How do we know . . . .

[OrthodoxyUSA]

So.. your looking for something that's "essential to salvation" that is not mentioned anywhere in the Holy Scriptures.... right?

Forgive me...

 

[Montalban]

No, sorry... but thanks. I see it clearly enough in scripture.

You might. Many Protestants don't.

Even some who 'partake' think it's just bread.

We in Orthodoxy think it's 'essential' to take Christ upon us.

Also, I thought I was being asked just about 'traditions' per se.

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.

So, as my esteemed co-religionist here says

Forgive me

 

[Hentenza]

And so you still go with the "It's been said somewhere else"

It's been said many times "somewhere else". Just do a search. Is not like this is the first thread about this,you know.

 

[Hentenza]

There are traditions regarding the parents of Mary that we know Mary told John, and thus the other Apostles would have been told.

Really? Like what and where is it written?

 

[Montalban]

It's been said many times "somewhere else". Just do a search. Is not like this is the first thread about this,you know.

Each thread I provide answers that I've provided before.

We just operate on different levels of 'respect'. I believe people should answer questions - else why be here? (that's rhetorical, no need to answer)

 

[Hentenza]

You might. Many Protestants don't.

Even some who 'partake' think it's just bread.

We in Orthodoxy think it's 'essential' to take Christ upon us.

Also, I thought I was being asked just about 'traditions' per se.

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.

So, as my esteemed co-religionist here says

Forgive me

You didn't say it, did you? No you didn't, I know you didn't say it. Did you?:o

 

[Montalban]

Really? Like what and where is it written?

Now you've got me. What exactly are you asking? I've been asked to provide 'teaching that Paul would have taught that's not written anywhere'. This is something I've mentioned.

Now you're asking me where was it written? By Paul?

Mary was ever-virgin, and lived a sinless life. This is not recorded by Paul. Given that we don't believe Paul taught a 'different' gospel, he would have taught the same facts.

Joachim and Anne were her parents.

 

[Montalban]

You didn't say it, did you? No you didn't, I know you didn't say it. Did you?

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

 

[Uphill Battle]

And so you still go with the "It's been said somewhere else"

It has. Numerous people have explained it numerous times over numerous threads. You're dishonestly pretending this is all new. But keep doing this if you want .

 

[Montalban]

It's been said many times "somewhere else". Just do a search. Is not like this is the first thread about this,you know.

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

 

[Uphill Battle]

Each thread I provide answers that I've provided before.

We just operate on different levels of 'respect'. I believe people should answer questions - else why be here? (that's rhetorical, no need to answer)

If you weren't dishonestly pretending that it's never been addressed with you before, we might be inclined. Your feigned ignorance to the matter doesn't give us much impetus to comply to inane repetition.

 

[Montalban]

It has. Numerous people have explained it numerous times over numerous threads. You're dishonestly pretending this is all new. But keep doing this if you want .

I don't have any evidence you know what you're talking about. Any evidnece there is in fact points to the opposite.

It's very very easy for someone who doesn't know the meaning of something saying "Go look it up" because then they don't have to face the prospect that they're in fact not knowledgable about it.


But at least you're consistant. You tell everyone to go look it up.

 

[Montalban]

If you weren't dishonestly pretending that it's never been addressed with you before, we might be inclined. Your feigned ignorance to the matter doesn't give us much impetus to comply to inane repetition.

You're making this personal again and being rude. If you don't want to answer, then just don't.

 

[sunlover1]

Recorded by him?


You're asking "Where on paper is there a record of soemthing no one's put on paper to record..."

A really odd question

Certainly would be, but it's not what I asked.

Yes, you are the one who said that only the word was infallible.

Amen, and that's true right?

There are traditions regarding the parents of Mary that we know Mary told John, and thus the other Apostles would have been told.

So how do we know?

 

[Uphill Battle]

I don't have any evidence you know what you're talking about. Any evidnece there is in fact points to the opposite.

It's very very easy for someone who doesn't know the meaning of something saying "Go look it up" because then they don't have to face the prospect that they're in fact not knowledgable about it.


But at least you're consistant. You tell everyone to go look it up.

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.

 

[Uphill Battle]

You're making this personal again and being rude. If you don't want to answer, then just don't.

I personally find lying personal, and rude.

 

[sunlover1]

It's been said many times "somewhere else". Just do a search. Is not like this is the first thread about this,you know.

We just operate on different levels of 'respect'. I believe people should answer questions - else why be here? (that's rhetorical, no need to answer)

Yes, what's discussion without discussion?

But you've twisted peoples words on more than
one occasion, and I'm going to assume it wasnt
intentional. Still it's not so 'respectful'.
You have some great things to share and teach.
I know, because I've read some of those things.
So what's with this broken record?
As to the OP... We can know ... because
we test everything against Scripture, just
as you said you do.
Or perhaps it was a different person of your
denomination. Forgive me.

It has. Numerous people have explained it numerous times over numerous threads.

If you weren't dishonestly pretending that it's never been addressed with you before, we might be inclined. Your feigned ignorance to the matter doesn't give us much impetus to comply to inane repetition.

 

[Montalban]

Amen, and that's true right?

Which means that when he spoke the words they were faillible, but when he wrote them down they became infallible!

So how do we know?

How do we know? What? That they're true? We have a chain of witnesses from Mary to John and so on.

 

[Hentenza]

Now you've got me. What exactly are you asking? I've been asked to provide 'teaching that Paul would have taught that's not written anywhere'. This is something I've mentioned.

Now you're asking me where was it written? By Paul?

Mary was ever-virgin, and lived a sinless life. This is not recorded by Paul. Given that we don't believe Paul taught a 'different' gospel, he would have taught the same facts.

Joachim and Anne were her parents.

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?

 

[Montalban]

But you've twisted peoples words on more than
one occasion, and I'm going to assume it wasnt
intentional. Still it's not so 'respectful'.

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

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?

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

You have some great things to share and teach.
I know, because I've read some of those things.
So what's with this broken record?

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'

As to the OP... We can know ... because
we test everything against Scripture, just
as you said you do.

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'