The myth of the "early church"

[Right Divider]

When both Romanists and Protestants (anyone really) talk about the "early church", I already know that they are completely confused. Typically, the "early church" refers to a mythological organization that began on the lawfully required Jewish feast day of Pentecost. Most of Churchianity (Catholics and Protestants, et al) believes that a "church" began on that day, but the Bible says otherwise. The following are some Biblical facts:

• The Bible says that there was a church in the wilderness (Acts 17:38) that was MUCH earlier than the mythological one that supposedly began in Acts 2.
• The Bible says that the "church" in Acts 2 was NOT BEGAN, but was ADDED to (Acts 2:47).
• The Bible says that the "church" in Acts 2 was thoroughly Jewish (along with Jewish proselytes) [Acts 2:10]. No random gentiles involved.

Acts 7:38 (AKJV/PCE)​

(7:38) This is he, that was in the church in the wilderness with the angel which spake to him in the mount Sina, and [with] our fathers: who received the lively oracles to give unto us:​

​

Acts 2:47 (AKJV/PCE)​

(2:47) Praising God, and having favour with all the people. And the Lord added to the church daily such as should be saved.​

​

Acts 2:10 (AKJV/PCE)​

(2:10) Phrygia, and Pamphylia, in Egypt, and in the parts of Libya about Cyrene, and strangers of Rome, Jews and proselytes,​

More helpful information: https://graceambassadors.com/tradition/history/the-myth-of-the-first-century-church

 

[Idolater]

God doesn't dwell in temples made with hands.

$$ Ac 7:48
Howbeit the most High dwelleth not in temples made with hands; as saith the prophet,

$$ Ac 17:24
God that made the world and all things therein, seeing that he is Lord of heaven and earth, dwelleth not in temples made with hands;

The Church is the temple made without hands.

The Corinthians are that temple:

$$ 1Co 3:16
Know ye not that ye are the temple of God, and [that] the Spirit of God dwelleth in you?
$$ 1Co 3:17
If any man defile the temple of God, him shall God destroy; for the temple of God is holy, which [temple] ye are.

$$ 2Co 6:16
And what agreement hath the temple of God with idols? for ye are the temple of the living God; as God hath said, I will dwell in them, and walk in [them]; and I will be their God, and they shall be my people.

(Quoting Leviticus 26, and Jeremiah 31.)

The Ephesians are that temple:

$$ Eph 2:19
Now therefore ye are no more strangers and foreigners, but fellowcitizens with the saints, and of the household of God;
$$ Eph 2:20
And are built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ himself being the chief corner [stone];
$$ Eph 2:21
In whom all the building fitly framed together groweth unto an holy temple in the Lord:
$$ Eph 2:22
In whom ye also are builded together for an habitation of God through the Spirit.

That temple is the early Church.

 

[annabenedetti]

Acts 7:38 (AKJV/PCE)

(7:38) This is he, that was in the church in the wilderness with the angel which spake to him in the mount Sina, and [with] our fathers: who received the lively oracles to give unto us:​

Stephen is clearly referring to the assembly of Jews with Moses. It's so clearly Jewish history Stephen is giving that it's actually difficult to believe you could be using ekklesia for church rather than assembly in this passage in trying to place early church before Pentecost.

Acts 2:47 (AKJV/PCE)​

(2:47) Praising God, and having favour with all the people. And the Lord added to the church daily such as should be saved.​

Use the preceding verse for context:

46 So continuing daily with one accord in the temple, and breaking bread from house to house, they ate their food with gladness and simplicity of heart, 47 praising God and having favor with all the people. And the Lord added [q]to the church daily those who were being saved.​

It's obvious that verse 47 follows from the unknown number of days that "daily" continued onward from the day of Pentecost.

​

Acts 2:10 (AKJV/PCE)​

(2:10) Phrygia, and Pamphylia, in Egypt, and in the parts of Libya about Cyrene, and strangers of Rome, Jews and proselytes,​

Use the following verse for context:

8 And how is it that we hear, each in our own [c]language in which we were born? 9 Parthians and Medes and Elamites, those dwelling in Mesopotamia, Judea and Cappadocia, Pontus and Asia, 10 Phrygia and Pamphylia, Egypt and the parts of Libya adjoining Cyrene, visitors from Rome, both Jews and proselytes, 11 Cretans and [d]Arabs—we hear them speaking in our own tongues the wonderful works of God.”​

​

​

​

The early church is the Catholic Church.

 

[Synergos]

When both Romanists and Protestants (anyone really) talk about the "early church", I already know that they are completely confused. Typically, the "early church"

Usually, by the early church is meant either early church of the apostles, or of the apostolic fathers, or early fathers, until the Nicene Creed, thus the Church which followed the Apostolic Symbol or Creed.

