Other Early Churches? I think not!

[PhilVaz]

<< Phil where did you get this from I would like to use it in the future. >>

Did the Waldenses Read the Berean Call? If Not, How Did They Ever Believe the True Gospel?

Phil P

 

[bboop]

As a long-time Protestant (currently in RCIA) – I think Prots and Catholics are TWO DIFFERENT UNIVERSES. We Prots have no understanding of Catholicism. You hear the rumors – “Catholics don’t xxx,” but most Prots dismiss those. And the errors I hear from Catholics about Protestants are as far off the mark.

The search for the Early Church and what form it might take is an honorable attempt to ‘purify’ what people perceive as a sodden bureaucracy, sort of, in the Prot churches. (I am talking about the conservative denominations and non-denom, Bible-believing and NOT liberal sociologically or theologically.) The book of Acts (of the Apostles) talks all about ‘they gathered together and broke bread, worshipping God and living their faith for all to see.’ (to paraphrase).

With the strong House Church movement in the last twenty years – where small groups within a church meet together, eat, pray for each other, and form strong communities within a larger church – Protestants think they/we are recreating these early (Acts) churches. Protestant churches on the whole (and I have belonged to many) are LIGHT on the theological underpinnings of the faith – so it depends on a good pastor to teach ‘what we believe.’ And that of course covers the entire human gamut. LA might be different, but I find the Catholics I am meeting equally as ignorant of the theological underpinnings of their faith. At the same time, the history and solid theology of the CC are compellingly attractive. In my reading, I feel like a parched soul finding water.

 

[Veronica_Anne]

Tirian:

No ideas, but I love their argument. It’s like the argument that there is an invisible cat in that chair over there and the proof is that you can’t see him.

I don’t know how you have any meaningful discussion with that kind of thinking.

What chair? I don’t see no chair!

 

[Flower_Charity]

Boomer Sooner,

I think there is a book called trial of blood and it’s about the catholic church and how they brutally repressed the ‘true’ church. This is probably where these people are coming from. It’s kind of like the mormons re-writing history and believing it no matter what. Faith and reason have to work together for you to come to the truth.

check this out, i guess i was wrong all along: lovejesus.org/books/tob/trail.gif

OU Catholics Rule!!!

 

[Katholikos]

A Baptist named J.W. Carroll (died 1931) wrote the “history” of these early believers in his booklet, “The Trail of Blood.” You can buy a copy of it for $1.50 including postage from the Bryan Station Baptist Church at bryanstation.com/

After you’ve read it, be sure you read the Catholic answer to it at
turrisfortis.com/trail.html

Turris Fortis is Matthew Newsome’s website. He’s a convert who lives in the Bible Belt.

The Trail of Blood is not history, it’s bull-oney. But some (not all) Baptists (and other denominations) rely on it. The problem is that all of these early believers and their churches were phantoms. They left no tracks in the sands of history. Not one.

Big believers in the Trail of Blood are the Landmark Baptists, and many of the Independent Fundamentalist Bible Believing Baptist Churches are heavily into this fabricated history also.

I’ve always found it strange that the Church could eradicate these other “churches” and not leave even a trace of their existence, but the earliest heresies are well documented in the historical record.

Ave Cor Mariae, Jay

 

[Maccabees]

As another poster suggested this theory has been used by Dan Brown and his rewrite of history in the Davinci Code.

Although the book if full of lies the conclusion does have some linear logic the church lied ergo all of her basic doctrines are lies trintiy, Jesus Davinity, Canon of the New Testament, oral tradtions that all christians accept ie Like Jesus virginity and celibate state never being married.
Protestants on the other hand in their attempt in rewriting histrory had an illogical conclsuion. THe church is a liar therfore her most basic doctrines are all truth the trinity, Jesus Divinity, some oral tradtions are right but some are wrong, aroudn the time of Constantine many of her teachings became a mixture of mystery Babylon and Christianity. Upon further study the churches supposed mystery Babylon invetion of the mass and communion of saints existed from the very beginning even archaelogist will admit that the early christians beleived in praying to the saints and a mass that was a sacrifice. The one thing that totally is illogical is that this totally corrupt church that got so many tings wrong got the cannon on the new testament entirely wrong even though Pope Innocent considered over a 100 books before settling on the 26 books the church canonized. What is even more confusing is taht this corriupt church while being infalliable in caninizing the new testament somehow got corupt again in caonizing the Old testament when they decided to add the apocrapha again. Well history reads that the same time they canonized the new testament they decided to canonized the deuterocanonicals as part of the old testament. Their is a ton on incosistency in the protestants rewrite of history.

 

[StMarina303ad]

Hey everyone, I need some help here…

I’ve been in two different discussions with some Protestant friends of mine this week, and both of them were talking about some “other early churches” that existed besides the Catholic Church.

