T
tm30
Guest
That’s spot on.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.
B
BRB
Guest
OS …I do believe the bread is Christ’s body and the wine is His blood. I just don’t believe in transubstantiation as RCC members do. It is still wind and bread when you eat it but it, to a believer, is Christs blood and body. Look at it next time though and see if it is blood and flesh. Of I forgot, Catholics don’t get to fully participate in this sacrament. You rarely, if ever, get the wine…How sad!
Do you realize how silly this sounds to us. The Wine is commonplace these days. You say its the wind & bread … you meant Wine & bread ?
Yes, Catholics have always acknowledged they see wine and bread with the human eye … but transubstantiation does not relate to what the human eye sees … or what a chemical lab test would find.
The hosts become the actual presence of Christ. Can you see molecular structures with your human eyes ? Atoms, molecules, etc . Can you see the H.S. with your human eyes ?
Christ is there my friend. Where are your spiritual eyes ?
Until the second coming of Christ, no one will ever again see his ‘ascended’ body. But, Christ tells us to use our spiritual vision to taste and perceive his ‘decended’ presence within the ‘transformed’ hosts.
Yes, you need faith to have spiritual vision. It appears you and your church lack the ‘spiritual vision’ required to obtain Christ via the Eucharist.
As long as you examine the wine & bread with your biologic eyes, looking for body/blood … you are blinded to the truth of the matter re: transubstantiation.
T
tm30
Guest
Topic: The Bible is paper and ink, but it is not the inspired Word of God because it only looks like paper and ink.I do believe the bread is Christ’s body and the wine is His blood. I just don’t believe in transubstantiation as RCC members do. It is still wind and bread when you eat it but it, to a believer, is Christs blood and body. Look at it next time though and see if it is blood and flesh.
Discuss.
T
tm30
Guest
Topic: The substance of man is body and soul, however, no one can actually prove, by the senses, that the soul exists. Therefore, you have no soul.I do believe the bread is Christ’s body and the wine is His blood. I just don’t believe in transubstantiation as RCC members do. It is still wind and bread when you eat it but it, to a believer, is Christs blood and body. Look at it next time though and see if it is blood and flesh.
Discuss.
T
tm30
Guest
Topic: Jesus Christ had the nature of a man, but claimed to also have the nature of God. Because Christ appeared only to have a human form, His claim of divinity was an unprovable lie.I do believe the bread is Christ’s body and the wine is His blood. I just don’t believe in transubstantiation as RCC members do. It is still wind and bread when you eat it but it, to a believer, is Christs blood and body. Look at it next time though and see if it is blood and flesh.
Discuss.
B
BRB
Guest
OS …Topic: The Bible is paper and ink, but it is not the inspired Word of God because it only looks like paper and ink.
Discuss.
Wasn’t Ezekiel told to eat the scroll … and when he did, he perceived its ‘sweetness’ ?
Catholics also obey in like manner regarding the hosts which contain Christ … and we taste, feel, and experience the ‘sweetness’ of the risen Christ being absorbed within us.
B
BRB
Guest
OS …
Do yourself [and your church] an eternal favor.
Go to www.google, and plug in word TODAH — read the first choice on topic of Todah and its NT equivalent [Eucharist].
Its only several pages long … but it will put you in touch with some Typology you need to understand from the OT scriptures.
Do yourself [and your church] an eternal favor.
Go to www.google, and plug in word TODAH — read the first choice on topic of Todah and its NT equivalent [Eucharist].
Its only several pages long … but it will put you in touch with some Typology you need to understand from the OT scriptures.
OS
You wrote:
You wrote:
We have discussed “Today, you will be with me in paradise”.Since you disagree, then I would think you would have the courtesy to show me where I have done what you imply…Show me where I have changed Scripture!
NW
You say you disagree with me in post 394.
I wrote
I am only translating the Bible. I am simply trying to write out what is in the Bible, the inspired word of God. I am not interpreting it.
However simply, either you are right or I am.
I repeat that MIAS GUNAIKOS ANDRA means a man of one wife.
