Posted on 02/12/2005 11:59:27 AM PST by NYer
Demons are always active. And Lent isnt' scriptural, so why should they care if it's lent? Do you ever stop and look at some of the things you say?
Your answer is by definition the example of non-responsive.
Why can't you address the fact that Jesus claims Godhood and is called as such by God. You can't harmonize that. All you can do and all you have done is ignore it and pretend it doesnt' exist. You aren't a Christian, by definition you are a cultist. So, I really don't know what you think you're arguing.
So have you. Why don't you tell us exactly what fallacy is being committed?
Technically speaking, Jehova's Witnesses are right when they claim that there was no theology of the Trinity, and to someone uniformed this may sound glaringly simple and true. They fail to understand that the early church did not need such theology because Christians simply believed that Jesus was God and didn't ask why or how. No one asked for explanations (as far as I know).
Such out-of-context attacks on the Church result in false "proofs" that for 1,500 years the Church was nothing but a nest of vipers, out to suck everyone's blood and lead the faith into apostasy. Actually some might find this ignorance offensive in want of an apology.
I will address your post only generally. This is not a place to get a dissertation. If you really want to get answers, you seem to be well equipped with search talent to allow you to find all the answers you want. If you need, I will be happy to provide you with additional links for further in-depth reading.
The councils of Hippo, Carthage, etc. were local councils or synods, not General or Ecumenical Councils (and were not binding). After Carthage, the Church as a whole agreed on the 27 books of the NT. As far as I know the Church did not change that since then -- so the Christian canon was closed. Without the NT there is no Christianity. You are confusing the Bible (collection of sacred writings) with Christian canon. The OT is not Christian Canon. It is the Jewish Canon, or what some Jews considered to be canon -- for there was no uniformed Jewish canon until after Jamnia.
Athanasius spent his entire life opposing Arian heresy. When he speaks of "heretics" he means Arians. Arians perverted the NT, as did other, later heresies. But at the time of Athanasius and the first Ecumenical Council, in the early part of the 4th century, the heresy because of which the Council met was Arianism which was to plague the Church for some centuries to come.
Another concept that is alien to those who are outside the Church is that the Church established ecclesiastical authority directly from the authority of the Apostles and the succeeding bishops. Tha Apocrypha were the books of the Old Covenant times, written in Greek and considered inspired by the Church. Some books were fused into one others split, but the exact number of Apocrypha was never set. It didn't have to. In fact, as late as the 8th-9th century, St. John of Damascus was proposing adding more books to the Apocrypha. The major point is that the NT canon was closed and the Church taught one and the same faith based on Jesus. That's what made it One Church.
Another important concept is the authority of people like Athanasius and Jerome. They did not speak for the Church any more than Tertullian, or Augustine or Chrysostom (a Patriarch of Constantinople) did. In the undivided Church, the bishops were all equal as the Apostles were equal -- the honor being deferred to the Bishop of Rome and Constantinople first and second respectively. And the Pope, the Bishop of Rome, was certainly looked upon as the spiritual "senior" of the Church but not its ruler. Thus, verious bishops expressed various opinions. That did not mean that the Church as a whole agreed or sanctioned it. Only Ecumenical Councils were binding.
Take for instance the Council (Synod) of Toledo in the 6th century Spain. To combat Arian heresy among newly converted Visigoths, the church there adopted the Filioque clause in the Symnbol of Faith which eventually resulted in the Church schism in the 11th century! Just because Toledo was teaching that which was not orthodox did not mean the Church approved it. It just means that no one did anything about it until it attained critical mass. The Church incorporated the Bible into its Apostolic tradition as an integral and central part but not its sole source. The entire liturgical life of the Church, which sustained it in times when theology was not around or not available (such as in the first centuries AD or 16th-18th century Russia) is not in the Bible. Jesus only told us how to pray, but not how to worship. The Eucharist became the central part of religious life very early and has remained its nucleus ever since. It is not in the Bible.
Thus, while you may not care or agree with the Church, the 1,500 years of Church life until Reformation was not made up of people who didn't know Scripture. Understanding why something happened involves more than reading headlines and quoting out-of-context.
Are you a Jew?
Is it to be everybody's understanding that your comprehension falls short that you've been asked a question?
I do not see the answer to the question posed.
CATPAW
Christ is:
Associated
Called
Titled
Privleged
Attributed
Works
:as accorded to God.
Proofs:
Jn 5:18 (equal to God)
Mt 25:18 (Great Commission)
II Cor 13:14 (blessing of triune grace)
Mt 26:63,64; Jn 20:28,29 (claim to be God)
Jn 6:38 (from heaven)
Mt 11:27 (special relationship to the Father)
Jn 5:17 (doing Father's work)
Jn 20 (note "my" and "your" father)
Acts 20:28 (God's church purchased in His own blood)
Col 2:9 (fullness of Godhead dwells)
Titus 2:13 (?)
