Mary, the mother of God
- Thread starter aspen
- Start date
-
Christian Chat is a moderated online Christian community allowing Christians around the world to fellowship with each other in real time chat via webcam, voice, and text, with the Christian Chat app. You can also start or participate in a Bible-based discussion here in the Christian Chat Forums, where members can also share with each other their own videos, pictures, or favorite Christian music.
If you are a Christian and need encouragement and fellowship, we're here for you! If you are not a Christian but interested in knowing more about Jesus our Lord, you're also welcome! Want to know what the Bible says, and how you can apply it to your life? Join us!
To make new Christian friends now around the world, click here to join Christian Chat.
- Status
Again, you have read your own thoughts into my statement.!!
I will say it again.
Protestants carried on the truth, this mainly happened at the reformation. However, this was not the first (read your church history).
I will say it again for you aspen..
The protestants carried on the Truth, they new what dogmas where wrong.
It is the dogmas that the reformers discarded are the heretical ones, the same ones the RCC today cherish so much as truth, of course with added extras down the centuries from the Iinfallible pope.
So please read my posts and not read into.
Phil
I will say it again.
Protestants carried on the truth, this mainly happened at the reformation. However, this was not the first (read your church history).
I will say it again for you aspen..
The protestants carried on the Truth, they new what dogmas where wrong.
It is the dogmas that the reformers discarded are the heretical ones, the same ones the RCC today cherish so much as truth, of course with added extras down the centuries from the Iinfallible pope.
So please read my posts and not read into.
Phil
Boy, I am not sure how you put up with such a moron, as myself!
Apparently, I have read into your statement; have been unable to understand your post the first time; am ignorant of church history; have had to have you repeat your statement again before you even posted it - wow; and never read your post in the first place.
You are truly doing the Lord's work!
So, besides the addition of sola scriptura, sola fide, and sola gratia; the removal of several books of the Bible, the rejection of praying to saints, and 5 of the seven sacraments; what truths outside Catholicism did the Reformers 'carry on'?
Apparently, I have read into your statement; have been unable to understand your post the first time; am ignorant of church history; have had to have you repeat your statement again before you even posted it - wow; and never read your post in the first place.
You are truly doing the Lord's work!
So, besides the addition of sola scriptura, sola fide, and sola gratia; the removal of several books of the Bible, the rejection of praying to saints, and 5 of the seven sacraments; what truths outside Catholicism did the Reformers 'carry on'?
Sorry aspen, now your being sarcastic. you know fine rightly what I am saying. Sola scriptura, was that really added. It was more a case the papcy remved it for its own power.
Mmmm several books of the bible? where they meant to be there in the first place?
And I do not think you are a moron aspen, that was definately a sarcastic statment.
Anyhow, if the debate is coming down to sarcasm then it is time to stop debating with you on this thread.
I am not going into title tattle sarcasm.
Anyhow have a blessed and Christ centered day.
Love
Phil
Mmmm several books of the bible? where they meant to be there in the first place?
And I do not think you are a moron aspen, that was definately a sarcastic statment.
Anyhow, if the debate is coming down to sarcasm then it is time to stop debating with you on this thread.
I am not going into title tattle sarcasm.
Anyhow have a blessed and Christ centered day.
Love
Phil
If you do not think I am a moron Phil, than why are you suggesting that I need to read my church history? That I am failing to read or understand your posts? I was just pointing out the language you were using in your post - I guess you were not aware of how patronizing it sounds.
Where is the evidence of sola scriptura before Luther? It simply does not exist.
Where is the evidence of sola scriptura before Luther? It simply does not exist.
J
Kujo, we don't have many writings from that period to be sure. Perhaps Matthew was written before then, but even the other three Gospels likely weren't.
We also have Ignatius of Antioch, whom you can read online. Have you ever sat and read what he wrote? He was, most likely, born 35 AD and died 108AD, and so that would be the period in which he wrote. You can find all of his writings, and many other Early Church writings, here: http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/
He doesn't mention anything of Sola Scriptura, or not that I've seen, but he repeatedly discusses the Trinity, Christ's Divinity, the role of Mary, and the place of the Eucharist as the actual Body and Blood of Jesus.
We also have Ignatius of Antioch, whom you can read online. Have you ever sat and read what he wrote? He was, most likely, born 35 AD and died 108AD, and so that would be the period in which he wrote. You can find all of his writings, and many other Early Church writings, here: http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/
He doesn't mention anything of Sola Scriptura, or not that I've seen, but he repeatedly discusses the Trinity, Christ's Divinity, the role of Mary, and the place of the Eucharist as the actual Body and Blood of Jesus.
Hi Jordan,
We can learn a lot from early writings, well from the ones we still have. But the very fact that Ignatius does not mention Sola Scriptura, as in the terminology, he surely read what writings he had alone.
Some Of Pauls letters where early, possably Ad 48 of course this depends on the Galatia debate. was it ethnic Galtaia or provincial Galatia Paul was addressing.
Luke certainly used widely available sources, we can suppose that there where writings just not fully or in the form we have them.
Rememebr also that the early church still used the Torah, Jesus used the Torah, so the early church certainly read 'Sola Scriptura'.
Phil
well, the book of enoch is not a tradition, but a book rejected by those who set the cannon of the bible. it was widely read in the early church, and quoted more than once in the bible.
we are guilty of using the gifts of god, rather than letting him use us. the early church was not so guilty of this.
we are guilty of using the gifts of god, rather than letting him use us. the early church was not so guilty of this.
J
Well, I don't know where the story Jude references comes from, the Book of Enoch was your suggestion, not mine. It could have very well been passed down by word of mouth, or some other way. Even John Wesley isn't sure, "Yet Michael - It does not appear whether St. Jude learned this by any revelation or from ancient tradition. It suffices, that these things were not only true, but acknowledged as such by them to whom he wrote." This is what he wrote regarding Jude 1:9, the verse in question.
Well, lets look at Scripture this is where infallible is:
Please read Deuteronomy 34:5-7. now read it very carefully..who buried Moses? It was the Lord.
It was the Lords good pleasure to reveal to the writer of Jude, what actually happened (remember the context of what Jude is talking about).
the only detail that is missing in the Old Testament is the conflict between the Angel and Satan.
So, now is it really a story from man as a tradition. Scripture testifies to Scripture, and does not needs tradition of men.
Please bear in mind that this was also God using Jude to write down His word. He wanted the church to have it.
The key is to read slowly and carefully of the given accounts.
Phil
Please read Deuteronomy 34:5-7. now read it very carefully..who buried Moses? It was the Lord.
It was the Lords good pleasure to reveal to the writer of Jude, what actually happened (remember the context of what Jude is talking about).
the only detail that is missing in the Old Testament is the conflict between the Angel and Satan.
So, now is it really a story from man as a tradition. Scripture testifies to Scripture, and does not needs tradition of men.
Please bear in mind that this was also God using Jude to write down His word. He wanted the church to have it.
The key is to read slowly and carefully of the given accounts.
Phil
you love to correct, don't you. i did not say that jude was not inspired of the spirit. i said that i thought that he was quoting enoch about the dispute over moses' body. i do know that enoch was quoted by jude in another place. peter also quoted the book of enoch.
hey, the scripture is the scripture. no matter how you distort things, i have never said different.
i don't think that i will respond any more, as it is not profitable in the lord.
hey, the scripture is the scripture. no matter how you distort things, i have never said different.
i don't think that i will respond any more, as it is not profitable in the lord.
- Status