Mary and Joseph

Uphill Battle · Mar 7, 2007

OrthodoxyUSA said:
God's message has not been destroyed, with the exception of the 10 commandments it has been completely verbal, and passed from one believer to the next down through time.

alright, so then, we have the gospels and the epistles written down, but all those other "truths" either not recorded, or destroyed. which is it? and if an oral transmission is all that is required, why then is the gospel written?

[quote -OrthodoxyUSA]
If Christ God had wanted you to have a text to go by, he would have written it himself, and no man would have been able to destroy it. Instead, he put his faith in mankind to keep his word, to baptise all the world and to teach them all that he had taught them.
[/quote] that is a baseless claim. God didn't physically write the OT either.

OrthodoxyUSA said:
Are we to suppose that all that he taught them is contained in The Bible? Who's Bible, which version? Where is the inspired table of content? Why does one contain more than another?

if the teachings of the "ancient churches" were consistant, that might hold a lot more water.

orthodoxyUSA said:
Is it not because men change these things over time? Who is the author of confusion? How is it that we beleive that The Holy Spirit is leading us in different directions?

How is it you believe it so easy for Man to change the text of scripture, but impossible for them to modify "truths" over the centuries? If you read the ECFS, you see a progression of dogmas. It appears after 300 AD, and expands from there. The briefest mentions of Mary in writtings have ballooned to monstrous proportions. Why is it that you can find no error in this, but have no problem accusing the bible of error?

orthodoxyUSA said:
There is more to Christianity than what is in The Bible. There is more knowledge to be had.

Forgive me...

true. But basing a doctrine on say-so of an orginization that has fluxuate over the centuries seems a tad optimistic.

Rdr Iakovos · Mar 7, 2007

Uphill Battle said:
alright, so then, we have the gospels and the epistles written down, but all those other "truths" either not recorded, or destroyed. which is it? and if an oral transmission is all that is required, why then is the gospel written?

Strawman- no one said that a written record was not necessary.

[quote -OrthodoxyUSA]
If Christ God had wanted you to have a text to go by, he would have written it himself, and no man would have been able to destroy it. Instead, he put his faith in mankind to keep his word, to baptise all the world and to teach them all that he had taught them.
[/quote]

that is a baseless claim. God didn't physically write the OT either.

No- He chose for Himself a people though whom to delive the prophetic word and salvation. He did so in the OC, and He has done so in the NC.

if the teachings of the "ancient churches" were consistant, that might hold a lot more water.

By comparison with Protestant churches, the teachings of the ancient churches are rock solid consistent.

How is it you believe it so easy for Man to change the text of scripture, but impossible for them to modify "truths" over the centuries? If you read the ECFS, you see a progression of dogmas. It appears after 300 AD, and expands from there. The briefest mentions of Mary in writtings have ballooned to monstrous proportions. Why is it that you can find no error in this, but have no problem accusing the bible of error?

How is it that you believe in the book that was compiled by those AFTER 300, but use this (random) date as proof of malfeasance?

true. But basing a doctrine on say-so of an orginization that has fluxuate over the centuries seems a tad optimistic.

Like sola scriptura, for example?

Uphill Battle · Mar 7, 2007

Rdr Iakovos said:
Strawman- no one said that a written record was not necessary.

we are told constantly that it doesn't need to be written down to be true, and likewise, many doctrines are derived from sources that are not.

Rdr I said:
No- He chose for Himself a people though whom to delive the prophetic word and salvation. He did so in the OC, and He has done so in the NC.

and it's written down. Everything we need to know is in the bible, in regards to salvation.

Rdr I said:
By comparison with Protestant churches, the teachings of the ancient churches are rock solid consistent.

perhaps... that doesn't do away with their inconsistancy, however, less or not. (also a major reason why I am non denominational.)

Rdr I said:
How is it that you believe in the book that was compiled by those AFTER 300, but use this (random) date as proof of malfeasance?

the writings predate 300. none of the others do.

Rdr I said:
Like sola scriptura, for example?

Sola scriptura is not a doctrine.

OrthodoxyUSA · Mar 7, 2007

Uphill Battle said:
we are told constantly that it doesn't need to be written down to be true, and likewise, many doctrines are derived from sources that are not.

and it's written down. Everything we need to know is in the bible, in regards to salvation.

perhaps... that doesn't do away with their inconsistancy, however, less or not. (also a major reason why I am non denominational.)

the writings predate 300. none of the others do.

Sola scriptura is not a doctrine.

And what of all the Christians before there was a Bible?

What about the Christians who lived before even the first epistle was written?

The first of the Gospels was Mark. Written after Peter was in Rome... so thats AD42~43.

The Gospel according to Mark was written at the request of the Christians at Rome.

Forgive me...

Uphill Battle · Mar 7, 2007

OrthodoxyUSA said:
And what of all the Christians before there was a Bible?

What about the Christians who lived before even the first epistle was written?

The first of the Gospels was Mark. Written after Peter was in Rome... so thats AD42~43.

The Gospel according to Mark was written at the request of the Christians at Rome.

