Is Catholicism the Oldest Christian Faith?

[garee]

Coptic church was based in Alexandria going back to the first century

Ethiopian church is based in Ethiopia.

both places had long traditions of Judaism which were places the Apostles went first. some believe Acts 8 27 may be the beginning of the Ethiopian church.

The Roman Catholic and Greek orthodox two sects destroy the use of the word "apostle". Giving it new meaning as a law of the fathers. Simply . . oral traditions of corrupted mankind. It can be compared to the Pharisees with Sadducees two denominations that put aside their difference to come as one killing machine .

Acts 22 King James Version (KJV) Men, brethren, and fathers, hear ye my defence which I make now unto you.
(And when they heard that he spake in the Hebrew tongue to them, they kept the more silence: and he saith,) I am verily a man which am a Jew, born in Tarsus, a city in Cilicia, yet brought up in this city at the feet of Gamaliel, and taught according to the perfect manner of the law of the fathers, and was zealous toward God, as ye all are this day.And I persecuted this way unto the death, binding and delivering into prisons both men and women. As also the high priest doth bear me witness, and all the estate of the elders: from whom also I received letters unto the brethren, and went to Damascus, to bring them which were there bound unto Jerusalem, for to be punished.

Killing the misperceived competition out of sight out of mind, exposing their false pagan foundation "sign and lying wonder" seekers .. . no faith as it is written

Matthew 16:1 The Pharisees also with the Sadducees came, and tempting desired him that he would shew them a sign from heaven.

John 6:30 They said therefore unto him, What sign shewest thou then, that we may see, and believe thee? what dost thou work?
Faithless

Catholics simply have no faith, not little, none coming from the mouth of God. They have there own mouth and will no hearken unto the voice of God.

 

[AndyMaleh]

Ok, on reflection this is what i believe the key difference is in the Catholic theology regarding Mary and you have to take a step back
Catholics believe the saints are in heaven right now at this moment, this includes any Christian who has passed but consider this means all the apostles then add to this it includes Mary herself
Now contrast this with the prevailing view among protestants that there is a kind of 'soul sleep' and no-one is in heaven right now till the resurrection
I believe it's on this different the whole thing rests
If the Catholic view is right then heaven is alive with the whole 'family' and they see it as hierarchical so Mary is at the top of the tree pretty much in a unique position alongside Jesus, as the Mother of the body of the church
This then explains the veneration and it's all based on what they think heaven looks like and this is the tradition they say was handed down. But i doubt anyone will pick up on this as the cause of the differences over Mary for the reason that the game being played is to paint your opponent in the worst possible light (hence 'Mariolatry' vs 'hating Mary' is part of a game over who is the true church).
Since i came to believe that Catholic view of heaven is correct what they say of Mary makes a lot more sense, that doesn't mean i think they are correct about other things. I'm not trying to change anyone's mind but if anyone's interested in this subject try looking at the view of heaven that Catholics maintain is the reality to see where they're coming from!

As continuation of my previous reply, I just remembered a story in which I was invited to lunch after lutheran Church service by a fellow church member, and when the subject of Catholics came up, his wife stopped us dead in our tracks and asked us not to make fun of Catholics emphasizing it was not Christian behavior. Her son went to the same Catholic university I've gone to for my master's, so I'm sure she was highly appreciative of their good works.

 

[Scribe]

It's not, the word Catholic means universal, so it encompassed all the churches at the time. It didn't become what it is today until after power and political authority was given well after Constantine gave them legal status and built two church buildings in New Rome, also known as Constantinople. Not completing the appostacy until the Pope established papal primacy and tried to excommunicate those inside the church who sought to reform and get back to doing things right. Once they removed the reformers and those who wanted to reform the church basically they had kicked the church out of the building. So the church met elsewhere and established new buildings.

