nwamehn:



Boss, that the body of Christ can be referred to as the Christian church doesn’t mean that the churches didn’t have their distinct identifications and values. The churches at Jerusalem and Antioch were clearly called the churches at Jerusalem and Antioch respectively in the Bible and the Bible never said that the church at Antioch was not the church at Antioch but Christian church and should always be referred to as so. Some of those early churches still had distinct beliefs just as Catholic, Anglican, Winners, Deeper Life etc today have their distinct beliefs but they were/are all part of the body of Christ.
Catholic, Anglican, Winners, Deeper Life are all part of the Christian church, what make them different are their other beliefs in addition to the belief in Christ and who directs each of them. I mean, they all believe in one true God – Christ but have other beliefs they also attach as part of their doctrines and also follow the directives of different people, these ar all that differentiate them. For example, Catholics believe that Mary should mediate between them and Jesus, but Anglicans don’t. Anglicans and Catholics believe in child baptism but Winners and Deeper Life don’t. Winners believe that women can wear trousers to church but Deeper Life don’t even believe that women can wear trousers anywhere; and many more. So also the church at Antioch, the church at Jerusalem both believed in one true God – Christ, but also had other distinct beliefs in their practices. For example, the church at Antioch under Barnabas and Paul believed that once you received Christ u were ok, but the church at Jerusalem under James believed that even after receiving Christ u must be circumcised and if not circumcised, they wouldn’t have anything to do with u – Acts 11 vs 2, that’s why they questioned Peter after he went to meet the gentiles, they also preached the word of God to the Jews only – Acts 11 vs 19, but the church at Antioch didn’t follow that rule.
Peter was torn between following the doctrines of the church at Antioch and those of the church at Jerusalem. Even Paul rebuked him in Antioch – Gal 2 vs 11-12, when Peter started dissociating himself from the uncircumcised gentiles immediately he saw the members of the church at Jerusalem led by James approaching.
There were also another group of Christians called Judaizers who were fellowshipping in Jerusalem but were of the belief that even after receiving Jesus, u must also follow the laws of Moses. Some churches founded recently still follow the old doctrines of Judaizing eg Seventh-day Adventist church.
The church at Antioch was not under the church at Jerusalem and they didn’t have any general overseer or bishop or pope at Jerusalem whose command must be obeyed by the church at Antioch, worst still, the leader of the church at Antioch openly challenged some doctrines of the church at Jerusalem – Gal 2 vs 14.
The church at Antioch still gave the followers of Christ in Judaea some gifts at a point in time, same as how the general overseer of Winners pays tithe to Redeemed Christian Church of God at times and other men of God give gifts and offering to Winners during Shiloh. It doesn’t change the fact that they ar separate churches with distinct beliefs and who they follow directives from.
U see the clear distinctions, yet they professed the same Christ. If it were to be now, we would have easily called them denominations since they had some different doctrines and were never answerable to each other. The entire body of Christ has always been one with many distinct groups under just as the body of Christ is still one today with many distinct groups like Catholic, Anglican, Winners, Deeper Life, etc. If u think that there is any other thing that differentiates Deeper Life and Winners or Catholic aside their beliefs, doctrines and whose directives they follow, then u can tell me.
So, the original name of the church at Antioch was simply The Church at Antioch – Acts 13, the Christian church is just a name for the entire body of Christ which all churches irrespective of where they ar situated are part of.
If u say that in the early days there was nothing like church at Antioch or church at Jerusalem but just Christian church, then we can also say that today, there is nothing like Catholic church or Anglican church but just Christian church.
2. I believe u know the roles Barnabas and Paul played in the church at Antioch, they set the church up, nurtured it and the church followed their directives – Acts 11 vs 26. If u say that the church at Antioch was Roman Catholic because they began having communion with and paying allegiance to the Pope of the Roman Catholic church at a point in time in their history, in that case we will also say that the church at Antioch was first Barnabas and Paul’s church before they became Catholic church because they had been having communion with and following directives from Barnabas and Paul and their successors years before they switched allegiance to the Pope of Rome. Or do u suggest we eliminate that part of history and just start from when they began paying allegiance to the Pope?

