Orthodox Church is only true Church founded by Jesus and His disciple in A.D 33?

[walter1234]

Why do Orthodox Christian say that Orthodox Church is founded by Jesus and his disciple, not Catholic Church?

Why do Orthodox Chrisitna say taht Orthodox Church is founded in A.D 33, not  in 10 th century?

Can anybody briefly tell me the history of Orthodox Church?

The Roman Catholic Church says they are founded by Jesus and his disciple (singular, which means Peter)

The Orthodox Church says they are founded by Jesus and all the Apostles

Yes, Roman Catholic Christian says Orthodox Church separated itself from it Catholic Church. However, Orthodox CHristians said that Catholic Church separated itself from Orthodox Church.

Only Protestant Christians claim that they were not founded by Christ and his disciples and they separated themselves from the corrupted and poor Catholic Church. Protestant Christians claim that which one is found by Christ and his disciple is not important, which one separated itself from the true church is not important. The most important issue is that the Christian has to follow bible and the Christian/Church who follow the teaching of bible is the true christian and true Church

[NicholasMyra]

Why do Orthodox Christian say that Orthodox Church is founded by Jesus and his disciple, not Catholic Church?

Orthodox Christians believe that two things are needed for a church to be Apostolic.

1. The church goes back to Christ and the Apostles.

2. The church keeps the faith and traditions of God given by Christ and his Apostles.

The reason why the Orthodox Church doesn't think the church of Rome is Apostolic is because the Orthodox believe the church of Rome violates #2.

[orthonorm]

How many times have we had people come into our forum and assert that the Holy Orthodox Catholic Church is not the New Testament Church? Many, IIRC.
Apostolic Succession while important is not enough as we well know.

I times past in other discussions I prefer to ask the deniers of our maintenance and preservation of the Apostolic Deposit of Faith to specifically point to the exact place (event, time, date, what have you) when the Orthodox churches CEASED being the New Testament Church.

I've yet to see an answer.

Well it is a question without merit. You seem unwilling to understand their position of an invisible Church from the beginning till now which at times worked within what we call the RCC, the OC, or the OOCs.

Not all who claim the that Big Three around these parts don't have a monopoly on the truth are restorationists nor necessarily believe in some great apostasy.

You sound so much like GreekIsChristian (a.k.a. GiC) on his path to atheism. I will await serious responses.

He was always a stickler for truth. That does seem to rub folks the wrong way at times.

A stickler for alternative ways of looking at things, yes, but I'm not exactly sure it was truth GiC cared about.

What alternative view am I espousing here?

The definition of the Church is quite important for the discussion here and we have people arguing via history about where the Church is when that is a tertiary concern at best and rests upon a much more primordial definition of the Church that first allows anyone to speak of it at any time within history.

And we haven't gone back far enough.

Since the use of history and such things seems important to people around here, then using history to find when the Church began will shed light on what the Church is.

When the proper question is asked often many prior and less proper questions are rendered mute.

[NicholasMyra]

Care to explain me to me how the Church is circumscribed within any period of time?

The incarnation...

Once again, the answer is in the most important Old Testament quote for Christians.

"The LORD says to my Lord:
'Sit at My right hand
Until I make thine enemies thy footstool."

And a close second:

"The Lord said to me:
'Thou art my Son;
Today I have begotten Thee.

Ask of me, and I will make the nations Your heritage,
And the ends of the earth Your possession."

[PeterTheAleut]

How many times have we had people come into our forum and assert that the Holy Orthodox Catholic Church is not the New Testament Church? Many, IIRC.
Apostolic Succession while important is not enough as we well know.

I times past in other discussions I prefer to ask the deniers of our maintenance and preservation of the Apostolic Deposit of Faith to specifically point to the exact place (event, time, date, what have you) when the Orthodox churches CEASED being the New Testament Church.

I've yet to see an answer.

Well it is a question without merit. You seem unwilling to understand their position of an invisible Church from the beginning till now which at times worked within what we call the RCC, the OC, or the OOCs.

Not all who claim the that Big Three around these parts don't have a monopoly on the truth are restorationists nor necessarily believe in some great apostasy.

You sound so much like GreekIsChristian (a.k.a. GiC) on his path to atheism. I will await serious responses.

He was always a stickler for truth. That does seem to rub folks the wrong way at times.

A stickler for alternative ways of looking at things, yes, but I'm not exactly sure it was truth GiC cared about.

What alternative view am I espousing here?

I wasn't talking about you, unless you're GiC posting under another name.

[Ashman618]

Well very technically wouldn't the church have always existed within the very nature of the trinity before all time? With the Son glorifying the Father, in thanksgiving in the Holy Spirit?

[neon_knights]

The Catholic Church was the church commissioned by Christ and founded by his apostles. Several modern churches claim to be the original Catholic Church, or the continuation of it, including the Roman Catholics, Eastern and Oriental Orthodox, Assyrians, Old Catholics, etc. Several Protestant churches also claim to hold the original Catholic faith.

Which church today is "the original Church" is a matter of opinion.

[Green_Umbrella]

The most important issue is that the Christian has to follow bible and the Christian/Church who follow the teaching of bible is the true christian and true Church

Interesting.

1 Corinthians 14:34
¨The women must keep silent in church. They don't have the right to speak. They must take their place as Moses' Teachings say.¨

So I assume the only church you think is the true church is one where no woman speak inside yes?

[PeterTheAleut]

The most important issue is that the Christian has to follow bible and the Christian/Church who follow the teaching of bible is the true christian and true Church

Interesting.

1 Corinthians 14:34
¨The women must keep silent in church. They don't have the right to speak. They must take their place as Moses' Teachings say.¨

So I assume the only church you think is the true church is one where no woman speak inside yes?

I don't see how cherry picking a specific verse for its apparent value in a reduction to absurdity argument disproves Walter's point.

[Ashman618]

So then it could be said that the church is wherever a body of noetic creatures both material and spiritual enter into this eternal Eucharistic worship of the Father, problem is its difficult to tell who actually enters into that reality and who doesn't, Infact I believe the main plot of Father Hopkos podcasts is that this can seemingly be done ritually but it's much more difficult to do it substantially

[Green_Umbrella]

The most important issue is that the Christian has to follow bible and the Christian/Church who follow the teaching of bible is the true christian and true Church

Interesting.

1 Corinthians 14:34
¨The women must keep silent in church. They don't have the right to speak. They must take their place as Moses' Teachings say.¨

So I assume the only church you think is the true church is one where no woman speak inside yes?

I don't see how cherry picking a specific verse for its apparent value in a reduction to absurdity argument disproves Walter's point.

That is exactly the point I am trying to make. The bible does need study and interpretation. It needs to be looked at in historical context and the perpsectives of the writers and so on.

A person can not simply say ¨It is in the bible¨ and accept all at face value. Well, you can but you may end up in a secluded cult somewhere drinking kool aid but you understand my meaning.  

[Kerdy]

Green_umbrella's posts are always so full of rehashed latin propaganda.

Just asking questions.

Besides let us not be harsh to fellow Trinitarian believing Christians. No need to jump to a strong adversarial pose when the RCC is mentioned.

You weren't asking questions. You were making arguments for the RCC being the True Church in contrast to the Orthodox Church. If that's what you believe fine (and we'll agree to disagree) but please try to be honest as to what you were saying.

James

No. I am not making arguments for the RCC being the True Church in contrast to the Orthodox Church. And I am asking question. Someone answer please.

Did the Orthodox Church change its position on contraception and the Roman Catholic church has always held the same dogma? Anyone? I do not know and want to know.

It think it is safe to say the Orthodox Church never took a position on contraception, at least that I know of, so no, it did not change its position.  The Orthodox Church has not taken position on a lot of things, rather focusing on what is more important, Christ and our salvation. 

I may not have worded this properly, so if someone wants to make it sound better, by all means please do.

[Kerdy]

Is there any evidence showing that Orthodox Church is the only Church founded by Jesus and His disciple in A.D 33?

History. 5 Patriarchs were there, one left the Church.

History. 5 Patriarchs were there, four left the Church?

The vote was 4 to 1.

