I have questions for Catholics: Did you eat Jesus today? Does that mean you're saved? If you died tonight, would you go to heaven? If you pooped and then died before eating Jesus again, would you go to hell?
Apostle Paul never prays to Mary, tells anyone to honor her or talk about her, and in thirteen Pauline Epistles, there is not ONE MENTION of Mary as a "mediatrix," "intercessor," "gate to heaven" or any other blasphemous title attributed to her in the official Roman Catholic books (nihil obstat) written by Catholic cardinals and bishops.
Apostle Paul never prays to Mary, tells anyone to honor her or talk about her, and in thirteen Pauline Epistles, there is not ONE MENTION of Mary as a "mediatrix," "intercessor," "gate to heaven" or any other blasphemous title attributed to her in the official Roman Catholic books (nihil obstat) written by Catholic cardinals and bishops.
The Roman Catholic Church teaches unbiblical doctorines and celebrates Pagan holidays like Christmas and Easter Also pray to Saints and Mary which is completely unbiblical.
@Mcstroke57 You can copy and paste this everywhere you want, but it's still false. You haven't answered my objections to why you reject the Trinity yet. I understand if you don't answer, because your opinion isn't in line with Biblical teaching and thus has no backing.
You should really stop trying to defame the Catholic Church, because it is the Church Christ founded. I can assure you that Christ would not approve of this. Please try reading the Early Church Fathers. God bless.
If he wanted to keep the early traditions he shouldn't use the trinity in baptism.
The early church baptized in the name of Jesus.
Found in catholic encyclopedia volume 2 page 263. Also Matthew 28:19 is by most "historical" scholars considered out of place just as much as 1John5:7.
As proof, the bible contradicts the name to baptize in. And that my friends is because the belief of the trinity is a pagan concept brought in by early pagan converts! Praise G-d.
70A.D.? Impressive!Since everyone else states late 1st century/early 2nd century.The trinity was promoted mainly by Greek pagan converts.The form of the trinity absolutely parallels Plato's description of the Greek triune god(s).The oldest and probably the original form of the Trinity is that found in the Brahmin and Hindoo systems- the terms of which are-1.Brahma,the Father or supreme God.2.Vishnu,the incarnate Word and Creator.3.Siva,the Spirit of God, i.e.,the Holy Spirit.
@onemarktwoyou Showing that there are parallel beliefs in other religions does nothing to prove or disprove the Trinity - that's a textbook logical fallacy. Besides, the example that I showed you shows that the apostles, the original twelve followers of Christ, believed in baptizing in the name of the Trinity. Your claim is that the early Church did otherwise. There is likely no better example of you being incorrect than the apostles telling you, as they do in this quote from the Didache. GB
Not just the parallel, but the exact interruption as well. Greek education, Greek mythology, this was thought to almost every educated person in all the areas of interest here!
You stated a book without an author, without a source,and amazingly some have corrupted the date it must have been written.Closest date at pin point would be at the turn of the second century.
If you want to ignore what the catholic encyclopedia says about baptism, that is your right. Hope your not catholic.
@onemarktwoyou Well I'd prefer to read it online for ease, so you can either give me the part of the document you'd like for me to focus on or I'll bid you a good night.
@onemarktwoyou Please tell me what it is about the form in which people are baptized in Catholicism that you object to so I can find that part of the entry and read it for myself.
What is wrong with catholics? What makes them unable to read a BOOK. Even given the page number!
Not allowed to read the bible I know! But also their own encyclopedia as well?
I have listen to catholic apologist say you shouldn't read the bible because people are not capable to understand for themselves. When dogma is held higher than the scriptures itself.
@onemarktwoyou Listen, I'm not sure who you think you are or what makes you so high and mighty, but you've been nothing but impolite in our conversation. Why would I want to chase down a book to read a page of it for some random person who is spewing out hate, bashing my Church, and misrepresenting my beliefs?
It never ceases to amaze me when people (even self proclaimed Christians) expect people to respond to such rudeness. I mean this with all sincerity; please consider what Christ would do.
Repeating the same thing over and over, because someone can't or won't pick up a book is irritating!
Your "belief" rejects people reading the bible. Setting dogma above Holy scripture.
Wanting to get all your information off the computer is laziness! If you want someone to tell you whats in a book, why even ask a question. The truth can be found in a book.
Books have a specific smell and feel to them. They are unique in the fact if you read them then you will know what they say!
@onemarktwoyou I'm in dental school and I spend tons of time reading already, so I have no desire whatsoever to chase down a book for someone that continues to misrepresent my faith.
Your misrepresentations:
1) "Setting dogma above Scripture". Patently false. Since you're so fond of books, try reading paragraphs 74-82 in the Catechism. If you'd like, I'll provide you with a link.
2) "Not allowed to read the Bible" I try to read the Bible every day, and my Church encourages me to do so.
I am shocked if in fact you read the bible! I am impressed by any person who does so.
Yet amazed that you would still believe that a priest could be an intercessor.
Or by the history of the bishops of Rome, to believe in their infallibility.
When in fact pope JP2 committed apostasy by pronouncing the qur'an as holy. And there was no action taken in Rome to even deny that a book rejecting Jesus's divinity, could be holy. They were silent! It also says Jesus did not die on the cross.
@onemarktwoyou I'm not aware that BJP2 called the qur'an holy. I am aware of the scandal associated with a certain event/picture, but he was either misunderstood in his actions or he was flat out wrong for doing so. Private statements, opinions, etc aren't covered under infallibility - only official statements on faith and morals.
Paul tells us all to be intercessors for one another in prayer, does he not?
Have you ever read the writings of the early Christians by chance? You might enjoy them.
You are willing to state JP2 was wrong in calling the qur'an holy? That is a new one on me! Most catholics wrongly believe that the pope infallibility is in all matters all the time(even though they know the churches teachings). Although when it originally started I do believe it was. Even though at least two past popes rejected the whole concept of popal infallibility.
I stated no one I've heard in the vatican rejected JP2 actions. I would reject any leader who rejects Jesus.
@onemarktwoyou I said that if JP2 said the qur'an was actually holy (and not just a book that is used by another religion as their "holy book") then I would think he was wrong. Do you have the original source quote?
Also, I'm not sure what Catholics you're talking to, but it's a well known fact that infallibility only covers certain instances. We can look at Peter, the first pope, as an example of this. Multiple times in his private opinions and actions he was wrong, (continued)
@onemarktwoyou but in his full capacity as "Rock" (the title Christ gave him) when speaking on faith and morals, the entire Church takes his word as final. (See Acts 15 - after Peter spoke on the issue the whole assembly "became silent", and the discussion moved to other topics). I'm quite confident that what I'm telling you has always been believed by the faithful. If you have evidence to the contrary, feel free to share it. God bless.
No one argues against Peter as the Rock. The question is...is Rome the church?
The original church shared, until Rome size grew disproportional to the other areas.
There is no proof that the bishop of Rome is the true heir to the keys. Nor is it proof that they could have been handed down. Especially in a popularity contest behind closed doors. If you examine this from the bible's point of view then Peter's children and line would hold the covenant.
@onemarktwoyou Let me ask you an honest question. Who can answer the question of whether Jesus meant for the keys to be passed down better - you, or the early Christians?
The Papacy is of pagan origin. The title of pope or universal bishop, was first given to the bishop of Rome by the wicked emperor Phocas
Jesus did not appoint Peter to the headship of the apostles and forbade any such notion. (Luke 22:24-26; Ephesians 1:22-23; Colossians 1:18; 1st Corinthians 3:11).
@Mcstroke57 Your logic is founded on the wrong dialect of Greek. There is a distinction between Petros and petra in attic Greek, but this had not been used for around 200 years when our Lord gave this promise to Peter. Instead, the New Testament was written in Koine Greek. There was no distinction in Koine. It was necessary to give Simon Peter the masculine form of the noun since he was a male.
It's no problem that Peter was married. Read this: catholic.com/tracts/celibacy-and-the-priesthood
You make a valid point. I do not believe that you taken in what historians always have to examine. Who said it and why? I looked back before the split. When there was multiple bishops and not a pope. Also look at from like "Mcstroke57's". When it had honor the vatican actually stated that some popes did commit heresy and abused the office that they were elected to. Nazis used propaganda in ww2 to justify its actions, the RC church had done it as well.
@onemarktwoyou It's quite possible that there have been several popes who have held heretical views in private. Once again, this does not fall under the pope's gift of infallibility, because it was a private opinion (private meaning not meant to be binding on the faithful).
If you look back in history, you will see quite clearly that the early Christians understood that the office of Peter and the keys (as part of the office - look at the reference in Isaiah 22:15-122). I'll send you quotes.
I still say the keys could only have been passed down in peter's line. It is unbiblical for it to be elected by man. The concept that the vatican has for election of the pope is of man, and based on a popularity pole. Thus Benedict was elected by his unsavory defense and handling of church business. I'm not bashing him with this, I believe he was doing his job. But I also think he should have turned it down, for his hands was stained. The was no Christ like actions.
@onemarktwoyou What do you mean "the keys could only have been passed down in Peter's line"? What biblical and historical evidence do you have to support this view?
The early Church understood Peter's position to be an office. They referred to it as a chair.
If someone had to have unstained hands to serve the Lord then there would be no servants. I'm not sure what instances you're talking about, but no one is perfect. The Lord meets us where we are, and we must do our best to follow his will.
??? The Lord doesn't meet us at where we are at. If that was so then Jesus wouldn't have to die on the cross.
Your point is a covenant. That is why you believe the church is the RC church. Covenants are descended in blood of the generations. Not by elections by man!
You still assume that the rock pertained to Rome. I state that the rock started with Peter, and did not continue with Rome, but the world.For Rome learned the ways of the heathens.
@onemarktwoyou What biblical and historical evidence do you have to support this view? I've already shown you the biblical evidence that I think supports my view, and the historical evidence that solidifies it. If you can't show me your view in early Church history, what does this mean for your proposition?
Historical view? Peter helped establish the church of Antioch. Also termed as Patriarch of Antioch.He also preached all over Asia Minor. He ended up in Rome. Now where did he lay the foundation?
Remember Rome is listed in the book of Revelation.
To say he laid the foundation in Rome, is to ignore all the work he did before it.
To say the early church and Rome is the same, is to say Peter accepted all the paganism they incorporated as well. There is no proof of that.
@onemarktwoyou I'm talking about extrabiblical history - this helps make things more objective because it's easier to take personal interpretation out of the picture mostly.
Historians virtually all agree that the Catholic Church was the first Christian Church. Based on extrabiblical history alone, do you agree or disagree. Why?
The catholic church was NOT the first. It is an alteration and perversion of christianity.
Creation of monotheism combined with paganism. What is left is an empty box that may have been once filled with truth.
All that you have stated has not been proof that Rome has had the power that you claim Peter was given. Nor anywhere in the bible G-d has given men the power to say who has the right to speak for him. May I remind you that the book of revelation is against Rome.
