Jump to content

The Christian Protestant Community Forums

Sincerely inquiring about the Protestant faith? Welcome to Christforums the Christian Protestant community forums. You'll first need to register in order to join our community. Create or respond to threads on your favorite topics and subjects. Registration takes less than a minute, it's simple, fast, and free! Enjoy the fellowship! God bless, Christforums' Staff
Register now

Community Fellowship

John Calvin puts forward a very simple reason why love is the greatest gift: “Because faith and hope are our own: love is diffused among others.” In other words, faith and hope benefit the possessor, but love always benefits another. In John 13:34–35 Jesus says, “A new command I give you: Love one another. As I have loved you, so you must love one another. By this everyone will know that you are my disciples, if you love one another.” Love always requires an “other” as an object; love cannot remain within itself, and that is part of what makes love the greatest gift.
islandrazor

Giants again...What were they?

Recommended Posts

Posted (edited)
2 hours ago, Origen said:

You claimed "For a document to be 'inspired by God' required only a vote from the scholars of Nicea..."  Cite the primary sources which says that there was vote concerning the canon.

 

Perhaps not 'voting' in the sense that everyone filled out a ballot and slipped it into a box, or a show of hands. But there had to be SOME method of determining what participants were on board with this or that issue, and whatever that method was can be considered a 'vote'. Again, if there were no competing ideas for what form Christianity would take, the Council would have been irrelevant. 

Edited by Goodman John

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
2 hours ago, William said:

I'll address one of your points.

 

Heresies arise over time and creep into the church. Is it your position that the church should not convene and respond to heretical doctrine?

 

And early councils convened, the councils which resulted in various creeds did not rely on popularity but rather appealed to the authority of Scripture. We profess the early Ecumenical Creeds because they convey the essential truths on certain issues from Scripture. These particular creeds are a response to a heresy or heresies which arose over time. For example, if you study the history of the Nicene creed you'll discover a few different drafts. As time goes on and questions arose in response to various heretical teaching the creed was developed further.

 

The principles that early councils followed are conveyed in Sola Scriptura, that "pillar" would be later lost and not reestablished again until the Protestant Reformation. The years in between the Catholic church established herself as equal authority rather than by the authority of Scripture alone.

 

We see the very formation of councils in the early church which are recorded in Acts 15 (Jerusalem Council). The Council of Nicaea was not the first church council convened. In Acts 15 we have a pattern in which to follow. Issues and/or heresies arise and a council is convened to address those problems.

 

I understand all of that, of course. At the same time, it's clear there were MANY differing interpretations of those same Scriptures, and the Council was convened- in part- to hammer out which of those interpretations would accepted and which would be rejected (and eventually deemed to be heresy). That was done by a group of men deciding how their religion was going to be practiced- not because it was spelled out in detail in the extant texts. In a way, this is not all that different from how the Qur'an was made canon by the Muslims- Caliph Uthman decided which version of the Qur'an was legit- and there were a number of variations extant- so he gave it his seal of approval and decreed that all others should be destroyed. The Council worked in the same way- they decided what they were and weren't going to use and decreed that everything else was heresy. 

 

It's not my intention to disparage the men of the Council or the origins of Christianity itself- I happily count myself as a Christian (though not in the mainstream of modern Christianity). My only intent is to see the origins of the religion with eyes wide open, and not have any illusions about where and how it came about. That being said, I realize not every Christian believes 100% the same things every other Christian believes, so clearly- despite Biblical canon and the interpretations of Nicea and subsequent Church decisions- there's still an awful lot of room for debate and differing opinion. Just like everyone else, I am - and have been most of my life- looking for a Truth and thus far it has proven to be very elusive. 

 

 

 

Edited by Goodman John

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Staff
6 hours ago, Goodman John said:

Perhaps not 'voting' in the sense that everyone filled out a ballot and slipped it into a box, or a show of hands.

Then you ought be able to cite a primary source which proves they voted in some way on the topic of canon.  The thing is you haven't.


