the first Church.

[wisdomseeker]

********dear non Catholics i was arguing with my friend, i believe she is an assembly of God, she told me all about the CC as she believes. after i made some points to her about her false beliefs, she came to acknowledge that the CC was the first Church.

any of you have the same belief? explain how did you come to this conclusion? that the CC was the first Church? what is the second church?

All the heretics, therefore, come against the Church; but while all the heretics can conquer each other, they can win nothing for themselves. For their victory is the triumph of the Church over all of them. One heresy struggles against that teaching of another, which the faith of the Church has already condemned in the other heresy, - for there is nothing which the heretics hold in common, ’ and the result is that they affirm our faith while fighting among themselves."
Saint Hilary of Poitiers… The Trinity, 7:4, 356 A.D… Jurgens 865

 

[Publisher]

No, I don’t believe the CC was the “first” chruch. From what I read in Acts it was a very Jewish group of people with very Jewish beliefs in Jerusalem headed by James. Since Acts was written 30-40 years after the establishment of this local group of believers, of who later came to be called “Christians”, there was a definite “proto-orthodox” slant to the story, but those who came to be called “Ebionites” were the “first” Christians.

 

[wisdomseeker]

No, I don’t believe the CC was the “first” chruch. From what I read in Acts it was a very Jewish group of people with very Jewish beliefs in Jerusalem headed by James. Since Acts was written 30-40 years after the establishment of this local group of believers, of who later came to be called “Christians”, there was a definite “proto-orthodox” slant to the story, but those who came to be called “Ebionites” were the “first” Christians.

thks for answering. can you explain more about this group?

All the heretics, therefore, come against the Church; but while all the heretics can conquer each other, they can win nothing for themselves. For their victory is the triumph of the Church over all of them. One heresy struggles against that teaching of another, which the faith of the Church has already condemned in the other heresy, - for there is nothing which the heretics hold in common, ’ and the result is that they affirm our faith while fighting among themselves."
Saint Hilary of Poitiers… The Trinity, 7:4, 356 A.D… Jurgens 865

 

[OneTrueCathApos]

No, I don’t believe the CC was the “first” chruch. From what I read in Acts it was a very Jewish group of people with very Jewish beliefs in Jerusalem headed by James. Since Acts was written 30-40 years after the establishment of this local group of believers, of who later came to be called “Christians”, there was a definite “proto-orthodox” slant to the story, but those who came to be called “Ebionites” were the “first” Christians.

Really? Then how do you explain the authority given to Peter by Christ who mentions “His church”. Read:

Matthew 16:18
1Timothy 3:15
Mathew 18:15-18
Ephesians 3:10
1Corinthians 14:12
Acts 20:28, KJV

Remember the church was in existence before the bible. There is only ONE TRUE CHURCH, the Catholic church. (Why can’t others see this, for it is so clearly written in Scripture).

 

[wisdomseeker]

Really? Then how do you explain the authority given to Peter by Christ who mentions “His church”. Read:

Matthew 16:18
1Timothy 3:15
Mathew 18:15-18
Ephesians 3:10
1Corinthians 14:12
Acts 20:28, KJV

Remember the church was in existence before the bible. There is only ONE TRUE CHURCH, the Catholic church. (Why can’t others see this, for it is so clearly written in Scripture).

i am waiting for his reply to my post. so far i have not heard from him. if he madee a statement i want to know how he came up with that conclusion.

 

[NDfan]

********dear non Catholics i was arguing with my friend, i believe she is an assembly of God, she told me all about the CC as she believes. after i made some points to her about her false beliefs, she came to acknowledge that the CC was the first Church.

any of you have the same belief? explain how did you come to this conclusion? that the CC was the first Church? what is the second church?

