Protestantism might just be Christianity

[Constantinopolis]

Also I think it is quite funny how the title of this thread was changed in a subtle way.

That's because Distruzio changed his opinion during the course of this thread:

Protestantism is, in point of fact, Christianity.

I made the link.

[Constantinopolis]

Last time I went to an Orthodox service, it was hours long (which is consistent with the early church) and conducted almost entirely in a language that was native to few if any people in the room (which is a much more modern development). One of the big things that Protestantism gave us was a return to the vernacular, and I think that is a very good thing.

According to the canons (internal rules) of the Orthodox Church, all services are supposed to be conducted in the vernacular. This has always been the rule.

In recent times, departures from this rule have begun to appear, and the Church is working on fixing the problem. For example, many churches established by immigrant communities in the United States and elsewhere continue to hold services in the language of the "old country" even generations later, when few of the descendants of the original immigrants still speak that language. However, they are gradually transitioning to the vernacular of the "new country" (English, Spanish, etc.), one church at a time. Are they doing this several decades later than they should have? Yes. But the Orthodox Church moves slowly.

[Tarsonis Survivors]

You flat out said "Jesus IS the church".

If he IS the church, he is responsible for everything it has ever done or said.

The early Protestants were against the corrupt Vatican, not Jesus. Distruzio may long for the return of the Inquisition, but he shall not have his way. Also I think it is quite funny how the title of this thread was changed in a subtle way.

Also: what exactly is wrong with a proper heresy?

Heresy by definition means a wrong belief. So the problem is, it's wrong. This notion of every idea has value is more modern opinionism.

[Hurdegaryp]

The early Protestants were against the corrupt Vatican, not Jesus. Distruzio may long for the return of the Inquisition, but he shall not have his way. Also I think it is quite funny how the title of this thread was changed in a subtle way.

Also: what exactly is wrong with a proper heresy?

Heresy by definition means a wrong belief. So the problem is, it's wrong. This notion of every idea has value is more modern opinionism.

There's something to be said for the modern approach. Lots of things, even.

[Constantinopolis]

For instance, according to Christian theology, there is no plausible separation between body, mind an soul. None can survive without the other two. The body is no mere capsule for the soul - yet Protestantism, one and all, hold this to be fundamentally untrue. Protestant denominations each proclaim no mere distinction but a total separation of one from the other two. This, by its very nature, conflicts with the trinitarian nature of God, the fundamental nature of Christ, and the fundamental nature of salvation. For the Protestant, our souls go to Heaven. For the Christian, we are elevated to Heaven complete.

Wait, wait, wait. What exactly are you saying here, brother? We will only be elevated to Heaven complete after the Final Judgment. In the mean time, those who have died are elevated to Heaven with their souls alone, awaiting the resurrection of their bodies for the Final Judgment.

So yes, in fact, there is a possible separation between body and soul. The soul can live without the body - although this is an unnatural state that does not allow the disembodied soul to experience things in the same way as if it had a body. Therefore, those who are in Heaven (or Hell) before the Final Judgment do not have quite the same experience as those who will be in those places after the Final Judgment.

[Distruzio]

For instance, according to Christian theology, there is no plausible separation between body, mind an soul. None can survive without the other two. The body is no mere capsule for the soul - yet Protestantism, one and all, hold this to be fundamentally untrue. Protestant denominations each proclaim no mere distinction but a total separation of one from the other two. This, by its very nature, conflicts with the trinitarian nature of God, the fundamental nature of Christ, and the fundamental nature of salvation. For the Protestant, our souls go to Heaven. For the Christian, we are elevated to Heaven complete.

Wait, wait, wait. What exactly are you saying here, brother? We will only be elevated to Heaven complete after the Final Judgment. In the mean time, those who have died are elevated to Heaven with their souls alone, awaiting the resurrection of their bodies for the Final Judgment.

