church history (reinvented)

  • Thread starter Thread starter chewchoo
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
C

chewchoo

Guest
driving home today i saw a sign for “apostolic church”. so i googled it.
i got a lot of hits of mostly independent churches. i also found this church history. godsguarantees.com/church_history.pdf

does anyone know when this reworking of church history began? and why do the protestants need to reinvent the history? yes, a lot of them are anti-catholic, but what are they trying to gain?

you would think that if their histories were true, then the history above would coincide with all of the other anti-catholic histories that have been generated over the years.
 
have you ever heard of “the new apostolic church”,almost every time i drive by this one i am tempted to stop and ask what happened to the old apostolic church…
 
fbl9 said:
have you ever heard of “the new apostolic church”,almost every time i drive by this one i am tempted to stop and ask what happened to the old apostolic church…
Click to expand...
exactly - grab a church term, add an adjective or two and wha-la a new church. and then pick a heretical group from old and claim them as your church’s starting point and say how it was persecuted by the catholic church. 🤷 but they never site any sources for their histories.
 
chewchoo said:
glad you like it. can you tell me what about it is appealing to you? other than it distorts catholic history.
Click to expand...
I like that sources are cited.
I dont for a minute belive many of the Catholic sources.
 
Hisalone said:
I like that sources are cited.
I dont for a minute belive many of the Catholic sources.
Click to expand...
This is what the link says:
Heretics used many organizational names, throughout the centuries as we will discover in this
study. Such names as Donatist, Samosatene, Celtic Christianity, Albigensians, Anabaptist,
Cathari
Mani, Noetus, Priscillianism, Sabellians, are just a few of the Jesus Name Organizations that
have
been alive and well since the Day of Pentecost.
Click to expand...
Donatists were Gnostic-- how were they the “Apostolic Church”?
Celtic Christianity was started with St. Patrick, a Catholic Bishop.
Albigensians believed in duelism and that fornication was preferrable to marriage. How are they the “Apostolic Church”?
Anabaptists were formed under the auspices of Menno Simmons and Joseph Ammon-- in the 1500’s. How could they be the “Apostolic Church”?
Mani (not even Christian, said he was divine and foretold by Christ) Noetus, Pricillianism, and Sebellians were all heretics-- even the protestants say they were, and they hold different views from protestants and one another. How can they be the “Apostolic Church”?

Finally, how can all these groups, completely different beliefs, all be the “Apostolic Church”? The anabaptists are still around today, why don’t they join them?

BOGUS!
 
The name Cathari gradually faded. Then was heard the name ALBIGENSES. Yet later,
Albigensian gradually gave way to ANABAPTISM.
Click to expand...
Oh my gosh… this is so blatantly false. Here are the so-called forefathers of the modern-day, so-called “Apostolic Christians”:
Catharism was a name given to a Christian religious sect with dualistic and gnostic elements that appeared in the Languedoc region of France in the 11th century and flourished in the 12th and 13th centuries. Catharism had its roots in the Paulician movement in Armenia and the Bogomils of Bulgaria with whom the Paulicians merged. They also became influenced by dualist and, perhaps, Manichaean beliefs.
Click to expand...
Anabaptism simply means to re-baptize
someone. The Anabaptist would re-baptize any one who was not baptized in Jesus Name.
Click to expand...
That’s not true! They baptized with the Trinitarian formula, and still do to this day (my sister is one)! They re-baptized those who were baptized as infants.
 
This is very interesting - I can tell that alot of it lines up with truth, but im going to look further into it. Like for instance Hitler was raised catholic but did not stay that way. So, it sounds like this writer might have made things more extreme then they were. By the way most protestants dont like to change history but want to know it, but there are still those out there both protestant, catholic, mormon, and what ever else that exault themselves and try to mess with scripture or history
 
FollowTheWay said:
This is very interesting - I can tell that alot of it lines up with truth, but im going to look further into it. Like for instance Hitler was raised catholic but did not stay that way. So, it sounds like this writer might have made things more extreme then they were. By the way most protestants dont like to change history but want to know it, but there are still those out there both protestant, catholic, mormon, and what ever else that exault themselves and try to mess with scripture or history
Click to expand...
Please see my above two posts. This “history” is no history at all-- just bogus, dremt-up falsities.
 
Not all of it is fake, but thats what I want to find out is what ones are or what ones are added too
 
FollowTheWay said:
Not all of it is fake, but thats what I want to find out is what ones are or what ones are added too
Click to expand...
If the author of this document doesn’t mind distorting or misrepresenting the truth, then you cannot trust 'em. I’ve already shown several giant holes in there little kaboodle.
 
Hisalone said:
I like that sources are cited.
I dont for a minute belive many of the Catholic sources.
Click to expand...
what sources did he have listed? i didn’t see any…
sure there were a few bible quotes, but that doesn’t aid the history beyond 80AD.
 
chewchoo said:
driving home today i saw a sign for “apostolic church”. so i googled it.
i got a lot of hits of mostly independent churches. i also found this church history. godsguarantees.com/church_history.pdf

does anyone know when this reworking of church history began? and why do the protestants need to reinvent the history? yes, a lot of them are anti-catholic, but what are they trying to gain?

you would think that if their histories were true, then the history above would coincide with all of the other anti-catholic histories that have been generated over the years.
Click to expand...
The irony of these churches is that they cannot trace their origins back to Christ and his Apostles.

You want an Apostolic Church, join the Catholic Church or Eastern Orthodox Church. These two churches have its foundations on the Apostles.
 
Don’t forget the Mar Toma Church, which was founded by St. Thomas and was originally in communion with the See of St. Peter, but, because of geographical separation, was separated unfortunately.
 
Mannyfit75 said:
The irony of these churches is that they cannot trace their origins back to Christ and his Apostles.

You want an Apostolic Church, join the Catholic Church or Eastern Orthodox Church. These two churches have its foundations on the Apostles.
Click to expand...
i know that 🙂
it is the irony that i am trying to iron out.
what is the desire to keep reinventing history to be the “true” church?
i realize a lot of folks don’t like the catholic church, but how can they honestly think they are part of the true church when they lie about history?
 
Matariel said:
Don’t forget the Mar Toma Church, which was founded by St. Thomas and was originally in communion with the See of St. Peter, but, because of geographical separation, was separated unfortunately.
Click to expand...
similarly, the celtic church was separated and now people are saying that it was never part of the catholic church, that the catholic church “forced” into alliance with rome. where do people get these ideas?

see this thread forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=285355
 
chewchoo said:
i know that 🙂
it is the irony that i am trying to iron out.
what is the desire to keep reinventing history to be the “true” church?
i realize a lot of folks don’t like the [C]atholic [C]hurch, but how can they honestly think they are part of the true [C]hurch when they lie about history?
Click to expand...
I know? It really only makes them look bad. that’s why I call them the Faux-Apostolic Church. We have one around here called, “Apostolic True Foundation Church of Jesus Christ II”.

That’s right, “II” as in 2! :rolleyes:
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top