A Historical Dare to Protestants

[seekdatruth]

OK, I didn’t find anything about Hebrew kings per se, (I must have been confusing with Revelation where he says stuff like that), but there was some kind of pagan or wiccan site that hinted a bit about the significance of eating “god flesh” in a symbolic way to even prehistoric people worldwide. Basically saying it would not have been a new concept to people in Jesus’s time. here is the link to that page, HOWEVER** I’m warning that this is obviously an anti-Christian site! Explore at your own risk! fire.benton.wa.us/philosophy/easterisright.html
It is only of importance here because the author unintentionally supports Catholic beliefs,IMO, even though he/she is attempting exactly the opposite! lol
Here is another interesting link:
eatfleshdrinkblood.blogspot.com/2008/06/we-wanted-to-share-with-you-up-front.html?showComment=1216271580000
The poster thinks that Jesus was linking back to Mt. Sinai, when "And Moses took the blood and threw it upon the people, and said, “Behold the blood of the covenant which the Lord has made with you in accordance with all these words.”
This seems to be a very neutral site, but it’s only importance to me is to further prove that “Eat my flesh and drink my blood” should not have been such a far out concept to the disciples. Further, the Hebrew law of not drinking the blood of animals could have had it’s origin in that the only proper blood that should be drank is “god blood”, because it is too high of an honor to bestow a bull or sheep or whatever. What was ancient belief or practice seemed to have been utilized by Jesus himself, to communicate the importance of his actions, and the reality of who he really is, not just here, but throughout his time on earth. His baptism, his family taking the sacrifice to the temple, etc, not necessary for God himself, but to express himself as righteous in the terms the people would understand. My guess is “Eat my flesh and drink my blood” is more of this type of reaching out to make us understand. His love for us allows him to give us this type of sacrifice, literally, and figuratively descending to our level. We accept his gift because how mean and ungrateful would it be to snub HIM?
Do I make sense? lol!
I need to have a drink!
Prost!

 

[CHESTERTONRULES]

OK, I didn’t find anything about Hebrew kings per se, (I must have been confusing with Revelation where he says stuff like that), but there was some kind of pagan or wiccan site that hinted a bit about the significance of eating “god flesh” in a symbolic way to even prehistoric people worldwide. Basically saying it would not have been a new concept to people in Jesus’s time. here is the link to that page, HOWEVER** I’m warning that this is obviously an anti-Christian site! Explore at your own risk! fire.benton.wa.us/philosophy/easterisright.html
It is only of importance here because the author unintentionally supports Catholic beliefs,IMO, even though he/she is attempting exactly the opposite! lol
Here is another interesting link:
eatfleshdrinkblood.blogspot.com/2008/06/we-wanted-to-share-with-you-up-front.html?showComment=1216271580000
The poster thinks that Jesus was linking back to Mt. Sinai, when "And Moses took the blood and threw it upon the people, and said, “Behold the blood of the covenant which the Lord has made with you in accordance with all these words.”
This seems to be a very neutral site, but it’s only importance to me is to further prove that “Eat my flesh and drink my blood” should not have been such a far out concept to the disciples. Further, the Hebrew law of not drinking the blood of animals could have had it’s origin in that the only proper blood that should be drank is “god blood”, because it is too high of an honor to bestow a bull or sheep or whatever. What was ancient belief or practice seemed to have been utilized by Jesus himself, to communicate the importance of his actions, and the reality of who he really is, not just here, but throughout his time on earth. His baptism, his family taking the sacrifice to the temple, etc, not necessary for God himself, but to express himself as righteous in the terms the people would understand. My guess is “Eat my flesh and drink my blood” is more of this type of reaching out to make us understand. His love for us allows him to give us this type of sacrifice, literally, and figuratively descending to our level. We accept his gift because how mean and ungrateful would it be to snub HIM?
Do I make sense? lol!
I need to have a drink!
Prost!

One more point. The apostle John wrote his gospel years after Jesus died. He had probably participated in dozens if not hundreds of eucharistic feasts by the time he wrote the gospel.

Although inspired by the Holy Spirit, the words are his.

Given his experiences, I find it very unlikely that he didn’t have the Eucharist in mind when writing the words of John 6.

 

[stbruderklaus]

What a grand example of why Lutherans prefer to take the Scriptures as what they say, and leave the speculation alone.

Yowza…

I think this thread has gone about as far as it can go… and I refuse to follow it to wiccan sites.

I think the initial dare / challenge of the poster has been met.

