Me Again, I just had to respond to the Doc.....James was a Jew. Sorry to break the news to you on this. Also all the NT writers were.....gasp!!! Jews. They were not Catholics as you've been taught.

KFC, So was Jesus! {Shock}  I never said they were not Jews.  Indeed I believe I did state that for the first 300 years or so, Jews and Christians worshipped in the same Temples! (when not being thrown to the lions).

But They started the Church that is known as the Roman Catholic Church, so they may have been Jews, but they created Catholicism.  I was never taught that they Catholics, only that the Catholic Church wrote the New Testament.  And for 1500 years, that was the only Christian religion.  SO those who would condemn Catholics are actually just condeming their roots. 

by AD 90 the bible was fully written.

Better check you history.  Some of the gospels are newer than that.  And that is from not the Catholic Teachings, but from secular historians.  You see, I did actually take some religion courses and {SHock} again!  They were taught not by a priest, brother or nun.  But by a methodist Minister with a doctorate in the History of Early Christian Church.

what about all the millions of marriages entered into before the institution was institutionalized? all societies--christian or otherwise--seem to have a state analogous to western marriage.

I think he/she is implying that the institution of marriage is a gift from God and transcends the man made rituals that we now practice.

I think he/she is implying that the institution of marriage is a gift from God and transcends the man made rituals that we now practice.

I'm guessing she means THIS institution of marriage:

"For this reason a man will leave his father and mother..." (severance)

"...and be united to his wife..." (permanence)

"...and they will become one flesh." (unity)

"The man and his wife were both naked and they felt no shame." (intimacy)


Good luck with KFC, doc... I've had many an occasion to debate with her. She's a scrapper

Yes Doc that's exactly what I'm saying. Marriage was instituted with the first couple by God. And I do believe that God in the marriage is very important not only to it's survival but also for the best it can be.

I also enjoy studying not only scripture but also the bible and from all I've read, John on the Isle of Patmos wrote the book of Revelation in or about 90 Ad. What are you referring to?

Also I am a former Catholic and do not believe the RCC started with the Apostles but later in the 4th Century or so when Christianity was declared the State Religion in Rome. The first Christians were Jews and those on the birthday of the Church (Pentecost) were 3000 strong. Later Cornelius was the first "gentile" in being reached by Peter.

Jesus said "My Kingdom is not part of this world." Before he was killed many tried to make him "King" and he would slip away because that's not what he came for.

I meant to say I also enjoy studying history.....ooops!!

"For this reason a man will leave his father and mother..." (severance) "...and be united to his wife..." (permanence) "...and they will become one flesh." (unity) "The man and his wife were both naked and they felt no shame." (intimacy)

Yes, but the person was arguing what happened before Judiasm, and of course Christiananity.  But I was just suggesting that before man understood, God had already created.  At least that is what I thought they were saying.

I also enjoy studying not only scripture but also the bible and from all I've read, John on the Isle of Patmos wrote the book of Revelation in or about 90 Ad. What are you referring to? Also I am a former Catholic and do not believe the RCC started with the Apostles but later in the 4th Century or so when Christianity was declared the State Religion in Rome. The first Christians were Jews and those on the birthday of the Church (Pentecost) were 3000 strong. Later Cornelius was the first "gentile" in being reached by Peter.

Ok, first things first.  The Gospel of Mark was written about 50 AD.  The Gospel of JOhn, about 150 AD.  According to historians.  The others are also late.  The book was brought together, by the church in the 4th century.  The church at the time was the RCC.  before the Romans accepted Christianity (about 325AD I think) they were fed to the lions.  After that, they were no longer called a sect of judiasm.  And the Catholic Church was born.

However, the people who wrote the book,who edited the book, who created the new Testament, while perhaps in name jewish. were in fact heretics.  Or as they are known today, Catholics.  Every Christian is a Jew (so that is why it is so hard form to see the prejudice against them).  Jesus did not condemn his own.  He merely (according to Christians) fulfilled a promise.

And while the original 12 were Jews, Jesus reached out to gentiles in his life, and his church continued it.

Reply By: KFC(Anonymous User)Posted: Tuesday, November 08, 2005 I meant to say I also enjoy studying history.....ooops!!

me too!  I call it my sinful pleasure as it has nothing to do with my job (computers).

Ok question Doc. ..... how could John write his gospel in 150? He was most likely a teenager or maybe 20 or so in 33 AD right? Well do the math. All the historians I've read put the gospel of John in or around 85-90. I agree with your date on Mark or thereabouts. But John couldn't have lived that long. In AD 90 he would have been around 77 but with your date he would have been about 137 years of age.

