evolution of denominations from there forward can be traced .. so if you want to be technical a denomination called "the way" ceased to exist .. yet Jesus said "these are my brothers and sisters" .. so "the church" is actually "the kingdom within" not without ..
First Church?
- Thread starter Sweet Pea
- Start date
evolution of denominations from there forward can be traced .. so if you want to be technical a denomination called "the way" ceased to exist .. yet Jesus said "these are my brothers and sisters" .. so "the church" is actually "the kingdom within" not without ..
I applaud any denomination (or individual) that teaches to love ..
and admonish any denomination (or individual) that teaches to have a critical spirit towards their brethren ..
RiverJordan
Inactive
Lysander, I get the feeling that you're trying very hard to not say something, so I won't push this any further.
Haha, if it's coming off that way, then it goes to show how bad I am at explaining certain things
In short, you asked if I believe all non-Catholics are hell-bound. It would have been clearer if I answered it this way; non-Catholics put themselves at great risk of being hell-bound. Does this mean ONLY people who die Catholic can go to heaven? Not quite -- this is still in great discussion, and this also tends to bring in the discussion of purgatory and what purgatory is. Or perhaps it's better to say that only Catholics are in heaven, but this couldn't mean a Protestant can die a Protestant and not go to heaven. However, could it mean Protestants may find themselves going to hell for denying Catholicism? It certainly can, especially if they intentionally reject it despite what they've come to know.
Does this also mean all Catholics go to heaven? Probably not. Again, this is something still being discussed. A Catholic can be a Catholic only by name and even by religious practice, but he may not be a Christian if his religion falls empty and his works are only of himself and not God.
Jhn 14:6 Jesus said to him, "I am the way, and the truth, and the life; no one comes to the Father but through Me.
"The Way" in all these verses are a proper noun ..
Act 9:2 and asked for letters from him to the synagogues at Damascus, so that if he found any belonging to the Way, both men and women, he might bring them bound to Jerusalem.
Act 19:9 But when some were becoming hardened and disobedient, speaking evil of the Way before the people, he withdrew from them and took away the disciples, reasoning daily in the school of Tyrannus.
Act 19:23 About that time there occurred no small disturbance concerning the Way.
Act 24:14 "But this I admit to you, that according to the Way which they call a sect I do serve the God of our fathers, believing everything that is in accordance with the Law and that is written in the Prophets;
Act 24:22 But Felix, having a more exact knowledge about the Way, put them off, saying, "When Lysias the commander comes down, I will decide your case."
"The Way" in all these verses are a proper noun ..
Act 9:2 and asked for letters from him to the synagogues at Damascus, so that if he found any belonging to the Way, both men and women, he might bring them bound to Jerusalem.
Act 19:9 But when some were becoming hardened and disobedient, speaking evil of the Way before the people, he withdrew from them and took away the disciples, reasoning daily in the school of Tyrannus.
Act 19:23 About that time there occurred no small disturbance concerning the Way.
Act 24:14 "But this I admit to you, that according to the Way which they call a sect I do serve the God of our fathers, believing everything that is in accordance with the Law and that is written in the Prophets;
Act 24:22 But Felix, having a more exact knowledge about the Way, put them off, saying, "When Lysias the commander comes down, I will decide your case."
MichaelH
Inactive
Haha, if it's coming off that way, then it goes to show how bad I am at explaining certain things
In short, you asked if I believe all non-Catholics are hell-bound. It would have been clearer if I answered it this way; non-Catholics put themselves at great risk of being hell-bound. .
Jesus said anyone who says his brother is worthless, not salvageable for wrong done "IS IN DANGER" of hell fire. Matt 5:22
Jesus said anyone who rails against the Holy Spirit or takes a position against "IS IN DANGER" of eternal damnation. Mark 3:29
You said Non-Catholics put themselves at the same Risk Jesus mentioned above.
Would that be then to say you look at all Non-Cathloics as in being in this group Jesus mentioned?
I believe you would have enough sense not to make a comment that can't be backed by a scripture, however I can't find it anywhere for some odd reason. Would you be kind enough to provide the scripture (At least one) where the word puts non-Cathloics in the danger of hell?
