When did the universal Church first mentioned in 110AD stop being universal?

BreadOfLife · Feb 2, 2017

OzSpen said:
Are you so blind that you cannot see that 'all Scripture' that comes with the authority of being breathed out by the perfect Lord God who has absolute, sovereign authority of the universe has less authority than the early church fathers and popes?

N T Wright wrote an article, 'How Can the Bible Be Authoritative?' In his conclusion, Wright wrote an excellent summary of scriptural authority:

I have argued that the notion of the ‘authority of scripture’ is a shorthand expression for God’s authority, exercised somehow through scripture; that scripture must be allowed to be itself in exercising its authority, and not be turned into something else which might fit better into what the church, or the world, might have thought its ‘authority’ should look like; that it is therefore the meaning of ‘authority’ itself, not that of scripture, that is the unknown in the equation, and that when this unknown is discovered it challenges head on the various notions and practices of authority endemic in the world and, alas, in the church also.

Seems to me that your push for the authority of the church violates God's authority that is exercised through Scripture.

Oz

Wrong.

First of all - I didn't say that the bible wasn't Authoritative. It absolutely IS.

What I said, if you had been paying attention - is that the Bible explicitly states that the Church is our final Authority on earth and NOT the Bible. It never makes that claim for itself. Like it or not - that is a fact.

And it's not "MY" push for the Church's Authority - it's GOD'S.

As a teacher of Scripture - you should know this basic hermeutical rule:
When Jesus taught the crowds, He was speaking to ALL of us.
When Jesus instructed His apostles - He was instructing the leaders of His Church.

Matt 16:18-19
And so I say to you, you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of the netherworld shall not prevail against it.
I will give YOU the keys to the kingdom of heaven. Whatever YOU bind on earth shall be bound in heaven; and whatever YOU loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven."

Matt. 18:15-18
If he refuses to listen to them, tell the CHURCH. If he refuses to listen even to the CHURCH, then treat him as you would a Gentile or a tax collector.
Amen, I say to you, whatever YOU bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever YOU loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.

Luke 10:16
Whoever listens to YOU listens to me. Whoever rejects YOU rejects ME. And whoever rejects ME rejects the ONE who sent me."

John 16:12-15
“I have much more to tell you, but you cannot bear it now.
But when he comes, the Spirit of truth, he will guide YOU to ALL TRUTH. He will not speak on his own, but he will speak what he hears, and will declare to YOU the things that are coming.
He will glorify me, because he will take from what is MINE and declare it to YOU.
Everything that the Father has is MINE; for this reason I told YOU that he will take from what is MINE and declare it to YOU.

John 20:21-22
'Peace be with you. 'As the Father sent me, so am I sending YOU.' After saying this he breathed on them and said: Receive the Holy Spirit.
If YOU forgive anyone's sins, they are forgiven; if YOU retain anyone's sins, they are retained.

OzSpen · Feb 2, 2017

It is understood that the doctrine of the perpetual virginity of Mary originated with The Protoevangelium of James (dated about AD 150) which also is known as The Infancy Gospel of James. What is the nature of this writing? Is it from the pen of James?

Gregory Elder’s assessment of this document is:

It was almost certainly not written by the James, the “brother” or“kinsman” of Jesus mentioned in the Bible. The earliest reference to the book appears in a third-century document and it was probably written in the middle of the second century A.D.

No Christian church today regards it as scriptural, and it is agreed to be apocryphal. That said, it is relatively early as Christian documents go, and it has some very interesting stuff in it.

The relatively short document is written in Greek, and it apparently was quite interesting to the early church communities, as more than 130 copies of it have survived, suggesting a wide readership for a day when handwriting was the only way to disseminate texts (Professing Faith: The Protoevangelium is noncanonical but influenced Christian beliefs 2014).

Here is a table listing some of the contradictions between The Protoevangelium of James and the Bible (from, Is the Perpetual Virginity of Mary a Biblical View?). CyB doesn't like the insertion of a table which I constructed on my html friendly, Windows Live Writer. Let's try another way:

Protoevangelium of James vs The Bible

1 Protoevangelium of James: Gabriel is called an archangel (Chapter 9:22), which was a common designation for Gabriel in apocryphal literature written after the first century. (For example, see Revelation of Paul, The Book of John Concerning the Falling Asleep of Mary, and The Apocalypse of the Holy Mother of God.)

The Bible: The Bible never identifies Gabriel as an archangel, but Michael is described as an archangel in Jude 1:9. The idea of Gabriel as an archangel seems to be a misconception that began in the second century.

