Quo Vadis? said:

---

AgLiving06 said:

---

Quo Vadis? said:

---

AgLiving06 said:

---

Quo Vadis? said:

---

AgLiving06 said:

---

Simply repeating a claim does not make it true or correct.

Christ did not "create the Roman Catholic Church." Christ created His Church. Roman Catholics are certainly within the broad definition of Christ's church, but they don't have a unique claim to anything.

And your second paragraph is just victim blaming, and especially ironic given your analogy to a marriage/broken home. It's really the child's fault the parents are fighting. It's the child's fault the parents want to kill him. Rome was broken.

However, I do enjoy pulling up Exsurge Domine though, because we get to see the pope's own words the "errors of Luther."

Exsurge Domine - Papal Encyclicals

Quote:

---

In virtue of our pastoral office committed to us by the divine favor we can under no circumstances tolerate or overlook any longer the pernicious poison of the above errors without disgrace to the Christian religion and injury to orthodox faith. Some of these errors we have decided to include in the present document; their substance is as follows:

----

33. That heretics be burned is against the will of the Spirit.

---

Rome itself viewed the burning of heretics, not as problematic, not as an error, but the will of the Holy Spirit.

I hope we could at least find agreement that the pope was absolutely wrong in this claim and should rightfully be called out for theological and frankly human error.

---

I will repeat since you can't understand..Christ created the Catholic Church, and charged the Apostles to shepherd it, Peter foremost of all. Peter established the church in Rome, and passed his authority on for 2,000 years. There are many several apostolic sees, all have been established by Apostles, charged by Christ.

Ah yes the old Lutheran victimhood "the 1500 year old bride of Christ won't bow to the whim of an egotistical German monk, let's take our ball and go home".

Again, we know what Christ said about those who would lead children astray. Would you argue that having millstones thrown around the neck of heretics would be contrary to the will of the Spirit?

---

I will repeat what you can't understand..Christ created His Church. Luther, you, and I aren't beholden to the pope, but to Christ. Rome did not represent "the 1500 year old bride of Christ..." but a branch of christianity that had fallen into error. You continually fall into the error of believing that because the Church existed, it was a reflection of Rome. Rome, especially by the middle ages was not a reflection of the early church and its teachings, but something new that reinvented itself.

To your last point...are your now claiming Rome should continue to execute heretics? Since I certainly believe Luther and the Reformers were correct in their reforming of the errors of Rome, should I be burned at the stake as the pope wanted to do to Luther and others? You danced around it in your post, so please be clear.

Should I be burned at the stake?

---

When did it fall into error? As I've mentioned many times in the past, the oldest churches of Christendom that have been continually celebrating mass for over a thousand years before the reformation are Catholic or Orthodox. At which point did they change from "looking like the original church" to "falling into error"?

Your obstinate "I bow to no one" bs, sounds more like Satan's "non-Serviam" than anything remotely related to Christianity; and being obedient to Christ by severing yourself from the Church he instituted on his Apostles and charged with shepherding you feels counter productive.

Also, the effeminate hysterics behind the burning at the stake will hopefully be put to bed by my answer.

If I could end the heresy of Protestantism by burning you at the stake, I would do so. Given the fact that it seems at this point impossible to put Pandora back in her bottle, we do not have a state religion, it would be killing someone for no purpose; which is murder. I will instead have to be content with seeing the best and brightest continue to flee from Protestantism into the apostolic faith, while those looking for good music and to see a person jump a motorcycle through a ring of fire continue to defect to the Protestant novelty.

---

A specific date? That would be hard to pinpoint, but we can mostly track the rise of the pope from one of many bishops to an ecumenical bishop to the modern claims Rome made (which we can probably trace to the Great Schism).

But as I've pointed out in other posts/threads, much of Rome's theology, which is ironically really driven to be "anti-reformer" isn't nailed down until Trent.
--------------
To your next point, you make a blatantly false claim. Nowhere have I claimed "I bow down to no one." That is BS, but that's you spouting BS that isn't true, correct, or accurate. I'm obedient to Christ and His Church. However, His Church is not the Roman Catholic Church exclusively or specifically as that organization was not established by the Apostles or any of that nonsense, but by men who came later.

It is nice though to see you admit you'd burn me and others. It's a great reminder of why Rome (thankfully) is not the Christian Church. It's a testament to how insecure Rome is and how fragile their faith is.

Your last sentence is just complete nonsense. Nobody on here is defending that kind of nonsense, but that you have resorted to that kind of petty language several times is a good indicator you know you're arguments are lacking.

---

Why would it be hard to pinpoint? You're the one arguing that mass being held in churches since the 300's isn't reminiscent of "original Christianity" but whichever Missouri synod, ELCA nonsense group you're a member of is.

You're not obedient to Christ or his Church, you're an offshoot of an offshoot of an offshoot. Christ's Church is the Catholic Church, I don't know why you keep on focusing on just the Roman see, but likely because it's easier than admitting that we've got 1,400,000 billion people in all of the ancient sees of Christianity, and you've got….Dallas? Since 1968 or Missouri?

Your effeminance knows no bounds.

"Just come out and stop side stepping what you'd do"
"Omg he just said he'd burn me in a hypothetical situation 500 years ago"

---

This is your argument?

Modern Roman Catholicism is built upon claims of incrementalism that John Henry Newman developed, because Roman Catholic Newman couldn't defend against the claims of Anglican Newman. Without incrementalism, Rome requires incrementalism to hold onto any claim it has today. So as I said, the two we can follow are the rise of the modern pope (with all the anti-christian activities that occurred) and then Trent creating the beliefs of the new Roman church.

You second sentence again is garbage because I can point to those guitar playing catholic services in the exact same vein. Or popes blessing blocks of ice or wooden statues of goddesses. Maybe I should only understand Roman Catholicism through Pr James Martin's views?

Or does Matthew 7, not apply for you?
3 Why do you see the speck that is in your brother's eye, but do not notice the log that is in your own eye?

