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

  • Welcome to Christian Forums, a Christian Forum that recognizes that all Christians are a work in progress.

    You will need to register to be able to join in fellowship with Christians all over the world.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!

Status
Not open for further replies.

tom55

Love your neighbor as yourself
Sep 9, 2013
1,199
18
0
OzSpen said:
I'm not doing another merry-go-round on transubstantiation. I've already provided my exegesis and exposition on this forum and it disagrees with your RCC perspective. We'll be wasting each other's time by doing it again.

Bye,
Oz
I didn't use the word transubstantiation or quote anything from the RCC one time. I quoted scripture and historical writings. I even suggested that the Apostolic Fathers support what Jesus said. And we all know how you LOVE to use the Apostolic Fathers to support your theories. Well, except this time, when the Apostolic Fathers destroy your theory.

Why is it a RCC perspective when there a many Protestant Churches that believe the same thing?? Why is it a RCC perspective when the Apostolic Fathers and other historical writings back up the real presence?

Who is more likely to be right? The Christians from the 1st century, the Apostolic Fathers or you, OZ, 2,000 years later?
 

tom55

Love your neighbor as yourself
Sep 9, 2013
1,199
18
0
StanJ said:
It's only people that don't understand hermeneutics that failed to see or deliberately don't see the figures of speech in Scripture. If they read ordinary books in this manner they would be just as confused.
The natural person does not accept the things of the Spirit of God, for they are folly to him, and he is not able to understand them because they are spiritually discerned.

Twelve times He said he was the bread that came down from heaven. Four times he said we would have to eat his flesh and drink his blood. John 6 was an extended promise of what would be instituted at the Last Supper—and it was a promise that could not be more explicit. This is my body. This is my blood.

Multiple times he used metaphors (vine, door, sheep, salt, light) and those metaphors were understood by the hearers to be metaphors so they didn't question him. They thought he was being serious when he said we must eat his body and drink his blood so they challenged him and he told them (and you) it was a hard saying. He didn't back down from what he was saying so they walked away; like you are doing. He then repeated/re-enforced it and offered it (his body and blood) to us at the Last Supper. Jesus didn't back down....he doubled down. I agree with Paul when he said those who eat and drink without discerning the body of Christ eat and drink judgment on themselves.

Why are the hermeneutics of those who don't believe in the Real Presence accurate or true? It is VERY clear the Christians of the first century believed the Real Presence was true. Did they get their hermeneutics wrong also? Why were they wrong and you right, 2,000 years later? Why do you have such little faith StanJ? Do you walk by faith or sight? <_<
 

Mungo

Well-Known Member
May 23, 2012
4,332
643
113
England
Faith
Christian
Country
United Kingdom
tom55 said:
You Said: The Ten Commandments, as part of that Law, are therefore not binding on Christians.

You then used the Catechism to back up what you said.

I then quoted the Catechism (YOUR SOURCE) to prove you wrong: The Council of Trent teaches that the Ten Commandments are obligatory for Christians and that the justified man is still bound to keep them';

Pretty dang clear to me that you were not being totally honest on what the Catechism fully and completely says about the matter. You selectively quoted the Catechism to make your point. How sad!
Tom,
I'm sorry that your comprehension is so limited, and that you do not attempt to respond to the points I made.

However I can see that it is beyond you so I will not pursue it.

God bless

Mungo
 

tom55

Love your neighbor as yourself
Sep 9, 2013
1,199
18
0
Mungo said:
Tom,
I'm sorry that your comprehension is so limited, and that you do not attempt to respond to the points I made.

However I can see that it is beyond you so I will not pursue it.

God bless

Mungo
I comprehend the Catechism very well. I quoted what it said which is the OPPOSITE of what you said.

You don't have to respond to the points YOU made. You have to respond to the points I made. The point I AND the Catechism made is opposite of what you said.

I can see that you are not able to refute what the Catechism says so I guess we have to leave it at that and not pursue it. Either you agree with the Catechism or you don't.

The Council of Trent teaches that the Ten Commandments are obligatory for Christians and that the justified man is still bound to keep them';

Your argument/disagreement is not with me....it is with the Catechism AND the Council of Trent. I agree with the Catechism and the Council of Trent.
 

tom55

Love your neighbor as yourself
Sep 9, 2013
1,199
18
0
Mungo said:
Tom,
I'm sorry that your comprehension is so limited, and that you do not attempt to respond to the points I made.

However I can see that it is beyond you so I will not pursue it.

God bless

Mungo
What's so hard about saying, "Oops I missed that part of the Catechism"?

I won't hold it against you. ;)
 

Mungo

Well-Known Member
May 23, 2012
4,332
643
113
England
Faith
Christian
Country
United Kingdom
tom55 said:
I comprehend the Catechism very well. I quoted what it said which is the OPPOSITE of what you said.

You don't have to respond to the points YOU made. You have to respond to the points I made. The point I AND the Catechism made is opposite of what you said.

I can see that you are not able to refute what the Catechism says so I guess we have to leave it at that and not pursue it. Either you agree with the Catechism or you don't.

The Council of Trent teaches that the Ten Commandments are obligatory for Christians and that the justified man is still bound to keep them';

Your argument/disagreement is not with me....it is with the Catechism AND the Council of Trent. I agree with the Catechism and the Council of Trent.
Tom,

I went through a whole explanation of the Catechism but you did not respond to my points.

I went through scriptures to show how the Old Law was abrogated but you did not respond to them

I went through an explanation of how the Ten Commandments as a legal code to not apply to us but you did not respond.

I wish you well when you keep the Sabbath on Saturday and instructed in the Ten Commandments which you think we are obliged to keep.
 

heretoeternity

New Member
Oct 11, 2014
1,237
39
0
85
Asia/Pacific
1st John...this is the love of God, that we keep His commandments, and they are not burdensome, and sin is transgression of the law.
Romans 2...it is DOERS of the law that are justified, no hearers
Romans 3...do we make void the law through faith? God forbid. We establish the law.
Just three Biblical reference for mungo to chew on, as requirements to keeping God's law.
 

Mungo

Well-Known Member
May 23, 2012
4,332
643
113
England
Faith
Christian
Country
United Kingdom
Some Biblical references for others to chew on:

Paul says:
Therefore remember that at one time you Gentiles in the flesh, called the uncircumcision by what is called the circumcision, which is made in the flesh by hands-- remember that you were at that time separated from Christ, alienated from the commonwealth of Israel, and strangers to the covenants of promise, having no hope and without God in the world. (Eph 2:12)
Gentiles were strangers to the covenant.

You are separated from Christ, you who are trying to be justified by law; you have fallen from grace. (Gal 5:4)

Are you unaware, brothers (for I am speaking to people who know the law [i.e. Jews]), that the law has jurisdiction over one as long as one lives? Thus a married woman is bound by law to her living husband; but if her husband dies, she is released from the law in respect to her husband. Consequently, while her husband is alive she will be called an adulteress if she consorts with another man. But if her husband dies she is free from that law, and she is not an adulteress if she consorts with another man.
In the same way, my brothers, you also were put to death to the law through the body of Christ, so that you might belong to another, to the one who was raised from the dead in order that we might bear fruit for God. For when we were in the flesh, our sinful passions, awakened by the law, worked in our members to bear fruit for death. But now we are released from the law, dead to what held us captive, so that we may serve in the newness of the spirit and not under the obsolete letter. (Rom 7:1-6)
We [Jews] are put to death to the Law
We [Jews] are released from the Law

Paul himself declares he is no longer under the Law.
To the Jews I became as a Jew, in order to win Jews; to those under the law I became as one under the law--though not being myself under the law--that I might win those under the law. To those outside the law [Gentiles] I became as one outside the law--not being without law toward God but under the law of Christ--that I might win those outside the law.
He also makes here a clear distinction between those under the Law (the Jews) and those not under the Law (the Gentiles)

Before faith came, we [Jews] were held in custody under law, confined for the faith that was to be revealed. Consequently, the law was our disciplinarian for Christ, that we might be justified by faith. But now that faith has come, we are no longer under a disciplinarian. (Gal 3:23-25).
We (Jews) are not under the Law

Paul describes the Jews and Gentiles as separated but then he says:
But now in Christ Jesus you who once were far off have been brought near in the blood of Christ. For he is our peace, who has made us both one, and has broken down the dividing wall of hostility, by abolishing in his flesh the law of commandments and ordinances, that he might create in himself one new man in place of the two, (Eph 2:13-15)
The Law has been abolished.

