CrackerJackAg said:

---

Silent For Too Long said:

---

Once again, I'm not part of a denomination.

So your argument is that the RCC and EO are all sinless saints?

The unbridled narcissm is incredible.

---

I don't think you are part of anything. You are doing a lot of name calling.

You ask very stupid questions and I'm just going to ignore those types of questions.

NO ONE thinks "the RCC and EO are all sinless saints".

Offer something of substance with real conversation or just stop.

When I called a group of people ******ed earlier I have very details reasons as to why. You just name call and ask silly five year old level questions.

---

You are clearly losing your temper. Calm down. It's just a message board discussion.

My points keep flying over your head so let me spell things out a bit clearer. You said:

Quote:

---

Your entire faith was established on the backs of evil and sinful men living in the practical dark ages.

---

Now, does that not imply that you think YOUR FAITH was not?


Now, watching you justify your name calling while screaming at others is...well...it basically proves my entire point.

You are in no place to judge anyone, CJ. Focus on your own house.

Silent For Too Long said:

---

You are moving the goalposts around to suit your argument.

If the Sanaritahs aren't living by the right Torah then neither are you or the billions of other Christians.

The Samaritan Torah is probably the closest to the original. If you go read any Torah you quickly realize it lacks Zion Theology. This was all created much later under the Davidic covenant by the Judeans specifically. The Samaritans rejected this as heresy.

So, basically Samaritans are THE ORIGINAL "CHURCH" who stayed faithful to THE ORIGINAL Theology.

So you can either choose to believe in a God who adapts his scope, which allows for the Davidic covenant, then Christ, then RCC/EO, then Prostentaism, or you can choose 1 random part of that, in your case RCC/EO, and proclaim thats the only one that got it right.

Which personally, however you have to conceptualize in your head to draw closer in your personal relationship with the divine, you do you. But if you are going to go around proclaiming they YOU got it RIGHT amd everyone else is a heretic I'm going to politely remind you pray for humility and remind yourself that YOU aren't The Judge.

---

I just realized you aren't Christian by any definable metric.

You claim that the Samaritans are the Original Church.

Are you quasi-Jewish?

Quote:

---

Now, does that not imply that you think YOUR FAITH was not?

---

My faith is that of the patriarchs, prophets, apostles, and church fathers... in continuity, without change. As we say in one of our services "As the Prophets beheld, as the Apostles have taught, as the Church has received, as the Teachers have dogmatized"

Creating a claim that any human intermediary between God another human is prima facie invalid because of humanity's sinfulness essentially disallows any shared experience of God, any witnessing, any religious relationship above the individual level. That's fundamentally incompatible with the Christian faith, from one end of the OT to the NT and every version of Christianity practiced in the middle. Christianity is a community religion, practiced by people together.

This is a bad line of reasoning.

So Christianity has, baked in, appeal to authority. The question isn't disallowing all authority (otherwise unless God spoke to you directly, you're doing it in soma way) it is more about interrogating those authorities.

I can prove it, too - St Paul is a sinner, and admits it. Calls himself the chief of sinners. Yet also charges those under his authority to listen to what he says, hold to his gospel and no other, and to reject anyone who teaches anything different. Our entire faith is built by, and through, sinful humans. God chose to unfold His divine plan through using flawed, sinful - and faithful humans. Only Christ Jesus is Holy, without Sin, but in His great mercy and humility and love toward mankind He chose to work through us in our sins for our salvation.

CrackerJackAg said:

---

Silent For Too Long said:

---

How am I all over the place? The discussion is about who can claim the mantle of the Modern Isreal. You don't think the actual descendants of Isreal can make that claim. I disagree.

---

This is already been discussed ad nauseum and can be resolved with a simple google search.

I would invite you to do some of your own research outside of solely what you agree with and then draw your own conclusion.

I have. I grew up Protestant for 35 years and spent 10 in study of The Apostolic Churches before I converted.

I have spent time in seminary. I have an entire library of Christian texts larger than my Church. That I have actually read.

I am fitting nothing to my worldview. I am placing my worldview into the plan that God has for us.

You are winging it based on the whims of a few "sinful man".

Or Church has stability and no man has stood head and shoulders above any others in the Orthodox world. We are led by no man at all. We are Shepherded in the right path led by the Scriptures.

Protestants can name the" sinful man" their faith was shaped by.

In your case, since you claim to be unaffiliated to any group, the "sinful man" is you and you are arrogant to think you can't be corrupted by yourself.

---

I've made no such claim and you are doing a lot of projecting.

You've done a lot of study, and that is a sincerely good thing, but somewhere along the way you've misplaced your humility. If the EO conceptualization of The Divine works for you that's awesome, I mean that sincerely.

However, other people who have as much or more knowledge on the subject as you disagree. Because are all human beings, flaws and all. Try to keep that in mind when you discuss things with others.

Silent For Too Long said:

---

CrackerJackAg said:

---

Silent For Too Long said:

---

Once again, I'm not part of a denomination.

So your argument is that the RCC and EO are all sinless saints?

The unbridled narcissm is incredible.

---

I don't think you are part of anything. You are doing a lot of name calling.

You ask very stupid questions and I'm just going to ignore those types of questions.

NO ONE thinks "the RCC and EO are all sinless saints".

Offer something of substance with real conversation or just stop.

When I called a group of people ******ed earlier I have very details reasons as to why. You just name call and ask silly five year old level questions.

---

You are clearly losing your temper. Calm down. It's just a message board discussion.

My points keep flying over your head so let me spell things out a bit clearer. You said:

Quote:

---

Your entire faith was established on the backs of evil and sinful men living in the practical dark ages.

---

Now, does that not imply that you think YOUR FAITH was not?


Now, watching you justify your name calling while screaming at others is...well...it basically proves my entire point.

You are in no place to judge anyone, CJ. Focus on your own house.

---

Again, a post with no substance.

This is just an ad hom.

Silent For Too Long said:

---

CrackerJackAg said:

---

Silent For Too Long said:

---

How am I all over the place? The discussion is about who can claim the mantle of the Modern Isreal. You don't think the actual descendants of Isreal can make that claim. I disagree.

---

This is already been discussed ad nauseum and can be resolved with a simple google search.

I would invite you to do some of your own research outside of solely what you agree with and then draw your own conclusion.

I have. I grew up Protestant for 35 years and spent 10 in study of The Apostolic Churches before I converted.

I have spent time in seminary. I have an entire library of Christian texts larger than my Church. That I have actually read.

I am fitting nothing to my worldview. I am placing my worldview into the plan that God has for us.

You are winging it based on the whims of a few "sinful man".

Or Church has stability and no man has stood head and shoulders above any others in the Orthodox world. We are led by no man at all. We are Shepherded in the right path led by the Scriptures.

Protestants can name the" sinful man" their faith was shaped by.

In your case, since you claim to be unaffiliated to any group, the "sinful man" is you and you are arrogant to think you can't be corrupted by yourself.

---

I've made no such claim and you are doing a lot of projecting.

You've done a lot of study, and that is a sincerely good thing, but somewhere along the way you've misplaced your humility. If the EO conceptualization of The Divine works for you that's awesome, I mean that sincerely.

However, other people who have as much or more knowledge on the subject as you disagree. Because are all human beings, flaws and all. Try to keep that in mind when you discuss things with others.

---

This is a forum and thread discussion differences. Humility is not part of the discussion during a dry academic conversation. We are discussing differences and that makes some uncomfortable.

I follow Christ, call me what you want, it means nothing to me.

The Samaritans are the living descendants of the original Torah tradition. They are, in a the realist sense, the most orthodox followers of YHWH on earth.

Zobel said:

---

This is just an ad hom.

---

Yep, thread is dead. I'm out.

Have a great day. Stay warm.

Zobel said:

---

This is just an ad hom.

---

How?

Silent For Too Long said:

---

I follow Christ, call me what you want, it means nothing to me.

The Samaritans are the living descendants of the original Torah tradition. They are, in a the realist sense, the most orthodox followers of YHWH on earth.

---

I hope you have a great day. I genuinely mean that. We can disagree on things and have direct conversations on a web forum that people disagree with and still hope and pray for the best for everyone.

I know where God can be found in the OC. I don't claim to know where he isn't. I don't claim to know your heart.

OUT

Quote:

---

I follow Christ, call me what you want, it means nothing to me.

The Samaritans are the living descendants of the original Torah tradition. They are, in a the realist sense, the most orthodox followers of YHWH on earth.

---

No, they're not. You're assuming a disjunction, a discontinuity, between the Patriarchs and Christians today, and that is completely unfounded.

That is a contradictory claim to the scriptures, to the words of the Prophets, the Apostles, and all Christians since.

Samaritans do not follow Christ; Christ is Yahweh. What now?

CrackerJackAg said:

---

Silent For Too Long said:

---

CrackerJackAg said:

---

Silent For Too Long said:

---

How am I all over the place? The discussion is about who can claim the mantle of the Modern Isreal. You don't think the actual descendants of Isreal can make that claim. I disagree.

---

This is already been discussed ad nauseum and can be resolved with a simple google search.

I would invite you to do some of your own research outside of solely what you agree with and then draw your own conclusion.

I have. I grew up Protestant for 35 years and spent 10 in study of The Apostolic Churches before I converted.

I have spent time in seminary. I have an entire library of Christian texts larger than my Church. That I have actually read.

I am fitting nothing to my worldview. I am placing my worldview into the plan that God has for us.

You are winging it based on the whims of a few "sinful man".

Or Church has stability and no man has stood head and shoulders above any others in the Orthodox world. We are led by no man at all. We are Shepherded in the right path led by the Scriptures.

Protestants can name the" sinful man" their faith was shaped by.

In your case, since you claim to be unaffiliated to any group, the "sinful man" is you and you are arrogant to think you can't be corrupted by yourself.

---

I've made no such claim and you are doing a lot of projecting.

You've done a lot of study, and that is a sincerely good thing, but somewhere along the way you've misplaced your humility. If the EO conceptualization of The Divine works for you that's awesome, I mean that sincerely.

However, other people who have as much or more knowledge on the subject as you disagree. Because are all human beings, flaws and all. Try to keep that in mind when you discuss things with others.

---

This is a forum and thread discussion differences. Humility is not part of the discussion during a dry academic conversation. We are discussing differences and that makes some uncomfortable.

---

A dry academic conversation that you kicked off calling people you disagreed with "ignorant ******s" and then ironically ran away from because of a perceived "ad hominem."

Because your post is just saying he lacks humility and other people know more than him. So ad hom plus appeal to authority or appeal to crowds. But there's no actual argument here. Just logical fallacies.

Zobel said:

---

Quote:

---

I follow Christ, call me what you want, it means nothing to me.

The Samaritans are the living descendants of the original Torah tradition. They are, in a the realist sense, the most orthodox followers of YHWH on earth.

---

No, they're not. You're assuming a disjunction, a discontinuity, between the Patriarchs and Christians today, and that is completely unfounded.

That is a contradictory claim to the scriptures, to the words of the Prophets, the Apostles, and all Christians since.

Samaritans do not follow Christ; Christ is Yahweh. What now?

---

Yes, because they have remained Orthodox to the Original Theology.

Let me be clear, I'm not saying that means they got it right. I'm using it to illustrate the errors you and your Apostolic Bretheren are preaching. You have arbitrarily picked a point in time of theological understanding and with full hubris proclaim that it is the only one that will ever be right.

Zobel said:

---

Because your post is just saying he lacks humility and other people know more than him. So ad hom plus appeal to authority or appeal to crowds. But there's no actual argument here. Just logical fallacies.

---

Is that really what you got from that, because that wasn't my point at all.

CJ brought up his years of study as a way of flashing his credentials and bolstering his argument. My counter is that others have studied just as much if not more and come to other conclusions. Let me be real clear here, I'm not saying that makes them right, either.

Also, to be clear, you say that defending the guy who called others "ignorant ******s."

Quote:

---

Yes, because they have remained Orthodox to the Original Theology.

Let me be clear, I'm not saying that means they got it right. I'm using it to illustrate the errors you and your Apostolic Bretheren are preaching. You have arbitrarily picked a point in time of theological understanding and with full hubris proclaim that it is the only one that will ever be right.

---

But this is completely unproven. This assumes that their transmission of the faith of the patriarchs is "truer" than others.

Samaritans themselves don't exist as a people-group until after the fall of the northern kingdom, and they themselves are an admixture of Israelites and foreigners. It is an absurdity for a Christian to assume that somehow the faithless northern kingdom preserved a purer teaching than Judah, which itself produced the Christ.

And if they didnt get it right then what on earth are we even talking about? Their original theology was wrong? So God is giving more and more information to people over time, but the earlier you get the wrong-er you are? This is also an absurdity.

This isn't about pride or hubris. It is about the claims of the faith, which come from our scriptures and our witness through unbroken tradition.

I have picked no arbitrary point in time; my scriptures start with Adam and go from Abraham. There is no break, or discontinuity in my faith. No addition, no subtraction - my faith is the faith of the people of God, going all the way back.

You're talking about errors but you yourself basically are saying other people received truth outside of the Christian faith which falsifies your own faith in Christ. Why on earth should anyone listen to what you think is an error? Christianity is rooted in this kind of authority claim; I am of the faith of St Paul - why should I listen to you?

Silent For Too Long said:

---

CrackerJackAg said:

---

Silent For Too Long said:

---

CrackerJackAg said:

---

Silent For Too Long said:

---

How am I all over the place? The discussion is about who can claim the mantle of the Modern Isreal. You don't think the actual descendants of Isreal can make that claim. I disagree.

---

This is already been discussed ad nauseum and can be resolved with a simple google search.

I would invite you to do some of your own research outside of solely what you agree with and then draw your own conclusion.

I have. I grew up Protestant for 35 years and spent 10 in study of The Apostolic Churches before I converted.

I have spent time in seminary. I have an entire library of Christian texts larger than my Church. That I have actually read.

I am fitting nothing to my worldview. I am placing my worldview into the plan that God has for us.

You are winging it based on the whims of a few "sinful man".

Or Church has stability and no man has stood head and shoulders above any others in the Orthodox world. We are led by no man at all. We are Shepherded in the right path led by the Scriptures.

Protestants can name the" sinful man" their faith was shaped by.

In your case, since you claim to be unaffiliated to any group, the "sinful man" is you and you are arrogant to think you can't be corrupted by yourself.

---

I've made no such claim and you are doing a lot of projecting.

You've done a lot of study, and that is a sincerely good thing, but somewhere along the way you've misplaced your humility. If the EO conceptualization of The Divine works for you that's awesome, I mean that sincerely.

However, other people who have as much or more knowledge on the subject as you disagree. Because are all human beings, flaws and all. Try to keep that in mind when you discuss things with others.

---

This is a forum and thread discussion differences. Humility is not part of the discussion during a dry academic conversation. We are discussing differences and that makes some uncomfortable.

---

A dry academic conversation that you kicked off calling people you disagreed with "ignorant ******s" and then ironically ran away from because of a perceived "ad hominem."

---

No one is running away. This conversation just has no actual juice left for the squeeze.

Silent For Too Long said:

---

Zobel said:

---

Quote:

---

I follow Christ, call me what you want, it means nothing to me.

The Samaritans are the living descendants of the original Torah tradition. They are, in a the realist sense, the most orthodox followers of YHWH on earth.

---

No, they're not. You're assuming a disjunction, a discontinuity, between the Patriarchs and Christians today, and that is completely unfounded.

That is a contradictory claim to the scriptures, to the words of the Prophets, the Apostles, and all Christians since.

Samaritans do not follow Christ; Christ is Yahweh. What now?

---

Yes, because they have remained Orthodox to the Original Theology.

Let me be clear, I'm not saying that means they got it right. I'm using it to illustrate the errors you and your Apostolic Bretheren are preaching. You have arbitrarily picked a point in time of theological understanding and with full hubris proclaim that it is the only one that will ever be right.

---

Would the arbitrary point in time be the time in which Christ came to Earth as a man and established his Church?

Quote:

---

But this is completely unproven. This assumes that their transmission of the faith of the patriarchs is "truer" than others.

---

It's the least altered version of the original covenant.

Quote:

---

Samaritans themselves don't exist as a people-group until after the fall of the northern kingdom, and they themselves are an admixture of Israelites and foreigners. It is an absurdity for a Christian to assume that somehow the faithless northern kingdom preserved a purer teaching than Judah, which itself produced the Christ.

---

What does their genetic makeup have to do with anything? Are you making a hereditary argument?

Quote:

---

And if they didnt get it right then what on earth are we even talking about? Their original theology was wrong? So God is giving more and more information to people over time, but the earlier you get the wrong-er you are? This is also an absurdity.

---

New revelation adapts theology.

Quote:

---

This isn't about pride or hubris. It is about the claims of the faith, which come from our scriptures and our witness through unbroken tradition.

---

As interpreted by whom? Are you using someone else's brain to come to your conclusions?

Quote:

---

I have picked no arbitrary point in time; my scriptures start with Adam and go from Abraham. There is no break, or discontinuity in my faith. No addition, no subtraction - my faith is the faith of the people of God, going all the way back.

---

Wait what? How can you even make thus argument? Your scriptures clearly contain both additions and subtractions. I'm not saying that's a bad thing. But it blows my mind that you think otherwise.

Quote:

---

You're talking about errors but you yourself basically are saying other people received truth outside of the Christian faith which falsifies your own faith in Christ. Why on earth should anyone listen to what you think is an error? Christianity is rooted in this kind of authority claim; I am of the faith of St Paul - why should I listen to you?

---

I'm just asking you to be humble in your understanding and be conscious of your personal limitations. What you do with that advice is entirely up to you.

The EO and RCC can't even agree with each other on who got that Church right. For someone who has a library full of books you have a profound ignorance of Church history.

I really don't understand why you can't just admit your original pejoratives weren't Christ like. You've spent 3 pages now hurling out insults and cry laughing when all you had to say was "that's my bad, I shouldn't have said that."

Least altered according to.. you. And presumably the Samaritans.

Quote:

---

What does their genetic makeup have to do with anything? Are you making a hereditary argument?

---

Their genetic makeup doesn't mean anything. The fact that the "Samaritan" identity, as a thing which exists in the world, post-dates for example David, means a great deal.

Quote:

---

New revelation adapts theology.

---

That's a no from me, dawg.

Quote:

---

As interpreted by whom? Are you using someone else's brain to come to your conclusions?

---

I am not coming up with my own conclusions, if that's what you're asking -- no. This is the faith that I received and am under obedience to. Passed down faithfully through generations, without change, through public teaching, which is specifically what we are commanded and charged with by the scriptures.

Quote:

---

Wait what? How can you even make thus argument? Your scriptures clearly contain both additions and subtractions. I'm not saying that's a bad thing. But it blows my mind that you think otherwise.

---

no.

Quote:

---

I'm just asking you to be humble in your understanding and be conscious of your personal limitations. What you do with that advice is entirely up to you.

---

by making this about me you completely miss the point. I am a sinner. None of what I've said has anything to do with me. Nowhere in any of this have I appealed to myself, so attacking me or asking me to be humble is completely irrelevant. I could be the most humble or most prideful person on the earth and it would remain irrelevant to the discussion.

Now, if you feel that the claims I am making here impinge on your life, your faith, that's fine. But it's not me as me making that claim, nor is it me as me setting myself up as an exemplar. If you find yourself at odds with my faith, you are then making a choice to join yourself in obedience to the faith of the apostles, or to do whatever else you may like. Incidentally, then, your humility becomes at play. Mine doesn't though; this isn't about me.

Quote:

---

Least altered according to.. you. And presumably the Samaritans.

---

According to comparative studies of the DSS, LXX, MT, SP, the Beta Isreal Orit, the SP is the least altered version of The Torah.

Quote:

---

Their genetic makeup doesn't mean anything. The fact that the "Samaritan" identity, as a thing which exists in the world, post-dates for example David, means a great deal.

---

The very term "Samaritan" is an exonymic pejorative. When the term was coined is 100% irellevant. They call themselves Isrealites.

Quote:

---

That's a no from me, dawg.

---

Except it is the foundation of your entire faith...otherwise...the Samaritans got it right...

Quote:

---

I am not coming up with my own conclusions, if that's what you're asking -- no. This is the faith that I received and am under obedience to. Passed down faithfully through generations, without change, through public teaching, which is specifically what we are commanded and charged with by the scriptures.

---

According to who?

Quote:

---

no.

---

The Torah was likely written around 1200 BC.
The rest of the Old Testament was written over the next 1,000 years.
Paul's letters and The Gospels were mostly written in the 1rst century, all though some of the NT might not have been written in the 2nd.

The Deutorocanon, that basically everyone except the Apostolitics agree isn't canon, was written during the 2nd Temple.

Your scriptures are filled with additions and subtractions. Go study the Dead Sea Scrolls if you don't believe me.

Quote:

---

by making this about me you completely miss the point. I am a sinner. None of what I've said has anything to do with me. Nowhere in any of this have I appealed to myself, so attacking me or asking me to be humble is completely irrelevant. I could be the most humble or most prideful person on the earth and it would remain irrelevant to the discussion.

Now, if you feel that the claims I am making here impinge on your life, your faith, that's fine. But it's not me as me making that claim, nor is it me as me setting myself up as an exemplar. If you find yourself at odds with my faith, you are then making a choice to join yourself in obedience to the faith of the apostles, or to do whatever else you may like. Incidentally, then, your humility becomes at play. Mine doesn't though; this isn't about me.

---

Your leaning quite heavily on your own understanding and boastfully proclaiming that your understanding is the right one.

I have no doubt you are doing so to the best of your ability's, however at the end of the day you can only answer for you, and you are just as flawed as everyone else. Your choice of who got it right, what tradition fits best, which church fathers you align with, who is a sinner and who is a saint, are all going to be equally flawed.

Silent For Too Long said:

---

The EO and RCC can't even agree with each other on who got that Church right. For someone who has a library full of books you have a profound ignorance of Church history.

I really don't understand why you can't just admit your original pejoratives weren't Christ like. You've spent 3 pages now hurling out insults and cry laughing when all you had to say was "that's my bad, I shouldn't have said that."

---

I am passionate about this topic. I grew up in ignorant and backward Protestant churches and felt lied to when I discovered the difference. I will not back off of any of my statements I made specifically about Christian dispensationalist. It is a choice to be that ignorant today.

That said:

You're intellectually dishonest and very strange.

You are stunningly ignorant of Church history and unaware of that fact I think. I don't think your intent is malice as it is a poor attempt even at that. Just ignorance and a complete lack of logic.

I'm not going to engage with you. You are like an eight year old throwing barbs with nothing behind it.

I'm not going to do a "nuh huh… uh uh!! " thing with you.

1) turning this into a historical argument is a completely different thing than faith claims.
2) your claims are not even within scholarly consensus (which is, as above, not necessarily even relevant)
3) the Samaritan Pentateuch does preserve some ancient readings, but it also contains obvious deliberate modifications
4) the dead sea scrolls are our oldest manuscripts, which provide a point-in-time witness (the oldest) and show proto samaritan, masoretic, and LXX variants
5) "least altered" is an underdefined term - are you talking about manuscript variants like spelling or grammar, ideological / theological changes like pointing to Mount Gerazim vs Jerusalem, or additions to Exodus and Deuteronomy? Because the ideological / theological changes are absolutely "alterations" in the theological sense.

in short, "nuh uh".

Quote:

---

The very term "Samaritan" is an exonymic pejorative. When the term was coined is 100% irellevant. They call themselves Isrealites.

---

Ok? What does that matter? Anyone can call themselves anything. I mean, that's kind of the question we're dealing with- who can lay claim to the identity of Israel. Merely calling oneself and Israelite doesn't make it true. At the time of Christ, Samaritans were a distinct people from Judaeans. Are you saying that they preserved the true religion of the patriarchs over and against the people of Jesus of Nazareth? He certainly didn't think so.

Quote:

---

Except it is the foundation of your entire faith...otherwise...the Samaritans got it right...

---

You badly misunderstand the nature of the truth claims of my religion, due to a kind of historical bias. Manuscript tradition isn't the foundation of my faith.

Quote:

---

According to who?

---

St Paul, in 1 Thess 4:1-2, 2 Thess 2:15, 1 Cor 11:2, 1 tim 6:20, 2 Tim 1:13-14, 2 Tim 2:2, Phil 4:9, Romans 6:17, Galatians 1:9, 1 Cor 15:1-2, Heb 2:1, Col 2:6-7. St Peter in 2 Pet 3:2, the Apostle Jude in Jude 1:3. St John in 1 John 2:24. etc etc etc

Quote:

---

Your scriptures are filled with additions and subtractions. Go study the Dead Sea Scrolls if you don't believe me.

---

The faith is one thing, related to the nature of God who has revealed Himself to us. Scriptures describe the thing and record its unfolding; creeds describe the thing, the teaching of the Apostles and Church describe it, btu they are not it. You're talking about scriptures - what I said was there was no break, discontinuity, addition, or subtraction to my faith. My faith is that of the patriarchs, of Moses, faithful Israelites, the Prophets, the Apostles, the church fathers - unbroken, without change. In other words, the faith of the people of God, which is to say, Israel.

Quote:

---

Your leaning quite heavily on your own understanding and boastfully proclaiming that your understanding is the right one. I have no doubt you are doing so to the best of your ability's, however at the end of the day you can only answer for you, and you are just as flawed as everyone else. Your choice of who got it right, what tradition fits best, which church fathers you align with, who is a sinner and who is a saint, are all going to be equally flawed.

---

I'm not. Nothing that I've written above is my own happy idea, and I'm not responsible for validating independently the truth claims of my faith. You are operating under an extremely modernist understanding of this, which is not your fault - its how you were taught. But you're so far into it you can't see the underlying difference between what you're saying and what I am.

Christ Jesus is the Truth. He promised the Holy Spirit, the Lord and Giver of Life, who lead the Apostles into all truth. They established a Church, the Body of Christ, against which the gates of hell will not prevail. That Body is comprised of people, formed through the grace-filled action of the Church - specifically described by the Apostles as baptism, the prayers, the Eucharist, collectively living the Faith. That Body is animated by the Holy Spirit, which is what makes it alive, and what makes its actions the actions of God. That Body is both filled and led by Christ Jesus Himself.

All of these are explicit scriptural claims. I am not personally validating these; I either subordinate my will to them or I don't. Their truth is independent from anything I say. I am similarly not responsible for their truth, but only for my obedience, which is only possible through true humility. I'm sure I have errors in my understanding, but those are my flaws, not the flaws of the Church. Because the Church is Christ, it is His Body, and it is blameless. No manuscript variant count changes any of this, because these claims aren't rooted in any manuscript in particular and don't come to us through those manuscripts, but through a way of living. Which is what Torah actually means in practice.

Silent For Too Long said:

---

Once again, I'm not part of a denomination.

So your argument is that the RCC and EO are all sinless saints?

The unbridled narcissm is incredible.

---

You just nailed everything wrong with RCC and EO. They believe their church is ordained by God and that no others are.

Precisely the pride-filled arrogance we are warned of throughout Christ's ministry.

They extend the perfection and inerrancy of scripture to their church and THAT is heretical.

It's really a disgusting worldview they prop up by saying "God created the church " and "it's ancient, so we must be right", while completely ignoring biblical truths and precepts espoused by Martin Luther and his contemporaries.

You can show them the error of their ways, and they still won't repent. This conversation resurfaces constantly on TexAgs, and it always ends the same.

We will always fundamentally disagree on the fact that their church is imperfect. They will never ever acknowledge the exclusive nature of their church was designed to line the pockets of their priests and institutions. It was NOT God's will or Christ's teachings that certain funky behaviors, ie, sacraments and liturgies, must be followed to be part of the Body of Christ, as asserted on this very thread.

The idea that Christ would imbue a sinful man with divine authority to establish and modify moral teachings for the entire world is itself heresy.

With all this said, I've NEVER opined that Catholics (or EO) are somehow "outside the body of Christ". The condescending views expressed toward individuals who believe every word of the Holy Bible are unacceptable and appalling.

As someone else said, I'll pray for your heart to be softened and awakened to the reality of the scripture. Know that your efforts in this thread do NOT glorify your God, nor do they advance the purposes of His Kingdom.

Quote:

---

The idea that Christ would imbue a sinful man with divine authority to establish and modify moral teachings for the entire world is itself heresy.

---

Except this is literally what happens with Moses. God says "tell sons of Israel x" and Moses says "y, z, p, q".

How do you explain this?

Quote:

---

It was NOT God's will or Christ's teachings that certain funky behaviors, ie, sacraments and liturgies, must be followed to be part of the Body of Christ, as asserted on this very thread.

---

And again, except that specifically "certain funky behaviors" were absolutely required to be part of Israel as ordained by God.

This is so confused.


You also seem to have an extremely fuzzy understanding of the differences between the RCC and the Orthodox. Which is.. something.

And last but not least, I will reiterate - big talk, lots of pearl clutching, moral appeals like appalling, calling others to repentance... but zero point zero scripture.

The only person who is resorting to childish argumentation is you, my friend. You are projecting very heavily.

I'm willing to bet large amounts of money I have a more thorough understanding of Church History then you do.

Your complete refusal to admit you were wrong screams volumes.

Zobel said:

---

Quote:

---

The idea that Christ would imbue a sinful man with divine authority to establish and modify moral teachings for the entire world is itself heresy.

---

Except this is literally what happens with Moses. God says "tell sons of Israel x" and Moses says "y, z, p, q".

How do you explain this?

Quote:

---

It was NOT God's will or Christ's teachings that certain funky behaviors, ie, sacraments and liturgies, must be followed to be part of the Body of Christ, as asserted on this very thread.

---

And again, except that specifically "certain funky behaviors" were absolutely required to be part of Israel as ordained by God.

