the first Church.

[OneTrueCathApos]

i think the eastern orthodox church (not exactly sure what they call themselves) also believe they are the first church and that Rome was a split from them.

Of course they do, but it isn’t so. So does every other religion think this. It is very difficult if you don’t know history or not Catholic to actually believe this. But there are 1.1 Billion Catholics for a reason, and I know this is the reason in being the church Christ established as the true church in which He wanted to be known for all His people. His Universal church, the Catholic church.

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

********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?

Gabriel of 12;
The first Christian community called themselves “The Way” who were mostly of Jewish origin. Then the Gentiles were accepted into the “The Way” uniting both Gentile and Jew communities under the name of Christians. As the “Church” grew because it now included every people and tongue never excluding anyone, this body of believers became known as the Universal (Catholic) Church defined by Paul and the apostles from scripture as the body of Jesus Christ, because we all partake of the One Bread (body of Jesus) Peter defined the Church as being partakers of Jesus divinity.

The term Catholic is recorded in the late first to second century, as an already common name, not as an introduction of a new name. Catholic was already known up to the historical recording identity of the Catholic “Universal” Church.

What is striking from history, is that both Jews and Pagans record the Catholic Mass, and Eucharist belief’s especially the Sacraments, all being practiced since the first century, until today in the Catholic Church. There can only be “One faith, One Lord, One baptism” in the One body of Jesus Christ, which both secular history and religious history from antiquity to today confess that Jesus Christ founded the Catholic Church upon Peter.

Pagan history records for the first 3 centuries the killing of Christians for their Catholic (faith) belief’s in the Eucharist, which is still the summit of Catholic faith. And as Jesus stated, “they will persecute you” Catholics are still being persecuted for practicing the Teachings of Jesus and the apostles handed down to the Catholic Church today, especially the Eucharist. This alone among other things prove that Catholics are the body of Jesus Christ.

 

[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?

Gabriel of 12;
The first Christian community called themselves “The Way” who were mostly of Jewish origin. Then the Gentiles were accepted into the “The Way” uniting both Gentile and Jew communities under the name of Christians. As the “Church” grew because it now included every people and tongue never excluding anyone, this body of believers became known as the Universal (Catholic) Church defined by Paul and the apostles from scripture as the body of Jesus Christ, because we all partake of the One Bread (body of Jesus) Peter defined the Church as being partakers of Jesus divinity.

The term Catholic is recorded in the late first to second century, as an already common name, not as an introduction of a new name. Catholic was already known up to the historical recording identity of the Catholic “Universal” Church.

What is striking from history, is that both Jews and Pagans record the Catholic Mass, and Eucharist belief’s especially the Sacraments, all being practiced since the first century, until today in the Catholic Church. There can only be “One faith, One Lord, One baptism” in the One body of Jesus Christ, which both secular history and religious history from antiquity to today confess that Jesus Christ founded the Catholic Church upon Peter.

Pagan history records for the first 3 centuries the killing of Christians for their Catholic (faith) belief’s in the Eucharist, which is still the summit of Catholic faith. And as Jesus stated, “they will persecute you” Catholics are still being persecuted for practicing the Teachings of Jesus and the apostles handed down to the Catholic Church today, especially the Eucharist. This alone among other things prove that Catholics are the body of Jesus Christ.

agreed. history tells us that the word Eucharist was even forbidden at one time. that shows how important this is. Catholics were called canibals at one point also.

 

[Hesychios]

Numbers do not tell the story.

The church began in Palestine, yet shockingly there are not many Christians of any sort there today.

The Church of the East, sometimes called Nestorian, was once (and for a long time) the very largest of Christian churches, reaching across Asia. It fell to Muslims and Mongols.

The lands we know today as Tunisia, Algeria and Morocco were once Roman Catholic, and Libya was Coptic. The church there was crushed to dust.

Sometimes churches grow by brute force. We tend to criticize Islam for that but Christianity has done this as well. Native peoples can really suffer under the brutality of foreign captors.

