Unity in the Church.

[All Becomes New]

God's Word is never wrong, I quoted Jesus, not me. Like I said not everyone is interested in biblical Truth, which is why there will never be one united church for everyone on this earth, that will only happen once Jesus comes. Not everyone is willing to compromise God's Truth. The majority are fine coming together and compromising for the sake of unity, but not everyone.

The passage I quoted clearly says, "Until." What do you suppose that word means?

 

[Philip_B]

Achieving unity of faith is easy, become one with the Church that Jesus is building and has been building from the beginning; the Church that has been present from the first century until now in unbroken succession from the apostles.

Do you mean we should all be affiliated with the Patriarch of Antioch?

 

[Xeno.of.athens]

Do you mean we should all be affiliated with the Patriarch of Antioch?

Well, yes, insofar as he is in communion with the Pope in Rome. I do not think that Antioch is the oldest church, wouldn't it be Jerusalem?

 

[Philip_B]

Well, yes, insofar as he is in communion with the Pope in Rome. I do not think that Antioch is the oldest church, wouldn't it be Jerusalem?

The Church in Antioch​

Now those who were scattered because of the persecution that took place over Stephen travelled as far as Phoenicia, Cyprus, and Antioch, and they spoke the word to no one except Jews. But among them were some men of Cyprus and Cyrene who, on coming to Antioch, spoke to the Hellenists also, proclaiming the Lord Jesus. The hand of the Lord was with them, and a great number became believers and turned to the Lord. News of this came to the ears of the church in Jerusalem, and they sent Barnabas to Antioch. When he came and saw the grace of God, he rejoiced, and he exhorted them all to remain faithful to the Lord with steadfast devotion; for he was a good man, full of the Holy Spirit and of faith. And a great many people were brought to the Lord. Then Barnabas went to Tarsus to look for Saul, and when he had found him, he brought him to Antioch. So it was that for an entire year they associated with the church and taught a great many people, and it was in Antioch that the disciples were first called ‘Christians’.​

Acts 11:19-26​

I tend to think that Jerusalem precedes Antioch. The matter of communion with Rome of course is based on the interpretation of scripture and how one is to understand certain actions in Church History including the canons of the 1st Council of Constantinople. I recognise and respect your position on this matter, although I believe those things may be understood in a different light.

 

[Xeno.of.athens]

The Church in Antioch​

Now those who were scattered because of the persecution that took place over Stephen travelled as far as Phoenicia, Cyprus, and Antioch, and they spoke the word to no one except Jews. But among them were some men of Cyprus and Cyrene who, on coming to Antioch, spoke to the Hellenists also, proclaiming the Lord Jesus. The hand of the Lord was with them, and a great number became believers and turned to the Lord. News of this came to the ears of the church in Jerusalem, and they sent Barnabas to Antioch. When he came and saw the grace of God, he rejoiced, and he exhorted them all to remain faithful to the Lord with steadfast devotion; for he was a good man, full of the Holy Spirit and of faith. And a great many people were brought to the Lord. Then Barnabas went to Tarsus to look for Saul, and when he had found him, he brought him to Antioch. So it was that for an entire year they associated with the church and taught a great many people, and it was in Antioch that the disciples were first called ‘Christians’.​

Acts 11:19-26​

I tend to think that Jerusalem precedes Antioch. The matter of communion with Rome of course is based on the interpretation of scripture and how one is to understand certain actions in Church History including the canons of the 1st Council of Constantinople. I recognise and respect your position on this matter, although I believe those things may be understood in a different light.

Almost everything in Christian theology may be understood in a different light; that is why Christians have so many theologies.

 

[The Liturgist]

That is the wrong answer. The correct answer is "Yes."

On this we agree. Through careful discernment however it has become apparent to me which forms of Christianity can be considered true, for example, Eastern and Oriental Orthodoxy, high church Anglicanism, and other forms of traditional Christianity. Basically any group one is likely to encounter in the “Traditional Theology” subforum that continues in the liturgical tradition of the Early Church. And thus I tirelessly advocate the restoration of communion between these ancient churches.

