[JoeT777]

You accuse us of being divisive, but what we recognize as "Church" is much closer to the original than the one you support.

Is it? I don't think so.

I ran across this after ClassyT's comment. When we look at these verses together it is easier to see how Luke explained the relationship between Christ, His Church, Peter and Paul. We know from Acts 9 that Paul was slaughtering Christians and had asked to go to Damascus in hopes catching the big fishes; "And Saul, as yet breathing out threatenings and slaughter against the disciples of the Lord (Acts 9: 1). Yet after Paul's visitation, falling to the ground he hears Jesus ask, “why do you persecute ME.” (Cf. Acts 9:4) Wasn't Paul chasing after dem rascally Apostles? He wasn't chasing out after Jesus – as far as Paul was concerned Jesus was dead and buried. You can imagine how he wondered who this aberration was, “Who art thou, Lord? And he said to me: I am Jesus of Nazareth, whom thou persecutest.” (Act 22:8). How can you persecute a dead man? How can Paul be guilty of persecuting Jesus of Nazareth who is dead? Why would Paul want to persecute a dead Jew? It's kind of pointless to persecute a dead man, isn't it?

Maybe Christ meant, “Why are you persecuting my Church”;now that would make good sense. And we're all about good sense aren't we? But, he didn't say that he said, 'why persecute ME'. Why indeed?

Catholics hear it clearly, Christ was saying since the Church and I are one, why persecute her. Jesus and the Church are like bridegroom and bride, One faith, One body, in Jesus' flesh and blood i.e. the Eucharist.

JoeT

[paraclete]

Lots of good Scripture here.

So why has the RC departed from the pattern and practices clearly established by Peter, Paul, John, James and the rest of that first Church during its earliest years?

You accuse us of being divisive, but what we recognize as "Church" is much closer to the original than the one you support.

Hey, Guys, I'd like to give you a thought on authority debate particularly the supremacy of Peter. If Peter was to be the leader of the whole Church why did Jesus personally appoint Paul as apostle to the gentiles. He didn't have Peter do it. Could it be that Peter wasn't getting the job done but sitting on his blessed assurance in Jerusalem or that he was a little too jewish as indicated by his actions in Antioch. Or could it be that the model is that no man is head of the Church on Earth but Christ alone

We see in Paul a fresh beginning therefore indicating that Jesus didn't hold to a single stream but was looking to the future of different churches in different places. Apparently Peter's leadership then as now was not sufficient to get the job done

[classyT]

Hey, Guys, I'd like to give you a thought on authority debate particularly the supremacy of Peter. If Peter was to be the leader of the whole Church why did Jesus personally appoint Paul as apostle to the gentiles. He didn't have Peter do it. Could it be that Peter wasn't getting the job done but sitting on his blessed assurance in Jerusalem or that he was a little too jewish as indicated by his actions in Antioch. Or could it be that the model is that no man is head of the Church on Earth but Christ alone

We see in Paul a fresh beginning therefore indicating that Jesus didn't hold to a single stream but was looking to the future of different churches in different places. Apparently Peter's leadership then as now was not sufficient to get the job done

I won't go so far as to say that Peter wasn't getting the job done... for the Lord knows everything and wouldn't have appointed him the leader and then change his mind. I just don't think Peter WAS EVER to be the apostle to the gentiles nor have the position that Paul had... but I love to read about Peter. I can certainly relate to him and his impulsive behavior. He was and is special to the Lord and certainly has his rightful place in the Kingdom. He just wasn't the first POPE... sorry Joe777. The Lord Jesus never intended for anyone to take that position. We are all just servants and ministers of Christ. No one is more holy than anyone else.. save the Lord himself.

There is none righteous... no not one. For all have sinned and come short of the Glory of God. We ALL need to be saved from our sinful nature... including Mary the mother of our Lord. And just because men exalt MAN... be it the Pope, or any apostle of the Lord... doesn't make it right. There is no verse in the BIBLE that says we are to exalt anyone but the Lord Jesus himself. However if you happen to find anything in the NT... that says otherwise, please let me know. ( I'm speaking to anyone who thinks Roman Catholics are the true and one church.) and I also mean no disrespect.. I'm just saying... give me the verse in the NT. Mathew through Revelation. Or better yet any of the 66 books of the Bible.