So yes, in fact, there is a possible separation between body and soul. The soul can live without the body - although this is an unnatural state that does not allow the disembodied soul to experience things in the same way as if it had a body. Therefore, those who are in Heaven (or Hell) before the Final Judgment do not have quite the same experience as those who will be in those places after the Final Judgment.

Indeed.

[Distruzio]

Uh huh. Did I contradict you somehow? Jesus being the Church doesn't remove the human element present within.

So that means a divine being, who was messenger for that which determines eternal existence, has the same flaws as mankind, and thus, is prone to the same sins of mankind? If Jesus was human, would he not have been sinful on birth, as no sacrifice had yet been made?

No. It means that the flaws of mankind are perfected by the divine. Jesus is fully man and fully human.

In fact, it rather makes that element more prominent - just as the divine element is more prominent. Where the Church has acted hastily or in an aggressive manner, that isn't, necessarily, an example of Jesus being a dick.

Even if that was not the direct actions of Jesus, it would still be his responsibility.

A responsibility neither He, nor the Church, shy from.

It is, rather, an example of the human element justifying dickery with the presence of the divine element. Jesus is, according to Christian doctrine, perfect. The Church is perfected by Him. Ergo, where the Church engages in dickish behavior, Jesus corrects that behavior (assuming the human element listens).

Then, if Jesus is part of the Church, then the human and divine elements are one. This means that his divine nature has sinful elements, while his human nature would have divine elements. This has rather frightening implications about Christianity if true.

There is nothing frightening about it though. This has been dogma since the very beginning of the Church - that the Church is one with Christ. That Christ is the Head and that Christians are His body. The divine is perfect, however. It's the imperfect that is sinful. The divine renders the imperfect more perfect - but, outside of the final judgement, absolute perfection is impossible.

Note that I'm not saying that Jesus wasn't there during those periods where the Church was being dickish. I'm saying that because He was there, the Church didn't go as far as she might have and, in the course of time, was corrected by Him.

But Jesus, after departing Earth, became fully divine. If he didn't, then he would be human, and thus inherently flawed. If fully divine, he would have stopped the Church, unless you are insinuating that he takes centuries to act.

I'm not insinuating. I'm outright saying it. God doesn't act according to our whims and wishes. He acts in His own time. He perfects the imperfect in the appropriate manner, at the appropriate time, and takes responsibility for any imperfection in the process.

[Distruzio]

You flat out said "Jesus IS the church".

If he IS the church, he is responsible for everything it has ever done or said.

The early Protestants were against the corrupt Vatican, not Jesus.

That is patently false.

Distruzio may long for the return of the Inquisition, but he shall not have his way.

What about my commentary suggests that I'd support the inquisition?

Also I think it is quite funny how the title of this thread was changed in a subtle way.

That's what happens when the issue raised in the OP is satisfied.

Also: what exactly is wrong with a proper heresy?

There is no such thing as a "proper" heresy.

[Our Governator]

The responses I read the more idiotic they get. For the love of God, bury the goddamn hatchet. "waa protestants aren't christians" is an argument that may have made sense in 1517, but it's not going to fly today.

Anyway, in the OP it's said that protestants put too much stock in the bible. Well, here's the thing: are you going to trust the founding document of the church, or are you going to trust some guy in a big hat who thinks that he's right and the bible is wrong?

[Hurdegaryp]

There is no such thing as a "proper" heresy.

History proofs otherwise, otherwise the whole Christian world would still suffer the mindnumbing tyranny of the orthodox churches.

[Arkolon]

Sounds like you married a great, intellectually-challenging person who shares your interests. At least we can all agree to conclude that.

[Soldati Senza Confini]

The early Protestants were against the corrupt Vatican, not Jesus.

That is patently false.

How is it patently false?

By this logic Jesus was going against God, not the Jews.

[Distruzio]

The responses I read the more idiotic they get. For the love of God, bury the goddamn hatchet. "waa protestants aren't christians" is an argument that may have made sense in 1517, but it's not going to fly today.

Anyway, in the OP it's said that protestants put too much stock in the bible. Well, here's the thing: are you going to trust the founding document of the church, or are you going to trust some guy in a big hat who thinks that he's right and the bible is wrong?

I trust the founding documents of the Church. The Protestants don't. They mistake the Bible as something separate from the Church. It wouldn't have existed without the Church. Ergo, the founding documents (the results of the ecumenical councils) hold authority on what the Bible says.

There is no such thing as a "proper" heresy.

History proofs otherwise, otherwise the whole Christian world would still suffer the mindnumbing tyranny of the orthodox churches.

Nonsense. Even Christianity is, itself, an improper heresy relative to Judaism. It just so happens that our heresy survived. It also happens that Protestant heresies survived. Survival doesn't, necessarily, mark a particular heresy as "proper".

Sounds like you married a great, intellectually-challenging person who shares your interests. At least we can all agree to conclude that.

I'll be sure to tell her that. She'll love the compliment. And you're right. She's quick to kick me when I need it.

That is patently false.

How is it patently false?

By this logic Jesus was going against God, not the Jews.

I don't see how that's related. If the Church is Jesus then, by separating themselves from the Church, the Protestants were against Jesus.

[Soldati Senza Confini]

How is it patently false?

By this logic Jesus was going against God, not the Jews.

I don't see how that's related. If the Church is Jesus then, by separating themselves from the Church, the Protestants were against Jesus.

And if the Jewish religion was the one chosen by God to be his special people then, by Christians separating from Judaism, Christians were against God using your logic.

[Distruzio]

I don't see how that's related. If the Church is Jesus then, by separating themselves from the Church, the Protestants were against Jesus.

And if the Jewish religion was the one chosen by God to be his special people then, by Christians separating from Judaism, Christians were against God using your logic.

Indeed. Hence the change in my position.

[Constantinopolis]

I really don't understand this whole "the Church is Jesus" thing. Distruzio, would you care to clarify?

Uh huh. Did I contradict you somehow? Jesus being the Church doesn't remove the human element present within. In fact, it rather makes that element more prominent - just as the divine element is more prominent. Where the Church has acted hastily or in an aggressive manner, that isn't, necessarily, an example of Jesus being a dick. It is, rather, an example of the human element justifying dickery with the presence of the divine element. Jesus is, according to Christian doctrine, perfect. The Church is perfected by Him. Ergo, where the Church engages in dickish behavior, Jesus corrects that behavior (assuming the human element listens).

Note that I'm not saying that Jesus wasn't there during those periods where the Church was being dickish. I'm saying that because He was there, the Church didn't go as far as she might have and, in the course of time, was corrected by Him.

I agree with all of that, but notice that in the course of this post (and others) you have been talking about the Church and Jesus as if they were two separate entities. "Where the Church engages in dickish behavior, Jesus corrects that behavior (assuming the human element listens)" - this implies that Jesus =/= the Church. Jesus may be part of the Church (which, indeed, He is), but He is not identical to the Church. Jesus is the head of the Church, but the Church also contains elements that are not Jesus (namely, humans like us), and those elements sometimes engage in the "dickish behavior" you mentioned.

And now on a different subject...

Wait, wait, wait. What exactly are you saying here, brother? We will only be elevated to Heaven complete after the Final Judgment. In the mean time, those who have died are elevated to Heaven with their souls alone, awaiting the resurrection of their bodies for the Final Judgment.

So yes, in fact, there is a possible separation between body and soul. The soul can live without the body - although this is an unnatural state that does not allow the disembodied soul to experience things in the same way as if it had a body. Therefore, those who are in Heaven (or Hell) before the Final Judgment do not have quite the same experience as those who will be in those places after the Final Judgment.

Indeed.

So... you agree? But I thought that was not what you said.

[Distruzio]

I really don't understand this whole "the Church is Jesus" thing. Distruzio, would you care to clarify?

