Which Church??

[PRmerger]

I have to disagree with you on this one, Topper.

Somebody responded to Jesus in the best way he (or she) knew how. Good!

How elaborate were the meeting places of the first century Church? Or the house churches in China in the 50’s, 60’s and 70’s?

I’m totally with you on the need for apostolic succession, etc, but I would never look down on someone trying to love Jesus and to tell others about Him.

They may be doing more for the kingdom than I ever will.

I think the point is not the condition of the church–although no one can deny that it would give Catholics, raised on beautiful sacred spaces, pause to see such an austere setting deemed a “church”–but rather that this is just another example of an independent church not counted in the 30,000 Christian denominations.

And no one, from my estimation, is looking down on someone trying to love Jesus and proclaim the gospel.

 

[benhur]

Nope, just the last 500 years.

Then apparently Augustine was not Catholic ? Or Tertullian ?

 

[benhur]

Fair enough. How many ARE there then? The Catholic number is an estimate. What would the protestant number be? Who would be the single protestant authority who could provide this number?

Any help appreciated. I don’t think any of us WANT to spread falsehoods.

According to Barrett whose study is often cited for these numbers it all depends on how you define "denomination. According to one of his definitions there are 8,196. I think by same rendering there are 223 distinction/denominations within Catholicism (even 2,942 with further defining). Barrett distinguishes “jurisdiction”, not set of beliefs and practices
for some of these numbers. By another definition there are 21 P’s and 16 C denominations.

So it goes with statistics. I would just say of course there is an overall oneness to CC but within her much diversity. I would also say there is overall much diversity in P’s but within that realm much oneness.

 

[PRmerger]

According to Barrett whose study is often cited for these numbers it all depends on how you define "denomination. According to one of his definitions there are 8,196. I think by same rendering there are 223 distinction/denominations within Catholicism (even 2,942 with further defining). Barrett distinguishes “jurisdiction”, not set of beliefs and practices
for some of these numbers. By another definition there are 21 P’s and 16 C denominations.

So it goes with statistics. I would just say of course there is an overall oneness to CC but within her much diversity. I would also say there is overall much diversity in P’s but within that realm much oneness.

So what’s the correct number of Christian denominations?

I will be glad to use your number, provided you offer a source, and it includes this church:

http://ofb.net/~epstein/sl/0303/20030315-home-depot.jpg

 

[GKC]

According to Barrett whose study is often cited for these numbers it all depends on how you define "denomination. According to one of his definitions there are 8,196. I think by same rendering there are 223 distinction/denominations within Catholicism (even 2,942 with further defining). Barrett distinguishes “jurisdiction”, not set of beliefs and practices
for some of these numbers. By another definition there are 21 P’s and 16 C denominations.

So it goes with statistics. I would just say of course there is an overall oneness to CC but within her much diversity. I would also say there is overall much diversity in P’s but within that realm much oneness.

Tis an old topic, ben, oft discussed. No one knows how many protestant denoms there are. Could be 50,000. Could be 10,000. But citing Barrett’s work isn’t a basis to use Barrett’s number, as a scientifically derived total, since he counts denoms in a particular idiosyncratic way, as you note. Until a formal, rigorous, well defined, replicable, representative, peer-reviewed, and longitudinal survey is performed, any figures are WAGs.

Or, could be 60,000. I have no idea. Nor does anyone.

GKC

 

[joe371]

benhur;12644228]“You are petros and upon this **petra **I will build my church” is the inspired word of God.

How do you know it wasn’t this in aramaic, " You are kepha and upon this minra I will build my church" ?** It is wrong to assume there is absolutely no other word in aramaic for petra. **All are in agreement that kepha stands for petros for we are told so in other scriptures(Cephas).

It is absolutely irrelevant because we have the word Cephas preserved in the New Testament. We know with absolute certainty, if we can trust the bible:

“And Andrew led him (Simon) to Jesus. But Jesus looking upon him, said, ‘Thou art Simon, the son of John: thou shalt be called Cephas’ (which is interpreted Peter).”

“For I delivered to you first of all, what I also received, that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, and that He was buried, and that He rose again the third day, according to the Scriptures and that He appeared to Cephas, and after that to the twelve.”

“For I have been informed about you, my brethren, by those of the house of Chloe, that there are strifes among you. Now this is what I mean: each of you says, I am of Paul, or I am of Apollos, or I am of Cephas, or I am of Christ. Has Christ been divided up?”

“Have we not a right to take about with us a woman, a sister, as do the other apostles, and the brethren of the Lord, and Cephas?”

 

[benhur]

Jesus didn’t speak English. He spoke Aramaic.

