« first day (1303 days earlier)      last day (1906 days later) » 

12:32 AM
@fredsbend ok, here are some metrics - number of ancient texts and artifacts attesting to the event, number of adherants that claim the event is important to them, evidence of time taken to subvert previously prevailing paradigm, extent to which quotes influence current and historical languages, amount of people willing to adopt a calendar based on the event. Some of these things are easier to measure than others, but they all have a great deal more significance to our lives than the amount...
...and type of rocks that are to be found lining some crater.
There are differences between social sciences and natural sciences no doubt, but there is still evidence regarding the former that can be measured in different ways and thus the knowledge that we gain from doing so is not necessarily categorically different from the type of knowledge we gain from studying events of natural history.
2 hours later…
2:20 AM
I've two questions deleted. I've edited those two questions. Please let me know who can help me to undelete these two questions. @fredsbend said I need to ask to 10k users. Any help? Thank you. meta.christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/4537/…
16 hours later…
6:00 PM
@AdithiaKusno There's no argument from me on how inconsistent Christians can be in their beliefs.
With the rest of what you said ... tl'dr.
@AdithiaKusno And SDA.
Actually, I think SDA are the most consistent Protestant group.
@bruisedreed A few things.
1) I'm quite familiar with all that stuff that helps us determine if a text is reliable and if it attempts to chronicle real events. But you don't measure that stuff, you count it. Sounds semantic, but there is a very significant difference.
2) I think you're getting off track regarding the value we gain from learning about craters compared to the value from learning about Christ.
It was your analogy, first, and the point you were making is that you learn about them in the same ways, with the same processes. I denied that and called it a category error.
So it doesn't make sense to compare the value we get from learning about each. They aren't even in the same category.
Let's compare somethings less ancient and perhaps you will see my point.
We have some records and things that help us paint a picture of what happened at the Kennedy assassination. There's several theories, some are stronger than others.
Compare that to the Tunguska event. [This is not a perfect analogy to the ancient impacts because this actually has witnesses, so let's just ignore that part for now.]
There's all kinds of exact things you can measure to determine details about the impact, and they have which you can read about in the wiki article.
Compared to the Kennedy assassination, there's not much to actually measure. They did their forensics and now we are let with those reports.
I would concede that if two such events occurred today, we can do a good deal of measuring on both, but the longer between the two events the less there is to measure on the assassination while the impact site will remain there for a very long time.
So when we are discussing things on the order of millennia, an assassination, or let's just say a Crucifixion, has nothing left to measure and no witnesses. All that's left is the records of it.
But the impact site has so many things still remaining to measure that you don't even need records to learn what happened.
6:27 PM
@fredsbend Let me take a look; that idea does sound very familiar
@MattGutting That would be great.
@fredsbend There is this, from the Catechism para 102-103:
Through all the words of Sacred Scripture, God speaks only one single Word, his one Utterance in whom he expresses himself completely:

You recall that one and the same Word of God extends throughout Scripture, that it is one and the same Utterance that resounds in the mouths of all the sacred writers, since he who was in the beginning God with God has no need of separate syllables; for he is not subject to time.

