Who really cares what the ECF's had to say?

[LittleLambofJesus]

Dear LLOJ,

If only AV had been able to claim private revelation

Peace,

Anglian

I really do not know where AV stands but he comes up with the most stupid and illogical threads one can imagine.

http://christianforums.com/forumdisplay.php?f=70
Creation & Evolution

http://christianforums.com/showthread.php?t=7266464
My Swimming Pool Challenge

 

[Rick Otto]

I really do not know where AV stands but he comes up with the most stupid and illogical threads one can imagine.

C'mon Steve. Don't make 'em shut Christian History down for two weeks.

 

[Anglian]

Dear Rick,

Signs of ring rustiness here, but I can see you're just limbering up.

No! "You're trippin' " as they say on the street. He was referring to the authority of the written word of God. OT info prefigures NT info. It isn't like the OT is about The Cat In The Hat & the NT is about Sam I Am.
(And no, I'm not suggesting Sam I Am is a messiah figure, lol)

Yes, but Our Lord didn't drop off a book, He founded a Church which, guided by the Holy Spirit, discerned what was and was not Scripture for the NT.

Actualy the totality of it determines what the canon should be.

I fear not. What is the 'totality of it'? You only know what the totality of the NT is because the early Church decided it for you. It did not err here - as elsewhere. Our Holy Tradition includes both the Bible and those who helped elucidate both its text and its meaning; I recommend it to all Christians.

See how traditions get started?

Yes, it is all there in Holy Scripture, with Christ founding His Church and the Apostles teaching His traditions rather than the Traditions of men. I missed the reference to Our Lord telling people to ignore His oral tradition and rely only on the written one; St. Paul seems to have held a different view too.

Will most Christians go to heaven?

Not having that infallibility thing some of you chaps have, I've no idea. I'm happy to leave it to the Only Just Judge - and even if I wasn't, that's the way it's going to be. Unless some of you guys tell Him where He's going wrong, of course.

Peace be with you,

Anglian

 

[Anglian]

C'mon Steve. Don't make 'em shut Christian History down for two weeks.

On that we all concur. It is our tradition to have these friendly discussions, and we shan't be deprived of it by some newfangled rule that is of man.

Peace,

Anglian

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

C'mon Steve. Don't make 'em shut Christian History down for two weeks.

LOL. I wouldn't even be here if they didn't have GA and GT shut down and since someone brought up beamishboy, I can't see this Forum being entertaining without him

Here refers to AV-VET as "Gramps"

http://christianforums.com/showthread.php?t=7252245&page=16

Originally Posted by DarkProphet

You win on a technicality. Still, you insinuated that he was someone else.
​

That's one thing I find irritating about Gramps. Usually, his posts are very short. He usually does not commit himself. He refuses to take me on - when I want to argue with him about the Flood. For all his bravado telling science to take a hike, he can't even argue with a 13 year old. His style is this - he will ask a question rather than take a person directly on an argument. I suspect he knows he hasn't a leg to stand on. Then, he'll insinuate something and when he is cornered and he realises he's wrong, he will challenge you - where exactly did he say it categorically? I find this less than honest. For all my disagreement with atheists, I do find at least that they are more honest. I suppose it's because they don't have to hide. They've got all the evidence on their side. It's we Christians who have no evidence but have to depend on faith who will have to sneak here and there without committing ourselves - particularly if we are fundamentalists - always afraid of being caught out on a limb.

But I belong to a new generation of Christians. Gramps' style of Christianity is outdated. The new generation does not hide. We admit we have no evidence and we believe on faith alone. We accept the obvious truth of evolution. We don't wear blinkers and we don't hide all the time. Hehe.

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

Originally Posted by LittleLambofJesus

Still trying to see if there were any oral traditions before the 4th century concerning Revelation.

Luke 12:49 Fire I came to be casting upon the land and any I am willing if already it was kindled.

Reve 8:5 And has taken, the messenger, the franckincensor, and he crams-full it out of the fire of the Altar. And he casts it into the land and became thunders and sounds and lightnings and quaking

http://christianforums.com/showthread.php?t=7263327
Early ECFs and Queen/Babylon in Revelation
​

Revelation is a tough nut to crack. Good luck finding something from the 1st 4 centuries and let me know what you find.