Moreover I asked about the canon.  You claimed "For a document to be 'inspired by God' required only a vote from the scholars of Nicea."  Cite primary sources which stated the canon of Scripture was even addressed at Nicaea.

 

You made certain claims but offer zero evidence to support those claims.   Again I asked you to cite primary sources about the canon which support your claim.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Staff
39 minutes ago, Goodman John said:

It's not my intention to disparage the men of the Council or the origins of Christianity itself- I happily count myself as a Christian (though not in the mainstream of modern Christianity). My only intent is to see the origins of the religion with eyes wide open, and not have any illusions about where and how it came about. That being said, I realize not every Christian believes 100% the same things every other Christian believes, so clearly- despite Biblical canon and the interpretations of Nicea and subsequent Church decisions- there's still an awful lot of room for debate and differing opinion. Just like everyone else, I am - and have been most of my life- looking for a Truth and thus far it has proven to be very elusive. 

That's the thing. The truths conveyed from Scripture in the Nicene Creed are a litmus test of orthodoxy. I have no problem calling someone that rejects the Nicene Creed a Cultist or Sectist.

 

And it is good that you aren't here to disparage the Council or the men that sacrificed life and limb in developing the early Ecumenical Creeds.

 

It seems to me that your notion of truth is popular opinion. Is everything reduced to your opinion or do you hold your opinion subject to the authority of Scripture? You suggest that truth is elusive. Let me ask you this because of your Gnostic leaning. Do you believe Truth exists? Raise your hand if so.

 

Furthermore, I couldn't care less whether Scholar or a Dog interprets the Scripture. All interpretation is subject to Scripture.

 

On the matter of "interpretation" do you hold to any principles concerning proper exegesis? For example, it appears your arguments are geared towards the Catholic church which has proclaimed herself to the be the sole interpreter whereas orthodox Protestants uphold the principle that Scripture is the best interpreter of Scripture.

 

This is not to say that every person is equal or is gifted for the office of illumination Ephesians 4:11-13.

 

If you're unfamiliar with Sola Scripture I quote the Westminster Confession of Faith Chapter 1. Pay attention to the very last section 10 in bold:

 

Chapter 1 - Of the Holy Scripture.

 

Section 1.) Although the light of nature, and the works of creation and providence do so far manifest the goodness, wisdom, and power of God, as to leave men inexcusable;(1) yet are they not sufficient to give that knowledge of God, and of His will, which is necessary unto salvation:(2) therefore it pleased the Lord, at sundry times, and in divers manners, to reveal Himself, and to declare that His will unto His Church;(3) and afterwards, for the better preserving and propagating of the truth, and for the more sure establishment and comfort of the Church against the corruption of the flesh, and the malice of Satan and of the world, to commit the same wholly unto writing;(4) which maketh the Holy Scripture to be most necessary;(5) those former ways of God's revealing His will unto His people being now ceased.(6)

(1)Ro2:14,15;Ro1:19,20;Ps19:1,2,3;Ro1:32;Ro2:1 (2)1Co1:21;1Co2:13,14 (3)Heb1:1 (4)Pr22:19,20,21;Lk1:3,4;Ro15:4;Mt4:4,7,10;Isa8:19,20 (5)2Ti3:15;2Pe1:19 (6)Heb1:1,2

 

Section 2.) Under the name of Holy Scripture, or the Word of God written, are now contained all the books of the Old and New Testament, which are these: Of the Old Testament: Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy, Joshua, Judges, Ruth, I Samuel, II Samuel, I Kings, II Kings, I Chronicles, II Chronicles, Ezra, Nehemiah, Esther, Job, Psalms, Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, The Song of Songs, Isaiah, Jeremiah, Lamentations, Ezekiel, Daniel, Hosea, Joel, Amos, Obadiah, Jonah, Micah, Nahum, Habakkuk, Zephaniah, Haggai, Zechariah, Malachi Of the New Testament: The Gospels according to Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, The Acts of the Apostles, Paul's Epistles to the Romans, Corinthians I, Corinthians II, Galatians, Ephesians, Philippians, Colossians, Thessalonians I, Thessalonians II, To Timothy I, To Timothy II, To Titus, To Philemon, The Epistle to the Hebrews, The Epistle of James, The first and second Epistles of Peter, The first, second, and third Epistles of John, The Epistle of Jude, The Revelation All which are given by inspiration of God to be the rule of faith and life.(1)

