'The word “church”meant (and still means) the body of believers. Back then, there was only one way to believe, the Roman Catholic Church. They knew what to believe because the Apostles knew Jesus personally and learned from him. This knowledge remains unchanged to this day. But somewhere along the line, Pride reared its ugly head, and humans started their own “churches” with their own beliefs. You see, “church” started out meaning “The Roman Catholic Church” because it was the one instituted by Jesus, and the only one around. You can’t broaden the meaning to include all churches after the fact. Humans made their own churches and broadened the meaning of Jesus’ words to justify their new churches. If you are such a champion against “manmade-ism” then you would realize that. '

[yes church meant the body of believers,but there was no RCC in the time jesus spoke about 'his church'!!!,there were only people that believed in him,and you said it yourself that church mean the body of believers,so when jesus was talking about 'his church' (the rock upon which he would build his church=>peter) he meant church metaphorically=>the body of believers like you said;but later ppl from the RCC saw these writings(if these writings are true? but i am not going to discuss this...)and they thought he was talking about them ?or what i think just took this from the scriptures and misintrepeted it so that they can say that jesus established their church and ppl believe and attend their church]-sdqa

"The word “church”meant (and still means) the body of believers"

A: That definition is insufficient because it is incomplete. The word "Church" meant (and still means) the body of believers "in the truth". It doesn't mean the body of all who hold some beliefs of their own choosing about Jesus Christ. There is no such body, for a body cannot be composed of believers in conflicting and contradictory doctrines, for such conflicts in belief divide a body and create new bodies, as we plainly see in denominational religion. Therefore, inherent in the term "the Body", or its synonym "the Church", is the necessity of uniformity of belief, without which there cannot be fullness of truth.

-- Paul M. (PaulCyp@cox.net), January 05, 2005.

'The word "Church" meant (and still means) the body of believers "in the truth". It doesn't mean the body of all who hold some beliefs of their own choosing about Jesus Christ.'

[out of this definition that we all do agree on we can conclude that jesus wasen't talking about the RCC when he talked about 'his church',he was talking about the body of believers "in the truth"]-sdqa

michael,i don't think you got what i've meant;the catholics claim the jesus established the RCC en refer mostly to the passage when jesus says simon would be the rock on which he would build his church and other passages when jesus is talking about his church

well i posted that that is a misinterpretation and that that is supposed to be taken metaphorically and that the meaning of church is 'body of believers' and everyone here agreed with that,if church means body of believers,then jesus wasen't talking about the RCC in the passages,nor he established it,in fact he wasen't talking about any church as a religious institution,he was talking about his followers,the body of believers

one other thing:

peter did not establish the catholic church,nor was he a pope

peter was the leader of the community of the early christians before the RCC even existed,later other people established the RCC which certainly is NOT the same thing as peter's community of christians

and peter was no pope,he didn't came with the title of pope,nor jesus did,the later establishers of the RCC did and gave peter the title of the first pope because he was the first leader of christians after jesus's death]-sdqa

THESE ARE MY ARGUMENTS----SDQA

catholics claim that their church is the only right one,that jesus christ established their church and that their church is the original christian church and that she has been given full authority...etc

they base these statements on verses in the new testament where jesus spoke about 'his church'

people on the forum(paul m,cameron...)told me that church means the body of believers "in the truth" ...like i always thought

now if church means the body of believers in the truth,then jesus was talking about the body of the believers in the truth instead of the roman catholic church

this means that jesus didn't establish the catholic church,and neither was peter the rock upon the RCC would be built

this we can also see later,that peter's COMMUNITY of christians wasen't called the catholic church and wasen't even close to what the catholic church will be

peter wasen't a pope,he was a leader;he can't be the pope if that title has come to use many years after him,it doesn't mean if the pope's function is to be the leader and peter had also that same function that he's automatically a pope

now for you catholics these things don't really matter,but for us non-catholics and non-catholic christians it does matter;it is direct proof that jesus didn't establish the RCC,that he never even talked about it! he only talked about the body of the believers in the truth,and to be part of that body,you don't have to be part of the RCC;i'm not refering now to certain forms of protestantism that are in conflict with the bible,i'm just denying all the catholic statements with which i have started this post

the body of the believers in the truth doesn't equal the RCC,i know that this is very difficult for the most of you to understand,cos i assume that you all are devouted catholics

everyone who trully accepts and believes in jesus and lives by the way he taught it is part of this body,NOT everyone who is catholic

