Protestantism might just be Christianity

[Distruzio]

Indeed. Which the Church has interpreted to affirm her position in the Christian life.

Protestantism simply rejects the Church of dead letters, Catholicism, Orthodoxy, etc., for the Spirit.

Indeed. Hence my issue.

[Nationes Pii Redivivi]

Jesus also picked corn on the Sabbath.

The bastard.

They should've erected an eruv of some sort.

[Nationes Pii Redivivi]

Protestantism simply rejects the Church of dead letters, Catholicism, Orthodoxy, etc., for the Spirit.

Indeed. Hence my issue.

It still qualifies them as Christians.

[Menassa]

The bastard.

They should've erected an eruv of some sort.

It's probably still an issue.

[Distruzio]

Indeed. Hence my issue.

It still qualifies them as Christians.

Following my conversation with my fiance, I see myself tending to agree (at long last). At the moment, I'm pouring down a thought process that, I hope, will break this issue for me once and for all but... time will tell.

[Soldati Senza Confini]

We've been over this, Jews, Atheists, Unitarian Universalits, etc. don't believe that Jesus is "the Christ", Moslems maybe, but they don't believe that Jesus was divine, begotten not made, etc.

Indeed. We have. You're definition, and the defintion offered by Tmut, is ridiculous because it flies in the face of common sense. If belief in Jesus is all that is needed, the common sense dictates that any who believe in Jesus are Christian.

If Protestants believe that Jesus is the Christ, which they should, then they should also believe that, as the Christ, He established the Church - but they either call Jesus a liar or don't believe He kept His word regarding the Church. Ergo, Protestants cannot, honestly, be Christian.

Well, not belief in Jesus; but belief in Jesus' divinity and he being the Son of God, which Protestants do have.

And Protestants do believe Jesus established the Church - just not the Church meaning the Roman Catholic Church with its seat in the Vatican.

[Nationes Pii Redivivi]

We've been over this, Jews, Atheists, Unitarian Universalits, etc. don't believe that Jesus is "the Christ", Moslems maybe, but they don't believe that Jesus was divine, begotten not made, etc.

Indeed. We have. You're definition, and the defintion offered by Tmut, is ridiculous because it flies in the face of common sense. If belief in Jesus is all that is needed, the common sense dictates that any who believe in Jesus are Christian.

It doesn't, you choose not to read those definitions.

"One that believes that Jesus was the Christ, and the son of God, and that we should, to the best of our abilities, follow his teaching, if not in word, at least in spirit".

If Protestants believe that Jesus is the Christ, which they should, then they should also believe that, as the Christ, He established the Church

The Church, as in the body of believers, and not the institution composed of Aquinas, interpreters of Aquinas, interpreters of interpreters of Aquinas, who was, himself, an interpreter of Augustine.

- but they either call Jesus a liar or don't believe He kept His word regarding the Church. Ergo, Protestants cannot, honestly, be Christian.

Based on two specious definitions. There you go.

[Distruzio]

Indeed. We have. You're definition, and the defintion offered by Tmut, is ridiculous because it flies in the face of common sense. If belief in Jesus is all that is needed, the common sense dictates that any who believe in Jesus are Christian.

It doesn't, you choose not to read those definitions.

"One that believes that Jesus was the Christ, and the son of God, and that we should, to the best of our abilities, follow his teaching, if not in word, at least in spirit".

If Protestants believe that Jesus is the Christ, which they should, then they should also believe that, as the Christ, He established the Church

The Church, as in the body of believers, and not the institution composed of Aquinas, interpreters of Aquinas, interpreters of interpreters of Aquinas, who was, himself, an interpreter of Augustine.

- but they either call Jesus a liar or don't believe He kept His word regarding the Church. Ergo, Protestants cannot, honestly, be Christian.

Based on two specious definitions. There you go.

Fair enough.

[Tmutarakhan]

The bastard.

They should've erected an eruv of some sort.

That would not help. The command not to gather food on the Sabbath applies everywhere (the eruv only helps about the rules not to travel). Jesus picked this particular law to break because it was without exceptions, and was given to Israel even before they reached Sinai (in an earlier discussion I claimed it was the very first commandment ever given to Israel as a nation, but really the first was "remember this day..." and Jesus didn't tell his disciples to forget the Passover).

[Menassa]

They should've erected an eruv of some sort.

That would not help. The command not to gather food on the Sabbath applies everywhere (the eruv only helps about the rules not to travel). Jesus picked this particular law to break because it was without exceptions, and was given to Israel even before they reached Sinai (in an earlier discussion I claimed it was the very first commandment ever given to Israel as a nation, but really the first was "remember this day..." and Jesus didn't tell his disciples to forget the Passover).