You normally seem level headed I would not like to think of you as someone that just makes stuff up just to be making stuff up. Everything I type on here I make sure I can back with scripture. It's out of respect to others if I have to make something clear.
Just the scripture please so I can have that reference. I would not like to think you fell into some land of make believe.
blessings.
No, MichaelH. To begin, you are asking me to assume the position of judgement that only rests on Christ. There are many protestants who dedicate their lives in the most purest form to Jesus. They love Him with all their hearts, obey Him, and seek out and even in many cases, risk their lives or give them up for Him. It would be hard to believe, with all the scriptural evidence and teachings of God's mercy that they will suffer hell fire.
You forgot to include passages that express those who do not even put their faith in Christ will suffer hell fire. I'm not saying this is the position of Protestants, but I am saying you have chosen only two passages out of many others about those who are at risk of damnation.
MichaelH, you are asking me to find scriptures in the words I put? We both know those words don't exist in the Bible. Can you provide me a verse word-for-word where it says the trinity (and you must find a passage that says the word "trinity") is true? You won't find that as the word "trinity" isn't in the Bible. You are only trying to argue on your own grounds rather than Biblical grounds.
Is there scriptural backing for the sentiment I provided? Yes! And we've even discussed it in multiple threads -- from the repenting, to the Eucharist, to Baptism, to the sacrament of Reconciliation, to salvation through grace, to the role of both faith and works, etc. And I've provided verses for each one of these as well. I'll provide them briefly once more since you explicitly asked for scriptures:
Salvation through Grace - Ephesians 2:8-9
Repentance and Baptism - Acts 2:38
The Eucharist - 1 Corinthians 11:27-39 (possibly one of the strongest passages about the seriousness of the Eucharist)
Reconciliation (confession) - John 20:21-23
Faith and Works - James 2:20-26
Matthew 19:16-17 says "And someone came to Him and said, 'Teacher, what good thing shall I do that I may obtain eternal life?' And He said to him, 'Why are you asking Me about what is good? There is only One who is good; but if you wish to enter into life, keep the commandments.'"
By no means would I make stuff up just out of nowhere. If I don't know something, I will admit it without a problem -- I don't know everything, and I am still learning as best I can. However, coming to the conclusion about Catholicism was a long and stressful journey, but a worthy one nonetheless. And my relationship with God has only grown stronger from it.
Last edited:
you do not find the word katholiko in the NT ..
put it is there all the same .. however not as a denominational name, but as a teaching of Christ, and an Apostolic teaching ..
you will find it in many places .. a good example is Eph 4:13 as henotēs ..
so if Lysander meant it in the manner in which the RCC was so named, I agree .. but if he meant it as only a particular denomination, then I disagree ..
so if you are non-Katholiko or non-Catholic (english) then you do in fact put yourself as risk ..
1Jo 4:20 If someone says, “I love God,” and hates his brother, he is a liar; for the one who does not love his brother whom he has seen, cannot love God whom he has not seen.
1Jo 4:21 And this commandment we have from Him, that the one who loves God should love his brother also.
Last edited:
Very eloquently put, ixoye_8. And you are right, I indeed meant the latter. I would also agree with you and MichaelH that by name, this will not be found.
here is my data on it's origin ..
106 AD - A letter written by Ignatius of Antioch to Christians in Smyrna (Smyrnaeans) is the earliest surviving witness to the use of the term Catholic Church (katholike ekklesia). The words run: "Wheresoever the bishop shall appear, there let the people be, even as where Jesus may be, there is the universal [katholike] Church."