AND ONCE AGAIN I REPEAT:

JESUS DID NEVER TALK ABOUT THE RCC,NOR ABOUT ANY OTHER CHURCH IN A LITERAL WAY,SO YOU CAN'T SAY THAT YOU HAVE TO BE CATHOLIC TO HAVE TRUE FAITH

actually catholicism hasen't the true interpretations of the scriptures

because they are telling that jesus gave them the authority to make their own commands

because they are telling that jesus established their church and that they are the only true church

WHEN JESUS DID NEVER TALK ABOUT THEIR CHURCH

-- sdqa (sdqa@sdqa.com), January 07, 2005.

-- jerry(sdqa's friend,punker's friend,1/2 russian) (doofykorn@hotmail.com), January 08, 2005

Answers

What kind of argument are you trying to make here? You didn't make much of an attempt to prove anything or reason anything out that you said.

So here is my rebuttal:

Catholicism has the true interpretations of Scripture.

Because Jesus Christ gave the authority to the Church.

And because He established His Church on the Apostles with St. Peter as their head, chaning his name from Simon to 'Peter/Kephas/Rock.'

My word or yours?

Also, why the big fuss about whether or not Jesus established the Catholic Church? When you deny Jesus Christ is God what should it matter what He did and did not say? He also claimed to be God but you do not believe Him.

-- Jacob R. (webmaster@stpeterslemoore.com), January 08, 2005.

sdqa:
Don't argue in circles.

''if church means the body of believers in the truth, (IT DOES) ''then jesus was talking about the body of the believers in the truth,'' (and that's PRECISELY why the Catholic Church is His only Church -- The only Church that really believes all the truth He gave to us. No other church is a ''body'' of believers, because they ALL deny many parts of His teaching. They also ''believe'' some things that He never taught. --How can you claim they're believers, if they deny the truth?

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), January 08, 2005.

If Jesus and the Apostles talked about "The Church" (which they did), and history shows there was no Christian Church but the Catholic Church on earth before the 11th Century (which it does), then which Christian Church do you suppose Jesus and the Apostles were speaking of when they spoke (and wrote) of "The Church"? It doesn't take a rocket theologian. It's plain common sense. Process of elimination. When we speak of "the moon", do we have to designate which moon we are speaking of? When there is only ONE, the article "the" is adequate designation.

-- Paul M. (PaulCyp@cox.net), January 08, 2005.

Jerry,

If you really believe what sdqa says about the "church" versus the "Church" then why are you a member of the Orthodox church? The Orthodox and the Catholic Churches both trace their lineage through the apostles and neither buy sdqa's view of what "church" is. The Catholic and Orthodox churches were one and the same until the schism in 1054.

If Jesus didn't establish a Universal Church through the apostles, then he couldn't have established the Orthodox Church either.

-- Andy S ("ask3332004@yahoo.com"), January 08, 2005.

Yes, Jerry,

The Orthodox bishops all accepted the leadership of the bishop of Rome as Pope and as successor of Peter, at least until 1054 A.D., and even thereafter. No one argued as to whether Peter was the first pope, they all believed this.

-- Michael (edwardsronning@prodigy.net), January 09, 2005.

