Origin of the word Catholic.

 Origin of the word Catholic.

No Catholics or Catholic church existed or Catholic tradition in the days of Jesus, his apostles and ALL early followers, as they were all Jews and Jesus instructed them to go to no one except the lost sheep of the house of Israel, in other words, the early Jewish disciples were personally instructed by Jesus himself to go only to their fellow Jews.

There is no scripture where the word "Catholic" was used by Jesus, his apostles or early Jewish followers!

Not until sometime during Paul's ministry did he turn his attention to the pagan Gentiles, as the Jews on the whole (as a nation) rejected the gospel message about the Christ. Acts 18:6

Paul now turned his attention to these pagans, none of whom were Jews or "Catholic", all were pagans and worshipped the old gods.

Luke compiled the book of Acts in about 61 ce, so even after 28 years after the death of Jesus, there were still no Catholics or a Catholic church in existence and by the the time of the Temple's destruction in 70 ce the Christian congregations consisted mainly of converted Gentile pagans, still no "Catholics..."!

The origin of the word Catholic and its use outside the NT?

The word Catholic:

The word "Catholic" is derived from ancient the Greek adjective "καθολικός " (katholikos) and can mean "universal" from the expression "καθόλου" (katholou) and can also mean "on the whole, according to the whole, the word is derived from "katholikos" is a composite expression made up of two words "kata" meaning "about" and "holos" meaning "whole".

The word "katholikos" already existed in ancient Greek (otherwise it would not have been derived from it), but seems not to be used extensively.

It's first use outside the NT is seen in Ignatius of Antioch in his letter to the Smyrnaeans (c. 110 AD), by this time the last apostle, John, had been dead for at least ten years the congregations and the congregations had become sectarian with different groups vying for prominence, one of the biggest being the "Christian Gnostics", who nearly over-run the "church" (so-called).

During the lifetime of the apostles, apostasy was already manifesting itself with some teaching different doctrines, but as the apostles were still alive, they acted as a collective restraint and nipped such in the bud and got rid of these false teachers "Hymenaeus, Alexander and Philetus" are mentioned in scripture, then in John's old age we read about the sect of "Nicholaus", not all sect are recorded in scripture.

When Ignatius used the word “Catholic”, he tried to give the impression (false) that the congregations (churches) were unified and one “church”, but this is false, as there was no such thing in his day or after that, that a single “kata-holos” (about – whole) “Katholikos – Catholic” church existed; that a one whole unified Christian church existed is merely Catholic propaganda, written by proto-Orthodox writers back in the day, but did not reflect the historical accuracy of the age!

By the end of the 4th century ce, some 50 Christian groups existed, all offering salvation, but because, by that time the now, Catholic Church had become all powerful with political state backing!

Some early Christian sects, who competed with the Catholics:

Nazarenes, Adoptionists, Gnostics, Ebionites, Monarchianites, Alogi, Docetism, Marcionism, Valentinianism, Sethians and Ophites, Montanism and much more!

What Catholics seem to be ignorant of is the fact that, Jesus was a Jew, not a Catholic, all the apostles were Jews, not Catholic, all the first early believers were Jews, not Catholic, early Gentile converts were pagan, not Catholic! All preached to Samaritans were not Catholic!

 What Catholics seem to be ignorant of is the fact that, Jesus was a Jew, not a Catholic, all the apostles were Jews, not Catholic, all the first early believers were Jews, not Catholic, early Gentile converts were pagan, not Catholic! All preached to Samaritans were not Catholic!

Up until the fall of the second temple (70 ce) there were no Catholics or Catholic church; for Catholics to argue otherwise is a delusion and not a fact of early NT history!

There were no Popes or Bishops or even a tiered clergy class, responsible men in the congregations were called "Presubteros and Episcopus" (Older man (spiritually mature) and Overseer).

There was no "Pontifex Maximus" that title was reserved exclusively for all Roman Emperors from the time of Augustus down to the time of Gratain in the 4th century ce, the latter Emperor throwing out that PAGAN title as not befitting a Christian Emperor, but the ambitious bishop of Rom at th time, Damasus had no qualms in appropriating the title "Pontifex Maximus" for himself, now the Roman Catholic church had its first "Pope" in the traditional sense!

All Catholic Arch Bishops had control over what is called a "See" a region, such as Corinth, Jerusalem, Antioch, Athens and so on, each carried the titel "Papa" or "Pope", likewise the bishop of Rome, until Damasus changed things, now Rome was the big boy and flexed its power by the aid of the Political State! No Bishop or Arch Bishop was above another, all were of equal status!

Messianics and Pictograms?

 Messianics and Pictograms?

Paleo-Hebrew is the ancient Hebrew script, used in writing OT texts. This script is an alphabet and nothing more and has no pictorial significance or hidden meaning. Scholars in the field of linguistics know that by the time a language develops into a written language, such as we see in the alphabetic characters in Paleo-Hebrew, it ceases to be a pictographic language, this means that the developed letters do not any longer stand for pictures, they represent sounds!

Developing a written alphabet as a means to simplify communication, meant doing away with hundreds or perhaps thousands of symbols, whereas, an alphabet needs no more that about 30 symbols for communication purposes. The purpose of an alphabet was to isolate sounds, thus developing a symbol to represent these sounds!

The early forms of the Hebrew alphabet were pictograms and developed into single symbols, in time the pictures lost their meaning being superseded by the developed letter to represent the sound, therefore, trying to read scripture according to pictures is invalid and meaningless!

It would be like taking Egyptian Hieroglyphs (pictograms) which developed into Hieratic Script, when itself developed into Demotic Script (c. 7th cent. bce), then as time went on Demotic became more streamlined and the script itself became shortened.

Demotic was used for Legal documents, such as business, courts, and administration.

One could use the same argument for Greek, as it is based on the old Phoenician script, basically Paleo-Hebrew and developed into the ancient Greek script that we know, but would we even try and apply what the “pictographic” camp is trying to do with ancient Hebrew pictures, which have no meaning anymore in ancient Greek!

Messianics are the ones who buy into the pictogram, but it is nonsense!

Consider,

We could say that English words can be “decoded”. Greek was derived from the ancient Phoenician alphabet, in time that script (alphabet) was borrowed by the Romans and we ended up with a developed Latin alphabet, as we know it, yet English is based on the Latin alphabet, thus, the ancient Phoenician (Paleo-Hebrew) letter “Beth” is the English letter “B”, but that ancient letter depicted a “house” and the rounded English “B” resembles the “ancient Phoenician/Paleo-Hebrew depicting a “house”. We could interpret this to mean that the pictographic understanding of Hebrew terms would be as nonsensical as taking English words from a line in a scifi novel and then selecting random words and giving them a decoded meaning and that is exactly what Messianics are doing with ancient Phoenician/Paleo-Hebrew pictograms and it is deluded nonsense!

Jesus was a Jew, not Eastern Orthodox!

 Jesus was a Jew, not Eastern Orthodox!

All the apostles were Jews, not a single one was Catholic or Eastern Orthodox!

As well as all the apostles, all first early believers were all Jews from ancient Jewish stock, not one was Catholic or Eastern Orthodox!

All first early Gentile believers were not Catholic or Eastern Orthodox, they were converted pagans!

In the 1st and 2nd centuries ce there was no Catholic Church or Eastern Orthodox church; in fact the later (much later) Eastern Orthodox church was a breakaway sect from the bigger Catholic sect!

In fact, when the last apostle died (John) there was no Universal church, it had fragmented by John's time into various sects, some small others bigger, the biggest one attracted more pagan converts and made the claim for itself "Universal" or better known as "Catholic", and in time this Sect grew very Powerful and Rich, and numerous and began to beat down on the small er sects until it had grown so powerful (with the help of the political state) that it claimed for itself the be the only true church!

Math 13:24-30 NASB

"Jesus presented another parable to them, saying, “The kingdom of heaven is like a man who sowed good seed in his field. 25But while his men were sleeping, his enemy came and sowed weeds among the wheat, and left. 26And when the wheat sprouted and produced grain, then the weeds also became evident. 27And the slaves of the landowner came and said to him, ‘Sir, did you not sow good seed in your field? How then does it have weeds?’ 28And he said to them, ‘An enemy has done this!’ The slaves *said to him, ‘Do you want us, then, to go and gather them up?’ 29But he said, ‘No; while you are gathering up the weeds, you may uproot the wheat with them. 30Allow both to grow together until the harvest; and at the time of the harvest I will say to the reapers, “First gather up the weeds and bind them in bundles to burn them; but gather the wheat into my barn.”’”

Jesus in this parable shows that fine seeds of truth were sown in the beginning, but a spiritual sleep came across many disciples and while they were spiritually sleeping, The Enemy (Satan) came and began to corrupt believers from within the Christian congregation!

What was to be done?

"The slaves said to him, ‘Do you want us, then, to go and gather them up?’ 29But he said, ‘No; while you are gathering up the weeds, you may uproot the wheat with them. 30Allow both to grow together until the harvest; and at the time of the harvest..."

Jesus allowed both true sons of the kingdom and counterfeit (apostate) sons of the kingdom to grow together, at first, not much would be discerned, but later on a noticeable difference would be noticed! Both were to grow together until the harvest (the last days of the conclusion of Satan's system of things). When the harvest time was to come, then a separation was to be made by the "reapers" (angels) and the many weedlike Christians would be separated from the true wheat like Christians.

Who are now the true sons of the kingdom and who are the counterfeit sons of the kingdom today?

Math 7:13, 14 NKJV

“Enter by the narrow gate; for wide is the gate and broad is the way that leads to destruction, and there are many who go in by it. 14 Because narrow is the gate and difficult is the way which leads to life, and there are few who find it."

The vast majority are in the many, these go off into destruction, whilst the few go off into life!

Who are in the many today?

The Trinitarians, all of apostate Christendom!

Who are in the few?

Acts 15:14 ESV

"Simeon has related how God first visited the Gentiles, to take from them a people for his name."

See: Ex 3:15; 9:16; Ps 83:18 and Isa 42:8 American Standard Version (ASV) of the bible!

Heb 1:3 "Charakter" and "Hupostasis"?

 Heb 1:3 "Charakter" and "Hupostasis"?

"…kai charakter tes hupostaseoos autou…”

New International Version:

"The Son is the radiance of God's glory and the exact representation of his being, sustaining all things by his powerful word. After he had provided purification for sins, he sat down at the right hand of the Majesty in heaven."

New Living Translation

"The Son radiates God's own glory and expresses the very character of God, and he sustains everything by the mighty power of his command. When he had cleansed us from our sins, he sat down in the place of honor at the right hand of the majestic God in heaven."

English Standard Version

"He is the radiance of the glory of God and the exact imprint of his nature, and he upholds the universe by the word of his power. After making purification for sins, he sat down at the right hand of the Majesty on high."

Berean Study Bible.

"The Son is the radiance of God's glory and the exact representation of His nature, upholding all things by His powerful word. After He had provided purification for sins, He sat down at the right hand of the Majesty on high."

Here we see in these translations, expressions, such as,

"exact representation of his being" NIV

"expresses the very character of God" NLT

"he exact imprint of his nature" ESV

"the exact representation of His nature" BSB

Here we see, that, Christ is an 'exact representation of someone else, an expression' of the character of someone else, an exact imprint of the nature of someone else, an exact representation of someone else [His nature].

Something that is ‘representative… is a copy, radiance, mirror, imprint... or stamp’ of another thing or person cannot be that, which such, ‘represents… is a copy, a radiance, mirror... or stamp of’; thus, if Jesus was God, then, he would not be “a copy, a radiance, mirror... or stamp…an imprint” of himself, because, he would be that self…!

