This is why we are here............

pilgrim said:
Again, you do not read thoroughly what you posted:

"Of LATER collections of Ignatian letters which have been preserved, the oldest is known as the "LONG RECENSION". This collection, the author of which is unknown, dates from the latter part of the fourth century. It contains the seven genuine and six spurious letters, but even the genuine epistles were greatly interpolated to lend weight to the personal views of its author."

The 7 genuine Ignatian letters that come from the "middle recension" are considered authentic by Catholic AND Protestant historians. Because think about it: how do they know the "genuine epistles" were "greatly interpolated" unless they had others to compare them to?

From wiki (since some won't read Catholic sources):

"The text of these epistles is known in three different recensions, or editions: the Short Recension, found in a Syriac manuscript; the Middle Recension, found only in Greek manuscripts; and the Long Recension, found in Greek and Latin manuscripts.[4]: 120–121 [34]

For some time, it was believed that the Long Recension was the only extant version of the Ignatian epistles, but around 1628 a Latin translation of the Middle Recension was discovered by Archbishop James Ussher, who published it in 1646. For around a quarter of a century after this, it was debated which recension represented the original text of the epistles. But ever since John Pearson's strong defense of the authenticity of the Middle Recension in the late 17th century, there has been a scholarly consensus that the Middle Recension is the original version of the text.[4]: 121  The Long Recension is the product of a fourth-century Arian Christian, who interpolated the Middle Recension epistles in order posthumously to enlist Ignatius as an unwitting witness in theological disputes of that age. This individual also forged the six spurious epistles attributed to Ignatius (see § Pseudo-Ignatius below).[35]"

Manuscripts representing the Short Recension of the Ignatian epistles were discovered and published by William Cureton in the mid-19th century. For a brief period, there was a scholarly debate on the question of whether the Short Recension was earlier and more original than the Middle Recension. But by the end of the 19th century, Theodor Zahn and J. B. Lightfoot had established a scholarly consensus that the Short Recension is merely a summary of the text of the Middle Recension, and was therefore composed later.[4]: 121 
Click to expand...
Oh more clips of fallible man.
 
We don't need rcc tradition and rcc history to prove to us when error occurred, for in the book of Revelation, john writes a letter addressed

Revelation 1:4
"To the seven churches in the province of Asia:"

And in the letter he writes what Jesus had to say about the early church during johns lifetime

Revelation 2:
Yet I hold this against you: You have forsaken the love you had at first.

Revelation 2:14-15
Nevertheless, I have a few things against you: There are some among you who hold to the teaching of Balaam, who taught Balak to entice the Israelites to sin so that they ate food sacrificed to idols and committed sexual immorality. 15 Likewise, you also have those who hold to the teaching of the Nicolaitans.

Revelation 2:20
Nevertheless, I have this against you: You tolerate that woman Jezebel, who calls herself a prophet. By her teaching she misleads my servants into sexual immorality and the eating of food sacrificed to idols.

Revelation 3:1
These are the words of him who holds the seven spirits of God and the seven stars. I know your deeds; you have a reputation of being alive, but you are dead.

Revelation 3:14-15
These are the words of the Amen, the faithful and true witness, the ruler of God’s creation. I know your deeds, that you are neither cold nor hot.

Revelation 3:17
You say, ‘I am rich; I have acquired wealth and do not need a thing.’ But you do not realize that you are wretched, pitiful, poor, blind and naked.

From the letter we can see that error had already begun, and as the centuries pass, more error has been added, to the point in which what was taught by the apostles has been pushed to the wayside. The rcc instead of correcting the errors, seeks to keep them. All the while knowing that what it is teaching is in error.

We human's can NOT keep any sins. We have to give them all up.
 
Last edited:
pilgrim said:
Where is there documented the rise of a church parallel to the early church? That is sure easy to say but no one can point to any documentation to prove it. If St Ignatius who lived at that time and was a disciple of St. John and ordained a bishop by St Peter isn't good enough evidence for you, then why should NO EVIDENCE AT ALL be acceptable to us? Surely someone would have noticed such a terrible thing happen and say so. Wasn't the Holy Spirit supposed to guide the Church to all truth? Can you explain why you think He failed for 1500 years?
Click to expand...
You need to read me more carefully. I never wrote that there was the rise of another church parallel to the early church.
 
pilgrim said:
Oh? When do you believe the Catholic Church started?
Click to expand...

