Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

In Christ Alone (Happy reformation day)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ExnTlIM5QgE ^ | Getty, Julian Keith; Townend, Stuart Richard;

Posted on 10/31/2010 11:59:22 AM PDT by RnMomof7

In Christ Alone lyrics

Songwriters: Getty, Julian Keith; Townend, Stuart Richard;

In Christ alone my hope is found He is my light, my strength, my song This Cornerstone, this solid ground Firm through the fiercest drought and storm

What heights of love, what depths of peace When fears are stilled, when strivings cease My Comforter, my All in All Here in the love of Christ I stand

In Christ alone, who took on flesh Fullness of God in helpless Babe This gift of love and righteousness Scorned by the ones He came to save

?Til on that cross as Jesus died The wrath of God was satisfied For every sin on Him was laid Here in the death of Christ I live, I live

There in the ground His body lay Light of the world by darkness slain Then bursting forth in glorious Day Up from the grave He rose again

And as He stands in victory Sin?s curse has lost its grip on me For I am His and He is mine Bought with the precious blood of Christ


TOPICS: Prayer; Theology; Worship
KEYWORDS: reformation; savedbygrace
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-50 ... 6,151-6,2006,201-6,2506,251-6,300 ... 7,351-7,356 next last
To: kosta50; Forest Keeper; Kolokotronis; MarkBsnr; metmom; stfassisi; boatbums
How many times do you believe the words of Jesus were misunderstood, even by the Apostles?

How many times did you consider that perhaps he never uttered those words?

I have considered it, questioned it, denied it, and, finally, decided to accept Scripture as sufficiently accurate. Perhaps that is why I make no claim to Christian orthodoxy.

6,201 posted on 12/29/2010 2:03:17 PM PST by OLD REGGIE (I am a Biblical Unitarian?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6082 | View Replies]

To: annalex; metmom; 1000 silverlings; Alex Murphy; Belteshazzar; bkaycee; blue-duncan; boatbums; ...
Why isn’t Peter still alive then and the rest of the apostles who partook of the Last Supper with Jesus?

They are alive.

Judas? If Judas didn't partake of the Last Supper none of the Apostles did.

6,202 posted on 12/29/2010 2:11:28 PM PST by OLD REGGIE (I am a Biblical Unitarian?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6086 | View Replies]

To: annalex; boatbums; metmom
Did Paul exclude Mary! [in Romans 3:23]

Yes he did. In the same passage, even though you did not cite that part, he says "there is none that seeketh after God" and "The venom of asps is under their lips" and "Their feet swift to shed blood". I don't think that applies to a lot of people, not just Mary.

I'm afraid that makes no sense to me.

6,203 posted on 12/29/2010 2:21:51 PM PST by OLD REGGIE (I am a Biblical Unitarian?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6103 | View Replies]

To: annalex; boatbums; presently no screen name; bkaycee; metmom; RnMomof7
No one invented anything. The Church always taught that Mary was virgin all her life.

Absolutely false!

6,204 posted on 12/29/2010 2:24:25 PM PST by OLD REGGIE (I am a Biblical Unitarian?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6104 | View Replies]

To: Kolokotronis

“In fact, the whole passage, John 6:47-59, especially in the Greek, makes it clear that Christ was being quite literal about us eating His flesh and drinking His blood.”

If it is so clear, especially in the Greek, then such a meaning, literally eating and drinking of Christ’s material organism, should be clear to all who understand and read the Greek but such is not the case as the treatment of Matthews account (26:26) shows.

In fact, translations such as Weymouth’s, Moffatt’s, Barclay’s, Schonfield’s say the bread “means” or is a symbol signifies, represents, of “my body” quoting Jesus.

Both Thayer’s Lexicon and Vine’s Dictionary say of “drinking” Christ’s blood that it refers to being saved by his death.

Bias on the part of all these people? Perhaps to the degree that such can be charged to every scholar and translator.

Then how to determine the meaning, THE MEANING, not the literalness, of Jesus’ words?

By what happened subsequently. Did the bread of the Passover meal become Christ’s flesh and the Passover wine left over become Christ’s blood in the most literal way?

To justify saying “yes” it would of necessity have to, yet there is no hint that it did.
To justify saying that it did it must of necessity be shown that the bread and wine changed to flesh and blood at some point but the account gives no hint that it did.
In fact all agree that the bread and wine remained such in all perceptible characteristics so the final appeal is to “MYSTERY”, endless rationalizations, and “church fathers”.

Instead of holding the writers of the Gospels to a literalness that we don’t follow in English and need not be forced upon the Greek, why not simply recognize “estin” is also properly used to mean “represents” or “stands for” as at Matthew 13:37-39.

Possibly because once an institution has declared its self “infallible” how can it ever correct its self?


6,205 posted on 12/29/2010 2:39:27 PM PST by count-your-change (You don't have be brilliant, not being stupid is enough.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6147 | View Replies]

To: MarkBsnr
And what does Paul tell us to do? To follow the traditions whether oral or written of the Church!!!

