|
Post by Greg on Apr 19, 2012 12:07:46 GMT -5
Just an opinion, obviously, but I think Ignatius described he church as being catholic and later the term was adopted (adapted?) as the name of a church. I must be a bit thick, but what is the significance of that? The use of "catholic" meaning "universal" likely predates Ignatius. That was my point. I should have used your words. Been more clear or been clearer
|
|
|
Post by What Hat on Apr 19, 2012 19:35:04 GMT -5
I must be a bit thick, but what is the significance of that? The use of "catholic" meaning "universal" likely predates Ignatius. That was my point. I should have used your words. Been more clear or been clearer So what was the point of what I said? LOL.
|
|
|
Post by Greg on Apr 19, 2012 19:42:31 GMT -5
That was my point. I should have used your words. Been more clear or been clearer So what was the point of what I said? LOL.
|
|
|
Post by StAnne on Apr 19, 2012 23:25:03 GMT -5
Just an opinion, obviously, but I think Ignatius described he church as being catholic and later the term was adopted (adapted?) as the name of a church. I must be a bit thick, but what is the significance of that? The use of "catholic" meaning "universal" likely predates Ignatius. Apparently it was a term used of the newly formed church; Ignatius used it; it is recorded in the NT as applying to the churches throughout all ... which brings us back to your earlier denial of NT usage of the term (and your misapplied accusation in my direction). To your opinion, Greg ... apparently it was adopted as the name of THE NT Church.
|
|
|
Post by StAnne on Apr 19, 2012 23:27:45 GMT -5
The Catholic Church is not a denomination. It is pre-denominational. Where your statement is correct is that yes, it did refer to the universal church. There was only one church under the doctrine of the Apostles. The church. The only Christian church.
|
|
|
Post by What Hat on Apr 20, 2012 5:33:34 GMT -5
I must be a bit thick, but what is the significance of that? The use of "catholic" meaning "universal" likely predates Ignatius. Apparently it was a term used of the newly formed church; Ignatius used it; it is recorded in the NT as applying to the churches throughout all ... which brings us back to your earlier denial of NT usage of the term (and your misapplied accusation in my direction). To your opinion, Greg ... apparently it was adopted as the name of THE NT Church. I had thought 'catholic' was in the NT, but I can't find it. However, the brand name 'Catholic Church', more commonly known as 'Roman Catholic Church', came much later. So, I don't understand your objection to naming something using non-Biblical terms. In fact, I believe it's better to use non-Biblical terms to name a church. That's because when you name a church or denomination you're establishing man's boundaries, not God's.
|
|
|
Post by quizzer on Apr 20, 2012 10:22:03 GMT -5
I would wonder if the word "catholic" would have been used in either the English or German translations of the Bible. I doubt this, because by the time the Bible was translated to these languages, "catholic" would have taken on more meaning than simply "world-wide" or "universal." Given that Protestants, Anabaptists, and Anglicans were making the translations, it's possible that all alternatives to the word "catholic" were considered.
|
|
|
Post by emy on Apr 20, 2012 12:17:40 GMT -5
Hmmmm... Amen
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 20, 2012 12:24:56 GMT -5
Whilst this is true, God empowered man to give names to people, animals and other things, all for purposes of giving a "meaning" to those things as well as creating order and understanding. The Bible shows that God is overwhelmingly in favour of applying names and as far as I am aware there is no indication in the Bible not to name something, or any suggestion that the practice is wrong in any way, shape or form. God doesn't need boundaries. Man does!
|
|
|
Post by Greg on Apr 20, 2012 13:38:29 GMT -5
That's because when you name a church or denomination you're establishing man's boundaries, not God's. Maybe. But you can create boundaries without a name.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 20, 2012 13:43:12 GMT -5
That's because when you name a church or denomination you're establishing man's boundaries, not God's. Maybe. But you can create boundaries without a name. A very valid point! Thanks Greg!
