8 people Left?

[jmcrae]

Lutherans don’t believe that pastors or priests have any special magical powers and that anyone can “confect the Eucharist” by using the proper form although it is better for a pastor to do so “for the good order of the church.”

It has nothing to do with “magical powers” and everything to do with how authority is passed down.

I think you would agree that you couldn’t walk into your neighborhood McDonald’s and appoint yourself Manager on the basis that Mammon spoke to you in your heart and told you that you are their Manager - yet, somehow, when it comes to Christianity, you can just say that you are a pastor because Jesus told you so in your heart? You don’t need the authority that came from that same Jesus through the Apostles?

 

[Thorolfr]

Lively music won’t get you to Heaven; only the Eucharist can do that.

What about all the divorced and remarried Catholics or others who for whatever reason can’t participate in the Eucharist? Will they not be able to get to Heaven? I’m genuinely curious about this.

 

[jmcrae]

What about all the divorced and remarried Catholics or others who for whatever reason can’t participate in the Eucharist? Will they not be able to get to Heaven? I’m genuinely curious about this.

If they were to die in their current state, and if they were not received back into the Church by means of the Last Rites, they would not go to Heaven.

 

[Thorolfr]

Really? That is the first time I have ever heard such a thing from a Lutheran. Why, then, is there such an effort to claim apostolic succession (and therefore valid orders)?

As far as I know, apostolic succession is not an important concept among most Lutherans although there might be some exceptions. Among Protestants, it is much more important for Anglicans than it is for Lutherans.

 

[Thorolfr]

If they were to die in their current state, and if they were not received back into the Church by means of the Last Rites, they would not go to Heaven.

So does the Church expect these remarried Catholics to divorce their second spouses?

 

[jmcrae]

So does the Church expect these remarried Catholics to divorce their second spouses?

Having cut off your foot, should you cut off your head, as well? Cutting off your head won’t bring back your foot.

The Church doesn’t want them to inflict more pain on more people. The Catholic Church wishes they had been faithful to their original spouses in the first place, or else if the divorce was necessary for self-protection, She wishes they had remembered that they were married people whose spouses are currently absent from home, instead of thinking of themselves as single and free to marry.

 

[Tarquin]

I would like to understand “the Flood” *scientifically *from *your *perspective, Faith1960. Also, your perspective, scientifically, on historical human demography as it applies to the Flood. One aspect of a scientific perspective on the Flood “to back it up” would be - observation. Observation is one aspect of generally acceptable though not universally applicable scientific methodology. It seems that someone observed the Flood . . . Their speeches and reports were handed down until an official report was . . . finally published in an authoritative publication. As near as I can tell, there were no observations contradicting the peer-reviewed report.

Admittedly I don’t know much. Just that according to science, there was a human bottleneck no fewer than 10,000 people, ever.

Well, then, you should accept the evidence that is available. One piece of evidence is the narration handed down by people who had allegedly survived such a Flood. If you are not going to accept the testimony of alleged witnesses to an event, your view will hardly be scientific. Are you sure it is a scientific view you are looking for, rather than a reason to repudiate the narration? Apparently you lack witnesses who were present at the time who can testify that there was no flood, as well as witnesses that there were “no fewer than 10,000 people” at the time of the alleged great Flood. That last is quite a stretch, as has been explained by other posters. You will benefit by going back and reading what they said. You will see that the idea of a population “bottleneck” is pretty ridiculous.

 

[Thorolfr]

Well, then, you should accept the evidence that is available. One piece of evidence is the narration handed down by people who had allegedly survived such a Flood. If you are not going to accept the testimony of alleged witnesses to an event, your view will hardly be scientific. Are you sure it is a scientific view you are looking for, rather than a reason to repudiate the narration? Apparently you lack witnesses who were present at the time who can testify that there was no flood, as well as witnesses that there were “no fewer than 10,000 people” at the time of the alleged great Flood. That last is quite a stretch, as has been explained by other posters. You will benefit by going back and reading what they said. You will see that the idea of a population “bottleneck” is pretty ridiculous.

