Paul reshaping the church

[Hmmm?]

...little children, keep yourselves from idols.

[athrock]

I have been thinking about our recent exchanges, and it occurred to me that our discussion would be more productive if we began afresh and by following a different line of reasoning. Therefore, I beg your indulgence and ask that you listen to my defense.

As you yourself can attest, Aractus, Paul, writing from Ephesus around the year AD 55 or 56, addresses the believers at Corinth as follows: 

1 Corinthians 15:1-8
Now, brothers and sisters, I want to remind you of the gospel I preached to you, which you received and on which you have taken your stand. 2 By this gospel you are saved, if you hold firmly to the word I preached to you. Otherwise, you have believed in vain.
 
3 For what I received I passed on to you as of first importance: that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, 4 that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures, 5 and that he appeared to Cephas,3-8 and then to the Twelve. 6 After that, he appeared to more than five hundred of the brothers and sisters at the same time, most of whom are still living, though some have fallen asleep. 7 Then he appeared to James, then to all the apostles, 8 and last of all he appeared to me also, as to one abnormally born.

Surely it does not escape your attention that Paul wants to “remind” the Corinthians of things he had already told them. Well, if he is writing his first letter to them in AD 55 or 56, then he must have first told them these things when he visited them in person back in AD 51-52. This date for Paul’s visit to Corinth is established by the archaeological discovery of an inscription in stone bearing the name of Gallio, Proconsul of the Province of Achaia in Greece. Greek proconsuls served one-year terms, and Gallilo was elected in AD 51; therefore, the date of Paul’s appearance before Gallio is beyond question.
 
This means that Paul had first taught the Corinthians all of the information found in 1 Co 15:3-8 as early as AD 51. And what facts did Paul teach? 
 

1. Jesus died for our sins in accordance with prophecy found in scripture;
   
2. Jesus was buried;
   
3. Jesus was raised on the third day as foretold in scripture;
   
4. Jesus appeared to individuals and groups of disciples including one group of more than 500 people;
   
5. Jesus appeared to Paul personally.
   

 
This passage clearly illustrates that Paul was preaching the bodily resurrection of Jesus within 20 years of Jesus’ crucifixion.
 
But wait…you will have noted further that Paul wrote, “For what I received I passed on to you as of first importance…” (v.3). Paul tells us that the information he passed on to the Corinthians during his visit there in AD 51 was first "received" by him from others. Who taught Paul these things? And when? The first clues to this puzzle is found in Paul’s Letter to the Galatians (ca. AD 55) where he wrote:

Galatians 1:13-20
13 For you have heard of my previous way of life in Judaism, how intensely I persecuted the church of God and tried to destroy it. 14 I was advancing in Judaism beyond many of my own age among my people and was extremely zealous for the traditions of my fathers. 15 But when God, who set me apart from my mother’s womb and called me by his grace, was pleased 16 to reveal his Son in me so that I might preach him among the Gentiles, my immediate response was not to consult any human being. 17 I did not go up to Jerusalem to see those who were apostles before I was, but I went into Arabia. Later I returned to Damascus.
 
18 Then after three years, I went up to Jerusalem to get acquainted with Cephas and stayed with him fifteen days. 19 I saw none of the other apostles—only James, the Lord’s brother. 20 I assure you before God that what I am writing you is no lie.

From this we learn that after Paul’s conversion, he went immediately into Arabia and stayed there for three years. When did Paul become a Christian? According to Acts 9, Paul saw the Lord on the road to Damascus sometime after the stoning of Stephen (ca. AD 31-32). Putting these pieces together, we can conservatively estimate that:
 

1. Jesus was crucified around AD 30
   
2. Stephen was stoned around AD 31-32
   
3. Paul was converted around AD 32-33
   
4. Paul was in Arabia for three years and returned to Jerusalem around AD 35-36 when he spent 15 days with Peter and James.
   

 
Paul continued the narrative of his travels:

Galatians 2:1-2, 8-9
Then after fourteen years, I went up again to Jerusalem, this time with Barnabas. 2 I went in response to a revelation and, meeting privately with those esteemed as leaders, I presented to them the gospel that I preach among the Gentiles. I wanted to be sure I was not running and had not been running my race in vain.
 
