If you don't trust the Catholic Church, why do you trust the Bible?

[metis]

First of all, I read about 1/3 of the first post and none of the 2nd except to skim and see where it was going because it's clear that you were just expanding into areas that has literally nothing to do with the discussion here, and I have no idea what possessed you to write essays instead of just directly dealing with the points under discussion.

That is, the simple earliest Roman Congregation had no particular distinction from other churches/congregations except that it existed in a powerful and rich location (Rome).

False as the correspondence between Ignatius and Clement demonstrated, plus other sources during the 2nd century that show the CC had a special designation as being of "the chair of Peter". However, as mentioned in an earlier post, it did not have the kind of power that eventually emerged much later. The original set-up was more along the line of what we see with the OC that also more closely paralleled the set-up between Peter and apostles.

The leaders of the original congregation of Christians in Rome did not seem to seek pre-eminence over other congregations of Christians.

They didn't have to seek it-- they were given it and, again, this was also repeated in other 2nd century writings.

The Roman Church could take credit for creation of a canon, but not for the production of text. Inspired individuals from earlier ages and earlier editors created the text itself. The Catholic church merely accepted some texts and rejected others.

I never said nor implied anything different, so why are you repeating this as if I did?

If you are going to demonstrate that the roman organization had not changed then lets discuss specifics and you can then demonstrate how the historical examples are "demonstrably false".

I never said it didn't change. Matter of fact, I talked about the evolution of the church. But during this time and all other subsequent times, the church never lost its identity.

You referred to a “continuation of appointments of bishops.” (post #56) as a sign that the church had remained unchanged. However, the Characteristics of the TYPE of office if Bishop created by this later Roman Organization were quite different and thus are also firm evidence that the later Roman Religious Movement was NOT the same as the early Christian movement.

Of course there would be some changes, so again I don't quite understand what you think I was saying? Did not Jesus say that he would guide his church through the end of time? Do you think he was joking or lying? Which church do you think he was referring to, and please note that it's "church", not "churches".

A challenge for you: show us exactly when and through whom the CC lost it's identity and sense of purpose, and please supply us with your evidence?

As power accrued in the leadership of the Roman Religious movement, one saw the almost immediate tendency to abuse power for the gain of property; for the increase in membership, and for the oppression of those unwilling to confirm.

It's right after this that I stopped reading for reasons mentioned at the beginning of my post, plus you try to discredit the church by going into diatribes about the issue of corruption-- which every church faced and still has to face-- they're human institutions. And the issue of "corruption" has nothing to do with what was being discussed.

So why did you include this rant that rambled for paragraph after paragraph that has not one shred of relationship to that which is being discussed? If you want to slip into some anti-Catholic diatribe, please start your own thread.

IOW, please get to the point and stay on topic.

 

[Kenny]

OK, now it's your turn to "correct" me.

At a Hillsong Conference... I want bitting your nails

 

[metis]

At a Hillsong Conference... I want bitting your nails

Hey, have a great time, and I hope you finally learn something!

BTW, I was just at an AoG service three weekends ago.

 

[Kenny]

Hey, have a great time, and I hope you finally learn something!

BTW, I was just at an AoG service three weekends ago.

Had a morning off... how was that AoG service?

Y
I'm gonna play devil's advocate on this and the remaining posts here-- which some say goes with what I am.

Did God actually give Moshe the Decalogue or did it derive out of ancient Jewish beliefs borrowed from other cultures but then tweaked to reflect Jewish mores and folkways? How could we tell today which it is, or maybe even something else? Instead, I have a different approach that I've posted before but will repeat later in this post because of you being a "grandfather".

This is how I see it… These are acceptable questions. The problem is we go from “possibility thinking” to “that is exactly what happened” with no substantive support. (at least by some people)

What if God did tell Moses to write it down and then Moses said to people, “Continue writing it as it happens and as I speak” and thus the difference in writing? In other words, different people wrote the historical account to give reason for the different writing styles?

Could there be another reason why older cultures had similar thoughts which makes it appear as if what was written was borrowed? I think so as we speak in the realm of possibilities. If there was an original oral tradition that began the process, it would obviously produce different changes over time as people’s separated and the traditions continued. (Thus many religions have some of the original truth)

I speak as in “possibilities” since that was the original premise.

So, when Moses comes around, God reaffirms what other cultures had right and moved to the next step for the coming Messiah? It would appear that they “borrowed” from other cultures but rather than borrowing, God reaffirmed what He had said from the beginning and was known by all cultures because it all came from the original DNA words.

Why "too far fetched", especially when those who analyze the scriptures tell us that this is more likely than attributing it to supposed events that may well predate Jewish writings? IOW, was Moshe an actual historical figure or was he a mythological character carried forth in an oral tradition? And how can we tell today which it is?

You can’t. Again, the problem I see is that people go from “what if he is a mythological character” to “he WAS a mythological character with substantive support for that position. What if Moshe WAS a historical figure?

Obviously each person must take their own stance. I hold the position that Moshe was real because of the following.

The Genealogy of Moses
Bible Gateway passage: 1 Chronicles 2 - English Standard Version

Cross referencing, the reality and supportive fact that David and Solomon are real, and the fact that even oral tradition has some truth to it.

A third strand would follow this truth. The closer you get to an actual event, the less fluff and stuff is added to it. In other words, the next generation knows more about a person that someone who is 40 generations away. All successive books of the Tanakh hold that Moses was real and they are the closest to the actual life of Moshe. Joshua, the next generation, holds to the historical figure of Moshe. Chronicles and Kings holds to the reality of a historical Moshe.

