Older is Wiser?

[Curious_Seed]

:idea:

The Church of Christ is about 2000 years in experience, under the appellation Catholic Church.

The Church of Christ is about 500 years in experience, under the appellation Protestant Church.

The Catholic Church holds that there is merit in existing some 1500 years prior to the appearance of Protestantism.

Is there anything of merit or value in that claim?

Orthodox Judaism was in existence some 4000 years, prior to some of its members branching off into a Judaism re-labelled Catholicism (Christian) and the Catholic Church.

Orthodox Catholics were in existence some 1500 years, prior to some of its members branching off into a Christianity re-labelled Protestantism (Christian) and the Protestant Church.

Today, the orthodox jewish traditions have been around some 6000 years; the orthodox catholic traditions have been around 2000 years; the orthodox protestant traditions have been around 500 years.

By rank of age, the Catholics and Protestants are as meritless as Catholics now think Protestants are.

Further:

For thousands of years, the Sun was believed to circle the Earth.

For thousands of years, kings and emperors were believed to have a divine/royal authority to govern.

Clearly, age alone is not necessarily sufficent to satisfy truth.

 

[ImTHEantichrist]

I find that while older may mean someone has had more experience that they usually come about physical ailments alot easier, so they should probably be euthanized. Can i get some religious people support on this?

 

[JRKH]

There is merit in the argument when the Protestants use the same Bible (well mostly the same) as the Catholics and Eastern Orthodox who compiled, copied protected, defended distributed and taught from said bible for 1000 years before the reformation.
So when one looks in the Bible and sees that it is The Church that is the pillar and bulwark of Truth, and that we are to “Listen to The Church” and that the Church has the authority to “Bind and Loose”…“Whatever” and that Christ zpromised to not leave us orphans etc…It behoves one to look at and determine which actually IS the Church founded by Christ. In this Age is a huge factor (at least it was for me)

As to the Jewish issue, the Catholic Church is, in a sense a continuation of that tradition. But instead of it being a single chosen “nation” working under the Old Covenent, it is now, through Christ, opened up to the entire world under the New Covenent.

Peace
James

 

[Jehoshua]

In the relationship between protestantism and the Catholic Church in regards to time.

This sort of shows logically the error of protestantism as Christ did indeed promise “I will be with you always” and “On this rock i will build my Church and not even the gates of hell prevail against it”.

The Catholic Church is a direct organic descendant of the apostolic church and is indeed that same Church. It believes everything to this day that the apostles and indeed Christ taught. It can legitimately claim historical continuity. Now when you see the 500 year old emergence of protestantism there is absolutely zero continuity or attachment to that Church founded by Jesus Christ. It came 1500 years later. Now we go back and look to scripture and see Christ’s promise to be with us always and that hell would never prevail against HIS Church and one has to aks. Where was that Church in the 1500 years before protestantism if protestantism is true?

Now of course there are arguments which are totally unsubstantiated and are likewise fallacious and logically flawed to try and avoid this question but taken to its logical conclusion scripture, and reason dictate that the Catholic Church is the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church founded by Jesus Christ. For only it can lay claim to history right down to the apostles themselves.

As St Ignatius of Antioch said in the first century.

“Wherever the bishop appears, there let the people be; as wherever Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church.”

funny… theres no word of the Orthodox church or the Methodist church or the Lutheran church here.

 

[Curious_Seed]

An error in thinking that some Catholics have about the Protestant Reformation is the notion that it was the Reformation that birthed the foundations of the Protestant Church.

It was the Reformation that birthed the reformation of the Catholic Church.

The Protestant Church’s foundation rests on Christ and not Luther.

The Catholic Church’s foundation rests on Christ and not Peter.

A great grandfather teaches his son how to play Tag.

The son then teaches his son how to play Tag, with some additions.

His son, in turn, then teaches his two sons how to play Tag, with some more additions.

With his own additions, one of those sons teaches his daughter exactly as his father showed him; but, the other of the two sons, in teaching his daughter, protests and reverts back to how the great grandfather first taught Tag.