Do you disagree with this?
Do I give the correct words in the NT (MIAS GUNAIKOS ANDRA)?
You say you disagree with me in post 394.
I wrote
Do you disagree with this?However the Greek is MIAS GUNAIKOS ANDRA which means a man of one wife.
I am only translating the Bible. I am simply trying to write out what is in the Bible, the inspired word of God. I am not interpreting it.
However simply, either you are right or I am.
I repeat that MIAS GUNAIKOS ANDRA means a man of one wife.
Do you disagree with this?
Do I give the correct words in the NT (MIAS GUNAIKOS ANDRA)?
N
NotWorthy
Guest
Not being a Greek linguist, I can only go by what other scholars say. I haven’t studied that recently, but I seem to recall it was stating that a Bishop couldn’t re-marry. I’m not disagreeing, I"m simply explaining how I heard it.NW
You say you disagree with me in post 394.
I wrote
Do you disagree with this?
I am only translating the Bible. I am simply trying to write out what is in the Bible, the inspired word of God. I am not interpreting it.
However simply, either you are right or I am.
I repeat that MIAS GUNAIKOS ANDRA means a man of one wife.
Do you disagree with this?
Do I give the correct words in the NT (MIAS GUNAIKOS ANDRA)?
I’ll see if I can find the article again, though.
NW
Thank you for your post.
You wrote:
BTW I am getting interested in the offices of the early Church. I started a new thread, I hope all of us together can resolve some tricky problems.
Thank you for your post.
You wrote:
I enclose three translations of 1 Tim 3:2:but I seem to recall it was stating that a Bishop couldn’t re-marry.
NAB 1 Timothy 3:2 Therefore, a bishop (EPISKOPOS) must be irreproachable, married only once, temperate, self-controlled, decent, hospitable, able to teach,
NRS 1 Timothy 3:2 Now a bishop1 must be above reproach, married only once,2 temperate, sensible, respectable, hospitable, an apt teacher,
This verse says nothing about bishops remarrying.NAU 1 Timothy 3:2 1aAn overseer, then, must be above reproach, bthe husband of one wife, ctemperate, prudent, respectable, dhospitable, eable to teach,
BTW I am getting interested in the offices of the early Church. I started a new thread, I hope all of us together can resolve some tricky problems.
O
Old_Scholar
Guest
You are correct as far as you go. The church is the authority over its MEMBERS only in things that relate to the church. The church has no power over any other church, they are all independent and no church has to rely on anything from another.But, but, but, the Bible… claims that the CHURCH is the authority.
You see, OS, it’s Scriptural!
There is no church hierarchy in Scripture. That is an invention of man. You know those ‘doctrines of man’ Christ warned us about…
O
Old_Scholar
Guest
If I offended you personally, I am sorry. I am not trying to offend any person here. We are discussing practices of our churches and I thought that was the intention of the forum. I have stated that I have many RCC friends and only a very few of them are given the opportunity to participate in the cup at mass. It appears it is a ‘church’ thing.With eyes of faith, I see His Precious Body and Blood, and I receive both every time I go to Mass at my parish, as do several other Catholics who are on this thread, as do many many Catholics who are not on this thread. Please stop claiming that we are not offered the Precious Blood of Christ, as you are violating Exodus 20:16/Deuteronomy 5:20 when you do so.
I can also show you quite a bit of Roman Catholic information, as I have already done, that forbids the cup for the laity. That’s one of the things that keeps getting changed.
O
Old_Scholar
Guest
Christ gave no instructions except to ‘eat the bread’ and ‘drink the wine.’ He made no mention of doing one and getting the other automatically. That’s another of those ‘men’ things.I’ve said this before and I say it again. Whether you believe you are doing it symbolically or not, when you separate Jesus’ Body from His Blood, you re-sacrifice Him. So, OS, it is not Catholic that Re-Crucify Christ by displaying the Crucifix, it is those that "symbolically think they eat His Body and drink His Blood separately.
