The Invention of Catholicism? (Part 2)

[Bubba_Switzler]

In the thread Apostasy vs. Apostolic Succession thread, it was said in regard to Catholic confession:

What’s great about not being forgiven by God directly? What was the point of Jesus if I still need a mediator? The OT Jews needed their HIgh Priests to make sacrifices on their behalf. The NT reveals Jesus as our new High Priest offering his perfect sacrifice, and ending the need for further mediators (book of Hebrews). It seems like the Catholics are just continuing the OT way in new clothing.

While some Protestants accuse Catholics of being closet pagans, this criticism, that Catholicism is a continuation of the Jewish priesthood is, I think, much closer to the mark.

In the thread The Invention of Catholicism I put forward the theory that most of what constitutes the distinguishing features of Catholicism was invented (some prefer discovered) after the end of Acts.

In view of Ignatius’ writings we can be even more specific: sometime between 65AD and 110AD.

What’s so special about this time frame, you might ask? Well, if you’ll recall your history, 70AD was the destruction of the Jewish Temple. (The war actually began in 66AD and Masada fell in 73AD.)

Most Christians (and few modern Jews, for that matter) appreciate the centrality of the Jewish Temple to pre-Christian Judaism. When Romans soldiers destroyed the Jewish Temple they destroyed Judaism as it was known then.

This was not the first time, of course, it had happened before (the Babylonians). But that doesn’t mean it wasn’t a cataclysm for Jews. Judaism only survived by transforming itself into an entirely new form, Rabinnical Judaism, centered on study and adoration of the Torah. And that took a couple hundred years.

Christian Jews would have been no less devastated by the event but their reaction was entirely different. They saw the destruction of the Temple through the prism of Jesus’ prophecies. (“Not one stone would remain atop another,” and “This is my body…”)

It seems entirely plausible to me, then, that post-Acts Christians recreated the Jewish Temple priesthood and sacrifices in a new form. It would have been like a light-bulb going off in their heads connecting the two.

From this time forward, Christians began to think of themselves as the new Israel with a new priesthood and a new form of sacrificial ritual, the old having been swept away by the hand of God (in the form of Roman destruction).

 

[Lancer]

Quote:In the thread The Invention of Catholicism I put forward the theory that most of what constitutes the distinguishing features of Catholicism was invented (some prefer discovered) after the end of Acts.
The there answers that I would offer you are ones that you surely already know:1. You need to keep in mind the Augustinian saying about the Bible: the New Testament lies hidden in the Old and the Old Testament is revealed in the new.
2. You need to keep in mind the Biblical concept of Typology: It refers to a person, thing, or action that precedes and prefigures a greater person, thing, or action…A TYPE (typos in Gk), or “archetype” in Scripture is a symbol often called a “shadow” or “parable” or “allegory” or “figure” or “hint”

1. You need to look at Jesus’ actual words below…he never said anything like:
   “…see you around…and oh, by the way,…have a nice day…”!
   Luke 10:16"Whoever listens to you listens to me. Whoever rejects you rejects me. And whoever rejects me rejects the one who sent me."John 14: 16-18 “And I will ask the Father, and he will give you another Advocate to be with you always, the Spirit of truth, which the world cannot accept, because it neither sees nor knows it. But you know it, because it remains with you, and will be in you. I will not leave you orphans; I will come to you.”
   John 14:26 “The Advocate, the Holy Spirit that the Father will send in my name–he will teach you everything and remind you of all that told you.”
   John 16: 12-14 "I have much more to tell you, but you cannot bear it now. But when he comes, the Spirit of truth, he will guide you to all truth. He will not speak on his own, but he will speak what he hears, and will declare to you the things that are coming. He will glorify me, because he will take from what is mine and declare it to you."Maybe what has and is still happening to…and…in the Catholic Church…are the things that Jesus said and promised would happen…the Spirit will lead you in all Truth…and not some “human plan…made it along the way…to suit or satisfy our desires”.

