Roman priesthood invented a sacrifice for the Roman church

[Jude3b]

Qustion of the Mass: since the New Testament gives no instructions at all about the continuation of the Old Testament sacrifices, it seems it became necessary for the religious Roman priesthood to invent a new kind of sacrifice. Was this the reason they made a frivolus distinction between the "bloody" sacrifice of Christ on the cross, and the "unbloody" sacrifice which they pretend to offer in the mass?

[Jude3b]

Qustion of the Mass: since the New Testament gives no instructions at all about the continuation of the Old Testament sacrifices, it seems it became necessary for the religious Roman priesthood to invent a new kind of sacrifice. Was this the reason they made a frivolus distinction between the "bloody" sacrifice of Christ on the cross, and the "unbloody" sacrifice which they pretend to offer in the mass?

The Bible specifically states that the sacrifice of Jesus shedding His blood, need not be done daily:
"Who needeth not daily, as those high priests, to offer up sacrifice, first for his own sins, and then for the people's: for this he did once, when he offered up himself." (Hebrews 7:27)

[Joe Gofish]

Qustion of the Mass: since the New Testament gives no instructions at all about the continuation of the Old Testament sacrifices, it seems it became necessary for the religious Roman priesthood to invent a new kind of sacrifice. Was this the reason they made a frivolus distinction between the "bloody" sacrifice of Christ on the cross, and the "unbloody" sacrifice which they pretend to offer in the mass?
Jude 3 I was getting a little happy with you ,I was starting to think you had learn a little some thing and then you blow it again. PLEASE try doing your home.
Of all of the Catholic doctrines that are denigrated by Fundamentalists as unbiblical, the sacrifice of the Mass has perhaps the most scriptural evidence that Fundamentalists and Catholics are unaware of.

During the Last Supper, the Lord said to his disciples, "Do this in memory of me." In Greek, this statement reads, "Touto poieite eis tan eman anamnesin." There are two aspects of this phrase that deserve consideration. For one, the phrase touto poieite can be translated as do this or as offer this. In the Old Testament, God commands the Israelites "you shall offer (poieseis) upon the altar two lambs" (Ex. 29:38). This use of poiein is translated as offer this or sacrifice this over seventy times in the Old Testament. So the same word that is used for the sacrifice under the Old Covenant is used for the sacrifice of the Mass in the New.

The second key aspect of this phrase is Our Lord’s use of the word anamnesin. If you were to ask a Protestant to look in a Greek Translation of his Bible, every time this word (anamnesis) appears it is within a sacrificial context (see, for example, Numbers 10:10). It also can be translated as memorial offering or memorial sacrifice. While these nuances are lost in the English translation, Jewish ears would have understood the sacrificial meaning of Christ’s words.

Another New Testament passage that testifies to the sacrificial nature of the Mass is 1 Corinthians 10:14–21. Here Paul argues that participation in the Lord’s table means refusing to participate in the sacrifices of demons. Paul contrasts two groups: The first are those who participate in one altar (the table of demons), eating the sacrifice and drinking from the cup of demons. The second are those who partake of the table of the Lord (which, according to Malachi 1:7 is synonymous with an altar of sacrifice) and drink from the cup of the Lord. Paul’s argument is based upon the parallelism between the demonic sacrifice and the Christian sacrifice. Hebrews 13:10 follows this thought, saying that we have an altar from which those who serve the tent (Jewish priests serving in the temple) have no right to eat.

[Joe Gofish]

Jude 3 I was getting a little happy with you ,I was starting to think you had learn a little some thing and then you blow it again. PLEASE try doing your home.
Of all of the Catholic doctrines that are denigrated by Fundamentalists as unbiblical, the sacrifice of the Mass has perhaps the most scriptural evidence that Fundamentalists and Catholics are unaware of.

During the Last Supper, the Lord said to his disciples, "Do this in memory of me." In Greek, this statement reads, "Touto poieite eis tan eman anamnesin." There are two aspects of this phrase that deserve consideration. For one, the phrase touto poieite can be translated as do this or as offer this. In the Old Testament, God commands the Israelites "you shall offer (poieseis) upon the altar two lambs" (Ex. 29:38). This use of poiein is translated as offer this or sacrifice this over seventy times in the Old Testament. So the same word that is used for the sacrifice under the Old Covenant is used for the sacrifice of the Mass in the New.

The second key aspect of this phrase is Our Lord’s use of the word anamnesin. If you were to ask a Protestant to look in a Greek Translation of his Bible, every time this word (anamnesis) appears it is within a sacrificial context (see, for example, Numbers 10:10). It also can be translated as memorial offering or memorial sacrifice. While these nuances are lost in the English translation, Jewish ears would have understood the sacrificial meaning of Christ’s words.

Another New Testament passage that testifies to the sacrificial nature of the Mass is 1 Corinthians 10:14–21. Here Paul argues that participation in the Lord’s table means refusing to participate in the sacrifices of demons. Paul contrasts two groups: The first are those who participate in one altar (the table of demons), eating the sacrifice and drinking from the cup of demons. The second are those who partake of the table of the Lord (which, according to Malachi 1:7 is synonymous with an altar of sacrifice) and drink from the cup of the Lord. Paul’s argument is based upon the parallelism between the demonic sacrifice and the Christian sacrifice. Hebrews 13:10 follows this thought, saying that we have an altar from which those who serve the tent (Jewish priests serving in the temple) have no right to eat.

Jude3 Sorry for the TWO post but I need your help,Will you please give me the Chapter and verse from the Bible on these things.
Alter call
Songs then Sermon
SS or Bible alone

Being able to appoint the Pastor ( rather then a Pastor being appointed or by inheretance)
Take your time and do a little study B4 you answer,
Did you remember where the words for the Hail Mary are from,Keep looking in the Bible and you will see. Have a great day and you are still in my prayers.

[furay]

Jude 3 I was getting a little happy with you ,I was starting to think you had learn a little some thing and then you blow it again. PLEASE try doing your home.
Dude, he made this thread over a year ago.

[Cynic Sage]

Jude 3 I was getting a little happy with you ,I was starting to think you had learn a little some thing and then you blow it again. PLEASE try doing your home.
Of all of the Catholic doctrines that are denigrated by Fundamentalists as unbiblical, the sacrifice of the Mass has perhaps the most scriptural evidence that Fundamentalists and Catholics are unaware of.

During the Last Supper, the Lord said to his disciples, "Do this in memory of me." In Greek, this statement reads, "Touto poieite eis tan eman anamnesin." There are two aspects of this phrase that deserve consideration. For one, the phrase touto poieite can be translated as do this or as offer this. In the Old Testament, God commands the Israelites "you shall offer (poieseis) upon the altar two lambs" (Ex. 29:38). This use of poiein is translated as offer this or sacrifice this over seventy times in the Old Testament. So the same word that is used for the sacrifice under the Old Covenant is used for the sacrifice of the Mass in the New.

The second key aspect of this phrase is Our Lord’s use of the word anamnesin. If you were to ask a Protestant to look in a Greek Translation of his Bible, every time this word (anamnesis) appears it is within a sacrificial context (see, for example, Numbers 10:10). It also can be translated as memorial offering or memorial sacrifice. While these nuances are lost in the English translation, Jewish ears would have understood the sacrificial meaning of Christ’s words.

Another New Testament passage that testifies to the sacrificial nature of the Mass is 1 Corinthians 10:14–21. Here Paul argues that participation in the Lord’s table means refusing to participate in the sacrifices of demons. Paul contrasts two groups: The first are those who participate in one altar (the table of demons), eating the sacrifice and drinking from the cup of demons. The second are those who partake of the table of the Lord (which, according to Malachi 1:7 is synonymous with an altar of sacrifice) and drink from the cup of the Lord. Paul’s argument is based upon the parallelism between the demonic sacrifice and the Christian sacrifice. Hebrews 13:10 follows this thought, saying that we have an altar from which those who serve the tent (Jewish priests serving in the temple) have no right to eat.

Catholics don't believe that the Mass is an atoning sacrifice then?

[Kenite]

][QUOTE]In the Old Testament, God commands the Israelites "you shall offer (poieseis) upon the altar two lambs" (Ex. 29:38). So Moses spoke Greek?[/color]

[Krusader]

Catholics don't believe that the Mass is an atoning sacrifice then?

The RC Church teaches that the Mass offers up the atoning death of Christ in an ubloody manner, as satisfaction for sins.

[Amazing Rando]

[QUOTE=JOE GOFISH] So Moses spoke Greek?

In the Septuagint translation, he does!

[Alden]

[QUOTE=Kenite]

In the Septuagint translation, he does!
Joe, please don't encourage the anti-Catholic trolls:teeth:

[Kenite]

[QUOTE=Amazing Rando]
Joe, please don't encourage the anti-Catholic trolls:teeth:Troll = anyone who sees through a Catholic ploy.

[Jude3b]

The RC Church teaches that the Mass offers up the atoning death of Christ in an ubloody manner, as satisfaction for sins.

Dear Crusader:

You are absolutely correct. That is what the Roman Catholic Catechism says on Page 344, #1367

And according to the verse on page 343, # 1364 - "the work of our redemption is carried out...when the (Roman Catholic) Church celebrates the Eucharist."

What a difference from the Bible that reveals that redemption was a one time act which was completed when Jesus died on the cross. Praise the Lord we don't have to participate in any man made hocus pocus doctrines of Romanism - in order to be saved!

[Alden]

[QUOTE=Alden]Troll = anyone who sees through a Catholic ploy.

Yup, you caught me. That's exactly what it means. :ahem: :wink:

[Kenite]

[QUOTE=Kenite]

Yup, you caught me. That's exactly what it means. :ahem: :wink:And that's another Catholic ploy.

[{Tim}]

And that's another Catholic ploy.
Hmm. Sarcasm is of the Catholic Church, and was therefore invented by Satan. :ahem:

[Kenite]

Hmm. Sarcasm is of the Catholic Church, and was therefore invented by Satan. :ahem:This isn't sarcasm, though. It's just apparent sarcasm. A mirage, like Roman theology.

That's sarcasm.

[spl_cadet]

And according to the verse on page 343, # 1364 - "the work of our redemption is carried out...when the (Roman Catholic) Church celebrates the Eucharist."


Nice butchery of the quote. Here's the actual one:

1364 In the New Testament, the memorial takes on new meaning. When the Church celebrates the Eucharist, she commemorates Christ's Passover, and it is made present the sacrifice Christ offered once for all on the cross remains ever present. "As often as the sacrifice of the Cross by which 'Christ our Pasch has been sacrificed' is celebrated on the altar, the work of our redemption is carried out."

And here's a couple more:
1365 Because it is the memorial of Christ's Passover, the Eucharist is also a sacrifice. The sacrificial character of the Eucharist is manifested in the very words of institution: "This is my body which is given for you" and "This cup which is poured out for you is the New Covenant in my blood." In the Eucharist Christ gives us the very body which he gave up for us on the cross, the very blood which he "poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins."

1366 The Eucharist is thus a sacrifice because it re-presents (makes present) the sacrifice of the cross, because it is its memorial and because it applies its fruit:

[Christ], our Lord and God, was once and for all to offer himself to God the Father by his death on the altar of the cross, to accomplish there an everlasting redemption. But because his priesthood was not to end with his death, at the Last Supper "on the night when he was betrayed," [he wanted] to leave to his beloved spouse the Church a visible sacrifice (as the nature of man demands) by which the bloody sacrifice which he was to accomplish once for all on the cross would be re-presented, its memory perpetuated until the end of the world, and its salutary power be applied to the forgiveness of the sins we daily commit.

1367 The sacrifice of Christ and the sacrifice of the Eucharist are one single sacrifice: "The victim is one and the same: the same now offers through the ministry of priests, who then offered himself on the cross; only the manner of offering is different." "And since in this divine sacrifice which is celebrated in the Mass, the same Christ who offered himself once in a bloody manner on the altar of the cross is contained and is offered in an unbloody manner. . . this sacrifice is truly propitiatory."

[Cynic Sage]

Nice butchery of the quote. Here's the actual one:

1364 In the New Testament, the memorial takes on new meaning. When the Church celebrates the Eucharist, she commemorates Christ's Passover, and it is made present the sacrifice Christ offered once for all on the cross remains ever present. "As often as the sacrifice of the Cross by which 'Christ our Pasch has been sacrificed' is celebrated on the altar, the work of our redemption is carried out."

And here's a couple more:
1365 Because it is the memorial of Christ's Passover, the Eucharist is also a sacrifice. The sacrificial character of the Eucharist is manifested in the very words of institution: "This is my body which is given for you" and "This cup which is poured out for you is the New Covenant in my blood." In the Eucharist Christ gives us the very body which he gave up for us on the cross, the very blood which he "poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins."

1366 The Eucharist is thus a sacrifice because it re-presents (makes present) the sacrifice of the cross, because it is its memorial and because it applies its fruit:

[Christ], our Lord and God, was once and for all to offer himself to God the Father by his death on the altar of the cross, to accomplish there an everlasting redemption. But because his priesthood was not to end with his death, at the Last Supper "on the night when he was betrayed," [he wanted] to leave to his beloved spouse the Church a visible sacrifice (as the nature of man demands) by which the bloody sacrifice which he was to accomplish once for all on the cross would be re-presented, its memory perpetuated until the end of the world, and its salutary power be applied to the forgiveness of the sins we daily commit.

1367 The sacrifice of Christ and the sacrifice of the Eucharist are one single sacrifice: "The victim is one and the same: the same now offers through the ministry of priests, who then offered himself on the cross; only the manner of offering is different." "And since in this divine sacrifice which is celebrated in the Mass, the same Christ who offered himself once in a bloody manner on the altar of the cross is contained and is offered in an unbloody manner. . . this sacrifice is truly propitiatory."
Thanks for clearing that up.

[Jude3b]

When Jesus shed His blood, that one time act purchased eternal redemption for all who would put their fiath and trust in Christ alone:

"Neither by the blood of goats and calves, but by his own blood he (Jesus) entered in once into the holy place, having obtained eternal redemption for us." (Hebrews 9:12)

The Bible clearly shows that this sacrifice need not be done ever again.

[Alden]

When Jesus shed His blood, that one time act purchased eternal redemption for all who would put their fiath and trust in Christ alone:

"Neither by the blood of goats and calves, but by his own blood he (Jesus) entered in once into the holy place, having obtained eternal redemption for us." (Hebrews 9:12)

The Bible clearly shows that this sacrifice need not be done ever again.
"Unless you eat of my flesh and drink of my blood, you have no life in me"

where does the bible say "don't do the eucharist"?

[Alden]

[QUOTE=Alden]And that's another Catholic ploy.

:lol: That is actually pretty funny. Say, can you tell me where I can find a list of these "Catholic ploys"? I'm not Catholic, so I'm not familiar with them.

[Kenite]

[QUOTE]"Unless you eat of my flesh and drink of my blood, you have no life in me" When did Jesus say that?


where does the bible say "don't do the eucharist"? 'But because of his great love for us, God, who is rich in mercy, made us alive with Christ even when we were dead in transgressions- it is by grace you have been saved. And God raised us up with Christ and seated us with him in the heavenly realms in Christ Jesus.' (Eph 2:4-6 NIV)

But not Catholic cultists. They go back to being unsaved every time they go to mass, so they can kill Christ again.

[Kenite]

[QUOTE=Kenite]

[QUOTE]:lol: That is actually pretty funny. And another.

[Amazing Rando]

"Unless you eat of my flesh and drink of my blood, you have no life in me"
When did Jesus say that?



53Jesus said to them, "I tell you the truth, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you. 54Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day. 55For my flesh is real food and my blood is real drink. 56Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood remains in me, and I in him. 57Just as the living Father sent me and I live because of the Father, so the one who feeds on me will live because of me. 58This is the bread that came down from heaven. Your forefathers ate manna and died, but he who feeds on this bread will live forever."

[Kenite]

[QUOTE]John 6So that was before the Last Supper! Ah! He can't have meant the Lord's Supper, then.

[Amazing Rando]

John 6So that was before the Last Supper! Ah! He can't have meant the Lord's Supper, then.

Certainly... so he must have been talking about gnawing off his arm then. Unless his disciples were to sieze him and gnaw his arms off, they would have no life in them.

[Kenite]

Certainly... so he must have been talking about gnawing off his arm then. Unless his disciples were to sieze him and gnaw his arms off, they would have no life in them.You've got it. So either the Roman farce follows disciples who were intending cannibalism, or there was a spiritual meaning to 'bread'.

Now that's a bit scary, eh?

[spl_cadet]

The Bible clearly shows that this sacrifice need not be done ever again.

It isn't ever done again.



So that was before the Last Supper! Ah! He can't have meant the Lord's Supper, then.

Why not?

[Kenite]

[QUOTE]It isn't ever done again.Then it must be a pagan sacrifice. Though the reality is that there is no sacrifice whatever.


Why not? :smile:

[spl_cadet]

Then it must be a pagan sacrifice. Though the reality is that there is no sacrifice whatever.

Or it is the same sacrifice as Calvary and that is presented in Heaven, made present here on Earth.

[Kenite]

[QUOTE]Or it is the same sacrifice as Calvary A man waving a piece of bread is Jesus dying on the cross? It's not even a sacrifice.

[spl_cadet]

You're not worth wasting my time on anymore.

[Kenite]

You're not worth wasting my time on anymore.:smile: You don't have an answer.

[Jude3b]

"Unless you eat of my flesh and drink of my blood, you have no life in me"

where does the bible say "don't do the eucharist"?



Dear Alden:

Though the one verse your Roman Catholic church loves to quote in support of the concept of the "Eucharist" and I'll admit this one verse does appear to teach such a cannibalistic idea, if you read the entire passage in context, the meaning becomes clear. Right before making the statement that Rome loves - John 6:53-54, Jesus said this verse that most Romanists ignore:

"...For the bread of God is he which cometh down from heaven, and giveth life unto the world. Then said they unto him, Lord, evermore give us this bread. And Jesus said unto them, I am the bread of life: he that cometh to me shall never hunger; and he that believeth on me shall never thirst." (John 6:33-35).

This teaching is consistent with the rest of Holy Scripture. Eternal life comes through believing in Jesus Christ, not eating His body.

[Kenite]

[QUOTE]Eternal life comes through believing in Jesus Christ, not eating His body.Some people became preposterous in order to avoid submission to the Holy Spirit.

[Alden]

[QUOTE=Jude3b] Some people became preposterous in order to avoid submission to the Holy Spirit.

Crackers, baby! Crackers! :lol: Ah, the smell of irony. :teeth:

[Alden]

The question of "where in the bible does it say: 'don't do the Eucharist, has yet to be answered.


Dear Alden:


Though the one verse your Roman Catholic church

Brother Jude:

Hyperbolic as usual. First of all, "your Roman Catholic church" is inaccurate, although I cannot say that I am surprised yet another of numerous errors. I profess the creed of Nicea. I believe in "one holy Catholic and Apostolic Church". I believe in the Church of the Disciples. The Church that suffered, was persecuted, and fought for the faith. So yes, I am "Catholic", but not Roman. It is no small pity that your Romophobia prevents you from making any distinctions.


...loves to quote in support of the concept of the "Eucharist" and I'll admit this one verse does appear to teach such a cannibalistic idea, if you read the entire passage in context, the meaning becomes clear. Right before making the statement that Rome loves - John 6:53-54, Jesus said this verse that most Romanists ignore:

"Cannibalistic idea"? This statement finds you misrepresenting the holy Eucharist and the church, in much the same way as the early opponents of the church. This is the same teaching of the pagans against the Church that St Justin Martyr responded to with "The First Apology of Justin, the Martyr" in 150 AD.

66. This food we call Eucharist, of which no one is allowed to partake except one who believes that the things we teach are true, and has received the washing for forgiveness of sins and for rebirth, and who lives as Christ handed down to us. For we do not receive these things as common bread or common drink; but as Jesus Christ our Savior being incarnate by God's word took flesh and blood for our salvation, so also we have been taught that the food consecrated by the word of prayer which comes from him, from which our flesh and blood are nourished by transformation, is the flesh and blood of that incarnate Jesus.[1] For the apostles in the memoirs composed by them, which are called Gospels, thus handed down what was commanded them: that Jesus, taking bread and having given thanks, said, "Do this for my memorial, this is my body"; and likewise taking the cup and giving thanks he said, "This is my blood"; and gave it to them alone.

http://www.ccel.org/ccel/richardson/fathers.htm (section #286)


Jude, you take issue with the teaching and practice of the early church. You take issue with the teaching of the apostles.

Instead of asking "are these early Christians in my church?", why don't you start asking if you are in theirs.

"We do not receive these things as common bread or common drink; but as Jesus Christ our Savior being incarnate by God's word took flesh and blood for our salvation."

The Eucharist is not merely symbolic. Do you think that people would become gravely ill for taking a symbol in a manner in which they were not supposed to? This is a question that I would like you to answer.




"...For the bread of God is he which cometh down from heaven, and giveth life unto the world. Then said they unto him, Lord, evermore give us this bread. And Jesus said unto them, I am the bread of life: he that cometh to me shall never hunger; and he that believeth on me shall never thirst." (John 6:33-35).

Glory be to the Father, the Son, and Holy Spirit, both now and ever, and unto ages of ages. Amen!


This teaching is consistent with the rest of Holy Scripture. Eternal life comes through believing in Jesus Christ, not eating His body.

It's not an either/or type thing here Jude. Your reasoning is unfortunately off the mark.

Let's look at more John 6, more than just 33-35, or 53-54.


"48 I am the bread of life. 49 Your fathers ate the manna in the wilderness, and are dead. 50 This is the bread which comes down from heaven, that one may eat of it and not die. 51 I am the living bread which came down from heaven. If anyone eats of this bread, he will live forever; and the bread that I shall give is My flesh, which I shall give for the life of the world.”

The people took issue with this, much as you do.


52 The Jews therefore quarreled among themselves, saying, “How can this Man give us His flesh to eat?”
53 Then Jesus said to them, “Most assuredly, 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 eats My flesh and drinks My blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day. 55 For My flesh is food indeed,[h] and My blood is drink indeed. 56 He who eats 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 he who feeds on Me will live because of Me. 58 This is the bread which came down from heaven—not as your fathers ate the manna, and are dead. He who eats this bread will live forever.”

This has always been a hard thing for people to accept and understand. You are not alone, even many of his disciples left him.

Jesus makes yet more clear and unambiguous statements in 1 Cor 11:23-25


23 For I received from the Lord that which I also delivered to you: that the Lord Jesus on the same night in which He was betrayed took bread; 24 and when He had given thanks, He broke it and said, “Take, eat;[a] this is My body which is broken[b] for you; do this in remembrance of Me.” 25 In the same manner He also took the cup after supper, saying, “This cup is the new covenant in My blood. This do, as often as you drink it, in remembrance of Me.”

Here he takes ordinary bread and wine and proclaims them to be His body and blood. How? We don't know, as it is a blessed mystery. It is because He says it is. Who are we to dispute HIM?

To summarize a few things:

(1) Jesus said, "This is My body...this is My blood." (Luke 22:19). There is no statement that these are merely symbolic things. At no time, historically speaking, did the Church believe that they were symbols.

(2) In the New Testament, those who receive Christ's Body and Blood unworthily bring condemnation upon themselves. "For this reason many are weak and sick among you, and many sleep" (literally, "are dead"; 1 Cor. 11:30) To quote Drs. Jack Sparks, Norman Allen, and Michael Najim (eds.), "a mere symbol, a quarterly reminder, could hardly have the power to cause sickness and death!"

In the verses preceding 11:30 (just to provide yet more context for you), Paul says


26 For as often as you eat this bread and drink this cup, you proclaim the Lord’s death till He comes.

27 Therefore whoever eats this bread or drinks this cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty of the body and blood of the Lord. 28 But let a man examine himself, and so let him eat of the bread and drink of the cup. 29 For he who eats and drinks in an unworthy manner eats and drinks judgment to himself, not discerning the Lord’s body.

Why would Paul be concerned with taking "in an unworthy manner" that which you have declared all but meaningless? I would really like to hear an answer to this, and all of the previous, questions put before you. We prepare for the Eucharist by examining ourselves (v. 28), as Paul says, so that we are not bringing judgment upon ourselves. How does something that is a mere symbol, something created at the whim of man, bring judgment? One again, were is it ever relegated to that position in which it finds itself in your eyes Jude?


The bread and wine are changed into the body and blood of Christ by His word, by which all things were made.

If the Lord can make the heavens and earth by speaking them into existence, could not Christ, of one essence with the father, change bread and wine into body and blood with His words?

The sacrifice of Christ's body and blood every Sunday during the Divine Liturgy are not new sacrifices, offered in the manner of the Old Testament Mosaic Law. We "continue to offer one and the same sacrifice in every place throughout the world until the end of time, because there is only one sacrifice that was offered for us all, the sacrifice of Jesus Christ our Lord, who suffered death on the Cross for our sake. "By a single offering He has perfected His work for all time in those who are sanctified" (Heb. 10:14). (Anne Field, "From Darkness to Light").