 

[The Liturgist]

The Church in Antioch​

Now those who were scattered because of the persecution that took place over Stephen travelled as far as Phoenicia, Cyprus, and Antioch, and they spoke the word to no one except Jews. But among them were some men of Cyprus and Cyrene who, on coming to Antioch, spoke to the Hellenists also, proclaiming the Lord Jesus. The hand of the Lord was with them, and a great number became believers and turned to the Lord. News of this came to the ears of the church in Jerusalem, and they sent Barnabas to Antioch. When he came and saw the grace of God, he rejoiced, and he exhorted them all to remain faithful to the Lord with steadfast devotion; for he was a good man, full of the Holy Spirit and of faith. And a great many people were brought to the Lord. Then Barnabas went to Tarsus to look for Saul, and when he had found him, he brought him to Antioch. So it was that for an entire year they associated with the church and taught a great many people, and it was in Antioch that the disciples were first called ‘Christians’.​

Acts 11:19-26​

I tend to think that Jerusalem precedes Antioch. The matter of communion with Rome of course is based on the interpretation of scripture and how one is to understand certain actions in Church History including the canons of the 1st Council of Constantinople. I recognise and respect your position on this matter, although I believe those things may be understood in a different light.

Jerusalem preceded Antioch, but since the city was largely destroyed in 130 AD due to the Bar Kochba revolt, with the Jews being expelled, the Church in Aeolia Capitolina as it was called became inactive until the city was rebuilt in the fourth century by St. Helena, the Christian mother of St. Constantine. Canon VII of the Council of Nicaea makes the Hagiopolitan church autocephalous, having the same rights and privileges of Rome, Alexandria and Antioch, and the status of Alexandria and Antioch as being equivalent to Rome in status and privilege was affirmed by Canon VI. Thus the order of precedence among the ancient churches was Rome and Constantinople (New Rome), followed by Alexandria, followed by Antioch, followed by Jerusalem, followed by Cyprus, whose church was not one of the major patriarchs of antiquity, but it was always autocephalous. This remained the order of precedence for some time, until additional patriarchates were created, for example, in Belgrade, Moscow, Bucharest and Sophia.

 

[All Becomes New]

On this we agree. Through careful discernment however it has become apparent to me which forms of Christianity can be considered true, for example, Eastern and Oriental Orthodoxy, high church Anglicanism, and other forms of traditional Christianity. Basically any group one is likely to encounter in the “Traditional Theology” subforum that continues in the liturgical tradition of the Early Church. And thus I tirelessly advocate the restoration of communion between these ancient churches.

Those liturgies took time to develop. In other words, they did not always exist. Christ never intended for His church to be a set of traditions. That is why he rebukes the Pharisees in Mark 7 (and elsewhere). Jesus put primacy on the Word of God.

Plus, when the church was first starting they did not have fancy buildings. They met from house to house. Therefore, a high church, no matter how desirable you think it is, is not necessary.

 

[The Liturgist]

Those liturgies took time to develop. In other words, they did not always exist. Christ never intended for His church to be a set of traditions. That is why he rebukes the Pharisees in Mark 7 (and elsewhere). Jesus put primacy on the Word of God.

Firstly, wrong, the oldest liturgies we have date from the first century, and secondly, that’s an eisegesis which I debunked in another thread, the Mark 7:13 eisegesis, which requires one to ignore several other passages from elsewhere in scripture which imbue tradition with authority. So read my posts in the thread by @Ain't Zwinglian on commonly abused verses of scripture, in Denomination Specific Theology, and respond there, if you really want to debate that with somebody - probably not me, because the traditional churches have been thoroughly vindicated by scripture, and members of the traditional churches like myself are tired of people besmirching our faith on the basis of, among other things, the eisegetical misreading of a passage of scripture that by your own admission addressed the Pharisees, one that ignores what St. Paul wrote in three other epistles.

Also, Jesus Christ is the Word of God, according to John 1:1-18, and the New Testament canon was not even finalized until the late fourth century, when St. Athanasius, the Pope of Alexandria, who defended the doctrine of the Trinity at the Council of Nicaea and was then exiled by Constantius, the heir of Emperor Constantine, who had been converted from Christianity to Arianism, and remained in exile until the 460s, in his 39th Paschal Encyclical, became the first to outline the 27 books of the New Testament we regard as canonical.

Plus, when the church was first starting they did not have fancy buildings. They met from house to house. Therefore, a high church, no matter how desirable you think it is, is not necessary.

Firstly, that’s not what “High Church” means. The term “High Church” has no relationship to architecture - I know High Church Anglicans who celebrate the liturgy in their living room.