Actually the commandment not the pick grain on the Sabbath is found nowhere in the Bible.
What you might be think of is that the Manna would not fall from heaven on the Sabbath but that has little to do with the Law.

[Todlichebujoku]

Through the Grace of God which allows us to have faith in Jesus Christ, who is the son of God, and the strenght to do his will.

The Grace of God that Protestants deny exists? The Grace that perpetuates and safeguards the Church?

Am I correct in believing that by "the Church", you are referring to the Orthodox and Catholic Churches? And that in order to be considered "Christian", one must follow the very long path back to what the disciples established? If direct connections are what matter, then shouldn't you decide the Nicene Creed to be illegitimate as the disciples themselves did not actually approve it? Wouldn't everything added to the Church after the disciples- the only people who actually had a decently rounded view of what Jesus intended (and even they didn't always understand it all)- be considered questionable at best, including the scriptures the Church decided to be canonical? Or are you just picking on Protestants just because they don't have the bits of Orthodox and Catholic Christianity that you love?

Not to mention that whole thing about revering the Virgin Mary- I cannot find any source that the disciples did so (feel free to TG any to me)- and it looks like a ton of fangirling over to get fertilized by God. I mean, why isn't Moses venerated in the same way? He received so much from Him, including a blinding aura and God's personal commandments to his chosen people- maybe divine insemination is just that much cooler? Or maybe it's just that she was the last human to be directly contacted by God... well she was the last person to receive divine insemination, as I suspect Revelations represents direct divine contact of some sort, after Mary's.

[Distruzio]

The Grace of God that Protestants deny exists? The Grace that perpetuates and safeguards the Church?

Am I correct in believing that by "the Church", you are referring to the Orthodox and Catholic Churches?

Correct. Catholic (including the Roman, Anglican Communion, and Continuing Anglican Movement) and Orthodox (including Oriental and Eastern).

And that in order to be considered "Christian", one must follow the very long path back to what the disciples established?

No. To what Christ established.

If direct connections are what matter, then shouldn't you decide the Nicene Creed to be illegitimate as the disciples themselves did not actually approve it? Wouldn't everything added to the Church after the disciples- the only people who actually had a decently rounded view of what Jesus intended (and even they didn't always understand it all)- be considered questionable at best, including the scriptures the Church decided to be canonical? Or are you just picking on Protestants just because they don't have the bits of Orthodox and Catholic Christianity that you love?

No.

Not to mention that whole thing about revering the Virgin Mary- I cannot find any source that the disciples did so (feel free to TG any to me)- and it looks like a ton of fangirling over to get fertilized by God. I mean, why isn't Moses venerated in the same way? He received so much from Him, including a blinding aura and God's personal commandments to his chosen people- maybe divine insemination is just that much cooler? Or maybe it's just that she was the last human to be directly contacted by God... well she was the last person to receive divine insemination, as I suspect Revelations represents direct divine contact of some sort, after Mary's.

.... so the Mother of God deserves no respect?

[Nationes Pii Redivivi]

That would not help. The command not to gather food on the Sabbath applies everywhere (the eruv only helps about the rules not to travel). Jesus picked this particular law to break because it was without exceptions, and was given to Israel even before they reached Sinai (in an earlier discussion I claimed it was the very first commandment ever given to Israel as a nation, but really the first was "remember this day..." and Jesus didn't tell his disciples to forget the Passover).

Actually the commandment not the pick grain on the Sabbath is found nowhere in the Bible.
What you might be think of is that the Manna would not fall from heaven on the Sabbath but that has little to do with the Law.

Isn't it somewhere in the oral laws that one cannot gather, thresh, or sort during the Sabbath?

[Menassa]

Actually the commandment not the pick grain on the Sabbath is found nowhere in the Bible.
What you might be think of is that the Manna would not fall from heaven on the Sabbath but that has little to do with the Law.

Isn't it somewhere in the oral laws that one cannot gather, thresh, or sort during the Sabbath?

Exactly, and did Jesus deny this fact to the Pharisees? No he did not, he accepted that this was not right to do in a normal situation and instead gave another reason.

[Conkerials]

Not to mention that whole thing about revering the Virgin Mary- I cannot find any source that the disciples did so (feel free to TG any to me)- and it looks like a ton of fangirling over to get fertilized by God. I mean, why isn't Moses venerated in the same way? He received so much from Him, including a blinding aura and God's personal commandments to his chosen people- maybe divine insemination is just that much cooler? Or maybe it's just that she was the last human to be directly contacted by God... well she was the last person to receive divine insemination, as I suspect Revelations represents direct divine contact of some sort, after Mary's.

