the first Church.

[1edyson]

I just listened to the entire Stapes v. Gregg Debate (great by the way) and this thread is sounding more and more like the debate, as far as semantics, and hermeneutics to the word “priest”

 

[happilycatholic]

For those who do not believe that the catholic Church is the True Church, I have a challenge:

Christ told His Apostles what they bound on earth would be bound in Heaven and what they loosed on earth would be loosed in Heaven.

If “the church” looses something unfavorable to God, who does God reprimand? Christ said His Church must be visible. Why? Who does God hold accountable for loosing that which is unfavorable to Him? Christ did not say the Church would be perfect so what about sins within the Magestrate or the Priesthood or just plain bad decisions? Who answers for those? If the True Church were the body of believers, who would be held accountable for mistakes made by the Church?

I’ve thought about this quite a bit and it seems to me that when Christ told His Apostles what he did, he was not just giving them authority. He was also laying down the law, so-to-speak. He was telling them that they were left with a certain responsibility and with that comes accountablility. Christ would have to know His Church and be able to watch it throughout its earthly exsistance and ultimately hold it accountable when the time comes. Christ cannot do that with 40,000 denoms and a million preachers, all preaching different things and different beliefs. There must be a visable church, one church, with authority but not just for the sake of authority, for the sake of accountability. There must be one set of laws, that may evolve with the guidance of the Holy Spirit and a shepard in place to oversee all. That would be the catholic Church.

Now ask me what I think about what is “loosed” in Heaven…

HC

 

[jam070406]

Constantine moved the capital of the empire to Constantinople but always supported the Bishop of Rome.

The Church in Rome had a place of honor as being the location of Peter and Paul’s martyrdom. It was considered the greatest of the Apostolic Sees and where the successor of Peter resided. It wasn’t because of some political power. (which was moved to Constantinople)
Constantine was also an Arian which was in opposition to what Rome was teaching, and preserved. So your argument against Rome for the reasons you stated don’t work for you.

 

[wisdomseeker]

As has been stated, the church was in existence before the scriptures…the accepted scriptures reflect the beliefs of what became the dominant church…it is no big surprise the group which gained dominance chose those writings which agreed with them and then declared all who disagreed with them “heretic”.

There was no monolithic “christian” body in those first centuries. What became the “orthodox/catholic” was one of many groups that sought to claim direct decent from the apostles. The myth of apostolic succession and the writings of the ECF’s bolstered this claim. Those called “orthodox” became the dominant group of the people called Christians.

I’m sure you’ll be able to find sources on the Ebionites.

the myth of apostoloc succession? are you serious? we know that not everything has been written in Scriptures, but we can see some of that written. are you implying that christianity was not suppost to continue after the apostles?

 

[jam070406]

As has been stated, the church was in existence before the scriptures…the accepted scriptures reflect the beliefs of what became the dominant church…it is no big surprise the group which gained dominance chose those writings which agreed with them and then declared all who disagreed with them “heretic”.

There was no monolithic “christian” body in those first centuries. What became the “orthodox/catholic” was one of many groups that sought to claim direct decent from the apostles. The myth of apostolic succession and the writings of the ECF’s bolstered this claim. Those called “orthodox” became the dominant group of the people called Christians.

I’m sure you’ll be able to find sources on the Ebionites.

And what of the Arians?

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

No, I don’t believe the CC was the “first” chruch. From what I read in Acts it was a very Jewish group of people with very Jewish beliefs in Jerusalem headed by James. Since Acts was written 30-40 years after the establishment of this local group of believers, of who later came to be called “Christians”, there was a definite “proto-orthodox” slant to the story, but those who came to be called “Ebionites” were the “first” Christians.

**

Ebionites

(possibly Aramean, ebionia, poor men)

Term used to designate two early Christian sects infected with Judaistic and Gnostic errors.

(1) Judaistic Ebionites upheld the observance of the Jewish Law; denied the Divinity and virgin birth of Christ; considered Saint Paul an apostate; and used only a Gospel according to Saint Matthew.

