early church

How did the early church start as one and is now lots of different ones?
The early church was originally one but is now lots of groups can you explain this. Thanks.

Apostasy.

(Acts 20:29-30) . . .I know that after my going away oppressive wolves will enter in among YOU and will not treat the flock with tenderness, 30 and from among YOU yourselves men will rise and speak twisted things to draw away the disciples after themselves.

2008-10-05 04:41:50 by japanese spitz lover

The Original Early Church The topic of who the early believers were, where they lived, and just what they taught is very important. We have great ...

What structures emerged in the organization of the early church and how did these continue in their development over the first 3 centuries of Christianity? How were theological and organization disputes resolved and who emerged with principle authority? What reasons were given to justify this? How did Constantine impact the ministry of the church and its significance for Rome and Europe?

The answers will vary depending on your denomination. But objectively, based on the actual documented history...

1) The church employed an episcopalian government at a very early date (within the lifetime of the apostles), that consisted of bishops, deacons, and presbyters.

2) In the first three centuries, the original structure remained intact. There was no clerical hierarchy, but all of the bishops of a province met twice a year as a synod, with the bishop of the largest city acting as Metropolitan. No one emerged with principle authority - that is a myth. No bishop could act without the approval of the metropolitan, and no metropolitan could act without the approval of the synod. The authority of the Pope was severely limitted to his own diocese in no less than two Ecumenical Councils in the 4th century (although the Roman Catholics removed those canons some in middle ages). In the late 4th century, the Pope was granted primacy of honor, but his ecclesiastical jurisdiction was still limited to Italy. Of 318 bishops at Nicea, only 2 represented the Pope. The second Ecumenical Council was covened without the Pope even being notified, and the Council of Chalcedon voted on all issues before awaiting the opinion of the Pope.

3) Disputes were settled in councils, by a majority vote of the bishops present.

4) Constantine offered legal protection for Christians, provided several civil benefits, and took the majority opinions of the bishops as the basis for the official Roman definition of Christianity.

2009-05-05 19:26:26 by maxx

Price: $14.74

The early church "fathers" and "doctors" of Christianity. What did they say about this subject. People such as Augustine, Jerome, John Chrysostom, Cyril of Alexandria, etc.
Mαθητης SFECU: You are exactly right.
Jerome said "But thou says
that church is founded on Peter, albeit the very same thing is also done upon all of the apostles, and they all
receive the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and the strength of the church is established on them all
equally."
Chrysostom said " 'I say unto thee, Thou are Peter, and upon this rock, will I build My church;' that
is, on the faith of his confession."
Augustine said "For it was not said to him, 'Thou are the rock'
(petra), but, ‘Thou art Peter (petros). For Christ was the rock whom Simon confessing, as the whole church
confesses Him."

CJ - you should hold judgment until you know what these men actually said.
Coconut Butter - you should also hold judgment until you read the previous addition.

I do not believe that Peter was the head of the church. I am not Catholic. I was simply posing my question to Catholics to see if they actually know what the early church leaders believed about this very subject.
Origen said "The rock is every disciple of Christ from whom they drank who drank of the spiritual rock which followed them. . . But if thou thinks the whole church is built by God on Peter alone, what dost thou say of John, the son of thunder, and every one of the apostles? Or shall we say that the gates of hell were not to prevail against Peter in particular, but that they were to prevail against the other apostles and perfect ones?"
LH Catholic - Peter did not have prominence over the other disciples, neither did Rome have prominence over the other churches until the Catholic church came along and made it so.

If Peter was the head of the church, why did he not just appoint Matthias as the 12th apostle instead of them having a vote?
Also, read 1 Peter 5:1-4 where Peter says that he is an elder like the other elders of the church. He does not place himself above the others, but on their same level. Again, why would Paul write in 2 Timothy 4:11 that only Luke was with him. Wouldn't you think that he would have mentioned if Peter was there at Rome?

The roman church did not insert its authority until later. At the beginning, the church at Jerusalem exercised the most authority and the churches at Alexandria, Antioch, and Rome were on the same level.

