/christian/ - Christian Discussion and Fellowship

to make it succinctly clear, we are re-presenting Our Lord's sacrifice every sunday. not "killing him every sunday" as I've seen a prot suggest before.

>>584002

Yes, absolutely this.

>>584067

>to enter heaven, ye must eat of my body

>disciples leave, think he's mad

>jews call it a hard teaching

>2,000 years later

"lol he's just saying to believe in him guys"

>>584068

No it's literal, its just not the body you would expect due to 1 corinthians 15:44.

>>584071

then why did His disciples leave?

>>584072

I feel like a broken record today.

>then why did His disciples leave?

Hath ye not read Mark 12:24-27?

>And Jesus answering said unto them, Do ye not therefore err, because ye know not the scriptures, neither the power of God?

>For when they shall rise from the dead, they neither marry, nor are given in marriage; but are as the angels which are in heaven.

>And as touching the dead, that they rise: have ye not read in the book of Moses, how in the bush God spake unto him, saying, I am the God of Abraham, and the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob?

>He is not the God of the dead, but the God of the living: ye therefore do greatly err.

>>584074

That's not an answer to my question.

>>584078

Yes it is, the apostles are still alive, they are just waiting for revelation to happen like the rest of the believers who have gone to heaven instead of hell as stated in revelation 6:11.

God is the God of paul, and of mark, and of matthew, and of abraham, and of isaac, and of jacob. Not of the dead, but of the living. Ye therefore do greatly err.

right now i am euphoric and not because of any phony protestant theology

>>584085

>(((theology)))/philosophy

>not doctrine

Use doctrine like in proverbs 4:2 instead of philosophy/theology which is warned against in colossians 2:8.

The miracle of the Eucharist is so beautiful, it really kills me that people don't believe it or actively despise it. Praying for you, bros.

1) Have you ever felt not worthy of taking it? How to deal with that thought? I'm still doing the RCIA.

2) Some things also bother me: the fathers in my church let the ministers do the intinction and people in the choir keep the eucharist in their hands until they finish singing.

According to the Canon Law the intinction should be only done by the priest. Should I send an anonymous letter to the fathers?

3) Do you take the eucharist on knees and direct on the tongue? Nobody does that in my parish, although it seems to be the ideal way.

>>584000

>If you don't regard the Eucharist as a true sacrifice then your theology is pure shit

Read Hebrews

>The word usually translated as "remembrance" in this passage, "ἀνάμνησις", carries a sacrificial connotation. It is often times used in the context of sacrifice, and in fact, every time the word appears in the New Testament, it is in the context of sacrifice.

The sacrifice is the sacrifice being signified, the one on the cross, where His body was broken, and His blood poured out.

>How could anyone not draw a sacrificial tone from this?

It's very sacrificial because it's about His sacrifice on the cross, not some kind of sinoffering of bread and wine. With this interpretation agrees Paul, when he writes "For as often as you eat this bread and drink the cup, you proclaim the Lord’s death until he comes."

>Jesus does so for the new covenant in the Last Supper

No, not the Last Supper, how can you misread scripture this badly? He does so in the crucifixion

>Now, let's see what the early Church had to say about this

You're finding the same thing you'd find in the reformers, because we believe along with the fathers that it is a sacramental sacrifice, not a proper sacrifice.

>>584002

>we are re-presenting Our Lord's sacrifice every sunday

Hebrews 10:2

<Otherwise, would they not have ceased to be offered, since the worshipers, having once been cleansed, would no longer have any consciousness of sins?

>>584103

>we believe along with the fathers that it is a sacramental sacrifice

Wtf I accidentally became Catholic

>>584000

>>584000

>If you don't regard the Eucharist as a true sacrifice then your theology is pure shit.

This sentence is sufficient , rest of the post was unnecessary. Tbh

>>584000

True

>>584093

Anglican here:

1. "Lord, I am not worthy that you should come under my roof, but only say the word and my soul shall be healed"

That's what that prayer is about

2. No, you should ask the priest.

3. We do knees but in hand. Take as is the practice of your congregation, as you plan and hope to join that congregation, and communion is not just union with Christ but with the Church.