(2) Ebionite Gnostics taught that matter is external, and an emanation of the Deity, that it constitutes, as it were, God’s body. Creation, therefore, is but the transformation of preexisting material. God thus “creates” the Universe by the instrumentality of His wisdom. They also held that the universe is divided into two realms, that of good and that of evil. The Son of God rules over the former, and the Prince of Evil over the latter. Both teachings were confined to the East and made no definite impression upon the philosophy of their time. Nothing is known of their founders.**

 

[meandean]

********dear non Catholics i was arguing with my friend, i believe she is an assembly of God, she told me all about the CC as she believes. after i made some points to her about her false beliefs, she came to acknowledge that the CC was the first Church.

any of you have the same belief? explain how did you come to this conclusion? that the CC was the first Church? what is the second church?
i believe the catholic church was the first to split from the true church.

All the heretics, therefore, come against the Church; but while all the heretics can conquer each other, they can win nothing for themselves. For their victory is the triumph of the Church over all of them. One heresy struggles against that teaching of another, which the faith of the Church has already condemned in the other heresy, - for there is nothing which the heretics hold in common, ’ and the result is that they affirm our faith while fighting among themselves."
Saint Hilary of Poitiers… The Trinity, 7:4, 356 A.D… Jurgens 865

 

[7_Sorrows]

Really? Then how do you explain the authority given to Peter by Christ who mentions “His church”. Read:

Matthew 16:18
1Timothy 3:15
Mathew 18:15-18
Ephesians 3:10
1Corinthians 14:12
Acts 20:28, KJV

Remember the church was in existence before the bible. There is only ONE TRUE CHURCH, the Catholic church. (Why can’t others see this, for it is so clearly written in Scripture).

i think the eastern orthodox church (not exactly sure what they call themselves) also believe they are the first church and that Rome was a split from them.

 

[Publisher]

the myth of apostoloc succession? are you serious? we know that not everything has been written in Scriptures, but we can see some of that written. are you implying that christianity was not suppost to continue after the apostles?

No, I’m saying it is Friend’s belief that one set of rituals and rites was not substituted for a different set of rituals and rites. It is Friend’s belief that in Christ each of us shares in his priesthood to direct access to God without any need of a human intermediary like a priest…each of us IS a priest to go to God directly…no one is required to perform a ritual or ordinance on our behalf to find wholeness and forgiveness of sin.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

No, I’m saying it is Friend’s belief that one set of rituals and rites was not substituted for a different set of rituals and rites. It is Friend’s belief that in Christ each of us shares in his priesthood to direct access to God without any need of a human intermediary like a priest…each of us IS a priest to go to God directly…no one is required to perform a ritual or ordinance on our behalf to find wholeness and forgiveness of sin.

It is true, we all are called to a royal priesthood, to share the gospel. There is no doubt, however, that there was an Apostolic succession as described in the Bible, with different offices and there was a specific imposition of hands on those chosen. Christ breathed upon the Apostles and they used the imposition of hands.

**(DRB) And I dispose to you, as my Father hath disposed to me, a kingdom;

(IGNT+) καγωG2504 AND I διατιθεμαιG1303 [G5731] APPOINT υμινG5213 TO YOU, καθωςG2531 AS διεθετοG1303 [G5639] APPOINTED μοιG3427 οG3588 TO ME πατηρG3962 μουG3450 MY FATHER, βασιλειανG932 A KINGDOM,**

Luk 22:32 But I have prayed for thee, that thy faith fail not: and thou, being once converted, confirm thy brethren.

**Eph 4:11 And he gave some apostles, and some prophets, and other some evangelists, and other some pastors and doctors:

1Ti 3:1 A faithful saying: If a man desire the office of a bishop, he desireth good work.
1Ti 3:8 Deacons in like manner: chaste, not double tongued, not given to much wine, not greedy of filthy lucre:
1Ti 5:17 Let the priests that rule well be esteemed worthy of double honour: especially they who labour in the word and doctrine.

Tit 1:5 For this cause I left thee in Crete: that thou shouldest set in order the things that are wanting and shouldest ordain priests in every city, as I also appointed thee:**

1Co 12:28 And God indeed hath set some in the church; first apostles, secondly prophets, thirdly doctors: after that miracles: then the graces of healings, helps, governments, kinds of tongues, interpretations of speeches.
1Co 12:29 Are all apostles? Are all prophets? Are all doctors?

**Act 1:20 For it is written in the book of Psalms: Let their habitation become desolate, and let there be none to dwell therein. And his bishopric let another take.

