If I lived circa 170 AD......

[joe370]

Thanks for the heads up…Big oops…

You tried to make part of the header bold, you can’t, so you got the bracketed stuff.

While we’re at it - I’ve got a 23 inch monitor which isn’t exactly big but not exactly small and some of your threads take up three lines when they appear on the main CAF forum page. Have you not thought of how many lines they take up for people with small monitors or using notebooks? Of how long they have to scroll down to see forums lower than ‘Non-Catholic Religions’ when one of your threads happens to be the latest?

In the old days it was called ‘netiquette’ - not doing things that make things difficult for others. Thread titles don’t have to be as long as you’re making them in order to make a point.

 

[joe370]

GEddie, that was the conclusion that I drew long ago, but my non-Catholic friends insist that another church other than the CC existed…They simply will not give the name of said church…

Meaningless question, as in AD170 there was only one “church.” Sure, there were distinct local church leaderships, as well as heretics such as the Gnostics; and the sacramental rubrics were still in a developmental stage; but in AD170 there were no “modern day PC’s”. If in that year you sought the true, Christian faith, you would have gone to what you call the “CC.”

The idea that a BODY can maintain life in hundreds of pieces, as we have now, had not yet occurred in AD170.

ICXC NIKA

 

[joe370]

=tester;7182320]Joe370:
Your post has a faulty premise:
You are assuming that your definition of “church’ is the one used in 170 AD…

I am assuming that Jesus established one united body of believers called the church. If I lived 170 AD would that one united body of believers belong tho the CC - yes, no, maybe???

 

[joe370]

so by using the Biblical defintion that a church is a body of believers…

If Joe370 and Tester are believers ; then they are together in the church that Jesus founded:

Are you saying that you and I belong to the same church just as you and I would have circa AD 170???

 

[joe370]

=Todd520;7182507]Yes, Joe is very devious and tricky
I hope he doesn’t create unfair multiple choice tests for a living

Devious…Ouch! A harmless question that I asked myself as a former protestant, that’s all. No tricks friend…

Multiple choice will be on the quiz tomorrow…LOL…

 

[joe370]

Woodland, those Jews and gentiles would have belonged to what church, in the world today? Please don’t say the way.

In 170 AD you would have found a group of people who call themselves Christians. You would have recognized many of them as appearing as Jews and some others as Gentiles. On Sunday, the first day of the week, you would have seen many of them gather to celebrate and remember the Risen Lord, He who was crucified, the Christ, the Son of God. They would have begun the liturgy with a prayer of thanks. You would then have heard them read readings from what we now call the Old Testament and would have sung the Psalms together. You would have then seen them proclaim the Gospel, either written or not, the Good News of Christ among men who died and was risen. Then, most importantly, you have broken bread and drank wine. But first, the celebrating priest or bishop, an Apostle of Christ would have spoken a prayer over these gifts of bread and wine, invoking the Holy Spirit of God to transform them into the very Body and Blood of Christ. The participents present would be willing to die for their belief that Jesus Christ was truly present under these species of bread and wine. One would only present themselves if worthy, free of sin, and in communion with Christ and the Christian community. There would be a time to reflect, a final prayer and blessing and the community would disperse giving thanks to God.

 

[tester]

Are you saying that you and I belong to the same church

 

[joe370]

Tester, I have not had the chance to look into your question regarding post 25 at my other thread, but I will. Perhaps you could send me some more detailed info regarding the matter? By the way, I (as the CC believes) - believe that Muslims, Jews, Buddhists etc. can make it to heaven.

So you belong to the Catholic Church, the church to which I belong and subscribe to the same beliefs that I do, taught by the CC???

joe370;7183965:

yep;

By using the actual definition of the word"church" (see post 7)

It is impossible for a believer to NOT belong to the church that Jesus founded:

 

[tester]

Tester, I have not had the chance to look into your question regarding post 25 at my other thread, but I will. Perhaps you could send me some more detailed info regarding the matter? By the way, I (as the CC believes) - believe that Muslims, Jews, Buddhists etc. can make it to heaven.

So you belong to the Catholic Church, the church to which I belong and subscribe to the same beliefs that I do, taught by the CC???

you are confused because you are not using the Biblical definition of the word church.