------------
Second paragraph yet again makes a claim and that's it, and so I can reject it as easily as you claim it. The modern Roman Catholic church is just a heretical offshoot of the real Christian Church. That you have lots of followers is more sad than anything else, but also shows what extensive amounts of money gained through corrupt and political means can do for someone.

Or does Matthew 7 (again) not apply:

13 "Enter by the narrow gate. For the gate is wide and the way is easy that leads to destruction, and those who enter by it are many. 14 For the gate is narrow and the way is hard that leads to life, and those who find it are few.


-------------
It's not a hypothetical. Your pope make the claim from the seat of Peter, in his pastoral office, that it is the will of the Holy Spirit to burn heretics.

But again, lets blame Luther for standing up and saying it's wrong to murder people we disagree with.

btw, I did want to come back to this because we have an absolutely perfect example to show your hypocrisy

Quote:

---

If I could end the heresy of Protestantism by burning you at the stake, I would do so.

---

This is an exact parallel to the "anti-facist" movement that murdered Charlie Kirk, who you so passionately defended on the politics board. Kirk's murderer wanted to stop the "heresy of fascism" and putting a bullet in Kirk was what they thought would help in that mission.

But I supposed you only support the murder of people who you disagree with only when it supports your cause.

AgLiving06 said:

---

Quo Vadis? said:

---

AgLiving06 said:

---

Quo Vadis? said:

---

AgLiving06 said:

---

Quo Vadis? said:

---

AgLiving06 said:

---

Simply repeating a claim does not make it true or correct.

Christ did not "create the Roman Catholic Church." Christ created His Church. Roman Catholics are certainly within the broad definition of Christ's church, but they don't have a unique claim to anything.

And your second paragraph is just victim blaming, and especially ironic given your analogy to a marriage/broken home. It's really the child's fault the parents are fighting. It's the child's fault the parents want to kill him. Rome was broken.

However, I do enjoy pulling up Exsurge Domine though, because we get to see the pope's own words the "errors of Luther."

Exsurge Domine - Papal Encyclicals

Quote:

---

In virtue of our pastoral office committed to us by the divine favor we can under no circumstances tolerate or overlook any longer the pernicious poison of the above errors without disgrace to the Christian religion and injury to orthodox faith. Some of these errors we have decided to include in the present document; their substance is as follows:

----

33. That heretics be burned is against the will of the Spirit.

---

Rome itself viewed the burning of heretics, not as problematic, not as an error, but the will of the Holy Spirit.

I hope we could at least find agreement that the pope was absolutely wrong in this claim and should rightfully be called out for theological and frankly human error.

---

I will repeat since you can't understand..Christ created the Catholic Church, and charged the Apostles to shepherd it, Peter foremost of all. Peter established the church in Rome, and passed his authority on for 2,000 years. There are many several apostolic sees, all have been established by Apostles, charged by Christ.

Ah yes the old Lutheran victimhood "the 1500 year old bride of Christ won't bow to the whim of an egotistical German monk, let's take our ball and go home".

Again, we know what Christ said about those who would lead children astray. Would you argue that having millstones thrown around the neck of heretics would be contrary to the will of the Spirit?

---

I will repeat what you can't understand..Christ created His Church. Luther, you, and I aren't beholden to the pope, but to Christ. Rome did not represent "the 1500 year old bride of Christ..." but a branch of christianity that had fallen into error. You continually fall into the error of believing that because the Church existed, it was a reflection of Rome. Rome, especially by the middle ages was not a reflection of the early church and its teachings, but something new that reinvented itself.

To your last point...are your now claiming Rome should continue to execute heretics? Since I certainly believe Luther and the Reformers were correct in their reforming of the errors of Rome, should I be burned at the stake as the pope wanted to do to Luther and others? You danced around it in your post, so please be clear.

Should I be burned at the stake?

---

When did it fall into error? As I've mentioned many times in the past, the oldest churches of Christendom that have been continually celebrating mass for over a thousand years before the reformation are Catholic or Orthodox. At which point did they change from "looking like the original church" to "falling into error"?

Your obstinate "I bow to no one" bs, sounds more like Satan's "non-Serviam" than anything remotely related to Christianity; and being obedient to Christ by severing yourself from the Church he instituted on his Apostles and charged with shepherding you feels counter productive.

Also, the effeminate hysterics behind the burning at the stake will hopefully be put to bed by my answer.

If I could end the heresy of Protestantism by burning you at the stake, I would do so. Given the fact that it seems at this point impossible to put Pandora back in her bottle, we do not have a state religion, it would be killing someone for no purpose; which is murder. I will instead have to be content with seeing the best and brightest continue to flee from Protestantism into the apostolic faith, while those looking for good music and to see a person jump a motorcycle through a ring of fire continue to defect to the Protestant novelty.

---

A specific date? That would be hard to pinpoint, but we can mostly track the rise of the pope from one of many bishops to an ecumenical bishop to the modern claims Rome made (which we can probably trace to the Great Schism).

But as I've pointed out in other posts/threads, much of Rome's theology, which is ironically really driven to be "anti-reformer" isn't nailed down until Trent.
--------------
To your next point, you make a blatantly false claim. Nowhere have I claimed "I bow down to no one." That is BS, but that's you spouting BS that isn't true, correct, or accurate. I'm obedient to Christ and His Church. However, His Church is not the Roman Catholic Church exclusively or specifically as that organization was not established by the Apostles or any of that nonsense, but by men who came later.

It is nice though to see you admit you'd burn me and others. It's a great reminder of why Rome (thankfully) is not the Christian Church. It's a testament to how insecure Rome is and how fragile their faith is.

Your last sentence is just complete nonsense. Nobody on here is defending that kind of nonsense, but that you have resorted to that kind of petty language several times is a good indicator you know you're arguments are lacking.

---

Why would it be hard to pinpoint? You're the one arguing that mass being held in churches since the 300's isn't reminiscent of "original Christianity" but whichever Missouri synod, ELCA nonsense group you're a member of is.

You're not obedient to Christ or his Church, you're an offshoot of an offshoot of an offshoot. Christ's Church is the Catholic Church, I don't know why you keep on focusing on just the Roman see, but likely because it's easier than admitting that we've got 1,400,000 billion people in all of the ancient sees of Christianity, and you've got….Dallas? Since 1968 or Missouri?

Your effeminance knows no bounds.

"Just come out and stop side stepping what you'd do"
"Omg he just said he'd burn me in a hypothetical situation 500 years ago"

---

This is your argument?

Modern Roman Catholicism is built upon claims of incrementalism that John Henry Newman developed, because Roman Catholic Newman couldn't defend against the claims of Anglican Newman. Without incrementalism, Rome requires incrementalism to hold onto any claim it has today. So as I said, the two we can follow are the rise of the modern pope (with all the anti-christian activities that occurred) and then Trent creating the beliefs of the new Roman church.

You second sentence again is garbage because I can point to those guitar playing catholic services in the exact same vein. Or popes blessing blocks of ice or wooden statues of goddesses. Maybe I should only understand Roman Catholicism through Pr James Martin's views?

Or does Matthew 7, not apply for you?
3 Why do you see the speck that is in your brother's eye, but do not notice the log that is in your own eye?

------------
Second paragraph yet again makes a claim and that's it, and so I can reject it as easily as you claim it. The modern Roman Catholic church is just a heretical offshoot of the real Christian Church. That you have lots of followers is more sad than anything else, but also shows what extensive amounts of money gained through corrupt and political means can do for someone.

Or does Matthew 7 (again) not apply:

13 "Enter by the narrow gate. For the gate is wide and the way is easy that leads to destruction, and those who enter by it are many. 14 For the gate is narrow and the way is hard that leads to life, and those who find it are few.


-------------
It's not a hypothetical. Your pope make the claim from the seat of Peter, in his pastoral office, that it is the will of the Holy Spirit to burn heretics.

But again, lets blame Luther for standing up and saying it's wrong to murder people we disagree with.

btw, I did want to come back to this because we have an absolutely perfect example to show your hypocrisy

Quote:

---

If I could end the heresy of Protestantism by burning you at the stake, I would do so.

---

This is an exact parallel to the "anti-facist" movement that murdered Charlie Kirk, who you so passionately defended on the politics board. Kirk's murderer wanted to stop the "heresy of fascism" and putting a bullet in Kirk was what they thought would help in that mission.

But I supposed you only support the murder of people who you disagree with only when it supports your cause.

---

I've asked you to make the claim, you said it'd be hard to pinpoint . Show me when the Catholic Church made the break from the original church. I can show you where Protestantism split from the Catholic Church, and I can show you were orthodoxy and Catholicism schism'd. You can trace every little single break and offshoot of Protestantism since the very beginning. Do the same thing with Catholicism. It should be simple. You've made some very bold claims regarding when Catholicism broke off from the "true faith" yet you've given no sort of example.

When did the mass held at the Church of the Holy Sepulchre, or the Church of the Nativity turn from "original Christianity" to "Roman innovation". If you're the original church of Christ, why are all the saints buried in Catholic and Orthodox Churches? Where are all of your cathedrals? Your apostolic sees?

Why are you really only represented in certain parts of Europe and North America?

The idea that burning a heretic is the same as killing Charlie Kirk shows your enlightenment era moral relativistic mindsets. This is the same brain rot that states that banning porn is the same as banning the Bible. Some things are good and some things are bad. It is good to stop the spread of heresy, it is bad to kill someone for speaking lukewarm Republican talking points.

10andBOUNCE said:

---

Is there a clear line to trace from the first century onwards that outline the other 5 sacraments that are recognized within the RCC?

---

Yes. That's why they're in the Catholic Church, the Eastern Orthodox Church and the Oriental Orthodox Church, as well as some High Church Anglicans/Episcopalians.

This is the apostolic tradition we speak about so much.

10andBOUNCE said:

---

Which of the original apostles wrote about them?

---

John, James, Paul, Luke, while not an apostle, describes the behavior of the Apostles in the sacraments of Confirmation and Holy orders. Then of course Peter and Matthew.

Most of the apostles wrote nothing or we have none of their writings. But they founded churches. What did their churches do, believe, practice?

sure, pull on that string. why shouldn't you?

"Tradition" isn't a set of rules, we don't have anything like the talmud. Holy Tradition is just the life in the Church, which is led by the Holy Spirit.

it isn't heretical to follow the scriptures. the problem is every heresy claims to follow scripture.

and, in those scriptures, they said to submit to your leaders and to follow the instructions they gave in writing and in person.

10andBOUNCE said:

---

I don't know everything the early churches did. They couldn't have done too much (just my speculation) as they were often in homes and staying out of the way from the oppressive Roman oversight. Even if that is incorrect when was tradition codified? Or was it not?

Is it really heretical to simply follow whatever the written words of the Apostles said (speaking about the New Testament)? Seems like a pretty safe play.

---

What do you think all the heretics used to justify their beliefs?

10andBOUNCE said:

---

I don't know everything the early churches did. They couldn't have done too much (just my speculation) as they were often in homes and staying out of the way from the oppressive Roman oversight. Even if that is incorrect when was tradition codified? Or was it not?

Is it really heretical to simply follow whatever the written words of the Apostles said (speaking about the New Testament)? Seems like a pretty safe play.

---

You should wrestle more with Acts here. Christians went to the synagogues and offered sacrifices at the temple. Paul taught the gospel as fulfillment at synagogues, after reading the law and prophets. We know within 100 years of Christ, churches recited the Decalogue (Ten Commandments) during the service (Pliny wrote to emperor Trajan that he captured two Christian slaves and 'asked' them what they did during their services).

That's early church practice directly from scripture (and the house churches you want to emulate) that you'll only find in apostolic churches.

Edit: I post this to say, if Acts is the bar for your model, you're probably not doing it as well as you think, while churches with apostolic succession can attest to all these things in their service. Which is really closer?

Edit 2: acts 13 is where Paul does this.

