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.
If by "the poster" you mean me, as I'm the one who posted the anathema from the fifth council, then no insult was or is intended. It was posted to show the simple fact that this conversation has already gone down in the church catholic, and the argument is over. The Blessed Virgin is indeed ever-virgin, whether that sits well with some protestants or not.
Quite the opposite. I am saying that it is through the work of the Spirit that the early Church recognised God's true word.So are you trying to say that the scriptures are of man made tradition?
No one has ever suggested otherwise. The Scriptures were once 'hand me downs' and the only warrant we had was the 'hearsay' that this was 'from St. John. That is how the early Church worked. It had no agreed body of NT for centuries, and yet the Church knew which works were God's word. It was inspired; did it suddenly lose that inspiration when it also practiced intercessory prayer? Hardly.For the belief we have are from the very written scripture and not of hand me down hear say.
But you do just that. You have no autograph copy of any Gospel. The written account is much later than what it records, and yet you believe it, even though you have not a piece of contemporary evidence that the book of Revelation, for example, is by St. John.Jesus quoted the OT and contantly brought those back to it is written. Now we have not only the OT scriptures but the NT scriptures that we can trust and rely upon as being from the very breath of God. We cannot trust and rely upon traditions that do not find their roots in the written account. For somewhere along the line one of them are wrong. Now to me it is quite evident that I will trust the writing of the scriptures to any tradition that contradicts what has been written..
Only those who accept the authority of the Apostolic churches view the councils as authoritative. To me they are mere ramblings of man no better than a quote from Arius.
From my research I conculde that by the time of the first council the church was already corrupted.
No one has yet answered the point that the Church which canonised the NT also practised intercessory prayer through St. Mary and revered her as ever-Virgin. Not one of these Greek speaking Fathers saw any disconnect between there liturgical and prayer practices and the Bible.
Great. So we can conclude that you also do not accept the Bible as canonized, since it was those very councils that canonized the NT. All we have to go on are your mere ramblings. Do you have anything of substance to add to the conversation now?
Great. So we can conclude that you also do not accept the Bible as canonized, since it was those very councils that canonized the NT. All we have to go on are your mere ramblings. Do you have anything of substance to add to the conversation now?
Do the dates matter? If so, why?This was addressed in the other thread Plumb line of Scripture. Like with things Mary, not much was ever truly addressed, but simply repeated assertions like things from 396 as if it came before 387.
The Apostles had a whole lot of books in which to tell us which books were Scripture, and in which to use the word 'Trinity'; unaccountably they seem to have neglected so to do; not everything is in the Bible when it is read apart from the tradition which recognised it; but that point has been repeatedly ignored.Again the apostles had the two perfect martyrs in which to teach the apostolic church intercessory prayer through the deceased. They didn't. It arose later. It is acorn-to-oak thinking apart from the mustard seed.
Do the dates matter? If so, why?
The Apostles had a whole lot of books in which to tell us which books were Scripture, and in which to use the word 'Trinity'; unaccountably they seem to have neglected so to do; not everything is in the Bible when it is read apart from the tradition which recognised it; but that point has been repeatedly ignored.
peace,
Anglian
Do the dates matter? If so, why?
The Apostles had a whole lot of books in which to tell us which books were Scripture, and in which to use the word 'Trinity'; unaccountably they seem to have neglected so to do; not everything is in the Bible when it is read apart from the tradition which recognised it; but that point has been repeatedly ignored.
peace,
Anglian
We see as through a glass darkly, and that is how we see the Glory of the Trinity. Not important? Well Christ seemed to think it mattered that we believed in Him. And if He is part of the Trinity and we don't believe in it, then how do we believe in Him?I say becuase the whole trinity idea is just man grasping at straws to describe the divine and is really not that important.
Scripture teaches Gods People what truth is through the power of the HS who is our teacher to what has been breathed by God.Quite the opposite. I am saying that it is through the work of the Spirit that the early Church recognised God's true word.
Are you saying that the body today does not recoginse Gods true Word? We have gone back to the scriptures as the authority on what is truth and grounded in the scriptures and what is not and is in fact contrary to what the scriptures teach.
You seem to imagine that the Spirit could guide the Church to know this, and that the same Church was not also guided when it accepted intercessory prayer and Marian veneration. This seems incomprehensible.
Not all of the CHURCH or Body of Christ accept that this Marian veneration is of the HS.. Not all accept that intercessory prayer from the Passed on saints are from the HS either for there is no founding of this practice in the written scriptures. Just as we do not see Jesus bringing people to his mother to guide them to himself..
