Do Parents Have To Teach Their Children To Be Bad?

[metis]

But pretty much every denomination has the same essentials, with only several out of many thousands teaching salvation by works and etc.

But that's not the point as if supposedly the "true believer" is being guided by the HS when it comes to interpretation, then they should be pretty much the shame. If it's the "essentials" that they all supposedly agree on, then why all the different denominations? So, obviously these groups don't really agree with you.

The ancient councils did not meet to eliminate certain texts as much as to affirm texts. For example, the early church rejected all the same intertestamental apocryphal works that the Jewish people did.

The early church didn't reject them but put them into a limbo-type judgement for future consideration. The church actually did eventually accept them but the Protestants about 1500 years later rejected them, although Luther did accept them in his first Bible.

Also, I can read the apocrypha for myself--it's not "hidden" from me--and see the many differences with the scriptures for myself.

Other than praying for the dead, which we actually know was done in the early church from other sources, what else supposedly is different?

 

[BilliardsBall]

But that's not the point as if supposedly the "true believer" is being guided by the HS when it comes to interpretation, then they should be pretty much the shame. If it's the "essentials" that they all supposedly agree on, then why all the different denominations? So, obviously these groups don't really agree with you.

The early church didn't reject them but put them into a limbo-type judgement for future consideration. The church actually did eventually accept them but the Protestants about 1500 years later rejected them, although Luther did accept them in his first Bible.

Other than praying for the dead, which we actually know was done in the early church from other sources, what else supposedly is different?

For someone who claims to study all this out, I have to say, all you said was lacking in facts.

1) They pretty are much the same on essentials as I already wrote and explained. There are other reasons for different sects including fresh movements of new believers wanting to band together to reach the world for Christ and heresies. For example, recently, denominations have split because the churches agreed within on hundreds of points of doctrine except gay marriage.

2) The Catholic Church did not fully accept the apocrypha, which is why they are labeled apocrypha, from apo or apostate and crypha/glypha or writing, meaning false writing or unknown authorship. Many Catholic Bibles retain them in a separate section as apocrypha, but somehow, despite your studies, you missed how 14,000 sects that all started separately, not just Lutheranism, all rejected the apocrypha.

3) I've addressed this elsewhere:

a) prayer for the dead is not in "other sources" unless you are talking about the apocrypha--it is a false practice mentioned by Paul in the NT

b) inconsistent with Bible doctrine

c) authorship not stated as divine within

d) self-contradictory within same documents

e) Jewish people rejected the same texts

f) councils had no line of descent to demonstrate, where a Tertullian could say Irenaeus was his mentor and John was the mentor of Irenaeus and had passed down that the Johns and Revelation were John's authorship

 

[metis]

For someone who claims to study all this out, I have to say, all you said was lacking in facts.

What condescending nonsense. My guess, based on what you have written in many posts, is that you don't do much serious theological reading from varied sources.

The Catholic Church did not fully accept the apocrypha, which is why they are labeled apocrypha, from apo or apostate and crypha/glypha or writing, meaning false writing or unknown authorship.

Read what I said instead of countering what I didn't say. If you do the research, you'll find that the CC didn't reject the Apocrypha but didn't accept it either at first. It was put aside for further consideration and was not accepted until many centuries later: Apocrypha - Wikipedia

despite your studies, you missed how 14,000 sects that all started separately, not just Lutheranism, all rejected the apocrypha.

I couldn't care less what these "14,000 sects" may or may not have done, plus I'm curious as to how you came up with the number "14,000"? Where did you come up with this? Source please?

prayer for the dead is not in "other sources" unless you are talking about the apocrypha--it is a false practice mentioned by Paul in the NT

It was a practice in the 2nd century church that has been documented by historians, plus it does show up in the Apocrypha, so it must have been a practice at least by some.

Also, from 2 Timothy 1[16-18]:"May the Lord grant mercy to the house of Onesiphorus, for he often refreshed me, and was not ashamed of my chain, but when he was in Rome, he sought me diligently, and found me (the Lord grant to him to find the Lord's mercy on that day); and in how many things he served at Ephesus, you know very well."

Also: "Prayer for the dead is well documented within early Christianity, both among prominent Church Fathers and the Christian community in general. -- Prayer for the dead - Wikipedia

councils had no line of descent to demonstrate,

You simply do not know what you're talking about because the "mark" of the apostolic church was whether your leaders were appointed by a line of succession going back to the apostles. It certainly was not the Bible since different books were used in different local churches, thus the canon had not yet been selected, which was not done until the late 4th and early 5th centuries. See: Apostolic succession - Wikipedia

I can document my assertions, but not you.

 

[BilliardsBall]

What condescending nonsense. My guess, based on what you have written in many posts, is that you don't do much serious theological reading from varied sources.

