession and they continue to pass the Tradition to the next generation.

From the Catechism:

77 "In order that the full and living Gospel might always be preserved in the Church the apostles left bishops as their successors. They gave them their own position of teaching authority."35 Indeed, "the apostolic preaching, which is expressed in a special way in the inspired books, was to be preserved in a continuous line of succession until the end of time."36

In any event, when Peter was alive he had no idea he was the Pope.

As for the Church:

The church was founded by Jesus and he left Peter and the Apostles in charge. The Catholics have put a claim on this because they got there first. But, the same church also belongs to the Protestants because in reality they can also trace their origin to Christ. The only thing they don't have is the apostolic succession.

The Catechism states:

78 This living transmission, accomplished in the Holy Spirit, is called Tradition, since it is distinct from Sacred Scripture, though closely connected to it. Through Tradition, "the Church, in her doctrine, life and worship, perpetuates and transmits to every generation all that she herself is, all that she believes."37 "The sayings of the holy Fathers are a witness to the life-giving presence of this Tradition, showing how its riches are poured out in the practice and life of the Church, in her belief and her prayer."38

So it is clear as to why the Protestant churches do not rely on Tradition.

[Julian658]

Originally Posted by godofthunder9010

Ultimately, it cannot demonstrated that any apostolic authority was passed on at all. While a general sense of unity remained, the Church was fragmented and profoundly divided on just about everything. The best evidence of this:
1.) The total cessation of canonical scripture at about 100 AD. Without warning, God apparently just stops talking.
2.) The profound disunity of Christendom prior to 325 AD.
3.) The leaders of the Church ceded authority to Constantine, a corrupt politician and warlord, to use the Church for his own ends.
4.) When controversy arose, nobody sought guidance via revelation from God. Instead, doctrinal uncertainties became a matter of public debate between bishops, who ultimately voted. Eternal truth was now subject to change and alteration by the popular vote of fallible mortal human beings.

Sorry, I forgot to reply to this section of your post.

There was a lot of literature between the years 100 and 325. But, these books were not written by 1st generation apostles. The only exception was Paul and by coincidence he wrote the larger portion of the NT.

There are a lot of other writings besides the books chosen to be included in the NT.

The numbers on the left are for an estimated range of dating.

30-60 Passion Narrative
40-80 Lost Sayings Gospel Q
50-60 1 Thessalonians
50-60 Philippians
50-60 Galatians
50-60 1 Corinthians
50-60 2 Corinthians
50-60 Romans
50-60 Philemon
50-80 Colossians
50-90 Signs Gospel
50-95 Book of Hebrews
50-120 Didache
50-140 Gospel of Thomas
50-140 Oxyrhynchus 1224 Gospel
50-200 Sophia of Jesus Christ
65-80 Gospel of Mark
70-100 Epistle of James
70-120 Egerton Gospel
70-160 Gospel of Peter
70-160 Secret Mark
70-200 Fayyum Fragment
70-200 Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs
73-200 Mara Bar Serapion
80-100 2 Thessalonians
80-100 Ephesians
80-100 Gospel of Matthew
80-110 1 Peter
80-120 Epistle of Barnabas
80-130 Gospel of Luke
80-130 Acts of the Apostles
80-140 1 Clement
80-150 Gospel of the Egyptians
80-150 Gospel of the Hebrews
80-250 Christian Sibyllines
90-95 Apocalypse of John
90-120 Gospel of John
90-120 1 John
90-120 2 John
90-120 3 John
90-120 Epistle of Jude
93 Flavius Josephus
100-150 1 Timothy
100-150 2 Timothy
100-150 Titus
100-150 Apocalypse of Peter
100-150 Secret Book of James
100-150 Preaching of Peter
100-160 Gospel of the Ebionites
100-160 Gospel of the Nazoreans
100-160 Shepherd of Hermas
100-160 2 Peter
100-200 Odes of Solomon
101-220 Book of Elchasai
105-115 Ignatius of Antioch
110-140 Polycarp to the Philippians
110-140 Papias
110-160 Oxyrhynchus 840 Gospel
110-160 Traditions of Matthias
111-112 Pliny the Younger
115 Suetonius
115 Tacitus
120-130 Quadratus of Athens
120-130 Apology of Aristides
120-140 Basilides
120-140 Naassene Fragment
120-160 Valentinus
120-180 Apocryphon of John
120-180 Gospel of Mary
120-180 Dialogue of the Savior
120-180 Gospel of the Savior
120-180 2nd Apocalypse of James
120-180 Trimorphic Protennoia
130-140 Marcion
130-150 Aristo of Pella
130-160 Epiphanes On Righteousness
130-160 Ophite Diagrams
130-160 2 Clement
130-170 Gospel of Judas
130-200 Epistle of Mathetes to Diognetus
140-150 Epistula Apostolorum
140-160 Ptolemy
140-160 Isidore
140-170 Fronto
140-170 Infancy Gospel of James
140-170 Infancy Gospel of Thomas
140-180 Gospel of Truth
150-160 Martyrdom of Polycarp
150-160 Justin Martyr
150-180 Excerpts of Theodotus
150-180 Heracleon
150-200 Ascension of Isaiah
150-200 Acts of Peter
150-200 Acts of John
150-200 Acts of Paul
150-200 Acts of Andrew
150-225 Acts of Peter and the Twelve
150-225 Book of Thomas the Contender
150-250 Fifth and Sixth Books of Esra
150-300 Authoritative Teaching
150-300 Coptic Apocalypse of Paul
150-300 Discourse on the Eighth and Ninth
150-300 Melchizedek
150-400 Acts of Pilate
150-400 Anti-Marcionite Prologues
160-170 Tatian's Address to the Greeks
160-180 Claudius Apollinaris
160-180 Apelles
160-180 Julius Cassianus
160-250 Octavius of Minucius Felix
161-180 Acts of Carpus
165-175 Melito of Sardis
165-175 Hegesippus
165-175 Dionysius of Corinth
165-175 Lucian of Samosata
167 Marcus Aurelius
170-175 Diatessaron
170-200 Dura-Europos Gospel Harmony
170-200 Muratorian Canon
170-200 Treatise on the Resurrection
170-220 Letter of Peter to Philip
175-180 Athenagoras of Athens
175-185 Irenaeus of Lyons
175-185 Rhodon
175-185 Theophilus of Caesarea
175-190 Galen
178 Celsus
178 Letter from Vienna and Lyons
180 Passion of the Scillitan Martyrs
180-185 Theophilus of Antioch
180-185 Acts of Apollonius
180-220 Bardesanes
180-220 Kerygmata Petrou
180-230 Hippolytus of Rome
180-250 1st Apocalypse of James
180-250 Gospel of Philip
182-202 Clement of Alexandria
185-195 Maximus of Jerusalem
185-195 Polycrates of Ephesus
188-217 Talmud
189-199 Victor I
190-210 Pantaenus
193 Anonymous Anti-Montanist
193-216 Inscription of Abercius
197-220 Tertullian
200-210 Serapion of Antioch
200-210 Apollonius
200-220 Caius
200-220 Philostratus
200-225 Acts of Thomas
200-250 Didascalia
200-250 Books of Jeu
200-300 Pistis Sophia
200-300 Coptic Apocalypse of Peter
203 Acts of Perpetua and Felicitas
203-250 Origen

