Why trust the "Early Fathers?"

MatthewG said:

He was early in my childhood, but alas he said “you aren’t mine kid.”

Click to expand...

Sorry to hear that!

one may think of the fact that the Vatican and all other Religious institutions do not have a completed copy of any Hebrew Manuscripts that existed before 1000 AD

one may think this is not such a big deal, however, what this means that all Hebrew manuscripts before the Masoretes / all Masoretic Text have been abandoned and have not been preserved ..

In other words the very Hebrew Texts that Jerome used were not copied and preserved in their originality.

the only main source of any Hebrew Manuscripts before 1000 AD are what very little crumbled and shattered pieces found as the Dead Sea Scrolls.

The Masoretic Text's were copied and duplicated from the Original OLD Hebrew manuscripts and we know exactly who made these. They were called " The Masoretes " The Septuagint, however, has no information about who produced it. All we know is that The Septuagint was presumably made by 70 unknown people who were chosen by an Egyptian ruler.

When one speaks of The Masoretic Text - they are referring to the very manuscripts that the Masoretic Text was made and copied from.. " The Original Hebrew Manuscripts " these are the same exact thing.

However, with The Septuagint - they are based upon among many, many Greek manuscripts that have contradictions and errors and major differences and even missing verses.

It is The Septuagint that was not even mentioned or know - as the label or term " The Septuagint " until the time of Augustine of Hippo (354–430 CE) .. this is nearly 700 years from the time it is claimed to have been translated.

as I afore mentioned - the most astonishing reality is that Jerome and His Catholic Church did not preserve or make copies of the Old Hebrew Manuscripts that Jerome had used to translate his Latin Bible.

Sadly The Roman Catholic never preserved a single page of any original Hebrew. instead - they ditched them all and went about propagating about 6 other alternative translation in Greek filled with contradictions and errors
these 6 other alternative translation in Greek could not even be used to fabricate what is called as the Septuagint - The Masoretic Text's are what were used to build the bulk of the Septuagint with a few alterations and changes that were made in order to promote all the great cults who promote teachings as " the fallen angels and giants - and the ramblings of the early Church Fathers

Jerome found that there was next to nothing - VALID nor complete - in Greek - whatsoever - concerning the Old Testament.

The Original manuscripts used by The Masoretes were in fact destroyed by fires, persecution, the elements of Old Age and Decay.

Also, there were 860 differences between Ben Naphtali and Ben Asher Bibles - who were the two families of Bibles produced / duplicated / copied - by the Jews called The Masoretes -

These 860 differences are only referring to the writing style of where the placing of the accents = markings are used, also differences between the vowels, accents, and consonantal spelling.

The differences between the two Masorites - do not reflect in any way two different views, contradictions or personal opinions; the two rivals represent different schools of language structure. .

This website - explains this in complete detail.
BEN NAPHTALI - JewishEncyclopedia.com

Ronald Nolette said:

WOW you do know how to twist verses don't you?

Matt. 18 has to do with church discipline and not all matters.

1 Tim.3 is correct it is the ground of truth and a pillar of truth, but not that truth! Scripture is that truth!

Any teaching, no matter if brought by a synod of Bishops or the college of Cardinals or Pope, if it is in conflict with Scripture as written, must be resisted atr all costs as Heresy!

Click to expand...

In regard to Matthew 18: Who's church history? Lutheran's? Baptists? Methodist? Can you really not see how your theory doesn't work? There is only 1 Church with 1 teaching.

In regard to 1 Timothy: The Truth of Scripture according to whom? Conflict with Scripture according to WHO? Protestant men? (of which there are dozens of "truths" and "conflict" since they have dozens of "truths") Can you really not see how your theory and what your men have taught you is a twisting of Scripture?

I know you can't see that but I had to ask....

Ronald Nolette said:

So Jesus told turn the other cheek, but Rome says butcher them? HMMM I choose Jesus. where were these armed forces duirng the first three centuries of the church when Rome butchered Christians with glee? they were too busy being christians!

And where did you get your education in Church history to call yourself a church historian?

So you agreed with Limbo, then the removal of Limbo?

The church is infallible only when it rightly divides and teaches SCripture. The word of God is the only infallible.