Alden

[Kenite]

[QUOTE=Kenite][QUOTE]Crackers, baby!How ironic. Eating a 'holy' cracker has some spiritual challenge, whereas working out one's faith in fear and trembling does not.

[Jezz]

How ironic. Eating a 'holy' cracker has some spiritual challenge, whereas working out one's faith in fear and trembling does not.
Why must the two be different? When I approach to partake of the Holy Eucharist, it is with fear and trembling.

[Kenite]

Why must the two be different? When I approach to partake of the Holy Eucharist, it is with fear and trembling.I can't imagine why.

[Alden]

[QUOTE=Alden][QUOTE=Kenite]How ironic. Eating a 'holy' cracker has some spiritual challenge, whereas working out one's faith in fear and trembling does not.

I'm going to ditto Jezz's statement. Care to respond to my other post in any kind of meaningful way?

[Kenite]

[QUOTE=Kenite][QUOTE=Alden][QUOTE]I'm going to ditto Jezz's statement. Then I'll make the same reply.


Care to respond to my other post in any kind of meaningful way? I haven't got round to reading it all, being somewhat busy at present. But the fact that Jesus spoke of his body being food well before anyone could have known about the last supper means either that he intended cannibalism, which is preposterous, or that he intended a spiritual meaning, which is 100% in line with all his metaphors about food, water, etc. This a lie that can only have ever taken root in an atmosphere of total ignorance (forced, in this case) and wishful thinking; confirmation that the darkness hates the light, and that the great majority of humanity will justly be destroyed.

[Kenite]

[QUOTE]This is the same teaching of the pagans against the Church that St Justin Martyr responded to with "The First Apology of Justin, the Martyr" in 150 AD. 'Keep watch over yourselves and all the flock of which the Holy Spirit has made you overseers. Be shepherds of the church of God, which he bought with his own blood. I know that after I leave, savage wolves will come in among you and will not spare the flock. Even from your own number men will arise and distort the truth in order to draw away disciples after them. So be on your guard! Remember that for three years I never stopped warning each of you night and day with tears.' (Acts 20:28-31 NIV)

In view of the above, all Catholic and Orthodox teachers must be categorised as rank and absurd heretics. There is no other possibility. Sola Scriptura is not just desirable; anything else is punishable with eternal fire.

[Jezz]

I can't imagine why.
You will be ever hearing but never understanding;
you will be ever hearing but never perceiving.

(Is 6:9, Matt 13:14, Mark 4:12, Acts 28:26)

I pray that God will open your heart and mind, so that one day you will be able to imagine why.

[Kenite]

You will be ever hearing but never understanding;
you will be ever hearing but never perceiving.

(Is 6:9, Matt 13:14, Mark 4:12, Acts 28:26)

I pray that God will open your heart and mind, so that one day you will be able to imagine why.Can your god not supply us all with a reason? What is so nerve-racking about eating? Most people have no difficulty with it at all. Are Catholic anorexics or something? Or are they nervous about cannibalism?

[Jezz]

Can your god not supply us all with a reason?
If you have a different God to me, then you have a false god.

Of course He can supply us with a reason - he already has. Those who have ears to hear it, will hear it.


What is so nerve-racking about eating? Most people have no difficulty with it at all.
That depends on what you're eating, doesn't it? Would you approach your food with trepidation if it were puffer fish, for example? Knowing that if you didn't quite eat it properly, you might die? I think you would.

When we approach the Eucharist, it is not merely our life that is at stake - it is our soul. As St Paul tells us, whoever eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty of sinning against the body and blood of the Lord, and whoever eats and drinks without recognising the body of the Lord eats and drinks judgment on himself. (1 Cor 11:27,29).

If the possibility of sinning against the Lord or bringing His judgment upon you does not strike fear and awe into your heart, you are either arrogantly sure of your own worthiness, or a fool. Or perhaps both. This is no ordinary meal that we are talking about here, and the fact that you would compare it to an ordinary meal "which most people do not find nerve-racking to eat" only shows that you are failing to discern the body of the Lord.

[Kenite]

[QUOTE] When we approach the Eucharist, it is not merely our life that is at stake - it is our soul. As St Paul tells us, whoever eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty of sinning against the body and blood of the Lord, and whoever eats and drinks without recognising the body of the Lord eats and drinks judgment on himself. (1 Cor 11:27,29).Why did he make that warning?

Do Catholics have much trepidation about any other sort of sin, even if there is the merest grain of truth in what you say? Do Catholics ever have much trepidation about anything, unless it is the sound of the true gospel?

I haven't noticed it, ever!


This is no ordinary meal that we are talking about hereCould anyone possibly take a Roman mass as being a meal?

[adopted heir]

[QUOTE=Jezz]Why did he make that warning?

Do Catholics have much trepidation about any other sort of sin, even if there is the merest grain of truth in what you say? Do Catholics ever have much trepidation about anything, unless it is the sound of the true gospel?

I haven't noticed it, ever!

Could anyone possibly take a Roman mass as being a meal?
You seem to be just about the most obstinate, argumentative, narrow-minded and prejudiced person I've seen around here. Congratulations, you're one of the insidious three. Mass derives its basic form from the Jewish Passover, being as Christ is the ultimate Passover Lamb, offered for our cleansing. So the Eucharist itself isn't necessarily the ordinary "meal," but its roots are in a feast. Besides that, the heart of the Eucharist is that those who partake of it will never hunger but have everlasting life with the Lamb.

Nevermind that all this has been addressed already, in a different thread. I think someone just likes to try to keep bringing up the same issues in different places, making it look like the questions haven't been answered, when I'd be willing to bet a dollar that the Eucharist issue has been dealt with exhaustively at the very least twice.

Again, it's not a new sacrifice, but the same Eternal Sacrifice made present. It's not cannibalism because the substance remain in the likenesses of bread and wine but are in truth the body and blood of Christ in unbloody form, and not until 1500 years after Christ did anyone, ANYONE get the idea that anything was symbolic; certainly not the people present when Christ said the words.

[Kenite]

[QUOTE]the Eucharist itself isn't necessarily the ordinary "meal," 1 Cor 11:27,29. Why did Paul make that warning?

[Jude3b]

Concerning the misinterpretations about John 6:53 & 54 by Romanism and some TWEBers: Nowhere else in the Bible does God endorse cannibalism. In fact, God forbids the practice:

"But flesh with the life thereof, which is the blood thereof, shall ye not eat." (Gen. 9:4)

"...No soul of you shall eat blood, neither shall any stranger that sojourneth among you eat blood." (Lev. 17:12)

God would never command His children to do something He had already forbidden.

THE REAL BIBLICAL PURPOSE:

Paul's instructions in I Cor. 11 shed the necessary light on this matter:

"For I have received of the Lord that which also I delivered unto you, That the Lord Jesus the same night in which he was betrayed took bread: and when He had given thanks, He brake it, and said, Take, eat: this is my body, which is broken for you: this DO IN REMEMBRANCE OF ME." (I Cor. 11:23-24).

When Jesus said, "Take, eat: this is my body," He was not suggesting that they reach out and begin eating His literal body. To even suggest such is ridiculous. He was speaking spiritually about what He was about to accomplish on the cross.

Notice how that verse ends: "...this do in remembrance of me." Observing the Lord's Supper is a remembrance of Christ's work at Calvary, not a reenactment. The same is true of Christ's blood:

"After the same manner He took the cup, when He had supped, saying, This cup is the new testament in my blood: this do ye, as oft as ye drink it, in remembrance of me." (I Cor. 11:25).

Jesus Himself taught the same lesson to his disciples at the Last Supper: "And He (Jesus) took bread, and gave thanks, and brake it, and gave unto them, saying, This is my body which is given for you: THIS DO IN REMEMBRANCE of me." (Luke 22:19).

Dear Roman Catholics reading this: Why would the Roman Catholic church rather have you eating God than placing your faith in Him?

[spl_cadet]

Nowhere else in the Bible does God endorse cannibalism. In fact, God forbids the practice:

"But flesh with the life thereof, which is the blood thereof, shall ye not eat." (Gen. 9:4)

"...No soul of you shall eat blood, neither shall any stranger that sojourneth among you eat blood." (Lev. 17:12)

God would never command His children to do something He had already forbidden.


Except that those verses aren't talking about cannibalism, but eating something with the blood still in it. To be fair, you must also condemn rare steaks, duck blood soup, blüdwurst, and black pudding as immoral. Furthermore, I could've sworn that we weren't under the Law of Moses anymore.

[Jude3b]

Except that those verses aren't talking about cannibalism, but eating something with the blood still in it. To be fair, you must also condemn rare steaks, duck blood soup, blüdwurst, and black pudding as immoral. Furthermore, I could've sworn that we weren't under the Law of Moses anymore.


Dear spl_cadet:

You must be right about the Law of Moses. No one is under the Law of Moses now, because we are all supposed to be under the Law of Romanism now!

On a more serious note, to address your post theologically:

Genesis 9:4: "But flesh with the life thereof, which is the blood thereof, shall ye not eat."

THE BLOOD THEREOF: The profoundly scientific truth that "the life of the flesh is in the blood" (Leviticus 17:11) is here mentioned in the Bible for the first time. This verse is not part of the "Law of Moses," but rather part of the Edenic mandate and the Noahic covenant. This, as well as the other principles of the Edenic mandate and the Noahic covenant, is still in effect and should be observed by Christians especially.

The blood, both in symbol and in reality, is "the life of the flesh." Thus, it is appropriate to offer in sacrifice (until the offering of Christ) but never to consume, either as food or as a religious ritual - as is done today in Romanism.

Please note that Blood sacrifices became obsolete with Christ's death and resurrection, for He "put away sin by the sacrifice of himself" (Hebrews 9:26) and then was "raised again for our justification" (Romans 4:25).

[Jezz]

Why did he make that warning?
In the context of our discussion, does it matter why?

You originally asked: "What is so nerve-racking about eating? Most people have no difficulty with it at all."

I answered by giving the example from 1 Corinthians, where people who ate it unworthily got ill. Do you not think that this is a good reason to be nervous about eating the Eucharist?


Do Catholics have much trepidation about any other sort of sin, even if there is the merest grain of truth in what you say? Do Catholics ever have much trepidation about anything, unless it is the sound of the true gospel?

Well, I can't speak for every other Catholic, but this Catholic certainly has trepidation about all kinds of sin. Which is the main reason I approach the Eucharist with trepidation and fear about my worthiness.

(Btw, although I'm Catholic, I'm not Roman Catholic - in case you were wondering.)


I haven't noticed it, ever!
You will be ever hearing but never understanding;
you will be ever hearing but never perceiving.

I pray that God will open your heart and mind, so that one day you will notice.


Could anyone possibly take a Roman mass as being a meal?
:shrug: I can certainly see why the carnally minded, soulish person would not take the Eucharist to be a meal. Only the spiritually minded consider it to be a meal.

[Kenite]

[QUOTE]In the context of our discussion, does it matter why?Do Catholics not like to put Scripture into context? Did you not quote Scripture? Are Catholic arguments to be given immunity from scrutiny? Can you demonstrate, Jezz, that Catholicism can survive without the advantages of force majeure, ignorance and superstition?

For the third time, why did Paul make that warning?

[adopted heir]

[QUOTE=adopted heir]1 Cor 11:27,29. Why did Paul make that warning?
27Therefore, whoever eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty of sinning against the body and blood of the Lord. 28A man ought to examine himself before he eats of the bread and drinks of the cup. 29For anyone who eats and drinks without recognizing the body of the Lord eats and drinks judgment on himself.

Why did Paul make this warning? Because he realized the potency of the Eucharist; he would have had no reason whatsoever to make a warning about it if it were just symbolic, if it weren't literally the body and blood of our Lord. He made this warning because taking the Eucharist inappropriately would be to profane God and very well could and did cause sickness and death in the offenders. His point wasn't that if you eat too much and drink all the wine, your innards will swell and explode, but that taking the Eucharist unworthily is blasphemy and punishable by death by God's doing.

And for the umpteenth time, IT DOESN'T QUALIFY AS CANNIBALISM. This is one of the oldest complaints against Christianity by pagans, and not put forth by "Christians" until immediately before the Reformation. IT IS NOT CANNIBALISM because God has changed the substance to the blood and body of Christ, but has granted the appearance of wine and bread to remain, so we would not be cannibals. It is a holy mystery as to how it is done; that's God's business. How did Jesus heal the sick? How did Jesus rise from the dead? We don't know the hows of those things--they are also holy mysteries. We don't know how God did it, only that He did it.

[Kenite]

[QUOTE=Kenite][QUOTE]Why did Paul make this warning? Because he realized the potency of the EucharistWrong. Do try again.

[adopted heir]

[QUOTE=adopted heir][QUOTE=Kenite]Wrong. Do try again.
please reread, all of it. keeping holy the name of God extends further than just cursing--if it's blasphemy to misuse his name, it is also to misuse his body, in whatever form it is in, living, dead, risen, or transubstantiated. paul knew this. so he warned people not to blaspheme the blood and body of our Lord.

how about you tell me, a) why was that wrong? and b) why, since you seem to know, did paul make the warning? or is that like the bible's appendix, it's there but completely useless and can be chopped out? are there any other passages like that, that can be ignored or dispatched with?

[Kenite]

[QUOTE]please rereadThat won't make it a correct answer. Quote Paul's reason, don't give your own.

[adopted heir]

[QUOTE=adopted heir]That won't make it a correct answer. Quote Paul's reason, don't give your own.
oh for pete's sake! i showed the whole verse! here, again, for the last time and after this you can think of a creative place to forcibly insert your antagonism: 29For anyone who eats and drinks without recognizing the body of the Lord eats and drinks judgment on himself.
29For anyone who eats and drinks without recognizing the body of the Lord eats and drinks judgment on himself.
29For anyone who eats and drinks without recognizing the body of the Lord eats and drinks judgment on himself.

[Kenite]

[QUOTE]I showed the whole verse!
Not the ones that give the reason for Paul writing his warning.

[Alden]

[QUOTE=adopted heir]
Not the ones that give the reason for Paul writing his warning.
A Heir, you won't get any kind of meaningful dialogue here,


Jude3b--

I have asked you specific questions. You have failed to answer them, except with more of your blind "I hate Catholic stuff" rantings. Please answer the questions. Those are the sentences with the "?" thingy at the end of them. I'll be back sometime on Friday to check in on this thread. Please show us that your person is not forfeit, and that you are capable of rational thought and cogent discussion.

[Jezz]

[QUOTE=Jezz]Do Catholics not like to put Scripture into context? Did you not quote Scripture? Are Catholic arguments to be given immunity from scrutiny? Can you demonstrate, Jezz, that Catholicism can survive without the advantages of force majeure, ignorance and superstition?
I looked hard, but I did not find an argument there. Just a(nother) rant.


For the third time, why did Paul make that warning?
This is not the third time that you have asked me this question. It is the second. The other time, you asked nobody in particular.

In answer to your question: because if you eat the body and blood unworthily, you can get sick. St Paul did not want the Corinthians to get sick, so he warned them not to eat unworthily (as they had been).

Now perhaps you might like to answer my question (unlikely, seeing as how you haven't answered any of them so far): Do you not agree that one should approach the Eucharist with fear and trembling?

[VFarris01]

In answer to your question: because if you eat the body and blood unworthily, you can get sick. St Paul did not want the Corinthians to get sick, so he warned them not to eat unworthily (as they had been).I believe (and it is borne by the context) 1 Corinthians 11:30 is about spiritual sickness? Where does Paul say they will physically "get sick?"

[Kenite]

[QUOTE]if you eat the body and blood unworthily, you can get sick. Is that the only reason he gave?

[Jude3b]

[QUOTE=Kenite]
A Heir, you won't get any kind of meaningful dialogue here,


Jude3b--

I have asked you specific questions. You have failed to answer them, except with more of your blind "I hate Catholic stuff" rantings. Please answer the questions. Those are the sentences with the "?" thingy at the end of them. I'll be back sometime on Friday to check in on this thread. Please show us that your person is not forfeit, and that you are capable of rational thought and cogent discussion.


Post 34 was my answer to your question.

[Alden]

Post 34 was my answer to your question



Wrong, it was, as usual, no kind of answer.



Dear Alden:

Though the one verse your Roman Catholic church loves to quote in support of the concept of the "Eucharist" and I'll admit this one verse does appear to teach such a cannibalistic idea, if you read the entire passage in context, the meaning becomes clear. Right before making the statement that Rome loves - John 6:53-54, Jesus said this verse that most Romanists ignore:

"...For the bread of God is he which cometh down from heaven, and giveth life unto the world. Then said they unto him, Lord, evermore give us this bread. And Jesus said unto them, I am the bread of life: he that cometh to me shall never hunger; and he that believeth on me shall never thirst." (John 6:33-35).

This teaching is consistent with the rest of Holy Scripture. Eternal life comes through believing in Jesus Christ, not eating His body.

Again, where does it explicitly say "DON'T DO THE EUCHARIST"?

My response to 34 was in post 37. Please address the points and questions that I pose in 37. Once again, you have yet to engage in any kind of meaningful, two-way dialogue, instead egaging in your usual diatribes against "Romanism".

You have subjected more than a few patient people to your rants. Please. Grab a cup of coffee, take a deep breath, put your thinking cap on, and address 37.

[Jezz]

if you eat the body and blood unworthily, you can get sick.

Is that the only reason he gave?
Isn't this a good enough reason by itself to approach the Eucharist with fear and trembling?

Of course, there were other reasons:

1. Whoever eats unworthily will be guilty of sinning against the body and blood of the Lord.
2. Whoever eats and drinks without discerning the body of the Lord eats and drinks judgment on himself.

Any of these reasons is a good enough reason to approach the Eucharist with fear and trembling. The latter two more so, of course, but all three should strike fear into the hearts of any sinner who approaches the Eucharist.

So, for the fifth time, do you not acknowledge that one should approach the Eucharist with fear and trembling?

[Kenite]

[QUOTE]Isn't this a good enough reason by itself to approach the Eucharist with fear and trembling?Why is that no Catholic or Orthodox here will answer this question? That they apparently will not is of interest- great interest, I think.

[VFarris01]

Isn't this a good enough reason by itself to approach the Eucharist with fear and trembling?

Of course, there were other reasons:

1. Whoever eats unworthily will be guilty of sinning against the body and blood of the Lord.
2. Whoever eats and drinks without discerning the body of the Lord eats and drinks judgment on himself.

Any of these reasons is a good enough reason to approach the Eucharist with fear and trembling. The latter two more so, of course, but all three should strike fear into the hearts of any sinner who approaches the Eucharist.

So, for the fifth time, do you not acknowledge that one should approach the Eucharist with fear and trembling?Why should we be fearful of the judgement we mete out on ourselves?

[Jezz]

Why is that no Catholic or Orthodox here will answer this question? That they apparently will not is of interest- great interest, I think.
This is a lie. I have answered the question, on at least two occasions now. Which is more two more times than you've answered any of my questions.

Perhaps you disagree with my answer. Or perhaps you do not believe it to be a complete answer. Either way, this is not the same thing as not answering at all.

[Kenite]

[QUOTE]This is a lie. Is that the only reason Paul gave for his warning? Answer that, if you will.

[VFarris01]

This is a lie. I have answered the question, on at least two occasions now. Which is more two more times than you've answered any of my questions.Really? I disagree.


Perhaps you disagree with my answer. Or perhaps you do not believe it to be a complete answer. Either way, this is not the same thing as not answering at all.Perhaps you disagree with his answer. Or perhaps you do not believe it to be an answer. Either way, it is not the same thing as not answering at all.

Jezz, you need to hold yourself to the same standards to which you hold others.

Obviously, "Why should we be fearful of the judgement we mete out on ourselves?" applies only to you.

[adopted heir]

I believe (and it is borne by the context) 1 Corinthians 11:30 is about spiritual sickness? Where does Paul say they will physically "get sick?"
Well he does say that many of them died. Where is the spiritual context? Not argumentatively, but curiously--I can concede that misusing the Body of Christ will cause spiritual death, but even while I was a good Protestant I always understood that to mean physical sickness and death. (That was kind of curious to me then--why would there be so much danger if Christ wasn't really present in the Eucharist?) I don't think I've ever seen/read/heard anything to the effect that that was spiritual and not physical.

[adopted heir]

Really? I disagree.

Perhaps you disagree with his answer. Or perhaps you do not believe it to be an answer. Either way, it is not the same thing as not answering at all.

Jezz, you need to hold yourself to the same standards to which you hold others.

Obviously, "Why should we be fearful of the judgement we mete out on ourselves?" applies only to you.
OMG. What a ridiculous exchange of dweebyism. Not surprised to see VF get in on the action. Kenite, you question was answered. He answered it! I answered it! We both gave Paul's reasoning why one should not approach Eucharist lightly. Then we gave Paul's multiple reasons, like you asked, and Jezz was cool enough to get them straight from Scripture, of that same section, in the same context (being the right one). Either you skipped a lot of posts and just dropped your own antagonistic one at the end, or you're illiterate, which makes me awe at how you're typing posts anyway, unless you're dictating, in which case, Kenite's stenographer, please read to him the posts you've skipped over and save him the embarrassment of not seeing that his questions were indeed answered and that he indeed has answered no questions from anyone else. Bad stenographer!!

[adopted heir]

Well he does say that many of them died. Where is the spiritual context? Not argumentatively, but curiously--I can concede that misusing the Body of Christ will cause spiritual death, but even while I was a good Protestant I always understood that to mean physical sickness and death. (That was kind of curious to me then--why would there be so much danger if Christ wasn't really present in the Eucharist?) I don't think I've ever seen/read/heard anything to the effect that that was spiritual and not physical.
VF--I really would like to know where you got that. That's an interesting view.

[VFarris01]

I believe (and it is borne by the context) 1 Corinthians 11:30 is about spiritual sickness? Where does Paul say they will physically "get sick?"
Well he does say that many of them died.He does? The words are, ασθενής (G772, weak, feeble), άρρωστος (G732, without stength, sick), and κοιμάω (G2837, be still, sleep, die), which in this case (I believe) are being used metaphorically in light of Paul admonishing them for getting fat and drunk (or going hungry and staying sober)...

(20) Therefore when you come together into one place, this is not to eat the Lord's supper. (21) For in eating each one takes his own supper first; and one is hungry, and another drunken. (22) For do you not have houses in which to eat and drink? Or do you despise the church of God, and shame those who do not have? What shall I say to you? Shall I praise you for this? I do not praise you!
... unless the people of Corinth are getting sick/dying of malnutrition and/or alcohol poisoning.


Where is the spiritual context?Ah, all of it?


Not argumentatively, but curiously--Your "OMG" comment (to follow) would suggest your motives are otherwise.


I can concede that misusing the Body of Christ will cause spiritual death, but even while I was a good Protestant I always understood that to mean physical sickness and death. (That was kind of curious to me then--why would there be so much danger if Christ wasn't really present in the Eucharist?) I don't think I've ever seen/read/heard anything to the effect that that was spiritual and not physical.You should get out more or read with an open mind (one uncorrupted by the literal interpretation handed down to you; the catch-phrase is "think outside the box").


OMG. What a ridiculous exchange of dweebyism. Not surprised to see VF get in on the action.Why should I give my opinion when a reply such as this is awaiting my effort?


VF--I really would like to know where you got that. That's an interesting view.Your response to this post will be revealing of your true intent. Hopefully, the first three letters of your response will not be "OMG."

[Jude3b]

Wrong, it was, as usual, no kind of answer.



Again, where does it explicitly say "DON'T DO THE EUCHARIST"?

My response to 34 was in post 37. Please address the points and questions that I pose in 37. Once again, you have yet to engage in any kind of meaningful, two-way dialogue, instead egaging in your usual diatribes against "Romanism".

You have subjected more than a few patient people to your rants. Please. Grab a cup of coffee, take a deep breath, put your thinking cap on, and address 37.


Where does the Bible say "Do the Eucharist"?

[Alden]

Where does the Bible say "Do the Eucharist"?
Okay. Rather than repeat post 37, where I address the eucharist...


Please address the points and questions that I pose in 37. Once again, you have yet to engage in any kind of meaningful, two-way dialogue, instead egaging in your usual diatribes against "Romanism".

You have subjected more than a few patient people to your rants. Please. Grab a cup of coffee, take a deep breath, put your thinking cap on, and address 37.



Don't let me down Jude

[VFarris01]

Okay. Rather than repeat post 37, where I address the eucharist...Excerpts from post #37...


Hyperbolic as usual. First of all, "your Roman Catholic church" is inaccurate, although I cannot say that I am surprised yet another of numerous errors. I profess the creed of Nicea. I believe in "one holy Catholic and Apostolic Church". I believe in the Church of the Disciples. The Church that suffered, was persecuted, and fought for the faith. So yes, I am "Catholic", but not Roman. It is no small pity that your Romophobia prevents you from making any distinctions.Ah, bashing the RCC, the last acceptable -phobia (-ism).


"Cannibalistic idea"? This statement finds you misrepresenting the holy Eucharist and the church, in much the same way as the early opponents of the church. This is the same teaching of the pagans against the Church that St Justin Martyr responded to with "The First Apology of Justin, the Martyr" in 150 AD.JtM's opinion is no better than your... or mine. Since the so-called ECFs did not hold a universal opinion on much of anything, quoting them is a waste of space.