Y’all have a real nice weekend.

 

[seekdatruth]

What a grand example of why Lutherans prefer to take the Scriptures as what they say, and leave the speculation alone.

Yowza…

I think this thread has gone about as far as it can go… and I refuse to follow it to wiccan sites.

I think the initial dare / challenge of the poster has been met.

Y’all have a real nice weekend.

Sorry, Dude!
LOL!
That was about 90% speculation on my part, and as far as I know, it is NOT the view of the Catholic Church. I was merely presenting a possibility for why the disciples might not have just turned up their noses and said, “EWWWW!!!”
You don’t have to go to the site, it was just to show my source about “god flesh” in history. No need to torture yourself! Neither says anything anti-Lutheran or gives me the impression Lutherans are “wrong” anyway. IMO, Lutherans are on the same side of the most important “Truth”, and so I have no beef with you!
I’m still not trying to prove your religion is wrong, just presenting a possible precedence for it’s importance in Scripture and the Catholic Church’s apparently “hair-brained” ideas!
Peace be with you!

 

[johnnydigit]

To all those who deny that the “Roman Catholic Church” (and/or Eastern Orthodox) is the Church founded by Christ, then I have a little dare for you. Prove from Scripture and history that your denomination is the one founded by Christ.

I say use ‘history’ because Scripture is vague enough that anyone, even us evil old Papists (or those in the process of converting to Papism), could claim that their doctrines match Scripture (after all, don’t most of those tens of thousands of Protestant denominations claim that they are each based on Scripture).

For me, it was history that won me over to the Catholic Church. No other group (save the Eastern Orthodox) can trace their history as far as back as the Catholic Church. That is a key point, because unless you can somehow connect your denomination chronologically to the Apostles, then you are claiming that there was a period of time where there was no ‘true Church’ and this sort of violates that whole gates of Hell prevailing against the Church thingy. Yeah, not good.

So, fire away.

bingo! welcome home to the Truth. for those that can handle it, they will seek and find it. for the rest, prayers.

**“to be steeped in history is to cease to be Protestant” -Cardinal Newman **

 

[Charlemagne_II]

We know you people who don’t want a church … you don’t want to have to think too hard about which church is the true church … all you want is direct contact with God, no fuss, no muss, just Sunday morning sleep-ins!

 

[CoachSTL]

I didn’t ask whether I should accept that the one true Church should be united. I asked why I should accept one and only one denomination as the one true church. There is a subtle difference between these two questions.

Your statement is correct “with questions”. But, you have also asked a very good question, “Why should you accept one and only one denomination?” There is a perfect answer to this. But you must understand fully what Scripture means by “church” when it is mentioned in the Bible. And, in order to fully understand Scripture, you must accept the reality that Jesus created by being here on earth. That reality is called Sacred Tradtion and Magesterium. If you do not learn what is meant by these terms, you will never understand they “why” you ask about.

To understand fully what is meant by “church” you must have full understanding of what the Apostles meant by church and the writers of the books in the Bible who refer to the church. Unfortunately, they are dead and you can’t talk to them physically. So, the only account we have is the account made by the people that walked with the Apostles and the men who were under their tutorial. These are the people who practiced and recorded the one true Christian Teaching. Surely you can now see how the “Church” is growing in numbers.

Well, there were heretics that refuted Jesus’s teaching (the one and only message) and they lured many believers away from the one true church. But, as Jesus promised, His one true Church would always be protected by him. That Church exists today and teaches the only complete true message he taught. (Heretics also exist today as well, still refuting and confusing people). You cannot find Jesus’ complete message, without error, in any Church but Jesus’ Church. This is why you should beleive in the one true church.

Well the Orthodox also claim to be the one true church.

Many do! It does not make them the one true church. You have to look at the reasons why the Catholic Chruch can make the claim that they are the one true church. you must appraoch it with an open mind and heart. Believe me, if you ask God, He will show you why.

So even if I were to accept the proposition that there must be one true church, I would not be able to figure out who it is. That is a conundrum. I would be left with the senseless proposition that one denomination must be the one true church but it is impossible to determine with 100% certainty what that denomination is.

And that neglects groups like Polish Catholic, Sedevacantist Catholic and others that I might be unaware of that claim to be the one true church.

Jesus did not teach one message to one Apostle, and then a different to another. Surely, you can see the nonsense in this conlcusion. Only one Christian message can be the one true message of Christ linked to His existence here on earth. It has to be in His one true Church.

