Do you believe that denominations existed in the fourth century?

[Rens]

Yes, but wasn't saint Paul condemning the Corinthians for having factions like that? It is not as though saint Paul approved of them, right?

No he said there should be unity, but he said
18*For first of all, when you come together as a church, I hear that there are divisions among you, and in part I believe it.*19*For there must also be factions among you, that those who are approved may be recognized among you.*

When he spoke in the synagogues and the Jews didn't listen, he split from them with his own disciples.
I know people who are in a Dutch reformed church. Adult baptizing, gifts of the Holy Spirit are forbidden there, but they stay to make the difference. I couldn't do that. Or if they don't preach against sin and just let people who live together be members, I'd go elsewhere. It affects everyone if there's sin in the house. People get time to convert, but in one church people refused to pray, church just ceased to exist. There were warnings for 4 years.

 

[Alithis]

I see. Then the answer is "no, by religion is no older than I. My religion certainly did not exist in the fourth century AD".

i dont have a religion ,but to practice true religion that is undefiled,is to love and care for the fatherless and the widow . not belong to a man made institution.
to be a deciple of the lord jesus hold no requirement to belong to nor adhere to ANY denomination .
yuor attempting to establish that because your rcc institution is the older institution that it makes it more right.. but sorry .. a lie is a lie is a lie .. no matter how long it has been around .

praying to mary ,,(ouh ,asking her to pray for you [but to pray means ..to ask earnestly ]so it's praying to her -is a lie and oposed to the word of god
saying she is a co mediator -is a lie and opposed to the word of god ..etc i need not go on .. the point is . God did not change his word then and isn't going to change it now .

a lie does not become truth by virtue of how long it has been around . it just become a very old lie .

 

[MoreCoffee]

[MENTION=61]Alithis[/MENTION], you say you have no religion probably because you're using a quirky definition of religion - one that I've heard Pentecostal people use before - and that you have only a practise that is, in your opinion, pure religion and undefiled etcetera. Isn't it curious that the bible verse you alluded to uses the word "religion" to describe the pure and undefiled practise?

Anyway, Your "practise" is no older than you and certainly was not in existence in the fourth century AD.

 

[psalms 91]

Me thinks you protest to much

 

[Josiah]

Just because it may be that a practice or belief existed at a time does not - in any way whatsoever - indicate that a certain, specific, individual, singular DENOMINATION existed at that time.

And this thread is not about "Religion" (by ANY definition!), it's about DENOMINATIONS.

 

[MoreCoffee]

Just because it may be that a practice or belief existed at a time does not - in any way whatsoever - indicate that a certain, specific, individual, singular DENOMINATION existed at that time. ...

Yes, it's already established that no certain, specific, individual, singular denomination of Lutherans existed in the fourth century AD.

 

[Josiah]

Yes, it's already established that no certain, specific, individual, singular denomination of Lutherans existed in the fourth century AD.

I think it's established that there was no certain, specific, individual, singular denomination AT ALL until the 4th Century.

 

[MoreCoffee]

There is and was the catholic church. It was not a certain, specific, individual, singular denomination of Lutherans, [MENTION=13]Josiah[/MENTION].

 

[Tigger]

Do you think he was successful?

Mind you, he was doing it while Judaism (the first century variety not the twenty first century version with which we are familiar) was still operating according to God's requirements (with a temple and sacrifices and an Aaronic priesthood with Levite helpers) so maybe he was casting out demons in accord with old covenant practises.

49. And John answered and said, Master, we saw one casting out devils in your name; and we forbade him, because he follows not with us.

But the verse before says he was casting out demons in His name. So yes I think he was successful and I don't see 1st century Jews invoking the name of Jesus. Do you?

 

[psalms 91]

No they would not have used the name of jesus

 

[Alithis]

[MENTION=61]Alithis[/MENTION], you say you have no religion probably because you're using a quirky definition of religion - one that I've heard Pentecostal people use before - and that you have only a practise that is, in your opinion, pure religion and undefiled etcetera. Isn't it curious that the bible verse you alluded to uses the word "religion" to describe the pure and undefiled practise?

Anyway, Your "practise" is no older than you and certainly was not in existence in the fourth century AD.

what utter rubbish . have you not read the book of acts lol.

 

[MoreCoffee]

49. And John answered and said, Master, we saw one casting out devils in your name; and we forbade him, because he follows not with us.

But the verse before says he was casting out demons in His name. So yes I think he was successful and I don't see 1st century Jews invoking the name of Jesus. Do you?

Yes, I do see some doing it. The man mentioned in Luke 9:49-50 did. At the time he did it there were no Christians. That was to come soon but not yet.

 

[Josiah]

More Coffee,

I agree, there were no denominations before the Forth Century (including the RCC, EOC and OOC ones).
I can't image why it matters, but I agree with you, no denominations existed until then.

 

[psalms 91]

There is and was the catholic church. It was not a certain, specific, individual, singular denomination of Lutherans, [MENTION=13]Josiah[/MENTION].

Yeah we have already been down that road and shown that it did not exist back then

 

[MoreCoffee]

More Coffee,

I agree, there were no denominations before the Forth Century (including the RCC, EOC and OOC ones).
I can't image why it matters, but I agree with you, no denominations existed until then.

The church existed. Specifically the catholic church did.

 

[psalms 91]

Whatever you say but the catholic church did not exist in the first century and in fact I am sure that Paul would have come against some of its practices if it had

 

[MoreCoffee]

Whatever you say but the catholic church did not exist in the first century and in fact I am sure that Paul would have come against some of its practices if it had

The topic is Do you believe that denominations existed in the fourth century? Your post is not on topic.

 

[psalms 91]

Then quit taking it off topic by stating that the Catholic church existed, it is you who talke it off topic. Nice try at turning it around but it is on you

 

[Josiah]

The church existed. Specifically the catholic church did.

But not the Catholic Church - that specific, individual, singular denomination. CHRISTIANS ("catholic") existed (perhaps even before Jesus was born) but there was no denomination until the 4th Century with the Roman Empire created the Roman Church for its own self, created in its own image.

I agree, no denomination existed before the fourth century, including the RCC, EOC and OOC ones. CHRISTIANS existed, but no denomination. Now, you can fight with Eastern Orthodox of various types over which one of you was that Roman Church (I doubt it was ANY of you guys) but frankly, I don't think it matters a bit. We all seem to agree a denomination was created in the Fourth Century - by Rome for Rome in Rome's image. Whether the RCC or EOC or OOC makes the best claim to be the best successor to that or not is.... frankly..... of no interest or relevance, IMO. You guys fight it out.




.