Oldest Christian Church?

[brvheart 1,752]

Actually, that's not quite true. The Petrine Doctrine clearly grants supreme authority over the Church on Earth to Peter. Before becoming Pope, then Cardinal Ratzinger actually wrote a chapter on Petrine Succession in Called to Communion: Understanding the Church Today. The relevant portion of that chapter can be found online here.So if Jesus Himself told Peter that whatever he holds true on Earth will be held true in Heaven these institutions certainly have biblical authority.

LOL... good one.

[brvheart 1,752]

Surely you have enough faith in Christ to know He wouldn't be foolhardy enough to choose someone who would not be the right rock upon which to build His Church. Jesus said to Peter "I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven; whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven," knowing full well to whom he was saying this and the ramifications of doing so.

Isn't it also an important point to make that Peter didn't even know he was the first 'pope'? That he cared more about spreading the gospel than starting the Catholic denomination?

[brvheart 1,752]

BTW, it never says anything in the Bible about the Bible being the sole, only and absolute source for anything. In fact, it says quite the opposite.

Interesting. Could please please give me a reference in the Bible where it says that the Bible is not the sole, only and absolute source for anything. Thanks in advance.

[semaj550 0]

Isn't it also an important point to make that Peter didn't even know he was the first 'pope'? That he cared more about spreading the gospel than starting the Catholic denomination?

The term "pope" wasn't even used until the late 4th century.Moreover, Peter clearly WAS interested in instituting the Church. On Pentecost he gave his first sermon and coverted 3,000 people to be baptized. From there the Apostolic churches formed. Peter and Paul are believed to have formed the first of these in Rome with Peter as its first bishop; the current Bishop of Rome being his successor and head of this church.

[brvheart 1,752]

The term "pope" wasn't even used until the late 4th century.Moreover, Peter clearly WAS interested in instituting the Church.

Well at least you have something in common with Lois. You both think that they were busy trying to start up a certain denomination. When clearly they weren't. They were trying to spread the gospel of Jesus Christ... not start the Catholic church and become bishops... institutionalized religion was the exact OPPOSITE of what they were trying to do. They also didn't witness to someone on the street and say, "I understand that you believe Jesus died for you and that you just got baptized... but because you didn't go to church in the Church of Christ building you're going to hell. But even if you did go to church in the Church of Christ building, you didn't use the King James Version of the Bible (because he isn't going to be born for 1500 years) so you're going to hell for that too." The references describing this are found in Matthew 1 - Revelation 22.

On Pentecost he gave his first sermon and coverted 3,000 people to be baptized.

That would've been fun to see.

From there the Apostolic churches formed. Peter and Paul are believed to have formed the first of these in Rome with Peter as its first bishop; the current Bishop of Rome being his successor and head of this church.

no. To make this claim you would need something other than Catholic church history to back it up. Just because they claim him, doesn't mean that it's true.

[semaj550 0]

Well at least you have something in common with Lois. You both think that they were busy trying to start up a certain denomination. When clearly they weren't. They were trying to spread the gospel of Jesus Christ... not start the Catholic church and become bishops... institutionalized religion was the exact OPPOSITE of what they were trying to do. They also didn't witness to someone on the street and say, "I understand that you believe Jesus died for you and that you just got baptized... but because you didn't go to church in the Church of Christ building you're going to hell. But even if you did go to church in the Church of Christ building, you didn't use the King James Version of the Bible (because he isn't going to be born for 1500 years) so you're going to hell for that too." The references describing this are found in Matthew 1 - Revelation 22.

Of course they didn't get together and say, "Let's start the Catholic Church today." The word "Catholic" wasn't even used until the post-Apostolic period. Their ministry lead to the inevitable formation of churches which centred around the authority of the See of Rome. I don't know why you keep focusing on this "intent to form a certain denomination". I've never made any such claim and you're coming at the issue backwards. They continued the work of the Church on Earth and this evolved into what we call the Catholic Church. The Church came first, the label came after.

That would've been fun to see.

Open a Bible and read it before making such inane comments.

no. To make this claim you would need something other than Catholic church history to back it up. Just because they claim him, doesn't mean that it's true.