Lastly,

1Tim 3:15But if I should be delayed, you should know how to behave in the household of God, which is the church of the living God, the **pillar and foundation of truth.**Pax Christi

 

[MariaG]

It seems entirely plausible to me, then, that post-Acts Christians recreated the Jewish Temple priesthood and sacrifices in a new form. It would have been like a light-bulb going off in their heads connecting the two.

From this time forward, Christians began to think of themselves as the new Israel with a new priesthood and a new form of sacrificial ritual, the old having been swept away by the hand of God (in the form of Roman destruction).

Entirely plausible if you subscribe to the theory that those things were not present from the beginning and you ignore scripture.

I subscribe to the view that scripture supports.

God Job Lancer:thumbsup:

 

[Randy_Carson]

In the thread Apostasy vs. Apostolic Succession thread, it was said in regard to Catholic confession:

While some Protestants accuse Catholics of being closet pagans, this criticism, that Catholicism is a continuation of the Jewish priesthood is, I think, much closer to the mark.

In the thread The Invention of Catholicism I put forward the theory that most of what constitutes the distinguishing features of Catholicism was invented (some prefer discovered) after the end of Acts.

In view of Ignatius’ writings we can be even more specific: sometime between 65AD and 110AD.

What’s so special about this time frame, you might ask? Well, if you’ll recall your history, 70AD was the destruction of the Jewish Temple. (The war actually began in 66AD and Masada fell in 73AD.)

Most Christians (and few modern Jews, for that matter) appreciate the centrality of the Jewish Temple to pre-Christian Judaism. When Romans soldiers destroyed the Jewish Temple they destroyed Judaism as it was known then.

This was not the first time, of course, it had happened before (the Babylonians). But that doesn’t mean it wasn’t a cataclysm for Jews. Judaism only survived by transforming itself into an entirely new form, Rabinnical Judaism, centered on study and adoration of the Torah. And that took a couple hundred years.

Christian Jews would have been no less devastated by the event but their reaction was entirely different. They saw the destruction of the Temple through the prism of Jesus’ prophecies. (“Not one stone would remain atop another,” and “This is my body…”)

It seems entirely plausible to me, then, that post-Acts Christians recreated the Jewish Temple priesthood and sacrifices in a new form. It would have been like a light-bulb going off in their heads connecting the two.

From this time forward, Christians began to think of themselves as the new Israel with a new priesthood and a new form of sacrificial ritual, the old having been swept away by the hand of God (in the form of Roman destruction).

Bubba-

You do realize that the last of the original twelve apostles, John, was still alive near the end of the first century?

Thus, you are arguing that “Catholicism” was invented while John was still alive. John could have been consulted at any time on a matter of concern.

Additionally, you are suggesting that the disciples of Peter, John and Paul - Clement of Rome, Ignatius of Antioch and Polycarp of Smyrna - were complicit in the perversion of true Christianity as it morphed into something unintended.

Am I overstating?

If this is true, where is the record of the outcry against the novelties that were being introduced?

If there was no opposition, then you (like the Mormons) are suggesting that a total apostasy occurred within a generation of the deaths of the Apostles themselves.

Is that what you’re saying?

 

[Bubba_Switzler]

You do realize that the last of the original twelve apostles, John, was still alive near the end of the first century?

Yes.

Thus, you are arguing that “Catholicism” was invented while John was still alive.

Yes.

Additionally, you are suggesting that the disciples of Peter, John and Paul - Clement of Rome, Ignatius of Antioch and Polycarp of Smyrna - were complicit in the perversion of true Christianity as it morphed into something unintended. Am I overstating?

Whoa! Whoa! Whoa!

Who said anything about a “perversion of true Christianity”?

 

[jake23]

LOL! This guy bubba is probably from a small town from the south that can quote versus and cross refernce as good as any but aparantly has no education on the original languages and there expressions in that time which have no relivence to the interpretations of protestants. Its funny how far off they are and how judgemental they are towards others! Really bubba learn the languages of greek hebrew and latin and there history then we can talk!