Also you then do not accept the ex-cathedra authority of a Pope?

Do you accept the teachings ensconced in the bull Unum Sanctum approved by the RCC?

Click to expand...

Scripture has many passages that says a man can defend himself. But since you don't know Scripture you don't know that. It sounds like if lived during the Crusads you would rely on "Rome" to come and save you and your family as you cower(d) in a corner turning your other check. Read that entire passage and tell me where Jesus says let another man kill you and your family.

You clearly don't know, or refuse to acknowledge, your own Christian history. Protestants "butchered Christians" (their fellow Protestant's and Catholics) also and neither should be excused.

The word of God is infallible when YOU interpret it? But not when Catholic men interpret it? Can you really not see how your theory lacks logic?

Ronald Nolette said:

You do not know early church history obviously. thew early church was wracked with divisions. Even Paul commented on that.

And God always leads His followers. People not an organization.

But He was leading and guiding all those names you cited.

The very fact that the RCC taught one can lose their salvation, purgatory and Mary as co-redemptrix was a sign that teh Spirit was not leading that behemoth who ordered untold thousands put to death duirng the Inquisition and reformation.

Click to expand...

You are correct. Throughout history Christianity, not The Church, was wracked with divisions and it is still divided. However, there was not division in The Church. There was and is only 1 Church with 1 teaching and that Church (organization) makes decisions for all of us. Just like when the Apostles and the elders of The Church made a decision that all Christians must follow (Council of Jerusalem). Just like when the men of The Church chose a replacement for Judas. You just can't seem to find that Church because the men who taught you are heretics outside The Church

speak the same thing, and that there be no divisions among you; but that ye be perfectly joined together in the same mind and in the same judgment.

I do not pray for these only, but also for those who believe in me through their word, that they may all be one; even as thou, Father, art in me, and I in thee, that they also may be in us, so that the world may believe that thou hast sent me. The glory which thou hast given me I have given to them, that they may be one even as we are one, I in them and thou in me, that they may become perfectly one, so that the world may know that thou hast sent me and hast loved them even as thou hast loved me.

There is one body and one Spirit, just as you were called to the one hope that belongs to your call, one Lord, one faith, one baptism, one God and Father of us all, who is above all and through all and in all.​

The Church IS and 'organization'. It is an organization of men that are chosen by the Holy Spirit and elders were put in charge of each church that was started in each City as Christianity grew. Those men teach the Truth and if you refuse to listen to those men, who are part of that organization (The Church), you are kicked out of The Church and treated as a pagan or tax collector (Matthew 18:17). Your ignorance of Scripture and your own christian history astounds me.....

PinSeeker said:

You think so; that's very clear.

Well, now that would depend upon who those early fathers actually are, wouldn't it, Mary? Certainly, they taught at least some different things than

Click to expand...

Yes, the early fathers did have some beliefs/teachings/interpretations of Scripture that did not align or where "different" than the teachings of The Church. Sooooo what is your point?

PinSeeker said:

He (Calvin) absolutely, unequivocally did not (teach that man does not have free will).

Click to expand...

He absolutely and unequivocally DID teach that man does not have free will. Calvin taught predestination.

I know you THINK that you wrote your response to me out of free will, but you really didn't......You were predestined to write it.

I know you that you have studied Calvin and you know in your heart that Calvin doesn't teach that there is no free will.......But in reality, you were predestined to think that. You did not come to that conclusion of your own free will.

Do you think you are predestined for Heaven OR Hell?

Curious Mary

Marymog said:

In regard to Matthew 18: Who's church history? Lutheran's? Baptists? Methodist? Can you really not see how your theory doesn't work? There is only 1 Church with 1 teaching.

In regard to 1 Timothy: The Truth of Scripture according to whom? Conflict with Scripture according to WHO? Protestant men? (of which there are dozens of "truths" and "conflict" since they have dozens of "truths") Can you really not see how your theory and what your men have taught you is a twisting of Scripture?

I know you can't see that but I had to ask....

Click to expand...

No there is only one Matt. 18 with one meaning and keeping it in context it means church discipline. the church which is not a denomination but individual believers in all denominations is infallible only when it speaks in alignment with Scripture.