Who are these 5 Patriarchs? Why are they so important??

Why can these four Patriachs help to prove Orthodox Church is the only true Church?

Can anybody ask my above question?

Is there any other STRONG evidence showing that Orthodox Church is the only true Church?

There is still no strong evidence to convince me that Orthodox Church is the only true Church and all its teaching is 100% correct...

Antioch, Jerusalem, Alexandria, Constantinople and Rome.

I had the same questions and the book which helped me tremendously was The Orthodox Church by the Most Reverend Metropolitan (Timothy) Kallistos Ware, but the book will be found under Timothy Ware.  This book really helped me to understand several things and as a result I read other books and did a lot of my own research.  It’s inexpensive and easy to read.  In conjunction with asking questions here, I suggest reading that book.  I would send a copy to you, but I have given all of mine away and need to get more.

[Kerdy]

Why do Orthodox Christian say that Orthodox Church is founded by Jesus and his disciple, not Catholic Church?
 

Because it was founded by Christ with the Apostles.  The Catholic Church didn’t exist until around 1054.  

Why do Orthodox Christians say that Orthodox Church is founded in A.D 33, not  in 10th century?
 

10th Century?  You are thinking of the Catholic Church splitting off during the Great Schism and becoming its own entity outside communion with the Orthodox Church.

Can anybody briefly tell me the history of Orthodox Church?

Jesus came, taught the Apostles who taught their disciples, etc.

Be careful. The Orthodox Church considers itself the Catholic Church, as well (according to some on this forum), so you may wish to qualify your use of the name "Catholic" if you wish to refer to the Roman Catholic Church or the Eastern Catholic Church.

I used capital “C” to distinguish the Roman Church and use lower case “C” for universal catholic.  It I am wrong in this usage, let me know so I can find a different way to separate the two.   

[Kerdy]

Roman and protestant doctrines are correct insofar as they are the same as those of Orthodoxy, so I would never say that they're wrong in everything.

What is the difference between Orthodoxy and Protestant/Catholic and make you choose the Orthodoxy faith rather than Catholic or Protestant faith?

Walter,

I am sending you a PM.  I wanted to let you know before I send it.  

[Mivac]

There is only the Apostolic Church.

Greater accuracy and greater precision.

However the Church existed before the Apostles.

We have to go back to the notion of what the Church is.

And no one wants to do that.

The ekklesia of Israel.

Go on back!

Step back!

Earlier now!

Christ Jesus Himself, which means the Church is eternal.  It only became a reality here with the incarnation.

[Kerdy]

Protestant think that Bible is the word of GOd. Bible is everything. Beside the teaching of bible, they do not need to consider any other teaching.  

This is a position not supported by Scripture...

In addition, if scripture was able to interpret itself, there would not be thousands of different Protestants.  They would all have the same understanding of what scripture is saying.

[christian7777]

Why do Orthodox Christian say that Orthodox Church is founded by Jesus and his disciple, not Catholic Church?

Orthodox Christians believe that two things are needed for a church to be Apostolic.

1. The church goes back to Christ and the Apostles.

2. The church keeps the faith and traditions of God given by Christ and his Apostles.

The reason why the Orthodox Church doesn't think the church of Rome is Apostolic is because the Orthodox believe the church of Rome violates #2.

This is pretty much how I'd put it.

[Shiny]

There is only the Apostolic Church.

Greater accuracy and greater precision.

However the Church existed before the Apostles.

We have to go back to the notion of what the Church is.

And no one wants to do that.

The ekklesia of Israel.

Go on back!

Step back!

Earlier now!

Christ Jesus Himself, which means the Church is eternal.  It only became a reality here with the incarnation.

I forgot where I read it but something about the Church being in the Garden of Eden too, and Noah, Moses, the Prophets etc are part of the Church.

[Kerdy]

Why do Orthodox Christian say that Orthodox Church is founded by Jesus and his disciple, not Catholic Church?

Why do Orthodox Chrisitna say taht Orthodox Church is founded in A.D 33, not  in 10 th century?

Can anybody briefly tell me the history of Orthodox Church?

The Roman Catholic Church says they are founded by Jesus and his disciple (singular, which means Peter)

The Orthodox Church says they are founded by Jesus and all the Apostles

Yes, Roman Catholic Christian says Orthodox Church separated itself from it Catholic Church. However, Orthodox CHristians said that Catholic Church separated itself from Orthodox Church.

Only Protestant Christians claim that they were not founded by Christ and his disciples and they separated themselves from the corrupted and poor Catholic Church. Protestant Christians claim that which one is found by Christ and his disciple is not important, which one separated itself from the true church is not important. The most important issue is that the Christian has to follow bible and the Christian/Church who follow the teaching of bible is the true christian and true Church

This is explained better than I can explain in the book I suggested.  

Rome attempted to take “control” over all of the Church by saying Rome was not just first among equals, but above the equality of the other four, which of course was wrong.  The other four Patriarchs attempted to advise Rome of its mistakes and Rome responded in a less than expected or wanted way.  Rome will say she excommunicated the rest of the Church, as anyone you know would say things to make their position seem more accurate, but the truth is, the rest of the Church gave Rome plenty of time and space to reconcile its differences, which Rome simply refused to do and thus is no longer in communion with the rest of the Church.  When you have four Patriarchs attempting to guide a “rogue” Patriarch back into proper position and understanding of the Church as a whole, and the one Patriarch rebels against them all, while they all are making the same points in agreement with one another, its seems reasonable to conclude the one is wrong, not the other four.  I can suggest another book by Fr. Alexander Schmemann, but it is longer and not as easy of a read.

And as always, if someone more knowledgeable than I wants to make any adjustments to my post, please feel free.

In addition, one can follow the bible to the letter and not be following the Church because the bible is only half of what has been given to us.  Think of it as reading every other page of a book.  You get the general idea of the story and a lot of details, but not the full picture of the book.  

[orthonorm]

Well very technically wouldn't the church have always existed within the very nature of the trinity before all time? With the Son glorifying the Father, in thanksgiving in the Holy Spirit?

This is where things start to get interesting. Read all my posts to see why you are on the right track but a little off or wager on me ever returning to this thread.

[orthonorm]

There is only the Apostolic Church.

Greater accuracy and greater precision.

However the Church existed before the Apostles.

We have to go back to the notion of what the Church is.

And no one wants to do that.

The ekklesia of Israel.

Go on back!

Step back!

Earlier now!

Christ Jesus Himself, which means the Church is eternal.  It only became a reality here with the incarnation.

Sorry Charlie.

[JamesR]

Why can these four Patriachs help to prove Orthodox Church is the only true Church

Because they can each trace themselves directly back to the Apostles, surprisingly specific too. I've seen entire lists for each of the Patriarchs which show the entire lineage, ie, all of the Patriarchs from the present ones back to the very first Apostle who established it.

[JamesR]

Jesus said Matthew 16:18 ¨And I tell you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of Hades will not overcome it.¨

I think the tradition is Peter went to Rome.  

Actually, no. I researched this when I was deciding whether to convert to Orthodoxy or Catholicism and several of the Fathers actually believed that the 'rock' was in reference to the faith of St. Peter--something all of the Apostles had--and that the authority Jesus later on grants St. Peter applied to all of the disciples.

Origen of Alexandria interpreted it this way, as did St. Cyril I believe, St. John Chrysostom said that everyone can become like St. Peter if they develop the same rock of faith that he possessed, and even St. Augustine of Hippo--while at one point believing that the passage was only in reference to St. Peter--actually changed his view later on in his Retractions and adopted a neutral view and left it up to the reader to decide.

[Benjamin the Red]

Jesus said Matthew 16:18 ¨And I tell you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of Hades will not overcome it.¨

I think the tradition is Peter went to Rome.  

Actually, no. I researched this when I was deciding whether to convert to Orthodoxy or Catholicism and several of the Fathers actually believed that the 'rock' was in reference to the faith of St. Peter--something all of the Apostles had--and that the authority Jesus later on grants St. Peter applied to all of the disciples.

