The RCC born in 313 AD? (2)

[Targaryen]

I think it was quite the opposite. He used His humanity for examples (think of the wilderness temptations) and occasionally divinity shone thru (think Mt of transformaton) He used the power of the HS to show us how we can now do the same.

No...it's not one or the other....orthodox thought rightly teaches that Jesus is fully man and fully God upon the Incarnation. He had human frailty and consequences yes, how else could the crucifixion happen? but that does not mean he was not divine upon earth either. The wilderness tested the humanity sure....but how else do you think he passed that trial?

 

[Citizen of the Kingdom]

No...it's not one or the other....orthodox thought rightly teaches that Jesus is fully man and fully God upon the Incarnation. He had human frailty and consequences yes, how else could the crucifixion happen? but that does not mean he was not divine upon earth either. The wilderness tested the humanity sure....but how else do you think he passed that trial?

your words not mine.

 

[~Anastasia~]

Commenting - just because I'm interested in this conversation and want to subscribe.

I want to ask you too, Cassia, to be sure I understand you. Maybe it's just a matter of semantics. I'm trying to think what you mean by "office". And I'm interested in how it can be said that Jesus becomes the Son of God only upon His death? Do I understand you correctly there?

I do think that goes against the Nicene Creed if I understand you correctly? Maybe I misunderstand what you mean?

I don't know the Scripture reference offhand. The Creed says:

I believe in one God, the Father Almighty, Maker of heaven and earth, and of all things visible and invisible.

And in one Lord Jesus Christ, the only-begotten Son of God, begotten of the Father before all worlds; God of God, Light of Light, very God of very God; begotten, not made, being of one substance with the Father, by whom all things were made.

I've been questioning lately to make sure I understand the exact meaning of parts of the Creed. I haven't asked this specific question, but it seems to clearly say that Christ was begotten of the Father before the creation of the world, which would safely mean that He had to be "the Son of God" before the incarnation.

Interested in comments from anyone else as well, but it seems straightforward to me. I'll have to add it to my list to be sure.

 

[Citizen of the Kingdom]

Commenting - just because I'm interested in this conversation and want to subscribe.

I want to ask you too, Cassia, to be sure I understand you. Maybe it's just a matter of semantics. I'm trying to think what you mean by "office". And I'm interested in how it can be said that Jesus becomes the Son of God only upon His death? Do I understand you correctly there?

I do think that goes against the Nicene Creed if I understand you correctly? Maybe I misunderstand what you mean?

I don't know the Scripture reference offhand. The Creed says:

I believe in one God, the Father Almighty, Maker of heaven and earth, and of all things visible and invisible.

And in one Lord Jesus Christ, the only-begotten Son of God, begotten of the Father before all worlds; God of God, Light of Light, very God of very God; begotten, not made, being of one substance with the Father, by whom all things were made.

I've been questioning lately to make sure I understand the exact meaning of parts of the Creed. I haven't asked this specific question, but it seems to clearly say that Christ was begotten of the Father before the creation of the world, which would safely mean that He had to be "the Son of God" before the incarnation.

Interested in comments from anyone else as well, but it seems straightforward to me. I'll have to add it to my list to be sure.

Hi Kylissa, well for starters the begotten of the Nicine code was what I first brought up so no it has nothing to do with that.
Offices are what the job title. Jesus was not mediator or high priest on earth for example.
Upon His death a seed fell into the ground. That seed brought forth life or the ability to bring forth life. Except it fall into the ground it would be of non effect .... to us of course ... which brings about the different office.

 

[~Anastasia~]

Hi Kylissa, well for starters the begotten of the Nicine code was what I first brought up so no it has nothing to do with that.
Offices are what the job title. Jesus was not mediator or high priest on earth for example.
Upon His death a seed fell into the ground. That seed brought forth life or the ability to bring forth life. Except it fall into the ground it would be of non effect .... to us of course ... which brings about the different office.

Thanks, and sorry about that. I read some old posts but not the whole thread, not by a long shot.

Yes, I understand about His death being a planted seed. I never looked at whether He was our high priest before the incarnation, but I don't recall anything about it.