This is so confused.


You also seem to have an extremely fuzzy understanding of the differences between the RCC and the Orthodox. Which is.. something.

And last but not least, I will reiterate - big talk, lots of pearl clutching, moral appeals like appalling, calling others to repentance... but zero point zero scripture.

---

Mosaic law was given by God to the Israelites through Moses and reflect God's holy and unchanging character.

That's antithetical to a modern pope. Happy to help.

That doesn't address a single point of what I wrote, and again - I'm not catholic.

Zobel said:

---

Quote:

---

The idea that Christ would imbue a sinful man with divine authority to establish and modify moral teachings for the entire world is itself heresy.

---

Except this is literally what happens with Moses. God says "tell sons of Israel x" and Moses says "y, z, p, q".

How do you explain this?

Quote:

---

It was NOT God's will or Christ's teachings that certain funky behaviors, ie, sacraments and liturgies, must be followed to be part of the Body of Christ, as asserted on this very thread.

---

And again, except that specifically "certain funky behaviors" were absolutely required to be part of Israel as ordained by God.

This is so confused.


You also seem to have an extremely fuzzy understanding of the differences between the RCC and the Orthodox. Which is.. something.

And last but not least, I will reiterate - big talk, lots of pearl clutching, moral appeals like appalling, calling others to repentance... but zero point zero scripture.

---

Orthodoxy=Catholicism with longer beards
[_/protestant]

Severian the Torturer said:

---

AgPrognosticator said:

---

Silent For Too Long said:

---

Once again, I'm not part of a denomination.

So your argument is that the RCC and EO are all sinless saints?

The unbridled narcissm is incredible.

---

You just nailed everything wrong with RCC and EO. They believe their church is ordained by God and that no others are.

Precisely the pride-filled arrogance we are warned of throughout Christ's ministry.

They extend the perfection and inerrancy of scripture to their church and THAT is heretical.

It's really a disgusting worldview they prop up by saying "God created the church " and "it's ancient, so we must be right", while completely ignoring biblical truths and precepts espoused by Martin Luther and his contemporaries.

You can show them the error of their ways, and they still won't repent. This conversation resurfaces constantly on TexAgs, and it always ends the same.

We will always fundamentally disagree on the fact that their church is imperfect. They will never ever acknowledge the exclusive nature of their church was designed to line the pockets of their priests and institutions. It was NOT God's will or Christ's teachings that certain funky behaviors, ie, sacraments and liturgies, must be followed to be part of the Body of Christ, as asserted on this very thread.

The idea that Christ would imbue a sinful man with divine authority to establish and modify moral teachings for the entire world is itself heresy.

With all this said, I've NEVER opined that Catholics (or EO) are somehow "outside the body of Christ". The condescending views expressed toward individuals who believe every word of the Holy Bible are unacceptable and appalling.

As someone else said, I'll pray for your heart to be softened and awakened to the reality of the scripture. Know that your efforts in this thread do NOT glorify your God, nor do they advance the purposes of His Kingdom.

---

What about the biblical truths and precepts that Luther holds that are contrary to modern Protestant beliefs?

Also, everything you've stated is complete opinion founded on what you wish was true.

I can show you my churches which predate Protestantism by over 1000 years. Guess what? They're still Catholic today.

We don't have an argument about whether or not scripture's important, we have an argument on how scripture is interpreted. The first 1500 years of the church believed that the Apostolic Church preserved and guided the church as founded and commissioned by Christ. Then Luther came about and differed in a few beliefs. Then other reformers differed in other beliefs, and then other reformers differed in other beliefs.

What you have now is people claiming that every man himself's view of the Bible is equally inspired and true. It's ludicrous.

The idea that God would painstakingly work through the church to ensure that only his revealed scripture would be known as such, and then left his flocks to interpret that scripture in a million different ways is heretical, and insulting. God is not the father of confusion, Satan is. When I look at "Christianity" outside of the church; I see confusion.

---

Ah, yes. So ordinary men aren't allowed to interpret scripture. Instead, we have an obligation to follow the moral teachings of Pope Francis who opined that gay priests are totally acceptable. Alas, we must also follow the moral teachings of Pope in the 10th century which burned homosexuals at the stake! And, oh yes, we must also accept Pope Francis when he stated that all religions are a path to God!

But (clutching my pearls) we simply cannot let ordinary man read the Bible and decide what Jesus's words meant. THAT would be heresy