Early Church not Catholic

[DCNBILL]

DCNBILL;8817296:

Well if you studied your Church history you would know. Please see here for details, newadvent.org/cathen/11744a.htm

It is most likely that Paul was Martyred at a time in close proximity to Peter and if Paul did write concerning the death of Peter the letter(s) did not survive.

Note that Sacred Scripture itself states that even all the things concerning Christ are not written in scripture John 21:25 “There are also many other things that Jesus did, but if these were to be described individually, I do not think the whole world would contain the books that would be written.”

You did not read the article did you. :dts: You also completely ignored my point and then repeated your own stance that was previously refuted. Note that this type of deflection does not add much credibility to one’s argument

 

[DCNBILL]

I never said that it was a Complete manual on the Early Church. You are putting those words in my mouth. I said that it would be a good look at what the Early Church looked like. I didn’t say that it was a complete instruction manual.

So where is this manual?

 

[tqualey]

Hey, DCBill - don’t take it personally. This is just a way of life …or, a game… that goes like this liberal application of one’s opinion, ignore challenging posts, rinse, repeat.

And, please do not be concerned with things like accuracy, documentation … and, dare I say (dare … dare…) credibility! When you look back over his several posts, you find what appears to be evidence of responses - but, it is just opinion - apparently, his alone - with no consistent focus or basis. So, trying to hit anything he says is like trying to hit a moving target.

God bless

Omar Gatskill;8823938:

You did not read the article did you. :dts: You also completely ignored my point and then repeated your own stance that was previously refuted. Note that this type of deflection does not add much credibility to one’s argument

 

[JohnVIII]

Hi, John VIII,

You are certainly long on opinion and short on references. Really, you go on and on and offer no evidence. . . Instead of floundering about in these various opinons why not limit yourself to one item and present it clearly and provide references so we can look at what you are saying in more depth.

God bless

Point well taken. I am short on references right now. Not because I don’t have them but because the only time I usually have to make posts is between calls in my taxicab.

I would like to stick to “one item”, that would be the theme of this thread. The “Early Church was not Catholic”.

Correct the Church or Ekklesia before St. Peter was Jewish! The original Ekklesia was Judaism!

The Ekklesia that pre-dates Catholicism is Judaism, and no other! Gnostics may have been around before 700 B.C. but they were not the Church. If anything the Gnostic “Christians” were a continuation of Persian dualism not the Church established by God. That was Judaism! So they,(Gnostics) therefore could not be considered an early Church!

I do agree with you point about Gnostic. But I take issue about the Church before St Peter being Jewish. I know that Peter was a Jew, Jesus was a Jew, etc… but if they were all German would that make it Lutheran? No, of course not! The Ebionites wes a Christian sect of Judaism, but what if they were wrong to believe that Jesus was the Messiah, seeing that He did not fulfill the prophecies about the Messiah? Perhaps they were trying to make Him fit the prophecies of the Messiah because that was what they wanted Him to be! The Gnostic Christians were a Christian sect of Gnosticism just as the Ebonites were a Christian sect of Judaism. The regular Gnostics didn’t accept the Christian Gnostics as true Gnostics, and the regular Jews did not accept the Christian Jews as true Jews! There is no more evidence that Christianity came from Judaism than there is that Christianity came from Gnosticism.

Now the Marcionites did NOT believe that Jesus was the Messiah, and this was one of the reasons that they taught that the Jewish Christians had a “different Jesus”. Another reason was that the Marcionites believed that Jesus was God, but the Ebonites did not.

…cont…

 

[JohnVIII]

…cont…

All these groups preceded the Catholic Church. The Catholic Church was an effort to bring all these fighting Christian Groups together into one “catholic” or universal unity. And they were, for the most part, successful! To do this an authority had to be established that all would come to accept. The Keys given to St Clement of Rome by St Peter helped to get the Ebonites in. Accepting St Paul as a true Apostle and his epistles as scripture, but with the one claim that he accepted the authority of the other apostles, helped to bring in the Marcionites. But this would have never worked if the canonized “New Testament” Scriptures were not redacted.

. . . And, if you so claim this, then please explain how the Bible can be inerrant?

If the Holy Bible was truly inerrant then we would not need to use Holy Tradition or the Church Fathers or even the Pope. I think we can get alot closer to the “truth” if we can shed some of the redactions in Scripture, especially from the Epistles of Paul. Once this is done it becomes clear that Paul did teach a Gospel that was a little different then what Peter taught, that Paul taught of a Jesus that was not exactly the same as the Jesus Peter taught.

. . . St. Paul goes to great lengths to tell us about himself and his background. These comments can be found in Acts 23 and Philippians 3. In addition to claiming to be a pharisee, he claims to have been taught by Gamaliel who appears in Acts 5.

