I am not aware of any denominations in that timeframe. It appears that the Roman church was the first.Quote:
Originally Posted by ScottRC
|
I am not aware of any denominations in that timeframe. It appears that the Roman church was the first.Quote:
Originally Posted by ScottRC
I get it... just a group of individuals who practiced a faith similar to what you today would call "Catholic"... I can live with that.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tj3
No, the Roman church today is much different. Many of the changes occurred in 325AD when Constantine amalgamated the pagan Roman religion into the church. Then the denomination kept "evolving" their doctrine to what we have today.Quote:
Originally Posted by ScottRC
Where in the Bible does it describe the beliefs of the 2-4th century Christian church?Quote:
Originally Posted by Tj3
So Christian history pre-Constantine should be an accurate representation of orthodox Christian teaching?Quote:
Many of the changes occurred in 325AD when Constantine amalgamated the pagan Roman religion into the church.
Why would it? The canon was closed before then.Quote:
Originally Posted by ScottRC
I answered that previously. The Bible is an accurate indicator of what Christian doctrine is. History is not. Because history is the record of what men have done, and men began to stray away from sound teachings very early - the NT records some members of the early church already straying into heresy.Quote:
So Christian history pre-Constantine should be an accurate representation of orthodox Christian teaching?
Tj3,
That is also where I get my accurate information.
You just see it differently than I do.
You believe as you wish and I will do the same.
Is that OK with you?
Fred
I'm just wondering where you discerned your information about history from...Quote:
Originally Posted by Tj3
I agree... but I'm still wondering if you can provide some examples of your "bible-only" Christians ---- pre-Constantine... I doubt you would post something so foolish without being able to support this with facts, right?Quote:
Because history is the record of what men have done, and men began to stray away from sound teachings very early - the NT records some members of the early church already straying into heresy.
History should support your contention that "the changes occurred in 325AD when Constantine amalgamated the pagan Roman religion into the church"... you should be able to provide ample quotes from the early Church that show how Christians have a theology similar to yours... and then show examples of the corruption after Catholicism became pagan.
Looking forward to reading your examples.
ScottRC
I would also like to see that from Tj3.
Particularly with the fact that history provides hundreds of letters and documents which demonstrate the true history of The Church from it's beginning with Jesus.
Peace and kindness,
Fred
ScottRC
I would also like to see that from Tj3.
Particularly with the fact that history provides hundreds of letters and documents which demonstrate the true history of The Church from it's beginning with Jesus.
Peace and kindness,
Fred
You think that the canon remained open?Quote:
Originally Posted by ScottRC
I find it interesting. I said that I do believe in sola scripture, but not "BIble alone" or "scripture alone", so what terms do you use? I would have thought that if ylou wanted an honest discussion, you would deal with what I actually believe not what you claim that I believe.Quote:
I agree... but I'm still wondering if you can provide some examples of your "bible-only" Christians
I have posted information on here numerous times.Quote:
History should support your contention that "the changes occurred in 325AD when Constantine amalgamated the pagan Roman religion into the church"... you should be able to provide ample quotes from the early Church that show how Christians have a theology similar to yours... and then show examples of the corruption after Catholicism became pagan.
Where do you get your information from, Fred?Quote:
Originally Posted by arcura
I have always said that you can believe whatever you want. However, if you promote denominational teachings contrary to what scripture teaches, expect to be challenged.Quote:
You believe as you wish and I will do the same.
Is that OK with you?
Fred
Tj3,
Since when is the belief in Sola Scripture not Bible only or scripture alone?
Millions of people believe they are the same.
Fred
Until when?Quote:
Originally Posted by Tj3
Hebrews wasn't used in the West (by those non-denominational Christians) for two hundred years... and the East with Revelation for some 800 years... so I'm not sure when YOU believe the canon was closed.
Pretend I used sola scriptura... my bad... same questions still apply.Quote:
I find it interesting. I said that I do believe in sola scripture, but not "BIble alone"
I didn't think you could... oh well.Quote:
I have posted information on here numerous times.
Sorry Fred.
ScottRC,
I'm sorry also.
Fred
No, Fred. This has been explained to you many times. No one says that we should avoid other books and references. What sola scriptura says is that the Bible is our sole standard of doctrine against which any other works or doctrines or beliefs should be measured for truth.Quote:
Originally Posted by arcura
So you define the canon by when a document was used not written. Interesting how a book would be preserved for 200 years if it was not used at all.Quote:
Originally Posted by ScottRC
Well yeah. What does canon mean to you?Quote:
Originally Posted by Tj3
The Canon of the Bible
The canon of the Bible refers to the definitive list of the books which are considered to be divine revelation and included therein. ...
The Canon of the Bible
During the time of the Apostles, there was no official canon of the New Testament. The canon was not established until or about 393ad. Until that time, many other books which the Catholic Church calls Apocrypha were also considered Scripture by many. Books such as the Gospel of Thomas, the Shepherd of Hermes and the Didache.
There you go twisting words. He said, and I quote:Quote:
Interesting how a book would be preserved for 200 years if it was not used at all.
He didn't say it wasn't used at all.Quote:
Hebrews wasn't used in the West (by those non-denominational Christians) for two hundred years.
Sincerely,
De Maria
[QUOTE=De Maria]Well yeah. What does canon mean to you?
This did not address the point at all.Quote:
During the time of the Apostles, there was no official canon of the New Testament. The canon was not established until or about 393ad. Until that time, many other books which the Catholic Church calls Apocrypha were also considered Scripture by many. Books such as the Gospel of Thomas, the Shepherd of Hermes and the Didache.
Ah yes, so if it was not use by Christians, then who did use it?Quote:
There you go twisting words. He said, and I quote:
Sure it does.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tj3
My goodness. Do you have that much trouble understanding English? Obviously it was not used by Christians in the West. Therefore it was used by Christians in the East.Quote:
Ah yes, so if it was not use by Christians, then who did use it?
When you only read anti-Catholic apologetics, some of the real history of the Christian faith slips through the cracks... :(Quote:
Originally Posted by De Maria
| All times are GMT -7. The time now is 07:46 PM. |