That’s just more of anti-Catholic propaganda.
Do you believe in the Apostles more than in Christ?
hmm, i stated that these were from a link I posted. Also, I have noticed if someone quotes scripture you immediately refute it and give your interpretation. Just look at what you did with John 6.
Christ often spoke metaphorically, but he also spoke literaly too. Christ said he was the door, of course he isn’t physically an actuall door, he is the door that leads us to His Father.
Your sources would give you a very general and very broad understanding of history much like Western Civ I and II taught at most colleges. I guess I should admit that I have loved history since I was a child and that I have 50 some odd college hours in history at both the undergraduate and graduate level. My education in history is vastly incomplete - I only need to attend a Civil Wary Round Table Symposium to be remined of that.
Old scholar: You are really giving my heart a workout on this thread. Please. You do not know all about the Albigensians or Cathars anymore than you know all about the Pelagians and what you think you know about the Magesterium, you don’t. I am perfectly willing to discuss history with you but slogans are not the stuff of which history is made.
Old Scholar: Let me give you one more insight into my modus operandi. First we are way off-base for the thread because the events described above are not events of the Middle Ages. Albigensianism and Catharism are but we get right back to that pesky reading problem.
**I apologize if I offended you. That was not my intent. You wanted my opinion and I gave it. In fact, in looking back and reading your posts, it has mostly been others who ignore Scriptures when answering my posts. I also apologize for putting you in their category.Nice dodge.
Answer the rest of my questions as to your children.
Maybe you should ask about my grandchildren and my great-grandchildren. I can assure you they are all being taught properly. I have no fear about them reading the Watchtower or reading the book of Mormon. They understand what Christ actually taught.
Church Militant;3348605:
As for sources… what did the Albigeneses teach, and is it consistent with Bible based Christianity?
(This oughtta be good…)
Oh… and the next time you take a cheapshot dig at my Catholic faith with a remark like that, I will report you to the mods. If I said something similar about your religion you’d be on that button on me in a New York heartbeat. You know full well that that kind of remark is offensive…but you “Christian charity” doesn’t work when it comes to your faith sharing apparently.
If I have to be considerate of your religion, then those same rules apply to you as well.
I’m sure there were reformers all throughout the years but if you will check your secular history books and even your Catholic Encyclopedia, you will find that the Catholic Reformation was started by Pope Pius IV in 1560, just as I said. Besides, Luther was only complaining about indulgences. It was not his intention to become a reformer. It was the church that drove him away. He didn’t leave the church and start a reformation. Read your history!!!
**Without the apostles, we would not know of Christ, would we?
The next time you take communion, look at the bread carefully to see if it is flesh and look carefully at the wine(if your church even lets you drink it, many RCCs don’t get to do so, even with the command) and see if it is wine or blood. If it “actually” turns into blood, then you would know, wouldn’t you? Or is it symbolic?
**I have no problem with what you said. In theology classes we were taught to establish our hermeneutics and rule of faith properly and I have attempted to do so. The only place I can not do what I like is with Hebrew, Greek, Aramaic and such languages. Unfortunately I never did learn those languages and I wish I had. But I do know how to study properly. I wish more did.
**Well this certainly is not the place for that.
**I wouldn’t disagree with most of what you say, however, how do you discuss such topics as these when those with whom you are discussing are not allowed to disagree with their teaching and even discouraged from reading Scripture?
I guess we will just have to disagree. I understand how you feel because I used to feel and see things the same way. Even when I would look around and see what a “mixed bag” the majority of protestant churches were. Even the ones in the same denomination can’t agree on the same pieces of scripture at times.
Jesus did correct them. Re-read John 6 completely and you will see that no one left after this teaching that starts around verse 35 and continues until verse 58. They started grumbling in verse 60 and then Jesus asks if this offended them. Then asked what if they saw HIM ascend to where he came from in verse 62. Then he clarifies and states in verse 63 that the flesh means nothing, it is the spirit that gives life. Then he states also in verse 63 that the words he had spoken, those of eating his body and blood, were spirit and life. Then in verse 64 Jesus confirms that there are those who do not believe. It’s not until after this in verse 66 that many walked away and stopped following HIM. So Jesus gave plenty of clarification for everyone to hear. Those that truly believed in HIM stayed. The others left.
Not sure what you are asking here but Paul as Jesus did, says that the cup is the new covenant in Jesus blood. The covenant is in blood, the blood of the cross. The cup represents it. Neither Jesus nor Paul say this cup of my blood is the new covenant. So obviously the cup is a symbol of the covenant. The cup is not in blood, the covenant is. Then both Jesus and Paul both use the word anamnesis which in Greek means memorial, or as a reminder.
Why eat the flesh if Jesus says the flesh means nothing?
It may be Biblical but that doesn’t mean the interpretation is right.
Teadough what’s up my Brother
I am doing well,but you really got my mind moving. Or is it the paint fumes from painting the floor at work today?
