Did the first Christians

[ScottBot]

My point exactly...


So far there is zero evidence to support the OP's claim that the first Christians were called "Catholic."

Nor does the verse offered support the claim; there's nothing in the Bible that suggests that.






The term in the second century was used to refer to the WHOLE number of Christians. "Catholic" - whole, universal, complete, all-embracing, the whole number.


MY $0.01...


Pax.


- Josiah


.

Super. I am a Christian member of the Catholic Church. happy?

 

[jckstraw72]

Ack! No, I am talking about beno fide Christian scholars who are intent on PROVING the valiity of Christ, not vice versa

okee thats what i like to hear.

The term in the second century was used to refer to the WHOLE number of Christians. "Catholic" - whole, universal, complete, all-embracing, the whole number.

well yeah.

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

Super. I am a Christian member of the Catholic Church. happy?

More than you know, LOL!

 

[jckstraw72]

being Christian is where its at ya'll.

 

[Yeznik]

Well, they are refered to as Magi, which was a title of mystics of the Mithraic cults. It would be appropriate, considering that outside of paganism, Mithraism was the religion that was most competitive with Christianity outside of Jewish circles. For Mithraic mystics to rever Christ as a king would mean that there was a rejection of their own beliefs.

Actually the word Magi is where we get the english word for magic. The root of the word is from Persian. In the ancient Armenian they are called mohks, which, by today's standards means magicians. Mithras was believed to be the son of god and the savior of the world. Zoroastrianism the has the ideas of monotheism, since they were the first monotheists, they believed in some kind of a holy spirit, a virgin birth, baptism and some other philosophies in which would make them gravitate toward Christianity.

There is also Christ expressing himself as the Truth, the Way, the Light, the Door, which are all apart of eastern religions but Christ’s sets himself as the ultimate definition for what people are seeking in eastern religions as well as western religions of that time. To limit Christians to being Jews, Greeks, Romans etc. is quite trivial due to the fact that what Christ is, appeals to everyone.

Now that being said, there was not an elite group of catholic, orthodox, apostolic etc. that could claim that they were the sole proprietor of the Church. That’s why it was necessary to establish apostolic lineage and councils. The biggest problem of that time was the Gnostics. In the NT the Apostles re-iterate to us to stick to what they have been teaching specifically. The reason being there were a lot of people who listened to Christ’s sermons and teachings, and these people gather different opinions about what Christ taught. Remember when Christ taught there were hundreds if not thousands of people listening.

 

[A. believer]

Zoroastrianism the has the ideas of monotheism, since they were the first monotheists,

Adam and Eve would be the first monotheists, and they definitely weren't Zoroastrians.

 

[tulc]

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?

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). (emph added)

It's in the definition of heresy I posted.
tulc(has had that happen way to often!)

 

[A. believer]

It's in the definition of heresy I posted.
tulc(has had that happen way to often!)

Phew! I can rest easy now.

 

[WarriorAngel]

My point exactly...


So far there is zero evidence to support the OP's claim that the first Christians were called "Catholic."

Nor does the verse offered support the claim; there's nothing in the Bible that suggests that.






The term in the second century was used to refer to the WHOLE number of Christians. "Catholic" - whole, universal, complete, all-embracing, the whole number.


MY $0.01...


Pax.


- Josiah


.

I find it oddly interesting that you call yourself a catholic, but you are sola scriptura. How do you justify the two?

 

[WarriorAngel]

Actually the word Magi is where we get the english word for magic. The root of the word is from Persian. In the ancient Armenian they are called mohks, which, by today's standards means magicians. Mithras was believed to be the son of god and the savior of the world. Zoroastrianism the has the ideas of monotheism, since they were the first monotheists, they believed in some kind of a holy spirit, a virgin birth, baptism and some other philosophies in which would make them gravitate toward Christianity.

There is also Christ expressing himself as the Truth, the Way, the Light, the Door, which are all apart of eastern religions but Christ’s sets himself as the ultimate definition for what people are seeking in eastern religions as well as western religions of that time. To limit Christians to being Jews, Greeks, Romans etc. is quite trivial due to the fact that what Christ is, appeals to everyone.

Now that being said, there was not an elite group of catholic, orthodox, apostolic etc. that could claim that they were the sole proprietor of the Church. That’s why it was necessary to establish apostolic lineage and councils. The biggest problem of that time was the Gnostics. In the NT the Apostles re-iterate to us to stick to what they have been teaching specifically. The reason being there were a lot of people who listened to Christ’s sermons and teachings, and these people gather different opinions about what Christ taught. Remember when Christ taught there were hundreds if not thousands of people listening.

Gnostics definitely were heretical.
Amen, they had to reiterate to stay the course...or get caught in the heresies.

In fact, couldnt we say...."This Epistles was brought to you by Paul to fight heresies...." [official sponsor of anti heresy]
Or same for any of the NT letters actually.

 

[Yeznik]

Adam and Eve would be the first monotheists, and they definitely weren't Zoroastrians.

I agree with you 100%, but I also like to add Adam and Eve weren't Jews either.

 

[WarriorAngel]

Interesting to ponder, but what were Adam and Eve?... just believers. How could they not believe?
God talked to them.

Although we could say they were the first sinners. True that.

 

[A. believer]

I agree with you 100%, but I also like to add Adam and Eve weren't Jews either.

Of course they weren't.

So, now, when you say that Zoroastrians were the first monotheists, what does that imply to you? Zoroastrianism claims to be a revealed religion. Would you claim that the Triune God revealed Himself to the founder of this religion in some imperfect way? Or what?

And why do you accept the early dating of this religion when there's not even any scholarly consensus, nor is there a good reason for accepting it? There's a huge variation in where scholars date this religion!

 

[BBAS 64]

I find it oddly interesting that you call yourself a catholic, but you are sola scriptura. How do you justify the two?

Good Day, WA

To justify would mean there is a contradiction between the two. I see none nor do I draw any so then no justification is needed.

Now if you suppose one, or see one, I would be interested on your basis.

Peace to u,

Bill