Deleted
Deleted Member
|
Random
Oct 26, 2018 12:38:51 GMT
Post by Deleted on Oct 26, 2018 12:38:51 GMT
Just imagine I open a thread "A proof there's no God". ME: There's no God. DKTRAV: What's your proof? ME: I try to ignore stupid questions. Victory and glory!
|
|
|
Random
Nov 4, 2018 16:15:59 GMT
Post by Διαμονδ on Nov 4, 2018 16:15:59 GMT
I was just talking about archeology in another thread and saw questions from DK. I am really very that some people here accept such a serious work as the Bible only on the basis of profitable passages for them and do not want to accept the whole text. Because I'm just implying that if something bad had happened in the future in a negative way to the Philadelphia Church, the prophecy said it.(Revelation 3:8-10) But there was nothing wrong with the prophecy! P.S Just my subjective conclusion of this conversation! This comment just further proves you don’t understand my position. Your comment says about it too! I understand your position. I just don't find it right position! Because in another(archaeological) topic I was talking specially about: 1. Philadelphia Church. 2. (Revelation 3:7) About God's promises to save this Church. 3. About the historical fate of this Church. Nothing more.As a result, we see that you have never had anything worthy against this information. You accuse me of ignoring facts about other Churches based on the fact that I don't speak English well, and I find it difficult to write my entire position. Do you think I'm writing all my opinions here in Arctos? That my opinions and faith are limited by what I write here?This is a non-progressive look to my position .
|
|
|
Post by Eugene 2.0 on Nov 4, 2018 17:07:24 GMT
Something about the nature of proof.
I've heard thrillions of times about 'one has proved something', and trillions of times I was guessing about it.
I don't know, how do you guys suppose to prove something? There's no way to someone to prove something, there's a way to show or to demonstrate something. Let's compare it to any experiment. You can claim whatever you wish and like, but if there's no way to show it or to demonstrate it, or to do it by experiment - you just can count on the belief of someone. Because I can believe you if you tell something without any demonstration.
If you demonstrate me something, I have to be sure what I'm watching. The last case might be an illusionist's show, so I can be fooled. To prevent this I need to check all the equipment, to check everything to be sure. And this is the last resort for me to be sure.
Generally, if there's no demonstration, there's no proof.
The main question - how to prove a lack of something? For example, is it possible to prove a lack of God?
To do it you can disprove an opposite meaning (aka "it's wrong that 'There's God'"), or you can do it by spatial and time checking (to check everything to find it). To do it more easier way (because it's impossible to check everything), we can ask someone who claims that 'There's God' - "Where and when did you see Him?". If he'd answer that it was written in the Bible, than we can check the writings. But if this is impossible to check it (because to check words is too hard; we need to use semantic analysis firstly which is to be not easy), we need to check the material of Bible itself - we need to check pages, check an ink of words, etc. Checking of material allows us to use an experimental ground for our words.
|
|
|
Post by Διαμονδ on Nov 4, 2018 17:20:43 GMT
Something about the nature of proof. I've heard thrillions of times about 'one has proved something', and trillions of times I was guessing about it. I don't know, how do you guys suppose to prove something? There's no way to someone to prove something, there's a way to show or to demonstrate something. Let's compare it to any experiment. You can claim whatever you wish and like, but if there's no way to show it or to demonstrate it, or to do it by experiment - you just can count on the belief of someone. Because I can believe you if you tell something without any demonstration. If you demonstrate me something, I have to be sure what I'm watching. The last case might be an illusionist's show, so I can be fooled. To prevent this I need to check all the equipment, to check everything to be sure. And this is the last resort for me to be sure. Generally, if there's no demonstration, there's no proof. The main question - how to prove a lack of something? For example, is it possible to prove a lack of God? To do it you can disprove an opposite meaning (aka "it's wrong that 'There's God'"), or you can do it by spatial and time checking (to check everything to find it). To do it more easier way (because it's impossible to check everything), we can ask someone who claims that 'There's God' - "Where and when did you see Him?". If he'd answer that it was written in the Bible, than we can check the writings. But if this is impossible to check it (because to check words is too hard; we need to use semantic analysis firstly which is to be not easy), we need to check the material of Bible itself - we need to check pages, check an ink of words, etc. Checking of material allows us to use an experimental ground for our words. I just wrote about archeology in religious and historical plans. Of course this is information for reflection here to all people! Especially Questions about religion in my other topic - arktos.boards.net/thread/3438/protestant-friendsObviously DK wanted me to change my mind! The question is why? It is obvious that all his arguments do not change the essence of the situation if you believe the prophecy about the fate of this Church! I talked to him about it in April. He's still unconvincing.
