The RCC born in 313 AD? (2)

[LittleLambofJesus]

This thread was split automatically after 1000 replies and this thread has been automatically created.
The old thread automatically closed is here: "The RCC born in 313 AD?"

 

[MoreCoffee]

A new world of posts!

The Church in Rome was established in the first century AD that's why the bible has a letter to the Romans in it.

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

A new world of posts!

The Church in Rome was established in the first century AD that's why the bible has a letter to the Romans in it.

Y'alls currency is also mentioned in the book of Revelation

John 11:48
If we may let Him alone thus, all will believe in Him
and shall be coming the Romans, and shall be taking away both our place and nation.

Rev 6:6
And I heard a voice in the midst of the four living creatures saying, "A quart of wheat for a denarius, and three quarts of barley for a denarius,
and do not harm the oil and the wine."

The Destruction of Jerusalem - George Peter Holford, 1805AD

The day on which Titus encompassed Jerusalem was the feast of the Passover.
And it is deserving of the very particular attention of the reader, that this was the anniversary of that memorable period in which the Jews crucified their Messiah! .........................

Denarius - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The word denarius is derived from the Latin dēnī "containing ten", as its value was 10 asses (although in the middle of the 2nd century BC it was recalibrated so that it was now worth sixteen asses or four sestertii; it may also be the origin of the words dinar (see that page for further discussion) and penny.

The denarius continued to be the main coin of the Roman Empire until it was replaced by the antoninianus in the middle of the third century.
The last issuance of this coin occurred in bronze form by Aurelian, between AD 270 and 275, and in the first years of the reign of Diocletian.
For more details, see 'Denarius', in A Dictionary of Ancient Roman Coins, by John R. Melville-Jones (1990).






.

 

[Root of Jesse]

Not exactly the currency of the Church. The Church uses all sorts of currency, and until The Papal States was an entity unto itself (though separate from the Church), didn't have a currency.

Rome <> the Church, The Church <> Rome.

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

Y'alls currency is also mentioned in the book of Revelation

John 11:48
If we may let Him alone thus, all will believe in Him
and shall be coming the Romans, and shall be taking away both our place and nation.

Rev 6:6
And I heard a voice in the midst of the four living creatures saying, "A quart of wheat for a denarius, and three quarts of barley for a denarius,
and do not harm the oil and the wine."

The Destruction of Jerusalem - George Peter Holford, 1805AD

The day on which Titus encompassed Jerusalem was the feast of the Passover.
.

Not exactly the currency of the Church. The Church uses all sorts of currency, and until The Papal States was an entity unto itself (though separate from the Church), didn't have a currency.

Rome <> the Church, The Church <> Rome.

So what specific currency did the Roman church use the most back in the early centuries after Christ?



.

 

[Erose]

Originally Posted by Erose

Except for every denomination to trace themselves back to Christ requires them to go through the Catholic Church.
​

Originally Posted by Albion
Let me correct that for you. Every denomination and communion, yours included, came through the once undivided church of the Apostles.

Now posted by Erose
Talk about reinventing the wheel into a square. Albion, history is not on your side on this. It is as simple as that. Do you know where I first learned that the Catholic Church was the first Church? European and World History and Sociology classes in Public School. History of Religion and Philosophy of Religion (both of which were taught by a Church of Christ minister in a secular university). It wasn't the Catholic Church that taught me this, but our secular schools and universities.

The problem with your assertion is quite simply this. If the Church that Christ established ceased to exist, then that either makes Christ a liar and a false prophet, for He said that He would be with it always; or that the pre-tribulation crowd is right, except for the rapture must have happen over 1500 years ago, which would mean that we are either in hell or we are in the tribulation stages of salvation.

I don't buy either one of those assertions, you can if you wish.

Originally Posted by Erose
The question then are you asking when the 1st major schism occurred? If so there really is no mystery on that one, it was in 451ad.

Originally Posted by Albion
No, that actually isn't the question and I am not the one who created the thread. I would, however, like to discuss the topic. Why does it frighten you so?

Now posted by Erose
Nope not afraid, just confused. I'm confused why some Protestants feel the need to rewrite history just because they hate the pope and the Catholic Church. That strategy IMO is a horse that would not want to bet on. I would change your strategy if I were you.