Heb 1:8 (?)
II Pt 1:1 (?)
1 Jn 5:20 (?)
Did Satan (or its minions) cite Scripture? Did it cite Scripture correctly? What (if anything) was incorrect about Scripture cited by Satan (or its minions)? Are you Satan (or one of its minion)?
"I am that I am". "egw eimi!" You have no idea of which you speak. And no, He doesn't tell the jews they are God, he says they are 'gods' (little g) and in context it's a slur, not an affirmation. But you know that, don't you. And I'm sure you've been through this and corrected before by others. And you are a cultist. That isn't a slur, it's a truth by definition. Apparently you not only don't know what Christianity is, you don't know anything about comparative religion either. Do yourself and all of us a favor and go read "The Kingdom of the Cults". Then get yourself delivered.
The Bible cannot be proved apart from the revelation of the Holy Spirit. However, the Bible can be truly spoken about and validated by many different approaches. Archaeology, textual criticism, philosophy and others all lend tremendous credibility to the authority of scripture. I do not consider myself a 'scripture alone' kind of person but through my faith in God I put tremendous stock in what it says.
I'm kinda jumping in the middle of this fwiw. hehe
"explain away."
Explained away.. poppycock, you've been debunked. On the issue you tried to raise with Chronicles, you were debunked by the Jews whose scriptures you attempted to misappropriate from ignorance. You didn't even bother to ensure that you were anywhere near correct. And you act as though you were just dismissed. You were not dismissed, you were corrected and you refuse to take correction. Scripturally, you are not concerned with the truth, have no interest in it and are unreconcilable therefore to the truth. You're trusting in your own wisdom. As such, I'm finished talking to you myself. It serves no purpose.
The OT is part of Christian canon. And it is so because while it does not govern us as covenant, it defines for us things which God deemed outright to be righteous or sinful. It gives us a record of God's mindset on any number of things. And I note you've slipped your propaganda lie about Jamnia in there once again, having been corrected any number of times on the point.
Knowing scripture and properly understanding scripture are quite vastly different things. Thus, Christianity holds to a concept of Communion while Catholicism has a sacrifice called the Eucharist. Christianity embraced the spiritual understanding while Catholicism embraced the carnal misunderstanding. The difference is between reverent remembrance and a sacrifice. And the Latins have taken it well beyond even what the Orthodox have.
Actually, you never actually stated that. Clearly, you believe it, but that doesn’t offend me. I’ve never claimed to be an expert in that topic. I just don’t believe your insults are a suitable substitute for supporting your arguments with facts. Nor does your ability to recite church history compensate for your inability to support your arguments with relevant facts. As a matter of fact, I have pointed out that many of your facts, aren’t even facts. Some of them are actually just wrong. And nothing in your last post changes that. You’ve claimed the purpose of Jamnia was to define canon. Then you said it wasn’t. Then you said it did. You claimed 2 Esdras 14 was the first reference to 24 books in the Hebrew canon, but failed to acknowledge that 2 Esdras 14 was specifically referring to a 24 book canon that existed at least 5 centuries before Jamnia. Then you stated that Josephus proved the canon was incomplete because he left Ecclesiastes out of his list of the canon. But again, you failed to acknowledge your error when I correctly pointed out to you that Josephus actually did include Ecclesiastes in his list of canon. You’ve also ignored the fact that you were wrong to state that Athanasius included the Apocryphal books in his statement of canon. And while I may not be an expert on church history, I’m getting pretty good at predicting your response to correction, because I correctly predicted you would ignore your error. As we pressed into the New Testament, you ignored your previous statements concerning the Hebrew Canon that if there “was no concensus there was no canon”, and tried to claim the Christian Canon was closed in 390AD. When I pointed out that there is no consensus to this day with regard to Christian Canon, you replied that it was closed before it was opened before it was closed again. You even corrected me for confusing the Bible with canon, which is incredibly ironic given that you earlier informed me that “Canon means Bible” and that “Unless all the books of the Bible are agreed upon the Bible as a whole does not exist”.
Look, I am on record several times now as stating I admire both you and your church for its skill at faithfully recording history. I still believe that about your church. I’m having doubts about you. But none of that is relevant to the initial question I asked concerning what was the foundation of the Septuagint. I don't believe there is any evidence that proves the Hebrew Canon that formed the basis of the Septuagint has changed. You believe it never was a canon until after Jamnia. I frankly don't believe either of us can "prove" our positions. By your logic, that makes us both liars. I guess I'll just have to live with that because I have grown weary of discussing the entire topic. At least in this context.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.