You can't do any of those things without changing a word here or there; adding and subtracting...Or, without going outside of the context of what was written...Just as you did with this statement...

Paul told us to follow the traditions whether written OR oral of the Apostles which had been spoken...

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

Which had been taught and of course by Revelation of Jesus Christ...NOT some idea that will be invented in a thousand years to be called tradition put out by any or every religion that claims the name of Jesus

6,206 posted on 12/29/2010 2:45:12 PM PST by Iscool (I don't understand all that I know...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6191 | View Replies]

To: kosta50; metmom; D-fendr
Did Jesus break the OT law by eating His own flesh and blood at the time of the Last Supper?

"I have been following this discussion for quite some time now. Where does it say that Jesus ate and drank after those words?..."

Where does it say anyone ate and drank after those words?

6,207 posted on 12/29/2010 2:48:53 PM PST by OLD REGGIE (I am a Biblical Unitarian?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6143 | View Replies]

To: Iscool
Standing applause, sir.

You have stated it correctly. Now what are these traditions?

which ye have been taught, whether by word, or our epistle.

Notice the order - it is key. What word? The word of the Church. Not the Word - that is Jesus, but the word. What word? Since none of the NT has been written, it is ONLY by the word of the Church teaching the new Christians. And what are they teaching them? The Faith of the Church. Where is it written down? Nowhere. It is held in the great oral tradition of the Jews, only the information is that of Christianity, not Judaism.

The NT Scripture is a result of the Church, not vice versa. If you shape your man made Church according to the translations of translations of copies of copies of Scripture, you are liable to wind up with, well, whatever Rex Humbard or Rick Warren or James Bakker or.... come up with in order to fill the tents. Or the LaZBoy Throne in the Hall of Sunday Sports Worship...

Which had been taught and of course by Revelation of Jesus Christ...NOT some idea that will be invented in a thousand years to be called tradition put out by any or every religion that claims the name of Jesus

Put 1500 years in that message, and you're several steps closer to Christianity. Congratulations, sir. In all of our verbal jousting, I never thought that you'd come out with something this close to Christianity. I congratulate you.

6,208 posted on 12/29/2010 2:54:57 PM PST by MarkBsnr (I would not believe in the Gospel if the authority of the Catholic Church did not move me to do so..)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6206 | View Replies]

To: kosta50; Judith Anne
His followers left him, as you say, because they understood his words as literal cannibalistic implications and Jesus made no effor to dispel their impression.

Except He did explain it to the Apostles.

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?
62* Then what if you were to see the Son of man ascending where he was before? 63* It is the spirit that gives life, the flesh is of no avail; the words that I have spoken to you are spirit and life.


6,209 posted on 12/29/2010 3:01:55 PM PST by OLD REGGIE (I am a Biblical Unitarian?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6150 | View Replies]

To: OLD REGGIE; Forest Keeper; Kolokotronis; MarkBsnr; metmom; stfassisi; boatbums

Fair enough. What makes you think the Apostles misunderstood Jesus and you don't?

6,210 posted on 12/29/2010 3:06:11 PM PST by kosta50 (God is tired of repenting -- Jeremiah 15:6, KJV)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6201 | View Replies]

To: OLD REGGIE

This passage does not speak to the Real Presence - which is spiritual nourishment, in the substance of the Holy Eucharist.


6,211 posted on 12/29/2010 3:14:41 PM PST by D-fendr (Deus non alligatur sacramentis sed nos alligamur.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6209 | View Replies]

To: count-your-change; Kolokotronis
Instead of holding the writers of the Gospels to a literalness that we don’t follow in English and need not be forced upon the Greek, why not simply recognize “estin” is also properly used to mean “represents” or “stands for” as at Matthew 13:37-39.

Εστιν means "represents"? LOL! In what translation?

Possibly because once an institution has declared its self “infallible” how can it ever correct its self?

You mean like the Bible?

6,212 posted on 12/29/2010 3:15:58 PM PST by kosta50 (God is tired of repenting -- Jeremiah 15:6, KJV)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6205 | View Replies]

To: D-fendr; presently no screen name
But here you are expounding your own new tradition contrary to the Apostles and the Church for two thousand years.

“Therefore, brethren, stand fast, and hold the traditions which ye have been taught, whether by word, or our epistle.”

Please allow me to fix that Scripture:

“Therefore, brethren, stand fast, and hold the traditions which ye have been taught, even tradition we invent as required, whether by word, or our epistle.” There. That's better.

6,213 posted on 12/29/2010 3:16:17 PM PST by OLD REGGIE (I am a Biblical Unitarian?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6172 | View Replies]

To: MarkBsnr
Notice the order - it is key. What word? The word of the Church. Not the Word - that is Jesus, but the word. What word? Since none of the NT has been written, it is ONLY by the word of the Church teaching the new Christians.

And what are they teaching them? The Faith of the Church. Where is it written down? Nowhere. It is held in the great oral tradition of the Jews, only the information is that of Christianity, not Judaism.

You don't even make it thru the 1st sentence without distorting the truth...Again...

