Repost: The Eucharist is sorcery of Babylon! - Darel Finkbeiner, where are you?
David' Chariot
Darel Finkbeiner wrote:
>
> David' Chariot wrote:
>
> > Belief and knowledge are not comparable.
>
> Belief is always based on knowledge, even if that knowledge comes through faith.
Belief always has room for doubt, while true knowledge is certain.
Knowledge through faith is shakable, while true knowledge is firm.
> > > Jesus is God
> > > The Father is God
> > > Not a god, but the one and only God.
> > > Jesus is a person distinct from the Father.
> > > Yet both of them are the one, true God.
> > > They are not co-anything, they are the same in that they are God.
> > > Yet they are separate persons. How to understand this?
> >
> > <Absurd nonsense>=snip
> >
> > Man was made in the image of God. Male and female.
> >
>
> You make my claim for me here. Made in the image of God, yet not God.
Are you God? Am I? Are we made in the image of God?
> Only a poor reflection. God is greater and more complex than a human being.
> You refuse to wrap your mind around the concept that the Father and the Son
> are both God.
I have posted evidence from what you say is your 100% error free Bible
that clearly states my position. Nowhere does it state the Jesus, TSOM,
is God, in fact, to the contrary. This has been refreshed for you.
> That God became incarnate, taking on the nature of Man, and retaining
> the nature of God.
It is a very seductive theory, but it is not sound doctrine.
> He is both God and Man.
The "Seed of David" through his father Joseph. As Jesus was the
son of Joseph, as prophesied, and witnessed by the genealogies of
both Matthew 1:16 and Luke 3:23. Also...
<> Psalms 89:4 <> Psalms 132:11
<> Luke 1:32
<> John 7:42
<> Acts 13:23
<> Romans 1:3
How are these scriptures fulfilled?
God is not a man; God is a Spirit. Your concept does not line up with
the concept of Psalms 110. And what is Hebrews 4:8 about, if Jesus,
TSOM, is God? BTW...
Paste-------you snipped this--------8<-------Paste---===> WHY?
In Psalms 110, The LORD says to my Lord, sit at my right hand,
now, who is the Lord at my Lord's right hand in verse 5? Why
did Jesus, TSOM, say that who was sitting on his left and right
was not his to say?
Please explain how I Corinthians 15:28 works. In context.
Please explain what Jesus, TSOM, said in John 20:17.
Please explain who is God in Revelation 3:12.
There can be only 'ONE', but that 'ONE' can only be two.
There is no precedent that make a father and his son 'ONE',
however, a man may cleave to is wife, and they are 'ONE'.
_______________________________________Reinstatement complete
> He did limit his access to omniscience while He was incarnated, thus He
> was "positionally" inferior to the Father, but His nature was that of God,
> nonetheless. The same with omnipresence, He limited Himself volitionally
> to the form of a Man, yet was still God.
The doctrine of omnipresence? Establish your doctrine. Please bring
forth from your treasure both Old and New Testament foundations. As
that is the way that a scribe of the kingdom of God is advised to do
in Matthew 13:52.
How about the doctrine of omnipotent...
Revelation 1:8? This is speaking of the Almighty God, clearly. For he
states, "saith the Lord, WHICH IS, AND WHICH WAS, AND WHICH IS TO COME,
the ALMIGHTY."
There are several books and epistles in the New Testament. In all of
them Jesus is mentioned, the man, Son of man. Here are the only ones
which mention the "Almighty, Omnipotent GOD". Please explain this.
Almighty [3841] - the all-ruling, i.e. God (as absolute and universal
sovereign) - Almighty, Omnipotent
<> II Corinthians 6:18
<> Revelation 1:8, 4:8, 11:17, 15:3, 16:7, 14, 19:15, 21:22
Take a look at all the references of "Omnipotent" in Revelation 19:6.
In all instances it is speaking of God and NOT Jesus. Jesus bears the
name of the Father but is not God by his own word (see above).
> I'm sorry this is a hard subject for some.
Your sorry? I don't see any 'hard subject'. It is all a matter of
how interpretation is made. Some traditions die hard, but the Word
of God is eternal, that is, the Ten Commandment Covenant.
> Some even claim that Jesus didn't limit His omniscience to become Man,
> but at least that's from a good intention of preserving His deity.
Jesus, the son of man, was a man. A son of man, that is, a man. It
appears that this is a hard subject for some. But I'm not sorry.
> Here, you want to bring the Son down, leaving Him as "not God", when
> scripture is clear that He created all things, and that God alone
> created all things.
When you say, "scripture is clear that He created all things", can
you state that from the Old Testament? If your doctrine, whatever
that may be in the A - Z of doctrines, cannot stand solo in the Old
Testament Law, Prophets, and in the Wisdom literature, then it very
likely is not sound doctrine. And that is sure.
You say that I, "want to bring the Son down, leaving Him as
"not God"", and I declare that Jesus, TSOM, is not, that is,
'NOT' God. Elsewhere, I posted this for your understanding
but you have not responded to it, so here it is tacked on...
@= a tack
So...
________________________________________________________________________
The Beginning of evidences that Jesus, the Son of man, is not God nor a
part of God.
Isaiah 9:6
Where is Jesus called "Wonderful" or "Wonderful Counsellor" in the
New Testament?
Where is Jesus called "Everlasting Father" in the New Testament?
Where does Jesus say that he is "the Mighty God"? In fact, where
does even one witness from the New Testament say that Jesus is "the
Mighty God"? Do you not think that if this verse were correctly
translated that this would be quoted on every single page of the New
Testament, and that the only page that would be necessary for a
witness.
There are many men who say to worship Jesus, and deny the Father. They
condemn the instruction of God the Father. They deny the Holy Spirit
of Wisdom who is the Spirit of God. They deny Jesus Christ His Son.
Jesus is NOT "God", by his own word. Jesus saith... <John 20:17>
"Why callest thou me good? there is none good but one, that is God:
but if thou will enter into life, keep the commandments." Matthew 19:17
<> Mark 10:18 <> Luke 18:19
Further to this, God raised Jesus from the dead. Were Jesus God, there
would be no reason for God to raise him from the dead. There is truth
in many witnesses, but some yet will not believe that the Bible has been
subject to interpolation.
Whodunit? ... Who raised Jesus from the dead? Refer below...
Jesus said: <> Matthew 17:23 <> Luke 9:22 <> John 2:19 <> John 5:21
Other witnesses:
<> Acts 2:24-32, 3:15-26, 4:10, 5:30, 10:40, 13:22-37, 17:31
<> Romans 4:24-25, 6:4-9, 7:4, 8:11, 10:9,
<> I Corinthians 6:14, 15:15-52 <> II Corinthians 4:14
<> Galatians 1:1 <> Ephesians 1:20 <> Colossians 2:12
<> I Thessalonians 1:10 <> II Timothy 2:8 <> Hebrews 11:35
<> I Peter 1:3
Some may say there is this "one" verse that says this or that. In a
judgment case of this or that, IMHO, get a balance and weigh the truth!
Jesus, Son of man was born again of water and Spirit at his baptism.
He did not come out of that water barren, as it says in the Song of
Solomon 4:2 and 6:6, Matthew 3:16, he received the promise of God.
One witness of its beginning is in Acts 2:33, Jesus the Son of man
was the first to receive it from the Father.
Further witnesses <> Luke 24:49 <> John 1:33 <> John 14:26 <> Acts 1:4-5
<> Acts 10:38 Please do not take any scripture out of context.
Revelation 4: Whose is the Creation?
"Thou art worthy, O Lord, to receive glory and honour and power :
for thou hast created all things, and for thy pleasure they are and
were created. " - Rev 4:11
Refer to verse 8, "saying, Holy, holy, holy, Lord God Almighty, which
was, and is, and is to come." opposed to "I am he that liveth, and was
dead; and, behold, I am alive for evermore, Amen" spoken by Jesus in
Revelation 1:18. But wait, Before Jesus finished this same dialogue
he says in 3:12, "MY GOD" four times before claiming to have been the
"BEGINNING OF THE CREATION OF GOD", in verse 14.
In Revelation 3:14, Jesus is called "The Beginning of the Creation of
God", or the "arche ktesis", the original pattern for all things.
"Archetype" - "Beloved, now are we the sons of God, and it doth not yet
appear what we shall be: BUT WE KNOW THAT, WHEN HE SHALL APPEAR, WE
SHALL BE LIKE HIM, FOR WE SHALL SEE HIM AS HE IS." I John 3:2
In John 1:1, the expression of God, or "logos" is said 1) to be with
God for eternity, and b) to be God Himself
Or Herself. Genesis 1:27 is clear that man was made in God's image,
"So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he
him; male and female created he them." Proverbs 8:22 clears this up,
and Jesus claims Her as his Mother in Matthew 11:19.
In John 9:35-38, Jesus Christ is worshipped, as only GOD must be
worshipped, and Jesus, though mortal man, did not reject that worship
did servants of God in Acts 10:26, Rev 22:9 etc.
Was God "IN" him? Acts 10:38 Do you believe the "Father" was "IN" him?
IN Luke 1:33, the angel says of Jesus that He shall reign over the
House of Jacob forever.
Psalms 2:6-7
In Revelation 11:15, the angel announces that "The kingdoms of this
world are become the kingdoms of our Lord, and of his Christ; and he
shall reign for ever and ever."
Psalms 2:6-7
As it says in I Corinthians 15:24, all things are put under him as it
states in Psalms 110.
Peace be with you through our Lord Jesus Christ
And to Almighty God the Glory for ever and ever
Darel Finkbeiner
David' Chariot wrote:
[ A whole bunch of stuff. ]
Look, if you can't take all of scripture from Genesis to Revelation, then you won't
find the truth. Here it is, plain as day:
Philippians 2: 5-6
"Your attitude should be the same as that of Christ Jesus: Who, being in very nature
God, ..."
You can go on and on about all the other, but if scripture is true from stem to stern,
then this statement is just as true. That Christ is, in very nature, God.
You can talk about all the other stuff, and how He is a man. And you are right. But
He is also God. You aren't required to understand it. It doesn't even have to make
sense to you, only that scripture is true and thus Christ is both God and Man.
I have nothing more to discuss on this subject.
David' Chariot
Very well. It is your life, believe what you will.
John
Original Church. By "church" they do not mean the building of stone and wood,
but rather the religion. Rescently they have begun mailing out booklets that
tell people that they must be Catholic to be Christian.
I: What constitutes a religion?
A religion is any belief in a super natural entity that governs the universe
and its associated system of faith and worship.
"Faith" in this case, refers to theology, the belief in a god and the
definition of that god. This includes the accepted system for knowing the god
in question.
"Worship" in this case, refers to the practices used to worship the god in
question. This includes the types of services, the times for these services
as well as any, and all "holy days."
II: What event or series of events determine the origin of a religion?
The origin of a religion is simply the point at which the defining faith and
worship of the religion in question came into practice.
Even when there is a defined leadership of a previous religion that converts
en masse, a new religion is formed due to the change in faith and worship.
III: What are doctrines of the Catholic Church?
Since the doctrines of the Catholic Church are very extensive, I will deal
only with the short list recently mailed to people in a booklet entitled
"Pillar of Fire Pillar of Truth." Since this booklet was published with
permission of the Catholic Church and has passed the Catholic book censors,
there can be not argument that the doctrines described in the book are actual
Catholic doctrines, though they obviously do not comprise the entirety of
Catholic doctrine.
"These beliefs include the bodily Resurrection of Jesus, the Real Presence of
Jesus in the Eucharist, the sacrificial nature of the Mass, the forgiveness of
sins through a priest, baptismal regeneration, the existence of purgatory,
Mary's special role and much more.("Pillar of Fire Pillar of Truth" page 6)"
These are some of the beliefs that need to be examined.
Additionally, Catholic Church believes in "infant baptism, the inerrancy of
the Bible, purgatory, and Mary's perpetual virginity.("Pillar of Fire Pillar
of Truth" page 6)"
IV: Do these doctrines have their origin in the ministry of the Messiah?
Let's look at the origins of these doctrines:
1. Resurrection of the Messiah was part of Judaism for centuries prior to
the coming of Messiah. It is still found in the Talmud; as such, it is a
Jewish doctrine. Messianic Jews of the first century were the first to accept
the Resurrection of Yeshua (Jesus) as an accomplished fact.
2. The Real Presence of Jesus in the Eucharist is not a biblical doctrine
to begin with. Since the biblical prohibition of eating/drinking blood is
based on the presence of life in the blood (Leviticus 17:10&11), even a
spiritual change on the wine and bread would make it biblically forbidden to
consume them. This being the case, it is anti-Biblical to claim that the
Communion bread or wine has either the physical structure of blood of human
flesh, or the "presence"/life of Messiah.
The Babylonian religion of Mithraism (A Babylonian religion that worshiped a
sun-god who was believed to have been born to the Perpetual Virgin, Astarte
(aka: "Ishtar," "Queen of Heaven," "mother of god(Mithra)") on December 25TH.)
had a ceremony where their priests would supposedly turn a piece of bread into
their god, Mithra, and the people would consume it. The Catholic Encycolpedia
admits, "Mithraism had a Eucharist, but the idea of a sacred banquet is as old
as the human race and existed at all ages and amongst all peoples.(The
Catholic Encyclopedia, Vol. 10, p. 404, article: "Mithraism")"
3. "The sacrificial nature of the Mass" is an idea that makes no sense.
The Catholic Mass was first practiced in the Fourth Century CE. This Doctrine
cannot pre-date the Mass itself. Mithraism did have a ceremonial consumption
or bread that was the body of their false god; this practice which predates
the First Century CE was seen as sacrificial in nature.
Furthermore, in the Sacrificial system described in the Bible, the worshipper
brought and gave an offering to G-d, not the other way around. In the
Catholic Mass, the worshiper takes but gives nothing to G-d.
The Jewish worship services are based on the Prayers said in the Temple when
animal sacrifice was still in effect, in accordance with G-d's Commandments.
Since the Catholic Mass is completely different from the Prayers said during
the Sacrificial Offerings, it cannot have even a vicarious connection to the
Sacrifices described in the Bible. This being the case, it is indefencible to
claim that the Catholic Mass has a sacrificial nature with respect to the
Biblical Sacrificial System.
4. "The forgiveness of sins through a priest" is another doctrine that
makes no biblical sense. Biblically, priests must be descended from Aharon
ben Amram, the first High Priest. This being the case, the Catholic priests
do not have biblical authority or eligability to serve as priests.
During the time of the animal sacrifices in the Temple, forgiveness was not
provided by the offering of animals; it was provided by G-d alone; the
offering of animals was simply G-d's prescribed method of apologizing to Him.
Since the function of the priest is not valid without the offering of a blood
sacrifice, there is no need for a believer in the Messiah to go though a
priest to seek G-d's forgiveness for their sins.
Furthermore, since there was no Catholic priesthood before the Fourth Century
CE this Doctrine cannot predate the Fourth Century. So, both the office of
the Catholic priesthood, and the function are in opposition to the Scriptures.
Forgiveness of sins though human agency has always been the doctrine of
Paganism alone. This Pagan theology is over 5000 years old.
5. "Baptismal regeneration," the idea that baptism represents a "born
again" experience, is a doctrine of Judaism that dates from 1500+BCE. Mikveh
(Baptism) is used in Judaism for ritual purification, Raising of spiritual
level (Prior to Bar Mitzvah, ordination of a Rabbi, et cetera), as the final
step in conversion to Judaism, and when repenting.
6. "The existence of purgatory" Is an Anti-Biblical doctrine that was
adopted to increase the wealth of the Church through conning people to buy
"Indulgences." The idea of Purgatory was taught by Plato from 427-347 BCE.
Plato was helenizing a theology of the Cana'anite Molech worshipers, who
burned their own children alive to buy years out of Purgatory. Plato removed
the child sacrifice element.
This theology was introduced to Catholicism by Pope Gregory in c.600CE.
Purgatory was not accepted as official Catholic doctrine until the Council of
Florence in 1459.
7. "Mary's special role" and "Mary's perpetual virginity" are patterned
after The Babylonian goddess Astarte (aka: "Ishtar"). Astarte was called by
the titles "the Queen of Heaven," and "Mother of god (Mithra)." Astarte was a
"perpetual virgin," who supposedly gave birth to Mithra on December 25TH.
There was undoubtedly influence from Isis worship as well. Isis was the
Perpetual Virgin who gave birth on December 25TH. Her sons were "Horus"(a
sun-god), and Esu (a god of healing). Isis was also served by temple
prostitutes and provided forgiveness of sins.
V: What are the Worship and lifestyle practices of Catholicism?
As Western culture and Technology have advanced, many changes have come to the
lifestyles of Europeans and Americans regardless of religious faith. Since it
would not be fair to discuss these in the context of the Validity of the
Catholic Church, we will bypass those and focus on the distinct elements of
lifestyle.
1. The holidays celebrated by Catholicism are not in the Bible. The
Primary holidays of Christmas and Easter were part of paganism.
Christmas is an amalgam of the Roman Holiday of Saturnalia, and the Babylonian
holiday 'Natalis Solis Invicti.' Saturnalia celebrated the birth of Saturn,
father of their chief Pagan God Jupiter. Oddly, in their myths, Saturn was
killed by His son Jupiter. We cannot believe that the Messiah did away with
His Father. The myth of Saturn was derived from the myth of the Babylonian
god Ninurta. Ninurta was also honored one day in seven: on Sunday (Hence the
name even in English).
Mithraism had a December 25TH holiday called 'Natalis Solis Invicti'(Birthday
of the Invicible Sun)." This holiday celebrated the supposed birth of Mithra
to the perpetual vigin, Astarte.
Another popular cult was the of "Sol Invictus" ("The Invincible Sun"). This
was a more "cosmopolitan" version of Mithranism which had been influenced by
Roman/Greek and Egyptian Paganism. This cult also revered 'Natalis Solis
Invicti.'
It seems a lot of Pagan "sun-gods" were alleged to be born on that day. These
include: Crishna, Vishnu, Mithra(Mithras), Osirus, Horus, Tammuz, and Indra,
as well as these other false gods: Dionysus(Bacchus), Herakles (Hercules), and
Budda (technically, a fasle prophet).
A. The Christmas tree is a Druidic idol; They would adorn an evergreen
tree to invite the "Magna Mater" (Great Mother, earth goddess) to inhabit the
tree so that they could worship her. Gifts and objects to be blessed were put
under the tree so that the "Magna Mater could bless them.
B. "Decking the Halls" with evergreen boughs and twigs was also Druidic
in origin. It was a way of welcoming "Magna Mater" into the home.
C. The Druids worshiped in rings of holly bushes, until the Romans burned
them down. At this point, the druids began to worship inside; they would
dedicate the building to the "Earth Mother" by nailing a holly wreath to the
door.
D. Likewise kissing under mistletoe comes from the Odinist religion one
of their gods, Balder was killed by a piece of mistletoe, because of this
myth; they would kiss under mistletoe for luck and long life.
E. Christmas caroling is an adaptation of the early Druidic custom of
going from house to house demanding appeasement in exchange for pagan
blessings/magic charms, as they also did at Halloween.
Easter is the Roman/Greek/Babylonian Holiday of Ishtar. Ishtar was the
birthday of Ishtar (Astarte), who supposedly hatched from an egg (So, maybe
"Hatchingday" would be more appropriate).
The Greeks had a holiday on this day as well. This holiday celebrated the
return of the "spring goddess" Persephone, Queen of the infernal Regions, from
Hades each year. The Greek myth goes like this: [Hades was lonely living in
the under world so he kidnapped Persephone, daughter of Demeter, goddess of
agriculture. Demeter became so sad, that she did not do her job and the earth
would grow no food. Persephone married Hades and became Queen of the Infernal
Regions. She would live in the underworld for four months each year and that
was their explanation for winter.] Eos the "dawn/spring/fertility goddess,"
was also attributed for the coming of spring. Eos was a variant of Eatsre,
Eostra, and Ostara, among others. The festivals for Eos was marked by eggs
and Rabbits.
All of this is Pagan and in direct opposition to G-d's Holy Word.
This issue is addressed in Deuteronomy 12:29-31:
"When the LORD your God has cut down before you the nations that you are about
to enter and dispossess, and you have dispossessed them and settled in their
land, beware of being lured into their ways after they have been wiped out
before you! Do not inquire about their gods, saying, "How did those nations
worship their gods? I too will follow those practices." You shall not act
thus toward the LORD your God, for they perform for their gods every abhorrent
act that the LORD detests; they even offer up their sons and daughters in fire
to their gods."
2. The rosary was used in Babylon as part of Astarte worship. The use
was to count prayers, and as a magic charm. The Catholics use the rosary in
exactly the same way.
3. The anti-Biblical moving of worship services from the Biblical Sabbath
(Friday sunset till Saturday sunset) to Sunday was instituted by Emperor
Constantine and the Council of Nicaea, in 325CE. Sunday worship was part of
the Babylonian cults of Sol Invictus, Mithraism, and Ninurtaism.
4. The Communion (ceremonial consumption of wafers and wine) as a
ceremony separate from Passover was not instituted until 325CE. The Eucharist
comes from Mithraism. In this ceremony the Priest or "Holy Father" would
chant spells over round bitsa of bread and supposedly change the bread into
the body of Mithra. The worshipers would then eat the bread taking their
pagan diety into them. The wine as blood also has root in Babylonian animal
and human sacrifices wherein the animal's blood was consumed by the
participants.
5. Veneration of the Pope. The first Pope assumed office in 365 CE.
Emperor Constantine had attempted to crown himself Pope in 325CE, but was
unable to consolidate enough political power outside the Roman Empire.
The fact is that the Messiah forbid the Papal Office in Matt 23. Not only did
He condemn the word "Pope" (Father) as a title of religious office, He
condemned the Title and Office of "Rebbe" ("Master," the leader of a sect in
Judaism). The Catholic church has tried to cover this by changing
"Rebbe"("Master") to "Rabbi"("Teacher"). Despite the fact that the two words
are spelled the same in Hebrew, there is a huge difference in meaning.
6. Praying to "saints." This is forbidden in the Bible (Ex 22:18 and
Deut 18:10). It is necromancy and evil. Pagans committed this vile sin
thousands of years before the Catholic church reared its ugly head.
VI: When did the doctrines and practices of the Catholic Church come into
being?
None of the theologies or customs of the Catholic Church actually date from
the First Century. The majority of Catholicism comes from Babylonian
paganism. The application of this paganism to an organization loosely
associated with the Messiah did not occur until the Council of Nicaea in
325CE. The amalgam of religions that we know as the Catholic Church did not
occur until the Fourth Century.
When all of this is taken into account, we must ask if the catholic Church
even worships G-d at all. Certainly, they worship a form of Astarte remaned
"Mary." They worship synthesis of Pagan gods that they have named "Jesus."
For those of us who have faith in the Messiah of the bible, we can take some
comfort in the fact that His real, the one he was actually called when he
walked as a man, is not Jesus; it is Y'shu`a (Salvation in Hebrew). Despite
this, many Protestants who use the name "Jesus" have learned enough from the
scriptures to be thinking about the Biblicaly correct Messiah even when they
use the Catholic name for Him.
Q
som...@Home.Com (John) wrote:
<snip apostate babbling>
What site did you steal this load of crap from?
I'm not sure which is more ridiculous...
That someone actually took the time to fabricate this load of hooey,
or that someone was really stupid enough to believe it.
BTW, genius--the original Church was and is the Orthodox Church. The
roman church didn't exist until the 12th century.
Cheers.
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
duke LeBourgeois
>For 1600 hundred years the Catholic Church has claimed that they were the
>Original Church. By "church" they do not mean the building of stone and wood,
>
>but rather the religion. Rescently they have begun mailing out booklets that
>tell people that they must be Catholic to be Christian.
You're wasting your breath needlessly. In the 4 Gospels, the words of
Jesus Christ himself, he put forth and described the characteristics
of his Church. They include the Papacy, the Holy Eucharist, the
Priesthood, Baptism for the salvation of souls, Mary as the Mother of
us all, etc, etc, etc.
It's all there in chapter and verse.
duke
>I: What constitutes a religion?
When does "yes" mean "yes"?
>2. The Real Presence of Jesus in the Eucharist is not a biblical doctrine
>
>to begin with. Since the biblical prohibition of eating/drinking blood is
>based on the presence of life in the blood (Leviticus 17:10&11), even a
>spiritual change on the wine and bread would make it biblically forbidden to
>consume them. This being the case, it is anti-Biblical to claim that the
>Communion bread or wine has either the physical structure of blood of human
>flesh, or the "presence"/life of Messiah.
Only if you are a Jew. Christ's death on the cross overides all.
and that's in the bible.
Besides, Jesus said it was so, and the NT says that this is the
religious practice of the early Christians.
duke
Linda & Donald
duke LeBourgeois wrote:
You're wasting your breath needlessly. In the 4 Gospels, the words of
Jesus Christ himself, he put forth and described the characteristics
of his Church. They include the Papacy, the Holy Eucharist, the
Priesthood, Baptism for the salvation of souls, Mary as the Mother of
us all, etc, etc, etc.
It's all there in chapter and verse.
Robert wrote:
Please, duke, would you please point out WHERE in the four Gospels, the papacy, and
in terms of Catholicism, the eucharist, priesthood, and Mary being mother of us all
is located?????????
You said they were there, prove it!
Micah Burke
> Priesthood, Baptism for the salvation of souls, Mary as the Mother of
> us all, etc, etc, etc.
>
> It's all there in chapter and verse.
Bwahahaha! what a laugh!
You were asked to provide those chapters and verses,
since you didn't we must assume you either don't know
them or don't have them.
Kenneth Smith
----------
In article <3a102f6a...@news.earthlink.net>, duk...@earthlink.net (duke
LeBourgeois) wrote:
>>to begin with. Since the biblical prohibition of eating/drinking blood is
>>based on the presence of life in the blood (Leviticus 17:10&11), even a
>>spiritual change on the wine and bread would make it biblically forbidden to
>>consume them. This being the case, it is anti-Biblical to claim that the
>>Communion bread or wine has either the physical structure of blood of human
>>flesh, or the "presence"/life of Messiah.
>
> Only if you are a Jew. Christ's death on the cross overides all.
> and that's in the bible.
>
> Besides, Jesus said it was so, and the NT says that this is the
> religious practice of the early Christians.
Indeed, Our Lord used the blunt language He did in John 6 precisely because
of the Levitical passage cited above and because he knew his blunt language
would offend them. He came to be a cause for stumbling so that the proud
would be made fools and those who believed would be exalted.
Life is in the blood, and that is precisely why we must receive Jesus in the
Holy Eucharist in order to have eternal life.
Kenneth
former Baptist minister
Southern Seminary '85
Louisville, KY
Micah Burke
the
> Holy Eucharist in order to have eternal life.
Not according to Christ!
Not participate in a ceremony, get baptized, drink secret fluid #2,
say rosary to momma, but only BELIEVE.
John 6:28-29
Then they asked him, "What must we do to do the works God requires?"
Jesus answered, "The work of God is this: to believe in the one he has
sent."