155 AD - The term is also used in the Martyrdom of Polycarp
177 AD - The term is used many times in the Muratorian fragments
for example, it is said of certain heretical writings that they "cannot be received in the Catholic Church". A little later, Clement of Alexandria speaks very clearly. "We say", he declares, "that both in substance and in seeming, both in origin and in development, the primitive and Catholic Church is the only one, agreeing as it does in the unity of one faith" (Stromata, VII, xvii; P.G., IX, 552). From this and other passages which might be quoted, the technical use seems to have been clearly established by the beginning of the third century. In this sense of the word it implies sound doctrine as opposed to heresy, and unity of organization as opposed to schism (Lightfoot, Apostolic Fathers, Part II, vol. I, 414 sqq. and 621 sqq.; II, 310-312). In fact Catholic soon became in many cases a mere appellative--the proper name, in other words, of the true Church founded by Christ, just as we now frequently speak of the Orthodox Church, when referring to the established religion of the Russian Empire, without adverting to the etymology of the title so used. It was probably in this sense that the Spaniards Pacian (Ep. i ad Sempron.) writes, about 370: "Christianus mihi nonem est, catholicus cognomen", and it is noteworthy that in various early Latin expositions of the Creed, notably that of Nicetas of Remesiana, which dates from about 375 (ed. Burn, 1905, p. lxx), the word Catholic in the Creed, though undoubtedly coupled at that date with the words Holy Church, suggests no special comment. Even in St. Cyprian (c. 252) it is difficult to determine how far he uses the word Catholic significantly, and how far as a mere name. The title, for instance, of his longest work is "On the Unity of the Catholic Church", and we frequently meet in his writings such phrases as catholica fides (Ep. xxv; ed. Hartel, II, 538); catholica unitas (Ep. xxv, p. 600); catholica regula (Ep. lxx, p. 767), etc. The one clear idea underlying all is orthodox as opposed to heretical, and Kattenbusch does not hesitate to admit that in Cyprian we first see how Catholic and Roman came eventually to be regarded as interchangeable terms. (Cf. Harnack, Dogmengeschichte, II, 149-168.) Moreover it should be noted that the word Catholica was sometimes used substantively as the equivalent of ecclesia Catholica. An example is to be found in the Muratorian Fragment, another seemingly in Tertullian (De Praescrip, xxx), and many more appear at a later date, particularly among African Writers.
The date of the original Greek composition lying behind the present Latin text has generally been agreed to lie in the middle or end of the second century because of the statement in the fragment that "Hermas wrote the Shepherd very recently in our times in the city of Rome, when Bishop Pius, his brother, was sitting in the chair of the Church of Rome."
St. Pius I (140-155)
Clement of Alexandria speaks very clearly. "We say", he declares, "that both in substance and in seeming, both in origin and in development, the primitive and Catholic Church is the only one, agreeing as it does in the unity of one faith" (Stromata, VII, xvii; P.G., IX, 552). From this and other passages which might be quoted, the technical use seems to have been clearly established by the beginning of the third century.
106 AD - A letter written by Ignatius of Antioch to Christians in Smyrna (Smyrnaeans) is the earliest surviving witness to the use of the term Catholic Church (katholike ekklesia). The words run: "Wheresoever the bishop shall appear, there let the people be, even as where Jesus may be, there is the universal [katholike] Church."
155 AD - The term is also used in the Martyrdom of Polycarp
177 AD - The term is used many times in the Muratorian fragments
for example, it is said of certain heretical writings that they "cannot be received in the Catholic Church". A little later, Clement of Alexandria speaks very clearly. "We say", he declares, "that both in substance and in seeming, both in origin and in development, the primitive and Catholic Church is the only one, agreeing as it does in the unity of one faith" (Stromata, VII, xvii; P.G., IX, 552). From this and other passages which might be quoted, the technical use seems to have been clearly established by the beginning of the third century. In this sense of the word it implies sound doctrine as opposed to heresy, and unity of organization as opposed to schism (Lightfoot, Apostolic Fathers, Part II, vol. I, 414 sqq. and 621 sqq.; II, 310-312). In fact Catholic soon became in many cases a mere appellative--the proper name, in other words, of the true Church founded by Christ, just as we now frequently speak of the Orthodox Church, when referring to the established religion of the Russian Empire, without adverting to the etymology of the title so used. It was probably in this sense that the Spaniards Pacian (Ep. i ad Sempron.) writes, about 370: "Christianus mihi nonem est, catholicus cognomen", and it is noteworthy that in various early Latin expositions of the Creed, notably that of Nicetas of Remesiana, which dates from about 375 (ed. Burn, 1905, p. lxx), the word Catholic in the Creed, though undoubtedly coupled at that date with the words Holy Church, suggests no special comment. Even in St. Cyprian (c. 252) it is difficult to determine how far he uses the word Catholic significantly, and how far as a mere name. The title, for instance, of his longest work is "On the Unity of the Catholic Church", and we frequently meet in his writings such phrases as catholica fides (Ep. xxv; ed. Hartel, II, 538); catholica unitas (Ep. xxv, p. 600); catholica regula (Ep. lxx, p. 767), etc. The one clear idea underlying all is orthodox as opposed to heretical, and Kattenbusch does not hesitate to admit that in Cyprian we first see how Catholic and Roman came eventually to be regarded as interchangeable terms. (Cf. Harnack, Dogmengeschichte, II, 149-168.) Moreover it should be noted that the word Catholica was sometimes used substantively as the equivalent of ecclesia Catholica. An example is to be found in the Muratorian Fragment, another seemingly in Tertullian (De Praescrip, xxx), and many more appear at a later date, particularly among African Writers.