Like I said in a previous post, the burden of proof is on you guys and I have as of yet in over 1000 posts seen any proof that the historical record is false.

 

[Root of Jesse]

So what specific currency did the Roman church use the most back in the early centuries after Christ?



.

Local. Quite a bit different than it is now, with major currencies in the world. Besides local, I would say that barter was heavily used.

 

[Hentenza]

A new world of posts!

The Church in Rome was established in the first century AD that's why the bible has a letter to the Romans in it.

Yes, the church IN Rome was established in the first century by the visitors from Rome depicted in Acts 2. Glad we can agree on something.

 

[Hentenza]

Not exactly the currency of the Church. The Church uses all sorts of currency, and until The Papal States was an entity unto itself (though separate from the Church), didn't have a currency.

Rome <> the Church, The Church <> Rome.

The currency during the Papal States was land.

 

[Albion]

Originally Posted by Erose

Except for every denomination to trace themselves back to Christ requires them to go through the Catholic Church.
​

Originally Posted by Albion
Let me correct that for you. Every denomination and communion, yours included, came through the once undivided church of the Apostles.

Now posted by Erose
Talk about reinventing the wheel into a square. Albion, history is not on your side on this. It is as simple as that. Do you know where I first learned that the Catholic Church was the first Church? European and World History and Sociology classes in Public School. History of Religion and Philosophy of Religion (both of which were taught by a Church of Christ minister in a secular university). It wasn't the Catholic Church that taught me this, but our secular schools and universities.

Wow, such evidence--your memory of secondary school.

Meanwhile I taught that history and religion IN A CATHOLIC SCHOOL for a career. I think that says all that's necessary.

 

[Erose]

Wow, such evidence--your memory of secondary school.

Meanwhile I taught that history and religion IN A CATHOLIC SCHOOL for a career. I think that says all that's necessary.

Well we do a have problem with a generation of Catholics that were not properly catechized. It looks like we are getting to the root of that problem. Just joking Albion. The point I was making is that the Cathiloc Church being founded by Christ and His Apostles is part of common knowledge.

Being a former history teacher at a Catholic school, you should already know that, right?

 

[Albion]

Well we do a have problem with a generation of Catholics that were not properly catechized. It looks like we are getting to the root of that problem. Just joking Albion. The point I was making is that the Cathiloc Church being founded by Christ and His Apostles is part of common knowledge.

Being a former history teacher at a Catholic school, you should already know that, right?

I know that that's a gross oversimplification or else you misunderstood the material.

 

[Erose]

I know that that's a gross oversimplification or else you misunderstood the material.

Misunderstood? It is all there for those with eyes to see and hearts not harden.

Albion I know who personally established the Church I belong to. It is part of the historical record. I didn't need the Church to tell me my Faith's history. It's in every history book not written by an evangelical. Christ founded my Church and He established Peter and his successors as the rock which He built it on. No matter how much you don't want to believe history, the fact is history doesn't change no matter how much you want it to.

 

[Tzaousios]

Albion I know who personally established the Church I belong to. It is part of the historical record. I didn't need the Church to tell me my Faith's history. It's in every history book not written by an evangelical. Christ founded my Church and He established Peter and his successors as the rock which He built it on. No matter how much you don't want to believe history, the fact is history doesn't change no matter how much you want it to.

What about in history books written by Eastern Orthodox historians?

 

[Erose]

What about in history books written by Eastern Orthodox historians?

What about them? The Catholic and Orthodox Churches were in full Communion at the beginning. We were and truly still are the same Church that Christ founded. Catholics don't deny this and never have. Even though two siblings are having a spat and the stopped sharing the family table together doesn't change the fact that they are still family tied by the common Blood of our Lord.

 

[Tzaousios]

What about them? The Catholic and Orthodox Churches were in full Communion at the beginning. We were and truly still are the same Church that Christ founded. Catholics don't deny this and never have. Even though two siblings are having a spat and the stopped sharing the family table together doesn't change the fact that they are still family tied by the common Blood of our Lord.