Are you saying that all of this is a fabrication concerning Saul who later is called Paul?

I have to hold my nose if and when I ever use anything from the Acts of the Apostles, so I would not trust Acts 23 or Acts 5. Philippians 3, however, does have relevance to the question of whether Paul was a Pharisee. It says he was a Pharisee and so if it can be shown that this was not a redaction then I would believe that he was a Pharisee. I knew you were going to bring up Philippians 3, so I tried to find a redaction free version of Philippians on the internet but I could not find one. I have a redaction free version of Galatians and about half of Romans. The redactions can be identified and removed.

I know you want me to answer you as directly as possible, so to your question “Are you saying that all of this is a fabrication concerning Saul who later is called Paul?” The short answer is “Yes!”. The story of Saul persecuting the Church was really referring to how the Churches of St Paul would not acknowledged the 12 Apostles, but considered them to be apostate Apostles. And the conversion of St Paul was really referring to how the 2nd century Catholic redactors of Paul’s Epistles made him into a Catholic Apostle. This had to be done, there was no other way to deal with the popularity of St Paul and Marcionism. The Marcionites were the largest and most popular Christian Church of that day. But if the Marcionite version of Christianity became the universal version then Christianity would have ceased to exist in a short time. There are many reasons why this is so, here’s just one: they didn’t believe in marriage! So, the early Catholics were really fighting for the future of Christianity itself.

Everything that was good about Marcionism became a part of the Catholic Church once they began to join the ranks of the Catholics at the end of the 2nd century. Marcionism was Christianity in theory, but Catholicism was Christianity in practice. I wish I didn’t have to directly answer your question above because you used the word “fabrication”. When a woman is in love with a man and wishes to be married she sees him as “the perfect man” for her. Perhaps a “Prince Charming” and dreams of a wonderful perfect marriage with no problems. You could say that this is a “fabrication”, but how many women would get married if they knew that they would be miserable and have to deal with many hardships and disappointments? Many want to believe (perhaps NEED to believe) that Jesus delivered a perfect Church to St Peter on day one. It is a wonderful dream it is needed, so the Church made stories to help keep healthy dreams like this alive. But for those of us who wish to find a pure truth for what really happened must be prepared to be ok with giving up some of those dreams as a price that must be paid to know the truth.

You really want references that may convince you before you are ready to let go of a long held dream? Scholars who have researched this type of thing and those who have read them have often turned agnostic. (Gnostic is better than agnostic!) This happens because once the truth is seen it rarely fits into what we have dreamed it should be. We loose a dream and we feel like we lost a part of our soul! With this for-warning I give you a reference: The Falsified Paul

 

[onemangang]

I do agree with you point about Gnostic. But I take issue about the Church before St Peter being Jewish.

The Definition of the Word "Church" in the Greek and Hebrew "Ekklesia", is the Greek and the equivalent in the Hebrew is "Qahal," These words, when defined, will show that there was a visual Church, and that it was Jewish in the Old Testament.

How we determine what Judaism was, would be beneficial. You have your Sadducees, Pharisees and Essenes. Did each perspective sect make up the Church? I would say yes, because they all were united by the Temple. Though they all had different views of Scripture, they all would participate and offer up sacrifices in the Temple!

I know that Peter was a Jew, Jesus was a Jew, etc… but if they were all German would that make it Lutheran? No, of course not!

I am not talking of Ethnicity here, but Religion. The Jews had many Gentile proselytes, that were Circumcised and Baptized in a Mikveh B.C

The Ebionites wes a Christian sect of Judaism, but what if they were wrong to believe that Jesus was the Messiah, seeing that He did not fulfill the prophecies about the Messiah? Perhaps they were trying to make Him fit the prophecies of the Messiah because that was what they wanted Him to be!

Well, if Christianity is Wrong and you believe there was a pre-christian Church, It would be advantageous to explore the Pre-Christian Ekklesia or Qahal (Church). Was there in fact a visible Church! Yes, Judaism!

The Gnostic Christians were a Christian sect of Gnosticism just as the Ebonites were a Christian sect of Judaism. The regular Gnostics didn’t accept the Christian Gnostics as true Gnostics, and the regular Jews did not accept the Christian Jews as true Jews! There is no more evidence that Christianity came from Judaism than there is that Christianity came from Gnosticism.

I can agree that Gnostic “Christians” were a sect of Gnosticism, but I would deny that Gnostic “Christians” were a sect of Christianity. I know that you were not trying to make that point! I am merely trying to stay within the boundaries of the topic at hand ie; The focus is on the word CHURCH the Ekklesia, the ***Qahal ***and how it is properly defined!

