The original Church

What would be the true original church(the one Jesus established) as it is today?.All searches and findings lead me to the Universal Church which is still in existence today.I guess it is safe to say that the Catholic Church is the original,thus being the true Church that Jesus established.

[edit on 7-7-2010 by oliveoil]

reply to post by oliveoil

Originally posted by oliveoil
What would be the true original church(the one Jesus established) as it is today?.All searches and findings lead me to the Universal Church which is still in existence today.I guess it is safe to say that the Catholic Church is the original,thus being the true Church that Jesus established.

[edit on 7-7-2010 by oliveoil]

Please cite your sources. I'm interested in how you came to this conclusion.

Originally posted by darkelf
reply to post by oliveoil

 

Originally posted by oliveoil
What would be the true original church(the one Jesus established) as it is today?.All searches and findings lead me to the Universal Church which is still in existence today.I guess it is safe to say that the Catholic Church is the original,thus being the true Church that Jesus established.

[edit on 7-7-2010 by oliveoil]

Please cite your sources. I'm interested in how you came to this conclusion.

The only source I can quote is the Bible Matthew 16:18 And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.

Peter became the first pope.(Catholic)

[edit on 7-7-2010 by oliveoil]

The word catholic is derived (via Late Latin catholicus and French catholique) from the Greek adjective καθολικός (katholikos), meaning "universal".

The Roman Catholic, Eastern Orthodox, and Oriental Orthodox churches all believe that their church is the only original and universal church.

Wikipedia

[edit on 7-7-2010 by csimon]

Originally posted by csimon
Check wikipedia.

The word catholic is derived (via Late Latin catholicus and French catholique) from the Greek adjective καθολικός (katholikos), meaning "universal".

Do you agree with me?

I don't see how the catholic church is the one true church. With everything they have going on, with even the vatican's own top exorcist saying that satan is at work withing the church(citations if you want), I don't see that as a possibility. Call me blind, but without a lot of convincing being done on your part, I have to respectfully disagree.

Vyroxy

Originally posted by oliveoil
Do you agree with me?

Yes I agree with your statement. Is there a question?

[edit on 7-7-2010 by csimon]

I'll go with the Southern Baptist church. It's adheres most strictly to Scripture. Of course, I'm biased.

Well, since there was Christianity before the Bible was written, the original churches were pre-3rd century (AD of course), and those which are still in existence claim apostolic succession. Jesus named Peter the first Pope. From there, several churches claim apostolic succession, meaning their religious leader has been traced back to Peter. These are:

The Catholic Church

Ethiopian Orthodox

Greek Orthodox

and a few other Eastern Orthodox churches.

Originally posted by bettermakings
Jesus named Peter the first Pope.

That's only what the Catholics claim. Nothing against Catholics.
Peter was the Rock upon which Christ built the Church. I just don't see Him telling Peter anything about being Pope. Just as I don't see the Catholics having any claim to being the true Church. After all, Christianity began in Israel, not Rome. So, yes, all of Christianity no matter what denomination can have a claim, but not all are true.

[edit on 7-7-2010 by The Patriot]

The Jewish rabbi named Jesus did not start the "Christian"movement.

He was only attempting to allow new thinking of the Jewish faith that he believed in.

Anything else that has transpired in the last 2000 years is nothing more than propaganda created and spread by men to control people.

Why is the Vatican and the "pope" in Rome of all places?

Originally posted by Oneolddude
The Jewish rabbi named Jesus did not start the "Christian"movement.

Of course! Now I get it. A jewish rabbi couldn't possibly have enough influence to begat an entire religion. Oh, wait....I bet the Son of God could, though!

See, rabbi's don't perform miracles....

...or come back from the dead.

[edit on 7-7-2010 by The Patriot]

[edit on 7-7-2010 by The Patriot]

The true original church?

Yes, Jesus did say that to Peter, but the true Church is based only on how Peter answered the question that Jesus posed to him - "Who do you say I am?" Peter told him, 'You are the Messiah, the son of the living God.'

Jesus told him he was blessed, that this was NOt revealed to him by man but by his Father in heaven. Then Jesus told him, 'You are Peter and on this rock I will build my church."

Jesus himself is building his church. People experiencing the baptism of the Holy Spirit are the ones who make up the true body of Christ, with him being the head. We are peculiar people for a reason.

Jesus is the only middle man to God that is ever needed. Get baptized and repent.

Repenting opens all doors, not some universal catholic church.

The word "pope" or whatever word you use does not matter. The non-Catholic churches with legitimate claim to apostolic succession, such as Ethiopian or Greek, usually call their religious leader their "patriarch", which is their own "pope", so the title doesn't matter. What matters is that each church traces their historical leader's position to Peter.

For example:

en.wikipedia.org...

The Catholic Vatican/Pope is in Rome because Constantinople (now Istanbul) was taken over by Islam. Doesn't anyone know history?

I hate to use wikipedia, but:

en.wikipedia.org...

en.wikipedia.org...

reply to post by oliveoil


Congratulations, you figured it out!

John Henry Newman studied Christian history in an attempt to debunk Catholicism and guess what? After all of his research, he decided to convert to the Catholic Faith!

to be deep in history is to cease being protestant

John Henry Newman

Yes, Newman was an Anglican clergyman and scholar. Protestantism, in the form it took from the late reform period forward, is anti-historical in a large number of ways. In this process of becoming a scholar, he realized that to be an authentic bible based Christian requires one to be Catholic or Orthodox. Please note I am not Christian, just pointing out the historical facts.

I am not saying that the Catholic Church did not deeply sin, nor was it innocent in its role in the Reformation, but what Newman was saying was that from the viewpoint of orthodoxy, true Christian teaching, the churches of the Reformation are logically and historically bankrupt.

I will provide a number of reasons why, and I imagine I am going to get tons of hate mail from this answer too.

First, sola scriptura is anti-scriptural. Although there are a number of passages which go against sola scriptura, the most famous and important is where Paul instructs Timothy to remain faithful to both the written and oral traditions handed down by the apostles. Since the oral tradition is still maintained by the Catholic and Orthodox episcopate but Luther excised it from the Protestant system, only the Catholic and Orthodox systems of thought are compatible with the bible and biblical thought.

That may seem to Protestant ears like a wild, false or extreme claim, but think about it for a minute. There are nearly 5000 Protestant denominations just in the United States, ignoring the little one church independent groups that form all of the time. They each claim to profess the truth. What holds Catholicism and Orthodoxy together is that the bible is interpreted as part of apostolic tradition. Unfortunately tradition in English has connotations absent in Paul's Greek usage of the word. It means that which is handed on.

The second part comes from the word Catholic itself. The word Catholic means two things, either "according to the whole," or "all embracing." In other words, the Catholic Church is the all hugging church. If you reject your brother and form another Church, then according to Paul, you have ceased to be Christian. Part of the problem is that the word Catholic is mistranslated into English as universal and the other part is that it is treated as another denomination. Luther explicitly rejected apostolic tradition because one of the earliest elements of that tradition is that under no circumstance does anyone ever get to start their own church nor elect its own leadership.

Acts provides that leadership comes through apostolic succession, see the ordination of Mathias, the first apostolic successor and bishop in Acts 2. Early tradition ran into circumstances where people either tried to elect their own leadership or fire their leadership. It is clear, see for example 1 Clement, that Jesus appointed the apostles, the apostles appointed bishops, these authorized bishops appointed bishops and so forth. No one, except those chosen by Jesus or the apostles authorized successors gets to be in charge.

Read more: Yahoo answers: What did Cardinal John Henry Newman mean when He said "to be deep in history is to cease being protestant"

Congratulations and welcome into the fold.

Now get out your fireproof underwear and prepare to get flamed like you've never been flamed before.



It's what being Catholic on ATS is all about.


[edit on 7/7/10 by FortAnthem]

Originally posted by bettermakings
Well, since there was Christianity before the Bible was written, the original churches were pre-3rd century (AD of course), and those which are still in existence claim apostolic succession. Jesus named Peter the first Pope. From there, several churches claim apostolic succession, meaning their religious leader has been traced back to Peter. These are:

The Catholic Church

Ethiopian Orthodox

Greek Orthodox

and a few other Eastern Orthodox churches.

I have noticed the similarity between Eastern Orthodox and Jewish tradition which is a strong anthropological consideration.

reply to post by bettermakings


In the Gospel of Thomas, they ask Jesus who they should go to for leadership after he is gone and he told them to go to James.

Oh..... wait.... the Catholic Church didn't allow that gospel in. Wonder why?Lol

Hi,
I am a 45 year old cradle Catholic born in 1965, father of 4 teenagers. I left the church for several years and explored other churches and the Protestant faiths. I can tell you as a college educated (by Jesuits who taught me to question everything) I have returned to the RC Church because I know it is the one true church established by Jesus. a church made up of 100% IMPERFECT SINNERS, including our Pope Benedict. Even Peter denied Christ (as we all do when we sin) and was told "get behind me satan" by Jesus. We are a Church of redeemed sinners. Our Lord established the Sacraments to feed his people, these are real sacraments established by Christ and supported by scripture. I love receiving the Real Presence of the Lord every Sunday and also the sacrament of confession it truly makes me a better person. I would suggest you take just one Sunday and visit a RC Church with a friend (I know you know at least one Catholic and would agree that we are not all wack-jobs) and see if you might be interetsed in learning more by joining an RCIA class. Unlike my stringent Baptist, Mormon and Presbyterian and Protestant friends, I can actually enjoy an afternoon of drinking beer and watching football and not feel guilty.
I have much more I could share with you any way for what its worth , it cant hurt to explore. Returned to the one True Church. try it before you write it off.
Kelldog1541

reply to post by Myrtales Instinct
bible student here....peter is not the rock....faith is the rock....so there was no pope
ofcourse now we have the pope who wants everyone to kiss his ringor if not that,....then they should not fail to kiss the wornout toe of the statue of zeus...true stuff...the statue of zeus was renamed to....peter...good God man



[edit on 7-7-2010 by GBP/JPY]

reply to post by GBP/JPY


Sola Scripture ?? thick as brick man.....