But you foolish catholics, you think you can EARN God's favor
by doing works? Don't you know that it is only by his grace you've
been saved, through faith, and this is not of yourselves, but a gift
of God? When you believe you ARE partaking of the blood and flesh
of Christ, it's through that saving faith that you enter communion with
God, not through a ceremony which merely represents it!
Micah
Seminary Student
duke LeBourgeois
<klock...@NOSPAMhotmail.com> wrote:
>Bwahahaha! what a laugh!
you sound like a protest-er.
>You were asked to provide those chapters and verses,
>since you didn't we must assume you either don't know
>them or don't have them.
No, it's lunch time, so here's a quickie-
Baptism required to enter the Kingdom of Heaven - John 3:5
Holy Eucharist: instituted by Jesus: Matthew 26:28, Mark 14:24, Luke
22:17.
Religious Eucharistic practice of the early Christians, including St
Paul: 1Cor11:17-33, and the great proclimation: "This means that
every time you eat this bread and drink from this cup, you proclaim
the Lord's death until he comes."
Power to forgive sins in God's name and the creation of the Papacy
(and read your bible carefully here - sentence following sentence):
Matthew 16:15-19.
And it goes on and on and on - the characteristics that Jesus set
forth for His Church and stated in His words are found in the 4
Gospels.
duke
duke LeBourgeois
<klock...@NOSPAMhotmail.com> wrote:
>John 6:28-29
>Then they asked him, "What must we do to do the works God requires?"
>Jesus answered, "The work of God is this: to believe in the one he has
>sent."
So tell us, klockheeed, does this or does this not include His words
in the 4 Gospels. You apparently think not.
>But you foolish catholics, you think you can EARN God's favor
>by doing works? Don't you know that it is only by his grace you've
>been saved, through faith, and this is not of yourselves, but a gift
>of God?
NO Catholic believes what you said above. Only you and your
protest-ant preacher apparently believe that Catholics believe in
works for salvation. Believe me - we don't.
The bible is clear - we are saved thru the death of Christ on the
Cross. Period - rock solid Roman CAtholic belief.
And by the way, not His resurrection, hence Christ on the Cross
(crucifix). He didn't resurrect for us, He died for us.
> When you believe you ARE partaking of the blood and flesh
>of Christ, it's through that saving faith that you enter communion with
>God, not through a ceremony which merely represents it!
I believe what Jesus said, not what you yourself presume to know.
duke
The DataRat
"Baptism required to enter the Kingdom
of Heaven - John 3:5"
Then Jesus lied to the thief in Luke 23:43
when He told the guy he'd be in "Paradise" ?
(NASB)
Or, maybe Jesus arranged for the thief to
be baptized while hanging on the cross ?
"Holy Eucharist: instituted by Jesus:
Matthew 26:28, Mark 14:24, Luke
22:17"
All Christians believe in the Lord's
Supper. The medieval Romanist
doctrine of Transubstantiation is NOT
found in Scripture, however.
Romanism ISN'T
Christian, It's
Pagan Idolatry !
The DataRat
Micah Burke
Not required, Acts 10-11
> Holy Eucharist: instituted by Jesus: Matthew 26:28, Mark 14:24, Luke
> 22:17.
Being bread and cup (wine), symbols of our fellowship (communion)
with the Lord. 1 Cor. 11
> Paul: 1Cor11:17-33, and the great proclimation: "This means that
> every time you eat this bread and drink from this cup, you proclaim
> the Lord's death until he comes."
Yep, BREAD AND CUP. Not "toe of christ".
> Power to forgive sins in God's name and the creation of the Papacy
> (and read your bible carefully here - sentence following sentence):
> Matthew 16:15-19.
Says NOTHING about forgiving sins, however...
Luke 11:4
Forgive us our sins, for we also forgive everyone who sins against
us. And lead us not into temptation. '"
We apparently all have that ability!
> And it goes on and on and on - the characteristics that Jesus set
> forth for His Church and stated in His words are found in the 4
> Gospels.
Indeed, but the RCC is NOT that church! Instead it's a cult
that worships his mother and men on earth!
Micah
Micah Burke
> >Then they asked him, "What must we do to do the works God requires?"
> >Jesus answered, "The work of God is this: to believe in the one he has
> >sent."
>
> So tell us, klockheeed, does this or does this not include His words
> in the 4 Gospels. You apparently think not.
Um... lemmie see, I quoted from the book of John...
> >But you foolish catholics, you think you can EARN God's favor
> >by doing works? Don't you know that it is only by his grace you've
> >been saved, through faith, and this is not of yourselves, but a gift
> >of God?
>
> NO Catholic believes what you said above. Only you and your
You most certainly do! Does a man have to partake of the 'Eucharist'
or be batpized to be saved? Tell me, your answer determines your fate!
> protest-ant preacher apparently believe that Catholics believe in
> works for salvation. Believe me - we don't.
Sure ya do, you have all sorts of regs that people HAVE to follow
or be condemned to hell, one of the big reasons you question
your own salvation so often... "am I good enough?"
> The bible is clear - we are saved thru the death of Christ on the
> Cross. Period - rock solid Roman CAtholic belief.
Really? Faith + Eucharist + Baptism + Confession... gee, lots
of man's work going on there.
> And by the way, not His resurrection, hence Christ on the Cross
> (crucifix). He didn't resurrect for us, He died for us.
He most certainly did resurrect for us!
Romans 8:34
Who is he that condemns? Christ Jesus, who died--more than that,
who was raised to life--is at the right hand of God and is also interceding
for us.
He does it all for us!
> > When you believe you ARE partaking of the blood and flesh
> >of Christ, it's through that saving faith that you enter communion with
> >God, not through a ceremony which merely represents it!
>
> I believe what Jesus said, not what you yourself presume to know.
I believe too what Christ and Paul said, it's bread and cup,
something we do in rememberance of him.
Micah
Theodore M. Seeber
> > NO Catholic believes what you said above. Only you and your
>
> You most certainly do! Does a man have to partake of the 'Eucharist'
> or be batpized to be saved? Tell me, your answer determines your fate!
Only AFTER Grace gives him the conviction of faith; faith in the
Sacraments. Grace, according to Catholic teaching, MUST come first,
that's why we won't let unbelieving Protestants take the cup at the
Eucharist. In fact, to take Eucharist without the conviction of faith can
be very, very, very dangerous.
> > protest-ant preacher apparently believe that Catholics believe in
> > works for salvation. Believe me - we don't.
>
> Sure ya do, you have all sorts of regs that people HAVE to follow
> or be condemned to hell, one of the big reasons you question
> your own salvation so often... "am I good enough?"
Not a single one of those regs can naysay the Grace of the Lord Jesus
Christ. The normative form of that grace is the Sacrament of
Confession.
> > The bible is clear - we are saved thru the death of Christ on the
> > Cross. Period - rock solid Roman CAtholic belief.
>
> Really? Faith + Eucharist + Baptism + Confession... gee, lots
> of man's work going on there.
More Grace Yeilds Faith, Faith Yeilds works, as James claimed (James
2:1-24, you really should read the Bible sometime).
Sacraments are works with God, not with man.
> > And by the way, not His resurrection, hence Christ on the Cross
> > (crucifix). He didn't resurrect for us, He died for us.
>
> He most certainly did resurrect for us!
>
> Romans 8:34
> Who is he that condemns? Christ Jesus, who died--more than that,
> who was raised to life--is at the right hand of God and is also interceding
> for us.
>
> He does it all for us!
That's INTERCEDEING, for those who cannot read English and think that this
passage is refering to Christ's ressurection.
> > > When you believe you ARE partaking of the blood and flesh
> > >of Christ, it's through that saving faith that you enter communion with
> > >God, not through a ceremony which merely represents it!
> >
> > I believe what Jesus said, not what you yourself presume to know.
>
> I believe too what Christ and Paul said, it's bread and cup,
> something we do in rememberance of him.
And?
did you miss John 6:[44] No man can come to me, except the Father which
hath sent me draw him: and I will raise him up at the last day.
[45] It is written in the prophets, And they shall be all taught of
God. Every man therefore that hath heard, and hath learned of the Father,
cometh unto me.
[46] Not that any man hath seen the Father, save he which is of God, he
hath seen the Father.
[47] Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that believeth on me hath
everlasting life.
[48] I am that bread of life.
[49] Your fathers did eat manna in the wilderness, and are dead.
[50] This is the bread which cometh down from heaven, that a man may eat
thereof, and not die.
[51] I am the living bread which came down from heaven: if any man eat of
this bread, he shall live for ever: and the bread that I will give is my
flesh, which I will give for the life of the world.
?
How can you possibly have spirtual life, salvation, without eating of the
Bread of Life?
Or are you stupid enough to think that a misinterpretation of Paul trumps
Christ?
Ted
--
On this day, the Feast of Saint Sidonius
Amazing how we know about the rich saints who gave their money away.
But other saints of the same era are shrouded in mystery.
http://www.e3mil.com/church_today/message.asp?message_id=&sec_id=4
Theodore Michael Seeber
Coo! he's the remedial beer.
mailto:see...@aracnet.com
Check out the <A
HREF="http://www.aracnet.com/~seebert">IDIC Home Page!</A>
Are you for equal parental rights? Do you believe that a father is
neccessary to bring up good citizens? Then you need to sign the <A
HREF="http://childrens-justice.org"> Children's Justice Petition</A>
VOJ
have no idea of the bread and wine significance in that meal? Jesus was
celebrating Passover meal with them and you have no idea what it's
significance was / is.
With all this, you and your cult dare comment using biblical quotes?
duke LeBourgeois <duk...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:3a117fa7...@news.earthlink.net...
> On Mon, 13 Nov 2000 16:09:36 -0800, "Micah Burke"
> <klock...@NOSPAMhotmail.com> wrote:
>
> >John 6:28-29
> >Then they asked him, "What must we do to do the works God requires?"
> >Jesus answered, "The work of God is this: to believe in the one he has
> >sent."
>
> So tell us, klockheeed, does this or does this not include His words
> in the 4 Gospels. You apparently think not.
>
> >But you foolish catholics, you think you can EARN God's favor
> >by doing works? Don't you know that it is only by his grace you've
> >been saved, through faith, and this is not of yourselves, but a gift
> >of God?
>
> NO Catholic believes what you said above. Only you and your
> protest-ant preacher apparently believe that Catholics believe in
> works for salvation. Believe me - we don't.
>
> The bible is clear - we are saved thru the death of Christ on the
> Cross. Period - rock solid Roman CAtholic belief.
>
> And by the way, not His resurrection, hence Christ on the Cross
> (crucifix). He didn't resurrect for us, He died for us.
>
> > When you believe you ARE partaking of the blood and flesh
> >of Christ, it's through that saving faith that you enter communion with
> >God, not through a ceremony which merely represents it!
>
> I believe what Jesus said, not what you yourself presume to know.
>
> duke
>
VOJ
Theodore M. Seeber <see...@aracnet.com> wrote in message
news:Pine.LNX.4.21.00111...@shell1.aracnet.com...
> On Tue, 14 Nov 2000, Micah Burke wrote:
>
> >
> > or be batpized to be saved? Tell me, your answer determines your fate!
>
> Only AFTER Grace gives him the conviction of faith; faith in the
> Sacraments. Grace, according to Catholic teaching, MUST come first,
> that's why we won't let unbelieving Protestants take the cup at the
> Eucharist. In fact, to take Eucharist without the conviction of faith can
> be very, very, very dangerous.
>
Cup at Passover, NOT Eucharist or some other made up term.
Theodore M. Seeber
> Have no idea of what the Passover is and what the Passover meal is / was and
> have no idea of the bread and wine significance in that meal? Jesus was
> celebrating Passover meal with them and you have no idea what it's
> significance was / is.
The significance is plain for all to see in the book that describes the
Catholic Mass and how it is celebrated in Heaven: The Book of the
Apocalypse of John.
> With all this, you and your cult dare comment using biblical quotes?
We use Biblical quotes because it's quite apparent that the Baptists don't
read the Bible.
> duke LeBourgeois <duk...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
> news:3a117fa7...@news.earthlink.net...
> > On Mon, 13 Nov 2000 16:09:36 -0800, "Micah Burke"
> > <klock...@NOSPAMhotmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > >John 6:28-29
> > >Then they asked him, "What must we do to do the works God requires?"
> > >Jesus answered, "The work of God is this: to believe in the one he has
> > >sent."
> >
> > So tell us, klockheeed, does this or does this not include His words
> > in the 4 Gospels. You apparently think not.
> >
> > >But you foolish catholics, you think you can EARN God's favor
> > >by doing works? Don't you know that it is only by his grace you've
> > >been saved, through faith, and this is not of yourselves, but a gift
> > >of God?
> >
> > NO Catholic believes what you said above. Only you and your
> > protest-ant preacher apparently believe that Catholics believe in
> > works for salvation. Believe me - we don't.
> >
> > The bible is clear - we are saved thru the death of Christ on the
> > Cross. Period - rock solid Roman CAtholic belief.
> >
> > And by the way, not His resurrection, hence Christ on the Cross
> > (crucifix). He didn't resurrect for us, He died for us.
> >
> > > When you believe you ARE partaking of the blood and flesh
> > >of Christ, it's through that saving faith that you enter communion with
> > >God, not through a ceremony which merely represents it!
> >
> > I believe what Jesus said, not what you yourself presume to know.
> >
> > duke
> >
>
>
>
--
Theodore M. Seeber
> Theodore M. Seeber <see...@aracnet.com> wrote in message
> news:Pine.LNX.4.21.00111...@shell1.aracnet.com...
> > On Tue, 14 Nov 2000, Micah Burke wrote:
> >
> > > > NO Catholic believes what you said above. Only you and your
> > >
> > > You most certainly do! Does a man have to partake of the 'Eucharist'
> > > or be batpized to be saved? Tell me, your answer determines your fate!
> >
> > Only AFTER Grace gives him the conviction of faith; faith in the
> > Sacraments. Grace, according to Catholic teaching, MUST come first,
> > that's why we won't let unbelieving Protestants take the cup at the
> > Eucharist. In fact, to take Eucharist without the conviction of faith can
> > be very, very, very dangerous.
>
> Cup at Passover, NOT Eucharist or some other made up term.
Eucharist is merely Greek for Paschal, and Passover is the made up English
term.
Doesn't matter. The point is that sacraments are about grace. Without
the grace of God, sacraments mean nothing, or worse, are dangerous:
1 Cor 11:[28] But let a man examine himself, and so let him eat of that
bread, and drink of that cup.
[29] For he that eateth and drinketh unworthily, eateth and drinketh
damnation to himself, not discerning the Lord's body.
[30] For this cause many are weak and sickly among you, and many sleep.
Thus in this case, the Baptist Church is more correct than the Catholic
position in the argument: Since Baptists don't have the grace of the
salvation of Jesus Christ, far better that they do not eateth and drinketh
unworthily.
I would not push a non-believing Baptist into the Eucharist, and neither
would the Catholic Church, for to do so would cause the damnation of that
person.
Ted
Micah Burke
> >
> > You most certainly do! Does a man have to partake of the 'Eucharist'
> > or be batpized to be saved? Tell me, your answer determines your fate!
>
> Only AFTER Grace gives him the conviction of faith; faith in the
> Sacraments. Grace, according to Catholic teaching, MUST come first,
> that's why we won't let unbelieving Protestants take the cup at the
> Eucharist. In fact, to take Eucharist without the conviction of faith can
> be very, very, very dangerous.
Unbelieving Protestants??? HA!
> > Sure ya do, you have all sorts of regs that people HAVE to follow
> > or be condemned to hell, one of the big reasons you question
> > your own salvation so often... "am I good enough?"
>
> Not a single one of those regs can naysay the Grace of the Lord Jesus
> Christ. The normative form of that grace is the Sacrament of
> Confession.
Ah, so then grace is something you do! (Buzzz! Sorry, wrong answer)
Darel Finkbeiner
"Theodore M. Seeber" wrote:
> Eucharist is merely Greek for Paschal, and Passover is the made up English
> term.
>
> Doesn't matter. The point is that sacraments are about grace. Without
> the grace of God, sacraments mean nothing, or worse, are dangerous:
> 1 Cor 11:[28] But let a man examine himself, and so let him eat of that
> bread, and drink of that cup.
> [29] For he that eateth and drinketh unworthily, eateth and drinketh
> damnation to himself, not discerning the Lord's body.
> [30] For this cause many are weak and sickly among you, and many sleep.
>
> Thus in this case, the Baptist Church is more correct than the Catholic
> position in the argument: Since Baptists don't have the grace of the
> salvation of Jesus Christ, far better that they do not eateth and drinketh
> unworthily.
>
> I would not push a non-believing Baptist into the Eucharist, and neither
> would the Catholic Church, for to do so would cause the damnation of that
> person.
> Ted
>
Hey... good to see people are still dragging my name around in the mud through
the crazy header of this thread.
For the record, I wouldn't want an unbelieving Baptist, or an unbelieving
Catholic, to join us at the Lord's Supper. I also wouldn't want a believing
Baptist or a believing Catholic to take the Lord's Supper if they were doing so
"unworthily", without a mind towards the body of our Lord. It is the purpose of
the supper to proclaim His death until He comes again.
The only difference between Catholic and Baptist dogma is whether Jesus' body
physically shows up at the Eucharist or not (and the term we use Lord's Supper).
The both of us believe it was commanded of Christ. We both believe that it is for
the proclaimation of His death. We both believe that if you partake without
thought towards the Lord, then you do so to your own detriment. We do differ in
that we take literally the phrase "let a man examine himself", whereas you take it
upon yourselves to do the examining. And we take literally that it is a "memorial
supper", that it is "in remembrance of Me", and that through this remembrance only
do we "partake of His body and blood". That is, not through the physical
consumption, but through the remembrance, through the state of our hearts, Christ
is present at the supper. But not in a physical sense (which even some Reformed
believe, not just Catholics).
But you will find in most Southern Baptist churches that the reason and
consequence for the supper is laboriously explained each and every time it is
held. It is stressed that no one is required to partake and that no one will be
barred. That each man must examine himself. In fact, we quote the entirety of
Jesus institution and of Paul's recitation and exhortations in 1 Cor. *each and
every time*.
We don't take communion lightly.
Theodore M. Seeber
> > > > NO Catholic believes what you said above. Only you and your
> > >
> > > You most certainly do! Does a man have to partake of the 'Eucharist'
> > > or be batpized to be saved? Tell me, your answer determines your fate!
> >
> > Only AFTER Grace gives him the conviction of faith; faith in the
> > Sacraments. Grace, according to Catholic teaching, MUST come first,
> > that's why we won't let unbelieving Protestants take the cup at the
> > Eucharist. In fact, to take Eucharist without the conviction of faith can
> > be very, very, very dangerous.
>
> Unbelieving Protestants??? HA!
Protestants claim they believe the Bible. But then they go and claim that
the Eucharist is not a sacrament. That makes them unbelievers in THE
SACRAMENT OF THE EUCHARIST. Do try to keep up.
> > > Sure ya do, you have all sorts of regs that people HAVE to follow
> > > or be condemned to hell, one of the big reasons you question
> > > your own salvation so often... "am I good enough?"
> >
> > Not a single one of those regs can naysay the Grace of the Lord Jesus
> > Christ. The normative form of that grace is the Sacrament of
> > Confession.
>
> Ah, so then grace is something you do! (Buzzz! Sorry, wrong answer)
No, Grace is something that Jesus does. None of the sacraments are done
by mere human beings alone; human beings simply don't have the power.
duke LeBourgeois
wrote:
>
>
> "Baptism required to enter the Kingdom
> of Heaven - John 3:5"
>
>
> Then Jesus lied to the thief in Luke 23:43
> when He told the guy he'd be in "Paradise" ?
> (NASB)
> Or, maybe Jesus arranged for the thief to
> be baptized while hanging on the cross ?
>
Very wrong, data rat. This man on the cross with Jesus was under the
Old Covenant, not the new covenant. Jesus died once and for all for
the forgiveness of our sin. Baptism into his body is the new covenant
and was "not available" prior to his death. >
>
> "Holy Eucharist: instituted by Jesus:
> Matthew 26:28, Mark 14:24, Luke
> 22:17"
All Christians believe in the Lord's
> Supper. The medieval Romanist
> doctrine of Transubstantiation is NOT
> found in Scripture, however.
Wrong again. The word "transubstantiation" is not, but the process
is. For Jesus raised bread and wine to the Father, and then declared
them to be his Body and Blood. Read the Gospels of Matthew, Mark, and
Luke if you don't believe me.
The question then becomes - did he mean it? We know it didn't change
visually, but I for one believe him when Jesus himself said that they
had.
> Romanism ISN'T
> Christian, It's
> Pagan Idolatry !
Wrong again datarat. Jesus described his Church and the
characteristics of such in his own words in the 4 Gospels. Only the
Roman Catholic Church posses all these characteristics.
You don't know much about the Church of Christ, do you?
duke
Corky
>
> Have no idea of what the Passover is and what the Passover meal is / was and
> have no idea of the bread and wine significance in that meal? Jesus was
> celebrating Passover meal with them and you have no idea what it's
> significance was / is.
>
The following is a very long cut 'n paste of a lecture given by Dr.
Scott Hahn on the very subject which you question. My apologies, in
advance, for the excessively long post. However, if you care to read
through this, I'm certain that it will prove to be very enlightening re
the Catholic understanding of the Eucharist inasmuch as it relates to
the Passover meal.
SCOTT HAHN: THE FOURTH CUP
The Sacrament of the Eucharist
Transcript of a taped address by Dr. Scott Hahn,
former Presbyterian minister and Professor of Theology
at The Fransiscan University of Steubenville
The original tape was distributed by Catholic Answers.
I'd like to cover a lot, and I'd like to tell you in advance what I'm
going to tell you. I'd like to move from one to another to a third
area.
The first area I'd like to focus on is how it is that Christ in the Last
Supper and in the Eucharist offers himself up as the new covenant
Passover, and how the Eucharist and the Old Testament passover are in a
sense two sides of the same coin. The second focus of our time will be
on
the nature of the Mass, then, as a sacrifice. That was big problem for
me,
and that's a big problem for lots of people outside the church and I
think
for some people in the church too, who wonder about how it is that after
calvary we can still speak of any activity that is performed on earth as
being a sacrifice of Christ. And then finally the third area for our
consideration will be on what our proper response would be to our Lord
in
the Eucharist, in the blessed Sacrament. In other words, why should we
adore our Lord in the Eucharist as opposed to just any old place we
happen
to be? In other words, we'll conclude on the note of Eucharistic
adoration, and why that is a fit, proper, and very necessary act of
devotion in the family of God, the Catholic Church.
Let's go back to the first, the Eucharist as Passover. What I'd like to
share in this first part is not what theologians would call de fide; it
isn't infallibly defined dogma that binds the conscience, the intellect
and will of every Catholic believer. Instead, what I'd like to do is
just
to share my own Scripture study in sort of an abbreviated form that led
me
to see something that I didn't think was possible, let me to see that
the
Last Supper and Christ's sacrifice on calvary and the Eucharist are all
of
one piece. Some scholars might dispute this. You can't find all
Scripture
scholars agreeing on anything these days, so I don't lose much sleep
over
the fact that there might be some scripture scholars who dispute this
point. But through my own study_and I've checked this with others who
are
more qualified and better trained scholars than me_it helps. It's been
an
explanation that has provided insight for others as well. It's not
entirely original, but for me it was a discovery of my own before I
discovered it in the writings of other great and holy and wise authors.
When we think about how Christ instituted the Eucharist, we're obviously
taken back to the Upper Room. And just recall if you will some well
known
facts. He and the disciples were celebrating what well known feast? The
Passover. Probably the most important feast in all the Jewish calendar
back then, because it signaled the event_it signified the salvation deed
of God, the work of God. Centuries, over a thousand years before, when
Moses and the twelve tribes of Israel found themselves found themselves
in
bondage down in Egypt. And you know how it was that God called Moses
from
the burning bush and said, "Go and tell pharaoh the following: 'Israel
is
my firstborn son.'" Now that's a very interesting statement to begin
with,
because that idea of firstborn son is very essential to the Passover
itself. "Israel is my firstborn son." God is saying something to Egypt
and
to all the other nations: 'You are enslaving and ignoring and
mistreating
your eldest brother' It almost implies that all the nations in God's
eyes
are like sons, but that Israel back then held a kind of primacy, like
the
oldest brother. "Israel is my firstborn son. Go tell pharaoh that Israel
is my firstborn son. Let him go to serve me or else I will slay your
firstborn sons." And you know the story about the plagues and how they
came upon Egypt and pharaoh kept hardening and turning away from God and
wouldn't listen, or he would listen and act like he was going to give in
but at the last minute he'd turn away and harden his heart some more.
Until finally the tenth plague came, which was the plague of the angel
of
death visiting death upon the firstborn sons in Egypt. All firstborn
sons
would have died, not just the Egyptian firstborn sons, except for one
thing_the Passover. If you and your household through the father took a
lamb and slew that lamb and sprinkled the blood on the doorpost and ate
the meal you would wake up and your firstborn son would be alive. And of
course the Egyptian families didn't, the Israelite families did and with
that they were brought up in the exodus out of Egypt to Mount Sinai
where
God made a covenant with them, where He, like a father, entered into a
loving relationship with the son. It's almost like a bridal....it's like
a
marriage encounter.
That's the Old Testament background. What it all meant was that this
was
the covenant event. In other words, what God was interested in doing
was
to restore the family purity and the family communion of His children,
the
people of Israel. The Passover was the bonding agent that brought it
about, through the blood of the lamb, that sacrifice. And so it was
celebrated for thousands of years, and still is by Jews, as the sign of
the Mosaic covenant. Now remember, a covenant is a sacred family bond;
it's more than just a contract. And remember also that firstborn sons
were marked for destruction. In other words, Egypt offered up a
sacrifice
and so did Israel. Egypt's sacrifice was unwilling: their firstborn
sons.
Israel's sacrifice was voluntary: the unblemished lamb. All of this is
key, I believe, to understand the New Testament context of the Last
Supper
and our own Holy Eucharist, because when Christ institutes the
Eucharist,
as I said, it takes place in the upper room at the Last Supper. And
what
are they doing but celebrating the Passover? Luke 22:15: "I have
earnestly
desired to eat this Passover with you." So likewise in Mark chapter 14:
"His disciples said to him, 'Where will you have us go and prepare for
you
to eat the Passover?' And he gave them instructions and the disciples
set
out and entered the city and found it as he had told them and they
prepared the Passover."
And you know the circumstances and details surrounding the Last Supper.
I
won't recount all of them, but let's just go over the more salient
features. In Mark 14:22ff we read, "And as they were eating he took
bread
and blessed and broke it and gave it to them and said, 'Take; this is my
body. And he took a cup and when he had given thanks [the Greek word for
that is eucharisto] he gave it to them and they all drank of it, and he
said to them, 'This is my blood of the new covenant which is poured out
for many.'" And then he adds a kind of unusual statement: "Truly I say
to
you, I shall not drink again of the fruit of the vine until that day
when
I drink it new in the kingdom of God." And then, when they had sung a
hymn, they went out into the night to the Mount of Olives. Now that
might
not seem very significant to you but to scholars who study the gospel
accounts of the Passover in the upper room, there's a big problem. Why?
