Did the first Christians

Status
Not open for further replies.
The word Catholic means universal. It is the Church that is universal - not the person.
As far as heresy goes - they were dealt with by priests and bishops. You might be interested in reading about the councils. The first one was in Acts 15. You can clearly see that there was a heresy that had cropped up (Judaizing) and that the church elders(bishops) were correcting it.
 
Upvote 0

tulc

loves "SO'S YER MOM!! posts!
May 18, 2002
49,401
18,801
68
✟271,570.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
I kind of like the definition from dictionary.com
heresy
from a Greek word signifying (1) a choice, (2) the opinion chosen, and (3) the
sect holding the opinion. In the Acts of the Apostles (5:17; 15:5; 24:5, 14;
26:5) it denotes a sect, without reference to its character. Elsewhere,
however, in the New Testament it has a different meaning attached to it. Paul
ranks "heresies" with crimes and seditions (Gal. 5:20). This word also denotes
divisions or schisms in the church (1 Cor. 11:19). In Titus 3:10 a "heretical
person" is one who follows his own self-willed "questions," and who is to be
avoided. Heresies thus came to signify self-chosen doctrines not emanating from
God (2 Pet. 2:1).
the original meaning saw it as just different not wrong, it took on stronger meaning as people started changing who Jesus was. But it wasn't until the Church started being identified with the State that it became dangerous to your health to believe a heresy. (IMHO)
tulc(thankful for the seperation of Church and State) :)
 
Upvote 0

CaliforniaJosiah

Well-Known Member
Supporter
Aug 6, 2005
17,466
1,568
✟206,695.00
Faith
Lutheran
Marital Status
Private
Politics
US-Republican
WarriorAngel said:
Whom called themselves Catholic 'Katholick'
have the right to fight against heresies??

What evidence do you have that the first Christians (we're likely talking 30-90 AD) called themselves "Catholic?" I see some evidence that they called themselves Christians and also brothers but no evidence of "Catholic."


The word "catholic" means "whole, universal, complete, all-embracing, collective." It doesn't refer to a person, it refers to the WHOLE body of believers, the whole company of believers, the Body of Christ.


MY $0.01...


Pax.


- Josiah



.
 
Upvote 0

CaliforniaJosiah

Well-Known Member
Supporter
Aug 6, 2005
17,466
1,568
✟206,695.00
Faith
Lutheran
Marital Status
Private
Politics
US-Republican
WarriorAngel said:
BUT if the CHURCH was ONE...


IMO, it still is. Always has been, always will be. The gates of hell shall not prevail against it, although men certainly have tried - and still do, doing their best to divide Christian from Christian.


MY $0.01...


Pax.


- Josiah


.
 
Upvote 0

Wavy

Regular Member
Nov 1, 2005
187
10
✟7,981.00
Faith
Messianic
Marital Status
Single
The first Christians (if you define "Christian" as a believer in Christ) were called "Nazarenes" and "followers of the Way", not "Catholic".

If anything, had you went back in time, they would have appeared as Jews (in appearance and in manner). Quite different from what we have today with any "Christian church"; Protestant, Catholic or otherwise.
 
  • Like
Reactions: tulc
Upvote 0

WarriorAngel

I close my eyes and see you smile
Supporter
Apr 11, 2005
72,739
9,305
United States Pennsylvania
Visit site
✟428,786.00
Country
United States
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Private
tulc said:
...to preserve that unity?
tulc(I'm just guessing here)

;) I TOTALLY agree.:hug:

So what heresies were fought?

AND if the heresies were not fought, not just in the times of the Apostles, but always...could we say then that unity could not live on if at any time heresies were accepted??

:scratch:

Did Jesus only allow Apostolic times to be error free?

Or did He die for all, for all time? And did He preserve unity by keeping someone or thing with the Truth?:scratch:

Is it possible, being God, that He protected His truth?
Or do we even have truth today?

 
Upvote 0

WarriorAngel

I close my eyes and see you smile
Supporter
Apr 11, 2005
72,739
9,305
United States Pennsylvania
Visit site
✟428,786.00
Country
United States
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Private
Wavy said:
The first Christians (if you define "Christian" as a believer in Christ) were called "Nazarenes" and "followers of the Way", not "Catholic".

If anything, had you went back in time, they would have appeared as Jews (in appearance and in manner). Quite different from what we have today with any "Christian church"; Protestant, Catholic or otherwise.

But weren't many Gentiles?

And what about the Galileans who were the Apostles?
Wouldnt they consider themselves Galileans still?

Weren't they the ones who first, after His Mother, to believe in Him?
So why would they call themselves Nazarene?

Because the Lord was called Christ, and thus the Bible tells us Christians.

The Bible also uses a term in Hebrew [or it is Greek]:scratch: for Universal which is Katholic.

'Go ye and baptize 'all nations' [katholick]'

 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Eruliel

Well-Known Member
Jun 26, 2005
663
48
36
In Christ
Visit site
✟1,065.00
Faith
Anglican
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Others
WarriorAngel said:
BUT if the CHURCH was ONE...why did they need to correct anyone??

Weren't divisions ok, as long as they all believed in Christ?

DIDN'T Jesus accept all who called out to Him??

They needed to correct people because unaddressed sin is the quickest way to destroy a church. Jesus commands correction when a fellow sibling in Christ is found in grave error (Matthew 18:15-20). I would say that a heresy that doesn't teach what the apostles taught is a grave error. In fact it's to be condemned (Galatians 1:6-10)

Depends on the division. If a church grew too large then perhaps they divided to create a sister church. But unity has always been prayed for (John 17), and exhorted (Romans 14:17-19). In fact division over small things that we do/eat/drink wasn't good at all (Romans 14).
And division to get rid of a heretical teacher was exhorted, but then if the heresy was so errant as to teach that Jesus was created and not God, then the heresy and those who taught it were not Christian, so it was more of a weeding process than a division.

As far as calling on Jesus. He forgave even when those who hurt (wait no that's an understatement)those that killed him were unrepentant. At the same time in Matthew 18 he says if someone is not repentant even after talking to the entire assembly he should be thrown out from amongst the group until he comes to his senses. He forgave but did not accept...is that the difference?

Anyway often times heretical views on Jesus turned him into less than God, either into an angel, or a man who was tuned in to heavenly frequencies. That is not the true Jesus, therefore if Jesus accepts those who call on him (which he does), but if they are calling on the wrong Jesus how can the true Jesus accept them?
That's the way I see it anyway,
Slainte!
Eruliel
 
  • Like
Reactions: a_ntv
Upvote 0

WarriorAngel

I close my eyes and see you smile
Supporter
Apr 11, 2005
72,739
9,305
United States Pennsylvania
Visit site
✟428,786.00
Country
United States
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Private
Eruliel said:
They needed to correct people because unaddressed sin is the quickest way to destroy a church. Jesus commands correction when a fellow sibling in Christ is found in grave error (Matthew 18:15-20). I would say that a heresy that doesn't teach what the apostles taught is a grave error. In fact it's to be condemned (Galatians 1:6-10)

I agree.

Depends on the division. If a church grew too large then perhaps they divided to create a sister church. But unity has always been prayed for (John 17), and exhorted (Romans 14:17-19). In fact division over small things that we do/eat/drink wasn't good at all (Romans 14).

Please explain sister Church. :) Same beliefs, just located in another town?

And division to get rid of a heretical teacher was exhorted, but then if the heresy was so errant as to teach that Jesus was created and not God, then the heresy and those who taught it were not Christian, so it was more of a weeding process than a division.

I forget which heresy that was. :scratch: Adoptionists?

As far as calling on Jesus. He forgave even when those who hurt (wait no that's an understatement)those that killed him were unrepentant. At the same time in Matthew 18 he says if someone is not repentant even after talking to the entire assembly he should be thrown out from amongst the group until he comes to his senses. He forgave but did not accept...is that the difference?

:amen:

Anyway often times heretical views on Jesus turned him into less than God, either into an angel, or a man who was tuned in to heavenly frequencies. That is not the true Jesus, therefore if Jesus accepts those who call on him (which he does), but if they are calling on the wrong Jesus how can the true Jesus accept them?
That's the way I see it anyway,
Slainte!
Eruliel

Pretty much then, if we take bits and pieces and accept them like the heretics did and refuse to repent of those ideas, then we are in the wrong.
Of which then is a divided unit? Correct?
 
Upvote 0

A. believer

Contributor
Jun 27, 2003
6,196
216
63
✟22,460.00
Faith
Calvinist
Marital Status
Married
tulc said:
I kind of like the definition from dictionary.com

the original meaning saw it as just different not wrong, it took on stronger meaning as people started changing who Jesus was. But it wasn't until the Church started being identified with the State that it became dangerous to your health to believe a heresy. (IMHO)
tulc(thankful for the seperation of Church and State) :)

Are you saying that Paul began a process of "changing who Jesus was?"
 
Upvote 0

ScottBot

Revolutionary
May 2, 2005
50,456
1,441
56
a state of desperation
✟57,712.00
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Libertarian
WarriorAngel said:
Whom called themselves Catholic 'Katholick'
have the right to fight against heresies??
No, everyone has the right to read the Scriptures for themselves and determine what they want to believe in. This principle is timeless. The Holy Spirit will lead all the faithful to Truth.
 
  • Like
Reactions: WarriorAngel
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

WarriorAngel

I close my eyes and see you smile
Supporter
Apr 11, 2005
72,739
9,305
United States Pennsylvania
Visit site
✟428,786.00
Country
United States
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Private
A. believer said:
Of course. And so do Christians today have not only the right, but the responsibility.

:cool: So I concur and with that, what were the heresies? But more over, are the heretics allowed to believe the way they found the truth?

Why were they fought against??

DIdn't Christ die for all?
 
Upvote 0

A. believer

Contributor
Jun 27, 2003
6,196
216
63
✟22,460.00
Faith
Calvinist
Marital Status
Married
WarriorAngel said:
:cool: So I concur and with that, what were the heresies?

There are a number of them. Why are you asking?

But more over, are the heretics allowed to believe the way they found the truth?

I don't understand this question either. Are you asking whether heretics ought to be executed?

Why were they fought against??

Because heretical views pervert the gospel. I strongly recommend a book called The Cruelty of Heresy to you and to everyone.


DIdn't Christ die for all?

Do you now want to get into a discussion on the extent of the atonement?

I must confess that I continually find your train of thought terribly difficult to follow, (especially when I try to rely on your actual words to do so.)
 
Upvote 0

A. believer

Contributor
Jun 27, 2003
6,196
216
63
✟22,460.00
Faith
Calvinist
Marital Status
Married
tulc said:
Uhmm no, more like defending against people who wanted to make Him something other then who He was. :)
tulc(sorry I wasn't clear) :)

Ah, I see.

Now am I losing my mind? I could swear that the post I responded to from you mentioned Paul. Now you may have edited your post for clarification, but I don't see any mention of Paul in my post where I quoted you, and I know you can't edit my post! Can you?
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

CaliforniaJosiah

Well-Known Member
Supporter
Aug 6, 2005
17,466
1,568
✟206,695.00
Faith
Lutheran
Marital Status
Private
Politics
US-Republican
WarriorAngel said:
The Bible also uses a term in Hebrew [or it is Greek]:scratch: for Universal which is Katholic.

'Go ye and baptize 'all nations' [katholick]'

"Poreuthentes oun mathmteusate panta ta ethan, baptizontees autous eis to onama tou patpos kai tou uiou sai tou agion pneumatos."

Nope. Nowhere in the Bible are Chrisitans called "Catholic."

What evidence do you have that the first Christians (roughly 30-90 AD) were called "Catholic?"


- Josiah


.
 
Upvote 0
Status
Not open for further replies.