LDS Question - How did the first church fail?

[ParkerD]

Exactly. Joseph Smith did not restore Christianity. He invented Mormonism

Stephen168,
Of course Joseph Smith didn’t restore the Christianity you are familiar with and used to. The Christianity in its fullness as described in the Bible is not the version that is being practiced (though many good aspects of those teachings are indeed being practiced by many good people) by any religion purely with pure doctrine other than through The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, which uses His name because He directed that it be so, very specifically, after calling a prophet and apostles so that it could be His Church.

Christ is Jehovah, the Great I Am, Alpha and Omega, the Bread of Life and the Water of Life, the Only Begotten Son of God the Father, who is One with the Father and was born on earth of a chosen virgin, Mary, she having had a special mission on earth and being descended from David as prophesied and conceiving by the Holy Ghost overshadowing her.

Peace to all, and have a good day.

 

[Jay53]

Hey Evan,

I am not saying that I know this, because I am pretty new to the CC and am not technically a member yet as I’m still in the initiation process. I am more just thinking out loud here… It seems to me that the experiences of these saints leads people TO Christ, whereas the devil wants to lead people away from the things of God. That doesn’t prove anything (and proof is a rare commidity in matters of faith anyway) however I would think it might be a good starting point.

Out of curiousity, how do LDS members view things like this? I’m pretty curious to know, particularly since they happened in a non-LDS faith, and since they happened after Joseph Smith died. Ditto for Our Lady of Guadalupe, though it happened before JS’s time.

Food for thought on this issue:
catholic.com/thisrock/quickquestions/keyword/apparition

A woman in my prayer group claims that all of the reported Marian apparitions around the world must be from God because their messages are consistent with the Bible and call people to prayer and repentance. She says “the devil would never do anything which would draw people closer to God” and concludes that none of these apparitions could possibly come from the devil.

”A: Your friend is wrong. The message of an alleged apparition is not the only thing on which that apparition’s authenticity should be evaluated. Besides, it’s up to the Church, not to an individual, to make that decision. There have been purported Marian apparitions, later judged by the Church to be spurious, whose messages, although sensational, seemed innocuous and not contrary to orthodoxy.

Your friend is also wrong to assume the devil would never do something that would, ostensibly, draw people to God. In fact, although the devil’s ultimate goal is to remove each of us from God’s presence permanently, he sometimes uses ploys which seem to lead people toward holiness, yet which turn out to be cleverly devised traps designed to impede our progress toward God.

Consider what happened when Paul and Silas were preaching the gospel in Macedonia:

As [they] were going to the place of prayer, [they] met a slave girl with an oracular spirit, who used to bring a large profit to her owners through her fortune telling. She began to follow Paul . . . shouting, “These people are slaves of the Most High God, who proclaim to you a way of salvation.” She did this for many days. Paul became annoyed, turned, and said to the spirit, “I command you in the name of Jesus Christ to come out of her.” Then it came out at that moment. (Acts 16:16-18).
There are two important details to be aware of in this passage. Notice that it was a demonic spirit who was telling people to heed Paul’s teaching. The demon was calling people to believe the gospel which would, in the normal course of events, draw people to God. If you look closely you’ll also see there was an error subtly embedded in the demon’s message, “These people . . . proclaim to you a [not the] way of salvation,” implying that there are other ways to salvation. That is false, of course, and completely contrary to the gospel Paul was preaching.

There is only one way to salvation: through Jesus Christ alone. Jesus said, “I am the way the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me” (John 14:6 [see John 10:9]). Peter echoed the Lord’s teaching, explaining, “There is no salvation through anyone else, nor is there any other name under heaven given to the human race by which we are to be saved” (Acts 4:12). The demon in Acts 16 was trying to introduce error, sugar-coated with a perfectly laudable appeal to embrace the gospel.

Never doubt that the devil can, if he thinks he needs to, use the incongruous ploy of urging us to turn to God as part of his larger plan of introducing error and exploiting religious fervor that’s not solidly grounded upon authentic Christian spirituality. That’s why the first pope warned us to be on guard against his wiles. “Be sober and vigilant. Your opponent the devil is prowling around like a roaring lion looking for someone to devour. Resist him, steadfast in faith, knowing that your fellow believers throughout the world undergo the same sufferings” (2 Pt 5:8-9).

My observation is that Mormonism does the same thing. It seems to want to draw people to God, but denies them the Eucharist, the Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity of Jesus Christ.