Because we know the way the Passover has been celebrated for centuries,
for millenia; it's a very ancient liturgy, it's well known, it's no
secret. Jews still celebrate it according to the same structure. There
are
four cups that represent the structure of the Passover. The first cup
is
the blessing of the festival day, it's the kiddush cup. The second cup
of
wine occurs really at the beginning of the Passover liturgy itself, and
that involves the singing of psalm 113. And then there's the third cup,
the cup of blessing which involves the actual meal, the unleavened bread
and so on. And then, before the fourth cup, you sing the great hil-el
psalms: 114, 115, 116, 117 and 118. And having sung those psalms you
proceed to the fourth cup which for all practical purposes is the climax
of the Passover.
Now what's the problem? The problem is that gospel account says
something
like this: after the third cup is drunk Jesus says, "I shall not drink
again of the fruit of the vine until I am entering into the kingdom of
God." And it says, "Then they sang the psalms." Every Jew who knows the
liturgy would expect: and then they went ahead and said the grace and
the
blessing and had the fourth cup which climaxed and consummated the
Passover. But no, the gospel account say they sang the psalms and went
out
into the night.
I'm sure this doesn't seem like a big problem and for a long time it
didn't seem big to me, but it has led many scholars to question whether
he
was celebrating a Passover at all because you just don't blow apart the
liturgy that way. You don't just sidestep the most important part. It
would be like saying the Mass and skipping the Eucharist, forgetting the
words of consecration. So why did Jesus do it? Other scholars say, well
back then there must not have been a fourth cup. But ancient revered
traditions like that don't just spring up overnight and then cover the
globe like the Passover liturgy has, with all four cups. And so it seems
likely that there might be a better explanation. But where? Why did he
skip the fourth cup? After all, he was raised a Jew, he'd been
celebrating
the Passover every year of his life since he was a little boy according
to
the strictest laws of Moses. Well, maybe there's a psychological reason.
Maybe he was so anxious, so uptight about what he knew he was going to
do,
he - for instance, we read in Mark 14:32, "They went out to a place
called
Gethsemane and he said to his disciples, 'Sit here while I pray.' He
took
with him Peter, James and John and began to be greatly distressed and
troubled, and he said to them, 'My soul is very sorrowful even unto
death.'"
That's what our Lord was feeling, so some have said that maybe he just
wasn't alert enough to get all the way through the liturgy; he was
distracted. Doubtful, very doubtful. He wouldn't skip over something
so
essential and climactic as that. Everything else functioned according to
plan. They sang the psalms and then they went out into the night. I
think
the answer lies elsewhere. Where did they go? Well, we just read,
Gethsemane. And what did he do? He prayed, because his soul was so
distressed. Notice what he prayed, and why, and how he did it. Three
times he fell down to the ground and said to his Father, he cried out.
"Abba, Father!" He fell to the ground and three times said to the
Father,
"Abba, Father." The most intimate of terms. "All things are possible to
Thee. Remove this cup from me. Yet not what I will, but what Thou
wilt."
Remove this cup. Take away this cup. What is this cup? Now, some
scholars suggest that this harkens back to an image used by Isaiah and
Jeremiah to speak about the cup of God's wrath that the Messiah, God's
suffering servant, must drink. There's certainly some connection that
can
be made there, but much more likely, I think, is a connection between an
interrupted liturgy that had been followed strictly up until the very
end
and this heartfelt, earnest plea and prayer of our Savior. Remove this
cup. He also said, though, "I shall not taste of the fruit of the vine
again until I enter into the kingdom."
So what do we see as the drama unfolds? Well, in Mark 15:23, on the way
to calvary, after being beaten and scourged and abused, what do some
people offer our Lord? In Mark 15:23 they offer him wine mingled with
myrrh, which was an opiate, a painkiller, but he wouldn't take it. Why
not? Well, certainly because he was there to accept the suffering for
the
sins of the world. But he had also said, "I will not taste of the fruit
of the vine again until I come into the kingdom." So He wouldn't take
the
wine. But then we turn to John, chapter 19_If you have a Bible, turn
with
me to John 19. If you don't have a Bible you're probably a cradle
Catholic
[laughter] Sorry, one of those convert jokes; shame on me!
[laughter]_John
19 describes in unique detail the sacrifice of our Lord. There's no
mistaking the fact that St. John, the beloved disciple, understood our
Lord's sacrifice as the culmination, the fulfillment of the Old
Testament
Passover. For instance, why is that Jesus happened to be wearing a
seamless linen garment at the cross, when just coincidently that's what
the priest was legislated to wear when he sacrificed the Passover? Here
is
the true priest, as well as the true victim. And when he was crucified,
unlike the two thieves whose legs had to be broken to expedite death,
his
bones were not broken. Why? To fulfill the scripture where it says,
"None
of his bones shall be broken." What's that talking about where it says,
"None of his bones shall be broken"? One of the things is that if you
took a lamb to sacrifice for the Passover and you discovered that it had
a
broken bone, you had to throw him out and get another one. The only fit
sacrifice was a lamb without broken bones. John sees in this so much
more
than we can get into, but one thing in particular. Verse 28, "After
this"_at the very end of his cruel sufferings_"Jesus, knowing that all
was
now finished said, in order to fulfill the scriptures, 'I thirst.'" Now,
he's been on the cross for hours. Is this the first moment of thirst.
No, he'd been wracked with pain and dying of thirst for hours. But he
says, in order to fulfill the scripture, "I thirst." Why? To fulfill
the
scripture.
"A bowl of sour wine stood there. They put a sponge full of the sour
wine
on a hyssop branch_the same kind of branch the Israelites had to use to
sprinkle the lamb's blood on the doorpost, coincidently enough_and held
it
to his mouth. Before when they offered him wine, what did he do? He
refused it: "I will not taste of the fruit of the vine I am coming into
the kingdom." He skipped the fourth cup and then he went to pray,
'Remove
this cup, not as I will will, but as thou wilt,' And now he has gone and
fulfilled that will to the uttermost, in perfect suffering obedience to
the Father, in an act of unspeakable love.
"They put a sponge full of the sour wine on hyssop and held it to his
mouth. When Jesus had received the sour wine he said the words that are
spoken of in the fourth cup consummation, "It is finished." What is the
"it"
referring to? That grammatical question began really bothering me at
some
point. I asked several people and their response was usually, "Well, it
means the work of redemption that Christ was working on." All right,
that's true, I agree it does refer to that, but in context. An exegete,
a
trained interpreter of the word is supposed to find the contextual
meaning, not just import a meaning from a theology textbook. What is
Jesus speaking of when he says, "It is finished?" I mean, our redemption
is not completed once he - he's not yet raised. Paul says, "He was
raised
for our justification."
So what is the it talking about? He said, 'It is finished', and he
bowed
his head and gave up his spirit, his breath. The it, of course you
realize
by now, is the Passover sacrifice. Because who is Jesus Christ? He is
the sacrifice of Egypt, the firstborn son. Remember, the Egyptians
involuntarily had to offer up their firstborn sons as atonement for
their
own sins and wickedness. Christ dies for Egypt and the world. Plus, he
is
the Passover lamb, the unblemished lamb, without broken bones who offers
himself up for the life of the world. This fits with John's gospel,
because as soon as Jesus was introduced in chapter 1 of the fourth
gospel
by John the Baptist, what did John say? He said, "Behold the lamb of
God
who takes away the sins of the world." And here is the lamb, headed for
the altar of the cross, dying as a righteous firstborn and as an
unblemished lamb. I believe that it's best to say in light of scripture
that the sacrifice of Christ did not begin with the first spike, it
didn't
begin when the cross was sunk into the ground. I began in the upper
room.
That's where the sacrifice began. And I would also suggest that the
Passover meal by which Jesus initiated the new Covenant in his own blood
did not end in the upper room, but at calvary. It's all of one piece.
The
sacrifice begins in the upper room with the institution of the Eucharist
and it ends at calvary. Calvary begins with the Eucharist. The
Eucharist
ends at Calvary. But in another way of thinking, it ain't over yet!
Cause
it ain't over till it's over. Paul tells us in 1 Corinthians 5:7-8,
"Christ our Passover lamb has been sacrificed, therefore"_what?_we don't
need to have any more sacrifice? Therefore we don't need to have any
more
ritual, therefore all we have to do is have a personal relationship with
Jesus Christ and invite him into our hearts and everything else is taken
care of? No, he's too knowledgeable about the Old Testament to say any
of
that. He says, "Christ our Passover lamb has been sacrificed; let us
therefore celebrate the feast." What feast? The whole Passover feast.
It's
not complete yet. What do you mean?
Well, go back to the Old Testament, to the book of Exodus. Suppose that
night as head of my household and father, I sacrificed an unblemished
lamb
with no broken bones, and I sprinkled his blood on the door post, and
then
I said, "Family, we're safe, let's go to bed', and we went to bed. I'd
wake up in the morning to tragedy. My firstborn would be dead. Why? You
had to eat the lamb. It isn't enough to kill him. That is the
satisfaction
for sin, but the ultimate goal of sacrifice is not blood and gore and
God
making sure He sees the death. The ultimate goal is to restore
communion,
to have fellowship with God restored. And that's what's signified by
eating the lamb. Who shares a common meal? Family. What is this a sign
of? Covenant. And what is a covenant? A sacred family bond. In the Old
Testament any family that sacrificed a lamb and sprinkled the blood had
to
eat the lamb. It wasn't enough to say, 'Well we don't like lamb do we,
kids? Why don't we make lamb cookies? Little lamb wafers that symbolize
the lamb? We'll eat those and those'll be enough, right? Symbolic
presence of the lamb, and all that?' No, you'd wake up and you'd be
dead.
You ate the lamb and you burned what was left. But you ate the lamb to
reestablish and restore communion with your heavenly Father through His
firstborn Son and Lamb. That's the way it was in the Old Testament, and
St. Paul recognizes that it's still the way it is in the new covenant,
only in spades, only with more glory. Why? Because Christ our Passover
has been sacrificed for us. Once and for all on calvary he's been put
to
death, therefore_what? Therefore we've nothing to do. Just celebrate
the
sacrifice, which is over and done with_ No, something's missing. We need
to eat the Lamb. We need to receive the Lamb to restore communion and
to
complete the sacrifice and to keep the feast . It's proper, and we now
judge it to be necessary. 1 Corinthians 5:7-8, "Christ our Passover
Lamb
has been sacrificed and now let us celebrate the feast." And the next
five
chapters in many ways St. Paul describes how the Eucharist is to be
celebrated, because it's the culmination of the Passover sacrifice.
This is a true sacrifice. It's an unbloody sacrifice, because we're not
killing Jesus again. This was something I never really understood as a
Protestant anti-Catholic. I thought for sure that because you speak of
sacrificing in the Mass, that therefore in some way you believe we're
killing Jesus again and again and again, as though one dying is not
enough. So we just assumed and I always taught that there was suffering
imposed upon Christ supposedly in the Mass. This is blasphemous because
his one act of dying wasn't enough and we had to continue to have him
die
and bleed and suffer, which is what the Mass is for. No way! That's
anti-Catholic. No Catholic can believe that because the sacrifice of the
Mass involves no bleeding , no dying and no suffering of the person of
Christ, who is enthroned in glory and reigning triumphant in heaven. He
is resurrected. He is ascended. He is enthroned, and he rules as king
of
kings.
How is it that he's enthroned? The New Testament answers that question
in
a very revealing way. At least it was revealing for me. I turned to the
book of Revelation. In chapter 5:5-6 where John sees the scroll that is
sealed seven times and he begins to cry because no body can break it
open;
no body can break open the seals to read the book. And the cry goes out,
"Lo! The Lion of the tribe of Judah, the root of David has conquered .
the lion of the tribe of Judah is worthy to open up the seals to read
the
book." The lion of the tribe of Judah; the root of David; the conquering
king, right? So John turns to see the Lion of the tribe of Judah and you
expect to see this great lion with a dazzling mane like in Narnia or
something, some beautiful royal beast and instead he turns and what does
he see? In verse 6 John says, "I saw a lamb standing there as though it
had been slain." The conquering king, the lion of the tribe of Judah ,
the
root of David ruling and reigning in the new and glorified Jerusalem, up
in heaven, and when you see him what's he look like? A lamb, looking as
though he'd been slain. Why? because Revelation 5, and then 6 and 7 and
8
all describe what St, John saw in spirit on the Lord's Day up in heaven.
And guess what? It's what you see in the spirit on the Lord's day down
on
earth. A Eucharistic liturgy. And the Lamb leads all of the saints and
the angels and the people of God in this beautiful heavenly liturgy.
In the early Church fathers it went without argument, it went without
saying that the liturgy on earth was patterned after the vision that St.
John had of the heavenly worship. But notice the appearance of our
conquering king. He's a lamb looking as though he'd been slain. Why?
Because the Holy Spirit resurrected the body of Jesus and it was
ascended
into heaven and it was enthroned and it appears as a lamb because the
sacrifice continues. Because the Passover sacrifice in the Old Testament
was not complete until all of God's people who trusted the Lord and
wanted
to obey the ordinance received the Lamb and received the covenant and
the
sacred family bond of the Lamb. And so likewise the New Covenant, the
heavenly family the spiritual supernatural bond that unites us as
brothers
and sisters_we are more brothers and sisters than your own earthly,
biological siblings with whom you share a family for 60 or 70
years_we've
got 70 trillion years and that's just the beginning. We are God's
family;
that isn't just quaint sentimental pastoral metaphors. That isn't just a
nice emotional analogy that stirs our hearts and makes us feel warm and
fuzzy inside. That's more real than anything in this room. We are God's
children, purchased with the Lamb's blood, and that Lamb is there for us
to receive. The Lamb is a continual celebrant in heaven. He is our high
priest and he is our king. He is our teacher, our prophet, and he is the
one celebrant who leads the whole liturgical worship of the entire
universe as an act of continual praise and offering through the Sacred
Heart to the Father. All of us who are united to Him as members of His
Mystical Body, our worship is only acceptable because of His sacrifice.
He
has covered our sins, he's made an expiation, and yet for the sacrifice
to
be complete, what must we do? We must receive him.
This fact was taught us long before the crucifixion. For instance in
John
chapter 6, let me read from verse 50 and following and see how it is
that
Jesus prepared the way and instructed his disciples so that they would
know exactly what they were to expect. John 6:50, let's go back to 6:4:
"Now the Passover, the feast of the Jews was at hand." In other words
the
backdrop for the entire bread of life discourse was the Passover season.
Jesus says, "This is the bread that comes down from heaven that a man
may
eat of it and not die. I am the living bread which came down from
heaven.
If anyone eats this bread he will live forever and the bread which I
shall
give for the life of the world is my flesh." Passover season. The one
who
was introduced in John 1 as the 'Lamb of God who takes away the sins of
the world', at Passover time he tells us that, "The bread that I shall
give for the life of the world is my flesh. The Jews then disputed
among
themselves, saying 'How can this man give us his flesh to eat?' So Jesus
said to them, 'Truly, truly'_in the original it's Amen, amen: we usually
close our prayers with amen, but he begins this with it because he knows
it's going to be so important, so true_"Truly, truly, I say to you,
unless
you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood you have no life
in you. He who eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life and I
will raise him up on the last day. For my flesh is food indeed and my
blood is drink indeed. He who eats my flesh and drinks my blood abides
in
me and I in him." And what response does he get? "Many of his disciples
when they heard it said, 'This is a hard saying. Who can listen to it?'
But Jesus, knowing in himself that his disciples murmured at him, said
to
them, 'Do you take offense at this?'" And we read on and find that many
of
his disciples drew back and no longer went about with him.
What did Jesus say? Come on, guys, I was only speaking in symbols, huh?
I was only using an image. I don't mean to offend you. Come on back.
I'm
about to lose a few thousand here; come on, Twelve, help me. No, he
turned
to the Twelve and he said to them, "Do you also wish to go away?" He's
not
going to water down the truth. Simon Peter answered him, "Lord, to whom
shall we go? You alone have the words of eternal life."
Underneath that tone of voice we hear, 'We might think about leaving,
'cause what you've said is rather incomprehensible if not downright
offensive. Any advice on alternate messiahs? Who shall we go to if we
leave you? Since there are no others, we'll stay by your side,
uncomprehending.' Like many of his sayings, they didn't understand it
until after he was raised, after he ascended, and after they had a
vision
of their risen, glorified and enthroned king. Enthroned as a lamb,
'looking as though he had been slain.' Because he bears those scars, and
he continually postures himself before his Father on our behalf and for
our sake as a sacrificial victim, uniting himself with us so that as
members of his own mystical body we might join in with that sacrifice.
St.
Paul says in Romans 8 that we are regarded as sheep to be slaughtered
for
God's sake, not just the Lamb, but we all enter into him and become
identified with that sacrifice of the Eucharist in the Mass. So, what is
the sacrifice? There's a once-and-for-all sacrifice on Calvary. Once and
for all. Once and for all time it continues on into eternity as the one
perfect sacrifice. I used to take it to mean once and for all and
therefore it needs no repetition; it needs no representation. But then
you
read in Revelation 5 that Christ is continually re-presenting his
paschal
sacrifice as the Lamb of God, looking as though he'd been slain, before
the Father forever, for our sake.
That's the significance of our earthly liturgy, of the Eucharistic
banquet, of the Eucharistic Passover, whereby God's firstborn Son, the
Lamb of God, has taken away our sins and calls us to unite ourselves
with
him. Baptism is the sacrament of faith in which we unite ourselves and
receive the Holy Spirit. Confirmation is the sacrament of hope in which
we gain the extra power to overcome the sin which we begin to
consciously
commit, because in confirmation we have solid reason for hoping that
God's
grace will overcome our sin. But faith, hope are nothing, are
profitless,
without love. And the Eucharist is the sacrament of love. It's an oath
that God has sworn: "I love you. You don't believe me? I swear to God."
You know how people swear an oath: 'Cross my heart and hope to die,
stick
a needle in my eye,' as little kids say? 'Cut my heart into four pieces
and gouge out my eyes?' An oath is a self-curse. "I swear to tell the
truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth, so help me, God."
Meaning, 'I need your help, God, or I might perjure myself. And if I do
and only you know, may the curses in this Book come down upon me. And
if
I tell the truth but am accused of lying and found guilty, may the
blessings here come down upon me from heaven.'
That's what an oath means. God says, "I love you; do you believe me?
Yyeeaaahh, sortta. "I swear by myself." He swears by Himself. He'll
accept
a curse upon Himself for our sake, so that we know He loves us. And then
He calls us to unite ourselves with Him and He says, "Do you love me?"
We
believe you, we're baptized, we hope that Your grace and power is
sufficient to overcome our sin, and so we're confirmed. And then when we
receive the Eucharist we receive the sacrament of love by which we swear
ourselves to God. We say, 'Swear to God, I love you, so help me, God.
Give
me the grace I need to overcome my defects.' That's what the Eucharist
is.
One of the passages that many people sidestep that I want to call to
your
attention is in 1 Corinthians 11. St. Paul says in verse 27, "Whoever,
therefore, who eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an
unworthy
manner will be guilty of profaning the body and blood of the Lord. Let a
man examine himself and so eat of the bread and drink of the cup. For
whoever eats and drinks without discerning the body eats and drinks
judgment on himself. And that is why many of you are weak and ill and
some have died." Because they received the Eucharist in an unworthy
manner. Now do you really believe that Paul really believes that people
are weak and sick and dead because they received the Eucharist in mortal
sin? It's exactly what he believes and teaches us to believe. He goes
on, "But if we judged ourselves truly we should not be so judged, but
when
we are judged by the Lord we ar chastened so that we are not condemned
along with the world." If I tell you a big story about my 12 kids all of
whom are doctors and lawyers it'd be a lie, right? It wouldn't be
appropriate in a place like this, but it'd just be a lie and I couldn't
get in any more trouble than to get my reputation discredited. But
suppose
that this were a different kind of place, a courtroom, and this were a
different kind of setup here and this was a witness stand and I
proceeded
to tell those same things. What would you call it then? A lie?
Perjury.
Lying's a sin. Perjury's a crime. I couldn't go to jail for a sin like
lying; why could I go to jail for a sin like perjury? As the judge in
Perry Mason says, "I remind you, you're still under oath." The Latin
word
for oath is sacramentum. Jesus Christ says to all of us, 'I remind you
you're still under oath. You have sworn yourself to me.' You say, 'So
help
me, God, I promise to live the whole truth and nothing but the truth so
help me, God. You know me, God, better than I know myself. Help me,
God!
And if I play games with you and the world doesn't know, I know you do,
and I won't be surprised if I become weak or ill or die. So help me,
God!
Help me because you've pledged yourself to me and now assist me in
pledging myself to you.' That's what the Eucharist is all about It's a
sacrifice because sacrifice is the essence of love. You don't just give
your things, you give yourself. Christ continues to give himself
because
Christ continues to love us so much. So what can we make of all this?
First we can see that the new covenant Passover is the Eucharist which
is
a re-presentation of Christ's once and for all sacrifice on Calvary. We
don't kill him again, he doesn't suffer and bleed, he's not humiliated
again on the cross on Calvary. That was once and for all that he died,
and
now his death and resurrection are re-presented forever in heaven as the
Lamb leads them all in worship, and it's re-presented here below as the
Eucharistic Lamb leads all of us in worshipping the Father as good
faithful children in His family. That's the heart and soul of our faith,
that's the ground of our hope; that is the soul of our life as
Christians,
as the mystical body of Christ, the corpus Christi. We are what we eat.
Let's renew and deepen our commitment to Christ by renewing and
deepening
our commitment to the Holy Eucharist in the blessed sacrament of the
altar. This isn't superstition or hocus-pocus. I was teaching class
earlier this week, and about 30 of my students were there and I said to
them, "Suppose you're in your dorm room tonight and you were watching
the
six o'clock news and all of a sudden you saw Roger Mudd come on and say,
'There's evidence now, the report is confirmed now, that Jesus Christ is
back on earth and is walking the streets of Jolliot about two blocks
from
the College of St. Francis.' You're hearing this and you're sitting back
with your feet up on a chair and suppose your roommate came in and said,
'What's that?' You say, 'They say Jesus is walking around a couple of
blocks from here, and they're trying to get an interview with him.' What
would you do?" They all said spontaneously, "I'd run to see him." Now
what
would you say to your roommate if he replied, 'Aw, Jesus is God and God
is
everywhere; I can talk to Jesus right here or in the bathroom or out in
the country, so why go out and see him?' No, no, if you love Jesus and
he's really there two blocks away, you'd go rush to see him. If you love
him. And then I said to my students what I'm going to say to you: He's
less than two blocks away.
Do we really believe that? I don't understand why it is that in
thousands
of parishes across this country people receive the Eucharist, sit down
and
then do the hundred yard dash to the parking lot even before the
blessing
is finished. Why? Some people have to leave even before they sit down. I
call that the Judas shuffle. He received the Lord and then went out into
the night. They receive our Lord and go out into the morning or
afternoon.
Do we really believe that we're receiving the second Person of the
blessed
Trinity, the Logos, the Creator, the Redeemer, the King of Kings and
Lord
of Lords? He has just entered into our body and soul, we've just
received
him body and blood, soul and divinity. Do we believe that? Do we act
like
it? Is there enough evidence to convict us of such a belief? God, I
hope
so. If not, let's start stockpiling more evidence, let's make the case
against ourselves much easier for the world so they look at us and say,
'They really do believe that they're receiving the God-man.
The early Church was accused of cannibalism; the world saw and
understood_partially. It's not cannibalism, he's alive in glory, with
power_for us who need it most_if we love and believe that much. The
Eucharist is our oath, our pledge and God's assistance. So what about
Eucharistic adoration? Is it pre-Vatican II? Is it an outmoded,
medieval
rite? Is it some meaningless ritual just for those old fuddy-duds who
like the old Latin Mass and need everything the way it was a hundred
years
ago? No. it's for every man, woman and child of God. Why? Why is
adoration
of the blessed Sacrament so important? Because it's Christ whom we
adore_the most adorable being in the whole world.
I want to read to you some things that occurred to me last night in
prayer
and study. I came across a statement by St. Cyril of Alexandria who said
about the early Church_this is a belief that goes way back to the
beginning_"Neither Christ is altered nor his body changed, but the force
and power and vivifying grace always remain with it_the Eucharist." St.
Augustine: "No one eats the Flesh without first adoring it. Not only do
we
not commit a sin by adoring it, but that we do sin by not adoring it."
St.
Augustine taught as a Doctor of the Church that we do sin by not adoring
the Eucharist. Pope Paul VI: "Such visits are a proof of gratitude, an
expression of love, an acknowledgment of the Lord's presence. The pope
recalled Vatican II. Pope John XXIII once said, "To keep me from sin and
to prevent me from straying from Him, God has used devotion to the
Sacred
Heart of Jesus in the blessed Sacrament. My life seems destined to be
spent in the light radiating from the tabernacle, and it is to the heart
of Jesus that I must go for the solution of all my problems."
St. John Vianny_the Cur_ of Ars_said, "To pray well there is no need to
talk a lot. One knows that the good God is there in the holy tabernacle.
One opens his heart to him, one rejoices in his presence; this is the
best
prayer." Pope John Paul II, our Holy Father said, "I wish to reaffirm
the
fact that Eucharistic worship constitutes the soul of all Christian
life.
The visit to the blessed Sacrament is the great treasure of the Catholic
faith. It nourishes social love and gives us opportunities for adoration
and thanksgiving, for reparation and supplication. It becomes a prefect
and yet simple, loving prayer."
Our Lord is just a few feet away. He is no less real here and now that
he
was two thousand years ago on the dirty streets of Judea. It's only our
five senses that block our view. The eyes of faith can see it, and we
are
the ones who walk by faith and not by sight. Do we really believe that?
Do
we really love him? Will we really commit ourselves to receiving all
that
we need as we tell him, 'I solemnly swear to live the truth, the whole
truth, and nothing but the truth, so help me, God.'
Someone once said, "He hides his adorable humanity in the humble
appearance of ordinary bread and wine so that we might find that peace
and
joy that comes from being despised and rejected as he was in his life.
He
hides his adorable humanity. Do we adore it? In the humble appearance
of
ordinary bread and wine? He will sustain our soul and the life of the
Spirit like bread and wine sustain the life of the body. So that we
might
find that peace and joy that comes from being despised. The world would
laugh at such a statement. The Eucharist is proof that it's true. Peace
and joy that comes from being despised and rejected as he was in this
life. In the Eucharist he is forgotten, rejected and sacrilegiously
received and profaned, yet he remains there to nourish us with his
precious body and blood." When I first read those words of Brother
Francis
Mary right before Christmas, having received this mailing from Marytown,
I
had to leave the room and confess my sins and I cried, and I'm not that
emotional. But I tell you, the Sacred Heart of Jesus calls out to us to
deepen our love, and if we don't have what it takes, he says, 'Come and
get it.' It's free. It ain't cheap, but it's free. He says, 'It cost me
my
life, but I give it to you for free, just for the asking and seeking.'
