P
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.
L
live_for_Him
Guest
It looks to me like the Church structure was patterned more like the synagogue and that it developed into something more like the Sanhedrin.Whether you know or not, the early church structure was patterned after the Sanhedrin.
There were elders known as ‘presbyters’ who were scriptural advisors to the bishop, or pastor of the church. Just as there were 70 elders of the Sanhedrin who gave scriptural interpretation advice to the High Priest.
Paul’s letter was written to Timothy who became a bishop.
shalom.
I don’t see a difference between presbyters and bishops in the earliest Church.
L
live_for_Him
Guest
The earliest Church and I believe today’s Church. I believe that those prophets of the earliest Church are now in Heaven.Let me ask you, then L for H…how is one to know what is from God and what is not from God with all those claiming revelations? Obviously, some are not from God…so can we distinguish which is divine and not?
M
mercytruth
Guest
pablope;9246722:
There is an early church document called the “Constitutions of the Apostles” it lists two generations of bishops from the apostolic era. It lists two generations of heretics from the apostolic era. Of all the early church writings, the OT is quoted more than the NT. Within this document is the observance of both the Sabbath and the Lord’s Day. Within this document there is the structure of the local church delineated. It is probably one of the earliest documents for understanding the early church. It also has some of the early liturgies of which I spoke of in an earlier post.If it is obvious to you that some are not from God, then it sounds like you already know how to discern what is from God and what is not.
pablope;9246722:
The earliest Church and I believe today’s Church. I believe that those prophets of the earliest Church are now in Heaven.
Shalom.
L
live_for_Him
Guest
live for Him;9246820:
Is this what you are referring to?pablope;9246722:
If it is obvious to you that some are not from God, then it sounds like you already know how to discern what is from God and what is not.
There is an early church document called the “Constitutions of the Apostles” it lists two generations of bishops from the apostolic era. It lists two generations of heretics from the apostolic era. Of all the early church writings, the OT is quoted more than the NT. Within this document is the observance of both the Sabbath and the Lord’s Day. Within this document there is the structure of the local church delineated. It is probably one of the earliest documents for understanding the early church. It also has some of the early liturgies of which I spoke of in an earlier post.
Shalom.
From Wikipedia (en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apostolic_Constitutions)
“The Apostolic Constitutions (or Constitutions of the Holy Apostles, lat. Constitutiones Apostolorum) is a Christian collection of eight treatises which belongs to genre of the Church Orders. The work can be dated from 375 to 380 AD. The provenience is usually regarded as Syria, probably Antioch.[1] The author is unknown, even if since James Ussher it was considered to be the same author of the letters of Pseudo-Ignatius, perhaps the 4th century Eunomian bishop Julian of Cilicia.[2]”
“In antiquity, the Apostolic Constitutions were mistakenly supposed to be gathered and handed down by Clement of Rome, the authority of whose name gave weight to more than one such piece of early Christian literature (see also Clementine literature).
The Church seems never to have regarded this work as of undoubted Apostolic authority. The Apostolic Constitutions were rejected as canonical by the Decretum Gelasianum. The Quinisext Council in 692 rejected most part of the work on account of the interpolations of heretics. Only that portion of it to which has been given the name Canons of the Apostles was received in the Eastern Christianity.”
“The forty-seventh and last chapter of the eighth book of the Apostolic Constitutions contains the eighty-five Canons of the Apostles, which present themselves as being from an apostolic Council at Antioch. These canons were later approved by the Eastern Council in Trullo in 692 but rejected by Pope Constantine. In the Western Church only fifty of these canons circulated, translated in Latin by Dionysius Exiguus on about 500 AD, and included in the Western collections and afterwards in the “Corpus Juris Canonici”.”
M
mercytruth
Guest
mercytruth;9246958:
)live for Him;9246820:
“The Apostolic Constitutions (or Constitutions of the Holy Apostles, lat. Constitutiones Apostolorum) is a Christian collection of eight treatises which belongs to genre of the Church Orders. The work can be dated from 375 to 380 AD. The provenience is usually regarded as Syria, probably Antioch.[1] The author is unknown, even if since James Ussher it was considered to be the same author of the letters of Pseudo-Ignatius, perhaps the 4th century Eunomian bishop Julian of Cilicia.[2]”
“In antiquity, the Apostolic Constitutions were mistakenly supposed to be gathered and handed down by Clement of Rome, the authority of whose name gave weight to more than one such piece of early Christian literature (see also Clementine literature).
The Church seems never to have regarded this work as of undoubted Apostolic authority. The Apostolic Constitutions were rejected as canonical by the Decretum Gelasianum. The Quinisext Council in 692 rejected most part of the work on account of the interpolations of heretics. Only that portion of it to which has been given the name Canons of the Apostles was received in the Eastern Christianity.”
“The forty-seventh and last chapter of the eighth book of the Apostolic Constitutions contains the eighty-five Canons of the Apostles, which present themselves as being from an apostolic Council at Antioch. These canons were later approved by the Eastern Council in Trullo in 692 but rejected by Pope Constantine. In the Western Church only fifty of these canons circulated, translated in Latin by Dionysius Exiguus on about 500 AD, and included in the Western collections and afterwards in the “Corpus Juris Canonici”.”
What we have then, is very clever disguise, because I listed all the reasons why this document could be dated much earlier. Not to mention the fact that there is almost an exact representations of early church structure found in the Constitutions, as found in the Epistles of Ignatius with the Jewish Christian typology
L
live_for_Him
Guest
live for Him;9247039:
I don’t see the early Church as being the same Church as the Catholic Church of today.mercytruth;9246958:
What we have then, is very clever disguise, because I listed all the reasons why this document could be dated much earlier. Not to mention the fact that there is almost an exact representations of early church structure found in the Constitutions, as found in the Epistles of Ignatius with the Jewish Christian typology
The following from en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pope
“The word pope derives from Greek πάππας meaning “Father”. This title was first assumed by the Patriarchs of Alexandria, long before it was assumed by the Bishops of Rome. In fact, the first to carry the title of pope was the Patriarch of Alexandria, Pope Heracleus (232–49 AD), the 13th Alexandrine Patriarch.[12][13] Papa has been the specific designation for the Archbishop of Alexandria, Patriarch of Egypt, and the See of Saint Mark…”
“It is difficult to ascertain the identity of the first Bishop of Rome to carry the title Pope of Rome. Some sources suggest that it was Pope Marcellinus (d. 304 AD),[16] while other sources suggest that this did not happen until the 6th century, with Pope John I (523–6 AD) the first to assume this title.[12] Bestowing the title on Rome’s Pontiff did not strip it from Alexandria’s, and the Roman Catholic Church recognizes this ecclesiastical fact.[12] From the 6th century, the imperial chancery of Constantinople normally reserved this designation for the Bishop of Rome. From the early 6th century, it began to be confined in the West to the Bishop of Rome, a practice that was firmly in place by the 11th century, when Pope Gregory VII declared it reserved for the Bishop of Rome.[16]”
“Early Christianity (c. 30–325)
It seems that at first the terms ‘episcopos’ and ‘presbyter’ were used interchangeably.[36] The consensus among scholars has been that, at the turn of the 1st and 2nd centuries, local congregations were led by bishops and presbyters whose offices were overlapping or indistinguishable.[37] There was probably no single ‘monarchical’ bishop in Rome before the middle of the 2nd century … and likely later.”"
M
mercytruth
Guest
mercytruth;9247154:
“The word pope derives from Greek πάππας meaning “Father”. This title was first assumed by the Patriarchs of Alexandria, long before it was assumed by the Bishops of Rome. In fact, the first to carry the title of pope was the Patriarch of Alexandria, Pope Heracleus (232–49 AD), the 13th Alexandrine Patriarch.[12][13] Papa has been the specific designation for the Archbishop of Alexandria, Patriarch of Egypt, and the See of Saint Mark…”live for Him;9247039:
I don’t see the early Church as being the same Church as the Catholic Church of today.