Church is the body of believers;

tester:

from biblecommenter.com/1_timothy/3-15.htm

“Church” does not mean in a place of public worship, nor does it refer to propriety of deportment there.
It refers rather to the church as a body of believers, and to converse with them. The church is called the “house of God,” because it is that in which he dwells. Formerly, his unique residence was in the temple at Jerusalem; now that the temple is destroyed, it is the church of Christ, among his people.

the greek is here at biblos.com/1_timothy/3-15.htm

the word is ekklēsia

defined here at strongsnumbers.com/greek/1577.htm

Original Word: ἐκκλησία
Transliteration: ekklésia
Phonetic Spelling: (ek-klay-see’-ah)
Short Definition: assembly

Word Origin
from ek and kaleó
Definition
an assembly, a (religious) congregation
NASB Word Usage
assembly (3), church (74), churches (35), congregation (2).

From a compound of ek and a derivative of kaleo; a calling out, i.e. (concretely) a popular meeting, especially a religious congregation (Jewish synagogue, or Christian community of members on earth or saints in heaven or both) – assembly, church.

here are 33 other uses of the word in the NT:
concordance.biblos.com/ekkle_sia.htm

 

[joe370]

Tester, I am trying to understand, really…You, I think, are referring to the invisible church - correct? Clearly you do not belong to the Catholic Church, the church to which I belong and subscribe to the same beliefs that I do, taught by the CC - correct???

 

[simspt]

JL: Not so, not at all, where did you come up with this, have you got evidence or a source?
newadvent.org/cathen/09645c.htm Heretical sect founded in A.D. 144 at Rome by Marcion and continuing in the West for 300 years, but in the East some centuries longer, especially outside the Byzantine Empire. They rejected the writings of the Old Testament and taught that Christ was not the Son of the God of the Jews, but the Son of the good God, who was different from the God of the Ancient Covenant. They anticipated the more consistent dualism of Manichaeism and were finally absorbed by it. As they arose in the very infancy of Christianity and adopted from the beginning a strong ecclesiastical organization, parallel to that of the Catholic Church, they were perhaps the most dangerous foe Christianity has ever known. The subject will be treated under the following heads:
Publisher;7182376:

If you lived more toward the African continent…you may have been a member of a Gnostic group that woshipped along side the emerging “proto-orthodo/catholic” groups or you may have been part of a docetic group and never read any other gospel other than the “Gospel of Peter”.
JL: newadvent.org/cathen/06592a.htm

                                                       A collective name for a large number of greatly-varying and pantheistic-idealistic sects, which flourished from some time before the Christian Era down to the fifth century, and which, while borrowing the phraseology and some of the tenets of the chief religions of the day, and especially of Christianity,

JL: The Ethiopian Orthodox Tewahido Church is one of five Oriental Orthodox Churches, also known as the non-Chalcedonian Churches. These churches do not accept the fifth church council held in Chalcedon, which decreed that Christ had two distinct natures, the Divine and the Human. angelfire.com/ny3/ethiochurch/ ] to find move down to the icon of St Tekle.

JL: Yes one may have been a member of a “Johanine community” which would be a community founded by John. Holding the same faith teachings as the rest of the Church.

JL: Well according to Paul, before he ever visited, when he wrote to the Church in Rome, it was very well established. [Rms15:14 And I myself also am persuaded of you, my brethren, that **ye also are full of goodness, filled WITH ALL KNOWLEDGE, ABLE also TO ADMONISH ONE ANOTHER.]

The Church was converting, preaching and teaching the SAME faith handed on by the apostles, no matter where it was located. There was no such thing as a Christian Tower of Babal, as your post implies, as we see today with sola scriptura, with thousands of contradicting teachings and denominations.

JL: Anyone can make a up, or be taught a good story, as historic, saying whatever they want. Yet it is a different matter, when asked to provide evidence, to prove that story. I would like to see your evidence.

Many of the scholars out there have interesting if not fantastic theories like the Gospel of Mark is a redacted version of the secret gospel of Mark or believe that parallel traditions arose simultaneosly and that neither the gnostic or orthodox views are necessarily faithful to the original teachings of Jesus or that the CC utilized a type of control (against women or gnostics) when putting in writing their Church’s traditions. These ideas are not necessarily coming from nobodies but major scholars like Crossan. I personally dont find thier arguments convincing but agree with Publisher that in 170 there would of been a variety of teachings about Jesus just as there is today. The ECFs were very busy during this time defending what they had received.

 

[Araninski]

OP is assuming many facts.