No one has ever suggested otherwise. The Scriptures were once 'hand me downs' and the only warrant we had was the 'hearsay' that this was 'from St. John. That is how the early Church worked. It had no agreed body of NT for centuries, and yet the Church knew which works were God's word. It was inspired; did it suddenly lose that inspiration when it also practiced intercessory prayer? Hardly.
I am sorry to say that this is silly. For the scriptures were being sent out in the earliest of the early Church while Paul and John were still living. Even Peter called Pauls letters scripture..
But you do just that. You have no autograph copy of any Gospel. The written account is much later than what it records, and yet you believe it, even though you have not a piece of contemporary evidence that the book of Revelation, for example, is by St. John.
I do not need a autographed copy by men. I have the Holy Spirit that bears witness that the scriptures we have are indeed the infallable teachings of Gods breath. It is God said I believe and that settles it. Not this man said or that man said or this person taught ect..
You follow a very recent, entirely man made tradition in dividing what the Church never did, Scripture from the tradition which supports it.
peace,
Anglian
I am saying that to say 'We have gone back to the Scriptures' is to do something novel. We see St. Paul and the Apostles teaching by writing and word; if you use only writing you do not do as the Apostles. We only know what the writings are because of the Inspired Church. Christ's Church recognises God's True word in the ways it always has.Are you saying that the body today does not recoginse Gods true Word? We have gone back to the scriptures as the authority on what is truth and grounded in the scriptures and what is not and is in fact contrary to what the scriptures teach.
The Church which recognised the genuine Apostolic deposit did so. Those Churches tracing their lineage to it do so still. Those who do not do so do not do as the early Church did.Not all of the CHURCH or Body of Christ accept that this Marian veneration is of the HS.. Not all accept that intercessory prayer from the Passed on saints are from the HS either for there is no founding of this practice in the written scriptures. Just as we do not see Jesus bringing people to his mother to guide them to himself..
to which you helpfully responded not by answering the question but thus:No one has ever suggested otherwise. The Scriptures were once 'hand me downs' and the only warrant we had was the 'hearsay' that this was 'from St. John. That is how the early Church worked. It had no agreed body of NT for centuries, and yet the Church knew which works were God's word. It was inspired; did it suddenly lose that inspiration when it also practiced intercessory prayer? Hardly.
Indeed, but where does Peter talk about John's Gospel, or Mark's, or Luke's. And where, pray, does St. Luke, the companion of Paul, so much as mention his epistles, or Paul's epistles mention a single Gospel? If you follow only those two references you'd have a very short NT. And that is what is inadequate in the methodology you employ: you'd have two books in Scripture.I am sorry to say that this is silly. For the scriptures were being sent out in the earliest of the early Church while Paul and John were still living. Even Peter called Pauls letters scripture..
That's easy to say. But the Bible you read was not the product of the HS working on you. You read a book which you did not put together. You read a book the Church put together.I do not need a autographed copy by men. I have the Holy Spirit that bears witness that the scriptures we have are indeed the infallable teachings of Gods breath. It is God said I believe and that settles it. Not this man said or that man said or this person taught ect..
That would be why there are so many different Churches then? Is the HS telling us all different things? If your version of things is right, it does not explain why you fail to practice what the early Church practised and I do.Scripture teaches Gods People what truth is through the power of the HS who is our teacher to what has been breathed by God.
We see as through a glass darkly, and that is how we see the Glory of the Trinity. Not important? Well Christ seemed to think it mattered that we believed in Him. And if He is part of the Trinity and we don't believe in it, then how do we believe in Him?
We can believe in a God we can fully understand - but that just proves it is not God. The created can understand fully the Creator, nor can the finite comprehend fully the Infinite.
peace,
Anglian
Indeed. That is my point about our seeing through a glass darkly.Christ stated Baptism in the name of the Father Son and Holy spirit is important. He never passed on a teaching called the trinity, it was developed later by man as a way to try and understand how Jesus can be less than and equal to the Father at the same time.
And you have any other examples - or are your starters all there is?
peace,
Anglian
We are to test the spirits to see if indeed they are from God..Dear MamaZ,
You ask:
I am saying that to say 'We have gone back to the Scriptures' is to do something novel. We see St. Paul and the Apostles teaching by writing and word; if you use only writing you do not do as the Apostles.
Well we do not have the Apostles here with us. Therefore we do not have their word other than what they have written. So therefore we adhere to the teaching of the scriptures.
We only know what the writings are because of the Inspired Church. Christ's Church recognises God's True word in the ways it always has.