Do we love him that much? Do we believe him that much? Let us pray. In
the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit. Amen. Our
Father in heaven, we thank you for the glory of the gospel. This world
is
too small to contain it. Our bodies are too small to live it and to
contain it in its fullness, so spend us, Lord, and take us a living
sacrifice united with Christ, so that through his holy and acceptable
offering we might be holy and acceptable, that through our life, through
our suffering, through our loving, through our words and deeds, Christ
might live and die and be raised in the world around us, in his mystical
body. These truths, Lord, are not truths that we sense or see. Increase
our faith and help us adore You more, and help us to commit ourselves
with
resolution and consistency to regular time of adoring You in the holy
Eucharist., We thank You for this holy and august sacrament. Impress
upon
our hearts and minds how incomparable it is, inestimable in value, that
it
might be the treasure that we store up in heaven, and it might be that
for
which we live and work on earth. Hear us, Lord, as we join together in
the
family prayer that our Lord taught us so long ago. Our Father.....
In the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit. Amen.
Downloaded from the Catholic Information Network
Provided courtesy of:
The Catholic Resource Network
Trinity Communications
PO Box 3610
Manassas, VA 22110
Voice: 703-791-2576
Fax: 703-791-4250
Data: 703-791-4336
The Catholic Resource Network is a Catholic online information and
service system. To browse CRNET or join, set your modem to 8 data
bits, 1 stop bit and no parity, and call 1-703-791-4336.
-------------------------------------------------------------------
duke LeBourgeois
<see...@aracnet.com> wrote:
>> With all this, you and your cult dare comment using biblical quotes?
>
>We use Biblical quotes because it's quite apparent that the Baptists don't
>read the Bible.
They certainly don't read the 4 Gospels, the words of Christ himself.
duke
duke LeBourgeois
<klock...@NOSPAMhotmail.com> wrote:
>> >John 6:28-29
>> >Then they asked him, "What must we do to do the works God requires?"
>> >Jesus answered, "The work of God is this: to believe in the one he has
>> >sent."
>>
>> So tell us, klockheeed, does this or does this not include His words
>> in the 4 Gospels. You apparently think not.
>
>Um... lemmie see, I quoted from the book of John...
Now try Matthew, Mark and Luke and all the other words that describe
the characteristics of Jesus's church, the RCC.
>You most certainly do! Does a man have to partake of the 'Eucharist'
>or be batpized to be saved? Tell me, your answer determines your fate!
Read John 3.5 and see where Jesus said that one must be [born with
water and the Holy Spirit] (baptized) in order to gain Heaven.
Pretty clear to me.
>Sure ya do, you have all sorts of regs that people HAVE to follow
>or be condemned to hell, one of the big reasons you question
>your own salvation so often... "am I good enough?"
You appear to be good at what someone told you the RCC stood for, but
you certainly don't show you know the truth.
>> The bible is clear - we are saved thru the death of Christ on the
>> Cross. Period - rock solid Roman CAtholic belief.
>Really? Faith + Eucharist + Baptism + Confession... gee, lots
>of man's work going on there.
Jesus stipulated Eucharist & baptism and confession. Not man.
If you don't even believe His words, how can you pretend to have faith
in Him?
> And by the way, not His resurrection, hence Christ on the Cross
>> (crucifix). He didn't resurrect for us, He died for us.
>
>He most certainly did resurrect for us!
He died for our sins. He resurrected to give us the hope that we too
can follow Him.
If you don't believe His words, how can you have faith in him and hope
to follow him?
>Romans 8:34
>Who is he that condemns? Christ Jesus, who died--more than that,
>who was raised to life--is at the right hand of God and is also interceding
>for us.
>
>He does it all for us!
Of course He does, at least to those that believe in Him. I consider
that questionable for those that won't even believe Him and accept His
words in the 4 Gospels.
duke
duke LeBourgeois
<klock...@NOSPAMhotmail.com> wrote:
>> Baptism required to enter the Kingdom of Heaven - John 3:5
>
>Not required, Acts 10-11
Then why did Jesus himself say otherwise in John 3.5? I think you had
better reread Acts 10 & 11.
>> Holy Eucharist: instituted by Jesus: Matthew 26:28, Mark 14:24, Luke
>> 22:17.
>
>Being bread and cup (wine), symbols of our fellowship (communion)
>with the Lord. 1 Cor. 11
You mean that Jesus was sayings "kingees" and "aw shucks, I was just
kidding" when this famous declaration at the Last Supper?
>> Paul: 1Cor11:17-33, and the great proclimation: "This means that
>> every time you eat this bread and drink from this cup, you proclaim
>> the Lord's death until he comes."
>Yep, BREAD AND CUP. Not "toe of christ".
Toe??
>> Power to forgive sins in God's name and the creation of the Papacy
>> (and read your bible carefully here - sentence following sentence):
>> Matthew 16:15-19.
>Says NOTHING about forgiving sins, however...
Matt 16:19 - "I will give you the keys of the Kingdom of Heaven, what
you prohibit on earth will be prohibited in heaven, and what you
permit on earth will be permitted in heaven."
Maybe you perfer not to call that forgiveness of sins, but I don't.
>Luke 11:4
>Forgive us our sins, for we also forgive everyone who sins against
>us. And lead us not into temptation. '"
>We apparently all have that ability!
Forgiving each other our transgressions against each other is not the
same as sinning against God.
And certainly if we don't even forgive each other, then we certainly
can't expect God to forgive us for our sins against Him.
>> And it goes on and on and on - the characteristics that Jesus set
>> forth for His Church and stated in His words are found in the 4
>> Gospels.
>
>Indeed, but the RCC is NOT that church! Instead it's a cult
>that worships his mother and men on earth!
The RCC is undoubtedly and clearly that church. None other qualifies.
Certainly no protest-ant church.
duke
The DataRat
"This man on the cross with Jesus was
under the Old Covenant, not the new
covenant"
Sir, there is ~only~ ONE salvific covenant:
The Covenant of Grace !
The DataRat
Seminary Student
The consecrated bread and wine are heavenly food which help one
to attain to eternal life. ( Catechism of the
Catholic Church 1392, 1405, 1419. )
The evangelical church believes it is the memorial of Christ's
Passover, Catholics believe the Eucharist is also a
sacrifice. The sacrificial character of the Eucharist is
manifested in the very words of institution: "This is my body
which is given for you" and "This cup which is poured out for you
is the New Covenant in my blood." In the
Eucharist Christ gives us the VERY body which he gave up for us
on the cross, the VERY blood which he
"poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins."
The priest is indispensable, since he alone by his powers can
change the elements of bread and wine into the
body and blood of Christ ... the more often the sacrifice [of the
Mass] is offered the more benefit is conferred"
(John A. Hardon, S.J., Pocket Catholic Dictionary (1985), pp.
248-249).
Catholics claim the mass is not a resacrifice of the event of
Christ's death, let there own literature speak..."Hence
the Mass...[is] a sacrifice in which the sacrifice of the cross
is perpetuated...in the sacrifice of the Mass our
Lord is immolated...the eucharistic sacrifice is the source and
the summit of...the Christian life....In the sacrifice
of the Mass in fact, Christ offers himself for the salvation of
the entire world" (Vatican II, Eucharisticum
Mysterium, 3.,18).
It is a current event not something that just occurred almost
2,000 years ago.
When did this view actually begin in history because It is not
mentioned in the Scripture nor Apostles' Creed
from the 2nd century A.D. or the Nicene Creed 325 A.D, There had
been individual opinions from this period
which supported various views, but none were the teaching of the
church at the time.
We can trace this from the ninth to the twelfth century. Like
other Catholic doctrines the belief that the nature of
the host changed at the priests consecration did not become an
official doctrine of the Catholic Church until much
later .It was made dogma official dogma by Pope Pius III at the
Lateran Council of 1215. This began the
Catholic Church's new sanction of the "theory of
transubstantiation." The Vatican continued to develop this
teaching through the16th century. At that time, the Council of
Trent used it to counter the challenges from the
Reformation. Trent further defined the theory and then placed a
solemn curse upon anyone who denied it. .(
Session XIII, can. 2, D.B., 884) by doing so they challenged God
,denying his word in Rom.4-5 and in Galatians
which teaches the very opposite.
"If anyone says that the sacraments of the new law are not
necessary for salvation.that without them.man
obtain from God through faith alone the grace of
justification.let him be anathema."(Council of Trent,7.general,4)
"If anyone says that the sinner is justified by faith alone,
meaning that nothing else is required to cooperate in
order to obtain the grace of justification let him be anathema."
(Council of Trent)
The Council of Trent summarized the Catholic faith by declaring:
"Because Christ our Redeemer said that it was
truly his body that he was offering under the species of bread,
it has always been the conviction of the Church of
God, and this holy Council now declares again, that by the
consecration of the bread and wine there takes place
a change of the whole substance of the bread into the substance
of the body of Christ our Lord and of the whole
substance of the wine into the substance of his blood. This
change the holy Catholic Church has fittingly and
properly called transubstantiation." This interpretation held by
the Catholic Church is found where Jesus spoke
the words: "Take, eat; this is My body. this is My blood," he
turned the bread they were eating into his body
and the wine into his blood at the Passover. The official name
for this is transubstantiation. It means that the
substance is changed. Although the outward appearance remains of
the bread and wine look the same to the
eye, no one can see that underneath they have been changed. This
is done today by the priest who can then
sacrifice Christ afresh on the altar. Christ becomes the actual
sacrifice but an "unbloody sacrifice". The wafer is
the "host" which means he becomes the victim. Christ is actually
"immolated" or offered as the victim over and
over, each week , each year throughout the world on all the
Catholic altars. This current offering of the host
makes satisfaction for the sins of both the living and the dead.
Those receiving Holy Communion eat the actual
body of Christ. Participation is essential for a Catholics
spiritual life, it is essential for salvation. This is the
Sacrifice of the Mass or the Sacrament of the Holy Eucharist.
However this is not what the Bible teaches.
The word "mass" is never used in scripture. The communion is
referred to by using the word "Koinonia".
1 Cor. 10:16 Communion-- a memorial: a visible way of
illustrating His death.
The mass is a misunderstanding of what the Lord meant when He
said " Take eat, this is My body and drink, this
is My blood shed for the remission of sins." Taking meanings out
of their Jewish concept and culture and giving
Gentile meanings (Aristotelian) destroys the message he conveyed.
Jesus took the Passover and showed that he
was the fulfillment of this feast ,as he is for all of them. If
he was giving his body at the last supper for our sins
then he didn't have to go to the cross, it already was
accomplished.
Questions that need answering ??????
"Take eat for this is my body." For 1500 years prior to Jesus
statement the Jewish people partook of this feast
day ritual of Passover.It was in remembrance of their Exodus from
Egypt. Jesus stated that He was the fulfillment
of this (the matzoh is the bread he held up, it is unleaven,
striped, with holes and broken Isa.53). It pointed to his
person as the sinless lamb and what would happen to himself on
the cross. Paul applies His death to the
Passover in 1 Cor.5:6-8. If this passage was meant to be taken
literally, then were the Jews eating of His body
and blood before He was physically here, before he even became a
man here on earth? It couldn't be literal
because He did not die yet, no blood was spilled, and His body
was not broken. If this bread turned into his
body at the last supper then he gave himself for us before the
cross. There would be no need for him to go to the
cross we would only have to take communion (The Eucharist).
Heb 11:28 says of Moses, "By faith he kept the Passover and the
sprinkling of blood, "Faith that looked to the
future for the substance which is Christ.
If this was literal, which part of His body was eaten that night
? Did Jesus body actually consist of bread and
have wine flowing in his veins when he spoke take eat this is my
body. If not, then why should we think it does
now. Since His physical body was like ours in a substantial
limited amount, would it not be totally consumed
already ? Also remember Jesus also ate the bread and wine, was he
eating himself ? did he need salvation ?
Why does the Eucharist have the body and the blood separate,
while the real Christ had the blood in his body .
When he shed his blood for our sins he arose again in the same
body, a body without blood but flesh and bone
glorified . A new body was given, powered from a different
operation than the old humanity of blood. The blood
was given and accepted. The sacrifice was over, he said it is
finished, not it will continue! How can he give us
blood today when he himself has none.
When the Son of God became a man, he took upon himself human
flesh. Is Holy Communion actually eating
Christ's physical body. Why would God want us eating human flesh?
Why would he want us drinking human
blood? When the drinking of blood is repeatedly forbidden in the
Scriptures, including the New Testament. It
doesn't matter if it was sinless blood. The apostles were Jews
who would not partake of eating anything but
clean food. For a Jew, you cannot find a food more unclean than
blood, this is why they were shocked when he
said this in Jn.6, they misunderstood him.
A careful look at Jesus' Teaching Style proves what is correct.
The Jews often spoke in figurative language.
Jesus, being a Jew, was no exception to this manner of teaching
to bring across a point. John records in his
gospel seven figurative statements that Jesus made about himself.
Each uses the same verb translated "is" in the
words "This is My body." Jesus said in Jn.6, "I am the bread of
life," He also states in the same manner "I am the
light of the world," "I am the door," "I am the resurrection and
the life", "I am the good shepherd," "I am the way,
and the truth, and the life," "I am the true vine." If we take
the bread literally then all other illustrations should be
taken in the same manner.
There are many statements that Jesus used in a figurative sense
for example destroy this temple in Jn.2:19 the
Pharisee's interpreted this as the literal temple he said they
were wrong it is the temple of his body. When he said
to the people to beware of the "leaven of the Pharisees," they
thought he meant bread. when he spoke of eating
his flesh and drinking his blood, they argued, murmured, and left
baffled. He summed it up his meaning by saying
my words are spirit and they are life. This should not be
confused in thinking that everything Jesus said was
figurative, only that he often employed figurative language to
teach and illustrate truth. Jesus' Jewish audience
often misunderstood his teaching. They lacked perception. They
were unable to discern when he was speaking
figuratively or literally.
When he said he offered new life as living water, or I am the
light ", I am the Door", I am the vine" should we
take these to be the actual literal meaning or symbolic of
another literal substance. When he said to the disciples
you are the salt of the earth were they actually salt ? We need
to look at the spiritual intent of the passage.
1 Cor.11:28 Paul says, "Let each man eat of the bread and drink
of the cup..." Paul clearly is stating that there is
no change of the former substance to Christ, this is really bread
and a cup.
In 1 Cor.11:25 Paul states this cup is the new covenant in my
blood. Obviously this cup was not the actual
covenant itself but a representation of it. He didn't say the new
covenant is the cup! "for as often as you eat this
bread drink the cup, you proclaim the Lord's death until he
comes." Do we drink the cup or what is inside it?
Notice it says bread not a body. "For as often as you eat this
bread and drink the cup, you proclaim the Lord's
death until He comes." Did he come back as a wafer and wine? Then
we can't take the bread or the cup? This is
what we are presented by the Roman view. If so we should stop
taking the bread.
Physically speaking, one can only be in 1 place at 1 time.
Lk.22:17- 20 Jesus says to divide the cup among them
He states "I will not drink of the fruit of the vine until the
kingdom of God comes." Jesus is stating that what they
drank was wine not blood, which was forbidden. This is not like
the wedding feast where he changed water to
wine so he changed wine to blood.
Pope John Paul II wrote: "The Eucharist is above all else a
sacrifice. It is the sacrifice of the Redemption and also
the sacrifice of the New Covenant.( Pope John Paul II on the
mystery and worship of the Eucharist no.9)
Vatican II declares, "For it is the liturgy through which,
especially in the divine sacrifice of the Eucharist [Mass],
'the work of our redemption is accomplished... (The
Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy, Introduction, par.
2).
The bible says the very opposite
The Eucharist is either the symbol of the sacrificial event or
the event itself . Scripture tells us which is true.
Whose blood cleanses us? Rom. 5:9, "Much more then, having now
been justified by His blood, we shall be
saved from wrath through Him."
When did this occur?
Answer: Rom. 3:25, "Whom God set forth as a propitiation by His
blood, through faith, to demonstrate His
righteousness, because in His forbearance God had passed over the
sins that were previously committed,"The
bible says it is a past event.
Where did this happen? Col. 1:14, "In whom we have redemption
through His blood, the forgiveness of sins.
:20 and by Him to reconcile all things to Himself, by Him,
whether things on earth or things in heaven, having
made peace through the blood of His cross." The bible says it
took place at the cross when he died not today.
In Whom did this happen? Eph. 1:7, "In Him we have redemption
through His blood, the forgiveness of sins,
according to the riches of His grace." The bible says its in the
person of Christ when he was a human on earth
not today.
According to the Church, each Mass-... reminds us that there is
no salvation except in the cross of our Lord
Jesus Christ and that God Himself wishes that there should be a
continuation of this sacrifice....(Mediator Dei
2nd Vatican council Instruction on the manner of distributing the
Holy communion no.55)
The blood on the cross is what cleanses not the mass. One is from
God the other is from man! No where did he
say it continues as a sacrifice he only said to do this to
remember the sacrifice that occurred. In the OT the
looked forward to it today we look backward at it.
The book of Hebrew which compares Christ to the O.T. sacrifices
says these emphatical statements
Hebrews.1:3 "When he (Christ) had by himself purged our sins."
9:12 "By his own blood entered in once into the Holy Place."
9:22 "Without the shedding of blood there is no forgiveness of
sins."
10:10 "We have been sanctified through the offering of the body
of Jesus once for all."
7:27 "Who does not need daily, as those high Priests(O.T.), to
offer up sacrifices, for he did once for all."
9:25 "Not that he should offer himself often' Vs.26 "he would
then have to suffer often". "he has appeared
to put away sin by the sacrifice of himself."
V. 28 "And so Christ was offered once to bear the sins of many."
This is a single event for all eternity. Is this
the event that took your sins away or does the priest in the mass
do this? Why does the mass try to repeat and
duplicate it. It is all from the real live person of Christ
almost 2,000 years ago. Salvation is in a person not bread
or drink.
Is Christ's payment at the cross sufficient
or not ?
JESUS cried "it is finished!"
The Catholic Church says, it is
continued!
WHO WILL YOU BELIEVE?
The N.T. Communion came from the feast of Passover. Jesus showed the
fulfillment of a tradition the Jews kept
for over 1500 years. When he said this is my body and my blood,
he had not even died yet. He never meant it to
be taken as a source of grace, but in remembrance of what he was
to do until he comes. Just as the Passover
feast was to point to Christ in the future, the communion points
back to his accomplishment on the cross. All the
feast days were shadows of the substance, they were to help the
Jewish nation stay in Gods blessings and be a
means to recognize Christ when he came. When Jesus said you must
eat my flesh and drink my blood, it was in
figurative language, not literal, symbolizing the life he has to
offer. Which part of his body did he remove when he
gave it to the disciples to eat? If it really was about his body
he would have been totally consumed by now. The
only way one can make sense of this error is to say it is a
spiritual body which then means he was not raised from
the dead physically, because he is in his body forevermore and it
all is intact.
The bread and the wine become "God & man" the Eucharist becomes
the incarnate Christ ".the true body of
Christ the Lord, the same that was born of the virgin."(Catholic
Catechism 1106,1374)
"The body is given for us and the blood which is shed for the
remission of sins are offered to God by the church
for the sacrifice of the whole world. In the Eucharist Christ is
present and is offered as the sacrifice which made
our peace." (Vatican 2 vol.2)
The bible teaches that he (Christ) offered himself on the cross
to give us peace.
Immolation is the sacrificial killing of a victim. The Church
teaches that at the Mass Christ does not suffer, pour
out His blood, or die. Instead Christ experiences an "unbloody
immolation" (Pope Pius the XII mediator dei
no.70) by which He becomes sacramentally present under the
appearances of bread and wine, a "most holy
victim" (Catholic Catechism 11085,1353, 1362,1364,1367, 1383,
1409, 15451.)
Roman Catholicism teaches that once Christ is present in a state
of victimhood upon the altar, He then offers
Himself to God the Father by the hands of the priest and in union
with the Church (1354,1357).
This re-presentation of Christ death to the Father occurs when
the priest prays at the Mass: Father ... we offer to
you, God of glory and majesty, this holy and perfect sacrifice:
the bread of life and the cup of eternal salvation.
Look with favor on these offerings and accept them.... Almighty
God, we pray that your angel may take this
sacrifice to your altar in heaven. Then, as we receive from this
altar the sacred body and blood of your Son, let
us be filled with every grace and blessing. (The Memorial Prayer
of the first eucharistic prayer)
In the real sacrifice, blood came from His body. Not so in the
MASS-It is separate, as when He Gave the
illustration at the Passover before He died. But the Catholic
church persists the Mass is "a true and proper
sacrifice, not symbolic of another actual event , but the actual
"sacrifice of the Eucharist" (Council of Trent
session 22 teachings and canons on the most holy sacrifice of the
mass chpt.1)
Hebrews says that the confirmation of the Testament depends on
the death of the Testator. The Mass makes
present Christ in His death and victimhood suffering over and
over to give grace. Murdered over and over again.
(Catechism of the Catholic Church, 1353, 1362, 1364, 1367, 1409).
So it is not the remembrance of the finished work but a actual
sacrifice by the priest who gives it to recipients for
grace.
Each mass the priest re-presents to the father the sacrifice of
Christ (Catechism 1354,1357). The scriptures say
that Christ gave himself willingly "no man takes my life I lay it
down myself. Remember when Moses struck the
rock twice, We are told in the NT that rock was Christ. He
misrepresented God and was kept out of the
promised land. How much more so those priests who continually
offer up Christ as a sacrifice on man made
altars. They strike the rock many more times than twice.
According to Roman Catholic teaching each time a priest offers
the Mass, the wrath of God against sin is
appeased. The Mass, even as the cross itself, is a propitiatory
or appeasing sacrifice: In this divine sacrifice
which is performed in the mass, the very same Christ is contained
and offered in bloodless manner who made a
bloody sacrifice of himself once for all on the cross. Hence the
holy council teaches that this is a truly propitiatory
sacrifice, and brings it about that if we approach God with
sincere hearts and upright faith, and with awe and
reverence, we receive mercy and find grace to help in time of
need (Hebrews 4:16). For the Lord is
appeased by this offering, he gives the gracious gift of
repentance, he absolves even enormous offenses and sins.
(Council of Trent session 22"Teaching and canons on the most holy
sacrifice of the Mass chpt.2)
The Mass is an unbloody sacrifice which atones for the sins of
the living and the dead.(Catechism of the
Catholic Church 1367,1371, 1414).
If the Mass is the true blood and body then how can it be
unbloody? Which is it? They need to make up their
mind. The claim is that it is bloodless, yet the Scripture says
that without the shedding of blood there is no
forgiveness of sin. If it was with blood the first time, why is
it not now? Why is what is suppose to tu0rn into his
blood not be so. A bloodless sacrifice has no power, it is only
an external show. The blood of Jesus is
efficacious as it has continuing throughout time. This shows they
do not believe in his eternal sacrifice! It doesn't
need to be represented in the mass over and over again as to
portray Christ in His victimhood. He did it once for
all.
Christ offered Himself then and now we have men offering Him and
calling themselves priests of God who buy
bread and wine and use their exclusive powers to change the
substance of which you cannot tell but must
believe.
The sacrificial work of redemption is continually carried out
through the sacrifice of the Mass. (Catechism of the
Catholic Church 1364, 1405, 1846.)
Each Mass Applies the Saving Power of the Sacrifice of the Cross
1366,1407,1416,1566)
Council of Trent, Canon no.1: If anyone shall deny that the body
and blood together with the soul and divinity of
our Lord Jesus Christ and therefore the entire Christ, are truly,
really, and substantially contained in the
sacrament of the most holy Eucharist and shall say that He is
only in it as a sign or in a figure, let him be anathema
(accursed )."
The bible teaches that we don't meet Christ in a sacrament, we
have a relationship with him by his spirit not by
things made by hands.
The bible states in Heb. 10:10-12 "By the which will we are
sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus
Christ once for all. And every priest standeth daily ministering
and offering oftentimes the same sacrifices, which
can never take away sins: But this man, after he had offered one
sacrifice for sins for ever, sat down on
the right hand of God;"
1 Jn.1:9 His blood continually cleanses that which was shed on
the cross, not the communion. the Mass is a
continuing sacrifice. The Scriptures tell us that a sacrifice
which must be constantly repeated reveals itself to be
weak as in the OT. If there is any power in the Mass, then why
the daily and weekly repetition? Christ's sacrifice
was not like the animal sacrifice that needs to be done over and
over- It was once for all. It satisfied His Father
and its effects continue today because He alone is immortal and a
perpetual High Priest therefore his work is
eternal. Jesus went to the cross for His sacrificial work. His
last words were "It is finished!"
In the offering of the Mass, there is a real victim: the Lord
Jesus under the appearance of bread and wine. For
this reason the Church refers to consecrated bread wafers as
hosts ,which is from the Latin word for victim.
The offering is also real. The priest " ... offers the immaculate
Victim, to God the Father, in the Holy Spirit. ( 2nd
Vatican council "Sacred Liturgy" "General instruction on the
Roman Missal chpt.2 sect.55. the Mass is "a true
and proper sacrifice, not symbolic of another actual event , but
the actual "sacrifice of the Eucharist"(Council of
Trent session 22 teachings and canons on the most holy sacrifice
of the mass chpt.1)
CAN WE ACCEPT THE 2nd PERSON OF THE TRIUNE GOD AS HAVING A
CONTINUAL
INCARNATION IN COOPERATION WITH BAKERIES AND JUICE COMPANIES?
A wafer does not talk or move. So how can it be Christ, It is
man-made. One cannot find Christ in inanimate
objects. In ACTS 7:48 - 49, Stephen quotes PS.102 :25--He said he
would dwell in a temple not made with
hands. The Catholic church says he does. "It is Christ
himself."(1330) "the whole Christ"(1374)
God alone is to be worshipped and adored, not man-made religious
symbols. No graven images are to be made
on Earth below or Heaven above. WORSHIP takes place for the
Eucharist. "In the liturgy of the Mass we
express our faith in the real presence of Christ under the
species of bread and wine by, among other ways,
genuflecting or bowing deeply as a sign of adoration of the Lord.
"The Catholic Church has always offered and
still offers to the sacrament of the Eucharist with worship and
adoration (1378-1381,1418)"the same worship of
Latria or adoration that we offer to God."(2nd Vatican council
sacred liturgy, On holy communion and the
worship of the Eucharistic mystery outside of mass."no.21).
Remember the brazen serpent in the wilderness. The Jews looked
upon it to be healed but, given time, they
eventually made it an idol and worshipped it. In Hebrew the word
for Idols is 'eliyl ; apparently from it means
good for nothing, . vain or vanity; specifically an idol: no
value, thing of nought. pecel (#6459);carved (graven)
image.
haneekaar shachah- means foreign or strange worship. Strongs #
7812 shachah- to bow down a) (Qal) to
bow down b) (Hiphil) to depress (figurative) c) (Hithpael) to bow
down, to prostrate oneself 1) before superior
in homage 2) before God in worship 3) before false gods 4) before
angel (Thayers )
The Hebrew word for idolatry means to bow down or genuflect is to
worship.To bow down or genuflect is an
act of worship. Judaism has always identified genuflecting or
burning incense or candles as worship.(Ex.20)
This is why the BREAD must be is a metaphor. His sacrifice was
the real propitiation. A propitiation is a term
meaning toward God to appease His wrath, not toward man. A
sacrifice is an offering made to appease God. In
the Scriptures we find no mention of the bread and wine as a
sacrifice, he was a living sacrifice, these were only
symbols that already existed, that he used them to illustrate the
real act he himself would accomplish.