>>584066

Yeah because it is symbolism. He tells the apostles in private that the flesh doesn't profit anything. Also Jesus said anyone that believes in him has everlasting life, you don't believe that.

>>584164

Also you probably don't believe Exodus 20:11

>>584164

Symbolic, yes, but understand what that means! http://churchofourladyofkazan.org/symbolic-or-diabolic/

>>584066

Very many protestants believe in the Real Presence, you know. However the Real Presence in no way implies that the Eucharist must be a sacrifice. That doesn't follow logically, and there are theologically no further atonements needed from Jesus.

>>584000

Anyway, as other anons have already posted: Hebrews 10

vv.8-10

>Previously saying, "Sacrifice and offering, burnt offerings, and offerings for sin You did not desire, nor had pleasure in them" (which are offered according to the law),

>then He said, "Behold, I have come to do Your will, O God." He takes away the first that He may establish the second.

>By that will we have been sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all.

Obviously speaking of the Crucifixion, not Communion, and take special note here of

>we have been sanctified

>once for all

>once for all

Where else has this phrase been exercised?

Hebrews 7:26-27

<For such a High Priest was fitting for us, who is holy, harmless, undefiled, separate from sinners, and has become higher than the heavens; who does not need daily, as those high priests, to offer up sacrifices, first for His own sins and then for the people’s, for this He did once for all when He offered up Himself.

Mind you, this whole issue of this "sacrifice" being equated to the old covenant is very telling about Catholicism.

Malachi 1:11 is interesting as well

>>584162

>Anglican here

Not much of one

<The Offering of Christ once made is that perfect redemption, propitiation, and satisfaction, for all the sins of the whole world, both original and actual; and there is none other satisfaction for sin, but that alone. Wherefore the sacrifices of Masses, in the which it was commonly said, that the Priest did offer Christ for the quick and the dead, to have remission of pain or guilt, were blasphemous fables, and dangerous deceits.

31st Article of Religion

>>584184

The eucharist is the same sacrifice Christ made on the cross.

>we have been sanctified once for all

Yes, however sanctification is not a one time thing but a process. Therefore the sacrifice made once, presented as many times as there are masses, so that He is truly the propitiation for sins, since the mass is offered "for the praise and glory of [His] name, for our good and the good of all His Church". The mass is the true propitiation for sins, since it is the same sacrifice made on the cross, and the only sacrifice which could remit sin. That Jesus is the propitiation of sins, and this a continuous thing is affirmed by even protestant/reformed theology. The Westminster larger catechism says

> Christ makes intercession, by his appearing in our nature continually before the Father in heaven, in the merit of his obedience and sacrifice on earth, declaring his will to have it applied to all believers;  Answering all accusations against them, and procuring for them quiet of conscience, notwithstanding daily failings, access with boldness to the throne of grace, and acceptance of their persons and services

The only objection that could be had against the eucharist as a sacrifice is whether the eucharist is the same sacrifice Jesus made on the cross. If the eucharist is not the same sacrifice then it is entirely worthless. However, we read

>16 The cup of blessing which we bless, is it not a participation[communion] in the blood of Christ? The bread which we break, is it not a participation[communion] in the body of Christ?

Therefore the eucharist is the same sacrifice made on the cross, a truly propitiatory sacrifice. As the catechism of trent states

>This being the case, it must be taught without any hesitation that, as the holy Council (of Trent) has also) explained, the sacred and holy Sacrifice of the Mass is not a Sacrifice of praise and thanksgiving only, or a mere commemoration of the Sacrifice performed on the cross, but also truly a propitiatory Sacrifice, by which God is appeased and rendered propitious to us. If, therefore, with a pure heart, a lively faith, and affected with an inward sorrow for our transgressions, we immolate and offer this most holy victim, we shall, without doubt, obtain mercy from the Lord, and grace in time of need; for SO delighted is the Lord with the door of this victim that, bestowing on us the gift of grace and repentance, He pardons our sins. Hence this usual prayer of the Church: As often as the commemoration of this victim is celebrated, so often is the work of our salvation being done; that is to say, through this unbloody Sacrifice flow to us the most plenteous fruits of that bloody victim.

