Catholics Don't Exemplify Christianity...

[defcon4]

Well, it seems that we are back in the old days of Homoousion versus Homoiousion>>>Referring to: Who is right and who is wrong. I am maintaing that there is only ONE CHURCH.
Here is a citation from "Cloud Upon The Sanctuary" by Karl von Eckartshausen. Is his work authoritative on the subject? I don't know but it is something to think about.

"God consecrated this external Church in Abraham, gave commandments through Moses, and it received its highest perfection in the double message of Jesus Christ, existing personally in poverty and suffering, and by the communication of His Spirit in the glory of the Resurrection.
Now, as God Himself laid the foundation of the external Church, the whole of the symbols of external worship formed the science of the Temple and of the Priests in those days, because the mysteries of the most sacred truths became external through revelations alone. The scientific acquaintance of this holy symbolism was the science to unite fallen man once more with God, to bring man back to his origin.
One sees plainly by this pure idea of religion in general that unity in religion is within the inner Sanctuary, and the multiplicity of external religions can never alter the true unity which is at the base of every exterior. […]
The external Church of the ancient alliance was visible, the interior Church was always invisible, must be invisible, and yet must govern all, because force and power are alone confided to her."

As a side note: I believe that we all are where we are MEANT to be and that not necessarily coincides with where we want to be.

 

[Disir]

You don't need to be afraid. I'm simply not getting into a pissing contest with you and the question that was posed to me I am answering. The individual that I am responding to is an adult and I absolutely refuse to talk down to her/him. I will not over simplify it. Now, if the response is ok then I will continue to lay it out. If the answer is no, I'm all good, then I will devote my attention to you. And you should go back and read what I wrote and what I responded to.

Well but actually you did talk down to her, didn't you? You know...you started tossing out a bunch of stuff that really has nothing to do with establishing the historical principle that was the catalyst for the argument. My assumption is that by throwing out all these elevated concepts you were attempting to establish yourself as far more educated, and frankly that may be the case. But none of it has anything to do with your initial statement (which I strongly suspect you know is not accurate). So you are talking down to her aren't you?

I told her/him that he/she needed to stop reading the bible and read the history outside of it.

This is my statement:
I'm not vague about it. I post frequently on early Christianity. It's best to look outside of the bible and look at the actual history. Everything that you have in that book was brought to you by Catholics. It was chosen for you by leaders of the early Catholic church.

I stand by that.

So, I'm thinking you're jelly.

I didn't say that the Catholic Church didn't choose the books the books that would be included. I said that the Catholic Church did not exist in the early church. The early church spoken of in Acts was roughly the first 30 years after the crucifixion of Jesus. Again someone who assumes behind the avatar is some dumb broad. I would suggest that you might spend more time reading the bible carefully. As for the links you posted... They did not establish that there was a "catholic" church. As Blue explained that distinction didn't happen til much later

Ignatius of Antioch first to use Catholic. First one to start pulling writings together. Bishop allegedly acquired position from Peter. Said Peter removed himself to Rome. I suggest you pick up books outside of the bible.

Ignatius of Antioch (Ancient Greek: Ἰγνάτιος Ἀντιοχείας, Ignátios Antiokheías; ad c. 35 or 50 – 98 to 117[1])
This guy wasn't even born during the time of Acts which was roughly the first 30 years after the crucifixion which is the early church.
The years following Jesus until the death of the last of the Twelve Apostles is called the Apostolic Age.[20] The Christian Church came fully into being on Pentecost when, according to scriptural accounts, the apostles received the Holy Spirit and emerged from hiding following the death and resurrection of Jesus to preach and spread his message.[21][22] The apostolic period produced writings attributed to the direct followers of Jesus Christ and is traditionally associated with the apostles and apostolic times. This age is the foundation upon which the entire church's history is founded.[23] Though congregations met in the houses of these followers of Jesus Christ, this Apostolic Congregation, also called the "Primitive Church", was the community led by Jesus' apostles and, it would seem, his relatives.[24]

Acts wasn't written until about 115 CE. What does that tell you about the author?