It's possible His role changed after His Ascension - that makes sense.

What was the original question? That this meant that the Virgin Mary was not the Mother of God because Jesus was not the Son of God until after His death?

Maybe that wasn't exactly your point, I can't remember.

Actually, whether or not Mary can be called the Mother of God does not depend on whether Jesus is the Son of God. It depends on whether Jesus IS God.

Mary is Jesus' mother.

Jesus is God.

Therefore Mary is the Mother of God.

So I'm not sure if your point disagrees with that or not?

Several directions this could go. I just wanted to clarify first. Thanks for the reply.

 

[Citizen of the Kingdom]

Thanks, and sorry about that. I read some old posts but not the whole thread, not by a long shot.

Yes, I understand about His death being a planted seed. I never looked at whether He was our high priest before the incarnation, but I don't recall anything about it.

It's possible His role changed after His Ascension - that makes sense.

What was the original question? That this meant that the Virgin Mary was not the Mother of God because Jesus was not the Son of God until after His death?

Maybe that wasn't exactly your point, I can't remember.

Actually, whether or not Mary can be called the Mother of God does not depend on whether Jesus is the Son of God. It depends on whether Jesus IS God.

Mary is Jesus' mother.

Jesus is God.

Therefore Mary is the Mother of God.

So I'm not sure if your point disagrees with that or not?

Several directions this could go. I just wanted to clarify first. Thanks for the reply.

I said it wasn't in my interest to comment on Mary. I commented on an incubation time of being 33 yrs tho ;P

 

[~Anastasia~]

I said it wasn't in my interest to comment on Mary. I commented on an incubation time of being 33 yrs tho ;P

OK. Again my apologies, as I said I did not read all.

I admit though, the language you use makes me wonder what you mean.

As I said, I can agree that Christ's role can have changed after the incarnation. I don't have an opinion on that right now. Seeing as how the incarnation split history into two halves, it's certainly reasonable from some standpoint.

But "incubation" is a rather loaded term. And I can't see any justification for saying that Christ was not "the Son of God" prior to His Crucifixion/Ascension?

Those two statements seem to be saying more than just that Christ's role changed?

As I said, just wanted to make sure I understand you.

 

[Citizen of the Kingdom]

OK. Again my apologies, as I said I did not read all.

I admit though, the language you use makes me wonder what you mean.

As I said, I can agree that Christ's role can have changed after the incarnation. I don't have an opinion on that right now. Seeing as how the incarnation split history into two halves, it's certainly reasonable from some standpoint.

But "incubation" is a rather loaded term. And I can't see any justification for saying that Christ was not "the Son of God" prior to His Crucifixion/Ascension?

Those two statements seem to be saying more than just that Christ's role changed?

As I said, just wanted to make sure I understand you.

My apologies for being facetious in the use of the term that some may have found offensive, but I really didn't have a term to say what I meant. I probably still don't, but that to explore the difference between the use of the words begotten of God/Son of God/Son of man would be an interesting study in itself.
Understanding is not something that is accomplished just like that. What you believe is probably completely beyond my understanding also ... and I have to say that I have no interest in learning what you mean about Mary as you have in learning what I mean because I think you feel it threatens your belief.
It's all still covered by the Nicene code anyway.
Jesus Christ has always been the Son of God but tell me when and at what time was He the begotten? When was this day? and when was you will be?

 

[~Anastasia~]

My apologies for being facetious in the use of the term that some may have found offensive, but I really didn't have a term to say what I meant. I probably still don't, but that to explore the difference between the use of the words begotten of God/Son of God/Son of man would be an interesting study in itself.
Understanding is not something that is accomplished just like that. What you believe is probably completely beyond my understanding also ... and I have to say that I have no interest in learning what you mean about Mary as you have in learning what I mean because I think you feel it threatens your belief.
It's all still covered by the Nicene code anyway.
Jesus Christ has always been the Son of God but tell me when and at what time was He the begotten? When was this day? and when was you will be?

Oh, I'm not asking because it threatens my belief.

I just wanted to understand you.

And if you have no interest in understanding what I said about Mary, that's ok too - no point in forcing anything. It was really something I was more interested in though.