|
|
|
Random
Nov 4, 2018 17:38:44 GMT
Post by Eugene 2.0 on Nov 4, 2018 17:38:44 GMT
Something about the nature of proof. I've heard thrillions of times about 'one has proved something', and trillions of times I was guessing about it. I don't know, how do you guys suppose to prove something? There's no way to someone to prove something, there's a way to show or to demonstrate something. Let's compare it to any experiment. You can claim whatever you wish and like, but if there's no way to show it or to demonstrate it, or to do it by experiment - you just can count on the belief of someone. Because I can believe you if you tell something without any demonstration. If you demonstrate me something, I have to be sure what I'm watching. The last case might be an illusionist's show, so I can be fooled. To prevent this I need to check all the equipment, to check everything to be sure. And this is the last resort for me to be sure. Generally, if there's no demonstration, there's no proof. The main question - how to prove a lack of something? For example, is it possible to prove a lack of God? To do it you can disprove an opposite meaning (aka "it's wrong that 'There's God'"), or you can do it by spatial and time checking (to check everything to find it). To do it more easier way (because it's impossible to check everything), we can ask someone who claims that 'There's God' - "Where and when did you see Him?". If he'd answer that it was written in the Bible, than we can check the writings. But if this is impossible to check it (because to check words is too hard; we need to use semantic analysis firstly which is to be not easy), we need to check the material of Bible itself - we need to check pages, check an ink of words, etc. Checking of material allows us to use an experimental ground for our words. I just wrote about archeology in religious and historical plans. Of course this is information for reflection here to all people! Especially Questions about religion in my other topic - arktos.boards.net/thread/3438/protestant-friendsObviously DK wanted me to change my mind! The question is why? It is obvious that all his arguments do not change the essence of the situation if you believe the prophecy about the fate of this Church! I talked to him about it in April. He's still unconvincing. No, I didn't mean your explanation. Indeed, your explanation is good, because it based on some things that are seen, and can be experimentally checked. I wanted to say that it is uneasy to sure someone by words, but if we demonstrate them, then they will be able to see it. Surely, some of them can still be holding up their previous views, etc. I remember that DKTrav said that we can't trust people, because people can do mistakes, and we need to believe God. But how God reveals himself in this world? If this world is His creation, then we need to take into account its laws. I'm not sure what religion views I hold now. I sympathize to Russian Orthodoxy, I think that they were dishonestly betrayed, but I can't trust people. There are many false today in this world.
|
|
|
Post by Διαμονδ on Nov 4, 2018 17:55:45 GMT
I just wrote about archeology in religious and historical plans. Of course this is information for reflection here to all people! Especially Questions about religion in my other topic - arktos.boards.net/thread/3438/protestant-friendsObviously DK wanted me to change my mind! The question is why? It is obvious that all his arguments do not change the essence of the situation if you believe the prophecy about the fate of this Church! I talked to him about it in April. He's still unconvincing. No, I didn't mean your explanation. Indeed, your explanation is good, because it based on some things that are seen, and can be experimentally checked. I wanted to say that it is uneasy to sure someone by words, but if we demonstrate them, then they will be able to see it. Surely, some of them can still be holding up their previous views, etc. I remember that DKTrav said that we can't trust people, because people can do mistakes, and we need to believe God. But how God reveals himself in this world? If this world is His creation, then we need to take into account its laws. I'm what religion views I hold now. I sympathize to Russian Orthodoxy, I think that they were dishonestly betrayed, but I can't trust people. There are many false today in this world. Of course people are wrong. But in Scripture it is said- the Church is a pillar of truth - the problem of the DK is that it shows us that it always relies only on its vision of the situation. Always and everywhere.That's cunning. When I do that, it's the same. When we talk about religion it is better to turn to what has Spiritual experience.