One thing we know is that if everyone is descended from the 8 people in Noah’s family, then the flood must have been more than 60,000-65,000 years ago. This is because Noah must have belonged to Y-chromosome DNA Haplogroup A since all other Y-chromosome DNA haplogroups now existing in the world arose from haplogroup A and scientists estimate that Haplogroup B arose from a mutation in haplogroup A about 60,000-65,000 years ago. Most men in Europe belong to Y-Chromosome Haplogroup R which is at least 19,000 years old. Most Jewish and Arab men belong to haplogroup J which is about 37,500 years old. Most Native American men belong to haplogroup Q which is about 22,000 years old. I myself belong to haplogroup I which is about 19,000 years old. The Ice Man who was discovered in the European Alps belonged to haplogroup G which is about 30,000 years old.

 

[jmcrae]

One thing we know is that if everyone is descended from the 8 people in Noah’s family, then the flood must have been more than 60,000-65,000 years ago. This is because Noah must have belonged to Y-chromosome DNA Haplogroup A since all other Y-chromosome DNA haplogroups now existing in the world arose from haplogroup A and scientists estimate that Haplogroup B arose from a mutation in haplogroup A about 60,000-65,000 years ago. Most men in Europe belong to Y-Chromosome Haplogroup R which is at least 19,000 years old. Most Jewish and Arab men belong to haplogroup J which is about 37,500 years old. Most Native American men belong to haplogroup Q which is about 22,000 years old. I myself belong to haplogroup I which is about 19,000 years old. The Ice Man who was discovered in the European Alps belonged to haplogroup G which is about 30,000 years old.

Well, since the flood predates written language, it’s certainly possible for it to date back that far, assuming those numbers are accurate.

 

[Tarquin]

Admittedly I don’t know much. Just that according to science, there was a human bottleneck no fewer than 10,000 people, ever.

Please, for God’s sake, won’t you please identify that “according to science” for us! What field, what research, what evidence, what reasoning about the evidence, what objective reasoning uninfluenced by prior beliefs, who, when, where, what, how - you know, the same questions that real science asks. Where is this science you toss around as though tossing it around were science itself? Please understand, I am not disputing whether there is any such science. On the contrary, I am asking for that science. I could just as easily say, “Well, science says you’re a dolphin,” and you would have just as good a reason to believe that as I do when someone tells me “According to science, blah-blah.”

 

[Tarquin]

One thing we know is that if everyone is descended from the 8 people in Noah’s family, then the flood must have been more than 60,000-65,000 years ago. This is because Noah must have belonged to Y-chromosome DNA Haplogroup A since all other Y-chromosome DNA haplogroups now existing in the world arose from haplogroup A and scientists estimate that Haplogroup B arose from a mutation in haplogroup A about 60,000-65,000 years ago. Most men in Europe belong to Y-Chromosome Haplogroup R which is at least 19,000 years old. Most Jewish and Arab men belong to haplogroup J which is about 37,500 years old. Most Native American men belong to haplogroup Q which is about 22,000 years old. I myself belong to haplogroup I which is about 19,000 years old. The Ice Man who was discovered in the European Alps belonged to haplogroup G which is about 30,000 years old.

I do appreciate your post, Thorolfr. I have no problem with the idea of some kind of regional flood as recent as 10K BC. And I don’t mind Noahides accepting a flood date of 60K or more. So that means it would work with eight people! (Not that it did occur that way, but that it was possible to have occurred that way.) I think that attempting to identify things as fine as DNA, haplogroups, chromosomes of humans who lived over 60 thousand years ago based on the humans of today is within the bounds of reason, but is at the same time speculative. I believe that even if no kind of evolution had ever occurred, variation within a species nonetheless allows for past “drifting” (or other changes) that could negate our present guesses.

