What kind of bread is epiousios?

- and Jesus is in the Eucharist.
In some way we do not understand, Jesus' true body and blood come to be in, with, and under the bread and wine--but at the same time, the Elements remain bread and wine. It is a mystery, but one I joyfully accept. Our God-given senses tell us that. Plus, right after Jesus took the cup of wine and said "this cup is the New Testament in My blood" He said He would not drink again the "the/this fruit of the vine" until He drank it new in His Father's kingdom. He called the contents of the cup the "fruit of the vine." So, right there are the two natures of the wine and by extension, the bread also has two natures after it is blessed. But Catholics ignore what Jesus says here.
 
Because he thoroughly knows Biblical Greek, and has been teaching it for many years...?

He made no theological judgment, just gave the meaning of the word and its roots.
Where does Scripture teach that the meaning of the Greek----as said by a Greek scholar gives the final and definitive meaning of a passage?
 
But the same can be said of you or any other Protestant.

So that isn't terribly helpful, now, is it?
agreed:
it is an apologetic dead end.
Everyone should stop..

HOWEVER some of the most horrible crimes have been committed by people and institutions claiming to be guided by the HS,.
It is completly appreciate to question the validity of that claim by child molesters
 
Last edited:
Where does Scripture teach that the meaning of the Greek----as said by a Greek scholar gives the final and definitive meaning of a passage?
Where does Scripture say that Roman Catholics can assign any meaning they want to a word in the Bible, to fit their a priori beliefs, regardless of what it really means in the original language and context it was written in?
 
But we make our own personal decisions based on our own personal understanding of scripture, right?
All decisions in life are personal, whether you follow the bad tree or not. You make the personal choice to do so. If you choice to follow leaders who teach false doctrines or not, it is your choice.
 
Uh-huh. So, would true prophets add to the word of God, or take away from it, or teach contrary to Scripture? Would true prophets "teach for doctrine the precepts of men"?
You know I absolutely love you people and your incessant question begging.

No true prophet would ever add to the world of God ro take away from it, or otherwise teach what is contrary to Scripture.

That is just the point Bonnie. Catholics DO NOT SEE Catholicism as adding to the Word of God, taking away from the word of God, or otherwise teaching what is contrary to Scripture. Catholics see YOU and YOUR COHORTS as the ones who do that.

The question ISN'T "Should we add to Scripture, take away from Scripture, or teach what is contrary to Scripture" and never has been.

The question is "Who are the ones who are guilty of adding to, taking away, or teaching what is contrary to the Scriptures? Catholics or Protestants?"
 
Luther was all about Jesus Christ and the true Gospel, which, by the grace of God, he rediscovered within the pages of Paul's epistle to the Romans. Our church is all about Jesus Christ--first, last, and always--and what He did for us on the cross and why. NOT Mary, NOT the pope, NOT our denomination--Jesus. Therefore, the Lord built my church since its foundation is Jesus Christ, not a mere man.
It doesn't matter what you claim. Luther founded your church, not Jesus. All the graces and promises that Jesus made are attached to the Church He established, not an imitation.
 
agreed:
it is an apologetic dead end.
Everyone should stop..

HOWEVER some of the most horrible crimes have been committed by people and institutions claiming to be guided by the HS,.
It is completely appreciate to question the validity of that claim by child molesters
Dude! SERIOUSLY??!!

You need to know that when I see that you have responded to one of my posts, I will read your post--becasue I respect you. Of all the Protestants here, you at least attempt meaningful and substantive dialog which I appreciate. I think you are reformed--and I have found the reformed to be worthy opponents.

But when you start bringing up nonsense like the sex abuse scandal, you make me rethink this. The better Protestant apologists I have read don't bring that up--because they know it is a non-starter and just a plain ridiculous way to argue. What I am getting at is your bringing up the sex abuse scandal----is beneath you. I thought you were better than that. You disappoint me in the above.
 
Dude! SERIOUSLY??!!

You need to know that when I see that you have responded to one of my posts, I will read your post--becasue I respect you. Of all the Protestants here, you at least attempt meaningful and substantive dialog which I appreciate. I think you are reformed--and I have found the reformed to be worthy opponents.