|
|
|
Post by What Hat on Apr 20, 2012 13:47:10 GMT -5
However, emy, we might go in slightly different directions with that fact. I do believe that denominations and churches, including the friends, can be named, but that they are man's boundaries nonetheless.
|
|
|
Post by What Hat on Apr 20, 2012 13:48:30 GMT -5
That's because when you name a church or denomination you're establishing man's boundaries, not God's. Maybe. But you can create boundaries without a name. Agreed. Then you might as well have a name. By necessity, we have man's boundaries while we're down here. God draws his own, and we're not on the consulting committee.
|
|
|
Post by What Hat on Apr 20, 2012 13:49:31 GMT -5
Maybe. But you can create boundaries without a name. A very valid point! Thanks Greg! LOL. Hope I didn't get you fellas too worked up on this. A good conversation.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 20, 2012 13:52:15 GMT -5
A very valid point! Thanks Greg! LOL. Hope I didn't get you fellas too worked up on this. A good conversation. I don't need the agency of another to get myself worked up "What!" I'm perfectly capable of achieving that all by myself!
|
|
|
Post by StAnne on Apr 20, 2012 16:15:05 GMT -5
Apparently it was a term used of the newly formed church; Ignatius used it; it is recorded in the NT as applying to the churches throughout all ... which brings us back to your earlier denial of NT usage of the term (and your misapplied accusation in my direction). To your opinion, Greg ... apparently it was adopted as the name of THE NT Church. I had thought 'catholic' was in the NT, but I can't find it. Yes. It is ... Acts 9:31 So the church throughout all Judea and Galilee and Samaria enjoyed peace, being built up; and going on in the fear of the Lord and in the comfort of the Holy Spirit, it continued to increase.
throughout all ... kath oles
2596 [e] kath' καθ' throughout Prep 3650 [e] holēs ὅλης all biblos.com/acts/9-31.htm
Reply #160 professing.proboards.com/index.cgi?action=display&board=general&thread=19110&page=6#463120
Not really. Generally speaking, if Ignatius wrote it in 110 then it had already been in use. If it's a group of people who are called by Baptism to gather in God's name, then signify it with a proper designation. Church comes to mind, the NT example ... for those who follow the NT teachings.
|
|
|
Post by Greg on Apr 20, 2012 16:20:25 GMT -5
I think if workers are asked what their doctrine is, they perceive the question to be: "what is the doctrine that your church has written up in a handbook?" and they reply "We have none, just the bible". It's a legitimate answer, but doesn't sound right to the listener. The worker would be more clear to answer, "our doctrine comes straight from the bible, we don't have extra-biblical writings". This post has been on my mind for quite awhile. I think the last part of the last sentence is very true. I think the first sentence might be correct. And some might perceive "the Bible is our doctrine" to be exactly what clearday wrote in his last sentence. Yet the worker might not preceive the asker meant some handbook or pamphlet. The worker might assume for convenience of answer that such is what the asker meant. So, some more incidents... Word has it a worker is going to another state. Worker is having lunch with someone before he goes. That someone asks, "So, when are you going." Worker replies, "Well, I would like to finish lunch before I go." Worker is asked if the move is for good. The worker replies, "Well, I hope it is a positive experience for all." Man walking down the street on a nice day comments to two boys, "You couldn't ask for a nicer day." One boy says, "Yup" and the other says "Nope." So...two different replies, but in agreement....yup, you are right and nope, you couldn't. Woman is asked "When was the last time you saw a dentist?" Woman replies, "I don't know. I see new people all the time. They don't all tell me what they do." Man is asked, "Do you know a man named Francis Andersen from South Whitier? He does construction and is married with a couple young boys." The man thinks 'hmmmm, I know a Francis Andersen from West Whitier that does construction and is married and has a couple kids that are young boys' and then answers the question, "No."
