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.
Right. That's true. It sounds to me like there is no evidence for your claim
Right. That's true. It sounds to me like there is no evidence for your claim. Is there a historic source of the N.T. Canon--which is never even mentioned in Scripture-- besides the Church which holds that Mary is the Immaculate Conception?
Yes. It is a matter of historic record that the councils that canonized the NT met and did that.
Anyone can point to you innumerable history books that describe the events. You don't have to take it from any particular denomination, and certainly not from any one that says it was their denomination that did all of this by itself.
It's a matter of historic fact that the councils were conducted before the church broke into the various divisions we came to know later--Roman, Eastern Orthodox, Protestant, etc.
Not really. The government of England was a different and distinct entity that still exists. In the case of the Church, it no longer exists to claim ownership but it does have a number of successor denominations, including both yours and mine.Using your logic, the United States can claim authorship of the Magna Carta
Yes. It is a matter of historic record that the councils that canonized the NT met and did that.
Anyone can point to you innumerable history books that describe the events. You don't have to take it from any particular denomination, and certainly not from any one that says it was their denomination that did all of this by itself.
It's a matter of historic fact that the councils were conducted before the church broke into the various divisions we came to know later--Roman, Eastern Orthodox, Protestant, etc.
Not really.
The government of England was a different and distinct entity that still exists.
it no longer exists to claim ownership
but it does have a number of successor denominations, including both yours and mine.
Both came from that common origin, just as many bishops of a number of different denominations descend, in Apostolic Succession, from Peter, not just one line. Your own local bishop probably does, but he's not going around claiming to be the Pope, is he?
If so, it is all around you. You've said that you don't know church history and yet you act as though something's preventing you from learning. The local library or the internet or dozens of books on the subject by respected historians could help you, yet you talk as though I'm supposed to fill that gap with a post inline! And BTW, if I were to do that--as I've correctly done with other matters--what would your instant response be? We know. It would be to say I'm biased or didn't provide the evidence you approve of or something else like that.I'm looking for evidence.
If so, it is all around you. You've said that you don't know church history and yet you act as though something's preventing you from learning. The local library or the internet or dozens of books on the subject by respected historians could help you, yet you talk as though I'm supposed to fill that gap with a post inline! And BTW, if I were to do that--as I've correctly done with other matters--what would your instant response be? We know. It would be to say I'm biased or didn't provide the evidence you approve of or something else like that.
If you want a recommendation, however, I'd suggest A History of the Christian Church by Williston Walker, a highly regarded, objective historian whose book is used in colleges.
See post #463, please.
I'm not in favor of rejecting the Holy Spirit's guidance in this matter. I'd have thought you understood that after all the posts we've exchanged.Post 463 didn't give any non-Catholic source of the N.T. Canon.
The New Testament Canon is not even mentioned in Scripture, yet we accept it. Then why reject the Holy Spirit's teaching about the Immaculate Conception?
I'm not in favor of rejecting the Holy Spirit's guidance in this matter..
I'm sure you knew it all along. I can't very well refer to the importance of the word of God over and over again...and you NOT pick up the idea that I accept the guidance of the Holy Spirit.I'm glad to hear that. .
I'm sure you knew it all along. I can't very well refer to the importance of the word of God over and over again...and you NOT pick up the idea that I accept the guidance of the Holy Spirit.
I'm talking about the fact that that particular verse doesn't address our topic.
Quoting a verse that doesn't refer to the Immaculate Conception isn't a way to convince me, no. It does show me that you'll believe anything, so long as your denomination says to believe it, and, of course, if the idea sounds glorious enough.
What oral traditions extant in Paul's time are you talking about?
Says you and the Roman Catholic Church, even though you're quoting from the King James Version of the Bible which is well-known for the use of wording that is straight out of the seventeenth century. You have, at least, put your finger on the only possible argument for the immaculate conception--a misinterpretation of the words of the angel to Mary.. Being sinless means being full of grace.
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?