U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Religion and Spirituality > Christianity
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 07-04-2010, 11:43 PM
 
Location: 30-40N 90-100W
13,856 posts, read 22,961,646 times
Reputation: 6679

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by lifertexan View Post
Sorry,but history shows differently.All the ancient churches were once together as one group,excepting the minor offshoots that arose even early on.Check out the early church councils to learn more.Differences developed between the Latin and Asian churches that eventually led to a split around 1000 AD.

They most definitely did not develop independent from each other.
I don't really want to get into the who broke off from whom deal, but they weren't all together. The "Oriental Orthodox" Churches (Syriac, Coptic, Malankara, and Armenian as well as offshoots thereof) went into schism with Eastern Orthodoxy around the fifth century. Some of those might be small, but the Coptic and Armenians were once fairly significant. I think the Syriac was too as they were often located in the original land of Christianity. Although there has been efforts to unite Orthodoxy and Oriental Orthodoxy, they once fought each other. The Assyrian Church is also separate, both from Orthodoxy and Oriental Orthodoxy.

Also saying "those are just minor" is maybe unfair anyway as they represent many millions of people. The Coptic and Ethiopian Christians add up to tens of millions I believe. It would be like a Catholic saying "Orthodoxy is just minor, so Christianity was united until the Protestant Reformation."
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 07-04-2010, 11:56 PM
 
2,790 posts, read 5,701,010 times
Reputation: 1927
Quote:
Originally Posted by lifertexan View Post
Sorry,but history shows differently.All the ancient churches were once together as one group,excepting the minor offshoots that arose even early on.Check out the early church councils to learn more.Differences developed between the Latin and Asian churches that eventually led to a split around 1000 AD.

They most definetely did not develop independent from each other.
I have to agree with juj on this one. Not all of Jesus's disciples and followers could agree on His teachings. Some believed, for example, His walking amongst us again would happen within a few months, that the World's end was immenint. With so many interpretations, why would you think that they all would agree on one church?

Over time, partly as people realized certain interpretations were not accurate, partly due to Christianity acceptence into the main stream, partly due to to politics, certain churches became more powerful and influential.

The Emperor Constantine, who legalized Christianity, also founded Constantinople. He had two seats of power, the new city of Constantinople, and Rome, sort of like Nixon's White house and his western White house in San Clemente. After his death, his two heirs each thought they should be the main seat of power, as did the Pope in Rome and the Patriach in Constantinople.

Several power struggles ensued along with reconcilations, culminating in the Great Schism. And while each laid claim to possessing the Authority of the Church, remember that after the Sack of Rome, Europe fell into the Dark Ages, leaving its churches isolated until the rise of Charlemange. During this time Eastern Churches were flourishing.

As for the poster who suggested Orthodox services being similar to the Roman Catholic, I would have to disagree. Orthodox services are closer to services in the Anglican faith, not only in content, but in the structure and organization of the churches themselves.

I hope this explanation helps to put things into perspective.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-05-2010, 06:36 AM
juj
 
Location: Too far from MSG
1,657 posts, read 2,333,530 times
Reputation: 330
Quote:
Originally Posted by BudinAk View Post
Personally, I don't believe either one split off from the other....I believe they both were started independently of the other...about the same time. Therefore the debate about who "broke off" is pretty much pointless and moot. Just IMO.

Bud
Your opinion makes the Orthodox schism and the Reformation moot and pointless. If those events were so pointless, then why have them at all?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-05-2010, 06:52 AM
juj
 
Location: Too far from MSG
1,657 posts, read 2,333,530 times
Reputation: 330
Quote:
Originally Posted by BudinAk View Post
Sorry, but I believe you are mistaken: the Bible (even the Catholic Bible) says that Peter was Apostle to the circumcision (Jews), not the gentiles (Rome). Who was Apostle to the gentiles? Paul was! This is not "guesswork", because the Bible tells us so! There is some evidence out there that Peter never actually visited, lived in, or presided over any church in Rome. The Bible itself does not say anything about Peter ever having been there...

Also, the Bible does not "clearly" state that Jesus made Peter the head of the church. If it was "clear" that Peter was head of the church, then all of us would agree, but we don't. There is much ongoing debate about what Jesus was actually saying. One example:
What is the rock in Matthew 16:18?