Origen of Alexandria interpreted it this way, as did St. Cyril I believe, St. John Chrysostom said that everyone can become like St. Peter if they develop the same rock of faith that he possessed, and even St. Augustine of Hippo--while at one point believing that the passage was only in reference to St. Peter--actually changed his view later on in his Retractions and adopted a neutral view and left it up to the reader to decide.

Retractions, the greatest work of St. Augustine, if you ask me.

[NicholasMyra]

Well very technically wouldn't the church have always existed within the very nature of the trinity before all time? With the Son glorifying the Father, in thanksgiving in the Holy Spirit?

Yes

[orthonorm]

Well very technically wouldn't the church have always existed within the very nature of the trinity before all time? With the Son glorifying the Father, in thanksgiving in the Holy Spirit?

Yes

Not sure about that one.

Commuion sure. But it seems to me the Church in virtue of its etymology and structure is communion of created beings called out by God.

Neither the Son nor the Holy Spirit are created nor are their being a function of God's word, which would necessarily be the the Son Himself.

[Mivac]

Well very technically wouldn't the church have always existed within the very nature of the trinity before all time? With the Son glorifying the Father, in thanksgiving in the Holy Spirit?

Yes

Not sure about that one.

Commuion sure. But it seems to me the Church in virtue of its etymology and structure is communion of created beings called out by God.

Neither the Son nor the Holy Spirit are created nor are their being a function of God's word, which would necessarily be the the Son Himself.

Yet, God the Word became a created being in the incarnation and is the Head of the Church, being part of the Church Himself for our sake.

[Ashman618]

Sorry Walter I dont think we're being much help providing answers, I think maybe one comes to an understanding of the Orthodox church being THE church not by proof or facts but by experiance

[PeterTheAleut]

The most important issue is that the Christian has to follow bible and the Christian/Church who follow the teaching of bible is the true christian and true Church

Interesting.

1 Corinthians 14:34
¨The women must keep silent in church. They don't have the right to speak. They must take their place as Moses' Teachings say.¨

So I assume the only church you think is the true church is one where no woman speak inside yes?

I don't see how cherry picking a specific verse for its apparent value in a reduction to absurdity argument disproves Walter's point.

That is exactly the point I am trying to make. The bible does need study and interpretation. It needs to be looked at in historical context and the perpsectives of the writers and so on.

A person can not simply say ¨It is in the bible¨ and accept all at face value. Well, you can but you may end up in a secluded cult somewhere drinking kool aid but you understand my meaning. 

Don't assume that I do.

[Benjamin the Red]

I think a lengthy, philosophical discussion on the nature of the Church is a great thing, and would love to see it happen...probably not here. Our OP is coming from a Protestant background, and probably needs a more catechetical answer for the time being.

Given the situation, I think I would point to the Church as it is seen in the New Testament, the book written by the Church for the Church, after Christ. That, I believe, is the most important thing to drive home for Walter right now, the point that the Church of Christ, established by our Lord and entrusted to the Apostles, is the very same Orthodox Catholic Church to which I and many of you belong. That we are that same, historical Church from 2,000 years ago, and that we maintain, by the grace of the Holy Spirit, that very same Faith once delivered to the saints.

[dzheremi]

It is important, I think, if you're going to place a premium on historical continuity/consistency, to look at the churches that the Apostles themselves established, e.g., the Antiochian Church, the Alexandrian/Egyptian (Coptic) Church, the churches of Constantinople, Jerusalem, etc (mainly Byzantine/EO in our times).

Careful study will show that the Rome-affiliated sections of these churches (e.g., Byzantine Catholics, Coptic Catholics, etc.) came along much, much later, starting in the 1500s or so (or 1100s, if you take the Maronites as a section of the Antiochian Syriac Church, though their particular form of Christianity cannot be dated back earlier than the 5th century, as that was when Maron died, and the church named after him was founded after his death). So they're, in that historical sense, not candidates as apostolic churches. Rome herself would be, of course, were it not for the fact that the Orthodox view of apostolic succession is faith-based, rather than simply "man-based" (for a lack of a better way to put it; I refer here to the RC/Western idea of "Episcopi Vagantes"), meaning that if the faith itself is not preserved from error, it does not matter who did the ordaining -- the line itself is broken because the faith is not the same. This is also what keeps the Church of the East/Nestorians out of the discussion.

