Perhaps Protestants really want an absolute certainty of their faith, which they believe can only be found in a book, the book, the Bible. It is a romanticized notion that God gives them a Book, and that Book is to be the only and final authority for everything. Ordinary protestants wouldn’t want to know too much about how the Bible came about. They only want to believe by faith that this is the Word of God, and that’s it for them. No one else will trump the authority of the Bible. No one else could tell them how to interpret the Bible. It is between them and the Bible. They want to keep things simple.
More ok than the first two – at least it attempts to be charitable. My point was this. If you’re being uncharitable it doesn’t matter what you so – no one is listening anyway.So you’re OK with the third post in this thread?
Who decided that the four Gospel accounts were legitimately apostolic, and when was it decided?
Mark 10 said:
I have no problem with the style and that is what my original post commented on was the style of the first two posts. I refuse to participate in a material way in a thread whose entire intent (as evidenced by the title) is disrespect to one’s brothers and sisters in Christ.
Dear Drawmack,
It is very delightful to hear your meditation. You obviously have thought a lot about life and spirituality. Your analysis on Catholicism and other christian thoughts seems to be right on target.That is an interesting question.
I don’t know anything about any word “Alone” in Romans 3, but I think that most Christians kinda worship the man more than the divine aspect. Catholics swear on their lives that they’re eating the true flesh and blood… and not just the Word and Spirit of Jesus, like some “sects” might believe. And from the way most Catholics on here make it seem, the Protestants almost seem to worship the physical book itself more than the Word.
Christian Scientists actually don’t even consider the material world to be real, which is actually an important key message of Christ Jesus, which they literally put the divine part before the man. They believe in the Spirit of God and the Spirit of man, and somehow Christ is a connection (just an example?) between the two, citing a passage like this:
At the same time, I am attracted to Catholocism, because if Christ were real… I would want to know that history so I could prove it to those in disbelief. Christian Science is a bit of a kooky idea to just jump from “everything is spiritual” to “therefore, I can heal people like Christ Jesus so long as all us Christian Scientists can forget about the material world for just a minute”. But all religions are kooky to an extent.
But I like the idea that the Spirit is more important than the man. Some people think they can prove a spiritual world and that souls are real. I’d like to see the argument, but it is strange that God and Spirit are pretty key to probly 85% of the world’s population. So there’s not much argument there, as far as I’m concerned.
Perhaps “The Kingdom of God Is Within You” is all we really need to know… but wouldn’t proving to agnostics that people really did die by the thousands because they witnessed a Resurrection of a 100%/100% God/Man be extremely important to you?? I think it would be my new lifelong plan if I had historical evidence to link Yeshua 100% with the Creator and His Spirit(s). If the Catholics had real, honest to goodness evidence that Christ truly became man to deliver this message, was hung on a cross, thrown in a tomb, and then people saw the tomb was empty and even saw the Resurrected Christ Jesus appearing to thousands of people… I’d love to share these facts with the world in a comprehensive manner. If that could be proved, I’d convert to Catholocism today and share the message with the emphasis that it IS 100% truth in both the material, physical world and the spiritual world and Word.
Some things I think I’ll never know.
I would not wish to disrespect you Drawmack.
Absolutely.
I think that discussions like this one always fair better when everyone involved speaks only about what and why they believe what they believe. Leave conjecture about what and why others believe what they believe out of it.
Hey, I say symbols of the Catholic Church on Dan Brown’s latest cover. And your statement proves as much as mine.
First please define and support “extreme Antisemetic” then provide quotes from Luther that back this up and then be ready for quotes from Popes through the centuries. You see even if he was antisemetic a personal attack against Luther proves nothing more than the myriad personal attacks which can be lodged against any Pope. If you wish to discredit Luther’s theology it must be done on the basis of the theology just as anyone who wishes to discredit the Catholic Church’s theology must do so on the basis of the Catholic Church’s theology and not by attacking individual Popes.
Please provide one Bible translated by Luther which does not include all the same books as the Catholic Bible.
First of all, Halloween was not yet celebrated at the time when Luther posted his thesis. Secondly, Halloween actually began as a Christian holiday when the Christian Children would mock the pagan religions. Thirdly, the nailing of the thesis was the accepted means of asking for a debate in those days.
You are a conspiracy theorist nut job.