[ / / / / / / / / / / / / / ] [ dir / random / erp / fast / hydrus / kind / lewd / mai / pdfs / tech ]

/christian/ - Christian Discussion and Fellowship

For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.
Name
Email
Subject
Comment *
File
Password (Randomized for file and post deletion; you may also set your own.)
Archive
* = required field[▶ Show post options & limits]
Confused? See the FAQ.
Flag
Embed
(replaces files and can be used instead)
Voice recorder Show voice recorder

(the Stop button will be clickable 5 seconds after you press Record)
Options

Allowed file types:jpg, jpeg, gif, png, webm, mp4, pdf, pdf
Max filesize is 16 MB.
Max image dimensions are 15000 x 15000.
You may upload 5 per post.


| Rules | Log | Tor | Wiki | Bunker |

File: f346a0631d8df20⋯.png (283.18 KB, 1339x828, 1339:828, Untitled.png)

c7a702  No.833110

How do these four interact?

Agree or disagree with the image?

____________________________
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.

e0dfc6  No.833115

>>833110

Catholic reject the neglectful induction fallacy.

That, I know, will be considered offensive.

I'll take the stones off line, thanks.

Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.

431dc6  No.833138

I think all four terms are too vague and vary too much in use for there to be a quick formulation but I'd say the orthodox view is that the three are neither above nor under the larger body of tradition but are constituent of it.

Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.

c7a702  No.833234

>>833138

Scripture reason and experience are part of tradition? What do you do when scripture apparently contradicts the inherited tradition?

Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.

431dc6  No.833252

>>833234

Scripture is inhereted tradition. Though I think you mean when one gets the feeling that an aspect of it as in conflict with another. If that is the case, what I usually do is talk with my friends about it, read something, and others.

Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.

4a6e2b  No.833344

>>833110

Isn't the 'our' in 'our theology must..' Methodists? As in, scripture, tradition, reason and experience is a formulation to organise ministry drawn up by one of the big boys in Methodism when it first started? Assume Wesley but not sure, either way, if you're not clear on the origin of where those four came from (presented together as this package in the context of thinking about ministry, Christian thought and life) now you know and can look it up for more info than you've got from anons in this thread

Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.

c7a702  No.833348

>>833344

No the source for the image isn't a Methodist one but you're thinking of the " Wesleyan quadrilateral"

Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.

c7a702  No.833349

>>833252

By making scripture an ancillary subset of tradition you've in effect made an entire worldview based on appeal to authority. What I'm asking is how in that view you can trust what is told to be tradition?

In my church I only trust the preacher as far as he can prove it from scripture on any topic

Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.

431dc6  No.833352

>>833349

I think we are failing to make ourselves understood.

I believe Tradition does not give support to Scripture in the sense a table gives support to a shoe standing over it or even how the structure of a house may give its sturdyness. This is exactly the point I'm trying to avoid because I myself condemn this worldview.

>In my church I only trust the preacher as far as he can prove it from scripture on any topic

In mine too. I think we differ radically because you asked me the following

>how in that view you can trust what is told to be tradition?

There are things we trust because we recognize continuity and congruity with our paradigms, the Gospels, the Epistles, a spirit of humility and simplicity, and others. Yet, I do not think this is in the realm of language, this 'How' of yours. I think you're confused about the nature of communication.

Language can give us a description of the world but it cannot give us how it does that. It would be like looking inside one's eyes.

I, for one, take a quietist (or hesychastic) approach to many things and certainly I can vouch that so does the orthodox church. I would say that your question does not make sense anymore than the question "What is truth?". We must be silent about it.

Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.

c7a702  No.833356

>>833352

You don't think my question is in the realm of language.. that's not a very helpful answer.

Do you take the view, but can't articulate how it would work under scrutiny?

Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.

431dc6  No.833358

>>833356

The way you put it it makes it seem it is out of caprice that I think these questions are senseless.

>Do you take the view, but can't articulate how it would work under scrutiny?

The way you say it, it seems that I don't believe it to be worthwhile to articulate it. Or perhaps that I, or the orthodox church in particular, do not wish or am able to do so while someone else could. I believe that to "articulate" how one "sees what it truthful", to formulate a theory of sorts, is always an abuse and deceasing of language.

I believe that the Hebrews, for example, used the words such as Justice, God, Power, Knowledge without ever "asking themselves" the Socratic questions "What is Justice", et cetera - not because they were stupider than the Hellenes, like some claim, but smarter. Or, at least, less diseased and healthier.

The pagan-hellenic philosophical impulse to examine under scrutiny, for one, I take to be born on the misunderstanding over communication.

About me saying the question is senseless, I take it to be helpful. Confusions can only be solved by unraveling the questions, never by adding things to it - you're chasing your own tail and the only solution is to stop.

Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.

e8281e  No.833365

File: e6d32b3646509f4⋯.jpg (29.36 KB, 600x541, 600:541, a42520a01.jpg)

>>833138

>I'd say the orthodox view is

Do you mean the right and correct view or the Eastern Orthodox view?

If you mean to say the former, why don't you explain why instead of simply state it, as that statement won't carry any weight without an authority behind it. If you're simply following someone else blindly without knowing why it is right, that ends the discussion.

>that the three are neither above nor under the larger body of tradition but are constituent of it.

Let's pinpoint exactly what you're saying here. You just said that reason and experience are constituent and alongside with Scripture. So are you suggesting A) that your reason and experience expressed to others would be of the same authority as Scripture, or is it only to you. And if it is only to you, why is it tradition. That ought to be described as mind.

Or are you suggesting B) that merely the practice of the use of one's own reason and experience by each individual is part of what is extrascriptural tradition, but then how is that even classed as a tradition in the sense of being handed down and not simply the independent application of individual critical thought.

>>833358

>The way you say it, it seems that I don't believe it to be worthwhile to articulate it. Or perhaps that I, or the orthodox church in particular, do not wish or am not able to do so while someone else could. I believe that to "articulate" how one "sees what it truthful", to formulate a theory of sorts, is always an abuse and deceasing of language.

He that is of God hears God's words. See John 8:47. There, I just articulated it.

>Confusions can only be solved by unraveling the questions, never by adding things to it

The entrance of thy words giveth light; it giveth understanding unto the simple. - Psalm 119:130

Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.

431dc6  No.833436

>>833365

>If you're simply following someone else blindly without knowing why it is right, that ends the discussion.

It does not end the discussion, at all.

My point is that explanations have to end somewhere and this bedrock is not that some ideas present themselves as truthful "in an instant" "intuitively" but the end is how we choose to live our lives. My point is that explaining why anything is right is completely nonsensical.

>A) that your reason and experience expressed to others would be of the same authority as Scripture, or is it only to you

You're perhaps picturing authority to be a measurement, such as the metric system, and that I would put these three things in the same height. It is not what I am trying to say. I am trying to say there is no way to compare them like a kidney does not compare to the stomach.

>B) that merely the practice of the use of one's own reason and experience by each individual is part of what is extrascriptural tradition, but then how is that even classed as a tradition in the sense of being handed down and not simply the independent application of individual critical thought.

Tradition is not "handed down" as if transferring a Gaussian object. For example, my first language is French and sometimes my English sentences have franksisms between them. This is a crude example of how rationality is embedded in tradition.

>He that is of God hears God's words. See John 8:47. There, I just articulated it.

I was using the verb otherwise. I agree and like this phrase a lot. Precisely this phrasing is that I'm trying to defend against extensive philosophical views such as what Chomsky blabbers about.

>>Confusions can only be solved by unraveling the questions, never by adding things to it

>The entrance of thy words giveth light; it giveth understanding unto the simple. - Psalm 119:130

Yes, unto the simple. Read Psalm 119:131.

Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.

e8281e  No.833493

>>833436

>It does not end the discussion, at all.

If you can't explain it, that ends the discussion.

>My point is that explaining why anything is right is completely nonsensical.

I explain why things are right by the word of God. As I just did before. This gives the authority of God behind it. You are right not to argue with it, with that explanation.

>You're perhaps picturing authority to be a measurement, such as the metric system, and that I would put these three things in the same height.

You placed them all with tradition. Don't you know that the apostle Paul told us to hold fast to the traditions we have received of them, and placed Scripture there?

So you would try to place your own experience next to that, as you have done here:

>>833138

<the three are neither above nor under the larger body of tradition but are constituent of it.

That is to say, you stated that "the three [Scripture, reason, experience] are neither above nor under the larger body of tradition but are constituent of it."