I intend to do some study of the Apocolypse as soon as I finish 2 Corinthians. Maybe next week. In which case I hope to open a theological thread on Revelations based on what I am studying. I hope to see you around. I also need to find the thread you started where you were translating it.

The first chapter is here and I have 9 up so far.....I use the 3 main greek texts and try to use the 2 that agree.

http://christianforums.com/showthread.php?t=7167075

 

[MamaZ]

Great! Maybe this will be a surprise to you but this Scripture is speaking about the Law, Moses' Law not the whole Scripture! Notice, this "book"? or did the Jews at that time had a copy of the Bible as you have today? So do you follow only the books of Moses? That Scripture will prove Sola-Scriptura if the Jews had all the books of the OT and the NT at that time!

So my questions remain: Where in Scripture does it state that one must only follow what's in Scripture? Where in Scriptures does it say "follow only what is written in the OT and NT"?

The fact is that Scriptures does give us a list of canon books. The Church was the final and ultimate authority in this matter, thanks to the Holy Spirit guiding her. You cannot say Scriptures has the complete truth since the truth that there are 27 Books in the NT is a truth profess by the Church not Scriptures. These questions have everything to do with our discusson, but since you cannot refute this nor answer it, you label them "ridiculous questions". The Bible did not defined itself, the Church did. Apparently, Saint Paul did not agree with you, since he told the Early Christians to follow BOTH what was written and those with they hear from him ("unwritten") (2 Thes 2:15).

When are you going to answer al my questions I have given you a while back? I have ask you to answer my questions more than ten times. You can't aswer them? If so, it will be nice if you say so!

Blessings,

Ramon

This is where you know not the scripture. For ever word spoken from God is Gods law.. Not just the 10 commandments.. Just as God said to Adam and Eve Do not eat of the fruit . Just like when God said be fruituful and mulitiply.. Just as when God said This is my beloved Son.. It is all Gods Law. Every word spoken is Gods Law.

 

[MamaZ]

So when the Church profess that there are 27 Books in the NT, where is that in Scriptures? Where does Scripture give a Canon List of books to be accepted as Scriptures?

The fact is that no Scripture teach Sola-Scriptura. The Early Christians follow what the Apostles taught them either through written form or unwritten form (2 Thes 2:15).

Where is Scripture does it state that everything must be verify from the Holy Bible?

Blessings,
Ramon

IT is funny that you say sola scriptura is not in the bible but yet turn around and pick a scripture out of the bible out of context by the way to use it to uphold your tradtions.. It is also amazing to me that you will say it is the church that is responsible for the cannon of scripture but yet don't believe in what is written inside the scripture as having authority in what should be uphold as truth as the church is suppose to be doing.. Amazing

 

[Montalban]

Montalban,
I speak in the only language you guys are allowed to interpret...

Well you misrepresented what the ECFs said on the matter, anyway. I've addressed this. You've ignored it.

I nearly vomit at the ends to which a degradation of the sufficiency of scripture is promoted by tradition based RELIGIONS.

We try to speak 'your language' and ask where Scripture itself says itself is sufficient, and you won't answer.

So you don't have the ECFs proving your point, and you don't have Scripture, what then do you have?

 

[Montalban]

Your churches! NOT the "Church"

Where then was 'the Church' practicing 'right faith' for 1,500 years?

 

[Montalban]

SIMPLE QUESTION

If the fathers differ from each other and from scripture, HOW do you guys decide which writings to accept and which to deny?

Ah, so, unable to answer our questions you decide to raise a new question. Good tactic.

 

[Montalban]

Dear Simon,
Having failed to show where, in Scripture, it defines itself, I can quite understand your wishing to shift the focus of this discussion, but it really is about the ECFs, not about the Councils.

Each of the Apostolic Churches recognises those Councils to which it was invited as Ecumenical; each of them recognizes that much edification is to be had from the ones to which they were excluded; none of them claims personal infallibility.

Peace,

Anglian

I'm glad you spotted this attempt at goal-shifting too!

