Does it matter what denomination you are a part of?

[MT1926]

church does have authority,

Could you expand on this please? The reason I ask is because if the Church has the authority to interpret the scriptures then how can you or I claim we have the authority to proclaim She is not keeping with the teaching of the Apostles? Does that make sense? Either Jesus gave the authority to bind and loose to His Church or He gave it to us. But as the saying goes if everyone is in charge then no one is in charge.

For instance if the Church uses it’s authority to interpret Purgatory, from the scriptures, how can we go and say well that was never preached by the Apostles? To me it makes no sense because the Church is saying yes they did see it is right here in the pages of scripture. Just cause we don’t agree with the interpretation doesn’t mean the Apostles never taught it.

Either Jesus gave the Church authority or He gave us authority. In the end someone always has to have the final say or there is no way we can ever know Christ’s Truth.

you can read history and find out when/where/why .

Do you think we are to believe the first time we see something written about is the first time it was taught and prior to that it wasn’t true?

the Doctrine of Papal Infallibility

Well do you believe St. Peter was infallible?

Regardless of what you see in later writing you know that Catholics believe St. Peter was the first Pope and I am sure you would agree that St. Peter taught infallible wouldn’t you?

Sure this isn’t absolute evidence but common sense should at least make you think twice about what you write here about no one has ever even given this a thought before. I’m sure Peter and the other Apostles thought St. Peter was infallible in the book of Acts.

Papal infallibility was not part of the teachings of Christ and the Apostles.

The only way you can make this claim is to say that the Apostles themselves did not teach infallible.

First you have to answer the question of whether or not St. Peter taught infallible or not? After you answer that question then you could get into the thought process of whether or not we would need someone to infallible interpret the meaning of scripture during the second century after the death of the last Apostle. Basically was there anything that we believe today that was not yet infallible defined after the year 100?

Personally, I think it is illogical to think that the Apostles taught everything, from every angle, and came across every possible objection during their short lives.

Before I end I just want to point out that my question stated all I am arguing is interpretation and yet again instead of answering my question you brought up another example that you disagree with instead of answering my question.

I mean no disrespect but deep down why do you think you keep avoiding my question on who has the authority to interpret?

God Bless

 

[lanman87]

Could you expand on this please?

The church is “the assembly”. God has called some to various leadership roles in the church. They are to equip the saints. But the assembly also had the duty and responsibility to insure the leaders are holding on the teachings of the Gospel. It is a mutual authority. The Presbyter/Pastor/Elder is to hold the congregation accountable and teach them the Gospel. The congregation (and other Presbyters/Pastor/Elders) are to hold the Presbyter accountable and insure he is holding fast to the teachings of the Gospel. I would also say the the congregation and other presbyters/pastors/elder are to hold the leadership accountable for sinful acts and remove until the offending person has repented and been restored.

Do you think we are to believe the first time we see something written about is the first time it was taught and prior to that it wasn’t true?

Most of the time, Yes. If something exist there is a slim chance it will not be recorded in history. If something doesn’t exist there is 100% chance it will not recorded in history.

Well do you believe St. Peter was infallible?

Peter was an apostle. He was infallible in matters that were “God Breathed” to him. The church fathers, bishops and so forth weren’t apostles.

The only way you can make this claim is to say that the Apostles themselves did not teach infallible.

Not true. I say the Apostles taught infallibly because they were called by Christ and “God Breathed” on them the Gospel. When the last apostle died so did infallible teaching.

continued…

 

[lanman87]

Basically was there anything that we believe today that was not yet infallible defined after the year 100?

Things that were taught by the Apostles and were in scripture (Trinity, Christology) were defined after the year 100. However, both the scriptures and history attest to the early belief and apostolic teaching of those teachings. Protestant Christianity would say we agree with the trinity and the Christology because they are plainly scriptural teachings and were taught by the Apostles. I will qualify and say that while I agree with the Scriptural interpretations and arguments of the trinity and Christology conclusions of the early church (as 99% of those who call themselves Christians do) I would only be mildly shocked (if that is possible) to enter into to Glory and find out we all got it wrong.

Personally, I think it is illogical to think that the Apostles taught everything, from every angle, and came across every possible objection during their short lives.

I agree, they left us a lot of room for cultural differences and so forth. That is why I think there is no defined liturgy in the New Testament. We have a lot of freedom on how we “do church”.