Forgive me...

what of them?

prodromos · Mar 7, 2007

Uphill Battle said:
also a major reason why I am non denominational.

Which basically makes you yet another denomination of one, in which the standard of your denomination is your personal interpretation of scripture.

John

OrthodoxyUSA · Mar 7, 2007

Uphill Battle said:
what of them?

You said that everything we needed to know regarding salvation is in The Bible.

They (the Christians I mentioned) didn't have a Bible.

Forgive me...

Uphill Battle · Mar 7, 2007

prodromos said:
Which basically makes you yet another denomination of one, in which the standard of your denomination is your personal interpretation of scripture.

John

preferable to believing what ever is spoonfed.

Uphill Battle · Mar 7, 2007

OrthodoxyUSA said:
You said that everything we needed to know regarding salvation is in The Bible.

They (the Christians I mentioned) didn't have a Bible.

Forgive me...

they had the people who WROTE the bible.

Rdr Iakovos · Mar 7, 2007

Uphill Battle said:
preferable to believing what ever is spoonfed.

So you testify that there are two options: being a denomination of one, or "being spoon-fed." IOW, every one who happens to find some agrement in a set of faith declarations is "spoon-fed."
Ironically, that is PRECISELY the argument of the atheists against Christianity. Just think fo yourself- that is the highest form of intellectual- or, as you would claim- spiritual- rigor.

I reject their argument and theirs as hopelessly self-aggrandizing.

Rdr Iakovos · Mar 7, 2007

Uphill Battle said:
preferable to believing what ever is spoonfed.

So you testify that there are two options: being a denomination of one, or "being spoon-fed." IOW, every one who happens to find some agrement in a set of faith declarations is "spoon-fed."
Ironically, that is PRECISELY the argument of the atheists against Christianity. Just think fo yourself- that is the highest form of intellectual- or, as you would claim- spiritual- rigor.

I reject your argument and theirs as hopelessly self-aggrandizing.

Uphill Battle · Mar 7, 2007

Rdr Iakovos said:
So you testify that there are two options: being a denomination of one, or "being spoon-fed." IOW, every one who happens to find some agrement in a set of faith declarations is "spoon-fed."
Ironically, that is PRECISELY the argument of the atheists against Christianity. Just think fo yourself- that is the highest form of intellectual- or, as you would claim- spiritual- rigor.

I reject your argument and theirs as hopelessly self-aggrandizing.

Basically what was meant by that is, no teaching that does not jive with your church could possibly true, and is therefore dissmissed out of hand.

I don't have any such restriction.

and I do not testify that either or you suggest. I testify that any one denomination is completely unneccessary in light of salvation.

I firmly believe that a man, alone, on a desert island, with a bible, has every much the proclivity for heaven as does anyone who goes to any denomination.

That is what I meant by spoonfed. Although I had no doubts you'd reject it.

(nice ad hominem , though)

Rdr Iakovos · Mar 7, 2007

Uphill Battle said:
Basically what was meant by that is, no teaching that does not jive with your church could possibly true, and is therefore dissmissed out of hand.

Do you know this to be true, or are you just fishing?

I have watched you dismiss "out of hand" teachings about baptism that don't jive with your Anabaptists views.
Blind spot?

I don't have any such restriction.

LOL
of course you don't.
See above.

and I do not testify that either or you suggest. I testify that any one denomination is completely unneccessary in light of salvation.

Baloney. You set up a dichotomy: your way, or, and I quote, "spoon fed."
Are you back-pedalling, deflecting, or misrepresenting now?

I firmly believe that a man, alone, on a desert island, with a bible, has every much the proclivity for heaven as does anyone who goes to any denomination.

The thief on the cross was not baptized, nor did he feed the poor- yet he was saved. Why? Because God is just and merciful.
Since neither you or I are on a deserted island, your point is misguided. The question is, why do you show such disregard for those with whom you disagree?

That is what I meant by spoonfed. Although I had no doubts you'd reject it.

(nice ad hominem , though)

Yes, that is PRECISELY what your "spoon-fed" comment is and was- and ad hominem attack, a bold display of disregard. It wasn't a nice ad hominem, however, it was quite unfortunate.

Rdr Iakovos · Mar 7, 2007

Uphill Battle said:
they had the people who WROTE the bible.

Justin Martyr, Iraneus, Polycarp, Origen had the people who wrote the bible? What, in an urn?

Uphill Battle · Mar 8, 2007

Rdr Iakovos said:
Do you know this to be true, or are you just fishing?

I have watched you dismiss "out of hand" teachings about baptism that don't jive with your Anabaptists views.
Blind spot?

are you going to tell me that you would accept teachings that contradict the Orthodox church? please. and I'm not Anabaptist.

Rdr I said:
Baloney. You set up a dichotomy: your way, or, and I quote, "spoon fed."
Are you back-pedalling, deflecting, or misrepresenting now?

no, I am not. MY way is not free of error. I make no claims that anything I believe is infallibly true. Unlike Orthodox, or RCC, who glibly state that they have it 100% right. My viewpoints are subject to change with scholarship and study.

