Is there One Protestant in the First Millenium?

[Montalban]

page 213

Your link doesn't go to that page.

Are you in agreement with StandingUp and myself about John of Damascus?

 

[Montalban]

okay, but I mean have you seen a post which shows that there was at least one person in the first millenium who testifies to at least two specifically Protestant interpretations?

I honestly want to know if I missed something

I'm not the one arguing that there are any

 

[Standing Up]

Your link doesn't go to that page.

Are you in agreement with StandingUp and myself about John of Damascus?

Still misrepresenting, <staff edit>

Originally Posted by Montalban

That John of Damascus said nothing new &#8211; which misses the point. That he taught the same thing as the church is in fact evidence that meets the challenge

​

I disagree with Montalban.

Now that's cleared up. You still standing by your man? He makes music (the link worked for me btw) too.

 

[Montalban]

Just curious of how your question in any way related to my response to LLoJ, that's all.

, I asked you because I don't see what your comments to LLOJ have to do with answering the OP.

 

[Montalban]

Why has one Protestant changed his mind from having first agreed with me about John of Damascus?

Also I don't get it. I mention John of Damascus is an example of EO and I'm continually asked if I still agree with that. I am not aware of having changed my mind - and in fact have noted that I have not changed my position.

I don't get this, as it's me being accused of

a) not answering a question
and
b) backtracking.

The only one who has in this is one who first agreed with me, but now says he doesn't.

And I've addressed this too, on the issue of having to 'agree' with EVERYTHING.

This has gone on for several pages, including that person denying that they've ever agreed with me (saying I'm lying) and yet I've cited them twice!!!

 

[Montalban]

But I guess my definition of a Protestant is tied into the history of Christianity, and a reaction against the excesses and corruption of the RCC, and a desire to return to a simpler faith of the early Christian community. In its five solas, what is really being rejected is an institutional church that has come to place itself in charge of the salvation of the individual.

Are you saying that Lutheranism is not an 'institutional church'? What about the C of E?

 

[Standing Up]

I'm gonna help Montalban by bumping this along.

Originally Posted by Montalban

That John of Damascus said nothing new – which misses the point. That he taught the same thing as the church is in fact evidence that meets the challenge
​

SU: Montalban will continue to misrepresent what I've said and won't be able to give a straight answer, so we'll just start with what he recently said about JoD "teaching the same thing as the church".

I'm wondering what the NT is of the EO?

Here's John of Damascus':

The New Testament contains four gospels, that according to Matthew, that according to Mark, that according to Luke, that according to John: the Acts of the Holy Apostles by Luke the Evangelist: seven catholic epistles, viz. one of James, two of Peter, three of John, one of Jude: fourteen letters of the Apostle Paul: the Revelation of John the Evangelist: the Canons of the holy apostles, by Clement.

Is the Canon of the holy apostles scripture of EO? For the church, 27 books of the NT are scripture.

Church 1, JoD 0

The point of course is JoD does not represent someone who teaches the same.

Originally Posted by Montalban

That John of Damascus said nothing new – which misses the point. That he taught the same thing as the church is in fact evidence that meets the challenge
​

SU: Montalban will continue to misrepresent what I've said and won't be able to give a straight answer, so we'll just start with what he recently said about JoD "teaching the same thing as the church".

I'm wondering what the OT is of the EO?

Here's John of Damascus':

"There are also the Panaretus, that is the Wisdom of Solomon, and the Wisdom of Jesus, which was published in Hebrew by the father of Sirach, and afterwards translated into Greek by his grandson, Jesus, the Son of Sirach. These are virtuous and noble, but are not counted nor were they placed in the ark. "

Is the Wisdom of Solomon scripture for EO? JoD says no.

Church 2, JoD 0

The point of course is JoD does not represent someone who teaches the same.

 

[SolomonVII]

Your link doesn't go to that page.

Are you in agreement with StandingUp and myself about John of Damascus?

The link is working on my computer and it goes to the page that John of Damascus says exactly what Standing Up claimed he did about EO Scripture.
The link confirmed for me that he was giving the straight goods of JoD.

