Historical Christianity is One, Holy, Catholic, & Apostolic Church

  • Thread starter Thread starter Mannyfit75
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
M

Mannyfit75

Guest
Since the other thread was closed. I decided to make this one. I am going to be very brief.

In the Beginning of Christian, Jesus Christ build His Church upon Peter and then his apostles.

His Apostle spread the Gospel verbally throughout the Roman Empire. When the last apostle died, the mission of Christ did not end. The Apostles had successors, bishops, and priests. Amongst the first of these were the Apostolic Fathers, St. Ignatius of Antioch, St. Polycarp, Clement of Rome, and St. Papias. These men were either taught by the disciples and knew them.

The Early Church Community also have five Patriarchiates.
  1. Church in Rome (established by Paul and St. Peter)
  2. Church in Antioch (Peter)
  3. Church in Jerusalem (James)
  4. Church in Alexandria (Mark)
  5. Church in Constantinople (Andrew).
All Five Churches and other Churches were One, Holy Catholic, and Apostolic Church. The East and West were one before the Schism of 1054.

There were no Baptists, no Calvinists, no Lutheran, no Protestant period. The Christians belong to this One Catholic Church.

History disproves Protestantism, and it proves that Catholicism had a major role in Christianity.
 
Mannyfit75 said:
Since the other thread was closed. I decided to make this one. I am going to be very brief.

In the Beginning of Christian, Jesus Christ build His Church upon Peter and then his apostles.

His Apostle spread the Gospel verbally throughout the Roman Empire. When the last apostle died, the mission of Christ did not end. The Apostles had successors, bishops, and priests. Amongst the first of these were the Apostolic Fathers, St. Ignatius of Antioch, St. Polycarp, Clement of Rome, and St. Papias. These men were either taught by the disciples and knew them.

The Early Church Community also have five Patriarchiates.
  1. Church in Rome (established by Paul and St. Peter)
  2. Church in Antioch (Peter)
  3. Church in Jerusalem (James)
  4. Church in Alexandria (Mark)
  5. Church in Constantinople (Andrew).
All Five Churches and other Churches were One, Holy Catholic, and Apostolic Church. The East and West were one before the Schism of 1054.

There were no Baptists, no Calvinists, no Lutheran, no Protestant period. The Christians belong to this One Catholic Church.

History disproves Protestantism, and it proves that Catholicism had a major role in Christianity.
Click to expand...
Priests? Not mentioned in the Bible or any of the people you mentioned.
They also spread his teachings by writing them down, three people, Matthew one of the twelve, Luke, and Mark within 30 years after his resurrection.
The church was divided from the beginning, the entire Bible points to the problems at Corinth, the churches in Revelation, and the letters of the NT.
 
Rightlydivide said:
Priests? Not mentioned in the Bible or any of the people you mentioned.
They also spread his teachings by writing them down, three people, Matthew one of the twelve, Luke, and Mark within 30 years after his resurrection.
The church was divided from the beginning, the entire Bible points to the problems at Corinth, the churches in Revelation, and the letters of the NT.
Click to expand...
And how were the problems at Corinth solved? By Clement, the bishop of Rome.

Oh, and Ignatius of Antioch definitely mentions priests. He also mentions bishops. Have you read his epistle to the Smyrneans?
 
Atreyu said:
And how were the problems at Corinth solved? By Clement, the bishop of Rome.

Oh, and Ignatius of Antioch definitely mentions priests. He also mentions bishops. Have you read his epistle to the Smyrneans?
Click to expand...
Clement was following in the footsteps of his mentor Paul. That is why the Corinthians sought him out out. He was just a bishop/elder in Rome. If Clement was Pope that makes Paul a Pope too.
The most telling thing is there is absolutely nothing in that letter that supports Catholic doctrines not supported by the Bible.