So you placed said reason and experience as an equal authority in the sense that Paul referred to traditions in the epistle to Thessalonica. So you elevated your own reason and experience to the authority of God.

I refuse to do so and say emphatically that it has always only been Scripture.

Won't you please answer the question I asked here: >>833365

>Do you mean the right and correct view or the Eastern Orthodox view?

If you say the former, then you will then have an explanation as to why this view you have presented (that elevates your reason and experience to the level of Scripture) why this view is the right and correct view. You should explain why by answering my question. If, however, you are blindly following some man who is being a false witness to you and witnesses falsely that he is following the "right way" (orthodox) then you have no explanation and the discussion is over.

Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.

431dc6  No.833503

>>833493

>If you can't explain it, that ends the discussion.

It does because explanations come to an end, not because I am unwilling to go further. There is no further. OP asked me for reasons and how I identify truth, and I do indeed have them. Yet, they soon give out and I am left with nothing further than descriptions.`

Moreover, are you sure it is not you who is elevating your particular reasoning to the status of God? For the phrase

>This gives the authority of God behind it

suspiciously gives the highest authority to your individual reasons. In your worldview, God gives you authority - which is a total inversion.

While myself was speaking of experience and reasoning to be a superpersonal effort and relationship of all Christians to serve God.

>>Do you mean the right and correct view or the Eastern Orthodox view?

Since I'm "Eastern Orthodox" I thought you would suppose I take it to be the orthodox position. I would say they are the same.

Further, the term "blindly following" is misleading at best. Let's suppose you're in the woods following a map, how could one folllow it "blindly" against following it "with sight"? These expressions are senseless because the application of an order is always done without guidance. It makes no sense to write a second map to guide you to translate the first map into the terrain. It makes no sense to speak of "following blindly" just as it makes no sense to speak of "following with sight". Following is following.

Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.

e8281e  No.833508

>>833503

>It does because explanations come to an end, not because I am unwilling to go further. There is no further. OP asked me for reasons and how I identify truth, and I do indeed have them. Yet, they soon give out and I am left with nothing further than descriptions.`

The problem is an authority problem. You did not have any authority behind any of your explanations, you did not base anything directly on the word of God to help provide the answer to the question. The explanation time should always include the word of God in order to explain what one believes. Or else you end up with that authority problem, because you have ended without giving a real reason for anything.

In this case, you never gave a real reason for including your reason and experience alongside Scripture within tradition. You said the explanation was over, but failed to give any authority by which your explanation is supposed to stand. The only way to get past this is to show us where this is found in God's word, which you so far stopped short of doing.

>Moreover, are you sure it is not you who is elevating your particular reasoning to the status of God?

Yes I am sure. My reason for doing what I do and believing what I believe is drawn from the passages of Scripture I recalled. That is on what authority these things are explained.

>While myself was speaking of experience and reasoning to be a superpersonal effort and relationship of all Christians to serve God.

You tried to include your reason and experience as a sufficient tradition in itself (i.e. not needing to provide a Scriptural basis for action) in the sense that Paul gives in 1 Thessalonians, where he said to "stand fast, and hold the traditions." You claimed that this also includes things outside of the word of God. What else is there but the fallible word of men, because I am speaking of the incorruptible word of God only.

See 1 Peter 1:23-25.

<Being born again, not of corruptible seed, but of incorruptible, by the word of God, which liveth and abideth for ever.

<For all flesh is as grass, and all the glory of man as the flower of grass. The grass withereth, and the flower thereof falleth away:

<But the word of the Lord endureth for ever.

So then the reasons you might give outside of this are not sufficient to explain anything, as they have no divine authority. This includes all false manmade traditions that wrongly claim to be orthodox, right and correct. Those have an authority problem.

>I thought you would suppose I take it to be the orthodox position. I would say they are the same.

If you say it right and true, an explanation with authority is called for.

>Further, the term "blindly following" is misleading at best.

As the Lord said, Matthew 15:14

<Let them alone: they be blind leaders of the blind. And if the blind lead the blind, both shall fall into the ditch.

As so we see that it is possible to be blindly following a leader that is blind. The term makes perfect sense if you take it from this basis. Furthermore the Lord said:

>4 And when he putteth forth his own sheep, he goeth before them, and the sheep follow him: for they know his voice.