(1) Lk 16:29,31; Eph 2:20; Rev 22:18,19; 2Ti 3:16

 

Section 3.) The books commonly called Apocrypha, not being of divine inspiration, are no part of the canon of the Scripture; and therefore are of no authority in the Church of God, nor to be any otherwise approved, or made use of, than other human writings.(1)

(1) Lk 24:27,44; Ro 3:2; 2Pe 1:21

 

Section 4.) The authority of the Holy Scripture, for which it ought to be believed, and obeyed, dependeth not upon the testimony of any man, or Church; but wholly upon God (who is truth itself) the author thereof: and therefore it is to be received, because it is the Word of God.(1)

(1) 2Pe 1:19,21; 2Ti 3:16; 1Jn 5:9; 1Th 2:13

 

Section 5.) We may be moved and induced by the testimony of the Church to an high and reverent esteem of the Holy Scripture,(1) and the heavenliness of the matter, the efficacy of the doctrine, the majesty of the style, the consent of all the parts, the scope of the whole, (which is to give all glory to God), the full discovery it makes of the only way of man's salvation, the many other incomparable excellencies, and the entire perfection thereof, are arguments whereby it doth abundantly evidence itself to be the Word of God; yet, notwithstanding, our full persuasion and assurance of the infallible truth, and divine authority thereof, is from the inward work of the Holy Spirit, bearing witness by and with the word in our hearts.(2)

(1) 1Ti 3:15 (2) 1Jn 2:20,27; Jn 16:13,14; 1Co 2:10,11,12; Isa 59:21

 

Section 6.) The whole counsel of God, concerning all things necessary for His own glory, man's salvation, faith and life, is either expressly set down in Scripture, or by good and necessary consequence may be deduced from Scripture: unto which nothing at any time is to be added, whether by new revelations of the Spirit, or traditions of men.(1) Nevertheless, we acknowledge the inward illumination of the Spirit of God to be necessary for the saving understanding of such things as are revealed in the word;(2) and that there are some circumstances concerning the worship of God, and government of the Church, common to human actions and societies, which are to be ordered by the light of nature, and Christian prudence, according to the general rules of the word, which are always to be observed.(3)

(1) 2Ti 3:15,16,17; Gal 1:8,9; 2Th 2:2 (2) Jn 6:45; 1Co 2:9,10,11,12 (3) 1Co 11:13,14; 1Co 14:26,40

 

Section 7.) All things in Scripture are not alike plain in themselves, nor alike clear unto all;(1) yet those things which are necessary to be known, believed, and observed for salvation, are so clearly propounded, and opened in some place of Scripture or other, that not only the learned, but the unlearned, in a due use of the ordinary means, may attain unto a sufficient understanding of them.(2)

(1)2Pe3:16 (2)Ps119:105,130

 

Section 8.) The Old Testament in Hebrew (which was the native language of the people of God of old), and the New Testament in Greek (which, at the time of the writing of it was most generally known to the nations), being immediately inspired by God, and, by His singular care and providence, kept pure in all ages, are therefore authentical;(1) so as, in all controversies of religion, the Church is finally to appeal unto them.(2) But, because these original tongues are not known to all the people of God, who have right unto and interest in the Scriptures, and are commanded, in the fear of God, to read and search them,(3) therefore they are to be translated into the vulgar language of every nation unto which they come,(4) that the Word of God dwelling plentifully in all, they may worship Him in an acceptable manner;(5) and, through patience and comfort of the Scriptures, may have hope.(6)

