And you know that “these things were totally unknown for centuries”, just
how, exactly? You weren’t there; have you read every single thing that the ECFs wrote, to be able to come up with this authoriataive statement??
How does he (she?) know? Why, because when these things first appeared in the surviving written record, the Church roundly denounced them.And you know that “these things were totally unknown for centuries”, just
The ark carried life, human and the animals, creatures as God even considered them. It carried the seeds for the new land.
Friend, this ones for you.
With this kind of method i could say just about anything about all kinds of people and make them look like something great to.
Since you claim that this was part of the church after the apostles its up to you to show the evidence. Where is it?And you know that “these things were totally unknown for centuries”, just
No, someone ***told ***you that the apostles “knew nothing about it”, & for:shrug: whatever reason, you believed them…
A symbol of the head of the priesthood.
We keep presenting the evidence and you keep ignoring it. The evidence is that the Church has never, ever rejected these teachings. If the Church never, ever rejects a teaching it can only be because the Church has always taught the same thing. There is no other explanation, at least none that do not rely on conspiratorial bogey-men.
There are some distinctly catholic traditions (the assumption is a good example of this) that are now declared “de fide” by the catholic church that are supposed to have come straight from the apostles.And you know that “these things were totally unknown for centuries”, just
No, someone ***told ***you that the apostles “knew nothing about it”, & for:shrug: whatever reason, you believed them…
There most certainly is evidence. The evidence is that at no time did the Church ever denounce these beliefs. That could only be the case if they were always believed. Why is this such a hard point to understand (or to accept, more likely the case)?
Whats a fact? That the church declared something or that there is no evidence?
This is not evidence. You need to produce some kind of evidence that the church actually believed these things. Its actually most likely that it was unknown to them.
Maybe your church is in error?
Fact - no evidence that the assumption (for example) was taught by the apostles.
What is being presented is not evidence but more speculations. Evidence that you need to show are documents that teach that they did believe such things. Again, just because the church did not reject something does not mean they believed it. Think of the ramifications of what you are saying here. If i applied this kind of reasoning to other things we would be believing in all kinds of nonsense.
Can we then say it is not an apostolic teaching?
It most certainly is evidence. Are you going to start redefining words now to avoid dealing with this evidence?
How does that answer the lack of condemnation of a new error? For the Church would have then already had to be in error, so then we must look for earlier condemnation of the earlier error, and not finding it, we must propose an even earlier error, and so on, and so on, right back to the beginning. The logical (?) conclusion of this line of thinking is that the Church went apostate right after the last New Testament book was written. Ahh, but why didn’t the Church then oppose the first error?
Then give your alternative explanation as to how the Church could disbelieve a teaching related to the faith and yet not reject that teaching. Construct your scenario to explain such behavior in a Church that was actively fighting heresy of all sorts in the very time period when you claim this new heresy went unbelieved and yet unopposed.
It is evidence. Do you even know what the term “evidence” means? You’re acting as though you don’t.