How do we know . . . .

[Montalban]

I personally find lying personal, and rude.

Then you have nothing to add to this thread.

 

[Montalban]

So Paul didn't write about it, neither did John, or Mark, or Matthew, or Luke? So who did write about Mary and her parents?

This I currently have no reseources to, 'cause I'm not at home. Please take note of this and if I've not got back to you remind me

(I assure you I won't say "go look it up yourself", or "you just won't understand it")

 

[Hentenza]

I didn't say what? It'd help if you stop writing in a short-hand way

LOL!!! Ok then, just get to the point and don't say that you are not writing about something when you are in fact writing about it.

 

[Montalban]

I have responded to YOU in another thread. TWO of them. I've answered this question, and you are pretending that I'm telling you to go look it up. no. I'm not. I'm telling you that I've answered YOU before, and I'm not going to do it again, so you can pull this inane trick again in the next thread.

You're the one who said it both didn't matter what one does to affect one's salvation, and then argued that it does, and then that it doesn't.

If you wish to call that an answer, then yes, I suppose then you have replied to the question.

 

[Montalban]

LOL!!! Ok then, just get to the point and don't say that you are not writing about something when you are in fact writing about it.

I still don't know what you're talking about. What the 'it' is that you're referring to.

Could you use a noun, next time? You're using way to many pronouns for me to follow what argument you're making, and what questions refer to

 

[Hentenza]

This I currently have no reseources to, 'cause I'm not at home. Please take note of this and if I've not got back to you remind me

(I assure you I won't say "go look it up yourself", or "you just won't understand it")

How about if I save you the trouble. The protoevangelium is the source. Ya think?

 

[Montalban]

How about if I save you the trouble. The protoevangelium is the source.

That might be one of them

Ya think?

Yes, I do.

 

[Uphill Battle]

Then you have nothing to add to this thread.

not for you, anyways. You'll nether pay attention to, or read, or remember what is said to you anyways. Or you WILL, and then pretend you didn't.

 

[Hentenza]

This also assumes that his version of sola scriptura is the same as other peoples

For the most part it is.

 

[Uphill Battle]

You're the one who said it both didn't matter what one does to affect one's salvation, and then argued that it does, and then that it doesn't.

If you wish to call that an answer, then yes, I suppose then you have replied to the question.

I did no such thing. Stop lying about what I've said.

 

[Hentenza]

I still don't know what you're talking about. What the 'it' is that you're referring to.

Could you use a noun, next time? You're using way to many pronouns for me to follow what argument you're making, and what questions refer to

Come on Mont!!!! You are the one that said the following:

But the dangerous part for Orthodox in answering this is we don't judge people as condemned so if I were to say "It's 'essential' to salvation to partake in Christ. You don't partake of Jesus' divine nature, you are therefore condemned" it would be un-Orthodox for me to do so.

I like nouns. It is usually the way that one writes referring to someone else. So you did say it didn't you?

 

[Montalban]

For the most part it is

For the most part implies not all. Therefore his version would be of interest to me.

 

[Montalban]

Come on Mont!!!!

Just a small point, it's M-O-N-T-A-L-B-A-N

You are the one that said the following:



I like nouns. It is usually the way that one writes referring to someone else. So you did say it didn't you?

If you're quoting what I said and asking if I said it then I still don't understand what it is you're after. It makes NO SENSE TO ME for you to quote me saying something then asking if I said it

 

[Hentenza]

That might be one of them


Yes, I do.

So what others are there? Any canonized sources?

 

[Montalban]

I did no such thing. Stop lying about what I've said.

You gave contradictory answers.

You said it didn't matter. I raised the example then of Moslems who 'believe' in Jesus. Recall that conversation?

 

[Montalban]

So what others are there? Any canonized sources?

Do you mean by 'biblical'?

 

[Hentenza]

Just a small point, it's M-O-N-T-A-L-B-A-N




If you're quoting what I said and asking if I said it then I still don't understand what it is you're after. It makes NO SENSE TO ME for you to quote me saying something then asking if I said it

Ok, Montalban. The point I am trying to make is that you said that it was against orthodoxy to say that anyone is condemned for not partaking in the communion as per orthodox beliefs but then you said that you couldn't say that. See the discrepancy? One you wrote it and posted it, you said it. Get it?

 

[sunlover1]

No. What you mistake here is that when you don't provide sufficient explanation or imply something, logically one can draw those conclusions.

Hmm, no, there's really no mistaking when
someone's twisted your words.
We all notice such things immediately.
I just happen to be patient and dont
like to argue.

Already we've seen an example of this where you say Paul's words are only infallible once they're written. You say it's the SAME message, but why's it infallible once it's written, and not when he spoke it?

Wrong, I have never "said" that.
You've assumed that, and that's fine.
But it's not even what I believe and you'll
see me saying so on many many posts
over the past year.
That it matters not what was written or what
was spoken, it's all the same.
My problem is this:
How the heck am I supposed to know WHAT
Paul said if it's NOT written???

So once again, what are you talking about?
what did he say that hasnt been recorded?

I'm sorry you feel that this is 'twisting your words' but it's the badly put argument you give

I may well have 'badly put' arguments.
No doubt about that.

What broken record? I've asked for an answer and all I've had is
a) you don't understand it
b) you'd not bother to understand it
c) it was said somewhere else
d) go look for it somewhere else.

That's the 'broken record'

No, those were the answers you received AFTER
being answered again and again.
IN fact, this is silly mont. I'm done discussing
this again.
I will continue to defend the Scripture and the
authority of Scripture, but Im not called to
be going back and forth this way.
It's unfruitful obviously lol.

But that's another poor argument. What was scripture tested against?
When you have more than 200 'scriptures' floating around before the Bible was compiled they were chosen not based on scripture.

There's no scripture saying "Pick me" or "exclude me"

Again this has not been addressed.

I'm sorry if this too sounds like a 'broken record'

No, it doesnt sound like a broken record, you havent
mentioned it before.
Surprised you ask now, why not start sharing
truth you know rather than asking about it?

 

[Uphill Battle]

For the most part implies not all. Therefore his version would be of interest to me.

which has been given to you. If it was SO interesting to you, you'd have actually paid some small modicum of attention to it, instead of playing this stupid game.

You gave contradictory answers.

no, you misrepresented what I said to try and cultivate that impression.

You said it didn't matter. I raised the example then of Moslems who 'believe' in Jesus. Recall that conversation?

yep. I remember you being dishonest in that thread too.

 

[Hentenza]

Do you mean by 'biblical'?

My first question was if there are others. My second question was if there are any canonized (yes, biblical) sources. Sorry that I didn't make my questions clear.