a question for "Bible Only" churches

  • Thread starter Thread starter aquabatix
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Dokimas said:

When was it called ‘The Catholic Church’? Surely after the NT was written (and I don’t mean collected).​

If I understand your question, what I distiguish between is the universal church as the one real church started by Jesus and the CC as the one real church. I don’t understand your question if this doesn’t answer you.
Click to expand...
The combination “the Catholic Church” (he katholike ekklesia) is found for the first time in the letter of St. Ignatius to the Smyrnaeans (LINK), written about the year 110

Chapter 8. Let nothing be done without the bishop

See that you all follow the bishop, even as Jesus Christ does the Father, and the presbytery as you would the apostles; and reverence the deacons, as being the institution of God. Let no man do anything connected with the Church without the bishop. Let that be deemed a proper Eucharist, which is [administered] either by the bishop, or by one to whom he has entrusted it. Wherever the bishop shall appear, there let the multitude [of the people] also be; even as, wherever Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church. It is not lawful without the bishop either to baptize or to celebrate a love-feast; but whatsoever he shall approve of, that is also pleasing to God, so that everything that is done may be secure and valid.

So being written in 110 AD, do you suppose the term “Catholic Church” just popped up out of thin air at that point in time? Or is it a term that was being used long before then.
 
All catechesis, all instruction through the Catholic Church is not merely happening by the catechist.

It is Jesus Christ Himself Who is teaching through the church, no matter what level.
 
Dokimas said:
Fair enough. I have no right to suggest you can’t believe the history as you have studied it. That’s not my point or perspective. I just think history isn’t quite that way.
Click to expand...
Ok, Dokimas, please share how you think history is. Also, please use documenting sources, so we can understand how you arrive at your understanding.
 
Dokimas said:
Yawn!!! Putting words in my mouth again. What I’ve ALWAYS said is that the CC in not THE church but many of its member are part of the one true church. I’m quite sure those catholics who were used by the Holy Spirit to cannonize the NT were part of the real universal Christian church which is far bigger than the CC.
Click to expand...
You only yawn because you cannot and NEVER will prove from historical evidence Constantine started the RCC. That is pure ignorance and Its rather laughable.

Here is something not one person has ever answered who believes Constantine started the Catholic:

Provide ONE name from a bishop/theologian or pagan writer who talks about this ‘new’ church called Catholic? Sources please…

The CC is not THE church from Christ? And it is a historical a fact not any church founded by mere mortals centuries later is THE church. As for your bogus belief that 39,000 different churches are part of the one true church is also bogus. Universal church does not equate into conflicting doctrines and beliefs. That is NOT the Holy Spirit teaching,but the teachings of men/woman whou founded their own churches. Christ UNIVERSAL church is ONE Body and under ONE sheperd,meaning what? Christ Church was set up to have the same doctrine/dogma for all believers that IS the universal church. The belief the 39,000 DIFFERENT churches is the Body of Christ is absurd. St.Paul teaches that God is not the author of confusion,which is common in non-Catholic churches,
 
Prodigal_Son1 said:
Ok, Dokimas, please share how you think history is. Also, please use documenting sources, so we can understand how you arrive at your understanding.
Click to expand...
😃 I love how so many non-Catholics love to fabricate history. It is much more easier to make-up history,then to accept historical facts.
 
Lapey said:
Paul was long gone before any of these heresies came in to being, especially the writtings about them. Some scholars believe the gnostics were not on the scene untill middle to late second century. Arian heresay came later than that.
Click to expand...
I was saying that other interpretations of Christianity were as far back as Paul. I know the heresies I listed were not, they are simply the bigger names someone who doesn’t study it would recognize. 🙂

For instance, the Dead Sea Scrolls have taught us a lot about contemporary views and it is thought by some that they are from a group called the Essenes. Some would go as far to hypothosize that they might be closely associated with James the half-brother of Jesus. I think this goes a little far though. But, this does show that this varried view was before Paul’s writtings, if not at the same time. Besides, much heretical thought is practiced before it is written.
 
aquabatix said:
I was saying that other interpretations of Christianity were as far back as Paul. I know the heresies I listed were not, they are simply the bigger names someone who doesn’t study it would recognize. 🙂

For instance, the Dead Sea Scrolls have taught us a lot about contemporary views and it is thought by some that they are from a group called the Essenes. Some would go as far to hypothosize that they might be closely associated with James the half-brother of Jesus. I think this goes a little far though. But, this does show that this varried view was before Paul’s writtings, if not at the same time. Besides, much heretical thought is practiced before it is written.
Click to expand...
Half-brother of Jesus???
 
aquabatix said:
You would do well to read the other Christian scriptures if you want to validate your “univeral true church” theory because the members of this church before Constantine, (and since the time of Paul for that matter) were reading these as well. From Gnostics to Arians to Pelagians (and more!), these groups were reading some of what you have in your bible and some you do not. Why? Because the scriptures that were excluded were found (by the CC) to be inauthentic because of when written, who wrote it, where ot came from or conflicts in teaching that went as far as teaching Jesus was never human but only a mystical disguise or that He was never crucufied but traded places with Simon of Cyrene. You should do more research or expand your view of Christianity to accept these other views that might say Jesus wasn’t even God.
Click to expand...
I don’t buy the idea to hold to a ‘universal’ church requires reading anything but the NT. Thank you for your opinion.
 