 

[paul_c]

Xavierlives,
I would say that your comment here is an implausible assumption as to knowing everything that Christ did by reading the New Testament, given what John specifically wrote that is now presented to us as John 21:25 (you’ll remember as you look it up), and also given what Christ deliberately and with focused attention taught as follows (which is in a commandment form as it is given):

“Have ye not read, that he which made them at the beginning made them male and female,
And said, For this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife: and they twain shall be one flesh?
Wherefore they are no more twain, but one flesh. What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder.” (Matthew 19:4-6)

Both John 21:25 and Matthew 19:4-6 contain very understandable words conveying very understandable ideas.

are you trying to say that Matt 19: 4-6 in someway implies that Jesus was married?

 

[paul_c]

Stephen168,
Of course Joseph Smith didn’t restore the Christianity you are familiar with and used to. The Christianity in its fullness as described in the Bible is not the version that is being practiced (though many good aspects of those teachings are indeed being practiced by many good people) by any religion purely with pure doctrine other than through The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, which uses His name because He directed that it be so, very specifically, after calling a prophet and apostles so that it could be His Church.

Christ is Jehovah, the Great I Am, Alpha and Omega, the Bread of Life and the Water of Life, the Only Begotten Son of God the Father, who is One with the Father and was born on earth of a chosen virgin, Mary, she having had a special mission on earth and being descended from David as prophesied and conceiving by the Holy Ghost overshadowing her.

Peace to all, and have a good day.

I’m sorry ParkerD, but your statement that the LDS practice Christianity in its fullness as described in the Bible is simply not supportable. As one simple but important example, Do you practice the real presence of the Eucharist as described in John 6, the last supper narratives and in 1Corinthians 10-11?
In fact, there is no way that even a skilled apologist can show that the LDS follows the truths taught by Christ to the Apostles because frankly, they are innovations from the mind of Joseph Smith.

 

[JMJ4]

JMJ4,
If you are serious in asking this question, then Luther was Catholic until he was excommunicated in 1521 by Pope Leo X.

If he had had his way, the Catholic church would have reformed within (remember, the idea of stopping the practice of “indulgences” and all the reformations he outlined in the Ninety-Five Theses, and the counter-Reformation that basically was somewhat of a result of what he started). It appears he didn’t like that a church was begun that used his name as its title–he would have taken its name only from Christ, if he had started a church, but he didn’t.

I disagree with many of his ideas, but I am grateful he showed people that they didn’t need to subscribe to a belief in the sole authority of the church for understanding what God wanted them to do, and certainly for his translation of the Bible into readable German for the German people, and for his desire to do the will of God even if it was contrary to the “will” of the church.

ParkerD- So you agree that the Catholic Church was in existence for at least 1500 years?
And that there was a Pope?
Don’t Mormons subscribe to a belief in the sole authority of their church?

 

[evanfaust]

Paul C says
Oh and by the way, Polygamy was denounced in Paul’s letter to Timothy, which we already discussed (Bishops should have no more than 1 wife). So Joseph Smith missed on this one by 32 wives, i think. And he also commited adultery at least 10 times, marrying other men’s wives. There is no indication in any source (other than the Divinci code) that Jesus was married. And Paul says he himself was celibate.

Evanfaust comments,
Paul C…During the times of Christ and the apostles that seems to be the case, no polygamy was not allowed. During the Book of Mormon times polygamy was not allowed by the Lord either. But we see before Christ in Biblical times that in fact that was a practice accepted by the Lord. So, that tells me that when He finds it appropriate he will allow polygamy. As I mentioned before, nowhere in the Bible says that polygamy should never ever be practiced. We know Joseph to be a prophet and therefore what a prophet reveals comes from the Lord. It is not the other way around. You are working through the back door again. First, you determine if the person is prophet of God, then you accept his revelations.

If you were living during the times of Christ you probably would have a hard time accepting the revelation given by Peter about preaching the gospel to the gentiles, which was contrary to previously revealed scripture!

By the way you are fulfilling a prophecy made by Moroni to Joseph Smith, when he was a young boy.

“He called me by name, and said unto me that he was a messenger sent from the presence of God to me, and that his name was Moroni; that God had a work for me to do; and that my name should be had for good and evil among all nations, kindreds, and tongues, or that it should be both good and evil spoken of among all people.” JS 1:33

 

[TheosisM]

Paul C says
Oh and by the way, Polygamy was denounced in Paul’s letter to Timothy, which we already discussed (Bishops should have no more than 1 wife). So Joseph Smith missed on this one by 32 wives, i think. And he also commited adultery at least 10 times, marrying other men’s wives. There is no indication in any source (other than the Divinci code) that Jesus was married. And Paul says he himself was celibate.

