I didn't initially approach the Bible as God's Word, but as a valuable historical book. Based on ALL the writings of this time period, I have come to the conclusion that those men DID believe that the Messiah had come to them in the form of Jesus of Nazareth. I trust their witness - and their witness to the Scriptures as being inspired by God. Thus, I don't use Matthew 16 as my proof text! I utilize the writings that we have available to us from the first few centuries and have found them trustworthy.
Those men believed in something called Apostolic Succession. They believed that God protected the writings of the first teachers that were sent by Christ, called Apostles. And they believed that God continued to protect them. Their witness was proven in the blood of martyrs and the confessors of the faith. This is not a circular argument, brother.
You have to have a Bible before you can even discuss what a church is or isn't.
The Bible came before the Church? WOW! Amazing....Where does Jesus give the Apostles a Bible? Did He commission them to preach and teach all that He taught them, giving them pamphlets and bible tracts? Do you actually have any clue on how the first Christian communities were formed? By oral teaching! NO NT BIBLE YET!
It is the Bible which gives us the truth of what a church is or isn't, not any particular church.
"But if I tarry long, that thou may know how it is expedient to behave thyself in the house of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and base of the truth" 1 Tim 3:15.
Brother, the Bible again disagrees with you. Perhaps you should go back and read the whole NT before you start making groundless assertions.
Regards
And how many writings refer to Christianity during that period?
Very, very few!
What we know of Christianity, historically, we get mostly from the Bible, not from secular historical sources.
Those men believed in something called Apostolic Succession. They believed that God protected the writings of the first teachers that were sent by Christ, called Apostles. And they believed that God continued to protect them. Their witness was proven in the blood of martyrs and the confessors of the faith. This is not a circular argument, brother.
Now, you are asserting what you need to prove.
Where does it state in the first two centuries anything about 'apostolic succession'?
It sure isn't in the Bible!
You have to have a Bible before you can even discuss what a church is or isn't. The Bible came before the Church? WOW! Amazing....Where does Jesus give the Apostles a Bible? Did He commission them to preach and teach all that He taught them, giving them pamphlets and bible tracts? Do you actually have any clue on how the first Christian communities were formed? By oral teaching! NO NT BIBLE YET!
Oh, and they had no Old Testament!
What was Christ, Peter and Paul quoting all the time?
The New Testament was formed by revelation to the Apostles and put in writing.
We do not go by 'oral tradition' since there are no more Apostles left to pass it on.
It is the Bible which gives us the truth of what a church is or isn't, not any particular church. "But if I tarry long, that thou may know how it is expedient to behave thyself in the house of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and base of the truth" 1 Tim 3:15.
Paul is addressing local churches, which were located not in buildings but in homes (Rom.16:5,1Cor.16:19)
By the way, what version did you get that quote from?
The King James does not have the word 'expedient' in it.
It doesn't match the Douey-Rheims or the NAB either.
Brother, the Bible again disagrees with you. Perhaps you should go back and read the whole NT before you start making groundless assertions.
Since I read the Bible through a number of times a year, I am quite confident of my views.
But anytime I can get a Roman Catholic to actually attempt to use scripture to make a point, I count it a great success.