I beg to differ, on your statement about “There is no more evidence that Christianity came from Judaism than there is that Christianity came from Gnosticism” I think the evidence overwhelmingly says otherwise. I would site references, but since you aren’t, why should I? After all it is you who are making the claim in the first place. I think the burden of proof lies on you!

You, yourself even say that*** Gnostic “Christians” were a sect of Gnosticism***! and that Ebonites were a Christian sect of Judaism! . How you make the leap to say “There is no more evidence that Christianity came from Judaism than there is that Christianity came from Gnosticism” is beyond me. I mean, you make the link in your very own statement!

Now the Marcionites did NOT believe that Jesus was the Messiah, and this was one of the reasons that they taught that the Jewish Christians had a “different Jesus”. Another reason was that the Marcionites believed that Jesus was God, but the Ebonites did not.

I disagree with your statement of the Marcionites believing Jesus was God. They may have believe He was the embodiment of the divine, like a god but not the Unknown God. The believed Jesus was sent by the Pleroma or Monad. A Higher unknown god of light or the Greek equivalent of the Unknown God. Marcion used a Hellenised form of Dualism, and rejected the God of the Old Testament as an Evil god or Demiurge. So Jesus was not sent by the G-d of the Old Testament in Marcionian theology, since he believed Him (the God of the Old testament) to be evil!

I think one may be able to make the case that many of the early Christians did not use the term Trinity, and many people in early Christianity were Arians, Semi-Arian, or did not believe Jesus was God! We see the many different views and developments unfold in early Chrtistianity, no doubt, but we also see that all those in opposition fizzled out. Some have said that the (Ekklesia) Church continued on through political means, and that the victors determined what history would be, but one can also accept by faith these words “And I say to thee: That thou art Peter; and upon this rock I will build my (Ekklesia) church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.”

In light of the Historical evidence, I think the later is a better explanation of the data.

I think it would be of great importance to define Church. The word used for Church in the Greek was “Ekklesia”, the equivalent to the Hebrew “Qahal,”

Here is a Baptist study on the word Ekklesia
hallmarkbaptist.com/ekklesia.htm

Here is a link to New Advent
newadvent.org/cathen/03744a.htm

 

[onemangang]

…cont…

If the Holy Bible was truly inerrant then we would not need to use Holy Tradition or the Church Fathers or even the Pope. I think we can get alot closer to the “truth” if we can shed some of the redactions in Scripture, especially from the Epistles of Paul. Once this is done it becomes clear that Paul did teach a Gospel that was a little different then what Peter taught, that Paul taught of a Jesus that was not exactly the same as the Jesus Peter taught.

The Falsified Paul

The justification of St. Paul, St. Peter and St. James was one in the same! As I said earlier, a book that illuminates there unified view of Justification is Not by Faith Alone *** *** A Biblical Study of the Catholic Doctrine of Justification by Robert Sungenis

After reading that book it will be clear that Peter, Paul and James all taught the same thing!

 

[tqualey]

Hi, John VIII,

You know it is one thing to claim that you do not have a reserence at a particular time - it is quite another to just blow right past it and keep on with these one-of-a-kind truly outrageous opinions. So, let’s just stick with one item and work our way forward only after we have this resolved. Other-wise, we will just be chasing phantoms of ideas.

The gospel of Luke (Ch 1-2) goes into detail telling us that Christ was a Jew. There really isn’t a comprehensive bio on the Twelve - but, considering the criticism brought against Christ for hanging around ‘sinners and prostitutes’ - if there had been a Gentile among the Twelve - these guys would have said something negative.

So, tell me - before you go any further - where do you get the idea that Christ and/or the Apostles were not Jews?

God bless

Point well taken. I am short on references right now. Not because I don’t have them but because the only time I usually have to make posts is between calls in my taxicab.

I would like to stick to “one item”, that would be the theme of this thread. The “Early Church was not Catholic”.

I do agree with you point about Gnostic. But I take issue about the Church before St Peter being Jewish. I know that Peter was a Jew, Jesus was a Jew, etc… but if they were all German would that make it Lutheran? No, of course not! The Ebionites wes a Christian sect of Judaism, but what if they were wrong to believe that Jesus was the Messiah, seeing that He did not fulfill the prophecies about the Messiah? Perhaps they were trying to make Him fit the prophecies of the Messiah because that was what they wanted Him to be! The Gnostic Christians were a Christian sect of Gnosticism just as the Ebonites were a Christian sect of Judaism. The regular Gnostics didn’t accept the Christian Gnostics as true Gnostics, and the regular Jews did not accept the Christian Jews as true Jews! There is no more evidence that Christianity came from Judaism than there is that Christianity came from Gnosticism.