The first church was not the Catholic church as it is known today. They never referred to themselves as Catholic only Christian. Ignatius was the first to use the term catholic or katholicos which simply means universal in saying wherever Christ is there is the universal church. What eventually became known as the catholic church was as a result of those who separated themselves from the beliefs that seemed contrary to what the original church believed i.e. the deity of Christ, the relationship between Jesus, the Holy Spirit, and GOD etc. etc. Actually Christians who believed in the doctrine of the trinity were referred to as Nicene Christians.

The Roman Catholic church came much later and was more a result of politics than anything. The Bishop of Rome wanted to consolidate all powers of the church to Rome. Given Rome was the center of the Empire it made sense that it would happen but not without opposition from other prominent Bishops. If anything I would say the first church was truly the Orthodox church.

 

[jam070406]

The first church was not the Catholic church as it is known today. They never referred to themselves as Catholic only Christian. Ignatius was the first to use the term catholic or katholicos which simply means universal in saying wherever Christ is there is the universal church. What eventually became known as the catholic church was as a result of those who separated themselves from the beliefs that seemed contrary to what the original church believed i.e. the deity of Christ, the relationship between Jesus, the Holy Spirit, and GOD etc. etc. Actually Christians who believed in the doctrine of the trinity were referred to as Nicene Christians.

The Roman Catholic church came much later and was more a result of politics than anything. The Bishop of Rome wanted to consolidate all powers of the church to Rome. Given Rome was the center of the Empire it made sense that it would happen but not without opposition from other prominent Bishops. If anything I would say the first church was truly the Orthodox church.

The Emperor moved the center of the Empire to Constantinople.

 

[OneTrueCathApos]

The first church was not the Catholic church as it is known today. They never referred to themselves as Catholic only Christian. Ignatius was the first to use the term catholic or katholicos which simply means universal in saying wherever Christ is there is the universal church. What eventually became known as the catholic church was as a result of those who separated themselves from the beliefs that seemed contrary to what the original church believed i.e. the deity of Christ, the relationship between Jesus, the Holy Spirit, and GOD etc. etc. Actually Christians who believed in the doctrine of the trinity were referred to as Nicene Christians.

The Roman Catholic church came much later and was more a result of politics than anything. The Bishop of Rome wanted to consolidate all powers of the church to Rome. Given Rome was the center of the Empire it made sense that it would happen but not without opposition from other prominent Bishops. If anything I would say the first church was truly the Orthodox church.

NDfan, the Universal church IS the Catholic church. The Catholic church is for everyone. That is what it was meant to be. My priest starts out every Mass saying “Let’s pray in God’s Universal church”. The Nicene Creed is Catholic, Catholics are derived from St. Peter who we all know was the first pope, hence Catholicism. All religions are man-made except for the Catholic church.
What religion are you and how was your religion started? Is your church Apostolic? Have you been to the Catacombs in Rome acknowledging the writings on the wall, hence all Catholic? Orthodox WERE Catholic until they broke off in the year 1054 and became Orthodox in unity with the pope.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

The first church was not the Catholic church as it is known today. They never referred to themselves as Catholic only Christian. Ignatius was the first to use the term catholic or katholicos which simply means universal in saying wherever Christ is there is the universal church. What eventually became known as the catholic church was as a result of those who separated themselves from the beliefs that seemed contrary to what the original church believed i.e. the deity of Christ, the relationship between Jesus, the Holy Spirit, and GOD etc. etc. Actually Christians who believed in the doctrine of the trinity were referred to as Nicene Christians.

The Roman Catholic church came much later and was more a result of politics than anything. The Bishop of Rome wanted to consolidate all powers of the church to Rome. Given Rome was the center of the Empire it made sense that it would happen but not without opposition from other prominent Bishops. If anything I would say the first church was truly the Orthodox church.

Can you explain how Catholics have a different view of the deity of Christ, the relationship between Jesus, the Holy Spirit, and the Father, etc. etc., than the original Christians as you view them?

 

[wisdomseeker]

Can you explain how Catholics have a different view of the deity of Christ, the relationship between Jesus, the Holy Spirit, and the Father, etc. etc., than the original Christians as you view them?

i a interested in knowing that to.

