H
historyb
Guest
The RCC isn’t original. Where does it say Catholic Church is the Church in the Bible? Nowhere.
- Status
C
ChristianKnight
Guest
No where, cause it never talks about the Catholic Church in the bible.
T
TotallyConfused
Guest
Loved the “sarcasm” there.Ok…Let me see…you, a non-Catholic poster, are going to BLAM, a Catholic poster, on an internet forum… for “leaving Christianity”…
Sad, Sad, Sad.
Did I say I blamed you? I don’t think so. Stick to the facts. Your whole retort is groundless.
Being the cough “original church” and all, a Catholic poster such as yourself should be spending his time trying to draw non-catholic posters into the fold, no? In stead you are so confrontational that it leaves a bad taste in my mouth when I just think of Catholicism.
No, I’m not blaming you, but you are probably one of the last straws.
You are one of those guys who really stink at apologetics and so you post these flaming posts just to show how “superior” you are to non-Catholics.
Bad form man, bad form.
I’ll leave you with this quote:
“I like your Christ, I do not like your Christians. Your Christians are so unlike your Christ.” - Gandhi
I wonder who this reminds me of…Hmmmm…Oh well, I’m sure it’ll come to me.
(PS, THAT was sarcasm)
R
Rolltide
Guest
Well… yes and no. We DO know that the term was in use by at least 110 AD, because St. Ignatius of Antioch refers to the Catholic Church. This is only 10 years after the death of the Apostle John and the writing of Revelation. That puts it really close to the Biblical era. But we can go earlier than that, because during the Apostolic Era, there only WAS one denomination of Christianity. Christianity WAS universal, or catholic. The term wasn’t necessary, because the church WAS catholic (catholic and universal are synonyms). In other words, they didn’t need to use the term yet, because no one had tried to break away yet. The “catholicity”, or “universality” of the church was simply assumed.
P
Pier
Guest
… “prayer chain”, “church plant”…
These are phrases not in the Bible either. Yet, they have become (ahem) traditions among some fellow Christians. Prayer chains are charitable works (ahem again
), yet an interesting practice among those who claim they only pray directly to God without an intercessor.
These are phrases not in the Bible either. Yet, they have become (ahem) traditions among some fellow Christians. Prayer chains are charitable works (ahem again
), yet an interesting practice among those who claim they only pray directly to God without an intercessor.
C
ChristianKnight
Guest
So their is no real proof, just assumption that it was a catholic church, rather…lacking of proof isn’t it?
R
Rolltide
Guest
Hardly.
Ignatius’ letter to the church at Smyrna contains the first use of the phrase “the catholic Church.” (Please read the official English dictionary definition here.) Ignatius wrote, “Where the bishop is to be seen, there let all his people be; just as wherever Jesus Christ is present, we have the Catholic Church.” (Epistle to the Smyrneans, 110 AD) As an aside, this statement also proves that bishops were already present no LATER than 10 years after the death of the last Apostle. Ignatius was personally trained and made a bishop by the Apostle John himself, and knew many of the same friends as Peter himself. This part is all proven.
So, now we need to prove that the Catholic Church existed at least 10 years earlier, because if you can tie it directly to the lifetime of an Apostle, then you’re in good shape. The above is exceedingly strong evidence, but it’s actually easy to prove. We know that there were only TWO versions of Christianity until the year 110 AD. Those were the “catholic” Christians (those that held to “universal” beliefs), and the Gnostics. Now, you just watched a special on the Great Heresies. Did the Gnostics sound even remotely Christian to you?
C
ChristianKnight
Guest
They seemed more like a germanic tribal mythology. I mean, if you think about it, they basically said “your god is evil, cause its not ours” and believed the Jew’s god was evil, yet the “Christian” god wasn’t, of course their christian god was hardly what we call god. They were also polytheistic. They believed that the Jewish god was some type of evil demi-god.
