Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
BCM
User Panel

Arrow Left Previous Page
Page / 2
Posted: 7/11/2017 1:48:29 PM EDT
Shameless Popery.com



How the Early Church Disproves Protestant Claims About the Eucharist and the Church
by Joe Heschmeyer


One obstacle to Catholic-Protestant dialogue is that we don’t put equal weight to the testimony of the Church Fathers. If the earliest Christians univocally said that X or Y is true, we Catholics trust that it’s true, simply because the Holy Spirit would never let the entire Church fall into heresy, given that His perpetual task is to guide the Church into the fullness of truth forever (John 14:16, 16:13). Protestants can’t affirm this without affirming some very Catholic doctrines that were universally believed in the early Church, like the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist. That’s not to say Protestants give no weight to the Church Fathers – many do, although as with most doctrines, it’s impossible to speak of Protestants holding a single cohesive position on the question. But frequently, they will point out (quite correctly) that the Church Fathers aren’t individually infallible or inspired: they can, and do, make mistakes. So how can we put weight in their witness?

I want to consider the question in light of three classically-Reformed doctrines: perseverance of the Saints (the idea, sometimes called “One Saved, Always Saved,” that if you have true faith in Christ at any point in your life, your salvation is guaranteed, and you cannot fall away permanently); a rejection of the degree of authority given the bishop and the visible Church by the Catholic Church; and the rejection of transubstantiation. On this last point, Dr. Keith Mathison notes that: “The Reformers were united in their rejection of both aspects of Rome’s doctrine of the Lord’s Supper. They rejected transubstantiation, and they rejected the idea that the Lord’s Supper is a propitiatory sacrifice.” For example, John Calvin writes:

What remains but for the blind to see, the deaf to hear, children even to perceive this abomination of the mass, which, held forth in a golden cup, has so intoxicated all the kings and nations of the earth, from the highest to the lowest; so struck them with stupor and giddiness, that, duller than the lower animals, they have placed the vessel of their salvation in this fatal vortex. Certainly Satan never employed a more powerful engine to assail and storm the kingdom of Christ.

My question, then, is: What would you have to believe in order to accept the standard Protestant position on these three points?

I. The Church in Asia Minor

To answer this, let’s go back to Asia Minor (modern-day Turkey) in the first century. St. John writes the Book of Revelation around the year 96 A.D. (we know this from some of the earliest witnesses). He’s writing from exile in Patmos, and he has specific revelations from Christ for the seven churches of Asia Minor:

Seven_churches_of_asia.svg

So, for example, here is what Jesus has to say to the church of Smyrna (Revelation 2:9-11):

I know your tribulation and your poverty (but you are rich) and the slander of those who say that they are Jews and are not, but are a synagogue of Satan. Do not fear what you are about to suffer. Behold, the devil is about to throw some of you into prison, that you may be tested, and for ten days you will have tribulation. Be faithful unto death, and I will give you the crown of life. He who has an ear, let him hear what the Spirit says to the churches. He who conquers shall not be hurt by the second death.

So Christ warns them that their faith will be tested, but He also praises them for the spiritual riches, comforts them in the face of the impending suffering, and promises the crown of life to those who persevere.  It’s night and day different from the words of rebuke that Our Lord has for, say, the church of Laodicea (Rev. 3:14-22).

Flash forward about a decade. There are a few things that you should know about the Church in Asia Minor in the first decade of the second century. Eusebius, the earliest Church historian, sets the scene well in Church History (which was written around 323-325 A.D.):

At that time Polycarp, a disciple of the apostles, was a man of eminence in Asia, having been entrusted with the episcopate of the church of Smyrna by those who had seen and heard the Lord. And at the same time Papias, bishop of the parish of Hierapolis, became well known, as did also Ignatius, who was chosen bishop of Antioch, second in succession to Peter, and whose fame is still celebrated by a great many. At that time Polycarp, a disciple of the apostles, was a man of eminence in Asia, having been entrusted with the episcopate of the church of Smyrna by those who had seen and heard the Lord. And at the same time Papias, bishop of the parish of Hierapolis, became well known, as did also Ignatius, who was chosen bishop of Antioch, second in succession to Peter, and whose fame is still celebrated by a great many.

Like Polycarp, the oldest account of his martyrdom records that Ignatius was also a disciple of the Apostle John. In about 107 A.D., this Ignatius is being led off to his martyrdom in Rome. Along the way, he writes seven letters: to the Roman Christians, asking them not to stop his martyrdom; to Polycarp; and to five of the churches of Asia Minor (Smyrna, Ephesus, Magnesia, Tralles, and Philadelphia). Eusebius mentions all seven of these letters, down to the chronology of when they were written.

Let’s consider just a couple passages from those letters. To the Ephesians (another of the churches St. John writes to in Revelation: Rev. 2:1-7), Ignatius writes:

For if I in this brief space of time, have enjoyed such fellowship with your bishop — I mean not of a mere human, but of a spiritual nature— how much more do I reckon you happy who are so joined to him as the Church is to Jesus Christ, and as Jesus Christ is to the Father, that so all things may agree in unity! Let no man deceive himself: if any one be not within the altar, he is deprived of the bread of God. For if the prayer of one or two possesses [Matthew 18:19] such power, how much more that of the bishop and the whole Church! He, therefore, that does not assemble with the Church, has even by this manifested his pride, and condemned himself. For it is written, God resists the proud. Let us be careful, then, not to set ourselves in opposition to the bishop, in order that we may be subject to God.

To the Smyrnaeans, Ignatius warns them about the Gnostics, writing:

They abstain from the Eucharist and from prayer, because they confess not the Eucharist to be the flesh of our Saviour Jesus Christ, which suffered for our sins, and which the Father, of His goodness, raised up again. Those, therefore, who speak against this gift of God, incur death in the midst of their disputes. But it were better for them to treat it with respect, that they also might rise again. It is fitting, therefore, that you should keep aloof from such persons, and not to speak of them either in private or in public, but to give heed to the prophets, and above all, to the Gospel, in which the passion [of Christ] has been revealed to us, and the resurrection has been fully proved. But avoid all divisions, as the beginning of evils.

Note what he’s not saying. He’s not saying, “Hey, I have this unique, controversial theory that the Eucharist really is the Flesh and Blood of Christ. You should believe it, too.” Nope. Rather, he takes it for granted that the Church in Smyrna, the same church Christ praised a decade earlier, (a) universally believes in the Real Presence; and (b) will recognize that the Gnostics are heretics simply by his pointing out that their theology is incompatible with orthodox Eucharistic theology. He’s able to use the Real Presence as a litmus test for orthodoxy, declaring that those who dissent should be cut off from communion, and incur spiritual death. And he’s writing this to the local church headed by St. Polycarp, the disciple of the Apostles who was “entrusted with the episcopate of the church of Smyrna by those who had seen and heard the Lord.” And notice how the Church responds: Ignatius is praised and venerated throughout Christendom, not rejected as a heretic.



That Ignatius of Antioch holds to the Catholic position on the Eucharist and the authority of the bishop and the visible Church is beyond serious question. You cannot side with both the Protestant Reformers and Ignatius on the Eucharist or the visible Church.

So go back to my original question: to side with the Reformers, what would you have to believe? Consider a few of the implications:

St. Ignatius, a disciple of the Apostle John, is a heretic.
St. Polycarp, a disciple of the Apostle John and other disciples, is a heretic.
After St. Peter left Antioch, either he or the local church he led immediately replaced him with a heretic (Ignatius).
The Church in Smyrna, consisting of “those who had seen and heard the Lord,” chose a heretic (Polycarp) as their bishop.
The Church in Smyrna itself fell into heresy, since their Eucharistic views mirrored Ignatius, and they venerated him and preserved and distributed his letter.
This means that the Church in Smyrna somehow went from being praised and encouraged by Christ in 96 to heretical (seduced by satanic fictions) within a hair over a decade. Think about that: it’s not just that the local institution went bad. We’re talking about the same individual Christians, praised for their faith by Christ and then condemned for their faith by Calvin. And somehow, we’re supposed to believe all of this while simultaneously believing that individuals can’t permanently fall away.
The same, of course, is true for the Church in Ephesus, the one praised and edified by St. Paul, and directly encouraged in Revelation 2 by Jesus Christ Himself. In 96, they’re believers; by 107, they’ve somehow all become heretics (without history recording a single peep of protest as true Christianity was overthrown!).
Surely you see the problem. We’re supposed to believe that the Smyrnaean Christians are doing great in 96, and somehow become heretics by 107, all under the watch of a disciple of the Apostles (Polycarp) and seduced into a satanic parody of Christianity by another disciple of the Apostles (Ignatius).



If these believers were destined to end up heretics, did they have the true faith and lose it? That would debunk the doctrine of perseverance of the Saints. Did they never have the true faith? That would contradict the explicit Scriptural address to them. Or did they still have the true faith in 107? That would confirm the orthodoxy of belief in the Real Presence, and the ugly insanity of Calvin’s railing against the teaching as “satanic.”

II. The Global Church



Now let’s step back and consider the entire Church. Calvin seemingly recognizes that in condemning Catholic Eucharistic views as Satanic, he was making war on the whole Church throughout history. He wrote:

By these and similar inventions, Satan has attempted to adulterate and envelop the sacred Supper of Christ as with thick darkness, that its purity might not be preserved in the Church. But the head of this horrid abomination was, when he raised a sign by which it was not only obscured and perverted, but altogether obliterated and abolished, vanished away and disappeared from the memory of man; namely, when, with most pestilential error, he blinded almost the whole world into the belief that the Mass was a sacrifice and oblation for obtaining the remission of sins.

That’s a remarkable claim: Calvin is saying that Satan succeeded in misleading “almost the whole world” into the false Catholic view. And he has to say almost, because to say that the entire Church fell away would be obviously unworkable. If the entire Church fell under the snare of Satan, then the gates of Hell overcame the Church (which Christ promised wouldn’t happen, in Matthew 16:17-19).

But what’s the basis for this “almost”? Where was the group of first or second or third or fourth century Christians who denied Catholic Eucharistic theology? As I’ve mentioned before, they simply don’t exist. The whole Church of antiquity holds to the faith of Ignatius, no “almost” about it. So work out those conclusions. Did the Apostles simply fail to produce any orthodox followers, or produced such a meager crop that history no longer remembers them? Or were these “orthodox” Christians of the early Church simply too shy about their faith to share it? Or did they produce orthodox followers who then fell away within a decade of the death of John, contrary to the perseverance of the Saints?

Now remember what Christ promised about how the gates of Hell wouldn’t overcome the Church (Matthew 16:17-19); about how “he who hears the word and understands it […] indeed bears fruit, and yields, in one case a hundredfold, in another sixty, and in another thirty” (Matthew 13:23). Remember also what the Scriptures say about how if Christ is the true Messiah, the faith won’t simply die out within a few years, and that if it does, it shows Jesus isn’t the true Christ (Acts 5:35-39).

Can you reject Ignatius, Polycarp, and the churches of Ephesus and Smyrna without rejecting Revelation and Paul’s Epistle Ephesians? It’s not clear to me how you could, particularly while clinging to the fiction of “perseverance of the Saints.” But equally clear is that to hold to Ignatius, Polycarp, et al – to believe that the students of the Apostles actually know a thing or two about the Apostles and their teaching – is to reject the Protestant beliefs about the Eucharist and the visible Church.
Link Posted: 7/11/2017 1:57:53 PM EDT
[#1]
Roman Catholicism is not Christianity, no matter how old it is.
Link Posted: 7/11/2017 3:03:55 PM EDT
[#2]
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Lol. There is so much false and wrong in his statements, deductions and reasonings, he could be CNN. He definitely has an agenda. I like how he nit-picks history to mold his information. Immediatley discounting information in his first few statements.

He and Chick would be pals. Wow.

Thank you.
Link Posted: 7/13/2017 1:18:09 AM EDT
[#3]
Because transubstantiation is not a biblical doctrine, let alone has an ounce of sense to go with it...... My God tastes better than your God......
Link Posted: 7/13/2017 2:25:58 PM EDT
[#4]
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Quoted:
Because transubstantiation is not a biblical doctrine, let alone has an ounce of sense to go with it...... My God tastes better than your God......
View Quote
John 6:53  Jesus said to them, “Very truly I tell you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you. 54 Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise them up at the last day. 55 For my flesh is real food and my blood is real drink. 56 Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood remains in me, and I in them.

Reading is fundamental. Jesus said it. Maybe you should reconsider your position, unless you are assuming the Son of God to be a liar.
Link Posted: 7/13/2017 2:29:49 PM EDT
[#5]
Link Posted: 7/13/2017 2:30:50 PM EDT
[#6]
When the leader of your new religion is a genocidal maniac.



The destruction of English monasteries under Henry VIII transformed the power structures of English society. Henry had cut off from the Catholic Church in Rome, and declared himself head of the Church of England. His intention in destroying the monastic system was both to reap its wealth and to suppress political opposition.
View Quote


Between 1536 and 1540 he took over 800 monasteries, abbeys, nunneries and friaries, some of which had accumulated great wealth and land (through bequests for instance). These had been home to more than 10,000 monks, nuns, friars and canons. Many former monasteries were sold off to landowners. Others were taken over and became churches, such as Durham Cathedral. Many were left to ruin, such as Tintern Abbey. A few monks who resisted were executed, but those who surrendered were paid or pensioned off.
View Quote


Some of the funds gained went to finance new institutions, such as Trinity College in Cambridge and Christ Church in Oxford. But whole monastic libraries were destroyed, countless music manuscripts lost and England’s rural landscape changed forever. Shown here is a survey of all ‘lorshippis, manners, landes’ belonging to the former Benedictine monastery of Colchester, produced after the monastery was dissolved in 1539. As well as being a financial document, it also serves as a piece of visual propaganda that promoted the royal agenda. Shown in the background is the execution of the Abbot of Colchester, one of three Benedictine abbots executed in that year.
View Quote
Link Posted: 7/13/2017 3:01:43 PM EDT
[#7]
Link Posted: 7/13/2017 3:02:50 PM EDT
[#8]
Link Posted: 7/13/2017 3:20:16 PM EDT
[#9]
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Quoted:
Because transubstantiation is not a biblical doctrine, let alone has an ounce of sense to go with it...... My God tastes better than your God......
View Quote
I once had a long, very interesting, and only mildly drunken discussion with a recently graduated Methodist seminarian regarding transubstantiation.  While neither of us convinced the other of the correctness of our position (nor was that our intent), one thing that became clear to both of us was that he had no clue what the word actually meant in the context of Roman Catholic teachings. I got the impression all he had been taught was "Transubstantiation is bullshit created by Papists, so don't worry about it."  When I explained the philosophical underpinnings, he listened and asked really serious questions. In the end he said "That is very interesting.  I won't say I agree with you, but what you are saying makes a lot of internal sense, and I never really thought of it that way."
Link Posted: 7/13/2017 4:03:22 PM EDT
[#10]
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Quoted:
I'm sure this thread will "heat up" pretty soon, so I just hope everyone can stay within the boundaries of reasoned and respectful discussion. Thanks. 
View Quote


I'm slapping F5 for the rest of the afternoon.
Link Posted: 7/13/2017 5:03:47 PM EDT
[#11]
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Quoted:
I'm sure this thread will "heat up" pretty soon, so I just hope everyone can stay within the boundaries of reasoned and respectful discussion. Thanks. 
View Quote
Yes! I hope have a great discussion. I did not post it as an attack. It was to start a discussion.