Did the son, who reverts to the origins of Tag, not have the same early foundations, as the son who does not revert?

The Church of Christ was reformed 500 years ago, not birthed 500 years ago.

The Church of Christ was birthed on Christ, 2000 years ago, or arguably, 6000 years ago, with Abraham.

Since Abraham, the branches and their appellations have been many and varied, with the Catholic Church ranking first, for longevity of a single institution, under the same name.

Whether Catholic or Protestant or Eastern Orthodox, the origins are the same - our Lord, Jesus Christ - the interpretations of the events, and their meanings, are less the same.

 

[Curious_Seed]

In the relationship between protestantism and the Catholic Church in regards to time.

This sort of shows logically the error of protestantism as Christ did indeed promise “I will be with you always” and “On this rock i will build my Church and not even the gates of hell prevail against it”.

The Catholic Church is a direct organic descendant of the apostolic church and is indeed that same Church. It believes everything to this day that the apostles and indeed Christ taught. It can legitimately claim historical continuity. Now when you see the 500 year old emergence of protestantism there is absolutely zero continuity or attachment to that Church founded by Jesus Christ. It came 1500 years later. Now we go back and look to scripture and see Christ’s promise to be with us always and that hell would never prevail against HIS Church and one has to aks. Where was that Church in the 1500 years before protestantism if protestantism is true?

Now of course there are arguments which are totally unsubstantiated and are likewise fallacious and logically flawed to try and avoid this question but taken to its logical conclusion scripture, and reason dictate that the Catholic Church is the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church founded by Jesus Christ. For only it can lay claim to history right down to the apostles themselves.

As St Ignatius of Antioch said in the first century.

"Wherever the bishop appears, there let the people be; as wherever Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church."

funny… theres no word of the Orthodox church or the Methodist church or the Lutheran church here.

No, there is no mention of any Protestant Church by St. Ignatius of Antioch, unless he were prescient

St. Paul makes no mention of the Catholic Church . . . funny . . . but, not really . . . but, he did evangelize like that Protestant, Billy Graham !

Christ did say he would never leave His own, meaning His Church . . . funny, He never said that only means Catholic.

 

[Crumpy]

History does not work by pointing out oversimplified facts about it.

We Catholics could do the same about Protestantism and the Reformation.

Jon Wycliffe is the guy credited with the idea that the interpretation of scripture was supposed to be left up to each person. Whoops! He really meant left up to each person except Catholics.

Martin Luther wanted to exclude books from the Bible (so called apocrypha) that were found only in Greek and not Hebrew. Well, it took hundreds of years, but the Dead Sea Scrolls demonstrated that Luther got it wrong on that big point, that at least several of the apocrypha were written in Hebrew, already in Biblical times.

Do you know what cognitive dissonance is? It means that when we show that Luther was wrong, you change the subject to something else.

Wycliffe didn’t actually make sense on private interpretation and Luther didn’t make sense on choosing books for the canon of the Bible.

The strategy Protestants use in attacking Catholics is to find ONE argument, valid or not, against the Catholic Church, and then declare victory that the Catholic Church is a “false gospel.” Well, if we apply that same rule to the Protestant churches, they’re false gospels, too.

I was listening to Family Radio based in Oakland CA (Harold Camping). Mr Camping made the same point you did, that it was meaningless to invoke age of an organization as a benchmark of its authenticity. Then, a moment later, on is radio station, they had an announcement that Family Radio was 35 years old! Well, which way is it? Why does his 35 years on the air “count” and the Catholic Church’s 2000 years “not” count?

Protestants, as a rule, trash the importance of Tradition in the Church. But, then, probably 14 years ago, the magazine Christianity Today had an article and said that tradition was VERY important. Again, the double standard.

To answer your title question: Older is genuine.

 

[Crumpy]

Curious Seed: In your initial posts, you compare the age of Judaism with that of Christianity and the Catholic Church.

Why do you do that? If you are trying to justify Protestantism, you have committed some form of blasphemy here.

You have just trashed the Savior and the Bible. Did you catch that? Guess not.

