How many "churches" did Christ Start?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Sabbath_Keeper
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
S

Sabbath_Keeper

Guest
The following was taken from the “Sinless Mary” thread:
Christ established churches and the Apostles taught in these churches, and these churches in Apostolic times each had opposing doctrines and contradicted and attacked each other over even the most basic doctrines. These are the churches Christ established to lead us to all truth and the gates of hell its-self, He said, could not hold against this dissorganised contradictory rabble.
Where did you ever get the idea that Christ established “churches” and the Apostles taught in them? This never happened. Christ taught in the Syngogues among his own people, they denied him and crucified him. Only after this were the churches established, by the Apostles and none among the Gentiles until after Stephen was stoned and Saul was converted by Christ himself. Please, read the scriptures before making erroneous statements like this. :eek:
*Because Christ Himself said; You are peters and on this Peters I will build My Churches.

I did not say Christ taught in the churches, only that He established the churches. These churches are the churches which the Apostles wrote letters to contradicting each other on matters of doctrine. And they often wrote also of how much they wished to see those people of those churches again. There was much fighting between the different churches of the different Apostles because they all believed different things.
Hmm, perhaps you should start a different thread on this subject as this is off topic for this one. However, you have an interesting view and it might be advantageous for you to persue it futher elsewhere (ie another thread.)
I am starting this because it appears that there is a misconception on this person’s part wherein he/she believes that Christ started more than one church, that the Apostles were working against one another and that there was no unity in the Church. I have viewed this persons posts to other threads and it also appears that he/she is a RC and does not understand what the RCC teaches on this subject. I am not an RCC, yet I am more seem be more aware of what is taught on this subject by the RCC than this person. How could he/she have gotten this view of how the Church became?
 
The following was taken from the “Sinless Mary” thread:

I am starting this because it appears that there is a misconception on this person’s part wherein he/she believes that Christ started more than one church, that the Apostles were working against one another and that there was no unity in the Church. I have viewed this persons posts to other threads and it also appears that he/she is a RC and does not understand what the RCC teaches on this subject. I am not an RCC, yet I am more seem be more aware of what is taught on this subject by the RCC than this person. How could he/she have gotten this view of how the Church became?
:bowdown: :bowdown: :bowdown: :frighten:
 
I am starting this because it appears that there is a misconception on this person’s part wherein he/she believes that Christ started more than one church, that the Apostles were working against one another and that there was no unity in the Church. I have viewed this persons posts to other threads and it
also appears that he/she is a RC and does not understand what the RCC teaches on this subject.
I doubt that “thing” is a Catholic. Of course Christ established One Church with Peter as the head of the visible Church. There was no division in the early Church. No one went off and started another Church. Paul’s letter’s to the churches were to instruct them and guide them into the One Truth.
THe Counsel of Jerusalem was called to settle an issue. The decision was then taken to the other churches. There was total unity.
 
I suspect that “Thing” was being facetious to make a point.

Do I have that right, Thing?

Usagi
 
I doubt that “thing” is a Catholic. Of course Christ established One Church with Peter as the head of the visible Church. There was no division in the early Church. No one went off and started another Church. Paul’s letter’s to the churches were to instruct them and guide them into the One Truth.
THe Counsel of Jerusalem was called to settle an issue. The decision was then taken to the other churches. There was total unity.
Hmmm…I might have to rethink this one…unless…
…are there no non-Catholic Christians, at all, out there who will back me up?:crutches:
 
I suspect that “Thing” was being facetious to make a point.

Do I have that right, Thing?

Usagi
yes…sigh…hey, but its working!

(why does everyone put my name in inverted commas, it makes me feel like something the cat dragged in.)
 
Hmmm…I might have to rethink this one…unless…
…are there no non-Catholic Christians, at all, out there who will back me up?:crutches:
I don’t think you’re going to get support, especially since you misqouted the scripture you sited.🤷
 
I doubt that “thing” is a Catholic. Of course Christ established One Church with Peter as the head of the visible Church. There was no division in the early Church. No one went off and started another Church. Paul’s letter’s to the churches were to instruct them and guide them into the One Truth.
THe Counsel of Jerusalem was called to settle an issue. The decision was then taken to the other churches. There was total unity.
Oops. 😉

And the EO would say Rome broke off from the one true Church.
Jon
 
Oops. 😉

And the EO would say Rome broke off from the one true Church.
Jon
:pshaw:

…Hmmm… there were 33 Popes in Romes’ history before Constantinople was built and given its first bishop, Metrophanes in 325 AD…:flowers:
 
