Why Do You Call Yourself A "Christian"?

[William]

Generally it is understood that those who call themselves "Christian" *share a number of agreed beliefs, even if they do not participate in each others denominations or agree to specific beliefs which go towards the creation of said denomination's [schism's] which branch [sprout] out from the main trunk of middle eastern mythologies - the branch called "Christendom".

The *general consensus appears to me to be;

1: Christians are those who say they follow after Jesus-of-the-Bible.
2: The Bible is considered by Christians to be "The Word of God"
3: Christendom, as a whole, is "The Church" Jesus set up.
4: There are no Christians who are not members of Christendom because Christendom is the vessel through which Jesus delivered The Bible [his word] to the world.
5: The Creator of The Creation is called "God"
6: "God" is the god of the Jews.
7: "The Father" [as Jesus-of-the-Bible referred to The Creator] is a term Jesus used when referring to The Old Testament [The G_D of The Jews] idea of a god.

Perhaps the list is too long already? Or perhaps there may be more that all Christians appear to agree on?

Do you agree with any of those points on my list?

Why do YOU call yourself a "Christian"?

[William]

So then, you would say that Christendom, as a whole, is NOT "The Church" Jesus set up.

Correct.

Therefore one should be able to point out this Church Christ set up? Can you show us this Church. If it isn't Christendom, then what is it?

Historical record takes us back to when Jesus walked the earth and said to Peter, “Thou art Peter and upon this rock, I build my church”. “Whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven” “Whose sins you forgive, they are forgiven him”.

When we follow history, we see Christ’s established Church is the Catholic Church. Peter was the first Pope. Only the Catholic Church can trace her origin back to Christ Himself and has an unbroken chain of Apostolic Succession until this day. Only the Catholic Church has the authority to forgive sin, just like Scripture tells us Christ gave her.

That being the case, are Catholics more forgiving than the rest of us? Should that be taken as a sign that what you write is The Truth?

So Christendom is the Church Christ set up? But within the Church there are folk who don't belong in it?

Christendom simply refers to the “Christian world” or body of believers who believe in Christ and share similar values and morals. It isn’t something specific established by Jesus Christ (it is referenced more like an idea or movement. The Church, on the other hand is a specific, visible, authoritative entity established by Christ. ”If they still refuse to listen, tell it to the church; and if they refuse to listen even to the church, treat them as you would a pagan or a tax collector.” Matthew 18:17

So they will give the Church money rather than the church demanding money from them. The Church collects money from those willing to give The Church money.
Not sure re the reference "treating them like pagans" except that it explains the pagan aspect of the Catholic Church - statues and paintings and all that...either way though, The Church has our attention, and we might even give it our money.
What if everybody in the world gave The Church all our money... [not just a small portion] How do you think The Church would spend it? What would The Church use it for?

Clearly, there was a specific place to go. Christendom is not an actual authoritative entity.

Christendom is the shadow cast by The Church...the shadow is that which Protested The Church to the degree that the shadow was formed through this process. Christendom is indeed a shadow entity, casting doubt upon the true nature of The Church, probably through some kind of jealousy within the shadow entity itself... but jealousy of "what"?

So you are saying that the god idea of the Jews is not the entity which Jesus was referring to as The Father?
If so, I do not understand why you answered "if course" to question 6

That’s not what I was saying. Of course The Father was the God of the Jews and the same God Jesus refers to, but The Father is hardly limited to the God of the OT.

How do you mean "limited"? According to the stories, the God of the Jews was all-powerful!

So [for you] the list is "too long" because there are things you do not agree with.

Hmmm . . . perhaps. I just didn’t think those extra things you added that I objected to represented what it means to be a Christian.

So for you, being a Christian is about those particular beliefs?

What particular beliefs? Believing God exists? That He became man, was crucified, resurrected, established His Church, and desires us to do what has been revealed to us through Sacred Scripture (The Bible) and Sacred Tradition (the Church)? That we are to know, love and serve Him? Yes. What else could it be about?

Just double checking to be sure I am understanding you correctly.

