Generation 8: ... any one of the thousands of new sects formed since 1990
When I return, will I find faith on the earth? Luke 18:8
Posted on 11/29/2012 2:55:12 PM PST by DaveMSmith
Everything in the Old Testament history leads up to the crossing of the Jordan, and yet the way the story is told in Joshua 3 and 4 has major inconsistencies and problems. Is there another way to read it?
Can the Bible be taken literally?
I recognize the hyperbole and I also see that others can miss it and take it wrong.
The fact is that unless you are Lutheran or Anglican or Prebyterian/Reformed, your group is not "Protestant" -- just as many insist that Seventh Day Adventists or Jehovah's Witnesses etc. are not Protestant. Because these groups and others split from the original 3 splits, these groups are not Protestants -- some may even argue that some like the Jehovah's Witnesses are not Christian -- other freepers may say the same about Oneness Pentecostals who deny the Trinity
Quite incorrect, now evidently don't you realise that the Orthodox and Oriental Churches also have the books of the Maccabees for instance and that Luther's first Bible had it as well?
though the interesting thing is that the first editions of the King James Version did have the Apocryphas as did the Geneva Bible and Luther's Bible
it was only in 1644 when the Long Parliament forbade the reading of the Apocrypha (so government interference) when it was removed.
A classic case of modern-day government interfering in Christian matters
Quite incorrect
The tradition that Luther followed of a separation in dialogue was taken up by the first generation of Zwingli and Calvin down to the 5th generation Baptists and then to the later ones including the non-Christian Jehovah's Witnesses and Mormons and the BB group etc
These folks migrated back to the original three groups whatever they call themselves because they tell the same lies and half-truths and place more importance on being anti-Catholic than on being Christian.
LOL, Right Mr Twain.
Beats looking for loopholes, though.
Exactly, that is why we should refrain from calling these folks as Protestants -- they are not Protestants. the "Protestants" are those belonging to the original 3 groups that broke away from the Western Church -- namely Lutherans, Calvinists (Presbyterians, Reformed) and the Anglicans
All the future groups that broke away from them -- like the 3rd generation of reformatters included the Unitarians (in the 16th century) and the Wesleyans (in the 18th century) and the anabaptists (in the 16th century) are not strictly speaking "Protestant" but have their own tradition, their own beliefs etc. --> example the Oneness Pentecostals who reject the Trinity
So, don't refer to the posters on this thread (most of whom are not Lutherans nor Calvinists (Presbyterians, Reformed) nor Anglicans ), do not refer to them as Protestants -- they are varied individuals with varied beliefs -- some Swedenborgian, some anti-Trinitarian, some whatever
Exactly, that is why we should refrain from calling these folks as Protestants -- they are not Protestants. the "Protestants" are those belonging to the original 3 groups that broke away from the Western Church -- namely Lutherans, Calvinists (Presbyterians, Reformed) and the Anglicans
All the future groups that broke away from them -- like the 3rd generation of reformatters included the Unitarians (in the 16th century) and the Wesleyans (in the 18th century) and the anabaptists (in the 16th century) are not strictly speaking "Protestant" but have their own tradition, their own beliefs etc. --> example the Oneness Pentecostals who reject the Trinity
So, don't refer to the majority posters on this thread (most of whom are not Lutherans nor Calvinists (Presbyterians, Reformed) nor Anglicans ), do not refer to them as Protestants -- they are varied individuals with varied beliefs -- some are Christians but some are Swedenborgian, some anti-Trinitarian, some whatever
some whatever they have decided to be today posting half-truths and parading it as the truth, thinking that by posting a long tract they can get someone to fall for their errors
According to wikipedia
Regional Bodies:
That's just two. I'd say the number is about 20,000 roughly
The Latter Day Saint movement includes: The original church within this movement, founded in April 1830 in New York by Joseph Smith, Jr., was the Church of Christ, which was later named the Church of the Latter Day Saints. It was renamed the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints in 1838, which remained its official name until Smith's death in 1844. This organization subsequently splintered into several different sects, each of which claims to be the legitimate continuation of this original church, and most of which dispute the right of other sects within the movement to claim this distinction.
The largest denomination within the contemporary movement is The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (LDS Church or, colloquially, Mormon church) with 14 million members. It is headquartered in Salt Lake City, Utah, and uses the term Latter-day Saints to describe itself and its members (note the hyphenation and variation in capitalization usage). The second-largest denomination is the Community of Christ (first named the Reorganized Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints from 1872–2001), a Missouri-based, 250,000-member denomination. Though members of this church have traditionally been called Latter Day Saints (without the hyphen), the Community of Christ has more recently stated that it rejects the use of the term Saints as a designation for its members in any official reference or publication.[1]
Other sects within the movement either formed around various would-be successors to Joseph Smith, Jr., or else broke from sects that did. These, together with the two sects listed above, are detailed in the table of denominations within the Latter Day Saint movement, below.
What confidence is to be had in councils when they do not go directly to the God of the church?and it goes on to deny the divinity of the Holy Spirit etc. - -but all "purely scriptural", no need of any councils etc..From the Nicene Trinity and the Athanasian Trinity together a faith arose by which the whole Christian church has been perverted. That both the Nicene and Athanasian trinities are a trinity of Gods can be seen from the creeds above quoted
Though Dave — question, about the Swedenborgians, doesn’t the New Church believe that Paul’s writings are not at the same level as the texts in the OT?
Though bb may like "In the New Church, authority is based on Divine revelation, so using this to justify it's non-Trinitarian stance,right?
so what if "The book of Joshua portrays the conquest of Canaan as a single event thattook place in one campaign divided into a number of stages" -- we describe World War II as one event while it was many engagements
'which tribe should be the first to attackthe Canaanites?' from Judges forgets that the Kananites remained -- the Phoenicians. The very exonym Phoenician was given by Graeco-ROmans. They called themselves Canaanites
Bears repeating.
Actually everything in the OT leads to Christ
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.