Posted on 11/28/2014 9:44:39 PM PST by Steelfish
The Early Church Fathers
The Early Church Fathers were the disciples of the 12 apostles, the disciples of the disciples of the 12 apostles, the disciples of the disciples of the disciples of the 12 apostles, etc. In short they were the Christian leaders who took charge of the Church following the death of the 12 apostles.
They were not only taught by the 12 apostles, they were also first-hand witnesses to the creation of the Church worldwide. Most, if not all, were martyred by being crucified, beheaded, fed to the lions at the Roman Coliseum, boiled in oil, or skinned alive. They were the ones empowered by the Holy Spirit (John 16:13 and 1 John 4:6), and who personally handed on the oral teaching of Jesus Christ, before the New Testament canon was created by the Catholic Church in the late 4th century, at the councils of Rome, Hippo, and Carthage.
One of the great early ones, St. Clement, is actually mentioned in the bible in Philippians 4:3. None of these early Church Fathers just stood up and started preaching on his own. They followed the Biblical model in Acts of “being sent” (Romans 10:15). Who sent them? Jesus sent the 12 apostles (“as the Father sent me, so I send you”). The 12 apostles then laid hands on others and sent them (Acts 6:6).
This apostolic tradition has been followed for 2000 years by the Catholic Church, who continuously lays hands on new disciples in every generation since Jesus walked the earth, and then sends them to the four corners of the earth to preach the good news of Jesus Christ, to forgive sins in His Name, and to bring Jesus in the Eucharist to us all. We, the members of the 21rst Century, owe these early Church Fathers a lot of gratitude, because they died horrible deaths in order to preserve and to hand on the Word of God to us today.
A lot of Protestants ignore these early Christian leaders, preferring instead to believe that the history of Christianity began with Jesus and the 12 apostles, and then somehow skipped over 15 centuries to Martin Luther. That would be like saying that the history of the United States began with George Washington in 1776, and then skipped over to Franklin Roosevelt in 1932. For some reason, a lot of Protestants will refuse to read any of the writings of the early Church Fathers, proudly proclaiming to everyone that “Those writings are not in my Bible!”
But they will read the writings of Martin Luther, Billy Graham, and Max Lucado, even though those aren’t in the Bible either! They will even read and believe the heretical "Left Behind" books of LaHeye and Jenkins (there is no "secret" rapture of believers mentioned anywhere in the bible. When it happens, according to the bible, there will be trumpet blasts, and every eye will see Jesus). The writings of the early Church Fathers elucidate what is taught in the Bible, so that it’s no mystery whether or not the Eucharist is the actual body, blood, soul, and divinity of Jesus Christ, whether or not Mary is the new Eve, or whether or not there is a purgatory.
After all, the early Church Fathers were taught by the 12 apostles, handed on the faith to the next generation, and were then martyred for their actions! Why someone would trust more in the writings of people coming along 15 centuries later over their writings is very strange indeed.
Some of the greatest early Church Fathers are mentioned below. To read about them, just click on their name.
St. Polycarp
St. Iraneaus
St. Justin Martyr
St. Ambrose
St. Ignatius of Antioch
St. Cyril of Jerusalem
St. Athanasius
St. Clement of Rome
St. Augustine
St. Jerome
To read about what they thought about the following issues, click on each one of the topics below.
Purgatory
Homosexuality
Contraception
Old Testament Canon
Good Works
The Catholic Church
The Pope
The Eucharist
Apostolic Succession and Tradition
The Blessed Virgin Mary
The Mass
Divorce
Against Heresy
Unity of the Church
Infant Baptism
Degrees of Sin
Abortion
Some great writings of these early Church Fathers are below:
The First Epistle of Clement to the Corinthians
The Epistle of Polycarp to the Phillipians
The Epistle of Ignatius to the Ephesians
The Martyrdom of Ignatius
The First Apology of Justin Martyr
Iranaeus Against Heresies
Confessions of St. Augustine
A Complete Index of the Early Church Fathers' Writings
Jimmy Akin's New Blog on the Early Church Fathers
So don't get trapped in the Protestant philosophy that actually says that if it isn't in the Bible, then it can't possibly be true. If that were truly the case, then none of Martin Luther's writings can be seen as true, because they aren't in the Bible either! Take the time to read what our Catholic martyred ancestors had to say. After all, we are all united through time and space in the Eucharist. St. John says in his gospel that if we eat the body of Christ and drink His blood, then Christ abides in us, and we in Him! And because we are all united in Christ, we are all united with each other.
And once non-Catholic Christians start to read these writings of the early Church Fathers, they will soon discover that there were NO Baptists, Lutherans, Methodists, Mormons, Episcopaleans, etc., anywhere in the Early Church. Those traditions of men were all started centuries later, based on what people thought Jesus' Church was all about, rather than on what it actually was.
LOL, so says another one follow the Pharisee tradition of throwing out part of the Bible. The Anti-Christ, anti-Christian, Pharisee Approved Luther Subset of Scripture is nothing but a Pharisee tradition so, Pharisees is as Pharisees does
This is a fun thread to watch.