Now the Marcionites did NOT believe that Jesus was the Messiah, and this was one of the reasons that they taught that the Jewish Christians had a “different Jesus”. Another reason was that the Marcionites believed that Jesus was God, but the Ebonites did not.

…cont…

 

[tqualey]

Hi, John VIII,

You know, if there is any ‘nose holding’ it is do to the utter lack of scholarship you are spewing forth in the form on unenlightened opinion.

From the time Christ died in about 33AD until about 400AD there was no Bible as we commonly understand the term - the first words of what would be eventually called the New Testament would not be written until about the year 50AD - and the Catholic Church - the one founded by Christ on Peter and Peter’s successors being traced through history - gave us the Canon of Scripture in about 400AD. This means that from 33 - 400 there was no Canon and all there was, was Sacred Tradition. Here is an excellent reference: catholicapologetics.info/apologetics/protestantism/wbible.htm

Now, I am still waiting on any evidence you have identify that Christ was not a Jew.

God bless

If the Holy Bible was truly inerrant then we would not need to use Holy Tradition or the Church Fathers or even the Pope. I think we can get alot closer to the “truth” if we can shed some of the redactions in Scripture, especially from the Epistles of Paul. Once this is done it becomes clear that Paul did teach a Gospel that was a little different then what Peter taught, that Paul taught of a Jesus that was not exactly the same as the Jesus Peter taught.

 

[JohnVIII]

Now, I am still waiting on any evidence you have identify that Christ was not a Jew.

I don’t think I said that Jesus was not a Jew (i.e. ethnic Jew). I just said that His ethnicity has no bearing on the Christian Faith. I am saying that it makes no difference at all. And I will add that, as St Paul said, genealogy is vain and has nothing to do with Jesus. But the Jews made a big deal about genealogy and even tried to use it to prove that Jesus was the son of David, as if that means anything at all; St Paul said it means nothing!

The Definition of the Word "Church" in the Greek and Hebrew "Ekklesia", is the Greek and the equivalent in the Hebrew is "Qahal," These words, when defined, will show that there was a visual Church, and that it was Jewish in the Old Testament.

Ok, you got my curiosity hear. You have made a big deal about the definition of “Church”, and even gave links to “studies” on the word. The word means “called-out ones”. Is there more to it than that? If you were to study the context of it’s use by the early Christians who were followers of St Paul you would have to conclude that they were “called-out” from this created world. “Saved” as it were, from the power of the god of this world (the demiurge).

I disagree with your statement of the Marcionites believing Jesus was God. They may have believe He was the embodiment of the divine, like a god but not the Unknown God. The believed Jesus was sent by the Pleroma or Monad. A Higher unknown god of light or the Greek equivalent of the Unknown God. Marcion used a Hellenised form of Dualism, and rejected the God of the Old Testament as an Evil god or Demiurge. So Jesus was not sent by the G-d of the Old Testament in Marcionian theology, since he believed Him (the God of the Old testament) to be evil!

That’s right, Jesus was not sent by the god of this world, the creator god, but He was the manifestation of the Unknown God. The Ebionites believed that Jesus was the Son of God, but, to them, that did not mean that He was divine. The Catholics redefined the Ebionite “Son of God” to mean divine because the Marcionites believed Jesus was the greater God. This is how the doctrine of the Trinity came to be.

I think one may be able to make the case that many of the early Christians did not use the term Trinity, and many people in early Christianity were Arians, Semi-Arian, or did not believe Jesus was God! We see the many different views and developments unfold in early Chrtistianity, no doubt, but we also see that all those in opposition fizzled out. Some have said that the (Ekklesia) Church continued on through political means, and that the victors determined what history would be, but one can also accept by faith these words “And I say to thee: That thou art Peter; and upon this rock I will build my (Ekklesia) church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.”

Yes, that is true. Catholics were the victors and they did determine what history would be. And accepting St Peter by faith is what Catholicism is all about. I would even go so far as to say that “New Testament” Scripture has no value at all if taken by itself, but by virtue of it as an expression of Catholicism it then has value. The only problem with this is that the original version of letters of St Paul had nothing to do with Catholicism. Nor was St Paul the actual author of the letters either, so technically they cannot stand on the authority of St Paul either. In short, the only authority that has survived the ages is that of the Catholic Church.

…the Catholic Church - the one founded by Christ on Peter and Peter’s successors being traced through history - gave us the Canon of Scripture in about 400AD. This means that from 33 - 400 there was no Canon and all there was, was Sacred Tradition…

Actually the first one to make a canon of scripture was Marcion (about 100 AD). And Marcion’s canon was one of the primary reasons that his Church became so popular. When the Catholics made a canon it included the same books of Marcion (revised) and added others. And when the Catholics did this it was one of the main reasons they ended up becoming the universal Church. The Catholics probably learned from the Marcionites how effective a canon of scripture can be.

