Are there any other christian church as old

[uniChristian]

wabrams:

Ok then, when did Catholicism become the official religion of the Roman Empire?

385AD

 

[Exporter]

Previously on this thread it may have been implied that the Church at Antioch was older than the Catholic Church. Wasn’t it Peter who established the Church at Antioch?

That had to be the same Church Peter established in Rome. Therefore Peter didn’t establish a different Church in Rome, he established the Catholic Church in both places.

 

[mercygate]

uniChristian:

I am a member of a Church that is modeled after the Jerusalem Council and my Church is far older that the Romanist Church.

And when was that “model” created?

 

[Led_Zeppelin75]

uniChristian:

The word catholic comes from the Greek word Katholikos, meaning “universal.” It was first used by Ignatius of Antioch (about AD 107) to distinguish the entire body of Christians from individual congregations. Subsequently, the word distinguished true believers from false believers? After the break (1054) between the Western church and the Eastern Church, it was used to identify the Western church; the Eastern Church was called orthodox. At the time of the reformation in the 16th century, the Church of Rome claimed the word catholic as its title over the Protestant or Reformed churches. In England, catholic was retained to describe the reformed, national church, although a distinction was made between “Roman” Catholics and members of the Church of England. The term Anglo-Catholic was coined at the time of the Oxford movement in the 19th century. In popular usage, Catholic commonly designates a Christian affiliated with the Church of Rome. Prior to the Edict of Milan (313 AD) the Church in Rome was clandestine and the notion of a Romanist Church had not developed. About 385AD Christianity was made the official religion of the Roman Empire and proclaimed universal but there were differences in the Church of Rome and the first century church. Paganism had been introduced and the Romanist church became a conglomerate religion of Christian and pagan rituals. The Roman-Greko Church had new doctrine that separated it from the supposed “heretic” Judeo-Christian Church. This Jewish Christian sect was persecuted for their heretic beliefs and still is to this day. I am a member of a Church that is modeled after the Jerusalem Council and my Church is far older that the Romanist Church.

You were exactly right up until your last couple of statements. This “judeo-christian church” is part of the oldest Christian churches to ever exist. However, they don’t exist anymore. “Non-denomational” is not the same either (if that’s what you ment). The universal(catholic) christian church was never united. The Roman branch (Catholic (with capitol “C”)) was definitly not the first church to exist, they do claim so however. It is also very unlikely that Peter was ever in Rome. The Orthodox churches have more credibility to this title, but theirs is not the case either. The “Jerusalem Council” likely did not ever exist, although it’s claimed to have. Even if it did, it’s churches are done with, gone. Hence, there is no church in existance today that can claim to be the church actually founded by the apostles. http://forums.catholic-questions.org/images/icons/icon9.gif

 

[jimmy]

unichristian, please give documentation. I would like to see what early writer of Christianity would agree with you. From what I have seen they all agree with Catholicism. Ignatius and Irenaeus certainly agree with Catholicism.

You claims are meaningless until you back them up with proof.

 

[jimmy]

Led Zeppelin75:

You were exactly right up until your last couple of statements. This “judeo-christian church” is part of the oldest Christian churches to ever exist. However, they don’t exist anymore. “Non-denomational” is not the same either (if that’s what you ment). The universal(catholic) christian church was never united. The Roman branch (Catholic (with capitol “C”)) was definitly not the first church to exist, they do claim so however. It is also very unlikely that Peter was ever in Rome. The Orthodox churches have more credibility to this title, but theirs is not the case either. The “Jerusalem Council” likely did not ever exist, although it’s claimed to have. Even if it did, it’s churches are done with, gone. Hence, there is no church in existance today that can claim to be the church actually founded by the apostles. http://forums.catholic-questions.org/images/icons/icon9.gif

You are going to have to back this up with proof. Irenaeus would disagree with you when he says that Peter and Paul started the church in Rome. He clearly believed that Peter was in Rome.

 

[wabrams]

Yeah, I would like to see the proof too. I’ve always heard that there were several Christian churches around and they all were folded together or murdered off by the Romans, and eventually one chruch remained. The things that make ya go “hmmm.”

 

[Led_Zeppelin75]

jimmy:

You are going to have to back this up with proof. Irenaeus would disagree with you when he says that Peter and Paul started the church in Rome. He clearly believed that Peter was in Rome.

Why don’t you give me proof as to cathoicism being founded first? I see common sense as my proof. If you start preaching at Jersulem, what are the odds that the first church you make is 1) in Rome or 2) in communion with the first church of rome?