Is it alive? Does it move? Can you encase Him in an inanimate
object? The Scripture tells us that He
doesn't dwell in temples made with hands. He tells us "I will be
with you always..."If one believes that he already
dwells in them by the Holy Spirit then the concept of having to
be ingested to have grace becomes
abandoned.this is kept hidden from most in the church.
The Catechism of Trent p.228 says "the is the true body of Christ
the Lord the same that was born of the virgin."
One can actually pray to Jesus in the sacrament. "God desires
that consecrated bread and wine be worshipped
as divine." (Catechism of the Catholic Church,
1178,1183,1378,1418).Can the bread move on its own?
leave it out and see what happens to it. It will become moldy
just like any other bread. Does the body of Christ
become corrupt? Can it talk? It has no life on its own, only the
priests make the people believe it does. Truly this
in fact becomes an Idol.
The Catholic Church realizes that the physical evidence
contradicts the doctrine of the real presence. To explain
this, it teaches that the "accidents" (qualities) of the bread
and wine remain, but that the "substance" (nature)
changes.(1373-1377,1413) But is it not the inward nature of an
object that produces the outward appearance?
There is no other "miracle" recorded in the Bible where the
outward evidences show that nothing has happened,
as the faithful are expected to blindly believe the opposite that
something has happened. God has never dealt
with mankind in that manner. Imagine Jesus saying a blind man was
healed when in fact he had no eyes still or
someone with no arm was healed still missing the limb. A
figurative interpretation of Jesus' words makes good
sense. His body need not be everywhere. The inward nature of the
bread and wine is consistent with its outward
appearance. Rather than physically consuming Christ, we
experience spiritual communion with him.
The Scriptures tell us that Jesus is now enthroned ruling in
heaven. His bodily return is yet a future event. The
Bible never ascribes more than one location to his physical body
at any given time. Their objection is Christ is
God? And God everywhere?" True, But this refers to his spiritual,
not physical presence. In Mt.24:23-24 we are
told if anyone says look here is Christ or there! Do not believe
it. If they he say he is in the desert or in the inner
rooms ( the glass case or a wafer) DO NOT BELIEVE IT! Can you
bring Christ down from Heaven from
where He sits? The priests say they can. According to God's Word
of truth, not mans tradition it says, "Say
not in thine heart, Who shall ascend into heaven? (that is to
bring Christ down from above)." (Romans 10:6-11).
According to the Catholic view they can do this, God now
incarnates again and becomes a wafer. The Scriptural
warning in Mt.24 applies. He doesn't put His power or grace in
inanimate objects. Christ is localized in a body
sitting at the right hand of God. Are we to take seriously that
we actually eat the Lord, that he is transmuted into
a by product just like food is in our body. This is like the
Hindu view of pantheism and is of a pagan influence
that God dwells in inanimate objects. Then we must assume that we
crush his body in our teeth and actually
digest it, which is repugnant to even consider.
In 1 Jn.4:2-3 it says "Every Spirit that confesses that Jesus
Christ has come in the flesh is of God" this means
only once he incarnated. John is writing after the resurrection
In Greek this denotes a continuous action from the
past continuing through to the future. In other words, the same
body that Jesus took at the incarnation is the same
body He resurrected in and dwells in forever. He does not become
many little wafers or bodies ,being called
down from heaven by a priest to be ingested and come out the
digestive track.(I'm sorry to be so descriptive)
He came in the flesh only once he rose in the flesh and continues
in a flesh body throughout eternity. He doesn't
put His power or grace in inanimate objects. Grace comes from the
person of the Father and Jesus Christ just as
the scripture states. Catholics need to trust in Gods word to
have the truth, not in their Catechism or traditions.
JOHN 6
Did Jesus institute the Eucharist as Roman Catholicism claims in
Jn.6?
In John 6, the Jews continue to resist Jesus' claims of being
divine. They challenge him to prove who he is by
bringing down manna from heaven as Moses had done. Jesus uses
their reference to the manna, the food which
was essential for their survival and life in the desert and
applies it figuratively to himself. He answers, "I am the
bread of life." Jesus uses eating in exchange to represent
believing. This is consistent all the way through his
illustration.
The day before he fed 5,000 and proclaims that he can give "food
which endures to eternal life."
Jn.6:26 Describes those that came after Jesus because their
stomachs were filled. Jesus tells them not to labor
for the food that perishes but for the food that endures to
everlasting life. This resumes a dispute with the
Jewish authorities about who Jesus is. They were already plotting
to kill him, because he was "making Himself
equal with God."
V.28-29 "What must we do to do the works of God?" Jesus answers:
"This is the work of God. That you
believe in Him whom He sent." They insist on a sign (today
Catholics ask for the same thing except there is no
proof for theirs, they must take it by blind faith)
V.32-33 The bread Moses gave was not the true bread, you don't
eat it."The bread of God is He Who comes
down from Heaven, and gives life to the World." Did Jesus body
come from heaven, or did God who is spirit
come?
V.35 " I am that bread. He who believes in Me will never hunger
or thirst." notice He does not say "He who
eats..." will not hunger or thirst. He is speaking to those who
reject him as the source of eternal life. He uses
bread as an analogy to illustrate mankind's need to believe in
him. Jesus never relates this to wine. The eating of
Christ, who is "the living bread which came down from heaven"
(6:51), is no more a physical act than the eating
of "every word that proceeds from the mouth of God it was
offering spiritual truth to the people that did not
understand.
V.41-42 The Jews wonder at His statement about coming down from
Heaven. Thinking he is speaking of his
body.
V. 47 "He who believes in Me has everlasting life." Here Jesus
points to himself as the source, by believing not
eating.
V.49 "the fathers ate the bread in the wilderness and they all
died," in v.50 he then points to himself as the
solution for death.
V. 51 "I am the living bread which came from heaven." He is
pointing to himself as the one who is God that has
eternal life to give. Jesus then predicts, "The bread also which
I shall give for the life of the world is My flesh."
The Catholic Church interprets this as a promise of the
Eucharist. Yet the context has nothing to do with the Last
Supper or physical bread. He is going to give His flesh for the
life of the world. WHEN? At the cross. HOW
MANY TIMES? Once. Not over and over on the altars.
Earlier, Jesus had identified himself as the bread of life. Now
he says he will give the bread, that is himself, his
own flesh, for the life of the world. Many other times near the
end of his life he made similar predictions.
V. 52-53 unless you are to eat His flesh and drink His blood you
have no life in you." the Jews begin to argue
with one another, "How can this man give us His flesh to eat?"
Because of their antagonism for Jesus ,they not
only rejected his teaching but lacked discernment to understand
when he was using an illustration.
This is not to be mistaken for flesh of a wafer coming from a
bakery of mans hands nor grapes squeezed by men.
It is his flesh and blood. "Unless you eat the flesh of the Son
of Man and drink His blood, you have no life in
yourselves." Rather than teach the necessity of receiving Holy
Communion, it speaks of the necessity of faith in
Christ. If you do not trust in his payment for sin on the cross,
you will not have eternal life in yourself.
V. 54 he says, "He who eats My flesh and drinks My blood has
eternal life, and I will raise him up on the last
day." " Moments earlier he had said, "For this is the will of My
Father, that everyone who beholds the Son and
believes in Him, may have eternal life; and I Myself will raise
him up on the last day."
Notice that the results are identical in both verses: eternal
life and resurrection. But although in the one we must
eat and drink, in the other we behold and must believe. The
results are identically the same, as are the actions to
obtain them are also: eating is a substitute for believing. His
figurative statements are easily understood when read
in the context of the other verses in this teaching.
V.55, he states, "For My flesh is true food, and My blood is true
drink." To make this as a teaching that Christ
is bodily present in the host is to change the focus interpreting
it out of context . Here again, Jesus is emphasizing
that he is the source of real spiritual life and nourishment. V.
58"...Not as your fathers ate manna and died..." (not
physical food but spiritual). Jesus had talked about the manna
that fell in the wilderness which fed them
physically and they died, but that he was the true bread who came
from heaven that if they ate would never die.
He was not saying that he would become a communion wafer later on
and if this bread was to be taken they
would never die. He is explaining to partake of his sacrifice in
a spiritual sense that would save the soul from
separation, which had occurred 2,000 years ago.
V.63 "It is the Spirit that gives life, the flesh profits
nothing. The words I speak are Spirit, it is they that are
life." Nothing could be clearer it is not literal but figurative,
he used a natural example to illustrate a spiritual truth.
We have seen that "to eat" is "to believe," and that the giving
of his flesh refers to his death on the cross. And so,
"to eat his flesh" or "to drink his blood" would be to trust in
the sacrifice of his life. It is to rely upon his death on
the cross as the payment for our sins. This interpretation fits
the context of the whole teaching. By the sacrifice of
his life, Jesus became the Savior of the world, he is the source
of eternal life not by the Eucharist. The savior is a
person salvation is not a thing that was created, this is the
intent of the discourse.
--
Melanchthon's Dictum:
"It is faith alone which saves....
But the faith that saves is NOT alone!"
James 2:26
"Right theology is no guarantee of a right
relationship with God. God is always greater
than our mental images of Him and our
Doctrinal Statements/formulas" - Warrren
Wiersbe
"Micah Burke" <klock...@NOSPAMhotmail.com> wrote in message
news:VCgQ5.554$3u4....@e420r-sjo2.usenetserver.com...
> > Baptism required to enter the Kingdom of Heaven - John 3:5
>
> Not required, Acts 10-11
>
> > Holy Eucharist: instituted by Jesus: Matthew 26:28, Mark 14:24, Luke
> > 22:17.
>
> Being bread and cup (wine), symbols of our fellowship (communion)
> with the Lord. 1 Cor. 11
>
> > Paul: 1Cor11:17-33, and the great proclimation: "This means that
> > every time you eat this bread and drink from this cup, you proclaim
> > the Lord's death until he comes."
>
> Yep, BREAD AND CUP. Not "toe of christ".
>
> > Power to forgive sins in God's name and the creation of the Papacy
> > (and read your bible carefully here - sentence following sentence):
> > Matthew 16:15-19.
>
> Says NOTHING about forgiving sins, however...
>
> Luke 11:4
> Forgive us our sins, for we also forgive everyone who sins against
> us. And lead us not into temptation. '"
>
> We apparently all have that ability!
>
> > And it goes on and on and on - the characteristics that Jesus set
> > forth for His Church and stated in His words are found in the 4
> > Gospels.
>
> Indeed, but the RCC is NOT that church! Instead it's a cult
> that worships his mother and men on earth!
>
> Micah
>
>
>
>
bam
unbelievers, where is the history of the *denial* of the Real Presence?
Those who have been brainwashed by cults like the Jehovahs Witnesses and
radical sects of protestant fundamentalism can't even see the forest for
the trees as far as scripture is concerned.
1 John 2:18 Children, it is the last hour; and as you have heard that
antichrist is coming, so now many antichrists have come; therefore we
know that it is the last hour. 19 They went out from us, but they were
not of us; for if they had been of us, they would have continued with
us; but they went out, that it might be plain that they all are not of
us.
... Who are those who "went out from us, but they were not of us?" Look
at John 6:
John 6:53 So Jesus said to them, “Truly, truly, I say to you, unless you
eat the flesh of the Son of man and drink his blood, you have no life in
you; 54 he who eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I
will raise him up at the last day. 55 For my flesh is food indeed, and
my blood is drink indeed. 56 He who eats my flesh and drinks my blood
abides in me, and I in him.
John 6:60 Many of his disciples, when they heard it, said, “This is a
hard saying; who can listen to it?” 61 But Jesus, knowing in himself
that his disciples murmured at it, said to them, “Do you take offense at
this?
John 6:64 But there are some of you that do not believe.” For Jesus knew
from the first who those were that did not believe, and who it was that
would betray him.
John 6:66 After this many of his disciples drew back and no longer went
about with him.
.... if Jesus was speaking symbolically why doesn't He explicate His
teaching like he did with the Leaven of the Pharisees?
Matt 16:6 Jesus said to them, "Take heed and beware of the leaven of the
Pharisees and Sadducees." 7 And they discussed it among themselves,
saying, "We brought no bread." 8 But Jesus, aware of this, said, "O men
of little faith, why do you discuss among yourselves the fact that you
have no bread? 9 Do you not yet perceive? Do you not remember the five
loaves of the five thousand, and how many baskets you gathered? 10 Or
the seven loaves of the four thousand, and how many baskets you
gathered? 11 How is it that you fail to perceive that I did not speak
about bread? Beware of the leaven of the Pharisees and Sadducees." 12
Then they understood that he did not tell them to beware of the leaven
of bread, but of the teaching of the Pharisees and Sadducees.
Is this only symbolic?
Matt 26:26 Now as they were eating, Jesus took bread, and blessed, and
broke it, and gave it to the disciples and said, "Take, eat; this is my
body." 27 And he took a cup, and when he had given thanks he gave it to
them, saying, "Drink of it, all of you; 28 for this is my blood of the
covenant, which is poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins.
Luke 22:19 And he took bread, and when he had given thanks he broke it
and gave it to them, saying, "This is my body which is given for you. Do
this in remembrance of me." 20 And likewise the cup after supper,
saying, "This cup which is poured out for you is the new covenant in my
blood. 21 But behold the hand of him who betrays me is with me on the
table. 22 For the Son of man goes as it has been determined; but woe to
that man by whom he is betrayed!" 23 And they began to question one
another, which of them it
was that would do this.
Not according to St. Paul the Apostle, A.D. 56:
1 Cor 11:23 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, 24 and
when he had given thanks, he broke it, and said, "This is my body which
is for you. Do this in remembrance of me." 25 In the same way also the
cup, after supper, saying, "This cup is the new covenant in my blood. Do
this, as often as you drink it, in remembrance of me." 26 For as often
as you eat this bread and drink the cup, you proclaim the Lord's death
until he comes. 27 Whoever, therefore, eats the bread or drinks the cup
of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty of profaning the body
and blood of the Lord.
Not according to St. Ignatius of Antioch - who was a disciple of St.
John the Apostle, A.D. 110:
"those who hold heterodox opinions ... abstain from the Eucharist and
from prayer, because they do not confess that the Eucharist is the flesh
of our Savior Jesus Christ, flesh which suffered for our sins and which
the
Father, in his goodness, raised up again" (Letter to the Romans 6:2;
7:1).
Not according to St. Justin Martyr, A.D. 150:
"Not as common bread or common drink do we receive these; but since
Jesus Christ our Savior was made incarnate by the word of God and had
both flesh and blood for our salvation, so too, as we have been taught,
the food which has been made into the Eucharist by the Eucharistic
prayer set down by him, and by the change of which our blood and flesh
is nourished, is both the flesh and the blood of that incarnated Jesus"
(First Apology 66:1-20).
Not according to Origen: A.D. 244
"I wish to admonish you with examples from your religion. You are
accustomed to take part in the divine mysteries, so you know how, when
you have received the body of the Lord, you reverently exercise every
care lest a particle of it fall and lest anything of the consecrated
gift perish. You account yourselves guilty, and rightly do you so
believe, if any of it be lost through negligence" (Homilies on Exodus
13:3).
Not according to St. Cyril of Jerusalem: 4th century:
"Do not, therefore, regard the bread and wine as simply that, for they
are, according to the Master's declaration, the body and blood of
Christ. Even though the senses suggest to you the other, let faith make
you firm. Do not judge in this matter by taste, but be fully assured by
faith, not doubting that you have been deemed worthy of the body and
blood of Christ" (Catechetical Discourses: Mystagogic 4, 22:9).
Not according to Theodore of Mopsuestia, 5th Century:
"When [Christ] gave the bread he did not say, 'This is the symbol of my
body,' but, 'This is my body.' In the same way, when he gave the cup of
his blood he did not say, 'This is the symbol of my blood', but, 'This
is my
blood,' for he wanted us to look upon the [Eucharistic elements] after
their reception of grace and the coming of the Holy Spirit not according
to their nature, but to receive them as they are, the body and blood of
our
Lord" (Catechetical Homilies 5:1).
VOJ
Too bad they have no idea of Christ, God and the last Passover meal of
Jesus.
It is the largest church of the false Christ.
VOJ
Theodore M. Seeber <see...@aracnet.com> wrote in message
news:Pine.LNX.4.21.00111...@shell1.aracnet.com...
> On Tue, 14 Nov 2000, VOJ wrote:
>
> > Theodore M. Seeber <see...@aracnet.com> wrote in message
> > news:Pine.LNX.4.21.00111...@shell1.aracnet.com...
> > > On Tue, 14 Nov 2000, Micah Burke wrote:
> > >
> > > > > NO Catholic believes what you said above. Only you and your
> > > >
> > > > or be batpized to be saved? Tell me, your answer determines your
fate!
> > >
> > > Sacraments. Grace, according to Catholic teaching, MUST come first,
> > > that's why we won't let unbelieving Protestants take the cup at the
> > > Eucharist. In fact, to take Eucharist without the conviction of faith
can
> > > be very, very, very dangerous.
> >
>
> term.
Tell that to God. Every word in the English bible is a made up word for the
original. There is no original for Eucharist in the context used today.
>
> Doesn't matter. The point is that sacraments
(passover)?
>are about grace. Without
> the grace of God, sacraments
Passover?
>mean nothing, or worse, are dangerous:
> 1 Cor 11:[28] But let a man examine himself, and so let him eat of that
> bread, and drink of that cup.
Passover?
> [29] For he that eateth and drinketh unworthily, eateth and drinketh
> damnation to himself, not discerning the Lord's body.
> [30] For this cause many are weak and sickly among you, and many sleep.
The same rules apply as always to observance of Passover.
>
> Thus in this case, the Baptist Church is more correct than the Catholic
> position in the argument: Since Baptists don't have the grace of the
> salvation of Jesus Christ, far better that they do not eateth and drinketh
> unworthily.
>
> I would not push a non-believing Baptist into the Eucharist, and neither
> would the Catholic Church, for to do so would cause the damnation of that
> person.
> Ted
Passover meal.
(it continued well into the first century as in the Book of Acts)
VOJ
Darel Finkbeiner <myt...@mailandnews.com> wrote in message
news:3A11B24E...@mailandnews.com...
>
>
> "Theodore M. Seeber" wrote:
>
> > Eucharist is merely Greek for Paschal, and Passover is the made up
English
> > term.
> >
> > the grace of God, sacraments mean nothing, or worse, are dangerous:
> > 1 Cor 11:[28] But let a man examine himself, and so let him eat of that
> > bread, and drink of that cup.
> > damnation to himself, not discerning the Lord's body.
> > [30] For this cause many are weak and sickly among you, and many sleep.
> >
> > position in the argument: Since Baptists don't have the grace of the
> > salvation of Jesus Christ, far better that they do not eateth and
drinketh
> > unworthily.
> >
> > I would not push a non-believing Baptist into the Eucharist, and neither
> > would the Catholic Church, for to do so would cause the damnation of
that
> > person.
> > Ted
> >
>
through
> the crazy header of this thread.
>
> For the record, I wouldn't want an unbelieving Baptist, or an unbelieving
> Catholic, to join us at the Lord's Supper. I also wouldn't want a
believing
> Baptist or a believing Catholic to take the Lord's Supper if they were
doing so
> "unworthily", without a mind towards the body of our Lord. It is the
purpose of
> the supper to proclaim His death until He comes again.
"This do in remembrance of Me" If one does not know Him, it is not a
remembrance. If one is not His, the same does not know Him.
There is no mystery except to legalists and cults.
I have yet to see a Baptist or Catholic Church that has a clue.
It has gotten to the point in So. Bapt Churches that they "MAY" have the
celebration of Christ's last Passover every three Months, "IF" it doesn't
interfere with some other program. Pot lucks at least twice a week are the
closest thing in a Baptist Church.
Further, the Baptist Churches continue a lie about the bible by serving
grape juice rather than wine at the "PRETEND" "supper". Baptists and
Catholics alike have made a complete farce of what they pretend to call
"sacraments" or "Holy observances".
VOJ
> On Tue, 14 Nov 2000, Micah Burke wrote:
>
> > > > > NO Catholic believes what you said above. Only you and your
> > > >
> > > > You most certainly do! Does a man have to partake of the 'Eucharist'
> > > > or be batpized to be saved? Tell me, your answer determines your
fate!
> > >
> > > Only AFTER Grace gives him the conviction of faith; faith in the
> > > Sacraments. Grace, according to Catholic teaching, MUST come first,
> > > that's why we won't let unbelieving Protestants take the cup at the
> > > Eucharist. In fact, to take Eucharist without the conviction of faith
can
> > > be very, very, very dangerous.
> >
>
> Protestants claim they believe the Bible. But then they go and claim that
> the Eucharist is not a sacrament. That makes them unbelievers in THE
> SACRAMENT OF THE EUCHARIST. Do try to keep up.
>
There is no such thing.
Even if it existed,one will not find any replica of it in a Catholic or
Baptist Church.
VOJ
> On Tue, 14 Nov 2000 11:38:28 -0800, "Micah Burke"
> <klock...@NOSPAMhotmail.com> wrote:
>
> >> >John 6:28-29
> >> >Then they asked him, "What must we do to do the works God requires?"
> >> >Jesus answered, "The work of God is this: to believe in the one he has
> >> >sent."
> >>
> >> So tell us, klockheeed, does this or does this not include His words
> >> in the 4 Gospels. You apparently think not.
> >
> >Um... lemmie see, I quoted from the book of John...
>
> Now try Matthew, Mark and Luke and all the other words that describe
> the characteristics of Jesus's church, the RCC.
>
> >You most certainly do! Does a man have to partake of the 'Eucharist'
> >or be batpized to be saved? Tell me, your answer determines your fate!
>
> Read John 3.5 and see where Jesus said that one must be [born with
> water and the Holy Spirit] (baptized) in order to gain Heaven.
Water = natural birth.
Spirit= see Eph 2:1
Leave the Catholic Church and Join the Elks or something. Same difference.
VOJ
> On Tue, 14 Nov 2000, VOJ wrote:
>
> > Have no idea of what the Passover is and what the Passover meal is / was
and
> > have no idea of the bread and wine significance in that meal? Jesus was
> > celebrating Passover meal with them and you have no idea what it's
> > significance was / is.
>
> Catholic Mass and how it is celebrated in Heaven: The Book of the
> Apocalypse of John.
Sure, I hear that from Mormons and the local Elks club all the time.
>
> > With all this, you and your cult dare comment using biblical quotes?
>
> We use Biblical quotes because it's quite apparent that the Baptists don't
> read the Bible.
>
Find out what the Passover meal was about.
VOJ
Non-Catholics read and understand. Catholics, being slightly retarded, by
definition, require someone to explain it in words never uttered by Jesus.
By Definition = Catholic teaching that only some are capable of
understanding and the masses must be taught by the "intelligent"
VOJ
Corky <cork...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:3A11D974...@hotmail.com...
> VOJ wrote:
> >
> > Have no idea of what the Passover is and what the Passover meal is / was
and
> > have no idea of the bread and wine significance in that meal? Jesus was
> > celebrating Passover meal with them and you have no idea what it's
> > significance was / is.
> >
>
> The following is a very long cut 'n paste of a lecture given by Dr.
> Scott Hahn on the very subject which you question. My apologies, in
> advance, for the excessively long post. However, if you care to read
> through this, I'm certain that it will prove to be very enlightening re
> the Catholic understanding of the Eucharist inasmuch as it relates to
> the Passover meal.
>
>
> SCOTT HAHN: THE FOURTH CUP
>
> The Sacrament of the Eucharist
>
Some gibberish by a Catholic trying to defend Catholics.
Two introductory statements discredit the whole.
"Sacrament of the Eucharist"
"Lord's or last Supper"
No Eucharist
Not a Sacrament
It was NOT His last supper.
It was a "traditional" Passover meal.
VOJ
bam <b...@digital.net> wrote in message
news:t151ffh...@corp.supernews.com...
> We know that the Real Presence was affirmed from the beginning. Now tell
me,
> unbelievers, where is the history of the *denial* of the Real Presence?
>
In the real knowledge of the entire Passover meal as understood by the early
church
Corky
> > >
> > > Have no idea of what the Passover is and what the Passover meal is / was
> and
> > > have no idea of the bread and wine significance in that meal? Jesus was
> > > celebrating Passover meal with them and you have no idea what it's
> > > significance was / is.
> > >
> >
> > The following is a very long cut 'n paste of a lecture given by Dr.
> > Scott Hahn on the very subject which you question. My apologies, in
> > advance, for the excessively long post. However, if you care to read
> > through this, I'm certain that it will prove to be very enlightening re
> > the Catholic understanding of the Eucharist inasmuch as it relates to
> > the Passover meal.
> >
> >
> > SCOTT HAHN: THE FOURTH CUP
> >
> > The Sacrament of the Eucharist
> >
>
>
You are free to accept or reject another's exegesis of Scripture. I'm
glad that you at least read the transcript that I posted. You did read
it didn't you?
Darel Finkbeiner
VOJ wrote:
> I have yet to see a Baptist or Catholic Church that has a clue.
> It has gotten to the point in So. Bapt Churches that they "MAY" have the
> celebration of Christ's last Passover every three Months, "IF" it doesn't
> interfere with some other program. Pot lucks at least twice a week are the
> closest thing in a Baptist Church.
> Further, the Baptist Churches continue a lie about the bible by serving
> grape juice rather than wine at the "PRETEND" "supper". Baptists and
> Catholics alike have made a complete farce of what they pretend to call
> "sacraments" or "Holy observances".
Wow... that's a little harsh. I'm sure there are churches you describe, there
is no set number of times we hold the Lord's Supper. Each local church
determines the number and times.
And, are you saying wine is not grape juice? Visit a winery lately? Ever look
at the product they make? Ever drink "new wine"? It's basically grape juice,
genius.
Your just as consumed as the Pharisees of Jesus day - in the physical. You want
His kingdom to be physical, not spiritual. Your eyes are still closed to the
truth.
Stephen Korsman
Seminary Student <NOSPAMro...@hawaii.rr.com> wrote in message
news:nZ1Q5.20948$nY.8...@typhoon.hawaii.rr.com...
> http://www.aloha.net/~mikesch/tbn.htm
Hi !
Michael Scheister's Bible Lite page and it's dishonesty have been exposed at
my website and sites linked from it.
People, please don't believe lies like this - do the research yourself. You
will be shocked to see how people are prepared to be so deceitful about
Catholicism just to discredit it and make their own religion seem better.
