Would Baptists even exist without Catholicism?

Exactly, and Christ is the ONE head not the pope:

5:23 because the husband is the head of the wife as also Christ is the head of the church—he himself being the savior of the body. - Ephesians 5:23 NET

This one says it quite well:

2:8 Be careful not to allow anyone to captivate you16 through an empty, deceitful philosophy17 that is according to human traditions and the elemental spirits18 of the world, and not according to Christ. 2:9 For in him all the fullness of deity lives19 in bodily form 2:10 and you have been filled in him, who is the head over every ruler and authority. - Colossians 2:8-10 NET

Any church which tries to put itself between man and God is wrong:

2:5 For there is one God and one intermediary7 between God and humanity, Christ Jesus, himself human,8 - 1 Timothy 2:5 NET

The Catholic church claims partial blame for divisions and so your arogant attempt to blame the Roman Catholic church's corruption on everybody else is not consistent with the views of the Roman Catholic church:

[ May 06, 2002, 11:46 PM: Message edited by: Dualhunter ]

 

Jim,

It has been answered. The Catholic Church of Nicea yes, but not the Roman Catholic Church that has it's origins later. Baptists nor any Protestants owe nothing to the RCC. Certaintly to the ancient Catholic Church we do as do all denominations be they Protestant, Roman Catholic or Orthodox but the RCC is just a pretender to being that Church and Roman Catholic history propaganda claiming to go back to the apostles has no validity. If you believe there was a pope in the 4th century you must confess he was either inept or senile since the Church of Alexandria led the charge against Arianism and not Rome.

Actually if one was looking simply for a chainlink Ancient Catholic link, the Egyptian Coptic Church or the Eastern Orthodox have more validity since their synodol form of government is closer to that of the ancient Catholic Church of Nicea and Chalcedon. Even the Anglican Communion of Churches are more similar than the papal run RCC. Actually there are no direct succesors in a chainlink sense to the Ancient Catholic churches. All Christian churches are fruits of their labor and none can exclusively make a direct connection to themselves back to the Ancient Catholic churches.

[ May 07, 2002, 02:19 PM: Message edited by: Kiffin ]

 

Ever since right before I got saved, when I heard the claims of the Church of Christ and Worldwide Church of God to be the original Church (and later the Jehovah's Witnesses, other Sabbathkeeping groups, and the Baptist Briders and some other Baptist groups) --all making a link from the apostles to small groups throughout the ages such as the Catharii, Albigenses, Waldenses, and Anabaptists-- many of which had beliefs and practices far different from these modern groups), I had ben intrigued by the idea of an "original denomination" among the mess of groups I had found. Historically, many would assume it was Rome, and after it began corrupting doctrinally, the East, and then the Protestants broke off. But technically, the Church started in the East; and consisted of five patriarchates (jurisdictions of equal bishops), and Rome was only one of them. (the others of course, Constantinople, Jerusalem, Antioch and Alexandria). So really, it was Rome who broke away from the "original Church body", and the East is a preservation of the particular era a Church in a progression of corruption was in when the split occurred. Of course, enough of it had occured by the time of the split, so the Eastern Church has alot of the questionable Catholic dogmas and practices. Much of what Muhammad criticized in "Christianity" was because of a corrupt Church he saw (Mary treated as the third person of the Trinity). Rome had only risen to such authority because it was the seat of the empire (what spiritual significance did that city have in the Bible?)
But still, I have heard in stories of the Middle East, about small groups of Christian families, scattered about, who have continued their practice "from Biblical times". This is where I would be interested in looking for "the original Christianity". I just wonder how much affiliated they might be with the Eastern Orthodox Church, (if at all), and how many of its (or the West's) doctrines and practices they keep. Do they have priests, transubstantiation, Mary and the saints devotion, etc.?
Does anyone know anything about these Christians?

 

Do you mean to say that no Christian, no believer, believed in the resurrection, or was intelligent enough to know about the resurrection until they were enlightened by the Council of Nicea?? Without the resurrection one cannot be saved. What happened to all the Christians before Nicea? Is that where Christianity originated?

I would rather stick to the Bible than biased Catholic dogma and Catholic historians, thank you very much.
DHK

 

That's right, DHK. There were people around who were questioning the physical resurrection of Christ. The inclusion of the confession of the resurrection into the Creed made it binding upon all Christians to believe and profess this.

Wasssmatter.....you forget your CCD classes again?



