• Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.

Did the first Christians

Status
Not open for further replies.

Dang. 17 years too late to be early christians or does this count? I know you said you wanted it to be pre-90AD but 107 ain't bad right?
 
Upvote 0

ScottBot

Revolutionary
May 2, 2005
50,468
1,441
58
a state of desperation
✟57,712.00
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Libertarian
There is none. The first written evidence we have is a letter from St. Ignatius of Antioch in which he calls the CHURCH Catholic. Ignatius was a firm believer in the hierarchal structure of the church, which appears to be well established less than 70 years after Christ's ascension.

"Wherever the bishop appears, let the congregation be present, just as wherever Jesus Christ is, so is the catholic church." - 8th Letter to the Smyrneans
 
Upvote 0
If anyone would like to read part of that letter:


But you know what does he know after all. Ignatius was only a student of Peter and John so he probably had a bunch of stuff wrong. I mean he talks about the Eucharist being real AND a bishop too. No way he could have known anything.... HE was only the third patriarch of Antioch.
 
Upvote 0

ScottBot

Revolutionary
May 2, 2005
50,468
1,441
58
a state of desperation
✟57,712.00
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Libertarian
If he only had a KJV bible available to him he would have been steered away from such a grave error.
 
Upvote 0

a_ntv

Ens Liturgicum
Apr 21, 2006
6,329
259
✟56,513.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Celibate
A. believer said:
Are you saying that Paul began a process of "changing who Jesus was?"

In facts, as soon as 40 years after Jesus death, there where already a lots of different ways to understand christianity
- the way of Paul and John
- the way of James, the brother of the Lord (who followed also the Jews Laws)
- the gnostic way (salvation through secret knowledge)

If we follow the line of Paul and John, in 80 years we get a lot of new divisions:
- Marcione way (God of old testament is different from God of Christ)
- Montano way (waiting for the End of the World on about 170 a.c)
- and so on

(each of those had his own gospels, letters, readings)

It was only in the next two centuries that the "orthodox way" grow to became the main stream (and so orthodoxy defined what is in the Bible and waht is not in)

I dont think it is correct to use the world HERETIC for the early divisions. There was not jet a unity to divide!!! No Catholic indeed

For sure it is correct to fight againt false believe, because He is the True.
 
Upvote 0
The Bible calls them Christians.

Hey Lynn get this. Ignatius was the Patriarch of Antioch when this was written.
(Acts 11:26) And when he had found him, he brought him unto Antioch. And it came to pass, that a whole year they assembled themselves with the church, and taught much people. And the disciples were called Christians first in Antioch.

Ain't that a kick in the pants? Confirmation of the Eucharist and the heirarchy of the church in the same time that the book of Acts was written from the patriarch of the city where the disciples were first called Christians.

Thoughts?

(did you happen to see the part where he says: "he who does anything without the knowledge of the bishop, does [in reality] serve the devil."?)
 
Upvote 0

ScottBot

Revolutionary
May 2, 2005
50,468
1,441
58
a state of desperation
✟57,712.00
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Libertarian
Its not in the bible.
 
Upvote 0

Leah

2 Corinthians 5:21
May 26, 2005
4,957
527
✟7,700.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
CaliforniaJosiah said:
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


.

YES!!
 
Upvote 0

jckstraw72

Doin' that whole Orthodox thing
Dec 9, 2005
10,160
1,145
41
South Canaan, PA
Visit site
✟79,442.00
Faith
Eastern Orthodox
Marital Status
Engaged
Politics
US-Republican
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

since we realize that "catholic" means universal, what difference does it make if the universal church was specifically called universal or not?
 
Upvote 0

ScottBot

Revolutionary
May 2, 2005
50,468
1,441
58
a state of desperation
✟57,712.00
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Libertarian
jckstraw72 said:
since we realize that "catholic" means universal, what difference does it make if the universal church was specifically called universal or not?
Yes, if its not in the bible its a man-made doctrine. Haven't you been paying attention man?
 
Upvote 0

ScottBot

Revolutionary
May 2, 2005
50,468
1,441
58
a state of desperation
✟57,712.00
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Libertarian
Yeznik said:
Whats even more interesting is the first people who worshipped Christ were the Magi. And we know that the Magi were from the east and most probably Zoroastrians.

Most recent scholarly analysis thinks them to be Mythraic mystics.
 
Upvote 0
Y

Yeznik

Guest
Scott_LaFrance said:
Most recent scholarly analysis thinks them to be Mythraic mystics.

That is an offshoot from Zoroastrianism. Just like Zurvanism was. Great post btw. I have researched it a little, the Magi were not only the top religious priest but kings as well. I have heard that they were either Parthian (Persian) Armenian, Arabic, Indian (from India).
 
Upvote 0

ScottBot

Revolutionary
May 2, 2005
50,468
1,441
58
a state of desperation
✟57,712.00
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Libertarian
jckstraw72 said:


scholarly shmolarly. thats what i say.
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.
 
Upvote 0

jckstraw72

Doin' that whole Orthodox thing
Dec 9, 2005
10,160
1,145
41
South Canaan, PA
Visit site
✟79,442.00
Faith
Eastern Orthodox
Marital Status
Engaged
Politics
US-Republican

si si, im just skeptic of "scholars" after taking a NT class that set out to disprove everything in the NT, and after reading a Jesus Seminar book (didnt know who they were when i bought it).
 
Upvote 0

ScottBot

Revolutionary
May 2, 2005
50,468
1,441
58
a state of desperation
✟57,712.00
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Libertarian
jckstraw72 said:


si si, im just skeptic of "scholars" after taking a NT class that set out to disprove everything in the NT, and after reading a Jesus Seminar book (didnt know who they were when i bought it).
Ack! No, I am talking about beno fide Christian scholars who are intent on PROVING the valiity of Christ, not vice versa.
 
Upvote 0

CaliforniaJosiah

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Aug 6, 2005
17,496
1,568
✟229,195.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Lutheran
Marital Status
Private
Politics
US-Republican
Scott_LaFrance said:
There is none.


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


.
 
Upvote 0
Status
Not open for further replies.