Shocking things everyone should know about Luther

[Ginger2]

Hi, Ginger2,

Welcome back … it was getting a little lonesome… And sure enough, your post cured any lonesomeness I may have had…!

Ah, at the risk of repeating myself for the 4th time: the question was for you to provide the documentation on what Protestant religions claim the Apostles Creed

Yeah, yeah, yeah. I missed you too, I’m sure. I was just too busy to notice.

I believe I said "all Christians, both Protestant and Catholic.

As I have already clearly stated, The Apostle’s Creed is a summary of fundamental Christians beliefs.

If you don’t believe these basic and essential doctrines, you are not Christian.

If this is still to hard for you to understand, let me give a couple examples:

Jehovah Witness’ are not Christian (even tho they claim to be the only Christians) because they do not believe the fundamental Christian beliefs found in the Holy Scriptures and summarized in the Apostle’s Creed.

Baptists are Christians because they do believe the fundamental Christian beliefs found in the Holy Scriptures and summarized in the Apostle’s Creed.

How’s that?

 

[tqualey]

Hi, Orange_man,

Hey, now that is creative - gott’a hand it to you! Imagine… all those folks fooled by Christ who switched topics and content after those people who worried about cannibalism left the area! But, there is something else…

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.

Please explain how, on Christ’s last night on earth with the Disciples He loved - at their last meal … you know, at a time when you would think that clarity and understanding would be at their peak… Christ goes and fools them again, as recorded by Matthew, Mark and Luke into having them think they are actually eating His Body and Blood.

And, then Christ appears to Paul … and fools him, too! That is really something…

But, instead of the Author of Life and Truth fooling people … what do you say, you just read the words in your Bible as opposed to reading around them. Christ was not fooling anyone - He spelled out the basic truth of the Eucharist: hidden under the appearance of Bread and Wine is the Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity of Jesus Christ, the Second Person of the Blessed Trinity, True God and True Man.

Now, I have my own theory. To actually have the Consecration of common bread and wine into the Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity of Jesus Christ, you have to have an ordained priest. But, these guys don’t just happen to come along - and they all happen to be united to the Catholic Church… you know, the Chruch founded by Christ on Peter as the Rock… and the one the Protestants broke away from. Yeah, that one! Well, since whatever heretical priests (Luther, Calvin, etc.) were around then would quickly die out and then where would the Protestants be? Maybe it would be better at the very beginning to claim this consecration of the Eucharist concept is just a big misunderstanding, and then mis-read Christ’s own very clear words.

This is just a theory… but, at not point does it call the words of Christ (as recorded in your own Bible) into any question.

God bless

 

[tqualey]

Hi, Ginger2

“How is that?” In a word: Poor.

Yeah, yeah, yeah. I missed you too, I’m sure. I was just too busy to notice.

I believe I said "all Christians, both Protestant and Catholic.

As I have already clearly stated, The Apostle’s Creed is a summary of fundamental Christians beliefs.

If you don’t believe these basic and essential doctrines, you are not Christian.

If this is still to hard for you to understand, let me give a couple examples:

Jehovah Witness’ are not Christian (even tho they claim to be the only Christians) because they do not believe the fundamental Christian beliefs found in the Holy Scriptures and summarized in the Apostle’s Creed.

Baptists are Christians because they do believe the fundamental Christian beliefs found in the Holy Scriptures and summarized in the Apostle’s Creed.

How’s that?

The issue was never, “Is the Apostle’s Creed a summary of fundamental Christian beliefs?”

Your post fails for two basic reasons:

1- Failure to provide any of the requested documentation for the claims you assert.

2- Failure to stay with basic question (as a reminder [again!] you assert that there is unified belief amongst Protestants and this is based on the Apostles Creed.) But this does not explain the multiplicity of beliefs held by all of these many (as in tens of thousands) Protestant religions, sects, cults, and groups.

Based on the total lack of evidence you have brought to this discussion that Protestants are united in belief based upon the Apostles Creed, I think you have succeeded in disproving your own case. There is no unified Protestant belief - there are, however a multitude of Protestant statements that are mutually contradictory towards one another.

I would really recommend two things:

1.) that, when it comes to others, you be less demanding on them to provide documentation… it is embarrassing to see you fail so badly in this area when asked to do the same, and,

2.) please continue to stay busy…

God bless

 

[orange_man]

Hi, Orange_man,

Hey, now that is creative - gott’a hand it to you! Imagine… all those folks fooled by Christ who switched topics and content after those people who worried about cannibalism left the area! But, there is something else…

Please explain how, on Christ’s last night on earth with the Disciples He loved - at their last meal … you know, at a time when you would think that clarity and understanding would be at their peak… Christ goes and fools them again, as recorded by Matthew, Mark and Luke into having them think they are actually eating His Body and Blood.