This is a fun thread to watch.
—————————————————————Yep, but I was not taking sides, I was just saying I could see point to both side of the argument.
I am an odd ball, the only one here who don`t know.
Even the devil quoted the Word of God.
Sorry, your argument about brethern (same Strongs # as “brother) does not stand the test of scriptural study.
If Mary had other children why would Jesus appoint John to be her son?
It is just an assumption that Mary would be alone other wise, but it is a pretty good assumption.
All except one of the quotes (one is from a kindle book I have) are available at Newadvent.com, a Catholic site, under "Fathers." Just click on Augustine's name, find the particular book, and it will be there.
http://newadvent.org/fathers/
If you have trouble finding any of them with the title I gave and the chapter number, just ask.
Augustine's work is a shining gem that has proceeded forth through the centuries with the same luster. Not because of Augustine himself, but because it is extraordinarily Biblical. The Grace of God did indeed enlighten and make his work fruitful. Of course, they did have silly ideas back then. Augustine believed, for example, that someone with 4 arms would, in the resurrection, be separated into two different people. Not everyone is perfect, even modern day theologians. His work is powerful nonetheless.
And out of context I might add. Selective quoting is a hallmark of Satan.
Actually the words, in their context, mean everything.
If Mary had other children why would Jesus appoint John to be her son?
It is just an assumption that Mary would be alone other wise, but it is a pretty good assumption.
At the time His brothers did not believe.(John 7:3-5)The way John has constructed the passage shows his dismary that the brothers of Christ did not believe in Him.
Hence, Jesus entrusted His mom's future to the disciple whom He loved....John.
Makes perfect sense.
I am wondering, where the tribe of Judah got the “J” from if it hadn’t been invented yet?
That person was you. No point was missed. "Judah" is "Yehuda" to the people in question, themselves.
The only “good” Catholic was Martin Luther? LOL.
An important historical document which supports the teaching of Mary’s perpetual virginity is the Protoevangelium of James, which was written probably less than sixty years after the conclusion of Mary’s earthly life (around A.D. 120), when memories of her life were still vivid in the minds of many. http://www.catholic.com/tracts/mary-ever-virgin
The perpetual virginity of Mary has always been reconciled with the biblical references to Christ’s brethren through a proper understanding of the meaning of the term "brethren." The understanding that the brethren of the Lord were Jesus’ stepbrothers (children of Joseph) rather than half-brothers (children of Mary) was the most common one until the time of Jerome (fourth century). It was Jerome who introduced the possibility that Christ’s brethren were actually his cousins, since in Jewish idiom cousins were also referred to as "brethren." The Catholic Church allows the faithful to hold either view, since both are compatible with the reality of Mary’s perpetual virginity. http://www.catholic.com/tracts/mary-ever-virgin
(we see the influence of the apocrypha in the above and why it should not be considered sacred text. it also completely ignores the context of the passages that clearly identify Jesus having siblings.)
However, there are problems with this writing.
The Protoevangelium of James is like other forgeries trying to capitalize on an apostle. James, the half-brother of Jesus, was elevated to an apostle after he saw the resurrected Savior (Galatians 1:19; 1 Corinthians 15:7). So some people thought using his name would give some much needed credibility to the book. However, the church rightly recognized this book was not from the Apostle James. The early church father Origen wrote a commentary on Matthew in which he rejected The Protoevangelium of James as spurious and affirmed Mary had other children.3
The concept of Mary’s perpetual virginity is conveniently explained in The Protoevangelium of James since James is viewed as an older step-brother brother of Jesus being a child of Joseph and his first wife, prior to his marriage to Mary. However, there are a number of mistakes in this book and statements which contradict the Bible that an apostle writing under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit would not make. https://answersingenesis.org/bible-characters/is-the-perpetual-virginity-of-mary-a-biblical-view/
Contradictions between this writing and the Bible.
Protoevangelium calls Gabriel and archangel which was a common designation for Gabriel in apocryphal literature written after the first century.
The Bible only calls Michael an archangel.
Mary's reply to Gabriel is different in the Protoevangelium: "What! Shall I conceive by the living God, and bring forth as all other women do?"
Her reply in Luke: “Then Mary said to the angel, ‘How can this be, since I do not know a man?’” (Notice the contextual use of the phrase I do not know a man...Mary had never had sexual intercourse. The only other reading would be to infer that Mary did not know any men in her life which would be ludicrous.)
The Protoevangelium notes Jesus was born in a cave outside of the city of Bethlehem.
The Bible notes Jesus was born in Bethlehem, the city of David.
The above was provided from https://answersingenesis.org/bible-characters/is-the-perpetual-virginity-of-mary-a-biblical-view
There are other errors in the Protoevangelium when compared to the Bible, but we've illustrated why we shouldn't take this work to be of value.
Catholic teaching on Mary is predicated upon this work, as are some of the ECFs based their works on this. Sadly, catholic teaching has become so entrenched on this topic that even with Biblical evidence to the contrary, they cannot back off this without the remainder of their teaching being called into question.
