Christian Forums

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

  • Focus on the Family

    Strengthening families through biblical principles.

    Focus on the Family addresses the use of biblical principles in parenting and marriage to strengthen the family.

  • Guest, Join Papa Zoom today for some uplifting biblical encouragement! --> Daily Verses
  • The Gospel of Jesus Christ

    Heard of "The Gospel"? Want to know more?

    There is salvation in no other, for there is not another name under heaven having been given among men, by which it behooves us to be saved."

The Development of Western Christianity. A viable timeline!

2024 Website Hosting Fees

Total amount
$905.00
Goal
$1,038.00
.

Soma-Sight said:
The Development of Western Christianity. A viable timeline!
Thank You :)


Here's the gist of it!

Timelines: the development of (Western) Christianity,
the emergence of Christian Scriptures, and
the history of Biblical manuscripts, interpretation, and authority

Dr. Charles Ess, Drury University

Content:

Approximate date/s

Event / Period

Bible reference / concept / source


======================


What I like about this timeline is that it starts in the 20's C.E. and ends in the 1990 A.D. , which makes it pretty much up to date. Very nice!

Thanks for the link Soma-Sight



.
 
it would appear the "time line" is incomplete. Nothing worth noting happened between 900 ad and 1200 ad?

Does 1054ad ring any bells? A duped roman catholic time line maybe?

Orthodoxy
 
.


aaah! to learn something new every day! Aye? :)


Okay they split , but what about their writings? When did they document their changes and new doctrines?


Orthodoxy said:
it would appear the "time line" is incomplete. Nothing worth noting happened between 900 ad and 1200 ad?

Does 1054ad ring any bells? A duped roman catholic time line maybe?

Orthodoxy



Here's what an "Eastern" Orthodox web site has to say about the split.

600 Years

Q & A
"That is not surprising, considering it was the Roman Catholic Church - for the first 600 years of its own existence."

Q - What do you mean by "600 years" of existence ?
A- We are talking about the time period from the Council of Nicea in 325 A.D. to the time of the Split in 1056 A.D - when the Eastern Roman Catholic Church, became the Eastern Orthodox Church.


Q - So what happened between the time of the founding of the Church in the New Testament book of Acts and 325 A.D. ? Are you suggesting that the Roman Catholic Church did not exist prior to 325 A.D. ?
A - What actually happened was that Constantine made a deal with the Bishop of Rome, to legitimize a certain number of Churches in exchange for influence. That deal was made between Constantine, the Bishop of Rome, Eusebius and a few others immediately After the Council of Nicea. In other words, once the delegates had gone home after the main conferences, and were back with their own local congregations, that is when Eusebius and Constantine organized the foundations of their new Political Church.

It was that political arrangement that created the position of Pope and created the newly sanctioned Roman Catholic Church.



Q - Well if the Roman Catholic Church did not exist before 325 A.D., then what Churches existed prior to 325 A.D. and then at the time of the council of Nicea ?
A- The independent Bible believing Congregations that were autonomous, and that had managed to survive 200 years of Persecution by the Roman Empire.

Between the Earliest Christians, and those of who attended the Council of Nicea, there is no unbroken line of succession. On the contrary, those who attended came with the Gospel in their hearts, their parchment scrolls and books, but the lines of succession between those surviving christians and the original "early Christians" had been broken many many decades before.

The Contention that Jerusalem or Antioch operated in an open and unbroken line of succession is a premise which is not supported by historical facts. Though Jesus died sometime around 33-37 A.D, it was Titus who came into Jerusalem and decimated those who lived there at the time of his destruction of the Temple in 70 A.D. This not only affected those who were followers of Judaism, but also those who were part of the Church in Jerusalem up until that time. The point is that the situation which developed in Jerusalem in 70 A.D. is exactly the kind of event that breaks apart churches, church organizations and church structures. Just look at the independent truly Bible believing churches that operated underground - or tried to - in Soviet days.

Churches in Russia (not referring to the compromised Orthodox Church) that existed before the 1917 revolution did not survive in an unbroken line of succession until the 1990s. Most of them have no idea where those local churches began nor by whom. They did emerge after the communist persecution of local churches, but they had lost contact with their roots. All that they retained were the gospels - the Bible - that they passed on. If this is the case for 70 years of persecution between 1917 and 1990 at the end of the Cold War, then what would it be like and how hard would it be to preserve a heritage over a period of time 3 or 4 times that long during 270+ years of Persecution (between 33 A.D. and 325 A.D.) ?