And a stranger will they not follow, but will flee from him: for they know not the voice of strangers.

- John 10:4-5.

Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.

838b8b  No.833509

>>833110

Scripture says you should worship God above all things and scripture says God is Logos. Therefore, scripture says to put reason above scripture thus their position is self-contradictory.

Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.

e8281e  No.833512

>>833509

Not true.

John 12:48

He that rejecteth me, and receiveth not my words, hath one that judgeth him: the word that I have spoken, the same shall judge him in the last day.

John 17:17

Sanctify them through thy truth: thy word is truth.

So then if you are going against the word that he has spoken, you are going against the truth. God has magnified his word above all his name according to Psalm 138:2. You have a bad misunderstanding about the word logos, that's your problem. See John 12:48. If you reject the logos that he has spoken, the same will judge you in the last day.

I'm praying that whoever satanically and against Scripture taught you the wrong definition of the word Logos will be disproven by my post. If it was one of the satanic and deceitful Catholic priests, which it might have been, may they be disproven now once and for now by this Scripture. Praise to our Lord Jesus Christ, Amen.

Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.

838b8b  No.833513

>>833512

Dude, the freaking Greeks used Logos to refer to logic. Logos is a Greek word with a certain definition, not something to be arbitrarily redefined to suit the whims of someone who hates logic.

Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.

e8281e  No.833522

>>833513

>Logos is a Greek word with a certain definition, not something to be arbitrarily redefined to suit the whims of someone who hates logic.

I'm using it according to its Biblical definition, as seen in the Gospel of John chapter 12:48. I gave you chapter and verse on the usage of the word logos. The original Greek New Testament uses that word there. So, we are understanding it according to the definition the New Testament itself uses, which is written in Greek. Sounds like someone has been telling you some kind of oddball interpretation that doesn't come from any Scripture, after all you never mentioned any passage to clarify your point. Therefore I ask, Do you or do you not believe that our Lord was using the word correctly in John 12:48 and elsewhere? Because the way that he is using it, is the way that I am using it. And not, apparently, in the way of some modernist Catholic priest.

Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.

838b8b  No.833528

>>833522

Like always, John would never say anything I disagree with and he certainly doesn't here. The verse only makes sense if Jesus is referring to logic which in the end will condemn those who reject it because you can only run from reality for so long.

Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.

431dc6  No.833578

>>833508

>You said the explanation was over, but failed to give any authority by which your explanation is supposed to stand.

This is what I'm talking about. You're talking as if there should be a stand for explanations, I disagree there could be one.

>You tried to include your reason and experience as a sufficient tradition in itself (i.e. not needing to provide a Scriptural basis for action)

You're debating with scarecrows. I used the analogy of a body to indicate no aspect of tradition (scripture, reasoning, experience) can be used without the other.

>If you say it right and true, an explanation with authority is called for.

I disagree that there could be an explanation.

You;re being mislead by the phrase blindly following, just like I said you were. Stop clinging to definitions and look for use. You're blinded not from a lack but from too much paraphernalia your intellect has conjured. Reject these idols and you shall see that Christ is not justifying your faulty epistemology. You're criticizing the faith of Abraham, who according to you followed blindly (Hebrews 11:8).

Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.

431dc6  No.833579

>>833513

Reason and logic (λογική) are not the same in hellenic thought. Further, hellenic thought has nothing to do with Christianity. You're doubly wrong.

Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.

c6c539  No.833585

>>833579

>You're doubly wrong.

Ironic. Sound reasoning is informed by logic and Christianity has much to do with the Greeks, especially since the original scripture is written in Greek.

Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.

9fb12e  No.833588

>>833585

Dude, you are probably arguing with a literal greek.

Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.

e8281e  No.833594

>>833578

>You're talking as if there should be a stand for explanations, I disagree there could be one.

You disagree with Paul about the power of God then, for he says that the gospel is the power of God. That is the authority on which an explanation should have.

For I am not ashamed of the gospel of Christ: for it is the power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth; to the Jew first, and also to the Greek.

I'm not interested in hearing your redefinitions of words outside of their actual use in Scripture. Please refer to actual Biblical passages.

>You're criticizing the faith of Abraham, who according to you followed blindly (Hebrews 11:8).

Are you saying that's what Jesus in ΕΥΑΓΓΕΛΙΟΝ ΚΑΤΑ ΜΑΤΘΑΙΟΝ, Κεφ 15.14 is saying?