But as a matter of fact, I was discussing your question about Christ being "begotten" at the end of our last class at Church. Well, I should say I mentioned it. I was actually questioning something else in the Creed, but I know the Orthodox consider Christ to be co-eternal with God, so I knew I didn't need to clarify that "begotten" doesn't imply that Christ came along later, just as the Holy Spirit "proceeding" from the Father does not imply that HE came along later either.

You ask when was Christ begotten? I can't answer that. I do want to go into it further. I think it's in an eternal sense? I don't believe there was a "day" or "time of day" that He was begotten. The Creed says it was before the world. So it does not refer to the Incarnation.

However, Christ WAS born of the Virgin Mary, and was conceived of the Holy Spirit. That was a definite moment in time. But that was the incarnation, not His point of origin. I don't consider that to be His having been "begotten" (though I used to).

You said:

and when was you will be?

I'm sorry, I don't understand what you are asking here?


At any rate, you are now saying that Jesus Christ was always the Son of God? So I don't see a point of disagreement there.

As far as the word "incubation" referring to His entire life ... lol in terms of Jesus Christ, regardless of what you meant, yes I suspect there is a better word. But I won't offer once, since I'm not sure what you mean. Unless it's simply that His role changed?

Scripture does tell us that He ascended to heaven, sat down at the right hand of the Father, and ever lives to make intercession for us, that He has a role as our high priest. So if you mean that was the beginning of that role, as far as I can tell, Scripture agrees with you. I don't recall it being mentioned in the OT, but I've never looked into it. I wouldn't disagree with you with the understanding I have right now though. If that's what you actually mean?

 

[Citizen of the Kingdom]

Oh, I'm not asking because it threatens my belief.

I just wanted to understand you.

And if you have no interest in understanding what I said about Mary, that's ok too - no point in forcing anything. It was really something I was more interested in though.

But as a matter of fact, I was discussing your question about Christ being "begotten" at the end of our last class at Church. Well, I should say I mentioned it. I was actually questioning something else in the Creed, but I know the Orthodox consider Christ to be co-eternal with God, so I knew I didn't need to clarify that "begotten" doesn't imply that Christ came along later, just as the Holy Spirit "proceeding" from the Father does not imply that HE came along later either.

You ask when was Christ begotten? I can't answer that. I do want to go into it further. I think it's in an eternal sense? I don't believe there was a "day" or "time of day" that He was begotten. The Creed says it was before the world. So it does not refer to the Incarnation.

However, Christ WAS born of the Virgin Mary, and was conceived of the Holy Spirit. That was a definite moment in time. But that was the incarnation, not His point of origin. I don't consider that to be His having been "begotten" (though I used to).

You said:



I'm sorry, I don't understand what you are asking here?


At any rate, you are now saying that Jesus Christ was always the Son of God? So I don't see a point of disagreement there.

As far as the word "incubation" referring to His entire life ... lol in terms of Jesus Christ, regardless of what you meant, yes I suspect there is a better word. But I won't offer once, since I'm not sure what you mean. Unless it's simply that His role changed?

Scripture does tell us that He ascended to heaven, sat down at the right hand of the Father, and ever lives to make intercession for us, that He has a role as our high priest. So if you mean that was the beginning of that role, as far as I can tell, Scripture agrees with you. I don't recall it being mentioned in the OT, but I've never looked into it. I wouldn't disagree with you with the understanding I have right now though. If that's what you actually mean?

I was referring to Hebrews
For to which of the angels did He ever say, "YOU ARE MY SON, TODAY I HAVE BEGOTTEN YOU"? And again, "I WILL BE A FATHER TO HIM AND HE SHALL BE A SON TO ME"?


But actually I'm not interested in pursuing this further... I'm sure your church is the better place for answers to your questions.

 

[BobRyan]

The RCC evolved over time as error after error was incorporated.

No pugatory in the NT.

no "Mary mother of God" in the NT

no prayers to the dead in the NT.

No "confecting the body and divinity of Christ" in the NT.

No indulgences in the NT.