Col 2 says much the same:
And you, who were dead in trespasses and the uncircumcision of your flesh, God made alive together with him, having forgiven us all our trespasses, having cancelled the bond which stood against us with its legal demands; this he set aside, nailing it to the cross. (Col 2:14)

On the one hand, a former commandment is annulled because of its weakness and uselessness, for the law brought nothing to perfection; on the other hand, a better hope is introduced, through which we draw near to God. (Heb 7:18-19)

When there is a change of priesthood, there is necessarily a change of law as well. (Heb 7:12)

For if that first covenant had been faultless, no place would have been sought for a second one. But he finds fault with them and says: “Behold, the days are coming, says the Lord, when I will conclude a new covenant with the house of Israel and the house of Judah. (Heb 8:7-8)

When he speaks of a “new” covenant, he declares the first one obsolete. And what has become obsolete and has grown old is close to disappearing (Heb 8:13)

He takes away the first to establish the second (Heb 10:9)
 

Mungo

Well-Known Member
May 23, 2012
4,332
643
113
England
Faith
Christian
Country
United Kingdom
And here is another one:

Paul says to the Galatian Gentiles who were Judaising
Tell me, you who desire to be under law, do you not hear the law? For it is written that Abraham had two sons, one by a slave and one by a free woman. But the son of the slave was born according to the flesh, the son of the free woman through promise. Now this is an allegory: these women are two covenants. One is from Mount Sinai, bearing children for slavery; she is Hagar. Now Hagar is Mount Sinai in Arabia; she corresponds to the present Jerusalem, for she is in slavery with her children. But the Jerusalem above is free, and she is our mother. For it is written, "Rejoice, O barren one who does not bear; break forth and shout, you who are not in travail; for the children of the desolate one are many more than the children of her that is married." Now we, brethren, like Isaac, are children of promise. But as at that time he who was born according to the flesh persecuted him who was born according to the Spirit, so it is now. But what does the scripture say? "Cast out the slave and her son; for the son of the slave shall not inherit with the son of the free woman." So, brethren, we are not children of the slave but of the free woman. (Gal 4:21-31)

[SIZE=12pt]He is clear. To go back to Judaism (accepting the Law) is to put yourself back into slavery[/SIZE]
 

Mungo

Well-Known Member
May 23, 2012
4,332
643
113
England
Faith
Christian
Country
United Kingdom
heretoeternity said:
Paul was referring to the law of Moses, the 613 or so sacrificial, circumcision, food, feast laws etc...read Acts 15 and be enlightened on the subject.
The 613 laws include the Ten Commandments and other moral laws such as fornication, homosexual acts and fraud. They are not just ceremonial and social laws.

“whoever keeps the whole law, but falls short in one particular, has become guilty in respect to all of it.” (Jas 2:10).

“Cursed be everyone who does not persevere in doing all the things written in the book of the law.” (Gal 3:10)


A List of the 613 Mitzvot (Commandments)
 

heretoeternity

New Member
Oct 11, 2014
1,237
39
0
85
Asia/Pacific
The 613 laws include the Ten Commandments and other moral laws such as fornication, homosexual acts and fraud. They are not just ceremonial and social laws.

“whoever keeps the whole law, but falls short in one particular, has become guilty in respect to all of it.” (Jas 2:10).

“Cursed be everyone who does not persevere in doing all the things written in the book of the law.” (Gal 3:10)

A List of the 613 Mitzvot (Commandments)
[/quote


Wrong again...EXODUS 20 Spells out the Ten commandments, which God wrote himself on the stone tablets.
It is known as God's law.
Moses wrote the Law of Moses himself, from instructions from God.
Acts 15 refers to the latter.
The LAW OF God, the tablets of stone were placed inside the Ark of the Covenant.Deuteronomy 10, as a sign of permanency.

The Law of Moses was placed outside the Ark of the Covenant.Deut 31
 

Mungo

Well-Known Member
May 23, 2012
4,332
643
113
England
Faith
Christian
Country
United Kingdom
heretoeternity said:
Wrong again...EXODUS 20 Spells out the Ten commandments, which God wrote himself on the stone tablets.
It is known as God's law.
Moses wrote the Law of Moses himself, from instructions from God.
Acts 15 refers to the latter.
The LAW OF God, the tablets of stone were placed inside the Ark of the Covenant.Deuteronomy 10, as a sign of permanency.

The Law of Moses was placed outside the Ark of the Covenant.Deut 31
There is no distinction between "God's Law" and the "Law of Moses" either in scripture or in Judaism (as the link I gave you showed)..

The Law is indvisible as the quotes I gave showed.

The Ten Commandments were written by Moses in the book of the law. They were therefore both on the ouside and inside of the Ark.

God gave many commandments that are not in the "Ten Commandments".