80 generations later, the “qualified” say he is a myth. I don’t find that logical.

Then, as I mentioned before, we would have to wonder about all the "writing" that was commanded instead of "write down all that we have said over the years".

So as I weigh the possibilities, for me, it would appear that my position has less problems and easier to deal with than assuming he is a mythological person.

Based on what? Is this based on what you and I were taught to believe over many decades? Has your brain and mine been patterned to accept what we were probably taught as a kid, thus anything different just seems wrong?

I can’t say that couldn’t be a possibility. I do know that many “teachings” that I was taught have been rejected by me as I grew in knowledge. I would LIKE to think that I still have that capacity to intelligibly consider possibilities and have a critical thinking capacity dictated by past behavior… but like I said, I’m a grandpa.

It's sorta like "If I say nothing, people will think I'm ignorant; but if I say something, they will know I'm ignorant".

Trust me, you have already demonstrated that!

Quite a while back, I decided I would no longer play the "did this really happen" game, and the reason is that it's simply too hard to tell with any certainty of being correct events that supposedly took place thousands of years ago based on the writings of subjective people living in a very superstitious world.

Does this mean what is written I believe to be false? No, just that we can't tell for sure. So, I took a page out of the Buddhist approach, namely to try and get myself to realize that I have to shuck what I was brought up to believe and try to look at all of this as objectively as possible. IOW, question everything and let the chips fall where they may. Because of this, I've become extremely proficient at writing "I don't know" a lot.

Is that translating into eing “politically correct”?

Certainly your point of “what can I learn from this” whether it is true or not is of great benefit. In essence I do the same thing… in that it did happen, “what can I learn from this”. The results are the same… we learn J

But what about the morality that's taught? This is a different matter with me as I can take these seriously, and contemplate on if they seem to make sense both cognitively and morally [I'll talk about the latter after you ask where does my supposed "morally" come from on your next post? ]. Then if it "works" for me, I use it-- or at least try to.

Therefore, discussions on when something is written is strictly an academic activity with me, but I just don't allow myself to get too much hung-up on it-- at least most of the time.

Words of wisdom.

I like the words of a Hillsong worship song which has the phrase “I won’t waste my breath if it’s not for love”… I think love covers it all in the phrase of “love God with all of your heart, soul and strength and love your neighbor as yourself”.

Not that interpreting that into daily living is easy but it’s a great foundation. Your statment simply says, love is more important than "when it was written".

Now... if only I could love like you!

 

[metis]

First of all, I gotta be brief-- sorry.

Had a morning off... how was that AoG service?

I survived.

Seriously, sometime we'll have to discuss this instead of our usually meetings on the "Let's bash Catholics" threads, although you're not one to do that. Maybe after your conference is over-- sometime next week? Not to debate, btw.

What if God did tell Moses to write it down and then Moses said to people, “Continue writing it as it happens and as I speak” and thus the difference in writing? In other words, different people wrote the historical account to give reason for the different writing styles?

Saying my mantra of "I don't know" allows almost anything as a possibility. In Jewish circles, some have hypothesized that Moshe's teachings may have been an earlier part of the "Oral Law" that was remembered and passed down to others and then added on to.

Could there be another reason why older cultures had similar thoughts which makes it appear as if what was written was borrowed? I think so as we speak in the realm of possibilities.

IMO, possibly.

(Thus many religions have some of the original truth)

Oh, ya better watch it, buddy, as the Fundamentalist Police Force may waterboard ya (their version of baptism) over "leftist" statements like this!

It would appear that they “borrowed” from other cultures but rather than borrowing, God reaffirmed what He had said from the beginning and was known by all cultures because it all came from the original DNA words.

And now two counts for the FPF to consider! What are these modern "conservatives" coming to???

What if Moshe WAS a historical figure?

Possibly.

Cross referencing, the reality and supportive fact that David and Solomon are real, and the fact that even oral tradition has some truth to it.

Probably to the first part, but the 2nd part leaves us with which are the "some truths"? Back to first base.

All successive books of the Tanakh hold that Moses was real and they are the closest to the actual life of Moshe. Joshua, the next generation, holds to the historical figure of Moshe. Chronicles and Kings holds to the reality of a historical Moshe.

80 generations later, the “qualified” say he is a myth. I don’t find that logical.

All religious traditions have their claims that often parallel the above, so which are true and which aren't, and how can we actually tell? All have eyewitnesses and all rely on what they said, so am I to believe they're all correct even if they vary in what they teach? Or if one is mostly correct, which one is it and how can I tell, especially since these events supposedly took place hundreds to thousands of years ago written by subjective authors?

See my problem?

… but like I said, I’m a grandpa.

And we stick together! Although that would be less likely if we bathed more.

Certainly your point of “what can I learn from this” whether it is true or not is of great benefit. In essence I do the same thing…

I think most do but don't realize it. How many people here who claim to be literalists pick and choose which narratives they want to believe and which they either ignore or excuse in some way?

Words of wisdom.

You got me confused with someone else.

I like the words of a Hillsong worship song which has the phrase “I won’t waste my breath if it’s not for love”… I think love covers it all in the phrase of “love God with all of your heart, soul and strength and love your neighbor as yourself”.