Jude, you take issue with the teaching and practice of the early church. You take issue with the teaching of the apostles.He does? How do you know what the Apostles taught? You were there I suppose.


The Eucharist is not merely symbolic. Do you think that people would become gravely ill for taking a symbol in a manner in which they were not supposed to? This is a question that I would like you to answer.The "thanksgiving meal" is absolutely and purely symbolic, anything otherwise is a perversion of "... do this in rememberance of me."

No one was actually and physically becoming sick and/or dying from this symbol; the Corinthians were spiritually sick and/or dead. One must take Paul's admonishing them for getting fat and drunk (or going hungry and staying sober) out of context... unless the people of Corinth are getting sick/dying of malnutrition and/or alcohol poisoning.


This teaching is consistent with the rest of Holy Scripture. Eternal life comes through believing in Jesus Christ, not eating His body.
It's not an either/or type thing here Jude. Your reasoning is unfortunately off the mark.After reading your exposition of John 6 it seems it is your reasoning which is "off the mark." (You did a nice job of "scripture mining" though.)

[Kenite]

[QUOTE]Kenite, you question was answered. He answered it! I answered it! We both gave Paul's reasoning why one should not approach Eucharist lightly. Not so. No-one has mentioned what occasioned Paul's warning in the first place. In an English comprehension test there would be no marks given here for this question.

[Jezz]

[QUOTE=Jezz] Is that the only reason Paul gave for his warning? Answer that, if you will.
I already did answer it, in post #67 (http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showthread.php?t=22946&page=5&pp=16#post1230941). I cut and paste it for your benefit:


Of course, there were other reasons:

1. Whoever eats unworthily will be guilty of sinning against the body and blood of the Lord.
2. Whoever eats and drinks without discerning the body of the Lord eats and drinks judgment on himself.

That makes at least three times I've answered your question. Now, let me repeat for the sixth time my question (which I also cut and paste from post 67), which you have failed to answer at all:

So, for the [sixth] time, do you not acknowledge that one should approach the Eucharist with fear and trembling?

Why is it that Kenite will not answer this question? That he apparently will not is of interest- great interest, I think.

[Kenite]

[QUOTE]I already did answer itWhat was it that caused Paul to write about this matter?

[VFarris01]

... do you not acknowledge that one should approach the Eucharist with fear and trembling?
Why is it that Kenite will not answer this question?I believe he has!


That he apparently will not is of interest- great interest, I think.How so? Only you seem interested in his "answer."

Perhaps you disagree with his answer. Or perhaps you do not believe it to be an answer. Either way, it is not the same thing as not answering at all.

Jezz, you need to hold yourself to the same standards to which you hold others.

However, I answered this question did I not? Why should anyone "approach the Eucharist with fear and trembling Jezz?" Is this the Gospel according to Jezz?

Why should we be fearful of the judgement we mete out on ourselves?

This is exactly why Paul's admonishment means spiritual sickness and/or death not literal sickness and/or death.

[adopted heir]

He does? The words are, ασθενής (G772, weak, feeble), άρρωστος (G732, without stength, sick), and κοιμάω (G2837, be still, sleep, die), which in this case (I believe) are being used metaphorically in light of Paul admonishing them for getting fat and drunk (or going hungry and staying sober)...

(20) Therefore when you come together into one place, this is not to eat the Lord's supper. (21) For in eating each one takes his own supper first; and one is hungry, and another drunken. (22) For do you not have houses in which to eat and drink? Or do you despise the church of God, and shame those who do not have? What shall I say to you? Shall I praise you for this? I do not praise you!
... unless the people of Corinth are getting sick/dying of malnutrition and/or alcohol poisoning.

Ah, all of it?

Your "OMG" comment (to follow) would suggest your motives are otherwise.

You should get out more or read with an open mind (one uncorrupted by the literal interpretation handed down to you; the catch-phrase is "think outside the box").

Why should I give my opinion when a reply such as this is awaiting my effort?

Your response to this post will be revealing of your true intent. Hopefully, the first three letters of your response will not be "OMG."

What's wrong with "OMG?"

A: You know, I can write two different posts in two different contexts. Especially since I first read your interpretation of the verse meaning spiritual and not physical sickness, and then later reading your disappointing banter, which seems to be your only consistency. So, when I try to give you a chance to actually answer a kind question asked out of the genuine desire to know, you respond, well, as you usually do, avoiding answering the question in favor of putting up some kind of irrational defense against who knows what.

B: I will give you that you made a partial answer, though I don't really see your line of deduction. I can see where you could get that, but not without reading with a lot more effort than I would think it'd take, that is, extrapolating a lot more than I think is evident in the verse. That's not to say I don't think spiritual sickness/death are included, but I would not, and had not ever thought it meant the exclusion of literal, bodily sickness and death, and I don't think it was because of my narrow-mindedness.

A: Can you tell me where my interpretation was handed down from? I mean, a: I do believe the Bible says what it means and means what it says, and doesn't require reading between the lines or trying to extrapolate metaphors where there are none. Are you telling me now to not believe the Bible? B: "Uncorrupted by the literal translation handed down to you." Handed down to me from where?! Who?! My brainwashing I mean Catholic upbringing? My Southern Baptist parents?

If the literal translation is corrupt, then what credence should I give the Bible at all? I don't think it was written to scholars and priests only, but that people should be able to get the message from it directly without having to invent interpretations unnecessarily. And I really would like for you to tell me how this corrupt interpretation was handed to me, from whom, and how the Gehenna would you know? If you can answer this then you may have some measure of credibility you can build upon. Otherwise, well, an old dog can't change his spots I guess.

[VFarris01]

A: You know, I can write two different posts in two different contexts.Good for you. Can you do either without being condescending?


Especially since I first read your interpretation of the verse meaning spiritual and not physical sickness, and then later reading your disappointing banter, which seems to be your only consistency.I guess not.


So, when I try to give you a chance to actually answer a kind question asked out of the genuine desire to know, you respond, well, as you usually do, avoiding answering the question in favor of putting up some kind of irrational defense against who knows what.You have no "genuine desire to know;" you have a genuine desire to berate whoever disagrees with you.


B: I will give you that you made a partial answer, though I don't really see your line of deduction.Perhaps you disagree with my answer. Or perhaps you do not believe it to be an answer. It is an answer; a complete answer.


I can see where you could get that, but not without reading with a lot more effort than I would think it'd take, that is, extrapolating a lot more than I think is evident in the verse.Well, which is it? Either you do not see my "line of deduction" or you do. It takes no extra effort to see the plain meaning of the text when viewed as a whole... especially when Paul talks about spritual gifts in the very next chapter.


That's not to say I don't think spiritual sickness/death are included, but I would not, and had not ever thought it meant the exclusion of literal, bodily sickness and death, and I don't think it was because of my narrow-mindedness.I do not recall calling you "narrow-minded;" I suggested you look at the verses with an open-mind. In doing so I see you were able to include spiritual sickness/death within the context... congratulations!

While I too can see physical sickness/death in Paul's statement, I do not believe this to be his intended meaning.


A: Can you tell me where my interpretation was handed down from? I mean, a: I do believe the Bible says what it means and means what it says, and doesn't require reading between the lines or trying to extrapolate metaphors where there are none.How do you know Paul's intending meaning is literal? Because it says what you want it to say? Because you were told the meaning is to be taken as literally? Because you are blind to any other interpretation?


Are you telling me now to not believe the Bible? B: "Uncorrupted by the literal translation handed down to you." Handed down to me from where?! Who?! My brainwashing I mean Catholic upbringing? My Southern Baptist parents?I am telling you not to believe everything your crutch has told you to believe.

I am also telling you not to believe everything I have told you I believe. Believe what you want.


If the literal translation is corrupt, then what credence should I give the Bible at all?The literal interpretation is not because the Bible is wrong... it is one of at least two interpretations.


I don't think it was written to scholars and priests only, but that people should be able to get the message from it directly without having to invent interpretations unnecessarily.Invent interpretations? See how many interpretations you can invent from John 6 (the only one without invention is one that is figurative).


And I really would like for you to tell me how this corrupt interpretation was handed to me, from whom, and how the Gehenna would you know?How the "Gehenna" would you know I am wrong? Because your crutch say I am? Please...


If you can answer this then you may have some measure of credibility you can build upon. Otherwise, well, an old dog can't change his spots I guess.My "credibility" is not the issue. Your "creditibility," however, is and will be judged on weather or not you can accept another equally plausible interpretation of 1 Corinthians 11:30.

[spl_cadet]

Good for you. Can you do either without being condescending?


Pot, meet kettle.

[VFarris01]

Good for you. Can you do either without being condescending?

Pot, meet kettle.Kettle, meet another Pot :lol:.

[adopted heir]

Pot, meet kettle.


Lol!! Awesome! :lol: :lmbo: Hello, Pot! Or as my friend Mr Mumbles says, that's the pet calling the poodle black.

[adopted heir]

WHAT CRUTCH???!!! What are you even talking about here?? Seriously, you're going to have to be a little specific with this. Maybe I'm dense, but does this crutch have a name, that talks to me so much? Just spill it! What are you talking about?
Good for you. Can you do either without being condescending?

Nope. Probably not. It's a lifelong struggle--it started with freebasing a little sarcasm, and now I'm a full-blown condescension addict and no one can really tell when I'm serious or not, I guess. It's a shame. Are there any twelve-step programs for kettles? Anyone have a saucepan?

I guess not.

You have no "genuine desire to know;" you have a genuine desire to berate whoever disagrees with you.

Wow. And you're a mind reader. That was so amazing, I didn't even think of that when I was thinking it!! It's not so much whoever disagrees with me, just the more annoying ones who try to tell me my own thoughts or motives or life history, especially people I've never met or even seen in my life.

Perhaps you disagree with my answer. Or perhaps you do not believe it to be an answer. It is an answer; a complete answer.

Well, which is it? Either you do not see my "line of deduction" or you do. It takes no extra effort to see the plain meaning of the text when viewed as a whole... especially when Paul talks about spritual gifts in the very next chapter.

Don't go getting your panties in a bunch, VF. I said I can see how you could get that, but not that i see your reasoning. Meaning, sure, spiritual sickness is allowable but I don't see how you came to that conclusion specifically. I, for example, would have read that passage and thought, "Oh, he really means they'll get sick and possibly die," and not see from that passage that he meant spiritually, and even when in the next chapter he talks about spiritual gifts, reading it as a letter and not as something divided somewhat arbitrarily into chapters and verses, I'd see that as a change in subject and context. But that's just me; and I mean that, just me. Not my "crutch" talking, because Mom won't allow any more talking medical supplies.

I do not recall calling you "narrow-minded;" I suggested you look at the verses with an open-mind. In doing so I see you were able to include spiritual sickness/death within the context... congratulations!

I didn't say you did; I said it. Maybe I should have said "closed-mindedness," would that be more accurate to your insinuation? Now, I can include spiritual sickness maybe in that interpretation, but by no means do I see any reason that it would be, other than in the fact that the person is defiling the Body of Christ, and not to the exclusion of physical sickness. I think we can ultimately agree to disagree here. I hope.

While I too can see physical sickness/death in Paul's statement, I do not believe this to be his intended meaning.

How do you know Paul's intending meaning is literal? Because it says what you want it to say? Because you were told the meaning is to be taken as literally? Because you are blind to any other interpretation?

Um. No. Because when I read it, that's what it clearly says. Maybe I'm not suspicious enough of the Bible or of its writers, because to me that's pretty evident what it means. If not for you, okey dokey. And, as you and I both have seen, I'm not blind to another interpretation, otherwise I'd not concede at all that your interpretation has any validity. You already congratulated me for that concession. I to the best of my ability don't read from the bible what I want it to say, because it's not about what I want to hear, but what God wants to tell me through His word. And I understood that unless it's a parable, it's most likely literal. No one told me but common sense.

I am telling you not to believe everything your crutch has told you to believe.

WHAT CRUTCH???!!! What are you even talking about here?? Seriously, you're going to have to be a little specific with this. Maybe I'm dense, but does this crutch have a name, that talks to me so much? Just spill it! What are you talking about?

I am also telling you not to believe everything I have told you I believe. Believe what you want.

Okay! Agreed! Does this mean you'll lay off a little bit?

The literal interpretation is not because the Bible is wrong... it is one of at least two interpretations.

Invent interpretations? See how many interpretations you can invent from John 6 (the only one without invention is one that is figurative).

How the "Gehenna" would you know I am wrong? Because your crutch say I am? Please...

My "credibility" is not the issue. Your "creditibility," however, is and will be judged on weather or not you can accept another equally plausible interpretation of 1 Corinthians 11:30.

The "credibility" paragraph: wha?? We already agreed that I can see that there is another possible interpretation to I Cor. 11:30, but that I don't personally agree with it, and you've already said not to believe what you believe but to believe as I believe is right. Am I really going to be judged by my taking the Word for what it says? And who will judge me for believing what I see as evident? Plausible, maybe, but not equally, at least not in my mind, or if so, at too far a stretch to be realistic. I can make some concessions to faith, the mystery of God, blah blah blah, but not quite to the point of reading something there that I just don't see.

Now, again about that crutch.... ???? Look, you don't know me, you don't know how I was raised or how my faith was formed. You don't know jack squat about that so no, it's not that my "crutch" says you're wrong, it's that you're WRONG. Kay? No one, no crutch, is responsible for me but me. I wasn't brainwashed or brought up prejudiced or any of that. I wasn't kept in a cage as a child and forcefed my faith. And I really would like for you to tell me how this corrupt interpretation was handed to me, from whom, and how the Gehenna would you know?

[Jude3b]

Okay. Rather than repeat post 37, where I address the eucharist...




Don't let me down Jude


Just as I thought, the Bible does not say to "do the Eucharist!" Of course you would not answer the question. Thats because the false doctrines of Romanism cannot be defended from Scripture. They are not Biblical!

[VFarris01]

WHAT CRUTCH???!!!Are you experiencing reading difficulties? Your crutch, what you lean on.


What are you even talking about here??Your crutch, what you lean on.


Seriously, you're going to have to be a little specific with this. Maybe I'm dense, but does this crutch have a name, that talks to me so much?Yes, it does. It is called "your crutch," what you lean on.


Just spill it! What are you talking about?Spill what? I am referring to your crutch, what you lean on.

If you cannot figure out what your crutch is, I have no reason to further correspond with you. You are just too "dense" to understand. Get back to me when you find your clue.


Good for you. Can you do either without being condescending?
Nope. Probably not. It's a lifelong struggle--it started with freebasing a little sarcasm, and now I'm a full-blown condescension addict and no one can really tell when I'm serious or not, I guess. It's a shame. Are there any twelve-step programs for kettles? Anyone have a saucepan?Sarcasm is not so bad as "condescending;" use the above "crutch quotes" as a rule for what "condescending" looks/sounds like.


You have no "genuine desire to know;" you have a genuine desire to berate whoever disagrees with you.
Wow. And you're a mind reader. That was so amazing, I didn't even think of that when I was thinking it!! It's not so much whoever disagrees with me, just the more annoying ones who try to tell me my own thoughts or motives or life history, especially people I've never met or even seen in my life.It does not take a "mind reader" to understand your "genuine desire." I have read many of your posts... it is obvious you seek nothing but to be disagreeable.


Perhaps you disagree with my answer. Or perhaps you do not believe it to be an answer. It is an answer; a complete answer.

Well, which is it? Either you do not see my "line of deduction" or you do. It takes no extra effort to see the plain meaning of the text when viewed as a whole... especially when Paul talks about spritual gifts in the very next chapter.
Don't go getting your panties in a bunch, VF. I said I can see how you could get that, but not that i see your reasoning. Meaning, sure, spiritual sickness is allowable but I don't see how you came to that conclusion specifically. I, for example, would have read that passage and thought, "Oh, he really means they'll get sick and possibly die," and not see from that passage that he meant spiritually, and even when in the next chapter he talks about spiritual gifts, reading it as a letter and not as something divided somewhat arbitrarily into chapters and verses, I'd see that as a change in subject and context. But that's just me; and I mean that, just me. Not my "crutch" talking, because Mom won't allow any more talking medical supplies.If you "can see how I could get that" you also, by the "rule of statement equality" (do not try to look this up, you will not find it; it is my own term), see my reasoning.

I appear to not be the only one with "my panties in a bunch."


I do not recall calling you "narrow-minded;" I suggested you look at the verses with an open-mind. In doing so I see you were able to include spiritual sickness/death within the context... congratulations!
I didn't say you did; I said it. Maybe I should have said "closed-mindedness," would that be more accurate to your insinuation? Now, I can include spiritual sickness maybe in that interpretation, but by no means do I see any reason that it would be, other than in the fact that the person is defiling the Body of Christ, and not to the exclusion of physical sickness. I think we can ultimately agree to disagree here. I hope.I do not recall saying anyone was bound by my "take" on the passage; did I?


While I too can see physical sickness/death in Paul's statement, I do not believe this to be his intended meaning.

How do you know Paul's intending meaning is literal? Because it says what you want it to say? Because you were told the meaning is to be taken as literally? Because you are blind to any other interpretation?
Um. No. Because when I read it, that's what it clearly says. Maybe I'm not suspicious enough of the Bible or of its writers, because to me that's pretty evident what it means. If not for you, okey dokey. And, as you and I both have seen, I'm not blind to another interpretation, otherwise I'd not concede at all that your interpretation has any validity. You already congratulated me for that concession. I to the best of my ability don't read from the bible what I want it to say, because it's not about what I want to hear, but what God wants to tell me through His word. And I understood that unless it's a parable, it's most likely literal. No one told me but common sense.Since 1 Corinthians 11:30 is a literal statement to you, when Jesus says anything beginning with, "I am," or "This is," it should be taken (every time, without exception) literally by your "common sense."


WHAT CRUTCH???!!!Are you experiencing reading difficulties? Your crutch, what you lean on.


What are you even talking about here??Your crutch, what you lean on.


Seriously, you're going to have to be a little specific with this. Maybe I'm dense, but does this crutch have a name, that talks to me so much?Yes, it does. It is called "your crutch," what you lean on.


Just spill it! What are you talking about?Spill what? I am referring to your crutch, what you lean on.

If you cannot figure out what your crutch is, I have no reason to further correspond with you. You are just too "dense" to understand. Get back to me when you find your clue.


I am also telling you not to believe everything I have told you I believe. Believe what you want.
Okay! Agreed! Does this mean you'll lay off a little bit?Lay off? Lay off what/how? Elaborate.


The literal interpretation is not because the Bible is wrong... it is one of at least two interpretations.

Invent interpretations? See how many interpretations you can invent from John 6 (the only one without invention is one that is figurative).

How the "Gehenna" would you know I am wrong? Because your crutch say I am? Please...

My "credibility" is not the issue. Your "creditibility," however, is and will be judged on weather or not you can accept another equally plausible interpretation of 1 Corinthians 11:30.
The "credibility" paragraph: wha?? We already agreed that I can see that there is another possible interpretation to I Cor. 11:30, but that I don't personally agree with it, and you've already said not to believe what you believe but to believe as I believe is right. Am I really going to be judged by my taking the Word for what it says?You are one to whom Jesus' parables were directed because you are obviously not ready to know the secrets of Heaven's imperial rule.


And who will judge me for believing what I see as evident? Plausible, maybe, but not equally, at least not in my mind, or if so, at too far a stretch to be realistic. I can make some concessions to faith, the mystery of God, blah blah blah, but not quite to the point of reading something there that I just don't see.You are one to whom Jesus' parables were directed because you are obviously not ready to know the secrets of Heaven's imperial rule.


Now, again about that crutch.... ???? Look, you don't know me, you don't know how I was raised or how my faith was formed. You don't know jack squat about that so no, it's not that my "crutch" says you're wrong, it's that you're WRONG. Kay? No one, no crutch, is responsible for me but me. I wasn't brainwashed or brought up prejudiced or any of that. I wasn't kept in a cage as a child and forcefed my faith.You got your panties in a bunch there a h?


And I really would like for you to tell me how this corrupt interpretation was handed to me, from whom, and how the Gehenna would you know? I told you already... that you do not accept the answer is not my problem.

[Jezz]

What was it that caused Paul to write about this matter?
And if I answer this new question of yours, will you finally answer mine? I doubt it, but let's try anyway.

The specific instance of unworthy behaviour that precipitated this warning was the schismata (divisions) in the congregation at the Supper. From what we can gather from St Paul's writing, it seems that the rich, "important" people in the congregation would hoard the lion's share of the Supper to themselves, while the poor, "insignificant" people would get little or nothing.

Hearing of this unworthy behaviour prompted St Paul to issue a general warning about partaking of the Eucharist unworthily. A warning that was obviously applicable to the Corinthian situation, but also equally applicable in any situation where unworthy behaviour is present.

----

So how many of your questions do I have to answer before you will answer any of mine? (And how many times do I have to answer each one of them?) Let me repeat my question for the seventh time:

So, for the [seventh] time, do you not acknowledge that one should approach the Eucharist with fear and trembling?

Why is it that Kenite will not answer this question? That he apparently will not is of interest- great interest, I think.

[Kenite]

[QUOTE] the rich, "important" people in the congregation would hoard the lion's share of the Supper to themselves, while the poor, "insignificant" people would get little or nothing.Is that likely to happen at a Roman Catholic Mass?

[kommandermatt]

No, it's not.

[Alden]

Just as I thought, the Bible does not say to "do the Eucharist!" Of course you would not answer the question. Thats because the false doctrines of Romanism cannot be defended from Scripture. They are not Biblical!

Jude--

Are you incapable of answering post 37? I have been patient with you. Many of us have been patient with you. I defended my position with Scripture, and with citation of the the practice of the early church. You have defended your position with proof-texting and personal opinion, backed up with, at most, a few hundred years of practice.

I say again:

Please, take post 37, and respond line by line. I am asking you to complete this task. You, and no one else. We have listened to your constant "Romanism is the devil!!!" for years. It is time for you to engage in dialogue. That is the least you can do. You have appeared to many to be the broken record for sometime. Here is an opportunity to gain some credibility. Please show us that you can think critically and respond in kind.

[Jude3b]

HOW THE IDEA OF THE EUCHARISTIC SACRIFICE AROSE:

The Lord's Supper in the apostolic church of God - the body of Christ was served in connection with an abounding meal of charity called the agape, or love feast. This fact is made too plain for contradiction by the testimony of the Apostle Paul in I Cor. 11:20-22.

At first the Lord's Supper was administered at the close of this meal, which was always held in the evening. In the course of time, however, the Lord's Supper was received at the beginning of the meal, and after this course was followed for some time it became customary to separate the Lord's Supper from the feast of charity. After the Lord's Supper was separated from the feast of charity it was possible to hold the Lord's Supper in the morning, for the feast of charity continued to be held in the evening.

These changes were completed by the end of the second century. Inasmuch as Christians still worshiped in private homes, the Lord's Supper and the feast of charity might be held at the same place. But when church houses began to be built, by the close of the third century, the feast of charity was relegated to the private homes of Christians. There this charity meal persisted until the eighth century, when it practically disappered until it was revived in modern times by the Moravians, Mennonites, Dunkards, and some Methodists.

At first the term EUCHARIST was applied to the thanksgiving prayer uttered to God on behalf of the offering of the church which stood before the president of the congregation. Sometime during the second century this term EUCHARIST was applied to the bread and wine of the Lord's Supper, that is, a part of the materials for which the first prayer of thanksgiving or Eucharist had been spoken.

In the meetings of the early church of God - the body of Christ, the Christians brought donations of food on behalf of the poor, and the leader of the congregation offered this food to God in a prayer of dedication; and later through the generations after the food donations had ceased, the prayer of dedication still continued and was finally understood to be the act of offering the bread and wine alone to God. Still later this prayer was supposed to offer the body and blood of Christ in an unbloody sacrifice, later called the Mass.

Harnack says: "Thus, owing to the influence of the heathen mysteries and in consequence of the development of the priestly notion, the idea crept in that the body and blood of Christ were constantly offered to God afresh in order to propitiate him."

Every Christian should be on his guard lest he take the word of fallible men for the doctrine of God. The depths of superstition and ignorance from which the first Gentile converts of Christianity came were so deep that we need not be suprised at any magical supersitious ideas creeping into the church of God - the body of Christ anywhere at an early time. Nevertheless, the idea that the bread and wine were the literal body and blood of Christ required centuries to gain ascendancy in the historic church.

Correct history:

Ignatius, who was martyred A.D. 115, is quoted as a believer in the real presence of Christ in the bread and wine of the Lord's Supper, but his words will bear far different meaning. He wrote as he journeyed to Rome to martyrdom:
"I have no delight in corruptible food, nor in the pleasures of this life. I desire the bread of God, the heavenly bread, the bread of life, which is the flesh of Jesus Christ, the Son of God....and I desire the drink of God, namely, His blood, which is incorruptible love and eternal life."

It is evident that he here expresses his longing to feast with Christ in heaven on the riches of His love as this truth is set forth in the message on the bread of life given by our Lord (John 6).

