PDA

View Full Version : the church



Pages : [1] 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20

chrysostom
February 28th, 2016, 07:16 PM
-18 And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter
-19 And I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven
-peter got the keys
-and
-the power to bind and loose
-that means he was in charge
-someone must be in charge
-that should be clear

chrysostom
February 28th, 2016, 07:33 PM
John 1:42New International Version (NIV)

42 And he brought him to Jesus.

Jesus looked at him and said, “You are Simon son of John. You will be called Cephas” (which, when translated, is Peter[a]).

Footnotes:

John 1:42 Cephas (Aramaic) and Peter (Greek) both mean rock.

chrysostom
February 28th, 2016, 07:36 PM
and on this rock I will build my church

patrick jane
February 28th, 2016, 08:11 PM
and on this rock I will build my church
Acts 1:8 KJV -

patrick jane
February 28th, 2016, 08:15 PM
and on this rock I will build my church


Here is Peter's role for the Church - Matthew 16:22 KJV - Matthew 16:23 KJV - Luke 4:8 KJV -

Nihilo
February 28th, 2016, 09:15 PM
and on this rock I will build my churchI think that what He must have meant to say was "on THE BIBLE I will build My Church." :Plain:

patrick jane
February 28th, 2016, 09:45 PM
I think that what He must have meant to say was "on THE BIBLE I will build My Church." :Plain:
Acts 2:8 KJV - Acts 9:6 KJV - Acts 9:15 KJV -

heir
February 28th, 2016, 10:40 PM
-18 And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter
-19 And I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven
-peter got the keys
-and
-the power to bind and loose
-that means he was in charge
-someone must be in charge
-that should be clearwrong church
wrong apostle
wrong gospel
that should be clear

Nihilo
February 28th, 2016, 10:47 PM
Acts 2:8 KJV - Acts 9:6 KJV - Acts 9:15 KJV -:thumb:

Bradley D
February 28th, 2016, 11:48 PM
The true rock of the church/assembly. "Simon Peter answered, “You are the Messiah, the Son of the living God” (Matthew 16:16).

chrysostom
February 29th, 2016, 01:24 AM
I think that what He must have meant to say was "on THE BIBLE I will build My Church." :Plain:

-you think?
-so why doesn't the bible say that?
-and
-why don't we have somebody in charge?
-to eliminate what everybody thinks
-you can see what everybody thinks
-but
-who has the authority?
-who has the keys?
-who has the power?
-the church

Nihilo
February 29th, 2016, 01:31 AM
-you think?
-so why doesn't the bible say that?
-and
-why don't we have somebody in charge?
-to eliminate what everybody thinks
-you can see what everybody thinks
-but
-who has the authority?
-who has the keys?
-who has the power?
-the churchIt doesn't matter
if
what He meant to say
was
upon THE BIBLE
I will build My Church

You understand. They don't care about the Holy See or about Peter or the keys to the eternal kingdom of our Maker. They don't even believe in the Trinity sometimes. They reject secular, nonreligious history. Facts! Ignored. Explained away. Glossed over. Scorned with reckless contempt.

The Bible.

Nothing else matters.

chrysostom
February 29th, 2016, 01:35 AM
The Bible.

Nothing else matters.

-then why do you ignore what is said in the bible?

Nihilo
February 29th, 2016, 01:39 AM
-then why do you ignore what is said in the bible?They'll never admit to that. And if they never admit to it, it's like it doesn't happen.

chrysostom
February 29th, 2016, 06:25 AM
-the church feeds us
-Jesus ask peter to feed His sheep
-the church teaches us
-the church guides us

SaulToPaul
February 29th, 2016, 09:47 AM
-the church feeds us
-Jesus ask peter to feed His sheep
-the church teaches us
-the church guides us

:chuckle:

KingdomRose
February 29th, 2016, 12:41 PM
-18 And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter
-19 And I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven
-peter got the keys
-and
-the power to bind and loose
-that means he was in charge
-someone must be in charge
-that should be clear

It's not evident from that that Peter was "in charge." I say that particularly because historically James was the one, apparently, taking the lead. Today we call men like that "the presiding overseer" in the congregation. When I read ACTS 15:13-20, I see JAMES as the one making the final decision about a matter.

KingdomRose
February 29th, 2016, 12:52 PM
John 1:42New International Version (NIV)

42 And he brought him to Jesus.

Jesus looked at him and said, “You are Simon son of John. You will be called Cephas” (which, when translated, is Peter[a]).

Footnotes:

John 1:42 Cephas (Aramaic) and Peter (Greek) both mean rock.

Yes, but Jesus himself is called the rock on which the church was built. He is the foundation, as I Corinthians 3:11 points out: "No one can lay any other foundation than what is laid, which is JESUS CHRIST."

And also: "You have been built up on the foundation of the apostles and prophets, while Christ Jesus himself is THE FOUNDATION CORNERSTONE." (Ephesians 2:20)

KingdomRose
February 29th, 2016, 01:04 PM
-the church feeds us
-Jesus ask peter to feed His sheep
-the church teaches us
-the church guides us

I see Jesus as being concerned that we choose the TRUE church to join up with, one that is on the narrow road to life. He said very clearly what to observe about religious leaders and apparent right standing with him. He said that FEW would be going in the right direction, on the road to life. So a majority doesn't make it the right way.

"Go in through the narrow gate, because broad is the gate and spacious is the road leading off into destruction, and many are going in through it; whereas narrow is the gate and cramped the road leading off into life, and few are finding it.

"Be on the watch for the false prophets who come to you in sheep's clothing, but inside they are ravenous wolves. By their fruits you will recognize them....Not everyone saying to me, 'Lord, Lord,' will enter into the Kingdom of the heavens, but only the one doing the will of my Father who is in the heavens. Many will say to me in that day: 'Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name, and expel demons in your name, and perform many powerful works in your name?' And then I will declare to them: 'I never knew you! Get away from me, you workers of lawlessness!'" (Matthew 7: 13-23)

Nihilo
February 29th, 2016, 01:25 PM
-the church feeds us
-Jesus ask peter to feed His sheep
-the church teaches us
-the church guides usYup, in all matters of faith, doctrine and morals. Plus, the sacraments; though these also are validly celebrated by the Holy Orthodox churches.

Nihilo
February 29th, 2016, 01:26 PM
It's not evident from that that Peter was "in charge." I say that particularly because historically James was the one, apparently, taking the lead. Today we call men like that "the presiding overseer" in the congregation. When I read ACTS 15:13-20, I see JAMES as the one making the final decision about a matter.He opted to go with what Peter had said right from the outset.

chrysostom
March 1st, 2016, 06:39 AM
-the church gave us the bible
-the church helps us understand it
-the church is preaching the gospel to all nations

SaulToPaul
March 1st, 2016, 06:57 AM
-the church gave us the bible
-the church helps us understand it
-the church is preaching the gospel to all nations

:chuckle:

Nihilo
March 1st, 2016, 10:49 AM
-the church gave us the bible
-the church helps us understand itIf we care to. It's one of the things I love about the Magisterium's teaching, that knowing your Bible backward and forward, which is a Protestant value, isn't required to be a saint. If we do care to understand the Scripture, which is perfectly fine and noble even, you're right that our Magisterium helps us to understand it, when we submit to the teaching authority (because it is our Lord's own teaching authority) and expertise (since there are no better teachers of any subject in all the world) of the Holy See. They present for us the big picture, in which Sacred Scripture is but a piece.

It's like we're offered a gift. All we have to do is receive it, or open it, or otherwise acknowledge it.

It wouldn't hurt to thank the Lord for it either. In one way, it is our Father giving us "our daily bread."

-the church is preaching the gospel to all nationsAmen.

Grosnick Marowbe
March 1st, 2016, 10:50 AM
wrong church
wrong apostle
wrong gospel
that should be clear

Yep!

chrysostom
March 1st, 2016, 11:18 AM
If we care to. It's one of the things I love about the Magisterium's teaching, that knowing your Bible backward and forward, which is a Protestant value, isn't required to be a saint. If we do care to understand the Scripture, which is perfectly fine and noble even, you're right that our Magisterium helps us to understand it, when we submit to the teaching authority (because it is our Lord's own teaching authority) and expertise (since there are no better teachers of any subject in all the world) of the Holy See. They present for us the big picture, in which Sacred Scripture is but a piece.

It's like we're offered a gift. All we have to do is receive it, or open it, or otherwise acknowledge it.

It wouldn't hurt to thank the Lord for it either. In one way, it is our Father giving us "our daily bread."
Amen.

-thank you
-thank you very much

SaulToPaul
March 1st, 2016, 11:21 AM
-thank you
-thank you very much

In how many doctrines do you disagree with the Magisterium and submit to your own private interpretation?
have you counted them?

iamaberean
March 1st, 2016, 11:52 AM
-18 And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter
-19 And I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven
-peter got the keys
-and
-the power to bind and loose
-that means he was in charge
-someone must be in charge
-that should be clear

Mat 16:15 He saith unto them, But whom say ye that I am?
Mat 16:16 And Simon Peter answered and said, Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God.
Peter replied to Jesus' question " thou art the Christ, the son of the living God".
Mat 16:17 And Jesus answered and said unto him, Blessed art thou, Simon Barjona: for flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven.
Mat 16:18 And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.
Jesus to Peter "Man didn't reveal this to you, but God did".
Mat 16:19 And I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.
"Because of your knowledge of me, I will give thee the keys of the kingdom."

You know the stories of Peter standing at the gate in heaven?
That's not true, Peter used those keys while still on this earth. Where are they, what are they?

He first open the gate to the Jews in Act 2:38

Then he open the gate to the Gentiles in Act 10:42-45

SaulToPaul
March 1st, 2016, 12:04 PM
-18 And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter
-19 And I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven


What's the kingdom of heaven?

Nick M
March 1st, 2016, 12:34 PM
-18 And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter
-19 And I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven
-peter got the keys
-and
-the power to bind and loose
-that means he was in charge
-someone must be in charge
-that should be clear

Galatians 2

7 But on the contrary, when they saw that the gospel for the uncircumcised had been committed to me, as the gospel for the circumcised was to Peter

SaulToPaul
March 1st, 2016, 12:37 PM
No question, Peter the Great was in charge of that church.
But I cannot get into it. None of us can.

chrysostom
March 1st, 2016, 01:53 PM
-in the 4th century
-eusebius wrote a book
-the history of the church (http://www.amazon.com/The-History-Church-Constantine-Classics/dp/0140445358)
-there was only one

Jer17.5Ps50-Mt543
March 1st, 2016, 05:29 PM
-18 And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter
-19 And I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven
-peter got the keys
-and
-the power to bind and loose
-that means he was in charge
-someone must be in charge
-that should be clear


If you want to know who is best between Cruz or Rubio? go here http://presidential-candidates.insidegov.com/compare/50-62/Marco-Rubio-vs-Ted-Cruz


interesting article about the megalomaniac candidate at: http://www.pensitoreview.com/2015/09/08/why-the-silence-about-donald-trumps-mob-ties/

chrysostom
March 2nd, 2016, 05:13 AM
If you want to know who is best between Cruz or Rubio? go here

-click here (http://theologyonline.com/forumdisplay.php?6-Politics)
-if
-you can't find the politics forum

SaulToPaul
March 2nd, 2016, 06:57 AM
-in the 4th century
-eusebius wrote a book
-the history of the church (http://www.amazon.com/The-History-Church-Constantine-Classics/dp/0140445358)
-there was only one

:chuckle:

Zeke
March 2nd, 2016, 08:20 AM
Eusebius must have been a republican slash skull and bones, Knights of Malta, Jesuit Hit Man, cloak and dagger society or some gog in the funny hand gesture club that winks at the truth for Pete's sake.

Totton Linnet
March 3rd, 2016, 03:35 AM
When the Lord says "upon THIS rock I will build My church" He is making it crystal there can be no "succession" of leaders. The foundation is laid, we can only build upon the foundation which is laid.

iamaberean
March 3rd, 2016, 04:03 AM
When the Lord says "upon THIS rock I will build My church" He is making it crystal there can be no "succession" of leaders. The foundation is laid, we can only build upon the foundation which is laid.

And that foundation is 'Jesus'!

Totton Linnet
March 3rd, 2016, 04:17 AM
....as laid by the Apostles, that is the 12 [judas having been replaced]These were eye witnesses, even Paul could lay no other foundation for he was not an eye witness,

The gospel I received
by which ye are saved
in which ye stand

That He died, was buried, rose again, according to the scriptures [the prophets]

AND HE WAS SEEN, first of Peter etc then by all the apostles. This "and He was seen by the apostles" is part of the essential gospel Paul preached

chrysostom
March 3rd, 2016, 06:11 AM
Eusebius must have been a republican slash skull and bones, Knights of Malta, Jesuit Hit Man, cloak and dagger society or some gog in the funny hand gesture club that winks at the truth for Pete's sake.

the history of the church written by eusebius made it through the dark ages
-but
-you can still rewrite it
-and
-all you need is some credibility

Zeke
March 3rd, 2016, 09:49 AM
the history of the church written by eusebius made it through the dark ages
-but
-you can still rewrite it
-and
-all you need is some credibility

Or you need to ponder you're own assumptions concerning history, granted everyone can find just about any position they want to believe in, yet some things are obviously true in all ages like those who have the power and resources to write the history slant it in their favor to push their agenda.

I am perplexed that you, and most others wearing the mask of Christianity can't grasped these worldly institutions/Churches are not concerned with their best interest, no more than a politician is working for the liberty of the people they are pretending to represent, Both have a purpose that divides people and distract them from the real cause of the duality in mans conscience that is being used against him through fraud and lies that programs/parasites the mind/ego to except those dogmas.

Another obvious fact is that more people are awakening to the fiction/PERSON they have been living under, which is a signal to these institutions of deception to try and put a stumbling block in that path, and that is a known pattern of the passing age to CAPITALIZE deception.

SaulToPaul
March 3rd, 2016, 10:05 AM
-all you need is some credibility

:chuckle:

Nick M
March 3rd, 2016, 11:37 AM
-18 And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter
-19 And I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven
-peter got the keys
-and
-the power to bind and loose
-that means he was in charge
-someone must be in charge
-that should be clear

Galatians 2

7 But on the contrary, when they saw that the gospel for the uncircumcised had been committed to me, as the gospel for the circumcised was to Peter

KingdomRose
March 3rd, 2016, 12:11 PM
-the church gave us the bible
-the church helps us understand it
-the church is preaching the gospel to all nations

The idea that the church gave us the Bible does not lead directly to the idea that the church was fully cognizant of what it was doing. God has used institutions of the world to further His purposes before and since. He wanted His people to be able to leave Babylon so He made the moves with Cyrus the Persian, Cyrus not knowing that he was operating as per God's designs.

The church doesn't help anybody understand the Bible. The Vatican NEVER says, "This is what we'll do because the Bible says this or that." The church does things directly against what the Bible says, and they aren't concerned because they have taught the people that tradition is more important than Biblia. Even very clear teachings of Jesus are overstepped by the church.

"Call no one on earth your father; you have but one Father in heaven." (Matthew 23:9, New American Bible)

Very clear. Don't call any man "Father," meaning your spiritual father, of course. This is ignored by the church, and nobody notices because the church doesn't teach what the Bible says.

"Now the Spirit explicitly says that in the last times some will turn away from the faith by paying attention to deceitful spirits and demonic instructions through the hypocrisy of liars with branded [numb] consciences. They forbid marriage and require abstinence from foods that God created to be received with thanksgiving." (I Timothy 4:1-4, NAB)

Does the church forbid priests to marry? Is that completely overstepping the teaching of the Bible? Yes, but tradition comes before Bible teaching. Look up the history of priests being forbidden to marry. It all had to do with wealth, and if priests married, upon their demise their wealth would go to their wives and not the church.

These are but a couple examples of what I'm talking about.

Now, you say that the church "is preaching the gospel to all nations." What actually IS "the gospel"? Do you know Jesus' words at Matthew 24:14? Have you been taught what Jesus actually says? The "gospel" is the good news of the KINGDOM. Your Catholic Bibles ALL say this:

"And this gospel of the Kingdom will be preached throughout the world as a witness to all nations, and then the end will come." (NAB)

Have you been taught what the Kingdom is? Perhaps there has been mention of it being "in your heart"? That's not what the Bible teaches. It says that God's Kingdom is a real GOVERNMENT that will take control of the whole world, destroying all of men's governments. (Daniel 2:44; Isaiah 9:6,7; Revelation 19:11-21) Can you say that this gospel of the Kingdom has been taught throughout the world? I have NEVER heard any pope utter the word "Kingdom," never mind what it actually is. The church's political buddies wouldn't like that, would they?

So, no, the church doesn't teach what the Bible says, and it has not taught anyone about the gospel of the Kingdom.

KingdomRose
March 3rd, 2016, 12:17 PM
-in the 4th century
-eusebius wrote a book
-the history of the church (http://www.amazon.com/The-History-Church-Constantine-Classics/dp/0140445358)
-there was only one

Eusebius was a close buddy of Constantine, the emperor who never truly became a Christian---murdering his wife and son, pouring money into temples for pagan gods.

turbosixx
March 3rd, 2016, 09:57 PM
and on this rock I will build my church

Do you have any supporting scipture that Peter was the rock and not Jesus being the Christ?
16 Simon Peter answered, "You are the Christ, the Son of the living God."



Jesus being the Messiah is the foundation of all that we believe. Here are scriptures supporting Jesus being the Christ which is the rock.

Dan. 2:34 You continued looking until a stone was cut out without hands, and it struck the statue on its feet of iron and clay and crushed them
1 Cor. 10:4 and all drank the same spiritual drink, for they were drinking from a spiritual rock which followed them; and the rock was Christ.
Acts 4:10 let it be known to all of you and to all the people of Israel, that by the name of Jesus Christ the Nazarene, whom you crucified, whom God raised from the dead-by this name this man stands here before you in good health. 11 He is the stone which was rejected by you, the builders, but which became the chief corner stone.

As PJ pointed out, scripture reveals Peter to be more like a foundation of sand.
Gal. 2:11 But when Cephas came to Antioch, I opposed him to his face, because he stood condemned.

Nihilo
March 3rd, 2016, 11:19 PM
In how many doctrines do you disagree with the Magisterium and submit to your own private interpretation?
have you counted them?No, I have not counted. I don't know how many. I'm still learning though. It'd be like beginning to work with a doctoral adviser, which is a many-year relationship, and asked to present a very serious opinion of the person after having just met them.

You don't disagree with your doctoral adviser right off. You listen. You think, "They've already got their doctorate. I don't. It shouldn't surprise me if I disagree with them; there's a difference between having and not having earned a doctorate already."

Once you get your doctorate, then you have earned the right to disagree with your adviser. When the Holy Vader puts his signet ring on a teaching, he says that it's infallible, it means that not only he but every pope, and every bishop, agrees with him. This doctrine is trustworthy. Instead of a single doctoral adviser, you actually have thousands and thousands of bishops, and not just the living bishops in communion with the pope (along with the pope being, the Magisterium) but every bishop all throughout history and the Apostles.

Including the genuine original Holy Vader Peter.

And Paul. :)

Nihilo
March 3rd, 2016, 11:34 PM
What's the kingdom of heaven?Takes the place of the land promises. "Land forever" becomes the king dom of heaven.

Nihilo
March 3rd, 2016, 11:47 PM
When the Lord says "upon THIS rock I will build My church" He is making it crystal there can be no "succession" of leaders. The foundation is laid, we can only build upon the foundation which is laid.We just weren't there. We have to take it on faith, but the reason it's worth taking it on faith is because the history of the Holy Catholic Church is the closest thing to what we would expect if we really believe in Jesus, and in God, and that He ascended and that the Father is right now and has been since AD 33 been making our Lord's enemies into His footstool.

