Early Church

[OrthodoxyUSA]

Doesn't make your opinion any more valid in what is and isn't christian either. Questioning someone's christianity is a violation of the rules if I understand correctly. You might want to consider how you say things in the future Orthodoxy.

Feel free to report me...

I said that his (Tangible) formula for absolution was Christian.

I did not challenge anyones christianity.

You laid the challenge that "anything goes".

That is not Christian, and this is a Christian board.

I've been here since 2004... I know the rules.

Forgive me...

 

[IreneAdler]

I never said anything goes. I said God makes a way for us all. and "his beliefs are christian" implies that other's beliefs are not. skating a fine line.

 

[OrthodoxyUSA]

All right, I apologize for the "anything goes" portion.

God made a way for us all. We are to follow.

I believe you are in direct denial of the "authority" given to the office of Bishop.

BTW ~ It's The Church's opinion. And yes, that makes it valid.

Forgive me...

 

[IreneAdler]

I believe that bishop isn't a real office in christ (not that I believe there are formal offices anyway), so we're in agreement that I don't believe in his authority.

and I don't believe the "church" you speak of is valid, so no, it doesn't really lend any validity in my opinion and in some others who don't recognize it's authority either.

 

[cobweb]

There was a definite structure within the Church in the 1st century which included bishops. Ignatius of Antioch writes about it (martyred 108 AD)

 

[IreneAdler]

I appreciate your belief systems but they're not mine and the validity of those participating in it as spiritual sages is not valid in my mind either. It's wonderful if it's your personal place and belief, but I don't believe it in any way applies to me or chistendom as a whole.

 

[laconicstudent]

Acts 6.1-7

1And in those days, when the number of the disciples was multiplied, there arose a murmuring of the Grecians against the Hebrews, because their widows were neglected in the daily ministration.
2Then the twelve called the multitude of the disciples unto them, and said, It is not reason that we should leave the word of God, and serve tables.
3Wherefore, brethren, look ye out among you seven men of honest report, full of the Holy Ghost and wisdom, whom we may appoint over this business.
4But we will give ourselves continually to prayer, and to the ministry of the word.
5And the saying pleased the whole multitude: and they chose Stephen, a man full of faith and of the Holy Ghost, and Philip, and Prochorus, and Nicanor, and Timon, and Parmenas, and Nicolas a proselyte of Antioch:
6Whom they set before the apostles: and when they had prayed, they laid their hands on them.
7And the word of God increased; and the number of the disciples multiplied in Jerusalem greatly; and a great company of the priests were obedient to the faith.

If there is no structure, why did the Apostles instruct everyone else to assemble, deliver instructions, and then ordain them? There appears to be a definite hierarchy.


Oh, also, I see priests.

 

[IreneAdler]

could it just be that that's what happened and not what's "set into law" for the rest of time being? give me a break. They were busy and needed help. That doesn't mean it sets up never ending offices.

 

[Tangible]

I see priests.

Do they know they're priests?

 

[cobweb]

I appreciate your belief systems but they're not mine and the validity of those participating in it as spiritual sages is not valid in my mind either. It's wonderful if it's your personal place and belief, but I don't believe it in any way applies to me or chistendom as a whole.

So let me get this straight...

You believe that God guided them in the 4th century to set the Canon of Scripture, but you don't trust the writings of a 1st century disciple of John to accurately record what they believed?

 

[IreneAdler]

No. I don't believe that they were guided by God to set the cannon of scripture. No, I don't believe your interpretation of what John wrote is correct.

 

[Musa80]

No. I don't believe that they were guided by God to set the cannon of scripture. No, I don't believe your interpretation of what John wrote is correct.

It might be immensely helpful if you might outline those things you DO believe which somehow resemble Christianity. As it's going so far here, everyone is making assumptions based on very basic Christian understandings and you're just declaring one by one what YOU don't believe.

 

[IreneAdler]

No, you're outlining protestant and catholic understandings, which aren't exclusively christian in and of themselves.

 

[laconicstudent]

Neither of the ones you are talking to are either Protestant or RC, but you'll be hard pressed to find a Church that denies the NT canon.

 

[mont974x4]

When people speak of the early church why do they only go back to 367 or so?

If they went back farther they would have to dump half their pet doctrines and find a new church.

 

[Musa80]

If they went back farther they would have to dump half their pet doctrines and find a new church.

Yep. So much better to just do away with all babies and all bathwater and make up your own pet doctrines. I'm thinkin Sola-(insert unapostolic, unbiblical doctrine here)

 

[IreneAdler]

Neither of the ones you are talking to are either Protestant or RC, but you'll be hard pressed to find a Church that denies the NT canon.

lol, I've found a church that doesn't even call it that. B'rit Hadashah is more appropriate since these books are just a continuation of the Tanakh, like the Torah and the Prophets are part of it. It is a continued contract/covenant, not a will or testament as calling it the new testament implies. As for the cannon... even the cannon of the Tanakh was set relatively recently in term of time of God's people (445 BCE) and are debated such as Dani'el and Yechezk'el (Daniel and Ezekiel). So in no way is the cannon set in stone, even in Judaism... so to think it is now is just... silly.. considering all the versions of the bible, inclusions and exclusions in even the B'rit Hadashah

If they went back farther they would have to dump half their pet doctrines and find a new church.

 

[bugkiller]

lol, I've found a church that doesn't even call it that. B'rit Hadashah is more appropriate since these books are just a continuation of the Tanakh, like the Torah and the Prophets are part of it. It is a continued contract/covenant, not a will or testament as calling it the new testament implies. As for the cannon... even the cannon of the Tanakh was set relatively recently in term of time of God's people (445 BCE) and are debated such as Dani'el and Yechezk'el (Daniel and Ezekiel). So in no way is the cannon set in stone, even in Judaism... so to think it is now is just... silly.. considering all the versions of the bible, inclusions and exclusions in even the B'rit Hadashah

So what do you think of Mat 26:28 'For this is My blood of the new testament, which is shed for many for the remission of sins?'

bugkiller

 

[Montalban]

I do not believe that a man can obsolve any other man of their sin.. Christ did that at the Cross.

Jesus said we should forgive each other.

But before we go off on ideas of forgiveness, getting back to what we learn from scripture, do you think John had unimportant things to say?

1 John 1: 13 I had many things to write, but I will not with ink and pen write unto thee:

14 But I trust I shall shortly see thee, and we shall speak face to face. Peace be to thee. Our friends salute thee. Greet the friends by name.

He didn't write it down. Given he preferred to pass on his less by word of mouth and given your attributes to what is written do you think what John said was not important, else he'd have written it down?

 

[lionroar0]

Sometimes I don't know what amuses me more. Comedy central or some of the posts here on CF.