B
- Status
L
larkin31
Guest
No.
“Water” also commonly contains minerals and other dissolved solids, even other liquids.
Perhaps you mean the molecule we call “water,” or “purified water.” But of course you did not actually write this. So, like I said, language is a subjective approximation of reality, but not the reality itself. Language does not even always represent our thoughts well.
B
benedictus2
Guest
Bingo!
L
larkin31
Guest
agreed
the apostles were not wrong to treat Jesus with a wary eye. Nor were the Jewish authorities of the day wrong to do so, either. That same wary eye should be turned toward all claimants of religious prophecy. Prudence is a virtue, most often.
B
benedictus2
Guest
Exactly! Contains. Not IS.
Water, purified or otherwise is H2O. The other stuff CONTAINED in the water does not make up water.
There is language by which we describe reality and there is the reality that we describe. Water will not somehow become H4O because I subjectively say so.
But enough of that. We have strayed too far from the topic.
Back to the canon.
P
PRmerger
Guest
No, I am most definitely NOT saying that there are “inspired” works that* should* be in the canon!
I mean, really, how would I know what’s an inspired text?
D
Dokimas
Guest
I have no problem believing the Holy Spirit has or does inspire the CC. I don’t believe He inspires the CC as His one and only true church.
P
PRmerger
Guest
Larkin can’t really say *what *the apostles or Jewish authorities of the day did, **as he believes that the Scriptures contain error. **The **only **way he knows what the apostles and Jewish authorities did to Jesus are through these very same Scriptures that he does not trust.
It’s a :whacky: position he’s attached himself to, and can’t seem to extricate himself from.
D
Dokimas
Guest
B
benedictus2
Guest
If you believe that the Holy Spirit inspires you could have only got that from the Bible. So moving on from there, the Bible says that the inspiration will be for Christ’s Church. Going by the Bible, Christ did not establish many churches. Just one.
The only way protestants have wiggled out of that is by somehow claiming that Christ’s church is somehow this invisible conglomeration of believers which is not what one would find in the Bible nor in the years immediately after His resurrection and ascension.
B
benedictus2
Guest
Very well said
D
Dokimas
Guest
The church has MANY members. That’s what all you seem to miss or refuse to admit.
D
Dokimas
Guest
Thank you. Now if I can only put it more and more into practice by trust and obedience in Jesus, my Savior.Very well said
B
benedictus2
Guest
Here’s how he will get out of that one.
Scripture as ,you, know it, contain errors that is why he cannot believe our scripture.
But when he cites “scripture” when he says he knows what the apostles and Jewish authorities did to Jesus, he means the crystal ball on his desk called interestingly enough - scripture.
B
benedictus2
Guest
But of course she does. We’ve never contested that. As a matter of fact, it wasn’t till I was older that I realized what the line “I believe in one Holy, Catholic Apostolic, Church, the communion of saint…”
When I was young, I thought that the Church and the communion of saints were two different things, until i realized that the second part “communion of saints” was actually defining the first part " the Church".
That was a mind blowing shift for me as I realized that the saints are truly my brothers and sisters.
But I know you are referring to the other denominations. The Church teaches that those who were baptized in the Trinitarian manner are all indeed members of the Catholic Church although separated members.
P
PRmerger
Guest
Here’s how he will get out of that one.
Scripture as ,you, know it, contain errors that is why he cannot believe our scripture.
But when he cites “scripture” when he says he knows what the apostles and Jewish authorities did to Jesus, he means the crystal ball on his desk called interestingly enough - scripture.
Now, larkin, we’re just having some fun here, 'kay?
Funny and true at the same time, though. And peculiar. One can cite the Scriptures when it’s convenient, but then say, “The writers may be mistaken, interpolating, exaggerating, or lying” when the Scriptures say something inconvenient.
S
SemperReformada
Guest
You haven’t followed my conversation with PR.
She asked me about Jerome and prologues, that’s it, nothing more. I repsonded by citing the article from newadvent.org and copied a section that was germane to what she asked about.
P
PRmerger
Guest
That seems to be a grand slam argument, IMHO. The DCs have been part of the canon of Scripture since the 300s, it seems, then.
I am not proficient in knowledge regarding the DCs, nor in church history (booorrrrringgg!) but was quite open to learning more. I was surprised to read Semper’s proposition that the DCs were not canonized until Trent.
However, it seems that evidence has been provided to the contrary. Even though there was discussion and debate, the collection of ecclesial canons always included the DCs it appears.
S
SemperReformada
Guest
My position is that there was no infallible or dogmatic decision on the DC’s until Trent. Am I wrong?That seems to be a grand slam argument, IMHO. The DCs have been part of the canon of Scripture since the 300s, it seems, then.
I am not proficient in knowledge regarding the DCs, nor in church history (booorrrrringgg!) but was quite open to learning more. I was surprised to read Semper’s proposition that the DCs were not canonized until Trent.
However, it seems that evidence has been provided to the contrary. Even though there was discussion and debate, the collection of ecclesial canons always included the DCs it appears.
P
PRmerger
Guest
No. I don’t think so.
It was infallibly affirmed at Trent.
But let’s take the example of the Trinity–when was it infallibly affirmed? But was it the constant teaching, yes?
- Status