[RightReason]

That being the case, are Catholics more forgiving than the rest of us?

No, it means Christ expected us to confess our sins and He only gave authority to forgive on His behalf to His established Church. Individual Catholics or Christians may or may not personally be forgiving, but that’s not what I’m referring to. I’m talking about the Sacrament of Confession. A person can be forgiven of something whether the individual offended personally forgives him/her or not. Regardless of any individual, a person can obtain the forgiveness, graces, and peace of confessing his/her sins to the Church.

Should that be taken as a sign that what you write is The Truth?

I’m not sure I understand. I am just saying we know from Sacred Scripture and Sacred Tradition that forgiveness of sins is one of the powers Christ left His Church.

So they will give the Church money rather than the church demanding money from them. The Church collects money from those willing to give The Church money.

Again, I do not follow your comment. I think you misunderstand what the passage I cited means.

Not sure re the reference "treating them like pagans"

It means if a person is unwilling to listen to the Church that Christ established, then the only thing that can be done is to treat them as someone not in the Church. If they don’t want to listen to the Church then they are essentially declaring themselves not a Christian. At that time you were either Christian or a pagan. And if they don’t want to follow Christ’s teachings, then they aren’t Christian, they’re pagan and we let them be.

except that it explains the pagan aspect of the Catholic Church - statues and paintings

Statues and paintings are not inherently pagan so your comment makes no sense.

What if everybody in the world gave The Church all our money... [not just a small portion] How do you think The Church would spend it? What would The Church use it for?

The Church does not ask nor require of such. But if one does give money to the Church, it is used for all sorts of things from the practical in keeping the lights on to feeding the poor.

Christendom is the shadow cast by The Church...the shadow is that which Protested The Church to the degree that the shadow was formed through this process. Christendom is indeed a shadow entity, casting doubt upon the true nature of The Church, probably through some kind of jealousy within the shadow entity itself... but jealousy of "what"?

You tell me.

How do you mean "limited"? According to the stories, the God of the Jews was all-powerful!

Yes, we are talking about the same God. But the term The Father is not limited to only the God of the OT. The God of the OT is the same God as the God of the NT who is the same as Jesus Christ who is the same as the Holy Spirit. Same God.

[William]

That being the case, are Catholics more forgiving than the rest of us?

No, it means Christ expected us to confess our sins and He only gave authority to forgive on His behalf to His established Church. Individual Catholics or Christians may or may not personally be forgiving, but that’s not what I’m referring to. I’m talking about the Sacrament of Confession. A person can be forgiven of something whether the individual offended personally forgives him/her or not. Regardless of any individual, a person can obtain the forgiveness, graces, and peace of confessing his/her sins to the Church.

Should that be taken as a sign that what you write is The Truth?

I’m not sure I understand. I am just saying we know from Sacred Scripture and Sacred Tradition that forgiveness of sins is one of the powers Christ left His Church.

So they will give the Church money rather than the church demanding money from them. The Church collects money from those willing to give The Church money.

Again, I do not follow your comment. I think you misunderstand what the passage I cited means.

Not sure re the reference "treating them like pagans"

It means if a person is unwilling to listen to the Church that Christ established, then the only thing that can be done is to treat them as someone not in the Church. If they don’t want to listen to the Church then they are essentially declaring themselves not a Christian. At that time you were either Christian or a pagan. And if they don’t want to follow Christ’s teachings, then they aren’t Christian, they’re pagan and we let them be.

except that it explains the pagan aspect of the Catholic Church - statues and paintings

Statues and paintings are not inherently pagan so your comment makes no sense.

What if everybody in the world gave The Church all our money... [not just a small portion] How do you think The Church would spend it? What would The Church use it for?

The Church does not ask nor require of such. But if one does give money to the Church, it is used for all sorts of things from the practical in keeping the lights on to feeding the poor.

Christendom is the shadow cast by The Church...the shadow is that which Protested The Church to the degree that the shadow was formed through this process. Christendom is indeed a shadow entity, casting doubt upon the true nature of The Church, probably through some kind of jealousy within the shadow entity itself... but jealousy of "what"?

You tell me.

How do you mean "limited"? According to the stories, the God of the Jews was all-powerful!

Yes, we are talking about the same God. But the term The Father is not limited to only the God of the OT. The God of the OT is the same God as the God of the NT who is the same as Jesus Christ who is the same as the Holy Spirit. Same God.

I think that because of the evidence we cannot accept your witness of The Church as being The Catholic Church as the truth of the matter.
Just because there is a visible entity claiming to have been established by Peter, does not mean that this is the case. One looks not only at the label but also at the manner in which the entity behaves and what the entity teaches, and we would expect that entity not only to teach the rudiments which assist the entity in making Catholics out of a many individuals as it can, but more to the point, making disciples out of every Human.

One might argue that the priesthood is where the evidence is, but the priests do not go out into the world as Jesus commanded his disciples to do. Largely they carry money and items with them and are paid by the entity to do the job they do.

Also, what of the vast amount of knowledge which Jesus taught in secret? Surely that would have been kept and preserved somewhere [for it isn't in the Bible] but one would have to think that it should be somewhere and even if it where kept in the Vatican Archive for safe keeping, since it is no longer a place to keep secrets, why would the Vatican continue to keep it hidden from the world?

Perhaps, because it doesn't exist because it was never created? But why would so many words spoken by Christ as teachings, NOT be recorded?
But if that were the case, then one would have to say that everything Jesus did and said regarding the Fathers Kingdom was to remain secret and therefore The Church too would not be a large visible entity claiming to represent Christ. Rather one would expect it to be a largely invisible entity doing its thing in the background - away from pomp and ceremony...and probably does not refer to its members as "Christians" any more than Jesus did...

[The Tanager]

I call myself a Christian because I think I am a disciple of Jesus. That's pretty vague. In slightly less vagueness, I call myself a Christian because I believe Jesus to be my Savior and Lord. I can start to clarify some of that slightly less vagueness by responding to your seven points. In doing so, I am not claiming that you mean the opposite; I could simply understand the statement different than you.

1. I don't think it is enough to say one follows Jesus, one must actually do what a disciple does to accurately call themselves a Christian. That does not mean acting in all the right ways now, though, for being a disciple is a journey with Jesus.

2. That I think the Bible is the "Word of God" is not why I consider myself a Christian. I think one can reject the Bible as the "Word of God" and still be a Christian. I do think it is the "Word of God," though. I also think that phrase accurately applies to Jesus in a different way.

3. I would understand Christendom to mean something like "the worldwide body or society of disciples of Christ". Given that definition, I would say Christendom is the Church Jesus set up. I think you mean something else by that term. If you do and provide it, then I could better answer your question.

4. I think this is trivially true by definition; Christendom is just a synonym of "the Church," where both terms refer to the worldwide body or society of disciples of Christ.

5. One of the names I call the Creator by is "God," but there are others. I do think one who doesn't believe in the existence of a Creator would not be a Christian.

6. I do see this God as the God the ancient Israelites worshipped. I do not think that one must believe that to accurately call themselves a Christian, though.

7. I'm not sure why you emphasized "idea" here. I think Jesus used "Father" to refer to one Person of the Trinity, the Trinity being equal to the God of the Old Testament. I do not think that one must believe in the Trinity to accurately call themselves a Christian, though.

[Overcomer]

Good questions, William. Here's my input:

1: Christians are those who say they follow after Jesus-of-the-Bible.

There are people who think they are following the Jesus of the Bible, but they are following a false Jesus. The Jesus of the Bible is the Second Person of the Trinity who came to earth as God Incarnate. That is the orthodox/traditional understanding of the identity of Christ since the first century.

2: The Bible is considered by Christians to be "The Word of God"

Yes.

3: Christendom, as a whole, is "The Church" Jesus set up.

People can be members of Christendom without being Christians simply because the term refers to a group of people who live under a Christian set of morals and values. Non-believers can be and are part of Christendom.

