Predatory Subprime Pioneer, Still On Obama Team

[Bandit]

Ebionites don't appear in written records until the mid 2nd century around the late 130s early 140s I think.

according to who? when the catholics decided they were not christians? or according to when YOU decided they are not christian?

they did not just appear out of thin air. I dont know where you get your sources but they were there all along from the 1st to 4th century...& there are still some today who have similiar christian beliefs.


geesh

[Bandit]

All of these did not exist before the rise of Christianity or the Catholic church. The Nazarenes did but the are a Jewish sect not a Christian one. While it is unclear whether Gnostism existed beforehand the elements that have Christian elements were clearly not added until after the rise of Catholicism.

The first use of the Catholic Church that survives is from 107 AD, however it is clear from the writings it appears in the Church existed before that and was commonly just called The Church, Catholic was added to help distinguish it from other such groups in the latter part of the first century or early 2nd century.

so what you are saying is, it is ok for catholics to rise & evolve over time, but if others did that, they are not christian. it is ok for them to give themelsves a name to differentiate from the 'others' AT THE SAME TIME who are not christian because, they say so.

so I suppose that would also mean that anything anyone writes about their savior myth after a certain date, would also not be christian, just because....well- just becasue....

so where do you draw the line on what people can write & when they are not allowed to write about their Christ? after all, unless you are the catholic or LDS you are not christian.
so does this give only the catholics & LDS the express right to wright as they please? while everyone elses writings & ideas get burned?

[Bandit]

Irenaeus's best-known book, Against Heresies, (c 180) is a detailed attack on Gnosticism, which was then a serious threat to the Church, and especially on the system of Valentinus.[1] As the first great Catholic theologian, he emphasized the traditional elements in the Church, especially the episcopate, Scripture, and tradition.[1] Irenaeus wrote that the only way for Christians to retain unity was to humbly accept one doctrinal authority--episcopal councils.

above from Wiki

BOTH groups were large & growing, JRSCOTT, these other groups did not just appear out of thin air at the time the catholics decided to attack & kill them.

HUMBLY accept only one doctrinal authority?

then why doesn't Iraneus humble himself- leave the others alone, instead of running in fear of, & attacking other christian groups? as not being christian- kind of like you are doing, JRScott...

so, it is ok for one group to establish beliefs but other groups are not allowed.

[JRScott]

Bandit your entire responses are pretty are argumentative. Even the date you supply for the Gnostics is 50 years after the dates I mentioned for the Ebionites and 70 years after the Catholic Church. Such a time frame is plenty of time for such a group to have arisen. After all Christianity at this point was largely viewed by the Romans as a sect of Judaism. and their numbers were relatively small compared to other religions of the age.

Catholic means Universal or General Church. Prior to the late 1st century it was merely called The Church, the problem was that every splinter group also called itself The Church. Which obviously led to confusion, so they renamed The Church, The Catholic Church.

You're entire approach is antagonistic. Basically I have never said you have to believe as I do. You asked which was the True Church and I pointed out 2 possibilities and why it had to be one of those two. Without the Authority from God you can't possibly form the True Church of God. Since only those two churches have claims to an unbroken chain of authority from God only they can possibly be the True Church of churches existing today. I suppose you could also take the opinion that neither of them are and that the True Church has yet to be reformed on the earth.

You then started pointed out all these other groups, most of which I've rebutted with information readily available on their beliefs. You then seek to belittle my belief and religion as well as others. We could spend years debating the subject and it will not accomplish anything because you have hardened your own heart to other points of view even as you claim Christians do. So since no good can come from further discussion in this thread I will not visit it again.

[Bandit]

You're entire approach is antagonistic.

& yours has been judgmental denying the other christians their rights to believe how they choose & still claim the title christian.

though I am sure that your 2 religion theory must somehow be needed in order to establish your church dogma & without it you would somehow not be christian.

[Bandit]

Which obviously led to confusion, so they renamed The Church, The Catholic Church.

LOL! there has been confusion since day one (even in pauls writings there were many different groups he wrote to) but has nothing to do with what title these various groups chose over time. it is called religous politics where one group tires to destroy all others.

you just think you are the only one who can decide who is christian, that has nothing to do with your dogma & telling people to believe what you believe.
obviously, if they dont believe what you say, then they are not christian.

you have repeatedly said they are/were not christian because they dont believe what you think they should believe.