Catholicism Was It The Original Church?

[Onyx]

My questions about the Catholic Church comes now because I keep hearing that it was the Original Church and it spawned many doctrines and spew some anti-social conceptions as we know it.

 

Did it originate these: Hell, Sin, Trinity and etc?

 

What they have done to people in terms of social behaviour?

 

Sexually?

Politically?

Mentally?

Generally?

 

You can talk about origins of that other power as well: American style Fundamentalism (Southern Baptist and suchlike) and answer the same questions as before only replacing the name of the sect and power if you like, if that's what you are comfortable with. I'm equally fascinated as how they could have risen without check and balances to the evil powers that they are today.

 

I look forward to reading your knowledge no matter how little or big.

[hereticzero]

The catholics like to claim to be the first church. They point to Peter as the first Pope. In all honesty, the bones of Peter were taken to Rome long after he was dead and entombed there. There is no proof Peter ever went to Rome, we only have the church's word on it based on traditional story telling, but not proof. They kidnapped the name of a dead guy to set up their doctrine about the church. The church was established on lies.

[Onyx]

Hmmm, I thought they liked to claim it has a noble lineage from Christ and Peter to that pope in 400 AD. It explains the roaring saintly relics trade during the Dark ages.

[Antlerman]

My questions about the Catholic Church comes now because I keep hearing that it was the Original Church and it spawned many doctrines and spew some anti-social conceptions as we know it.

 

Did it originate these: Hell, Sin, Trinity and etc?

 

What they have done to people in terms of social behaviour?

 

Sexually?

Politically?

Mentally?

Generally?

 

You can talk about origins of that other power as well: American style Fundamentalism (Southern Baptist and suchlike) and answer the same questions as before only replacing the name of the sect and power if you like, if that's what you are comfortable with. I'm equally fascinated as how they could have risen without check and balances to the evil powers that they are today.

 

I look forward to reading your knowledge no matter how little or big.

Goodness. No small volume of responses possible to the questions. A few brief things. It was certainly not the first church. Modern scholars recognize that in the beginning it was not early Christianity, but rather early Christianities. There were many flavors of "Christ" faiths that sprang up all over that were diverse and widespread, far too widespread to be the result of a few evangelists. They were the blending of Greek/Roman mystery religions with Judaism, along with the Jerusalem church's Jesus movement, along with the apostle Paul's cult. The Roman Empire eventually took its dying essence and found a vehicle for it to continue after its impending death in the body of this religious ocean, and mandated the coming together of it in order for it to have the needed power of unified belief. Now it was up to the bureaucrats to hash it out.

 

Here's some comments to that system I talked about recently you may find some value in as you pick through it.

TBH, and I'm happy to admit cultural difference here, but it's nothing I've not heard from RCC's in the Uk since I was a nipper... Church needs good people to shake it up... yadda yadda... and nothing happens...

 

 

It's a long time since I was a nipper and you still hear the same litany, so either they're not getting good people, or the horse is too damned ill to get on its feet...

This is actually where I wanted to see the conversation go, in one part of it. It has to do with the nature of Bureaucracy!! The people on the street, who are the feet of the machine are the ones touching reality around them and know the work that needs to be done. But way up, far up, in some bureaucrats office next to another bureaucrats office is a wholly separate reality! A reality of politics and culture of its own. Now keep going up further into the bureaucratic hierarchy. especially in the RCC, and you have this entity riding atop this lumbering beast that spans countries and cultures the world over, and long histories of traditions and practices, trying to move and adjust as a massive corporate entity in response to the voices down, way, way, way down there on the ground who talk directly to people on the streets, understanding through direct interaction with them.

 

It's a conundrum. The whole thing is a conundrum. As a massive organization, it can be effective in enacting changes, yet as a massive organization it is difficult for it to be able respond dynamically and fluidly. This brings us to Protestants! Like the little upstart, entrepreneurial enterprises in the business world, they fill the niche markets where holes are left exposed because the large corporation was unable to get their product to market in time to rapidly changing demands in a highly dynamic marketplace! What defines the Protestant is something different than what Mother Church offers. They're market niches is YOU! It's YOU and YOUR salvation! It's about the direct, and personal relationship with God! No longer do we work through the system, we go straight to the throne of God himself!