>>584185

your article doesn't prove squat, jack

>>584224

>The eucharist is the same sacrifice Christ made on the cross

Then Christ is a failure and we are still in our sins.

>Yes, however sanctification is not a one time thing but a process

Sanctify simply means to set apart. It does not actually carry progressive connotation.

>Therefore the sacrifice made once, presented as many times as there are masses

See verse 2

<Otherwise, would they not have ceased to be offered, since the worshippers, having once been cleansed, would no longer have any consciousness of sins?

The author takes a specific problem with repetitive offering. In his mind, if you must return to sacrifice to be cleansed, that sacrifice is worthless, it cannot take away sins. This is why verses 11-14 are so significant. The priest is constantly offering sacrifices because they cannot take away sins, they are failures necessitating replacement. But Christ sat down after making an offering, He rested, because it did not need to be presented again, it was already enough, it was finished.

>and this a continuous thing is affirmed by even protestant/reformed theology

You have confused continuous re-presentation with intercession. You may, in a certain sense, liken intercession to presentation of the sacrifice, but, with an important caveat; that unlike the mass, once the merits Christ have been applied to someone by His intercession, they never lose justification, they never need to return to the cross. When a saint commits a mortal sin, it is already covered over by Christ, and so they retain a state of grace, despite any sins. Since they are never restored to condemnation due to the perfection of His sacrifice, there is no vanity in it at all.

>The only objection that could be had against the eucharist as a sacrifice is whether the eucharist is the same sacrifice Jesus made on the cross

No, it isn't. The objection remains valid that it is vain due to repetition.

>However, we read

The bread and wine are a participation of the body and blood of Christ sacramentally, not literally. The Lord's Supper is in a certain sense a propitiatory sacrifice, in the same way as the sacrifices of the old law. They serve to point us back to the sacrifice of Christ, as a confirmation and increase of our faith.

>If they shall fall away, to renew them again unto repentance; seeing they crucify to themselves the Son of God afresh, and put him to an open shame.

>>584067

>>584071

>>584074

>>584081

>>584086

Do you have to be in every thread to ruin it?

>>584164

Christ was clarifying there that he wasn't talking about cannibalism. That is of no avail. Christ's flesh and blood is spiritual, it is metaphysically present in the Eucharist, and it is a glorified resurrected body. Surely, when Paul tells us that flesh and blood cannot enter heaven, you don't believe he is denying the resurrection of the body right? Exactly, he is not, because we will all be bodily raised from the dead but our bodies will be controlled by the spirit. Likewise, the Eucharist is operated by spirit and its primary role is to help heal the soul.

>>584269

>Christ was clarifying there that he wasn't talking about cannibalism

can·ni·bal·ism/ˈkanibəlizəm/

noun

the practice of eating the flesh of one's own species.

Glad you agree with us, anon!

>Christ's flesh and blood is spiritual

Marcion is that you?

>>584274

>Marcion is that you?

Have you actually read his post? Or does every post that mentions spiritual body is connected to gn*sticism now? Ok, scratch that, do you even know what m*rcion thought?

>>584292

>Christ's flesh was actually spirit

docetism

>>584274

>>584297

Yep, you're a retard.

>"who, by the power that enables him to bring everything under his control, will transform our lowly bodies so that they will be like his glorious body."

>Philippians 3:21

>>584299

>>584300

>Christ's flesh was physical

>Christ's flesh was spiritual

Pick one

>>584302

If you actually deny that Christ body is glorified then you enter into major major non-Christian heresy because then that leads to denying the second coming. You are retarded though, please, stop posting.

>>584259

>Then Christ is a failure and we are still in our sins.

No, it actually means he accomplished everything. Everything that happened at the cross is present in the Eucharist since Christ's sacrifice transcends time. The Eucharist IS the sacrifice at the cross. We're not re-sacrificing anything. We simply make Christ's one and only sacrifice really present in every age.

>Sanctify simply means to set apart. It does not actually carry progressive connotation.

