Catholics, what exactly do you believe about Mary?

[PeaceB]

That's a cute little line signifying nothing. But it's only been used about fifty times here lately.

My my. It appears that Albion had his feathers ruffled. My bad.

In the first place there was no Catholic Church at that point in time.

False.

And in the second, it doesn't say a thing about Sola Scriptura to say that Christian councils made a determination as to which books are inspired.

False.

What matters is that all Christian churches believe them to BE the inspired word of God. That being the case, do we treat them as such or go with the opinions of men instead?

Well, you certainly go with the opinions of men. That is something we can agree on. For example, the false doctrine of Sola Scriptura that you hold, comes from Martin Luther. It is not found within Scripture. Most of the other non-Catholic doctrines that you hold come from Luther, Melancthon, Zwingli, and Calvin. They are not to be found in Scripture.

We say that the word of God is an authority that has no equal. Your church says "No" to that.

But the task of authentically interpreting the word of God, whether written or handed on, has been entrusted exclusively to the living teaching office of the Church, whose authority is exercised in the name of Jesus Christ. This teaching office is not above the word of God, but serves it, teaching only what has been handed on, listening to it devoutly, guarding it scrupulously and explaining it faithfully in accord with a divine commission and with the help of the Holy Spirit, it draws from this one deposit of faith everything which it presents for belief as divinely revealed.​

 

[OpenYourBibles]

I started commenting on this thread, the same way that I am going to stop commenting on this thread. Your Bible says nothing of this level of veneration towards Mary, yet if she were indeed all of the things she has been claimed to be (the mother of the church, immaculately conceived, the new Eve, etc...) surely the apostles would have recognized her as such, and recorded such... but no one did???

Furthermore, and many of you have agreed, there are many extra-biblical practices that are being followed as doctrine.

I contest that all of our practices should be able to line up with the foundation of the NT church written in scripture. If that is a litmus test that you do not require... go for it. But when we allow ourselves to go past (or even make false) the written word of God - where does it end?

I wish no longer to bat this about as we cannot even agree on the importance of the word of God - how could we ever agree on the importance of what it says!

 

[Valyn]

There are no goddesses in the R.C.C. and Our Lady isn't revered as such. It's a fable.

I believe that the Blessed Virgin Mary is the Immaculate Conception, that she was preserved by her Son from the stain of original sin. I believe that she is the Mother of God....

The only thing I would add to your otherwise excellent post is that Our Lady also plays a role in the serpent's ultimate defeat and that only her love for mankind and her asking for more time on our behalf is what holds Christ back from punishing our world. That's how patient she is and how much Christ respects her. I'd also say that I believe that she has contacted mankind several times over the last 150 years (La salette, Lourdes, Fatima, ...) because she wants the best for us and she understands that we could use the help.

 

[wilts43]

This is exactly the whole point of our contention! I'm glad you and Albion could flush it out better than I could, I was growing weary! The church that Jesus started, the New Testament Church that started in Acts 2 does not match up in principle, doctrine, or practice with the Catholic Church that came to be based in Rome or the Catholic Church we know today!

Does an acorn "match" an oak?

The RCC does in fact "match"; but not if, like hundreds of Protestant-church-founders, you insist on trying to re-create the acorn.
Christ's one, holy, catholic Church has "teased out" truthes that were implicit....like Trinity; The Divinity of Christ; Hypostaitc Union; Immaculate Conception etc.
At root, Protestantism is a rejection of this Christ-given authority. The individual with his bible decides all truth....or forms a new sect to impose their interpretation on a set of followers.
The Catholic Church is in fact much more than 2000 years old! It is simply the true Judaeism of those who accepted the Messiah & OT fulfilment.....and they retained many Jewish practices & understandings (eg Scripture & tradition).
Amongst these was clear authority, from Christ. He breathed on them & sent them, and they laid hands on those they sent. That Church in Acts you speak of showed the Apostles exercising clear authority in discipline & doctrine.
Christ is The Davidic King (see Annunciation) So when he gives Peter The Keys it is Thy Keysof David that He held. Isaiah 22:20-23
The King's steward held these to rule in the king's absence. Jewish readers understood this; European Protestants didn't.

It is Protestant Churches that do not "match" the early Church......
In having & accepting legitimate Authority
In unity
In accepting developing doctrines (As Council of Jerusalem)
In "holding fast to the traditions" taught by their leaders.
In Doctrine (eg literal real prescence)
And they also oppose the earliest church.......
In inventing new traditions & Doctrines like sola scripture or sola fidei or insisting everything had to be explicit in "The Bible" 350 years before it was complied by The Catholic Church.