|
|
|
Random
Nov 4, 2018 18:07:21 GMT
Post by Eugene 2.0 on Nov 4, 2018 18:07:21 GMT
No, I didn't mean your explanation. Indeed, your explanation is good, because it based on some things that are seen, and can be experimentally checked. I wanted to say that it is uneasy to sure someone by words, but if we demonstrate them, then they will be able to see it. Surely, some of them can still be holding up their previous views, etc. I remember that DKTrav said that we can't trust people, because people can do mistakes, and we need to believe God. But how God reveals himself in this world? If this world is His creation, then we need to take into account its laws. I'm what religion views I hold now. I sympathize to Russian Orthodoxy, I think that they were dishonestly betrayed, but I can't trust people. There are many false today in this world. Of course people are wrong. But in Scripture it is said- the Church is a pillar of truth - the problem of the DK is that it shows us that it always relies only on its vision of the situation. Always and everywhere.That's cunning. When I do that, it's the same. When we talk about religion it is better to turn to what has Spiritual experience.It is good point. I think I stick to it too. But here's a problem. The problem here is in what you and DK are both right. Yes, maybe it sounds weird, but it is. Look, even if the Church is the our last resort (which I think it is), then we are, personally, needed to check it. All the info must be followed through us. And one may say that: 'if all the info are flowing through us, then I am is the one who decides what is right, and what is wrong'. Such vision is poor, because this one should have something for his measure. If this guy (who sticks to the view about himself) would get deaf, then he would be needed a support to measure something that is based on sound. I mean, he needs to check some sound by its effect (for example, the ring is waving, when it's ringing).
|
|
|
Random
Nov 4, 2018 18:14:22 GMT
Post by Διαμονδ on Nov 4, 2018 18:14:22 GMT
Of course people are wrong. But in Scripture it is said- the Church is a pillar of truth - the problem of the DK is that it shows us that it always relies only on its vision of the situation. Always and everywhere.That's cunning. When I do that, it's the same. When we talk about religion it is better to turn to what has Spiritual experience.It is good point. I think I stick to it too. But here's a problem. The problem here is in what you and DK are both right. Yes, maybe it sounds weird, but it is. Look, even if the Church is the our last resort (which I think it is), then we are, personally, needed to check it. All the info must be followed through us. And one may say that: 'if all the info are flowing through us, then I am is the one who decides what is right, and what is wrong'. Such vision is poor, because this one should have something for his measure. If this guy (who sticks to the view about himself) would get deaf, then he would be needed a support to measure something that is based on sound. I mean, he needs to check some sound by its effect (for example, the ring is waving, when it's ringing). I was also anti-clerical views early. I was reading the Bible and building their own conspiracy theories about it. Of course all people have the right to an owner of opinion. But the result is we have a Protestant sect and it's just a waste of human time but eventually everyone will be on Trial. So I'm against it now for myself! It makes no sense to continue the topic because some people will not understand anything.