One song often sung at my wife's church has a verse that goes "and you know we are Christians by our love, by our love...". And one of my favorites is the hymn from "The Prayer of Saint Francis". Another is "Let There Be Peace On Earth", which literally brings tears to my eyes every time I hear it. Are you familiar with either of these?

Now... if only I could love like you!

Can't help it, it's in my jeans.

Enjoy your conference!

 

[Clear]

POST ONE OF TWO

1) Post #23 Upper limits pointed out the early church evolved into the modern Catholic Church.
2) Post #46 Clear agreed in this principle of evolution and pointed out the earliest roman Christian congregation was not the same as the organization as the Roman religious Organization that existed in the 4th centuries and later.
3) Post # 53 Clear explained The early congregation of Christians in Rome developed into a different organization with different doctrines and different goals and different characteristics in the later centuries.”
4) Post #56 Metis commented that this claim was “Demonstrably false”
5) Post #59 and #60 Clear gave examples of changes in characteristics that developed within the later Roman organization that did not exist in the early Christian movement (or the earliest Christian congregation in Rome).
6) Post #61 Metis replied : “…I read about 1/3 of the first post and none of the 2nd except to skim and see where it was going because it's clear that you were just expanding into areas that has literally nothing to do with the discussion here…”


1) Readers, The above timeline demonstrates the issue concerned the changes that made the Later Roman "Catholic" church different than the original church of christ in rome. The points made are relevant. ALL examples in these two posts demonstrate examples of change.

2) Hi Metis

Examples of changes in an organization have everything to do with claims of changes in an organization. All of these examples relate to the point that the later church was not like the earliest church.

It makes no sense for you to engage in a debate involving historical data and then complain about where the data is taking readers and to refuse to read data that undermines your position.

I will try to summarize for readers who are interested in characteristics of the later Roman Church organization that did not historically exist in the early Roman congregation.


A) THE THE LATER ROMAN CATHOLIC ORGANISATION TOOK ON CHARACTERISTICS WHICH WERE VERY DIFFERENT THAN THE GOALS AND CHARACTERISTICS OF THE ROMAN CHRISTIAN CONGREGATION THAT WAS FIRST ESTABLISHED THERE - IT WAS DIFFERENT

After the Death of the apostles and as the Roman congregation began to seek pre-eminence among several Christian congregations, their increase in political power and riches lead to systematic abuse of this increasing power. This is different than the goals and values and characteristics of the earliest congregation of the bible.

The roman organization sought to enable it to oppress Populations to gain even more power and wealth and to place itself above lawful punishment for excesses committed.

Among clergy, the bishop sought ecclesiastical power : “any cleric who opposes a bishop in anything must be deposed with all his followers, … All the laymen who follow him must be excommunicated.” (127 canons of the Apostles 2.22, in PO 8:673)

The Bishops shielded themselves from consequence of laws by use of their power and position. “Bishops are to be judged by God,” not by men. They are above all human law.” (Pius I, Epistola 1.2, in PG 5:1121.

“Laymen are not to be heard if they bring charges [against bishops]….“No bishop may be refuted or accused of anything by the people or by vulgar persons.” “anyone who says a word against [a bishop], the eyese of the Lord, is guilty of the crime of lesemajeste…Those who accuse bishops are slain not by human but by divine agency.” “There is no worse crime than to bring a charge against a priest. The priest may be guilty, but even so, he must be left entirely to the jugement of God. For if all crimes are to be punished in this world, there will be nothing left for the exercise of divine judgment!” Such religious rules rendered the higher orders of priesthood immune to the normal responsibilities and retribution for evil acts.

The later roman oganisation inverted the normal moral values of oppression : “Anyone who kills his wife,” a letter of Pius I avers, “and does so entirely without reason must do public penance; but if he is disobedient toward a bishop, let him be anathemized.” (Pius I, Etis, in PG 5:1127)

This are different characteristic than the goals and values of the earliest congregation of the bible.


B) It is not simply rare “bad apples” that are occurring, but the rules emerging from synods and councils display organizational corruption.

The Bishops were no longer seen as equals and infighting ensued. in 314 the council of Arles passed a rule that “no bishop should annoy another bishop”

Council of Nicaea, 325 : Canons 15 and 16 describes the infighting : Because of great disorder and rioting it will be necessary to abolish the old custom of allowing a bishop, priest, or deacon to move from one city to another. If any presumes to do this , he shall be sent back to the city in which he was ordained.

Canon 16 Priests, deacons, or others living under the canon who frivolously and irresponsibly leave their churches will be forced to return to them by all possible means. If they refuse to return they shall be deposed. If anyone steals a cleric against a bishop’s will and ordained him to serve in his own church, the ordination shall be void.”

The inequality of Riches and power between cities caused problems :
Council of Encaeniss (Antioch), a.d. 341
Canon 3 A priest or deacon who moved permanently to another place and ignores his bishop’s appeal to return must lose the right to all office; if he goes to work for another bishop he must be punished to the bargain for breaking church law. (Early bishops did not pick where they wanted to work, they were chosen and ordained by apostles for a city)

Canon 9 Bishops in every province must understand that the bishop in the metropolis has charge of the whole province because all who have business to transact come from all directions to the metropolis. (Early on, Cities did not have power over others simply because more wealth (“business”) occurred in them)

Canon 11 Any bishop, priests, or any churchman at all who dares to go to the emperor without a letter from his metropolitan shall be ejected utterly, not only from his church, but from his priesthood…
(In the earliest Churches, any bishop could approach local leadership. This narrowing of influence was not funneled into a lead bishop or other officer)

Canon 16 When a bishop seizes a vacant seat without the okay of a full synod, he must be deposed, even though the people have elected him.
(In the early days, a Bishop was not elected by the congregation, but chosen and ordained by an apostle – the electing of bishops became a political office – compare Augustines “election”….)