Rdr I said:
The thief on the cross was not baptized, nor did he feed the poor- yet he was saved. Why? Because God is just and merciful.
Since neither you or I are on a deserted island, your point is misguided. The question is, why do you show such disregard for those with whom you disagree?

you adhere to the "we are the one true church, all else are not" line of thinking, and you talk about disregard? Orthodox and RCC are more guilty of the marginilization of other peoples faith than any other group. They proclaim that they are 100% correct on all matters of faith and morals, and the rest of us, well, we just don't get it. Speak to me about disregard when your church doesn't have the same problem.

Rdr I said:
Yes, that is PRECISELY what your "spoon-fed" comment is and was- and ad hominem attack, a bold display of disregard. It wasn't a nice ad hominem, however, it was quite unfortunate.

again, I ask if you would give any thought to a teaching that disagrees with Orthodox. If you're honest with yourself, you would not. Call it ad hominem if you will. I don't see how pointing that fact out is the same as likening someone to atheists.

prodromos · Mar 8, 2007

Your "spoonfed" comment is pretty pathetic on a number of levels, but primarily because most of the Orthodox Christians on this forum have come to become Orthodox after years of searching, struggling and testing. For many of us it has been a far from painless journey. The fact that we are Orthodox now is because we have not been willing to be spoonfed. We have tested the beliefs of our former faiths and found them wanting. We cannot say the same for Orthodoxy.

Uphill Battle said:
I ask if you would give any thought to a teaching that disagrees with Orthodox. If you're honest with yourself, you would not.

The fact is, we have probably already done our research on such teachings and found them wanting. That's why we've become Orthodox.

John

ScottBot · Mar 8, 2007

Uphill Battle said:
they had the people who WROTE the bible.

So, they walked around with a sign that said:

[sign][c]You can trust what I am saying,

because one day my writings will be in
the bible, which will be considered the
infallible rule of faith for Christians. [/c][/sign]

CaliforniaJosiah · Mar 8, 2007

Here's what I was taught about the Bible in the Catholic Church, and as a Protestant, I fully agree...

"The Bible is the Word of God and no greater assurance of credence can be given. The Bible in inspired by God. What does this mean? It means that God is the Author of the Bible. God inspired the penmen to write as He wished and guided them to do so without error."

My $0.01

Pax!

- Josiah

Rdr Iakovos · Mar 8, 2007

are you going to tell me that you would accept teachings that contradict the Orthodox church? please. and I'm not Anabaptist.

Would you accept teachings that contradict what you came to believe after 25 years of adult study, prayer, and investigation? Or would you defend them, as you have been doing on this thread?
Nevermind, we see your answer.

no, I am not. MY way is not free of error. I make no claims that anything I believe is infallibly true. Unlike Orthodox, or RCC, who glibly state that they have it 100% right. My viewpoints are subject to change with scholarship and study.

Whose scholarship and study?

you adhere to the "we are the one true church, all else are not" line of thinking, and you talk about disregard?

Strawman.
Show me where I have said such. Please, prove this to be so.
What this is on you part is an ad hominem. You won't deal with the positions, you attack the group on a global basis.

Orthodox and RCC are more guilty of the marginilization of other peoples faith than any other group. They proclaim that they are 100% correct on all matters of faith and morals, and the rest of us, well, we just don't get it. Speak to me about disregard when your church doesn't have the same problem.

Here's how this works: you say "I'm open to changing my views, but you're not" whilst attacking not our views, but our person.
I have addressed the views of OSAS and paedobaptism. You have not replied to my address of the views, but have instead attacked the Catholic and Orthodox.
You might reply that I have attacked Protestants- but it is not so. There are many, many Protestants whose views on Baptism and salvation are very similar to my own.
So, enough of the ad hominem- deal with the issues.

again, I ask if you would give any thought to a teaching that disagrees with Orthodox. If you're honest with yourself, you would not. Call it ad hominem if you will. I don't see how pointing that fact out is the same as likening someone to atheists.

Your argument was an atheist argument.

"If you would give any thought"- as if I hadn't. I give thought to everything, and have explored the matters and continue to do so. You assume, evidently, that we Orthodox are mindless drones spouting the party line and condemning all who will not be assimilated. In point of fact, I am addressing issues, consider doing the same. Thx

ScottBot · Mar 8, 2007

CaliforniaJosiah said:
Here's what I was taught about the Bible in the Catholic Church, and as a Protestant, I fully agree...

"The Bible is the Word of God and no greater assurance of credence can be given. The Bible in inspired by God. What does this mean? It means that God is the Author of the Bible. God inspired the penmen to write as He wished and guided them to do so without error."

My $0.01

Pax!

- Josiah

I agree with that statement 100%. I don't know any credible person in any of the ancient, Apostolic churches that would disagree with the content, inerrancy, and authorship of the bible as stated. Our whole vexation is with how the Scriptures are interpreted.

Mary and Joseph

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Senior Veteran

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Senior Veteran

Revolutionary

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Revolutionary

Similar threads

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency