Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.

Would a prophet or an apostles belong to any of the many Christian religions we have today?


Okieshowedem

I personally believe they'd belong to Catholicism. Given the history of the church and how everything branched from said church.

Originally posted by Okieshowedem
Would a prophet or an apostles belong to any of the many Christian religions we have today?


Okieshowedem

Only if the Christians are right . . .

Apostles maybe...Prophets can come from other religions.

How is it different?

Originally posted by Quark_666
How is it different?

The prophets were more of Jewish men preparing the way for Christ. The apostles were converted Jews and gentiles that followed Christ's teachings (and became the first "Christians".

^but jesus was a jew

Originally posted by leonheartmm
^but jesus was a jew

True. But Jesus was not Judaism. He came and laid down a new religion, one that fulfilled Judaism and gave it something more. This Judaism-and-then-some is known as Christianity (Catholic in my opinion). Though Christ was a Jew, he was still God.

Originally posted by King of Blades
True. But Jesus was not Judaism. He came and laid down a new religion, one that fulfilled Judaism and gave it something more. This Judaism-and-then-some is known as Christianity (Catholic in my opinion). Though Christ was a Jew, he was still God. Jesus was a devout Jew who had no intention of starting a new faith (that was Saul's doing, who went to the Gentiles because the Jews rejected his claim of Jesus as Messiah). Jesus rallied against the ossification of his faith, just like many rally against organized religion today. That Christianity is "something more" than Judaism is ethnocentric thinking, the kind responsible for Christianity's MGIBTYG mindset and its bloody convert-or-die history.

Further, Jesus=God was Constantine's proclamation, once he adopted the faith.

Jesus was Jewish, as were his 12 apostles and the prophets.

Christianity was invented after his "crucifixtion".

The church has dirtied it's hands so much in religious history that I wouldn't trust it. I would go on my GUT feelings.

Originally posted by Mindship
Jesus was a devout Jew who had no intention of starting a new faith (that was Saul's doing, who went to the Gentiles because the Jews rejected his claim of Jesus as Messiah). Jesus rallied against the ossification of his faith, just like many rally against organized religion today. That Christianity is "something more" than Judaism is ethnocentric thinking, the kind responsible for Christianity's MGIBTYG mindset and its bloody convert-or-die history.

Further, Jesus=God was Constantine's proclamation, once he adopted the faith.

A Jew who fulfilled both Mosaic law and Jewish prophecy yes. In this he didn't "start a new faith". However that the Jews did not wish to hear and see the fulfillment does not mean that his audience wasn't still the Jew. It was for the Jews that the Christ was born for. But his message was meant for everyone hence the the name Katholikos (Catholics=universal). In the perfect scheme of things Jesus was to come and "enlighten" (in a manner of speaking) and everyone was to see the truth. Then the Jews would have ceased to be Jews in the sense that they would be followers of the way. Since Christ. In fact today such Jews are called Messianic Jews.

Jesus rallied against the hypocrisy of his religious leaders and the complacency of his people. He was a revolutionist in that he brought forth a new way of thinking, not new thinking ideas. And that Chrisitianity is something more then Judaism is true, nothing to do with the perspective of the culture/religious views that I grew in. Christianity converted people by the example people lived by (the true example) and the teachings people could both relate to and accept. Sadly as man's history goes, he felt he had control over something that was not his. Man distorted religion to make it into your stereotypical convert-or-die idea of today where MGIBTYG is very much the mindset of many Christians. However, Religion is not the center of man's evil. That Man does in the name of religion doesn't mean that it is religion that is evil.

[yet he didn't.

Originally posted by Deja~vu
yet he didn't.

How so? As far as every prophecy made about him was concerned (which is all of the prophecy in general) he did fulfill it. As well as the mosaic law. Again I ask, how did he not?

wasn't one of the things the Jewish messiah was supposed to do was destroy Rome and liberate the Jews ?

though Jesus himself predicted there would be no stone left in the Temple which is quite impressive

Originally posted by 123KID
wasn't one of the things the Jewish messiah was supposed to do was destroy Rome and liberate the Jews ?

though Jesus himself predicted there would be no stone left in the Temple which is quite impressive

It was an interpretation. that their Messiah would be a king to liberate them from slavery. Christ was King, and from a slavery he did free us, but his kingdom was not of this earth and freedom from the Romans was not the slavery he delivered us from.