σῳζομένοις

>The author takes a specific problem with repetitive offering. In his mind, if you must return to sacrifice to be cleansed, that sacrifice is worthless, it cannot take away sins. This is why verses 11-14 are so significant. The priest is constantly offering sacrifices because they cannot take away sins, they are failures necessitating replacement. But Christ sat down after making an offering, He rested, because it did not need to be presented again, it was already enough, it was finished.

And that's 100% true, that is why the Eucharist is not a new sacrifice every time, it is the one true sacrifice at the cross. It is not any different from it. They're exactly 100% the same.

>You have confused continuous re-presentation with intercession. You may, in a certain sense, liken intercession to presentation of the sacrifice, but, with an important caveat; that unlike the mass, once the merits Christ have been applied to someone by His intercession, they never lose justification, they never need to return to the cross. When a saint commits a mortal sin, it is already covered over by Christ, and so they retain a state of grace, despite any sins. Since they are never restored to condemnation due to the perfection of His sacrifice, there is no vanity in it at all.

1 John 5:16-17 His sacrifice is perfect for all time, but we are not perfect.

>No, it isn't. The objection remains valid that it is vain due to repetition.

But you misunderstand, because it isn't repetition, it's the same as the cross.

>The bread and wine are a participation of the body and blood of Christ sacramentally, not literally. The Lord's Supper is in a certain sense a propitiatory sacrifice, in the same way as the sacrifices of the old law. They serve to point us back to the sacrifice of Christ, as a confirmation and increase of our faith.

"My flesh is real food, and my blood is real drink." - John 6:55

>>584302

His flesh wasn't spiritual for his physical body, his blood was spiritual you ignoramis of 1 john 5:5-8 and john 19:30-35.

I am the living bread which came down from heaven: if any man eat of this bread, he shall live for ever: and the bread that I will give is my flesh, which I will give for the life of the world.

The [Baptists] therefore strove among themselves, saying, How can this man give us his flesh to eat?

Then Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, ye have no life in you. Whoso eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, hath eternal life; and I will raise him up at the last day. For my flesh is meat indeed, and my blood is drink indeed. He that eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, dwelleth in me, and I in him. As the living Father hath sent me, and I live by the Father: so he that eateth me, even he shall live by me. This is that bread which came down from heaven: not as your fathers did eat manna, and are dead: he that eateth of this bread shall live for ever. These things said he in the [Faithful Word Baptist church], as he taught in [Phoenix Arizona]

Many therefore of [the Baptists], when they had heard this, said, This is an hard saying; who can hear it? When Jesus knew in himself [the Baptists] murmured at it, he said unto them, Doth this offend you? What and if ye shall see the Son of man ascend up where he was before? It is the spirit that quickeneth; the flesh profiteth nothing: the words that I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are life. But there are some of you that believe not. For Jesus knew from the beginning who they were that believed not, and who should [protest] him

>>584305

>If you actually deny that Christ body is glorified

I deny that Christ is inhuman

>>584326

>No, it actually means he accomplished everything

No, it actually means He accomplished nothing, see my argumentation which you failed to actually respond to.

>>584368

Did you make this up on your own? Or are you daring to break revelation 22:18-19?

>For I testify unto every man that heareth the words of the prophecy of this book, If any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book:

>And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book.

I'm going to assume the earlier for now, that you made this up on your own.

>>584371

Arius, get off /christian/ you're not welcome here.

And also, I just refuted your faggoty argumentation .

>>584378

>>584384

>Jesus isn't human

Nice heresy

>>584416

Jesus is human, you're just a retard.

>>584368

>It is the spirit that quickeneth; the flesh profiteth nothing: the words that I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are life.

Amen! Give us evermore your word, Lord.

>John 6:51

>I am the living bread which came down from heaven: if any man eat of this bread, he shall live for ever: and the bread that I will give is my flesh, which I will give for the life of the world.

Here Jesus calls himself bread, as he does multiple times in the chapter. Either he's literally bread or he's using metaphor. You don't actually believe Jesus was a gingerbread man, do you? Jesus is using the bread as a metaphor for his sacrifice that was to come. He is explaining that his sacrifice would nourish and sustain the spirit in the way bread sustains the body.