Thank you.
Link Posted: 7/16/2017 12:24:06 AM EDT
[#12]
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Quoted:
John 6:53  Jesus said to them, “Very truly I tell you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you. 54 Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise them up at the last day. 55 For my flesh is real food and my blood is real drink. 56 Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood remains in me, and I in them.

Reading is fundamental. Jesus said it. Maybe you should reconsider your position, unless you are assuming the Son of God to be a liar.
View Quote View All Quotes
View All Quotes
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Quoted:
Quoted:
Because transubstantiation is not a biblical doctrine, let alone has an ounce of sense to go with it...... My God tastes better than your God......
John 6:53  Jesus said to them, “Very truly I tell you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you. 54 Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise them up at the last day. 55 For my flesh is real food and my blood is real drink. 56 Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood remains in me, and I in them.

Reading is fundamental. Jesus said it. Maybe you should reconsider your position, unless you are assuming the Son of God to be a liar.
Luke 22: 19 And he took bread, and gave thanks, and break it, and gave unto them saying, This is my body which is given for you: this do in remembrance of me. 20. Like wise also the cup after supper, saying,  This cup is the new testament in my blood, which is shed for you.

It's pretty clear .."in remembrance of me." isn't, "when you eat this bread, it will actually turn into my flesh.  John 6:51  I am the living bread which came down from heaven: if any man eat of this bread, he shall live forever: And the bread that I will give is my flesh, which I will give for the life of the world.
 And verse 63, It is the spirit that quickeneth; the flesh profiteth nothing: the words I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are life. Scripture is often symbols. Like the parables. There is no actual flesh in the wafer or blood in the wine. After the prayer or not.
Link Posted: 7/17/2017 1:15:21 AM EDT
[#13]
Quoted:
One reason sola scriptura doesn't work for me: THERE WAS NO "BIBLE" WHEN THE EARLY CHURCH GOT STARTED.

The word of God and the beliefs were spread by the apostles and their students via oral tradition. Most Gospels and even the Pauline epistles weren't written until around the year 100, and then it's not like there were printing presses around to immediately disseminate that to all the believers.
View Quote
Luke 1:1-4
Forasmuch as many have taken in hand to set forth in order a declaration of those things which are most surely believed among us Even as they delivered them unto us, which from the beginning were eyewitnesses, and ministers of the word; It seemed good to me also, having had perfect understanding of all things from the very first, to write unto thee in order, most excellent Theophilus, That thou mightest know the certainty of those things, wherein thou hast been instructed.

No 'Bible' as we think of it, but Luke says the beliefs of the early church were written down and passed around by eyewitnesses from the beginning. The inspired writings of the apostles were the standard to which they were held "That thou mightest know the certainty of those things, wherein thou hast been instructed."


Oral tradition must have been the way most early believers heard about these things. So enter the "church fathers" - these were some of the direct followers of the apostles that were responsible for spreading the gospel. You now have two choices: 1) You acknowledge that what they taught is accurate and reflects the teachings of those that actually knew Christ first-hand, or 2) that they were heretics. If you subscribe to #2, you would also have to come to the conclusion that the teachings of the church for millennia are also heretical since the church fathers were the ones teaching them to the various Churches.
View Quote
Oral tradition isn't the issue. Writings of the church fathers isn't the issue... the doctrine being passed down is. Those doctrines and beliefs must square with the inspired words of Jesus, prophets, and apostles. Simple as that. When we step into eternity, there will be no pointing to teachings from Origen, Luther, or Calvin.

1 Thessalonians 1:6
And ye became followers of us, and of the Lord, having received the word in much affliction, with joy of the Holy Ghost

1 Thessalonians 2:13
For this cause also thank we God without ceasing, because, when ye received the word of God which ye heard of us, ye received it not as the word of men, but as it is in truth, the word of God, which effectually worketh also in you that believe.

2 Thessalonians 2:15
Therefore, brethren, stand fast, and hold the traditions which ye have been taught, whether by word, or our epistle.

2 Thessalonians 3:14
And if any man obey not our word by this epistle, note that man, and have no company with him, that he may be ashamed.

1 Corinthians 4:6
And these things, brethren, I have in a figure transferred to myself and to Apollos for your sakes; that ye might learn in us not to think of men above that which is written, that no one of you be puffed up for one against another.

John 12:46-48
I am come a light into the world, that whosoever believeth on me should not abide in darkness. And if any man hear my words, and believe not, I judge him not: for I came not to judge the world, but to save the world. He that rejecteth me, and receiveth not my words, hath one that judgeth him: the word that I have spoken, the same shall judge him in the last day.
Link Posted: 7/17/2017 4:10:23 PM EDT
[#14]
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Quoted:


Luke 22: 19 And he took bread, and gave thanks, and break it, and gave unto them saying, This is my body which is given for you: this do in remembrance of me. 20. Like wise also the cup after supper, saying,  This cup is the new testament in my blood, which is shed for you.

It's pretty clear .."in remembrance of me." isn't, "when you eat this bread, it will actually turn into my flesh.  John 6:51  I am the living bread which came down from heaven: if any man eat of this bread, he shall live forever: And the bread that I will give is my flesh, which I will give for the life of the world.
 And verse 63, It is the spirit that quickeneth; the flesh profiteth nothing: the words I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are life. Scripture is often symbols. Like the parables. There is no actual flesh in the wafer or blood in the wine. After the prayer or not.
View Quote
So scripture is literal...until you don't want it to be. Jesus had ample opportunity to backpeddle, explain or expound on his statements in John 6:51. He did not. Many could not or would not accept this teaching and left his company. Are you one too?

YOUR earlier post stated 'transubstantiation is not a biblical doctrine.' My reference to John 6 mostly certainly proves it to Biblical. What you meant to say was that 'my (1cheapshot) personal interpretation of the Bible does not agree with the teachings of THE Church promulgated for the last 2000 years.'

Jesus Christ is not a liar. He said it. It is true. You clearly do not believe his words.
Link Posted: 7/19/2017 12:44:24 AM EDT
[#15]
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Quoted:

So scripture is literal...until you don't want it to be. Jesus had ample opportunity to backpeddle, explain or expound on his statements in John 6:51. He did not. Many could not or would not accept this teaching and left his company. Are you one too?

YOUR earlier post stated 'transubstantiation is not a biblical doctrine.' My reference to John 6 mostly certainly proves it to Biblical. What you meant to say was that 'my (1cheapshot) personal interpretation of the Bible does not agree with the teachings of THE Church promulgated for the last 2000 years.'

Jesus Christ is not a liar. He said it. It is true. You clearly do not believe his words.
View Quote
He does not say it will "turn into" my flesh and blood. For to do so, his sacrifice/ death would not have been sufficient to save us( ..For Christ hath once suffered for sin) if he must die again at the call of a priest. Are you and your wife one with each other???? You too can take one scripture literal if you want to. The bible says Jesus and God are separate beings, but you will find the few scriptures that may make that point while ignoring Jesus taught he was the Son of God and stands on his right hand. The Catholic church may have believed it for 2000 years but it still doesn't make it true. We will have to agree to disagree. I "protest" your doctrine. And side with those against Popery. But stand next to you against Islam.
Link Posted: 7/19/2017 10:10:40 AM EDT
[#16]
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Quoted:

He does not say it will "turn into" my flesh and blood. For to do so, his sacrifice/ death would not have been sufficient to save us( ..For Christ hath once suffered for sin) if he must die again at the call of a priest. Are you and your wife one with each other???? You too can take one scripture literal if you want to. The bible says Jesus and God are separate beings, but you will find the few scriptures that may make that point while ignoring Jesus taught he was the Son of God and stands on his right hand. The Catholic church may have believed it for 2000 years but it still doesn't make it true. We will have to agree to disagree. I "protest" your doctrine. And side with those against Popery. But stand next to you against Islam.
View Quote
You're right, he doesn't say 'turn into.' He says 'This IS my body.' So, Mr. Clinton, I suppose 'is' does not mean 'is.' The sacrifice is once and forever, perpetual. The 'sacrifice' of the mass is THAT one sacrifice which we are fortunate enough be able to witness and participate in. And yes the Catholic Church has believed and taught these truths from the time of the apostles. But clearly the Church and the apostles were wrong and you, with your gnosis sprung to life 15 centuries after the fact, are gifted with new and special revelation which represents the truth.

