A must see site for everyone:

Who Started Your Church?

-- Andrew (andyhbk96@hotmail.com), May 04, 2004

Answers

Yahweh the ruler of the universe and Jesus Christ, July 23, 2000.

May Yahweh be blessed always.

May the spirit of his son shine upon us.

The Christian yahwist

The man of Yahweh

-- Elpidio Gonzalez (egonval@yahoo.com), May 04, 2004.

Andrew, give it up.

protestnat baiting is ridiculous. It is unbecoming.

-- ZAROVE (ZAROFF3@JUNO.COM), May 04, 2004.

More protestant bashing???

-- David Ortiz (cyberpunk1986@hotmail.com), May 04, 2004.

We can all find sites to promote our beliefs...

But there is no way Jesus is the founder of the Roman Catholic Church...because Jesus is not the Father of Lies, Satan is.

Whose the Father of Lies?

-- (faith01@myway.com), May 04, 2004.

i don't see why you are all so up in arms.

maybe the truth hurts.

-- Ian (ib@vertifgo.com), May 04, 2004.

Ian,

I don't think that [Andrew] was all up in arms.. I think he's just trying to convince himself that the Catholic Church started with Jesus--though we all know it started with Constatine.

-- (faith01@myway.com), May 04, 2004.

Andrew,

While I agree and believe that the Catholic Church was started by Jesus, I disagree with this site's methods. If people ask my why I wish to become Catholic, I will say that one of the reasons is because I believe that it's the original Christian Church, founded by Jesus. Fair enough, as this is the Catholic belief. However, to use it to refute Protestants is fruitless, because this site bases the entire foundation of its philosophy on a misconception of Protestantism.

Most Protestants do not define the "Christian Church" as one particular church body (such as Catholic, Methodists, Presbyterians, etc.) of which they are a member, and this site seems to think that each of those Protestant groups believe that they themselves are the one true Church of Jesus. Rather, most Protestants would say that the "true Christian Church" is an invisible body that includes all believers, no matter what denomination, which would make the year and founder of their denomination irrelevant. Hence, they too would claim that their idea of the "Christian Church" (ie. encompassing all believers) was also founded by Jesus.

Thus, using this site will be offensive because it misrepresents the commonly held belief about the Church among Protestants. We should promote truth, but in doing so, neither should we distort the beliefs of any particular group in order to achieve our own ends.

As you can see with Faith's comment, Protestants have their own theories about when and how the Catholic Church was started.

-- Emily (jesusfollower7@yahoo.com), May 04, 2004.

Andrew,

You should have the guts to post your real name and email. I'll do it for you.

-- David Ortiz (cyberpunk1986@hotmail.com), May 04, 2004.

Andrew, an we please stop the protestant Baiting. it is unbecoming.Not only do you reuse to actually listen to what protestnats beelive, you now have to toss off a cheap one liner. Calm down, talk about soemthign else beides the evil protestnats and how o defend yoyr faith. If you dont, you won't have a faith worth defneing.

-- ZAROVE (ZAROFF3@JUNO.COM), May 04, 2004.

ALSO , the Mormons arent protestnat...

-- ZAROVE (ZAROFF3@JUNO.COM), May 04, 2004.

-- David Ortiz (cyberpunk1986@hotmail.com), May 04, 2004.

Mormons are not Christian...

-- (faith01@myway.com), May 04, 2004.

i still don't get the problem.

the Catholic Church is 2,000 years old. all other Christian-based churches were at some point started by a man. they are man-made.

that is a perfectly good criterion by itself to choose a Church. the real one or the made-up ones.

what is so problematic about that?

-- Ian (ib@vertifgo.com), May 05, 2004.

Faith,

Do you believe everything on the site you posted? I hope not.

For one thing, the author changes the Latin translation of Vicar of Christ to "Vicar of Son of God" in order to get 666. The Latin word for Christ is "Christe". Besides, John write in Greek, not Latin, when he wrote the Book of Revelation. I can only conclude that either the author has been misled, or he tried to come up with a way to make the Pope's title add up to 666.

That alone should make whatever else the author says suspect.

-- Andy (aszmere@earthlink.net), May 05, 2004.

Ian..,

The Christian faith is 2000 years old.

There is a difference..

The church that Jesus Christ founded is spiritual., and it exists in the hearts of all true believers.

No one religion has a market on Christianity., and some are quite mistaken.