.... so the Mother of God deserves no respect?

I don't even see where he said that.

[Todlichebujoku]

We've been over this, Jews, Atheists, Unitarian Universalits, etc. don't believe that Jesus is "the Christ", Moslems maybe, but they don't believe that Jesus was divine, begotten not made, etc.

Indeed. We have. You're definition, and the defintion offered by Tmut, is ridiculous because it flies in the face of common sense. If belief in Jesus is all that is needed, the common sense dictates that any who believe in Jesus are Christian.

If Protestants believe that Jesus is the Christ, which they should, then they should also believe that, as the Christ, He established the Church - but they either call Jesus a liar or don't believe He kept His word regarding the Church. Ergo, Protestants cannot, honestly, be Christian.

And suppose the Church has wandered astray and the Protestants are actually closer to what Christ envisioned? What then? As both parties are equally moved by God's word by their respective accounts, how can you tell which one has gone astray and which one is true to Christ's vision? Follow the word of the Catholic and Orthodox Churches blindly simply based on their heritage?

[Nationes Pii Redivivi]

Isn't it somewhere in the oral laws that one cannot gather, thresh, or sort during the Sabbath?

Exactly, and did Jesus deny this fact to the Pharisees? No he did not, he accepted that this was not right to do in a normal situation and instead gave another reason.

"At that time Jesus went on the sabbath day through the corn; and his disciples were an hungred, and began to pluck the ears of corn, and to eat.But when the Pharisees saw it, they said unto him, Behold, thy disciples do that which is not lawful to do upon the sabbath day.But he said unto them, Have ye not read what David did, when he was an hungred, and they that were with him; How he entered into the house of God, and did eat the shewbread, which was not lawful for him to eat, neither for them which were with him, but only for the priests? Or have ye not read in the law, how that on the sabbath days the priests in the temple profane the sabbath, and are blameless? But I say unto you, That in this place is one greater than the temple. But if ye had known what this meaneth, I will have mercy, and not sacrifice, ye would not have condemned the guiltless. For the Son of man is Lord even of the sabbath day." Matthew 12:1-8

[Distruzio]

You came away from that discourse on the subject with the opposite interpretation of my opinion on the matter of anglo-catholicism and its place within Christianity. I very much do see the more reformed anglo-catholics as Christian. They reject neither historical fact nor the role of the Church.

The very reason I made this post was precisely because of what I anticipated would happen; I am unusual in that I would call myself a catholic (I do prefer western rite, but I digress) whereas the majority of Anglicans would call themselves protestant or even Protestant; historically the identity of Anglicanism has tended towards protestantism due to both historical similarities in religious practice (It has changed a great deal in the last two centuries) as well as mutual enemies (primarily Spain and France, which did more to define a religious identity then the English did).

Now I raise this purely because it creates a contradiction in regards to what you stated at the onset; as there are a substantial number of Anglicans who are very, very Protestant (low church particularly) and if you are going to include the whole episcopate you must include the Porvoo Communion; which as you can imagine includes Lutherans (due to similarity in doctrine and many who claim Apostolic succession). And it all just flows down from there.

If I were you, I would probably specify that you accept particular parts of the Anglican Communion (After all the ordination of women bishops makes the whole thing very shakey at the moment) and not the whole thing particularly the High Church branch. Of course you may have indeed stated this and that I am being obtuse and snobby (which I can't deny).

A lot of this is due to the fact the almost every Anglican, save a few Anglo-Catholics, doesn't like being thrown in the same boat as Rome - because its effectively begging the question of why the English Church at all?

Now, see here is a unique pickle. I defer on the side of grace conserning Porvoo concerning Anglicans of both low and high Church persuasions. But I can't make that logical leap to include Protestantism. I do so because Rome and the Orthodox consider the Anglo-Catholics Christians and the Anglo-Catholics (both Anglican Communion and Continuing Anglican) encompass a large and myriad approach to Christian expression.

I just can't make that leap for Protestants even though many Anglo-Catholics might consider themselves protestant.

[Todlichebujoku]

Am I correct in believing that by "the Church", you are referring to the Orthodox and Catholic Churches?

Correct. Catholic (including the Roman, Anglican Communion, and Continuing Anglican Movement) and Orthodox (including Oriental and Eastern).

And that in order to be considered "Christian", one must follow the very long path back to what the disciples established?

No. To what Christ established.

Good, I discussed that in the post just a few posts above.