The date of the original Greek composition lying behind the present Latin text has generally been agreed to lie in the middle or end of the second century because of the statement in the fragment that "Hermas wrote the Shepherd very recently in our times in the city of Rome, when Bishop Pius, his brother, was sitting in the chair of the Church of Rome."
St. Pius I (140-155)
Clement of Alexandria speaks very clearly. "We say", he declares, "that both in substance and in seeming, both in origin and in development, the primitive and Catholic Church is the only one, agreeing as it does in the unity of one faith" (Stromata, VII, xvii; P.G., IX, 552). From this and other passages which might be quoted, the technical use seems to have been clearly established by the beginning of the third century.
my heart tells me the Catholic church does have original roots .. but so would the Greek Orthodox and Syrian .. they are the only three that can claim non-loss of roots ..
I do not believe the church of Jerusalem can claim this ..
however, newer denominations are not therefore disqualified as belonging to Christ as long as they or any older ones do not vary from the Gospel of Salvation handed down to the Apostles and from the Apostles .. seriously doctrine is NOT the tenants of Faith, and that is what matters ..
I do not believe the church of Jerusalem can claim this ..
however, newer denominations are not therefore disqualified as belonging to Christ as long as they or any older ones do not vary from the Gospel of Salvation handed down to the Apostles and from the Apostles .. seriously doctrine is NOT the tenants of Faith, and that is what matters ..
MichaelH
Inactive
OK, so the short answer is you just made it up.
As there is ZERO scripture that even comes close to the comment.
Also all other things are Practiced except we call it taking communion. If you ever been to a mass it's not much different giving respect to the blood and body of Jesus.
So that makes the Statement that Non-Cathloics may be in danger of hell, whatever. To be make believe as you listed everything all believers practice.
You keep forgetting in these discussions that repentance, communion, Confessing sin to God, and so on are normal practices by all believers (Most anyway) these are not something invented by a Baptist church or a Catholic church since both were not even around or can even be proved they were around during the time Acts took place. Just saying there were Christians at the time of Acts so they must be Baptist is not going to cut it, so Baptist must be the right and first church is fairy tale land.
trinity:
There is ONE scripture (Some think it a forgery since jerome (Latin Vulgate) did not have it or add it and it was only added in the 3rd edition of the Greek accepted text (Ersamus not wanting to add it thinking it also a fake but did so to keep the peace)
Is that there are 3 that bare record the father, word, Holy Spirit these three are ONE.
3 separate beings that are as ONE.......... TRINITY.
Husband and wife are one Flesh............ Mystery
All other attempts to say Jesus is the Word is god is oneness, Modelist postion and full of scripture contradictions and goofy thinking. Trinity never made any such other scripture claims.
So, trinity just might be there, though I am not a Trinitarian because trinity also says Jesus is the 2nd person in the Godhead and there is no scripture for that.
There is a difference between "christian things" and Catholic things,. all Christians believe the same thing else they are not Christians.
There is no Catholic Doctrine that I know of saying if you don't believe in vampires (Holy water) or don't bother Mary constantly that you are not a Christian. Nothing about keeping mass not making you a believer. I have never seen Catholics put out this stipulation anywhere. Witch burnings, yea, but it's always been to believe on the lord Jesus Christ. Rome has come down with some heavy handed stuff, but never Have I seen History that you have to practice any belief to be saved but what is written in the word.