Yes--the disciples also began local churches for true believers to meet in...but that in no way--looked anything like what the Catholic Church looks like.

Read the New Testament. Look at the churches in that day....

Thr Roman Catholic Church with all its pagan festivals and rites and pilgrimages to Marian shrines is a far cry from what Jesus or the apostles ever intended.

-- (faith01@myway.com), May 05, 2004.

I'm guessing that Faith's point is that you can find websites to support any point of view...whether it be accurate or "ridiculously" far off base.

I think the same can be said for certain ways of interpreting scripture.

-- JimFurst (furst@flash.net), May 05, 2004.

Actually Andy.., No., I am not particularly fond of numerology. I was just trying to show that anyone can pull up a link to talk against any religion-- including yours.

-- (faith01@myway.com), May 05, 2004.

Faith

The time period you speak of involved the disarray of doctrines scattered about without the benefit of a focused and unified church. True, the churches did not look like the Catholic Church of today. Back then, it was a free-for-all situation that could have spread like wild fire. It didn't because of those who had the power to make a difference. It became the Catholic Church. But, today is not so different from then. Have a look at the many doctrines scattered about without the focus and authority of having one Church. It only makes sense that error is spreading like a wild fire. Surely, you can't hide from such an observation and pitcher of logic, hmm?

..................

-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), May 05, 2004.

Faith,

Point well taken. Thanks.

-- Andy (aszmere@earthlink.net), May 05, 2004.

Jim,

Thanks. I think you're right.

-- Andy (aszmere@earthlink.net), May 05, 2004.

Faith has opened this arguement that attacks the Catholic Church with accusations of paganism in the worship system. So, David don't go telling me that I'm "off topic", please.

It seems that "Sola Scriptura" has been the sole source of understanding and believing in Christ's plan of Salvation. When an accuser takes the intense study of the Catholic Church, they will find that the Catholic embraces the faith in God, the Son, and the Holy Spirit through a life-style, not solely a "Sola Scriptura" method of understanding. Perhaps then, the accusers may begin o realize that the rituals and celebrations are not pagan, but sacred and Traditional. Afterall, before the written Scriptures, the world had Traditions.

...............

-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), May 05, 2004.

You are gonna have to go back in time to the pre-Judaic times in order to understand where we are at now in Christianity. God gave man his faith not only in the New Testament, in the beginning of all things.

.............

-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), May 05, 2004.

rod..,

What you seem to miss--what all "works and faith" advocates seem to miss about those of us who believe the gospel and believe that it is by faith that we are saved and that the Bible is our only source of authority...

..is that we live a life of faith and that it reveals itself in a lifetime commitment to Jesus and His commands. We bear the fruit of the Spirit--not because we think it will save us--but because we are saved. It is the natural response to God's call.

Those of us who believe that we are saved by faith only--do not sit back on a couch somewhere thinking we have it made and that we don't need to respond or behave. We don't believe we can go on sinning because we are saved by God's grace--we know that because we are saved, sinning will disturb our souls.

It is a natural response to God to not want to sin anylonger.., and those who continue to deliberately sin once saved--need to recheck whether or not they have actually come into a personal relationship with the Son of God by rebirth. Not everyone who makes this claim is right. The Bible says that you will know us by our fruit.

-- (faith01@myway.com), May 05, 2004.

Faith,

It seems that in a practical sense, our concepts of knowing whether we are saved or not may not be that far off.

How does one know if they are really saved or not, unless they avoid sin and persevere in faith to the end? Living a life of faith certainly includes hoping and loving the Lord.

The Catholic view seems to me to be similar in that we do not know if we have eternal life unless we avoid sin and persevere in faith, hope, and love to the end. I'm sure there are details I am leaving out, but the basic concepts seem similar to me.

-- Andy S ("aszmere@earthlink.net"), May 05, 2004.

Yes--

It's like we are coming in at it from opposite ends and sort of meeting in the middle anyway. Kind of like James and Paul--who are not contradicting each other, but are saying the same thing from opposite ends.

What concerns me about the Catholic outlook--is that somehow--you think it is by your effort and work that you are saved. From my standpoint--it is because we are saved, that we work so hard.

Do you see the difference?

Even with James., we can understand that what he meant about our faith being dead without works--wasn't a point about our works saving us--but rather, his point was that our faith isn't real if we don't see the works.

-- (faith01@myway.com), May 05, 2004.

Faith,

I do see the difference.