For this reason, the Church has always venerated the Scriptures as she venerates the Lord’s Body.
Which is not quite the same thing but getting close
@fredsbend The central paragraph is a quote from St Augustine.
I don't really see anything in the Summa.
6:54 PM
@fredsbend SDA is inconsistent it teaches Trinity but assumed the Church lapsed. Only Mormon and JW are consistent the Church totally lapsed and they start from scratch.
You haven't answer my question do you agree or disagree?
@MattGutting @fredsbend this is what I mean when I say the two are identical in nature. There is only one Word not Gnostic's plethora of Logoi
@AdithiaKusno To say "There is only one Word" is not the same as to say "The Word of God and the Word of Scripture have the same nature."
7:47 PM
As is often the case with machine-translations, something got lost in translation here.
1 hour later…
8:56 PM
@MattGutting This is interesting.
@AdithiaKusno What does teaching the Trinity have to do with consistency in a remnant church teaching? SDA is a remnant theology. They believe the truth was kept since the beginning by at least a few. JW are the same.
LDS, on the other hand is a restoration theology. They believe that there were none that believed correctly for a time (a long time actually).
@AdithiaKusno Which question?
@AdithiaKusno Matt's reply covers it. If that's what you mean, then it is in contrast with what you are saying.
@Mr.Bultitude What is that supposed to be?
@AdithiaKusno Actually, this is band wagon kind of reasoning. History is written by the winners. I'm sure you've heard that before.
Majority opinion is not necessarily just or righteous opinion. I'm sure you've heard that too.
For seventh day keeping, there is plenty of record of it being kept throughout history, and oppressed by first day keepers.
In Ethiopia, where the RCC never quite reached, but Phillip or someone did, they kept seventh day worship for centuries.
Remnant theologies typically trace back to the beginning, just like RCC uses their apostolic succession.
@fredsbend At the time I linked it, I didn't know. But now I found out it's "circumstances of revelation," not "reasons to get off."
@Mr.Bultitude Arabic is a strange language. A lot of figurative phrases, rather than just saying what it is. Someone once told me that the typical morning greeting is literally "The morning is the light", which has some deep meaning I forgot about it.
@AdithiaKusno Here's a link from that SDA answer. It's filled with quotes from Catholic documents. SDA like to point to this to justify their beliefs.
This one stands out:
> The Adventists are the only body of Christians with the Bible as their teacher, who can find no warrant in its pages for the change of day from the seventh to the first. Hence their appellation, "Seventh-day Adventists.
And this one:
> The (Catholic) Church changed the observance of the Sabbath to Sunday by right of the divine, infallible authority given to her by her Founder, Jesus Christ. The Protestant claiming the Bible to be the only guide of faith, has no warrant for observing Sunday. In this matter, the Seventh-day Adventist is the only consistent Protestant.
> Source - “The Question Box,” The Catholic Universe Bulletin (August 14, 1942): 4
So in other words, the SDA are actually very consistent.
And they do not believe the canon is closed. Ellen White's writings are largely considered prophetic and revered, but not as much as Scripture, albeit.
@fredsbend Though other Protestants would say they're wrong, and that either 1) Sabbaths are part of the Old Covenant and Sunday-worship is a matter of conscience, or 2) Sunday-worship was instituted by Christ. There are exegetical reasons for either position, and neither party needs to appeal to Rome in any fashion.
9:38 PM
@Mr.Bultitude I would like to see these "exegetical reasons for [Christ instituting Sunday worship]".
9:49 PM
@fredsbend Commonly cited are Acts 20:7 demonstrating that the disciples were gathered together for worship on Sunday, 1 Corinthians 16:1 telling the church to gather a collection on Sunday, and Revelation 1:10 speaking of "the Lord's day" -- which in the Didache appears to be a specific day of the week, and which clearly refers to Sunday in second-century Christian literature. (This is not an appeal to tradition, but to evidence of what the writer of Revelation may have meant.)
There is also another argument, which says that Christ's rising from the dead instituted a new creation; you can also see in both Testaments an eschatological dimension to Sabbath observance, such that Jesus allowed the church to "enter his rest" by dying for it. It then makes sense that a commemoration of that rest would occur on the day of the week that it was instituted, in the same way that the Sabbath of the Old Covenant was commemorated the day of the week that God rested after creation.
I think that covers the basics pretty well.
10:03 PM
@fredsbend this question
@Mr.Bultitude I was really hoping for a quote from the gospels, but okay. Yeah, I know these verses and reasons too, but I don't think they are any weaker or stronger for the other side. However, there is the problem of the Sabbath keeping being a commandment, right there next to idolatry and murder, so when I was Christian I tended to think that the Sabbath was indeed saturday and always will be.
@fredsbend Well, those who would give these reasons believe that the Sabbath is Sunday in the New Covenant, so there's no "problem" keeping the commandment.
@MattGutting both are identical in nature. If not you're committing Gnostic's plethora of Logoi. In Catholic Scripture and Christ are identical in nature. Both are the one Word of God. Is this modalism? No, because we worship the Logos incarnate but not Scripture. Why? Check my question
@AdithiaKusno I didn't read most of that. tl;dr = "too long; didn't read". I might in the future, but it looks like too much for a topic that I don't care much about. I hope there's no offense.
@fredsbend not offended. I just want to make sure we're on the same page. If you agree (which I believe you are) then we're in agreement.
10:08 PM
@Mr.Bultitude Then sabbath becomes a semantic issue. I don't think God deals in semantics. Protestants often further remove the sabbath command, by stating, without good reason, that it really just means to spend time with God regularly.
Those guys don't keep any day.
@fredsbend you're confusing history with truth. Have you read my question? History has nothing to do with truth. Early Mormons died for their faith, do that make their faith true? No.
@AdithiaKusno Without having read most of it, I will tentatively concede that we do agree. lol
@fredsbend Sure, but we're not talking about the same group of people.
@AdithiaKusno What are you talking about? Catholics often claim they have the truth because a bunch of church fathers agree with them. That has nothing to do with martyrdom. It does have something Catholics must reconcile: that this is not band wagon reasoning.
So again, I agree with your statement "history doesn't prove truth", but what I've shown is that you are making an argument for truth based on the majority of historic writings agreeing with you.
10:12 PM
@fredsbend I don't think it's semantics at all. There was the old covenant, instituted on Sinai, and the new one institued on Calvary. There was the old creation, marred by the fall, and the new one secured by Christ. It's eschatology.
It seems like you say something, but your reasoning doesn't stick to it.
@Mr.Bultitude Maybe. I'm not sure there's an eschatological reason for sunday keeping. That doesn't even really make sense. You'd have to explain that. For now, I have to go, so feel free to fill this up or link me somewhere. I'll have to read it later.
@fredsbend I think that's what I've been explaining...
I should probably go too. I'll try again later. :P
1 hour later…
11:17 PM
@fredsbend you're confusing two things. Truth claim and historical claim.
From historical claim one can deduce what the early Christians believed.
But history alone can't validate whether or not what the early Christians believed were true
Truth claim is completely different. We claim to hold the truth because we're the continuation of that historical Christianity. This is truth claim not historical claim. We use historical claim but that only validate that what we believe is substantiate by the early Church not that what we believe is true. Different
Mormon can claim that historic Mormons believed Joseph Smith Jr is a true prophet of God. But that doesn't mean he was God's prophet.
Protestants use the same historical claim but judge the Church to lapse prior to Nicaea
I never made an argument for truth, quote me if you can.
I only made historical argument
The burden of proof is on Protestant who argue that Catholic Church betray the faith of the Fathers.
One only need to check Assyrian Church, Copts, and EO to see that what we as Catholics believe is accepted universally by those separated brethren.
This doesn't make what we believe is true. It only validate that historically what we as Catholics believe is substantiated by history
Assyrians, Copts, and Greeks pray to the virgin Mary and the saints.
all use incenses
that historic claim doesn't make such belief correct. no. but it warrants catholic faith.
From historical claim to truth claim there is a gap. The only bridge is faith, nothing else. This is why any religious belief is utter none sense for agnostics.
So when I talked to Protestants I just simply refer to them that the Fathers prayed to Theotokos and they were celibates.
This doesn't validate Catholic faith but it warrants Catholic faith.
Bl. Newman famously said, to be deep in history is to cease be Protestants.
History can't be used to validate truth
Jews use the same arguments I've stated above and show that historically Christianity is total novelty. No Jews eat pork or allow uncircumcision. Even St. Paul circumcised St. Timothy. And before he went to Rome he offered sacrifice in Jerusalem.
History can't be used to validate truth. Christianity assumed new revelation. No more circumcision and no more dietary laws. Islam assumed new revelation. Mormon assumed new revelation.
But Catholic and Orthodox can use history to argue against Protestantism
A: When is the first documented case of Christians praying to the dead saints?