Canon 18 A bishop who cannot take over a church because the congregation will not have him must remain in honor and office but may not meddle in the affairs of the church where he is forces to remain.
(There is increasing political election into what was a religious office in the earliest Christian movement)

Sardika a.d. 347
Canon 1 No bishop ever moves from a larger to a smaller city but only in the other direction
(the size of the city increasingly become the measure of ambition and domination).

Canon 2 If it can be proven that a man has bribed parties to stir up a clamor for him as bishop “so to make it seem that the people are actually asking him to be their bishop,” he shall be excommunicated.
(the reason such a rule had to be established should be obvious)

POST TWO OF TWO FOLLOWS

 

[Clear]

POST TWO OF TWO

Epaon, a.d. 517
Canon 3 If the king acts against us, all bishops will withdraw to monasteries, and no bishop shall stir out again until the king has given peace to each and all bishops alike.
(There was increasing struggle by the later Church to gain control over political authority – the church had become a political organization that sought it’s own power and to subvert non-religious authority)

Canon 20 No layman may arrest, question, or punish a cleric without okay of the church. When a cleric appears in court, it must be with okay of his bishop, and no sentence may be passed without the presence of his spiritual superior.
(Even the lower level cleric was protected by the church. If he raped or stole or committed some other crime, the sheriff was not to have power to punish, independent of the church)

Canon 32 Descendants of church slaves who have found their way back to the original place of their ancestors must be brought back to the church slavery, no matter how long or for how many generations they have been free.
(Increasingly, the canons will favor the accumulation of money, property and individual lives – Placing and keeping individuals in slavery was not a characteristics of the early roman congregation. This church organization is different)

Paris, a.d. 557
Canon 1 No one may hold that church property changes political denominations : no one can claim that church property ever passes under another ruler “since the dominion of God knows no geographical bounderies.” No one may claim that he holds as a gift from the king property that once belonged to the church. All property given by King Chlodwig of blessed memory and handed down as an inheritance must now be given back to the church.
(It is obvious that such rules were designed to accumulate wealth and that wealth was not shared amongst the members who, in early Christian congregations, sought to “have all things in common”. – This church is different than the early Christian movement)

Macon. A.d. 585
Canon 15 Whenever a layman meets a higher cleric, he must bow to him. If both are mounted, the layman must remove his hat. If the layman alone is mounted, he must dismount to greet the cleric. (I do not think the earliest Christian churches would have thought to require others to genuflect or bow when they passed. If reeks of pride and attempt to created separate castes and status)

Toledo, a.d. 589
Canon 20 Many bishops burden their clerics with intolerable compulsory services and contributions. Clerics thus cruelly oppressed may complain to the metropolitan.
(I don’t think cruelty in bishops to individuals assisting them was a problem in the earliest Christian movement)

Nabonne, a.d. 589
Canon 13 Subdeacons must hold curtains and doors open for superior clergy. If they refuse to do so they must pay a fine; lower clergy who refuse must be beaten.
(Again and again we see rules that attempt to ingrain subservience rather than equality, subservience rather than kindness. I do not think such organization level rules would have been created or even tolerated by the early Christian congregations)

Reims, a.d. 624-625
Canon 13 No one, not even a bishop, may ever sell the property or slaves of the church.(such a rule would mean that the church can only continue to gain property and financial value but it can never decrease it’s holdings. It is a gambit to gain wealth)

Toledo, a.d. 633
Canon 67 Bishops may not free slaves of the church unless they reimburse the church out of their private fortunes, and the bishop’s successors can reclaim any thus freed.
(The early Christian congregations would not have made slaves to the church and would not have kept individuals slaves and once freed, would not have re-inslaved them. This organization is different than the early Christian congregation)

Canon 68 A bishop who frees a slave of the church without reserving the patrocinium [financial holdings] for the church must give the church two slaves in his place. If the person freed makes any complaint about the way he was treated while he was a slave, he must again become a church slave (The distastefulness of such a rule that obtained canonical status is difficult to imagine. One can trade slaves but if a slave complains about having been a slave, he is then punished by being re-inslaved? This organization is not the same as the earliest Christian congregation that existed in 100 a.d.)

Toledo a.d. 638
Canon 3 Thank God for the edict of King Chintila banishing all Jews from Spain, with the order that “only Catholics may live in the land…Resolved that any future king before mounting the throne should swear an oath not to tolerate the Jewish Unglauben [unbelieving]…If he breaks this oath, let him be anathema and maranatha [excommunicated] before God and food for the eternal fire.”
(Rules were created to force civil leaders to force individuals under their own law to force conversion of others. This is not a characteristic of congregations in the earliest Christian movement).

Toledo a.d. 656
Canon 6 Children over ten years of age may dedicate themselves to the religious life without consenting their parents. When smaller children are tonsured or given the religious garment, unless their parents lodge immediate protest, they are bound to the religious discipline for life.
(The abusive practice of creating servants out of children was not part of the descriptions of the earliest Christian congregation. This is a different characteristic. It is a different organization with different goals.)