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

Epistle=written New Testament scripture...Paul indicates that parts of the written New Testament were being circulated and these traditions are being recorded into scripture...And this is confirmed by the Apostle Peter...

And since I and all other Christians were put into the Church BY GOD when we believed, as the scripture states, and membership in your requires the 'good works' of your sacraments, a year of indoctrination and approval by your clerics, it is clear that your religion is not the Church of the Bible...

6,214 posted on 12/29/2010 3:16:41 PM PST by Iscool (I don't understand all that I know...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6208 | View Replies]

To: OLD REGGIE; metmom; D-fendr
Where does it say anyone ate and drank after those words?

Where does it say they refused?

6,215 posted on 12/29/2010 3:17:59 PM PST by kosta50 (God is tired of repenting -- Jeremiah 15:6, KJV)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6207 | View Replies]

To: OLD REGGIE
Please allow me to fix that Scripture.

Nope. Not on your authority. Except of course for your own personal church if you wish.

6,216 posted on 12/29/2010 3:19:40 PM PST by D-fendr (Deus non alligatur sacramentis sed nos alligamur.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6213 | View Replies]

To: OLD REGGIE

Well, actually here in Mark it does.

Mark 14:22 And as they were eating, he took bread, and after blessing it broke it and gave it to them, and said, “Take; this is my body.” 23And he took a cup, and when he had given thanks he gave it to them, and they all drank of it. 24And he said to them, “This is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many. 25Truly, I say to you, I will not drink again of the fruit of the vine until that day when I drink it new in the kingdom of God.”

It says *all* therefore Jesus, being with them, drank it as well.

That still leaves the questions....

If it was His blood in the cup,

Did Jesus actually drink His own blood and break the Law He said He came to fulfill?

Did the disciples drink it thinking that they were drinking blood?

If they thought it was blood, would they have drank it?

Would Jesus have commanded them to drink it in violation of the Law?

The only way this works if it was still wine and the disciples understood it to be such and the ceremony was one of remembrance, just as the Passover meal was of the first Passover.


6,217 posted on 12/29/2010 3:21:01 PM PST by metmom (Welfare was never meant to be a career choice.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6207 | View Replies]

To: D-fendr
This passage does not speak to the Real Presence - which is spiritual nourishment, in the substance of the Holy Eucharist.

All the other Catholics tell us that the bread and wine are literally, physically the flesh and blood of Jesus...

But how do you get spirituality transferred from your stomach to your heart/soul???

6,218 posted on 12/29/2010 3:21:18 PM PST by Iscool (I don't understand all that I know...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6211 | View Replies]

To: kosta50; OLD REGGIE; metmom

The question gets a bit silly: Did Christ enter into communion with Christ.

More than a tad moot.


6,219 posted on 12/29/2010 3:24:13 PM PST by D-fendr (Deus non alligatur sacramentis sed nos alligamur.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6215 | View Replies]

To: D-fendr; 1000 silverlings; Alex Murphy; bkaycee; blue-duncan; boatbums; caww; count-your-change; ...

John 6:35 Jesus said to them, “I am the bread of life; whoever comes to me shall not hunger, and whoever believes in me shall never thirst.

Do you get hungry again after having eaten communion? Thirsty?

Jesus said that whoever comes to Him and believes in Him will never hunger or thirst. Don’t you believe Jesus own words?


6,220 posted on 12/29/2010 3:26:28 PM PST by metmom (Welfare was never meant to be a career choice.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6211 | View Replies]

To: OLD REGGIE; Judith Anne
John 6:63 It is the spirit that gives life, the flesh is of no avail; the words that I have spoken to you are spirit and life

Oh wait, so the words are the spirit, oh wait, the water, no, no the blood, no, the flesh...no, you just have to believe, etc., etc. Gee!

And then it says a couple of verses further (Jn. 6:65): "And he said, Therefore said I unto you, that no man can come unto me, except it were given unto him of my Father."

So, all this eating and drinking is useless...

Now maybe you can begin to see why they say "John's" Gospel is heavily interpolated.

6,221 posted on 12/29/2010 3:26:42 PM PST by kosta50 (God is tired of repenting -- Jeremiah 15:6, KJV)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6209 | View Replies]

To: kosta50
Fair enough. What makes you think the Apostles misunderstood Jesus and you don't?

My tag used to read "I know nothing." And that's the truth.

6,222 posted on 12/29/2010 3:29:31 PM PST by OLD REGGIE (I am a Biblical Unitarian?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6210 | View Replies]

To: Iscool
Catholics tell us that the bread and wine are literally, physically the flesh and blood of Jesus

If you are interested in the specific material aspect and want the Western description in philosophical terms see "substance and accidents." The bread and wine retain their accidents, but are changed in substance. In the East, the Real Presence just is.

But how do you get spirituality transferred from your stomach to your heart/soul???

By the words of Christ and the invocation of the Holy Spirit.

It's a Sacrament, like Baptism. You might as well ask: When you get wet, how do you get spirituality transferred from your skin to your heart/soul?

6,223 posted on 12/29/2010 3:30:00 PM PST by D-fendr (Deus non alligatur sacramentis sed nos alligamur.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6218 | View Replies]

To: Iscool

And at the end of John 6 that the Catholics like to quote so much to support their cannibalistic rituals, Jesus says this....

John 6:63
It is the Spirit who gives life; the flesh is no help at all. The words that I have spoken to you are spirit and life.

It gets back to the free and loose rules of interpretation that Catholics use, cherry picking which sentences to take literally out of one passage and which ones to take figuratively. All depending on what doctrine they wish to support at the moment.


6,224 posted on 12/29/2010 3:32:33 PM PST by metmom (Welfare was never meant to be a career choice.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6218 | View Replies]

To: metmom

In the direction you lead others to all is metaphor. Including the Incarnation.


6,225 posted on 12/29/2010 3:35:07 PM PST by D-fendr (Deus non alligatur sacramentis sed nos alligamur.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6220 | View Replies]

To: metmom
Well, actually here in Mark it does.

Mark 14:22 And as they were eating, he took bread, and after blessing it broke it and gave it to them, and said, “Take; this is my body.” 23And he took a cup, and when he had given thanks he gave it to them, and they all drank of it. 24And he said to them, “This is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many. 25Truly, I say to you, I will not drink again of the fruit of the vine until that day when I drink it new in the kingdom of God.”

It says *all* therefore Jesus, being with them, drank it as well.

I stand corrected.

6,226 posted on 12/29/2010 3:35:40 PM PST by OLD REGGIE (I am a Biblical Unitarian?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6217 | View Replies]

To: D-fendr
It's a Sacrament, like Baptism. You might as well ask: When you get wet, how do you get spirituality transferred from your skin to your heart/soul?

In other words, you don't know...

6,227 posted on 12/29/2010 3:38:52 PM PST by Iscool (I don't understand all that I know...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6223 | View Replies]

To: metmom; OLD REGGIE
It says *all* therefore Jesus, being with them, drank it as well

The blood was offered to the disciples. Jesus had no reason to drink his own blood, hello! he didn't have to do that in memory of him, LOL.

Would Jesus have commanded them to drink it in violation of the Law?

He told them to violate the Law in other instances.

The only way this works if it was still wine and the disciples understood it to be such and the ceremony was one of remembrance, just as the Passover meal was of the first Passover

First Passover, like any subsequent Passover is a real meal, not just the remembering of the lamb. They eat the same thing they believe Passover Jews ate. Besides, the comparison is moot; the Passover sacrifice was not a sin sacrifice. For sin sacrifice, a goat (instead of a lamb) is used on Yom Kippur, and the goat is usually not killed.

6,228 posted on 12/29/2010 3:42:54 PM PST by kosta50 (God is tired of repenting -- Jeremiah 15:6, KJV)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6217 | View Replies]

To: Iscool

I answered your question specifically. By the words of Christ and the power of the Holy Spirit.

If you know further, then it is in your answer to the same question about Baptism.


6,229 posted on 12/29/2010 3:43:46 PM PST by D-fendr (Deus non alligatur sacramentis sed nos alligamur.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6227 | View Replies]

To: D-fendr; OLD REGGIE; metmom
The question gets a bit silly: Did Christ enter into communion with Christ. More than a tad moot.

Absolutely. I just made the same point. You beat me to it. To even think that Jesus would partake in this is the joke of the week.

6,230 posted on 12/29/2010 3:45:12 PM PST by kosta50 (God is tired of repenting -- Jeremiah 15:6, KJV)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6219 | View Replies]

To: D-fendr
I have no tradition.....Sure you do. Sola scriptura at the least.

So now God's Word is tradition to you? How low will the RCC teachings go - deception begets deception and comes from the pit and will return to the pit from whence it comes.

only the pure Word of God.......As you read it.

WRONG! the pur Word of God AS IT IS. YOU can only read it because HIS WORD is spiritually discerned and 'natural man' is not equipped to comprehend it. And your posts prove that over and over.

your [sic] dismissed His Words - the Scripture I posted....And you mine.

Dismiss 'man's words? Absolutely. While YOU DISMISS GOD'S Word.

We disagree on the meaning of Scripture. Now what? Who determines what is the true doctrines of faith? You?

We can't agree - you with your worldly man made teaching cannot understand the Word of GOD! And, I am Spirit filled, well equipped with only HIS WORD written on my heart - just as He commanded. HEAR and OBEY JESUS/The Word.

THANK YOU, JESUS! You are The Way, The Truth and The LIFE! I have ETERNAL LIFE!
6,231 posted on 12/29/2010 3:45:33 PM PST by presently no screen name
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6193 | View Replies]

To: count-your-change
"Bias on the part of all these people?"

Yes, every last one of them was a protestant advancing an agenda against Rome. The fact is, until Zwingli came along in the 16th century, with the exception of some very early heretics with whom, trust me on this, you don't want to be identified, all Christians believed in the Real Presence, cyc. That's just a fact, my friend.

