**Pope Benedict XVI (the theological Einstein of our times) captured this brilliant in the following passage. In the middle volume of his triptych, Jesus of Nazareth, Pope Benedict XVI tried to describe those Resurrection-changes in history and nature (which are, of course, ultimately indescribable)**
Tried to describe what is ultimately indescribable??? Theological Einstein?? (in your opinion). Captured this brilliant??
I know one thing he doesn’t know how to describe, and that is Jesus Christ, AS HE descibes HIMSELF: The Son of God (never once did he or his disciples ever describe him as “God the Son””.
**The brilliant Catholic theologians after whom colleges and universities have been named.**
Did they also describe Jesus Christ as ‘God the Son’? If they did, they aren’t so brilliant after all.
**To deny the Eucharist, you will have to REFUTE:
1. Scripture itself. John 6:53**
Why do you stop there, and not include 6:63? Is it the same reason that you folks don’t include verse 6 in your interpretation of Revelation 12:1-5?
You folk say that the ‘eucharist’ is how you get Christ inside. Jesus Christ takes John 6:63 even further in John 14:16-20, where he teaches his disciples that...”ye know him; for he dwelleth with you, and shall be in you.......AT THAT DAY ye shall know that I AM in my Father, and ye IN ME, and I IN YOU”.
Further proof of the Spirit, which dwells in every cell of Jesus, being what Christ was talking about being inside of believers, is the emphasis the apostles put on being born of the Spirit.
If the Lord’s Supper was literal flesh and blood, why no detailed teaching of it in Acts? Did the ‘first pope’ drop the ball?
If it is so literal, why did Paul only give a written detailed description of the Lord’s supper to the Corinthians, and not to the other churches that he wrote to?
(when he wrote to the Romans, he hadn’t even been to Rome yet. Why no Lord’s supper instructions to them?)
Don’t you think that if it’s so literal, and for salvation, that it would have been hammered home several times in Acts and the Epistles?
Does the ‘theological Einstein teach this:...
Jesus drops in on the home town, after preaching and performing miracles elsewhere, preaches in the synagogue, and astonished the very people he had spent AT LEAST 18 YEARS growing up and living among. (He was 12 when Mary forgot him when leaving Jerusalem. Don’t know how many years he had lived in Nazareth after being brought out of Egypt.)
The people in Nazareth knew Joseph, Mary, Jesus, and his siblings well enough to be confounded as to how Jesus was so incredibly different from the rest of them.
I’m sure the ‘theological Einstein’ teaches followers to pray to Mary. Does he teach followers to pray to the Centurion that asked Jesus to “Speak the word only, and my servant shall be healed”? Does the expope teach followers to pray to the woman from Canaan? Jesus Christ praised both of those souls as having great faith. Surely those two would be as good at intercessing as Mary.
Does the ‘theological Einstein’ teach that the seating of Bathsheba next to her son, Solomon, in her act of intercessing for Adonijah, as symbolic of Mary? If so, does he teach that that solitary case proved that Bathsheba was not supposed to be intercessing in such matters? (Adonijah could have gone direct in his request, if he knew it was legit, with no need of an intercessor. But he knew it wasn’t.)
We can ask those mortal believers around us to pray to God. If our requests that are made known to God are legit, He will hear them, without a heavenly relay.
If tradition is man-made, it’s not God’s word.
**The resurrection is not some simple belief of a dead man coming to life.**
Jesus Christ expects us to believe him like a little child. It doesn’t get much simpler than that.
Oh yes, so you would like to try your hand at “internet theologian” against a theologian of Benedict’s stature whose books and writings are studied by faculty and students in all the major theological departments of just about every college and university.
The point of absurdity is “Jesus Christ expects us to believe him like a little child. It doesn’t get much simpler than that.”
So why then did Christ command Peter and His successors:
“And I will give to thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven. And whatsoever thou shalt bind upon earth, it shall be bound also in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose upon earth, it shall be loosed also in heaven,” and “Going therefore, teach ye all nations; baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost.”
Just believe like a little child, no need to teach and no need to teach as part of ONE Church, and no need to teach as only ONE truth. In fact no need to teach at all.
This explains why every Foursquare Church pastor and congregants of Osteen, Graham, Rev. Jeremiah Wright, Jim Jones, David Koresh, all believe their contradictory and conflicting versions, sometime with lethal consequences, as a little child.
What doesn’t get simpler is that Bible Christianity is so shallow that as it has been said even a paper boat will have trouble keeping afloat.