Name a doctrine that you used to believe in but dont anymore.

[yogosans14]

First off this isn't even true. Secondly there is a lot of middle ground between Jesus existing literally in a cracker and "just some spiritual reference". This makes your argument a fallacy. A straw man to be exact. It is a highly significant symbolic act to most protestants.

Well the important thing is we take it seriously

Its a mystery lets leave it at that.

 

[juleamager]

First off this isn't even true. Secondly there is a lot of middle ground between Jesus existing literally in a cracker and "just some spiritual reference". This makes your argument a fallacy. A straw man to be exact. It is a highly significant symbolic act to most protestants.

Seeing many Protestants are Biblical literalists, I'm puzzled that they don't take the Eucharist as a literal action.

 

[Gregory Thompson]

I used to believe the bible was like on some level the coding language of creation . i now understand and apply the genetics of the living word on a heart level .. so i understand how the original idea wasn't entirely correct .

I used to believe in an idea called total depravity but the fruit of it just caused me to sin more and more . i found out later that addictive cycles are reinforced by negative reinforcement and statements such as "i'll never do that again" . I found seeing God as love and focusing on what is good and noble and true in everything .. made it a lot easier for God to manifest through me because he was at the centre of everything in my sight of the world .. instead of the idolization of sin that total depravity taught .

I recall i used to believe that the bible was equal to Jesus because both were called the word of God . but the bible is quite clear that Jesus is the logos of God . the scripture is akin more to the grammah or the written letter . but the spirit gives life which is why it was an important switch in perception .

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

Originally Posted by Pteriax

First off this isn't even true. Secondly there is a lot of middle ground between Jesus existing literally in a cracker and "just some spiritual reference". This makes your argument a fallacy. A straw man to be exact. It is a highly significant symbolic act to most protestants.
​

Seeing many Protestants are Biblical literalists, I'm puzzled that they don't take the Eucharist as a literal action.

What makes you think many Protestants are biblical literalists?
Do you have a source for that?


Biblical literalism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Biblical literalism (also called Biblicism or Biblical fundamentalism) is the interpretation or translation of the explicit and primary sense of words in the Bible.[1][2]
A literal Biblical interpretation is associated with the fundamentalist and evangelical hermeneutical approach to scripture—the historical-grammatical method—and is used extensively by Fundamentalist Christians[disambiguation needed],[3] in contrast to the historical-critical method of liberal Christians.

Biblical literalists believe that, unless a passage is clearly intended as allegory, poetry, or some other genre, the Bible should be interpreted as literal statements by the author. Who may appropriately decide when a passage is allegorical or literal, however, is not defined.



.

 

[Pteriax]

Funny...your bible is missing some books.

False. Your Bible contains extraneous non-scriptural books that were not even canonized until Trent, which Jerome and other ECFs rejected.

1. Not one of the apocryphal books is written in the Hebrew language (the Old Testament was written in Hebrew). All Apocryphal books are in Greek, except one which is extant only in Latin.
2. None of the apocryphal writers laid claim to inspiration.
3. The apocryphal books were never acknowledged as sacred scriptures by the Jews, custodians of the Hebrew scriptures (the apocrypha was written prior to the New Testament). In fact, the Jewish people rejected and destroyed the apocrypha after the overthow of Jerusalem in 70 A.D.
4. The apocryphal books were not permitted among the sacred books during the first four centuries of the real Christian church (I'm certainly not talking about the Catholic religion.
5. The Apocrypha contains fabulous statements which not only contradict the "canonical" scriptures but themselves. For example, in the two Books of Maccabees, Antiochus Epiphanes is made to die three different deaths in three different places.
6. The Apocrypha includes doctrines in variance with the Bible, such as prayers for the dead and sinless perfection.

Why the Apocrypha Isn't in the Bible.

Although they quoted from Cannonized Scripture, they also quoted from letters/writings that werent included..

Irrelevant. They only referred to what we know as scripture as being inspired.

I am glad to see you are finally seeing the value in ECF quotes...I guess that makes my quote concerning infant baptism valid...thanks for coming around!! I teach RCIA if you are interested....

They have a lot of value in debunking Catholic heresies and other nonsense. The ones I have been looking at do not speak of infant baptism, however and one of the earliest works, the diadache, has a whole section on all the valid forms of baptism and excludes infant baptism. Oops.

I do...that is why I look at everthing, not my narrow interpretation of things.

