Jump to content

Vance

Contributor
  • Content Count

    6,361
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

1,030 Excellent

About Vance

  • Rank
    Chief Pharisee and Vindictive Goat

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male
  • Location
    Salado, Texas

Recent Profile Visitors

3,462 profile views
  1. That depends on whether you are only counting elapsed time or actual time available to him to work on it. Surviving alone in that time and under his conditions required a lot of his time. He was no trust fund baby.
  2. Like as in what is know today, rather than what was known in the early 1800's Presentism. Plus write in such a short time without significant edits. Ha!
  3. Interesting that you should say that. Claiming the existence of an unbroken line of authority isn't the same as having evidence for one. Just so you know. Matt. 12:25 And Jesus knew their thoughts, and said unto them, Every kingdom divided against itself is brought to desolation; and every city or house divided against itself shall not stand: Mark 3:25 And if a house be divided against itself, that house cannot stand. Luke 11:17 But he, knowing their thoughts, said unto them, Every kingdom divided against itself is brought to desolation; and a house divided against a house falleth. There you go again. Sorry, but that still doesn't change the fact that they are divided and have been for nearly a millennium. The explanation for neither being in a state of apostasy is rather dubious. So, what we have here is you, with whatever constructs you came with, attempting to dismiss my constructs without considering them (ethnocentric-like). Bravo!!!
  4. Interesting that you should bring that up. Edited to add. Now if you think about it, the "razor" can be modified to eliminate this. "What can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence"; this statement, if not supported by evidence can be dismissed without evidence. The second part is now evidence for the first part, so now the it can't be dismissed without evidence. Thanks for helping out here.
  5. I agree, and would go further (as a Latter-Day Saint who accepts Joseph Smith as a Prophet from whom we get Moses \ Never mind, we don't need to divert this thread. I agree, although I am not impressed with some of the later doctrinal "fruits", I think the Catholics do a lot of good in the world. But you have taken it back to where it always goes===> FAITH. Well, eventually the good guy does show up, but until then, we are all in for a he## of a ride. I am your friend as well.
  6. So, when an Orthodox Bishop consecrates (ordains) other bishops does he get the approval of the Pope? Does the Pope give permission to Orthodox Bishops? Does this mean that If Martin Luther would have been a bishop, then the Lutherans wouldn't be considered Protestant?
  7. I didn't claim that either Church claimed otherwise, so I was not telling you what you believe. But, I did provide (above) evidence against your claim. I suspect that a little research could uncover more evidence. I would agree with you that their priesthood authority is equally valid. Ok. I am glad that I didn't do that.
  8. Your logic is flawed, but for the sake of discussion let's stipulate that "the true church" includes a subset of "the Catholic Church" and another subset of "the Orthodox Church". Then how do you exclude the existence other subsets?
  9. I have gotten bored with so much of the stuff being posted of late. To much of the Homosexual stuff, which I can't comment on without getting in trouble. . . . . I understand that the difference. But I could argue that absence of evidence IS also evidence of absence, it is just NOT PROOF of absence. If absence, then no evidence. Here is the deal. 1. The replacement of Judas by Matthias was a big deal, it was done openly in the church and documented in scripture. 2. The opening of teaching of the Gospel to the gentiles was a big deal, it was done openly in the church and documented in scripture. 3. The calling of Saul (Paul) and Barnabus to the ministry was a big deal, it was done openly in the church and documented in scripture. I suspect I could come up with more, given time. The transfer of authority from Peter and/or Paul to some entity/person in Rome would have been A VERY BIG DEAL, but . . . it wasn't done openly in the church nor documented in scripture. Based on this pattern, absence of scriptural (or other documented) evidence, it can indeed be construed as evidence of absence, just not proof of absence. Just saying.
  10. That is one point I am making. The Hitchen's razor comment was mostly tongue in cheek. He provided no other. Well, that and the fact no evidence is provided. We also have the legal phrase "expressio unius est exclusio alterius" to consider. Sorry but only one can be the true church, so either one or both are not. You need to expand on what you are trying to say. You need to explain why. Well, contrary to the statement he made, I did find this, The first minute can be skipped without missing anything. Actually you haven't provided any evidence to support this claim. Well, DUH. Obviously, some ideas and ways ARE better than others. The fact that you haven't figured that out yet speaks to your lack of experience. See above. He was trying to apply a position to me that I neither expressed nor implied. He provided no evidence, and I stated that there was no first hand documentation available to support his claim. Since a negative can't be proven, all he has to do is provide a single first hand document to prove me wrong. If one existed, the Christian world would know about it. That is why it is so funny. Go back and read my post. I did dismiss them. Apparently you missed it. You should have seen my signature line before my recent changes.
  11. Absence of evidence IS absence of evidence. You have no evidence ergo, Hitchens's razor can be applied here, "What can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence". The claim is hereby dismissed.
  12. The fact that they ARE separate entities IS prima facie evidence that one (or both) are in apostasy, whether either one of them acknowledge it or not. Just saying.
  13. Too bad that neither Peter nor Paul, both capable of doing so, wrote any letters to the church in general, nor to the Romans in particular, that they had done so. This reminds me of a line from a movie, that goes something like this, "If it isn't documented, then it didn't happen."
  14. Interesting statement. But your assertion the "There never was an apostasy", is not supported by "the greek orthodox and catholic churches have clear lineages to the time of Christ", even if that were true. Hitchens's razor can be applied here. "What can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence". AND, quite frankly, the fact that two distinct and separate entities (often at conflict with each other), BOTH (claiming to) "have clear lineages to the time of Christ", is prima facie evidence that having a clear lineage to the time of Christ is not a bulwark against apostasy. Just saying.
  15. There is no reason to think there might be hermaphrodite Gods. So I am not sure why you would think I might be trying to say that. Welcome aboard.
×
×
  • Create New...