Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

To: one Lord one faith one baptism; CynicalBear; smvoice; Iscool; MarkBsnr; Judith Anne; ...
just name someone from the third century and sixth century that from their writings or what was written about them, you consider someone you would call a Christian.

Why?

What's the point of this mental exercise?

189 posted on 11/24/2011 1:32:49 PM PST by metmom (For freedom Christ has set us free; stand firm therefore & do not submit again to a yoke of slavery)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 165 | View Replies ]


To: metmom

Do they not understand the parable of the wheat and tares? That the two were to grow together, one indistinguishable from the other until maturity just before the harvest?

Oh my.....


202 posted on 11/24/2011 2:55:32 PM PST by count-your-change (You don't have to be brilliant, not being stupid is enough.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 189 | View Replies ]

To: metmom; CynicalBear; smvoice; thesaleboat; Natural Law; Iscool; Judith Anne; MarkBsnr; RnMomof7; ...

“what’s the point of this mental excercise”?

great question.

for those who tuned in late, i challenged those that deny the Catholic Faith to name just one Christian from the 3rd century and one from the 6th century.

we know from Scripture, the Church is the Body of Christ, that Jesus said He would be with us always and that the gates of hell would not prevail against the Church.

logically then, you must believe one of two things about the Church:

1. The Church went apostate before the 3rd century and therefore you can’t name one Christian because there weren’t any alive, or
2. There have been Christians alive continuously from 33ad to the present.

The Mormons hold to option one, if the so called Christians who couldn’t name even one Christian from the 3rd and 6th centuries agree with the Mormons, they should just say so.

But, if they agree with option 2, what does it say that they can’t or won’t even name 2 Christians from these 2 centuries?
What it says to me is:
a. if they name someone who was a Catholic, they would need to admit Catholics can be Christian and they risk losing all credibility with all those who have so much time invested in the Catholics as pagan bs, or
b. if they name a non-Catholic, the odds are pretty high the person would be such a heretic ( Arius, Nestorius, etc ), that they can’t bring themself to have to defend the heresy.

so, we get silence.

i think it was Jeff Foxworthy who made a living saying “ you might be a redneck if........”

i would turn that around and say “ you might not be a Christian if you can’t name a Christian from every century from Apostolic times to the present”

if no one believes what you feel makes one a Christian in the 3rd century, you probably aren’t a Christian.

following up on a previous “untruth” that the Council of Ephesus taught the worship of diana ( post #27 ), i am really puzzled how so many “christians” have no trouble delibrately telling “untruths” about 250 Catholic bishops, when the following Scripture came to mind:

2 Thessalonians 2:11-2

“Therefore God sends them a strong delusion , to make them believe what is false, so that all may be condemned who did not believe the truth but had pleasure in unrighteousness.”

fits these folks to a ‘T’ , even the part about taking pleasure in unrighteouness.


226 posted on 11/24/2011 8:31:49 PM PST by one Lord one faith one baptism
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 189 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson