Early Church not Catholic

[rinnie]

Jesus was Jewish. Originally His followers attended temple as did all good Jews. Additionally, they met to celebrate the Eucharist. Originally, they were considered a branch of Judaism. They were also called Christians because they were followers of Christ or followers of The Way…

For me, the Church founded by Christ, the true Church, the Catholic Church, can best be discovered by tracing it from Christ to the present. Christ appointed Peter to be the head of His Church. This role has been passed down from generation to generation. Only the Catholic Church can show this succession. Also our bishops can all be traced back to the twelve apostles who were appointed by Jesus.

This is how I found it best to explain it. I say that St Peter can be traced to the Roman Church where the Pope is today. Funny how people will accept St Peter but not the Church he was apart of.

 

[Whadyamean]

Jesus was Jewish. Originally His followers attended temple as did all good Jews. Additionally, they met to celebrate the Eucharist. Originally, they were considered a branch of Judaism. They were also called Christians because they were followers of Christ or followers of The Way.

Yes, and there was a big meshugena about whether Jesus’ teaching was for gentiles at all! Isn’t that where Paul comes in? And since “Christ” derives from a Geek word meaning “anointed” and has an esoteric application, I wonder if Jesus or the Apostles ever heard the word. I don’t know. But it would be interesting to know when the word “Christ” was first applied to Jesus.

So far I found this:

Word Origin & History

Christ
title given to Jesus of Nazareth, O.E. crist, from L. Christus, from Gk. khristos “the anointed” (translation of Heb. mashiah; see messiah), from khriein “to rub, anoint.” The L. term drove out O.E. hæland “healer” as the preferred descriptive term for Jesus. A title,
treated as a proper name in O.E., but not regularly capitalized until 17c. Pronunciation with long -i- is result of Ir. missionary work in England, 7c.-8c. The Ch- form, regular since c.1500, was rare before.

 

[peace2u2]

1 John 4:20
If anyone says, “I love God,” and hates his brother, he is a liar; for he who does not love his brother whom he has seen, cannot love God whom he has not seen.

 

[ByzCathCantor]

Yes, and there was a big meshugena about whether Jesus’ teaching was for gentiles at all! Isn’t that where Paul comes in? And since “Christ” derives from a Geek word meaning “anointed” and has an esoteric application, I wonder if Jesus or the Apostles ever heard the word. I don’t know. But it would be interesting to know when the word “Christ” was first applied to Jesus.

Very early on, indeed. He is referred to regularly as Jesus Christ throughout the Epistles, and apparently was referred to as such in His lifetime. The first reference that I can think of …

So when the crowd had gathered, Pilate asked them, “Which one do you want me to release to you: Barabbas, or Jesus who is called Christ?” [Matthew 27:17]

There may be earlier references in the Gospels as well - this is just the one that first came to mind.

 

[Whadyamean]

Very early on, indeed. He is referred to regularly as Jesus Christ throughout the Epistles, and apparently was referred to as such in His lifetime. The first reference that I can think of …

There may be earlier references in the Gospels as well - this is just the one that first came to mind.

I guess that is what I’m talking about. I’m not a Bible scholar, but I wonder which translation that is from and what year that was made, and what was the word in the original text.

 

[ByzCathCantor]

I guess that is what I’m talking about. I’m not a Bible scholar, but I wonder which translation that is from and what year that was made, and what was the word in the original text.

Understood, and probably beyond my level of scholarship as well.

In fairness, even with the passage I quoted above, I’ve seen other translations where instead of Christ, “the Messiah” was used.

It is my [perhaps incorrect] understanding that Christ (Greek) and Messiah (Aramaic / Hebrew) were used somewhat interchangeably at first, as both mean “Anointed” and the usages are considered equivalent in those languages.

However, it is also suggested in some texts I have read that as Christianity spread through the Gentile, Greek speaking world, it became more common to defer to the Greek usage. This also had the subtle advantage of not further inflaming Jews who remained faithful to their beliefs, as they would not ascribe to the claim of Jesus as “Mashiah”.

 

[Omar_Gatskill]

You will see that any group seeking truth will appear to be reinventing the wheel that the Catholic Church has been using for centuries. And, any group seeking truth is going to end up with some aspect of and to some degree the Catholic faith, even if it does not have Catholic origins because any truth discovered is related to the One, True God who is revealed in His fullness through the Catholic Church.