I cannot agree to disagree.

2 Thess 2:15 Therefore, brethren, stand fast; and hold the traditions which you have learned, whether by word, or by our epistle.
Link Posted: 7/19/2017 12:33:16 PM EDT
[#17]
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Quoted:
2 Thess 2:15 Therefore, brethren, stand fast; and hold the traditions which you have learned, whether by word, or by our epistle.
View Quote
But, Catholics, and protesting Catholics, don't hold to most traditions taught in Scripture. Instead, they attempt to change the Father's set apart times and Holy Days to those of sun worshipers, and follow traditions of men.
Link Posted: 7/19/2017 4:25:18 PM EDT
[#18]
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Quoted:


But, Catholics, and protesting Catholics, don't hold to most traditions taught in Scripture. Instead, they attempt to change the Father's set apart times and Holy Days to those of sun worshipers, and follow traditions of men.
View Quote
Uh, yeah, right....

Matthew 16:19 And I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt bind
on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose on
earth shall be loosed in heaven.

Link below should be palatable to every reasonable thinking Christian

Why Christians worship on Sunday

And for the Catholics and other interested parties

Speaking of non-biblical doctrines and 'traditions of men,' a short list copied from a rather well known letter:

Ageof Accountability
TotalDepravity of Man PersonalLord and Saviour AskJesus into your Heart TheRapture InvisibleChurch Foldingyour Hands, Bowing your Head PersonalRelationship with Christ” AcceptingChrist as Lord and Savior Enthroningthe Bible in your Heart Coveredwith the righteousness
of Christ”
LimitedAtonement Imputedrighteousness AltarCall Dedication;Rededication Givingyour Life to the Lord” RevivalInerrancyEternalSecurity Oncesaved, always saved”
Link Posted: 7/19/2017 11:32:45 PM EDT
[#19]
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Quoted:
Uh, yeah, right....
Link below should be palatable to every reasonable thinking Christian

Why Christians worship on Sunday
View Quote
When Jesus rose from the dead on the first day of the week, things changed. Christ, the second Adam, “finished” (John 19:30) the work that the first Adam failed to do (Rom. 5:12-19). Because of that pivotal event, the church determined that for Christians under the new covenant, the day of worship and celebration of the Lord’s grace in Jesus Christ was to be the first day of the week, Sunday:
Link Posted: 7/20/2017 1:04:38 AM EDT
[#20]
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Quoted:
When Jesus rose from the dead on the first day of the week, things changed. Christ, the second Adam, “finished” (John 19:30) the work that the first Adam failed to do (Rom. 5:12-19). Because of that pivotal event, the church determined that for Christians under the new covenant, the day of worship and celebration of the Lord’s grace in Jesus Christ was to be the first day of the week, Sunday:
View Quote View All Quotes
View All Quotes
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Quoted:
Quoted:
Uh, yeah, right....
Link below should be palatable to every reasonable thinking Christian

Why Christians worship on Sunday
When Jesus rose from the dead on the first day of the week, things changed. Christ, the second Adam, “finished” (John 19:30) the work that the first Adam failed to do (Rom. 5:12-19). Because of that pivotal event, the church determined that for Christians under the new covenant, the day of worship and celebration of the Lord’s grace in Jesus Christ was to be the first day of the week, Sunday:
Matthew 18: 15-19

Dealing With Sin in the Church
15 “If your brother or sister[a] sins, go and point out their fault, just between the two of you. If they listen to you, you have won them over. 16 [b]But if they will not listen, take one or two others along, so that ‘every matter may be established by the testimony of two or three witnesses.’[c] 17 If they still refuse to listen, tell it to the church; and if they refuse to listen even to the church, treat them as you would a pagan or a tax collector.

18 “Truly I tell you, whatever you bind on earth will be[d] bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be[e] loosed in heaven.

19 “Again, truly I tell you that if two of you on earth agree about anything they ask for, it will be done for them by my Father in heaven. 20 For where two or three gather in my name, there am I with them.”
Link Posted: 7/20/2017 2:43:54 AM EDT
[#21]
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Quoted:
John 6:53  Jesus said to them, “Very truly I tell you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you. 54 Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise them up at the last day. 55 For my flesh is real food and my blood is real drink. 56 Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood remains in me, and I in them.

Reading is fundamental. Jesus said it. Maybe you should reconsider your position, unless you are assuming the Son of God to be a liar.
View Quote View All Quotes
View All Quotes
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Quoted:
John 6:53  Jesus said to them, “Very truly I tell you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you. 54 Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise them up at the last day. 55 For my flesh is real food and my blood is real drink. 56 Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood remains in me, and I in them.

Reading is fundamental. Jesus said it. Maybe you should reconsider your position, unless you are assuming the Son of God to be a liar.
At least quote the whole passage for context.

22 On the next day the crowd that remained on the other side of the sea saw that there had been only one boat there, and that Jesus had not entered the boat with his disciples, but that his disciples had gone away alone. 23 Other boats from Tiberias came near the place where they had eaten the bread after the Lord had given thanks. 24 So when the crowd saw that Jesus was not there, nor his disciples, they themselves got into the boats and went to Capernaum, seeking Jesus.

25 When they found him on the other side of the sea, they said to him, “Rabbi, when did you come here?” 26 Jesus answered them, “Truly, truly, I say to you, you are seeking me, not because you saw signs, but because you ate your fill of the loaves. 27 Do not work for the food that perishes, but for the food that endures to eternal life, which the Son of Man will give to you. For on him God the Father has set his seal.” 28 Then they said to him, “What must we do, to be doing the works of God?” 29 Jesus answered them, “This is the work of God, that you believe in him whom he has sent.” 30 So they said to him, “Then what sign do you do, that we may see and believe you? What work do you perform? 31 Our fathers ate the manna in the wilderness; as it is written, ‘He gave them bread from heaven to eat.’” 32 Jesus then said to them, “Truly, truly, I say to you, it was not Moses who gave you the bread from heaven, but my Father gives you the true bread from heaven. 33 For the bread of God is he who comes down from heaven and gives life to the world.” 34 They said to him, “Sir, give us this bread always.”

35 Jesus said to them, “I am the bread of life; whoever comes to me shall not hunger, and whoever believes in me shall never thirst. 36 But I said to you that you have seen me and yet do not believe. 37 All that the Father gives me will come to me, and whoever comes to me I will never cast out. 38 For I have come down from heaven, not to do my own will but the will of him who sent me. 39 And this is the will of him who sent me, that I should lose nothing of all that he has given me, but raise it up on the last day. 40 For this is the will of my Father, that everyone who looks on the Son and believes in him should have eternal life, and I will raise him up on the last day.”

41 So the Jews grumbled about him, because he said, “I am the bread that came down from heaven.” 42 They said, “Is not this Jesus, the son of Joseph, whose father and mother we know? How does he now say, ‘I have come down from heaven’?” 43 Jesus answered them, “Do not grumble among yourselves. 44 No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws him. And I will raise him up on the last day. 45 It is written in the Prophets, ‘And they will all be taught by God.’ Everyone who has heard and learned from the Father comes to me— 46 not that anyone has seen the Father except he who is from God; he has seen the Father. 47 Truly, truly, I say to you, whoever believes has eternal life. 48 I am the bread of life. 49 Your fathers ate the manna in the wilderness, and they died.  51 I am the living bread that came down from heaven. If anyone eats of this bread, he will live forever. And the bread that I will give for the life of the world is my flesh.”