<αφετε αυτους οδηγοι εισιν τυφλοι τυφλων τυφλος δε τυφλον εαν οδηγη αμφοτεροι εις βοθυνον πεσουνται

>>833588

He said already that he was French first in language.

Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.

431dc6  No.833604

>>833585

I was talking about pagan-hellenic thought, which has nothing to do with Christianity. What the pagan-hellenes contributed was by showing how foolish philosophy is, nothing more.

Further, you clearly know nothing about it anyways since you equate Reason and logic. Much less of the desert fathers.

>>833594

My man, we're running in circles. I am criticizing the supposition that Scripture is "informed" by reasoning and experience (as if from outside) because I take scripture, reasoning, and experience to be organs of the body of tradition.

Your original image says to try to be "informed" by reason and experience, which is obviously an euphemism for their tyranny over Scripture.

Then, I tied explaining that in the orthodox worldview there is nothing outside tradition because Scripture and reasoning are also traditions.

Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.

203b0f  No.833616

They pretty much don't. Almost always when someone says that they have a tradition, reason, or experience it contradicts scripture

Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.

697ef8  No.833639

>>833604

>how foolish philosophy is

So now you finally expose yourself. You are simply rebelling against St. Aquinas who defined sin as something that diminishes your logical faculties. No surprise here, all normies and jews rebel against logic.

Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.

a8b34b  No.833641

>>833604

>>833639

The Greeks demand wisdom, and the Jews demand a sign, but we preach Christ crucified, which is to the Greeks foolishness and to the Jews a stumbling-block.

And, as Tertullian once said - what does Athens have to do with Jerusalem?

Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.

697ef8  No.833648

>>833641

To me, Christ crucified is quite the opposite of foolishness. It's a real life event that serves as a wise metaphor for the fact that the authorities and majorities kill Logos but Logos will always rise again.

Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.

431dc6  No.833649

>>833648

Well, I actually believe in the Incarnation and Resurrection of the Dead.

Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.

697ef8  No.833650

>>833649

Okay, so do I. How is this relevant to anything I said?

Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.

a8b34b  No.833652

>>833648

St. Paul seems to think otherwise. Christ's Resurrection has nothing to do with being some metaphor for an abstract concept. The meaning is fully contained in the fact that THE Logos, the Person, God the Word, died a personal death and rose again in personal, divine-human Life, and grants us participation in this death-defeating Life by being joined to His Person.

Philosophy can be a useful tool to help understand aspects of the Faith, but it is by no means *necessary*. To say otherwise is itself foolishness.

Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.

431dc6  No.833655

>>833650

Then why do you care about the world?

Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.

697ef8  No.833656

>>833652

Are you INSANE? Without philosophical context it's all just gibberish. You might as well be worshipping bathroom scribbles. God doesn't give you bonus points just for self-identifying as a Christian. Such an absurd notion is embodied by those who think it's important to identify as a xe or xir.

Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.

431dc6  No.833658

>>833656

Philosophy is a pagan sub-product from the misunderstanding of language.

Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.

c7a702  No.833660

>>833658

now that's a smoothbrain post

Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.

a8b34b  No.833664

>>833656

Just so we're clear, you do realize I was citing Scripture directly, yes? 1 Corthinthians 1?

Many of the Apostles, St. Peter included were uneducated Jewish fishermen. They had no reason to know or care about gentile philosophy, and their ignorance on that subject had no averse impact whatsoever on their Faith or on their ability to serve as Apostles and as preachers of Truth.

Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.

203b0f  No.833665

>>833664

This. Jesus could have picked the educated scribes and others to be his apostles but he didn't

Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.

697ef8  No.833667

>>833664

They had God in the flesh to explain everything to them.

Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.

a8b34b  No.833691

>>833667

And we in the Church today have God living in us, and we in Him, by our baptism. We have the Scriptures. We have the Apostolic teaching and the episcopate. None of these things require pagan philosophy.

In Scripture, the only time we see the Faithful interacting with pagans is to correct their errors.

Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.



[Return][Go to top][Catalog][Nerve Center][Random][Post a Reply]
Delete Post [ ]
[]
[ / / / / / / / / / / / / / ] [ dir / random / erp / fast / hydrus / kind / lewd / mai / pdfs / tech ]