And, then Christ appears to Paul … and fools him, too! That is really something…

But, instead of the Author of Life and Truth fooling people … what do you say, you just read the words in your Bible as opposed to reading around them. Christ was not fooling anyone - He spelled out the basic truth of the Eucharist: hidden under the appearance of Bread and Wine is the Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity of Jesus Christ, the Second Person of the Blessed Trinity, True God and True Man.

Now, I have my own theory. To actually have the Consecration of common bread and wine into the Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity of Jesus Christ, you have to have an ordained priest. But, these guys don’t just happen to come along - and they all happen to be united to the Catholic Church… you know, the Chruch founded by Christ on Peter as the Rock… and the one the Protestants broke away from. Yeah, that one! Well, since whatever heretical priests (Luther, Calvin, etc.) were around then would quickly die out and then where would the Protestants be? Maybe it would be better at the very beginning to claim this consecration of the Eucharist concept is just a big misunderstanding, and then mis-read Christ’s own very clear words.

This is just a theory… but, at not point does it call the words of Christ (as recorded in your own Bible) into any question.

God bless

I don’t say that … nor do I reject the doctrine of “real presence.” I’m really not sure what you’re point is?? Do you want to argue we actually eat flesh (or bread turns into flesh as it lowers itself down our larynx into our stomachs)? Or do you say Jesus’ words are spiritual in nature? Please explain your position …

 

[Alethiaphile]

You answered none of my questions (I’ll respond to your questions when you respond to mine) and when you did reply you offered a trite response.

What was the name of the Church Christ established, and how did others (non-christians) describe it, i.e., what was it refered to has.

Many times “the catholic (small “c”) Church”, sometimes “the Catholic Church”, often the “Orthodox Church” (hmmmm) sometimes “The Church of Christ” (double hmmmm). Joe

 

[bobregan]

I don’t say that … nor do I reject the doctrine of “real presence.” I’m really not sure what you’re point is?? Do you want to argue we actually eat flesh (or bread turns into flesh as it lowers itself down our larynx into our stomachs)? Or do you say Jesus’ words are spiritual in nature? Please explain your position …

“Truly, truly, I say to you, unless you eat the Flesh of the Son of man and drink His Blood, you have no life within you; he who eats My Flesh and drinks My Blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day. For My Flesh is food indeed, and My Blood is drink indeed. He who eats My Flesh and drinks My Blood abides in Me, and I in him.”

Most Protestants are accustomed to being questioned on this particular passage, and they explain, more or less, that it is symbolic. But the Jews certainly understood that He was speaking literally. Jn 6:52 “How can this man give us his Flesh to eat?” On other occasions when our Lord spoke of Himself as a Jn 10:9 “door” or a Jn 15:1 “vine,” nobody said, “How can this man be made of wood?” or “How can this man be a plant?” They recognized these as metaphors. But when Jesus insisted, Jn 6:53 “Unless you eat the Flesh of the Son of man and drink His Blood, you have no life in you; he who eats My Flesh and drinks My Blood has eternal life,” the Jews demurred, Jn 6:60 “This is a hard saying; who can listen to it?”

Jewish life is rich in symbolism. The Seder table is filled with symbolic foods. Jesus said, Mt 26:23 “He who has dipped his hand in the dish with Me, will betray Me.” He referred to the urhatz, the first washing; slaves eat quickly without stopping to wash their hands, but now Jews wash their hands in a bowl of warm water as a symbol of their freedom. The moror, bitter herbs which remind Jews that the Egyptians made their ancestors’ lives bitter with hard labor, are dipped in charoset, a sweet mixture of chopped apples, nuts, and wine, to recall that even hard lives have their sweet moments. The matzo is the bread of haste that the Hebrews ate as they fled from Egypt. The karpas, green vegetables, represent the coming of Spring with its renewal of life, symbolizing the journey from slavery to the promised land; Jews dip them in salt water before eating to recall the tears shed along the way. If Jesus had said the Holy Eucharist was a symbol the Jews at Capernaum would instantly have accepted it. Their protest, Jn 6:60 “This is a hard saying; who can listen to it,” proves that Jesus’ congregation understood that He was speaking literally.
If our Protestant friend agrees that the Bible is literally true, but insists that in John 6 Jesus was speaking metaphorically, we can ask him to read aloud the three Gospel narratives of the Last Supper. Matthew: 26:26 “This is My Body.” 26:27 “This is My Blood…” Mark: 14:22 “This is My Body.” 14:24 “This is My Blood…” Luke: 22:19 “This is My Body.” 22:20 “This … is the New Covenant in My Blood.” Jesus said: THIS IS. No Bible-believing Christian can say, “This is not.”

One Body

 

[bobregan]

I don’t say that … nor do I reject the doctrine of “real presence.” I’m really not sure what you’re point is?? Do you want to argue we actually eat flesh (or bread turns into flesh as it lowers itself down our larynx into our stomachs)? Or do you say Jesus’ words are spiritual in nature? Please explain your position …

For Fundamentalist writers, the scriptural argument is capped by an appeal to John 6:63: “It is the spirit that gives life, the flesh is of no avail; the words that I have spoken to you are spirit and life.” They say this means that eating real flesh is a waste. But does this make sense?

Are we to understand that Christ had just commanded his disciples to eat his flesh, then said their doing so would be pointless? Is that what “the flesh is of no avail” means? “Eat my flesh, but you’ll find it’s a waste of time”—is that what he was saying? Hardly.

The fact is that Christ’s flesh avails much! If it were of no avail, then the Son of God incarnated for no reason, he died for no reason, and he rose from the dead for no reason. Christ’s flesh profits us more than anyone else’s in the world. If it profits us nothing, so that the incarnation, death, and resurrection of Christ are of no avail, then “your faith is futile and you are still in your sins. Then those also who have fallen asleep in Christ have perished” (1 Cor. 15:17b–18).

In John 6:63 “flesh profits nothing” refers to mankind’s inclination to think using only what their natural human reason would tell them rather than what God would tell them. Thus in John 8:15–16 Jesus tells his opponents: “You judge according to the flesh, I judge no one. Yet even if I do judge, my judgment is true, for it is not I alone that judge, but I and he who sent me.” So natural human judgment, unaided by God’s grace, is unreliable; but God’s judgment is always true.

And were the disciples to understand the line “The words I have spoken to you are spirit and life” as nothing but a circumlocution (and a very clumsy one at that) for “symbolic”? No one can come up with such interpretations unless he first holds to the Fundamentalist position and thinks it necessary to find a rationale, no matter how forced, for evading the Catholic interpretation. In John 6:63 “flesh” does not refer to Christ’s own flesh—the context makes this clear—but to mankind’s inclination to think on a natural, human level. “The words I have spoken to you are spirit” does not mean “What I have just said is symbolic.” The word “spirit” is never used that way in the Bible. The line means that what Christ has said will be understood only through faith; only by the power of the Spirit and the drawing of the Father (cf. John 6:37, 44–45, 65).

 

[bobregan]

I don’t say that … nor do I reject the doctrine of “real presence.” I’m really not sure what you’re point is?? Do you want to argue we actually eat flesh (or bread turns into flesh as it lowers itself down our larynx into our stomachs)? Or do you say Jesus’ words are spiritual in nature? Please explain your position …

Paul wrote to the Corinthians: “The cup of blessing which we bless, is it not a participation in the blood of Christ? The bread which we break, is it not a participation in the body of Christ?” (1 Cor. 10:16). So when we receive Communion, we actually participate in the body and blood of Christ, not just eat symbols of them. Paul also said, “Therefore whoever eats the bread and drinks the cup of the Lord unworthily will have to answer for the body and blood of the Lord. . . . For any one who eats and drinks without discerning the body, eats and drinks judgment on himself” (1 Cor. 11:27, 29). “To answer for the body and blood” of someone meant to be guilty of a crime as serious as homicide. How could eating mere bread and wine “unworthily” be so serious? Paul’s comment makes sense only if the bread and wine became the real body and blood of Christ.

 

[kalt]

Yeah, yeah, yeah. I missed you too, I’m sure. I was just too busy to notice.

I believe I said "all Christians, both Protestant and Catholic.

As I have already clearly stated, The Apostle’s Creed is a summary of fundamental Christians beliefs.

If you don’t believe these basic and essential doctrines, you are not Christian.

If this is still to hard for you to understand, let me give a couple examples:

Jehovah Witness’ are not Christian (even tho they claim to be the only Christians) because they do not believe the fundamental Christian beliefs found in the Holy Scriptures and summarized in the Apostle’s Creed.

