you'll hate this thread, I guarantee it.

[holo]

So you're not perfect but your opinions are?

No. My opinions are my opinions, no more, no less. I think they are right, but they may turn out to be wrong. I've changed my mind about stuff before. Have you?

 

[Uphill Battle]

Sure, but for you we'd be permanently lost, with regards to not knowing the truth, yet 'saved' for believing in one truth!

I do NOT get what you are trying to say here.

Jesus didn't hide anything from us. Nor would he have held back any teaching.

true enough. Which makes me wonder why the record we have been given doesn't include alot of the teachings that some churches say Jesus taught.

ah well.

So it does matter about the truth -that family I mentioned before you said it didn't matter. Which do you believe in now?

what truth?

I make no such claim. But because they split from us doesn't make our church flawed any more than the Apostles were flawed because Judas fell away from their number

I'm sure they'd be impressed that you equate them with Judas. But that wasn't the point. the POINT is, you point the finger and say "look what the horrible protestants have done! They've SEPERATED! GASP!" fault of one or the other is irreleveant. It's hypocritical.

Indeed they do. Does that make both wrong?

possibly. I don't draw that conclusion based on the schism though. at least ONE must be, not neccessarily both.

Indeed. Does that make neither true? Anytime you see two people arguing then you must conclude they're both wrong!

either one is, or both are.

The devils believe in Jesus.

It either matters how you believe in him, or it doesn't.

I've detailed this for you already. I'm not going to repeat myself.

I'm sorry to point out the flaw in your attempt to have it all, argument-wise

whatever. that "we have it all right' attitude from your church, begins to rub off on everything, doesn't it?

 

[Uphill Battle]

I personally don't. But yes I do believe that the Apostles wouldn't appoint deacons, priests and bishops just for fun.

of course not. Then, you are just parotting what OTHER people with perfect insight have said. One ore the other.

SO how was my opinion flawed?

which? you have so many.

So when I say you only rely on scripture you say its flawed because you only rely on the Bible

no... you misunderstand WHY people apply sola scriptura. It's not because of a verse that says "use sola scriptura."

So it doesn't matter how you believe in Jesus!

Please make up your mind!

I don't see how what he believes, and what I believe, in Christ, differ.

for that matter, I don't see what you believe about Christ, and what I believe about Christ, really differ much either.

It's all those other little things that we disagree on. not Christ. And that is what you can't seem to grasp. that faith in Christ is not about faith in one theological point or another.

Uphill Battle, I now fully appreciate your UserName!

 

[Montalban]

I do NOT get what you are trying to say here.

I asked you about God not sending Jesus with a part message and you replied about him being sent to save the lost.

true enough. Which makes me wonder why the record we have been given doesn't include alot of the teachings that some churches say Jesus taught.

Why should it only be written down?

what truth?

You said it doesn't matter what they do as long as they believe in Jesus. I then asked about which was true belief and you answered about what kind of 'truth' the Holy Spirit lead them to. So are they right, or wrong?

I'm sure they'd be impressed that you equate them with Judas.

If the shoes fit

But that wasn't the point. the POINT is, you point the finger and say "look what the horrible protestants have done! They've SEPERATED! GASP!" fault of one or the other is irreleveant. It's hypocritical.

So when we hold a truth and people split which we care about - because we believe we continue to hold the truth you think that's the same as Protestants who don't care about the splits because even the splitters are true? - but then they're not "Depending on what they are claiming the HS lead them to" - which you said.

possibly. I don't draw that conclusion based on the schism though. at least ONE must be, not neccessarily both.

I agree

either one is, or both are.

Cool.

"Two men say they're Jesus, one of them must be wrong" - Dire Straits Industrial Disease

I've detailed this for you already. I'm not going to repeat myself.

I'll look for you answer on the other thread

whatever. that "we have it all right' attitude from your church, begins to rub off on everything, doesn't it?

But that's a silly objection. It's like saying "I'm not going to believe he's right because he's arrogant in saying he's right".

That's just willful stubborness/pride - which is why that quote was so nifty earlier, Michel de Montaigne (1533-1592), a very clever man realised the limits of the individual and looked to the church - mind you it was the Catholic Church, but no one's perfect.

Here's another quote I'll just throw in 'cause I like his writing.

