On the negative side, we can easily see in the Scripture that no where it refers to a "church of Rome in Jerusalem", or "church of Rome in Ephesus". It is always "church in Jerusalem", or "church in Ephesus". Indicating that no particular Bishop of another region had authority over a different region.
I don't see how the naming indicates that. They did not identify themselves as Roman Christians in Jerusalem, but Christians in Jerusalem in union with the Bishop of Rome. The Pope does not have authority over other regions, the local bishop does. The Pope only removes bishops.
On the positive side, scriptural evidence for autonomy is that In Revelation Jesus speaks a specific message for each of 7 churches as if they were autonomous bodies, and each church has its own lampstand.
You are saying that because seven local churches each with their own set of problems are addressed separately, then they were autonomous? That does not seem to follow.
He does not address a single "mother church" in Jerusalem, Rome or anywhere else.
He does not mention other churches, so they didn't exist?
Also, the apostles appointed elders in every church and every city had its own elders (Acts 14:23, Titus 1:5, Acts 15:4, Acts 20:7, Phil 1:1). This doesn't mean the churches acted independently of each other, or did everything in isolation. But the authority and governance of each church rested with the elders of that particular church and no church of a different city.
Which is how the Catholic Church has already practiced it.
[qute[We note that this was prior to the existence of denominations, which is another topic of discussion, and so "church" and "city" go hand in hand - churches were defined by locality and not by method, founder, doctrine, creed or practice (as in the case of denominations). [/quote]
All the Churches believed the same thing. Denominations began when the reformation began disagreeing over how to do things and what to believe.
Thus, the Roman Catholic Church is not a denomination, although it is a man-made organization with a centralized authority structure which is foreign to the teaching of Scripture and practice of the early church.
I don't think most people understand how the Catholic Church functions. The Church consists of self governing churches which are in union with the Bishop of Rome. The Bishop of Rome or 'Pope' does not make decisions for local churches.
And just as the Roman Catholic church is the religious extension of the Roman Empire
Not sure what connect one can make between the two. The Catholic Church was persecuted by the Roman Empire. Only with Constantine was it made legal. The Roman Empire ended in 1453, 400 years after the separation of the Orthodox Church. During that time, the Empire was Orthodox, not Catholic.
The true church is not "of" a place, doctrine,creed, tradition or practice, but of the person of Jesus Christ alone, as it is referred to as the "Body of Christ". Given that the true church has no national or cultural identity apart from Jesus Christ, it cannot be a true church if it claims any other identity.
I don't know where you are getting that the true Church would not have doctrines, creeds, traditions, or practices. First of all, all groups have these, it is impossible not to. Second, scripture tells us of outside groups that do believe different things. Scripture would suggest that to believe different is to be outside.
Also, creeds were used in the very early Church. They were recited before baptism as an expression of the faith they wished to join.
So we can say with a high degree of certainty, that the moment a church claims to be "of" something or someone other than Jesus Christ, it is really not of Jesus Christ, and therefore not His true church.
You essentially identified the true Church as professing nothing and practicing nothing, no?
An organization of centralized power and authority (as in the Roman Catholic church) did not come into existence until later and caused by a number of political and religious circumstances. The year when Rome began expanding its influence was the year when it was declared that the Bishop of Rome has the sole legitimate claim to Petrine authority. As this idea of the Roman church having influence over the other churches is completely foreign to the Bible, it must have been not long after the New Testament was completed.
The bishop of Rome has exercised authority over other bishops, not churches, since the early years.
Regarding councils, I suppose the fact that there were councils necessary, is evidence itself of the autonomous nature of the individual churches.
For Catholics, the Councils recognized the official teaching authority of all bishops who are tasked with teaching and preserving the faith.
Nonetheless, the councils were called together by the Christian Roman Emperors, who enforced the decisions of those councils with the state church of the Roman Empire.
Councils came from Christians, the Roman Emperor made the transportation possible. The decisions were not 'enforced'. The bishops make declarations of things which had always been taught. If a bishop did not teach what was believed, he was declared no longer a bishop. This was done even during the persecution (that is, before the councils).
Hence the councils themselves were a mechanism by which the Roman Empire could control the religious affairs of all the regions.
The Roman Empire had nothing to do with the councils except to make them possible.
Not recognizing Roman papal authority was a clear mark of differentiation between the Orthodox Churches, who largely maintained the original autonomous nature of the churches, being several self-governing ecclesial bodies.
Not sure what you mean - the bishops of the Catholic (and what is now) Orthodox Churches participated in the councils. The east always recognized the Pope as the head of the Church, but they never worked out what that entails. The Churches seized communication in the 11th Century. The Orthodox Church existed mostly in the Roman Empire.
So the churches which think themselves to be churches but which are not, will comprise the "Babel" in the sense of mankind building a manmade structure in order to exalt himself to the sky, to reach heaven, as it were. And the "Babylon", in the sense of being a mixture of having spiritual appearance yet being worldly in nature. Hence we get the number 666 which indicates the man-made false trinity, rather than 777 which symbolizes the perfect Trinity. The number 6 and number 7 are different by only 1, indicating that the man made religions try to get close to God but never quite get there. All religions are man made attempts to reach a God far away in the heavens. But true Christianity is about finding life, by eating and drinking the body and blood of the Saviour who became close, available and reachable to us all, especially to those who humble themselves like a child. Matt 7:14 But small is the gate and narrow the road that leads to life, and only a few find it. John 6:53 " "Truly, I tell all of you emphatically, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you don't have life in yourselves.". Religions are about how you behave, what you do, or don't do, but Christianity is about what and how you eat and drink.
I don't think Churches ever 'thought for themselves' - the bible shows they always communicated, helped, and rebuked each other when necessary. The first council was said to be at Jerusalem, by the apostles.
