R
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.
C
CWBetts
Guest
Whenever they came into existence is a moot point. The true Canon was established before Chalcedon anyways by half a century. You are missing the point. The Canon was approved before there was any splitting away from the True Church
R
Rightlydivide
Guest
Oh myWell at any rate I hardly consider them Christian since they are Nestorians
theopedia.com/Oriental_OrthodoxThe Oriental Orthodox churches resulted from a schism with the remainder of Christianity in the 5th century. The separation resulted in part from the Oriental Orthodox churches’ refusal to accept the Christological dogmas of the Council of Chalcedon, which held that Jesus has two natures — one divine and one human, although these are inseparable and only act as one hypostasis. To the hierarchs who would lead the Oriental Orthodox, this was tantamount to accepting Nestorianism. In response, they advocated a formula that stressed unity of the Incarnation over all other considerations. The Oriental Orthodox churches are therefore often called Monophysite churches, although they reject this label, which is associated with Eutychian Monophysitism, preferring the term “non-Chalcedonian” or “Miaphysite” churches. Oriental Orthodox churches reject the Monophysite teachings of Eutychus and the Dyophysite teachings of Nestorius.
They are not Nestorian at all CW.
As far as not being Christians, are you are aware of the ecumenical dialogue and the relationship you have with the Oriental Orthodox?
2.Their Holinesses Pope John Paul II and Patriarch Zakka I wish solemnly to widen the horizon of their brotherhood and affirm herewith the terms of the deep spiritual communion which already unites them and the prelates, clergy and faithful of both their Churches, to consolidate these ties of Faith, Hope and Love, and to advance in finding a wholly common ecclesial life.
As far as the present day ancestors of the Nestorians, the Assyrian Church of the East, are you are of your churches view on them as well?3.First of all, Their Holinesses confess the faith of their two Churches, formulated by Nicene Council of 325 A.D. and generally known as �the Nicene Creed’. The confusions and schisms that occurred between their Churches in the later centuries, they realize today, in no way affect or touch the substance of their faith, since these arose only because of differences in terminology and culture and in the various formulae adopted by different theological schools to express the same matter. Accordingly, we find today no real basis for the sad divisions and schisms that subsequently arose between us concerning the doctrine of Incarnation. In words and life we confess the true doctrine concerning Christ our Lord, notwithstanding the differences in interpretation of such a doctrine which arose at the time of the Council of Chalcedon.
Accordingly, we find today no real basis for the sad divisions and schisms that subsequently arose between us concerning the doctrine of Incarnation.
In words and life we confess the true doctrine concerning Christ our Lord, notwithstanding the differences in interpretation of such a doctrine which arose at the time of the Council of Chalcedon.
4.Hence we wish to reaffirm solemnly our profession of common faith in the Incarnation of our Lord Jesus Christ, as Pope Paul VI and Patriarch Moran Mor Ignatius Jacoub III did in 1971.
vatican.va/roman_curia/pontifical_councils/chrstuni/documents/rc_pc_chrstuni_doc_11111994_assyrian-church_en.html
CWBetts does not speak for the Catholic Church and your statements are contrary to your own churches teachings.
C
CWBetts
Guest
It amuses me that you will back any heretical group you can, as long as it opposes Catholicism. Fundamentalists already tend towards modalism. The Oriental Orthodox are Nestorians. Next thing you know you will be espousing Arianism, Donatism, or Albegensism
R
Rightlydivide
Guest
Listen CW, ten minutes ago you thought the first schism occured in 1054 AD. The canon accepted by the local regional synods did not have the implications I believe you think they did.Whenever they came into existence is a moot point. The true Canon was established before Chalcedon anyways by half a century. You are missing the point. The Canon was approved before there was any splitting away from the True Church
Lets go on to Qumran again though. You never really defended this statement
What is your evidence they were considered canonical by the Essenes. Only three of the books were present. Only one in Greek!Actually, the seven books that you wrongly assert are not canonical were considered canonical by the Essenes at Qumran.