Emerita a.d. 666
Canon 15 It often happens that priests who fall sick blame church slaves for their condition and torture them out of revenge. This must cease.
(The torture of church slaves was apparently widespread enough that it required a “canon” to encourage its; cessation. The Irony of having slaves at all is something that the earliest Christian congregations would not have engaged in).

Canon 16 Bishops must stop taking more than their third. They must not take from the church’s third for their private use.
(while Thievery would have existed in the early church, the fact that the bishops could take a portion of wealth brought into the church would have encouraged the practice of taking in as much wealth as possible).


Toledo a.d. 694
Canon 8 Jews must be denied all religious practice. Their children must be taken from them at seven years and must marry Christians. (The earliest congregation would not have stolen children in this manner)

Boniface a.d. 745
Statute 13 Pasquil [jokes about the authorities] must be severely punished, even with exile.
(It is insightful that the church authorities must punish any jokes about their behaviors or that it was such a widespread practice that required a statue against it – especially one having exile as a punishment. This is abuse of power).

Paderborn a.d. 785
Canon 21 anyone engaging in pagan rites must pay a heavy fine. If he cannot pay, no matter what his station, he becomes a slave of the church until he has paid up.
(And who is to judge what a “pagan rite” is? The clergy who benefit from the slavery. The existence of such a canon and its’ potential for abuse is obvious).

Canon 23 Soothsayers and fortune-tellers shall be given to churches and priests as slaves. (Repeatedly the canons deal with making slaves of individuals who do not toe the religious line of the religious organization in power. Is it any wonder that individuals would “join” the church to avoid retribution?)

Lateran IV, a.d. 1215
Canon 3 All condemned heretics must be turned over to the secular authorities for punishment…Their property must be confiscated by the church. Those who have not been able to clear themselves of charges of heresy are excommunicated and must be avoided by all. If they remain a year under the ban, they must be condemned as hereticks. All civic officers must take a public oath to defend the faith and expel from their territories all heretics. Whoever, when ordered to do so by the church, does not purify his district or domain of heretics will be put under the ban. If he does not give satisfaction within a year, he must be reported to the pope, who will absolve his vassals from all duty to him and declare his lands open to legitimate conquest by Catholics : those who participate in the attack will receive the same privileges as regular crusaders. …. Anyone who preaches without the authorization of a bishop is excommunicated…A bishop must inspect his diocese. His officers are authorized to have all inhabitants swear an oath to expose to the bishop all sectarians that can be discovered…anyone who refuses to take the oath automatically makes himself a traitor. ….
(Again, the concept of confiscation of wealth comes up as being justified by the church. While it is true that many, many individuals came to join the church, one wonders what they would have done if they had been given another choice….)

The pattern and goal of oppression, and gain of riches and control becomes clear as one reviews such canons.

The point of giving objective examples is to show that the characteristics and goals and personality of this later organization is not the same as the characteristics and goals and personality of the earliest Christian congregation as established by apostles of Jesus Christ.

Please Metis, understand that I am not trying to embarrass you or frustrate you and I understand these are emotional issues. I am simply giving objective examples as to what sort of changes occurred in the organisation that started out as a simple congregation of the Church of Jesus Christ in Rome but evolved in directions that were counter to and different than the character of that original congregation.

The fact that the organization which came to be the Roman Catholic Church went through some morally dark periods does not mean that they have not reformed much of these excesses. It merely points out that they were not the same organization as the relatively moral and good Church of Jesus Christ that existed in Rome in bishop Linus' days.

Please be at peace as we discuss these issues.

Clear
σισισιω

 

[Faithofchristian]

The bible is not the question.
What is the question at hand is.
If you do not trust the Roman Catholic Church, why are you keeping Sunday as a day of worship, when it was established by the Roman Catholic Church
back in 322 A.D and many other such things that were establish by the Roman Catholic Church.
That's because people can not accept the fact. That they are actually keeping things that were setup by the Roman Catholic Church.
The Roman Catholic Church was the first to put a cross on top of their buildings and now many others churches are found following the Roman Catholic Church ?

 

[metis]

If you do not trust the Roman Catholic Church, why are you keeping Sunday as a day of worship, when it was established by the Roman Catholic Church
back in 322 A.D and many other such things that were establish by the Roman Catholic Church.

First of all, back then it was the "Catholic Church", not the "Roman Catholic Church".

Secondly, the movement towards Sunday worship actually goes back at least the early 2nd century, and theologians believe it was because the "agape meal" was being held on "the Lord's Day", namely the day Jesus was resurrected. Since by then the church was more gentile than Jewish, and since Jewish Law was not binding on gentiles, the movement to Sunday as being the day of rest and worship was a logical move. One reads about this trend in the "Didache", which was written around the turn of the century and gave those traveling to non-Christian areas guidelines as how to conduct themselves, including how to set up new communities.

The Roman Catholic Church was the first to put a cross on top of their buildings and now many others churches are found following the Roman Catholic Church ?

And the problem with that is...?

 

[Faithofchristian]

First of all, back then it was the "Catholic Church", not the "Roman Catholic Church".

Secondly, the movement towards Sunday worship actually goes back at least the early 2nd century, and theologians believe it was because the "agape meal" was being held on "the Lord's Day", namely the day Jesus was resurrected. Since by then the church was more gentile than Jewish, and since Jewish Law was not binding on gentiles, the movement to Sunday as being the day of rest and worship was a logical move. One reads about this trend in the "Didache", which was written around the turn of the century and gave those traveling to non-Christian areas guidelines as how to conduct themselves, including how to set up new communities.