 

[Thorolfr]

I do appreciate your post, Thorolfr. I have no problem with the idea of some kind of regional flood as recent as 10K BC. And I don’t mind Noahides accepting a flood date of 60K or more. So that means it would work with eight people! (Not that it did occur that way, but that it was possible to have occurred that way.) I think that attempting to identify things as fine as DNA, haplogroups, chromosomes of humans who lived over 60 thousand years ago based on the humans of today is within the bounds of reason, but is at the same time speculative. I believe that even if no kind of evolution had ever occurred, variation within a species nonetheless allows for past “drifting” (or other changes) that could negate our present guesses.

The other interesting thing about haplogroups is that if Noah belonged to haplogroup A which he must have been since all other haplogroups descend from haplogroup A, he was most likely a black man from Africa. Africa is the most likely place of origin of haplogroup A.

 

[jmcrae]

The other interesting thing about haplogroups is that if Noah belonged to haplogroup A which he must have been since all other haplogroups descend from haplogroup A, he was most likely a black man from Africa. Africa is the most likely place of origin of haplogroup A.

He would have been whatever the human race was before it divided into the races we know today, since (according to the myth) it was his sons who were the ancestors of the African, Eurasian, and Semitic races.

 

[KjetilK]

Lutherans don’t believe that pastors or priests have any special magical powers and that anyone can “confect the Eucharist” by using the proper form although it is better for a pastor to do so “for the good order of the church.”

Not trying to derail the thread, but you are mistaken. It is not Lutheran teaching that anyone can ‘confect the Eucharist’ (if by this you mean consecrate it).

According to Confessio Augustana, article 5, the ministry is divinely instituted and is an essential part of the Church, and according to article 14, only those who are ‘properly called’ may do this. There is no mention here of this being only ‘for the good order of the church,’ and that anyone can do it.

 

[SyroMalankara]

Not trying to derail the thread, but you are mistaken. It is not Lutheran teaching that anyone can ‘confect the Eucharist’ (if by this you mean consecrate it).

According to Confessio Augustana, article 5, the ministry is divinely instituted and is an essential part of the Church, and according to article 14, only those who are ‘properly called’ may do this. There is no mention here of this being only ‘for the good order of the church,’ and that anyone can do it.

When it comes to certain non-Catholic ecclesial communities (Anglican, Lutheran, Evangelical, ‘non’-denominationals) there has been a gallimaufry of opinions, none of which are binding on the other and none that can be taken at face value.

 

[Thorolfr]

Not trying to derail the thread, but you are mistaken. It is not Lutheran teaching that anyone can ‘confect the Eucharist’ (if by this you mean consecrate it).

According to Confessio Augustana, article 5, the ministry is divinely instituted and is an essential part of the Church, and according to article 14, only those who are ‘properly called’ may do this. There is no mention here of this being only ‘for the good order of the church,’ and that anyone can do it.

It’s true that it says in Article XIV “concerning church government” that no one should administer the sacraments unless “properly called”. But I’m not sure that this is the same as saying that they absolutely wouldn’t work if someone else administered them. Also, according to Luther’s Large Catechism, the bread and wine wouldn’t be the body and blood of Christ unless the person receiving them lets the words “given for you” and “shed for you” be addressed to them and believes that they are true. Otherwise, they would remain bread and wine.

 

[SteveVH]

It’s true that it says in Article XIV “concerning church government” that no one should administer the sacraments unless “properly called”. But I’m not sure that this is the same as saying that they absolutely wouldn’t work if someone else administered them. Also, according to Luther’s Large Catechism, the bread and wine wouldn’t be the body and blood of Christ unless the person receiving them lets the words “given for you” and “shed for you” be addressed to them and believes that they are true. Otherwise, they would remain bread and wine.

Wow, I am really speechless here. Is this really the Lutheran belief? The real presence of Christ in the Eucharist is dependent upon each individual’s level of faith? The elements are consecrated and some are the body and blood of Christ and some are not depending upon who receives? This is sad, really, really sad. Luther was a Catholic priest. Where in the world did he ever get an idea such as this?