Adithia KusnoThe first case of prayer to the departed saints is documented in the divine liturgy. In the divine liturgy of St. James the Just the priest pray, [G]rant that our offering may be acceptable, sanctified by the Holy Spirit, as a propitiation for our transgressions and the errors of the people; ...

history =/= truth
history is about what they believed back then. what they believed back then could be right or wrong. history says nothing about the truthfulness of it. it only rely what happened, nothing more. history can't bring people to Christianity much less bring people to agnosticism. history can compel and give warrant but nothing more.
the winners do write history. google the 30,000 people killed by st justinian or 10,000 monks killed by st theophilus of alexandria. how do we know if such history is true? we can't know history for sure but we can have a warrant that about particular history by comparing it from multiple sources. i give one example, prayer to the virgin mary. ignore catholicism and you can compare to EO, copts, and assyrians. all pray to her. that is an example to warrant a particular history.
This is why Mormons and JWs are more consistent they consider all church councils are influenced by paganism.
Protestants pick and choose which one to follow
They follow St. Athanasius on his Trinity but they reject him on his prayer to Theotokos.
Mormons and JWs reject Athanasius altogether, his Trinitarianism and his Mariolatry
How do we know which one is right? We can't. Any appeal to history is an appeal to historical interpretation.

« first day (1303 days earlier)      last day (1906 days later) »