 

[NDfan]

NDfan, the Universal church IS the Catholic church. The Catholic church is for everyone. That is what it was meant to be. My priest starts out every Mass saying “Let’s pray in God’s Universal church”. The Nicene Creed is Catholic, Catholics are derived from St. Peter who we all know was the first pope, hence Catholicism. All religions are man-made except for the Catholic church.
What religion are you and how was your religion started? Is your church Apostolic? Have you been to the Catacombs in Rome acknowledging the writings on the wall, hence all Catholic? Orthodox WERE Catholic until they broke off in the year 1054 and became Orthodox in unity with the pope.

OTCA yes the universal church is the catholic church. The church that all Christ followers are part of. Catholics are not derived from St. Peter they are derived from Christ. We are followers of Christ not Peter.

As far as my religion I am a Christian. My church is a Christian church that adheres to Apostolic teachings. As far as going to the catacombs no I have not been there but I see no relevance with writings on the walls. What is that supposed to prove? With regard to the Orthodox I think you mis-stated your point. The Orthodox broke off in 1054 but certainly were not in unity with the pope afterward. Perhaps you meant to say broke off and became Orthodox in dis-unity with the pope. Actually this overall is a false statement. The church always considered itself catholic in nature and orthodox in it’s beliefs. The orthodox did not break off and become orthodox. They were already orthodox to begin with.

 

[wisdomseeker]

OTCA yes the universal church is the catholic church. The church that all Christ followers are part of. Catholics are not derived from St. Peter they are derived from Christ. We are followers of Christ not Peter.

As far as my religion I am a Christian. My church is a Christian church that adheres to Apostolic teachings. As far as going to the catacombs no I have not been there but I see no relevance with writings on the walls. What is that supposed to prove? With regard to the Orthodox I think you mis-stated your point. The Orthodox broke off in 1054 but certainly were not in unity with the pope afterward. Perhaps you meant to say broke off and became Orthodox in dis-unity with the pope. Actually this overall is a false statement. The church always considered itself catholic in nature and orthodox in it’s beliefs. The orthodox did not break off and become orthodox. They were already orthodox to begin with.

Apostolic in what sense? did the apostles each taught diferent things? did each had his own teachings? have the founders of your theology received the laying of the hands by the apostles?

 

[Publisher]

thks for answering. can you explain more about this group?

All the heretics, therefore, come against the Church; but while all the heretics can conquer each other, they can win nothing for themselves. For their victory is the triumph of the Church over all of them. One heresy struggles against that teaching of another, which the faith of the Church has already condemned in the other heresy, - for there is nothing which the heretics hold in common, ’ and the result is that they affirm our faith while fighting among themselves."
Saint Hilary of Poitiers… The Trinity, 7:4, 356 A.D… Jurgens 865

As has been stated, the church was in existence before the scriptures…the accepted scriptures reflect the beliefs of what became the dominant church…it is no big surprise the group which gained dominance chose those writings which agreed with them and then declared all who disagreed with them “heretic”.

There was no monolithic “christian” body in those first centuries. What became the “orthodox/catholic” was one of many groups that sought to claim direct decent from the apostles. The myth of apostolic succession and the writings of the ECF’s bolstered this claim. Those called “orthodox” became the dominant group of the people called Christians.

I’m sure you’ll be able to find sources on the Ebionites.

 

[NDfan]

The Emperor moved the center of the Empire to Constantinople.

Constantine moved the capital of the empire to Constantinople but always supported the Bishop of Rome.

 

[NDfan]

Can you explain how Catholics have a different view of the deity of Christ, the relationship between Jesus, the Holy Spirit, and the Father, etc. etc., than the original Christians as you view them?