(1) Mt 5:18 (2) Isa 8:20; Ac 15:15; Jn 5:39,46 (3) Jn 5:39 (4) 1Co 14:6,9,11,12,24,27, 28 (5) Col 3:16 (6) Ro 15:4

 

Section 9.) The infallible rule of interpretation of Scripture is the Scripture itself: and therefore, when there is a question about the true and full sense of any Scripture (which is not manifold, but one), it must be searched and known by other places that speak more clearly.(1)

(1) 2Pe 1:20,21; Ac 15:15,16

 

Section 10.) The supreme Judge, by which all controversies of religion are to be determined, and all decrees of councils, opinions of ancient writers, doctrines of men, and private spirits, are to be examined, and in whose sentence we are to rest, can be no other but the Holy Spirit speaking in the Scripture.(1)

(1) Mt 22:29,31; Eph 2:20; Ac 28:25

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, Origen said:

Then you ought to be you ought to be able to cite a primary source which proves they voted in some way on the topic of canon.  The thing is you haven't.


Moreover I asked about the canon.  You claimed "For a document to be 'inspired by God' required only a vote from the scholars of Nicea."  Cite primary sources which stated the canon of Scripture was even addressed at Nicaea.

 

You made certain claims but offer zero evidence to support those claims.   Again I asked you to cite primary sources about the canon which support your claim.

 

I claim no formal schooling in theology or religion, nor do I consider myself to be an expert in those subjects. As such I am positive there is a world of knowledge unknown to me. That being the case, consider each and every one of my 'statements of fact' to be prefaced instead by 'in my opinion'. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Staff
27 minutes ago, Goodman John said:

I claim no formal schooling in theology or religion, nor do I consider myself to be an expert in those subjects. As such I am positive there is a world of knowledge unknown to me. That being the case, consider each and every one of my 'statements of fact' to be prefaced instead by 'in my opinion'. 

Ah, so you have no primary sources or evidence to back up your claims.  Just as I thought.  Do you think it is wise to make up claims about historical events for which there is zero evidence?   Are you not misleading others into believing something that is not true?  Is that not dishonest?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, William said:

That's the thing. The truths conveyed from Scripture in the Nicene Creed are a litmus test of orthodoxy. I have no problem calling someone that rejects the Nicene Creed a Cultist or Sectist.

 

And it is good that you aren't here to disparage the Council or the men that sacrificed life and limb in developing the early Ecumenical Creeds.

 

It seems to me that your notion of truth is popular opinion. You suggest that truth is elusive. Let me ask you this because of your Gnostic leaning. Do you believe Truth exists? Raise your hand if so.

 

Furthermore, I couldn't care less whether Scholar or a Dog interprets the Scripture. All interpretation is subject to Scripture.

 

On the matter of "interpretation" do you hold to any principles concerning proper exegesis? For example, it appears your arguments are geared towards the Catholic church which has proclaimed herself to the be the sole interpreter whereas orthodox Protestants uphold the principle that Scripture is the best interpreter of Scripture.

 

This is not to say that every person is equal or is gifted for the office of illumination Ephesians 4:11-13.

 

 

 

Personally, I cannot hold with the Nicene Creed- in any of its forms- as it does not represent what I believe. I am following the path of the old Cathars as best I may, a branch of Christianity that you as a former Gnostic are no doubt aware of. As such, their mixture of Manichaean/Gnostic/Biblical beliefs and practices makes for a worldview quite unique in today's religious landscape. 

 

And no, I don't look askance at the Council- I feel that all are free to choose their own path to God. Who is right? Who is wrong? That remains to be seen, but until then we do the best we can. 

 

I don't see Truth as being 'popular opinion'- but very often what is ACCEPTED as Truth is based on popular opinion. As is (in)famously attributed to Josef Goebbels of Nazi Germany, "Tell a lie big enough and repeat it enough times and eventually it will become the truth." This is not to say all religious people are liars- by no means- but as we've seen throughout history it's very often the loudest and strongest voice that determines what the masses come to believe. 