"Instead of holding the writers of the Gospels to a literalness that we don’t follow in English and need not be forced upon the Greek, why not simply recognize “estin” is also properly used to mean “represents” or “stands for” as at Matthew 13:37-39."

Who cares what level of literalness we today apply to the English language? The writers of the Gospel didn't write in English, they didn't speak English, they didn't read English and most importantly, they didn't live in a Western society, whether a 16th century one in rebellion against Rome or a 21st century American evangelical one. They lived in the Hellenic culture of the 1st century Eastern Mediterranean. No matter how much you or protestant translators want "estin" to mean "represents" or "stands for", that simply isn't true. Estin means "is" just as "alithees" means true or real, not "kinda" or "sorta" like.

"Possibly because once an institution has declared its self “infallible” how can it ever correct its self?"

You don't see how Western your thinking is, do you? Most Christians on earth accept the notion of infallibility residing in the person of the Pope. Some, Orthodox and Protestants do not. To the extent that a pope has declared that the bread and wine on the altar table is, through the power of the Holy Spirit, transformed into the Body and Blood of Christ, I would reject that reason for belief. To the extent that a local council of The Church declares the same thing, I would reject that reason for belief. To the extent that The Church lives out such a belief in its fullness as the People of God, the clergy and monastics and the hierarchs gathered together, then I believe and embrace it. That "ecclesia", which is no institution but rather the Body of Christ, is what is infallible.

6,232 posted on 12/29/2010 3:49:22 PM PST by Kolokotronis (Christ is Risen, and you, o death, are annihilated)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6205 | View Replies]

To: metmom; D-fendr; 1000 silverlings; Alex Murphy; bkaycee; blue-duncan; boatbums; caww
John 6:35 Jesus said to them, “I am the bread of life; whoever comes to me shall not hunger, and whoever believes in me shall never thirst

Is this the same "John" who says in 6:65 that "no man can come unto me, except it were given unto him of my Father"? Where does hunger and thirst come in? The decision has already been made...

Do you believe Jesus' own words?

6,233 posted on 12/29/2010 3:50:43 PM PST by kosta50 (God is tired of repenting -- Jeremiah 15:6, KJV)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6220 | View Replies]

To: presently no screen name
So now God's Word is tradition to you?

No, Sola Scriptura is. That's what I said.

How low will the RCC teachings go ..

Not so low as to intentionally change what you said and then go off the rails about it.

>>>>"As you read it."

WRONG! the pur [sic] Word of God AS IT IS.

Without reading it?

HIS WORD is spiritually discerned

I see lots of different discernment claiming the same spirit. Who determines which is real?

Dismiss 'man's words? Absolutely. While YOU DISMISS GOD'S Word.

My quote is "dismissed His Words - the Scripture I posted....And you mine." I was referring to the phrase before it "the Scripture I posted. " I.e., scripture not "man's words" as you seem to have misread it.

It's difficult to communicate this way, repeating what I said to correct what you then say I said.

And, I am Spirit filled, well equipped with only HIS WORD written on my heart - just as He commanded. HEAR and OBEY JESUS/The Word.

As you see it. I'm sorry, but I am not communicating on this forum in this post with God Himself, but with you. You are communicating what you believe, speaking for yourself. I am going to, hopefully safely, assume that you are not claiming to speak for anyone but yourself and certainly not God.

Thank you for your reply. I do hope you will not mangle and change my statements next time.

6,234 posted on 12/29/2010 3:59:26 PM PST by D-fendr (Deus non alligatur sacramentis sed nos alligamur.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6231 | View Replies]

To: Kolokotronis; count-your-change

“”The fact is, until Zwingli came along in the 16th century, with the exception of some very early heretics with whom, trust me on this, you don’t want to be identified, all Christians believed in the Real Presence, cyc. That’s just a fact, my friend.””

Saint Thomas Aquinas illustrates this so well referring to some of the great Church Fathers like Chrysostom ,Ambrose and Augustin

And therefore this sacrament works in man the effect which Christ’s Passion wrought in the world. Hence, Chrysostom says on the words, “Immediately there came out blood and water” (Jn. 19:34): “Since the sacred mysteries derive their origin from thence, when you draw nigh to the awe-inspiring chalice, so approach as if you were going to drink from Christ’s own side.” Hence our Lord Himself says (Mat. 26:28): “This is My blood . . . which shall be shed for many unto the remission of sins.”

Thirdly, the effect of this sacrament is considered from the way in which this sacrament is given; for it is given by way of food and drink. And therefore this sacrament does for the spiritual life all that material food does for the bodily life, namely, by sustaining, giving increase, restoring, and giving delight. Accordingly, Ambrose says (De Sacram. v): “This is the bread of everlasting life, which supports the substance of our soul.” And Chrysostom says (Hom. xlvi in Joan.): “When we desire it, He lets us feel Him, and eat Him, and embrace Him.” And hence our Lord says (Jn. 6:56): “My flesh is meat indeed, and My blood is drink indeed.”