2 Protoevangelium of James: Mary’s response to the angel is different than what is recorded in Scripture. “What! Shall I conceive by the living God, and bring forth as all other women do?” (Chapter 9:12).

The Bible: Luke 1:34 states, “Then Mary said to the angel, ‘How can this be, since I do not know a man?’”

3 Protoevangelium of James: Elizabeth fled the Bethlehem region with her son John (the Baptist) to the mountains because of Herod’s wrath when he decided to kill all the baby boys around and in Bethlehem (Chapter 16:3).

The Bible: Concerning John the Baptist, Luke 1:80 states, “So the child grew and became strong in spirit, and was in the deserts till the day of his manifestation to Israel.” It was Joseph, Mary, and Jesus who fled from Bethlehem because of Herod (Matthew 2:13–15).

4 Protoevangelium of James: Jesus was born in a cave outside the city of Bethlehem (Chapters 12:11–14:31).

The Bible: Jesus was born in Bethlehem, the town of David, according to Luke 2:4, 11 and Matthew 2:1.

5 Protoevangelium of James: The angel of the Lord, when speaking to Joseph in a dream, said to take Mary but does not mention having her as a wife. The priest chastised Joseph and accused him for taking Mary as a wife secretly by the priest. Joseph takes her home but is reluctant to call her his wife when they go to Bethlehem (Chapters 10:17–18, 11:14, 12:2–3).

The Bible: Matthew 1:19 reveals that Joseph was already Mary’s husband (they were betrothed) before the angel visited him in a dream. Matthew 1:24 points out that after the angel visited Joseph, he kept her as his wife.

6 Protoevangelium of James: Mary wrapped Jesus in swaddling cloths and hid him in a manger at the inn to keep him from the massacre by Herod’s men (Chapter 16:2).

The Bible: Mary and Joseph were warned of Herod’s plot by an angel, and they fled to Egypt (Matthew 2:13–14).

7 Protoevangelium of James: Wise men came to Bethlehem and inquired of Herod where the Child was born (Chapter 21:1–2).

The Bible: Wise men came to Jerusalem to inquire where the child king was (Matthew 2:1).

This comparison should lay to rest any support of the pseudo ‘Infancy Gospel’ of James as a genuine document to be followed in its early support of the perpetual virginity of Mary. It was a false 'gospel' made to look like the real thing by identifying it with James, the Lord's brother.

Oz

tom55 · Feb 2, 2017

BreadOfLife said:
Wrong.

First of all - I didn't say that the bible wasn't Authoritative. It absolutely IS.

What I said, if you had been paying attention - is that the Bible explicitly states that the Church is our final Authority on earth and NOT the Bible. It never makes that claim for itself. Like it or not - that is a fact.

And it's not "MY" push for the Church's Authority - it's GOD'S.

As a teacher of Scripture - you should know this basic hermeutical rule:
When Jesus taught the crowds, He was speaking to ALL of us.
When Jesus instructed His apostles - He was instructing the leaders of His Church.

Matt 16:18-19
And so I say to you, you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of the netherworld shall not prevail against it.
I will give YOU the keys to the kingdom of heaven. Whatever YOU bind on earth shall be bound in heaven; and whatever YOU loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven."

Matt. 18:15-18
If he refuses to listen to them, tell the CHURCH. If he refuses to listen even to the CHURCH, then treat him as you would a Gentile or a tax collector.
Amen, I say to you, whatever YOU bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever YOU loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.

Luke 10:16
Whoever listens to YOU listens to me. Whoever rejects YOU rejects ME. And whoever rejects ME rejects the ONE who sent me."

John 16:12-15
“I have much more to tell you, but you cannot bear it now.
But when he comes, the Spirit of truth, he will guide YOU to ALL TRUTH. He will not speak on his own, but he will speak what he hears, and will declare to YOU the things that are coming.
He will glorify me, because he will take from what is MINE and declare it to YOU.
Everything that the Father has is MINE; for this reason I told YOU that he will take from what is MINE and declare it to YOU.

John 20:21-22
'Peace be with you. 'As the Father sent me, so am I sending YOU.' After saying this he breathed on them and said: Receive the Holy Spirit.
If YOU forgive anyone's sins, they are forgiven; if YOU retain anyone's sins, they are retained.