10andBOUNCE said:

---

I don't really see anything controversial in Acts 13; it's mostly Paul proclaiming the gospel. Is Acts 21 (Paul's purification) perhaps the more "controversial" chapter?

I'm not sure I would say Acts is THE bar to be measuring to, but it certainly is important and can guide basic church life. Obviously Protestants like myself will struggle with the sacraments that apparently were born out of tradition and not explicitly commanded or mentioned in the Scriptures. That would be why Reformed tradition holds to the Regulative Principle.

---

Most people who talk about house churches rely on Acts, hence the mention.

You get it though, that's the point: it's not controversial tradition. It comes right from Acts and Christian practice of the disciples and apostles. When you come to our church you hear the Old Testament and psalms read prior to hearing the gospel (here's the fulfillment).

Christ explicitly says to baptize and take the eucharist (go and, do this) so I'm not sure the 'regulative' principle supports ignoring the sacraments. You may quibble over when and how often but you can't deny he tells believers to baptize and take communion.

Treating Christ as a break from Judaism instead of fulfilled continuation of it, is why one might consider them 'traditions of men.' That's the new idea introduced with the regulative principle, as you call it.

Quo Vadis? said:

---

AgLiving06 said:

---

Quo Vadis? said:

---

AgLiving06 said:

---

Quo Vadis? said:

---

AgLiving06 said:

---

Quo Vadis? said:

---

AgLiving06 said:

---

Simply repeating a claim does not make it true or correct.

Christ did not "create the Roman Catholic Church." Christ created His Church. Roman Catholics are certainly within the broad definition of Christ's church, but they don't have a unique claim to anything.

And your second paragraph is just victim blaming, and especially ironic given your analogy to a marriage/broken home. It's really the child's fault the parents are fighting. It's the child's fault the parents want to kill him. Rome was broken.

However, I do enjoy pulling up Exsurge Domine though, because we get to see the pope's own words the "errors of Luther."

Exsurge Domine - Papal Encyclicals

Quote:

---

In virtue of our pastoral office committed to us by the divine favor we can under no circumstances tolerate or overlook any longer the pernicious poison of the above errors without disgrace to the Christian religion and injury to orthodox faith. Some of these errors we have decided to include in the present document; their substance is as follows:

----

33. That heretics be burned is against the will of the Spirit.

---

Rome itself viewed the burning of heretics, not as problematic, not as an error, but the will of the Holy Spirit.

I hope we could at least find agreement that the pope was absolutely wrong in this claim and should rightfully be called out for theological and frankly human error.

---

I will repeat since you can't understand..Christ created the Catholic Church, and charged the Apostles to shepherd it, Peter foremost of all. Peter established the church in Rome, and passed his authority on for 2,000 years. There are many several apostolic sees, all have been established by Apostles, charged by Christ.

Ah yes the old Lutheran victimhood "the 1500 year old bride of Christ won't bow to the whim of an egotistical German monk, let's take our ball and go home".

Again, we know what Christ said about those who would lead children astray. Would you argue that having millstones thrown around the neck of heretics would be contrary to the will of the Spirit?

---

I will repeat what you can't understand..Christ created His Church. Luther, you, and I aren't beholden to the pope, but to Christ. Rome did not represent "the 1500 year old bride of Christ..." but a branch of christianity that had fallen into error. You continually fall into the error of believing that because the Church existed, it was a reflection of Rome. Rome, especially by the middle ages was not a reflection of the early church and its teachings, but something new that reinvented itself.

To your last point...are your now claiming Rome should continue to execute heretics? Since I certainly believe Luther and the Reformers were correct in their reforming of the errors of Rome, should I be burned at the stake as the pope wanted to do to Luther and others? You danced around it in your post, so please be clear.

Should I be burned at the stake?

---

When did it fall into error? As I've mentioned many times in the past, the oldest churches of Christendom that have been continually celebrating mass for over a thousand years before the reformation are Catholic or Orthodox. At which point did they change from "looking like the original church" to "falling into error"?

Your obstinate "I bow to no one" bs, sounds more like Satan's "non-Serviam" than anything remotely related to Christianity; and being obedient to Christ by severing yourself from the Church he instituted on his Apostles and charged with shepherding you feels counter productive.

Also, the effeminate hysterics behind the burning at the stake will hopefully be put to bed by my answer.

If I could end the heresy of Protestantism by burning you at the stake, I would do so. Given the fact that it seems at this point impossible to put Pandora back in her bottle, we do not have a state religion, it would be killing someone for no purpose; which is murder. I will instead have to be content with seeing the best and brightest continue to flee from Protestantism into the apostolic faith, while those looking for good music and to see a person jump a motorcycle through a ring of fire continue to defect to the Protestant novelty.

---

A specific date? That would be hard to pinpoint, but we can mostly track the rise of the pope from one of many bishops to an ecumenical bishop to the modern claims Rome made (which we can probably trace to the Great Schism).

But as I've pointed out in other posts/threads, much of Rome's theology, which is ironically really driven to be "anti-reformer" isn't nailed down until Trent.
--------------
To your next point, you make a blatantly false claim. Nowhere have I claimed "I bow down to no one." That is BS, but that's you spouting BS that isn't true, correct, or accurate. I'm obedient to Christ and His Church. However, His Church is not the Roman Catholic Church exclusively or specifically as that organization was not established by the Apostles or any of that nonsense, but by men who came later.

It is nice though to see you admit you'd burn me and others. It's a great reminder of why Rome (thankfully) is not the Christian Church. It's a testament to how insecure Rome is and how fragile their faith is.

Your last sentence is just complete nonsense. Nobody on here is defending that kind of nonsense, but that you have resorted to that kind of petty language several times is a good indicator you know you're arguments are lacking.

---

Why would it be hard to pinpoint? You're the one arguing that mass being held in churches since the 300's isn't reminiscent of "original Christianity" but whichever Missouri synod, ELCA nonsense group you're a member of is.

You're not obedient to Christ or his Church, you're an offshoot of an offshoot of an offshoot. Christ's Church is the Catholic Church, I don't know why you keep on focusing on just the Roman see, but likely because it's easier than admitting that we've got 1,400,000 billion people in all of the ancient sees of Christianity, and you've got….Dallas? Since 1968 or Missouri?

Your effeminance knows no bounds.

"Just come out and stop side stepping what you'd do"
"Omg he just said he'd burn me in a hypothetical situation 500 years ago"

---

This is your argument?

Modern Roman Catholicism is built upon claims of incrementalism that John Henry Newman developed, because Roman Catholic Newman couldn't defend against the claims of Anglican Newman. Without incrementalism, Rome requires incrementalism to hold onto any claim it has today. So as I said, the two we can follow are the rise of the modern pope (with all the anti-christian activities that occurred) and then Trent creating the beliefs of the new Roman church.

You second sentence again is garbage because I can point to those guitar playing catholic services in the exact same vein. Or popes blessing blocks of ice or wooden statues of goddesses. Maybe I should only understand Roman Catholicism through Pr James Martin's views?

Or does Matthew 7, not apply for you?
3 Why do you see the speck that is in your brother's eye, but do not notice the log that is in your own eye?

------------
Second paragraph yet again makes a claim and that's it, and so I can reject it as easily as you claim it. The modern Roman Catholic church is just a heretical offshoot of the real Christian Church. That you have lots of followers is more sad than anything else, but also shows what extensive amounts of money gained through corrupt and political means can do for someone.

Or does Matthew 7 (again) not apply:

13 "Enter by the narrow gate. For the gate is wide and the way is easy that leads to destruction, and those who enter by it are many. 14 For the gate is narrow and the way is hard that leads to life, and those who find it are few.


-------------
It's not a hypothetical. Your pope make the claim from the seat of Peter, in his pastoral office, that it is the will of the Holy Spirit to burn heretics.

But again, lets blame Luther for standing up and saying it's wrong to murder people we disagree with.

btw, I did want to come back to this because we have an absolutely perfect example to show your hypocrisy

Quote:

---

If I could end the heresy of Protestantism by burning you at the stake, I would do so.

---

This is an exact parallel to the "anti-facist" movement that murdered Charlie Kirk, who you so passionately defended on the politics board. Kirk's murderer wanted to stop the "heresy of fascism" and putting a bullet in Kirk was what they thought would help in that mission.

But I supposed you only support the murder of people who you disagree with only when it supports your cause.

---

I've asked you to make the claim, you said it'd be hard to pinpoint . Show me when the Catholic Church made the break from the original church. I can show you where Protestantism split from the Catholic Church, and I can show you were orthodoxy and Catholicism schism'd. You can trace every little single break and offshoot of Protestantism since the very beginning. Do the same thing with Catholicism. It should be simple. You've made some very bold claims regarding when Catholicism broke off from the "true faith" yet you've given no sort of example.

When did the mass held at the Church of the Holy Sepulchre, or the Church of the Nativity turn from "original Christianity" to "Roman innovation". If you're the original church of Christ, why are all the saints buried in Catholic and Orthodox Churches? Where are all of your cathedrals? Your apostolic sees?

Why are you really only represented in certain parts of Europe and North America?

The idea that burning a heretic is the same as killing Charlie Kirk shows your enlightenment era moral relativistic mindsets. This is the same brain rot that states that banning porn is the same as banning the Bible. Some things are good and some things are bad. It is good to stop the spread of heresy, it is bad to kill someone for speaking lukewarm Republican talking points.

---

The key fallacy in your argument is that splitting from a heretical church towards restoration of the Western church is materially different than when Rome fell into heresy.

There was a multitude of attempts to reform Rome, most of which led to the death of those at the hands of Rome.
-----------------
Your second claim is also false. You certainly cannot "trace every little single break and offshoot." It's a fools errand and a claim you can't back up. But likewise, from a theological standpoint, I can just as easily point to Trent as the moment that Rome officially went into heresy from a doctrinal standpoint. It's not debatable that this was the moment they truly defined themselves as a Church for the first time.

The vagueness I speak of relates more to when the pope became the most divisive person in history. We can more or less trace all division on the church to this exact office. It's always going to be problematic to point to a specific instance when this role has been so corrupted and more myth than reality.

Quote:

---

Why are you really only represented in certain parts of Europe and North America?

---

Wrong again

International Lutheran Council: https://ilcouncil.org/

Covers 5 continents.

A key difference is that Lutherans hold to the historical and biblical view that local churches should oversee their areas as opposed to the errors or Rome that want everything under one person. We are far less concerned about manmade structures and traditions, and instead far more concerned with making sure the biblical faith and tradition is believed and taught.

-------------

Quote:

---

The idea that burning a heretic is the same as killing Charlie Kirk shows your enlightenment era moral relativistic mindsets. This is the same brain rot that states that banning porn is the same as banning the Bible. Some things are good and some things are bad. It is good to stop the spread of heresy, it is bad to kill someone for speaking lukewarm Republican talking points.

---

The idea IS the same because, just as you pointed out, if we kill the other side, maybe we stop their ideas. I didn't say it...you did. You made the exact same argument for killing heretics that Kirk's murderers organizations make to justify shooting him. It's ok to admit your biases though..that's part of growing as a person.

AgLiving06 said:

---

Quo Vadis? said:

---

AgLiving06 said:

---

Quo Vadis? said:

---

AgLiving06 said:

---

Quo Vadis? said:

---

AgLiving06 said:

---

Quo Vadis? said:

---

AgLiving06 said:

---

Simply repeating a claim does not make it true or correct.

Christ did not "create the Roman Catholic Church." Christ created His Church. Roman Catholics are certainly within the broad definition of Christ's church, but they don't have a unique claim to anything.

And your second paragraph is just victim blaming, and especially ironic given your analogy to a marriage/broken home. It's really the child's fault the parents are fighting. It's the child's fault the parents want to kill him. Rome was broken.

However, I do enjoy pulling up Exsurge Domine though, because we get to see the pope's own words the "errors of Luther."

