Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
Sure if you want to. So, which category would you like to be placed under? The category of people who simply do not correctly understand SS, the category of people who can not articulate it coherently or suffiently, or the category of people who intentionally twist words, divert discussions, and purposely misrepresent the concept?Your posit:
Am I not entitled to be one of fifty?
The split with the RC outside of cultural shifts withing Europe was precisely because they began to depart from tradition. The RCC ADMIT to these changes but dont find them objectionable.-snip-
Anpther dispute involved the switch from leavened bread to wafers. The RCC Church does not deny this change of usage. Once again the scriptures teach of leavened bread-snip-
Not absent according to those quotes given earlier.
I understand the irony of behavior/belief/tradition of men pointing to a written rule, but that is what they did.
Polycarp--well-versed in holy scripture, for example.
Nowhere do you read of someone pointing to a tradition to sustain their activity; they pointed to scripture and succession.
Anyway, higher steps as they devolved from "it is written".
Well, the only advice I can give you is this: Put on your "big boy" undies and deal with it. Cuz if you don't, you'll stay miffed and those who disagree with you really won't care--especially if you keep making crude and untrue comments like the one above.Yes, I'm touchy today. I guess it's natural after experiencing the beauty of Christ and seeing people crap all over it. It also miffs me a bit that people think they know our own doctrines better than we do.
Forgive me my brothers.
Here's Justin the Martyr
"For it was not without design that the prophet Moses, when Hur and Aaron upheld his hands, remained in this form until evening. For indeed the Lord remained upon the tree almost until evening, and they buried Him at eventide; then on the third day He rose again."
ANF01. The Apostolic Fathers with Justin Martyr and Irenaeus | Christian Classics Ethereal Library (chapter XCVII, (97), Dialogue with Trypho)
Here's Exodus 17:12 to which he refers:
KJV: But Moses' hands [were] heavy; and they took a stone, and put [it] under him, and he sat thereon; and Aaron and Hur stayed up his hands, the one on the one side, and the other on the other side; and his hands were steady until the going down of the sun.
NIV: (getting one right) till sunset
NASB: until the sun set
YNG: till the going in of the sun
Justin Martyr on the same verse: almost until evening.
He and I (don't know about you folks) know what that means. Sunset. Sun has gone in/down. The day is over. A new day has begun. Clearly he KNOWS this. How do we know he knows it? Because he CHANGES it to read: ALMOST until evening.
The word, the idea, the concept of ALMOST is NOT there in scripture. If it was there, Justin would not need to add it. But he does add it. Why? He does it to conform to Tradition.
Now, if he had adhered to scripture, then it implies, according to the same well-known Tradition, that Christ was buried on Saturday/Sabbath. Clearly that is wrong. He was in fact buried on Friday/preparation day. Therefore, what? He must have died on Thursday/passover.
"It was by design" that Moses' hands were held steady until the going in of the sun. The NT tells us exactly the same story.
Tradition is wrong. Scripture is right.
I still don't get what you mean
Luke says Jesus was interred on the preparation (paraskeui); John does as well. After describing the request by Joseph and Nicodemos for His body, John explains they wrapped the body with spices and put it in the tomb:
"Then they laid Jesus because of the preparation/paraskeui of the Jews, for the sepulchre was near." 19:42
The tomb being close by saved time.
(Note that the term for evening, opsios, covers typically a long period afternoon through sunset. For example, in John 6 (vs 15 on) he uses opsios first for before sunset and a few verses later uses the adjective "dark" to narrow the time frame for opsios. Also see Matthew 14 (verses 15 on); opsios is used several times, but across a broad period of time (its opsios again in verse 23).
So if Jesus was interred on a Friday, in a hurry so it wouldn't be on a sabbath, the crucifixion must have been finished before sunset.
They (Rome/Alexandria) also admit in 455 to departing from Tradition.
You do know the Jews used unleavened bread at Passover per scripture?
But hey, it does not matter. There is no rudder in this conversation. No final plumbline, except whatever one wants to do.
The pattern set in Exodus was until sunset. Justin Martyr changes it to almost sunset to follow his Tradition and as a result, folks believe as you say.
There was another Tradition that went through Christ the apostles to bishops like Polycarp, Melito, Polycrates who believed Christ was on the cross until sunset just as OT scripture says. Then they wrote the NT exactly the same.
The problem I have is that there is no one definition of SS to which all believers in SS ascribe."
Even if this were true, the validity and credibility would not be negated.
My church has a particular teaching or definition of SS as is the case within all other churches, even the RCC and the EOC.
So, you don't trust yourself to make your own determination? You need the security of a church that tells you what to believe and dictates to you what truth is even when the teaching is extra-biblical? I'm happy to know that there is such a church to minister to you and others who must have assurance and are afraid of depending on their own faith. God is great is He not?I can't even figure out if it's a doctrine or not. I've heard it is, and I've heard it isn't.
This is not a problem for most all non-RC and non-EOs, besides that, all faiths have a consistant understanding within their individual groups.Within Catholicism, I don't have that problem.
And this presents a problem to those not of your faith. We've yet to get a clear explanation as to what your "central deposit of faith" is nor have we been told where this source can be found.No matter what any of my co-religious may say about any doctrine, I can always test it against the central deposit of the faith to see if it's true or not.
Can you tell me what you speak of when you refer to the "central deposit of faith?" Can you tell me where to locate this information and identify the source which deposed authority upon this "deposit?"
Well, it certainly isn't because nobody has attempted to help you understand . . .I have not found the same to be true with SS.
Perhaps it's because you make it much more difficult than it is . . .In fact, in spite of no small amount of discussion, I have less of an idea of what SS is than when I first came on these boards.
