1 Tim. 3:15 and Protestantism

[Joshua27]

It’s interesting your context does not begin until Acts 9 after Pauls conversion.

Actually, my context started when I began to answer the question in part 1 of my post. The post you replied to was a “continuation” of an earlier reply.

---

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…

 

[benidict]

Joshua, I found this statement curious. Are you familiar with the connections between the liturgy of the CC and the Jews? If not, you may want to rethink the above statement.

good point. the prayer book of the Jews, and the liturgy of the Mass are eerily similar. Peace

 

[Joshua27]

good point. the prayer book of the Jews, and the liturgy of the Mass are eerily similar. Peace

Yup they are similar, Ben…Catholicism and Judaism are truly connected. But the question was, “is 1 Tim.3:15 talking about the CC or not”, and I say it’s not…but simply because the movement was not yet CC.

The discrepancy those of this thread are having with me has to do with the belief that the CC was in existence since the ascension of Christ [or even earlier maybe?..upon the gathering of the first 12 disciples (apostles)?], while I’m arguing that the apostles were still of Judaism upon their commission [at the point of Christ’s ascension]:

---

My point is that the record of the apostles’ “Acts” commences the spreading of the gospel with the apostles - including Christ - practicing Judaism (by fulfilling another Judaistic feast):

After the “firstfruit offering” is made on the “first day” [after the sabbath following the Passover meal Holiday], Israel was to recognize (count) seven sabbaths…

Leviticus 23:15 - “'From the day after the Sabbath, the day you brought the sheaf of the wave offering (day of Firstfruit barley), count off seven full weeks (Shavuaim)”.

7 x 7 (days) = 49 (days)…the 49th day was the "seventh sabbath" they were to recognize after the Day of Firstfruit [recall Commandment: **“remember the sabbath day”…].

Leviticus 23:16 - “Count off fifty days up to the day after the seventh Sabbath, and then present an offering of new grain to the LORD.”

The 50th Day was a special High Sabbath (a Holiday - called “Shavuot”, “Feast of Weeks” or “Feast of Sevens [Shabbats]”) where the “new harvest” is presented to the lord. Holiday “Shavuot” is always the 50th day after the “Passover” week.

• This Holiday (High Sabbath) has been celebrated for thousands of years before Christ, as the commemoration day for the gift of the Torah at Mt. Sinai (The Law written in stone).
• This SAME Holiday (High Sabbath) was then used by Christ, as the day the gift of the Holy Spirit was to be given to the apostles at Mt. Moriah (The Law written in mind and heart - Hebrews 8:10 & 10:16). The “New Harvest” that was presented to the Lord was none other than the new temples that house the Spirit of God like Christ; the Apostles.

Christ stayed with the apostles 40 out of the total 50-day countdown to “Shavuot” and then ascended…and on the 50th (Pente) day, Christ fulfilled another Jewish Feast.

---

The Jews faithfully followed their traditions and feasts but - like back then and still to this day - they do not believe anything was “fulfilled”. Christ preached “fulfillment of the Jewish feasts” (as each Jewish feast is a Sabbath, and sabbaths are part of the law) and he was killed because the Jews couldn’t believe it…Paul preached “fullfillment” and was almost killed by the Jew for the same reason. Paul even says, “I have done nothing against the traditions of our fathers…all I preach is the fulfillment.” In fact, Peter and Stephen are also recorded (in Acts) preaching the “fulfillment of Jewish Traditions”.

Christ said, “I have not come to do away with the law [Torah] or the prophets [Prophetic books], but to fulfill them. Not one jot or tittle shall pass from the law until all be fulfilled.”

There was nothing new to add…and there was nothing to remove…all just needed [and needs] to be fulfilled.

Paul’s 1st letter to Timothy was during this period of spreading the “word of God”; spreading “Christ, the fulfillment of Torah” to those Jews who had the Torah (and to Gentiles) in all Jewish synagogues in Ephesus.

 

[guanophore]

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.

I can see your point. What puzzles me is why one would want to remain separated from the faith of the Apostles? Since you realize that Protestantism does such, why continue to embrace it?

Would not a sincere Christian want to be as close to the faith of the Apostles as possible?

This is one of the things that puzzles me the most with my separated brethren. I see so much sincerity of faith, devotion, study and conviction, and yet, an apparent lack of concern that they are separated from the faith of the Apostles.

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.

Yes, it is a wise approach. However, I am not sure what this position has to do with being separated from the faith of the Apostles. What does one have to do with the other?

[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).]

Yes, we are in agreement on this point as well.