 

[CopticChristian]

JohnVIII;8884611**:

I don’t think I said that Jesus was not a Jew (i.e. ethnic Jew). I just said that His ethnicity has no bearing on the Christian Faith. I am saying that it makes no difference at all. And I will add that, as St Paul said, genealogy is vain and has nothing to do with Jesus. But the Jews made a big deal about genealogy and even tried to use it to prove that Jesus was the son of David, as if that means anything at all; St Paul said it means nothing!

Ok, you got my curiosity hear. You have made a big deal about the definition of “Church”, and even gave links to “studies” on the word. The word means “called-out ones”. Is there more to it than that? If you were to study the context of it’s use by the early Christians who were followers of St Paul you would have to conclude that they were “called-out” from this created world. “Saved” as it were, from the power of the god of this world (the demiurge).

That’s right, Jesus was not sent by the god of this world, the creator god, but He was the manifestation of the Unknown God. The Ebionites believed that Jesus was the Son of God, but, to them, that did not mean that He was divine. The Catholics redefined the Ebionite “Son of God” to mean divine because the Marcionites believed Jesus was the greater God. This is how the doctrine of the Trinity came to be.

Yes, that is true. Catholics were the victors and they did determine what history would be. And accepting St Peter by faith is what Catholicism is all about. I would even go so far as to say that “New Testament” Scripture has no value at all if taken by itself, but by virtue of it as an expression of Catholicism it then has value. The only problem with this is that the original version of letters of St Paul had nothing to do with Catholicism. Nor was St Paul the actual author of the letters either, so technically they cannot stand on the authority of St Paul either. In short, the only authority that has survived the ages is that of the Catholic Church.

Actually the first one to make a canon of scripture was Marcion (about 100 AD). And Marcion’s canon was one of the primary reasons that his Church became so popular. When the Catholics made a canon it included the same books of Marcion (revised) and added others. And when the Catholics did this it was one of the main reasons they ended up becoming the universal Church. The Catholics probably learned from the Marcionites how effective a canon of scripture can be.

So,

It is it your opinion that Jesus could have been from the tribe of Benjamin?

 

[JohnVIII]

Let me make sure I am clear about this. I believe the purest form of the Early Church was not Catholic, it was Marcionite. But the Marcionite Church came to an end around 400 AD. But a great deal of what the Marcionites believed became a part of the Catholic Church as most of the Marcionites converted to the Catholic Church by the end of the 2nd century.

As I see it, the Marcionites can exist today as a sect within Catholicism, much the same as the Ebionites were a sect within Judasim. Just as long as the authority of the Church is recognized, no one within the Catholic Church holding Marcionite views will be kicked out.

As for me personally, I am not Catholic, I am Orthodox. But I do accept the primacy of the Pope. So I wonder if anyone, Catholic or Orthodox, will “kick me out”, because I hold Marcionite views. I don’t think so. The Orthodox are more likely to kick me out for accepting the primacy of the Pope then they are for holding Marcionite views, I think.

As an Orthodox I was miaphysite. Because it is true that in order for the “flesh” of man to be saved Jesus had to form a perfect union between His flesh and His Godhead. This is what St Athanasius taught. But was this what the “early” Church taught? I don’t think so. This was what the Catholic Church taught before Chalcedon. But the early Church taught that Jesus didn’t actually take on flesh. That is why the baptism of Jesus was a holiday in the Church some time before Christmas became a holiday.

It wasn’t because the god of creation was “evil”. The god of creation was the god of the Law. He was the god of justice. He was not the God of goodness, but the god of both good and evil. Our flesh, being a part of this creation, had to be trapped by law, because it was not possible for the flesh to abide by law. There really isn’t two gods, because the god of this world is more like an angel, limited by imperfections. The “unknown” God is the true Supreme God and is manifested to us in Jesus. And it isn’t Jesus “Christ”. Christ means Messiah, and the Messiah is prophesied to come from the god of this world. It is Jesus “Chrest”. That is “Chrestos” not “Christos”. Chrestos means “the good one”.

Now, before all of you come down against me on this, I have an open question for you. It says that Jesus, like Melchizedek, was “Without father, without mother, without genealogy, having neither beginning of days nor end of life, but made like the Son of God” (Hebrews 7:3) Now, how is it possible that Jesus is “the Son of David” if it is true that the Son of God is “without genealogy”?

 

[JohnVIII]

So,

It is it your opinion that Jesus could have been from the tribe of Benjamin?

Jesus “appeared” to be of the tribe of Judah. If Catholic teaching is correct He “is” of the tribe of Judah. But then He couldn’t be “without genealogy” now could He?