4: There are no Christians who are not members of Christendom because Christendom is the vessel through which Jesus delivered The Bible [his word] to the world.

Yes, Christians are members of Christendom.

5: The Creator of The Creation is called "God"

He isn't just called God. He IS God.

6: "God" is the god of the Jews.

Yes.

7: "The Father" [as Jesus-of-the-Bible referred to The Creator] is a term Jesus used when referring to The Old Testament [The G_D of The Jews] idea of a god.

Jesus, as God the Son, did refer to the God of Abraham, Isaac and Joseph as the Father. But the Old Testament just doesn't present the Jews' "idea of God". It presents the reality of God as he revealed himself to them and continues to reveal himself to believers today.

Perhaps the list is too long already? Or perhaps there may be more that all Christians appear to agree on?

Here are the primary orthodox/traditional Christian doctrines that were established right from the start:

God is a Triune being, that is, one God who exists in three persons -- God the Father, God the Son and God the Spirit.

Jesus Christ came to earth as God Incarnate, born of a Virgin.

He died on the cross to atone for the sins of humankind and rose from the dead to provide eternal life for all those who receive his gift of it.

Jesus will return to deal with evil once and for all. Ultimately, he will create a new heaven and a new earth.

However, Christianity isn't simply about believing doctrines. Christianity is about being in a relationship with God through Jesus by the power of the Holy Spirit.

A Christian is someone who has accepted Christ as his Saviour and undergone a conversion. When someone accepts Christ, he/she is born again. This means that the Holy Spirit brings the individual's spirit, dead in sin, to life in Christ. This is key. If this does not happen, a person is not a true Christian. There are Christians who are cultural, that is, people who live in a country with Christian roots. There are nominal Christians, that is, people who may take up pew space in a church, read the Bible, sit on church committees, etc., who have never been born again.

Why do YOU call yourself a "Christian"?

I have accepted Christ as my Saviour. Upon doing so, I became born-again and entered into a relationship with the Lord as described above, being filled with the Holy Spirit. At that point, I became a disciple of Christ.

God created us to be in a loving relationship with him. Sin destroyed that relationship. Jesus restored it by his work on the cross for all those who accept his gift of salvation. That's Christianity in a nutshell.

[RightReason]

I think that because of the evidence we cannot accept your witness of The Church as being The Catholic Church as the truth of the matter.

I think you mean because of your opinion you cannot accept The Church as The Catholic Church. There is a great deal of evidence showing otherwise. Probably a topic for another thread, but the Catholic Church meets the requirements of the four marks of Christ’s Church. The historical evidence leads to the Catholic Church. As well as so many other signs like the Catholic Church often remaining alone today in her standing up for life from the moment of conception until death. Her not caving into the fashions of the day and changing her teachings regarding faith and morals. As well as her long litany of amazing Saints.

Just because there is a visible entity claiming to have been established by Peter, does not mean that this is the case.

Of course not, but if a church cannot trace its origin back to Peter, then that church clearly cannot be the church established by Jesus Christ. If your church was established in the 1600’s, 1700’s, 1900’s – uhhh . . . that’s not looking good for your church being The Church.

One looks not only at the label but also at the manner in which the entity behaves and what the entity teaches, and we would expect that entity not only to teach the rudiments which assist the entity in making Catholics out of a many individuals as it can, but more to the point, making disciples out of every Human.

Correct. Exactly as the Catholic Church has done now for over 2000 years.

One might argue that the priesthood is where the evidence is, but the priests do not go out into the world as Jesus commanded his disciples to do. Largely they carry money and items with them and are paid by the entity to do the job they do.

Ha, ha, ha . . . how exactly do you think the Catholic Church got to every Continent on the planet? The teachings of Christ’s Church are the same whether you are a Catholic in Timbuktu, Toronto, or Tennessee. This is not true of any other Christian denomination.

Also, what of the vast amount of knowledge which Jesus taught in secret? Surely that would have been kept and preserved somewhere [for it isn't in the Bible] but one would have to think that it should be somewhere and even if it where kept in the Vatican Archive for safe keeping, since it is no longer a place to keep secrets, why would the Vatican continue to keep it hidden from the world?