What is clear, is that the Bible states (more than once) that Christ Jesus is head of the Church, not a mortal man, such as Peter. Personally, I am of the opinion that the church was built upon the foundation of Jesus Christ: "The stone that the builders rejected, has become the chief cornerstone".
He is still the head of the Church today.
Bud
You are reading your Bible with the wrong set of glasses. That is why it is unclear for you. Try the original pair. There was no debate in the early Church who Jesus made the head of Church. Of course protestants can not possible concede that Peter was the Jesus appointed head of His Church because then the whole basis of protestantism would crumble. And orthodoxy for that matter.

All protestant inventive explanations of who the rock was in Matthew 16 has failed the test of time and reason. Jesus not only called Simon the rock, he changed his name to Rock. Peter is the Rock in Matthew 16. Just let it sink in. It's okay.

Jesus is the head of the Catholic Church. The Pope is running things down here.

Last edited by juj; 07-05-2010 at 07:00 AM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-05-2010, 07:25 AM
 
Location: New England
32,224 posts, read 21,101,518 times
Reputation: 2274
Quote:
Originally Posted by juj View Post
You are reading your Bible with the wrong set of glasses. That is why it is unclear for you. Try the original pair. There was no debate in the early Church who Jesus made the head of Church. Of course protestants can not possible concede that Peter was the Jesus appointed head of His Church because then the whole basis of protestantism would crumble. And orthodoxy for that matter.

All protestant inventive explanations of who the rock was in Matthew 16 has failed the test of time and reason. Jesus not only called Simon the rock, he changed his name to Rock. Peter is the Rock in Matthew 16. Just let it sink in. It's okay.

Jesus is the head of the Catholic Church. The Pope is running things down here.
Juj

Do you seriously believe that God himself would build His Church on the basis of who somebody is , regardless of what quality we may think he possesses ?

17And Jesus answering said to him, `Happy art thou, Simon Bar-Jona, because flesh and blood did not reveal [it] to thee, but my Father who is in the heavens.
18`And I also say to thee, that thou art a rock, and upon this rock I will build my assembly, and gates of Hades shall not prevail against it;

The Church of God is built on a revelation of who Jesus is, and not on some designated man here on earth. (verse 17).
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-05-2010, 07:56 AM
juj
 
Location: Too far from MSG
1,657 posts, read 2,333,530 times
Reputation: 330
Quote:
Originally Posted by pcamps View Post
Juj

Do you seriously believe that God himself would build His Church on the basis of who somebody is , regardless of what quality we may think he possesses ?

17And Jesus answering said to him, `Happy art thou, Simon Bar-Jona, because flesh and blood did not reveal [it] to thee, but my Father who is in the heavens.
18`And I also say to thee, that thou art a rock, and upon this rock I will build my assembly, and gates of Hades shall not prevail against it;

The Church of God is built on a revelation of who Jesus is, and not on some designated man here on earth. (verse 17).
Yes because it's biblical. Hey, I didn't pick Peter, I am just trying to follow what Jesus created.

More revisionist history. Do you prefer chaos? Because that's what you have.

And I don't know what version of the Bible you are using, but I would get another one:

King James Version (I believe this is the standard protestant Bible):
13 When Jesus came into the coasts of Caesarea Philippi, he asked his disciples, saying, Whom do men say that I the Son of man am?
14 And they said, Some say that thou art John the Baptist: some, Elias; and others, Jeremias, or one of the prophets.
15 He saith unto them, But whom say ye that I am?
16 And Simon Peter answered and said, Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God.
17 And Jesus answered and said unto him, Blessed art thou, Simon Barjona: for flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven.
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.
19 And I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.

How about the Revised Standard Version:
13 Now when Jesus came into the district of Caesare'a Philip'pi, he asked his disciples, "Who do men say that the Son of man is?"
14 And they said, "Some say John the Baptist, others say Eli'jah, and others Jeremiah or one of the prophets."
15 He said to them, "But who do you say that I am?"
16 Simon Peter replied, "You are the Christ, the Son of the living God."
17 And Jesus answered him, "Blessed are you, Simon Bar-Jona! For flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but my Father who is in heaven.
18 And I tell you, you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the powers of death shall not prevail against it.
19 I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven."

