Are those who do not receive Jesus in Holy Eucharist really Christians? Is it insanity for them to continue claiming to be Christians?

[ncgolf]

It is also Wrong to claim Who has Eternal life That is up to God and Nobody Posting to this site is God. Not a Priest an apologist or a lay person.

You are right it is up to God so … Sandusky’s argument is not with a priest, an apologist or layperson but with Christ himself, for He is the one who said, John 6:53, “Amen, amen, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you do not have life within you.”

ALso Why attack the wisdom of Sandusky. I find no wisdom in attacking others.

Attacking wisdom makes the attacker look foolish … I have not seen where postings disagreeing with Sandusky have made the writer’s foolish.

 

[benedictus2]

No, that’s what He did in v35.

Aaah, typical Sandusky. Truncating everything to support his point of view.

Here is the rest of my post:

If He was defining anything in that passage at all, it would actually be the other way around. **The later verses define verse 35.
**Anyone who comes to Him will not hunger precisely because He will give them His flesh for food. Anyone who believes in Him will not thirst because He will give them His blood to drink.
If you look at this passage, He actually goes into “clarrification” mode when His disciples just didn’t get it.

If you stop your practice of chopping up the Bible you might actually get what we are saying here.
sandusky;4352228:

I don’t “recon” that.

If entering the Kingdom of God is not about being saved, then what does it mean for Calvinists to “enter the Kingdom of God”?

 

[benedictus2]

Never does eat the flesh, or drink the blood when used in scripture to mean figuratively does it mean to “come to believe” which is a “new meaning” interpretation that you are attempting to force in the speech of Jesus. Jesus meant what he said literally, or else many of his disciples would not have left him. And they were there with Jesus when he spoke this Literally in John 6 53… These Jews would have known right away if Jesus was speaking figuratively, because they heard his tone of voice. Jesus tone of voice just like at the last supper was very strong and taken literally by all those present.

Peace

Hey, Grabriel. You can explain that till the crows come home and you can present evidence to that effect but Sandusky will still keep saying the same thing.

He raised Hebraisms (figurative Hebrew language) as a means of interpreting this passage and when it was pointed out to him that the Hebraism he used was wrong, he backed out from that and went back to saying that v35 defined the rest of the passage.

So now we have the definition coming before the term being defined

Sandusky is his own magisterium. Regardless of reason and evidence, he believes what he believes and that is it.

 

[sandusky]

sandusky;4352228:

No, that’s what He did in v35.

Aaah, typical Sandusky. Truncating everything to support his point of view.

Here is the rest of my post:

If He was defining anything in that passage at all, it would actually be the other way around. **The later verses define verse 35.
**Anyone who comes to Him will not hunger precisely because He will give them His flesh for food. Anyone who believes in Him will not thirst because He will give them His blood to drink.
If you look at this passage, He actually goes into “clarrification” mode when His disciples just didn’t get it.

If you stop your practice of chopping up the Bible you might actually get what we are saying here.
You’re backing into it. :tsktsk:

 

[benedictus2]

That is why I put it in quotes.

There are some denomintations that, without knowing history, cite heretical groups as historical parents of their denomination.

Protestants are never much into history. Why bother with the past when there’s this imminent rapture to think about. ?

 

[sandusky]

benedictus:

If entering the Kingdom of God is not about being saved, then what does it mean for Calvinists to “enter the Kingdom of God”?

It means to be saved.

 

[sandusky]

benedictus2:

Sandusky is his own magisterium. Regardless of reason and evidence, he believes what he believes and that is it.

 

[sandusky]

Protestants are never much into history. Why bother with the past when there’s this imminent rapture to think about. ?

You’re out of gas, mate.

 

[benedictus2]

I am no longer Roman Catholic However We a s Lutherans Do believe in The real presence of Jesus in the Eucharist. So to lump all protestant together is wrong. It is also Wrong to claim Who has Eternal life That is up to God and Nobody Posting to this site is God. Not a Priest an apologist or a lay person. ALso Why attack the wisdom of Sandusky. I find no wisdom in attacking others.

This is the problem with Protetstantism.

• Lutherans belive in the Real Presence, Calvinists don’t.
• In your reading of the Scriptures, you both claim to have been inspired by the Holy Spirit to come to this conlusion.
• Not both of you could be right.
• So which of you was really inspired by the Holy Spirit and how do you know for sure?