No exterminating heretics in the NT. Doctrine of Discovery proclaiming "convert or die"

No Pope Peter in the NT - as we see in Acts 15 - James is the leader.

No infant baptism in the NT

No order of priests in the NT

And without all of that - do you really have the RCC in the NT?

No.

hint - even Catholic sources themselves admit that the RCC doctrines "evolved over time" see "A Concise history of the Catholic Church" and "Catholic Digest" as they research the history of infant baptism and priests.

==========================


And of course the never-answered-question for this thread ...."And without all of that before 100 AD - do you really have the RCC in the NT until 313?"

Islam, Catholicism, Mormons and many other denominations "make a lot of claims" - but the idea was to provide some objective basis for evaluating the 33AD vs 313AD discussion.


Few people question whether a Christian church existed prior to 100 AD. or whether one existed in some form in Rome.


What is questioned is whether it was really the RCC -- given that the RCC does not exist without its doctrines.






Whether Peter stayed in Rome beyond being a prisoner there does not help unless you can show that Peter believed and taught RCC doctrine.


Which seems to be the problem.




Were those doctrines ever taught in the dark ages? yes --

Just not in the first 100 years.

Just not in the actual NT.

Just not by the actual Apostles.

Which is the sticking point being avoided.

[/quote]

Very well then, according to your best judgment, and taking account of all relevant matters, when did the RCC start?

Easy - find those doctrines as early as you can -- all in place.

Or pick the ones that the RCC can "do without" and find the rest.

Hint: It won't be in the first century text of scripture.

in Christ,

Bob

 

[Albion]

Few people question whether a Christian church existed prior to 100 AD. or whether one existed in some form in Rome.


What is questioned is whether it was really the RCC -- given that the RCC does not exist without its doctrines.


Whether Peter stayed in Rome beyond being a prisoner there does not help unless you can show that Peter believed and taught RCC doctrine.


Which seems to be the problem.

Yes. That frames it well.


(So when did the RCC start?) --

Easy - find those doctrines as early as you can -- all in place.

Or pick the ones that the RCC can "do without" and find the rest.

Hint: It won't be in the first century text of scripture.

Still correct, but 313 wouldn't be the date. That was my point. We agree on the issue, but it's the date that's in question.

 

[~Anastasia~]

I was referring to Hebrews
For to which of the angels did He ever say, "YOU ARE MY SON, TODAY I HAVE BEGOTTEN YOU"? And again, "I WILL BE A FATHER TO HIM AND HE SHALL BE A SON TO ME"?


But actually I'm not interested in pursuing this further... I'm sure your church is the better place for answers to your questions.

OK.



At any rate, that question was "next on my list" ... and I finally got hold of a little notebook to keep my lists in so hopefully I will be able to remember them once again.

Thanks for the verse. It bears including in the question.

God bless!

 

[By Faith Alone]

The...SEED...of the rcc was sown at the Tower of Babel:

Gen 11:4 And they said, Go to, let us build us a city and a tower, whose top may reach unto heaven; and let us make us a.... SHEM....lest we be scattered abroad upon the face of the whole earth.

The priesthood of ISRAEL came from the line of Shem from Noah to Israel. The rebels at the Tower wanted to create their OWN way. They wanted their OWN power to decide.

The priesthood of the rcc is from the Shem of...BABEL.

 

[Root of Jesse]

Islam, Catholicism, Mormons and many other denominations "make a lot of claims" - but the idea was to provide some objective basis for evaluating the 33AD vs 313AD discussion.


Few people question whether a Christian church existed prior to 100 AD. or whether one existed in some form in Rome.


What is questioned is whether it was really the RCC -- given that the RCC does not exist without its doctrines.






Whether Peter stayed in Rome beyond being a prisoner there does not help unless you can show that Peter believed and taught RCC doctrine.


Which seems to be the problem.




Were those doctrines ever taught in the dark ages? yes --

Just not in the first 100 years.

Just not in the actual NT.

Just not by the actual Apostles.

Which is the sticking point being avoided.

Easy - find those doctrines as early as you can -- all in place.

Or pick the ones that the RCC can "do without" and find the rest.