You can’t justifiably compare Judaism and Christianity in this trivial way, because they are not comparable. DUH. The New Testament replaced the Old Testament. Jesus told his disciples how the OT pointed to HIM (walking on the road to Emmaus). Those scriptures pertaining to Him is NOT something Judaism would admit to.

So, there is something far more important going on, to compare Judaism and Christianity, than just the number of years. That’s why comparing the ages, as you did, is meaningless and invalid.

Your statements sound good to you, but they just implode on themselves.

Your shotgun approach to starting a conversation here is not serving you well. You’re on sinking sand, as the song goes. If you have a question, why don’t you ask it?

Sir, your attitude seems to be that Catholics don’t have a response to your remarks. Not only do we have responses, they’re rather obvious.

 

[MarkThompson]

An error in thinking that some Catholics have about the Protestant Reformation is the notion that it was the Reformation that birthed the foundations of the Protestant Church.

It was the Reformation that birthed the reformation of the Catholic Church.

The Protestant Church’s foundation rests on Christ and not Luther.

That’s roughly the equivalent of saying:
An error in thinking that some Englishmen have about the American Revolution is the notion that it was the Revolution that birthed the foundations of the United States.

It was the Revolution that birthed the reformation of the British Empire.

The United States’ foundation goes back to William the Conqueror and not George Washington.
The fact is, for roughly 1500 years, there was nothing that remotely resembled the Protestant churches. Sure, they split off from the Catholic Church, but the United States split off from England, and we don’t go around bragging about the Norman Conquest, Richard the Lionheart, and Shakespeare. We would sound ridiculous.

To go back to your original question, if Jesus had wanted to found a bunch of churches with different theologies, based on the sola scriptura, some with bishops and some not, some with priests and some not, some who deny baptism and some who insist on it, and so on and so forth (i.e., the various Protestant Churches), he could have done so, right? Or if you think just one of the Protestant faiths is correct (say, Lutheranism), Jesus could have founded Lutheranism, couldn’t he? Was Jesus such a bad religious leader that immediately after his death, and for the next 1500 years, the wrong church, with the wrong theology and a bunch of incorrect practices, wound up running the entire Christian world? What a strange theory of a blundering God that must be.

 

[Jehoshua]

Curious Seed:

Instead of addressing the point which was that reason shows an organic and constant lineage within the Catholic Church back to Christ you have drawn up some convuluted argument and as Crumpy has highlighted it is logically flawed. Perhaps I should explain differently

---

Luther and the other reformers did not “reform” the Church. They created their own denominations based solely on their own OPINIONS. Luther individually had his own opinion on dogma and because he disagreed with the Church he decided to make his own parallel church. Its not a reform rather than a rupture, and in its essense it is the genesis of entirely separate stream of Christianity that originated from individuals thoughts and corruption of teaching because they happened to disagree with the dogma of the Church. Which most importantly has NO continuity with the apostles and Christ because they originated in individuals thousands of years later (no schism of the pre-existing Church, protestantism did not split from the Catholic Church rather than it emerged from Luther and others and through state help displaced it in parts of Europe.

Oh and you incidentally ignored Christ’s promises which I highlighted in my earlier post which indicate quite clearly that Christ would never abandon his Church. So how do you explain if protestantism is true (which it logically isn;t for this and other reasons) why Christ let the Catholic Church veer into error (despite his promises) and why the “true” church (s) [30 - 40000 protestant denominations all claiming to be true] only appeared 500 years ago or more recently with Luther and others. You basically are claiming that Christ lied and let his Chuch veer into error and thus wasn;t God, because God does not lie and scripture clearly tells us of his promises.

---

To finish this diatribe I must say that there is ONE God and therefore there must be ONE truth, because there being one God there cannot be variations of the truth regarding this one God. Thus this beggars the question which one of the 30000+ protestant denominations is right if any? they can;t all be right because there being only one God there can only be one truth. So how can anyone seriously consider ANY protestant denomination to be true or valid when there are so many… and when it appears any man and his dog can make up his own “version” of the truth (which he logically cant since then God is lying and God doesn;t lie).