:pshaw:

…Hmmm… there were 33 Popes in Romes’ history before Constantinople was built and given its first bishop, Metrophanes in 325 AD…:flowers:
In all charitableness, I find it strange, with all the documents, some dated as early as 100 AD, that the records concerning the early Popes are very scetchy, and most nonexistant for at least 100 years. :eek:
 
In all charitableness, I find it strange, with all the documents, some dated as early as 100 AD, that the records concerning the early Popes are very scetchy, and most nonexistant for at least 100 years. :eek:
:coffeeread:

That does not mean there were no written contemporaneous records, only that original documents were lost in times of persecution.
100 years is a very short time, you remember your family history of the last 100 years, their names. Its easy when you are visited by chroniclers who record everything.

St. Peter (32-67)
St. Linus (67-76)
St. Anacletus (Cletus) (76-88)
St. Clement I (88-97)
St. Evaristus (97-105)
St. Alexander I (105-115)
St. Sixtus I (115-125) Also called Xystus I
St. Telesphorus (125-136)
St. Hyginus (136-140)
St. Pius I (140-155)

Here is the list of the Popes for the first 100 years after the death of St. Peter.
You may well be wondering, we have the list of Popes, where is the original documents;

Hegesippus (chronicler)

Saint Hegesippus
Born 110 AD
Died April 7, 180 AD, Jerusalem, Palaestina
Venerated in Roman Catholic Church, Eastern Orthodox Church
Feast April 7

Saint Hegesippus (Ἅγιος Ἡγήσιππος) (c. 110 — c. April 7, 180 AD[1]), was a Christian chronicler of the early Church who certainly wrote against heresies of the Gnostics and of Marcion. Hegesippus came to Rome under Pope St. Anicetus.

Hegesippus’ works are now entirely lost, save eight passages concerning Church history quoted by Eusebius,[3] who tells us that he wrote Hypomnemata (Ὑπομνήματα; “Memoirs” or “Memoranda”) in five books, in the simplest style concerning the tradition of the Apostolic preaching. Through Eusebius Hegesippus was also known to St. Jerome,[4] who is responsible for the idea that Hegesippus “wrote a history of all ecclesiastical events from the passion of our Lord down to his own period… in five volumes”, which has established the Hypomnemata as a Church history.[5] St. Hegesippus appealed principally to tradition as embodied in the teaching which had been handed down through the succession of bishops, thus providing for Eusebius information about the earliest bishops that otherwise would have been lost.

Emperor Aurelian in 270.
A synod of bishops had condemned Paul of Samosata, Patriarch of Alexandria, on a charge of heresy, and had elected Domnus bishop in his place. Paul refused to withdraw, and appeal was made to the civil power. The emperor decreed that he who was acknowledged by the bishops of Italy and the Bishop of Rome, must be recognized as rightful occupant of the see. The incident proves that even the pagans themselves knew well that communion with the Roman See was the essential mark of all Christian Churches**. That the imperial Government was well aware of the position of the pope among Christians derives additional confirmation from the saying of St. Cyprian that Decius would have sooner heard of the proclamation of a rival emperor than of the election of a new pope to fill the place of the martyred Fabian (Ep. 55:9).

**Eusebius of Caesarea **(c 263 – 339?[1]) (often called Eusebius Pamphili, “Eusebius [the friend] of Pamphilus”) became the bishop of Caesarea Palaestina c 314.[1] He is often referred to as the Father of Church History because of his work in recording the history of the early Christian church, especially Chronicle and Ecclesiastical History[1].

St. Jerome

Born at Stridon, a town on the confines of Dalmatia and Pannonia, about the year 340-2; died at Bethlehem, 30 September, 420.

He went to Rome, probably about 360, where he was baptized, and became interested in ecclesiastical matters. From Rome he went to Trier, famous for its schools, and there began his theological studies. Later he went to Aquileia, and towards 373 he set out on a journey to the East. He settled first in Antioch, where he heard Apollinaris of Laodicea, one of the first exegetes of that time and not yet separated from the Church. From 374-9 Jerome led an ascetical life in the desert of Chalcis, south-west of Antioch. Ordained priest at Antioch, he went to Constantinople (380-81), where a friendship sprang up between him and St. Gregory of Nazianzus. From 382 to August 385 he made another sojourn in Rome, not far from Pope Damasus.

:hey_bud: **The Papacy was recognised by the pagan emperors in written records of 270 AD, Constantinople was not built and given a bishop until 325 AD.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top