Evanfaust comments,
Paul C…During the times of Christ and the apostles that seems to be the case, no polygamy was not allowed. During the Book of Mormon times polygamy was not allowed by the Lord either. But we see before Christ in Biblical times that in fact that was a practice accepted by the Lord. So, that tells me that when He finds it appropriate he will allow polygamy. As I mentioned before, nowhere in the Bible says that polygamy should never ever be practiced. We know Joseph to be a prophet and therefore what a prophet reveals comes from the Lord. It is not the other way around. You are working through the back door again. First, you determine if the person is prophet of God, then you accept his revelations.

If you were living during the times of Christ you probably would have a hard time accepting the revelation given by Peter about preaching the gospel to the gentiles, which was contrary to previously revealed scripture!

By the way you are fulfilling a prophecy made by Moroni to Joseph Smith, when he was a young boy.

“He called me by name, and said unto me that he was a messenger sent from the presence of God to me, and that his name was Moroni; that God had a work for me to do; and that my name should be had for good and evil among all nations, kindreds, and tongues, or that it should be both good and evil spoken of among all people.” JS 1:33

This is confusing, and perhaps I’m not understanding how LDS interpret 1 Timothy 3.

On the one hand, you are saying that Catholics are in “violation” of 1 Timothy 3 because of priestly celibacy, since bishops are unmarried men. But then, during plural marriage times, LDS bishops were also in violation of the scripture (using the interpretation that you are using), since they were the husbands of more than one wife. Now you are saying that polygamy was not allowed during Biblical times. There doesn’t seem to be a consistent interpretation of 1 Timothy 3 by yourself. Catholics are in violation of the scripture because of celibacy of bishops, while LDS were also in violation of it because of plural marriage, yet they aren’t because polygamy was not allowed during those times, but God revealed that it was allowed in latter-days, so then that scripture did not apply anymore, but now that plural marriage is inactive, it does?

 

[Stephen168]

Of course Joseph Smith didn’t restore the Christianity

I agree. He did not restore anything, but he did invent a totally new religion, then used the name of Jesus to sell it. Joseph Smith made up the Melchizedek Priesthood, Apostles, and polygamy. As I pointed out twice (733 & 826) from the New Testament- Apostles were send by Christ and The Twelve, The Twelve were never meant to be an ongoing position in the Church therefore neither were Apostles. Polygamy has never been a part of Christ’s Church, and only Christ has priesthood like Melchizedek. There were never polygamous Apostles with a Melchizedek Priesthood in Christianity. Joseph Smith made it all up.

The Church started by Christ has his real presence in the Eucharist which requires apostolic succession. Mormonism has neither.

 

[evanfaust]

Paul C
Evan, when St. Bernadette saw Mary 18 times in 1858, she was put through a very rigorous inquisition to determine the nature of those visions. there were hundreds of witnesses called and in the end they found that everythign she said was true and in accordance with established Church teaching. Same for the other acknowledged miracles.

Evanfaust,
Paul C…I don’t question that the vision happened. But, I have some questions about it. Why it is that God sent the virgin Mary to appear Why not Peter, since he was the “first Pope”? Was there a message? What was the message? Was the message for the whole church? Why did not Mary show herself up to the Pope since he is the leader of the Church? Catholics believe Peter was the “first Pople”, and the Lord used to reveal His message to Him. Why is the Lord going through the back door to reveal something for the entire church?

That reminds me of a scripture:

• “VERILY, verily, I say unto you, He that entereth not by the door into the sheepfold, but climbeth up some other way, the same is a thief and a robber.”* John 10:1

 

[ParkerD]

ParkerD- So you agree that the Catholic Church was in existence for at least 1500 years?
And that there was a Pope?
Don’t Mormons subscribe to a belief in the sole authority of their church?

JMJ4,
I am answering to acknowledge your question, but no the Catholic Church was not begun until after 100 AD, and then not fully formed until the Council of Nicea. I agree that Catholics began calling Peter a pope and subscribing to an unsubstantiated claim that Peter was bishop of Rome and that where he died needed to be where the next supposed “pope” received his authority. But John was still alive, so there was no need for such a supposition after Peter had been killed.

