Which came first, Catholics or those other christians?

Question

And which one had the bible first? If the Catholics came first, put the bible together, and therefore had the bible first, wouldn't it stand to reason that THEY have the correct understanding of it? If I remember right, even though there are a lot of you differing christian sects running around with bibles today, you all didn't branch off from Catholicism until well over a thousand years AFTER the bible was put together and hashed out by Catholics. So, christians, how can you dare say that the Catholics don't know what their talking about? If you don't believe in their teachings, why the heck to you read and quote from their bible?

p.s. If you aren't an original follower and can't trace your christian beliefs back to Jesus WITHOUT going through Catholicism, don't talk to me about original christians. I'm well aware of them, and that is NOT what you follow.

Answer 1

While Scripture is evidence enough for the marks of Christ's Church, we can see in the writings of Ignatius -- written in the first century, within 67 years of Christ's resurrection, by a close friend and appointee of the Apostle Peter and friend of Polycarp -- that the early Church had a very Catholic interpretation of Scripture:


the Church was Divinely established as a visible society, the salvation of souls is its end, and those who separate themselves from it cut themselves off from God (Epistle to the Philadelphians)
the hierarchy of the Church was instituted by Christ (Epistles to the Philadelphians and the Ephesians)
the threefold character of the hierarchy (Epistle to the Magnesians)
the order of the episcopacy superior by Divine authority to that of the priesthood (Epistles to the Magnesians, Smyraenians, and the Trallians)
the importance of unity of the Church (Epistles to the Trallians, Philadelphians, and the Magnesians)
emphasis on the holiness of the Church (Epistles to the Smyraeans, Ephesians, Magnesians, Trallians, and Romans)

the catholicity of the Church (Letter to the Smyraeans)

the infallibility of the Church (Epistles to the Philadelphians and the Ephesians)
the doctrine of the Eucharist -- i.e., belief in Transsubstantiation or the Real Presence of Christ in Communion (Epistle to the Smyraeans)
the Incarnation (Epistle to the Ephesians)
the supernatural virtue of virgnity (Epistle to Polycarp)
the religious character of matrimony (Epistle to Polycarp)
the value of united prayer (Epistle to the Ephesians)
the primacy of the Chair of Peter (Epistle to the Romans, introduction)
a dencouncing of the (later Protestant) doctrine of private judgement in matters of religion (Epistle to the Philadelphians)1


Protestants need to plunge themselves into early Church history! Read the writings of St. Ignatius of Antioch, Clement of Rome, Cyril of Jerusalem, Irenaeus, Polycarp, St. Augustine, etc... They are rich with Catholic doctrine -- and the earliest evidence we have for what the Church was like in its earliest days!


Might I also add:

The idea that all revealed truth is to be found in "66 books" is not only not in Scripture, it is contradicted by Scripture (1 Corinthians 11:2, 2 Thessalonians 2:15, 2 Thessalonians 3:6, 1 Timothy 3:15, 2 Peter 1:20-21, 2 Peter 3:16). It is a concept unheard of in the Old Testament, where the authority of those who sat on the Chair of Moses (Matthew 23:2-3) existed. In addition to this, for 400 years, there was no defined canon of "Sacred Scripture" aside from the Old Testament; there was no "New Testament"; there was only Tradition and non-canonical books and letters.

And also,

Our Lord founded a Church (Matthew 16:18-19), not a book, which was to be the pillar and ground of Truth (1 Timothy 3:15). We can know what this Church teaches by looking not only at Sacred Scripture, but into History and by reading what the earliest Christians have written, what those who've sat on the Chair of Peter have spoken consistently with Scripture and Tradition, and what they've solemnly defined. To believe that the Bible is our only source of Christian Truth is unbiblical and illogical.

Answer 2

1) Which came first: those "other" Christians. The RC hierarchy, as it operates today, did not exist in the early days. There is no evidence in the bible, for example, that any of the churches extant at that time accepted Peter as "leader" as RCs do the bishop of Rome today (and claim for Peter then).

