Search results

Just to add to what you have said, there is also the Seventh Ecumenical Council at Nicea in 787. While they did not explicitly list their own canon, the canons of the Councils of Carthage and Hippo into the record and were accepted.

Those things might be very good types of the coming understanding of the Trinity but they are not proofs. There really is nothing explicit in Scripture that you can point to and say "that's it!! The doctrine of the Trinity!!" To do so you would have to precisely define the doctrine of three...

[/FONT] Huh?? Where did you get that from James' statement??? His words relating Peter's testimony were... 13: After they finished speaking, James replied, "Brethren, listen to me. 14: Simeon has related how God first visited the Gentiles, to take out of them a people for his name. 15...

You do of course realize the Imacculate Conception as a tradition is rather late. The Orthodox don't accept it and they are not sola scriptura either. More importantly, the two most revered theologian saints in the history of the Catholic Church - St. Augustine of Hippo and St. Thomas Aquinas...

I'm not quite sure what this convoluted statement means but it is not the docrtrine of the Trinity. The Christian doctrine states that Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are three coeternal persons of one essence. The Spirit does not appear "sometimes" as the Father, etc. THEY ARE DISTINCT PERSONS...

No. The Old Testament books could be divided into three categories with the Law, Prophets, and the Writings. Yes, in a rare occasion the books such as Psalms might be grouped in but it is never done with the term "the Law" - even here the specifier is "their law" - as opposed to whose? The fact...

I think you are doing a bit of eisegesis here. The actual text does not really support what you are contending in context. Peter was listening to the church dispute the matter and rose and spoke that there was no need to dispute since God had already settled it. The choosing was not of Peter...

My belief is that the two types of councils are not really related in a clearly definable descent. The connection is one added later by those justifying the calling of councils. But I don't see a clear connection. The first was a fledgling Church trying to figure out what to do in its first big...

By the arguement above then, it is NOT true that Catholics believe John was free from original sin. The state of original sin is one from conception and thus John was cleansed but to be cleansed from something you must first be dirty from it. Catholic doctrine is that John had orginal sin but...

Actaully most of the Old Testament is not in the Torah - the Torah is the five books of Moses. If you are going to insist on using terms like "Torah", at least use it correctly. The term for the Old Testament is "Tanakh". Oh, and by the way, those who chose the canon you are so attached to...

Were there any councils between Jerusalem and the fourth century?? Without a record of such councils in the intervening three centuries, I don't see how you can make a case for some evolutionary trajectory in concilliar thinking. Because of persecution, the method of concensus was through...

The poinst made was not that God "needed" an emperor to call a council but that in the case of the seven councils, this is in effect what happened. I believe the poster was making a distinction between the Council of Jerusalem and the Ecumenical Councils later. The former was a council called by...

perhaps because Mark was traveling with him and was not a part of the Church at "Babylon" - wherever that might be.

These books were ones that shook me out of my theological slumbers... For the Life of the World: Sacraments and Orthodoxy - Alexander Schmemann The Christian Tradition: A History of the Development of Doctrine (5 Volumes) - Jaroslav Pelikan Regnum Caelorum: Patterns of Millennial Thought...

I agree with everything you wrote about the Seven Ecumenical Councils - they were coucils of the Imperial Church. However, I disagree with you that the Council of Jerusalem was a local affair. Peter was there and by then he was headquartered in Antioch. Paul was there and he was never part of...

Read the Book of Revelation again - Jerusalem is referred to as Babylon! It mentions that it was the city that had gotten drunk on the blood of the prophets - Rome was not even a major power at the time of the prophets! Jerusalem was the persecutor of the prophets of God as they turned from...

The "she" may refer to the church in "Babylon" since it mentions her as "chosen together with you". Since he was speaking to the Church at large, the reference might be to the Church at "Babylon". I find it amusing that Catholics who insist Babylon does not refer to Rome elsewhere will insist...

The emperor was the one who actually called the Ecumenical Councils. The article at New Advent (taken from the Catholic Encyclopedia published decades ago) is very misleading. The Bishop of Rome had no special role in organziing or ratifying Ecumenical Councils. The Councils were called to...

I believe the use of a council derives from Jesus' own declaration that unresolvable disputes should be taken to the Church. In this case, the dispute over the mission to the gentiles threatended Church unity and so they assembled the leaders of the Church and met in Jerusalem. It is unclear...

In all fairness to the Catholic posters, you must realize that from their theological view, the decision by St. Peter or his successors is what makes it Ecumenical. I believe this is an erroneous assumption and without historical justification, but bringing it up does not constitute going "off...