We learn many details of the Catholic Church in the Book of Acts and the Epistles.

In Acts. 1:26, Matthias was selected to fill the place made vacant by the death of Judas. St.Paul, Timothy, Titus, Barnabas and others expand the Church.

St.Paul was originally Saul, a zealous Pharisee, who at first persecuted the early Church, but made a decisive break with Judaism is converted and turned his life to the mission of converting all to CHrist.  In Gal. 1:17, St.Paul tells us that he is baptized. He was baptized into the Church..the Body of Christ. St.Paul travels extensively and expands the Church.

St. Timothy..... In 1Tim. 4:14, we read that St. Timothy, a disciple of St.Paul. was officially consecrated to the priestly ministry. In 1:3, St.Paul assigned him to a special teaching office at the Ephesus Church. St.John Damascene states that Timothy was the first Bishop of Ephesus and witnessed the Blessed Mother Mary's death.

St. Titus....was a Gentile Christian of the early Church located in Corinth. Tradition tells us that he later lived in Crete and died there at the age of 93. His remains were transferred from Gortyna to St.Mark's in Venice and Catholics celebrate his feast day on February 6.

St.Barnabas...was originally named Joseph, a Levite, born in Cyprus, Acts 4:36, and was a Hellenist from the Diaspora. In Palestine, he became a disciple of CHrist. Clement of ALexandria and Eusbius number him among the 72 disciples mentioned in St.Luke 10:1. He first appears in Acts. 4:36-37 as a fervent and well to do CHristian who donated to the Church the proceeds from the sale of his property.  He won the Apostles' acceptance of the newly converted Saul despite the doubts of others. Acts. 9:27. In Acts. 11:22, he was sent to the Chuch of Antioch in Syria. As the Chruch here grew, he brought StPaul to it and they labored for a year v. 25-26. He headed the relief work from ANtioch to the famine-stricken Christians in Jerusalem. v. 29-30.

In Acts. 4:36, we learn he received  the Aramaic surname "Barnabas" from the Apostles. In Acts 13, we learn that his apostolate grew in Cyprus and in southern Asia Minor.

The CC is truly Apostolic in character. She is essentially the same as that of the Church described in Scripture. Take Acts which describes the Chruch's actual history. The CC still has her bishops, priests and deacons. She still speaks with authority as at the first Council of Jerusalem from where she sent out Barnabas and St.Paul. 

Any unprejudiced person must conclude that Scripture depicts only the CC and on this History affirms.

Your statement is wrong. Very wrong.

The original Chruch is the Catholic Church of which there are no branches.

Only the CC goes back in history to 33AD and to Christ as her Eternal Head and Founder. Not only does she claim Divine foundation, she proves that claim..one is by historical unbroken Apostolic in descent as well as doctrine.  

The others may claim Christ as their Head, but they have some man/woman as their founder and employ his/her doctrines.

I've already explained from the first century that heretics revolted from the Chruch and started their own thing. They are completely separate from the Chruch...not branches of but completely separate from her.

The Greek heresy and Schism was led by Photius who was intruded into the See of Constantinople in 857. He was deposed and condemned by the Fourth Council of Constantinople in 869, but the schism was later completed by the Patriarch of Constantinople, Micheal Cerularius who in 1054, rejected the supremacy of the Pope and established the so called Greek "Orthodox" Church which is heretical becasue it teaches that the Holy Ghost proceeds from the Father alone and not from the Father and the Son.

That takes us up the 1500s and the so called Protestant "Reformation" which was nothing but a complete revolution against the Chruch and against Christ's doctrines which had been accepted by the whole Christian world, (Christendom) for 1500 years.

Not only was the Papacy and the authority to bind and loose rejected by the Protestant forefathers, but doctrines which had been declared essential to Christianity (in other words, the Sacraments) were declared false and blasphemous. According to the "Reformers" the Chruch had been in error for 1500 years. really? Was God wrong in His promises? Was God mistaken? Had the gates of Hell prevailed against Christ's Chruch? Either the "Reformation" was a huge error or Jesus Christ, was wrong and untrustworthy. Well, since Jesus Christ is God Made Man, then it is impossible for Him to be error, wrong or untrustworthy, so therefore the "Reformation" must be in error.