Secondly, world’s oldest surviving cathedral was built in 53 AD and thus predates most of the books of the New Testament. And the three most splendid cathedrals in existence, the Holy Sepulchre in Jerusalem, Holy Etchmiadzin in Armenia and Hagia Sophia in Constantinople, were built in phases starting in the fourth century, with most of the current structure of Hagia Sophia and Holy Etchmiadzin dating from the sixth century..

But I am glad that we have continued to glorify God by building ever grander and more beautiful churches, both on a small scale in the form of glorious chapels, and on a large scale in the form of splendid cathedrals, and its a pity you are unable or unwilling to recognize how architecture can be used to glorify Christ our True God.

 

[All Becomes New]

that’s an eisegesis which I debunked in another thread, the Mark 7:13 eisegesis,

I used that verse as an example. There are plenty more examples.

John 7:21-24
"“I performed one work, and you are all amazed,” Jesus answered. “This is why Moses has given you circumcision—not that it comes from Moses but from the fathers—and you circumcise a man on the Sabbath. If a man receives circumcision on the Sabbath so that the law of Moses won’t be broken, are you angry at me because I made a man entirely well on the Sabbath? Stop judging according to outward appearances; rather judge according to righteous judgment.”"

Luke 14:1-6
"One Sabbath, when he went in to eat at the house of one of the leading Pharisees, they were watching him closely. There in front of him was a man whose body was swollen with fluid. In response, Jesus asked the law experts and the Pharisees, “Is it lawful to heal on the Sabbath or not?” But they kept silent. He took the man, healed him, and sent him away. And to them, he said, “Which of you whose son or ox falls into a well, will not immediately pull him out on the Sabbath day?” They could find no answer to these things."

Etc.

elsewhere in scripture which imbue tradition with authority.

That authority is gone since the Apostles are dead. There is nothing about succession of Apostleship in the Bible. The Bible is the deposit that Christ gave us by His Apostles as first-hand eyewitnesses. As such, there is no one preaching with that authority anymore.

became the first to outline the 27 books of the New Testament we regard as canonical.

The 27 books were recognized as Scripture far before they were ever canonized. Besides, canonization is not necessary, that is, a formal list that is authoritative. No, the Catholic church did not give us the Bible. The books of the Bible were recognized far before there ever was a "canon." The Bible is a fallible list of infallible books, not the other way around.

Secondly, world’s oldest surviving cathedral was built in 53 AD

I'm going to need a source for this.

fourth century

Which is far too late IMO. Just think about how much our world has changed in the last 20 years. And you expect me to think that 400 years is a short period of time? Ha!

 

[Ain't Zwinglian]

Firstly, wrong, the oldest liturgies we have date from the first century, and secondly, that’s an eisegesis which I debunked in another thread, the Mark 7:13 eisegesis, which requires one to ignore several other passages from elsewhere in scripture which imbue tradition with authority. So read my posts in the thread by @Ain't Zwinglian on commonly abused verses of scripture, in Denomination Specific Theology, and respond there, if you really want to debate that with somebody - probably not me, because the traditional churches have been thoroughly vindicated by scripture, and members of the traditional churches like myself are tired of people besmirching our faith on the basis of, among other things, the eisegetical misreading of a passage of scripture that by your own admission addressed the Pharisees, one that ignores what St. Paul wrote in three other epistles.

Also, Jesus Christ is the Word of God, according to John 1:1-18, and the New Testament canon was not even finalized until the late fourth century, when St. Athanasius, the Pope of Alexandria, who defended the doctrine of the Trinity at the Council of Nicaea and was then exiled by Constantius, the heir of Emperor Constantine, who had been converted from Christianity to Arianism, and remained in exile until the 460s, in his 39th Paschal Encyclical, became the first to outline the 27 books of the New Testament we regard as canonical.



Firstly, that’s not what “High Church” means. The term “High Church” has no relationship to architecture - I know High Church Anglicans who celebrate the liturgy in their living room.

Secondly, world’s oldest surviving cathedral was built in 53 AD and thus predates most of the books of the New Testament. And the three most splendid cathedrals in existence, the Holy Sepulchre in Jerusalem, Holy Etchmiadzin in Armenia and Hagia Sophia in Constantinople, were built in phases starting in the fourth century, with most of the current structure of Hagia Sophia and Holy Etchmiadzin dating from the sixth century..

But I am glad that we have continued to glorify God by building ever grander and more beautiful churches, both on a small scale in the form of glorious chapels, and on a large scale in the form of splendid cathedrals, and its a pity you are unable or unwilling to recognize how architecture can be used to glorify Christ our True God.