God bless,
Stephen
--
--
Stephen Korsman
skor...@global.co.za
Sites against Adventism:
http://members.tripod.com/SDAdventist/index.htm
http://members.xoom.com/SDAdventist/index.htm
http://www.angelfire.com/nt/sda2rcc/index.html
http://www.homestead.com/adventist/files/index.htm
Church of God site:
http://home.global.co.za/~skorsman/cog/index.htm
Main site / pro Catholic sites
http://home.global.co.za/~skorsman/index.html
The DataRat
"we won't let unbelieving Protestants take
the cup at the Eucharist"
Christians don't ~want~ your cannibalism
cup !
El Raton de los Datos
The DataRat
"Ah, so then grace is something you do!
(Buzzz! Sorry, wrong answer)"
Romanist will always deny generally that
they have a works religion.
Yet, every time they talk ~specifically~
about what they believe, it becomes plain
that Romanism is a works religion !
The DataRat
"Jesus's church, the RCC"
The Church of rome is a false
and apostate church ~condemned~
in Scripture !
The DataRat
Micah Burke
> >> Baptism required to enter the Kingdom of Heaven - John 3:5
> >
> >Not required, Acts 10-11
>
> Then why did Jesus himself say otherwise in John 3.5? I think you had
> better reread Acts 10 & 11.
John 3:5
Jesus answered, "I tell you the truth, no one can enter the kingdom
of God unless he is born of water and the Spirit.
Born of water refers to birth, the second birth is by spirit.
You must be 1) human (not angel) 2) born again.
This is a discussion of the two births.
Acts 10:44-48
While Peter was still speaking these words, the Holy Spirit
came on all who heard the message. The circumcised believers
who had come with Peter were astonished that the gift of the
Holy Spirit had been poured out even on the Gentiles.
For they heard them speaking in tongues and praising God.
Then Peter said, "Can anyone keep these people from being
baptized with water? They have received the Holy Spirit just
as we have."
Were these gentiles saved before their water baptism?
If you say "no" then you stand in judgement of God!
> >> Holy Eucharist: instituted by Jesus: Matthew 26:28, Mark 14:24, Luke
> >> 22:17.
> >
> >Being bread and cup (wine), symbols of our fellowship (communion)
> >with the Lord. 1 Cor. 11
>
> You mean that Jesus was sayings "kingees" and "aw shucks, I was just
> kidding" when this famous declaration at the Last Supper?
Time and again scripture declares the elements to be
bread and cup. We know this is symbolic of our
fellowship in the body of Christ, by which we
are partakers of the heavenly gift! You though
mysticise it futher, clearly showing your darkened
mind. The words bread and cup are mentioned
4 times in relation to the sup, it is a
PARTICIPATION in the body of Christ not
a consumation of his earthly flesh.
1 Corinthians 10:16
Is not the cup of thanksgiving for which we give thanks
a participation in the blood of Christ? And is not the bread
that we break a participation in the body of Christ?
> >Yep, BREAD AND CUP. Not "toe of christ".
>
> Toe??
Or any other part of Christ's physical body! The elements
are our PARTICIPATION in Christ's body (of believers and
in his life) not his actual physical flesh. Many disciples too
had trouble with this, cause they didn't understand, they
were thinking with their natural minds, just like you!
> Matt 16:19 - "I will give you the keys of the Kingdom of Heaven, what
> you prohibit on earth will be prohibited in heaven, and what you
> permit on earth will be permitted in heaven."
Still says nothing about forgiving sins, sorry.
> Maybe you perfer not to call that forgiveness of sins, but I don't.
A clearer translation will expose your folly!
Matthew 16:19 (NASB)
I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven; and
whatever you bind on earth shall have been bound in
heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall have been
loosed in heaven.''
> >Luke 11:4
> >Forgive us our sins, for we also forgive everyone who sins against
> >us. And lead us not into temptation. '"
>
> >We apparently all have that ability!
>
> Forgiving each other our transgressions against each other is not the
> same as sinning against God.
Exactly and scripture is clear on who can forgive that...
Ephesians 1:7
In him we have redemption through his blood, the
forgiveness of sins, in accordance with the riches of God's
1 John 1:9
If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just and will forgive
us our sins and purify us from all unrighteousness.
Luke 5:21
The Pharisees and the teachers of the law began thinking
to themselves, "Who is this fellow who speaks blasphemy?
Who can forgive sins but God alone?"
Do you actually read the bible, or just the scriptures
your men in robes tell you to read?
> And certainly if we don't even forgive each other, then we certainly
> can't expect God to forgive us for our sins against Him.
Indeed! Who forgivesus OUR SINS? You said it yourself
GOD! Heh... what a slip!
> >Indeed, but the RCC is NOT that church! Instead it's a cult
> >that worships his mother and men on earth!
>
> The RCC is undoubtedly and clearly that church. None other qualifies.
> Certainly no protest-ant church.
What a laugh... go back to your prayer beads and mary idols,
or repent and ask God to forgive you your sins.
Micah Burke
> Jesus.
The RCC is so concerned with mysticism and
mythology that the truth of God will not even
crack their hard exterior!
VOJ
Micah Burke <klock...@NOSPAMhotmail.com> wrote in message
Well, Satan was never influenced by truth.
VOJ
>
>
> VOJ wrote:
>
> > I have yet to see a Baptist or Catholic Church that has a clue.
> > It has gotten to the point in So. Bapt Churches that they "MAY" have the
> > celebration of Christ's last Passover every three Months, "IF" it
doesn't
> > interfere with some other program. Pot lucks at least twice a week are
the
> > closest thing in a Baptist Church.
> > Further, the Baptist Churches continue a lie about the bible by serving
> > grape juice rather than wine at the "PRETEND" "supper". Baptists and
> > Catholics alike have made a complete farce of what they pretend to call
> > "sacraments" or "Holy observances".
>
> Wow... that's a little harsh. I'm sure there are churches you describe,
there
> is no set number of times we hold the Lord's Supper. Each local church
> determines the number and times.
>
> And, are you saying wine is not grape juice?
There we go with the typical Baptist twisting of real truth.
Grape juice is really 99% water, why not serve water? How about grapefruit
juice.
> Visit a winery lately? Ever look
> at the product they make? Ever drink "new wine"? It's basically grape
juice,
> genius.
New wine is what Peter was accused of drinking. New wine is VERY potent and
NOT watered down. Don't give me the Baptist lies which require changing the
Greek or customs. New wine is still used in true Passover meals. It is
very sweet and weel over 20% alcohol (40 proof)
>
> Your just as consumed as the Pharisees of Jesus day - in the physical.
You want
> His kingdom to be physical, not spiritual. Your eyes are still closed to
the
> truth.
No, I am not consumed with false and disingenuos pretend half answers. The
Baptists mostly just follow the false Catholic traditions in regard to the
Lord's Supper. Change from real blod and flesh to spiritual blood and
flesh. ig deal, they still miss the point and make a little celebration
that doesn't interfere with the rest of the service too much. In most
Baptist Churches it is in the evening so as not to interfere with the other
goings on.
If we were to celebrate the equivalent of the Passover meal "in remembrance"
it wouldn't matter what the bread or wine or meat or grains or vegetables or
fruit were as long as each had a spiritual significance to all at the table.
The wine would have to be the best and sweetest "drink" of the time to
represent the passing over of our sinful nature with the blood of an
unwatered and unblemished lamb. The bread would be without additives or
special preparation (little biscuits or wafers), a bitter herb would remind
us of our slavery to Satan before being born again, the grain to remind us
of God's "manna". The fruit to remind us of the promised land of our born
again future in heaven. All of this in remembrance of Jesus' role in
creating every part of our lives.
I have seen more realistic observances with "c" rations and water by a group
of believers huddled in a forest than in churches.
Darel Finkbeiner
VOJ wrote:
> I have seen more realistic observances with "c" rations and water by a group
> of believers huddled in a forest than in churches.
Now you're just spouting. You complain about the elements used, then say it
doesn't matter what elements are used (which is our position). You say it's
physical, but then it is spiritual. You've confused yourself and simply want to
proclaim righteous indignation against others, but have no basis. So you start
making things up and contradicting youself when it suits your purposes. You are
too caught up in your own preconceived notions that you can't see the truth.
None of the "physical"ness of the Supper is what is important. It could be
saltines and Coke for all that matters. The purpose is not to "consume the
Lord" or any such nonsense. It is to remember and to proclaim His sacrifice,
His death. "As often as you do this" "Do this in remembrance of me." You
mistake a spiritual celebration for a physical party. Or some mystical
experience where God's grace comes down through the hocus-pocus of the priest
waving his hands and muttering some Latin. None of those things matter. It is
"to proclaim His death until He comes". That is its purpose. It provides no
other special grace than that which an individual Christian recieves when they
dwell on God and His sacrifice for our sins. It is this that motivates, it is
this love that compells us. It is why we hold the Lord's Supper.
Christ Himself and His Apostles instituted and recommended and encouraged us to
participate in this. I'll take His advice over yours.
9 volts
<klock...@NOSPAMhotmail.com> wrote:
>What a laugh... go back to your prayer beads and mary idols,
>or repent and ask God to forgive you your sins.
>
I can still feel the love, micah.
-9v
Micah Burke
> >or repent and ask God to forgive you your sins.
> >
>
> I can still feel the love, micah.
Glad, cause I'd regret not showing proper love for
those who are lost.
Micah
bam
"VOJ" <ver...@contractor.net> wrote
> bam <b...@digital.net> wrote
> > We know that the Real Presence was affirmed from the beginning. Now tell
> me,
> > unbelievers, where is the history of the *denial* of the Real Presence?
> >
>
>
> In the real knowledge of the entire Passover meal as understood by the
early
> church
>
And tell me oh clairvoyant one, how you came to know how the early Church
understood that there was no real presence, despite the dozen sources I
provided? Any evidence? (please remember - your ideas mean nothing)
BAM
S.T. Stevenson
Micah Burke <klock...@NOSPAMhotmail.com> wrote in message
>
> > >> Baptism required to enter the Kingdom of Heaven - John 3:5
> > >
> > >Not required, Acts 10-11
> >
> > Then why did Jesus himself say otherwise in John 3.5? I think you had
> > better reread Acts 10 & 11.
>
> John 3:5
> Jesus answered, "I tell you the truth, no one can enter the kingdom
> of God unless he is born of water and the Spirit.
>
> Born of water refers to birth, the second birth is by spirit.
> You must be 1) human (not angel) 2) born again.
> This is a discussion of the two births.
>
This is a possible, but not the only possible, interpretation. In light of
the many passages in the New Testament referring to the effects and
necessity of baptism, the more likely interpretation is that Jesus was
referring to baptism when He said "unless he is born of water." Here are
some of the passages on baptism that provide the "Scripture interprets
Scripture" context for John 3:5:
Matthew 28:19, "Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing
them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, . . .
."
Mark 16:15-16, "He said to them, "Go into all the world and preach the good
news to all creation. Whoever believes and is baptized will be saved, but
whoever does not believe will be condemned."
John 3:3-8, "In reply Jesus declared, "I tell you the truth, no one can see
the kingdom of God unless he is born again." "How can a man be born when he
is old?" Nicodemus asked. "Surely he cannot enter a second time into his
mother's womb to be born!" Jesus answered, "I tell you the truth, no one
can enter the kingdom of God unless he is born of water and the Spirit.
Flesh gives birth to flesh, but the Spirit gives birth to spirit. You
should not be surprised at my saying, `You must be born again.' The wind
blows wherever it pleases. You hear its sound, but you cannot tell where it
comes from or where it is going. So it is with everyone born of the
Spirit.""
Acts 2:38, "Peter replied, "Repent and be baptized, every one of you, in the
name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins. And you will receive
the gift of the Holy Spirit."
Acts 8:12, "But when they believed Philip as he preached the good news of
the kingdom of God and the name of Jesus Christ, they were baptized, both
men and women."
Acts 22:16, "And now what are you waiting for? Get up, be baptized and wash
your sins away, calling on his name.'"
Romans 6:3-4, "Or don't you know that all of us who were baptized into
Christ Jesus were baptized into his death? We were therefore buried with
him through baptism into death in order that, just as Christ was raised from
the dead through the glory of the Father, we too may live a new life."
1 Corinthians 12:12-13, "The body is a unit, though it is made up of many
parts; and though all its parts are many, they form one body. So it is with
Christ. For we were all baptized by one Spirit into one body--whether Jews
or Greeks, slave or free--and we were all given the one Spirit to drink."
Galatians 3:26-27, "You are all sons of God through faith in Christ Jesus,
for all of you who were baptized into Christ have clothed yourselves with
Christ."
Ephesians 4:4-6, "There is one body and one Spirit-- just as you were called
to one hope when you were called--one Lord, one faith, one baptism; one God
and Father of all, who is over all and through all and in all."
Colossians 2:11-13, "In him you were also circumcised, in the putting off of
the sinful nature, not with a circumcision done by the hands of men but with
the circumcision done by Christ, having been buried with him in baptism and
raised with him through your faith in the power of God, who raised him from
the dead. When you were dead in your sins and in the uncircumcision of your
sinful nature, God made you alive with Christ. He forgave us all our sins, .
. . ."
1 Peter 3:20-22, ". . . who disobeyed long ago when God waited patiently in
the days of Noah while the ark was being built. In it only a few people,
eight in all, were saved through water, and this water symbolizes baptism
that now saves you also--not the removal of dirt from the body but the
pledge of a good conscience toward God. It saves you by the resurrection of
Jesus Christ, who has gone into heaven and is at God's right hand--with
angels, authorities and powers in submission to him."
> Acts 10:44-48
> While Peter was still speaking these words, the Holy Spirit
> came on all who heard the message. The circumcised believers
> who had come with Peter were astonished that the gift of the
> Holy Spirit had been poured out even on the Gentiles.
> For they heard them speaking in tongues and praising God.
> Then Peter said, "Can anyone keep these people from being
> baptized with water? They have received the Holy Spirit just
> as we have."
>
> Were these gentiles saved before their water baptism?
> If you say "no" then you stand in judgement of God!
>
This is consistent with the Catholic doctrine of baptism of desire.
> > >> Holy Eucharist: instituted by Jesus: Matthew 26:28, Mark 14:24,
Luke
> > >> 22:17.
> > >
> > >Being bread and cup (wine), symbols of our fellowship (communion)
> > >with the Lord. 1 Cor. 11
> >
> > You mean that Jesus was sayings "kingees" and "aw shucks, I was just
> > kidding" when this famous declaration at the Last Supper?
>
> Time and again scripture declares the elements to be
> bread and cup. We know this is symbolic of our
> fellowship in the body of Christ, by which we
> are partakers of the heavenly gift!
It is not just symbolic of our fellowship in the Body, it is the actual
means by which we remain united in the Body following incorporation into the
Body by baptism.
>You though
> mysticise it futher, clearly showing your darkened
> mind.
Why not give a little credit, at least, to Catholics, who merely take Jesus
at His word when He said that the bread is His body and the wine is His
blood? Must taking the Bible literally necessarily indicate a "darkened
mind"? If so, a lot of Protestants are in big trouble. While the purely
symbolic interpretation is possible, Jesus' statements in John 6 do not
indicate a symbolic meaning.
The words bread and cup are mentioned
> 4 times in relation to the sup, it is a
> PARTICIPATION in the body of Christ not
> a consumation of his earthly flesh.
>
That "bread" and "cup" are used to refer to the Eucharist is not necessarily
determinative, as this use could be taken to refer to the appearance rather
than the reality, as demonstrated by Paul's warning concerning those who
fail to discern Christ's body in the Eucharist.
> 1 Corinthians 10:16
> Is not the cup of thanksgiving for which we give thanks
> a participation in the blood of Christ? And is not the bread
> that we break a participation in the body of Christ?
>
> > >Yep, BREAD AND CUP. Not "toe of christ".
> >
> > Toe??
>
> Or any other part of Christ's physical body! The elements
> are our PARTICIPATION in Christ's body (of believers and
> in his life) not his actual physical flesh.
Perhaps it would be worthwhile to mention here that Christ's physical flesh
is glorified, eternal, and divine, and that it is a great mystery how Jesus
remains both God and man in Heaven. Participation in the Eucharist is
participation in this mystery, as Christ's eternal being is made available
to believers, the means by which He nourishes the branches of His vine.
This is not ritualistic cannibalism, a charge brought against the early
Christians by pagans, but rather is participation in the mystery of the
Incarnation.
> Many disciples too
> had trouble with this, cause they didn't understand, they
> were thinking with their natural minds, just like you!
>
As has often been pointed out before, in other situations in which Jesus was
misunderstood He clarified His meaning, at least to His disciples. In John
6, although many of His disciples abandoned Him following His teaching, He
is not recorded as having offered any clarification or correction of the
understanding that He was speaking literally.
> > Matt 16:19 - "I will give you the keys of the Kingdom of Heaven, what
> > you prohibit on earth will be prohibited in heaven, and what you
> > permit on earth will be permitted in heaven."
>
> Still says nothing about forgiving sins, sorry.
>
> > Maybe you perfer not to call that forgiveness of sins, but I don't.
>
> A clearer translation will expose your folly!
>
> Matthew 16:19 (NASB)
> I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven; and
> whatever you bind on earth shall have been bound in
> heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall have been
> loosed in heaven.''
>
I'm not sure why you believe that the NASB translation eliminates the
possibility that the passage refers to forgiveness of sins. Perhaps you
would like to explain?
> > >Luke 11:4
> > >Forgive us our sins, for we also forgive everyone who sins against
> > >us. And lead us not into temptation. '"
> >
> > >We apparently all have that ability!
> >
> > Forgiving each other our transgressions against each other is not the
> > same as sinning against God.
>
> Exactly and scripture is clear on who can forgive that...
>
> Ephesians 1:7
> In him we have redemption through his blood, the
> forgiveness of sins, in accordance with the riches of God's
>
> 1 John 1:9
> If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just and will forgive
> us our sins and purify us from all unrighteousness.
>
> Luke 5:21
> The Pharisees and the teachers of the law began thinking
> to themselves, "Who is this fellow who speaks blasphemy?
> Who can forgive sins but God alone?"
>
> Do you actually read the bible, or just the scriptures
> your men in robes tell you to read?
>
Do you actually know what Catholicism teaches on this issue, or are you
winging it?
> > And certainly if we don't even forgive each other, then we certainly
> > can't expect God to forgive us for our sins against Him.
>
> Indeed! Who forgivesus OUR SINS? You said it yourself
> GOD! Heh... what a slip!
>
Winging it, as I suspected.
> > >Indeed, but the RCC is NOT that church! Instead it's a cult
> > >that worships his mother and men on earth!
> >
> > The RCC is undoubtedly and clearly that church. None other qualifies.
> > Certainly no protest-ant church.
>
VOJ
>
>
> VOJ wrote:
>
> > I have seen more realistic observances with "c" rations and water by a
group
> > of believers huddled in a forest than in churches.
>
> Now you're just spouting. You complain about the elements used, then say
it
> doesn't matter what elements are used (which is our position).
Don't lie. I complained about FALSE REASONS for ciertain elements and you
know that quite well.
>You say it's
> physical, but then it is spiritual. You've confused yourself and simply
want to
> proclaim righteous indignation against others, but have no basis. So you
start
> making things up and contradicting youself when it suits your purposes.
You are
> too caught up in your own preconceived notions that you can't see the
truth.
The TRUTH is in the fact that it was a passover meal and the physical
elements have spiritual significance.
Just because your Sunday school teacher didn't fill you in on the details
and you have been following the Catholic ritual with no physical OR
spiritual significance.
>
> None of the "physical"ness of the Supper is what is important. It could
be
> saltines and Coke for all that matters. The purpose is not to "consume
the
> Lord" or any such nonsense. It is to remember and to proclaim His
sacrifice,
> His death. "As often as you do this" "Do this in remembrance of me." You
> mistake a spiritual celebration for a physical party. Or some mystical
> experience where God's grace comes down through the hocus-pocus of the
priest
> waving his hands and muttering some Latin. None of those things matter.
It is
> "to proclaim His death until He comes". That is its purpose.
To you maybe. Jesus did not say such. Every meal and worship service is
to be that.
>It provides no
> other special grace than that which an individual Christian recieves when
they
> dwell on God and His sacrifice for our sins. It is this that motivates,
it is
> this love that compells us. It is why we hold the Lord's Supper.
Passover is a ritual designated by God. It is the only OT Instruction
continued in the NT.
>
> Christ Himself and His Apostles instituted and recommended and encouraged
us to
> participate in this. I'll take His advice over yours.
Participate in "this".
"This" is the Lord's Supper, (Passover meal), not a pretext based on
ignorance of the entire meal or lies surrounding wine vs other juice.
VOJ
Darel Finkbeiner <myt...@mailandnews.com> wrote in message
news:3A12F2C5...@mailandnews.com...
>
>
> VOJ wrote:
>
> > I have seen more realistic observances with "c" rations and water by a
group
> > of believers huddled in a forest than in churches.
I suggest you attend a Seder and study before you get into this any deeper.
When you attend a Seder, think of what Jesus must have been doing, thinking
and saying for each step.
>
> Now you're just spouting. You complain about the elements used, then say
it
> doesn't matter what elements are used (which is our position). You say
it's
> physical, but then it is spiritual. You've confused yourself and simply
want to
> proclaim righteous indignation against others, but have no basis. So you
start
> making things up and contradicting youself when it suits your purposes.
You are
> too caught up in your own preconceived notions that you can't see the
truth.
>
> None of the "physical"ness of the Supper is what is important. It could
be
> saltines and Coke for all that matters. The purpose is not to "consume
the
> Lord" or any such nonsense. It is to remember and to proclaim His
sacrifice,
> His death. "As often as you do this" "Do this in remembrance of me." You
> mistake a spiritual celebration for a physical party. Or some mystical
> experience where God's grace comes down through the hocus-pocus of the
priest
> waving his hands and muttering some Latin. None of those things matter.
It is
> "to proclaim His death until He comes". That is its purpose. It provides
no
> other special grace than that which an individual Christian recieves when
they
> dwell on God and His sacrifice for our sins. It is this that motivates,
it is
> this love that compells us. It is why we hold the Lord's Supper.
>
S.T. Stevenson
Micah Burke <klock...@NOSPAMhotmail.com> wrote in message
> > Life is in the blood, and that is precisely why we must receive Jesus in
> the
> > Holy Eucharist in order to have eternal life.
>
> Not according to Christ!
>
> Not participate in a ceremony, get baptized, drink secret fluid #2,
> say rosary to momma, but only BELIEVE.
>
> John 6:28-29
> Then they asked him, "What must we do to do the works God requires?"
> Jesus answered, "The work of God is this: to believe in the one he has
> sent."
>
And what did He tell us we will do if we love Him? (Hint - the word "obey"
is used.)
>
> But you foolish catholics, you think you can EARN God's favor
> by doing works? Don't you know that it is only by his grace you've
> been saved, through faith, and this is not of yourselves, but a gift
> of God? When you believe you ARE partaking of the blood and flesh
> of Christ, it's through that saving faith that you enter communion with
> God, not through a ceremony which merely represents it!
>
> Micah
>
>
>
>
VOJ
You didn't notice that Jesus ordered the PASSOVER meal to be held in the
upper room?
You didn't notice the admonitions of Paul about how to and not to have that
meeting (Passover meal)
You seem not to have the slightest idea of what it is about.
I don't give a knat's crap about what some politician called a Catholic
says.
Alan W. Craft
>> >What a laugh... go back to your prayer beads and mary idols,
>> >or repent and ask God to forgive you your sins.
>> >
>>
>> I can still feel the love, micah.
>
>Glad, cause I'd regret not showing proper love for
>those who are lost.
>
>Micah
Yadda!
Yadda!
Yadda!
Alan
akhena...@my-deja.com
The DataRat <dat...@home.com> wrote:
>
>
> "Baptism required to enter the Kingdom
> of Heaven - John 3:5"
>
> when He told the guy he'd be in "Paradise" ?
> (NASB)
>
> Or, maybe Jesus arranged for the thief to
> be baptized while hanging on the cross ?
>
> "Holy Eucharist: instituted by Jesus:
> Matthew 26:28, Mark 14:24, Luke
> 22:17"
>
> Supper. The medieval Romanist
> doctrine of Transubstantiation is NOT
> found in Scripture, however.
>
> Romanism ISN'T
> Christian, It's
> Pagan Idolatry !
>
> The DataRat
>
>
Thus saith the theological dwarf, The DataRat! AKA the God-hater! He
knows absolutely nothing about Roman Catholicism in particular and
Christianity in general. Just read his posts. You'll see how little
he knows about Christianity and Roman Catholicism.
--
__
( )
\/
/\
(__)
"O Sole god, like whom there is not other!
Thou didst create the world according to thy desire."
Hymn to Aton by Amenhotep IV
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
akhena...@my-deja.com
"Micah Burke" <klock...@NOSPAMhotmail.com> wrote:
>
> Indeed, but the RCC is NOT that church! Instead it's a cult
> that worships his mother and men on earth!
>
>
>
AND
In article <AVAQ5.29149$Ds3.2...@e420r-sjo3.usenetserver.com>,
"Micah Burke" <klock...@NOSPAMhotmail.com> wrote:
>
> What a laugh... go back to your prayer beads and mary idols,
> or repent and ask God to forgive you your sins.
>
>
Another example of your illogical statements. You have an unbroken
track record of posting contradictory statements. When one repents,
God automatically forgives. No need to ask God to forgive as you
demand in your closing remarks. I've read several of your posts
tonight. They're replete with inaccuracies and inconsistencies. Your
arguments are weak and contradictory.
S.T. Stevenson
VOJ <ver...@contractor.net> wrote in message
news:SRxQ5.336$jC4....@news.uswest.net...
>
> Theodore M. Seeber <see...@aracnet.com> wrote in message
> news:Pine.LNX.4.21.00111...@shell1.aracnet.com...
> > On Tue, 14 Nov 2000, VOJ wrote:
> >
> > > Have no idea of what the Passover is and what the Passover meal is /
was
> and
> > > have no idea of the bread and wine significance in that meal? Jesus
was
> > > celebrating Passover meal with them and you have no idea what it's
> > > significance was / is.
> >
> > Catholic Mass and how it is celebrated in Heaven: The Book of the
> > Apocalypse of John.
>
> Sure, I hear that from Mormons and the local Elks club all the time.
>
> >
> > > With all this, you and your cult dare comment using biblical quotes?
> >
> > We use Biblical quotes because it's quite apparent that the Baptists
don't
> > read the Bible.
> >
>
>
>
>
For a good understanding of the Catholic view of the relationship between
the Passover meal and the Eucharist, see:
http://www.ewtn.com/library/ANSWERS/4THCUP.HTM
http://www.ewtn.com/library/SCRIPTUR/EUCHARST.TXT
http://www.ewtn.com/library/SCRIPTUR/LAMBSUP.TXT
S.T. Stevenson
<jafr...@my-deja.com> wrote in message news:8uq27n$sa3$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
> In article <rd_P5.150$6C3....@dca1-nnrp2.news.digex.net>,
> "Kenneth Smith" <caio...@iamerica.net> wrote:
> >
> >
> > ----------
> > In article <3a102f6a...@news.earthlink.net>, duk...@earthlink.net
> (duke
> > LeBourgeois) wrote:
> >
> > >>to begin with. Since the biblical prohibition of eating/drinking
> blood is
> > >>based on the presence of life in the blood (Leviticus 17:10&11),
> even a
> > >>spiritual change on the wine and bread would make it biblically
> forbidden to
> > >>consume them. This being the case, it is anti-Biblical to claim
> that the
> > >>Communion bread or wine has either the physical structure of blood
> of human
> > >>flesh, or the "presence"/life of Messiah.
