Catholicism - Heart and Soul of a Great Nation

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
61

[quote]katzenjammer wrote:

[quote]mse2us wrote:

[quote]katzenjammer wrote:

[quote]mse2us wrote:
A church is a building or place of worship.
[/quote]

Wrong. That is simply NOT what the Church is. Unfortunately for you, your whole argument turns on that (false) premise. [/quote]
My point in that one sentence is that the first century christians were not called a church. They were called a congregation which according to dictionary.com is an assembly of persons brought together for common religious worship.

Look up the definition of church at dictionary.com you will see that the first definition is: a building for public Christian worship.

Do you see the difference? The congregation are the people, a church originally was just a building. The christians in the Bible would often meet in individuals homes to discuss the Bible. Later people broadly used the term Church to define the people. My whole argument is not about the definition of the word Church. I just stated that in one or two sentences. Did you read my whole reply. I know it’s long but if you read it you will see what it’s really talking about.[/quote]

Sorry, I don’t go to “dictonary.com” for a definition of the Church.

What you’re really doing is asserting an arbitrary, fallacious, loaded definition of what the Church is - and from that arguing your “loaded” case. Which is another way of saying that you’re playing word games.

I’ll repeat: the Church is not a building. You clearly don’t understand what the Church is; therefore, it is not possible for you to argue which came first.

[/quote]
I’m not playing word games. When people say “I’m going to church today or I was at church,” what are they talking about? What do you think of? Do you think of the the Catholic or Baptist religion as a whole when someones says that or do you picture a building where people go to meet . I know that today people use the term church to refer to the a religious organization as a whole. I’m not disputing that. My point, and for some reason you fail to understand, is that I’m replying to your statement you made about the Catholic Church existing before the Bible. That is a false statement. The Christian congregation existed before the Bible, not the Catholic church. It’s a historical fact that it did not come into existence until the fourth century A.D.

62

[quote]mse2us wrote:

[quote]katzenjammer wrote:

[quote]mse2us wrote:

[quote]katzenjammer wrote:

[quote]mse2us wrote:
A church is a building or place of worship.
[/quote]

Wrong. That is simply NOT what the Church is. Unfortunately for you, your whole argument turns on that (false) premise. [/quote]
My point in that one sentence is that the first century christians were not called a church. They were called a congregation which according to dictionary.com is an assembly of persons brought together for common religious worship.

Look up the definition of church at dictionary.com you will see that the first definition is: a building for public Christian worship.

Do you see the difference? The congregation are the people, a church originally was just a building. The christians in the Bible would often meet in individuals homes to discuss the Bible. Later people broadly used the term Church to define the people. My whole argument is not about the definition of the word Church. I just stated that in one or two sentences. Did you read my whole reply. I know it’s long but if you read it you will see what it’s really talking about.[/quote]

Sorry, I don’t go to “dictonary.com” for a definition of the Church.

What you’re really doing is asserting an arbitrary, fallacious, loaded definition of what the Church is - and from that arguing your “loaded” case. Which is another way of saying that you’re playing word games.

I’ll repeat: the Church is not a building. You clearly don’t understand what the Church is; therefore, it is not possible for you to argue which came first.

[/quote]
I’m not playing word games. When people say “I’m going to church today or I was at church,” what are they talking about? What do you think of? Do you think of the the Catholic or Baptist religion as a whole when someones says that or do you picture a building where people go to meet . I know that today people use the term church to refer to the a religious organization as a whole. I’m not disputing that. My point, and for some reason you fail to understand, is that I’m replying to your statement you made about the Catholic Church existing before the Bible. That is a false statement. The Christian congregation existed before the Bible, not the Catholic church. It’s a historical fact that it did not come into existence until the fourth century A.D.[/quote]

More word games. I understand what you’re saying, you see - it’s not that hard. However, I don’t think you realize how off the mark you are. And I’m not going to help you.

What I said was that the Church existed before the Bible.

That^^ is a historical fact.

But, you see, you can’t even begin to understand that because you don’t simply understand what the Church is. That much at least is abundantly clear.