As far as agreeing with either yourself or Standing Up, I am really having a hard time following the steps of that dance I would never have guessed that a duck could be so nimble on his toes, but man, you seem to be dancing all around where a simple yes or no would do.
But yea, the link to the google.ca book has the pertinent info on213 if you ever get it working.

So it is the EO position that the Wisdom of Solomon is not in the arc now too, like JoD too?

Yes?
No?

St. John of Damascus - Joseph Hirst Lupton, Society for Promoting Christian Knowledge (Great Britain). Tract Committee - Google Books

 

[Standing Up]

The link is working on my computer and it goes to the page that John of Damascus says exactly what Standing Up claimed he did about EO Scripture.
The link confirmed for me that he was giving the straight goods of JoD.

As far as agreeing with either yourself or Standing Up, I am really having a hard time following the steps of that dance I would never have guessed that a duck could be so nimble on his toes, but man, you seem to be dancing all around where a simple yes or no would do.
But yea, the link to the google.ca book has the pertinent info on213 if you ever get it working.

So it is the EO position that the Wisdom of Solomon is not in the arc now too, like JoD too?

Yes?
No?

St. John of Damascus - Joseph Hirst Lupton, Society for Promoting Christian Knowledge (Great Britain). Tract Committee - Google Books

The link works fine.

 

[Standing Up]

Here, I'll help again to bump this along so we can get past the embarrasment of someone (not me for the 1000th time) claiming John of D teaches exactly what is EO doctrine, when in fact he doesnt.

 

[Standing Up]

The link is working on my computer and it goes to the page that John of Damascus says exactly what Standing Up claimed he did about EO Scripture.
The link confirmed for me that he was giving the straight goods of JoD.

As far as agreeing with either yourself or Standing Up, I am really having a hard time following the steps of that dance I would never have guessed that a duck could be so nimble on his toes, but man, you seem to be dancing all around where a simple yes or no would do.
But yea, the link to the google.ca book has the pertinent info on213 if you ever get it working.

So it is the EO position that the Wisdom of Solomon is not in the arc now too, like JoD too?



Yes?
No?

St. John of Damascus - Joseph Hirst Lupton, Society for Promoting Christian Knowledge (Great Britain). Tract Committee - Google Books

I'd like other EO to chime in and tell us their NT contains the Canon of the Holy Apostles, like Montalban's and John of D's bible does. After all Montalban said,

Originally Posted by Montalban

That John of Damascus said nothing new – which misses the point. That he taught the same thing as the church is in fact evidence that meets the challenge
​

Nope. Not true. Doesn't meet the challenge.

 

[SolomonVII]

Are you saying that Lutheranism is not an 'institutional church'? What about the C of E?

No that wasn't what I was saying in that quote. Your question deals only with half of what I said.

The most cogent point was not about an institutional church but an institutional church that that has come to place itself in charge of the salvation of the individual..

Luther himself was really quite adamant on that point. Really he had to be. Excommunication carried with it the deep seated belief in the implication that you are cut off from the sacraments from the One True Church, and you were going to fry.
I mean we live in a very secular age now, where the psychological import of that message has become diluted with so many other competing messages that it is rather easy to just pick and choose, but for Luther, this was serious stuff.
"No salvation outside of the Catholic Church" was all about being cut off from the valid sacraments that Catholics everywhere believed that only the Catholic Church could provide. Luther was an Augustinian Catholic for the most part, until he was excommunicated. I won't go so far as to say the he wasn't a Protestants like some very highly educated Lutherans here claim, but he understood well enough the serious implications of being cut from the valid sacraments, and all that implied. That is why the priesthood of the baptised, or the priesthood of the believer became so important to him and his understanding of the more authentic faith.

 

[Montalban]

Here, for a third time is StandingUp saying that John of Damascus taught the 'catechism' - albeit the RC one

What was he 700ad? More like RC's Catechism, a summary of things that came before.

Here he is saying that John of Damscus taught nothing original.

Or did he have anything original?

Here he shows his mistake - thinking that the challenge was for the first 300 years

In any event, I thought we were looking for someone in the first 2-300 years, before Tradition was near full in bloom to be picked and placed into a vase.

Three times he has denied saying this. It's easy to correct as it's on record

 

[newbeliever02072005]

MOD HAT ON:



CLOSED FOR STAFF REVIEW



MOD HAT OFF