The First Church

  • Thread starter Thread starter Protestant101
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Yes, I agree. We should take ANYTHING we are told with “copious amounts of salt”. What I do not understand is why no one has funded an independent, exhaustive study of the FACTS.

I would contribute although, frankly, I am not at all hanging my beliefs on the “apostolic succession” issue- how could any rational person expect no gaps in a 2000 year stretch?

Further, gaps and all, as far as I can tell, no Christian Church even comes close to the history of the Catholic Church. If that is the barometer, there seems to be no one close. However, since it is a very big issue for some, let us try to sort it out, no?

james
 
guanophore said:
Hopefully not in that order! Actually, the church in Rome was already in full swing before Peter and Paul arrived. 😉

And the Catholic Church was not called “Roman” until the Reformation. The Catholic Church is not “Roman”.

It contains a Latin (Roman) Rite, which happens to be the largest here in the West, and is presided over by the Successor of Peter, who is in Rome.

No, Rinnie. It was called “Roman” as a prejudicial slur given by Protestants and heretics to distinguish themselves from the Church founded by Christ.

No, Rinnie. The Catholic Church was not started by Paul, or by Peter. It is Jesus’ Church,a nd it has no other founder but Him.

Now you are talkin’! Preach it sister. 👍
Click to expand...
Okay my Love you got me. It was Started by Jesus.😊 My Bad!!
 
Evidently not, so please teach me. This is from Wiki, but is in line with what I have always understood AS to be:

"Apostolic succession is a doctrine, held by some Christian denominations, which asserts that the chosen successors (properly ordained bishops) of the Twelve Apostles, from the first century to the present day, have inherited the spiritual, ecclesiastical and sacramental authority, power, and responsibility that were conferred upon them by the Apostles, who in turn received their spiritual authority from Jesus Christ.

The Catholic Church, the Eastern Orthodox churches, Oriental Orthodox churches, the Anglican Communion and some Lutheran churches are the predominant proponents of this doctrine. To them, present-day bishops, as the successors of previous bishops, going back to the early days of Christianity, have spiritual and ecclesiastical power by this unbroken chain of ordinations stemming from the Apostles. This link with the Apostles guarantees for them their authority in matters of faith, morals and the valid administration of sacraments. This is reaffirmed every Sunday in the reciting of the Nicene Creed by priests and congregants, with the words, “We believe in one holy and catholic and apostolic Church…”

I also thought I understood it to include the “laying on of hands” but I don’t see how that comports with your post. Please explain.

Thank you.

james
 
confusedius said:
Evidently not, so please teach me. This is from Wiki, but is in line with what I have always understood AS to be:

"Apostolic succession is a doctrine, held by some Christian denominations, which asserts that the chosen successors (properly ordained bishops) of the Twelve Apostles, from the first century to the present day, have inherited the spiritual, ecclesiastical and sacramental authority, power, and responsibility that were conferred upon them by the Apostles, who in turn received their spiritual authority from Jesus Christ.

The Catholic Church, the Eastern Orthodox churches, Oriental Orthodox churches, the Anglican Communion and some Lutheran churches are the predominant proponents of this doctrine. To them, present-day bishops, as the successors of previous bishops, going back to the early days of Christianity, have spiritual and ecclesiastical power by this unbroken chain of ordinations stemming from the Apostles. This link with the Apostles guarantees for them their authority in matters of faith, morals and the valid administration of sacraments. This is reaffirmed every Sunday in the reciting of the Nicene Creed by priests and congregants, with the words, “We believe in one holy and catholic and apostolic Church…”

I also thought I understood it to include the “laying on of hands” but I don’t see how that comports with your post. Please explain.

Thank you.

james
Click to expand...
confuseduis…allow me if I may…the OT type of this transfer of authority…(some emphasis mine)…

Numbers 27:

15 Moses said to the LORD, 16 “May the LORD, the God who gives breath to all living things, appoint someone over this community 17 to go out and come in before them, one who will lead them out and bring them in,** so the LORD’s people will not be like sheep without a shepherd.”**

18 So the LORD said to Moses, “Take Joshua son of Nun, a man in whom is the spirit of leadership,[a]** and lay your hand on him**. 19 Have him stand before Eleazar the priest and the entire assembly and commission him in their presence. 20 Give him some of your authority so the whole Israelite community will obey him. 21 He is to stand before Eleazar the priest, who will obtain decisions for him by inquiring of the Urim before the LORD. At his command he and the entire community of the Israelites will go out, and at his command they will come in.”

22 Moses did as the LORD commanded him. He took Joshua and had him stand before Eleazar the priest and the whole assembly. 23** Then he laid his hands on him and commissioned him, as the LORD instructed through Moses. **
 
Protestant101 said:
What I am saying is that the Church (collectively all denominations) has existed in one form or another since well before the first century.
Click to expand...
Protestant101. you appear to have abandoned the thread you started. In this thread you made the above statement. I have asked you to please document this.
Any reason you haven’t?
:cool:
 
JustaServant said:
Protestant101. you appear to have abandoned the thread you started. In this thread you made the above statement. I have asked you to please document this.
Any reason you haven’t?
:cool:
Click to expand...
It will not be answered because the claim and belief is a lie and bogus. I too would like to read an ancient document confirming the Baptist Church, for example, existed before the end of the first century.
 
