Unsaved?

[TonyBS]

Hi Tony,

I’m afraid on this we must disagree.

I do much pruning in my garden and what a great affect it has on the trees and flowers!

Crisis of faith. Yes. I’ve been christian for about 40 years now. Much crises. Much being upset with God. Much having to accept. Much learning and understanding. Much accepting that we cannot know it all. Much trying to get God out of a small box.

Your last sentence is referring to my last post to guanophore regarding predestination, God’s will and our free choice. What a mix!

Change is not decimation Tony. But if you base your beliefs on ONE PERSON and then you find out that person lied to you or that they were not what you believed they were, yes, I think that would be decimating.

I don’t claim to know your religion (I’ve said this before and I cannot know it) but I think it’s beautiful because you’re following the Light of God - I feel like you’re immersed in it - and you see the light in each religion and the value of each religion’s “God figure”. Or reflection in the mirror, as you put it. I think this is beautiful and freeing.

I also see the light that God shines onto each one’s spiritual beliefs. I also see that some who think they are in the fold are out - and some who are out of the fold are in. But we’ll leave that to God. But, you see, I’ve chosen Jesus as my Way, my Truth and my Light.
It might be due to cultural reasons, although I did do some studying back then - not a lot since I had been raised christian and you tend to stay with that. But I did accept it and its concepts. They make sense to me, they explain why there’s good and evil, it has worked for me.

So, yes, for me it would be decimating.

Fran

Dear Fran - Just wanted to add that the Light Always shines. God will always bless your Faith with light.

Look at it like one is standing at the dawning of the Sun. Then one is in the Sun Mid Morning, then in the Sun at its zenith. All you get from the Sun is more heat and life, no decimation.

Our lives reflect days, reflect the movement of the oceans etc. You will note in your 40 years that fluctuation is normal. In the end if we do not shut out the light, we continue to be sustained.

Thus this brings us back to “Unsaved” - The Breaking of God Covenants with man.

I have just been reading material about the Baha’i revelation and there is so many recent examples of what happens to man to become “Unsaved”.

I like this thought.

God by reason of His Sovereignty, cannot be Humble. The best gift that Man can then offer is something that He does not already posses, Humility and Servitude.

When one comes to know God, then tries to rise above Humility and Servitude, then one starts treading the path leading to the concept of “Unsaved”.

How much discussion could we have on that

God Bless and Regards Tony

 

[eazyduzit]

Interesting post. Just wondering if your faith has any concept of a “fall” or that people were alienated from God and are in some way in need of restoration or help?

 

[TonyBS]

Interesting post. Just wondering if your faith has any concept of a “fall” or that people were alienated from God and are in some way in need of restoration or help?

Dear eazyduit - that is an interesting question. I will not quote anything from the Baha’i Faith at this time, but will share my ideas as t what you may be asking.

To me God in some way at some time has always given a message to all of Humanity that fulfills their need until a future time. To me the Fall happens when the purity of the message is lost in superstition or Dogma. If God then sends a new message and it is rejected by the persons of the older message, then they indeed have fallen and do need restoration and help.

What I have noted is that sharing the new message with wisdom can also be a shortcoming of mankind. I would expect that if we again had the chance to take Christianity to the Native Americans or the Australian Aboriginals, we would have done it in a very different way. this is because their ancient beliefs do indeed contain a lot that is good.

Have I grasped what you are asking?

Regards Tony

 

[guanophore]

The New Testament was written for Catholics? By Catholics?
There were catholics back then?
The book of Hebrews reflects the catholic faith?
I thought the catholic faith reflected Hebrews.

just wondering.

Fran

Yes. Jesus founded One Church, and it is Catholic. The New Testament was produced by the Church founded by Christ. Yes, the book of Hebrews, as well as the rest of the NT, reflects the Catholic faith. It was written to Jews before the time that Christians were expelled from the synagogues, and it focuses on how Christianity fulfills the plan of God revealed to Israel.

I also agree with your statement that the Catholic faith reflects Hebrews. Catholicism is the fulfillment of God’s revelation of Himself to mankind, most specifically found in Judaism up to that time.