Originally posted by 123KID
wasn't one of the things the Jewish messiah was supposed to do was destroy Rome and liberate the Jews ?

though Jesus himself predicted there would be no stone left in the Temple which is quite impressive Could you please list them?

list what ?

Originally posted by Deja~vu
The church has dirtied it's hands so much in religious history that I wouldn't trust it. I would go on my GUT feelings.

I think the church was probably acting on its gut feelings, too.

I see the Christ of the Christian religion as the AntiMessiah that all the prophets and apostles wrote about.

Okieshowedem

is it just me....or does okie start really bad threads?

Originally posted by chickenlover98
is it just me....or does okie start really bad threads?

Every leap year somebody starts a good thread. For the most part, threads tend to be pointless.

Originally posted by Quark_666
Every leap year somebody starts a good thread. For the most part, threads tend to be pointless.

ok let me rephrase: is it just me or does okie start exceptionally bad threads?

Originally posted by chickenlover98
ok let me rephrase: is it just me or does okie start exceptionally bad threads?

I don't think it would be politically correct for me to answer that one

Originally posted by Quark_666
I don't think it would be politically correct for me to answer that one

cl98

My post are only bad for Chistians who have no answers.

Okie

Originally posted by AOR
I personally believe they'd belong to Catholicism. Given the history of the church and how everything branched from said church.

Not really. Orthodoxy was the original Church, and therefore older than Catholicism. If anything, Catholicism branched off from Mainstream Christianity.

Originally posted by Okieshowedem
My post are only bad for Chistians who have no answers.

Don't push me or I'll give you answers.

The Old Testament contains hundreds of prophecies concerning the coming Messiah, and Jesus fills the void (like hand in glove); Jesus came as the "living" Word of God--to teach the truth--and bear the sins of mankind. For further consideration, read Isaiah 53:1-12, written 7 centuries before Jesus we born.



Jesus--God incarnate--had a mission to redeem mankind; period. Jesus did not have faith in the manner in which you propose. Jesus always spoke in "His" Father's name. Jesus is the ultimate revelation of truth. Jesus also spoke on His own authority and proved He was the Son of God by means of resurrection.



This completely underminds the "origins" of the Christian Church; if the resurrection had not occurred, the Christian Church would be non-existent, not to mentin vain. And keep in mind, specifically about the passage below, the book of Corinthians was written (about) 3 centuries before Constantine was in power.

"And if Christ has not been raised, then our preaching is vain, your faith also is vain" (1 Corinthians 15:14).

Originally posted by ushomefree
The Old Testament contains hundreds of prophecies concerning the coming Messiah, and Jesus fills the void (like hand in glove); Jesus came as the "living" Word of God--to teach the truth--and bear the sins of mankind. For further consideration, read Isaiah 53:1-12, written 7 centuries before Jesus we born.



Jesus--God incarnate--had a mission to redeem mankind; period. Jesus did not have faith in the manner in which you propose. Jesus always spoke in "His" Father's name. Jesus is the ultimate revelation of truth. Jesus also spoke on His own authority and proved He was the Son of God by means of resurrection.



This completely underminds the "origins" of the Christian Church; if the resurrection had not occurred, the Christian Church would be non-existent, not to mentin vain. And keep in mind, specifically about the passage below, the book of Corinthians was written (about) 3 centuries before Constantine was in power.

"And if Christ has not been raised, then our preaching is vain, your faith also is vain" (1 Corinthians 15:14). Chuck Norris >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>jesus

EDIT: know what i challenge you to disprove chuck norris being the only god.

Originally posted by chickenlover98
Chuck Norris >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>jesus

EDIT: know what i challenge you to disprove chuck norris being the only god. ya thats right run from my challenge like the coward you are

Originally posted by chickenlover98
ya thats right run from my challenge like the coward you are

Talking to yourself again?

There can be little doubt the Apostles and Prophets would identify with the Christian religion today. Many of them gave their lives in honor of their Messiah.

The more pointed question might be: Who's branch of Christianity would they join, if any?