 

[wabrams]

Led Zeppelin75:

Why don’t you give me proof as to cathoicism being founded first? I see common sense as my proof. If you start preaching at Jersulem, what are the odds that the first church you make is 1) in Rome or 2) in communion with the first church of rome?

Come one man, I wanna see the proof, too. I’m pretty much thinking along the same lines as you and I would like to read up on it myself. If you don’t wanna post it, can you send me a private message with the info?

 

[jimmy]

Led Zeppelin75:

Why don’t you give me proof as to cathoicism being founded first? I see common sense as my proof. If you start preaching at Jersulem, what are the odds that the first church you make is 1) in Rome or 2) in communion with the first church of rome?

What makes you think that because the preaching started in Jerusalem it did not go to Rome? The early church fathers would agree that there was a church in Rome. Ignatius writes to the church in Rome in 100AD.

The church in Jerusalem was the same as the church in Rome. Bishops were ordained by other bishops and there was succession of them since the first century, that is why Irenaeus traces the bishops of Rome in the 2nd century.

No one says that the church started in Rome. It was started in Jerusalem and it moved to Rome also when Peter and Paul went there. Its a good chance since Ignatius of Antioch wrote in 100AD to Rome. Ignatius was the disciple of John so you know that the church of Rome is connected to the apostles if the disciple of John the Apostle is writing to them. Clement of Rome also wrote to the church in Corinth prior to 100AD. Clement was a disciple of Peter, as Ignatius writes.

All the proof in the world backs up the fact that the church in Rome and the church in the rest of the world were all in communion with eachother.

The Church in Jerusalem was the Catholic Church so there is nothing to prove that it was founded before.

 

[jimmy]

Here is a link to some of the church fathers. You can look up the points that I have said.

newadvent.org/fathers/

Look at Irenaeus “Against Heresies” Book III Chapter III(You can also look at chapter IV).

Look at the epistle of Clement to the Corinthians.

Look at the epistle of Ignatius to the Romans.

You can also verify the teachings of the Catholic Church with these early fathers and see that they are the same.

 

[uniChristian]

jimmy:

What makes you think that because the preaching started in Jerusalem it did not go to Rome? The early church fathers would agree that there was a church in Rome. Ignatius writes to the church in Rome in 100AD.

The church in Jerusalem was the same as the church in Rome. Bishops were ordained by other bishops and there was succession of them since the first century, that is why Irenaeus traces the bishops of Rome in the 2nd century.

No one says that the church started in Rome. It was started in Jerusalem and it moved to Rome also when Peter and Paul went there. Its a good chance since Ignatius of Antioch wrote in 100AD to Rome. Ignatius was the disciple of John so you know that the church of Rome is connected to the apostles if the disciple of John the Apostle is writing to them. Clement of Rome also wrote to the church in Corinth prior to 100AD. Clement was a disciple of Peter, as Ignatius writes.

All the proof in the world backs up the fact that the church in Rome and the church in the rest of the world were all in communion with eachother.

The Church in Jerusalem was the Catholic Church so there is nothing to prove that it was founded before.

The Church in Rome may have been a corbon copy of the one in Jerusalem for a while but many changes took place in the Roman Church after it became a state religion.

 

[jimmy]

uniChristian:

The Church in Rome may have been a corbon copy of the one in Jerusalem for a while but many changes took place in the Roman Church after it became a state religion.

You are going to have to back those claims up with proof. I would like to see this proof from the church fathers. You must remember that the church fathers were published by a protestant, so they are not meant to show bias toward the Catholic Church.

Read any epistle of Ignatius and you will see the teachings of the Catholic Church. Read Irenaeus, like I have posted and you will see the Catholic teachings. Read Justin and you will see the teachings of the Catholic Church. You can read any church father you will not find a consensus on any issue contradicting the Catholic Church.

Here is a quote from Irenaeus that basically gives the co-redemptrix of Mary doctrine.