Q - Then to get back to the point - what was the connection between the Churches that existed in the earliest days of Chrstianity and the Apostles and Disciples, and the Churches that existed by the time of the Council of Nicea 300 years later ?
A - By the time that the Churches emerged from living underground and being on the run, for 200 years of persecution, the "theoretical" Continuity that supposedly existed from those early first Churches until the time of the Council of Nicea in 325 A.D. did not exist. The lines of succession had been broken many many decades before.

This leaves us with a dilema: if the Patriarchates did not come from the original Churches and congregations started by the Disciples and personal Apostles of Christ, then where did they come from ?



Q - So how do you answer this ?
A
- What actually happened was that Constantine made a deal with the Bishop of Rome, to legitimize a certain number of Churches in exchange for influence. That deal was made between Constantine, the Bishop of Rome, Eusebius and a few others immediately After the Council of Nicea in 325 A.D. . In other words, once the delegates had gone home after the main conferences, and were back with their own local congregations, that is when Eusebius and Constantine organized the foundations of their new Political Church.

It was that political arrangement that created the position of Pope and created the newly sanctioned Roman Catholic Church.

The Roman Catholic Church was not the collection of the churches that existed at the Council of Nicea. We can note this from the fact that most of the representatives at the Council of Nicea refused to affiliate with the Bishop of Rome (now called Pope) and with the arrangements of power he had made.

Most of those churches retained their independence and rebuked the Pope for over-extending his unrighteous authority every time he attempted to falsely assert that He was the Pope in charge of All Churches.



Q - What about Constantine and the Creation of the Eastern Orthodox Church ?
A - The Orthodox Hierarchy does not like to discuss this much because it emphasizes just how muchthe Eastern Orthodox Church was Roman Catholic, and created by Constantine just as much as the Roman Catholic Church in the West

When Constantine created the Roman Catholic Church, He created the Eastern Half along with the Western Half (though it was not implemented and the Eastern Orthodox Church really did not get going until 50 to 75 years later). At that point, the Patriarchates in the East under the jurisdiction of the Eastern Patriarch was not something already established - since the Eastern Half of the Roman Catholic Church was still getting started in asserting its jurisdiction over other churches in the East (a position which, in fact, was never resolved historically, - since those attempts were refused and rebufed - which is why the Eastern Orthodox Church then "chose" to recognize the independance of the other Patriarchates.

Later as time passed, and the historical records were more confused, and could not be so easily disproven - by eyewitness testimonies {about which Patriarchates started when}, it was a that later point that the Eastern Orthodox Church (as part of the Roman Catholic Church) claimed their jurisdiction no longer from the Roman Emperor via Constantinople and Rome, but rather succession from the "original" Christian Churches of the east.

But this is merely a claim and an afterthought to try to bend the historical record, not a fact. And most of those Patriarchates still fought with each other constantly, almost all of them expelling and excommunicating each other on a frequent basis. So if they all excommunicated each other, then on what basis would their lines of succession have remained "unbroken" at that point - even if we were to presume that no line of succession had been broken beforehand ?

The conclusion that is historically supported is that while the Patriarchates appear united and tied historically back to the Earliest Christian churches that existed within their domains, the actual ties - between them and the original churches 300 years earlier - do not exist.

As one scholar from Oxford recently wrote:

" The Bishop of Constantinople did not enjoy any position of privilege among the Bishops of the East before Constantine transformed Byzantium into Constantinople and made it his Capital. It was not he, but the Bishop of Heraclea, who was the Metropolitan of Thrace"

Source: "Barbarians and Bishops" by Liebeschuetz - Oxford - Clarendon - 1992 - pp 161



Other Eastern Christian Churches did exist. They were independent, autonomous and self-governing. They retained their independance as long as possible, until the Roman Emperor intervened and took that away from them, and changed their doctrines. But this was a slow process that took place as the Roman Catholic Church appropriated more power to itself as each decade went by. What many Eastern Orthodox in the West do not know, is that the Eastern Orthodox Church and its patriarchate, for the most part, fully participated in the process of changing the theology of churches that came under its control after 600 A.D. and especially after its own 7th Church Council, which caused its split with its parent & corrupted Church, the Roman Catholic Church of the West.

==========

ALSO SEE: http://www.exorthodoxforchrist.com/1056.htm

==========

.


.
 
.

Here is another article from a different web site:

http://www.disciplesnow.com/catholic/de ... =pos&id=11

Great Schism of 1054 A.D.
The earliest division between what are called the Eastern and Western Churches began with the division of the Roman Empire between the two sons of Emperor Theodosius, who died in 395 A.D. It was supposed to be like a state boundaryâ€â€not such a division in our countryâ€â€but because it followed existing divisions between languages and cultures, it turned out to be more like a national border.