8 For God, who was at work in Peter as an apostle to the circumcised, was also at work in me as an apostle to the Gentiles. 9 James, Cephas [Simon Peter] and John, those esteemed as pillars, gave me and Barnabas the right hand of fellowship when they recognized the grace given to me. They agreed that we should go to the Gentiles, and they to the circumcised.

From these two passages, we learn that Paul met privately with Peter, James and John in Jerusalem in order to verify that he was accurately preaching the same message that the apostles in Jerusalem were preaching. Note that Paul stressed the doctrinal unity of the Early Church 1 Corinthians 15:11 when he wrote, “Whether, then, it is I or they, this is what we preach, and this is what you believed.” 
 
“This is what we preach.” Paul made sure that the message he preached was one and the same as that of the original apostles who were companions of Jesus, and Paul’s own words debunk the false idea that Paul somehow taught a different form of Christianity than that being taught in Jerusalem.
 
And when did this occur? As we saw previously, Paul made one trip to Jerusalem around AD 35-36 when he met with Peter and James the first time, and he made a second journey fourteen years later around AD 49-50.
 
Would it be reasonable to think that Paul discussed not only the details of Jesus’ teaching, crucifixion and resurrection but also his own conversion experience with Peter, James and John? Would this conversation have occurred for the first time on Paul’s second visit nearly twenty years after his conversion? Or is it more reasonable to think that Paul was eager to learn all that he could about Jesus during his 15-day visit to Jerusalem in AD 35? If the latter seems more likely, then this means that the proto-creed found in 1 Corinthians 15, which includes a clear proclamation of the resurrection of Jesus, would have been handed on to Paul from the original apostles within five years of Jesus’ resurrection. 
 
With all due respect to those advocates of the “Telephone Game” theory such as Bart Ehrman or to those who believe that the resurrection of Jesus is the result of mythology which developed over time…five years is inadequate for the type of distortion that is alleged. 
 
The authors of the New Testament are clear that many eye-witnesses of the events that occurred on Easter morning were still alive and available for consultation. Anyone doubting the truth of the gospel message only had to ask those who were present and saw the risen Lord Jesus with their own eyes.
 
+++
 
Now, why, Aractus, have I taken the time to put all of this together?
 
Well, in brief, I think it is because you are going about your attempt to understand the Bible and God completely backwards. You are focused on the Old Testament and troubled by many “dark passages” that you find there. This is understandable; anyone reading the accounts of apparent genocide, murder, rape, etc. must be concerned about them, because these are grave matters. However, I think what you are lacking is a proper context or frame of reference.
 
It seems to me that you need to answer one question first and foremost: Who is Jesus Christ? Is he a legend? You have said no to mythicism. Is he a lunatic? Most people, skeptics included, can agree that Jesus was a brilliant ethicist and a gifted teacher. Was he a liar? Or was he lord?
 
The resurrection of Jesus, if true, settles the question definitively. If Jesus was raised from the dead, then He is God. And He died for the sins of the world because of God's great love for the world. This is a far cry from the "malevolent", "psychopathic" God that many insist upon.
 
It is for this reason that I have focused on providing this brief overview of the undisputed evidence for the historicity of the resurrection of Jesus. There is much more that could be said and many more questions that need to be answered.
 
But your questions, Aractus, will be answered when you come to grips not with the God of the Old Testament but with the God of the New: Jesus of Nazareth. Only then will you have the proper foundation for understanding all that came before.

[Hmmm?]

Galatians 2:1-2, 8-9
Then after fourteen years, I went up again to Jerusalem, this time with Barnabas. 2 I went in response to a revelation and, meeting privately with those esteemed as leaders, I presented to them the gospel that I preach among the Gentiles. I wanted to be sure I was not running and had not been running my race in vain.
 
8 For God, who was at work in Peter as an apostle to the circumcised, was also at work in me as an apostle to the Gentiles. 9 James, Cephas [Simon Peter] and John, those esteemed as pillars, gave me and Barnabas the right hand of fellowship when they recognized the grace given to me. They agreed that we should go to the Gentiles, and they to the circumcised.