Brother Ed

 

Eric --

Some comments on your post:

I had ben intrigued by the idea of an "original denomination" among the mess of groups I had found. Historically, many would assume it was Rome, and after it began corrupting doctrinally, the East, and then the Protestants broke off. But technically, the Church started in the East; and consisted of five patriarchates (jurisdictions of equal bishops), and Rome was only one of them. (the others of course, Constantinople, Jerusalem, Antioch and Alexandria).

Sounds like you have been doing two things: looking for truth (careful, that can be a dangerous pasttime. Just ask any of us converts) and reading Orthodox literature. I say this because your statement above regarding equality of authority of the bishops of the 5 patriarchial seats is the same thing the Orthodox toss out all the time.

So really, it was Rome who broke away from the "original Church body", and the East is a preservation of the particular era a Church in a progression of corruption was in when the split occurred.

Are you SURE you aren't a closet Orthodox? Christ gave the keys of authority to ONE PERSON -- St. Peter -- thus establishing the primacy of the office of the papacy over the other offices of the bishops in the Church. Now you KNOW that our Lord, being God in the flesh, knew exactly what He was doing, and thus, if He had wanted to establish an equality of authority, He would have publically gone to each of the apostles and given them a single "key". The keys are a symbol of St. Peters ultimate authority, which he is properly to SHARE with the bishops of the other patriarchial sees. But ultimately, since the keys were given to St. Peter, HE is the controller of the keys, meaning quite simply that the office of the papacy has the oversight of the whole Church. This is proven by the fact that until the lamentable schism of 1054, popes routinely deposed of heretical bishops in the East and NNE QUESTIONED THEIR RIGHT TO DO SO!!

Of course, enough of it had occured by the time of the split, so the Eastern Church has alot of the questionable Catholic dogmas and practices.

The word "katholicos" in Greek simply means universal. That which the East believed, the West believed until the falling out over the filioque clause in the Nicene Creed. Universal doctrines such as baptismal regeneration, mode of baptism, the seven Sacraments of the Church, devotion to the Theotokos, and other doctrines which are disagreed with by Baptists were universally held until the schism. Even today, there are only about 4 points of real doctrinal distinction between the East and the West. This is why John Paul II can refer to the Orthodoc churches as "the other lung" of the Body of Christ and says that the Church needs both lungs to breathe with to be healthy.

Much of what Muhammad criticized in "Christianity" was because of a corrupt Church he saw (Mary treated as the third person of the Trinity). Rome had only risen to such authority because it was the seat of the empire (what spiritual significance did that city have in the Bible?)

Rome has NO spiritual significance in the Scriptures. The fact that the headship of the office of the pope is in Rome is due to the fact that St. Peter went to Rome and established his bishopprick there. Thus, that seat became the seat of the authority of the Church.

But still, I have heard in stories of the Middle East, about small groups of Christian families, scattered about, who have continued their practice "from Biblical times". This is where I would be interested in looking for "the original Christianity". I just wonder how much affiliated they might be with the Eastern Orthodox Church, (if at all), and how many of its (or the West's) doctrines and practices they keep.

The Liturgy of our Ruthenian Catholic Church, along with that of the Copts, the Ukrainians, the Melkites, and a couple of others I cannot remember, goes all the way back to St. John Chrysostom and the 6th century. You will not find anything of a real primative Christian society in that the worship of the Church evolved over the centuries into the Liturgy we use today. Remember that Christ compared the kingdom to a mustard seed. In that analogy, we see that the seed (church right after His ascension) would not look like the full grown tree (church after several centuries).

Do they have priests, transubstantiation, Mary and the saints devotion, etc?

We are also called Eastern Orthodox in communion with Rome (although the Russian, Antiochian, and Alexandrian Orthodox SPIT every time they hear us mentioned ). I was talking with a Serbian Orthodox friend of mine today and he said that our liturgical rites are identical to theirs. The only difference is that we are in full communion with Rome, which would mean that we really do represent the Eastern church prior to the schism of 1054.

Does anyone know anything about these Christians?

I am most appreciative that we are called Christians and not something else. Thank you.

If you research the teachings of the Early Fathers, you will find that the teaching of transubstantiation goes back before St. Augustine. Although it was not called by that name, it clearly was understood by the Early Fathers that Christ is really and substantially present in the Eucharist. The earliest writing to this effect is from St. Irenaeus, who was a disciple of Polycarp, who in turn was mentored by Apostle John.

Yes, we have priests. You cannot consecrate nor offer a sacrifice without a priest. In fact, except for a few differences in wording (we do not recite the "filioque" and this is acceptable to the pope at this time) and administration (we commune our infants as soon as they can chew and swallow Jesus), there really isn't much difference between us in the East and the West. I personally think that our body is a perfect model for what the Church will be like when the Orthodox and Rome finally come to terms with the long schism they have been under.