Many do not understand this. God has always had a remnant who recognized the glaring inadequacy and hypocrisy of the RCC and were not part of it. They did not write much and they tried to stay out of the notice and reach of the oppressive control of the RCC so you have to find out about them through threads here and there in historical records. Sometimes they are the ones being called heretics by the false religious system that wanted to control them. I always cringe a little inside when I hear the phrase "church history" applied to only the apostate RCC. That is not church history, that is the history of the hypocrites. Those among them that did receive any enlightenment out of sincere desire for the God were often driven to darkness after making the choice to go along with the wickedness and corruption rather than to come out from among them and be separate.

 

[Scribe]

As continuation of my previous reply, I just remembered a story in which I was invited to lunch after lutheran Church service by a fellow church member, and when the subject of Catholics came up, his wife stopped us dead in our tracks and asked us not to make fun of Catholics emphasizing it was not Christian behavior. Her son went to the same Catholic university I've gone to for my master's, so I'm sure she was highly appreciative of their good works.

I agree that is not christlike to make fun of anyone who is in deception.

 

[Blik]

The first denomination of the Christians was called "The Way". It is spoken of frequently in Acts.

I searched the net to find out what happened to this denomination, they say it died out after about 500 years.

 

[Funkus]

"A woman at my LCMS lutheran church in Chicago (First Saint Paul) who had just lost a loved one gave a speech after church service once about how it is unbiblical to say that people go to heaven right away upon death, especially when said to silence someone grieving instead of being patient with their grief. She said the Bible mentions we go to heaven on the day of judgement "

So that is 'soul sleep', but maybe i was wrong to think it was a dominant belief
Catholics believe a person who passes stays around their family members for a while. I found this was true myself
i get a lot of my ideas from nature. The sheer variety of life forms is incredible, i don't think the afterlife will be any less incredible, i don't think that things work according to the dour predictions of dry as bones theologians!

 

[mustaphadrink]

I am in the middle of an extensive study of the new testament church (NTC) and there is no doubt in my mind having looked at the background to the church, that the original church was Jewish and they were known as The Way and were considered a sect of Judaism. The original members of it were Jewish and whilst they had accepted Jesus as the Messiah, they still attended the temple/synagogue; kept the law; attended the feasts; and did their best to follow Jewish customs like meeting on the Sabbath (Saturday).

They were not Christians as that word had not been invented and they didn't celebrate communion as it was an unknown concept. What they did do was meet daily in their homes for fellowship, meals, prayer, and teaching as it said they did in the book of Acts.

There was no such thing as protestant or catholic as both were unknown to the NTC. The two things that set them apart was the fact that they cared for each other and the supernatural was a constant in their lives. Where ever they went the supernatural went with them.

The church grew like it did because they were under constant threat from Rome and the Sanhedrin. There were no half-hearted believers. It was all or nothing

So if anyone says the first church was the catholic church just tell them that the evidence does not support that theory.

 

[mustaphadrink]

I am in the middle of an extensive study of the new testament church (NTC) and there is no doubt in my mind having looked at the background to the church, that the original church was Jewish and they were known as The Way and were considered a sect of Judaism. The original members of it were Jewish and whilst they had accepted Jesus as the Messiah, they still attended the temple/synagogue; kept the law; attended the feasts; and did their best to follow Jewish customs like meeting on the Sabbath (Saturday).

They were not Christians as that word had not been invented and they didn't celebrate communion as it was an unknown concept. What they did do was meet daily in their homes for fellowship, meals, prayer, and teaching as it said they did in the book of Acts.

The church emancipated women. Previously their future husbands were chosen for them usually by their father and they had no say in the matter. Particularly in Rome, the father would often choose someone who would advance his position in roman society which often meant someone who was old enough to be her father was chosen.

There was no such thing as protestant or catholic as both were unknown to the NTC. The two things that set them apart was the fact that they cared for each other and the supernatural was a constant in their lives. Where ever they went the supernatural went with them.

The church grew like it did because they were under constant threat from Rome and the Sanhedrin. There were no half-hearted believers. It was all or nothing

So if anyone says the first church was the catholic church just tell them that the evidence does not support that theory.

 

[mustaphadrink]

The heretic belongs with the one who has no evidence for their beliefs.