This separation, over time, led to the separation of the Churches as well. Although it is difficult to say when the separation really took hold, the Eastern Churches (Greek, Middle Eastern, Slavic, Russian, etc.) experienced disagreement with Western (Latin-speaking or West European) Christianity and split in the early 11th century.

Some Eastern Churches later reunited with the Roman Church; these are called Eastern Catholic Churches. Even though Eastern Catholics observe their own way of celebrating the sacraments, and their canon law and customs sometimes seem unfamiliar to Roman Catholics, they teach the same faith and morals. While the Eastern Orthodox Church remains separated from the Roman Catholic Church at this time, we share a great deal in common and are trying to resolve the issues that separate us.




And: http://www.disciplesnow.com/catholic/de ... =res&id=11

So what are the differences?
Luther's basic disagreements still define some of the complexities that still separate Christians, even though Christians have grown closer in recent years. Luther believed that human impurity from Original Sin remained after Baptism, making it impossible for us to please God. Since he believed Original Sin remained, he concluded that God put us in right standing by our faith and that the good, loving things we do have no part in our redemption. This is known as justification (made worthy of salvation) by faith.

Luther also emphasized the Scriptures as the primary source of Christian truth. Today, both Roman Catholics and Lutherans see that the word of God is interpreted by Church authorities and Christians themselves; the debate is really over who has authority to declare the meaning of the Bible.

Catholic spirituality tends to be less independent than American Protestantism. Catholics place more emphasis on the life of the faith community than on the personal experience of the individual believer. This is why the Catholic Church says that it is through "Christ's Catholic Church alone" that salvation comes. It is written in the spirit of inclusion, where all together find salvation.

One other of the most common differences is what experts call the Catholic sacramental mind. This means that most Catholics view God as present in our world. God can use the things of creation to unite us with God. Some Protestants view God as less active in the world. They feel that sin has so influenced creation that it isn't really good in itself, that division and conflict exist between God and creation because of Original Sin.

Despite these differences, the Second Vatican Council offered a great call to Catholics to join a movement toward Church unity. The Decree on Ecumenism encourages Catholics to bridge gaps between different Christian traditions by 1) understanding your own faith clearly, 2) being willing to interpret the faith of others in a postive light, and 3) developing respect for the way others experience God.


.
 
.

Here is more interesting information about the splits in the churches.


16th-Century Reformation
The word protestant was given to those involved in a movement of protest begun in Germany by Martin Luther, a Catholic monk. He didn't intend to break from the Church. Nonetheless the movement to which he gave voice spread all over Europe. It created many divisions in Western Christianity which was already divided from the Eastern Orthodox Churches.

Forms of Protestantism multiplied as believers felt free to argue different aspects of faith. Protestantism couldn't be easily labeled or pinned down. It was, and still is, diverse and encompasses many expressions of faith.

Most of the Protestant Churches can be traced back to a significant figure whose teachings and beliefs formed the basis of a new denomination. The Lutheran Church can be traced to Martin Luther and his 95 Theses in 1517. The Anglican Church (and the Episcopal Church) grew from King Henry VIII's desire to remarry without an annulment in 1527. The Reformed Churches, particularly Calvinism, begin with John Calvin about 1536. Later movements were influenced by Roger Williams, who established the First Baptist Church in the colonies in 1634; this later branched into the Free Church, the Adventists and the Baptists. John Wesley's Evangelical Revivals sparked the Great Revival and the beginnings of the Methodist tradition in the 1700s. This process of denominations emerging, splitting, joining and influencing each other continues today.

source: http://www.disciplesnow.com/catholic/deeper.cfm?path=neg&id=11


.
 
Relic,

Let me make it simple for you. Jesus laid the foundation for His Church with the Aposltes in John 17 when He "sent them like His Father sent Him". These men in council carried on the faith delievered by holding fast to that faith not compromising it.

Constantine not only stopped the whole sale slaughter of Christians in the known world but he freed Rome. Seeing the vunerablility of Rome to conquest Constantine moved the capital of the Empire to Constantinople (now known as Istanbul, Turkey). The fact of the matter is that the Church in 325 ad was found in the cities of Alexanderia, Egypt which still exists to this day, Antioch, Syria which one can see in the Antiochian Orthodox Church, The See of Jerusalem which still exists to this day (The Church of the Holy Sepechure is Orthodox.) Constantinople and Rome. Of course the Church covers the whole earth thus these cities were just the major locations of the seats of the bishops. Towns all over spread to other nations like russia in 1000 ad and the baltic states in the period before 1000 ad. The Church was never ROME alone. Fact is the first council was in Jerusalem in the book of Acts, Chapter 15, James the bishop of Jerusalem presiding. Rome was not even a see at this point! Fact is Antioch was developed as a major christian center before Rome.

