Questions About the Rapture

[Randy Carson]

Not this time, poca. Even the great Protestant scholar and historian, J.N.D. Kelly, admits as much. Kelly dates the usage of the name “Catholic” after the death of the Apostle John, but he acknowledges that the original Church founded by Jesus called itself the “Catholic Church”.  He wrote:

"As regards ‘Catholic,' its original meaning was ‘universal' or ‘general' ... As applied to the Church, its primary significance was to underline its universality as opposed to the local character of the individual congregations. Very quickly, however, in the latter half of the second century at latest, we find it conveying the suggestion that the Catholic is the true Church as distinct from heretical congregations. . . . What these early Fathers were envisaging was almost always the empirical, visible society; they had little or no inkling of the distinction which was later to become important between a visible and an invisible Church" (J. N. D. Kelly, Early Christian Doctrines, 5th ed. [San Francisco: Harper, 1978], 190f).

It didn't take too long for "evolution" to change meaning, either...
Why should it be relevant that people understood the concept conveyed by that joining of two well known words?

Primarily because that Church still exists. And it still has the God-given authority given to it by Jesus.

How many groups which later became "heretical" considered themselves to belong to the "catholic church", in the first century?

Probably quite a few. Unfortunately, they began to teach doctrines which were not handed down from the apostles and, consequently, they were deemed heretical. Pretty straightforward.

The bishop, the priest, is not a novel christian concept.
So why should it be relevant?

Because of the God-given authority passed on to the Bishops as the successors of the Apostles.

As you know, Docetism was considered by a Church council and ultimately rejected as a heresy. I suspect you (following Ehrman) like to consider all forms of early Christianity to be equal heirs to the apostles, but that's simply not how history has unfolded. This isn't so much about one side "winning" and another side "losing" so much as it is a case of a majority of believers rejecting a minority position judged to be erroneous.

I wouldn't say all forms were equal heirs of the apostles... unless no apostles had ever existed... which we'll assume they did. I'd say that some forms of early christianity may have been more correct than the one emanating from Rome.

Such as? (And you do realize that virtually all Christians (the Orthodox included) would probably disagree with your naming of any heretical group prior to about the middle of the 13th century.)

Indeed, history unfolded in a specific way... when you get the debate rhetoric already present in the roman context and apply it to the provinces, there's no contest. Those equipped with all the tools will convince the most ignorant folk, so it's obvious that these will be in the majority... doesn't mean they're right.

For example, the docetic view could more easily fit with Paul's vision and the post-crucification appearance, thus enhancing the case for the resurrection... at the cost of a lack of sacrifice.
Human sacrifice was still something well seen by the people, huh?

Still hung up on docetism, huh? Docetists taught that Jesus was not fully man...that he only had the appearance of being human. Now, poca, are YOU a Docetist? Because if Jesus was not human, this means he was fully God.

And that is an odd position for an atheist to take.