 

[Curious_Seed]

That’s roughly the equivalent of saying:
An error in thinking that some Englishmen have about the American Revolution is the notion that it was the Revolution that birthed the foundations of the United States.

It was the Revolution that birthed the reformation of the British Empire.

The United States’ foundation goes back to William the Conqueror and not George Washington.
The fact is, for roughly 1500 years, there was nothing that remotely resembled the Protestant churches. Sure, they split off from the Catholic Church, but the United States split off from England, and we don’t go around bragging about the Norman Conquest, Richard the Lionheart, and Shakespeare. We would sound ridiculous.

To go back to your original question, if Jesus had wanted to found a bunch of churches with different theologies, based on the sola scriptura, some with bishops and some not, some with priests and some not, some who deny baptism and some who insist on it, and so on and so forth (i.e., the various Protestant Churches), he could have done so, right? Or if you think just one of the Protestant faiths is correct (say, Lutheranism), Jesus could have founded Lutheranism, couldn’t he? Was Jesus such a bad religious leader that immediately after his death, and for the next 1500 years, the wrong church, with the wrong theology and a bunch of incorrect practices, wound up running the entire Christian world? What a strange theory of a blundering God that must be.

Oh, but the seeds of the United States are traceable to England !

If the American descendents hailed from China, it would be a different American society today.

The Catholic Church was wrong for some of its members and they sought reformation - and thus - the Protestant Church resulted.

Today, the Protestant Church is as much a Church of Christ, as the Catholic Church.

The New Testament seeds the views of both interpretations of Christianity.

 

[rinnie]

No, there is no mention of any Protestant Church by St. Ignatius of Antioch, unless he were prescient

St. Paul makes no mention of the Catholic Church . . . funny . . . but, not really . . . but, he did evangelize like that Protestant, Billy Graham !

Christ did say he would never leave His own, meaning His Church . . . funny, He never said that only means Catholic.

Really? Then why is the CC the Universal Church. If you look up the word Catholic you will find it means Universal. Universal is in the bible. Universal means ALL. ONE Church.

The Church at Pentecost must be One, Holy Catholic and Apostolic. That would fit the RCC would you not agree.

Every RCC has ONE teaching, We are all united to eachother by ONE Eucharist, which is Christ. We agree on ONE teaching which is Apostolic and the Church is Holy As Christ is Holy.

Now you said that Christ would never leave his own, I agree, he says whoever hears you hears me, whoever reject you rejects me. Now how could you say that does not mean only Catholic? Do you reject that the Apostles taught in the CC? Did the Apostles tell us to turn away from our Church and reject some of the teachings?

 

[rinnie]

Oh, but the seeds of the United States are traceable to England !

If the American descendents hailed from China, it would be a different American society today.

The Catholic Church was wrong for some of its members and they sought reformation - and thus - the Protestant Church resulted.

Today, the Protestant Church is as much a Church of Christ, as the Catholic Church.

The New Testament seeds the views of both interpretations of Christianity.

If the Protestant Church is AS MUCH a Church of Christ as the CC why do you not have the Sacraments mentioned in the bible? Where is Christ in the Eucharist, where is the authority to turn bread and wine into the living CHrist? WHere is the sacrament of Confession? Holy Orders? Last Rites?..

Can your Preacher say your sins are forgiven? Can he bind and loose?

 

[rinnie]

And by the way, Luther left the CC the CC did not leave, Luther turned away from the CC but it did not make the CC change at all.

The CC is the exact same way as Christ started it on the day of Pentecost. Luther did not agree with all of the teaching’s of the CC so he walked away.

ANd then the ball got started. Many took heat, if you don’t like the teachings of one Church, start your own.

 

[JRKH]

Your thought flow is interesting and I am sure fits well with what you have been taught (presumably in a non-catholic setting) but I’m afraid that it doesn’t quite fit with a correct historical/logic flow.

An error in thinking that some Catholics have about the Protestant Reformation is the notion that it was the Reformation that birthed the foundations of the Protestant Church.