So any comparisons that point to Believer does not make it a denominational thing.
Blessings.
As there is ZERO scripture that even comes close to the comment.
Also all other things are Practiced except we call it taking communion. If you ever been to a mass it's not much different giving respect to the blood and body of Jesus.
So that makes the Statement that Non-Cathloics may be in danger of hell, whatever. To be make believe as you listed everything all believers practice.
You keep forgetting in these discussions that repentance, communion, Confessing sin to God, and so on are normal practices by all believers (Most anyway) these are not something invented by a Baptist church or a Catholic church since both were not even around or can even be proved they were around during the time Acts took place. Just saying there were Christians at the time of Acts so they must be Baptist is not going to cut it, so Baptist must be the right and first church is fairy tale land.
trinity:
There is ONE scripture (Some think it a forgery since jerome (Latin Vulgate) did not have it or add it and it was only added in the 3rd edition of the Greek accepted text (Ersamus not wanting to add it thinking it also a fake but did so to keep the peace)
Is that there are 3 that bare record the father, word, Holy Spirit these three are ONE.
3 separate beings that are as ONE.......... TRINITY.
Husband and wife are one Flesh............ Mystery
All other attempts to say Jesus is the Word is god is oneness, Modelist postion and full of scripture contradictions and goofy thinking. Trinity never made any such other scripture claims.
So, trinity just might be there, though I am not a Trinitarian because trinity also says Jesus is the 2nd person in the Godhead and there is no scripture for that.
There is a difference between "christian things" and Catholic things,. all Christians believe the same thing else they are not Christians.
There is no Catholic Doctrine that I know of saying if you don't believe in vampires (Holy water) or don't bother Mary constantly that you are not a Christian. Nothing about keeping mass not making you a believer. I have never seen Catholics put out this stipulation anywhere. Witch burnings, yea, but it's always been to believe on the lord Jesus Christ. Rome has come down with some heavy handed stuff, but never Have I seen History that you have to practice any belief to be saved but what is written in the word.
So any comparisons that point to Believer does not make it a denominational thing.
Blessings.
God the Father gave specific instructions, laws, to the Jews as they wondered in the desert on their everyday life, not as an oppression but as a way of direction, which Jews still to this day try their best to adhere to...
Revelations states not to change any word or add any word to God's inspired gospel... Peter and Paul were given tasks as leaders of the flock of Christ and to keep the newly formed churches to be on the true path of Christ. Paul is the one that continually praised or admonished churches and followers if they were or were not on the path of Christ. He set down doctrine which a lot of people call it the ''Pauline doctrine'' as a guide for all Christians to follow, such as the role of women and men in a marriage, how to dress and to conduct oneself in church, how to deal one with another... by following Paul we see how the Roman Catholic church is doing also, setting guides for all the followers to follow so that it prevents all from making up their own ways of how they want to walk on the path of Christ. Even if one is not of any denomination does it mean that they can stray from how to be a Cristian...? Of course not, yet like Paul said if we follow the commandments of God we naturally do what Christ taught us in His gospels... this is what the RCC does with its followers by giving all guidance, teaches them on conduct, on marriage, on reverence to our Lord and God the Christ. As a RC when i pass a church i do the sign of the cross, and as my pastor said we do this because in that church abides Christ and in reverence to His divinity we either bow to Him or as i do when passing a church i do the sign of the cross. Does everyone here think that anyone who is a Christian understands what is written in the Bible...? How would you then explain to them the meaning of the written Word of God...? And, if they asked what they should do, or what to wear, how to pray, or how to speak to others, and they asked to write it down would you not put in a context of directions...? Of course, you would try to make it simple and loving for that person to understand for now what it is to be a Christian and then allow them to learn more and more as they grow in the faith.
This is what the Catholic church does and the RCC has vast information which is stored in Rome, manuscripts, icons, relics, and so much more that we don't know yet, and yes they are the keepers and a stabilizing force for all Christians no matter what denomination they go by... and they do not ever say they are better than others they just try and bring the Word of God to all who would listen...
