I was used to long sermons. The rest was a bit surreal.
********************
"surreal" is the perfect descriptor.

Prof- did you hear about the charismatic choir tour? The choir director got on the bus and said "whoever needs to use the bathroom, lower one hand. "

that's good

Prof- did you hear about the charismatic choir tour? The choir director got on the bus and said "whoever needs to use the bathroom, lower one hand. "
*****************
good one. I have some Jesus jokes from seminary, but assume they are too offensive for here.

do tell

Not in Rio Linda:

quote:

---

All Christians are reborn through the waters of Baptism in Christ, which was prefigured by ALL the Jews in the Exodus.......

---

"Prefigured"? That's just another way of saying copied, co-opted, and appropriated.

College students nowadays are expelled for plagiarism. <<<====Please notice winky

Opk - not sure what your point is. The Jews that fled Egypt in the Exodus were "re-born" through the crossing of the Red Sea as they followed Moses to the promised land. There are many things that happen in the Old Testament that lead forward to the New Testament, or "prefigured" events or people of the New Testament. It's a foreshadowing of things to come, or things to be fulfilled. The New Testament fulfillment is always greater than the Old Testament....

Adam, Malchesidek, Moses and David point forward to Jesus.
Eve points forward to Mary.
The "Bread of the Presence", and the Manna in the Desert point forward to the Eucharist.
The Passover points forward to the Crucifixion.
The 12 tribes point toward the disciples, etc.


BTW.... I'm more than a decade removed from needing to worry about a term paper or plagiarism.

Ever hear of the term "proof texting"?

If you are implying that I am proof-texting, please show me where.

I was simply trying to help the OP and montanagriz better understand Catholic teaching on the Eucharist. If you take the time to listen to "Jesus and the Jewish Roots of the Eucharist" it might help you understand what I meant by prefigured, and it would certainly give you a new perspective to keeping the Bible in context. I guarantee that, and I don't even know anything about you

I guess I'm still hung up on the whole saint thing. Now I'm not trying to poke fun or call anyone out. I honestly have questions about this.

My friends mom is a super catholic. She goes to mass everyday. She invites the mormons in whom ring her doorbell and tries to convert them. I've seen it with my own eyes. She once even told me that the spanish inquisition wasn't all that bad. My friend had lost something and I heard her tell him to pray to whatever saint there is that cares about lost stuff. That sounds pretty close to idolatry.

Not in Rio Linda:

quote:

---

.....and I don't even know anything about you

---

True dat!

quote:

---

If you are implying that I am proof-texting, please show me where.

---

I have backed up everything I have claimed. I notice you have not.

Chevy - I completely understand how some things that some Catholics do appear to be idolatry to non-Catholics....and in some cases those people may be outside the teaching of the Church in their practice. However, asking for the help or the prayers of a Saint is no different than asking your friend or family member to help or pray for you. We believe Saints are alive through Christ. There are Biblical references that support, and/or do not contradict the Catholic teaching on this.

The issue rests more with the question of authority, and whether the Bible was ever meant to stand alone. It is my belief, and that of Catholicism, that it was not. People tend to get distracted with the practices they do not understand... The foundational issue must be addressed first, and that issue is Bible ALONE as the authority or not.

I enjoy genuine discussions where people have a sincere interest in the teachings of Catholicism and I gather that is the case with you.

Ok thats the best way anyone has ever put it. Thanks.

Not in Rio Linda:

quote:

---

There are many things that happen in the Old Testament that lead forward to the New Testament, or "prefigured" events or people of the New Testament. It's a foreshadowing of things to come, or things to be fulfilled. The New Testament fulfillment is always greater than the Old Testament....

---

Is this is what you refer to as "back up"?

Event A may occur prior to Event B but that does not mean the two are related....unless you choose to believe they are. What you have posted are your beliefs and you should label them as such.

I respect your right to believe as you wish but I think you should be aware that not everyone shares or believes that your particular beliefs are factual or....to coin a phrase, "the gospel".

BTW, I too am a "believer"....but I believe otherwise.

Fair enough. I think it is pretty obvious through my posts that I am posting my beliefs, and doing my best to present the Catholic position. So if the Old Testament is of little to no use to our understanding of God and his plan for our salvation...why study it at all? I mean if the events of the Old Testament do not point forward to Christ, what is the purpose? Please enlighten me. I find the Old Testament incredibly useful in understanding the New.

You accused me of proof-texting. I have not anywhere on this thread engaged in proof-texting. Please show me where. Thanks.

quote:

---

So if the Old Testament is of little to no use to our understanding of God and his plan for our salvation...why study it at all?

---

Never did I imply that the First Testament/Torah and Tanach (what you refer to as the "Old Testament")is of no use/value. On the contrary, it has great value as the history of my people, their struggles, their shortcomings their triumphs and their faith in One G d, despite all adversity.

quote:

---

I mean if the events of the Old Testament do not point forward to Christ, what is the purpose?

---

Its purpose can be, regardless of what certain detractors assert (I'm sure they'll show up here soon), a guide book for ethics in the fields of law, business, and daily living...how we relate to our fellow man and to our G d. Concepts like tzedakah,righteousness, (what Christians refer to as "charity"), taking care of the poor, the widow, the orphan. Leaving the corners of the field unharvested for the needy to gather. The concept in law of "let the punishment fit the crime", which is the true interpretation of "an eye for an eye". All these basic ideas, which many take for granted, and more are found in the First Testament.

Keep in mind, as a religion, the First Testament/Torah can stand alone. The New Testament borrows from and depends heavily on it for validation.

Opk: I am guilty of assuming you were coming from a Christian perspective on a thread about Christianity and Catholicism. I have deep respect for the Jewish faith and believe what we refer to as the Old Testament is foundational to my Christian faith. I meant no disrespect in assuming I was talking to a Christian.

No problem, NiRL: I suspected that you were unaware. The veteran posters know me.


It's all good.

To get the thread back on track: In answer to the question posed by the OP, "Which came first, Christianity or Catholicism?", I've heard that the Eastern Orthodox Church has a rightful claim as the "first". Perhaps jkotinek, primrose, or another EO/GO/RO can enlighten us.

And now I am in the know.

This is an interesting thread, and I would like to return first to the OP and first page and the initial question. This because when answered linearly gives many insights.

First off, understand that sometimes terminology confuses and obscures more than it clarifies. A common example illustrates: statists particularly show this, as in "Democratic Peoples Republic" when the place in question was not Democratic, not remotely republican, nor serves, the people, but instead an elite oligarchy. So, bearing that mind about how terms can mislead, consider it this way:

Forget the terms `Roman Catholic' and `Eastern Orthodox. Call it Western Catholic and Eastern Catholic for now in this post (It would even be well to put that in head whenever you hear them). Keep that in mind, as will invoke it occasionally. I will be making some generalized summations, but can narrow down as needed. Forgive length, but I have tried to design the paragraphs where you can just read the one of interest in the chronological progression.

When Christ was crucified circa 33 AD, you had the beginnings of "The Church". Getting even more precise, it didn't yet exist till Pentecost, and the descent of the Holy Spirit allowed the gospel to be preached to all in hearing in their tongues. At that moment we can speak of the Universal or Catholic Church, as having begun. At this stage though, if we invoke Win At Life's term, Messianic or in a sense, Christianic Jews, we could think of the first Christians in summer 33 AD after the first Pentecost as "Know-Christ-Messiah Jews" [Christ was key element--- `Messianic Christians' would not be horribly misleading, but please note this does not last long.]

The Catholic Church exists from Pentecost forward, complete with the laying on of hands that establishes apostolic succession. Around 34, you have stoning of Stephen, who becomes `St.Stephen' in that martyrdom. It is not unlikely Saul of Tarsus was closely present - his conversion to Paul happens about a year later. The apostles and disciples go out, spreading the gospel to myriad of places. However, during this time frame, they are living much like many other Jews (but remember Judaism had many sects), keeping Torah, attending Temple services, celebrating the festivals. Important to Opk's question is that the sees of Alexandria, Antioch, and Rome, are founded in quick succession so nearly simultaneously as to be impossible to clearly discern. You can't base "first" on this. (If you realize the `going forth' of the apostles from Pentecost, you can see how the various see or `church' foundings would come very close together depending on how long it took to reach and create a following in a given city. Jerusalem was a see from the get go, with James the Brother of Jesus particularly prominent. It is crucial to remember, there is NO Roman persecution, no restriction of movement, to the apostolic message at this time. The Roman concern was only with political sedition. They didn't care what sects of Jews were arguing about. The persecution comes rather from within, from the Jewish Sanhedrin. The whole story of the conversion of Saul to Paul a famous example of this phase. There was nothing strange or incredible that Peter and others got to Rome very early -- best estimates have the church in Rome going by about 42 AD, bolstered by Peter's arrival after his escape and by the scattering of the Jerusalem contingent of apostles by King Herod Agrippa, the installed favorite of Emperors Caligula and Claudius. Agrippa who executes James son of Zebedee, and was going to Peter. Similarly, in the Coptic Church, the evidence points to the arrival of St. Mark and the founding of the Alexandria see in 45 AD. This is what I mean by happening kind of all together.



(In the pentarchy understanding, five great patriarchates would dominate early Catholic Christian (the two were the same) history: two in the "West" parts of the Empire (largely Latin speaking), Carthage and Rome, and three in the "East" part of the Empire (largely Greek speaking), Antioch,Alexandria, and Constantinople. Rome always had some form of primacy---the great debates center on the degree and depth of authority, but its important to realize its stature was not gainsay-ed). There is a reason Jerusalem is not named, see aside below)

(It is not so simple as to who "came first" -- if you mean Constantinople's see, its easy. The see of Byzantium was said to have been founded by Andrew, but was very junior not recognized as important till Byzantium became Constantinople in 330. And not till 381 was Constantinople elevated to equivalence with Rome, much to the ire and rejection of Alexandria, Antioch, and Carthage). But that question is really asking if the Eastern part and thought of the Church as "first" has a claim. The answer is no, but with big disclaimers, as will see)

But around 48/49 the arguments over which customs Gentile converts have to follow is reaching a head. It is significant that at this same time frame Emperor Claudius expels `Jews' from Rome for their bickering (it would appear this was beyond the normal `bickering' and in fact represents arguments between early Christians and Jews), the apostles have to meet in apostolic council to settle some questions. Not least is the question of the Gentiles and what they have to follow or not follow. This is the famous first ecumenical council. Without getting into what was precisely decided, the upshot is, it becomes correct to say that from 50 AD on the Christianic Jews because of the the witness to Gentiles begin to diverge increasingly from the main block of Judaism.

(Aside - One naturally wonders about the Jerusalem church, the "upper room" in all this; between Herod Agrippa's persecution and executions in 41-43 AD, and then the execution of James the brother of Jesus by the Sanhedrin in Passover of 62, Jerusalem is forsaken by apostles. It is basically going "radical" and not a safe place to be, and in the same time period is under one of the worst and corrupt Roman Procurators, Albinus. The Jewish war to follow soon puts an end to any real role of the Jerusalem see.)

Still these changes remain minimal till the great Jewish revolt against Rome (against Nero's corrupt Procurator Florus) in 67-74 AD gets Judea destroyed and leveled by eight Roman legions, the Temple and its very services abolished by destruction, and the first big Jewish diaspora caused. The famous siege of Masada marks the final stage of that war. With the Temple gone (from August 70 AD forward), Jewish religious life truly shifts. By 100 AD
Christianic Jews are making increasing progress with conversions among Gentiles, and by 115 AD have so separated from Jewish thought that when the diaspora rises up in Greece against Emperor Trajan, the Christians do not participate, and again, largely stay out of the second great Jewish revolt, the Bar Kochba revolt, that happens in the 130's

AD. This one goes even more badly than the first, Emperor Hadrian so levels the remaining country that what we think of as Judea or Israel area largely becomes almost non-Jewish in its main number of residents. We can speak of a true divide of classic Judaism from nascent Christianity by 140 AD with the caveats above.

It is also useful to realize that by the same period, certainly by 120 AD, but more accurately, dead-on the turn of the century when apostle John is said to have died, we find the end point of what will become NT Scripture. Apart from the OT The `Bible' does not yet even exist. Which books and scrolls a given witness had in synagogue or church varied -- it depended on what copies he had to consult. It was the Church that fixed the witness and orthodoxy of a given belief, for the tradition was a living Tradition and sustained by the apostolic succession. It is significant that already in 96 AD we find Pope Clements (third Bishop of Rome and who had met Peter and Paul) letters citing this prerogative.

So one of the strange things by the constant reference of "find no verse in scripture" or "its not in the Bible" about a given item must bear in mind that roughly after 100 AD nothing new is being written at all, but it is well before all but the most pessimistic analyst thinks the Holy Spirit had ceased to guide the Church. This point is not trivial, but is almost never addressed, either by supporters or critics of magisterium. That between 100-325 AD you have 225 years of pretty much undisputed apostolic catholic church. For all those moderns that like to mis-characterize Constantine's role so much, is why I said 325. (Point being: The catholic church complete with Pope, bishops, magesterium, council, apostolic succession -- was a long
done deal by that time anyway so going on about Constantine is a distraction and red-herring). The Bible was not meant to stand alone, because it didn't---"it" (in the NT sense) wasn't extant as a consistently bound work till the 4th Century. Priests taught from their instruction by others in the doctrine, and with reference to the scripture they possessed. It is precisely when local teachings diverged too much from any reasonably `doctrinaire' interpretation that you saw the mechanisms of council or hearings kick in to clarify the orthodoxy, and in some cases, reject or even expel the variant.

When you read of the Bible's canon being set in the 380's-400's period by councils at Carthage and Hippo, with a strong involvement by Saint Augustine, this refers to determining which of the surviving books and scriptures could be authenticated by tradition or what moderns would call `chain of evidence transmission' to back to the apostles and as in regular doctrinal use down to that time. This was done with great prayer, reflection, study,
and invoking of the Holy Spirit.

Technically speaking, nothing being put in the canon was written much later than 100 AD, excluding possibility that a work or letter that should not be there, made it in. So if you think of the NT part of the Bible (the one of the early and medieval period) as a collection of writings bound in collection posthumously with authors whose obits would not post-date c100 AD, you would not be far afield. Most NT scripture was originally in greek, some aramaic. When you hear `Vulgate' this is Saint Jerome's translation of in the same time frame as fixing the canon from
aramaic/greek into Latin, and for the OT from Septuagint's Hebrew directly into Latin. (Ironically, in the East, under Justinian, Latin would be formally replaced by Greek as the national language again).

You cannot accept the New Testament and reject the magesterium that preserved and authenticated it for the three centuries leading to it being bound into the canon. (And as all know, even that form underwent some change, when the Apocrypha was dropped later). The Old Testament of course, was already extant. However, even it was changed after the destruction of the Temple when the rabbinic council of Jamnia removes 13
books from the Old Testament canon in 92 AD. (The canon of the Mishna would not be fixed till later) Incidentally, most if not all of these are the same as the Apocrypha, so the Reformation form followed the post-Temple Jewish form for the OT. They are usually not printed in Protestant bibles. The main reason the Catholic Bible is different here, is it is earlier, and reproduces the much older Septuagint of the OT, before the deletions Jamnia made in 92 AD after the fall of Judea and the Temple.

Messianic Torah Keepers are a special case --- I am not sure if they feel it necessary to adhere to the NT in the same way most other Christians do?

[This message has been edited by titan (edited 6/8/2013 5:28p).]

Touching on a question further ahead, The above said, the Reformation itself starts out first, not as a revolt against the Catholic Church, but as a serious and well- reasoned challenge to the way the some of the teachings were being conducted at that time. Spurred in large part by the printing press making copies of the Bible more easily accesssible and individually kept, individual study of scripture springs up. Martin Luther should not be seen (at the outset) as a rebel. He was persuasively convinced that teachings had drifted from the emphasis on grace by his time, and found much support in Augustine's writings in particular. The same held for John Calvin. Their arguments were not some sheer defiance, but extremely well researched beliefs that found portions of Augustine apparently supporting them. Against the backdrop of the spectacular, (21st Century Washington reminds of it) corruption of the time, the default `final say' of the Pope seemed even more open to question. This fine line of argument to this day remains a dividing point that too often is just over-simplified into polarized positions.

It is important to note neither of those heavies negated the esteem and veneration given to Mary. That is a more recent trend, and so not very tenable even by Reformation standards.

Oops. Didn't want to look like just burying the catalyst question. ;-)

quote:

---

Which came first, Christianity or Catholicism

---

Answer: Catholicism for it means the same as `Christianity' -- when defined as One Holy and Apostolic Church as nicely summed up in the Apostolic and Nicene creeds. "West" (Roman) and "East" (Orthodox) Catholic both fulfill this and didn't stop from doing so.

In more recent times, Christian has oddly come to mean, "not Catholic or Orthodox" -- used that way curiously by both Protestants and Catholic/Orthodox.

(You routinely hear today, `Catholics are not Christians' from certain fundamentalist Christians, and YET, on the same token, down in Catholic Columbia and many Latin American churches, you hear `Christian' used as as a form of a type of heretic! Both sides have turned the word on its head.

Its mind-boggling.)

Christian seems logically to be one who believes Christ was the Son of God, the Messiah, and the Savior. That definition seems to go much wider than currently used. It seems hard to find support from the words of Jesus himself for more restrictive takes. I suppose one could use the Nicene creed as a yardstick, but most fit that too.

Further confusing the issue, critics like Bill Maher talk about `Christers' and don't seem to even be meaning the main denominations or church bodies. Ah well.

[This message has been edited by titan (edited 6/8/2013 5:51p).]

Very well done, Titan. I really enjoyed reading the summary of the early Church structure, and you nailed the point about the Holy Spirit continuing to guide the Church long after the Apostolic age! Blue Star for you!

Great summary titan. Always love your posts.

quote:

---

Messianic Torah Keepers are a special case --- I am not sure if they feel it necessary to adhere to the NT in the same way most other Christians do?

---

As we believe the NT does not abolish the Law (as spoken by Yeshua Himself, BTW), and therefore supports keeping Torah, then we don’t adhere to the NT in the same way most other Christians do. Have you been around enough lately to read my posts/proofs on how the New Testament supports Torah keeping?

If you mean where the organization and authority to assemble the NT came from, most fall into three camps. First are those not knowing or caring much about who organized it. Second are those acknowledging that it was organized by those who came to claim “Catholicism”, but not abiding by those men’s teaching other than accepting the books so organized. And third holding to the primacy of the Easter Aramaic texts. One problem with the third is that the Eastern Aramaic texts never included Jude, 1,2,3, John or Revelation. However, most Aramaic –English translations include these other books, which they have to borrow from the Greek text and the “Catholic” grouping.

titan is a-slingin dissertations again! almost all is well with texags! it's 1999 all over!

we need tuag to get back on this wagon, and the co-R&P messiahs will have returned!

quote:

---

titan is a-slingin dissertations again! almost all is well with texags! it's 1999 all over!

we need tuag to get back on this wagon, and the co-R&P messiahs will have returned!

---

opk-

Just saw your comment. I don't think I can add anything to titan's excellent exposition of history, so I'll just post a link to pretty graphic.

http://www.antiochian.org/orthodox-church-history

n.b. this is a timeline from an EOC perspective and necessarily will not reflect others' (e.g. RCC) perspectives.

And, just for the record, I concur with titan's response that in the broader sense of the term catholic, there is not a distinction from the word Christian. However, if you want to use the word "Chrisitanity" or "Catholocism" to refer to the Church, I like the theological explanation that the Church has existed from the creation of the angels, which puts a whole new spin on the OP question:
http://www.johnsanidopoulos.com/2011/06/origin-and-revelation-of-church.html