Of course this claim is valid for four (not one) branch of Christianity: the Catholic Church, the Orthodox Churches, the Oriental Orthodox Churches and the Assyrian Church of the East. All four truly and legitimately (from a secular historical perspective) make claims of apostolic origin. The beginnings as separated churches are owed to historical circumstances in the fifth and eleventh centuries.
That being said, hosepipe, neither the Catholic Church nor any of the others would agree with your assertion that there were any other established branches of Christianity (outside of these four) which has survived to the present day. As an historian, I can tell you that such a notion is patently false and unsupportable academically.
Now, your qualms with the teachings of the historic Church (be it in any of the four above-mentioned branches) are something completely different. They should be argued on their own merits. But to claim that “the Catholic Church started in 313 AD” is utter and absolute nonsense.
The Catholic Church is one of four branches of the historic, undivided Church begun by Jesus and his apostles. That is a provable fact which no historian disputes. As I said, you may argue that this Church (or any other) has “lost its way” if you like, but no sane man can deny the apostolic origins of any of these four branches of Christianity.
You're wrong of course.. There is only one church from the beginning.. There can only BE one church.. There can be CLUBS however.. Jesus did not forbid clubs.. but only one church is possible.. What is the Holy Spirit, a moron?..
The church is of people called out of the clubs.. or even the world extant.. after all buddism is a club too.. You seem to have removed the Holy Spirit out of the loop, your loop..
Naah! the church is doing fine, always has been too.. The clubs however are always wrangling about something.. Many clubs do not allow the Holy Spirit in their buildings.. Oh! well, their loss.. By the way Im serious as a heart attack..
The RCC(club) became solid or chartered about 313A.D.
Personally, I think the branch theory is getting into dangerous waters.
The Church was indeed one at the beginning and is still one now. However, the fact that said Church has never seen fit to rebaptize heretics and schismatics (assuming validity of course), is a direct and rather incontrovertible indication that said persons were in fact somehow joined to the Church—at least to some hard-to-define degree.
Degrees of communion is the way that some theologians are speaking about it now—perhaps that is the most appropriate way to define the relationship. *shrug*
One can’t understand “Outside the Church there is no salvation” without grappling with this crucial matter of the validity of heretical/schismatic Baptism.
[branches of the historic, undivided Church begun by Jesus and his apostles. That is a provable fact which no historian disputes. As I said, you may argue that this Church (or any other) has “lost its way” if you like, but no sane man can deny the apostolic origins of any of these four branches of Christianity.]
Though true enough, all truth is of the scriptures and as we get closer to the tribulation, the church is full of apostates and heretics who continue to mock the WORD of God by adding and taking away of the sure truth of God in Christ Jesus, and it will be awful for those who trust a church doctrine over the doctrine of God’s word.
Search the scriptures from beginning to end.