Mary the Queen of Heaven

[TER]

All those verses only add more proof to my claim. Ignatius did not consider himself an apostle. Even when he uses analogies, he compares bishops (like himself) to God, and the presbytery to the apostles.

Yes, he was a leader in the church and expected those under his authority to respect it. Yes, he believed that he was carrying on the ministry of the apostles, just like he believed presbyters and other Christians were. But he was not an apostle and did not consider himself one.

I never claimed that Ignatius didn't believe he was carrying on the ministry of the apostles. I claimed that he didn't believe he was an apostle. And clearly he didn't. He unambiguously said that he was not one.

Erowe, he was not one of the Twelve. I agree with you, and have said that many times. The Twelve have a great honor and special place within the Kingdom of God, and St. Ignatius does not compare say to St. Peter in glory and honor. However, neither was St. Paul one of the Twelve (though in many ways surpassed many of the Twelve). But like St. Paul, St. Ignatius continued their ministry as leaders of the Church, defenders of the faith, and protectors and shephards to the flock. He was an Apostle in his ministry as St. Paul was. St. Ignatius didn't have to say "I have received apostolic succession therefore I am your leader", he was too humble for that. Instead, in meekness and in love, his words and actions revealed what he was, which was a loyal shepherd in the Church and faithful servant of God. For in the end, the Bishop is leader, but he is first of all a servant to God and those whom he has been appointed to shepherd.

[pcosmar]

And yet none of the authors of any of the books of the Old Testament quoted from or mentioned this ancient work from a prophet they revered who wrote prophecies about their times?

Did any of the Prophets quote other Prophets? (Not aware of any off hand)
But New Testament writers did quote the Prophets. Jude being one of them.

And of course Jesus quoted some as well.

Oh,, and Enoch was not about "their times".. but written for those in the Last days.

The words of the blessing of Enoch, wherewith he blessed the elect ⌈⌈and⌉⌉ righteous, who will be living in the day of tribulation, when all the wicked ⌈⌈and godless⌉⌉ are to be removed. And he took up his parable and said--Enoch a righteous man, whose eyes were opened by God, saw the vision of the Holy One in the heavens, ⌈which⌉ the angels showed me, and from them I heard everything, and from them I understood as I saw, but not for this generation, but for a remote one which is for to come.

[erowe1]

I am choosing what others (namely the voice of the consensus of the Church)

No you aren't. The there is no voice of consensus in the Church that says that Ignatius was an apostle, or that he was appointed as bishop of Antioch by Peter, or that he succeeded some other bishop of Antioch named Euodius or anything else in the 60's AD. There are a few individual human beings here and there, the earliest of whom come from centuries after the time of Ignatius, who say those things, and many other Christians equally claiming a part in the Church who do not (and this is not only in the days since the 16 century, but in all centuries of Church history).

However, we can prove that those who say that Euodius was bishop of Antioch while Peter was still alive are wrong, since we know that monarchical bishops didn't exist yet. Whatever the basis these people have for either believing that mistake or making up that lie, it's not divine inspiration, and they do not speak for the Church. We have writings from the apostles themselves from the 60's AD that say this.

[erowe1]

Did any of the Prophets quote other Prophets?

Yes they did. Word-for-word quotes are rare. But clear allusions to earlier prophets writings are very common.

[erowe1]

Erowe, he was not one of the Twelve. I agree with you, and have said that many times. The Twelve have a great honor and special place within the Kingdom of God, and St. Ignatius does not compare say to St. Peter in glory and honor. However, neither was St. Paul one of the Twelve (though in many ways surpassed many of the Twelve). But like St. Paul, St. Ignatius continued their ministry as leaders of the Church, defenders of the faith, and protectors and shephards to the flock. He was an Apostle in his ministry as St. Paul was. St. Ignatius didn't have to say "I have received apostolic succession therefore I am your leader", he was too humble for that. Instead, in meekness and in love, his words and actions revealed what he was, which was a loyal shepherd in the Church and faithful servant of God. For in the end, the Bishop is leader, but he is first of all a servant to God and those whom he has been appointed to shepherd.

You are being slippery.

Yes or no, was Ignatius an apostle in the technical sense that Paul and the twelve were (i.e. the kind of apostle that I claimed no longer existed after the early Church)?

