Sorry, but for the duration of the Spanish Inquisition, on average a handful (think like, half a dozen) people were put to death per year. That’s out of some fifty thousand trials from the mid-1500s to around 1700. Less than a thousand deaths
I see many people taking things out of historical context for polemical reasons. The Inquisition was actually operated by the Spanish government. And, for someone to be sentenced to death, they had to be caught, tried, and found guilty, not once, but twice! And the accused could provide the court with a list of “enemies,” none of whom were allowed to be called as witnesses against him.
You’re right, and I’m convinvced that they don’t think things through very well. I like to point out that if the criteria for the true Church is a group that is impeccable (sinless), then no one should be Christian because of the first 12 Apostles, we had Judas Iscariot, who betrayed Jesus. And Peter, the one He chose to lead His Church, but denied Him three times. And the rest, except for St. John, who deserted Him in his hour of need like cowards.
Why don’t you do us a favor and show us where the early Apostles believed in Bible alone. How about the early Christians who lived a few years after Jesus. Please explain how they believed in Bible Alone?
I’ll answer, but first a question for you, momor: Have you entered into your mother’s womb a second time and been born again? Jesus was pretty unapologetic when he told Nicodemus that he needed to be born again. Of course, in John 3:5 and 6 Jesus discerned between flesh and spirit, and so no one is saying we must go through some grotesque ceremony in order to be obedient to Christ.
seascale, Scripture doesn’t mean what you want it to mean. It means what the author wanted it to mean.
Scriptures often have layers of meaning which is one of the things that makes them so beautiful. So yes, I believe that Jesus is referring to both physical and spiritual realities. You choose to ignore the physical.
I couldn’t agree with you more!
Why don’t we just take it at face value? In both passages I mentioned, I think it is pretty clear what was meant since Jesus clarified that he was speaking in spiritual terms and conveying spiritual truths via physical expressions.
Among those Protestants who practice exegesis, there is agreement on the fundamentals of the faith. This was demonstrated in the document entitled The Gospel of Jesus Christ: An Evangelical Celebration, which was signed by Protestants from many different denominations in 1999. The signers of the declaration might disagree on non-essential doctrines, but they all agree on what the Bible says about the essentials.
Yes, Satan is a divider, and unity is good. But the Bible does not advocate unity at the expense of the purity of the Church. St. Paul told the Corinthians to “Expel the wicked man from among you.” (1 Corinthians 5:13). The Reformation called out numerous evils within the Church. The Pope and Bishops would not own up to it, and so many Christians split from the Catholic Church. Others worked within the Catholic Church and brought about the Counter-reformation. The division still exists, however, because the Counter-reformation addressed the many political and moral evils that existed within the Church, but did not acknowledge that this moral depravity had adversely impacted the doctrine of the Church.
You are mistaken. Peter is talking about the prophet’s interpretation, not the hearer’s of the prophets. In effect he is saying that the prophets did not go about teaching whatever they wanted, but instead they spoke from God as they were carried along by the Holy Spirit. (2 Peter 1:21) Be careful about taking passages out of context to support your argument! You just accused me of doing this very thing (although, I might note, you did not show how I took the Scripture I quoted out of context - in fact, I included more context than was originally given)!
And we both choose to ignore the physical of what Christ told Nicodemus. I am consistent in my decision to take note of Christ’s explanation. You accept his explanation at one point and ignore it at the other.
I am sure you meant John. At any rate, Christ didn’t “come down to Nicodemus’ level” either. He was very unapologetic about being born again. In fact he scolded Nicodemus for being a spiritual leader and yet being unable to understand the spiritual truth Christ was attempting to convey.
That my friend was an AWESOME reply. :clapping:seascale, Scripture doesn’t mean what you want it to mean. It means what the author wanted it to mean.
So, how do we know what the author wanted it to mean? By listening to the Church, which by the way, Scripture says is the “pillar and foundation of truth.” (1 Tim 3:15) So, what Church is it that 1 Tim 3:15 refers to? Historically, there was only one Church for the first 1000 years, the Catholic Church. No others. Then, in 1054 A.D., the Orthodox split off, but retained Apostolic succession and all seven Sacraments. Only in 1517 A.D., did Protestants begin splitting off from the Church. Since then, they have continualy splintered into literally thousands upon thousands of man-made, doctrinally disunified, disagreeing denominations, all founded on exactly what you just exhibited: Personal and incorrect interpretation of Scriputre. (See 2 Peter 1:20 which speaks against this approach.) We’ll know them by their fruits. Satan has always been the divider, the separator. The very word “diabolic” comes from the two Greek words, “dia” and “boline” meaning a splitting apart, rending assunder. Anytime you find this separation, division, etc., you find Satan at work. We see countries split, families split, churches split, etc., all by the work of Satan. Jesus is a unifier. He prayed “all would be one.” I guess He saw Protestantism in the future.
With regard to Baptism, see John 3:5, where Jesus says, where Jesus says, “Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God.”
None of the first Christians, whom refer to as the Early Church Fathers, referred to John 3:5 as anything other than water baptism.
With regard to the doctrine of the Real Presence asserts that in the Holy Eucharist, Jesus is literally and wholly present—body and blood, soul and divinity—under the appearances of bread and wine. Evangelicals and Fundamentalists frequently attack this doctrine as “unbiblical,” but the Bible is forthright in declaring it (cf. 1 Cor. 10:16–17, 11:23–29; and, most forcefully, John 6:32–71).
The early Church Fathers interpreted these passages literally. In summarizing the early Fathers’ teachings on Christ’s Real Presence, renowned Protestant historian of the early Church J. N. D. Kelly, writes: “Eucharistic teaching, it should be understood at the outset, was in general unquestioningly realist, i.e., the consecrated bread and wine were taken to be, and were treated and designated as, the Savior’s body and blood” (Early Christian Doctrines, 440).
Jesus didn’t found a Church on a book. The New Testament was written by members of the Church. Jesus trained Apostles and commanded them to likewise train others. This process has gone on for 2000 years now, nonstop. It is this Church which teaches with Christ’s authority and guanantee that it can never teach doctrinal error.
St. Paul refers to the Church as the Body of Christ. Why would this be? Well, Jesus said He is the Vine and we are the branches. The same “sap” runs throughout. This “sap” is th Holy Spirit which unifies us and leads us to His truths. Anyone who disagrees with the teachings of this Church is in error.
Why not really do what Jesus wants and join His Body, the Catholic Church?
So, the apostles were sent as Jesus was sent. So, therefore the successors of the apostles should be forgiving sins without the confession of the sin the same as Jesus did in Scripture by your logic.
Yes, I take communion.
But, those crosswalk deaths are not sanctioned by the Catholic Church.
Yes, I did mean John. Thanks.
But is it the Body and Blood of Christ or a representation?
It is the same as your is.
Not unless you are receiving communion in a Catholic church.
That is what you believe; I disagree.