Does debate scare you so much that you can't see the value in opposing views? Or are you afraid of the truth like a child afraid of its own shadow? Or that you have no facts to back up your position? Your religion came after Catholicism. That is truth.

What actual church was there before the Roman Catholics, besides this mystery "early church" that Protestants can't claim from any Christian denomination.

Here's a fact for you:

"Peter the Apostle, original name Simeon or Simon, (died 64 ce, Rome [Italy] ), disciple of Jesus Christ, recognized in the early Christian church as the leader of the 12 disciples and by the Roman Catholic Church as the first of its unbroken succession of popes. "

 

[mustaphadrink]

I think you will find that there was no such thing as a catholic or a protestant church in the New Testament. The church's designation was The Way, and they were a sect of Judaism. It was composed entirely of Jews and they did not stop being Jews when they became disciples of the Messiah.

 

[mustaphadrink]

Limited understanding is a problem because how can you build a house without the right measurements?

Brainwashed could be an argument used for anyone who has opposing views to your own. Doesn't it seem more probable that the first doctrine is the correct doctrine?

Yes, it does that is why it is somewhat befuddling that the Catholic church had given itself a position that does not exist. The first church was known as The Way as anyone who has done a rigorous study of the subject knows so it is indefensible that the catholic church claims to be the first one.

 

[garee]

The first denomination of the Christians was called "The Way". It is spoken of frequently in Acts.

I searched the net to find out what happened to this denomination, they say it died out after about 500 years.

Also called the Nazarene sect .They were carried over from the old testament . No such thing as non-denominational . Seven to signify a unknown or complete denominations are shown in Revelation .

 

[AndyMaleh]

"A woman at my LCMS lutheran church in Chicago (First Saint Paul) who had just lost a loved one gave a speech after church service once about how it is unbiblical to say that people go to heaven right away upon death, especially when said to silence someone grieving instead of being patient with their grief. She said the Bible mentions we go to heaven on the day of judgement "

So that is 'soul sleep', but maybe i was wrong to think it was a dominant belief
Catholics believe a person who passes stays around their family members for a while. I found this was true myself
i get a lot of my ideas from nature. The sheer variety of life forms is incredible, i don't think the afterlife will be any less incredible, i don't think that things work according to the dour predictions of dry as bones theologians!

Not true. Neither I nor that woman identified what happens to the soul before Judgement Day. Not giving an opinion is not the same as making an opinion (e.g. "Soul Sleep"). Sometimes, it is OK to say "I don't know". God only knows what happens and does not require us to know everything. Godspeed.

 

[Blik]

Also called the Nazarene sect .They were carried over from the old testament . No such thing as non-denominational . Seven to signify a unknown or complete denominations are shown in Revelation .

Where did you find that they were called the Nazarene sect? I have tried to fine their doctrine and have little luck outside of scripture.

I found a communication that has been saved about them that a Roman gave to the Emperor who had asked him to find out if they were a threat to Rome. He reported that they helped each other.

You say they were "carried over from the OT" because the idea of Christ not being a fulfillment of the OT but a new God came much later. They thought of Christ as a fulfillment of the OT. It was 300 years later that Constantine championed Christ as new and opposed to the Jews, an idea that converted pagans who knew nothing of God the Father had started.

There is a new wave of Christians who have gone back to the way of the first church by saying Christ is a fulfillment of OT scripture instead of completely new.

 

[Deuteronomy]

I am in the middle of an extensive study of the new testament church (NTC) and there is no doubt in my mind having looked at the background to the church, that the original church was Jewish and they were known as The Way and were considered a sect of Judaism. The original members of it were Jewish and whilst they had accepted Jesus as the Messiah, they still attended the temple/synagogue; kept the law; attended the feasts; and did their best to follow Jewish customs like meeting on the Sabbath (Saturday).

Hello Mustaphadrink, while I agree with most of what you said, if memory serves, 1st Century Hebrew Christians continued to meet on Saturdays as Jews/with Jews (and they continued on with some of their Jewish traditions) so that they could remain in good standing with the community & with their families, and so they wouldn't be put out of the temple.

As Christians however, while they met on any/every day of the week as you said, it seems that they chose to gather in a more official way on the first day of the week, Sunday/"the Lord's day" .. e.g. John 20:1; Revelation 1:10, to break bread and fellowship with one another, hear the word of God preached and pray, give their offerings to the church, etc. .. e.g. Acts 20:7; 1 Corinthians 16:2. Of course, the Lord's day meeting was never meant to be a replacement of the Jewish Sabbath, as some sort of "Christian" Sabbath.

I would also argue that they did not "keep the Law" as they had previously done as Jews (who believed that doing so was necessary for salvation).

They were not Christians as that word had not been invented and they didn't celebrate communion as it was an unknown concept.

The word "Christian" was known/used while the Apostles lived, at least by Barnabas, Paul, Luke, and Peter, as well by King Agrippa it seems (who was hardly a Christian) .. e.g. Acts 11:22-26, 26:27-28; 1 Peter 4:15-16.

Finally, the Lord's Supper was established first by the Lord, and again by the Apostle Paul, yes .. e.g. Matthew 26:26-29; 1 Corinthians 11:23-26.

Perhaps you have come upon different information in your studies, and if that is the case, I'd love to hear more

Thanks!

God bless you!

~Deut

1 Peter 4​

15 Make sure that none of you suffers as a murderer, or thief, or evildoer, or a btroublesome meddler;​

16 but if anyone suffers as a Christian, [Χριστιανός/Christianos] he is not to be ashamed, but is to glorify God in this name.​

​

 

[Deuteronomy]

The heretic belongs with the one who has no evidence for their beliefs. Here's a fact for you:

"Peter the Apostle ... died 64 ce, Rome [Italy]

Hello Searcher92, I mean no disrespect here, but outside of the RCC "claiming" that St. Peter died in Rome, what actual evidence do we have that proves their claim is true I ask because, outside of the RCC (which teaches that St. Peter dying in Rome is not only a fact, but an indisputable fact), many others have/continue to dispute their claim (based upon evidence suggesting that he was actually crucified elsewhere).

Thanks!

God bless you!

~Deut

 

[p_rehbein]

I realize there have been 255 responses..............however, my answer to the question posed in the Title of the OP is:

NO.

The Christian faith was established by Christ Himself, and after His assent to Heaven, and Pentecost........... the Christian faith was firmly established. The Catholic Religion was a corrupted version of the Christian Faith and the Gospel of Jesus the Christ IMO.

 

[throughfaith]

Why do people stray from it if it were the original Christian doctrine? How does one know one's Christian walk is true with thousands of Christian sects each purporting to be the truth and damning other sects to hell? Why do we put so much faith in our own opinions and call it God's opinion? Doesn't Christianity claim value to humility? How does thinking our opinion is God's opinion classify as such?

Yes Catholicism is the oddest Christian faith . It's unbiblical that's why .

 

[tantalon]

There is only ONE church, it is a spiritual one and unseen, as the Kingdom of God is within the believer after conversion. ALL denominations exist because of differing doctrinal differences of interpretations. Do not label yourself with any denominational tag, you and I belong to Christ, and not to any denominational establishment, that should be teaching, and not claiming your faith is THEIRS.

 

[mustaphadrink]

Hello Mustaphadrink, while I agree with most of what you said, if memory serves, 1st Century Hebrew Christians continued to meet on Saturdays as Jews/with Jews (and they continued on with some of their Jewish traditions) so that they could remain in good standing with the community & with their families, and so they wouldn't be put out of the temple.

As Christians however, while they met on any/every day of the week as you said, it seems that they chose to gather in a more official way on the first day of the week, Sunday/"the Lord's day" .. e.g. John 20:1; Revelation 1:10, to break bread and fellowship with one another, hear the word of God preached and pray, give their offerings to the church, etc. .. e.g. Acts 20:7; 1 Corinthians 16:2. Of course, the Lord's day meeting was never meant to be a replacement of the Jewish Sabbath, as some sort of "Christian" Sabbath.