>>584000

>citing early church

useless, "early church" holds no authority as churches were being corrupted in the time of Paul, there was already division while the NT was still being written

>>584455

This -> >>584269

>>584456

>Here Jesus calls himself bread, as he does multiple times in the chapter. Either he's literally bread or he's using metaphor. You don't actually believe Jesus was a gingerbread man, do you? Jesus is using the bread as a metaphor for his sacrifice that was to come. He is explaining that his sacrifice would nourish and sustain the spirit in the way bread sustains the body.

MY FLESH IS REAL FOOD AND MY BLOOD IS REAL DRINK

>useless, "early church" holds no authority as churches were being corrupted in the time of Paul, there was already division while the NT was still being written

I have bad news for you, Protestantism didn't exist until 1517.

>>584371

You are a heretic.

>>584456

>what is john 6:55

>what is 1 corinthians 10:6

It's literal. You just aren't reading enough of the Bible to put it in context.

>>584470

>again, "spiritual meat" not physical tangible food but the sacrifice of Christ on the cross

Exactly, but it is still literal in the context of the Bible. I misquoted it should have been 1 corinthians 10:4 btw.

>>584474

not an argument

>>584478

>not an argument

<argues trail of blood theory

AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

>>584479

>trail of blood

What is this? Why is it so laughable? Is it unbiblical or something?

>>584479

still not an argument

I've found when people try to laugh off someone's argument it means they generally aren't very certain they can construct a counterargument

>>584483

>still not an argument

Any one arguing trail of blood is either a false flag troll, someone who's run out of any good argument so they resort to the lowest of the low, or is a genuine retard. Trail of blood is not an argument. For that I say…

AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

>>584483

or it means that previous """argument""" is so pathetic that answering it isn't worth it.

>>584486

Absolutely this. LOL!

>>584487

T.botnet

Now someone care to tell me what this trail of blood thingy is?

>>584490

Well besides the catholic church being corrupt as far as (((they))) tell us for history due to various things, what proof is there that it was catholics specifically? As to support this meme. I would be more inclined to think it was the babylonians who would cause such a persecution being backed by satan himself. With the occasional division in the church itself of course.

>>584512

>tin-foil hat is an arguement

Why are you here? I realise they have no proof or explanation, and they most certainly can't say matthew 16:18 is false lest titus 1:2 be untrue, but tin-foil hat ain't an arguement on a board where people literally believe Jesus rose from the dead.

>>584512

I like the way you guys completely ignore all of us who actually know anything about history, it really helps support your narrative

>>584521

>Tin foil hat is not an argument

I'm not arguing with them. I'm stating straight up what I think they are.

>>584544

Well when most of your sources on your revised history are completely based on lies made up by people who aren't even Christian or are heretics even compared to Protestant standards what do you expect? There are Protestants that honestly believe St. Constantine changed the religion at the council of Nicaea for instance despite the fact that theory came from a fictional novel that claims Jesus escaped crucifixion, had a daughter with Mary Magdalen & still has ancestors alive today propagated by nutjobs.

Why should I take Protestants seriously?

>>584572

When did the Magisterial Reformation of the 16th century stop defining what it means to be Protestant? When did adherence to Anabaptist positions become the standard of what is or is not Protestant?

Would anyone disagree with the BCP formation?

And we most humbly beseech thee, O merciful Father, to

hear us; and, of thy almighty goodness, vouchsafe to bless

and sanctify, with thy Word and Holy Spirit, these thy gifts

and creatures of bread and wine; that we, receiving them

according to thy Son our Savior Jesus Christ's holy institution,

in remembrance of his death and passion, may be partakers

of his most blessed Body and Blood.

And we earnestly desire thy fatherly goodness mercifully to

accept this our sacrifice of praise and thanksgiving; most

humbly beseeching thee to grant that, by the merits and

death of thy Son Jesus Christ, and through faith in his blood,

we, and all thy whole Church, may obtain remission of our

sins, and all other benefits of his passion.

