"MarYah deception" ???

[Andrej]

Yeah, unfortunately I'm not apt to accept doctrines and catechisms of the rcc... that's just something I have never been able to do, however you seem capable of swallowing EVERY doctrine that passes your way... I just stick to the scriptures, not doctrines that came 451 years later...

justalex

Rafa summed this up quite nicely:

"If you don't go by what anybody else except your own understanding teaches what are you doing here wasting your time reading the scribal work of the church which preserved the vowel pointers with the correct meaning of the text ? I ask you...are you sure it's the Holy Spirit guiding your interpretation of what the scriptures say?"

Hmmm couldn't have said it any better myself, I do believe that the ACOE does not accept all the doctrines/catechisms of the rcc as well Alex(justice), getting edgy are we? Perhaps you should back away from your keyboard and make yourself a nice hot cup of tea and just relax. <!-- s:biggrin: --><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/biggrin.gif" alt=":biggrin:" title="Big Grin" /><!-- s:biggrin: -->

Shlama wBurkate[/quote]
What alex was clearly saying is that scrpiture is above doctrines that were formulated later on, and that one should not ignore whenever scripture contradicts such doctrines.

Every single Apostolic entity in the world accepts Nicea (and Constantinople I which came right after) these two councils show that you are in grave error in terms of Christology. Most conservative protestants accept the orthodoxy of the conclusions reached in these councils as well. Chalcedon clarifies the existence of two natures, but the christology you affirm (the same of the Arians) was solemnly condemned earlier by the entire Church in 325 A.D. (the Bishops of Seleukia-Ctesiphon, in 410 A.D.)

If you continue to build your theology on vain traditions, how do you expect truth? Why do you think nicea is above scripture? Can you not base your argument on scripture, or do you claim divine inspiration for dubious councils? Also, as i previously statet, nicea was, at the very best, a representation of at most 20% of the body of Christ. It was a meeting of bible ignorers, nothing more.

First I'm not Apostolic, so I don't follow Constantine's mandates. I am neither protestant, as there is nothing to protest nor orthodox. I follow the scripture, leave all of the various doctirnes of denominations with those denominations.

So in other words, you don't have any scriptures either to answer the questions posed. Well, that's fine if you don't just don't pretend that doctrines that came 451 years after MASHIACH and tells you something that He never said, is truth. Well, you can say it's truth for you, as that is what you accept, however I am more interested in finding scripture that says the same.

Thanks for your response.

justalex

No, I gave the Christology of the entire Church which met in 325 A.D. not just that of the Bishop of Rome/ Latin rite, the Christology which received approval by every single Bishop of the Church except a handful of lonely people who were later on struck down leaving no ecclesiastical line whatsoever (meaning they were in grave heresy and disfavored by the Almighty). The Keys of heaven, the power to loose and bind given to the 318 Fathers was used to make a God breathed decision there which accurately interpreted the scriptures for us. As for "following Constantine's mandates"... the poor Emperor actually was duped by Arians into believing their Christology (not the underlying meaning but their lying words) and he sent in exile the Bishop of Alexandria Athanasius for this.

Did you forget that i previously educated you that that "handful of lonely people" was, in fact, about 1500 Bishops, 5 times as many as attended the council?

We could continue on and on but for what? For those that believe, no explanation is necessary, for those that don't, no explanation is possible.

Are you saying it is impossible to impart faith???
Rom 10:17 So then faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the word of God.