[JHavard]

Early Church historian J. N. D. Kelly, a Protestant, writes: "As regards 'Catholic' . . . in the latter half of the second century at latest, we find it conveying the suggestion that the Catholic is the true Church as distinct from heretical congregations (cf., e.g., Muratorian Canon). . . . What these early fathers were envisaging was almost always the empirical, visible society; they had little or no inkling of the distinction which was later to become important between a visible and an invisible Church" (Early Christian Doctrines, pg.190).

So this supports what I said, it was near 300AD before the term "catholic church" was used as a noun, thanks for the support.(^g^)

[Proud2BAmerican]

So this supports what I said, it was near 300AD before the term "catholic church" was used as a noun, thanks for the support.(^g^)

----

Latter half of *second* century. JH, in case you didn't know, second century refers to the 100s (not 300s). And Kelly qualifies this by saying "at the latest" -- meaning, it could have happened earlier. Whether it did or not is inconsequential - the point is that the term was used at a very early point, is not treated by Ignatius as a recent invention, and was used in response to many other heretical sects running around claiming to be Christian.

You don't see every denomination of Christianity calling themselves "The Christian Church" do you? Of coures not - we've got Southern Baptists, Methodists, Episcopalians, etc. And all the names are used to make it clear in the minds of people that this particular denomination (whatever it may be) subscribes to a certain set of beliefs. And that's where the term "Catholic" originated. And the word, in its greek form, is katholikos - kata meaning "down, completely" and "holos" meaning "whole." In other words, the name itself is meant to convey the importance of the faith held by all, in direct opposition and contradiction to the heretical sects that had sprung up in the early history of the Church. Hope this helps you.

[PayNoAttentionManBehindCurtain]

Psalm 69, A Messianic Psalm, Jesus Had next of Kin Brothers

There are many arguments pro and con concerning Jesus’ siblings. But the issue cannot be settled without examining Psalm 69, a Messianic Psalm. Jesus quotes Psalm 69:4 in John 15:25, "But they have done this in order that the word may be fulfilled that is written in their Law, ‘They hated Me without a cause.’"

He also quotes Psalm 69:9 in John 2:16-17, "and to those who were selling the doves He said, "Take these things away; stop making My Father’s house a house of merchandise." His disciples remembered that it was written, "Zeal for Thy house will consume me."

Clearly, Psalm 69 is a Messianic Psalm since Jesus quoted it in reference to Himself two times. The reason this is important is because of what is written between the verses that Jesus quoted.

To get the whole context, here is Psalm 69:4-9, "Those who hate me without a cause are more than the hairs of my head; Those who would destroy me are powerful, being wrongfully my enemies, What I did not steal, I then have to restore. 5O God, it is Thou who dost know my folly, And my wrongs are not hidden from Thee. 6May those who wait for Thee not be ashamed through me, O Lord God of hosts; May those who seek Thee not be dishonored through me, O God of Israel, 7Because for Thy sake I have borne reproach; Dishonor has covered my face. 8I have become estranged from my brothers, and an alien to my mother’s sons. 9For zeal for Thy house has consumed me, And the reproaches of those who reproach Thee have fallen on me."

This messianic Psalm clearly shows that Jesus has brothers. As Amos 3:7 says, "Surely the Lord God does nothing unless He reveals His secret counsel to His servants the prophets." God’s will has been revealed plainly in the New Testament and prophetically in the Old. Psalm 69 shows us that Jesus had brothers.

Did Mary have other children? The Bible seems to suggest yes. Catholic Tradition says no. Which will you trust?

Of course, the Catholic will simply state that even this phrase "my mother's sons" is in reference not to his siblings, but to cousins and other relatives. This is a necessary thing for the Catholic to say, otherwise, the perpetual virginity of Mary is threatened and since that contradicts Roman Catholic tradition, an interpretation that is consistent with that tradition must be adopted.

The question is, "Was Jesus estranged by His brothers?". Yes, He was. John 7:5 says "For not even His brothers were believing in Him." Furthermore, Psalm 69:8 says bother "my brothers" and "my mother's sons." Are these both to be understood as not referring to His siblings? Hardly. The Catholics are fond of saying that "brothers" must mean "cousins." But, if that is the case, then when we read "an alien to my mother's sons" we can see that the writer is adding a further distinction and narrowing the scope of meaning. In other words, Jesus was alienated by his siblings, His very half-brothers begotten from Mary.

It is sad to see the Roman Catholic church go to such lengths to maintain Mary's virginity, something that is a violation of biblical law to be married and fill the earth

BigMack

[dadwags]

3319
JH, you must be teasing .
the years 1-99 A>D. are the FIRST Century .
the years 101-200 are the SECOND century .
The years 201-300 are the THIRD century. therefore the latter half of the second century ended BEFORE 200 .