Revelations states not to change any word or add any word to God's inspired gospel... Peter and Paul were given tasks as leaders of the flock of Christ and to keep the newly formed churches to be on the true path of Christ. Paul is the one that continually praised or admonished churches and followers if they were or were not on the path of Christ. He set down doctrine which a lot of people call it the ''Pauline doctrine'' as a guide for all Christians to follow, such as the role of women and men in a marriage, how to dress and to conduct oneself in church, how to deal one with another... by following Paul we see how the Roman Catholic church is doing also, setting guides for all the followers to follow so that it prevents all from making up their own ways of how they want to walk on the path of Christ. Even if one is not of any denomination does it mean that they can stray from how to be a Cristian...? Of course not, yet like Paul said if we follow the commandments of God we naturally do what Christ taught us in His gospels... this is what the RCC does with its followers by giving all guidance, teaches them on conduct, on marriage, on reverence to our Lord and God the Christ. As a RC when i pass a church i do the sign of the cross, and as my pastor said we do this because in that church abides Christ and in reverence to His divinity we either bow to Him or as i do when passing a church i do the sign of the cross. Does everyone here think that anyone who is a Christian understands what is written in the Bible...? How would you then explain to them the meaning of the written Word of God...? And, if they asked what they should do, or what to wear, how to pray, or how to speak to others, and they asked to write it down would you not put in a context of directions...? Of course, you would try to make it simple and loving for that person to understand for now what it is to be a Christian and then allow them to learn more and more as they grow in the faith.
This is what the Catholic church does and the RCC has vast information which is stored in Rome, manuscripts, icons, relics, and so much more that we don't know yet, and yes they are the keepers and a stabilizing force for all Christians no matter what denomination they go by... and they do not ever say they are better than others they just try and bring the Word of God to all who would listen...
MichaelH
Inactive
Yes, that has been my whole point about the "RCC" They teach, admonish, take care of folks. I give to the Catholic food pantry in town because they do a awesome work here. None of these practices separate the RCC from other denominations though as there are many good works other than RCC. Each body has a part, and should do their part as instructed by the Lord.
So we have nothing separating RCC concerning works and salvation. The only separating comes from religious practices not mentioned by the Word which is every denomination. Holy Water for example.
blessings.
my data puts the church of Romes origin at least at 60 ad ..
(possibly as early as 50 ad) ..
there was an established Church in Rome before Paul got there as attested to in Rom 1:7-10 & Act 28:14,15 .. indeed, between Peter & Linus there was a void as head of the Church (or at least an unknown bishop) but the reason is attested to in Act 18:2, whereas Caesar Claudius expelled the Jews, and when Nero became Caesar, we once again see Jews in Rome (Act 28:17) ..
so Peter possibly was there shortly before 50ad Council in Jerusalem, then returned sometime after 54ad ..
41AD-54AD Cladius
54AD-68AD Nero
Rom 1:7 to all who are beloved of God in Rome, called as saints: Grace to you and peace from God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ.
Rom 1:8 First, I thank my God through Jesus Christ for you all, because your faith is being proclaimed throughout the whole world.
Rom 1:9 For God, whom I serve in my spirit in the preaching of the gospel of His Son, is my witness as to how unceasingly I make mention of you,
Rom 1:10 always in my prayers making request, if perhaps now at last by the will of God I may succeed in coming to you.
also notice Paul's letter to the Church of Rome (who he bragged on) opened the same as EVERY letter to EVERY Church He wrote to .. and if these "saints" were not established, then tell me WHERE he sent the letter known as "Romans" to, if he had not yet been there as he said ???
it seems to me, the early Church father's indicate that Clement may have succeeded Peter as an "over seer", then Linus made 1st Bishop, then Clement made 2nd Bishop ..
OR
Cletus was the 1st "over seerer" during the period the Peter and the Jews were expelled from Rome by Caesar Claudius .. if so, that means Cletus would have been a Gentile ..
According to Seneca Nero sentenced hundreds of Christians to die by "tunica molesta" a naphtha impregnated "shirt of torture"
I refer you to Juvenal, VIII.235
Martial, X.25.5
Seneca, Epistles, XIV.5 ..