52 The Jews then disputed among themselves, saying, “How can this man give us his flesh to eat?” 53 So Jesus said to them, “Truly, truly, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you. 54 Whoever feeds on my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up on the last day. 55 For my flesh is true food, and my blood is true drink. 56 Whoever feeds on my flesh and drinks my blood abides in me, and I in him. 57 As the living Father sent me, and I live because of the Father, so whoever feeds on me, he also will live because of me. 58 This is the bread that came down from heaven, not like the bread[c] the fathers ate, and died. Whoever feeds on this bread will live forever.” 59 Jesus[d] said these things in the synagogue, as he taught at Capernaum.

The Words of Eternal Life
60 When many of his disciples heard it, they said, “This is a hard saying; who can listen to it?” 61 But Jesus, knowing in himself that his disciples were grumbling about this, said to them, “Do you take offense at this? 62 Then what if you were to see the Son of Man ascending to where he was before? 63 It is the Spirit who gives life; the flesh is no help at all. The words that I have spoken to you are spirit and life. 64 But there are some of you who do not believe.” (For Jesus knew from the beginning who those were who did not believe, and who it was who would betray him.) 65 And he said, “This is why I told you that no one can come to me unless it is granted him by the Father.”

66 After this many of his disciples turned back and no longer walked with him. 67 So Jesus said to the twelve, “Do you want to go away as well?” 68 Simon Peter answered him, “Lord, to whom shall we go? You have the words of eternal life, 69 and we have believed, and have come to know, that you are the Holy One of God.” 70 Jesus answered them, “Did I not choose you, the twelve? And yet one of you is a devil.” 71 He spoke of Judas the son of Simon Iscariot, for he, one of the twelve, was going to betray him.
" 51 I am the living bread that came down from heaven. If anyone eats of this bread, he will live forever. And the bread that I will give for the life of the world is my flesh.”

If transubstantiation were true, then you could take the eucharist and never die, according to this verse that comes just before the ones you're quoting.  

I don't think Christ was advocating cannibalism.  Much like some of the jews, you're missing the point.

What he was alluding to, since his target audience was Jews who still made blood sacrifices, and he had not been crucified yet, was his upcoming death of his mortal body on the cross.  The ultimate sacrifice.  The reason for his coming.  It's our acceptance of his sacrifice, the shed blood and the death of the flesh, his propitiation (atonement) for our sin that gives us eternal life, in the spiritual sense.

Bottom line.  He had just fed the masses.  They came looking for him and he sees they're looking for another meal.  He tells them not to look for the food that perishes but the food that leads to eternal life.  I don't think he was talking about taking a bite of his arm.

35 Jesus said to them, “I am the bread of life; whoever comes to me shall not hunger, and whoever believes in me shall never thirst.

It's pretty clear he's talking about spiritual things and eternal life..

52 The Jews then disputed among themselves, saying, “How can this man give us his flesh to eat?” 53 So Jesus said to them, “Truly, truly, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you.

You see with the verse above right before your quote, he wasn't telling them to chow down on him. And he wasn't trying to tell them they needed to eat a wafer and drink wine, he was speaking to them about a larger picture.  Leaving them something they might not understand until his death, and resurrection unfolded.
Link Posted: 7/20/2017 3:12:47 AM EDT
[#22]
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Quoted:
Because transubstantiation is not a biblical doctrine, let alone has an ounce of sense to go with it...... My God tastes better than your God......
View Quote
If you understand western philosophy, Plato, Aristotle, Aquinas et al.. you would know its truth doesnt pertain to the power of sense, but intellect.  I know thats not what you meant, but the point is you dont know enought to prove or disprove your claim.  Also... for all those who doubt..

Jesus biblical quote... "this is my body, this is my blood... He never said this is a symbol or sign of my body and blood..  Is has a meaning despite what Slick Willy thought.
Link Posted: 7/20/2017 5:53:26 AM EDT
[#23]
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Quoted:


But, Catholics, and protesting Catholics, don't hold to most traditions taught in Scripture. Instead, they attempt to change the Father's set apart times and Holy Days to those of sun worshipers, and follow traditions of men.
View Quote
This!
Link Posted: 7/20/2017 9:38:06 AM EDT
[#24]
Why do people insist on complicating things? In John 6:51 Jesus was clearly saying anyone that accepted His sacrifice of His life is saved. Simple.

All the pompous statements and claims by Catholics here about being "the" church will be accounted for. You guys are purposely sinning and you know it.
Link Posted: 7/20/2017 9:53:16 AM EDT
[#25]
So, this is our "Shiite vs. Sunni" throwdown this week?
Link Posted: 7/20/2017 10:28:39 AM EDT
[#26]
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Quoted:


If transubstantiation were true, then you could take the eucharist and never die, according to this verse that comes just before the ones you're quoting.  

I don't think Christ was advocating cannibalism.  Much like some of the jews, you're missing the point.
View Quote View All Quotes
View All Quotes
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Quoted:


If transubstantiation were true, then you could take the eucharist and never die, according to this verse that comes just before the ones you're quoting.  

I don't think Christ was advocating cannibalism.  Much like some of the jews, you're missing the point.
We do take the eucharist. We do not die.

Mark 12:27 He is not the God of the dead, but the God of the living. You are therefore greatly mistaken.

You see with the verse above right before your quote, he wasn't telling them to chow down on him. And he wasn't trying to tell them they needed to eat a wafer and drink wine, he was speaking to them about a larger picture.
Actually, he was telling them to eat his body. The greek 'trogo' means to chew, gnaw, munch, and otherwise consume.


 Leaving them something they might not understand until his death, and resurrection unfolded.
Or, according to the protestants, something that they wouldn't figure out for another 15 centuries.
Link Posted: 7/20/2017 7:59:07 PM EDT
[#27]
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Quoted:
We do take the eucharist. We do not die.
View Quote
Galatians 3:3
Are ye so foolish? having begun in the Spirit, are ye now made perfect by the flesh?
Link Posted: 7/21/2017 12:16:53 AM EDT
[#28]
Leviticus 3:17 It shall be a perpetual statute for your generations throughout all your dwellings, that ye eat neither fat nor blood.

Eating blood is sin. Our Savior would never promote sin. If He did, He would not be sinless, and wouldn't qualify as the Messiah.
Link Posted: 7/21/2017 12:22:25 AM EDT
[#29]
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Quoted:


If you understand western philosophy, Plato, Aristotle, Aquinas et al.. you would know its truth doesnt pertain to the power of sense, but intellect.  I know thats not what you meant, but the point is you dont know enought to prove or disprove your claim.  Also... for all those who doubt..

Jesus biblical quote... "this is my body, this is my blood... He never said this is a symbol or sign of my body and blood..  Is has a meaning despite what Slick Willy thought.
View Quote
There is plenty of symbolic representation in Scripture. In none of these examples does it say, this is a symbol or sign.
Link Posted: 7/21/2017 12:51:07 AM EDT
[#30]
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Quoted:


If you understand western philosophy, Plato, Aristotle, Aquinas et al.. you would know its truth doesnt pertain to the power of sense, but intellect.  I know thats not what you meant, but the point is you dont know enought to prove or disprove your claim.  Also... for all those who doubt..