Pride is a great evil. It brings down the mightiest.

 

[7_Sorrows]

Of course they do, but it isn’t so. So does every other religion think this. It is very difficult if you don’t know history or not Catholic to actually believe this. But there are 1.1 Billion Catholics for a reason, and I know this is the reason in being the church Christ established as the true church in which He wanted to be known for all His people. His Universal church, the Catholic church.

not if you speak to someone who is greek orthodox or the other othodox churches. i once made the mistake of asking a woman who owned a small restaurant if she was Catholic because i saw the religicous icons on the wall in the restaurant. she became very indignant and said no! and then proclaimed to tell me that her church was first.
i wasn’t catholic at the time and didn’t know much of the history of the church at that time other than i knew i had struck a nerve. there is a greek orthodox monastery close to my home and they show the roman catholic church as a rotting branch on the vine.
please don’t be mad at me, i am only reporting what i have seen and heard.

to be honest, it doesn’t matter to me who is first. i know that both were united at one time in the only church so that is all that matters, until you get down to a few minor details like the filoque and the calendar.

 

[Publisher]

This is very insightful. Do you read Ehrman?

I would call them “proto-Ebionites”.

I do like Ehrman’s books…as well as Pagel, O’Grady and Mccoby. “proto-Ebionites” is as good a term as any.

Those first “followers of the Way” held onto their Jewish beliefs. In time the Gentile church under Paul took dominance especially after the fall of Jerusalem. In the second century those who claimed to be “orthodox” began to gather against those other groups of people called Christians and eventually became the dominant form of Christianity. All other groups were called “heretic”.

With the power and authority of the emperor behind them…the rest “is history”.

 

[guanophore]

No, I disregard nothing in history nor what the apostles or what the scriptures teach.  I seek to obey the Light....but I will trust my own counsel and experience before I'd trust someone else telliing me what I had to believe.

There are two problems with this statement. One is that the Scriptures don’t “teach”. Teaching requires discernment, intellect, will, and the ability to take responsibility. These are all activities that belong to persons, not Scripture. This is why Jesus left persons in charge of teaching, and did not leave the disciples without their guidance to sort things out for themselves.

Another problem is that, by trusting in your own counsel over and above what God has appointed, you are in disobedience or disregard of the Apostles’ teaching, who made it clear that Jesus sent them, and that those who reject the ones sent by Christ reject Christ. Also, that undestanding Scripture is not a matter of “my own counsel” but what has been revealed by God. He revealed this to His Aposltes, and they to their successors.

It is I who will stand in the Presence and give an account for myself…no one else will stand with me but Christ. While the Quaker saying is only 400 years old, it says…“Thee tells me what the apostles say…thee tells me what the prophets say…but what can thee say?”

Yes, you will, but those who have been appointed to shepherd you will also answer for you.

Heb 13:17

17 Obey your leaders and submit to them; for they are keeping watch over your souls, as men who will have to give account. Let them do this joyfully, and not sadly, for that would be of no advantage to you.

Do Quakers just ignore this verse?

 

[guanophore]

Then why in Rev.5:6 Is the Lamb as though he is slain in Heaven. Jesus is the Lamb of God, yet here we see he still has his wouns in Heaven. Is that not a perpetual sacrifice once for all?

Yes, absolutely He is our eternal sacrifice. The Eucharist, though, is the sacramental means by which we participate in His once for all sacrifice while we sojourn here on earth. When we are united to HIm in heaven, there will be no more need for the amanesis.

 

[Publisher]

There are two problems with this statement. One is that the Scriptures don’t “teach”. Teaching requires discernment, intellect, will, and the ability to take responsibility. These are all activities that belong to persons, not Scripture. This is why Jesus left persons in charge of teaching, and did not leave the disciples without their guidance to sort things out for themselves.