If the answer is no, then I don't see what you were disagreeing with me about. And if Ignatius wasn't an apostle, then in the centuries since the first generation of Christianity, have there been any other apostles? If so, whom? I don't see why we wasted all this time talking about Ignatius if you don't even consider him an example of an apostle.

[TER]

In the days of the apostles, bishops were not considered apostles (at least not apostles in the technical sense that Paul and the 12 were. And in the churches with which Ignatius was familiar 60 years later, bishops were still not considered apostles (in that technical sense).

St. Patrick is called by the Church as the Apostle to Ireland.
St. Mary Magdalene is called in the Church as 'The Apostle to the Apostles' for she went and told them that Christ had resurrected.
There are many Saints in the Church who are called Apostles. This does not mean that they were part of the original Twelve, but that they served in an apostolic ministry to spread the good news. In fact, we are all called to be apostles to Christ! Since the days of the early centuries, when the original twelve had died and passed on the leadership of the Church to the Bishops, these Bishops have become the image of them by their ministry to continue the good work of spreading the good news and defending the faith. Only few ever become Bishops, but we are all called to be apostles.

[TER]

No you aren't. The there is no voice of consensus in the Church that says that Ignatius was an apostle, or that he was appointed as bishop of Antioch by Peter, or that he succeeded some other bishop of Antioch named Euodius or anything else in the 60's AD. There are a few individual human beings here and there, the earliest of whom come from centuries after the time of Ignatius, who say those things, and many other Christians equally claiming a part in the Church who do not (and this is not only in the days since the 16 century, but in all centuries of Church history).

However, we can prove that those who say that Euodius was bishop of Antioch while Peter was still alive are wrong, since we know that monarchical bishops didn't exist yet. Whatever the basis these people have for either believing that mistake or making up that lie, it's not divine inspiration, and they do not speak for the Church. We have writings from the apostles themselves from the 60's AD that say this.

According to the Eastern Orthodox Church which traces itself sacramentally and historically back to the Twelve, there is indeed a consensus that St. Ignatius was a great Saint, had been all those things I mentioned, and had assumed the ministry of the Apostles as the Bishop of Antioch. That is the consensus I want to share in unity in mind and faith in.

[erowe1]

St. Patrick is called by the Church as the Apostle of Ireland.
St. Mary Magdalene is called in the Church as 'The Apostle to the Apostles' for she went and told them about that Christ had resurrected.
There are many Saints in the Church who are called Apostles. This does not mean that they were part of the original Twelve, but that they served in an apostolic ministry to spread the good news. In fact, we are all called to be apostles to Christ! Since the days of the early centuries, when the original twelve had died and passed on the leadership of the Church to the Bishops, these Bishops have become the image of them by their ministry to continue the good work of spreading the good news and defending the faith. Only few ever become Bishop, but we are all called to be apostles.

Are those usages of the word "apostle" intended in the technical sense, which the New Testament applies to Paul and the 12? Or is it meant in a less technical sense, meaning a sent one?

Calling bishops the image of the apostles ministry (which is conspicuously different than what Ignatius says, who instead makes that comparison only with presbyters, not bishops), is not the same thing as them being apostles in that technical sense.

[erowe1]

According to the Eastern Orthodox Church which traces itself sacramentally and historically back to the Twelve, there is indeed a consensus that St. Ignatius was a great Saint, had been all those things I mentioned, and had assumed the ministry of the Apostles as the Bishop of Antioch. That is the consensus I want to share in unity in mind and faith in.

All believers in Jesus everywhere trace themselves sacramentally and historically back to the 12.

At what point in the history of the EOC did those believes become the consensus of the EOC? The 8th century? Later? They certainly weren't the consensus view of the Church Fathers that you believe to have belonged to the EOC.

[TER]

All believers in Jesus everywhere trace themselves sacramentally and historically back to the 12.

And before you get to the 12, you must go through the Eastern Orthodox Church. This is true historically and sacramentally.

At what point in the history of the EOC did those believes become the consensus of the EOC? The 8th century? Later? They certainly weren't the consensus view of the Church Fathers that you believe to have belonged to the EOC.

The very act of sacramental communion denotes a striving and struggle for unity of faith. A person who rejects the very Presence of Christ in the Holy Eucharist may think they are in sacramental communion with the early Church, but they are not. Likewise with the dogmas of the faith. One rejecting the essential dogmas which have been professed by the Church (and in number, there are actually few and delineated in the Ecumenical Councils) expel themselves from the unity of faith and mind, having put their own mind above the mind of the Church which is born from the consensus of the Fathers in and through time.