Romanism would come into power in the 4th century A.D. and the church of God - the body of Christ would be driven into the wilderness. The Religionists of Romanism would bring in their damnable heresies and one example of that is the fact that by the time of Gregory the Great (540-604) most of the leading theologians of the visible religious church world had expressed themselves in favor of the theory that the Lord's Supper was a sacrifice efficacious as an offering for the souls of men.

How different the practice and teachings of the Roman Catholic religion are - to those taught so clearly in the Word of God!

Paul clearly tells us what the Lord's Supper really is: "For I have received of the Lord that which also I delivered unto you, That the Lord Jesus the same night in which he was betrayed took bread: and when he had given thanks, he break it, and said, Take, eat: this is my body, which is broken for you: THIS DO IN REMEMBRANCE OF ME. After the same manner also he took the cup, when he had supped, saying, This cup is the New Testament in my blood: this do ye, as oft as ye drink it, in REMEMBRANCE of me. For as often as ye eat this bread, and drink this cup, ye do show the Lord's death till he come." (I Cor. 11, verse 23-26)

So, according to the apostle, the Lord's Supper is the eating of the bread and the drinking of the cup, after the example set by Christ. Therefore the Lord's Supper and the communion are the same. "The cup of blessing which we bless, is it not the communion of the blood of Christ? The bread which we break, is it not the communion of the body of Christ? (I Cor. 10:16).

Its design:

The communion service has an object; it is intended to teach something; for Christ would not establish an ordinance in his church without a distinct purpose in view. Much of the original design, however, has evidently been lost or covered up by the accumulation of human rubbish in the form of theological opinions and false notions.

Thus, I might refer to the Roman Catholic doctrine - that the bread and the wine are, at the time of consecration, converted into the actual body and blood of Christ; or to the doctrine of some special "grace" being received by partaking of the elements. Is that what the Bible teaches? NO!

"Add thou not unto his words, lest he reprove thee, and thou be found a liar" (Prov. 30:6).

The special design of this ordinance is shown in the words of Christ when commanding its observance: "THIS DO IN REMEMBRANCE OF ME" (LUKE 22:19).

If the ordinance is "in remembrance" of Christ, as stated, then it is not actually Christ himself (though it symbolically represents him in his atonement), but is a commemorative institution by which the sufferings of Christ for our sins are brought vividly before the mind, thus bringing us into closer fellowship with his sufferings and death. "For as oft as ye eat this bread, and drink this cup, ye do show the Lord's death till he come" (I Cor. 11:26). In observing it, we do not obtain spiritual life, or special grace, but we "show the Lord's death."

This post has been edited for plagerism and not giving proper citation

[Patroclus]

HOW THE IDEA OF THE EUCHARISTIC SACRIFICE AROSE:

The Lord's Supper in the apostolic church of God - the body of Christ was served in connection with an abounding meal of charity called the agape, or love feast. This fact is made too plain for contradiction by the testimony of the Apostle Paul in I Cor. 11:20-22.

At first the Lord's Supper was administered at the close of this meal, which was always held in the evening. In the course of time, however, the Lord's Supper was received at the beginning of the meal, and after this course was followed for some time it became customary to separate the Lord's Supper from the feast of charity. After the Lord's Supper was separated from the feast of charity it was possible to hold the Lord's Supper in the morning, for the feast of charity continued to be held in the evening.

These changes were completed by the end of the second century. Inasmuch as Christians still worshiped in private homes, the Lord's Supper and the feast of charity might be held at the same place. But when church houses began to be built, by the close of the third century, the feast of charity was relegated to the private homes of Christians. There this charity meal persisted until the eighth century, when it practically disappered until it was revived in modern times by the Moravians, Mennonites, Dunkards, and some Methodists.

At first the term EUCHARIST was applied to the thanksgiving prayer uttered to God on behalf of the offering of the church which stood before the president of the congregation. Sometime during the second century this term EUCHARIST was applied to the bread and wine of the Lord's Supper, that is, a part of the materials for which the first prayer of thanksgiving or Eucharist had been spoken.

In the meetings of the early church of God - the body of Christ, the Christians brought donations of food on behalf of the poor, and the leader of the congregation offered this food to God in a prayer of dedication; and later through the generations after the food donations had ceased, the prayer of dedication still continued and was finally understood to be the act of offering the bread and wine alone to God. Still later this prayer was supposed to offer the body and blood of Christ in an unbloody sacrifice, later called the Mass.

Harnack says: "Thus, owing to the influence of the heathen mysteries and in consequence of the development of the priestly notion, the idea crept in that the body and blood of Christ were constantly offered to God afresh in order to propitiate him."

Every Christian should be on his guard lest he take the word of fallible men for the doctrine of God. The depths of superstition and ignorance from which the first Gentile converts of Christianity came were so deep that we need not be suprised at any magical supersitious ideas creeping into the church of God - the body of Christ anywhere at an early time. Nevertheless, the idea that the bread and wine were the literal body and blood of Christ required centuries to gain ascendancy in the historic church.

Correct history:

Ignatius, who was martyred A.D. 115, is quoted as a believer in the real presence of Christ in the bread and wine of the Lord's Supper, but his words will bear far different meaning. He wrote as he journeyed to Rome to martyrdom:
"I have no delight in corruptible food, nor in the pleasures of this life. I desire the bread of God, the heavenly bread, the bread of life, which is the flesh of Jesus Christ, the Son of God....and I desire the drink of God, namely, His blood, which is incorruptible love and eternal life."

It is evident that he here expresses his longing to feast with Christ in heaven on the riches of His love as this truth is set forth in the message on the bread of life given by our Lord (John 6).

Romanism would come into power in the 4th century A.D. and the church of God - the body of Christ would be driven into the wilderness. The Religionists of Romanism would bring in their damnable heresies and one example of that is the fact that by the time of Gregory the Great (540-604) most of the leading theologians of the visible religious church world had expressed themselves in favor of the theory that the Lord's Supper was a sacrifice efficacious as an offering for the souls of men.

How different the practice and teachings of the Roman Catholic religion are - to those taught so clearly in the Word of God!

Paul clearly tells us what the Lord's Supper really is: "For I have received of the Lord that which also I delivered unto you, That the Lord Jesus the same night in which he was betrayed took bread: and when he had given thanks, he break it, and said, Take, eat: this is my body, which is broken for you: THIS DO IN REMEMBRANCE OF ME. After the same manner also he took the cup, when he had supped, saying, This cup is the New Testament in my blood: this do ye, as oft as ye drink it, in REMEMBRANCE of me. For as often as ye eat this bread, and drink this cup, ye do show the Lord's death till he come." (I Cor. 11, verse 23-26)

So, according to the apostle, the Lord's Supper is the eating of the bread and the drinking of the cup, after the example set by Christ. Therefore the Lord's Supper and the communion are the same. "The cup of blessing which we bless, is it not the communion of the blood of Christ? The bread which we break, is it not the communion of the body of Christ? (I Cor. 10:16).

Its design:

The communion service has an object; it is intended to teach something; for Christ would not establish an ordinance in his church without a distinct purpose in view. Much of the original design, however, has evidently been lost or covered up by the accumulation of human rubbish in the form of theological opinions and false notions.

Thus, I might refer to the Roman Catholic doctrine - that the bread and the wine are, at the time of consecration, converted into the actual body and blood of Christ; or to the doctrine of some special "grace" being received by partaking of the elements. Is that what the Bible teaches? NO!

"Add thou not unto his words, lest he reprove thee, and thou be found a liar" (Prov. 30:6).

The special design of this ordinance is shown in the words of Christ when commanding its observance: "THIS DO IN REMEMBRANCE OF ME" (LUKE 22:19).

If the ordinance is "in remembrance" of Christ, as stated, then it is not actually Christ himself (though it symbolically represents him in his atonement), but is a commemorative institution by which the sufferings of Christ for our sins are brought vividly before the mind, thus bringing us into closer fellowship with his sufferings and death. "For as oft as ye eat this bread, and drink this cup, ye do show the Lord's death till he come" (I Cor. 11:26). In observing it, we do not obtain spiritual life, or special grace, but we "show the Lord's death."
I know this is SPAM, but this thread is annoying.

:pat:

[Jude3b]

I know this is SPAM, but this thread is annoying.

:pat:

And did someone force you to read it?

[Alden]

This is very sad.

Not only are you an unoriginal, obsessed, broken-record, but now you have added plagiarist to the list.

pathetic.



The communion service has an object; it is intended to teach something; for Christ would not establish an ordinance in his church without a distinct purpose in view. Much of the original design, however, has evidently been lost or covered up by the accumulation of human rubbish in the form of theological opinions and false notions.

Thus, I might refer to the Roman Catholic doctrine - that the bread and the wine are, at the time of consecration, converted into the actual body and blood of Christ; or to the doctrine of some



The communion service has an object; it is intended to teach something; for Christ would not establish an ordinance in his church without a distinct purpose in view. Much of the original design, however, has evidently been lost or covered up by the accumulation of human rubbish in the form of theological opinions and false notions. Thus, I might refer to the Roman Catholic doctrine-that the bread and the wine are, at the time of consecration, converted into the actual body and blood of Christ; or to the doctrine

http://www.thechurchofgod.com/Lords_Supper.html







The special design of this ordinance is shown in the words of Christ when commanding its observance: "THIS DO IN REMEMBRANCE OF ME" (LUKE 22:19).

If the ordinance is "in remembrance" of Christ, as stated, then it is not actually Christ himself (though it symbolically represents him in his atonement), but is a commemorative institution by which the sufferings of Christ for our sins are brought vividly before the mind, thus bringing us into closer fellowship with his sufferings and death. "For as oft as ye eat this bread, and drink this cup, ye do show the Lord's death till he come" (I Cor. 11:26). In observing it, we do not obtain spiritual life, or special grace, but we "show the Lord's death."


The special design of this ordinance is shown in the words of Christ when commanding its observance: "This do in remembrance of me" (Luke 22: 19). If the ordinance is "in remembrance" of Christ, as stated, then it is not actually Christ himself (though it symbolically represents him in his atonement), but is a commemorative institution by which the sufferings of Christ for our sins are brought vividly before the mind, thus bringing us into closer fellowship with his sufferings and death. "For as oft as ye eat this bread, and drink this cup, ye do show the Lord's death till he come" (1 Cor. 11:26). In observing it, we do not obtain spiritual life, but we "show the Lord's death."

http://www.thechurchofgod.com/Lords_Supper.html



I have asked specific questions that you have failed to directly answer. I asked you to examine and respond to my post #37 line by line. You have failed. I surmise that it has sometime to do with your ability to think critically about the subject matter without being blinded by your hatred for "Romanists". By the way, Orthodox Christians ARE NOT ROMAN.

I found myself wondering who typed the rest of this article, but I realized that it doesn't matter. The only person that is directly quoted is Harnack. The parts that I was able to catch are from 'What The Bible Teaches' by F. G. Smith. You should have given him credit for his work.

I'm done with you Jude. Your lack of imagination and willingness to see beyond your own biases saddens me. Your plagiarism, (which is what representing someone else's work as your own is, as you have done here) in leu of original thought, seems to indicate that I wasting the pearls of my time.

I'll leave you with what I used to say to my high school students when I busted them for plagiarism. Plagiarism not only says that you are lazy and without imagination, but that you are a liar as well.

Goodbye

[Jezz]

Is that likely to happen at a Roman Catholic Mass?
No.

So the score for answered questions is now Jezz 4, Kenite 0. (It would be Jezz 6, Kenite 0 if you included all the times that I answered one of your questions more than once.)

So, for the eighth time, do you not acknowledge that one should approach the Eucharist with fear and trembling?

Why is it that Kenite will not answer this question? That he apparently will not is of interest- great interest, I think.

[Kenite]

[QUOTE]No.Indeed not; certainly no-one but the claimed sacerdos is likely to get even a decent mouthful of food at a Roman 'Supper', and for very many years there was no opportunity for any but him for even getting a drink, let alone getting drunk! So it is particularly ironic that a Roman should use this as a 'reason' for fear and trembling. It is simply incredible that any Catholic anywhere in the wide world can go to Mass and be in fear of anyone but his 'priest' getting a surfeit of anything (other than incense). In fact I have seen the reason given for the very unsupper-like form of the Mass as being expressly to make such excesses impossible- which indeed it does.

So why should a Catholic be in fear and trembling at the Lord's Supper? As I wrote, back on October 8th, I can't imagine why.

[spl_cadet]

Indeed not; certainly no-one but the claimed sacerdos is likely to get even a decent mouthful of food at a Roman 'Supper', and for very many years there was no opportunity for any but him for even getting a drink, let alone getting drunk!

1. Priest gets same sized host (possibly smaller actually) as the rest of us.
2. Only in the Latin Rite (the Eastern Rites use intinction) and for good reason: It was to combat the Utraquist heresy.



So why should a Catholic be in fear and trembling at the Lord's Supper? As I wrote, back on October 8th, I can't imagine why.

"A person who eats and drinks without recognizing the Body is eating and drinking his own condemnation." 1 Cor 11:29

[Kenite]

[QUOTE]1. Priest gets same sized host (possibly smaller actually) as the rest of us.There's no-one to stop him from taking two, though! Or two hundred!


A person who eats and drinks without recognizing the BodyWhich Catholic does that?

[spl_cadet]

There's no-one to stop him from taking two, though! Or two hundred!


And there's no one to stop him from remodeling the Church into an Orion drive. How about we stick with what does actually happen?



Which Catholic does that?

Bad ones.

[Kenite]

[QUOTE]And there's no one to stop him from remodeling the Church into an Orion drive. How about we stick with what does actually happen?How do you know what actually happens?


Bad ones.Name one.

[VFarris01]

No.

So the score for answered questions is now Jezz 4, Kenite 0. (It would be Jezz 6, Kenite 0 if you included all the times that I answered one of your questions more than once.)

So, for the eighth time, do you not acknowledge that one should approach the Eucharist with fear and trembling?

Why is it that Kenite will not answer this question? That he apparently will not is of interest- great interest, I think.It is a ridiculous question Jezz. Why should we "fear and tremble?" Is there a reason we should fear the judgement we mete out upon ourselves? I have been awaiting the answer to THIS question.

[spl_cadet]

How do you know what actually happens?

Because I attend Mass weekly (and occassionally daily) and so have a pretty good idea of what goes on during Mass. It's not like the priest and his actions are invisible or something.



Name one.

Kerry, Schwarzeneggar, Gray Davis, JFK, Sen. Kennedy, etc.

[Kenite]

[QUOTE]Because I attend Mass weekly (and occassionally daily) and so have a pretty good idea of what goes on during Mass. It's not like the priest and his actions are invisible or something.If a 'priest' picked up two 'hosts', would anyone necessarily notice?


Kerry, Schwarzeneggar, Gray Davis, JFK, Sen. Kennedy, etc. Why are/were they bad Catholics?

[spl_cadet]

If a 'priest' picked up two 'hosts', would anyone necessarily notice?


Yes. Would anyone care? No.



Why are/were they bad Catholics?

Did you pay attention at all during the 2004 election?

[Kenite]

[QUOTE]Yes. I disagree. But in any case, there are such things as private masses.


Would anyone care? No.No? You were quick enough to pick up on a very minor side-issue in this thread.


Did you pay attention at all during the 2004 election?Was JFK involved in that? Please answer the question.

[spl_cadet]

I disagree.

On what possible grounds?



But in any case, there are such things as private masses.

And private Masses generally have more people than simply the priest. Do bother yourself to actually learn about Catholicism.



No? You were quick enough to pick up on a very minor side-issue in this thread.


Huh?



Was JFK involved in that? Please answer the question.

No. Neither was Gray Davis or Sen. Kennedy. But if you paid attention at all to the election, you'd know why they're considered bad Catholics (with the exception of JFK, who was a bad Catholic for other reasons).

[Kenite]

[QUOTE]On what possible grounds?A 'host' is a thin wafer, of maybe 30 mm diameter and a few mm thick. From any distance it could be very hard to discern whether one or two or more had been picked up.


And private Masses generally have more people than simply the priest.And you are present at all of those?


Huh?You heard.


No. Neither was Gray Davis or Sen. Kennedy. So why are they bad Catholics?


(with the exception of JFK, who was a bad Catholic for other reasons).And why was JFK a bad Catholic?

[VFarris01]

cadet, Ken is toying with you... He is fishing you with 8# test and a #2 hook. Is the hook is so deeply set you cannot get away? Or are you just that pathetic?

[spl_cadet]

cadet, Ken is toying with you... He is fishing you with 8# test and a #2 hook. Is the hook is so deeply set you cannot get away? Or are you just that pathetic?

No, I'm just really bored is all. Don't really have all that much to do right now and my friends are studying for midterms (which I've already had).

[Jude3b]

This is very sad.

Not only are you an unoriginal, obsessed, broken-record, but now you have added plagiarist to the list.

pathetic.






http://www.thechurchofgod.com/Lords_Supper.html









http://www.thechurchofgod.com/Lords_Supper.html



I have asked specific questions that you have failed to directly answer. I asked you to examine and respond to my post #37 line by line. You have failed. I surmise that it has sometime to do with your ability to think critically about the subject matter without being blinded by your hatred for "Romanists". By the way, Orthodox Christians ARE NOT ROMAN.

I found myself wondering who typed the rest of this article, but I realized that it doesn't matter. The only person that is directly quoted is Harnack. The parts that I was able to catch are from 'What The Bible Teaches' by F. G. Smith. You should have given him credit for his work.

I'm done with you Jude. Your lack of imagination and willingness to see beyond your own biases saddens me. Your plagiarism, (which is what representing someone else's work as your own is, as you have done here) in leu of original thought, seems to indicate that I wasting the pearls of my time.

I'll leave you with what I used to say to my high school students when I busted them for plagiarism. Plagiarism not only says that you are lazy and without imagination, but that you are a liar as well.

Goodbye


Dear Alden:

Yes, some of the things I posted I read in a book written by F.G. Smith. I apologize for not mentioning that to the readers of this thread.

Do you disagree with the statements that I quoted from Mr. Smith, or with the Bible verses I quoted?

[Jezz]

[QUOTE=Jezz]Indeed not; certainly no-one but the claimed sacerdos is likely to get even a decent mouthful of food at a Roman 'Supper', and for very many years there was no opportunity for any but him for even getting a drink, let alone getting drunk! So it is particularly ironic that a Roman should use this as a 'reason' for fear and trembling. It is simply incredible that any Catholic anywhere in the wide world can go to Mass and be in fear of anyone but his 'priest' getting a surfeit of anything (other than incense). In fact I have seen the reason given for the very unsupper-like form of the Mass as being expressly to make such excesses impossible- which indeed it does.
Apart from yet more insinuations (unfounded and unproven) of impropriety, I agree with the above.


So why should a Catholic be in fear and trembling at the Lord's Supper?
Do you think that if the elements are evenly distributed, this guarantees that everyone who receives them will receive them in a worthy manner? Do you not think that there is more than one way to make yourself unworthy?

[Kenite]

[QUOTE=Kenite][QUOTE]Apart from yet more insinuations (unfounded and unproven) of improprietyWhere are there insinuations? Is that comment anything but a lie, one that takes sly advantage of the absurd comments of another poster? Why so long in replying, Jezz?

[Kenite]

[QUOTE]Do you think that if the elements are evenly distributedElements? Distribution? Kindly keep your foul paganisms to yourself.


this guarantees that everyone who receives them will receive them in a worthy manner?You thought that a Bible passage would suffice before. Find a Bible passage that warns about this that is not a warning about excesses of feeding.

[VFarris01]

cadet, Ken is toying with you... He is fishing you with 8# test and a #2 hook. Is the hook is so deeply set you cannot get away? Or are you just that pathetic?
No, I'm just really bored is all. Don't really have all that much to do right now and my friends are studying for midterms (which I've already had).Hope I did not sound too mean... I am pleased you both are having a good time.

[Jezz]

Elements? Distribution? Kindly keep your foul paganisms to yourself.
Ok, so now everyday English words are "foul paganisms"? :rofl: "Elements" is simply a convenient word for "the things that the Eucharist are made of (ie, the bread and wine)" and "distribution" is English for "giving it to everyone"...

If it makes you happy (though I doubt it will), I will rephrase my statement:

"Do you think that if the bread and the cup are given evenly to everyone, this guarantees that everyone who receives them will receive them in a worthy manner?"

Of course, this means exactly the same thing.


You thought that a Bible passage would suffice before.
Still do. Here it is again: "Therefore, whoever eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty of sinning against the body and blood of the Lord." (1 Cor 11:27)


Find a Bible passage that warns about this that is not a warning about excesses of feeding.
Apparently you incapable of distinguishing the particular from the general.

St Paul draws on a general principle ("whoever eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty of sinning against the body and blood of the Lord") and applied it to a particular situation. He identified the specific behaviour of the Corinthians as a form of unworthy behaviour, and so used the general warning against unworthy behaviour because it applied to this specific case.

If St Paul had intended this to be a warning only against gluttonous and unfair participation, he would have written "Therefore, if you don't share the bread and the cup evenly and fairly, you will be guilty of sinning against the body and blood of the Lord." Verses 27-31 don't make sense if that's the case.

[VFarris01]

"Do you think that if the bread and the cup are given evenly to everyone, this guarantees that everyone who receives them will receive them in a worthy manner?"

"Therefore, whoever eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty of sinning against the body and blood of the Lord." (1 Cor 11:27)Jezz, are you saying the AMOUNT given determines the "worthiness" of the receiver. This is stupid IMO (am I agreeing with you? :eek:)

[Kenite]

[QUOTE]Ok, so now everyday English words are "foul paganisms"?Can this poster really be so dense? Or is he simply in fear and trembling of the truth?


"Do you think that if the bread and the cup are given Given? Where is that idea in the words of Jesus or the apostolic church?


Still do. Here it is again: "Therefore, whoever eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty of sinning against the body and blood of the Lord." (1 Cor 11:27)That arose because of excess, which, as you agree, is impossible in your cult. Now what is it that causes you fear and trembling before going to your Mass, Jezz? And will it take another week or so to find out what that is, too?

[kommandermatt]

Jezz, are you saying the AMOUNT given determines the "worthiness" of the receiver. This is stupid IMO (am I agreeing with you? )

Yes, you are agreeing with him. The amount given doesn't necessairily have anything to do with the worthiness of the receiver.

[VFarris01]

"Do you think that if the bread and the cup are given evenly to everyone, this guarantees that everyone who receives them will receive them in a worthy manner?"

"Therefore, whoever eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty of sinning against the body and blood of the Lord." (1 Cor 11:27)Is it not the RECEIVER who determinines his/her own worthiness?

Why should we "fear and tremble?" Is there a reason we should fear the judgement we mete out upon ourselves? I have been awaiting and wondering why you not answer THIS question?

[Jezz]

Given? Where is that idea in the words of Jesus or the apostolic church?
"...gave thanks and broke it, and gave it to his disciples, saying..." (Mark 14:22)

Is that explicit enough for you?

There are only two possibilities here: Either everyone brought their own cup and their own bread, or else they had it given to them when they got there.

If everyone brought their own, how was it that some went without?


That arose because of excess,
Irrelevant. Whatever the particular circumstances were that prompted the warning, the warning that was given was a general warning. St Paul made no attempt to limit it to conditions exactly the same as those found at Corinth.


which, as you agree, is impossible in your cult.
What is it with you anti-Roman types? Are you incapable of distinguishing between Orthodox and Roman Catholic? I am not part of the Roman Catholic "cult".


Now what is it that causes you fear and trembling before going to your Mass, Jezz? And will it take another week or so to find out what that is, too?
As per last time, I've already answered this question. I cut and paste for your benefit:

When we approach the Eucharist, it is not merely our life that is at stake - it is our soul. As St Paul tells us, whoever eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty of sinning against the body and blood of the Lord, and whoever eats and drinks without recognising the body of the Lord eats and drinks judgment on himself. (1 Cor 11:27,29).
(From post 46 (http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showthread.php?t=22946&page=3&pp=16#post1226100).)

I know that I am sinful, and hence I worry about my worthiness. If I didn't worry about my worthiness, that in itself would make me unworthy and guilty of sinning against the body and blood of the Lord.

[VFarris01]

"...gave thanks and broke it, and gave it to his disciples, saying..." (Mark 14:22)

There are only two possibilities here: Either everyone brought their own cup and their own bread, or else they had it given to them when they got there.Did Jesus bring the bread and wine (juice)? Did Jesus give to each disciple individually or was the bread and cup passed among them?


I know that I am sinful, and hence I worry about my worthiness. If I didn't worry about my worthiness, that in itself would make me unworthy and guilty of sinning against the body and blood of the Lord.Are we not all, because of our "human" nature, unworthy of receiving the "symbols" of the body and blood of the annointed one of God? How do you rationalize yourself worthy of receiving the "communion" knowing you will never be "worthy."

Why should we "fear and tremble?" Is there a reason we should fear the judgement we mete out upon ourselves? I have been awaiting and wondering why you will/do not answer THIS question?

