Questions About the Rapture

[pocaracas]

You know what?.. I think that doesn't mean as much as you want it to mean.
You see, the word "evolution" already existed well before Darwin... and yet, it has come to mean more than it did... sure, it comes with the extra qualifier "by natural selection", or something similar... Just like "catholic", meaning "universal", comes before the qualifier "church".
Put the two together and people could understand the meaning even upon first hearing it.

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?

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

High-ranking priestly roles were usually held by men. Women were generally relegated to lower positions in the temple hierarchy, although some held specialized and influential positions, especially that of the God's Wife of Amun, whose religious importance overshadowed the High Priests of Amun in the Late Period.

Well of course not, poca. The hierarchy of the Catholic priesthood - bishop, priest, and deacon - was modeled after the priesthood of the Jews. But there is an even bigger picture. In the OT, the structure of the priesthood looked like this:

1. Aaron, high priest
2. Levites, ministerial priests
3. Israel, a nation of priests

We see a similar structure in the NT.

The New Testament Priesthood Proved from Scripture

Jesus, Our Eternal High Priest

"Therefore, since we have a great high priest who has passed through the heavens, Jesus the Son of God, let us hold fast our confession." (Hebrews 4:14)

The Ministerial Priesthood

"But I have written very boldly to you on some points so as to remind you again, because of the grace that was given me from God, to be a minister of Christ Jesus to the Gentiles, ministering as a priest the gospel of God, so that my offering of the Gentiles may become acceptable, sanctified by the Holy Spirit." (Romans 15:15-16)

The Universal Priesthood of All Believers

"But you are a chosen people, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, a people belonging to God, that you may declare the praises of him who called you out of darkness into his wonderful light." (1 Peter 2:9)

Meaning that such bishops were already in place... were already imbued in the local culture and religion - judaism? Or some other canaanite cult?

But what does "bishop" mean?
According to the wiki

This is correct. The use of the terms was somewhat fluid in the early Church but became more consistent relatively quickly.

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

Docetism's origin within Christianity is obscure. Ernst Käsemann controversially defined the Christology of St John’s Gospel as "naïve docetism" in 1968.[16] The ensuing debate reached an impasse as awareness grew that the very term "docetism", like "gnosticism", was difficult to define within the religio-historical framework of the debate.[17] It has occasionally been argued that its origins were in heterodox Judaism or Oriental and Grecian philosophies.[18] The alleged connection with Jewish Christianity would have reflected Jewish Christian concerns with the inviolability of (Jewish) monotheism.[19][20] Docetic opinions seem to have circulated from very early times, 1 John 4:2 appearing explicitly to reject them.[21] Some 1st century Christian groups developed docetic interpretations partly as a way to make Christian teachings more acceptable to pagan ways of thinking about divinity.[18]

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.
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?

Curious verse, that 1 John 4:2...

"This is how you can recognize the Spirit of God: Every spirit that acknowledges that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh is from God"

If this guy is the same guy that used to hang around J.C., why be so vague? "every spirit"? meaning every person...
"J.C. has come in the flesh", this one is obvious anti-docetic... "is from God", is in the right. The others are wrong, and, according to the next verse, are the antichrist... Damn, there was already an antichrist?!

Oh... if only the John that wrote this was the same John that was with the christ... if only... why would he say something like this?!

As Wiki says, "Broadly [Docetism] is taken as the belief that Jesus only seemed to be human, and that his human form was an illusion."

But John did not teach that Jesus "only seemed to be human" - John taught that Jesus was God in the flesh, and the verse you gave is confirmed by this one from the gospel:

John 1:14
14 The Word became flesh and made his dwelling among us. We have seen his glory, the glory of the one and only Son, who came from the Father, full of grace and truth.

Yes, John did say that.
I was merely hinting that the "flesh" detail in that verse seems to be purposefully put there to counter the docetic view. Meaning that this particular view was somewhat widespread, while John, the alleged companion of J.C., was still alive! Amazing!! Unbelievable!
And yet, it would take decades until someone wrote something actually denigrating the docetic view.