"It is not perhaps without good reason that we attribute to simple-mindedness a readiness to believe anything and to ignorance the readiness to be convinced, for I think I was once taught hat a belief is like an impression stamped on our soul: the softer and less resisting the soul, the easier it is to print anything on it...On the other hand there is a silly arrogance in continuing to disdain something and to condemn it as false just because it seems unlikely to us. That is a common vice among those who think their capacities are above the ordinary".
"That it is madness to judge the true and the false from our own capacities", Michel de Montaigne (1993), "The Essays: A Selection", Penguin Classics, p74.

 

[Montalban]

of course not. Then, you are just parotting what OTHER people with perfect insight have said. One ore the other.

The truth doesn't change

which? you have so many.
no... you misunderstand WHY people apply sola scriptura. It's not because of a verse that says "use sola scriptura."

SO you're relying on something to say "Only rely on scripture!"

That makes sense.

What is this thing you rely on that tells you not to rely on it?

I don't see how what he believes, and what I believe, in Christ, differ.

So it doesn't matter what you do?

for that matter, I don't see what you believe about Christ, and what I believe about Christ, really differ much either.

Then why are you arguing?

It's all those other little things that we disagree on. not Christ. And that is what you can't seem to grasp.

They're not little when, for instance, some Protestans have gay 'priests' (ministers, or whatever) and others believe that the very nature of being 'gay' is sinful and therefore wrong for priests.

But you just believe in having faith

that faith in Christ is not about faith in one theological point or another.

That is a theological point!

 

[Uphill Battle]

I asked you about God not sending Jesus with a part message and you replied about him being sent to save the lost.

what of it? I'm missing the point.

Why should it only be written down?

I'm wondering as to the purpose of a part record of inspired writings.

You said it doesn't matter what they do as long as they believe in Jesus. I then asked about which was true belief and you answered about what kind of 'truth' the Holy Spirit lead them to. So are they right, or wrong?

I don't follow.

If the shoes fit

heh. I'll let THEM deal with that statement.

So when we hold a truth and people split which we care about - because we believe we continue to hold the truth you think that's the same as Protestants who don't care about the splits because even the splitters are true? - but then they're not "Depending on what they are claiming the HS lead them to" - which you said

. no, I'm saying that faulting someone for something that you have done is hypocritical.

But that's a silly objection. It's like saying "I'm not going to believe he's right because he's arrogant in saying he's right".

no, I have my reasons why I think something is right or wrong. I could also be right or wrong on those reasons.

arrogantly stating that everyone else is definitely wrong, is the issue.

That's just willful stubborness/pride

I personally find it much more prideful to make the assumption that what you adhere to is absolute truth, no exceptions, and that all else are lost and wandering in the dark.

 

[Montalban]

what of it? I'm missing the point.

Then you're at the point of saying we're both 'lost' and 'saved'.

I'm wondering as to the purpose of a part record of inspired writings.

When Paul went into a new town to preach, did he teach only from the Bible?

I don't follow.

Well you said it mattered what the Holy Spirit had lead them to.

. no, I'm saying that faulting someone for something that you have done is hypocritical.

No. Different values are at work. We don't strive for everyone being their own Pope. We think the splitting is important and wish everyone return to our church. You almost celibrate it as a badge of individualism

no, I have my reasons why I think something is right or wrong. I could also be right or wrong on those reasons.

I've not seen those reasons - I can only argue based on what I know you have said.

arrogantly stating that everyone else is definitely wrong, is the issue.

Didn't Jesus command the Apostles to go out and preach. Did they go out and say "Well, you pagans, I don't really want to say you're wrong, because that would be really really arrogant, so no guilt trips..."

I personally find it much more prideful to make the assumption that what you adhere to is absolute truth, no exceptions, and that all else are lost and wandering in the dark.

See above

 

[Uphill Battle]

The truth doesn't change

never suggested it did.

SO you're relying on something to say "Only rely on scripture!"

no, I'm not.

That makes sense.

What is this thing you rely on that tells you not to rely on it?

nothing. I rely on scripture only, because it is the only thing that can be pointed at as completely trustworthy.

So it doesn't matter what you do?

what are we "doing" that is so different?

Then why are you arguing?

because you believe that it isn't just about faith in Christ, but also about believing what the church that calls itself the "one true" says about everything.

They're not little when, for instance, some Protestans have gay 'priests' (ministers, or whatever) and others believe that the very nature of being 'gay' is sinful and therefore wrong for priests.

don't kid yourself. Their are Gay priests in both the RCC and EO churches as well.

But you just believe in having faith

pretty much. What People DO, I'll let God sort out.

That is a theological point!

not really. It's a foundational truth, not a theological this or that.

 

[Montalban]

It's one a.m.!

 

[Uphill Battle]

Then you're at the point of saying we're both 'lost' and 'saved'.

I've never said any such thing. I do not know how you are deriving that from what I've said.

When Paul went into a new town to preach, did he teach only from the Bible?

probably not, he wrote his portion of the bible after he was imprisoned.

Well you said it mattered what the Holy Spirit had lead them to.

no, I said it matters what they CLAIM the HS has lead them to.

for instance, some Pope in the past claimed it was God's will to go and slaughter Muslims. Supposedly had the backing of the HS on the whole thing.

No. Different values are at work. We don't strive for everyone being their own Pope. We think the splitting is important and wish everyone return to our church. You almost celibrate it as a badge of individualism

I don't celebrate it. It's actually rather sad.

I've not seen those reasons - I can only argue based on what I know you have said.

they would come from a Sola Scriptura standpoint, so you'd instantly disagree with them.

Didn't Jesus command the Apostles to go out and preach. Did they go out and say "Well, you pagans, I don't really want to say you're wrong, because that would be really really arrogant, so no guilt trips..."

false Dichotomy. We are talking about differences between Christians. not beleivers and unbelievers.

 

[Uphill Battle]

It's one a.m.!

not where I am.

must be getting late for you though, Bro.

 

[Kristos]

Ok. This will likely come across as offensive to some people, but that is not my intent. I simply need to get something off my chest, and discuss it. I sincerely hope that nobody is offended, and if they are, understand that I am not doing this to condemn or poke, but to express a very legitimate and deep feeling that I feel I have to share.

I have been reading a book called Blue like Jazz, by Donald Miller. I doubt it's circulated among Catholics and EO much. But that aside, it is a brilliant piece of writing.

something in the book struck a cord with me, regarding the religious observances of Christians, and their place in our lives. And the more and more and more I read it, the more I realized one of the primary reasons I simply cannot accept the claims of some of the churches out there, why I could not see myself being what they are, or doing what they do.

and it boils down to liturgical service.

I feel that there is a disconnect between what was, and is. The claim is, hey, this is how Christians always worshipped. They did the divine liturgy, or this mass, or that form. (This is not intended to single out any one church. Each of the liturgical style churches has their own, and belive it to be the right way, and the way it's always been done.)

but looking in the bible, it is a very different picture. We are to imitate Christ, are we not? What do we see there? How they gather? How he taught? It wasn't the same thing, week in, week, out. It wasn't formulaic. It wasn't prescribed. It was esoteric, it was impactful it was INFORMAL. Men and women sitting in the grass while the Master blessed them with heavenly truth. The broken being healed by his hands. Eating together, reclining together, discussing. Inviting sinners to join in on all but the Bread and wine.

IF the claim is true, that the early church worshipped in exactly the same style as they always have, a dramatic, complete, and sudden shift in they way things had been done, must have happened shortly after the ascension. I can't see any other way. To go from footwashings and sharing a meal, or simply praying together in someones home, to candle lighting, censor swinging, Icon carrying methods doesn't happen overnight.

I do not believe that that is how it was done in the early church. I cannot see it. The only think I can conclude is that it developed over time, until a method of religious ritual was settled on, and that it stuck, and that is what continues to this day (with, of course, subtle changes from time to time, but that is a separate issue.)

there, I've unburdened.... now I expect I'll be shouted down for it, but I felt I had to say it.

ciao.

Hi UB - sorry for jumping in late on this, and sorry for not reading all 500 or so posts on the topics before posting, so if this has already been said, I apologize.

It seems like there is a general misunderstanding of what liturgical worship means. You and many other people define it a the "set" pattern of worship practiced by many churches. This notion of it being set and therefore stagnant causes you to reject it in favor of more freedom and innovation. To me, liturgical worship is always changing in a cycle that is designed to bring us closer to God. Many times Paul equates the christian struggle with an athlete training. I like this analogy very much because it really makes sense to me. An athletes goal is to win the prize, which in the christian case would be complete union with God. With this goal in mind, an athlete lays out a training plan. This plan may take years to complete. It is structured and is cyclic (or periodic). If an athlete just trained as hard as he could go day after day, he would implode. There would be no gains in performance. If an athlete was unstructured in his plan, he would never build on his foundation and reach higher. Structure and cycles are the key to building physical strength and endurance - and similarly, spiritual strength and endurance. Periods of preparation are needed to create a good base, to help prepare the heart, to get ready for the hard stuff. Without a good, wide base, you limit how high you can go. Intensity can only be withstood in short concentrated burst. Intensity is absolute necessary for growth, but if done for too long, it has the opposite effect. Recovery is what prepares us for the next cycle. These cycles are most apparent during great lent, but there are actually 4 of these cycles during the liturgical year. This structure is not meant to stifle, but rather to provide the impetus for growth, to provide the tools to draw closer to God while living in the World. To take the athlete analogy a little further - when we gather for worship together, this is like a football team meeting for practice. The coach has a plan and it is followed - first and foremost come the fundamentals - those tedious drills and are boring and repetitious - everyone can't to get them done because they are no fun. Some coaches might spend weeks on the fundamental before having a scrimmage. Without structure and fundamentals, the team will never become a team - just a bunch of individuals running around doing their own thing. During the off-season, this is fine, but when not during practice. So it is also with worship. When we are together, we work on the fundamentals. It might seem boring and repetitious to say the lord's prayer every week, but this is an important fundamental. Personal prayer is by no means limited by this, but rather it is enabled. With a good fundamental base it is possible to grow higher, to flourish, to make ourselves acceptable of His grace.

 

[Rick Otto]

Originally Posted by Montalban
And what did they do? They replaced him with another to continue the 12.
Protestantism means anyone chooses whomever they want to believe/follow, if any and you get 100,000s of different Protestant faiths.
Division everywhere.

Communion was what Jesus established, one faith, one people worshipping him.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Rick Otto
Are they all the same color, size and shape?
No, and yet they "are one".

No they are not.

If Jesus established one people, they are "one" and you can bet the farm they are not physicaly identical. They don't look the same to the unaided, uninformed eye.

"High Church" Anglicans believe that the bread and wine become body and blood. "Low Church" Anglicans say it's just bread and wine - that's just within one Protestant church. They disagree on a fundamental aspect of doctrine, not to count female and gay priests issues.

Sorry,... I don't agree on Transubstantiation or Real Presence being fundamental because I don't believe in either. Which unfortunately means that I view them as fundamental only as a means-test for loyalty to a segregated clergy-class.
The gay issue is more problematic and ties in with mysogeny of the priesthood, not to trash the paternalistic model.

Some churches handle snakes. Some speak in tongues.

So what? Some walk on their knees for miles to kiss statues, etc. Logical extremes are an equal opportunity.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Rick Otto
If there are 100s of 1000s of Protestant Faiths, how many Protestants does that leave per faith?

I've no idea what that means

It just seems difficult to process the statistics into an imaginable picture, and doing so seems to distract from the real issue - the essence of unity.
Your expectations seem unreal considering the people you have to work with and the breadth of implicit applications.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Rick Otto
"Division everywhere" cuts a little both ways.

I agree, but with strive to unity. You don't

"Strive to unity"?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rick Otto
We have a basic division in our individual selves to overcome. We are united on that.

I've no idea what you mean.

I mean we are united in our struggle against our natural man, our body of corruption, this vessel of flesh with all its tempting lusts & cravings.

 

[Uphill Battle]

Hi UB - sorry for jumping in late on this, and sorry for not reading all 500 or so posts on the topics before posting, so if this has already been said, I apologize.

you didn't miss much. Reading the other posts will just give you a headache.

It seems like there is a general misunderstanding of what liturgical worship means. You and many other people define it a the "set" pattern of worship practiced by many churches. This notion of it being set and therefore stagnant causes you to reject it in favor of more freedom and innovation. To me, liturgical worship is always changing in a cycle that is designed to bring us closer to God. Many times Paul equates the christian struggle with an athlete training. I like this analogy very much because it really makes sense to me. An athletes goal is to win the prize, which in the christian case would be complete union with God. With this goal in mind, an athlete lays out a training plan. This plan may take years to complete. It is structured and is cyclic (or periodic). If an athlete just trained as hard as he could go day after day, he would implode. There would be no gains in performance. If an athlete was unstructured in his plan, he would never build on his foundation and reach higher. Structure and cycles are the key to building physical strength and endurance - and similarly, spiritual strength and endurance. Periods of preparation are needed to create a good base, to help prepare the heart, to get ready for the hard stuff. Without a good, wide base, you limit how high you can go. Intensity can only be withstood in short concentrated burst. Intensity is absolute necessary for growth, but if done for too long, it has the opposite effect. Recovery is what prepares us for the next cycle. These cycles are most apparent during great lent, but there are actually 4 of these cycles during the liturgical year. This structure is not meant to stifle, but rather to provide the impetus for growth, to provide the tools to draw closer to God while living in the World. To take the athlete analogy a little further - when we gather for worship together, this is like a football team meeting for practice. The coach has a plan and it is followed - first and foremost come the fundamentals - those tedious drills and are boring and repetitious - everyone can't to get them done because they are no fun. Some coaches might spend weeks on the fundamental before having a scrimmage. Without structure and fundamentals, the team will never become a team - just a bunch of individuals running around doing their own thing. During the off-season, this is fine, but when not during practice. So it is also with worship. When we are together, we work on the fundamentals.

that is all well and good, and it is not the motivation behind using liturgy that bothers me.

what bothers me about it, is the very fact that inauthentic worship is very, very easy in such a pattern. I know that I could not do this "cycle" and take it seriously. I'd just be parroting along with whatever I'm supposed to say, and inauthentic worship, is no worship at all. What makes me reject it, is not only the fact that I know that it would be useless for me, but also that the claim is that this is how it's always been done (not really supported by evidence, or the liturgical churches would all have the same liturgy) and that this is how it is commanded to be (no such command exists) and that this is how it will be done in heaven (no evidence to believe this either.

It might seem boring and repetitious to say the lord's prayer every week, but this is an important fundamental. Personal prayer is by no means limited by this, but rather it is enabled. With a good fundamental base it is possible to grow higher, to flourish, to make ourselves acceptable of His grace.

the very thought that we are "acceptable" of his Grace is a contradiction. It isn't Grace, if it isn't unmerited.

 

[PujolsNonRoidHomerHitter]

Hi UB - sorry for jumping in late on this, and sorry for not reading all 500 or so posts on the topics before posting, so if this has already been said, I apologize.

It seems like there is a general misunderstanding of what liturgical worship means. You and many other people define it a the "set" pattern of worship practiced by many churches. This notion of it being set and therefore stagnant causes you to reject it in favor of more freedom and innovation. To me, liturgical worship is always changing in a cycle that is designed to bring us closer to God. Many times Paul equates the christian struggle with an athlete training. I like this analogy very much because it really makes sense to me. An athletes goal is to win the prize, which in the christian case would be complete union with God. With this goal in mind, an athlete lays out a training plan. This plan may take years to complete. It is structured and is cyclic (or periodic). If an athlete just trained as hard as he could go day after day, he would implode. There would be no gains in performance. If an athlete was unstructured in his plan, he would never build on his foundation and reach higher. Structure and cycles are the key to building physical strength and endurance - and similarly, spiritual strength and endurance. Periods of preparation are needed to create a good base, to help prepare the heart, to get ready for the hard stuff. Without a good, wide base, you limit how high you can go. Intensity can only be withstood in short concentrated burst. Intensity is absolute necessary for growth, but if done for too long, it has the opposite effect. Recovery is what prepares us for the next cycle. These cycles are most apparent during great lent, but there are actually 4 of these cycles during the liturgical year. This structure is not meant to stifle, but rather to provide the impetus for growth, to provide the tools to draw closer to God while living in the World. To take the athlete analogy a little further - when we gather for worship together, this is like a football team meeting for practice. The coach has a plan and it is followed - first and foremost come the fundamentals - those tedious drills and are boring and repetitious - everyone can't to get them done because they are no fun. Some coaches might spend weeks on the fundamental before having a scrimmage. Without structure and fundamentals, the team will never become a team - just a bunch of individuals running around doing their own thing. During the off-season, this is fine, but when not during practice. So it is also with worship. When we are together, we work on the fundamentals. It might seem boring and repetitious to say the lord's prayer every week, but this is an important fundamental. Personal prayer is by no means limited by this, but rather it is enabled. With a good fundamental base it is possible to grow higher, to flourish, to make ourselves acceptable of His grace.

What do you make of Jesus' words regarding repitition in prayer?

"And when you pray, do nut use vain repetions as the heathen do. For they think that they will be heard for their many words." Matt. 6:7

Go Cards!

 

[GenemZ]

You've still not met the challenge I gave you. Your questions follow from having not addressed the very crux of the matter, not everything was written down.

I have nothing against traditions, sir. I was hoping you would cite from the Scriptures some that were in writing to reveal how its to be done.

Point? The unwritten traditions never went contrary to Scripture. When a church claims traditions that were not in writing, and they run contrary to what is in writing? They can not claim that they have an example of something that was not included in writing which is legit.

We don't pray to idols. I note you're asking me about stuff and referring to the RCC. It shows a distinct lack of observation on your part - I'm not Roman Catholic.

