Posted on 07/09/2015 9:33:36 AM PDT by RnMomof7
Consectatio est opus per alius nomen Latin for ‘Striving is working by another name.’ Catholicism is a works based religion, not The Gospel as found illustrated graphically in the Bible.
Can spiritual things eat?
How do you know those are the only choices?
Wow!
Praise God!
When you read the post I offered in answer to your question, then we will have a further exchange.
To: rwa265If I answer the following question for you, will you in turn answer one I will ask? ...
"So how can He give His flesh for the life of the world if the flesh profits nothing?" rwa265
The text in Greek clearly shows that to consume the flesh will profit nothing. So, the life of God is not going to get into the consumer vai the mouth. The Life of God comes into the human spirit AFTER it is cleansed of ALL unrighteousness. That coming in of the Holy Spirit is graphically illustrated at Pentecost and in the house of Cornelius. So, in answer to your question, The Flesh of Jesus was sacrificed upon the Cross, by Him, willingly giving Himself up to take the penalty fro sin. That act of sacrifice becomes your personal moment for salvation from your sins when you have a repentant heart and an accepting humility to believe He did that act for you.
When you take the bread and wine as a Remembrance, the Way Jesus instructed it be accepted, you testify tot he world and to God that you are numbered with Him in that cross death. You eat the bread making a spiritual connection to His sacrifice, not yours. You accept His atonement death for you. You are not accepting His flesh into you, you are acknowledging that He did this paying the penalty specifically for you.
The cup of wine when accepted is affirming your belief that His blood was shed for the remission of your sin nature. Without the shedding of blood, there is no remission of sins. This astonishing Divine act is accomplished only by God as The Great High Priest entering into the Holy of Holies to cover the Mercy Seat with the perfect sinless blood of the Christ, The Son of the Living God, so that when 'an accuser' makes accusation that you have broken a law of Moses God will see the atonement made by Jesus, not your sin transgression. This atonement is not something you can drink in a cup. Jesus called the cup contents wine. Believe Him. He also taught that His giving of Himself was so that You and I can have His life n us, in the now, not after some trail of striving to obtain eternal life.
451 posted on 7/13/2015 11:14:32 AM by MHGinTN (Is it really all relative, Mister Einstein?)
Do your see the answer to the question you posed, in that reply to your question?
What you are not grasping is that you have answered a question that was not asked ... lol.
I'll give you one more chance as I tire of your bait and switch.
Do you or do you not have a cogent explanation for why, if John 6 is a discussion of the Lords Table, that John omits the Lords Table in 13-17?
We see these types of claims from Catholics.
Yet they NEVER seem to be able to put their fingers on just WHICH 'false' things they are speaking about.
Oh?
James 4:7
Submit therefore to God and stand against Satan, and he will flee from you.
Almost ALL of Catholic rites and rituals are OMITTED in verse 29...
Jesus answered, “The work of God is this: to believe in the one he has sent.”
Like a Buddy Holly song and a phrase that John Wayne said a lot in The Searchers...
If the “Lord’s Table” was REALLY important; I’m just SURE that Mary would have said so in one or more of her world-wide visitations and/or apparitions.
I did read your post 451. I did not see a question from you for me to answer. Then I saw your back and forth with Mad Dawg which prompted me to expand on my post 415.
I really wasn’t looking for an answer to my question; it was a hypophoric question. Here is the full paragraph:
So how can He give His flesh for the life of the world if the flesh profits nothing? It is the Spirit dwelling in Him that gives life to His flesh. It is this living bread come down from heaven that is His flesh for the life of the world.
The flesh itself profits nothing. But the flesh Jesus mentioned, His flesh, has the Spirit within, and it is the Spirit within that allows Him to give His flesh for the life of the world.
Yes and I gave it to you, as I said perhaps you don’t like it, or don’t understand it, but that is the answer you received.
So we disagree on how The Spirit gets into the human believer. Catholicism teaches you eat Jesus at Mass to get His life in oyu. Jesus teaches in several passages that the Spirit does the born from above, not by the mouth on a catholic altar. God even illustrated the truth for cahtolics on the day of Pentecost and in the house of Cornelius. Don’t you want to be born from above? Take a clue from the Bible passages which graphically illustrate the event, with immediate evidence to the believer that they have been born from above. Would you rather work your way there, to eternal life, by striving to obtain, eventually, or accept His eternal life in the moment you believe He will do just as He p[romised, right then and there, then put His life in you without you having to eat him at Mass?
.
>> “A part of the “this” in “this do in remembrance of Me” is replicating the context of the full invitation to the Lord’s Table of the rest of complement of the local Body.” <<
.
Nonsense.
We are asked to do so at each occasion in which we break the loaf. That is without regard to who is present.
Nicolaitanism is constantly trying to get its nose under the tent.
.
>> “ I am persuaded that Jesus, as God with us, would not violate His laws as given through Moses to the world.” <<
.
Absolutely correct, every minute of every day.
His flesh was given at the cross, and no reenactment is to be done.
The eucharist is Lucifer’s false messiah in every way.
Here's my problem, or one of them. If a person tells me I am mistaken and then repeatedly asserts something that sounds false to me, every time he repeats the seemingly untrue assertion, I trust him less.
I could be mistaken but Catholic sacramental theology is that "ordinarily" (and that's important because it admits extraordinary things) Baptism is the sacrament having to do with the reception of the Holy Spirit.
It may be that I don't read well, but I'm pretty sure I've already quoted or referred to Aquinas's article which argues that reception of communion is not necessary for salvation. And it's all the more important, because Aquinas quotes Augustine, so two great "doctors," centuries apart, disagree with your assertion.
I could be wrong, but when someone tells me the RCC teaches one thing and I see two great doctors teaching the contrary, I'm going to conclude that the person disagreeing with the doctors has got it wrong.
Would you rather work your way there, to eternal life, by striving to obtain, eventually, or accept His eternal life in the moment you believe He will do just as He p[romised, right then and there, then put His life in you without you having to eat him at Mass?
I'd rather be a Catholic.
That, sir, is quite obvious, you would rather be catholic than see what The Bible clearly says to you. Got wrath?
“1411 Only validly ordained priests can preside at the Eucharist and consecrate the bread and the wine so that they become the Body and Blood of the Lord.”
Pure invention. Brazen, really. Whoever came up with that is probably regretting it. Sad. Men shouldn’t add to God’s Word.
The end of the REAL earthly priesthood—the one God established—is detailed in Hebrews, if you’re interested. No other earthly one has been instituted.
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.