Posted on 03/29/2024 8:27:53 PM PDT by Morgana
Constantine didn’t “found the Catholic church”
You have the writings of Clement of Rome - the 4th Pope acknowledged from the late 90 AD.
you have the writings of Justin, Tertullian, Origen etc. all talking about the Catholic church.
you have the Didache, written in 55 AD which lists out the sacraments and beliefs as seen in the Catholic and Orthodox (and oriental orthodox) churches
eastforker — if you read the gospels as historical literature, it is clear that
1. the synoptic gospels were written BEFORE the destruction of the temple in 70 AD (an acknowledged historical date) - they all mention the prophecy, but not the fulfilment. This prophecy was fulfilled in 70 A.D. when the Romans sacked Jerusalem and burned the Temple. The gold in the Temple melted down between the stone walls and the Romans took the walls apart, stone by stone, to get the melted gold. Such an obvious fulfillment of Jesus’ prophecy most likely would have been recorded by the gospel writers if they had been written after 70 A.D. Also, if the gospels were fabrications of mythical events then anything to bolster the Messianic claims — such as the destruction of the temple as Jesus prophesied — would surely have been included. But, it was not included suggesting that the gospels (at least Matthew, Mark, and Luke) were written before 70 A.D.
2. John’s gospel is dated to 80 AD (incidentally, the book of the Apocalypse is dated to 64 AD) and is triumphant in tone and doesn’t mention the destruction, but talks of Jesus’ triumph. The historian Papias mentions that the gospel of Matthew was originally in Aramaic or Hebrew and attributes the gospel to Matthew the apostle.
“Irenaeus (ca. a.d. 180) continued Papias’s views about Matthew and Mark and added his belief that Luke, the follower of Paul, put down in a book the gospel preached by that apostle, and that John, the Beloved Disciple, published his Gospel while residing in Asia. By the time of Irenaeus, Acts was also linked with Luke, the companion of Paul.”
Similarly, this argument is important when we consider the dating of the book of Acts which was written after the gospel of Luke by Luke himself. Acts is a history of the Christian church right after Jesus’ ascension. Acts also fails to mention the incredibly significant events of 70 A.D. which would have been extremely relevant and prophetically important and naturally would have garnered inclusion into Acts had it occurred before Acts was written. Remember, Acts is a book of the history of the early Christian church. The fact that the incredibly significant destruction of Jerusalem and the Temple is not recorded is very strong evidence that Acts was written before A.D. 70. If we add to this the fact that Acts does not include the accounts of “Nero’s persecution of the Christians in A.D. 64 or the deaths of James (A.D. 62), Paul (A.D. 64), and Peter (A.D. 65),” and we have further evidence that it was written very early and not long after Jesus’ ascension into heaven.
If we look at Acts 1:1-2 it says, “The first account I composed, Theophilus, about all that Jesus began to do and teach, 2 until the day when He was taken up, after He had by the Holy Spirit given orders to the apostles whom He had chosen.” Most scholars affirm that Acts was written by Luke and that Theophilus (Grk. “lover of God”) “may have been Luke’s patron who financed the writing of Luke and Acts.” This means that the gospel of Luke was written before Acts.
“At the earliest, Acts cannot have been written prior to the latest firm chronological marker recorded in the book—Festus’s appointment as procurator (24:27), which, on the basis of independent sources, appears to have occurred between A.D. 55 and 59.” “It is increasingly admitted that the Logia [Q] was very early, before 50 A.D., and Mark likewise if Luke wrote the Acts while Paul was still alive. Luke’s Gospel comes before the Acts (Acts 1:1). The date of Acts is still in dispute, but the early date (about A.D. 63) is gaining support constantly.”
The historian Papias mentions that the gospel of Matthew was originally in Aramaic or Hebrew and attributes the gospel to Matthew the apostle.
“Irenaeus (ca. a.d. 180) continued Papias’s views about Matthew and Mark and added his belief that Luke, the follower of Paul, put down in a book the gospel preached by that apostle, and that John, the Beloved Disciple, published his Gospel while residing in Asia. By the time of Irenaeus, Acts was also linked with Luke, the companion of Paul.”
Well, firstly - the Bible is not a book - it is a collection of books. That's in the very name: biblia.