The following from en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pope
“It is difficult to ascertain the identity of the first Bishop of Rome to carry the title Pope of Rome. Some sources suggest that it was Pope Marcellinus (d. 304 AD),[16] while other sources suggest that this did not happen until the 6th century, with Pope John I (523–6 AD) the first to assume this title.[12] Bestowing the title on Rome’s Pontiff did not strip it from Alexandria’s, and the Roman Catholic Church recognizes this ecclesiastical fact.[12] From the 6th century, the imperial chancery of Constantinople normally reserved this designation for the Bishop of Rome. From the early 6th century, it began to be confined in the West to the Bishop of Rome, a practice that was firmly in place by the 11th century, when Pope Gregory VII declared it reserved for the Bishop of Rome.[16]”
“Early Christianity (c. 30–325)
It seems that at first the terms ‘episcopos’ and ‘presbyter’ were used interchangeably.[36] The consensus among scholars has been that, at the turn of the 1st and 2nd centuries, local congregations were led by bishops and presbyters whose offices were overlapping or indistinguishable.[37] There was probably no single ‘monarchical’ bishop in Rome before the middle of the 2nd century … and likely later.”"
There are differences and there are similarities. What is important is the fact that not everything that the early church practiced is recorded in the NT. One has to read as much as one can of the early church fathers in order to understand what the early church practiced in its structure and in its liturgies. Much of the Catholic liturgies have very early origins. The idea that the early church met in homes for the first hundred years is a bit
overstated.
Now it is good that in your Messianic Christian services you are practicing something of the Jewish roots of the Christian faith, so I would not criticize you for that. Regardless, if you have no need to know what the early church was like, then be content where you are, knowing that you can serve God where you are at.
Shalom.
Shalom.
L
live_for_Him
Guest
live for Him;9247316:
My view is that if it is not in the Bible, then it’s not necessary, and sometimes it is harmful.mercytruth;9247154:
There are differences and there are similarities. What is important is the fact that not everything that the early church practiced is recorded in the NT. One has to read as much as one can of the early church fathers in order to understand what the early church practiced in its structure and in its liturgies. Much of the Catholic liturgies have very early origins. The idea that the early church met in homes for the first hundred years is a bit
overstated.
Now it is good that in your Messianic Christian services you are practicing something of the Jewish roots of the Christian faith, so I would not criticize you for that. Regardless, if you have no need to know what the early church was like, then be content where you are, knowing that you can serve God where you are at.
Shalom.
Shalom.
I believe that it is clear enough through the Scriptures what the early Church was like, but my faith is not in a church or a church model. I believe that one need not have a church or another man helping in order to become saved.
I believe that salvation is attained by accepting, following and obeying Jesus.
Thank you.
P
pablope
Guest
Actually, I do not…that is why I asked you…that is why I or any Catholic will say, we need the guidance of the Church.
So do you have an answer or not? Or you do not know? Or you are guessing?
The earliest Church and I believe today’s Church. I believe that those prophets of the earliest Church are now in Heaven.
P
pablope
Guest
Well, where does the Bible state everything to know is in the Bible? And how is one to know what is truth and not from the Bible?
I believe that salvation is attained by accepting, following and obeying Jesus.
Thank you.
Is that all Jesus said is required? Where does jesus say only this is required?Maybe you response needs further expanding.
L
live_for_Him
Guest
It should be understood that the teachings of Jesus alone are enough to save.
Truth is a journey, aided by the Holy Spirit and study (2 Tim. 2:15), and the ability to not believe everything that is said by man or told to you by man.
Jesus taught that all will be judged by His words (John 12:48) and that salvation is through His words (John 5:24; 12:47-48) and that the way to remain saved is to be remaining in obedience to God (John 15:1-4).Is that all Jesus said is required? Where does jesus say only this is required?Maybe you response needs further expanding.
L
live_for_Him
Guest
You should seek help in this from Holy Spirit-filled Catholics who are walking in the gifts of the Holy Spirit. Hopefully you have leaders who are walking in the gifts of the Holy Spirit.
J
joshua_b
Guest
pablope;9247784:
It is indeed understood that the teachings of Jesus are enough to save. Jesus taught us to be baptized, confess our sins, eat the flesh of the Son of Man and Drink His blood, listen to those He has sent, obey the leaders of the Church.
L
live_for_Him
Guest
live for Him;9253261:
pablope;9247784:
It is indeed understood that the teachings of Jesus are enough to save. Jesus taught us to be baptized, confess our sins, eat the flesh of the Son of Man and Drink His blood, listen to those He has sent, obey the leaders of the Church.I believe that He indeed taught immersion baptism for those of responsible age (the age varying and dependent upon the person).
I believe that He indeed taught repentance and confession and the Scriptures teach that He is the Mediator between God and man.
