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

[epostle1]

Not really sure why you spend so much time on a Christian discussion board - other than the fact that you enjoy being proven wrong.
Your opinions about the Bible NOT being the Word of God stem from your complete failure to understand John 1:1.

Here's the problem. "Word" in John 1:1 doesn't mean "Bible", in Greek it's "Logos", which refers to the pre-existence of Christ. When Protestants see "word of God" they automatically see "Bible", or written word alone. "Word of God" appears about 200 times in the Bible, and not once does it refer to the written word alone. So much for "sola scriptura".

to you, perhaps. I forget who said it, but i have heard other Catholics say it before, and it was said recently, in this thread i'm pretty sure, within the last couple of days. mjr health even espouses some form of this. Now, i doubt i am hearing it like they intend it, but i hesitate to label where someone else is at on that, as surely everyone has a different conception there, too.

Catholics are free to have their own opinions, and even disagree with the Church. We are not free to rebel.
We could get into how the Bible is corrupted from the original

,St. Jerome had access to the oldest extant copies of Hebrew, Greek and Aramaic. What matters is what it means. In Protestantism, what it means is determined by the individual.

Passover is now Easter,

Nonsense.

or how the Catholic Bible is different from the Protestant one,

Because of Martin Luther's opinions.

or even that the Bible is not the Word,

I could fill several pages of official Catholic teaching that says the opposite. Logos does not equal "Bible", and "Word" is both oral and written, if you know your Bible.

because the Word is God, and the Bible is not, not even in the original, but people all feel a bit differently there, too, so all i can say is, if the Bible is authoritative to you, then describe your experience of going out like the 12 were sent, and we will see how authoritative the Bible really is for you ok.

The 12 had Bibles?

And please take this in the spirit intended, because i have about 50 or 100 other reflections that mostly just make people uncomfortable, after that one. If you are commending yourselves to each other again, then how is the Bible authoritative to you? And don't get me wrong ok, i am just a hypocrite myself. I am a whore and a murderer, and certainly no better than the worst person you might name.

The Biblical rule of faith is Tradition, Scripture, and the Magisterium (teaching authority) all working in harmony. If it were not for Catholic bishops beginning in the 1st century up to the 4th century, you would have no Bible. You are left with playing games with history to deny the authority of the Church.

 

[bbyrd009]

To that i would say that the Church is a Spiritual thing, Living Stones, and you do not get to define It, except for yourself; and, your definition being of the flesh, a physical thing, headquartered in Rome, this will naturally influence all of your other responses.

So now, you have to make jokes at explicit instructions from Christ, see, and you do not even acknowledge the sending out of the twelve, likely because you are not even aware of the Passage, but i don't know there. No offense. My prayer is that you might hook as many people into that as feel led, because that is as good a start on a spiritual path as any, and i have many loving Catholic friends with good hearts, and i could care less about their current beliefs, tbh. Although i do note in passing that the good~hearted ones tend to roll their eyes at Catholic doctrine (or doctrine, period) when push comes to shove.

 

[BreadOfLife]

To that i would say that the Church is a Spiritual thing, Living Stones, and you do not get to define It, except for yourself; and, your definition being of the flesh, a physical thing, headquartered in Rome, this will naturally influence all of your other responses.

We're not defining it. the Scriptures define what the Church is . . .

1. Jesus established ONE Church (Matt. 16:16-19). He prayed fervently that this Church remain ONE - as He and the Father are ONE (John 17:20-23). There is NO other.
2. Jesus is Truth itself (John 14:6).
3. Jesus promised His Church that the Holy Spirit would guide her to ALL Truth (John 16:12-15).
4. The Church is the Pillar and Foundation of TRUTH (1 Tim. 3:15).
5. The Church is the Body of Christ and He is the Head (1 Cor. 12:12-31, Eph. 4:3-6, Col. 1:8).
6. The Church is the FULLNESS of Christ (Eph. 1:22-23).
7. Jesus identifies His very SELF with His Church (Acts 9:4-5).
8. Jesus gave the Church supreme Authority on earth and whatever it ordains on earth is also ordained in heaven (Matt. 16:18-19, 18:15-18, Luke 10:16, John 20:21-23).

 

[bbyrd009]

Yet you maintain that the Church is full of whores? Lol. And btw who is this "We" that are doing such a bang-up job of "not defining it?"
I hope you see that i am not meaning to cruel or petty here, but to elicit more from you, so as to make the position of your church crystal clear, so that others might be sure in their own minds, ok. I have no desire to attack your beliefs, whatever they might be right now; we are all called to change our minds.

