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.
Having read my posts it seems I am becoming argumentative. That is not my intention. Thank you for the conversation.Kenpo,
I am certain that he is speaking of The Divine Liturgy, which comes to us from St. James.
Forgive me..
Yeah he wanted to do away with purgatry ad could not deny it unless he removed those books.really? SO, how come they aren't in my Bible?? OH let me guess..Luther took them out...yeah...okey dokey. MUST of been a REASON!
No what I am saying is that it is a list of books we can be sure of. Not a list of the only Truth. Surely it is possible that Truth exists outside of Scripture however we can only be sure of Scripture.So.. What you are saying is that canon = list of true books (excluding all others)?
Am I correct?
Forgive me...
Are you denying that scripture is written down Tradition that comes to us from the apostles?mhm...ok. And on that note..I bid you all blessings and God's richest blessings.
and you got that from where? Nothing to do with what you quoted. scripure is GOD breathed...written by SOME of the apostles. What is written is what GOD said.Are you denying that scripture is written down Tradition that comes to us from the apostles?
Because I don't agree that this is the purpose of Scripture. (To have something to read at Church) I believe the purpose of Scripture is to convey Truth, whether in the Liturgy, out of the Liturgy etc.Well if you know what the Liturgy of the Word is then I do not understand why you do not agree.
You see that makes no sense to me because the sureness of scripture is because of the authority Christ gave to His Church.No what I am saying is that it is a list of books we can be sure of. Not a list of the only Truth. Surely it is possible that Truth exists outside of Scripture however we can only be sure of Scripture.
That it's not the first time someone around here understands the Orthodox position but disagrees with it.I am sorry I don't understand what you mean by this.
Because I don't believe that either the RCC or the Orthodox Church is the New Testament Church.You see that makes no sense to me because the sureness of scripture is because of the authority Christ gave to His Church.
So how does one accept the Church's authority that assures which books are inspired but not accept her authority over all?
AMEN! Jesus didn't start a church. The Church is HIS body of BELIEVERS..not a denomination....Because I don't believe that either the RCC or the Orthodox Church is the New Testament Church.
Having read my posts it seems I am becoming argumentative. That is not my intention. Thank you for the conversation.
Now days maybe but back in the day- this was the only way ppl, because of illiteracy was able to hear God's word.Because I don't agree that this is the purpose of Scripture. (To have something to read at Church) I believe the purpose of Scripture is to convey Truth, whether in the Liturgy, out of the Liturgy etc.
And that's not the first time someone didn't believe this.Because I don't believe that either the RCC or the Orthodox Church is the New Testament Church.
I am not so sure that illiteracy was as big a problem as many contend. After all the Apostles were literate (at least some of them) and many of them were fishermen.Now days maybe but back in the day- this was the only way ppl, because of illiteracy was able to hear God's word.
Why should I be?And that's not the first time someone didn't believe this.
Do you realize that we pretty much know this already??
I happen to believe that the Catholic Church is the NT Church. Are you shocked?
He's not judging you, he is saying in fact he can not judge you.Um...slightly judging me aren't you?? In fact, I am not full of hate. I hate when GOD's word gets twisted to meet your tradition and thinking. BUT you are free to think what you want. BUT you might want to reconsider judging me...isn't that against your rules? YOU don't know my heart. Thanks for your input. Have a good one!
We do, of course, realize that Protestants do not recognize it because it's not in The Holy Scriptures.
However, realize the fact, that Protestants (I used to be one...) do not recognize all of what was canonized as scripture, nor do they trust the Churches who canonized them.
It seems odd indeed that they trust scriptures at all.
Forgive me...
I did not say nor infer that it is scripture.
I said, not everything that "WAS" cononized as scripture is "NOT" recognized by Protestants as being such. IOW ~ The KJV is incomplete.
So the question turns to you as well... "How do you determine which early writings are authoritative and which are not?"
As for my answer... It's simple. I trust The Church of Antioch.
If, 150 years from now, someone decides that even fewer books should have been in "The Bible" and publish it as authorative... will you be proud of your great-grandchildren for upholing the new authorative "Bible", or rather the one you held to?
Forgive me...
From the Ascension of Isaiah chapter 11:
3. And he came into his lot. And when she was espoused, she was found with child, and Joseph the carpenter was desirous to put her away.
4. But the angel of the Spirit appeared in this world, and after that Joseph did not put her away, but kept Mary and did not reveal this matter to any one.
5. And he did not approach May, but kept her as a holy virgin, though with child.
6. And he did not live with her for two months.
7. And after two months of days while Joseph was in his house, and Mary his wife, but both alone.
8. It came to pass that when they were alone that Mary straight-way looked with her eyes and saw a small babe, and she was astonished.
9. And after she had been astonished, her womb was found as formerly before she had conceived.
10. And when her husband Joseph said unto her: "What has astonished thee?" his eyes were opened and he saw the infant and praised God, because into his portion God had come.
11. And a voice came to them: "Tell this vision to no one."
12. And the story regarding the infant was noised broad in Bethlehem.
13. Some said: "The Virgin Mary hath borne a child, before she was married two months."
14. And many said: "She has not borne a child, nor has a midwife gone up (to her), nor have we heard the cries of (labour) pains." And they were all blinded respecting Him and they all knew regarding Him, though they knew not whence He was. (http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/text/ascension.html)
This apochriphal text is probably the only source about the birth of Jesus that is indipendent from the Gospels - very older than the ProtoGospel of James.
The chapters 6-11 date on about the 70ad for some scolars, according others (more probable) they date about the 120ad, surely before the 135ad.
Now thats not fair. We don't know what he knows as a Church service.
Forgive me...
You remind me of someone years ago who use to debate Catholics and Orthodox relentlessly and he was pretty serious too, didn't crack a smile ever, and thanks be to God, he is converting to Orthodoxy.Why should I be?
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?