By the way, I have to admit that Russian bishops and priests look really cool. And the church buildings are beautiful. And the music is great. And their faith in Christ is strong, and they honor Jesus' mother Mary. All of these things are true. And, the early Orthodox leaders also called the Roman church, "the see of Peter", "the chair of Peter", and called the Pope "the one entrusted by the Lord with the care of the vine". If there was a dispute about the teaching of Christ, guess who those Orthodox bishops appealed to, for a decision? The church at Rome.

-- Michael (edwardsronning@prodigy.net), January 09, 2005.

Well then, Christ may have been God as well as the Holy Spirit besides the Father, but that doesn't mean there is a Trinity because they were never called that and the Trinity was not firmly established until (if I'm not mistaken) the late 4'th to fifth centeries. Oh boy.

What do you believe sdqaand jerry? Where do you get your believes from and why do you believe it? What you believe has no base or foundation at all. It's just "I believe this because I chooe to believe this," like nothing but a leap of Faith. Well fine, but stop attacking us Catholics. Boy, you both seem to know so much perhaps we all should turn over and re-write our Faith. Lets go to the Pope so you two (or one is your the same person) can tell him his mistakes on his Faith. I'm sure he'll see them quite easily, I mean it's not like he knows history or church history let alone Catholicism and languages :)

-- Jason (Enchantedfire5@yahoo.com), January 09, 2005.

sdqa: Don't argue in circles.

''if church means the body of believers in the truth, (IT DOES) ''then jesus was talking about the body of the believers in the truth,'' (and that's PRECISELY why the Catholic Church is His only Church -- The only Church that really believes all the truth He gave to us. No other church is a ''body'' of believers, because they ALL deny many parts of His teaching. They also ''believe'' some things that He never taught. --How can you claim they're believers, if they deny the truth?

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), January 08, 2005.

[no! the catholic church has not comepletely the correct interpretation of the gospels

all their teachings beside the bible,jesus talked about the body of believers,everyone who follows him and believes in him is part of this body,he never talked about the RCC of giving them full authority

other churches deny part of his teachings(and this is indeed wrong) but the RCC adds other things to his teachings!

they say that jesus gave them the authority(while they never even existed and when the body of christians certainly was not the RCC)to teach other things to people that are not written down in the bible]-sdqa

' If Jesus and the Apostles talked about "The Church" (which they did), and history shows there was no Christian Church but the Catholic Church on earth before the 11th Century (which it does), then which Christian Church do you suppose Jesus and the Apostles were speaking of when they spoke (and wrote) of "The Church"? It doesn't take a rocket theologian. It's plain common sense. Process of elimination. When we speak of "the moon", do we have to designate which moon we are speaking of? When there is only ONE, the article "the" is adequate designation.'

[he talked about the body of the believers,the christian community,someone can be part of this without being catholic nor protestant]-sdqa

-- sdqa (sdqa@sdqa.com), January 09, 2005.

there is a big difference between the orthodox church and the RCC

the orthodox church has actually the most correct interpretations of the scriptures as far as i know

the never denyied parts of the bible and they never taught things that are not in the bible like the RCC or some forms of protestantisms does

and the art,the music,the culture and the churches are so amazing

-- jerry (doofykorn@hotmail.com), January 09, 2005.

there is a big difference between the orthodox church and the RCC the orthodox church has actually the most correct interpretations of the scriptures as far as i know

What are these big differences Jerry? Do you realize how close the Catholic and Orthodox doctrines are? The nig differences I'm aware of are regarding the pope and the filoque (or the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son). Other than that, what are they?

the never denyied parts of the bible and they never taught things that are not in the bible like the RCC or some forms of protestantisms does

What parts of the Bible do Catholics deny?

Do you believe that sdqa's concept of the church is correct?

You do a good job of stating your opinions, but we're looking for specifics and reasons why you are correct.

Why should we turn our backs on 2000 years of Tradition, Saints, and Truth (including Scripture) for your beliefs?

-- Andy S (ask3332004@yahoo.com"), January 09, 2005.

catholics don't deny parts of the bible,some protestants do

but catholics add a lot of things that aren't in the bible and teach this as commands

-- jerry (doofykorn@hotmail.com), January 09, 2005.

Or, to put it another way, the Bible doesn't include every truth Christ revealed to His Church. Why would it? The Bible was never intended to be a complete handbook of Christian truth. In fact, originally the texts were never intended to comprise a book at all. The Bible is a collection of writings, originally written in different times and places, for different specific purposes, and it therefore addresses those truths which fulfilled the specific purposes of the original writing. Christ however told His Church that the Holy Spirit would guide it to ALL truth. Therefore, we should expect that His Church, to which He promised ALL truth, would teach certain truths that didn't happen to be addressed in the collection of letters and other writings which eventually made up the Bible.

-- Paul M. (PaulCyp@cox.net), January 09, 2005.

christ never told this because he spoke about the body of believers

and he never spoke about the RCC

my friend sdqa gave all the arguments

-- jerry (doofykorn@hotmail.com), January 09, 2005.

There was only ONE body of believers. They all believed the SAME body of doctrinal truth. And that ONE body of believers was calling itself the Holy Catholic Church by the end of the 1'st Century. What part of this is complicated?

-- Paul M. (PaulCyp@cox.net), January 09, 2005.

no it's NOT

because there was a body of believers before there even was a catholic church!

everyone who follows his commands and believes in him is part of this body and you don't have to be catholic for this

jesus never said he would give the RCC the full authority to teach things beside the bible

the RCC later used these verses when jesus talked about the body of believers to say he talked about their church,when their church didn't even exist in his time

the RCC would do anything to bring as much people to their church...and we all know why they want this...

-- jerry (doofykorn@hotmail.com), January 09, 2005.

Jerry,

Are you really Orthodox? The arguments you present about the "church" don't sound like Orthodox doctrine at all. They are the same arguments Protestants use against both the Catholic and Orthodox Churches.

-- Andy S ("ask332004@yahoo.com"), January 09, 2005.

> "because there was a body of believers before there even was a catholic church!"

A: True. The body of believers began to form as soon as Jesus began His public ministry. They didn't formally become the Church until Pentecost, three years later. That's why Pentecost is called "the birthday of the Church".

> "everyone who follows his commands and believes in him is part of this body and you don't have to be catholic for this"

A: In fact, you do. You don't have to be Catholic to pick and choose some teachings of His that you want to follow. But you must be a member of the Church He founded, the Catholic Church, in order to know and to follow His teaching fully.

> "jesus never said he would give the RCC the full authority to teach things beside the bible"

A: In fact, everything Jesus revealed to His Church was "besides the Bible", because the Bible didn't exist when Jesus was preaching, or for more than 350 years afterwards. His Church was teaching the fullness of truth before a word of the New Testament was written, and long before the Bible was compiled by that same Church. That's how the truth got into the New Testament in the first place. Because it was already being taught by the Church. Further, Jesus told the leaders of His Church, "WHATSOEVER you bind upon earth is bound in heaven". He didn't say "whatsoever is in your written correspondence that the Church will bind into a book three and a half centuries from now is bound in heaven". The Church has full authority. The Bible has authority only when correctly interpreted by the Church.

-- Paul M. (PaulCyp@cox.net), January 09, 2005.

but his church was supposed to teach only what he had taught,i really doubt that jesus would be against contraceptives with so much aids around

and his church back then isn't the same as it is now

his church is to pass his teachings on,but not to come in his place and start to 'play' jesus and start to teach their own things

i think you just don't see the difference between the good christian disciples of jesus and other followers of him and the later manipulators of the RCC with so much political power who DIDN'T taught the bible to the ppl but red it in latin! who made abuse of this whole situation just to gain profit

-- sdqa (sdqa@sdqa.com), January 10, 2005.

do orthodox also have doctrines outside the bible?

i didn't know this

but anyway

i just converted to orthodoxism because i really like their style and i disagree with the misinterpretations of the protestants and i disagree with the catholic doctrines

-- jerry (doofykorn@hotmail.com), January 10, 2005.

All that demonstrates is how naive you are. You have nothing but style for your motivation. Not truth.

What does it matter that one individual disagrees with Catholic doctrines? If you disagree with food and drink, do intelligent people care? --No; they eat and drink. They haven't your personal hangups.

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), January 10, 2005.

Sdqa, you seem to be unaware that ALL Christian churches, following the teachings of our Savior and the Apostles, unequivocally condemned any use of any form of contraception for 1900 years, until 1930 when the Anglican church permitted it for married people under certain restricted circumstances. Since then most protestant churches have, on this issue as well, decided “to come in His place and start to 'play' Jesus and start to teach their own things” and have permitted virtually unrestricted use of contraception. The Orthodox Church still condemns it. (and btw contraceptives do not prevent AIDS). The way to prevent AIDS is to abstain from fornication, as Jesus and the Apostles taught and as the Church they founded still teaches.

The Catholic Church wrote the New Testament, compiled, edited and produced the Bible, and has continuously "taught the Bible to the people".

Please explain how you think the Church “gains profit” by condemning contraceptives and by teaching other things which are opposed to your personal beliefs and interpretations of the Bible.

Jerry, Orthodox doctrines are virtually identical to Catholic doctrines, except regarding the Pope’s authority over certain Eastern patriarchs, and a technical theological point about the nature of the Trinity.

-- Steve (55555@aol.com), January 10, 2005.

Very good information Steve. In fact I bet most Christians today aren't aware of those facts. I certainly wasn't until I started looking for the truth.

i just converted to orthodoxism because i really like their style and i disagree with the misinterpretations of the protestants and i disagree with the catholic doctrines - jerry

How long was the period of your "training" jerry? I'm pretty sure that Orthodox Churches have a period of Catechsis like the Catholic Church does. You should have learned about Sacred Tradition at that time. What Catholic doctrines do you believe are false?

-- Andy S ("ask3332004@yahoo.com"), January 10, 2005.

i believe that all catholic doctrines out side the bible are fast

but i didn't knew orthodoxies also condamn contraceptives?

-- jerry (doofkorn@hotmail.com), January 11, 2005.

faLSE***

-- jerry (doofkorn@hotmail.com), January 11, 2005.

Some Orthodox teach contraception is wrong, some (in more recent years) have decided to allow it.

-- Michael (edwardsronning@prodigy.net), January 11, 2005.

i knew it!

i knew the orthodox were cool!

even if sdqa isn't a christian he made one very good point about christianity:

we need to focus on the real things and leave all the irrelevant behind because it is useless luguage that can prevent us to focus on the real things(sorry if my english sucks,i am from belgium)

this is also described in the gospel of thomas

-- jer (doofykorn@hotmail.com????????????!?????? http://www.78p.com), January 11, 2005.

You don't see that the gospel of Thomas also sucks?

By contraceptives I gather you are really referring to condoms. That's typical, I suppose, of fornicators. They try the rubber apron; as if that made their sins go away?

No-- the sin can't be blocked, Jerry. Sin sucks, you know. Ask any Orthodoxite. Ask them about fornicators. Where do fornicators end up, when this life is over? And, will condoms save you?

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), January 11, 2005.

read Matt 18:17 " If he refuses to listen to them, tell the church. * If he refuses to listen even to the church, then treat him as you would a Gentile or a tax collector."

THE INJUNCTION "TELL THE CHURCH" WOULD BE IMPOSSIBLE OF FULFILLMENT IF THE CHURCH WERE MERELY THE SPIRITUAL SOCIETY, WHICH PROSTESTANTS BELIEVE IT IS.

-- Bill Pick (BillPick53@wmconnect.com), January 27, 2005.

1: Orthodox churches aret "Priotestant".

2: Not all Protestants beleive tis a "spiritual Body".

3: You CAN tell a psiritual Boxy things, as a community of faih you belong to.

Not to go into detials, Im just correctign errors.

-- ZAROVE (ZAROFF3@JUNO.COM), January 27, 2005.

That's precisely correct, Bill. Christ's injunction makes no logical sense unless he meant for the Church to remain ONE. The Catholic Church is the only church that answer's Christ's call to unity in His High Priestly Prayer as well.

Let's look at Christ's injunction further. Say a Baptist has a fight with a Methodist; who do they take their grievance to? Which church?

There is a semblance of unity within Protestantism based loosely on a few scant doctrines, but that's where the unity ends. It is not actual. Christ's injunction is an actual remedy to actual problems.

-- Gail (rothfarms@socket.net), January 28, 2005.

As I understand it, all Orthodox churches teach that contraception is wrong as a matter of principle. However they leave counselling on such matters to individual parish priests, some of whom have taken it upon themselves, without authority from their bishops, to tell some individual married couples that limited use of contraception may be OK in their individual situation. All Orthodox churches agree that fornication is always a serious sin.

-- Steve (55555@aol.com), January 28, 2005.

one thing i have yet to see is any PROOF. i read this whole thread because the subject promised PROOF which was not ever seen in the whole thing. statements like "the catholic church doesn't have the proper interpretation of scriptures" are only opinion until they are backed by appropriate research, disclosed sources, and quotations of scripture and other experts.

Granted that SDQA doesnt even really seem to belong to a church and jerry doesnt even know what 'his' church believes, i have to recognize that their statements are NOT those of experts and therefore are negligable without support. I stated before that i have heard again and again about the elaborate proof that peter was not the first pope or bishop of rome, and yet havent seen any reference to one authoritative source. I demand proof if you want to change my paradigm. Your opinion means nothing to me.

-- paul h (dontSendMeMail@notAnAddress.com), January 28, 2005.

1/jesus never talked about any church in a literal way

2/peter was the leader of the christians before the catholic church even existed and he never had the title of pope

-- sdqa (sdqa@sdqa.com), January 29, 2005.

catholics claim that their church is the only right one,that jesus christ established their church and that their church is the original christian church and that she has been given full authority...etc

they base these statements on verses in the new testament where jesus spoke about 'his church'

people on the forum(paul m,cameron...)told me that church means the body of believers "in the truth" ...like i always thought

now if church means the body of believers in the truth,then jesus was talking about the body of the believers in the truth instead of the roman catholic church

this means that jesus didn't establish the catholic church,and neither was peter the rock upon the RCC would be built

this we can also see later,that peter's COMMUNITY of christians wasen't called the catholic church and wasen't even close to what the catholic church will be

peter wasen't a pope,he was a leader;he can't be the pope if that title has come to use many years after him,it doesn't mean if the pope's function is to be the leader and peter had also that same function that he's automatically a pope

now for you catholics these things don't really matter,but for us non-catholics and non-catholic christians it does matter;it is direct proof that jesus didn't establish the RCC,that he never even talked about it! he only talked about the body of the believers in the truth,and to be part of that body,you don't have to be part of the RCC;i'm not refering now to certain forms of protestantism that are in conflict with the bible,i'm just denying all the catholic statements with which i have started this post

-- sdqa (sdqa@sdqa.com), January 29, 2005.

"catholics claim that their church is the only right one,that jesus christ established their church and that their church is the original christian church and that she has been given full authority...etc

they base these statements on verses in the new testament where jesus spoke about 'his church' "

You've got it the wrong way round. The Catholic Church PUT those verses into the books and letters (which the Catholic Church later collected and published as "The Bible") to EXPRESS these truths which the Catholic Church had believed ever since it began in 30AD. It belived these truths because Jesus personally told them to its bishops.

-- Steve (55555@aol.com), January 30, 2005.