[sndbay]

The Lord Jesus never intended for anyone to take that position. We are all just servents and ministers of Christ. No one is more holy than anyone else..save the Lord himself.
.

Agree ClassyT, and there is scripture that documents Peter saying there is no other name then Christ Jesus that is the stone which was set at nought of the builders.


Act 4:8-10 Then Peter, filled with the Holy Ghost, said unto them, Ye rulers of the people, and elders of Israel, If we this day be examined of the good deed done to the impotent man, by what means he is made whole; Be it known unto you all, and to all the people of Israel, that by the name of Jesus Christ of Nazareth, whom ye crucified, whom God raised from the dead, even by him doth this man stand here before you whole.

Act 4:11-12 This is the stone which was set at nought of you builders, which is become the head of the corner. Neither is there salvation in any other: for there is none other name under heaven given among men, whereby we must be saved.

Christ will always be forever and ever the Rock, and REFER (1 Peter 2:25 For ye were as sheep going astray; but are now returned unto the Shepherd and Bishop of your souls)

[paraclete]

I won't go so far as to say that Peter wasn't getting the job done...for the Lord knows everything and wouldn't have appointed him the leader and then change his mind. I just don't think Peter WAS EVER to be the apostle to the gentiles nor have the position that Paul had.....but I love to read about Peter. I can certainly relate to him and his impulsive behavior. He was and is special to the Lord and certainly has his rightful place in the Kingdom. He just wasn't the first POPE....sorry Joe777. The Lord Jesus never intended for anyone to take that position. We are all just servants and ministers of Christ. No one is more holy than anyone else..save the Lord himself.

There is none righteous...no not one. For all have sinned and come short of the Glory of God. We ALL need to be saved from our sinful nature...including Mary the mother of our Lord. And just because men exalt MAN....be it the Pope, or any apostle of the Lord...doesn't make it right. There is no verse in the BIBLE that says we are to exalt anyone but the Lord Jesus himself. However if you happen to find anything in the NT.....that says otherwise, please let me know. ( I'm speaking to anyone who thinks Roman Catholics are the true and one church.) and i also mean no disrespect..i'm just saying ...give me the verse in the NT. Mathew thru Revelation. or better yet any of the 66 books of the Bible.

The sad part is that the RCC doesn't appear to have read the book of Revelation. There you find seven Churches each one different and the Lord doesn't say you guys need to get together under the headship of Peter, or one of his successors, Peter being dead by this time, he addresses the uniqueness of each one and their short comings and among them is very clearly what is now the RCC. It's what Jesus didn't say that gives us the clue, he didn't say that anyone of them was outside of Christ, but that they each needed to maintain focus on what is important.:)

[Maggie 3]

classyT & sndbay I agree, and thank you.

Maggie 3

[arcura]

Joe,
You have been very clear and easy to understand.
I wish that when I was on the road to Rome I have someone who could do as well as you do with that. It took me quite sometime to get good clear understanding.
Peace and kindness,
Fred

[sndbay]

Catholics hear it clearly, Christ was saying since the Church and I are one, why persecute her. Jesus and the Church are like bridegroom and bride, One faith, One body, in Jesus' flesh and blood i.e. the Eucharist.

JoeT

Joe,

Chirst is one with each and every member, and there are many members within the church (Romans 12:5)

1 Corinthains 12:12 For as the body is one, and hath many members, and all the members of that one body, being many, are one body: so also is Christ.



There is no one church or no one man, that can place themselves above another. This was told of in parable. And we can compare why, and watch for the warning of a red flag
(Luke 18:9 And he spake this parable unto certain which trusted in themselves that they were righteous, and despised others)

The parable goes as written and I pray that all can understand who was justified, The Pharisee or the publican?
Luke 18:10-20 The Pharisee stood and prayed thus with himself, God, I thank thee, that I am not as other men are, extortioners, unjust, adulterers, or even as this publican. I fast twice in the week, I give tithes of all that I possess. And the publican, standing afar off, would not lift so much as his eyes unto heaven, but smote upon his breast, saying, God be merciful to me a sinner. I tell you, this man went down to his house justified rather than the other: for every one that exalteth himself shall be abased; and he that humbleth himself shall be exalted.

[sndbay]

The sad part is that the RCC doesn't appear to have read the book of Revelation. There you find seven Churches each one different and the Lord doesn't say you guys need to get together under the headship of Peter, or one of his successors, Peter being dead by this time, he addresses the uniqueness of each one and their short comings and among them is very clearly what is now the RCC. It's what Jesus didn't say that gives us the clue, he didn't say that anyone of them was outside of Christ, but that they each needed to maintain focus on what is important.:)

What tends to be misunderstood is that Christ did not come to give peace, because he dealt with what is a division of right and wrong. What is taking place today has been so for years and years. We are called to salvation, and told to follow the will of God. And the choice is in whom you choose to follow. Christ made it perfectly clear the path that should be followed. And as scripture tells us, we live by the WORD of GOD.
REFER: (Luke 12:51 Suppose ye that I am come to give peace on earth? I tell you, Nay; but rather division)

And I would agree Paraclete, it doesn't appear that the Catholic's recognizes there are seven churches in which the Revelation of Christ was revealed to us by what John was shown. If we were to examine what each church teaches, we then are able to understand which 2 were found to be favorable in the eyes of God.

[sndbay]

Maggie 3: do you really agree with disrespecting the clergy when they wear a Roman collar? I knew we didn't often agree, but surly you don't agree with this? Have I misjudged you?

JoeT

I would say Joe, it is best you not judge Maggie or anyone else for that matter.

And I trust the point would be, that what we may see in any man or woman that do wear garments to identify they are from a church, can also be used in a deceptve plot. The Roman collar does not represent purity or any level of esteem above other men or woman. If it were, they just might choke on that collar.

REFER: The clerical collar is a fairly modern invention (the detachable collar itself is supposed to have been invented in 1827), although the "collarino" may date as far back as the 17th century. The Church of England's Enquiry Centre reports (citing the Glasgow Herald of December 6, 1894) that the practice of Anglican clergy wearing a detachable clerical collar was invented by a Rev Dr Donald McLeod[1] and became more popular through the Oxford Movement. The clerical collar has no particular religious meaning apart from identifying the person wearing it as a member of the clergy.

[speechlesstx]

One Church or one church in Unity is the first of four marks of the Church i.e. One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic. What it’s not is a ordered military unit that marches in step with everybody expressing themselves the same, or holding identical understanding of Scripture. In fact, a Catholic is free to interpret the vast marjority of Scripture in any reasonable fashion he wants.

The True Church is marked with an internal and external spirit of unity. It is united with Christ and each of its members in its doctrine, reception of the sacraments, and obedience to its authority. It is not the duty of the Catholic to adhere ‘religiously’ out of fear, but rather to conforming both reason and the heart to the will of God and thereby the will of the Church. Unity is adherence to an objective and absolute truth revealed by God.

That's all great Joe but it doesn't answer my question, how in God's name can the church be "one" if you consider us defective? The RCC acknowledges we are an "ecclesiastical community," or just "separated brethren," that we have "many elements of sanctification and of truth," we're just a little "defective." How can we be "one" if the RCC condescends toward us in that fashion? We can't be "one" if you brush us off, i.e. sneer down your nose at us, as "defective."

Oh, and I'm still waiting for a clear explanation as to how Peter is the only one who could possibly have given Christ that answer.

