Are Catholics christians?

[Soldati Senza Confini]

Jesus himself wasn't even Christian.

If a Christian is a follower of Christ.

Did Jesus follow himself?

DAMNIT MENASSA! WHY?!

[Prussia-Steinbach]

The Old Testament is obsolete.

Yeah, fuck the Jews, amirite? New Testment is the one true reliable text.

...um.

Speaking from a Christian perspective, yes, the OT is obsolete. What's your issue with this? Christ came to fulfill the covenant established by the Father with the Hebrews.

[Menassa]

I don't believe the Old Testament supports the Catholic Church being the one true Church.

The Old Testament is obsolete.

If the Old Testament is false, then the New Testament is false.

If the Old Testament is true, then the New Testament can still be false.

[Menassa]

If a Christian is a follower of Christ.

Did Jesus follow himself?

DAMNIT MENASSA! WHY?!

It's an interesting Philosophical question.

[Prussia-Steinbach]

The Old Testament is obsolete.

If the Old Testament is false, then the New Testament is false.

If the Old Testament is true, then the New Testament can still be false.

obsolete =/= false

[Prussia-Steinbach]

DAMNIT MENASSA! WHY?!

It's an interesting Philosophical question.

...how? Everyone knows Jesus was a Jew.

[Valaran]

I certainly assumed so.

[Salus Maior]

The Old Testament is obsolete.

Yeah, fuck the Jews, amirite? New Testment is the one true reliable text.

While I wouldn't call the Old Testament "obsolete", I don't see how it would effect whether Catholicism is the "one" church or not. That issue lies in the interpretation of the New Testament.

[Imperial Esplanade]

.... We both went over this yesterday.

No, they don't. It's actually the other way around. I would spend more time and effort in this post, but I already know this is going to be an endless carousel.

Which is why I said disputable.

Sure, we went over it yesterday, but that doesn't change the fact they do have a stronger claim to "original versions" than Rome does. Catholicism can have a claim of undisturbed interpretation, but not of "original versions".

If anything, the disputable part is what you would go on to say is "fact." We literally went over this, and I'm not going to regurgitate already dismantled arguments a second time.

[Menassa]

Yeah, fuck the Jews, amirite? New Testment is the one true reliable text.

While I wouldn't call the Old Testament "obsolete", I don't see how it would effect whether Catholicism is the "one" church or not. That issue lies in the interpretation of the New Testament.

Then I wouldn't go around saying there is evidence from "The Bible"

[Menassa]

It's an interesting Philosophical question.

...how? Everyone knows Jesus was a Jew.

But he was the Christ.... and he probably practiced what he preached (Christians assume so)... making him a Christ-ian ?

[Salus Maior]

While I wouldn't call the Old Testament "obsolete", I don't see how it would effect whether Catholicism is the "one" church or not. That issue lies in the interpretation of the New Testament.

Then I wouldn't go around saying there is evidence from "The Bible"

The New Testament is part of the Bible.

[Menassa]

Then I wouldn't go around saying there is evidence from "The Bible"

The New Testament is part of the Bible.

It is a part of the Bible, yes.

[Gim]

Then I wouldn't go around saying there is evidence from "The Bible"

The New Testament is part of the Bible.

It should be, since the NT tells stories, parables, and testimonies related to Jesus Christ, who is one of the main "people" or being in Christianity.

[Imperial Esplanade]

...how? Everyone knows Jesus was a Jew.

But he was the Christ.... and he probably practiced what he preached (Christians assume so)... making him a Christ-ian ?

All Christians are actually Jews, except they believe Jesus is the long-awaited messiah. Those who we consider "Jewish" today are those who are still waiting for the messiah.

[Prussia-Steinbach]

...how? Everyone knows Jesus was a Jew.

But he was the Christ.... and he probably practiced what he preached (Christians assume so)... making him a Christ-ian ?

I've never heard Christ described as a Christian. He followed Jewish law. He practiced Judaism. He was a Jew.

I say this as a former Christian. This is the only opinion I've heard on it.

[Salus Maior]

But he was the Christ.... and he probably practiced what he preached (Christians assume so)... making him a Christ-ian ?

I've never heard Christ described as a Christian. He followed Jewish law. He practiced Judaism. He was a Jew.

I say this as a former Christian. This is the only opinion I've heard on it.

He's better known for breaking Jewish law.

[Menassa]

But he was the Christ.... and he probably practiced what he preached (Christians assume so)... making him a Christ-ian ?

I've never heard Christ described as a Christian. He followed Jewish law. He practiced Judaism. He was a Jew.

I say this as a former Christian. This is the only opinion I've heard on it.

If we say that a Christian is a follower of Christ.
And we say that Christ 'followed' himself.
Then we have to say that Christ was a Christian.

The argument is sound, the logic valid.

[Prussia-Steinbach]

I've never heard Christ described as a Christian. He followed Jewish law. He practiced Judaism. He was a Jew.

I say this as a former Christian. This is the only opinion I've heard on it.

He's better known for breaking Jewish law.

Not at all. He interpreted it correctly. It was Pharisees and Sadducees that had corrupted it.

[Menassa]

He's better known for breaking Jewish law.

Not at all. He interpreted it correctly. It was Pharisees and Sadducees that had corrupted it.

Debatable.

[Prussia-Steinbach]

I've never heard Christ described as a Christian. He followed Jewish law. He practiced Judaism. He was a Jew.

I say this as a former Christian. This is the only opinion I've heard on it.

If we say that a Christian is a follower of Christ.
And we say that Christ 'followed' himself.
Then we have to say that Christ was a Christian.

The argument is sound, the logic valid.

Except he didn't follow himself. He follows the Father. He does not believe in himself in order to be saved.

[The United Neptumousian Empire]

Of course they are. The Catholic Church is THE Christian Church. All sects that are not a part of it have rebelled against the one true Church of Christ and are heretics.

If anyone is not Christian, it's Protestants. But the Catholic Church still acknowledges them as Christians, so they are.

[Wdkckms]

Let's see if I can find Constan's detailed post on the subject.

Suffice it to say: Why did the Archbishop in Rome inherit that authority? There were many bishops appointed by Peter and other apostles; hell, James overruled Peter at one point. Why not the bishop in Antioch? Who's to say that is not the true apostolic successor? The Orthodox church is much closer to early Christianity than modern Roman Catholics.

The reason why this Archbishop of Rome inherited is nothing more than because Apostole Peter decided to go there and make it so. He could also use some other places but did not (Yes, he founded the bishopy of Antioch). It may also lie to the fact that Rome was the center of the world back than so it is logicall from peters position to go there and be martyred. I rrespectivly did james overruled or not from the verses of the Bible it is clear Jesus made apostole Peter as the main man for the early church. I really do not see how is the Othodox Chruch anyhow closer to early Christianity as the Common Church.

[Prussia-Steinbach]

Not at all. He interpreted it correctly. It was Pharisees and Sadducees that had corrupted it.

Debatable.

Well, sure. Just from the Christian perspective.

[Imperial Esplanade]

I've never heard Christ described as a Christian. He followed Jewish law. He practiced Judaism. He was a Jew.

I say this as a former Christian. This is the only opinion I've heard on it.

He's better known for breaking Jewish law.

I'd say he reformed Jewish Law. Jesus really didn't "break" much of anything when it came to law, except for irrelevant traditions and customs maybe.