The one distinction that can be made between the Ten Commandments and the rest of the Law is that the Ten Commandments were the Covenant.

“And the LORD said to Moses, "Write these words; in accordance with these words I have made a covenant with you and with Israel." And he was there with the Lord forty days and forty nights; he neither ate bread nor drank water. And he wrote upon the tables the words of the covenant, the ten commandments.” (Ex 34:27-28)

When I went up the mountain to receive the tables of stone, the tables of the covenant which the Lord made with you (Dt 9:9).

And the scriptures I gave clearly show that the Covenant was abolished.(Heb 8:7-8 & Heb 10:9)

The Old Testament written law has been replaced by the New Testament law written not in ink but by the Spirit of the living God, not on tablets of stone but on tablets that are hearts of flesh. (2 Cor 3:3).
 

heretoeternity

New Member
Oct 11, 2014
1,237
39
0
85
Asia/Pacific
Your Roman religious organization taught you very well..how to ignore the Bible, and follow their agenda, and pagan traditions, either that or your are totally ignorant of what the Bible says...Cults will make sure you stay ignorant, just compare the Roman organization to scientology and see how similar they are.
It is not surprising, therefore, that you ignore my Biblical references to God's law and the Mosaic law, and the distinction between the two..
 

Mungo

Well-Known Member
May 23, 2012
4,332
643
113
England
Faith
Christian
Country
United Kingdom
heretoeternity said:
Your Roman religious organization taught you very well..how to ignore the Bible, and follow their agenda, and pagan traditions, either that or your are totally ignorant of what the Bible says...Cults will make sure you stay ignorant, just compare the Roman organization to scientology and see how similar they are.
It is not surprising, therefore, that you ignore my Biblical references to God's law and the Mosaic law, and the distinction between the two..
Since you entered this conversation in post #187 you have given only 3 scripture references to back up your claims.

You have given no scriptures to back up your claim that "God's law" and the "Law of Moses" in the OT are different. Scripture makes no distinction, nor do the Jews who, I think, no more about such things than you do.

I have given you 15 scripture references to back up what I say. You have made no attempt to refute any of them..

I think it is you who have been indoctrinated and do not know your scriptures.
 

tom55

Love your neighbor as yourself
Sep 9, 2013
1,199
18
0
Mungo said:
Tom,

I went through a whole explanation of the Catechism but you did not respond to my points.
I went through scriptures to show how the Old Law was abrogated but you did not respond to them
I went through an explanation of how the Ten Commandments as a legal code to not apply to us but you did not respond.
I wish you well when you keep the Sabbath on Saturday and instructed in the Ten Commandments which you think we are obliged to keep.
YOU SAID: The Ten Commandments, as part of that Law, are therefore not binding on Christians.

YOU then used the Catechism to back up your statement when the FACT is the Catechism says OPPOSITE of what you wrote.

I suspect you are to embarrassed to admit your mistake. It is very sad that you were not being totally honest on what the Catechism fully and completely says about the matter. You selectively quoted the Catechism to make your point.Your lack of honesty hurts your credibility in my opinion.
 

Mungo

Well-Known Member
May 23, 2012
4,332
643
113
England
Faith
Christian
Country
United Kingdom
tom55 said:
YOU SAID: The Ten Commandments, as part of that Law, are therefore not binding on Christians.

YOU then used the Catechism to back up your statement when the FACT is the Catechism says OPPOSITE of what you wrote.

I suspect you are to embarrassed to admit your mistake. It is very sad that you were not being totally honest on what the Catechism fully and completely says about the matter. You selectively quoted the Catechism to make your point.Your lack of honesty hurts your credibility in my opinion.
Tom,

I don't seem to be able to get my points across to you. But because you cannot follow an argument please do not accuse me of being dishonest

But tell me - do you observe the sabbath as instructed in the Ten Commandments?

Does the Catechism say we are to observe the sabbath?

Answer - No!
"2175 Sunday is expressly distinguished from the sabbath which it follows chronologically every week.........." (yes I have missed a lot out!)

It then quotes St. Ignatius of Antioch:
"Those who lived according to the old order of things have come to a new hope, no longer keeping the sabbath, but the Lord's Day, in which our life is blessed by him and by his death".?

So how do you square that with we are obliged to keep the Ten Commandments with the Catechism saying that we do not keep opne of them?.

BTW
Pope John Paul II wrote:
We move from the "Sabbath" to the "first day after the Sabbath", from the seventh day to the first day: the dies Domini becomes the dies Christi! (Apostolic Letter, Dies Domini, Pope John Paul II, 1998 – para 18).
 

Mungo

Well-Known Member
May 23, 2012
4,332
643
113
England
Faith
Christian
Country
United Kingdom
Tom,

The first of us to mention a Catechism was myself in post #173 when I quoted from the Catechism of the Council of Trent.

In your reply – post #174 you wrote:
Instead of destroying your theory one commandment at a time how about I just use YOUR SOURCE (that you claim backs up your theory) to destroy your theory?

2068: The Council of Trent teaches that the Ten Commandments are obligatory for Christians and that the justified man is still bound to keep them'; the Second Vatican Council confirms: "The bishops, successors of the apostles, receive from the Lord . . . the mission of teaching all peoples, and of preaching the Gospel to every creature, so that all men may attain salvation through faith, Baptism and the observance of the Commandments." Catechism of the Catholic Church.

You claimed that you would just us my source. BUT YOU DIDN’T. You quoted from the current Catechism – NOT the Catechism of the Council of Trent.

So, who is being dishonest here?

In my reply – post #178 I first re-quoted from the Catechism of the Council of Trent and then quoted from scripture to show how the two agree, and then another quote from the Catechism of the Council of Trent.

Up to this point I had not quoted from the current Catechism.

I then tried to explain to you the context of the quote you gave (para 2068) from the current Catechism starting with the section on the Moral Law.

Where have I been dishonest?
 

tom55

Love your neighbor as yourself
Sep 9, 2013
1,199
18
0
Mungo said:
Tom,

I don't seem to be able to get my points across to you. But because you cannot follow an argument please do not accuse me of being dishonest

But tell me - do you observe the sabbath as instructed in the Ten Commandments?

Does the Catechism say we are to observe the sabbath?

Answer - No!
"2175 Sunday is expressly distinguished from the sabbath which it follows chronologically every week.........." (yes I have missed a lot out!)

It then quotes St. Ignatius of Antioch:
"Those who lived according to the old order of things have come to a new hope, no longer keeping the sabbath, but the Lord's Day, in which our life is blessed by him and by his death".?

So how do you square that with we are obliged to keep the Ten Commandments with the Catechism saying that we do not keep opne of them?.

BTW
Pope John Paul II wrote:
We move from the "Sabbath" to the "first day after the Sabbath", from the seventh day to the first day: the dies Domini becomes the dies Christi! (Apostolic Letter, Dies Domini, Pope John Paul II, 1998 – para 18).
Not sure why you ended up pointing out and arguing (with yourself I might add) about the 4th Commandment since my disagreement with you is not about the 4th Commandment. It is about you not fully quoting YOUR OWN SOURCE, the Catechism.

Are you denying that the Catechism say's "The Council of Trent teaches that the Ten Commandments are obligatory for Christians and that the justified man is still bound to keep them'? (the answer to this should be a simple YES or NO)
 

tom55

Love your neighbor as yourself
Sep 9, 2013
1,199
18
0
Mungo said:
Tom,

The first of us to mention a Catechism was myself in post #173 when I quoted from the Catechism of the Council of Trent.
In your reply – post #174 you wrote:
Instead of destroying your theory one commandment at a time how about I just use YOUR SOURCE (that you claim backs up your theory) to destroy your theory?
2068: The Council of Trent teaches that the Ten Commandments are obligatory for Christians and that the justified man is still bound to keep them'; the Second Vatican Council confirms: "The bishops, successors of the apostles, receive from the Lord . . . the mission of teaching all peoples, and of preaching the Gospel to every creature, so that all men may attain salvation through faith, Baptism and the observance of the Commandments." Catechism of the Catholic Church.
You claimed that you would just us my source. BUT YOU DIDN’T. You quoted from the current Catechism – NOT the Catechism of the Council of Trent.
So, who is being dishonest here?
In my reply post #178 I first re-quoted from the Catechism of the Council of Trent and then quoted from scripture to show how the two agree, and then another quote from the Catechism of the Council of Trent.
Up to this point I had not quoted from the current Catechism.
I then tried to explain to you the context of the quote you gave (para 2068) from the current Catechism starting with the section on the Moral Law.
Where have I been dishonest?
You are absolutely 100% correct. I quoted from the Catechism of the Catholic Church when you were quoting from the Council of Trent.

Are you saying that they disagree with each other in this matter?

I should have clarified what I meant by "YOUR SOURCE". Are you not using the Catholic Churches teaching on this as "YOUR SOURCE"?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.