Jesus biblical quote... "this is my body, this is my blood... He never said this is a symbol or sign of my body and blood..  Is has a meaning despite what Slick Willy thought.
View Quote
I have what God gave man. A brain. "Do this in remembrance of me" Tells you it wasn't meant to mean it becomes his flesh. (yet I'm the one who picks and chooses) How strange of doctrine would it have been to the Jewish priest, to see a man say "do this in remembrance of me", when sacrifice(firstling of the flock, with out blemish etc) was to God. Yet there was a man telling his followers to do so!  Second, reason they would distance themselves, Jesus spoke in parables so that those seeing would not see. Those who did or might have taken it literally would also leave, like the unwise virgins. That is why they would not stay with him. John  6:63 "It is the spirit that quickeneth; the flesh profiteth nothing.." Lays it out pretty plainly. But those that follow him will take of bread and wine in remembering his Flesh and blood given for them. Not to them.  For what purpose would it serve, to actually  become "his flesh"? None. The other half of verse 63 makes it pretty plain what the "life' is really, 63....the words that I speak unto you(the two great commandments etc..) they are spirit, and they are life. His followers were to put off the natural man, the flesh. He was handing them bread and wine, not fillet of Jesus with a side of blood. It was the Jews and fools who thought he was preaching substantiation, who seeing, did not see. That he would die and be raised again.

And then yourself and TWIRE can just ignore the account in Luke somehow. He's giving them bread and wine for them to remember him for what he was about to do. If I'm on my death bed and give you my favorite AR and say "remember me Bro!" that AR isn't me......
Symbolism, there wasn't really twenty virgins. Bread and wine are bread and wine, it's what it represented. The Spirit, not the flesh...
Link Posted: 7/21/2017 12:55:10 AM EDT
[#31]
Oh look, Catholics attaching Christians.

Link Posted: 7/21/2017 1:01:02 AM EDT
[#32]
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Quoted:


There is plenty of symbolic representation in Scripture. In none of these examples does it say, this is a symbol or sign.
View Quote
Luke is pretty plain22:19 "....this do in remembrance of me." Can't get more plain than that.

Those who believe in transubstantiation, strain at a gnat and swallow a camel....or Jesus
Sorry a little humor at someone else's expense, but I couldn't help myself.
Link Posted: 7/21/2017 1:05:12 AM EDT
[#33]
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Quoted:
Oh look, Catholics attaching Christians.

View Quote
900 different churches. Christians they all say. They all believe in Jesus Christ only in a different way......

A line from a poem I quoted here once, a long while ago, and got in a bit of trouble over.
Link Posted: 7/21/2017 2:43:26 AM EDT
[#34]
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Quoted:
Luke is pretty plain22:19 "....this do in remembrance of me." Can't get more plain than that.

Those who believe in transubstantiation, strain at a gnat and swallow a camel....or Jesus
Sorry a little humor at someone else's expense, but I couldn't help myself.
View Quote View All Quotes
View All Quotes
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Quoted:
Quoted:


There is plenty of symbolic representation in Scripture. In none of these examples does it say, this is a symbol or sign.
Luke is pretty plain22:19 "....this do in remembrance of me." Can't get more plain than that.

Those who believe in transubstantiation, strain at a gnat and swallow a camel....or Jesus
Sorry a little humor at someone else's expense, but I couldn't help myself.
So you are saying the Apostles and the Church Fathers are wrong. But, you are right? You, 2,000 yrs after? But the contempories of The Apostle John are wrong?

Interesting.
Link Posted: 7/21/2017 8:55:59 AM EDT
[#35]
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Quoted:


I have what God gave man. A brain. "Do this in remembrance of me" Tells you it wasn't meant to mean it becomes his flesh. (yet I'm the one who picks and chooses) How strange of doctrine would it have been to the Jewish priest, to see a man say "do this in remembrance of me", when sacrifice(firstling of the flock, with out blemish etc) was to God. Yet there was a man telling his followers to do so!  Second, reason they would distance themselves, Jesus spoke in parables so that those seeing would not see. Those who did or might have taken it literally would also leave, like the unwise virgins. That is why they would not stay with him. John  6:63 "It is the spirit that quickeneth; the flesh profiteth nothing.." Lays it out pretty plainly. But those that follow him will take of bread and wine in remembering his Flesh and blood given for them. Not to them.  For what purpose would it serve, to actually  become "his flesh"? None. The other half of verse 63 makes it pretty plain what the "life' is really, 63....the words that I speak unto you(the two great commandments etc..) they are spirit, and they are life. His followers were to put off the natural man, the flesh. He was handing them bread and wine, not fillet of Jesus with a side of blood. It was the Jews and fools who thought he was preaching substantiation, who seeing, did not see. That he would die and be raised again.

And then yourself and TWIRE can just ignore the account in Luke somehow. He's giving them bread and wine for them to remember him for what he was about to do. If I'm on my death bed and give you my favorite AR and say "remember me Bro!" that AR isn't me......
Symbolism, there wasn't really twenty virgins. Bread and wine are bread and wine, it's what it represented. The Spirit, not the flesh...
View Quote
Except that the Church never believed as you do until 15 centuries after the fact. They believed in transubstantiation.
Link Posted: 7/21/2017 8:57:36 AM EDT
[#36]
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Quoted:

So you are saying the Apostles and the Church Fathers are wrong. But, you are right? You, 2,000 yrs after? But the contemporaries of The Apostle John are wrong?

Interesting.
View Quote
The new gnostics
Link Posted: 7/21/2017 12:43:06 PM EDT
[#37]
On this day in 1205, Pope Innocent decreed that all Jews were to be considered doomed to servitude and subjugation, because of their involvement in the crucifixion. This remained Catholic doctrine until the 1960s.
Notice he didn't include Romans, who actually did the crucifixion, or even understand Scripture enough to know that our Messiah willingly gave up His life, at the direction of the Father, because of the sins of every single one of us, including Pope Innocent. He also didn't seem to believe the Messiah's prayer was answered, when He asked the Father to forgive them of their sin.

John 10:17 For this reason the Father loves Me, because I lay down My life so that I may take it again. 18 No one has taken it away from Me, but I lay it down on My own initiative. I have authority to lay it down, and I have authority to take it up again. This commandment I received from My Father.”
Link Posted: 7/21/2017 1:35:28 PM EDT
[#38]
Link Posted: 7/21/2017 3:39:57 PM EDT
[#39]
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Quoted:

You sure you want to open that can of worms? Read up on Martin Luther and his views on the Jews.

Not that what the pope decreed is doctrine - I assume he wasn't speaking ex cathedra? [ETA] I looked up his Wikipedia entry, and there's no mention of him doing what you're saying. He echoed general anti-Jewish sentiment of the times, sure...

"At the Fourth Lateran Council, Innocent III and his prelates legislated against subordination of Christians to Jews. Canon 69 forbade "that Jews
be given preferment in public office since this offers them the pretext
to vent their wrath against the Christians." Canon 69 assumes that Jews blaspheme Christ, and therefore, as it would
be "too absurd for a blasphemer of Christ to exercise power over
Christians", Jews should not be appointed to public offices."
View Quote
You're barking up the wrong tree. I'm not a follower of Martin Luther, either.

1205: Pope Innocent III wrote to the archbishops of Sens and Paris that "the Jews, by their own guilt, are consigned to perpetual servitude because they crucified the Lord...As slaves rejected by God, in whose death they wickedly conspire, they shall by the effect of this very action, recognize themselves as the slaves of those whom Christ's death set free..." i.e. they would be slaves of Christians.
1227:  The Synod of Narbonne required Jews to wear an oval badge -- reminiscent of the Star of David that the Nazis required Jews to wear.
1478: The Spanish Inquisition was organized by the Church in order to detect insincere conversions of Jews to Christianity.
1516: Venice forced Jews to live only in one parish, called the "Ghetto Novo."
1555: A Roman Catholic Papal bull, "Cum nimis absurdum," required Jews in Vatican controlled lands to wear badges, and be confined to ghettos. Over 3,000 people were crammed into about 8 acres of land. The public health problems were horrendous.
1648-9: Massacres of Jews occurred in Nemirov, Polonnoye, Tulchin,  Volhynia, Bar, Lvov, and other cities in Ukraine. About 100,000 Jews were murdered and 300 communities destroyed.