It's a part of that "mess". And yeah, the roughly 30 years after the alleged crucifixion sure does put him there.

 

[danielpalos]

I believe that Good Persons of morals should not have a problem with modern women being their modern selves, as long as they are moral enough to bear True Witness to us as that form of honesty and respect toward fellow human beings.

 

[Meriweather]

Ignatius of Antioch first to use Catholic.

Those of the Jewish religion were the first to proclaim a new/different order, if you will. The Jewish faith was closed. One pretty much had to be a Jew to participate. Non-Jews were not particularly welcome.

On the other hand, this new order was open and welcoming to all--in the word of the day, catholic. Catholic began as an adjective, not a noun. It later developed into a noun. We can compare this to homeless. Homeless began as an adjective--homeless people--but it has since come to be used as a noun. The homeless.

If I am keeping my players straight, then like you, I believe the catholic church existed since Pentecost. It was drawing people to it.

Today, this can be compared to one TV network presenting a new hit. Before long, other TV networks are going to try to draw viewers away from that hit with a similar offering of their own. That does not mean the original hit won't continue to maintain its own identity. The Early Church insisted on maintaining its original identity. Other "copycats" eventually dissipated.

Or, at least that is how I see it.

 

[TrinityPower]

Hide? Is there something I should be afraid of? You certainly appear to have a great deal of respect for your own intellect. That still doesn't explain how your personal understanding of stoicism established that Catholicism was the original form of Christianity as you professed.

You don't need to be afraid. I'm simply not getting into a pissing contest with you and the question that was posed to me I am answering. The individual that I am responding to is an adult and I absolutely refuse to talk down to her/him. I will not over simplify it. Now, if the response is ok then I will continue to lay it out. If the answer is no, I'm all good, then I will devote my attention to you. And you should go back and read what I wrote and what I responded to.

Well but actually you did talk down to her, didn't you? You know...you started tossing out a bunch of stuff that really has nothing to do with establishing the historical principle that was the catalyst for the argument. My assumption is that by throwing out all these elevated concepts you were attempting to establish yourself as far more educated, and frankly that may be the case. But none of it has anything to do with your initial statement (which I strongly suspect you know is not accurate). So you are talking down to her aren't you?

I told her/him that he/she needed to stop reading the bible and read the history outside of it.

This is my statement:
I'm not vague about it. I post frequently on early Christianity. It's best to look outside of the bible and look at the actual history. Everything that you have in that book was brought to you by Catholics. It was chosen for you by leaders of the early Catholic church.

I stand by that.

So, I'm thinking you're jelly.

I didn't say that the Catholic Church didn't choose the books the books that would be included. I said that the Catholic Church did not exist in the early church. The early church spoken of in Acts was roughly the first 30 years after the crucifixion of Jesus. Again someone who assumes behind the avatar is some dumb broad. I would suggest that you might spend more time reading the bible carefully. As for the links you posted... They did not establish that there was a "catholic" church. As Blue explained that distinction didn't happen til much later

Ignatius of Antioch first to use Catholic. First one to start pulling writings together. Bishop allegedly acquired position from Peter. Said Peter removed himself to Rome. I suggest you pick up books outside of the bible.

This man's letters are considered apocrypha and were therefore not included in the cannon.

Another interesting tid bit I read... This has led many scholars to conclude that the appellation Catholic Church with its ecclesial connotation may have been in use as early as the last quarter of the 1st century. Again not the time period of Acts and he wasn't even born in the first generation of disciples (John, Peter, James etc)

 

[BluePhantom]

Hide? Is there something I should be afraid of? You certainly appear to have a great deal of respect for your own intellect. That still doesn't explain how your personal understanding of stoicism established that Catholicism was the original form of Christianity as you professed.

You don't need to be afraid. I'm simply not getting into a pissing contest with you and the question that was posed to me I am answering. The individual that I am responding to is an adult and I absolutely refuse to talk down to her/him. I will not over simplify it. Now, if the response is ok then I will continue to lay it out. If the answer is no, I'm all good, then I will devote my attention to you. And you should go back and read what I wrote and what I responded to.

