Halcyon said:
I know you won't like this... but i don't believe that passage was originally in Luke, it think it was an orthodox addition. It doesn't fit in with Jesus's other teachings.
Oh, i see. And when was this passage added? What evidence do you have to suggest this?
That's true. But why should the church be of one opinion?
Because to be of many theological opinions (particularly those that are mutually exclusive) creates chaos and disunity. It opposes the unity and familial nature of the Church. It also completely abolishes the nature of the Church as authoritative and "the pillar and ground of the truth", in allowing numerous subjective opinions on Scripture and theology to run wild and unchecked.
Not really, your church was guided by Archons not the Holy Spirit.
Actually, yes, really. The Church opposed Gnosticism from the start. Several of the New Testament books were written specifically to oppose Gnostic theology that had already started to work its way into the Church in the first century.
Right... so if everyone knew that certain men were the students of the apostles, and that the had authority, why were there so many different beliefs? Surely it was obvious to everyone who the true church was and what the true teachings were?
The leaders of the Church (the Apostles and their immediate successors) were obvious, but the teachings weren't always obvious, because they hadn't been fully explained or taught. The Church didn't sit down at a big meeting the day after Pentecost and say, "Ok, guys, here's everything that we believe." Thus, in areas of theology that were not initially explained or expounded upon, heresy began to creep in and cast doubt on the teachings of orthodoxy. Once it became a serious problem and heresy began to seriously oppose the Church, the Church would come together to clarify the true Church teaching.
The orthodox church would want to give the impression of a split because otherwise it would mean they weren't the only original church.
There is only one original Church. The Gnostics and the Catholics cannot both simultaneously be the Church of Christ...the two systems are totally opposed to one another. One way or the other, there must have been a split at some point. Christ established one Church, not two.
So, it couldn't be that people don't agree with the church's teachings, because they don't make any sense to them, and start believing in what does make sense?
This may come as a mild shock to you, but what "makes sense to us" in our puny finite human minds doesn't always (or even usually) determine the reality of the situation. Truth is eternal, and it doesn't just bend to each of our individual whims, particuarly not God's truth. Just because everything that God's Church teaches doesn't make sense to you, doesn't mean that such teachings aren't true.
Well, i was hoping for a very detailed explaination, the kind that would allow me to understand how you think. However...
Ok, the water one = three forms of one substance, this i can equate with God. But it is not the same as three separate persons. Same goes for time, same concept but three different understandings of it - not three different entities.
Obviously the analogies are limited because they are physical and non-living analogies for a spiritual immaterial concept. However, you do see (I hope)that one substance or concept can exist fully and equally as that substance or concept in three different forms, which is at least roughly equivalent to a God which exists as three distinct Persons.
The three leaf clover was better, feel like expanding upon it?
Not particuarly, as I think you get the point without much explanation. Each leaf of the clover represents a Person in the Trinity which together are one clover, One God.
Save them from what exactly? Lets be clear on what we mean.
You tell me:
"And she will bring forth a Son, and you shall call His name JESUS, for He will save His people from their sins." Matthew 1:21
"For whoever desires to save his life will lose it, but whoever loses his life for My sake and the gospels will save it." Mark 8:35
"for the Son of Man has come to seek and to save that which was lost." Luke 19:10
You are misunderstanding what i am saying. Just because someone doesn't believe in God, does not mean God will abandon them, nor does it mean that God need take any other action.
I don't think I'm misunderstanding, I'm simply taking your view to its logical conclusion, which I find completely unreasonable. Accordinf to your view, a person living knowingly and intentionally in a refusal to believe in God or in a Godless religion can get just as much spiritual insight, blessing, peace, love, etc from God than can a person who believes in God and daily does their best to serve Him. It's entirely unjust, and I don't honestly see how you could defend such a position.
To the second part, yes and no. You can live a spiritually fulfilled life without a belief in God, like Buddhists do. But to be "saved" you need Gnosis, which may be the same as Nirvana.
Now I'll ask you, if you haven't answered above already..."saved" from what?
How can a person live a spiritually fulfilled life if they don't believe that the Spirit even exists?!
God is not stupid, a good person will not be rejected by him, even if they are atheist.
Who judges whether a person is good or not? God, correct? And if a person completely rejects God and refuses to even acknowledge Him, how can it honestly be expected that God will consider that person good? The whole reason that such an atheist was even allowed to live a "good" life by human standards was because God gave him/her every breath. Imagine if someone came to court one day and stood before a judge as the judge spoke to him, and whenever the judge spoke, the man said mockingly, "Gee, do you hear something? There's a really annoying wind blowing through here...", and then flipped the judge off, said, "you're a big jerk, I don't answer to you," and then turned his back on the judge. Do you really expect the judge to let that guy off easy? Yet that's what many people do to God, knowingly rejecting that He even exists and mocking Him.
And belief in Christs blood atonement is not scriptural, its Church tradition.
The Scriptures are filled with passages about the sacrifice and atonement made by Christ's death on the cross. That is not in question. The problem is, the instant I post such passages, you will instantly reply, "Well that versewas added later. That's an orthodox writer, of course he's biased, etc etc etc". You pick and choose which Bible verses work for you and which don't. As I've explained, that's not the way the canon works.
My point... i thought it was obvious? Buddhists believe Buddha had a profound spiritual experience, just because you say he didn't doesn't make it so.
And just because you say he did doesn't make it so, either.
Then why did you make such an unenlightened comment about the Buddha?
What unenlightened comment? How do you know Buddha had spiritual enlightment?
That's nice. None of them mention the Holy Spirit guiding or staying with the Catholic Church forever, but the way you've arranged those totally unlinked passages to give such an impression is very creative.
The way I arranged them? I just quoted them because they were all related to the topic in question. But I guess it seems that the passages speak more plainly toward my point than you may want to admit.
As for the verses not mentioning the Holy Spirit guiding and staying with the Church forever, the passages from John 14 and 16 explicitly say that the Holy Spirit will come and guide the Church into ALL TRUTH. It says nothing about Him leaving...how could He guide them into all truth if He suddenly left? The Matthew 28 passage quotes the promise of Christ to be with His Church ALWAYS. If Jesus is with His Church always, why wouldn't the Holy Spirit be? The Matthew 16 passage says that the Gates of Hades will not prevail against the Church, another promise of Christ Himself. If the Holy Spirit ever left the Church and the Church fell into doctrinal heresy and lost authority, how could Christ say that the Gates of Hades will never prevail against the Church?
Well, why not? Let people believe what they want to believe.
I do hope you're kidding, right? You are honestly suggesting that the Church have no guidelines at all and that anyone can believe anything at any time and still be part of the Church? Didn't Christ say, "narrow is the gate and difficult is the way which leads to life, and there are few who find it. " Matthew 7:14 How can that possibly be true if anyone can legitimately believe anything they want and still gain "enlightenment" or salvation?
Because God doesn't need a man to forgive on his behalf, nor does God need to work through a man. God can do that on his own
Sure, but God doesn't need ANYTHING, yet obviously things exist. We know through the Scriptures and the Prophets and Apostles that God has in fact numerous times worked through men to accomplish His purposes and deliver His message.
FerventGodSeeker