Let’s take an example, the Council of Jerusalem, all of the Christians there had disagreements on many issues concerning practices and ritual, having to do with Judaism. All of the Christians in there were of the same Church, they were no divided just because they thought you should circumsize , or because you shouldn’t. No they were not 2 churches, they just had disagreement. What they did? Paul came and through prayer , all leaders and elders of the church that were apparently not of the same exact thinking, got to an agreement to what they thought " It seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us " . That church was at will to discuss this matters, that church was very humble. They discussed the issue in a respectable matter, they didn’t closed up their minds and said “No I am right because I have the lineage back to Jesus”. No, they discussed it and declared the new teaching. But of course nowadays no one is willing to discuss this matters and other matters, because everyone is right. Paul and Barnabas hold that is not essential to circumsize but some of the others thought it was essential. After debate and discussion the whole church agreed with Paul’s argument and agreed with it. So they made it official.

What I am saying is that these guys were all of the same church but were not divided by different beliefs, they all believed in essential stuff, but some believed some more things that were essential but they were able to dispute the matter, nowadays we should take this example. But again Jesus is not with other Christians. The only Church of Christ, is the Catholic Church and the other Orthodox Churches which by the way don’t have the same exact believes but they aren’t divided…And of course other Non-Catholic Christian denominations who also think they are the only Church of Christ. If a Christian, believes practices the faith, lives a holy life. Jesus will be with that person, and no one can tell that person He is not of Christ. For Catholics the church is where the successors are. I don’t agree with this, but again I can’t debate this because they are right and I am not.

IMO this forum should reflect, acts 15. We should debate in a charitable manner, and with an open mind. Some times I see some non-Catholics with good responses and they are never answered back, some times they are simply ignored, and vice verse with Catholics.

When everybody agrees that we can’t be of the same thinking, is when we will actually have a good discussion. This is the answer to the popular Catholic question “why there are so many protestant denominations then?”. Everybody thinks differently, of course some get out of the faith, but there are many denominations that are accord to God’s ways , but differ in non-essential matters. The same exact thing happens to Catholics and Orthodoxs. All Catholics have some sort of differing believe , but they don’t notice it. Please don’t say that you all have the same exact completely same copy-pasted believe. That would be hypocrite.

Philippians 2
Imitating Christ’s Humility
1If you have any encouragement from being united with Christ, if any comfort from his love, if any fellowship with the Spirit, if any tenderness and compassion, 2then make my joy complete by being like-minded,** having the same love, being one in spirit and purpose.** 3Do nothing out of selfish ambition or vain conceit, but in humility consider others better than yourselves. 4Each of you should look not only to your own interests, but also to the interests of others.

5Your attitude should be the same as that of Christ Jesus:
6Who, being in very nature[a] God,
did not consider equality with God something to be grasped,
7but made himself nothing,
taking the very nature** of a servant,
being made in human likeness.
8And being found in appearance as a man,
he humbled himself
and became obedient to death—
even death on a cross!

Come on guys, notice it please. Some Christians even disagree on how we should worship God… If you use guitars that’s heretic. If you want to scream God, your love because that’s what your hearts says in all honesty , you are crazy. Come on seriously…Even on worship we disagree…There are many denominations just because of things like this. I hope you got my point.

Yahweh bless.**

 

[SnakeMauler]

You’d probably be Catholic, because there was no one that held protestant beliefs.

 

[NucleicAcid]

This is my last thread non-Catholics…I think… Always wondering, so who knows…If I lived circa 170 AD and wanted to follow Jesus by belonging to the church that He founded, (I will build MY church) - where would I have gone? Would I have gone to the present day CC or would I have gone to one of the present day PC’s? Please don’t tell me that I would have gone to the catholic church with a small c; that makes no sense to me. By the way, I have really enjoyed dialogging with everyone here at CAF…

The Orthodox Church.

 

[simspt]

OP is assuming many facts.

Let’s take an example, the Council of Jerusalem, all of the Christians there had disagreements on many issues concerning practices and ritual, having to do with Judaism. All of the Christians in there were of the same Church, they were no divided just because they thought you should circumsize , or because you shouldn’t. No they were not 2 churches, they just had disagreement. What they did? Paul came and through prayer , all leaders and elders of the church that were apparently not of the same exact thinking, got to an agreement to what they thought " It seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us " . That church was at will to discuss this matters, that church was very humble. They discussed the issue in a respectable matter, they didn’t closed up their minds and said “No I am right because I have the lineage back to Jesus”. No, they discussed it and declared the new teaching. But of course nowadays no one is willing to discuss this matters and other matters, because everyone is right. Paul and Barnabas hold that is not essential to circumsize but some of the others thought it was essential. After debate and discussion the whole church agreed with Paul’s argument and agreed with it. So they made it official.