So with all of these things in mind, you should now ask yourself who you are left with. It is only the Orthodox who fit the bill, as the others either came about much, much later (Protestants and Eastern Catholics), or are old enough to trace their church's founding directly to the apostles, but have changed the apostolic faith in some way and hence become 'apostolic' in name only, not in content (Rome and the Nestorians).

[Peter J]

Since when does Rome own Peter?Peter ≠ the Pope of Rome.

The Bible says "by their fruits you will know them" . The Crusades and the Inquisition.. hmm.. nice fruits..

The RCC during the times of the ww2 was an allied of Hitler and RCC clergy was involved in crimes and forced conversions all over the EU like the Ustaše in Serbia.

People thought that Paul was under the anathemas when the boat was sinking or when he was bit by snakes, and I bet they thought the same thing when he was stoned,incarcerated and persecuted..

Nice church.

I would criticise the RCC for a lot, but this is plain childish.

what do you fin so childish about that?

I'm thinking the "The RCC during the time of the ww2 was an ally of Hitler" part.

[Kerdy]

Protestants came around very late in Church history and as a result of things the Roman Catholic Church was doing wrong at the time.  The Orthodox Church has never experienced this phenomenon.  If you look at what we teach now, it's consistent within the the Ecumenical Counsels and unchanged over more than a thousand years.  Can the Roman Church or any Protestant denomination make this claim and support it with fact and history?  No.

[Peter J]

Protestants came around very late in Church history and as a result of things the Roman Catholic Church was doing wrong at the time. 

On the other hand, they wouldn't be Christians at all if not for [Roman] Catholicism. Are they worse off being protestant than being non-Christian?

[Kerdy]

Protestants came around very late in Church history and as a result of things the Roman Catholic Church was doing wrong at the time. 

On the other hand, they wouldn't be Christians at all if not for [Roman] Catholicism. Are they worse off being protestant than being non-Christian?

A topic for another thread perhaps?  Let’s try to help out Walter in this one.

[Peter J]

Protestants came around very late in Church history and as a result of things the Roman Catholic Church was doing wrong at the time. 

On the other hand, they wouldn't be Christians at all if not for [Roman] Catholicism. Are they worse off being protestant than being non-Christian?

A topic for another thread perhaps? 

Well yes ... if the answer isn't as simple as "No, they're better off being protestant than being non-Christian."

[Shiranui117]

What kind of evidence are you looking for?

Catholic Church and Protestant Church also claim that they are the only true Church in this world.They also claim that teaching/Doctrine is also 100% correct.

Why would you think that only the teaching of Orthodox Church must be 100% correct while Catholic and Protestant must be 100% incorrect?

No one said that Catholics and Protestants are 100% incorrect.

If you want to learn about how the Orthodox Church is the one true Church, I would suggest looking up Church history, primarily early Church history. In other words, the first thousand years of Christianity. For a very short list of important people from the first thousand years of Christianity who hold the Orthodox faith, look up especially people like St. Ignatius of Antioch(died around 110 AD), St. Justin Martyr(100-165), St. John Chrysostom(lived in the latter half of the 300's AD) and St. John of Damascus(lived from mid-600's to mid-700's AD). In fact, St. John of Damascus even has a work called "An Exact Exposition of the Orthodox Faith." http://www.orthodox.net/fathers/exactidx.html

[PeterTheAleut]

Protestants came around very late in Church history and as a result of things the Roman Catholic Church was doing wrong at the time. 

On the other hand, they wouldn't be Christians at all if not for [Roman] Catholicism. Are they worse off being protestant than being non-Christian?

A topic for another thread perhaps? 

Well yes ... if the answer isn't as simple as "No, they're better off being protestant than being non-Christian."

I agree with Kerdy on this one. Let's keep this thread on topic.