One simple scenario has to do with how Jesus moved as He was saying these words. Imagine you are writing a play complete with stage directions for the actors:

Jesus: "Blessed are you, Simon, son of Jonah, for flesh and blood has not revealed this to you but my Father in heaven. And I say that you are Rock…

[turns to the Eleven and points at Simon]

and upon this Rock I will build my Church."

Works for me.

I love your scenario in imagination.* I just have the director telling Jesus to point to himself.* The tone of voice is one of exaltation towards Peter (you are a rock-cephas! or can be) but a change of tone, as in cautionary, when the Lord points to Himself and says “upon this rock I will build my church”. It fits the male/female rootings of rock . It fits a rock-petros (moveable) upon or even coming forth from larger, immovable female petra. It may have strong foundation analogy but also "chip off the old block " analogy.(Jesus was a carpenter,as His earthly father Joseph).

We may disagree on viewpoint, but we are both blessed with the desire to be placed on that stage.

 

[benhur]

It is absolutely irrelevant because we have the word Cephas preserved in the New Testament. We know with absolute certainty, if we can trust the bible:

“And Andrew led him (Simon) to Jesus. But Jesus looking upon him, said, ‘Thou art Simon, the son of John: thou shalt be called Cephas’ (which is interpreted Peter).”

“For I delivered to you first of all, what I also received, that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, and that He was buried, and that He rose again the third day, according to the Scriptures and that He appeared to Cephas, and after that to the twelve.”

“For I have been informed about you, my brethren, by those of the house of Chloe, that there are strifes among you. Now this is what I mean: each of you says, I am of Paul, or I am of Apollos, or I am of Cephas, or I am of Christ. Has Christ been divided up?”

“Have we not a right to take about with us a woman, a sister, as do the other apostles, and the brethren of the Lord, and Cephas?”

Umm. yes I said we all agree on what petros is as in Peter-Cephas , per scripture. Now we have both posted that .** What is in question is the second rock, Petra.** There is not a scripture or other written evidence specifically explaining petra. However, we both have evidences but are interpretive.

 

[benhur]

Oh, so that explains it. Thanks.

He may also have been able to speak Greek .

 

[Randy_Carson]

I think the point is not the condition of the church–although no one can deny that it would give Catholics, raised on beautiful sacred spaces, pause to see such an austere setting deemed a “church”–but rather that this is just another example of an independent church not counted in the 30,000 Christian denominations.

And no one, from my estimation, is looking down on someone trying to love Jesus and proclaim the gospel.

All good.

 

[benhur]

Let’s assume that there are only 500 Protestant Churches in the world today, established by people like me for example (hypothetically speaking) , *who would have no right to start a church and call it the church founded by Jesus circa AD 33. Is that too many considering the fact that Jesus said: I will build my church (not churches - plural).
*

Look, as you are rightly “perplexed” at our variances and apparent disunity , "others’’ are perplexed at some of your doctrine and practices. We both see each other with big 2x4’s in our eyes. (Jesus play on words with spec/log-hey, He was a carpenter before His career change). The point is you don’t think Christ’s church is per our definition/history as we don’t think it is yours.

It would be great if we could take the best of each group and roll it into one

Good thing Vat 2 recognizes, in a "‘fashion’’, as I hope do all P’s and O’s that somehow we are one and part of the One Body of Christ.

 

[Randy_Carson]

Look, as you are rightly “perplexed” at our variances and apparent disunity , "others’’ are perplexed at some of your doctrine and practices. We both see each other with big 2x4’s in our eyes. (Jesus play on words with spec/log-hey, He was a carpenter before His career change). The point is you don’t think Christ’s church is per our definition/history as we don’t think it is yours.

ben-

That’s a great sound bite.

Unfortunately, when you compare the histories of Catholicism with Lutheanism and analyze the doctrines held by each with what can be learned of the beliefs of the Early Church Fathers, there’s not comparison.

There were no proto-Protestants among the Fathers. Not. One.

 

[benhur]

The cornerstone and the rock the foundation is laid upon are two different things.

If Christ is the Chief Cornerstone, what is He rested upon? What rock is he placed upon?

Sorry I can’t recall the book but scripture has Jesus being referred to both as petra and petros (It might be Paul 's writings). That could explain the foundation and cornerstone at the same time… WE all agree Peter was indeed part of our foundation as well as eleven apostles.

 

[joe371]

Umm. yes I said we all agree on what petros is as in Peter-Cephas , per scripture. Now we have both posted that .** What is in question is the second rock, Petra.** There is not a scripture or other written evidence specifically explaining petra. However, we both have evidences but are interpretive.