1. there were no distinction in doctrines in the early church, at first the gospel was preached only to Jews... it wasn't just James in Jerusalem.... until Peter had a revelation and baptized Cornelius. that was how salvation was opened for the gentiles. until Peter got that revelation the entire church believed that one must be a Jew before becoming a Christian.

from that time, Peter accepted gentiles to the fold so too james , those who disagreed with the practice were the judaizers, their opinion was condemned in act 15 by both Paul, peter, James and the entire church.

act 15 shows us that all the churches were answerable to the church in Jerusalem, in fact Paul himself went to Jerusalem to make sure he was in tandem with the church and wasn't running in vain and when the issue of circumcision came up and some would not hear him, he took the issue straight to Jerusalem to be judged. what happened in gal 2 was Peter was insensitive and left the gentiles because his brother Jews had come and Paul rebuked him. you think if every body was allowed his own practices Paul would have rebuked him? the fact is after act 15 anyone who was judaizing got a rebuke and as Paul shows anyone who taught such a doctrine soon became anathema... they were excommunicated... the judaizers became the first heretics in the early church.

and yes as act 15 shows the entire church was answerable to the church in Jerusalem. it was not like the church today were everyone has his different contradictory doctrines in fact the Bible condemned all such fractions and division as we have in Protestantism today.

2. Paul and Barnabas WHO formed the church of Antioch were also in communion with Peter and James, after some years of commissioning he went back to Jerusalem to receive the hand of fellowship from Peter and James and to make sure he wasn't running in vain, there was never a time the churches Paul formed wasn't in communion with the Peter and the whole church. they were also in communion with the Pope... and since Peter went to Rome there was always communion between Rome and Antioch, that is why the successor of Paul in Antioch Ignatius in 107 would still write to the bishop of Rome as the church that presides over the whole church.
even today after the catholic patriarch of Antioch a successor of st Paul is chosen he still writes or go to Rome to receive hand of communion from the successor of Peter.

BluntTheApostle:


I employed the word "Roman" to clarify a point. It is not to create a debate.

My point is, there was no "Roman" Catholic Church until after the split.

The Catholic Church (the "Roman" ) did not happen until after the split. Before the split, there was a single church which would split into two.

If you have materials supporting the claim that there had been a conscious Catholic Church (as of today) before the split, I would like to read it. Until then, my argument remains that the word "Catholic" identified a single assembly which would later split into the Orthodox Church and the Roman Catholic Church.

Even today, just as the Catholic Church claims to be the Church that Christ established in Jerusalem, the Orthodox churches do too.

there was already a Catholic church before the split
read up the early church themselves



Ignatius of Antioch
Follow your bishop, every one of you, as obediently as Jesus
Christ followed the Father. Obey your clergy too as you would
the apostles; give your deacons the same reverence that you
would to a command of God. Make sure that no step affecting
the Church is ever taken by anyone without the bishop’s
sanction. The sole Eucharist you should consider valid is one
that is celebrated by the bishop himself, or by some person
authorized by him. Where the bishop is to be seen, there let all
his people be; just as, wherever Jesus Christ is present, there
is the Catholic Church (Letter to the Smyrneans 8:2 [A.D. 110 ]).
In like manner let everyone respect the deacons as they would
respect Jesus Christ, and just as they respect the bishop as a
type of the Father, and the presbyters as the council of God and
college of the apostles. Without these, it cannot be called a
Church. I am confident that you accept this, for I have received
the exemplar of your love and have it with me in the person of
your bishop. His very demeanor is a great lesson and his
meekness is his strength. I believe that even the godless do
respect him (Letter to the Trallians 3:1-2 [ A. D. 110 ]).
The Martyrdom of Polycarp
When finally he concluded his prayer, after remembering all who
had at any time come his way – small folk and great folk,
distinguished and undistinguished, and the whole Catholic
Church throughout the world – the time for departure came. So
they placed him on an ass, and brought him into the city on a
great Sabbath (The Martyrdom of Polycarp 8 [A.D. 110 ]).
Irenaeus
The Catholic Church possesses one and the same faith
throughout the whole world, as we have already said ( Against
Heresies 1:10 [A.D. 189]).
Since therefore we have such proofs, it is not necessary to
seek the truth among others which it is easy to obtain from the
Church; since the apostles, like a rich man [depositing his
money] in a bank, lodged in her hands most copiously all things
pertaining to the truth: so that every man, whosoever will, can
draw from her the water of life. For she is the entrance to life;
all others are thieves and robbers. On this account we are
bound to avoid them, but to make choice of the things pertaining
to the Church with the utmost diligence, and to lay hold of the
tradition of the truth. For how stands the case? Suppose there
should arise a dispute relative to some important question
among us. Should we not have recourse to the most ancient
churches with which the apostles held constant intercourse,
and learn from them what is certain and clear in regard to the
present question? For how should it be if the apostles
themselves had not left us writings? Would it not be necessary
[in that case] to follow the course of the tradition which they
handed down to those to whom they did commit the churches?
(ibid. 3:4).
Tertullian
Where was Marcion then, that shipmaster of Pontus, the zealous
student of Stoicism? Where was Valentinus then, the disciple of
Platonism? For it is evident that those men lived not so long ago
– in the reign of Antoninus for the most part – and that they at
first were believers in the doctrine of the Catholic Church, in
the church of Rome under the episcopate of the blessed
Eleutherus, until on account of their ever restless curiosity,
with which they even infected the brethren, they were more than
once expelled (The Prescription Against Heretics 22,30
[A.D.200 ])

Ubenedictus:


1. there were no distinction in doctrines in the early church, at first the gospel was preached only to Jews... it wasn't just James in Jerusalem.... until Peter had a revelation and baptized Cornelius. that was how salvation was opened for the gentiles. until Peter got that revelation the entire church believed that one must be a Jew before becoming a Christian.

from that time, Peter accepted gentiles to the fold so too james , those who disagreed with the practice were the judaizers, their opinion was condemned in act 15 by both Paul, peter, James and the entire church.

act 15 shows us that all the churches were answerable to the church in Jerusalem, in fact Paul himself went to Jerusalem to make sure he was in tandem with the church and wasn't running in vain and when the issue of circumcision came up and some would not hear him, he took the issue straight to Jerusalem to be judged. what happened in gal 2 was Peter was insensitive and left the gentiles because his brother Jews had come and Paul rebuked him. you think if every body was allowed his own practices Paul would have rebuked him? the fact is after act 15 anyone who was judaizing got a rebuke and as Paul shows anyone who taught such a doctrine soon became anathema... they were excommunicated... the judaizers became the first heretics in the early church.

and yes as act 15 shows the entire church was answerable to the church in Jerusalem. it was not like the church today were everyone has his different contradictory doctrines in fact the Bible condemned all such fractions and division as we have in Protestantism today.

2. Paul and Barnabas WHO formed the church of Antioch were also in communion with Peter and James, after some years of commissioning he went back to Jerusalem to receive the hand of fellowship from Peter and James and to make sure he wasn't running in vain, there was never a time the churches Paul formed wasn't in communion with the Peter and the whole church. they were also in communion with the Pope... and since Peter went to Rome there was always communion between Rome and Antioch, that is why the successor of Paul in Antioch Ignatius in 107 would still write to the bishop of Rome as the church that presides over the whole church.
even today after the catholic patriarch of Antioch a successor of st Paul is chosen he still writes or go to Rome to receive hand of communion from the successor of Peter.

Lol. I knew u would refer to Acts 15, but truth is that u totally misunderstood my point in 1 there, that someone sends somebody to the elders in Jerusalem or Antioch to help him out on an issue he was not clear about doesn't mean he was answerable to Jerusalem. That Acts 15 clearly stated that there was confusion on doctrines and they had to seek understanding from Jerusalem and Paul and others were sent to gain more knowledge on a subject matter.
These days men of God from different churches consult each other on so many spiritual matters but it doesn't mean they ar answerable to each other. A local church in our area still sends her pastors to Word of Faith Bible Institute of the Winners Chapel for trainings, but it doesn't mean they ar answerable to Oyedepo or Winners Chapel.
But within the same denomination, the pastors or reverend fathers ar answerable to the headquarters or general overseers or Pope, as the case may be. Antioch was not answerable to Jerusalem on how they did their things, Jerusalem helped Antioch spiritually at some matters and Antioch still helped Jerusalem spiritually and even financially at some matters, so would u say that Jerusalem was financially dependent on Antioch to function since Antioch at a point in time helped them financially?
Were u not the person that confirmed that after Paul's rebuke, there stopped anything like segregation based on uncircumcision in the Jerusalem church and even other churches? Would u also say that Jerusalem was answerable to Antioch since after Paul's rebuke, that their practice stopped?
Do u know how many theological sessions that ar being organised for more education of the ministers of God in so many Pentecostal programs yearly, would u say that for any Pentecostal pastor to attend any of the ministers' programs and undertake the scriptural guiding there that it means that his church is founded by and is under the one coordinating the program?
Or if my church is confused over an issue and I and two of my elders consult a group of Anglican reverends who I believe know the Bible well for clearance on the issue, would u still say that my church is Anglican?
There is a program called God of Abraham hosted yearly by one of the Anglican churches in Anambra, during the program, several people including ministers from various churches come and sit under the ministration and tutorship of the ministers of the Anglican church and the archdeacon throughout the days of the program, would u say that all the churches whose ministers attend the program ar all Anglican churches?
That Paul sought clearance from Jerusalem over a doctrine just as he once rebuked Jerusalem over a doctrine too doesn't mean Jerusalem founded his church or dictated how he ran his church to him.
He sought help from them same way he once rendered help to them, and ministers today seek and render help to fellow churches and ministers, so if u say that there was nothing like Antioch church or Jerusalem church but one single Christian church because of the transmission of helps, then there is also nothing like Anglican, Winners etc today but one single Christian church.