And no conflict with Scripture with how it is written. It is the interpretation of men in all denominations that have brought shame to believers.

And I know I see all that, but thanks for trying to read my mind for me.

Marymog said:

Scripture has many passages that says a man can defend himself. But since you don't know Scripture you don't know that. It sounds like if lived during the Crusads you would rely on "Rome" to come and save you and your family as you cower(d) in a corner turning your other check. Read that entire passage and tell me where Jesus says let another man kill you and your family.

You clearly don't know, or refuse to acknowledge, your own Christian history. Protestants "butchered Christians" (their fellow Protestant's and Catholics) also and neither should be excused.

The word of God is infallible when YOU interpret it? But not when Catholic men interpret it? Can you really not see how your theory lacks logic?

Click to expand...

Quit the arrogance please.

Yes a man can defend himse,lf and his family, but the church has no mandate to raise armies or command nations to go to war. God left that to the civil authorities as declared in Romans 13.

And yes I clearly know the history of Christianity contrary to you r benighted opinion.

No one is allowed to "interpret" Scripture, not even your vaunted romanist hierarchy! We are to read and obey and apply.

Interpretation of Scripture has led to the inquistion, Crusades, indulgences, limbo, purgatoryu, perpetual virginity of Mary! all these are clearly refuted in Scripture without inteprreting it.

Marymog said:

You are correct. Throughout history Christianity, not The Church, was wracked with divisions and it is still divided. However, there was not division in The Church. There was and is only 1 Church with 1 teaching and that Church (organization) makes decisions for all of us. Just like when the Apostles and the elders of The Church made a decision that all Christians must follow (Council of Jerusalem). Just like when the men of The Church chose a replacement for Judas. You just can't seem to find that Church because the men who taught you are heretics outside The Church

Click to expand...

The one teaching is Scripture. The one church is all believers in all denominations. God does not recognize one denomination over another. All have fatal flaws because they are occupied by mortal men.

The Council of Jerusalem only answered a few questions. but even a cursory look at the first century church until c. 70AD showed a vast division between the Jewish wing and the gentile wing.

Well as there was no Roman Catholic church and no Apostolic succession after teh replacement of Judas I do not worry.

So you are old school romanist. Anyone outside of the Romanist Church and unwilling to accept the Pope as Vicarius Christi is a heretic and thus maybe unsaved.

Do you still believe those who left Rome and renounced it are lost?

PinSeeker said:

Hmmm... I may be mistaken, but I think you're speaking of transubstantiation ~ the bread and wine actually becoming Christ's body and blood in communion ~ which is an exclusively Catholic doctrine, and ~ we'll disagree on this, of course ~ not Biblical. So, maybe I'm getting a better idea about who you think were these "early fathers..." But yes, none of them taught or believed in transubstantiation.

Click to expand...

Oh goodness. The lies your men have taught you. Let's start with your "not Biblical" lie first. That's the easist one to debunk: And he took bread, and gave thanks, and brake it, and gave unto them, saying, This is my body which is given for you: this do in remembrance of me.

At no point in Scripture did any of the Apostles that were present for the Last Supper call Him a liar after He said that the bread/wine was His body/blood. Furthermore, Jesus never took back or explained away those words/actions as being a symbol like your Protestant men do today.

Paul doubled down on what Jesus said and wrote this 30 years after The Last Supper: The cup of blessing which we bless, is it not the communion of the blood of Christ? The bread which we break, is it not the communion of the body of Christ? What is your answer to Paul Pinseeker?

But wait!! There is more!!! Paul FURTHER debunks the lies your men have taught you PinSeeker: Wherefore whosoever shall eat this bread, and drink this cup of the Lord, unworthily, shall be guilty of the body and blood of the Lord. But let a man examine himself, and so let him eat of that bread, and drink of that cup. For he that eateth and drinketh unworthily, eateth and drinketh damnation to himself, not discerning the Lord's body. A symbol can't bring damnation PinSeeker.

Now to debunk your other lie. Transubstantiation is not a "exclusively Catholic doctrine". It is time you educated yourself instead of listening to your Protestant men. I will give you the tool to help you do that:

Google

Search the world's information, including webpages, images, videos and more. Google has many special features to help you find exactly what you're looking for.

www.google.com

You don't need to "get a better idea" on who I think the early fathers are. It's very simple: Google Search


My early church fathers predate your early church fathers of which are the men of the Reformation.