 

[Bubba_Switzler]

LOL! This guy bubba is probably from a small town from the south that can quote versus and cross refernce as good as any but aparantly has no education on the original languages and there expressions in that time which have no relivence to the interpretations of protestants. Its funny how far off they are and how judgemental they are towards others! Really bubba learn the languages of greek hebrew and latin and there history then we can talk!

Habetis bona deum.

 

[MariaG]

Sorry to be off topic but what is a Zen Catholic?

God Bless,
Maria

 

[jake23]

No bub not learning some words from you nkjv study bible I’m talking about taking some real classes from a college without bias! I was a naïve protestant before I got a real education outside the protestant bible study

 

[Bubba_Switzler]

Can anyone suggest a book that focuses on the period 65-110AD? Most books seem to focus on 33-65AD or more generally 33-300AD.

 

[mark_a]

It seems entirely plausible to me, then, that post-Acts Christians recreated the Jewish Temple priesthood and sacrifices in a new form. It would have been like a light-bulb going off in their heads connecting the two

While some Protestants accuse Catholics of being closet pagans, this criticism, that Catholicism is a continuation of the Jewish priesthood is, I think, much closer to the mark.

In the thread The Invention of Catholicism I put forward the theory that most of what constitutes the distinguishing features of Catholicism was invented (some prefer discovered) after the end of Acts.

In view of Ignatius’ writings we can be even more specific: sometime between 65AD and 110AD.

What’s so special about this time frame, you might ask? Well, if you’ll recall your history, 70AD was the destruction of the Jewish Temple. (The war actually began in 66AD and Masada fell in 73AD.)

Most Christians (and few modern Jews, for that matter) appreciate the centrality of the Jewish Temple to pre-Christian Judaism. When Romans soldiers destroyed the Jewish Temple they destroyed Judaism as it was known then.

This was not the first time, of course, it had happened before (the Babylonians). But that doesn’t mean it wasn’t a cataclysm for Jews. Judaism only survived by transforming itself into an entirely new form, Rabinnical Judaism, centered on study and adoration of the Torah. And that took a couple hundred years.

Christian Jews would have been no less devastated by the event but their reaction was entirely different. They saw the destruction of the Temple through the prism of Jesus’ prophecies. (“Not one stone would remain atop another,” and “This is my body…”)

.
Except for your conclusion that everything about Catholicism is “post-Acts”, your comments seem to be pretty close to the way many Jewish-to-Catholic converts feel about Catholicism.

 

[mark_a]

In the thread Apostasy vs. Apostolic Succession thread, it was said in regard to Catholic confession:

While some Protestants accuse Catholics of being closet pagans, this criticism, that Catholicism is a continuation of the Jewish priesthood is, I think, much closer to the mark.

In the thread The Invention of Catholicism I put forward the theory that most of what constitutes the distinguishing features of Catholicism was invented (some prefer discovered) after the end of Acts.

In view of Ignatius’ writings we can be even more specific: sometime between 65AD and 110AD.

What’s so special about this time frame, you might ask? Well, if you’ll recall your history, 70AD was the destruction of the Jewish Temple. (The war actually began in 66AD and Masada fell in 73AD.)

Most Christians (and few modern Jews, for that matter) appreciate the centrality of the Jewish Temple to pre-Christian Judaism. When Romans soldiers destroyed the Jewish Temple they destroyed Judaism as it was known then.

This was not the first time, of course, it had happened before (the Babylonians). But that doesn’t mean it wasn’t a cataclysm for Jews. Judaism only survived by transforming itself into an entirely new form, Rabinnical Judaism, centered on study and adoration of the Torah. And that took a couple hundred years.

Christian Jews would have been no less devastated by the event but their reaction was entirely different. They saw the destruction of the Temple through the prism of Jesus’ prophecies. (“Not one stone would remain atop another,” and “This is my body…”)

It seems entirely plausible to me, then, that post-Acts Christians recreated the Jewish Temple priesthood and sacrifices in a new form. It would have been like a light-bulb going off in their heads connecting the two.

From this time forward, Christians began to think of themselves as the new Israel with a new priesthood and a new form of sacrificial ritual, the old having been swept away by the hand of God (in the form of Roman destruction).

Except for your conclusion that everything about Catholicism is “post-Acts”, your comments seem to be pretty close to the way many Jewish-to-Catholic converts feel about Catholicism.

 

[Bubba_Switzler]

Except for your conclusion that everything about Catholicism is “post-Acts”, your comments seem to be pretty close to the way many Jewish-to-Catholic converts feel about Catholicism.

Let me be a little more precise, then. What I mean by the invention of Catholicism are those features that Protestants don’t share, i.e. the make Catholicism unique.

In a sense, that is nearly a truism since Protestants go to the Bible for their authority and the Bible ends at Acts (not counting Revelations). So Protestants cut themselves off from Catholic innovation post-Acts.

 

[mark_a]

Let me be a little more precise, then. What I mean by the invention of Catholicism are those features that Protestants don’t share, i.e. the make Catholicism unique.

In a sense, that is nearly a truism since Protestants go to the Bible for their authority

I understand up to this point.

and the Bible ends at Acts (not counting Revelations).

Now I’m lost.

So Protestants cut themselves off from Catholic innovation post-Acts.

Innovation?

 

[Bubba_Switzler]

Now I’m lost.

The Bible tells a story that ends with Paul in Rome at the end of Acts. The Bible does not, for example, describe the siege of Jerusalem. For that you have to go to Josephus and Titus and they are not exactly Holy Scripture.

Innovation?

Seeing things in new ways, instituting new practices, etc.

 

[mark_a]

Originally Posted by mesl4 forums.catholic-questions.org/images/buttons_cak/viewpost.gif
What’s great about not being forgiven by God directly? What was the point of Jesus if I still need a mediator? The OT Jews needed their HIgh Priests to make sacrifices on their behalf. The NT reveals Jesus as our new High Priest offering his perfect sacrifice, and ending the need for further mediators (book of Hebrews). It seems like the Catholics are just continuing the OT way in new clothing.

There is no one saying non-Orthodox/Catholic sins remain unforgiven because you don't confess to a priest.  But this is the way *we* do it.

Non-Orthodox/Catholic really aren’t set up for confession to a priest.

Catholic sins generally involve morality. Once Catholics become convinced that confession to a priest is unnecessary, then all things Catholic are suspect, especially those pesky moral teachings.

 

[mark_a]

The Bible tells a story that ends with Paul in Rome at the end of Acts. The Bible does not, for example, describe the siege of Jerusalem. For that you have to go to Josephus and Titus and they are not exactly Holy Scripture.

I see.

Seeing things in new ways, instituting new practices, etc.

Such as?

 

[Bubba_Switzler]

Such as?

In the first thread we discussed Real Presence as a post-Acts innovation. I would suggest the institutional priesthood, clergy, and hierarchy, generally. And the concept of the Church as the new Israel.

 

[MariaG]

In the first thread we discussed Real Presence as a post-Acts innovation. I would suggest the institutional priesthood, clergy, and hierarchy, generally. And the concept of the Church as the new Israel.

And read John 6 in light of the post-Acts innovation? But how does that explain Ignatious who was a disciple of John. You think Ignatious did not understand John either?

 

[Bubba_Switzler]

And read John 6 in light of the post-Acts innovation?

I’m guessing that you’re referring to Jesus as the “bread of life” but even here we find symbolism, e.g.:

Then Jesus declared, "I am the bread of life. He who comes to me will never go hungry, and he who believes in me will never be thirsty.

When I was a kid, we would go out to lunch after Mass. 'Cause we were hungry and thirstly.

But how does that explain Ignatious who was a disciple of John. You think Ignatious did not understand John either?

I’m not suggesting that the post-Acts inventions were contrary to the teachings of the Apostles. I am suggesting:

1. The apostles were themselves groping in Acts (see the various debates e.g. about conversion of the gentiles), and
2. That the new ideas (many of which find justification in the NT) were, nevertheless, new ideas.

(And, 3, the destruction of the Jerusalem Temple threw everyone a curve.)