 

[Cavaradossi]

I don’t want to get tangled up in all of this, but I just wanted to state that Marcionism is not an acceptable teaching within Orthodoxy. The God of the Old Testament is not some sort of lesser demiurge, nor is the true God a monad, as the Marcionites so absurdly concluded. The Orthodox believe that Christ is the messiah, who fulfilled the prophecies of the Old Testament, and that he is also the Son of God incarnate. Marcionism is not in any way, shape or form compatible with Orthodoxy.

 

[onemangang]

I don’t think I said that Jesus was not a Jew (i.e. ethnic Jew). I just said that His ethnicity has no bearing on the Christian Faith. I am saying that it makes no difference at all. And I will add that, as St Paul said, genealogy is vain and has nothing to do with Jesus. But the Jews made a big deal about genealogy and even tried to use it to prove that Jesus was the son of David, as if that means anything at all; St Paul said it means nothing!

It was a response that was made to the Early Church being Judaism! Before Christ Judaism was the visible Church!

Ok, you got my curiosity hear. You have made a big deal about the definition of “Church”, and even gave links to “studies” on the word. The word means “called-out ones”. Is there more to it than that? If you were to study the context of it’s use by the early Christians who were followers of St Paul you would have to conclude that they were “called-out” from this created world. “Saved” as it were, from the power of the god of this world (the demiurge).

I was pointing out that the Church B.C and A.D was visible, that’s all!

That’s right, Jesus was not sent by the god of this world, the creator god, but He was the manifestation of the Unknown God. The Ebionites believed that Jesus was the Son of God, but, to them, that did not mean that He was divine. The Catholics redefined the Ebionite “Son of God” to mean divine because the Marcionites believed Jesus was the greater God. This is how the doctrine of the Trinity came to be.

Gee, thanks for the unveiling of what was hidden gnosis behind years of Revisionist history! Amazing that they would start revising History so early. Who knew.

Yes, that is true. Catholics were the victors and they did determine what history would be. And accepting St Peter by faith is what Catholicism is all about. I would even go so far as to say that “New Testament” Scripture has no value at all if taken by itself, but by virtue of it as an expression of Catholicism it then has value. The only problem with this is that the original version of letters of St Paul had nothing to do with Catholicism. Nor was St Paul the actual author of the letters either, so technically they cannot stand on the authority of St Paul either. In short, the only authority that has survived the ages is that of the Catholic Church.

Dang, Catholic Church, I bet they are behind the New World Order too, wait a minute isn’t the New Mass called the Novus Ordo, and isn’t that also on a dollar bill, things are all starting to make sense now!

Actually the first one to make a canon of scripture was Marcion (about 100 AD). And Marcion’s canon was one of the primary reasons that his Church became so popular. When the Catholics made a canon it included the same books of Marcion (revised) and added others. And when the Catholics did this it was one of the main reasons they ended up becoming the universal Church. The Catholics probably learned from the Marcionites how effective a canon of scripture can be.

Ok, so your Gnostic, I get it.

And It’s hard to prove the hidden underground church because it was suppressed, being that the Catholic Church erased it’s history to prove it!

That seems to be the new Hip thing now a DAZE. :hypno: Very New Age

I have a few friends that are A.A and N.A members, there all Gnostics too.

If Gnosticism had a slogan this would be it

***Gnosticism, Christianity for conspiracy theorist. ***

Sorry to be uncharitable, but you make wild claims with very little PROOF! :yawn:

 

[GaryTaylor]

Jesus was not sent by the god of this world, the creator god, but He was the manifestation of the Unknown God

Theophilus of Antioch 180-AD. Speaks of "the Trinity of God [the Father], His Word and His Wisdom (To Autolycus II.15).

Ebionites are not a mystery. There is no consensus among scholars, do you have their early writtings from 70-150?

The connection of Christ to God the Father is more than significant.

Marcion was an excommunicated heretic. And your opinion of how the Doctrine of the Trinity came to be is just that, a lacking opinion. In his heretical belief the God of the Jews and Jesus Christ were completely different deitys. A dualist system of belief is all Marcion bought the table and much later than your projected 100-AD. More likely 144-AD. Born in 85-AD which also makes him a little late to the table.

SO… at 15-years old he did all this work, A little far fetched no??? For you have to consider the work of Ignatius of Antioch by 104.