[speechlesstx]

Yet after Paul's visitation, falling to the ground he hears Jesus ask, “why do you persecute ME.” (Cf. Acts 9:4) Wasn’t Paul chasing after dem rascally Apostles? He wasn’t chasing out after Jesus – as far as Paul was concerned Jesus was dead and buried. You can imagine how he wondered who this aberration was, “Who art thou, Lord? And he said to me: I am Jesus of Nazareth, whom thou persecutest.” (Act 22:8). How can you persecute a dead man? How can Paul be guilty of persecuting Jesus of Nazareth who is dead? Why would Paul want to persecute a dead Jew? It’s kind of pointless to persecute a dead man, isn’t it?

Maybe Christ meant, “Why are you persecuting my Church”;now that would make good sense....

Why would we care to interpret such a clear passage any other way? If a risen, living, Jesus Christ spoke to Paul asking why are you persecuting "me," Paul's response is “Who art thou, Lord? " Jesus' response is "I am Jesus of Nazareth," and Paul goes on to preach the rest of his life of a risen Savior who lives, why would we interpret that to mean anything other than what it says?

[paraclete]

That's all great Joe but it doesn't answer my question, how in God's name can the church be "one" if you consider us defective? The RCC acknowledges we are an "ecclesiastical community," or just "separated brethren," that we have "many elements of sanctification and of truth," we're just a little "defective." How can we be "one" if the RCC condescends toward us in that fashion? We can't be "one" if you brush us off, i.e. sneer down your nose at us, as "defective."

Oh, and I'm still waiting for a clear explanation as to how Peter is the only one who could possibly have given Christ that answer.

Joe is very hung up on the phrase One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic without realising that the word catholic is not capitalised in the Creed and this phrase is itself a fabrication of the Church. This became doctrine in the Creed of Constantinople in 381, In some languages, for example, German, the Latin "catholica" was traditionally translated as "christian" before the Reformation.

[JoeT777]

Joe is very hung up on the phrase One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic without realising that the word catholic is not capitalised in the Creed and this phrase is itself a fabrication of the Church. This became doctrine in the Creed of Constantinople in 381, In some languages, for example, German, the Latin "catholica" was traditionally translated as "christian" before the Reformation.

Magnifying a half truth into a whole only fools the user into believing the proposition is truer. Even still, as a matter of convenience some find it profitable to 'tweak' the meaning of phases and words, as you've done here with 'Catholic', to arrive at some truth more to your predilections. While not being an expert of etymology it's clear that most scholars would agree the word 'Catholic' comes from the Greek katholou; meaning 'throughout the whole' or more succinctly 'universal'. The word was used by pre-Christian Greek as it was with the early Church. Justin Martyr (circa 165 AD) used it to refer to the 'general' resurrection or the catholic resurrection (St. Justin Martyr, "De resurrect.", vii sqq Dialogue with Trypho 81); Teretullian, “the catholic goodness of God”; Ireneaus, “the four catholic winds”.

We know that at least one German some 489 years ago had a notorious ignorance of “THE CATHOLIC CHURCH.” Given his rendering, the argument that the pre-schismatic rendering was to mean 'Christian' seems a bit trivial. This is because when Catholic is used in the phase “the Catholic Church”, (in Greek, he katholike ekkesia) we find a 'mia mone' implied (an implication of a “one and only Church” ). This is clearly seen in St. Clement's Stomata as early as the mid-second century writing in defense of the faith against heretics:

“From what has been said, then, it is my opinion that the true Church, that which is really ancient, is one, and that in it those who according to God's purpose are just, are enrolled. For from the very reason that God is one, and the Lord one, that which is in the highest degree honourable is lauded in consequence of its singleness, being an imitation of the one first principle. In the nature of the One, then, is associated in a joint heritage the one Church, which they strive to cut asunder into many sects.

Therefore in substance and idea, in origin, in pre-eminence, we say that the ancient and Catholic Church is alone (sic), collecting as it does into the unity of the one faith— which results from the peculiar Testaments, or rather the one Testament in different times by the will of the one God, through one Lord— those already ordained, whom God predestinated, knowing before the foundation of the world that they would be righteous." (St. Cyprian of Carthage, Stromata, VII, xvii) (the emphasis is mine)

JoeT

[galveston]

In the OP, Rachie speaks of losing faith. Here is the cure for that condition.