Also, essentially, the Christian Church which replaced the Judaic Church, thus the Church which looked to the Lord Jesus Christ, as the Son of God, and also God, and followed Divine Commandments of faith and charity.

 

[VladtheDestroyer]

The early church is the Catholic Church.

No way.

 

[Derf]

When both Romanists and Protestants (anyone really) talk about the "early church", I already know that they are completely confused. Typically, the "early church" refers to a mythological organization that began on the lawfully required Jewish feast day of Pentecost. Most of Churchianity (Catholics and Protestants, et al) believes that a "church" began on that day, but the Bible says otherwise. The following are some Biblical facts:

• The Bible says that there was a church in the wilderness (Acts 17:38) that was MUCH earlier than the mythological one that supposedly began in Acts 2.
• The Bible says that the "church" in Acts 2 was NOT BEGAN, but was ADDED to (Acts 2:47).
• The Bible says that the "church" in Acts 2 was thoroughly Jewish (along with Jewish proselytes) [Acts 2:10]. No random gentiles involved.

Acts 7:38 (AKJV/PCE)​

(7:38) This is he, that was in the church in the wilderness with the angel which spake to him in the mount Sina, and [with] our fathers: who received the lively oracles to give unto us:​

​

Acts 2:47 (AKJV/PCE)​

(2:47) Praising God, and having favour with all the people. And the Lord added to the church daily such as should be saved.​

​

Acts 2:10 (AKJV/PCE)​

(2:10) Phrygia, and Pamphylia, in Egypt, and in the parts of Libya about Cyrene, and strangers of Rome, Jews and proselytes,​

More helpful information: https://graceambassadors.com/tradition/history/the-myth-of-the-first-century-church

usually a building is built on a foundation, rather than a foundation being added after the church is built. What church do you think Jesus refers to here, and what is the foundation:
Matthew 16:18 KJV — And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.

If the foundation is either Peter (Catholic view) or the truth of Peter's confession (Protestant view), how could a church be existing a 1000 years or more before the foundation?

 

[Idolater]

usually a building is built on a foundation, rather than a foundation being added after the church is built. What church do you think Jesus refers to here, and what is the foundation:
Matthew 16:18 KJV — And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.

If the foundation is either Peter (Catholic view) or the truth of Peter's confession (Protestant view), how could a church be existing a 1000 years or more before the foundation?

Those are both the Catholic view.

 

[Derf]

Those are both the Catholic view.

Perhaps, but Peter being the rock the church is built on is the more prominent Catholic view, since it supports Pope-ish authority. And I hope you see the point of what I'm getting at, since @Right Divider is displaying his foolishness again.

 

[Idolater]

Perhaps, but Peter being the rock the church is built on is the more prominent Catholic view, since it supports Pope-ish authority. And I hope you see the point of what I'm getting at, since @Right Divider is displaying his foolishness again.

I don't see the point, no. Matthew 16 Church to RD isn't the Body of Christ Paul. To RD the Matthew 16 Church went along as planned until it didn't, and now it's "on hold" (or something like that). That it's 'on hold' is why the Catholic views make no sense, it doesn't apply to non-proselyte Gentiles, the only Gentiles it applies to is Gentile proselytes to Levitical priesthood temple "Judaism", at the time of Christ, and apparently, for a little while afterward but it didn't survive the first century, so anybody who's claiming anything from the Gospels and all other non-Pauline New Testament books as intended for and speaking to and addressed to them today, Jew or Gentile, they believe you've made a mistake. The Matthew 16 Church isn't a thing today, not until the End Times will the Matthew 16 Church be a thing again.

 

[JudgeRightly]

Matthew 16 Church ... isn't the Body of Christ Paul.

Correct.

And Peter isn't the foundation. Jesus is.

... the Matthew 16 Church went along as planned until it didn't, and now it's "on hold" (or something like that).

Correct. Paul said:

For I do not desire, brethren, that you should be ignorant of this mystery, lest you should be wise in your own opinion, that blindness in part has happened to Israel until the fullness of the Gentiles has come in.