I never stated that the Catholic church was different than the original Christians. I stated that the church defined it’s beliefs to be in line with what the early Christians believed and what was consistent with scripture. So Christian sects like the Montanists, the Gnostics, the Marcionites etc. who held various opinions on the deity of Christ and the nature of the Holy Spirit were not viewed as part of the “catholic” church because their views differed.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

Constantine moved the capital of the empire to Constantinople but always supported the Bishop of Rome.

NDfan said: What eventually became known as the catholic church was as a result of those who separated themselves from the beliefs that seemed contrary to what the original church believed i.e. the deity of Christ, the relationship between Jesus, the Holy Spirit, and GOD etc. etc.

Hey NDfan,

I asked if you would please explain your statement about Catholics disagreeing with, or being contrary to, Christians beliefs in reference to the deity of Christ, the relationship of the Trinity, etc. etc. It seems you may have overlooked that. Will you please clarify what you meant?

 

[NDfan]

Apostolic in what sense? did the apostles each taught diferent things? did each had his own teachings? have the founders of your theology received the laying of the hands by the apostles?

The Apostles all taught the same things and we find those teachings in scripture. Scripture by the way does not require one to have a laying on of hands to be considered a valid Elder, Deacon, or Overseer. The early churches certainly did not have this and we find no evidence for it to be a requirement in the didache or any Apostolic writings. The churches that initially formed after Pentecost including the church in Rome had no such laying on of hands to mark any type of succession or authoritative transfer.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

The Apostles all taught the same things and we find those teachings in scripture. Scripture by the way does not require one to have a laying on of hands to be considered a valid Elder, Deacon, or Overseer. The early churches certainly did not have this and we find no evidence for it to be a requirement in the didache or any Apostolic writings. The churches that initially formed after Pentecost including the church in Rome had no such laying on of hands to mark any type of succession or authoritative transfer.

I don’t agree with your view of the early Church, because of scriptures.

**Ti 4:14 Neglect not the grace that is in thee, which was given thee by prophecy, with imposition of the hands of the priesthood.

1Ti 5:22 Impose not hands lightly upon any man, neither be partaker of other men’s sins. Keep thyself chaste.

Act 14:23 (14:22) And when they had ordained to them priests in every church and had prayed with fasting, they commended them to the Lord, in whom they believed.

Tit 1:5 For this cause I left thee in Crete: that thou shouldest set in order the things that are wanting and shouldest ordain priests in every city, as I also appointed thee:**

 

[BrianH]

I don’t agree with your view of the early Church, because of scriptures.

**Ti 4:14 Neglect not the grace that is in thee, which was given thee by prophecy, with imposition of the hands of the priesthood.

1Ti 5:22 Impose not hands lightly upon any man, neither be partaker of other men’s sins. Keep thyself chaste.

Act 14:23 (14:22) And when they had ordained to them priests in every church and had prayed with fasting, they commended them to the Lord, in whom they believed.

Tit 1:5 For this cause I left thee in Crete: that thou shouldest set in order the things that are wanting and shouldest ordain priests in every city, as I also appointed thee:**

Priests?
What a slanted translation!
They were not called “priests” until much later.
Priets

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

Priests?
What a slanted translation!
They were not called “priests” until much later.
Priets

Your argument is semantics. The Greek word used was “presbuteros”. They were considered priests, until the reformation, when a lot of things changed for some believers.

G4245
πρεσβύτερος
presbuteros
pres-boo’-ter-os
Comparative of πρέσβυς presbus (elderly); older; as noun, a senior; specifically an Israelite Sanhedrist (also figuratively, member of the celestial council) or Christian “presbyter”: - elder (-est), old.

pres·by·ter (przb-tr, prs-)
n.

1. A priest in various hierarchical churches.

a. A teaching elder in the Presbyterian Church.
b. A ruling elder in the Presbyterian Church.
3. An elder of the congregation in the early Christian church.

---

Late Latin, from Greek presbuteros, from comparative of presbus, old man; see per1 in Indo-European roots.]