Hint: It won't be in the first century text of scripture.

in Christ,

Bob[/QUOTE]

You say "that the Christian Church existed the first 100 years AD" is not a question, but that the question is whether that Church was "the Catholic Church". The question for whom? Catholics, for the most part, don't question it at all.
Then, you try (or someone, not sure who) to say it matters whether Peter was in Rome, or not. Why does that matter? The reason the Church is centered in Rome is because that was the center of the empire.

The basis for the Church Christ instituted is in Matthew 16. Why? Because God spoke (in Genesis), and it WAS. Jesus being God (in Matthew) spoke, and likewise, it was. Matthew was written some time later than 33 AD, but the Church was instituted at the moment Jesus spoke it. It was manifested in 33AD at Pentecost. If it's a question of whether it's the Catholic Church (the institution), I understand your question. We speak of the Church in different ways. There's the Universal Church Christ instituted (Catholic), and then there's the human manifestation of that Church.

 

[MoreCoffee]

My apologies for being facetious in the use of the term that some may have found offensive, but I really didn't have a term to say what I meant. I probably still don't, but that to explore the difference between the use of the words begotten of God/Son of God/Son of man would be an interesting study in itself.
Understanding is not something that is accomplished just like that. What you believe is probably completely beyond my understanding also ... and I have to say that I have no interest in learning what you mean about Mary as you have in learning what I mean because I think you feel it threatens your belief.
It's all still covered by the Nicene code anyway.
Jesus Christ has always been the Son of God but tell me when and at what time was He the begotten? When was this day? and when was you will be?

Hi, I am wondering, is it the following passages that you're thinking about?

(Psalms 2:7 KJV) I will declare the decree: the LORD hath said unto me, Thou art my Son; this day have I begotten thee.

(Acts 13:33 KJV) God hath fulfilled the same unto us their children, in that he hath raised up Jesus again; as it is also written in the second psalm, Thou art my Son, this day have I begotten thee.

(Hebrews 1:5 KJV) For unto which of the angels said he at any time, Thou art my Son, this day have I begotten thee? And again, I will be to him a Father, and he shall be to me a Son?
​

 

[MoreCoffee]

Robert Witham was an Englishman and a Catholic. He was a biblical scholar and head of a college, he was born in 1667 AD and died in 1738 AD. He wrote this about Acts 13:33:

He then shews them that Jesus was their Messias, and the Son of God, begotten of his Father from eternity, who rose from the dead, and he applies these words, (Psalm 2:7) to prove Christ's resurrection, thou art my son, this day have I begotten thee. It is true, these words regard chiefly the eternal generation of Christ, as they are applied by St. Paul, (Hebrews 5:5) but the resurrection was a necessary consequence of his divinity, since death could have no power over him. St. Paul here also proves Christ's resurrection by the following predictions.​

He refers to "the following predictions" meaning the verses following Acts 13:33 which say:

Acts 13:32-42 KJV

(32) And we declare unto you glad tidings, how that the promise which was made unto the fathers,
(33) God hath fulfilled the same unto us their children, in that he hath raised up Jesus again; as it is also written in the second psalm, Thou art my Son, this day have I begotten thee.
(34) And as concerning that he raised him up from the dead, now no more to return to corruption, he said on this wise, I will give you the sure mercies of David.
(35) Wherefore he saith also in another psalm, Thou shalt not suffer thine Holy One to see corruption.
(36) For David, after he had served his own generation by the will of God, fell on sleep, and was laid unto his fathers, and saw corruption:
(37) But he, whom God raised again, saw no corruption.
(38) Be it known unto you therefore, men and brethren, that through this man is preached unto you the forgiveness of sins:
(39) And by him all that believe are justified from all things, from which ye could not be justified by the law of Moses.
(40) Beware therefore, lest that come upon you, which is spoken of in the prophets;
(41) Behold, ye despisers, and wonder, and perish: for I work a work in your days, a work which ye shall in no wise believe, though a man declare it unto you.
(42) And when the Jews were gone out of the synagogue, the Gentiles besought that these words might be preached to them the next sabbath.​

A more recent translation may be easier to understand. Here's the one I use.