> > >
> > > Only if you are a Jew. Christ's death on the cross overides all.
> > > and that's in the bible.
> > >
> > > Besides, Jesus said it was so, and the NT says that this is the
> > > religious practice of the early Christians.
> >
> > Indeed, Our Lord used the blunt language He did in John 6 precisely
> because
> > of the Levitical passage cited above and because he knew his blunt
> language
> > would offend them. He came to be a cause for stumbling so that the
> proud
> > would be made fools and those who believed would be exalted.
>
> It is certainly an interesting belief that Christ came to be some
> kind of stumbling block -- I'd prefer to assume that Christ came to
> make God's message clear.
>
> Bread and wine were traditional foodstuffs of Christ's era. One
> of the more conservative interpretations of communion is a
> remembering of that last supper and Christ's upcoming crucifixion.
> We must keep in mind that the last supper preceded the crucifixion
> and Christ body and blood did not yet have meaning as such.
>
> > Life is in the blood, and that is precisely why we must receive Jesus
> in the
> > Holy Eucharist in order to have eternal life.
>
> is historically accurate. Transsubstantiation is a very modern
> invention of the Roman Catholic Church.
>
"Transubstantiation" is the application of philosophical concepts in
explanation of a spiritual reality, Christ's Real Presence in the Eucharist.
Christians have believed in Christ's Real Presence from New Testament times,
but the philosophical description of transubstantion was added in the Middle
Ages (it's hardly modern, by the way).
> -- Julie.
Rev. Steve Winter
>
> Born of water refers to birth, the second birth is by spirit.
> You must be 1) human (not angel) 2) born again.
> This is a discussion of the two births.
You should get the "Mr. Silly" award for that foolishness. Who
taught you that silly garbage, Mr. Silly?
I hope to herein expose one of the filthiest lies that false preachers
are teaching these days. If I seem emotional, it's just that I hate
to see people so deceived. In John 3:5, Jesus told a full grown man
that he needed to be born again of a spiritual birth which consisted
of water and spirit...(notice two distinct elements WATER and
SPIRIT)..
Satan has many misinformed, and some knowingly deceiving false
preachers that teach that the "birth of the water" refers to a man's
physical birth (since there is a watery fluid involved at birth).
That teaching is one of the cheapest, cop out, deceptions in Satan's
arsenal to deceive people about the IMPORTANCE of baptism.
John 3:5 Jesus answered, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man
be born of water and [of] the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom
of God.
Notice that Jesus was declaring what a MAN had to do (not a baby), and
that Jesus was referring to a RE-BIRTH; being BORN AGAIN. He could
not have been referring to the fluids of a baby's birth. HE was
telling a grown MAN how to be BORN AGAIN. Oh, it sounds real
convincing to look at it as "physical birth", unless you consider that
he was talking to a MAN, a grown MAN telling him how to be RE-BORN
(spiritually). And if that isn't enough to convince you, then just
look at how WATER and SPIRIT are BOTH elements in the plan of
salvation that was preached at the birth of the church:
Acts 2:38 Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one
of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye
shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost.
* Baptism is what washes away sins!!! Look at this next verse: *
Acts 22:16 And now why tarriest thou? arise, and be baptized, and wash
away thy sins, calling on the name of the Lord.
Then, if you are still not convinced let's look at another verse that
Jesus spoke (and I certainly pray that you will not suggest that a
non-believer would even consider baptism.)
Mark 16:16 He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he
that believeth not shall be damned.
* Look how the same God that said Water was part of the RE-BIRTH also
declared "and is baptized" How could the Bible be any clearer????*
Remember! Jesus was talking to a GROWN MAN telling him about a
RE-BIRTH, and as a matter of fact babies are born IN water NOT 'OF'
Water..* DON'T BE DECEIVED!!!!
Rev. sTeve Winter
--
"Winters, you are a blabbering heretic. In a truly godly
nation you would be executed for publicly promoting your
heretical doctrines." - Tom Albrecht trinitarian deceiver 2000
"Copyright infringement my ***" (obscenity deleted) - Brian Boggs cultist 2000
"lying to mr. winter is just a defense" - Mark Bassett UPC Preacher 1999
"It isnt a salvation issue..." - Mark Bassett 1999 regarding Biblical holiness
"Sorry old man. I never lie, if I, can help it." - Raymond W Knapp 2000
"...God is Triune in nature..." - Raymond W Knapp 2000
",I did get saved in a Southern Baptist Church," - Raymond Knapp 2000
http://www.prerapture.org PreRapture Ministry Apostolic Oneness Pentecostal
See reprobates Bassett and Knapp in action at http://www.impsmail.org
Rev. Steve Winter
>We know that the Real Presence was affirmed from the beginning. Now tell me,
>unbelievers, where is the history of the *denial* of the Real Presence?
I have a few catholic questions.
1. Which one of the statues has more power, and are they
specialized? IE Would you bother the Mary statue for a minor
car repair problem, or would a lesser idol work?
2. Do they kiss on the other bigger idols, like they do the
little cross idol? And does the "call no man father" guy wipe
the bigger idols between kisses like the cross idol?
3. Can the priests turn other food items into god, or does it
just work on cookies?
4. When the priests turn cookies into god, does it act as a
preservative? (possible uses in the food industry, much money
could be made for the poor)....
5. If a shrine has more than one Mary idol, will they function
simultaneously?
6. If the Mary idol is more powerful, and they will function
simultaneously, why not just use bunches of Mary idols?
7. Do bigger idols have more power than the little bitty ones?
8. Do ceramic idols have more "oomph" and "whammy" than little
plastic ones?
Thanks for sharing with us regarding the intimate details of
your devout faith and worship of little thingies.
ACTUAL Photographs of the holy trinity on display
at http://www.onenessapostolic.org/Sewers.html
Ray
"Stephen Korsman" <skor...@global.co.za> wrote in message
news:8uufvu$n20$1...@ctb-nnrp2.saix.net...
>
> Seminary Student <NOSPAMro...@hawaii.rr.com> wrote in message
> news:nZ1Q5.20948$nY.8...@typhoon.hawaii.rr.com...
> > http://www.aloha.net/~mikesch/tbn.htm
>
> Hi !
>
> Michael Scheister's Bible Lite page and it's dishonesty have been exposed
at
> my website and sites linked from it.
>
> People, please don't believe lies like this - do the research yourself.
You
> will be shocked to see how people are prepared to be so deceitful about
> Catholicism just to discredit it and make their own religion seem better.
>
> God bless,
> Stephen
I haven't been to that Lite page, but if it makes you write like this, it
must be good, and does expose the Catholic church for what it really is.
Just another church, that departed from the Bible near the beginning of its
history as a church.
Don't worry Stephen, I not go there, I already know the teachings that
discredit the Catholic church and most come from the Bible it self, it is no
wonder you all hate the "sola scripture" stuff, the bible does a wonderful
job all by itself to discredit the false teachings of Rome. Than what has
this to do with "Benny Hinn" in the Subject line?????
Raymond
Stephen Korsman
Ray <rwk...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:NXLQ5.11321$%j3.8...@news6.giganews.com...
>
> "Stephen Korsman" <skor...@global.co.za> wrote in message
> news:8uufvu$n20$1...@ctb-nnrp2.saix.net...
> >
> > Seminary Student <NOSPAMro...@hawaii.rr.com> wrote in message
> > news:nZ1Q5.20948$nY.8...@typhoon.hawaii.rr.com...
> > > http://www.aloha.net/~mikesch/tbn.htm
> >
> > Hi !
> >
> > Michael Scheister's Bible Lite page and it's dishonesty have been
exposed
> at
> > my website and sites linked from it.
> >
> > People, please don't believe lies like this - do the research yourself.
> You
> > will be shocked to see how people are prepared to be so deceitful about
> > Catholicism just to discredit it and make their own religion seem
better.
> >
> > God bless,
> > Stephen
>
> I haven't been to that Lite page, but if it makes you write like this, it
> must be good, and does expose the Catholic church for what it really is.
> Just another church, that departed from the Bible near the beginning of
its
> history as a church.
Obviously you have little knowledge of the Bible and of Catholic teaching.
Your other posts make me think so too.
> Don't worry Stephen, I not go there, I already know the teachings that
> discredit the Catholic church and most come from the Bible it self, it is
no
> wonder you all hate the "sola scripture" stuff, the bible does a wonderful
> job all by itself to discredit the false teachings of Rome. Than what
has
> this to do with "Benny Hinn" in the Subject line?????
Haven't a clue. Ask the original poster.
Darel Finkbeiner
VOJ wrote:
> Darel Finkbeiner <myt...@mailandnews.com> wrote in message
> news:3A12F2C5...@mailandnews.com...
> >
> >
> > VOJ wrote:
> >
> > > I have seen more realistic observances with "c" rations and water by a
> group
> > > of believers huddled in a forest than in churches.
>
> I suggest you attend a Seder and study before you get into this any deeper.
> When you attend a Seder, think of what Jesus must have been doing, thinking
> and saying for each step.
>
> >
> > Now you're just spouting.
see above.
What you're doing is trying to substitute the physical reality for the spiritual
one. You keep bringing up details of the physical things. They aren't what's
important. You can't base your faith on physical things. We might use physical
objects to help remind us and set our spirits in preparation, but it is not the
physical objects themselves. Scripture is very precise about the purpose of the
Lord's Supper:
1 Cor 11:26 "For whenever you eat this bread and drink this cup you proclaim the
Lord's death until He comes."
VOJ
Please find out what "Eat this bread" and "drink this cup" means. It isn't
what the Catholics taught you.
VOJ
S.T. Stevenson <st...@pacifier.com> wrote in message
news:3a136...@news.pacifier.com...
>
> VOJ <ver...@contractor.net> wrote in message
> news:SRxQ5.336$jC4....@news.uswest.net...
> >
> > Theodore M. Seeber <see...@aracnet.com> wrote in message
> > news:Pine.LNX.4.21.00111...@shell1.aracnet.com...
> > > On Tue, 14 Nov 2000, VOJ wrote:
> > >
> > > > Have no idea of what the Passover is and what the Passover meal is /
> was
> > and
> > > > have no idea of the bread and wine significance in that meal? Jesus
> was
> > > > celebrating Passover meal with them and you have no idea what it's
> > > > significance was / is.
> > >
> > > The significance is plain for all to see in the book that describes
the
> > > Catholic Mass and how it is celebrated in Heaven: The Book of the
> > > Apocalypse of John.
> >
> > Sure, I hear that from Mormons and the local Elks club all the time.
> >
> > >
> > > > With all this, you and your cult dare comment using biblical quotes?
> > >
> > > We use Biblical quotes because it's quite apparent that the Baptists
> don't
> > > read the Bible.
> > >
> >
> >
> > Find out what the Passover meal was about.
> >
> >
>
> For a good understanding of the Catholic view of the relationship between
> the Passover meal and the Eucharist, see:
>
Catholic view? No thanks, I'm a Christian.
Darel Finkbeiner
VOJ wrote:
> Darel Finkbeiner <myt...@mailandnews.com> wrote in message
> news:3A13EADC...@mailandnews.com...
> s. Scripture is very precise about the purpose
> of the
> > Lord's Supper:
> >
> > 1 Cor 11:26 "For whenever you eat this bread and drink this cup you
> proclaim the
> > Lord's death until He comes."
>
> Please find out what "Eat this bread" and "drink this cup" means. It isn't
> what the Catholics taught you.
Are you gnostic?
Stephen Korsman
Rev. Steve Winter <steve...@prime.org> wrote in message
news:kbt61ts41cqpb0tm2...@4ax.com...
> "bam" <b...@digital.net> spake thusly and wrote:
>
> >We know that the Real Presence was affirmed from the beginning. Now tell
me,
> >unbelievers, where is the history of the *denial* of the Real Presence?
>
> I have a few catholic questions.
I hope I can answer them adequately :-Q
> 1. Which one of the statues has more power, and are they
> specialized? IE Would you bother the Mary statue for a minor
> car repair problem, or would a lesser idol work?
A lesser idol, if blessed by a higher ranking cleric, will have the same
power as a bigger statue of a more important saint which was blessed by a
lesser cleric. There are other factors involved too. See below for more
details.
> 2. Do they kiss on the other bigger idols, like they do the
> little cross idol?
We prefer to kiss on one part of the statue until, over the centuries, it
gets worn out. Then we move to another part. But we will never kiss the
genital region, or the breast region of a female statue. That is sinful.
> And does the "call no man father" guy wipe
> the bigger idols between kisses like the cross idol?
Yes. With HIV and flu and herpes and fever blisters, we don't want to
spread infection. But if we get infected, there are other statues that will
cure that, so don't worry if the Father misses a spot.
> 3. Can the priests turn other food items into god, or does it
> just work on cookies?
Well, Elijah turned water into gasoline or some other flammable substance in
the Old Testament. Remember, he poured water over an offering, and left the
pagans' offering dry. Their gods could not light the dry offering, but the
God of Israel could light the offering drenched in water, probably because
Elijah turned it into gasoline first. Jesus turned water into wine at the
Wedding of Cana, but only because his Mother (an alcoholic, hence the great
following she has by drunken priests who try to live by her standards)
forced him to. Otherwise he would have upheld biblical standards of grape
juice only. I bet if our priests put their mind to it, they could turn lead
into gold - alchemists have failed, but they never tried doing it at a Mass
with special dresses and lots of statues around, and they never bowed to the
lead first. Maybe we should ask the Pope to try.
> 4. When the priests turn cookies into god, does it act as a
> preservative? (possible uses in the food industry, much money
> could be made for the poor)....
Yes. But because the Vatican wants to control the world, they are using the
hunger in the poverty striken countries as leverage. That is why they are
currently withholding the preservative in the Host from mass production in
poor countries.
> 5. If a shrine has more than one Mary idol, will they function
> simultaneously?
Yes, but only if they are different Marys - one can be an Our Lady Queen of
Peace, and another can be Our Lady of Perpetual Help. But two of the same
won't work at the same time. But they can take turns.
> 6. If the Mary idol is more powerful, and they will function
> simultaneously, why not just use bunches of Mary idols?
As I stated above, if they are the same Mary, they won't function at the
same time. But a whole bunch of different Mary's will definitely have a
more powerful effect - Jesus said that if two or more statues are gathered
together in one place, his Father is there with them.
> 7. Do bigger idols have more power than the little bitty ones?
All other things being equal, yes, that is the case. But one must also
realise that statues of more powerful saints, and statues blessed by higher
ranking clergy, will be more powerful than other statues of the same size.
The Vatican has decreed that, for example, a statue of Mary 8 inches high
and blessed by a Jesuit priest is as powerful as a statue of St Joseph that
is 20 inches high and blessed by a Franciscan priest.
> 8. Do ceramic idols have more "oomph" and "whammy" than little
> plastic ones?
Yes. The more costly the substance from which the statue is made, the more
powerful it is. If you make sacrifices to the statue, it also gets
stronger.
> Thanks for sharing with us regarding the intimate details of
> your devout faith and worship of little thingies.
You're welcome. Feel free to share with us your own details of how you
worship your own intellect and how it came about that God revealed the truth
to you and you alone, Pope Steve ! :->
> ACTUAL Photographs of the holy trinity on display
> at http://www.onenessapostolic.org/Sewers.html
Really ? Well, thanks a lot ! Now we know what our Gods look like !
Stevie, you're a star !
bam
"VOJ" <ver...@contractor.net> wrote
> You didn't notice that Jesus ordered the PASSOVER meal to be held in the
> upper room?
So this leads to the conclusion that Jesus' body and blood are NOT truly
present??
> You didn't notice the admonitions of Paul about how to and not to have
that
> meeting (Passover meal)
So this leads to the conclusion that Jesus' body and blood are NOT truly
present??
> You seem not to have the slightest idea of what it is about.
You evade the issue oh yellow one.
> I don't give a knat's crap about what some politician called a Catholic
> says.
Of course you do. You can't get Catholics out of you're mind.
BAM
>
VOJ
Is a real bible based, Jewish based and history based Baptist a Gnostic?
No.
I am trained in the history and traditions of
Jew,
Lutheran,
Catholic,
Baptist.
I find it very interesting how many can take what Christ said of "eating
bread" and "drinking of this cup" and separate it completely from all else.
I also find it interesting that Christ had a Passover meal (and probably
presided) at least 20 times in His life. It was more than slightly
important. Jesus on the very eve of His capture thought it necessary and
all the pseudo-Catholics can think of is a simple part of the unleavened
bread and the passing of a cup. Although these were (are) important, they
are not the meal or the complete significance.
Jesus did not tell them to go get some bread and wine. They prepared a
MEAL.
Ray
> > I haven't been to that Lite page, but if it makes you write like this,
it
> > must be good, and does expose the Catholic church for what it really is.
> > Just another church, that departed from the Bible near the beginning of
> its
> > history as a church.
>
> Obviously you have little knowledge of the Bible and of Catholic teaching.
> Your other posts make me think so too.
What is obvious by your remarks, is that you have little knowledge of the
Bible or the Roman Catholic teachings. Then this post was more like your
"lite page" and the facts are that the Roman Catholic Church is just that a
church that has long ago, left the teachings of the Bible for myths and
pagan teachings made to look Christian. A idol of stone, call it a image or
a icon, is still what the bible says, a Idol. Forbidden by God to all his
people. That alone would toss the Catholic out in the street, as far as God
goes.
Then old smart one, of little knowledge, show us that the Teachings of the
Roman Catholic Church today, are those of the Apostles in Jesus days on
earth, that would show, whom knows what about both these matters.
> > Don't worry Stephen, I not go there, I already know the teachings that
> > discredit the Catholic church and most come from the Bible it self, it
is
> no
> > wonder you all hate the "sola scripture" stuff, the bible does a
wonderful
> > job all by itself to discredit the false teachings of Rome. Than what
> has
> > this to do with "Benny Hinn" in the Subject line?????
>
> Haven't a clue. Ask the original poster.
>
Darel Finkbeiner
VOJ wrote:
No one disputes that. Are you saying Paul was wrong about the meaning? He was
a Jew, and I would think he understood what was going on from that
perspective. Yet, he never called it a Passover meal, and he also talked about
the significance as being something other than Passover. And this while
speaking to Gentiles, who wouldn't know all the ins and outs of Passover, so if
it were important, you would think that *as a Jew* he would explain that to
them. Yet, inspired by God, he did not equate it with Passover. In fact, he
disparaged the fact that they treated it like a meal in the physical sense. He
was very clearly not wanting them to do so, and he very pointedly did *not*
equate it with Jewish Passover. In fact, there is mention of what things the
Jewish Christians were trying to foist off on the Gentile believers. And
Passover was not one of the things they were told to observe. They were
exhorted in letters to abstain from blood and strangled meat, and from sexual
immorality. There are other things they were instructed both to do and not to
do, but usually followed or prefaced with "Use your own judgement".
The Apostles obviously thought something other than Passover was being done
that night. And they took very seriously the Lord's instruction there. And
none of them in the Scriptures equated it with Passover. They may have thought
they were attending yet another Passover meal, but once they arrived, and He
talked to them, they realized that it was for another reason entirely. He
leveraged the meaning of Passover, in that the sacrifice of the lamb, etc. in
communicating His mission to them. He was telling them that here was the
fullfillment of it. What Passover was a shadow of, what it was meant to
prohesy, was coming to pass, not just the supper but the actual Passover in the
land of Egypt had been a foreshadowing of a time when God would send His Son to
be our lamb, so that we would be passed over at the judgement day. Yes, He
leveraged all of this that night in their minds, so that they could understand
that the prophecy, the shadow, was over and that the reality had come. And
they understood that, and communicated it to the believers, that when we
celebrate the Lord's Supper, we are proclaiming that Christ has come and made
the sacrifice for our sins. A time to bring full upon us the meaning of His
sacrifice. And that using this means, we set our spirit's eyes on Christ, and
His sacrifice -- in that sense, He is really there among us, or rather our
attention is set on the fact of His very real presence.
So don't shoot off red herrings about whether it's wine or kool-aid or wonder
bread or whatever. The ritual isn't important. It is only a shadow of the
reality.
Col 2
8See to it that no one takes you captive through hollow and deceptive
philosophy, which depends on human tradition and the basic principles of this
world rather than on Christ.
9 For in Christ all the fullness of the Deity lives in bodily form,
10 and you have been given fullness in Christ, who is the head over every power
and authority.
11 In him you were also circumcised, in the putting off of the sinful nature,
not with a circumcision done by the hands of men but with the circumcision done
by Christ,
12 having been buried with him in baptism and raised with him through your
faith in the power of God, who raised him from the dead.
13 When you were dead in your sins and in the uncircumcision of your sinful
nature, [2] God made you [3] alive with Christ He forgave us all our sins,
14 having canceled the written code, with its regulations, that was against us
and that stood opposed to us; he took it away, nailing it to the cross.
15 And having disarmed the powers and authorities, he made a public spectacle
of them, triumphing over them by the cross.
16 Therefore do not let anyone judge you by what you eat or drink, or with
regard to a religious festival, a New Moon celebration or a Sabbath day.
17 These are a shadow of the things that were to come; the reality, however, is
found in Christ.
Darel Finkbeiner
bam wrote:
That's cute.. I agree he's just blowing smoke. But that's a cute one there
BAM. I gotta give you brownie points for that.
VOJ
>
>
> So don't shoot off red herrings about whether it's wine or kool-aid or
wonder
> bread or whatever. The ritual isn't important. It is only a shadow of
the
> reality.
>
So, with all the discussion, you come back to wine, the Baptist lie.
VOJ
> >
> >
> > So don't shoot off red herrings about whether it's wine or kool-aid or
> wonder
> > bread or whatever. The ritual isn't important. It is only a shadow of
> the
> > reality.
> >
>
>
>
P.S. I don't drink. Not because it is forbidden or the stupid
misapplication of "cause your brother to stumble", but because it is way too
expensive compared to many other good beverages. Good liquor is not cheap
liquor.
>
VOJ
>
> "VOJ" <ver...@contractor.net> wrote
>
> > You didn't notice that Jesus ordered the PASSOVER meal to be held in the
> > upper room?
>
> So this leads to the conclusion that Jesus' body and blood are NOT truly
> present??
They weren't then and they aren't now. Jesus did not break off a finger.
>
>
> > You didn't notice the admonitions of Paul about how to and not to have
> that
> > meeting (Passover meal)
>
> So this leads to the conclusion that Jesus' body and blood are NOT truly
> present??
Knowledge of other than cultist leaders is paramount.
>
>
> > You seem not to have the slightest idea of what it is about.
>
> You evade the issue oh yellow one.
>
> > I don't give a knat's crap about what some politician called a Catholic
> > says.
>
>
> Of course you do. You can't get Catholics out of you're mind.
They are tha saddest of the lost on earth. They also keep invading the
Baptist news group.
>
>
> BAM
>
>
>
>
> >
>
>
Darel Finkbeiner
VOJ wrote:
> VOJ <ver...@contractor.net> wrote in message
> news:FaXQ5.186$d06....@news.uswest.net...
> >
> > Darel Finkbeiner <myt...@mailandnews.com> wrote in message
> > news:3A140A6E...@mailandnews.com...
> > >
> > >
> > > So don't shoot off red herrings about whether it's wine or kool-aid or
> > wonder
> > > bread or whatever. The ritual isn't important. It is only a shadow of
> > the
> > > reality.
> > >
> >
> >
> > So, with all the discussion, you come back to wine, the Baptist lie.
> >
>
> P.S. I don't drink. Not because it is forbidden or the stupid
> misapplication of "cause your brother to stumble", but because it is way too
> expensive compared to many other good beverages. Good liquor is not cheap
> liquor.
>
Still caught up in the worldly? Did I ever say don't drink? Did I ever say
anything about it? Do I even care whether you use wine in the Lord's Supper or
not?
You are fixated on the physical elements. You think I'm trying to backhandedly
say wine is bad? I can't believe you're offended by something I've never said.
Wait, I guess I can believe it, but I don't understand it.
9 volts
<myt...@mailandnews.com> wrote:
>
>Still caught up in the worldly? Did I ever say don't drink? Did I ever say
>anything about it? Do I even care whether you use wine in the Lord's Supper or
>not?
>
Luv to drink, hate to smoke, and the wine in the lord's supper when
taken in the Church is not wine.
>You are fixated on the physical elements. You think I'm trying to backhandedly
>say wine is bad? I can't believe you're offended by something I've never said.
>Wait, I guess I can believe it, but I don't understand it.
I applaud you for your opinion on wine.
-9v
Stephen Korsman
Go and study Catholicism before you bash it. Then you won't look like a
fool. Or be considered a troll.
God bless,
Stephen
--
--
Stephen Korsman
skor...@global.co.za
Sites against Adventism:
http://members.tripod.com/SDAdventist/index.htm
http://members.xoom.com/SDAdventist/index.htm
http://www.angelfire.com/nt/sda2rcc/index.html
http://www.homestead.com/adventist/files/index.htm
Church of God site:
http://home.global.co.za/~skorsman/cog/index.htm
Main site / pro Catholic sites
http://home.global.co.za/~skorsman/index.html
Ray <rwk...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:kCTQ5.16351$wW2.5...@news1.giganews.com...
>
> "Stephen Korsman" <skor...@global.co.za> wrote in message
> news:8v0p67$r09$1...@ctb-nnrp2.saix.net...
> >
> > Ray <rwk...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> > news:NXLQ5.11321$%j3.8...@news6.giganews.com...
>
> > > I haven't been to that Lite page, but if it makes you write like this,
> it
> > > must be good, and does expose the Catholic church for what it really
is.
> > > Just another church, that departed from the Bible near the beginning
of
> > its
> > > history as a church.
> >
> > Obviously you have little knowledge of the Bible and of Catholic
teaching.
> > Your other posts make me think so too.
>
> What is obvious by your remarks, is that you have little knowledge of the
> Bible or the Roman Catholic teachings. Then this post was more like your
> "lite page" and the facts are that the Roman Catholic Church is just that
a
> church that has long ago, left the teachings of the Bible for myths and
> pagan teachings made to look Christian. A idol of stone, call it a image
or
> a icon, is still what the bible says, a Idol. Forbidden by God to all his
> people. That alone would toss the Catholic out in the street, as far as
God
> goes.
>
> Then old smart one, of little knowledge, show us that the Teachings of the
> Roman Catholic Church today, are those of the Apostles in Jesus days on
> earth, that would show, whom knows what about both these matters.
>
> > > Don't worry Stephen, I not go there, I already know the teachings that
> > > discredit the Catholic church and most come from the Bible it self, it
> is
> > no
> > > wonder you all hate the "sola scripture" stuff, the bible does a
> wonderful
> > > job all by itself to discredit the false teachings of Rome. Than
what
> > has
> > > this to do with "Benny Hinn" in the Subject line?????
