Whoops. This did not occur at the Council of Constantinople in 381. This is a much later, post-schism definition given by Pope in recent years. I wish I could find the reference, but it’s late and I can’t find the source. Maybe Pope Pius X or Leo XIII.Constantinopla’s Council (381) the truth chruch was defined like “Una, Sancta, Catholic and Roman”.
That’s not my job. Only the Holy Spirit can do that.If you could actually convince others of the truth I think many Christians and I would be Catholic.
Yes, and even so, the people of Constantinople would refer to themselves as Romans, as would anyone in the Eastern Roman Empire.Whoops. This did not occur at the Council of Constantinople in 381. This is a much later, post-schism definition given by Pope in recent years. I wish I could find the reference, but it’s late and I can’t find the source. Maybe Pope Pius X or Leo XIII.
scripture proves it. Jesus is a King in the line of David according to the OT. So he is a Jewish King. In a Jewish Kingdom, when the king was away the ‘keys of the kingdom’ were given to the Chief Steward. if the Chief Steward died he was replaced. But there was only ever ONE Chief Steward who had all the keys of the Kingdom.And prove to me that the Catholic Church is the true church
True. That’s why interestingly the term “Roman Catholic Church” and “Byzantine Orthodox Church” are actually synonymous linguistically—the term Byzantine was invented by Edward Gibbon to differentiate between the Western and Eastern halves of the Roman Empire. “Catholic” of course is the earliest term used in church history to sift through those who were orthodox as opposed to those who were heretical. Later the East took the term Orthodox to differentiate themselves and there you have the two parts of Christendom.Yes, and even so, the people of Constantinople would refer to themselves as Romans, as would anyone in the Eastern Roman Empire.
Take a look at what the “scientific” community accepts as historically accurate and compare that with the mountain of evidence for the accuracy of the NT.I have yet to hear any compelling arguments on the divinity of Jesus especially considering there is so little we even know about him other than the gospels, which are not meant to be historically accurate.
I think you may be wrong here as Josephus also mentions Pilate. The uncovered stone only gave additional evidence. I don’t recall anyone doubting Pilates existence but if you could direct me to some previous discussion on this, I will certainly read it! Thanks.For example it was long believed by the secular community that there was no such person as Pontius Pilate as the only evidence for his existence was the NT , then in 1961 the Pilate Stone was unearthed in Caesarea , thereafter the secular community accepted that Pilate was a historical person.
There are indeed many article’s relating to this subject, here is one:I don’t recall anyone doubting Pilates existence but if you could direct me to some previous discussion on this, I will certainly read it! Thanks.
But take a look at the context in which he mentions Pilate:I think you may be wrong here as Josephus also mentions Pilate.
Why did so many people split off from Roman Catholicism. With 800 million Protestants and hundreds of Protestant denominations forming their own churches separate from Roman Catholicism. But you don’t have a Martin Luther type in Eastern Orthodoxy. Eastern Orthodox are more or less united on the fundamental beliefs of their faith and you don’t see a Protestant Reformation in EO as you see in Roman Catholicism.Orthodoxy and Catholicism were united.
I have pondered about this myself…Why did so many people split off from Roman Catholicism. With 800 million Protestants and hundreds of Protestant denominations forming their own churches separate from Roman Catholicism. But you don’t have a Martin Luther type in Eastern Orthodoxy. Eastern Orthodox are more or less united on the fundamental beliefs of their faith and you don’t see a Protestant Reformation in EO as you see in Roman Catholicism.