|
|
|
Post by quizzer on Apr 21, 2012 0:11:11 GMT -5
From my own thoughts, God doesn't mind having a name. www.youtube.com/watch?v=il-bJjeiOhY"At Your Name" by Phil Wickham At Your Name, The mountains shake and crumble. At Your Name, The oceans roar and tumble. At Your Name, Angels will bow, The Earth will rejoice, Your people cry out. Lord of all the Earth, We shout Your Name, Shout Your Name. Filling up the skies with Endless praise, endless praise. Yahweh, Yahweh, We love to shout Your Name, Oh Lord. At Your Name, The morning breaks in Glory. At Your Name, Creation sings Your story. At Your Name, Angels will bow, The Earth will rejoice, Your people cry out. Lord of all the Earth, We shout Your Name, Shout Your Name. Filling up the skies with Endless praise, endless praise. Yahweh, Yahweh, We love to shout Your Name, Oh Lord. There is no one like our God. We will praise You, praise You. There's no one like our God. We will sing, we will sing. There is no one like our God. We will praise You, praise You. There's no one like our God. We will sing, we will sing. There is no one like our God. We will praise You, praise You. Jesus, You are God. We will sing. Lord of all the Earth, We shout Your Name, Shout Your Name. Filling up the skies with Endless praise, endless praise. Yahweh, Yahweh, We love to shout Your Name! Lord of all the Earth, We shout Your Name, Shout Your Name. Filling up the skies with Endless praise, endless praise. Yahweh, Yahweh, We love to shout Your Name, Oh Lord. Oh Lord. Yahweh, Yahweh, We love to shout your Name, Oh Lord.
|
|
|
Post by dmmichgood on Apr 21, 2012 1:29:39 GMT -5
.Where your statement is correct is that yes, it did refer to the universal church. There was only one church under the doctrine of the Apostles. The church. The only Christian church. No, there was NOT only one church under the Apostles - The only Christian church. Read Elaine Pagels ," The Gnostic Gospels". She stated she set out to trace Christianity back to it's roots but what she found instead was, "Initially, Christianity was fluid and variable." "There was a range of different Christian movements" " The sense of unity that comes from (Luke's Acts of the Apostles)is idealized-perhaps in response to too much diversity."
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 21, 2012 8:37:18 GMT -5
.Where your statement is correct is that yes, it did refer to the universal church. There was only one church under the doctrine of the Apostles. The church. The only Christian church. No, there was NOT only one church under the Apostles - The only Christian church. Read Elaine Pagels ," The Gnostic Gospels". She stated she set out to trace Christianity back to it's roots but what she found instead was, "Initially, Christianity was fluid and variable." "There was a range of different Christian movements" " The sense of unity that comes from (Luke's Acts of the Apostles)is idealized-perhaps in response to too much diversity." I think any serious historian will agree with the above. The formation of the RCC system would be more accurately defined as a political movement designed to control people in an orderly fashion.
|
|
|
Post by What Hat on Apr 21, 2012 8:59:22 GMT -5
No, there was NOT only one church under the Apostles - The only Christian church. Read Elaine Pagels ," The Gnostic Gospels". She stated she set out to trace Christianity back to it's roots but what she found instead was, "Initially, Christianity was fluid and variable." "There was a range of different Christian movements" " The sense of unity that comes from (Luke's Acts of the Apostles)is idealized-perhaps in response to too much diversity." I think any serious historian will agree with the above. The formation of the RCC system would be more accurately defined as a political movement designed to control people in an orderly fashion. Or, to be a bit more specific, a political solution enforced by Constantine to keep Christians from attacking each other.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 21, 2012 10:01:41 GMT -5
I think any serious historian will agree with the above. The formation of the RCC system would be more accurately defined as a political movement designed to control people in an orderly fashion. Or, to be a bit more specific, a political solution enforced by Constantine to keep Christians from attacking each other. Definitely that is a biggie, but I think it was developing on a more localized basis for control and order. Something the way the Muslim Brotherhood works today. They work among people, give them order from their religion as well as provide charitable efforts. It's all quite political. And that's not say that all politics is bad, it's just a matter of understanding it for what it is.