63

[quote]katzenjammer wrote:

[quote]mse2us wrote:

[quote]katzenjammer wrote:

[quote]mse2us wrote:

[quote]katzenjammer wrote:

[quote]mse2us wrote:
A church is a building or place of worship.
[/quote]

Wrong. That is simply NOT what the Church is. Unfortunately for you, your whole argument turns on that (false) premise. [/quote]
My point in that one sentence is that the first century christians were not called a church. They were called a congregation which according to dictionary.com is an assembly of persons brought together for common religious worship.

Look up the definition of church at dictionary.com you will see that the first definition is: a building for public Christian worship.

Do you see the difference? The congregation are the people, a church originally was just a building. The christians in the Bible would often meet in individuals homes to discuss the Bible. Later people broadly used the term Church to define the people. My whole argument is not about the definition of the word Church. I just stated that in one or two sentences. Did you read my whole reply. I know it’s long but if you read it you will see what it’s really talking about.[/quote]

Sorry, I don’t go to “dictonary.com” for a definition of the Church.

What you’re really doing is asserting an arbitrary, fallacious, loaded definition of what the Church is - and from that arguing your “loaded” case. Which is another way of saying that you’re playing word games.

I’ll repeat: the Church is not a building. You clearly don’t understand what the Church is; therefore, it is not possible for you to argue which came first.

[/quote]
I’m not playing word games. When people say “I’m going to church today or I was at church,” what are they talking about? What do you think of? Do you think of the the Catholic or Baptist religion as a whole when someones says that or do you picture a building where people go to meet . I know that today people use the term church to refer to the a religious organization as a whole. I’m not disputing that. My point, and for some reason you fail to understand, is that I’m replying to your statement you made about the Catholic Church existing before the Bible. That is a false statement. The Christian congregation existed before the Bible, not the Catholic church. It’s a historical fact that it did not come into existence until the fourth century A.D.[/quote]

More word games. I understand what you’re saying, you see - it’s not that hard. However, I don’t think you realize how off the mark you are. And I’m not going to help you.

What I said was that the Church existed before the Bible.

That^^ is a historical fact.

But, you see, you can’t even begin to understand that because you don’t simply understand what the Church is. That much at least is abundantly clear.

[/quote]
If you’re calling the Christian congregation the Church then yes it did exist before the Bible.
But the Catholic Church did not exist before the Bible. I’m sorry I thought this topic was about the Catholic church. Please explain to me how it’s “abundantly clear” that I don’t understand the “Church.”

64

[quote]mse2us wrote:
If you’re calling the Christian congregation the Church then yes it did exist before the Bible.[/quote]

Okay, so let’s call it the “Pre-Bible Church,” okay? Now, were they merely a group of people sitting around twiddling their thumbs? Or did they do things? Perform certain sorts of actions? Believe in certain things? Debate about what had happened? Etc?

65

[quote]katzenjammer wrote:

[quote]mse2us wrote:
If you’re calling the Christian congregation the Church then yes it did exist before the Bible.[/quote]

Okay, so let’s call it the “Pre-Bible Church,” okay? Now, were they merely a group of people? Or did they do things? Perform certain sorts of actions? Believe in certain things? Debate about what had happened? Etc?

[/quote]
Jesus called his disciples a flock. What’s a flock? It’s a group of sheep. So yes Jesus’ disciple started out as a small flock or group and grew into a large flock or group that became the Christian congregation. At John 10:16 Jesus states that his disciples would be ONE Flock or group under ONE SHEPARD. Paul restates this at Ephesians 4:5 when he said:
“one Lord, one faith, one baptism.” So there is ONE group or Flock that God calls his people. This is how it was with the Israelites and with Christians in the Bible. God had one group that was his chosen people. He dealt exclusively with the nation of Israel and there was ONE faith or way to worship God. When the Israelites deviated from that ONE way to worship God he did not approve. It was the same with the Christian congregation. Once they became his chosen people they exclusively were the one true religion. If Israelites wanted to be approved by God they had to stop following there current form of worship and become Christians. This is exactly what Paul had to do to become a follower of Jesus. He couldn’t continue in the religion he was raised in. He had to adjust his thinking and believe and worship with the ONE true religion at that time. It is the same today.

66

[quote]mse2us wrote:
Jesus called his disciples a flock. What’s a flock? It’s a group of sheep.[/quote]

Yep.

67

Interesting that HH titled the thread as such.

Here is a link with some info on the religions of our founding fathers

Looks like they were mostly Episcopalian/Anglican.

Just something to ponder over.

68

[quote]mse2us wrote:

[quote]katzenjammer wrote:

[quote]mse2us wrote:
If you’re calling the Christian congregation the Church then yes it did exist before the Bible.[/quote]

Okay, so let’s call it the “Pre-Bible Church,” okay? Now, were they merely a group of people? Or did they do things? Perform certain sorts of actions? Believe in certain things? Debate about what had happened? Etc?

[/quote]
Jesus called his disciples a flock. What’s a flock? It’s a group of sheep. So yes Jesus’ disciple started out as a small flock or group and grew into a large flock or group that became the Christian congregation. At John 10:16 Jesus states that his disciples would be ONE Flock or group under ONE SHEPARD. Paul restates this at Ephesians 4:5 when he said:
“one Lord, one faith, one baptism.” So there is ONE group or Flock that God calls his people. This is how it was with the Israelites and with Christians in the Bible. God had one group that was his chosen people. He dealt exclusively with the nation of Israel and there was ONE faith or way to worship God. When the Israelites deviated from that ONE way to worship God he did not approve. It was the same with the Christian congregation. Once they became his chosen people they exclusively were the one true religion. If Israelites wanted to be approved by God they had to stop following there current form of worship and become Christians. This is exactly what Paul had to do to become a follower of Jesus. He couldn’t continue in the religion he was raised in. He had to adjust his thinking and believe and worship with the ONE true religion at that time. It is the same today.[/quote]

This is getting silly. So let’s call the Pre-Bible Church “a Flock,” okay? Will that satisfy you?

Now, were they (aforementioned “Flock”) merely a group of people sitting around twiddling their thumbs? Or did they do things? Perform certain sorts of actions? Believe in certain things? Debate about what had happened? Etc?

I know you don’t want to answer this because you know it will undermine your whole argument. Either that, or you really just don’t know.

69

[quote]lanchefan1 wrote:
Interesting that HH titled the thread as such.

Here is a link with some info on the religions of our founding fathers

Looks like they were mostly Episcopalian/Anglican.

Just something to ponder over.[/quote]

Yes, some high (nearly Catholic/Anglo-Catholic), some low. That’s true. But another thing to consider is, look at what’s happening to the Episcopal Church in the absence of a Magisterium. It’s tearing itself apart and likely won’t survive much longer. My local parish, for example, was literally taken over by Wicca Practioners posing as Priests - no kidding.

For more silliness (barbie dolls, etc.) go here: http://blogs.the-american-interest.com/wrm/2010/04/11/faith-matters-will-barbie-save-the-episcopal-church/comment-page-1/#comment-4248

70

[quote]lanchefan1 wrote:
Interesting that HH titled the thread as such.

Here is a link with some info on the religions of our founding fathers

Looks like they were mostly Episcopalian/Anglican.

Just something to ponder over.[/quote]

At the time, the view was that the Pope wanted to take over the world. There was heavy prejudice against Catholics. Can you even imagine a Founding Father being Catholic, which was considered to be one notch above being black, at the time?

The USA is slowly being dominated by those who form a large bloc and adhere to a set of moral principles…hence the thread.

71

[quote]mse2us wrote:

If you’re calling the Christian congregation the Church then yes it did exist before the Bible.
But the Catholic Church did not exist before the Bible. I’m sorry I thought this topic was about the Catholic church. Please explain to me how it’s “abundantly clear” that I don’t understand the “Church.”[/quote]

Incorrect. The church and the NT scripture evolved together. All apostolic traditions can trace their clerical lineage directly to an apostle.
The Orthodox and Anglican sect branched off of the one church but kept the apostolic tradition alive. The evangelical disciplines branched off and abandoned the apostolic tradition, in favor of a scriptural tradition. But make no mistake, the Roman Catholic church is the church that remains from the church that Jesus himself established when he ordained Peter the rock and de facto first pope. The Roman Catholic Church is the only one that can trace it’s roots completely unbroken to the apostles with Peter as the head of the church. The orthodox churches gave that up when breaking with the papal tradition and the holy see…This is historical fact.