|
|
|
Post by DKTrav88 on Nov 4, 2018 18:28:03 GMT
This comment just further proves you don’t understand my position. Your comment says about it too! I understand your position. I just don't find it right position! Because in another(archaeological) topic I was talking specially about: 1. Philadelphia Church. 2. (Revelation 3:7) About God's promises to save this Church. 3. About the historical fate of this Church. Nothing more.As a result, we see that you have never had anything worthy against this information. You accuse me of ignoring facts about other Churches based on the fact that I don't speak English well, and I find it difficult to write my entire position. Do you think I'm writing all my opinions here in Arctos? That my opinions and faith are limited by what I write here?This is a non-progressive look to my position . You’re ignoring what I said in a previous post, which was “That doesn't mean that a gospel believing church doesn't exist anymore, it means those churches in Asia have turned away.” I don’t understand why, but you seem to believe that just because someone is associated with a church that teaches correct doctrine means that everyone in that church is saved. But we see that in Sardis only a few are not defiled. Moreover, in this verse here it says, Revelation 3:12 KJV [12] Him that overcometh will I make a pillar in the temple of my God, and he shall go no more out: and I will write upon him the name of my God, and the name of the city of my God, which is new Jerusalem, which cometh down out of heaven from my God: and I will write upon him my new name. ...meaning that there will be those who do not overcome in the church at Philadelphia. You don’t understand my position, you think for some reason that I don’t believe in the promises of God, which I never said. Instead of investigating my position you assume it, you only scratch the surface and the generalize from there. It is lazy. Regardless, you said God promised to save the church at Philadelphia, but the scripture never says this. It says, Revelation 3:8 KJV [8] I know thy works: behold, I have set before thee an open door, and no man can shut it: for thou hast a little strength, and hast kept my word, and hast not denied my name. God set before them an open door and no man can shut it. It doesn’t say the whole church at Philadelphia will enter into the door. God also says to them, Revelation 3:11 KJV [11] Behold, I come quickly: hold that fast which thou hast, that no man take thy crown. Because what they had at the time was good. But there was an issue, Revelation 3:8 KJV [8] I know thy works: behold, I have set before thee an open door, and no man can shut it: for thou hast a little strength, and hast kept my word, and hast not denied my name. The church was not strong. Again, this does not mean that there is no present true church. Philadelphia was one, just one, and the end fate of all of its people was not given to us in scripture. Christ tells us that we must endure until the end for salvation. It also says this in Hebrews, Hebrews 3:14 KJV [14] For we are made partakers of Christ, if we hold the beginning of our confidence stedfast unto the end; If and only if we are steadfast unto the end will we be made partakers with Christ. The Bible does not give an account of this with the church at Philadelphia, it just tells us God set before them an open door that no man can shut. It does not say they all went into that door, and it says only he that overcomes will God save. The promise is to those who overcome, but don’t know if the whole church at Philadelphia overcomes. The church building at Philadelphia from the time John wrote Revelation is in ruins. Though there is no doubt a remnant is this church, if there wasn’t we would be in the times of the antichrist. And I know you claim the Orthodox Church is the remnant, but that cannot be proven. Every denomination claims they are the remnant of the church at Philadelphia. I say there is no one institution that is, just those who follow biblical authority according to what the Holy Spirit teaches. Now you should understand my position. You don’t have to agree, but we can agree to disagree.