 

[CoachSTL]

You are assuming that the ‘true church’ must be one and only one denomination. Why should I make this assumption?

You should make this assumption because it is your obligation as a beleiver to seek the truth about Jesus’ Teaching.

But even if I were to make this assumption you can not prove from Scripture and history that you are the one true church.

You are correct. There is no proof, but there is a reason to beleive it. Having said this, there is no proof of anything. IT TAKES FAITH. And with your “free” gift of faith, from God, you will learn to reason. Reason too is a free gift from God. Faith is the foundation for you will to see God more clearly.

Faith and reason will give you the insight to see the proof that you need to see the one true Church, who is Jesus, and founded physically in this world upon Peter.

Jesus’ message had a physically beginning somewhere, surely he has left a trail with someone.

 

[jblake]

CoachSTL;:

Only one Christian message can be the one true message of Christ linked to His existence here on earth. It has to be in His one true Church.

And that one true Church is obviously the Community of Christ.

jonathon

 

[CoachSTL]

And that one true Church is obviously the Community of Christ.

jonathon

Yes Jonathon! You are correct to say that the Community of Christ is the Church. But your answer is vague and incomplete. For example, if someone, who was not a beleiver, came to you and asked. "What is the one true Church? You could not give your reply as stated, and be truthful to Christ. You would have to go further and teach this person all of the commands that Jesus taught us to follow. There is only one place to get the complete truth about Jesus’ Teaching - from His Church.

Therefore, I gracefully asked you. Can you be complete in your answer, “the Community of Christ”

Bless you, Son.

 

[Hajnalcsillag]

bingo! welcome home to the Truth. for those that can handle it, they will seek and find it. for the rest, prayers.

**“to be steeped in history is to cease to be Protestant” -Cardinal Newman **

Cardinal Newman forgets the rebuke of John the Baptist toward the Pharisees.

Something about “out of the rocks can be raised sons of Abraham.”

 

[nsper7]

Cardinal Newman forgets the rebuke of John the Baptist toward the Pharisees.

Something about “out of the rocks can be raised sons of Abraham.”

But those rocks had better act as the original sons of Abraham did. Can any Protestant denomination prove that it is comparable to the ‘original Church’? After all, if one just goes by Scriptural testimony, you are left with thousands of options and people claiming to fully represent the original Church.

 

[Benjamin8o8]

The Roman Church is CATHOLIC. And the Catholic Church predates all other divisions. It also predates the NT. So do simple math, what Church existed BEFORE the Bible and AFTER Jesus asceneded into Heaven? The Catholic Church. The Universal Body of Christ. No protestant can ever deny that. This is what makes the Roman Church the truth. History of The Church refutes everything else that came after it.

God Bless.

 

[stbruderklaus]

Actually, friend, I don’t think even the Protestant churches claim to fully represent the original churches of the New Testament. I think what Protestants (and even non-Roman catholics) will assert, is that they are trying to do so faithfully with the understanding that any human attempt at ecclessiology will be flawed by the participation of sinful people among them.

No Church is perfect in attempting to reflect Christ and the Apostolic Gospel through their corporate structure. Not even Rome makes such a grand claim for itself.

Peace.

 

[stbruderklaus]

The Roman Church is CATHOLIC. And the Catholic Church predates all other divisions. It also predates the NT. So do simple math, what Church existed BEFORE the Bible and AFTER Jesus asceneded into Heaven? The Catholic Church. The Universal Body of Christ. No protestant can ever deny that. This is what makes the Roman Church the truth. History of The Church refutes everything else that came after it.

God Bless.

Indeed, the One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church existed before the composition of the New Testament, and will endure to the end of time. No argument there, mate.

The difficulty for Roman Christians is in making a leap to assert that this One Catholic Church equals the Roman Church. This is not what the Roman Catechism teaches, by the way. The CCC teaches that the One Catholic Church SUBSISTS in the Roman Catholic Church… and frankly, it also is expressed in other, non-Roman churches. Any Roman Christian who attempts to teach otherwise, is in contradition to their own Roman dogma.

The point of argument is not whether or not a name of a church body existed at some point in history, but whether or not that named church body still expresses the One Catholic Church… or whether or not it subsists within it. This becomes the point of refernce for much ecumenical discussion, and the recognition by Rome of other true particular churches not in full visible union with the pope.

Peace.

 

[Benjamin8o8]

Indeed, the One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church existed before the composition of the New Testament, and will endure to the end of time. No argument there, mate.