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.

The purpose of the forum is to explore differences. Although it is not allowed for Protestants to proselytize here, it certainly is encouraged to put forth a convincing arguement for one’s point of view.

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”].

I would stipulate that the Law of Christ is a foundational principle. Is that what “Law” you were talking about?

So not even Christ is a common foundation between the two of us (disclaimer: again you said He is the Cornerstone…

I am not sure this is true. It is just that for us, Christ is not separated from the Way of life He taught us to follow, so when we say one is “in Christ” it means to us that they are also in the fullness of the doctrine of the faith as committed to us by the Apostles.

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).

Certainly the nature of Christ being divine is different than the nature of the rest of the Foundation, which is built upon the Apostles and Prophets. they are able to act infallibly by grace, but not by nature. In no case is the Foundation separated from it’s cornerstone. Jesus grafted these persons into Himself so that He could build His church upon them.

 "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”).

I don’t think it was a trick question, and I agree that it is unlikely that any of our separated brethren will affirm that it refers to the Catholic Church.

I think that is the motive for the question. Many of us cannot imagine what else it could refer to - we believe Jesus only Founded One Church, and that it is Catholic. We believe the NT Church is the Catholic Church, and that the whole NT is written by, for, and about Catholics. Given that, we are at a loss to understand how else the passage can be understood. I think you have done a very good job of explaining an alternative point of view.

 

[guanophore]

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.

We are bound both by scripture, and the words of Christ.

What does not hold much weight here is your opinion of those. The reason for that is that you have departed from what the Apostles believed and taught. According to the commandment we have received from them, we are not at liberty to accept what you present, since it constitutes “a different gospel”, and receiving it will result in us being accursed.

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].

No arguement there!

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,.

No argument here either.

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).

This is where we diverge. Catholics believe that Jesus taught the Apostles the fullness of the faith, explained everything to them, and trained them in how He wanted His Church to function. We believe the prayers, doctrine, and liturgy (breaking of the bread) contained all that which was fulfilled in Judiasm and forms the basis of the Christian faith. That is why the same prayers, doctrine, and liturgy mention in Acts is what is practiced today. I it all has it’s roots in Judaism, but has been fulfilled by Christ.

Remember that these Apostles were Jewish men who had not yet met Paul.

Do you think that makes them less “Christian”?

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.).

By “Romes religios systems” are you saying that you believe the heirarchical positions of authority such as Bishops and deacons were imported from Roman Pagan religions?

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).

I am not sure I agree with this, but I will let that rest to see where you are going with it. It seems to me that Paul was very unwelcome before his conversion, and even after it they doubted him.

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…

No need, I will stipulate this point also.

 

[Nicea325]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Joshua27
Belief places Christ’s birth at 1AD…Death & resurrection at approx 30-33AD (scripturally the week after passover week).

Christ was born in the year 1 A.D.? That is not accurate.

 

[Dokimas]

Christ was born in the year 1 A.D.? That is not accurate.

When was He born? If you think 0, are you absolutely sure?

 

[guanophore]

Acts chapter 9 through 10 - Saul is convicted by the spirit of Christ and stays with Peter…

I see nothing in these chapters that indicates in any way that “Paul stays with Peter”. On the contrary, the text states that Paul was causing a stir because of his preaching and testifying, so they sent him away to Tarsus.

Acts 13:42-44 - Paul speaks the Gospel in the Jewish synagogues on a Sabbath day…he then didn’t speak the Gospel again in the synagogue until the **next Sabbath day **(when the whole city showed up).

The text does not say he did not speak in the interim.

Knowing Paul, he was sharing the gospel every day, all day, with whoever would listen. He shared it making tents, eating and probably bathing too.

]Acts 16:13

• On another Sabbath day all of them went to pray by the river side.

Acts 18:4 - Paul reasoned in the Jewish synagogue EVERY Sabbath and persuaded the Jews and the Greeks. and he continued there a year and a half [Acts 18:11]. And after a while sailed to Syria.

Acts 18:19 - And he came to Ephesus, entered into the Jewish synagogue and reasoned with them…They wanted him to stay but he told them that he "must by all means keep the Feast that’s coming in Jerusalem, but that he will return to Ephesus, God willed".

Acts 18:28 - He mightily convinced the Jews, showing by the scriptures [at this time the scriptures are the **Torah and the Prophetic books since the Bible wasn’t assembled] that Jesus was Christ. [Aside: This shows that long after Christ’s ascension, the Torah and Prophetic books were still the valid scriptures].

