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.
"the written word" includes the OT, correct?
Of course. Jews did and would accuse Paul of taking gigantic liberties with the OT, and he did. We stand accused of taking liberties with the NT, which we do not. We just read and act out the parts not marked with yellow highlighter by Protestants."the written word" includes the OT, correct?
As I remember, Paul had to undergo a couple yrs instruction before his 'semi-maverick' ministry, right?
Not sufficient, but nonetheless essential as it was the lens thru which to give meaning, legitimizing the NT he was revealing thru the "foolishness" of preaching. Yo?quote=Montalban;Indeed. But Paul wasn't preaching the OT after Jesus had risen. He did draw upon it, but if the OT was sufficient for his lessons, then that's all we'd be using today.
Brother, it is my privilige to inform you that Paul was "The Great White Hope" of Rabbinical glory in its "Stay The Course" policy re: Roman occupation on the one hand & sectarian disunity on the other. He was a respected student of Gamaliel and executed orders to arrest & execute Christians, a duty he was on his way to perform in Damascus, when he "got Jesus".In fact Peter tended to preach to the Jews and Paul to the gentiles. So Paul wouldn't have been (likely to have) drawn upon the OT that often for the pagans, (such as those in Rome) wouldn't have known that much about Judaism! (and he argued against circumscision (- spelling?))
You want proof? Read your Bible and compare it with tradition. It's really quite elementary my dear Watson! There is no worship service with all the religious mumbo jumbo that we later Christians have invented. In fact the so-called primitive church itself is DRAMATICALLY different to any modern church that you or I have ever come across. We have so over-systematized it that it bears little resemblance. I don't offer any proof that you don't already have available to you. The problem with most people is, they stumble across truth occasionally, but quickly pick themselves up and dust themselves off as if nothing happened. Then when someone points out that we have actually stumbled across truth, we say, Where? Show me the proof! Strange, we humans are strange!This is an appeal to opinion. Accoding to you there is HUGE- all caps- disconnect...but you nothing to rpove this.
Offensive? Not to me. Just get to the proof.
You want proof? Read your Bible and compare it with tradition.
to the extent that we come to "know Christ" through His recorded teachings, I disagree; the Bible can be "prayer", ie interaction/relationship with Christ.But, the Bible was never intended to be a prayer. But, rather. To tell us how to, and not to, pray.
Matthew 6:7 (New International Version)
"And when you pray, do not keep on babbling like pagans, for they think they will be heard because of their many words."
.
I'm really failing to see what you're driving at.You said Jesus came for the lost, and that you're saved.
nope. He was in the process of being inspired to write his portion of it.SO he didn't need scripture by which to preach!
doesn't guarantee anything WHAT? I have no clue what point you are trying to make.And their claim would be validated how? By what they believe and practice!
Exactly, so simply proclaiming the faith in Jesus as you said was all that's necessary doesn't guarantee anything!
division is sad. It ultimately doesn't matter though. Denomination "a" is no less Christian than Denominaiton "b".Why's it 'sad' if it doesn't matter?
Christ.What makes them 'believers'?
oh, look at that. I'm pretty much "unified" with you.EmperorConstantine said:We are united in matters of faith and theology. Example, Theophorus, Philothei, jckstraw, Thekla and I all come to agreement that Christ has a divine nature and a human nature; both united in one body; a divine will and a human will and is ok in being depicted in iconography.
However, we may not come to agreement on how the everyday local parish should receive converts.
Unity, in this case, does not equate to uniformity. Big difference between unity and uniformity.
you think? Try again. Memebership in a church organization, doesn't instantly prove that the person accepts everything the church teaches. It's rather simple.The application of that is flawed here, because by definition someone who believes in Orthodoxy must believe in Orthodoxy!
and if this person is tending an Orthodox church, I doubt that would be the case. You are, of course, using the most absurd example you can think of, to disprove a point.I can't say "I am an Orthodox Christian; I believe in no God". The last part falls well out of the scope of what it is to be Orthodox.
It's perfectly appropriate here. when someone says "No Orthodox would" or "all Orthodox would" It's a fallacy. You have no proof that everyone who attends Orthodox church, accepts the caveat forwarded.The 'no true Scotsman' fallacy would be appropriate if one applied an attribute that wasn't of its nature 'Scottish' (in the original context), such as "No true Scotsman would be a republican"... where it's not necessary to be a monarchist, to be a Scotsman.
Hope this helps you in future.
Better luck next time!
guess that's the risk you take when you make the "practice" the name of your church.It can in this case when the term "Orthodox" denotes certain meaning, such as beliefs in certain things.
I understand it fine. And by the way, It's considered rather rude where I come from to talk about someone like this, with them "present."There's a number of 'logical fallacies' that can be applied when argument is flawed.
The "No true Scotsman" fallacy is one such.
The problem is Uphill Battle misapplies it here... possibly because he doesn't quite understand it.
you are misrepresenting me. Stop it. you're becoming quite rude.Don't worry genez, you're not the only one unable to answer this. Uphill Battle said scripture was not the reason he relied only on scripture, meaning that he has something 'else' OTHER THAN SCRIPTURE that tells him only to rely on Scitpure!
Crazy!
continuing to talk about me instead of to me?There are people here like Uphill Battle who can't make up their minds if the divisions wihtin the Protestant community matter or not. He says both that it doesn't, but it's also 'sad' that they're divided. Why? Why would he be sad about something that doesn't matter to faith?
Where in the Bible does it say I should wash my hands with antibacterial soap daily to keep from getting sick?
Where in Scriptures does it say your church is the one true church?
Yeah, but it isn't the same. It is qualitatively different than repeating 10 polished, rote, Hail Mary's, 5 memorized Our Fathers, genuflecting 3 times, & crossing myself twice. See how the motivation shifts when the focus shifts?how many have repeatedly prayed for the spiritual re-orientation of a loved one ?
vain = empty, too
it refers also to the pray-er
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?