But I disagree that the Catholic outlook is that "it is by your effort and work that you are saved." That is not what the Catholic Church teaches even though some Catholics might think that way.

The only thing we can "do" (if you want to call it that) is to accept God's grace, which saves us. It is by the grace of God we are saved. Good works without faith and love are not pleasing to God. God knows our heart. Only those works done in faith and love are what is pleasing to God, is my understanding.

-- Andy S ("aszmere@earthlink.net"), May 05, 2004.

Andrew and Ian,

There were Christians there when Paul arrived in Rome by about 60 AD. We don't know who was the founder.

But using apostolic succession as a criteria, then, Paul is the founder, not Peter.

As for other places: Peter, James, John, and the other Apostles founded the Jerusalem church. It was destroyed by AD 133 with the Bar Cochba rebellion.

Cesarea: founded by Peter. No longer important.

Antioch: founded by Barnabas, Paul, and Peter.

Still exists: 3 Patriarchs: One listens to the Pope. One considers the Patriarch of Constantinople first amonmg equals (holds the keys of Peter). One, over 2,000,000 strong, the Syrian (or Syriac ) Orthodox Church still stands. It shows a line of succession better documented than that of Rome: from the Bible and History.

Patriarch hold the keys of Peter. Syrian Orthodox

So, the Pope of Rome then will be second among Christians if Peter is put into the picture.

The Christian Yahwist

-- Elpidio Gonzalez (egonval@yahoo.com), May 05, 2004.

Thanks Andy..,

I wish that all Catholics thought like you.

But we are talking about different things when we talk about pleasing God. Pleasing God is only possible by those who are His already, by faith in His Son:

Salvation is the first order of business--and that comes when we put on Christ's righteousness. It has nothing to do with us--and everything to do with Jesus.

Without Jesus it is impossible to please God.

-- (faith01@myway.com), May 05, 2004.

Will someone please remove the 'BEat Mother Teresa' Website linked at the top of this page

...please !!!

-- Andrew (andyhbk96@hotmail.com), May 05, 2004.

Where Andrew??

-- ("faith01@myway.com"), May 05, 2004.

Nevermind, I see it...didn't you put it there?

-- ("faith01@myway.com"), May 05, 2004.

"Without Jesus it is impossible to please God. "

Tell that to the Old Testament believers.

............

-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), May 05, 2004.

rod..,

Believe it or not--Old Testament people were also saved by their faith in Christ--they looked forward to the promised Messiah...and believed. Abraham was credited as righteous because he believed God. What did he believe? He believed in the promised seed....

-- ("faith01@myway.com), May 05, 2004.

How did that get there? I deleted it.

-- David Ortiz (cyberpunk1986@hotmail.com), May 05, 2004.

Hooray@forjesus.com added the "beatmotherteresa" link in as an image.

-- Andy S ("aszmere@earthlink.net"), May 05, 2004.

You said, "Jesus".

You also said, "...they looked forward to the promised Messiah...".

There were many claiming to be the Messiah. Even the "Ceasars" claimed to be the Son of God. They pleased God by being obedient to God. The New Testament changed things.

.............

-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), May 05, 2004.

The only people that pleased God in Old Testament times--were people who believed God.

-- (faith01@myway.com), May 05, 2004.

Well, now we're talking.

Not only did they believe God, they went around and proved it by their obedience to God. Ask Isaac as he removed himself from the carving table.

...........

-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), May 05, 2004.

The Caesers claiemd to decend frm the goddess Venus, they did not claim to tbe the sons of God.

-- ZAROVE (ZAROFF3@JUNO.COM), May 05, 2004.

Elpidio

the "founder" is irrelevant.

St Peter was the Rock, given the Keys of the Kingdom (to the exclusion of everyone else).

he could have sailed to Florida and still have been the first Pope. he was capable of miracles and could therefore have set up his base on the moon.

as it happens, he went to Rome. as it happens, he took the bishipric very sagely in the city that would eventually lead to the establishment of Catholicism worldwide.

"founding" has nothing to do with it.

why do you think it does?

-- Ian (ib@vertifgo.com), May 05, 2004.

Yes...Abraham had that much faith in God--that he was willing to sacrifice his only son....and that faith came first... That is why he was able to put Isaac up on that table--and that faith is what pleased God.

-- ("faith01@myway.com"), May 05, 2004.