Holy Eucharist I     335

And here we offer and present unto thee, O Lord, our selves,

our souls and bodies, to be a reasonable, holy, and living

sacrifice unto thee; humbly beseeching thee that we, and all

others who shall be partakers of this Holy Communion, may

worthily receive the most precious Body and Blood of thy Son

Jesus Christ, be filled with thy grace and heavenly benediction,

and made one body with him, that he may dwell in us, and

we in him.

And although we are unworthy, through our manifold sins,

to offer unto thee any sacrifice, yet we beseech thee to accept 

this our bounden duty and service, not weighing our merits, 

but pardoning our offences, through Jesus Christ our Lord;

By whom, and with whom, in the unity of the Holy Ghost,

all honor and glory be unto thee, O Father Almighty, world

without end. AMEN.

>>584583

I'm not just talking about just one particular denomination. This particular belief is wide spread among all Protestant sects. A lot of what Protestants in general believe about the catholic church comes from anti-christians, people who also hate Protestantism. It's mostly regurgitated atheist crictism of the catholic church. The idea the church for example ruthlessly slaughtered people that disagreed with them is an atheist lie, who also lie about their churches, but protestants cling to it for some reason.

>>584587

I do not find anything objectionable

>>584616

>virtually every Christian execution for "heresy" has been performed by the c*tholics

Now this is very interesting if true. Care to start listing some?

>>584618

It isn't, we did our share :/

>>584616

Are you mentally ill?

>>584674

"These must be taken from the number, and we may; surely, take such as were alive when Fox first published his book, and who expressly begged to decline the honour of being enrolled amongst his "Martyrs." As a proof of Fox's total disregard of truth, there was, in the next reign, a Protestant parson, as Anthony Wood (a Protestant) tells us, who, in a sermon, related, on authority of Fox, that a Catholic of the name of GRIMWOOD had been, as Fox said, a great enemy of the Gospellers, had been "punished by a judgment of God," and that his "bowels fell out of his body." GRIMWOOD was not only alive at the time when the sermon was preached, but happened to be present in the church to hear it; and he brought an action of defamation against the preacher! Another instance of Fox's falseness relates to the death of Bishop GARDINER. Fox and BURNET, and other vile calumniators of the acts and actors in Queen Mary's reign, say, that GARDINER, on the day of the execution of LATIMER and RIDLEY, kept dinner waiting till the news of their suffering should arrive, and that the Duke of Norfolk, who was to dine with him, expressed great chagrin at the delay; that, when the news came, "transported with joy," they sat down to table, where GARDINER was suddenly seized with the disury, and died, in horrible torments, in a fortnight after wards. Now, LATIMER. and RIDLEY were put to death on the 16th of October; and COLLIER, in his Ecclesiastical History, p. 386, states, that GARDINER opened the Parliament on the 21st of October; that he attended in Parliament twice afterwards; that he died on the 12th of November, of the gout, and not of disury; and that, as to the Duke of Norfolk, he had been dead a year when this event took place! What a hypocrite, then, must that man he, who pretends to believe in this Fox! Yet, this infamous book has, by the arts of the plunderers and their descendants, been circulated to a boundless extent amongst the people of England, who have been taught to look upon all the thieves, felons, and traitors, whom Fox calls "Martyrs," as sufferers resembling St. Stephen, St. Peter, and St. Paul!"

>>584674

>>584616

The real truth about these "Martyrs," is, that they were, generally, a set of most wicked wretches, who sought to destroy the Queen and her Government, and under the pretence of conscience and superior piety, to obtain the means of again preying upon the people. No mild means could reclaim them: those means had been tried: the Queen had to employ vigorous means, or, to suffer her people to continue to be torn by the religious factions, created, not by her, but by her two immediate predecessors, who had been aided and abetted by many of those who now were punished, and who were worthy of ten thousand deaths each, if ten thousand deaths could have been endured. They were, without a single exception, apostates, perjurers, or plunderers; and, the greater part of them had also been guilty of flagrant high treason against Mary herself, who had spared their lives; but whose lenity they had requited by every effort within their power to overset her authority and the Government. To make particular mention of all the ruffians that perished upon this occasion, would be a task as irksome as it would be useless; but, there were amongst them, three of CRANMER's Bishops and himself! For, now, justice, at last, overtook this most mischievous of all villains, who had justly to go to the same stake that he had unjustly caused so many others to be tied to; the three others were HOOPER, LATIMER, and RIDLEY, each of whom was, indeed, inferior in villany to CRANMER, but to few other men that have ever existed.

http://www.exclassics.com/protref/prot8.htm

>>584789

>Ecclesiastical History, p. 386

Source for this text?