Baptists are Christians because they do believe the fundamental Christian beliefs found in the Holy Scriptures and summarized in the Apostle’s Creed.

How’s that?

But what do you believe about the communion of saints?

 

[kalt]

Ginger2, you asked for proof of what a Protestant church teaches about salvation. I posted it, and yet you didn’t respond. Will you comment on what that particular Protestant church teaches?

 

[Ginger2]

Hi, Ginger2

2- Failure to stay with basic question (as a reminder [again!] you assert that there is unified belief amongst Protestants and this is based on the Apostles Creed.) But this does not explain the multiplicity of beliefs held by all of these many (as in tens of thousands) Protestant religions, sects, cults, and groups.

You need to go back and reread my posts. You are misrepresenting what I said.

My assertion is that ALL CHRISTIANS believe the same fundamental biblical doctrines. To show those doctrines are unified among Christians I pointed out they are summarized in the Apostle’s Creed. And anyone who does not believe these fundamentals is not a Christian.

1- Failure to provide any of the requested documentation for the claims you assert.

Why don’t you name two or three denominations and I’ll look up the doctrines.

 

[Ginger2]

But what do you believe about the communion of saints?

It’s Biblical! even tho it is not in the original creed.

1st Corinthians 12:
As a body is one though it has many parts, and all the parts of the body, though many, are one body, so also Christ…there are many parts, yet one body. If [one] part suffers, all the parts suffer with it; if one part is honored, all the parts share its joy.

 

[Ginger2]

Ginger2, you asked for proof of what a Protestant church teaches about salvation. I posted it, and yet you didn’t respond. Will you comment on what that particular Protestant church teaches?

I thought I responded to examples already. I guess I missed that post.

Show me the number or link and I will look at it.

If I don’t answer immediately, it is because I am not going to be sitting in front of my PC all weekend .

Ginger

 

[Hisalone]

Hi, Orange_man,

Hey, now that is creative - gott’a hand it to you! Imagine… all those folks fooled by Christ who switched topics and content after those people who worried about cannibalism left the area! But, there is something else…

Please explain how, on Christ’s last night on earth with the Disciples He loved - at their last meal … you know, at a time when you would think that clarity and understanding would be at their peak… Christ goes and fools them again, as recorded by Matthew, Mark and Luke into having them think they are actually eating His Body and Blood.

And, then Christ appears to Paul … and fools him, too! That is really something…

But, instead of the Author of Life and Truth fooling people … what do you say, you just read the words in your Bible as opposed to reading around them. Christ was not fooling anyone - He spelled out the basic truth of the Eucharist: hidden under the appearance of Bread and Wine is the Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity of Jesus Christ, the Second Person of the Blessed Trinity, True God and True Man.

Now, I have my own theory. To actually have the Consecration of common bread and wine into the Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity of Jesus Christ, you have to have an ordained priest. But, these guys don’t just happen to come along - and they all happen to be united to the Catholic Church… you know, the Chruch founded by Christ on Peter as the Rock… and the one the Protestants broke away from. Yeah, that one! Well, since whatever heretical priests (Luther, Calvin, etc.) were around then would quickly die out and then where would the Protestants be? Maybe it would be better at the very beginning to claim this consecration of the Eucharist concept is just a big misunderstanding, and then mis-read Christ’s own very clear words.

This is just a theory… but, at not point does it call the words of Christ (as recorded in your own Bible) into any question.

God bless

First off all the disciples in John 6 hadno clue what Jesus was talking about . Some left yet some stayed the ones that stayed, stayed because they trusted in Jesus as Peter said “whom shall we go”. They did not say because they believed that they would literally eat the flesh and drink the blood of Jesus.
You are correct in saying that Jesus cleared up te whole issue by saying “it is spirit that givews life the flesh profits nothing”“the words I have spoken are spirit and life”.
Christ fools no one that listens. If you listen to his words with your spirit you are not fooled. If you listen with your carnal ear looking not of the things of the spirit but of the flesh you are fooled.
At the Last Supper Jesus held up a piece of bread and said “this is my body” He was sitting right there was His body the bread or was His body that which was sitting there. Jesus was instituting a memorial so eac time we partake of te Lords Supper He is truely there. Not in flesh and blood but in spirit and life.