Acts 13:32-42 NJB (32) 'We have come here to tell you the good news that the promise made to our ancestors has come about. (33) God has fulfilled it to their children by raising Jesus from the dead. As scripture says in the psalms*: You are my son: today I have fathered you. (34) The fact that God raised him from the dead, never to return to corruption, is no more than what he had declared: To you I shall give the holy things promised to David which can be relied upon. (35) This is also why it says in another text: You will not allow your Holy One to see corruption. (36) Now when David in his own time had served God's purposes he died; he was buried with his ancestors and has certainly seen corruption. (37) The one whom God has raised up, however, has not seen corruption.

(38) 'My brothers, I want you to realise that it is through him that forgiveness of sins is being proclaimed to you. Through him justification from all sins from which the Law of Moses was unable to justify (39) is being offered to every believer.

(40) 'So be careful -- or what the prophets say will happen to you.

(41) Cast your eyes around you, mockers; be amazed, and perish! For I am doing something in your own days that you would never believe if you were told of it.'​

(42) As they left they were urged to continue this preaching the following Sabbath. (43) When the meeting broke up many Jews and devout converts followed Paul and Barnabas, and in their talks with them Paul and Barnabas urged them to remain faithful to the grace God had given them.

* Literally "the second psalm" many manuscripts say "the first psalm" the numbering of the psalms differed in the ancient collections.​

I am guessing that by "incubation period" ~Cassia~ may have been thinking of a kind of spiritual gestation period during which Jesus' mortal flesh underwent its natural human maturation and its untimely death at the hands of the Romans and the instigation of the leaders of the Jews. His human mortality was testified to by his death; only that which is mortal can die, that which is immortal cannot die. And when Jesus Christ rose on the third day he was raised as an immortal human. This is referred to as being raised in a "glorified body" by some writers. The point is, however, that Jesus was raised to immortal human life. This is necessary to Paul's argument, which is on the resurrection of Jesus as a proof that He was the Messiah. The quotation which follows need not refer alone to the birth of Jesus into this world. He was also the first-begotten from the dead, the firstfruits of them that slept. It is important to keep in mind what Psalm two is about since it forms a part of Paul's argument. The psalm celebrated the promise made to David of an eternal dynasty, a promise that was repeated regularly in the temple worship, in the hope of the ultimate Davidic king who would fulfil it completely. Paul goes on to cite Isaiah 55:3 to indicate that Israel’s future hope was bound up with the promise to David. Rabbis used a technique called gezerah shavah to connect passages that used the same key word; thus here Paul may use “holy” in Isaiah 55:3 to lead into a citation of Psalm 16:10, which guarantees that the object of David’s promise would never rot. Paul concludes with Habakkuk 1:5; he says “in the Prophets” because some of the smaller books of the prophets were grouped together and treated as a single book. Habakkuk refers to impending judgment under the Chaldeans (Habakkuk 1:6), which only the righteous remnant will endure by faith (Habakkuk 2:4); here the principle is applied to the judgment of the end.

According to Josephus, many Gentiles attended synagogues with great interest. Even as late as the fourth century, the Christian preacher John Chrysostom complains that Gentiles—in this case Christians—were still attending synagogue services. Those who were interested in Judaism but unattracted to circumcision might well find Paul’s message appealing. (drawn from several commentaries, especially The IVP Bible Background Commentary)

 

[By Faith Alone]

But Paul, our Apostle, was given a new revelation in 63 AD no one wanted to hear.

2 Tim 1:15 This thou knowest, that all they which are in Asia be turned away from me; of whom are Phygellus and Hermogenes.

And not many want to hear it today.
Paul's commission, as should be ours:
Eph 3:8-9
8 Unto me, who am less than the least of all saints, is this grace given, that I should preach among the Gentiles the unsearchable riches of Christ;
9 And to make all men see what is the fellowship of the mystery, which from the beginning of the world hath been hid in God, who created all things by Jesus Christ:

Paul is to the Gentiles as Moses was to Israel. They were THE MEN through whom God spoke.

Very few are willing to listen.

