- Aug 6, 2017
- 5,156
- 1,663
- Country
- United States
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Non-Denom
- Marital Status
- Married
you would agree, that prayer for the living can (in theory) elicit God's greater mercies upon that person ?
Upvote
0
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.
you would agree, that prayer for the living can (in theory) elicit God's greater mercies upon that person ?But only in the sense that the church prays that God would be merciful to the faithful departed. The idea that by prayer we can change the eternal destiny of a particular individual after death is certainly not Scriptural. The passage you cited is most often use to try to prove Purgatory and the practices that relate to it.
written about 55 AD, 40 years before the Rabbinical school at Jamnia began debating (and ultimately redefining) their accepted canon of those oraclesNo, the Jews did. This is the Old Testament after all.
Then what advantage has the Jew? Or what is the value of circumcision? 2 Much in every way. To begin with, the Jews were entrusted with the oracles of God.
Rom 3:1-2 ESV
not trueDiscovered in the Qumran region near the Dead Sea beginning in 1947, these scrolls are dated to as early as 200 BC and contain parts of every book in the Old Testament except Esther. Comparisons of the Dead Sea Scrolls to the Masoretic Text and the Septuagint show that where there are differences between the Masoretic Text and the Septuagint, approximately 95% of those differences are shared between the Dead Sea Scrolls and the Masoretic text, while only 5% of those differences are shared between the Dead Sea Scrolls and the Septuagint. Does this mean that the Septuagint is unreliable and that our Old Testament is wrought with contradictory sources? No. It is imperative to note that these “variations” are extremely minor (i.e., grammatical errors, spelling differences or missing words) and do not affect the meaning of sentences and paragraphs. (An exception is the book of Jeremiah, in which the actual passages are arranged differently.) None of the differences, however, come close to affecting any area of teaching or doctrine. The majority of the Septuagint, Masoretic Text and the Dead Sea Scrolls are remarkably similar and have dispelled unfounded theories that the Biblical text has been corrupted by time and conspiracy. Furthermore, these variations do not call into question the infallibility of God in preserving His word.
Even then, the Bible has redundancy built into its text, and anything significant is told more than once. If grammatical mistakes were introduced that makes a point unclear, it is clarified in several other places in scripture.
The point is ..... the differences are minor, extremely minor.
Sola Scriptura
God Bless.
Some of the strongest condemnations I have heard came not from the Reformation but from the Churches of the East.And what we've called Rome for centuries. They are also heretics.
I mean the Church Catholic, not Roman since the term Roman Catholic is a contradiction. If you read any of my previous posts you will discover that I shy away from the term because like you I do not believe that Rome has a right to call themselves catholic.What do you mean when you say Church here? Do you mean Protestant Church, in which case I agree with you, the Protestant Churches didn't accept these books.
If you read Beckwith's work I referenced earlier you will realize that statement is not entirely true. Essentially the more a church father knew about Jewish language and culture the more that father was likely to reject part or all of the apocrypha. For example Augustine thought the books were scripture but his contemporary Jerome did not. Jerome learned Hebrew from his time in the Levant and realized they were never considered scripture. Did they become over time accepted into the longer canon, well yes of course I recognize that. Of course those that do are simply wrong.I have no problem recognizing the the disputed nature of these books, i also have no problem recognizing they are of a lesser status than those books we all agree upon, yet I also recognize that as time went on, long before the reformation they also became accepted by the Church only really being challenged in one part of Christendom.
So why isn't it an obvious question to ask that as the longer canons became gradually accepted this wasn't his people recognizing his words? Is it only Protestants who have this privilege?
You're not going to give me that "Saints are not dead but are alive just like your neighbor on Earth" approach, are you?you would agree, that prayer for the living can (in theory) elicit God's greater mercies upon that person ?
not true
you are a gentile Christian because of the Council of Jerusalem in about 50 AD (= Acts 15)
you are a gentile Christian because Saint James ruled in your (then hotly disputed) favor, by quoting Amos 9:11-12 from the LXX
View attachment 244657
Every Jewish Rabbi knows that Christianity cannot be supported by their Masoretic text, and has for the better part of 2000 years -- James couldn't have quoted Amos 9:11-12 from the M text...
whereas Simon bar Kochba and Rabbi Akiva, who declared him the Messiah, surely did
BTW, I didn't write human history on Earth... supposedly, God in heaven has more influence over it than me (!)
But that's the way it all went down, way back when
If you hold to the doctrine of sola scriptura, meaning scripture alone as the source of all doctrines, when did it begin?
In 700 AD all Christians used the longer canon, meaning that the bible had in it what protestants call the apocrypha. In 700 AD a Christian would have prayed for the dead and given alms for the dead based on II Maccabees 12:42-44.
When did sola scriptura end that practice?
We had to watch our church split apart by the latins, and then watch as they further destroyed the reputation of Christendom for the next 1000 years. Add that two persecution by them and constant land grabbing at the expense of Orthodox lives and yea.Some of the strongest condemnations I have heard came not from the Reformation but from the Churches of the East.
You're not going to give me that "Saints are not dead but are alive just like your neighbor on Earth" approach, are you?
The false belief of Sola Scriptura has resulted in the abandonment of many of the beliefs and practices of original and complete Christianity, and the fragmentation of those who accept the idea, into thousands of unauthorized manmade denominations teaching thousands of conflicting and therefore false beliefs, in just a few hundred years. The plainly stated will of Jesus Christ concerning His followers was and still is "That they all may be ONE, even as I and my heavenly Father are ONE". Jesus insisted on this because He knew that truth can exist only in unity. Which is why the ONE Church He founded, which He said was to remain ONE, to which He promised the fullness of truth, remains ONE in belief, ONE in teaching, ONE in worship, ONE in biblical understanding throughout the world after 2,000 years. You just can't beat God's plan.
What stuff?We had to watch our church split apart by the latins, and then watch as they further destroyed the reputation of Christendom for the next 1000 years. Add that two persecution by them and constant land grabbing at the expense of Orthodox lives and yea.
I thought the Anglican Church believed in all this stuff.
That’s true as by the second century as the church moved from a Presbyterian form of church government the local and regional bishops maintained more central power. We see this with Cyprian in North Africa.Also there were more than one "Pope" in the pre schism church. Pope means father, and Patriarch the same.
Sola Scriptura is contrary to common sense, the literacy rate of the Greco Roman world was only 10 - 15%. Most of the average denizens of the Roman Empire we’re illiterate, even most of the Apostles were probably illiterate and had the New Testament written by their literate students.
There was no New Testament in the early years of Christianity.Sola Scriptura isn't dependent on laity being able to read or even have access to a Bible themselves. Sola Scriptura states the ultimate norm for faith is the Scriptures themselves.
There was no New Testament in the early years of Christianity.
Sola Scriptura is contrary to common sense, the literacy rate of the Greco Roman world was only 10- 15%. Most of the average denizens of the Roman Empire we’re illiterate....
My question would be, why is what your doing considered recognition and what the historic Church is doing is deciding? You have an argument with regards to the canon that you find persuasive and presumably decided upon that as satisfactory to the question of canon. So your characterization of the Church just deciding to add these books, seems hypocritical. Ultimately we both have made our decisions based on various factors but we would both claim we are both recognizing God's canon. My previous question still stands unanswered. The Church before Luther, whether we're talking eastern or western Church gradually came to include more books than in the Protestant canon.
Why did this happen if God wasn't in the Church helping his people hear his voice?
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?