[David Young]

We have debated this "only true church" concdept previously - and doubtless will again! The question is based on a fallacy, and therefore cannot get to a correct answer. The church of Christ is made up of all whom he has redeemed, many of whom are in Orthodoxy, many are Baptists - and lots of others too. There is no organisation as such which contains them all. As the scripture says, the Lord knows those who are his. The question is based on the idea that one organisation is the true church, and attempts to identify which one. Orthodoxy founds its argument on historical continuity via patriarchs, bishops and so on, and if historical continuity were what defines and delimits the church, I see no reason why the honour should not go to Orthodoxy. We (I write as a Baptist) have a pneumatic approach: all those who have been born again of the Spirit of God are members of the true church. One should be asking a different question: what defines, or establishes the limits of, the church of our Lord? That would lead us to the true church, that is, to his Body or Bride made up of all the redeemed in every age, place - and denomination.

[dzheremi]

We have debated this "only true church" concdept previously - and doubtless will again! The question is based on a fallacy, and therefore cannot get to a correct answer. The church of Christ is made up of all whom he has redeemed, many of whom are in Orthodoxy, many are Baptists - and lots of others too. There is no organisation as such which contains them all. As the scripture says, the Lord knows those who are his.

The scripture also says in 1 Timothy 3:15 that the church is the pillar and ground of truth. How do you reconcile this with your view that the Church is composed of many from different denominations which disagree with one another on fundamental doctrines? I guarantee you that if you ask a Baptist what it means to be "saved", you will get a different answer than if you ask the same question of an Orthodox Christian.

The question is based on the idea that one organisation is the true church, and attempts to identify which one.

No, the question is based on the fact that there is one Lord, one faith, one baptism.

[NicholasMyra]

Well very technically wouldn't the church have always existed within the very nature of the trinity before all time? With the Son glorifying the Father, in thanksgiving in the Holy Spirit?

Yes

Not sure about that one.

Commuion sure. But it seems to me the Church in virtue of its etymology and structure is communion of created beings called out by God.

Neither the Son nor the Holy Spirit are created nor are their being a function of God's word, which would necessarily be the the Son Himself.

I was thinking more about the ministry of the Son and Spirit given by the Father, which begins within the life of the Trinity and the uncreated Divine phenomena,  and is then humbly extended to the created beings.

[Azul]

Since when does Rome own Peter?Peter ≠ the Pope of Rome.

The Bible says "by their fruits you will know them" . The Crusades and the Inquisition.. hmm.. nice fruits..

Before you get too carried away by your triumphalism, Azul, we do have the murderous Russian pogroms against the Jews and the persecution of the Old Believers to our credit. Not exactly nice fruits, either.

Who says the Old Believers are not the true Church in our detriment?

[Azul]

Since when does Rome own Peter?Peter ≠ the Pope of Rome.

The Bible says "by their fruits you will know them" . The Crusades and the Inquisition.. hmm.. nice fruits..

Before you get too carried away by your triumphalism, Azul, we do have the murderous Russian pogroms against the Jews and the persecution of the Old Believers to our credit. Not exactly nice fruits, either.

that is children`s play in comparison with the catholic crimes.

"God, I thank you that I am not like other men..."

you can thank me about other things also.

[Azul]

Since when does Rome own Peter?Peter ≠ the Pope of Rome.

The Bible says "by their fruits you will know them" . The Crusades and the Inquisition.. hmm.. nice fruits..

Before you get too carried away by your triumphalism, Azul, we do have the murderous Russian pogroms against the Jews and the persecution of the Old Believers to our credit. Not exactly nice fruits, either.

that is children`s play in comparison with the catholic crimes.

So you're going to compare the murderous acts of the Orthodox against the murderous acts of the Latins as if it were some kind of game? The point I'm trying to make is that we've had rotten fruit fall off both the Orthodox and the Roman trees.

They are both retarded.And yes you might be having a point here.We might not be the Church, but the Old Believers.Or chances are that there might not be a church at all and that Christianity is false.

[Tags:]

OrthodoxChristianity.net > Moderated Forums > Orthodox-Other Christian Discussion > Orthodox-Protestant Discussion (Moderator: PeterTheAleut) > Topic: Orthodox Church is only true Church founded by Jesus and His disciple in A.D 33?