Christianity In The USA

[Aboulia]

Call me mistaken if you'd like, debate me vociferously if you feel compelled, and by all means correct me if you think I'm in error, but if you accuse me of deliberately lying again I'll show you the door. Roosh had his red lines, I have mine, and you're nudging up on one of them with that remark. I'm very lax with moderation as far as allowing people to post their honestly held opinions, but I'm not going to allow you or anyone else to impugn my character by suggesting that I'm lying or intentionally misrepresenting my views.

You can show me the door if you wish, as a moderator, you have that power.

However, I was certainly not referring to your character. The fact that you were on board with the new forum was a factor in my decision to create an account. I've said this in a PM, on Oct 30th. Do you want me to PM you a screenshot?

This is the statement that that comment was directed at.

We recognize great value in tradition

This is what I find hard to believe, I don't think Protestants in general put much value in tradition, outside family traditions of course. I think it's mostly out of ignorance, not ill will. It's understandable to be a Protestant 100 years ago (or now if you're Amish or a Mennonite), but now, the tools are there to seek, the internet for all it's drawbacks, has been a boon for widespread information.

I directly point to something that shows there's the tradition with bishops, priests, and deacons. Considering that the Early Christians grew out of Old Testament Judaism, Why would you expect anything other than something that has incense, offerings, and priestly ranks? What tradition are you keeping? I would say at best it's from the 16th century. It certainly isn't the one the Apostles handed down. I guess potentially you could say it was one that St Paul warns against, if you really want to date it to that era.

I'm going to keep quoting 2 Timothy 3:16 until you quit downplaying what it says: it doesn't say "the Scriptures are helpful." It says "the Scriptures are sufficient to make you complete in Doctrine and Godliness."

https://www.biblegateway.com/verse/en/2 Timothy 3:16

Ctrl + F "complete"
1 Result "Complete Jewish Bible" (CJB)

 

[GodfatherPartTwo]

1 Result "Complete Jewish Bible" (CJB)

Here's the Orthodox Study Bible, which is a copy+paste job of the NKJV:

16All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness, 17that the man of God may be complete, thoroughly equipped for every good work.

 

[God's lonely asperger]

It's understandable to be a Protestant 100 years ago (or now if you're Amish or a Mennonite), but now, the tools are there to seek, the internet for all it's drawbacks, has been a boon for widespread information.

The Bible that has been around for more than 1 thousand years, and more than 500 years with wide translations on almost every language, is less of a tool than the internet? Maybe you should take a lesson or two from the Amish that you mentioned in your post.

 

[Aboulia]

Here's the Orthodox Study Bible, which is a copy+paste job of the NKJV:

16All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness, 17that the man of God may be complete, thoroughly equipped for every good work.

You're right. It's petty of me to jump on you for 1 verse difference. I just thought it was rather ironic that you said you were going to keep quoting 2 Timothy 3:16 when it doesn't say that.

 

[GodfatherPartTwo]

You're right. It's petty of me to jump on you for 1 verse difference. I just thought it was rather ironic that you said you were going to keep quoting 2 Timothy 3:16 when it doesn't say that.

I still don't understand your original swipe. The "Complete Jewish Bible" doesn't have the word complete in verse 16 either. Why did you even bring that up? Are you insinuating that I'm Jewish?

I guess I should have typed 2 Timothy 3:16-17.

 

[Uzisuicide]

Asceticism is actually another good point of comparison. There's many references in the Scriptures to fasting, not least "this kind does not go out except by prayer and fasting". And yet the practice of fasting seems to be all but non-existent in Protestantism.

Protestant Churches still teach about fasting. Although my Church isn't as 'fire and brimstone' as I'd like, the pastor encourages fasting. The bulletin has disclaimers however to consult your physician if you have a medical condition that might make it unsafe for you to fast. Welcome to 2023.

 

[OrthoSerb]

Making sacraments necessary for salvation is unbiblical.

How do you interpret John 6:53 where Christ says Verily, verily, I say unto you, Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, ye have no life in you?

 

[OrthoSerb]

Protestant Churches still teach about fasting. Although my Church isn't as 'fire and brimstone' as I'd like, the pastor encourages fasting. The bulletin has disclaimers however to consult your physician if you have a medical condition that might make it unsafe for you to fast. Welcome to 2023.

Can you elaborate? What do you mean by your pastor encourages fasting? Is it up to every individual to determine what that looks like or does he give them a standard? If the latter, what does that standard look like?

 

[GodfatherPartTwo]

How do you interpret John 6:53 where Christ says Verily, verily, I say unto you, Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, ye have no life in you?

Anyone who thinks Jesus is talking about the Lord's Supper in John 6 is already approaching that text with the Sacrament in mind. He hadn't instituted the Lord's Supper yet. He defines eating and drinking as coming to Him and believing in Him in verse 35.

 

[Iacobus]

Anyone who thinks Jesus is talking about the Lord's Supper in John 6 is already approaching that text with the Sacrament in mind. He hadn't instituted the Lord's Supper yet. He defines eating and drinking as coming to Him and believing in Him in verse 35.

Christ many times refers to something that is yet to come to pass. Just because he hasn't instituted the Eucharist doesn't mean he can't allude to it.