2. Peter was not a Pope, made by any person, saying that Peter was a pope is just like saying what the Bible never said and trying to force it into the Bible by all means because Bible never recorded that he was made a pope. Bible recorded so many things Peter did, being a fisherman, following Jesus, going on evangelism etc but never said he was made a pope by any group of people anywhere. Even if Peter was in charge of the church at Antioch before it became answerable to a Pope later, at least the church would be termed Peter's Church before it now becomes any Roman Catholic church that they began obeying much later.
But the truth is that the church at Antioch was not under any Pope, Bible didn't record such. Barnabas and Paul established the church at Antioch a period that Peter was in Jerusalem and finally entered prison, Bible clearly recorded that Barnabas and Paul started the church, nurtured and grew the church for up to a year - Acts 11 vs 26, a period Peter was in Jerusalem and even entered prison sef, Bible never said that Peter for that whole year was dictating the practices of Paul and Barnabas or the practices of the Antioch church through Paul and Barnabas even though they both came from Israel just like Peter. Worst still the church at Jerusalem had strong battles they were fighting with Herod then sef when the wicked man killed James and took Peter.
Paul and Barnabas for that whole year were totally in charge of the church at Antioch but it didn't mean that they were barred by God from seeking or rendering help, whether spiritually or physically from or to Judaea or Cyprus or Cyrene, which bible rightly said that they rendered help to Jerusalem through the elders. 
So, why not call the church Paul and Barnabas Church for the whole year before any other thing?

That Rome at a point in time forcefully seized churches and compelled them to pay allegiance to them doesn't mean we should throw away the histories of those churches given to us in the Bible and then believe whatever Rome says.

Bible never said that Peter was a pope, Rome said. 
Bible never said that the church at Jerusalem was Catholic church, Rome said.
Bible never said that the church at Antioch was Catholic church, Rome said.
But where did the histories of Peter, church at Antioch, church at Jerusalem start? Their histories started from the Bible, yet we have to ignore what the Bible said and only believe what Rome said? Lol.

Truth is, for some reasons or the other, there is nothing each of us can actually do to convince one person to believe the other. In this Peter and church issue, I believe Bible more than I believe Rome, and u believe Rome more than u believe Bible, so, do u still think there is really any point, boss?

The Bible is Rome's Child
The Bible days the Church and not the Bible is the pillar and bulwark of truth 1st Timothy 3:15

nwamehn:




Lol. I knew u would refer to Acts 15, but truth is that u totally misunderstood my point in 1 there, that someone sends somebody to the elders in Jerusalem or Antioch to help him out on an issue he was not clear about doesn't mean he was answerable to Jerusalem. That Acts 15 clearly stated that there was confusion on doctrines and they had to seek understanding from Jerusalem and Paul and others were sent to gain more knowledge on a subject matter.
These days men of God from different churches consult each other on so many spiritual matters but it doesn't mean they ar answerable to each other. A local church in our area still sends her pastors to Word of Faith Bible Institute of the Winners Chapel for trainings, but it doesn't mean they ar answerable to Oyedepo or Winners Chapel.
But within the same denomination, the pastors or reverend fathers ar answerable to the headquarters or general overseers or Pope, as the case may be. Antioch was not answerable to Jerusalem on how they did their things, Jerusalem helped Antioch spiritually at some matters and Antioch still helped Jerusalem spiritually and even financially at some matters, so would u say that Jerusalem was financially dependent on Antioch to function since Antioch at a point in time helped them financially?
Were u not the person that confirmed that after Paul's rebuke, there stopped anything like segregation based on uncircumcision in the Jerusalem church and even other churches? Would u also say that Jerusalem was answerable to Antioch since after Paul's rebuke, that their practice stopped?
Do u know how many theological sessions that ar being organised for more education of the ministers of God in so many Pentecostal programs yearly, would u say that for any Pentecostal pastor to attend any of the ministers' programs and undertake the scriptural guiding there that it means that his church is founded by and is under the one coordinating the program?
Or if my church is confused over an issue and I and two of my elders consult a group of Anglican reverends who I believe know the Bible well for clearance on the issue, would u still say that my church is Anglican?
There is a program called God of Abraham hosted yearly by one of the Anglican churches in Anambra, during the program, several people including ministers from various churches come and sit under the ministration and tutorship of the ministers of the Anglican church and the archdeacon throughout the days of the program, would u say that all the churches whose ministers attend the program ar all Anglican churches?
That Paul sought clearance from Jerusalem over a doctrine just as he once rebuked Jerusalem over a doctrine too doesn't mean Jerusalem founded his church or dictated how he ran his church to him.
He sought help from them same way he once rendered help to them, and ministers today seek and render help to fellow churches and ministers, so if u say that there was nothing like Antioch church or Jerusalem church but one single Christian church because of the transmission of helps, then there is also nothing like Anglican, Winners etc today but one single Christian church.

2. Peter was not a Pope, made by any person, saying that Peter was a pope is just like saying what the Bible never said and trying to force it into the Bible by all means because Bible never recorded that he was made a pope. Bible recorded so many things Peter did, being a fisherman, following Jesus, going on evangelism etc but never said he was made a pope by any group of people anywhere. Even if Peter was in charge of the church at Antioch before it became answerable to a Pope later, at least the church would be termed Peter's Church before it now becomes any Roman Catholic church that they began obeying much later.
But the truth is that the church at Antioch was not under any Pope, Bible didn't record such. Barnabas and Paul established the church at Antioch a period that Peter was in Jerusalem and finally entered prison, Bible clearly recorded that Barnabas and Paul started the church, nurtured and grew the church for up to a year - Acts 11 vs 26, a period Peter was in Jerusalem and even entered prison sef, Bible never said that Peter for that whole year was dictating the practices of Paul and Barnabas or the practices of the Antioch church through Paul and Barnabas even though they both came from Israel just like Peter. Worst still the church at Jerusalem had strong battles they were fighting with Herod then sef when the wicked man killed James and took Peter.
Paul and Barnabas for that whole year were totally in charge of the church at Antioch but it didn't mean that they were barred by God from seeking or rendering help, whether spiritually or physically from or to Judaea or Cyprus or Cyrene, which bible rightly said that they rendered help to Jerusalem through the elders. 
So, why not call the church Paul and Barnabas Church for the whole year before any other thing?

That Rome at a point in time forcefully seized churches and compelled them to pay allegiance to them doesn't mean we should throw away the histories of those churches given to us in the Bible and then believe whatever Rome says.

Bible never said that Peter was a pope, Rome said. 
Bible never said that the church at Jerusalem was Catholic church, Rome said.
Bible never said that the church at Antioch was Catholic church, Rome said.
But where did the histories of Peter, church at Antioch, church at Jerusalem start? Their histories started from the Bible, yet we have to ignore what the Bible said and only believe what Rome said? Lol.

Truth is, for some reasons or the other, there is nothing each of us can actually do to convince one person to believe the other. In this Peter and church issue, I believe Bible more than I believe Rome, and u believe Rome more than u believe Bible, so, do u still think there is really any point, boss?

he Bible is Rome's Child
The Bible says that the Church and not the Bible is the pillar and bulwark of truth 1st Timothy 3:15

nwamehn:




Lol. I knew u would refer to Acts 15, but truth is that u totally misunderstood my point in 1 there, that someone sends somebody to the elders in Jerusalem or Antioch to help him out on an issue he was not clear about doesn't mean he was answerable to Jerusalem. That Acts 15 clearly stated that there was confusion on doctrines and they had to seek understanding from Jerusalem and Paul and others were sent to gain more knowledge on a subject matter.
These days men of God from different churches consult each other on so many spiritual matters but it doesn't mean they ar answerable to each other. A local church in our area still sends her pastors to Word of Faith Bible Institute of the Winners Chapel for trainings, but it doesn't mean they ar answerable to Oyedepo or Winners Chapel.
But within the same denomination, the pastors or reverend fathers ar answerable to the headquarters or general overseers or Pope, as the case may be. Antioch was not answerable to Jerusalem on how they did their things, Jerusalem helped Antioch spiritually at some matters and Antioch still helped Jerusalem spiritually and even financially at some matters, so would u say that Jerusalem was financially dependent on Antioch to function since Antioch at a point in time helped them financially?
Were u not the person that confirmed that after Paul's rebuke, there stopped anything like segregation based on uncircumcision in the Jerusalem church and even other churches? Would u also say that Jerusalem was answerable to Antioch since after Paul's rebuke, that their practice stopped?
Do u know how many theological sessions that ar being organised for more education of the ministers of God in so many Pentecostal programs yearly, would u say that for any Pentecostal pastor to attend any of the ministers' programs and undertake the scriptural guiding there that it means that his church is founded by and is under the one coordinating the program?
Or if my church is confused over an issue and I and two of my elders consult a group of Anglican reverends who I believe know the Bible well for clearance on the issue, would u still say that my church is Anglican?
There is a program called God of Abraham hosted yearly by one of the Anglican churches in Anambra, during the program, several people including ministers from various churches come and sit under the ministration and tutorship of the ministers of the Anglican church and the archdeacon throughout the days of the program, would u say that all the churches whose ministers attend the program ar all Anglican churches?
That Paul sought clearance from Jerusalem over a doctrine just as he once rebuked Jerusalem over a doctrine too doesn't mean Jerusalem founded his church or dictated how he ran his church to him.
He sought help from them same way he once rendered help to them, and ministers today seek and render help to fellow churches and ministers, so if u say that there was nothing like Antioch church or Jerusalem church but one single Christian church because of the transmission of helps, then there is also nothing like Anglican, Winners etc today but one single Christian church.

2. Peter was not a Pope, made by any person, saying that Peter was a pope is just like saying what the Bible never said and trying to force it into the Bible by all means because Bible never recorded that he was made a pope. Bible recorded so many things Peter did, being a fisherman, following Jesus, going on evangelism etc but never said he was made a pope by any group of people anywhere. Even if Peter was in charge of the church at Antioch before it became answerable to a Pope later, at least the church would be termed Peter's Church before it now becomes any Roman Catholic church that they began obeying much later.
But the truth is that the church at Antioch was not under any Pope, Bible didn't record such. Barnabas and Paul established the church at Antioch a period that Peter was in Jerusalem and finally entered prison, Bible clearly recorded that Barnabas and Paul started the church, nurtured and grew the church for up to a year - Acts 11 vs 26, a period Peter was in Jerusalem and even entered prison sef, Bible never said that Peter for that whole year was dictating the practices of Paul and Barnabas or the practices of the Antioch church through Paul and Barnabas even though they both came from Israel just like Peter. Worst still the church at Jerusalem had strong battles they were fighting with Herod then sef when the wicked man killed James and took Peter.
Paul and Barnabas for that whole year were totally in charge of the church at Antioch but it didn't mean that they were barred by God from seeking or rendering help, whether spiritually or physically from or to Judaea or Cyprus or Cyrene, which bible rightly said that they rendered help to Jerusalem through the elders. 
So, why not call the church Paul and Barnabas Church for the whole year before any other thing?

That Rome at a point in time forcefully seized churches and compelled them to pay allegiance to them doesn't mean we should throw away the histories of those churches given to us in the Bible and then believe whatever Rome says.

Bible never said that Peter was a pope, Rome said. 
Bible never said that the church at Jerusalem was Catholic church, Rome said.
Bible never said that the church at Antioch was Catholic church, Rome said.
But where did the histories of Peter, church at Antioch, church at Jerusalem start? Their histories started from the Bible, yet we have to ignore what the Bible said and only believe what Rome said? Lol.

Truth is, for some reasons or the other, there is nothing each of us can actually do to convince one person to believe the other. In this Peter and church issue, I believe Bible more than I believe Rome, and u believe Rome more than u believe Bible, so, do u still think there is really any point, boss?

1. the issue in act 15 wasn't about rendering help, this was a doctrinal decision and Jerusalem gave a rule and claimed that the decision is from the holy spirit so no one will disobey, they wrote, "it seem good to the holy spirit and to us". that is what still happen today in the Catholic church when there are thorny issues a council is called and decision given... there were no denominations in the early church.