[TER]

Are those usages of the word "apostle" intended in the technical sense, which the New Testament applies to Paul and the 12? Or is it meant in a less technical sense, meaning a sent one?

My point is that the term can have different uses, as you have stated.

Calling bishops the image of the apostles ministry (which is conspicuously different than what Ignatius says, who instead makes that comparison only with presbyters, not bishops), is not the same thing as them being apostles in that technical sense.

St. Ignatius calls the bishops the image of God, Christ Himself, and the presbyters the image of the Apostles. In this he is explaining the hierarchy of the Church in its ecclesiastical formation, for just as Christ is the head of the Apostles, likewise the Bishop is the head of the presbyters.

But the ministry he provided and all bishops provide are in the image of the Apostles who have been graced by the Holy Spirit via apostolic succession to lead the Church and feed the flock. That is why in the Eastern Orthodox Church, the presbyters who perform the duties of serving the Divine Liturgy and the Holy Eucharist do it under the auspices and authority of the Bishops who are their heads (indeed, in their place), just as it has been done since the early Church. Whereas it was the Apostles who performed these duties when they were present, when they weren't, it was done under those with whom they had appointed as 'elders/bishops' and presbyters.

[robert68]

It’s fitting that a religion produced and allied with the tyrannical and often warring eastern Roman Empire regards Mary, a mother, as a Queen.

[erowe1]

And before you get to the 12, you must go through the Eastern Orthodox Church. This is true historically and sacramentally.

Unless you just define the EOC as everyone who believes in Jesus, regardless of where they go to church or whether any particular bishops are over them, then we can conclusively and indisputably prove that that's not true. And I would wager that any good Eastern Orthodox scholars of Church history will back me up on that.

[erowe1]

But the ministry he provided and all bishops provide are in the image of the Apostles who have been graced by the Holy Spirit via apostolic succession to lead the Church and feed the flock.

But Ignatius does not say that, or anything remotely close to it.

And, more to the point, when it comes to the simple question, "Was Ignatius an apostle?" he says unambiguously that he was not one.

[erowe1]

My point is that the term can have different uses, as you have stated.

If that is your point, then we can return to the issue that brought that point up, which was my claim that there is at least one spiritual gift that was only given in the early church and has not been given to any believers since that time, namely apostleship, when "apostle" is defined in that limited technical sense that applied to Paul and the 12, as eyewitnesses of the risen Christ who provided the foundation for the Church.

If the only kind of apostles that you think have existed since that time are people who can be called "apostle" in some other sense of the word, but not in that limited technical sense of the word, then you agree with me about the cessation of at least that one spiritual gift.

On the other hand, if you disagree with me about the cessation of that one spiritual gift, then bringing up these alleged counterexamples that only end up being people who could be called "apostle" in some other sense but not in the sense I was talking about, then all you're doing is obfuscating the issue, rather than supporting your position.

[TER]

I will answer your questions tomorrow as I have to get to bed. In the meantime, you should read the seven epistles of St. Ignatius tonight (they are not long and can be finished in less than a half an hour) so that we can have a better understanding and discussion tomorrow of the new topic of this thread which is the unity of the faith under obedience to the Bishop in sacramental communion around the Holy Eucharist, which has been the apostolic teachings of the Apostolic fathers of the Chuch and has continued to this day by the grace of God.

[heavenlyboy34]

It’s fitting that a religion produced and allied with the tyrannical and often warring eastern Roman Empire regards Mary, a mother, as a Queen.

How so? None of the Patriarchates were "produced" by Rome. Only the Roman Church was "allied" (I don't consider this to be a totally accurate term) with Rome, and even then not until Constantine.

[TER]

Unless you just define the EOC as everyone who believes in Jesus, regardless of where they go to church or whether any particular bishops are over them, then we can conclusively and indisputably prove that that's not true. And I would wager that any good Eastern Orthodox scholars of Church history will back me up on that.

I don't think you will find one.

But Ignatius does not say that, or anything remotely close to it.

And, more to the point, when it comes to the simple question, "Was Ignatius an apostle?" he says unambiguously that he was not one.

St. Ignatius humbly acknowledges he is not one of the Twelve. As for continuing their apostolic ministry to lead the Church in love and service, he affirmed it by his title and ministry as the first century Bishop of Antioch and by being a beloved Saint of God in Christ.

