(September 16, 2015 at 2:44 pm)Randy Carson Wrote:No, Randy...(September 15, 2015 at 7:48 pm)pocaracas Wrote: 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.
Quote: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.
All such groups claimed to be preaching what the apostles handed down.
One group became more prevalent, perhaps because it possessed the might of roman instruction behind its propaganda engine... The group that became prevalent need not be the one following the exact teachings of the apostles.
(September 16, 2015 at 2:44 pm)Randy Carson Wrote:Or so people believed...Quote: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.
(September 16, 2015 at 2:44 pm)Randy Carson Wrote:Why? Did they not exist prior to the 13th century?(September 15, 2015 at 7:10 pm)Randy Carson Wrote: 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.)
Bart would disagree...
(September 16, 2015 at 2:44 pm)Randy Carson Wrote:Quote: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.
Just because I don't believe these things to have happened, doesn't mean I can't speculate on which position may have been more likely to be accepted by the people.
Can you grasp the difference between belief and reality?