I believe that He indeed taught in parable the symbols of His body (John 6:63; 16:25, etc.) just like His Body is the Church. (I don’t believe that the symbols turn into the actual flesh and blood, but if they do they are doing this for me too because I have taken communion many times and felt the physical presence of the Holy Spirit inside. Thank you, God!)
I believe that He taught for His sheep to be listening to the One He sent, the Holy Spirit (John 16) and to not be following those teaching something that He did not teach (Matt. 23:9).
I believe that He did teach His sheep to be following His leaders and not other leaders such as blind leaders, else they will follow their leaders into the ditch (Matt. 15:14; Luke 6:39) of destruction.
J
joshua_b
Guest
joshua_b;9253826:
This is a good start. Immersion baptism is certainly proper, and historically correct in so much as this is how it was normatively practiced in the first century.live for Him;9253261:
pablope;9247784:
I believe that He indeed taught immersion baptism for those of responsible age (the age varying and dependent upon the person).
I do not know of any verse that speaks of “responsible age”, but I do know of four separate accounts of whole households being baptized ( and there is a whole discussion to be had there about the Greek language, and scriptural support for the notion that those households would have included children of an age you would probably not consider “responsible” and I will gladly discuss that with you at length in another thread). I do not know of any verse that states that baptism must be by immersion to be valid. There are verses that suggest that is how it is done, and plenty of support for the assertion that it must be done with water, but none that state it must be by immersion. If there is please reference it, and then please kindly explain to Paul how his baptism in Acts 9 was not valid because he was standing in the middle of his house (I don’t know of many 1st century middle eastern homes that would have had any sort of water resorvoir).
J
joshua_b
Guest
joshua_b;9253826:
Amen! The Scriptures also teach that as Mediator, He very plainly gave the authority of forgiveness (and retention) to His Apostles in John 20:23.live for Him;9253261:
pablope;9247784:
I believe that He indeed taught repentance and confession and the Scriptures teach that He is the Mediator between God and man.
.
So, since we agree that we are to confess our sins, the only question is to whom shall we confess? Well, the only Mediator I have has told the Apostles that they have the power to forgive or retain my sins. I can bring you that far, but after that it will digress into a discussion about Apostolic succession and the efficacy of vaild ordination. This too, I will be happy to discuss on another thread to whatever degree of detail you would like.
J
joshua_b
Guest
joshua_b;9253826:
John 6:63 is not a parable, and in order to get there you need to also read verse 52 through 58, which state quite plainly (3 times) that His flesh is real food, and His blood is real drink. There really isn’t any room for symbolism there.live for Him;9253261:
pablope;9247784:
I believe that He indeed taught in parable the symbols of His body (John 6:63; 16:25, etc.) just like His Body is the Church. (I don’t believe that the symbols turn into the actual flesh and blood, but if they do they are doing this for me too because I have taken communion many times and felt the physical presence of the Holy Spirit inside. Thank you, God!)
.
The Church is indeed the Body of Christ, but His Body is still not the same as His Flesh.
J
joshua_b
Guest
joshua_b;9253826:
Actually, in John 16, Jesus is speaking only to the Apostles. This is not the Sermon on the Mount. And this also transitions quite nicely to John 20, where the Apostles are given the Holy Spirit as they were promised in ch 16., and when added with Luke 10:16 (“whoever listens to you listens to me…”), it seems pretty clear just from those Scriptures alone (and there are many many more) that He vested that authority with His Apostles, and gave them the gift of the Holy Spirit in a very distinct and special way.live for Him;9253261:
pablope;9247784:
I believe that He taught for His sheep to be listening to the One He sent, the Holy Spirit (John 16) and to not be following those teaching something that He did not teach (Matt. 23:9).
.
J
joshua_b
Guest
joshua_b;9253826:
So we agree on this as well. The only questions is how to discern which leaders are His and which are blind.live for Him;9253261:
pablope;9247784:
I believe that He did teach His sheep to be following His leaders and not other leaders such as blind leaders, else they will follow their leaders into the ditch (Matt. 15:14; Luke 6:39) of destruction.
So, we have just made a full circle right back to what I originally stated. His leaders, empowered by the Holy Spirit and comissioned by Him, were given the authority to bind and loose, to forgive sins, and were taught that His flesh is real food.
So, by that criteria alone, how many Churches qualify as His?
- Status
- Not open for further replies.