Exsurge Domine - Papal Encyclicals

Quote:

---

In virtue of our pastoral office committed to us by the divine favor we can under no circumstances tolerate or overlook any longer the pernicious poison of the above errors without disgrace to the Christian religion and injury to orthodox faith. Some of these errors we have decided to include in the present document; their substance is as follows:

----

33. That heretics be burned is against the will of the Spirit.

---

Rome itself viewed the burning of heretics, not as problematic, not as an error, but the will of the Holy Spirit.

I hope we could at least find agreement that the pope was absolutely wrong in this claim and should rightfully be called out for theological and frankly human error.

---

I will repeat since you can't understand..Christ created the Catholic Church, and charged the Apostles to shepherd it, Peter foremost of all. Peter established the church in Rome, and passed his authority on for 2,000 years. There are many several apostolic sees, all have been established by Apostles, charged by Christ.

Ah yes the old Lutheran victimhood "the 1500 year old bride of Christ won't bow to the whim of an egotistical German monk, let's take our ball and go home".

Again, we know what Christ said about those who would lead children astray. Would you argue that having millstones thrown around the neck of heretics would be contrary to the will of the Spirit?

---

I will repeat what you can't understand..Christ created His Church. Luther, you, and I aren't beholden to the pope, but to Christ. Rome did not represent "the 1500 year old bride of Christ..." but a branch of christianity that had fallen into error. You continually fall into the error of believing that because the Church existed, it was a reflection of Rome. Rome, especially by the middle ages was not a reflection of the early church and its teachings, but something new that reinvented itself.

To your last point...are your now claiming Rome should continue to execute heretics? Since I certainly believe Luther and the Reformers were correct in their reforming of the errors of Rome, should I be burned at the stake as the pope wanted to do to Luther and others? You danced around it in your post, so please be clear.

Should I be burned at the stake?

---

When did it fall into error? As I've mentioned many times in the past, the oldest churches of Christendom that have been continually celebrating mass for over a thousand years before the reformation are Catholic or Orthodox. At which point did they change from "looking like the original church" to "falling into error"?

Your obstinate "I bow to no one" bs, sounds more like Satan's "non-Serviam" than anything remotely related to Christianity; and being obedient to Christ by severing yourself from the Church he instituted on his Apostles and charged with shepherding you feels counter productive.

Also, the effeminate hysterics behind the burning at the stake will hopefully be put to bed by my answer.

If I could end the heresy of Protestantism by burning you at the stake, I would do so. Given the fact that it seems at this point impossible to put Pandora back in her bottle, we do not have a state religion, it would be killing someone for no purpose; which is murder. I will instead have to be content with seeing the best and brightest continue to flee from Protestantism into the apostolic faith, while those looking for good music and to see a person jump a motorcycle through a ring of fire continue to defect to the Protestant novelty.

---

A specific date? That would be hard to pinpoint, but we can mostly track the rise of the pope from one of many bishops to an ecumenical bishop to the modern claims Rome made (which we can probably trace to the Great Schism).

But as I've pointed out in other posts/threads, much of Rome's theology, which is ironically really driven to be "anti-reformer" isn't nailed down until Trent.
--------------
To your next point, you make a blatantly false claim. Nowhere have I claimed "I bow down to no one." That is BS, but that's you spouting BS that isn't true, correct, or accurate. I'm obedient to Christ and His Church. However, His Church is not the Roman Catholic Church exclusively or specifically as that organization was not established by the Apostles or any of that nonsense, but by men who came later.

It is nice though to see you admit you'd burn me and others. It's a great reminder of why Rome (thankfully) is not the Christian Church. It's a testament to how insecure Rome is and how fragile their faith is.

Your last sentence is just complete nonsense. Nobody on here is defending that kind of nonsense, but that you have resorted to that kind of petty language several times is a good indicator you know you're arguments are lacking.

---

Why would it be hard to pinpoint? You're the one arguing that mass being held in churches since the 300's isn't reminiscent of "original Christianity" but whichever Missouri synod, ELCA nonsense group you're a member of is.

You're not obedient to Christ or his Church, you're an offshoot of an offshoot of an offshoot. Christ's Church is the Catholic Church, I don't know why you keep on focusing on just the Roman see, but likely because it's easier than admitting that we've got 1,400,000 billion people in all of the ancient sees of Christianity, and you've got….Dallas? Since 1968 or Missouri?

Your effeminance knows no bounds.

"Just come out and stop side stepping what you'd do"
"Omg he just said he'd burn me in a hypothetical situation 500 years ago"

---

This is your argument?

Modern Roman Catholicism is built upon claims of incrementalism that John Henry Newman developed, because Roman Catholic Newman couldn't defend against the claims of Anglican Newman. Without incrementalism, Rome requires incrementalism to hold onto any claim it has today. So as I said, the two we can follow are the rise of the modern pope (with all the anti-christian activities that occurred) and then Trent creating the beliefs of the new Roman church.

You second sentence again is garbage because I can point to those guitar playing catholic services in the exact same vein. Or popes blessing blocks of ice or wooden statues of goddesses. Maybe I should only understand Roman Catholicism through Pr James Martin's views?

Or does Matthew 7, not apply for you?
3 Why do you see the speck that is in your brother's eye, but do not notice the log that is in your own eye?

------------
Second paragraph yet again makes a claim and that's it, and so I can reject it as easily as you claim it. The modern Roman Catholic church is just a heretical offshoot of the real Christian Church. That you have lots of followers is more sad than anything else, but also shows what extensive amounts of money gained through corrupt and political means can do for someone.

Or does Matthew 7 (again) not apply:

13 "Enter by the narrow gate. For the gate is wide and the way is easy that leads to destruction, and those who enter by it are many. 14 For the gate is narrow and the way is hard that leads to life, and those who find it are few.


-------------
It's not a hypothetical. Your pope make the claim from the seat of Peter, in his pastoral office, that it is the will of the Holy Spirit to burn heretics.

But again, lets blame Luther for standing up and saying it's wrong to murder people we disagree with.

btw, I did want to come back to this because we have an absolutely perfect example to show your hypocrisy

Quote:

---

If I could end the heresy of Protestantism by burning you at the stake, I would do so.

---

This is an exact parallel to the "anti-facist" movement that murdered Charlie Kirk, who you so passionately defended on the politics board. Kirk's murderer wanted to stop the "heresy of fascism" and putting a bullet in Kirk was what they thought would help in that mission.

But I supposed you only support the murder of people who you disagree with only when it supports your cause.

---

I've asked you to make the claim, you said it'd be hard to pinpoint . Show me when the Catholic Church made the break from the original church. I can show you where Protestantism split from the Catholic Church, and I can show you were orthodoxy and Catholicism schism'd. You can trace every little single break and offshoot of Protestantism since the very beginning. Do the same thing with Catholicism. It should be simple. You've made some very bold claims regarding when Catholicism broke off from the "true faith" yet you've given no sort of example.

When did the mass held at the Church of the Holy Sepulchre, or the Church of the Nativity turn from "original Christianity" to "Roman innovation". If you're the original church of Christ, why are all the saints buried in Catholic and Orthodox Churches? Where are all of your cathedrals? Your apostolic sees?

Why are you really only represented in certain parts of Europe and North America?

The idea that burning a heretic is the same as killing Charlie Kirk shows your enlightenment era moral relativistic mindsets. This is the same brain rot that states that banning porn is the same as banning the Bible. Some things are good and some things are bad. It is good to stop the spread of heresy, it is bad to kill someone for speaking lukewarm Republican talking points.

---

The key fallacy in your argument is that splitting from a heretical church towards restoration of the Western church is materially different than when Rome fell into heresy.

There was a multitude of attempts to reform Rome, most of which led to the death of those at the hands of Rome.
-----------------
Your second claim is also false. You certainly cannot "trace every little single break and offshoot." It's a fools errand and a claim you can't back up. But likewise, from a theological standpoint, I can just as easily point to Trent as the moment that Rome officially went into heresy from a doctrinal standpoint. It's not debatable that this was the moment they truly defined themselves as a Church for the first time.

The vagueness I speak of relates more to when the pope became the most divisive person in history. We can more or less trace all division on the church to this exact office. It's always going to be problematic to point to a specific instance when this role has been so corrupted and more myth than reality.

Quote:

---

Why are you really only represented in certain parts of Europe and North America?

---

Wrong again

International Lutheran Council: https://ilcouncil.org/

Covers 5 continents.

A key difference is that Lutherans hold to the historical and biblical view that local churches should oversee their areas as opposed to the errors or Rome that want everything under one person. We are far less concerned about manmade structures and traditions, and instead far more concerned with making sure the biblical faith and tradition is believed and taught.

-------------

Quote:

---

The idea that burning a heretic is the same as killing Charlie Kirk shows your enlightenment era moral relativistic mindsets. This is the same brain rot that states that banning porn is the same as banning the Bible. Some things are good and some things are bad. It is good to stop the spread of heresy, it is bad to kill someone for speaking lukewarm Republican talking points.

---

The idea IS the same because, just as you pointed out, if we kill the other side, maybe we stop their ideas. I didn't say it...you did. You made the exact same argument for killing heretics that Kirk's murderers organizations make to justify shooting him. It's ok to admit your biases though..that's part of growing as a person.

---

So essentially this was an extremely long winded way to say that you can't actually point to when Rome lost its way, as I've asked multiple times. Because if you're pointing to Trent, which was post reformation, it made no sense for the reformation to occur.

Secondly, imagine you're claiming the Roman Catholic Church offshoot didn't begin until a few hundred years ago. From whom did the Orthodox split?

Wow, your International Lutheran Council has about as many adherents as there are Catholics in Burundi; so while it's not quite the 144,000, it seems your organization goes way back to the council of…..Antigua Guatemala in…..1993. Yes surely this is the Church that the Apostles founded.


This makes about as much sense as Protestantism.

What claim did I make other than that other faiths say they are true? This seems obvious fact.

A question isn't a counter argument.

Yes but it takes your position for granted, it doesn't actually defend it.

Quote:

---

By "Israel" Paul means ethnic Israelites (Jews). For Paul the world was divided into two types of people: Israel and everybody else (Gentiles).

---

This is the point of contention - and it's just not correct. Nobody in the ancient world had a concept of ethnicity by genetics.

Hereditary citizenship requirements and genetic descent aren't the same thing. And we weren't talking about patrilineal descent in the Greek polis, but Israel.

Cool tell me the story of Caleb.


Edit anyway this stupid. Having a hereditary priesthood or kingship doesn't prove anything about genetics. You're arguing my point. being a part of the people group was about ritualistic inclusion - nomos, literally torah - not bloodline. From the beginning out of Egypt Israel was a mixed multitude.

And none of that goes against St Paul saying - not all who of Israel are Israel, which is a clear acknowledgement that even bloodline isn't enough. QED

i dunno why you think "buddy" is an effective way to talk down to someone, or why you think that makes you look better, but it doesn't. can we skip it?

you're trying to turn this into a dichotomy, as if i'm saying there we no notion of lineage or that lineage never mattered ever. i'm not. i just made a really simple claim that as the ancients had no understanding of genetics, they did not think of ethnic categories the way we do today. israel was never an ethnic category by modern understanding. the fact that ancient peoples practiced true conversion proves this: you can change your way of life, but you can't change your genetics. they had some nascent concepts of heredity obviously, but they didn't have anything like modern racism.

when they did practice bloodline inheritance was typically in civic matters, not matters of identity. for example, Aristotle in Politics talks about citizenship in book 3, where he says:

Quote:

---

...in practice a citizen is defined to be one of whom both the parents are citizens; others insist on going further back; say to two or three or more ancestors. This is a short and practical definition but there are some who raise the further question: How this third or fourth ancestor came to be a citizen? Gorgias of Leontini, partly because he was in a difficulty, partly in irony, said- 'Mortars are what is made by the mortar-makers, and the citizens of Larissa are those who are made by the magistrates; for it is their trade to make Larissaeans.' Yet the question is really simple, for, if according to the definition [given previously] they shared in the government, they were citizens. This is a better definition than the other. For the words, 'born of a father or mother who is a citizen,' cannot possibly apply to the first inhabitants or founders of a state.

There is a greater difficulty in the case of those who have been made citizens after a revolution, as by Cleisthenes at Athens after the expulsion of the tyrants, for he enrolled in tribes many metics [foreigners], both strangers and slaves. The doubt in these cases is, not who is, but whether he who is ought to be a citizen; and there will still be a furthering the state, whether a certain act is or is not an act of the state; for what ought not to be is what is false. Now, there are some who hold office, and yet ought not to hold office, whom we describe as ruling, but ruling unjustly. And the citizen was defined by the fact of his holding some kind of rule or office- he who holds a judicial or legislative office fulfills our definition of a citizen. It is evident, therefore, that the citizens about whom the doubt has arisen must be called citizens.

---

So what does that show? a few things - that in at least Greek practice citizenship - the people who had the power to take part in the deliberative or judicial administration of the state - was hereditary, by both parents.

two, that citizenship clearly is a derivative of the state, because it the people who found a state can't gain their citizenship by inheritance.

three, that a foreigner with some kind of privilege living in a city can become a citizen.

four, that the means of being a citizen was tied into tribal affiliation, and so to become a citizen they had to be enrolled into a tribe. and that is where rubber meets the road as far as this conversation goes. here we have citizenship and nation identity joined. IF the ancients had a concept of genetic ethnicity, this would simply not be possible - you can't become part of a tribe by being "enrolled".

heredity was about shared birth from common ancestors which formed the familial, clan, and tribal bonds upon which the state was founded, and citizenship was participation in the the government of the state.

in Herodotus we have something about the subject (in book 8.142) - the Athenians discussing why they would not ally with Persia against other Greeks give the following reasons "first and chiefest, the burning and destruction of the adornments and temples of our gods, whom we are constrained to avenge to the uttermost rather than make covenants with the doer of these things, and next the kinship of all Greeks being of the same blood and same language, having common shrines of gods and sacrifices, and customs (ethea) of the same kind." Customs, worship, way of life are listed equally alongside blood or ancestry.

right, ok so tracking so far. how does this relate to the story of Israel in the scriptures?

first, the scriptures tell us that Israel was not a people group that existed. it wasn't one of the seventy nations. it was a new people group formed by God from nothing, starting around a kernel of a single man. however, not all of this man's children were part of that people group, and not even all of the tribes or nations that came from that man were part of it. so the promises to Abraham cannot be strictly about heredity or lineage, or Ishmael, or Edom etc., would have equal standing. they do not.

second, we have an account of the formation of Israel as a nation vs as the tribal groups of the sons of Jacob. we can see from literal and inferred evidence in the text that the group that went out in the Exodus wasn't just the sons of Jacob and his family (a mixed multitude) and that there were a lot of diverse people from an ethnic sense (modern and ancient) in this group - egyptian names, for example (-Moses, Miriam!!) people like Caleb who were explicitly from other tribes. however, the formation of the new nation of Israel from this mixed multitude created a new nation with a new nomos (Torah, way of life). to become part of that nation was based on ritual observance, not heredity. it cannot be strictly heredity or lineage, because we know that people in this nation were formerly outsiders. and Caleb didn't just become any ol' Israelite, he became an elder of Judah! a leader, one of the 72 in the whole nation. there is nothing, nowhere, in the scriptures that gives us any indication of the relative portions of the mixed multitude (hereditary sons of israel vs adopted foreigners) at Sinai. and there is no commentary or concept that there would be any difference in standing at that point based on heredity.

now, how did heredity work in Israel? again, we do see heredity within the clan structures although not exclusive and allowing adoption as full membership (just as in the Greek states) but we also see actual exclusive heredity in two ways. one, in the transmission or receipt of the promises of Abraham from Abraham through Isaac and Jacob and Judah and ultimately to Christ Jesus, the singular heir. St Paul says nobody but Christ inherits, He is the sole heir. Does this mean nobody else is properly of Israel? obviously not, that would be absurd. so membership in the nation (which is where this whole thing came from!!) is not related to heredity in that way.

the other way heredity plays out is in the transmission or receipt of certain offices. for example, the Levitical priesthood is strictly by bloodline, and the high priesthood by lineage even within that tribe. but does this mean that non-levites aren't Israelites? no - this is a civic function, a way the state functions. and the kingship is partly hereditary, but not strictly and it gets broken.

alright, all that being said. what does that mean for this discussion?

the OT tells us:
not everyone who was part of Israel in the beginning was descended from Abraham.
people who were outsiders could become part of Israel, including being an elder of a tribe (Caleb)
at least two foreign women are explicitly in the gospel bloodline of Jesus Christ (Rahab a canaanite, Ruth a moabite)
not everyone within Israel received certain hereditary offices, even people who were descended from Abraham.
not everyone who was a part of Israel by descent received the blessings promised to Israel write large - because they were cut off for faithlessness. entire tribes were cut off.

building on that, St Paul says that not all who are of Israel are Israel, meaning that within the hereditary or nationalistic group, there are people who are truly Israelites and who are not. there is, in other words, a category of being and identity within Israel that has nothing to do with lineage, but is a matter of the heart. he also says "no one is a Jew who is merely one outwardly, nor is circumcision outward and physical; no, a man is a Jew because he is one inwardly, and circumcision is a matter of the heart, by the Spirit, not by the written code." we can say that then this spiritual categorization goes even further, that even if you are physical / hereditary a Jew, and outwardly even follow the nomos of the Jew (the Torah) even still (!) if you are not inwardly a Jew, you are not a Jew. You are not a judaean. You are not a member of the Judean people. (let the reader understand).

Where then is heredity? Where is blood?

Circling back to the topic - for St Paul, if the world was divided into two types of people, Israel and everybody else - is it possible at all that he means that ALL ethnic Jews are Israelites? no. it is falsified by his own words.

now back to sapper -- please, can you go away with your tiresome strawmen?