Quote:

---

Originally Posted by arcura

Tj3,
I am trying to ignore you but as long as you keep posting bogus history I and others will tell the truth.

---

Claim what you wish Fred, but even one of the best known leaders of your denomination disagrees:

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"We are told in various ways by Eusebius that Constantine, in order to recommend the new religion to the heathen, transferred into it the outward ornaments to which they had been accustomed in their own. It is not necessary to go into a subject which the diligence of Protestant writers has made familiar to most of us. The use of temples, and those dedicated to the particular saints, and ornamented on occasion with branches of trees, incense, lamps, and candles; votive offerings on recovery from illness, holy water, asylums, holy days and seasons, use of calendars, proces­sions, blessings on the fields, sacerdotal vestments, the tonsure, the ring in marriage, turning to the East, images at a later date, perhaps the ecclesiastical chant and the Kyrie Eleison are all of pagan origin, and sanctified by adoption into the Church."
 
(Source: J. H. Newman, An Essay on the Development of Christian Doctrine, Chapter 8.)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Whoa people, You are getting so far off base it is not funny. Church denominations are man made that is a fact. They are in place like Government to give a body of like minded belivers a place to hang their hats. If you must rely on a preacher/pastor/father what ever you choose to call them to read and interpert the scriptures to you that in my book borders on a cult! Remember the Jews of the old testament. They were steeped in religion. God in the form of Jesus came to the earth and literally destroyed the religion of the day. Because they were too steeped in the formality of religion to see and understand the word of God! People can look at any religious organization today and find fault with its methods. But since there is but ONE true GOD and one way of salvation through Jesus to GOD as long as you believe and pray to GOD the father and not through some 'saints" then I have no problem with your brand of religion.
One last point, since when did GOD become so hung up on he/she terms? Simple answer HE DID NOT! The terms were used so that the unlearned people of the time could understand.
We understand GOD the father/GOD the son/GOD the holy spirit as the trinity. And that the bride of Christ is the Church, which is ALL of the believer's in Christ. Do I make myself clear or is this more confusing?

The first church under the leadership of the original Apostles healed the sick, raised the dead, cast out demons, opened blind eyes, caused the lame to walk and preached the uncompromising Gospel of Jesus Christ, crucified, buried, resurrected, and ascended back into the heavens, proving that Jesus is indeed alive.

If a church is not doing these thlngs, not even preaching that such things are available today, then that is NOT the church that Jesus founded.

The New religion mentioned was and is Chritianity.
That's a fact.
The truth.
Accept or reject as you want to but it will not change the truth.

Duplicate

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by arcura

The New religion mentioned was and is Chritianity.

---

Fred, the content of Newman's comments makes it clear that the new religion was a mix of the pagan Roman religion over which Constantine was high priest, and the church.

1st Century Christianity, the Christianity taught by Christ did not incorporate paganism. Further, this took place in the 4th century, not the 1st century. Constantine was not alive in the 1st century.

Tj3.
That is your opinion which am happy to reject.
Please end this. I perfer to ignore you for discustions with you go no where because you refuse to acceot the truth.
.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by arcura

Tj3.
That is your opinion which am happy to reject.

---

Fred, it is not just my opinion. It is validated even by one of the best known leaders in your denomination. There is a great deal of historical validation in addition to this. You, on the other hand, have provided only your opinion.

Quote:

---

Please end this. I perfer to ignore you for discussions with you go no where because you refuse to acceot the truth.
.

---

If you did not want to discuss it, and you do not want to see evidence which might indicated that you are wrong in your opinion, then it makes me wonder why YOU raised the point. The opinion posted, BTW, was that of Roman Catholic Cardinal John Henry Newman.

What I refuse to accept, Fred, is when you tell me your opinion with no validation, especially when I have studied the topic and know what historical and Biblical evidence there is.

If you cannot handle views and evidence which disagree with what you want to believe, ignoring is a good option.

The Greek word for "church", ekklesia, does, as Fred pointed out, mean "assembly". But not every assembly is a church, of course. So what distinguishes the Church from a bunch of people who've gotten together for one reason or another? Well, beginning in the first century the answer to this question turned on whether the assembly or community had as its head a bishop who either was or had been appointed by one of the Apostles. There were, recall, a great many itinerant teachers who claimed that one did not need to follow the Apostles or their successors. But, already in the NT, people were instructed to adhere to the bishop. (Many of these wandering preachers, who claimed that we don't need to listen to the bishop but can do it ourselves, were gnostics, and both Peter and Paul explicitly rejected gnosticism.)

Now the Catholic Church is that community of the faithful whose bishop is the bishop of Rome. The first bishop of Rome was Peter (the first bishop of Constantinope was Andrew, and so on). The first several bishops after Peter came from his circle of students--in fact, since Paul was in Rome at the same time, many of them were instructed by both Peter and Paul. The body of teaching--what Catholics call the deposit of faith--was handed down from one bishop to the next so that the people could be taught the faith as Peter had instructed. This is what Catholics mean by apostolic succession.