 

The downside of the Protestant enterprise is that it cannot be as effective on a global market. Instead it splinters and defines itself into many different start-up businesses, each clamoring for a piece of the available market, and all selling the "direct, personal relationship to God" products. Now along comes Fundamentalists!! They take this ME relationship with God, to a whole new level of market spin. It's not only about a direct relationship to God, it's about personal blessings! Talking in tongues, getting off on Jesus! It becomes so self-focused it shifts it's buyers away from society into an almost drug-culture. Yuk! That's what American Evangelical Christianity has become, and what it exports into 3rd world countries, exploiting impoverished countries with failing governments and warlords, promising truth and meaning to their lives! What they need is not Jesus - they need bread and water and stable governments.

 

So now the grand conundrum. I see someone like Jesus as having quite possibly been (or a least the movement that created the icon of Jesus) to be a social/spiritual reformation movement at the ground level, the grass roots level, within the religious bureaucratic system of Judaism, originally looking for reforms within the system (much like our new guest who started this thread is rightly pleading for). As this failed to make the sorts of inroads necessary during that period of history, as it is hard to move lumbering beasts quickly you know, this off-cast internal reform movement finds a niche market, becomes a popular product, then becomes a target for exploitation by another, even larger massive Bureaucracy: The Roman Government! It was the Corporate purchase of a small company, sending in their Mergers and Acquisition teams to assimilate them into the collective, while re-branding themselves in a new market strategy, as it was time for the corporate name to take on a new look and feel. Yet in and amongst the parts that make up new the corporate entity, you have the essences and cultures of the business they've consumed - the Jesus movement of love and charity, being an important part of them.

 

The conundrum is how does one function as a dynamic system to speak to the marketplace of humanity, yet be effective as an entity that can effectively bring the product to market? It can't be resolved in my opinion. So even though I admire the sentiments expressed in the opening post, does the answer really lie in the individual when dealing with a bureaucracy. Has it ever? Did it with Jesus? The RCC is the oldest, longest living bureaucracy in the history of the planet.

 

 

OK, I'll leave it there for now. Thoughts?

 

I'll offer some more thoughts later possibly.

[Kratos]

The Catholic Church is what happens when what God started, man takes over and perverts. She is called Mystery Babylon, the Mother of Harlots in the Bible and all of the Protestant bureaucracies are her daughers and grand-daughters to carry the analogy to today. Christianity was designed to be individual with no other Mediator between God and man, but Jesus. When men organize and establish an organization to be a second mediator, it is no longer the church. It is what man has built to take the place of what God intended to do.

 

So no, the RCC was not the first church. Jesus meeting around a campfire with His disciples was. The RCC is the first counterfeit for the church though there has been thousands of others since following in the same pattern.

[florduh]

So no, the RCC was not the first church. Jesus meeting around a campfire with His disciples was.

 

 

Jesus (according to the legend) was a Jew. He didn't start any church, Christian or otherwise.

 

- Chris

[Onyx]

The Catholic Church is what happens when what God started, man takes over and perverts. She is called Mystery Babylon, the Mother of Harlots in the Bible and all of the Protestant bureaucracies are her daughers and grand-daughters to carry the analogy to today. Christianity was designed to be individual with no other Mediator between God and man, but Jesus. When men organize and establish an organization to be a second mediator, it is no longer the church. It is what man has built to take the place of what God intended to do.

 

So no, the RCC was not the first church. Jesus meeting around a campfire with His disciples was. The RCC is the first counterfeit for the church though there has been thousands of others since following in the same pattern.

 

Interesting how you fit your interpretation of the Bible and other sects in along with million of others. I guess, bible is so open that it gives us Unitarians and Literalists.

