Deception in Theology

[chevyontheriver]

Catholics all agree with (because it is necessary to be saved by affirming them) in things that are false.

In your not so humble opinion. I wouldn't be Catholic if I were agreeing with anything false just to be saved.

I don't really have much of a problem with those things.

Oh.

I don't know what Liturgy of the Hours is, but the way it is framed seems like a religious tradition not rooted in the Apostles.

You don't know what the Liturgy of the Hours is, but your hunch is that you wouldn't like it. Your loss.

I already agree with some of these things.

See! You can reclaim some things lost in the Reformation.

This is worlds different from making the assumption of Mary obligatory to believe under the pain of Apostle Peter and Paul.

I used to agree with you. Find me the bones of Mary and we can talk. For that matter find me the bones of Elijah.

 

[All Becomes New]

Find me the bones of Mary and we can talk. For that matter find me the bones of Elijah.

Show me where Isaiah's bones are. Or Moses. Or Abraham. We don't have the bones of lots of people. It proves nothing.

 

[jas3]

How?

You are arguing for a definition of the Trinity that is more vague - i.e. broad - than that which came out of Nicaea I and Constantinople I. The key part of the Nicene Creed that rejects Arianism is the description of the Son as being "of the same essence" as the Father, as well as Him being "begotten, not made," etc.
And when I press you on your refusal to hold Nicaea I to the same standard as you do Nicaea II, each time you've gone off on a tangent about how there's more evidence for the Trinity.

And I have no problem with that.

Then what was the point of your statement that the word "veneration" isn't found in the Bible? You later revised your statement to "veneration isn't discussed in the Bible," but you still seem to be focusing on the word rather than the concept.

You have no idea what my view is on these things.

What you've expressed in your posts, especially the OP, would be absolutely alien to any 1st-millennium Christian. You want to talk about ECF unanimity, go see what they have to say about people who ignore the authority of the Church.

 

[All Becomes New]

You are arguing for a definition of the Trinity that is more vague - i.e. broad - than that which came out of Nicaea I and Constantinople I. The key part of the Nicene Creed that rejects Arianism is the description of the Son as being "of the same essence" as the Father, as well as Him being "begotten, not made," etc.
And when I press you on your refusal to hold Nicaea I to the same standard as you do Nicaea II, each time you've gone off on a tangent about how there's more evidence for the Trinity.

Which kinda poses a problem for your view as well given that doctinal developments are not supposed to happen in the Orthodox tradition.

Then what was the point of your statement that the word "veneration" isn't found in the Bible? You later revised your statement to "veneration isn't discussed in the Bible," but you still seem to be focusing on the word rather than the concept.

I don't think either is in the Bible, obviously.

What you've expressed in your posts, especially the OP, would be absolutely alien to any 1st-millennium Christian. You want to talk about ECF unanimity, go see what they have to say about people who ignore the authority of the Church.

Give me a quote from the second century that says that the Chruch, not the Bible is the final authority on things.

 

[chevyontheriver]

Show me where Isaiah's bones are. Or Moses. Or Abraham. We don't have the bones of lots of people. It proves nothing.

Point being Elijah was lifted up into heaven. You won't find his grave. Or his bones. You might just be able to find the grave and bones of Isaiah and Abraham.

The early Church was relic crazy. If there were primary relics (bones) of Mary every diocese in the Middle East would have a dozen of them. It WOULD prove something if you could point to the bones of Mary.

 

[All Becomes New]

The early Church was relic crazy. If there were primary relics (bones) of Mary every diocese in the Middle East would have a dozen of them. It WOULD prove something if you could point to the bones of Mary.

So? Without the bones it does not PROVE anything. People take the Shroud as Gospel truth. It's the same thing here. Having Mary's bones would prove it. But it's the same with the Shroud. If you could prove the Shroud was authentic, it would only help and not hurt us. But we don't have the bones and we can't prove that the shroud is authentic.

 

[jas3]

Which kinda poses a problem for your view as well given that doctinal developments are not supposed to happen in the Orthodox tradition.

I don't know what part of the quote this is a response to. What does this have to do with referring to councils for definitions of doctrines?

I don't think either is in the Bible, obviously.

That was your statement, but what was your point? How do you think that strengthens your argument?

Give me a quote from the second century that says that the Chruch, not the Bible is the final authority on things.

St. Irenaeus of Lyons, Against Heresies:
"Wherefore it is incumbent to obey the presbyters who are in the Church — those who, as I have shown, possess the succession from the apostles; those who, together with the succession of the episcopate, have received the certain gift of truth, according to the good pleasure of the Father. But [it is also incumbent] to hold in suspicion others who depart from the primitive succession, and assemble themselves together in any place whatsoever, [looking upon them] either as heretics of perverse minds, or as schismatics puffed up and self-pleasing, or again as hypocrites, acting thus for the sake of lucre and vainglory. For all these have fallen from the truth. And the heretics, indeed, who bring strange fire to the altar of God — namely, strange doctrines— shall be burned up by the fire from heaven, as were Nadab and Abiud. But such as rise up in opposition to the truth, and exhort others against the Church of God, [shall] remain among those in hell (apud inferos), being swallowed up by an earthquake, even as those who were with Chore, Dathan, and Abiron. But those who cleave asunder, and separate the unity of the Church, [shall] receive from God the same punishment as Jeroboam did."

St. Ignatius of Antioch, Epistle to the Smyrnaeans:
"It is well to reverence both God and the bishop. He who honours the bishop has been honoured by God; he who does anything without the knowledge of the bishop, does [in reality] serve the devil."

 

[All Becomes New]

I don't know what part of the quote this is a response to. What does this have to do with referring to councils for definitions of doctrines?