Act 1:25 To take the place of this ministry and apostleship, from which Judas hath by transgression fallen, that he might go to his own place.
Act 1:26 And they gave them lot, and the lot fell upon Matthias, and he was numbered with the eleven apostles.

1Ti 3:1 A faithful saying: If a man desire the office of a bishop, he desireth good work.

1Ti 3:8 Deacons in like manner: chaste, not double tongued, not given to much wine, not greedy of filthy lucre:

1Ti 5:17 Let the priests that rule well be esteemed worthy of double honour: especially they who labour in the word and doctrine.

1Ti 4:14 Neglect not the grace that is in thee, which was given thee by prophecy, with imposition of the hands of the priesthood.

1Ti 5:22 Impose not hands lightly upon any man, neither be partaker of other men’s sins. Keep thyself chaste.

Act 14:23 (14:22) And when they had ordained to them priests in every church and had prayed with fasting, they commended them to the Lord, in whom they believed.

2Ti 2:2 And the things which thou hast heard of me by many witnesses, the same commend to faithful men who shall be fit to teach others also.**

 

[wisdomseeker]

No, I’m saying it is Friend’s belief that one set of rituals and rites was not substituted for a different set of rituals and rites. It is Friend’s belief that in Christ each of us shares in his priesthood to direct access to God without any need of a human intermediary like a priest…each of us IS a priest to go to God directly…no one is required to perform a ritual or ordinance on our behalf to find wholeness and forgiveness of sin.

is it what the apostles tought to everyone? is it what Jesus said?

 

[wisdomseeker]

It is true, we all are called to a royal priesthood, to share the gospel. There is no doubt, however, that there was an Apostolic succession as described in the Bible, with different offices and there was a specific imposition of hands on those chosen. Christ breathed upon the Apostles and they used the imposition of hands.

**(DRB) And I dispose to you, as my Father hath disposed to me, a kingdom;

(IGNT+) καγωG2504 AND I διατιθεμαιG1303 [G5731] APPOINT** υμινG5213 TO YOU, καθωςG2531 AS διεθετοG1303 [G5639] APPOINTED μοιG3427 οG3588 TO ME πατηρG3962 μουG3450 MY FATHER, βασιλειανG932 A KINGDOM,

Luk 22:32 But I have prayed for thee, that thy faith fail not: and thou, being once converted, confirm thy brethren.

**Eph 4:11 And he gave some apostles, and some prophets, and other some evangelists, and other some pastors and doctors:

1Ti 3:1 A faithful saying: If a man desire the office of a bishop, he desireth good work.
1Ti 3:8 Deacons in like manner: chaste, not double tongued, not given to much wine, not greedy of filthy lucre:
1Ti 5:17 Let the priests that rule well be esteemed worthy of double honour: especially they who labour in the word and doctrine.

Tit 1:5 For this cause I left thee in Crete: that thou shouldest set in order the things that are wanting and shouldest ordain priests in every city, as I also appointed thee:**

1Co 12:28 And God indeed hath set some in the church; first apostles, secondly prophets, thirdly doctors: after that miracles: then the graces of healings, helps, governments, kinds of tongues, interpretations of speeches.
1Co 12:29 Are all apostles? Are all prophets? Are all doctors?

**Act 1:20 For it is written in the book of Psalms: Let their habitation become desolate, and let there be none to dwell therein. And his bishopric let another take.

Act 1:25 To take the place of this ministry and apostleship, from which Judas hath by transgression fallen, that he might go to his own place.
Act 1:26 And they gave them lot, and the lot fell upon Matthias, and he was numbered with the eleven apostles.

1Ti 3:1 A faithful saying: If a man desire the office of a bishop, he desireth good work.

1Ti 3:8 Deacons in like manner: chaste, not double tongued, not given to much wine, not greedy of filthy lucre:

1Ti 5:17 Let the priests that rule well be esteemed worthy of double honour: especially they who labour in the word and doctrine.

1Ti 4:14 Neglect not the grace that is in thee, which was given thee by prophecy, with imposition of the hands** of the priesthood.

1Ti 5:22 Impose not hands lightly upon any man, neither be partaker of other men’s sins. Keep thyself chaste.

Act 14:23 (14:22) And when they had ordained to them priests in every church and had prayed with fasting, they commended them to the Lord, in whom they believed.

2Ti 2:2 And the things which thou hast heard of me by many witnesses, the same commend to faithful men who shall be fit to teach others also.

i dont they can understand this. they read the Bible as if everything that is said it is said to them.