Rom 10:17
17 So then faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the word of God.
(KJV)

My advice to you is STUDY the Word of God, more than a cursory reading, and see what the Church was when Jesus established it.

Disregard all partisian arguments, ask the Holy Spirit to guide you and the promise is:

John 16:13-14
13 Howbeit when he, the Spirit of truth, is come, he will guide you into all truth: for he shall not speak of himself; but whatsoever he shall hear, that shall he speak: and he will shew you things to come.
14 He shall glorify me: for he shall receive of mine, and shall shew it unto you.
(KJV)

If you will follow this advice you will NOT lose your faith, in fact you may find it for the first time.

You have my prayers.

[Maggie 3]

JoeT , I have high respect for the Catholic Church. I know that you who are Catholic
Love the Lord and are very dedicated to your beliefs. God loves you and all who try
To follow Him. I believe we make a mistake if we think that the church, any church,
Has the authority to decide what is right and what is wrong. The true church is made
Up of believers in Jesus Christ- what scipture calls the "body of christ". They are to be
"lights in the world". And are going to be lights in a dark world, we need to be careful to identify with the "person of Jesus Christ" and to recognize, not the church but the "Word of God" as our authority. I love all my catholic friends and there deep faith. I go to a
Church that teaches the word of God, the bible, and we follow Jesus. I believe with all
My heart what the bible says to me. Each of us makes up in our heart and mind what is
Right for them, and what they believe shoud be what they follow. I pray and read the bible a lot and seek Gods guidance. I believe the Lord wants me to live in faith and
Do bible things, bible ways. God know our hearts and He is the judge.

Love and Blessing, Maggie3

[arcura]

sndbay,
We are not here to judge one another and the 7 churches paraclete mentioned were all under The Church that was founded by Jesus for the were started by the apostles.
Peace and kindness,
Fred

[JoeT777]

That's all great Joe but it doesn't answer my question, how in God's name can the church be "one" if you consider us defective? The RCC acknowledges we are an "ecclesiastical community," or just "separated brethren," that we have "many elements of sanctification and of truth," we're just a little "defective.

I don't know. If you're interested I would suggest looking at Vatican II's Decree on Ecumrnism - Unitatis Redintegratio .

“How can we be "one" if the RCC condescends toward us in that fashion? We can't be "one" if you brush us off, i.e. sneer down your nose at us, as "defective."

I explained in an earlier post, seethe following link it might make it clearer. CATHOLIC ENCYCLOPEDIA: Unity (As a Mark of the Church)

Oh, and I'm still waiting for a clear explanation as to how Peter is the only one who could possibly have given Christ that answer.

I explained in an earlier post, but look into this link. It explains far better than any explanation I might come up with. CATHOLIC ENCYCLOPEDIA: St. Peter, Prince of the Apostles

Why would we care to interpret such a clear passage any other way? If a risen, living, Jesus Christ spoke to Paul asking why are you persecuting "me," Paul's response is “Who art thou, Lord? " Jesus' response is "I am Jesus of Nazareth," and Paul goes on to preach the rest of his life of a risen Savior who lives, why would we interpret that to mean anything other than what it says?

It's not Paul's response that's of importance, rather its Christ's question to Paul; “why do you persecute me.”

As I tried to explain in a previous post, Acts relates a story of Paul's miraculous vision. In order for the story to make any sense you have to understand that there is a mia mone Catholic Church (that is one and only Catholic Church). This Church was created by Christ, commissioned by Christ, sent out to teach all nations: baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost (Cf. Matt 28:20). Without one and only one Church the vision on the road to Damascus would be meaningless. It requires at least understanding that there is existing corporate ecclesiastical body, a society founded by Our Lord Jesus Christ .

