sotto voce

Who decides who was an 'early church father'?

Perspicuo

Tradition.

The centuries before the great schism are a sort of a golden age, and these teachers/teachings are considered venerable for the Orthodox and Catholic churches. Others do to, such as Lutherans, Anglicans, and more nominally (supposed but not that much) offshoots of Calvinism.

sotto voce

Whose?

Toto

What is the point of this question? "Early Church Father" is not a legal definition. It is a common term used to group together historical figures who share a common characteristic.

Church_FathersIs there some reason you have a problem with this general reckoning?

sotto voce

To find out who, if anyone, decides who was an 'early church father'. Is that not a reasonable question to ask in Bible Criticism and History? Is it not a prerequisite for discussion in BC&H, especially as this term is used so often in this forum?

The answer is not 'tradition', 'a golden age', Luther, Calvin, any poster, or a million posters. If resort is made to Wikipedia, or even to respectable references, this forum really has no purpose whatever. If the answer is 'the Vatican' or similar, that possibly coined this notion, then the authority of the Vatican needs to be demonstrated, which will also of course involve demonstrating that deity exists. Posters may need to be particularly aware that in some circles there is a common adage, 'Scratch an atheist, find a Catholic,' so care may need to be taken not to lend veracity to this view.

So please do not post in this thread unless one has a constructive, fully rational and factually-based answer.

If posters believe that there is no answer, as may be the case; if 'early church fathers' is as imaginary a term as MJers say 'Jesus' is; then of course they may indicate this.

outhouse

you may have a issue here then.


he gave as clear and rational answer as one can give.



because you dont like the reults doesnt change the credibility of his answer.


this show's trouble in comprehension

outhouse

history dictates this based on the direction the movement followed.

Toto

No one decides. It is an agreed upon consensus for convenience of discussion. But it has no other meaning.

If you find some problem with the term, propose an alternative term for that group of writers that others refer to as early church fathers; or propose an alternate definition for "early church father."

No, it is not a reasonable question. There is no significance to the term other than as a convenient grouping of named writers. If it is not convenient, don't use it.

MJ'er do not say that Jesus is an imaginary term - just that Jesus was an imaginary entity.

The authors of the documents that were produced by the group commonly referred to as early church fathers are clearly not imaginary, whatever else they might have been.

Is your problem with the term "church"? or "father"? What is the problem?

Please provide a coherent statement of your position, or I will close this thread to avoid any further waste of time.

sotto voce

Proof?

Toto

Proof? Wikipedia is not proof of much, but it is proof of common understanding.

This discussion is quite pointless. I will put this thread out of its misery.