Authority comes from the God of heaven, whose it is. The most important authority of the priesthood is the power to “bind” and “loose” on earth that which will be bound or loosed in heaven, which also ties to judgment day, but those terms would need to be understood in order for them to be applied correctly, and the only way they can be applied correctly is by the divine mandate and divine inspiration of the Holy Spirit, and by the keys of the authority being on earth as directed by Jesus Christ and given to the original twelve apostles and their successors as apostles.

Peace to all, and have a good day.

 

[Xavierlives]

Xavierlives,
I’ve already responded that I don’t think Christ was married, but I tend to agree with your sub-point number one, but not with any of the other sub-points other than about his “offspring” being His spiritual “seed”, which I whole-heartedly agree with. I disagree that Mary is shown to have had any more supportive a role than any close mother who lived nearby the person in question. But that is neither here nor there as to whether He was married.

Have a good day.

Yeah, it is a non-issue because it is a non-issue.

 

[paul_c]

Paul C says
Oh and by the way, Polygamy was denounced in Paul’s letter to Timothy, which we already discussed (Bishops should have no more than 1 wife). So Joseph Smith missed on this one by 32 wives, i think. And he also commited adultery at least 10 times, marrying other men’s wives. There is no indication in any source (other than the Divinci code) that Jesus was married. And Paul says he himself was celibate.

Evanfaust comments,
Paul C…During the times of Christ and the apostles that seems to be the case, no polygamy was not allowed. During the Book of Mormon times polygamy was not allowed by the Lord either. But we see before Christ in Biblical times that in fact that was a practice accepted by the Lord. So, that tells me that when He finds it appropriate he will allow polygamy. As I mentioned before, nowhere in the Bible says that polygamy should never ever be practiced. We know Joseph to be a prophet and therefore what a prophet reveals comes from the Lord. It is not the other way around. You are working through the back door again. First, you determine if the person is prophet of God, then you accept his revelations.

If you were living during the times of Christ you probably would have a hard time accepting the revelation given by Peter about preaching the gospel to the gentiles, which was contrary to previously revealed scripture!

By the way you are fulfilling a prophecy made by Moroni to Joseph Smith, when he was a young boy.

“He called me by name, and said unto me that he was a messenger sent from the presence of God to me, and that his name was Moroni; that God had a work for me to do; and that my name should be had for good and evil among all nations, kindreds, and tongues, or that it should be both good and evil spoken of among all people.” JS 1:33

You are using a very weak argument. Polygamy must be okay because it was declared as such by Joseph Smith, who declared himself a prophet. According to this claim, the only time in the last 2000 years that polygamy was allowed was conveniently right when the person claiming it was allowed could benefit. I’m sorry Evan, the fact that polygamy was only allowed when it suited Joseph Smith leads me to say that he lied about it so that he could have sex with 33+ women and this puts his whole credibility severely in question. And by the way, not only did Joseph Smith practice polygamy, marrying multiple wives, but he also practiced adultery, having sex with the wives of others. This has been against God’s rules since he issued the 10 commandments. Surely you must be starting to recognize this.

And by the way, the prophesy you quoted above is not the least bit impressive. When you create a new religion that gives you the benefit of sex and money from your followers, it is easy to prophesy that most people won’t believe you. Its suprising to me that any one does.

 

[paul_c]

Paul C
Evan, when St. Bernadette saw Mary 18 times in 1858, she was put through a very rigorous inquisition to determine the nature of those visions. there were hundreds of witnesses called and in the end they found that everythign she said was true and in accordance with established Church teaching. Same for the other acknowledged miracles.

Evanfaust,
Paul C…I don’t question that the vision happened. But, I have some questions about it. Why it is that God sent the virgin Mary to appear Why not Peter, since he was the “first Pope”? Was there a message? What was the message? Was the message for the whole church? Why did not Mary show herself up to the Pope since he is the leader of the Church? Catholics believe Peter was the “first Pople”, and the Lord used to reveal His message to Him. Why is the Lord going through the back door to reveal something for the entire church?

That reminds me of a scripture:

• “VERILY, verily, I say unto you, He that entereth not by the door into the sheepfold, but climbeth up some other way, the same is a thief and a robber.”* John 10:1

Fro the last 500 years, since the Protestant reformation, Mary has been appearing all over the world to bring people back to the faith, starting in Guadalupe Mexico. There was no other message than that Jesus saves and that message was not only for the church but to the world. And its always come to Catholics.

As to why Mary and not Peter, well who knows but God himself. Perhaps he is using Mary because people like you don’t recognize her role in salvation. She was, afterall the mother of the lord.