Acts 18:19 to 19:41 - So Mightily the word of God grew in Ephesus, but then paganism [goddess worship] started to resurge.

Acts 20:1 - Paul leaves Ephesus for Macedonia.

<

Here’s where the context of the 1st letter of Timothy is matched…

1 Timothy 1:3 - As I besought you to stay at Ephesus, when I went to Macedonia, that you might charge some that they teach no other doctrines…

I am not sure I am getting your point. Are you trying to use all these verses to “prove” that the Church was not Catholic? that Christianity was still “Jewish”?

Acts 20:16 - Paul wanted to sail by Ephesus, but he was trying to make it to Jerusalem for Pentecost “Shavuot” Jewish Holiday].

Acts 21:1-25 - Paul was arrested by the Jews in Jerusalem, as they hear he was speaking against the law of Moses…in other words, they falsely accused him just like they did Christ.

Acts 21:26 - Paul purifies himself according to the custom of the Days of Purification [a Jewish tradition].

Acts 21:39 - Paul defends himself saying “I am a Jew of Tarsus, Cilicia”.

Paul is about to be executed through Jewish custom, but he envokes his Roman citizenship and is taken and tried under Roman court.

I don’t think it was a Jewish custom to assassinate the accused.

Acts 24:14 - Paul defends himself: “Neither can they [Jews] prove the things they now accuse me of, but I confess that though they call it Heresy, I worship the God of my fathers, believing ALL THINGS which are written in the Law [Torah] and in the prophets [Prophetic books]”.

It seems you are trying to make the point that there is some disconnect between Judiasm and Catholicism/Christianity? That Paul was a Jew, and therefore, could not be Catholic?

Acts 24: 20-21 - Paul then adds in his defense that the only thing that they could have a problem with was that he spoke of Resurrection of the dead.

Paul then shares his entire story with the Roman court.

Acts 26:28 - Then Agrippa said to Paul, “you almost convince me to be a Christian”. This was the second time the assembly of believers was recorded to be called Christian (The first time was when the first apostles went to Antioch after Pentecost [Acts 11:26]).

We are in agreement about all these events. Are you saying that Christians were not Catholic?

 

[guanophore]

**Acts 28:17-23 **- Under house arrest, Paul called the Chief Jews together there is Caeseria , saying “I have committed nothing against the [Jewish] people, or customs of our [Abramic] fathers, yet I was delivered to prision…” The Chiefs then scheduled him a day where he expounded and testified on the Kingdom of God.

---

I posted this list of events to show that Paul continued to believe in, profess, teach and participate in all Judaism (Sabbaths observance, Jewish Feasts, Circumcision for Timothy who was a half-Jewish), even though he argued against circumcising Gentiles (as they were considered “religious proselytes”)…that the only additional thing he was sharing with people - like Christ did in his time - was the fulfillment of the Kingdom of God (The Resurrection of the Dead in Christ).

Well, we have no arguement on this point. Apparently you believe that a person cannot be Jewish, and Catholic? All the Apostles were fulfilled (Messianic) Jews. They became Catholic when they placed their faith in Christ, and were born again of water and Spirit. Salvation is of the Jews. There is not disconnect between these people having been Jews and then becoming Christian. This was God’s plan from eternity!

So now if we place Paul’s letter into the proper context (timeframe) of Paul’s ministry, Rome had not yet adopted the movement or purged all Judaism from the movement (in order for it to become the Holy Roman Catholic, Christian Church)…

Joshua, I am not sure where you are getting this “Rome” stuff. Christianity began in Palestine, then spread East into Syria. The Roman (Latin) Rite was one of the last to develop. Rome was not considered the doctrinal center of the faith for decades - until Peter and Paul both ministered there before they were martryd for their faith.

It is nothing "Rome’ did that moved the development of faith from Judaism into Christianity. Jesus did all that in Palestine before He died. When Pentecost came, the Church was born. The Church was Catholic. Rome was nowhere in the picture at that time!

and Paul was still a much practiced and observant Jew.

As were all the Apostles. There is no contradiction between being a fulfilled Jew (one that believes in messiah) and being a Catholic/Christian.

So 1 Timothy 3:15 was not talking about the Catholic Church specifically, but of the Body of Christ; the Messianic Movement founded on Judaism (Torah & Prophets) and fulfilled by Christ, Yeshua [Jesus].