Peter rose up, and said unto them, Men and brethren, ye know how that a good while ago God made choice among us, that the Gentiles by my mouth should hear the word of the gospel, and believe.  (Act 15:7)  hmmm?

[Hmmm?]

For if the truth of God hath more abounded through my lie unto his glory; why yet am I also judged as a sinner?

[Minimalist]

But your questions, Aractus, will be answered when you come to grips not with the God of the Old Testament but with the God of the New:

Actually, Danny, your questions will be answered when you come to grips with the fact that all of this shit was concocted for political reasons by the proto-orthodox in the second and third centuries.

[athrock]

Of course I'm guilty of selection bias...because the Early Church was. If someone could not prove his apostolic succession, he was not considered a legitimate leader in the Church. And the same went for early writings, also.

This is NOT a problem. Atheists SCREAM that the gospels were written "late" and therefore are untrustworthy. So, you'll forgive me if I hold the gnostic gospels to the same (or higher) standard when it comes to insisting on early documents only.

Define prove. See here's the problem, nothing was ever proven. They accepted writings such as 1 and 2 Peter that were clearly written in the second century, and not by Peter. So by virtue of the fact they got that wrong, it shows they can't be trusted to be right about apostolic authorship either. And I might add that their information about Matthean and Markan authorship was also completely wrong. That's not something that atheists claim, it's accepted by a majority of New Testament scholars today, regardless of their personal beliefs. Yet if you do a Google Search on it it returns but 35,000 results. Wouldn't you know it.. it's just one of those things that Christians would prefer to ignore or remain wilfully ignorant of.

Nope. You WANT to see disunity because it makes you feel better. But the Early Church did not suffer from the kinds of division that you are insisting upon. To the contrary, the Early Church Fathers made sure that they knew the lines of succession from one Bishop to the next and the entire process of establishing the canon was about weeding out those books which were not divinely inspired based, in part, on whether or not they were of Apostolic origin or accepted by those whom they knew and trusted.

Oh, and I disagree with you concerning the authorship of Matthew and Mark. The Pontifical Biblical Commission judged:

Concerning the Author, the Date, and the Historical Truth of the Gospel according to Matthew

June 19, 1911 (AAS 3 [1911] 294ff; EB 401ff; Dz 2148 ff)

I: Having regard to the universal and unwavering agreement of the Church ever since the first centuries, an agreement clearly attested by the express witness of the Fathers, by the titles of the Gospel manuscripts, the most ancient versions of the sacred books and the lists handed on by the holy Fathers, by ecclesiastical writers, by Popes and Councils, and finally by the liturgical use of the Church in the East and in the West, may and should it be affirmed as certain that Matthew, the Apostle of Christ, was in fact the author of the Gospel current under his name?
Answer: In the affirmative.

II: Should the verdict of tradition be considered to give adequate support to the statement that Matthew wrote before the other Evangelists and wrote the first Gospel in the native language then used by the Jews of Palestine for whom the work was intended?
Answer: In the affirmative to both parts.

Concerning the Authors, Dates, and Historical Truth of the Gospels according to Mark and Luke

June 26, 1912 (AAS 4 [1912] 463ff; EB 4O8ff; Dz 2155ff)

I: Does the clear verdict of tradition showing extraordinary unanimity from the beginnings of the Church and confirmed by manifold evidence, namely the explicit attestations of the holy Fathers and ecclesiastical writers, the quotations and allusions occurring in their writings, the use made by ancient heretics, the versions of the books of the New Testament, almost all the manuscripts including the most ancient, and also internal reasons drawn from the text of the sacred books impose the definite affirmation that Mark, the disciple and interpreter of Peter, and Luke, the doctor, the assistant and companion of Paul, were really the authors of the Gospels that are attributed to them respectively?
Answer: In the affirmative.

Evangelical scholars would agree with these decisions.

If that is true, then we must discount every historian who ever wrote a line.

Do we have any autobiographical accounts of the reign of Plato? Alexander the Great? Tiberius Caesar? No? Okay, then we can know nothing about them. Bummer.