Yes, you are the Renaissance man of the Christian liturgies.

 

[The Liturgist]

That authority is gone since the Apostles are dead.

Ah, the myth Great Apostasy already happened and is non-eschatological.

The 27 books were recognized as Scripture far before they were ever canonized.

There was no consensus on which books were Scripture, and no one proposed that specific list before St. Athanasius (Eusebius came close). The closest thing to a canon before Athanasius was the 22 book Peshitta canon, which was good but not great. Everything either had too much, or too little.

No, the Catholic church did not give us the Bible.

I never said it did, if by Catholic you mean “Roman Catholic.” St. Athanasius was the first among equals among the bishops of the Church of Alexandria, whose modern day successors are the Greek Orthodox Church of Alexandria and the Coptic Orthodox Church of Alexandria, neither of which has ever been a part of the Roman Catholic Church or subordinate to the Pope of Rome. Indeed in the fourth and fifth century the Church of Alexandria was arguably more important than Rome, since it was where the heresies of Arianism and Nestorianism were confronted and ultimately anathematized, largely through the personal efforts of St. Athanasius the Pillar of Orthodoxy when he was protodeacon to St. Alexander of Alexandria, and St. Cyril the Great. But Alexandria was certainly part of the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church confessed in the Nicene Creed.

And that Church, which St. Paul refers to as the Body of Christ, with Christ as its head, in his epistles, for instance, 1 Corinthians, did absolutely give us the Bible. It simply took longer to produce a table of contents, since the Apostles functioned largely indepemdently of each other and it is unclear if any one of the authors of the New Testament had personally read all of the other books we recognize as Inspired by the Holy Spirit. Since the Gospel was first preached, and then written down independently ,which is why we have four canonical Gospels and at least three other texts, one of which survives only in quotations, that may have been legitimate records of it, albeit not on a par with the four canonical Gospels that have survived.

I'm going to need a source for this.

Why?

 

[All Becomes New]

Ah, the myth Great Apostasy already happened and is non-eschatological.

IDK what you are accusing me of exactly, but I think a question here would have been more appropriate.

There was no consensus on which books were Scripture, and no one proposed that specific list before St. Athanasius (Eusebius came close). The closest thing to a canon before Athanasius was the 22 book Peshitta canon, which was good but not great. Everything either had too much, or too little.

If you are going to snip important things from my argument, I am not going to think you are arguing in good faith.

And how far before Athanasius did this little tradition of "First among equals" start?

We pretty much have the entire NT (minus like 5 verses) quoted by the third century quoted as scripture.

I never said it did, if by Catholic you mean “Roman Catholic.” St. Athanasius was the first among equals among the bishops of the Church of Alexandria, whose modern day successors are the Greek Orthodox Church of Alexandria and the Coptic Orthodox Church of Alexandria, neither of which has ever been a part of the Roman Catholic Church or subordinate to the Pope of Rome. Indeed in the fourth and fifth century the Church of Alexandria was arguably more important than Rome, since it was where the heresies of Arianism and Nestorianism were confronted and ultimately anathematized, largely through the personal efforts of St. Athanasius the Pillar of Orthodoxy when he was protodeacon to St. Alexander of Alexandria, and St. Cyril the Great. But Alexandria was certainly part of the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church confessed in the Nicene Creed.

If you are Orthodox, then your canon is different than mine (and less emphasis is put on scripture and the canon thereof anyways).

And that Church, which St. Paul refers to as the Body of Christ, with Christ as its head, in his epistles, for instance, 1 Corinthians, did absolutely give us the Bible. It simply took longer to produce a table of contents, since the Apostles functioned largely indepemdently of each other and it is unclear if any one of the authors of the New Testament had personally read all of the other books we recognize as Inspired by the Holy Spirit. Since the Gospel was first preached, and then written down independently ,which is why we have four canonical Gospels and at least three other texts, one of which survives only in quotations, that may have been legitimate records of it, albeit not on a par with the four canonical Gospels that have survived.

If you are insinuated a "Q" document, I am undecided on that. However I fail to see how this is relevant at all.

Why?

Because I don't believe in having blind faith.

 

[The Liturgist]

If you are Orthodox, then your canon is different than mine (and less emphasis is put on scripture and the canon thereof anyways).

Oh, what books are in your New Testament?

 

[All Becomes New]

Oh, what books are in your New Testament?

If you are not going to answer my questions, why should I answer yours?