pinacled
Well-known member
- Joined
- Oct 24, 2015
- Messages
- 2,862
- Gender
- Male
- Religious Affiliation
- Non-Denominational
- Political Affiliation
- Conservative
- Marital Status
- Single
See thats another problem they visualize a roman arch with a keystone.
The group in the Temple [Rev 11:1] Who are they?
- Thread starter visionary
- Start date
See thats another problem they visualize a roman arch with a keystone.
Pedrito
Well-known member
- Joined
- Aug 21, 2015
- Messages
- 1,032
- Gender
- Male
- Religious Affiliation
- Christian
- Political Affiliation
- Conservative
- Marital Status
- Married
- Acceptance of the Trinity & Nicene Creed
- Yes
Here's another thought based on posts in this thread.
How can someone from the Roman Catholic church, attempt to legitimise contra-Biblical doctrines dreamed up by post-apostolic theologians?
How can the impression of legitimacy be psychologically implanted in people's minds, without their realising it?
Well, what better psychological technique could there possibly be to do so, than to place the label “theologian” on one or more of the apostles?
In Post #17 on Page 2, MoreCoffee stated:
Actually, there was no need for theologians in apostolic times. The original Gospel was simple. It still is. The apostle John (MoreCoffee's “theologian”) called it “the gospel once and for all delivered to the saints”. It was complete. It was understandable. Nothing needed to be added. Nothing needed to be taken away. Anything that would be added (or deleted) in the future would therefore be by definition in opposition to God's revealed will.
Does that not mean that any and all such additions (and subtractions) would be of Satanic origin?
Definitely so, I would suggest.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Permit me here to pre-empt any temptation someone may have to play the 2 Peter 3:15,16 card, in an attempt to establish that people needed (and still need) a formal church organisation to interpret Scripture for them. (And to add and subtract unrelated doctrines as the centuries pass.)
2 Peter 3:15,16 says (emphasis mine):
To whom were Peter's letters addressed?
In his first letter, Peter makes it clear that his target audience (as it were) comprises Jews of the Dispersion. In his second letter (from which the above quotation was extracted), Peter makes historical references that were meaningful only to Jews.
Therefore, Peter was making reference to the difficulty that many Jews experienced in coming to terms with the idea that their specific culture and previously mandated religious observances, had been superceded in large measure – superceded by the fulfilment of the major historical occurrences that were prophesied by that culture and its religious rituals – the coming of their Messiah, His substitutionary ransoming death for all humans, and the existence of the Church which included ritually unclean Gentiles.
(The deliberate wresting mentioned by Peter was carried out by others.)
Were the concepts in fact simple? Indeed so. Were they difficult for many godly Jews to digest and adjust to? Absolutely.
However, the situation needed no “theological” input – only an adjustment of justifiably ingrained perspective.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Therefore, the not-so-veiled attempt to legitimise post-apostolic theology and and its doctrinal conclusions (if that's what it was), has been exposed, and should therefore have failed.
How can someone from the Roman Catholic church, attempt to legitimise contra-Biblical doctrines dreamed up by post-apostolic theologians?
How can the impression of legitimacy be psychologically implanted in people's minds, without their realising it?
Well, what better psychological technique could there possibly be to do so, than to place the label “theologian” on one or more of the apostles?
In Post #17 on Page 2, MoreCoffee stated:
Actually, there was no need for theologians in apostolic times. The original Gospel was simple. It still is. The apostle John (MoreCoffee's “theologian”) called it “the gospel once and for all delivered to the saints”. It was complete. It was understandable. Nothing needed to be added. Nothing needed to be taken away. Anything that would be added (or deleted) in the future would therefore be by definition in opposition to God's revealed will.
Does that not mean that any and all such additions (and subtractions) would be of Satanic origin?
Definitely so, I would suggest.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Permit me here to pre-empt any temptation someone may have to play the 2 Peter 3:15,16 card, in an attempt to establish that people needed (and still need) a formal church organisation to interpret Scripture for them. (And to add and subtract unrelated doctrines as the centuries pass.)
2 Peter 3:15,16 says (emphasis mine):
To whom were Peter's letters addressed?
In his first letter, Peter makes it clear that his target audience (as it were) comprises Jews of the Dispersion. In his second letter (from which the above quotation was extracted), Peter makes historical references that were meaningful only to Jews.
Therefore, Peter was making reference to the difficulty that many Jews experienced in coming to terms with the idea that their specific culture and previously mandated religious observances, had been superceded in large measure – superceded by the fulfilment of the major historical occurrences that were prophesied by that culture and its religious rituals – the coming of their Messiah, His substitutionary ransoming death for all humans, and the existence of the Church which included ritually unclean Gentiles.
(The deliberate wresting mentioned by Peter was carried out by others.)
Were the concepts in fact simple? Indeed so. Were they difficult for many godly Jews to digest and adjust to? Absolutely.
However, the situation needed no “theological” input – only an adjustment of justifiably ingrained perspective.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Therefore, the not-so-veiled attempt to legitimise post-apostolic theology and and its doctrinal conclusions (if that's what it was), has been exposed, and should therefore have failed.
Pedrito
Well-known member
- Joined
- Aug 21, 2015
- Messages
- 1,032
- Gender
- Male
- Religious Affiliation
- Christian
- Political Affiliation
- Conservative
- Marital Status
- Married
- Acceptance of the Trinity & Nicene Creed
- Yes
MoreCoffee Post #72 on Page 8:
Another superficial, and deceptive, throw-away line.
Notice how he dishonestly presents two options only – both showing visionary and her Scripture-based posts in a bad light.
"Heretical"?
Does MoreCoffee use the term "heretical" because visionary's information flies in the face of Scripture? (Hang on, it was Scripture that she presented, wasn't it?) Or was it deemed "heretical" simply because the ideas presented are in stark opposition to some teachings of MoreCoffee's religious organisation?
Many who believe their faith to be based on the Bible, would conclude that it is the Roman Catholic church, with its constantly evolving stable of counter-scriptural doctrines and practices, that more justifiably wears the label "heretical".
Could it really be considered in any way illogical, were I to agree with that conclusion?
Another superficial, and deceptive, throw-away line.
Notice how he dishonestly presents two options only – both showing visionary and her Scripture-based posts in a bad light.
"Heretical"?
Does MoreCoffee use the term "heretical" because visionary's information flies in the face of Scripture? (Hang on, it was Scripture that she presented, wasn't it?) Or was it deemed "heretical" simply because the ideas presented are in stark opposition to some teachings of MoreCoffee's religious organisation?
Many who believe their faith to be based on the Bible, would conclude that it is the Roman Catholic church, with its constantly evolving stable of counter-scriptural doctrines and practices, that more justifiably wears the label "heretical".
Could it really be considered in any way illogical, were I to agree with that conclusion?