Well but actually you did talk down to her, didn't you? You know...you started tossing out a bunch of stuff that really has nothing to do with establishing the historical principle that was the catalyst for the argument. My assumption is that by throwing out all these elevated concepts you were attempting to establish yourself as far more educated, and frankly that may be the case. But none of it has anything to do with your initial statement (which I strongly suspect you know is not accurate). So you are talking down to her aren't you?

I told her/him that he/she needed to stop reading the bible and read the history outside of it.

This is my statement:
I'm not vague about it. I post frequently on early Christianity. It's best to look outside of the bible and look at the actual history. Everything that you have in that book was brought to you by Catholics. It was chosen for you by leaders of the early Catholic church.

I stand by that.

So, I'm thinking you're jelly.

And what I am referring to and what sparked the debate with Trinity was your statement that

Actually the early church was Catholic. That will require picking up a book outside of the bible.

So not only were you talking down to her and being arrogant, if you had half the education you profess to have you would know that your statement is wrong and you would stop trying to defend your erroneous comment. The early Church was a kaleidoscope of tons of viewpoints. Catholicism didn't even exist as a recognized faith until around the time of Constantine and only because Constantine endorsed it. The early Church was not Catholic. The early Church was a mess and the viewpoint that would eventually evolve into Catholicism was one of a myriad of different opinions.

I don't give a flip if you think it was arrogant.

And ya, the early church was Catholic and you do need to read outside of the bible for it. You don't need to name it, you can read it as foundational.
And ya, Stoicism led to Christian asceticism.

If by mess you really meant power hungry individuals then you might be on target.

Ok look. Let's me apply some simple logic here. If a Christian is someone who believes that Jesus was the Messiah and believes in the physical resurrection of Jesus, then the first Christians were Mary Magdalene and the disciples. So the earliest form of Christianity was what Peter and the rest were teaching right after the crucifixion. Are you trying to tell me that what they were teaching was Greco-Roman stoicism? You are out of your mind. What they were teaching and what the Catholic Church taught were totally different. The Catholic point of view was accepted by Constantine because it was a highly Romanized for of Christianity. You think Peter was out there teaching a Roman view of Jesus?

These guy were Jewish peasants. They wouldn't know Plato if he came up and took a crap on them and you think they were preaching Greco-Roman concepts? They were apocalypticists. Paul was a HUGE apocalypticist. His entire message was apocalyptic. His letters don't even make sense if you try to view them any other way. Last I checked the Catholics were not terribly apocalyptic nor were they in Constantine's time.

Paul started to deviate from orginial Christianity even back then. Before Paul, Jesus was a Jew who preached to Jews and came on behalf of the Jews. That's how Peter saw it. That's how they all saw it. Then Paul took it to the Gentiles and immediately it began to change. Paul's churches were very charismatic. 1 Corinthians is an excellent example of this. Paul talks about the gifts that are received, and people speaking in tongues, and people with the gifts of prophecy. People were whooping it up in church and speaking in tongues over top of each other and just making a racket. The closest thing we have today to a Pauline Church is probably an Evangelical Church....as much as that burns me to admit. Now I went to a Catholic school so I went to Mass at least once a week for 6 years. Not once did I hear anyone start blabbering off in tongues or see someone fall out in the spirit. But that is exactly what the Bible says was going on in Paul's churches.

The Catholics are HUGE on the trinity. The trinity didn't come until later. Paul never mentions the trinity. Hell no one mentions the trinity. Oh sure there are some verses where you can massage them enough so that it seems to IMPLY the trinity but the New Testament never actually makes a concrete statement that God, Jesus, and the Holy Spirit are all one. That didn't come until later.

Now yeah....what would eventually evolve into Catholic belief was around, but it wasn't the first form of Christianity, nor was it exclusive and it took a couple hundred years of Romanization before it was fully accepted by the masses in the Roman Empire. It was not the early form. It was a form that came about after the religion started to become Romanized and developed into the dominant form over time.

"The early Church was Catholic". Good Christ.

 

[BluePhantom]

Hide? Is there something I should be afraid of? You certainly appear to have a great deal of respect for your own intellect. That still doesn't explain how your personal understanding of stoicism established that Catholicism was the original form of Christianity as you professed.

