Why trust the "Early Fathers?"

[RedFan]

1st of all, the various NT writings were circulated. And, that's the reason for the miraculous manifestation of the Spirit in the early church days, which provided prophesy, knowledge, etc

I'm not going to argue with you over the early circulation of NT writings (although I could). And I won't dispute "the miraculous manifestation of the Spirit in the early church days." But "that's the reason"????? Sorry, I will argue that one with you until the cows come home. There is no causal connection between the two. NONE. NADA. ZERO.

 

[DJT_47]

I'm not going to argue with you over the early circulation of NT writings (although I could). And I won't dispute "the miraculous manifestation of the Spirit in the early church days." But "that's the reason"????? Sorry, I will argue that one with you until the cows come home. There is no causal connection between the two. NONE. NADA. ZERO.

The gifts of the Spirit filled a void at that time which we don't have now because of the written word, whereas back then, they were pretty much devoid of the written word which was a work in process. Nothing hard to understand the logic in the gifts then being needed but not now.

 

[Augustin56]

Somehow you have proof no one had the proper canon?

The canon was not set until the late 4th centuries at the Councils of Rome (382 A.D.), Hippo (393 A.D.), and Carthage (397 A.D.). The documents actually fell into three catgories: 1) those they knew should be Scripture (Gospels) 2) those they suspected may be Scritpure but weren't sure (including some most had never heard of) and 3) those most believed should not be in Scripture. The Church went through over 300 writings and selected the 27 that are called the New Testament. Then, they paired that with the Septuagint version of the Old Testament. It was the Catholic Church (monks) who copied the Scriptures for centuries, by hand. Bibles then were very expensive because they were written on vellum, which is made from the stomachs of cows or sheep. It took an entire large herd to create one Bible, and a long time to hand copy it.

The bottom line boils down to authority. Authority is given, not taken. Power is taken. Christ gave His Church His authority. He gave Peter, the first Pope, the "keys to the kingdom of heaven" (Matt. 16:19) and told Peter "whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven." Jesus told the Apostles in the upper room (read John 20:19-23 for context), "As the Father has sent Me, so I send you." Well, how did the Father send Jesus? With all heavenly authority! Then, Jesus "breathes" on the Apostles. Only twice in all Scripture does God "breathe" on man. Once in Genesis when He created Adam and once here. Then He tells the Apostles, "Recieve the Holy Spirit! Whose sins YOU forgive, are forgiven them. And whose sins YOU retain they are retained."

 

[MonoBiblical]

The canon was not set until the late 4th centuries at the Councils of Rome (382 A.D.), Hippo (393 A.D.), and Carthage (397 A.D.). The documents actually fell into three catgories: 1) those they knew should be Scripture (Gospels) 2) those they suspected may be Scritpure but weren't sure (including some most had never heard of) and 3) those most believed should not be in Scripture.

And somehow you and scholars have documentation for this. I have heard Athanasius used the same canon as Justin Martyr. It doesn't sound like there was much debate in some circles.

It was the Catholic Church (monks) who copied the Scriptures for centuries, by hand.

None of them Roman Catholic because they didn't know Greek.

Only twice in all Scripture does God "breathe" on man.

You counted the anthropomorphism to 2 times, but the messiah has to be human, it doesn't matter how breathes, but only if he does.

Finally, you have ignored the heterodoxy of certain Catholic denominations including your own. The Roman Catholic is nothing special, and Catholics seem to be absent from the United States founding fathers.

I would venture that the Church is no longer just Catholic and sacralist, but rather many different beliefs. I don't either Catholicism, nor Protestantism to be satisfying. Nor do I entertain Jvah Witnesses.

Please show us a Pope who suffers like the final Messiah, if you think you can.

 

[Behold]

But "Jesus" was the second word, and it became flesh rather than was made flesh.

You have the "Father" and then you have "God was manifested in the Flesh".. .as "the Word became Flesh".

Jesus is "the Word".. who "was God"... in John 1

Valentinus believed experiences given by words gave life.

Valentinus is the father of "Gnosticism"..
He almost became a POPE

 

[Behold]

t. He gave Peter, the first Pope,

No verse in a NT says that any apostle recognized Peter as any type of Authority.

In Fact Paul said the opposite.

The "cult of Mary" is where this 'pope peter" nonsense originates.
This is the same cult that teaches that Mary was sinless and a perpetual virgin and flew to heaven in her dead body.

This is the same WATER - cult that cuts off parts of the dead and calls them "relics".

= Demonic.

In Fact its PAUL who is recognized by the NT as giving the "church" "The Gospel" and "church Doctrine".

This is why Peter said that Paul's letters...are "TORAH".. "Scripture", and that was before "canon" or a NT was ever created.

This is why Paul's letters make up most of the NT Epistles and Peter's do not.

 

[Windmill Charge]

One reason for paying attention to the early Church Fathers is that through there writings we know that the bible was in circulation long before the 4th century councils rubber stamped what we know as the bible.

What is the earliest statement of the authoritative books of the Bible?

I know that in the land of secular leftism, there are many myths, and those myths survive because they circulate in an echo chamber. But this is the Wintery Knight blog, and on this blog, we go bac…

winteryknight.com

A link to several articles listing early authors who quoted the bible in their letters.

 

[MonoBiblical]

You have the "Father" and then you have "God was manifested in the Flesh".. .as "the Word became Flesh".