I believe the cream of the crop were chosen to be included and the Fathers determined they were inspired.

As to why nothing else was included? I suspect they wanted information straight from the horse's mouth.

Lastly, there were many who claimed to be Jesus like. But, there can only be one Jesus.

As for more revelations:

You guys don't believe in sainthood, but there have been many men and women that lived like Christ and were recognized by the church. YOu are welcome to look up the list and the times when they lived. You may want to study the life of the most prominent saints. For a truly mystic experience visit a church where you have Franciscans chanting.

You may say the church was disorganized, but Christianity had a very powerful message that emphasized charity and devotion to the poor. This was very different from competing religions. They probaby did something right because the Roman Empire recognized Christianity as the official religion of the Empire.

Some dislike this union, but from here on Christianity became the religious lingua franca of the western world.

[godofthunder9010]

Whether the cessation of direct revelation -- sufficient to be considered scripture -- ended in 100 or 300, it still ended. I would questions many of the dates listed by the way. Peter and Paul would have been dead decades before the dates listed for some of their writings. As to the pseudepigraphical texts, most were written long after their supposed author was dead and buried. In any event, the cessation of scripture obviously happened, and that is very troubling to me. It indicates that something very bad happened. Suddenly, God had nothing more to say that was worth writing down. That is very odd. Why would that have happened?

As to why nothing else was included? I suspect they wanted information straight from the horse's mouth.

Straight from the horse's mouth would be direct revelation from God, would it not?

Didache, Shepherd of Hermas and the Gospel of Barnabas are three works that I highly suspect should have been included, which weren't. There are others that I'm kind of on the fence about. The committee of mortal fallible men voted and that's the end of it, right?

Oh I think they did the best they could to weed out the spurious works. I just suspect that they threw the baby out with the bathwater in several instances. I also suspect that the original apostles wrote a lot more than what we have today, but that many of their writings were lost or destroyed. That is tragic, but in the end, an incomplete Bible is not the end of the world. The Bible can still perform its primary function of pointing us to the true source of all light and truth: God himself.

To me, the title of "Saint" is a is fine as a colloquial title of deference that is applied to certain people. It's so commonplace that you tend to just give up on not using the term. I'm fine with people saying St Mary or St Paul or whatever. But in truth, a saint is just any true disciple of Jesus Christ. Anyone can be a saint. Everyone should be a saint. God does not have a tiny select group of favorites who are better than the rest of humanity. God is no respecter of persons.