Uh huh. Did I contradict you somehow? Jesus being the Church doesn't remove the human element present within. In fact, it rather makes that element more prominent - just as the divine element is more prominent. Where the Church has acted hastily or in an aggressive manner, that isn't, necessarily, an example of Jesus being a dick. It is, rather, an example of the human element justifying dickery with the presence of the divine element. Jesus is, according to Christian doctrine, perfect. The Church is perfected by Him. Ergo, where the Church engages in dickish behavior, Jesus corrects that behavior (assuming the human element listens).

Note that I'm not saying that Jesus wasn't there during those periods where the Church was being dickish. I'm saying that because He was there, the Church didn't go as far as she might have and, in the course of time, was corrected by Him.

I agree with all of that, but notice that in the course of this post (and others) you have been talking about the Church and Jesus as if they were two separate entities. "Where the Church engages in dickish behavior, Jesus corrects that behavior (assuming the human element listens)" - this implies that Jesus =/= the Church. Jesus may be part of the Church (which, indeed, He is), but He is not identical to the Church. Jesus is the head of the Church, but the Church also contains elements that are not Jesus (namely, humans like us), and those elements sometimes engage in the "dickish behavior" you mentioned.

Correct. I merely stuck to the same parameters of the discussion as buddy set forth - that the divine and the human could be discussed separately.

And now on a different subject...

Indeed.

So... you agree? But I thought that was not what you said.

I do agree. That was what I said... although it's not as clear as it should have been. I could have phrased that in a better, less confusing, way.

[Liberaxia]

What, you weren't already sure that it was?

[Ryfylke]

Things seem to be winding down here, but I would like to throw out a few ideas.

For instance, according to Christian theology, there is no plausible separation between body, mind an soul. None can survive without the other two. The body is no mere capsule for the soul - yet Protestantism, one and all, hold this to be fundamentally untrue. Protestant denominations each proclaim no mere distinction but a total separation of one from the other two. This, by its very nature, conflicts with the trinitarian nature of God, the fundamental nature of Christ, and the fundamental nature of salvation. For the Protestant, our souls go to Heaven. For the Christian, we are elevated to Heaven complete.

At least in the Lutheran Church, we absolutely reject that sort of gnostic dualism. Physical resurrection of the body is a key part of our understanding of Christianity. If anything, the reformers erred on the side of too great a connection between the two: A good number of the reformers (including Luther himself) believed the soul was so intrinsically connected to the body that it slept until the body's resurrection. Of course, that was never made official doctrine due to lack of scriptural evidence, but Constantinopolis' explanation is no different from our official doctrine:

We will only be elevated to Heaven complete after the Final Judgment. In the mean time, those who have died are elevated to Heaven with their souls alone, awaiting the resurrection of their bodies for the Final Judgment.

---

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.

Ah, I think I finally understand your position regarding the Anglicans. It had me rather baffled for a good while considering the 39 Articles of the Church of England are nearly identical to the Epitome of the Formula of Concord.

So, to clarify, you're citing the existence of Anglo-Catholics (who are differentiated from the RCC by doctrine only rather than dogma) as evidence for the whole of the Anglican Communion to be classified as Christian even if a good number of Anglicans consider themselves to be proper Protestants and accept a theology that's effectively Lutheran. You're saying that due to the large levels of diversity within the Anglican Communion, we should probably err on the side of grace and consider the whole of the Communion to align with the RCC, even if many members would object to that.

Is that an appropriate condensing of your argument? If so, where would you put the Anglo-Lutheran Catholic Church? I would argue that they're analogous to the Anglo-Catholics, so would that put the whole of the Lutheran Church into the same situation as the Anglican Communion?

---

Regarding sola scriptura, remember that not all Protestants mean the same thing when they talk about this particular dogma. To assert that Protestants say "if the Bible says it, it's true" is simply not correct. The tradition of the reformers properly directs us to examine the spirit, rather than the letter, of the Word. Simply throwing out Matthew 16:19 and Luke 10:16 and declaring Protestants to by hypocrites works within the paradigm of Biblical inerrancy that some Protestants hold to, but it doesn't work within the true tradition of the reformers' exegesis.