|
|
|
Post by peacefullycurious on Apr 21, 2012 10:07:26 GMT -5
I think if workers are asked what their doctrine is, they perceive the question to be: "what is the doctrine that your church has written up in a handbook?" and they reply "We have none, just the bible". It's a legitimate answer, but doesn't sound right to the listener. The worker would be more clear to answer, "our doctrine comes straight from the bible, we don't have extra-biblical writings". This post has been on my mind for quite awhile. I think the last part of the last sentence is very true. I think the first sentence might be correct. And some might perceive "the Bible is our doctrine" to be exactly what clearday wrote in his last sentence. Yet the worker might not preceive the asker meant some handbook or pamphlet. The worker might assume for convenience of answer that such is what the asker meant. So, some more incidents... Word has it a worker is going to another state. Worker is having lunch with someone before he goes. That someone asks, "So, when are you going." Worker replies, "Well, I would like to finish lunch before I go." Worker is asked if the move is for good. The worker replies, "Well, I hope it is a positive experience for all." Man walking down the street on a nice day comments to two boys, "You couldn't ask for a nicer day." One boy says, "Yup" and the other says "Nope." So...two different replies, but in agreement....yup, you are right and nope, you couldn't. Woman is asked "When was the last time you saw a dentist?" Woman replies, "I don't know. I see new people all the time. They don't all tell me what they do." Man is asked, "Do you know a man named Francis Andersen from South Whitier? He does construction and is married with a couple young boys." The man thinks 'hmmmm, I know a Francis Andersen from West Whitier that does construction and is married and has a couple kids that are young boys' and then answers the question, "No." Love it
|
|
|
Post by emy on Apr 21, 2012 10:46:02 GMT -5
And when our fellowship is, we are criticized.
Saying God doesn't change and the Way (Jesus) doesn't change doesn't mean the fellowship cannot change or vary from place to place.
|
|
|
Post by StAnne on Apr 21, 2012 12:10:53 GMT -5
.Where your statement is correct is that yes, it did refer to the universal church. There was only one church under the doctrine of the Apostles. The church. The only Christian church. No, there was NOT only one church under the Apostles - The only Christian church. Read Elaine Pagels ," The Gnostic Gospels". She stated she set out to trace Christianity back to it's roots but what she found instead was, "Initially, Christianity was fluid and variable." "There was a range of different Christian movements" " The sense of unity that comes from (Luke's Acts of the Apostles)is idealized-perhaps in response to too much diversity." Because I am not Gnostic. I am Christian. Therefore the Gnostic gospels hold no authority for me.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 21, 2012 12:49:48 GMT -5
And when our fellowship is, we are criticized. Saying God doesn't change and the Way (Jesus) doesn't change doesn't mean the fellowship cannot change or vary from place to place. Not really. The criticism is not about the fluidity. The criticism is aimed at the claim that things are static when the evidence demonstrates is that they are not. You highlight the real problem. People have difficulty separating the fellowship system and organization from eternal principles. That's the same reason why people have so much difficulty accepting the beginnings of the fellowship. The fellowship and ministry system is indeed an organization that does and should change.....but continue to use eternal, proven sound principles for guidance.
|
|
|
Post by Jason Storebo on Apr 21, 2012 13:44:21 GMT -5
F n wubia..f n wubia...f n wubia. Sorry I'm not gettin' it. I dunno about some of you poops...I mean peeps minds.
|
|
guilt
Junior Member
Posts: 90
|
Post by guilt on Apr 23, 2012 10:23:30 GMT -5
And when our fellowship is, we are criticized. Saying God doesn't change and the Way (Jesus) doesn't change doesn't mean the fellowship cannot change or vary from place to place. Absolutely! The workers/overseers should be able to make whatever change in policy/doctrine/rules they see fit as per their interpretation or whatever is most convenient for them! Just as long as they keep preaching about 'unchanging'.
|
|