I don't see where only one certain group are inspired in the scriptures and allowed to go beyond what is written and proclaim things absent from what the scriptures teach. I see where the scriptures are inspired by God and I see that the annointing in us teaches us and leads us into all truth.
You add:
The Church which recognised the genuine Apostolic deposit did so. Those Churches tracing their lineage to it do so still. Those who do not do so do not do as the early Church did.
You keep writing about the early church. How far back are you going for this? For I see from the earliest of the church that Mary was not mentioned and crowned as some do now.
I wrote
to which you helpfully responded not by answering the question but thus:
Indeed, but where does Peter talk about John's Gospel, or Mark's, or Luke's. And where, pray, does St. Luke, the companion of Paul, so much as mention his epistles, or Paul's epistles mention a single Gospel? If you follow only those two references you'd have a very short NT. And that is what is inadequate in the methodology you employ: you'd have two books in Scripture.
LOL in the first of the Gospels we see that Matthew Mark Luke and John are writing of their witness to Christ.. THen we see in Acts where the promise of the Holy Spirit fell.. Then we have Paul who was Saul being transformed by the Power of God and sent to the Gentiles. We also see in scripture where Paul had to correct Peter. The story is all there for us to read and adhere to as truth and correction and reproof just as the scripture declares.
Just how do you know that St. John's Gospel was written by St. John? You do know that we have no copy of the original and that we know this only because the Church has always taught it is so. Your method can provide no answer to this question; when it can, it will have some claim to validity.
Do you believe that the Spirit of God would not lead us into all His truth individually? Putting my trust in men and having fear of men or shall I say reverance to men brings a snare. I put my trust in Christ and His teaching me and opening my eyes to understand the scripture. This is where we differ so much. You always say the church has always taught. I don't see that the church has taught what some say they have always taught..Such as Mary being exalted above other men and women. I have the teachings of the earliest of the Church all written for me. God is capable and Faithful to make sure His word was gathered for His people. I give all honor and Glory to Him.
When you say
That's easy to say. But the Bible you read was not the product of the HS working on you. You read a book which you did not put together. You read a book the Church put together.
I read a book that is inspired and breathed by God and can put my full trust into these words that have been written because the Spirit in me bears witness with what has been written..I do not honor and worship those to who put the book together..Because this early church as you say put the book together does not allow them to add other doctrines such as the marian doctrines . Then call it truth and say that this practice has been going on from the beginning when there is no proof of any of the Apostles teaching this.
That would be why there are so many different Churches then? Is the HS telling us all different things? If your version of things is right, it does not explain why you fail to practice what the early Church practised and I do.
peace,
Anglian
What test do you use? Explain how you go about this.We are to test the spirits to see if indeed they are from God..
Except this ignores the question of how we know what is written is their word. There is only the evidence offered by the tradition of the Church. Believe that for the Bible and there is then no reason not to believe the Church on all the rest of tradition.Well we do not have the Apostles here with us. Therefore we do not have their word other than what they have written. So therefore we adhere to the teaching of the scriptures.
Read St. John's epistles and see what he thought of those who claimed to be able to interpret the Gospel according to their own light.I don't see where only one certain group are inspired in the scriptures and allowed to go beyond what is written and proclaim things absent from what the scriptures teach. I see where the scriptures are inspired by God and I see that the annointing in us teaches us and leads us into all truth.
As far back as when the Church gives us the Bible - if we didn't, you would have nothing at all. That Church practised intercessory prayer and Marian veneration and saw no contradiction - it it you and the man maede late tradition which sees a problem where no one else ever has.You keep writing about the early church. How far back are you going for this? For I see from the earliest of the church that Mary was not mentioned and crowned as some do now.
Which ignores the point - which was how do you know these are the Gospels - St. Paul never mentions them in his letters. You know because the early Church tells you; it also tells you that Marian veneration is fine; you selectively choose which bits of tradition you use.LOL in the first of the Gospels we see that Matthew Mark Luke and John are writing of their witness to Christ.. THen we see in Acts where the promise of the Holy Spirit fell.. Then we have Paul who was Saul being transformed by the Power of God and sent to the Gentiles. We also see in scripture where Paul had to correct Peter. The story is all there for us to read and adhere to as truth and correction and reproof just as the scripture declares.
Which ignores the point - which was how do you know these are the Gospels - St. Paul never mentions them in his letters. You know because the early Church tells you; it also tells you that Marian veneration is fine; you selectively choose which bits of tradition you use.
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?