Glad to see an open discussion.
No names.
It is a good question. I’ll have to do some research to see if I agree or not, because I don’t know at this moment. I am looking forward to the other posts.
“As an “open” discussion, let’s see if we can discuss this without calling one another nasty names.”
AMEN
What can be learned from the Jerusalem Coucil is that apostolic authority in the Church was exercised in a collegial fashion, not a dictatorial fashion. The Apostles and their episcopal successors functioned as overseers of the whole Church, not as individual overseers of specific regions. In other words, there were bishops, but no dioceses.
“In the beginning of the church (first ten years) all the believers were Jews”
I see no basis for this conclusion. You mean No non-Jews became believers in the first ten years of teachings. I doubt that.
As to main argument it has merit.
The issue is not “Rome,” it is Peter. The Lord appointed Peter the head of the apostles, and the Church (e.g. Matthew 16:18-20; Luke 22:31-32). This is recognized as a fact by the early fathers (e.g. “where Peter is, there is the Church”).
Catholics don’t believe that Peter or his successors (the bishops of Rome) can’t listen to the opinions and advice of others, or at times even rebukes from others; only that the in doctrinal controversy on faith or morals, their definitive judgment ends the matter (’Rome has spoken, the case is closed’).
In terms of Acts, it was Peter who stood up in the midst of the ‘debate’, declared his position and after which the argument fell ‘silent’ (i.e. ended) (Acts 15:7-12). James did suggest a course of action to communicate the resuls of the council.
Since when is baptism not mentioned in the new testament?
Confessions of faith was a start, baptism after repentance was the door that got you into the church.
Since when is baptism not mentioned in the new testament?
Confessions of faith was a start, baptism after repentance was the door that got you into the church.
Almost impossible. Emotions--family ties--cultural heritage--personal pride are involved. You'll get the same reactons I get when I ask Catholics-- even one who is historian-- to simply read the "church fathers" from the second and third centuries: These had no concept of a pope or "church tradition" supplanting and directly contradicting the scriptures. All of that was all added through later centuries through the politicized RCC.
ping. good point about James as first head of the “Christian Church”, not Peter.
In the 1st and early 2nd century AD, when Rome is the real capital city of the empire, the church, as a body of believers, is focused around the eastern end of the Mediterranean. Note, for example, that Revelation explicitly addresses seven churches, all in Asia Minor: Ephesus, Smyrna, Pergamos, Thyatira, Sardis, Philadelphia, and Laodicea.
The reforms of Diocletian in the late Third/early Fourth Century AD and the need to be close to the embattled frontiers made Gaul, the Danube, and Asia Minor the important theaters for the autocratic military dictatorship that was the functional Roman government. Rome became a hinterland city: pretty, decadent, full of beautiful buildings and other vestiges of republican and early imperial institutions that had long since lost all real significance in the administration of the empire. When Constantine become emperor, the empire's center of interest and its administrative center was to be consolidated in the east, in Constantinople.
I would really enjoy such a discussion, but I don't think it will happen when you have people who don't go along with what you wrote. And what you wrote is a very good understanding of the early history of the church. Thanks for writing it.
I read in more than one place the greatest problem with the church was when Constantine made Christianity "acceptable" and opened it up to all sorts of people. It opened the church up to all sorts of people bring in all sorts of ideas. It is one of the reasons the early church fathers realized the need to separate the inspired word of God from the rest of the writings. They recognized the problems and why we have the Bible.
Nobody disputes that Jerusalem was the headquarters of the Church at the time of the council in Acts 15. The claim is a red herring.
This paragraph is just plain nutty:
It was not until the early 300’s the church stopped hiding underground from persecution and became a legal entity that the power was shifted to pagan Rome, specifically under Constantine the conqueror. The Pope became like the Caesars before him in Rome, only now with a Christian veneer. First there was little influence, but the doors slowly swung open to allow the pagans to enter the church through water baptism instead of a confession of faith.
First off, the Church "stopped hiding from persecution" because Caesar stopped persecuting.
Jerusalem ceased to be the "headquarters" of the Church within the lifetimes of the Apostles. (They moved first to Antioch, then to Rome.) Jerusalem was largely destroyed after the wars of AD 70 and AD 135. Jewish Christianity largely apostasized into a heresy known as Ebionitism, which rejected the divinity of Christ.
As early as the late 1st C. you have the bishop of Rome, Clement, issuing commands to the church in Corinth. In the late 2nd century, you have Irenaeus of Lyons writing that the sine qua non of orthodoxy is communion with Rome. In the 3rd century, you have Cyprian of Carthage writing about Peter's successor ruling the Church from Rome.
Nothing much "moved" or "changed" when Constantine came around, except that Rome stopped moving Christians into prison cells and the arena.
As far as "pagans entering the Church through water baptism instead of a confession of faith", the Church at Rome always required both of adults. In fact, the "Apostles Creed" is the ancient Roman baptismal creed.
Makes sense to me, given the biblical statements and some historical statements that say essentially the same thing. For some it will always be a matter of what they want those statements to say as opposed to what they actually mean.
Was Paul a Jew?
So then we should not see any kind of universal authority being exercized by the Bishop of Rome prior to the early 300s, is that correct?
And there should not be any Christian writer in, say, the 100s or 200s asserting any kind of special honor or power or privilege of the Bishop of Rome? That only happened after Constantine....is that the position you are staking out?
*