I absolutely agree. The only way one could not agree is if they were to say that absolutely nothing in the Catholic church is true and that would be obviously ridiculous.

There are many apects of truth - not just sola scripture as our Protestant brothers and sisters in Christ believe. There is also the Traditions of the Church. Thats right “The Church”. What was the early Church doing 2,000 years ago and is still doing today? Right, celebrating Mass.

 

[Godfollower]

{Snip}.

Therefore, brothers, stand firm and hold fast to the traditions that you were taught, either by an oral statement or by a letter of ours. (2 Thessalonians 3:15)

Actually, yes, they were heard of in those times. In fact, Jesus Himself appointed Peter to head His Church, told him to feed His sheep, and promised that the gates of Hell itself would not prevail against the Church He founded on Peter. He also promised that He would send another paraclete – the Holy Spirit – to guide the Church in truth. The truth of the Immaculate Conception has also been held as a Sacred Tradition from the very beginning.

According to this verse, we are to accept both written traditions (such as the Bible), and oral traditions (such as the things that were taught that Scripture is silent on).

See generally the Catechism of the Catholic Church, and the ecumenical councils.

But you, remain faithful to what you have learned and believed, because you know from whom you learned it, and that from infancy you have known [the] sacred scriptures, which are capable of giving you wisdom for salvation through faith in Christ Jesus. (2 Timothy 3:14-15)

That’s an interesting passage. Tell me: what are the “sacred scriptures” that “from infancy [Timothy has] known”? Hint: it was NOT the New Testament, which hadn’t been written yet. Among other things, clearly the Scriptures on which Timothy had been raised from infancy could not include 2 Timothy – meaning that the passage on which you rely is excluded from itself.

The Scriptures “that from infancy you [Timothy] have known” were the Old Testament. So, if you seriously want to pursue that argument, then “all that is necessary for Salvation is contained in” the Old Testament, on which Timothy was raised from childhood. Of course, that makes Christianity a hard doctrine to take.

Another part of the problem with that reasoning is that the passage you cite does NOT say that “all that is necessary for Salvation is contained in” Scriptures. It only says that the Scriptures are capable giving him wisdom for salvation. There is absolutely nothing in that passage that says that the Scriptures – obviously the Old Testament – contain everything he needs to know.

 

[CopticChristian]

I absolutely agree. The only way one could not agree is if they were to say that absolutely nothing in the Catholic church is true and that would be obviously ridiculous.

And was he speaking of the Immaculate Conception or the Infallibility of the pope? Of course not. Those notions were unheard of in those times. And, what do you claim those things are?
Notice it says Scriptures there and not magisterium nor tradition. Scripture may not be authority alone, but** all that is necessary for Salvation is contained in it./**QUOTE]

Concerning the lack of belief as to the claim of the Catholic Church…your unbelief is subject to change.

Concerning unheard of notions at that time. There was no bible and yet you claim to have one. There was no Calvinism. There was no Dispensationalism. There were no Menonites, Amish, Lutherans, Presbyterians or Anglicans.

Please outline for me where in what you call Scripture where it is taught that "all " that is necessary for Salvation is contained therin…

 

[peace2u2]

And was he speaking of the Immaculate Conception

 

[ByzCathCantor]

I don’t think this forum is disputing the Immaculate Conception, but I have the dignity to defend the Blessed Virgin, my Heavenly Mother, and by the way, yours also.

There is evidence in the writings of the Church Fathers that a Mariology developed by John the Apostle when he was Bishop of Ephesus and by the 7th century, the Eastern Church, was celebrating a Feast in her honor, called the Conception of Mary and celebrated by the Western Church by the 8th century. In the 11th century it received its present name, the Immaculate Conception. It became a universal feast in the 18th century.

Your defense of the Theotokos is most admirable and should certainly be emulated by all. That said, I think you may have taken that quote out of context. By your own summary above, it is acknowledged that the doctrinal thought relating to Our Lady developed in post-Apostolic times. I think you are in agreement with Omar Gatskill, who’s point seems to have been that this thinking is not invalid simply because it emerged after the days of the original Apostles.