 

[guanophore]

Interesting post. Just wondering if your faith has any concept of a “fall” or that people were alienated from God and are in some way in need of restoration or help?

Welcome eazyduzit to the thread.

If you use the “quote” button at the bottom right of the post you are reading, the contents and link to the post you are relating will load into your response. That way, people will know what post you are reading when you say “interesting post”.

Because your response is not linked to anything, it is impossible to tell which person you are asking the question.

 

[frangiuliano115]

Dear Fran - Just wanted to add that the Light Always shines. God will always bless your Faith with light.

Look at it like one is standing at the dawning of the Sun. Then one is in the Sun Mid Morning, then in the Sun at its zenith. All you get from the Sun is more heat and life, no decimation.

Our lives reflect days, reflect the movement of the oceans etc. You will note in your 40 years that fluctuation is normal. In the end if we do not shut out the light, we continue to be sustained.

Thus this brings us back to “Unsaved” - The Breaking of God Covenants with man.

I have just been reading material about the Baha’i revelation and there is so many recent examples of what happens to man to become “Unsaved”.

I like this thought.

God by reason of His Sovereignty, cannot be Humble. The best gift that Man can then offer is something that He does not already posses, Humility and Servitude.

**When one comes to know God, then tries to rise above Humility and Servitude, then one starts treading the path leading to the concept of “Unsaved”.
**
How much discussion could we have on that

God Bless and Regards Tony

Yes Tony. We also believe the above highlighted. It’s when we don’t desire to do God’s will but forge ahead doing our own will, thus making God to be of little effect. Like saying we don’t need Him.

I also like to say that God does not need anything from us. The only thing we could give Him is ourselves. From the cross Jesus said “I thirst.” What do you think he thirsted for?

Maybe each and every one of us.

Fran

 

[frangiuliano115]

Yes. Jesus founded One Church, and it is Catholic. The New Testament was produced by the Church founded by Christ. Yes, the book of Hebrews, as well as the rest of the NT, reflects the Catholic faith. It was written to Jews before the time that Christians were expelled from the synagogues, **and it focuses on how Christianity fulfills the plan of God revealed to Israel.
**
I also agree with your statement that the Catholic faith reflects Hebrews. Catholicism is the fulfillment of God’s revelation of Himself to mankind, most specifically found in Judaism up to that time.

Okay Guanophore. Your understanding is a bit better than your other post. Guess you looked it up on the internet. It’s okay. We’re here to learn. Much difference between your post above and your original one. There’s still a ways to go but we each have our own speed.

Your still saying the book of Hebrews reflects the catholic faith, but I’m going to assume you mean it the other way around. There’s a difference - since the book of Hebrews came before what we now know as catholicism.

Then in one sentence you say that christianity fulfills the plan that God had revealed to Israel.

Then you say that catholicism is the fulfillment of God’s revelation of Himself to mankind.

Is there a difference between christianity and catholicism?

Just wondering.

Fran

 

[Servant19]

Yes Tony. We also believe the above highlighted. It’s when we don’t desire to do God’s will but forge ahead doing our own will, thus making God to be of little effect. Like saying we don’t need Him.

I also like to say that God does not need anything from us. The only thing we could give Him is ourselves. From the cross Jesus said “I thirst.” What do you think he thirsted for?

Maybe each and every one of us.

Fran

I give a big Amen and Ya Baha’ul-Abha to you here Fran



.

 

[frangiuliano115]

I give a big Amen and Ya Baha’ul-Abha to you here Fran



.

You sent me running to Professor Google to find out the meaning of Ya Baha’ul-Abha.

Very beautiful. I love the last sentence of the explanation the site gives:

**The Greatest Name carries the highest vibrations; the vibrations produce a spiritual word; the vibration of the utterance, either mental or orally, produces a spiritual result, regardless of the thought. **

It was a Baha’i faith site and as I was reading the above, a box to the left was scrolling passages from a book of yours, I guess, and they very much reminded me of Psalms.

