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

[mjrhealth]

Care to qualify that statement??

Anything that cannot be defended by Scripture is false - lile Sola Scriptura and Sola Fide.

Well He said it, everthing He quotes is twisted to suit his purpose. Just like satan when he tempted Jesus in teh desert. he has it down to an art.

 

[Born_Again]

hopefully B A will come save us from the Inquisition here in a minnit...lol

Unfortunately, I am not a mod in the apologetic forum LOL Though I know the right people LOL

 

[Born_Again]

Well He said it, everthing He quotes is twisted to suit his purpose. Just like satan when he tempted Jesus in teh desert. he has it down to an art.

Yep, agreed, If it cannot be defended by scripture, its false... Then that makes scripture the authority!!! Therefore, agreeing with Sola Scriptura!!!

YAY!!!! HAHA!!!

 

[bbyrd009]

His the spiritual church made up of all believers, its being around since before teh catholic church was a bad idea in teh mind of its creator. and sorry teh catholic church cannot beat that by a long shot,

imo even our Protestant model, which grew out of a critical mass of souls having had enough of Catholic heresies, has a hard time with this concept of a "Spiritual Church," though. I don't guess many would be interested--and i only experienced this by being a minor, i prolly would not have chosen it, either--but most Christians could learn a lot from practicing Muslims, imo. They even practice "Christian" principles that i don't recall reading in the Qur'an. Of course this is likely just offensive to most people here, but i would caution that God is with the oppressed, and marginalized, so see what you will see.

 

[bbyrd009]

Well He said it, everthing He quotes is twisted to suit his purpose. Just like satan when he tempted Jesus in teh desert. he has it down to an art.

ya, seems pointless to debate someone who does this, even if it is just to your perception; which it may be.

 

[bbyrd009]

26 In contrast to that, there is an invisible Jerusalem, a free Jerusalem, and she is our mother - this is the way of Sarah.


ouch to the builders of physical, political churches, i guess.

 

[BreadOfLife]

BreadOfLife,

This is a useless statement as you provide not one piece of documentation.

Please provide me with evidence (with citation) for Protestant Reformers who promoted: (1) The perpetual virginity of Mary, and (2) Mary's sinlessness.

As it stands, your statement is nothing more than your assertion. I wish you would not give us assertions and instead provide real evidence.

I'm not holding my breath.

Oz

Sorry it took so long to get back to you - but there are so many of you anti-Catholics on this board, it is sometimes difficult to decide which ones to expose first . . .

Anyway - you don't believe that your Protestant Fathers taught and believed he things I mentioned??
You don't believe that you have all strayed so far from their original beliefs??
You just can't argue with the historical facts . . .


[SIZE=16pt]The Reformers on the Perpetual Virginity of Mary:[/SIZE]

Martin Luther
It is an article of faith that Mary is Mother of the Lord and still a virgin. ... Christ, we believe, came forth from a womb left perfectly intact. (Weimer's The Works of Luther, English translation by Pelikan, Concordia, St. Louis, v. 11, pp. 319-320; v. 6. p. 510.)

John Calvin
(On the Heretic Helvidius) Helvidius displayed excessive ignorance in concluding that Mary must have had many sons, because Christ’s “brothers” are sometimes mentioned.
(Harmony of Matthew, Mark and Luke, sec. 39 [Geneva, 1562], vol. 2 / From Calvin’s Commentaries, translated by William Pringle, Grand Rapids, Michigan: Eerdmans, 1949, p.215; on Matthew 13:55)

[On Matt 1:25:] The inference he [Helvidius] drew from it was, that Mary remained a virgin no longer than till her first birth, and that afterwards she had other children by her husband . . . No just and well-grounded inference can be drawn from these words . . . as to what took place after the birth of Christ. He is called “first-born”; but it is for the sole purpose of informing us that he was born of a virgin . . . What took place afterwards the historian does not inform us . . . No man will obstinately keep up the argument, except from an extreme fondness for disputation.
(Pringle, ibid., vol. I, p. 107)

Under the word “brethren” the Hebrews include all cousins and other relations, whatever may be the degree of affinity.
(Pringle, ibid., vol. I, p. 283 / Commentary on John, [7:3])

John Wycliffe:
I firmly believe that Mary, according to the words of the gospel as a pure Virgin brought forth for us the Son of God and in childbirth and after childbirth forever remained a pure, intact Virgin.
(Zwingli Opera, Corpus Reformatorum, Berlin, 1905, v. 1, p. 424.)