Namely, the reformers insisted that doctrine cannot be made from a individual verses. To properly apply a verse to doctrine, one must examine the surrounding text to determine the emphasis of a particular section, then examine how the individual verse relates to that wider theme and act accordingly. I brought up an example of such exegesis in action in the CTD, but I'll repeat it for reference: Matthew 16:19 is placed within the context of 1) Jesus' prophecy of the cross and 2) the Transfiguration. This section clearly addresses the wider question of Jesus' identity and how that identity relates to the Hebrew scriptures. The exegete then comes to the conclusion that the critical verse (I hate to say "point," but it might be apt) in this section is verse 16 where Peter identifies Jesus as "the Christ, the Son of the living God." Jesus being recognized as the Christ and the Son of the living God almost certainly could not be assumed among the author of Matthew's first century audience, so even a point that seems redundant and obvious to us would have been important to the author.

Because of that principle of not making doctrine out of individual verses, we're reluctant to agree with the idea that the point of this passage was to identify that Christ at that moment created a Church which could not fail in its preaching of the Gospel.

---

Anyway, I appreciate how much thought you've put into this. I'm glad you've been able to arrive at your conclusion.

[Arcov]

No. It means that the flaws of mankind are perfected by the divine. Jesus is fully man and fully human.

You cannot "perfect" a flaw. A flaw is in inherently problematic, that is a definition of flaw. To "perfect" it is an oxymoron. If Jesus was without flaws, how was he human, since humans are inherently flawed and prone to sin?

A responsibility neither He, nor the Church, shy from.

So then Jesus is responsible for those the Church burnt at the stake? Why did he not stop it? If the Church's view is true, he possesses the capability to send messages to the chosen, given the presence of saints and divine inspiration.

There is nothing frightening about it though. This has been dogma since the very beginning of the Church - that the Church is one with Christ. That Christ is the Head and that Christians are His body. The divine is perfect, however. It's the imperfect that is sinful. The divine renders the imperfect more perfect - but, outside of the final judgement, absolute perfection is impossible.

If his divine nature is partly flawed, that means that the divine itself is flawed. If Jesus, son of God, is flawed, and whom is part of the divine and Holy Trinity, then that means God himself is flawed.

I'm not insinuating. I'm outright saying it. God doesn't act according to our whims and wishes. He acts in His own time. He perfects the imperfect in the appropriate manner, at the appropriate time, and takes responsibility for any imperfection in the process.

Why does he not stop evil immediately? Why test us? Why not purge sin from us all, if we are punished for not doing it ourselves anyway? Why give us free will, and not explain why? How do you know he does not see us as nothing but an amusing distraction? Because he told us? If he is all powerful, he could make us believe otherwise.

[Distruzio]

No. It means that the flaws of mankind are perfected by the divine. Jesus is fully man and fully human.

You cannot "perfect" a flaw. A flaw is in inherently problematic, that is a definition of flaw. To "perfect" it is an oxymoron. If Jesus was without flaws, how was he human, since humans are inherently flawed and prone to sin?

According to traditional Christian doctrine, humans are not inherently flawed and prone to sin. Sin is an unnatural act. Regardless, in order to address your line of questioning any further, I'd have to bring in christology... that's not exactly the subject of the thread.

A responsibility neither He, nor the Church, shy from.

So then Jesus is responsible for those the Church burnt at the stake? Why did he not stop it? If the Church's view is true, he possesses the capability to send messages to the chosen, given the presence of saints and divine inspiration.

I'm sorry. But are there burnings happening, currently? Jesus did stop it. Just not in a time frame we who are not God consider most appropriate. He let Christians see the danger in their zealotry. Now the Church knows a more appropriate course to take.

There is nothing frightening about it though. This has been dogma since the very beginning of the Church - that the Church is one with Christ. That Christ is the Head and that Christians are His body. The divine is perfect, however. It's the imperfect that is sinful. The divine renders the imperfect more perfect - but, outside of the final judgement, absolute perfection is impossible.

