What's new
By:
Filters
Christian Forums

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

Who made God?

Jim Parker said:
I also said, "That's what everyone does."
And that was my point. We all do it.

I have repeatedly suggested that the best commentators are those who were closest to the actual events,l the early church fathers.
They are the ones who zealously preserved the teaching of the apostles and, by doing so, were able to refute the multiple early heresies which arose. They are the ones who defined the basics of Christianity in the creeds.

iakov the fool
Click to expand...
Even the early Church Fathers didn't agree on every aspect of faith.
 
Papa Zoom said:
Even the early Church Fathers didn't agree on every aspect of faith.
Click to expand...
True.
And when they did not agree, the bishops (the designated guardians of the faith) assembled in councils to hash it out.
In the early Church there was never such wide deviation in the teachings of the church, which were not condemned as heresy, as we see today.
In the early Church there was never a "prosperity gospel" in the early Church. (1Tim 6:3-5 specifically refutes that heresy.)
In the early Church there was never the equivalent of modern dispensationalism in the early Church..
In the early Church there was never a OSAS teaching in the early Church.
In the early Church there was never the "cheap grace" teaching of faith without obedience to Jesus' radical demand to put Him first above all other considerations in life.

The doctrinal challenges of the very early Church were primarily the understanding of the divinity of Christ and the Holy spirit, the "dual nature" of Christ.

The most dangerous enemies to the faith were the mystery religions, Gnosticism, and, after Constantine made Christianity the religion of the empire, the intrusion of secularism with its proclivity to water down the Gospel.

iakov the fool
 
Jim Parker said:
True.
And when they did not agree, the bishops (the designated guardians of the faith) assembled in councils to hash it out.
In the early Church there was never such wide deviation in the teachings of the church, which were not condemned as heresy, as we see today.
In the early Church there was never a "prosperity gospel" in the early Church. (1Tim 6:3-5 specifically refutes that heresy.)
In the early Church there was never the equivalent of modern dispensationalism in the early Church..
In the early Church there was never a OSAS teaching in the early Church.
In the early Church there was never the "cheap grace" teaching of faith without obedience to Jesus' radical demand to put Him first above all other considerations in life.

The doctrinal challenges of the very early Church were primarily the understanding of the divinity of Christ and the Holy spirit, the "dual nature" of Christ.

The most dangerous enemies to the faith were the mystery religions, Gnosticism, and, after Constantine made Christianity the religion of the empire, the intrusion of secularism with its proclivity to water down the Gospel.

iakov the fool
Click to expand...
They may not have those issues today (prosperity gospel etc) but since it's inception, the Church has had to deal with heretical and unorthodox teachings. Nothing new under the sun really.
 
Cygnus said:
Which makes the fall..a metaphor and something that never happened.
Which makes Adam and Eves disobedience a simple non event....which means we don't really need Jesus.
Click to expand...

The examples you use here are not metaphors. You don't seem to understand what a metaphor is.

A metaphor is, ' a figure of speech in which a word or phrase literally denoting one kind of object or idea is used in place of another to suggest a likeness or analogy between them (Merriam-Webster Dictionary online 2017. s v metaphor).

Oz
 
Jim Parker said:
I have repeatedly suggested that the best commentators are those who were closest to the actual events,l the early church fathers.
They are the ones who zealously preserved the teaching of the apostles and, by doing so, were able to refute the multiple early heresies which arose. They are the ones who defined the basics of Christianity in the creeds.

iakov the fool
Click to expand...

Jim,

"Church Fathers from at least the fourth century spoke of Mary as having remained a virgin throughout her life:

Athanasius (Alexandria, 293-373);
Epiphanius (Palestine, 315?-403);
Jerome (Stridon, present day Yugoslavia, 345?-419);
Augustine (Numidia, now Algeria, 354-430);
Cyril (Alexandria, 376-444);
and others" (Dr Robert Schihl).

Do you support Mary's perpetual virginity as was taught by these early church fathers?

I have attempted to address some of these issues in my recent article, Perpetual virginity of Mary promoted by false document.

Oz
 
Jim Parker said:
Yes.
Click to expand...

Jim,

That's drawing a long bow, as I've indicated in my article, Perpetual virginity of Mary promoted by false document.

The source of this perpetual virginity doctrine is understood to be The Infancy Gospel of James (Protoevangelium of James), James being a kinsman (half-brother) of Jesus, dated about AD 150.

What is the nature of this writing? Is it from the pen of James? No! It is a document with a false author, James, associated with it. It is in the Pseudepigrapha. This book is a false attempt to imitate Scripture.

