Apostolic councils?

[DNB]

Soooooo, you couldn't tell me what "heresy" is - could you?
Like I said - with every post, your ignorance shines brighter and brighter . . .

Here's a hint, Einstein:
Rejection of the Trinity is the most basic heresy of Christianity.

Virtually ALL other heresies spring from this one . . .

I believe that the converse is true, Mr Heretic!
...but, what do you mean, 'couldn't tell you what 'heresy' is? Are you looking for a definition as in heterodoxy, or an example as in transubstantiation?

 

[DNB]

Yet you can't refute the very Scriptures that prove you wrong.
THAT'S what makes your perversion a heresy.

The Trinity is the most easily-provable doctrine out there. That's why your anti-Trinitarianism is the easiest one to defeat.
Maybe that's why it was the first heresy that was slam-dunked into the waste basket at the first Church Council (Nicaea) after the Apostolic age.

What's your idea of a slam-dunk, the empire vacillating between arianism and trinitariansim for almost a century?
What's your idea of a slam-dunk, your leading trinitarian proponents stupefied till this day in trying to explain it, self-admittedly so, not to mention that not one of them consider it to be an explicit teaching in the Bible.
What in the world is your idea of a slam-dunk, professor?

 

[DNB]

I agree. Also, the conclusive mark of an Apostle is that his calling is like Abraham's, who was sent away not knowing where to. The ancient term actually emphasizes AWAY, that is, being sent, away. Jesus very often reminds his hearers you must forsake absolutely everything to be my disciple. And apostleship is of an even higher order of study.

Do you think that your comment helps undermine the apostolic councils position? I might agree with your comment to some degree, but are you able to use it to discredit the alleged authority that was behind the ecumenical councils?

 

[Brakelite]

...especially after the fact that he made this comment '...Catholics are not afraid to look at the truth of history square in the face....'

He said that? Really? Wow. I never knew that about Catholics. Amazing how a lifetime perception can be radically altered with just one comment... Can't wait to put it to the test.

Care to share that timeline of developing doctrine which resulted in Sunday sacredness?

No. It's another derailer, a tactic used when anti-Catholic lies get blown out of the water, like they do by changing the topic on every page. Sabbatarianism has been refuted a thousand times on this board by Catholics, Protestants and Orthodox. It's beating a dead horse.
Sunday Worship - Scripture Catholic
I've said it before and I'll say it again, anti-trinitarians should be confined to their own forum where they can wallow in their made-in-America falsehoods and stop goading and harassing Catholics at every opportunity.
Anti-Catholicism is a tradition of men.
Anti-Catholicism (Index Page for Apologist Dave Armstrong) | Dave Armstrong (patheos.com)

Mmm. Well, that didn't last long.

 

[Brakelite]

Blacklit is next for his SDA hate propaganda

Care to elaborate? If you come across any expression of hatred toward any person on this forum or anywhere else in my posts by all means point it out and I shall apologise.

 

[Marymog]

He clearly said that it was symbolic, and emphasized that the symbolism was not referring to water nor the body, but to that which cleanses the conscious.........

Nope, not true. That false teaching began AFTER the Reformation.

Which part did you not understand of what the Apostle was attempting to convey.

 

[Marymog]

Which of your 'apostolic' priests told you that God will not allow anyone into heaven, unless they get doused with water? Is this how you regard the Gospel of Christ, Christ only accepts people that follow superficial rituals?

Why do you follow the men who taught you that?

You should believe Christ, not them: Very truly I tell you, no one can enter the kingdom of God unless they are born of water and the Spirit.

 

[BreadOfLife]

I believe that the converse is true, Mr Heretic!
...but, what do you mean, 'couldn't tell you what 'heresy' is? Are you looking for a definition as in heterodoxy, or an example as in transubstantiation?

What's your idea of a slam-dunk, the empire vacillating between arianism and trinitariansim for almost a century?
What's your idea of a slam-dunk, your leading trinitarian proponents stupefied till this day in trying to explain it, self-admittedly so, not to mention that not one of them consider it to be an explicit teaching in the Bible.
What in the world is your idea of a slam-dunk, professor?

"Stupefied"?
The teaching is solid. The only ones "stupefied by it are those, like YOU who can't seem to grasp it.

It's funny - I laid out a pretty comprehensive Scriptural case for the Trinity right here on another thread:
Are you saved now?

You went on a multi-paragraph diatribe - but completely FAILED to refute even ONE verse.
Finally - running to the Mods because I exposed your heterodoxy is about the kind of cowardice I expected from you.

 

[Illuminator]

Care to elaborate? If you come across any expression of hatred toward any person on this forum or anywhere else in my posts by all means point it out and I shall apologise.

You should tell your doctor how you feel about the Catholic Church, he has anti-psychotic medications that can help you. You have been reported, but obviously you and other SDA's enjoy exemption from the rules. You will be ignored.

 

[DNB]

Nope, not true. That false teaching began AFTER the Reformation.

Which part did you not understand of what the Apostle was attempting to convey.

I disagree.

 

[DNB]

Why do you follow the men who taught you that?

You should believe Christ, not them: Very truly I tell you, no one can enter the kingdom of God unless they are born of water and the Spirit.

This passage is difficult. Without further investigation, I don't think that I'd be able to give a credible interpretation to it. I'm not convinced as of yet that Jesus' allusion to water, was referring to water baptism as a mandatory ritual to be observed upon conversion. I would think that more so, it is referring to repentance which is symbolized by water baptism, and thus, the metaphor. That is, the passage as a whole expresses that upon repentance, one may receive the gift of the Holy Spirit, which testifies to the Messiaship of Christ.
Sorry Mary, this was a quick exposition, the best that i can do for the moment

 

[Brakelite]

You should tell your doctor how you feel about the Catholic Church, he has anti-psychotic medications that can help you

And I shall take your assessment/diagnosis of my mental health under advisement. First time anyone has in the same breath accused me of hate speech and insanity. There must be a figure of speech for that kind of expression... Perhaps someone with greater grammatical expertise can invent one. Hypocrisy... Contradiction... Somehow don't seem quite to capture the essence of your mindset. I'll think about it.