This is some kind of modern innovation of interpretation that is probably rooted in an anti-Catholic source somewhere. Having read your other posts, it seems you may belong to some strange dispensational sect, I can’t tell.

what I can say is that the Body of Christ has been Catholic since it was born on Pentecost. It is founded upon Messianic Judiasm, and the Catholic Church is the fulfillment of Christ’s salvation plan for man.

My section of Acts 26-28 should clear up why I gave that statement about “Labels”.

I guess it does. If you approach the text with the assumption that the Church is not Catholic, or that the Apostles are not Catholic, then I can see how you would get there.

:ehh:

:whacky:

 

[guanophore]

good point. the prayer book of the Jews, and the liturgy of the Mass are eerily similar. Peace

Indeed, the entire liturgy is lifted from the Jewish synagogue service. This is clear to anyone who attends synagogue.

The addition was “The Lord’s supper”, so where it stops with the liturgy of the Word, Catholics add the Liturgy of the Eucharist.

 

[guanophore]

Yup they are similar, Ben…Catholicism and Judaism are truly connected. But the question was, “is 1 Tim.3:15 talking about the CC or not”, and I say it’s not…but simply because the movement was not yet CC.

It seems you think this because your faith tradition is so much diverged from what the Apostles believed and taught that you do not recogonize that the NT church IS the Catholic Church.

You have reached a false conclusion based upon a false premise.

The Catholic Church NEVER “purged” Judaism from the faith. Not in Rome, or anywhere else. the Catholic church embraces the fulfillment of the Jewish faith in Christ, receives all the Apostles as messianic Jews, and continues to use those same teachings and prayers today just as they are noted in the book of Acts.

The discrepancy those of this thread are having with me has to do with the belief that the CC was in existence since the ascension of Christ [or even earlier maybe?..upon the gathering of the first 12 disciples (apostles)?], while I’m arguing that the apostles were still of Judaism upon their commission [at the point of Christ’s ascension]:

I think the only 'discrepancy" here Joshua is in your head, and these strange ideas you have been given about the Catholic faith.

Jesus spent 3 years teaching His Apostles what it meant to be Catholic. At Pentecost, they were empowered by the HS to live the faith they were taught by Him. The Church was born, and has been Catholic ever since.

Salvation is of the Jews. All the Apostles were Jews. They became Catholic when they were born again.

My point is that the record of the apostles’ “Acts” commences the spreading of the gospel with the apostles - including Christ - practicing Judaism (by fulfilling another Judaistic feast):

For some reason you think it is anti-Christian to be a Jew? Do you think Paul was not a Christian, because he was a Jew?

• This Holiday (High Sabbath) has been celebrated for thousands of years before Christ, as the commemoration day for the gift of the Torah at Mt. Sinai (The Law written in stone).
• This SAME Holiday (High Sabbath) was then used by Christ, as the day the gift of the Holy Spirit was to be given to the apostles at Mt. Moriah (The Law written in mind and heart - Hebrews 8:10 & 10:16). The “New Harvest” that was presented to the Lord was none other than the new temples that house the Spirit of God like Christ; the Apostles.

It is very Catholic of you to say this.

The Jews faithfully followed their traditions and feasts but - like back then and still to this day - they do not believe anything was “fulfilled”.

Are you claiming the Apostles did not understand what Jesus had done?

…Paul preached “fullfillment” and was almost killed by the Jew for the same reason. Paul even says, “I have done nothing against the traditions of our fathers…all I preach is the fulfillment.” In fact, Peter and Stephen are also recorded (in Acts) preaching the “fulfillment of Jewish Traditions”.

Fulfillment of Judaism = Catholic.

Christ said, “I have not come to do away with the law [Torah] or the prophets [Prophetic books], but to fulfill them. Not one jot or tittle shall pass from the law until all be fulfilled.”

There was nothing new to add…and there was nothing to remove…all just needed [and needs] to be fulfilled.

It is very Catholic of you to say this too! If you know these things, I guess I can’t figure out why you think the Jewish Apostles could not be Catholic.

Paul’s 1st letter to Timothy was during this period of spreading the “word of God”; spreading “Christ, the fulfillment of Torah” to those Jews who had the Torah (and to Gentiles) in all Jewish synagogues in Ephesus.

This is consistent with the Catholic faith. Did you think we believed differently?

Paul also went outside the synagogues to teach, preach, and offer the sacraments.

 

[guanophore]

When was He born? If you think 0, are you absolutely sure?

It is most likely 4 BC, but that is irrelevant to this discussion. Whatever year He was born, before He died, He founded a Church. That Church was Catholic. It was Catholic since the day it was born.

The Catholic Chuch is the fulfillment of Judiasm, and all her feasts are the culmination of the Jewish feasts.