We agree that Simon was renamed Kepha - OK.

Both rocks are the same. Grammatically it’s the only thing that makes sense. You are cephas and on this (same) cephas I will build my church i.e. the second cephas referring back to the first cephas. The only way anything else makes sense i.e. Jesus is referring to a different rock: you are cephas (Simon) and on this other rock…Pretty cut and dried.

If I said - this is my boat and on this boat I will build my mast. Same boat - right?

 

[Randy_Carson]

We agree that Simon was renamed Kepha - OK.

Both rocks are the same. Grammatically it’s the only thing that makes sense. You are cephas and on this (same) cephas I will build my church i.e. the second cephas referring back to the first cephas. The only way anything else makes sense i.e. Jesus is referring to a different rock: you are cephas (Simon) and on this other rock…Pretty cut and dried.

If I said - this is my boat and on this boat I will build my mast. Same boat - right?

You are friend, and on this friend…

 

[benhur]

ben-

That’s a great sound bite.

Unfortunately, when you compare the histories of Catholicism with Lutheanism and analyze the doctrines held by each with what can be learned of the beliefs of the Early Church Fathers, there’s not comparison.

There were no proto-Protestants among the Fathers. Not. One.

Well, some would say there were no proto-15 th century belief/practice encompassing Catholics amongst the earliest of fathers. I would say 15,16th century CC produced 15,16 century Lutherans and vice versa. Without Luther you may never had had or needed an Ignatius of Loyola. The CC and L’s had a few arguments not totally expounded upon by the earliest fathers.

 

[joe371]

Look, as you are rightly “perplexed” at our variances and apparent disunity , "others’’ are perplexed at some of your doctrine and practices. We both see each other with big 2x4’s in our eyes. (Jesus play on words with spec/log-hey, He was a carpenter before His career change). The point is you don’t think Christ’s church is per our definition/history as we don’t think it is yours.

It would be great if we could take the best of each group and roll it into one

Good thing Vat 2 recognizes, in a "‘fashion’’, as I hope do all P’s and O’s that somehow we are one and part of the One Body of Christ.

I get it that Protestants may be perplexed at some of the doctrine and practices of the Catholic Church; really, I do. All I am saying is that Jesus founded the Catholic Church where those perplexing doctrine and practices can be found. You believe that one church founded by Jesus in the first century, is another church - right? It must still be here so what name does it go by?

I don’t think Christ’s church is per any definition/history. I simply believe (something I discovered as a former Protestant) that Jesus founded just one church, as per the bible, and today we have hundreds of churches. I simply wanted to belong to that one church founded by Jesus, and he founded it circa AD 33, which eliminates all Protestant Churches.

I too am glad the CC says the following:

"However, one cannot charge with the sin of the separation those who at present are born into these communities [that resulted from such separation] and in them are brought up in the faith of Christ, and the Catholic Church accepts them with respect and affection as brothers . . . . All who have been justified by faith in Baptism are incorporated into Christ; they therefore have a right to be called Christians, and with good reason are accepted as brothers in the Lord by the children of the Catholic Church."272
819 "Furthermore, many elements of sanctification and of truth"273 are found outside the visible confines of the Catholic Church: "the written Word of God; the life of grace; faith, hope, and charity, with the other interior gifts of the Holy Spirit, as well as visible elements."274 Christ’s Spirit uses these Churches and ecclesial communities as means of salvation, whose power derives from the fullness of grace and truth that Christ has entrusted to the Catholic Church. All these blessings come from Christ and lead to him,275 and are in themselves calls to "Catholic unity."27

 

[Randy_Carson]

Well, some would say there were no proto-15 th century belief/practice encompassing Catholics amongst the earliest of fathers. I would say 15,16th century CC produced 15,16 century Lutherans. The CC and L’s had a few arguments not totally expounded upon by the earliest fathers.

ben-

I can understand why you want to believe this is true, but it is patently false.

There is no disconnect between what the Catholic Church of the 1st, 10th or 20th century has taught.

Doctrines have developed as later theologians “stood on the shoulder of giants” and saw further, but the teaching of the Church is essentially unchanged.

 

[joe371]

ben-

I can understand why you want to believe this is true, but it is patently false.

There is no disconnect between what the Catholic Church of the 1st, 10th or 20th century has taught.

Doctrines have developed as later theologians “stood on the shoulder of giants” and saw further, but the teaching of the Church is essentially unchanged.

For example, the Trinity.

 

[joe371]

You are friend, and on this friend…

Exactly. We are talking about just one friend, one boat in my example, and one rock in Matthew.