Paul did not write Hebrews; we do not know who did

[Right Divider]

Even if it started in AD 33?

Fallacious... something is not true because of how old it is.

 

[Idolater]

Surely the oxymoronic Roman Catholicism didn't start until there was widespread disagreement.

Before then it was just called the Church.

The popes appear to have heightened that disagreement over the years.

Takes two to tango.

 

[Idolater]

Hope you see goodheartedness behind most comments to you.

I don't, but it's OK. Goes with the territory.

There is a desire to get you back to you and Christ in a way the rest experience Him day-to-day.

And my desire is to get you all back to the way Christ wants us all believers to experience Him day-to-day, especially with Him very intimately in the Eucharist.

Speaking of which, did you ever consider that the water of baptism symbolizes blood, but the Eucharist is Really blood?

Something to keep in mind, you aren't alone, just in your allegiance. Are there many Catholics left on TOL?

There aren't many users left on TOL at all Lon.

 

[Idolater]

Fallacious... something is not true because of how old it is.

There's nothing fallacious in the question. I just want to know where you locate in history the beginning of "the Romanist 'church'".

 

[Lon]

I don't, but it's OK. Goes with the territory.

It isn't always mocking. Truth is a good thing.

And my desire is to get you all back to the way Christ wants us all believers to experience Him day-to-day, especially with Him very intimately in the Eucharist.

Been there. I appreciate it is meaningful to you. Two aliens from different planets try to share what they experience in Christ...

Speaking of which, did you ever consider that the water of baptism symbolizes blood, but the Eucharist is Really blood?

Yep. I was born Catholic. Have a great uncle who is a priest.

There aren't many users left on TOL at all Lon.

I was part of the Catholic group for awhile, token heterodox.

 

[Lon]

There's nothing fallacious in the question. I just want to know where you locate in history the beginning of "the Romanist 'church'".

It is much more hairy than straightforward as the RC would lead one to believe. The first churches were not united, many older than the church in Rome and many Coptic and Eastern churches never close enough to fall in with Rome. Truth should always inform your narrative. It means, quite literally they make a claim that is untruthful in an overarching manner.

 

[7djengo7]

Before then it was just called the Church.

Before when?
What was "just called" "the Church"?
"Just called" "the Church" by whom?

 

[7djengo7]

There's nothing fallacious in the question. I just want to know where you locate in history the beginning of "the Romanist 'church'".

Can you define what (if anything) you are referring to by your phrase "the beginning of "the Romanist 'church'""?

 

[Right Divider]

There's nothing fallacious in the question.

The idea behind the question is totally fallacious. You're not fooling anyone.

I just want to know where you locate in history the beginning of "the Romanist 'church'".

I don't really care. It doesn't really matter. I don't spend a lot of time getting to know false religions.

Once one know the real thing... the imposters are easy to spot.

 

[Idolater]

It isn't always mocking. Truth is a good thing.

It's usually mocking, but again, that's OK. Goes with the territory. This is Theology Online.

Been there. I appreciate it is meaningful to you. Two aliens from different planets try to share what they experience in Christ...

Yep. I was born Catholic. Have a great uncle who is a priest.

So isn't it interesting that in one sacrament, baptism, water is used, which symbolizes blood, and then in another, which you believe symbolizes blood also, but it's wine instead?

I was part of the Catholic group for awhile, token heterodox.

It doesn't seem like you ever really bought in to it, no?

 

[Idolater]

It is much more hairy than straightforward as the RC would lead one to believe.

Not really. At the council at Ephesus the bishops praised the then sitting pope as holding a distinct office from the rest of them. That was in the early 400s.

The first churches were not united, many older than the church in Rome

There's really no "older than the church in Rome" though, since Romans were among those who heard Peter's first sermon in Acts 2. See Acts 2:10

and many Coptic and Eastern churches never close enough to fall in with Rome.

When did the Copts and Eastern branches break away? Was it before the council at Ephesus? idk.

Truth should always inform your narrative.

ofc. A narrative without truth is just narrative.

It means, quite literally they make a claim that is untruthful in an overarching manner.

The issue's the papacy and whether it is an ontologically real and distinct office from the bishops.

 

[Idolater]

Can you define what (if anything) you are referring to by your phrase "the beginning of "the Romanist 'church'""?

I'm supposing it had a beginning, I'm asking, when was that?

 

[Idolater]

Before when?

Before it had to be qualified with "Roman" to distinguish it from other branches who also wanted to call themselves the Catholic Church (a term which was first used by Ignatius of Antioch in like AD 105 or so).

What was "just called" "the Church"?

The Church Jesus and the Apostles founded.

"Just called" "the Church" by whom?

Whoever needed that qualifier in order to know which branch of Christian tradition you were talking about.

 

[JudgeRightly]

That doesn't mean it was supposed to stay 100% Jewish.

Yes, it does.

Or, rather, that it stays 100% Hebraic.

That they be called, once more, the children of Israel...

Yes, dispensation of the gospel shared by the Jews and Gentiles.

Gentiles have always been able to access God through Israel. Nothing had changed other than that there was a New Covenant.

There's the mystery! That Christ would be in Gentiles.

Supra.

There was still a distinction between Jew and Gentile, and all new believers were Jews, or Proselytes. They didn't remain Gentiles.

This is NOT how Paul's gospel works.

 

[7djengo7]

I'm supposing it had a beginning, I'm asking, when was that?

What I'm asking is: are you referring to anything by your pronoun "it"? If you are, then to what are you referring by your pronoun "it"?

I ask that, because, if you're not referring to anything by your pronoun "it" (and by your pronoun "that"), then you're actually not asking any question -- despite your use of a question mark to write "when was that?"

 

[Idolater]

What I'm asking is: are you referring to anything by your pronoun "it"? If you are, then to what are you referring by your pronoun "it"?

Roman Catholicism.

I ask that, because, if you're not referring to anything by your pronoun "it" (and by your pronoun "that"), then you're actually not asking any question -- despite your use of a question mark to write "when was that?"

 

[7djengo7]

Before it had to be qualified with "Roman" to distinguish it from other branches who also wanted to call themselves the Catholic Church (a term which was first used by Ignatius of Antioch in like AD 105 or so).

In other words, your apparently highly-cherished phrase "Catholic Church" is not something anyone got from the Bible.

 

[7djengo7]

Roman Catholicism.

To what are you referring by your phrase, "Roman Catholicism"? And, if you are referring to anything by it, why do you choose to so so?

 

[7djengo7]

Before it had to be qualified with "Roman" to distinguish it from other branches

Speaking of "qualifying", what's with vacuous jargon like "real presence"? I mean, either something or someone is present in some way or other, or it is/they are not. Why not just say "X is present," rather than inflating verbiage by saying things like "X is really present"?

 

[Right Divider]

The TOPIC in this thread is about the authorship of book to the Hebrews.