The point is “studying the history” is the same paradigm they all use and you see where it gets them.Studying the History makes one more inclined to be a JW or Mormon? People should stop saying that thenI would personally love it if everyone actually did check the history.
Anyway I saw you posted that to someone else and I do not get your point?
Agreed!!!
So completely happy that on New Years Day someone actually reaches agreement. But I am slightly bewildered and perplexed with the fact that I cannot seem determine what is actual fact in the history and practice of Christianity without relying on information that is told to me, either in written form or by oral tradition.MichaelP3:
Agreed!!!
Perhaps it is because you first assume Christ’s church actually did fall into apostasy of some sort. Even this might very well be motivated by what someone told you. If Christ’s church did fall into apostasy I can begin to understand your bewilderment above.So completely happy that on New Years Day someone actually reaches agreement. But I am slightly bewildered and perplexed with the fact that I cannot seem determine what is actual fact in the history and practice of Christianity without relying on information that is told to me, either in written form or by oral tradition.
I am one of those and i still use it as real history is truth and is helpful but everybody having different versions of history is what is dangerous.
And i would bet she would agree that all history professors do not agree with each other on some histoical facts, correct? And yet we would all agree that history is not subjective.
Sorry, you missed my point completely. What other source than written or spoken do you use to decipher what is factual in early Church history?Wannano:
Perhaps it is because you first assume Christ’s church actually did fall into apostasy of some sort. Even this might very well be motivated by what someone told you. If Christ’s church did fall into apostasy I can begin to understand your bewilderment above.So completely happy that on New Years Day someone actually reaches agreement. But I am slightly bewildered and perplexed with the fact that I cannot seem determine what is actual fact in the history and practice of Christianity without relying on information that is told to me, either in written form or by oral tradition.
Peace!!!
Sorry about that. My apologies!
Maybe , if you define christian church as those who believe Jesus is an angel.Dont look now but you make a strong case for JWs or Mormons.
“Studying history” is not a paradigm, nor is “studying the bible”. The intent of, of doing it in a prejudiced vacuum, forms a paradigm.
The things that concern me came into being after the Bible was produced so I don’t have a difficult time accepting it as Truth and the guide that God intended us to have.Wannano:
Sorry about that. My apologies!
Nothing that doesn’t match what the church says. The same church that has preserved the Holy Scriptures through the centuries. If we can trust the church to preserve the Holy Scriptures we can trust her on all things of faith, that is of course assuming you first dont presume this church fell into apostosy. If you cannot trust the church for the historical truth then maybe the book that came from her would be in question also.
Peace!!!
Yes, yet we are admonished to be weaned off the “milk”, and eat “meat”. That is, predigested food from others is good to a point, then we must eat and digest the Word for ourselves.
Agree, and this has been challenge since the fall at the garden. We have a true history of what God said there, and a history of the “challenger”, and a history of having a spot in our nature to come to a misunderstanding.
Agreed and i would think the Catholic church would seem even more unified than it does if it practiced shunning and disfellowshiping as the JWs do. People tend to either shape up or ship out under duress.