We're told in Acts of Paul's fervent zeal to eradicate any existing resemblance of a following after what he took to be Christ's death. And in Paul's mind he was dead and gone – a devout Jew can't believe otherwise – even to this day. Paul was an obsessed dragon who had taken on the cruel oppression of Christ's remnant following. This dragon was “…breathing … slaughter against the disciples.” As a result when “a light from heaven shined round about him” Paul had no idea who, or for that matter what, this apparition was. Hence “Who art thou, Lord?” is uttered, likely in fear.

The apparition responded “I am Jesus of Nazareth, whom thou persecutest” (Acts 22:8). Christ the man was far beyond persecution. Arius would say that Christ wasn't the third person in the Trinity; therefore He was dead and no threat Paul. We know Arius is wrong; Christ ascended into heaven, where his keeps to his promise to protect His Church, a Church where not even the” gates of hell shall not prevail against it.” This Church is the Mystical Body of Christ, a supernaturally connected to Christ through the sacraments (Cf. John 15:5). The individual is integral part of this body (Cf. John 15:7-12) held together and moved as single body as if by ligaments and Joints (Cf. John 15:16; Colossians 2:19). This Church has one head, Christ; and one body in service to Christ. It's through the Church that one develops a likeness of Christ (Cf. John 15:13-15), a holiness. It's a virtuous union leading to the fullness of Christ's salvation (Cf. Ephesians 1:23) It's only in this union that we become whole (Cf. 1 Corinthians 12:12, 13). This is the Church, the Mystical Body of Christ, “For we, being many, are one bread, one body: all that partake of one bread.” (1 Corinthians 10:17).

Thus, Christ's statement is meaningless when He asks Paul why do you persecute; unless Christ is talking about his Mystical body. Why didn't the apparition say, why do you persecute my followers? Or, why didn't He ask why do you persecute Peter's Church? Paul knew nothing of the early Church, but he knew where the Apostles were; but, Paul was still on the road to Damascus in his effort to find the Apostles – in the story he's not there yet. Paul didn't hang Jesus on the Cross that distinction goes to the Sanhedrin; therefore Paul isn't guilty of harming Christ directly – so why is the apparition complaining of persecution? But, we do know that two years after the ascension that Paul is seen at Stephen's stoning (Cf. Acts 7:58; 8:1), so Paul was guilty of persecuting the Church. Paul persecuted the Church for at least four years after Christ's Crucifixion (Cf. Acts 8:1-3; Phil 3:6 – not Christ. Why then would Christ accuse Paul of persecuting Him? Unless, unless, the apparition was referring to the persecution of His Mystical Body, His Church. In order to persecute a body – it has to exist. This is just one example of why we know that there is One Body, One Faith in Christ, One Church, with One Head of that Church, Jesus Christ.


JoeT

[arcura]

JoeT.
Thanks for the excellent explanation concerning the road to Damascus and Saul (who became Paul).
Peace and kindness,
Fred

[classyT]

I don’t know. If you’re interested I would suggest looking at Vatican II’s Decree on Ecumrnism - Unitatis Redintegratio .


I explained in an earlier post, seethe following link it might make it clearer. CATHOLIC ENCYCLOPEDIA: Unity (As a Mark of the Church)



I explained in an earlier post, but look into this link. It explains far better than any explanation I might come up with. CATHOLIC ENCYCLOPEDIA: St. Peter, Prince of the Apostles



It’s not Paul’s response that’s of importance, rather its Christ’s question to Paul; “why do you persecute me.”

As I tried to explain in a previous post, Acts relates a story of Paul’s miraculous vision. In order for the story to make any sense you have to understand that there is a mia mone Catholic Church (that is one and only Catholic Church). This Church was created by Christ, commissioned by Christ, sent out to teach all nations: baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost (Cf. Matt 28:20). Without one and only one Church the vision on the road to Damascus would be meaningless. It requires at least understanding that there is existing corporate ecclesiastical body, a society founded by Our Lord Jesus Christ .