[Onyx]

Oh! Antlerman, your post is so insightful- I await your further thoughts with bated breath. As you said in the chat, the only truth of Christianity is change.

[MultifariousBirdLady]

My questions about the Catholic Church comes now because I keep hearing that it was the Original Church and it spawned many doctrines and spew some anti-social conceptions as we know it.

 

I strongly suspect that the so-called Original Church under James was the same as or was closely associated with the group of "Judaisers" condemned as heretics by Paul not long afterward. I also have a suspicion that the Didache (aka "The Teachings of the 12 Apostles") might have accurately reflected how this group operated. But as Antlerman said, whatever it was shortly after Jesus' death quickly multiplied into many "Christianities" even very early on.

[Neon Genesis]

Christianity was designed to be individual with no other Mediator between God and man, but Jesus. When men organize and establish an organization to be a second mediator, it is no longer the church. It is what man has built to take the place of what God intended to do.

Does this mean you're a false Christian since you claim God is using you as another mediator when he magically appeared before you? Nice to know that you just called yourself the whore of Babylon. Or maybe you think you're no longer a human now?

[Onyx]

Correct, from what I know, early Christianity was full of divisions and anger. I heard that one sect, Essenes was the ones that originated the Jesus myth. Is that true?

[BlueGiant]

I would disagree that the Catholic church was the first false church, that distinction probably goes to Pauline Christianity in general (predates by at least 300 years). Gotta try harder than that Kratos.

 

By the way, Kratos, how does it feel to be a part of a false religion?

[Evolution_beyond]

Was it the original church?

 

No - but it is the ancestor of all modern churches.

 

All forms of protestantism broke away from the Catholic Church.

 

But the Catholic Church itself was just the form of early christianity that won. The gnostics have as much claim as the catholics for being the oldest form of christianity. I guess the oldest form of christianity is Paul's version of it (whatever the hell that was!)

[Antlerman]

The Catholic Church is what happens when what God started, man takes over and perverts.

I always enjoy hearing how you put things. Why I do is because in very many cases you're seeing the same things I do, but you use a language of mystical signs to say it with, whereas I put them in more modern, secular language.

 

I essentially said this same thing in what I said above. Spiritual, social, political, artistic, etc reforms always are born from the heart of people who have a 'vision' of change against the backdrop of an existing infrastructure. The 'Jesus movement' I consider to be a lot like the hippie movement, or... brace yourself 'atheism' today. The reason is because it found the system to be stifling to the human spirit, rather than freeing it. It was anti-establishment. It was social reform, it was spiritual reform. It said, "No" to the system, and "yes" to humanism - as it were. It is all within the religious context because that was the society, but at it's heart (taken contextually), lies humanistic values. (Religious humanism is not a dirty word, BTW).

 

But what happens to anything when it becomes popular? People join up, the core message starts to morph and evolve as the personalities and diveristies of different people's adopt it. Then... then comes the machine! Now you have to find a way to govern, sustain, and market this thing. Then you have people who control, and influence, etc. And the original reform movement becomes a system itself! Now... itself eventually becomes the target of reformists, like Jesus, who break away from it and say, "You white-washed sepulchers!" This cycle is unbreakable. This is why I believe that to codify doctrines in a book - Kratos, is to shackle the spirit of what created the breakaway reform to begin with.

 

So.. why are atheists (or even greater, ExChristians) like Jesus? Because they too are saying no to that religious system that stifled the spirit of man in his relationship to himself and the world. Are atheists evil? Hell no. They are those who have broken the yoke of the religious system, like Jesus did, in order to pursue ideals of human respect and dignity. They have symbolically turned over the money changer's tables.

 

So it's not so much what God starts, and man perverts. But rather the cycle of visionaries and the machinery of society that makes it an institution. It's simply the nature of the beast. It will always be that, no matter if it's religious or secular movements. It always ceases to offer the spirit of reform once it becomes the established way. Unavoidable.

 

She is called Mystery Babylon, the Mother of Harlots in the Bible and all of the Protestant bureaucracies are her daughers and grand-daughters to carry the analogy to today.

