"True" Confessions

[Korah]

I suppose it's best to start a new thread on it, anyway....
So in light of the recent unpleasantness regarding the now closed thread on things to consider before posting in TCL....
I don't think it's necessarily a bad thing to say things we don't really believe if we "kinda" believe them. I like the Augsburg Confession. It and Melanchthon's other treatise, the Apology for the Augsburg Confession, are why I joined the ELCA in 2004, splitting the difference between the Methodism I was raised in and the Roman Catholicism I was baptized in as an adult. It also takes a middle position between the two poles of the Anglicanism I had just left, being a little less "catholic" than the Book of Common Prayer and more catholic than the Thirty-Nine Articles.
But I don't say each word of the Augsburg Confession with equal fervor, if I say them at all. (Yeah, I know, no one actually recites the Augsburg Confession in church.) I like the Lutheran doctrines better than the "Anabaptist" doctrines, particularly if we're talking about Thomas Munzer in 1525. I don't see much point in the anathemas today, in an age in which the ELCA has forged some common ground with the modern descendents of the Anabaptists. So in reading over those phrases against the Anabaptists I'm engaging in some hyperbole. OK, let's say it, call me a hypocrite if you want. I have associated myself with a denomination with a creed I don't exactly agree with 100%. Call me names if you wish. But don't think I'm calling other people names or at least hypocrites for saying some things in the Athanasian Creed that they don't really literally mean if we get technical.
Putting some perspective on it, it's what I call "bracketing". We say about a document, "this is what we believe". What we're saying is the thing itself, our belief. But what we say outside the thing itself, the belief statement itself, is lesser in importance. Where in the Augsburg Confession what we believe about the Eucharist, that's what's important, not whether we add an "I believe this a whole lot", or "I believe this so much that there's no viable alternative", or "I believe this so very much that anyone who disagrees has made a damnable mistake."
It's even clearer with the Athanasian Creed. It says a whole bunch of things that seem proper to say about God, particularly if they're actually true about God. Then somebody came along and said, "I agree with this", and someone went further and said, "I agree with this so much that it's simply what the Faith is", and eventually it got written up that agreement with it was mandatory or else. I just don't like the mandatory or else part, and would hope that most people who include those words when they say the Athanasian Creed are really saying something like "I agree with this statement about God and I would hope everyone else would to, and let's have this said everywhere by as many people as we can get to say it." I'm not charging anyone with hypocrisy. Some people on the thread got mad and charged me with implying that. Believe that if you insist, but understand that if I made you a hypocrite, I made me one, too, and I'll take the consequences for my subtlety.
Korah

[Till]

Korah,

The anathemas in all confessions are not against particular people or a particular denomination but against teachings!!! Where the anabaptists of today do not hold to those teachings, the anathemas do not concern them. They same is valid for all other teachings of other denominations. Where those denominations do not hold to those teachings anymore, the anathemas do not concern them.

Just simply ignoring differences in teaching though, is non-sense and is not taking what the other side says seriously. This does not mean that there should not be discussions and that there should not be an embracing of the common ground.

An other thing: I have noticed that you permanently feel that you are being attacked personally and that you have to defend yourself. I must admit that I find this permanent implying that everyone is against you and is picking on you quite annoying. People here have different opionions from yours and they state them, where is the problem? That is the idea of a forum: to lead discussions.

[RadMan]

Till is correct here Korah. The universal church is within all Christian denoms. THere are CHristians within the RCC as well as the Baptists, just to name a couple. Only God can say who is Christian and not us. Our confessions are as close to biblical statements as any document can be and not everyone is going to agree but that is the whole idea behind "confession". The word implies what we believe. It is not the Bible but only a human endeavor to help us see more clearly what God wants for us. The compliers were setting up the "stability" of our denom and that is why we advocated Sola Scriptura. To use the scriptures as checks and balances for the confessions since they are a man made publication. They seem to coincide precisely.

As we have stated before we have a different view of Sola Scriptura than any other denom. RCC and EO totally lean on what the Church fathers and popes decree and the protestants rely on only there interpretation of the Bible even though they call it Sola Scriptura also. Lutherans lay in the middle somewhere.

[DaRev]

No one has ever said that one has to believe in words on paper or they will be damned. That is what everyone here hears you saying about the Athanasian Creed. In reality, it's ink on paper. But what that creed confesses is the very essence of the Christian faith. Do you believe that anyone who does not believe in Christ can be saved? That is what the creed states, that someone who does not believe in Christ, in who He is and what He has done (which the creed tells us), is not saved. That is the basic teaching of Christianity.

[Korah]

No one has ever said that one has to believe in words on paper or they will be damned. That is what everyone here hears you saying about the Athanasian Creed. In reality, it's ink on paper. But what that creed confesses is the very essence of the Christian faith. Do you believe that anyone who does not believe in Christ can be saved? That is what the creed states, that someone who does not believe in Christ, in who He is and what He has done (which the creed tells us), is not saved. That is the basic teaching of Christianity.
As I said before, DaRev,
I got baptized as RC in 1969 because I don't believe what you believe, and never will. They're more liberal than you.
RC failing me in 1992, I found refuge in the Episcopal Church. Finding that too liberal, I switched to ELCA in 2004.
Korah

[Till]

As I said before, DaRev,
I got baptized as RC in 1969 because I don't believe what you believe, and never will. They're more liberal than you.
RC failing me in 1992, I found refuge in the Episcopal Church. Finding that too liberal, I switched to ELCA in 2004.
Korah

What do you make of Mark 16 then?