Of course I dislike the union of Empire with Church. Earthly political power severely corrupted the Church. Starting with the empire, heretics were hunted down and massacred for refusing to accept this doctrine or that doctrine. As monarchs of the Papal States, Roman Popes became increasingly corrupt. The Pope was the virtual emperor of Western Europe. Kings and emperors maintained their own sovereignty so long as the Pope gave them his blessing. Excommunication of a monarch was a virtual death sentence. John XII and Alexander VI are perhaps the two worst popes in history, but the entirety of papal history is absolutely riddled with Simony, rape, prostitution, assassination, papal mistresses, nepotism and every heinous sin in the book. Power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely. You see the truth of that with the popes throughout history. Especially in the cases of John XII and Alexander VI, the notion that such a person could be God's chosen vessel and vicar of Christ on earth is absolutely ludicrous. But since the Papal States were stripped away from the Pope, we've seen a lot less corruption and a lot more focus on being the spiritual leaders of Christianity.

The alliance with Empire and later papal monarchy over their own kingdom may have facilitated the spread of Christianity, but it also corrupted it. That is such a tragedy in my opinion.

PS: You keep bringing up that St Peter's bones are buried in Rome. Who cares? Why does it matter? If they are real and somebody manages to steal them, does the "Holy See" then relocate to wherever they are taken?

[Julian658]

Originally Posted by godofthunder9010

Whether the cessation of direct revelation -- sufficient to be considered scripture -- ended in 100 or 300, it still ended. I would questions many of the dates listed by the way. Peter and Paul would have been dead decades before the dates listed for some of their writings. As to the pseudepigraphical texts, most were written long after their supposed author was dead and buried. In any event, the cessation of scripture obviously happened, and that is very troubling to me. It indicates that something very bad happened. Suddenly, God had nothing more to say that was worth writing down. That is very odd. Why would that have happened?

Straight from the horse's mouth would be direct revelation from God, would it not?

A book written just a few years after Christ would have more weight than a book written several hundred years later. A book written by a witness carried a lot of weight. But, in the end the true authors may be unknown. Once Christ ascended it was the job of the Apostles to spread Christianity. And Christianity was spread with oral Tradition. Second and third generation apostles wrote, but they did not live at the time of Jesus.

Then, many years down the road someone had to decide which books were to be included in the canon of the NT. The church fathers based the authenticity of a book on its apostolic origin. Few copies existed in the hands of the church leaders at the onset of Christianity.

Didache, Shepherd of Hermas and the Gospel of Barnabas are three works that I highly suspect should have been included, which weren't. There are others that I'm kind of on the fence about. The committee of mortal fallible men voted and that's the end of it, right?

I agree on the Didache!

Oh I think they did the best they could to weed out the spurious works. I just suspect that they threw the baby out with the bathwater in several instances. I also suspect that the original apostles wrote a lot more than what we have today, but that many of their writings were lost or destroyed. That is tragic, but in the end, an incomplete Bible is not the end of the world. The Bible can still perform its primary function of pointing us to the true source of all light and truth: God himself.

By definition the Bible has to be incomplete. Sola Scriptura is a very limiting term and God has no limits.

To me, the title of "Saint" is a is fine as a colloquial title of deference that is applied to certain people. It's so commonplace that you tend to just give up on not using the term. I'm fine with people saying St Mary or St Paul or whatever. But in truth, a saint is just any true disciple of Jesus Christ. Anyone can be a saint. Everyone should be a saint. God does not have a tiny select group of favorites who are better than the rest of humanity. God is no respecter of persons.

It is OK if you want to call everybody a saint. But, there are a few among us that were truly outstanding and made a difference. These folks are simply honored by the church. BTW, some also wrote great Christian literature.

Of course I dislike the union of Empire with Church. Earthly political power severely corrupted the Church. Starting with the empire, heretics were hunted down and massacred for refusing to accept this doctrine or that doctrine. As monarchs of the Papal States, Roman Popes became increasingly corrupt. The Pope was the virtual emperor of Western Europe. Kings and emperors maintained their own sovereignty so long as the Pope gave them his blessing. Excommunication of a monarch was a virtual death sentence. John XII and Alexander VI are perhaps the two worst popes in history, but the entirety of papal history is absolutely riddled with Simony, rape, prostitution, assassination, papal mistresses, nepotism and every heinous sin in the book. Power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely. You see the truth of that with the popes throughout history. Especially in the cases of John XII and Alexander VI, the notion that such a person could be God's chosen vessel and vicar of Christ on earth is absolutely ludicrous. But since the Papal States were stripped away from the Pope, we've seen a lot less corruption and a lot more focus on being the spiritual leaders of Christianity.

The alliance with Empire and later papal monarchy over their own kingdom may have facilitated the spread of Christianity, but it also corrupted it. That is such a tragedy in my opinion.

You are correct! Men were corrupted, but the church survived.