What I am saying is that these guys were all of the same church but were not divided by different beliefs, they all believed in essential stuff, but some believed some more things that were essential but they were able to dispute the matter, nowadays we should take this example. But again Jesus is not with other Christians. The only Church of Christ, is the Catholic Church and the other Orthodox Churches which by the way don’t have the same exact believes but they aren’t divided…And of course other Non-Catholic Christian denominations who also think they are the only Church of Christ. If a Christian, believes practices the faith, lives a holy life. Jesus will be with that person, and no one can tell that person He is not of Christ. For Catholics the church is where the successors are. I don’t agree with this, but again I can’t debate this because they are right and I am not.

IMO this forum should reflect, acts 15. We should debate in a charitable manner, and with an open mind. Some times I see some non-Catholics with good responses and they are never answered back, some times they are simply ignored, and vice verse with Catholics.

When everybody agrees that we can’t be of the same thinking, is when we will actually have a good discussion. This is the answer to the popular Catholic question “why there are so many protestant denominations then?”. Everybody thinks differently, of course some get out of the faith, but there are many denominations that are accord to God’s ways , but differ in non-essential matters. The same exact thing happens to Catholics and Orthodoxs. All Catholics have some sort of differing believe , but they don’t notice it. Please don’t say that you all have the same exact completely same copy-pasted believe. That would be hypocrite.

Philippians 2
Imitating Christ’s Humility
1If you have any encouragement from being united with Christ, if any comfort from his love, if any fellowship with the Spirit, if any tenderness and compassion, 2then make my joy complete by being like-minded,** having the same love, being one in spirit and purpose.** 3Do nothing out of selfish ambition or vain conceit, but in humility consider others better than yourselves. 4Each of you should look not only to your own interests, but also to the interests of others.

5Your attitude should be the same as that of Christ Jesus:
6Who, being in very nature[a] God,
did not consider equality with God something to be grasped,
7but made himself nothing,
taking the very nature** of a servant,
being made in human likeness.
8And being found in appearance as a man,
he humbled himself
and became obedient to death—
even death on a cross!

Come on guys, notice it please. Some Christians even disagree on how we should worship God… If you use guitars that’s heretic. If you want to scream God, your love because that’s what your hearts says in all honesty , you are crazy. Come on seriously…Even on worship we disagree…There are many denominations just because of things like this. I hope you got my point.

Yahweh bless.**

Your position presents many ambiguities. I do agree with you on being charitable with those you have differences with, thats definitely not ambiguous.:thumbsup:If we were having this dicussion in 170 and i was a gnostic and you were a catholic how would you convince me what the essentials were or for that matter what writings were authoritative? What norm would you use to make the judgement on which writings were authoritative and which teachings were true?

 

[jlhargus]

jlhargus;7183736:

JL: Not so, not at all, where did you come up with this, have you got evidence or a source?
newadvent.org/cathen/09645c.htm

                                                      Heretical sect founded in A.D. 144 at Rome by Marcion and continuing in the West for 300 years, but in the East some centuries longer, especially outside the Byzantine Empire. They rejected the writings of the Old Testament and taught that Christ was not the Son of the God of the Jews, but the Son of the good God, who was different from the God of the Ancient Covenant. They anticipated the more consistent dualism of Manichaeism and were finally absorbed by it. As they arose in the very infancy of Christianity and adopted from the beginning a strong ecclesiastical organization,** parallel to that of the Catholic Church**, they were perhaps the most dangerous foe Christianity has ever known. The subject will be treated under the following heads:

[bold print added by me in the above newadvent quote]

Friend,

I got my info from,

Richard Price “Pre-Nicene New Testament”

Bart Erhman “Lost Christianities” , “Lost Scriptures”

Burton Mack “Who Wrote the New Testament”

Elaine Pagels “Gnostic Gospels”, “Beyond Belief”, to name a few.

You should be able to find them at your local library or book store.
Peace to you,

JL: You will notice the Church was also parallel, with those groups in those locations. Your post implies Marcionites, Gnostics etc… were just another recognized congregation of the one Church of Christ, with certain areas belonging exclusively to them. Also implying if an orthodox Christian moved from whatever area into an area where there were Gnostic or Marcionite groups, they would simply attend a Marcionite or Gnostic assembly, that is not the case.

Could you provide the page number or at lest the chapters that support your remarks in your post? My library has only one book you reference.

