Posted on 05/05/2010 10:48:55 AM PDT by markomalley
Do you think there were any Christians in 100AD?
Sure—family and extended family, house churches and tribal groups loosely associated, if at all, with other Christians all over the place as travelers criss crossed the world then.
I don’t believe the Vatican et al secured it’s political power-mongering pseudo supremacy and really came into formal being as anything like we are led to believe until 300-400 years after Christ.
ROFL! Agree with you? ROFLOL!
Were there Christian ministers in 100 AD?
I would agree if you are referring to the writings of Calvin and Luther. However, unless you can completely substantiate your toothless, bogus Sola Scriptura claim from the Synoptic Gospels I don't want to discuss it as a threshold for judging the Catholic Church.
Probably depends on one’s def’s.
I’m not going to end up where you seem to be trying hard to lead me.
What’s your definition?
I’m not trying to lead you anywhere. I’m trying to have a conversation.
The sequence of posts, so far, do not come across congruent with that statement.
I’m a believer in the Biblical concept of the priesthood of all believers.
I knew you would not be able to assemble a cogent response.
Quix, I know you are a serious Christian. I assume you are knowledgeable of the Bible and understand that according to Scripture diakonos, presbyteros and episkopos were appointed in the early Church. I want to know what you think that looked like, ca. 100 AD.
In the Catholic Church we believe what the bible says about how Christians are members of the one body whose head is Christ.
And we believe what the Bible says about how Mary gave birth to the Christ.
So we believe that the mother of the head is mother of the body.
And so we believe that Mary is our mother, since we are members of the Body whose head is Christ.
Non-Catholics find the Bible hard to believe.
Evidently that
chronic rabid clique folks’ problem of
being able to handle the
DIFFERENCE
BETWEEN
SAME VS DIFFERENT
has struck again.
UNWILLING is NOT THE SAME as UNABLE.
I’m usually not that impressed when
folks resort to
Greek terms:
e.g.
diakonos, presbyteros and episkopos
English has the largest vocabulary of any language . . . probably ever . . . there are enough English words to convey accurate meaning.
My view of the early church and what God desired for all congregations in the Church Age is captured best in
Acts 2 and in I Cor 12-14.
I guess some folks will just have to continue
pondering their untrue, unBiblical fantasies.
Po-tay-toe, po-tah-toe. Can't is can't.
Related thread:
Is There Missing Text Of The Third Secret?
You are going to have to take that up with the Protestant heretics. This Catholic can't speak for them.
Enjoy the fantasies.
Most folks hereon know that kind of ‘can’t’ is highly unlikely to apply to me, very often.
However, given such givens and such fantasies . . .
We can discuss this in English but we were talking about the New Testament, which was written in Greek. I didn't want to offend you with imprecise and controversial translations of these terms, so I used the originals. Again, I am sorry if I caused offense.
I love the preaching of Acts 2, and the regulation of liturgy in I Corinthians 12-14, but you said that it was mostly house churches and tribes and I wanted to know how you accounted for the "leaders" and "elders" in Acts 15:22, for example.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.