Does Abha mean Abba? “Father” for the christian God who is like a friendly father. God does have many names, each a different attribute of His. I can’t find my notes but here are some names I got from the net:

EL SHADAI - ALMIGHTY GOD
EL SHALOM - LORD IS PEACE
JEHOVAH/YAHWEH - GOD’S SALVATION
ELOHIM - GOD’S POWER
JEHOVAH JIREH - THE LORD WILL PROVIDE

If anyone is interested they should look it up, it’s a wonderful study.

Fran

 

[guanophore]

Okay Guanophore. Your understanding is a bit better than your other post.

It seems that you have evaluated my level of understanding based upon your perception of my post. Instead of saying that you better understand what I am trying to say, you have assigned to me some level of growth or intellectual expansion that you perceive was not present before.

Guess you looked it up on the internet. It’s okay. We’re here to learn. Much difference between your post above and your original one. There’s still a ways to go but we each have our own speed.

It seems you are making a somewhat sarcastic remark about my use of Catholic resources on the internet. You are attributing what you percieve as progress in my understanding between the posts to somethng I have recently learned. Just for the record, you have made assertions here.

Your still saying the book of Hebrews reflects the catholic faith, but I’m going to assume you mean it the other way around.

That would be an erroneous assumption on your part. The New Testament was written by, for, and about Catholics.

There's a difference - since the book of Hebrews came before what we now know as catholicism.

It may have been written before what you perceive as Catholicism, but the Church teaches that Jesus only founded One Church, and it is Catholic. The book was written by members of His Church.

Then in one sentence you say that christianity fulfills the plan that God had revealed to Israel.

Then you say that catholicism is the fulfillment of God’s revelation of Himself to mankind.

Is there a difference between christianity and catholicism?

This question seems to be beyond the scope of this thread, but suffice to say that yes, there are a plethora of denominations that meet the basic criteria of Christianity that want nothing to do with Catholicism.

 

[guanophore]

You sent me running to Professor Google to find out the meaning of Ya Baha’ul-Abha.

Very beautiful. I love the last sentence of the explanation the site gives:

The Greatest Name carries the highest vibrations; the vibrations produce a spiritual word; the vibration of the utterance, either mental or orally, produces a spiritual result, regardless of the thought.

It was a Baha’i faith site and as I was reading the above, a box to the left was scrolling passages from a book of yours, I guess, and they very much reminded me of Psalms.

Does Abha mean Abba? “Father” for the christian God who is like a friendly father. God does have many names, each a different attribute of His. I can’t find my notes but here are some names I got from the net:

EL SHADAI - ALMIGHTY GOD
EL SHALOM - LORD IS PEACE
JEHOVAH/YAHWEH - GOD’S SALVATION
ELOHIM - GOD’S POWER
JEHOVAH JIREH - THE LORD WILL PROVIDE

If anyone is interested they should look it up, it’s a wonderful study.

Fran

Are you learning about someone’s faith on the internet!? :bigyikes:

 

[frangiuliano115]

Are you learning about someone’s faith on the internet!? :bigyikes:

Guanophore,

Your emoticon is just too cute! I really like it and I’m not being sarcastic - -

It’s really difficult to speak to you. I’ve already told you on some thread, I think we’re both on different ones, that you seem to be wanting to argue. I’m not here to argue Guanophore.

If you go back and check out the previous post, it made not too much sense. Your second one made more sense. You tell me you use the internet to learn your faith. I’ve told you a couple of times that you cannot learn your faith/religion from the internet and I even told you why. That doesn’t mean you can’t ever use it and I said that too. That’s my opinion - I don’t know why you keep harking back to that?

So, you see, you’re bickering with me instead of speaking to me. I don’t like to bicker; my husband and I don’t argue much. It’s a waste of time.

I was going to answer your post on that other thread tomorrow morning. I’m not so sure it’ll accomplish anything.

You say Jesus founded one church. I say He founded one Church. Big difference. You really say confusing things about who wrote the bible. If it seems confusing to me, it doesn’t mean you’re dumb - it just means you’re making an incorrect assertion and I think I have the right to say that.

I’ll say good night now.
P.S. The names of God are valid for Catholicism too. You could find them in the Old Testament.

