RE: The first Christians weren't Bible Christians
March 23, 2014 at 8:48 am
(This post was last modified: March 23, 2014 at 9:13 am by Belev2Know.)
T: incorrectly restates :
Your claim that the RCC made their decision on the Canon in the 16th Century is
(too) (where do you quote Flemming (or Jung's dreams) and Dougherty and others of 'psyco-visions', in early postings: pls report your sources for all to "know")
Any student of the first over 5500 papers and near 10,000 copies before 7th century began claims of "dis-oriented changes" by such as many as well as Mohamedans, -- any today- is aware of Pope Damasus (382) listed the current books in the new testament and OT Canon as it is in the Catholic Bible.
Catholic as I am sure you understand T, is "universal called out ones"
-so to speak,
and not the RCC until adoptive use of a universal word "catholic" was placed for that usage.
Called out one's are also not as 'eclectic' is misused in Hollywood speak, and not as say some 'gathering' as a Parliament for order...
which leads to WHAT followers of an empirical 'CALLING' leads to - a "church" and too, it seems still, is why a core grows to date, [[ open for bombing, but it is the sluggard that says "there are lions in the streets" and stays inside " class="wiki_link">Wiki:
TRUE as he and any student 101 in any church history lesson noted more completely-
not all encompassing here,
of the church of followers before RCC and after RCC the Councils of Rome, Hippo, and Carthage in the late fourth century formed the Catholic Canon which the Church always accepted. THe Canon was confirmed, reafirmed, reaffirmed, reaffirmed, and then closed.AND REOPENED IN SCHOLARLY ACCEPTANCE since 1943, since truth seems to make its own...
In the 16th Century the Canon came under attack so the Wiki: Church had to once again define "THIS IS THE CORRECT CANON".
In that BASIS of your belief then it is clearer why the responses are more thorough by another
In regards to all the respected Q of or commentary in the OP:
T:
Perhaps you are aware of the "church back to Peter" b/c thought "the Rock" and on this (grk: Petra)...
and have you seen the simple to read Grk: "petros" and in the same "petra" ?
among the many thousands coinciding in Grk writ, to wit: it seems easy to read a translated English and others to mean Petros, Peter was the Petra- rock, recorded "up on this 'rock' I will build my called-out church"
in response to recorded Jesus asking "Who do you say that I am?" before as Col 2:9 reads he is the present progressive embodied fulness of the Divine-One, literally, if you believe that to date...
but in recorded presence on Earth, as one of them humanly then, "I will call you Petros" as then Peter stated Jesus was the Son of God; and after Jesus recirdedly-stated
"FLESH has not revealed this to you (people of just talking and convincing)" "but my Parent-Father in heaven"
so if this be the revelation that is the "ROCK" the called out one's are "built" then, then, there had to be pagan-named little-Christ's before any 4th century edicts...
and is as several times more historical documentation is available to read than say found of Alexander the Great, documents only dating 900 years after his "evident" living...
I need more skepticism and balanced commentary for further review in this thread to equate to factual historical findings (even that of I comment) accepted by both called-out scientists and un-believing scientists of documents found to date. still looking when I make time to be in balanced review more completely...
again: Peter = Petros; but "build [ the church- universal "catholic" (-which is recorded as all/any called-out (church-)-one's) before RCC ]
those like Peter
receiving direct from "Father-parent in heaven' (as recorded) knowledge empirically and purely
then
are the "Church" built before RCC and 4th century doc's compounded:
those built on PETRA, the 'rock' of such revelation knowledge, "not receive(d) by flesh"
You can ask: would anyone seriously build an understanding of such as some eventual sacrifice for missing a Father-parent-God on an imperfect human/heart ?
Your claim that the RCC made their decision on the Canon in the 16th Century is
(too) (where do you quote Flemming (or Jung's dreams) and Dougherty and others of 'psyco-visions', in early postings: pls report your sources for all to "know")
Any student of the first over 5500 papers and near 10,000 copies before 7th century began claims of "dis-oriented changes" by such as many as well as Mohamedans, -- any today- is aware of Pope Damasus (382) listed the current books in the new testament and OT Canon as it is in the Catholic Bible.
Catholic as I am sure you understand T, is "universal called out ones"
-so to speak,
and not the RCC until adoptive use of a universal word "catholic" was placed for that usage.
Called out one's are also not as 'eclectic' is misused in Hollywood speak, and not as say some 'gathering' as a Parliament for order...
which leads to WHAT followers of an empirical 'CALLING' leads to - a "church" and too, it seems still, is why a core grows to date, [[ open for bombing, but it is the sluggard that says "there are lions in the streets" and stays inside " class="wiki_link">Wiki:
TRUE as he and any student 101 in any church history lesson noted more completely-
not all encompassing here,
of the church of followers before RCC and after RCC the Councils of Rome, Hippo, and Carthage in the late fourth century formed the Catholic Canon which the Church always accepted. THe Canon was confirmed, reafirmed, reaffirmed, reaffirmed, and then closed.AND REOPENED IN SCHOLARLY ACCEPTANCE since 1943, since truth seems to make its own...
In the 16th Century the Canon came under attack so the Wiki: Church had to once again define "THIS IS THE CORRECT CANON".
In that BASIS of your belief then it is clearer why the responses are more thorough by another
In regards to all the respected Q of or commentary in the OP:
T:
Perhaps you are aware of the "church back to Peter" b/c thought "the Rock" and on this (grk: Petra)...
and have you seen the simple to read Grk: "petros" and in the same "petra" ?
among the many thousands coinciding in Grk writ, to wit: it seems easy to read a translated English and others to mean Petros, Peter was the Petra- rock, recorded "up on this 'rock' I will build my called-out church"
in response to recorded Jesus asking "Who do you say that I am?" before as Col 2:9 reads he is the present progressive embodied fulness of the Divine-One, literally, if you believe that to date...
but in recorded presence on Earth, as one of them humanly then, "I will call you Petros" as then Peter stated Jesus was the Son of God; and after Jesus recirdedly-stated
"FLESH has not revealed this to you (people of just talking and convincing)" "but my Parent-Father in heaven"
so if this be the revelation that is the "ROCK" the called out one's are "built" then, then, there had to be pagan-named little-Christ's before any 4th century edicts...
and is as several times more historical documentation is available to read than say found of Alexander the Great, documents only dating 900 years after his "evident" living...
I need more skepticism and balanced commentary for further review in this thread to equate to factual historical findings (even that of I comment) accepted by both called-out scientists and un-believing scientists of documents found to date. still looking when I make time to be in balanced review more completely...
again: Peter = Petros; but "build [ the church- universal "catholic" (-which is recorded as all/any called-out (church-)-one's) before RCC ]
those like Peter
receiving direct from "Father-parent in heaven' (as recorded) knowledge empirically and purely
then
are the "Church" built before RCC and 4th century doc's compounded:
those built on PETRA, the 'rock' of such revelation knowledge, "not receive(d) by flesh"
You can ask: would anyone seriously build an understanding of such as some eventual sacrifice for missing a Father-parent-God on an imperfect human/heart ?