Read what I said instead of countering what I didn't say. If you do the research, you'll find that the CC didn't reject the Apocrypha but didn't accept it either at first. It was put aside for further consideration and was not accepted until many centuries later: Apocrypha - Wikipedia

I couldn't care less what these "14,000 sects" may or may not have done, plus I'm curious as to how you came up with the number "14,000"? Where did you come up with this? Source please?

It was a practice in the 2nd century church that has been documented by historians, plus it does show up in the Apocrypha, so it must have been a practice at least by some.

Also, from 2 Timothy 1[16-18]:"May the Lord grant mercy to the house of Onesiphorus, for he often refreshed me, and was not ashamed of my chain, but when he was in Rome, he sought me diligently, and found me (the Lord grant to him to find the Lord's mercy on that day); and in how many things he served at Ephesus, you know very well."

Also: "Prayer for the dead is well documented within early Christianity, both among prominent Church Fathers and the Christian community in general. -- Prayer for the dead - Wikipedia


You simply do not know what you're talking about because the "mark" of the apostolic church was whether your leaders were appointed by a line of succession going back to the apostles. It certainly was not the Bible since different books were used in different local churches, thus the canon had not yet been selected, which was not done until the late 4th and early 5th centuries. See: Apostolic succession - Wikipedia

I can document my assertions, but not you.

I think it's (sort of) funny when you say something like "you don't do much serious theological reading from varied sources". The issue is that besides varied sources, I read the scriptures daily, and you clearly don't. All the varied sources you are pursuing regarding Christianity are commentary on the scriptures!

I'm unsure how the living Onesiphorus finding the living Paul has anything to do with praying for dead people. The NT reference to praying for the dead is Paul's commentary on the lack of efficacy of praying for the dead--which practice is already earlier forbidden in Deuteronomy and elsewhere . . .

This is sophistry on your part: "I couldn't care less what these "14,000 sects" may or may not have done . . . "

Why don't you care what SOME quantity of THOUSANDS of sects have done? They ALL rejected the apocrypha, one at a time, after comparing it with scripture! THAT's the point!!!

 

[metis]

I read the scriptures daily, and you clearly don't.

I posted just a short time ago that I read it daily as well, so your personal slam is clearly wrong.

All the varied sources you are pursuing regarding Christianity are commentary on the scriptures!

No, they are not but come from historical records. And also let me note that I used sources with links, but now you come back with this disingenuous statement. You provide not one shred of evidence nor any links for your claims, instead relying on personal slams and unsupported opinions.

The NT reference to praying for the dead is Paul's commentary on the lack of efficacy of praying for the dead--which practice is already earlier forbidden in Deuteronomy and elsewhere . . .

Where in Dt.? Can you quote it? Why didn't you? Do you believe in "the communion of saints" or not? What do you think that entails?

This is sophistry on your part: "I couldn't care less what these "14,000 sects" may or may not have done . . . "

I asked for where you got the figure from and yet you don't produce it. This is typical of all too many of your posts, BB, as they all too often are emotional rants devoid of any serious research and/or any willingness to support your claims.

So, here's your chance-- produce where you got the "14,000 sects" from, or at least admit you made it up.

 

[BilliardsBall]

I posted just a short time ago that I read it daily as well, so your personal slam is clearly wrong.

No, they are not but come from historical records. And also let me note that I used sources with links, but now you come back with this disingenuous statement. You provide not one shred of evidence nor any links for your claims, instead relying on personal slams and unsupported opinions.

Where in Dt.? Can you quote it? Why didn't you? Do you believe in "the communion of saints" or not? What do you think that entails?

I asked for where you got the figure from and yet you don't produce it. This is typical of all too many of your posts, BB, as they all too often are emotional rants devoid of any serious research and/or any willingness to support your claims.

So, here's your chance-- produce where you got the "14,000 sects" from, or at least admit you made it up.

You read the Bible daily? Then how can you not answer all the questions you posed except the one on sects?

I heard the number 14,000 on another forum--I'll have to find the source. Conservatively, I believe you can count hundreds of denominations, thousands of sects. All of them except about three say salvation is trusting Jesus, not performing works. I don't think it's an ad populum to say if thousands of groups examined the Bible for themselves, laying aside what they'd heard from other groups, and all realized Jesus Saves...

 

[metis]

You read the Bible daily?

Yep, that's what I do, BB. Plus I read texts from other religions, but not on a daily basis.

Then how can you not answer all the questions you posed except the one on sects?

Why are you assuming that I cannot "answer" them, BB? Did you ever stop to think that maybe I really have little interest in pursuing this any further?

Therefore, ...

 

[BilliardsBall]

Yep, that's what I do, BB. Plus I read texts from other religions, but not on a daily basis.

Why are you assuming that I cannot "answer" them, BB? Did you ever stop to think that maybe I really have little interest in pursuing this any further?

Therefore, ...

I think I understand. You were not pursuing more knowledge but being rhetorical by asking me questions for which your answer was correct and you could care less about my answer.

Yet, your positions were wrong. Repent!

 

[syo]

Well, do they?

yes, of course. but they shouldn't.