 

[arthra]

Fran asked above:

*Does Abha mean Abba? “Father” for the christian God who is like a friendly father. God does have many names, each a different attribute of His. I can’t find my notes but here are some names I got from the net:

I don’t think so… See:

behindthename.com/name/abha

“Abha” may have a Sanskrit origin…also

hamariweb.com/names/muslim/arabic/girl/abha-meaning_4431

Abba means “father”… Hebrew origin.
*

 

[guanophore]

  Guanophore,

It’s really difficult to speak to you. I’ve already told you on some thread, I think we’re both on different ones, that you seem to be wanting to argue. I’m not here to argue Guanophore.

I am not sure what “argue” means to you, but these are some Merriam Webster thoughts:

• to give reasons for or against something : to say or write things in order to change someone’s opinion about what is true, what should be done, etc.
• to cause (someone) to decide to do or not do something by giving reasons
• to disagree or fight by using angry words

I am here for the first one, which is also what apologetics means for me. Toward that end, whenever you post something that does not seem consistent with the Catholic faith, you can expect to be challenged.

I am not really here for the second one, but if someone does happen to decide based upon the reasons in the posts (whoever might be posting) then that is a good outcome.

I am not here for the third, which might be the one you are saying you do not want to do either. Perhaps you don’t realize that your words are offensive at times?

If you go back and check out the previous post, it made not too much sense. Your second one made more sense.

I can accept that the first post did not make sense to you. You are bringing some strong preconceived notions. I am glad that the following post clarified the matter and that we are able to come to some agreement.

  You tell me you use the internet to learn your faith.

Actually, you asserted that it was inappropriate for one to study one’s faith on the internet. I countered that assertion by giving you links to a searchable text of the Catechsim, and a link to the virtual faith formation community used by my arch diocese to train catechists and deacons.

The faith has always been passed down from those to whom it was committed to the disciples being formed in the paradosis. Jesus is the model of paradosis, and the Apostles passed this method of forming disciples to the Church.

 I've told you a couple of times that you cannot learn your faith/religion from the internet and I even told you why.

You are entitled to your opinion, of course. Taking online courses in theology has been very helpful for me. There is nothing you can say that will take away the value that these classes have added to my faith. You seem to have made another erroneous assumption that the ONLY faith formation I have had resides in cyberspace.

  That doesn't mean you can't ever use it and I said that too.  That's my opinion - I don't know why you keep harking back to that?

I find your assertions and judgments inappropriate and offensive. You have not earned the right to tell me how I should learn about my faith.

 So, you see, you're bickering with me instead of speaking to me.  I don't like to bicker; my husband and I don't argue much.  It's a waste of time.

It seems as though you would like to have the freedom to make judgmental assertions, then not be held accountable for what you have said, because being held accountable is suddently “bickering”. I agree with you, bickering is a waste of time. Holding you accountable for statements you have made on a public forum, on the other hand, is a good investment of time.

 I was going to answer your post on that other thread tomorrow morning.  I'm not so sure it'll accomplish anything.

I suppose that depends upon whether you are willing to be held responsible for what you have said.

  You say Jesus founded one church.  I say He founded one Church.  Big difference.

Perhaps you would like to elaborate?

Jesus never intended for there to be denominations.

  You really say confusing things about who wrote the bible.  If it seems confusing to me, it doesn't mean you're dumb - it just means you're making an incorrect assertion and I think I have the right to say that.

Yes, you certainly have the right to address my assertions, just as I have the right to address yours. It is only by addressing the confusions that we will come to understand each other.

I am curious. If the New Testament was not written by, for, and about Catholics, why did the Catholic Church canonize the books?

 I'll say good night now.

P.S. The names of God are valid for Catholicism too. You could find them in the Old Testament.

Yes, the Catholic Church also canonized and promulgated the Septuagint along with the 27 books of the New Testament. We are in agreement that all that is written in the OT is valid and was written for our instruction as Christians. Jesus fulfilled the OT, and we cannot fully understand and appreciate what He has brought us without understanding the foundation upon which it was laid.

We might have to “argue” about that premise, though, since it came through my internet class on OT theology.

 

[TonyBS]

We are in agreement that all that is written in the OT is valid and was written for our instruction as Christians. Jesus fulfilled the OT, and we cannot fully understand and appreciate what He has brought us without understanding the foundation upon which it was laid.

