Standing Up
On and on
So, what's the problem? That the bishops at times do not teach the same as can be tied to apostles? Or that they have the authority to do so anyway?
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.
Note carefully what I said, I did not say that the apostolic office itself continued. I said that the office of the bishops (the highest authority after the apostes) took it's place with regards to preservance of church doctrine and teaching, and were commissioned by the apostles to do so and continue teaching other's the same.
Paul to Timothy:
2And the things you have heard me say in the presence of many witnesses entrust to reliable men who will also be qualified to teach others.
Since Montalban can't, could you provide the tradition sources that supported Arius' claim?
My point is that the first bishops were appointed by and succeeded the apostles, and that this succession continues today.
There weren't.
Actually, there are at least four different scriptural canons in use today in the Christian world.
Some only have 22 books, others more; some missing books that are in the 27, some use books that are not in the 27.
Which group has the inspired collection?
'Tis ok, I don't know what the sign of the Cross has to do with President Obama, either....
Again, I did not say that it 'replaced' the apostles, such as 'fulfilling' the roles of the apostles. The bishops merely carried on the jurisdictional duties of taking care of the flock and ensuring correct teaching.
That's good, but if you do not have a historical connection to the source, don't you have to wonder if something got lost somewhere between the first century and now?
Absolutely why we can't go SS
Good, then perhaps you get my point.
See if you can stick to the subject.
Yeah, instead lets go with thousands of competing "T"raditions.
Since Montalban can't, could you provide the tradition sources that supported Arius' claim?
You've already convinced countless others that Arianism was based on the Bible. And that tradition safeguarded the truth.
You should quit while you're ahead.
So, what's the problem? That the bishops at times do not teach the same as can be tied to apostles? Or that they have the authority to do so anyway?
You should read the other thread about it.
From what I see, they both argued from scripute, but no tradition either way. The ones with the whole of scripture prevailed over the singular verse selections in much the same way that the devil said, it is written, and Christ said, it is written and you've misunderstood the whole council of God as revealed in scripture.
PS. You also should know that Arianism arose at the time when the bread change and office of priest became the norm. IOW, with the bread there was a time when Christ was not, then He is. See the connection between the two false teachings?
That's 50 million Christians...and not only the OO's differ in their canon.
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?