What are you talking about? Christ speaks through His Church to this day. There isn’t a lot of need for secrets. He established His Church for us.

Perhaps, because it doesn't exist because it was never created? But why would so many words spoken by Christ as teachings, NOT be recorded?

Because oral tradition was huge and the means at the time. Jesus existed long before the invention of the printing press. He also established His Church knowing He would continue to teach us through Sacred Tradition. There was no need to write everything down. The Church is a living entity.

But if that were the case, then one would have to say that everything Jesus did and said regarding the Fathers Kingdom was to remain secret and therefore The Church too would not be a large visible entity claiming to represent Christ. Rather one would expect it to be a largely invisible entity doing its thing in the background - away from pomp and ceremony...and probably does not refer to its members as "Christians" any more than Jesus did...

Such is a false teaching. The first Christians saw the Church as an actual, visible, authoritative entity. They took their matters to the Church. This seeing the Church as an invisible body of believers was a heretical teaching that popped up long after the Protestant Reformation when people left Christ’s Church and had to justify their decision to do so. Since they left the actual established Church they had to say there is no such thing as a specific Church. Hence the reason there are thousands of different denominations today all teaching different things. Which ones of them are getting it right? Without an earthly authoritative Church how would you know?

[William]

I think that because of the evidence we cannot accept your witness of The Church as being The Catholic Church as the truth of the matter.

I think you mean because of your opinion you cannot accept The Church as The Catholic Church. There is a great deal of evidence showing otherwise. Probably a topic for another thread, but the Catholic Church meets the requirements of the four marks of Christ’s Church. The historical evidence leads to the Catholic Church. As well as so many other signs like the Catholic Church often remaining alone today in her standing up for life from the moment of conception until death. Her not caving into the fashions of the day and changing her teachings regarding faith and morals. As well as her long litany of amazing Saints.

Just because there is a visible entity claiming to have been established by Peter, does not mean that this is the case.

Of course not, but if a church cannot trace its origin back to Peter, then that church clearly cannot be the church established by Jesus Christ. If your church was established in the 1600’s, 1700’s, 1900’s – uhhh . . . that’s not looking good for your church being The Church.

One looks not only at the label but also at the manner in which the entity behaves and what the entity teaches, and we would expect that entity not only to teach the rudiments which assist the entity in making Catholics out of a many individuals as it can, but more to the point, making disciples out of every Human.

Correct. Exactly as the Catholic Church has done now for over 2000 years.

One might argue that the priesthood is where the evidence is, but the priests do not go out into the world as Jesus commanded his disciples to do. Largely they carry money and items with them and are paid by the entity to do the job they do.

Ha, ha, ha . . . how exactly do you think the Catholic Church got to every Continent on the planet? The teachings of Christ’s Church are the same whether you are a Catholic in Timbuktu, Toronto, or Tennessee. This is not true of any other Christian denomination.

Also, what of the vast amount of knowledge which Jesus taught in secret? Surely that would have been kept and preserved somewhere [for it isn't in the Bible] but one would have to think that it should be somewhere and even if it where kept in the Vatican Archive for safe keeping, since it is no longer a place to keep secrets, why would the Vatican continue to keep it hidden from the world?

What are you talking about? Christ speaks through His Church to this day. There isn’t a lot of need for secrets. He established His Church for us.

Perhaps, because it doesn't exist because it was never created? But why would so many words spoken by Christ as teachings, NOT be recorded?

Because oral tradition was huge and the means at the time. Jesus existed long before the invention of the printing press. He also established His Church knowing He would continue to teach us through Sacred Tradition. There was no need to write everything down. The Church is a living entity.

But if that were the case, then one would have to say that everything Jesus did and said regarding the Fathers Kingdom was to remain secret and therefore The Church too would not be a large visible entity claiming to represent Christ. Rather one would expect it to be a largely invisible entity doing its thing in the background - away from pomp and ceremony...and probably does not refer to its members as "Christians" any more than Jesus did...

