There is no evidence that the churches at Damascus, Antioch or Rome for that matter were started by any of the Apostles. In fact the evidence is that they were started by believers who were scattered because of the persecutions.
How do you know if the liturgy is true? Just because “that’s the way we always did it” can’t be the basis for a legitimate church. It could have been wrong in the beginning and perpetuated because the “Church” had too much ego and gelt invested in it. What’s to become of all the ornate buildings, relics, icons and vestments if it is found out that the early church met humbly in homes to sing, pray and share insights they gleaned from their own study or hear a bible teacher? Why Paul says in 1 Cor. 14 that the members, if they have a prophecy are to speak one at a time and to speak to each other in psalms, hymns and spiritual songs, singing and making melody in their hearts. Odd though, he doesn’t mention communion/eucharist. You would think that something so important to one’s salvation would be mentioned often in his letters or in Peter’s or James’ or John’s or the Jerusalem letter to the gentile churches for that matter.
But since we don’t have a reliable bible no tradition I guess we just have to wing it and hope the divine-human cooperation was all that it was cracked up to be. Maybe Benny Hinn is just as right as the Pope or the patriarch? There is not, after all, an infallible guide since everyone, including the “Church” is relying on old habits or the “Gnostic” feeling of the spirit to guide them.
Yup.
Maybe Benny Hinn is as right as the Pope.
Just what we’ve been saying all along. Do you know how much you people have strayed?
But St. Peter was at Antioch and Rome, and St. Paul was at Rome early on (by 60-65 AD). The Apostles would not have allowed those churches to practice that which was contrary to the Gospels.
How do you know if the liturgy is true?
The liturgy is the worship based on the Bible. Most of its external worship comes from Judaism (bowing, prostrations, kissing of holy objects), which is also liturgical. If the liturgy is false than the Bible is false. The liturgy existed before the Christian Canon was completed.
Why Paul says in 1 Cor. 14 that the members, if they have a prophecy are to speak one at a time and to speak to each other in psalms, hymns and spiritual songs, singing and making melody in their hearts. Odd though, he doesn’t mention communion/eucharist
Sure he does. 1 Corinthians 11:26-27
For whenever you eat this bread and drink this cup, you proclaim the Lord's death until he comes. Therefore, whoever eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty of sinning against the body and blood of the Lord.
There is not, after all, an infallible guide since everyone, including the “Church” is relying on old habits or the “Gnostic” feeling of the spirit to guide them
Then why do you accept the Bible which the Church put together as the Christian canon? Was it a "chance" that the Church collected all the inspired works and rejected all the profane ones, or was by its proper interpretation (regardless how it acquired it)?
If it was the latter, then you cannot accept the Christian Bible as an authoritative and complete collection of inspired books (which you seem to accept) while denying that the Church has the authority to interpret the scripture? The Bible and the Church cannot be separated. Either both are false, or both are true. It's a matter of faith.