You don't need to be afraid. I'm simply not getting into a pissing contest with you and the question that was posed to me I am answering. The individual that I am responding to is an adult and I absolutely refuse to talk down to her/him. I will not over simplify it. Now, if the response is ok then I will continue to lay it out. If the answer is no, I'm all good, then I will devote my attention to you. And you should go back and read what I wrote and what I responded to.

Well but actually you did talk down to her, didn't you? You know...you started tossing out a bunch of stuff that really has nothing to do with establishing the historical principle that was the catalyst for the argument. My assumption is that by throwing out all these elevated concepts you were attempting to establish yourself as far more educated, and frankly that may be the case. But none of it has anything to do with your initial statement (which I strongly suspect you know is not accurate). So you are talking down to her aren't you?

I told her/him that he/she needed to stop reading the bible and read the history outside of it.

This is my statement:
I'm not vague about it. I post frequently on early Christianity. It's best to look outside of the bible and look at the actual history. Everything that you have in that book was brought to you by Catholics. It was chosen for you by leaders of the early Catholic church.

I stand by that.

So, I'm thinking you're jelly.

I didn't say that the Catholic Church didn't choose the books the books that would be included. I said that the Catholic Church did not exist in the early church. The early church spoken of in Acts was roughly the first 30 years after the crucifixion of Jesus. Again someone who assumes behind the avatar is some dumb broad. I would suggest that you might spend more time reading the bible carefully. As for the links you posted... They did not establish that there was a "catholic" church. As Blue explained that distinction didn't happen til much later

Ignatius of Antioch first to use Catholic. First one to start pulling writings together. Bishop allegedly acquired position from Peter. Said Peter removed himself to Rome. I suggest you pick up books outside of the bible.

Ok you missed what I said earlier. Prior to Constantine MANY sects called themselves "Catholic" because by using that term they are claiming that they have the most followers and are therefore correct. The term was not used to identify a specific set of spiritual beliefs or principles. Everyone thought that were "Catholic", even the Gnostics, because Catholic simply meant "correct" in their usage. Since everyone thought they were "correct", they all believed they were "Catholic". But they all had far different points of view. After Constantine, the sect that won his approval was officially dubbed "Catholic" and everyone else was considered heretical.

You are confusing the ancient usage of the term with the modern usage of the term. The modern usage and the usage after Constantine pointed to a specific set of beliefs and accepted dogma. Prior to that it simply meant "I am right and you are wrong". Maybe pick up a history book yourself.

 

[BluePhantom]

Acts wasn't written until about 115 CE. What does that tell you about the author?

Acts is the second part of Luke. Most scholars refer to them as Luke-Acts because it is volume I and volume II.

As for your date:

"The composition of Luke-Acts is usually dated around 80-90, although some experts now suggest perhaps between 90 and 100."

The Historical Jesus An Essential Guide - James H. Charlesworth - Google Books

Seems like your 115 claim is a bit suspect. Try picking up a book some time.

 

[BluePhantom]

Ignatius of Antioch first to use Catholic.

Those of the Jewish religion were the first to proclaim a new/different order, if you will. The Jewish faith was closed. One pretty much had to be a Jew to participate. Non-Jews were not particularly welcome.

On the other hand, this new order was open and welcoming to all--in the word of the day, catholic.

Not initially, it wasn't. It was not until Paul started converting Gentiles that it was open to everyone and according to Paul it took some arm-twisting and deal-making to get Peter and the others to agree. Initially, it was merely a new phase of Judaism that was exclusive to the Jews. Now after Paul, it started to become welcoming to everyone, but that wasn't how it started.

Catholic began as an adjective, not a noun. It later developed into a noun. We can compare this to homeless. Homeless began as an adjective--homeless people--but it has since come to be used as a noun. The homeless.

Thank you! Finally someone gets it.

If I am keeping my players straight, then like you, I believe the catholic church existed since Pentecost. It was drawing people to it.