I question your orthodox sources because of the wording.

Here is fact. Rome for nearly 600 years confessed the Nicene Creed of 381 ad which plainly states the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father. In 1054 ad the Roman pope over the objections of the other four Sees of the Church ie Antioch, Constantinople, Alexanderia, and Jerusalem added "and the Son" to the Nicene Creed. Now tell me who changed?

The Roman Church agreed to the Nicene Creed that identifies the Holy Spirit as proceeding from the Father as Jesus stated in John 15:26 for 600 years and also agreed to this stipilation in each of the seven ecumenical councils which states:


The Council Of Ephesus - 431 A.D.
It is not permitted to produce or write or compose any other creed except the one which was defined by the holy fathers who were gathered together in the holy Spirit at Nicaea. Any who dare to compose or bring forth or produce another creed for the benefit of those who wish to turn from Hellenism or Judaism or some other heresy to the knowledge of the truth, if they are bishops or clerics they should be deprived of their respective charges and if they are laymen they are to be anathematised.

and again:

The Council of Chalcedon - 451 AD
The sacred and great and universal synod by God's grace and by decree of your most religious and Christ-loving emperors Valentinian Augustus and Marcian Augustus assembled in Chalcedon, metropolis of the province of Bithynia, in the shrine of the saintly and triumphant martyr Euphemia, issues the following decrees…… Since we have formulated these things with all possible accuracy and attention, the sacred and universal synod decreed that no one is permitted to produce, or even to write down or compose, any other creed or to think or teach otherwise. As for those who dare either to compose another creed or even to promulgate or teach or hand down another creed for those who wish to convert to a recognition of the truth from Hellenism or from Judaism, or from any kind of heresy at all: if they be bishops or clerics, the bishops are to be deposed from the episcopacy and the clerics from the clergy; if they be monks or layfolk, they are to be anathematised.

Why in America can no man change the consitution of the USA yet every so called christian can accept and reject the entire creed or parts of the creed at whim and still be a "christian"? No man can change the Creed of the Holy Orthodox Church that has been confessed by generations of Martyrs since 381 ad, not even the pope. Why? because the pope agreed with the entire Church no man can change it!

The basic issue is the addition to the confession of faith which changes the nature of God. Dual procession of the Holy Spirit changes the dynamic relationship within the Holy Trinity making the Roman and protestant models void because they are both based on the error of the "filioque". Luther never protested the "filioque" and the lutherans to this day confess the roman creed of 1054ad. The majority of protestants will either defend the roman error or say "what does it matter as long as they have Jesus"? Well it matters because worship to God matters and He is not subject to our whims and desires on the subject of worship. We are specifically warned not to worship other "gods". So we must be certain the "god" we worship is the One True God.

Historically compare the Authentic Christian faith found in Orthodoxy to the pseudo christian faiths found in the heterodox rebellion and you will soon see the rebellion is in a constant fluxuation of change and failure. Jesus Christ is unchanging, unfailing, and eternal. So is the Church.

Rome tried to wipe out the Orthodox Church in the Crusades. The muslims tried to wipe out the Church after Rome sacked Constantinople and left it to the dogs. Stalin tried to eliminate the Church by murdering 200,000 orthodox priests and bishops and millions of orthodox believers. Has the Church failed? No.

American heterodox need to stop listening to the roman church and investigate the historical FACTS behind the so called "christian" faith they confess.

Orthodoxy
 
Relic said:
.


aaah! to learn something new every day! Aye? :)


Okay they split , but what about their writings? When did they document their changes and new doctrines?


Orthodoxy said:
it would appear the "time line" is incomplete. Nothing worth noting happened between 900 ad and 1200 ad?

Does 1054ad ring any bells? A duped roman catholic time line maybe?

Orthodoxy



Here's what an "Eastern" Orthodox web site has to say about the split.
Stop there. This post, coming from exorthodoxforchrist.com, is as "Eastern" Stalin was Christian.

This group, who do what they can to keep their faith affiliation out of sight, reveal themselves to be KJV only, Landmarkist Baptist.

Its chief spokesperson has no credentials, only polemics.

Relic said:
600 Years

Q & A
"That is not surprising, considering it was the Roman Catholic Church - for the first 600 years of its own existence."