When constantine inserted imperial rome into the picture. The church already had error's, it didn't need more from paganistic imperial rome. constantine, still had one foot in paganism and one foot in the church. Imperial rome used religion to control the empire.
 
A new day said:
When constantine inserted imperial rome into the picture. The church already had error's, it didn't need more from paganistic imperial rome. constantine, still had one foot in paganism and one foot in the church. Imperial rome used religion to control the empire.
Click to expand...
Power in the church really took off at the time of Pope Leo I, and took even greater strides, under Pope Gregory the Great, who filled in not only as the spiritual leader of the church, but the political leader of Rome and its environs, after the barbarians sacked Rome, and the empire collapsed. This gave him prestige and power, and by extension, the church.

I think the worst thing that happened to the early church is when it became politicized. We know how corrupting politics can be.
 
Last edited:
pilgrim said:
Oh? When do you believe the Catholic Church started?
Click to expand...
Oh let us be honest it started when Constantine called the shots, demanded a conference where only about 300 of the 1800 bishops attended. The leader then decided to follow the ways of the Roman Emperors killing off those it who did not agree with them, acting like Lords instead of servants, becoming involved in wars, forcing conversions, oh and dressing up the list is long on how that group followed Rome. Under the Romans it became the one religion of Rome and that increased the groups power. It also is when the church became very political, see how it controlled the kings and queens of Europe.
 
Bonnie said:
Power in the church really took off at the time of Pope Leo I, and took even greater strikes, under Pope Gregory the Great, who filled in not only as the spiritual leader of the church, but the political leader of Rome and its environs, after the barbarians sacked Rome, and the empire collapsed. This gave him prestige and power.

I think the worst thing that happened to the early church is when it became politicized. We know how corrupting politics can be.
Click to expand...
What year Bonnie? And who was the leader? And where was the outcry from the "true Church" warning against this dangerous, parallel church?
 
balshan said:
Ripped up and burnt by your false institution, in its revisionist history.
Click to expand...
Say, what about that church in India, that was purported to have been founded by the apostle Thomas? That is pretty old, isn't it? It developed independently of the RCC, didn't it?
 
Bonnie said:
Power in the church really took off at the time of Pope Leo I, and took even greater strides, under Pope Gregory the Great, who filled in not only as the spiritual leader of the church, but the political leader of Rome and its environs, after the barbarians sacked Rome, and the empire collapsed. This gave him prestige and power, and by extension, the church.

I think the worst thing that happened to the early church is when it became politicized. We know how corrupting politics can be.
Click to expand...
This is something Dr. Justo Gonzales wrote to me years ago, when I asked him how the early church came to be ruled from Rome and have jurisdiction over the entire Western church. He is a biblical historian, who may be dead now, who has written books on the church, one of which is the two-volume set called THE STORY OF CHRISTIANITY. I managed to track him down and write to him about this. He responded:

Dear sister in Christ:
I'll try to respond to your questions as well as I can--and as briefly as I can!
First, on Peter and Rome. It is quite clear that Peter did not found the church in Rome. When Paul wrote to the Romans, he did not even mention Peter--which he did when he wrote to other churches where people know who Peter was. When he arrived in Rome, there were already Christians there who came to meet him. So the origins of the church in the city of Rome are lost in the night of history, and must probably be attributed to some of the many anonymous Christians who did and still do so much for the expansion of Christianity.
That Peter was in Rome, and probably died there, is sufficiently attested by ancient writers as to be at least believable, and even likely. That he was a "bishop" is very unlikely, for there is very little evidence--if any---that the apostles ever called themselves bishops. Furthermore, if he arrived in Rome when there already was a church there, it is to be imagined that the church in Rome already had its leadership.
Now to the other question: When was the church in Rome the "Roman Catholic church"? In a way, probably since its beginning. The term "catholic" simply meant orthodox and holding to the faith of the church everywhere. Thus, the church in Ephesus was "the catholic church of Ephesus," and the church in Antioch was the "catholic church of Antioch," and in the same way the church in Rome was catholic.
On the other hand, if your question is when the church in Rome came to have jurisdiction or power over the rest of the church, then the answer is that this was a long process. The process was simply the process that we see even today, where churches in cities and centers of power tend to have more authority that the smaller churches in smaller towns. All over the roman Empire, the churches in provincial capitals eventually gained jurisdiction over an area. (The term "diocese" was a jurisdiction within the Roman Empire, and is now the jurisdiction of a bishop.) This was true of Rome, as well as of Alexandria, Antioch, Carthage, etc.
What happened in the Latin-speaking West was that the Empire disappeared as a result of the invasions of the Germanic "barbarians." The power vacuum was such that someone had to fill the gap and try to bring some order. Thus the church of Rome, which took the leadership in that process, became the center of authority for the entire Western church. This was a process that began late in the fourth century, and took great leaps with Leo the Great in the fifth and Gregory the Great at the end of the sixth.
I hope this answers your questions. Blessings on you.
Justo Gonzalez
Click to expand...

In case anyone is wondering, some of Dr. Gonzales' books are in the reference library at Notre Dame, so he is NOT persona non grata with the RCC. I checked years ago, when 3 Catholics on here, who no longer post on here, claimed I was lying, or he was lying, or both, about this. We were and are not.
 
A new day said:
We don't need rcc tradition and rcc history to prove to us when error occurred, for in the book of Revelation, john writes a letter addressed

Revelation 1:4
"To the seven churches in the province of Asia:"

And in the letter he writes what Jesus had to say about the early church during johns lifetime

Revelation 2:
Yet I hold this against you: You have forsaken the love you had at first.

Revelation 2:14-15
Nevertheless, I have a few things against you: There are some among you who hold to the teaching of Balaam, who taught Balak to entice the Israelites to sin so that they ate food sacrificed to idols and committed sexual immorality. 15 Likewise, you also have those who hold to the teaching of the Nicolaitans.

Revelation 2:20
Nevertheless, I have this against you: You tolerate that woman Jezebel, who calls herself a prophet. By her teaching she misleads my servants into sexual immorality and the eating of food sacrificed to idols.

Revelation 3:1
These are the words of him who holds the seven spirits of God and the seven stars. I know your deeds; you have a reputation of being alive, but you are dead.

Revelation 3:14-15
These are the words of the Amen, the faithful and true witness, the ruler of God’s creation. I know your deeds, that you are neither cold nor hot.

Revelation 3:17
You say, ‘I am rich; I have acquired wealth and do not need a thing.’ But you do not realize that you are wretched, pitiful, poor, blind and naked.

From the letter we can see that error had already begun, and as the centuries pass, more error has been added, to the point in which what was taught by the apostles has been pushed to the wayside. The rcc instead of correcting the errors, seeks to keep them. All the while knowing that what it is teaching is in error.

We human's can NOT keep any sins. We have to give them all up.
Click to expand...
Yeah, error has been creeping into the church since it started. Jesus warned us about that; so did Paul and Peter.
 
Bonnie said:
Say, what about that church in India, that was purported to have been founded by the apostle Thomas? That is pretty old, isn't it? It developed independently of the RCC, didn't it?
Click to expand...
Not purported, it is fact and they had to keep their history alive in song and dance after all their records were destroyed by RC conquerors of their world. The apostle Thomas travelled there and they were not RCs and were well established before the RCs forced themselves on them. Of course RC history is they were a heretic religion, no surprise. And apparently that gave them the right to destroy their history and force them to become RCs. RCs in their actions with others never followed Jesus. They followed the ways of the Roman Emperors forcing conversions, destroying the history of others and then claiming that the true history never existed. Another example of bad fruit of the RCC.
 
Bonnie said:
Yes, she did. Why should I answer a question based upon a misquote of my post?
Click to expand...
If you did it would validate what the poster did IMO. You are right to ignore and we no that you are not afraid because you have Jesus.

2 Tim 1:7

For God gave us a spirit not of fear but of power and love and self-control.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top