I mean no disrespect but deep down why do you think you keep avoiding my question on who has the authority to interpret?

The answer to your question is that we, who have been filled with the Holy Spirit, have the ability to interpret scripture. That doesn’t mean that we can just read the Bible and understand everything it says or means. Scriptural interpretation is done in community (the church) and we test and hold each other accountable to the meaning of scripture. This includes reading theologians and historians as well as pastors and teachers and working through issues with each other in Bible Studies and small groups.

If you go back to my first post you will notice that I said “What denomination someone belongs to matters, but not as much as knowing Jesus and being known by Jesus.” The reason denomination matters is because some denominations are more faithful to the Gospel message than others and do a better job presenting and teaching the gospel and equipping the saints to live out the gospel in love. However, the most important thing is to know Christ and the power of His resurrection.

We are not to have a blind allegiance to any individual or organization. Our allegiance is to Christ and His call and plan for our lives. That is something personal and only I can conclude what that call and plan for my life is. I must, in faith, choose what I believe is the best path for my life based on my understanding of scripture (as interpreted by and with the community) and how God is personally working in my life. I may be wrong or I may be right but it is my life to live.

 

[steve-b]

steve-b:

If you’d like to see the answer, as to why Jesus protects His Church from teaching error in doctrine, just ask.

I know the arguments. The doctrine that Jesus has a special Charism for the Magesterium of the church was also a later development.

Then you really haven’t seen the arguments.

AND

Re: later development, that’s all part of Jesus promises as well.

" In answering these questions, the Church facilitates the development or maturing of doctrines. The Blessed Virgin Mary models this process of coming to an ever deeper understanding of God’s revelation: “But Mary kept all these things, pondering them in her heart” (Luke 2:19). It’s important to understand that the Church does not, indeed cannot , change the doctrines God has given it, nor can it “invent” new ones and add them to the deposit of faith that has been “once for all delivered to the saints.” New beliefs are not invented, but obscurities and misunderstandings regarding the deposit of faith are cleared up…" from: Can Dogma Develop? | Catholic Answers
Ianman87:

This is one of the most dangerous doctrines the Catholic church developed. The reason being that truth is no longer what was taught by Christ and the Apostles and we must hold to that truth. But truth became, in effect, whatever we (the Pope and bishops) say it is.

The Catholic Church was there at the last supper. It’s still here today, with the successor to St Peter at the helm with all those in complete unity with him. Just as Jesus promised.

AND

As Paul wrote to Bp Timothy:

3 For the time is coming when people will not endure sound teaching, but having itching ears they will accumulate for themselves teachers to suit their own likings, 4 and will turn away from listening to the truth and wander into myths."

And those times continue, they never go away. But the Church is protected.

 

[MT1926]

God has called some to various leadership roles in the church.

How does one prove they were called by God to teach?

According to what the Apostles taught and the Scriptures it seems like they and their successors appointed the ones called by God.

It is a mutual authority.

Could you please point out where the Apostles taught it was mutual?

If the Churches authority is based on them teaching what the Apostles taught then how one becomes a leader and mutual authority need to have been taught by the Apostles correct?

Most of the time, Yes. If something exist there is a slim chance it will not be recorded in history. If something doesn’t exist there is 100% chance it will not recorded in history.

But as I have already pointed out to you, who gets to draw the line of when something has to be recorded? What’s the date of cut off where we can say see a Church Father wrote about this teaching here therefor this must have already existed?

Peter was an apostle. He was infallible in matters that were “God Breathed” to him.

How do you know this limitation? The Scriptures tell us that all scripture is God Breathed, however this leaves us with two problems. First it doesn’t say that ONLY scripture is God Breathed which would mean that everything wasn’t written down. And secondly, the Scriptures can’t claim this to be an authoritative statement (that would be a circular argument) so if no one after the Apostles can infallible determine that 2 Timothy was God Breathed then how can we claim that this is an infallible statement?

When the last apostle died so did infallible teaching.

OK if this is true then how do we know how the Apostles infallibly interpreted the meaning of what they wrote? For instance 2 Peter 3 tells us some of Paul’s letters are hard to understand and being misinterpreted. However, he never tells us which ones or what the correct interpretations are. So without further infallible writings of the Apostles how do we know if we actually know the proper interpretation of what Paul meant or if we are the ones Peter is say are doing the twisting?

However, both the scriptures and history attest to the early belief and apostolic teaching of those teachings.

But once again where is the line drawn? We can find early writings referencing the Trinity (although not using that exact word) in the mid to late second century. Also, around that same time frame we can find writings referencing Purgatory (although not using that exact word) and praying for the dead.

So we have both scripture and history for both. Who gets to draw the line to claim this was taught and this wasn’t and by what authority do they make their choice?

God Bless

 

[lanman87]

" In answering these questions, the Church facilitates the development or maturing of doctrines. The Blessed Virgin Mary models this process of coming to an ever deeper understanding of God’s revelation: “But Mary kept all these things, pondering them in her heart” (Luke 2:19). It’s important to understand that the Church does not, indeed cannot , change the doctrines God has given it, nor can it “invent” new ones and add them to the deposit of faith that has been “once for all delivered to the saints.” New beliefs are not invented, but obscurities and misunderstandings regarding the deposit of faith are cleared up…" from: Can Dogma Develop? | Catholic Answers

HIstory says otherwise.

As Paul wrote to Bp Timothy:

3 For the time is coming when people will not endure sound teaching, but having itching ears they will accumulate for themselves teachers to suit their own likings, 4 and will turn away from listening to the truth and wander into myths."

And those times continue, they never go away. But the Church is protected.

Those thing were written to Timothy about the church. They will have itching ears to suit their own likings (like the Franciscans did when they proposed Papal infallibility to suit their own likings)

 

[steve-b]

steve-b:

" In answering these questions, the Church facilitates the development or maturing of doctrines. The Blessed Virgin Mary models this process of coming to an ever deeper understanding of God’s revelation: “But Mary kept all these things, pondering them in her heart” (Luke 2:19). It’s important to understand that the Church does not, indeed cannot , change the doctrines God has given it, nor can it “invent” new ones and add them to the deposit of faith that has been “once for all delivered to the saints.” New beliefs are not invented, but obscurities and misunderstandings regarding the deposit of faith are cleared up…" from: Can Dogma Develop? | Catholic Answers

HIstory says otherwise.

No it doesn’t

As Paul wrote to Bp Timothy:

3 For the time is coming when people will not endure sound teaching, but having itching ears they will accumulate for themselves teachers to suit their own likings, 4 and will turn away from listening to the truth and wander into myths."

And those times continue, they never go away. But the Church is protected.

Ianman87:

Those thing were written to Timothy about the church. They will have itching ears to suit their own likings (like the Franciscans did when they proposed Papal infallibility to suit their own likings)

Paul was warning Timothy about those who divide because of their objections to solid teaching. And we know what Paul also says about the consequences for THEM

 

[lanman87]

No it doesn’t

That is your opinion. My opinion is otherwise.

Paul was warning Timothy about those who divide because of their objections to solid teaching. And we know what Paul also says about the consequences for THEM

Which solid teaching? The teaching of the apostles or the teachings of men. If I divide from the teachings of men then I am holding on the Gospel that was taught by Christ and the Apostles.

 

[MT1926]

That is why I think there is no defined liturgy in the New Testament. We have a lot of freedom on how we “do church”.

I disagree. I think it is pretty evident from scripture and history that the Apostles did it one way and expected everyone to do it the same. Just because you want it spelled out like an instruction manual isn’t proof that they left us freedom to do it our own way.

Scriptural interpretation is done in community (the church) and we test and hold each other accountable to the meaning of scripture.

Where is this taught in scripture?

This includes reading theologians and historians as well as pastors and teachers and working through issues with each other in Bible Studies and small groups.

Can you show where this is taught, because it makes no sense to me. Do you sit in a circle with your college professors and work through the issues of why you think you are right and he is wrong? Also, at the end of the day what do you do when you can’t come to an agreement. For instance what happens when the group, against the will of the pastors and teachers, decides divorce and remarriage is OK if someone is in an unhappy marriage? After all Jesus wants us to be happy right?

but not as much as knowing Jesus and being known by Jesus.

However, the most important thing is to know Christ and the power of His resurrection.

Our allegiance is to Christ and His call and plan for our lives.

