Why follow a Church not founded by Christ and in Christ?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Harpazo
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
=jblake;3202837]That heretic nearly became pope. It was only after he lost a political struggle that he was declared to be a heretic. Even so, he remained influential in the Catholic church of the time until his death.
If you trace the Marion’s conversion lineage, the only person who wasn’t declared to be a heretic in it, was Paul. If you follow the other Paulian lineages, you run into the same thing. The entire line, sans Paul, gets termed “heretic”. The odd thing is that every one of those so-called heretics was doing nothing but teaching and practicing what Paul wrote.
I see nothing in the what St Paul wrote that thought that there was a different God of the Jews ( creator god). A completely separate god then who we know as The One and Only living God that created all the seen and unseen. Marcion thought that there was 2 different god’s. That would be heresy and blasphemy.
The best evidence against Aramaic Primacy is a codex of Paul’s manuscripts dated to between 60 AD and 100 AD. That codex predates by decades any list of what is canonical. If it was not for that codex, then the fight about what was canonical could be conclusively demonstrated to have been won by the wrong side. As it is, one can legitimately conclude that it was lost for reasons totally unrelated to theology. It represents a de facto rejection of Tradition, because it did not suit the political purposes of the Roman Church of that period in time.
again don’t know much about it. and not sure what your trying to say here.
The narrower canon demonstrates the falseness of your claim.
How since both are used.
The schism happened because the catholic church was claiming both supreme political authority and supreme spiritual authority
.

In other words some bishops deciding they could do what they wanted.

xan

jonathon
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top