If that is your point, then we can return to the issue that brought that point up, which was my claim that there is at least one spiritual gift that was only given in the early church and has not been given to any believers since that time, namely apostleship, when "apostle" is defined in that limited technical sense that applied to Paul and the 12, as eyewitnesses of the risen Christ who provided the foundation for the Church.

If the only kind of apostles that you think have existed since that time are people who can be called "apostle" in some other sense of the word, but not in that limited technical sense of the word, then you agree with me about the cessation of at least that one spiritual gift.

On the other hand, if you disagree with me about the cessation of that one spiritual gift, then bringing up these alleged counterexamples that only end up being people who could be called "apostle" in some other sense but not in the sense I was talking about, then all you're doing is obfuscating the issue, rather than supporting your position.

There was no cessation of the Twelve, and neither their special place in the story of our salvation. For even now they pray for the Church. Neither are their gifts gone, for the same Holy Spirit which gifted them also gifts St. Ignatius and all the saints. Their special and unique role as Twelve Apostles puts them in a special place, I do not disagree. There will never be another Twelve. But the Holy Spirit did not abandon the Church when they died. Indeed, their apostolic ministry was to literally hand down the Holy Spirit unto the trusted leaders and clergy of the Church so that these teachers and leaders would continue what they first started which was to spread the gospel and to feed the flock. The special place and spiritual gifts of the Apostles never has ended, instead, the Church has developed in order to keep pure and undefiled the fundamental teachings of the saints and to share in the right worship of God around the Holy Eucharist. How they did this, we see in a small part in Acts. But the story did not end in Acts. That was just the beginning of the life and development of the Church which was contending in the world. Much happened while the Apostles were alive and not recorded in the NT. The limited history recorded explain some of their acts while displaying the birth of the Church. The maturation was only beginning and the work of the Holy Spirit in the world just starting.

The very reason why the truths of Christ have endured is because of the Holy Spirit and the humility and obedience of men. The establishment and survival of the Church has been on account of lives borne in such obedience and humility, and St. Ignatius was one such man.

In order to make the certain modern Western Christian perspectives true, we must ignore any developed Church in the end of the first century, ignore all the writings of the Church Fathers, call all the early Saints liars (including Apostolic Fathers), make Apostles fools for creating the conditions and choosing the men who would fall within a generation, and worst of all consider the Holy Spirit impotent in protecting and guiding the Church. I cannot accept this and neither should any logical man of true faith.

The alternative which is the way of Christ is to humble ourselves before God and man, to see ourselves fallible and in need of instruction and guidance, and to stop fighting against the Holy Spirit and the Church thinking we are some greater authority regarding the will of God in the life of the Church over a beloved Bishop and Saint of the first century. Are we so sure of ourselves that we put ourselves above him, thinking us more knowledgable, experienced, spiritually illuminated and full of love and the Holy Spirit? But humility is a hard virtue because pride is such a strong and powerful vice. Our faith is not made true by our minds, but given to us through humility.

The question in the end is whom do we consider to be more authoritative, our mind's opinion and interpretations based on sparse and limited information, or the witness of the Church which has always been the pillar and foundation of the truth. We should not conform the Church into an image of what we think, stopping at a certain time in history as if God disappeared, but rather conform our own beliefs and add to our own witness that which the Church is, the living Body of Christ, which seeks communion as one body, meaning

• one mind (similar conclusions and interpretations),
• one faith (similar fundamental beliefs and doctrines),
• one spirit (the spirit of love and self giving, that is the Holy Spirit),
• partaking of the One Bread (the Body and Blood of Christ, that is the Holy Eucharist)
• as one flesh (as the Bride of the Bridegroom and through the Body and Blood of Christ)
• in mystical communion and worship of God and His Body the Church

Such oneness of Church and unity exists now and has existed since the Day of Pentecost, and St. Ignatius is such a member of this unity, as well as the Apostles who loved him, taught him, and shared in sacramental communion. Instead of trying to look for some hidden branches which do not exist or which withered away into heresies long ago such as the Docetists whom St. Ignatius fought against in the first century, look and see that the Church of Christ did not end at the last page of Acts but has overcome by the grace of God and has continued to bring light to the world through our Savior Jesus Christ.