The "narrow gate" people . . . I don't get them. It's like they have literally zero faith. They dream up the most unflattering, unglorifying possibility and insist that that's how we should see history, through that lens. Please. You don't think that the Father has been at work effectively? The Holy Catholic Church exists visibly in virtually every nation on the earth, and speaks virtually every language. It's far and away the most obvious direct proof that God exists and that He loves us.

The statement in Matthew 16:18 really hits home when "Peter" and "rock" are both rendered "Cephas;" the Aramaic.
"And I say also unto thee, That thou art Cephas, and upon this cephas I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it."

Nihilo
March 3rd, 2016, 11:49 PM
And that foundation is 'Jesus'!Literally the foundation is the Apostles and the Prophets. Ephesians 2:20

Nihilo
March 3rd, 2016, 11:59 PM
The idea that the church gave us the Bible does not lead directly to the idea that the church was fully cognizant of what it was doing. God has used institutions of the world to further His purposes before and since. He wanted His people to be able to leave Babylon so He made the moves with Cyrus the Persian, Cyrus not knowing that he was operating as per God's designs.

The church doesn't help anybody understand the Bible. The Vatican NEVER says, "This is what we'll do because the Bible says this or that." The church does things directly against what the Bible says, and they aren't concerned because they have taught the people that tradition is more important than Biblia. Even very clear teachings of Jesus are overstepped by the church.

"Call no one on earth your father; you have but one Father in heaven." (Matthew 23:9, New American Bible)

Very clear. Don't call any man "Father," meaning your spiritual father, of course. This is ignored by the church, and nobody notices because the church doesn't teach what the Bible says.

"Now the Spirit explicitly says that in the last times some will turn away from the faith by paying attention to deceitful spirits and demonic instructions through the hypocrisy of liars with branded [numb] consciences. They forbid marriage and require abstinence from foods that God created to be received with thanksgiving." (I Timothy 4:1-4, NAB)

Does the church forbid priests to marry? Is that completely overstepping the teaching of the Bible? Yes, but tradition comes before Bible teaching. Look up the history of priests being forbidden to marry. It all had to do with wealth, and if priests married, upon their demise their wealth would go to their wives and not the church.

These are but a couple examples of what I'm talking about.

Now, you say that the church "is preaching the gospel to all nations." What actually IS "the gospel"? Do you know Jesus' words at Matthew 24:14? Have you been taught what Jesus actually says? The "gospel" is the good news of the KINGDOM. Your Catholic Bibles ALL say this:

"And this gospel of the Kingdom will be preached throughout the world as a witness to all nations, and then the end will come." (NAB)

Have you been taught what the Kingdom is? Perhaps there has been mention of it being "in your heart"? That's not what the Bible teaches. It says that God's Kingdom is a real GOVERNMENT that will take control of the whole world, destroying all of men's governments. (Daniel 2:44; Isaiah 9:6,7; Revelation 19:11-21) Can you say that this gospel of the Kingdom has been taught throughout the world? I have NEVER heard any pope utter the word "Kingdom," never mind what it actually is. The church's political buddies wouldn't like that, would they?

So, no, the church doesn't teach what the Bible says, and it has not taught anyone about the gospel of the Kingdom.According to (http://www.vatican.va/archive/ccc_css/archive/catechism/p123a9p1.htm#768) the Holy See, the Holy Catholic Church is "on earth the seed and the beginning of [the Kingdom of Christ and of God]."

So go to Catholic Church, if you care so much about the Kingdom. :)

SaulToPaul
March 4th, 2016, 06:27 AM
Takes the place of the land promises. "Land forever" becomes the king dom of heaven.

How do you know that?

KingdomRose
March 4th, 2016, 07:29 AM
the history of the church written by eusebius made it through the dark ages
-but
-you can still rewrite it
-and
-all you need is some credibility

Some would say that the Church was part of the reason that there were the Dark Ages. It exerted more and more crushing power over people without giving them the spiritual guidance they needed, just like the Pharisees of Jesus' day. Do some research on the Dark Ages.

KingdomRose
March 4th, 2016, 07:34 AM
Literally the foundation is the Apostles and the Prophets. Ephesians 2:20

Finish reading the whole verse.

KingdomRose
March 4th, 2016, 07:35 AM
Takes the place of the land promises. "Land forever" becomes the king dom of heaven.

See Post #44.

Too bad you don't know this, you who are being taught by the "true church."

God's Truth
March 6th, 2016, 10:40 PM
-18 And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter
-19 And I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven
-peter got the keys
-and
-the power to bind and loose
-that means he was in charge
-someone must be in charge
-that should be clear

Jesus told all the disciples, "Truly I tell you, whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven." See Matthew 18:18.

Jesus also told them not to call each other 'father', or the Teacher, because they were brothers.

The Bible forbids favoritism over the Apostles.

Read these scriptures, you will see that Paul even mentions Peter, otherwise known as Simon, and says not to say I follow Simon/Peter as if it means something special.


1 Corinthians 1:11-12 My brothers, some from Chloe's household have informed me that there are quarrels among you. 12What I mean is this: One of you says, "I follow Paul"; another, "I follow Apollos"; another, "I follow Cephas"; still another, "I follow Christ." 13 Is Christ divided? Was Paul crucified for you? Were you baptized in the name of Paul?

1 Corinthians 3:1Brothers, I could not address you as spiritual but as worldly—mere infants in Christ. 2I gave you milk, not solid food, for you were not yet ready for it. Indeed, you are still not ready. 3You are still worldly. For since there is jealousy and quarreling among you, are you not worldly? Are you not acting like mere men? 4For when one says, "I follow Paul," and another, "I follow Apollos," are you not mere men?

5What, after all, is Apollos? And what is Paul? Only servants, through whom you came to believe—as the Lord has assigned to each his task. 6I planted the seed, Apollos watered it, but God made it grow. 7So neither he who plants nor he who waters is anything, but only God, who makes things grow. 8The man who plants and the man who waters have one purpose, and each will be rewarded according to his own labor. 9For we are God's fellow workers; you are God's field, God's building.

1 Corinthians 3:18 Do not deceive yourselves. If any one of you thinks he is wise by the standards of this age, he should become a "fool" so that he may become wise. 19For the wisdom of this world is foolishness in God's sight. As it is written: "He catches the wise in their craftiness“; 20and again, "The Lord knows that the thoughts of the wise are futile.” 21So then, no more boasting about men! All things are yours, 22whether Paul or Apollos or Cephas or the world or life or death or the present or the future—all are yours, 23and you are of Christ, and Christ is of God.

1 Corinthians 4:6 Now brothers, I have applied these things to myself and Apollos for your benefit, so that you may learn from us the meaning of the saying, "Do not go beyond what is written.” Then you will not take pride in one man over against another.

Cruciform
March 6th, 2016, 10:59 PM
Here is Peter's role for the Church - Matthew 16:22 KJV - Matthew 16:23 KJV - Luke 4:8 KJV -
Rather, HERE (http://www.philvaz.com/apologetics/PeterRockKeysPrimacyRome.htm) is Peter's role for the Church.

Cruciform
March 6th, 2016, 11:02 PM
The true rock of the church/assembly. "Simon Peter answered, “You are the Messiah, the Son of the living God” (Matthew 16:16).
Addressed HERE (http://www.philvaz.com/apologetics/PeterRockKeysPrimacyRome.htm).

Nihilo
March 6th, 2016, 11:50 PM
How do you know that?Because (http://www.vatican.va/archive/ccc_css/archive/catechism/p3s1c1a2.htm#1716) the Holy See teaches it. "The Beatitudes are at the heart of Jesus' preaching. They take up the promises made to the chosen people since Abraham. The Beatitudes fulfill the promises by ordering them no longer merely to the possession of a territory, but to the Kingdom of heaven...."

Nihilo
March 6th, 2016, 11:52 PM
Finish reading the whole verse.Now what?

Nihilo
March 7th, 2016, 12:12 AM
See Post #44.

Too bad you don't know this, you who are being taught by the "true church."I try to read through your awful posts; I really do. But they nauseate me because you're just so silly. You're like a child, fingers in ears, throwing a tantrum. Here's the first utterly silly thing that I noticed in post 44, because you were so silly as to underline it for me.

They forbid marriageWhat a silly, stupid, ignorant thing to say. You "should" be ashamed of yourself, except that when someone goes on and throws a tantrum, they've automatically removed themselves from reasonable discussion, so instead, we are left with only the option of heaping on ridicule in the hopes that something gets through that silly head of yours.

You're a silly person, and there's no way for me to make you change. I just hope that you can see fit to love yourself enough to humble yourself. The Holy See makes it so easy. The Catechism of the Catholic Church is online in its entirety, along with the Compendium of the Catechism of the Catholic Church, and both books are readily available in print for little more than the cost of printing and distribution. Furthermore, there are Holy Catholic parishes almost everywhere, I'm sure there are plenty near wherever you live.

God's Truth
March 7th, 2016, 07:17 AM
I try to read through your awful posts; I really do. But they nauseate me because you're just so silly. You're like a child, fingers in ears, throwing a tantrum. Here's the first utterly silly thing that I noticed in post 44, because you were so silly as to underline it for me.
What a silly, stupid, ignorant thing to say. You "should" be ashamed of yourself, except that when someone goes on and throws a tantrum, they've automatically removed themselves from reasonable discussion, so instead, we are left with only the option of heaping on ridicule in the hopes that something gets through that silly head of yours.

You're a silly person, and there's no way for me to make you change. I just hope that you can see fit to love yourself enough to humble yourself. The Holy See makes it so easy. The Catechism of the Catholic Church is online in its entirety, along with the Compendium of the Catechism of the Catholic Church, and both books are readily available in print for little more than the cost of printing and distribution. Furthermore, there are Holy Catholic parishes almost everywhere, I'm sure there are plenty near wherever you live.

The Catholic denomination does forbid marriage, to those that want to be called 'priest'.

HOWEVER, in Christ, ALL true worshipers are called 'priest'.

The Catholics do NOT obey God.

In this life, if you do not obey God, you will not be saved in this life.

The Catholics go against God in many ways. Would you like to discuss the many ways?

Nihilo
March 7th, 2016, 01:25 PM
The Catholic denomination does forbid marriage, to those that want to be called 'priest'.So it's not unqualified then? Hmm. Well that's quite different from what that other knucklehead said now, isn't it?

HOWEVER, in Christ, ALL true worshipers are called 'priest'.'Holy See says as much.

The Catholics do NOT obey God.I don't know what you mean.

In this life, if you do not obey God, you will not be saved in this life.I don't know what you mean.

The Catholics go against God in many ways. Would you like to discuss the many ways?No, of course not. I'm already aware of all your disagreements. You're your own pope, and a silly one at that. I'll pass.

HisServant
March 7th, 2016, 01:39 PM
-18 And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter
-19 And I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven
-peter got the keys
-and
-the power to bind and loose
-that means he was in charge
-someone must be in charge
-that should be clear

You seem to like to make a mountain out of a mole hill.

All the important things about what we need to know are contained in all 4 gospels, things not repeated are just background noise.

It must be disturbing to realize everything you hold dear and use to justify the core of your faith is something that wasn't important to the Holy Spirit.

Jer17.5Ps50-Mt543
March 7th, 2016, 02:02 PM
You seem to like to make a mountain out of a mole hill.

All the important things about what we need to know are contained in all 4 gospels, things not repeated are just background noise.

It must be disturbing to realize everything you hold dear and use to justify the core of your faith is something that wasn't important to the Holy Spirit.

who are YOU to say what is important and what is not? Christ established a CHURCH to lead us. He knew we would need one, knew how confused we would all become w/o one. Look at all the confusion there's been since Luther broke w/ the Church!

60,000 different "churches"

if that is not confusion, what is? They all disagree with one another. And there is a new "church" starting every week. Yet Jesus used the word Church, not Church-ES--"I will build MY CHURCH..." He said (Mt 16:18) He didnt say I will build my ChurchES

God's Truth
March 7th, 2016, 10:54 PM
So it's not unqualified then? Hmm. Well that's quite different from what that other knucklehead said now, isn't it?
'Holy See says as much.
I don't know what you mean.
I don't know what you mean.
No, of course not. I'm already aware of all your disagreements. You're your own pope, and a silly one at that. I'll pass.

You do not know what I mean, you say, maybe I can help you understand better.

Tell me, how do Catholics obey this:

Matthew 23:9 And do not call anyone on earth 'father,' for you have one Father, and he is in heaven.

Matthew 23:8 "But you are not to be called 'Rabbi,' for you have one Teacher, and you are all brothers.

Catholics call their brothers 'father', and their 'fathers' call each other 'father'.

I will tell you how I obey Jesus: I do not call my brothers in Christ 'father'.

Your turn.


Now, tell me how Catholics obey this when it comes to infants:

Mark 1:15
"The time has come," he said. "The kingdom of God has come near. Repent and believe the good news!"

Catholics baptize infants who cannot repent and believe.

I will tell you how I obey Jesus: I got baptized when I could repent and believe.

Your turn.


Tell me how do Catholics obey this:

Acts 10:25 As Peter entered the house, Cornelius met him and fell at his feet in reverence.

Acts 10:26 But Peter made him get up. "Stand up," he said, "I am only a man myself."

Catholics bow to their pope.

I do not bow to any other Christian.

Your turn.


How do Catholics obey this:

1 Timothy 2:5 For there is one God and one mediator between God and mankind, the man Christ Jesus,

Catholics pray to Mary and their other "saints".

I pray only to Jesus.

Your turn.


How do Catholics obey this:

Leviticus 26:1 "'You must not make for yourselves idols, so you must not set up for yourselves a carved image or a pillar, and you must not place a sculpted stone in your land to bow down before it, for I am the LORD your God.

Catholics bow to their statues.

I do not bow to any statue.

Your turn.

Cruciform
March 7th, 2016, 11:05 PM
The Catholics do NOT obey God... The Catholics go against God in many ways.
Coming from someone who publicly denies and rejects the central and defining Christian doctrines of the Trinity and Incarnation---and therefore someone who cannot be considered a "Christian" at all---your comments mean exactly nothing.


Would you like to discuss the many ways?
First demonstrate that the particular man-made non-Christian sect from which you have derived your interpretations and opinions is in fact that one historic Church founded by Jesus Christ himself, and then your comments may actually carry any doctrinal authority whatsoever. Until, then, don't waste your, and everyone else's, time.



Gaudium de veritate,

Cruciform
+T+

Jer17.5Ps50-Mt543
March 8th, 2016, 05:16 PM
You do not know what I mean, you say, maybe I can help you understand better.

Tell me, how do Catholics obey this:

Matthew 23:9 And do not call anyone on earth 'father,' for you have one Father, and he is in heaven.

.

this post of yours proves the point that we need a Church to interpret Scripture. If you could interpret Scripture infallibly you would realize that this psg means to think of no human being as being more capable of discerning what is God's will for you than God Himself. In other words, do not let a human replace God. You protestants violate this all the time when you follow human pastors over the Word. You would disobey the Word of God if a Ctholic righty interpreted said Word, just to defy a Catholic, even if you suspected him/her of being right. .. appears you hate Cathoicism more than you love God

Proof of how egregiously WRONG some of your pastors are: some of them endorse the un-Christian, bullying, protester-abusing, LIAR (etc) Donlad T for president!!! Unbelievable

Nihilo
March 8th, 2016, 08:05 PM
You do not know what I mean, you say, maybe I can help you understand better.

Tell me, how do Catholics obey this:

Matthew 23:9 And do not call anyone on earth 'father,' for you have one Father, and he is in heaven.

Matthew 23:8 "But you are not to be called 'Rabbi,' for you have one Teacher, and you are all brothers.

Catholics call their brothers 'father', and their 'fathers' call each other 'father'.

I will tell you how I obey Jesus: I do not call my brothers in Christ 'father'.

Your turn.Our Lord told His Apostles this. So we know that none of the Apostles called Peter "Holy Father," like we do now respectfully when addressing the pope, and the Apostles didn't call one another "Father," because each of them were chosen by our Lord Jesus Christ.

But they all would go on to spiritually sire or father many new members of the Body, and I am sure that they were addressed by non-Apostles, not as "Apostle," but, "Father." I know this because Paul writes about it, one, and two, that's what we do now with our clergy, who are the successors of the Apostles.

Now, tell me how Catholics obey this when it comes to infants:

Mark 1:15
"The time has come," he said. "The kingdom of God has come near. Repent and believe the good news!"

Catholics baptize infants who cannot repent and believe.

I will tell you how I obey Jesus: I got baptized when I could repent and believe.

Your turn.Did you really mean to use this verse? It's clearly what our Lord told His contemporaries, and not you or me. It does rise to the level of justifying voluntary separation from His Church's sacraments and obedience, though.

Tell me how do Catholics obey this:

Acts 10:25 As Peter entered the house, Cornelius met him and fell at his feet in reverence.

Acts 10:26 But Peter made him get up. "Stand up," he said, "I am only a man myself."

Catholics bow to their pope.

I do not bow to any other Christian.

Your turn.Culture of pagans. We don't have that now. The Church has absolutely wiped most of the earth of every paganism, so bowing today doesn't mean what it meant then. It's analogous to when words' meanings change over long periods of time. Inadvertent equivocation.

How do Catholics obey this:

1 Timothy 2:5 For there is one God and one mediator between God and mankind, the man Christ Jesus,

Catholics pray to Mary and their other "saints".

I pray only to Jesus.

Your turn.If you would resume praying to her, then in honoring her with prayer, prayer in which you ask her, to pray for you, you are getting more bang for your buck. The Church as a Body is in view when we ask Mary to pray for us sinners. Mary knows us better than we know ourselves and when we ask her to pray for us sinners, we're not asking her to pray the Rosary, but for her to pray to her son as only a biological mother can speak with her firstborn son, on our behalf, in whatever way that she sees fit. Nobody knows Him better than her, among creatures.

How do Catholics obey this:

Leviticus 26:1 "'You must not make for yourselves idols, so you must not set up for yourselves a carved image or a pillar, and you must not place a sculpted stone in your land to bow down before it, for I am the LORD your God.

Catholics bow to their statues.

I do not bow to any statue.

Your turn.Supra, paganism's gone. It's been crushed. Everything you see Catholics and Orthodox doing is impossible to do without glorifying our Lord and Maker.

You are censored. Seriously, this is one of the silliest things I've ever seen, and I see it regularly from you. This is one anecdote which is part of the set of posts like this; all of which together; proof positive that when given the choice of giving your interlocutor any sort of credit at all, and making an intentionally bating disrespectful comment, you opt for the latter, frequently. You're so, silly. I don't know nor care whether you're a male or female or young or old. If this is an act or a role of yours, this is my overall judgment of it.

It is really, silly. I mean that lovingly. I believe that we are both members of the Body of Christ, however imperfectly united together we may be, so I'm offering this as a sibling who loves you. You act very very silly. So, if you were waiting for someone to come out and tell you, there it is. And if you weren't, I'm doing this because at this point it has become impossible to believe that you're only occasionally silly. It's continual. Whatever is you next strategic move in your private game, make it.

God's Truth
March 8th, 2016, 08:09 PM
this post of yours proves the point that we need a Church to interpret Scripture.

We need no such thing.