Ignatius letters are frauds and forgories. Do not make me laugh.
geocities.com/b_d_muller/ignatius.html
IF they were legitimate, he is just the first heretic.
Just so you know, he mentions bishops and presbyters(Catholics try to claim the word presbyteros means Priest when God’s Holy Word has another word hiereus for priest, the offices were interchangeable prior to their nonbiblical use instiututed by some Christians a hundred years later, even your “Catholic scholars” know that.
At some point in the late first century or early second century of the Christian era, Greek-speaking Christians began using hierós ‘holy (person)’ to refer first to bishops
Click to expand...
Wiipedia
 
Rightlydivide said:
Clement was following in the footsteps of his mentor Paul. That is why the Corinthians sought him out out. He was just a bishop/elder in Rome. If Clement was Pope that makes Paul a Pope too.
Click to expand...
Paul was an Apostle, and thus had the same jurisdiction as the Twelve over the entire Catholic Church, under Peter. (Obviously, he would not have had any authority over factions outside of the Church, any more than Pope Benedict XVI or any of the Cardinals have any authority over Protestants today.)

Clement was Bishop of Rome, but he was not an Apostle, so what was he doing “meddling” in the affairs of Corinth, half a world away (from his POV)? 🤷

If the Corinthian Church was a completely different denomination from the Roman Church, he should not even have been consulted - they should have looked to their own local authorities for guidance, or else split off and started up yet another denomination, in order to teach what they thought was right, if they didn’t think their local authorities were competent.
 
Rightlydivide said:
Clement was following in the footsteps of his mentor Paul. That is why the Corinthians sought him out out. He was just a bishop/elder in Rome. If Clement was Pope that makes Paul a Pope too.
Click to expand...
RightlyDivide,

No writings of the ECF indictate Paul as a Pope. There tons of ECF materials that indict that Peter is. At the time, the universal Pope was Peter. There can’t be two Popes at once.

Peter received his office from Jesus Christ, when Jesus told him “feed my sheep…feed my lambs…” Indeed, Paul did spread the Gospel to the Romans. History proves that.

He was by no means a bishop. He was an Apostle of the Gentiles. When Peter was martyred, his authority was handed down to Linus.

Clement himself was ordain bishop by Peter according to Ebusius. He is the third successor or Peter.

The most telling thing is there is absolutely nothing in that letter that supports Catholic doctrines not supported by the Bible.
Ignatius letters are frauds and forgories. Do not make me laugh.
geocities.com/b_d_muller/ignatius.html
IF they were legitimate, he is just the first heretic.
Just so you know, he mentions bishops and presbyters(Catholics try to claim the word presbyteros means Priest when God’s Holy Word has another word hiereus for priest, the offices were interchangeable prior to their nonbiblical use instiututed by some Christians a hundred years later, even your “Catholic scholars” know that.
Click to expand...
Wiipedia
Click to expand...
Only 7 of 13 his letters were considered to be authentic.

Authentic:

Ignatius of Antioch, Letter of
  • of Ephesus (Pros Ephesious);
  • of Magnesia (Magnesieusin);
  • of Tralles (Trallianois);
  • of Rome (Pros Romaious);
  • of Philadelphia (Philadelpheusin);
  • of Smyrna (Smyrnaiois); and
  • to Polycarp (Pros Polykarpon).
Not Authentic:

We find these seven mentioned not only by Eusebius (“Hist. eccl.”, III, xxxvi) but also by St. Jerome (De viris illust., c. xvi). Of later collections of Ignatian letters which have been preserved, the oldest is known as the “long recension”. This collection, the author of which is unknown, dates from the latter part of the fourth century. It contains the seven genuine and six spurious letters, but even the genuine epistles were greatly interpolated to lend weight to the personal views of its author. For this reason they are incapable of bearing witness to the original form. The spurious letters in this recension are those that purport to be from Ignatius.
  • to Mary of Cassobola (Pros Marian Kassoboliten);
  • to the Tarsians (Pros tous en tarso);
  • to the Philippians (Pros Philippesious);
  • to the Antiochenes (Pros Antiocheis);
  • to Hero a deacon of Antioch (Pros Erona diakonon Antiocheias). Associated with the foregoing is
  • a letter from Mary of Cassobola to Ignatius.
 