[Terry1]

Last time I checked--the title of Apostle was not limited to just the twelve and can apply to those sent by our Lord to teach and minister the word of God. And since the Apostle Paul called all saints to the ministry--it's not out of line to understand that there are many other Apostles of the Lord who do His will. How do we know? Because the ancient church history confirms it and reconciles with their teaching.

2 Corinthians 6:4

But in all things approving ourselves as the ministers of God, in much patience, in afflictions, in necessities, in distresses,

Acts 1:

23 And they appointed two, Joseph called Barsabas, who was surnamed Justus, and Matthias.

24 And they prayed, and said, Thou, Lord, which knowest the hearts of all men, shew whether of these two thou hast chosen,

25 That he may take part of this ministry and apostleship, from which Judas by transgression fell, that he might go to his own place.




Aren't there something like seventy other confirmed Apostles in the Gospel?




Strong's Concordance

apostolos: a messenger, one sent on a mission, an apostle
Original Word: ἀπόστολος, ου, ὁ
Part of Speech: Noun, Masculine
Transliteration: apostolos
Phonetic Spelling: (ap-os'-tol-os)
Short Definition: an apostle, a messenger, an envoy, a delegate
Definition: a messenger, envoy, delegate, one commissioned by another to represent him in some way, especially a man sent out by Jesus Christ Himself to preach the Gospel; an apostle.
HELPS Word-studies

Cognate: 652 apóstolos (from 649 /apostéllō, "to commission, send forth") – properly, someone sent (commissioned), focusing back on the authority (commissioning) of the sender (note the prefix, apo); apostle.

[robert68]

How so? None of the Patriarchates were "produced" by Rome. Only the Roman Church was "allied" (I don't consider this to be a totally accurate term) with Rome, and even then not until Constantine.

"Ecumenical Patriarch of Constantinople"

[TER]

The Church of Constantinople existed before their was a city named such and dates back to the Apostle Andrew. It is the same Church since then and in time, due to the changing geopolitical landscape (namely the moving of the Capital from Rome to 'New Rome' (Aka Constantinople), the Church decided to elevate it in rank with equal footing with Old Rome. That was by a decision of the bishops in synod (including the Bishop of Rome) in the year 382 (a Ecumencial Council). It was not the Emperor who decided this, it was the Church adapting to a changing world, a change made by the decision of the people within the Church. It is the same reason any group would want to be located in the most important city in the world, for the advantageous capablilites in communications, organization, and to use the power inherent in the city to do more far reaching and efficacious work. In the case of the Church of Constantinople which had existed for three hundred years prior, it was to facilitate the Church's work in spreading the gospel and baptizing all nations in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. It is natural for the city at the center of human politics and trade to also concentrate within it the leaders of religious communities. Go to NY and DC and you will find the heads of many faiths and communities there. For the Church, it facilitated the spreading of the gospel within this specific nexus and location in order to enlighten and influence the policy makers for the benefit of the faithful and the Church. And the presence and work of this Church in New Rome has done much to spread the faith in the history of Christianity, even against centuries being beset by barbarian invasions and Islamic expansionism. And not only from foreign powers but from the very Emperors of Rome and Byzantium and the political elite (well after Constantine died), many of which persecuted the Church and all Christians and tried to revive the pagan practices and worship of the State.

This Church has survived since the days of the Apostles even against all odds. For while it had a working relationship with the State, the Church did not become the State such as which tragically happened in Old Rome in the Middle Ages.

So much has the Ecumencial Patriarchate served the Christian world that it still retains this honor given to it by the Church in Ecumenical Council, even until today, centuries after the end of the Roman and Byzantine Empires. The Church adapts to the world around her, in order to pass down the doctrines of Christ and the traditions of the Apostles even though attacked from without and within by sinful men. But the world does not own her even though sinful men make efforts to destroy or co-opt her, and kings have been born and died, empires have come and gone, but the Church has endured and will forever endure by the power of God. And that is because the Church is not a mere human organism but in the image of Christ, His Body, of divine origin as well. The Holy Spirit kept the line of Israel from David until the birth of the Lord, and likewise keeps it alive until His glorious return. For there is One King and One Kingdom which is not of this world, even as we the Church militant do battle within it so that we might inheret the Kingdom of God.

[Kevin007]

Last time I checked--the title of Apostle was not limited to just the twelve and can apply to those sent by our Lord to teach and minister the word of God. And since the Apostle Paul called all saints to the ministry--it's not out of line to understand that there are many other Apostles of the Lord who do His will. How do we know? Because the ancient church history confirms it and reconciles with their teaching.