Of course you realize that interpretation is not set in stone? I think it's a good analogy, but the Mother of Harlots can apply to any bureaucracies that become corrupted. The most reasonable interpretation of the passage in The Revelation is that of the city of Rome herself, at the time of the writing, and not some vision of the Catholic Church. That notion became more popular in the later 1800's when Rev. Alexander Hislop published his pamphlet "The Two Babylons" , which was just a popularized spin off Martin Luther's angry essay against the Church "On the Captivity of the Babylonian Chruch" , in which he accuses the Pope of being the Antichrist. You recall I mentioned to you before how the notion of truth is really an evolution of ideas over history? Here's one example of that.

 

Most scholars see Revelation as talking directly about the Roman Government, and the "man of sin", and his number of 666 (616 in the earliest MSS) is the numerical equivelent of Nero. It's not a prophecy about the Roman Catholic Church herself, though the metaphor can certainly apply, since it too became an bloated and corrupt bureaucracy.

 

Christianity was designed to be individual with no other Mediator between God and man, but Jesus.

Personally, I'd question that last bit as being in the earliest incarnations of the movement. Do you see that concept in the synoptic gospels, or is that in the later Gospel of John? But I do agree with the first bit. It was meant to be (peeling back the later layers of course), a reform movement emphasizing the individuals commitment to truth, breaking the yoke of the establishment. Freedom movement. Hippies.

 

When men organize and establish an organization to be a second mediator, it is no longer the church.

Agreed, but then how can the movement deal with the volume of population? You answer that, and you'll be the true Messiah. (You can't answer that)

 

 

It is what man has built to take the place of what God intended to do.

Rather, it is what man has built to deal with governance. It's unavoidable. (Want to know why Paul is so repulsive? There's a clue in this). If religion is a personal relationship pursuit, it has to, absolutely, remain dynamic. That is impossible to do when you have set doctrines written in hard text on pages of a book of law. Seeing the picture yet?

 

So no, the RCC was not the first church. Jesus meeting around a campfire with His disciples was. The RCC is the first counterfeit for the church though there has been thousands of others since following in the same pattern.

Counterfeit, or natural evolution of a movement into an establishment? Happens in all movements. Wouldn't then today's equivalent of "early Christianity" be something more like those who are breaking away from Christianity? Like us?

[Skankboy]

"Catholic" literally means "Universal". The claim was never that the RCC was the "original" church, only that it was the first time all of the various sects were brought under one, "universal" umbrella.

[Telesmith]

though you'd be hard pressed to say that the catholic church was first it certainly set up shop rather early on. Despite popular belief it was around long before Constantine. Anyway, I'm recalling from memory, but I do believe the first time the words Catholic Church were used was around 117AD. The episcopacy and presbyterate are referred to and already seemed to be established in the NT and early Christian writings show other churches deferring to the authority of the Roman church. Though the early papacy was more secretarial then and certainly didn't look like it does today. As far as theology I would guess that 1st and 2nd century Christians would recognize a Catholic as a brother in Christ long before they would an evangelical.

[Abiyoyo]

The Catholic Church is what happens when what God started, man takes over and perverts. She is called Mystery Babylon, the Mother of Harlots in the Bible and all of the Protestant bureaucracies are her daughers and grand-daughters to carry the analogy to today. Christianity was designed to be individual with no other Mediator between God and man, but Jesus. When men organize and establish an organization to be a second mediator, it is no longer the church. It is what man has built to take the place of what God intended to do.

 

So no, the RCC was not the first church. Jesus meeting around a campfire with His disciples was. The RCC is the first counterfeit for the church though there has been thousands of others since following in the same pattern.

 

How can you consider that Jesus meant to have no other mediator? Why did He say when two or more are gathered, there He will be. That to me would imply that Christ meant for interaction. Men didn't establish a 'second mediator'. You are basically saying that any formation of men/women of the Christian religion isn't valid. Christ took in disciples, told them to take in more disciples. Had dinner with them, told them to keep doing this, communion, in remembrance of Him.