[SIZE=16pt]The Reformers on the Immaculate Conception of Mary:
[/SIZE]
Martin Luther:
"But the other conception, namely the infusion of the soul, it is piously and suitably believed, was without any sin, so that while the soul was being infused, she would at the same time be cleansed from original sin and adorned with the gifts of God to receive the holy soul thus infused. And thus, in the very moment in which she began to live, she was without all sin..."3

 

[BreadOfLife]

His the spiritual church made up of all believers, its being around since before teh catholic church was a bad idea in teh mind of its creator. and sorry teh catholic church cannot beat that by a long shot,

As usual - you dodged the question. I asked you:
Can YOU name any other Christian Church that was around for the first 1000 years of Christianity??

Since you seem to ba having difficulty with the questions - I'll ask it differently:
Can you show me documented evidence of any other Christian Church that was around for the first 1000 years of Christianity??

I eagerly await your response . . .

 

[BreadOfLife]

Well He said it, everthing He quotes is twisted to suit his purpose. Just like satan when he tempted Jesus in teh desert. he has it down to an art.

And so far - I've been able to back up everything I've said with Scripture and history - something YOU have failed at . . .

 

[BreadOfLife]

hopefully B A will come save us from the Inquisition here in a minnit...lol

No inquisition at all.
It's more of an Exposition of falsehoods.

If you need to be "rescued" from that - then maybe you should stop engaging in the falsehoods . . .

 

[OzSpen]

Sorry it took so long to get back to you - but there are so many of you anti-Catholics on this board, it is sometimes difficult to decide which ones to expose first . . .

Anyway - you don't believe that your Protestant Fathers taught and believed he things I mentioned??
You don't believe that you have all strayed so far from their original beliefs??
You just can't argue with the historical facts . . .


[SIZE=16pt]The Reformers on the Perpetual Virginity of Mary:[/SIZE]

Martin Luther
It is an article of faith that Mary is Mother of the Lord and still a virgin. ... Christ, we believe, came forth from a womb left perfectly intact. (Weimer's The Works of Luther, English translation by Pelikan, Concordia, St. Louis, v. 11, pp. 319-320; v. 6. p. 510.)

John Calvin
(On the Heretic Helvidius) Helvidius displayed excessive ignorance in concluding that Mary must have had many sons, because Christ’s “brothers” are sometimes mentioned.
(Harmony of Matthew, Mark and Luke, sec. 39 [Geneva, 1562], vol. 2 / From Calvin’s Commentaries, translated by William Pringle, Grand Rapids, Michigan: Eerdmans, 1949, p.215; on Matthew 13:55)

[On Matt 1:25:] The inference he [Helvidius] drew from it was, that Mary remained a virgin no longer than till her first birth, and that afterwards she had other children by her husband . . . No just and well-grounded inference can be drawn from these words . . . as to what took place after the birth of Christ. He is called “first-born”; but it is for the sole purpose of informing us that he was born of a virgin . . . What took place afterwards the historian does not inform us . . . No man will obstinately keep up the argument, except from an extreme fondness for disputation.
(Pringle, ibid., vol. I, p. 107)

Under the word “brethren” the Hebrews include all cousins and other relations, whatever may be the degree of affinity.
(Pringle, ibid., vol. I, p. 283 / Commentary on John, [7:3])

John Wycliffe:
I firmly believe that Mary, according to the words of the gospel as a pure Virgin brought forth for us the Son of God and in childbirth and after childbirth forever remained a pure, intact Virgin.
(Zwingli Opera, Corpus Reformatorum, Berlin, 1905, v. 1, p. 424.)