It was the Reformation that birthed the reformation of the Catholic Church.

The Protestant Church’s foundation rests on Christ and not Luther.

The Catholic Church’s foundation rests on Christ and not Peter.

Yes - The Catholic and Protestant Churches rest on Jesus Christ.
Yes - The Reformation did spur on A reformation within the Catholic Church…One of many that has occurred thoughout the history of God’s Church.
No- We are not in error about the notion that the Protestant reformation birthed the foundations of the Protestant Church. This is where your historo-logic fails.

The first question to ask in this case is - What are the “foundations of the Protestant Church(es)”? In most cases it is some form of the 5 sola’s, along with the idea of the “invisible” or “non-authoritative” church. From among these “sola’s”, and the foundation for the others, is the doctrine of Sola Scriptura…and it’s correlary doctrines of personal interpretation and the non-authoritative Church.
The Second question then is, Where in the pre-reformation Church are any of these three principles taught? We do not find them in Scripture. In fact we find the opposite. We find in Scripture that we are NOT to interpret Scripture alone, that we are to “Listen to The Church” which is the “Pillar and Bulwark of Truth”.
So do we find these protestant principles in the Ecclesial history of either the Catholic, or the Eastern Orthodox Church. Why? Because these ancient Churches have sought to follow the NT model even before the NT was entirely written or set.

A great grandfather teaches his son how to play Tag.

The son then teaches his son how to play Tag, with some additions.

His son, in turn, then teaches his two sons how to play Tag, with some more additions.

With his own additions, one of those sons teaches his daughter exactly as his father showed him; but, the other of the two sons, in teaching his daughter, protests and reverts back to how the great grandfather first taught Tag.

Did the son, who reverts to the origins of Tag, not have the same early foundations, as the son who does not revert?

Two issues here.
First is the presumptions that the “additions” were not there at the beginning (written down). Or that the sons don’t have the authority, granted by the Grandfather, to “add to” or change around (Bind and Loose).
Second is the question of how the three sons approach the idea of teaching their children different ways of playing tag. If they do it together in council with each other and come to an understanding of what are good and true variations then all is well.
On the other hand, if they allow pride and anger to cloud their vision and split up the family over this then all is not well.

The Church of Christ was reformed 500 years ago, not birthed 500 years ago.

The Church of Christ was birthed on Christ, 2000 years ago, or arguably, 6000 years ago, with Abraham.

Yes the Church was reformed some 500 years ago…Unfortunately some of those who protested from the Church at that time refused to accept even that reformation and remain in Schism even to this day.
Yet God has not abandoned them for he has kept them near him. I pray that someday we can all be united once again in the Ancient Church founded by Christ at Pentacost.

Since Abraham, the branches and their appellations have been many and varied, with the Catholic Church ranking first, for longevity of a single institution, under the same name.

Whether Catholic or Protestant or Eastern Orthodox, the origins are the same - our Lord, Jesus Christ - the interpretations of the events, and their meanings, are less the same.

And Yet Christ Prayed that we be one as He and the Father are One…Not scattered about with different and opposing beliefs on such fundemental matters as the Efficacy of Works, the Real Presence, the Authority of The Church, the need of Baptism etc…
Scripture teaches that when doctrinal issues arise we are to come together and sort things out. This is shown in Paul coming to Peter and others and laying before them his teachings. It is even more clearly shown in Acts 15 and the Council of Jerusalem.
The biggest flaw in the Protestant model is this. From it’s very inception, it has been divided along doctrinal lines, and yet each side claims Sola Scriptura as it’s authoritative docrtinal base.

When the Protestant communities begin to live the NT model of coming together in humble and prayerful submission to each other as a single “ekklesia” and “Listening to the 'ekklesia” then we will begin to see what can be called a reformation and not a protestation.

Peace
James

 

[Iotaunum]

:idea:

The Church of Christ is about 2000 years in experience, under the appellation Catholic Church.

The Church of Christ is about 500 years in experience, under the appellation Protestant Church.

