So your personal interpretation of this is that I’m a self-righteous hypocrite. My personal interpretation of this is (and remember, under your rules my interpretation is allowed and just as valid as yours) is that you’re a self-righteous hypocrite.
I say your example is absurd and you’re parsing words (and you don’t seem interested in a serious & intellectually honest discussion).
i am interested in an intellectual discussion, but you understand my point. How is your interpretation more valid then mine? Just because it differs from yours then it’s wrong?
Orange Man you’re finding this saying “hard”, and as the disciples in John 6:66 walking away and no longer following Christ.
This is a total misconstruction of the end of John 6. The disciples (who were not chosen by God) departed after Jesus revealed the spiritual nature of what He stated previously.
Which pastors and deacons?? Which church?
who was the head of the church during the time of Paul (hint, the same person who heads it today)? There were churches in various cities throughout Asia minor, each with its own pastors, deacons, and presbyters. There was no central governing authority (must less anything resembling the structure of todays Catholic Church).
According to your, personal apostolic authority to interpret it this way, if I’m correct?
This is the first time I ever heard about it and I’ll have to see sources before I believe it. In Catholic School I learned about corruption and abuses in the history of the Catholic Church but nothing bad about Luther.
“Anti-Semitism” is probably the wrong term either for Luther or for most of his contemporaries, because they were opposed to Jews for religious, not racial reasons. But Luther shared the prejudices of late medieval and early modern Christians generally, and he expressed those prejudices in his own uniquely forceful and vitriolic way. The result is very nasty and disturbing reading.
That is a flat out distortion of scripture.
And sure enough, your post cured any lonesomeness I may have had…!Please return to work … but, when you return, just provide the requested documentation to back up your claim of Protestant Unity. Really, that is all you have to do. It does not require your usual heat … just a little more light on the requested subject. A couple posts ago, I expressed confidence in your ability to do this… ah… but, my confidence in you is starting to falter!Wow, I take a couple days away from forums and I’m chastised for not responding. Are you all retired that you can’t understand someone might not have every moment free to debate?
Or maybe you are doing it while your bosses are paying you to do something else? I certainly hope that not the case, that would be stealing.
Cinette? have you contributed anything of value to this thread, or are you just here to criticize me? Just wondering…
I was making a point that ALL of the Apostle’s Creed is supported by Scripture. Are you suggesting that because I only gave an example the omitted verse must not be?I assure you the whole Creed is!
Or maybe you are using it as an opportunity to claim I don’t believe the whole Creed? :tsktsk:
I didn’t omit it to deny, but because I was making a point to which there was no reason to write the whole thing out - unless someone would deny the creed is supported by Scriptures. You don’t deny that, do you?
But let’s talk about the “One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church and the Communion of Saints”.
Do you realize that is not what the original creed actually said?
The Old Roman Creed, which was first quoted by Tertullian about A.D. 200, is the original creed believed to have been given us by the Apostles.
The Apostles Creed grew out of the old Roman creed, but you won’t find it in its present form until about A.D. 650.
Protestants use the later version of the creed, which includes the words, (9) “The Holy catholic Church, the communion of saints” Notice “catholic” with a small “c”?
I have to get back to work now, I have a heavy schedule this week and don’t have time for the nonsense being tossed around here.
Ginger
Tell 'ya what: in an effort to be a gentelman and not beat a topic to death … if you don’t respond in your next post, then that is OK. I have heard unsubstantiated claims on this list before…yours will not be the first or the last. And, if that is the way you want it, I will accept it that way. God bless,This is the first time I ever heard about it and I’ll have to see sources before I believe it. In Catholic School I learned about corruption and abuses in the history of the Catholic Church but nothing bad about Luther.
Daddums
If the word “spirit” in john 6 means “symbolic”, then show me somewhere else in the Bible that the word “spirit” meand “symbolic”. There is no where that it means “symbolic.”
There is evidence that these Churches did look to Rome for guidance (of course, there is Catholic scholarship on that fact, but you’ll refute right off because it’s Catholic
)In the original Greek in John 6 the word “eats” used by Christ was the Greek work “trogos” which meant an actual physical gnashing with teeth, chewing, biting. This horrified the disciples listening to Him because they knew He was literally telling them to eat (trogos) His Flesh. Nothing symbolic about that.
It seems like you have set up your own religion… with God in direct communications with you. This is a rather strong statement and one that I think you should think about … and, then think of all the times you fell short of the mark listening directly to God.
Well, here is the challenge: if scripture is SO PLAIN ENOUGH to be understood by all … why do so many Protestant religions have so many mutually exclusive interpretations. For example: Baptism - some say it is a good idea while other say it is a take-it-or-leave-it item and the CC says it is required, Eucharist - some say it is just a symbol, others say it is just a commeration and the CC says it is the Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity fo Christ Confession - some say, man must go directly to God and the CC says that Christ breathed on Apostles and delegated the authority to forgive sins to His Apostles (and by extension to their Successors).
I am not sure I can handle all of this already expressed kindness. But, just as a reminder, this is the CAF and instead of making ‘outlandish’ claims, how about just backing them up with some documentation.
