Direct Link to Jesus besides Catholics?

Just like there are "small c Catholics" that recite the creed but reject the Catechism, there are "small a Apostolics" (usually Landmark baptists) that try to gain legitimacy by claiming a mysterious link to "the church in the book of acts" (a link which of course is historically and logically illegitimate, seeing as they are in fact part of a "reformed" movement.)

But you already knew that right John.... ;)

No. There is none.

It has to be found in the evidentiary Patristic record. That is, in the

sermons of the Apostles (the scriptural writings and letters to their

flocks) in the Apostolic Early Fathers who were taught by the Apostles

who further explained the Doctrine of Christ), or, if any of that escaped

notice, then in the Decrees or Decretals of the Early Fathers which

elaborate and coordinate the teachings of the entire body of Apostolic

Fathers on doctrinal teachings.

If there were any such teachings claiming that those outside the Church,

such as Arians, or that "even an Angel" received direct commission

from Christ to teach against the Doctrines He gave to the Apostles, it

would be, or have been found prior to the events of collecting the Letters

and Decrees, scriptures and notes from the Apostles and verified by

their successors, the Early Fathers.

But there were none. We, therefore, joyously observe and are obedient

to the Doctrine of Christ held in the Holy (Whole) Roman Catholic Church

of Jesus Christ of Nazareth Outside of Which There is No Salvation.

Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus.

This is a de fide (de rigeur) teaching of the Church. It excludes the

"catholic" Conciliars of Vatican II who no longer hold ALL the doctrines

of the Roman Catholic Church; and in defiance of the de rigeur teaching

of the Encyclical Pascendi of Pope St. Pius X the Conciliars have

abandoned numerous such doctrines. Let no one say that schismatic

deniers of doctrine are part of the True Church.

They are not.

traditionalmass.org

gerrymatatics.org

huttongibson.org.

Well, for one, Jesus did not pay the homage or adoration to His Mother that the Catholics do, Jesus never said to ask dead people to pray for them, nor did the apostles. They kept the 7th day Sabbath, Jesus never said in scripture, not even hinted once, Now that I have resurrected, this is the Sabbath, You can throw the 4th commandment out because well My Father is outdated. There was no stipulation on partaking in the breaking of the bread in remembrance of His death. Just "Do this in remembrance of Me" or go to anything other than accepting Jesus as Savior and Son of God to receive The Holy Spirit and the Gifts of the Holy Spirit.Jesus and the Apostles never celebrated Easter and Christmas, or any other man made holy days, Jesus and the Apostles never celebrated His birthday ever. Jesus and His Apostles kept The Lords Feasts, Catholics never did.No Easter is not Passover! The catholics baptize babies at birth, Jesus was baptized when He was 30 years old, and The Apostles baptized adults. No where in scripture do you see the Apostles listening to another man's sins and telling them now they are forgiven.

So, if the Catholic church truly was a verifiable link to Peter and Jesus, then why have they thrown so much of the True religion out the door and stuffed it with paganism and their own stuff ?

I'm not sure what you are asking but the only direct link any Christian has to Jesus and the Apostles through their leadership is the Communion of the breaking of the bread and drinking from the blessing cup. When one takes Communion with the Holy Spirit one partakes directly with Jesus Christ as Our Lord and Savior. Jesus directed His Apostles to do this ritual in remembrance of Him and the Holy Spirit.

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

16 The cup of blessing which we bless, is it not the communion of the blood of Christ? The bread which we break, is it not the communion of the body of Christ?

The Holy Bible : King James Version. electronic ed. of the 1769 edition of the 1611 Authorized Version. Bellingham WA : Logos Research Systems, Inc., 1995, S. 1 Co 10:16

51 I am the living bread which came down from heaven: if any man eat of this bread, he shall live for ever: and the bread that I will give is my flesh, which I will give for the life of the world.

The Holy Bible : King James Version. electronic ed. of the 1769 edition of the 1611 Authorized Version. Bellingham WA : Logos Research Systems, Inc., 1995, S. Jn 6:51

Funnily enough - I just read a book about mormonism ...and they think they got in there first!