 

And yes, much of my issues are with the Catholic Church- having once been a Catholic, the more I learned the more I had to break with it. I suppose that technically makes me a Protestant these days. One can certainly make the argument that Scripture stands on its own, with Man left to figure out just what it means, and I completely agree it's a valid- and logical- point of view. 

 

As for myself, as I related to Origen previously, I am no trained scholar of religion or theology and as such I know my arguments and positions I may posit from time to time may seem crude in comparison to others. For that reason I neither commend nor condemn any other faith or religion, nor do I ever seek to put forward my own brand of Christianity as the 'right' brand for others to follow. (After all, thanks to the Church dispensing God's love and mercy in the 12th and 13th centuries by burning alive thousands- if not millions- of Cathars and their Christian sympathizers, those who believe- even somewhat- the way I do are rather thin on the ground these days!)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Staff
25 minutes ago, Goodman John said:

 

Personally, I cannot hold with the Nicene Creed- in any of its forms- as it does not represent what I believe. I am following the path of the old Cathars as best I may, a branch of Christianity that you as a former Gnostic are no doubt aware of. As such, their mixture of Manichaean/Gnostic/Biblical beliefs and practices makes for a worldview quite unique in today's religious landscape. 

 

And no, I don't look askance at the Council- I feel that all are free to choose their own path to God. Who is right? Who is wrong? That remains to be seen, but until then we do the best we can. 

 

I don't see Truth as being 'popular opinion'- but very often what is ACCEPTED as Truth is based on popular opinion. As is (in)famously attributed to Josef Goebbels of Nazi Germany, "Tell a lie big enough and repeat it enough times and eventually it will become the truth." This is not to say all religious people are liars- by no means- but as we've seen throughout history it's very often the loudest and strongest voice that determines what the masses come to believe. 

 

And yes, much of my issues are with the Catholic Church- having once been a Catholic, the more I learned the more I had to break with it. I suppose that technically makes me a Protestant these days. One can certainly make the argument that Scripture stands on its own, with Man left to figure out just what it means, and I completely agree it's a valid- and logical- point of view. 

 

As for myself, as I related to Origen previously, I am no trained scholar of religion or theology and as such I know my arguments and positions I may posit from time to time may seem crude in comparison to others. For that reason I neither commend nor condemn any other faith or religion, nor do I ever seek to put forward my own brand of Christianity as the 'right' brand for others to follow. (After all, thanks to the Church dispensing God's love and mercy in the 12th and 13th centuries by burning alive thousands- if not millions- of Cathars and their Christian sympathizers, those who believe- even somewhat- the way I do are rather thin on the ground these days!)

And that answers who you uphold as the standard of truth.

 

  1. The Catholics declare the Catholic church to be the standard of truth.
  2. And you declare your "self" collective, social, or community by which truth is made.

 

Anything can be made a standard. And everything else made false according to that standard. Rather than being judged by the Scriptures, that is, held subject to the Scriptures you're instead judging the Scriptures according to your own standard ~ self.

 

The very criticism you made towards a "vote" is nothing more than what you adhere to. If an individual or more than one individual which comprises a society declares something today and then tomorrow something else then the truth changes. Insert your example of Nazi Germany here. That is, the standard is always right. The very flaw which leads to this sway and relative truth is derived from a non absolute authority, Scripture. The very creeds which you reject are meant to keep an individual or congregation from swaying in time every which way according to popular opinion.

 

And no, just because you reject the Catholic church doesn't mean you're Protestant. Just means you're rebellious. Protestants not only protested the Catholic church but they offered to realign the Catholic church according to Scripture (Reform).

 

We are catholic (universal) and not Catholic (Roman or the other 20+ rites). We not only Protest the Catholic's apostasy but we offer correction according to the standard by which we measure all truth.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
24 minutes ago, Origen said:

Ah, so you have no primary sources or evidence to back up your claims.  Just as I thought.  Do you think it is wise to make up claims about historical events for which there is zero evidence?   Are you not misleading others into believing something that is not true?  Is that not dishonest?