“…kai charakter tes hupostaseoos autou…” [and the representation of the substance of Him]

Here we clearly see that Paul uses the term “hypostasis” which various translations render that term “being, character, nature, person, essence, substance…” Paul is here talking about that which is real, reality and what Trinitarians seem to miss or just wish to ignore is that Paul uses the term “charakter” in association with “hypostasis”!

What does that mean?

The Greek term "charakter", comes from a tool that craftsmen would use, the “charakter” was a tool used for engraving purposes, the engraver would take some material and then very carefully began to carve an exact impression or likeness of something else, the engraver would want to capture the innermost ‘character’ of the subject, the term ‘charakter’ in time, came to represent a ‘mould’ and then, as time moved on it came to be a “stamp or an “impress” used in the manufacture, production of coins, it came to mean, a ‘copy, stamp, impression…’ of the subject matter, it was not meant to be that subject, but to merely ‘mirror, reproduce, reflection, be an expression of…’that subject, its purpose was to ‘communicate, express, reflect, radiate, mirror, represent…’ that which was ‘real’ the ‘reality’ of the subject; in every situation, the ‘charakter’ was to show or represent the ‘hypostasis’ [reality, that which is real…] it was not to convey the idea or thought that it “charakter” itself was the actual thing (subject) but to properly convey that which it reflected, represented, expressed...it was not the subject or the actual substance, nature…of the subject itself!

Trinitarians do not want to see this and that Christ is the express and exact *REPRESENTATION* of the Father (subject) no matter how wonderful or glorified Christ is, he is still a representation of the substance or being of God, not "the God"* himself, Jehovah God carefully concealed in his son (withing the limits of the human condition) the qualities and character he himself has and as such, when Jesus was on the earth, he was able to give his followers a glance of his Father, by exhibiting the qualities...that belonged to the Father, the Source of such, the son radiated, reflected...these qualities, so much, that he could say to his disciples, when "you see me, you see the Father", the son mirrored the Father's qualities perfectly, a far as the human conditioned allowed!

Illustration:

Trinitarians say they are representative (representations) of their church in that they are living representatives of the reality i.e. that which is ‘real’ = their church and then it could be said that, the two, the Trinitarians and their church constitute “God”, and why, that would be, because the two are the hypostasis [representative, reflections…] of how such is organised, structured, arranged, put together, composition of parts…!

Trinitarians have created a paradox and play the word game, but it still does not stop the truth from being manifest in some way…!

Just one last point:

Heb 1:3 NWT

"He is the reflection of [his] glory and the exact representation of his very being..."

God's son is a copy, an imprint, a radiance, mirror... or stamp of God's "being" i.e. substance, he (Jesus) is not that substance or of that substance, no more than the moistened wax (material) left with an impress, is of the same substance (material) as the seal that impressed or imprinted it!

Once again, something that is ‘representative… is a copy, radiance, mirror... or stamp’ of another thing or person cannot be that, which such, ‘represents… is a copy, a radiance, mirror... or stamp of’; thus, if Jesus was God, then, he would not be “a copy, a radiance, mirror... or stamp…” of himself, because, he would be that self…!

To put it another way, Jesus is not of or shares the same "being" as the Father; this is interesting, as, for example, "being" is defined either as, an individual, a person and Trinitarians will on occasion employ this definition, as it then allows them to use the personal singular pronouns "I, he, him, you..." with the term "God", but, when pressed for a proper definition, of the term "being" they are hesitant, because they want the term "being" to sound, as though they are talking about an individual or person, thus allowing them the use of the singular pronouns in connection with the term "God", but, what they actually mean, when it comes right down to it, is that Trinitarians don't mean person...but "substance", which is synonymous with "nature..." and the Greek term for "substance" is "ousia", and most ordinary lay Trinitarians, unless they have studied the origin of the term "ousia", which origin lies in Greek philosophy, will have no idea and therefore, will be wholly ignorant as to the origin, that such "ousia" [substance...] lies at the root of Greek philosophy and that root is Aristotle, as the "ousia" chosen at the Council of Nicaea in 325 CE, was Aristotle's 3rd definition of such term and it was this "ousia" adopted by the Trinitarians, such an Aristotelian "ousia" is not to be found in the bible, so the Proto-Trinitarians,already seduced by Greek philosophy, especially, the emerging Neo-Platonism (and its substance sharing concept, see, Plotinus, Porphyry, Iamblichus, Proclus...) had to look outside of the bible for a term that would suit their contrived doctrine and such a term they found in Greek metaphysics of the pagan Greek philosopher, Aristotle, but, such an extra-biblical term is wholly pagan and by adopting and ratifying such a term, Trinitarians are really pagan Christians, but most do not know it, because they do not know about the origin of their "substance" [ousia] term, as such lies with Greek mythology and not the bible!

