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

[mjrhealth]

As I pointed out earlier - MY Bible says that even the demons believe (James 2:19).
Are they part of the Church??

Well considering teh history of you "church" you should know.
Now this is a "christian" forum this is where "christians" come to celebrtae and dicuss Christ and all His good works, all you have done is come to divide the catholics from everyone else, you are right and God and teh rest of Christiantiy is wrong. so breadollife but all you do is dig yourself a deeper grave, how long will it go on.

 

[OzSpen]

Uh-huh.
And here's what some other English-speaking scholars tell us "Kecharitomene" denotes, based purely on the definition of the word and its grammatical usage:

" 'Highly favoured' (kecharitomene). Perfect passive participle of charitoo and means endowed with grace (charis), enriched with grace as in Ephesians 1:6 . . . The Vulgate gratiae plena [full of grace] "is right, if it means 'full of grace which thou hast received'; wrong, if it means 'full of grace which thou hast to bestow' "
(A.T. Robertson, Word Pictures in the New Testament, p. 14)

"It is permissible, on Greek grammatical and linguistic grounds, to paraphrase kecharitomene as completely, perfectly, enduringly endowed with grace."
(Blass and DeBrunner, Greek Grammar of the New Testament).

"However, Luke 1:28 uses a special conjugated form of "charitoo." It uses "kecharitomene," while Ephesians 1:6 uses "echaritosen," which is a different form of the verb "charitoo." Echaritosen means "he graced" (or bestowed grace).
Echaritosen signifies a momentary action, an action brought to pass."
(Blass and DeBrunner, Greek Grammar of the New Testament, p. 166).

"Whereas, Kecharitomene, the perfect passive participle, shows a completeness with a permanent result. Kecharitomene denotes continuance of a completed action."
(H. W. Smyth, Greek Grammar [Harvard Univ Press, 1968], p. 108-109, sec 1852:b; also Blass and DeBrunner, p. 175).


YOUR turn professor . . .

Now deal with the grammar I provided. Your response is a red herring fallacy.

Are you a NT Greek scholar who knows what he is talking about as a Greek exegete?

 

[OzSpen]

Mary was perpetually a virgin and the whole Church, at the time of it's writing, remembered this fact. The Protoevangelium of James reflects the existence of this tradition. It incorporates it into a legend about Mary. The writing does not originate the tradition. The perpetual virginity of Mary has been taught for 2,000 years. Belief otherwise is a recent invention.

How is my view (The Churches teaching) unbiblical when the bible says she was a virgin AND scripture only identifies Jesus as her son; no other person?

I have scripture and 2,000 years of Church teaching and Church Fathers/doctors to back up my view. You, my friend, are promoting a legend that started long after the death of Jesus.

Tom,

This is a red herring fallacy of a reply.

Now deal with the material I presented instead of running off at your own tangent and refusing to engage with the material I provided. I know your tactic and we cannot have an intelligent conversation when you refuse to respond to my content.

Oz

 

[OzSpen]

Where in scripture does it say that God rescinded the exalted and favored title for Mary? Scripture says "from now on all generations will call me blessed." When did that title (blessed) end?

I will go out on a limb here and say that God, Jesus, Joseph, the Apostles and the people that walked and talked with Mary put her on a pedestal......but I could be wrong <_<

Luke 1:48 (NLT) states: 'For he took notice of his lowly servant girl, and from now on all generations will call me blessed'. That does not deal with the perfect passive participle that I provided exegesis for in #771. Why do you give me another red herring? Deal with the evidence I provided. You are slipping and sliding in your tactics.

You have provided no evidence that substantiates the perpetual virginity of Mary - other than your RCC tradition. I'm not about to buy into that, without biblical support.

Oz

 

[bbyrd009]

that's what happens when you rely on someone else for your Bible reading, i guess. Joseph pretty obviously lay with Mary after Jesus was born, and Jesus had brothers and sisters. It becomes a way to divide people who do not know any better over a pointless issue, or so it seems. Even Christians and Muslims honor Mary. Isaac was told that Ishmael would be made into a great nation "to contend with you," and the timing of the rise of Islam to contend with these heresies becomes revealed here, imo. What does light have to do with darkness? I'm having much more spiritually productive conversations with Muslims, with all due respect. And deifying Mary kind of clarifies why. Easter, too. And loaning money at interest, exotic dance clubs, etcetc, i could go on--all manifestations of whores running our churches, imo. Which i don't mean to imply condemns any individuals per se, but imo these models are also inevitably death-centered, too, and sin and death will be the primary (only) conversations, as we can note.

Plenty of Prots praying to Jesus, too, i guess, i don't see much diff.

 

[BreadOfLife]

Well considering teh history of you "church" you should know.
Now this is a "christian" forum this is where "christians" come to celebrtae and dicuss Christ and all His good works, all you have done is come to divide the catholics from everyone else, you are right and God and teh rest of Christiantiy is wrong. so breadollife but all you do is dig yourself a deeper grave, how long will it go on.

It will go on as long as dishonest people like YOU continue to spew lies and fairy tales about the Church.
Remember - Thou shalt not bear false witness, my Scripturally-bankrupt friend . . .

 

[BreadOfLife]

Now deal with the grammar I provided. Your response is a red herring fallacy.

Are you a NT Greek scholar who knows what he is talking about as a Greek exegete?

No - unlike YOU, i leave it up to the experts - like I did in my last post.
the fact that you failed to rebut them speaks volumes about your ignorance of NT Greek . . .

PS - It's difficult to believe your claim that you're a Greek scholar, when you can't even get English grammar down . . .

 

[OzSpen]

No - unlike YOU, i leave it up to the experts - like I did in my last post.
the fact that you failed to rebut them speaks volumes about your ignorance of NT Greek . . .

PS - It's difficult to believe your claim that you're a Greek scholar, when you can't even get English grammar down . . .

So you claim 'Are you a NT Greek scholar?' is incorrect grammar. When will you get it that 'Are you a NT Greek scholar' is short hand for 'Are you a New Testament Greek scholar?' My shorthand was correct grammar.

Straining at a gnat again.

So you are a person who doesn't know NT Greek, but is trying to sound sophisticated by quoting other sources which you don't know are promoting correct or incorrect Greek grammar?

You have used an appeal to authority logical fallacy.

Bye, bye,
Oz

 

[BreadOfLife]

So you claim 'Are you a NT Greek scholar?' is incorrect grammar. When will you get it that 'Are you a NT Greek scholar' is short hand for 'Are you a New Testament Greek scholar?' My shorthand was correct grammar.

Straining at a gnat again.

So you are a person who doesn't know NT Greek, but is trying to sound sophisticated by quoting other sources which you don't know are promoting correct or incorrect Greek grammar?

You have used an appeal to authority logical fallacy.

Bye, bye,
Oz

And YOU have provided nothing to the contrary.
You CLAIM to be a Greek scholar, yet a non-expert like myself has buried you with the linguistic facts surrounding Mary's God-given title of Kecharitomene.

You can try to rationalize this title away until the cows come home - but the scholarly evidence i provided destroys your argument . . .

 

[mjrhealth]

It will go on as long as dishonest people like YOU continue to spew lies and fairy tales about the Church.
Remember - Thou shalt not bear false witness, my Scripturally-bankrupt friend . . .

false wirness
2000 years of history, teh crusades teh muder of teh Jews brecause they killed Jesus, teh selling of salavtion at a price, telling men if they die in battle there sins would be forgiven, murder and torture of any that stood in your way, christians non believers even jews, keeping the bible from teh people so they couldnt read for themselves, twisting words formj the bible to try make a lie the truth, we dont have to prove anything its written is books in all teh libraries all over the world even in your own vatican libray it will be, its in movies and documanteries done over teh years its even in todays papers, child abuse sexual abuse moving priests so the world wont know, it theer for all te hworld to see even if you choose not to, and all the yhave to do is read what you write and see how misleading your words are , you do yourself no favours. We are Christians here and yo uare trying to make us cathoics, we are Christians because we belong to Christ you choose to be a catholic and belong to teh catholic church, we are a part of His Church becasue we folow Him you are a part of the cartholic church because you follow the cathloic churches doctrines. it is you and your church that has caused teh division not us.,

Mat_15:9 But in vain they do worship me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men.
Mar_7:7 Howbeit in vain do they worship me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men.
Col_2:22 Which all are to perish with the using after the commandments and doctrines of men?

you have made your choice and must live with teh consequences.

 

[tom55]

Tom,

This is a red herring fallacy of a reply.

Now deal with the material I presented instead of running off at your own tangent and refusing to engage with the material I provided. I know your tactic and we cannot have an intelligent conversation when you refuse to respond to my content.

Oz

And we have become familiar with your tactic.

I have presented evidence from scripture, historical writings and the Church Fathers to support what I have said. My first piece of evidence that I presented for the perpetual virginity of Mary dates bake to the 2nd century.

When did the teaching that Mary was not a perpetual virgin begin?

AND you ONCE AGAIN threw out the red herring fallacy accusation instead of answering the question. I have become familiar with your tactics. When loosing the argument accuse the other person of a fallacy.

 

[Angelina]

This topic is now locked as I see it as another form of creating an argument that has no real purpose "as far as I can see", but to push a particular denomination in a predominantly Protestant forum. CyB is open to receiving brethren from other christian denominations but will not tolerate denominations who consider themselves to be superior over other Christ believing Churches/denominations here at CyB. Topic closed!