Another problem is that, by trusting in your own counsel over and above what God has appointed, you are in disobedience or disregard of the Apostles’ teaching, who made it clear that Jesus sent them, and that those who reject the ones sent by Christ reject Christ. Also, that undestanding Scripture is not a matter of “my own counsel” but what has been revealed by God. He revealed this to His Aposltes, and they to their successors.

Yes, you will, but those who have been appointed to shepherd you will also answer for you.

Heb 13:17

17 Obey your leaders and submit to them; for they are keeping watch over your souls, as men who will have to give account. Let them do this joyfully, and not sadly, for that would be of no advantage to you.

Do Quakers just ignore this verse?

Let’s put it this way…I would rather trust my own experience with God than trust what someone else tells me God wants from me. I realize it is your belief that the apostles teachings have been handed down through your church.

Another 400 year old Quaker saying is “Christ is present among us to teach His people Himself.”

There are several Friend’s in the Meeting that I would turn to for “Eldering”…we would have a “Meeting for Clearness” and seek to discern God’s will on a given issue…I would listen to their counsel and make a decision based on what it was I discerned…weighted against their counsel and my own well formed conscience. Friend’s are people of conscience…I would have to follow what I would deem is the will of the Lord.

We keep watch over one another…praying for one another…seeking to live in community as led by God. We seek the “Sense of the Meeting” when we need assistance making a decision…but the decision rests with us on any given subject…so while not “ignoring” the verse you post…I would not discount my own God given understanding on any given subject that would arise from a well formed conscience led by the immediate acess to the Light.

 

[racing59]

Yes, absolutely He is our eternal sacrifice. The Eucharist, though, is the sacramental means by which we participate in His once for all sacrifice while we sojourn here on earth. When we are united to HIm in heaven, there will be no more need for the amanesis.

Very good then, but I have two questions. 1) If no need for amanesis in Heaven then why “The Wedding Feast of the Lamb” in Rev. chapter 19? Revelation 22:14 would you then say" The Tree of LIfe" is not in Heaven?

 

[guanophore]

Those first “followers of the Way” held onto their Jewish beliefs.

I believe this is true, up until the time that God revealed to them that this was not necessary.

In time the Gentile church under Paul took dominance especially after the fall of Jerusalem.

Actually, it was Peter who first brought the gospel to the Gentiles when he was still in Palestine.

It is an error to separate the Apostleship of Paul from the other Apostles.

What does it mean for the Gentile Church to “take dominance”?

In the second century those who claimed to be “orthodox” began to gather against those other groups of people called Christians and eventually became the dominant form of Christianity. All other groups were called “heretic”.

With the power and authority of the emperor behind them…the rest “is history”.

Your history is severly warped, Publisher. The Orthodox Church had to battle multiple heresies in the second and third centuries. Of course those who departed from Apostolic Teaching were considered heretics!

The Christian Church was persecuted until Christianity was de-crimminalized in the Edict of Milan (318). Not only did they have no power and authority of the Empire behind them, the Empire was putting to death Christians as fast as they could find them!

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

Let’s put it this way…I would rather trust my own experience with God than trust what someone else tells me God wants from me. I realize it is your belief that the apostles teachings have been handed down through your church.

Another 400 year old Quaker saying is “Christ is present among us to teach His people Himself.”

There are several Friend’s in the Meeting that I would turn to for “Eldering”…we would have a “Meeting for Clearness” and seek to discern God’s will on a given issue…I would listen to their counsel and make a decision based on what it was I discerned…weighted against their counsel and my own well formed conscience. Friend’s are people of conscience…I would have to follow what I would deem is the will of the Lord.

We keep watch over one another…praying for one another…seeking to live in community as led by God. We seek the “Sense of the Meeting” when we need assistance making a decision…but the decision rests with us on any given subject…so while not “ignoring” the verse you post…I would not discount my own God given understanding on any given subject that would arise from a well formed conscience let by the immediate acess to the Light.

