Catholicism vs christianity

[Unveiled Artist]

I was continuing a conversation. If the thread is dead, I'll delete it unless yall want to talk about something else.

 

[Windwalker]

I thought Catholicism is Christianity. You mean Catholicism vs. Protestantism?

 

[Unveiled Artist]

I thought Catholicism is Christianity. You mean Catholicism vs. Protestantism?

Naw. The OP in the other one wanted to know the difference between Christianity and Catholicism... separating Catholicism as not in par with Christianity.

I think what I was debating about was something about christ finished the work of the OT and homosexuality.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

Judaism=/=Christianity.
it is more than just the perspective on Jesus, the actual theology, and so forth, is different. The OT is adhered to in a different manner between the two religions.

THE RELIGIONS ARE DIFFERENT EVEN WITHOUT CONSIDERING JESUS.

Wrong person? I didn't mention Judaism.

 

[metis]

Sorry but the title doesn't make sense.

 

[Muffled]

Naw. The OP in the other one wanted to know the difference between Christianity and Catholicism... separating Catholicism as not in par with Christianity.

I think what I was debating about was something about christ finished the work of the OT and homosexuality.

I thought the original church knew what Christianity was but somehow the RC lost it. I think it devolved into Chuchianity.

 

[metis]

I thought the original church knew what Christianity was but somehow the RC lost it. I think it devolved into Chuchianity.

What is your opinion based on? Didn't Jesus say that the church would be guided until the end of time, so which "church" do you think he was referring to, and whom were they supposedly led by?

Just a reminder that Jesus appointed the apostles as leaders of the church, and then the apostles appointed others to lead the church after they were gone, so what was next, iyo?

 

[Unveiled Artist]

I thought the original church knew what Christianity was but somehow the RC lost it. I think it devolved into Chuchianity.

They knew, and Christianity is just a label. I just don't feel Roman Catholicism is the original Church/Christianity. There were many Churches in the Bible. I'd say take out the terms since it throws people off and just follow the faith.

 

[Muffled]

What is your opinion based on? Didn't Jesus say that the church would be guided until the end of time, so which "church" do you think he was referring to, and whom were they supposedly led by?

Just a reminder that Jesus appointed the apostles as leaders of the church, and then the apostles appointed others to lead the church after they were gone, so what was next, iyo?

I believe my opinion is based on the current belief that salvation is by works. That is primarily why the reformation took place.

I don't remember that but a quote would help. I believe the universal church will always have the Paraclete available to guide it.

I believe the Paraclete leads those who are in the universal church.

I believe there was no such instruction. The leaders would be those who serve.

I believe I know of no such thing.

 

[metis]

I believe my opinion is based on the current belief that salvation is by works. That is primarily why the reformation took place.

I don't remember that but a quote would help. I believe the universal church will always have the Paraclete available to guide it.

I believe the Paraclete leads those who are in the universal church.

I believe there was no such instruction. The leaders would be those who serve.

I believe I know of no such thing.

Let me recommend you go back and read Acts and keep the leadership issue in mind while doing so.

 

[Muffled]

They knew, and Christianity is just a label. I just don't feel Roman Catholicism is the original Church/Christianity. There were many Churches in the Bible. I'd say take out the terms since it throws people off and just follow the faith.

I believe labels can be revealing but the Christian label incorporates a lot of things. Sort of like the word "darkies" refers to anyone with darker skin than a Caucasian but that would include a whole bunch of different races.
If I had to pick a label I would call myself a Paracletian.

 

[Muffled]

Let me recommend you go back and read Acts and keep the leadership issue in mind while doing so.

I believe I know acts. James the brother of Jesus was the titular leader of the church in Israel but nowhere does it say anyone appointed him.

 

[Windwalker]

They knew, and Christianity is just a label. I just don't feel Roman Catholicism is the original Church/Christianity. There were many Churches in the Bible. I'd say take out the terms since it throws people off and just follow the faith.

Or maybe Christianity is not an institutional thing? Did Jesus mean the church was what we think of when we look at various denominations? To argue the "true church" should really be more "who is sincere", not who is right, IMHO. It's like trying to find the meaning of love through store fronts.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

Or maybe Christianity is not an institutional thing? Did Jesus mean the church was what we think of when we look at various denominations? To argue the "true church" should really be more "who is sincere", not who is right, IMHO. It's like trying to find the meaning of love through store fronts.