 

[Thorolfr]

Wow, I am really speechless here. Is this really the Lutheran belief? The real presence of Christ in the Eucharist is dependent upon each individual’s level of faith? The elements are consecrated and some are the body and blood of Christ and some are not depending upon who receives? This is sad, really, really sad. Luther was a Catholic priest. Where in the world did he ever get an idea such as this?

According to the Wittenburg Concordia of 1536 which was signed by Luther:

They confess in the words of Irenaeus, that in this sacrament there are two things, one heavenly and one earthly. Therefore they hold and teach that with the bread and the wine the body and blood of Christ are truly and essentially present, are distributed and received. Although they do not believe in a transubstantiation, that is, in an essential transformation of the bread and wine into the body and blood, and they do not hold that the body and blood of Christ are localiter, that is, spatially enclosed in the bread or are permanently united in some other way apart from reception in the sacrament, they nevertheless admit that through the sacramental union the bread is the body of Christ, etc. For apart from reception – for example, when the bread is laid aside and kept in the tabernacle or carried about and put on display in the procession, as happens in the papacy – the body of Christ is not present

The words “apart from reception” refers to the reception of the bread and wine by the person receiving them. It is only in reception that they become the body and blood (according to Lutherans).

 

[benjohnson]

Also, according to Luther’s Large Catechism, the bread and wine wouldn’t be the body and blood of Christ unless the person receiving them lets the words “given for you” and “shed for you” be addressed to them and believes that they are true. Otherwise, they would remain bread and wine.

That’s the heresy of Receptionism, and Lutherans reject it.

Article X: Of the Lord’s Supper.

The Tenth Article has been approved, in which we confess that we believe, that in the Lord’s Supper the body and blood of Christ are truly and substantially present, and are truly tendered, with those things which are seen, bread and wine, to those who receive the Sacrament. This belief we constantly defend, as the subject has been carefully examined and considered. For since Paul says, 1 Cor. 10:16, that the bread is the communion of the Lord’s body, etc., it would follow, if the Lord’s body were not truly present, that the bread is not a communion of the body, but only of the spirit of Christ. 55] And we have ascertained that not only the Roman Church affirms the bodily presence of Christ, but the Greek Church also both now believes, and formerly believed, the same. For the canon of the Mass among them testifies to this, in which the priest clearly prays that the bread may be changed and become the very body of Christ. And Vulgarius, who seems to us to be not a silly writer, says distinctly that bread is not a mere figure, but 56] is truly changed into flesh. And there is a long exposition of Cyril on John 15, in which he teaches that Christ is corporeally offered us in the Supper. For he says thus: Nevertheless, we do not deny that we are joined spiritually to Christ by true faith and sincere love. But that we have no mode of connection with Him, according to the flesh, this indeed we entirely deny. And this, we say, is altogether foreign to the divine Scriptures. For who has doubted that Christ is in this manner a vine, and we the branches, deriving thence life for ourselves? Hear Paul saying 1 Cor. 10:17; Rom. 12:5; Gal. 3:28: We are all one body in Christ; although we are many, we are, nevertheless, one in Him; for we are, all partakers of that one bread. Does he perhaps think that the virtue of the mystical benediction is unknown to us? Since this is in us, does it not also, by the communication of Christ’s flesh, cause Christ to dwell in us bodily? And a little after: Whence we must consider that Christ is in us not only according to the habit, which we call love, 57] but also by natural participation, etc. We have cited these testimonies, not to undertake a discussion here concerning this subject, for His Imperial Majesty does not disapprove of this article, but in order that all who may read them may the more clearly perceive that we defend the doctrine received in the entire Church, that in the Lord’s Supper the body and blood of Christ are truly and substantially present, and are truly tendered with those things which are seen, bread and wine. And we speak of the presence of the living Christ [living body]; for we know that death hath no more dominion over Him, Rom. 6:9.

 

[Thorolfr]

That’s the heresy of Receptionism, and Lutherans reject it.

What do you make then of the Wittenburg Concordia signed by Luther which specifically says that it is only in reception that it becomes the body and blood?