 

[peace2u2]

Your defense of the Theotokos is most admirable and should certainly be emulated by all. That said, I think you may have taken that quote out of context. By your own summary above, it is acknowledged that the doctrinal thought relating to Our Lady developed in post-Apostolic times. I think you are in agreement with Omar Gatskill, who’s point seems to have been that this thinking is not invalid simply because it emerged after the days of the original Apostles.

I am not in agreement with Omar at all and I am sorry if my post made you think that. I suppose I should have added that just because the doctrine emerges after the days of the original Apostles does not mean it was not being practiced because it was from the beginning. By the way, you have defended the Faith with dignity and grace. Peace of God be with you always.

 

[ByzCathCantor]

I suppose I should have added that just because the doctrine emerges after the days of the original Apostles does not mean it was not being practiced because it was from the beginning.

Understood!

Peace be with you!

 

[Saul69]

Have you not red the first chapter of the book of John? Or maybe you don’t understand or believe it. John 1:1 *¶In the beginning was the Word (CHRIST) , and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
2 *The same was in the beginning with God.
3 *All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made.
4 *In him was life; and the life was the light of men.
5 *¶And the light shineth in darkness; and the darkness comprehended it not.

When I read what most people call the Bible I believe I am reading closest (translated) Word of God that mankind can find and because I believe God the Father, God the Son and God the spirit are Omnipotent and will not allow God’s Word to be destroyed.I believe Christ’s New Testament contains ALL mankind needs to know to obey and worship God as HE wants to be worshiped and I also believe what he said Revelation 22:18 *For I testify unto every man that heareth the words of the prophecy of this book, If any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book:
19 *And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book.

Here are just three examples of what happened to people who didn’t obey God and God destroyed them.
1 Kings 13:21 Jeroboam
Leviticus 10:1 Nadab and Abihu
Num 16:28 Korah

Mankiknd has changed the name of fChrist’s church, added all kinds of musical intertainment, ( God know our talents) added their traditions and have put men not Christ on a pedistal.

God is no respector of persons.

Why would anyone want to jeoprdise their soul just to please mankind and suffer Hell for eternity?
The church is a spiritial kingdom made up of the souls of Christians, not a building. Buildings and furnishings do not impress God, He is only pleased with the good works and good examples of Christians.

Judgement

Colos2 Peter 3:10 But the day of the Lord will come as a thief in the night; in the which the heavens shall pass away with a great noise, and the elements shall melt with fervent heat, the earth also and the works that are therein shall be burned up.

Colossians 1:5 For the hope which is laid up for you in heaven, whereof ye heard before in the word of the truth of the gospel;
Luke 21:33 Heaven and earth shall pass away: but my words shall not pass away.

1Thes 4:16 For the Lord himself shall descend from heaven with a shout, with the voice of
the archangel, and with the trump of God: and the dead in Christ shall rise first: (KJV)

Revelation 1: 7 Behold, he cometh with clouds; and every eye shall see him, and they also which pierced
him: and all kindreds of the earth shall wail because of him. Even so, Amen.

Matthew 12:36 *But I say unto you, That every idle word that men shall speak, they shall give account thereof in the day of judgment.
1 Cor 15:52
52 In a moment, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trump: for the trumpet shall sound,
and the dead shall be raised incorruptible, and we shall be changed. (KJV)

Corinthians 14:33 *For God is not the author of confusion, but of peace, as in all churches of the saints.

 

[JustaServant]

Have you not red the first chapter of the book of John? Or maybe you don’t understand or believe it…

What has this to do with anything let alone the OP?

 

[Omar_Gatskill]

.

Another part of the problem with that reasoning is that the passage you cite does NOT say that “all that is necessary for Salvation is contained in” Scriptures. It only says that the Scriptures are capable giving him wisdom for salvation. There is absolutely nothing in that passage that says that the Scriptures – obviously the Old Testament – contain everything he needs to know.

This really all comes boiling down to authority and we differ in what we believe that ultimate authority is and where it comes from. I can agree to disagree.

 

[CopticChristian]

.

This really all comes boiling down to authority and we differ in what we believe that ultimate authority is and where it comes from. I can agree to disagree.

You have not answered any of my inquiries. I am agreeable. Tell me what the ultimate authority is and why.

 

[rinnie]

.

This really all comes boiling down to authority and we differ in what we believe that ultimate authority is and where it comes from. I can agree to disagree.