Would they be Roman Catholic, or Eastern Orthodox, or Protestant? If Protestant, then which denomination? Would they choose one of the more fundamental groups, or liberal, or somewhere in between? Would they choose a more evangelical group, or a more charismatic variety, or found a new group of their own? Would they infiltrate any number of different groups and go about setting them straight?

I'm not sure I can answer this question with objective accuracy; each Christian sect dogmatically claims the Apostles and Prophets as their own. But suffice it to say, a great many of us might be surprised.

Originally posted by lil bitchiness
Not really. Orthodoxy was the original Church, and therefore older than Catholicism. If anything, Catholicism branched off from Mainstream Christianity.

I've heard catholics say the same about the Orthodox. I know it's related to the two popes, any reason in particular you say it is the catholics who split?

Every brand of this religion rejects the teaching of the prophets and the TRUE MESSIAH'S apostles.
Read 1 John then ask yourself as a Christian do I do these things?
If you tell the turh you will say NO!


Okieshowedem

The obvious answer is the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints because we believe in the same appointments tp priesthood offices as Jesus' appointments.

In fact, Joseph Smith was given the priesthood by Peter, James, John and John the Baptist.


All Mormon doctrine aside, it would seem they would affiliate with the church that best personified Jesus Christ's teachings. One could review all of the doctrine's specific to Christ's teachings and compare that to a modern religion and conclude which one best fits the bill. This would probably have to be done by an objective third party, like atheist or Muslim scholars of religion.

Originally posted by dadudemon
The obvious answer is the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints because we believe in the same appointments tp priesthood offices as Jesus' appointments.

In fact, Joseph Smith was given the priesthood by Peter, James, John and John the Baptist.


All Mormon doctrine aside, it would seem they would affiliate with the church that best personified Jesus Christ's teachings. One could review all of the doctrine's specific to Christ's teachings and compare that to a modern religion and conclude which one best fits the bill. This would probably have to be done by an objective third party, like atheist or Muslim scholars of religion.


What makes you think Atheists and Muslims are objective?

Originally posted by Tim Rout

What makes you think Atheists and Muslims are objective?

Because they don't favor one Christian sect above another.

Originally posted by dadudemon
All Mormon doctrine aside, it would seem they would affiliate with the church that best personified Jesus Christ's teachings.

How does that make sense, particularly from a mormon?

Originally posted by lil bitchiness
Not really. Orthodoxy was the original Church, and therefore older than Catholicism. If anything, Catholicism branched off from Mainstream Christianity.
Your argument is inherently flawed, since Catholicism was and is the only church that Jesus Christ founded; therefore your argument that Catholicism is a branch of mainstream Christianity is absurd. In fact, the Church was re-named the Catholic Church in order to differentiate itself from heretical and schismatic sects (such as Eastern Orthodox). The reason that the Eastern Orthodox cannot possibly be the true Church (and the same applies with all other protestant denominations) is that they break from apostolic succession (every member of the Catholic Clergy can trace his ordination to Peter being ordained as the first pope of the Church, "And so I say to you, upon this rock I shall build my Church" (Matthew 16:18). Christ at this point is talking to Peter, and furthermore Peter as a name literally translates to "The Rock", so by using logical reasoning, it can be deduced that Peter was the first "Head" of the Church. From there he went around ordaining bishops and priests and now all priests and Catholic clergy can trace back to Peter. This is what gives them the true communion. The Eastern Orthodox broke from that succession when they schismed from the Church and instead of following the apostolic line, committed excommunicable heresy in ordaining bishops out of the line of apostolic succession through the Emperor and his officials; therefore they are one of the first "protestant" break-offs of Catholicism, not the other way around.