[Jezz]

I have been awaiting and wondering why you will/do not answer THIS question?
I'd have thought that the reason for that was obvious - I'm ignoring your posts. I have broken this silence just long enough to inform you of the fact, to save you the task of figuring it out.

I am content to simply pray for you instead. May God bless you, VFarris.

[VFarris01]

I'd have thought that the reason for that was obvious - I'm ignoring your posts. I have broken this silence just long enough to inform you of the fact, to save you the task of figuring it out.

I am content to simply pray for you instead. May God bless you, VFarris.You must be unable to answer the questions... what a shame... I doubt you even have an answer.

[Kenite]

[QUOTE]"...gave thanks and broke it, and gave it to his disciples, saying..." (Mark 14:22)

Is that explicit enough for you?Who did that, Jezz? Can you not bear to mention the name of that person, who is no longer with us in the flesh? Or are we supposed to mildly accept the arrogance of pagans at their absurd caricatures of the Lord's Supper in usurping the bearer of that name? "I'll be Jesus." Pah! They'll think Korah blessed!


If everyone brought their own, how was it that some went without?They didn't have enough to bring, of course! This is excellent evidence that there was no distribution, as Paul would have addressed the elders on this point, just as a 'pope' would very firmly correct any 'priest' who erred so wildly as to distribute unequally.


Irrelevant. Whatever the particular circumstances were that prompted the warning, the warning that was given was a general warning.Prove it. You have to justify your fear and trembling, and you have quoted a warning that is known to be relevant only to excesses that you cannot fall prone to.


What is it with you anti-Roman types? Are you incapable of distinguishing between Orthodox and Roman Catholic? I am not part of the Roman Catholic "cult".Did I say which cult you are a member of?


I know that I am sinful, and hence I worry about my worthiness. The word eucharist' means 'giving thanks'. What are you giving thanks for, if you are worried about your worthiness?

[adopted heir]

Are you experiencing reading difficulties? Your crutch, what you lean on.

Your crutch, what you lean on.[/color]

Yes, it does. It is called "your crutch," what you lean on.[/color]

Spill what? I am referring to your crutch, what you lean on.

If you cannot figure out what your crutch is, I have no reason to further correspond with you. You are just too "dense" to understand. Get back to me when you find your clue.

Sarcasm is not so bad as "condescending;" use the above "crutch quotes" as a rule for what "condescending" looks/sounds like.

It does not take a "mind reader" to understand your "genuine desire." I have read many of your posts... it is obvious you seek nothing but to be disagreeable.

If you "can see how I could get that" you also, by the "rule of statement equality" (do not try to look this up, you will not find it; it is my own term), see my reasoning.

I appear to not be the only one with "my panties in a bunch."

I do not recall saying anyone was bound by my "take" on the passage; did I?

Since 1 Corinthians 11:30 is a literal statement to you, when Jesus says anything beginning with, "I am," or "This is," it should be taken (every time, without exception) literally by your "common sense."

Are you experiencing reading difficulties? Your crutch, what you lean on.

Your crutch, what you lean on.

Yes, it does. It is called "your crutch," what you lean on.

[color=#000000]Spill what? I am referring to your crutch, what you lean on.

If you cannot figure out what your crutch is, I have no reason to further correspond with you. You are just too "dense" to understand. Get back to me when you find your clue.

Lay off? Lay off what/how? Elaborate.

[[size=2]quote=VF]The literal interpretation is not because the Bible is wrong... it is one of at least two interpretations.

Invent interpretations? See how many interpretations you can invent from John 6 (the only one without invention is one that is figurative).

How the "Gehenna" would you know I am wrong? Because your crutch say I am? Please...

My "credibility" is not the issue. Your "creditibility," however, is and will be judged on weather or not you can accept another equally plausible interpretation of 1 Corinthians 11:30.You are one to whom Jesus' parables were directed because you are obviously not ready to know the secrets of Heaven's imperial rule.

You are one to whom Jesus' parables were directed because you are obviously not ready to know the secrets of Heaven's imperial rule.

[color=indigo][color=#000000]You got your panties in a bunch there a h?

I told you already... that you do not accept the answer is not my problem.[/QUOTE]
You are absolutely nonsensical. You keep implying something about this "crutch." I'll tell you this, that I rely on God's Word, the truth of the Bible. Debunk that all you like and make all the insinuations you want, you are an ignorant and rude braggart without any love, kindness, knowledge, sense, respect, or decency. I'm not being condescending now, I'm telling you. You are a jerk. And starting again (so much for second chances for you, eh?) you are an invisible jerk. If you keep jabbering about a crutch, do it to someone else, who'll put up with you and won't bother calling your bluff. You're too yellow to tell what you mean, you just quack and mewl and whine, but too bad for you, you're whining to no one who cares.

[VFarris01]

You are absolutely nonsensical. You keep implying something about this "crutch." I'll tell you this, that I rely on God's Word, the truth of the Bible.No, you do not. You rely on your crutch to tell you what to do and what to believe.


Debunk that all you like and make all the insinuations you want, you are an ignorant and rude braggart without any love, kindness, knowledge, sense, respect, or decency. I'm not being condescending now, I'm telling you. You are a jerk. And starting again (so much for second chances for you, eh?) you are an invisible jerk. If you keep jabbering about a crutch, do it to someone else, who'll put up with you and won't bother calling your bluff.What bluff. You are to ignorant and stupid to figure out what your crutch is... why do I bother with you?


You're too yellow to tell what you mean, you just quack and mewl and whine, but too bad for you, you're whining to no one who cares.Poor baby needs a binkey.

[adopted heir]

"Poor baby needs a binkey."

Another poor baby needs a nailgun enema.

[kommandermatt]

Did Jesus bring the bread and wine (juice)? Did Jesus give to each disciple individually or was the bread and cup passed among them?

It doesn't say in the passage, so I guess we'll never know. I'm not sure how that matters, though, because the one consecrating the bread and wine is Christ, and He's pretty clear about its nature.


Are we not all, because of our "human" nature, unworthy of receiving the "symbols" of the body and blood of the annointed one of God? How do you rationalize yourself worthy of receiving the "communion" knowing you will never be "worthy."

Sure we are, just as long as we remain alive in Christ.

Therefore there is now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus
Why would Paul warn people against receiving communion unworthily if they were unworthy, period? He would just tell people, "Hey, none of you is worthy, so no more communion for anybody."


Why should we "fear and tremble?" Is there a reason we should fear the judgement we mete out upon ourselves? I have been awaiting and wondering why you will/do not answer THIS question?

We don't mete out our own judgement, God does. If receiving unworthily is enough to damn us, as Paul states pretty unequivically, I'd say we should approach that table with just a bit of shivering, no?

[VFarris01]

It doesn't say in the passage, so I guess we'll never know. I'm not sure how that matters, though, because the one consecrating the bread and wine is Christ, and He's pretty clear about its nature.No, I do not believe the method of distribution is important either. Are you referring to the nature of bread being bread and wine being wine? Jesus is clear about what the bread and wine represents. It did not (and does not) change you know; if it did this is the only miracle recorded in the Bible in which nothing happened.


Why would Paul warn people against receiving communion unworthily if they were unworthy, period? He would just tell people, "Hey, none of you is worthy, so no more communion for anybody."I know I will never be "worthy." Is "worthy enough" ok?


We don't mete out our own judgement, God does.Oh, yes, we do.

(27) Therefore, whoever eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty of sinning against the body and blood of the Lord. (28) A man ought to examine himself before he eats of the bread and drinks of the cup. (29) For anyone who eats and drinks without recognizing the body of the Lord eats and drinks judgment on himself.

I believe you are probably worried about the "punishment" one would/could receive for their "unworthy" conduct.


If receiving unworthily is enough to damn us, as Paul states pretty unequivically, I'd say we should approach that table with just a bit of shivering, no?I see no "damnation" in the passage. The "worthiness" of the individual is judged by the individual. Does anyone else but the "receiver" make the determination of weather or not he/she is worthy?

[Kenite]

[QUOTE]No, I do not believe the method of distribution is important either.Why should there be distribution?

[Joe Gofish]

Qustion of the Mass: since the New Testament gives no instructions at all about the continuation of the Old Testament sacrifices, it seems it became necessary for the religious Roman priesthood to invent a new kind of sacrifice. Was this the reason they made a frivolus distinction between the "bloody" sacrifice of Christ on the cross, and the "unbloody" sacrifice which they pretend to offer in the mass?
Do you have a question are or you just ranting and raving as usual.

[VFarris01]

No, I do not believe the method of distribution is important either.
Why should there be distribution?Why should there NOT be a distribution?

If you know me you know I love to play this game.

[Joe Gofish]

Really? I disagree.

Perhaps you disagree with his answer. Or perhaps you do not believe it to be an answer. Either way, it is not the same thing as not answering at all.

Jezz, you need to hold yourself to the same standards to which you hold others.

Obviously, "Why should we be fearful of the judgement we mete out on ourselves?" applies only to you.
YOU You know its hard to understand if Jude is just a lair or he is reading to many Jack Chick books,from his post we can see he is a anti-catholic bigot.

Let that be deemed a proper Eucharist, which is administered either by the bishop, or by one to whom he has entrusted it." St. Ignatius of Antioch ("The Epistle to the Smyrnaeans," c. 105 A.D.)

"And on the day called Sunday, all who live in cities or in the country gather together to one place. And the memoirs of the Apostles or the writings of the Prophets are read, as long as time permits. Then, when the reader has ceased, the priest verbally instructs us and exhorts us to imitate these good things. Then we all rise together and pray. And, as we said before, when our prayer is ended, bread and wine and water are brought. Then, the priest in like manner offers prayers and thanksgivings, according to his ability. And the people assent, saying 'Amen.' Then, the Eucharist, is distributed to everyone, and everyone participates in that over which thanks has been given. And a portion of it is sent by the deacons to those who are absent." St. Justin Martyr ("First Apology," c. 160 A.D.)

[VFarris01]

Really? I disagree.

Perhaps you disagree with his answer. Or perhaps you do not believe it to be an answer. Either way, it is not the same thing as not answering at all.

Jezz, you need to hold yourself to the same standards to which you hold others.

Obviously, "Why should we be fearful of the judgement we mete out on ourselves?" applies only to you.
YOU You know its hard to understand if Jude is just a lair or he is reading to many Jack Chick books,from his post we can see he is a anti-catholic bigot.

Let that be deemed a proper Eucharist, which is administered either by the bishop, or by one to whom he has entrusted it." St. Ignatius of Antioch ("The Epistle to the Smyrnaeans," c. 105 A.D.)

"And on the day called Sunday, all who live in cities or in the country gather together to one place. And the memoirs of the Apostles or the writings of the Prophets are read, as long as time permits. Then, when the reader has ceased, the priest verbally instructs us and exhorts us to imitate these good things. Then we all rise together and pray. And, as we said before, when our prayer is ended, bread and wine and water are brought. Then, the priest in like manner offers prayers and thanksgivings, according to his ability. And the people assent, saying 'Amen.' Then, the Eucharist, is distributed to everyone, and everyone participates in that over which thanks has been given. And a portion of it is sent by the deacons to those who are absent." St. Justin Martyr ("First Apology," c. 160 A.D.)Hey, Fish Face... YOU ARE AN IDIOT... I am not J3b. Your quotes from these so-called ECFs are EXACTLY as meaningless as quoting Chick. Since you cannot get who you are responding to correct, why should we not assume you are an idiot?

[Kenite]

[QUOTE]Why should there NOT be a distribution?Because the Bible does not say there should be one.

[adopted heir]

YOU You know its hard to understand if Jude is just a lair or he is reading to many Jack Chick books,from his post we can see he is a anti-catholic bigot.

Let that be deemed a proper Eucharist, which is administered either by the bishop, or by one to whom he has entrusted it." St. Ignatius of Antioch ("The Epistle to the Smyrnaeans," c. 105 A.D.)

"And on the day called Sunday, all who live in cities or in the country gather together to one place. And the memoirs of the Apostles or the writings of the Prophets are read, as long as time permits. Then, when the reader has ceased, the priest verbally instructs us and exhorts us to imitate these good things. Then we all rise together and pray. And, as we said before, when our prayer is ended, bread and wine and water are brought. Then, the priest in like manner offers prayers and thanksgivings, according to his ability. And the people assent, saying 'Amen.' Then, the Eucharist, is distributed to everyone, and everyone participates in that over which thanks has been given. And a portion of it is sent by the deacons to those who are absent." St. Justin Martyr ("First Apology," c. 160 A.D.)
Yay!!! Our priest just read that passage last Thursday at RCIA. Cool. That's interesting, isn't it? I mean, from reading that, it has an uncanny similarity to Mass. I'd say it's dead on. That's weird, that that would be written in 105AD, because that's definitely not 400 years after John died. It's strange that once again, history and reality sides with the Roman Catholic Church.

[adopted heir]

[QUOTE=VFarris01]Because the Bible does not say there should be one.
That's incredibly legalistic and pharisaical for someone denouncing legalism and phariseeism. Not to mention wrong. "Do this in remembrance of me." I think that's from the Bible. In fact I'm pretty sure that's Jesus telling us to partake of the Eucharist. He even does it once for us so we know exactly how to do it.

[VFarris01]

[QUOTE=Kenite]
That's incredibly legalistic and pharisaical for someone denouncing legalism and phariseeism. Not to mention wrong. "Do this in remembrance of me." I think that's from the Bible. In fact I'm pretty sure that's Jesus telling us to partake of the Eucharist. He even does it once for us so we know exactly how to do it.What does this have to do with the distribution of the emblems of the "thanksgiving meal?"

The phrase, "Do this in rememberance of me," is telling them to do something... not how to do it.

Jesus DID NOT "do it once" to show us how to do it. If Jesus' example is "exactly how to do it" why is a priest involved and why the little "crackers?" The passages say Jesus gave the bread and cup to them not to each of them.

[Kenite]

[QUOTE=Kenite]
[QUOTE] That's incredibly legalistic and pharisaical for someone denouncing legalism and phariseeism.So that's what you are!

But the Pharisees added things to the Law that were not there, and failed to obey things that were there. Which is of course what 'tradition' is for.


Not to mention wrong. "Do this in remembrance of me." I think that's from the Bible. Nothing about distribution there.


In fact I'm pretty sure that's Jesus telling us to partake of the Eucharist. He even does it once for us so we know exactly how to do it. Precisely wrong. He isn't with us now, in the flesh. But there is this:

Luke 22:17 '"After taking the cup, he gave thanks and said, "Take this and divide it among you."'

[adopted heir]

[QUOTE=adopted heir][QUOTE=Kenite]
So that's what you are!

But the Pharisees added things to the Law that were not there, and failed to obey things that were there. Which is of course what 'tradition' is for.

Nothing about distribution there.

Precisely wrong. He isn't with us now, in the flesh. But there is this:

Luke 22:17 '"After taking the cup, he gave thanks and said, "Take this and divide it among you."'
Do you have a point? Or do you just ramble on and on? You negate everything, with no conclusion. The Bible doesn't say to do it, so you say not to do it. Where the Bible is silent, that doesn't mean whatever it's silent about is illegal or damning. Where the Bible is silent, that's where tradition tells us what should be there. The Bible is silent on abortion, but from tradition and teaching we accept it as wrong and sinful. The Bible is silent even on what constitutes a marriage, or when a marriage begins and with what act, but tradition explains these things so we know some of the "rules" of marriage.

Let me get this straight. I think what you're trying to argue now is the fact that the priest/deacon distributes the Host instead of allowing the congregation to break it among themselves? Is that what you're not asking?

You are nitpicking a lot and saying nothing. I don't mean to be rude about it, but what is your point to all this? Frankly, I don't see how I am a pharisee and you are not, when you are the one binding himself and others with this legalism and I am happy with my freedom from that legalism. You seem to be hunting for any clause to disallow something that has been in practice for two thousand years plus, meaning only to restrict and bind, when I have Tradition to clear up fuzzy areas, teach me as the apostles taught, and give me freedom to move around with good conscience. I don't think that makes me--or any "good" Catholic (that is, knowledgeable of the truth of his faith and traditions) a pharisee.

[Kenite]

[QUOTE]I think what you're trying to argue now is the fact that the priest/deacon distributes the Host instead of allowing the congregation to break it among themselves? One person doles out bread and maybe wine, when Jesus said, "Divide it among yourselves." If you people are going to be fundamentalists, where is your literal obedience to that? You people pick and choose what you will believe, to your own extremely well-deserved destruction.

[adopted heir]

[QUOTE=adopted heir] One person doles out bread and maybe wine, when Jesus said, "Divide it among yourselves." If you people are going to be fundamentalists, where is your literal obedience to that? You people pick and choose what you will believe, to your own extremely well-deserved destruction.
That looks like a lot of vehemence for a very little thing. Is that your whole problem with Catholocism, that the bread and wine are passed and the taker doesn't break off his own bit? Perhaps, and this is just hypothesizing here, perhaps the Host was passed out because of the problems Paul was talking about--some people filling up, others not getting enough, some people getting drunk on the communion wine, others getting none. When the priest or deacon passes it out, it makes sure everyone receives fairly, the same amount, and also assures there's enough to go around. Perhaps Jesus had them divide the bread amongst themselves because there were only twelve at table beside himself, and he could be sure that everyone would get an equal piece. Even if this weren't plausible, it's an extremely minor (legalistic) thing to have to differentiate between breaking break myself, or having it broken for me. I guess, if you look at it, it really was broken for me--on the Cross, where Christ's body was broken for the good of all. Perhaps that's another significance of having it passed already broken to us?

BTW, what's this about being a fundie? Yuck. And there's no picking and choosing--this Church has the most completeness I've found anywhere, as opposed to the several but not quite dozens of Protestant churches I've attended (not singly, but for long periods of time) who seem to kind of gloss over problem areas or downright ignore basic tenets of the faith because they can't be explained from a Protestant bias. (Sadly one of the churches, with people dear to my heart, refused to even acknowledge the Holy Spirit to more than an occasional nod. How's that for picking and choosing? You get to pick which two-thirds of God you like most. Terrible!)

C: Are you sitting in judgment? For your information, all of us down here are extremely well-deserving of destruction. That's why we love Jesus--because he spares us from what we rightfully deserve. And one of the things Jesus got most pissed about was when pharisees sat unrighteously in judgment of others. That seems to be picking and choosing what you will believe, to your own.... well, you know.

[VFarris01]

The Bible doesn't say to do it, so you say not to do it. Where the Bible is silent, that doesn't mean whatever it's silent about is illegal or damning.The Bible tells us PRECISELY how to worship. Anything more is an addition to God's word.


Where the Bible is silent, that's where tradition tells us what should be there.I disagree most virulently.


The Bible is silent on abortion, but from tradition and teaching we accept it as wrong and sinful.It is? Does the phrase, "Thou shalt not kill" ring any bells?


The Bible is silent even on what constitutes a marriage, or when a marriage begins and with what act, but tradition explains these things so we know some of the "rules" of marriage.The Bible is indeed NOT SILENT concerning marriage (see, Genesis 2:23-24, Matthew 19:3-10, Mark 10:2-9). Marriage is a contract; the OT is filled with examples (you must have missed that part in catechism).


Let me get this straight. I think what you're trying to argue now is the fact that the priest/deacon distributes the Host instead of allowing the congregation to break it among themselves? Is that what you're not asking?From my pov this is irrelavent (perhaps not Ken's though).


You are nitpicking a lot and saying nothing. I don't mean to be rude about it, but what is your point to all this? Frankly, I don't see how I am a pharisee and you are not, when you are the one binding himself and others ith this legalism and I am happy with my freedom from that legalism.Nit-picking? Nit-picking the most important ceremony in Christendom? You are kidding... right?


You seem to be hunting for any clause to disallow something that has been in practice for two thousand years plus, meaning only to restrict and bind, when I have Tradition to clear up fuzzy areas, teach me as the apostles taught, and give me freedom to move around with good conscience. I don't think that makes me--or any "good" Catholic (that is, knowledgeable of the truth of his faith and traditions) a pharisee.In your opinion that is...

I was going to respond to your follow-up post but decided against it because all it is is more of your ususal nonsense.

[kommandermatt]

No, I do not believe the method of distribution is important either. Are you referring to the nature of bread being bread and wine being wine? Jesus is clear about what the bread and wine represents. It did not (and does not) change you know; if it did this is the only miracle recorded in the Bible in which nothing happened.

:/
Sticking words in Christ's mouth isn't a very good idea. Nowhere does he say "this represents my body" He says "this is my body."

I am the living bread which came down from heaven; if any one eats of this bread, he will live for ever; and the bread which I shall give for the life of the world is my flesh.’ The Jews then disputed among themselves, saying, ‘How can this man give us his flesh to eat?

How indeed? Yet, if He was only speaking metaphorically, why didn't he explain that to them? Instead, what he does is be even more blatant.

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; he who eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day. For my flesh is food indeed, and my blood is drink indeed. He who eats my flesh and drinks my blood abides in me, and I in him

He's not being metaphorical here. He's not talking just spiritually or representationally. He is dead serious, and to superimpose a different interpretation over this is no more than putting a human tradition over the direct words of God Himself. To quote Ray Romano: "The shoe's on the other foot now, huh? Uncomfortable and smelly, is it not?"

In response to who's judging what when, I'll just bold different words in the same passage, and provide the immidiately following context.

(27) Therefore, whoever eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty of sinning against the body and blood of the Lord. (28) A man ought to examine himself before he eats of the bread and drinks of the cup. (29) For anyone who eats and drinks without recognizing the body of the Lord ]eats and drinks judgment on himself.

But wait, there's more.

That is why many among you are ill and infirm, and a considerable number are dying.
31
If we discerned ourselves, we would not be under judgment;
32
but since we are judged by (the) Lord, we are being disciplined so that we may not be condemned along with the world.
33
Therefore, my brothers, when you come together to eat, wait for one another.
34
If anyone is hungry, he should eat at home, so that your meetings may not result in judgment. The other matters I shall set in order when I come.

HMMMMMMMMMMMMM.... :tongue:

[adopted heir]

:/
Sticking words in Christ's mouth isn't a very good idea. Nowhere does he say "this represents my body" He says "this is my body."

I am the living bread which came down from heaven; if any one eats of this bread, he will live for ever; and the bread which I shall give for the life of the world is my flesh.’ The Jews then disputed among themselves, saying, ‘How can this man give us his flesh to eat?

How indeed? Yet, if He was only speaking metaphorically, why didn't he explain that to them? Instead, what he does is be even more blatant.

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; he who eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day. For my flesh is food indeed, and my blood is drink indeed. He who eats my flesh and drinks my blood abides in me, and I in him

He's not being metaphorical here. He's not talking just spiritually or representationally. He is dead serious, and to superimpose a different interpretation over this is no more than putting a human tradition over the direct words of God Himself. To quote Ray Romano: "The shoe's on the other foot now, huh? Uncomfortable and smelly, is it not?"

In response to who's judging what when, I'll just bold different words in the same passage, and provide the immidiately following context.

(27) Therefore, whoever eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty of sinning against the body and blood of the Lord. (28) A man ought to examine himself before he eats of the bread and drinks of the cup. (29) For anyone who eats and drinks without recognizing the body of the Lord ]eats and drinks judgment on himself.

But wait, there's more.

That is why many among you are ill and infirm, and a considerable number are dying.
31
If we discerned ourselves, we would not be under judgment;
32
but since we are judged by (the) Lord, we are being disciplined so that we may not be condemned along with the world.
33
Therefore, my brothers, when you come together to eat, wait for one another.
34
If anyone is hungry, he should eat at home, so that your meetings may not result in judgment. The other matters I shall set in order when I come.

HMMMMMMMMMMMMM.... :tongue:
Yay!! Way to use that... whatsit... the Bible thoroughly and in context and not distort its words. Hmmm indeed. :D That seems to cover all the objections (including the ones already addressed). Bravo.

[Kenite]

[QUOTE]perhaps the Host was passed out There is no evidence that anything was passed out. The evidence is that people brought their own food and drink.


When the priest or deacon passes it out, Why don't your men in frocks take them off and get into waiter's garb, serve the food at table, and the wine too? Or is that too menial?


it makes sure everyone receives fairly, the same amount, The world can do that with serving ladies, so why not the church?


and also assures there's enough to go around. Perhaps Jesus had them divide the bread amongst themselves because there were only twelve at tableIt's no different with 120.

[VFarris01]

Sticking words in Christ's mouth isn't a very good idea. Nowhere does he say "this represents my body" He says "this is my body."
<snip>
How indeed? Yet, if He was only speaking metaphorically, why didn't he explain that to them? Instead, what he does is be even more blatant.
<snip>
He's not being metaphorical here. He's not talking just spiritually or representationally. He is dead serious, and to superimpose a different interpretation over this is no more than putting a human tradition over the direct words of God Himself.
<snip>I have been over all of this before in another thread and do not have the time nor the inclination to explain to you how very wrong you are in your analysis.

For the short answer; Jesus was often cryptic in His speeches. He was also well know for comparing himself to other things like vines, lights, and doors, not the least of which was "bread;" ALL without further elaboration.