We had The Church before we had the bible since the books of the NT were not written until 30-70 years AFTER the death of Jesus!!!

tom55 · Feb 2, 2017

OzSpen said:
It is understood that the doctrine of the perpetual virginity of Mary originated with The Protoevangelium of James (dated about AD 150) which also is known as The Infancy Gospel of James. What is the nature of this writing? Is it from the pen of James?
Gregory Elder’s assessment of this document is:

It was almost certainly not written by the James, the “brother” or“kinsman” of Jesus mentioned in the Bible. The earliest reference to the book appears in a third-century document and it was probably written in the middle of the second century A.D.

No Christian church today regards it as scriptural, and it is agreed to be apocryphal. That said, it is relatively early as Christian documents go, and it has some very interesting stuff in it.

The relatively short document is written in Greek, and it apparently was quite interesting to the early church communities, as more than 130 copies of it have survived, suggesting a wide readership for a day when handwriting was the only way to disseminate texts (Professing Faith: The Protoevangelium is noncanonical but influenced Christian beliefs 2014).
Here is a table listing some of the contradictions between The Protoevangelium of James and the Bible (from, Is the Perpetual Virginity of Mary a Biblical View?)

Protoevangelium of James
The Bible
1 Gabriel is called an archangel (Chapter 9:22), which was a common designation for Gabriel in apocryphal literature written after the first century. (For example, see Revelation of Paul, The Book of John Concerning the Falling Asleep of Mary, and The Apocalypse of the Holy Mother of God.) The Bible never identifies Gabriel as an archangel, but Michael is described as an archangel in Jude 1:9. The idea of Gabriel as an archangel seems to be a misconception that began in the second century. 2 Mary’s response to the angel is different than what is recorded in Scripture. “What! Shall I conceive by the living God, and bring forth as all other women do?” (Chapter 9:12). Luke 1:34 states, “Then Mary said to the angel, ‘How can this be, since I do not know a man?’” 3 Elizabeth fled the Bethlehem region with her son John (the Baptist) to the mountains because of Herod’s wrath when he decided to kill all the baby boys around and in Bethlehem (Chapter 16:3). Concerning John the Baptist, Luke 1:80 states, “So the child grew and became strong in spirit, and was in the deserts till the day of his manifestation to Israel.” It was Joseph, Mary, and Jesus who fled from Bethlehem because of Herod (Matthew 2:13–15). 4 Jesus was born in a cave outside the city of Bethlehem (Chapters 12:11–14:31). Jesus was born in Bethlehem, the town of David, according to Luke 2:4, 11 and Matthew 2:1. 5 The angel of the Lord, when speaking to Joseph in a dream, said to take Mary but does not mention having her as a wife. The priest chastised Joseph and accused him for taking Mary as a wife secretly by the priest. Joseph takes her home but is reluctant to call her his wife when they go to Bethlehem (Chapters 10:17–18, 11:14, 12:2–3). Matthew 1:19 reveals that Joseph was already Mary’s husband (they were betrothed) before the angel visited him in a dream. Matthew 1:24 points out that after the angel visited Joseph, he kept her as his wife. 6 Mary wrapped Jesus in swaddling cloths and hid him in a manger at the inn to keep him from the massacre by Herod’s men (Chapter 16:2). Mary and Joseph were warned of Herod’s plot by an angel, and they fled to Egypt (Matthew 2:13–14). 7 Wise men came to Bethlehem and inquired of Herod where the Child was born (Chapter 21:1–2). Wise men came to Jerusalem to inquire where the child king was (Matthew 2:1).

This comparison should lay to rest any support of the pseudo ‘Infancy Gospel’ of James as a genuine document to be followed in its support of the perpetual virginity of Mary. It was a false 'gospel' made to look like the real thing by identifying it with James, the Lord's brother.

Oz

Once again. You love to quote the Church Fathers on your website when they agree with you but avoid them when they prove you wrong.....How dishonest and sad.

OzSpen · Feb 2, 2017

tom55 said:
Once again. You love to quote the Church Fathers on your website when they agree with you but avoid them when they prove you wrong.....How dishonest and sad.

Straw man fallacy. Fallacious, erroneous reasoning!

I use the church fathers when they agree with the Bible. When they invent something opposed to the Bible, as with the Evangelium of James (pseudopigrapha - fake stuff), I expose it. That's what any sound expositor of Scripture should do. Seems as though you don't want to venture into that realm of where the church fathers promote doctrines contrary with Scripture, that you reject the church father's view in favour of the RCC's position.

opcorn:

OzSpen · Feb 2, 2017

tom55 said:
Once again. You love to quote the Church Fathers on your website when they agree with you but avoid them when they prove you wrong.....How dishonest and sad.