Look, if you really want some good information, come over here:

http://www.byzcath.org/cgibin/ultimatebb.cgi

This is the Byzantine Catholic forum. You will be treated with respect and not attacked. There are people there who are very, very knowledgeable about Church history and can answer your questions much better than I can as a mere convert.

Cordially in Christ,

Brother ED

 

Yes there were people around that were questioning the resurrection. There always were, and always will be. The Jews denied at that time, and tried to bribe the Romans to cover it up. Some of the Corinthians denied it, and Paul wrote a complete defense of the resurrection in 1Corinthians chapter 15. We need no council to tell us that Jesus rose from the dead. The early Christians staked their lives on that very fact. The Word of God thoroughly explains, and the apostles boldly preached it. It is the central theme of every recorded sermon preached in the book of Acts. For you to come along and claim that the Catholic Church gave us the doctrine of the resurrection is just about the most ludicrous thing I have ever heard. Please read your Bible. You spend too much time with those church fathers.
DHK

 

Oh boy, here we go again!!

 

Regarding Peter's Keys, Jesus has them now according to Revelations 3:7(I believe).

Wrong. Read Revelations again. It is a single key, not KEYS.

Isa 22:22 And the key of the house of David will I lay upon his shoulder; so he shall open, and none shall shut; and he shall shut, and none shall open.

Furthermore, Revelations identifies it as the Key to the House of David, right? So this is the same key that is spoken of in prophecy in Isaiah.

But Jesus gives St. Peter KEYS -- plural. Now I really do not believe that God is sloppy with His wording in the Scriptures, therefore, I cannot accept that these are the same thing. The presence of many keys (picture them on a keychain) indicates that they are to be distributed by St. Peter to the apostles, showing his overall administrative authority over the Church.

Nicea is the foundation for all institutional Christianity. Problem is, the doctrines it adopted do not have their roots in Israel's revelation but Alexandria's imagination.

Institutional Christianity? What kind of gobbledegook is that? The family of God is a kingdom. There is heirarchy in a kingdom. There is a king, there is a prime minister, there are princes and lower officials. In other words, there is structure or, in your disparaging words, an INSTITUTION.

Everything we do is rooted in the fulfillment of the types which were given to Israel. The Passover is fulfilled in the Eucharist, for instance. Christ is called the Lamb of God, a term showing antetype fulfillment of the type in the OT. In the OT, the lamb was EATEN after it was offered. You seem to forget about that. Only Catholic theology fulfills the type as we eat the Lamb of God Who is the Bread of Life.

In the OT, we see the covenantal headship of Adam and Eve as they are given authority over all the earth, which by extension is to include all their descendents. In Catholic theology, we know that Christ's sacrifice has restored this covenantal headship in the person of Christ (the Last Adam) and the Blessed Virgin Mary (the New Eve). The covenantal headship over the physical creation is restored in them, and once again, flesh and blood rules over the earth as it was intended to be.

We baptism fulfilling the typological picture of the Jews crossing the Red Sea. In going through the deep waters, they are separated from their enemies, their enemies are made dead to them, they enter a new land and begin their pilgrimage to the Promised Land. Catholic theology propers shows this in baptism as we are indeed entered into Christ (Rom 6:3 and Gal. 3:27), thus becoming new creatures in Him as partakers of the New Covenant with Him.

There is so much more. Proper Christianity should be an extension of the Jewish religion, except that Christ has fulfilled all the feasts and types which point to Him.

Certainly there are elements from Platonic thought. The Church has never been reluctant to incorporate different thought forms which better explain its theology.

Now you explain this to me:

How come there were 13 crucified "saviors" in pagan mythology before Christ was even born? Since this was a pagan belief before Christ was born, should we jettison the idea of a crucified and risen Savior of all mankind? WHERE do you think they got such an idea?

There were a number of pagan beliefs in a triad of Gods, as the "Oneness" people are only all too happey to point out to us, before the debate at Nicea. WHERE do you think they got that idea?
Shall we jettison the Trinity because the pagans believed in it first?

Tell me how these pagans believed in the truth (even if their knowledge of it was incomplete).

Cordially in Christ,

Brother Ed

Jim

 

Well since you don't believe that God is sloppy with His wording then you might be interested in knowing this:

When Jesus says, "you are Peter, and on this rock", the Greek word for Peter used for Petros and the Greek word used for rock is petra.

Henry George Liddell, Robert Scott, An Intermediate Greek-English Lexicon:

For some reason God felt the need to call Peter a small stone rather than a rock cliff face.