I would even go so far as to say that “New Testament” Scripture has no value at all if taken by itself, but by virtue of it as an expression of Catholicism it then has value. The only problem with this is that the original version of letters of St Paul had nothing to do with Catholicism. Nor was St Paul the actual author of the letters either, …

Of couse all this in you “opinion”, based on what for facts? While your “opinion” is appreciated its short sighted

Seven letters of St Paul are considered as “undisputed”, which scholars all argee on and they are… Romans, 1 & 2 Corinthians, Galatians, Philippians, 1 Thessalonians, and Philemon. How would logic coincide to the fact they have nothing to do with Christianity as you state? Perhaps I am missing your logic here? Romans itself cannot be understated or Corinthians as to your assumption?

Actually the first one to make a canon of scripture was Marcion (about 100 AD). And Marcion’s canon was one of the primary reasons that his Church became so popular.

At the age of 15? I don’t think so. False assumption’s based on no facts. Irenaeus of Lyon, mentions all of the books except Jude, 2 Peter, James, Philemon, 2 and 3 John, and Revelation. The earliest “New Testament manuscripts” were written on papyrus, a practice continued for centuries. Fragments exist of Luke, John, Matthew, Mark, and Acts, aside form all the works of St Paul I mentioned above, and I believe a couple others. John is the oldest known work of the NT and dates 125-160. All Pauls works are dated about 175. Revelations shortly after. Marcion

John on the Trinity? Most significant I would say. BTW Ignatius was his student

St. John’s testimony is yet more explicit than that of the Synoptists. He expressly asserts that the very purpose of his Gospel is to establish the Divinity of Jesus Christ (John 20:31). In the prologue he identifies Him with the Word, the only-begotten of the Father, Who from all eternity exists with God, Who is God (John 1:1-18). The immanence of the Son in the Father and of the Father in the Son is declared in Christ’s words to St. Philip: “Do you not believe, that I am in the Father, and the Father in Me?” (14:10), and in other passages no less explicit (14:7; 16:15; 17:21). The oneness of Their power and Their action is affirmed: “Whatever he [the Father] does, the Son also does in like manner” (5:19, cf. 10:38); and to the Son no less than to the Father belongs the Divine attribute of conferring life on whom He will (5:21). In 10:29, Christ expressly teaches His unity of essence with the Father: “That which my Father hath given me, is greater than all . . . I and the Father are one.” The words, “That which my Father hath given me,” can, having regard to the context, have no other meaning than the Divine Name, possessed in its fullness by the Son as by the Father.

Now Jesus used the phrase “I AM” 8 times, Mark 14:62, Luke 22:70, John 4:26, 8:58, 13:19, 18:5,6,8. God often uses “I AM” as a name or description of Himself in the Old Testament as we well know. The significance of the Holy Spirit should be obvious throughout OT/NT. So here you see the connection of God of the OT and Jesus Christ being God born of the Flesh. And the Word became Flesh by the power or who? The Holy Spirit…no?

The dead sea scrolls OT/NT 150-BC to 50-AD. You’ll probly want to read this also since new evidence is found here…

Scroll 4Q246 - the Son of God Scroll: “Cave Four”.

“He shall be called the son of God,
and they shall designate [call] him son of the Most High.
Like the appearance of comets, so shall be their kingdom.
For brief years they shall reign over the earth and shall trample on all;
one people shall trample on another and
one province on another until the people of God shall rise and all shall rest from the sword.”

Compare the words in Luke 1:32 and 35: “He shall be great, and shall be called the Son of the Highest: and the Lord God shall give unto him the throne of his father David… And the angel answered and said unto her, The Holy Ghost shall come upon thee, and the power of the Highest shall overshadow thee: therefore also that holy thing which shall be born of thee shall be called the Son of God” (Luke 1:32-35).

google “Extraordinary Evidence About Jesus in the Dead Sea Scrolls”

Didache which is the teachings of the twelve apostles dates from 50-AD to the early first century. Here God is called “Lord God”, while Jesus is called “the servant” of the Father.

And of couse the works of St Ignatius of Antioch exist from 104-AD in his 7-letters. So as to your above post with Marcion? Basically Ignatius of Antioch alone puts that to rest just in itself

 

[Cursilista]

Would someone please define what type of organizational body Jesus had in mind for his church other than the one which is in place today?

Having read most of this thread, those opposed to the idea of a pope fail to suggest an alternative form of organization by which man can govern himself.

 

[GaryTaylor]

Would someone please define what type of organizational body Jesus had in mind for his church other than the one which is in place today?

Having read most of this thread, those opposed to the idea of a pope fail to suggest an alternative form of organization by which man can govern himself.

The fact is they all follow somebody regardless of what church they are in. Basically its a moot point.