Did the tradition of Nicea develop over time? If it did, then it does not help you.

That was your statement, but what was your point? How do you think that strengthens your argument?

If something is not in the Bible, it is not necessary for salvation. That's my point.

St. Irenaeus of Lyons, Against Heresies:
"Wherefore it is incumbent to obey the presbyters who are in the Church — those who, as I have shown, possess the succession from the apostles; those who, together with the succession of the episcopate, have received the certain gift of truth, according to the good pleasure of the Father. But [it is also incumbent] to hold in suspicion others who depart from the primitive succession, and assemble themselves together in any place whatsoever, [looking upon them] either as heretics of perverse minds, or as schismatics puffed up and self-pleasing, or again as hypocrites, acting thus for the sake of lucre and vainglory. For all these have fallen from the truth. And the heretics, indeed, who bring strange fire to the altar of God — namely, strange doctrines— shall be burned up by the fire from heaven, as were Nadab and Abiud. But such as rise up in opposition to the truth, and exhort others against the Church of God, [shall] remain among those in hell (apud inferos), being swallowed up by an earthquake, even as those who were with Chore, Dathan, and Abiron. But those who cleave asunder, and separate the unity of the Church, [shall] receive from God the same punishment as Jeroboam did."

St. Ignatius of Antioch, Epistle to the Smyrnaeans:
"It is well to reverence both God and the bishop. He who honours the bishop has been honoured by God; he who does anything without the knowledge of the bishop, does [in reality] serve the devil."

I would not pick him on this topic if I were you...

 

[jas3]

Did the tradition of Nicea develop over time? If it did, then it does not help you.

There was always an understanding that Christ and the Holy Spirit are God. The exact exposition of how that truth is compatible with there being one God came about over time. The difference between that and a Newman-style development of doctrine would be that it's a development of diction, not a development of understanding. This is my point: it's valid to point to earlier statements on the deity of the Son as an argument for Trinitarianism, even if those statements aren't put in the exact terms used in a later council. The same goes for icon veneration.

If something is not in the Bible, it is not necessary for salvation. That's my point.

If a concept is not in the Bible, sure. But to say that because a word is not in the Bible, the associated concept is not necessary for salvation, quickly gets you into a rejection of Nicaea I.

I would not pick him on this topic if I were you...

Oh? Do you have a quote from him or any other second-century father saying you can go off and do your own thing?

 

[All Becomes New]

The same goes for icon veneration.

Absolutely not. You have faith for that, I don't. There is a qualitative difference between liking an art piece of Christ and bowing down before it as if it can see you and hear you.

Isaiah 44:16-18
"He burns half of it in a fire,
and he roasts meat on that half.
He eats the roast and is satisfied.
He warms himself and says, “Ah!
I am warm, I see the blaze.”
He makes a god or his idol with the rest of it.
He bows down to it and worships;
he prays to it, “Save me, for you are my god.”
Such people do not comprehend
and cannot understand,
for he has shut their eyes so they cannot see,
and their minds so they cannot understand."

If a concept is not in the Bible, sure. But to say that because a word is not in the Bible, the associated concept is not necessary for salvation, quickly gets you into a rejection of Nicaea I.

I agree and that is my point with Nicea 1. We have all the pieces. But Nicea 2 does not go back to the Apostles, let alone the first three centuries.

Oh? Do you have a quote from him or any other second-century father saying you can go off and do your own thing?

What I mean is that he thought scripture was primary, not secondary, to the Church.

 

[jas3]

Absolutely not. You have faith for that, I don't. There is a qualitative difference between liking an art piece of Christ and bowing down before it as if it can see you and hear you.

You fundamentally misunderstand what icons are. Nobody thinks they can "see you and hear you."

I agree and that is my point with Nicea 1. We have all the pieces. But Nicea 2 does not go back to the Apostles, let alone the first three centuries.

And you come to your conclusion about Nicaea 2 because you require evidence for it to meet a different standard than for Nicaea 1. You justify your difference in standards by saying that there's more evidence for the Trinity - but it's only evidence if you use a different standard, and you can only justify using a different standard by saying there's more evidence, which is only evidence because you're using a different standard. So your reasoning is circular.

What I mean is that he thought scripture was primary, not secondary, to the Church.

He doesn't say that anywhere. He does say that there are heretics who read the Scriptures for themselves and come to unorthodox interpretations (Book 1, Ch. 3) and that those who think they can be independent of a bishop will not be saved (Book 4, Ch. 26).

 

[Strong in Him]

No one reads the Bible for themselves.

Speak for yourself.

They are content to see what their "Betters" say about things.

If you are talking about reading commentaries to clarify the meaning of a word or understand the culture of the time; there's nothing wrong with it.

Take Dispensationalism and all the mapping out of the Great Tribulation and the Lord's coming. You can point out verses like 2 Thessalonians 1:5-10 and it does nothing to change their mind.

So you think that someone who reads the Bible and has tried to come to a correct understanding of doctrine should have their minds changed by one verse? How do you understand the verses you have quoted? Are you reading them literally, or through a lens?

There are very few who seek after Truth in an unbiased way. Everyone has their tradition and they will not read the Bible for themselves. Everyone has their "Camp."

And what's yours?

 

[Apple Sky]

Or the flat earthers, or the holocaust deniers

What, are we not allowed to think outside the box to seek the truth. Seek & ye shall find, test & prove all things, the only trouble with this in today's world is that Satan runs the show making it harder & harder for folk to prove anything that is the truth. Yes, today's world is run by a bunch of clowns.

I do nowt that the elders elders tell me do, I take my orders from God only & have certainly never stuck to tradition.