Our server costs ~$56 per month to run. Please consider donating or becoming a Patron to help keep the site running. Help us gain new members by following us on Twitter and liking our page on Facebook!
Current time: May 9, 2024, 10:40 am

Thread Rating:
  • 7 Vote(s) - 1.57 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Proving The Resurrection By the Minimal Facts Approach
RE: Proving The Resurrection By the Minimal Facts Approach
(June 27, 2015 at 7:18 pm)abaris Wrote:
(June 27, 2015 at 6:43 pm)Randy Carson Wrote: 1. The New Testament uses the word "Church" 114 times, so yeah, the Church existed before the writing of the New Testament was completed.
2. Ignatius of Antioch gives us the name of that Church, the "Catholic Church" in a letter he wrote in AD 107.
3. The word "bishop" is derived from the Greek word "episcopoi" - a word that is very much in use in the pages of the New Testament.

I was talking about real history. Archeological finds included. Not bible proves bible and christian claims. Catholic mean nothing else than the whole church. Which is an overstatement given the schisms existing right from the get go.

And I'm, still talking to a wall as far as as real history is concerned. So don't be suprised if nobody is impressed by you "fact" finding mission.

The following is from what is known as a "hostile witness":

Protestant Scholar on the use of the Proper Name "Catholic"

One Protestant author who is honest about this history is the renowned Church historian, J. N. D. Kelly. 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”.  

"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).
Reply



Messages In This Thread
RE: Proving The Resurrection By the Minimal Facts Approach - by Randy Carson - June 27, 2015 at 7:21 pm

Possibly Related Threads...
Thread Author Replies Views Last Post
  Proving evolution? LinuxGal 24 2753 March 19, 2023 at 10:36 pm
Last Post: Ferrocyanide
  What will win the god wars? Faith, Fantasy, Facts, or God? Greatest I am 98 6477 December 28, 2020 at 12:01 pm
Last Post: Greatest I am
  In what way is the Resurrection the best explanation? GrandizerII 159 15200 November 25, 2019 at 6:46 am
Last Post: Abaddon_ire
  Travis Walton versus The Resurrection. Jehanne 61 15789 November 29, 2017 at 8:21 pm
Last Post: Angrboda
  Why do Christians believe in the Resurrection of Jesus but not alien abductions? Jehanne 72 11782 June 27, 2016 at 1:54 am
Last Post: Redbeard The Pink
  We can be certain of NO resurrection - A Response Randy Carson 136 37659 October 2, 2015 at 4:10 am
Last Post: Aractus
  Disproving The Resurrection By The Maximal Facts Approach BrianSoddingBoru4 160 25055 July 5, 2015 at 6:35 pm
Last Post: Jenny A
  Obama and the simulated resurrection professor 116 18051 April 25, 2015 at 10:39 pm
Last Post: Wyrd of Gawd
  MERGED: The Case for the Resurrection of Jesus Christ (Part 1) & (Part 2) His_Majesty 1617 327759 January 12, 2015 at 5:58 pm
Last Post: dyresand
  The Case for the Resurrection of Jesus Christ (Part Ad Neuseum) YahwehIsTheWay 32 7274 December 11, 2014 at 4:58 pm
Last Post: robvalue



Users browsing this thread: 2 Guest(s)