You would rather trust your own experience with God than trust what someone else tells you what God wants from you. Are all Quakers totally independent? This is a sincere question, as I don’t know anything of Quakers. Do you have a Church doctrine of beliefs or teachings you are bound too? What happens if two Quakers disagree on what the Lord deems for the Quaker Church?

 

[wisdomseeker]

Let’s put it this way…I would rather trust my own experience with God than trust what someone else tells me God wants from me. I realize it is your belief that the apostles teachings have been handed down through your church.

Another 400 year old Quaker saying is “Christ is present among us to teach His people Himself.”

There are several Friend’s in the Meeting that I would turn to for “Eldering”…we would have a “Meeting for Clearness” and seek to discern God’s will on a given issue…I would listen to their counsel and make a decision based on what it was I discerned…weighted against their counsel and my own well formed conscience. Friend’s are people of conscience…I would have to follow what I would deem is the will of the Lord.

We keep watch over one another…praying for one another…seeking to live in community as led by God. We seek the “Sense of the Meeting” when we need assistance making a decision…but the decision rests with us on any given subject…so while not “ignoring” the verse you post…I would not discount my own God given understanding on any given subject that would arise from a well formed conscience led by the immediate acess to the Light.

this is a good way of avoiding obedience which is required by Christ.

 

[Publisher]

You would rather trust your own experience with God than trust what someone else tells you what God wants from you. Are all Quakers totally independent? This is a sincere question, as I don’t know anything of Quakers. Do you have a Church doctrine of beliefs or teachings you are bound too? What happens if two Quakers disagree on what the Lord deems for the Quaker Church?

Yes, we’ve always been thick headed. We are “non-creedal”. The closest thing we have to a “creed” are the “queries”, these are questions we ask in Meeting for Worship for Business that help us with corporate and individual self-examination…some of the Queries are as follows…

“Are love and harmony within the Meeting community fostered by a spirit of open sharing? Do you endeavor to widen your circle of friendships within the Meeting, seeking to know persons of all ages and at all stages of the spiritual journey? Does the Meeting provide for the spiritual refreshment of all members and attenders? Do Friends provide spiritual and practical care for the elderly, the lonely, and others with special needs?”

"Do you make time for meditation, prayer and worship? Do you read the Bible, the writings of Friends, and other inspirational works, seeking new light? Do you regularly seek God’s guidance? Are you open to guidance and support and do you give thanks for them? Do you share your spiritual insights with others and willingly receive from them in turn? "

"Do you live in accordance with your spiritual convictions? Do you seek employment consistent with your beliefs and in service to society? Do you practice simplicity in speech, dress and manner of living, avoiding wasteful consumption? Are you watchful that your possessions do not rule you? Do you strive to be truthful at all times, avoiding judicial oaths?

Do you strive to develop your physical, emotional and mental capacities toward reaching your Divinely given potential? Do you cultivate healthful and moderate habits, avoiding the hazards of drugs, intoxicants, and over-indulgence generally? Do you try to direct such emotions as anger and fear in creative ways? "

"Do you respect that of God in every person? Do you search yourself for and strive to eliminate prejudices such as those related to race, religion, gender, age, sexual orientation and economic condition? In what ways do you accept and appreciate differences among your friends and associates? Do you avoid exploiting or manipulating others to accomplish ends, however worthy? "

There are many more…and some vary from Meeting to Meeting.

Our faith is more centered in “right doing” instead of “doctrinal issues”.

When Friends are at odds with each other on the Meetings direction…we seek the “Sense of the Meeting”. We wait prayerfully and expectantly on what it is the Lord would have us to do…then we discuss…and pray…and wait…and discuss…and pray…and wait until we reach a consensus. Friends don’t “vote” in Meeting…the majority is not always correct…and this process can take a long time…with much discussion and “waiting” for clear direction to be given to us. Finally if no one raises a discenting voice, the Presiding Clerk states the Sense of the Meeting on any given matter.