> >
duke LeBourgeois
wrote:
>
>
> "This man on the cross with Jesus was
> under the Old Covenant, not the new
> covenant"
> Sir, there is ~only~ ONE salvific covenant:
> The Covenant of Grace !
> The DataRat
then you're saying you never heard of the Old Covenant.
None the less, the men on the cross were living under the Old
Covenant. The New Covenant essentially came with the death of Christ
on the Cross. All the original Jews were covered by the Old Covenant.
Hence these men on the cross were not baptized into the body of
Christ. Which is the New Covenant.
Admittedly a poor dissertation, but truthful.
duke
duke LeBourgeois
wrote:
>Too bad they have no idea of Christ, God and the last Passover meal of
>Jesus.
>
>It is the largest church of the false Christ.
>
Of course we do. After all, the RCC IS the Church that Christ
founded. We characterize his very words throughout the 4 Gospels, and
the ONLY church to do so.
duke
>
VOJ
duke LeBourgeois <duk...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:3a147520...@news.earthlink.net...
> On Wed, 15 Nov 2000 12:26:05 -0700, "VOJ" <ver...@contractor.net>
> wrote:
>
> >
> >Micah Burke <klock...@NOSPAMhotmail.com> wrote in message
> >news:V0BQ5.29214$Ds3.2...@e420r-sjo3.usenetserver.com...
> >> > Too bad they have no idea of Christ, God and the last Passover meal
of
> >> > Jesus.
> >>
> >> mythology that the truth of God will not even
> >> crack their hard exterior!
> >>
> >
> >Well, Satan was never influenced by truth.
> >
>
> And the RCC is exactly the characterization of the Church of Christ as
> He described in the 4 Gospels.
Not described there. Sorry. You've been fed a load of manure.
>
> duke
>
>
VOJ
> On Wed, 15 Nov 2000 10:59:19 -0800, "Micah Burke"
> <klock...@NOSPAMhotmail.com> wrote:
>
> >> Too bad they have no idea of Christ, God and the last Passover meal of
> >> Jesus.
> >
> >The RCC is so concerned with mysticism and
> >mythology that the truth of God will not even
> >crack their hard exterior!
> >
A lot more than you do and also a lot more than I wish were true.
Avoiding the total implications of the Last supper before Christ's real last
supper because it destroys your teaching?????
>
> duke
> >
> >
> >
>
VOJ
>
> >Too bad they have no idea of Christ, God and the last Passover meal of
> >Jesus.
> >
> >
>
> Of course we do. After all, the RCC IS the Church that Christ
> founded. We characterize his very words throughout the 4 Gospels, and
> the ONLY church to do so.
>
> duke
Dream on. It aint there and never was.
VOJ
> On Wed, 15 Nov 2000 10:51:30 -0800, "Micah Burke"
> <klock...@NOSPAMhotmail.com> wrote:
>
> >John 3:5
> >of God unless he is born of water and the Spirit.
> >
> > Born of water refers to birth, the second birth is by spirit.
> > You must be 1) human (not angel) 2) born again.
> > This is a discussion of the two births.
>
Are you admitting that you have no clue what Jesus said?
Alan W. Craft
>
>Darel Finkbeiner <myt...@mailandnews.com> wrote in message
>news:3A13EADC...@mailandnews.com...
>>
>>
>> VOJ wrote:
>>
>> > Darel Finkbeiner <myt...@mailandnews.com> wrote in message
>> > news:3A12F2C5...@mailandnews.com...
>> > >
>> > >
>> > > VOJ wrote:
>> > >
>> > > > I have seen more realistic observances with "c" rations and water by
>a
>> > group
>> > > > of believers huddled in a forest than in churches.
>> >
>> > I suggest you attend a Seder and study before you get into this any
>deeper.
>> > When you attend a Seder, think of what Jesus must have been doing,
>thinking
>> > and saying for each step.
>> >
>> > >
>> > > Now you're just spouting.
>>
>> see above.
>>
>> What you're doing is trying to substitute the physical reality for the
>spiritual
>> one. You keep bringing up details of the physical things. They aren't
>what's
>> important. You can't base your faith on physical things. We might use
>physical
>> objects to help remind us and set our spirits in preparation, but it is
>not the
>> physical objects themselves. Scripture is very precise about the purpose
>of the
>> Lord's Supper:
>>
>> 1 Cor 11:26 "For whenever you eat this bread and drink this cup you
>proclaim the
>> Lord's death until He comes."
>
>
>Please find out what "Eat this bread" and "drink this cup" means. It isn't
>what the Catholics taught you.
Oh yes 'tis.
Alan
duke LeBourgeois
wrote:
>
>Micah Burke <klock...@NOSPAMhotmail.com> wrote in message
>news:V0BQ5.29214$Ds3.2...@e420r-sjo3.usenetserver.com...
>> > Too bad they have no idea of Christ, God and the last Passover meal of
>> > Jesus.
>>
>> The RCC is so concerned with mysticism and
>> mythology that the truth of God will not even
>> crack their hard exterior!
>>
>
>Well, Satan was never influenced by truth.
>
And the RCC is exactly the characterization of the Church of Christ as
He described in the 4 Gospels.
duke
duke LeBourgeois
<klock...@NOSPAMhotmail.com> wrote:
>> Too bad they have no idea of Christ, God and the last Passover meal of
>> Jesus.
>
>The RCC is so concerned with mysticism and
>mythology that the truth of God will not even
>crack their hard exterior!
>
Too bad you obviously know nothing at all about the RCC.
duke
>
>
>
duke LeBourgeois
<klock...@NOSPAMhotmail.com> wrote:
>John 3:5
>Jesus answered, "I tell you the truth, no one can enter the kingdom
>of God unless he is born of water and the Spirit.
>
> Born of water refers to birth, the second birth is by spirit.
> You must be 1) human (not angel) 2) born again.
> This is a discussion of the two births.
Are you telling Jesus that what he said is not what he meant.
>Acts 10:44-48
>While Peter was still speaking these words, the Holy Spirit
>came on all who heard the message. The circumcised believers
>who had come with Peter were astonished that the gift of the
>Holy Spirit had been poured out even on the Gentiles.
>For they heard them speaking in tongues and praising God.
>Then Peter said, "Can anyone keep these people from being
>baptized with water? They have received the Holy Spirit just
>as we have."
Just as Jesus said. Unless one is baptized with water and the Holy
Spirit.....
> Were these gentiles saved before their water baptism?
> If you say "no" then you stand in judgement of God!
Only God knows the real answer to that one.
This baptism of water and the Holy Spirit is the New Covenant.
>> >> Holy Eucharist: instituted by Jesus: Matthew 26:28, Mark 14:24, Luke
>> >> 22:17.
>> >
>> >Being bread and cup (wine), symbols of our fellowship (communion)
>> >with the Lord. 1 Cor. 11
>>
>> You mean that Jesus was sayings "kingees" and "aw shucks, I was just
>> kidding" when this famous declaration at the Last Supper?
>
>Time and again scripture declares the elements to be
>bread and cup. We know this is symbolic of our
>fellowship in the body of Christ, by which we
>are partakers of the heavenly gift! You though
>mysticise it futher, clearly showing your darkened
>mind. The words bread and cup are mentioned
>4 times in relation to the sup, it is a
>PARTICIPATION in the body of Christ not
>a consumation of his earthly flesh.
So you're saying that when Christ raised the bread and cup of wine and
declared them to be his Body and Blood, and even though he said so
clearly, you're saying that he didn't know what he was doing.
Sorry, bud. You believe what you want, I'll believe Christ. I don't
understand how he did it, or why specifically, but He said it, and I
am thrilled to believe also.
The word "transubstantiation" was invented 500 years later to describe
this mystery.
>
>1 Corinthians 10:16
>Is not the cup of thanksgiving for which we give thanks
>a participation in the blood of Christ? And is not the bread
>that we break a participation in the body of Christ?
>
>> >Yep, BREAD AND CUP. Not "toe of christ".
>>
>> Toe??
>
>Or any other part of Christ's physical body! The elements
>are our PARTICIPATION in Christ's body (of believers and
>in his life) not his actual physical flesh. Many disciples too
>had trouble with this, cause they didn't understand, they
>were thinking with their natural minds, just like you!
>
>> Matt 16:19 - "I will give you the keys of the Kingdom of Heaven, what
>> you prohibit on earth will be prohibited in heaven, and what you
>> permit on earth will be permitted in heaven."
>
>Still says nothing about forgiving sins, sorry.
Sorry, bud. Jesus appeared to his disciples (behind locked doors)
and said: Jn 20:23 - "Receive the Holy Spirit. If you forgive
people's sins, they are forgiven; if you do not forgive them, they are
not forgiven".
>> Maybe you perfer not to call that forgiveness of sins, but I don't.
>
>A clearer translation will expose your folly!
good luck. See John 20:23.
>
>Matthew 16:19 (NASB)
>I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven; and
>whatever you bind on earth shall have been bound in
>heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall have been
>loosed in heaven.''
No body is at all, including and especially the RCC, claiming other
than the declaration to do so in the name of Jesus. Certainly not of
their own volition.
>> >Luke 11:4
>> >Forgive us our sins, for we also forgive everyone who sins against
>> >us. And lead us not into temptation. '"
Don't expect God to forgive us our tresspasses against HIM if we don't
even forgive other *people's* tresspasses against us.
Very clear.
>> >We apparently all have that ability!
Nope. You and forgive each other. Only the disciples were given the
authority in the name of Jesus to forgive or retain sins against God.
>> Forgiving each other our transgressions against each other is not the
>> same as sinning against God.
>
>Exactly and scripture is clear on who can forgive that...
>
>Ephesians 1:7
>In him we have redemption through his blood, the
>forgiveness of sins, in accordance with the riches of God's
And given to his disciples to do in his name - see John 20:23.
>1 John 1:9
>If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just and will forgive
>us our sins and purify us from all unrighteousness.
>Luke 5:21
>The Pharisees and the teachers of the law began thinking
>to themselves, "Who is this fellow who speaks blasphemy?
>Who can forgive sins but God alone?"
Exactly, and the disciples were give the ability tjo do so, but in the
name of Jesus only. Certainly not in and of themselves.
>Do you actually read the bible, or just the scriptures
>your men in robes tell you to read?
I'm asking you the same thing.
You don't actually think the RCC isn't sitting on rock solid ground in
it's professions, do you?
>> And certainly if we don't even forgive each other, then we certainly
>> can't expect God to forgive us for our sins against Him.
>
>Indeed! Who forgivesus OUR SINS? You said it yourself
>GOD! Heh... what a slip!
No slip - see John 20:23.
>> >Indeed, but the RCC is NOT that church! Instead it's a cult
>> >that worships his mother and men on earth!
It is the Church that Christ founded. You're living on thin ice right
now.
>> The RCC is undoubtedly and clearly that church. None other qualifies.
>> Certainly no protest-ant church.
>
>What a laugh... go back to your prayer beads and mary idols,
>or repent and ask God to forgive you your sins.
You better start reading the 4 Gospels.
duke
Seminary Student
"wafer" for the forgiveness of sin...
"VOJ" <ver...@contractor.net> wrote in message
news:fJ0R5.3598$M95.3...@news.uswest.net...
>
> duke LeBourgeois <duk...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
> news:3a14757e...@news.earthlink.net...
> > On Wed, 15 Nov 2000 10:51:30 -0800, "Micah Burke"
> > <klock...@NOSPAMhotmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > >John 3:5
> > >Jesus answered, "I tell you the truth, no one can enter the kingdom
> > >of God unless he is born of water and the Spirit.
> > >
> > > Born of water refers to birth, the second birth is by spirit.
> > > You must be 1) human (not angel) 2) born again.
> > > This is a discussion of the two births.
> >
> > Are you telling Jesus that what he said is not what he meant.
>
>
Seminary Student
Http://members.hawaii.rr.com/bibletruths/catholic.htm
Who wins?
"Stephen Korsman" <skor...@global.co.za> wrote in message
news:8v1md8$j67$1...@ctb-nnrp2.saix.net...
Seminary Student
Mike Gendron
Jesus said, "I tell you the truth, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of
Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you" (John
6:53). Are these words of Jesus from John 6:53 to be taken literally or
figuratively? The Roman Catholic Church teaches the
context of John chapter six is to be interpreted in a literal sense and
thus believes Jesus is giving absolute and unconditional
requirements for eternal life. The Vatican's literal interpretation forms
the foundation for its doctrine of transubstantiation -
the miraculous changing of bread and wine into the living Christ, His body
and blood, soul and divinity. Each Catholic priest
is said to have the power to call Jesus down from the right hand of the
Father when he lifts the wafer and whispers the words
"Hoc corpus meus est." Catholics believe, as they consume the lifeless
wafer, they are actually eating and drinking the living
body and blood of Jesus Christ.
In the most blessed sacrament of the Eucharist the body and blood,
together with the soul and
divinity, of our Lord Jesus Christ and, therefore, the whole Christ is
truly, really, and substantially
contained.1
The partaking of the Eucharist is essential to their salvation and a
doctrine they must believe and accept to become and
remain a Catholic.
The Church affirms that for believers the sacraments of the New
Covenent are necessary for
salvation.2
Prior to consuming the Eucharist, Catholics worship the wafer as if it were
Jesus Christ being lifted up.
"Worship of the Eucharist. In the liturgy of the Mass we express our
faith in the real presence of
Christ under the species of bread and wine by, among other ways,
genuflecting or bowing deeply as
a sign of adoration of the Lord." 3 "The Eucharist is the source and
summit of the Christian life. The
other sacraments are bound up with the Eucharist and are oriented
toward it. For in the blessed
Eucharist is contained the whole spiritual good of the Church, namely
Christ Himself." 4
If priests indeed have the exclusive power to change finite bread and wine
into the body and blood of the infinite Christ, and, if
indeed, consuming His body and blood is necessary for salvation, then the
whole world must become Catholic to escape the
wrath of God. On the other hand, if Jesus was speaking in figurative
language, then this teaching becomes the most
blasphemous and deceptive hoax any religion could impose on its people.
There is no middle ground. Therefore we are left
with a question of utmost importance: Was the message Jesus conveyed to the
Jewish multitude to be understood as literal
or figurative? There are at least seven convincing biblical reasons why
this passage is to be taken figuratively.
Counterfeit Miracle
No where in the Bible do we ever see a miracle performed where the evidence
indicated no miracle had taken place. Yet,
after the priest performs his super natural act of transubstantiation, the
wafer and wine look, taste, smell and feel the same.
It has the appearance of a counterfeit miracle because no noticeable change
has occurred. When Jesus changed water into
wine, all the elements of water changed into the actual elements of wine.
Then he told them, "Now draw some out and take it to the master of the
banquet." They did so, and
the master of the banquet tasted the water that had been turned into
wine. He did not realize where
it had come from, though the servants who had drawn the water knew.
Then he called the
bridegroom aside and said, "Everyone brings out the choice wine first
and then the cheaper wine
after the guests have had too much to drink; but you have saved the
best till now." This, the first of
his miraculous signs, Jesus performed at Cana in Galilee. He thus
revealed his glory, and his
disciples put their faith in him. 5
Drinking Blood Forbidden
The Law of Moses strictly forbade Jews from drinking blood. A literal
interpretation would have Jesus teaching the Jews to
disobey the Mosaic Law. This would have been sufficient cause to persecute
Jesus. 6
Any Israelite or any alien living among them who eats any blood, I
will set my face against that
person who eats blood and will cut him off from his people. For the
life of a creature is in the blood,
and I have given it to you to make atonement for yourselves on the
altar; it is the blood that makes
atonement for one's life. 7
Biblical Disharmony
When John 6:53 is interpreted literally it is in disharmony with the rest
of the Bible. "Unless you eat the flesh of the Son of
Man and drink His blood, you have no life in you," gives no hope of eternal
life to any Christian who has not consumed the
literal body and blood of Christ. It opposes hundreds of Scriptures that
declare justification and salvation are by grace through
faith in Christ.
For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith-and this not
from yourselves, it is the gift of
God-not by works, so that no one can boast. 8
It Produces A Dilemma
It is stated that the "eating and drinking" in verse 6:54 and the
"believing" in verse 6:40 produce the same result - eternal life.
If both are literal we have a dilemma. What if a person "believes" but does
not "eat or drink"? Or what if a person "eats and
drinks" but does not "believe?" This could occur any time a non-believer
walked into a Catholic Church and received the
Eucharist. Does this person have eternal life because he met one of the
requirements but not the other? The only possible
way to harmonize the interpretation of these two verses is to accept one as
figurative and one as literal.
It Was Figurative in the Old Testament
The Jews were familiar with "eating and drinking" being used figuratively
in the Old Testament to describe the appropriation of
divine blessings to one's innermost being. It was God's way of providing
spiritual nourishment for the soul (Isaiah 55:1-3;
Ezekiel 2:8, 3:1).
When your words came, I ate them; they were my joy and my heart's
delight, for I bear your name,
O Lord God Almighty. 9
Jesus Confirmed It To Be Figurative
Jesus informed His disciples there were times when He spoke figuratively
and He often used that type of language to
describe Himself. The Gospel of John records seven figurative declarations
Jesus made of Himself: "the bread of life" (6:48),
"the light of the world" (8:12), "the door" (10:9), "the good shepherd"
(10:11), "the resurrection and the life" (11:25), "the way,
the truth and the life" (14:6), and "the true vine" (15:1). He also
referred to His body as the temple (2:19).
"Though I have been speaking figuratively, a time is coming when I
will no longer use this kind of
language but will tell you plainly about my Father. 10
His Words Were Spiritual
Jesus ended this teaching by revealing "the words I have spoken to you are
spirit" (6:63). As with each of the seven miracles
in John's Gospel, Jesus uses the miracle to convey a spiritual truth. Here
Jesus has just multiplied the loaves and fish and
uses an analogy to teach the necessity of spiritual nourishment. This is
consistent with His teaching on how we are to
worship God. "God is Spirit and His worshippers must worship in spirit and
in truth" (John 4:24). As we worship Christ He is
present spiritually, not physically. In fact, Jesus can only be bodily
present at one place at one time. His omnipresence
refers only to His spirit. It is impossible for Christ to be bodily present
in thousands of Catholic Churches around the world.
When Jesus is received spiritually, one time in the heart, there is no need
to receive him physically, over and over again in
the stomach.
Jesus began the discourse by saying whoever comes to Him and believes in
Him will not hunger or thirst. Thus the eating
and drinking are symbolic of coming to Him in faith.
Then Jesus declared, "I am the bread of life. He who comes to me will
never go hungry, and he who
believes in me will never be thirsty. 11
There is another serious problem for Catholics who insist on a literal
interpretation. They must realize that after they have
consumed the physical body of Christ, it then decomposes during the
digestive cycle. This goes against God's promise to
never let His Holy Son see decay (Acts 2:27).
In conclusion, it is clear from the Scriptures that the words referring to
the eating and drinking of the body and blood of Jesus
are to be understood in a spiritual or symbolic sense and not literally.
Worshipping a wafer carries the same consequence for
Catholics as worshipping a golden calf did for the Israelites. 12
Footnotes:
1 The Catechism of the Catholic Church, (San Francisco, CA, Ignatius Press,
1994) para. 1374
2 Ibid 1129
3 Ibid 1378
4 Ibid, para. 1324
5 The Gospel of John, Chapter 2, verses 8-11
6 The Gospel of John, Chapter 5, verse 16
7 Leviticus 17:10-11
8 Ephesians 2:8-9
9 Jeremiah 15:16
10 John 16:25
11 John 6:35
12 Exodus 32
Seminary Student
Mike Gendron
Deception will always be exposed by Truth. Have you ever realized that you
could be deceived and not even be aware
of it? Those who are deceived will never know it unless they are confronted
with the truth. Many go to their grave
deceived about the most important issue we all face, and that is, locating
the narrow road that leads to eternal life. Who
are you trusting to show you the way and the truth to eternal life? What is
your source for truth? Is it absolutely
trustworthy? Will it protect you from the schemes and lies of the master
deceiver? The prophet Jeremiah gave us wise
counsel for choosing whom we should trust. He said if you trust in man you
will be cursed liked a bush in the parched
places of the desert. But if you trust in God you will be blessed. You will
be like a tree planted by water always bearing
fruit, whose leaves are always green. No worries or fears will come upon
you in a year of drought or when the heat
comes (Jeremiah 17:5-8).
Who will you trust? Many people disregard Jeremiah's advice and put their
trust in religious leaders. Catholics believe
that the Pope and the Roman Catholic Church accurately teach what Jesus and
His Word reveal. This can be a fatal
mistake. Those who disregard the objective truth of the Bible and rely only
on the subjective teachings of men leave
themselves open do deception. We know God would never deceive anyone
because He wants all people to be saved
and come to a knowledge of the truth (l Timothy 2:3). He gave us His Word
so we could know, understand and believe
the truth (John 17:17).
Would the Pope have a person believe what is not true? Maybe not
intentionally, but what if he was deceived by
previous popes who were also deceived? How do we know if any of the pope's
teachings or dogmas of the Roman
Catholic Church are true? The only way we can be 100% sure is to do as the
Bereans did --- check everything with the
Scriptures (Acts 17:11). If the apostle Paul's teaching had to be verified
for its truthfulness, it stands to reason we must
use the same standard for any religious leader. Unfortunately the elevation
of tradition along with infallible teachings of
popes to the same authority as Sacred Scripture has allowed deception to go
unabated in the Roman Catholic Church.
Popes and their teachings constantly change, whereas Jesus and His Word are
constant and never change.
The Apostle Paul revealed the source of all deception, "The Spirit clearly
says that in later times some will abandon the
faith and follow deceiving spirits and things taught by demons" (1 Tim.
4:1). You may be familiar with some common
deceptions taught by religious leaders today: heaven is a reward for those
who live good lives...water baptism is
necessary for salvation...purgatory purges and removes sin...the sacrifice
of the Mass can turn away God's wrath on
sinners...God's grace can be earned and purchased. Satan has used lies like
these to become the greatest "soul winner"
in human history. For two thousand years, the master deceiver has perverted
the Gospel of salvation by grace. His
ferocious wolves, disguised in sheep's clothing, preach counterfeit gospels
that seduce people who are ignorant of
God's word (Matt. 7:15). A counterfeit Christianity is Satan's ultimate
weapon, so he can, one day be worshipped as
Christ. His worldwide religious system is taking shape and unfortunately it
includes many people in our churches today.
All this should come as no surprise to those who know the Scriptures. For
this scenario was revealed by Christ and the
apostles as a warning of things to come. Jesus announced that right before
His second coming the deception will be so
convincing that even the elect might be deceived (Matt. 24:4,11,24). The
deceit will come from false prophets, false
teachers and false Christs, who will snare people from both inside and
outside the church. Peter warned people of
spiritual deception, "There will be false teachers among you. They will be
secretly introduce destructive heresies...and
will bring the way of truth into disrepute" (2 Peter 2:1-2).
Satan uses deception to prevent people from being saved. God uses the truth
to proclaim salvation to all who believe it.
Man is either saved by believing God's truth (Ephesians 1:13) or condemned
by believing Satan's lie. Satan blinds the
minds of unbelievers by perverting God's truth through false religious
systems (2 Corinthians 4:4). Any religion that
teaches salvation is obtained through human effort and merit is nullifying
the grace of God to its followers. We are saved
by grace, "And if by grace, then it is no longer by works, if it were,
grace would no longer by grace" (Romans 11:6).
The truth will set you free. How can we avoid falling prey to these subtle
and scheming impostors? Our only defense is
to experience the emancipating truth of Scripture (John 8:32). We must know
and live the truth. All teaching must be
filtered through God's Word. We are to use the Bible to lovingly correct
and rebuke all teaching that contradicts God's
inspired word (2 Tim. 3:16). The Scriptures must become our ultimate
authority in all areas of our faith. We must cling
to Jesus who came to testify to the truth (John 18:37) and who is the truth
(John 14:6). We are to stand firm with the
belt of truth buckled around out waists (Eph. 6:14). It is through living
the truth that we are sanctified (John 17:17).
Does the church where you worship submit to the truth of the Gospel? It is
of vital importance to God that you worship
Him in truth (John 4:24).
There are consequences for those who do not seek God's truth through His
Word. Those people who blindly put their
faith in religious leaders are most susceptible to deception. Many assume
that religious leaders would never seduce
anyone with a false plan of salvation. Yet Luke warned, "Even from your own
number men will arise and distort the truth
in order to draw away disciples after them" (Acts 20:30).
Other people choose not to let truth interfere with their lives. They turn
away from it and listen to teachers who say what
their itching ears want to hear (2 Tim. 4:2-4). Truth demands a response.
The choice is to believe it and conform, or
reject it and go our stubborn way.
There are people who are devoted to God, but do not know Him personally
because religious leaders conceal the
source and authority of truth. People who have been indoctrinated with
false teaching have difficulty believing the truth.
They are always learning but never able to acknowledge the truth (2 Tim.
3:7). Acknowledging the truth requires a
"turning away" from all unbiblical doctrines.
It was a lack of faith in God's purpose, plan and word that separated Adam
and Eve and their offspring from God.
They chose to put their faith in the deceiver, which brought spiritual and
physical death to us all. How divine for God to
use the very instrument that separated us from Him--faith, to restore us
back to Him. It is now through faith in God that
we receive His gift of spiritual and eternal life (Ephesians 2:8).
The object of our faith determines who we are --- a child of the devil
(John 8:43-45) or a child of God (John 1:12);
how we live --- as slaves to sin, or slaves to righteousness (Romans
6:16-18); and how we will spend eternity --- under
the wrath of God or in his loving presence (John 3:36). Faith in anyone
other than Jesus, and in anything other than His
Word will allow deception to creep into our lives. Those who follow the
traditions, opinions and philosophies of men
and reject Christ and His Word will be condemned on the last day (John
12:48). By contrast how wonderful are the
words of Christ that those who believe in Him shall not perish but have
eternal life (John 3:16).
Jesus and His Word teach...
You are saved by faith and not by works (Ephesians 2:8-9).
All who rely on observing the law (commandments) are under a
curse (Galations 3:10).
Salvation occurs at the moment you believe the Gospel (Ephesians
1:13).
Jesus purifies sin (Hebrews 1:3).
You can know for sure you are saved (1 John 5:13).
The sacrifice of Jesus is finished (John 19:30).
The Pope and his church teach...
You are saved by faith plus works.
Obedience to the commandments is a condition for salvation.
Salvation is a process from baptism through purgatory.
Purgatory purifies sin.
You are condemned if you claim to be saved.
The sacrifice of Jesus continues in daily Mass.
As you can see these two teachings directly oppose one another. You must
make the choice as to which is true and
which is deception. Your choice will determine your eternal destiny.
The DataRat
"then you're saying you never heard
of the Old Covenant"
The Covenant of Works wasn't
salvific. Just like the Roman Church's
works-religion ISN'T salvific !
Romanism ISN'T
Christian, It's
Pagan Idolatry !
The DataRat