And the problem with that is...?

Back then it wasn't called Roman Catholic Church Nor the Catholic Church.

The church was called the church of Antioch, before the church moved to Rome.Then after the church moved to Rome, then later the church became to be known as the Roman Catholic Church.

 

[metis]

Back then it wasn't called Roman Catholic Church Nor the Catholic Church.

The church was called the church of Antioch, before the church moved to Rome.Then after the church moved to Rome, then later the church became to be known as the Roman Catholic Church.

The use of the term "catholic" in reference to the church goes back to the 2nd century, and by the beginning of the 3rd century it is used as the primary name for the apostolic church, namely the title "Catholic Church". This is a matter of history, not opinion.

The use of the terminology "Roman Catholic Church" didn't occur until centuries later when what are called the "Uniate Churches" rejoined the Catholic Church, being allowed to keep some of their own customs and also the allowance to retain their married priesthood. These churches do not use the name "Roman" in front of "Catholic Church" to indicate this difference, and yet they all have a leadership allegiance to the Bishop or Rome. Again, this is historically accurate and not someone's opinion, including mine.

 

[Milton Platt]

If you don't trust the church, why do you trust that they made the right decision putting together your new testament Canon?

I don't and I don't.

 

[Kenny]

Seriously, sometime we'll have to discuss this instead of our usually meetings on the "Let's bash Catholics" threads, although you're not one to do that. Maybe after your conference is over-- sometime next week? Not to debate, btw.

Sounds interesting.

KenS said: Cross referencing, the reality and supportive fact that David and Solomon are real, and the fact that even oral tradition has some truth to it.

Probably to the first part, but the 2nd part leaves us with which are the "some truths"? Back to first base.
See my problem?

LOL… Don’t forget I AM a believer of its historicity.

What benefit is there to believing? Faith, prayer, confidence and peace.

Take Psalm 103:1 Bless the Lord, O my soul: and all that is within me, bless his holy name. 2 Bless the Lord, O my soul, and forget not all his benefits: 3 Who forgiveth all thine iniquities; who healeth all thy diseases; 4 Who redeemeth thy life from destruction; who crowneth thee with loving kindness and tender mercies;5 Who satisfieth thy mouth with good things; so that thy youth is renewed like the eagle's.

There is a difference between wondering whether it is true or which part of it is true and the one who believes it’s true. When one believes, one is always uncertain of its promises such as what was written above about “all His benefits”.

Just these five versus changes one’s whole perspective on attacking a problem.

1. When one sins, there is no condemnation because one believes he is forgiven. (How many lives have I seen changed with just this promise from YHWY.
2. When one is sick, one believes that one can get better because He heals. How many times has a doctor said, “now it is up to their will”? Or, for that matter, have confounded doctors when something unexplainable happens because they believed YHWY?
3. When we are walking through the valley of death, we don’t fear destruction.
4. We wake up in the morning and say “ahhhh… I feel His love and his tender mercies and today I am going to taste “good things”.
5. And finally, “I may be an older grandpa that Metis, but he is SOOOO SLOW while my strength is renewed like an eagle”. (Just pulling your leg on this one as I try to slow you down by being dragged on the floor as I try to slow you down) "D

When one isn’t struggling with “What part is true”, life has a different hue and even destinies are changed.

And we stick together! Although that would be less likely if we bathed more.

It isn’t my birthday!!

I think most do but don't realize it. How many people here who claim to be literalists pick and choose which narratives they want to believe and which they either ignore or excuse in some way?

I have to admit… that can happen. One thing for sure... the more I study, the more I realize how little I know. I think that is to be expected as God is infinite and my mind is finite!

But at least I "think" I know something! But leave me in my blessed ignorance when I'm wrong I'm having too good of a time.

One song often sung at my wife's church has a verse that goes "and you know we are Christians by our love, by our love...". And one of my favorites is the hymn from "The Prayer of Saint Francis". Another is "Let There Be Peace On Earth", which literally brings tears to my eyes every time I hear it. Are you familiar with either of these?

OH MY GOODNESS… YOU MEAN PEOPLE STILL SING THOSE? Just HOW old are you? My aunt took me to her Unity Church when I was in 10th grade and they sung those two songs!

Enjoy your conference!

And what a conference!

Blessings to ya!

 

[metis]

What benefit is there to believing? Faith, prayer, confidence and peace.

Agreed, but you left out "meditation" and "contemplation".

There is a difference between wondering whether it is true or which part of it is true and the one who believes it’s true. When one believes, one is always uncertain of its promises such as what was written above about “all His benefits”.

Thus Joseph Campbell's "... and the myth became the reality". [in his context, "myth" doesn't mean nor imply falsehood-- ever read Campbell, by chance?]

When one isn’t struggling with “What part is true”, life has a different hue and even destinies are changed.

Agreed.

It isn’t my birthday!!

You bathe that often!

I have to admit… that can happen. One thing for sure... the more I study, the more I realize how little I know. I think that is to be expected as God is infinite and my mind is finite!

Reminds me of Confucius' statement that I love to paraphrase: the more you know, the more you know you really don't know [much].

OH MY GOODNESS… YOU MEAN PEOPLE STILL SING THOSE? Just HOW old are you?

Not old-- mature!

And what a conference!