They base this on something that's supposed to occur at the 'end times' according to the bible called the 'apostasy' where everyone will leave the church.

They claim it happened in the very early church and that the RC's broke away from the Mormons. Yeah. Doesn't sound plausible to me!

There's no evidence for it at all; no documents that suggest; no biblical or historical or archaeological evidence for it. But that's what mormons believe...and they believe it because Joseph Smith told them so!

(You may notice I'm a little angry about it...it's because my friend's a mormon and when I read stuff like that, I feel angry to think she's being mislead.)

The Roman Catholic Church is the continuation of the early Christian community in the Western world started by Peter and Paul.

The Orthodox Church (consist of several Churches in communion) are the continuation of the early Christian communities in the Eastern world started by the other Apostles.

There is no historic connection between Jesus and Protestants. Jesus and His apostles lived 1500 years before the Protestant Reformation.

The Roman Catholic Church do NOT have apostolic succession from Jesus. St. Peter never even met Jesus. His version wasn't the same as that of Jesus. Peter brought in ideas like celibacy and that women shouldn't speak in Church. Jesus believed in reincarnation according to the bible and believed we are all one and we are all divine. Gnostics are the only ones that can claim apostolic succession as their tradition came from apostles. More of the Nag Hammadi (Gnostic) gospels are written by apostles than New Testament ones. The Catholic church didn't manage to wipe out all the competition.

The Roman Catholic Church and the Eastern Orthodox Church are two different churches.

The RCC claims to have apostolic succession through St. Peter, the first Pope. The Orthodox and the Anglican Church both claim apostolic succession from St. Peter as descendants of the RCC.

I doubt there's any proof for this other than what the RCC pulls from its own traditions and the Bible.

EDIT: I forgot about the Old Catholics too. They can also claim apostolic succession through the RCC.

And I said that they were two different churches, which is still true. Writing all that other stuff is just going into greater detail in what I already said.

Anyone who has been baptized in the name of Jesus has a direct link to Jesus & the Apostles!!

HOW DID THE EARLY CHURCH INTERPRET CHRIST'S COMMAND IN MATTHEW 28:19?

ACTS 2:38, 8:16, 10:48, and 19:5 are four Biblical references that answer this question.

-------------------------------------------------------------------

If the Biblical record is not enough, please examine the findings of the educated, scholars, and historians:

Britannica Encyclopedia - 11th Edition, Volume 3, page 365 - Baptism was changed from the name of Jesus to words Father, Son & Holy Ghost in 2nd Century.

Canney Encyclopedia of Religion - page 53 - The early church baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus until the second century.

Hastings Encyclopedia of Religion - Volume 2 - Christian baptism was administered using the words, "in the name of Jesus." page 377. Baptism was always in the name of Jesus until time of Justin Martyr, page 389

Catholic Encyclopedia - Volume 2, page 435 - Here the authors acknowledged that be baptismal formula was changed by their church.

Schaff - Herzog Religious Encyclopedia - Volume 1, page 435 - The New Testament knows only the baptism in the name of Jesus.

Hastings Dictionary of the Bible - page 88 - It must be acknowledged that the three fold name of Matthew 28:19 does not appear to have been used by the primitive church, but rather in the name of Jesus or Lord Jesus.

Should anyone dare to change what CHRIST and the Apostles established?

------------------------------------------------------------------------

Acts 2:38 (King James Version)

Then Peter (the first Pope) said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost.

*ADDED* ROFL @your response!

I think you do not understand what you are asking. All Christian groups claim direct link to Jesus through the bible because the bible expects us to read it and get familiar with it. The Catholic Church bends scripture to support its stance. But it is the duty of every Christian to search and know the bible. Regrettably, only 6 to 8 percent of all so called Christians have ever read the bible.

From time to time certain Christian groups organize and expand. Others die out. But the first genuine Christian group was the Jews that accepted Jesus Christ during and after His life on earth. It was the Apostle Paul who went to the gentile people and preached the death and resurrection and eventual return of Christ. Peter and the other 11 apostles preached to the Jews shortly before being scattered in the destruction of Jerusalem in 70AD. From that time forward, every Christian has taken up the task of preaching and evangelizing the peoples they met in life's journey.