A question for Non-denominationals

  • Thread starter Thread starter CWBetts
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
It stems from the fact I believe that there are many Catholics on here that used to be Fundamentalists. Likewise many former Catholics turned Fundamentalists have the same polemic approach.
That is my theory anyway.
 
Rightlydivide said:
No, we follow the canon of the Jews and the early Christian church. You use a canon that found favor around the years 350 to 400 AD. They were never canonical. No I do not feel like I can manipulate God.
Yet another personal attack. That is okay. I am braced for it!
Click to expand...
WRONG! The early church did not follow ‘your’ canon.
 
Nicea325 said:
Precisely why I have not given a date! I have plenty of biblical scholars (Catholic,Orthodox,Protestant) who do not mention the OT was FIXED without a doubt,before Jesus was born. In fact, none even say such a thing,other than rightlydivide who say it is FACT of canonical history.
Click to expand...
This appears to be a response to a question I did not ask. I am not asserting a date(s) for a closed OT canon prior to Jesus.

What I am asking is whether you are prosposing a specific date either in toto, or in parts.

Thank you.
 
Nicea325 said:
WRONG! The early church did not follow ‘your’ canon.
Click to expand...
Yes they did. I gave a series of quotes from early church writers. Do you have any primary sources supporting this theory of a fluid canon?
Did you check into the noncanonical writings question and see that we were correct on this matter? I did not want to drop the topic until I am sure.
Thank you
 
CWBetts said:
Circular reasoning at its best. “I am attacked because I say that I am.”
Click to expand...
I think that personal anecdotal comments should be evaluated carefully. It is obvious even in this thread that they have continued. However, I do not want to detract from the thread because I can endure the comments.
 
Rightlydivide said:
Yes they did. I gave a series of quotes from early church writers. Do you have any primary sources supporting this theory of a fluid canon?
Did you check into the noncanonical writings question and see that we were correct on this matter? I did not want to drop the topic until I am sure.
Thank you
Click to expand...
You are not convincing anyone with your ranting based on hatred of the Church.
 
CWBetts said:
You are not convincing anyone with your ranting based on hatred of the Church.
Click to expand...
I do not think my posts are ranting. I attempt to give evidence to support my view. I provide primary sources and correct some misunderstandings as well.
I do not think that when people disagree with someone’s doctrinal position that it means they hate their view.
For example, I do not assume that you hate Fundamentalism. You should not of course as we follow the Bible and its teachings. However, I would not make that assumption about you hating us.
Thank you
 
CWBetts said:
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?
Click to expand...
I used to be non denom… and yes, it is Protestant. Very similar to Baptist.
 
jpink1019 said:
Is this your condition for being able to speak with someone else about faith? There should be no conditions when it comes to speaking with care to one another.
What if someone doesn’t agree with you… does this mean we chew each other out?
What of Christ are we reflecting if we can’t even speak with kindness to one another?
What would attract someone to what Christ has to offer if we as followers don’t even treat each other the way Christ commanded we treat our own enemies…??
And we are not enemies, we are fellow christians…
Click to expand...
It has been my experience with catholics, at least, that if you disagree with them, then you are anti-catholic and hate them! This is evident in other religions as well! I agree with you, can’t we all love each other, even if we disagree. They seeem to take it personally!:eek:
 
Nicea325 said:
Your friends are full of it and you can tell them I said it! First of all,if they are using the Seven Day Adventist charge about the Pope with the dreaded number of the beast, 666, as recounted in Revelations 13:18 and 15:2. They use as so-called ‘proof’ a document called, the “Donation of Constantine”, written between 750 and 800 A.D.Nonetheless, the “Donation of Constantine” is not a genuine historical Catholic document. It is widely known as a forgery. There is no official Catholic document to “prove” this charge by, and only by, Seventh Day Adventists.

In this ‘document’, the Pope is referred to as the “Vicar of the Son of GOD”, which is “Vicarius Filii Dei” in Latin. If you take the letters of this title in Roman Numeral form, they add up to 666. The title “Vicar of the Son of GOD” was never a title of the Pope. It is a Seventh Day Adventists twisting of “Vicar of Christ”, which is one of the Pope’s true titles. The book of Revelation was written in Greek, not Latin, so why do Latin numerals have anything to do with Greek?
Click to expand...
I don’t know squat about this thing with the pope, but I know that most non-catholics do not recognize him as the vicar of Christ!
 
Eutychus123 said:
I think he said “Today”.
Click to expand...
This pasage has been a bone of contention among Christians for some time! Some say,“For I tell you today, you will be with me in Paradise!”. Others say,“For I tell you, today you will be with me in Paradise!” The first one makes more sense, as Jesus had not yet died, been buried, and risen again yet!
 
CWBetts said:
I guess you will believe anyithing…provided it is anti-Catholic.
Click to expand...
Boy, you’re one sensitive guy,CW! I never said that I believed this cockamamie story; that’s why I asked you guys if this former catholic ws yanking my chain or not! It seems like there is a high degree of hatred and anti-catholicism from former catholics than from Protestants! So, tell me, besides being anti-Protestantism, and anti-abortion(for the record, I am pro-life) what else are you anti?
 
Rightlydivide said:
Yes they did. I gave a series of quotes from early church writers. Do you have any primary sources supporting this theory of a fluid canon?
Did you check into the noncanonical writings question and see that we were correct on this matter? I did not want to drop the topic until I am sure.
Thank you
Click to expand...
Nope! Should I post what my two PROTESTANT Study Bibles say about which Bible the early church used?

BTW: I see now you want to turn the tables and asking me to provide primary sources? Why? Because you have yet to provide the primary sources showing WHO and WHERE the OT was fixed?
 
1beleevr said:
I don’t know squat about this thing with the pope, but I know that most non-catholics do not recognize him as the vicar of Christ!
Click to expand...
Well that is not new,but does not change the fact he is the vicar of Christ. A lot of people do not recognize Obama as president,does not matter he is this country’s president.
 
Nicea325 said:
Well that is not new,but does not change the fact he is the vicar of Christ. A lot of people do not recognize Obama as president,does not matter he is this country’s president.
Click to expand...
Well, he’s not the vicar of Christ to us, and that is a terrible analogy!😛
 
Nicea325 said:
Well that is not new,but does not change the fact he is the vicar of Christ. A lot of people do not recognize Obama as president,does not matter he is this country’s president.
Click to expand...
And regardless of what my personal feelings are about Obama, I do respect the office of the President of the United States! I respect the pope also, just don’t recognize him as the religious leader of the Christian world(or the vicar of Christ!
 
Nicea325 said:
Nope! Should I post what my two PROTESTANT Study Bibles say about which Bible the early church used?

BTW: I see now you want to turn the tables and asking me to provide primary sources? Why? Because you have yet to provide the primary sources showing WHO and WHERE the OT was fixed?
Click to expand...
Sure, we can discuss their reasoning for believing what they do. Commentaries are always a good way to examine what some people think about scripture. The important thing is to examine their presuppositions.
The OT was fixed by God. Do you believe that or not? (please answer this question)
The where involves where the Jews began to recognize the canon. The occured starting around the year 400 BC when the last books was written. In Israel and the rest of the area. Many of the Deuterocanonical era writers make reference to this. However, we also know that the OT contains later books referring to earlier books as authoratative, which you probably are aware of.
I believe over the course of our discussions, several times, I have asked for primary sources from you supporting your theory of a fluid canon. If you would like me to send you a link to the various threads in which I asked this, I could do that.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top