Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 63 (9162 total)
2 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 916,387 Year: 3,644/9,624 Month: 515/974 Week: 128/276 Day: 2/23 Hour: 0/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   How many churches are necessary?
ZenMonkey
Member (Idle past 4531 days)
Posts: 428
From: Portland, OR USA
Joined: 09-25-2009


Message 31 of 65 (552454)
03-29-2010 9:17 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by hooah212002
12-22-2009 3:45 PM


I think that you've got pretty much your answer. Two of them, really, not mutually exclusive.
The first reason is superficial. You've got a bunch of churches in your town for the same reason that here in Portland we have so many Thai restaurants and strip clubs. People just like to have choices.
The second reason goes to a deeper part of human nature. As evidenced by each every one of the Christian posters on this thread, Christians (except maybe the softie liberal ones) love to play the game of "I know the Truth, it's those other guys who are All Wrong." It must be because they believe that they're playing for the ultimate stakes of their Eternal Souls, rather than just who's football club is best, that makes it so much more satisfying to know that they're on the winning side. After all, the losers get to burn in Hell. That must make being right feel really good.
Plus, no one can ever prove that you're wrong, since you're arguing about made-up stuff anyway.

I have no time for lies and fantasy, and neither should you. Enjoy or die.
-John Lydon
What's the difference between a conspiracy theorist and a new puppy? The puppy eventually grows up and quits whining.
-Steven Dutch

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by hooah212002, posted 12-22-2009 3:45 PM hooah212002 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 36 by hooah212002, posted 03-29-2010 10:00 AM ZenMonkey has not replied

  
ZenMonkey
Member (Idle past 4531 days)
Posts: 428
From: Portland, OR USA
Joined: 09-25-2009


Message 50 of 65 (552597)
03-30-2010 1:14 AM
Reply to: Message 49 by Peg
03-29-2010 10:00 PM


Since I don't know.
Peg writes:
the early church had no bishops and decons as we have today, nor did they live as a commune
Just a simple question with intention of being confrontational. What are your sources for this knowledge, Peg? I feely admit that my Biblical knowledge, while better than that of most Christians I meet, is still dwarfed by those who study the Bible daily. So I really just want to know - how do you know this stuff about the first century church?

I have no time for lies and fantasy, and neither should you. Enjoy or die.
-John Lydon
What's the difference between a conspiracy theorist and a new puppy? The puppy eventually grows up and quits whining.
-Steven Dutch

This message is a reply to:
 Message 49 by Peg, posted 03-29-2010 10:00 PM Peg has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 51 by Peg, posted 03-30-2010 2:44 AM ZenMonkey has replied

  
ZenMonkey
Member (Idle past 4531 days)
Posts: 428
From: Portland, OR USA
Joined: 09-25-2009


Message 57 of 65 (552767)
03-31-2010 12:59 AM
Reply to: Message 51 by Peg
03-30-2010 2:44 AM


Re: Since I don't know.
Thank you, Peg. Those verses are certainly pertinent to the specific question of the role of bishops in the early church, and I don't know enough to disagree with your interpretation of Acts 20: 17-18, 28, which appears to be reasonable.
However, I think I should have been more specific in my original question. What I really would like to know is, what contemporary sources (i.e. also written in the first or early second century CE) do you know of that would give reliable information about the early church? I believe that most Roman historians or chroniclers at the time were either not interested or misinformed about the Christians, and I don't know of any who would have been Christians themselves. So what documentary or archaeological sources do you have other than the New Testament?
Thanks!

I have no time for lies and fantasy, and neither should you. Enjoy or die.
-John Lydon
What's the difference between a conspiracy theorist and a new puppy? The puppy eventually grows up and quits whining.
-Steven Dutch

This message is a reply to:
 Message 51 by Peg, posted 03-30-2010 2:44 AM Peg has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 58 by Peg, posted 03-31-2010 1:14 AM ZenMonkey has replied

  
ZenMonkey
Member (Idle past 4531 days)
Posts: 428
From: Portland, OR USA
Joined: 09-25-2009


Message 59 of 65 (552774)
03-31-2010 1:52 AM
Reply to: Message 58 by Peg
03-31-2010 1:14 AM


Re: Since I don't know.
Peg writes:
you can learn alot about the early church from the writings of tertulian, Origen, Jerome...basically the nicean fathers.
As christianity got further down the track, you see the result is that the teachings and the organization of the church slowly changed. But the best place to start for church history (besides the NT) is the writings of these early men. Things hadnt changed much in the 2nd century...the bigger changes came around the 3rd century and onward.
It's the sentence that I bolded that I have a problem with. Out of the three men that you mentioned, the earliest, Tertullian, wasn't born until about 160 CE, which would place him about a century after Jesus's death and well after the first or even the second generation of Christians. The latest, Jerome was born in 347 CE. Is your assertion that information about the first hundred years of Christianity was transmitted faithfully and accurately, possibly without written records, or at least written records other that what's in the New Testament? I'm not saying that this isn't possible, but neither do I have any reason to assume that the writers of the second century would know much at all about the first Christians were doing. One hundred plus years went by with no centralized leadership, and no generally accepted authoritative texts. I believe that the early church also functioned largely in secret. The very period that you want to assert as the model for the "true" church is the one that's the least documented. What's your basis for believing that Origen had accurate information to base his own writings on?
ABE: I see that you added links to your post and a reference to Clement. From what I can see at first glance, I'd agree that 1 Clement is probably a pretty good source about the early church.
Edited by ZenMonkey, : No reason given.

I have no time for lies and fantasy, and neither should you. Enjoy or die.
-John Lydon
What's the difference between a conspiracy theorist and a new puppy? The puppy eventually grows up and quits whining.
-Steven Dutch

This message is a reply to:
 Message 58 by Peg, posted 03-31-2010 1:14 AM Peg has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 60 by Peg, posted 03-31-2010 2:54 AM ZenMonkey has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024