2) The Western European bible, as a complete book, was assembled by the RC church about 400 C.E. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bible#The_canonization_of_the_Bible . However, all of the books used in the bible were extant well before the bible was assembled, and at least one Greek text containing all of the books (plus extras) was present before the creation of the bible. Note, also, that other churches, with history arising out of the same church that the RCC arose from, created their *own* biblical canons. (Greek Orthodox, Ethiopic)

3) "Wouldn't it stand to reason" - there is some merit to this argument. If the RCC chose which books should be in the bible (of the western European Christians), one would think that their reasoning is still sound as to the interpretation of these books. One must consider, however, the improvements in ancient language scholarship that has occurred over the centuries. Scholars now know that these books do not even mean exactly the same thing that scholars of that time thought they meant - and that *prior* to interpretation.

4) Just because RCC decided what books should be in the bible (and eradicated nearly all other Christian religious texts) does not mean that they have a monopoly on proper interpretation. This simply does not follow logically. Remember, all that they really did was to decide which books should be in the bible. All of these books were extant before the RCC actually existed as it does today.

5) Of course, any bible fundamentalist can trace his beliefs to the bible, which contains books which *all* predate the establishment of a pope and the RCC. The fact that the RCC assembled these books *does* suggest that there may have been other books which were not included that should have been, or that some of those included should be rejected, but it does not reduce the authority of any of these books, *once accepted*.

It is true that it is sort of arrogant to claim the title of "original Christian", since we know so little of how they actually operated - just bits and pieces. The sects who claim that these bits and pieces are the whole of the beliefs of the early Christian Church are making quite an assumption - especially in light of how *different* are the teachings of these "original Christian" sects. Nevertheless, it is not *necessarily* wrong to state that the RCC has changed some particular aspect of the early church (such as full immersion baptism). It simply requires that you make an assumption based on incomplete facts.

Jim, http://www.jimpettis.com/wheel/

Answer 3

The Catholic church originates from one of the many Gnostic sects. Most of those sects were either killed off or assimilated into the Catholic and Orthodox churches. If you look at the Catholic and early Orthodox Bibles they differ in what was included. Since both had access to much of the same source material we find the similarities but it wasn't until much later that most Orthodox faiths adopted the Bible as put together by the faiths of Catholic origin. Even now some of the Eastern Orthodox churches in areas with less western influence follow a canon far different than that of the Catholic descended religions.

In any case, I see and agree with your point. The Christian faiths found in America are all descended from Catholicism and to use the Bible they put together at the Nicaean Conventions to try and prove them wrong is silly. That is like trying to prove Darwin wrong using "The Origin of Species" as your source and calling it perfect.

Anywho, kuddos for the keen observation.

Answer 4

The Catholic Church has always proclaimed this unifying characteristic also, under the broad and rich concept of the Mystical Church (under which it acknowledges Protestantism), yet it doesn't pit the Mystical Church against the institutional, or visible Church, as most evangelicals do. For Catholics, then, the issue of oneness is substantially related to organizational and practical aspects of ecclesiology. Catholics believe that the Church is both organism and organization, not merely the former. The Mystical and visible "churches" are like two circles which largely intersect, but which are not synonymous. They exist together - somewhat paradoxically and with tension - until the "end of the age." But what kind of organization is this Church, which includes within itself these two aspects (as well as many others)?

At this point in the discussion Catholics appeal to the hierarchical, or episcopal (that is, under the jurisdiction of bishops) nature of Church government. Furthermore, Catholics maintain that this form is divinely-instituted and biblical, therefore not optional or of secondary theological importance.

Finally, Catholics believe that bishops are - by the intention of Jesus Christ - the successors of the Apostles (the concept of apostolic succession). This is the methodology whereby the Catholic Church traces itself back historically in an unbroken succession to the Apostles and the early Church. Catholicism thus greatly emphasizes both historical and doctrinal continuity, whereas evangelical Protestants are more concerned with maintaining the passion and intense commitment and zeal of the Apostles and early Christians, and are less interested in governmental forms or doctrines which are now regarded as Catholic "distinctives." They tend to see clearly in the Bible and early Church those doctrines with which they agree, but overlook those which are more in accordance with Catholicism, such as the episcopacy, purgatory, and apostolicity.

