Please look at the thread title.There must be some communication error on my part here. The spy's for the Sanhedrin left after the miracle to report back about Christ. Those who came to Christ and those who stayed with Christ were chosen among men. I'm not sure of what offense you are accusing me of.
Indeed, there is a lot of Scripture that would indicate the Trinity and Christology (Jesus as God), but if one doesn’t attempt to put the verses together in a certain systematic way, it wouldn’t jump right out from Scripture. So for that reason the Church had to develop it — and usually in response to heretics.
Doctrines agreed upon by all develop, too.
- The Divinity or Godhood of Christ was only finalized in 325 at the Council of Nicaea,
I'll start the thread for you. Just tell me the title and the gist of your OP.Hello Albion,
I have used my IpadPro exclusively as my tool for interacting on Christian Forums. To date, I don't seem to be able to start a new thread using my IPad. If you don't mind, could you find me in the system and send me an email pertaining to this issue?
Thank you
Thank you very much for your quick reply. A moment ago, I for the first time, was able to see how to start a new post. I simply went to my blogs, as I recall, and after that the option to create a new post presented itself.I'll start the thread for you. Just tell me the title and the gist of your OP.
But the Gospel of John long predates Nicea --
"No one has ever yet seen God. The only begotten God, the One being in the bosom of the Father, He has made Him known."
"No one has seen God at any time; the only begotten God who is in the bosom of the Father, He has explained Him."
These are unambiguous, and that's only one of many verses from John one can see from.
It seems to me even more evident yet in John 1:1-3
One merely need to read with eyes that see, so the only way any could think differently is lack of knowing that Gospel. And that's not the only source, also.
So, this isn't a "development". To the extent someone is listening to men instead of reading the scripture, it would be a development to them, possibly.
However, and here is the kicker, the Gospel of John is only 1 book, among many at the time that were floating around claiming to be divinely inspired.
At what time this book was written does not matter as much as how soon was this book available to the masses through the teachings of the Church? The Church did not declare the books of the NT until the late 4th century, and prior to this point were many false books and gospels.
So the Church made this decision prior to the declaration of the NT cannon.
Your last paragraph is laughable because it makes no sense historically. There really was no NT "scripture" until the late 4th century, prior to that were the OT and the teachings of the Apostles. Yes the books were around, but so were false books, and none were yet compiled into the Bible as we know it today.
So the only place people could learn that Jesus is God, was from the Church, and the Church made this declaration in response to heresy at the Council of Nicaea
There must be some communication error on my part here. The spy's for the Sanhedrin left after the miracle to report back about Christ. Those who came to Christ and those who stayed with Christ were chosen among men. I'm not sure of what offense you are accusing me of.
Ok, this makes it sound to me like you suggest that instead of only a minority of people confused about Christ's divinity, most people did not know of hear of the Gospel of John before 325? Also that most did not deduce His divinity from the other gospel(s) they did have? If so, how do you know that? (I had a vague impressions the heresies were minority views)
I will say that, prior to the Church declaration of Jesus as True God, nobody would have known for sure.
None of the Protestant voices on here, demanding biblical foundations, for Marian doctrines & veneration have reported back on the subject of Biblical Typology & Mary.
I know it's a big subject but have any of you looked at it seriously?
It is interesting to me: the PURPOSE of the thread was to find out just what the heck Catholics believe about Mary anyway. A lot of Catholics have come here, and we have presented a mosaic of Marian beliefs, all of which complement each other. No Catholic has disagreed with any other Catholic about anything in her regard. We've each added some threads to the tapestry, but there has been a broad, clear, multifaceted expose about what, exactly, we believe about Mary.
There has been such great uniformity and unanimity of expression on this that there can be no doubt that this IS what we believe about Mary.
Now, the thread has devolved into something else. Catholics and Protestants don't believe the same things, at all, and their not shy about telling each other that the other is WRONG. So, now that we know what the Catholics think, we've moved on to the "Well then you're WRONG!" "No, YOU'RE wrong! "No, YOU'RE wrong!" phase of the thread, which will continue until we see the "Closed by Moderator" post that ends it.
And thus will pass into the archives another archetypical Catholic-Protestant "dialogue".
We seem to have a very different picture of the early church, and I don't presume I know enough about it, but I did think of it as having leadership from the apostles and then from people who directly knew the apostles, so that I don't expect widespread errors to be all-the-time.
I'm unsure about its validity, is that Catholics believe that in order to go to Heaven one must be a Catholic. This may be an urban legend with zero truth or it might be true.
I am only going to respond to this as I do not have alot of time.
The Apostles taught what they had learned from Jesus, and they made disciples, and through laying on hands passed their knowledge and gifts down the generations.
You are correct that this is how the early Church was, and this early Church was Catholic, and has remained Catholic for 2000 years.
I am not saying wide-spread errors were the norm, but what you must understand is that there wasn't a unified place to "check scripture" like we have today. This needs to be taken into consideration when in regards to the early Church.
For the first 350 years of Christianity, Bibles did not exist.No comment needed.
Ok, but I've learned a few things about that tradition. And it might be too much to hope, but I hope that at least a few learned that at least some people not knowing that tradition are still nonetheless acting in good faith, with real belief in Christ, and following Him. That would be a lot for many internet discussions, but....well, I do know it happens all the time in just ordinary life in person. I have good friends who are Catholics, including one that is extremely well educated in theology. We don't seem to have conflicts at all. I know, having talked with him for hours at a time.
For the first 350 years of Christianity, Bibles did not exist.
For the next 1150 of years of Christianity, Bibles were hand-copied and cost several years salary of a workingman, who could not read it because less than 5% of the people could. And yet for 1500 years the bulk of European humanity was born, baptized, grew up in Christ, died in Christ, and went on to their eternal rewards with Christ, all completely illiterate, without having read, or having any ability to read, a single line.
So yes, that's right, the reading of the Bible is unneccessary to salvation. The only things required, reduced to their fundamental essences, are contained in the Seven Sacraments: be baptized, confess sins, take communion, be chrismated - if you marry, be married, and if you would be a religious leader, be acceptable to God and ordained in the apostolic succession, and dispense those sacraments and anoint the sick - this is what is required to pass final judgment. This is following Christ, in its most basic. Reading is not required, just listening, learning and following.
Reading the Bible is a great blessing of which we moderns can generally avail ourselves, and it is very good. But it is not necessary to salvation. What is offered in the Sacraments is.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?