The only book my library had was Pagels, Beyond Belief. I have not read the entire book, although it is only 183 pages. I have read several pages in each chapter. So if you have page numbers or chapters in any of those books listed, which support your post, please post those and I will check them out and read them in context. I do have two of the other titles coming from other libraries, however it is not my responsibility to search all those books, it is the posters place to prove their point. You have not done so by posting a list of books.

Elaine Pagels “Beyond Belief”. I will paraphrase, pg29, the author gives a telling statement when she writes; she can’t love a Christianity that has SET beliefs. At the bottom of pg29 she adds; those who included the Gospel of John in the NT and called heresy, the gospel of Thomas, shaped and LIMITED Christianity in the west. The rest of the book goes on trying to prove that point. She came across, to me, as very new age, she seems to be enamored with the Gnostic, so called gospel of Thomas. Trying to build a case that it should be in the bible. In fairness I can see why you came to your conclusion, she does imply such a thing.

 

[jlhargus]

OP is assuming many facts.

Let’s take an example, the Council of Jerusalem, all of the Christians there had disagreements on many issues concerning practices and ritual, having to do with Judaism. All of the Christians in there were of the same Church, they were no divided just because they thought you should circumsize , or because you shouldn’t. No they were not 2 churches, they just had disagreement. What they did? Paul came and through prayer , all leaders and elders of the church that were apparently not of the same exact thinking, got to an agreement to what they thought " It seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us " . That church was at will to discuss this matters, that church was very humble. They discussed the issue in a respectable matter, they didn’t closed up their minds and said “No I am right because I have the lineage back to Jesus”. No, they discussed it and declared the new teaching. But of course nowadays no one is willing to discuss this matters and other matters, because everyone is right. Paul and Barnabas hold that is not essential to circumsize but some of the others thought it was essential. After debate and discussion the whole church agreed with Paul’s argument and agreed with it. So they made it official.

JL: The Church with the Holy Spirit still uses councils to settle matters of dispute. You will notice the council made the decision and all accepted that descission. The matter was settled in the whold church.

ACTS 15, FIRST COUNCIL OF THE CHURCH
The apostles and elders gathered to consider the matter, should Gentiles be circumcised Acts 15:6, After much debate, Peter rose and told how God chose him, that from his mouth the Gentiles should hear the word and believe, and said why put a yoke on disciples which neither our fathers nor we have been able to bear? Acts 15:7-10. Then he gave the defining teaching,-- we believe we shall be saved through the grace of the Lord Jesus, just as they (Gentiles) were, Acts 15:11. After Peter had spoken the assembly kept silence, the debate was over and settled, Acts 15:12.

Then the assembly listened to Paul and Barnabas relate the signs and wonders God did through them among the Gentiles, Acts 15:12. After Paul and Barnabas spoke, James replied, "Symeon has related how God first visited the Gentiles to take out of them a people for his name. And with this the words of the prophets agree, as it is written, I will rebuild the dwelling of David which has fallen, Acts 15:13-21, that the rest of men may seek the Lord, all the Gentiles called by my name, Acts 15:17, (in other words, a regenerated spiritual Universal (Catholic) Davidic Kingdom and the King, the Son of David, Jesus, will build a new Temple (his body the church) for all nations, for God his Father. Christ appointed ministers and gave the keys to the kingdom to the chief minister St Peter. Go teach all nations=universal=catholic, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost, Mt 28:19).

James did not make the decision but gave evidence from scripture, for Peter’s definitive teaching. James goes on and says, Simon has declared. Therefore my judgment (opinion) is, and James goes on to proposes a pastoral compromise of rules or laws for discipline in churches where there is a mixed Jewish and Gentile fellowship, to prevent divisions or offense, This seems good to the Holy Spirit and to us, Acts 15:28.(apostles and elders in assembly=council Acts 15:25). Those in Antioch when they heard the letter rejoiced at the exhortation, Acts 15:30-31. Why, because it came from the Apostolic Fellowship and therefore they knew it came from God.

Notice how this division in Antioch came about; We have heard some persons from us (Apostolic Fellowship) have troubled you, although we gave them no instructions, Act 15:24. These men, not sent by the church, went out on their own authority from the fellowship, teaching, apart from the Church, as doctrine their personal interpretation of the scripture. They caused confusion in Antioch. To settle the dispute they sent Paul and others to go up to the Apostolic Fellowship (take it to the Church) in Jerusalem to settle the doctrinal dispute.