I agree with you on the 325 date as the beginning of the RCC. But the ones killed by the Romans were the newly converted Christians. It was the Roman government killing the new Christian converts. They were what I would call your true Catholics (universal). It was the RCC that was killing them. But the two merged as one in the 325 time you mentioned as a result of Constantine declaring Christianity the state Religion. Basically the pagan temples now bore Crosses on them. So all was mixed together.

Kinda confused here....are you saying the Apostles were heretics?

All this church history stuff seems to be about each side trying to justify 'their' church as the original. Catholics claim that they are the main branch that others have separated from, protestants that they are the 'real' church, from which the catholics have wandered off into superstition and error. Both positions are wrong: it is unlikely that the christians of the early church would recognise much of their religion in any of the modern day denominations.

As for 'Roman Catholics', they have only been around for about 150 years. The term is used exclusively in English speaking countries (elsewhere they are simply called 'Catholics') and was first used by High Anglicans in England who claimed that in their theology and worship they were themselves 'catholic' and reformed, and so used the term 'roman catholic' to describe those (other) catholics (in their view) who were loyal to the Bishop of Rome. This form of High Anglicanism had its heyday in the mid nineteenth century Oxford Movement, and many of its leaders (Newman, Manning) eventually decided to just go the whole hog and converted to Rome anyway.

They were what I would call your true Catholics (universal). It was the RCC that was killing them.

This is just bigoted gibberish. It makes no sense at all.

Ok question Doc. ..... how could John write his gospel in 150? He was most likely a teenager or maybe 20 or so in 33 AD right?

How about Mark?  It is generally agreed that the supposed authors of the gospels did not write them.  I know that Paul wrote his letters, but most of the Gospels were stories handed down for years before an anonymous author penned them.

It was the Roman government killing the new Christian converts. They were what I would call your true Catholics (universal). It was the RCC that was killing them.

Until Constantine, the Romans were persecuting the Christians, correct.  The Church is the RCC, not the government of Rome.  There was never an "Us vs them" (although there were sects) as Jesus' basic mesage was to go out and convert Jews and Gentiles.  They made no differentiation between your past.  Your post does not make sense.

Catholics claim that they are the main branch that others have separated from, protestants that they are the 'real' church, from which the catholics have wandered off into superstition and error. Both positions are wrong: it is unlikely that the christians of the early church would recognise much of their religion in any of the modern day denominations.

The Catholic Church traces its roots to Peter, hence their claim.  I dont think anyone is claiming that nothing has changed in the 2000 years since its founding.  Indeed, early masses were a simple meal surrounded by fellowship and prayer, and the early priests were just the hosts of the meals.  It was not until later, when converting Europe, that the pomp and circumstance and mystique came in to play (Thank you Charlemagne).  So to argue that the Church of the 21st century is identical to the Church of the 1st century is foolish, and I doubt anyone would attempt that. However, like all things of man, it still is the same church, it just has aged a few thousand years and picked up (and jettisoned) some extraneous stuff along the way.

The church is people....not a denomination per se. It's Ecclesia (called out ones). We get caught up in the denomination wars but it's not about what group you belong to at all. It's about who you are following. Christians are to follow Christ. That's it, regardless of group. We need to ask ourselves this. Why am I going to said church....to be part of a group, to feel good, for business contacts....etc? Or do I really want to worship God and find out more about him and his way?

Mark wrote his gospel but thru the eyes of Peter. You read about John Mark in Acts. There are 4 gospels and the first three were written 50-60's ad. John was written later around 85-90.

Also what I was saying above was that the government of Rome was persecuting the Christians as you mentioned, but as they did so more and more Christians kept popping up. There was no end. Basically what happened was Rome said...'if you can't beat em join em' and the two were merged and church became a big business. So I call the Christians that were being killed Catholics (universal) and the government Rome so when they came together it was called the Roman Catholic Church. And it wasn't until 1517 that this was separated into the Protestant and RCC with Luther nailing his 95 thesis on the Church door. Does this make sense?

Does this make sense?

Yes, but this:

for business contacts....etc?

Made me laugh!  I know of some people who do go just for that!

But I will disagree with you on the timing of the writing, and only because that is what I was taught when I studied the early church.  As I said, not by any Catholics, but by a Methodist Minister (the Text book we used, which I might still have packed away some where, backed up his teachings).

And finally:

The church is people

Is almost there.  But I would add "with a common set of beliefs".

Well I don't know what text book you were using but John being written in 150 AD or so makes no sense to me and I've never heard that. Maybe their goal was to shed some confusion on the matter...who knows? I'd have to have more detail to comment further. Can you dig it out?