@onemarktwoyou Again you've failed to provide any extrabiblical historical proof of your claims. Like many others who get their tainted history from anti-Catholics, you claim that original Christianity was mixed with paganism and Catholicism emerged as a result. When do you claim this process began? What proof is there? I want you to give a serious, well-thought out answer to this question. Would God really allow true Christianity to be overrun, especially early on? Do you think God's that weak?
@onemarktwoyou Also, you claim nowhere in the Bible has God given men the power to speak on his behalf. Then what do these verse mean?
Lk 10:16 Jesus to the seventy-two: "Whoever listens to you listens to me; whoever rejects you rejects me; but whoever rejects me rejects him who sent me."
Mt 16:19 Jesus to Peter: "I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven; whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven"
@onemarktwoyou I'm honestly not familiar with the particulars of the process, but I've already shown you that the early Church understood that Peter held an office that was passed down through the Bishop of Rome. If the early Christians all believed it, why don't you?
You keep going back to saying that Christmas and Easter are pagan. It's true that there are small pagan ties to the holidays, but can't you give a symbol a different meaning, just as you could convert a pagan to Christianity?
The "process", its called politics and popularity!
Because the early christians believed it? Then by the logic you could be a Mormon or a Jehovah Witness! Then again worshiper of Ba'al. Wait a minute! I have to check, you might be. Ba'al mutated though cultures. Babylonian even into Greece. Since it was Greek converts that brought the vast majority of paganism in to the church.
Still there is no scripture or tradition in the bible to support your belief.
@onemarktwoyou If you actually believe Mormons of JWs have as much of a claim to be the first Christian Church then there's no point in continuing this conversation. To say such is to be incredibly ignorant of the early Church. Please do some reading before you make a claim like that again. I'll provide you with a link to a database of early Christian writings, and you can make of them what you may.
newadvent . org/fathers/
There are plenty of other websites that have these writings too.
I referred that they "believe" that they were the true church.
You can't factor in someones pride as proof.
I think you miss understand me.I don't dislike catholics in the pews. I have a problem with the vatican,pope,cardinals,and priests. They are the ones that teach paganism to people who are seeking G-d. Traditions that came from polytheistic societies. I wish all could find the glory that is G-d's to give.
@onemarktwoyou Here's the problem with what you're doing: you're ignoring history and logic. Logic says that the people closest to Jesus would know what he taught (especially since he made multiple special promises to them to remind them with the Holy Spirit, etc). History tells us what these people believed, because they left behind numerous documents. Comparison with modern Christianity shows that these people believed many things that only Catholics and Orthodox agree with. Your thoughts?
Some famous church fathers like Clement. When he agreed with the catholic point he was a great catholic, when he stated non catholic truth(from rome's point of view)he was confused.
If a document disagrees with rome,then its most likely a forgery,or highly dubious.
Why do you think that rome has a library at the vatican that selects which books and which scholars can look at? Why do they horde these documents, and hide them?
@onemarktwoyou There's certainly an appeal to paint a picture of the early Church that looks identical to Catholicism today, but that's not entirely correct. There are definitely examples where people held beliefs that are not considered orthodox today. However, these examples are the exception rather than the rule. Have you read the early writings?
How do you know what books are and are not at the Vatican, and if they hide some of them? This sounds like anti-Catholic propaganda, honestly.
Like Ignatius of Antioch and Polycarp...ect.? Yes.
The vaticanus as an example.
A few scholars have been able to see the original. Copies are very expensive. When viewing the original, you can say awesome. But if you pull out a magnifying glass or stare at one spot to long they pull it away. Yes long before your time is up. What is it they don't want seen? Also scholars long noted buyers for the vatican bought books that they don't acknowledge.What all are they hiding?
@onemarktwoyou St. Ignatius: "See that you all follow the bishop, even as Jesus Christ does the Father, and the presbytery as you would the apostles... Let no man do anything connected with the Church without the bishop. Let that be deemed a proper Eucharist, which is [administered] either by the bishop, or by one to whom he has entrusted it. Wherever the bishop shall appear, there let the multitude [of the people] also be; even as, wherever Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church."
@onemarktwoyou (continued) Doesn't that sound distinctly Catholic to you?
Also, I don't know what you think is so bad about protecting the oldest Bible in existence. The Codex Vaticanus is 1600 years old. I'm not sure why you think any average Joe should get to spend as much time with it as they want - you wouldn't be able to do this in a museum either. Besides, it's a Bible - why not just look at another Latin text? Why are you trying to make it into a conspiracy?
WHAT? As soon as someone looks closely at the vaticanus they will remove it long before their time is up!!! An average Joe??? Only very serious scholars with pull can look at it.
When did the church start using it? It wasn't used because it was very complete and not fully trusted as scripture. That changed, and that is a very long and fascinating story.
I am aware of the story of st. Ignatius life, reject most of what he said because it seems to follow his pagan roots.
@onemarktwoyou Well then in your mind, who were three well-known Christians that you would identify as "true" Christians (whose writings we still have) who lived in the first three hundred years after Christ?
Also, St. Ignatius was likely influenced by St. John, the beloved apostle. It seems strange that you would insult a disciple of our Lord's beloved apostle John by deeming him pagan.
@onemarktwoyou@cburton103 I think the silence is your answer. Please be open to the truth, which has been passed down from the apostles through the bishops. God bless.
Example, Clement. For you he is both a great church father and a heretic.
So you will quote him, then someone else quotes him and it isn't acceptable doctrine then you will reject it.
This parallels your hypocrisy of your popish infallibility and worship of Mary as well. Its nice to stand on both sides of the fence so you catholics can always claim some excuse why you think you are right.
@onemarktwoyou Why is my question not valid? Sure, there are some examples of Church Fathers who taught things that Catholics recognize as heresy, but the overwhelming majority of the Church Fathers were solidly Catholic (and I can prove this - you, however, refuse to even try to claim any early Christians as being authentic Christians. This should be a wakeup call.). No one claims that any individual Church Father said anything infallible, so I'm not sure what your point is.
Tell me what happened to christian writings that wasn't considered orthodox by the late 4th century heretics.The truth is we only have echos of what and how early christians worshiped. Even the new catholic encyclopedia admits it was late 4th century before the fundamental concept of the trinity was "formed". I stated the pope has the ability to speak infallible and can be a heretic at the same time. This is your peoples beliefs!
@onemarktwoyou Sure, we only have a relatively small selection of letters, documents, etc. from the early Church. It doesn't follow at all that these aren't valuable to modern believers to help us understand the beliefs of the early Church.
Any individual can be a heretic, even the Pope. This doesn't mean he isn't infallible when the Holy Spirit makes him so
You keep skirting around my question. Why are there no examples of early Christians who believed at least very close to what you believe?
I thought I made that clear? What we have today is copies of copies of copies ect... .
By the sword and verbal denouncing the church lost what christians truly had believed in. So when the most historical documents wore out, they were not copied there by not saving them for historical sake.
What I believe in, proof is simple, the catholic encyclopedia states that the early christians baptized in the name of Jesus. Also the trinity was created by man though centuries.
@onemarktwoyou So you're claiming that the Catholic Church essentially changed the documents or only kept the ones that were in line with Catholic teaching? Sorry, I'm still a bit fuzzy on what the reason is you're claiming that you can't find early Christians who agree with you.
Where do you hear that the early Christians baptized in the name of Jesus alone? The apostles believed in baptizing in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit (aka the triune God, the Trinity).
First Matt 28:19 is considered corrupted by some to read triune.
While others state the translation was intentionally changed from "into" to "in"(the name). There for changing the intent of the passage. Also note in Acts "repent and be baptized in the name of Jesus". Scripture does not lie.
There is another heresy there! A person has to "repent" or the baptism is void of substance. This is also biblical for the purpose of the process.
@onemarktwoyou Will you please clarify what you've been trying to say about the documents from the early Church? Basically, my question is this:
Why do nearly all of the early documents we have support Catholic views? Why can you not find your views consolidated in any one individual in the early Church?
You keep twisting my comments. Its not so much they destroyed, they didn't preserve. Although now that you bring it up, I think I will check into something.
@onemarktwoyou I couldn't clearly understand your accusations - I was honestly doing my best to understand what you're claiming. Regardless of what you're claiming, please provide some proof for me.
@onemarktwoyou A religious leader's book isn't a credible source to prove a historical event happened. You need (preferably multiple) historical sources - writings about the practice of "not preserving" documents selectively to weed out proof of certain early beliefs.
As an analogy, consider this: What if I were to make a claim about the practices of the early Church that completely contradicted what you believe to have happened? Would you accept quotes from a relatively modern author as proof?
There are sources in it to reference. It is acknowledge that the greatest crime is NOT preserving the old writings. Which I believe is how they rid themselves of the vast majority. Although there in church history been banned books by the church. I still hold fast that majority of the old writings just became dust, and thought not worthy of replication. As simple proof the lack of writings that survived the centuries. Also which writings survived. Example sinaiticus.
How close was that document was from being lost. Admittedly it was a poorly scribed and many considered corrupted. Considering how long, how many, and how many rewrites there was to it. None the less it was only days from being out of sight and placed to become dust. There was one thing in it that may truly could contribute to. And that was a very small and interesting part in revelation. Almost lost to time!
@onemarktwoyou Well I don't have the book, so I guess I won't be able to see the source.
It's interesting you bring up the Codex Sinaiticus. Are you aware that this Bible had many books you don't consider to be inspired as a part of the canon of the Bible? How do you reconcile this with the canon of the Bible you use?
I will put it this way. There was a canonized bible in the early church. We know not which books that were in it. But we know it existed because of writings that indicated it did exist. They do know it couldn't be the same books that any bible today would contain exactly. Also one needs to recognize all the modern bibles are not the same as the origins, they have literally evolved. As more texts have been found. Remember the catholic bible holes were filled with MT text
@onemarktwoyou That isn't correct. The Catholic Bible has the exact same canon today as it has ever since it was promulgated in 382, 393, 397, 417, 1546. (Those are the dates of various councils or synods that proclaimed the exact same canon of the Bible). There weren't Catholic councils that ever proclaimed a different canon than the one Catholics use today. I don't doubt that scholars looked to various texts to ensure they had the truest Bible possible, but the canon has always been the same.
I am not going to argue about this. My notes on this subject are long gone. I wish you would do as I did and study the subject in depth. It was a stressful subject. I never seen a subject that people(scholars) was so misleading to plain lying as this subject. I went to find the pure line of the bible. The information about bible sources are extremely hard to find(truthful). I am going to be reading "lost Christianities" And "lost scriptures" by Bart Ehrman.
cont. He may go over it. But, remember the first bible that was canonized they can't even find a list of it. They know a few books that was in it by some early writings. But if you say all modern bible version stemmed from the canon which the dates you stated. I'd say yup. I myself would remove the book of John then make it apcryphal. Then add a couple of apocryphal books and canonize them.
@piscator11 The same could be said about you Catholics who just want 2 fight with us. Why are we not proclaiming the love of Christ to the unbelieving world? We do not agree on many things, but do we both agree Jesus saves? Why not share that with those who do not know Him!! You are not going 2 change my mind and I won't change yours. But maybe we can stay in our own places and change the world of unbelief in our "corner'!! Should I raise heck on Cath.sites. No. So visit, but don't fight!-Alexa
The comments on here show me how hate filled protestants are. Seriously, we have common enemies like atheism and people that kill infants, but you people want to attack your Catholic brothers and Sisters? You will be held accountable for your hatred toward fellow members of the body of Christ.
It's an unnecessary action. Jesus tells us to go to our private rooms to pray. I have seen so many people genuflect in public that I think it is "to be seen". If it gives you comfort to do it in privacy fine, but it is totally unnecessary.
1. The Orthodox and Armenians and Coptic churches also do this, but they do it slightly differently. 2. The Catholics also have a Pope and indulgences and prayers to the dead and invocation of saints; you don't complain that only they get to do this, do you? 3. If people don't have a custom, why bother trying to get them to adopt it? It's just an affectation and clearly doesn't improve the morals or ethics in Catholic or Orthodox countries. Why run twice as fast to stay where you are?
@MichaelJacksonwithJ5 yeah,no to do it,because its actually the sign of the devil,when u see the Catholics do it,they did it from head to chest to shoulder and to another shoulder,if u make a picture,it actually is not the cross of Christ,it looks more like a + sign,what frustrates me is that Catholic Soccer Players always do this when they enter the stadium. ugh!
@redbaron998 Hi.....good question............My point is this...........individual statements do not make church Dogma....my point would be that these distinctive Roman Catholic teachings did not become official Dogma untl after ca 500 Ad. All kinds of teachings can be found in indivdual authors prior to 500AD including millennialism and double predestination.........neither of which reflect Roman Catholic teaching.
But those who objected the teachings that reebaron998 mentioned were pronounced to be hereticts and were excommunicated before the year 500 ... That Jesus is God, and that God is Trinity wasn't officiially and dogmatically proclaimed until the end of 4th century. Should we assert that early Church didn't hold those beliefs... Also about the Real Presence. We find it written about in 100 AD but dogmatically declared in 1563 - bash it then ...
@cunjoz I agree with you. This all calls into view the phenomena of development of doctrine, ie, that the Faith once delivered to the Saints (Jude 1:3,) thought whole and complete when delivered to the Apostles by our Lord, was better understood over successive generations as the Holy Spirit illuminated the Church, and Christ continued to teach Her (John 16:12-13.) For instance: John 14:23, written in about AD 90, definitely shows three Divine Persons at work in us, yet this was not absolutely..
@cunjoz and clearly defined in the form we now know it until around AD 500 in the Athanasian Creed (which, I might add, the Lutheran church has no problem supporting, even though it's clearly in the zone they say "corruptions" entered the Church.
No offense, but you're defending the sign of the cross based on "tracing it back to 180." I can very easily trace back logical, coherent Catholic teachings on primitive Mariology and an understanding of the Eucharist as a participation in the Sacrifice of Christ by the celebrant back to 155, and I can likewise trace the Primacy of Rome and the Papacy back to 180. Granted, these points are more major than the Sign, but still, the early Church was saturated with these widely held beliefs.
@nschaub Particularly your statement on "distinctive Roman Catholic teachings" not being dogmatically held until after AD 500 is just not true. St. Irenaeus testifies that by 180 the Church had a unified belief in the major points, and in every area of the empire, and this belief was decidedly and firmly Catholic as you can tell by His writings. Things like, again, the Sacrifice of the Eucharist, Primacy of Rome, the role of Tradition, primitive Mariology, Apostolic succession, etc etc.
@soccerruben1 The marking of the Sign of the Cross is most certainly alluded to in the Book of Revelations written around 90-95 AD (see Revelations 7:3, 9:4, 14:1), as well as in John’s First Letter written around 80-90 AD (see 1 John 2:26,27). Check the early christian fathers (185-265 AD) they did the sign of the cross, Unless Christ's disciples taught a wrong doctrine?
@ChaldeanDavid what I say,when people did the "sign of the cross",they did it from head to chest and from shoulder to shoulder,if u picture it,it looks more like a upside down cross,that's not the cross christ died on.
@brendos444 The Lutheran Church doesn't subscribe to dispensational premillennialism or any other form of "rapture" nonsense. Jesus will visibly come again on the Last Day.
@AnHonestChristian Yes that's true. I think most traditional Protestant churches don't buy into this rapture nonsense. Neither do the Catholics or the Orthodox. The rapture seems to be the domain of US megachurch/tv evangelists - even conservative types like John MacArthure subscribes to the premillenial rapture... As an outsider to the US evangelical scene, I am really puzzled as to a lot of what happens in US Christianity.
@brendos444 Unfortunately, American evangelicalism is plagued by sensationalism, emotionalism, and the need to conform to popular culture. It's pretty sickening. However, I know a number of Baptist guys in seminary who are either amillennial or preteristic...so, there's hope for 'em yet! :-)
@AnHonestChristian yes, most of the Reformed/Calvinist crowd, be they baptist or presbyterian, are amillenial, which is about the only good thing you can say about their theology!
@brendos444@brendos444 Well, I also appreciate their monergistic soteriology, which stands in stark contrast to the synergistic/Arminian storeiology of too many evangelicals. But you're right about their eschatology. Dr. Kim Riddlebarger, a good Calvinist, wrote a great defense of amillennialism called "A Case for Amillennialism: Understanding the End Times."
“You shall not make for yourself a carved image, or any likeness of anything that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth; you shall not bow down to them nor serve them. For I, the Lord your God, am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers on the children to the third and fourth generations of those who hate Me, but showing mercy to thousands, to those who love Me and keep My Commandments.
@nschaub If it were that simple of stating what Luther said in his "little catechism", ".. for us Christians to eat and to drink", then why did he also Teach that as "the iron put into the fire whereby both fire and iron are united in the red-hot iron and yet each continues unchanged”... ? It doesn't seem that simple to anyone, Pastor Lassman. If it were, you wouldn't need a degree to figure it out. And you still have not answered The Official Lutheran Theological Teaching of The Eucharist.
@JDNWF66 Hi.......you are making my very point...neither Lutheran nor the Lutheran confessions were interested in philosophical speculations which is what "consubstantiation" is....the only reason they went beyond the biblical language was in response to both Rome and Zwingli and Calvin. This is what Martin Luther says in his Small Catechsim" It is the true body and blood of our Lord Jesus Crhsit under the bread and wine, instituted by Christ Himself for us Christians to eat and to drink"
@nschaub That is not all that Martin Luther said. Here is one actual quote of Martin Luther's definition of The Eucharist, but of course one of several, BTW, and so my question is if you are aware of this quotation, Pastor Lassman? "the iron put into the fire whereby both fire and iron are united in the red-hot iron and yet each continues unchanged”.... Key words are "Yet each continues UNCHANGED". You can decide what Luther means by this. You have 2 degrees. I only have 1.
@nschaub If this quotation of Martin Luther, "the iron put into the fire whereby both fire and iron are united in the red-hot iron and yet each continues unchanged”, does not define itself as Consubstantiation, what does, Pastor Lassman ?
@nschaub And Martin Luther made no attempts at philosophical speculations? Really? Are you suggesting Zwingly and Calvin are wrong? By what measurement? And when you say "Rome" said this or "Rome" said that, who are you speaking of? The only Church in existence from 30 AD to 1500 AD was headed under Rome. Btw.. Is The Eastern Orthodox position on The Eucharist, your own?
@nschaub So you will not answer the Divinely Mandated question concerning a Christian Truth just because I or someone may call it this or that? Is that what you are trying to say, Pastor Lassman, respectfully? You cannot give me The Teaching concerning The Eucahrist because of something you know I will "call it Consubstantiation" because "it" fits that definition? I assure you, you just gave us all that definition, Pastor Lassman, respectfully.
@JDNWF66 Hi..obviously I am not as smart as you are so I will conclude by giving you two good resources that deny that "consubstantiation" is the official teaching of the Lutheran Church....both well known, mainstream and respected scholars: 1) "This Is My Body" by Werner Elert and 2) "The Conservative Reformation And Its Theology" by Charles Porterfield Krauth...
@nschaub You can conclude all you want. The truth is I was not asking them. I am asking you for the official Lutheran teaching concerning The Holy Eucharist. Your asking me to read a book for the answer?? Really?
@nschaub. Hi...again. As you have said. "some Lutherans used this term". Let me ask you Pastor, what would you say is the official Lutheran Teaching concerning The Eucharist? Since you have 2 degrees, you have a divine mandate to make this Christian teaching clear and unambiguos. Please do so now as it can be put to rest, then. Please. I ask you to explain to me what the Lutheran Church officially believes on The Eucharist. I will wait patiently for your clarification.
@nschaub This is not the Theological Belief about the Eucharist, Pastor Lassman. I am asking you again since you state you have 2 degrees. What is the actual theological belief of The Official Lutheran Teaching concerning The Words in The Gospel you have quoted. Surely your 2 degrees require more than a quotation from the bible.
Again, I ask you as you have a solemn obligation as a Minister of Jesus Christ to Clarify what that biblical quotation means according to Official Lutheran Teaching?
@soccer21828. I am not wrong when I say that "some" Lutherans use the term to describe their teaching of the eucharist as "consubstantiation". Catholics define teachings so that everything is clarified whether you agree with it or not. You rightly point out how un uniform is this teaching held by you. To say, as Martin Luther called it, a "sacramental union" is a definition of consubstantiation.
@soccer21928. Both Martin Luther and Philipp Melanchthon both used this term to express this teaching. You are correct that Lutherans do Not officially "use" the term. But that is how they explain it. Luther dud use the term, "sacramental union", but this only describes 2 substances present at the same time: the bread and wine with the presence of Christ. The deginition of this is Con-Substantiation.
@JDNWF66 Can you give me a reference that shows that Luther and Melancthon used the word "consubstantiation"? I would appreciate that if you could..thanks..
@nschaub I will and intend to give you the reference once you have given me the Offiicial Reference of what The Lutheran Teaching on The Eucharist is. You, as a Minister of Jesus Christ, have that Divine Obligation. Getting 2 degrees is not about simply quoting a scripture. That is used usually to didge the main question of what is the Theological answer of the Lutheran Faith concerning what you quoted in the bible. I believe that quotation too. Yet you as well as I know there is more.
@soccer21928. Your welcome to believe as you wish but all you have to do is go to a Lutheran Seminary or as simple as going to a reference siurce and you will see that The Lutheran Church believes and teaches The Eucharist defined as "consubstantiation". Martin Luther, founder of The Lutheran Church, proposed this very term for the Eucharist.
@JDNWF66 HI.........Listen very carefully to what I am saying: Martin Luther nor the Lutheran Confessions ever USE THE WORD "CONSUBSTANTIATION. That word was first used by NON-LUTHERANS to describe the Lutheran teaching on the Lord's Supper....it is true that in the history of Lutheranism there might have been some Lutherans that used this word "CONSUBSTANTION" but it was controversial to do so and has never been the OFFICIAL teaching of the Lutheran Church. I have two degrees from a seminary
no its not. they are similar, but consubstantiation is taking sacramental union a step further that lutherans do. they dont try to explain their belief in the "real presence". they reject the circumscribed presence in the bread and wine that consubstantiation affirms. its not really debatable. its an understandable mistake, but you need to be honest and admit you were wrong. you said "Lutherans too have a DEFINITION of what takes place at The Lord's Supper. It's called "CONSUBSTANTIATION".
@soccer21928. There will always be those who will choose to separate themselves from the First Church Jesus founded, but there is a difference between diversity of Catholic Faith which shares within Itself 21 "rites" in The Catholic Church that are all in union with Rome and the Pope, though share diversity but in One Household Of Faith: 1 Tim 3:15.
@soccer21928 Not at all. The Catholic Church in union with Rome was never ever severed or exists outside of It's Communion. Can people leave it and form other bands outside it? Certainly. No one can force you to believe. But the Faith of The Catholic Church is one in UNION with The See Of Peter. The difference with Lutherans or other Christians is that the Faith is always split from it's Root. Protestantism has no central or cohesive unity. It is an amalgamation of many.
I would encourage you, soccer21928, to read Irenaeus an early church Father and focuse on how he describes the events just after the pronouncements of the words of The Lord's Supper probably around 160 AD. Read it carefully.
Transubstatiation means that the forms of bread and wine are both transformed into Christ. After the priest utters the words of Christ, what was present on that alter prior (the bread and the wine) become Christ. There is complete transformation hence the term, Transubstantiation. Meaning transformed into not consisting-with (consubstantiation). These are theological interpretations irregardless of what you personally believe or not.
No. I am not kidding you. "Consubstantiation" is the belief that both the presence of Christ and the Forms (bread and wine) are still present after the "minister" uses the words of Christ during the Last Supper. The definition of that belief is "consubstantiation", otherwise known as "matter that co - subsists with the elements"--- bread and wine. Google it. ;-) RJ
@JDNWF66 no i know what consubstantiation is. your mistake is attributing it to lutheranism. lutherans adhere to what is called sacramental union, which is similar to consubstantiation but different, yet many people such as yourself attatch consubstantiation to lutherans, even though it is incorrect5. i wasnt arguing the definition of consubstantiation, and i think for the sake of honesty you should admit you were wrong when you said lutherans did believe in it.
I think it is the good thing if the children in the Sunday school or later at confirmation class are told about the meaning of the sign of the cross and are encouraged to do it, both the normal and the small one (at the reading of the Holy Gospel).
the sign of the cross is somewhat coming back among the younger, at least at my church in Åbo, Finland. And it seems like the older have always done it.
It's kinda like it skipped a generation or two or something...
@barsyha luther encouraged making the sign of the cross, and lots of protestants do it, and even if they dont theyre generally not opposed to it, please stop spreading your ignorance
@soccer21928 bro wat are you tlking about protestism dicourages making the sign of the cross because they consder it worshipping idols. they also oppose other things of the catholic church like praying to the saints and mary so i dont know how im spreading ignorence
@soccer21928 bro wat are you tlking about protestism dicourages making the sign of the cross because they consder it worshipping idols. they also oppose other things of the catholic church like praying to the saints and mary so i dont know how im spreading ignorence p.s they also refuseaccepting that the bread and wine are jesuses body
@barsyha hello, im a protestant! dont try to tell me what i believe! go do your own research, some protestants make the sign others dont, its an individual choice. why did luther reccomend doing it twice a day? why do many anglicans cross themselves at church? this isnt debatable, im telling you facts. Some protestants believe in the literal body and blood. lutherans do, but they dont try to explain it by transubstantiation. anglicans fall on both sides of the fence. go do your research
@soccer21928 No. You are wrong. Even your Pastor will tell you if he is honest that Lutherans too have a DEFINITION of what takes place at The Lord's Supper. It's called "CONSUBSTANTIATION". So do YOUR research, first !
@JDNWF66 youve got to be kidding me. ive done my research, thats why i dont attribute consubstantiation to lutheranism anymore. thats a common misconception, most lutherans use the term sacramental union, which specifically rejects the local presence of Christ's body and blood in the host, which consubstantiation affirms. they are similar, but not the same. i also used to believe it was consubstantiation, but its not, any real lutheran will tell you.
@soccer21928 Luther believed in The Immaculate Conception, The Perpetual Virginity of Mary and many other things Lutherans today will shun. Depending on which lutheran you speak to. The Wisconsin Synod lutheran? The ELCA Lutheran, The Scottish Lutheran Church, Lutheran or The Missouri Synod Lutharan, Lutheran... ;-) Luther was right when he said toward the end of his life looking on all the fruits his re-formation caused, "There are as many heads as there are sects....".... Sad to say..
@JDNWF66 there are many lutherans, (and other protestants)who believe in those those things. im asuming youre catholic. you guys like to list our denominations. but the fact is, you believe most of what you do because you were told to. even in the apostolic era, christians did not have uninamity on every issue, and people generally werent burned alive when they disagreed. at least not by other "Christians" ;-). but still, there is a growing catholic sect called sedevacantism, who reject the pope
Acts 20:29-30 I know that after my going away oppressive wolves will enter in among YOU and will not treat the flock with tenderness, and from among YOU yourselves men will rise and speak twisted things to draw away the disciples after themselves.After the apostles died the great apostasy infiltrated true worship, and false teachings like the veneration of the cross/hell fire/trinity... became promoted by Satan himself. Rev12:9 Satan is misleading the entire inhabited earth
Martin Luther did not like the very people that wrote the Bible. He was anti semetic. How could we possibly follow a faith started by someone who hated Gods people?
This has been flagged as spam show
I have questions for Catholics: Did you eat Jesus today? Does that mean you're saved? If you died tonight, would you go to heaven? If you pooped and then died before eating Jesus again, would you go to hell?
AL33355 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Apostle Paul never prays to Mary, tells anyone to honor her or talk about her, and in thirteen Pauline Epistles, there is not ONE MENTION of Mary as a "mediatrix," "intercessor," "gate to heaven" or any other blasphemous title attributed to her in the official Roman Catholic books (nihil obstat) written by Catholic cardinals and bishops.
AL33355 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Apostle Paul never prays to Mary, tells anyone to honor her or talk about her, and in thirteen Pauline Epistles, there is not ONE MENTION of Mary as a "mediatrix," "intercessor," "gate to heaven" or any other blasphemous title attributed to her in the official Roman Catholic books (nihil obstat) written by Catholic cardinals and bishops.
CatholicsAnonymous94 1 month ago
The Roman Catholic Church teaches unbiblical doctorines and celebrates Pagan holidays like Christmas and Easter Also pray to Saints and Mary which is completely unbiblical.
Mcstroke57 1 month ago
@Mcstroke57 You can copy and paste this everywhere you want, but it's still false. You haven't answered my objections to why you reject the Trinity yet. I understand if you don't answer, because your opinion isn't in line with Biblical teaching and thus has no backing.
You should really stop trying to defame the Catholic Church, because it is the Church Christ founded. I can assure you that Christ would not approve of this. Please try reading the Early Church Fathers. God bless.
cburton103 1 month ago
It all stems from the true church, The Roman Catholic Church founded by Christ.
You guys are like being a Vice President.
TheShirlock 2 months ago
If he wanted to keep the early traditions he shouldn't use the trinity in baptism.
The early church baptized in the name of Jesus.
Found in catholic encyclopedia volume 2 page 263. Also Matthew 28:19 is by most "historical" scholars considered out of place just as much as 1John5:7.
As proof, the bible contradicts the name to baptize in. And that my friends is because the belief of the trinity is a pagan concept brought in by early pagan converts! Praise G-d.
onemarktwoyou 2 months ago
@onemarktwoyou Sorry friend, but that's not correct. Here's a quote from the Didache (circa 70 AD), aka the teaching of the twelve apostles:
"...pour water three times on the head, in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit."
For more on this, check out this article: catholic.com/tracts/trinitarian-baptism
God bless.
cburton103 2 months ago
@cburton103
70A.D.? Impressive!Since everyone else states late 1st century/early 2nd century.The trinity was promoted mainly by Greek pagan converts.The form of the trinity absolutely parallels Plato's description of the Greek triune god(s).The oldest and probably the original form of the Trinity is that found in the Brahmin and Hindoo systems- the terms of which are-1.Brahma,the Father or supreme God.2.Vishnu,the incarnate Word and Creator.3.Siva,the Spirit of God, i.e.,the Holy Spirit.
onemarktwoyou 2 months ago
@onemarktwoyou Showing that there are parallel beliefs in other religions does nothing to prove or disprove the Trinity - that's a textbook logical fallacy. Besides, the example that I showed you shows that the apostles, the original twelve followers of Christ, believed in baptizing in the name of the Trinity. Your claim is that the early Church did otherwise. There is likely no better example of you being incorrect than the apostles telling you, as they do in this quote from the Didache. GB
cburton103 2 months ago
@cburton103
Not just the parallel, but the exact interruption as well. Greek education, Greek mythology, this was thought to almost every educated person in all the areas of interest here!
You stated a book without an author, without a source,and amazingly some have corrupted the date it must have been written.Closest date at pin point would be at the turn of the second century.
If you want to ignore what the catholic encyclopedia says about baptism, that is your right. Hope your not catholic.
onemarktwoyou 2 months ago
@onemarktwoyou Here's the Catholic Encyclopedia's article on Baptism: newadvent. org/cathen/02258b.htm
What are you suggesting that I am ignoring about it?
cburton103 2 months ago
@cburton103
Go to your church, pull the book off the self. Then read it.
onemarktwoyou 2 months ago
@onemarktwoyou There are over 20,000 words in the article. I skimmed through it. What would you like for me to pay special attention to in it?
cburton103 2 months ago
@cburton103
Go to your church and pull the book off the shelf and read it! I gave you the volume and page number.
onemarktwoyou 2 months ago
@onemarktwoyou Well I'd prefer to read it online for ease, so you can either give me the part of the document you'd like for me to focus on or I'll bid you a good night.
cburton103 2 months ago
@cburton103
If I personally own a set, I'd quote out of it. I don't want you to take my word for it!
I almost bought a set for $300, but the money went to a far better purpose.
Look how they baptized! If I was you I wouldn't take anyone's word on it, I'd look for myself.
As I found out there is no replacement for the written word.
onemarktwoyou 2 months ago
@onemarktwoyou Please tell me what it is about the form in which people are baptized in Catholicism that you object to so I can find that part of the entry and read it for myself.
cburton103 2 months ago
@cburton103
What is wrong with catholics? What makes them unable to read a BOOK. Even given the page number!
Not allowed to read the bible I know! But also their own encyclopedia as well?
I have listen to catholic apologist say you shouldn't read the bible because people are not capable to understand for themselves. When dogma is held higher than the scriptures itself.
onemarktwoyou 2 months ago
@onemarktwoyou Listen, I'm not sure who you think you are or what makes you so high and mighty, but you've been nothing but impolite in our conversation. Why would I want to chase down a book to read a page of it for some random person who is spewing out hate, bashing my Church, and misrepresenting my beliefs?
It never ceases to amaze me when people (even self proclaimed Christians) expect people to respond to such rudeness. I mean this with all sincerity; please consider what Christ would do.
cburton103 2 months ago
@cburton103
Repeating the same thing over and over, because someone can't or won't pick up a book is irritating!
Your "belief" rejects people reading the bible. Setting dogma above Holy scripture.
Wanting to get all your information off the computer is laziness! If you want someone to tell you whats in a book, why even ask a question. The truth can be found in a book.
Books have a specific smell and feel to them. They are unique in the fact if you read them then you will know what they say!
onemarktwoyou 2 months ago
@onemarktwoyou I'm in dental school and I spend tons of time reading already, so I have no desire whatsoever to chase down a book for someone that continues to misrepresent my faith.
Your misrepresentations:
1) "Setting dogma above Scripture". Patently false. Since you're so fond of books, try reading paragraphs 74-82 in the Catechism. If you'd like, I'll provide you with a link.
2) "Not allowed to read the Bible" I try to read the Bible every day, and my Church encourages me to do so.
cburton103 2 months ago
@cburton103
I am shocked if in fact you read the bible! I am impressed by any person who does so.
Yet amazed that you would still believe that a priest could be an intercessor.
Or by the history of the bishops of Rome, to believe in their infallibility.
When in fact pope JP2 committed apostasy by pronouncing the qur'an as holy. And there was no action taken in Rome to even deny that a book rejecting Jesus's divinity, could be holy. They were silent! It also says Jesus did not die on the cross.
onemarktwoyou 2 months ago
@onemarktwoyou I'm not aware that BJP2 called the qur'an holy. I am aware of the scandal associated with a certain event/picture, but he was either misunderstood in his actions or he was flat out wrong for doing so. Private statements, opinions, etc aren't covered under infallibility - only official statements on faith and morals.
Paul tells us all to be intercessors for one another in prayer, does he not?
Have you ever read the writings of the early Christians by chance? You might enjoy them.
cburton103 2 months ago
@cburton103
You are willing to state JP2 was wrong in calling the qur'an holy? That is a new one on me! Most catholics wrongly believe that the pope infallibility is in all matters all the time(even though they know the churches teachings). Although when it originally started I do believe it was. Even though at least two past popes rejected the whole concept of popal infallibility.
I stated no one I've heard in the vatican rejected JP2 actions. I would reject any leader who rejects Jesus.
onemarktwoyou 2 months ago
@onemarktwoyou I said that if JP2 said the qur'an was actually holy (and not just a book that is used by another religion as their "holy book") then I would think he was wrong. Do you have the original source quote?
Also, I'm not sure what Catholics you're talking to, but it's a well known fact that infallibility only covers certain instances. We can look at Peter, the first pope, as an example of this. Multiple times in his private opinions and actions he was wrong, (continued)
cburton103 1 month ago
@onemarktwoyou but in his full capacity as "Rock" (the title Christ gave him) when speaking on faith and morals, the entire Church takes his word as final. (See Acts 15 - after Peter spoke on the issue the whole assembly "became silent", and the discussion moved to other topics). I'm quite confident that what I'm telling you has always been believed by the faithful. If you have evidence to the contrary, feel free to share it. God bless.
cburton103 1 month ago
@cburton103
No one argues against Peter as the Rock. The question is...is Rome the church?
The original church shared, until Rome size grew disproportional to the other areas.
There is no proof that the bishop of Rome is the true heir to the keys. Nor is it proof that they could have been handed down. Especially in a popularity contest behind closed doors. If you examine this from the bible's point of view then Peter's children and line would hold the covenant.
onemarktwoyou 1 month ago
Comment removed
cburton103 1 month ago
@onemarktwoyou Let me ask you an honest question. Who can answer the question of whether Jesus meant for the keys to be passed down better - you, or the early Christians?
cburton103 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@cburton103 Peter is not the rock !
The Papacy is of pagan origin. The title of pope or universal bishop, was first given to the bishop of Rome by the wicked emperor Phocas
Jesus did not appoint Peter to the headship of the apostles and forbade any such notion. (Luke 22:24-26; Ephesians 1:22-23; Colossians 1:18; 1st Corinthians 3:11).
I will continue in another reply...
Mcstroke57 1 month ago
@cburton103 Greek word for Peter is Petros and Greek word for Rock is Petra.
Petros is a small rock and Petra is a big rock.
Peter= petros= little rock= christian (the word christian means little christ.)
Rock= petra= big rock= Christ
It is logical to believe that Christ was calling Peter the little rock because christian means little christ.
Oh and Peter was married Matthew 8:14
yet again I hate how youtube has such a small word limit...
Mcstroke57 1 month ago
@Mcstroke57 Your logic is founded on the wrong dialect of Greek. There is a distinction between Petros and petra in attic Greek, but this had not been used for around 200 years when our Lord gave this promise to Peter. Instead, the New Testament was written in Koine Greek. There was no distinction in Koine. It was necessary to give Simon Peter the masculine form of the noun since he was a male.
It's no problem that Peter was married. Read this: catholic.com/tracts/celibacy-and-the-priesthood
cburton103 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@cburton103 from Exodus 17:6 we know that Jesus is that rock. The verse was NOT talking about Peter but about Jesus !
Peter said "Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God. "
Jesus said "And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter"
Peter= petros= little rock= little christ= christian
THE NEW TESTAMENT WAS WRITTEN IN GREEK !
Mcstroke57 1 month ago
@cburton103
You make a valid point. I do not believe that you taken in what historians always have to examine. Who said it and why? I looked back before the split. When there was multiple bishops and not a pope. Also look at from like "Mcstroke57's". When it had honor the vatican actually stated that some popes did commit heresy and abused the office that they were elected to. Nazis used propaganda in ww2 to justify its actions, the RC church had done it as well.
onemarktwoyou 1 month ago
@onemarktwoyou It's quite possible that there have been several popes who have held heretical views in private. Once again, this does not fall under the pope's gift of infallibility, because it was a private opinion (private meaning not meant to be binding on the faithful).
If you look back in history, you will see quite clearly that the early Christians understood that the office of Peter and the keys (as part of the office - look at the reference in Isaiah 22:15-122). I'll send you quotes.
cburton103 1 month ago
@cburton103
I still say the keys could only have been passed down in peter's line. It is unbiblical for it to be elected by man. The concept that the vatican has for election of the pope is of man, and based on a popularity pole. Thus Benedict was elected by his unsavory defense and handling of church business. I'm not bashing him with this, I believe he was doing his job. But I also think he should have turned it down, for his hands was stained. The was no Christ like actions.
onemarktwoyou 1 month ago
@onemarktwoyou What do you mean "the keys could only have been passed down in Peter's line"? What biblical and historical evidence do you have to support this view?
The early Church understood Peter's position to be an office. They referred to it as a chair.
If someone had to have unstained hands to serve the Lord then there would be no servants. I'm not sure what instances you're talking about, but no one is perfect. The Lord meets us where we are, and we must do our best to follow his will.
cburton103 1 month ago
@cburton103
??? The Lord doesn't meet us at where we are at. If that was so then Jesus wouldn't have to die on the cross.
Your point is a covenant. That is why you believe the church is the RC church. Covenants are descended in blood of the generations. Not by elections by man!
You still assume that the rock pertained to Rome. I state that the rock started with Peter, and did not continue with Rome, but the world.For Rome learned the ways of the heathens.
onemarktwoyou 1 month ago
@onemarktwoyou What biblical and historical evidence do you have to support this view? I've already shown you the biblical evidence that I think supports my view, and the historical evidence that solidifies it. If you can't show me your view in early Church history, what does this mean for your proposition?
cburton103 1 month ago
@cburton103
Historical view? Peter helped establish the church of Antioch. Also termed as Patriarch of Antioch.He also preached all over Asia Minor. He ended up in Rome. Now where did he lay the foundation?
Remember Rome is listed in the book of Revelation.
To say he laid the foundation in Rome, is to ignore all the work he did before it.
To say the early church and Rome is the same, is to say Peter accepted all the paganism they incorporated as well. There is no proof of that.
onemarktwoyou 1 month ago
@onemarktwoyou I'm talking about extrabiblical history - this helps make things more objective because it's easier to take personal interpretation out of the picture mostly.
Historians virtually all agree that the Catholic Church was the first Christian Church. Based on extrabiblical history alone, do you agree or disagree. Why?
cburton103 1 month ago
@cburton103
The catholic church was NOT the first. It is an alteration and perversion of christianity.
Creation of monotheism combined with paganism. What is left is an empty box that may have been once filled with truth.
All that you have stated has not been proof that Rome has had the power that you claim Peter was given. Nor anywhere in the bible G-d has given men the power to say who has the right to speak for him. May I remind you that the book of revelation is against Rome.
onemarktwoyou 1 month ago
@onemarktwoyou Again you've failed to provide any extrabiblical historical proof of your claims. Like many others who get their tainted history from anti-Catholics, you claim that original Christianity was mixed with paganism and Catholicism emerged as a result. When do you claim this process began? What proof is there? I want you to give a serious, well-thought out answer to this question. Would God really allow true Christianity to be overrun, especially early on? Do you think God's that weak?
cburton103 1 month ago
@onemarktwoyou Also, you claim nowhere in the Bible has God given men the power to speak on his behalf. Then what do these verse mean?
Lk 10:16 Jesus to the seventy-two: "Whoever listens to you listens to me; whoever rejects you rejects me; but whoever rejects me rejects him who sent me."
Mt 16:19 Jesus to Peter: "I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven; whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven"
cburton103 1 month ago
@cburton103
G-d gives man the power! Not a body of men with questionable values. The election of the pope is a popularity or political process.
I do not think G-d is weak, man is!
Still you do not show anything that passes Peter's office to another. Or how it can be done by election!
Paganism? Christmas and Easter. These were the days to celebrate pagan gods.
There is a lot more.
onemarktwoyou 1 month ago
@onemarktwoyou I'm honestly not familiar with the particulars of the process, but I've already shown you that the early Church understood that Peter held an office that was passed down through the Bishop of Rome. If the early Christians all believed it, why don't you?
You keep going back to saying that Christmas and Easter are pagan. It's true that there are small pagan ties to the holidays, but can't you give a symbol a different meaning, just as you could convert a pagan to Christianity?
cburton103 1 month ago
@cburton103
The "process", its called politics and popularity!
Because the early christians believed it? Then by the logic you could be a Mormon or a Jehovah Witness! Then again worshiper of Ba'al. Wait a minute! I have to check, you might be. Ba'al mutated though cultures. Babylonian even into Greece. Since it was Greek converts that brought the vast majority of paganism in to the church.
Still there is no scripture or tradition in the bible to support your belief.
onemarktwoyou 1 month ago
@onemarktwoyou If you actually believe Mormons of JWs have as much of a claim to be the first Christian Church then there's no point in continuing this conversation. To say such is to be incredibly ignorant of the early Church. Please do some reading before you make a claim like that again. I'll provide you with a link to a database of early Christian writings, and you can make of them what you may.
newadvent . org/fathers/
There are plenty of other websites that have these writings too.
cburton103 1 month ago
@cburton103
Did I say they were early?
I referred that they "believe" that they were the true church.
You can't factor in someones pride as proof.
I think you miss understand me.I don't dislike catholics in the pews. I have a problem with the vatican,pope,cardinals,and priests. They are the ones that teach paganism to people who are seeking G-d. Traditions that came from polytheistic societies. I wish all could find the glory that is G-d's to give.
onemarktwoyou 1 month ago
@onemarktwoyou Here's the problem with what you're doing: you're ignoring history and logic. Logic says that the people closest to Jesus would know what he taught (especially since he made multiple special promises to them to remind them with the Holy Spirit, etc). History tells us what these people believed, because they left behind numerous documents. Comparison with modern Christianity shows that these people believed many things that only Catholics and Orthodox agree with. Your thoughts?
cburton103 1 month ago
@cburton103
Here's the problem with catholic apologist.
Some famous church fathers like Clement. When he agreed with the catholic point he was a great catholic, when he stated non catholic truth(from rome's point of view)he was confused.
If a document disagrees with rome,then its most likely a forgery,or highly dubious.
Why do you think that rome has a library at the vatican that selects which books and which scholars can look at? Why do they horde these documents, and hide them?
onemarktwoyou 1 month ago
@onemarktwoyou There's certainly an appeal to paint a picture of the early Church that looks identical to Catholicism today, but that's not entirely correct. There are definitely examples where people held beliefs that are not considered orthodox today. However, these examples are the exception rather than the rule. Have you read the early writings?
How do you know what books are and are not at the Vatican, and if they hide some of them? This sounds like anti-Catholic propaganda, honestly.
cburton103 1 month ago
@cburton103
Like Ignatius of Antioch and Polycarp...ect.? Yes.
The vaticanus as an example.
A few scholars have been able to see the original. Copies are very expensive. When viewing the original, you can say awesome. But if you pull out a magnifying glass or stare at one spot to long they pull it away. Yes long before your time is up. What is it they don't want seen? Also scholars long noted buyers for the vatican bought books that they don't acknowledge.What all are they hiding?
onemarktwoyou 1 month ago
@onemarktwoyou St. Ignatius: "See that you all follow the bishop, even as Jesus Christ does the Father, and the presbytery as you would the apostles... Let no man do anything connected with the Church without the bishop. Let that be deemed a proper Eucharist, which is [administered] either by the bishop, or by one to whom he has entrusted it. Wherever the bishop shall appear, there let the multitude [of the people] also be; even as, wherever Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church."
cburton103 1 month ago
@onemarktwoyou (continued) Doesn't that sound distinctly Catholic to you?
Also, I don't know what you think is so bad about protecting the oldest Bible in existence. The Codex Vaticanus is 1600 years old. I'm not sure why you think any average Joe should get to spend as much time with it as they want - you wouldn't be able to do this in a museum either. Besides, it's a Bible - why not just look at another Latin text? Why are you trying to make it into a conspiracy?
cburton103 1 month ago
@cburton103
WHAT? As soon as someone looks closely at the vaticanus they will remove it long before their time is up!!! An average Joe??? Only very serious scholars with pull can look at it.
When did the church start using it? It wasn't used because it was very complete and not fully trusted as scripture. That changed, and that is a very long and fascinating story.
I am aware of the story of st. Ignatius life, reject most of what he said because it seems to follow his pagan roots.
onemarktwoyou 1 month ago
Comment removed
cburton103 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@onemarktwoyou Well then in your mind, who were three well-known Christians that you would identify as "true" Christians (whose writings we still have) who lived in the first three hundred years after Christ?
Also, St. Ignatius was likely influenced by St. John, the beloved apostle. It seems strange that you would insult a disciple of our Lord's beloved apostle John by deeming him pagan.
cburton103 1 month ago
@onemarktwoyou @cburton103 I think the silence is your answer. Please be open to the truth, which has been passed down from the apostles through the bishops. God bless.
cburton103 1 month ago
@cburton103
I missed your post.
Your question isn't valid, even my your religion.
Example, Clement. For you he is both a great church father and a heretic.
So you will quote him, then someone else quotes him and it isn't acceptable doctrine then you will reject it.
This parallels your hypocrisy of your popish infallibility and worship of Mary as well. Its nice to stand on both sides of the fence so you catholics can always claim some excuse why you think you are right.
onemarktwoyou 1 month ago
@onemarktwoyou Why is my question not valid? Sure, there are some examples of Church Fathers who taught things that Catholics recognize as heresy, but the overwhelming majority of the Church Fathers were solidly Catholic (and I can prove this - you, however, refuse to even try to claim any early Christians as being authentic Christians. This should be a wakeup call.). No one claims that any individual Church Father said anything infallible, so I'm not sure what your point is.
cburton103 1 month ago
@cburton103
Tell me what happened to christian writings that wasn't considered orthodox by the late 4th century heretics.The truth is we only have echos of what and how early christians worshiped. Even the new catholic encyclopedia admits it was late 4th century before the fundamental concept of the trinity was "formed". I stated the pope has the ability to speak infallible and can be a heretic at the same time. This is your peoples beliefs!
onemarktwoyou 1 month ago
@onemarktwoyou Sure, we only have a relatively small selection of letters, documents, etc. from the early Church. It doesn't follow at all that these aren't valuable to modern believers to help us understand the beliefs of the early Church.
Any individual can be a heretic, even the Pope. This doesn't mean he isn't infallible when the Holy Spirit makes him so
You keep skirting around my question. Why are there no examples of early Christians who believed at least very close to what you believe?
cburton103 1 month ago
@cburton103
I thought I made that clear? What we have today is copies of copies of copies ect... .
By the sword and verbal denouncing the church lost what christians truly had believed in. So when the most historical documents wore out, they were not copied there by not saving them for historical sake.
What I believe in, proof is simple, the catholic encyclopedia states that the early christians baptized in the name of Jesus. Also the trinity was created by man though centuries.
onemarktwoyou 1 month ago
@onemarktwoyou So you're claiming that the Catholic Church essentially changed the documents or only kept the ones that were in line with Catholic teaching? Sorry, I'm still a bit fuzzy on what the reason is you're claiming that you can't find early Christians who agree with you.
Where do you hear that the early Christians baptized in the name of Jesus alone? The apostles believed in baptizing in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit (aka the triune God, the Trinity).
cburton103 1 month ago
@cburton103
First Matt 28:19 is considered corrupted by some to read triune.
While others state the translation was intentionally changed from "into" to "in"(the name). There for changing the intent of the passage. Also note in Acts "repent and be baptized in the name of Jesus". Scripture does not lie.
There is another heresy there! A person has to "repent" or the baptism is void of substance. This is also biblical for the purpose of the process.
onemarktwoyou 1 month ago
@onemarktwoyou Will you please clarify what you've been trying to say about the documents from the early Church? Basically, my question is this:
Why do nearly all of the early documents we have support Catholic views? Why can you not find your views consolidated in any one individual in the early Church?
cburton103 1 month ago
@cburton103
I thought it was clear?
The true historical records are missing and it isn't by accident.
It is nice of the catholic encyclopedia and the bible to still have truth in it.
onemarktwoyou 1 month ago
@onemarktwoyou Show me your proof that the Catholic Church intentionally destroyed documents to hide their contents.
cburton103 1 month ago
@cburton103
You keep twisting my comments. Its not so much they destroyed, they didn't preserve. Although now that you bring it up, I think I will check into something.
onemarktwoyou 1 month ago
@onemarktwoyou I couldn't clearly understand your accusations - I was honestly doing my best to understand what you're claiming. Regardless of what you're claiming, please provide some proof for me.
cburton103 1 month ago
@cburton103
Ellen G. White "The great controversy" Page 61.
I knew it was there. I had time to find the a source. I should have taken better notes.
This deals with books ect.. that was in the control of the vatican.
onemarktwoyou 1 month ago
@onemarktwoyou A religious leader's book isn't a credible source to prove a historical event happened. You need (preferably multiple) historical sources - writings about the practice of "not preserving" documents selectively to weed out proof of certain early beliefs.
As an analogy, consider this: What if I were to make a claim about the practices of the early Church that completely contradicted what you believe to have happened? Would you accept quotes from a relatively modern author as proof?
cburton103 1 month ago
@cburton103 1/2
There are sources in it to reference. It is acknowledge that the greatest crime is NOT preserving the old writings. Which I believe is how they rid themselves of the vast majority. Although there in church history been banned books by the church. I still hold fast that majority of the old writings just became dust, and thought not worthy of replication. As simple proof the lack of writings that survived the centuries. Also which writings survived. Example sinaiticus.
onemarktwoyou 1 month ago
@cburton103 2/2
How close was that document was from being lost. Admittedly it was a poorly scribed and many considered corrupted. Considering how long, how many, and how many rewrites there was to it. None the less it was only days from being out of sight and placed to become dust. There was one thing in it that may truly could contribute to. And that was a very small and interesting part in revelation. Almost lost to time!
onemarktwoyou 1 month ago
@onemarktwoyou Well I don't have the book, so I guess I won't be able to see the source.
It's interesting you bring up the Codex Sinaiticus. Are you aware that this Bible had many books you don't consider to be inspired as a part of the canon of the Bible? How do you reconcile this with the canon of the Bible you use?
cburton103 1 month ago
@cburton103
I will put it this way. There was a canonized bible in the early church. We know not which books that were in it. But we know it existed because of writings that indicated it did exist. They do know it couldn't be the same books that any bible today would contain exactly. Also one needs to recognize all the modern bibles are not the same as the origins, they have literally evolved. As more texts have been found. Remember the catholic bible holes were filled with MT text
onemarktwoyou 1 month ago
@onemarktwoyou That isn't correct. The Catholic Bible has the exact same canon today as it has ever since it was promulgated in 382, 393, 397, 417, 1546. (Those are the dates of various councils or synods that proclaimed the exact same canon of the Bible). There weren't Catholic councils that ever proclaimed a different canon than the one Catholics use today. I don't doubt that scholars looked to various texts to ensure they had the truest Bible possible, but the canon has always been the same.
cburton103 1 month ago
@cburton103
I am not going to argue about this. My notes on this subject are long gone. I wish you would do as I did and study the subject in depth. It was a stressful subject. I never seen a subject that people(scholars) was so misleading to plain lying as this subject. I went to find the pure line of the bible. The information about bible sources are extremely hard to find(truthful). I am going to be reading "lost Christianities" And "lost scriptures" by Bart Ehrman.
onemarktwoyou 1 month ago
@cburton103
cont. He may go over it. But, remember the first bible that was canonized they can't even find a list of it. They know a few books that was in it by some early writings. But if you say all modern bible version stemmed from the canon which the dates you stated. I'd say yup. I myself would remove the book of John then make it apcryphal. Then add a couple of apocryphal books and canonize them.
onemarktwoyou 1 month ago
@MrCava1ier Not true, sir!!!
womanwonder10 4 months ago
@piscator11 The same could be said about you Catholics who just want 2 fight with us. Why are we not proclaiming the love of Christ to the unbelieving world? We do not agree on many things, but do we both agree Jesus saves? Why not share that with those who do not know Him!! You are not going 2 change my mind and I won't change yours. But maybe we can stay in our own places and change the world of unbelief in our "corner'!! Should I raise heck on Cath.sites. No. So visit, but don't fight!-Alexa
womanwonder10 4 months ago
The comments on here show me how hate filled protestants are. Seriously, we have common enemies like atheism and people that kill infants, but you people want to attack your Catholic brothers and Sisters? You will be held accountable for your hatred toward fellow members of the body of Christ.
piscator11 5 months ago
It's an unnecessary action. Jesus tells us to go to our private rooms to pray. I have seen so many people genuflect in public that I think it is "to be seen". If it gives you comfort to do it in privacy fine, but it is totally unnecessary.
1105Chance 5 months ago
1. The Orthodox and Armenians and Coptic churches also do this, but they do it slightly differently. 2. The Catholics also have a Pope and indulgences and prayers to the dead and invocation of saints; you don't complain that only they get to do this, do you? 3. If people don't have a custom, why bother trying to get them to adopt it? It's just an affectation and clearly doesn't improve the morals or ethics in Catholic or Orthodox countries. Why run twice as fast to stay where you are?
NixonisLord 7 months ago
no need to do the sign of the cross
MichaelJacksonwithJ5 7 months ago
@MichaelJacksonwithJ5 yeah,no to do it,because its actually the sign of the devil,when u see the Catholics do it,they did it from head to chest to shoulder and to another shoulder,if u make a picture,it actually is not the cross of Christ,it looks more like a + sign,what frustrates me is that Catholic Soccer Players always do this when they enter the stadium. ugh!
soccerruben1 6 months ago
Making the sign of the cross is a useless ritual; it is not neccesary, and has no bearing, whatsoever, upon your abidence to your faith.
JeffersonDinedAlone 7 months ago
Why do you say teachings like Pugatory, Mary, Pope when all of them are easily seen in writings before the year 500?
redbaron998 8 months ago
@redbaron998 Hi.....good question............My point is this...........individual statements do not make church Dogma....my point would be that these distinctive Roman Catholic teachings did not become official Dogma untl after ca 500 Ad. All kinds of teachings can be found in indivdual authors prior to 500AD including millennialism and double predestination.........neither of which reflect Roman Catholic teaching.
nschaub 8 months ago
@nschaub
But those who objected the teachings that reebaron998 mentioned were pronounced to be hereticts and were excommunicated before the year 500 ... That Jesus is God, and that God is Trinity wasn't officiially and dogmatically proclaimed until the end of 4th century. Should we assert that early Church didn't hold those beliefs... Also about the Real Presence. We find it written about in 100 AD but dogmatically declared in 1563 - bash it then ...
cunjoz 8 months ago
@cunjoz I agree with you. This all calls into view the phenomena of development of doctrine, ie, that the Faith once delivered to the Saints (Jude 1:3,) thought whole and complete when delivered to the Apostles by our Lord, was better understood over successive generations as the Holy Spirit illuminated the Church, and Christ continued to teach Her (John 16:12-13.) For instance: John 14:23, written in about AD 90, definitely shows three Divine Persons at work in us, yet this was not absolutely..
pj100003 5 months ago
@cunjoz and clearly defined in the form we now know it until around AD 500 in the Athanasian Creed (which, I might add, the Lutheran church has no problem supporting, even though it's clearly in the zone they say "corruptions" entered the Church.
pj100003 5 months ago
@pj100003
yep. they're just full of contradictions...you can't fight the Truth with a lie
cunjoz 5 months ago
No offense, but you're defending the sign of the cross based on "tracing it back to 180." I can very easily trace back logical, coherent Catholic teachings on primitive Mariology and an understanding of the Eucharist as a participation in the Sacrifice of Christ by the celebrant back to 155, and I can likewise trace the Primacy of Rome and the Papacy back to 180. Granted, these points are more major than the Sign, but still, the early Church was saturated with these widely held beliefs.
pj100003 5 months ago
@nschaub Particularly your statement on "distinctive Roman Catholic teachings" not being dogmatically held until after AD 500 is just not true. St. Irenaeus testifies that by 180 the Church had a unified belief in the major points, and in every area of the empire, and this belief was decidedly and firmly Catholic as you can tell by His writings. Things like, again, the Sacrifice of the Eucharist, Primacy of Rome, the role of Tradition, primitive Mariology, Apostolic succession, etc etc.
pj100003 5 months ago
I cant tell which religion this is?
Is this catholic or lutheran?
CWM880 2 months ago
@CWM880
The video is of a Lutheran
redbaron998 2 months ago
even peter did the sign of the cross for goodness sake,
ChaldeanDavid 8 months ago
@ChaldeanDavid yeah right,got proof?
soccerruben1 6 months ago
@soccerruben1 The marking of the Sign of the Cross is most certainly alluded to in the Book of Revelations written around 90-95 AD (see Revelations 7:3, 9:4, 14:1), as well as in John’s First Letter written around 80-90 AD (see 1 John 2:26,27). Check the early christian fathers (185-265 AD) they did the sign of the cross, Unless Christ's disciples taught a wrong doctrine?
ChaldeanDavid 6 months ago
@ChaldeanDavid what I say,when people did the "sign of the cross",they did it from head to chest and from shoulder to shoulder,if u picture it,it looks more like a upside down cross,that's not the cross christ died on.
soccerruben1 6 months ago
@soccerruben1 we do it from head to stomach and shoulder to shoulder
ChaldeanDavid 6 months ago
@ChaldeanDavid that's the cross christ died on,but I not saying we should do it,because I'm Protestant,I didn't taught to do it.
soccerruben1 6 months ago
@soccerruben1 okey dude up to you :).
ChaldeanDavid 6 months ago
@ChaldeanDavid alright then
soccerruben1 6 months ago
"It's not in the Bible"...SIGH
h0lystrike 9 months ago 2
@h0lystrike HI........is there anything that you do that is not in the bible?
nschaub 9 months ago 2
@h0lystrike We're suppose to go by the bible. If you are christian that is....
Marksnotebook 9 months ago
@h0lystrike Neither is the rapture yet almost all "Bible believing" American fundamentalists believe it too. sigh
brendos444 4 months ago
@brendos444 The Lutheran Church doesn't subscribe to dispensational premillennialism or any other form of "rapture" nonsense. Jesus will visibly come again on the Last Day.
AnHonestChristian 4 months ago
@AnHonestChristian Yes that's true. I think most traditional Protestant churches don't buy into this rapture nonsense. Neither do the Catholics or the Orthodox. The rapture seems to be the domain of US megachurch/tv evangelists - even conservative types like John MacArthure subscribes to the premillenial rapture... As an outsider to the US evangelical scene, I am really puzzled as to a lot of what happens in US Christianity.
brendos444 3 months ago
@brendos444 Unfortunately, American evangelicalism is plagued by sensationalism, emotionalism, and the need to conform to popular culture. It's pretty sickening. However, I know a number of Baptist guys in seminary who are either amillennial or preteristic...so, there's hope for 'em yet! :-)
AnHonestChristian 3 months ago
@AnHonestChristian yes, most of the Reformed/Calvinist crowd, be they baptist or presbyterian, are amillenial, which is about the only good thing you can say about their theology!
brendos444 3 months ago
@brendos444 @brendos444 Well, I also appreciate their monergistic soteriology, which stands in stark contrast to the synergistic/Arminian storeiology of too many evangelicals. But you're right about their eschatology. Dr. Kim Riddlebarger, a good Calvinist, wrote a great defense of amillennialism called "A Case for Amillennialism: Understanding the End Times."
AnHonestChristian 3 months ago
“You shall not make for yourself a carved image, or any likeness of anything that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth; you shall not bow down to them nor serve them. For I, the Lord your God, am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers on the children to the third and fourth generations of those who hate Me, but showing mercy to thousands, to those who love Me and keep My Commandments.
It is NOT God's will you make crucifix's.
Exaltedisthecreator 10 months ago
@Exaltedisthecreator yeah true to that
soccerruben1 6 months ago
@nschaub If it were that simple of stating what Luther said in his "little catechism", ".. for us Christians to eat and to drink", then why did he also Teach that as "the iron put into the fire whereby both fire and iron are united in the red-hot iron and yet each continues unchanged”... ? It doesn't seem that simple to anyone, Pastor Lassman. If it were, you wouldn't need a degree to figure it out. And you still have not answered The Official Lutheran Theological Teaching of The Eucharist.
JDNWF66 10 months ago
Comment removed
JDNWF66 10 months ago
@JDNWF66 Hi.......you are making my very point...neither Lutheran nor the Lutheran confessions were interested in philosophical speculations which is what "consubstantiation" is....the only reason they went beyond the biblical language was in response to both Rome and Zwingli and Calvin. This is what Martin Luther says in his Small Catechsim" It is the true body and blood of our Lord Jesus Crhsit under the bread and wine, instituted by Christ Himself for us Christians to eat and to drink"
nschaub 10 months ago
@nschaub That is not all that Martin Luther said. Here is one actual quote of Martin Luther's definition of The Eucharist, but of course one of several, BTW, and so my question is if you are aware of this quotation, Pastor Lassman? "the iron put into the fire whereby both fire and iron are united in the red-hot iron and yet each continues unchanged”.... Key words are "Yet each continues UNCHANGED". You can decide what Luther means by this. You have 2 degrees. I only have 1.
JDNWF66 10 months ago
@nschaub If this quotation of Martin Luther, "the iron put into the fire whereby both fire and iron are united in the red-hot iron and yet each continues unchanged”, does not define itself as Consubstantiation, what does, Pastor Lassman ?
JDNWF66 10 months ago
@nschaub And Martin Luther made no attempts at philosophical speculations? Really? Are you suggesting Zwingly and Calvin are wrong? By what measurement? And when you say "Rome" said this or "Rome" said that, who are you speaking of? The only Church in existence from 30 AD to 1500 AD was headed under Rome. Btw.. Is The Eastern Orthodox position on The Eucharist, your own?
JDNWF66 10 months ago
@JDNWF66 Hi..yes, yes...I know and then you will call it "consububstantiation" because it fits that definition.
nschaub 10 months ago
@nschaub So you will not answer the Divinely Mandated question concerning a Christian Truth just because I or someone may call it this or that? Is that what you are trying to say, Pastor Lassman, respectfully? You cannot give me The Teaching concerning The Eucahrist because of something you know I will "call it Consubstantiation" because "it" fits that definition? I assure you, you just gave us all that definition, Pastor Lassman, respectfully.
JDNWF66 10 months ago
@JDNWF66 Hi..obviously I am not as smart as you are so I will conclude by giving you two good resources that deny that "consubstantiation" is the official teaching of the Lutheran Church....both well known, mainstream and respected scholars: 1) "This Is My Body" by Werner Elert and 2) "The Conservative Reformation And Its Theology" by Charles Porterfield Krauth...
nschaub 10 months ago
@nschaub You can conclude all you want. The truth is I was not asking them. I am asking you for the official Lutheran teaching concerning The Holy Eucharist. Your asking me to read a book for the answer?? Really?
JDNWF66 10 months ago
@nschaub. Hi...again. As you have said. "some Lutherans used this term". Let me ask you Pastor, what would you say is the official Lutheran Teaching concerning The Eucharist? Since you have 2 degrees, you have a divine mandate to make this Christian teaching clear and unambiguos. Please do so now as it can be put to rest, then. Please. I ask you to explain to me what the Lutheran Church officially believes on The Eucharist. I will wait patiently for your clarification.
JDNWF66 10 months ago
@JDNWF66 Hi..Lutherans believe what the Scriptures say "Take eat, this is my body, Take Drink this is my blood"
nschaub 10 months ago
@nschaub This is not the Theological Belief about the Eucharist, Pastor Lassman. I am asking you again since you state you have 2 degrees. What is the actual theological belief of The Official Lutheran Teaching concerning The Words in The Gospel you have quoted. Surely your 2 degrees require more than a quotation from the bible.
Again, I ask you as you have a solemn obligation as a Minister of Jesus Christ to Clarify what that biblical quotation means according to Official Lutheran Teaching?
JDNWF66 10 months ago
@soccer21828. I am not wrong when I say that "some" Lutherans use the term to describe their teaching of the eucharist as "consubstantiation". Catholics define teachings so that everything is clarified whether you agree with it or not. You rightly point out how un uniform is this teaching held by you. To say, as Martin Luther called it, a "sacramental union" is a definition of consubstantiation.
JDNWF66 10 months ago
@soccer21928. Both Martin Luther and Philipp Melanchthon both used this term to express this teaching. You are correct that Lutherans do Not officially "use" the term. But that is how they explain it. Luther dud use the term, "sacramental union", but this only describes 2 substances present at the same time: the bread and wine with the presence of Christ. The deginition of this is Con-Substantiation.
JDNWF66 10 months ago
@JDNWF66 Can you give me a reference that shows that Luther and Melancthon used the word "consubstantiation"? I would appreciate that if you could..thanks..
nschaub 10 months ago
@nschaub I will and intend to give you the reference once you have given me the Offiicial Reference of what The Lutheran Teaching on The Eucharist is. You, as a Minister of Jesus Christ, have that Divine Obligation. Getting 2 degrees is not about simply quoting a scripture. That is used usually to didge the main question of what is the Theological answer of the Lutheran Faith concerning what you quoted in the bible. I believe that quotation too. Yet you as well as I know there is more.
JDNWF66 10 months ago
@soccer21928. Your welcome to believe as you wish but all you have to do is go to a Lutheran Seminary or as simple as going to a reference siurce and you will see that The Lutheran Church believes and teaches The Eucharist defined as "consubstantiation". Martin Luther, founder of The Lutheran Church, proposed this very term for the Eucharist.
JDNWF66 10 months ago
@JDNWF66 HI.........Listen very carefully to what I am saying: Martin Luther nor the Lutheran Confessions ever USE THE WORD "CONSUBSTANTIATION. That word was first used by NON-LUTHERANS to describe the Lutheran teaching on the Lord's Supper....it is true that in the history of Lutheranism there might have been some Lutherans that used this word "CONSUBSTANTION" but it was controversial to do so and has never been the OFFICIAL teaching of the Lutheran Church. I have two degrees from a seminary
nschaub 10 months ago
no its not. they are similar, but consubstantiation is taking sacramental union a step further that lutherans do. they dont try to explain their belief in the "real presence". they reject the circumscribed presence in the bread and wine that consubstantiation affirms. its not really debatable. its an understandable mistake, but you need to be honest and admit you were wrong. you said "Lutherans too have a DEFINITION of what takes place at The Lord's Supper. It's called "CONSUBSTANTIATION".
soccer21928 10 months ago
@soccer21928. There will always be those who will choose to separate themselves from the First Church Jesus founded, but there is a difference between diversity of Catholic Faith which shares within Itself 21 "rites" in The Catholic Church that are all in union with Rome and the Pope, though share diversity but in One Household Of Faith: 1 Tim 3:15.
JDNWF66 10 months ago
@soccer21928 Not at all. The Catholic Church in union with Rome was never ever severed or exists outside of It's Communion. Can people leave it and form other bands outside it? Certainly. No one can force you to believe. But the Faith of The Catholic Church is one in UNION with The See Of Peter. The difference with Lutherans or other Christians is that the Faith is always split from it's Root. Protestantism has no central or cohesive unity. It is an amalgamation of many.
JDNWF66 10 months ago
I would encourage you, soccer21928, to read Irenaeus an early church Father and focuse on how he describes the events just after the pronouncements of the words of The Lord's Supper probably around 160 AD. Read it carefully.
JDNWF66 10 months ago
Transubstatiation means that the forms of bread and wine are both transformed into Christ. After the priest utters the words of Christ, what was present on that alter prior (the bread and the wine) become Christ. There is complete transformation hence the term, Transubstantiation. Meaning transformed into not consisting-with (consubstantiation). These are theological interpretations irregardless of what you personally believe or not.
JDNWF66 10 months ago
No. I am not kidding you. "Consubstantiation" is the belief that both the presence of Christ and the Forms (bread and wine) are still present after the "minister" uses the words of Christ during the Last Supper. The definition of that belief is "consubstantiation", otherwise known as "matter that co - subsists with the elements"--- bread and wine. Google it. ;-) RJ
JDNWF66 10 months ago
@JDNWF66 no i know what consubstantiation is. your mistake is attributing it to lutheranism. lutherans adhere to what is called sacramental union, which is similar to consubstantiation but different, yet many people such as yourself attatch consubstantiation to lutherans, even though it is incorrect5. i wasnt arguing the definition of consubstantiation, and i think for the sake of honesty you should admit you were wrong when you said lutherans did believe in it.
soccer21928 10 months ago
I think it is the good thing if the children in the Sunday school or later at confirmation class are told about the meaning of the sign of the cross and are encouraged to do it, both the normal and the small one (at the reading of the Holy Gospel).
karpov89 11 months ago
Protestantism is not in the bible either. Respectfully. RJ
JDNWF66 11 months ago
@JDNWF66 That is correct.
karpov89 11 months ago
the sign of the cross is somewhat coming back among the younger, at least at my church in Åbo, Finland. And it seems like the older have always done it.
It's kinda like it skipped a generation or two or something...
Especially all at my faculty of theology do it.
Peace
woweixiaomiandui 11 months ago
what the fuck
first u protestants say doing the sign of the cross is like worshiping idols
now u say u should and why are u wearing that whit strap thats catholic too u balashepers
barsyha 11 months ago
@barsyha luther encouraged making the sign of the cross, and lots of protestants do it, and even if they dont theyre generally not opposed to it, please stop spreading your ignorance
soccer21928 10 months ago
@soccer21928 bro wat are you tlking about protestism dicourages making the sign of the cross because they consder it worshipping idols. they also oppose other things of the catholic church like praying to the saints and mary so i dont know how im spreading ignorence
barsyha 10 months ago
@soccer21928 bro wat are you tlking about protestism dicourages making the sign of the cross because they consder it worshipping idols. they also oppose other things of the catholic church like praying to the saints and mary so i dont know how im spreading ignorence p.s they also refuseaccepting that the bread and wine are jesuses body
barsyha 10 months ago
@barsyha hello, im a protestant! dont try to tell me what i believe! go do your own research, some protestants make the sign others dont, its an individual choice. why did luther reccomend doing it twice a day? why do many anglicans cross themselves at church? this isnt debatable, im telling you facts. Some protestants believe in the literal body and blood. lutherans do, but they dont try to explain it by transubstantiation. anglicans fall on both sides of the fence. go do your research
soccer21928 10 months ago
@soccer21928 No. You are wrong. Even your Pastor will tell you if he is honest that Lutherans too have a DEFINITION of what takes place at The Lord's Supper. It's called "CONSUBSTANTIATION". So do YOUR research, first !
JDNWF66 10 months ago
@JDNWF66 youve got to be kidding me. ive done my research, thats why i dont attribute consubstantiation to lutheranism anymore. thats a common misconception, most lutherans use the term sacramental union, which specifically rejects the local presence of Christ's body and blood in the host, which consubstantiation affirms. they are similar, but not the same. i also used to believe it was consubstantiation, but its not, any real lutheran will tell you.
soccer21928 10 months ago
@soccer21928 Luther believed in The Immaculate Conception, The Perpetual Virginity of Mary and many other things Lutherans today will shun. Depending on which lutheran you speak to. The Wisconsin Synod lutheran? The ELCA Lutheran, The Scottish Lutheran Church, Lutheran or The Missouri Synod Lutharan, Lutheran... ;-) Luther was right when he said toward the end of his life looking on all the fruits his re-formation caused, "There are as many heads as there are sects....".... Sad to say..
JDNWF66 10 months ago
@JDNWF66 there are many lutherans, (and other protestants)who believe in those those things. im asuming youre catholic. you guys like to list our denominations. but the fact is, you believe most of what you do because you were told to. even in the apostolic era, christians did not have uninamity on every issue, and people generally werent burned alive when they disagreed. at least not by other "Christians" ;-). but still, there is a growing catholic sect called sedevacantism, who reject the pope
soccer21928 10 months ago
...Someone explain to me how it could have been around in 1 AD if Jesus wasn't crucified until 30 AD?
Udany147 1 year ago
@Udany147 180
kirk76 1 year ago
Where in the Bible can you find the sign of the cross? You false teacher!!!
superlolothunder1 1 year ago
Acts 20:29-30 I know that after my going away oppressive wolves will enter in among YOU and will not treat the flock with tenderness, and from among YOU yourselves men will rise and speak twisted things to draw away the disciples after themselves.After the apostles died the great apostasy infiltrated true worship, and false teachings like the veneration of the cross/hell fire/trinity... became promoted by Satan himself. Rev12:9 Satan is misleading the entire inhabited earth
Scripturesinspired 1 year ago
This guys is a PROTESTANT. Don't get confused. He is not a Catholic Priest.
What a deceiver.
nilofc 1 year ago
@nilofc Pastor Lassman is not a deceiver, he does not claim to be a Catholic priest. Show respect.
karpov89 11 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
What a con artist..... he is not a Catholic Priest.
nilofc 1 year ago
Martin Luther did not like the very people that wrote the Bible. He was anti semetic. How could we possibly follow a faith started by someone who hated Gods people?
GeneCourage 1 year ago