First mention of the Catholic Church

by Amazing1914 51 Replies latest jw friends

• 

  Amazing1914

  Evidently, quite a few do not read well, nor have a good understanding of history.

  1. I never said one word about the Catholic Church being the true church. I merely noted that the first mention of the term was by St. Ignatius in the year 107. Of course it was a very different "church" than the Roman Catholic is today. So is about everything in life different than it was 2,000 years ago.

  2. Yes, the word "Catholic" means universal, but it is a word not unique to Rome, but first used in 107. However, it is not a newer term, as some may believe it more associated with the council of Nicea in 325.

  3. I never stated that the Roman Catholic Church is/was just like the early church. Rather, I suggested that there are several modern churches that resemble some of the basic teachings of the early church, such as that found in the Apostles Creed.

  4. Of all the modern churches, I never stated that the Roman Catholic Church most closely resembled the early church, but rather Eastern Orthodox, of which most westerners are terribly ignorant. Much of what is mentioned about Rome is not practiced by the east.

  5. I did not post this history to get into a debate over the Roman Catholic Church, but to lay a foundation to show how the Watchtower Bible and Tract Society has greatly misled people about Christian history.

  6. While I affiliate with the Greek Orthodox, I am not a member of any religion or church. However, if I end up being a member of the Greek Orthodox, I have no desire to come onto JWD and pump pro-Orthodox information to try and convert anyone. My only desire would be to clear up misconceptions.

  7. Lastly, according to what Lovelylil stated, "I am with Poodlehead thought that it seems you are saying in this thread that the Catholic Church is the closet to early Christianity."

  Please go back and read all my earlier posts on this thread and you will see that is not the case. Then, if you are still not certain, please read what I just wrote above in items 1 thru 6.

  Thanks, Jim Whitney
• 

  Qcmbr

  Fair points - I think that in general the vast majority of people and christian churches are guilty of misunderstanding and misinformation regarding the early church - I have yet to find a christian church which doesn't claim themselves as successors of the early church and to highlight the parts which most clearly resemble their own.
• 

  lovelylil

  Amazing,

  I thought Poodlehead was being sarcastic and I gave him scriptures to show that many of the teachings of the catholic church today including: prayer to saints, using idols and relics, priesthood that cannot marry, abstaining from certain foods, calling the Pope or Priest by the term father, is not biblical These practices were not done in the early church. The early "church" being the one established at Pentecost by the pouring out of Holy Spirit.

  I stand by my statement: Religion was begun by man to control people. Although they do some good, they only contribute to the division of people. Think of how many people in times past have even been willing to slaughter others who had slightly different religious beliefs?

  The Early Church were the followers of Christ only (the people) bound by Holy Spirit

  We all can read but words are very powerful and I don't think you realize how your words sound to others sometimes. I've found many highly intelligent people on this site that can explain their beliefs very well and without insinuating that others are poor readers.And I don't think anyone here will disagree with your statement that the Jehovahs Witnesses do not understand early church history. They do not understand much about the bible and I think we could all agree on this. You may not realize by posting this post it does not only show that the JWs were wrong in church history but it also seems to say that the Catholic Church is earlier than once thought and therefore could be closet to the early church. It is the latter, that we are all having trouble with. Because many of us have studied the history of the churches and all of them invent their own history to a degree trying to prove they are the only true church. There is no one church. As far as the term Universal, well I remember learning in Sunday School that once everyone became a Catholic, Gods kingdom would be realized on earth because we will have one universal church. Well, this is not going to happen this way. Just because you claim to be a universal church does not mean everyone wants to belong to it.

  Like I said in past posts, I ask really hard questions. But so far, I think they have been easy and straight forward, and it seems you are getting offended already. If you want to be a lawyer, for goodness sake - get a thicker skin.

  Have a good day today! Lilly
• 

  Mary

  The early church was far more like the Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox Catholic churches of today, and somewhat like the Angelican, Lutheran.ith a dash of Evangelical.

  Sorry, no it was not. If anything, the early church would have far more closely remembled Judaism, simply because Messianic Jews (as they were known shortly after Jesus' death) still practiced their Jewish faith for the most part. Jesus never told his followers to start a new religion. I was at a Catholic Church last week for Easter for the first time. It is extremely ritualistic and I found the sermon to be lacking in real substance. There's no way that the first Christians would have ever had the rituals that the Catholic Church has today.

  There is nothing in early early Christian teaching which resembles anything like what Jehovah's Witnesses teach and practice.

  You're right there. I don't think there is any religion around today that is just like first century Christianity, even though every group thinks they're following the same path.
• 

  Amazing1914

  Lovelylil,

  We all can read but words are very powerful and I don't think you realize how your words sound to others sometimes.