1. In accordance with this design, Mary the Virgin is found obedient, saying, “Behold the handmaid of the Lord; be it unto me according to thy word.” But Eve was disobedient; for she did not obey when as yet she was a virgin. And even as she, having indeed a husband, Adam, but being nevertheless as yet a virgin (for in Paradise “they were both naked, and were not ashamed,” inasmuch as they, having been created a short time previously, had no understanding of the procreation of children: for it was necessary that they should first come to adult age, and then multiply from that time onward), having become disobedient, was made the cause of death, both to herself and to the entire human race; so also did Mary, having a man betrothed [to her], and being nevertheless a virgin, by yielding obedience, become the cause of salvation, both to herself and the whole human race. And on this account does the law term a woman betrothed to a man, the wife of him who had betrothed her, although she was as yet a virgin; thus indicating the back-reference from Mary to Eve, because what is joined together could not otherwise be put asunder than by inversion of the process by which these bonds of union had arisen; s so that the former ties be cancelled by the latter, that the latter may set the former again at liberty. And it has, in fact, happened that the first compact looses from the second tie, but that the second tie takes the position of the first which has been cancelled. For this reason did the Lord declare that the first should in truth be last, and the last first. And the prophet, too, indicates the same, saying, “instead of fathers, children have been born unto thee.” For the Lord, having been born “the First-begotten of the dead,” and receiving into His bosom the ancient fathers, has regenerated them into the life of God, He having been made Himself the beginning of those that live, as Adam became the beginning of those who die. Wherefore also Luke, commencing the genealogy with the Lord, carried it back to Adam, indicating that it was He who regenerated them into the Gospel of life, and not they Him. And thus also it was that the knot of Eve’s disobedience was loosed by the obedience of Mary. For what the virgin Eve had bound fast through unbelief, this did the virgin Mary set free through faith. Irenaeus “Against Heresies” Book III Chapter 22

 

[jimmy]

uniChristian:

The Church in Rome may have been a corbon copy of the one in Jerusalem for a while but many changes took place in the Roman Church after it became a state religion.

Here is a quote from Justin saying basically the same thing.

For [Christ] called one of His disciples–previously known by the name of Simon–Peter; since he recognised Him to be Christ the Son. of God, by the revelation of His Father: and since we find it recorded in the memoirs of His apostles that He is the Son of God, and since we call Him the Son, we have understood that He proceeded before all creatures from the Father by His power and will (for He is addressed in the writings of the prophets in one way or another as Wisdom, and the Day, and the East, and a Sword, and a Stone, and a Rod, and Jacob, **and Israel); and that He became man by the Virgin, in order that the disobedience which proceeded from the serpent might receive its destruction in the same manner in which it derived its origin. For Eve, who was a virgin and undefiled, having conceived the word of the serpent, brought forth disobedience and death. But the Virgin Mary received faith and joy, when the angel Gabriel announced the good tidings to her that the Spirit of the Lord would come upon her, and the power of the Highest would overshadow her: wherefore also the Holy Thing begotten of her is the Son of God; and she replied, ‘Be it unto me according to thy word.’ And by her has He been born, to whom we have proved so many Scriptures refer, **and by whom God destroys both the serpent and those angels and men who are like him; but works deliverance from death to those who repent of their wickedness and believe upon Him.

 

[jimmy]

Here is a quote from Tertulan saying the same thing.

**

The similarity of circumstances between the first and the second Adam, as to the derivation of their flesh. An analogy also pleasantly traced between Eve and the Virgin Mary.

But, leaving Alexander with his syllogisms, which he so perversely applies in his discussions, as well as with the hymns of Valentinus, which, with consummate assurance, he interpolates as the production of some respectable author, let us confine our inquiry to a single point–Whether Christ received flesh from the virgin?–that we may thus arrive at a certain proof that His flesh was human, if He derived its substance from His mother’s womb, although we are at once furnished with clear evidences of the human character of His flesh, from its name and description as that of a man, and from the nature of its constitution, and from the system of its sensations, and from its suffering of death. Now, it will first by necessary to show what previous reason there was for the Son of God’s being born of a virgin. He who was going to consecrate a new order of birth, must Himself be born after a novel fashion, concerning which Isaiah foretold how that the Lord Himself would give the sign. What, then, is the sign? “Behold a virgin shall conceive and bear a son.” Accordingly, a virgin did conceive and bear “Emmanuel, God with us.” This is the new nativity; a man is born in God. And in this man God was born, taking the flesh of an ancient race, without the help, however, of the ancient seed, in order that He might reform it with a new seed, that is, in a spiritual manner, and cleanse it by the re-moral of all its ancient stains. But the whole of this new birth was prefigured, as was the case in all other instances, in ancient type, the Lord being born as man by a dispensation in which a virgin was the medium. The earth was still in a virgin state, reduced as yet by no human labour, with no seed as yet cast into its furrows, when, as we are told, God made man out of it into a living soul. As, then, the first Adam is thus introduced to us, it is a just inference that the second Adam likewise, as the apostle has told us, was formed by God into a quickening spirit out of the ground,–in other words, out of a flesh which was unstained as yet by any human generation. But that I may lose no opportunity of supporting my argument from the name of Adam, why is Christ called Adam by the apostle, unless it be that, as man, He was of that earthly origin? And even reason here maintains the same conclusion, because it was by just the contrary operation that God recovered His own image and likeness, of which He had been robbed by the devil. For it was while Eve was yet a virgin, that the ensnaring word had crept into her ear which was to build the edifice of death. Into a virgin’s soul, in like manner, must be introduced that Word of God which was to raise the fabric of life; so that what had been reduced to ruin by this sex, might by the selfsame sex be recovered to salvation. As Eve had believed the serpent, so Mary believed the angel. The delinquency which the one occasioned by believing, the other by believing effaced. But (it will be said) Eve did not at the devil’s word conceive in her womb. Well, she at all events conceived; for the devil’s word afterwards became as seed to her that she should conceive as an outcast, and bring forth in sorrow. Indeed she gave birth to a fratricidal devil; whilst Mary, on the contrary, bare one who was one day to secure salvation to Israel, His own brother after the flesh, and the murderer of Himself. God therefore sent down into the virgin’s womb His Word, as the good Brother, who should blot out the memory of the evil brother. Hence it was necessary that Christ should come forth for the salvation of man, in that condition of flesh into which man had entered ever since his condemnation.