This also relates to Religions after Christianity. The Old and New Testament being the Foundation of the Koran and then in the Baha’i Faith the Old and New Testament, the Koran, The Bayan become the foundations of the Baha’i Scripture.

They all tie into each other and each are fulfilled by the latter. Interestingly the Fulfillment unfolds through them all from the oldest to the latest.

The Baha’i’s see this as the Greater Covenant of God, that God will always send us His Messenger as promised.

Regards Tony

 

[frangiuliano115]

i am not sure what “argue” means to you, but these are some merriam webster thoughts:

• to give reasons for or against something : To say or write things in order to change someone’s opinion about what is true, what should be done, etc.
• to cause (someone) to decide to do or not do something by giving reasons
• to disagree or fight by using angry words

i am here for the first one, which is also what apologetics means for me. Toward that end, whenever you post something that does not seem consistent with the catholic faith, you can expect to be challenged.

I am not really here for the second one, but if someone does happen to decide based upon the reasons in the posts (whoever might be posting) then that is a good outcome.

I am not here for the third, which might be the one you are saying you do not want to do either. Perhaps you don’t realize that your words are offensive at times?

I can accept that the first post did not make sense to you. You are bringing some strong preconceived notions. I am glad that the following post clarified the matter and that we are able to come to some agreement.

Actually, you asserted that it was inappropriate for one to study one’s faith on the internet. I countered that assertion by giving you links to a searchable text of the catechsim, and a link to the virtual faith formation community used by my arch diocese to train catechists and deacons.

The faith has always been passed down from those to whom it was committed to the disciples being formed in the paradosis. Jesus is the model of paradosis, and the apostles passed this method of forming disciples to the church.

You are entitled to your opinion, of course. Taking online courses in theology has been very helpful for me. There is nothing you can say that will take away the value that these classes have added to my faith. You seem to have made another erroneous assumption that the only faith formation i have had resides in cyberspace.

I find your assertions and judgments inappropriate and offensive. You have not earned the right to tell me how i should learn about my faith.

It seems as though you would like to have the freedom to make judgmental assertions, then not be held accountable for what you have said, because being held accountable is suddently “bickering”. I agree with you, bickering is a waste of time. Holding you accountable for statements you have made on a public forum, on the other hand, is a good investment of time.

I suppose that depends upon whether you are willing to be held responsible for what you have said.

Perhaps you would like to elaborate?

Jesus never intended for there to be denominations.

Yes, you certainly have the right to address my assertions, just as i have the right to address yours. It is only by addressing the confusions that we will come to understand each other.

i am curious. If the new testament was not written by, for, and about catholics, why did the catholic church canonize the books?

yes, the catholic church also canonized and promulgated the septuagint along with the 27 books of the new testament. We are in agreement that all that is written in the ot is valid and was written for our instruction as christians. Jesus fulfilled the ot, and we cannot fully understand and appreciate what he has brought us without understanding the foundation upon which it was laid.

We might have to “argue” about that premise, though, since it came through my internet class on ot theology. :d

see next post
one

 

[frangiuliano115]

TWO

Cannot reply to all. Time is a factor and, as I’ve mentioned on different threads, you tend to put too much stuff into one post and I can’t really deal with it.

But I would like to say the following re what you say above and which I cannot agree with:

“I am curious. If the New Testament was not written by, for, and about Catholics, why did the Catholic Church canonize the books?”

Written by: The new testament was written about 20 to 70 years after Jesus’ death, Each book may be given a different date by different scholars, but that’s the time period. Also, we’re not really sure who wrote each book even though they are titled with the name of a person. Personally, I’m convinced John wrote all the John books and Mathew wrote Mathew and Paul wrote most of his letters, maybe not Hebrews - this is a different story.

Okay. So the NT could not have been written by CATHOLICS. There were no Catholics when Jesus died, nor soon thereafter. The christians of that time were called The Way, see Acts chapter 9, and they then became known as Christians in Antioch, see Acts chapter 11.