Any 'primary sources' that I could provide would by necessity be the very same 'primary sources' anyone else can produce- there are, after all, only a limited number of documents dating to that time. Barring those ancient documents, we have only the opinion of various scholars to rely on. Personally, I regard the proceedings of the Council as unnecessary for faith in God- but desperately necessary for the Christian religion to get its act together in the face of many opposing ideas of how the religion should conduct itself. 

 

Again, you may preface anything I post with 'in my opinion' if that will calm your fears about my being 'dishonest'. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Staff
14 minutes ago, Goodman John said:

Any 'primary sources' that I could provide would by necessity be the very same 'primary sources' anyone else can produce- there are, after all, only a limited number of documents dating to that time. Barring those ancient documents, we have only the opinion of various scholars to rely on. Personally, I regard the proceedings of the Council as unnecessary for faith in God- but desperately necessary for the Christian religion to get its act together in the face of many opposing ideas of how the religion should conduct itself. 

 

Again, you may preface anything I post with 'in my opinion' if that will calm your fears about my being 'dishonest'. 

Pure ignorance.

  • Love 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, William said:

And that answers who you uphold as the standard of truth.

 

  1. The Catholics declare the Catholic church to be the standard of truth.
  2. And you declare your "self" collective, social, or community by which truth is made.

 

Anything can be made a standard. And everything else made false according to that standard. Rather than being judged by the Scriptures, that is, held subject to the Scriptures you're instead judging the Scriptures according to your own standard ~ self.

 

The very criticism you made towards a "vote" is nothing more than what you adhere to. If an individual or more than one individual which comprises a society declares something today and then tomorrow something else then the truth changes. That is, the standard is always right. The very flaw which leads to this sway and relative truth is derived from a non absolute authority, Scripture. The very creeds which you reject are meant to keep an individual or congregation from swaying in time every which way according to popular opinion.

 

And no, just because you reject the Catholic church doesn't mean you're Protestant. Protestants not only protested the Catholic church but they offered to realign the Catholic church according to Scripture (Reform).

 

We are catholic (universal) and not Catholic (Roman or the other 20+ rites). We not only Protest the Catholic's apostasy but we offer correction according to a standard by which we measure all truth.

 

 

Obviously, what the Church promotes as 'the Truth' is not what I or you consider to be 'the Truth'. Likewise, what many Protestants promote as 'the Truth' is not what I consider to be 'the Truth'. I am sure you are in the same boat with me in that sense- obviously we don't believe 100% what the other believes, but neither do we both believe what Jimmy Joe over there is preaching! 

 

If I can't rely on the Church or anyone else's opinion to be 'the Truth' then the burden is on me to determine for myself what 'the Truth' is- obviously, this leaves a world of room for trial and error but that's been the case with faith and religion since Man first had an idea of 'someone watching over me'. The Church itself made rather wide swings in its early days, getting sorted out and over the centuries adjusting to new attitudes and teachings and continues to do so to this day. Likewise, Protestants themselves have gone through many changes since Martin Luther, bending and adjusting with some believers breaking off to form their own denominations and go their won way. 

 

As for my comment on being a Protestant, that was not in the sense of 'belonging to a Protestant denomination' or anything like that- only in the sense of not being on the same page as the Church (and now, obviously, the 'Protestant Establishment'). 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Staff
37 minutes ago, Goodman John said:

 

Obviously, what the Church promotes as 'the Truth' is not what I or you consider to be 'the Truth'. Likewise, what many Protestants promote as 'the Truth' is not what I consider to be 'the Truth'. I am sure you are in the same boat with me in that sense- obviously we don't believe 100% what the other believes, but neither do we both believe what Jimmy Joe over there is preaching! 

 

If I can't rely on the Church or anyone else's opinion to be 'the Truth' then the burden is on me to determine for myself what 'the Truth' is- obviously, this leaves a world of room for trial and error but that's been the case with faith and religion since Man first had an idea of 'someone watching over me'. The Church itself made rather wide swings in its early days, getting sorted out and over the centuries adjusting to new attitudes and teachings and continues to do so to this day. Likewise, Protestants themselves have gone through many changes since Martin Luther, bending and adjusting with some believers breaking off to form their own denominations and go their won way. 