Everything huh? So you read and study all 70 something Gnostic gospels, Confucius, I Ching, the works of Charles Tas Russel, Mary Baker Eddy, Joseph Smith Jr, Kabbalah, Dianetics, Hindu writings, Taoist and Buddhist writings, The Oddessy and The Iliad, new age and Wiccan works like the Sefer Reziel Hemlach, The Book of the Dead, and so forth? How do you find the time?

 

[yogosans14]

False. Your Bible contains extraneous non-scriptural books that were not even canonized until Trent, which Jerome and other ECFs rejected.

1. Not one of the apocryphal books is written in the Hebrew language (the Old Testament was written in Hebrew). All Apocryphal books are in Greek, except one which is extant only in Latin.
2. None of the apocryphal writers laid claim to inspiration.
3. The apocryphal books were never acknowledged as sacred scriptures by the Jews, custodians of the Hebrew scriptures (the apocrypha was written prior to the New Testament). In fact, the Jewish people rejected and destroyed the apocrypha after the overthow of Jerusalem in 70 A.D.
4. The apocryphal books were not permitted among the sacred books during the first four centuries of the real Christian church (I'm certainly not talking about the Catholic religion.
5. The Apocrypha contains fabulous statements which not only contradict the "canonical" scriptures but themselves. For example, in the two Books of Maccabees, Antiochus Epiphanes is made to die three different deaths in three different places.
6. The Apocrypha includes doctrines in variance with the Bible, such as prayers for the dead and sinless perfection.

Why the Apocrypha Isn't in the Bible.




Irrelevant. They only referred to what we know as scripture as being inspired.



They have a lot of value in debunking Catholic heresies and other nonsense. The ones I have been looking at do not speak of infant baptism, however and one of the earliest works, the diadache, has a whole section on all the valid forms of baptism and excludes infant baptism. Oops.



Everything huh? So you read and study all 70 something Gnostic gospels, Confucius, I Ching, the works of Charles Tas Russel, Mary Baker Eddy, Joseph Smith Jr, Kabbalah, Dianetics, Hindu writings, Taoist and Buddhist writings, The Oddessy and The Iliad, new age and Wiccan works like the Sefer Reziel Hemlach, The Book of the Dead, and so forth? How do you find the time?

Yeah I read that part of praying for the dead in Maccabees, I found it odd since the OT never mentions an afterlife nor is it discussed in the whole NT.

 

[Knee V]

False. Your Bible contains extraneous non-scriptural books that were not even canonized until Trent, which Jerome and other ECFs rejected.


[*]Not one of the apocryphal books is written in the Hebrew language (the Old Testament was written in Hebrew). All Apocryphal books are in Greek, except one which is extant only in Latin.
[*]None of the apocryphal writers laid claim to inspiration.
[*]The apocryphal books were never acknowledged as sacred scriptures by the Jews, custodians of the Hebrew scriptures (the apocrypha was written prior to the New Testament). In fact, the Jewish people rejected and destroyed the apocrypha after the overthow of Jerusalem in 70 A.D.
[*]The apocryphal books were not permitted among the sacred books during the first four centuries of the real Christian church (I'm certainly not talking about the Catholic religion.
[*]The Apocrypha contains fabulous statements which not only contradict the "canonical" scriptures but themselves. For example, in the two Books of Maccabees, Antiochus Epiphanes is made to die three different deaths in three different places.
[*]The Apocrypha includes doctrines in variance with the Bible, such as prayers for the dead and sinless perfection.

Why the Apocrypha Isn't in the Bible.

Irrelevant. They only referred to what we know as scripture as being inspired.

They have a lot of value in debunking Catholic heresies and other nonsense. The ones I have been looking at do not speak of infant baptism, however and one of the earliest works, the diadache, has a whole section on all the valid forms of baptism and excludes infant baptism. Oops.

Everything huh? So you read and study all 70 something Gnostic gospels, Confucius, I Ching, the works of Charles Tas Russel, Mary Baker Eddy, Joseph Smith Jr, Kabbalah, Dianetics, Hindu writings, Taoist and Buddhist writings, The Oddessy and The Iliad, new age and Wiccan works like the Sefer Reziel Hemlach, The Book of the Dead, and so forth? How do you find the time?

Jerome rejected them, but then submitted to the voice of the church. His personal opinion was wrong. The church has always used these books, long before Trent. There was nevet a "Trent" for the Orthodox, yet we recognize those books just the same.

