Need help on Bible Issue?

  • Thread starter Thread starter chero23
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
C

chero23

Guest
So we have heard that no were in the Bible does the word Catholic appears. I don’t know if I heard that the word catholic does appear in the Greek translation as “Kathol”, (I think that’s how it’s spelled)

Is this true? Or is that word never in the bible?
 
“Catholic” means universal. So it’s referring to the universal church, God’s one church.
 
The word catholic is derived from the Greek adjective καθολικός (katholikos), meaning “universal”.

The Church, in obedience to Jesus preaches the Gospel to all men (hence, it’s universal), “Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you; and Lo, I am with you always, until the close of the age.” (Matthew 28:19-20)
 
It comes from two Greek words, ‘kata’ and ‘holos’. As a way to describe Christians, it didn’t come into specialized usage until after the New Testament was written (although it was a common enough expression prior to becoming a term to describe Christians). You might want to read a short article about it.

Since it wasn’t being used to refer to Christians, you won’t find it used in that particular way in the Bible. However, we see it used in a number of places, in the way that the two words were typically used together (“according to the whole” or “throughout the whole”): Luke 4:14, Luke 23:5, Acts 9:42, and Acts 10:37. In each of these, the correct grammatical form is καθ’ ὅλης (“kath’ holes”, pronounced like “kath hole-lace”):

Luke 4:14 “Jesus returned to Galilee in the power of the Spirit, and news of him spread throughout the whole region.”

Luke 23:5 “He is inciting the people with his teaching throughout all Judea.”

Acts 9:42 “This became known all over Joppa”

Acts 10:37 “what has happened all over Judea, beginning in Galilee after the baptism that John preached”
 
I mean no disrespect, but I think the straight answer is no.
I haven’t read the whole thing but from what I get from the answers above, they’re trying to say it is, but in a round about way but that sounds like a half a truth. How could it have been mentioned anyway when it didn’t even exist at that time. Jesus and his family were Jewish.

I googled your question and this is what I found because you’ve got me wondering about it too.
www.biblebelievers.com/jmelton/Catholic.html and is not my personal opinion, my personal is listed above this paragraph.

The Roman Catholic Church claims to have started in Matthew 16:18 when Christ supposedly appointed Peter as the first Pope. However, the honest and objective student of the Scriptures and history soon discovers that the foundation of the Roman church is none other than the pagan mystery religion of ancient Babylon.

While enduring the early persecutions of the Roman government (65-300 A.D.), most of professing Christianity went through a gradual departure from New Testament doctrine concerning church government, worship and practice. Local churches ceased to be autonomous by giving way to the control of “bishops” ruling over hierarchies. The simple form of worship from the heart was replaced with the rituals and splendor of paganism. Ministers became “priests,” and pagans became “Christians” by simply being sprinkled with water. This tolerance of an unregenerate membership only made things worse. SPRINKLED PAGANISM is about the best definition for Roman Catholicism.

The Roman Emperor Constantine established himself as the head of the church around 313 A.D., which made this new “Christianity” the official religion of the Roman Empire. The first actual Pope in Rome was probably Leo I (440-461 A.D.), although some claim that Gregory I was the first (590-604 A.D.). This ungodly system eventually ushered in the darkest period of history known to man, properly known as the “Dark Ages” (500-1500 A.D.). Through popes, bishops, and priests, Satan ruled Europe, and Biblical Christianity became illegal.

Throughout all of this, however, there remained individual groups of true Christians, such as the Waldensens and the Anabaptists who would not conform to the Roman system.
 
truthquester said:
I mean no disrespect, but I think the straight answer is no.
I haven’t read the whole thing but from what I get from the answers above, they’re trying to say it is, but in a round about way but that sounds like a half a truth. How could it have been mentioned anyway when it didn’t even exist at that time. Jesus and his family were Jewish.

I googled your question and this is what I found because you’ve got me wondering about it too.
www.biblebelievers.com/jmelton/Catholic.html and is not my personal opinion, my personal is listed above this paragraph.

The Roman Catholic Church claims to have started in Matthew 16:18 when Christ supposedly appointed Peter as the first Pope. However, the honest and objective student of the Scriptures and history soon discovers that the foundation of the Roman church is none other than the pagan mystery religion of ancient Babylon.

While enduring the early persecutions of the Roman government (65-300 A.D.), most of professing Christianity went through a gradual departure from New Testament doctrine concerning church government, worship and practice. Local churches ceased to be autonomous by giving way to the control of “bishops” ruling over hierarchies. The simple form of worship from the heart was replaced with the rituals and splendor of paganism. Ministers became “priests,” and pagans became “Christians” by simply being sprinkled with water. This tolerance of an unregenerate membership only made things worse. SPRINKLED PAGANISM is about the best definition for Roman Catholicism.

The Roman Emperor Constantine established himself as the head of the church around 313 A.D., which made this new “Christianity” the official religion of the Roman Empire. The first actual Pope in Rome was probably Leo I (440-461 A.D.), although some claim that Gregory I was the first (590-604 A.D.). This ungodly system eventually ushered in the darkest period of history known to man, properly known as the “Dark Ages” (500-1500 A.D.). Through popes, bishops, and priests, Satan ruled Europe, and Biblical Christianity became illegal.

Throughout all of this, however, there remained individual groups of true Christians, such as the Waldensens and the Anabaptists who would not conform to the Roman system.
Click to expand...
This is an interesting idea, although it is not new and even kind of threadbare.

Why should not conforming to the Roman system make true Christians? They can be not Roman and still be false. And what in the Waldensian theology would you consider to be true? And you would consider untrue? And the Anabaptists did not come into existence until the Reformation, although they try to pretend they can trace themselves back to the 700’s or the 400’s (an implicit admission that an ancient lineage is important). But the burden of proof is on them.

If the Roman system is false, nevertheless the Reformers inherited their belief in God and scripture from the Roman Church, not from any non-Roman sect. It seems odd and illogical to me to try to construct a true religion from the holy book of a false religion.
 
I thought the word first described the church around 110 A D. Don’t remember by whom…
 
I find it hard to imagine how anyone can expect the word “universal” referring to any church be explicitly mentioned in the Bible. I would assume that at that point Christians wouldn’t call the church universal given that it’s universality isn’t clearly felt yet. So all the previous answers while kind of runabout, are correct. At that point all they know is that the Church is on a mission to spread the Gospel to all peoples. To use universal as a proper name would happen much later when the Church’s direction and status was much clearer.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top