Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Eh...don't we encounter arguments claiming an ''apostate'' approach, (therefore wrong), to all sorts of ideas from other groups, all the time, from some main denominations? You may be correct in some official sense, but it sure seems like a lot of people disagree with you.
It's not a matter of "apostate" or "legitimate." It's a matter of record (given one knows where to look, is interested in looking, and buys into the history given. Not everyone does that, as is evidenced in this thread. Some would say that the Catholic Church "rewrote" the history to suit themselves.). Most of those disagreeing with me are non-historic, non-orthodox adherents who choose to not respect the historic record.
Have you heard of Nehemiah Gordon? I'm not going to dismiss proposed or possible ideas simply because they don't fit in with a church's official storyline. That's all I'm saying.
Yeah, but I don't see what he's got to do with the canonization process.
I didn't start reading your other discussion at that point. I would say, the canonization process is only as good as the interpretation of the canon. We've had personal Bibles for ages now, there is no reason people cannot read their own Bibles and figure out what is being stated. Is it helpful to use outside interpretation? Sure, of course. Is it a necessity to the point of a 'no questioning' regard to church interpretation? Nope.
It's not a matter of "figuring out what's being stated." It's a matter of relationship. No one of us is the body of Christ. But together, we are the body of Christ. It's the "sense of the community" that really matters. Sure, each individual voice must be heard, but each voice must be part of the chorus of voices. That's why no one has the right to dictate which canon is "correct" or "incorrect." That's why no one has the right to determine who is "legitimate" and who is "false." I'm pushing hard here for the orthodox voice, because so many others are pushing for its illegitimacy. The Trinity is a valid, legitimate, theological construct for God. Others are just as valid, so long as they remain true to the "sense of the community" in conceptual, hermeneutical, and metaphysical continuity.
I don't think anything I present actually contradicts a broad understanding of the trinity doctrine. My main focus in these arguments is proposing that Jesus is deific, period, in Xian tradition. One doesn't have to believe the theology of that, but it's the real Xian traditional belief, imo. There is no real reason for us to be ''arguing''.
That's a fair statement.
Both Luke/Acts and Matthew were written outside Israel. They may not have known. Why would they contain the end of Paul's life? Paul's life wasn't the object of those gospels.
I didn't say they weren't "inspired." But when Timothy was written, none of the NT writings was considered scripture.
So Jesus was more than Adam. He had a spirit past. Adam did not. Not equal, even if he had angelic amnesia. Sorry. Your ransom has failed.
What do you mean, Jesus had a spirit past. Are you talking about pre-existance? Bible doesnt say that. He was born. David even knew that he would come from him too. No spirit past was told to David, or Isaiah, or anyone else. Scripture tells us that Christ was born like us, same nature, but with God as his Father. So he was different in that way. But he was just like his brethren. God was working "through" His son. He had to be like us, he also had to be the son of man and the son of God.
I don't believe that. I was responding to someone who does believe that. Sorry if I confused you.
Michael, the transformer (Optimus Prime??), could never be an exact equivalent to Adam. Adam wasn't a Transformer
Sorry, my fault.
Yeah, he was. Angel to human to angel. Transfomer, more than meets the eyes.