Originally posted by Transfinitum
Your argument is inherently flawed, since Catholicism was and is the only church that Jesus Christ founded; therefore your argument that Catholicism is a branch of mainstream Christianity is absurd. In fact, the Church was re-named the Catholic Church in order to differentiate itself from heretical and schismatic sects (such as Eastern Orthodox). The reason that the Eastern Orthodox cannot possibly be the true Church (and the same applies with all other protestant denominations) is that they break from apostolic succession (every member of the Catholic Clergy can trace his ordination to Peter being ordained as the first pope of the Church, "And so I say to you, upon this rock I shall build my Church" (Matthew 16:18). Christ at this point is talking to Peter, and furthermore Peter as a name literally translates to "The Rock", so by using logical reasoning, it can be deduced that Peter was the first "Head" of the Church. From there he went around ordaining bishops and priests and now all priests and Catholic clergy can trace back to Peter. This is what gives them the true communion. The Eastern Orthodox broke from that succession when they schismed from the Church and instead of following the apostolic line, committed excommunicable heresy in ordaining bishops out of the line of apostolic succession through the Emperor and his officials; therefore they are one of the first "protestant" break-offs of Catholicism, not the other way around. Sounds like pretty good politics to me.

Originally posted by Quark_666
Sounds like pretty good politics to me.

If the great apostle Kepha ( Peter ) for those who are deceived ) was the first Pope then all the prophets and apostles LIED!


Okieshowdem

Originally posted by Okieshowedem
Would a prophet or an apostles belong to any of the many Christian religions we have today?


Okieshowedem

* yes, in the Bible... the 1st century Christians, prophets and apostles are in Christianity... and to be specific, they are members of the Church of God in the Bible, and not in the Roman Catholic Church...

Originally posted by Okieshowedem
If the great apostle Kepha ( Peter ) for those who are deceived ) was the first Pope then all the prophets and apostles LIED!


Okieshowdem

* Saint Peter is not Catholic's first pope... he is not a member of the Catholic Church... he is a member of the Church of God in the Bible...

* you see, the popes have many titles... two of them are "Most Holy Father" and "Vicarius Filii Dei" (Substitute of the Son of God)... in the Bible, Saint Peter clearly rejects worship from fellow people... given the doctrine given to him by Christ, it's impossible for Peter to accept those titles...

Originally posted by peejayd
* yes, in the Bible... the 1st century Christians, prophets and apostles are in Christianity... and to be specific, they are members of the Church of God in the Bible, and not in the Roman Catholic Church...

This so called "Church of God in the Bible", as you call it, became the Roman Catholic Church years later.

All Christian are Catholics sad thing they do not know it!


Okieshowedem

^^ Very true with expceptions of course. Same tree but different limb.


Originally posted by Quark_666
Don't push me or I'll give you answers.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
This so called "Church of God in the Bible", as you call it, became the Roman Catholic Church years later.

* no, that's only a stupid "claim" of Catholics... heck, the word "Catholic" itself is not Biblical... the plain truth of it, is the doctrine... see te big difference...

Originally posted by peejayd
* no, that's only a stupid "claim" of Catholics... heck, the word "Catholic" itself is not Biblical... the plain truth of it, is the doctrine... see te big difference...

Does the word Christian even appear in the Bible?

* of course...

Where?

* Acts 11:26, Acts 26:28, I Peter 4:16... I Corinthians 14:16 (Darby), I Peter 4:14 (Contemporary English)... other versions have many more...

Originally posted by peejayd
* no, that's only a stupid "claim" of Catholics... heck, the word "Catholic" itself is not Biblical... the plain truth of it, is the doctrine... see te big difference...

So, you have no knowledge of history. There was a time when there was only one Christian church, and that church became the Catholic church.

* you have no knowledge of how the Catholics pretended to be the continuation of Christianity in the Bible...

Originally posted by peejayd
* you have no knowledge of how the Catholics pretended to be the continuation of Christianity in the Bible...

But I do know how Protestants separated from the Catholic Church. If you are a Protestant and you believe that the Catholic Church is a pretend church, then what does that say about you?

Originally posted by WrathfulDwarf
Apostles maybe...Prophets can come from other religions.
Sorry but Prophets are also apart of our religion. as an matter of fact I have both an Apostle and a Prophet in my church. People lets not for get women can be Prophets also

Originally posted by Shalimar_fox
Sorry but Prophets are also apart of our religion. as an matter of fact I have both an Apostle and a Prophet in my church. People lets not for get women can be Prophets also

What religion is that?

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
But I do know how Protestants separated from the Catholic Church. If you are a Protestant and you believe that the Catholic Church is a pretend church, then what does that say about you?