I just wanted to respond that as a Catholic I totally agree that all we need is Jesus. However, I quite often see this stated by fellow Christians without qualification. Stated in this way is very misleading to not only oneself but to our fellow Christians. If the most important thing is to know Christ well then how do we get to know Christ? How do we lay hold of Jesus? How do we access Jesus?

Jesus seemed to say a lot about how we lay hold of him and how we get to know him. There are also many varying interpretations of these verses telling us how we lay hold of Him. If your allegiance is to Christ and not yourself how are you the only one that can determine and conclude that you are laying hold of Him?

Doesn’t that seem a little “OFF” to you? When I read it the first thing that popped into my mind Fred that goes around saying Jimmy is my best friend and when you ask Jimmy he tells you that Fred drives him crazy, because he always wants to tell him what to do, but he just doesn’t have the heart to tell Fred that.

Personally, I think that is exactly what we do when we claim this is how Jesus wants us to abide in him but that way over there seems kinda off to me so He didn’t really want that from us. Or Jesus didn’t really want us to worship Him a certain way He gave us leeway to do what we wanted.

Jesus knows what He wants and told us, I think often we just want what we want instead.

God Bless

 

[fbl9]

Hi Ianman87, Thank you for the reply way back in the thread.
Food for thought…
You have claimed infallibility ended with last Apostle.
You do not accept an Oneness Pentecostal`s doctrine. Yet there is no definitive writing by the Apostles on the Trinity and only a mystical reference in scripture.
You reject Catholic doctrine x as a teaching of man, yet your belief in the Trinity is also a teaching of man namely yourself.
Food for thought, Have you ever consider Catholic doctrine x actually comes from knowing Christ as He truly is.

 

[steve-b]

steve-b:

No it doesn’t

That is your opinion. My opinion is otherwise.

I’ve already given historical proof for what I say and properly referenced…

Paul was warning Timothy about those who divide because of their objections to solid teaching. And we know what Paul also says about the consequences for THEM

Ianman87:

Which solid teaching? The teaching of the apostles or the teachings of men. If I divide from the teachings of men then I am holding on the Gospel that was taught by Christ and the Apostles.

The Catholic Church was sitting there with Jesus at the Last Supper. The Catholic Church wrote and canonized the NT. It is the pillar and Bulwark of truth.

 

[Wannano]

lanman87:

steve-b:

No it doesn’t

That is your opinion. My opinion is otherwise.

I’ve already given historical proof for what I say and properly referenced…

Paul was warning Timothy about those who divide because of their objections to solid teaching. And we know what Paul also says about the consequences for THEM

Ianman87:

Which solid teaching? The teaching of the apostles or the teachings of men. If I divide from the teachings of men then I am holding on the Gospel that was taught by Christ and the Apostles.

The Catholic Church was sitting there with Jesus at the Last Supper. The Catholic Church wrote and canonized the NT. It is the pillar and Bulwark of truth.

Steve, you have the ability to make it sound so authentic, comfortable and sound. If the Catholic Church was sitting there with Jesus, and the understood the Mass so well, where was the Catholic Church during the trial and crucifixion? If the Catholic Church was there surely Peter would have known he was the Pope and that should have given him the courage to die with the Saviour. The Catholic Church was not there, they were a bunch of fellows who after witnessing the resurrection formed a following that got called The Way.

Similarly, if the CC wrote the Bible, then it wrote all the entries that did not make it into the Canon. Some of the entries had heretical aspects, but using your arguement the Church would have wrote the heresy not individuals. It is interesting how you can say the Church wrote the Bible when the books were written by individuals. How then can the Church proclaim that evil Popes and Priests are not the Church, if individuals who wrote the Bible are the Church?

 

[lanman87]

But once again where is the line drawn? We can find early writings referencing the Trinity (although not using that exact word) in the mid to late second century. Also, around that same time frame we can find writings referencing Purgatory (although not using that exact word) and praying for the dead.

The line isn’t a point in time. It is on if the teaching was part of the Gospel as handed on by the Apostles. There were lots of things believed in the 2nd Century that were rejected because the church because they were contrary to the Gospel. Ironically, they rejected some legends and myths that someone put to writing that later influenced “Sacred Tradition” (The infancy Gospel of James and Infancy Gospel Thomas come to mind).

Where is this taught in scripture?

Everywhere it says to hold fast to the teachings of the Apostles. That instruction was to the entire church, both the leadership and the laity.