God’s word is understandable even to a young child. How from infancy you have known the holy Scriptures, which are able to make you wise for salvation through faith in Christ Jesus, see 2 Timothy 3:15. We do not need elected men to interpret God’s word for us, but we are to check the scriptures to check out those claiming to be teachers, see Mark 7:14; 2 Timothy 3:15, 16, 17; John 20:30, 31; Acts 17:11; and, Psalm 119:105. For we do not write you anything you cannot read or understand. And I hope that, as you have understood us in part, you will come to understand fully that you can boast of us just as we will boast of you in the day of the Lord Jesus.
See 2 Corinthians 1:13,14. God revealed the truth to little children, and God hid the truth from the wise and learned.

Luke 10:21 At that time Jesus, full of joy through the Holy Spirit, said, “I praise you, Father, Lord of heaven and earth, because you have hidden these things from the wise and learned, and revealed them to little children. Yes, Father, for this is what you were pleased to do.




If you could interpret Scripture infallibly you would realize that this psg means to think of no human being as being more capable of discerning what is God's will for you than God Himself.
I am telling YOU how YOU can know for YOURSELF.



In other words, do not let a human replace God. You protestants violate this all the time when you follow human pastors over the Word. You would disobey the Word of God if a Ctholic righty interpreted said Word, just to defy a Catholic, even if you suspected him/her of being right. .. appears you hate Cathoicism more than you love God

Proof of how egregiously WRONG some of your pastors are: some of them endorse the un-Christian, bullying, protester-abusing, LIAR (etc) Donlad T for president!!! Unbelievable

I belong to no denomination. I am not a protestant.

Stop merely insulting.

Nihilo
March 8th, 2016, 08:13 PM
Stop merely insulting.Pinhead.

KingdomRose
March 8th, 2016, 08:42 PM
Now what?

You cited Ephesians 2:20 to show that the apostles were the foundation of the Church, and I said, "Read the whole verse," not just half of it. The rest of the verse shows that Jesus is the MAIN STONE, so to speak---the corner stone, which holds together the whole foundation.

"You are built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets with Jesus Christ himself as the chief corner stone." (New Catholic Edition)

I think this shows who the "rock" is that Christ's church is built on.

God's Truth
March 8th, 2016, 08:46 PM
Our Lord told His Apostles this.
He told his disciples.



So we know that none of the Apostles called Peter "Holy Father," like we do now respectfully when addressing the pope, and the Apostles didn't call one another "Father," because each of them were chosen by our Lord Jesus Christ.

But they all would go on to spiritually sire or father many new members of the Body, and I am sure that they were addressed by non-Apostles, not as "Apostle," but, "Father."

No such thing.




I know this because Paul writes about it, one, and two, that's what we do now with our clergy, who are the successors of the Apostles.
Did you really mean to use this verse? It's clearly what our Lord told His contemporaries, and not you or me. It does rise to the level of justifying voluntary separation from His Church's sacraments and obedience, though.
Culture of pagans. We don't have that now. The Church has absolutely wiped most of the earth of every paganism, so bowing today doesn't mean what it meant then.
Catholics bow to the statues.



It's analogous to when words' meanings change over long periods of time. Inadvertent equivocation.

God's word does not change.



If you would resume praying to her, then in honoring her with prayer, prayer in which you ask her, to pray for you, you are getting more bang for your buck.

Why would I ask Mary to pray for me? And, be truthful, for you know Catholics pray to Mary and and in that prayer to her, we ask her to go to Jesus for us.




The Church as a Body is in view when we ask Mary to pray for us sinners. Mary knows us better than we know ourselves and when we ask her to pray for us sinners, we're not asking her to pray the Rosary, but for her to pray to her son as only a biological mother can speak with her firstborn son, on our behalf, in whatever way that she sees fit. Nobody knows Him better than her, among creatures.

How do you ever get that Mary knows everyone's heart?

That is what the Bible says about JESUS.



Supra, paganism's gone. It's been crushed. Everything you see Catholics and Orthodox doing is impossible to do without glorifying our Lord and Maker.

It does not glorify God to do what He says not to do.


You are censored. Seriously, this is one of the silliest things I've ever seen, and I see it regularly from you. This is one anecdote which is part of the set of posts like this; all of which together; proof positive that when given the choice of giving your interlocutor any sort of credit at all, and making an intentionally bating disrespectful comment, you opt for the latter, frequently. You're so, silly. I don't know nor care whether you're a male or female or young or old. If this is an act or a role of yours, this is my overall judgment of it.

It is really, silly. I mean that lovingly. I believe that we are both members of the Body of Christ, however imperfectly united together we may be, so I'm offering this as a sibling who loves you. You act very very silly. So, if you were waiting for someone to come out and tell you, there it is. And if you weren't, I'm doing this because at this point it has become impossible to believe that you're only occasionally silly. It's continual. Whatever is you next strategic move in your private game, make it.

I am trying to help you to know God and Jesus.

Nihilo
March 8th, 2016, 08:47 PM
You cited Ephesians 2:20 to show that the apostles were the foundation of the Church, and I said, "Read the whole verse," not just half of it. The rest of the verse shows that Jesus is the MAIN STONE, so to speak---the corner stone, which holds together the whole foundation.So?

"You are built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets with Jesus Christ himself as the chief corner stone." (New Catholic Edition)

I think this shows who the "rock" is that Christ's church is built on.So?

Opinions are like garbage cans. Everybody's got at least one, and they all stink.

KingdomRose
March 8th, 2016, 08:48 PM
I try to read through your awful posts; I really do. But they nauseate me because you're just so silly. You're like a child, fingers in ears, throwing a tantrum. Here's the first utterly silly thing that I noticed in post 44, because you were so silly as to underline it for me.
What a silly, stupid, ignorant thing to say. You "should" be ashamed of yourself, except that when someone goes on and throws a tantrum, they've automatically removed themselves from reasonable discussion, so instead, we are left with only the option of heaping on ridicule in the hopes that something gets through that silly head of yours.

You're a silly person, and there's no way for me to make you change. I just hope that you can see fit to love yourself enough to humble yourself. The Holy See makes it so easy. The Catechism of the Catholic Church is online in its entirety, along with the Compendium of the Catechism of the Catholic Church, and both books are readily available in print for little more than the cost of printing and distribution. Furthermore, there are Holy Catholic parishes almost everywhere, I'm sure there are plenty near wherever you live.

I am not throwing a tantrum. I'm very calm. I'm just pointing out to you what I see as the obvious truth. Instead of accusing me of being "awful" and "throwing a tantrum," why don't you tell me why I'm wrong? Do you DENY that the Church forbids priests to marry? Then tell me what has changed, and when it was changed. I'd like to know, so I can correct my thinking.

Nihilo
March 8th, 2016, 08:49 PM
He told his disciples.


No such thing.


Catholics bow to the statues.



God's word does not change.



Why would I ask Mary to pray for me? And, be truthful, for you know Catholics pray to Mary and and in that prayer to her, we ask her to go to Jesus for us.



How do you ever get that Mary knows everyone's heart?

That is what the Bible says about JESUS.



It does not glorify God to do what He says not to do.


I am trying to help you to know God and Jesus.Pinhead.

Nihilo
March 8th, 2016, 08:52 PM
I am not throwing a tantrum. I'm very calm. I'm just pointing out to you what I see as the obvious truth. Instead of accusing me of being "awful" and "throwing a tantrum," why don't you tell me why I'm wrong? Do you DENY that the Church forbids priests to marry? Then tell me what has changed, and when it was changed. I'd like to know, so I can correct my thinking.You said that the Church forbids marriage, without qualification. You should admit that you were wrong before anything else occurs here, don't you think?

KingdomRose
March 8th, 2016, 08:52 PM
So it's not unqualified then? Hmm. Well that's quite different from what that other knucklehead said now, isn't it?

If you'll look back at my post #44 you'll see that I DID specifically say that the PRIESTS are forbidden to marry. I guess you didn't bother to read my whole post.

Nihilo
March 8th, 2016, 08:54 PM
If you'll look back at my post #44 you'll see that I DID specifically say that the PRIESTS are forbidden to marry. I guess you didn't bother to read my whole post.Oh. I must have been confused since you tied this in with the scripture that condemns those who forbid marriage. In an unqualified manner.

KingdomRose
March 8th, 2016, 08:57 PM
Coming from someone who publicly denies and rejects the central and defining Christian doctrines of the Trinity and Incarnation---and therefore someone who cannot be considered a "Christian" at all---your comments mean exactly nothing.


First demonstrate that the particular man-made non-Christian sect from which you have derived your interpretations and opinions is in fact that one historic Church founded by Jesus Christ himself, and then your comments may actually carry any doctrinal authority whatsoever. Until, then, don't waste your, and everyone else's, time.



Gaudium de veritate,

Cruciform
+T+

Typical reply from someone who can't refute what was said. Why don't you address each point brought out? Why does it matter what denomination a person is affiliated with? Aren't we here to discuss THE BIBLE? So respond to the scriptural ideas that are presented and explain why the RCC doesn't adhere to those principles.

KingdomRose
March 8th, 2016, 09:03 PM
this post of yours proves the point that we need a Church to interpret Scripture. If you could interpret Scripture infallibly you would realize that this psg means to think of no human being as being more capable of discerning what is God's will for you than God Himself. In other words, do not let a human replace God. You protestants violate this all the time when you follow human pastors over the Word. You would disobey the Word of God if a Ctholic righty interpreted said Word, just to defy a Catholic, even if you suspected him/her of being right. .. appears you hate Cathoicism more than you love God

Proof of how egregiously WRONG some of your pastors are: some of them endorse the un-Christian, bullying, protester-abusing, LIAR (etc) Donlad T for president!!! Unbelievable

You are correct about the Protestants kissing up to men by calling them "Reverend." Now, I am not Protestant, neither am I Catholic or Orthodox. Jehovah's Witnesses do not call anyone "Father" or "Reverend." As Jesus said, we have one Father, the One in heaven, and one Lord...Jesus Christ. JWs don't vote, either, as we honor Jesus' teaching that Christians are "no part of the world." HE is the one we have already voted for, when we were baptized.

I see you don't explain why your Church turns a blind eye to the principles that were quoted. You just said that you feel grateful that the Church is there to explain them, but you didn't offer any enlightenment to us.

KingdomRose
March 8th, 2016, 09:28 PM
Our Lord told His Apostles this. So we know that none of the Apostles called Peter "Holy Father," like we do now respectfully when addressing the pope, and the Apostles didn't call one another "Father," because each of them were chosen by our Lord Jesus Christ.

But they all would go on to spiritually sire or father many new members of the Body, and I am sure that they were addressed by non-Apostles, not as "Apostle," but, "Father." I know this because Paul writes about it, one, and two, that's what we do now with our clergy, who are the successors of the Apostles.
Did you really mean to use this verse? It's clearly what our Lord told His contemporaries, and not you or me. It does rise to the level of justifying voluntary separation from His Church's sacraments and obedience, though.
Culture of pagans. We don't have that now. The Church has absolutely wiped most of the earth of every paganism, so bowing today doesn't mean what it meant then. It's analogous to when words' meanings change over long periods of time. Inadvertent equivocation.
If you would resume praying to her, then in honoring her with prayer, prayer in which you ask her, to pray for you, you are getting more bang for your buck. The Church as a Body is in view when we ask Mary to pray for us sinners. Mary knows us better than we know ourselves and when we ask her to pray for us sinners, we're not asking her to pray the Rosary, but for her to pray to her son as only a biological mother can speak with her firstborn son, on our behalf, in whatever way that she sees fit. Nobody knows Him better than her, among creatures.
Supra, paganism's gone. It's been crushed. Everything you see Catholics and Orthodox doing is impossible to do without glorifying our Lord and Maker.

You are censored. Seriously, this is one of the silliest things I've ever seen, and I see it regularly from you. This is one anecdote which is part of the set of posts like this; all of which together; proof positive that when given the choice of giving your interlocutor any sort of credit at all, and making an intentionally bating disrespectful comment, you opt for the latter, frequently. You're so, silly. I don't know nor care whether you're a male or female or young or old. If this is an act or a role of yours, this is my overall judgment of it.

It is really, silly. I mean that lovingly. I believe that we are both members of the Body of Christ, however imperfectly united together we may be, so I'm offering this as a sibling who loves you. You act very very silly. So, if you were waiting for someone to come out and tell you, there it is. And if you weren't, I'm doing this because at this point it has become impossible to believe that you're only occasionally silly. It's continual. Whatever is you next strategic move in your private game, make it.

You are grasping at straws. Your explanation of calling someone "Father" is dizzying. I don't get it at all. No Christian is to call ANYONE their spiritual "Father." If it were OK, I'm sure the Apostles would have called each other that! They were always arguing about who was the greatest. They would've picked up on that "Holy Father" and "Most Holy Father" thing right away!:kookoo:

You say that the Church has "wiped out paganism." I'm trying not to laugh. Are you joking? The See has not prohibited its constituents in many countries from melding Catholicism and VooDoo, or any other form of paganism that the people combine with Catholicism. It's world-wide! Everywhere you go there are millions of Catholics that practice VooDoo, Santeria, etc.

A friend of mine who lives in Africa asked his father if the Church would object to them continuing to practice VooDoo. The father went and asked the priest. The priest said it was OK to do that. You can call me a liar, and that's OK---I can't do anything about what you think of what I'm saying. But I'll tell you now, I'm telling the truth.

I'm sure that Christians in Peter's day did NOT call the Apostles "Father." Jesus said, "ALL of you are brothers." That included disciples that weren't Apostles, as well as the Apostles.

Pray to Mary or another saint, and you "get more bang for your buck"???:confused: Dear heavens. What does Jesus think of this? Better yet, what does Mary think of this? Jesus clearly said:

"You must pray this way: OUR FATHER who art in heaven..." (Matt.6:9)

Pray only to the Father. And Jesus said that HE was the ONLY mediator between God and men...not Mary or any other saint. We pray TO the Father, THROUGH Jesus. Period. There is nothing in the Bible to even suggest that we can pray to a saint. We do not need Mary to intercede. Jesus says we can go DIRECTLY to the Father, because of Jesus' reconciliation actions.

Have you paid any attention to what goes on in, say, South America for the "Cinco de Mayo" celebrations and the big celebrations they have around Halloween, just to name a couple? There you have clear demonstrations of Catholicism combined with paganism. It's all over the world. You just have to open your eyes and look.

KingdomRose
March 8th, 2016, 09:35 PM
So?
So?

Opinions are like garbage cans. Everybody's got at least one, and they all stink.

SO???? Is that really all you can say? The scripture is CRYSTAL CLEAR: Jesus is the rock upon which the church is built.

That is nobody's OPINION. That is what God inspired St. Paul to write. It's in the Bible, as clear as day.

Nihilo
March 8th, 2016, 09:40 PM
SO???? Is that really all you can say? The scripture is CRYSTAL CLEAR: Jesus is the rock upon which the church is built.

That is nobody's OPINION. That is what God inspired St. Paul to write. It's in the Bible, as clear as day."You are Cephas, and upon this Cephas I will build My Church."

Jer17.5Ps50-Mt543
March 9th, 2016, 02:20 PM
It
The Bible.

Nothing else matters.

NO, not so!

It is the Word of God that matters and that is found not only in Scripture (proper version, of course) but elsewhere.

the word of God is found in His Church also, found through Tradition

turbosixx
March 9th, 2016, 02:38 PM
You cited Ephesians 2:20 to show that the apostles were the foundation of the Church, and I said, "Read the whole verse," not just half of it. The rest of the verse shows that Jesus is the MAIN STONE, so to speak---the corner stone, which holds together the whole foundation.

"You are built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets with Jesus Christ himself as the chief corner stone." (New Catholic Edition)

I think this shows who the "rock" is that Christ's church is built on.

YES. There are no verses that support the idea that Peter was the rock. Also, this verse says apostles, Plural, not Peter alone. If there were ever a supporting verse that the church was built upon the rock Peter this verse would be it but it doesn't support that notion.

turbosixx
March 9th, 2016, 02:39 PM
duplicate, Not used to new format.

Nihilo
March 9th, 2016, 02:52 PM
There are no verses that support the idea that Peter was the rock.Well, except for Matthew 16:18, John 1:42, and every single other verse that mentions "Peter" or "Cephas."

God's Truth
March 9th, 2016, 02:54 PM
Well, except for Matthew 16:18, John 1:42, and every single other verse that mentions "Peter" or "Cephas."

The TRUTH is the Rock.

Nihilo
March 9th, 2016, 02:58 PM
The TRUTH is the Rock.It's pretty interesting then that our Lord named Simon "ROCK," then, huh? Was He trying to confuse you?

He wasn't trying to confuse me.

turbosixx
March 9th, 2016, 03:03 PM
Well, except for Matthew 16:18, John 1:42, and every single other verse that mentions "Peter" or "Cephas."

That is the name given him by Jesus so that would stand to reason but no where is he referred to as a rock like our Lord such as this.

Rom. 9:33 just as it is written, "Behold, I lay in Zion a stone of stumbling and a rock of offense,
And he who believes in Him will not be disappointed."

If you look at the Greek in Matt. 16, Peter's name is masculine and "this rock" is feminine which could not be Peter or it would be masculine. "This rock" is referring to Peter's statement that Jesus is the Christ like this verse clearly says.

I Cor.10:4 and all drank the same spiritual drink, for they were drinking from a spiritual rock which followed them; and the rock was Christ.

KingdomRose
March 9th, 2016, 06:50 PM
"You are Cephas, and upon this Cephas I will build My Church."

Did you happen to notice that Jesus didn't say that---as you quoted it, that is? The quote is: "You are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church." He didn't say "upon YOU." He might even have been motioning to HIMSELF. This merits more research.

In the original languages the words for "Peter," meaning "a piece of rock," are MASCULINE (Greek: Pe'tros, masc.; Latin: Pe'trus, masc.; whereas the words for "rock" that Jesus said he would build his church on are FEMININE. (Greek: pe'trai, dative, fem. sing.; Latin: pe'tram, feminine.)

This is enough to see that Jesus did not speak of Peter as being the "rock" on which He would build His Church.

KingdomRose
March 9th, 2016, 06:52 PM
NO, not so!

It is the Word of God that matters and that is found not only in Scripture (proper version, of course) but elsewhere.

the word of God is found in His Church also, found through Tradition

No it's not found through tradition. Tradition is what got the Pharisees in trouble with Jesus in his day. (Matthew 15:6)

God's Truth
March 9th, 2016, 07:51 PM
It's pretty interesting then that our Lord named Simon "ROCK," then, huh? Was He trying to confuse you?

He wasn't trying to confuse me.

Read this passage:

Matthew 16:13 When Jesus came to the region of Caesarea Philippi, he asked his disciples, “Who do people say the Son of Man is?” 14 They replied, “Some say John the Baptist; others say Elijah; and still others, Jeremiah or one of the prophets.” 15 “But what about you?” he asked. “Who do you say I am?” 16 Simon Peter answered, “You are the Messiah, the Son of the living God.” 17 Jesus replied, “Blessed are you, Simon son of Jonah, for this was not revealed to you by flesh and blood, but by my Father in heaven. 18 And I tell you that you are Peter,and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of Hades will not overcome it.


Did you read how Jesus says on this rock I will build my church.

The church is Jesus' body.

Those saved become a part of Jesus' body.

Jesus is saying that he would build his body with true worshipers, those who worship in spirit and in truth. Peter had truth revealed to him by the Spirit.

See how Jesus says the gates of Hades will not overcome it?

God's Truth
March 9th, 2016, 08:07 PM
Did you see how Jesus says the gates of Hades will not overcome it?

Think about that for awhile.

I will show you how this is not a church building.

The gates of Hades will not overcome it.

Jesus went to Hades after he died on the cross, he went there to preach the gospel to the spirits there.

The gates of Hades could not keep Jesus there.

Jesus was raised from the dead.

The church Jesus was speaking about was his body.

