This is a departure from the Apostolic faith.
With respect, you’ve said several times in your post that “this is a departure for the Apostolic faith”. Yes, I know. I’m not Catholic; labeled a Protestant. So when you ask me further questions, and I respond, I’m responding with a non-Catholic, Protestant interpretation that most assuredly will be a departure from the Apostolic faith or your understanding. This is why I won’t say “you don’t understand” or “you’re misunderstanding” to someone because I don’t know how many years of study they’ve put into the scripture and I wouldn’t want anyone to assume my lack of experience with them, and also all of that
study will be through one’s established interpretation.
[What I will say (and have said on other posts) is “you’re misunderstanding what I am saying” or “you’re misunderstanding MY point (the point I’m trying to make)”, which can and does occur in a medium such as this because everyone has their own way of reading and comprehending: some scan over text, others are more deliberate and read entire paragraphs for the complete thought, while others pull apart paragraphs and reply to sections out of context from the body in which they are found (which we know from reading scripture skews the meaning).]
Now if the purpose of arguing againts a Protestant’s (or Catholic’s) point is to proselytize, we must use a common foundation that both of us believe in, and then use that foundation to convince a winning argument or otherwise one’s just attacking and bickering.
I’ve been looking for that common foundation since we began (because what’s the point of arguing unless it IS to convence the other party) but I’ve had no luck. I thought it was scripture, but you’ve said that Catholicism is not solely a scripture-based religion. Next I thought “Christ” was the foundation (with “the Law” as the cornerstone), but you’ve conveyed that “Christ is the cornerstone and the Church is the foundation” [as in “a foundation can’t be secured without a cornerstone, but the foundation is the element on which any structure is build”].
So not even Christ is a common foundation between the two of us (disclaimer: again you said He is the Cornerstone…I am not saying or assuming or conveying that you or the Catholic Church do not believe in Christ, but there is a difference between a cornerstone and a foundation…I feel I must say this otherwise it may be assumed that I mean such if I don’t say something to counteract the assumption of my assumption).
“What do Protestants think about 1 Timothy 3:15?” was the question. “Isn’t the Catholic Church meant?” [paraphrasing the question].
“Again, this will be a departure from your interpretation”, because the thread is asking for “their” [our] interpretation (unless such a thread was a “trap”).
Again I will use scripture and the words of Christ, but since Catholicism isn’t a soly found on either, anything I say won’t hold much weight or I will be told that I’m misunderstand.
The word “catholic” - when first used - was not a title but an adjective. It was expressly meant to identify the “universality” of the specific word of God (messianic Jews) that was growing through the Vine [Ministry of Christ].
Belief places Christ’s birth at 1AD…Death & resurrection at approx 30-33AD (scripturally the week after passover week).
Scripture places Pentecost 10 days after the ascension of Christ. 40 days [Acts 1:3] Christ stayed with them until his ascension + 10 days after the ascension of Christ, occuring on the 50th (Pente = 50th) day after counting the Jewish Barley Omer [hence the name “Pentecost”]. At Pentecost (“Shavuot”, a Jewish Holiday), the disciples - filled with the Holy Spirit, “continued daily” ministering and spreading the Gospel,.
These people used Jewish synogogues, paid rooms, and member’s homes because they were a blossoming assembly of believers. These people were not yet the Catholic Religion…not yet, as Acts 2:42 then says “they continued steadfast in the
apostles’s doctrine and fellowship, and in breaking of bread and in prayers” (i.e. Jewish Customs). Remember that these Apostles were Jewish men who had not yet met Paul.
Many days the apostles continued to preach Christ (Acts 2:46-47 to Acts 5:42) but we’re not told how many, although we know that at least a year passed (Acts 12:3).
Enters Paul - a former Pharisee (a member of an ancient
Jewish sect noted for strict obedience to
Jewish traditions, as his father was also Pharisee) and Roman citizen (so he also understood the structure of Rome’s religious systems: Hierarchal positions of authority like Bishops and Deacons, etc.).
We are told that the apostles welcome Paul (Paul wasn’t one of those who received the Holy Spirit at Pentecost…he was still persecuting the word of God “Messianic Jews”] before his conversion).
Paul was commissioned to take the message to the gentiles, but this was a process…as all things are. It wasn’t immediate.
So the existence of the letters to Timothy - shows that they had to be sent by Paul either while Paul was away from the specific group (in his ministry) or when he was in jail. And I will share evidence when that was…