  Written words have no sound, and cannot emit any emotional meaning or body language. Nothing in my statements have been highlighted to impute any "sound" or meaning, other than generalized claims which have no basis in fact. When we read, we automatically overlay our own emotions and assign meaning. Yes, words are powerful, but careful reading and education help prevent errors in how we react to them. My observation in many years on these forums is that there is a large segment who react with poor reading skills, poor education, and poor knowledge of history. I have been guilty of historical errors myself. [For example: Can you tell right now what emotions I have in making this response to you? Am I angry, pensive, insulted, happy, good mood, elated, or in a humorous mode?]

  Power of a word: The purpose of this post was to highlight a historical fact that the term "catholic church" was coined and used by a student of the Apostle John. That is all. I made nothing more of it, other than to comment on how the modern Catholic and Orthodox (primarily Orthodox) resemble the historic church. The word "resemble" should have been enough to clue to any reader that I never intended to give support to all that is done in the Roman or Orthodox churches. Though, I am not in angst over all their traditions either, as I think much of it for Protestants (JWs included) is a false dilema.

  Thanks for your comments,

  Jim Whitney
• 

  greendawn

  Qcmbr, what separates out a cult? You got me there because though inwardly I know what they are it's hard to put in words. I would say that a cult is a pseudo spiritual entity where even its leaders flout the Christian law becoming too sexually liberal, and aggressive, too instinct driven. Also they systematically and fundamentally twist fundamental scriptures. In short they lack proper religious sincerity.
  
  Mary the very early church was very judaic since they thought of themselves as jews that accepted Jesus as the Messiah and all they did extra was the bread and wine ritual.
  
  But then the Pauline gentile church came to being and rejected the Mosaic law as obsolete after Jesus's crucifixion. It survived whereas the original Judeo christian one disappeared.
• 

  lovelylil

  Jim,

  I really think you know what I meant by Sound. And I meant how people can take it or read it. That is obvious by my post. I did not need any lesson on words. But thanks anyway. There really is no need to try to be more superior to others just becuase you feel you are very well educated. Many others on this forum have expressed their opinion without resorted to trying to put others down. But if you need to feel superior than so be it. I think this will be my last comment under this post because frankly, I have moved on to more interesting matters. Lilly
• 

  Mary

  Greendawn said: Mary the very early church was very judaic since they thought of themselves as jews that accepted Jesus as the Messiah and all they did extra was the bread and wine ritual. But then the Pauline gentile church came to being and rejected the Mosaic law as obsolete after Jesus's crucifixion. It survived whereas the original Judeo christian one disappeared.

  You're absolutely right, so it comes down to the age-old question: Did Christianity come about because of Jesus or because of Paul?
• 

  anewme

  Do you think God would accept a claim of "spiritual disability"?
  
  I used to be so interested in every detail of a spiritual discussion. I wanted to know which thumb went over the other in prayer and which "Mary" it was at the scene and whether Jesus was walking to the city or out of the original little city, which would then lead to both seeming conflicting stories correct.
  
  Now I cant tolerate even a 5 minute discussion of what the early church fathers believed.....or even what Jesus' mysterious parables really meant. Whats wrong with me?
  
  I think I am seriously skeptical and afraid of fundys now. I think they are capable of serious harm to me and I wish there was a place to hide from them on this earth.
  Im doing a good job living in this canyon away from everybody but the monthly meter reader.
  
  I am slowly becoming a pagan nature worshiper I guess. Not a witch brewing special herbs for healing but someone just accepting life as she sees it here in the mountains.
  I have let go of the hope of living forever and accept the return to dust.
  So now no religion has a hold on me anymore.
  I feel as free as a deer or a sweet song bird.
  
  
  Anewme
• 

  Amazing1914

  Lovelil,

  I really think you know what I meant by Sound. And I meant how people can take it or read it. That is obvious by my post. I did not need any lesson on words. But thanks anyway. There really is no need to try to be more superior to others just becuase you feel you are very well educated. Many others on this forum have expressed their opinion without resorted to trying to put others down. But if you need to feel superior than so be it. I think this will be my last comment under this post because frankly, I have moved on to more interesting matters. Lilly

  When people say how someone "sounds" in written form it is because they have formed a "sound" in their own mind. They also mean to say how a person is to be "taken." Often, both are the case. We all do it. However, again, nothing in my posts "sounded" or shold be "taken" in any manner other than what I posted. All other interpretations are incorrect.

  I am not trying to be more "superior" as this again requires tone of voice, body langaige, and mannerisms. My point, which I have included myself if you read carefully, is that not everyone reads carefully. Some are not educated. There are things we are all not educated on.

  No you are not moving on to more interesting matters ... as you have decided how I feel, and you overlay your own emotions. So, you are tyring to show that youi are pissed off. If you weren't interested you would not have commented in the first place. And if you had a valid point about my "intentions" you would have been able to "quote" what I said that supported your position. You did not because you cannot. And rather than admit an error, you want to downplay the "interest" of this thread.

  I frankly have no emotional investment in this or any topic, nor any reason to want to "sound" superior, or to prove anything. I merely wanted to make a point about some early church history. All other claims are just that, someone's claim of what they think my emotions or motives are all about.

  Thanks, Jim