The most obvious teaching is Galatians chapter 1

6 I am astonished that you are so quickly deserting him who called you in the grace of Christ and are turning to a different gospel— 7 not that there is another one, but there are some who trouble you and want to distort the gospel of Christ. 8 But even if we or an angel from heaven should preach to you a gospel contrary to the one we preached to you, let him be accursed. 9 As we have said before, so now I say again: If anyone is preaching to you a gospel contrary to the one you received, let him be accursed.

The “we” is talking about the apostles themselves and the leadership of the church. It is clear that we are told hold the leadership accountable to the Gospel message.

continued…

 

[lanman87]

Can you show where this is taught, because it makes no sense to me. Do you sit in a circle with your college professors and work through the issues of why you think you are right and he is wrong?

Isn’t that exactly what the church councils did. Get is a room and work through work through the issues. Then they voted on what was the correct interpretation and teachings. What happened with the people that disagreed with the ruling? Usually, they kept right on disagreeing and teaching what they wanted. At least until the middle ages when disagreeing and teaching what you wanted could get you imprisoned or killed.

If the most important thing is to know Christ well then how do we get to know Christ? How do we lay hold of Jesus? How do we access Jesus?

The thrust of the New Testament writings is that we get to know Jesus by Grace through Faith. The evidence of that faith is shown through the gifts of the spirit and works of love. If someone makes a claim of faith in Christ and their life shows evidence of that faith being lived out then I’m not prepared to say they don’t “know Christ and the Power of His resurrection” because they don’t have the same understanding of the Eucharist or same understanding about baptism or liturgical traditions. I may tell them I disagree with their understandings and traditions but I also understand that Grace and faith are stronger than our intellectual understandings. Grace and faith are works of the Holy Spirit on the heart of man. Our understandings are acts of our intellect. Our intellect can be faulty. God’s grace and gift of faith is not faulty. That is why we trust Christ and His work on our behalf instead of our own understandings. Isn’t in Proverbs that says “Trust in the Lord with all your heart and not your own understandings in all your ways acknowledge Him and He will direct your paths”

 

[lanman87]

I’ve already given historical proof for what I say and properly referenced…

The historical proof you linked was Catholic apologetics. That is not the same thing as historical proof.

The Catholic Church was sitting there with Jesus at the Last Supper. The Catholic Church wrote and canonized the NT. It is the pillar and Bulwark of truth.

The Roman Catholic church didn’t exist at the Last Supper. The catholic (universal) Christian church was about to be birthed. That church is the assembly of all those who are new Creations in Christ. The Roman/Latin Catholic church as it stands today is not the same thing as the catholic(universal) church that Christ instituted. There are members of the universal church in the Roman/Latin Church just as there are members of the universal church in the Lutheran Church, Episcopal Church, Presbyterian church, Baptist Church, Methodist Church, Pentecostal churches, non-Denomination churches and so forth. There are also members of all of those churches who are not part of the universal church. Being a member of the universal church is about being a New Creation in Christ. Not about what church roll your name is on.

 

[steve-b]

The Catholic Church was sitting there with Jesus at the Last Supper. The Catholic Church wrote and canonized the NT. It is the pillar and Bulwark of truth.

Wannano:

Steve, you have the ability to make it sound so authentic, comfortable and sound. If the Catholic Church was sitting there with Jesus, and the understood the Mass so well, where was the Catholic Church during the trial and crucifixion? If the Catholic Church was there surely Peter would have known he was the Pope and that should have given him the courage to die with the Saviour. The Catholic Church was not there, they were a bunch of fellows who after witnessing the resurrection formed a following that got called The Way.

in Acts, followers of Jesus were called “Christian” and followers of “The Way”

The Church was also called
Acts 9:31 the church throughout all , universal ἐκκλησία καθ’ ὅλης τῆς
ἐκκλησία = church ,
καθ’ = according to ,
ὅλης = whole / all / complete / universal ,
τῆς = the ,
= the Kataholos Church = the Catholic Church.

Acts, is estimated to be written between A.D. 70’s to 80’s

Bp Ignatius of Antioch, was ordained ~ 68. He knew the apostles, as in he was a contemporary of the apostles, and was a direct disciple of John. He wrote his letters as he was taught. So when he wrote the following

1. The Church is the Catholic Church, & those in the Church are Christians, Epistle to the Smyrnæans, Christians ch 2, Catholic Church ch 8
2. and schism from this Church is condemned. Epistle to the Philadelphians (ch 3)

Ignatius as bishop, learned this from the apostles, taught this orally, before he wrote his letters on his way to be martyred.