We’re told in Acts of Paul’s fervent zeal to eradicate any existing resemblance of a following after what he took to be Christ’s death. And in Paul’s mind he was dead and gone – a devout Jew can’t believe otherwise – even to this day. Paul was an obsessed dragon who had taken on the cruel oppression of Christ’s remnant following. This dragon was “…breathing … slaughter against the disciples.” As a result when “a light from heaven shined round about him” Paul had no idea who, or for that matter what, this apparition was. Hence “Who art thou, Lord?” is uttered, likely in fear.

The apparition responded “I am Jesus of Nazareth, whom thou persecutest” (Acts 22:8). Christ the man was far beyond persecution. Arius would say that Christ wasn’t the third person in the Trinity; therefore He was dead and no threat Paul. We know Arius is wrong; Christ ascended into heaven, where his keeps to his promise to protect His Church, a Church where not even the” gates of hell shall not prevail against it.” This Church is the Mystical Body of Christ, a supernaturally connected to Christ through the sacraments (Cf. John 15:5). The individual is integral part of this body (Cf. John 15:7-12) held together and moved as single body as if by ligaments and Joints (Cf. John 15:16; Colossians 2:19). This Church has one head, Christ; and one body in service to Christ. It’s through the Church that one develops a likeness of Christ (Cf. John 15:13-15), a holiness. It’s a virtuous union leading to the fullness of Christ’s salvation (Cf. Ephesians 1:23) It’s only in this union that we become whole (Cf. 1 Corinthians 12:12, 13). This is the Church, the Mystical Body of Christ, “For we, being many, are one bread, one body: all that partake of one bread.” (1 Corinthians 10:17).

Thus, Christ’s statement is meaningless when He asks Paul why do you persecute; unless Christ is talking about his Mystical body. Why didn’t the apparition say, why do you persecute my followers? Or, why didn’t He ask why do you persecute Peter‘s Church? Paul knew nothing of the early Church, but he knew where the Apostles were; but, Paul was still on the road to Damascus in his effort to find the Apostles – in the story he’s not there yet. Paul didn’t hang Jesus on the Cross that distinction goes to the Sanhedrin; therefore Paul isn’t guilty of harming Christ directly – so why is the apparition complaining of persecution? But, we do know that two years after the ascension that Paul is seen at Stephen’s stoning (Cf. Acts 7:58; 8:1), so Paul was guilty of persecuting the Church. Paul persecuted the Church for at least four years after Christ’s Crucifixion (Cf. Acts 8:1-3; Phil 3:6 – not Christ. Why then would Christ accuse Paul of persecuting Him? Unless, unless, the apparition was referring to the persecution of His Mystical Body, His Church. In order to persecute a body – it has to exist. This is just one example of why we know that there is One Body, One Faith in Christ, One Church, with One Head of that Church, Jesus Christ.


JoeT

Joseph!

First, what Paul encountered was NOT a "aparition" but the LORD JESUS CHRIST... GLORIFIED! Christ asked him why he persecuted HIM.. because when you persecute a believer in Christ... you persecute HIM directly. Christ is IN US and we are IN HIM. These are spiritual truths that are difficult to understand but none the less TRUE. I feel certain you would agree with me... so far)

Anyone who accpeted the Lord Jesus before Pauls' ministry was certainly part of the
Church. And it is INDEED ONE body, One Faith and ONE CHURCH. ( not CATHOLIC though) BUT that doesn't mean that they fully comprehended GRACE. The Lord Jesus chose to reveal the mystery of the church and the period of GRACE to the Apostle Paul. (This is what the BIBLE says... not me.) The early Jewish believers had no comprehension of Grace and grafting in Gentiles because the Lord hadn't revealed them yet. However this doesn't make them any less part of the body of Christ.

You err when you think the ONE church is catholic. It is and always will be EVERY person who puts his faith and trust in the Lord Jesus Christ and his finished work on the cross. THAT is the ONE body, that is the ONE faith, that is the one CHURCH! It just isn't a denomination... no way, no how. It is all about JESUS.