 

As for my comment on being a Protestant, that was not in the sense of 'belonging to a Protestant denomination' or anything like that- only in the sense of not being on the same page as the Church (and now, obviously, the 'Protestant Establishment'). 

That's good, we can both acknowledge a truth now. You're not Protestant or Christian in the denominational sense.

 

And since you now acknowledge that keep us in mind should God draw you to Himself, that is, the Standard of truth.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Staff
27 minutes ago, Goodman John said:

Any 'primary sources' that I could provide would by necessity be the very same 'primary sources' anyone else can produce- there are, after all, only a limited number of documents dating to that time.

Your post ignores the point.  You have no evidence for your claim.  It is a matter of accuracy and honesty.

 

27 minutes ago, Goodman John said:

Barring those ancient documents, we have only the opinion of various scholars to rely on.

And if a scholar said that the council voted on the canon I would insist upon primary sources and objective evidence in order to validate that claim.  You have none.

 

So I ask again, since there is no evidence the council voted on the canon why make up claims about historical events for which there is zero evidence?

 

27 minutes ago, Goodman John said:

Again, you may preface anything I post with 'in my opinion' if that will calm your fears about my being 'dishonest'. 

Making a claim for which there is zero evidence is not simply an opinion but a fabrication.  Making up historical events which never happened is nothing short of being dishonest.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
31 minutes ago, Goodman John said:

As for myself, as I related to Origen previously, I am no trained scholar of religion or theology and as such I know my arguments and positions I may posit from time to time may seem crude in comparison to others. For that reason I neither commend nor condemn any other faith or religion, nor do I ever seek to put forward my own brand of Christianity as the 'right' brand for others to follow. (After all, thanks to the Church dispensing God's love and mercy in the 12th and 13th centuries by burning alive thousands- if not millions- of Cathars and their Christian sympathizers, those who believe- even somewhat- the way I do are rather thin on the ground these days!)

You are right William, sometimes the tangents can be fun and interesting.

 

My faith is simple John, You make some good points.

 

However,

 

“I neither commend nor condemn any other faith or religion,”

 

While there are many religious paths so to speak, the focus of scripture is on Christ. Christ said, I’m it. There is no other way.

 

So I don’t mind commending brothers in Christ, nor correcting those who believe all paths lead to God. Though, technically that is a true statement, some just end up on the wrong side when that meeting occurs.

 

As far as the “Church” committing atrocities centuries ago, and some today, hey, God spoke through an ass. He can keep intact His word by whatever means He chooses and through whomever He chooses.

The wicked, misguided behaviors of men are no reflection on the character and purposes of God. That is something unbelievers point too when making excuses for not believing. Not that, this is your intent here.

 

We have sufficient enough of His Word however it arrived in our hands.

 

In Christ

 

Carry on guys, it’s interesting

  • Toast 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Staff
2 minutes ago, Origen said:

Making a claim for which there is zero evidence is not simply an opinion but a fabrication.  Making up historical events which never happened is nothing short of being dishonest.

Totally Gnostic dude.

 