 

Paul just expounded on that, as well as organized religion. No the RCC was not 'man' ordained, as Peter was the first Pope; and Peter, the disciples, Christ's presence on earth was the 'rock' that the NT says His church would be built.

[Abiyoyo]

Was it the original church?

 

No - but it is the ancestor of all modern churches.

 

All forms of protestantism broke away from the Catholic Church.

 

But the Catholic Church itself was just the form of early christianity that won. The gnostics have as much claim as the catholics for being the oldest form of christianity. I guess the oldest form of christianity is Paul's version of it (whatever the hell that was!)

 

I agree, and also will add that the RCC in my opinion just had one step better than anyone; being united with the Roman government.

[Grandpa Harley]

YOYO! Easter challenge gibberish... needs you to look at it and translate it into English...

[Abiyoyo]

YOYO! Easter challenge gibberish... needs you to look at it and translate it into English...

 

 

It was a challenge in my little world.

 

[Grandpa Harley]

Well, it would be rude to leave people hanging since it was no dialect of English any one recognised...

[Antlerman]

The Catholic Church is what happens when what God started, man takes over and perverts. She is called Mystery Babylon, the Mother of Harlots in the Bible and all of the Protestant bureaucracies are her daughers and grand-daughters to carry the analogy to today. Christianity was designed to be individual with no other Mediator between God and man, but Jesus. When men organize and establish an organization to be a second mediator, it is no longer the church. It is what man has built to take the place of what God intended to do.

 

So no, the RCC was not the first church. Jesus meeting around a campfire with His disciples was. The RCC is the first counterfeit for the church though there has been thousands of others since following in the same pattern.

 

How can you consider that Jesus meant to have no other mediator? Why did He say when two or more are gathered, there He will be.

As strange as this sounds.... I'm going to play the Christian advocate here! That verse has absolutely nothing to do with mediation to God!! What on earth are you talking about? What Kratos is talking about is how the RCC is taking that advocacy role of the priest as intercessor to God, whereas the theme of the NT in Paul's Christology, and the later Gospels is that Christ is the priest, fulfilling the role of the priesthood in the OT, as mediators. The RCC still has the faithful come through them to God. They hold the "keys" to heaven. That's what he means. Whereas the early Christians wanted to reject the Institution in favor of a direct relationship with God.

 

That to me would imply that Christ meant for interaction. Men didn't establish a 'second mediator'. You are basically saying that any formation of men/women of the Christian religion isn't valid. Christ took in disciples, told them to take in more disciples. Had dinner with them, told them to keep doing this, communion, in remembrance of Him.

Fellowship with other believers has nothing to do with the intercessory role of the priesthood! The RCC essentially, in their bureaucracy took the freedom of direct relationship to God and brought it under their control. Now, the value of that is a two-edged sword, which is the point of all my posts, if you took the time to attempt to absorb them. There's some thought in there... you may wish to try to examine it.

 

Paul just expounded on that, as well as organized religion. No the RCC was not 'man' ordained, as Peter was the first Pope; and Peter, the disciples, Christ's presence on earth was the 'rock' that the NT says His church would be built.

Oh forgive me, but respectfully, that's completely and utterly unsupported! Peter was not the first Pope. There's no evidence whatsover that Peter ever visited Rome. The "Rock" verse you refer to is where Jesus said to Peter after he, among all the disciples had the 'revelation' that he was the Messiah, stated "Thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it." It's quite easily recognized contextually that that "rock" is the declaration of his Messiah-ship, not Peter!

 

Were you indoctrinated as a Catholic youth? That's the only way anyone can accept that verse to mean that Peter was the first Pope.

 

 

Ok, so now that I'm done defending Kratos' position, I'll take on challengers to mine. Any takers?

[Abiyoyo]

The Catholic Church is what happens when what God started, man takes over and perverts. She is called Mystery Babylon, the Mother of Harlots in the Bible and all of the Protestant bureaucracies are her daughers and grand-daughters to carry the analogy to today. Christianity was designed to be individual with no other Mediator between God and man, but Jesus. When men organize and establish an organization to be a second mediator, it is no longer the church. It is what man has built to take the place of what God intended to do.