2 Corinthians 6:4

But in all things approving ourselves as the ministers of God, in much patience, in afflictions, in necessities, in distresses,

Acts 1:

23 And they appointed two, Joseph called Barsabas, who was surnamed Justus, and Matthias.

24 And they prayed, and said, Thou, Lord, which knowest the hearts of all men, shew whether of these two thou hast chosen,

25 That he may take part of this ministry and apostleship, from which Judas by transgression fell, that he might go to his own place.




Aren't there something like seventy other confirmed Apostles in the Gospel?




Strong's Concordance

apostolos: a messenger, one sent on a mission, an apostle
Original Word: ἀπόστολος, ου, ὁ
Part of Speech: Noun, Masculine
Transliteration: apostolos
Phonetic Spelling: (ap-os'-tol-os)
Short Definition: an apostle, a messenger, an envoy, a delegate
Definition: a messenger, envoy, delegate, one commissioned by another to represent him in some way, especially a man sent out by Jesus Christ Himself to preach the Gospel; an apostle.
HELPS Word-studies

Cognate: 652 apóstolos (from 649 /apostéllō, "to commission, send forth") – properly, someone sent (commissioned), focusing back on the authority (commissioning) of the sender (note the prefix, apo); apostle.

no. And ONLY an Apostle can write Scripture that is inspired by the Holy Spirit. That is just one of the reason Protestant's do not include Macabees and Tobit for example. Tobit also because of magic and witchcraft which is strictly forbidden.

There are 66 books.

[erowe1]

St. Ignatius humbly acknowledges he is not one of the Twelve.

He humbly acknowledges that he is not an apostle at all, and specifically disclaims being one of the same category of, not only the 12, but also Paul, whom he names explicitly, saying he's not an apostle like Paul.

[erowe1]

Last time I checked--the title of Apostle was not limited to just the twelve and can apply to those sent by our Lord to teach and minister the word of God.

Not only that. But the word apostolos can apply to any sent one, not just teaching the Word of God, but anyone who's sent by anyone to carry any message.

If you read our discussion you'll see that that point has already been covered.

In addition to that general definition, there is also a technical use of the term apostolos that was used to signify a special and very limited group of leaders in the first generation of the Church whose role it was to found the Church. This included the 12 and Paul. It's possible that it included even others beyond that. I don't exclude that possibility.

While it's true that someone can be a sent one in that general sense, it's not possible for anyone today to belong to that group that was signified by that technical use of the term apostolos in the first generation of the Church.

[erowe1]

There was no cessation of the Twelve, and neither their special place in the story of our salvation. For even now they pray for the Church. Neither are their gifts gone, for the same Holy Spirit which gifted them also gifts St. Ignatius and all the saints.

Please stop being so slippery. These points are not at all related to what I said. Nothing I said contradicts any of this.

There are many spiritual gifts, and the Holy Spirit gives different gifts to different people, appointing them to different roles within the Body of Christ. The Holy Spirit appoints each believer in Jesus to a special and particular role. One of these roles was a role occupied by Paul and the 12 to found the Church. The New Testament refers to this particular gift as "apostolos." Ignatius did not perform this same function. He himself said so. Neither has anyone else ever since the first generation of Christianity.

[robert68]

....

You can spin and spin with propaganda (it's what you do); but in addition to facts like the Ecumenical Councils were all arranged by Emperors, churches in the Byzantine Empire were built with state treasure, and the clergy were exempt from paying taxes, I haven't come across a single Byzantine Emperor who was excommunicated. That speaks volumes. Furthermore, the following speaks for itself, wrt to the E.P’s church:

Hagia Sophia:

First Church

The first church on the site was known as the Μεγάλη Ἐκκλησία (Megálē Ekklēsíā, "Great Church"), or in Latin "Magna Ecclesia",[11][12] because of its larger dimensions in comparison to the contemporary churches in the City.[3] Inaugurated on 15 February 360 (during the reign of Constantius II) by the Arian bishop Eudoxius of Antioch,[13] it was built next to the area where the imperial palace was being developed. The nearby Hagia Eirene ("Holy Peace") church was completed earlier and served as cathedral until the Great Church was completed. Both churches acted together as the principal churches of the Byzantine Empire

Writing in 440, Socrates of Constantinople claimed that the church was built by Constantius II, who was working on it in 346.[13] A tradition which is not older than the 7th – 8th century, reports that the edifice was built by Constantine the Great.[13] Zonaras reconciles the two opinions, writing that Constantius had repaired the edifice consecrated by Eusebius of Nicomedia, after it had collapsed.[13] Since Eusebius was bishop of Constantinople from 339 to 341, and Constantine died in 337, it seems possible that the first church was erected by the latter.[13]...

