Posted on 12/26/2011 6:08:22 PM PST by rzman21
Well, that would be obvious.... :-)
Yep, antisemitism just fell from the sky, brand new and an unheard of thing, with the advent of Martin Luther. Nobody had ever accused Jews of poisoning wells and slaughtered them or run them out and seized their property before Protestantism, nope. No exiles of every single jew from whole nations under Catholicism, either, that’s just an ugly rumor about Spain and England. /s
He learned that Jew hatred. He didn’t invent it. He was far closer to Catholicism in his reformation attempts than other Protestant Reformers. This is yet another example.
re: “See, that is my concern about Protestants in the upcoming election. They would rather have a Kenyan Stalinist than a Mormon in office, because by refusing to vote for Romney, your inaction is a vote for Kenyan Stalinism.”
I completely agree. I, for one, am not refusing to vote for Romney if it comes down to him and Obama. I’ll take 60% of what I want as opposed to 0% (Obama).
I was not discussing not voting for Romney in the first place. I was using the Romney flap as an illustration of Christians who flame him for his religion rather than looking solely at his politics, and, how doing so just creates divisivness and anger because people don’t understand the theology. It just confuses people and sets a bad witness to those who are not Christians.
That’s why I said, if you had read the entire post, that these kinds of religious discussions are a bad idea on an open political forum, such as Free Republic, where you have all kinds of people with all kinds of religious beliefs. I just don’t think these discussions help anything.
As to Romney, it’s true that I don’t like some of his baggage, but I would not refrain from voting simply because he’s a Mormon (and a nominal one too). I agree with you that those people who refuse to vote for him because of his religion, or even because of some of his past more liberal political decisions, are simply going to get 100% marxism from Obama if he gets voted back in.
duh
I know you recognize that you have twisted my words. That’s okay, though. I understand your motive. But I must point out, I have not been attacking. I was simply speaking from scripture. I apologize if my words carried that tone. It was unintentional. Happy new year to you and yours, FRiend!
Careful, IsCool,...your posts may have sparked the ire of RCCists who know God Himself has entrusted the ability to retain or to remit sins only to them and if you ever wanted to confess your sins directly to God, they can keep this from you.
Then again maybe they confuse what God has provided with their own lust for authority, rejecting the very faith alone in Christ alone He also provides.
I would agree that both are enemies of Christ and in the future will be made a footstool unto our Lord Savior Christ Jesus.
I don't recollect which incident you are referring to...I may have accused you of any number of different things but I have never accused you of being a born again Christian...
I don't know that I falsely accused you of anything...
So remind me, we'll go to the scriptures and hash it out...
Truly amazing isn't it...
COBOL is a language - based on English - not like the new programming languages that take a masters degree to decipher - lol
I agree with that - C and all it’s derivatives are from the Devil
That would have been Peter who created the Church on Command of Jesus the Christ - there were many who thought that Peter was the wrong person to head the Church as he was the one to deny the existence of Jesus - but Jesus thought it was the right move - as he almost always hung around with sinners
I told you. You accused me of sending you an obscene private message. I have never sent you a PM, period. It turned out that was somebody else, as communicated to me by the other person. All in public.
I can see that you have no intention of doing anything on the matter at all.
I noticed in your quote - you did not Capitalize Holy or Catholic - it is understandable to not capitalize catholic as the term (unless you are talking about the RCC) means the congregation - the people
Never said he was. However he taught using parables so the ignorant would not gain the power of the knowledge. Let those who have ears hear.... Don’t give your pearls to the swine, lest they turn on you...
That is not why Jesus used Parables - he used them to explain to the masses - all at once - the meanings behind his teachings - not to keep them in the dark - but to enlighten them
The real presence of Christ is not taught in the Lutheran Church Missouri Synod - they teach that it is the belief that Christ is in the Wine and the Bread - not the actual embodiment - at least that is what I was taught and believe - it is the representation of the last supper
The real presence of Christ is not taught in the Lutheran Church Missouri Synod - they teach that it is the belief that Christ is in the Wine and the Bread - not the actual embodiment - at least that is what I was taught and believe - it is the representation of the last supper
>>Must have been the pastor you had. I went to an LCMS parish before I converted and faced a blistering inquisition from the minister as to whether or not I believed the Jesus was truly present “In, with, and under the species of bread and wine.”
I read an article oh around 1993 that LCMS believes in the real presence, but rejects transubstantiation, consubstantiation or any other rationalistic explanation of the real presence of Christ in the Eucharist. He wrote: “It just is.”
I heard similar stuff to what you wrote when I was in the ELCA.
Protestants save for the Anglicans and Nordic Lutherans rejected apostolic succession out of expediency because their bishops wouldn’t join their rebellion.
My Lutheran ancestors in Sweden continued to believe in apostolic succession even after the Protestant Revolution.
This was especially true in Germany, the Netherlands, Switzerland, Scotland, and elsewhere in Europe.
But in reality most American Protestant sects are splinters from the Church of England rather than from the Protestant Revolution itself.
Also a newcomer having been started
by the Roman Pagan Pontiff in 325 CE.
>>Prove it! Where’s your history to back up your baseless assertion?
>>Prove it! Where’s your history to back up your baseless assertion?
It does not happen to be in the brand of your Kool-Aid. DOCUMENTS FROM THE FIRST COUNCIL OF NICEA [THE FIRST ECUMENICAL COUNCIL] A.D. 325 Emperor Constantine, Emperor of the Roman Empire
It in all of history, including his writings.
shalom b'SHEM Yah'shua HaMashiach
This is the Decree from the first Pontiff of the Roman church to all the world.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.