Such is a false teaching. The first Christians saw the Church as an actual, visible, authoritative entity. They took their matters to the Church. This seeing the Church as an invisible body of believers was a heretical teaching that popped up long after the Protestant Reformation when people left Christ’s Church and had to justify their decision to do so. Since they left the actual established Church they had to say there is no such thing as a specific Church. Hence the reason there are thousands of different denominations today all teaching different things. Which ones of them are getting it right? Without an earthly authoritative Church how would you know?

I understand why you call yourself a Catholic, but that is not the main thrust of the thread questions. For me, I am trying to establish where those calling themselves "Christians" actually agree with one another. I can discard those things that they do not agree with one another about, as being unrequired by everyone who calls themselves "Christians".

It does appear that OP questions 3&4 to do with Christendom and The Church are superfluous in that regard. One does not have to recognize any particular entity, visible or otherwise as "The Church" in order to "be a Christian" so such can be discarded as criteria.

[William]

3: Christendom, as a whole, is "The Church" Jesus set up.

Answer: [Post#8] As a Christian, I disagree with this. Like you said in your initial comments, since there are so many different denominations all teaching different things, then one could not logically say Christendom as a whole is the Church. The Church is not simply a body of believers. The Church Christ established is visible and one. I would say Christendom includes those who follow Jesus, but are outside His established Church. They are believers, but do not have the fullness of the faith that God desired.

Answer: [Post#14] I would understand Christendom to mean something like "the worldwide body or society of disciples of Christ". Given that definition, I would say Christendom is the Church Jesus set up. I think you mean something else by that term. If you do and provide it, then I could better answer your question.

Answer: [Post#15] People can be members of Christendom without being Christians simply because the term refers to a group of people who live under a Christian set of morals and values. Non-believers can be and are part of Christendom.

Answer: Post#25 I am not sure what you mean when you use the word "Christendom" but the Church is the Body of Christ, made of PEOPLE who belong to Him, who are in Him (His Body). The Church is not a religion (organized or institutionalized) that got 'set up'. The only religion that God gave and set up was the system of worship with the law and the priesthood given to Israel, through Moses. But once Christ came, the people were to listen to Him, and to worship in spirit and in truth.

4: There are no Christians who are not members of Christendom because Christendom is the vessel through which Jesus delivered The Bible [his word] to the world.

Answer: [Post#8] The Church is the vessel through which Jesus delivered the bible. A person could say they are Christian because they accept the bible (in fact most do), but one would have to ask, how can you accept the bible and not the Church who gave us the bible? Plus, the bible needs to be interpreted. Christ’s established Church has that authority.

Answer: [Post#14] I think this is trivially true by definition; Christendom is just a synonym of "the Church," where both terms refer to the worldwide body or society of disciples of Christ.

Answer: [Post#15] Yes, Christians are members of Christendom.

Answer: [Post#25 The bible is not 'his word'. Christ is Himself the Word (of God). He calls His sheep by name, they listen to His voice and they follow Him. He does not need a book to speak through. He can speak Himself.

It does appear that OP questions 3&4 to do with Christendom and The Church are superfluous in that regard. One does not have to recognize any particular entity, visible or otherwise as "The Church" in order to "be a Christian" so such can be discarded as criteria.

[RightReason]

I understand why you call yourself a Catholic, but that is not the main thrust of the thread questions. For me, I am trying to establish where those calling themselves "Christians" actually agree with one another. I can discard those things that they do not agree with one another about, as being unrequired by everyone who calls themselves "Christians".

It does appear that OP questions 3&4 to do with Christendom and The Church are superfluous in that regard. One does not have to recognize any particular entity, visible or otherwise as "The Church" in order to "be a Christian" so such can be discarded as criteria.