 

I can't believe this hasn't been discussed before. As PS104_33 said, "Here we go again." I give you this:

The Aramaic form of Simon’s new name preserved for us is Kephas. In our English Bibles it comes out as Cephas. That isn’t Greek. That’s a transliteration of the Aramaic word Kepha (rendered as Kephas in its Hellenistic form).

And what does Kepha mean? It means a large, massive stone, the same as petra. (It doesn’t mean a little stone or a pebble—the Aramaic word for that is evna.) What Jesus said to Simon in Matthew 16:18 was this: ‘You are Kepha, and on this kepha I will build my Church.’

Jesus didn't speak Greek - he spoke Aramaic. Greek and Aramaic have different grammatical structures. In Aramaic you can use kepha in both places in Matthew 16:18. In Greek you encounter a problem arising from the fact that nouns take differing gender endings.

You have masculine, feminine, and neuter nouns. The Greek word petra is feminine. You can use it in the second half of Matthew 16:18 without any trouble. But you can’t use it as Simon’s new name, because you can’t give a man a feminine name—at least back then you couldn’t. You have to change the ending of the noun to make it masculine. When you do that, you get Petros, which was an already-existing word meaning rock.

When you understand what the Aramaic says, you see that Jesus was equating Simon and the rock; he wasn’t contrasting them. We see this vividly in some modern English translations, which render the verse this way: ‘You are Rock, and upon this rock I will build my church.’ In French one word, pierre, has always been used both for Simon’s new name and for the rock.

Check out this link for information: http://www.catholic.com/library/Peter_the_Rock.asp

[ May 08, 2002, 01:34 AM: Message edited by: Astralis ]

 

Are you certain about that? In Koine Greek, both petros and petra simply meant "rock." If Jesus had wanted to call Simon a small stone, the Greek 'lithos' would have been used.

As Greek scholars—even non-Catholic ones—admit, the words petros and petra were synonyms in first century Greek. They meant "small stone" and "large rock" in some ancient Greek poetry, centuries before the time of Christ, but that distinction had disappeared from the language by the time Matthew’s Gospel was rendered in Greek. The difference in meaning can only be found in Attic Greek, but the New Testament was written in Koine Greek—an entirely different dialect. In Koine Greek, both petros and petra simply meant "rock." If Jesus had wanted to call Simon a small stone, the Greek lithos would have been used.

Most of the New Testament was written in Greek, but not all. Matthew’s Gospel was written by him in Aramaic or Hebrew—we know this from records kept by Eusebius of Caesarea—but it was translated into Greek early on, perhaps by Matthew himself.

From http://www.catholic.com/library/Peter_the_Rock.asp

 

1Cor.10:4 And did all drink the same spiritual drink: for they drank of that spiritual Rock that followed them: and that Rock was Christ.
---That Rock was Christ

(1 Cor 3:11) For other foundation can no man lay than that is laid, which is Jesus Christ.

(Eph 2:20 ) And are built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ himself being the chief corner stone;

(1 Pet 2:6-8) Wherefore also it is contained in the scripture, Behold, I lay in Sion a chief corner stone, elect, precious: and he that believeth on him shall not be confounded.
7 Unto you therefore which believe he is precious: but unto them which be disobedient, the stone which the builders disallowed, the same is made the head of the corner,
8 And a stone of stumbling, and a rock of offence, even to them which stumble at the word, being disobedient: whereunto also they were appointed.

(Rom 9:33) As it is written, Behold, I lay in Sion a stumblingstone and rock of offence: and whosoever believeth on him shall not be ashamed.

Rock, petra, means "massive rock. I don't believe the Catholic spin doctors. I do believe the Greek lexicons, as Dualhunter quoted from in his post above. I also believe that Scripture does not contradict itself. Compare Scripture with Scripture. Christ is that Rock, not Peter.
DHK

 

We can agrue all we want about what either word means, the main point here is despite being in the same verse, 2 different words are used. If Jesus had meant that Peter was the rock he would have said "I tell you that you are Petros and on the petros....", however that is not what Jesus said, he used a different word thus making a distinction between the two. The language used is irrevelavent, the fact of the matter is there are 2 different words when 1 could have been used if that were intended.

 

Dualhunter,

Actually, no - the same word cannot be used in Greek because Petra is feminine and if you called Peter "Petra" in Greek it would've been a girl's name - highly unusual at that time if not now - I wouldn't call you "Dualhuntress" if you're not a woman.

Remember, at the time this was written, according to Greek scholars - even those who are non-Catholics - say Petros and Petra were synonymns except when it was obvious in terms of someone's name if you're a boy or girl. In Koine Greek, both petros and petra simply meant "rock." You claim that the writer was making a distinction but in Koine Greek using the word Petros it was impossible. Instead, if Jesus had wanted to call Simon a small stone, the Greek "lithos" would have been used - that didn't happen. By calling Peter "Petros" because he is a man and therefore there wasn't any other choice - there was no change in meaning from Petra because these words were synonymns at that time. Translating a play on words in very difficult. It's interesting to see how other languages translate this phrase where "Peter" actually means a rock. For example, 'Pierre', in French means rock and the French translate this quote as "You are Pierre and on this Pierre..."

Beyond the grammatical evidence, the structure of the narrative does not allow for a downplaying of Peter’s role in the Church.

Look at the way Matthew 16:15-19 is structured. After Peter gives a confession about the identity of Jesus, the Lord does the same in return for Peter. Jesus does not say, "Blessed are you, Simon Bar-Jona! For flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but my Father who is in heaven. And I tell you, you are an insignificant pebble and on this rock I will build my Church. . . . I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven."

Jesus is giving Peter a three-fold blessing, including the gift of the keys to the kingdom, not undermining his authority. To say that Jesus is downplaying Peter flies in the face of the context. Jesus is installing Peter as a form of chief steward or prime minister under the King of Kings by giving him the keys to the kingdom.

As can be seen in Isaiah 22:22, kings in the Old Testament appointed a chief steward to serve under them in a position of great authority to rule over the inhabitants of the kingdom. Jesus quotes almost verbatum from this passage in Isaiah, and so it is clear what he has in mind. He is raising Peter up as a father figure to the household of faith (Is. 22:21), to lead them and guide the flock (John 21:15-17). This authority of the prime minister under the king was passed on from one man to another down through the ages by the giving of the keys, which were worn on the shoulder as a sign of authority. Likewise, the authority of Peter.

---
By the words “this rock” Jesus means not himself, nor his teaching, nor God the Father, nor Peter’s confession, but Peter himself. The phrase is immediately preceded by a direct and emphatic reference to Peter. As Jesus identifies himself as the Builder, the rock on which he builds is most naturally understood as someone (or something) other than Jesus himself. The demonstrative this, whether denoting what is physically close to Jesus or what is literally close in Matthew, more naturally refers to Peter (v. 18) than to the more remote confession (v. 16). The link between the clauses of verse 18 is made yet stronger by the play on words, “You are Peter (Gk. Petros), and on this rock (Gk. petra) I will build my church.” As an apostle, Peter utters the confession of verse 16; as a confessor he receives the designation this rock from Jesus. (“Matthew,” Evangelical Commentary on the Bible, (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker, 1989), 742.)
--- J. Knox Chamblin, non-Catholic New Testament Professor, Reformed Theological Seminary.

Jesus spoke Aramaic and the word for rock is Kepha so he said "I tell you that you are Kepha and on the Kepha..." In Paul’s epistles—four times in Galatians and four times in 1 Corinthians—we have the Aramaic form of Simon’s new name preserved for us. In our English Bibles it comes out as Cephas. That isn’t Greek. That’s a transliteration of the Aramaic word Kepha (rendered as Kephas in its Hellenistic form). It's fruitful to look at the how The Peshitta (Western Aramaic) renders this phrase, “Thou are kipho, and on this kipho.” The Eastern Aramaic, spoken in Palestine in the time of Christ, must necessarily have said in like manner, “Thou are kepha, and on this kepha.”

From what I've understood, most Baptist and Fundamentalist professors and scholars now accept the play on words in the Greek while focusing on the interpretation instead. Is this not true?

http://www.catholic.com/library/Peter_the_Rock.asp
http://catholicoutlook.com/rock2.html

[ May 08, 2002, 05:25 AM: Message edited by: Astralis ]

 

I accept the play on words in the Greek because that is what is in the Greek. I accept the name Simon, even if it comes from the Aramaic, because that is what is in the Greek. The Holy Spirit of God inspired the Greek. The New Testament is preserved for us in the Greek manuscripts. Thus whatever the Greek says is what we must go by.
DHK

 

Notice that you completely ignore the other alternative which is the one which I posted:

"I tell you that you are Petros and on the petros...."

No use of a feminine word for rock there. In English words generally don't have much of a gender, in other languages words often do and the gender of a word does not necessarily mean that a person with that word as a name shares the same gender. For example the Holy Spirit is refered to as He but the gender of the Hebrew word for Spirit is feminine.

The Church is not built on Peter, it is built on Peter's confession that Jesus is the Christ. Christianity is named after Christ not Peter.