72

There would not be a Bible if not for the Catholic Church.

I’ve found that the “knowledge” that non-Catholic Christians have of the Catholic Church is largely based on lies and half-truths.

Jesus personally founded the Catholic Church almost 2000 years ago. All the traditions of the Catholic Church are traditions personally passed down to the Apostles from Jesus.

73

I have to ask this question. Not trying to throw a wrench in this discussion, but has to be brought up. Where does the Eastern Orthodox Church come from? At One point both chruches were one church. You had all the Bishops aroung the Mediteranian that helped Cannonized the Bible and the Bishop in Rome, and Constantinople were part of this. This includes the Pope and the Patriarch. Both Churches have an apostolic claim IMO.

74

[quote]OKLAHOMA STATE wrote:
There would not be a Bible if not for the Catholic Church.

I’ve found that the “knowledge” that non-Catholic Christians have of the Catholic Church is largely based on lies and half-truths.

Jesus personally founded the Catholic Church almost 2000 years ago. All the traditions of the Catholic Church are traditions personally passed down to the Apostles from Jesus.[/quote]

Rubbish.

75

[quote]Rational Gaze wrote:

[quote]OKLAHOMA STATE wrote:
There would not be a Bible if not for the Catholic Church.

I’ve found that the “knowledge” that non-Catholic Christians have of the Catholic Church is largely based on lies and half-truths.

Jesus personally founded the Catholic Church almost 2000 years ago. All the traditions of the Catholic Church are traditions personally passed down to the Apostles from Jesus.[/quote]

Rubbish.[/quote]

You’ll have to do better than that, Hoss. In the face of overwelming evidence, your one word is garbage with out some sort of factual proof.

76

[quote]dmaddox wrote:
I have to ask this question. Not trying to throw a wrench in this discussion, but has to be brought up. Where does the Eastern Orthodox Church come from? At One point both chruches were one church.

You had all the Bishops aroung the Mediteranian that helped Cannonized the Bible and the Bishop in Rome, and Constantinople were part of this. This includes the Pope and the Patriarch. Both Churches have an apostolic claim IMO.[/quote]

I’d have to look it up to be specific, but as usual it was politics and they did not like the pope of the time and didn’t care for taking orders. But they are correct in their apostolic tradition. They maintain the ordination tradition and are in fact very similar. Roman Catholics can attend and partake of the sacraments in an orthodox church in the absence of a RC one.

77

Pat, some Popes bought their seat. Some Popes were simply the bastard son of the previous Pope. If this represents a holy, apostolic succession to you, ordained and protected by God, then I fear you too may be “drunk with the wine of her fornication”.

78

[quote]mcdugga wrote:
Pat, some Popes bought their seat. Some Popes were simply the bastard son of the previous Pope. If this represents a holy, apostolic succession to you, ordained and protected by God, then I fear you too may be “drunk with the wine of her fornication”.[/quote]

79

[quote]OKLAHOMA STATE wrote:
There would not be a Bible if not for the Catholic Church.

I’ve found that the “knowledge” that non-Catholic Christians have of the Catholic Church is largely based on lies and half-truths.

Jesus personally founded the Catholic Church almost 2000 years ago. All the traditions of the Catholic Church are traditions personally passed down to the Apostles from Jesus.[/quote]

Indisputable.

80

[quote]katzenjammer wrote:

[quote]OKLAHOMA STATE wrote:
There would not be a Bible if not for the Catholic Church.

I’ve found that the “knowledge” that non-Catholic Christians have of the Catholic Church is largely based on lies and half-truths.

Jesus personally founded the Catholic Church almost 2000 years ago. All the traditions of the Catholic Church are traditions personally passed down to the Apostles from Jesus.[/quote]

Indisputable. [/quote]

Hardly.