Paul didn't correct the church in Jerusalem because since Cornelius issue the Jerusalem church accepted gentiles it was Peter who was corrected for joining the Jews during supper, the church always provided financial help in times of need...but the decision body, the place people go to receive the hand of communion and have issues settled was Jerusalem.

2. Peter was made leader of the apostles read up matt 16,15-19, that was his ministry, each apostle was responsible for the church he ministered while Jesus gave Peter the responsibility of confirming his brethren that is what it means to be Pope. each bishop even today is responsible for the day to day functioning of the church under him but just like in the early church he too know where to go to receive the hand of fellowship like Paul did in Galatians and where to address dispute like in acts 15.

the church under Paul was always in communion with Peter because Paul clearly told us in gal that he went to Jerusalem and got the hand of fellowship from Peter and James... that is why when Peter went to Antioch he didn't go and found a new Church like you Protestant do today, he went to the church that Paul was preaching among, because he had already given the hand of fellowship to Paul... it wasn't a new denomination but the same church.

Rome didn't forcefully size the church of Antioch, which power will they use? in 107 when Ignatius was repeating the fact that Rome presided, the Roman Christians were still under severe persecutions and been killed so how will they forcefully take over Antioch that was far away unless you are ignorant of what you're talking about.

lastly the Bible is clear, it totally reject divisions and fraction as found in Protestantism, the Bible teaches that there is one faith, one baptism and one Lord, even Paul tells us in gal he went to Jerusalem and got the hand of fellowship, he too took the dispute in the churches under him to Jerusalem to be settled... that is clear. if you wish to go on with your denominations and fraction please don't claim it was taught and sanctioned by the Bible

BluntTheApostle:


I employed the word "Roman" to clarify a point. It is not to create a debate.

My point is, there was no "Roman" Catholic Church until after the split.

The Catholic Church (the "Roman" ) did not happen until after the split. Before the split, there was a single church which would split into two.

If you have materials supporting the claim that there had been a conscious Catholic Church (as of today) before the split, I would like to read it. Until then, my argument remains that the word "Catholic" identified a single assembly which would later split into the Orthodox Church and the Roman Catholic Church.

Even today, just as the Catholic Church claims to be the Church that Christ established in Jerusalem, the Orthodox churches do too.

there was always a Roman Catholic Church since about AD64, the Church of Rome and its environs.

that one Church that existed before the split was presided over by the Church of Rome.


Ignatius of Antioch
Follow your bishop, every one of you, as obediently as
Jesus
Christ followed the Father. Obey your clergy too as you
would
the apostles; give your deacons the same reverence
that you
would to a command of God. Make sure that no step
affecting
the Church is ever taken by anyone without the
bishop’s
sanction. The sole Eucharist you should consider valid
is one
that is celebrated by the bishop himself, or by some
person
authorized by him. Where the bishop is to be seen,
there let all
his people be; just as, wherever Jesus Christ is present,
there
is the Catholic Church (Letter to the Smyrneans 8:2
[A.D. 110 ]).
In like manner let everyone respect the deacons as they
would
respect Jesus Christ, and just as they respect the
bishop as a
type of the Father, and the presbyters as the council of
God and
college of the apostles. Without these, it cannot be
called a
Church. I am confident that you accept this, for I have
received
the exemplar of your love and have it with me in the
person of
your bishop. His very demeanor is a great lesson and
his
meekness is his strength. I believe that even the
godless do
respect him (Letter to the Trallians 3:1-2 [ A. D. 110 ]).
The Martyrdom of Polycarp
When finally he concluded his prayer, after
remembering all who
had at any time come his way – small folk and great
folk,
distinguished and undistinguished, and the whole
Catholic
Church throughout the world – the time for departure
came. So
they placed him on an ass, and brought him into the
city on a
great Sabbath (The Martyrdom of Polycarp 8 [A.D.
110 ]).
Irenaeus
The Catholic Church possesses one and the same faith
throughout the whole world, as we have already said
( Against
Heresies 1:10 [A.D. 189]).

I just hate it when some Catholics just won't go to catechism and learn about their faith. later one bible wielding false prophet will transfer his confusion to him, and he'll start asking rubbish questions. if you don't wanna be a Catholic anymore. that's your business. but mind you, you'd be leaving because of your ignorance not because of any fault of the church's