Crucible
March 9th, 2016, 10:15 PM
-18 And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter
-19 And I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven
-peter got the keys
-and
-the power to bind and loose
-that means he was in charge
-someone must be in charge
-that should be clear

All which has absolutely no bearing on a 'succession'.

It's far more reasonable to say that Rome simply usurped Peter's seat to assume authority, because that's what Rome was good at- conquering things.

Peter simply got things going- there is nothing to suggest some blind following of a Christ substitute for ages to follow. If the Catholic Church messed up so much as it did, than there is nothing to suppose anyone must adhere to it.

The 'infallibility' claim came in 1054 AD, and it did nothing but cause trouble.

Nihilo
March 9th, 2016, 11:16 PM
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.

csuguy
March 10th, 2016, 01:40 AM
Why don't we consult Peter's thoughts on the matter of who the stone is?


1 Peter 2:4-10 As you come to him, the living Stone—rejected by humans but chosen by God and precious to him— 5 you also, like living stones, are being built into a spiritual house[a] to be a holy priesthood, offering spiritual sacrifices acceptable to God through Jesus Christ. 6 For in Scripture it says: “See, I lay a stone in Zion, a chosen and precious cornerstone, and the one who trusts in him will never be put to shame.”[b] to you who believe, this stone is precious. But to those who do not believe, "The stone the builders rejected has become the cornerstone,”[c] 8 and, “A stone that causes people to stumble and a rock that makes them fall.”[d] They stumble because they disobey the message—which is also what they were destined for. 9 But you are a chosen people, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, God’s special possession, that you may declare the praises of him who called you out of darkness into his wonderful light. 10 Once you were not a people, but now you are the people of God; once you had not received mercy, but now you have received mercy.

The Living Stone, proper, here clearly refers to Christ - the stone that was rejected by the builders that became the corner stone of the church. However, he also says that we too are as living stones which together are being built into a spiritual house and priesthood.

So Christ is THE Living Stone, the corner stone of the Church - but so is Peter a living stone, and so are we. A single stone does not make a house - we must come together, and in our unity we form the spiritual house and priesthood that is rooted upon Christ.

So the Catholics are correct that he is being called (a) stone/rock of the church in that passage. However, they don't understand that he is one of many such living stones - and that the passage in no way establishes an succession of power/authority.

God's Truth
March 10th, 2016, 05:14 AM
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.

Do you know how to eat Jesus' body?

jamie
March 10th, 2016, 08:47 AM
So the Catholics are correct that he is being called (a) stone/rock of the church in that passage.


There is nothing to indicate that Jesus was speaking to his disciples in the Greek language.

Jesus was able to read and speak Hebrew and in Hebrew "peter" does not mean rock.

csuguy
March 10th, 2016, 09:35 AM
There is nothing to indicate that Jesus was speaking to his disciples in the Greek language.

Jesus was able to read and speak Hebrew and in Hebrew "peter" does not mean rock.

OK, that's something to consider. How do you read the passage?

Nihilo
March 10th, 2016, 10:53 AM
Do you know how to eat Jesus' body?It's called the Eucharist.

jamie
March 10th, 2016, 10:57 AM
OK, that's something to consider. How do you read the passage?


Jesus addressed Simon in Hebrew as Simon bar Jonah. I don't believe Jesus then switched languages and addressed Simon and the disciples with him in Greek. I believe he continued in Hebrew and addressed all of them as peter, which in Hebrew refers to firstborn.


that you shall set apart to the LORD all that open the womb, that is, every firstborn that comes from an animal which you have; the males shall be the LORD’s. (Exodus 13:12)

The word "open" and the word "firstborn" are peter.

Jesus is the firstborn of all the firstborn into the kingdom of God. The rest of the firstborn will enter the kingdom at Jesus' coming to establish his kingdom over all the earth.

We are the church of the firstborn. (Hebrews 12:22-23)

God's Truth
March 10th, 2016, 11:00 AM
It's called the Eucharist.

You believe we eat Jesus by Catholic priests using themselves to have God turn wafers into the real flesh of Jesus.

You believe that nonsense, but what does Jesus say how we eat him?

Unless we eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, we have no life in us. Jesus tells us the truth, if anyone obeys his word, he will never see death, John 8:51.

We eat Jesus by OBEYING his teachings.

jamie
March 10th, 2016, 11:11 AM
It's called the Eucharist.


Actually it shows the Passover which memorializes Jesus's body and blood until he comes.
(1 Corinthians 11:26)

Nihilo
March 10th, 2016, 11:23 AM
You believe we eat Jesus by Catholic priests using themselves to have God turn wafers into the real flesh of Jesus.

You believe that nonsense, but what does Jesus say how we eat him?

Unless we eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, we have no life in us. Jesus tells us the truth, if anyone obeys his word, he will never see death, John 8:51.

We eat Jesus by OBEYING his teachings.You're so silly. You disregard Scripture. Our Lord said in no uncertain terms, unequivocally, that, "My flesh is meat indeed, and my blood is drink indeed."

You're your own Magisterium, and a silly one at that.

SaulToPaul
March 10th, 2016, 11:29 AM
John 6
58 This is that bread which came down from heaven: not as your fathers did eat manna, and are dead: he that eateth of this bread shall live for ever.

brewmama
March 10th, 2016, 11:38 AM
Luke 24:13-35 The road to Emmaus
..." he took bread, and blessed it, and brake, and gave to them.
31 And their eyes were opened, and they knew him; and he vanished out of their sight."

They did not know Him when they were all discussing Scriptures, they did not recognize Him until He reenacted the Eucharist. How y'all ignore that is beyond mystery.

SaulToPaul
March 10th, 2016, 11:45 AM
Luke 24:13-35 The road to Emmaus
..." he took bread, and blessed it, and brake, and gave to them.
31 And their eyes were opened, and they knew him; and he vanished out of their sight."

They did not know Him when they were all discussing Scriptures, they did not recognize Him until He reenacted the Eucharist. How y'all ignore that is beyond mystery.


So, you have to be a believer to partake of the Eucharist worthily, but at the same time you cannot know Christ UNTIL you partake of it?

brewmama
March 10th, 2016, 11:48 AM
So, you have to be a believer to partake of the Eucharist worthily, but at the same time you cannot know Christ UNTIL you partake of it?

Of course. Believing in Christ and truly knowing Him are two different things.

SaulToPaul
March 10th, 2016, 11:52 AM
Of course. Believing in Christ and truly knowing Him are two different things.

Does your church believe in transubstantiation, as the Catholics do?

Nihilo
March 10th, 2016, 12:27 PM
Does your church believe in transubstantiation, as the Catholics do?I'll let Brewmama correct me or add, but as far as I understand it the Orthodox believe very similarly to the Catholics, though there is some slight difference between them, and I don't remember what that slight difference is.

But basically yes.

HisServant
March 10th, 2016, 01:15 PM
Luke 24:13-35 The road to Emmaus
..." he took bread, and blessed it, and brake, and gave to them.
31 And their eyes were opened, and they knew him; and he vanished out of their sight."

They did not know Him when they were all discussing Scriptures, they did not recognize Him until He reenacted the Eucharist. How y'all ignore that is beyond mystery.


No cup mentioned there... I think you are confusing what is just a normal meal with the remembrance meal that he instituted.

You need to stop grasping at straws... unless you believe that every single meal that Jesus ate with his apostles or anyone else was by default your supposed 'Eucharist'.... hardly.

brewmama
March 10th, 2016, 04:22 PM
No cup mentioned there... I think you are confusing what is just a normal meal with the remembrance meal that he instituted.

You need to stop grasping at straws... unless you believe that every single meal that Jesus ate with his apostles or anyone else was by default your supposed 'Eucharist'.... hardly.


So you believe that even though the disciples spent the entire day with Jesus and discussed Scriptures in depth, they did NOT recognize Him at all until He " took bread, and blessed it, and brake, and gave to them. And their eyes were opened, and they knew him" was just a casual meal, and you think I'm grasping at straws?! :rotfl:

brewmama
March 10th, 2016, 04:26 PM
Does your church believe in transubstantiation, as the Catholics do?


I'll let Brewmama correct me or add, but as far as I understand it the Orthodox believe very similarly to the Catholics, though there is some slight difference between them, and I don't remember what that slight difference is.

But basically yes.

We believe in the true presence of Christ's body and blood, but not transubstantiation.

This is the typical Orthodox explanation: For the first thousand years of Christian history, when the Church was visibly one and undivided, the holy gifts of the Body and Blood of Christ were received as just that: His Body and Blood. The Church confessed this was a mystery: The bread is truly His Body, and that which is in the cup is truly His Blood, but one cannot say how they become so.The eleventh and twelfth centuries brought on the scholastic era, the Age of Reason in the West. The Roman Church, which had become separated from the Orthodox Church in A.D. 1054, was pressed by the rationalists to define how the transformation takes place. They answered with the word transubstantiation, meaning a change of substance. The elements are no longer bread and wine; they are physically changed into flesh and blood. The sacrament, which only faith can comprehend, was subjected to a philosophical definition. This second view of the Eucharist was unknown to the ancient Church.
Not surprisingly, one of the points of disagreement between Rome and the sixteenth-century reformers was the issue of transubstantiation. Unable to accept this explanation of the sacrament, the radical reformers, who were rationalists themselves, took up the opposite point of view: the gifts are nothing but bread and wine, period. They only represent Christ's Body and Blood; they have no spiritual reality. This third, symbol-only view helps explain the infrequency with which some Protestants partake of the Eucharist.

Jer17.5Ps50-Mt543
March 10th, 2016, 06:06 PM
You're so silly. You disregard Scripture. Our Lord said in no uncertain terms, unequivocally, that, "My flesh is meat indeed, and my blood is drink indeed."

You're your own Magisterium, and a silly one at that.

yeh, i can relate to the, uh.. frustration or whatever. It is really sad, though, when you think of it.. how far from the True Church Protestants are. that 500-year gap is not their fault. It is Luther's fault. He was a mere human but many act like he was--well, fill in the blanks.. some new savior or something..

sigh.. ignorance!

what is it good for?

(you know, that 70s song..)


:)

Jer17.5Ps50-Mt543
March 10th, 2016, 06:09 PM
We believe in the true presence of Christ's body and blood, but not transubstantiation.

t.[/FONT][/COLOR]


i didn't read the rest of your post. i was rather struck by this first comment! How can you have the Real Presence if you do not consecrate the hosts and turn the bread/wine into the body/blood of Christ?

that makes no sense at all. And also, i believe you are wrong. I believe the Orthodox do believe in Transubstantiation

KingdomRose
March 10th, 2016, 07:05 PM
There is nothing to indicate that Jesus was speaking to his disciples in the Greek language.

Jesus was able to read and speak Hebrew and in Hebrew "peter" does not mean rock.

There are indications that Jesus spoke either Greek or Aramaic. Or both. Certainly he knew all languages.

God's Truth
March 10th, 2016, 07:13 PM
You're so silly. You disregard Scripture. Our Lord said in no uncertain terms, unequivocally, that, "My flesh is meat indeed, and my blood is drink indeed."

You're your own Magisterium, and a silly one at that.

Jesus says it is Spiritual.

John 6:63 63 The Spirit gives life; the flesh counts for nothing. The words I have spoken to you—they are full of the Spirit and life.

KingdomRose
March 10th, 2016, 07:13 PM
It's called the Eucharist.

I very seriously doubt that Jesus would espouse cannibalism. How gross a teaching is that? Undoubtedly, he was teaching with SYMBOLS. The bread STOOD FOR his body, and the wine STOOD FOR his blood. He didn't mean it LITERALLY! Good grief!

Check this out: When I was in the hospital a few months back, a priest came in to see my next-bed-over neighbor. She had her two sons there as well. The priest began to present the Eucharist emblems, and oops! he discovered he only had A HALF of a wafer! (I was laughing to myself!) So he divided that half wafer into three pieces.

Now, be real. That piece of Jesus' body was lying around in his pocket for so long he didn't even remember that he had only a HALF? And then he ripped it into three pieces? Did he really think he had Jesus' body in his pocket? Those priests probably LAUGH at what they convince their parishioners of!

God's Truth
March 10th, 2016, 07:14 PM
I very seriously doubt that Jesus would espouse cannibalism. How gross a teaching is that? Undoubtedly, he was teaching with SYMBOLS. The bread STOOD FOR his body, and the wine STOOD FOR his blood. He didn't mean it LITERALLY! Good grief!

Check this out: When I was in the hospital a few months back, a priest came in to see my next-bed-over neighbor. She had her two sons there as well. The priest began to present the Eucharist emblems, and oops! he discovered he only had A HALF of a wafer! (I was laughing to myself!) So he divided that half wafer into three pieces.

Now, be real. That piece of Jesus' body was lying around in his pocket for so long he didn't even remember that he had only a HALF? And then he ripped it into three pieces? Did he really think he had Jesus' body in his pocket? Those priests probably LAUGH at what they convince their parishioners of!

I think they believe it.

KingdomRose
March 10th, 2016, 07:17 PM
Read this passage:

Matthew 16:13 When Jesus came to the region of Caesarea Philippi, he asked his disciples, “Who do people say the Son of Man is?” 14 They replied, “Some say John the Baptist; others say Elijah; and still others, Jeremiah or one of the prophets.” 15 “But what about you?” he asked. “Who do you say I am?” 16 Simon Peter answered, “You are the Messiah, the Son of the living God.” 17 Jesus replied, “Blessed are you, Simon son of Jonah, for this was not revealed to you by flesh and blood, but by my Father in heaven. 18 And I tell you that you are Peter,and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of Hades will not overcome it.


Did you read how Jesus says on this rock I will build my church.

The church is Jesus' body.

Those saved become a part of Jesus' body.

Jesus is saying that he would build his body with true worshipers, those who worship in spirit and in truth. Peter had truth revealed to him by the Spirit.

See how Jesus says the gates of Hades will not overcome it?

Yes, and he wasn't talking about the RCC.

KingdomRose
March 10th, 2016, 07:27 PM
Did you see how Jesus says the gates of Hades will not overcome it?

Think about that for awhile.

I will show you how this is not a church building.

The gates of Hades will not overcome it.

Jesus went to Hades after he died on the cross, he went there to preach the gospel to the spirits there.

The gates of Hades could not keep Jesus there.

Jesus was raised from the dead.

The church Jesus was speaking about was his body.

Jesus was dead for three days. THEN he was raised up again. THEN he went to the "spirits in prison." Those "spirits" were obviously the DEMONS---the angels that disobeyed and fell from their approved standing with God. (See IPeter 3:18-20....make sure you read verse 20! Also Genesis 6:2; 2Peter 2:4,5; Jude 6.)

"Hades" was simply Jesus' GRAVE. He was in his grave for three days, and then he went in the spirit to talk to the fallen angels who were in a FIGURATIVE prison: a spiritually dark condition.

God's Truth
March 10th, 2016, 07:27 PM
Yes, and he wasn't talking about the RCC.

That's right.

Jesus was talking about his body, the church.

brewmama
March 10th, 2016, 07:30 PM
i didn't read the rest of your post. i was rather struck by this first comment! How can you have the Real Presence if you do not consecrate the hosts and turn the bread/wine into the body/blood of Christ?

that makes no sense at all. And also, i believe you are wrong. I believe the Orthodox do believe in Transubstantiation


Why don't you read the rest of my post, then we can discuss it. And I never said we don't consecrate it.

KingdomRose
March 10th, 2016, 07:39 PM
So you believe that even though the disciples spent the entire day with Jesus and discussed Scriptures in depth, they did NOT recognize Him at all until He " took bread, and blessed it, and brake, and gave to them. And their eyes were opened, and they knew him" was just a casual meal, and you think I'm grasping at straws?! :rotfl:

Yes that was a regular meal. No mention of wine. No mention of "eating" his flesh. They recognized him after the meal because of what he was saying to them. They didn't recognize him at first because when he was resurrected he was resurrected "in the spirit" (I Peter 3:18; I Corinthians 15:45) and thus he didn't look exactly the same when he materialized a physical body so he could walk with the disciples to Emmaus.

KingdomRose
March 10th, 2016, 07:41 PM
yeh, i can relate to the, uh.. frustration or whatever. It is really sad, though, when you think of it.. how far from the True Church Protestants are. that 500-year gap is not their fault. It is Luther's fault. He was a mere human but many act like he was--well, fill in the blanks.. some new savior or something..

sigh.. ignorance!

what is it good for?

(you know, that 70s song..)


:)

Yeah! WAR! Huh! What is it good for??? Absolutely nothin'! (But doesn't your Church support it?)


:eek:

KingdomRose
March 10th, 2016, 07:44 PM
I think they believe it.

Then why did he have Jesus' body in his pocket and only a shredded piece of it? Please.

I guess he didn't think too much of Jesus.

jamie
March 10th, 2016, 07:44 PM
Jesus was dead for three days. THEN he was raised up again. THEN he went to the "spirits in prison." Those "spirits" were obviously the DEMONS---the ...the angels that disobeyed and fell from their approved standing with God.


Jesus preached to the disobedient angels in the days of Noah while the ark was being prepared.
(1 Peter 3:18-20)

KingdomRose
March 10th, 2016, 07:47 PM
Jesus preached to the disobedient angels in the days of Noah while the ark was being prepared.
(1 Peter 3:18-20)

No he didn't. It was after he was resurrected.

jamie
March 10th, 2016, 07:56 PM
No he didn't. It was after he was resurrected.



...who formerly were disobedient, when once the Divine longsuffering waited in the days of Noah, while the ark was being prepared, in which a few, that is, eight souls, were saved through water. (1 Peter 3:20)

You should have read verse 20.

:readthis:

csuguy
March 10th, 2016, 08:16 PM
Jesus addressed Simon in Hebrew as Simon bar Jonah. I don't believe Jesus then switched languages and addressed Simon and the disciples with him in Greek. I believe he continued in Hebrew and addressed all of them as peter, which in Hebrew refers to firstborn.


that you shall set apart to the LORD all that open the womb, that is, every firstborn that comes from an animal which you have; the males shall be the LORD’s. (Exodus 13:12)

The word "open" and the word "firstborn" are peter.

Jesus is the firstborn of all the firstborn into the kingdom of God. The rest of the firstborn will enter the kingdom at Jesus' coming to establish his kingdom over all the earth.

We are the church of the firstborn. (Hebrews 12:22-23)


Maybe, maybe not. It could be that the author translated the hebrew word 'Cephas' that was used by Jesus into the Greek 'Petros' for his Greek speaking audience. He is also referred to as Cephas after all.

At any rate, if we accept 1 Peter 2 then there is nothing wrong with accepting that Peter is a stone of the church - just not the corner stone. He is as much a stone of the church as we are today, if we truly live as followers of Christ at any rate.

csuguy
March 10th, 2016, 08:25 PM
I very seriously doubt that Jesus would espouse cannibalism. How gross a teaching is that? Undoubtedly, he was teaching with SYMBOLS. The bread STOOD FOR his body, and the wine STOOD FOR his blood. He didn't mean it LITERALLY! Good grief!

Check this out: When I was in the hospital a few months back, a priest came in to see my next-bed-over neighbor. She had her two sons there as well. The priest began to present the Eucharist emblems, and oops! he discovered he only had A HALF of a wafer! (I was laughing to myself!) So he divided that half wafer into three pieces.

Now, be real. That piece of Jesus' body was lying around in his pocket for so long he didn't even remember that he had only a HALF? And then he ripped it into three pieces? Did he really think he had Jesus' body in his pocket? Those priests probably LAUGH at what they convince their parishioners of!

Indeed - one of the accusations that the enemies of the Early Church put forth was this idea that this was cannabilism. The Church Fathers refuted them and established it was symbolic.