But why do we disagree. Did not Christ say that he had the ultimate authority. Was Christ not the one who said all authority of heaven and earth has been given to me, and now I give it to you, Go and teach in my name. And did the Apostles do just that.

Christ said when he left he would send the Advocate to the Church the Holy Spirit to teach in his name.

Now put the puzzle together, Peter was the leader of the RCC on this I pray we can all agree, THen that would be proof that the RCC is indeed the Church led by Christ.

The only way to dispute this would be to say Peter left the RCC which he did not. He is laid to rest there as we speak.

So now we have the question did Christ say the Church is the Pilar of all truth. DId CHrist give Peter the keys to the kingdom. Yes on both accounts. Then you must at least admit you can see why WE believe the Church of Rome and the Pope has altimate authority by the passing of hands from St Peter himself and from Christ before that.

 

[Omar_Gatskill]

But why do we disagree. Did not Christ say that he had the ultimate authority. Was Christ not the one who said all authority of heaven and earth has been given to me, and now I give it to you, Go and teach in my name. And did the Apostles do just that.

Christ said when he left he would send the Advocate to the Church the Holy Spirit to teach in his name.

Now put the puzzle together, Peter was the leader of the RCC on this I pray we can all agree, THen that would be proof that the RCC is indeed the Church led by Christ.

The only way to dispute this would be to say Peter left the RCC which he did not. He is laid to rest there as we speak.

So now we have the question did Christ say the Church is the Pilar of all truth. DId CHrist give Peter the keys to the kingdom. Yes on both accounts. Then you must at least admit you can see why WE believe the Church of Rome and the Pope has altimate authority by the passing of hands from St Peter himself and from Christ before that

This is about the ultimate authority, Jesus Christ, the chief cornerstone. What it’s not about is one verse out of Matthew’s Gospel which is being made to supercede everything else that the Scriptures are saying to us, such as the whole story of the Apostles (not just Peter) throughout the book of Acts. Acts 2:42 gives a bird’s eye view of what the Early Church looked like and it tells of all the miraculous wonders of the Apostles (not just Peter) and the increasing number of those being saved. I perfer to see Scripture as it truly is and not in part and parcel.

 

[BeholdTheFinalA]

THUS SAYS THE LORD:

FOOLISH PEOPLE! MOST WICKED GENERATION! I DO NOT KNOW YOU!..
FILL UP THEN, THE FULL MEASURE OF YOUR ERROR, ACCORDING TO THE PERVERSE DOCTRINES OF YOUR FATHERS! BEAR THE SIN OF YOUR HERESIES! DRINK FROM THE CUP OF YOUR BLASPHEMIES, TO THE FULLEST!

Yes, I hear your songs and your spiritual hymns, offered up to God… HE LOOKS NOTHING LIKE ME! I see your uplifted hands, and I hear all these prayers offered up in the name of Christ… HE LOOKS NOTHING LIKE ME! PERVERSE GENERATION!
The Day of The Lord is here! Yes, I have declared it! In these very Letters, and by My servants, I have made it known. Lo, through this man I have spoken it, for he does seek to honor Me… I HAVE BROUGHT GLORY TO MY NAME!.. Yet you have hated both Me and My word! YOU HAVE REJECTED THE VOICE OF THE LIVING GOD! YOU HAVE LOATHED THE MESSENGERS OF THE MOST HIGH! Therefore shall I also reject you, for your ways are loathsome in My sight! I have left you in famine, and now I shall leave you utterly desolate…

For I have called to My lambs, their hearts sing in anticipation…
I have called to My sheep, they have embraced My voice…

Yea, I have entered in and gathered them together…

Behold, the harvest is separated!

All is ready, the door is shut.

I have but to call out, and the first election shall pass from your sight… And the gate shall be shut. For the door is shut already, the time has passed… No more shall pass through.

I tell you the truth: You have done this! You have decided, your decision is made!.. Yes, YOU have shut the door to ME!.. Therefore is it also shut to you.

And it shall not be opened again, until you breathe your last,
Testifying to the name of Glory and Him crucified…

Until the time I open it anew…

Behold, I shall open the gates of the city,
And the dead shall pass through!..

The martyrs of The Lord lifted up to glory!

trumpetcallofgodonline.com/index.php5?title=Spiritual_Famine