Sometimes we reflect on the Queries. We seek to order our lives around our Meeting. We seek Truth in our lives…Truth is something we live…not something we believe…one can believe a thing and not live in Truth…“Even the demons believe…”

We are people of conscience…we are “stubborn”…we seek to be people of peace…and we seek to live a faith that is experiential and immediate…

 

[Publisher]

this is a good way of avoiding obedience which is required by Christ.

That is always a danger in any faith communiy.

It is also a good way of understanding what it is Christ would have us do…“He is present among us to teach us Himself.”

 

[Publisher]

I believe this is true, up until the time that God revealed to them that this was not necessary.

Actually, it was Peter who first brought the gospel to the Gentiles when he was still in Palestine.

It is an error to separate the Apostleship of Paul from the other Apostles.

What does it mean for the Gentile Church to “take dominance”?

Your history is severly warped, Publisher. The Orthodox Church had to battle multiple heresies in the second and third centuries. Of course those who departed from Apostolic Teaching were considered heretics!

The Christian Church was persecuted until Christianity was de-crimminalized in the Edict of Milan (318). Not only did they have no power and authority of the Empire behind them, the Empire was putting to death Christians as fast as they could find them!

Those groups of people who called themselves Christians had centers all over the empire. While many of them held similar beliefs…they were not a monolithic whole. Those who came to call themselves “orthodox/catholic” eventually became the dominant group…the dominant group eventually alligned itself with the government by the early to mid fourth century…the “orthodox/catholic” group named any who disagreed with them “heretical”…the ECF’s were the chief architects of “orthodox” belief…by it’s very nature of organizing under bishops, priests and deacons and forming an hiercharchy the beliefs of the “orthodox” were perpetuated…discenting goups had their writings…and they were supressed and destroyed by those that came to be dominant.

Many of these writings have survived and in the past century uncovered and shed new light on Christian beginnings…a different view of history than what was handed down through the established church. Christianity was much more diverse and decentralized as a whole than it is today.

 

[OneTrueCathApos]

not if you speak to someone who is greek orthodox or the other othodox churches. i once made the mistake of asking a woman who owned a small restaurant if she was Catholic because i saw the religicous icons on the wall in the restaurant. she became very indignant and said no! and then proclaimed to tell me that her church was first.
i wasn’t catholic at the time and didn’t know much of the history of the church at that time other than i knew i had struck a nerve. there is a greek orthodox monastery close to my home and they show the roman catholic church as a rotting branch on the vine.
please don’t be mad at me, i am only reporting what i have seen and heard.

to be honest, it doesn’t matter to me who is first. i know that both were united at one time in the only church so that is all that matters, until you get down to a few minor details like the filoque and the calendar.

But it doesn’t matter what they think. Jesus established the Catholic church whether they like it or not. The more they realize this, the better relations will be between us.

 

[jam070406]

Those groups of people who called themselves Christians had centers all over the empire. While many of them held similar beliefs…they were not a monolithic whole. Those who came to call themselves “orthodox/catholic” eventually became the dominant group…the dominant group eventually alligned itself with the government by the early to mid fourth century…the “orthodox/catholic” group named any who disagreed with them “heretical”…the ECF’s were the chief architects of “orthodox” belief…by it’s very nature of organizing under bishops, priests and deacons and forming an hiercharchy the beliefs of the “orthodox” were perpetuated…discenting goups had their writings…and they were supressed and destroyed by those that came to be dominant.

Many of these writings have survived and in the past century uncovered and shed new light on Christian beginnings…a different view of history than what was handed down through the established church. Christianity was much more diverse and decentralized as a whole than it is today.

The dominant group aligned with the Gov. at the time were the heretical Arians. But praise God that the True orthodox Faith, with guidance from the Holy Spirit prevailed!

ewtn.com/library/HOMELIBR/HERESY3.TXT

 

[Volodymyr]

But it doesn’t matter what the Orthodox think. Jesus established the Catholic church whether they like it or not. The more they realize this, the better relations will be between us.

.