Q - What do you mean by "600 years" of existence ?
A- We are talking about the time period from the Council of Nicea in 325 A.D. to the time of the Split in 1056 A.D - when the Eastern Roman Catholic Church, became the Eastern Orthodox Church.
And here the illustrious Mr 'John Taylor' reveals his dubious sense of what actually happened in the 'schism.' The schism was not something that happened on the basis of one event, or at a specific time. In fact, the events at Hagia Sophia were largely inconsequential to the Church until years later.

Secondly, the council at Nicea had essentially no Bishops from the West. There was a very clear sense of Eastern Christianity from the earliest times. The Eastern Church was more Semitic in nature, being a chief proponent of the Quartodecimian approach to celebratng the Resurrection (on Nisan 14). The truly Orthodox within the Eastern Church, beleaguered with heresies throughout its first 500 years, often called upon their brethren in Rome for support against such heresies.

Mr Taylor demonstrates a shallow view unto history, the view of someone who has studied only to disprove. Those who love a subject learn in depth.

Don't take my word for it- have a good look at Muslim polemics against Christianity- and see how shallow is the understanding and perspective of those who learn only to dispute.

Relic said:
Q - So what happened between the time of the founding of the Church in the New Testament book of Acts and 325 A.D. ? Are you suggesting that the Roman Catholic Church did not exist prior to 325 A.D. ?
A - What actually happened was that Constantine made a deal with the Bishop of Rome, to legitimize a certain number of Churches in exchange for influence. That deal was made between Constantine, the Bishop of Rome, Eusebius and a few others immediately After the Council of Nicea. In other words, once the delegates had gone home after the main conferences, and were back with their own local congregations, that is when Eusebius and Constantine organized the foundations of their new Political Church.

What Mr Taylor fails to acknowledge is that the theology and hierarchy that Constantine supported is NOT ultimately the theology and hierarchy that won the day, That is to say, Constantine's political machinations only aggravated the situation in the Church relative to Arianism- for which we owe him a debt of gratitude. By stirring the conflict, the True Church was forced to respond with a clear Trintarian theology/creed, a canon of scripture, doctrines of Christ and the Holy Spirit, and so forth.

Relic said:
Q - Well if the Roman Catholic Church did not exist before 325 A.D., then what Churches existed prior to 325 A.D. and then at the time of the council of Nicea ?
A- The independent Bible believing Congregations that were autonomous, and that had managed to survive 200 years of Persecution by the Roman Empire.
Shazam! The Landmarkist pops out of his chest!
"Bible-believing?" Please. "Independent?" On what planet?
The Churches prior to Nicea were highly Episcopal, interrelated, and liturgical. There were portions of scripture read liturgically in the churches, but there was no 'bible.' The use of gospels was fairly universal, but the epistles used and seen as authorative were quite diverse.


Relic said:
Between the Earliest Christians, and those of who attended the Council of Nicea, there is no unbroken line of succession. On the contrary, those who attended came with the Gospel in their hearts, their parchment scrolls and books, but the lines of succession between those surviving christians and the original "early Christians" had been broken many many decades before.

as he says further along:
This leaves us with a dilema: if the Patriarchates did not come from the original Churches and congregations started by the Disciples and personal Apostles of Christ, then where did they come from ?

Here's where Taylor reveals the true depths of his ignorance. On his site he gives the example of Chrysostom's exile as evidence of 'broken' succession- as any interference with immediate succession, any interruption nulls and voids the succession.

Fact is, the succession is found in the episcopacy, such that, when patriarchs were martyred, or even false patriarchs were forced upon the Church- over time, the remaining legitmate Bishops, in council, put forth a legitimate patriarch in the See of concern.

This is how Jerusalem regained succession.

Here is the list of Patriarchs of Constaninople prior to Constantine. So much for broken succession :roll:
St. Andrew the Apostle Founder
Stachys the Apostle 38-54
Onesimus 54-68
Polycarpus I 69-89
Plutarch 89-105
Sedecion 105-114
Diogenes 114-129
Eleutherius 129-136
Felix 136-141
Polycarpus II 141-144
Athendodorus 144-148
Euzois 148-154
Laurence 154-166
Alypius 166-169
Pertinax 169-187
Olympians 187-198
Mark I 198-211
Philadelphus 211-217
Ciriacus I 217-230
Castinus 230-237
Eugenius I 237-242
Titus 242-272
Dometius 272-284
Rufinus I 284-293
Probus 293-306
Metrophanes 306-314
Alexander 314-337

This post is already lengthy, but suffice to say the rest of Taylor's comments are garbage that I can compact upon request.
 
Back
Top