 

[DNB]

"Stupefied"?
The teaching is solid. The only ones "stupefied by it are those, like YOU who can't seem to grasp it.

It's funny - I laid out a pretty comprehensive Scriptural case for the Trinity right here on another thread:
Are you saved now?

You went on a multi-paragraph diatribe - but completely FAILED to refute even ONE verse.
Finally - running to the Mods because I exposed your heterodoxy is about the kind of cowardice I expected from you.

...oh, that's funny, ...no, I never, ever ran to the Mods about you. I rather appreciate your candor, to some degree. Hear me again, I never, ever went to the mods about you - for one, that would incriminate myself too, wouldn't it (I haven't been any more congenial than you, have I)?

My multi paragraph diatribe was meant to expose the fact that, on an extremely fundamental level, there is absolutely no need to delve in this inherently convoluted and implausible nonsense. To the point that now, after all the main exegetical fundaments that I exposed, one could bring 10 passages that state 'I am God, and I am triune', and a serious exegeted would be obligated to offer another explanation to such an expression, other than the Godhead redundantly consisting of three all powerful persons. No need to go down a rabbit-hole, which is the only technique available to a trinitarian , they can never argue on a fundamental and logical level about this - that was my point, it wasn't an evasion of addressing your alleged/perceived trinity passages.

 

[Brakelite]

You should tell your doctor how you feel about the Catholic Church, he has anti-psychotic medications that can help you. You have been reported, but obviously the moderators like your hate speech. You will be ignored.

I was trying to figure out why you lumped me in with that most deplorable, in your estimation, heresies, the anti trinitarian group. Then I realized where you placed the connection... The comment I made regarding Constantine presiding over church councils. A pagan emperor deciding church doctrine then persecuting to death those who disagreed with it. Regardless whether the Trinity is a true doctrine or not, the whole concept that a state ruler should decide who is right or wrong then killing those that disagree is a whole lot worse than having a different perspective on how the Godhead is comprised...a topic and conclusion to which can only be arrived at by assumption. Constantine only assumed that Athanasius was right... And only assumed that Arius was wrong. Then later changed his mind. No-one, I repeat no-one can with any certitude define infinity, let alone the God who inhabits it

 

[BreadOfLife]

My multi paragraph diatribe was meant to expose the fact that, on an extremely fundamental level, there is absolutely no need to delve in this inherently convoluted and implausible nonsense. To the point that now, after all the main exegetical fundaments that I exposed, one could bring 10 passages that state 'I am God, and I am triune', and a serious exegeted would be obligated to offer another explanation to such an expression, other than the Godhead redundantly consisting of three all powerful persons. No need to go down a rabbit-hole, which is the only technique available to a trinitarian , they can never argue on a fundamental and logical level about this - that was my point, it wasn't an evasion of addressing your alleged/perceived trinity passages.

Nonsense.

You're simply un-equipped to address any of the Scriptural evidence - so you dismiss it ALL.
I run into this type of cowardice all too frequently on this forum.

The fact remains that the doctrine of the Trinity is so embedded in Scripture that you can't escape it - unless you employ the ONLY tool in your arsenal: DENIAL.

Gen. 1:26, Matt. 28:19, John 15:26, 1 Cor. 12:4-6, 2 Cor. 13:14, 1 John 5:7, Eph. 4:6, Psalm 68:5, Mal. 2:10, Isa. 63:16, 2 Cor. 1:3-4, John 3:16, John 8:41, 1 Thess. 3:13, Isa. 7:14, Isa. 9:6, John 1:1, John 1:3, John 8:58, John 10:30, John 15:9, John 20:28, Acts 5:3-4, 2 Cor. 4:4, Phil. 2:6, Col. 2:9, 1 Tim. 3:16, Heb. 1:8, Tit. 2:13, John 14:16-18, Luke 12:10, 2 Cor. 3:17, 2 Cor. 13:5, John 14:23, Acts 5:3-4

 

[Bartholomew Jones]

Do you think that your comment helps undermine the apostolic councils position? I might agree with your comment to some degree, but are you able to use it to discredit the alleged authority that was behind the ecumenical councils?

I don't care to undermine or discredit anything. People do that to themselves. Light exposes the truth. I'm just meaning to be light.

 

[DNB]

I don't care to undermine or discredit anything. People do that to themselves. Light exposes the truth. I'm just meaning to be light.

Yes, but I meant to say that your point was rather ambiguous, or not directed towards the OP. If a light shines in a forest but there's no one to see it, of what use is it?

 

[Bartholomew Jones]

It wasn't. I just jumped into the middle somewhere.

 

[Bartholomew Jones]

Yes, but I meant to say that your point was rather ambiguous, or not directed towards the OP. If a light shines in a forest but there's no one to see it, of what use is it?

It sounds like you're arguing, or trying to establish, whether the Bible tells us if the office of Apostle passes by succession?

 

[Bartholomew Jones]

Apostolic being defined based on Biblical testimony, is divinely authoritative (council in Jerusalem, Acts 15). If you are referring to ecumenical councils, or councils convened after the Apostolic age (90ad), there is absolutely zero authority.

Do you mean to say, Apostleship being defined based on Biblical testimony, is divinely authoritative (council in Jerusalem, Acts 15)?