Kathryn
It was on fire when I laid down on it.
The word used there for "brother" is also used for "cousin" or "close kinsman" or even "best friend."
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Biblical Mary!
- Thread starter actsfourthirty
- Start date
Sorry, but you do not seem to understand how the the early church dealt their basic beliefs. Scripture and tradition, just as for the Second Temple Jews, were both the foundation of the early church. Picking out this line or that line and deriving your own beliefs according to your interpretation was called heresy.
All the core beliefs were present from the beginning. The inheritors of the apostolic traditions met frequently to explain beliefs, or condemn others as heresy. For example:
- the Council of Rome of 155
- the Council of Rome of 193
- the Council of Ephesus of 193
- the Council of Carthage of 251
- the Council of Iconium of 258[13]
- the Council of Antioch of 264
- the Councils of Arabia of 246–247
- the Synod of Elvira of 306
- the Council of Carthage of 311
- the Synod of Neo-Caesarea of c. 314
- the Synod of Ancyra of 314
- the Synod of Arles of 314
Those dates are not the beginning. They represent the Church of Rome. Yes, my references document that the Trinity described in the NT is polytheistic,
I did just pick out a line, nor denying my own beliefs. My references are specific to my argument
The list you presented just represent how the Hellenist Roman church developed its doctrine and beliefs. It does not determine whether they are true or false.
I am indifferent as to whether you respond to my posts. At times you have been abusive and insulting as above, because we disagree,No, not my beliefs as I taught Catholic theology to adults for 15 years and studied it in college even though I wasn't Catholic.
Your continued assumptions and willingness to jump to conclusions is pathetic, which is why I only rarely respond to your posts.
The only power Jesus and the Holy Spirit have comes from God, and this is what the Church teaches.
You have argued in support of Trinity. I argue that it is polytheistic and provide references. Many Jews agree with me that ir is indeed polytheistic, and it is rejected in Judaism, There is absolutely no support for the Trinity in the Torah.
I just present my argument and references and continue down the road.
Already cited the reference in Hebrews and you have apparently ignored it. This citation describes them as separate Gods
As Hebrews 10:12-13 notes, “But when Christ had offered for all time a single sacrifice for sins, he sat down at the right hand of God, waiting from that time until his enemies should be made a footstool for his feet.” Because Jesus reigns along with God the Father Almighty who created and rules over the world,
I do not believe this is the case here as 'brother' is used.
Kathryn
It was on fire when I laid down on it.
OK. I feel otherwise. You do realize that the Catholic Church translated the bible originally, right?
Niatero
*banned*
Can I invite you to this thread? Learning about people’s faith & what they believe in, how they think about it & try to practice it
Translation?!!?!?!?. The Bible was compiled and edited over a period of time between 600 BCE to 300-300 AD without provenance of authorship, first hand witnesses or origin, The Pentateuch was considered literal accurate history by those that compiled and edited it, the authors of the, NT and the Church Fathers, It is not a reliable historical record to begin with.
The compilation, editing and translation reflects the 'beliefs and culture of the ancient times involved. The issue of the translation is not remotely the 'elephant in the room' problems with the Bible.
Note: The Jews do not accept the Christian translation or interpretation of the Torah.
IndigoChild5559
Loving God and my neighbor as myself.
I respect that the Catholic church did many things that contributed to the Bibles that Christians have today. It was the CC that determined the canon of the New Testament. Although the many books of the Bible were written in the vernacular of their own day, when these languages fell out of use, the CC was the first to translated the Bible into Latin, which had become the new vernacular.
That is not the same thing as saying that Catholic scholars are the best at translating the Bible. For example, throughout most of Catholic history, the CC has wrongly translated Isaiah 7:14 to say virgin, when fact the Hebrew text does not use betulah (virgin) but rather almah (young woman). They have also translated the verse to be future tense, as if it were a prophecy, when in fact the Hebrew clearly shows that the young woman is already pregnant. Thankfully, the NAB (the English translation recommended by the US conference of Catholic bishops) and the NRSV (I don't think this is a specifically Catholic translation) have both fixed these issues.
I realize that if you are indeed a devout Catholic, it is an item of faith for you that the Catholic Church is authoritative in its ability to interpret scripture and determine doctrine. I'm not here to change that belief. Just to remind you that others do not share it. I tend to go with the consensus of scholars, and I don't really care if they are Jewish or Christian or Atheist.
This statement is not entirely accurate. a) There is no mention of Catholicism, i.e., the word "Catholic" in the Bible. With the exception of one "book" -- Luke -- the entire Bible was written by Jews. b) the early church established the canon, but the Catholic church has one canon, the Orthodox church has a different canon, and the Protestant church has a different canon.
Here are some excerpts from online sources...
The term “canon” is used to describe the books that are divinely inspired and therefore belong in the Bible. The difficulty in determining the biblical canon is that the Bible does not give us a list of the books that belong in the Bible. Determining the canon was a process conducted first by Jewish rabbis and scholars and later by early Christians. Ultimately, it was God who decided what books belonged in the biblical canon. A book of Scripture belonged in the canon from the moment God inspired its writing. It was simply a matter of God’s convincing His human followers which books should be included in the Bible. (got questions.org)
Various biblical canons have developed through debate and agreement on the part of the religious authorities of their respective faiths and denominations. Some books, such as the Jewish–Christian gospels, have been excluded from various canons altogether, but many disputed books are considered to be biblical apocrypha or deuterocanonical by many, while some denominations may consider them fully canonical. Differences exist between the Hebrew Bible and Christian biblical canons, although the majority of manuscripts are shared in common.