I am not sure why you want to contribute to a saite like this to encourage dialog - if the beliefs of others are of no matter. Relations between churches will be better when relations between individual Catolics and individual Orthodox are better. So I do have interest in what you think - if I didn’t I would be wasting my time and money buying on-line computer time. The more we pound on this issue the more we are driving nails into coffin of church unity.

I believe that Bishop of Romes reconsideration of universal authority in relationship to Patriarch’s of other churches, his role in church councils , and such will be helpful for theologians. Also for believers to know each other and take seriously their each beliefs…

 

[guanophore]

Those groups of people who called themselves Christians had centers all over the empire. While many of them held similar beliefs…they were not a monolithic whole.

I am not sure what the word “monolithic” means in this context, but the church throughout the world held the same faith. If they did not , they were considered heretics, or at the least, uneducated.

St. Irenaeus “Against Heresies” “The Church, though dispersed through our the whole world, even to the ends of the earth, has received from the apostles and their disciples this faith…having received this preaching and this faith, although scattered throughout the whole world, yet, as if occupying but one house, carefully preserves it. She also believes these points [of doctrine] just as if she had but one soul, and one and the same heart, and she proclaims them, and teaches them, and hands them down, with perfect harmony, as if she possessed only one mouth. For, although the languages of the world are dissimilar, yet the import of the tradition is one and the same.”

To deny this is not only to deny the historical record, but to deny that Jesus is able and willing to preserve that which He committed to the Apostles.

Those who came to call themselves "orthodox/catholic" eventually became the dominant group....the dominant group eventually alligned itself with the government by the early to mid fourth century....

No, Publisher. The group that was “orthodox/catholic” was the upon which Jesus built His chuch, those espousing the faith that was built upon the foundation of the Apostles and Prophets. They did not become “dominant” by some human means, by by the Spirit of God who acted to preserve the Truth among them, in accordance with the promise of Christ.

The “orthodox/catholic” group named any who disagreed with them “heretical”…the ECF’s wtere the chief architects of “orthodox” belief…

It is the duty of the Church to define the truth,and to point out those who are not foas nothing to do with being “dominant”, and everything to do with the revealed will of God.

No, the ECF’s were NOT the chief architects of orthodox belief. Jesus is the author and finisher of our faith. The ECF’s espoused the faith that was committed to them by the Apostles.

To say that they “aligned themselves with the government” is preposterous, and pretends that the first 3 centuries of rampant persecution and martyrdom did not exist. It was during this period, where the government was trying to extinguish the Church, that the Doctrine of the faith was defined, clarified, and heresies were defeated.

by it’s very nature of organizing under bishops, priests and deacons and forming an hiercharchy the beliefs of the “orthodox” were perpetuated…discenting goups had their writings…and they were supressed and destroyed by those that came to be dominant.

It was the Apostles who set up the structure of bishops, priests,a nd deacons. Yes, it was the duty of these ordained persons to preserve the unity of the faith. Indeed dissenting groups did have theri writings. The Gnostics, Pelagians, and Arians were not so much “suppressed or destroyed” as their false teachings were refuted. “Dominance” is established by adherance to the Truth. I think you are right, the nature of the Church founded by Christ is what enabled it to triuph over the heresies.

Many of these writings have survived and in the past century uncovered and shed new light on Christian beginnings…a different view of history than what was handed down through the established church. Christianity was much more diverse and decentralized as a whole than it is today.

Frankly, thanks to the heresies of the Reformation, I cannot imagine a more diverse and decentralized whole than it is today.
Many of these writings have survived and in the past century uncovered and shed new light on Christian beginnings…a different view of history than what was handed down through the established church. Christianity was much more diverse and decentralized as a whole than it is today.

However, you have made an interesting point. If the Church founded by Christ “fell off the rails” by aligning itself with a Pagan government in the fourth century, then the composition of the Bible cannot be relied upon as genuine. Anyone espousing this conspiracy theory would have to throw out the NT.