Mar 16:15 And He said to them, Go into all the world, proclaim the gospel to all the creation.
Mar 16:16 He who believes and is baptized will be saved, but he who does not believe will be condemned.

It is very clear that Jesus wanted us to go and help as many people as possible to become and stay Christians. That is the main purpose of the Church. He also wanted us to understand that whosoever does not believe will be condemned.

Hey, if we find out in the end that noone will get condemned even better. Til then I think we should stick to the words of Jesus which are echoed in the Creed. This has absolutely nothing to to with being more or less liberal but with believing Scriptures to be true or not. Or do you have another interpretion of Mark 16,16?

[Korah]

What do you make of Mark 16 then?
It is very clear that Jesus wanted us to go and help as many people as possible to become and stay Christians. That is the main purpose of the Church. He also wanted us to understand that whosoever does not believe will be condemned.
Hey, if we find out in the end that noone will get condemned even better. Til then I think we should stick to the words of Jesus which are echoed in the Creed. This has absolutely nothing to to with being more or less liberal but with believing Scriptures to be true or not. Or do you have another interpretion of Mark 16,16?
Everybody knows that Mark 16:9-20 fails by Lower Criticism. It is an addition to the text at a later date by someone unknown.
Of course, many denominations still hold to its canonicity, even inerrancy.
I don't.
It was a great liberation for me when in 1961 I discovered that most of the verses attributed to Jesus in the St. James Bible were actually discarded by textual criticism as in the American Standard Version and subsequently the Revised Standard Version and now the New Revised Standard Version. Thank God I have a Jesus I can believe in instead of the Jesus of Mark 16:9-20! With those verses expunged, I can bracket the similar words attributed to Jesus in John 3 as improperly expressed or understood. (Most Bibles now show John 3:31-36 as not Jesus's words, for example, just commentary. I held off believing the Gospel of John for several years, until 1964, because of dubious teaching that I now attribute to the scribe misquoting Jesus. The scribe was Nicodemus, accumulating evidence against Jesus to convict Him, but Nicodemus eventually became a believer.)
Korah

[Till]

Everybody knows that Mark 16:9-20 fails by Lower Criticism. It is an addition to the text at a later date by someone unknown.
Of course, many denominations still hold to its canonicity, even inerrancy.
I don't.
It was a great liberation for me when in 1961 I discovered that most of the verses attributed to Jesus in the St. James Bible were actually discarded by textual criticism as in the American Standard Version and subsequently the Revised Standard Version and now the New Revised Standard Version. Thank God I have a Jesus I can believe in instead of the Jesus of Mark 16:9-20! Add those back in and I go back to being a non-Christian.
Korah

Ok, got the message.

[RadMan]

Everybody knows that Mark 16:9-20 fails by Lower Criticism. It is an addition to the text at a later date by someone unknown.
Of course, many denominations still hold to its canonicity, even inerrancy.
I don't.
It was a great liberation for me when in 1961 I discovered that most of the verses attributed to Jesus in the St. James Bible were actually discarded by textual criticism as in the American Standard Version and subsequently the Revised Standard Version and now the New Revised Standard Version. Thank God I have a Jesus I can believe in instead of the Jesus of Mark 16:9-20! Add those back in and I go back to being a non-Christian.
KorahOh yea---the "pick and choose" bibles. Just like some peoples beliefs. Ain't higher-critical wonderfull :doh:

[RadMan]

It's interesting to see how the Dead Sea Scrolls bible compared to the Masoretic texts are 99.5% accurate since the Masorectic came a 1000 years after the Dead Sea Scrolls. Most of the errors are in spelling and style and not content.

[DaRev]

Everybody knows that Mark 16:9-20 fails by Lower Criticism. It is an addition to the text at a later date by someone unknown.
Of course, many denominations still hold to its canonicity, even inerrancy.
I don't.
It was a great liberation for me when in 1961 I discovered that most of the verses attributed to Jesus in the St. James Bible were actually discarded by textual criticism as in the American Standard Version and subsequently the Revised Standard Version and now the New Revised Standard Version. Thank God I have a Jesus I can believe in instead of the Jesus of Mark 16:9-20! With those verses expunged, I can bracket the similar words attributed to Jesus in John 3 as improperly expressed or understood. (Most Bibles now show John 3:31-36 as not Jesus's words, for example, just commentary. I held off believing the Gospel of John for several years, until 1964, because of dubious teaching that I now attribute to the scribe misquoting Jesus. The scribe was Nicodemus, accumulating evidence against Jesus to convict Him, but Nicodemus eventually became a believer.)
Korah

I see now. You've created "God" in your own image. That makes everything crystal clear now.

My prayers are with you that you one day find and recognize the truth. :crossrc:

:wave:

[Korah]

Oh yea---the "pick and choose" bibles. Just like some peoples beliefs. Ain't higher-critical wonderfull :doh:
I'm glad you posted before I modified my harsh first draft and revised it to explain by my Higher Criticism that even the Gospel of John rightly understood does not require Christians to believe God is some kind of monster.
Yes, because I clearly labelled as Lower Criticism what the better newer Bibles do in bracketing or even eliminating Mark 16:9-20. The study of the texts proves to any unprejudiced rational being that these verses are questionable because of their lack of textual support in the earliest manuscripts. Higher Criticism is quite different, it studies the gospels as a whole and raises questions about what is unquestionably in the text, but still questionable historically, geographically, or philosophically. Or the reverse: Higher Criticism tends to accept John 7:53-8:11 as genuinely Jesus's actions, even though the text does not seem to have been present when that gospel was finished. Higher Criticism used to reject the Gospel of John in its entirety, but new texts, new calendar knowledge, and the latest archaeology support its early date and origin in Palestine.
"Pick and choose Bibles"? The best example of that is the KJV, that Fundamentalists and others cling in spite of its questionable text and its language that was archaic even when it was published. Many words mean the opposite now, like "conversation". Sects that formed their peculiar doctrines before the late 19th Century need the KJV to support their beliefs that vanish without the KJV. The other worst example of a pick-and-choose Bible is the New World Translation of the Jehovah's Witnesses. The next worst is the NKJV.
Korah

[LutherNut]

Korah,

I've been reading some of your posts and I've come to the conclusion that you don't like the idea that those who don't believe in Jesus Christ are damned. You reject the Athanasian Creed because it states that those who don't believe in the universal Christian faith are not saved. You reject Mark 16:9-20, which has been a canonical part of the NT since the NT canon was set, because it states that those who do not believe are damned.

And I like how after you "expunge" Mark 16:9-20, you then use that as an excuse to "expunge" other parts of the Scriptures. Can't you see what you are doing? Once we start pulling apart the fabric of the faith, then there is no faith. I truly think that's what you are afraid of. You want to create your own idea of "faith" and then try and convince yourself that you will be saved and go to heaven based upon that.

You sound like a man in fear of damnation. And you should be if you continue down the slippery path you are travelling on.

[porterross]

Speaking of being repressed.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o76WQzVJ434


I just can't help myself. :P

[DaRev]

^_^

[MarkRohfrietsch]

Speaking of being repressed.

I just can't help myself. :P

Yup, that's relevant.^_^:D^_^

[WildStrawberry]

AH HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

Kae

[Korah]

Yup, that's relevant.^_^:D^_^
I don't have a sound card, so I can only get the video. What is it, from Monty Python and the Holy Grail? So I don't get the point at all.
Or is that supposed to be RevCowboy galloping to my rescue? Apparently RevCowboy is little better liked than I am?
Korah

[Till]

Yes, because I clearly labelled as Lower Criticism what the better newer Bibles do in bracketing or even eliminating Mark 16:9-20. The study of the texts proves to any unprejudiced rational being that these verses are questionable because of their lack of textual support in the earliest manuscripts.


Korah,

You are of course right. Mark 16:9-20 is missing in some of the oldest manuscripts. Does this give us the right to ignore it and say it is not canonical? In all the (German) translations I use it is included. Marked as not supported by some of the oldest manuscripts but included nevertheless. Also the 1984 revision of Luther's translation has it.

I guess the question is: Is what is being taught in Mark 16:9-20 contrary to the rest of Scriptures and the tradition of the church? Are there doctrines taught in Mark 16:9-20 which are not taught anywhere else in Scriptures?

Now you are obviously specificily objecting to

Mar 16:16 He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that disbelieveth shall be condemned.and even more specifically the second part that covers condemnation.

Do you feel that Scriptures do not teach condemnation or the danger of condemnation at all?



BTW: What do you mean, you do not have a sound card? What is a computer without a sound card good for?

[BigNorsk]

So which one of the various endings do you use?

[Korah]

So which one of the various endings do you use?
The correct answer is, "None of the above". Higher Criticism teaches that Matthew largely derives from Mark and Q, so Matthew 28:8-10, 16-20 is the best guess for what it was, perhaps fewer verses, perhaps more.
Korah

[Korah]

Korah,
You are of course right. Mark 16:9-20 is missing in some of the oldest manuscripts. Does this give us the right to ignore it and say it is not canonical? In all the (German) translations I use it is included. Marked as not supported by some of the oldest manuscripts but included nevertheless. Also the 1984 revision of Luther's translation has it.
I guess the question is: Is what is being taught in Mark 16:9-20 contrary to the rest of Scriptures and the tradition of the church? Are there doctrines taught in Mark 16:9-20 which are not taught anywhere else in Scriptures?
Now you are obviously specificily objecting to
and even more specifically the second part that covers condemnation.
Do you feel that Scriptures do not teach condemnation or the danger of condemnation at all?
BTW: What do you mean, you do not have a sound card? What is a computer without a sound card good for?
That I can still read text on my computer screen? Doesn't anyone read anymore?
I'm surprised that you're so comfortable with Mark 16:18. Here, let me quote it:
they will pick up snakes with their hands, and when they dirnk deadly poison, it will not hurt hem at all; they will place their hand on sick people, and they will get well.
And unless you're Charismatic (as I am), you might object to the preceding verse as well.
Don't you know that snake-handling is so despised that it is against the law in several states, such as West Virginia?
Yes, the Scriptures warn us of dangers from sin, but the warnings of eternal torture would by hyperbole or pastoral theology that tells us what is good for us (that forces us to be good even against our free choice), not that what seems to be taught is really literally true.
I'll admit that I believe that it's possible that the Bible does concretely teach eternal punishment, but I would accept that only in conjunction with rejecting the standard Christian teaching of creation ex nihilo. If Satan and the evil angels and evil spirits (that became humans) already existed before God triumphed over them (Eph. 1:3-4), then they may be ultimately irredeemable in spite of all God's efforts.
Korah

[Till]

Excuse my ignorance, but I am from the other side of the pont, you know.