JustaServant said:
Protestant101. you appear to have abandoned the thread you started. In this thread you made the above statement. I have asked you to please document this.
Any reason you haven’t?
:cool:
Click to expand...
Protestant 101 might just want to speak for himself, but if you are looking for something that supports his contention (if I understand it correctly) you could check out Unity and Diversity in the New Testamentby James Dunn…he is a very highly regarded scholar…it describes the diversity and the unity found in the earliest church…you might be interested to note that one of those early “denominations” is called early Catholicism
 
Radical said:
Protestant 101 might just want to speak for himself, but if you are looking for something that supports his contention (if I understand it correctly) you could check out Unity and Diversity in the New Testament by James Dunn…he is a very highly regarded scholar…it describes the diversity and the unity found in the earliest church…you might be interested to note that one of those early “denominations” is called early Catholicism
Click to expand...
Okay…that is nothing new,any serious historian knows of the diversity from get-go. However, the issue at hand, according to Protestant 101 is making reference to the scores of current denominations today;which according to him/her existed in the 1st century? Where are the documents supporting such a claim?
 
Nicea325 said:
And yet nothing has been provided supporting your claim? Do you honestly ever plan to provide us with documents supporting your argument?
Click to expand...
Accusations re my intent etc only make me wait longer…when I do have time I will come back and say a bit. You should relax friend. We are just discussing and exchanging notes. Sometimes I don’t reply to something for a while because I like to see what others are going to say first, and also in this instance; I am in the process of deciding not what, but how to reply. All in God’s time, not yours or mine. 🙂
 
I am sorry; i won’t engage anymore in discussions where this takes place. Good bye my friend.
 
Protestant101 said:
Accusations re my intent etc only make me wait longer…when I do have time I will come back and say a bit. You should relax friend. We are just discussing and exchanging notes. Sometimes I don’t reply to something for a while because I like to see what others are going to say first, and also in this instance; I am in the process of deciding not what, but how to reply. All in God’s time, not yours or mine. 🙂
Click to expand...
I beg your pardon? No offense, but it is you who made the statement and some us are merely asking for historical evidence,so what ‘accusations’ are you making reference to? Oh trust me, I am very relaxed because for years I have heard the same argument from scores of Protestants, yet only to be ignored and no evidence presented. So trust me, I am very relaxed.
Sometimes I don’t reply to something for a while because I like to see what others are going to say first, and also in this instance; I am in the process of deciding not what, but how to reply.
Click to expand...
🤷 You have already heard it from me and someone else,so what is the issue? Either you have empirical evidence supporting such a claim or you merely cannot admit you are incorrect? I am only asking for you to support your position. Is that to much to ask?
 
Hey Protestant 101,

You said you like discussing and exchanging notes. Don’t let posts get to your head-- this is your thread: enjoy it.

Listen,

I been thinking: REAL SIMPLE FOR YOU:

JUst a thought for your head to think about all day long

The NT talks about a church, right? YES (that was in the VERY 1ST CENTURY)

Okay, what church was that? IT doesn’t say Catholic, huh? no. What about SDA? no. Assembly of God? NAH.
Then which CHRISTIAN church was it? ( there were def anti-christians then)
Think about all PROTESTANT churches (when were they founded? (UHH NOT IN THE 1ST CENTURY)) and what (WHO) are they protesting to? and why? [bc they didn’t *like certain things)

What about the CC? it was founded when? Ask your church leader, see what he/she says. ")
FUN.

So thats something to think about. I think the answer is simple. **The CC is THE ONE TRUE CHURCH OF JESUS CHRIST.**Does anyone think I am wrong? PROVE IT. why do you think I am wrong and what is your evidence

Also, what was that one thing that Jesus said? O yeah, no one will prevail against it. IT= church. See?
It was set/founded in the 1st century by Jesus and then he said no one will prevail against it. T means it will stand until he comes again.
and when Jesus founded his church… Where were all the protestant ones???
 
Protestant101 said:
I am sorry; i won’t engage anymore in discussions where this takes place. Good bye my friend.
Click to expand...
CRYSTALIZED for all to see.
This is why discussion with evangelicals is so frustrating.
They start the thread, make a claim, and when asked to provide evidence…
They find a reason to high-tail it.
Incredible.
:cool:
 
Protestant101 said:
I would be interested to read any Catholic literature such as the Catechism or other official publications which explain why Roman Catholics see themselves as the first Church. I am not sure exactly where to look so I thought I would try posting this subject to investigate. Thanks to all who participate!
Click to expand...
It’s simply a historical fact. There are writings of first, second, third, etc century authors both within The Church and in secular society that attest to this. The Mass is based on the liturgy attributed to St. James. The Didache (Teach of the Apostles) gives order of worship, order of administration of The Sacraments etc. exactly as practiced continuously from then until this very day. Second century Christian writers gave lists of the Bishops of Rome and other Catholic dioceses. And, of course, the earliest Authoritative Declaration of the Canon of The New Testament was given in the 300’s by The Catholic Church at the Council of Rome under Pope Damasus I.

In short, the mountain of evidence is overwhelming from both friendly and hostile sources going back down the millennial records to the time of the Apostles themselves.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top