 

[Harpazo]

OTCA yes the universal church is the catholic church. The church that all Christ followers are part of. Catholics are not derived from St. Peter they are derived from Christ. We are followers of Christ not Peter.

As far as my religion I am a Christian. My church is a Christian church that adheres to Apostolic teachings. As far as going to the catacombs no I have not been there but I see no relevance with writings on the walls. What is that supposed to prove? With regard to the Orthodox I think you mis-stated your point. The Orthodox broke off in 1054 but certainly were not in unity with the pope afterward. Perhaps you meant to say broke off and became Orthodox in dis-unity with the pope. Actually this overall is a false statement. The church always considered itself catholic in nature and orthodox in it’s beliefs. The orthodox did not break off and become orthodox. They were already orthodox to begin with.

Christ is risen!

I will probably get a lot of flack for saying this, but truer words were ne’er spoken. Are you a closet Orthodox?

In Christ,
Andrew

 

[JohnVIII]

Acts 2:42

They [the first Church] were continually devoting themselves to the apostles’ teaching and to fellowship, to the breaking of bread and to prayer.

 

[Volodymyr]

EARLY CHRISTIAN CHURCH

This is a very difficult discussion since both what is now called Orthodoxy and what is now called Catolicism can be traced to early church. Whether you feel Orthodox left Catolics or Catolics moved from Orthodox depends upon your belief in one church or other. However, there are many ways so that Orthodox church is more like early church than modern Roman Catolic church:

1. Bishop of each community chosen from community and approved by Metropolitan of province This is system of Orthodoxy. Catolicism has adopted such principal of universal rule of Bishop of Rome - so he must appoint bishops of all communities from Shanghai China to Seattle America. This universal rule was not found in early church.
2. Church gathered to celebrate Holy Eucharist with priests, diacons. Diacons have always remained vital part of Orthodox liturgy. Until after Council Vatikan 2, deacons had virtually disppeared from Catolicism, seen only as a “step” to priesthood. Catolicism has returned to diakons this is a return to Orthodox practice.
3. Decisions of local church were made by local councils headed by metropolitan as seen in Karfagena, Byzantia, Aleksandria, etc. These still are continuing in Orthodoxy. Local councils have ceased to function in Catolicism since Vatikan Sobor One.
4. Bishop was head of his church and Bishop was representing Jesus Christ to his community. This is still true in Orthodoxy. Now bishops in Catolic church are representatives of Bishop of Rome who can intervene in their community, remove them; thus making it obvious they are not the ultimate representative of Jesus Christ to their community - even if this is still stated in Catechisis of Catolicism.

 

[wisdomseeker]

EARLY CHRISTIAN CHURCH

This is a very difficult discussion since both what is now called Orthodoxy and what is now called Catolicism can be traced to early church. Whether you feel Orthodox left Catolics or Catolics moved from Orthodox depends upon your belief in one church or other. However, there are many ways in such Orthodox church is more like early church than modern Roman Catolic church:

1. Bishop of each community chosen from community and approved by Metropolitan of province This is system of Orthodoxy. Catolicism has adopted such principal of universal rule of Bishop of Rome - so he must appoint bishops of all communities from Shanghai China to Seattle America. This universal rule was not found in early church.
2. Church gathered to celebrate Holy Eucharist with priests, diacons. D3.eacons have always remained vital part of Orthodox liturgy. Until after Council Vatikan 2, deacons had virtually disppeared from Catolicism, seen only as a “step” to priesthood. Catolicism has returned to diakons this is a return to Orthodox practice.
3. Decisions of local church were made by local councils headed by metropolitan as seen in Karfagena, Byzantia, Aleksandria, etc. These still are continuing in Orthodoxy. Local councils have ceased to function in Catolicism since Vatikan Sobor One.
4. Bishop was head of his church and Bishop was representing Jesus Christ to his community. This is still true in Orthodoxy. Now bishops in Catolic church are representatives of Bishop of Rome who can intervene in their community, remove them; thus making it obvious they are not the ultimate representative of Jesus Christ to their community - even if this is still stated in Catechisis of Catolicism.

and where is St Peter in all this?