Yes and No. I get it that many people today are Christians and it has come to be accepted that one does not have to recognize a particular entity to consider oneself Christian. And I am not meaning to hijack your thread. However, that is kind of an illogical statement and what I am trying to point out. If in fact one believes there was a man named Jesus who walked the earth over 2000 years ago and gave us what we now accept as the Bible, then that would imply believing that which is in the Bible. And like I said, the Bible itself tells us Jesus established a Church and historical evidence shows us all of the early Church/first Christians/Christendom believed and acted as if that meant an actual, visible, authoritative Church. In fact, it was the actual and visible Church that gave all these Christians today the Bible as they know it. So, I guess I disagree that one does not have to recognize a particular entity. If in fact, you are a Christian, then you by default already have recognized that actual entity. So, to be reasonable AND historical one does have to recognize this truth. Nothing else makes sense. It’s just the elephant in the room that no one likes to talk about.

And it is a pretty good system if one were to think about it. Kind of clever that God. That is that Jesus would have established an actual, visible, catholic (which means universal), authoritative church. That way we can know we are getting it right. If you belong to a church that does not claim to be authoritative and believe it or not, most do not, then what good is it? God in His wisdom would not have wanted thousands of little churches all teaching their own things. Jesus specifically said to Peter, “He who hears you, hears me”. How exactly does that work with an invisible body of believers?

[William]

I understand why you call yourself a Catholic, but that is not the main thrust of the thread questions. For me, I am trying to establish where those calling themselves "Christians" actually agree with one another. I can discard those things that they do not agree with one another about, as being unrequired by everyone who calls themselves "Christians".

It does appear that OP questions 3&4 to do with Christendom and The Church are superfluous in that regard. One does not have to recognize any particular entity, visible or otherwise as "The Church" in order to "be a Christian" so such can be discarded as criteria.

Yes and No.

Then let your "yes" be "yes" and your "no" be "no". Any other way is suspicious....

I get it that many people today are Christians and it has come to be accepted that one does not have to recognize a particular entity to consider oneself Christian. And I am not meaning to hijack your thread. However, that is kind of an illogical statement and what I am trying to point out. If in fact one believes there was a man named Jesus who walked the earth over 2000 years ago and gave us what we now accept as the Bible, then that would imply believing that which is in the Bible. And like I said, the Bible itself tells us Jesus established a Church and historical evidence shows us all of the early Church/first Christians/Christendom believed and acted as if that meant an actual, visible, authoritative Church. In fact, it was the actual and visible Church that gave all these Christians today the Bible as they know it. So, I guess I disagree that one does not have to recognize a particular entity. If in fact, you are a Christian, then you by default already have recognized that actual entity. So, to be reasonable AND historical one does have to recognize this truth. Nothing else makes sense. It’s just the elephant in the room that no one likes to talk about.

Point being, no one needs to 'talk about it' because it is not a requirement of ones salvation to believe any particular entity [visible or invisible] is "The Church" or is to be recognized as "The Church"

And the Bible is merely something which holds very little of what vastness Jesus taught. [re The Fathers Kingdom] so in itself is not overly helpful to the seeker of said Kingdom. So what entity is responsible for "getting it out there" is besides the point and as such, is really NOT an "elephant in the room that nobody want's to discuss".

And it is a pretty good system if one were to think about it. Kind of clever that God. That is that Jesus would have established an actual, visible, catholic (which means universal), authoritative church. That way we can know we are getting it right. If you belong to a church that does not claim to be authoritative and believe it or not, most do not, then what good is it? God in His wisdom would not have wanted thousands of little churches all teaching their own things. Jesus specifically said to Peter, “He who hears you, hears me”. How exactly does that work with an invisible body of believers?

It is obviously not important in the grand scheme of things. Sure, it is obviously important to you and how you view your "reason for being a Christian" but one size does not fit all, and there is confusion anyway as to what a Catholic is. There are also "Roman Catholics", and in the Eastern Countries there are other kinds of Churches not beholding to Rome or Catholicism which are just as big in those sectors as the Catholic Church is in these ones and probably could trace a line back to Peter themselves...there are even different types of Catholics who do things differently from other Catholics...far too much distraction for the individual to get into if it isn't even actually necessary to do so in order to "be a Christian".