 

[Montalban]

Great so now we are in agreement to these exact points, why care what they have to say? why not just go back to the holy scriptures both OT and NT?
It is the COMPLETE deposit of faith.

Compelte? Read the last verse of the Gospel of John

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

Originally Posted by simonthezealot SIMPLE QUESTION

If the fathers differ from each other and from scripture, HOW do you guys decide which writings to accept and which to deny?

Sounds like the makings of a new thread

 

[Montalban]

Again, where in Scriptures does it state that it is the complete deposit of Faith? Where in Scriptures does it state that Scriptures is the only thing we must follow? You have yet to answer these questions. The Canon was put together by the Church, under the guidance of the Holy Spirit!

In fact the last verse of the Gospel of John (generally held to be the last Gospel written) says not everything was written down

John 20:30 Jesus did many other miraculous signs in the presence of his disciples, which are not recorded in this book. 31 But these are written that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that by believing you may have life in his name.

I note again that Paul himself cited a hymn not recorded in the Gospels!

 

[Montalban]

Sounds like the makings of a new thread

Indeed, it is. Unable to answer us, he suddenly switches topic.

 

[Montalban]

I am not playing coy...Its a ridiculous question...Get beyond it!

So the idea of sola scriptura is not to be found in Scripture. What then tells you to use only scripture?

And, if you use something other than scripture, how is it you can have something else other than scripture say 'use only scripture'?

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

In fact the last verse of the Gospel of John (generally held to be the last Gospel written) says not everything was written down

John 20:30 Jesus did many other miraculous signs in the presence of his disciples, which are not recorded in this book. 31 But these are written that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that by believing you may have life in his name.

I note again that Paul himself cited a hymn not recorded in the Gospels!

Hi. So when a prophecy is mentioned concerning ALL that is written, what does that generally mean? Do we have to go searching all the books and writings that have ever been written to know what is being fulfilled that was Written? Just curious.

Luke 21:22 That days of vengeance/out-justing these are, of the to be filled all the having been written/gegrammena <1125> (5772).

Revelation 1:3 Blessed the one reading/anaginwskwn <314> (5723), and the ones hearing, the Words of the Prophecy, and keepings in it/her having been written/gegrammena <1125> (5772), for the Time Is-Near/egguV <1451>.

 

[MamaZ]

Indeed, it is. Unable to answer us, he suddenly switches topic.

we have answered you the fact is that sola scriptura is not as you reprent it to be. LOL .Scripture is sufficient. Meaning that we do not need to go outside of scripture and in fact we should not go beyond scripture for things pertaining to faith.. Not all things were written down but what has been written down is sufficient to make us complete in Christ. When the Perfect comes we know all we need to know in all things. As of now all we need now is written in the scriptures and anything that goes in contadiction to the written we take the written in authority over tradition because it is the written that is binding.

 

[Montalban]

Is that a new topic? I ask because that is not Sola Scriptura.
Sola Scriptura is just a method of using scripture to verify the truth of what is being offered from any source as spiritual truth. As a method, it is illustrated best by the Bereans, but it is also alluded to by the scripturaly popular saying "It is written".
Look how many times that phrase is used in scripture, especialy by Jesus. Then compare it to the number of times you see "It is said" or "Have you not heard" and subtract the number of times "Have you not heard " is referring to something that has been written.

But Jesus spoke to us, that is, he taught by word of mouth. He also says "Have you not heard it 'said'"
1. Matthew 5:21
[ Murder ] "You have heard that it was said to the people long ago, 'Do not murder, and anyone who murders will be subject to judgment.'

2. Matthew 5:27
[ Adultery ] "You have heard that it was said, 'Do not commit adultery.'

3. Matthew 5:33
[ Oaths ] "Again, you have heard that it was said to the people long ago, 'Do not break your oath, but keep the oaths you have made to the Lord.'

4. Matthew 5:38
[ An Eye for an Eye ] "You have heard that it was said, 'Eye for eye, and tooth for tooth.'

5. Matthew 5:43
[ Love for Enemies ] "You have heard that it was said, 'Love your neighbor and hate your enemy.'

So the point still is, where have you 'read' that you should only 'read' the truth?