Fourthly, the effect of this sacrament is considered from the species under which it is given. Hence Augustine says (Tract. xxvi in Joan.): “Our Lord betokened His body and blood in things which out of many units are made into some one whole: for out of many grains is one thing made,” viz. bread; “and many grapes flow into one thing,” viz. wine. And therefore he observes elsewhere (Tract. xxvi in Joan.): “O sacrament of piety, O sign of unity, O bond of charity!”

And since Christ and His Passion are the cause of grace. and since spiritual refreshment, and charity cannot be without grace, it is clear from all that has been set forth that this sacrament bestows grace.-Summa Theologica


6,235 posted on 12/29/2010 4:40:45 PM PST by stfassisi ((The greatest gift God gives us is that of overcoming self"-St Francis Assisi)))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6232 | View Replies]

To: kosta50

He said He wouldn’t drink again of the fruit of the vine until it was fulfilled in the kingdom.

He drank and recognized it as wine.

He still would have sinned if He demanded that the disciples drink it intending it to be blood.

God is the one who instituted the prohibition against drinking blood and it was reiterated at the Council of Jerusalem.

God never changed His mind on the issue.


6,236 posted on 12/29/2010 4:48:20 PM PST by metmom (Welfare was never meant to be a career choice.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6228 | View Replies]

To: presently no screen name; D-fendr; 1000 silverlings; Alex Murphy; bkaycee; blue-duncan; boatbums; ..
We disagree on the meaning of Scripture. Now what? Who determines what is the true doctrines of faith? You?

Scripture interprets Scripture. It must be consistent.

Since the disciples were still under the Law at the time of the Last Supper, they would not have drank the cup even suspecting that it was blood as that would have violated the Law and made them unclean. And Peter states in Acts that he had never eaten anything unclean.

Not to mention that the Council of Jerusalem which again reiterated the prohibition of eating blood, with no exceptions, the Catholics claim was presided over by Peter.

Communion being a symbolic representation of a spiritual truth just as the Passover meal they were eating when Jesus instituted communion represented the original Passover in Egypt that they did to REMEMBER is consistent with the rest of Scripture.

If Catholics think that eating the wafer is somehow going to save them, they are basing their salvation on their works and their effort instead of the finished work of Christ on the cross.

Jesus died once for all. It's over and done with. He is not the perpetual sacrifice, He is the great high priest, living to make intercession for us, the only priest we need.

Catholics can't even get who Christ is and what He's doing right. Sheesh....

6,237 posted on 12/29/2010 4:57:43 PM PST by metmom (Welfare was never meant to be a career choice.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6231 | View Replies]

To: Kolokotronis; count-your-change; 1000 silverlings; Alex Murphy; bkaycee; blue-duncan; boatbums; ...
Most Christians on earth accept the notion of infallibility residing in the person of the Pope.

Wrong. Most CATHOLICS on earth accept the notion of infallibility residing in the person of the Pope.

Being Catholic does not necessarily equate to being Christian and being Christian does not equate to being Catholic.

Believers were called Christians first in Antioch. Not called Catholics. Called Christians....

6,238 posted on 12/29/2010 5:01:03 PM PST by metmom (Welfare was never meant to be a career choice.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6232 | View Replies]

To: metmom
Scripture interprets Scripture. It must be consistent

By that criteria, the Real Presence is true. It's in the Gospels and epistles, Christ's words make it very clear, all consistent with each other and Paul warns specifically against the view you hold.

Now what?

6,239 posted on 12/29/2010 5:04:34 PM PST by D-fendr (Deus non alligatur sacramentis sed nos alligamur.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6237 | View Replies]

To: Kolokotronis
“Bias on the part of all these people?”

Why did you quote the next line of my comment? It certainly would’ve given understanding to the above.

“Perhaps to the degree that such can be charged to every scholar and translator.”

And Roman scholars and translators stand agenda free and pure in motive? Please already!

All Christians? You know this and can speak for “all Christians”?

“Who cares what level of literalness we today apply to the English language? The writers of the Gospel didn't write in English, they didn't speak English, they didn't read English and most importantly, they didn't live in a Western society, whether a 16th century one in rebellion against Rome or a 21st century American evangelical one.”

I didn't know.

“Who cares what level of literalness we today apply to the English language?”

One, it is the English translations that posters are discussing and Two, that the degree of literalness in English that we have still allows us to say that taking the word “is” literally sans context would completely change the meaning and intent of the speaker.

Every language mixes the literal and symbolic and makes postie, literal statements not meant to understood as such or shall I believe the nation of Babylon gave birth to men or the nation of Israel got drunk and puked?

If you can speak for “all Christians” please tell me how many gouged out an eye or chopped off an offending hand?
(Maybe Origen just with missed with the cleaver?)

“You don't see how Western your thinking is, do you?”

I just knew it was all my fault!

Papal infallibility is indeed a “notion” conjured from thin air-headed reasoning in way that would humble David
Copperfield.

“Most Christians on earth accept the notion of infallibility residing in the person of the Pope.”

The broad and specious road has plenty of room on it.