Lapey said:
Opinion and doctrine taught does not make history or fact. Read the Early writtings and the bible without a goal to prove me wrong, but a goal to see the truth and it will be revealed to you.

Facts are facts, they are on the side of the Roman Catholic Church. To say otherwise is just wrong.
Click to expand...
So it’s impossible the RCC early writers got it partly wrong?
 
Nicea325 said:
You only yawn because you cannot and NEVER will prove from historical evidence Constantine started the RCC. That is pure ignorance and Its rather laughable.

Here is something not one person has ever answered who believes Constantine started the Catholic:

Provide ONE name from a bishop/theologian or pagan writer who talks about this ‘new’ church called Catholic? Sources please…

The CC is not THE church from Christ? And it is a historical a fact not any church founded by mere mortals centuries later is THE church. As for your bogus belief that 39,000 different churches are part of the one true church is also bogus. Universal church does not equate into conflicting doctrines and beliefs. That is NOT the Holy Spirit teaching,but the teachings of men/woman whou founded their own churches. Christ UNIVERSAL church is ONE Body and under ONE sheperd,meaning what? Christ Church was set up to have the same doctrine/dogma for all believers that IS the universal church. The belief the 39,000 DIFFERENT churches is the Body of Christ is absurd. St.Paul teaches that God is not the author of confusion,which is common in non-Catholic churches,
Click to expand...
Are you sure I was yawning over when the CC church started? It was about who the real church is.
 
Nicea325 said:
😃 I love how so many non-Catholics love to fabricate history. It is much more easier to make-up history,then to accept historical facts.
Click to expand...
How do you KNOW the CC history is correct? Is it because the CC has written the history of itself? Sounds like circular reasoning to me, not to mention the possibility for self written history to be self-serving.
 
Prodigal_Son1 said:
Ok, Dokimas, please share how you think history is. Also, please use documenting sources, so we can understand how you arrive at your understanding.
Click to expand...
If I could produce enough supporting documentation to prove my point, would you stop believing the history written by the CC?
 
Dokimas said:
How do you KNOW the CC history is correct? Is it because the CC has written the history of itself? Sounds like circular reasoning to me, not to mention the possibility for self written history to be self-serving.
Click to expand...
Dokimas, you seem to have overlooked one of my posts. I asked if you’d please share your view of how history really is, with documentation.

See, the theory of a ‘self written’ history is far reaching, in my honest opinion, for several reasons.

The Jews were accused of killing Christ, the Messiah, and could have vindicated themselves by writing of an incorrect history. We have writings from Flavius Josephus, who was a Jewish general in the war of the Jews, against the Romans. The Romans captured Josephus and allowed him to live. Josephus wrote an eye witness account of the destruction of Jerusalem. While he was not a Christian himself, he wrote of the Christ followers. There are no Jewish writings about another history.

The Romans persecuted Christianity for several centuries, under the penalty of death. Julian the Apostate, a Roman, misunderstood Christ’s prophecy about the destruction of the Temple to mean the Temple would never be rebuilt. To discredit Christ as a false prophet, Julian set out to rebuild the Temple, which we all know was not rebuilt, even unto this day. Yet there are no Roman writings against the Catholic Church changing history. A self written history would have been just the tool to crush Christianity out of existence.

All through history, people have sought to discredit Christainity, and the Catholic Church, yet there are no documents to even make a credible accusation. Take the discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls for instance. People thought they had made the find that would disprove Christianity and the Church. Now, after years of researching those documents, we hear nothing from them. This is because everything taught is supported by their find.

I’m serious about you sharing your view of history, with documentation to support it. If you can’t produce any documention, it appears you have a biased view of history based on your opinion alone.
 
Dokimas said:
Are you sure I was yawning over when the CC church started? It was about who the real church is.
Click to expand...
:ehh: And to bad it does not change the facts of history-does it?
There you again with what the real church is. Care to tell me which church out of 39,000 DIFFERENT one’s is the ‘real’ church? They can’t all be since they are all different or else we would not have so many flavors found under Protestanism.

Good luck telling me which church out of 39,000 is the ‘real’ church.
 
Dokimas said:
If I could produce enough supporting documentation to prove my point, would you stop believing the history written by the CC?
Click to expand...
We’d have something to discuss other than your stated opinions.
 
Dokimas said:
How do you KNOW the CC history is correct? Is it because the CC has written the history of itself? Sounds like circular reasoning to me, not to mention the possibility for self written history to be self-serving.
Click to expand...
And how do you know it isn’t? Do you have tons and tons of other ancient sources outside the CC proving your cafeteria Christianity (Protestanism) is the church Christ left?

Please provide this secretive sources you have. LOL
 
Dokimas said:
If I could produce enough supporting documentation to prove my point, would you stop believing the history written by the CC?
Click to expand...
Then produce them and quit making excuses.

I have heard the same absurd belief by so many as yourself,I have yet to read your so-called supporting evidence.
 
Nicea325 said:
:ehh: And to bad it does not change the facts of history-does it?
There you again with what the real church is. Care to tell me which church out of 39,000 DIFFERENT one’s is the ‘real’ church? They can’t all be since they are all different or else we would not have so many flavors found under Protestanism.

Good luck telling me which church out of 39,000 is the ‘real’ church.
Click to expand...

Just as my comment would be about the CC, none are. The church Jesus started is made up of ALL true believers no matter what church or denomination or no church they go to.​

So I guess you out smarted yourself with your 39,000 question.🙂
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top