The church has split up several times.

Proof by ignorance doesn't work.

If you do not acknowledge the existence of, say, the Greek Orthodox Church, you CANNOT prove that the Roman Catholic Church is the only legitimate branch.

So I recommend you start with acknowledging the branches and then attacking them one by one.

No.  In reality, only a very predjudiced person must conclude that Scripture depicts only the RCC as the church of Christ using their version of History affirming it so. 

lula posts:

no the CC has not ever split up.  Dissidents, schismatics and heretics have split away from her, but what they found in the way of new churches aren't and cannot ever be "branches" of the CC.

Argument by ignorance of what constitutes a "branch" doesn't work.

A church that is properly a branch would have to have the CC for its root and there is no such Church.

Oh my goodness! C'mon?

one....The CC is not a branch. Just like the modern forms of Judaism are not branches of Old Covenant Judaism. Old Covenant Judaism and the Jewish Church was God- revealed and instituted. The same with the Catholic Chruch and the one true Christian Faith called Catholicism.   

Two....I acknowledge the existence of the Greek orthodox Church. ...acknowledging existence of it doesn't mean the chruch in question is a "branch" of the CC.   

The CC is one in being one body animated by one Holy SPirit and one fold under one Lord and Good Shepherd, Jesus Christ Who is over all the Church.

The CC is also one in all its members believing the same truths having the same Sacraments and Sacrifice, and being under one visible head (the Pope) on earth.

Now a group that decides they don't want to be under the authority of the Pope, and decides to leave the CC and starts up their own church are not a branch of the CC. They are simply outside the CC.

you can have the Pope. 

We have Christ.  He is the head (according to scripture). 

"for the husband is the head of the wife even as Christ is the head of the church..."  Eph 5:23

"and has put all things under his feet and gave him (Christ) to be the head over all things to the church which is His body (not the head)......"   Eph 1:22-23a

"and He (Christ) is the head of the body, the church;....." Colossians 1:18

It's quite clear that the church is the body of Christ and there is NO visible head on earth.  That's unscriptual.  You are replacing Christ with the Pope.  Very serious accusation. 

I didn't say that the "Catholic Church" split up. I said that the Catholic Church is a branch of the original church just as the Orthodox Church is.

And you STILL failed to prove that the Catholic Church is that original church.

Your argument ("A church that is properly a branch would have to have the CC for its root and there is no such Church.") is, I am sorry, idiotic. Remember that river in Egypt?

The Nile splits up into lots of rivers at the delta. You cannot prove that the western-most of those little rivers is the real Nile by saying that the other rivers in the delta do not come from the western-most river in the delta.

But it is.

And the church split up over disagreements over questions the original church simply hadn't answered before the schisms.

So why exactly is the CC branch more original than the other branches?

Judaism has several branches.

The first schism happened between the northern state and the southern state. Samaritans believed that the holy mountain of old was Mount Gerizim near Nablus, not the Temple Mount in Jerusalem as Judaeans believed. (Technically, the Samaritan religion is not "Judaism", since they were not Judaeans.)

This schism also affected the tribe of Dan who then also formulated their version of the same religion, many points would be accepted by the Oriental Orthodox Church later.

Another schism was the split into Christians, who accepted a new belief that the Messiah had arrived and eventually that he was the "son of G-d" and/or G-d Himself, and the orthodox Jews who believed the old beliefs.

A third great schism was between Qaraites and Rabbinic Jews, with Rabbinic Jews believing that the Oral Torah was as binding as the Written Torah and the Qaraites (literally "the readers") accepted only the Written Torah.

A fourth schism, this time due to location only, was between Ashkanezim (German Jews), Sephardim (Spanish Jews), and Mizrachim (eastern Jews).

Then there is the schism between Hassidim and Mitnagdim with one side seeing the religion as a joy and the other as a duty.

And finally we have the modern schism between Orthodox and Reform, and Conservative, Reform, Liberal, and Reconstructionist within Reform.

But note that not all this schisms are based on stark theological differences. Samaritans and Judeans have theological differences as do Qaraites and Rabbinic Jews. But all the other groups hold the same base beliefs and regard the same texts as holy, with the tribe of Dan recognising only minor differences in their text and some difference in the observation of holidays introduced nationally after they had left Israel.

"Old Covenant Judaism" doesn't make much sense to me as there is no "New Covenant" Jews are bound by. We willingly accepted the "Old Covenant", we did not accept the "New Covenant". You can claim that we should have, but as long as we didn't it is NOT a covenant by definition. It's a proposal, maybe.

Not that the New Covenant really changes that much. As KFC can explain to you it serves to re-iterate the importance of the Old Covenant. Jesus was a believing Jew.

What Jewish Church?

You mean the bunch of Romans that joined the faith of one of our schismatic groups above? I don't mind them having their own church, but that doesn't mean that a bunch of Greeks who did the same thing are less legitimate. If anything they are more legitimate since the New Covenant was written in a language they would have understood (whereas most Jews of the time spoke Aramaic).

I have met exactly one Jew who could speak Greek. But I have met a bunch that spoke Aramaic.

I think I'll do a graph depicting the schisms starting from Abraham.

Actually, I think I'll make it more interesting by including the other gods' religions as well. You don't have to believe in them to know about them.

Christ, in the flesh,  came from the loins of Abraham via Judah the 4th son of Jacob.  That's why the geneologies were so very important.  After that, not so much. 

I've been studying Genesis again (for about the 100th time..lol)  and noticed something new (that's what's so great about scripture) in Chap 46 during the times of Joseph.  There we see Judah for the first time in a leadership position sent before Joseph as the spokesmen for the "gang of 10." 

Before that we see Judah, a changed man, now willing to give his own life for his brother's (end of 45) a shadow of what his descendant will one day do for the whole world. 

I mean the theological schisms, not the geneology.

You'll see. I think it will be interesting.

yes, this brings to mind John 4 in which Christ met the Samaritan woman at the well.  Not sure if you're aware of this Leauki but it was to this Samaritan that Christ first revealed he was the Messiah.  Not only to a lowly Samaritan but to a woman to boot!  He certainly wasn't bound by cultural barriers.  He blew them away. 

The Samaritans worshipped on Mt Gerizim and Jesus told her that the Samaritans were actually wrong (Jerusalem was the correct place of worship) but that the hour would come that true worshippers would worship the Father in spirit and in truth; that it was not the place but the nature of worship that was really important. 

KFC POSTS #8

I agree. These new churches, the one in Ephesus, in Rome, in Corinth, in Phillipia, in Galatia were part of the "one body", "the one Church of Christ" that St.Paul describes in his Epistles.

This is what I just described in my latest posts.

and I agree as well.  But to say they are the denomination RCC is where we disagree.  If you go to Revelation 2-3 you see even some of these great churches fell into the hands of Satan.  Once they were found unified, faithful and loving but then Satan got into the churches and wreaked havoc and the churches, as a whole, forgot their mission and backslid terribly. 

But throughout history there is always a remnant left.  It's always a minority, not the majority.  That's the church Christ said hell wold not prevail against.  There will always be a remnant after the cleansing is done.  In those seven churches a remant stayed faithful, not a whole church.  It's the remnant of each of the seven churches that make up the true church. 

Today many many churches are nominal, in name only, and are far from being faithful to God.  They are imitating the world in every which way including the RCC. 

Yes, sounds like him.

Most people agreed that the Judaeans got it right with the location of the holy place. The Muslims did as well which is why Samaritans were not popular there either.

This is the reason why there are only 1600 Samaritans left today.

The other members of the northern tribes pretty much accepted the Judaean version of the religion or plain don't care any more.

The re-unification of the tribes of Israel took 2000 years from its beginning with Jesus actually talking to members of the northern tribes again to Israel's outreach to the northern tribes (in northern Israel, India and elsewhere) and the tribe of Dan (in Ethiopia) advocating that they make Aliya and move to Israel. Most of that population has moved to Israel.