If you want, start a thread on it. If not, then maybe p.m. me as I'm interested. By chance, any humans sacrificed?

Blessings to ya!

And ditto back at ya!

BTW, did you catch my pun on "jeans" in my last post to you? I was sorta worried afterword that you might interpret what I wrote as being one of extreme arrogance.

Also, you exhibit lots of love yourself there, buddy, so you're no slacker! Immature? Ya.

 

[Desert Snake]

The question is for Christians. The Catholic Church decided which books would be in your Bible at the councils of Rome, Carthage, and Hippo. The Bible is a Catholic book.

If you don't trust the church, why do you trust that they made the right decision putting together your new testament Canon?

Furthermore, how do you know they didn't tamper with it throughout the centuries. For centuries there were no other Christian churches on the face of the Earth but the Catholic Church.

If the Catholic church is so evil, that shows what a terrible job God does at guiding and shepherding his people. How could God be so pitiful? The only churches on the face of the Earth preaching that Jesus is Lord were catholic.

God lets centuries of people become totally deceived and didn't introduce protestantism to the world until the 16th century. Protestants who claim that the Catholic church is the whore of Babylon, are stating that the Bible they love so much was put together by the whore of Babylon. How is that Bible trustworthy?

You realize that there are more churches than the rcc, and protestant churches...?

 

[Kenny]

Thus Joseph Campbell's "... and the myth became the reality". [in his context, "myth" doesn't mean nor imply falsehood-- ever read Campbell, by chance?]

LOL... You mean Glen Campbell, I'm sure! Another book??? Like my library doen't have enough of "I need to read this book too?

If you want, start a thread on it. If not, then maybe p.m. me as I'm interested. By chance, any humans sacrificed?

I'll send it p.m. -- along with the heads that we shrunk after the sacrifice

BTW, did you catch my pun on "jeans" in my last post to you? I was sorta worried afterword that you might interpret what I wrote as being one of extreme arrogance.

LOL... The mind is an incredible thing... I read genes. Or is it my glasses?

 

[metis]

Another book??? Like my library doen't have enough of "I need to read this book too?

Only if you want to be edjumacated.

Actually he wrote a series of books, and I was reading his material back in the late 1960's because of my classwork in anthropology as he was an anthropologist who specialized in the interrelationship between religion and culture. His book and c.d. done with Bill Moyers entitled "The Power of Myth" is top shelf.

I'll send it p.m. -- along with the heads that we shrunk after the sacrifice

Going by your posts, you musta been the "guinea pig" a while back.

BTW, I didn't know granite can shrink. Hmmm, learnin' somethin' new every day.

LOL... The mind is an incredible thing... I read genes. Or is it my glasses?

And that was a test, so I feel sorry for your loss.

Hey, I'm looking forward to your p.m., but don't send it in the a.m. or you'll confuse me.

 

[Clear]

Back then it wasn't called Roman Catholic Church Nor the Catholic Church.

The church was called the church of Antioch, before the church moved to Rome.Then after the church moved to Rome, then later the church became to be known as the Roman Catholic Church.

Regarding the actual NAME by which the early Church/Churches of Jesus Christ were known.

It is probably obvious to readers that the earliest churches were not known as the Catholic Church nor did a specific congregation change “places” and thus changing names with it’s locale. The “Church in Antioch” was simply the Church congregation that existed in Antioch and the Church in Jerusalem was simply a congregation of the early Church that existed in Jerusalem.

1) The term ἐκκλησίᾳ or Church as an "assembly"
The use of the term ἐκκλησίᾳ is not a particularly religious term and could refer to any type of assembly of people. The problem with determining the name is that ἐκκλησίᾳ takes on different adjectives depending upon the historical reference and thus it is the specific historical context that determines what someone called the church.


2) The ἐκκλησίᾳ or "Church" as a single and separate assembly of believers (i.e. a single congregation)
When 1 Cor 1:2 describes ”the assembly of God which is at Corinth…”, it is clear that the writer is referring to a single congregation in a specific place (τῇ ἐκκλησίᾳ τοῦ θεοῦ). In this case the assembly/Church is designated by it’s locale, that is, the Church of God [which is] at Corinth. Other examples include the church of the Laodiceans (τῇ Λαοδικέων ἐκκλησίᾳ … Colossians 4:16), the church of the Thessalonians 2 Thess 1:1 or of the church which is at Cenchrea (τῆς ἐκκλησίας τῆς ἐν κενχρεαις Rom 16:1).

The place of reference doesn’t have to be a city. The New Testament refers to “the church in your house” (οἶκόν σου ἐκκλησίᾳ Phil 1:2). ἐκκλησίᾳ is simply a gathering and it was simply easiest to reference an assembly or church by the city or place it was in.

Thus, the “Church” of Antioch did not move and then become the “Church” of Rome. There were simply two separate churches (assemblies) in both places at the same time.

Sometimes the separate churches were referred to as a group. For example, when the renown of a person was known “…through all the churches;” (πασῶν τῶν ἐκκλησιῶν …2 Cor 8:18) or when one was “appointed by the churches…) 2 Cor 8:19, or referring to “messengers of the churches… (ἀπόστολοι ἐκκλησιῶν 2 Cor 8:23) etc.

In such cases it is clear that the text is referring to plural “churches” despite the fact that there are common religious principles binding them together.