Oh, so you meant apostolic succession in general, without reference to St. Peter and the archbishop of Rome as holding primacy over the Church.

 

[Erose]

Oh, so you meant apostolic succession in general, without reference to St. Peter and the archbishop of Rome as holding primacy over the Church.

Apostolic succession shows us the Church.

Look I am not one to say that Protestants don't have a link back to Christ. They do, but it requires most of them to look back through the Roman Church to get there. Let us not forget that the original Reformers all started out Catholic. They weren't make this bold claim that the Catholic Church wasn't founded by Christ. No they claimed this Church was corrupted and needed reforming. If they didn't believe the Church wasn't the true Church, why attempt to reform that which isn't true to begin with?

 

[MoreCoffee]

What about them? The Catholic and Orthodox Churches were in full Communion at the beginning. We were and truly still are the same Church that Christ founded. Catholics don't deny this and never have. Even though two siblings are having a spat and the stopped sharing the family table together doesn't change the fact that they are still family tied by the common Blood of our Lord.

I like the way you put that, "Even though two siblings are having a spat and they've stopped sharing the family table together doesn't change the fact that they are still family tied by the common Blood of our Lord." It created, for me, a rather heart warming image of the situation.

Apostolic succession shows us the Church.

Look I am not one to say that Protestants don't have a link back to Christ. They do, but it requires most of them to look back through the Roman Church to get there. Let us not forget that the original Reformers all started out Catholic. They weren't [making] this bold claim that the Catholic Church wasn't founded by Christ. No they claimed this Church was corrupted and needed reforming. If they didn't believe the Church wasn't the true Church, why attempt to reform that which isn't true to begin with?

A fair point. It is certainly true that in the West of Europe and also in some of the East, where the Catholic Church was numerous, the continuity of apostolic succession within the Catholic Church was a given. And since the founders of the various groups participating in the "Protestant reformation" knew the Catholic Church far better than the Orthodox Church their efforts towards reform were directed only at the Catholic Church. Unfortunately the reform they sought was mainly reform and change of doctrine rather than reform of corruption in practises only. The abuses that they saw were abuses of practise and form but they tried to correct them by changing doctrine - no doubt because they believed that it was doctrine that was the root of the abuses in practise.

 

[Erose]

A fair point. It is certainly true that in the West of Europe and also in some of the East, where the Catholic Church was numerous, the continuity of apostolic succession within the Catholic Church was a given. And since the founders of the various groups participating in the "Protestant reformation" knew the Catholic Church far better than the Orthodox Church their efforts towards reform were directed only at the Catholic Church. Unfortunately the reform they sought was mainly reform and change of doctrine rather than reform of corruption in practises only. The abuses that they saw were abuses of practise and form but they tried to correct them by changing doctrine - no doubt because they believed that it was doctrine that was the root of the abuses in practise.

I think though we need to understand, that originally Luther's intent was true reform, which initially got him the backing of other reformers such as Erasmus; it is only latter when outside political forces applying pressure on Luther that he went away from his original intent and started basically a new church. Zwingli and Calvin, I truly am not sure what their initial intents were, so I won't comment on them.

 

[Albion]

Misunderstood? It is all there for those with eyes to see and hearts not harden.

No, no. We all are aware that the church is known by the marks "One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic." The fact that one denomination uses one of those four terms as part of its name is commonly misunderstood by both members and non-members to mean that the early church was that denomination. Plus, any writer or speaker who uses the wording is liable to being misunderstood because people want to think in black or white terms and often miss the gray areas, or else they see everything through the eyes of today's understandings, not the way people in another era perceived things. But, BTW, we also have denominations that use one of the other three...and their members will argue up and down that this "proves" that the non-denominational church of the first century was actually their denomination. "Just look at the word," they say with confidence. LOL.

Albion I know who personally established the Church I belong to. It is part of the historical record.

You've accepted the claim of that denomination. I'm sure that if you were a Mormon, you'd believe just as strongly that the true church apostasized, only to be restored in the 1820s, or if you were a member of some Baptist denominations you'd be telling me that "it's "history" that the first Christians were Baptists and that there is an unbroken Apostolic Succession connecting them to that church today.