 

[bobregan]

First off all the disciples in John 6 hadno clue what Jesus was talking about . Some left yet some stayed the ones that stayed, stayed because they trusted in Jesus as Peter said “whom shall we go”. They did not say because they believed that they would literally eat the flesh and drink the blood of Jesus.
You are correct in saying that Jesus cleared up te whole issue by saying “it is spirit that givews life the flesh profits nothing”“the words I have spoken are spirit and life”.
Christ fools no one that listens. If you listen to his words with your spirit you are not fooled. If you listen with your carnal ear looking not of the things of the spirit but of the flesh you are fooled.
At the Last Supper Jesus held up a piece of bread and said “this is my body” He was sitting right there was His body the bread or was His body that which was sitting there. Jesus was instituting a memorial so eac time we partake of te Lords Supper He is truely there. Not in flesh and blood but in spirit and life.

Read my above posts, then comment…no where is Christ in John 6 speaking symbolicially…no where in scripture does the word “spirit” mean “symbolic”. Christ at the Last Supper did not say “This REPRESENTS SYMBOLICALLY My Body.”

Look up early Church fathers and Eucharist, claiming the same on the Eucharist as the Catholic Church…

 

[Hisalone]

Read my above posts, then comment…no where is Christ in John 6 speaking symbolicially…no where in scripture does the word “spirit” mean “symbolic”. Christ at the Last Supper did not say “This REPRESENTS SYMBOLICALLY My Body.”

Look up early Church fathers and Eucharist, claiming the same on the Eucharist as the Catholic Church…

Bob there is a difference beween spirit and symbol. Jesus was speaking spiritually. “My words are spirit”
All of John 6 Jesus was speaking spiritually. At te Last Supper Jesus again was speaking spiritually. Why would e say the bread is His body and at te same time His body was sitting(more correctly reclinning) right there

 

[bobregan]

Bob there is a difference beween spirit and symbol. Jesus was speaking spiritually. “My words are spirit”
All of John 6 Jesus was speaking spiritually. At te Last Supper Jesus again was speaking spiritually. Why would e say the bread is His body and at te same time His body was sitting(more correctly reclinning) right there

That is part of the Mystery…Christ, heaven, God do not participate in the human, mortal, earthly definition of “time and space” as we do. The Eucharist is a “piece of Heaven” that we will never fully understand till we get to Heaven because we are finite mortals.

I know this is a little confusing, but gotta run here, in a bit of a rush…i’ll try and explain a little clearer when I get a chance.

 

[fiddler927]

Luther repented of those views before he died. That should also be told.

 

[orange_man]

Read my above posts, then comment…no where is Christ in John 6 speaking symbolicially…no where in scripture does the word “spirit” mean “symbolic”. Christ at the Last Supper did not say “This REPRESENTS SYMBOLICALLY My Body.”

Look up early Church fathers and Eucharist, claiming the same on the Eucharist as the Catholic Church…

there’s a difference between symbolic representation and real presence (in a spiritual sense). This represents some of the differences between Zwingli and Calvin.

 

[kalt]

It’s Biblical! even tho it is not in the original creed.

1st Corinthians 12:
As a body is one though it has many parts, and all the parts of the body, though many, are one body, so also Christ…there are many parts, yet one body. If [one] part suffers, all the parts suffer with it; if one part is honored, all the parts share its joy.

So what does that mean about the communion of saints?

Obviously, I’m pointing out that, though Christians recite the creed and believe what they are saying, there isn’t a universal Christian belief about what those words mean.

This from SBC.net.

“All true believers endure to the end. Those whom God has accepted in Christ, and sanctified by His Spirit, will never fall away from the state of grace, but shall persevere to the end. Believers may fall into sin through neglect and temptation, whereby they grieve the Spirit, impair their graces and comforts, and bring reproach on the cause of Christ and temporal judgments on themselves; yet they shall be kept by the power of God through faith unto salvation.”

“will never fall away from the state of grace”

I think that when someone commits mortal sins, he does fall away from the state of grace. What is sin, if it’s not falling from grace?

The SBC obviously believes that “true believers” who sin do so without fear of falling away from grace. In other words, their willful denial of Christ’s instruction (to follow the commandments), makes no difference.

It says, explicitly, that those who are “true believers” will suffer no permanent consequence no matter what they do.

It also says that “they shall be kept by the power of God through faith unto salvation.”

They’re saying that once someone becomes a believer, God will never let them fall away from the faith. In other words, once they become a believer, they lose their free will to accept or reject God’s offer of salvation.

This isn’t about the sinner persevering to the end, but is about God persevering to your end. In contrast, the Bible tells us that WE are to persevere.