R
Rolltide
Guest
Not only that, but the Gnostics believed that the Bible (which included NUMEROUS other books that we don’t use today) contained secret, hidden wisdom. All you had to do was crack the code, and you’d receive the knowledge and get into heaven. It had nothing to do with morality. It didn’t matter if you were Mother Teresa or Adolf Hitler, if you cracked the code, you made it. Consequently, Jesus’s sacrifice on the cross meant nothing, and very few made it to heaven (only an elite, intelligent few).
So… it’s between that and the “universal” / “catholic” church, unless you know of some other mysterious branch that was around at the time?
C
Church_Militant
Guest
Really? Then I suggest that you check the Greek text of Acts 9:31 where it is translated as “the church throughout all”. The Greek reads as follows: η μεν ουν εκκλησια καθ ολης της ιουδαιας και γαλιλαιας και σαμαρειας ειχεν ειρηνην οικοδομουμενη και πορευομενη τω φοβω του κυριου και τη παρακλησει του αγιου πνευματος επληθυνετο “εκκλησια καθ ολης” is ekklesia kath olos… “Catholic Church”.
B
Bill_Pick
Guest
SORRY BUT ITS NOT IN THE BOOK
C
Church_Militant
Guest
Y’know Jimmy, I’m easily as involved in apologetics here at CAF as you are and frankly Bro, you are out of line with this response, and they are actually right. You DO bait them all the time and your sarcasm (like this post) doesn’t help a bit. All it does is inflame problems and make real discussion/dialog/debate nearly impossible. That’s why generally you won’t find me posting on your threads, but I’d hate to have to answer for any souls that my attitude discouraged from the faith rather than the truth of our most holy faith.Ok…Let me see…you, a non-Catholic poster, are going to BLAM, a Catholic poster, on an internet forum… for “leaving Christianity”…
Sad, Sad, Sad.
I’ve had quite a few people comment to me privately about your posting style and attitude, and most of them were faithful Catholics, not n-Cs. Unfortunately, I have to agree with them even though I think your heart’s in the right place.
Even though I agree that there is no basis for anyone to leave the Catholic faith, I can sure see where this attitude of yours might discourage some people who might otherwise either be converted or reverted. You sure don’t see any of the popes copping this kind of attitude, do you?
They seem to know what some of the rest of us either don’t know or have forgotten.
1st Peter 3:8] Finally, all of you, have unity of spirit, sympathy, love of the brethren, a tender heart and a humble mind.
9] Do not return evil for evil or reviling for reviling; but on the contrary bless, for to this you have been called, that you may obtain a blessing.
10] For “He that would love life
and see good days,
let him keep his tongue from evil
and his lips from speaking guile;
11] let him turn away from evil and do right;
let him seek peace and pursue it.
12] For the eyes of the Lord are upon the righteous,
and his ears are open to their prayer.
But the face of the Lord is against those that do evil.”
13] Now who is there to harm you if you are zealous for what is right?
14] But even if you do suffer for righteousness’ sake, you will be blessed. Have no fear of them, nor be troubled,
15] but in your hearts reverence Christ as Lord. Always be prepared to make a defense to any one who calls you to account for the hope that is in you, yet do it with gentleness and reverence;
16] and keep your conscience clear, so that, when you are abused, those who revile your good behavior in Christ may be put to shame.
17] For it is better to suffer for doing right, if that should be God’s will, than for doing wrong.
and then,
Matthew 12:36] I tell you, on the day of judgment men will render account for every careless word they utter;
I’m not trying to bash you, but there are souls at stake here and we need to be very sure that we do this right for their sake as well as our own, okay?
Pax Domini sit semper vobiscum
C
Church_Militant
Guest
Oh but it is.
C
ChristianKnight
Guest
Their were others though, cause it said their was like 2-3 others before the Orthodox split, but that they were really small, and a lot like cults weren’t they?
R
Rolltide
Guest
There were the Docetists, which believed that anything physical was evil. Only the spiritual was pure. This was a huge heresy, because it meant that God could not possibly have corrupted himself by taking an evil, human form. Therefore, the humanity of Jesus was an illusion, and so His death on the cross was also an illusion. This is really just a further development of some of the Gnostic ideas.
