The neo-Gnostic spirit of New.Modern.Hyper Grace

  • 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.
Willie-T said:
I don't care one way or the other, but we do have to admit that Irenaneus' writings have turned out to be quite unreliable about numerous events.
Click to expand...

There is not even a agreement that he even wrote these letters ...
 
HeRoseFromTheDead said:
I get it. Everything after the apostles is the evil RCC. I have to admit that I did at one time respect your presence of mind.
Click to expand...

Yes everything that promotes the RCC is evil ..and this clown (if he really wrote this stuff" was clearly promoting the authority of the Roman church ..which he himself called the "catholic" church.
 
Mitspa said:
Here is some of his catholic nonsense ..

Besides emphasis on the one true church in Rome, a listing of the bishops (Popes), and Eucharistic theology, Maryology can also be found in the writing of Irenaeus. Speaking in the context of Eve and Mary, he writes,
And if the former did disobey God, yet the latter was persuaded to be obedient to God, in order that the Virgin Mary might become the patroness (advocata) of the virgin Eve. And thus, as the human race fell into bondage to death by means of a virgin, so is it rescued by a virgin; virginal disobedience having been balanced in the opposite scale by virginal obedience.
​
Click to expand...

You should have posted the whole thing so that people could see that there's nothing wrong with it. He was just making a comparison between Mary and Eve. Disobedience came into the world through one woman, and obedience came into the world through another. Hardly Mary-worship.

Keep trying...
 
He also taught salvation through the eucharist

"When, therefore, the mingled cup and the manufactured bread receives the Word of God, and the Eucharist of the blood and the body of Christ is made, from which things the substance of our flesh is increased and supported, how can they affirm that the flesh is incapable of receiving the gift of God, which is life eternal, which [flesh] is nourished from the body and blood of the Lord, and is a member of Him"

we see all the heresy of the RCC in his letters ...and this clown is supposed to decide what is or is not sound doctrine?
 
Mitspa said:
was you rescued by a the virgin mary? who is not a virgin by the way.
Click to expand...

You're frothing at the mouth trying to find something wrong with Irenaeus. He actually made a good point that as disobedience came into the world through one woman, so obedience came into the world through one woman. To take it beyond that into Mary-worship is wrong, but I don't think he did that.
 
HeRoseFromTheDead said:
You should have posted the whole thing so that people could see that there's nothing wrong with it. He was just making a comparison between Mary and Eve. Disobedience came into the world through one woman, and obedience came into the world through another. Hardly Mary-worship.

Keep trying...
Click to expand...
These kind of early writings is exactly where the mary doctrine is founded and these letters are used by the RCC to promote all manner of heresy. No one should trust these letters as anything but catholic propaganda that cant even be proven when they was written or if they was changed at some point to promote catholic doctrine down through the years. Its insane to put your trust in this nonsense.
 
HeRoseFromTheDead said:
You're frothing at the mouth trying to find something wrong with Irenaeus. He actually made a good point that as disobedience came into the world through one woman, so obedience came into the world through one woman. To take it beyond that into Mary-worship is wrong, but I don't think he did that.
Click to expand...

was Eve a virgin ?
 
HeRoseFromTheDead said:
You should have posted the whole thing so that people could see that there's nothing wrong with it. He was just making a comparison between Mary and Eve. Disobedience came into the world through one woman, and obedience came into the world through another. Hardly Mary-worship.

Keep trying...
Click to expand...

They are trying to make the comparison of the first Adam to the 2nd Adam (Jesus Christ) by using Eve and Mary... in a similar comparison except it completely falls flat because Mary, though the mother of Jesus, still was a sinner in need of Jesus Christ. She, in a way, is being idolized in that statement because she didn't rescue anyone, Jesus did. Yes, she raised Jesus, pampered him, and did her motherly role but by no means did she save the world. After all, she wasn't on the cross, Jesus was.

Also, death entered by one MAN'S offense not woman's offense. So the statement is incorrect, bondage to death through Adam (sin imputed to man), and then Jesus' obedience led to righteousness (imputed to man through faith). Mary's role was important but lets not try to equalize Eve and Mary in their respective roles to that of Adam and Jesus' which condemned man and then saved man.
 
Mitspa said:
He also taught salvation through the eucharist

"When, therefore, the mingled cup and the manufactured bread receives the Word of God, and the Eucharist of the blood and the body of Christ is made, from which things the substance of our flesh is increased and supported, how can they affirm that the flesh is incapable of receiving the gift of God, which is life eternal, which [flesh] is nourished from the body and blood of the Lord, and is a member of Him"

we see all the heresy of the RCC in his letters ...and this clown is supposed to decide what is or is not sound doctrine?
Click to expand...

These are all just red herrings that you're throwing out. They have nothing to do with the topic under discussion, which is what he wrote about the gnostics. Your attempts to discredit what he wrote about them because he was in error about one thing (possibly. I can't even decipher what he said in your quote) and because you have associated him with the evils of the RCC is laughable.
 
Last edited:
It was the man..

Romans 5:12 (NASB)
[SUP]12 [/SUP] Therefore, just as through one man sin entered into the world, and death through sin, and so death spread to all men, because all sinned—

Romans 5:14-15 (NASB)
[SUP]14 [/SUP] Nevertheless death reigned from Adam until Moses, even over those who had not sinned in the likeness of the offense of Adam, who is a type of Him who was to come.
Romans 5:19 (NASB)
[SUP]19 [/SUP] For as through the one man's disobedience the many were made sinners, even so through the obedience of the One the many will be made righteous.
 
This all boils down to the fact that the gnostic beliefs were not exactly like the believers in the pure grace of Christ in the gospel.

All heresy has a "kernel" of truth in it....that's how they become heresies to begin with....just sayin'
 
...the very great, the very ancient, and universally known Church founded and organized at Rome by the two most glorious apostles, Peter and Paul; as also [by pointing out] the faith preached to men, which comes down to our time by means of the successions of the bishops. For it is a matter of necessity that every Church should agree with this Church, on account of its preeminent authority, that is, the faithful everywhere, inasmuch as the tradition has been preserved continuously by those who exist everywhere.


anyone doubt this guy what promoting the RCC? and its a lie that Peter or Paul established the church in Rome
 
Mitspa said:
These kind of early writings is exactly where the mary doctrine is founded and these letters are used by the RCC to promote all manner of heresy. No one should trust these letters as anything but catholic propaganda that cant even be proven when they was written or if they was changed at some point to promote catholic doctrine down through the years. Its insane to put your trust in this nonsense.
Click to expand...

Who cares? It has nothing to do with this topic. You're just an anti-Catholic bigot.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom
Back