Okay, how about the Eastern Orthodox and Oriental Orthodox Churches as well as the Anglican Communion? Peter is held as a saint in all four churches and associate him with the foundation of the church in Rome.

[11 to 1 0]

You realize it took you 4 paragraphs to say exactly what I said? "You could postulate that christ was saying that he left the church to the people." I got that without any knowledge of the things you had to reference- why do you think that is?

Because you didn't say what I said, or apparently understand what was written. He said the ecclesia He would restore, bring permanently to live with Him in Heaven, would be made of people who got their information NOT from a book, NOT from any church's dogma, but from the Holy Spirit directly. Note that when he said this there was no Bible, no New Testament, so that kind of puts the kibosh on the whole black/white literalist deal.

[Loismustdie 0]

Because you didn't say what I said, or apparently understand what was written. He said the ecclesia He would restore, bring permanently to live with Him in Heaven, would be made of people who got their information NOT from a book, NOT from any church's dogma, but from the Holy Spirit directly. Note that when he said this there was no Bible, no New Testament, so that kind of puts the kibosh on the whole black/white literalist deal.

The Bible was in the works, the covenant was in the process of coming to fruition. Christians do get there understanding from the Holy Spirirt directly- that's precisely how I know what I know. Years and years of being around enlightened christians, and being one myself. The Holy Spirit guides you as you read the scriptures. So, for me, I knew what it said without having to dig and dig. From the Holy Spirit directly- that's what I have been saying. Truthfully, if what you think were true, then lets just burn the bible. Seriously- let's go back to the ages and kick some serious *** on bible thumpers, because, really, it's not needed. All that stuff that Jesus taught? Doesn't mean squadoosh. Really. Let's get it on. No,no,no- the Bible is the word of God. To ignore it's teaching would be a highway to hell, as much as knowing it's teaching and willfully ignoring it.

[11 to 1 0]

The Bible was in the works, the covenant was in the process of coming to fruition. Christians do get there understanding from the Holy Spirirt directly- that's precisely how I know what I know. Years and years of being around enlightened christians, and being one myself. The Holy Spirit guides you as you read the scriptures. So, for me, I knew what it said without having to dig and dig. From the Holy Spirit directly- that's what I have been saying. Truthfully, if what you think were true, then lets just burn the bible.

If you believed the bolded part that you wrote, there would be no reason to read a Bible. Throwing it out may be the only way you will ever come truly to God. I suggest you do that. I suggest all Christians who claim they are persons of true faith do it. I suggest you stop reading and start praying, contemplative prayer is the surest path to enligtenment. Do you not believe God is real? Do you not believe Jesus is alive? Or that He sent the Advocate? Jesus did not say, "Don't worry, I'll make you a Bible that you won't even have copies of in your own language available to read for 1600 years." He said, " I will be with you until the end of the Age." Don't you believe Him? God isn't in a book, the more time you spend in the book the less time you spend with Him. Throw it out. Don't worry, there are millions of them, you can get another. Trust Him, believe what you say you believe.

[Loismustdie 0]

If you believed the bolded part that you wrote, there would be no reason to read a Bible. Throwing it out may be the only way you will ever come truly to God. I suggest you do that. I suggest all Christians who claim they are persons of true faith do it. I suggest you stop reading and start praying, contemplative prayer is the surest path to enligtenment. Do you not believe God is real? Do you not believe Jesus is alive? Or that He sent the Advocate? Jesus did not say, "Don't worry, I'll make you a Bible that you won't even have copies of in your own language available to read for 1600 years." He said, " I will be with you until the end of the Age." Don't you believe Him? God isn't in a book, the more time you spend in the book the less time you spend with Him. Throw it out. Don't worry, there are millions of them, you can get another. Trust Him, believe what you say you believe.

Your lack of understanding, while not suprising, still boggles the mind.

[BWToth2 0]

Your lack of understanding, while not suprising, still boggles the mind.

Well what he said is true, If all you need is the Holy Spirit, what is the Bible for. All it seems to have done for you is add confusion and conflict.