[SIZE=16pt]The Reformers on the Immaculate Conception of Mary:
[/SIZE]
Martin Luther:
"But the other conception, namely the infusion of the soul, it is piously and suitably believed, was without any sin, so that while the soul was being infused, she would at the same time be cleansed from original sin and adorned with the gifts of God to receive the holy soul thus infused. And thus, in the very moment in which she began to live, she was without all sin..."3

BreadOfLife,

Did you obtain your information here from https://www.ewtn.com/faith/teachings/maryc2.htm? You seem to have done that. Why don't you acknowledge your sources? If you have not read these actual documents to get these quotes and have obtained them from another source you have not acknowledged, then you have plagiarised from that source. If you obtained your citations from this website, it is a global RC television network. It comes with a decided agenda to promote RC theology.

See the article on 'Theotokos: A Theological Encyclopedia of the Blessed Virgin Mary' and the assessment of statements by Luther, Martin. The article begins: 'Luther's opinions on Our Lady are not wholly consistent, not altogether free from tension. They are abundant and it would be possible to select a series of extracts that would make him look like a Catholic'.

Of course you can find statements from Luther that would make him look like a RCC adherent. After all, that was the system he had left and his theology was in transition. There will be examples of contradiction in this process at various stages of his movement away from the RCC. I know that when I moved from being a cessationist to being a supporter of the charismatic gifts, there were (and could still be) contradictions in my statements. That's called growth and change.

Pulling out some pro-RCC statements from Luther is a questionable tactic when he was a man in process of transitioning from one theological system to another.

As for John Calvin and John Wycliffe. They should have known better because of the biblical evidence that contradicts their positions. Scripture states that Jesus had siblings. Matt 13:55-56 (NLT) states, 'Then they scoffed, “He’s just the carpenter’s son, and we know Mary, his mother, and his brothers—James, Joseph,[a] Simon, and Judas. 56 All his sisters live right here among us. Where did he learn all these things?”'

The perpetual virginity of Mary is a misnomer perpetrated by the RCC.

She was a privileged lady but not in such a prominent position that causes schools in my electorate to be named in this kind of way to exalt her: Our Lady of the Way Catholic Primary School, Petrie

The exalted Mary, mother of Jesus, cannot show the way to eternal life. That's for Jesus alone (John 3:16 NLT; Acts 4:11 NLT).

Oz

P.S. Please don't scream at me with your enlarged font and bold letters. I find that this is a rude way to treat me on this forum.

 

[bbyrd009]

zing

 

[tom55]

BreadOfLife,

Did you obtain your information here from https://www.ewtn.com/faith/teachings/maryc2.htm? You seem to have done that. Why don't you acknowledge your sources? If you have not read these actual documents to get these quotes and have obtained them from another source you have not acknowledged, then you have plagiarised from that source. If you obtained your citations from this website, it is a global RC television network. It comes with a decided agenda to promote RC theology.

See the article on 'Theotokos: A Theological Encyclopedia of the Blessed Virgin Mary' and the assessment of statements by Luther, Martin. The article begins: 'Luther's opinions on Our Lady are not wholly consistent, not altogether free from tension. They are abundant and it would be possible to select a series of extracts that would make him look like a Catholic'.

Of course you can find statements from Luther that would make him look like a RCC adherent. After all, that was the system he had left and his theology was in transition. There will be examples of contradiction in this process at various stages of his movement away from the RCC. I know that when I moved from being a cessationist to being a supporter of the charismatic gifts, there were (and could still be) contradictions in my statements. That's called growth and change.

Pulling out some pro-RCC statements from Luther is a questionable tactic when he was a man in process of transitioning from one theological system to another.

As for John Calvin and John Wycliffe. They should have known better because of the biblical evidence that contradicts their positions. Scripture states that Jesus had siblings. Matt 13:55-56 (NLT) states, 'Then they scoffed, “He’s just the carpenter’s son, and we know Mary, his mother, and his brothers—James, Joseph,[a] Simon, and Judas. 56 All his sisters live right here among us. Where did he learn all these things?”'

The perpetual virginity of Mary is a misnomer perpetrated by the RCC.

She was a privileged lady but not in such a prominent position that causes schools in my electorate to be named in this kind of way to exalt her: Our Lady of the Way Catholic Primary School, Petrie

The exalted Mary, mother of Jesus, cannot show the way to eternal life. That's for Jesus alone (John 3:16 NLT; Acts 4:11 NLT).

Oz

P.S. Please don't scream at me with your enlarged font and bold letters. I find that this is a rude way to treat me on this forum.

QUOTE FROM OzSpen's SOURCE 'Theotokos: A Theological Encyclopedia of the Blessed Virgin Mary' (page 227):

Likewise Luther was true to Catholic tradition on the virginity. "It is an article of faith that Mary is Mother of the Lord and still a virgin". "Christ, we believe, came forth from a womb left perfectly intact". That Mary lost her virginity after the child's birth, he thought a thing to be never said or thought. Luther interpreted Is. 7:14 in the sense of a prophecy of the virgin birth and he inveighed against Helvidious. In the commentary on the Magnificent he extolled Mary's virginity. (written in 1521 which was AFTER he left the RCC)

It looks like OzSpen source agrees with BreadOfLife's source. OzSpen! Does your source have a decided agenda to promote RC theology?

Quote: "As for John Calvin and John Wycliffe. They should have known better because of the biblical evidence that contradicts their positions." Why doesn't the biblical evidence contradict YOUR position? Why are Calvin and Wycliffe wrong an you right?

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?

 

[tom55]

The Didache, also known as The Teaching of the Twelve Apostles, was written around 80 AD. Part of it instructs Christians on what to do on Sunday: “on every Lord's day gather yourselves together, break bread and give thanks after having confessed your transgressions”. The Didache, which was written by people who walked and talked with the Apostles, instructs us what to do with the Eucharist (bread and wine). The Catholic Church still does this, 2000 years later.

Around the year 152 AD Justin Martyr wrote: On the day called Sunday there is a gathering together in the same place of all who live in a given city or rural district. The memoirs of the apostles or the writings of the prophets are read (scripture), as long as time permits. Then when the reader ceases, the president (priest) in a discourse admonishes and urges the imitation of these good things. Next we all rise together and send up prayers. When we cease from our prayer, bread is presented and wine and water. The president in the same manner sends up prayers and thanksgivings, according to his ability, and the people sing out their assent, saying the 'Amen.' A distribution and participation of the elements (Eucharist) for which thanks have been given is made to each person, and to those who are not present they are sent by the deacons. Those who have means and are willing, each according to his own choice, gives what he wills, and what is collected is deposited with the president. He provides for the orphans and widows, those who are in need on account of sickness or some other cause, those who are in bonds, strangers who are sojourning, and in a word he becomes the protector of all who are in need. And this food is called among us the Eucharist….it is the flesh and blood of that Jesus who was made flesh.

[SIZE=11pt]This is what the Catholic (universal) Church teaches and practices still today. But somehow the RCC gets accused of straying from the bible and what was taught by Jesus and the Apostles? When did the universal Church first mentioned in almost 2,000 years ago stop being universal? How did so many stray from The Church?[/SIZE]

 

[tom55]

kepha,

To the contrary, your principles are not based on doctrinal unity at all. They were based on rejection of the doctrine of justification by faith alone and the practices of indulgences and a lot of other doctrines that do not agree with the Scriptures. Some of the RCC doctrines that are contrary to biblical Christianity have been exposed over and over. See: https://www.gotquestions.org/Catholic-Biblical.html

Oz

Gotquestions.org is a website run by Protestant, evangelical, fundamental, and non-denominational people. Of course they are going to be anti-Catholic. It comes with a decided agenda to refute RC theology!!


Why aren't Protestant beliefs or your beliefs that you promote on your website contrary to biblical Christianity that have been exposed over and over?

 

[bbyrd009]

The Didache, also known as The Teaching of the Twelve Apostles, was written around 80 AD. Part of it instructs Christians on what to do on Sunday: “on every Lord's day gather yourselves together, break bread and give thanks after having confessed your transgressions”. The Didache, which was written by people who walked and talked with the Apostles, instructs us what to do with the Eucharist (bread and wine). The Catholic Church still does this, 2000 years later.

Around the year 152 AD Justin Martyr wrote: On the day called Sunday there is a gathering together in the same place of all who live in a given city or rural district. The memoirs of the apostles or the writings of the prophets are read (scripture), as long as time permits. Then when the reader ceases, the president (priest) in a discourse admonishes and urges the imitation of these good things. Next we all rise together and send up prayers. When we cease from our prayer, bread is presented and wine and water. The president in the same manner sends up prayers and thanksgivings, according to his ability, and the people sing out their assent, saying the 'Amen.' A distribution and participation of the elements (Eucharist) for which thanks have been given is made to each person, and to those who are not present they are sent by the deacons. Those who have means and are willing, each according to his own choice, gives what he wills, and what is collected is deposited with the president. He provides for the orphans and widows, those who are in need on account of sickness or some other cause, those who are in bonds, strangers who are sojourning, and in a word he becomes the protector of all who are in need. And this food is called among us the Eucharist….it is the flesh and blood of that Jesus who was made flesh.

[SIZE=11pt]This is what the Catholic (universal) Church teaches and practices still today. But somehow the RCC gets accused of straying from the bible and what was taught by Jesus and the Apostles? When did the universal Church first mentioned in almost 2,000 years ago stop being universal? How did so many stray from The Church?[/SIZE]

well, the same way that Paul assures us they would, and that you confess has been accomplished; by following Didaches, and changing days, etc. which is why you are quoting Didache instead of Scripture, with all due respect. The differences in a Christian observing Sabbath, and understanding Communion spiritually--as, after all, no one ate Jesus at the Last Supper, when they actually could have--to be observed "as oft as ye gather," or 3 times a year, and your model are multiple, and that is just scratching the surface.

How did so many stray from "the Church," indeed. That people would stray from the Church is a foregone conclusion, and imo Protestants are not unaffected either. They stray when they follow men, who compromise the Book, and do not know the Word, just like the Book shows us, Tom. But this does not compromise one's heart, even though it might appear to; the heart is compromised first, and these all flow from that. Your beliefs descend from your faith, not the other way around. And when your faith increases, your beliefs will fall away. Many Catholics have a strong faith, just as many Protestants do.

 

[bbyrd009]

21Tell me, those of you who want to be under the law, don't you hear the law?

26 In contrast to that, there is an invisible Jerusalem, a free Jerusalem, and she is our mother - this is the way of Sarah.
27For it is written: Rejoice, childless woman, who does not give birth. Burst into song and shout, you who are not in labor, for the children of the desolate are many, more numerous than those of the woman who has a husband.


29But just as then the child born according to the flesh persecuted the one born according to the Spirit, so also now.

 

[BreadOfLife]

BreadOfLife,

Did you obtain your information here from https://www.ewtn.com/faith/teachings/maryc2.htm? You seem to have done that. Why don't you acknowledge your sources? If you have not read these actual documents to get these quotes and have obtained them from another source you have not acknowledged, then you have plagiarised from that source. If you obtained your citations from this website, it is a global RC television network. It comes with a decided agenda to promote RC theology.

See the article on 'Theotokos: A Theological Encyclopedia of the Blessed Virgin Mary' and the assessment of statements by Luther, Martin. The article begins: 'Luther's opinions on Our Lady are not wholly consistent, not altogether free from tension. They are abundant and it would be possible to select a series of extracts that would make him look like a Catholic'.

