The Word became flesh and walked among us. That is a huge change inconsistent with God’s structure up until that point, too. Are you disputing that Christ named Peter as the rock upon whom He would build His Church? He chose* one* of the apostles for that distinction - one.
Obviously 12 leaders would never be enough to maintain a universal worldwide Church, so others had to be added. They were only added by the Apostles themselves or by their successors…bishops. That’s where the other 11 “sub-popes” are. They are the bishops of the Catholic (and I guess you could say Orthodox) Church.
You will not accept what bishops said about the Eucharist 1900 years ago, but you accept the Canon of the New Testament which the bishops who succeeded them set at Carthage and Hippo 1600 years ago? And then you use that Canon to dispute what they taught?
No. Does it mean something if I capitalize it?Was there a reason you capitalized the “E” in eating? Just wondering what the significance of that was.
Good question.
Sorry, my post was made in haste. I thought I clarified it later.
On what John 6 means, yes most evangelicals agree on what it means. Few, if any, think it means literal. None have a central leader interpreting it for them, telling them that it means symbolic.
This makes no sense.
Of course it does. Why should the Church try to constrain itself to only 12 leaders? Where in the Bible does it say that this is needed to be maintained? Peter went off to Antioch and was the bishop there for a while. Then he appointed Ignatius to succeed him as bishop so that he could go off to Rome where he became bishop. The Apostles never understood it the way you do. I’ll side with them.
It can. For instance, He versus he for Christ. Eating versus eating could be taken to mean that there is a significance between just eating and Eating.
“Probably isn’t” is very different from “definitely isn’t”. Why do you feel comfortable resting your salvation on infallible teachings and “maybes”?
The Old and New Testament both illustrate the perpetual priesthood. It is through the laying on of hands by bishops who have authority through apostolic succession that I know my teachers have His authority. They must also not teach in contradiction to the “deposit of faith” entrusted to our bishops from Christ and the apostles.
Again you are not showing how the same can not be said for your religion or any of the myriad of other Christian religions founded by men and based on “Sola Scriptura”.
The entirety of John 6 illustrates that the Eucharist is literally the Body and Blood of Christ. Are you calling the entirety of John 6 a “sound byte”?
There are not a billion evangelicals! There are 1.2 billion Catholics and 1 billion other Christians. It is mathematically impossible for there to be 1 billion evangelicals. If you look at your previous post you said “With zero central authority, a billion of us have pretty much come to the same conclusion on so much of scripture. So I don’t think I’m wrong. It seems pretty obvious to me.” Now you are narrowing this statement to mean “most” evangelicals agree on what John 6 means. What happened to the 1 billion?
Well, now the statement is that evangelicals agree with eachother, not all 1 billion Christians “other than Catholic”. If evangelicals did not agree, then they would just go start a new religion. That’s how evangelicals came about to begin with. They are an off-shoot of an off-shoot of an off-shoot… and so on, of the Reformation religions.
If the Holy Spirit is truly active in the Church so that it “becomes a large bush, and the 'birds of the sky come and dwell in its branches,” then do you think that it would be able to maintain itself with the leadership of only 12 men? If all nations are to be disciples of Christ, do you really think that only 12 leaders will suffice? I sure don’t.
Actually that is easy. It’s the High Priest. I am sure he did not act alone in interpreting, he was in union with other priests, just as the Pope alone does not interpret scripture alone but in union with his bishops. The High Priest of Old Testament conducted councils just as the Catholic church as done.
This brings to mind our Lord’s use of the phrase “seat of Moses” (Matthew 23:1-3) when speaking of the Pharisees. Ruzz, let me know when you find references to the “seat of Moses” in your Old testament. I’ll be waiting. Also, has anyone already shown the parallel between Peter and Eliakim in Isaiah? If not (I may have missed it), read this:
I don’t follow a religion, I follow Jesus Christ. Christianity is based on Jesus Christ, not a church. No man has founded my “religion”. My “religion” is based on Jesus Christ, scripture (God’s Word) and some traditions of men that can be authenticated by scripture. We are not that different.
No. I don’t know how to make myself any clearer.
What is the name of the church at which you worship?
Not true. Orthodox, Lutherans, Anglicans, Episcopalians and Methodists all believe it is literal as well.
You are right. It is also why I get so confused when Catholics compare us to Lutherans. The Lutheran church I went to seemed identical to a Catholic ceremony. Othodox are to my understanding catholic or close cousins. There is great similarity. My friend who went to Episcopalian seminary described themselves as catholics without a pope although he also said the demand for a straight priest would guarantee him a post. Not something I think Rome would accept.
Christian Center.
So, it is a non-denominational church? Is it one of those new “mega-churches”?
religion
Mega-Churches?