The Early Churches are the Orthodox Churches…the Catholic Church used to be one of them.

When I mention the fact that there is simply no evidence that these ‘churches’ existed… their response is “well, that’s because the Catholic Church destroyed all the facts of their existence”.

There is plenty of evidence…first there were 12 Apostles who went out after Penecost and started Churches, not just one Apostle (by the way, Peter established two Churches the one in Antioch and the other in Rome). Read any number of the Early Church Fathers from Antioch, from Byzantium, etc. There is a wealth of evidence.

Any ideas?? Investigate the Orthodox Church and the Early Church for yourself.

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

Hey everyone, I need some help here…

I’ve been in two different discussions with some Protestant friends of mine this week, and both of them were talking about some “other early churches” that existed besides the Catholic Church.

When I mention the fact that there is simply no evidence that these ‘churches’ existed… their response is “well, that’s because the Catholic Church destroyed all the facts of their existence”.

It seems as if I am in a lose-lose situation here. Any ideas??

First of all the Catholic church herself suffered Martyrdom and persecution for the first 300 years; where were the protestants?

The only protesters I have come across from the early church are well documented. And they were either excommunicated Catholics by becoming apostates or Heretics.

Now to the apostates or heretics, the Catholic church never exterminated them, this is nonesense, they were excommunicated from teaching heresies to the apostolic flock of Jesus. The apostates were welcomed back into the chruch by the Pope if they repented and did their penance including the heretics if they recanted there error teachings.

The Catholic church does not see day light until 324 A.D after the edict of Milan lifted the persecution of the Catholic church by the Roman Pagan Emperor Constantine. After this still no history of a Protestant church as we see today until the 15th century.

How can the Catholic church exterminate other christians when she herself was being persecuted, tortured, exiled, and Martyred for the Catholic faith.

A side note. history records most apostates and heretical teachers came from the Eastern Catholic church. Not protestant churches, only the Catholic faith existed for the first 1500 years after the resurrection of Jesus.

 

[389670]

Hey everyone, I need some help here…

I’ve been in two different discussions with some Protestant friends of mine this week, and both of them were talking about some “other early churches” that existed besides the Catholic Church.

When I mention the fact that there is simply no evidence that these ‘churches’ existed… their response is “well, that’s because the Catholic Church destroyed all the facts of their existence”.

It seems as if I am in a lose-lose situation here. Any ideas??

The church in the first century did not look like the roman church of today. There was not one leader like a pope during this period. There were a number of different centers of christianity like Jerusalm and Antioch with rome.

 

[elvisman]

The church in the first century did not look like the roman church of today. There was not one leader like a pope during this period. There were a number of different centers of christianity like Jerusalm and Antioch with rome.

**Hmmm . . . **
Does an oak ever look like the acorn it came from? NOPE! The acorn grows into the mighty oak just as the seed that was the early Church grew into the Church of today.

There wasn’t one leader in the early Church? What do you base this false statement upon? Provide proof.

Irenaeus, at the end of the second century documented a list of Popes - all the way back to Peter. What you are referring to are bishops.
There were many bishops but only ONE Pope.

 

[elvisman]

**Hmmm . . . **
Does an oak ever look like the acorn it came from? NOPE! The acorn grows into the mighty oak just as the seed that was the early Church grew into the Church of today.

There wasn’t one leader in the early Church? What do you base this false statement upon? Provide proof.
Irenaeus, at the end of the second century documented a list of Popes - all the way back to Peter.
What you are referring to are bishops. There were many bishops but only ONE Pope.

 

[Contarini]

Hey everyone, I need some help here…

I’ve been in two different discussions with some Protestant friends of mine this week, and both of them were talking about some “other early churches” that existed besides the Catholic Church.

When I mention the fact that there is simply no evidence that these ‘churches’ existed… their response is “well, that’s because the Catholic Church destroyed all the facts of their existence”.

It seems as if I am in a lose-lose situation here. Any ideas??

Well, that is an unanswerable argument, isn’t it

The only way to deal with it is to point out that people with all sorts of weird beliefs make the same argument. In fact, we do know that there were Gnostic churches in the early Church, so people holding what we’d all consider heretical beliefs have a much *stronger *case.

And this brings up the larger point: unquestionably there were a number of different Christian groups in the early centuries. That makes it all the more significant that none of them corresponded to modern fundamentalist Protestantism. It’s worthwhile going into exactly what some of these groups believed, since some (slightly better informed) fundamentalists will claim them as spiritual ancestors. Several of them believed, for instance, that sin after baptism was unforgivable. This implies that they, along with the early Catholic Church, took the doctrine of baptismal regeneration for granted. So even when they held views that modern fundamentalists may find congenial (Tertullian’s rejection of infant baptism, for instance), the reason turns out to be something that modern fundamentalists would completely reject.

Edwin