 

[BreadOfLife]

Yet you maintain that the Church is full of whores? Lol. And btw who is this "We" that are doing such a bang-up job of "not defining it?"
I hope you see that i am not meaning to cruel or petty here, but to elicit more from you, so as to make the position of your church crystal clear, so that others might be sure in their own minds, ok. I have no desire to attack your beliefs, whatever they might be right now; we are all called to change our minds.

Who said that the church was "FULL of whores"??
When you can show me where I made this claim - I will take your posts seriously. For now - we'll just chalk it up to diarrhea of the mouth . . .

As for who "We" are - I was referring to us Catholics.

 

[bbyrd009]

Best of luck ok, have a nice evening

 

[BreadOfLife]

Best of luck ok, have a nice evening

Translation: "I've run out of gas . . ."

 

[bbyrd009]

or translation, you are in too much pain and loss to have a conversation with, perhaps. when you realize that you actually are not God, maybe we can talk further.

 

[tom55]

look, i like Catholics, and as long as you quote Paul's wolves instead of Scripture to make your points, i am fine with that, too.


only you cannot prove this from Scripture, and you are deceived if you think you can. Catholics are mostly great people, i don't know why one would try to conflate Catholicism with the Bible, the two are mutually exclusive, as your lack of exegesis of "to be absent from the body is to be present with the Lord" will make plain, when it does not agree with the rest of the Message. Stick with Polycrap et al, and count the cost before you crack a Bible imo, which i know you don't consider authoritative anyway, and cannot respond to, so who are we kidding here, right.

Paul's wolves? Are you being serious?

Ignatius was a student of the Apostle John and Irenaeus was a disciple of Polycarp who was also a student of John. They received THE WORD from John and a student of John (Polycarp).

So who should I believe? Your ramblings that make no sense or Ignatius and Irenaeus? Tough choice.....

 

[bbyrd009]

Paul's wolves? Are you being serious?

Ignatius was a student of the Apostle John and Irenaeus was a disciple of Polycarp who was also a student of John. They received THE WORD from John and a student of John (Polycarp).

So who should I believe? Your ramblings that make no sense or Ignatius and Irenaeus? Tough choice.....

man, whatever gets one to a relationship with God as Father is ok with me. I am not asking to be believed, anyway. I would refuse the crown, personally, that most believers seek to put on other men who have no more Scriptural authority than themselves. But if people seek a king to fight their battles for them, then they will find what they seek. All i see from that is division, however. Now anyone who is not a Catholic--or whatever belief system espouses that same view; Baptists, Pentecostals, etc--is made into one of the "lost," regardless of their walk with God, it seems to me.

 

[BreadOfLife]

or translation, you are in too much pain and loss to have a conversation with, perhaps. when you realize that you actually are not God, maybe we can talk further.

No - we can talk further when YOU stop dodging questions and start telling the truth.

There's only ONE God - and I ain't Him . . .

 

[tom55]

man, whatever gets one to a relationship with God as Father is ok with me. I am not asking to be believed, anyway. I would refuse the crown, personally, that most believers seek to put on other men who have no more Scriptural authority than themselves. But if people seek a king to fight their battles for them, then they will find what they seek. All i see from that is division, however. Now anyone who is not a Catholic--or whatever belief system espouses that same view; Baptists, Pentecostals, etc--is made into one of the "lost," regardless of their walk with God, it seems to me.

YOU WERE COMPLETLEY AND UTTERLY PROVEN WRONG in your "Paul's wolves" statement. Instead of defending your statement you write more gibberish. What you write makes no sense.

YOUR statement "...anyone who is not a Catholic--or whatever belief system espouses that same view; Baptists, Pentecostals, etc--is made into one of the "lost," regardless of their walk with God, it seems to me." makes absolutely NO SENSE. I am trying to figure out if your being serious or just being anarchist. I think your main goal is to be an anarchist and not serious.

 

[bbyrd009]

YOU WERE COMPLETLEY AND UTTERLY PROVEN WRONG in your "Paul's wolves" statement. Instead of defending your statement you write more gibberish. What you write makes no sense.

YOUR statement "...anyone who is not a Catholic--or whatever belief system espouses that same view; Baptists, Pentecostals, etc--is made into one of the "lost," regardless of their walk with God, it seems to me." makes absolutely NO SENSE. I am trying to figure out if your being serious or just being anarchist. I think your main goal is to be an anarchist and not serious.

well, Paul made the statement, 29 I know that after my departure savage wolves will come in among you, not sparing the flock, so i hope you see that it is not for me to point fingers and personally identify who these are, because i am not qualified. But i can suggest that the passage deserves a hearing, and i can note that both Catholics and Est'd Christians seem to have no problem commending themselves to each other now. So imo i think it is naive to suggest that i have been completely and utterly proven wrong there; but i think it is equally wrong to suggest that "Catholic = antichrist" or similar nonsense, too.