In ALL instances Jesus describes Himself as something; we are not actually expected to believe Jesus is a vine or a door; the same is true when He calls Himself "bread." If we accept that Jesus is speaking metaphorically in one instance when describing Himself, He MUST be speaking metaphorically in ALL instances. There can be NO exceptions.

[kommandermatt]

I have been over all of this before in another thread and do not have the time nor the inclination to explain to you how very wrong you are in your analysis.

For the short answer; Jesus was often cryptic in His speeches. He was also well know for comparing himself to other things like vines, lights, and doors, not the least of which was "bread;" ALL without further elaboration.

In ALL instances Jesus describes Himself as something; we are not actually expected to believe Jesus is a vine or a door; the same is true when He calls Himself "bread." If we accept that Jesus is speaking metaphorically in one instance when describing Himself, He MUST be speaking metaphorically in ALL instances. There can be NO exceptions.

That's ridiculous. Jesus describes Himself as the only mediator between God and Man. Do you honestly think He's being metaphorical there?

This particular case is different from other descriptions Christ gives of himself for a number of reasons. The first is that our body of authority, starting with Paul and continuing through Ignatius of Antioch, Augustine, Justin Martyr, Irenaeus, etc. all agree that He was speaking literally. The second is that not only does he describe himself as the bread of life, He also says, flat out, "you need to eat my flesh." That's not a metophorical description, that's an unequivocal command. Third, you have the response of the bystanders. Christ's description of Himself as the vine never elicited that kind of response, indicating that there was something fundamentally different going on.

[VFarris01]

That's ridiculous. Jesus describes Himself as the only mediator between God and Man. Do you honestly think He's being metaphorical there?Clever, but an argument based in straw... This is not a description of the Anointed one of God comparing himself to an inanimate object; Jesus is describing His function. (Compare, "I am a Supreme Court judge" to "I am a doorknob.")


This particular case is different from other descriptions Christ gives of himself for a number of reasons. The first is that our body of authority, starting with Paul and continuing through Ignatius of Antioch, Augustine, Justin Martyr, Irenaeus, etc. all agree that He was speaking literally.Body of authority? Paul does not agree Jesus is speaking literally. If he did then he would not have continued to state that the bread was bread and the wine was wine. Your other "people of authority" are doing no more than stating their opinions.


The second is that not only does he describe himself as the bread of life, He also says, flat out, "you need to eat my flesh." That's not a metophorical description, that's an unequivocal command.Certainly, He says this "flat out;" He then goes on in v63 to explain His meaning, "It is the Spirit that makes alive, the flesh profits nothing. The words that I speak to you are spirit and are life (MKJV)." Even Peter, the village idiot of the Apostles, understands Jesus' meaning (v68), "Then Simon Peter answered Him, 'Lord, to whom shall we go? You have the words of eternal life (MKJV).'"


Third, you have the response of the bystanders. Christ's description of Himself as the vine never elicited that kind of response, indicating that there was something fundamentally different going on.So? The "fundamental difference" lies in your interpretation, not what He said.

[Jezz]

[QUOTE=Jezz]Who did that, Jezz? Can you not bear to mention the name of that person, who is no longer with us in the flesh?
His name is Jesus Christ.


Or are we supposed to mildly accept the arrogance of pagans at their absurd caricatures of the Lord's Supper in usurping the bearer of that name? "I'll be Jesus." Pah! They'll think Korah blessed!
They're only doing what Christ commanded ("Do this in rememberance of me").


They didn't have enough to bring, of course! This is excellent evidence that there was no distribution, as Paul would have addressed the elders on this point, just as a 'pope' would very firmly correct any 'priest' who erred so wildly as to distribute unequally.
So if they didn't have enough to bring, how do you propose that they were going to participate in the Eucharist? There are only two options here:

1. Someone else gave them some, or
2. They went without.

Which do you propose?


Prove it. You have to justify your fear and trembling,
I have.


...and you have quoted a warning that is known to be relevant only to excesses that you cannot fall prone to.
Where does St Paul say that the warning is only relevant to gluttony and unequal distribution? Where does he say that "unworthiness" only means eating too much/not sharing?


Did I say which cult you are a member of?
You said:

"That arose because of excess, which, as you agree, is impossible in your cult"

This statement only makes sense if one assumes that we had been discussing the communion praxis of the "cult" of which I am a part. But the only cult whose communion praxis we discussed was that of the Roman Church. Ergo, your statement implies that you believed me to be a part of the Roman Church. QED.


The word eucharist' means 'giving thanks'. What are you giving thanks for, if you are worried about your worthiness?
We give thanks for everything that God has done for us, of course. Don't you?

[Kenite]

[QUOTE=Kenite][QUOTE]His name is Jesus Christ.Ah! Not 'a priest appointed by those who wish to avoid fear and trembling', then. Good to get that cleared up.


They're only doing what Christ commanded ("Do this in rememberance of me").Find where Jesus appointed priests to offer sacrifices and dole them out to a laity. I can find something like that in Roman pagan religions.


Someone else gave them somePerhaps they did, but that could have been anyone, not a 'priest' appointed by those who wish to avoid fear and trembling, whose presence is nowhere commanded or even mentioned in apostolic practice.


I have.You have not. You have grabbed at an absurd straw. No ordinary Catholic could get a decent meal at a Roman Mass.


Where does St Paul say that the warning is only relevant to gluttony and unequal distribution?He doesn't, but then he doesn't say that there is any other reason to be in fear and trembling. Where is your reason for fear and trembling? You don't even get the chance to be drunk or overfed, so what could you possibly have to worry about? Do tell us, before we all die of old age. Otherwise we shall all have very good reason to believe that the pagan cults that risibly call themselves 'Orthodox' and 'Catholic' are in very great fear and trembling of anyone being in fear and trembling; if we haven't decided that already, of course!

[VFarris01]

Where does St Paul say that the warning is only relevant to gluttony and unequal distribution?I especially like how the RC and EO, when confronted, fall on their sword with, "Well, it does not say so either way in the Bible so we depend on (holy) tradition to guide our actions." But, when it is in their interest to deny something not covered in the Bible, we get statement like the one quoted above.

[VFarris01]

No ordinary Catholic could get a decent meal at a Roman Mass.:lol: While this is extremely funny in my opinion, I do not agree the "point" of the "thanksgiving meal" is to become well fed... it is a time of inner reflection and dedication.

No one appreciates a good one-liner more than me... keep up the good work!

[Kenite]

I especially like how the RC and EO, when confronted, fall on their sword with, "Well, it does not say so either way in the Bible so we depend on (holy) tradition to guide our actions." But, when it is in their interest to deny something not covered in the Bible, we get statement like the one quoted above.The joke is that they really, honestly expect us to believe that they are Christians. God sends a powerful lie, but some people make do with a pathetic one! :lol:

[Kenite]

[QUOTE]:lol: While this is extremely funny in my opinion, I do not agree the "point" of the "thanksgiving meal" is to become well fed... it is a time of inner reflection and dedication. I do agree; but that is far from the context of Jezz's feeble excuse.


No one appreciates a good one-liner more than me... keep up the good work! It's quite easy with the RCC/EO!

[adopted heir]

[QUOTE=VFarris01]I do agree; but that is far from the context of Jezz's feeble excuse.

It's quite easy with the RCC/EO!


I don't think anyone who knows what they're doing takes Eucharist looking for a full belly. If you're looking to feed your dunlop, you're going to be sorrily disappointed. Really, the portions don't matter as long as everyone in communion has the opportunity to take communion equally, as brothers and sisters in Christ. It's an act of love for our Lord, because He told us "Do this in remembrance of me." I don't know what you aren't understanding in those six words. Especially the "DO THIS" part. Perhaps merely because it is an act of love, it goes right over your head, never to be appreciated. That's sad. We take communion as a spiritual feeding; it is done with thanksgiving for the wonders and mercies God has given us, His ultimate love and kindness (you might ought look up those words), with reverence for the greatness and power and holiness of God, with solemnity because we know the gravity of the sacrifice Christ made for us, what He gave up for our sake, and most of all with love, love for our brothers in Christ and most of all above that, love for our Lord Jesus.

Nobody makes the assumption that you're taking communion in order to stuff yourself silly. We take communion, the Eucharist, the Last Supper, whatever, to draw nearer to Jesus, and spend time personally, in reflection, and in prayer, with Him.

And your remark about Tradition--I'm infinitely more likely to believe the most outrageous tradition of the Roman Catholic Church, Jesus Christ's chosen and handmade Church, than anything you can come up with in opposition. It isn't a matter of, if I want to deny something you say, that isn't in the Bible either way, I'll rely on Tradition. It's just that everything you are saying has been debunked already in history as heresy, heresy as in opposition of both the sacred Word of God and Tradition, and where the Bible is silent, Tradition clarifies, and never have the two opposed and never will they.

But you are blind and deaf and without love, and won't see these things only because I tell you. I pray God will open your eyes to His mercy and love, that you could be a carrier of that love to the world and no longer be chained by malice and mockery.

[Kenite]

[QUOTE=Kenite][QUOTE]I don't think anyone who knows what they're doing Taking a meal of any size is normally pleasant, and no trouble, as long as one is sensible, as any pagan can be. Being alive to the Holy Spirit demands one's whole life. That's why Jesus lost so many disciples.

[adopted heir]

[QUOTE=adopted heir][QUOTE=Kenite]Taking a meal of any size is normally pleasant, and no trouble, as long as one is sensible, as any pagan can be. Being alive to the Holy Spirit demands one's whole life. That's why Jesus lost so many disciples.
Sharing a meal, however small, with our Lord is more than pleasant. The Eucharist is also a look forward at the wedding feast of the Lamb. Many take it daily, as well as participate in the other sacraments, in order to make Christ a part of their daily lives. It's a way of reminding oneself that Jesus is with us always, and there's no part of our lives he's barred from, by our choice. He does demand full participation in our lives, and perhaps Eucharist is our daily way of acknowledging and allowing that.

[Kenite]

[QUOTE=Kenite][QUOTE=adopted heir]
[QUOTE]Sharing a meal, however small, with our Lord is more than pleasant.Then why does Jezz get fear and trembling about it?

[VFarris01]

Sharing a meal, however small, with our Lord is more than pleasant.
Then why does Jezz get fear and trembling about it?Bada BING.

[Cynic Sage]

[QUOTE=adopted heir][QUOTE=Kenite][QUOTE=adopted heir]
Then why does Jezz get fear and trembling about it?
Were you joking, or serious?

[VFarris01]

Were you joking, or serious?Read the thread... it is a hoot!

[adopted heir]

[QUOTE=adopted heir][QUOTE=Kenite][QUOTE=adopted heir]
Then why does Jezz get fear and trembling about it?
Where are you getting the fear and trembling verse that goes with Eucharist? I believe, at least the only verse I know of that mentions it is "Work out your salvation with fear and trembling..." etc. To apply it to the Eucharist, it could read "Keep in mind that you are not worthy, that you are at table with Christ only because of His love for you. Therefore, use your life to reconcile yourself to Him completely, so your love for Him is as plain as the nose on your face. The fear is the fear of the Lord, that is, the tremendous respect that's due Him, and the trembling is our trembling in humility before His majesty."

[adopted heir]

[QUOTE=Kenite][QUOTE=adopted heir][QUOTE=Kenite]
Where are you getting the fear and trembling verse that goes with Eucharist? I believe, at least the only verse I know of that mentions it is "Work out your salvation with fear and trembling..." etc. To apply it to the Eucharist, it could read "Keep in mind that you are not worthy, that you are at table with Christ only because of His love for you. Therefore, use your life to reconcile yourself to Him completely, so your love for Him is as plain as the nose on your face. The fear is the fear of the Lord, that is, the tremendous respect that's due Him, and the trembling is our trembling in humility before His majesty."
I think Jezz would be in fear and trembling rightfully, because God is awesome (and not in the whoa, dude sense but the proper sense) and mighty as well as loving, because God can see right through the crap inside our hearts to our real selves, and yeah, it can be scary when Someone can read your innermost desires and intentions with no effort. And again, respect for God and the recognition that basically, I am nothing, and have no value except that which my God allows me.

[Kenite]

[QUOTE]"Keep in mind that you are not worthySo Jezz is correct when he is in fear and trembling about attending his 'eucharist'. Now for the life of him, he cannot tell us why he gets into that state. Can you tell us why you get into that state? Or are you like every real live Catholic I've ever known, and treat the Mass more or less like a chore, to be attended just to keep in with the priest, or for appearances, or some such motive?

[adopted heir]

[QUOTE=adopted heir] So Jezz is correct when he is in fear and trembling about attending his 'eucharist'. Now for the life of him, he cannot tell us why he gets into that state. Can you tell us why you get into that state? Or are you like every real live Catholic I've ever known, and treat the Mass more or less like a chore, to be attended just to keep in with the priest, or for appearances, or some such motive?

Fortunately, I don't know anyone I go to Mass with, so I don't have any need to keep up appearances for their sake. I approach it as I described above, as intensely personal and also a privilege I shouldn't abuse or profane. Also, for me, going to Mass is a gift, not a chore, and I only wish my schedule didn't suck and I could go more often. I think if people dont' take it seriously, but behave as you say (Mass is a chore, looking good to either the priest or other parishioners, etc.), then no, they don't approach it with humility as they should, and don't appreciate what it actually means to participate in the Mass or in Eucharist, and they are the ones who should be wary of participating, because they would be profaning the body and blood of Christ. But to be fair, there are millions of Protestants as well who go to church with that same attitude as you described above; it's not a Catholic disease.

[VFarris01]

... I only wish my schedule didn't suck and I could go more often.If the darn stingy priest would give you more you would not be wanting to get more :lol: (I am teasing).

[adopted heir]

If the darn stingy priest would give you more you would not be wanting to get more :lol: (I am teasing).
Lol okay. Maybe the bits are so small so we do have to keep coming back for more! :lol: Haha--at last we get to the heart of this 'Catholic conpiracy!!!' :highfive:

[Kenite]

[QUOTE]Fortunately, I don't know anyone I go to Mass with Fortunately? This thread gets more and more surreal.


But to be fair, there are millions of Protestants as well who go to church with that same attitude as you described above; it's not a Catholic disease. That's no excuse. Catholics are heartily content to number their millions of baptised persons as Catholics, but no Christian would say for a moment that even one percent of Protestants are Christians. The commonly observed fact is that the vast majority of real, checkable Catholics never show the merest sign of fear and trembling about anything in connexion with their religion, except fear of their priest, and that not much these days. The only time I can count on seeing fear in the eyes of Catholics is when asking them to come to an evangelistic meeting, or to discuss the Bible.

The 'Mass' is an easy cop-out, and an illusion, like Mickey Mouse. Jesus did not mean literal yeast when he referred to that of the Pharisees, and he does not mean literal bread either when He talks of Himself. As is obvious to even a child.

[adopted heir]

[QUOTE=adopted heir] Fortunately? This thread gets more and more surreal.

That's no excuse. Catholics are heartily content to number their millions of baptised persons as Catholics, but no Christian would say for a moment that even one percent of Protestants are Christians. The commonly observed fact is that the vast majority of real, checkable Catholics never show the merest sign of fear and trembling about anything in connexion with their religion, except fear of their priest, and that not much these days. The only time I can count on seeing fear in the eyes of Catholics is when asking them to come to an evangelistic meeting, or to discuss the Bible.

The 'Mass' is an easy cop-out, and an illusion, like Mickey Mouse. Jesus did not mean literal yeast when he referred to that of the Pharisees, and he does not mean literal bread either when He talks of Himself. As is obvious to even a child.

Come on! You could at least have read the rest of the sentence. It's fortunate in the sense that I don't have to worry about appearances. That was the point you so glibly skimmed over. And I'm not going to deny that there are many, many false Christians in the world, Catholics included right alongside Protestants, but I can't and you can't see inside another person's heart and know whether he is a true Christian or not. There's even a term in the Church--"dead Catholics" or members, who have the title but don't do any good with it.

Real, "checkable" Catholics? What are you, Big Brother? I didn't know I had to carry a license to become Catholic. That's crazy. What about the "checkable" Protestants who live with no love in their hearts? Who go to church Sunday and Wednesday, have a touchy-feely warm fuzzy, and go home and act self-righteous and hateful to others? It's equal distribution, mister. When the fit hits the shan, everything gets splattered.

[kommandermatt]

It's quite easy with the RCC/EO!

One liners are easy, period. It's taking time to consider your opponents position carefully and then write a reply with some real substance that takes effort. That's probably why Ken does so so infrequently.

[Kenite]

[QUOTE]Come on! You could at least have read the rest of the sentence. It's fortunate in the sense that I don't have to worry about appearances. That was the point you so glibly skimmed over. It's crazier and crazier! So a Catholic has to keep away from other Catholics so that he does not fall into temptation from them! :shrug:


And I'm not going to deny that there are many, many false Christians in the world, Catholics includedIf we count up the number of Catholics who are in fear and trembling at the Mass, I reckon that will be every last one of them!


I can't and you can't see inside another person's heart and know whether he is a true Christian or not.You don't have to. You just have to see which Catholics are in fear and trembling at their Mass, which won't come to many, these days (and even if they are in fear and trembling, it won't make them Christian).


Real, "checkable" Catholics? What are you, Big Brother?If you will get to know one or two Catholics, you might find the same as everyone else does about them, which is what I said (except for the evangelistic meeting bit, which only the born again and Catholics will know first hand).


What about the "checkable" Protestants who live with no love in their hearts?So much for the One, Holy, Apostolic Catholic Church. It's as pathetic as those damned Proddy dogs after all!

[adopted heir]

[QUOTE=adopted heir]It's crazier and crazier! So a Catholic has to keep away from other Catholics so that he does not fall into temptation from them! :shrug:

If we count up the number of Catholics who are in fear and trembling at the Mass, I reckon that will be every last one of them!

You don't have to. You just have to see which Catholics are in fear and trembling at their Mass, which won't come to many, these days (and even if they are in fear and trembling, it won't make them Christian).

If you will get to know one or two Catholics, you might find the same as everyone else does about them, which is what I said (except for the evangelistic meeting bit, which only the born again and Catholics will know first hand).

So much for the One, Holy, Apostolic Catholic Church. It's as pathetic as those damned Proddy dogs after all!

You are, officially, a jerk. You're putting words into my mouth that you know were not implied. You are therefore a liar. However, you could not just stop at being a lying jerk, you have to be a lying, bigoted jerk. Congratulations, you are scum. I don't think you caught that that last paragraph, the one about Protestants with no love in their hearts, was referring to the likes of you.

If I will get to know one or two Catholics? I know a few more than that, closely and intimately as well as acquaintences, and I can swear that never, on their worst day, are they the antichristian miserable liar you are proving to be. We attend Mass because we, unlike you, whitewashed tomb, out of love, and if we have fear, it is because we understand that God is not to be watered down and that He is amazing and worthy of our awe.

Besides all this, what the hell are you doing in a Catholic Mass anyway? Don't you consider that playing with the devil or something stupid like that?

[Kenite]

[QUOTE]Besides all this, what the hell are you doing in a Catholic Mass anyway? I can go and choke on incense if I like!


Don't you consider that playing with the devil or something stupid like that? Interesting comment!

[kommandermatt]

What a petulant waste of time.

[ignore]

[adopted heir]

What a petulant waste of time.

[ignore]
yeah, now he's an invisible waste of time.

you know, i'm seeing now my major mistake was in assuming kenite was a christian when i saw no evidence whatsoever to support the assumption, and if kenite by chance really is a christian, one who follows Christ, one who obeys his commandments and lives as he did, then i'm glad all catholics are going to hell because that way we won't have to deal with the likes of him. it shall be infinite peace, and love abounding, where kenite is not.

[Kenite]

yeah, now he's an invisible waste of time.

you know, i'm seeing now my major mistake was in assuming kenite was a christian when i saw no evidence whatsoever to support the assumption, and if kenite by chance really is a christian, one who follows Christ, one who obeys his commandments and lives as he did, then i'm glad all catholics are going to hell because that way we won't have to deal with the likes of him. it shall be infinite peace, and love abounding, where kenite is not.But for you, hell is where Kenite is. Maybe.

[Jude3b]

yeah, now he's an invisible waste of time.

you know, i'm seeing now my major mistake was in assuming kenite was a christian when i saw no evidence whatsoever to support the assumption, and if kenite by chance really is a christian, one who follows Christ, one who obeys his commandments and lives as he did, then i'm glad all catholics are going to hell because that way we won't have to deal with the likes of him. it shall be infinite peace, and love abounding, where kenite is not.

Dear adopted heir:

And if one is a Christian - won't they obey God and what He says in His Word, over and above the false traditions of sinful infallible men?

[Joe Gofish]

Dear adopted heir:

And if one is a Christian - won't they obey God and what He says in His Word, over and above the false traditions of sinful infallible men?
Why don't you read your bible,the bible tells us we are to believe in tradition and to pass down what we have learned

[Kenite]

[QUOTE]Why don't you read your bible,the bible tells us we are to believe in traditionWhere, please?

[Jude3b]

Why don't you read your bible,the bible tells us we are to believe in tradition and to pass down what we have learned


Dear Joe Gofish:

Well here is one tradition I'll obey from the Word of God: "Then Peter and the other apostles answered and said, We ought to obey God rather than men." (Acts 5:29).

And here is another verse concerning "Tradition" that I always plan to follow:

"Beware lest any man spoil you through philosophy and vain deceit, after the TRADITION of men, after the rudiments of the world, and not after Christ." (Colossians 2:8).

The Traditions of your beloved Roman Catholic religion are not of God. They are man-made rules which have been handed down through the generations. So when you perform them, you are not obeying God, you are obeying THE TRADITIONS OF MEN. You "ought to obey God rather than men." (Acts 5:29)

[Joe Gofish]

Dear Joe Gofish:

Well here is one tradition I'll obey from the Word of God: "Then Peter and the other apostles answered and said, We ought to obey God rather than men." (Acts 5:29).

And here is another verse concerning "Tradition" that I always plan to follow:

"Beware lest any man spoil you through philosophy and vain deceit, after the TRADITION of men, after the rudiments of the world, and not after Christ." (Colossians 2:8).

The Traditions of your beloved Roman Catholic religion are not of God. They are man-made rules which have been handed down through the generations. So when you perform them, you are not obeying God, you are obeying THE TRADITIONS OF MEN. You "ought to obey God rather than men." (Acts 5:29)
Jude I do see why you are still confused,You can't pick and choose your bible verse we need to read all the verse. 2Thess 2:15, 2Tim 2:2, 1Cor 11:2 and 1 Thess 2:13. and what the early christian did Acts 2:42

[Joe Gofish]

[QUOTE=JOE GOFISH]Where, please?
Matt. 2:23 - the prophecy "He shall be a Nazarene" is oral tradition. It is not found in the Old Testament. This demonstrates that the apostles relied upon oral tradition and taught by oral tradition.



Matt 23:2 - Jesus relies on the oral tradition of acknowledging Moses' seat of authority (which passed from Moses to Joshua to the Sanhedrin). This is not recorded in the Old Testament.

John 19:26; 20:2; 21:20,24 - knowing that the "beloved disciple" is John is inferred from Scripture, but is also largely oral tradition.

Acts 20:35 - Paul relies on the oral tradition of the apostles for this statement ("it is better to give than to receive") of Jesus. It is not recorded in the Gospels.

1 Cor. 7:10 - Paul relies on the oral tradition of the apostles to give the charge of Jesus that a wife should not separate from her husband.

1 Cor. 10:4 - Paul relies on the oral tradition of the rock following Moses. It is not recorded in the Old Testament. See Exodus 17:1-17 and Num. 20:2-13.

Eph 5:14 - Paul relies on oral tradition to quote an early Christian hymn - "awake O sleeper rise from the dead and Christ shall give you light."

Heb. 11:37 - the author of Hebrews relies on the oral tradition of the martyrs being sawed in two. This is not recorded in the Old Testament.

Jude 9 - Jude relies on the oral tradition of the Archangel Michael's dispute with satan over Moses' body. This is not found in the Old Testament. Jude 14-15 - Jude relies on the oral tradition of Enoch's prophecy which is not recorded in the Old Testament.

[Jude3b]

Jude I do see why you are still confused,You can't pick and choose your bible verse we need to read all the verse. 2Thess 2:15, 2Tim 2:2, 1Cor 11:2 and 1 Thess 2:13. and what the early christian did Acts 2:42


Dear Joe Gofish:

Traditions can be either valuable or harmful, depending on whether or not they support God's Word.

Jesus, for example, rebuked teh Pharisees of his day, on this basis: "Why do ye also transgress the commandment of God by your tradition? (Matt. 15:3).

Paul encouraged the Thessalonians to keep the traditions they had been taught by him, either verbally or in writing (2 Thess 3:6).

For the first 20 or so years after the start of the church of God - the body of Christ, the Christians needed to remember, carefully and accurately, what they had been taught orally by the apostles or their prophets, pastors, and teachers, for they did not yet have the New Testament in written form. By this time on parts of the New Testament were complete.

Eventually, by the time the last apostle died, before 100 A.D., it would all be written and circulated among all the congregations of the church of God - the body of Christ, and there would be no further need for them to be guided by the oral traditions.