A small group with views related to the Docetists survived until around 1200 in France. They were known as the Cathars, or the Albigensians. They were wiped out in a crusade called by the French king for their incredibly dangerous views. They started preaching that since man was evil and there was nothing we could do about it anyway, that we should just give into our sin since there’s no hope. They believed that since God could not create an imperfect world, that it was actually created by Satan or some type of a lesser deity known as the Demiurge. They hated sexuality, and believed the most perfect thing they could do would be to simply stop having children so that humans could go extinct (so that humanity would enter the good, spiritual world again). This extended to the point that they practiced infanticide. However… since it was impossible to NOT give in to sin, you could try to do this, but if you wanted to go out and have sex too, it was fine. They also rejected oaths, INCLUDING the oath of marriage. Since they didn’t believe in procreation anyway, there was no point in getting married at all. It was a religion of huge contradictions.
C
cazayoux
Guest
So in scripture we know that Jesus founded a church.
We can see in Acts 1 that even though Judas was gone his office (‘bishopric’ in the KJV) remained and someone new was placed in that office. We see Paul appointing Timothy (his son in the faith) to teach others and to himself appoint others to teach.
So in scripture we definitely see a church… a community where there are teachers. Actually a church without a bible (or at least NT).
A visible church that is the pillar and bulwark (protector) of the truth.
Where is THAT church today?
In the line between that 1st century church and the Catholic Church of today, at what point was the Catholic Church ‘created’. This point in time would be the dividing line where teachings from before this time we would not find teachings that are in the Catholic Church today?
michel
J
Jimmy_B
Guest
Maybe not… but then again, I’m not a Pope.
Many Popes, historically, have been very aggressive in defending the Catholic faith.
There have been Popes who have declared those early Protestants and others, apposed Catholicism to be heretics, not me…
Historically speaking, If one were to take an honest look at my postings here and my “posting style”… and compare that to comments made by real apologists, which I am not …and… compared my comments to others, throughout history, who have defended Catholicism against Protestants and others, apposed to the Catholic Church, I’m sure, one would find my comments, mild in comparison.
If you do not believe me, then I can post those comments here, for all to see.
I am not a bad guy.
Negative comments made by many of my Protestant detractors here, are greatly exaggerated and in many cases, taken out of context or just plain false and baseless.
Moreover, some misguided Catholics here, have attacked me as well, because for them ecumenicalism is more important to them, than their taking a stand to defend their own Catholic faith.
Additionally, for some here, ecumenicalism is more important than standing-up for those truths found in Catholicism.
When a Catholic here, attacks another Catholic it undermines Catholicism.
I find it amazing that there so many Protestants here, who will never make a negative comment towards any other Protestant… but have no problem attacking and insulting me at every opportunity.
Even worse, there are Catholics here, who will attack other Catholics here and never take-on a non-Catholic.
Now why is that?
Many times here, where I am attacked, I was making a comment, which was intended to simply lighten the mood…And I am still attacked.
Many times, my post titles here are somewhat provocative, because my goal is to encourage as many as possible… to join the conversation.
There are Protestants here, who never post anything positive or anything kind, on any of my threads, regardless of the thread title…They would simply, like to see me go away and would like to hijack this forum.
The complaining for some here, is nothing more than a tactic used towards this end.
Compare my comments here, to my Protestant detractors and what you will find is that I try to stay on topic and discuss theological differences, where their comments are directed at me personally and are personally insulting.
If you do not believe this, then I encourage you to go and look at the posts on my threads, from those who complain the most about me, and you will see what is really going on here.
There exist, approximately 36,000 different, non-Catholic Christian denominations (and subdivisions).
They are all different, because they all have different beliefs.
Protestants share more differences among themselves, than they do with Catholics. This is especially true for the older and more “orthodox” Protestant denominations. Yet, they seem not to have much of a problem with their own differences, but for the most part, are all united against the Catholic Church.
They are all still “protesting” the Catholic Church, in one way or another. They all have a “common enemy”… so to speak, Catholicism.
Catholics need to remain united. We are not all perfect but we are all Catholic.
I hope this helps.
Nice post, thank you for your post.
Marry Christmas!
M
Michael_Francis
Guest
Thread closed pending Moderator review.
- Status