Ronald Nolette said:

The one teaching is Scripture. The one church is all believers in all denominations. God does not recognize one denomination over another. All have fatal flaws because they are occupied by mortal men.

Click to expand...

You do realize that those 4 sentences make zero sense because they contradict each other AND have no basis in logic or in Scripture? Using your own logic what you just wrote has "fatal flaws" because you, a 'mortal man", wrote them based on YOUR interpretation of Scripture.

I bid you adieu.....

Ronald Nolette said:

Quit the arrogance please.

Yes a man can defend himse,lf and his family, but the church has no mandate to raise armies or command nations to go to war. God left that to the civil authorities as declared in Romans 13.

Click to expand...

Don't confuse arrogance with confidence.

Soooo a man can defend himself and his family but he can only defend himself and family if the "civil authorities" approve of that defense? If that man, out of his own free will, joins a "civil" army that is OK? But if that man out of his own free will joins and army put together by The Church......that violates Scripture?

Do I have your theory correct?

Ronald Nolette said:

No there is only one Matt. 18 with one meaning and keeping it in context it means church discipline. the church which is not a denomination but individual believers in all denominations is infallible only when it speaks in alignment with Scripture.

And no conflict with Scripture with how it is written. It is the interpretation of men in all denominations that have brought shame to believers.

And I know I see all that, but thanks for trying to read my mind for me.

Click to expand...

Hey....we agree. The Church is not made up of denominations. There is only 1 Church with 1 teaching under the leadership of 1 authority......Just like Scripture teaches. Have you found that Church?

Soooooo let's flesh out your theory articulated above. For arguments sake let's say there are 100 Christian denominations in the world and each denomination has 5,000 "individual believers". Each denomination sends 1 person (total of 100 men) to a meeting in Ronald Nolttee's hometown to discuss what the "infallible" teaching of Scripture is to see if all 100 denominations are all in "alignment with Scripture". The determine that they do not agree with each other and each determine the others are wrong except 20 of those denominations. They are in lockstep with each other on every interpretation of Scripture. The other 80 disagree with each other on some things, agree with each other on some things. Sooooo who has the infallible teachings that are in alignment with Scripture? The 20 that are in lock step OR the smattering of 80 who agree with each other on most things but not everything?

Curious Mary

@MatthewG, I believe your question requires context; trust the early church fathers in relation to what?

It must be admitted, though much to @Ronald David Bruno's chagrin, that Christian doctrine has evolved over time. Just 2 examples

1. Bishop John Shelby Spong detailed in Why Christianity Must Change or Die that the later the writing, the earlier was "today" the day that Jesus became the Son of God. From after the resurrection, to after the baptism, to after the conception to eternally.
2. Athanasian Creed said anyone is to be anathema who does not accept that Jesus was twice begotten.

There are 2 schools of thought. One is the earlier to an event, the more reliable is the witness testimony. The other is that akin to technological advances, later is more reliable, such as a measurement of the speed of light. The early church fathers come after the Apostolic writing and as Spong pointed out, their doctrine deviated from the Apostolic writing, although advocates refer to this evolution as "clarifying" past writings. So, there you have it.

The early fathers of church history definitely defended the truth against the heretics!

Herbert said:

The early fathers of church history definitely defended the truth against the heretics!

Click to expand...

The early church fathers were the victorious heretics.

MatthewG said:

My thoughts are this, while going back may or may not be helpful. The early church Fathers are just human beings like all the rest of us today. I don’t know if they are more insightful than anyone else could be today.

Understanding Hebrew and Greek is something for people to do, as far as their thought processes. While those processes to be known can be helpful, it doesn’t make them anymore holy or better or more insightful than anyone else who goes to God and reads the Bible to have some of their questions answered for themselves. I believe history pertained to the outskirts and surroundings of the Bible can be quite significantly helpful but those are just my thoughts on it.

People hold up others on a personal pedestal sometimes as though they are god sometimes I think too. People have insights and it can be helpful but people are people and that is my overall thoughts on why I barely go and see what those people say.

