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.
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
Here is a thread that might interest ya bm.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.
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.
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
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
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?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
There's a name for this.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.
and this is called the No True Scotsman Fallacy.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
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.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
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?