[Kenite]

[QUOTE]Matt. 2:23 - the prophecy "He shall be a Nazarene" is oral tradition. It is not found in the Old Testament. This demonstrates that the apostles relied upon oral tradition and taught by oral tradition. The apostles were taught and validated by Jesus. Others weren't, and aren't. There is nothing but Scripture left for us.

[QUOTE]Matt 23:2 - Jesus relies on the oral tradition of acknowledging Moses' seat of authority (which passed from Moses to Joshua to the Sanhedrin). This is not recorded in the Old Testament. Jesus walked on water.


John 19:26; 20:2; 21:20,24 - knowing that the "beloved disciple" is John is inferred from Scripture, but is also largely oral tradition. Who told you that? :smile: It's pretty obvious, though.


Acts 20:35 - Paul relies on the oral tradition of the apostles for this statement ("it is better to give than to receive") of Jesus. It is not recorded in the Gospels. Paul knew Peter, James and John.



1 Cor. 7:10 - Paul relies on the oral tradition of the apostles to give the charge of Jesus that a wife should not separate from her husband. Paul knew Peter, James and John.



1 Cor. 10:4 - Paul relies on the oral tradition of the rock following Moses. It is not recorded in the Old Testament. See Exodus 17:1-17 and Num. 20:2-13. Paul could have got that metaphor by divine inspiration. That does happen in the church!


Eph 5:14 - Paul relies on oral tradition to quote an early Christian hymn - "awake O sleeper rise from the dead and Christ shall give you light." Paul was accepted by the apostles in Jerusalem.



Heb. 11:37 - the author of Hebrews relies on the oral tradition of the martyrs being sawed in two. This is not recorded in the Old Testament. That author could have got that information validated by Christ, directly, or via one of the twelve.


Jude 9 - Jude relies on the oral tradition of the Archangel Michael's dispute with satan over Moses' body. This is not found in the Old Testament. Jude 14-15 - Jude relies on the oral tradition of Enoch's prophecy which is not recorded in the Old Testament. Jude could have got that information validated by Christ, directly, or via one of the twelve.

None of the traditions mentioned are crucial to the theology of any doctrine, and mostly tell us little or nothing that we do not know from other parts of Scripture. They are anyway all very likely to have been recognised as valid by their first readers in the true church. They are light years away from traditions that cannot be validated in that manner, and which alter theology in fundamental ways. They are far more likely to be heretical novelties than acceptable lore. The plenteous Scriptural warnings against such things are taken very seriously by the true church, which accepts only what can be proved from Scripture alone.

[Joe Gofish]

[QUOTE=JOE GOFISH][QUOTE=Kenite]
The apostles were taught and validated by Jesus. Others weren't, and aren't. There is nothing but Scripture left for us.

Jesus walked on water.

Who told you that? :smile: It's pretty obvious, though.

Paul knew Peter, James and John.


Paul knew Peter, James and John.


Paul could have got that metaphor by divine inspiration. That does happen in the church!

Paul was accepted by the apostles in Jerusalem.


That author could have got that information validated by Christ, directly, or via one of the twelve.

Jude could have got that information validated by Christ, directly, or via one of the twelve.

None of the traditions mentioned are crucial to the theology of any doctrine, and mostly tell us little or nothing that we do not know from other parts of Scripture. They are anyway all very likely to have been recognised as valid by their first readers in the true church. They are light years away from traditions that cannot be validated in that manner, and which alter theology in fundamental ways. They are far more likely to be heretical novelties than acceptable lore. The plenteous Scriptural warnings against such things are taken very seriously by the true church, which accepts only what can be proved from Scripture alone.
1 Corinthians 11:2: ". . . keep the ordinances, as I delivered {them} to you." (RSV, NRSV, NEB, REB, NKJV, NASB all translate KJV "ordinances" as "tradition{s}").
2) 2 Thessalonians 2:15: ". . . hold the traditions which ye have been taught, whether by word, or our epistle."

[Kenite]

[QUOTE]1 Corinthians 11:2: ". . . keep the ordinances, as I delivered {them} to you." (RSV, NRSV, NEB, REB, NKJV, NASB all translate KJV "ordinances" as "tradition{s}"). And what were those ordinances/traditions/teachings/precepts, Joe? Can you remember? It's a long time ago, I know, but do try!

And don't forget to collect Paul's cloak from Carpus!

[Joe Gofish]

[QUOTE=JOE GOFISH] And what were those ordinances/traditions/teachings/precepts, Joe? Can you remember? It's a long time ago, I know, but do try!

And don't forget to collect Paul's cloak from Carpus!
I did not write the KJB, I can only tell you what if said. "ordinances as traditions"

Jesus said it is better to give then receive,show me from the Bible that Jesus said this or He wrote it.It is oral tradition pass down from what Our Lord said to Paul.

Jesus did not write one thing with His hand writting.oh maybe in the sand

[Kenite]

[QUOTE]I did not write the KJB, I can only tell you what if said. "ordinances as traditions"Whatever you want to call them, Joe, what were they? You were there in Corinth when Paul delivered them, surely?

Or have you forgotten them? What a pity!


Jesus said it is better to give then receive,show me from the Bible that Jesus said this or He wrote it.Paul writing it is as good as Luke writing it! Or don't you think so, Paul being suspiciously lacking in works-salvation teaching? :wink:

[Jude3b]

[QUOTE=Kenite][QUOTE=JOE GOFISH]
1 Corinthians 11:2: ". . . keep the ordinances, as I delivered {them} to you." (RSV, NRSV, NEB, REB, NKJV, NASB all translate KJV "ordinances" as "tradition{s}").
2) 2 Thessalonians 2:15: ". . . hold the traditions which ye have been taught, whether by word, or our epistle."




Dear Joe Gofish:

So you completely ignored my post about good and bad traditions. The Bible tells you clearly which ones are good and which ones are bad. Man made traditions started by fallible men with no Biblical basis are bad and forbidden in Scripture.

[Joe Gofish]

[QUOTE=JOE GOFISH][QUOTE=Kenite]


Dear Joe Gofish:

So you completely ignored my post about good and bad traditions. The Bible tells you clearly which ones are good and which ones are bad. Man made traditions started by fallible men with no Biblical basis are bad and forbidden in Scripture.
JUDE I keep forgetting that you have read the bible one or two time,what I forget is it is hard for you to understand,Do you think it may be the LD ?
The Church knows all about good and bad traditions,the sad thing is you do not.
See if this will help you ,
Matt. 2:23 - the prophecy "He shall be a Nazarene" is oral tradition. It is not found in the Old Testament. This demonstrates that the apostles relied upon oral tradition and taught by oral tradition.



Matt 23:2 - Jesus relies on the oral tradition of acknowledging Moses' seat of authority (which passed from Moses to Joshua to the Sanhedrin). This is not recorded in the Old Testament.

John 19:26; 20:2; 21:20,24 - knowing that the "beloved disciple" is John is inferred from Scripture, but is also largely oral tradition.

Acts 20:35 - Paul relies on the oral tradition of the apostles for this statement ("it is better to give than to receive") of Jesus. It is not recorded in the Gospels.

1 Cor. 7:10 - Paul relies on the oral tradition of the apostles to give the charge of Jesus that a wife should not separate from her husband.

1 Cor. 10:4 - Paul relies on the oral tradition of the rock following Moses. It is not recorded in the Old Testament. See Exodus 17:1-17 and Num. 20:2-13.

Eph 5:14 - Paul relies on oral tradition to quote an early Christian hymn - "awake O sleeper rise from the dead and Christ shall give you light."

Heb. 11:37 - the author of Hebrews relies on the oral tradition of the martyrs being sawed in two. This is not recorded in the Old Testament.

Jude 9 - Jude relies on the oral tradition of the Archangel Michael's dispute with satan over Moses' body. This is not found in the Old Testament. Jude 14-15 - Jude relies on the oral tradition of Enoch's prophecy which is not recorded in the Old Testament.

[Jude3b]

[QUOTE=Jude3b][QUOTE=JOE GOFISH]
JUDE I keep forgetting that you have read the bible one or two time,what I forget is it is hard for you to understand,Do you think it may be the LD ?
The Church knows all about good and bad traditions,the sad thing is you do not.
See if this will help you ,
Matt. 2:23 - the prophecy "He shall be a Nazarene" is oral tradition. It is not found in the Old Testament. This demonstrates that the apostles relied upon oral tradition and taught by oral tradition.



Matt 23:2 - Jesus relies on the oral tradition of acknowledging Moses' seat of authority (which passed from Moses to Joshua to the Sanhedrin). This is not recorded in the Old Testament.

John 19:26; 20:2; 21:20,24 - knowing that the "beloved disciple" is John is inferred from Scripture, but is also largely oral tradition.

Acts 20:35 - Paul relies on the oral tradition of the apostles for this statement ("it is better to give than to receive") of Jesus. It is not recorded in the Gospels.

1 Cor. 7:10 - Paul relies on the oral tradition of the apostles to give the charge of Jesus that a wife should not separate from her husband.

1 Cor. 10:4 - Paul relies on the oral tradition of the rock following Moses. It is not recorded in the Old Testament. See Exodus 17:1-17 and Num. 20:2-13.

Eph 5:14 - Paul relies on oral tradition to quote an early Christian hymn - "awake O sleeper rise from the dead and Christ shall give you light."

Heb. 11:37 - the author of Hebrews relies on the oral tradition of the martyrs being sawed in two. This is not recorded in the Old Testament.

Jude 9 - Jude relies on the oral tradition of the Archangel Michael's dispute with satan over Moses' body. This is not found in the Old Testament. Jude 14-15 - Jude relies on the oral tradition of Enoch's prophecy which is not recorded in the Old Testament.




Dear Joe Gofish:

Thank you for sharing parts of verses of Scripture. I was thrilled to see you actually open the Bible and share something from it. That is a step in the right direction. Praise the Lord!

DIRECT REVELATION! When you read a verse of Scripture that is in the New Testament and it is not mentioned in the Old Testament - that was DIRECT REVELATION from the Holy Sprit. Direct Revelation is not Oral Tradition. Please don't give glory to fallible men, that belongs only to God.

"All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: (II Tim. 3:16).

"For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost." (II Peter 1:21).

The Spirit of God moved the hearts, minds, and pens of the holy (that is, called and set apart) men of God, and the Scriptures were formed, proceeding from the eternal mind of God to be revealed to His people - the church of God - the body of Christ.

[Joe Gofish]

Dear Joe Gofish:

Traditions can be either valuable or harmful, depending on whether or not they support God's Word.

Jesus, for example, rebuked teh Pharisees of his day, on this basis: "Why do ye also transgress the commandment of God by your tradition? (Matt. 15:3).

Paul encouraged the Thessalonians to keep the traditions they had been taught by him, either verbally or in writing (2 Thess 3:6).

For the first 20 or so years after the start of the church of God - the body of Christ, the Christians needed to remember, carefully and accurately, what they had been taught orally by the apostles or their prophets, pastors, and teachers, for they did not yet have the New Testament in written form. By this time on parts of the New Testament were complete.

Eventually, by the time the last apostle died, before 100 A.D., it would all be written and circulated among all the congregations of the church of God - the body of Christ, and there would be no further need for them to be guided by the oral traditions.
Did Are Lord say "it is better to give then to receive" Show me where it is written or what part of the Bible I can find this OT or NT.
No Paul said this is what Jesus said,it is oral tradition passed down by the apostle
2Thess 2:15,2Tim2:2,1Cor11:2:1,Thess 2:13
I'm not as good as you at being a parrot but you may remember It was said Not all Jesus did can be put in a book(ONE) I think its in JAMES I can check if you like

[Joe Gofish]

Did Are Lord say "it is better to give then to receive" Show me where it is written or what part of the Bible I can find this OT or NT.
No Paul said this is what Jesus said,it is oral tradition passed down by the apostle
2Thess 2:15,2Tim2:2,1Cor11:2:1,Thess 2:13
I'm not as good as you at being a parrot but you may remember It was said Not all Jesus did can be put in a book(ONE) I think its in JAMES I can check if you like
JUDE So you do not get confused it was John 21:25 "And there are also many other things which Jesus did, the which, if they should be written every one, I suppose that even the world itself could not contain the books that should be written. Amen.
not james..... MAYBE THE bIBLE IS NOT COMPLETE.

[Jude3b]

Did Are Lord say "it is better to give then to receive" Show me where it is written or what part of the Bible I can find this OT or NT.
No Paul said this is what Jesus said,it is oral tradition passed down by the apostle
2Thess 2:15,2Tim2:2,1Cor11:2:1,Thess 2:13
I'm not as good as you at being a parrot but you may remember It was said Not all Jesus did can be put in a book(ONE) I think its in JAMES I can check if you like

And your question or point is what?

Is this your logic for wanting to add to the Word of God, the Roman Catholic doctrines that violate the Word of God?

[Joe Gofish]

[QUOTE=JOE GOFISH][QUOTE=Jude3b]


Dear Joe Gofish:

Thank you for sharing parts of verses of Scripture. I was thrilled to see you actually open the Bible and share something from it. That is a step in the right direction. Praise the Lord!

DIRECT REVELATION! When you read a verse of Scripture that is in the New Testament and it is not mentioned in the Old Testament - that was DIRECT REVELATION from the Holy Sprit. Direct Revelation is not Oral Tradition. Please don't give glory to fallible men, that belongs only to God.

"All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: (II Tim. 3:16).

"For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost." (II Peter 1:21).

The Spirit of God moved the hearts, minds, and pens of the holy (that is, called and set apart) men of God, and the Scriptures were formed, proceeding from the eternal mind of God to be revealed to His people - the church of God - the body of Christ.
JUDE utill you have a doc look at your LD its hard to make you understand ,I can see why it was 27 years for you to think something was wrong.
"it is better to give then receive" is not written in Scripture its not in the old or the new. It is oral tradition that has been passed down by the apostles.
What part of this can you not understand ?????????? I can give you a 100 more verse if I think it will help,but we both know it will not,Thank you for still cooking your turkey ,you do a great job,Happy Thanksgiving

[Jude3b]

[QUOTE=Jude3b][QUOTE=JOE GOFISH]
JUDE utill you have a doc look at your LD its hard to make you understand ,I can see why it was 27 years for you to think something was wrong.
"it is better to give then receive" is not written in Scripture its not in the old or the new. It is oral tradition that has been passed down by the apostles.
What part of this can you not understand ?????????? I can give you a 100 more verse if I think it will help,but we both know it will not,Thank you for still cooking your turkey ,you do a great job,Happy Thanksgiving

Again Joe Gofish:
Whether or not something that is part of the New Testament started as an Oral Tradition or was direct revelation or was a direct quote from the Old Testament - is all great. God gave us both the Old and New Testament. They are the preserved Word of God.

Will you answer the question, that I have asked. When it comes down to which you will have as your final authority? Will it be God and His Word or your the dogmas of the Roman Catholic religion. Which will you go with, Rome or God?

Concerning your statement about Oral tradition:
Is this your reasoning why you think it is ok for your religion to add to, take away from and change the meaning of verses of scripture?

As far as why it took me 27 years to be delivered out of Romanism: The reason is that I was not saved. I had never ever responded to the pure true Gospel of Jesus Christ. I had never heard the true Gospel during my 27 years trapped and steeped in Romanism. The true Gospel of Christ is not preached or taught in Romanism. You know: The Gospel that is the good news that Jesus loves me, that He died on the cross for me and took the punishment that I deserve, the good news that He rose from the dead and that He ever liveth to make intercession for me. The fantastic wonderful good news that I am 100% forgiven and someday He will come back again for me and take me to be with Him in heaven for all eternity. No having to earn it or work for it or even get burned off in purgatory to get to heaven. Jesus Paid it all, all to Him I owe! Amen.

[Joe Gofish]

[QUOTE=JOE GOFISH][QUOTE=Jude3b]

Again Joe Gofish:
Whether or not something that is part of the New Testament started as an Oral Tradition or was direct revelation or was a direct quote from the Old Testament - is all great. God gave us both the Old and New Testament. They are the preserved Word of God.

Will you answer the question, that I have asked. When it comes down to which you will have as your final authority? Will it be God and His Word or your the dogmas of the Roman Catholic religion. Which will you go with, Rome or God?

Concerning your statement about Oral tradition:
Is this your reasoning why you think it is ok for your religion to add to, take away from and change the meaning of verses of scripture?

As far as why it took me 27 years to be delivered out of Romanism: The reason is that I was not saved. I had never ever responded to the pure true Gospel of Jesus Christ. I had never heard the true Gospel during my 27 years trapped and steeped in Romanism. The true Gospel of Christ is not preached or taught in Romanism. You know: The Gospel that is the good news that Jesus loves me, that He died on the cross for me and took the punishment that I deserve, the good news that He rose from the dead and that He ever liveth to make intercession for me. The fantastic wonderful good news that I am 100% forgiven and someday He will come back again for me and take me to be with Him in heaven for all eternity. No having to earn it or work for it or even get burned off in purgatory to get to heaven. Jesus Paid it all, all to Him I owe! Amen.
The Bible does not say to add or not to add,Thats your false interpreation of Rev. which is taling about the "BOOK" of Rev. and Deut which is talking about the commandments of God,so once agin you are wrong.
Again you are saying you believe in the false Calvin doctrine of "Once saved always saved. Maybe you need to read your bible again,read and study these verse. 1Cor 9:27, 1Cor 19:12.Phil 2:12, Heb4:1, JUde are these some of the bible verse that you do not agree with and do not pick these to read. If you need more I'll be happy to help you.If you had been a JW do you think it would take you 27 years to find out this is a false religion. Jude I'll send you a paste that may help you ,but you got to read it okay.

[Joe Gofish]

[QUOTE=Jude3b][QUOTE=JOE GOFISH]
The Bible does not say to add or not to add,Thats your false interpreation of Rev. which is taling about the "BOOK" of Rev. and Deut which is talking about the commandments of God,so once agin you are wrong.
Again you are saying you believe in the false Calvin doctrine of "Once saved always saved. Maybe you need to read your bible again,read and study these verse. 1Cor 9:27, 1Cor 19:12.Phil 2:12, Heb4:1, JUde are these some of the bible verse that you do not agree with and do not pick these to read. If you need more I'll be happy to help you.If you had been a JW do you think it would take you 27 years to find out this is a false religion. Jude I'll send you a paste that may help you ,but you got to read it okay.
JUDE I have a news flase for you denominations do not save,so the naswer to your question is GOD,Hope you can understand.
But I keep under my body, and bring it into subjection: lest that by any means, when I have preached to others, I myself should be a castaway." - 1 Corinthians 9:27"If by any means I might attain unto the resurrection of the dead. Not as though I had already attained, either were already perfect: but I follow after, if that I may apprehend that for which also I am apprehended of Christ Jesus. Brethren, I count not myself to have apprehended: but this one thing I do, forgetting those things which are behind, and reaching forth unto those things which are before, I press toward the mark for the prize of the high calling of God in Christ Jesus." - Philippians 3:11-14"And ye shall be hated of all men for my name's sake: but he that endureth to the end shall be saved." - Matthew 10:22"But he that shall endure unto the end, the same shall be saved." - Matthew 24:13"And ye shall be hated of all men for my name's sake: but he that shall endure unto the end, the same shall be saved." - Mark 13:13"Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven." - Matthew 7:21"Then said Jesus to those Jews which believed on him, If ye continue in my word, then are ye my disciples indeed." - John 8:31"Blessed is the man that endureth temptation: for when he is tried, he shall receive the crown of life, which the Lord hath promised to them that love him." - James 1:12"For if after they have escaped the pollutions of the world through the knowledge of the Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ, they are again entangled therein, and overcome, the latter end is worse with them than the beginning. For it had been better for them not to have known the way of righteousness, than, after they have known it, to turn from the holy commandment delivered unto them." - 2 Peter 2:20-21"And if some of the branches be broken off, and thou, being a wild olive tree, wert graffed in among them, and with them partakest of the root and fatness of the olive tree; Boast not against the branches. But if thou boast, thou bearest not the root, but the root thee. Thou wilt say then, The branches were broken off, that I might be graffed in. Well; because of unbelief they were broken off, and thou standest by faith. Be not highminded, but fear: For if God spared not the natural branches, take heed lest he also spare not thee. Behold therefore the goodness and severity of God: on them which fell, severity; but toward thee, goodness, if thou continue in his goodness: otherwise thou also shalt be cut off. And they also, if they abide not still in unbelief, shall be graffed in: for God is able to graff them in again." - Romans 11:17-23
I know you like to pick and choose your bible verse ,pick these and maybe you will find the TRUTH.Happy Thanksgiving

[Jude3b]

Dear Joe:

You have given another double back to back post, yet you would not answer my one simple question.

So, I'll give it to you again and ask you to respond to it:

What is your final authority? Is it the Word of God or is it the dogmas and doctrines of Roman Catholicism? Who will you follow when the two disagree?
Rome or God?

[Joe Gofish]

Dear Joe:

You have given another double back to back post, yet you would not answer my one simple question.

So, I'll give it to you again and ask you to respond to it:

What is your final authority? Is it the Word of God or is it the dogmas and doctrines of Roman Catholicism? Who will you follow when the two disagree?
Rome or God?
GOD

[pjinaries]

[QUOTE=Kenite]

In the Septuagint translation, he does!
Not really. All it means is Love your enemies. As the good nuns
taught us years ago We should pray for our enemies...i.e pray for "a speedy recovery or a happy death".

I'm sure a cannibal can love his enemies as he eat's them as in
"I love roast missionary".

Since love and kill are not opposites saying something about one
does not include logically that its opposite is forbidden.

[Jude3b]

GOD


Dear Joe Gofish:

Good! We have a basis to start with to share the truth.

You will be like those in Thessalonica, where believers heard these words preached: "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..." (I Thess. 2:13).

I thank God for you, that you will be receiving the Word of God. Amen.

As you probably well know, when Paul preached the Word of God to those brethren in Thessalonica, it was not Roman Catholic doctrine because Roman Catholicism didn't exist yet.

If GOD is truly to be your final authority, that will mean that you agree with His Word:

"Thy word is true from the beginning: and every one of thy righteous judgments endureth for ever." (Psalm 119:160)

Now God in His Word admonishes us in Galatians 1:8:

"But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed."

Now, it should be very easy to compare the Gospel that is preached in the Word of God to the Gospel as preached by Roman Catholicism and see if they differ. Would you agree?

If yes, why not tell me exactly what the Gospel is according to Roman Catholicism, in a sentence or two. My understanding from what Roman Catholic schools taught me is this: FAITH plus WORKS = Salvation. Is that how you understand it? Please feel free to quote the Roman Catholic Catechism as a source for the Roman Catholic Gospel.

I'm sure you will discover that the Roman Catholic Gospel and the Gospel that we find in the Bible, the Word of God are different. If they differ, you will obviously want to turn to God and become a Christian and forsake the false gospel of Romanism. Since God is your Final Authority. When you Believe ON and fully trust in Christ and Christ alone for your salvation, you will be born-again, saved and on your way to heaven. You will be "saved by Grace through faith." (see Eph. 2:8 & 9)

Like Paul in Acts 20:24 - I will not fail "to testify the gospel of the grace of God" to you. Ask me if you have any questions, please.

So wonderful to see you come to the place in your growth that you will put God first place. Keep always in mind, the Words of Christ and the fact that "Heaven and earth shall pass away, but my words shall not pass away." (Matthew 24:35)

[Joe Gofish]

Dear Joe Gofish:

Good! We have a basis to start with to share the truth.

You will be like those in Thessalonica, where believers heard these words preached: "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..." (I Thess. 2:13).

I thank God for you, that you will be receiving the Word of God. Amen.

As you probably well know, when Paul preached the Word of God to those brethren in Thessalonica, it was not Roman Catholic doctrine because Roman Catholicism didn't exist yet.

If GOD is truly to be your final authority, that will mean that you agree with His Word:

"Thy word is true from the beginning: and every one of thy righteous judgments endureth for ever." (Psalm 119:160)

Now God in His Word admonishes us in Galatians 1:8:

"But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed."

Now, it should be very easy to compare the Gospel that is preached in the Word of God to the Gospel as preached by Roman Catholicism and see if they differ. Would you agree?

If yes, why not tell me exactly what the Gospel is according to Roman Catholicism, in a sentence or two. My understanding from what Roman Catholic schools taught me is this: FAITH plus WORKS = Salvation. Is that how you understand it? Please feel free to quote the Roman Catholic Catechism as a source for the Roman Catholic Gospel.

I'm sure you will discover that the Roman Catholic Gospel and the Gospel that we find in the Bible, the Word of God are different. If they differ, you will obviously want to turn to God and become a Christian and forsake the false gospel of Romanism. Since God is your Final Authority. When you Believe ON and fully trust in Christ and Christ alone for your salvation, you will be born-again, saved and on your way to heaven. You will be "saved by Grace through faith." (see Eph. 2:8 & 9)

Like Paul in Acts 20:24 - I will not fail "to testify the gospel of the grace of God" to you. Ask me if you have any questions, please.