 

[asd72]

The Early Church was a Jewish sect. Gentiles wanted to get into the act without first converting to Judaism, but they were rejected by Jewish Christians, so they made there own “Church”, which mainly was Gnostic. An offshoot of Gnosticism, that eventually came to be know as Marcionism, rejected anything Jewish. At this point there came into the picture a small minority of Christians that was an offshoot of the Jewish Christians that wanted both Gentile and Jewish Christians to be one in Christ, these were the first Catholics. Marcionism was the largest and most dominate Christians group and Catholics had to win over them to have any chance. Promoting a Catholic canon of Scripture (and revising them) was the main tool that gathered diverse Christians with there diverse teachings from the four winds to the four Gospels and reconciling both Jew and Gentile into Catholic unity by the end of the 2nd century.

So I do not think the first church was Catholic. But, if you qualify it and say the first church that purely Christian (and not just a sect of another faith) and succeeded in uniting all Christians (at least to some degree) to Rome and St Peter, then that would, of course, be the Catholic Church.

Most of the New Testament cannot stand on it’s own historical authority. Without the authority of the Catholic Church backing what the scripture teaches on matters of faith it really has no leg to stand on.

The first Church council of Jerusalem seems to say something different! (Acts 15:1-35)

 

[tqualey]

Hi, John VIII,

One of the apparent issues you are presenting is that individual interpretation of Scripture is fraught with error. Ripping a line from St. Paul to try and defend your personal interpretation is not valid. Let me explain.

Christ was born of a Jewish mother, circumcised on the 8th day and went to the Temple (for his Bar Mitzvah ?) where He was lost and His parents searched for Him for 3 days. During His public ministry he attend Jewish feasts with His Apostles. He was repeatedly called rabbi and held the captivated (but murderous) attention of the Jewish religious leaders. Your dismissal of Christ being of the Jewish faith is totally unfounded. This approach of yours hints of some other agenda.

But to paraphrase your response, the real issue is, “So, what if Christ was Jewish - St. Paul says background means nothing compared to what one is doing now for Christ”. Well, the ‘so what’ is that Christ did not simply fall out of the sky. From the Garden of Eden forward, God promised a Redeemer - and throughout the Old Testament, more and more information was given about Him. Here are a few:

**Genesis 3:15
12:3
49:10 …The Promise

Exodus 12:40-50 …The Passover Lamb

Numbers 24:17…The Scepter

Deuteronomy 18:17-19…The ComingProphet

Job 19:25-27…The Resurrection

Psalms:
2:1-12 …The New World Order to be Destroyed
8:1-9 …Brought low for the suffering of death
16:7-11…Will not see decay
22:1-31 …The Crucifixion Fortold (1,000 B.C.)
45:1-9 …The King and his Bride
110:1-7 …The Coming Priest

Proverbs 30:4 …The Son

Isaiah:
7:14 …To be Born of a Virgin
9:6-7 …The Man who is God
11:1-5 …The Righteous Judge
42:1-9…The Judge of the Nations
49:5-7 …The Light of the Gentiles
52:13-15 …The Suffering Servant
53:1-12 …The Lamb of God…Raised from the Dead

Jeremiah31:31-34 …The New Covenant

Daniel:
7:13-14…His Kingdom is Forever
9:26…He is to be “cut off” (initially)

Amos 8:9-10… Sun to go down at Noon

Micah 5:2 …The Christ to be born in Bethlehem

Zechariah:
9:9 …The King to enter Jerusalem riding a donkey (First Coming)
11:10-13 …He is to be sold for 30 pieces of silver
12:9-10 …The Repentance of the Jews (Second Coming)
14:1-9 …The Second Coming
Malachi 3:1-5…The Messenger prepares the way **

So, this has NOTHING to do with Christ’ ‘ethnicity’ but His religion. And the ‘bearing’ that you have question deals with God’s multiple promises about sending Christ. In fact the entire Old Testament is God’s preparation of His Chosen People for Christ - with the full knowledge that Christ would be rejected and the door would then be open to us - the Gentiles.

If you believe in Someone keeping Their Promise - then this is a big deal. If you wish to just dismiss everything you have a problem with - then it obviously isn’t a big deal. It is a big deal to me - and, since St. Paul went to great lengths to convince the Jews he spoke to that Christ was the fulfillment of the OT - then I would say it was a big deal to him, too.

I don’t want to steal any of Onemangang’s thunder … … but, your arguments against his post are equally hollow. Really, for the lack of credible evidence for the statements you are making, you have really gone far afield to provide us with your opinion.

Go bless

I don’t think I said that Jesus was not a Jew (i.e. ethnic Jew). I just said that His ethnicity has no bearing on the Christian Faith. I am saying that it makes no difference at all. And I will add that, as St Paul said, genealogy is vain and has nothing to do with Jesus. But the Jews made a big deal about genealogy and even tried to use it to prove that Jesus was the son of David, as if that means anything at all; St Paul said it means nothing!