|
|
|
Random
Nov 4, 2018 19:07:31 GMT
Post by Διαμονδ on Nov 4, 2018 19:07:31 GMT
DKTrav88 I see that you are very worried about what I wrote. I understand that you have a claim that I don't pay attention to the facts about other Churches?Well, I can create topics of discussion about other Churches. Trust me. I just found out about Philadelphia and published this. Do you believe God's Promises? Of course the Bible says that. Then you have to believe the facts that I have written because other facts about the history of the Church of Philadelphia you will not find anywhere else!If you had the facts then I would have believed you right away..but you write only your beliefs without reference to life! I can continue a lot. Just to be brief and clear: Is your position that the churches in Asia retreated because Paul wrote like that? But - Question for reflection: who was this message intended for first read?For Timothy and his community! But Timothy was the first Bishop of Ephesus! (2 Timothy 1:18) The Apostle John spent many years afterwards in prison on the island of Patmos. He was the last of the apostles. He wrote his message for 7 churches in Asia. among them was the Church in Ephesus! 1. Unto the angel of the church of Ephesus write; These things saith he that holdeth the seven stars in his right hand, who walketh in the midst of the seven golden candlesticks… 2. I know thy works, and thy labour, and thy patience, and how thou canst not bear them which are evil: and thou hast tried them which say they are apostles, and are not, and hast found them liars… (Revelation 2:1-2) The Lord praises this Church for its work. He also mentioned unfit apostles from this Church. It is absolutely clear that we are talking about those who left the Church. From this text it is absolutely clear that the bad apostles were in this Church before. Not in future! This absolutely confirms that the incident that Paul wrote for Bishop Timothy of Ephesus occurred before this message was written(Revelation)! (I do not deny criticism) Second Epistle to Timothy is written in Rome (1:17), on the eve of the execution of the Apostle, probably about 67 years?? The Apostle foresees his near death (4: 6) and takes the last opportunity to instruct Timothy and the other disciples. Paul and a group of Christians were in Rome. Paul was arrested and all the Asian people(from this christians) turned away from him. In the 4th chapter of this epistle, Paul mentions that he sent some Christians to preach. Including Ephesus in Asia Minor. If all the churches from this region turned away, then why Paul did it? There is another way of creating the church itself again? Your logic about confessions is typical Protestant I hope you will know the truth sooner.Not later! I already said goodbye to you!
|
|
|
Random
Nov 4, 2018 19:23:45 GMT
Post by Eugene 2.0 on Nov 4, 2018 19:23:45 GMT
Your comment says about it too! I understand your position. I just don't find it right position! Because in another(archaeological) topic I was talking specially about: 1. Philadelphia Church. 2. (Revelation 3:7) About God's promises to save this Church. 3. About the historical fate of this Church. Nothing more.As a result, we see that you have never had anything worthy against this information. You accuse me of ignoring facts about other Churches based on the fact that I don't speak English well, and I find it difficult to write my entire position. Do you think I'm writing all my opinions here in Arctos? That my opinions and faith are limited by what I write here?This is a non-progressive look to my position . You’re ignoring what I said in a previous post, which was “That doesn't mean that a gospel believing church doesn't exist anymore, it means those churches in Asia have turned away.” I don’t understand why, but you seem to believe that just because someone is associated with a church that teaches correct doctrine means that everyone in that church is saved. But we see that in Sardis only a few are not defiled. Moreover, in this verse here it says, Revelation 3:12 KJV [12] Him that overcometh will I make a pillar in the temple of my God, and he shall go no more out: and I will write upon him the name of my God, and the name of the city of my God, which is new Jerusalem, which cometh down out of heaven from my God: and I will write upon him my new name. ...meaning that there will be those who do not overcome in the church at Philadelphia. You don’t understand my position, you think for some reason that I don’t believe in the promises of God, which I never said. Instead of investigating my position you assume it, you only scratch the surface and the generalize from there. It is lazy. Regardless, you said God promised to save the church at Philadelphia, but the scripture never says this. It says, Revelation 3:8 KJV [8] I know thy works: behold, I