...but, even then, they were living the Scriptures in acts of faith, not words/texts. Abraham was involved in a Heavenly reverberation of the Salvation plan. John 3:16 would solidify things in the New Testament in textual form. The works were in the "works".

...........

-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), May 05, 2004.

One of those Augustus Ceasars claimed to be the son of God. I'll have to dig up his name.

Of course, the guy was delusional and rather vain. He did believe in god, but not God.

...........

-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), May 05, 2004.

The *acts* or works-- are evidence of the faith.,tho--rod.

-- ("faith01@myway.com"), May 05, 2004.

Well, of course. What good is one's faith without it? You would have to admit that a believer in your church would eventually perform some manifestation of their faith. I doubt that one could call themselves a "believer" and choose to stay dormant as far as works go. They will be involved in the church "doing" something for their brothers and sisters, including those souls outside of the church that need teaching and converting. "Works" are inevitable if one is to have faith. The Catholic operates the same way in faith. It just so happens that those "works" take on a unique style and definition. The Sacraments do have meaning, but are not done without faith in God, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. The cart is not before the wagon, even in the Catholic Church.

......................

-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), May 05, 2004.

Oops! I was distracted. "The cart does not go before the horse." I didn't know getting older meant getting luny.

..............

-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), May 05, 2004.

Well rod..,

So long as the faithful people of your Church do not think that their efforts are why they are saved, I suppose there is no harm. Tho., I am sure there are many faithless people working like little beavers to get into God's kingdom without having to repent and confess Christ is Lord of Lords and King of Kings...and these people exist everywhere--inside and outside of churches...

My sister is one of them. She doesn't necessary believe in God or heaven--but has said that as long as she lives a good life as a good person--she is sure that if there is a God--he'll let her in....

-- ("faith01@myway.com"), May 05, 2004.

Ah! New Age Religion. I'm trying to recall the Apocalypse of Peter (if memory permits) had the same rational. The souls in Heaven will ask God to have mercy on those in Hell. God will say "Oh, ok, they can be in Heaven." This is perhaps the reason that book was not included in the Holy Bible.

.......

-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), May 05, 2004.

Well it would certainly have contradicted Luke 16:19-31:

The Rich Man and Lazarus

"There was a rich man who was dressed in purple and fine linen and lived in luxury every day. At his gate was laid a beggar named Lazarus, covered with sores and longing to eat what fell from the rich man's table. Even the dogs came and licked his sores. "The time came when the beggar died and the angels carried him to Abraham's side. The rich man also died and was buried. In hell, where he was in torment, he looked up and saw Abraham far away, with Lazarus by his side. So he called to him, 'Father Abraham, have pity on me and send Lazarus to dip the tip of his finger in water and cool my tongue, because I am in agony in this fire.' "But Abraham replied, 'Son, remember that in your lifetime you received your good things, while Lazarus received bad things, but now he is comforted here and you are in agony. And besides all this, between us and you (heaven and hell) a great chasm has been fixed, so that those who want to go from here to you cannot, nor can anyone cross over from there to us.' "He answered, 'Then I beg you, father, send Lazarus to my father's house, for I have five brothers. Let him warn them, so that they will not also come to this place of torment.' "Abraham replied, 'They have Moses and the Prophets; let them listen to them.' " 'No, father Abraham,' he said, 'but if someone from the dead goes to them, they will repent.' "He said to him, 'If they do not listen to Moses and the Prophets, they will not be convinced even if someone rises from the dead.' "

I mean...Wow!! Although I think that this verse is really speaking about religious entities that withhold the truth from its people..the rich man being a religious leader and the beggar representing the hungry souls of people.....it also speaks loud and clear about faith in Jesus Christ being the key to heaven.., and it is clear that once we die--it's too late.

-- ("faith01@myway.com), May 05, 2004.

Yeah, but you know what bugs me about that Scripture?

Abraham is able to see both people and we are spectators to both conditions. So, the "gulf" does have loop holes. The hellbound can see the saved and Abraham can talk with both the damned and the saved. Well, if that's the case, Abraham can visit earth just like the Angels, demaons, and other pertinent souls (Mary?).

....................

-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), May 05, 2004.

Well I always thought that in the passage, Abraham and Lazarus were both in the waiting place that OT believers went before Jesus came to redeem them for heaven. (Could this be purgatory?). This passage is supported by one in one of Peter's letters about Jesus going to preach to the spirits who were in prison. OTOH, the rich man was in hell.

-- Emily ("jesusfollower7@yahoo.com"), May 05, 2004.

Luke 16 discussion has now been sent to its own new thread:

Luke 16 Discussion: click here.

...............

-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), May 05, 2004.

I think that it is funny that all of you people that think that the Church was different after Constantine than before. You can't really look to Scripture for an accurate look. Why? 1) The Church was under oppression, 2) They thought Christ was coming back soon - in their lifetime, 3) the Apostles were still around. I think that if you want a real look at what the "early Church" was like you need to read more than just the Scriptures. Try this to start. It also might help to read some text books about the early Church. However, make sure that they are written in the 1990s or after. Try this too. Also, if you want to go back to the early Church, than you need people to proclaim themselves as Virgins forever. You need to focus a lot more on morals than you do now.

-- Scott (papasquat10@hotmail.com), May 05, 2004.

Scott, I wish to become Catholic, so you probably weren't addressing your comments to me. However, I was a little confused about the meaning of some of your statements.

Scott said: make sure that they are written in the 1990s or after.

What do you mean here? Why only after 1990?

Scott said: if you want to go back to the early Church, than you need people to proclaim themselves as Virgins forever.

Why? What is your basis for this claim? Are you talking about Mary? Or vowed women (nuns)? Do you have solid evidence that this was a practice in the early Church? I believe it was based on Catholic Church tradition, and there are some references in Scripture to this idea. However, on what do you base your claim that Protestants must have this?

Scott said: You need to focus a lot more on morals than you do now.

Perhaps I am misunderstaning. Are you implying that Protestants have lower moral standards than Catholics? Or do you mean that they should develop a system of morality as the Catholic Church has?

God bless,

-- Emily ("jesusfollower7@yahoo.com"), May 05, 2004.

Ian,

Andrew's point is that the founder matters.

Since the Church wasn't called Catholic, then, but The Way (see Acts 9, 19, 24), then Peter doesn't qualify.

Biblically, he only visited Cesarea and antioch.

Sorry, no Rome.

The Christian Yahwist

-- Elpidio Gonzalez (egonval@yahoo.com), May 06, 2004.

Well if you are ging to get overly technical, Henry the 8th didnt start the chruc of england, all he did was seperate it form Communion withhte Pope.

-- ZAROVE (ZAROFF3@JUNO.COM), May 07, 2004.

Elpidio. read 1 St Peter 5:31. St was in Rome. also, i do not get yr point. i will try harder. however, my point stands. see above.

-- Ian (ib@vertifgo.com), May 07, 2004.

Three problems , Ian:

1)Understanding Babylon to be Rome based on Rvelation 2)The letter is not adressed to anyone there but to regions in Asia Minor with Jewish ppulations, now Turkey, Syria, and Iraq. 3) Real Babylon still existed at this time.

The Christian Yahwist

-- Elpidio Gonzalez (egonval@yahoo.com), May 08, 2004.

I find it interesting that the Catholic Church agrees that Babylon was a sort of secret code word meaning Rome--yet, it will not acknowledge that "Mystery Babylon" is the "Catholic Church" in Rome as well....

-- ("faith01@myway.com"), May 09, 2004.

Faith,

Are you referring to Rev 17:5? From what I understand, Babylon is code for Rome there, not the "church" in Rome. John wrote Revelation for the church that was persecuted by pagan Rome.

Also, it goes the other way too. Some Protestants accept Bablyon as code for Rome in Revelation, but not to support Peter being in Rome (1 Peter 5:13 as referring to the church in Rome) when they want to refute the papacy.

-- Andy ("aszmere@earthlink.net"), May 09, 2004.

Elpidio:

1)"Understanding Babylon to be Rome based on Rvelation"

Why does one need to rely upon the Apocalypse. By this time, Babylon was a hamlet in the back of beyond. There is nothing to suggest St Peter was ever there, nor why should he go there as it had become a nothing. However, the memory of what it stood for, and what happened to it, was there in Scripture for all to see.

It helps that the references in the Apocalypse are there. but that is not crucial.

Maybe you believe that St Peter was in Babylon?!?!?! on what basis?!??

2)"The letter is not adressed to anyone there but to regions in Asia Minor with Jewish ppulations, now Turkey, Syria, and Iraq."

So what?

3) "Real Babylon still existed at this time."

See above.

-- Ian (ib@vertifgo.com), May 10, 2004.