William Tyndale on John 1:1, why "god" and not "God"?

 "and the Word was God" KJV.

In William Tyndale's NT at John 1:1 we see "and the Word was god".

Notice the small "g"!

Just where did translations after Tyndale, including the KJV, and subsequent translations get their uppercase "G" from!

Note the translations below and how Tyndale's translation was later corrupted by adding the uppercase "G"; then I will post a snapshot photo of the actual John 1:1 and who it was that was responsible for the uppercase "G"!

Geneva Bible of 1587

In the beginning was that Word, and that Word was with God, and that Word was God.

Bishops' Bible of 1568

In the begynnyng was the worde, & the worde was with God: and that worde was God.

Coverdale Bible of 1535

In the begynnynge was the worde, and the worde was with God, and God was ye worde.

Tyndale Bible of 1526

In the beginnynge was the worde and the worde was with God: and the worde was God.

As is seen in the photo, Tyndale has a lowercase "g" and not an uppercase "G".

John Rogers, using mostly Tyndale's translation 1526 and Miles Coverdale's translation 1535, in 1537 produced what is called "Mathew's Bible" and in it he changed Tyndale's "g" to "G", this is where Trinitarian translations like the KJV got their uppercase "G" from, and unfortunately it has stuck ever since and modern Trinitarian translations, such as the NIV, NASB, AB, NLT, ESV etc., have followed the example of John Rogers!

When we see:

"Tyndale Bible of 1526

In the beginnynge was the worde and the worde was with God: and the worde was God."

This is how biased and unscrupulous online bible websites, such as "biblehub" and "biblegateway" run by Trinitarians alter what Tyndale actually produced, as is proved in the photo below!

Tyndale actually wrote:

"In the begynnyng was the woorde and y worde was with God: and the worde was god"

The spelling may look a bit odd, but we must remember, that English spelling was not standardised as it is today, English at that time was still in a fluid state and changing!

Printers at times use the letter " y " as the definite article, at other times they used "the". notice how our modern "word" was spelled "woorde" and "worde" and "beginning" was spelled "begynnyng".

I have a 1707 KJV NT and in it the double and single letter "ff" and "f" was at times used as "ss" and "s", in about the 1630s the English language began to use the adopted German "J" and this superseded the letter "I" when it came to names, "Iacob" became "Jacob", "Iehovah" became "Jehovah", both vowels and consonants were interchangeable in Tyndale's day and only became standardised much later!

JW Critic on Col 1:15?

Andrew Graham

JW Critic:

“ but the word does mean "origin" in the Greek. But it is the Son of man ascending past the beginning and ending of creation into a timeless God. How do you explain the present tense of vs 15 "he IS (present indicative tense) before all things. He's before all things NOW. Therefore, he's in God, past the beginning and end, therefore all things were created through him. And because God said he CREATED ALL THINGS ALONE, either God simultaneously existed in the Son of man or there is a contradiction. If the same God existed as both, there is none. ALONE means "not through another person" created or not!”

Reply,

“How do you explain the present tense of vs 15 "he IS (present indicative tense) before all things.”

I think you mean Col 1:17 and not v15!

I keep on explaining this to Trinitarians, but they pay no attention!