You seem confused. There is only One Church of Christ. This Church is undivided, and is under the same hierarchy. The Protestant sects are not the Churches of Christ, nor branches of the Church (as the Anglicans would have it). They are break aways, founded by Men teaching man made doctrine contrary to the Doctrine of Christ.

:idea:

The Catholic Church holds that there is merit in existing some 1500 years prior to the appearance of Protestantism.

Is there anything of merit or value in that claim?

Since Christ founded the Church, it has existed from then until now: almost 2000 years. Any organisation therefore founded after that cannot claim to be the Church of Christ. Again, protestantism was founded 500 years ago - 1500 years after Christ founded His Church.

:

Orthodox Judaism was in existence some 4000 years, prior to some of its members branching off into a Judaism re-labelled Catholicism (Christian) and the Catholic Church.

Again, you seem confused. Christianity is not Judaism re-lablled. The True Faith was the Faith God had revealed through the prophets. At the time before Christ’s Incarnation, Judaism was the true faith revealed by God. However, Christ came and was the fulfillment of the Jewish prophecies and revealed more of the truths concerning God and Salvation. Since that time, Christianity (being the fulfilment) was the true faith and those who rejected the Fulfillment rejected what God had promised. Modern Judaism is not the Jewish faith which pleased God before the Incarnation.

:
Orthodox Catholics were in existence some 1500 years, prior to some of its members branching off into a Christianity re-labelled Protestantism (Christian) and the Protestant Church.

There is Only one Church of Christ and one Christianity. Those who “branched off” broke away from the true Faith. You can’t have The Christian Church teaching that Baptism is necessary for Salvation and then a man-made church 1500 years later teaching that Faith Alone is necessary. One is Christian one is not. One Holds Christian teaching, one rejects it.

:

Today, the orthodox jewish traditions have been around some 6000 years; the orthodox catholic traditions have been around 2000 years; the orthodox protestant traditions have been around 500 years.

To simplify: God revealed the Jewish faith and Laws through the prophets (Judaism) - then the Messiah (Christ) was predicted to come into the world - then Christ came into the World and those of good will recognised Him as the messiah and He revealed the New Law and more about Salvation and God (i.e. that He is a Trinity etc) - then 1500 years later Martin Luther and the so-called reformers preach a new gospel, contrary to that of Christ’s and found thousands upon thousands of man made sects each disagreeeing with one another in one or more point of doctrine.

:

For thousands of years, the Sun was believed to circle the Earth.

For thousands of years, kings and emperors were believed to have a divine/royal authority to govern.

Geocentrism or Heliocentrism has not been proven one way or the other. No scientist claims to have observed from outside the universe the orbits of the Planets. So we still cannot be sure. The ancients may have been correct. Regarding Kings, Monarchy was obviously ordained and favoured by God even from OT times.

:
Clearly, age alone is not necessarily sufficent to satisfy truth.

Correct, but without a valid title deed and tracing apostolic succession back to Christ, one has no claim of authority. Protestants can only trace back 500 years, and then to their surprise everyone - including their ancestors were Catholic. No protestant before 1500, no KJV beofre 1611.

 

[Curious_Seed]

You seem confused. There is only One Church of Christ. This Church is undivided, and is under the same hierarchy. The Protestant sects are not the Churches of Christ, nor branches of the Church (as the Anglicans would have it). They are break aways, founded by Men teaching man made doctrine contrary to the Doctrine of Christ.

The Church of Christ is undivided; but, dogma within it is divided.

The Catholic Church is one branch of the Church of Christ; the Protestant Church is another.

Both are under Christ; yet both have agreements and disagreements with each other, over issues of history, doctrine, and interpretation.

Hope that is less confusing, for you.

Since Christ founded the Church, it has existed from then until now: almost 2000 years. Any organisation therefore founded after that cannot claim to be the Church of Christ. Again, protestantism was founded 500 years ago - 1500 years after Christ founded His Church.

The Protestant Church has the same lineage as the Catholic Church, up until the Reformation.

The Reformation is the reformation of the Catholic Church, without yielding unbroken lineage back to Christ.