Thousands of Jewish people killed during the Crusades, Pogroms and Inquistions, were those who kept the commandments of God and had the testimony of the Messiah.
Many were killed for simply keeping the 4th commandment, or for not eating swine.
Link Posted: 7/21/2017 4:57:59 PM EDT
[#40]
Link Posted: 7/22/2017 1:02:11 AM EDT
[#41]
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Quoted:



So you are saying the Apostles and the Church Fathers are wrong. But, you are right? You, 2,000 yrs after? But the contempories of The Apostle John are wrong?

Interesting.
View Quote
Exactly......Because Jesus never preached it. Doesn't matter what I think. You can believe it. It will not save you, or probably damn you either. But at least once a week or so, you will take it "In remembrance" of Christ. Luke. 22
1Peter1:24,25
Link Posted: 7/22/2017 8:04:05 PM EDT
[#42]
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Quoted:
Exactly......Because Jesus never preached it. Doesn't matter what I think. You can believe it. It will not save you, or probably damn you either. But at least once a week or so, you will take it "In remembrance" of Christ. Luke. 22
1Peter1:24,25
View Quote View All Quotes
View All Quotes
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Quoted:
Quoted:



So you are saying the Apostles and the Church Fathers are wrong. But, you are right? You, 2,000 yrs after? But the contempories of The Apostle John are wrong?

Interesting.
Exactly......Because Jesus never preached it. Doesn't matter what I think. You can believe it. It will not save you, or probably damn you either. But at least once a week or so, you will take it "In remembrance" of Christ. Luke. 22
1Peter1:24,25
"Jesus never preached it"

So, don't pay attention to 80% of the Bible. You don't make any sense.

Go on believing only the few things you want to believe. I will pray for your  lukewarm soul.
Link Posted: 7/23/2017 12:01:45 AM EDT
[#43]
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Quoted:
You sure you want to open that can of worms? Read up on Martin Luther and his views on the Jews.

Not that what the pope decreed is doctrine - I assume he wasn't speaking ex cathedra? [ETA] I looked up his Wikipedia entry, and there's no mention of him doing what you're saying. He echoed general anti-Jewish sentiment of the times, sure...

"At the Fourth Lateran Council, Innocent III and his prelates legislated against subordination of Christians to Jews. Canon 69 forbade "that Jews
be given preferment in public office since this offers them the pretext
to vent their wrath against the Christians." Canon 69 assumes that Jews blaspheme Christ, and therefore, as it would
be "too absurd for a blasphemer of Christ to exercise power over
Christians", Jews should not be appointed to public offices."
View Quote View All Quotes
View All Quotes
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Quoted:
Quoted:
On this day in 1205, Pope Innocent decreed that all Jews were to be considered doomed to servitude and subjugation, because of their involvement in the crucifixion. This remained Catholic doctrine until the 1960s.
Notice he didn't include Romans, who actually did the crucifixion, or even understand Scripture enough to know that our Messiah willingly gave up His life, at the direction of the Father, because of the sins of every single one of us, including Pope Innocent. He also didn't seem to believe the Messiah's prayer was answered, when He asked the Father to forgive them of their sin.

John 10:17 For this reason the Father loves Me, because I lay down My life so that I may take it again. 18 No one has taken it away from Me, but I lay it down on My own initiative. I have authority to lay it down, and I have authority to take it up again. This commandment I received from My Father.”
You sure you want to open that can of worms? Read up on Martin Luther and his views on the Jews.

Not that what the pope decreed is doctrine - I assume he wasn't speaking ex cathedra? [ETA] I looked up his Wikipedia entry, and there's no mention of him doing what you're saying. He echoed general anti-Jewish sentiment of the times, sure...

"At the Fourth Lateran Council, Innocent III and his prelates legislated against subordination of Christians to Jews. Canon 69 forbade "that Jews
be given preferment in public office since this offers them the pretext
to vent their wrath against the Christians." Canon 69 assumes that Jews blaspheme Christ, and therefore, as it would
be "too absurd for a blasphemer of Christ to exercise power over
Christians", Jews should not be appointed to public offices."
Ouch!
Link Posted: 7/23/2017 11:27:49 AM EDT
[#44]
Quoted:
One obstacle to Catholic-Protestant dialogue is that we don’t put equal weight to the testimony of the Church Fathers. If the earliest Christians univocally said that X or Y is true, we Catholics trust that it’s true, simply because the Holy Spirit would never let the entire Church fall into heresy, given that His perpetual task is to guide the Church into the fullness of truth forever (John 14:16, 16:13). Protestants can’t affirm this without affirming some very Catholic doctrines that were universally believed in the early Church, like the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist. That’s not to say Protestants give no weight to the Church Fathers – many do, although as with most doctrines, it’s impossible to speak of Protestants holding a single cohesive position on the question. But frequently, they will point out (quite correctly) that the Church Fathers aren’t individually infallible or inspired: they can, and do, make mistakes. So how can we put weight in their witness?
View Quote


I have to wonder if the author has ever thought about the Old Testament. If he had, he would realize the foolishness of this statement.
-Israel was rank with heresy before exiting the wilderness (Baalam, Golden Calf).
-The grandson of Moses started a false religion within the largest tribe before they even settled (Judges 18).
-The book of Judges is a roller coaster of Israel falling into false religion and interrupted by some judges who rose above.
-The books of the kings are a direct slide into false religion uninterrupted (for 10 tribes).
-The books of the kings are a direct slide into false religion interrupted by a few good kings (for 2 tribes).
-The only prophet that a majority of people listened to was in Assyria and preaching to Assyrians (Jonah), all of the other prophets were only effective at reaching a precious few.
-And the story of the kings ends with Israel in Babylon

And as Paul says, these are all examples (types) for us (1 Cor 10). He also says that God will send "great delusion", not "wimpy delusion" within the church ranks (2 Thess 2).


Regarding his verse citations,  simply read them:
-John 14:16 And I will ask the Father, and he will give you another Helper, to be with you forever,
-John 16:13 When the Spirit of truth comes, he will guide you into all the truth, for he will not speak on his own authority, but whatever he hears he will speak, and he will declare to you the things that are to come.

These are promises to the 12, not the church. (one of whom was Judas Iscariot)



After Paul and Peter died, the books of 1-3 John, and Jude are letters written trying to preserve the precious remnant as the wolves have already started ravaging the church. The best bet is to not put any weight on the early heretics, as the mystery of iniquity was firmly ensconced within the church.



(full disclosure, I protest a lot of the common doctrines between Catholics and Protestants also)
Link Posted: 7/24/2017 9:02:09 AM EDT
[#45]
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Quoted:
Uh, yeah, right....

Matthew 16:19 And I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt bind
on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose on
earth shall be loosed in heaven.

Link below should be palatable to every reasonable thinking Christian

Why Christians worship on Sunday

And for the Catholics and other interested parties

Speaking of non-biblical doctrines and 'traditions of men,' a short list copied from a rather well known letter:

Ageof Accountability
TotalDepravity of Man PersonalLord and Saviour AskJesus into your Heart TheRapture InvisibleChurch Foldingyour Hands, Bowing your Head PersonalRelationship with Christ” AcceptingChrist as Lord and Savior Enthroningthe Bible in your Heart Coveredwith the righteousness
of Christ”
LimitedAtonement Imputedrighteousness AltarCall Dedication;Rededication Givingyour Life to the Lord” RevivalInerrancyEternalSecurity Oncesaved, always saved”
View Quote
This.
Link Posted: 7/24/2017 9:53:33 AM EDT
[#46]
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Quoted:


At least quote the whole passage for context.