Ya, everybody getting their own messages from private interpretation has resulted in the vast divisions that have fractured Protestantism from the start.

To Basmas' first statement, I responded:  The Bible states that it is insufficient of itself as a teacher but rather needs an interpreter....

and quoted 2St.Peter 3:16, but here will supply verses 15-17, ".....as also our most dear brother Paul, according to the wisdom given to him has written to you: 16 as also in all his Epistles speaking of them in these things: in which are certain things hard to be understood, which the unlearned and unstable wrest (distort), as they do also the other Scriptures, to their own destruction. You therefore, brethren, knowing these things beforehand, beware, lest being led away by the error of the unwise, you fall from your own steadfastness."

And regarding prophecy, 2 St. Peter 1:20, "No prophecy of scripture is made by private interpretation."

From this the Bible itself states that its prophecies are not a matter for which the individual is to arrive at his own interpretation.

to which KFC posted 14

And where did you get your belief that "the Bible interprets itself"? From the Protestant forefathers who revolted from the Church and rejected her God-given authority. Luther first taught this false view after declaring their own fantasy doctrine of Sola Scriptura, "the Bible and the Bible alone is the sole authority for Christians and the sole source of Revelation. 

Kohler, a Protestant theologian asked, "What did Luther set up as a principle of interpretation?" He answers, "In theory that Scripture interprets itself; in practice, however, as it does not, his own theology." And so from the idea that Scripture interprets itself, you have one sect that will have nothing to do with Baptism; another denies the Sacraments; a third teaches that Christ is not God. Some read the Bible and it means this and some read the Bible and insist it means that. 

It's a scheme that doesn't/cannot  work...The Bible wasn't meant for everyone to read and come away with their own interpretations as to its meaning. That's exactly what St.Peter warned about.

The Bible requires an official, God-given authoritative interpreter as it is open to many false interpretations and thus false teachings. 

Christ and the Apostles reminded us of the need of a teaching Church...that CHrist's teachings are transmitted to us by teachers accredited by God. In St.Matt. 28:18-19, St. Matthew speaks of the teaching Apostolic Church as a divinely authorized teaching of the whole doctrine of Christ to men of all nations of all times.

St.Mark 16:15-16 speaks of the Divine sanction given to this preaching Apostolic Chruch.

St.Luke 24:27 as well speaks of the Divine preaching and teaching Apostolate Church.In v. 48, he declares the Apostles divine witnesses of a divine revelation which is infallibly guaranteed by the Holy Ghost. : "You shall receive the power of the Holy Ghost coming upon you, and you shall be unto Me in Jerusalem, and in all Judea and Samaria, and even to the uttermost parts of the earth."

St.John 21: 15-17 speaks of Christ's appointment of St.Peter as the permanent visible head of the teaching Apostolate chosen by Christ and given power and authority to feed His flock with divine truth.

 At the Last Supper, Christ emphasizes the infallibility of the Apostles' perpetual preaching under the guidance of the Holy Spirit. "I will ask the Father, and He shall give you another Paraclete that He may abide with you forever, the Spirit of Truth, whom the world cannot receive: He shall abide with you and be in you." St.John 14: 16-17; 25-26; 15: 26-27; 16:13

KFC posted 14

OK...granted there are certainly passages in Scripture which can be easily understood. But don't get over confident with that as  how many false endtimes fantasies have resulted from mis-interpretation of Daniel's prophecies?

But when you claim the BIble interprets itself, you are confusing interpretation with testimony. Interpretation must be done by a thinking person whereas Scripture only offers testimony. Take the example of when the Sadducees denied the Resurrection and Jesus referred them to the testimony of Exodus 3:6. "I am the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac and the God of Jacob."

Left alone, the Sadducees would have just walked away not really thinking about it.But Jesus interpreted the passage for them and reasons that God cannot be the God of the dead but only of the living and therefore Abraham, Isaac and Jacob are still "living" but only in another realm..the heavenly one. 

KFC, What Jesus did was interpretation. The Bible neither claims to do this nor has the ability to do this for it cannot think as humans can.