Einstein completely unhinged Newton’s concepts of physics; but, as Einstein said: it is on the shoulders of Newton that I have been able to see.

The church of physics now has Einsteinian and Newtonian branches of thought, both with the same lineage pre-dating Aristotle.

Hope that helps you.

Again, you seem confused. Christianity is not Judaism re-lablled. The True Faith was the Faith God had revealed through the prophets. At the time before Christ’s Incarnation, Judaism was the true faith revealed by God. However, Christ came and was the fulfillment of the Jewish prophecies and revealed more of the truths concerning God and Salvation. Since that time, Christianity (being the fulfilment) was the true faith and those who rejected the Fulfillment rejected what God had promised. Modern Judaism is not the Jewish faith which pleased God before the Incarnation.

Jews who followed Jesus - a Jew - were eventually referred to as Christians.

Sorry, if I left you confused there.

There is Only one Church of Christ and one Christianity. Those who “branched off” broke away from the true Faith. You can’t have The Christian Church teaching that Baptism is necessary for Salvation and then a man-made church 1500 years later teaching that Faith Alone is necessary. One is Christian one is not. One Holds Christian teaching, one rejects it.

The Catholic Catechism and Pope Benedict XVI would disagree with you that only Catholics are Christians.

But, you are entitled to your own view, in “branching off.”

To simplify: God revealed the Jewish faith and Laws through the prophets (Judaism) - then the Messiah (Christ) was predicted to come into the world - then Christ came into the World and those of good will recognised Him as the messiah and He revealed the New Law and more about Salvation and God (i.e. that He is a Trinity etc) - then 1500 years later Martin Luther and the so-called reformers preach a new gospel, contrary to that of Christ’s and found thousands upon thousands of man made sects each disagreeeing with one another in one or more point of doctrine.

Interesting, but not addressing the nature of my search.

Geocentrism or Heliocentrism has not been proven one way or the other. No scientist claims to have observed from outside the universe the orbits of the Planets. So we still cannot be sure. The ancients may have been correct. Regarding Kings, Monarchy was obviously ordained and favoured by God even from OT times.

Again, quite interesting.

Correct, but without a valid title deed and tracing apostolic succession back to Christ, one has no claim of authority. Protestants can only trace back 500 years, and then to their surprise everyone - including their ancestors were Catholic. No protestant before 1500, no KJV beofre 1611.

The Protestant Church traces back to Christ; the Catholic Church traces back to Christ; the Way Church [churches prior to the Catholic Church] traces back to Christ.

All within the Church of Christ trace back to Christ, whether Protestant, Catholic, Eastern Orthodox, Colossian or Ephesian.

Hope that helps.

 

[Melchior_1]

The Protestant Church traces back to Christ; the Catholic Church traces back to Christ; the Way Church [churches prior to the Catholic Church] traces back to Christ.

Of course the Protestant Church traces back to Christ. Christ founded the Catholic Church, and then the reformation happened.

Jesus -----> Catholic Church ------> Reformation.

 

[Melchior_1]

I’m going to be proactive here and start my next post, because I get the feeling you’re going to say “the Church that Christ founded and was around after He died and resurrected was not the Catholic Church”.

The Didache is a document which was written in the early first century, some maybe 40- 50 years after the death/resurrection of our Lord. Written within it are clear instructions for Baptism (including a Trinitarian formula), fasting, and the Eucharist. Some scholars believe it was used as a instruction manual for those converting to the faith. meaning these practices were used for some time.

Several other documents and writings expressing Catholic teaching, dogma, and doctrine are also readily available online for you to see, all written within the first 300 years of the Christian Church. If the Catholic Church was not the Church that Christ founded, that there was one before it, the window for it to exist is very small and outright inconsequential.

 

[Denise1957]

Curious Seed wrote:

"“The Reformation is the reformation of the Catholic Church, without yielding unbroken lineage back to Christ.”

Curious Seed, could you please point out where in the Bible that a declarative statement is made which states that the Church as founded by Christ would experience a Reformation? Thank you.