3) The Church as an assembly that includes all congregations
Some references seem to refer not to local portions of the great gathering, but to the entire (“cath-holic”) church. Jesus’ statement, “I will build my church/assembly…” (matt 16:18) seems to refer to the “general (or entire) assembly” and church of the firstborn (πανηγυρει καὶ ἐκκλησίᾳ πρωτοτόκων Heb 12:23 .

It is not a single assembly he loves but the “general” or “entire” assembly “he loved” “and gave himself since the text tells us it is the “world” that he gives himself for. The “church” in such references seems to refer to all that assemble to his teachings.

Thus, whether the reference is a single congregation or all (Cath-holos) congregations, the principle that is involved is that they both represent a gathering, an assembly. The smaller (congregation) is simply a part of the whole.



4) The compound word - Catholic
The adoption of the word “Catholic” as the NAME or NOUN that referred to a specific religious organization did not happen until centuries later. Ignatius’ use of the term in the second century was as an ADJECTIVE and references a different context than the noun that later became the name of a church.

Ignatius is in the midst of early schisms and encouraging multiple congregations to support their various Bishops as their local authority in the absence of Apostolic Authority. Despite repeated historical claims that Ignatius is the first to use this term, this is incorrect.
The writer of New Testament Acts uses the term in it’s correct and original context as a reference to an "entirety", something that is "complete". And, he is not using the term to describe the church. For example, the term is used in Acts 9:31 in describing the “churches” having “rest throughout all Judaea” μὲν οὖν ἐκκλησία καθ' ὅλης .

καθ' ὅλης , [the two base words used in the adjective "cath holic"] meant that all parts are involved in a thing (in this case it is “rest” which is complete or “according to the whole”). It was not the name of a church, but rather an adjective and, interestingly, in the early Papyri, was influenced by the concept of authority. For example, a local authorized secular officer sometimes was referred to as a "Catholic" in early greek. It was in such useage, not a religious term.

When Ignatius tells the Smyrnaeans “ wherever Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church. “ (ὥσπερ ὅπου ἄν ᾖ Ἰησοῦς Χριστός, ἐκεῖἡ καθολικὴ ἐκκλησία). Ignatius is using an adjective which is not referencing the later Roman Organization but using Jesus as the central principle, anchoring all of the Christian congregations to a single principle belief.

And, when Ignatius says to the Smyrnaeans “Wherever "the" bishop shall appear, there let the multitude [i.e. assembly] also be“, he is referring the Smyrnaeans OWN bishop and he was not referring to a Bishop of Rome or of another congregation.

Clear
νεσενεω

 

[metis]

No matter how one may want to play with this, Paul refers to the "church" as being of "one body" under the authority of the apostles and their appointees. Also, that "one body" has a traceable body of appointees, the process being shown in Acts and some of the epistles. Even though the word "catholic" was a descriptor that encompassed local churches scattered throughout, it eventually became the mainly used name for the apostolic church in the 3rd century and beyond. Because all of this is generally traceable, there are many non-Catholic sources, even including Wikipedia, that cover this.

 

[Clear]

No matter how one may want to play with this, Paul refers to the "church" as being of "one body" under the authority of the apostles and their appointees. Also, that "one body" has a traceable body of appointees, the process being shown in Acts and some of the epistles. Even though the word "catholic" was a descriptor that encompassed local churches scattered throughout, it eventually became the mainly used name for the apostolic church in the 3rd century and beyond. Because all of this is generally traceable, there are many non-Catholic sources, even including Wikipedia, that cover this.

I very much agree that the early Christian religion saw themselves as a worldwide group that was gathering around a single set of principles (Jesus and his teachings). This is part of the point that Paul is attempting to make in the scripture you refer to (1 Cor 12:12-31). Though Christians differed in languages, back-ground, gifts, circumstances, etc., they were unified in their purpose and principles to which they assembled.


Unity vs independence
Despite gathering to and for the same principles and beliefs, each congregation was independent of another congregation. That is, if the Roman congregation was destroyed, all others would survive independently. If the congregation in Corinth was destroyed, it would not cause the Roman congregation to die. They were independent at that level. For example : Hegesippus, quoted by Eusebius in Historia Ecclesiastica 2.23, says, “The brother of the Lord, James, took over the church along with the apostles.” (PG 20:197), However, James and the Jerusalem saints reportedly fled to Pela upon the destruction of Jerusalem. Still, the other Church congregations survived without this earliest and most important Christian congregation.


Dependence and Hierarchy
However, as the scripture you refer to points out, there was a hierarchy. “And God has placed in the church, chiefly apostles, secondly prophets, third teachers…etc.

“First” or "πρωτος" in this greek usage is not a reference to “sequence", (an apostle did not exist before prophets…) but to heirachy. In the Church administration, under Jesus, the Apostles were highest in rank and they appointed others of lessor rank. For example, A deacon did not choose and appoint another deacon and a Bishop did not choose and appoint another Bishop, rather the higher offices appointed the lower offices.

So, while each congregation, with its own Bishop and deacons, teachers, etc. could survive independent of another similar congregation, it could not survive in the same form without its own Bishop or apostles to appoint Bishops.

This is why the concept of authority became such a critical issue upon the death of the apostles (and why the claim that Peter was a Bishop and gave an obscure Bishop his apostolic power). This is part of the motivation for the Roman congregation to create an entirely new office of Bishop that could choose and ordain another bishop. I do not think the individuals who did this had evil motivations, but rather I believe they were doing something they thought was expedient for the survival of the Christian movement.

Clear
ειτζτζακω