sea turtle dude GIF

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Staff

2Ti 3:1  This know also, that in the last days perilous times shall come. 
2Ti 3:2  For men shall be lovers of their own selves, covetous, boasters, proud, blasphemers, disobedient to parents, unthankful, unholy, 
2Ti 3:3  Without natural affection, trucebreakers, false accusers, incontinent, fierce, despisers of those that are good, 
2Ti 3:4  Traitors, heady, highminded, lovers of pleasures more than lovers of God; 
2Ti 3:5  Having a form of godliness, but denying the power thereof: from such turn away. 
2Ti 3:6  For of this sort are they which creep into houses, and lead captive silly women laden with sins, led away with divers lusts, 
2Ti 3:7  Ever learning, and never able to come to the knowledge of the truth. 
2Ti 3:8  Now as Jannes and Jambres withstood Moses, so do these also resist the truth: men of corrupt minds, reprobate concerning the faith. 
2Ti 3:9  But they shall proceed no further: for their folly shall be manifest unto all men, as theirs also was. 
2Ti 3:10  But thou hast fully known my doctrine, manner of life, purpose, faith, longsuffering, charity, patience, 
2Ti 3:11  Persecutions, afflictions, which came unto me at Antioch, at Iconium, at Lystra; what persecutions I endured: but out of them all the Lord delivered me. 
2Ti 3:12  Yea, and all that will live godly in Christ Jesus shall suffer persecution. 
2Ti 3:13  But evil men and seducers shall wax worse and worse, deceiving, and being deceived. 
2Ti 3:14  But continue thou in the things which thou hast learned and hast been assured of, knowing of whom thou hast learned them; 
2Ti 3:15  And that from a child thou hast known the holy scriptures, which are able to make thee wise unto salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus. 
2Ti 3:16  All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: 
2Ti 3:17  That the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works. 

 

 

Mat_22:30  For in the resurrection they neither marry, nor are given in marriage, but are as the angels of God in heaven. 

 

When men say things like this which are not even Scripture. My mind goes to second Timothy. Some one is on the hunt for some cult action.

On 8/12/2019 at 11:31 AM, Goodman John said:

"Thereafter the wicked devil [Satan], entering into the evil serpent, deceived the angel who was in the form of a woman [Eve] and poured out upon her head a longing for sin, and Eve's desire was like a glowing oven. Forthwith, the devil in the form of the serpent came out of the reeds and sated his lust on her with the serpent's tail. That is why [the offspring] are called not sons of God but sons of the devil and sons of the serpent, fulfilling the diabolic desires of their father even unto the end of the world."

 

Interrogatio Iohannis (SOURCE)

 

As noted in the Book of Enoch (1 Enoch 7:2), certain angels and demons were able to mate with humans and thus were created the race of giants known as the Nephilim. As a spiritual being himself, Satan copulating with Eve would have had the same effect, with Cain being the first in the line of Nephilim. 

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Staff
22 minutes ago, islandrazor said:

You are right William, sometimes the tangents can be fun and interesting.

We encourage goading here. But not so much with pictures as we do words on Sarcasm Mondays.

 

Today is Tuesday though so feel free to use the "GIF" option in the editor.

 

leonardo dicaprio party GIF by Morphin

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Staff
37 minutes ago, Origen said:

Your post ignores the point.  You have no evidence for your claim.  It is a matter of accuracy and honesty.

bread gluten GIF

 

My hat is bread your argument is invalid.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Staff
2 minutes ago, islandrazor said:

Who comes up with this? Cracked me up.

Your question is invalid! My hat is bread!!!

 

Bread.jpg.b5ea77541fe68c10d2df5d74f370ef32.jpg

 

Going against the Reformed stigma that we're the frozen chosen. Reformed Protestants love to have fun too!

 

cold the shining GIF

 

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 8/12/2019 at 1:31 PM, Goodman John said:

"Thereafter the wicked devil [Satan], entering into the evil serpent, deceived the angel who was in the form of a woman [Eve] and poured out upon her head a longing for sin, and Eve's desire was like a glowing oven. Forthwith, the devil in the form of the serpent came out of the reeds and sated his lust on her with the serpent's tail. That is why [the offspring] are called not sons of God but sons of the devil and sons of the serpent, fulfilling the diabolic desires of their father even unto the end of the world."

 

Interrogatio Iohannis (SOURCE)

 

As noted in the Book of Enoch (1 Enoch 7:2), certain angels and demons were able to mate with humans and thus were created the race of giants known as the Nephilim. As a spiritual being himself, Satan copulating with Eve would have had the same effect, with Cain being the first in the line of Nephilim. 

Pure unadultrated lies, the book called Enoch has never been scripture and men of less knowledge than any today knew that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×
×
  • Create New...