There is a table of some contradictions between The Protoevangelium of James and the Bible (from, Is the Perpetual Virginity of Mary a Biblical View?)

Oz
 
Jim Parker said:
Show you a time?
Time is not something that can be shown.
Click to expand...
Wait Wait Wait -ok did you see it? Hee Hee

While I don't agree with you about Mary don't you consider that after Jesus was born it would have been lawful for Mary to have relations with her lawful husband?

Randy
 
OzSpen said:
Jim,

That's drawing a long bow, as I've indicated in my article, Perpetual virginity of Mary promoted by false document.

The source of this perpetual virginity doctrine is understood to be The Infancy Gospel of James (Protoevangelium of James), James being a kinsman (half-brother) of Jesus, dated about AD 150.

What is the nature of this writing? Is it from the pen of James? No! It is a document with a false author, James, associated with it. It is in the Pseudepigrapha. This book is a false attempt to imitate Scripture.

There is a table of some contradictions between The Protoevangelium of James and the Bible (from, Is the Perpetual Virginity of Mary a Biblical View?)

Oz
Click to expand...
It is the historic teaching of the Church.
Pseudepigrapha are examples of a legitimate, often used, ancient middle eastern form of literature.
The book of Isaiah is a prime example. It is considered the work of three authors all using the name Isaiah. Yet no one has a problem with the fact that unknown authors have used the name of the prophet Isaiah for their writings.

(1) Proto-Isaiah (chapters 1–39), containing the words of Isaiah;
(2) Deutero-Isaiah (chapters 40–55), the work of an anonymous 6th-century BCE author writing during the Exile;
(3) Trito-Isaiah (chapters 56–66), composed after the return from Exile.

There is no basis for which to conclude that the protoevangelium of James is an attempt to do anything but to make a written record of the life of Mary. The idea that it was written do deceive us is without merit or basis.
Scripture is silent with reference to Mary's perpetual virginity and we have only the historic teaching of the Church on which to base our belief. That historic teaching is that she remained a virgin for all her life.

I will go with the historic teaching of the Church rather than the modern need of Protestantism that she must of necessity have had a "normal" sex life.

iaov the fool
 
Randy said:
While I don't agree with you about Mary don't you consider that after Jesus was born it would have been lawful for Mary to have relations with her lawful husband?
Click to expand...
It would have been lawful.
But what is lawful is not relevant.
Being lawful and being a fact are two very different things.

1Co 10:23 All things are lawful for me, but not all things are helpful; all things are lawful for me, but not all things edify.

iakov the fool
 
Jim Parker said:
It is the historic teaching of the Church.
Pseudepigrapha are examples of a legitimate, often used, ancient middle eastern form of literature.
The book of Isaiah is a prime example. It is considered the work of three authors all using the name Isaiah. Yet no one has a problem with the fact that unknown authors have used the name of the prophet Isaiah for their writings.

(1) Proto-Isaiah (chapters 1–39), containing the words of Isaiah;
(2) Deutero-Isaiah (chapters 40–55), the work of an anonymous 6th-century BCE author writing during the Exile;
(3) Trito-Isaiah (chapters 56–66), composed after the return from Exile.

There is no basis for which to conclude that the protoevangelium of James is an attempt to do anything but to make a written record of the life of Mary. The idea that it was written do deceive us is without merit or basis.
Scripture is silent with reference to Mary's perpetual virginity and we have only the historic teaching of the Church on which to base our belief. That historic teaching is that she remained a virgin for all her life.

I will go with the historic teaching of the Church rather than the modern need of Protestantism that she must of necessity have had a "normal" sex life.

iaov the fool
Click to expand...

Jim,

You say 'it's the historic teaching of the church'. That doesn't make it right. In fact, it's committing a genetic fallacy. We have to deal with the actual evidence.

Luther, Calvin & Zwingli believed in the perpetual virginity of Mary but as the Reformation Church grew and spread, such teaching dropped away because of the lack of convincing evidence.

There are many reasons to reject the Protoevangelium of James (Infancy Gospel of James). Take a read of the contradictions between Infancy Gospel of James and the NT Gospels. I've provided a tabulated list of these contradictions in my article: Perpetual virginity of Mary promoted by false document (by another author).

I'm not able to do a copy and paste of the table from my article to CFnet. However, the comparison chart is in my article.

It is too late to convince me of the authenticity of the Infancy Gospel of James, based on my research.

Oz
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top