Why follow a religion made up by Martin Luther in 1500 and not Christ himself?

[Contarini]

How did I miss this one? Wow am I stupid. Micheal, I never knew you thought this way before.

I never got the impression that this is what you thought on Jesus.

Excuse me while I get sick to my stomach now.

Does *no one *on the Internet ever recognize satire when they see it?

Edwin

 

[Damascus]

Does *no one *on the Internet ever recognize satire when they see it?

Edwin

Edwin, I guess I need a vacation. I never saw GG posts as being anything less than serious at all times. Granted, I cant say I have read them all, but the ones I have have been very darn serious.

My mistake for being stupid. At least I know I am.

 

[jmcrae]

Why follow a religion made up by Martin Luther in 1500 and not Christ himself?

Very rational Q. But some may ask why should ppl follow 2000 years old Christ and not the God of Christ who had no beginning nor end?

Jesus Christ is that God. We see this in the first chapter of the Gospel of John, where John shows us that Jesus Himself is the Word that uttered forth and created all that is, ex nihilo.

We also see it the various times that Jesus calls Himself, “I AM,” the name given to Moses to identify the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob - the Creator of all.

 

[Mr.Ex_Nihilo]

Anyway, back to topic, I dont follow Martin Luther I follow Christ and the living breathing love letter He sent us–the bible.

But you realize that you yourself are part of the living, breathing love letter God sent to the world, right?
2 Corinthians 3:3:

You show that you are a letter from Christ, the result of our ministry, written not with ink but with the Spirit of the living God, not on tablets of stone but on tablets of human hearts.

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

Edwin, I guess I need a vacation. I never saw GG posts as being anything less than serious at all times. Granted, I cant say I have read them all, but the ones I have have been very darn serious.

My mistake for being stupid. At least I know I am.

Sorry about that confusion - I did seriously consider adding a note saying “These are not my own opinions” - but satire loses its point if it’s explained.​

And, of course, my apologies to anyone else who was upset, offended or scandalised by my bit of satire (Thanks, Edwin - :tiphat: )

It’s my own fault for being heavily theological almost all the time ##

 

[Damascus]

Sorry about that confusion - I did seriously consider adding a note saying “These are not my own opinions” - but satire loses its point if it’s explained.​

And, of course, my apologies to anyone else who was upset, offended or scandalised by my bit of satire (Thanks, Edwin - :tiphat: )

It’s my own fault for being heavily theological almost all the time ##

You’re good in my book GG.

 

[Steadfast]

I too would be very very interested in when Luther bragged about chasing the papal envoy out of his house with a stick, how this is equivalent to attempting to murder him and who this envoy was.

 

[rr1213]

Does *no one *on the Internet ever recognize satire when they see it?

Edwin

Yeah, I thought it was satire…then, again, it was *so *well done that ultimately I just wasn’t sure and decided not to comment so not to embarass myself one way or the other!

 

[Gilbert_Keith]

The bottom line is answering the question posed by this thread:

Were there any Lutherans (followers of his teachings) before Martin Luther?

If there were, I’ll eat my old Air Force brogans.

 

[boppaid]

The Bible would not contain this information, because the papacy, was created after the writings of the bible were finished.
I also hope you know where the Bible came from.

Huh? I thought the papacy was created in the NT, according to the CC? And the NT was written by the CC, according to the CC? Wouldn’t that be contradictory to what you’re saying here?

 

[Mickey]

The implied commonality was amusing considering Orthodox inability to accept the legitimacy of non-Orthodox orders (those of Catholics and others).

Your subtle prejudice is disheartening–but at least you are amused.

 

[jmcrae]

Huh? I thought the papacy was created in the NT, according to the CC?

That’s my understanding, as well. Peter was appointed “Chief Shepherd” of the Church in John 21:15-19, as the text makes very clear, when read without any preconceived ideas. The plain meaning of “Shepherd my sheep” is that Peter has now become the shepherd of Christ’s sheep.

And the NT was written by the CC, according to the CC? Wouldn’t that be contradictory to what you’re saying here?

The New Testament was written by those men whose direct successors now lead that Catholic Church whose modern-day headquarters are at the Vatican in Rome.

Looking at the time line of both the Bible and the Popes, we had actually had four Popes by the time St. John the Divine completed the last words of the Book of Revelation.

 

[Contarini]

The bottom line is answering the question posed by this thread:

Were there any Lutherans (followers of his teachings) before Martin Luther?

If there were, I’ll eat my old Air Force brogans.

Who cares? There weren’t any Thomists before Aquinas either.

Edwin

 

[jmcrae]

Who cares? There weren’t any Thomists before Aquinas either.

Edwin

Did St. Thomas come up with completely new doctrines, though?

 

[Contarini]

Did St. Thomas come up with completely new doctrines, though?

He certainly was responsible for the acceptance of ideas that hadn’t been as widespread before, such as created grace and the belief that the sacramental Body can be received by someone who doesn’t have faith.

However, that’s not the point. Quite possibly Lutherans should drop those ideas of Luther’s that were genuinely new.

Edwin

 

[Steadfast]

I heard that, in an attempt to confuse Luther at the Diet of Worms, Eckius touched Luther’s butt and made kissy noises at him through out his initial presentation.

 

[Damascus]

I heard that, in an attempt to confuse Luther at the Diet of Worms, Eckius touched Luther’s butt and made kissy noises at him through out his initial presentation.

I thought the funny part here is “attempt to confuse Luther”

LOL
LOL
LOL

 

[Steadfast]

I thought the funny part here is “attempt to confuse Luther”

LOL
LOL
LOL

Why is that funny? Do you have a doctorate in Sacred Scripture? They didn’t just hand them out even in the 16th century.

You can hate Luther for many things, and no doubt you do, but being confused isn’t one of them.

 

[jmcrae]

I heard that, in an attempt to confuse Luther at the Diet of Worms, Eckius touched Luther’s butt and made kissy noises at him through out his initial presentation.

It worked, too.

 

[lordgrog]

Your subtle prejudice is disheartening–but at least you are amused.

Awww…
I fear you may have taken me too seriously (I never make that mistake myself ), but subtlety’s definitely not one of my strengths, and amused is usually a good thing to be.

Cheers
C