If direct connections are what matter, then shouldn't you decide the Nicene Creed to be illegitimate as the disciples themselves did not actually approve it? Wouldn't everything added to the Church after the disciples- the only people who actually had a decently rounded view of what Jesus intended (and even they didn't always understand it all)- be considered questionable at best, including the scriptures the Church decided to be canonical? Or are you just picking on Protestants just because they don't have the bits of Orthodox and Catholic Christianity that you love?

No.

Care to explain?

Not to mention that whole thing about revering the Virgin Mary- I cannot find any source that the disciples did so (feel free to TG any to me)- and it looks like a ton of fangirling over to get fertilized by God. I mean, why isn't Moses venerated in the same way? He received so much from Him, including a blinding aura and God's personal commandments to his chosen people- maybe divine insemination is just that much cooler? Or maybe it's just that she was the last human to be directly contacted by God... well she was the last person to receive divine insemination, as I suspect Revelations represents direct divine contact of some sort, after Mary's.

.... so the Mother of God deserves no respect?

No, she does deserve respect, but veneration is too far.

[Menassa]

Exactly, and did Jesus deny this fact to the Pharisees? No he did not, he accepted that this was not right to do in a normal situation and instead gave another reason.

"At that time Jesus went on the sabbath day through the corn; and his disciples were an hungred, and began to pluck the ears of corn, and to eat.But when the Pharisees saw it, they said unto him, Behold, thy disciples do that which is not lawful to do upon the sabbath day.But he said unto them, Have ye not read what David did, when he was an hungred, and they that were with him; How he entered into the house of God, and did eat the shewbread, which was not lawful for him to eat, neither for them which were with him, but only for the priests? Or have ye not read in the law, how that on the sabbath days the priests in the temple profane the sabbath, and are blameless? But I say unto you, That in this place is one greater than the temple. But if ye had known what this meaneth, I will have mercy, and not sacrifice, ye would not have condemned the guiltless. For the Son of man is Lord even of the sabbath day." Matthew 12:1-8

Now if Jesus didn't support the Oral Law here's what he should have said.
"Have ye not read what Moses said when he descended from the mountain with the Tablets of the Law? 'Remember the Sabbath day...'"

[Distruzio]

.... so the Mother of God deserves no respect?

I don't even see where he said that.

it looks like a ton of fangirling over to get fertilized by God.

[Distruzio]

Indeed. We have. You're definition, and the defintion offered by Tmut, is ridiculous because it flies in the face of common sense. If belief in Jesus is all that is needed, the common sense dictates that any who believe in Jesus are Christian.

If Protestants believe that Jesus is the Christ, which they should, then they should also believe that, as the Christ, He established the Church - but they either call Jesus a liar or don't believe He kept His word regarding the Church. Ergo, Protestants cannot, honestly, be Christian.

And suppose the Church has wandered astray and the Protestants are actually closer to what Christ envisioned? What then?

Then Christ is either a liar or couldn't deliver what He promised.

As both parties are equally moved by God's word by their respective accounts, how can you tell which one has gone astray and which one is true to Christ's vision? Follow the word of the Catholic and Orthodox Churches blindly simply based on their heritage?

You follow what Christ said.

[Todlichebujoku]

I don't even see where he said that.

it looks like a ton of fangirling over to get fertilized by God.

I seem to have forgotten to add the part I meant to add about how I'm sure that the disciples respected her as Jesus's mother, and that it's fine to simply respect her as that. Prayers and devotions to her are too far.

[Distruzio]

I seem to have forgotten to add the part I meant to add about how I'm sure that the disciples respected her as Jesus's mother, and that it's fine to simply respect her as that. Prayers and devotions to her are too far.

Didn't the Angel promise her that she would be venerated?

[Nationes Pii Redivivi]

"At that time Jesus went on the sabbath day through the corn; and his disciples were an hungred, and began to pluck the ears of corn, and to eat.But when the Pharisees saw it, they said unto him, Behold, thy disciples do that which is not lawful to do upon the sabbath day.But he said unto them, Have ye not read what David did, when he was an hungred, and they that were with him; How he entered into the house of God, and did eat the shewbread, which was not lawful for him to eat, neither for them which were with him, but only for the priests? Or have ye not read in the law, how that on the sabbath days the priests in the temple profane the sabbath, and are blameless? But I say unto you, That in this place is one greater than the temple. But if ye had known what this meaneth, I will have mercy, and not sacrifice, ye would not have condemned the guiltless. For the Son of man is Lord even of the sabbath day." Matthew 12:1-8

Now if Jesus didn't support the Oral Law here's what he should have said.
"Have ye not read what Moses said when he descended from the mountain with the Tablets of the Law? 'Remember the Sabbath day...'"

Could you elaborate?