Wannano:

Similarly, if the CC wrote the Bible, then it wrote all the entries that did not make it into the Canon. Some of the entries had heretical aspects, but using your arguement the Church would have wrote the heresy not individuals. It is interesting how you can say the Church wrote the Bible when the books were written by individuals.

Every author of scripture was already in the Church they were writing to and for. Ergo they were ALL Catholics in the Catholic Church.

Wannano:

How then can the Church proclaim that evil Popes and Priests are not the Church, if individuals who wrote the Bible are the Church?

Where was that said?

And Jesus never promised a Judas free Church. Yes We’ve had bad popes and bad priests. They didn’t write scripture. How did the Catholic Church select only 27 books for the NT? There was no index to follow. Nothing said which books are inspired of God nor which ones are NOT…

The Church created the list (canon) ergo the index as well

 

[Wannano]

The Catholic Church was sitting there with Jesus at the Last Supper. The Catholic Church wrote and canonized the NT. It is the pillar and Bulwark of truth.

Wannano:

Every author of scripture was already in the Church they were writing to and for. Ergo they were ALL Catholics in the Catholic Church.

How then can the Church proclaim that evil Popes and Priests are not the Church, if individuals who wrote the Bible are the Church?

Where was that said?

---

Where was it said that evil Popes, Bishops an Priests are not the Church? Just about everywhere, here at CAF for sure. It is stressed that they are not the Church only rotten apples in the Church.
Above you are agreeing with my point that the writers of Scripture are individuals within the the Church as well, not The Church. That is my point, The Church did not write the NT, individuals within the Church wrote it.

 

[steve-b]

I’ve already given historical proof for what I say and properly referenced…

Wannano:

The historical proof you linked was Catholic apologetics. That is not the same thing as historical proof.

It’s all linked to history.

The Catholic Church was sitting there with Jesus at the Last Supper. The Catholic Church wrote and canonized the NT. It is the pillar and Bulwark of truth.

Wannano:

The Roman Catholic church didn’t exist at the Last Supper. The catholic (universal) Christian church was about to be birthed. That church is the assembly of all those who are new Creations in Christ. The Roman/Latin Catholic church as it stands today is not the same thing as the catholic(universal) church that Christ instituted.

In Paul’s letter to the Church of Rome, he wrote (all emphasis mine)
Rom 1:7 To all God’s beloved in Rome, who are called to be saints:

Grace to you and peace from God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ.[c]

8 First, I thank my God through Jesus Christ for all of you, because your faith is proclaimed in all the world. 9 For God is my witness, whom I serve with my spirit in the gospel of his Son, that without ceasing I mention you always in my prayers, 10 asking that somehow by God’s will I may now at last succeed in coming to you.[d] 11 For I long to see you, that I may impart to you some spiritual gift to strengthen you, 12 that is, that we may be mutually encouraged by each other’s faith, both yours and mine.
Ianman87:

There are members of the universal church in the Roman/Latin Church just as there are members of the universal church in the Lutheran Church, Episcopal Church, Presbyterian church, Baptist Church, Methodist Church, Pentecostal churches, non-Denomination churches and so forth. There are also members of all of those churches who are not part of the universal church. Being a member of the universal church is about being a New Creation in Christ. Not about what church roll your name is on.

I don’t subscribe to Indifferentism or latitudinarianism .

 

[lanman87]

I don’t subscribe to Indifferentism or latitudinarianism .

So are you saying that there aren’t any members of those churches who have come been moved from death to life by the indwelling Holy Spirit, been adopted as sons and daughters of Christ, been made new Creations in Christ, and live a life of faith and service to God, serve His People, and share His Gospel with the world by acts of love and service?

What about the Orthodox church, would you strike them out as well?

 

[lanman87]

In Paul’s letter to the Church of Rome, he wrote (all emphasis mine)
Rom 1:7 To all God’s beloved in Rome, who are called to be saints:

It was not the Roman Catholic church, it was simply the catholic (universal) church of which the people who followed Christ in Rome were a part.