During a Bible study I might try to gather thoughts on what’s being said but just cause a standpoint is taken doesn’t make the person right, when assessing and addressing certain subjects.

Click to expand...

I don’t know if this is on topic but maybe. I’ve been considering the difference between a servant and a Son. This brings up questions I do think goes with your thread. I don’t want to be a blind guide leading the blind. OR the blind led by blind guides.

Matthew 23:16-18 Woe unto you, you blind guides, which say, Whosoever shall swear by the temple, it is nothing; but whosoever shall swear by the gold of the temple, he is a debtor! [17] You fools and blind: for whether is greater, the gold, or the temple that sanctifies the gold? [18] And, Whosoever shall swear by the altar, it is nothing; but whosoever swears by the gift that is upon it, he is guilty.
Which is greater the early church fathers, or Him who sanctified the early church fathers?
Whosoever swears by the early church fathers, it is nothing, but whosoever swears by the gift of the Holy Spirit given with whereby the blind ante given sight, he be is guilty.
2 Peter 1:21 For no prophecy was ever produced by the will of man, but men spoke from God as they were carried along by the Holy Spirit.
^only thoughts on who to study. It also makes me think of “He (Jesus Christ) was made a quick learner”.

I haven’t read anything about the church fathers over denominations, or who laid that denomination and what is the history of the denominations. I do study the OT and Moses, Abraham, David. Even here in studying those early fathers, the reason why I’m taking a closer look at even those early church fathers is …because I’ve have questions about all the times there’s debates over God called them righteous. Because there seems to be a difference in the house and Him who builds the house?
Hebrews 3:1-5 Wherefore, holy brothers, partakers of the heavenly calling, consider the Apostle and High Priest of our profession, Christ Jesus; [2] Who was faithful to him that appointed him, as also Moses was faithful in all his house. [3] For this man was counted worthy of more glory than Moses, inasmuch as he who has built the house has more honour than the house. [4] For every house is built (with hands) by some man; but he that built all things(without hands) is God. [5] And Moses verily was faithful in all his house, as a servant, for a testimony of those things which were to be spoken after;

I’m scared to study any early fathers especially outside of the bible, because there is a difference between a servant and a Son. There is a difference between the righteousness of houses built of men, and Him who sanctified the House. that may sound all over the place, because it is. That is why I’m curiously studying whom to hear or listen to? I fear being the blind led by blind guides. That is what all the study of the early church fathers does for me…it confuses me . I do study Paul, but it’s not Paul but when I read his letter to the Corinthians where “we will be weak that you be made strong. This we pray, that you be made complete.” When the Corinthians wanted proof that Christ spoke in and through Paul. I believe Christ lived in Paul, and it was Christ’s words “we will be weak that you be made strong.” Not Saul’s words. Also 1 Peter 1:12 Unto whom it was revealed, that not unto themselves, but unto us they did minister the things, which are now reported unto you by them that have preached the gospel unto you with the Holy Spirit sent down from heaven; which things the angels desire to look into.
^the “them” it was revealed to, unto them that preached not themselves, but ministered unto us —I do believe the Holy Spirit revealed it to them. It fits with the nature of God, Who is Spirit Hebrews 12:10 For they (ours fathers after the flesh)verily for a few days chastened us after their own pleasure; but he for our profit, that we might be partakers of his holiness.
It’s consistent yes? God the same in the OT whom revealed it to them not unto themselves they ministered, but unto us, their children. I’m trying to remind myself. Being really depressed yesterday and full of doubt…it helps to study I think the consistency of God being the same yesterday, today, and to come which gave a clear reminder for us to know if the doctrine is true:
John 7:16-18 Jesus answered them, and said, My doctrine is not mine, but his that sent me. [17] If any man will do his will, he shall know of the doctrine, whether it be of God, or whether I speak of myself. [18] He that speaks of himself seeks his own glory: but he that seeks his glory that sent him, the same is true, and no unrighteousness is in him.

I’d have to ask myself concerning any early church fathers: do they speak of themselves, and do they seek their own glory? If so, I’d move on and not study what they teach. (Imo) having learned that lesson well enough by living in and of the world where: being taught you should speak of your own glory, and seek your own glory. Or you are not saved. When I read it’s the opposite.