Josephus most of the time is a great go to guy on the history of the early church. He was a Jewish Historian and lived during the first century. He actually witnessed the sacking of Jerusalem in 70 AD. IHe is used in many commentaries especialy his "Antiquities of the Jews" for much info to give us an outside of scripture view of the happenings in and around this time period.

Christ is the head of the church; the head of the body. The NT pictures the church as a body on earth which is controlled by the head which is in heaven. Just as a human body gets its signals from the head the body which is the Church living here on this earth gets its signals from Christ who is the head.

I think that the coldness and deadness today in the churches could be a result of the body separated from it s head. They lost the focus, the signal of Jesus in their lives. The are in danger of losing all their power. Why? Because they are cutting themselves off from the head. Sort of like a disembodied individual walking around without any strength without any direction and without any signals.

Yes the church is found with a common set of beliefs (essentials) regardless of affiliation. The first being that Jesus is Lord of the Earth, Lord of Creation and Lord of our lives. That's a good start.

Well I don't know what text book you were using but John being written in 150 AD or so makes no sense to me and I've never heard that. Maybe their goal was to shed some confusion on the matter...who knows? I'd have to have more detail to comment further. Can you dig it out?

Will try!  I only hope my ex did not decide to keep it (she kept a lot of my stuff, no rhyme or reason).

if not, I will write my college and see if they can dig up an old syllabus.

Thanks....I'd enjoy hearing this guy's reasoning......maybe we can do it over the net if you can get the author's name.

Josephus most of the time is a great go to guy on the history of the early church. He was a Jewish Historian and lived during the first century. He actually witnessed the sacking of Jerusalem in 70 AD. IHe is used in many commentaries especialy his "Antiquities of the Jews" for much info to give us an outside of scripture view of the happenings in and around this time period.

"Taken prisoner by Vespasian, Josephus presented himself as a prophet. Noting that the war had been propelled by an ancient oracle that foretold a world ruler would arise from Judaea, Josephus asserted that this referred to Vespasian, who was destined to become Emperor of Rome. Intrigued, Vespasian spared his life. When this prophecy came true, and Vespasian became Emperor, he rewarded Josephus handsomely, freeing him from his chains and eventually adopting him into his family, the Flavians. Josephus thus became Flavius Josephus."

Taken from:
Link

And also:
"During the remainder of the war, Josephus assisted the Roman commander Titus, Vespasian's son, with understanding the Jewish nation and in negotiating with the revolutionaries. Called a traitor, he was unable to persuade the defenders of Jerusalem to surrender to the Roman siege, and instead became a witness to the destruction of the city and the Holy Temple."

I have several works and compilations of works of Josephus floating around here some place, (too lazy to get up and search for them) . I don't think I'd call him a "go to guy" though. His mentioning of Jesus resides in a passing comment about "certain sects of Jews". He joined the Jewish revolt, was captured, and sold out. His writings have a leaning toward being politically correct for his time. Considering that "bloody" Vespasian would have called his life forfeit if he had written otherwise, I can't say I blame him. Nonetheless, he was still considered a "traitor" by the Jewish people, and his accuracy, suspect at best.

There is no King of England you stupid boy! Good true English Protestants worship God, not a bloody statue.

In one of my wanderings away, and then back again to the RCC, it was explained to me best like this, (appologies to the source, I don't recall if it was written or spoken):

"You carry pictures of your family in your wallet. You don't "worship" them; you carry them as a reminder of their love for you and your love for them. In the same way we have representations of Saints and Martyrs to remind us of God's love for us and what that requires of us."

We've got a hell of a nice statue of Lincoln in DC. I don't worship it, but it sure does remind me of what a great man he was. Don't you have one of Lord Nelson in Trafalgar as well?

We have similar stories Doc. I had to resort to the "Pauline Privilege" once in my Protestant marriage. That one is burried in Catholic Catechism. Old Fr. Cox had to go to the Archdiocese for a ruling on that one! (Boy do Priest's get cranky when you read more than they do!)

Intersting topic Doc, and a lot of colorful responses. I guess when all is said and done, the measure of a (wo)man's faith is her/his wholehearted submission to the judgement of God.

He joined the Jewish revolt, was captured, and sold out.

Thanks for the update!  I was not at all familiar with Josephus.  I guess my History teacher did not hold him in high regard either.

We've got a hell of a nice statue of Lincoln in DC. I don't worship it, but it sure does remind me of what a great man he was. Don't you have one of Lord Nelson in Trafalgar as well?

Great comeback!  One thing I will warn you about is that Sir Peter Maxwell is a caricture.  Never take him seriously. 

"Pauline Privilege"

I had to look that one up!  Well done!  My Priest (I guess he did know, but did not call it that) did tell me that my wife would need to go through a "procedure" as well as my annulment.