As to part 2 there, i guess it depends upon if one has come to understand that someone of a different belief system than them might be accepted by God just like they are, or not, and in my experience Catholics, the people, seem divided on this, while i am not sure where the official position is these days? My test for that is usually if one thinks a practicing Muslim still needs "salvation" or not.

Anarchy is ultimately just an alternative--now--economic system, that kind of inevitably results in a certain political--or rather anti-political--position, being as how our politics is so intrinsic to our "economy" now. I guess it does also result in a religious--or anti-religious--position, also, but i should point out that real Anarchists have no desire to, say, overthrow the current government, or for that matter the current religious establishment.

We, most of us, anyway, harbor no illusions that we could do a better job, and i would like to make clear that if i had some magic button i could push that would eliminate the RCC or religion in general, i would not push it. Anabaptists might be the best image of Anarchists that i could supply, right now, even if most of them are kind of statist, making various accommodations so that they can exist under Fascism; voting, paying any kind of tax, etc., which a hardcore Anarchist does not do.

 

[bbyrd009]

YOU WERE COMPLETLEY AND UTTERLY PROVEN WRONG

makes absolutely NO SENSE

i hope you see that these are justifications, and really have effectively no meaning? Surely some part of you recognizes that there are people living lives right now that are completely alien to yours; they walk around stark naked, all of them, or do not use money, or recognize no leader, etc. None of these would make any sense to you, either. That is the essence of changing one's mind, imo; at least allowing that others might not make sense to you, and there is nothing wrong with that, if they evince works unto rebound ("repentance" to you), iow manifest the Spirit, and aren't interested in eating your children, and are good neighbors, etc. "Making sense" kind of becomes "you have to do it my way," "your kids cannot be Native Americans anymore, because that makes no sense to us," "Islam makes no sense to me, so annihilating Syria for their oil is ok," and basically, the justifications of Hitler, while torching Europe, then become available. Which imo Hitler is going to look like a pansy in the eyes of history, after our doings in the Mideast are finished being chronicled.

 

[tom55]

well, Paul made the statement, 29 I know that after my departure savage wolves will come in among you, not sparing the flock, so i hope you see that it is not for me to point fingers and personally identify who these are, because i am not qualified. But i can suggest that the passage deserves a hearing, and i can note that both Catholics and Est'd Christians seem to have no problem commending themselves to each other now. So imo i think it is naive to suggest that i have been completely and utterly proven wrong there; but i think it is equally wrong to suggest that "Catholic = antichrist" or similar nonsense, too.

As to part 2 there, i guess it depends upon if one has come to understand that someone of a different belief system than them might be accepted by God just like they are, or not, and in my experience Catholics, the people, seem divided on this, while i am not sure where the official position is these days? My test for that is usually if one thinks a practicing Muslim still needs "salvation" or not.

Anarchy is ultimately just an alternative--now--economic system, that kind of inevitably results in a certain political--or rather anti-political--position, being as how our politics is so intrinsic to our "economy" now. I guess it does also result in a religious--or anti-religious--position, also, but i should point out that real Anarchists have no desire to, say, overthrow the current government, or for that matter the current religious establishment.

We, most of us, anyway, harbor no illusions that we could do a better job, and i would like to make clear that if i had some magic button i could push that would eliminate the RCC or religion in general, i would not push it. Anabaptists might be the best image of Anarchists that i could supply, right now, even if most of them are kind of statist, making various accommodations so that they can exist under Fascism; voting, paying any kind of tax, etc., which a hardcore Anarchist does not do.

So in your opinion since Paul said, "I know that after my departure savage wolves will come in among you, not sparing the flock..." that means that Ignatius and Ireneaus were wolves amongst the Christian flock?

What evidence do you have for that??

Who has the authority to call them wolves and say what they taught (wrote) was not true?

 

[bbyrd009]

So in your opinion since Paul said, "I know that after my departure savage wolves will come in among you, not sparing the flock..." that means that Ignatius and Ireneaus were wolves amongst the Christian flock?

What evidence do you have for that??

Who has the authority to call them wolves and say what they taught (wrote) was not true?

not me, certainly. Yes, i implied this, but it was to make the point that they are not Canon, not found in any Bible, and Paul did, after all, say what he said. Personally i have no doubt that those men sought God as best they were able, but i am completely unaware of their premises where the Church is concerned (by which i mean the Church of Living Stones, not the RCC), and must consider that they were a part of the early RCC, which i do not mean is a bad thing in any way, just that Paul's characterization of what would happen to the Church "as soon as" he left should be reflected upon.