Nihilo
March 10th, 2016, 08:50 PM
I very seriously doubt that Jesus would espouse cannibalism. How gross a teaching is that? Undoubtedly, he was teaching with SYMBOLS. The bread STOOD FOR his body, and the wine STOOD FOR his blood. He didn't mean it LITERALLY! Good grief!

Check this out: When I was in the hospital a few months back, a priest came in to see my next-bed-over neighbor. She had her two sons there as well. The priest began to present the Eucharist emblems, and oops! he discovered he only had A HALF of a wafer! (I was laughing to myself!) So he divided that half wafer into three pieces.

Now, be real. That piece of Jesus' body was lying around in his pocket for so long he didn't even remember that he had only a HALF? And then he ripped it into three pieces? Did he really think he had Jesus' body in his pocket? Those priests probably LAUGH at what they convince their parishioners of!Are you of the opinion that our Lord Jesus Christ was unaware of Leviticus 17:11-14 when He said John 6:53-56?
Because I'm not.
I believe He knew very well Leviticus 17:11-14 when He said John 6:53-56.
And that means something very important.
And I don't think that you really understand it.

brewmama
March 10th, 2016, 09:38 PM
Yes that was a regular meal. No mention of wine. No mention of "eating" his flesh. They recognized him after the meal because of what he was saying to them. They didn't recognize him at first because when he was resurrected he was resurrected "in the spirit" (I Peter 3:18; I Corinthians 15:45) and thus he didn't look exactly the same when he materialized a physical body so he could walk with the disciples to Emmaus.

You have to really twist things around to avoid the very clear point of that story- which is that the eucharist enables us to recognize Christ even more than reading the Scriptures, but I know that's what you do. You are changing it quite a bit, for example it wasn't "after the meal" that they recognized Him, it was when He took bread, and blessed it, and brake, and gave to them. And their eyes were opened.

What did He say to them "after the meal," as opposed to what He said to them all day long? Nothing in the Scriptures about it. Total twisting on your part.

brewmama
March 10th, 2016, 09:40 PM
Indeed - one of the accusations that the enemies of the Early Church put forth was this idea that this was cannabilism. The Church Fathers established it was symbolic.

They most certainly did not.

brewmama
March 10th, 2016, 09:42 PM
Then why did he have Jesus' body in his pocket and only a shredded piece of it? Please.

I guess he didn't think too much of Jesus.

You are clueless as to how the host is handled and maintained, at least in our Church.

God's Truth
March 10th, 2016, 10:14 PM
Then why did he have Jesus' body in his pocket and only a shredded piece of it? Please.

I guess he didn't think too much of Jesus.

Maybe he thinks he is so holy, being the one that turned the wafers into the real flesh of Jesus in the first place.

God's Truth
March 10th, 2016, 10:19 PM
Jesus was dead for three days. THEN he was raised up again. THEN he went to the "spirits in prison."

You are mixed up. The scriptures say that when Jesus died on the cross he went to prison in the Spirit.




Those "spirits" were obviously the DEMONS---the angels that disobeyed and fell from their approved standing with God. (See IPeter 3:18-20....make sure you read verse 20! Also Genesis 6:2; 2Peter 2:4,5; Jude 6.)

Why would Jesus preach the gospel to demons so they could obey?

The demons are not offered salvation.

You are speaking much error.

csuguy
March 10th, 2016, 10:21 PM
They most certainly did not.

Because they didn't teach things like this at all...



"Elsewhere the Lord, in the Gospel according to John, brought this out by symbols, when He said: 'Eat ye my flesh, and drink my blood,' describing distinctly by metaphor the drinkable properties of faith and the promise, by means of which the Church, like a human being consisting of many members, is refreshed and grows, is welded together and compacted of both,--of faith, which is the body, and of hope, which is the soul; as also the Lord of flesh and blood. For in reality the blood of faith is hope, in which faith is held as by a vital principle."--(Clement of Alexandria, The Instructor, 1:6)


"In what manner do you think the Lord drank when He became man for our sakes? As shamelessly as we? Was it not with decorum and propriety? Was it not deliberately? For rest assured, He Himself also partook of wine; for He, too, was man. And He blessed the wine, saying, 'Take, drink: this is my blood'--the blood of the vine. He figuratively calls the Word 'shed for many, for the remission of sins'--the holy stream of gladness. And that he who drinks ought to observe moderation, He clearly showed by what He taught at feasts. For He did not teach affected by wine. And that it was wine which was the thing blessed, He showed again, when He said to His disciples, 'I will not drink of the fruit of this vine, till I drink it with you in the kingdom of my Father.'" (Clement of Alexandria, The Instructor, 2:2)

God's Truth
March 10th, 2016, 10:23 PM
Jesus preached to the disobedient angels in the days of Noah while the ark was being prepared.
(1 Peter 3:18-20)

The scripture does not say 'angels'.

God's Truth
March 10th, 2016, 10:24 PM
No he didn't. It was after he was resurrected.

You are badly mistaken.

God's Truth
March 10th, 2016, 10:25 PM
...who formerly were disobedient, when once the Divine longsuffering waited in the days of Noah, while the ark was being prepared, in which a few, that is, eight souls, were saved through water. (1 Peter 3:20)

You should have read verse 20.

:readthis:

You both made a mistake. You both say Jesus preached to disobedient angels.

brewmama
March 10th, 2016, 10:33 PM
Because they didn't teach things like this at all...


"Elsewhere the Lord, in the Gospel according to John, brought this out by symbols, when He said: 'Eat ye my flesh, and drink my blood,' describing distinctly by metaphor the drinkable properties of faith and the promise, by means of which the Church, like a human being consisting of many members, is refreshed and grows, is welded together and compacted of both,--of faith, which is the body, and of hope, which is the soul; as also the Lord of flesh and blood. For in reality the blood of faith is hope, in which faith is held as by a vital principle."--(Clement of Alexandria, The Instructor, 1:6)


"In what manner do you think the Lord drank when He became man for our sakes? As shamelessly as we? Was it not with decorum and propriety? Was it not deliberately? For rest assured, He Himself also partook of wine; for He, too, was man. And He blessed the wine, saying, 'Take, drink: this is my blood'--the blood of the vine. He figuratively calls the Word 'shed for many, for the remission of sins'--the holy stream of gladness. And that he who drinks ought to observe moderation, He clearly showed by what He taught at feasts. For He did not teach affected by wine. And that it was wine which was the thing blessed, He showed again, when He said to His disciples, 'I will not drink of the fruit of this vine, till I drink it with you in the kingdom of my Father.'" (Clement of Alexandria, The Instructor, 2:2)

You misunderstand what "symbolic" means...
The eucharist is always given to all members of the Church, including infants who are baptized and confirmed. It is always given in both forms—bread and wine. It is strictly understood as being the real presence of Christ, his true Body and Blood mystically present in the bread and wine which are offered to the Father in his name and consecrated by the divine Spirit of God.
In the history of Christian thought, various ways were developed to try to explain how the bread and the wine become the Body and Blood of Christ in the eucharistic liturgy. Quite unfortunately, these explanations often became too rationalistic and too closely connected with certain human philosophies.
One of the most unfortunate developments took place when men began to debate the reality of Christ’s Body and Blood in the eucharist. While some said that the eucharistic gifts of bread and wine were the real Body and Blood of Christ, others said that the gifts were not real, but merely the symbolic or mystical presence of the Body and Blood. The tragedy in both of these approaches is that what is real came to be opposed to what is symbolic or mystical.
The Orthodox Church denies the doctrine that the Body and the Blood of the eucharist are merely intellectual or psychological symbols of Christ’s Body and Blood. If this doctrine were true, when the liturgy is celebrated and holy communion is given, the people would be called merely to think about Jesus and to commune with him “in their hearts.” In this way, the eucharist would be reduced to a simple memorial meal of the Lord’s last supper, and the union with God through its reception would come only on the level of thought or psychological recollection.
On the other hand, however, the Orthodox tradition does use the term “symbols” for the eucharistic gifts. It calls, the service a “mystery” and the sacrifice of the liturgy a “spiritual and bloodless sacrifice.” These terms are used by the holy fathers and the liturgy itself.
The Orthodox Church uses such expressions because in Orthodoxy what is real is not opposed to what is symbolical or mystical or spiritual. On the contrary! In the Orthodox view, all of reality—the world and man himself—is real to the extent that it is symbolical and mystical, to the extent that reality itself must reveal and manifest God to us. Thus, the eucharist in the Orthodox Church is understood to be the genuine Body and Blood of Christ precisely because bread and wine are the mysteries and symbols of God’s true and genuine presence and manifestation to us in Christ. Thus, by eating and drinking the bread and wine which are mystically consecrated by the Holy Spirit, we have genuine communion with God through Christ who is himself “the bread of life” (Jn 6:34, 41).


I am the living bread which came down from heaven; if anyone eats of this bread, he will live forever; and the bread which I shall give for the life of the world is my flesh (Jn 6:51).
Thus, the bread of the eucharist is Christ’s flesh, and Christ’s flesh is the eucharistic bread. The two are brought together into one. The word “symbolical” in Orthodox terminology means exactly this: “to bring together into one.”
Thus we read the words of the Apostle Paul:

For I received from the Lord what I also delivered to you, that the Lord Jesus on the night when he was betrayed took bread, and when he had given thanks, he broke it, and said, “This is my body which is broken for you. Do this in remembrance of me.” In the same way also the cup, after supper, saying, “This cup is the new covenant in my blood. Do this, as you drink it, in remembrance of me.” For as often as you eat this bread and drink this cup, you proclaim the Lord’s death, until he comes. Whoever, therefore, eats the bread and drinks the cup in an unworthy manner will be guilty of profaning the body and blood of the Lord (1 Cor 11:23-26).
The mystery of the holy eucharist defies analysis and explanation in purely rational and logical terms. For the eucharist—and Christ himself—is indeed a mystery of the Kingdom of Heaven which, as Jesus has told us, is “not of this world.” The eucharist—because it belongs to God’s Kingdom—is truly free from the earth-born “logic” of fallen humanity.

brewmama
March 10th, 2016, 10:35 PM
St. Ignatius became the third bishop of Antioch, succeeding St. Evodius, who was the immediate successor of St. Peter. He heard St. John preach when he was a boy and knew St. Polycarp, Bishop of Smyrna. Seven of his letters written to various Christian communities have been preserved. Eventually, he received the martyr's crown as he was thrown to wild beasts in the arena.

"Consider how contrary to the mind of God are the heterodox in regard to the grace of God which has come to us. They have no regard for charity, none for the widow, the orphan, the oppressed, none for the man in prison, the hungry or the thirsty. They abstain from the Eucharist and from prayer, because they do not admit that the Eucharist is the flesh of our Savior Jesus Christ, the flesh which suffered for our sins and which the Father, in His graciousness, raised from the dead."

"Letter to the Smyrnaeans", paragraph 6. circa 80-110 A.D."Come together in common, one and all without exception in charity, in one faith and in one Jesus Christ, who is of the race of David according to the flesh, the son of man, and the Son of God, so that with undivided mind you may obey the bishop and the priests, and break one Bread which is the medicine of immortality and the antidote against death, enabling us to live forever in Jesus Christ."

-"Letter to the Ephesians", paragraph 20, c. 80-110 A.D."I have no taste for the food that perishes nor for the pleasures of this life. I want the Bread of God which is the Flesh of Christ, who was the seed of David; and for drink I desire His Blood which is love that cannot be destroyed."

-"Letter to the Romans", paragraph 7, circa 80-110 A.D."Take care, then who belong to God and to Jesus Christ - they are with the bishop. And those who repent and come to the unity of the Church - they too shall be of God, and will be living according to Jesus Christ. Do not err, my brethren: if anyone follow a schismatic, he will not inherit the Kingdom of God. If any man walk about with strange doctrine, he cannot lie down with the passion. Take care, then, to use one Eucharist, so that whatever you do, you do according to God: for there is one Flesh of our Lord Jesus Christ, and one cup in the union of His Blood; one altar, as there is one bishop with the presbytery and my fellow servants, the deacons."

-Epistle to the Philadelphians, 3:2-4:1, 110 A.D.

brewmama
March 10th, 2016, 10:37 PM
St. Clement of Alexandria studied under Pantaenus. He later succeeded him as the director of the school of catechumens in Alexandria, Egypt around the year 200 A.D.,

"The Blood of the Lord, indeed, is twofold. There is His corporeal Blood, by which we are redeemed from corruption; and His spiritual Blood, that with which we are anointed. That is to say, to drink the Blood of Jesus is to share in His immortality. The strength of the Word is the Spirit just as the blood is the strength of the body. Similarly, as wine is blended with water, so is the Spirit with man. The one, the Watered Wine, nourishes in faith, while the other, the Spirit, leads us on to immortality. The union of both, however, - of the drink and of the Word, - is called the Eucharist, a praiseworthy and excellent gift. Those who partake of it in faith are sanctified in body and in soul. By the will of the Father, the divine mixture, man, is mystically united to the Spirit and to the Word.",

-"The Instructor of the Children". [2,2,19,4] ante 202 A.D.,

jamie
March 10th, 2016, 10:38 PM
You both made a mistake. You both say Jesus preached to disobedient angels.



For if God did not spare the angels who sinned, but cast them down to hell and delivered them into chains of darkness to be reserved for judgment... (2 Peter 2:4)

Only disobedient angels need to be judged.

God's Truth
March 10th, 2016, 10:50 PM
For if God did not spare the angels who sinned, but cast them down to hell and delivered them into chains of darkness to be reserved for judgment... (2 Peter 2:4)

Only disobedient angels need to be judged.

Jesus went to preach to those who disobeyed a long time ago.

If Jesus did not preach to the spirits of people, how do you think he covered the sins of the WHOLE WORLD?

God's Truth
March 10th, 2016, 10:51 PM
For if God did not spare the angels who sinned, but cast them down to hell and delivered them into chains of darkness to be reserved for judgment... (2 Peter 2:4)

Only disobedient angels need to be judged.

2 Corinthians 5:10 For we must all appear before the judgment seat of Christ, so that each of us may receive what is due us for the things done while in the body, whether good or bad.2 Co

csuguy
March 10th, 2016, 11:55 PM
You misunderstand what "symbolic" means...

No - I used it just as I intended. Words often carry several different connotation. Context becomes key in determining which is being used for a specific instance of a term. I see that you are an Orthodox Christian which is why you were thinking something quite different from what I intended in my usage of the term as a non-denominational Protestant. However, that was a good overview of a more Orthodox perspective on the term.

I've visited Orthodox Churches a few times and had a good friend who was Orthodox, but it wasn't exactly a welcoming environment so I didn't attend too long. Not that they were rude, but I was very much an outsider. I wouldn't mind becoming for familiar with the Orthodox - but they are quite private.

csuguy
March 11th, 2016, 01:15 AM
St. Ignatius became the third bishop of Antioch, succeeding St. Evodius, who was the immediate successor of St. Peter. He heard St. John preach when he was a boy and knew St. Polycarp, Bishop of Smyrna. Seven of his letters written to various Christian communities have been preserved. Eventually, he received the martyr's crown as he was thrown to wild beasts in the arena.

We must take the writings of Ignatius with a big grain of salt. Over half of the letters ascribed to him are regarded as flat out forgeries, and the remaining 7 epistles all have two different versions: a short and a long one. The short are generally favored, but their authenticity is not without question.

Now, as far as the quotes you provided from him, the only one that could potentially be taken to enforce a literal interpretation of the Eucharist is the first one:


"Consider how contrary to the mind of God are the heterodox in regard to the grace of God which has come to us. They have no regard for charity, none for the widow, the orphan, the oppressed, none for the man in prison, the hungry or the thirsty. They abstain from the Eucharist and from prayer, because they do not admit that the Eucharist is the flesh of our Savior Jesus Christ, the flesh which suffered for our sins and which the Father, in His graciousness, raised from the dead."

"Letter to the Smyrnaeans", paragraph 6. circa 80-110 A.D.

This is one of those sections that differs quite drastically between the long and short versions of Ignatius' writings. Here is the long version of this same passage:



They are ashamed of the cross; they mock at the passion; they make a jest of the ressurection. They are the offspring of that spirit who is the author of all evil, who led Adam, by means of his wife, to transgress the commandment, who slew Abel by the hands of Cain, who fought against Job, who was the accuser of Joshua the son of Josedech, who sought to "sift the faith" of the apostles, who stirred up the multitude of the Jews against the Lord, who also now "worketh in the children of disobedience;" from whom the Lord Jesus Christ will deliver us, who prayed that the faith of the apostles might not fail, not because He was not able of Himself to preserve it, but because He rejoiced in the pre-eminence of the Father. It is fitting, therefore, that ye should keep public to talk with them; but to give heed to the law, and of the prophets, and to those who have preached to you the words of salvation. But flee from all abominable heresies, and those that cause schisms, as the beginning of evils.


Quite a bit different, no? There are many such places in the manuscripts of Ignatius' writings with such drastic differences between them - it is evident that people had an agenda. They wanted, as they have tried with so many other important figures, to use their name to push their anachronistic theologies onto others. But, again, the scholastic rule of thumb here is to favor shorter version so I will stick with that one.

The shorter one says: "They abstain from the Eucharist and from prayer, because they do not admit that the Eucharist is the flesh of our Savior Jesus Christ, the flesh which suffered for our sins and which the Father, in His graciousness, raised from the dead."

Let us pick this apart a bit. Who are "they" that abstain from the Eucharist and prayer? In Ignatius' authentic works he does fight against some heresies from his time. In particularly: he fought against the Docetists who maintained that Jesus did not literally die on the cross, nor that he ever had a physical body. The crucifixion was regarded by them as a lie or deception.

Indeed, this writing makes reference to them directly/indirectly several times. For instance, the second chapter of the same work reads as follows:



Now, He suffered all these things for our sakes, that we might be saved. And He suffered truly, even as also He truly raised up Himself, not, as certain unbelievers maintain, that He only seemed to suffer, as they themselves only seem to be [Christians]. And as they believe, so shall it happen unto them, when they shall be divested of their bodies, and be mere evil spirits.


When writing this work, from the get-go he has Docetism in mind. As such, when he says that "THEY do not admit that the Eucharist is the flesh of our Savior Jesus Christ" he is not making a statement about Real Presence or the like. It is much more straight-forward than that: the Docetists in question don't believe that Christ EVER had flesh, and so they could not even accept the Eucharist to represent that. This runs much deeper than disputes on the matter between Protestants and Catholics and Orthodoxy. This was a dispute concerning who Christ is, what he did, and what is expected of us as his followers.

To read-in the idea here that he intends us to regard the bread and wine as Christs actual, physical flesh and blood is simply anachronistic - that's not what Ignatius was fighting against here.

Furthermore, other passages that you quoted from him demonstrate that he himself uses the Eucharist symbolically. Like these ones:



"Come together in common, one and all without exception in charity, in one faith and in one Jesus Christ, who is of the race of David according to the flesh, the son of man, and the Son of God, so that with undivided mind you may obey the bishop and the priests, and break one Bread which is the medicine of immortality and the antidote against death, enabling us to live forever in Jesus Christ."

-"Letter to the Ephesians", paragraph 20, c. 80-110 A.D."

I have no taste for the food that perishes nor for the pleasures of this life. I want the Bread of God which is the Flesh of Christ, who was the seed of David; and for drink I desire His Blood which is love that cannot be destroyed."

-"Letter to the Romans", paragraph 7, circa 80-110 A.D.



I'll try to make time this weekend to dig up some quotes on the matter of the pagans and such accusing the Christians of cannibalism over the Eucharist, and the response of the Church Fathers.