 

[guanophore]

The first church was not the Catholic church as it is known today. They never referred to themselves as Catholic only Christian

Certainly the Church has grown from a small mustard seed into a large tree, and I can understand why many do not recognize it. I did not either, until I started studying the ers Fathers.

I am not at all sure that the disciples chose “Christian” for themselves, either. Scripture notes that they were “first called Christians” in Antioch. Prior to that, they were referred to as followers of “The Way”.

However, the Church was described as Catholic at least a century before we find this same descriptor used in the writing of Ignatius. We see this description used in the book of Acts:

Acts 9:31

31 So the** church throughout** all Judea and Galilee and Sama’ria had peace and was built up; and walking in the fear of the Lord and in the comfort of the Holy Spirit it was multiplied.

The “church throughout” comes from the Greek “catholic church”. It is a reference to the universality of the Church. It was considered the same throughout the whole world.

Ignatius was the first to use the term catholic or katholicos which simply means universal in saying wherever Christ is there is the universal church. What eventually became known as the catholic church was as a result of those who separated themselves from the beliefs that seemed contrary to what the original church believed i.e. the deity of Christ, the relationship between Jesus, the Holy Spirit, and GOD etc. etc. Actually Christians who believed in the doctrine of the trinity were referred to as Nicene Christians.

ND, you are missing a few centuries of history, and some critical heresies.

The Roman Catholic church came much later and was more a result of politics than anything. The Bishop of Rome wanted to consolidate all powers of the church to Rome./quote]

I agree that the Latin Rite was one of the later Catholic Rites to develop, and that economics and politics soon divided it from the Eastern Rites that preceeded it. It was this division that eventually grew into the Schism. However, that it grist for another thread!

It was not the Bishop of Rome, though, that wanted to consolidate power. When the Emperor decided to move the seat from Rome to Constantinople, there was no other structure, civil or religious, with sufficient organization to govern the territory. He gave temporal authority to the Bishop of Rome. This mixing of temporal and spiritual authority, in my opinion, was the beginning of the eventual downfall that precipitated the Reformation.
NDfan;5196870:

Given Rome was the center of the Empire it made sense that it would happen but not without opposition from other prominent Bishops. If anything I would say the first church was truly the Orthodox church.

You are on to something about the Orthodox. There was no separation between the two for a thousand years, which is a testimony to the unity of doctrine and practice. The Orthodox accept the Apostolic definition of the True Church as One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic. These are the marks of the true church.

 

[guanophore]

OTCA yes the universal church is the catholic church. The church that all Christ followers are part of. Catholics are not derived from St. Peter they are derived from Christ. We are followers of Christ not Peter.

This is a very good illustration of how Protestantism exists. You see, Jesus declared that He would build His One Church on Peter. He then did so, using as a foundation the Apostles and Prophets. There is no separation between them, for what God has joined, man cannot put asunder. God is the one who builds the Church, and He chose to build it that way. For a person to say “not Peter” is the same as the eye saying to the hand “I have no need of you”. Jesus is the one who decided to build it this way, so to refuse what He has built it an ulitmate “protest”.

As far as my religion I am a Christian. My church is a Christian church that adheres to Apostolic teachings. As far as going to the catacombs no I have not been there but I see no relevance with writings on the walls. What is that supposed to prove?

God forbid that you might supplement your knowledge with actual history.

With regard to the Orthodox I think you mis-stated your point. The Orthodox broke off in 1054 but certainly were not in unity with the pope afterward. Perhaps you meant to say broke off and became Orthodox in dis-unity with the pope. Actually this overall is a false statement. The church always considered itself catholic in nature and orthodox in it’s beliefs. The orthodox did not break off and become orthodox. They were already orthodox to begin with.

There was a breaking, but it was equally belonging to both sides. It was largely political, economic, and cultural. It is a sad fact that the sins of men create divisions in the Body. God, however, the builder and maintainer of the Church, is healing this schism day by day.

You are also right that it was unity with the Successor of Peter, appointed by Christ, that was one of the main factors in the separation. The Orthodox seemed to believe that the Pope had gotten too big for his britches.

 

[Volodymyr]

and where is St Peter in all this?

Apostol Peter in Antioch, then with Paul in Rome. St. Mark is in Aleksandria. St. Toma to India. St. Simon Kananite to bishop of Nikopia.St. Bartolomei bishop in Al’ban near now Baku. St. Tadius was in Armenia.

All had their place - Christian church was Apostolic - even Catolics say this, it was never called such things Petrine.

 

[guanophore]

As has been stated, the church was in existence before the scriptures…the accepted scriptures reflect the beliefs of what became the dominant church…

I am not reallly sure if it matters, but I think it might be more accurate to say that the Scriptures reflect the beliefs of what was already the “dominant” Church. I think dominant is a bad word, though. The only reason there are scriptures, and they are preserved, it because the Spirit of God inspired them, and led the Church founded by Christ to canonize them. This was part of Christ’s promise to lead them into all Truth.

it is no big surprise the group which gained dominance chose those writings which agreed with them and then declared all who disagreed with them “heretic”.

I agree. Jesus gave the Apostles the responsibility to Teach, and placed them on the Seat of Moses. (authoritative instruction). He then revealed to them all that they needed to perform this function. The church was built up (gained dominance) because of the HS.

There was no monolithic “christian” body in those first centuries.

What do you mean by “monolithic”? It was spread all over the known world…

What became the “orthodox/catholic” was one of many groups that sought to claim direct decent from the apostles.

NO, Publisher, the orthodox/catholic was, indeed, the group that descended from the Apostles directly. This is what made them orthodox/catholic!

We can see very early how the structure put in place by the Apostles held the true Church together during the heresies.

“Since, however, it would be very tedious, in such a volume as this, to reckon up the successions of all the Churches, we do put to confusion all those who, in whatever manner, whether by an evil self-pleasing, by vainglory, or by blindness and perverse opinion, assemble in unauthorized meetings; [we do this, I say,] by indicating that tradition derived from the apostles, of the very great, the very ancient, and universally known Church founded and organized at Rome by the two most glorious apostles, Peter and Paul; as also [by pointing out] the faith preached to men, which comes down to our time by means of the successions of the bishops. For it is a matter of necessity that every Church should agree with this Church, on account of its pre- eminent authority, that is, the faithful everywhere, inasmuch as the apostolical tradition has been preserved continuously by those [faithful men] who exist everywhere.” Irenaeus, Against Heresies, 3:3:2 (A.D. 180).

“And he says to him again after the resurrection, ‘Feed my sheep.’ It is on him that he builds the Church, and to him that he entrusts the sheep to feed. And although he assigns a like power to all the apostles, yet he founded a single Chair, thus establishing by his own authority the source and hallmark of the (Church’s) oneness. No doubt the others were all that Peter was, but a primacy is given to Peter, and it is (thus) made clear that there is but one flock which is to be fed by all the apostles in common accord. If a man does not hold fast to this oneness of Peter, does he imagine that he still holds the faith? If he deserts the Chair of Peter upon whom the Church was built, has he still confidence that he is in the Church? This unity firmly should we hold and maintain, especially we bishops, presiding in the Church, in order that we may approve the episcopate itself to be the one and undivided.” Cyprian, The Unity of the Church, 4-5 (A.D. 251-256).

“Philip, presbyter and legate of the Apostolic See, said: There is no doubt, and in fact it has been known in all ages, that the holy and most blessed Peter, prince and head of the apostles, pillar of the faith, and foundation of the Catholic Church, received the keys of the kingdom from our Lord Jesus Christ, the Saviour and Redeemer of the human race, and that to him was given the power of loosing and binding sins: Our holy and most blessed Pope Celestine the bishop is according to due order his successor and holds his place…Accordingly the decision of all churches is firm, for the priests of the eastern and western churches are present…Wherefore Nestorius knows that he is alienated from the communion of the priests of the Catholic Church.” Council of Ephesus, Session III (A.D. 431).

The myth of apostolic succession and the writings of the ECF’s bolstered this claim. Those called “orthodox” became the dominant group of the people called Christians.

I can see why it would be important for you to disregard the evidence of history when it comes to the apostolic succession, relegating it to a “myth” in your onw mind. I do not find my experience uncommon, that when one who was taugth it was a “myth” begins to study history and discovers that history reflects that the Apostolic Succession actually existed then, and now. Such a one then would be obligated to come back into unity with the Church founded by Christ. If you keep all the evidence at arms length, perhaps you can avoid the inevitable?

I’m sure you’ll be able to find sources on the Ebionites.

I am sure one could, but since you forwarded the postulation, it is incumbent upon you to back yourself up. Let us see what you have.