I was simply citing one example of how those who claim to be of the "true church" (that, like your church, claims we are supposed to follow) are they themselves behaving in certain ways like paganism with Christian overtones. For that's what it is.

You're still assuming that it must have been written down

No, you missed my point.

Take your time. When you've found the scriptures saying only scriptures are to be listened to, get back to me.

Straw man. I never saw that. Sola Scriptura means that anything raised up for the church must not be disharmonious with Scripture. As long as it does not produce something contrary to truth? What ever the tradition may be? Fine.

How could Paul have taught the churches BY SCRIPTURE ALONE if he didn't as yet have that scripture?

Paul was different from us. He was an Apostle who received direct revelation from God which was designed to establish the new way of the Church.

Legalism and the law was being closed up, and the new living way into life with God through Christ was being revealed. Paul was one of the few chosen vessels that God assigned to reveal the ways of the Church.

What Paul wrote? Much of is what we have as Scripture today. New Testament Scripture!

2 Peter 3:15-16 (New International Version)
"Bear in mind that our Lord's patience means salvation, just as our dear brother Paul also wrote you with the wisdom that God gave him.
He writes the same way in all his letters, speaking in them of these matters. His letters contain some things that are hard to understand, which ignorant and unstable people distort, as they do the other Scriptures, to their own destruction."
​

God was the Divine Architect. The Apostles, the master builders.

The early church fathers that followed the Apostles were not God's master builders of the Church. They were to be its humble maintenance men.



In Christ, GeneZ



.

 

[Thekla]

what bothers me about it, is the very fact that inauthentic worship is very, very easy in such a pattern. I know that I could not do this "cycle" and take it seriously. I'd just be parroting along with whatever I'm supposed to say, and inauthentic worship, is no worship at all. What makes me reject it, is not only the fact that I know that it would be useless for me, but also that the claim is that this is how it's always been done (not really supported by evidence, or the liturgical churches would all have the same liturgy) and that this is how it is commanded to be (no such command exists) and that this is how it will be done in heaven (no evidence to believe this either.

periodic inauthenticity is a constant possibility in any human action; in Liturgical worship, one's ego is (hopefully) silenced, allowing one to be shaped and filled - the same is true of reading the scriptures

 

[Uphill Battle]

periodic inauthenticity is a constant possibility in any human action; in Liturgical worship, one's ego is (hopefully) silenced, allowing one to be shaped and filled - the same is true of reading the scriptures

indeed. so I'm not sure Why I would want to seek out another chance to prove that condition.

 

[GenemZ]

You actually almost defeat your own point by asking this question. If you don't believe his epistles contain traditions (as you seem to imply with your question), then you inadvertently suggest that Paul's lying when he refers to them.

I was trying to get him to cite some of these traditions that appear in writing. To be raised up as a standard of how its to be done. I was not really denying they are in writing. Here is one, for example.

1 Timothy 5:17-19 (New International Version)
"The elders who direct the affairs of the church well are worthy of double honor, especially those whose work is preaching and teaching. For the Scripture says, "Do not muzzle the ox while it is treading out the grain," and "The worker deserves his wages." Do not entertain an accusation against an elder unless it is brought by two or three witnesses."
​

That was establishing tradition for the church. Practically every other word was a direct relation back to Scripture already existing. That's the point.

At any rate, it's not unlikely that Paul wrote any number of other epistles which are no longer extant.

He mentions one we can not find concerning the Corinthians. I do not recall where that is written at this time.

And if you hold that 2 Thess. 2:15 is the Word of God, isn't important that you decide what traditions (written or spoken) Paul is referring to?

Which is?

2 Thessalonians 2:15 (New International Version)
"So then, brothers, stand firm and hold to the teachings we passed on to you, whether by word of mouth or by letter."
​

I believe Montalban answered this by referring to the "traditions...taught...by word" mentioned in 2 Thess. 2:15

Ignatius of Antioch, appointed bishop of Antioch by the Apostle Peter, asserted that the Eucharist was the actual Body and Blood. It's possible that "popped up" because he heard it from Peter.

Jews were forbidden by God to drink any blood. Yet, it was a commonly accepted GENTILE PRACTICE. Jews saw the drinking of blood as revolting and unthinkable. If the disciples thought for a moment that Jesus was speaking of his literal blood? Some would have at least balked at the Last Supper.

The Lord even had a hard time getting Peter just to stop eating kosher! And, Peter knew it was the Lord directing him!

Acts 10:10-14 (New International Version)
"He became hungry and wanted something to eat, and while the meal was being prepared, he fell into a trance. He saw heaven opened and something like a large sheet being let down to earth by its four corners. It contained all kinds of four-footed animals, as well as reptiles of the earth and birds of the air. Then a voice told him, "Get up, Peter. Kill and eat."

"Surely not, Lord!" Peter replied. "I have never eaten anything impure or unclean."


​

Up until then? Peter, being a good Jew, strictly kept kosher. So? How could he have thought he was drinking blood and human flesh at the Last Super? He said he never had anything unkosher enter his mouth before!



Peter balked as any good Jew would have! Even before the Lord. The thought of eating certain things, or drinking of any blood, was a revolting thought to a Jew. It would be the equivalent of asking you to drink urine. Would you readily accept it? Even if the Lord told you to drink it? To the Jew, drinking of blood was seen in such a light. Human flesh? Same!


It was Gentiles who later on introduced the concept of a literal blood and flesh. They drank blood in their culture as a norm.




Jews today who partake of a Passover Sedar will tell you that the foods assigned the meal all have a specific SYMBOLIC (not literal) meaning pertaining to the realities of the Exodus. With the bread and matzoh of the meal, Jesus was exchanging one symbolic meaning for new one. The Jewish disciples knew this, and drank and ate with a new meaning.



Its thinking like the substantiation that that makes my Jewish mind think that the Gentiles have bastardized the church with the ignorance of literalism. They need to be shown how things were viewed by those who God chose to start the church. Many Gentiles today who have found Christ also realize this. Its spiritual common sense in the light of Scripture. Those who don't see it, are seen as not living in reality. Yet, they tell us they are the true church that we should follow?



The first church consisted of only Jews who thought according to Jewish ways that God taught them! Jesus came to the Jews, and spoke as a rabbi to them. God's ways had been ingrained into the Jewish people's thinking for centuries of being chosen to be his representative people on earth.

The thought of drinking literal blood was an absolute revulsion to a Jew! The fact that all the disciples remained calm while partaking of the elements with Jesus, reveals that they knew it was just a new symbolism to be added to the meaning of the foods they ate for the Passover Sedar.




The Sedar is the Jewish celebration of the release from the physical bondage of slavery to Egypt. In contrast.. The new symbolic meaning of the bread and wine represented and symbolized the emancipation from the bondage to guilt, sin and unrighteousness, by the saving work of Christ on the Cross!



I hope you can finally realize, that where you sit? Telling me you are the one true church. Yet? In the light of knowing the background to what Scriptures teach, and the Church's Jewish foundational heritage? I can not help but view your thinking as deficient, and ignorantly arrogant to assume such a position above me.

Its you who need to learn from others to correct some very wrong and paganized traditions that you have come to accept as being from God. To me? Personally? Its idiocy. Yet? There you sit. Feeling that I must submit to your church if I am to be right with God.

This was not intended to flame. It was to level with you. To put out in the open why what you claim about your church, places irreconcilable differences between us that can never allow for unity as long as you remain believing the rationales that have been handed down to you. Rationales which are full of grave error.

The literal drinking of blood, and literal eating of flesh... is a gross error that Gentile early fathers introduced into the church. It did not come from Jews.

If someone claims they got it from Peter? I would have to hear Peter say it before I would believe it. Many who followed Christ misunderstood his words. Many who followed the Apostles did likewise. Even the disciples themselves misunderstood the Lord at times!

You just have no idea how repulsive such teachings are to my sensibilities. But, there you sit, telling us that you are the one true church.

I probably have heard all the rationales for your belief on the literal blood and flesh. But, we are no longer peasants and illiterates who can not think for ourselves. Your teaching was formed around such a type of people. I am here, telling you its time for correction. Just like the Pope now openly admits that Luther was correct in what he wanted to achieve, and was not a heretic.

We want unity of believers? Its starts here!

This was not a flame.

Not all things that anger us are flames.

God's truth will inflame those needing correction when its called for.

1 Thessalonians 5:19-21 (New International Version)
"Do not put out the Spirit's fire; do not treat prophecies with contempt. Test everything. Hold on to the good."




.
​

 

[Uphill Battle]

I was trying to get him to cite some of these traditions that appear in writing. To be raised up as a standard of how its to be done. I was not really denying they are in writing. Here is one, for example.

1 Timothy 5:17-19 (New International Version)
"The elders who direct the affairs of the church well are worthy of double honor, especially those whose work is preaching and teaching. For the Scripture says, "Do not muzzle the ox while it is treading out the grain," and "The worker deserves his wages." Do not entertain an accusation against an elder unless it is brought by two or three witnesses."
​

That was establishing tradition for the church. Practically every other word was a direct relation back to Scripture already existing. That's the point.




He mentions one we can not find concerning the Corinthians. I do not recall where that is written at this time.




Which is?

2 Thessalonians 2:15 (New International Version)
"So then, brothers, stand firm and hold to the teachings we passed on to you, whether by word of mouth or by letter."
​

Jews were forbidden to drink any blood. It was a GENTILE PRACTICE! Jews saw the drinking of blood as revolting and unthinkable. If the disciples thought for a moment that Jesus was speaking of his literal blood, some would have balked at the Last Supper.

The Lord had a hard time getting Peter to stop eating kosher! And, Peter knew it was the Lord directing him!

Acts 10:10-14 (New International Version)
"He became hungry and wanted something to eat, and while the meal was being prepared, he fell into a trance. He saw heaven opened and something like a large sheet being let down to earth by its four corners. It contained all kinds of four-footed animals, as well as reptiles of the earth and birds of the air. Then a voice told him, "Get up, Peter. Kill and eat."

"Surely not, Lord!" Peter replied. "I have never eaten anything impure or unclean."​

Peter balked as any good Jew would have! The thought of eating certain things, or drinking of any blood, was a revolting thought to a Jew. It was Gentiles who later on introduced the concept of a literal blood and flesh. They drank blood in their culture as a norm.




Besides... Jews who attend a Passover Sedar will tell you that the foods assigned the meal all have a SYMBOLIC (not literal) meaning pertaining to the realities of the Exodus.



With the bread and matzoh, Jesus was changing one symbolic meaning for new one. The Jewish disciples knew this, and drank and ate with a new meaning.



Its thinking like the substantiation that that makes my Jewish mind think that the Gentiles have bastardized the church with stupidity of literalism. They need to be shown how things were viewed by those who God chose to start the church. Many Gentiles who have found Christ also realize this. Its commons sense in the light of Scripture. Those who don't are seen as not living in reality. Yet, they tell us they are the true church?



The first church consisted of only Jews, who thought according to Jewish ways! Jesus came to the Jews, and spoke a rabbi to them. God's ways that were ingrained into the Jewish people for centuries of being chosen to be his representative people on earth. The thought of drinking literal blood was revulsion to a Jew. The fact that all remained calm while partaking of the elements with Jesus reveals that they knew it was just a new symbolism to be added to the meaning of the foods they ate for the Passover Sedar.




The Sedar is the Jewish celebration of the release from the physical bondage of slavery to Egypt. The symbolic meaning of the bread and wine represents our emancipation from the bondage to guilt, sin, and unrighteousness!



I hope you can realize that there you sit? Telling me you are the one true church. Yet? In the light of knowing the background to what Scriptures teach, and the Church's Jewish foundational heritage? I can not help but view your thinking as deficient, and ignorantly arrogant to assume such a position above me.

Its you who need to learn from others to correct some very stupid and paganized traditions that you have come to accept as being from God. To me? Its idiocy. Yet? There you sit. Feeling that I must submit to your church.

This was not intended to flame. It was to level with you. To put out in the open why what you claim about your church, places irreconcilable differences between us that can never allow for unity as long as you remain believing the rationales that have been handed down to you. Rationales which are full of grave error.

The literal drinking of blood, and literal eating of flesh... is a gross error that Gentile early fathers introduced into the church. It did not come from Jews.

If someone claims they got it from Peter? I would have to hear Peter say it before I would believe it. Many who followed Christ misunderstood his words. Many who followed the Apostles did likewise.

You just have no idea how stupid such teachings are to me. But, there you sit, telling us that you are the one true church.

I have heard all the rationales for your belief on the literal blood and flesh. We are no longer peasants and illiterates who can not think for ourselves. Your teaching was formed around such a type of people. I am here, telling you its time for correction. Just like the Pope now openly admits that Luther was correct in what he wanted to achieve, and not a heretic.

We want unity of believers? Its starts here!

That was not a flame. Not all things that anger us are flames. God's truth will inflame those needing correction when its called for.

1 Thessalonians 5:19-21 (New International Version)
"Do not put out the Spirit's fire; do not treat prophecies with contempt. Test everything. Hold on to the good."




.
​

expect that there will be a message from Chrisbot anywho.