6,240 posted on 12/29/2010 5:35:04 PM PST by count-your-change (You don't have be brilliant, not being stupid is enough.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6232 | View Replies]

To: count-your-change

“makes postie, literal statements” Read “POSITIVE”!


6,241 posted on 12/29/2010 5:53:27 PM PST by count-your-change (You don't have be brilliant, not being stupid is enough.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6240 | View Replies]

To: metmom; count-your-change; 1000 silverlings; Alex Murphy; bkaycee; blue-duncan; boatbums; ...
mm, most Christians, in fact, the overwhelming majority of them, are Catholics.

Your comment, however, interests me as it seems emblematic of the distinctly American protestant attitude that Eastern Christians deserve the death and destruction that we and our Mohammedan friends are and have been dealing out to them...since they are not really Christians. Am I right, mm?

6,242 posted on 12/29/2010 5:57:56 PM PST by Kolokotronis (Christ is Risen, and you, o death, are annihilated)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6238 | View Replies]

To: kosta50

John 7:37-39

On the last and greatest day of the festival, Jesus stood and said in a loud voice, “Let anyone who is thirsty come to me and drink. Whoever believes in me, as Scripture has said, rivers of living water will flow from within them.” By this he meant the Spirit, whom those who believed in him were later to receive. Up to that time the Spirit had not been given, since Jesus had not yet been glorified.


6,243 posted on 12/29/2010 6:10:32 PM PST by boatbums (God is ready to assume full responsibility for the life wholly yielded to him.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6069 | View Replies]

To: count-your-change
"Perhaps to the degree that such can be charged to every scholar and translator

And Roman scholars and translators stand agenda free and pure in motive? Please already!"

As you know, I am not a Roman partisan nor am I a Roman Catholic. Whatever their bias may be, they agree with the rest of The Church on the Real Presence.

"All Christians? You know this and can speak for “all Christians”?"

As a matter of historical fact, all Christians believed in the Real Presence until Zwingli's pathetic, limited god couldn't be in two places at once. I know this as well as any other historical fact, cyc.

"One, it is the English translations that posters are discussing and Two, that the degree of literalness in English that we have still allows us to say that taking the word “is” literally sans context would completely change the meaning and intent of the speaker."

What astonishing Anglophone chauvinism! Because you base your faith on lousy, agenda driven English translations of Greek, the bible means what English speaking protestants say it means, even if that is in contradiction to what the original Greek says because English allows for variants that Greek doesn't?

"I just knew it was all my fault!"

Indeed, it is you Westerners, people who apparently think that using English gives them the right to twist the Scriptures, who, to further your rebellion against your Holy Mother Church, foisted false translations of the bible on otherwise unsuspecting people. The result, as I noted on another thread, is the bitter weed of heresy which has all but destroyed Western society.

"“Most Christians on earth accept the notion of infallibility residing in the person of the Pope.”"

Indeed, since most Christians are Roman Catholics...by a margin figured in the hundreds of millions.

6,244 posted on 12/29/2010 6:16:27 PM PST by Kolokotronis (Christ is Risen, and you, o death, are annihilated)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6240 | View Replies]

To: metmom
He said He wouldn’t drink again of the fruit of the vine until it was fulfilled in the kingdom. He drank and recognized it as wine

Matthew (the only "eyewitness" here) says Jesus "took the cup and gave it to them saying 'Drink from it, all of you.'" {Mt. 26:27]

But then he said he would not drink of "this fruit of the vine from now on until [6:29] he sees them in the heaven.

From now on until...since he didn;t drink any but rather blessed it and gave to to all of them, he didn't drink of it.

However, it is strange (to me at least) that he first calls it the "blood" of the [new] covenant and then the a mere "fruit of the vine."

What is being instituted here is either some miraculous sacrament (mystery) or an empty and meaningless ritual. Every time people pray to God they remember Jesus, so why go through special ritualistic remembrance of taking of the "blood of the covennant" and eating of the "body" (both of which are portrayed as life-giving) unless it is to impart some qualities on those receiving them? And why would Paul warn that one should not receive them "unworthily" if they are a mere "remembrance" or just plain bread and "fruit of the vine"?

Incidentally, according to-the Synoptic Gospels, the order of giving thanks, first for the bread and then for the wine, is the exact opposite of what the early Christians practiced (see Didache), as well as of the Jewish custom!

I am not sure what prompted this reversal, but it seems strange that an observant Jew would institute them.

6,245 posted on 12/29/2010 6:24:45 PM PST by kosta50 (God is tired of repenting -- Jeremiah 15:6, KJV)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6236 | View Replies]

To: metmom; Kolokotronis

“”Believers were called Christians first in Antioch. Not called Catholics.””

Yes they were called catholic’s,mm.

Please post other historical writings from someone who lived in Antioch that prove the following wrong?