Oh, please! I can read, and your right in the sense that the ECFs are clear about what they taught and believed regarding the authority of Scripture . . .There is no question of what the ECFs are saying, the issue is the context in which they are misinterpreted by using Sola Scriptura. Additionally, quoting ECFs doesnt validate Sola Scriptura unless it is believed what they say is Authoritive and therefore true.
Rather, Rome has ventured further and speculated more, resulting in some doctrinal differences being exacerbatedSo you're saying O holds fast to what was received, but RCC doesn't (since they've had more councils)?
We make no such claim. "Nothing" is a very inclusive and sweeping term. We have retained what we once received, but obviously there have been changes for us, not in theology, but in praxisNothings changed for you in 1000 years, but it has for RCC.
The Bishop does have significant oeconomia within within his See. That being said, Ignatius acted, as have we, in a concilliar fashion, wrt to matters of ecumenical import. The Bishop cannot "do whatever he wants"- or shall we have a non-Trinitarian See, a hedonistic/Nicolaitan See? No. The Holy Spirit leads the whole Church, not any one person, into "all truth."Each group will agree that they've received something. But how to iron out the wrinkles? What plumb line will one use? RCC, I suppose, simply says, quoting longer version of Ignatius, the bishop can do whatever he wants/ is above all things. What do you use?
The ECFs make these statements within the context of Tradition; repeatedly, interpretations supported by scriptural reference have been refuted by the ECFs against the measure of ethos, Tradition.
Thus, reading the quotes without understanding the context leads to a misunderstanding.
See, this is confusing, because I've actually had a couple of Orthodox people say some pretty nasty things about him. One said he was a heretic.I thought, for understanding, this example might help re: ECFs
Augustine is considered a Saint in the EO.
I'm not much familiar with Augustine (I explained the EO position re: Augustine previously).Oh, come on, please explain how "context" could change the clear meaning of these comments:
"But who can fail to be aware that the sacred canon of Scripture, both of the Old and New Testament, is confined within its own limits, and that it stands so absolutely in a superior position to all later letters of the bishops, - Augustine (On Baptism, Against the Donatists, 2:3)
Who also appealed to Tradition."Vainly then do they run about with the pretext that they have demanded Councils for the faith's sake; for divine Scripture is sufficient above all things; Athanasious De Synodis, 6
as above"For among the things that are plainly laid down in Scripture are to be found all matters that concern faith and the manner of life,-- Augustine (On Christian Doctrine, 2:9)
Arius used the scripture to support his position, too."We shall therefore endeavor to persuade Arius to acknowledge the substance of the Holy Trinity, and we shall adduce proofs of this position from Holy Scripture." (Thedoret, Dialogues, 2)
Of course we are to inquire from scripture (have you read much of Chrysostom on the reading of scripture ? pretty amazingrules for all things, the declaration of the divine laws? Wherefore I exhort and entreat you all, disregard what this man and that man thinks about these things, and inquire from the Scriptures all these things" (Chrysostom, Homilies on Second Corinthians, 13, c. 7, v. 1
Yup, but he speaks from within a context; his Catechetical Lectures also contain numerous supporting quotes from the Liturgy.unless thou receive the proof of the things which I announce from the Divine Scriptures. this salvation which we believe
depends not on ingenious reasoning, but on demonstration of the Holy Scriptures." - Cyril of Jerusalem (Catechetical Lectures, 4:17)
as aboveIn the innumerable books that have been written latterly we may sometimes find the same truth as in Scripture, but there is not the same authority. Scripture has a sacredness peculiar to itself." -
Augustine (Reply to Faustus the Manichaean, 11:5)
....
Have you read Irenaeus ? I haven't - but I think it not unlikely that some of the heresies he battles claimed scriptural support.proofs of the things which are contained in the Scriptures cannot be shown except from the Scriptures themselves." - Irenaeus (Against Heresies, 1:8:1, 3:1:1, 3:3:1, 3:12:9)
See, this is confusing, because I've actually had a couple of Orthodox people say some pretty nasty things about him. One said he was a heretic.
But, that can't be can it? Because, no orthodox people disagree among themselves do they?
We don't have dictators. And he is a Saint for his repentance. But (per the EO) some of his theology is waaaaayyyyyyy off.
I forgot I had a thread on that awhile back.
If you look at Reve 9:21, God is actually giving them a chance to "repent/reform", but they refuse.
That shows me God is just and is willing for all to come to repentance and to forgive. Thoughts?
Luke 18:20 The commandments thou have known, no thou should be committing adultery, no thou should be murdering/foneushV <5407> (5661), no thou should be stealing, no thou should be bearing false witness. Be honouring thy father and thy mother.
Revelation 9:21 And not they repent/reform out of the murders/fonwn <5408> of them, nor out from their sorceries
http://www.christianforums.com/t7084133/
Difference between Repent and Reform question
The SDAs love to bring up Revelation concerning keeping the Commandments [and the Sabbath of course].I agree with you . Thank God !!
Nothing can "happen" without repentance ...
(without repentance, we can't be reformed).
Sure if you want to. So, which category would you like to be placed under? The category of people who simply do not correctly understand SS, the category of people who can not articulate it coherently or suffiently, or the category of people who intentionally twist words, divert discussions, and purposely misrepresent the concept?
So, now you're one of the esteemed 50. What bearing does that have on our discussion?
The SDAs love to bring up Revelation concerning keeping the Commanments [and the Sabbath of course].
So I would think Revelation is just not talking about heathen unbelievers but those who believe in God and know the Commandments also. Thoughts?
Reve 14:12 Here [*the] endurance of the Saints is, the ones keeping the commands of the God and the faith of Jesus.
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?