 

So no, the RCC was not the first church. Jesus meeting around a campfire with His disciples was. The RCC is the first counterfeit for the church though there has been thousands of others since following in the same pattern.

 

How can you consider that Jesus meant to have no other mediator? Why did He say when two or more are gathered, there He will be.

As strange as this sounds.... I'm going to play the Christian advocate here! That verse has absolutely nothing to do with mediation to God!! What on earth are you talking about? What Kratos is talking about is how the RCC is taking that advocacy role of the priest as intercessor to God, whereas the theme of the NT in Paul's Christology, and the later Gospels is that Christ is the priest, fulfilling the role of the priesthood in the OT, as mediators. The RCC still has the faithful come through them to God. They hold the "keys" to heaven. That's what he means. Whereas the early Christians wanted to reject the Institution in favor of a direct relationship with God.

 

That to me would imply that Christ meant for interaction. Men didn't establish a 'second mediator'. You are basically saying that any formation of men/women of the Christian religion isn't valid. Christ took in disciples, told them to take in more disciples. Had dinner with them, told them to keep doing this, communion, in remembrance of Him.

Fellowship with other believers has nothing to do with the intercessory role of the priesthood! The RCC essentially, in their bureaucracy took the freedom of direct relationship to God and brought it under their control. Now, the value of that is a two-edged sword, which is the point of all my posts, if you took the time to attempt to absorb them. There's some thought in there... you may wish to try to examine it.

 

Paul just expounded on that, as well as organized religion. No the RCC was not 'man' ordained, as Peter was the first Pope; and Peter, the disciples, Christ's presence on earth was the 'rock' that the NT says His church would be built.

Oh forgive me, but respectfully, that's completely and utterly unsupported! Peter was not the first Pope. There's no evidence whatsover that Peter ever visited Rome. The "Rock" verse you refer to is where Jesus said to Peter after he, among all the disciples had the 'revelation' that he was the Messiah, stated "Thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it." It's quite easily recognized contextually that that "rock" is the declaration of his Messiah-ship, not Peter!

 

Were you indoctrinated as a Catholic youth? That's the only way anyone can accept that verse to mean that Peter was the first Pope.

 

 

Ok, so now that I'm done defending Kratos' position, I'll take on challengers to mine. Any takers?

 

Am,

 

When I see the Bible, talk about it, interpret it in the way I feel it was meant; I do that in thought. In action, I stick to a more rationalized and normal view; even in Christ's words. Literal interpretation, along with human action on that interpretation can be confusing, denominational, refuted, debated, and even cause death. I say Peter was the first Pope, he was the rock; from what I see and feel that meant; yet I understand that even most here, along with I 'note' the reading of the Bible has to be thought through

[Kratos]

AM,

 

(Kratos @ Mar 26 2008, 06:52 PM)

When men organize and establish an organization to be a second mediator, it is no longer the church.

 

Agreed, but then how can the movement deal with the volume of population? You answer that, and you'll be the true Messiah. (You can't answer that)

 

That is the point, I think. Why do people who believe in an omnipotent God think that He needs men to "deal" with the voulume of population? When we get over trying to go through others to know God is when true learning begins.

 

John

[The-Captain]

AM,

 

(Kratos @ Mar 26 2008, 06:52 PM)

When men organize and establish an organization to be a second mediator, it is no longer the church.

 

Agreed, but then how can the movement deal with the volume of population? You answer that, and you'll be the true Messiah. (You can't answer that)

 

That is the point, I think. Why do people who believe in an omnipotent God think that He needs men to "deal" with the voulume of population? When we get over trying to go through others to know God is when true learning begins.

 

John

 

Bible...written by men. Compiled by men. Interpreted by men.

 

I can agree with what you are saying, but maybe not the way you mean it. Careful keep talking like this and you might be a Deist