Peter wasn't a 'Pope'.
The RC church made it up.
Peter was a prominent leader of the early church, along with James, John and then Paul.

2009-01-24 09:41:07 by engr-tech

Price: $17.00

Was it Roman Catholic, Greek Orthodox, Armenian Apostolic, or non-denominational? I understand that Christianity started out as a Jewish sect, so could it be that the early church resembled Messianic Judaism? What denomination was it or was most like out of all the Christian denominations?

None...

At that time, the heresies that eventually became catholicism had not yet occurred and the Eastern Orthodox schism was in its infancy, so there was but one church. It would be correct, though a bit of a misnomer, to call it "non-denominational."

The concept of denominations "adding up" to the true church is false, but it didn't come about until the middle of the second millennium. Catholicism departed from the New Testament pattern to the point that it is almost unrecognizable to someone knowing only the New Testament - not as unusual a thought as you might think. There are quite a few languages where only one book has been published, languages where there was no WRITTEN language until one was INVENTED by Wycliffe Bible Translators (or possibly some other organization) so that people could be taught to read and then read the Bible in their own language. Over the next thousand years, hundreds, maybe even thousands of Christians were killed for pointing out the errors of catholic doctrine or trying to correct teachings or even to translate the scriptures into vernacular languages.

The first two decades of Christianity saw this "Messianic Jewish" culture. Though the church and its teachings were popular with the common Jews (Acts 2:47), the common Jew had almost no "power" in that system. Pharisees and Sadducees combined amounted to about one half of one percent of the population (5 people in 1000). The power structure favored those already in power and they would not do anything to jeopardize their position.

By the 50's or 60's the church had ceased to resemble anything Jewish. The apostles were Jews, but had all been expelled from the synagogues, and thus their own culture, for teaching the Messiah's Gospel. Mostly through the work of Paul, Barnabas, Silas, and a few others, the Jewish "culture" of the church was gradually replaced with a new multiculturalism. Much of the New Testament was penned to help these newly converted Christians learn to live and work peaceably with one another, a new concept from all sides of the issue.

Since the church of the New Testament had the Spirit-inspired apostles (limited in number) and ONLY LOCAL "church government," (elders=presbyters, bishops=overseers, pastors=shepherds; all three word families are used synonymously in the NT - Acts 20:17ff) the structures by which denominations are identified today were subject to significant variation from one congregation to the next.

2008-09-03 18:34:44 by Ask

In the museum of hoaxes, there was a document that was supposedly a roman emperor that gavew authority to the church to rule the empire. Couple centuries later, it turned out to be a hoax. I do not know the exact details, however I was wondering what other historic examples with good proof such politicing were done in the church's early days in order to gain more political power.
Dear bruhaha, I thank you for correcting me on my errors. As I said, I did not remember the full details. What I am concerned about is how often the catholic church and its memebers did this. Tis not a rant against the religion itself. When one realises what corruption can be commited by human beings who use religion for worldly gains, they become more immune against such things and stronger in faith and closer to God, and not a pawn to corrupt clergy.

The document you are referring to is known as "the Donation of Constantine".

But you've made quite a serious error in describing it as a "fraud committed by the EARLY church". The whole point of its being a forgery is that the document was NOT written during the early centuries of the Church, but MUCH later -- in this case OVER FOUR CENTURIES after its supposed date.

But how can you fault the "early church" for what someone did hundreds of years later ??! No, the point was that the Donation, and other efforts to maintain and consolidate the power of the Church (or more often of the PAPACY), were all the work of a later era.

By the way, there were critics of its authenticity fairly early on, though it was not considered "decisively refuted" till a careful 15th century analysis.

As for the EARLY Church -- note that the Church in the time of Constantine was not the sort of political power it later became.

So, please feel free to criticize these later abuses by church leaders. . .but do NOT blame people who had nothing to do with it and lived long before such corruption took place.

2007-09-02 09:02:59 by PeguinBackPacker