I&I are not Canon, and while i might respect their pov in another context, i don't need some guys in ties telling me their opinion from 2000 years ago, no offense meant, when i have a Bible and a Lexicon right here, and i am not trying to enforce a World church system so that i might bask in the reflected authoritay as a member. It should be noted that I&I preceded a pretty dark era in the RCC, too.

my premise, essentially, is that as soon as one accepts any other human's pov in Scripture as being more authoritative than their own, they are doomed. This does not mean that i cannot consider anything I&I or any other seeker offers, but that it is up to me to decide, and I&I, or the pope, are not going to be there when i am judged; i will be alone. Telling God "well, my pastor told me..." is not going to cut it. And yes, i am aware of the Passages that suggest otherwise, and would agree that one ignores other povs at their peril,. too. Seek your own salvation. And, he who seeks to save his soul will lose it.

I have the account of Paul, a guy with power, influence, and a license to kill, who abandoned all that to follow Christ and spend the rest of his life a Wanted Man. Who are I&I up next to that? Two cloistered guys in a safe harbor interpreting Scripture for me? Pass.

 

[tom55]

not me, certainly. Yes, i implied this, but it was to make the point that they are not Canon, not found in any Bible, and Paul did, after all, say what he said. Personally i have no doubt that those men sought God as best they were able, but i am completely unaware of their premises where the Church is concerned (by which i mean the Church of Living Stones, not the RCC), and must consider that they were a part of the early RCC, which i do not mean is a bad thing in any way, just that Paul's characterization of what would happen to the Church "as soon as" he left should be reflected upon.

I&I are not Canon, and while i might respect their pov in another context, i don't need some guys in ties telling me their opinion from 2000 years ago, no offense meant, when i have a Bible and a Lexicon right here, and i am not trying to enforce a World church system so that i might bask in the reflected authoritay as a member. It should be noted that I&I preceded a pretty dark era in the RCC, too.

Ignatius of Antioch was alive when scripture was being written and lived out. He was a student of the Apostle John. And all you can say is you respect his pov? Are you serious?

Irenaeus was a student of Polycarp who was a student of John. And all you can say is you respect his pov? Are you serious?

Your pov (translation of scripture) is more reliable than theirs??

You never answered my question: Who has the authority to call them wolves and say what they taught (wrote) was not true?

 

[tom55]

ha well mostly i am just razzing you, as that is the best way i know to heal; go somewhere and get your buttons pushed until they stop working. Yes, i could show how the RCC and the Bible are at odds with each other, but one could do that for any group, from some perspective or other, but i already like Catholics like they are. And look, if you consider Catholic to be Christian, that is fine with me, too, i didn't mean to imply that Catholics were somehow excluded or anything. I'm not a Christian, according to most peoples' definition now anyway, and i am hardly a Defender of the Faith--which phrase actually just conflates "faith" with "beliefs," see, like we do for every other term that we want to make self-serving, iow that we use to "commend ourselves again."

Scripture suggests to me--very strongly--that picking the right belief system is not the way to follow Christ. There is no "correct religion," imo, or incorrect religion, that God respects more than some other. I could provide many Passages for this, but they would be pointless to someone who is convinced otherwise, right? Once one has made their minds up, and decided they know something, then pride sets in, and everything they know now works against them, and i have Scrip for this, too.

And I have the cure for cancer.....but I'm not going to give it to you because then it would just prove I am right. <_<

You could show how the RCC and the bible are at odds with each other AND you could do that for any group?? Seriously?

Who gave YOU the authority to tell everyone else who is right and who is wrong in their translation of the bible??

 

[bbyrd009]

Ignatius of Antioch was alive when scripture was being written and lived out. He was a student of the Apostle John. And all you can say is you respect his pov? Are you serious?

Irenaeus was a student of Polycarp who was a student of John. And all you can say is you respect his pov? Are you serious?

ah, i meant to say that no, i do not respect their pov at all, over Scripture, my bad. Aren't they held up as "saints" by the RCC? "Commended by other men," iow, when we are all saints?

1Are we beginning to commend ourselves again? Or do we need, like some, letters of recommendation to you or from you?

 

[bbyrd009]

Your pov (translation of scripture) is more reliable than theirs??

if they are cloistered, and ships in a safe harbor, then definitely; but my point is that anyone led by the Spirit is guided to listen to the Spirit, which will not conflict with Scripture at any point, and thus many Passages of Scripture will not have to be ignored or reasoned away, as most Christians and Catholics are coerced into doing.