- Topic
fromtheotherside wrote:
IrenaeusFTW wrote:
Just seeing "mother god" written out infuriates me. What awful blasphemy.
Yeah so is praying to Mary, what a blasphemous deed, makes me wanna throw up
First, its clear in scripture that God has a mother. It's Mary. Scripture says "all generations" will call her blessed, and she is indeed. Mary is praised by name in the inspired word of God. Zahng certainly isn't mentioned.
Catholics pray to saints asking for their prayers and intercession before God. We don't worship them. We are all united in the body of Christ, on heaven and earth. We are surrounded by a cloud heavnely witnesses who offer prayers to God on our behalf. (Hebrews 12:1, Rev 5:8) Christ spoke with the saints, we being part of His body, imitate Him.(Transfiguration) It's an ancient Christian doctrine called the 'communion of saints,' not a modern concoction tricking poor souls into worshiping an old lady in Korea.
About prayer to saints from an Orthodox perspective:
http://orthodoxinfo.com/inquirers/invocationofsaints.aspx
About Mary from a Catholic perspective:
fromtheotherside wrote:
And no thecatholic did not putthe bible together.
Simon wrote:
its unknown
It was put together by the Catholic Church at the Synod of Hippo in 393 and ratified at the Council of Carthage in 397 subject to approval from Rome. ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Synod_of_Hippo ) Many books which were being read in the churches at the time, as well as even letters from Popes that were being read did not become part of the canon.
nope the consensus predates that it more confirmed than established
emil wrote:
The Early church was called the One, Holy, Catholic, Apostolic church AFAIK.
The early church wasn't the Roman Catholic Church however
Surely the early (christian) church was catholic = 'universal/pertaining to the whole christian body or church', not Catholic with a capital C or even Roman Catholic?
yep every church was part of the universal church
fromtheotherside wrote:
It iz not a contradition because we believe in ash he believes in Jesus so no not a contridiction.
Wrong! Ahang cannot believe in what he knows. Believing and knowing are two different things. Either he was Jesus/God/Holy Spirit and knows (given we are speaking of him in present terms) that he is, or he doesn't. Not he believes, which implies he looks forward to knowing he is God.
you can know and believe something at the same time
Simon wrote:
you can know and believe something at the same time
You can, certainly! However, knowing and believing are not the same thing. To know is certainty, to believe is not. "Where is Mark?" "I believe he's upstairs mom." because the last time you checked or from what he said, he was or is upstairs. You do not know for sure. If the answer was "he is upstairs" then you are certain he is, even though it might turn out he isn't becuse you didn't know he left. Yet, you assumed you knew he was upstairs becuase that was where you saw him last – knowing. This still doesn't make knowing and believing the same thing. Give it some thoughts, Simon. It isn't the same thing. If you are wearing glasses and I say to you, "do you believe those are glasses you are wearing?" the most accurate answer will be, "No, I know these are glasses I'm wearing." You know what you see and believe what you don't see, be it in dream or reality. Having said that, what is known doesn't have to be fact or actual. Just like what is believed doesn't have to be fact or actual. True statement vs statement of truth.
Thats what you choose to believe there are collections identical to.todays new testament canon far too old to believe the official story
I don't think you know what consensus means
Sarah2013 wrote:
fromtheotherside wrote:
It iz not a contradition because we believe in ash he believes in Jesus so no not a contridiction.
Wrong! Ahang cannot believe in what he knows. Believing and knowing are two different things. Either he was Jesus/God/Holy Spirit and knows (given we are speaking of him in present terms) that he is, or he doesn't. Not he believes, which implies he looks forward to knowing he is God.
I have no idea what you mean. So how've you been Sarah? I've been reading some good books, so I haven't concentrated to much on this, I will get back to you when I'm finished.
"Church authorities were deciding which books to use"
No, God was deciding which books to use. The people were just tools to get there, and some of them weren't even faithful. Yet still they were put together perfectly, and identically, all across the world, with only synonymous words even being allowed to be translated.
God is in absolute control of the bible and you can trust its integrity, unless you do not believe in his omnipotence. The bible carries God's garauntee that not the least stroke of the pen will be removed from it.You will not find any missing words, there will be no missing pages, and there will be no missing books, where your salvation is concerned.
The bible in its current incarnation is the perfect collection of all the information God wants us to have.
Anything not in it, and anything not referenced by the forefather of faith, are completely irrelevant to salvation and only breeds an unhealthy intrerest in controversies and arguments.
WMS brother wrote:
The bible in its current incarnation is the perfect collection of all the information God wants us to have.
I addition to the "which version" question asked by Irenaeus, I want to ask "Why"
Why the current incarnation? Why not the one in existence for 1200 years from 393 AD when the church closed the NT canon until the 16th century?
Your statement that God was deciding… is rather ridiculous. You mean to say God did not know? He had to take hundreds of years to decide?
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.