[classyT]

Paul had several congregations, which should be thought of as church buildings in different towns. They were not seperate denominations. Acts tells us all the Christians were of one community and shared their property in common

Oh I wasn't clear.. I mean he had problems with people saying I follow paul or I follow peter, or whoever... I didn't mean they actually split.

[JoeT777]

Guys,

The Catholic church was not the first church! Read Paul's epistles...not the Catholic church AT ALL...you all evolved.

Churches splitting has been happening for centuries..they had the same troubles in Paul's day.

I do not belong to a denomination for that very reason.

well that is my thoughts anyway.

Eusebius wrote, “It is my purpose to write an account of the successions of the holy apostles, as well as of the times which have elapsed from the days of our Saviour to our own; and to relate the many important events which are said to have occurred in the history of the Church; and to mention those who have governed and presided over the Church in the most prominent parishes, and those who in each generation have proclaimed the divine word either orally or in writing.” Eusebius of Cæsarea Church History, I.1., (260-341). Why didn’t the good Bishop of Cæsarea write a History of the “Churches” (plural), or the elect, or the congregational, or the Baptist? Its clear Eusebius is discussing an emerging community of faith (called Catholic today), not a single congregation. Also, note that the Church taught “orally,” that’s to say, God is free to reveal himself outside the confines of the Bible; for that matter, outside the confines of Paul’s epistles.


JoeT

[Tj3]

basically what we are talking about is that at one time there was one church, and now there are many different denominations all claiming that theirs is the absolute truth and the other people are wrong.

There was never a single organizational church. There were no denominations until the 4th century.

It also puzzles me how all of these denominations use the scripture that their leaders authority must be obeyed by all good Christians,

I would avoid ANY denomination that claims that their leaders must be obeyed by all Christians. Do we agree on that?

if they don't they need to be disfellowshipped, sort of the same as their original founders were when they left the Church?

ANY church or denomination that excommunicates or disfellowships believers simply for disagreeing with their leadership are clearly wrong - do we agree?

[Fr_Chuck]

I am not sure, we see the churches following the instructions of th Apostles, We see Paul going to see Peter for permission to do certain things. If that is not a organised group I don't know what is. They appointed leaders, they had specific job duties, teachers ministers and more.

We even see them appointing a replacement for Judas into the position of leadership.

[Tj3]

Paul had several congregations, which should be thought of as church buildings in different towns. They were not seperate denominations. Acts tells us all the Christians were of one community and shared their property in common

All Christians. It does not say all church goers. It does not say all churches. It does not say all were of one denomination. Scripture is clear that not all church or all church goers were Christians.

[Tj3]

We see Paul going to see Peter for permission to do certain things.

References?

[Tj3]

I wonder is anyone is going to tell us that the 7 churches in Revelation were all one denomination.

[Tj3]

Eusebius wrote, “It is my purpose to write an account of the successions of the holy apostles, as well as of the times which have elapsed from the days of our Saviour to our own; and to relate the many important events which are said to have occurred in the history of the Church; and to mention those who have governed and presided over the Church in the most prominent parishes, and those who in each generation have proclaimed the divine word either orally or in writing.” Eusebius of Cæsarea Church History, I.1., (260-341). Why didn’t the good Bishop of Cæsarea write a History of the “Churches” (plural), or the elect, or the congregational, or the Baptist? Its clear Eusebius is discussing an emerging community of faith (called Catholic today), not a single congregation. Also, note that the Church taught “orally,” that’s to say, God is free to reveal himself outside the confines of the Bible; for that matter, outside the confines of Paul’s epistles.

I could quote a number of things from his record that would contradict what you believe of church history, but nonetheless lets not forget that Eusebius besides being an historian was the right hand man of Constantine.

[Tj3]

Actually talking what the church believes, no where does it say that Jesus had blood brothers and sisters,

First, why would the term for brothers be used here when there is a word in Koine Greek meaning cousin, unless they were cousins. The word is used elsewhere in the new Testament, for example:

Col 4:10-11
10 Aristarchus my fellow prisoner greets you, with Mark the cousin of Barnabas (about whom you received instructions: if he comes to you, welcome him),
NKJV

Let's also look at a Messianic prophecy in Psalms

Ps 69:8
8 I have become a stranger to my brothers,
And an alien to my mother's children;
NKJV

The word here for children is "ben" which is used widely to designate the direct descedents. Indeed, in hebrew, a person is ofetn referred to as XXX ben YYY where XXX is their name and YYY is their father's name. Thus it means XXX, the child of YYY.