There were close to 900 documents, not books, so how can this statement you made be supported
So how exactly did you determine the Essenes considered the Deuterocanonical books canonical?Back in the day books were hard to come by and prohibitively expensive
R
Rightlydivide
Guest
The Oriental Orthodox are not Nestorians. Did you read the quote above? That is simply not accurate. Did you read the statement made by the Pope and the Oriental Orthodox (Syrian Church at least)? How can you call them heretical and disregard what the Pope said?It amuses me that you will back any heretical group you can, as long as it opposes Catholicism. Fundamentalists already tend towards modalism. The Oriental Orthodox are Nestorians. Next thing you know you will be espousing Arianism, Donatism, or Albegensism
C
CWBetts
Guest
You are getting way off track here. NO ONE, and I mean NO ONE. Had the authority to make declarations on Canonicity of the Scriptures other than the Catholic Church. This authority is explicitly given to the Church in the Scriptures. All this other nonsense you bring up is diversionary tactic to get away form the real issue: the Church established the Canon of 73 books in the late 4th century. The whole Church accepted the Canon until the 16th century when the Scriptures were mangled by the Protestant reformation, firther complicated by shoddy translations (such as the KJV, and much more recently, the NIV). All of this has gotten foff of the issue of this thread: Why do Non-denominationals delude themselves in to thinking that they are not Protestant? I will not discuss the CAnon any further on this thread. If you want to discuss it, start a new thread.Listen CW, ten minutes ago you thought the first schism occured in 1054 AD. The canon accepted by the local regional synods did not have the implications I believe you think they did.
Lets go on to Qumran again though. You never really defended this statement
What is your evidence they were considered canonical by the Essenes. Only three of the books were present. Only one in Greek!
There were close to 900 documents, not books, so how can this statement you made be supported
So how exactly did you determine the Essenes considered the Deuterocanonical books canonical?
C
CWBetts
Guest
From here on out, I will report every post that is off topic.The Oriental Orthodox are not Nestorians. Did you read the quote above? That is simply not accurate. Did you read the statement made by the Pope and the Oriental Orthodox (Syrian Church at least)? How can you call them heretical and disregard what the Pope said?
P
Pat_De
Guest
The reformation was an event and and a non-denominational church is defined by a lack of affiliation with any mail-line denominations; you are trying to compare nuts to oranges, which might be one reason you are confused.I have gotten into discussions, both here and elsewhere, wherein non-denominational Christians insist that they are not Protestant. This befuddles me. The theology of non-denominationals is very much built on the theology of the Reformation, so why the denial of the facts?
What confuses me is that the RCC claims to be the true visible church; yet Scripture says the true church that Jesus is built is both built upon the rock, which is Christ according to Scripture (1 Corinthians 3:11, Eph. 2:20, Romans 9:33 & 1 Corinthians 10:4-that’s just the NT) and is yet to be revealed according to Scripture (Romans 8:19) and is contrary to RCC doctrine, now that confuses me because both cannot be true according to sound logic and reasoning. I wish the infallible interpreter of Scripture would have come up with a verse by verse and book by book commentary on the Bible so we could all understand; seems like 2000 years should be plenty of time rather than a couple hand full of verses, which frankly seem to contradict the Scripture. One reason I love Jesus and do not care much for religion; He doesn’t contradict Himself nor leave any confusion and is trustworthy, He is great.
P
Pat_De
Guest
Who do you report to?From here on out, I will report every post that is off topic.
R
Rightlydivide
Guest
I cannot be getting off track because you brought Qumran up and said the Essenes considered the Deuterocanonicals canonical.You are getting way off track here. NO ONE, and I mean NO ONE. Had the authority to make declarations on Canonicity of the Scriptures other than the Catholic Church. This authority is explicitly given to the Church in the Scriptures. All this other nonsense you bring up is diversionary tactic to get away form the real issue: the Church established the Canon of 73 books in the late 4th century. The whole Church accepted the Canon until the 16th century when the Scriptures were mangled by the Protestant reformation, firther complicated by shoddy translations (such as the KJV, and much more recently, the NIV). All of this has gotten foff of the issue of this thread: Why do Non-denominationals delude themselves in to thinking that they are not Protestant? I will not discuss the CAnon any further on this thread. If you want to discuss it, start a new thread.
You said the Oriental Orthodox were Nestorians and then were shown they were not.
You said the Oriental Orthodox did not come from Chalcedon and were then shown they did.
The whole church did not accept the canon until the 16th century.
Am I going to have to know present the evidence about the Eastern Orthodox and the size of their canon prior to the Reformation?
Am I going to have to go into the Waldensians and how they also did not accept the Deuterocanonical books prior to the Reformation?
R
Rightlydivide
Guest
Very well. What would you like to know then?From here on out, I will report every post that is off topic.
C
CWBetts
Guest
Am I going to have to give a quick lesson on proper exegesis? It is not enough to read the words. You have to dig deeper. You have to take historical context into consideration (what did this mean to someone in 1st century Palestine)The reformation was an event and and a non-denominational church is defined by a lack of affiliation with any mail-line denominations; you are trying to compare nuts to oranges, which might be one reason you are confused.
What confuses me is that the RCC claims to be the true visible church; yet Scripture says the true church that Jesus is built is both built upon the rock, which is Christ according to Scripture (1 Corinthians 3:11, Eph. 2:20, Romans 9:33 & 1 Corinthians 10:4-that’s just the NT) and is yet to be revealed according to Scripture (Romans 8:19) and is contrary to RCC doctrine, now that confuses me because both cannot be true according to sound logic and reasoning. I wish the infallible interpreter of Scripture would have come up with a verse by verse and book by book commentary on the Bible so we could all understand; seems like 2000 years should be plenty of time rather than a couple hand full of verses, which frankly seem to contradict the Scripture. One reason I love Jesus and do not care much for religion; He doesn’t contradict Himself nor leave any confusion and is trustworthy, He is great.
You have to look at the Greek, both from a grammatical and lexical standpoint.
You have to look at the rhetorical methods used. (Yes, even Jesus uses idioms and hyperbole!)
You have to look at where the passage fits in its immediate context as well as how it fits in the whole Canon. If you don’t, misinterpretations are bound to happen.
You have to understand how the passage is used in the Liturgy
You have to look into what the CHurch has consistently taught. If your own interpretation contradicts this, it is you ,and not the Church who is in error
C
CWBetts
Guest
That seems awfully smug and arrogant.Very well. What would you like to know then?
R
Rightlydivide
Guest
You might want to self report that one!That seems awfully smug and arrogant.
Its both off topic and a personal attack.
Let me rephrase then, what specifically about your OP would you like me to discuss?
C
CWBetts
Guest
Good by. you ar officially ignored.You might want to self report that one!
Its both off topic and a personal attack.
Let me rephrase then, what specifically about your OP would you like me to discuss?
R
Rightlydivide
Guest
Good bye.Good by. you ar officially ignored.
I am available however to answer any questions from anyone else. Do not make them anything but OP related please. Thank you
R
Rightlydivide
Guest
We are not Protestant because your churches history is not directly related to the German, English, or Radical reformation. It was the result of a personal evangelism encounter and a Bible study that sprung from it. Using the Bible as our guide for doctrinal truth, we teach from it.Why do Non-denominationals delude themselves in to thinking that they are not Protestant?
That is why.
P
PRmerger
Guest
Yet what do you do when 2 people in your church read the same passages in Scripture but come to different interpretations of what doctrinal truth it is professing?We are not Protestant because your churches history is not directly related to the German, English, or Radical reformation. It was the result of a personal evangelism encounter and a Bible study that sprung from it. Using the Bible as our guide for doctrinal truth, we teach from it.
That is why.
C
CWBetts
Guest
You get a second “church”Yet what do you do when 2 people in your church read the same passages in Scripture but come to different interpretations of what doctrinal truth it is professing?
- Status
- Not open for further replies.