quote:

ORIGINAL: walterquez

quote:

ORIGINAL: alasoosie

Does the Orthodox church practice the same things as the early church? Well, depends how early you want to go! They don't come anywhere close to the practices outlined in the NT and neither does the Catholic church. The practices of the Orthodox and Catholic church are totally foreign to the New Testament. That is how I know that their idea of apostolic succession is totally not true.

Would you care to name the differences if any?

quote:

ORIGINAL: meep meep

And if the Apostolic churches are not, and do not hold the deposit of faith - how much less our our bretheren who branch out and form their own churches whenever they disagree one with another? How much less then when their leaders are either self appointed or "elected".

quote:

what is "documented proof" ?
What does that mean?

quote:

Further, the Church has never claimed to be a "mediator"

quote:

What you espouse in your postings is completely in opposition to what the Apostles and the early church taught - and I don't mean the RCC.

quote:

Let me get this straight based on what I said and what you responded. Clement, Polycarp, even Stephen, and innumerable others who were martyred for the cause of Christ -shed their blood for no reason and it was of no consequence because they were lying and serving a false God?

quote:

God does indeed look to the inside of a man, but the Church is to be a shining light set on a hill for God's glory.

quote:

Even the most cursory and superficial review of Church history debunks the fame myth roundly and completely.

quote:

And if the Apostolic churches are not apostolic, if the Holy Spirit and God's promise was not poured out on the Apostles and on those they selected and prayed over (see Acts - very first example of Apostolic succession), and the deposit of faith is not to be found in the church - then it was a big lie for 1500 years.

quote:

i_believe, but the NT bible also came from the Church. How do you know that too was probably made up?

quote:

ORIGINAL: meep meep


..BTW the Roman see was not the only see in existence at the time...

Meep

quote:

ORIGINAL: walterquez

i_believe, but the NT bible also came from the Church. How do you know that too was probably made up?

quote:

ORIGINAL: i_believe

quote:

what is "documented proof" ?
What does that mean?

The documentation used by the "church" to prove they are in an unbroken line that goes back to the Apostles.

quote:

ORIGINAL: walterquez

Ok, it is quite obvious that only two have been mentioned having any kind of link (at least historically) to the original NT Church. I think the claim sounds reasonable to which the Apostle Paul said, let us reason together.

From a historical point of view, these two main Churches do have roots to the original Church. That can’t be argued. If there is another Church, it has not been brought up. I heard rumors about the Anglican Church, but other than that, Protestant Churches do not have any historical roots to the NT Church.

I would like to borrow an analogy from meep. GM makes, well, GM cars like Chevys, Olds, Buics, Saabs, among other things. And they have been building these for a long long time. Now despite whether they have changed over the years or not, they are still the real GM. No matter what they make, whether old or new, GM sets the standard for what GM is or is not. What GM is or does is GM, and what most other think about GM is, is not. No reasonable person would dispute this.

In other words, what the Orthodox Church is, IS Christianity, and what most other think what Christianity is, is not. Well, at least from their perspective. Or what I gathered from unworthyseraphim.

I believe there is some merit to this. An organization that has roots to the original one sets the standards for what Christianity is. Everyone else outside of them have no right to say what Christianity is.

quote:

ORIGINAL: i_believe

quote:

Further, the Church has never claimed to be a "mediator"

Sure it has.

quote:

What you espouse in your postings is completely in opposition to what the Apostles and the early church taught - and I don't mean the RCC.

What position? That Jesus Christ is the only mediator?


That the Church is one, that the Church holds the TRADITON, i.e. the teaching of the Apostles, that it is from Jesus and the Holy Spirit, and that it is to be passed on successively.

And that is as important now as it was in the early church, because without it you have what we see in the 20-30 THOUSAND denominations which have sprung up since the 16th century each claiming to have the truth, each emanating from a man made teaching.

I honestly DO understand why it is so important to debunk any church which teaches with the authority of Christ.

quote:

Let me get this straight based on what I said and what you responded. Clement, Polycarp, even Stephen, and innumerable others who were martyred for the cause of Christ -shed their blood for no reason and it was of no consequence because they were lying and serving a false God?

I claimed nothing. I just pointed out that martyrdom does not guarantee truth as you had suggested it did.

Martyrdom does not guarantee truth, but that wasn't the point I made. I responded to your statement that the goal was fame, wealth, glory, power, etc. My response was that there were many avenues they could have taken to those ends without ending up tortured, maimed, poor, hunted and persecuted, and then finally slain in a most ignoble manner.

Why do you think Paul himself recites his OWN litany of hardships in Corinthians 1 & 2 - for glory and fame? Or was there something else?

Why did Jesus himself prophesy what sort of life and death Peter (and the other Apostles) would endure - was it for an untruth, fame, glory?

But Okay.

We have no guarantee, then, that the NT is truly the word of God, because we have no guarantee that those same canards who lied about the Apostolic truth and who circulated the epistles and Gospels can guarantee that what they state is truly from God.

We have no guarantee that what Paul wrote was inspired from God, or that somebody didn't forge it .

It is insufficient to say the NT itself is self authenticating - (what did Jesus say about bearing witness to himself?) since EVERY religious book under the sun states it is holy, the word of God, and more.

Surely, then, there is something else....

quote:

God does indeed look to the inside of a man, but the Church is to be a shining light set on a hill for God's glory.

