Rejection of Mary as your mediator (2)

[beamishboy]

He can say it, because at the time there was only one Christian Church. This Church decided what was heresy and what wasn't.

Peace

But if you read the teachings of that church and the New Testament, you come to the inescapable conclusion that that church has sorely departed from the teachings. If heresy is a return to the teachings of the New Testament, then the Apostles taught heresy.

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

But if you read the teachings of that church and the New Testament, you come to the inescapable conclusion that that church has sorely departed from the teachings. If heresy is a return to the teachings of the New Testament, then the Apostles taught heresy.

Here is a thread that might interest ya bm.

http://christianforums.com/showthread.php?t=7213672&page=44
Is Catholicism the same Church that the Apostles set up

 

[lionroar0]

Hi, what university did you study in? I bet it was an RC university or a university in a predominantly RC country, such as in Latin America.

I studied at the University of South Florida. In Tampa Florida. A state college.

Peace

 

[lionroar0]

But if you read the teachings of that church and the New Testament, you come to the inescapable conclusion that that church has sorely departed from the teachings. If heresy is a return to the teachings of the New Testament, then the Apostles taught heresy.

The NT teaches very little by itself.

Peace

 

[beamishboy]

The NT teaches very little by itself.

Peace

If that's your opinion, fine. You may ignore the NT. It's a free world. I know a Hindu who has never read the NT. He doesn't think much of it. He calls it puny compared to his holy books. That's his prerogative. I suppose that's why he's a Hindu. But as for me, I derive every teaching from the NT and the principles laid down by it.

 

[lionroar0]

If that's your opinion, fine. You may ignore the NT. It's a free world. I know a Hindu who has never read the NT. He doesn't think much of it. He calls it puny compared to his holy books. That's his prerogative. I suppose that's why he's a Hindu. But as for me, I derive every teaching from the NT and the principles laid down by it.

And what does it teach and what principles does it lay down?

BTW I never said I ignored the NT. That's your own faulty conclusion. I said it teaches very little by itself.

Peace

 

[beamishboy]

And what does it teach and what principles does it lay down?

BTW I never said I ignored the NT. That's your own faulty conclusion. I said it teaches very little by itself.

Peace

Since I believe it teaches everything, I would have to write volumes to answer your question. Rather, you may tell me what the NT does not teach and yet you have the gall to practise or believe in matters of faith. Just a few items would do.

 

[prodromos]

But as for me, I derive every teaching from the NT and the principles laid down by it.

That was the attitude held by Arius, Nestorius, Macedonas etc. They all believed the NT supported their heretical teachings. What makes your interpretation of scripture special and what sets it apart from ours?

John

 

[beamishboy]

That was the attitude held by Arius, Nestorius, Macedonas etc. They all believed the NT supported their heretical teachings. What makes your interpretation of scripture special and what sets it apart from ours?

John

You are wrong, my dear prodromos. They did not accept the NT. If they did, they would not have come up with heresies such as that Jesus was not fully man, etc etc.

 

[prodromos]

Your argument to support heresy is simple: if it's been done for a blooming long time, let's continue because God couldn't have allowed this heresy to have continued for a thousand years. In philosophy, there's a name for this sort of flawed argument but I don't remember it.

There's a name for this.
Its called the Straw Man Fallacy.

John

 

[prodromos]

You are wrong, my dear prodromos. They did not accept the NT. If they did, they would not have come up with heresies such as that Jesus was not fully man, etc etc.

and this is called the No True Scotsman Fallacy.

John

 

[beamishboy]

and this is called the No True Scotsman Fallacy.

John

Say what you will but the man on the Clapham omnibus even if he's a Scotsman will, if he has read his NT, say that the beamishboy has not departed from apostolic teachings while he can't say that of some other churches. It's as clear as daylight.

 

[prodromos]

Say what you will but the man on the Clapham omnibus even if he's a Scotsman will, if he has read his NT, say that the beamishboy has not departed from apostolic teachings while he can't say that of some other churches. It's as clear as daylight.

Unfortunately for you I am of Scottish descent, have read my NT, and do not agree with your statement above as I have come to a rather different conclusion.

John

 

[beamishboy]

Unfortunately for you I am of Scottish descent, have read my NT, and do not agree with your statement above as I have come to a rather different conclusion.

John

You come to a different conclusion because you have been influenced to look at certain NT passages in a way no reasonable person would. You were told that is how it should be interpreted even though no reasonable man would do so in that way. You have allowed extraneous matters to influence the plain wording of the Word of God. You are not a man on the Clapham omnibus.

Such a man reading the NT untrammelled by the influences you have been exposed to would not have come to the conclusion you came to.

 

[jckstraw72]

You come to a different conclusion because you have been influenced to look at certain NT passages in a way no reasonable person would. You were told that is how it should be interpreted even though no reasonable man would do so in that way. You have allowed extraneous matters to influence the plain wording of the Word of God. You are not a man on the Clapham omnibus.

then your position is that God was not able to raise up even one reasonable person for 1500 yrs or more? some God you've got there.

 

[jckstraw72]

How can you make such a rude statement? It's as rude as if I were to say that my Church follows apostolic teachings as revealed in the NT; yours doesn't. Although I believe that wholeheartedly, it doesn't sound right to say it, does it? You should learn to be careful.

i was simply demonstrating to you the logical outgrowth of your statement.

 

[beamishboy]

then your position is that God was not able to raise up even one reasonable person for 1500 yrs or more? some God you've got there.

Not everyone followed the heresy that accumulated over the centuries. Not everyone worshipped/venerated humans for 1500 years. These people may not have been prominent but not all of them committed the wrongs perpetuated by the prelates of the church then.

It's wrong of you to think everyone was united in heresy then. History tells us that humans aren't that uniform and thankfully so. And it's not 1500 years. For the first couple of hundred years the heresy was not so entrenched yet. Why do you think the Gospel of James was not accepted as canonical if everyone then was busy worshipping/venerating (or whatever word/euphemism you choose to use)? Instead, we have the canonical works: the epistles did not breathe even a word about Mary.

I think it's appropriate for me to refer you to a short little history of the church I wrote in another forum in CF but since I have need to refer to it from time to time, I have reproduced this history of the church by the beamishboy in my blog for future reference: Click here to get to the HISTORY OF THE CHURCH BY THE BEAMISHBOY

Most people are agreed that my summary of church history is totally accurate and the sort of material seminaries all over the world will want to get their hands on! Hehe.

 

[lionroar0]

You are wrong, my dear prodromos. They did not accept the NT. If they did, they would not have come up with heresies such as that Jesus was not fully man, etc etc.

Actually they did accept the Scriptures and their heretical arguments were derived from the Scriptures.

What they departed from was the Tradition of the Church, which includes the Scriptures.

Peace

 

[lionroar0]

Since I believe it teaches everything, I would have to write volumes to answer your question. Rather, you may tell me what the NT does not teach and yet you have the gall to practise or believe in matters of faith. Just a few items would do.

Start with one teaching and then the discussion can progress.

Peace

 

[jckstraw72]

Not everyone followed the heresy that accumulated over the centuries. Not everyone worshipped/venerated humans for 1500 years. These people may not have been prominent but not all of them committed the wrongs perpetuated by the prelates of the church then.

who are these people and what is your evidence of them?