But when you start bringing up nonsense like the sex abuse scandal, you make me rethink this. The better Protestant apologists I have read don't bring that up--because they know it is a non-starter and just a plain ridiculous way to argue. What I am getting at is your bringing up the sex abuse scandal----is beneath you. I thought you were better than that. You disappoint me in the above.
I rarely bring that up

It was a qualifier to my previous statement about arguing whose is Holy Spirit led and whose is not.
I called it dead end apologetics:
A blanket statement that that I felt needed a qualifier
 
You know I absolutely love you people and your incessant question begging.

No true prophet would ever add to the world of God ro take away from it, or otherwise teach what is contrary to Scripture.

That is just the point Bonnie. Catholics DO NOT SEE Catholicism as adding to the Word of God, taking away from the word of God, or otherwise teaching what is contrary to Scripture. Catholics see YOU and YOUR COHORTS as the ones who do that.

The question ISN'T "Should we add to Scripture, take away from Scripture, or teach what is contrary to Scripture" and never has been.

The question is "Who are the ones who are guilty of adding to, taking away, or teaching what is contrary to the Scriptures? Catholics or Protestants?"
Oh I absolutely love you people and your incessant misunderstanding of what non RCs belief or think. We understand that RCs are absolutely blind to the additions made by the RC to scirpture, the going beyond scripture and the ignorning of scripture by their institution.

Your starting sentence shows the complete arrogance of the RCs towards others. It also reveals their lack of understanding of loving their neighbours, it is so great to see that one liner is not being posted by RCs lately.

I love the way you change the question to what you wish it was, instead of answering the question asked.

RCs are the experts in question begging by the way, maybe clean up your own questions.
 
Last edited:
It doesn't matter what you claim. Luther founded your church, not Jesus. All the graces and promises that Jesus made are attached to the Church He established, not an imitation.
You can claim until you are out of breath that Jesus established your bad tree. The proof is in it doesn't. It fails all the scriptural tests for Jesus church. However it does pass the one for the bad tree. It fails to look like the real church and its leaders do not meet the leadership requirements set down in scripture eg having a good reputation. In fact, there is no evidence at all that your instituion is anything it claims to be.

But your popes and his cronies do look like the emperor and his cronies.
 
Last edited:
Dude! SERIOUSLY??!!

You need to know that when I see that you have responded to one of my posts, I will read your post--becasue I respect you. Of all the Protestants here, you at least attempt meaningful and substantive dialog which I appreciate. I think you are reformed--and I have found the reformed to be worthy opponents.

But when you start bringing up nonsense like the sex abuse scandal, you make me rethink this. The better Protestant apologists I have read don't bring that up--because they know it is a non-starter and just a plain ridiculous way to argue. What I am getting at is your bringing up the sex abuse scandal----is beneath you. I thought you were better than that. You disappoint me in the above.
Whether one thinks the crimes and actions of your institution is dead end apologetics or not, is of no consequence. They do clearly show that your institution is not what it claims to be. The fact is that those who do evil have only gone underground, they have not been removed. I like others are extremely concerned that it will return. The scriptures are clear that a little yeast contaminates the whole. Therefore the whole of your institution is contaminated by the evil actions of your leaders and those who hide the sins.

Of course you try and make out we are not good at apolgetics because we do not allow you to hide the evidence that your institution is not what it claims to be. If you don't bring up the false claims of you institution, then the evidence of it being a false claim will not be brought up.

It is only considered bad apologetics by those who want to hide the truth. Actions speak, they reveal the heart of your institution, actions speak as to who one follows. The other thing is that when one poster has made very clear statements defending their position, revealing the flaws in your beliefs, it does not need to be repeated. But the proof can also be posted. You have failed at very turn to produce good apolegetics supporting the false doctrines and teachings of your institution and you are rude in your reponses by putting others down with terms like you people, it went over your head. This is poor apologetics. It is non systematic argumentative support of your position for a start. RCs have also failed to prove their claim of authority. Just because an institution claims it has authority means nothing at all.

Non RCs are not protestants. They are followers of Jesus.
 
Back
Top