If his divine nature is partly flawed, that means that the divine itself is flawed. If Jesus, son of God, is flawed, and whom is part of the divine and Holy Trinity, then that means God himself is flawed.

Incorrect. The Divine is not flawed. Our concept of the divine, however, is.

I'm not insinuating. I'm outright saying it. God doesn't act according to our whims and wishes. He acts in His own time. He perfects the imperfect in the appropriate manner, at the appropriate time, and takes responsibility for any imperfection in the process.

Why does he not stop evil immediately?

Good can be found in evil acts. If evil is stopped or, otherwise, prohibited, how can good be discovered or otherwise experienced? Surely you wouldn't want good to cease to exist?

Why test us?

God doesn't test us. We test us.

Why not purge sin from us all, if we are punished for not doing it ourselves anyway?

This is a ridiculous assertion - that mankind is being "punished". To suggest that is to suggest that mankind has, somehow, a right to perfection. We don't. We aren't being punished. We are merely exposed to the consequences of our actions and the circumstances of life.

Why give us free will, and not explain why?

The explanation, according to Christianity, has always been there - for communion among ourselves and, through that communion, with God.

How do you know he does not see us as nothing but an amusing distraction?

Because he didn't say He does. Remember, Jesus is God. Ergo, His words are the words of God.

Because he told us? If he is all powerful, he could make us believe otherwise.

Now you're being ridiculous.

[Distruzio]

Things seem to be winding down here, but I would like to throw out a few ideas.

For instance, according to Christian theology, there is no plausible separation between body, mind an soul. None can survive without the other two. The body is no mere capsule for the soul - yet Protestantism, one and all, hold this to be fundamentally untrue. Protestant denominations each proclaim no mere distinction but a total separation of one from the other two. This, by its very nature, conflicts with the trinitarian nature of God, the fundamental nature of Christ, and the fundamental nature of salvation. For the Protestant, our souls go to Heaven. For the Christian, we are elevated to Heaven complete.

At least in the Lutheran Church, we absolutely reject that sort of gnostic dualism. Physical resurrection of the body is a key part of our understanding of Christianity. If anything, the reformers erred on the side of too great a connection between the two: A good number of the reformers (including Luther himself) believed the soul was so intrinsically connected to the body that it slept until the body's resurrection. Of course, that was never made official doctrine due to lack of scriptural evidence, but Constantinopolis' explanation is no different from our official doctrine:

We will only be elevated to Heaven complete after the Final Judgment. In the mean time, those who have died are elevated to Heaven with their souls alone, awaiting the resurrection of their bodies for the Final Judgment.

---

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.

Ah, I think I finally understand your position regarding the Anglicans. It had me rather baffled for a good while considering the 39 Articles of the Church of England are nearly identical to the Epitome of the Formula of Concord.

So, to clarify, you're citing the existence of Anglo-Catholics (who are differentiated from the RCC by doctrine only rather than dogma) as evidence for the whole of the Anglican Communion to be classified as Christian even if a good number of Anglicans consider themselves to be proper Protestants and accept a theology that's effectively Lutheran. You're saying that due to the large levels of diversity within the Anglican Communion, we should probably err on the side of grace and consider the whole of the Communion to align with the RCC, even if many members would object to that.

Is that an appropriate condensing of your argument? If so, where would you put the Anglo-Lutheran Catholic Church? I would argue that they're analogous to the Anglo-Catholics, so would that put the whole of the Lutheran Church into the same situation as the Anglican Communion?

After creating this thread and having a conversation with my fiance, I have to admit that I now consider Protestants, while heretical, Christian after all. Even the Lutherans.

Regarding sola scriptura, remember that not all Protestants mean the same thing when they talk about this particular dogma. To assert that Protestants say "if the Bible says it, it's true" is simply not correct. The tradition of the reformers properly directs us to examine the spirit, rather than the letter, of the Word. Simply throwing out Matthew 16:19 and Luke 10:16 and declaring Protestants to by hypocrites works within the paradigm of Biblical inerrancy that some Protestants hold to, but it doesn't work within the true tradition of the reformers' exegesis.

Namely, the reformers insisted that doctrine cannot be made from a individual verses. To properly apply a verse to doctrine, one must examine the surrounding text to determine the emphasis of a particular section, then examine how the individual verse relates to that wider theme and act accordingly. I brought up an example of such exegesis in action in the CTD, but I'll repeat it for reference: Matthew 16:19 is placed within the context of 1) Jesus' prophecy of the cross and 2) the Transfiguration. This section clearly addresses the wider question of Jesus' identity and how that identity relates to the Hebrew scriptures. The exegete then comes to the conclusion that the critical verse (I hate to say "point," but it might be apt) in this section is verse 16 where Peter identifies Jesus as "the Christ, the Son of the living God." Jesus being recognized as the Christ and the Son of the living God almost certainly could not be assumed among the author of Matthew's first century audience, so even a point that seems redundant and obvious to us would have been important to the author.

Because of that principle of not making doctrine out of individual verses, we're reluctant to agree with the idea that the point of this passage was to identify that Christ at that moment created a Church which could not fail in its preaching of the Gospel.

---

Anyway, I appreciate how much thought you've put into this. I'm glad you've been able to arrive at your conclusion.

Thank you for the response. It goes a long way to further dispelling my error in logic.

[Arcov]

According to traditional Christian doctrine, humans are not inherently flawed and prone to sin. Sin is an unnatural act. Regardless, in order to address your line of questioning any further, I'd have to bring in christology... that's not exactly the subject of the thread.

Then what is the difference between a normal man and Jesus? Why is he not as divine? God created the capability to make sin, and we were born with it until Jesus removed that.

I'm sorry. But are there burnings happening, currently? Jesus did stop it. Just not in a time frame we who are not God consider most appropriate. He let Christians see the danger in their zealotry. Now the Church knows a more appropriate course to take.

I don't know why you pointed out burning happening now, because that certainly doesn't help your side, nor do I disagree they exist.

Incorrect. The Divine is not flawed. Our concept of the divine, however, is.

If our concept of divine is, then everything we understand about Christianity is flawed, and could all be nonsense.

Good can be found in evil acts. If evil is stopped or, otherwise, prohibited, how can good be discovered or otherwise experienced? Surely you wouldn't want good to cease to exist?

Really? Why should good need to exist? If the only reasons good exists is to react to evil, what is the point? All that does is at best, return to the status quo.

God doesn't test us. We test us.

No, I certainly don't. Unless this is another nonsense roundabout way of saying God tests again, because we are part of God or some such.

This is a ridiculous assertion - that mankind is being "punished". To suggest that is to suggest that mankind has, somehow, a right to perfection. We don't. We aren't being punished. We are merely exposed to the consequences of our actions and the circumstances of life.

God tells us not to sin. If we sin, we tortured for eternity. That is, by God's own direction, punishment. We don't have a "right" to anything, God could be torturing us fo his personal pleasure and we couldn't do a thing about it/ But if is all-loving, like you say, then why doesn't he love all?

The explanation, according to Christianity, has always been there - for communion among ourselves and, through that communion, with God.

And why does he need that, or want it? What's the whole point for him?

Because he didn't say He does. Remember, Jesus is God. Ergo, His words are the words of God.

God also is omnipotent and omniscient. He would be able to make us think to believe anything.

Now you're being ridiculous.

How? He is omnipotent. He can do whatever he wants.

[Union Of Canadorian Socialists Republic]

Since when were they not of Christianity?

[The Union of the West]

A question for Distruzio:

Under your original definition for what makes a Christian (the definition that excluded Protestants), would groups that identify with the Catholic tradition but are not necessarily in communion with the Catholic Church (independent Catholics) be considered Christians? And what about individuals who identify with the beliefs of the Catholic, Orthodox, etc... Churches but are not members of these churches?