So we do have some direct references to Mary having other children. What we do not have is any reference which says that she was perpetually a virgin.

[JoeT777]

I could quote a number of things from his record that would contradict what you believe of church history, but nonetheless lets not forget that Eusebius besides being an historian was the right hand man of Constantine.

Wow, I’m impressed. How did you know Eusebius was right handed?

[Fr_Chuck]

Let me see you can appear to know the bible, so you have never read where Paul went to Peter and the Apostles about preaching to the gentiles?

Maybe that is just in mine?

[Tj3]

Let me see you can appear to know the bible, so you have never read where Paul went to Peter and the Apostles about preaching to the gentiles ??

Maybe that is just in mine?

As for Paul being sent to the Gentiles, I read this:

Acts 13:1-3
13:1 Now in the church that was at Antioch there were certain prophets and teachers: Barnabas, Simeon who was called Niger, Lucius of Cyrene, Manaen who had been brought up with Herod the tetrarch, and Saul. 2 As they ministered to the Lord and fasted, the Holy Spirit said, "Now separate to Me Barnabas and Saul for the work to which I have called them." 3 Then, having fasted and prayed, and laid hands on them, they sent them away.
NKJV


Acts 13:46-52
46 Then Paul and Barnabas grew bold and said, "It was necessary that the word of God should be spoken to you first; but since you reject it, and judge yourselves unworthy of everlasting life, behold, we turn to the Gentiles. 47 For so the Lord has commanded us:

'I have set you as a light to the Gentiles,
That you should be for salvation to the ends of the earth.' "

48 Now when the Gentiles heard this, they were glad and glorified the word of the Lord. And as many as had been appointed to eternal life believed. 49 And the word of the Lord was being spread throughout all the region. 50 But the Jews stirred up the devout and prominent women and the chief men of the city, raised up persecution against Paul and Barnabas, and expelled them from their region. 51 But they shook off the dust from their feet against them, and came to Iconium. 52 And the disciples were filled with joy and with the Holy Spirit.
NKJV

I see nowhere where Paul went to Peter for permission to preach to the Gentiles. God commanded him through prophets and teachers and Peter's name is not even mentioned amongst them.

You said specifically that Paul went "to see Peter for permission to do certain things".

Maybe it is just in your Bible. Give us the references and let's see.

[classyT]

Eusebius wrote, “It is my purpose to write an account of the successions of the holy apostles, as well as of the times which have elapsed from the days of our Saviour to our own; and to relate the many important events which are said to have occurred in the history of the Church; and to mention those who have governed and presided over the Church in the most prominent parishes, and those who in each generation have proclaimed the divine word either orally or in writing.” Eusebius of Cæsarea Church History, I.1., (260-341). Why didn’t the good Bishop of Cæsarea write a History of the “Churches” (plural), or the elect, or the congregational, or the Baptist? Its clear Eusebius is discussing an emerging community of faith (called Catholic today), not a single congregation. Also, note that the Church taught “orally,” that’s to say, God is free to reveal himself outside the confines of the Bible; for that matter, outside the confines of Paul’s epistles.


JoeT

See JoeT,

This is my whole problem.. There is no Eusebius in those 66 books we discussed earlier. And IF they are not IN those 66 books.. they ARE NOT THE WORD OF GOD! It isn't a hard concept. You cannot add to the Word... EVER! The word is the word. That is my problem with Catholicism. LOL and I don't care what the Church taught... if it ain't in the 66 books I ain't interested.

Well, I would disagree with you on the point you make that God is free to reveal himself outside of the confines of the Bible. He isn't the author of confusion either. And he isn't a man that he should lie. So when he says don't add to the Word.. it I BEST not to add to the Word.

[JoeT777]

See JoeT,

This is my whole problem..There is no Eusebius in those 66 books we discussed earlier. And IF they are not IN those 66 books..they ARE NOT THE WORD OF GOD! it isn't a hard concept. You cannot add to the Word....EVER! The word is the word. That is my problem with Catholicism. LOL and i don't care what the Church taught...if it ain't in the 66 books I ain't interested.

Well, i would disagree with you on the point you make that God is free to reveal himself outside of the confines of the Bible. He isn't the author of confusion either. And he isn't a man that he should lie. So when he says don't add to the Word..it i BEST not to add to the Word.

You’re correct; there is no History of the Church by Eusebius in the Bible. But events did occur after the Ascension of Christ. Did all progress of mankind stop once the 73 books of the Bible were written? Was this the end of all recorded history once the Scriptures were written (the last of which was written around 90 AD.)? [Don't tell me, if God meant for man to fly we’d be born with wings.] The destruction of Jerusalem isn’t discussed. Did it never happen? Nor is Hannibal mentioned in the Bible; did he never invade Rome? Nor is Hitler mentioned in the Bible; did he not kill 4 to 6 million Jews and Christians?

Eusebius recorded historical events as they related to the Church. Those events show that the Kingdom of God on earth (the Catholic Church) had a functioning hierarchy with Peter at its head. In short it existed; it existed from the ascension to at least Eusebius’ time. Eusebius’ history records some events surrounding the original 12 Apostles, mentions many of the written documents of that early Catholic Church, including what we know as the Bible today. So, whether Eusebius was right handed or not, whether he was an appointee of Constantine or not, we know that;

“… during the reign of Claudius, the all-good and gracious Providence, which watches over all things, led Peter, that strongest and greatest of the apostles, and the one who on account of his virtue was the speaker for all the others, to Rome against this great corrupter of life. He like a noble commander of God, clad in divine armor…proclaiming the light itself, and the word which brings salvation to souls, and preaching the kingdom of heaven.” Church History (Eusebius) 2.14.6

Thus there was an organization, it was headed by Peter commanded in divine armor spreading the light of God’s Word of salvation.

Now let me ask a question. Where did your faith come from: from the Bible? And how did the Bible come to you through some 2,000 years of this so called non-biblical history? Who decided which of the Holy Scripture was to be included?

JoeT

[wildandblue]

Great point JoeT. Has she not heard of the middle ages, all those monks laboriously writing out illuminated copies the Bible by hand before printing presses were invented? It's like she thinks her church just dropped from the sky or something, that Christ was crucified but then He made a special exception for her and came back again? This is exactly what Paul means by impaling Christ afresh for themselves.

[wildandblue]

Paul talks about his ministry at Galatians 1:11-24 and 2:1--10.
TJ3, Paul was not one of the 12, or the 13th, or even in the top 72: Luke chapter 10:1--24.
Paul if we can believe what he reports received his commission directly from a vision of Christ that he received on the road to Damascus; the others with him did not see it (again, Galatians 1:11--24). He went on to practically write most of the New Testament by himself, so yes I personally do believe it happened to him just like he said.

[wildandblue]

TJ3 as to your post #63, yes we agree on those points, but I can tell you a lot of the Protestant churches do just this, because I have heard it said and done myself.
Also I have gone to baptisms and they baptise in the name of their church, not in the name of the father, son and holy ghost.

[Tj3]

TJ3 as to your post #63, yes we agree on those points, but I can tell you a lot of the Protestant churches do just this, because I have heard it said and done myself.

I know that many do. And I openly oppose it, just as I do when Catholic Churches do the same thing.

Also I have gone to baptisms and they baptise in the name of their church, not in the name of the father, son and holy ghost.

Now that I have never heard or seen. Before I would believe that, I would want to see the validation.

[Tj3]

Great point JoeT. Has she not heard of the middle ages, all those monks laboriously writing out illuminated copies the Bible by hand before printing presses were invented? It's like she thinks her church just dropped from the sky or something, that Christ was crucified but then He made a special exception for her and came back again? This is exactly what Paul means by impaling Christ afresh for themselves.

First, I note that Joe chose to add some books to the Bible. These were added during the Council of Trent by the Roman Catholic denomination.

But putting that aside for now,when you say that to oppose or support a denomination is like "impaling Christ afresh for themselves" sounds to me like you believe that your denomination is essential for salvation. Where is that in scripture? This sounds like one of those extra-Biblical additions that classT is concerned about.

[Tj3]

Paul talks about his ministry at Galatians 1:11-24 and 2:1--10.
TJ3, Paul was not one of the 12, or the 13th, or even in the top 72: Luke chapter 10:1--24.

Really? I looked at the reference that you gave and I do not see anything that would say that paul was not one of the 12. Could you be more specific with respect to your interpretation of this passage in the context that you have applied to it?