have set before thee an open door, and no man can shut it: for thou hast a little strength, and hast kept my word, and hast not denied my name. God set before them an open door and no man can shut it. It doesn’t say the whole church at Philadelphia will enter into the door. God also says to them, Revelation 3:11 KJV [11] Behold, I come quickly: hold that fast which thou hast, that no man take thy crown. Because what they had at the time was good. But there was an issue, Revelation 3:8 KJV [8] I know thy works: behold, I have set before thee an open door, and no man can shut it: for thou hast a little strength, and hast kept my word, and hast not denied my name. The church was not strong. Again, this does not mean that there is no present true church. Philadelphia was one, just one, and the end fate of all of its people was not given to us in scripture. Christ tells us that we must endure until the end for salvation. It also says this in Hebrews, Hebrews 3:14 KJV [14] For we are made partakers of Christ, if we hold the beginning of our confidence stedfast unto the end; If and only if we are steadfast unto the end will we be made partakers with Christ. The Bible does not give an account of this with the church at Philadelphia, it just tells us God set before them an open door that no man can shut. It does not say they all went into that door, and it says only he that overcomes will God save. The promise is to those who overcome, but don’t know if the whole church at Philadelphia overcomes. The church building at Philadelphia from the time John wrote Revelation is in ruins. Though there is no doubt a remnant is this church, if there wasn’t we would be in the times of the antichrist. And I know you claim the Orthodox Church is the remnant, but that cannot be proven. Every denomination claims they are the remnant of the church at Philadelphia. I say there is no one institution that is, just those who follow biblical authority according to what the Holy Spirit teaches. Now you should understand my position. You don’t have to agree, but we can agree to disagree. There's a thing in Eastern Christian Churches and Roman Catholic which is call the Grace. This immaterial thing is constantly translating from hand blessing to hand blessing (one priest lays his hand on the next one, and it keeps on and on again). You can ask? Does it mean something? Yes, it means. You can read about the grace in Acts, or in Paul's books when he says about his bless to the people of the precise region. Also, the holy spirit that was sent by God to Jesus was an act of blessing (giving the grace). This tradition (of transferring the grace) was broken by the early protestant churches. The Catholics has the Grace today, and the Orthodox Church admires it (so, if a catholic visitor would like to turn into the orthodoxy, he would have need just to take 'the confess oath' to transfer into the orthodoxy, while a protestant would need to get through another ritual called 'Confirmation'). If the protestant (of any kind) deny the Grace, there will be no way to find a compromise between the churches. You can ask - is it so important to have this grace? But any orthodox participant will understand your words as "would it be correct to become a christian without being baptized?". According to the early christian views (Justin the Philosopher, or Origen, and the others) Christians have no power to do good actions (do good things) without God. So, they thought that they need to participate God to do something good. That's why Christ came to this world. If there would be no need to be Him on the Earth, then His appearance would be a miracle, just like in Gnostics views (which were heretics). Christ let to be crucified, because people had no power to free themselves from the past sins. Hence, to be a Christian we need to be baptized, and the act of baptization requires the grace (again: it's a part of Christ's act, it is a part of his bless).
|
|
|
Random
Nov 4, 2018 19:37:47 GMT
Post by Elizabeth on Nov 4, 2018 19:37:47 GMT
Church talk again? I just peeked in here. Didn't read it all but saw it was about Revelation churches. There was like 1 or 2 bad churches in beginning of revelations where God said, "I have things against you." Sucks to be them
|
|
|
Post by Διαμονδ on Nov 4, 2018 19:51:36 GMT