Today, this can be compared to one TV network presenting a new hit. Before long, other TV networks are going to try to draw viewers away from that hit with a similar offering of their own. That does not mean the original hit won't continue to maintain its own identity. The Early Church insisted on maintaining its original identity. Other "copycats" eventually dissipated.

Or, at least that is how I see it.

Well that's a point of great controversy. As I know you are Catholic, and I respect that belief, I know that is how you would like to see it, but to make that stick you have to say that Peter and the other Apostles were teaching the same thing that the sect that would become the Catholic Church (as a noun) taught. With respect to you, Meriwether (because you know I respect the hell out of you), I don't see how anyone can support such a claim because the Catholic Church (as a noun) after Constantine was so heavily Romanized.

To me, it stretches credulity to the breaking point to suggest that Peter endorsed a Roman view of Jesus. But we are free to disagree, of course.

 

[IsaacNewton]

So which sect truly represents Christianity? Curious minds want to know.

 

[BluePhantom]

So which sect truly represents Christianity? Curious minds want to know.

They all do. They just focus on different things and have different traditions. No one is arguing that Catholics are not Christian. The OP says Catholics do not "exemplify" Christianity. That just means they are not the typical example of a Christian. Well, no shit. While Catholics are the largest denomination, there are slightly more non-Catholic Christians in the world than Catholics, so of course Catholics don't exemplify Christianity. But that doesn't mean they are not Christian.

 

[Liminal]

Please don't use Catholicism as an example of Christianity..
Their doctrine is flawed.

You pray to GOD and JESUS not Mary.
Your sins are forgiven by GOD, not a Priest.

It's CRAP!

Please don't refer to fundamentalists as Christians, they are heretics and sinners damned to an eternity of hell fire.

 

[Liminal]

And you are?

A Christian that understands the Bible....

and you are....?

It's apparent that you know precisely nothing about the Bible.

 

[Bonzi]

And you are?

A Christian that understands the Bible....

and you are....?

It's apparent that you know precisely nothing about the Bible.

Quiz me all knowing one....

 

[Bonzi]

Please don't use Catholicism as an example of Christianity..
Their doctrine is flawed.

You pray to GOD and JESUS not Mary.
Your sins are forgiven by GOD, not a Priest.

It's CRAP!

Please don't refer to fundamentalists as Christians, they are heretics and sinners damned to an eternity of hell fire.

see.. you are the one judging, not me

 

[Liminal]

This is the same silly hair splitting that has the Sunnis and Shiites at each other's throats.

It didn't bother the Protestants and Catholics to kill each other over God...

Doesn't bother atheists to kill Protestants and Catholics over God either. That pretty well sums up the history of the 20th century.

 

[Liminal]

And you are?

A Christian that understands the Bible....

and you are....?

It's apparent that you know precisely nothing about the Bible.

Quiz me all knowing one....

You haven't made any actual references to the Bible yet, only to your petty religious doctrine.

 

[Bonzi]

And you are?

A Christian that understands the Bible....

and you are....?

It's apparent that you know precisely nothing about the Bible.

Quiz me all knowing one....

You haven't made any actual references to the Bible yet, only to your petty religious doctrine.

My doctrine IS the Bible. Want to hear what the Bible says the Church should be?
(Please Note: It says nothing about a Pope or Cardinals!)

 

[Liminal]

And you are?

A Christian that understands the Bible....

and you are....?

It's apparent that you know precisely nothing about the Bible.

Quiz me all knowing one....

You haven't made any actual references to the Bible yet, only to your petty religious doctrine.

My doctrine IS the Bible. Want to hear what the Bible says the Church should be?
(Please Note: It says nothing about a Pope or Cardinals!)

It doesn't say anything about any "rapture" either. But look at how many deluded heretics believe in revisionist interpretations like that.

 

[Bonzi]

Ephesians 4:11-13

And He gave some as apostles, and some as prophets, and some as evangelists, and some as pastors and teachers, for the equipping of the saints for the work of service, to the building up of the body of Christ; until we all attain to the unity of the faith, and of the knowledge of the Son of God, to a mature man, to the measure of the stature which belongs to the fullness of Christ.