>>584674

oof! you are a plunderer's descendant!

>>584791

it's from http://www.exclassics.com/protref/prot8.htm

google search collier's ecclesisastical history, or browse to cobbett's footnotes

>>584790

>guilty of flagrant high treason against Mary herself

>to obtain the means of again preying upon the people.

<they had requited by every effort within their power to overset her authority and the Government

I somehow doubt that real christians would rebel against romans 13. But in the same breath I don't see why mary would kill so many of them without thought just because they wanted to talk about doctrine or argue doctrine. Someone is lieing in this document or has been decieved. Who is the writer and what denomination does he or (((he))) profess? That would shed some more light on the either liar or decieved part.

>>584794

jews weren't even allowed back into britain until the 19th century dude

>>584793

>(((theologian)))

https://archive.fo/jE1wD

Well that right there already puts him as suspect of alterior motives.

>he refused to take the oath

This is ok though. I am not sure what to think here other then by being a theologian against what colossians 2:8 says everything he says is suspect. I could see him being easily decieved. But he doesn't seem to be connected to anything else as to intentionally lie about something like this considering what little care he put into writing about it.

>>584795

He wouldn't have been a jew, he would have been a babylonian or a arabic khazarian babylonian, a fake jew.

As much as I hate the heresy in this thread, it's nice to see Orthbros and Cathbros gang up on prots.

>>584798

you won't like what Erasmus McTextus Receptus says about protestants of the preceding era either

"I know nothing of your church; at the very least it contains people who will, I fear, overturn the whole system and drive the princes into using force to restrain good men and bad alike. The gospel, the word of God, faith, Christ, and Holy Spirit – these words are always on their lips; look at their lives and they speak quite another language."

"You stipulate that we should not ask for or accept anything but Holy Scripture, but you do it in such a way as to require that we permit you to be its sole interpreter, renouncing all others. Thus the victory will be yours if we allow you to be not the steward but the lord of Holy Scripture"

this last one…is he speaking to Luther, or you?

>>584810

>I fear, overturn the whole system and drive the princes into using force to restrain good men and bad alike.

Sounds like the protestants of that era truly were rebels against romans 13.

>this last one…is he speaking to Luther, or you?

Why would he be speaking to me? I am not a protestant. Or a catholic, or any modern (((denomination))). I am simply a christian who follows Christ and serves God.

>>584812

you're a KJV only protestant

>>584813

I am not a KJV onlyist nor am I whatever this man made label you call "protestant" is. I am a follower of Christ open to different interpretations of scripture due to 2 peter 1:20, which is to say that no interpretation of scripture is private. The only version of the Bible on this earth, that I am aware of, that doesn't make God a liar if it were true is the KJV. Do you have another version I could test against what matthew 7:15-20 and titus 1:2 says? Otherwise I recomend the KJV for now, until I should, if I should ever be able to, find another version that doesn't make God a liar if it were true.

>>584814

you are KJV only protestant

>>584789

>>584790

>posting (((Cobbett)))

http://www.exclassics.com/protref/protint.htm

<Cobbett's ideas found little favour with "respectable" historians then or for long afterwards, though popular with Catholic writers of the Chesterbelloc variety. In fact, Chesterton was a great admirer and wrote a biography of Cobbett. The Secret People, one of Chesterton's best-known poems, is very obviously derived from Cobbett. It is interesting, however, to note that one of Cobbett's theses – that the Reformation in England had little popular support and was the product of a handful of fanatics backed by the awesome power of the Tudor Monarchy and supported by the greed of those who looted the monasteries and Churches – is now increasingly being accepted by historians.

In other words, almost nothing he says is true. Unsurprising considering he had more in common with Jesuits than historians