Loading...

Early Christian Beliefs 1of 4 (The Early Church Fathers)

26,192 views

Loading...

Loading...

Loading...

Rating is available when the video has been rented.
This feature is not available right now. Please try again later.
Published on Dec 16, 2009

What did the First Christians Believe? Protestant or Catholic teachings?

Comments • 107

pandirasbox
Not one faction was founded by Jesus. The Church was never meant to be a literal building or denomination. Jesus never called the Church Catholic. Paul was the first "Pope". The Church is a metaphysical reality that includes all believers in Christ as parts of the body, with Christ as the head. The Church is therefore ONE, even when the denominations are many. Christ didn't give a hoot about theology and catechesis. This idea of One true church is played out. 
View reply
Hide replies
James Carvin
I certainly see a high place for the eucharist, but purgatory and Marian devotion and papal primacy were hardly part of the earliest teachings, my friend. You've got to proof text with astigmatic lenses to come up with that. Ireneus didn't appeal to any pope when addressing Victor but to Polycarp and Cyprian had no concept of any papacy. Justin's martyrdom says there wasn't even a bishop in Rome at the time. Ignatius fails to address any bishop there, contrary to his pattern. If you'll look at Eusebius' greek you'll see that Hegesippus had to "compile" a list of bishops based on conjecture. Ireneus's list was from Hegesippus's erroneous list. Gaius refers to the trophies of Peter and Paul so maybe they were actually in Rome when they died if he was referring to their relics and not just their memorials but the tradition didn't start until then (180 ad) and the rest, Origen and others, was elaboration on Gaius third hand, none of which has Peter actually preaching there. "Babylon" would be an anachronistic reference to Rome in Peter's day, who wrote to Pontus, Galatia, Capadocia, Asia and Bythinia, a natural delivery point to Christians if headed over the Black Sea by way of Antioch or Babylon, not Rome, hence the origin Hegessipus'  bad compilation. Clement mentions no succession and Hermas refers to him as a secretary rather than a pope.
View all 25 replies
Hide replies
Trail Reeves
Who is the speaker and is this anywhere as an MP3 audio or actual video of the speech?
Brad Brusenhan
Okay, In fairness I am only 4 and a half minutes in so I will continue before I respond in defense of the Way. However, Yahushua haMashiach was NO Catholic. He was Hebrew, a child of Israel. I hope you're taking this in another direction quick... The Son of man was NOT a damned by YHWH sun worshipping pagan son of haSatan. Well shall soon see where you're headed with this. Shalom
View reply
Hide replies
Sword O'Truth
2 of 2 " ...fed by all the apostles in single-minded accord. If someone does not hold fast to this unity of Peter, can he imagine that he still holds the faith? If he [should] desert the chair of Peter upon whom the Church was built, can he still be confident that he is in the Church?" (The Unity of the Catholic Church 4; 1st edition ). 
Sword O'Truth
1 of 2 If the seeker knows history they shouldn't be any confussion. It's true the Church was split in 1054. Though the Orthodox Church is Apostolic and Catholic, only 1 Church holds to the Chair Of Peter. Cyprian of Carthage said it best, "Indeed, the others were that also which Peter was [i.e., apostles], but a primacy is given to Peter, whereby it is made clear that there is but one Church and one chair. So too, all [the apostles] are shepherds, and the flock is shown to be one, 
AmericanBerean
Sure, the Gnostics were scribes, in the modern sense. But your definition of "scribe" is the modern one, not the contextual one in the NT. "scribe" in the NT meant the Jewish lawyers, not just someone who writes. When you use your own modern notions to guide your interpretation of Scripture you are bound to misinterpret. Get deep in Scripture and history and you can discern the correct context and then you'll come to the right interpretation.
AmericanBerean
"Jesus told us..."Beware the scribes"...what did he mean by that?" "Scribes" here does not mean men writing down current events to preserve them for the future knowledge. "Scribes" here refers to those of the Pharisee sect who's job was to interpret the Law, they were lawyers of the day. 
AmericanBerean
You are basically correct, but only in the sense that Jesus is the fulfillment of God's covenants with the Jews, and the people of that part of the world at that time had generally a Hellenistic paradigm. But this doesn't mean Christianity was invented by men fusing myths of Greek & Jewish religions. Jesus the man actually walked this planet. He proved His divinity by His miracles, especially Resurrection. Please read Lee Strobel's "The Case for Christ", and/or Karl Adam's "The Christ of Faith".
AmericanBerean
"where would you get such a notion?" The teaching of the Church. It's supported by Strong's Concordance entry #G1122. Definition 2 provides the Biblical context. The general definition of the english word means "a clerk, scribe, esp.a public servant, secretary, recorder" but Jesus used it to refer to the interpreters of the Mosaic Law, who tended to do so in a hypocritical manner. That's why He lumped them together with the Pharisees.
When autoplay is enabled, a suggested video will automatically play next.

Up next


to add this to Watch Later

Add to

Loading playlists...