Seneca was an adviser to Nero who was a hater of Christians ..
and according to Eusebius, Seneca WAS a Christian ("our Seneca") .. so Seneca was in a restricted position to mention them directly .. and some scholars hold Nero had Seneca poisoned when discovered he was a Christian ..
so indeed, Seneca did not use the word "Christian" directly, but was definitely talking about them in the references I gave ..
(possibly as early as 50 ad) ..
there was an established Church in Rome before Paul got there as attested to in Rom 1:7-10 & Act 28:14,15 .. indeed, between Peter & Linus there was a void as head of the Church (or at least an unknown bishop) but the reason is attested to in Act 18:2, whereas Caesar Claudius expelled the Jews, and when Nero became Caesar, we once again see Jews in Rome (Act 28:17) ..
so Peter possibly was there shortly before 50ad Council in Jerusalem, then returned sometime after 54ad ..
41AD-54AD Cladius
54AD-68AD Nero
Rom 1:7 to all who are beloved of God in Rome, called as saints: Grace to you and peace from God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ.
Rom 1:8 First, I thank my God through Jesus Christ for you all, because your faith is being proclaimed throughout the whole world.
Rom 1:9 For God, whom I serve in my spirit in the preaching of the gospel of His Son, is my witness as to how unceasingly I make mention of you,
Rom 1:10 always in my prayers making request, if perhaps now at last by the will of God I may succeed in coming to you.
also notice Paul's letter to the Church of Rome (who he bragged on) opened the same as EVERY letter to EVERY Church He wrote to .. and if these "saints" were not established, then tell me WHERE he sent the letter known as "Romans" to, if he had not yet been there as he said ???
it seems to me, the early Church father's indicate that Clement may have succeeded Peter as an "over seer", then Linus made 1st Bishop, then Clement made 2nd Bishop ..
OR
Cletus was the 1st "over seerer" during the period the Peter and the Jews were expelled from Rome by Caesar Claudius .. if so, that means Cletus would have been a Gentile ..
According to Seneca Nero sentenced hundreds of Christians to die by "tunica molesta" a naphtha impregnated "shirt of torture"
I refer you to Juvenal, VIII.235
Martial, X.25.5
Seneca, Epistles, XIV.5 ..
Seneca was an adviser to Nero who was a hater of Christians ..
and according to Eusebius, Seneca WAS a Christian ("our Seneca") .. so Seneca was in a restricted position to mention them directly .. and some scholars hold Nero had Seneca poisoned when discovered he was a Christian ..
so indeed, Seneca did not use the word "Christian" directly, but was definitely talking about them in the references I gave ..
the Liberian Catalogue presents Peter as the first Bishop of Rome and Linus as his successor in the same office. The Liber Pontificalis also presents a list that makes Linus the second in the line of bishops of Rome, after Peter; but at the same time it states that Peter ordained two bishops, Linus and Cletus, for the priestly service of the community, devoting himself instead to prayer and preaching, and that it was to Clement that he entrusted the Church as a whole, appointing him as his successor.
so it seems semantics is in play as an "over seer" was the one "in charge" but not an "official Bishop" .. thus the founding Church Fathers testimony depends on if they are being "technical or not concerning the term "Bishop" ..
the Greek supports it ..
the name "Cletus" in Ancient Greek means "one who has been called" ..
and the name "Anacletus" means "one who has been called back" ..
thus as "over seer" was known as "Cletus" ..
and as "Bishop" was known as "Anencletus" .
Thank you Michael, we are all part of His body and we all should work together to bring fruit for our Lord.
In terms of the holy water how would you then explain all the Christians, and not just Catholics, that do pilgrimages to Israel and dip themselves in the same waters as Christ did when He was baptized...?
And, i am sure they take some of the water with them, i know i would... i have a cross that comes from Israel and it is made of the same wood as that of the trees in Mount Olivet and i cherish this very much because it is something of the same land of our Lord. A lot of those pilgrims also take some of the dirt of the Via Dolorosa with them ...Did not Paul send a piece of his garment to heal:
Acts 19:11 God did extraordinary miracles through Paul, 12 so that when the handkerchiefs or aprons that had touched his skin were brought to the sick, their diseases left them, and the evil spirits came out of them.
Paul was not divine, but he was a holy man of God and because he was holy he was able to heal with just a piece of his garment and not even be there.