 

[Dokimas]

It is most likely 4 BC, but that is irrelevant to this discussion. Whatever year He was born, before He died, He founded a Church.

Agreed. If you’re trying to remind me that it doesn’t matter to this discussion, it was not me who brought it up!!

That Church was Catholic. It was Catholic since the day it was born.

 

[T_More]

 

[Dokimas]

Dokimas;6727513:

Dokimas, I think everyone on this site is aware of where you stand on these things.

So I should not comment?​

Should any of the regulars comment seeing that they say the same thing over and over and over again. Please be consistent. Thank you.

 

[rev_kevin]

T More
Instead of dodging, show Biblical evidence.

 

[Nicea325]

Quote:
That Church was Catholic. It was Catholic since the day it was born.

Disagree. No Biblical evidence.

And correction is noted: No biblical evidence Christ did not FOUND a UNIVERSAL Church? Wrong! Then what exactly did He found? A church only for Jews? For men? Catholic was an adjective used rather early in church history to describe Christ Church.

 

[Nicea325]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Nicea325
Christ was born in the year 1 A.D.? That is not accurate.

When was He born? If you think 0, are you absolutely sure?

There is no precise date. And no 0 is not correct either,because there was no such thing as a year 0. Many scholars say between 6-4 B.C.

 

[Joshua27]

It seems you think this because your faith tradition is so much diverged from what the Apostles believed and taught that you do not recogonize that the NT church IS the Catholic Church.

You have reached a false conclusion based upon a false premise.

The Catholic Church NEVER “purged” Judaism from the faith. Not in Rome, or anywhere else. the Catholic church embraces the fulfillment of the Jewish faith in Christ, receives all the Apostles as messianic Jews, and continues to use those same teachings and prayers today just as they are noted in the book of Acts.

Then what of Chag HaMatzot, Shavuot, Yom Teurah, Yom Kippur, Sukkot, HaShanna Rabbah, Shabbat? All of these are Jewish holidays [Holy Days], which were celebrated by Christ throughout his ministry, and by the Apostles even at the start of - and thoughout - their minstry to the gentiles (as I’ve indicated in Acts). The Catholic Church does not celebrate these holidays like the Apostles did (post Christ’s ascension). Some that ARE celebrated were changed while others are ignored altogether.

[Point of concession: Most Protestants don’t celebrate these Jewish holidays either, which is wrong…but we were discussing the timeframe of Paul’s 1st letter to Timothy. My point is to show he still celebrated these Jewish holidays.]

For some reason you think it is anti-Christian to be a Jew? Do you think Paul was not a Christian, because he was a Jew?

Paul was a Christian, a fulfilled Jew…but he was not a Catholic. Maybe I should better qualify what I mean. When I say “Catholic” I mean “Christianity after the Holy Roman Empire’s integration and funding and marriage to Christianity” during which they changed Sabbath and removed or changed the celebratory date of the Jewish feasts (High Sabbaths).

When I use the word “fulfilled” I DO NOT mean “complete, hence no longer necessary to be or do”. When I use the word “fulfilled” I DO mean “everything one used to do without understanding, plus the Understanding given of Christ”…so Paul was a Jew “fulfilled” = Judaism religion “plus Gospel of Christ”. Paul was not a Catholic = “Gospel of Christ minus Jewish holy feasts and celebrations and commandments”.

–To Nicea325–

Thanks for your clarification (and yours too, Dokimas). This was why I said “belief places Christ’s birth at 1 AD” because that’s the common consensus. If I specifically said Tishri 15, 3998 (Sept 26, 3 BCE), it may’ve caused more trouble than I was ready to get into while proving my initial point…that the span between years 27AD to 33AD [Christ’s death, resurrection and ascension] still places the apostles commencement to the gentiles in the first century, which is why I didn’t mind using the date most people ‘believed’ in.

 

[guanophore]

Agreed. If you’re trying to remind me that it doesn’t matter to this discussion, it was not me who brought it up!!

I know, I was just trying to head off a derailing.

Disagree. No Biblical evidence.

Well, we read it differently, don’t we? Catholics read it in the light of the Apostolic Teaching that was committed to the Church, so we understand it differently than those that read it in separation from that Sacred Tradition.

Most Modern American Evangelicals come from a spiritual tradition that is so far removed from the NT Church that they don’t recognize that the NT Church is Catholic.

Disagreed.  The Bible doesn't support this.

If it seems like it does not, then the reader has an inadequate understanding of the Jewish feasts.