Now, I call them christians, but they weren’t even that! They were just Jews who had accepted Jesus as the Messiah. So they kept being Jews but they worshipped Jesus as the awaited annointed one or Messiah. Of course the rift came when they were perceived to be so different that they were no longer welcomed in the synagogue and, they certainly felt like they no longer belonged there due to the sacrificial system, eating of impure meats, requirements of the Law, etc.

So the N.T. was not written by Catholics, it was written by Jews.

Written For: The N.T. was written FOR the Jews. It was written to tell of the redemption of Christ, to announce the good news, to teach the Jews the beliefs of their new “religion”. To show them how to be disciples of Jesus. I repeat, there were no catholics back then.

About Catholics: It was not written about Catholics. It was written about Jesus, His miracles, His teachings, His life (not a biographical way).

Now, at the risk of offending you (I apoligize if I do but I have to speak) I have to say that many times when speaking of spiritual things, words are a very poor source. I know this from questions persons have had, my understanding them, my answer to them, and their understanding of my answer. I don’t mean on these threads, I mean in real life. So it could be that you’re just not using the right WORDS. No offense intended.

Your last paragraph is correct in that the church DID put the bible together and we could thank the catholic church for the OT and the NT, but to say that it was written by, for and about catholics is not correct.

Fran

 

[frangiuliano115]

Fran asked above:

*Does Abha mean Abba? “Father” for the christian God who is like a friendly father. God does have many names, each a different attribute of His. I can’t find my notes but here are some names I got from the net:

I don’t think so… See:

behindthename.com/name/abha*

“Abha” may have a Sanskrit origin…also*

hamariweb.com/names/muslim/arabic/girl/abha-meaning_4431*

Abba means “father”… Hebrew origin.

Thanks,

Will be checking it out.

Fran

 

[guanophore]

But I would like to say the following re what you say above and which I cannot agree with:

“I am curious. If the New Testament was not written by, for, and about Catholics, why did the Catholic Church canonize the books?”

Written by: The new testament was written about 20 to 70 years after Jesus’ death, Each book may be given a different date by different scholars, but that’s the time period. Also, we’re not really sure who wrote each book even though they are titled with the name of a person. Personally, I’m convinced John wrote all the John books and Mathew wrote Mathew and Paul wrote most of his letters, maybe not Hebrews - this is a different story.

Okay. So the NT could not have been written by CATHOLICS. There were no Catholics when Jesus died, nor soon thereafter. The christians of that time were called The Way, see Acts chapter 9, and they then became known as Christians in Antioch, see Acts chapter 11.

This is outside the scope of the thread but one has to wonder, what Church do you think was founded by Christ? How can you call yourself a Catholic when you don’t agree that He founded the Catholic Church?

One also has to wonder, what defines “Catholic”? The Church teaches that the Apostles were made priests (CATHOLIC PRIESTS!) in the upper room at the last supper.

I agree that Christians called themselves “The Way” and many other terms, but the Beloved Physician’s term in Acts 9:31 took hold quickly.

31*So** the church throughout all** Judea and Galilee and Samaria had peace and was built up; and walking in the fear of the Lord and in the comfort of the Holy Spirit it was multiplied.

The church throughout all, universal or Catholic church in Greek:

ἐκκλησία καθ’ὅλης

By the beginning of the first century this term was already in common use.

Now, I call them christians, but they weren’t even that! They were just Jews who had accepted Jesus as the Messiah. So they kept being Jews but they worshipped Jesus as the awaited annointed one or Messiah. Of course the rift came when they were perceived to be so different that they were no longer welcomed in the synagogue and, they certainly felt like they no longer belonged there due to the sacrificial system, eating of impure meats, requirements of the Law, etc.

So the N.T. was not written by Catholics, it was written by Jews.

Of course, all the first Catholics were Jews. Jesus came to His Own People. He is the God of the Jews, and salvation is of the Jews. If these Jews did not become Catholic, then there is no valiid priesthood today in the Catholic Church, because the Apostles were not ordained by Him in the upper room, as the Catholic Church teaches.

Written For:  The N.T. was written FOR the Jews.  It was written to tell of the redemption of Christ, to announce the good news, to teach the Jews the beliefs of their new "religion".   To show them how to be disciples of Jesus.