If I took out the political side, then I'd say I find love in institutions but it wouldn't be institutions, they would be churches: a body of believers worshiping in communion. The political side of the denominations makes people think "baptist are this; catholic's are that" but that isn't true. If these people experience what it means to be a Southern Baptist, a Pentecostal, a Roman Catholic, then the labels wouldn't be store fronts (I like that analogy by the way), just specific ways to describe how people relate themselves to Christ-like my name to a face of millions who look like me. If all of us millions organized ourselves in a manner by name and practice so we know who each other is, our roles, and how relate to each other so we won't be garbled people running around, why would it be more different than a denomination?

There needs to be some organization and roles for people in a multi-million populated religion. The problem is not the denomination. People will fight over who is right and it's a nasty part of Christianity because even Jesus and the Jews did it and Christians are doing it today. Hopefully, ya'll can work that out. It's taking advantage of the roles that I see is the problem from pastors to priests to the priest at the Soka Gokai and Nichiren Shoshu temples...all political that breaks up the beautiful part of both faiths.

It's all misinterpreted and all the non-domination people are acting like their own denominations disagreeing with each other with their own methods of interpretation, roles they have in interpreting it, and how they follow what they believe.

 

[metis]

I believe I know acts. James the brother of Jesus was the titular leader of the church in Israel but nowhere does it say anyone appointed him.

Jesus appointed him as one of the Twelve, but how he became the first "bishop of Jerusalem" is unclear:

In a 4th-century letter pseudographically ascribed to the 1st century Clement of Rome, James was called the "bishop of bishops, who rules Jerusalem, the Holy Assembly of Hebrews, and all assemblies everywhere". Hegesippus, in his fifth book of his Commentaries, mentions that James was made a bishop of Jerusalem but he does not mention by whom: "After the apostles, James the brother of the Lord surnamed the Just was made head of the Church at Jerusalem."...

According to Eusebius James was named a bishop of Jerusalem by the apostles: "James, the brother of the Lord, to whom the episcopal seat at Jerusalem had been entrusted by the apostles". Jerome wrote the same: "James... after our Lord's passion.. ordained by the apostles bishop of Jerusalem..." and that James "ruled the church of Jerusalem thirty years"...
-- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_(brother_of_Jesus)#As_a_bishop_of_Jerusalem

 

[Muffled]

Jesus appointed him as one of the Twelve, but how he became the first "bishop of Jerusalem" is unclear:

In a 4th-century letter pseudographically ascribed to the 1st century Clement of Rome, James was called the "bishop of bishops, who rules Jerusalem, the Holy Assembly of Hebrews, and all assemblies everywhere". Hegesippus, in his fifth book of his Commentaries, mentions that James was made a bishop of Jerusalem but he does not mention by whom: "After the apostles, James the brother of the Lord surnamed the Just was made head of the Church at Jerusalem."...

According to Eusebius James was named a bishop of Jerusalem by the apostles: "James, the brother of the Lord, to whom the episcopal seat at Jerusalem had been entrusted by the apostles". Jerome wrote the same: "James... after our Lord's passion.. ordained by the apostles bishop of Jerusalem..." and that James "ruled the church of Jerusalem thirty years"...
-- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_(brother_of_Jesus)#As_a_bishop_of_Jerusalem

I believe you are in error because James the brother of Jesus was never an apostle.

This appears reasonable but it isn't Jesus or the Paraclete appointing him it was men who having the Paraclete should have known what they were doing. However even Peter had to have a special visit from Jesus to set him straight about gentile salvation so the idea that the apostles always made perfect decisions seems flawed to me.

 

[metis]

I believe you are in error because James the brother of Jesus was never an apostle.

"The Encyclopedia Britannica relates that "James the Lord's brother was a Christian apostle, according to St. Paul, although not one of the original Twelve Apostles." According to Jerome James, the Lord’s brother was an apostle too and quotes Scriptures as a proof in his work The Perpetual Virginity of Blessed Mary writing the following:

Notice, moreover, that the Lord's brother is an apostle, since Paul says «Then after three years I went up to Jerusalem to visit Cephas, and tarried with him fifteen days. But other of the Apostles saw I none, save James the Lord's brother.»(Galatians 1:18-19) And in the same Epistle «And when they perceived the grace that was given unto me, James and Cephas and John, who were reputed to be pillars,» (Galatians 2:9)

Clement of Alexandria places James as one of the apostles by saying "The Lord after his resurrection imparted knowledge to James the Just and to John and Peter, and they imparted it to the rest of the apostles and the rest of the apostles to the seventy"... -- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James,_brother_of_Jesus#James_as_an_apostle