You’re ignoring what I said in a previous post, which was “That doesn't mean that a gospel believing church doesn't exist anymore, it means those churches in Asia have turned away.” I don’t understand why, but you seem to believe that just because someone is associated with a church that teaches correct doctrine means that everyone in that church is saved. But we see that in Sardis only a few are not defiled. Moreover, in this verse here it says, Revelation 3:12 KJV [12] Him that overcometh will I make a pillar in the temple of my God, and he shall go no more out: and I will write upon him the name of my God, and the name of the city of my God, which is new Jerusalem, which cometh down out of heaven from my God: and I will write upon him my new name. ...meaning that there will be those who do not overcome in the church at Philadelphia. You don’t understand my position, you think for some reason that I don’t believe in the promises of God, which I never said. Instead of investigating my position you assume it, you only scratch the surface and the generalize from there. It is lazy. Regardless, you said God promised to save the church at Philadelphia, but the scripture never says this. It says, Revelation 3:8 KJV [8] I know thy works: behold, I have set before thee an open door, and no man can shut it: for thou hast a little strength, and hast kept my word, and hast not denied my name. God set before them an open door and no man can shut it. It doesn’t say the whole church at Philadelphia will enter into the door. God also says to them, Revelation 3:11 KJV [11] Behold, I come quickly: hold that fast which thou hast, that no man take thy crown. Because what they had at the time was good. But there was an issue, Revelation 3:8 KJV [8] I know thy works: behold, I have set before thee an open door, and no man can shut it: for thou hast a little strength, and hast kept my word, and hast not denied my name. The church was not strong. Again, this does not mean that there is no present true church. Philadelphia was one, just one, and the end fate of all of its people was not given to us in scripture. Christ tells us that we must endure until the end for salvation. It also says this in Hebrews, Hebrews 3:14 KJV [14] For we are made partakers of Christ, if we hold the beginning of our confidence stedfast unto the end; If and only if we are steadfast unto the end will we be made partakers with Christ. The Bible does not give an account of this with the church at Philadelphia, it just tells us God set before them an open door that no man can shut. It does not say they all went into that door, and it says only he that overcomes will God save. The promise is to those who overcome, but don’t know if the whole church at Philadelphia overcomes. The church building at Philadelphia from the time John wrote Revelation is in ruins. Though there is no doubt a remnant is this church, if there wasn’t we would be in the times of the antichrist. And I know you claim the Orthodox Church is the remnant, but that cannot be proven. Every denomination claims they are the remnant of the church at Philadelphia. I say there is no one institution that is, just those who follow biblical authority according to what the Holy Spirit teaches. Now you should understand my position. You don’t have to agree, but we can agree to disagree. There's a thing in Eastern Christian Churches and Roman Catholic which is call the Grace. This immaterial thing is constantly translating from hand blessing to hand blessing (one priest lays his hand on the next one, and it keeps on and on again). You can ask? Does it mean something? Yes, it means. You can read about the grace in Acts, or in Paul's books when he says about his bless to the people of the precise region. Also, the holy spirit that was sent by God to Jesus was an act of blessing (giving the grace). This tradition (of transferring the grace) was broken by the early protestant churches. The Catholics has the Grace today, and the Orthodox Church admires it (so, if a catholic visitor would like to turn into the orthodoxy, he would have need just to take 'the confess oath' to transfer into the orthodoxy, while a protestant would need to get through another ritual called 'Confirmation'). If the protestant (of any kind) deny the Grace, there will be no way to find a compromise between the churches. You can ask - is it so important to have this grace? But any orthodox participant will understand your words as "would it be correct to become a christian without being baptized?". According to the early christian views (Justin the Philosopher, or Origen, and the others) Christians have no power to do good actions (do good things) without God. So, they thought that they need to participate God to do something good. That's why Christ came to this world. If there would be no need to be Him on the Earth, then His appearance would be a miracle, just like in Gnostics views (which were heretics). Christ let to be crucified, because people had no power to free themselves from the past sins. Hence, to be a Christian we need to be baptized, and the act of baptization requires the grace (again: it's a part of Christ's act, it is a part of his bless). About this there is already information. I just posted information for reflection about the Philadelphia Church. Have links to it! As a result, that's what happened this situation.
|
|
|
Post by Eugene 2.0 on Nov 4, 2018 20:20:51 GMT
There's a thing in Eastern Christian Churches and Roman Catholic which is call the Grace. This immaterial thing is constantly translating from hand blessing to hand blessing (one priest lays his hand on the next one, and it keeps on and on again). You can ask? Does it mean something? Yes, it means. You can read about the grace in Acts, or in Paul's books when he says about his bless to the people of the precise region. Also, the holy spirit that was sent by God to Jesus was an act of blessing (giving the grace). This tradition (of transferring the grace) was broken by the early protestant churches. The Catholics has the Grace today, and the Orthodox Church admires it (so, if a catholic visitor would like to turn into the orthodoxy, he would have need just to take 'the confess oath' to transfer into the orthodoxy, while a protestant would need to get through another ritual called 'Confirmation'). If the protestant (of any kind) deny the Grace, there will be no way to find a compromise between the churches. You can ask - is it so important to have this grace? But any orthodox participant will understand your words as "would it be correct to become a christian without being baptized?". According to the early christian views (Justin the Philosopher, or Origen, and the others) Christians have no power to do good actions (do good things) without God. So, they thought that they need to participate God to do something good. That's why Christ came to this world. If there would be no need to be Him on the Earth, then His appearance would be a miracle, just like in Gnostics views (which were heretics). Christ let to be crucified, because people had no power to free themselves from the past sins. Hence, to be a Christian we need to be baptized, and the act of baptization requires the grace (again: it's a part of Christ's act, it is a part of his bless). About this there is already information. I just posted information for reflection about the Philadelphia Church. Have links to it! As a result, that's what happened this situation. I don't think someone will use it. The Orthodoxy followers are hated here. It doesn't surprise me, because every churches in the world are against the Orthodoxy. It seems that Christ's words of the last Church is accepting the truth.
|
|
|
Random
Nov 5, 2018 0:05:16 GMT
Post by Elizabeth on Nov 5, 2018 0:05:16 GMT
About this there is already information. I just posted information for reflection about the Philadelphia Church. Have links to it! As a result, that's what happened this situation. I don't think someone will use it. The Orthodoxy followers are hated here. It doesn't surprise me, because every churches in the world are against the Orthodoxy. It seems that Christ's words of the last Church is accepting the truth. Ukraine doesn't like orthodoxy? They like try to rule there I think. But I don't know Shrug
|
|
|
Random
Nov 5, 2018 2:41:49 GMT
Post by DKTrav88 on Nov 5, 2018 2:41:49 GMT
DKTrav88 I see that you are very worried about what I wrote. I understand that you have a claim that I don't pay attention to the facts about other Churches?Well, I can create topics of discussion about other Churches. Trust me. I just found out about Philadelphia and published this. Do you believe God's Promises? Of course the Bible says that. Then you have to believe the facts that I have written because other facts about the history of the Church of Philadelphia you will not find anywhere else!If you had the facts then I would have believed you right away..but you write only your beliefs without reference to life! I can continue a lot. Just to be brief and clear: Is your position that the churches in Asia retreated because Paul wrote like that? But - Question for reflection: who was this message intended for first read?For Timothy and his community! But Timothy was the first Bishop of Ephesus! (2 Timothy 1:18) The Apostle John spent many years afterwards in prison on the island of Patmos. He was the last of the apostles. He wrote his message for 7 churches in Asia. among them was the Church in Ephesus! 1. Unto the angel of the church of Ephesus write; These things saith he that holdeth the seven stars in his right hand, who walketh in the midst of the seven golden candlesticks… 2. I know thy works, and thy labour, and thy patience, and how thou canst not bear them which are evil: and thou hast tried them which say they are apostles, and are not, and hast found them liars… (Revelation 2:1-2) The Lord praises this Church for its work. He also mentioned unfit apostles from this Church. It is absolutely clear that we are talking about those who left the Church. From this text it is absolutely clear that the bad apostles were in this Church before. Not in future! This absolutely confirms that the incident that Paul wrote for Bishop Timothy of Ephesus occurred before this message was written(Revelation)! (I do not deny criticism) Second Epistle to Timothy is written in Rome (1:17), on the eve of the execution of the Apostle, probably about 67 years?? The Apostle foresees his near death (4: 6) and takes the last opportunity to instruct Timothy and the other disciples. Paul and a group of Christians were in Rome. Paul was arrested and all the Asian people(from this christians) turned away from him. In the 4th chapter of this epistle, Paul mentions that he sent some Christians to preach. Including Ephesus in Asia Minor. If all the churches from this region turned away, then why Paul did it? There is another way of creating the church itself again? Your logic about confessions is typical Protestant I hope you will know the truth sooner.Not later! I already said goodbye to you! I just don't like people misrepresenting what I believe shrug happens a lot on this forum
|
|