The word "Catholic" in the bible

[wondrousgnat]

In another Catholic room I am in some sola scripture person is there attacking the church. One of his arguments is that "Catholic" is not in scripture. However I know that it actually is. The bible was first written in Greek and the bible uses the word "universal" and the Greek word for it is "Catholic."
Anybody know where it is so I can quote it?

 

[Root of Jesse]

In another Catholic room I am in some sola scripture person is there attacking the church. One of his arguments is that "Catholic" is not in scripture. However I know that it actually is. The bible was first written in Greek and the bible uses the word "universal" and the Greek word for it is "Catholic."
Anybody know where it is so I can quote it?

Aside from that, ask him where Trinity and Bible are, in the Bible...

 

[AMDG]

The word "Catholic" first appears in a letter of St. Ignatius of Antioch (110 A.D.) to distinguish Christ's Church from heretical groups. (Faith of the Early Fathers, Jurgens, p. 25, #65) The word "Christian" also originated in Antioch (Acts 11:26) St. Ignatius' letter indicates that by 110 A.D. the original Christian Church was already well known as the "Catholic Church".

 

[Shadow316]

The word "Catholic" first appears in a letter of St. Ignatius of Antioch (110 A.D.) to distinguish Christ's Church from heretical groups. (Faith of the Early Fathers, Jurgens, p. 25, #65) The word "Christian" also originated in Antioch (Acts 11:26) St. Ignatius' letter indicates that by 110 A.D. the original Christian Church was already well known as the "Catholic Church".

110 AD, a number of yrs after the death of the last Apostle. If it was called that during the life of any of them, it would be in the Bible.

 

[ebia]

110 AD, a number of yrs after the death of the last Apostle. If it was called that during the life of any of them, it would be in the Bible.

Why?

 

[AvilaSurfer]

110 AD, a number of yrs after the death of the last Apostle. If it was called that during the life of any of them, it would be in the Bible.

Not necessarily.

 

[wondrousgnat]

Thanks all. You know that when you are dealing with an anti-Catholic you are beating a dead horse. It gets frustrating. You can show bible verses from his own bible to a bible alone person and he will not accept it. And using the Catechism and Vatican 2 to disprove his opinions of church teachings are rejected.
In Exodus 21 it is stated that if you beat a slave who does not die for a day or two is OK. I have a problem with sola scripture there.

 

[LoAmmi]

In Exodus 21 it is stated that if you beat a slave who does not die for a day or two is OK. I have a problem with sola scripture there.

How does the Church reconcile these types of things?

 

[LoAmmi]

Simple. The Magisterium does not teach the "sola scriptura" heresy.

Yes..... that's why I'm asking how it handles those kinds of verses. The text says that if a hit slave survived for a day or two, no punishment is levied at the owner. What is the understanding the Church puts forth for that?

 

[Sword of the Lord]

Yes..... that's why I'm asking how it handles those kinds of verses. The text says that if a hit slave survived for a day or two, no punishment is levied at the owner. What is the understanding the Church puts forth for that?

I am curious, how do Jews reconcile this? And why don't Jews seem to keep practices found in the OT, like stoning and such? Do you guys sacrifice animals anymore (in the States)?

 

[LoAmmi]

I am curious, how do Jews reconcile this? And why don't Jews seem to keep practices found in the OT, like stoning and such? Do you guys sacrifice animals anymore (in the States)?

For that verse specifically, from what I have seen it has to do with intent. The slave dying right away shows that the person intended to kill them while them not doing so shows that they didn't intend to kill them. While that may seem pretty barbaric today (and it is barbaric), it's actually better than other places at the same time where slaves could be killed without a thought. The rabbis would later come out against slavery and I don't know of any Jews who want to return to keeping slaves.

