Do those that dispute Catholics are Christian have an idea of 'Christian' they're working from?

[Buddha Dharma]

Simple question really. Since Catholics have a clear idea of what a Christian is that they work from...

If one doesn't have a well-defined idea of what makes a Christian, but stops short of including Catholics in a general definition- what informs that decision?

 

[Unveiled Artist]

Simple question really. Since Catholics have a clear idea of what a Christian is that they work from...

If one doesn't have a well-defined idea of what makes a Christian, but stops short of including Catholics in a general definition- what informs that decision?

Paganism. They relate all Catholics (Othorodox etc) as Roman Catholics. Not really paying attention that a lot of what christianity is today is from The Church. From jesus being the "one who gives justice" to the other who saves drowning "pagans" to be born again.

Id say Catholics are the first christians, aka, those who follow the apostles. Not many non-jewish or raised religious jewish know culturally (experience) what Judaism is, so the view from a christian one is highly disordered.

Unfortunately, christians see paganism in Catholic communion; what they call pagan: relationship with bread and wine rather than jesus' passion through his life (Mass), by his crucifixtion (blood), and in his life and resurrection (body), in christ: One Death. One Life, and One Communion through baptism. The body/communion/people of The Church (baptized christians) are saved the life and death of jesus christ: salvation (Eucharist).

Guess its all in perspective. Some people were intimately involved in the Church but only blinded by bias and paganism (and some strict catholics), so they left.

Edit.

 

[shunyadragon]

I consider pretty much all believers from the churches, including the Roman Church, that claim to be Christian are Christian. I believe the the influence of pagan beliefs and mythology to be endemic to most of Christianity, but that does not impact the claim of believers from any one church.

 

[rocala]

Id say Catholics are the first christians or those who follow the apostles.

Not an expert but I think Carlita is correct here. However were the apostles (as we know them) Christians? That is a whole new question.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

Not an expert but I think Carlita is correct here. However were the apostles (as we know them) Christians? That is a whole new question.

They say they were in Acts. Baptizing people in the Holy Spirit/spirit of Christ.

Thanks

 

[pearl]

Not an expert but I think Carlita is correct here. However were the apostles (as we know them) Christians? That is a whole new question.

If you are referring to the original 12, the answer would be no, they were Jews.

 

[metis]

If you are referring to the original 12, the answer would be no, they were Jews.

Ah, but "Jews" can be "Christian".

 

[pearl]

Ah, but "Jews" can be "Christian".

Of course. There just weren't any called 'Christians' 'till Pentecost. It again raises the question as to whether Jesus intended to found a church or renew his own.

 

[rocala]

If you are referring to the original 12, the answer would be no, they were Jews.

Thank you for replying. This is an area I always get stuck on. If it is acceptable to follow Christ and be jewish, at what point and why, was it decided that a new religion was required?

 

[pearl]

Thank you for replying. This is an area I always get stuck on. If it is acceptable to follow Christ and be jewish, at what point and why, was it decided that a new religion was required?

Probably sometime after Paul's desire to include the Gentiles without first converting to Judaism. I think the final blow was when Christians were expelled from the Synagogue, especially evident in the Gospel of John.

 

[Phantasman]

The catholic ideology combines the OT and the Gospel to see God. I do not believe that the OT fathers saw the true God, but an unclear, void influenced by the darkness provided by the false god (devil, Satan, Demiurge, etc.). The catholic thought is an "all in one" religion, where the priests dictate celestial authority, ie Gods representatives on Earth. I don't see it. Jesus Christ was the light in such darkness. The early catholics wanted authority over Christian and Jew alike. It's roots stem from the Pharisee's who would accept some of Christ as long as they could still have the power over man that they had prior to Christ.

Galatians addresses this in clarity, and shows how Peter fell for the combo ideology. This is further explained in the Incident at Antioch with Peter and Pauls disagreements. Peter went one way, Paul the other. The catholics followed Peter. The Gospels clearly point to the one disciple who had problems in understanding. Peter. But the catholicc were misled by one verse. The rock.

Peter was constantly being corrected for his "flesh" views over spirit. And the catholic ideology became the church Rome (Constantine) accepted due to it's fleshly allowances. Constantine could still be wealthy and murder because the authority allowed it and even used it themselves for the power of "good".

Paul went on to teach gnosis, what the gnostics followed. Valantinus saw the corruption of the catholic ideology first hand and left it. So did those like Marcion. Both dropped the OT teachings in favor of continuing books related to what the Spirit (capital S) was teaching, over the old books before the Spirit was given.

The church fathers were priests that had great power. Eventually, that power reformed Pauls teachings of gnosis as well as Johns, to be subject to the authority of the old books that gave the power of flesh to men of authority.

The only way to see this chasm from two gods, two directions, is to seek out the big picture of both sides, and let the Spirit reveal to you where it is. If you are raised in one thought only, and think that men before you must have been correct since there were so many on the same path, you may want to reread the Gospel message about the wide road and narrow one. If you seek within the Bible (only), you are going to see what the catholics see. If you expand to seeking beyond their church, you may be amazed at what you thought was Christian, wasn't seen in the fruits they provided.

You only have one life to make sure. I continue to look under every stone to either be more strengthened or to adjust where the Spirit shows me to adjust. "It is finished" when we draw the last breath.

Just my thoughts. Being a Christian is being anointed with the Spirit, understanding it and following it. Religions of men mean nothing. A Christian is a Christ. A son of God. Spiritually. They rise above religions.

 

[rocala]

Probably sometime after Paul's desire to include the Gentiles without first converting to Judaism. I think the final blow was when Christians were expelled from the Synagogue, especially evident in the Gospel of John.

Yes, that makes sense. None the less I cannot help but feel very uneasy about this. We have the disciples and others who new him (presumably) very well. Yet it is Paul who is shaping this new religion.
If it was happening today I would treat it with the greatest of suspicion.

 

[metis]

Of course. There just weren't any called 'Christians' 'till Pentecost.

I just had to yank your chain a bit-- "the devil made me do it!".

It again raises the question as to whether Jesus intended to found a church or renew his own.

I think the latter is more likely. But when he and the apostles appear to have only marginal success, the latter appear to open the door to at least the "God-Fearers" and then eventually to any gentiles. What I simply do not know is whether Jesus would have wanted to open the door that wide, but it's possible since his theology is very liberal as compared to the mainstream Pharisees.

 

[metis]

Probably sometime after Paul's desire to include the Gentiles without first converting to Judaism. I think the final blow was when Christians were expelled from the Synagogue, especially evident in the Gospel of John.

From the synagogue and also probably being kept from offering sacrifices at the Temple.

Once the God-Fearers were included, now there's a serious problem, namely how do you have the church acting as "one body" when you have two different groups operating under two different sets of rules? What if they intermarry-- which set of rules? Do you keep kosher at the "agape meal" or not? Etc.?

This is what Paul had to deal with, and I believe he opened that door wide open because he couldn't see how they could operate under different rules.

So, then we see Peter's vision and the theology of Jesus being the "final sacrifice" for all.

 

[pearl]

We have the disciples and others who new him (presumably) very well.

But with the possible exception of the 'beloved disciple of John's gospel they all deserted him. By human standards Jesus was a failure, he is dead, and with him his movement. Not until the promised Paraclete "the Spirit of Truth" who supplies guidance along the way of all truth (16:13) do they 'know' Jesus. The Johannine Jesus had many things to say that his disciples could never understand in his lifetime (16:12); but then the Paraclete comes and takes those things and declares them (16:15).

Yet it is Paul who is shaping this new religion.

Paul who was an executioner of Christians, remarkable.

If it was happening today I would treat it with the greatest of suspicion.

Interesting as to how it would be adapted to today's mindset.

 

[pearl]

What I simply do not know is whether Jesus would have wanted to open the door that wide

If we trust that the Holy Spirit guided the early church in that he taught only what Jesus did, then I guess the answer is yes. Jesus all but made an apostle of the Samaritan woman, so on two counts he went 'outside the box'.

 

[pearl]

From the synagogue and also probably being kept from offering sacrifices at the Temple.

It is my understanding that the first Christians attended Temple services for the Torah etc., but met in church homes to offer Eucharist.

how do you have the church acting as "one body" when you have two different groups operating under two different sets of rules

I think that problem is what prompted Paul and Peter to take their case to Jerusalem for decision.

 

[metis]

It is my understanding that the first Christians attended Temple services for the Torah etc., but met in church homes to offer Eucharist.

That question has never been answered as far as I know. However, since the followers were kicked out of synagogues, I think the likelihood is that this also must have happened at the Temple at some time. After all, if Jesus was viewed as being the "final sacrifice", how could that be compatible with the animal and grain sacrifices at the Temple.

I think that problem is what prompted Paul and Peter to take their case to Jerusalem for decision.

I agree that's likely because it really needed some sort of paradigm shift and a tough decision to be made. Judaism always required conversion along with the circumcision of the men or boys prior to joining any branch, so any deviation from that is gonna be extremely controversial and subject to angry responses, especially on the issues of the Abrahamic Covenant and the Mosaic Law.

 

[pearl]

That question has never been answered as far as I know. However, since the followers were kicked out of synagogues, I think the likelihood is that this also must have happened at the Temple at some time.

According to early liturgical studies, the earliest Christians living in Jerusalem at first frequented the Temple, but for the Eucharist they assembled in their homes of well to do Christians who possessed suitable rooms, for the 'breaking of the bread'. Acts states; "And continuing daily with one accord in the Temple, and breaking bread in their houses, they took their food with gladness". Paul sends greeting to 'the gathering' in the house of Prisca and Aquila. He chastises those in Corinth for their behavior.

By the time of John writes the Temple had been destroyed, so it would be the synagogue that expelled Christians. Probably the reason for the increased anti Jewishness of the 4th Gospel. Unfortunately, it is this Passion narrative that most Christians have been familiar with.

 

[metis]

According to early liturgical studies, the earliest Christians living in Jerusalem at first frequented the Temple, but for the Eucharist they assembled in their homes of well to do Christians who possessed suitable rooms, for the 'breaking of the bread'. Acts states; "And continuing daily with one accord in the Temple, and breaking bread in their houses, they took their food with gladness". Paul sends greeting to 'the gathering' in the house of Prisca and Aquila. He chastises those in Corinth for their behavior.

I agree as we know they went to the Temple to speak what they believed, but at least some theologians believe it's likely that they weren't allowed to offer sacrifices. If they did stop as such, putting a time-table on exactly when this may have happened is all but impossible. And if Jesus was viewed as being the "final sacrifice", that not only wouldn't go over well at all with the Temple priests but also it wouldn't make much sense for them to go for any other reason than to try and convert others. IOW, they may have only been able to be just outside the Temple walls, which is also where the God-Fearers congregated.

By the time of John writes the Temple had been destroyed, so it would be the synagogue that expelled Christians. Probably the reason for the increased anti Jewishness of the 4th Gospel. Unfortunately, it is this Passion narrative that most Christians have been familiar with.

Which is why I don't go to Good Friday services with my wife.