They were writing to their own Churches - Ignatius had seven churches - I’m not sure how many Polycarp had - but they weren’t writing to people 500 miles outside of their jurisdiction.
Click to expand...
That is not correct. Ignatius was not writing to his own churches.
Polycarp was not writing to his own church.
You are not correct. Are you saying that Ignatius was in charge of the church at Rome?
But again, if Clement was nothing more than a local Bishop, why should they obey him, or even consult him? He was nearly 500 miles away, on the other side of the sea - that’s a heck of a long way to go on foot and by sailboat, just to get a random opinion - it was about a month’s journey to get there, and then another month to get back again.
Click to expand...
They consulted him because of his dealings with the Apostle Paul and he gave great advice. It is a remarkable letter.
 
I am not interested in having a discussion about anything outside of the Bible. I do not trust the ECF.
 
BrianH said:
That is not correct. Ignatius was not writing to his own churches.
Polycarp was not writing to his own church.
You are not correct. Are you saying that Ignatius was in charge of the church at Rome?
Click to expand...
He was writing to six Churches

Ephesus
Magnesia
Tralles
Rome
Philadelphia

and one letter to Polycarp, who is his close friend.
 
Rightlydivide said:
I am not interested in having a discussion about anything outside of the Bible. I do not trust the ECF.
Click to expand...
So you don’t trust the Apostle’s authority to the 1st Generation of Christians?

St. Ignatius, St. Polycarp, St. Clement of Rome, and St. Papias. These are **first generation Christians **taught by the Apostles themselves. If you do not held them as authentic, you shouldn’t trust the Apostles for teaching them anything else.

These Christian Leaders fought heresies of Gnosticism, and others much like the Apostles did.

These are Apostolic Fathers. They differ from the Nicene-Credo-Fathers (Post Council of Nicea 325 AD).

Since you do not trust the Early Church Fathers, then you should not trust the doctrine of the Trinity.

It was the Post-Nicene Credo Fathers who taught that God is a Triune God, Three Persons but One God.

Don’t you believe in the Trinity?

To believe in this doctrine is to believe that ECF have some credibility.

In Scripture there is as yet no single term by which the Three Divine Persons are denoted together. The word trias (of which the Latin trinitas is a translation) is first found in Theophilus of Antioch about A.D. 180. He speaks of "the Trinity of God [the Father], His Word and His Wisdom (“Ad. Autol.”, II, 15). The term may, of course, have been in use before his time. Afterwards it appears in its Latin form of trinitas in Tertullian (“De pud.” c. xxi). In the next century the word is in general use. It is found in many passages of Origen (“In Ps. xvii”, 15). The first creed in which it appears is that of Origen’s pupil, Gregory Thaumaturgus. In his Ekthesis tes pisteos composed between 260 and 270, he writes:

There is therefore nothing created,* nothing subject to another in the Trinity**: nor is there anything that has been added as though it once had not existed, but had entered afterwards: therefore the Father has never been without the Son, nor the Son without the Spirit: and this same Trinity is immutable and unalterable forever* (P. G., X, 986).
 
Rightlydivide said:
I am not interested in having a discussion about anything outside of the Bible. I do not trust the ECF.
Click to expand...
So you reject the Trinity?
And if you don’t accept the church fathers why do you accept their Canon of the Bible?
 
estesbob said:
So you reject the Trinity?
Click to expand...
If he truly reject the ECF he ought to reject the Trinity. The ECF taught it and defined it in the Council of Nicea in 325 AD. The word Trinity was never verbally taught by the Apostles themselves. When the heresy of Arianism arise in the year 325, the ECF had to define the nature of God. They base this on several Scriptural Text in the NT, especially Jesus’ own words, “baptism them in the Name of the Father, And of the Son, and Of the Holy Spirit.”
 
1 John5:7 For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one.
 
Rightlydivide said:
1 John5:7 For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one.
Click to expand...
But it doesn’t say** Trinity**. You **can’t find the word **Trinity in the Bible. It derives from Origen’s writings. Trinity originated from the Latin word Trinitas.

Do you believe in the Trinity? If you do, then you have to believe that the ECF have it right concerning the Triune God.
 
ryanoneil said:
presbyteroi are mentioned in the Bible. They are the elders and priests of the Church. Acts 20:17; 1 Tim. 5:17; Titus 1:5; James 5:14
Click to expand...
There is no such thing as an office of priest in the NT for Christians.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top