Why hasn’t Joseph Smith come back to confirm his prophesies?

 

[paul_c]

JMJ4,
I am answering to acknowledge your question, but no the Catholic Church was not begun until after 100 AD, and then not fully formed until the Council of Nicea. I agree that Catholics began calling Peter a pope and subscribing to an unsubstantiated claim that Peter was bishop of Rome and that where he died needed to be where the next supposed “pope” received his authority. But John was still alive, so there was no need for such a supposition after Peter had been killed.

Authority comes from the God of heaven, whose it is. The most important authority of the priesthood is the power to “bind” and “loose” on earth that which will be bound or loosed in heaven, which also ties to judgment day, but those terms would need to be understood in order for them to be applied correctly, and the only way they can be applied correctly is by the divine mandate and divine inspiration of the Holy Spirit, and by the keys of the authority being on earth as directed by Jesus Christ and given to the original twelve apostles and their successors as apostles.

Peace to all, and have a good day.

Where do you get this stuff. There were 22 popes prior to Nicea. Why do you claim that the church started at Nicea. And why do you say that Peter being bishop of Rome is unsubstantiated? And why do you believe that just because John was alive that he should have assumed Church leadership? You haven’t proved any of these points. You have merely stated them, in opposition to tradition and history.

Your second paragraph is correct, except that apostolic succession was through bishops. Apostles needed learn doctrine at the hands of Jesus himself and so they died out with John. .Bishops taught what was taught to them by the Apostles and they are the successors to the apostles…

 

[ParkerD]

Jesus had an earthly ministry. During his ministry, he taught his disciple all they needed to know for salvation. Many of his disciples were called Apostles. The term ‘Apostle’ means one who is sent. Jesus selected The Twelve: Simon (Peter/Cephas/Rock), James (the Greater/son of Zebedee/brother of John), John (the Evangelist/the brother of James), Andrew, Philip, Bartholomew, Matthew, Thomas, James (the Lesser/the son of Alphaeus), Jude (Thaddaeus), Simon (the Zealot/Canaanite), and Judas Iscariot. Christ sent the Twelve (Matthew 10:5). Christ selected 70 more and they were sent (Luke 10:1). Mark and Luke the Evangelists are referred to as Apostles. By tradition, James, Luke, and Mark were members of the seventy. Paul and Barnabas were called Apostles (Acts 14:14). Barnabas was taught by the Twelve and was with Paul on his first journey. These Apostles are the witnesses and recorders of Christ’s earthly ministry. Most were witnesses to his resurrection.

Just as sheep have four legs but not all animals with four legs are sheep; all the Apostles were not ‘The Twelve.’ The Twelve were the foundation of his Church (Eph 2:19-22), but not just any 12 but THE Twelve (Rev 21:14). The corner stone and the foundation are laid once. Just as Christ is eternally the head of the Church, The Twelve are the eternal foundation.

Because of Judas’ apostasy (Acts 1:25), the Twelve needed to be restored. The eleven chose Matthias.
According to Peter there are two requirements to be a member of the Twelve. The two requirements are:
a) Witness the resurrected Lord
b) Been in the company of the twelve while the Lord walked on earth.
These requirements limit the council membership to the first century. After all the men that walked with the twelve, while the Lord walked the earth, died; no one else qualified. The Twelve was never meant to be on going. This was the only time eleven selected a twelfth; one apostasy, one replacement. Revelation 21:14: Peter/Cephas/Rock, James son of Zebedee, John the Evangelist, Andrew, Philip, Bartholomew, Matthew, Thomas, James the son of Alphaeus, Jude, Simon the Zealot, and Matthias.
Just as there was no need to replace Christ as the head of Church after the crucifixion, or replace The Twelve as the foundation after their deaths; the Twelve were not replaced after their deaths. If Apostle was only an office to be filled, they could have easily been replaced; just like Bishops have been replaced for almost 2000 years.

The only consistent meaning to being called ‘Apostle’ seems to be an Evangelist who was taught by Christ or The Twelve. The Twelve would pass from the earth by design. The title of Apostle would pass from the earth because The Twelve were not here to commission them. When Eusebius (Eusebius’ Ecclesiastical History © 324) refers to an Apostle being replaced it is as the Apostle’s position of Bishop (Peter in Rome, James in Jerusalem) not as Apostles. As the Apostles died, IF they were also Bishops, they were replaced by Bishops.