What is snake-handling? The only thing I know about West Virginia is that there is a country road leading back home to there.

[Melethiel]

Excuse my ignorance, but I am from the other side of the pont, you know.

What is snake-handling? The only thing I know about West Virginia is that there is a country road leading back home to there.
Certain charismatic sects regularly handle poisonous snakes during their services. If a person gets bitten and dies as a result of this practice (which has happened), well, they didn't have enough faith.

[Till]

Certain charismatic sects regularly handle poisonous snakes during their services. If a person gets bitten and dies as a result of this practice (which has happened), well, they didn't have enough faith.

Thanks Melethiel!

Wow, now that is what I call conviction! They take their beliefs serious.

But, Korah, this is an obvious misinterpretation of the meaning and purpose of the verse. The pratice that Melethiel described is more than silly. The verses


Mar 16:17 Diese Zeichen aber werden die, welche glauben, begleiten: In meinem Namen werden sie Dämonen austreiben, mit neuen Zungen reden,
Mar 16:18 Schlangen aufheben, und wenn sie etwas Tödliches trinken, wird es ihnen nichts schaden; Kranken werden sie die Hände auflegen, und sie werden sich wohl befinden. are obvious promises of God's supernatural protection and engiftment for his disciples as they are sent out into ministry, into spreading the gospel. Why should I have a problem with these verses?

[DaRev]

The correct answer is, "None of the above". Higher Criticism teaches that Matthew largely derives from Mark and Q, so Matthew 28:8-10, 16-20 is the best guess for what it was, perhaps fewer verses, perhaps more.
Korah

Which is why we don't hold much regard for Higher-Criticism.

[Korah]

Which is why we don't hold much regard for Higher-Criticism.
Who is "we"? WELS?
Korah

[DaRev]

Who is "we"? WELS?
Korah

Confessional Lutherans.

[Till]

Higher Criticism teaches that Matthew largely derives from Mark and Q, so Matthew 28:8-10, 16-20 is the best guess for what it was, perhaps fewer verses, perhaps more.


Korah, what is your view on Scriptures? First we saw you referring to textual criticism, now also higher critical findings are coming in to the picture. I think in order to understand how a discussion can be lead, it is necessary to find some common ground. You were rejecting certain verses in Mark 16 as textual criticism cannot confirm them to be original. Fair enough. But in discussions on doctrines which firm ground could we be referring to? What do you accept? I do not believe you are a person who just completely subjectively picks and chooses whatever he likes. otherwise you could not have written this in the other thread:


So now the Episcopal Church has violated I Timother 3 not just in consecrating a homosexual bishop, several re-married bishops, but now a twice-remarried bishop.

[Edial]

...


I just can't help myself. :P
I forgot how much I missed that show ...

[Edial]

Thanks Melethiel!

Wow, now that is what I call conviction! They take their beliefs serious.

But, Korah, this is an obvious misinterpretation of the meaning and purpose of the verse. The pratice that Melethiel described is more than silly. The verses

are obvious promises of God's supernatural protection and engiftment for his disciples as they are sent out into ministry, into spreading the gospel. Why should I have a problem with these verses?
And there are also verses that caution people not to test God. (Mt.4:5-7)

Otherwise we might as well start jumping off buildings expecting angels to catch us before we hit the ground.

Thanks, :)
Ed

[MarkRohfrietsch]

Certain charismatic sects regularly handle poisonous snakes during their services. If a person gets bitten and dies as a result of this practice (which has happened), well, they didn't have enough faith.

To me it sounds more like they are trying to taunt God.

If they had faith, were bitten, and died I wonder what kind of dialogue between them and the Lord would be exchanged upon their arrival in paradise?

The Gospel is all about eternal life, not temporal.

Now... I have eaten rattlers. They are quite good actually, similar in texture to cod.

[Korah]

Korah, what is your view on Scriptures? First we saw you referring to textual criticism, now also higher critical findings are coming in to the picture. I think in order to understand how a discussion can be lead, it is necessary to find some common ground. You were rejecting certain verses in Mark 16 as textual criticism cannot confirm them to be original. Fair enough. But in discussions on doctrines which firm ground could we be referring to? What do you accept? I do not believe you are a person who just completely subjectively picks and chooses whatever he likes. otherwise you could not have written this in the other thread:
I learned in the Episcopal Church the "three-legged stool", basing teaching upon Scripture, Tradition, and Reason (and some would add "experience").
Likewise I learned "lex orare, lex credere" or something like that in Latin, meaning that what we pray is what we believe. Putting these together I hold that whatever the Church teaches everywhere throughout Christian history is truth. Whether that means Transsubstantiation, Consubstantiation, or whatever it is that EO believe, we can't determine, just that the Real Presence is in the Eucharist. Lutherans hold to the minimal canon of Scripture, RC add seven more books, Anglicans yet another three, and EO are slightly different than the latter two. No ecumenical council ever pronounced on the canon of Scripture before Trent finally did, but by that time the EO had been gone over five centuries and the Lutherans and Anglicans had irrevocably departed. So I hold as certain only Biblical texts that have always been read since the earliest times. That includes the gospels, the epistles, and the best stories and prophetic teachings of the Old Testament. It doesn't include Judges, for example, eliminating the embarassment of Judges 17-21, and Samson and Jephtah in the preceding chapters. Leviticus is rarely read.
As to your specific case of I Timothy, that's among the three so-called Pastorals. Scholars largely dismiss Paul as a possible author of these, so their authority is thus weakened. Nevertheless, the Pastorals are widely read in the churches, so I take them seriously and certainly would avoid the scandal (as Jesus warned against) of offending people who regard them as unquestionably authoritative.
A different test case is women bishops. As there were no women bishops in the early church (but maybe Prisca?) and as all apostolic branches never had women bishops until recent decades among some Anglican and Lutheran bodies, I would honor the Tradition against women bishops, particularly in conjunction with St. Paul's injunction against women having authority over churches. I don't oppose women priests, but would think it might be best to call women who preside over parishes "rectors" instead of "pastors" so that cautious souls would understand that they're operating under the authority of the bishop, not on their own. In fact pastors draw their ordination and authority from bishops as well. As you see, I take a middle position on most issues, which seems unfortunately too rare among both Episcopalians and Lutherans.
Korah

[Zecryphon]

Now... I have eaten rattlers. They are quite good actually, similar in texture to cod.


Perhaps I should start using Rattlers instead of Cod for my Lutefisks. A rattler is definitely more frightening and easier to come by in Arizona than a fish is. :P :P :P What to do, what to do?

[MarkRohfrietsch]

Perhaps I should start using Rattlers instead of Cod for my Lutefisks. A rattler is definitely more frightening and easier to come by in Arizona than a fish is. :P :P :P What to do, what to do?

To do that to anything, even a snake just aint right.

[DaRev]

I learned in the Episcopal Church the "three-legged stool", basing teaching upon Scripture, Tradition, and Reason (and some would add "experience").
Likewise I learned "lex orare, lex credere" or something like that in Latin, meaning that what we pray is what we believe. Putting these together I hold that whatever the Church teaches everywhere throughout Christian history is truth. Whether that means Transsubstantiation, Consubstantiation, or whatever it is that EO believe, we can't determine, just that the Real Presence is in the Eucharist. Lutherans hold to the minimal canon of Scripture, RC add seven more books, Anglicans yet another three, and EO are slightly different than the latter two. No ecumenical council ever pronounced on the canon of Scripture before Trent finally did, but by that time the EO had been gone over five centuries and the Lutherans and Anglicans had irrevocably departed. So I hold as certain only Biblical texts that have always been read since the earliest times. That includes the gospels, the epistles, and the best stories and prophetic teachings of the Old Testament. It doesn't include Judges, for example, eliminating the embarassment of Judges 17-21, and Samson and Jephtah in the preceding chapters. Leviticus is rarely read.
As to your specific case of I Timothy, that's among the three so-called Pastorals. Scholars largely dismiss Paul as a possible author of these, so their authority is thus weakened. Nevertheless, the Pastorals are widely read in the churches, so I take them seriously and certainly would avoid the scandal (as Jesus warned against) of offending people who regard them as unquestionably authoritative.
A different test case is women bishops. As there were no women bishops in the early church (but maybe Prisca?) and as all apostolic branches never had women bishops until recent decades among some Anglican and Lutheran bodies, I would honor the Tradition against women bishops, particularly in conjunction with St. Paul's injunction against women having authority over churches. I don't oppose women priests, but would think it might be best to call women who preside over parishes "rectors" instead of "pastors" so that cautious souls would understand that they're operating under the authority of the bishop, not on their own. In fact pastors draw their ordination and authority from bishops as well. As you see, I take a middle position on most issues, which seems unfortunately too rare among both Episcopalians and Lutherans.
Korah

:doh:

[Tofferer]

I am not really educated to same level as most here, but I feel as if Korah is somehow off base here. Maybe I'm wrong, but something certainly doesn't seem right.

[LilLamb219]

MOD HAT ON

This thread is closed for staff review!!!!!!

MOD HAT OFF

[LilLamb219]

MOD HAT ON

Thread is opened for business. I have done a thread cleanup so if you notice some postings missing, that is why. Please play nice or I'll close it again!

Peace be with you!

MOD HAT OFF

[Korah]

To do that to anything, even a snake just ain't right.
If you keep up this mocking of Norwegian traditions, we're going to sentence you to six months of listening to Prairie Home Companion every Saturday.

[RevCowboy]

If you keep up this mocking of Norwegian traditions, we're going to sentence you to six months of listening to Prairie Home Companion every Saturday.

That isn't a sentence but a blessing! If only everyone could be so lucky! And even moreso to experience a good lutefisk.

[Korah]

:doh:
What did I do wrong, Rev? According to Melethiel we Lutherans do honor more that just the conventional Protestant 39 OT books. If that's where I went wrong, please lay down the law for me on what the Lutheran position is on the Deuterocanonicals. In another thread I apparently discovered that the Book of Concord does not define the canon of Scripture. With your extensive seminary knowledge of the Book of Concord and later Lutheran history, please fill me in on when Lutherans defined the canon of Scripture and what is our attitude toward the deuterocanonicals. Or do we have to turn to RevCowboy, with his seminary training still current in his mind?

[LutheranMafia]

Perhaps I should start using Rattlers instead of Cod for my Lutefisks. A rattler is definitely more frightening and easier to come by in Arizona than a fish is. :P :P :P What to do, what to do?Pass the snake jello please! :yum: Sounds like something I'd have to try at least once if given the opportunity!

[usafbrat64]

That isn't a sentence but a blessing! If only everyone could be so lucky!

Isn't that the truth!! I've been without NPR for the last 2 years and miss Lake Wobegon! Thankfully, I have discovered that I can download the podcasts and listen to all of the news on my IPOD. Hmmm, do they have those yet in Lake Wobegon?

Have a clarification question: Exactly what is "lower criticism" and "higher criticism"?? I've followed the thread, but just don't get those references. :confused:

Oh, and I'll skip the Lutefisk.....

[MarkRohfrietsch]

That isn't a sentence but a blessing! If only everyone could be so lucky! And even moreso to experience a good lutefisk.
And even moreso to experience a good (?):sick: lutefisk.

Some traditions are best forgotten, some are good to keep.

My wife grew up in Newfoundland, a remote, and until recently very backward province.
Because of the lack of hydro and refrigeration they had some very ancient ways of preserving stuff. One "delicacy" that they retain and eat with much gusto is called "salt meat". It is the bony gristly bits left over after slaughtering horses. (the good bits get made into Montreal smoked meat, ore exported to Europe as fresh.) These inedible bits are pickled in brine so strong there is a salt-crust on the top of it. They steam it in with vegetables such as cabbage, potatoes, turnip and carrot. It does add a nice flavor to the vegetables, but after extended steaming the meat remains so salty and well embalmed that you couldnt chew it up with a brush cutter.

Bad tradition.:argh:

Then there is bottled caribou done up in mason jars. It is to die for! Good cold, good hot, good with anything or by itself. Bottled Atlantic Salmon is heavenly also.

Good tradition!:ok:

(those onion heads kill me!:D)

[Till]

It is the bony gristly bits left over after slaughtering horses. (the good bits get made into Montreal smoked meat, ore exported to Europe as fresh.)


Ah, viande de cheval. Tres, tres bon!! And very healthy!

[porterross]

Horse meat? :waaah: What's wrong with you people?!!!!!!!!!!

(The kids love these little zombie ghosts, but they kinda creep me out.)

[Till]

Horse meat? :waaah: What's wrong with you people?!!!!!!!!!!



Well, you cannot have veal escalope every day, can you?

[Korah]

Isn't that the truth!! I've been without NPR for the last 2 years and miss Lake Wobegon! Thankfully, I have discovered that I can download the podcasts and listen to all of the news on my IPOD. Hmmm, do they have those yet in Lake Wobegon?

Have a clarification question: Exactly what is "lower criticism" and "higher criticism"?? I've followed the thread, but just don't get those references. :confused:

Oh, and I'll skip the Lutefisk.....
No ipods in Lake Wobegon, as embalmed in time as Lutefisk is embalmed in brine. I never miss Prairie Home Companion--my wife knows what I mean on Saturday evennings when I say, "Show time!"
Lower Criticism is scholarly investigation of the best, oldest texts to determine what the letters, words, and verses really were in the original Greek and Hebrew. Everybody accepts this except for Fundamentalists who are King-James-Only or who use the NKJV.
Higher Criticism claims to go beyond the text to find sources or the truth of what was said or done. It is rejected by Fundamentalists, Evangelicals, EO, and conservative Roman Catholics. Among Lutherans it's accepted by ELCA and rejected by LCMS--in the main, anyway.

[usafbrat64]

Thanks! That certainly helps.

[Zecryphon]

Horse meat? :waaah: What's wrong with you people?!!!!!!!!!!

(The kids love these little zombie ghosts, but they kinda creep me out.)

Just ask us 'what's right with you people'. The list will be much easier to compile as it will be much shorter. ^_^

[LutheranChick]

:doh:Another thread turned to food- wow are we Lutheran or what! Potluck anyone?

[usafbrat64]

I'll bring the deviled eggs!

You know.. the coolest thing I have discovered about Lutherans is that it doesn't matter where they are from, they all love a good potluck! Living here in the UK, our church has "morning tea" after service, and when I went to Synod last year the ladies in Scotland fed us wonderful food!

[Till]

and when I went to Synod last year the ladies in Scotland fed us wonderful food!

:confused::confused::confused:

Was it Indians living in Scotland? :D:D

[Melethiel]

Well, the last Bible study I went to, we all agreed that we needed to bring some food, so that week we spent the first hour or so of Bible study eating. :P Can't even have a Bible study with 6 people without potluck. :D

[LutheranChick]

Well, the last Bible study I went to, we all agreed that we needed to bring some food, so that week we spent the first hour or so of Bible study eating. :P Can't even have a Bible study with 6 people without potluck. :D
Whereever 2 or 3 are gathered in His Name... not only is God present but if they are Lutheran, food is also present!

[usafbrat64]

:confused::confused::confused:

Was it Indians living in Scotland? :D:D

No, just nice Scottish Lutheran ladies... we had some wonderful breads, of course you can't mess up spaghetti and deli trays, lots of cold salads, and the treats for tea were yummy. I will admit, I did pass on the Haggis.... I just couldn't go there!! I did try the soda they served, though... Irn-Bru.
Let's just say it was different! :)

And they were just as onery as any other Lutheran kitchen crew!!

[MarkRohfrietsch]

Horse meat? :waaah: What's wrong with you people?!!!!!!!!!!

(The kids love these little zombie ghosts, but they kinda creep me out.)

If you have never tried Montreal Smoked Meat, you are missing out on a true piece of paradise! The recent (last 40 years) Dutch immigrants also have a smoked horse meat that is equally as tasty,:full: but different than MSM.

[MarkRohfrietsch]

If you have never tried Montreal Smoked Meat, you are missing out on a true piece of paradise! The recent (last 40 years) Dutch immigrants also have a smoked horse meat that is equally as tasty,:full: but different than MSM.

I am worried that Zec will try to make Lutehorsk out of it!:confused::D^_^

[Korah]

Thanks! That certainly helps.
Yeah, it would be hard to imagine Lake Wobegon with cell phones, ipods, and blackberries.
But even you more "hip" youngsters ought to try Prairie Home Companion,
where everybody who's anybody is Lutheran, with just an occasional Roman Catholic for comic relief (whoa, isn't PHC supposed to be comedy, itself?).

[Till]

Yeah, it would be hard to imagine Lake Wobegon with cell phones, ipods, and blackberries.
But even you more "hip" youngsters ought to try Prairie Home Companion,
where everybody who's anybody is Lutheran, with just an occasional Roman Catholic for comic relief (whoa, isn't PHC supposed to be comedy, itself?).

Question from the uninitiated:

What on earth are you actually talking about?

[seajoy]

Question from the uninitiated:

What on earth are you actually talking about?
google: Garrison Keillor. :)

[Flipper]

Well, the last Bible study I went to, we all agreed that we needed to bring some food, so that week we spent the first hour or so of Bible study eating. :P Can't even have a Bible study with 6 people without potluck. :D


That's the majority of our Bible Studies. Lucky to get out before 11:00 p.m. because you do have to get to the Bible at some point.

[Korah]

Question from the uninitiated:

What on earth are you actually talking about?
Even if you try listening to Prairie Home Companion, you may easily mistake it for some New Yorker's put-down of all things Midwestern. I mistook it for just such a parody for a time, thinking "National Public Radio has some nerve ridiculing one-third of Americans." Actually it is not an NPR production at all, but a homespun Minnesota product (with the accent intensified to pure Dakotan at times). Garrison Keillor does plenty of making fun of himself and his fellow Minnesotans and Norwegians, but it's all in good fun, not a touch of mean-spirited sarcasm.

[usafbrat64]

Our Thursday bible study starts at 6 with evening tea (potluck), then at 7 we have bible study, then at 8 we have supper (desserts and tea/coffee). And, dang, if we aren't all good cooks!! Good mix of Aussie, Brit, and American food... you never know what you're going to get!

[usafbrat64]

Question from the uninitiated:

What on earth are you actually talking about?

You can download the shows for free from ITunes or from NPR.

For those of us who grew up in the midwest and/or are Lutheran, we totally identify with a lot of what he talks about. It is just a great radio show, based on the mythical town of Lake Wobegone, Minnesota, which is every little town in Minnosota/North Dakota.

Where the women are strong, the men are good looking, and the children are all above-average.:)

If you get a chance, give it a listen... you'll understand why some of us are the way we are! ;)

Garrison Keilor has also written some great books and short stories.

[Zecryphon]

I'll bring the deviled eggs!

You know.. the coolest thing I have discovered about Lutherans is that it doesn't matter where they are from, they all love a good potluck! Living here in the UK, our church has "morning tea" after service, and when I went to Synod last year the ladies in Scotland fed us wonderful food!

Actually, this Lutheran has an issue with food made by people he doesn't know, so I don't know how much I'd actually like a potluck. ^_^ Oh and if you have kids, forget it... I can't eat anything made by people with kids. I've seen how kids "help" in the kitchen. ^_^ I could probably bring good stuff for a potluck, but I'd probably just end up eating what I made only.

[DaRev]

No, just nice Scottish Lutheran ladies...

Hey, I know one of those. ;)

[Korah]

You can download the shows for free from ITunes or from NPR.

For those of us who grew up in the midwest and/or are Lutheran, we totally identify with a lot of what he talks about. It is just a great radio show, based on the mythical town of Lake Wobegone, Minnesota, which is every little town in Minnosota/North Dakota.

Where the women are strong, the men are good looking, and the children are all above-average.:)

If you get a chance, give it a listen... you'll understand why some of us are the way we are! ;)

Garrison Keilor has also written some great books and short stories.
"Lake Wobegon" is based on the real town of St. Cloud, Minnesota.

[usafbrat64]

Actually, this Lutheran has an issue with food made by people he doesn't know, so I don't know how much I'd actually like a potluck. ^_^ Oh and if you have kids, forget it... I can't eat anything made by people with kids. I've seen how kids "help" in the kitchen. ^_^ I could probably bring good stuff for a potluck, but I'd probably just end up eating what I made only.

I totally understand. I taught at an inner city school for 2 years and the moms would send in baked goods. They got the round file after the kids left for the day, and the next day there would be a wonderful thank you note for them to give to mom!

But, my food is safe.... the rest of my house may be a tad messy, but the kitchen is spotless... That's my clean zone!:)

[RevCowboy]

Whereever 2 or 3 are gathered in His Name... not only is God present but if they are Lutheran, food is also present!

Wherever 2 or 3 are gathered is what we call a "little lunch", especially in Minnesota, the Dakotas, and the Canadian prairies. What we call "coffee" is what most would call a little lunch. Coffee involves coffee of course, but also squares, nanaimo bars, cookies, half buns with meat and cheese and other assorts deserts and sandwiches (egg salad is the best).

A Little Lunch is actually a rather substantial meal. It involves jell-o salad (which is not a dessert but part of the salad foodgroup), hotdishes (casseroles, mainly made with macaroni, cheese, other sauces, some vegetables, some meats) which can be served both hot and cold but always in a hotdish, taco salad (pronounced Taaco), coffee, tea, and more desserts. A Little Lunch may actually be a bigger meal than lunch, or even supper.

[usafbrat64]

Wherever 2 or 3 are gathered is what we call a "little lunch", especially in Minnesota, the Dakotas, and the Canadian prairies. What we call "coffee" is what most would call a little lunch. Coffee involves coffee of course, but also squares, nanaimo bars, cookies, half buns with meat and cheese and other assorts deserts and sandwiches (egg salad is the best).

A Little Lunch is actually a rather substantial meal. It involves jell-o salad, hotdishes, taco salad (pronounced Taaco), coffee, tea, and more desserts. A Little Lunch may actually be a bigger meal than lunch, or even supper.

Awww, now I'm missing North Dakota.... :(
On our first Sunday one of the ladies told us they were having a little lunch the next Sunday and to bring a hotdish. I then had to ask for a definition of both!
Who's bringing the scotcheroos?? Haven't had any of those in 2 years, don't cha know! ;)

[seajoy]

Awww, now I'm missing North Dakota.... :(
On our first Sunday one of the ladies told us they were having a little lunch the next Sunday and to bring a hotdish. I then had to ask for a definition of both!
Who's bringing the scotcheroos?? Haven't had any of those in 2 years, don't cha know! ;)
:)
Welcome, by the way. I don't think we have been introduced. I'm seajoy, resident staunch WELS girl....also friendly, and rather psycho upon occasion. :cool: Nice to meet ya. :wave:

[Flipper]

I keep seeing the title of this thread and have this overwhelming urge to say:

My name is Flipper, and I'm a chocoholic.

[seajoy]

I keep seeing the title of this thread and have this overwhelming urge to say:

My name is Flipper, and I'm a chocoholic.
Hi Flipper :wave: :)

[usafbrat64]

:)
Welcome, by the way. I don't think we have been introduced. I'm seajoy, resident staunch WELS girl....also friendly, and rather psycho upon occasion. :cool: Nice to meet ya. :wave:


Thanks, Seajoy! Hey, we all need to be a little psycho now and then! :cool: Me, I'm perfecting being an embarrassment to my 13 year old daughter!:thumbsup:

[Zecryphon]

I totally understand. I taught at an inner city school for 2 years and the moms would send in baked goods. They got the round file after the kids left for the day, and the next day there would be a wonderful thank you note for them to give to mom!

But, my food is safe.... the rest of my house may be a tad messy, but the kitchen is spotless... That's my clean zone!:)

So I'll never see your house on "How Clean Is Your Home?" on BBC America? LOL Now for the clincher, do you have kids? hehehehe

[usafbrat64]

I do, but they aren't allowed to help make deviled eggs! The 13 year old's specialty is Lemon Bars. And the 11 year old likes to make cakes.

Nope, you'll never see us on "How Clean is Your Home?"!! Hubby is our resident neat freak and organizational guru... no way it would ever get that bad.

So, would you like some deviled eggs or not? ;)

[WildStrawberry]

mmm scotcharoos, deviled eggs, potluck...mmmmm

I'm hungry. Didn't eat at all today 'cept for a wee bit of pot roast that's going to be shredded tomorrow for bbq sammies.

Kae

[DaRev]

Scotcharoo? Sounds like how someone would order their fourth Scotch. :P

"Gimme another Scotcharoooooooo" ^_^

[QuiltAngel]

You never heard of scotcheroos Rev?

[RadMan]

You never heard of scotcheroos Rev?Sounds like a Scooby snack.

[Melethiel]

My brother is 12, but he's a really good cook. Ended up making dinner half the time (and not kiddie stuff either).

[QuiltAngel]

Scotcheroos
http://www.backofthebox.com/recipes/desserts/scotcheroos-g.html

I never heard of them either until we moved here 9 years ago, but they are good.