Straw man fallacy. I have a brain that I use in reasoning. You are misrepresenting me with your erroneous reasoning.

OzSpen · Feb 2, 2017

BreadOfLife said:
Translation:
"I have absolutely no valid response for the evidence you presented regarding the use of Adelphoi and Adelphe."

That's what I thought.
The conversation always ends here with anti-Catholic Protestants because there is just no way around the Scriptural, linguistic and historical facts.

Straw man fallacy again.

OzSpen · Feb 2, 2017

BreadOfLife said:
And it doesn't surprise me that you don't understand Revelation because you don't understand the Biblical definition of the Church . . .

Put downs of another poster do not enhance your argument. If you want to slay an opponent, please go to the boxing ring. Your comment here is totally unnecessary.

OzSpen · Feb 2, 2017

tom55 said:
Are we to ignore The Protoevangelium of James written in 150 AD? I know you will because it doesn't fit your theory 1900 years later. The Origin of Alexandria's commentary on Matthew 10:17 written in 249 AD? He is wrong because______________????? I could go on and on throughout history and quote some of the greatest Christian theologians/teachers of the Christian Church to rebut your theory but you have decided you are right and everyone else is wrong.

So, once again, what makes your interpretation right(?) and the historical writings and interpretations of The Protoevangelium of James, Origin of Alexandria, Wycliffe and Calvin (who you love to quote on your website when they agree with your personal doctrine) wrong??

You say they contradict scripture but you also preach reading scripture using Hermeneutics. Are you now taking scripture literally?

If you are taking scripture literally then why don't you take John 6: 51-58 or Luke 22:19 literally?

Tom,

The Protoevangelium of James (The Infancy Gospel of James) is a fake that is in the Pseudepigrapha. It is a false document attributed to Jesus' brother, James. And you dare to use it to support your unbiblical view of the perpetual virginity of Mary.

Oz

OzSpen · Feb 2, 2017

tom55 said:
She was a privileged lady??? I bet God, Jesus and the people that walked and talked with her would disagree with you and would say she was MUCH more than that. Just a guess here but I think they would say she was blessed among woman and full of grace.....but I could be wrong. Since you love to quote the Apostolic and Church Fathers how about if you read what they said about her?

This is what the Scriptures call her: "Greetings, favored woman! The Lord is with you!"’ (Luke 1:28 NLT).

Favored woman is similar to what I said, privileged lady.

You are straining at a gnat.

mjrhealth · Feb 2, 2017

You are straining at a gnat.

They are doing more than that. Hopefully will do tonight.

Now the serpent was more subtil than any beast of the field which the LORD God had made. And he said unto the woman, Yea, hath God said, Ye shall not eat of every tree of the garden?

OzSpen · Feb 2, 2017

tom55 said:
We had The Church before we had the bible since the books of the NT were not written until 30-70 years AFTER the death of Jesus!!!

Have you never heard of oral tradition and how the message of Jesus was spread by rote until it was written down? There was the added problem of illiteracy in the first century, hence the power of oral tradition.

mjrhealth · Feb 2, 2017

The catholic church started in around 312 AD thats 312 years after our "Lords Church", was established which started at Pentecost when teh Holy Spirit fell on all who believed.

Born_Again · Feb 3, 2017

I still dont understand how if the "Church of Christ" is the body of believers and not an actual building or organization, how the RCC can claim to be the only one true church. If you dont follow their traditions, you're not a believer?

*Notice I didnt use any bold font or full caps..... See how I still asked my question and made my point with out it? Pretty colors and large letters do not make any better point or clarifications. There are millions of books in the world that make points that dont have a bit of that in it. What causes the urge to do that anyway?

BreadOfLife · Feb 3, 2017

mjrhealth said:
The catholic church started in around 312 AD thats 312 years after our "Lords Church", was established which started at Pentecost when teh Holy Spirit fell on all who believed.

PROVE it.
Show the document that initiated the Catholic Church.

Show ANY document, declaration or decree that started the Catholic Church in the 4th century.
If you can't - then you're claim is fraudulent.

BreadOfLife · Feb 3, 2017

Born_Again said:
I still dont understand how if the "Church of Christ" is the body of believers and not an actual building or organization, how the RCC can claim to be the only one true church. If you dont follow their traditions, you're not a believer?