Given that the Scripture never refers to anything else as God-Breathed, the first point should be a given. His letters are not a testimony of the Church as it was founded, no. He was no Apostle. He is of the generation after. "Totally altered, changed and corrupted" is loaded. Biblically, Episkopos and Presbuteros have no distinction.


Praying to humans and angels is unbiblical. Creating images for religious worship is unbiblical. Making sacraments necessary for salvation is unbiblical. The list can go on.

Loaded or not that's the claim you're making. You are holding forth that the entire Christian community radically invented unapostolic, ungodly and heretical teachings and a false church immediately after the apostles died.

 

[GodfatherPartTwo]

Loaded or not that's the claim you're making. You are holding forth that the entire Christian community radically invented unapostolic, ungodly and heretical teachings and a false church immediately after the apostles died.

That is the claim you want me to make, that is not the claim I am making. I called your language loaded because it was designed to trap me into a claim no one is even making.

 

[Samseau]

Here's the Orthodox Study Bible, which is a copy+paste job of the NKJV:

16All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness, 17that the man of God may be complete, thoroughly equipped for every good work.

The link Abouila provided clearly shows the word complete absent from virtually every popular translation of the Bible. If you search for complete, you get reference to the "Complete" Jewish Bible down in the trademark section of the page.

He was joking with you but also pointing out that no one here has any idea what you're talking about. Not a single translation of that line has the word complete in it. The vast majority of translations have "profitable" or "useful," which means that scripture alone is not sufficient but it is extremely valuable to have.

 

[Samseau]

I guess where I'm most confused by Protestant's beliefs is that there was an age of Apostles, who could do incredible miracles such as heal the sick and blind, wrote the Bible, created the Church, lived a martyr's life, yet in spite of this tremendous holy power they did not have the ability to pass their Holy Spirit onto their Bishops?

How is that congruent?

 

[GodfatherPartTwo]

He was joking with you but also pointing out that no one here has any idea what you're talking about.

The unfamiliarity with 2 Timothy 3 is self-evident. I should have typed 2 Timothy 3:16-17. I will do so the next time it is downplayed to not say what it actually says.

The vast majority of translations have "profitable" or "useful," which means that scripture alone is not sufficient but it is extremely valuable to have.

2 Timothy 3:16-17; the full sentence, says that the Scriptures are profitable to make you complete in doctrine, reproof, correction, righteousness. Not "the Scriptures are useful but unable to make you complete in doctrine, reproof, correction, righteousness."

I guess where I'm most confused by Protestant's beliefs is that there was an age of Apostles, who could do incredible miracles such as heal the sick and blind, wrote the Bible, created the Church, lived a martyr's life, yet in spite of this tremendous holy power they did not have the ability to pass their Holy Spirit onto their Bishops?

That is a rationalization. Is there anywhere in the New Testament that says "the Holy Spirit is transferred generation to generation through the Bishops?"

 

[Samseau]

That is a rationalization. Is there anywhere in the New Testament that says "the Holy Spirit is transferred generation to generation through the Bishops?"

The part where Jesus said his Apostles would have the power to bind or loosen things from this world with their words. Thus if they bound other men with the power of bishophood through their words, and told them they could also do the exact same things to create more bishops, it follows Apostles were able to create such a system because Christ gave them the power to do so.

 

[GodfatherPartTwo]

The part where Jesus said his Apostles would have the power to bind or loosen things from this world with their words. Thus if they bound other men with their power through their words, and told them they would also do the exact same things, it follows they were able to create such a system because Christ gave them the power to do so.

No one is disputing the authority of the Apostles. What words did they write?

The "tag, you're it" inerrancy is not found in the text.

 

[Samseau]

No one is disputing the authority of the Apostles. What words did they write?

The words of St. Ignatius, among many others. Just like Jesus had his Apostles record his words, so too did the Apostles have others record their Acts so they could focus on Christ and His Church.

 

[GodfatherPartTwo]

The words of St. Ignatius, among many others.

He wasn't an Apostle. And it's clear from the Early Church Fathers that they did not understand themselves to have the same powers as the Apostles.

Don't believe me? Believe Ignatius: "I am not enjoining [commanding] you as Peter and Paul did. They were apostles, I am condemned.”

 

[Samseau]

He wasn't an Apostle. And it's clear from the Early Church Fathers that they did not understand themselves to have the same powers as the Apostles.

Don't believe me? Believe Ignatius: "I am not enjoining [commanding] you as Peter and Paul did. They were apostles, I am condemned.”

While their powers were lesser, they were still able to write and record the Acts of the Apostles, just as the Apostles were able to record the acts of Jesus. Thus Jesus gave the Apostles the power to bind and loosen, and they bound bishops into this world to carry on the mission of Christ's church, which is recorded by the students of the Apostles themselves, just as the story of Jesus was recorded by his students (the Apostles).

 

[GodfatherPartTwo]

While their powers were lesser, they were still able to write and record the Acts of the Apostles, just as the Apostles were able to record the acts of Jesus.

By the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, yes. The men themselves were not inerrant, they were "carried along" by the Holy Spirit.

Thus Jesus gave the Apostles the power to bind and loosen, and they bound bishops into this world to carry on the mission of Christ's church, which is recorded by the students of the Apostles themselves, just as the story of Jesus was recorded by his students (the Apostles).

The Apostles also wrote the Scriptures in order to correct those bishops when they fell into error.