" 51 I am the living bread that came down from heaven. If anyone eats of this bread, he will live forever. And the bread that I will give for the life of the world is my flesh.”

If transubstantiation were true, then you could take the eucharist and never die, according to this verse that comes just before the ones you're quoting.  

I don't think Christ was advocating cannibalism.  Much like some of the jews, you're missing the point.

What he was alluding to, since his target audience was Jews who still made blood sacrifices, and he had not been crucified yet, was his upcoming death of his mortal body on the cross.  The ultimate sacrifice.  The reason for his coming.  It's our acceptance of his sacrifice, the shed blood and the death of the flesh, his propitiation (atonement) for our sin that gives us eternal life, in the spiritual sense.

Bottom line.  He had just fed the masses.  They came looking for him and he sees they're looking for another meal.  He tells them not to look for the food that perishes but the food that leads to eternal life.  I don't think he was talking about taking a bite of his arm.

35 Jesus said to them, “I am the bread of life; whoever comes to me shall not hunger, and whoever believes in me shall never thirst.

It's pretty clear he's talking about spiritual things and eternal life..

52 The Jews then disputed among themselves, saying, “How can this man give us his flesh to eat?” 53 So Jesus said to them, “Truly, truly, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you.

You see with the verse above right before your quote, he wasn't telling them to chow down on him. And he wasn't trying to tell them they needed to eat a wafer and drink wine, he was speaking to them about a larger picture.  Leaving them something they might not understand until his death, and resurrection unfolded.
View Quote
We believe that during the Eucharistic prayer in the same manner God humbled himself to become man, that the transubstantiation happens during the consecration of the Hosts and Wine. Please note.. note no where did Christ say, pretend or perform a simulation or "chow down on him"  He said THIS IS MY BREAD, THIS IS MY BLOOD He also said.. UNLESS YOU EAT OF THE FLESH OF THE SON AND DRINK HIS BLOOD ( you remove the divinity of the words being spoken). The God who created heaven and earth and became man in extraordinary ways can touch bread with his Sacred Hands and make the bread a form of Himself, He can take the Wine (knowing he was to be Crucified) and make it His blood. Don't let logic limit the divinity of Christ. Also remember after the crucifixion when Jesus walked among his own disciples the ONLY way they recognized Him in His divinity was through the Holy Eucharist in it's extraordinary form.  The human brain has limits and we don't understand the way of God.  I don't believe for two seconds that all I am receiving is a wafer and wine. I am in the presence of our Lord Christ and  I believe so much that it frightens me to receive unworthily.
Link Posted: 7/24/2017 10:11:58 AM EDT
[#47]
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Quoted:


I have what God gave man. A brain. "Do this in remembrance of me" Tells you it wasn't meant to mean it becomes his flesh. (yet I'm the one who picks and chooses) How strange of doctrine would it have been to the Jewish priest, to see a man say "do this in remembrance of me", when sacrifice(firstling of the flock, with out blemish etc) was to God. Yet there was a man telling his followers to do so!  Second, reason they would distance themselves, Jesus spoke in parables so that those seeing would not see. Those who did or might have taken it literally would also leave, like the unwise virgins. That is why they would not stay with him. John  6:63 "It is the spirit that quickeneth; the flesh profiteth nothing.." Lays it out pretty plainly. But those that follow him will take of bread and wine in remembering his Flesh and blood given for them. Not to them.  For what purpose would it serve, to actually  become "his flesh"? None. The other half of verse 63 makes it pretty plain what the "life' is really, 63....the words that I speak unto you(the two great commandments etc..) they are spirit, and they are life. His followers were to put off the natural man, the flesh. He was handing them bread and wine, not fillet of Jesus with a side of blood. It was the Jews and fools who thought he was preaching substantiation, who seeing, did not see. That he would die and be raised again.

And then yourself and TWIRE can just ignore the account in Luke somehow. He's giving them bread and wine for them to remember him for what he was about to do. If I'm on my death bed and give you my favorite AR and say "remember me Bro!" that AR isn't me......
Symbolism, there wasn't really twenty virgins. Bread and wine are bread and wine, it's what it represented. The Spirit, not the flesh...
View Quote
So your brain knows more than God? Should bend to your brain?  The words right before remembrance are THIS IS MY FLESH THIS IS MY BLOOD. UNLESS YOU EAT OF THE FLESH OF ... Pretty clear . Is it coincidence that the very first miracle Christ performed in his public life was to turn water into wine? We have to remember who said these words and the miracles he performed repeatedly. Why would this be any less miraculous? Because our logical brains say so? I'll pose this question. Does math really exist or did we make it up? Math is a useful concept but does it truly exist. The logical mind would say yes. But its contrived to organize things and in may ways it "makes sense". But scientists and mathematicians when faced with providing proof of existence can't do it. 
Link Posted: 7/27/2017 2:13:13 PM EDT
[#48]
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Quoted:

I have to wonder if the author has ever thought about the Old Testament. If he had, he would realize the foolishness of this statement.
-Israel was rank with heresy before exiting the wilderness (Baalam, Golden Calf).
-The grandson of Moses started a false religion within the largest tribe before they even settled (Judges 18).
-The book of Judges is a roller coaster of Israel falling into false religion and interrupted by some judges who rose above.
-The books of the kings are a direct slide into false religion uninterrupted (for 10 tribes).
-The books of the kings are a direct slide into false religion interrupted by a few good kings (for 2 tribes).
-The only prophet that a majority of people listened to was in Assyria and preaching to Assyrians (Jonah), all of the other prophets were only effective at reaching a precious few.
-And the story of the kings ends with Israel in Babylon

And as Paul says, these are all examples (types) for us (1 Cor 10). He also says that God will send "great delusion", not "wimpy delusion" within the church ranks (2 Thess 2).

Regarding his verse citations,  simply read them:
-John 14:16 And I will ask the Father, and he will give you another Helper, to be with you forever,
-John 16:13 When the Spirit of truth comes, he will guide you into all the truth, for he will not speak on his own authority, but whatever he hears he will speak, and he will declare to you the things that are to come.

These are promises to the 12, not the church. (one of whom was Judas Iscariot)

After Paul and Peter died, the books of 1-3 John, and Jude are letters written trying to preserve the precious remnant as the wolves have already started ravaging the church. The best bet is to not put any weight on the early heretics, as the mystery of iniquity was firmly ensconced within the church.

(full disclosure, I protest a lot of the common doctrines between Catholics and Protestants also)
View Quote
This post has bothered me for a while. You are comparing the Catholic Church, the historical church, with the nation of Israel. Clearly the Israelites and the Jews strayed from orthodoxy many times throughout the Old Testament as evidenced by the examples you cited. During any of those 'iniquities' did they ever lose their birthright? Were they ever NOT or NO LONGER the people of God? Did God rescind his promise to Abraham? To any particular Jews? To one tribe or another? To the nation? No. Never.

By the same token, the Church of history has weathered many heresies but has never lost the promise made by Jesus Christ in Matthew 16:18-19. To say otherwise is not biblical and refutes the very words of the savior.
'
Link Posted: 7/28/2017 2:59:09 PM EDT
[#49]
Link Posted: 7/28/2017 3:04:48 PM EDT
[#50]
Arrow Left Previous Page
Page / 2
Close Join Our Mail List to Stay Up To Date! Win a FREE Membership!

Sign up for the ARFCOM weekly newsletter and be entered to win a free ARFCOM membership. One new winner* is announced every week!

You will receive an email every Friday morning featuring the latest chatter from the hottest topics, breaking news surrounding legislation, as well as exclusive deals only available to ARFCOM email subscribers.


By signing up you agree to our User Agreement. *Must have a registered ARFCOM account to win.
Top Top