This is why you compare these extra writings with the Word to see if they square away with the Word.
This is why you stick with the Word and not the extra writings.
It's why you don't appeal to John 21:25 to allow these false writings to be elevated to the status of legitimacy.
It's why the Bible should be our final and ultimate source for these matters.
I do not participate in pagan holidays or desecrate the Sabbath. As my Jewish friend said to me years ago, which actually started my search, “What? do Christians check their brains at the door when they go to church?” See the Jews know how pagan the church is.
I find it very interesting that with all the good meaty stuff I've posted on this thread, you choose “half breed” and being part of the WWCOG as what to come against...
I take it you don't read your Bible much?
"Half breed" is not a normal Hebrew expression, so purporting to be Hebrew and using it is odd. Mischling ("crossbreed" in German, plural: Mischlinge) was the German term used during the Third Reich to denote persons deemed to have both Aryan and Jewish ancestry
I assume it is a lack of knowledge on your part that has led you down this path that you label Fundamental(ist) Messianic. It is certainly not Fundamentalist. To coax Gentiles into synagogues where they give money and imitate/adopt the worship practices of genuine Jews and Jewish synagogues is extremely offensive to Jewish communities. It is not the cross of Christ offending them; it is Gentiles and a few Jews pretending to be Jewish synagogues. Why not call it church ? What is your church lacking ? Yes, I know the answer. Do you even still go to church or are you just a source of funds for these tax exempt religious organization. That is not what the Jewish apostles formed, nor what they and those upon whom they laid hands on were martyred for.
I assume something was missing in your Baptist experience, something was not historically genuine. I wonder if you have read Messianic Judaism is Not Christianity: A Loving Call to Unity Paperback – September 1, 2004 by Stan Telchin (Author), Moishe Rosen (Foreword) .
Pagan is not even a Biblical word and you ask if I know the Bible. There is nothing wrong in being a Gentile, or a woman. If you have any actual Biblical questions, ask. As for your reference to Jacob's prophecy, there is no explanation of it by Messiah or any of the Jewish Apostles. Adhering to a doctrine of Anglo/Israelis based on that prophecy is cultic. Gentiles can grafted into the good olive tree and it has nothing to do with their national or racial origin.
It’s why the Bible should be our final and ultimate source for these matters.
By just reading the Bible it sure looks to me like Mary only had one child which was Jesus.
“It’s why the Bible should be our final and ultimate source for these matters.”
WRONG.
The first theologians, the early Church fathers used the oral tradition, and for years discussed what should be included in scripture and what should be omitted, they based this on tradition and custom and liturgical practice. The Bible as you should know were books that did not fall from the skies and self-arranged themselves in the order in which they are assembled.
Those who did so, acted with the Petrine authority, what more supreme authority does one have than to actually put together the authentic words of the Bible? But yet this not all. Included in these works were what were not written but were handed down as part of the deposit of faith to the first holders of the Petrine ministry. John 21: 25 refutes the nonsense that the Bible by itself without regard to other forms of scriptural interpretation is the ultimate source of all belief:
“But there are also many other things which Jesus did; which, if they were written every one, the world itself, I think, would not be able to contain the books that should be written.” (Douay-Rheims Bible)
Thus interpretation must be based on the written word, on the interrelation placed on them by those who assembled these texts, and corroborated by liturgical practice and forms of worship and veneration believed by the early disciples of Christ.
This has been debated by theological scholars ever since for 2000 years by both Catholic, and by non-Catholic theologians who have converted to Catholicism. They all agree Christ founded ONE Church with ONE truth to be carried forward with the same Petrine authority given to the early Church fathers.
Those who refute the doctrine of the incarnation and the Holy Eucharist have demolished the very cornerstone beliefs of Christianity and in a word have no right to call themselves “Christians” except as well-intentioned but just misguided preachers that runs the whole gamut from Jim Jones and David Koresh to the TD Jakes, Al Sharptons, Joel Osteens and Billy Grahams. Theirs is the interpretation of simpletons rejected by a vast body of authority.
Simply throwing out swatches of scriptures is old hat that has long since been discarded and relegated to the trash bin of inauthentic interpretation shorn from context and lacking historical support.
O.K. when I get to this place in a conversation about Biblical truths I have learned that nothing productive comes from addressing the person and not the issues. I apologize for crossing that line. Let us part with the hope that we are both shown the Truths Yahweh would impart to us by His Spirit and His Word. Peace to you.
O.K. when I get to this place in a conversation about Biblical truths I have learned that nothing productive comes from addressing the person and not the issues. I apologize for crossing that line. Let us part with the hope that we are both shown the Truths Yahweh would impart to us by His Spirit and His Word. Peace to you.
Actually the words, in their context, mean everything.
At the time His brothers did not believe.(John 7:3-5)>>>>>
yes and also
Matthew 10:36 which may have included his mother.
I do not see how it can be proven either way but I will go with Jesus being the only Child of Mary.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.