*Notice I didnt use any bold font or full caps..... See how I still asked my question and made my point with out it? Pretty colors and large letters do not make any better point or clarifications. There are millions of books in the world that make points that dont have a bit of that in it. What causes the urge to do that anyway?

Because I like formatting. If you don’t like it – then don’t use it.
Also – it’s not against the rules and MANY people here use it. I’m the only one who gets any flack because of the anti-Catholic arguments I destroy . . .

Now, that being said – the answer to your question is “Incorrect.” You can be a “believer” and not believe in the fullness of truth (Eph. 1:22-23).
For example – and this is NOT a shot against Protestants – James 2:19 tells us that even the demons believe. Do you consider them to be part of the Church?

Born_Again · Feb 3, 2017

BreadOfLife said:
Because I like formatting. If you don’t like it – then don’t use it.
Also – it’s not against the rules and MANY people here use it. I’m the only one who gets any flack because of the anti-Catholic arguments I destroy . . .

Now, that being said – the answer to your question is “Incorrect.” You can be a “believer” and not believe in the fullness of truth (Eph. 1:22-23).
For example – and this is NOT a shot against Protestants – James 2:19 tells us that even the demons believe. Do you consider them to be part of the Church?

Ummm, So, you are saying that if you are not of the RCC, you are not a true believer, therefor not considered Christ's church? Not a part of the body of believers? And its not that you destroy the arguments, im sure if you asked them, its more like annoy them into submission. As you are well aware, and claim about beliefs other than your own, some of the doctrine is so far out there, it can be hard to argue against because they cant believe someone would actually think that way.

And that last part of James 2:19... Seriously. You know Im referring to those who follow Christ. The demons obviously dont do that. That was weak.

So, now that I have clarified this for you... Try answering my question again.

BreadOfLife · Feb 3, 2017

OzSpen said:
This is what the Scriptures call her: "Greetings, favored woman! The Lord is with you!"’ (Luke 1:28 NLT).

Favored woman is similar to what I said, privileged lady.

You are straining at a gnat.

And YOU teach NT Greek??
I think that maybe you need to go back to school . . .

The Greek word is "Kecharitomene" that Luke used in his Gospel (v.1:28), which is the perfect passive participle, indicating a completed action with permanent result. It translates, “completely, perfectly, enduringly endowed with grace.”

By comparison, the word used in Ephesians 1:6 and applied to the saints is charis.
Kecharitomene is not a mere description here. It is used as a TITLE.

The Angel didn’t say, “Hail Mary, full of grace” or “Hail, highly favored one".
He said, "Hail, Kecharitomene."

BreadOfLife · Feb 3, 2017

Born_Again said:
Ummm, So, you are saying that if you are not of the RCC, you are not a true believer, therefor not considered Christ's church? Not a part of the body of believers? And its not that you destroy the arguments, im sure if you asked them, its more like annoy them into submission. As you are well aware, and claim about beliefs other than your own, some of the doctrine is so far out there, it can be hard to argue against because they cant believe someone would actually think that way.

And that last part of James 2:19... Seriously. You know Im referring to those who follow Christ. The demons obviously dont do that. That was weak.

So, now that I have clarified this for you... Try answering my question again.

I already answered your question. A non-Catholic Christian is a believer. Unfortunately, they don't believe in the fullness of truth.
Protestant Christians, although being related top the ONE Body of Christ - have separated or divorced themselves from that ONE Body.

As for attacking my beliefs as "so far out there" - I would be moire than happy to explain ANY Catholic teaching that you have obviously been misinformed about.

Born_Again · Feb 3, 2017

Listen, I admire your conviction. But the others are just as equally convicted of their beliefs. You all are going to be at constant im-pass. The reason why I am going to start shutting down threads that veer from the topic and turn into a denomination debate is because they all translate into this: "No, youre wrong" No, you are a liar and fraudulent" "No, you are wrong and we are right"... etc... We could go on and on. But whats the point? Youre not going to change their mind and they are not going to change yours. So why keep it up? And this goes for both sides. Whether you like it or not, our relationship with Christ is between us and Christ. We dont know what yours is like and you dont know what anyone elses is like.

Jesus said

Matthew 4:19 (ESV)
19 And he said to them, “Follow me, and I will make you fishers of men.”[SIZE=.625em][a][/SIZE]

"Follow me".... And thats what they are doing, my friend.

When did the universal Church first mentioned in 110AD stop being universal?

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Love your neighbor as yourself

Love your neighbor as yourself

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Similar threads