Secondly, the canon of scripture was not decided by Constantine
The canon of Scripture wasn't a big issue. People relied upon the Church and her apostolic succession of bishops as “the pillar and bulwark of the truth" (1 Tim 3:15). There were the Gospels, Acts and Epistles authorized for reading at Mass, but the edges of the canon were hazy.
1 Clement, the Didache and the Epistle of Barnabas were sometimes included. The book of Wisdom sometimes appeared as a New Testament text. The two Apocalypses, of John and of Peter, were treated as dubious by many.
Congregations used the Septuagint Greek version of the OT which included the Deuterocanonicals. There were translations into Syriac, Coptic, Armenian etc. and Old Latin.
It was in 382 the Pope Damasus I and his bishops became convinced of the need for a better quality Late (Vulgar) Latin translation. He commissioned St Jerome to undertake the work, but at this point it became essential to decide exactly which books must be included.
So a Council was called and a canonical list of 46 OT books and 27 NT books agreed, identical with the list in a Letter of St Athanasius a few years earlier. The same list was ratified by a North African Council in Carthage in 397.
Because everyone relied upon the teaching of the Church as a whole, and never on the Scriptures separated from the Church, the question of the exact canon had not been terribly urgent. The Greeks didn't get round to defining their canon until the Quinisext Council of Trullo in 692 AD. It does prove that the “Bible alone" mentality was never that of the early Church, but actually a sixteenth century novelty.
You fast forwarded over more than 1000 years
The oppositions to Christianity - namely the Mohammedans - came only in the 7th century.
The inquisitions only came about in the 14th century.
John for one. Peter for another.
As I proved above, that is historical fiction. The Church beliefs, doctrines and organization existed and was written about centuries before Constantine.
Here’s an interesting article on it and her:
No, it needs to be taken on the fact that the books of the Bible were acknowledged by early Christians - dispersed across much of the world and by a Church that was picky about "correct teachings and interpretations" being handed down from bishop to successor.
as you point out - the early Church held to the writings of Mark, Matthew, John, Luke as written by who they said they were and this was acknowledged by multiple source
I would also point out that Christians OUTSIDE the Roman empire - the Marthomites of India and the Assyrian church under the Persian kings - they had the same books, the same beliefs and sacraments
Well, yes. Mark, Matthew, John and Luke wrote the writings that we know as the Gospel today. But they were probably written between AD 66 and 110. Jesus died around AD 33.
So where's the direct primary source of Jesus' death?
We don't have an immediate, first-hand accounts from people who had a direct connection with it.
The authors of the Gospel were not eyewitnesses to Jesus' life.
So we have nothing more than faith at this point.
you know, forget about the historical errors, the writing of Dan Brown is pretty bad - wayy too many adverbs and the structuring is pretty poor.
Compare him to PG Wodehouse and ....
“you will surely die”
as in “death will enter the human plane of existence”
well, the synoptic gospels were written before 70 AD.
John’s was written between 80 to 90 AD.
The direct primary source of Jesus’ death? We have the beliefs of multiple disciples, the mockery of non-Christians - whether Tacitus or Josephusa etc
The authors of the gospels of Matthew and John were eyewitnesses to Jesus’ life. the author of Mark was taking notes from an eyewitness (Peter) to Jesus’ life
St. Steven would disagree.
While I will point out, once again, that 7 churches in Asia had vastly different problems, and Rome seems to want to disavow her ownership of them.
Peter did not write it down. If he did, then that's the direct primary source. We don't have anything like that. So all we can rely on is our faith.
Brown is really good at ripping off old ideas from others like the DiVinci Code Hoax. I have a hard time finishing one of Browns melodramas.
the books of the Bible were acknowledged by early Christians - dispersed across much of the world and by a Church that was picky about “correct teachings and interpretations” being handed down from bishop to successor.
as you point out - the early Church held to the writings of Mark, Matthew, John, Luke as written by who they said they were and this was acknowledged by multiple source
I would also point out that Christians OUTSIDE the Roman empire - the Marthomites of India and the Assyrian church under the Persian kings - they had the same books, the same beliefs and sacraments.
The modernist philosophies of Mormonism, Dispensationalism, etc came about only in the 1800s in the USA.
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.