Lucifer & the Anointed Cherub

General Christian Theology
Valerie
Posts: 5309
Joined: Fri Dec 23, 2016 6:59 am
Location: Medina OH
Affiliation: non-denominational

Re: Lucifer & the Anointed Cherub

Post by Valerie »

ohio jones wrote:
gcdonner wrote:
Valerie wrote:I suppose one could imagine that the early church writers & fathers were not 'inspired' if they did not have the Holy Spirit. If we conclude only the original foundational Apostles alone possessed the Holy Spirit, then we might as well conclude none of us can be guided by the Holy Spirit into truth.
It is not a matter of being filled with the Spirit, but a matter of God's purpose in giving special revelation to the first century church, otherwise we would be reading the book of Valerie today... :mrgreen:
We are; 313 chapters so far. ;) The difference is that none of us (with the possible exception of John Hurt) place her writings on the same level as Paul's.
I have never interpreted Scripture and never will- but I do listen to the early Church fathers who shared and this is why I asked about what understanding of 'inspiration' you are referring to- because all followers of certain ones who start denominations- did so because they believe that the people were inspired to understand. GC is looking to see who people believe Lucifer is-
OJ- do you know?
0 x
Valerie
Posts: 5309
Joined: Fri Dec 23, 2016 6:59 am
Location: Medina OH
Affiliation: non-denominational

Re: Lucifer & the Anointed Cherub

Post by Valerie »

Josh wrote:
Valerie wrote:I am not sure what he said about it- could you please share that Josh? Then I can get the text for what he was conveying about it- naturally as a Christian, the idea of 'sheer entertainment' shouldn't be something we pursue-
however a teaching documentary or a 'parable' which is purposeful, may not in fact fall into the category of what John Chrysostom is referring to- as Sudsy & I shared those youtubes, it was purposeful for the UK to 'glean' from- I'm not sure you can really compare the two. I'd have to know what type of theatre, drama, entertainment that was happening at that time. Documentaries I don't believe would fall into that category if there is a Christian message conveyed- or chance to help someone see the light (Light)
I'm not saying what you shared is wrong - I'm just saying Chrysostom was 100% dead set against it. Here is his homily, Contra ludos et theatra.

There were no exceptions for documentaries or "educational" drama. The modern notion of finding a way to put it in a "category" where it is OK for various reasons is what Chrysostom rails against.
Yes but you can read from what he wrote (thank you for sharing) that the content was 'adulterous' and 'prostitution' (causing lust) and horse racing (an obvious no no for Christians, although in Holmes County they do have harness races I suppose for entertainment)

to me, there would be a difference- as someone brought up earlier making the distinction of 'content' and 'purpose' would play into this-
So at the time John Chrysostom would be railing against Christians being caught up in sinful pleasures which I would be in 100% agreement with- so there are churches that would make a rule against it- which I see that is what he would be doing. While there are Anabaptist Churches that don't make a rule against it 'all' but would probably leave it up to one's discretion on what they would or would not be convicted of personally to see by way of film- there was no such thing then as Christian films, or Christian documentaries, etc-
0 x
Post Reply