 

[simspt]

Publisher;7183759:

jlhargus;7183736:

JL: Not so, not at all, where did you come up with this, have you got evidence or a source?
newadvent.org/cathen/09645c.htm

                                                      Heretical sect founded in A.D. 144 at Rome by Marcion and continuing in the West for 300 years, but in the East some centuries longer, especially outside the Byzantine Empire. They rejected the writings of the Old Testament and taught that Christ was not the Son of the God of the Jews, but the Son of the good God, who was different from the God of the Ancient Covenant. They anticipated the more consistent dualism of Manichaeism and were finally absorbed by it. As they arose in the very infancy of Christianity and adopted from the beginning a strong ecclesiastical organization,** parallel to that of the Catholic Church**, they were perhaps the most dangerous foe Christianity has ever known. The subject will be treated under the following heads:

[bold print added by me in the above newadvent quote]

JL: You will notice the Church was also parallel, with those groups in those locations. Your post implies Marcionites, Gnostics etc… were just another recognized congregation of the one Church of Christ, with certain areas belonging exclusively to them. Also implying if an orthodox Christian moved from whatever area into an area where there were Gnostic or Marcionite groups, they would simply attend a Marcionite or Gnostic assembly, that is not the case.

Could you provide the page number or at lest the chapters that support your remarks in your post? My library has only one book you reference.

The only book my library had was Pagels, Beyond Belief. I have not read the entire book, although it is only 183 pages. I have read several pages in each chapter. So if you have page numbers or chapters in any of those books listed, which support your post, please post those and I will check them out and read them in context. I do have two of the other titles coming from other libraries, however it is not my responsibility to search all those books, it is the posters place to prove their point. You have not done so by posting a list of books.

Elaine Pagels “Beyond Belief”. I will paraphrase, pg29, the author gives a telling statement when she writes; she can’t love a Christianity that has SET beliefs. At the bottom of pg29 she adds; those who included the Gospel of John in the NT and called heresy, the gospel of Thomas, shaped and LIMITED Christianity in the west. The rest of the book goes on trying to prove that point. She came across, to me, as very new age, she seems to be enamored with the Gnostic, so called gospel of Thomas. Trying to build a case that it should be in the bible. In fairness I can see why you came to your conclusion, she does imply such a thing.

if i remember correctly Pagel has this idea that bodily ressurrection came about by the author making sure in Pauls writings that the eye witnesses were all males. A type of political control specifically to support an all male hierarchial system. The CC imposed is might and suppressed all the other non-canonical writings that were equally valid. The evidence and reconstruction is not convincing IMO. Very creative though.

 

[adrift]

you are confused because you are not using the Biblical definition of the word church.

Church is the body of believers;

Your definition is fine as far as it goes but it is not complete. Jesus surrounded Himself with a group of men who He trained and taught. He gave them powers to heal both the body and the Spirit. Jesus said to Peter He would build His Church upon Him. Furthermore Jesus gave Peter the key to heaven. Jesus organinzed His Church to have priest which was a fulfillment of the Old Testament priesthood. Jesus presented how one was to become a member of the Church which the Apostles did. They Baptized. Jesus commanded that they remember Him by the offering of the cross when they blessed the bread and wine and they become Jesus as Jesus did at the last supper. The Church is beleivers but those believer are the ones that accept what Jesus said Your name is Rock and upon this Rock I will build my Church.

 

[Janet1983]

This is my last thread non-Catholics…I think… Always wondering, so who knows…If I lived circa 170 AD and wanted to follow Jesus by belonging to the church that He founded, (I will build MY church) - where would I have gone? Would I have gone to the present day CC or would I have gone to one of the present day PC’s? Please don’t tell me that I would have gone to the catholic church with a small c; that makes no sense to me. By the way, I have really enjoyed dialogging with everyone here at CAF…

Well you would have gone and found yourself a Christian congregation. Antioch sounds like a good place to look. Just make sure you stay clear of Rome. Marcus Aurelius’s law would just exile you and that isn’t quite as bad as falling prey to an angry stone-throwing mob, robberies, or assaults. And not being executed sound pretty decent to me as well.
For the future it’s a good advice to keep as far from Septimius Severus as possible. He was a pretty harsh persecutor and persecution also went on in Carthage, Alexandria, Rome and Corinth. You could be burned, confined, cruelly tortured or beheaded… or end up as a victim of a mob.
Concerning you “c” remark. I don’t believe that the early Church had any resemblance of the Catholic Church today.