Now on Community Pricing: Lampe’s Patristic Greek Lexicon.
Thank you, Phil. Signed up.
And quite interesting. From the sample (a bit fuzzy), unbaptized children not to be punished. Whew!
From quietlife site which is unstable (this amusing):
This is a classic. I'm in.[8-|]
Thanks be to God! Blessings!
This is really exciting. Please bid everyone!
This is a classic. I'm in.
Agreed! I'm in too!
Happy Day!😀
I'm also in [Y]
Excellent, I'm in[Y][Y]
I'm in as well
[Y]
At last, indeed! I bid yesterday. Color me "Impatient"[:)]
Thank you, Phil. Signed up. And quite interesting. From the sample (a bit fuzzy), unbaptized children not to be punished. Whew!
Yep, like JW’s, the C boys decided to change their doctrine of “Limbo” in 2008 and now claim Limbo doesn’t exist because there’s enough Biblical data that suggests that unbaptized babies are saved. Wow, no kidding!!!
I guess after many centuries they finally understood what Jesus meant when he asked us to become like children and to let the little children come unto him. Actually it was the big Ratzinger that made that change before he called it quits.
I placed my order as this lexicon contains a truth or two that were written way before the big C boys got the memo. 👍😁👌
DAL
Great resource! I am in. Thank you Faithlife!! jan
the C boys decided to change their doctrine of “Limbo” in 2008
Please check your facts before posting in the forums, especially when speaking of groups other than your own. You need no Catholic resources to know this statement is false. This is a case where Wikipedia is actually accurate: [quote]"While the Catholic Church has a defined doctrine on original sin, it has none on the eternal fate of unbaptized infants, leaving theologians free to propose different theories, which magisterium is free to accept or reject. Limbo is one such theory.' It is rather difficult to change a doctrine that does not exist. Yes, I know you can find inaccurate sources that make it sound as if limbo was dogma just as I can find sources that make it sound as if toll-booths are dogma in the Slavic Orthodox tradition. If someone were to ask me about toll-booths, I could refer them to icons and authors who present a reasonable argument for their existence. But I would also point out that they are popular speculation to solve certain issues that arise for the lay Orthodox for which there is not dogmatic position in the Church. I simply ask the same courtesy - that when presenting a speculation that appealed to lay people as a resolution to their everyday worries, that you not present it as dogma or official teaching of any of the various lesser degrees of certainty.
And should you wonder why I choose an Orthodox example rather than, for example, a Reformed example, it is because I do not know Reformed theology in sufficient detail to be certain whether what I am reading is legit or garbage. This seems to me to be common sense rather than simply a implication of the guidelines.
BTW it was April 20, 2007 in "The Hope of Salvation for Infants Who Die without Being Baptized." that the International Theological Commission indicated that the speculation re:limbo had serious theological issues and should be discouraged in popular belief.
Listen MJ, Wikipedia is as unreliable as the C group. I heard it straight from the horse’s mouth by the so called father that used to “indoctrinate” our community. Limbo and other none sense like purgatory, indulgences, having women wear titles like “Mother superior”, and other none sense are facts that are wrong because the C group leaders came up with such things that are not even scriptural.
So next time quote one of your ancient sources you might have better luck with that. Is not my fault you choose to be deceived so easily.
Ps. Maybe You should go light up some candles to one of your statutes and pray for a little wisdom in discerning the holy scriptures instead of relying on uninspired none sense. Ah Nevermind, that’s not biblical either, but that what I was taught when growing up. I guess some people just choose to be wrong, don’t they.
I guess some people just choose to be wrong, don’t they.
At least we agree on this. Now, if we could agree on what represents "facts" ... if you read what I wrote above, a priest would have been able to have and share a personal belief in limbo until the theory was officially "debunked" in 2007 (although many, including early church fathers, had "debunked" it with alternative theories since it's origins). What he could not do is to present it as dogma or doctrine.
Listen MJ, Wikipedia is as unreliable as the C group.
Well, in this case, Wikipedia is correct.
DAL comments above are completely unacceptable for the Logos forums. These forums are solely for the discussion of the use and availability of Logos and other Faithlife products. It is not the place for theological matters.
Furthermore, personal attacks on another forum member absolutely will not be tolerated.
I will follow up with DAL privately.
Forum Guidelines
Thank you. And thanks for the guidelines that have made such posts rare.
Thanks for posting about this lexicon.