As for the rather perverse claim that the Catholic Church was founded by Constantine in 325: No reputable historian holds this--and I include secular and protestant historians. (I have been teaching university courses on Church history for many, many years, and have kept up with the literature, and neither I nor any of my colleagues can find a single reputable scholar who takes this view.) There are a few fringe fundamentalists who still say this, but they've been discredited since the nineteenth century. To be sure, there are plenty of historians who are critical of the Catholic Church, but none denies that it existed prior to 325. In fact, Constantine converted into the Catholic Church, which certainly seems to require that it already existed. Since we know there were popes--bishops of Rome--from Peter to Constantine (Irenaeus, writing in the second century, lists them), we know that the Catholic Church, the church of Rome, existed before Constantine.

It's true that Christians did not refer to themselves as Catholics in the first century. But, then, they didn't refer to themselves as Christians either. The term "christian" was coined by Ignatius of Antioch. The first Christians referred to their movement--which many of them saw as a movement within Judaism--as "the Way" (see the opening of the Didache, for example, or the first century Epistle of Barnabas). They did, however, identify themselves by their local bishop (remember, towns of any size often had their own bishop, appointed by the Apostle who passed through it).

One can, surely, break from all this and go it alone. But this isn't to avoid the trap of "denominations"; it is to make oneself a denomination of one.

Ps. Newman was protestant for much of his life. As he himself says, it was his study of the early Church that led him to convert to Catholicism.

Akoue,
If as you say the catholic church was a very early church group, I contend that the present day catholic church is nothing like the early church. The catholic church is too steeped in litergy and ceremony to be anything close to the original concept of church. Jesus came to the earth to remove the silly rules that man had injected into the Jewish faith . And now we have come full circle. So in summary to this way off the wall conversation, the Catholic Church as it is known today is nothing like what God/Jesus intended for the church to be. So, it may have roots dating back to who knows when, but it does not hold true anything else in this conversation. Point of fact, many could look at the Catholic church today and see in it a cult. Same for the Mormon Church.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Akoue

The Greek word for "church", ekklesia, does, as Fred pointed out, mean "assembly".

---

Up to here, you were doing okay.

Quote:

---

So what distinguishes the Church from a bunch of people who've gotten together for one reason or another?

---

Actually, ifyou want to know what scripture says, there is another question first - how is the word used in scripture. It is used two ways - one to describe the physical congregation or organization and secondly to describe the body of Christ. Scripture is also clear that though members of the body of Christ may be members of the organized church, the opposite is not always true.

Quote:

---

Now the Catholic Church is that community of the faithful whose bishop is the bishop of Rome.

---

The 1st century church had Jesus at it's head, not the bishop of any city, nor in fact was any single head of any church running ALL churches. Also, as your Cardinakl Newman said, the Roman church mixes paganism with Christianity, and that started in the 4th century. This is not descriptive of the 1 st century church.

Quote:

---

The first bishop of Rome was Peter

---

How many times must we refute this?

Quote:

---

It's true that Christians did not refer to themselves as Catholics in the first century. But, then, they didn't refer to themselves as Christians either. The term "christian" was coined by Ignatius of Antioch.

---

This is not true either.

Acts 11:25-26
26 And when he had found him, he brought him to Antioch. So it was that for a whole year they assembled with the church and taught a great many people. And the disciples were first called Christians in Antioch.
NKJV

Akoue,

Might I also suggest that if you and Fred want to get off on a different topic (i.e. promoting your denomination), start a different thread rather than trying to hijack this one.

450donn,

Fair point. The fact that the Catholic Church is ancient doesn't itself show that it's practices are consistent with those of the early Church. I am struck by the fact that, if anything, early liturgies, etc. were far more elaborate and demanding than modern Catholic practice. But this is a separate matter.

Tj3,

You're funny.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Akoue

Tj3,

You're funny.

---

And you have no rebuttal! That speaks for itself.

Akoue,
Well said.
Well done.
Also...
A person who does not understand the litergy would make a statement such as did 450donn.
Much of today's litergy dates back to what is in the bible.
It is a profound way of worship. Each part is steeped in religious history and is meant to aid the worshiper in connection with our Lord God.
Such as "Only say the word Lord and I will be healed.
I think it is a very beautiful way of worship as does well over a billion people in several denominations.
Peace and kindness,
Fred

Tj4,
It is impossible to refute the truth that Peter was the first leader of The Church as appointed by Jesus.
You can try all you want to but the truth still stands.
As mentioned before, you reject the truth with the bible and history proves.
Fred
.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by arcura

Tj4,
It is impossible to refute the truth that Peter was the first leader of The Church as appointed by Jesus.

---

Nothing has been put forward to be refuted. It is so far an empty claim based upon your opinion.

But as for who the first leader of the church was:

Eph 5:23-24
23 For the husband is head of the wife, as also Christ is head of the church; and He is the Savior of the body.
NKJV

That is who was, and is and always was the head of the church that I am a member of. Jesus has never abdicated His role as head of the church.

Sorry to hear about your denomination.;)

Yj3,
I did not read it,
Ignored

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by arcura

Yj3,
I did not read it,
Ignored

---

That is fine Ferd. Those who care about the truth are those who will check out the facts.

Tj3,
That is hogwah,
For years i have provided you with the truth but you reject it.
That is why i ignore you.