That's The Apostolic Church
If you expand it to The Church of The Fathers it is blatantly, explicitly Catholic. But don't read them......you'll probably become catholic.

 

[JacksBratt]

Well, you are missing 7 books of God's Word, but we can discuss that later.

If you are going to claim that those 7 books should be canonized, I will say that the Book of Enoch should be too.. This can go on and on....

Not saying that those books are not great text for study, just stating that, like the Book of Enoch, they are not Canon. Not part of the Bible.

Sorry. But I didn't decide this, People with far greater understanding of theology did and the greater part of the world has accepted it.

How do you rely solely on the Bible, when you do not even have a true copy of the Bible? Beside the fact that you are missing 7 books, what do you do with the reality that none of the original manuscripts of the Bible exist in our possession? What you have on your bookshelf, quite literally, is a translation of a copy, of a copy, of a copy, of a copy . . . of the original inspired writings, and the earliest manuscripts that we have are inconsistent with each other at numerous places different places.

So, if what I have "is not" the bible. What do I have. What is the whole of the Christian faith studying and relying on, as "All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for instruction, for conviction, for correction, and for training in righteousness,"

Do you believe it wise to base your faith solely on your private interpretation of a translation of a copy, of a copy, of a copy, of a copy of the original inspired writings, without giving proper deference to the tradition in which the Bible has been interpreted throughout Christian history?

It is hardly my "private" interpretation. It is also, hardly the translation of a copy of a copy of a copy.
The scribes, if you study the history, were meticulous, when it came to the writing from the original manuscripts. If a mistake was made, the scroll was destroyed.

Even the discovery of the dead sea scrolls put this fallacy to bed when the parchments matched, exactly, to what we have today for the books they contained.

Your argument was that of the atheistic scholars who were hoping and praying that the dead sea scrolls would destroy the continuity of the Bible.............

Yet, they only did one thing........solidly support that what we have today is the true word of God.

 

[JacksBratt]

There are no goddesses in the R.C.C. and Our Lady isn't revered as such. It's a fable.



The only thing I would add to your otherwise excellent post is that Our Lady also plays a role in the serpent's ultimate defeat and that only her love for mankind and her asking for more time on our behalf is what holds Christ back from punishing our world. That's how patient she is and how much Christ respects her. I'd also say that I believe that she has contacted mankind several times over the last 150 years (La salette, Lourdes, Fatima, ...) because she wants the best for us and she understands that we could use the help.

Do you have any scripture to back this up?

 

[wilts43]

I started commenting on this thread, the same way that I am going to stop commenting on this thread. Your Bible says nothing of this level of veneration towards Mary, yet if she were indeed all of the things she has been claimed to be (the mother of the church, immaculately conceived, the new Eve, etc...) surely the apostles would have recognized her as such, and recorded such... but no one did???

Furthermore, and many of you have agreed, there are many extra-biblical practices that are being followed as doctrine.

I contest that all of our practices should be able to line up with the foundation of the NT church written in scripture. If that is a litmus test that you do not require... go for it. But when we allow ourselves to go past (or even make false) the written word of God - where does it end?

I wish no longer to bat this about as we cannot even agree on the importance of the word of God - how could we ever agree on the importance of what it says!

Protestants agree on the importance of the Bible......but it is Protestants that have never agreed on what it says! (circa 40,000 plus deniminations)

It is the Catholic Church that collated The Bible, revers it and tells us what it means.
Conversely Protestantism is a Babel of voices.

You seem to be stuck on Bible-alone.....but since Bible-Alone is nowhere in The Bible (indeed it is contradicted therein) is is a self-defeating propostion.

The OT, NT & Revelation is full of Mary, but you have to take off Protestant-Goggles (traditions--of-men) & put on Jewish-Goggles to see it.
Have you looked up "Mary Typology" in Google or you-tube?
Until you have explored Marian-Typology you cannot say our reverence for Mary is unbiblical.
Eg Mary's mission is crucial for the end-times. The Story of The Fall has to be undone. It is undone by Jesus (New Adam) & Mary (New Eve).
Eve disobeys, & brings The fruit to Adam & facilitates The Fall
Mary obeys, & brings forth the fruit of The New Adam ("Flesh of my Flesh" reversed) facilitating salvation.
And God sets this up in Gen 3:15 A future final conflict between "The Woman" & "The Serpent" Then read Rev 11:19 following through 12
Christ is taken up to heaven.....but the womans seed & the serpents seed do battle.

MarysHeel - MarysHeel

 

[chilehed]

If you had gone to Nazareth when Jesus was a toddler and asked him "who's your mommy?", he would have pointed to Mary.

It's really very simple:

Mary is the mother of Jesus.
Jesus is God.
Therefore, Mary is the mother of God.​

 

[kepha31]

That's a cute little line signifying nothing. But it's only been used about fifty times here lately.

In the first place there was no Catholic Church at that point in time.

Who discerned the canon of Scripture in the 4th century? Protestants?

CATHOLIC: Where did the word originate? It comes from the Greek word Katholikos, which was later Latinized into Catholicus.

It means 'Universal', which in itself means, 'of or relating to, or affecting the entire world and ALL peoples therein'. It means, ALL encompassing, comprehensibly broad, general, and containing ALL that is neccessary. In summation, it means ALL people in ALL places, having ALL that is necessary, and for ALL time.
Matthew 28:19-20, "Go, therefore and make disciples of ALL nations...teaching them to observe ALL that I have commanded you; And behold, I am with you ALL days, even unto the consummation of the world." That is a statement of Universality, Katholicos, Catholicus, Catholic.

.and you belong to that Church whose faith St. Paul describes as being "proclaimed (KATAnggeletai) in the whole universe (en HOLO to kosmo)” (Rom. 1:8)
Thus the word KATAHOLOS or Catholic in English originated from Scriptures - Romans 1:8
"So the church throughout all Judea and Galilee and Sama'ria had peace and was built up; and walking in the fear of the Lord and in the comfort of the Holy Spirit it was multiplied." [Acts 9:31 RSV]
There the words "church throughout all" is translated from the Greek words "Ecclesia kata holis" or Catholic in English.
Thus the word KATAHOLOS or Catholic in English originated from Scriptures - Romans 1:8 and Acts 9:31

The first recorded use of the word that I could find, is in St. Ignatius of Antioch's letter to the Smyrneans, paragraph 8, of 106 A.D., "Where the Bishop appears, there let the people be, just as where Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church." That was recorded a mere 11 years after John wrote Revelation. Undoubtedly the word was in use before the time of this writing.

Written records of the term "CATHOLIC" describing a character of the Christian Church:
Ignatius, Letter to the Smyrneans 106AD;
Martyrdom of St. Polycarp 155AD;
Clement of Alexandria, Stromateis 202AD;
Cyprian, Unity of the Catholic Church 251AD;
Cyprian, Letter to Florentius, 254AD

"In the first place there was no Catholic Church at that point in time." Right. And Athanasius was a bible thumping evangelical.

And in the second, it doesn't say a thing about Sola Scriptura to say that Christian councils made a determination as to which books are inspired.

Councils didn't determine what was inspired, they were already inspired. They excluded what was not inspired. Sola scriptura was unheard of (not to be confused with material sufficiency).

What matters is that all Christian churches believe them to BE the inspired word of God. That being the case, do we treat them as such or go with the opinions of men instead?

It was the opinions of one man that eroded 7 books out of the Bible, he's your authority.

We say that the word of God is an authority that has no equal. Your church says "No" to that.

A non-sequitur fallacy. First, the word of God is never confined to the written word alone. "word of God" is not used that way anywhere in the Bible, it is a false man made tradition. What we say "no" to is isolating the Scriptures from the very Tradition that it flows with. What we say "no" to is every heretic thumbing their nose at the institutional church starting with Arius, Nestorius, Apollarius and a legion of sola scripturists down through history.

101 In order to reveal himself to men, in the condescension of his goodness God speaks to them in human words: "Indeed the words of God, expressed in the words of men, are in every way like human language, just as the Word of the eternal Father, when he took on himself the flesh of human weakness, became like men."63

102 Through all the words of Sacred Scripture, God speaks only one single Word, his one Utterance in whom he expresses himself completely:64
You recall that one and the same Word of God extends throughout Scripture, that it is one and the same Utterance that resounds in the mouths of all the sacred writers, since he who was in the beginning God with God has no need of separate syllables; for he is not subject to time.65
103 For this reason, the Church has always venerated the Scriptures as she venerates the Lord's Body. She never ceases to present to the faithful the bread of life, taken from the one table of God's Word and Christ's Body.66

104 In Sacred Scripture, the Church constantly finds her nourishment and her strength, for she welcomes it not as a human word, "but as what it really is, the word of God".67 "In the sacred books, the Father who is in heaven comes lovingly to meet his children, and talks with them."68
CCC 101-104

the Church has always venerated the Scriptures as she venerates the Lord's Body.
did you get that?

The earliest known image of the Virgin Mary is a fresco dated about 150 CE in the Catacomb of Priscilla on the Via Salaria in Rome that shows her nursing the infant Jesus on her lap.​

 

[Wolf_Says]

If you are going to claim that those 7 books should be canonized, I will say that the Book of Enoch should be too.. This can go on and on....

Not saying that those books are not great text for study, just stating that, like the Book of Enoch, they are not Canon. Not part of the Bible.

Sorry. But I didn't decide this, People with far greater understanding of theology did and the greater part of the world has accepted it.

I'm sorry but your argument does not hold up. Why? Because the Book of Enoch was not chosen by the various councils and synods that determined what books were to be placed in the Bible.

However, the 7 books that you are against actually ARE canonized, and have been since the late 4th century, when the Bible as we know it today came to be.

The texts of the OT that the early Christians used to prove that Jesus was the Messiah came from the Greek version, the Septuagint, which had been completed over 100 years prior to Jesus's birth.

The OT that many protestants use today is from the Jewish council in 80AD which did not add the 7 books of the "Apocrypha" because they could not find a Hebrew original, and were afraid to let Greek culture influence their Jewish culture.

However, the Jews no longer had binding authority given to them from God, because Jesus had passed this power onto Peter and the Apostles. Therefore, they were in error in removing the 7 books.

The Bible contained (and still does) 73 books until the 1500s when Martin Luther decided that they did not align with his version of the Bible, and therefore took them out.

So, the 7 books are canonized, just many Protestants do not agree with it.

 

[kepha31]

I started commenting on this thread, the same way that I am going to stop commenting on this thread. Your Bible says nothing of this level of veneration towards Mary, yet if she were indeed all of the things she has been claimed to be (the mother of the church, immaculately conceived, the new Eve, etc...) surely the apostles would have recognized her as such, and recorded such... but no one did???

All Marian doctrines can be derived directly or indirectly from Scripture. You want explicit proof text for every single thing, but cannot proof text sola scriptura. That's a double standard.

Furthermore, and many of you have agreed, there are many extra-biblical practices that are being followed as doctrine.

First, define "extra-biblical practices", then define "doctrine", then give an example of "extra-biblical practices" that is doctrinal.

I contest that all of our practices should be able to line up with the foundation of the NT church written in scripture. If that is a litmus test that you do not require... go for it. But when we allow ourselves to go past (or even make false) the written word of God - where does it end?

You have very little in common with the NT church written in scripture because that is all you have, which came from the Catholic Church in the first place.

I wish no longer to bat this about as we cannot even agree on the importance of the word of God - how could we ever agree on the importance of what it says!

Nobody is denying it's importance, but isolating Scripture from Tradition and the Magisterium and it's no longer an inspired book.

 

[kepha31]

Do you have any scripture to back this up?

In most editions of the Douay-Rheims Bible, Genesis 3:15, in which God is addressing the serpent, reads like this:

"I will put enmities between thee and the woman, and thy seed and her seed: she shall crush thy head, and thou shalt lie in wait for her heel."

In the New American Bible, as in all other modern Bibles, it reads like this:

"I will put enmity between you and the woman, and between your offspring and hers; He will strike at your head, while you strike at his heel."

The essential difference between these two renderings -- or at least the one people always ask about -- concerning who will crush the serpent's head and who the serpent is trying to strike. The Douay-Rheims uses feminine pronouns -- she and her -- implying that the woman is the person being spoken of in this part of the verse. All modern translations use masculine pronouns -- he and his -- implying that the seed of the woman is the of that part of the verse.

The reason for the difference in the renderings is a manuscript difference. Modern translations follow what the original Hebrew of the passage says. The Douay-Rheims, however, is following a manuscript variant found in many early Fathers and some editions of the Vulgate (but not the original; Jerome followed the Hebrew text in his edition of the Vulgate). The variant probably originated as a copyist error when a scribe failed to take note that the subject of the verse had shifted from the woman to the seed of the woman.

People notice this variant today because the expression found in the Douay-Rheims has been the basis of some popular Catholic art, showing a serene Mary standing over a crushed serpent.

This is because Christians have recognized (all the way back to the first century) that the woman and her seed mentioned in Genesis 3:15 do not simply stand for Eve and one of her righteous sons (either Abel or Seth). They prophetically foreshadow Mary and Jesus. Thus, just as the first half of the verse, speaking of the enmity between the serpent and the woman, has been applied to Mary, the second half, speaking of the head crushing and heel striking, has also been applied to Mary due to the manuscript variant, though it properly applies to Jesus, given the original Hebrew.

This does not mean that the idea cannot be validly applied to Mary as well. Through her cooperation in the incarnation of Christ, so that the Son of God (who, from the cross, directly crushed the head of the serpent) became her seed, Mary did crush the head of the serpent. In the same way, the serpent struck at Christ on the cross, and indirectly struck at Mary's heart as well, who had to witness the death of her own Son (cf. John 19:25-27). As the holy priest Simeon had told her years before:

"Behold, this child is set for the fall and rising of many in Israel, and for a sign that is spoken against -- and a sword will pierce through your own soul also -- that thoughts out of many hearts may be revealed" (Luke 2:34b-35).

Thus Jesus crushed the serpent directly and was directly struck by the serpent; Mary, through her cooperation in the incarnation and her witnessing the sufferings and death of her Son, indirectly crushed the serpent and was indirectly struck by the serpent.

This has long been recognized by Catholics. The footnotes provided a couple of hundred years ago by Bishop Challoner in his revision of the Douay state, "The sense [of these two readings] is the same: for it is by her seed, Jesus Christ, that the woman crushes the serpent's head."
INFO: Mary and the saints

 

[wilts43]

My fellow Catholics - I have a problem here. You have read what I have had to say on this thread, up and down it, point after point.

This Anglican doesn't agree with our Church, which is fine, but he has gone past that, and decided to assert that what I have said is not Catholic, that my church does not believe the things I have said.

In the earlier case, it was over the matter of the ultimate authority of Scripture over the Church. I stated that Catholics believe that God expresses himself through the Church, and that the Written Tradition (Scripture) and the "Oral" Tradition (which is really also written) are both important, but that it is the Holy Spirit, speaking through the Teaching Authority of the Church, that determines what the Traditions - which include Scripture - MEAN. The Church is the source and authority of Scripture, not the reverse.

He has said I was wrong.

Here, he has doubled down on it. He has stated that there are no doctrines of importance in the Deuterocanonica. I have pointed to the offerings for the dead that occurred in 2 Maccabbees 38-46 (when the dead soldiers were found to have had medallions of a goddess around their necks). At his invitation to go fetch I demurred, and told him to go look it up himself.

I am irritated at being lectured on Catholicism by an Anglican, and I am not feeling very charitable. Nor am I feeling like entering into endless bickering.

It would gratify me immensely if several of you Catholics who are reading this, who have seen what I have written to this Anglican and seen his responses, would confirm that yes, I have stated what Catholics believe. We are all entitled to our own beliefs, but we are not entitled to our own facts, and it would be useful for him, I think, to see that yes, Catholicism does indeed believe these things that he rejects, because he likes to think of himself as an Anglo-Catholic, but in the end Protestantism is tied to the Bible, while Catholicism is tied to the Holy Spirit, who lives in the Church.

If you DON'T agree with me and think that what I have said about Catholicism is NOT true, and that the Anglican is more truly conveying the facts of the Catholic faith than I am, I would also appreciate it if you stood forward and said so.

I will be surprised if anybody does so, but please don't hold back if you think I am misrepresenting the Faith here.

If the Catholics speak univocally on the matter, the point of what we believe will be established, and the erroneous beliefs asserted about what we believe will be removed. I would be very glad to see it.

I agree wholeheartedly.
The fundamental option is
(1)Accept the Church founded by The Messiah, with its Apostles (Bishops) and Davidic Steward (Peter). Catholicism is Post-Messianic Judaism. The People of God continued.

(2)Believe that God's own Kingdom, founded by His Last Word to mankind, failed! straight away!!!!!!
It was then only restarted 1500 years later (because printing was invented) by a foul-mouthed, uncharitable, anti-semitic German monk who constantly changed his position.
This New "Church" promptly shattered into thousands of pieces because he opened the door to "me-&-Jesus" "me-&-my-bible" religion.
Proof that "The Bible" is not a religion. It requires interpretation.

This individualistic "Me-&-my-Bible" religion has nothing to do with the Salvation History, throughout OT & NT, of ONE People-of-God. It is mere rebellion.
The shear wonder of The Catholic Church as the oldest, most-universal, ever-growing institution in human history should cause any thinking Protestant (or expectant Jew) to ponder the promises that The Messiah would bring all the peoples of the world into His kingdom .....is being fulfilled

If this promised effect of The Messiah is not The Catholic Church where is it?
Of course such universal unity is not possible without a visible focus of unity......"Where Peter is, there is the Church" (St Ambrose C 397AD)

 

[lsume]

Not to dispute everything you wrote there, but it's helpful to keep the solid objections separate from the shaky ones.

For example, almost every Christian church believes in the Trinity, not just the Catholic Church; the order requiring priests in the Roman Catholic Church to be unmarried is just an administrative decision--it's not a doctrine and could be reversed at any time; and the New Testament certainly does indicate that baptisms should be done in the name of the Triune God.

Hello Albion,

I have used my IpadPro exclusively as my tool for interacting on Christian Forums. To date, I don't seem to be able to start a new thread using my IPad. If you don't mind, could you find me in the system and send me an email pertaining to this issue?

Thank you

 

[wilts43]

Very well. That is Catholicism nicely summarized for us. That is not Christianity, however. I prefer to be a Christian and not a Catholic. My faith is in Jesus Christ and not in a religious organization which claims to be in His place.

See post 313

 

[lsume]

There aren't any. You are merely making claims about your personal interpretations.

I'm sure that you disagree with Peter and the early Church about the meaning of this passage, for example:

John 6
53Jesus said to them, “Very truly I tell you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you. 54Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise them up at the last day. 55For my flesh is real food and my blood is real drink.

It's interesting to me that you have quoted The Word found in John 6. Our oldest daughter just happened to be having an issue with The Word that specifically states that we must eat the flesh of Christ and drink His Blood. I explained to her that Christ was telling us that we must Read The Word of God (eat His flesh) and be filled with The Holy Spirit (The Life Blood of Christ). Our daughter quickly received what I was blessed to be allowed to share with her. She had told me that the Christian radio program she listens to and the church she goes to were both unclear about Christ's Words meaning.

 

[wilts43]

It's interesting to me that you have quoted The Word found in John 6. Our oldest daughter just happened to be having an issue with The Word that specifically states that we must eat the flesh of Christ and drink His Blood. I explained to her that Christ was telling us that we must Read The Word of God (eat His flesh) and be filled with The Holy Spirit (The Life Blood of Christ). Our daughter quickly received what I was blessed to be allowed to share with her. She had told me that the Christian radio program she listens to and the church she goes to were both unclear about Christ's Words meaning.

This is clearly off topic?
But by what authority did you dissolve & deny what Jesus insists on multiple times, even doubling-down by changing the Greek word eat to chew?
By what authority did you reject the interpretation of the few who remained with Jesus? (You belong with those who left at this hard saying). By what authority did you reject the literal belief of the whole church for 1500 plus years and most of it to this day?
I hope you at least also told your daughter that almost all Christians in History have believed differently to your explanation?
And if Christ isn't taken literally when He insists so much.....nothing in The Bible at all can be taken literally..... Such "dissolution-explanations" of scripture are just listening to yourself. (Or to man-made Protestant traditions, post Luther/Calvin, but from Zwingli on)
This issue is dealt with in other threads. Please don't hijack this one.
This one covers it: Lords supper is symbolic

 

[lsume]

This is clearly off topic?
But where do you get to dissolve & deny what Jesus insists on multiple times, even doubling-down by changing the Greek word eat to chew?
By what authority do you reject the interpretation of the few who remained with Jesus? (You belong with those who left at this hard saying). By what authority do you reject the literal belief of the whole church for 1500 plus years and most of it to this day?
This is dealt with in other threads. Please don't hijack this one.
This one covers it: Lords supper is symbolic

There must be some communication error on my part here. The spy's for the Sanhedrin left after the miracle to report back about Christ. Those who came to Christ and those who stayed with Christ were chosen among men. I'm not sure of what offense you are accusing me of.

 

[Halbhh]

Tell that to Martin Luther and the other Reformers.

John warned us about them:

1 John 2
19They went out from us, but they did not really belong to us. For if they had belonged to us, they would have remained with us; but their going showed that none of them belonged to us.

Well, we haven't "gone out", generally.

But, looking at that past time, 500 years ago, when the complex situation with Luther (imperfect but with some bits of truth) unfolded, a big moment that has had a lot of consequences is that Luther was excommunicated.

Right?

How could Luther even be said to have "gone out"?

I'm not Luther in any way, but excommunicating him forced him to do services outside the church that pushed him out it would seem. I'm not at all asking you to approve of Luther. I'm asking about your own idea he "went out".

 

[Halbhh]

...