Stephen168,
John did indeed see that there were twelve gates into the city of the Lamb, and at the gates “twelve angels”, and “names of the twelve tribes of the children of Israel.” (Rev. 21:12) The original twelve apostles, less Judas who was replaced by Matthias as you noted, will indeed be the very twelve apostles noted in Rev. 21:14 who will be at the twelve gates to be the judges of the twelve tribes of Israel as taught by Christ in Matthew 19:28. All these things tie together, but that doesn’t mean Paul was not a valid apostle with valid authority and a valid witness of the resurrection and testimony of Jesus Christ. Paul became an apostle after James the brother of John had been killed.

Christ is still the foundation of the church–not the twelve apostles. He is the chief corner stone, the head of the corner. But the function and calling of apostles was never declared that it would go away, other than by John when he saw the church taken into the wilderness. Paul was not uncomfortable testifying that he had the calling of an apostle. In Ephesians 2:19-22, Paul did not write “the foundation of the original twelve apostles”–he said that apostles and prophets were part of the foundation of the church (the “household of God”), with “Jesus Christ himself being the chief corner stone.”

Apostles and prophets continue to be a part of the foundation of the church that Christ established, and restored to the earth, and He continues to be the chief corner stone. Forgiveness is obtained directly through Him, and He still “stands at the door and knocks” and hopes we will open that door. (Revelation 3:20)

It is a correct statement that “the title of Apostle would pass from the earth because the twelve were not here to commission them” is a correct statement. The Holy Spirit didn’t inspire that they be replaced as the church began to drift in too many directions.

This is why John saw the church being carried on the wings of an eagle into the wilderness. It is also why he saw an angel coming to the earth to bring the everlasting gospel to them that dwell on earth (Revelation 14:6).

 

[JMJ4]

JMJ4,
I am answering to acknowledge your question, but no the Catholic Church was not begun until after 100 AD, and then not fully formed until the Council of Nicea. I agree that Catholics began calling Peter a pope and subscribing to an unsubstantiated claim that Peter was bishop of Rome and that where he died needed to be where the next supposed “pope” received his authority. But John was still alive, so there was no need for such a supposition after Peter had been killed.

Authority comes from the God of heaven, whose it is. The most important authority of the priesthood is the power to “bind” and “loose” on earth that which will be bound or loosed in heaven, which also ties to judgment day, but those terms would need to be understood in order for them to be applied correctly, and the only way they can be applied correctly is by the divine mandate and divine inspiration of the Holy Spirit, and by the keys of the authority being on earth as directed by Jesus Christ and given to the original twelve apostles and their successors as apostles.

Peace to all, and have a good day.

Hi ParkerD-
1 Cor 15:9 St. Paul writes “For I am the least of the apostles, that am not meet to be called an apostle, because I persecuted the church of God.”

St. Paul was beheaded around 67AD.

Therefore, there was a “church” prior to your claims.

 

[ParkerD]

Hi ParkerD-
1 Cor 15:9 St. Paul writes “For I am the least of the apostles, that am not meet to be called an apostle, because I persecuted the church of God.”

St. Paul was beheaded around 67AD.

Therefore, there was a “church” prior to your claims.

JMJ4,
Your question included the name of the church that you were asking about. I responded about that particular church, answering your question about that particular “church”–not about whether there was a church established by Christ and upheld by the apostles after His ascension.

 

[JMJ4]

JMJ4,
Your question included the name of the church that you were asking about. I responded about that particular church, answering your question about that particular “church”–not about whether there was a church established by Christ and upheld by the apostles after His ascension.

So you think there was more than one church during the time of apostles?

 

[ParkerD]

So you think there was more than one church during the time of apostles?

JMJ4,
You must be kidding, I guess. Of course there were several “churches” on the earth during the time of the apostles. There was the Jewish religion (one or more), there were many pagan religions, and there were evidently already break-offs and mixtures of those break-offs with Jewish traditions as compared with the one true church established by Christ, based on reading in the epistles and in the Book of Revelation.

 

[JMJ4]

JMJ4,
You must be kidding, I guess. Of course there were several “churches” on the earth during the time of the apostles. There was the Jewish religion (one or more), there were many pagan religions, and there were evidently already break-offs and mixtures of those break-offs with Jewish traditions as compared with the one true church established by Christ, based on reading in the epistles and in the Book of Revelation.

ParkerD- No, I am not kidding.
Jews do not refer to their faith or their places of worship as “churches.”
Neither do pagans.
I was referring to Christian churches during the time of apostles.