No translation I am aware of with the exception of the AB paraphrase translation, which has “originator”, has “origin”; it is not in any extant Greek manuscript and not implied, except by theology, and I see you do not quote the translation that may have “origin”, so, your comment can be dismissed until you cite your translation source!

Let us look at the surrounding context. From two translations, the Trinitarian ESV and the JW NWT, as it will answer your question:

“How do you explain the present tense of vs 15 "he IS (present indicative tense) before all things.”

Col 1:15-17

“He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of all creation. 16For by him all things were created, in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or rulers or authorities all things were created through him and for him. 17And he is before all things, and in him all things hold together.” ESV

“He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of all creation; 16 because by means of him all [other] things were created in the heavens and upon the earth, the things visible and the things invisible, no matter whether they are thrones or lordships or governments or authorities. All [other] things have been created through him and for him. 17 Also, he is before all [other] things and by means of him all [other] things were made to exist” NWT

Looking at the ESV and other Trinitarian translations, if we take it literally, are we to understand that Jesus “is before all things", is Jesus before his own Father? If so, then, we must include the Father in that understanding or we need to explain what the original Greek intended to convey!

Clearly, the expression “he is before all things” cannot include the Father, so there must be a way, as far as English is concerned to distinguish the Father and Son from the “all things”!

Greek has a way of implying “other” (NWT)!

Notice, “all things were created through him and for him. “ ESV

Since the “all things” were “created through him and for him”, he cannot be God!

“For by him all things were created, in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or rulers or authorities all things were created through…” ESV

Logically, since the “all things” were “created through him”, Jesus must have pre-existed that which he was instrumental in bringing into existence, thus, God’s son stands outside of thus, apart and in relation to that which he was instrumental in bringing into existence!

However, since Col 1:15 is in the Partitive Genitive, God’s son, though he son stands outside of, thus, apart and in relation to that which he was instrumental in bringing into existence, he is still (because of the Partitive Genitive) part of the overall creation, he being the only one directly created by his God and Father, Jehovah, “all [other] things” (NWT) of creation were brought into existence “by” (means of) the Son.

What the Partitive Genitive shows is that the son is of class, category “creation”, just as he is of class, category “firstborn from the dead” (Col 1:18; Rev 1:5).

Lastly:

“And because God said he CREATED ALL THINGS ALONE, either God simultaneously existed in the Son of man or there is a contradiction. If the same God existed as both, there is none. ALONE means "not through another person" created or not!”

“And because God said he CREATED ALL THINGS ALONE…”

Here, you seem to be alluding to the book of Isaiah!

The problem with Trinitarians (and I was one for over 20 years) is that, they mix up and confuse contexts and what you said above is a typical example!

The Isaiah context from which you seem to draw on!

In Isaiah’s day, the nation of Israel with its kings, priests and false prophets, etc., had turned apostate and turned away from the pure worship Jehovah and turned to worshipping the Baals! To these false gods, the apostate Israelites attributed success in war, crops, fertility, etc.

To these apostates, these gods were real and were responsible for the “all things” created, but the point Jehovah makes through his prophet Isaiah (which Trinitarian ignore or dismiss or simply just do not get it) is that there was no God with him!

Isa 44:24?

New Living Translation:

“This is what the LORD says— your Redeemer and Creator: “I am the LORD, who made all things. I alone stretched out the heavens. Who was with me when I made the earth?”

English Standard Version:

“Thus says the LORD, your Redeemer, who formed you from the womb: “I am the LORD, who made all things, who alone stretched out the heavens, who spread out the earth by myself”

This is the point that God was making through his prophet! In other words, which god was with Jehovah God, when he “alone stretched out the heavens” and “who spread out the earth”, yes, which of the Baals was with him?

This is what Trinitarians miss entirely, the proper context, especially when they come back with: “And because God said he CREATED ALL THINGS ALONE”!

“either God simultaneously existed in the Son of man or there is a contradiction. If the same God existed as both, there is none. ALONE means "not through another person" created or not!”

No! Your theology is blinding you to the proper context, of which you are totally unaware of, otherwise, you would not have come back with the above!