 

[Root of Jesse]

But Paul, our Apostle, was given a new revelation in 63 AD no one wanted to hear.

2 Tim 1:15 This thou knowest, that all they which are in Asia be turned away from me; of whom are Phygellus and Hermogenes.

And not many want to hear it today.
Paul's commission, as should be ours:
Eph 3:8-9
8 Unto me, who am less than the least of all saints, is this grace given, that I should preach among the Gentiles the unsearchable riches of Christ;
9 And to make all men see what is the fellowship of the mystery, which from the beginning of the world hath been hid in God, who created all things by Jesus Christ:

Paul is to the Gentiles as Moses was to Israel. They were THE MEN through whom God spoke.

Very few are willing to listen.

What does this have to do with the OP's question? The answer of which is "The RCC was legalized in 313." Not born. Legalized,legitimized.

 

[BobRyan]

The RCC evolved over time as error after error was incorporated.

No pugatory in the NT.

no "Mary mother of God" in the NT

no prayers to the dead in the NT.

No "confecting the body and divinity of Christ" in the NT.

No indulgences in the NT.

No exterminating heretics in the NT.

No Pope Peter in the NT - as we see in Acts 15 - James is the leader.

No infant baptism in the NT

No order of priests in the NT

And without all of that - do you really have the RCC in the NT?

No.

hint - even Catholic sources themselves admit that the RCC doctrines "evolved over time" see "A Concise history of the Catholic Church" and "Catholic Digest" as they research the history of infant baptism and priests.

==========================


And of course the never-answered-question for this thread ...."And without all of that before 100 AD - do you really have the RCC in the NT until 313?"

Islam, Catholicism, Mormons and many other denominations "make a lot of claims" - but the idea was to provide some objective basis for evaluating the 33AD vs 313AD discussion.


Few people question whether a Christian church existed prior to 100 AD. or whether one existed in some form in Rome.


What is questioned is whether it was really the RCC -- given that the RCC does not exist without its doctrines.






Whether Peter stayed in Rome beyond being a prisoner there does not help unless you can show that Peter believed and taught RCC doctrine.


Which seems to be the problem.




Were those doctrines ever taught in the dark ages? yes --

Just not in the first 100 years.

Just not in the actual NT.

Just not by the actual Apostles.

Which is the sticking point being avoided.

[/quote]

Very well then, according to your best judgment, and taking account of all relevant matters, when did the RCC start?

Easy - find those doctrines as early as you can -- all in place.

Or pick the ones that the RCC can "do without" and find the rest.

Hint: It won't be in the first century text of scripture.

==============================================

You say "that the Christian Church existed the first 100 years AD" is not a question, but that the question is whether that Church was "the Catholic Church". The question for whom?

It is the question that this thread subject title brings up.

I thought we were all on the same page on that one.

Catholics, for the most part, don't question it at all.

No doubt. Group-think works that way all day long.

But this is not a "Catholic only" discussion board -- so here you have to be objective to make a compelling case.

That is why I point to that list of Catholic doctrines and ask how many of them can you toss out the window and still have the RCC.

If you can toss them all out the window - then Methodists can claim they are the true church and they are the RCC.

I think we all see the problem.

If you take the other approach and argue that all these doctrines are needed to have the RCC -- then you are stuck with the fact that none of them are in taught by the first century NT writers - making the origin of the actual RCC some time after 100 A.D.

Impossible to escape.

Then, you try (or someone, not sure who) to say it matters whether Peter was in Rome, or not. Why does that matter?

Actually I am the one that said it does not matter. Because if Peter is in Rome NOT TEACHING the doctrines of the RCC -- then it does not make the RCC part of the first century church.

The Problem remains for the RCC.

If it's a question of whether it's the Catholic Church (the institution), I understand your question. We speak of the Church in different ways. There's the Universal Church Christ instituted (Catholic), and then there's the human manifestation of that Church.

Indeed and the 313A.D. Title for this thread does not claim that Christianity itself did not start until 313 A.D. but it questions whether the RCC itself began at that point.

All of us a Christian. Just arguing that Christians existed in the first century does not make them RCC.


in Christ,

Bob