Bible Gateway passage: Romans 11:25 - New King James Version

For I do not desire, brethren, that you should be ignorant of this mystery, lest you should be wise in your own opinion, that blindness in part has happened to Israel until the fullness of the Gentiles has come in.

www.biblegateway.com

That it's 'on hold' is why the Catholic views make no sense, it doesn't apply to non-proselyte Gentiles, the only Gentiles it applies to is Gentile proselytes to Levitical priesthood temple "Judaism", at the time of Christ, and apparently, for a little while afterward

The time between Pentecost and God's cutting off of Israel due to their rejection of Christ as Messiah, shown by their stoning of Stephen, and Paul's subsequent conversion on the road to Damascus, was about one year. As Jesus Himself said:

He also spoke this parable: “A certain man had a fig tree planted in his vineyard, and he came seeking fruit on it and found none. Then he said to the keeper of his vineyard, ‘Look, for three years I have come seeking fruit on this fig tree and find none. Cut it down; why does it use up the ground?’ But he answered and said to him, ‘Sir, let it alone this year also, until I dig around it and fertilize it. And if it bears fruit, well. But if not, after that you can cut it down. ’ ”

Bible Gateway passage: Luke 13:6-9 - New King James Version

The Parable of the Barren Fig Tree - He also spoke this parable: “A certain man had a fig tree planted in his vineyard, and he came seeking fruit on it and found none. Then he said to the keeper of his vineyard, ‘Look, for three years I have come seeking fruit on this fig tree and find none. Cut...

www.biblegateway.com

but it didn't survive the first century, so anybody who's claiming anything from the Gospels and all other non-Pauline New Testament books as intended for and speaking to and addressed to them today, Jew or Gentile, they believe you've made a mistake.

To be clear, it's that anything after Paul's Epistles is intended for a future generation.

Everything before Paul was intended for Christ's imminent return, which clearly never happened, due to Israel's rejection of her Messiah. It was intended to teach people how to live in the coming restored Kingdom of Israel, with Christ on the throne.

The Matthew 16 Church isn't a thing today, not until the End Times will the Matthew 16 Church be a thing again.

Indeed, Israel's program will resume once the rapture happens.

 

[Right Divider]

Usually, by the early church is meant either early church of the apostles, or of the apostolic fathers, or early fathers, until the Nicene Creed, thus the Church which followed the Apostolic Symbol or Creed.

Yes, we know what the myth is... we hear it all the time.

Also, essentially, the Christian Church which replaced the Judaic Church,

Nonsense. The church which is His body (i.e., the body of Christ) is a NEW creature and not a replacement for Israel.

thus the Church which looked to the Lord Jesus Christ, as the Son of God, and also God, and followed Divine Commandments of faith and charity.

You don't think that the church that already existed on "the day of Pentecost" looked to the Lord Jesus Christ?

You seem like a completely confused person.

 

[Derf]

Yes, we know what the myth is... we hear it all the time.

Nonsense. The church which is His body (i.e., the body of Christ) is a NEW creature and not a replacement for Israel.

You don't think that the church that already existed on "the day of Pentecost" looked to the Lord Jesus Christ?

You seem like a completely confused person.

So how did Jesus build a new church on the foundation of the apostles, or the apostles' understanding of who Jesus was, that was also the church in the wilderness 1400 years before?

 

[Right Divider]

I don't see the point, no. Matthew 16 Church to RD isn't the Body of Christ Paul.

It's not me... it's what the scripture says.

To RD the Matthew 16 Church went along as planned until it didn't, and now it's "on hold" (or something like that).

Rom 11:25 (AKJV/PCE)​

(11:25) For I would not, brethren, that ye should be ignorant of this mystery, lest ye should be wise in your own conceits; that blindness in part is happened to Israel, until the fulness of the Gentiles be come in.​

That it's 'on hold' is why the Catholic views make no sense,

No, there are thousands of reasons why the RCC makes no sense.

it doesn't apply to non-proselyte Gentiles, the only Gentiles it applies to is Gentile proselytes to Levitical priesthood temple "Judaism", at the time of Christ, and apparently, for a little while afterward but it didn't survive the first century, so anybody who's claiming anything from the Gospels and all other non-Pauline New Testament books as intended for and speaking to and addressed to them today, Jew or Gentile, they believe you've made a mistake. The Matthew 16 Church isn't a thing today, not until the End Times will the Matthew 16 Church be a thing again.

You are completely insane.

 

[Right Divider]

So how did Jesus build a new church on the foundation of the apostles, or the apostles' understanding of who Jesus was, that was also the church in the wilderness 1400 years before?

God had two plans that He will join in the future.

One for the earth, with the nation of Israel.
One for heaven with the body of Christ.

It's so simple and clearly shown in scripture. That you cannot understand is your own personal problem.

Eph 1:9-10 (AKJV/PCE)​

(1:9) Having made known unto us the mystery of his will, according to his good pleasure which he hath purposed in himself: (1:10) That in the dispensation of the fulness of times he might gather together in one all things in Christ, both which are in heaven, and which are on earth; [even] in him:​

 

[JudgeRightly]

So how did Jesus build a new church on the foundation of the apostles, or the apostles' understanding of who Jesus was, that was also the church in the wilderness 1400 years before?

Jesus was going to build His church upon Himself, rather than the law of Moses.

Not the Apostles.

The New Covenant was with the same two parties as the Old Covenant.