Some parts of the NT were written specifically for Jews, such as Hebrews, and Matthew, but the bulk of the NT was written for non Jewish Catholics, many of whom came from the diaspora. This is why it is in Greek, not Hebrew. Luke clearly states he was wrting to Theophilus, in both the Gospel and the book of Acts. But all of this is far off topic here. I am just pointing out that you are making bold assertions that are not conistent with the Teachings of the Catholic Church.

I repeat, there were no catholics back then.

Your disagreement is not with me, but with the Catholic Church, which teaches that Jesus founded His Church on Peter, the Rock. Jesus showed His Apostles how to administer the sacraments,and empowered them with the Holy Spirit to administer His One Church. Either, as Luke writes, it is the Catholic Church, or these things did not happen as written.

About Catholics: It was not written about Catholics. It was written about Jesus, His miracles, His teachings, His life (not a biographical way).

Yes, because the Catholic Church is founded on the Cornerstone of Christ, and she is not separated from her Head. The epistles that make up the bulk of the NT outside the Gospels are all written to early Catholic communities. The Gospel accounts were read aloud at the Catholic liturgy, just as they are today.

Now, at the risk of offending you (I apoligize if I do but I have to speak) I have to say that many times when speaking of spiritual things, words are a very poor source. I know this from questions persons have had, my understanding them, my answer to them, and their understanding of my answer. I don’t mean on these threads, I mean in real life. So it could be that you’re just not using the right WORDS. No offense intended.

I think you lost me here. Perhaps you can send me a private message and explain. What I am giving here is simply historical facts.
frangiuliano115;1 3418932:

Your last paragraph is correct in that the church DID put the bible together and we could thank the catholic church for the OT and the NT, but to say that it was written by, for and about catholics is not correct.Fran

I will agree to disagree with you, knowing that you are also in disagreement with the Church.

 

[frangiuliano115]

This is outside the scope of the thread but one has to wonder, what Church do you think was founded by Christ? How can you call yourself a Catholic when you don’t agree that He founded the Catholic Church?

One also has to wonder, what defines “Catholic”? The Church teaches that the Apostles were made priests (CATHOLIC PRIESTS!) in the upper room at the last supper.

I agree that Christians called themselves “The Way” and many other terms, but the Beloved Physician’s term in Acts 9:31 took hold quickly.

31*So** the church throughout all** Judea and Galilee and Samaria had peace and was built up; and walking in the fear of the Lord and in the comfort of the Holy Spirit it was multiplied.

The church throughout all, universal or Catholic church in Greek:

ἐκκλησία καθ’ὅλης

By the beginning of the first century this term was already in common use.

Of course, all the first Catholics were Jews. Jesus came to His Own People. He is the God of the Jews, and salvation is of the Jews. If these Jews did not become Catholic, then there is no valiid priesthood today in the Catholic Church, because the Apostles were not ordained by Him in the upper room, as the Catholic Church teaches.

Some parts of the NT were written specifically for Jews, such as Hebrews, and Matthew, but the bulk of the NT was written for non Jewish Catholics, many of whom came from the diaspora. This is why it is in Greek, not Hebrew. Luke clearly states he was wrting to Theophilus, in both the Gospel and the book of Acts. But all of this is far off topic here. I am just pointing out that you are making bold assertions that are not conistent with the Teachings of the Catholic Church.

Your disagreement is not with me, but with the Catholic Church, which teaches that Jesus founded His Church on Peter, the Rock. Jesus showed His Apostles how to administer the sacraments,and empowered them with the Holy Spirit to administer His One Church. Either, as Luke writes, it is the Catholic Church, or these things did not happen as written.

Yes, because the Catholic Church is founded on the Cornerstone of Christ, and she is not separated from her Head. The epistles that make up the bulk of the NT outside the Gospels are all written to early Catholic communities. The Gospel accounts were read aloud at the Catholic liturgy, just as they are today.

I think you lost me here. Perhaps you can send me a private message and explain. What I am giving here is simply historical facts.

I will agree to disagree with you, knowing that you are also in disagreement with the Church.

Okay.

Just keep your eyes on Jesus.