You'll find in the Torah that courts were setup to judge things. Without those courts, capital punishment cannot be carried out at all. Beyond that, there were a lot of requirements put forth in order to actually stone someone because the death penalty was seen as a thing to avoid. You didn't get to make it up to the person if you got it wrong, after all. Any idea people have of random Jews going around stoning their neighbors is basically wrong. It had to be from the courts.

The Tanakh is clear that once the Temple was built, all sacrifices were to take place there. No Temple means no sacrifices, much as it was in Daniel's time when the Temple was destroyed and the Babylonian exile was happening. It wasn't until Cyrus allowed the Jews to return to Israel and rebuild the Temple that they resumed.

 

[AMDG]

I am curious, how do Jews reconcile this? And why don't Jews seem to keep practices found in the OT, like stoning and such? Do you guys sacrifice animals anymore (in the States)?

While we are at that, I have a problem with the way the Shemitah is handled. According to God's word (in the Bible) all debts are to be forgiven and the land must be laid fallow for the year (so the poor can simply take what it produces naturally.) However, I've read that so that people can still hold on to the debts and get repayment, they make out a paper to the rabbi giving the debt to synagogue for the year and as far as the land remaining fallow, if the plants were grown in a greenhouse it doesn't count.

To me this seems like an example of "keeping the letter of the law and not the spirit" that Jesus talked about. Anyway, I'm just over this.

 

[LoAmmi]

While we are at that, I have a problem with the way the Shemitah is handled. According to God's word (in the Bible) all debts are to be forgiven and the land must be laid fallow for the year (so the poor can simply take what it produces naturally.) However, I've read that so that people can still hold on to the debts and get repayment, they make out a paper to the rabbi giving the debt to synagogue for the year and as far as the land remaining fallow, if the plants were grown in a greenhouse it doesn't count.

To me this seems like an example of "keeping the letter of the law and not the spirit" that Jesus talked about. Anyway, I'm just over this.

The land laying fallow no longer applies since we don't live in Israel in Biblical times. The miracle was that the sixth year would produce enough food to last the people that seventh year. That isn't something that happens since Jews were expelled form Israel. Trying to do it now would just result in starvation.

As far as debts, the problem was simple. Poor people became unable to obtain debts at around the six year mark of the seven year cycle since creditors knew that if the poor person didn't repay within the year the debt would be discharged and they would out that money. The intention of the law was not to make it so that people who desperately needed the loan couldn't secure it, so a procedure was put in place so the debt was transferred to the beit din (the courts) because debts to the courts were not discharged. Sure, you can talk about letter of law and not spirit, but the fact is that the spirit of the law was not to deprive the poor from loans. It created a situation that hurt more than helped.

Of note, the court owning the debt means the court could decide how to handle the collection of the debt.

 

[AMDG]

I noticed that you say that we don't live in Israel (and so the land can't be left fallow), but what about those who DO live in Israel? Getting around the command--in Israel--the reason for the all the greenhouse planting there? (I kept wondering why when Israel returned the Gaza strip land they included about 3000 greenhouses in the deal and hoped by that to "jumpstart" the Palestinian's becoming trade partners.)

I know a different culture, but it IS curious to me.

And about the people not being able to get loans in the 6th month because some folks being too fearful of not being paid back at all which caused the rabbi's to have the people simply hand the loan over to the courts during the Shemitah, makes sense. Even the best of intentions (loan forgiveness) have unintended consequences (people being refused loans in year leading up to Shemitah) when man is involved. IMO, man isn't that altruistic.

 

[LoAmmi]

I noticed that you say that we don't live in Israel (and so the land can't be left fallow), but what about those who DO live in Israel? Getting around the command--in Israel--the reason for the all the greenhouse planting there? (I kept wondering why when Israel returned the Gaza strip land they included about 3000 greenhouses in the deal and hoped by that to "jumpstart" the Palestinian's becoming trade partners.)

That country is a modern day, western nation. It is not the Biblical Israel by any stretch of the imagination. It wasn't even the Biblical Israel when the Romans were in charge since the Romans were in charge. It's basically been declared that that kind of thing will not return until Messiah comes. And I'm aware you disagree

I'm not really sure where you found this greenhouse thing. It might be some kind of ultra-Orthodox thing. I view those people as going a bit extreme on stuff. The Talmud stated that the land no longer had to lay fallow because Israel didn't exist anymore.

And about the people not being able to get loans in the 6th month because some folks being too fearful of not being paid back at all which caused the rabbi's to have the people simply hand the loan over to the courts during the Shemitah, makes sense. Even the best of intentions (loan forgiveness) have unintended consequences (people being refused loans in year leading up to Shemitah) when man is involved. IMO, man isn't that altruistic.

Exactly. The Torah commands people to still loan out money even when they know it will be wiped away, but when have rich people ever been that great at doing things that cost them money? So something had to be done because the poor were suffering greatly. One thing to note is that life always supersedes the commandments. A doctor would be violating the Torah by not treating a person on Shabbat that is in any kind of danger. Now, he shouldn't do routine medicine on that day, but if a person falls in their house and needs treatment, the doctor is commanded to do it.

So when it comes to the poor not obtaining loans they desperately need, it could be seen as their life being in danger. They might not be able to afford clothes or food or to remain in their residence.

 

[chilehed]

That country is a modern day, western nation. It is not the Biblical Israel by any stretch of the imagination. It wasn't even the Biblical Israel when the Romans were in charge since the Romans were in charge. It's basically been declared that that kind of thing will not return until Messiah comes. And I'm aware you disagree

I'm not really sure where you found this greenhouse thing. It might be some kind of ultra-Orthodox thing. I view those people as going a bit extreme on stuff. The Talmud stated that the land no longer had to lay fallow because Israel didn't exist anymore.

There are a number of observant Jews observing the Shemittah in Israel nowadays. For example, Israeli Fields Enter Biblical Shmita - Fallow Year - Israel Today | Israel News

But to answer your question, I imagine there's no specific official statement from the Church on how that passage is "dealt with". But what you said about it is congruent with what I understand the sense of the Church to be.

 

[LoAmmi]

There are a number of observant Jews observing the Shemittah in Israel nowadays. For example, Israeli Fields Enter Biblical Shmita - Fallow Year - Israel Today | Israel News

Interesting. Thanks for the article.

 

[LivingWordUnity]

110 AD, a number of yrs after the death of the last Apostle. If it was called that during the life of any of them, it would be in the Bible.

The fact that St. Ignatius calls the Church "the Catholic Church" while taking for granted that everyone already understands what he means suggests that it had already been a common name for the Church before he mentioned it in his letter. Some biblical historians and scholars date the letter of St. Ignatius at 107 AD. But either way, it's still very close to the lifetime of the apostle John who lived a long life and died in the year 100 AD. And St. Ignatius of Antioch was a disciple of John the Apostle and was ordained by St. Peter.

 

[ebia]

The fact that St. Ignatius calls the Church "the Catholic Church" while taking for granted that everyone already understands what he means suggests that it had already been a common name for the Church before he mentioned it in his letter. Some biblical historians and scholars date the letter of St. Ignatius at 107 AD. But either way, it's still very close to the lifetime of the apostle John who lived a long life and died in the year 100 AD. And St. Ignatius of Antioch was a disciple of John the Apostle and was ordained by St. Peter.

Is he using it as a proper name, though, or simply as an adjective.

... where Jesus Christ is, there is the whole church....

 

[LivingWordUnity]

Is he using it as a proper name, though, or simply as an adjective.

... where Jesus Christ is, there is the whole church....

It can be both since the proper name describes the nature of the Church. And whether it was the official name or not doesn't take away from the fact that the Church was called "the Catholic Church" by the early Christians and also the fact that the early Christians believed and practiced the same things that have always been taught by the Catholic Church through all the ages, for example, the Eucharist and the Mass.