So wonderful to see you come to the place in your growth that you will put God first place. Keep always in mind, the Words of Christ and the fact that "Heaven and earth shall pass away, but my words shall not pass away." (Matthew 24:35)
lETS SEE IF YOU CAN UNDERSTAND THIS , No Catholic has ever taught that a person can be SAVED by good works. Certainly he can be JUSTIFIED by faith, but not by faith alone.



"We are justified by a faith that worketh by charity. Gal. 5:6 We believe that the human race was redeemed by the death of Christ on the cross, but that more than the acceptance of this is necessary. It is necessary for each individual to personalize this atonement of our Lord by his own co-operation, i.e., by faith, baptism, the keeping of the commandments and observing all things that Christ has taught.



Furthermore, good works are necessary in order to help a person persevere in the state of grace or friendship with God. He has told us this when He said that he who gives a glass of water in His name, gives it to Him; that we must love our neighbors as we love ourselves; that we must do good to those who hate us and persecute us; that we must feed the hungry and clothe the naked; and perform all the other corporal and spiritual works of mercy.

For God to ignore these good works, and not attach merit to them, would be unjust. He Himself says this through St. Paul.

"For God is not unjust that He should forget your works." Hebrews 6:10 Those who are doubtful about the place of good works in the plan of Redemption should read the Epistle of St. James, Chanter 2:



(14)"What will it profit, my brethren, if a man says he has faith, but does not have works? Can the faith save him?"(17)"So faith too, unless it has works, is dead in itself."(18)"But someone will say, 'Thou hast faith, and I have works. Show me thy faith without works, and I, from my works, will show thee my faith'."(20)"But dost thou want to know, O senseless man, that faith without works is useless?"(24)"You see that by works a man is justified, and not by faith only."(26)"For just as the body without the spirit is dead, so faith also without works is dead."Likewise, in I Corinthians 13:2



"And if I have prophecy and know all mysteries and all knowledge, and if I have faith, so as to remove mountains, yet do not have charity, I am nothing." Therefore, although a man is not SAVED by works, yet works are pleasing in the sight of God, and HAVE VALUE since they are done for Him. They thus help the individual to preserve in the state of grace or friendship with God.

[Jude3b]

lETS SEE IF YOU CAN UNDERSTAND THIS , No Catholic has ever taught that a person can be SAVED by good works. Certainly he can be JUSTIFIED by faith, but not by faith alone.



"We are justified by a faith that worketh by charity. Gal. 5:6 We believe that the human race was redeemed by the death of Christ on the cross, but that more than the acceptance of this is necessary. It is necessary for each individual to personalize this atonement of our Lord by his own co-operation, i.e., by faith, baptism, the keeping of the commandments and observing all things that Christ has taught.



Furthermore, good works are necessary in order to help a person persevere in the state of grace or friendship with God. He has told us this when He said that he who gives a glass of water in His name, gives it to Him; that we must love our neighbors as we love ourselves; that we must do good to those who hate us and persecute us; that we must feed the hungry and clothe the naked; and perform all the other corporal and spiritual works of mercy.

For God to ignore these good works, and not attach merit to them, would be unjust. He Himself says this through St. Paul.

"For God is not unjust that He should forget your works." Hebrews 6:10 Those who are doubtful about the place of good works in the plan of Redemption should read the Epistle of St. James, Chanter 2:



(14)"What will it profit, my brethren, if a man says he has faith, but does not have works? Can the faith save him?"(17)"So faith too, unless it has works, is dead in itself."(18)"But someone will say, 'Thou hast faith, and I have works. Show me thy faith without works, and I, from my works, will show thee my faith'."(20)"But dost thou want to know, O senseless man, that faith without works is useless?"(24)"You see that by works a man is justified, and not by faith only."(26)"For just as the body without the spirit is dead, so faith also without works is dead."Likewise, in I Corinthians 13:2



"And if I have prophecy and know all mysteries and all knowledge, and if I have faith, so as to remove mountains, yet do not have charity, I am nothing." Therefore, although a man is not SAVED by works, yet works are pleasing in the sight of God, and HAVE VALUE since they are done for Him. They thus help the individual to preserve in the state of grace or friendship with God.


Dear Joe Gofish:

You do know that those who wrote the Roman Catholic Catechism are Roman Catholic, don't you?

I know they are Roman Catholic, even if you don't! According to the Catechism of Romanism on Page 222, #837 and Page 292, #1129 and Page 320, #1257 - one must perform good (religious, that is sacramental and charitable) works.

Those teachings oppose God's Word, which states that salvation cannot be earned, it is a free and undeserved gift of God:

"For by grace ARE YE SAVED through faith; (notice not through Roman Catholic sacraments); and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God: NOT OF WORKS, lest any man should boast." (Ephesians 2:9-9).

Joe, you did say that you would have God to be your final authority, therefore you need to believe His Word that there is absolutely nothing that you can do to earn salvation or to add to it or to keep it. God has already bought and paid for you - PROVIDING that you are willing to be a "whosoever will" type person that will come and ...."take the water of life FREELY." (Rev. 22:17b.

Romanism always uses James chapter 2 in hopes of backing up their claim to salvation being "FAITH PLUS WORKS." But there is nothing in James chapter 2 to back up such a false interpretation.

James 2:14: "Can faith save him." Joe, everyone has faith of some kind - even atheists. Even Roman Catholics. Even Mormons. However, the object of faith and the results of faith measure its validity. Atheists have faith in their belief that their is no God. Roman Catholics have faith in the Roman Catholic Religion. Mormons have faith in the Mormon religion. And a Christian has faith in Jesus Christ as personal LORD AND SAVIOR. If someone has Jesus Christ as their personal Lord and Savior, they are born-again and have a new nature (2 Cor. 5:17) and now in fact do good works out of the motivation of Love. Christ has saved us Christians and filled us with His love and we long to do His will and do good works in His name. But none of those good works will add even one drop to salvation. Christ has paid it all. All to Him I owe.

You see Joe Gofish, genuine faith in Christ for salvation inevitably produces "works" that demonstrate its reality (Eph. 2:8-10).

James never says that works produce salvation, nor even that FAITH PLUS WORKS COULD EVER SAVE ANYONE, but that good works always accompany true saving faith.

Joe, the Gospel is that salvation is strictly by "grace through faith." James wrote his epistle before any of Paul's were written. There is no conflict between the writings of Paul and James. James certainly taught that the works of the law could not save anyone, including Roman Catholics: "For whosoever shall keep the whole law, and yet offend in one point, he is guilty of all." (James 2:10).

"Therefore to him that knoweth to do good, and doeth it not, to him it is sin." (James 4:17). Joe, sins of omission will also qualify us for the penalty of sin - which is death.

Joe, have you ever lied? have you ever lusted? have you ever stolen anything? have you ever dishonored your mother or your father? have you ever put anything before the will of God? Of course you probably have done all these sins many times. I have to and maybe more times than you. Wll Joe, according to James 2:10 - you and I are in trouble. We have broken the law of God and we deserve the punishment of sin - which is death.

[Joe Gofish]

Dear Joe Gofish:

You do know that those who wrote the Roman Catholic Catechism are Roman Catholic, don't you?

I know they are Roman Catholic, even if you don't! According to the Catechism of Romanism on Page 222, #837 and Page 292, #1129 and Page 320, #1257 - one must perform good (religious, that is sacramental and charitable) works.

Those teachings oppose God's Word, which states that salvation cannot be earned, it is a free and undeserved gift of God:

"For by grace ARE YE SAVED through faith; (notice not through Roman Catholic sacraments); and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God: NOT OF WORKS, lest any man should boast." (Ephesians 2:9-9).

Joe, you did say that you would have God to be your final authority, therefore you need to believe His Word that there is absolutely nothing that you can do to earn salvation or to add to it or to keep it. God has already bought and paid for you - PROVIDING that you are willing to be a "whosoever will" type person that will come and ...."take the water of life FREELY." (Rev. 22:17b.

Romanism always uses James chapter 2 in hopes of backing up their claim to salvation being "FAITH PLUS WORKS." But there is nothing in James chapter 2 to back up such a false interpretation.

James 2:14: "Can faith save him." Joe, everyone has faith of some kind - even atheists. Even Roman Catholics. Even Mormons. However, the object of faith and the results of faith measure its validity. Atheists have faith in their belief that their is no God. Roman Catholics have faith in the Roman Catholic Religion. Mormons have faith in the Mormon religion. And a Christian has faith in Jesus Christ as personal LORD AND SAVIOR. If someone has Jesus Christ as their personal Lord and Savior, they are born-again and have a new nature (2 Cor. 5:17) and now in fact do good works out of the motivation of Love. Christ has saved us Christians and filled us with His love and we long to do His will and do good works in His name. But none of those good works will add even one drop to salvation. Christ has paid it all. All to Him I owe.

You see Joe Gofish, genuine faith in Christ for salvation inevitably produces "works" that demonstrate its reality (Eph. 2:8-10).

James never says that works produce salvation, nor even that FAITH PLUS WORKS COULD EVER SAVE ANYONE, but that good works always accompany true saving faith.

Joe, the Gospel is that salvation is strictly by "grace through faith." James wrote his epistle before any of Paul's were written. There is no conflict between the writings of Paul and James. James certainly taught that the works of the law could not save anyone, including Roman Catholics: "For whosoever shall keep the whole law, and yet offend in one point, he is guilty of all." (James 2:10).

"Therefore to him that knoweth to do good, and doeth it not, to him it is sin." (James 4:17). Joe, sins of omission will also qualify us for the penalty of sin - which is death.

Joe, have you ever lied? have you ever lusted? have you ever stolen anything? have you ever dishonored your mother or your father? have you ever put anything before the will of God? Of course you probably have done all these sins many times. I have to and maybe more times than you. Wll Joe, according to James 2:10 - you and I are in trouble. We have broken the law of God and we deserve the punishment of sin - which is death.
Apollos, You are still very confused,the bible is talking about "faith" in God not all the things you are talking about,How far will you go to prove your point ?
Twising the Bible will cauth up with you.
Sprry for the mis-spilled words but I'm in a hurry

[Jude3b]

Apollos, You are still very confused,the bible is talking about "faith" in God not all the things you are talking about,How far will you go to prove your point ?
Twising the Bible will cauth up with you.
Sprry for the mis-spilled words but I'm in a hurry


Dear Joe Gofish:

Again, you have shown that you will side with the Roman Catholic traditions of fallible men, and reject the Word of God.

Please remember that "Heaven and earth (and your Roman Catholic religion) shall pass away, but my (Christ's) words shall not pass away." (Matt. 24:35).

Joe, "...let God be true, but every man a liar..." (Romans 3:4)

Trust God - forget Rome!

[Joe Gofish]

lETS SEE IF YOU CAN UNDERSTAND THIS , No Catholic has ever taught that a person can be SAVED by good works. Certainly he can be JUSTIFIED by faith, but not by faith alone.



"We are justified by a faith that worketh by charity. Gal. 5:6 We believe that the human race was redeemed by the death of Christ on the cross, but that more than the acceptance of this is necessary. It is necessary for each individual to personalize this atonement of our Lord by his own co-operation, i.e., by faith, baptism, the keeping of the commandments and observing all things that Christ has taught.



Furthermore, good works are necessary in order to help a person persevere in the state of grace or friendship with God. He has told us this when He said that he who gives a glass of water in His name, gives it to Him; that we must love our neighbors as we love ourselves; that we must do good to those who hate us and persecute us; that we must feed the hungry and clothe the naked; and perform all the other corporal and spiritual works of mercy.

For God to ignore these good works, and not attach merit to them, would be unjust. He Himself says this through St. Paul.

"For God is not unjust that He should forget your works." Hebrews 6:10 Those who are doubtful about the place of good works in the plan of Redemption should read the Epistle of St. James, Chanter 2:



(14)"What will it profit, my brethren, if a man says he has faith, but does not have works? Can the faith save him?"(17)"So faith too, unless it has works, is dead in itself."(18)"But someone will say, 'Thou hast faith, and I have works. Show me thy faith without works, and I, from my works, will show thee my faith'."(20)"But dost thou want to know, O senseless man, that faith without works is useless?"(24)"You see that by works a man is justified, and not by faith only."(26)"For just as the body without the spirit is dead, so faith also without works is dead."Likewise, in I Corinthians 13:2



"And if I have prophecy and know all mysteries and all knowledge, and if I have faith, so as to remove mountains, yet do not have charity, I am nothing." Therefore, although a man is not SAVED by works, yet works are pleasing in the sight of God, and HAVE VALUE since they are done for Him. They thus help the individual to preserve in the state of grace or friendship with God.
Apollos, I think God my prays are working you got one right.Its was not Roman Catholicism,We had no RCC at that time it was the universal CHurch of God,it was almose a 100 years later that it was called Catholic and then it was called RCC.
You see my lesson are starting to help you,Apollos you need to start helping your self I don't have another 27 years to keep helping you.Get the "book" (thats means one,)Catholicism and Fundamentalism it will help you over your confusion

[Jude3b]

Apollos, I think God my prays are working you got one right.Its was not Roman Catholicism,We had no RCC at that time it was the universal CHurch of God,it was almose a 100 years later that it was called Catholic and then it was called RCC.
You see my lesson are starting to help you,Apollos you need to start helping your self I don't have another 27 years to keep helping you.Get the "book" (thats means one,)Catholicism and Fundamentalism it will help you over your confusion


Dear Joe Gofish:

I've already read your suggested book "Catholicism and Fundamentalism."

A couple of better books for you to compare are the Bible and the Roman Catholic Catechism. That will take a lot of reading and study on your part, but eternity in heaven with Christ is certainly worth it.

[Keepupthefire]

Dear Joe Gofish:

I've already read your suggested book "Catholicism and Fundamentalism."

A couple of better books for you to compare are the Bible and the Roman Catholic Catechism. That will take a lot of reading and study on your part, but eternity in heaven with Christ is certainly worth it.

Forgive me but I've just entered this thread an have no time to look through 200+ threads. Jude3b are you saying that all Catholics are uncapable of salvation due to there misinterpretation of scripture?

I must say though that there are two things necessary for salvation. The first thing both John the baptist, an Jesus called for was Repentance. Then there is the faith(trust) in that Jesus is God, an that by his resurrection we too will attain a resurrection. An analogy would be like a parachute..you can believe in it(but so does the Devil), or you can put it on.

As you can see believing doesn't help you unless you put on Jesus. If we are indeed True believers, then we ought to do good deeds true; but not for salvations sake. We do so because we love Jesus because he has shown us such grace(grace means undeserved mercy, imputed righteousness; something that can not be purchased)John 14:15-.

We can't understand grace unless we first understand our decrepit state because of our sin nature. John Newton understood his condition an created his hymn "Amazing Grace." Even though he came to see the light gradually, continuing to ply his trade even after his conversion. John Newton did evil in the eyes of the Lord even though he was converted. So then, if the idea that he was considered atoned for by good works...he would not be doing so well all things considered. (John Newton did repent of his cruelty an slave trade down the road)

God said: Matthew 5:48 "Be perfect, therefore, as your heavenly Father is perfect." Man is incapable of being perfect therefore he must accept the perfect sacrafice for his sins.

The high priest in the Old Testament was unable to sit down while he was doing his priestly duties. But Jesus said as he layed upon the cross: "It is finished" an then he died. He then took his seat at the right hand of the father..which is forbidden unless his priestly duties are done. For Jesus is in the order of Melchizedek a high priest who has once an for all offered up the final sacrifice.

Consider the fact that the thief on the cross was taken to heaven without doing anything but bad. He deserved justice(all thieves will end up in the lake of fire) an that would have been Hell for him, but because he truly believed what Jesus said about himself it was accredited to him as righteousness(without works) otherwise Jesus would have said "You must do works along with faith to show that your faith is true by your deeds." While he was dying that would have been cruel for Christ to say to a man who was dying an had no opportunity to redeem himself by works.

If a person wants to live by the law let him do so. We know that those who live by the law die by the law, an do not accept grace; for there hands are filthy an defile everything they touch(Isaiah 64:6). For if the law where to save someone we wouldn't need the new covenant of grace. The new covenant did away with the old convenant of the law. Check out these sites an listen to the free videos please www.livingwaters.com (http://www.livingwaters.com/), or www.ttwalkministries.com (http://www.ttwalkministries.com/)


These verses are misunderstood most of the time because it is taken out of context. They forget to read on.

18.But someone will say, "You have faith; I have deeds."
Show me your faith without deeds, and I will show you my faith by what I do.19You believe that there is one God. Good! Even the demons believe that—and shudder. (ask the question what exactly is being shown? Faith. How? By what I do.)
20You foolish man, do you want evidence that faith without deeds is useless[d (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=66&chapter=2&version=31#fen-NIV-30298d)]? 21Was not our ancestor Abraham considered righteous for what he did when he offered his son Isaac on the altar? 22You see that his faith and his actions were working together, and his faith was made complete by what he did. 23And the scripture was fulfilled that says, "Abraham believed God, and it was credited to him as righteousness,"[e (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=66&chapter=2&version=31#fen-NIV-30301e)] and he was called God's friend. 24You see that a person is justified by what he does and not by faith alone.

Faith is shown by works.

25. In the same way, was not even Rahab the prostitute considered righteous for what she did when she gave lodging to the spies and sent them off in a different direction? 26. As the body without the spirit is dead, so faith without deeds is dead.

Good day to you brothers,

Keepupthefire

[Jude3b]

Forgive me but I've just entered this thread an have no time to look through 200+ threads. Jude3b are you saying that all Catholics are uncapable of salvation due to there misinterpretation of scripture?

I must say though that there are two things necessary for salvation. The first thing both John the baptist, an Jesus called for was Repentance. Then there is the faith(trust) in that Jesus is God, an that by his resurrection we too will attain a resurrection. An analogy would be like a parachute..you can believe in it(but so does the Devil), or you can put it on.

As you can see believing doesn't help you unless you put on Jesus. If we are indeed True believers, then we ought to do good deeds true; but not for salvations sake. We do so because we love Jesus because he has shown us such grace(grace means undeserved mercy, imputed righteousness; something that can not be purchased)John 14:15-.

We can't understand grace unless we first understand our decrepit state because of our sin nature. John Newton understood his condition an created his hymn "Amazing Grace." Even though he came to see the light gradually, continuing to ply his trade even after his conversion. John Newton did evil in the eyes of the Lord even though he was converted. So then, if the idea that he was considered atoned for by good works...he would not be doing so well all things considered. (John Newton did repent of his cruelty an slave trade down the road)

God said: Matthew 5:48 "Be perfect, therefore, as your heavenly Father is perfect." Man is incapable of being perfect therefore he must accept the perfect sacrafice for his sins.

The high priest in the Old Testament was unable to sit down while he was doing his priestly duties. But Jesus said as he layed upon the cross: "It is finished" an then he died. He then took his seat at the right hand of the father..which is forbidden unless his priestly duties are done. For Jesus is in the order of Melchizedek a high priest who has once an for all offered up the final sacrifice.

Consider the fact that the thief on the cross was taken to heaven without doing anything but bad. He deserved justice(all thieves will end up in the lake of fire) an that would have been Hell for him, but because he truly believed what Jesus said about himself it was accredited to him as righteousness(without works) otherwise Jesus would have said "You must do works along with faith to show that your faith is true by your deeds." While he was dying that would have been cruel for Christ to say to a man who was dying an had no opportunity to redeem himself by works.

If a person wants to live by the law let him do so. We know that those who live by the law die by the law, an do not accept grace; for there hands are filthy an defile everything they touch(Isaiah 64:6). For if the law where to save someone we wouldn't need the new covenant of grace. The new covenant did away with the old convenant of the law. Check out these sites an listen to the free videos please www.livingwaters.com (http://www.livingwaters.com/), or www.ttwalkministries.com (http://www.ttwalkministries.com/)


These verses are misunderstood most of the time because it is taken out of context. They forget to read on.

18.But someone will say, "You have faith; I have deeds."
Show me your faith without deeds, and I will show you my faith by what I do.19You believe that there is one God. Good! Even the demons believe that—and shudder. (ask the question what exactly is being shown? Faith. How? By what I do.)
20You foolish man, do you want evidence that faith without deeds is useless[d (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=66&chapter=2&version=31#fen-NIV-30298d)]? 21Was not our ancestor Abraham considered righteous for what he did when he offered his son Isaac on the altar? 22You see that his faith and his actions were working together, and his faith was made complete by what he did. 23And the scripture was fulfilled that says, "Abraham believed God, and it was credited to him as righteousness,"[e (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=66&chapter=2&version=31#fen-NIV-30301e)] and he was called God's friend. 24You see that a person is justified by what he does and not by faith alone.

Faith is shown by works.

25. In the same way, was not even Rahab the prostitute considered righteous for what she did when she gave lodging to the spies and sent them off in a different direction? 26. As the body without the spirit is dead, so faith without deeds is dead.

Good day to you brothers,

Keepupthefire


Dear Keepupthefire:

Welcome to TWEB and to this thread.

Concerning your question to me: "Are all Roman Catholics uncapable of salvation."

The answer is an absolute not. All Roman Catholics, All Muslims, All Presbyterians, All Hindus, All Atheists, etc., etc. (gosh even all Baptists!!) are capable of being saved.

Jesus Christ said, "IF I BE LIFTED UP, I WILL DRAW ALL MEN UNTO MYSELF." Jesus Christ is drawing everyone to Himself and those who say yes to Him, will be saved and those that say no, will remain lost and destined for an eternity in Hell.

[Joe Gofish]

Qustion of the Mass: since the New Testament gives no instructions at all about the continuation of the Old Testament sacrifices, it seems it became necessary for the religious Roman priesthood to invent a new kind of sacrifice. Was this the reason they made a frivolus distinction between the "bloody" sacrifice of Christ on the cross, and the "unbloody" sacrifice which they pretend to offer in the mass?
Jude if you are telling the truth about being a Catholic this is ONE thing that you would know.

[Jude3b]

Jude if you are telling the truth about being a Catholic this is ONE thing that you would know.


Dear Joe GoFish:

Yes, I was a Roman Catholic for 27 years, educated in Roman Catholic schools, until I became a Chritian and was set free from that false religious system.

Do you know the origin of many of the false doctrines of your religion?????????

Have you ever read your own Catechism and compared it with the Bible?

[Jude3b]

Hey, Fish Face... YOU ARE AN IDIOT... I am not J3b. Your quotes from these so-called ECFs are EXACTLY as meaningless as quoting Chick. Since you cannot get who you are responding to correct, why should we not assume you are an idiot?


Dear VFarris01:

Relax, be calm. We will not lead Joe GoFish to the Lord by calling him an idiot? Let's be patient with him.

[Joe Gofish]

Dear VFarris01:

Relax, be calm. We will not lead Joe GoFish to the Lord by calling him an idiot? Let's be patient with him.
Well I have been told it takes a idiot to know a IDIOT,Nice meeting you

[Jude3b]

Well I have been told it takes a idiot to know a IDIOT,Nice meeting you


Dear Joe GoFish:

Is this how Roman Catholicism teaches its followers to talk and act, now a days? Always rude and insulting...

Mother Theresa was not that way!

[Joe Gofish]

Dear Joe Gofish:

Again, you have shown that you will side with the Roman Catholic traditions of fallible men, and reject the Word of God.

Please remember that "Heaven and earth (and your Roman Catholic religion) shall pass away, but my (Christ's) words shall not pass away." (Matt. 24:35).

Joe, "...let God be true, but every man a liar..." (Romans 3:4)

Trust God - forget Rome!
So now you are calling Jesus a liar ,Try to get some guidance with these verse because you don't have the ability to understand them by your self Acts 8:31, 2Peter 3:16
and EPH5:25-26, Mt 16:18,20:20 and MT 18:17-18.
its NOT the Gosple according to JUDE aka Jim Jones.

[Jude3b]

So now you are calling Jesus a liar ,Try to get some guidance with these verse because you don't have the ability to understand them by your self Acts 8:31, 2Peter 3:16
and EPH5:25-26, Mt 16:18,20:20 and MT 18:17-18.
its NOT the Gosple according to JUDE aka Jim Jones.


Dear Joe GoFish:

You know full right well that I did not and would never call Jesus a liar. Jesus is God and the verse I quoted said, "Let God be true and every man a liar." Again Jesus is God. What that verse means to me, is trust God, trust Jesus, trust what He has said. Never trust fallible mean before God.

[Jude3b]

[QUOTE=Jezz]Why is that no Catholic or Orthodox here will answer this question? That they apparently will not is of interest- great interest, I think.


Dear Kenite:

Perhaps in their mind, they have answered the question...

We all don't perceive things the same way. That's one reason its good to stick with the Bible and let it speak the answer.

[BibleMan]

Qustion of the Mass: since the New Testament gives no instructions at all about the continuation of the Old Testament sacrifices, it seems it became necessary for the religious Roman priesthood to invent a new kind of sacrifice. Was this the reason they made a frivolus distinction between the "bloody" sacrifice of Christ on the cross, and the "unbloody" sacrifice which they pretend to offer in the mass?



I don't know what caused them to make the distinction you mention. But I would sure like to know.