Of course you can find statements from Luther that would make him look like a RCC adherent. After all, that was the system he had left and his theology was in transition. There will be examples of contradiction in this process at various stages of his movement away from the RCC. I know that when I moved from being a cessationist to being a supporter of the charismatic gifts, there were (and could still be) contradictions in my statements. That's called growth and change.

Pulling out some pro-RCC statements from Luther is a questionable tactic when he was a man in process of transitioning from one theological system to another.

As for John Calvin and John Wycliffe. They should have known better because of the biblical evidence that contradicts their positions. Scripture states that Jesus had siblings. Matt 13:55-56 (NLT) states, 'Then they scoffed, “He’s just the carpenter’s son, and we know Mary, his mother, and his brothers—James, Joseph,[a] Simon, and Judas. 56 All his sisters live right here among us. Where did he learn all these things?”'

The perpetual virginity of Mary is a misnomer perpetrated by the RCC.

She was a privileged lady but not in such a prominent position that causes schools in my electorate to be named in this kind of way to exalt her: Our Lady of the Way Catholic Primary School, Petrie

The exalted Mary, mother of Jesus, cannot show the way to eternal life. That's for Jesus alone (John 3:16 NLT; Acts 4:11 NLT).

Oz

P.S. Please don't scream at me with your enlarged font and bold letters. I find that this is a rude way to treat me on this forum.

First of all - who is "screaming"??
When I "scream" - i use exclamations points (!!!).

Secondly - no, I didn't get my quotes from EWTN, but I'm sure this is ONE source.
In case you haven't noticed, the internet has MANY sources.

Finally, as to the "other" children of Mary - there is simply NO Scriptural support for this, as I have amply shown.
I have even illustrated that these "Adelphoi" of Jesus were some other relation and not uterine siblings. They are the children of the "other Mary" at the foot of the cross (Matt. 27:56, Mark 15:40 )

This other Mary is said to be the "sister" (Adephe) of Jesus' mother. Since we know that Jewish Tradition forbids giving 2 children the same name, we can illustrates without a doubt that this "other Mary" is NOT the uterine sibling of Mary, the mother of Jesus but some other relation.

So, if you want to prove that Mary had other children - you'll have to do MUCH better that that . . .

 

[BreadOfLife]

well, the same way that Paul assures us they would, and that you confess has been accomplished; by following Didaches, and changing days, etc. which is why you are quoting Didache instead of Scripture, with all due respect. The differences in a Christian observing Sabbath, and understanding Communion spiritually--as, after all, no one ate Jesus at the Last Supper, when they actually could have--to be observed "as oft as ye gather," or 3 times a year, and your model are multiple, and that is just scratching the surface.

How did so many stray from "the Church," indeed. That people would stray from the Church is a foregone conclusion, and imo Protestants are not unaffected either. They stray when they follow men, who compromise the Book, and do not know the Word, just like the Book shows us, Tom. But this does not compromise one's heart, even though it might appear to; the heart is compromised first, and these all flow from that. Your beliefs descend from your faith, not the other way around. And when your faith increases, your beliefs will fall away. Many Catholics have a strong faith, just as many Protestants do.

Why, in most of your posts do you keep referring to the importance of adherence to "The Book"??
Where is that in the Bible??

 

[OzSpen]

Quote: "As for John Calvin and John Wycliffe. They should have known better because of the biblical evidence that contradicts their positions." Why doesn't the biblical evidence contradict YOUR position? Why are Calvin and Wycliffe wrong an you right?

Tom,

I gave you the reason why the RCC, Wycliffe and Calvin were wrong on the perpetual virginity of Mary, but you are not listening. Here it is again:

As for John Calvin and John Wycliffe. They should have known better because of the biblical evidence that contradicts their positions. Scripture states that Jesus had siblings. Matt 13:55-56 (NLT) states, 'Then they scoffed, “He’s just the carpenter’s son, and we know Mary, his mother, and his brothers—James, Joseph,[a] Simon, and Judas. 56 All his sisters live right here among us. Where did he learn all these things?”'

Oz