 

[benedictus2]

It means to be saved.

Ha! Please re-read this particular discussion. You’ve just stepped on your foot. :extrahappy:

 

[benedictus2]

You’re out of gas, mate.

You’re right! Never did need that stuff.

 

[benedictus2]

benedictus2;4355572:

You’re backing into it. :tsktsk:

Run out of logical answers, hmm?

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

Hey, Grabriel. You can explain that till the crows come home and you can present evidence to that effect but Sandusky will still keep saying the same thing.

He raised Hebraisms (figurative Hebrew language) as a means of interpreting this passage and when it was pointed out to him that the Hebraism he used was wrong, he backed out from that and went back to saying that v35 defined the rest of the passage.

So now we have the definition coming before the term being defined

Sandusky is his own magisterium. Regardless of reason and evidence, he believes what he believes and that is it.

I started to derive at this conclusion when sandusky appeared to ignore what I placed in front of him as fact from scripture, that his definition of “Eat the flesh and drink the body” figuratively Never means to come and “believe” according to sandusky’s false scripture interpretation of John 6:53 and following. I repeated twice that his interpretation figuratively speaking “eat the flesh, drink the blood” does not fit the speech Jesus spoke from John 6:53 and provided scriputural proof. I get a sense how Jesus felt, when he spoke to the disbelieving Pharisees, and Sadducees, who clinged to the flesh of the law.

I gave him the Hebrew scriptures for the interpretation of figurative speech of “eat the flesh and drink the blood” but he refuses to accept truth before his eyes that discredits sandusky’s false interpretation of “eat the flesh and drink the blood” to mean come and believe, when figuratively speaking means to persecute and assault someone as you gracefully informed him also.

You know according to the Mosaic law and Church law, you and I gave witness to sandusky and he still refused truth; what now? do we treat him as a tax collector?

I prefer to pray for him and those like him, God always has a way of dealing with man’s pride.

Personally after reading all sandusky’s post here, he was exposed falsifying scripture, and needs help.

Mickey is doing an excellent job with him on the subject. Iam afraid to post to him, because what I have to reveal to him, he may never return.

Peace be with you

 

[Peter_J]

And they shall know we are Christians by our love, by our love.

 

[Mickey]

you and I gave witness to sandusky and he still refused truth; what now? do we treat him as a tax collector?

I prefer to pray for him and those like him, God always has a way of dealing with man’s pride.

Hi Gabriel,

You, and others have been fine witnesses. Sometimes it is difficult for people to see through the veil of deception. Perhaps you have planted a fertile seed. Sometimes it comes to a point where we must simply shake the dust from our sandals and move on. But always continue to pray.

Peace

 

[ralphinal]

And they shall know we are Christians by our love, by our love.

Oh, I thought is was by our little fish decal that shines so bright when we cut people off and give them the finger

 

[Peter_J]

Oh, I thought is was by our little fish decal that shines so bright when we cut people off and give them the finger

Nope it’s the loving comments like “Sandusky is his own magisterium. Regardless of reason and evidence, he believes what he believes and that is it.” that tell the world we are “Christian”.

 

[rinnie]

Oh, I thought is was by our little fish decal that shines so bright when we cut people off and give them the finger

Hey come on now ralphinal, I got the Jesus fish, and you know we are giving them the peace sign right?

 

[FollowTheWay]

A true Eucharist would only take place once a year and would be a feast done at the same time as passover, but most importantly it would be a celebrated feast. That change by constantine when he merged “the way” and “mithraism”. Mithraism used the believe of a thimble full of wine and chips of bread which were the flesh and blood of their god. Also the baptism is an outward sign of an inward commitment, baptism is choice the believer does to show his inward commitment to Christ.

 

[Mickey]

A true Eucharist would only take place once a year and would be a feast done at the same time as passover, but most importantly it would be a celebrated feast. That change by constantine when he merged “the way” and “mithraism”. Mithraism used the believe of a thimble full of wine and chips of bread which were the flesh and blood of their god. Also the baptism is an outward sign of an inward commitment, baptism is choice the believer does to show his inward commitment to Christ.

Oh brother! Another subscriber to the Constantine conspiracy theory. How many times do we have to see this Jack Chick-like post.