Yep, the Father was manifested at the flesh which means Jesus still isn't God.

Jesus is "the Word".. who "was God"... in John 1

Words being Gods is a Stoic concept

Valentinus is the father of "Gnosticism"..
He almost became a POPE

Valentinus was one of many Gnostics, and yes, he almost became bishop of Rome. POPES were nonexistent back then.

 

[Marymog]

No, that does not answer the question--you left out 1,500 years where "the spirit of anti-Christ was already at work", with apparent total disregard and denial of the 5 out of 7 churches that Jesus reported He had "somewhat against." Your claims are against Christ.

So, no, you did not find what you think you have.

I have found that Church. Have you?

 

[Marymog]

Yes this is all true.

But as believers today we must take writings of all "church leaders" past and present and compare it to Scripture to insure their teaching is accurate. The church is not infallible, only the Scripture is.

Hey Ronald,

Do you disagree with 1 Timothy 3:15 and Matthew 18:17?

But if I tarry long, that thou mayest know how thou oughtest to behave thyself in the house of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and ground of the truth.

And if he shall neglect to hear them, tell it unto the church: but if he neglect to hear the church, let him be unto thee as an heathen man and a publican.

 

[Marymog]

However, God will lead and guide His people if their hearts are seeking Him. The church is the body of Christ (not a denomination but the saved) and it is still a mess as it was in teh first century. We are sinners saved by Grace.

Hey Ronald,

Your theory intrigues me. Who was God leading and guiding during the Reformation? Martin Luther? Zwingili? The Catholic Church? Calvin?

See how your theory falls apart with that one simple question?

No, The Church wasn't a mess in the 1st century. There were men who rejected the teachings of The Church in the 1st century but The Church was not a mess. Those men who rejected The Church were a mess.

Keeping it real with facts instead of theory.....Mary

 

[Marymog]

Hello MaryMog,

I’m different than most people because I believe that the revelation has happened and we live in the New Heavens and the New Earth.

So while I believe some passages are applicable, some passages are most in fact are written to certain people in that day and age.

I study the Bible with a Thompson Chain reference Bible, in conjunction with the Holy Spirit, and typically going verse by verse. That is how I study the Bible. People can use people’s point of view and references if they want to? But in the end it’s up the person to subject themselves to learn and grow in knowledge but not only this; the most important is growing in the spirit, which overrides our fleshly manner.

Thanks for your opinion, Matthew. I will adhere to Scripture.

It is logical that a Christian must "subject themselves to learn and grow in knowledge" but that does not take away from the teachings of The Church, which is the pillar and foundation of truth (1 Tim. 3:15), and is the final authority on matters (Matthew 18:17).

You can interpret Scripture anyway you want to but, in the end, if your interpretation disagrees with The Church.....you are a heretic. Your opinion does not (Donald) trump Scripture.

Mary

 

[Marymog]

Behold, I find the Bible to be of tremendous value in teaching us about life, and about living in the spirit. Gods the final authority on those matters. When it come down to brass tax of things, I trust the Bible. I just don’t trust human beings as much, and instead trust God more than human beings.

Fascinating......You trust God to give YOU the truth but you don't trust God has given others the truth?

That is how I read your statement.......Am I wrong in my interpretation of your statement?

 

[Marymog]

Somehow you have proof no one had the proper canon?

@Augustin56 is correct.

If you knew your own Christian history, you would know that.

 

[Dan Clarkston]

Preterism is part of proper New Testament interpretation

Yeah by those NOT being led by the Holy Ghost!

 

[MonoBiblical]

@Augustin56 is correct.

If you knew your own Christian history, you would know that.

The canon some of the Church Fathers before the 4th century. If you the canon was not common, there would be other writings which could have influenced The CHURCH negatively. Augustin56 is also wrong to say the same RCC is the Eastern Orthodox who gave us the canon.

 

[MonoBiblical]

Yeah by those NOT being led by the Holy Ghost! View attachment 55635

[Rev 3:11 NKJV] 11 "Behold, I am coming quickly! Hold fast what you have, that no one may take your crown.
[Rev 22:7, 12, 20 NKJV] 7 "Behold, I am coming quickly! Blessed [is] he who keeps the words of the prophecy of this book." ... 12 "And behold, I am coming quickly, and My reward [is] with Me, to give to every one according to his work. ... 20 He who testifies to these things says, "Surely I am coming quickly." Amen. Even so, come, Lord Jesus!
Notice the verbiage is continuous and present tense.

 

[MonoBiblical]

@Augustin56 is correct.

If you knew your own Christian history, you would know that.

I know Christian history. It isn't necessarily Roman Catholic.

 

[Wick Stick]

I have heard Athanasius used the same canon as Justin Martyr. It doesn't sound like there was much debate in some circles.

Athanasius lived 2 centuries later than Justin, and on a different continent. Not sure they were in the same circles.

 

[MatthewG]

Thanks for your opinion, Matthew. I will adhere to Scripture.

It is logical that a Christian must "subject themselves to learn and grow in knowledge" but that does not take away from the teachings of The Church, which is the pillar and foundation of truth (1 Tim. 3:15), and is the final authority on matters (Matthew 18:17).

You can interpret Scripture anyway you want to but, in the end, if your interpretation disagrees with The Church.....you are a heretic. Your opinion does not (Donald) trump Scripture.

Mary

Cool.