Here's more info on Docetism: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Docetism

HisServant
March 11th, 2016, 07:46 AM
So you believe that even though the disciples spent the entire day with Jesus and discussed Scriptures in depth, they did NOT recognize Him at all until He " took bread, and blessed it, and brake, and gave to them. And their eyes were opened, and they knew him" was just a casual meal, and you think I'm grasping at straws?! :rotfl:

The term 'breaking bread' was a common Jewish term. I does not infer the eucharist.

Why are you reading something into scripture that just plainly isn't there?

jamie
March 11th, 2016, 10:01 AM
The term 'breaking bread' was a common Jewish term. I does not infer the eucharist.


:thumb: True, breaking bread does not imply anything magical. (Acts 2:46)

brewmama
March 11th, 2016, 10:53 AM
The term 'breaking bread' was a common Jewish term. I does not infer the eucharist.

Why are you reading something into scripture that just plainly isn't there?


It most certainly does imply it. It is used several times, including Paul in 1 Corinthians 10:16-17 (http://bible.knowing-jesus.com/1-Corinthians/10/16).
Why do you deny things that are obviously present in Scripture merely to suit your agenda?

brewmama
March 11th, 2016, 11:03 AM
We must take the writings of Ignatius with a big grain of salt. Over half of the letters ascribed to him are regarded as flat out forgeries, and the remaining 7 epistles all have two different versions: a short and a long one. The short are generally favored, but their authenticity is not without question.

...
I'll try to make time this weekend to dig up some quotes on the matter of the pagans and such accusing the Christians of cannibalism over the Eucharist, and the response of the Church Fathers.

Here's more info on Docetism: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Docetism

I'm impressed with your effort on this. However, it was well established in the early church that the Eucharist included the real Presence.

The Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church says this: "In the Patristic period there was remarkably little in the way of controversy on the subject...That the Eucharist conveyed to the believer the Body and Blood of Christ was universally accepted from the first, and language was very commonly used which referred to the Eucharistic elements as themselves the Body and Blood. Even where the elements were spoken of as 'symbols' or 'antitypes', there was no intention of denying the reality of the Presence in the gifts...
The first controversies on the nature of the Eucharistic Presence date from the earlier Middle Ages. In the 9th century Paschasius Radbertus raised doubts as to the identity of Christ's Eucharistic Body...but won practically no support."

HisServant
March 11th, 2016, 11:09 AM
It most certainly does imply it. It is used several times, including Paul in 1 Corinthians 10:16-17 (http://bible.knowing-jesus.com/1-Corinthians/10/16).
Why do you deny things that are obviously present in Scripture merely to suit your agenda?

Do you think that when Jesus broke the bread to feed the thousands with the loaves and fishes, he was actually doing the Eucharist?

brewmama
March 11th, 2016, 11:16 AM
Do you think that when Jesus broke the bread to feed the thousands with the loaves and fishes, he was actually doing the Eucharist?

Of course not, since He hadn't sacrificed Himself yet or instituted the Eucharist. But it did prefigure the Eucharist.

HisServant
March 11th, 2016, 11:40 AM
Of course not, since He hadn't sacrificed Himself yet or instituted the Eucharist. But it did prefigure the Eucharist.

Its the same words in the verse you quoted... it also doesn't mention a cup at all.

So tell me why again you think it was the Eucharist which opened their eyes?

brewmama
March 11th, 2016, 11:57 AM
Its the same words in the verse you quoted... it also doesn't mention a cup at all.

So tell me why again you think it was the Eucharist which opened their eyes?

Sigh. Since they said so themselves, in plain language.

" And it came to pass, as he sat at meat with them, he took bread, and blessed it, and brake, and gave to them.
31 And their eyes were opened, and they knew him;
And they told what things were done in the way, how he was known of them in breaking of bread."

they didn't even say "when He broke the bread", but "in the breaking of the bread"

HisServant
March 11th, 2016, 12:08 PM
Sigh. Since they said so themselves, in plain language.

" And it came to pass, as he sat at meat with them, he took bread, and blessed it, and brake, and gave to them.
31 And their eyes were opened, and they knew him;
And they told what things were done in the way, how he was known of them in breaking of bread."

they didn't even say "when He broke the bread", but "in the breaking of the bread"

Sigh... so the Eucharist is till valid without the cup?

You are reading something into it that just isn't there... this CANNOT be a Eucharist.

brewmama
March 11th, 2016, 12:14 PM
Sigh... so the Eucharist is till valid without the cup?

You are reading something into it that just isn't there... this CANNOT be a Eucharist.

The perfect example of what Jesus was talking about:He who has ears to hear, let him hear.

You have no proof that there was no cup- you think they really didn't have one?

HisServant
March 11th, 2016, 12:19 PM
The perfect example of what Jesus was talking about:He who has ears to hear, let him hear.

You have no proof that there was no cup- you think they really didn't have one?

And this is the typical convoluted thinking that Catholics have... they think that anything is permissible in the absense of scripture.

If it was the Eucharist, don't you think the INSPIRED WORD OF GOD would have included such an important detail.

All you are doing is wishing something to be there that isn't.

Which is why Romanism never passes the stink test... the vast majority of its dogmas and doctrines are developed out of the silence of scripture.... thereby making the Holy Spirit an idiot.

brewmama
March 11th, 2016, 12:52 PM
And this is the typical convoluted thinking that Catholics have... they think that anything is permissible in the absense of scripture.

If it was the Eucharist, don't you think the INSPIRED WORD OF GOD would have included such an important detail.

All you are doing is wishing something to be there that isn't.

Which is why Romanism never passes the stink test... the vast majority of its dogmas and doctrines are developed out of the silence of scripture.... thereby making the Holy Spirit an idiot.


How DO you explain that they did not recognize Him until He broke the bread, which according to you is just some common ordinary meal?
And you think MY explanation doesn't make sense?? :rotfl:

HisServant
March 11th, 2016, 12:57 PM
How DO you explain that they did not recognize Him until He broke the bread, which according to you is just some common ordinary meal?
And you think MY explanation doesn't make sense?? :rotfl:

All you have to do is look into the Old Testament... such a thing has happened before.

Seriously, your opinion on this is borne out of ignorance of scripture.

The answer is that Jesus DID NOT WANT THEM TO KNOW it was him...

jamie
March 11th, 2016, 01:07 PM
You have no proof that there was no cup- you think they really didn't have one?


Well, we know there was a cup when Jesus ate the symbolic bread and drank the symbolic wine with his friends.

Human flesh is not acceptable for food according to Mosaic law and Jesus never ate it.

brewmama
March 11th, 2016, 01:23 PM
All you have to do is look into the Old Testament... such a thing has happened before.

Seriously, your opinion on this is borne out of ignorance of scripture.

The answer is that Jesus DID NOT WANT THEM TO KNOW it was him...

He didn't want them to know Him until He broke the bread?? Why?

Go ahead, dig yourself in deeper.

HisServant
March 11th, 2016, 01:25 PM
He didn't want them to know Him until He broke the bread?? Why?

Go ahead, dig yourself in deeper.

The only person digging themselves deeper is you.

Your ignorance of scripture is just plain astounding... and you call yourself a Christian?

The reason for Christ doing this... was for people like you!. People that think they know him, but in reality they do not!

brewmama
March 11th, 2016, 01:29 PM
The only person digging themselves deeper is you.

Your ignorance of scripture is just plain astounding... and you call yourself a Christian?

The reason for Christ doing this... was for people like you!. People that think they know him, but in reality they do not!

So you have no answer. I thought as much.

God's Truth
March 11th, 2016, 01:31 PM
Here are scriptures to show that there is not real presence in the bread and wine. John 6:60-64.

Catholics believe that the priest can turn wafers into Jesus’ real body.
A special box holds these wafers, the supposed body of Christ.
There is even a service called Adoration, whereas parishioners can come to church, sit, and pray near the box of wafers, that box that they believe has the real body of Jesus.

Catholics believe they can turn wine into the blood of Jesus. Jesus died once—on the cross, and the blood of Jesus shed once—on the cross. Jesus is not in a wafer. No one is turning the wafer into the body of Christ. No one is turning wine into Jesus’ blood.

Catholics believe that the Lord’s Supper is a sacrifice, a sacrifice every Mass where the priest turns the wafers into Jesus’ body. Catholics believe they are experiencing a miracle when the priest does this. No wonder Catholic teachings are that missing a Mass is sin. However, read what the word of God says. The word of God tells us that Jesus is the Sacrificial Lamb. In the Old Testament day after day every priest performs his religious duties again and again, offering the same sacrifices. However, when Jesus offered for all time one sacrifice for sins, he sat down at the right hand of God, see Hebrews 10:12. Did you hear that? Jesus offered for ALL time ONE SACRIFICE for sins. Jesus is not in a wafer, he is at the right hand of the Father.

By one sacrifice he has made perfect forever those who are being made holy, see Hebrews 10:14. By “one sacrifice,” not a daily or weekly sacrifice of turning the wafers into the body of Christ, over and over again, by many priests all over the world.

We have been made holy through the sacrifice of the body of Jesus Christ once for all, see Hebrews 10:10. How hard is that for anyone to understand that we have been made holy THROUGH the BODY of Jesus Christ ONCE for all?

Christ did not enter a man-made sanctuary that was only a copy of the true one; he entered heaven itself, now to appear for us in God’s presence. Nor did he enter heaven to offer himself again and again, the way the high priest enters the Most Holy Place every year with blood that is not his own. Then Christ would have had to suffer many times since the creation of the world. But now he has appeared once for all at the end of the ages to do away with sin by the sacrifice of himself, see Hebrews 9:24-26. Jesus has appeared
ONCE for ALL, not again and again in a wafer.

brewmama
March 11th, 2016, 01:39 PM
Here are scriptures to show that there is not real presence in the bread and wine. John 6:60-64.

Blahdy blah blah.

No scriptures to prove this point, just a claim that no one disagrees with, that Jesus died once and for all for our sins.

Ignoring Jesus's injunction to continue the Eucharist. Hey, your loss.

HisServant
March 11th, 2016, 01:43 PM
So you have no answer. I thought as much.

Nope... the example I showed is perfectly valid.

Jesus had a history of hiding his identity, both in the Old and New Testament, from people who thought they were with the right crowd and doing things right.

He did so to reveal to them that they actually had not clue about him.

Which is exactly the same problem you and your church have... your tradition = Jesus.

God's Truth
March 11th, 2016, 01:51 PM
No scriptures to prove this point, just a claim that no one disagrees with, that Jesus died once and for all for our sins.

Ignoring Jesus's injunction to continue the Eucharist. Hey, your loss.

Don't change a quote.

Jesus offered his body ONCE.

Jesus does not offer his body repeatedly in a wafer.

That is scripture.

What you teach is some ridiculous nonsense of your church being able to preform a sacrilegious act that you think is holy.

brewmama
March 11th, 2016, 02:09 PM
Don't change a quote.

Jesus offered his body ONCE.

Jesus does not offer his body repeatedly in a wafer.

That is scripture.

What you teach is some ridiculous nonsense of your church being able to preform a sacrilegious act that you think is holy.

You have no clue what you are talking about. No one said Jesus is killed over and over. Just that partaking of His body and blood, as He instructed us, puts in mystical communion with Him, which is where I want to be. If you don't then again, it's your loss.

Come back when you have a clue that you understand anything about the patristic Church.

HisServant
March 11th, 2016, 02:39 PM
You have no clue what you are talking about. No one said Jesus is killed over and over. Just that partaking of His body and blood, as He instructed us, puts in mystical communion with Him, which is where I want to be. If you don't then again, it's your loss.

Come back when you have a clue that you understand anything about the patristic Church.

Christianity is not a mystical or spiritual faith. It's tenets are so simple that even children understand all they need to know.

Those who try and make it complicated are being used by Satan.

KingdomRose
March 11th, 2016, 03:55 PM
...who formerly were disobedient, when once the Divine longsuffering waited in the days of Noah, while the ark was being prepared, in which a few, that is, eight souls, were saved through water. (1 Peter 3:20)

You should have read verse 20.

:readthis:

Don't ever think I don't read ALL of the verses surrounding a scripture. I have read verse 20 a thousand times. You'd best rethink what you said.

KingdomRose
March 11th, 2016, 03:59 PM
Are you of the opinion that our Lord Jesus Christ was unaware of Leviticus 17:11-14 when He said John 6:53-56?
Because I'm not.
I believe He knew very well Leviticus 17:11-14 when He said John 6:53-56.
And that means something very important.
And I don't think that you really understand it.

Yes I understand it. You apparently do not. It is very clear that to eat [or, certainly, take it in any way into one's body] blood is forbidden by God. So it would be anathema to God for anyone to imbibe Jesus' literal blood.

KingdomRose
March 11th, 2016, 04:04 PM
You have to really twist things around to avoid the very clear point of that story- which is that the eucharist enables us to recognize Christ even more than reading the Scriptures, but I know that's what you do. You are changing it quite a bit, for example it wasn't "after the meal" that they recognized Him, it was when He took bread, and blessed it, and brake, and gave to them. And their eyes were opened.

What did He say to them "after the meal," as opposed to what He said to them all day long? Nothing in the Scriptures about it. Total twisting on your part.

Don't you read other posts here? There is NOTHING in that Emmaus account that says that Jesus was instituting or re-instituting the Eucharist. It was a regular meal. The scripture itself says that it was after the breaking of bread (which even people today call having a MEAL) that the disciples understood.

You go beyond what the scriptures are actually saying.

KingdomRose
March 11th, 2016, 04:16 PM
They most certainly did not.

They most certainly DID.

KingdomRose
March 11th, 2016, 04:18 PM
You are clueless as to how the host is handled and maintained, at least in our Church.

Did I say anything about how you handle the host in your Church?

KingdomRose
March 11th, 2016, 04:37 PM
You are mixed up. The scriptures say that when Jesus died on the cross he went to prison in the Spirit.



Why would Jesus preach the gospel to demons so they could obey?

The demons are not offered salvation.

You are speaking much error.

No, YOU are misunderstanding. Read the scripture.

Christ was "made alive in the spirit; in which also he went and made proclamation to the spirits now in prison, who once were disobedient...in the days of Noah."

He was MADE ALIVE. Does it say "while his body was in the grave"? No it just says he was made alive. During the three days? Or AFTER the three days? Does it say? No, but it makes sense, considering that the Bible says that the dead are conscious of NOTHING, that it was AFTER the three days. THEN he was resurrected "in the spirit."

Then he went, in the spirit (which verse 19 specifically says), and proclaimed to the disobedient angels that had sinned in Noah's day....most likely that the redemption of mankind had been accomplished. He didn't speak to them "so that they could obey." You tirelessly put words in other peoples' mouths. I never said that. Those fallen angels had once been his friends, eons and eons ago. Why wouldn't he go and speak to them about the success of Jehovah's plans? Probably like an "I told you so" type proclamation. This is what The New Testament/Recovery Version, 1985, says in a footnote:

"The most acceptable [interpretation] according to the Scriptures is as follows: the spirits here refer not to the disembodied spirits of dead human beings but to the angels (angels are spirits--Heb.1:14) who fell through disobedience at Noah's time and are imprisoned in pits of gloom, awaiting the judgment of the great day. (2Peter 2:4,5; Jude 6) After his death in the flesh, Christ went to these rebellious angels to proclaim, perhaps, God's victory, accomplished through Christ's death in the flesh, over Satan's scheme to derange the divine plan." (Living Stream Ministry)

So there you have it.

KingdomRose
March 11th, 2016, 04:47 PM
Jesus went to preach to those who disobeyed a long time ago.

If Jesus did not preach to the spirits of people, how do you think he covered the sins of the WHOLE WORLD?

There are no spirits of PEOPLE conscious after death! People hear the preaching while they are alive!

"For the living know they will die; but THE DEAD DO NOT KNOW ANYTHING....Whatever your hand finds to do, do it with all your might; for THERE IS NO ACTIVITY OR PLANNING OR KNOWLEDGE OR WISDOM IN SHEOL WHERE YOU ARE GOING." (Ecclesiastes 9:5,10, NASB)

KingdomRose
March 11th, 2016, 04:58 PM
The perfect example of what Jesus was talking about:He who has ears to hear, let him hear.

You have no proof that there was no cup- you think they really didn't have one?

You just don't want to think about it, do you. You just trample on the pearls. You are the one saying that this was some kind of Eucharist. It is up to you to prove that. You say on the one hand, "This is what it SAYS!" Then on the other hand, when it DOESN'T SAY SOMETHING, you say you're going to believe it anyway! Wake up.

KingdomRose
March 11th, 2016, 05:01 PM
How DO you explain that they did not recognize Him until He broke the bread, which according to you is just some common ordinary meal?
And you think MY explanation doesn't make sense?? :rotfl:

The exact time at which they recognized him isn't even important. Your interpretation of the whole scenario is comical. :crackup:

jamie
March 11th, 2016, 06:38 PM
This is what The New Testament/Recovery Version, 1985, says in a footnote:

"The most acceptable [interpretation] according to the Scriptures is as follows: the spirits here refer not to the disembodied spirits of dead human beings but to the angels (angels are spirits--Heb.1:14) who fell through disobedience at Noah's time...


Satan "fell" before Adam was created and he took a third of the angels with him.


His tail drew a third of the stars of heaven and threw them to the earth. And the dragon stood before the woman who was ready to give birth, to devour her Child as soon as it was born. (Revelation 12:4)

Satan and his group existed before Jesus was born and Christ preached to them while Noah built his boat. Since then the demons tremble. (James 2:19)

We will judge the disobedient angels at the Last Day.

csuguy
March 11th, 2016, 08:16 PM
I'm impressed with your effort on this.

Thanks; During my undergraduate while pursuing my BA in Religious Studies and BS in Computer Science, I bought and read straight through the vast majority of the Ante-Nicene Church Fathers Series (7 volumes out of 10), as well as other select works like Eusebius' History. I also bought the next set: the Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, but I've only read through select works in that series thus far. At the time I was primarily focused on the matter of Christology and the Trinity in the Ante-Nicene Church. So I'm a bit more studied on the Church Fathers than most, and I have a decent library on hand to research these matters.


However, it was well established in the early church that the Eucharist included the real Presence.

Well - that's the question, isn't it? I assert that it is not and have provided examples where they speak of the Eucharist as a metaphor and speak of the wine/blood and bread/flesh in figurative terms. You provided one early reference that looked like it might have suggested that this Early Church Father Ignatius maintained that the Eucharist literally transformed into flesh and blood - but this was clarified with context that he was addressing Docetism.

I'm open to considering more quotes on the matter - but please scrutinize the text a bit more and confirm that the Church Father in question is in fact speaking of the wine and bread literally transforming into blood and wine. Unfortunately, most people aren't willing to put in any real study with regards the Church Fathers - they simply like to assert that the Early Church taught this or that, and defend it with quotes that they took off of some website without taking the time to confirm that the quotes mean what they would like them to.

This is one of the reasons I took to reading the Church Fathers myself - so I could understand whether or not the Early Church Fathers had, from the outset, believed the Trinity, or if the Trinity was a later development and the Early Church Fathers had maintained other Christologies. Turns out that it is the latter. Of course - if you tell people this they go look up quotes online from Church Fathers they've never heard of, quotes that have been taken out of context so they don't really understand what is being said, post a large numbers of such quotes so that you can't reasonably address them all - and they say "see, the Church has always been Trinitarian!"


The Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church says this: "In the Patristic period there was remarkably little in the way of controversy on the subject...That the Eucharist conveyed to the believer the Body and Blood of Christ was universally accepted from the first, and language was very commonly used which referred to the Eucharistic elements as themselves the Body and Blood. Even where the elements were spoken of as 'symbols' or 'antitypes', there was no intention of denying the reality of the Presence in the gifts...
The first controversies on the nature of the Eucharistic Presence date from the earlier Middle Ages. In the 9th century Paschasius Radbertus raised doubts as to the identity of Christ's Eucharistic Body...but won practically no support."

While I agree that there were no major controversies over the theology of the Eucharist (if we ignore Docetism and the Gnostics at any rate) in the Early Church, that does not mean that they taught the "Real Presence." We should not take silence on the matter as an affirmation of a latter theology; that is anachronistic. Rather, it must be established from their writings that they believed such.

brewmama
March 11th, 2016, 08:50 PM
The exact time at which they recognized him isn't even important. Your interpretation of the whole scenario is comical. :crackup:


What's really funny is how Protestants claim to go by the Bible over everything else, yet blatantly ignore so many things that they don't like.

brewmama
March 11th, 2016, 09:06 PM
Thanks; During my undergraduate while pursuing my BA in Religious Studies and BS in Computer Science, I bought and read straight through the vast majority of the Ante-Nicene Church Fathers Series (7 volumes out of 10), as well as other select works like Eusebius' History. I also bought the next set: the Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, but I've only read through select works in that series thus far. At the time I was primarily focused on the matter of Christology and the Trinity in the Ante-Nicene Church. So I'm a bit more studied on the Church Fathers than most, and I have a decent library on hand to research these matters.

Well - that's the question, isn't it? I assert that it is not and have provided examples where they speak of the Eucharist as a metaphor and speak of the wine/blood and bread/flesh in figurative terms. You provided one early reference that looked like it might have suggested that this Early Church Father Ignatius maintained that the Eucharist literally transformed into flesh and blood - but this was clarified with context that he was addressing Docetism.

I'm open to considering more quotes on the matter - but please scrutinize the text a bit more and confirm that the Church Father in question is in fact speaking of the wine and bread literally transforming into blood and wine. Unfortunately, most people aren't willing to put in any real study with regards the Church Fathers - they simply like to assert that the Early Church taught this or that, and defend it with quotes that they took off of some website without taking the time to confirm that the quotes mean what they would like them to.

This is one of the reasons I took to reading the Church Fathers myself - so I could understand whether or not the Early Church Fathers had, from the outset, believed the Trinity, or if the Trinity was a later development and the Early Church Fathers had maintained other Christologies. Turns out that it is the latter. Of course - if you tell people this they go look up quotes online from Church Fathers they've never heard of, quotes that have been taken out of context so they don't really understand what is being said, post a large numbers of such quotes so that you can't reasonably address them all - and they say "see, the Church has always been Trinitarian!"

While I agree that there were no major controversies over the theology of the Eucharist (if we ignore Docetism and the Gnostics at any rate) in the Early Church, that does not mean that they taught the "Real Presence." We should not take silence on the matter as an affirmation of a latter theology; that is anachronistic. Rather, it must be established from their writings that they believed such.

We could go around all day about this; you quote St Clement, I quote St. Clement, etc.

Justin Martyr: "And this food is called among us Εὐχαριστία[the Eucharist (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/05572c.htm)], of which no one is allowed to partake but the man who believes that the things which we teach are true (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/15073a.htm), and who has been washed with the washing that is for the remission of sins (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/14004b.htm), and unto regeneration, and who is so living as Christ has enjoined. For not as common bread and common drink do we receive these; but in like manner as Jesus Christ (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/08374c.htm) our Saviour, having been made flesh by the Word of God (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/09328a.htm), had both flesh and blood for our salvation (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/13407a.htm), so likewise have we been taught that the food which is blessed by the prayer (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/12345b.htm) of His word, and from which our blood and flesh by transmutation are nourished, is the flesh and blood of that Jesus (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/08374c.htm) who was made flesh.
And so on.


But part of the problem is your remark " Church Father in question is in fact speaking of the wine and bread literally transforming into blood and wine.. No one makes the claim that it literally turns into flesh and blood, because, obviously, to the naked eye and all other senses it does not. But they definitely taught the Real Presence. That is why I posted the part of what symbols and types mean in the Church. The question is NOT the literal transformation, but the spiritual transformation. And your posts don't negate that, especially if they only refer to the literal.

Are you from Colorado?

csuguy
March 11th, 2016, 09:33 PM
We could go around all day about this; you quote St Clement, I quote St. Clement, etc.

Justin Martyr: "And this food is called among us Εὐχαριστία[the Eucharist (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/05572c.htm)], of which no one is allowed to partake but the man who believes that the things which we teach are true (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/15073a.htm), and who has been washed with the washing that is for the remission of sins (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/14004b.htm), and unto regeneration, and who is so living as Christ has enjoined. For not as common bread and common drink do we receive these; but in like manner as Jesus Christ (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/08374c.htm) our Saviour, having been made flesh by the Word of God (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/09328a.htm), had both flesh and blood for our salvation (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/13407a.htm), so likewise have we been taught that the food which is blessed by the prayer (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/12345b.htm) of His word, and from which our blood and flesh by transmutation are nourished, is the flesh and blood of that Jesus (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/08374c.htm) who was made flesh.
And so on.

Justin makes no assertion in this passage you provided that the bread and wine become literal flesh and blood, but I shall return to him in my next post - as I am fairly certain he addressed the accusations from the pagans/romans concerning cannibalism. It will be good to review what he says on that matter.



But part of the problem is your remark " Church Father in question is in fact speaking of the wine and bread literally transforming into blood and wine.. No one makes the claim that it literally turns into flesh and blood, because, obviously, to the naked eye and all other senses it does not. But they definitely taught the Real Presence. That is why I posted the part of what symbols and types mean in the Church. The question is NOT the literal transformation, but the spiritual transformation. And your posts don't negate that, especially if they only refer to the literal.

Yes Catholicism and Orthodoxy both maintain that the Eucharist literally transforms into the blood and flesh of Christ - it's called Transubstantiation (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transubstantiation). The Orthodox churches prefer to leave the explanation of how this takes place a mystery - but they nevertheless maintain that it is literally done.

However, if you don't believe it that is good.


Are you from Colorado?

I'm from Northern California

brewmama
March 11th, 2016, 09:52 PM
Justin makes no assertion in this passage you provided that the bread and wine become literal flesh and blood, but I shall return to him in my next post - as I am fairly certain he addressed the accusations from the pagans/romans concerning cannibalism. It will be good to review what he says on that matter.

Yes Catholicism and Orthodoxy both maintain that the Eucharist literally transforms into the blood and flesh of Christ - it's called Transubstantiation (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transubstantiation). The Orthodox churches prefer to leave the explanation of how this takes place a mystery - but they nevertheless maintain that it is literally done.


Again you insist on the term "literal", which means we are going around in circles. It does seem you are not really listening to what I'm saying. The Orthodox do NOT subscribe to transubstantiation, and I have given sources on that. They do of course subscribe to the Real Presence.

Nihilo
March 11th, 2016, 10:09 PM
The Orthodox do NOT subscribe to transubstantiationIt's a post-Schism Catholic word.

Cruciform
March 11th, 2016, 10:29 PM
Typical reply from someone who can't refute what was said.
"Didn't" doesn't mean "can't."


Why don't you address each point brought out?
Because unless GT's preferred non-Catholic sect is in fact that one historic Church founded by Jesus Christ himself---and against which he declared that the gates of Hades will never prevail (Mt. 16:18-19)---then whatever doctrinal opinions and interpretations he has derived from that chosen man-made sect do not possess the authority of Jesus Christ (Mt. 28:18-20; Ac. 16:4; 2 Thess. 3:4; 1 Tim. 3:15), and so carry no binding authority for believers whatsoever. They are nothing more than mere human opinion---the fallible traditions of men. Thus, for his opinions to carry any weight at all, he needs to demonstrate that his favored man-made sect is in fact Christ's one historic Church. Let's have it, then. Post your proof.


Why does it matter what denomination a person is affiliated with?
See above.


Aren't we here to discuss THE BIBLE?
Actually, the forum is called THEOLOGYonline, not BIBLEonline.



Gaudium de veritate,

Cruciform
+T+

csuguy
March 11th, 2016, 10:43 PM
Again you insist on the term "literal", which means we are going around in circles. It does seem you are not really listening to what I'm saying. The Orthodox do NOT subscribe to transubstantiation, and I have given sources on that. They do of course subscribe to the Real Presence.

Every source I've read on the Orthodox position says that they do maintain that it really is His Body and Blood. True - the term "Transubstation" is a Catholic term associated with an explanation for this is so, a rationale attempt at explaining the tradition that the bread and wine are literally/truly His Body and Blood. The Orthodox agree that it is - but don't accept the Catholic attempt at explaining how this is so.

Of course, if you can provide me with resources you find reliable on Orthodox Doctrine on this matter I would be happy to read them. I will go back and re-read your earlier post, of course, too.

To deliver on my promise concerning Justin and the accusations of cannibalism, here it is:



For I myself, too, when I was delighting in the doctrines of Plato, and heard the Christians slandered, and saw them fearless of death, and of all other things which are counted fearful, perceived that it was impossible that they could be living in wickedness and pleasure. For what sensual or intemperate man, or who that counts it good to feast on human flesh,[4] could welcome death that he might be deprived of his enjoyments, and would not rather continue always the present life, and attempt to escape the observation of the rulers; and much less would he denounce himself when the consequence would be death? This also the wicked demons have now caused to be done by evil men. For having put some to death on account of the accusations falsely brought against us, they also dragged to the torture our domestics, either children or weak women, and by dreadful torments forced them to admit those fabulous actions which they themselves openly perpetrate; about which we are the less concerned, because none of these actions are really ours, and we have the unbegotten and ineffable God as witness both of our thoughts and deeds. For why did we not even publicly profess that these were the things which we esteemed good, and prove that these are the divine philosophy, saying that the mysteries of Saturn are performed when we slay a man, and' that when we drink our fill of blood, as it is said we do, we are doing what you do before that idol you honour, and on which you sprinkle the blood not only of irrational animals, but also of men, making a libation of the blood of the slain by the hand of the most illustrious and noble man among you? And imitating Jupiter and the other gods in sodomy and shameless intercourse with woman, might we not bring as our apology the writings of Epicurus and the poets? But because we persuade men to avoid such instruction, and all who practise them and imitate such examples, as now in this discourse we have striven to persuade you, we are assailed in every kind of way. But we are not concerned, since we know that God is a just observer of all. But would that even now some one would mount a lofty rostrum, and shout with a loud voice, "Be ashamed, be ashamed, ye who charge the guiltless with those deeds which yourselves openly commit, and ascribe things which apply to yourselves and to your gods to those who have not even the slightest sympathy with them. Be ye converted; become wise." (The Second Apology of Justin Martyr, Chapter XII)


We see here that one of the accusations that the Early Christians face was that of cannibalism, and Justin denounces it completely as an outrageous lie - and instead turns the accusation back on the pagans who actually made such things their practice.

Nihilo
March 11th, 2016, 10:44 PM
unless [anybody]'s preferred non-Catholic sect is in fact that one historic Church founded by Jesus Christ himself---and against which he declared that the gates of Hades will never prevail (Mt. 16:18-19)---then whatever doctrinal opinions and interpretations [they have] derived from that chosen man-made sect do not possess the authority of Jesus Christ (Mt. 28:18-20; Ac. 16:4; 2 Thess. 3:4; 1 Tim. 3:15), and so carry no binding authority for believers whatsoever. They are nothing more than mere human opinion---the fallible traditions of men. Thus, for [their] opinions to carry any weight at all, [they need] to demonstrate that [their] favored man-made sect is in fact Christ's one historic Church.Phenomenal. Amen. :BRAVO:

Crucible
March 11th, 2016, 10:55 PM
Revelation 17:4

And the woman was arrayed in purple and scarlet colour,

http://www.bebaptized.org/popeantichrist_files/image002.jpg

and decked with gold and precious stones and pearls

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/d/d1/Clement_VIII_mosaic.jpg/230px-Clement_VIII_mosaic.jpg

having a golden cup in her hand full of abominations

http://www.bridgeportdiocese.com/files/images2013/pope_chalice.jpg

and filthiness of her fornication

http://www.deceptioninthechurch.com/popekiss.jpg



I feel much freer now that I am certain the Pope is Antichrist
~Martin Luther
1521 AD

Nihilo
March 11th, 2016, 11:17 PM
I feel much freer now that I am certain the Pope is Antichrist
~Martin Luther
1521 ADWell of course you do now, don't you Martin? You didn't feel free at all, when you believed that the Catholic Church was the Church. But now that you don't believe that anymore, you feel a lot better. And that's the big point of Vatican II. The Church basically said that the Church includes those who for any of a wide variety of reasons (disagreements in doctrine being the most voluminous set) are not in perfect communion with her, and so recognized those who are "imperfectly united" with her in believing in Jesus Christ.

Grosnick Marowbe
March 12th, 2016, 12:32 AM
What's really funny is how Protestants claim to go by the Bible over everything else, yet blatantly ignore so many things that they don't like.

KR is a member of the "Jehovah's Witness cult."

chrysostom
March 12th, 2016, 05:26 AM
the wonder of spring
nature at its best
the trees know what to do
the birds know what to do
the squirrels know what to do
the deer know what to do
the sheep don't
they need guidance
someone must feed them
they need the church
thank God for the church

God's Truth
March 12th, 2016, 06:48 AM
No, YOU are misunderstanding. Read the scripture.

Christ was "made alive in the spirit; in which also he went and made proclamation to the spirits now in prison, who once were disobedient...in the days of Noah."

He was MADE ALIVE. Does it say "while his body was in the grave"? No it just says he was made alive. During the three days? Or AFTER the three days? Does it say? No, but it makes sense, considering that the Bible says that the dead are conscious of NOTHING, that it was AFTER the three days. THEN he was resurrected "in the spirit."
Dead bodies are conscious of nothing, but our spirits go on living after the death of our bodies.

The scriptures say the Old Testament was about earthy man, but the New Testament is about what is Spiritual.




Then he went, in the spirit (which verse 19 specifically says), and proclaimed to the disobedient angels that had sinned in Noah's day....most likely that the redemption of mankind had been accomplished. He didn't speak to them "so that they could obey." You tirelessly put words in other peoples' mouths. I never said that. Those fallen angels had once been his friends, eons and eons ago. Why wouldn't he go and speak to them about the success of Jehovah's plans? Probably like an "I told you so" type proclamation. This is what The New Testament/Recovery Version, 1985, says in a footnote:

First you deny that Jesus went in his Spirit while his flesh was dead, then you go on as if he was alive in the Spirit but dead in the flesh.

Make up your mind what you want to proclaim.

The Bible says he was alive in the Spirit after the death of his body and then he went to prison/Hell.

Aramaic Bible in Plain English
1 Peter 3:18 Because The Messiah also died once for the sake of our sins, The Righteous One in the place of sinners, to bring you to God, and he died in body and lived in his Spirit.


(I usually pick the most enlightened scripture from among other translations. I do not choose this Bible translation for many other scriptures, but for this scripture it is perfect.)





"The most acceptable [interpretation] according to the Scriptures is as follows: the spirits here refer not to the disembodied spirits of dead human beings but to the angels (angels are spirits--Heb.1:14) who fell through disobedience at Noah's time and are imprisoned in pits of gloom, awaiting the judgment of the great day. (2Peter 2:4,5; Jude 6) After his death in the flesh, Christ went to these rebellious angels to proclaim, perhaps, God's victory, accomplished through Christ's death in the flesh, over Satan's scheme to derange the divine plan." (Living Stream Ministry)

So there you have it.

You had to make up a story about it being Jesus' angel friends. I can understand why you would say angels, but you forget about the part which says so that they can live according to the BODY in REGARDS TO THE FLESH.

1 Peter 4:6 For the gospel has for this purpose been preached even to those who are dead, that though they are judged in the flesh as men, they may live in the spirit according to the will of God.

Angels are not judged in the flesh as men.
You still have not answered my question. Tell me how does Jesus fill the whole world if he does not go to prison/Hell and preach to those PEOPLE who have died long ago?

God's Truth
March 12th, 2016, 07:00 AM
There are no spirits of PEOPLE conscious after death! People hear the preaching while they are alive!

"For the living know they will die; but THE DEAD DO NOT KNOW ANYTHING....Whatever your hand finds to do, do it with all your might; for THERE IS NO ACTIVITY OR PLANNING OR KNOWLEDGE OR WISDOM IN SHEOL WHERE YOU ARE GOING." (Ecclesiastes 9:5,10, NASB)

Again, the Old Testament is about earthy men, and the New Testament is about spiritual man.

If you do not recognize the scriptures I am telling you about just ask for the book and numbers.

brewmama
March 12th, 2016, 02:24 PM
KR is a member of the "Jehovah's Witness cult."


That explains a lot

meshak
March 12th, 2016, 02:27 PM
That explains a lot

Do you accept GM's comments better than KR's?

brewmama
March 12th, 2016, 02:29 PM
We see here that one of the accusations that the Early Christians face was that of cannibalism, and Justin denounces it completely as an outrageous lie - and instead turns the accusation back on the pagans who actually made such things their practice.


Well of course he did. Yet he still claimed the Real Presence of the Body and Blood.

If some Christians can't see the difference, they have no business partaking of the Holy Eucharist anyway.

God's Truth
March 12th, 2016, 02:37 PM
Well of course he did. Yet he still claimed the Real Presence of the Body and Blood.

If some Christians can't see the difference, they have no business partaking of the Holy Eucharist anyway.

The disciples were to treat their get together and eating together as if Jesus Christ himself were there, and he was, but not in the flesh in a wafer; rather, in the Spirit.

brewmama
March 12th, 2016, 02:43 PM
The disciples were to treat their get together and eating together as if Jesus Christ himself were there, and he was, but not in the flesh in a wafer; rather, in the Spirit.


According to you, not according to them.

God's Truth
March 12th, 2016, 03:16 PM
According to you, not according to them.

Jesus' flesh body was turned into a Spiritual IMMORTAL body.

1 Corinthians 15:53 For the perishable must clothe itself with the imperishable, and the mortal with immortality.

How you get that a wafer is literally turned into the REAL flesh of Jesus is just nonsense.

csuguy
March 12th, 2016, 06:36 PM
Well of course he did. Yet he still claimed the Real Presence of the Body and Blood.

If some Christians can't see the difference, they have no business partaking of the Holy Eucharist anyway.

I haven't seen him claim the 'Real Presence' of the Body and Blood anywhere in his writings, nor have you provided a reference to him doing so.

brewmama
March 12th, 2016, 10:08 PM
I haven't seen him claim the 'Real Presence' of the Body and Blood anywhere in his writings, nor have you provided a reference to him doing so.


So now I'm down to repeating myself. Again.

St. Justin Martyr: " so likewise have we been taught that the food which is blessed by the prayer (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/12345b.htm) of His word, and from which our blood and flesh by transmutation are nourished, is the flesh and blood of that Jesus (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/08374c.htm) who was made flesh."

csuguy
March 12th, 2016, 11:00 PM
So now I'm down to repeating myself. Again.

St. Justin Martyr: " so likewise have we been taught that the food which is blessed by the prayer (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/12345b.htm) of His word, and from which our blood and flesh by transmutation are nourished, is the flesh and blood of that Jesus (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/08374c.htm) who was made flesh."

And, I repeat, that doesn't say what you want it to. He nowhere claims anything about the 'Real Presence' of Christ in the Eucharist. He says, simply, that 'the food' is the flesh and blood of Jesus once it has been blessed with prayer. No one debates this, all agree that the Eucharist is the flesh and blood of Christ. The question is in what sense is it said to be his flesh and blood.

Is it really his physical flesh and blood? Or is it, rather, a representation of his flesh and blood, done in remembrance of Him? The above quote does nothing to establish that Justin maintained that it was the real flesh and blood of Christ, as opposed to simply representing his flesh and blood. You are being hasty and reading into Justin what you want him to say.

On the other hand, Justin did address the accusations made by others that the Christians literally ate flesh and drank blood - and he made it quite clear that these 'fabulous' accusations were preposterous, and instead turned it back on those pagan sects that actually committed such evil deeds. This gives strong evidence, to the contrary, that he did NOT believe that when he participated in the Eucharist that he was eating and drinking the actual, real flesh and blood of Christ.

chrysostom
March 13th, 2016, 04:05 AM
the church
-a place to gather in His name
-a place to worship
-the church feeds us
-the church guides us
-you need the church

brewmama
March 13th, 2016, 02:50 PM
And, I repeat, that doesn't say what you want it to. He nowhere claims anything about the 'Real Presence' of Christ in the Eucharist. He says, simply, that 'the food' is the flesh and blood of Jesus once it has been blessed with prayer. No one debates this, all agree that the Eucharist is the flesh and blood of Christ. The question is in what sense is it said to be his flesh and blood.

Is it really his physical flesh and blood? Or is it, rather, a representation of his flesh and blood, done in remembrance of Him? The above quote does nothing to establish that Justin maintained that it was the real flesh and blood of Christ, as opposed to simply representing his flesh and blood. You are being hasty and reading into Justin what you want him to say.

On the other hand, Justin did address the accusations made by others that the Christians literally ate flesh and drank blood - and he made it quite clear that these 'fabulous' accusations were preposterous, and instead turned it back on those pagan sects that actually committed such evil deeds. This gives strong evidence, to the contrary, that he did NOT believe that when he participated in the Eucharist that he was eating and drinking the actual, real flesh and blood of Christ.


LOL! You're starting to sound like Bill Clinton, with it all depends on what "is" is! St. Justin Martyr says that "the food..is the flesh and blood of that Jesus (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/08374c.htm) who was made flesh."

I'll take his word on it over yours.

csuguy
March 13th, 2016, 03:05 PM
LOL! You're starting to sound like Bill Clinton, with it all depends on what "is" is! St. Justin Martyr says that "the food..is the flesh and blood of that Jesus (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/08374c.htm) who was made flesh."

I'll take his word on it over yours.

Alot of theology depends upon in what sense something is said. For instance: we all agree that Jesus is the Son of God. However, in what sense is he said to be the "Son" of God?

The everyday usage of "son" would mean that God is his paternal Father who "begat" him - the son is his descendant/offspring.

Another common usage of "son" is to one who has been adopted, and so is accepted into the family as if they were a literal son - with all the social and legal rights and responsibilities of a son.

Still another usage was to call a student a "son", and the teacher/guide/mentor a "father". We see such usage in the churches today, where the priests are called "Father"

And these are just the everyday usages. Then we can start going into some of the different Christologies, like that of Origen, where they start speaking of being "eternally begotten" and the like. You also have people flipping the terms around to get "God the Son" - is that supposed to be equivalent to "the Son of God"?

So - yes - the sense in which something is said matters very much in how we are supposed to interpret and understand it. After all - I doubt you would accept all of the above usages of "son" as equivalent and equally applicable to Christ.

You maybe satisfied with your answer, but it isn't one that is defensible upon real inquiry. Like those who say that the scriptures teach the Trinity because it lists out "Father, Son, Holy Spirit" - you are reading into the text what you want it to say, rather than studying the text for what it actually says.

Crucible
March 13th, 2016, 03:05 PM
the church
-a place to gather in His name
-a place to worship
-the church feeds us
-the church guides us
-you need the church

Or, you could just be a liberal :rotfl:

That is what the Roman Church does- it goes with the world when it cannot by blood.

KingdomRose
March 13th, 2016, 07:30 PM
Satan "fell" before Adam was created and he took a third of the angels with him.


His tail drew a third of the stars of heaven and threw them to the earth. And the dragon stood before the woman who was ready to give birth, to devour her Child as soon as it was born. (Revelation 12:4)

Satan and his group existed before Jesus was born and Christ preached to them while Noah built his boat. Since then the demons tremble. (James 2:19)

We will judge the disobedient angels at the Last Day.

??? Satan and the demons are already judged. They will be IN THE FIGURATIVE ABYSS for the thousand years (which is the "Last Day"), not able to interfere with our lives here on Earth during that Millennial Reign. Catch up, dearie. You're way behind.

KingdomRose
March 13th, 2016, 07:35 PM
What's really funny is how Protestants claim to go by the Bible over everything else, yet blatantly ignore so many things that they don't like.

As can be said for you.

BTW, I'm not Protestant. I don't have any association with the apostate Church that got real influential after the Apostles died. The Protestant movement branched off from that church and retained all of the RCC's doctrines, refusing only to recognize the pope as their leader.

KingdomRose
March 13th, 2016, 07:38 PM
Again you insist on the term "literal", which means we are going around in circles. It does seem you are not really listening to what I'm saying. The Orthodox do NOT subscribe to transubstantiation, and I have given sources on that. They do of course subscribe to the Real Presence.

So you're saying that you believe the host and wine are the real body of Christ, yet you don't believe in "transubstantiation." Aren't they the same thing?

brewmama
March 13th, 2016, 07:48 PM
So you're saying that you believe the host and wine are the real body of Christ, yet you don't believe in "transubstantiation." Aren't they the same thing?


No. As I already explained in an earlier post, it's a rationalist explanation for something that had always been held as a mystery.

brewmama
March 13th, 2016, 07:48 PM
As can be said for you.

BTW, I'm not Protestant. I don't have any association with the apostate Church that got real influential after the Apostles died. The Protestant movement branched off from that church and retained all of the RCC's doctrines, refusing only to recognize the pope as their leader.

Ok. So now I know the depth of your historical ignorance.

KingdomRose
March 13th, 2016, 07:54 PM
Re. post #198: You aren't paying attention. Jesus was DEAD. There was no part of him that left the body at his death and went on consciously somewhere else. The "spirit" was merely THE LIFE-FORCE THAT KEPT HIM ALIVE. It wasn't a conscious part of him that left him when he died.

I pointed out that the scripture doesn't say exactly WHEN he went to the spirits in "prison".....leaving the idea entirely open as to the possibility that he went AFTER HIS RESURRECTION, which was as a spirit person. AFTER his resurrection. When he was resurrected he was CHANGED, as Paul wrote when he described the resurrection of the anointed (I Corinthians 15:42-52). Have you bothered to read those verses?

THEN he went and "proclaimed" to the demons in their darkened spiritual state, that their little plan to disrupt his efforts was all for naught. Guess you didn't read my post on that at all. I hope others here will read it.

What kind of silly question is it that you are asking? DEAD PEOPLE DON'T THINK. The scriptures have indicated that over and over. How could people learn about Jesus when they are dead? The ancients will learn about Jesus AFTER THEY ARE RESURRECTED IN THE LAST DAY. Not when they are dead!!!

:kookoo::duh:

KingdomRose
March 13th, 2016, 08:02 PM
Again, the Old Testament is about earthy men, and the New Testament is about spiritual man.

If you do not recognize the scriptures I am telling you about just ask for the book and numbers.

I recognize them all. And you do not represent the true understanding of those verses. Jesus quoted from the O.T. throughout his sojourn here on Earth. The O.T. was applicable in his own day as far as he was concerned. Why should we relegate the O.T. to the dust bin? It is as alive today as it was in Jesus' own mouth.

You represent the lie that Satan told to Eve (Genesis 3:4), and therefore you are of your father---the one who told that lie and was called "the father of the lie" by Jesus. (John 8:44) Satan said "you will NOT die." That is what you teach by saying that we have a spirit person inside us that leaves our body when we die. A LIE.

KingdomRose
March 13th, 2016, 08:04 PM
Well of course he did. Yet he still claimed the Real Presence of the Body and Blood.

If some Christians can't see the difference, they have no business partaking of the Holy Eucharist anyway.

I don't! I am not one of those who is chosen to rule with Christ over people on Earth.

KingdomRose
March 13th, 2016, 08:06 PM
the church
-a place to gather in His name
-a place to worship
-the church feeds us
-the church guides us
-you need the church

You need to find the right one.

KingdomRose
March 13th, 2016, 08:11 PM
No. As I already explained in an earlier post, it's a rationalist explanation for something that had always been held as a mystery.

I thought God wants us all to "reason" together. Use our brains to understand something. I think he wants us to be rational and explain things about His personality and character and the truths about His Son.

(Isaiah 1:18, The Orthodox Study Bible)

God's Truth
March 13th, 2016, 09:22 PM
I recognize them all. And you do not represent the true understanding of those verses. Jesus quoted from the O.T. throughout his sojourn here on Earth. The O.T. was applicable in his own day as far as he was concerned. Why should we relegate the O.T. to the dust bin? It is as alive today as it was in Jesus' own mouth.

You represent the lie that Satan told to Eve (Genesis 3:4), and therefore you are of your father---the one who told that lie and was called "the father of the lie" by Jesus. (John 8:44) Satan said "you will NOT die." That is what you teach by saying that we have a spirit person inside us that leaves our body when we die. A LIE.

You have a doctrine of death and have to deny and twist many of the scriptures to defend your false beliefs.

chrysostom
March 14th, 2016, 05:59 AM
You need to find the right one.

no problem
-Jesus built it on a rock

God's Truth
March 14th, 2016, 09:17 AM
You will not find God's Truth in a denomination. The Truth is not in the Catholic denomination, and not in the Jehovah Witness denomination.

Where is God's Truth? God's Truth is can be found in His written Word, the Holy Bible.

Do we find God's Truth by merely reading what is written?

No. We find God's Truth by finding Jesus' teaching and doing what the Way says.

What does the Way say?

The Way says humble yourself, or you will never enter.

Start there.

chrysostom
March 14th, 2016, 11:22 AM
how are you going to find the truth
-if
-you can't find the church Jesus built on a rock?

HisServant
March 14th, 2016, 01:08 PM
how are you going to find the truth
-if
-you can't find the church Jesus built on a rock?

And you expect me to believe that God went back on his promises and housed his church in Rome?

God MUST be consistent and fulfill his promises.... under no scenario can Rome be Christ's church except via self-delusion.

chrysostom
March 15th, 2016, 05:28 AM
And you expect me to believe that God went back on his promises and housed his church in Rome?


I expect you to be able to find
-the church
-Jesus built on a rock

chrysostom
March 15th, 2016, 07:09 AM
the church teaches
-redemption so you might be saved
-repentance
-grace
-perseverance
-forgiving
-love of neighbor

SaulToPaul
March 15th, 2016, 07:27 AM
I expect you to be able to find
-the church
-Jesus built on a rock

:chuckle:

HisServant
March 15th, 2016, 08:29 AM
I expect you to be able to find
-the church
-Jesus built on a rock

The rock is our confession that Jesus is the Messiah... the same lesson that Jesus taught Peter.

Anyhow, the rock.. the chief cornerstone is Jesus, himself and no one else.

God's Truth
March 15th, 2016, 09:46 AM
how are you going to find the truth
-if
-you can't find the church Jesus built on a rock?

The is how you find God's Truth, you get the Holy Bible, and you search for Jesus' teachings, then you obey Jesus' teachings. Jesus will reveal himself to you.

Cruciform
March 15th, 2016, 02:56 PM
The rock is our confession that Jesus is the Messiah... the same lesson that Jesus taught Peter. Anyhow, the rock.. the chief cornerstone is Jesus, himself and no one else.
Addressed in detail HERE (http://www.philvaz.com/apologetics/PeterRockKeysPrimacyRome.htm).

Cruciform
March 15th, 2016, 03:01 PM
The is how you found God's Truth, you get the Holy Bible, and you search for Jesus' teachings, then you obey Jesus' teachings. Jesus will reveal himself to you.
According to the New Testament, God reveals his truth in and through the authoritative teachings of Christ's one historic Catholic Church (http://scripturecatholic.com/the_church.html) (Mt. 28:18-20; Lk. 10:16; Ac. 16:4; 2 Thess. 3:4; 1 Tim. 3:15; 1 Jn. 4:6), not through the mere fallible opinions of the myriad non-Catholic sects of men.

john w
March 15th, 2016, 03:57 PM
According to the New Testament, God reveals his truth in and through the authoritative teachings of Christ's one historic Catholic Church (http://scripturecatholic.com/the_church.html) (Mt. 28:18-20; Lk. 10:16; Ac. 16:4; 2 Thess. 3:4; 1 Tim. 3:15; 1 Jn. 4:6), not through the mere fallible opinions of the myriad non-Catholic sects of men.

"sects of men."

Vs "sects of God?" Wicked Roman shill/stooge, engaging in sophistry, and grade school "arguments."

Ktoyou
March 15th, 2016, 04:04 PM
the church teaches
-redemption so you might be saved
-repentance
-grace
-perseverance
-forgiving
-love of neighbor

Especially love your choir boys!

Crucible
March 15th, 2016, 05:27 PM
the church teaches
-redemption so you might be saved
-repentance
-grace
-perseverance
-forgiving
-love of neighbor

Cool story.

Remind me again how any of that's relevant to it's otherwise myriad of historical heresy, greed, and tyranny :think:

HisServant
March 15th, 2016, 08:15 PM
Addressed in detail HERE (http://www.philvaz.com/apologetics/PeterRockKeysPrimacyRome.htm).

Nope... all I see in that link are musings of pedophiles and murderers.

In others words... writings of people that will not inherit the kingdom and are in desparate need of salvation.

Cruciform
March 15th, 2016, 08:29 PM
Especially love your choir boys!
Ad Hominem Fallacy. Try again.

Cruciform
March 15th, 2016, 08:39 PM
Nope... all I see in that link are musings of pedophiles and murderers.
Really? Because many of the sources cited in the article are actually from Protestant (non-Catholic) biblical scholars, theologians, and pastors, and not from Catholics.

In any case, your complete inability to actually refute a single point from the cited article is noted. :up:


In others words... writings of people that will not inherit the kingdom and are in desparate need of salvation.
Your desperate avoidance of relevant biblical material is also noted. Here you've merely taken your very favorite position:


http://abovethelaw.com/uploads/2011/12/head-in-sand-lawyer-businessman-man-in-suit.jpg

Ktoyou
March 15th, 2016, 08:41 PM
Ad Hominem Fallacy. Try again.

I call it 'and homo truthacy' and do not try for anyone, unless that ask me nicely.

Cruciform
March 15th, 2016, 10:10 PM
I call it 'and homo truthacy' and do not try for anyone, unless that ask me nicely.
And yet, it remains a fact that your statement in Post #236 above engages in an Ad Hominem Fallacy, and so is demonstrably false.

chrysostom
March 15th, 2016, 11:48 PM
Especially love your choir boys!

-that is a pathetic cheap shot ktoyou
-and
-that apparently is not beneath you
-nonetheless
-thank you for another opportunity to point out that the church no longer knowingly ordains homosexuals

God's Truth
March 16th, 2016, 12:17 AM
According to the New Testament, God reveals his truth in and through the authoritative teachings of Christ's one historic Catholic Church (http://scripturecatholic.com/the_church.html) (Mt. 28:18-20; Lk. 10:16; Ac. 16:4; 2 Thess. 3:4; 1 Tim. 3:15; 1 Jn. 4:6), not through the mere fallible opinions of the myriad non-Catholic sects of men.

Jesus' church is his body. How else do you think the GATES will not prevail. Was the Catholic church in Hell? No. Jesus' body was in Hell.

Nihilo
March 16th, 2016, 01:41 AM
Jesus' church is his body. How else do you think the GATES will not prevail. Was the Catholic church in Hell? No. Jesus' body was in Hell.People have the deepest and most significant reasons for rejecting the plain scriptural story. Our Magisterium succeeds our Lord's handpicked Apostles, and they know this, even if every parish priest does not, and even if every bishop commits the gravest moral offenses. Even if the current pope is the most immoral man you can imagine, it is guaranteed that he is being so in full knowledge of just exactly Who our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ actually is.

Guaranteed.

Ktoyou
March 16th, 2016, 06:09 AM
-that is a pathetic cheap shot ktoyou
-and
-that apparently is not beneath you
-nonetheless
-thank you for another opportunity to point out that the church no longer knowingly ordains homosexuals
Cheap shot? Not as pathetic as the church practice of moving child abusers around to hide their transgressions. They never did claim they 'knowingly' ordained pedophiles, as sure, they do not 'knowingly' do it today. Same old hidden church practices of settling case outside the law, Same old same old. Celibacy attracts pedophiles.

God's Truth
March 16th, 2016, 07:10 AM
People have the deepest and most significant reasons for rejecting the plain scriptural story. Our Magisterium succeeds our Lord's handpicked Apostles, and they know this, even if every parish priest does not, and even if every bishop commits the gravest moral offenses. Even if the current pope is the most immoral man you can imagine, it is guaranteed that he is being so in full knowledge of just exactly Who our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ actually is.

Guaranteed.

The Catholic church is apostate from the gospel. It does not matter so much if a Catholic bishop, or priest commits personal sins.

Ktoyou
March 16th, 2016, 07:25 AM
And yet, it remains a fact that your statement in Post #236 above engages in an Ad Hominem Fallacy, and so is demonstrably false.

GENEVA -- The Vatican revealed Tuesday that over the past decade, it has defrocked 848 priests who raped or molested children and sanctioned another 2,572 with lesser penalties, providing the first ever breakdown of how it handled the more than 3,400 cases of abuse reported to the Holy See since 2004.

The Vatican's U.N. ambassador in Geneva, Archbishop Silvano Tomasi, released the figures during a second day of grilling by a U.N. committee monitoring implementation of the U.N. treaty against torture.

Tomasi insisted that the Holy See was only obliged to abide by the torture treaty inside the tiny Vatican City State, which has a population of only a few hundred people.

But significantly, he didn't dispute the committee's contention that sexual violence against children can be considered torture. Legal experts have said that classifying sexual abuse as torture could expose the Catholic Church to a new wave of lawsuits since torture cases in much of the world don't carry statutes of limitations.

Tomasi also provided statistics about how the Holy See has adjudicated sex abuse cases for the past decade. The Vatican in 2001 required bishops and religious superiors to forward all credible cases of abuse to Rome for review after determining that they were shuffling pedophile priests from diocese to diocese rather than subjecting them to church trials. Only in 2010 did the Vatican explicitly tell bishops and superiors to also report credible cases to police where local reporting laws require them to.

The Vatican statistics are notable in that they show how the peaks in numbers over the years - both of cases reported and sanctions meted out - roughly parallels the years in which abuse scandals were in the news. And they showed that far from diminishing in recent years, the number of cases reported annually to the Vatican has remained a fairly constant 400 or so since 2010, the last year the scandal erupted in public around the globe. These cases, however, concern mostly abuse that occurred decades ago.
http://www.cbsnews.com/news/vatican-reveals-how-many-priests-defrocked-for-sex-abuse-since-2004/

You should learn what "Ad Hominem" means; I am not attacking you, only the Catholic church

chrysostom
March 16th, 2016, 07:31 AM
Cheap shot? Not as pathetic as the church practice of moving child abusers around to hide their transgressions. They never did claim they 'knowingly' ordained pedophiles, as sure, they do not 'knowingly' do it today. Same old hidden church practices of settling case outside the law, Same old same old. Celibacy attracts pedophiles.

the church will survive this as well as all the other catholic haters like yourself

KingdomRose
March 16th, 2016, 07:42 AM
You have a doctrine of death and have to deny and twist many of the scriptures to defend your false beliefs.

Oh? How do you answer Satan's lie? You just side-stepped that whole point. All you can do is denunciate me. You don't say WHY you think what I say is "a doctrine of death." Why say such a thing? Why do you believe what Satan said? (Gen.3:4)