When Catholic partake in the Eucharist, the Host has His Body and Blood at the same time, because we are partaking in His Risen Body. The same thing with the Chalice.
So, it is with irony, that Catholics, who are accused of dwelling too much on His Sacrifice, are the ones that are united in His Resurrected Body.
O
Old_Scholar
Guest
Not according to Scripture…This is the Ultraquist heresy, which was condemned in…wait for it… 1414…at the Council of Constance.
The substance of the wine cannot be different from the substance of the bread. Both are the body-and-blood of Christ.
O
Old_Scholar
Guest
I haven’t said that ‘no one is offerred.’ I have posted RCC decisions that have stated that it is improper for the laity to receive the cup. I have said that many do not get the opportunity to partake of both. Now what is incorrect about that?Yes, he’s been reminded of this fact. But instead, OS sticks to his guns that no Catholic laity is offered the Chalice in the Mass.
Maybe we should start a poll to see.
O
Old_Scholar
Guest
Transubstantiation doesn’t claim any ‘spiritual’ change but a physical change in the substance of the bread and wine. If that were true, then you could see the difference. This is the definition of transubstantiation:OS …
Do you realize how silly this sounds to us. The Wine is commonplace these days. You say its the wind & bread … you meant Wine & bread ?
Yes, Catholics have always acknowledged they see wine and bread with the human eye … but transubstantiation does not relate to what the human eye sees … or what a chemical lab test would find.
The hosts become the actual presence of Christ. Can you see molecular structures with your human eyes ? Atoms, molecules, etc . Can you see the H.S. with your human eyes ?
Christ is there my friend. Where are your spiritual eyes ?
Until the second coming of Christ, no one will ever again see his ‘ascended’ body. But, Christ tells us to use our spiritual vision to taste and perceive his ‘decended’ presence within the ‘transformed’ hosts.
Yes, you need faith to have spiritual vision. It appears you and your church lack the ‘spiritual vision’ required to obtain Christ via the Eucharist.
As long as you examine the wine & bread with your biologic eyes, looking for body/blood … you are blinded to the truth of the matter re: transubstantiation.
Adapted From: WordNet 2.0 Copyright 2003 by Princeton University. All rights reserved.
transubstantiation
A noun
1 transmutation, transubstantiation
an act that **changes the form or character or substance **of something
Category Tree:
act; human action; human activity
action
change
conversion
transmutation, transubstantiation
2 transubstantiation
**the Roman Catholic doctrine that the whole substance of the bread and the wine changes into the substance of the body and blood of Christ when consecrated in the Eucharist **
Sounds pretty much to me as if there is a physical change according to the definition.
My church also believes the bread is the body of Christ and the wine is the blood of Christ but the appearance does not change and neither does the substance. He is definitely present during the communion. It’s the same as “Christ is in me.”
O
Old_Scholar
Guest
What word have I changed? I suggested that perhaps the comma was in the wrong place because Scripture tells us Christ was not in paradise that day.OS
You wrote:
We have discussed “Today, you will be with me in paradise”.
Is that what you call 'changing Scripture?"
N
NotWorthy
Guest
Oh really?!? You mean the Council of Jerusalem could only control Judaizers in Jerusalem?!?You are correct as far as you go. The church is the authority over its MEMBERS only in things that relate to the church. The church has no power over any other church, they are all independent and no church has to rely on anything from another.
There is no church hierarchy in Scripture. That is an invention of man. You know those ‘doctrines of man’ Christ warned us about…
That’s news to me.
Why in the world do you think that this type of authority died with the Apostles. As we’ve discussed before, St. Clement certainly displayed authority over the selection of bishop and priests in the 1st century Church at Corinth.
N
NotWorthy
Guest
Wrong. Christ is Risen, and we do not crucify Him again by separating His Body and Blood (as you guys seem to be doing).Christ gave no instructions except to ‘eat the bread’ and ‘drink the wine.’ He made no mention of doing one and getting the other automatically. That’s another of those ‘men’ things.
We share in the Risen Body.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.