Maybe you could look at a Douay:

13 And Jesus came into the quarters of Caesarea Philippi: and he asked his disciples, saying: Whom do men say that the Son of man is?
14 But they said: Some John the Baptist, and other some Elias, and others Jeremiah, or one of the prophets.
15 Jesus says to them: But whom do you say that I am?
16 Simon Peter answered and said: You are Christ, the Son of the living God.
17 And Jesus answering said to him: Blessed are you, Simon Bar-Jona: because flesh and blood has not revealed it to you, but my Father who is in heaven.
18 And I say to you: That you are Peter; and upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.
19 And I will give to you the keys of the kingdom of heaven. And whatsoever you shall bind upon earth, it shall be bound also in heaven: and whatsoever you shall loose on earth, it shall be loosed also in heaven.

Isn't it great when Jesus is speaking so "cut and dry"? No need for interpretation.

Last edited by juj; 07-05-2010 at 08:16 AM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-05-2010, 08:06 AM
 
1,883 posts, read 2,557,545 times
Reputation: 598
Quote:
Originally Posted by Thomas R. View Post
I don't really want to get into the who broke off from whom deal, but they weren't all together. The "Oriental Orthodox" Churches (Syriac, Coptic, Malankara, and Armenian as well as offshoots thereof) went into schism with Eastern Orthodoxy around the fifth century. Some of those might be small, but the Coptic and Armenians were once fairly significant. I think the Syriac was too as they were often located in the original land of Christianity. Although there has been efforts to unite Orthodoxy and Oriental Orthodoxy, they once fought each other. The Assyrian Church is also separate, both from Orthodoxy and Oriental Orthodoxy.

Also saying "those are just minor" is maybe unfair anyway as they represent many millions of people. The Coptic and Ethiopian Christians add up to tens of millions I believe. It would be like a Catholic saying "Orthodoxy is just minor, so Christianity was united until the Protestant Reformation."

When I said all together,I was referring to the RCC,OO, and the EO.As far as the OO's,the fact that you say they went into schism,which they did,points out that they were once together.You cannot go into schism with groups you've never been a part of.All these groups were once in communion together as original Christian churches.The OO broke off over the monophysite controversy;the RCC later broke away over papal authority and the filoque.

And by minor I was referring to very small groups that were never under the authority of the original church,such as unitarians and other sects that the Church regarded as heretical.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-05-2010, 08:12 AM
 
1,883 posts, read 2,557,545 times
Reputation: 598
Quote:
Originally Posted by MICoastieMom View Post
I have to agree with juj on this one. Not all of Jesus's disciples and followers could agree on His teachings. Some believed, for example, His walking amongst us again would happen within a few months, that the World's end was immenint. With so many interpretations, why would you think that they all would agree on one church?

Over time, partly as people realized certain interpretations were not accurate, partly due to Christianity acceptence into the main stream, partly due to to politics, certain churches became more powerful and influential.

The Emperor Constantine, who legalized Christianity, also founded Constantinople. He had two seats of power, the new city of Constantinople, and Rome, sort of like Nixon's White house and his western White house in San Clemente. After his death, his two heirs each thought they should be the main seat of power, as did the Pope in Rome and the Patriach in Constantinople.

Several power struggles ensued along with reconcilations, culminating in the Great Schism. And while each laid claim to possessing the Authority of the Church, remember that after the Sack of Rome, Europe fell into the Dark Ages, leaving its churches isolated until the rise of Charlemange. During this time Eastern Churches were flourishing.

As for the poster who suggested Orthodox services being similar to the Roman Catholic, I would have to disagree. Orthodox services are closer to services in the Anglican faith, not only in content, but in the structure and organization of the churches themselves.

I hope this explanation helps to put things into perspective.
I'm not sure why you are saying you would have to agree with juj.Nothing you have posted supports the idea that the RCC was always in complete papal authority over all the other churches,which is what the discussions was about.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-05-2010, 09:20 AM
 
Location: New England
32,224 posts, read 21,101,518 times
Reputation: 2274
Juj there is no chaos in the church God is building , in the system yes but not in the church of God.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-05-2010, 11:30 AM
 
621 posts, read 1,052,784 times
Reputation: 283
Juj -

Do you believe the Orthodox have validly ordained bishops? The official position of the Roman Catholic Church is that they do indeed. How then does it matter whether the Roman Catholic Church, or the Orthodox Church, is the true church?

Also, if Peter was the head of the church, why did James preside over the Jerusalem council? And why would Paul dare rebuke Peter to his face?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Religion and Spirituality > Christianity
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

2005-2019, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top