What if ?

Nov 2013
2,441
1,035
NM
#61
A misunderstanding, I'm sure

Parishioners in the pews May or may not have been Bible believers, but they were not in charge. People in charge based their authority on the Bible. You have failed to contest my post.
No, the Roman Catholic Church always emphasized tradition as part of the core of the faith. & of course the apostolic position was that bishops could trace their ministry back to the apostles themselves.

The Bible wasn't fixed in terms of content until Constantine. What did the early church do in the meantime?

See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Early_Christianity#Organization

"Organization[edit]

"Christian groups and congregations first organized themselves loosely. In Paul's time, although certain decisions by Elders and Apostles were binding, as in the Council of Jerusalem,[22] there were no precisely delineated functions yet for bishops, elders, and deacons.[23] A Church hierarchy, however, seems to have developed by the late 1st century and early 2nd century[23] (see Pastoral Epistles, c 90–140[23]). These structures were certainly formalized well before the end of the Early Christian period, which concluded with the legalization of Christianity by Constantine's Edict of Milan in 313 and the holding of the First Council of Nicea in 325, when the title of Metropolitan bishop first appears.

"In the post-Apostolic church, bishops emerged as overseers of urban Christian populations, and a hierarchy of clergy gradually took on the form of episkopoi (overseers), presbyteroi (elders),[24] and diakonoi (ministerial servants). This hierarchy emerged slowly and at different times for different locations. Clement, a 1st-century bishop of Rome, refers to the leaders of the Corinthian church in his epistle to Corinthians as bishops and presbyters interchangeably. The New Testament writers also use the terms "overseer" and "elder" interchangeably and as synonyms.[25] The Didache (dated by most scholars to the early 2nd century),[26] speaks of "appointing for yourself bishops and deacons".

"Disputes regarding the proper titles and roles of church leaders would later become one of the major causes of schism within the Christian Church.[citation needed] Such disputes include the roles of bishops and presbyters. Churches such as the Catholic and Orthodox use the word "priest" of all the baptized, but apply it in a more specific sense ("ministerial priesthood")[27] to bishops and presbyters[28] and sometimes, somewhat loosely, treat "presbyter" and "priest" as synonyms,[29] applying both terms to clergy subordinate to bishops. In congregational churches, the title "priest" is rejected, keeping only "presbyter" or "elder". Some congregational churches do not include a role of bishop in their organizational polity.

"Post-apostolic bishops of importance include Polycarp of Smyrna, Ignatius of Antioch and Clement of Rome . These men reportedly knew and studied under the apostles personally and are therefore called Apostolic Fathers. Each Christian community also had presbyters, as was the case with Jewish communities, who were also ordained and assisted the bishop; as Christianity spread, especially in rural areas, the presbyters exercised more responsibilities and took distinctive shape as priests. Lastly, deacons also performed certain duties, such as tending to the poor and sick. In the 2nd century, an episcopal structure becomes more visible, and in that century this structure was supported by teaching on apostolic succession, where a bishop becomes the spiritual successor of the previous bishop in a line tracing back to the apostles themselves.

"By the end of the early Christian period, the church within the Roman Empire had hundreds of bishops, some of them (Rome, Alexandria, Antioch, "other provinces") holding some form of jurisdiction over others.[30]"

(My emphasis - more @ the URL)

It's Luther who argued for sola scriptura. Which has led to a multitude of churches, each splintering off on some point of doctrine. Has that brought us any closer to Heaven on Earth?
 
Jul 2008
18,531
12,259
Virginia Beach, VA
#62
Parishioners in the pews May or may not have been Bible believers, but they were not in charge. People in charge based their authority on the Bible. You have failed to contest my post.
They absolutely did NOT base their authority on the Bible.

The Founders were followers of the Enlightenment philosophy. A philosophy where knowledge on all matters is gained theough reason, not faith. One of the problems they had with the monarchy was that those leaders claimed their authority came from god. That you had to have FAITH that your rulers were put in place by God. The Founders rejected such a system.

Returning to the original idea of this thread. The whole Reason vs. Faith argument is the primary reason to keep the Bible out of public school curriculum.
Reason and Faith are mutually exclusive. If you believe something you either believe because of Reason OR Faith. If you believe because of Reason then you don’t need faith. If you believe because of faith then you are admitting that Reason cannot cause someone to believe something.

Public Schools should stay in the realm of Reason and stay out of the realm of Faith.
 
Nov 2012
17,132
5,641
Michigan
#63
They absolutely did NOT base their authority on the Bible.

The Founders were followers of the Enlightenment philosophy. A philosophy where knowledge on all matters is gained theough reason, not faith. One of the problems they had with the monarchy was that those leaders claimed their authority came from god. That you had to have FAITH that your rulers were put in place by God. The Founders rejected such a system.

Returning to the original idea of this thread. The whole Reason vs. Faith argument is the primary reason to keep the Bible out of public school curriculum.
Reason and Faith are mutually exclusive. If you believe something you either believe because of Reason OR Faith. If you believe because of Reason then you don’t need faith. If you believe because of faith then you are admitting that Reason cannot cause someone to believe something.

Public Schools should stay in the realm of Reason and stay out of the realm of Faith.
This discussion was not about US founders. It was about the theocracy that took over the Roman Empire.
 
Nov 2013
2,441
1,035
NM
#65
Casting aspersions?

This discussion was not about US founders. It was about the theocracy that took over the Roman Empire.
Nope, that's not it. Emperor Constantine wanted the Roman Catholic Church for its organization, literacy (the leadership), presence throughout much of the empire & communications/networking. But he continued to appoint pagans & members of other faiths to the empire's bureaucracy & to high positions.

Constantine wanted to prop up the Roman state, not have it fall (further) into chaos over sectarian squabbles. He was pleased to have a flat organization ready to hand.
 
Nov 2012
9,095
3,639
Chicago
#66
Baloney. You posed the question: What if there was a book? What if that book was not included in any curriculum of public education?

Are you saying that you were NOT referring to the Bible? IF not, what book are you referring to?
Huckleberry Fin, one can learn a lot from that book.
 
Nov 2012
17,132
5,641
Michigan
#69
You're calling the catholic church nobility that took over the Roman Empire white trash?

Nice to see you getting smart, finally.
Sometimes people do bad things and try to cover themselves with the Bible. I think it’s an important part of history. Should we teach it so people know it, or should we repeat it?
 
Last edited:
Jan 2017
3,515
713
Michigan
#70
Nothing wrong with teaching about the bible. But it should include the Koran, the tenets of Hinduism plus most other major religions.

Feeding christian propaganda, or Islamic propaganda or any other religious propaganda only is just plain wrong though.
They are teaching the tenets of Islam in school