I would also argue that they did not "keep the Law" as they had previously done as Jews (who believed that doing so was necessary for salvation).


The word "Christian" was known/used while the Apostles lived, at least by Barnabas, Paul, Luke, and Peter, as well by King Agrippa it seems (who was hardly a Christian) .. e.g. Acts 11:22-26, 26:27-28; 1 Peter 4:15-16.

Finally, the Lord's Supper was established first by the Lord, and again by the Apostle Paul, yes .. e.g. Matthew 26:26-29; 1 Corinthians 11:23-26.

Perhaps you have come upon different information in your studies, and if that is the case, I'd love to hear more

Thanks!

God bless you!

~Deut

1 Peter 4​

15 Make sure that none of you suffers as a murderer, or thief, or evildoer, or a btroublesome meddler;​

16 but if anyone suffers as a Christian, [Χριστιανός/Christianos] he is not to be ashamed, but is to glorify God in this name.​

​

Thank you for your comments and findings. iron sharpens iron so it's good to discuss these things.

I am autistic and we are by and large only interested in facts, not opinions or unfounded claims. As a consequence, we tend to dig deep and dig long which I have done in this case. Over a period of four weeks, I read seven books about the background of the New Testament Church. In all of them, the references to the breaking of bread were always in the context of a meal. Mainly because the New Testament was not made up of rich people (only a few) so the people lived from day to day and as many of them were slaves, they often were left without any food.

So it was the practice of the NTC to meet every day to have a meal together to ensure no one went to bed hungry. Those that could contribute to the meal did and those that couldn't were welcomed to eat with them. Two things to note here. One is a sip of wine and a piece of bread is not going to satisfy a person's hunger. Two a standard greeting in those days was "Do come and break bread with us" which meant come and have a meal with us. These facts clearly show us what breaking bread is all about. In addition, a meal always included bread which was broken and divided amongst the guests, hence the greeting.

As for meeting on Sundays for whatever reason, that was not possible as Jews worked on Súnday like any other day they worked, so the only time they could meet on Sunday was in the evening for the communal meal.

Regarding John 20:1 that has been interpreted incorrectly. The original says "But on the first of the sabbaths..."

As for Revelation 1:10 the original states that the Lords day means the day that belongs to the Lord beween dawn and dark. As the scripture does not support Sunday as being the Sabbath, one has to apply general revelation and go with the original with the saturday sabbath as being the lord's day.

Acts 20:7 is again on one of the sabbaths not the first day. And there is no metion of money in this verse.

1Co 16:2 On one of the sabbaths, let each of you put by himself, storing up whatever he is prospered, that there not be collections then when I come. No collections, no giving to the church.

I would also argue that they did not "keep the Law" as they had previously done as Jews (who believed that doing so was necessary for salvation).

Having read seven books on the subject who all say the same thing they did keep the law as they were Jews who had not stopped being Jews when they became followers of The Way. That came later when the gentile believers were questioned by the Judaisers about their authenticity because they did not keep the requirment of circumcision.

Acts 11:26 The word christian used here was used for the first time. It was invented by unbelievers as term of derision. It was not used by the believers themselves.

1 Peter 4:16 the correct translation is not Christian but as a follower of Christ.

Matthew 26 was when they were celebrating the passover and that was a meal, not a sip of wine and a piece of bread and it was only celebrated once a year not every week.

1 Corinthians 11. 23-26. Context please. The Corinthians were having their communal meals and the well off were bringing food and drink and eating before people like the slaves arrived with nothing to contribute and the food was gone so they went hungry. Paul was telling them off for doing this.

The key verse is 1Co 11:33 So that, my brothers, coming together to eat, wait for one another. Those that brought food were told to wait for those who came later and could not bring food so that they had something to eat. If all that was involved was a sip of wine and piece of bread, there is nothing to wait for.

It is all about context.