**

 

[SilentRick15]

Aren’t there 5 churches about the same age?

Rome
Byzantium
Jerusalem
Antioch
Alexandria (?) I hope this is the 5th one, not sure…

Please, I am misguided…tell me if I’m right or wrong on this one because I’m not sure. I could have sworn I saw this on a thread a long time ago.

 

[DominvsVobiscvm]

The Church was Catholic before She ever reache Rome. Exporter is right on target with his response.

It is also very unlikely that Peter was ever in Rome.

The vast majority of historians, religious and secular, would disagree with you. For tons of documentation, buy, or check-out from your library, Stephen Ray’s Upon This Rock: Saint Peter and the Primacy of Rome in Scripture and the Early Church.

Even if it did, it’s churches are done with, gone.

That’s like saying that the Roman Empire disapeeared when Ceaser Augustus died. That’s just silly.

You act as if the Apostles died, and then Christianity had to start all over from scratch, as if these disciples of Jesus did not themselves have disciples who preserved their teaching.

There’s an entire field of study called Patristics that deals with the writings of the Early Church Fathers. To these we can add ancient liturgical texts (composed by the same Fathers, and rooted in the Apostles’ own teaching and practice), as well as early Christian art and architecture. All the evidence points to the early Church being Catholic, though of course the Church has undergone much development since 2000 years ago. But that’s to be expected; such development is gradual and organic, like when a baby grows into an adult.

The thing is, when an organism gorws it becomes more of what it truly is; it does not become something totally different from what it was in the beginning. No early Church Father would have recognized Protestant Christianity if they were presented with it. Catholic Christianity, in its essentials (faith and worship), is the Christianity of the early Church. (Again, as I noted, there have been many visible changes, and the theology has become more nuanced and precise. But there have not been dogmatic reversals, and even the various elaboarate rituals developed from more simplified ones.)

And lastly, no one is claiming that the Roman Church was the first Church founded. Probelm is, you eqiate “Catholicism” with the “Roman Church.” Sometimes the phrase “Roman Church” does denote the entire Catholic Communion, but in the sense in which we are using it (i.e. as a specific diocese) it does not.

The Church in Rome may have been a corbon copy of the one in Jerusalem for a while but many changes took place in the Roman Church after it became a state religion.

Yes, but none of these changes included changes in dogma. All of the supposed “paganisms” of the Catholic Church were believed and practiced long before the reign of Theodosius, when Catholic Christians were hiding in the catcacombs or being fed to lions.

 

[jimmy]

SilentRick15:

Aren’t there 5 churches about the same age?

Rome
Byzantium
Jerusalem
Antioch
Alexandria (?) I hope this is the 5th one, not sure…

Please, I am misguided…tell me if I’m right or wrong on this one because I’m not sure. I could have sworn I saw this on a thread a long time ago.

There are three ancient churches. Rome Antioch and Jerusalem. Constantinople and Alexandria were later raised to episcopates.

 

[hlgomez]

Just my comment: UniChristian should be called —
“Un-Christian” in his replies.

Pio

 

[RBushlow]

Led Zeppelin75:

It is also very unlikely that Peter was ever in Rome.

Led,

You sincerely need to do some homework. Virtually every serious scholar whether Protestant, Catholic, or secular, agrees that the overwhelming preponderance of the evidence points to Peter being martyred and buried in Rome. They have even identified the spot where he was killed.

.