Second Church
A second church was ordered by Theodosius II, who inaugurated it on 10 October 415. The basilica with a wooden roof was built by architect Rufinus. A fire started during the tumult of the Nika Revolt and burned the second Hagia Sophia to the ground on 13–14 January 532...

Third church (current structure)
On 23 February 532, only a few weeks after the destruction of the second basilica, Emperor Justinian I decided to build a third and entirely different basilica, larger and more majestic than its predecessors.
Hagia Sophia was the seat of the Orthodox patriarch of Constantinople and a principal setting for Byzantine imperial ceremonies, such as coronations....

[TER]

I am not being slippery erowe. I am trying to open your eyes to the fact that there was one catholic Church at the end of the first century, spread across cities and nations, in divine communion with one another under the authority of bishops, priests and deacons, offices which were born from the first ministry of the Apostles in a grace filled succession of charismata, and fully developed by the work of the Holy Spirit within the life of the Church. Acts was never intended to record the complete history of the development if the Church through the Holy Spirit.

St. Paul exhorted his listeners to listen to their teachers and to become of one mind, in one faith and in the one body of Jesus Christ. And to those alone who lived in such unity of faith holding dear to the faith handed once down by the saints, they would partake of the Holy Eucharist. Otherwise they would be unworthy to partake and they should not commune. In fact, they should be casted out, something the Apostles were not shy about doing with those who spoke another gospel and threatened the unity of the Church. For not only would they be in danger if they did partake unworthily of the Body and Blood of Christ (for it is a fearful thing to fall into the hands of the living God), but their presence and scandals would disturb the unity and health of the Church. Neither St. Paul nor the other Apostles were afraid of excommunicating those who distorted the faith and message of Christ.

Thus, our greatest link to find the true Church and the original faith lies in the Holy Eucharist, for it is around this the very Body and Blood of Christ whereby we can find the succession of the truths according to the good will of God.

By the end of the first century, the Church had developed into separate churches, under the leadership of elders/bishops, of which St. Ignatius was one. Many churches though One Church, just as many members make up One Body. Their unity and adherence to the apostolic faith was demonstrated and ontologically realized in the Holy Eucharist.

The fact that St. Ignatius was in sacramental communion with the Bishops far and wide (naming them and worshiping with them on his road to martyrdom) underscores his witness as recorded in his letters as being both catholic (widespread and established) and orthodox (according to the teachings of the Apostles). For he was not excommunicated, nor denounced, nor corrected, but rather glorified and proclaimed a saint for having kept fast to the traditions given to him both by word and epistle and continuing the ministry started by the Apostles to shepherd and feed the flock and keep undefiled the teachings of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ.

[heavenlyboy34]

no. And ONLY an Apostle can write Scripture that is inspired by the Holy Spirit. That is just one of the reason Protestant's do not include Macabees and Tobit for example. Tobit also because of magic and witchcraft which is strictly forbidden.

There are 66 books.

Okay, I can tell you haven't even read Tobit from this. You're just repeating what some anti-Catholic or anti-Orthodox person told you. Did you know Jon 3:16 is an allusion to Tobit?

There are 76 books. Period.

[Kevin007]

Okay, I can tell you haven't even read Tobit from this. You're just repeating what some anti-Catholic or anti-Orthodox person told you. Did you know Jon 3:16 is an allusion to Tobit?

There are 76 books. Period.

lol, no John 3:16 is not. Tobit 6:5-8- If the Devil, or an evil spirit troubles anyone, they can be driven away by making a smoke of the heart, liver, and gall of a fish...and the Devil will smell it, and flee away, and never come again anymore.

This is magic.

[Kevin007]

Okay, I can tell you haven't even read Tobit from this. You're just repeating what some anti-Catholic or anti-Orthodox person told you. Did you know Jon 3:16 is an allusion to Tobit?

There are 76 books. Period.

there are 66. Those 10 books are not included because they are not Scripture. None of them are inspired by the Holy Spirit and all have inaccuracies. The best thing they are good for is history.