“See that ye all follow the bishop, even as Christ Jesus does the Father, and the presbytery as ye would the apostles. Do ye also reverence the deacons, as those that carry out the appointment of God. Let no man do anything connected with the Church without the bishop. Let that be deemed a proper Eucharist, which is [administered] either by the bishop, or by one to whom he has entrusted it. Wherever the bishop shall appear, there let the multitude also be; by the bishop, or by one to whom he has entrusted it. Wherever the bishop shall appear, there let the multitude also be; even as, wherever Jesus Christ is, there is the catholic Church.” Ignatius of Antioch, Epistle to the Smyrneans, 8:2 (c. A.D. 110).

...and Ignatius of Antioch believed in the True Presence in Eucharist completely opposite of protestant heretics denying it


6,246 posted on 12/29/2010 6:26:07 PM PST by stfassisi ((The greatest gift God gives us is that of overcoming self"-St Francis Assisi)))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6238 | View Replies]

To: boatbums
John 7:37-39... rivers of living water will flow...By this he meant the Spirit"

This was an idomatic manner of expressing things commonly use din the Middle east of the time, and porbably to this day. Strictly speaking, the living water being the Holy Spirit in the Christian sense is a Johannine innovation. It does occur in the Old Testament, such as in Jeremiah, where God calls himself a living water (i.e. the source of life).

But then you have Ezekiel 14:8 who writes "And in that day living waters will flow out of Jerusalem, half of them toward the eastern sea and the other half toward the western sea...And the LORD will be king over all the earth; in that day the LORD will be the only one, and His name the only one." Clearly this does not correpsond to John's construct very well.

On the other hand we have Isaiah 44:3 where it says "'For I will pour out water on the thirsty land and streams on the dry ground; I will pour out My Spirit on your offspring and My blessing on your descendants."

But he is talking of Israel, of course, so this dioesn't apply either.

And then again Isaiah 55:1 "Ho! Every one who thirsts, come come, buy wine and milk without money and without cost."

Of course this also has nothing to do with Jesus, but was used by the Gospel scribes for their agenda.

Or Isai 58:11 "And the LORD will continually guide you, and satisfy your desire in scorched places, and give strength to your bones; and you will be like a watered garden, and like a spring of water whose waters do not fail."

And Joel 2:28 says "It will come about after this that I will pour out My Spirit on all mankind; and your sons and daughters will prophesy, your old men will dream dreams, your young men will see visions."

Pouring the spirit on all mankind obviously is something that does not describe the pouring of the Holy Spirit on the believers.

But one can see how cherry-picked OT phrases were used to advance Christian agenda.

6,247 posted on 12/29/2010 6:54:30 PM PST by kosta50 (God is tired of repenting -- Jeremiah 15:6, KJV)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6243 | View Replies]

To: annalex; metmom
It is better to obey the gospel out of fear of losing one's salvation than not obey it at all. It is even better to obey the Gospel out of love for your Savior. One thing does not exclude the other. A Catholic Christian starts with the former and proceeds to the latter. The once-saved-always-saved are not even on that road; they, thanks to the Protestant charlatans that teach them convinced themselves to stay on the sidelines

How sad that in order to hold on to people, your religion uses fear of God to maintain its power. Just so sad. One thing the "once-saved-always-saved" - you so sneeringly deride - have all over you is the sweet assurance that being in the palm of our Father's hand brings. We KNOW we have eternal life - not wish, hope, plead or beg for - because we believe on the name of the only begotten Son of God (I John 5:13). His name means "God with us". Almighty God took on flesh and endured shame, beatings, insults and, finally, death upon a cross so that all our sins were paid in full. He paid the penalty our sin debt required.

So, like I said, you go right ahead and trust in your own good deeds and merits for your salvation. Let that be your motivation. I, on the other hand, will rest in the grace and mercy of my Savior Jesus Christ. I will lead a life that honors him, not because I believe I must do good deeds to be saved, but because of my gratitude for his love and the grace he lavished upon me and all those who trust in Christ alone for salvation. We have a new nature, the indwelling of the Holy Spirit that creates within us the desire to do the works of God. Because we love him is why we obey his commandments. You totally miss the whole point and it is your lack of faith that is defective, not mine.

6,248 posted on 12/29/2010 7:27:34 PM PST by boatbums (God is ready to assume full responsibility for the life wholly yielded to him.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6093 | View Replies]

To: boatbums

John 14:15-17 “If you love me, you will keep my commandments. And I will ask the Father, and he will give you another Helper, to be with you forever, even the Spirit of truth, whom the world cannot receive, because it neither sees him nor knows him. You know him, for he dwells with you and will be in you.


6,249 posted on 12/29/2010 7:40:36 PM PST by metmom (Welfare was never meant to be a career choice.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6248 | View Replies]

To: boatbums; annalex

Galatians 3:10-11

For all who rely on works of the law are under a curse; for it is written, “Cursed be everyone who does not abide by all things written in the Book of the Law, and do them.” Now it is evident that no one is justified before God by the law, for “The righteous shall live by faith.”


6,250 posted on 12/29/2010 8:32:49 PM PST by metmom (Welfare was never meant to be a career choice.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6248 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-50 ... 6,151-6,2006,201-6,2506,251-6,300 ... 7,351-7,356 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson