That is an interesting point. It reminds me of something I read years ago. That in the NT we only read of the "local church" and Paul's letters are addressed to the church "at". In Revelation we read "to the church at.... write..." We never seem to read of a "global" or "catholic" church. I don't think "catholic" is a New Testament word? God it seems always deals with "individual" churches rather than a "world church". Strange how these things come back to you.
What contributions have Catholics made...
Discussion in 'Other Christian Denominations' started by JohnDeereFan, Jan 17, 2010.
Page 2 of 6
-
Matt Black Well-Known MemberSite Supporter
-
DHK said: ↑...
And on the Day of Pentecost, the name of the church was "The First Baptist Church of Jerusalem."Click to expand... -
Darron Steele said: ↑Are you serious?Click to expand...
-
So you were not actually serious, in other words.
You were making a good point. -
The Catholic Church, particularly in Ireland, maintained ancient (historical) knowledge after Rome collapsed and much of Europe returned to its pre-civilized ways.
-
Darron Steele said: ↑So you were not actually serious, in other words.
You were making a good point.Click to expand... -
DHK said: ↑I have more evidence for that claim then Zenas has for the claim that it was the first Catholic Church. :rolleyes:Click to expand...
Zenas:Incidentally, the name of the church in Vatican City is The Catholic Church, NOT The Roman Catholic ChurchClick to expand...
DHK:And on the Day of Pentecost, the name of the church was "The First Baptist Church of Jerusalem."Click to expand... -
Zenas said: ↑The problem is, DHK, that assertion of mine was not what your responded to. Here is how the exchange went:Click to expand...
The point I was trying to make is simply that just because the church in the Vatican isn't called "Roman", that doesn't make it "not Roman." It is in Rome, per se, is it not??
And thus my statement:
"And on the Day of Pentecost, the name of the church was "The First Baptist Church of Jerusalem."
--The emphasis to point out that this was not a universal church; the RCC, but rather a local church founded with Christ as the head, and the Bible as the foundation. It had nothing to do with Catholic denominationalism. -
What a crazy question!
-
What exactly is the point to a thread like this? How is this edifying to anyone?
-
Darron Steele said: ↑Those are not contributions.
They did, however, contribute heavily to keeping the Bible extant in western Europe up to the 1500's.Click to expand... -
ReformedBaptist said: ↑I think you meant extinct. :laugh:Click to expand...
-
DHK said: ↑When to the dismay of some, I consider "Baptist" the equivalent of "Biblical", yes I was trying to make a good point. :)Click to expand...
-
lori4dogs said: ↑I'd love for you to visit one our local American Baptist Churches and then tell me you equivocate the word Baptist with Biblical. I guess only 'certain' Baptist churches are biblical? Not the ones that deny the existence of hell, promote universalism, question the virgin birth, promote same-sex marriage, etc.?Click to expand...
-
JohnDeereFan Well-Known MemberSite Supporterlori4dogs said: ↑Of course you are joking. If it weren't for Catholic monks painstakingly making copy after copy of God's Holy Word there would have been precious few.Click to expand...
-
It's obvious that this thread has denegrated to the point where you're not allowed to say anything not negative about Catholics, lest you be vilified. Sad.
-
It's good to know that I can take a long break from posting here and then come back to find that Roman Catholic bashing (or obsessing) is still in fashion. :smilewinkgrin:
-
"How is this edifying to anyone?"Click to expand...
-
Matt Black Well-Known MemberSite SupporterJohnDeereFan said: ↑So you keep telling us.Click to expand...
Page 2 of 6