* there are many beliefs, and what better to believe in? for me, the Bible... the doctrines of Christ in the Bible is very different from Catholicism and even Protestantism... both Catholics and Protestants are not continuation of Christianity in the 1st century...

Originally posted by peejayd
* there are many beliefs, and what better to believe in? for me, the Bible... the doctrines of Christ in the Bible is very different from Catholicism and even Protestantism... both Catholics and Protestants are not continuation of Christianity in the 1st century...

May I ask you what religion you are? In other words, what denomination are you?

* none, in regards to Catholicism and Protestantism... but in terms of belief, i always have faith in the Bible, so i might fill in as sola scriptura...

Originally posted by peejayd
* none, in regards to Catholicism and Protestantism... but in terms of belief, i always have faith in the Bible, so i might fill in as sola scriptura...

Is this supposed to be an answer to my question? If so, I don't understand it. I just want to know what your denomination is so I can look it up and have a better idea of what you believe in your religion.

Originally posted by Okieshowedem
Would a prophet or an apostles belong to any of the many Christian religions we have today?


Okieshowedem

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.

Originally posted by Grand_Moff_Gav
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.

I'm hearing a maybe.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
I'm hearing a maybe.

Its an absolute.

Originally posted by Grand_Moff_Gav
Its an absolute.

An absolute maybe?

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
An absolute maybe?


........yes!

Originally posted by Okieshowedem
Would a prophet or an apostles belong to any of the many Christian religions we have today?


Okieshowedem

I dont know that they would belong to any specific denomination. I think they would just be preaching the word of God.

How very sad that ALL Christians do not know they too are part of the Catholic religion which is Satan inspired.



http://www.yahweh.com



Okieshowedem

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
So, you have no knowledge of history. There was a time when there was only one Christian church, and that church became the Catholic church.

No. If anything that church became the Orthodox Church.

Hardly...

Originally posted by RocasAtoll
No. If anything that church became the Orthodox Church. Pretty true. The Orthodox Church was more original to the teaching, however, that still says nothing about any truth of it all. The only truth it explains are the ones implemented by the church its self.

And for a Satan? HAHAHAHAHA...The biggest lie of all. If the church can keep a Satan and a Hell alive then we need a savior. That is their great marketing tool...

It kinda deviated on a big detail though...

Originally posted by Grand_Moff_Gav
It kinda deviated on a big detail though... Which one?

Originally posted by Deja~vu
Which one?

Petrine Primacy

Yeah so the Catholics say it's Peter. Why? Cause he stated a sentence about a rock?

How about "Jesus is the corner stone." So, it's Jesus, not Peter. Jesus never appointed Peter to anything.

Originally posted by Grand_Moff_Gav
Petrine Primacy
It doesn't steer away from that. The big difference is if Apostolic Succession works for the Popes, which IMO does not. The Eastern Churches were first and had a larger connection to the Apostles as a whole.

I dunno. But they believe in Christ. But that's what Christianity is all about, the belief in Christ.

Originally posted by Deja~vu
Yeah so the Catholics say it's Peter. Why? Cause he stated a sentence about a rock?

How about "Jesus is the corner stone." So, it's Jesus, not Peter. Jesus never appointed Peter to anything.

The actual line from matthew 16:18 is "Tu es Petrus et super hanc petram aedificabo ecclesiam meam"
Looking at the latin itself one can see the difficulty in translating what each word comes out to in english (Peter's name literally translates to rock)

Petrus/Petram; you see the similarity?

It is almost certain that Jesus was referring to Peter as the rock upon which he will build His Church, or even referring directly to Peter.

Furthermore on the idea that the Eastern Orthodox Church was the true Church, one only needs to look to the next line, "Whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven." This means that Peter and his direct successors, the Popes, have direct athority from Jesus Christ to teach to the Church. When the Eastern Church broke from the apostolic succession of Peter by following the Patriarch, they lost all of their authority from Jesus Christ. This line also explains the rarely used Doctrine of Infallibility, for Christ allowed Peter and his direct successors to "bind what must be bound in heaven".

One may believe in Christ, but if one ignores his teachings about His one Church, then their belief is in vain.

The Church that Jesus founded was the one Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church.

Originally posted by Transfinitum
The actual line from matthew 16:18 is "Tu es Petrus et super hanc petram aedificabo ecclesiam meam"
Looking at the latin itself one can see the difficulty in translating what each word comes out to in english (Peter's name literally translates to rock)

Petrus/Petram; you see the similarity?
When you want to prove something with a later translation, you go back to Greek not Latin. In Greek, it's actually pretty different from Latin.

Originally posted by Transfinitum
Furthermore on the idea that the Eastern Orthodox Church was the true Church, one only needs to look to the next line, "Whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven." This means that Peter and his direct successors, the Popes, have direct athority from Jesus Christ to teach to the Church. When the Eastern Church broke from the apostolic succession of Peter by following the Patriarch, they lost all of their authority from Jesus Christ. This line also explains the rarely used Doctrine of Infallibility, for Christ allowed Peter and his direct successors to "bind what must be bound in heaven".
Why are the Popes his direct descendants? The majority were in no Apostolic or holy, and they came way after the Patriarchs of the Eastern Church, meaning they had much less claim to be descending from the beginning church because the first churches were in the East, not West.
Originally posted by Transfinitum
The Church that Jesus founded was the one Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church.
And yet, not one of those words is use to describe the Church in the Bible. Hm.

Originally posted by RocasAtoll
Why are the Popes his direct descendants? The majority were in no Apostolic or holy, and they came way after the Patriarchs of the Eastern Church, meaning they had much less claim to be descending from the beginning church because the first churches were in the East, not West.

She said successors not descendants. It's pretty obvious the popes are not from the same family line but each follows another successively as pope.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
She said successors not descendants. It's pretty obvious the popes are not from the same family line but each follows another successively as pope.
Meant spiritual descendant.

Originally posted by RocasAtoll
When you want to prove something with a later translation, you go back to Greek not Latin. In Greek, it's actually pretty different from Latin.

>>Then go back to Aramaic, if you so please. The point is, Peter's name literally translates to rock, and the latin (which happens to be a closer translation to the original aramaic) exemplifies this.


Originally posted by RocasAtoll
Why are the Popes his direct descendants? The majority were in no Apostolic or holy, and they came way after the Patriarchs of the Eastern Church, meaning they had much less claim to be descending from the beginning church because the first churches were in the East, not West.

The popes are Peters descendants because Peter went around to Jews and Gentiles and made them bishops and priests in the Church. From there, those bishops went on to consecrate other bishops and priests etc. So, in effect, all Catholic clergymen can trace their ordination to Peter, the popes no exception.

Also, I find it hilarious, yet somewhat sad that you believe that the patriarchs of the Eastern Church came before the popes. Let me refresh your history. The pope of the Church that directly followed St. Peter , St. Linus reigned from 67-76 AD (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/12272b.htm). At that time THERE WAS NO PATRIARCH. And even after the patriarch came into existence after the conversion of Rome, the entire Church was unified under the Pope. When the Eastern Church schismed , they followed the patriarch and consecrated orthodox bishops, thusly breaking apostolic succession.

Originally posted by RocasAtoll
And yet, not one of those words is use to describe the Church in the Bible. Hm.

The Catholic Church was only changed in name to differentiate itself from the heretical schismatics that were polluting the name of Christ by calling themselves "Christian". Also, Christ's Church is indeed holy, as well as apostolic, for the true Church gained its authority directly from Christ.

Remember, Christ repeatedly in the Bible asks the people to come into His flock; His Church. Sola Scriptura; more like Sorta Scriptura!

Originally posted by Transfinitum
>>Then go back to Aramaic, if you so please. The point is, Peter's name literally translates to rock, and the latin (which happens to be a closer translation to the original aramaic) exemplifies this.
What I heard must be wrong then. From what I was told, it was mistranslated and did not literally mean rock.
Originally posted by Transfinitum
The popes are Peters descendants because Peter went around to Jews and Gentiles and made them bishops and priests in the Church. From there, those bishops went on to consecrate other bishops and priests etc. So, in effect, all Catholic clergymen can trace their ordination to Peter, the popes no exception.
And Orthodox clergy can trace their ordination to the other Apostles, of which there are more than just Peter.
Originally posted by Transfinitum
Also, I find it hilarious, yet somewhat sad that you believe that the patriarchs of the Eastern Church came before the popes. Let me refresh your history. The pope of the Church that directly followed St. Peter , St. Linus reigned from 67-76 AD (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/12272b.htm). At that time THERE WAS NO PATRIARCH. And even after the patriarch came into existence after the conversion of Rome, the entire Church was unified under the Pope. When the Eastern Church schismed , they followed the patriarch and consecrated orthodox bishops, thusly breaking apostolic succession.
Yes, there were no patriarchs. There were the Bishops and dioceses that were established well before St. Linus set up a real diocese or church in Rome. These Bishops were the predecessors of the patriarchs, and were well before Popes were fully established in Rome.
Originally posted by Transfinitum
The Catholic Church was only changed in name to differentiate itself from the heretical schismatics that were polluting the name of Christ by calling themselves "Christian". Also, Christ's Church is indeed holy, as well as apostolic, for the true Church gained its authority directly from Christ.
But the Catholic Church is not biblical, so I'm sorry, but it is not the biblical church. None of the sects around after the Apostles were the biblical church. They were their own denominations.

No. Unless you you can prove otherwise. They did believe in Christ, but they never regarded him as God. For them, God is Yahweh

you ask someone to prove otherwise a thing you cant prove yourself???

Originally posted by RocasAtoll
What I heard must be wrong then. From what I was told, it was mistranslated and did not literally mean rock.

You might have heard it meant pebble but it doesn't. Do you wish for me to go into that in more detail or is my word enough?

Originally posted by RocasAtoll
And Orthodox clergy can trace their ordination to the other Apostles, of which there are more than just Peter.

Indeed, I believe the Church does recognise some of the Eastern Orthodox as valid but illicitly ordained as Bishops.

Yes, there were no patriarchs. There were the Bishops and dioceses that were established well before St. Linus set up a real diocese or church in Rome. These Bishops were the predecessors of the patriarchs, and were well before Popes were fully established in Rome.

Originally posted by RocasAtoll
But the Catholic Church is not biblical, so I'm sorry, but it is not the biblical church. None of the sects around after the Apostles were the biblical church. They were their own denominations.

How is it not Biblical?

Originally posted by occultdestroyer
No. Unless you you can prove otherwise. They did believe in Christ, but they never regarded him as God. For them, God is Yahweh Please define "Christ" or "Yahweh."

they are both or they are separate? They are different from each other?

Originally posted by Grand_Moff_Gav
You might have heard it meant pebble but it doesn't. Do you wish for me to go into that in more detail or is my word enough?
No, I believe you. Again, I guess I was told wrong.
Originally posted by Grand_Moff_Gav
Indeed, I believe the Church does recognize some of the Eastern Orthodox as valid but illicitly ordained as Bishops.
I don't see why. The Bishops that were established (Antioch, Jerusalem, Constantinople, etc.) were taught by the Apostles and in all likeliness ordained.
Originally posted by Grand_Moff_Gav
How is it not Biblical?
The idea of tradition taking over scripture significantly, the Pope, Cardinals, etc. Too much extra.

Gosh darn, these puppets are just everywhere....

Originally posted by RocasAtoll
I don't see why. The Bishops that were established (Antioch, Jerusalem, Constantinople, etc.) were taught by the Apostles and in all likeliness ordained.
If a Bishop is ordained without the consent of the Holy See that Bishop is seen to be out of Communion with the Holy Church and thus, not a true Bishop.

Originally posted by RocasAtoll
The idea of tradition taking over scripture significantly, the Pope, Cardinals, etc. Too much extra.

Sacred Tradition did not take over scriptures...indeed Tradition created the Scripture.

The Bible is quite clear, Peter you are the foundation of my Church. Peter feed my sheep. Peter I give to you the keys to the Kingdom of Heaven. In the Bible Christ creates the Papacy...the Papacy is the living Church...thus is cannot be extra-biblical...indeed to be Catholic is to be purely biblical.

No?
Then explain the baptism and the eating of the flesh. This was actually done literally at one time and then moved to a movement of symbolism..