1) What does language have to do with it? That is an arbitrary criterion. There are portions of your OT canon that are not in Hebrew. Are you prepared to tear those pages out?

2) Where did the author of Esther lay claim to "inspiration"?

3) The only reason that we have the deuterocanonicals is because they were accepted and preserved by Jews. And so what if Christ-rejecting Jews got rid of those books. They don't like the New Testament either. Are you prepared to tear those out of your Bible?

4) You should look more closely at those early canons, and at what the word "canon" meant to them. Not only were "apocryphal" books included, but some "regular" books were left out of some of them.

5) Judas dies two different ways in the Gospels. Are you prepared to tear them out of your Bible?

6) Jesus "contradicts" the Law when He declares all food clean. But none of us see that as a contradiction. The "contradictions" that you see are only because you have decided that you will not consider them Scripture and are already biased against them.

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

Originally Posted by Pteriax

False. Your Bible contains extraneous non-scriptural books that were not even canonized until Trent, which Jerome and other ECFs rejected.
​

Yeah I read that part of praying for the dead in Maccabees, I found it odd since the OT never mentions an afterlife nor is it discussed in the whole NT.

Jerome rejected them, but then submitted to the voice of the church. His personal opinion was wrong. The church has always used these books, long before Trent.
There was nevet a "Trent" for the Orthodox, yet we recognize those books just the same.
.

Did Jerome ever admit his opinion was wrong?

http://www.christianforums.com/t7667693/#post60871150
Jerome and the Bible

You cannot and should not interpret the Bible which most has done starting with the KJV up until now. However if you want to know the truth the original Vulgate written by Jerome known as the Hebraic Bible was the best written since the ones found by the Dead Sea Scroll. Jerome was a Catholic and a spiritual man who want the true word of Elohim to be translated and understood.
Unfortunately, the Catholic Church refused to use his Hebraic Bible. The Vulgate as we know it today is not the one done by Jerome. He did not complete a translation of the New Testament. The Vulgate used today was created by assembling books from a variety of sources, including Jerome.


Happy Sabbath,
stinsonmarri

.

 

[Pteriax]

Jerome rejected them, but then submitted to the voice of the church. His personal opinion was wrong. The church has always used these books, long before Trent. There was nevet a "Trent" for the Orthodox, yet we recognize those books just the same.

False. The "church" was wrong.

1) What does language have to do with it? That is an arbitrary criterion. There are portions of your OT canon that are not in Hebrew. Are you prepared to tear those pages out?

Books that were written by the Hebrews should not appear in LATIN. If they are genuine.

2) Where did the author of Esther lay claim to "inspiration"?

Irrelevant. Esther was always considered scripture, the apocrypha was not.

3) The only reason that we have the deuterocanonicals is because they were accepted and preserved by Jews. And so what if Christ-rejecting Jews got rid of those books. They don't like the New Testament either. Are you prepared to tear those out of your Bible?

The Jews never considered them scripture.

4) You should look more closely at those early canons, and at what the word "canon" meant to them. Not only were "apocryphal" books included, but some "regular" books were left out of some of them.

Disagree.

5) Judas dies two different ways in the Gospels. Are you prepared to tear them out of your Bible?

Irrelevant. Both happened, which is quite plausible. The death of Antiochus was in different locations as well.

6) Jesus "contradicts" the Law when He declares all food clean. But none of us see that as a contradiction. The "contradictions" that you see are only because you have decided that you will not consider them Scripture and are already biased against them.

That is not a contradiction. As to your assessment of it, false. You are biased. Everyone is biased. But you are wrong.

 

[Knee V]

False. The "church" was wrong.

Books that were written by the Hebrews should not appear in LATIN. If they are genuine.

Irrelevant. Esther was always considered scripture, the apocrypha was not.

The Jews never considered them scripture.

Disagree.

Irrelevant. Both happened, which is quite plausible. The death of Antiochus was in different locations as well.

That is not a contradiction. As to your assessment of it, false. You are biased. Everyone is biased. But you are wrong.

"False" and "wrong" based on what specific criteria?

On what specific basis do you make the claim that the church was wrong and Jerome was right?

I'm not all that concerned about Latin. They were in Greek before they were in Latin, and the Greek-speaking segments of the Church had them in Greek. The Jews (Hebrews) in the Diaspora were native Greek speakers.

Not irrelavent. You said that one reason that those books cannot be scripturw is because the authors did not lay claim to "inspiration". Neither did the author of Esther. To say that it applies to one and not another is arbitrary. And those books *were* considered Scripture, whether you like to admit it or not.

If the Jews never considered them Scripture, then why did the first century Christians consider them Scripture, and why are many of them part of the Dead Sea Scrolls? There is no basis for claiming that the Jews never considered them Scripture. Maybe not *all* Jews, but not *all* Jews considered all of your canon to be Scripture either. Many Jews at the time of Christ rejected anything past Deuteronomy. Does that nullify your canon?

Disagree all you'd like, but historical documents are what they are.

You are willing to explain away an alleged contradiction in books that you consider to be canonical simply because you believe them to be canonical. If you were inclined to view the Maccabees books as canonical, you would do the exact same thing for them. For a non-Christian, the two Judas stories are a contradiction.

The deuterocanonical books don't contain any problematic doctrine. Rather, they contain things that don't jive with your theological system. There is a difference.

 

[yogosans14]

Oh also I feel the Lord revelaed to me that I'm born again even without baptism, so thats another doctrine I dont believe anymore.

Look at Acts 10:44-47
While Peter yet spake these words, the Holy Ghost fell on all them which heard the word.
And they of the circumcision which believed were astonished, as many as came with Peter, because that on the Gentiles also was poured out the gift of the Holy Ghost.
For they heard them speak with tongues and magnify God. Then answered Peter,
Can any man forbid water, that these should not be baptized, which have received the Holy Ghost as well as we?

The people received the Holy Ghost *before* they were baptized. The Holy Ghost does not inhabit unsaved people. The people were saved *first*, then they were baptized.

 

[Cappadocious]

Not to mention the fact that nobody except neoplatonic religionists (what evangelicals generally call Gnostics) agreed with the idea that the "bread of life" was a mere reference to some spiritual/intellectual reality until many centuries after Christ.

First off this isn't even true.

Alright, who/what do you have in mind?

 

[MoreCoffee]

Well I couldnt go anyways but I probably wouldnt if I could since I dont agree with 2 big doctrines- Purgatory and immauclate conception.

But I respect the RCC deeply and I love the liturgical worship. I watch Mother Angelica too love her

It's odd that you'd say that purgatory and the immaculate conception are big doctrines when the latter was not promulgated as dogma until the 19th century and the former is essentially no different from every Christian's hope that when they stand before God they will be perfected, free from all inclinations to sin, pure and holy in every way. Purgatory is the means by which this happens, be it in an instant (as some protestants believe) or over aeons (as some Catholics believe). The fact of change is indisputable.

 

[Gregory Thompson]

Purgatory

in a letter written to Christians "those who overcome will not taste of the second death"

in a letter written to Christians "some will be saved but as through fire" .. "but their works will be burned"

 

[Tzaousios]

6) Jesus "contradicts" the Law when He declares all food clean. But none of us see that as a contradiction. The "contradictions" that you see are only because you have decided that you will not consider them Scripture and are already biased against them.

That is not a contradiction. As to your assessment of it, false. You are biased. Everyone is biased. But you are wrong.

How is there no contradiction, because Jesus said it, because you say so, what?

How is knee-v's assessment false, because he is Orthodox, because you say so, what?

How are you biased? Also, if you are biased, does it also follow that you are "wrong" in what you say?

 

[Rev Randy]

How is there no contradiction, because Jesus said it, because you say so, what?

How is knee-v's assessment false, because he is Orthodox, because you say so, what?

How are you biased? Also, if you are biased, does it also follow that you are "wrong" in what you say?

Let's not confuse things by being rational.

 

[MoreCoffee]

Let's not confuse things by being rational.

Indeed; being rational and gathering evidence and drawing correct conclusions from the evidence is not fair!

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

Originally Posted by Rev Randy

Let's not confuse things by being rational.
​

Indeed; being rational and gathering evidence and drawing correct conclusions from the evidence is not fair!

And why I love the GT board

Mat 21:25
"The baptism of John--where was it from? From heaven or from men?"
And they reasoned among themselves, saying, "If we say, 'From heaven,' He will say to us, 'Why then did you not believe him?'

.....

 

[Tzaousios]

Joyce Meyer is just plain scary. She is the physical embodiment of all of the nagging problems that seem to plague American Evangelical Protestantism for going on decades now.

 

[Rev Randy]

And why I love the GT board

you too? It's always good for a laugh.