David Miller wrote: >> The RCC also made Jesus the Son of God and >> the Savior of all mankind. Judy wrote: > They didn't make Him that, He has been > that from all eternity.
I was using the word "made" in the same vein that you were using it concerning their recognition of Athanasius's learning. The point is that their conclusion in the matter does not validate it or invalidate it. The RCC recognized Jesus Christ as the Son of God and the Savior of all mankind, and they also recognized Athanasius as a man of learning. You snicker at Athanasius because of the source who recognized him, but I'm sure you do not snicker at their recognition of Jesus. Do you see my point? Whether the RCC recognizes a person really does not say anything about whether their conclusion is right or wrong. David Miller wrote: >> To reject a viewpoint because of its association >> with a particular group is just as wrong as accepting >> a viewpoint because of its association with a particular >> group. Judy wrote: > Does following an erroneous map lead > to the right destination? I'm getting tired now. Why always the quip toward every little remark? You don't see anything truthful in my statement at all? Sometimes a map with some errors on it also have some truthful representations. You cannot conclude that just because you have proven an error exists on the map that everything on the map is therefore in error. Time to judge each matter on its own merits. Judy wrote: > What I am against is allowing Church Fathers > and tradition to interpret scripture rather > than the Holy Spirit who was sent to the believer > for this purpose. If you prefer the magisterium > God will let you have them. Are you saying that all the church fathers were UNBELIEVERS who were without the Holy Spirit? Is it your opinion that everyone in history was in error and without God until Judy Taylor came along? I look at church history and the church fathers much like I would TruthTalk or any other forum that includes believers. They argued various issues and brought up rather important arguments that are timeless. We should consider them right alongside our own opinions. No need to keep reinventing the wheel. We have the advantage of hindsight, so why not use it. We have the advantage of looking at issues being argued without interjecting all the personal emotions we have toward the people making the arguments. We also have the advantage of observing the historical fruit that came about from the conclusions which they made. Peace be with you. David Miller, Beverly Hills, Florida. ---------- "Let your speech be always with grace, seasoned with salt, that you may know how you ought to answer every man." (Colossians 4:6) http://www.InnGlory.org If you do not want to receive posts from this list, send an email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and you will be unsubscribed. If you have a friend who wants to join, tell him to send an e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and he will be subscribed.