Don't be disingenuous. If we have two accounts of an event, and one is first-hand and the other isn't then the first-hand account is always preferred unless there's some other reason to distrust it. And if we have two different accounts of an historical event, and one is supernatural and the other isn't, then we prefer the one that doesn't invoke mysticism.

So, your answer is no. We don't have any contemporaneous biographies of other figures of the ancient world. NOTHING remotely like the wealth of information we have about an insignificant carpenter from Palestine.

Right. Because during all those weeks, months and years that Paul and Luke walked the dusty roads of their missionary journeys together, there simply wasn't TIME for Paul to tell Luke what had happened in any great detail. Maybe not at all. Ever.

And we certainly have no reason whatsoever to believe that Luke ever sat through a sermon in which Paul told his audience how he had met the Lord. No, siree. Luke had no material from Paul to work with. None.

Acts is probably written after Paul has died, and we don't know whether Luke himself wrote it or whether it was an associate of Luke and either is equally likely.

See above. And Luke had to have been written before Paul died. Otherwise, he would have mentioned it just as he mentioned the deaths of Stephen and James.

Right. Paul learned that proto-creed in 1 Co 15 directly from the Apostles in Jerusalem, and he recounted in VERBATIM (apparently even the Greek syntax of that passage is different than his norm style providing additional support for the idea that he was repeating from memory) what he had received at a VERY. EARLY. DATE.

This strengthens my position...not yours.

Very early? Look all the creed demonstrates is they had a belief that Jesus had been risen, not resurrected. That as I pointed out required no immediate evidence following the crucifixion, and could easily have begun due to the disciples finding that the tomb was empty. And there are two likely explanations for this: 1. they went to the wrong tomb, or, 2. the family moved the body in the evening of Nissan 16 (before the disciples came in the morning of the same day). In either case it indicates the family probably didn't want the disciples visiting the resting place of Jesus.

Thomas refused to believe unless he was able to put his finger into the nail wounds. Jesus volunteered to eat some fish in their presence. I'm not sure what kind of word game you;re playing by trying to distinguish between "resurrection" and "risen", but the disciples knew that Jesus had died, he was buried and he rose again (bodily) and appeared to them. This creed was taught to Paul by those witnesses within five years of the event.

So much for the Telephone Game theory.

Moved? By whom?

Either Joseph since he had custody of the body, or the family. Neither of whom actually show up in the gospels to refute this hypothesis.

Oh, good....it was Joseph. Great! So, all we have to do is read the account of how the Pharisees demanded that Joseph take them to where he had disposed of the body and how they paraded it through the streets of Jerusalem in order to put down this new sect.

You have a link to that account online? Nothing?

Right. You have nothing but your wishful thinking.

No, the Jews taught that the DISCIPLES had stolen the body.

That's just what Matthew says, it's hardly reliable. I do believe I made the point earlier that as with any "us and them" things in the ancient world, what one culture/group/region/nation says about another needs to be taken with a grain of salt. They tend to make all kinds of stuff up about "them".

Right. That is what Matthew, an apostle, says. That's what Peter and James and John and Paul said. That's what any of the 500+ eyewitnesses to the resurrection (meaning his body came back to life after being dead for 48+ hours) said.

YOU, however, from the vantage point of 2,000 years later, have bupkis. Squat. Nada. Zilch. But you're willing to believe all sorts of foolishness that people have made up centuries later.

None of the gospels or the Book of Acts mention the destruction of the Temple, or the deaths of Peter and Paul. Yet, the martydoms of James and Stephen are mentioned...and they were lesser players. The conclusion that one might easily draw from this is that these books were written BEFORE AD 64...possibly as early as the mid-50's for the gospel of Mark.

There's more than one explanation for that. The Gospels aren't going to mention the destruction of the Temple anyway, they all end after the death of Jesus (Mark) or the supposed immediate aftermath of his death.

Wrong. And stunningly stupid.

If the Temple had been destroyed before the gospels had been written, it would have been the proof of what Jesus taught.

It's only Acts that you'd expect to mention their deaths and destruction of Jerusalem. It may have been that Luke didn't feel it was necessary to include recent events that everyone seemed to know all about anyway - it'd be superfluous and a waste of papyrus.

Damn! I almost used that "waste of papyrus" argument when responding to your nonsense about why Paul didn't mention Judas Iscariot. Arghh! You used my line.

Well, there you have it, Aractus...Paul didn't bother to mention Judas in any of his letters (which were pastoral in nature, btw...no biographical or historical) because papyrus was too expensive. The argument cuts both ways, doesn't it?

So, let's consider for a moment that this is a legitimate reason for BOTH of our arguments: I say Paul never mentioned Judas because it wasn't the primary purpose of Paul's letters to recount history which "everyone seemed to know all about anyway" (he was solving pastoral problems and teaching doctrine) and YOU say that Luke never mentioned the deaths of the two most important figures in the Church OF ALL TIME simply because he didn't have room.

Which of these two arguments is more likely?  

It may be that Peter and Paul didn't die until the 70's AD, which would increase the likelihood of Luke not mentioning them. The more recent it is the less reason to bother taking about it. Or, they may have been written in the early 60's and it doesn't change anything.

Or they hadn't died, yet, meaning that Acts was written prior to AD 64 and his first work was written even earlier.

[athrock]

And while I'm here athrock, why don't you explain this to me:

<snip>

The decentralised church later transformed (by the fourth century) into one with a clear hierarchy. But with that said I'll grant you that by the early second century there was some kind of primitive hierarchy in the church. But it was just as disputed as the mid-first century hierarchy - and probably more so since they no longer had Paul, Peter, James, etc to go to. You have to remember that Acts 15 says the central authority of the church is in Jerusalem - and it gets destroyed. That decentralised authority and left Christians split into several factions.

Is that what the Early Church Fathers had to say on the subject, Aractus? Let's take look:

Clement of Rome

"Through countryside and city [the apostles] preached, and they appointed their earliest converts, testing them by the Spirit, to be the bishops and deacons of future believers. Nor was this a novelty, for bishops and deacons had been written about a long time earlier. . . . Our apostles knew through our Lord Jesus Christ that there would be strife for the office of bishop. For this reason, therefore, having received perfect foreknowledge, they appointed those who have already been mentioned and afterwards added the further provision that, if they should die, other approved men should succeed to their ministry" (Letter to the Corinthians 42:4–5, 44:1–3 [A.D. 80]).

“We are of opinion, therefore, that those appointed by them, or afterwards by other eminent men, with the consent of the whole church, and who have blamelessly served the flock of Christ, in a humble, peaceable, and disinterested spirit, and have for a long time possessed the good opinion of all, cannot be justly dismissed from the ministry. (ibid.)

Hegesippus

"When I had come to Rome, I [visited] Anicetus, whose deacon was Eleutherus. And after Anicetus [died], Soter succeeded, and after him Eleutherus. In each succession and in each city there is a continuance of that which is proclaimed by the law, the prophets, and the Lord" (Memoirs, cited in Eusebius, Ecclesiastical History 4:22 [A.D. 180]).

Irenaeus

"1It is possible, then, for everyone in every church, who may wish to know the truth, to contemplate the tradition of the apostles which has been made known to us throughout the whole world. And we are in a position to enumerate those who were instituted bishops by the apostles and their successors down to our own times, men who neither knew nor taught anything like what these heretics rave about....Surely they wished all those and their successors, to whom they handed on their authority, to be perfect and without reproach.” (Against Heresies 3.3.1, [A.D. 180])

"2But since it would be too long to enumerate in such a volume as this the successions of all the churches, we shall confound all those who, in whatever manner, whether through self-satisfaction or vainglory, or through blindness and wicked opinion, assemble other than where it is proper, by pointing out here the successions of the bishops of the greatest and most ancient church known to all, founded and organized at Rome by the two most glorious apostles, Peter and Paul—that church which has the tradition and the faith with which comes down to us after having been announced to men by the apostles. For with this Church, because of its superior origin, all churches must agree, that is, all the faithful in the whole world. And it is in her that the faithful everywhere have maintained the apostolic tradition.” (Against Heresies 3.3.2, [A.D. 180])

"3The blessed Apostles [Peter and Paul], having founded and built up the Church [of Rome], they handed over the office of the episcopate to Linus. Paul makes mention of this Linus in the Epistle to Timothy. To him succeeded Anencletus; and after him, in the third place from the Apostles, Clement was chosen from the episcopate. He had seen the blessed Apostles and was acquainted with them. It might be said that He still heard the echoes of the preaching of the Apostles, and had their traditions before his eyes. And not only he, for there were many still remaining who had been instructed by the Apostles. In the time of Clement, no small dissension having arisen among the brethren in Corinth, the Church in Rome sent a very strong letter to the Corinthians, exhorting them to peace and renewing their faith. To this Clement, Evaristus succeeded; and Alexander succeeded Evaristus. Then, sixth after the Apostles, Sixtus was appointed; after him, Telesphorus, who also was gloriously martyred. Then Hyginus; after him, Pius; and after him, Anicetus. Soter succeeded Anicetus, and now, in the twelfth place after the Apostles, the lot of the episcopate has fallen to Eleutherus. In this order, and by the teaching of the Apostles handed down in the Church, the preaching of the truth has come down to us." (Against Heresies 3.3.3, [A.D. 180])

"4Polycarp also was not only instructed by apostles, and conversed with many who had seen Christ, but was also, by apostles in Asia, appointed bishop of the church in Smyrna, whom I also saw in my early youth, for he tarried [on earth] a very long time, and, when a very old man, gloriously and most nobly suffering martyrdom, departed this life, having always taught the things which he had learned from the apostles, and which the Church has handed down, and which alone are true. To these things all the Asiatic churches testify, as do also those men who have succeeded Polycarp down to the present time" (Against Heresies 3:3:4 [A.D. 189]).

Tertullian

"[The apostles] founded churches in every city, from which all the other churches, one after another, derived the tradition of the faith, and the seeds of doctrine, and are every day deriving them, that they may become churches. Indeed, it is on this account only that they will be able to deem themselves apostolic, as being the offspring of apostolic churches. Every sort of thing must necessarily revert to its original for its classification. Therefore the churches, although they are so many and so great, comprise but the one primitive Church, [founded] by the apostles, from which they all [spring]. In this way, all are primitive, and all are apostolic, while they are all proved to be one in unity" (Demurrer Against the Heretics 20 [A.D.

"Moreover, if there be any [heresies] bold enough to plant themselves in the midst of the apostolic age, so that they might seem to have been handed down by the Apostles because they were from the time of the Apostles, we can say to them: let them show the origins of their Churches, let them unroll the order of their bishops, running down in succession from the beginning, so that their first bishop shall have for author and predecessor some of one of the Apostles or of the apostolic men who continued steadfast with the Apostles. For this is the way in which the apostolic Churches transmit their lists: like the Church of the Smyrnaeans, which records that Polycarp was placed there by John; like the Church of the Romans where Clement was ordained by Peter. In just the same way the other Churches display those whom they have as sprouts from the apostolic seed, having been established in the episcopate by the Apostles" (The Demurrer Against the Heretics 32.1, [A.D. 200]).

+++

That takes us through the first two centuries. Now let's take a look at what they had to say about ROME as the head of the Church as opposed to Jerusalem.

Arguments about the authority of the papacy eventually return to the question of the primacy of the Bishop of Rome and of the See of Rome. Did early Christians recognize this primacy, or was it something that developed only centuries after our Lord's time and in response to political concerns? These quotations may help you decide.

Clement of Rome

"The Church of God which sojourns in Rome to the Church of God which sojourns in Corinth, to those who are called and sanctified by the will of God through our Lord Jesus Christ. Grace and peace from almighty God be multiplied unto you through Jesus Christ. Owing to the sudden and repeated calamities and misfortunes which have befallen us, we must acknowledge that we have been somewhat tardy in turning our attention to the matters in dispute among you, beloved" (Epistle to the Corinthians, circa A.D. 80]).

"Accept our counsel and you will have nothing to regret. . . . If anyone disobeys the things which have been said by him [Jesus] through us, let them know that they will involve themselves in no small danger. We, however, shall be innocent of this sin and will pray with entreaty and supplication that the Creator of all may keep unharmed the number of his elect." (ibid. 58:2, 59:1).