Answer 5

Segregation was before integration, so does that mean that the only correct belief is that blacks shouldn't go to school with white children? No, it DOESN'T automatically mean that they understand it better than anyone.
Catholicism was made by the roman empire by combining the teachings of Jesus with pagan beliefs in a sorry attempt to make everybody happy. Can you find a passage in the Bible that supports the worship of Mary? Or confession to a priest? Where does it say that the Sabbath is on Sunday and not Saturday? Did you know that Easter was originally a pagan Holiday of fertility and that's where the eggs and bunnies come from, and why it's the first Sunday after the first full moon after the first day of spring?
The Bible was put together by the Catholics, yes, but it sure doesn't look like they even bother to follow it.

Answer 6

well I seem to remember that you could assign Christian to an order of Messianic Hebrews called the Essenes, saying that the were the believers of a coming Christ, long before JC turned up. Technically the first Christians would have been the disciples of Jesus, if you claim him Christ, then the Paulist lot. The first Catholic/Christian doctrine was overseen ermm, by Constantine the Greats Council of Nicea 323-325 A.D.

Answer 7

the unique reformers sought reform from interior the Catholic Church, yet you're skewing the end result by ability of asserting that the Protestants broke removed from Roman Catholicism. it is not genuine. The Catholic Church chop up, the two aspects claiming orthodoxy. notwithstanding, many Catholics will declare the appropriate option theology making use of a "know-how of the a protracted time" logical fallacy which does no longer something to coach their place. The Roman Catholic Church, by ability of ways, IS Christian. it somewhat is the uneducated who declare that it is not.

Answer 8

Hooo, you're gonna get some interesting answers to this one!

As to your p.s. - are there actually any Ebionites/Nazarenes left in the world; people practicing the reformed Judaism that Jesus taught, and that James and Peter continued?


EDIT: Note to "In Layman's Terms":

Constantine, at the time that he oversaw the (First) Council of Nicea, was no particular friend to Christianity - his deathbed conversion only came about because of the urgings of his mother...and the fact that the Christians offered him a "get out of the consequences of your actions, free" card when the other (pagan) religious leaders told him that the Gods would punish him for killing his wife Fausta, among other grievous offenses.

He was interested in stopping the violence between various Christian factions - (see Arius, c. 250-336). THAT is why Constantine decided that he was going to force the various factions to agree on an "official" Christian doctrine.

http://www.orthodoxwiki.org/First_Ecumenical_Council

Answer 9

The first religion that was founded by Jesus Christ himself is the Church of God which is in Corinth. If you have read the bible and have understood it, I supposed you have known it.
Roman Catholics originally came from the pagan people and you know that pagan people do not believe in the living God. So with the catholics now. Your god are images, man made figurines whom you claimed it is God but it is prohibited in the bible to worship those images, yet you still continue as catholic.Catholics worship virgin Mary and Joseph making them as your Gods. So with the Angels , you are worshipping the angels, yet it was written in the bible that mankind is higher than angels and you are making the angels as feminine or girl, a young girl. Those are only some proof of your ignorance to the bible. Do you want more to hear wrong doings of the Catholics? next time again. but please read the bible to understand it.
jtm

Answer 10

Good point.

reallytrue101
You said:"Obviously common sense tells you that the first Christian to walk in the flesh was Jesus Christ. duh. "

Jesus was never a christian - he was a jew. his followers were the first christian. christian - meaning "follower of christ". How can christ follow himself? duh.

kait:
Just because the details of everyday worship weren't written down, it doesn't mean they didn't exist back then. If I write down a list of instructions for a visitor to my house, I might put down wash up the dishes, water the plants. Just because I don't say "relieve yourself in the toilet" doesn't mean I don't have a toilet, it's just that I take it as read that my visitor knows this already.

Just because the bible omits to say something, we have no way of knowing whether that is because it didn't happen or it just wasn't recorded. I understand that there is contemporary evidence that accuses the early christians of cannibalism because of the whole business of communion - eating the body and blood of christ - which would suggest it *did* take place in the early church.