The difficulty for Roman Christians is in making a leap to assert that this One Catholic Church equals the Roman Church. This is not what the Roman Catechism teaches, by the way. The CCC teaches that the One Catholic Church SUBSISTS in the Roman Catholic Church… and frankly, it also is expressed in other, non-Roman churches. Any Roman Christian who attempts to teach otherwise, is in contradition to their own Roman dogma.

The point of argument is not whether or not a name of a church body existed at some point in history, but whether or not that named church body still expresses the One Catholic Church… or whether or not it subsists within it. This becomes the point of refernce for much ecumenical discussion, and the recognition by Rome of other true particular churches not in full visible union with the pope.

Peace.

To be more clear, the Roman Catholic Church is the same Church that St. Ignatius of Antioch wrote about in his letters. This Church has existed since Jesus ascended into Heaven. The Roman Church is supported by this historical fact.

 

[Bill_Pick]

To all those who deny that the “Roman Catholic Church” (and/or Eastern Orthodox) is the Church founded by Christ, then I have a little dare for you. Prove from Scripture and history that your denomination is the one founded by Christ.

I say use ‘history’ because Scripture is vague enough that anyone, even us evil old Papists (or those in the process of converting to Papism), could claim that their doctrines match Scripture (after all, don’t most of those tens of thousands of Protestant denominations claim that they are each based on Scripture).

For me, it was history that won me over to the Catholic Church. No other group (save the Eastern Orthodox) can trace their history as far as back as the Catholic Church. That is a key point, because unless you can somehow connect your denomination chronologically to the Apostles, then you are claiming that there was a period of time where there was no ‘true Church’ and this sort of violates that whole gates of Hell prevailing against the Church thingy. Yeah, not good.

So, fire away.

Church Year Established Founder Where Established

Catholic 33 Jesus Christ Jerusalem

Orthodox 1054 Schismatic Catholic
Bishops Constantinople

Lutheran 1517 Martin Luther Germany

Anabaptist 1521 Nicholas Storch &
Thomas Munzer Germany

Anglican 1534 Henry VIII England

Mennonites 1536 Menno Simons Switzerland

Calvinist 1555 John Calvin Switzerland

Presbyterian 1560 John Knox Scotland

Congregational 1582 Robert Brown Holland

Baptist 1609 John Smyth Amsterdam

Dutch Reformed 1628 Michaelis Jones New York

Congregationalist 1648 Pilgrims and Puritans Massachusetts

Quakers 1649 George Fox England

Amish 1693 Jacob Amman France

Freemasons 1717 Masons from four lodges London

Methodist 1739 John & Charles
Wesley England

Unitarian 1774 Theophilus Lindey London

Methodist Episcopal 1784 60 Preachers Baltimore, MD

Episcopalian 1789 Samuel Seabury American Colonies

United Brethren 1800 Philip Otterbein &
Martin Boehn Maryland

Disciples of Christ 1827 Thomas & Alexander
Campbell Kentucky

Mormon 1830 Joseph Smith New York

Methodist Protestant 1830 Methodist United States

Church of Christ 1836 Warren Stone &
Alexander Campbell Kentucky

Seventh Day Adventist 1844 Ellen White Washington, NH

Christadelphian (Brethren
of Christ 1844 John Thomas Richmond, VA

Salvation Army 1865 William Booth London

Holiness 1867 Methodist United States

Jehovah’s Witnesses 1874 Charles Taze Russell Pennsylvania

Christian Science 1879 Mary Baker Eddy Boston

Church of God in Christ 1895 Various churches of God Arkansas

Church of Nazarene c. 1850-1900 Various religious bodies Pilot Point, TX

Pentecstal 1901 Charles F. Parkham Topeka, KS

Aglipayan 1902 Gregorio Aglipay Philippines

Assemblies of God 1914 Pentecostalism Hot Springs, AZ

Iglesia ni Christo 1914 Felix Manalo Philippines

Four-square Gospel 1917 Aimee Semple
McPherson Los Angeles, CA

United Church of Christ 1961 Reformed and
Congregationalist Philadelphia, PA

Calvary Chapel 1965 Chuck Smith Costa Mesa, CA

United Methodist 1968 Methodist and United
Brethren Dallas, TX

Born-again c. 1970s Various religious bodies United States

Harvest Christian 1972 Greg Laurie Riverside, CA

Saddleback 1982 Rick Warren California

Non-denominational c. 1990s various United States

THE TWO CULT WILL NOT AGREE

 

[Benjamin8o8]

Church Year Established Founder Where Established

Catholic 33 Jesus Christ Jerusalem

Orthodox 1054 Schismatic Catholic
Bishops Constantinople

Lutheran 1517 Martin Luther Germany

Anabaptist 1521 Nicholas Storch &
Thomas Munzer Germany

Anglican 1534 Henry VIII England

Mennonites 1536 Menno Simons Switzerland

Calvinist 1555 John Calvin Switzerland

Presbyterian 1560 John Knox Scotland

Congregational 1582 Robert Brown Holland

Baptist 1609 John Smyth Amsterdam

Dutch Reformed 1628 Michaelis Jones New York

Congregationalist 1648 Pilgrims and Puritans Massachusetts

Quakers 1649 George Fox England

Amish 1693 Jacob Amman France

Freemasons 1717 Masons from four lodges London

Methodist 1739 John & Charles
Wesley England

Unitarian 1774 Theophilus Lindey London

Methodist Episcopal 1784 60 Preachers Baltimore, MD

Episcopalian 1789 Samuel Seabury American Colonies

United Brethren 1800 Philip Otterbein &
Martin Boehn Maryland

Disciples of Christ 1827 Thomas & Alexander
Campbell Kentucky

Mormon 1830 Joseph Smith New York

Methodist Protestant 1830 Methodist United States

Church of Christ 1836 Warren Stone &
Alexander Campbell Kentucky

Seventh Day Adventist 1844 Ellen White Washington, NH

Christadelphian (Brethren
of Christ 1844 John Thomas Richmond, VA

Salvation Army 1865 William Booth London

Holiness 1867 Methodist United States

Jehovah’s Witnesses 1874 Charles Taze Russell Pennsylvania

Christian Science 1879 Mary Baker Eddy Boston

Church of God in Christ 1895 Various churches of God Arkansas

Church of Nazarene c. 1850-1900 Various religious bodies Pilot Point, TX

Pentecstal 1901 Charles F. Parkham Topeka, KS

Aglipayan 1902 Gregorio Aglipay Philippines

Assemblies of God 1914 Pentecostalism Hot Springs, AZ

Iglesia ni Christo 1914 Felix Manalo Philippines

Four-square Gospel 1917 Aimee Semple
McPherson Los Angeles, CA

United Church of Christ 1961 Reformed and
Congregationalist Philadelphia, PA

Calvary Chapel 1965 Chuck Smith Costa Mesa, CA

United Methodist 1968 Methodist and United
Brethren Dallas, TX

Born-again c. 1970s Various religious bodies United States

Harvest Christian 1972 Greg Laurie Riverside, CA

Saddleback 1982 Rick Warren California

Non-denominational c. 1990s various United States

THE TWO CULT WILL NOT AGREE

People lie…history dosen`t:thumbsup:

God Bless the Roman Catholic Church.

 

[stbruderklaus]

St. Ignatius, St. Cyprian, St. Justin Martyr, and many others of the 2nd and 2rd centuries wrote of the Catholic Church. Indeed, the Roman Church was a part of the Catholic Church, just as was the church in Antioch, Jerusalem, Alexandria, Ephesus… and on down the list. There was one Catholic Church, united in faith, hope, and love.

This one Catholic Church of the 1st through 7th centuries is nowhere exclusively claimed to equate to the Roman Church. Nor, if you read the ecclesiastical histories, did the whole church during the first 7 centuries ever assume that the Roman bishop had primacy over the other great Patriarchs in anything other than honor. Communion among the ancient Patriarchs of the ancient churches, including an ecumenical role by the bishop of Rome which was subservient to the ecumenical role of the Church gathered in true Ecumenical Council, was the rule of the Catholic Church for it’s first millenium. Roman appeals to assume dictatorial control of the other historic Patriarchs ushered in the first great schism between east and west in 1054, and was the root of the second great schism of the Reformation in the 16th century.

The Roman demand for total dominance of the Catholic Church ushered in two great schisms in one millenium… something the last couple Popes and Vatican II have been trying to amelliorate as we enter the 3rd millenium. But that’s only if we’re really going to discuss history…

Cheers.

 

[stbruderklaus]

People lie…history dosen`t:thumbsup:

God Bless the Roman Catholic Church.

You know, this list only reflects where particular schisms arose within the Catholic Church. It does not establish the Roman argument that the sin of schism resides in any particular camp, for any of those particular schisms… nor does it make the argument that the Roman communion continued to be or equate to the One Catholic Church.

Nice try.