"You will afford us joy and gladness if, being obedient to the things which we have written through the Holy Spirit, you will root out the wicked passion of jealousy, in accord with the plea for peace and concord which we have made in this letter" (ibid. 63:2).

Ignatius of Antioch

"You [the See of Rome] have envied no one, but others have you taught. I desire only that what you have enjoined in your instructions may remain in force" (Epistle to the Romans 3:1 [AD 110]).

Hermas

"Therefore shall you write two little books and send one to Clement [Bishop of Rome] and one to Grapte. Clement shall then send it to the cities abroad, because that is his duty, and Grapte shall instruct the widows and the orphans. But you shall read it in this city along with the presbyters who are in charge of the Church" (Vision 2:4:3 [circa A.D. 140]).

Dionysius

"For from the beginning it has been your custom to do good to all the brethren in various ways and to send contributions to all the churches in every city. . . Thus custom your blessed Bishop Soter has not only preserved, but is augmenting, by furnishing an abundance of supplies to the saints and by urging with consoling words, as a loving father his children, the brethren who are journeying" (Epistle to Soter [Bishop of Rome] 4:23:9 [inter AD. 166-174]).

"Today we have observed the Lord's holy day, in which we have read your letter [in church]. Whenever we do read it, we shall be able to profit thereby, as also we do when we read the earlier letter written to us by Clement" (ibid. 4:23:11).

Irenaeus

"The blessed apostles [Peter and Paul], having founded and built up the church [of Rome], they handed over the office of the episcopate to Linus. Paul makes mention of this Linus in the epistle to Timothy [2 Tim. 4:21]. To him succeeded Anencletus, and after him, in the third place from the apostles, Clement was chosen for the episcopate. He had seen the blessed apostles and was acquainted with them. It might be said that he still heard the echoes of the preaching of the apostles and had their traditions before his eyes. And not only he, for there were many still remaining who had been instructed by the apostles. In the time of Clement, no small dissension having arisen among the brethren in Corinth, the Church in Rome sent a very strong letter to the Corinthians, exhorting them to peace and renewing their faith. . . To this Clement, Evaristus succeeded. . . and now, in the twelfth place after the apostles, the lot of the episcopate [of Rome] has fallen to Eleutherus. In this order, and by the teaching of the apostles handed down in the Church, the preaching of the truth has come down to us" (Against Heresies 3:3:3 [inter AD. 180-190]).

"But since it would be too long to enumerate in such a volume as this the succession of all the churches, we shall confound all those who, in whatever manner, whether through self-satisfaction or vainglory, or through blindness and wicked opinion, assemble other than where it is proper, by pointing out here the successions of the bishops of the greatest and most ancient church known to all, founded and organized at Rome by the two most glorious apostles, Peter and Paul, that church which has the tradition and the faith which comes down to us after having been announced to men by the apostles. With that church, because of its superior origin, all the churches must agree, that is, all the faithful in the whole world, and it is in her that the faithful everywhere have maintained the apostolic tradition" (ibid. 3:3:2).

Cyprian

"With a false bishop appointed for themselves by heretics, they dare even to set sail and carry letters from schismatics and blasphemers to the Chair of Peter and to the principal church [at Rome], in which sacerdotal unity has its source" (Epistle to Cornelius [Bishop of Rome] 59:14 [A.D. 252]).

Optatus

"In the city of Rome the episcopal chair was given first to Peter, the chair in which Peter sat, the same who was head - that is why he is also called Cephas - of all the apostles, the one chair in which unity is maintained by all. Neither do the apostles proceed individually on their own, and anyone who would [presume to] set up another chair in opposition to that single chair would, by that very fact, be a schismatic and a sinner. . . .Recall, then, the origins of your chair, those of you who wish to claim for yourselves the title of holy Church" (The Schism of the Donatists 2:2 [circa A.D. 367]).

Augustine

"If the very order of episcopal succession is to be considered, how much more surely, truly, and safely do we number them [the bishops of Rome] from Peter himself, to whom, as to one representing the whole Church, the Lord said, 'Upon this rock I will build my Church, and the gates of hell shall not conquer it.' Peter was succeeded by Linus, Linus by Clement . . . In this order of succession a Donatist bishop is not to be found" (Epistle to Generosus 53:1:2 [A.D. 400]).