Holy water is like holy oil when anointing someone who is sick and dying, holy water is also used for us RC as a symbolic way of washing ourselves clean before we enter the church, not when exiting .
Roman historian Suetonius (69–122ad)
the Jewish Christians there (most likely Peter and those Jews he converted) were tossed out of Rome ..
A statement in Divus Claudius 25 involves the agitations in the Roman Jewish community which led to the expulsion of Jews from Rome by Claudius in AD 49. Louis Feldman states that most scholars assume that the disturbances were due to the spread of Christianity in Rome.
There were at least two expulsions of Jews from Rome before the event that Suetonius mentions. In 139 BC the Jews were expelled after being accused of aggressive missionary efforts. Then in AD 19 Tiberius once again expelled Jews from the city for similar reasons. By the beginning of the reign of Claudius (i.e. AD 41) Jews had come to Rome once again and were in such numbers that the emperor was worried.
Dunn states that the disturbances Suetonius refers to were likely caused by the objections of Jewish community to the continued preachings by early Christians. Lane states that the cause of the disturbance was likely the preachings of Hellenistic Jews in Rome and their insistence that Jesus was the Messiah, resulting in tensions with the Jews in Rome.
Köstenberger believes the expulsion of the Jews which Suetonius mentions is likely the same event mentioned in the Acts of the Apostles (18:2) which discusses how Apostle Paul met Priscilla and Aquila:
"And he found a certain Jew named Aquila, a man of Pontus by race, lately come from Italy, with his wife Priscilla, because Claudius had commanded all the Jews to depart from Rome."
Donna Hurley notes that Acts provides a date of 49, but adds that neither Tacitus nor Dio "reports an expulsion in 49 or 50 as would be expected if there had been a large exodus of the Jewish community", concluding that '"all" is probably a hyperbole.'
(most likely only the much smaller Jewish Christian population)
Last edited:
MichaelH
Inactive
I think its pretty clear since there is a book by Paul called Romans that there might have been believers in Rome. What does this have to do with the Catholic church though? There is nothing in scripture that would separate Catholic from any other denomination.
I pray in tongues, I have laid hands on the sick and seen them recover. I have spoken Prophecy many times. I repent when I sin and I have gotten help when my faults are to much for me. I believe the word and don't waiver, or fear. Jesus will find me in faith when he returns.
Catholics don't much teach to seek tongues, always get their butt kicked in the movies trying to deal with devils and Not heard one good Catholic sermon about operating in the gifts of the Spirit..... (though I know this is changing in many places)
So, that has to only mean one thing. That means the Word of Faith church was here first. There is even a scripture with our denomination included.
Rom 10:8 But what saith it? The word is nigh thee, even in thy mouth, and in thy heart: that is, the word of faith, which we preach;
Nothing mentioned about Methodist or Baptist or Catholic. So, the first church by example and being mentioned in scripture was the Word of faith Church.
I hope what i just typed above with the same reasoning used by others here concerning the Catholic Church sounded stupid. I certainly would not connect nonsense like that to my Church and I hope others have the same sense.
Blessings.
No! Actually I agree with almost every word...I misjudged no one with my questions. I also did not receive answers. I received diversion. I asked Rosa concerning that specified post "IYO are only Roman Catholics "the true church" and when YOU use the word Catholic do you only mean Roman Catholics?" The question was not intended to begin a firestorm just to initiate clarity. Rosa has still not answered my questions.
As for what I believe, I believe the true church (the ekklesia of God) IS the catholic church and it is comprised of all who are truly born from above (for without the Spirit of Christ in you, you are none of His). In a practical sense, all local bodies founded by the Apostles, whose first leaders were those taught by and appointed by the founding Apostle (whether Jerusalem, Smyrna, Antioch, Rome, Ephesus, etc.,) are the one holy apostolic church, but all who attended these are not necessarily His children unless they were birthed into a new creature IN CHRIST.
That being said, when re-reading this post I referred to, I still am looking forward to an honest straight forward answer as I would give being a brother in the Lord...
a) IYO are only Roman Catholics "the true Church", and
b) When Rosa used the word Catholic did this mean to ROSA only Roman Catholics
Simple...yes/no...
In His love
Brother Paul