For most, the canon is an agreed-upon list of 27 books that includes the canonical Gospels, Acts, letters attributed to various apostles, and Revelation. Although there are many textual variations, most scholars believe that the original text of the New Testament can be established with a reasonable degree of accuracy. The core books of the New Testament were completed before 120 AD, with the Gospels being finished slightly earlier (the first of which, Mark, was likely written close to 70 AD). Although the list of what books constituted the canon differed among the hundreds of churches in antiquity, according to ancient church historian Eusebius there was a consensus that the same 27 books constituting the canon today were the same 27 books generally recognized in the first century. 1) For the Orthodox, the recognition of these writings as authoritative was formalized in the Second Council of Trullan of 692. 2) The Catholic Church provided a conciliar definition of its biblical canon in 382 at the (local) Council of Rome (based upon the Decretum Gelasianum, of uncertain authorship) as well as at the Council of Trent of 1545, reaffirming the Canons of Florence of 1442 and North African Councils (Hippo and Carthage) of 393–419. 3) For the Church of England, it was made dogmatic on the Thirty-Nine Articles of 1563; for Calvinism, on the Westminster Confession of Faith of 1647.(wikipedia)
IndigoChild5559
Loving God and my neighbor as myself.
That may be true, but we know that the churches established by the Apostles were using the phrase Catholic church by the end of the first century. We know this because Ignatius, who died in 110 CE, uses the term "Catholic Church" in his letter to the Smyrnaeans, Chapter 8, where he writes: "Wherever the bishop shall appear, there let the multitude [of the people] also be; even as, wherever Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church."
This comes up a lot in these sorts of religious forums, so you may wish to make a mental note of it.
Spice
StewardshipPeaceIntergityCommunityEquality
I'm aware of 3 "catholic" classifications:
The Roman Catholic Church
The Orthodox Catholic Church
(that also may go by Eastern, Greek, etc)
and the lower case "catholic" or "universal church" that is the umbrella term that includes all Christian churches.
Does anyone know of another use for "catholic church"?
IndigoChild5559
Loving God and my neighbor as myself.
I pretty much agree with you. Originally all the Churches established by the Apostles were called the Catholic Church. The first break away group was the Oriental Orthodox Church in 451 CE. Then the Catholic Church split into the Orthodox Catholic Church in the east and the Catholic church in the west in 1054. And finally, when Henry VIII set up his own new church, he retained everything from Catholicism except the Pope, and this included calling the Anglican church "catholic." There are many mainline Protestant denominations that recite the Nicene creed, but they use catholic with a small case c, to emphasize that they simply mean that the church is universal, not that they are part of the Catholic Church.
BTW, "Roman Catholic" is slang. It's not derogatory -- many Catholics use this expression with fondness, and you will even find it on church marquee. But if you go to the actual website the Vatican does, you will find that it is simply called the Catholic Church.
It doesn't matter that Ignatius used the term "Catholic Church" in a letter written in 110 CE. Again (and again!), there is NO MENTION of the Catholic denomination in the Bible, including all of Paul's epistles to the Mediterranean churches and John's writing about the various churches in Revelation.
All Christian denominations have their origins from the same source: the Jews who first relayed the truth about Jesus Christ to the people around the Mediterranean area. This includes the Coptic Church and the Orthodox Church. Catholics like to feel that they're the first and most important denomination, but there is no factual basis for the claim.
The Coptic Church of Egypt is the earliest Christian church in the world, going back to around 42 AD. According to Bishop Eusebius of Caesarea, as well as Coptic traditions, Saint Mark the evangelist, who wrote the earliest of the four New Testament gospels, was the founder and first bishop of the Church of Alexandria, even before the Church of Rome was established. In his landmark History of the Church, written in Greek about the year 310, Eusebius writes: "Now, they say that this Mark was the first to have set out to Egypt to preach the gospel, which he had already written down, and the first to have organized churches in Alexandria itself "(Eusebius, HE 2.16.1). This information is supplemented by Eusebius’s Chronicle, where he places Mark’s arrival in Alexandria in the third year of Claudius’ reign, which would be AD 41-42 or 43-44. This is no more than ten years after the date fixed for the death of Jesus, traditionally held to be in AD 33. (source: ancient-origins.net, with my emphasis added)
What is the basis for your statement that "Originally all the Churches established by the Apostles were called the Catholic Church"? Read my post immediately above this one.
metis
aged ecumenical anthropologist
You are absolutely correct, as the term does not differentiate between brother or male cousin.
Generally speaking, the mindset within most of the Mediterranean area peoples had more extended family orientations than probably most westerners in the modern day. I ran across this in my marriage with my Sicilian wife who was born there, as cousins were basically dealt with as if they were brothers and sisters. Definitely a different mindset than most in the western cultures are probably used to.
metis
aged ecumenical anthropologist
Catholic Church - Wikipedia
metis
aged ecumenical anthropologist
"The Way" is believed to be the earliest name of the church of the apostles, but descriptors were added later, and "catholic" was one of them. By the end of the 2nd century, "Catholic" became the most commonly used name for the church.
Kathryn
It was on fire when I laid down on it.
There's no mention of all kinds of things in the bible, including the Coptic Church of Egypt. So what?