"[On this matter of the Pelagians] two councils have already been sent to the Apostolic See [the Bishop of Rome], and from there rescripts too have come. The matter is at an end; would that the error too might be at an end!" (Sermons 131:10 [inter A.D. 391-430]).

+++

Protestants (and former Protestant atheists) really ought to get to know the Fathers of the Church better.

[athrock]

And while I'm here athrock, why don't you explain this to me:

And we now know it wasn't just two factions "Orthodox" and "Gnostic", but rather many more than that. And if we are to believe the number of Gnostic texts that didn't survive much past the fifth century, versus the smaller number of Orthodox texts that are lost, it leaves us to conclude that the Gnostics may have been the more mainstream version of early Christianity. You have to realise that Gnosticism was a valid form of Christianity. I see in another thread you denounced anything that is Unitarians as being "not Christian" and that's not so. We don't even have evidence that the Trinity was an established doctrine in the first, second, or third centuries. Coming to agreement of the Trinity within the Orthodox church took centuries, even if the idea had existed early on. Gnosticism survived until the fifth century or so. A lot can happen over 400 years. We just have to look at how Judaism grew, and then split into factions as well before that.

I could go on burying you with the clear teaching of the earliest Christians who destroy your position with their clear teaching, but I'll leave you with this commentary from Irenaeus on Apostolic Succession:

Irenaeus

"It is necessary to obey those who are the presbyters in the Church, those who, as we have shown, have succession from the apostles; those who have received, with the succession of the episcopate, the sure charism of truth according to the good pleasure of the Father. But the rest, who have no part in the primitive succession and assemble wheresoever they will, must be held in suspicion" (Against Heresies 4:26 [A.D. 180]).

[Aractus]

Well I had my suspicions he was RC, earlier on when he appeared to quote stuff without clear attribution.

(edit) Randy emailed me doubting this. Specifically this is what I was talking about (the section I marked in red especially):

---

This is a common misunderstanding of the text of Acts 15, so I'm going to give you a lengthy explanation. Perhaps you will be more interested in Catholicism after reading it.  

Peter, James and the Council of Jerusalem

Many non-Catholics claim that Peter could not have been the head of the earthly Church or “pope” because they believe that it was James, not Peter, who gave the final decision concerning circumcision of the Gentiles at the Council of Jerusalem recorded in Acts 15. This position indicates a complete misunderstanding of the dynamics of the council. Mark Bonocore, a noted Catholic apologist, addressed this misunderstanding in his debate with Jason Engwer in 1999.

Regarding the Jerusalem council in Acts 15, I pointed out in my [opening statement] how Peter gives the definitive teachings and how, after he speaks, all debate comes to an end. However, Engwer rejects this, citing the amendments given by James, and says how James is the only one to render “judgment.” Well, first of all, it must be noted that James bases his remarks on Peter’s teaching:


Secondly, look at what James actually says in relation to his “judgment”:


Well, who is this “we”? Who was “troubling the Gentiles”? Certainly not Peter (Acts 10:44-49, 11:1-18, 15:7-10). Certainly not Paul or Barnabas. So, who? Acts 15:1 tells us:


It was the Jewish faction under James (bishop of Jerusalem) that was troubling the Gentiles (Acts 15:5, Gal 2:12).

Thus, James is speaking for them, not for the whole council. Indeed, that’s why his remarks are recorded at all—to show that the leader of the Jewish faction subscribed to the decisions of the council, and so silence the Judaizers who Paul will encounter later (Titus 1:10-11).*

*Taken from: Mark Bonocore v. Jason Engwer: Was the Papacy Established by Christ? (http://www.bringyou.to/apologetics/debate13.htm)

---

I didn't think much of it at the time, but turns out he's quoting himself verbatim from here (and not just that one little section either, but the bulk of the post). That link he posted (bringyou.to) goes to nowhere. That would have been a dead give-away for anyone that bothered to click it. Like I said it was only a suspicion, I didn't bother to Google the text, if I had I would have known. But starting with the line "Many non-Catholics claim ..." it just looked inserted.