The true church (body of Christ) has been a shining light it just has not been under any man's banner such as (RCC, EOC, etc). You (and many others) keep trying fruitlessly and without any biblical support to equate these groups with the true church.

The Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church has always proclaimed to have as it's head Jesus Christ and no other. You say they are not the Church, history and God show differently. What was it Annanias said in Acts about this movement being from God?

Please identify this "true and shining light".

quote:

Even the most cursory and superficial review of Church history debunks the fame myth roundly and completely.

Whose history do you read? The organized political body that has been referred to as the "church" has killed many for the same reasons that they have been killed themselves.

Politics is life. It is found in every relationship under the sun. So it is a vapid accusation you make. It does nothing to advance a discussion.

As to whose history I read - I asked first. However I will give you a list if I have time just as a basis of this conversation.

Meep

quote:

Which is what? That tells me nothing. The pagans and unbelievers have better arguments, the secularists and skeptics have more compelling evidence.

quote:

We have no guarantee, then, that the NT is truly the word of God, because we have no guarantee that those same canards who lied about the Apostolic truth and who circulated the epistles and Gospels can guarantee that what they state is truly from God.

quote:

From a historical point of view, these two main Churches do have roots to the original Church. That can’t be argued. If there is another Church, it has not been brought up. I heard rumors about the Anglican Church, but other than that, Protestant Churches do not have any historical roots to the NT Church.

quote:

ORIGINAL: walterquez

Ok, it is quite obvious that only two have been mentioned having any kind of link (at least historically) to the original NT Church. I think the claim sounds reasonable to which the Apostle Paul said, let us reason together.

From a historical point of view, these two main Churches do have roots to the original Church. That can’t be argued. If there is another Church, it has not been brought up. I heard rumors about the Anglican Church, but other than that, Protestant Churches do not have any historical roots to the NT Church.

I would like to borrow an analogy from meep. GM makes, well, GM cars like Chevys, Olds, Buics, Saabs, among other things. And they have been building these for a long long time. Now despite whether they have changed over the years or not, they are still the real GM. No matter what they make, whether old or new, GM sets the standard for what GM is or is not. What GM is or does is GM, and what most other think about GM is, is not. No reasonable person would dispute this.

In other words, what the Orthodox Church is, IS Christianity, and what most other think what Christianity is, is not. Well, at least from their perspective. Or what I gathered from unworthyseraphim.

I believe there is some merit to this. An organization that has roots to the original one sets the standards for what Christianity is. Everyone else outside of them have no right to say what Christianity is.

quote:

As to whose history I read - I asked first. However I will give you a list if I have time just as a basis of this conversation.

quote:

ORIGINAL: i_believe

quote:

Which is what? That tells me nothing. The pagans and unbelievers have better arguments, the secularists and skeptics have more compelling evidence.

Meep

So you want me to gather and disprove the evidence that you would use to prove your assertion. Surely, even pagans and unbelievers, secularists and skeptics can do better than that.

Some will not hear or see and prefer to argue with themselves.

quote:

ORIGINAL: walterquez
An organization that has roots to the original one sets the standards for what Christianity is. Everyone else outside of them have no right to say what Christianity is.

quote:

ORIGINAL: i_believe

quote:

As to whose history I read - I asked first. However I will give you a list if I have time just as a basis of this conversation.

I made it pretty clear that the documentation I was speaking was "self documented"...

Hint... they are their own source.

But here are a few that I have read:
www.catholic.com, www.newadvent.org, etc.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Ezra

quote:

ORIGINAL: walterquez
An organization that has roots to the original one sets the standards for what Christianity is. Everyone else outside of them have no right to say what Christianity is.

Walter:

Au contraire. It is the New Testament itself -- the revealed Word of God -- that must set the standard for all churches.

And what the NT reveals is that even while the apostles were alive and ministering to the churches in the Roman Empire, heretics and apostates had already crept into the churches. Read the epistles and the Apocalypse for details.

When we go through the messages to the seven churches in Asia Minor, we find that there was a serious mixture of truth and error in each and every one of those churches!

IOW, the corruption of local churches had already begun between 33 and 100 A.D., and continued into the 4th century, when the Arian heresy became a major isue. The Gnostics were primarily involved in the corruption of churches, and there was a variety of erroneous doctrine and practice, as well as the corruption of the Scriptures themselves by men such as Marcion etc.

Therefore there is not a single church that would have been a model of perfect obedience to Christ and His Word, and which could today claim to be "the standard" local church. The Greek Orthodox churches introduced many unscriptural doctrines and practices, while the church of Rome also became seriously corrupted. By the time of the Reformation, it was truly a time to reform both Eastern (Orthodox) and Western (Roman) Christianity. The Reformation, however, did not go far enough in restoring the NT pattern (e.g. believer's baptism).

While all this was going on, there were also many individual assemblies of Christians throughout the Roman Empire that were making a serious effort to follow the NT pattern of doctrine and practice, and keeping themselves outside the pale of Rome or Constantinople. While they are rarely mentioned in these discussions, we would be quite remiss in ignoring their existence. The Holy Spirit was at work throughout the world, as He continues to be outside the RCC and the EOC.

It is not the claims which churches make, but what is actually taught and practised within them that matters. The church of Jerusalem immediately after Pentecost should be the model and the goal for every church. And it is well described in the book of Acts. If you want a high and powerful standard, go back to Scripture and you'll find it.