Styleforum › Forums › General › General Chat › People of the Christian faith - Is this true?
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

People of the Christian faith - Is this true? - Page 7

post #91 of 97
Quote:
Originally Posted by why View Post
1. Polity does not mean what you seem to think it means.

I think he does know. At least it was clear to me in context.

Quote:
No, they did not 'just wait around for 200 years for the go ahead to celebrate the Eucharist'. Early sects of Christianity were highly divergent in beliefs systems. The formation of the church was not divined by God. I don't see why this is such a difficult concept to understand. You'd see a few of these divergent practices had you read Augustine's Confessions as you claimed instead of relying on History Channel 'Christians were persecuted by the Romans nada pues' simplicities -- especially because they're largely irrelevant in many patristic studies since many of the most influential church fathers were born after the First Council of Nicaea.

Is English your native language? You don't seem to know the proper meaning of "divine" (as a verb) and "divination." Certainly, it is non-controversial that there were many heretical and schismatic "Christian" sects about. Some of these were monstrously heretical like the numerous Gnostic systems--some so bad that they are unworthy of the very name "Christian" by the most liberal definition. Others were merely rigorist schismatics like the Novatians. Throughout it all, the mainstream Catholic Church endured and without a doubt was the normative Christiam body. Certainly, there is a vast ante-Nicean Christian literature, which is our source for nearly all our knowledge of these deviant bodies. It's been a long time since I read Augustine's Confessions, but I don't remember him talking much about these heresies except for his involvement with the Manichaeans. I don't know why on earth you would say the heresies are "largely irrelevant in many patristic studies." I've studied the Fathers, especially the ante-Nicean Fathers quite a bit, and I'd hardly say that's the case.

Quote:
They were unified as a church because they were executed together? They all had vastly different practices. They were executed because they were not pagans, not because they were Christians. What became orthodox was due to the work of men, not divination by God.

For the record, Jews were not pagans, and they were not executed by the Romans. Yes, what became "othodox" was the work godly men interpreting the Holy Scriptures. Believing Christians would say that they were guided in this process, which took centuries, by the Holy Spirit that Christ promised would lead us into all truth.
post #92 of 97
Quote:
Originally Posted by burningbright View Post
That said, I'm glad to know that there are other fellow Anglicans here on SF. What area did you say you were from again?

I was raised in the Australian Anglican church, now a happy member (and occasional Lay Eucharistic Minister) at my local Texan Episcopal church.
post #93 of 97
Quote:
Originally Posted by JLibourel View Post
I think he does know. At least it was clear to me in context.
The word is usually used in the context of civil societies, and it has almost no meaning in the context he used to describe the organization of early christianity.
Quote:
Is English your native language? You don't seem to know the proper meaning of "divine" (as a verb) and "divination."
OED divine 6. To render divine; to canonize; to divinize. I think I actually meant to write 'divined from God' or 'by way of', anyway.
Quote:
For the record, Jews were not pagans, and they were not executed by the Romans.
As I recall, they were given reprieve as Christians later were.
post #94 of 97
Quote:
Originally Posted by why View Post
The word is usually used in the context of civil societies, and it has almost no meaning in the context he used to describe the organization of early christianity.

The term "polity" is frequently used in discussions of forms of ecclesiastical organization and church governance.

Quote:
OED divine 6. To render divine; to canonize; to divinize.

I think I actually meant to write 'divined from God' or 'by way of', anyway.

I had never ecountered that usage before. Well, live and learn!

Quote:
As I recall, they were given reprieve as Christians later were.

They were always exempted from participating in pagan sacrifices and festivals. It is something of a mystery to scholars why the early Christians, who would have been perceived as a Jewish sect by the Romans, did not claim the same privilege. Christians were only "reprieved" by the Edict of Milan issued by Constantine and Licinius.
post #95 of 97
Quote:
Originally Posted by JLibourel View Post
I had never ecountered that usage before. Well, live and learn!
For the sake of constancy, I don't think Spenserian usages should be permitted.
post #96 of 97
Might have well been trolled
post #97 of 97
Quote:
Originally Posted by why View Post
This used to be folklore among medieval Christians, but as far as I know it only pertained to the names of demons (hence the phrase 'speak of the devil [and he will come]'). Some pop pastor probably perverted this belief, since I think it has its origins in some obscure part of the Bible.

I want you as my partner at Trivial Pursuit. I think we could TOTALLY school the hitherto-invincible-Rach2jlc-family-Christmas-tournament-duo of my Aunt Linda and Gramma Beth. They go `full pie` so quickly, and have every year since I was about seven, that they`re ready for an upset, and their game is getting soft.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: General Chat
Styleforum › Forums › General › General Chat › People of the Christian faith - Is this true?