F
Faithdancer
Guest
I haven’t seen anybody take such a beating and keep getting up since Rocky 1!
- Status
W
William_C
Guest
Well, you’re not a quitter, that’s for sure.
W
William_C
Guest
You call what they wrote down detail? Try reading the giving of the old testament sacrificial law.
W
William_C
Guest
None of you is persuasive.
P
pete_29
Guest
Neither are you!
I
inkaneer
Guest
Quote:
Originally Posted by inkaneer
So is the Trinity my friend. There is more support in scripture for Transubstantiation than there is for the Trinity. You understand the Trinity not in Biblical terms but rather in Greek philosophical terms. And it was the Church who defined the Trinity just as it defined Transubstantiation.
Also, there are no “reformed” churches. There are denominations [they are not churches] who may think they reformed something but they “reformed” nothing. Their so called “reformation” only substituted man made traditions for the truthful doctrines of God. They were founded by heretics from the true faith that Jesus gave to the church trough His Apostles.
Quote:
Originally Posted by inkaneer
Bear in mind that this is one of the mysteries of Faith. These are mysteries because our understanding of them is imperfect. It is not a complete understanding. The Trinity is another mystery of faith that the story of Augustine and the boy on the beach illustrates quite well. They are mysteries because we, with our finite minds, are trying to understand the infinite. We cannot do it. It is an impossibility. We, therefore, accept them even though we do not fully comprehend them. We accept them on faith.
“23 For I have received of the Lord that which also I delivered unto you, That the Lord Jesus the same night in which he was betrayed took bread: 24 And when he had given thanks, he brake it, and said, Take, eat: this is my body, which is broken for you: this do in remembrance of me. 25 After the same manner also he took the cup, when he had supped, saying, This cup is the new testament in my blood: this do ye, as oft as ye drink it, in remembrance of me. 26 For as often as ye eat this bread, and drink this cup, ye do shew the Lord’s death till he come. 27 Wherefore whosoever shall eat this bread, and drink this cup of the Lord, unworthily, shall be guilty of the body and blood of the Lord. 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.” [1 Cor 11:23-29 KJV]
Now this is scripture so we must accept it as true. Paul says he received this from Jesus and not someone else. So again what Paul received is true. He then reiterates the Last Supper sequence spoken by Jesus. Paul does not think this is a metaphor for he states that anyone who eats the body of Jesus unworthily is guilty of the body and blood of Jesus. He is referring to those who crucified Jesus. They were the ones guilty ofHis body and blood but those who eat the body and drink the cup unworthily are in the same boat. And he strengthens that by saying they eat and drink their own damnation. There is no way that Paul is talking about some metaphor. Not when you are speaking or damning yourself by just eating bread. Here having unconfessed mortal sin makes one “unworthy”.
Quote:
Originally Posted by inkaneer
When Jesus spoke the words, “This is My Body” the Bread became His Body. Just as when Jesus spoke the words, “Lazurus, come forth” the dead man came forth. The disciples on the road to Emmaus didn’t recognize Jesus even when Jesus explained the scriptures to them. They only recognized Him when He took the bread and said the blessing and then disappearred. And what was the blessing? It was, “This is My Body” They recognized Jesus in the Eucharist
There is no difference though in Jesus words. Neither are metaphors as you would like to believe. Paul’s words completely destroys that argument. You don’t damn yourself to hell because of a metaphor. Jesus used metaphors when He likened himself to a door or a vine. But if I choose to believe that Jesus is not a door nor a vine I do not damn myself to hell. But if I eat or drink of the body and blood of Jesus unworthily then I and you too would be on a one way trip to eternal damnation.
Originally Posted by inkaneer
So is the Trinity my friend. There is more support in scripture for Transubstantiation than there is for the Trinity. You understand the Trinity not in Biblical terms but rather in Greek philosophical terms. And it was the Church who defined the Trinity just as it defined Transubstantiation.
This idea that something has to be be proven from scripture is both novel [a 16th century invention] as well as unscriptural. It is a tradition of man. The Bible is a Catholic liturgical book not some crash course in christianity for dummies. Those books that protestants accept as inspired owe their place in the scriptures because Catholic bishops in the fourth and early fifth centuries said they were. Before 348 AD there was no agreement on the NT canon. It was only in 348AD that the Catholic bishop Athanasius set down the 27 books that we call the New Testament. And never, in the early days of the church, was sola scriptura ever held or taught.
Also, there are no “reformed” churches. There are denominations [they are not churches] who may think they reformed something but they “reformed” nothing. Their so called “reformation” only substituted man made traditions for the truthful doctrines of God. They were founded by heretics from the true faith that Jesus gave to the church trough His Apostles.
Quote:
Originally Posted by inkaneer
Bear in mind that this is one of the mysteries of Faith. These are mysteries because our understanding of them is imperfect. It is not a complete understanding. The Trinity is another mystery of faith that the story of Augustine and the boy on the beach illustrates quite well. They are mysteries because we, with our finite minds, are trying to understand the infinite. We cannot do it. It is an impossibility. We, therefore, accept them even though we do not fully comprehend them. We accept them on faith.
In reviewing my original post I tried to add to it but the time to edit expired on me. Iwanted to add that while we accept these teachings on faith that faith is grounded in the constant teaching of the Apostles and their successors. What we teach today is the same as what was taught in the Apostolic Age. Paul writes in his letter to the Corinthians that to eat the body of Christ unworthily is to eat damnation:
“23 For I have received of the Lord that which also I delivered unto you, That the Lord Jesus the same night in which he was betrayed took bread: 24 And when he had given thanks, he brake it, and said, Take, eat: this is my body, which is broken for you: this do in remembrance of me. 25 After the same manner also he took the cup, when he had supped, saying, This cup is the new testament in my blood: this do ye, as oft as ye drink it, in remembrance of me. 26 For as often as ye eat this bread, and drink this cup, ye do shew the Lord’s death till he come. 27 Wherefore whosoever shall eat this bread, and drink this cup of the Lord, unworthily, shall be guilty of the body and blood of the Lord. 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.” [1 Cor 11:23-29 KJV]
Now this is scripture so we must accept it as true. Paul says he received this from Jesus and not someone else. So again what Paul received is true. He then reiterates the Last Supper sequence spoken by Jesus. Paul does not think this is a metaphor for he states that anyone who eats the body of Jesus unworthily is guilty of the body and blood of Jesus. He is referring to those who crucified Jesus. They were the ones guilty ofHis body and blood but those who eat the body and drink the cup unworthily are in the same boat. And he strengthens that by saying they eat and drink their own damnation. There is no way that Paul is talking about some metaphor. Not when you are speaking or damning yourself by just eating bread. Here having unconfessed mortal sin makes one “unworthy”.
Quote:
Originally Posted by inkaneer
When Jesus spoke the words, “This is My Body” the Bread became His Body. Just as when Jesus spoke the words, “Lazurus, come forth” the dead man came forth. The disciples on the road to Emmaus didn’t recognize Jesus even when Jesus explained the scriptures to them. They only recognized Him when He took the bread and said the blessing and then disappearred. And what was the blessing? It was, “This is My Body” They recognized Jesus in the Eucharist
Not so. The substance of the bread [its essence] changes [transubstantiates] The accidents stay the same. Accidents are those things that we can see, touch, taste, hear, etc. These remain the same but the actual essence changes.
There is no difference though in Jesus words. Neither are metaphors as you would like to believe. Paul’s words completely destroys that argument. You don’t damn yourself to hell because of a metaphor. Jesus used metaphors when He likened himself to a door or a vine. But if I choose to believe that Jesus is not a door nor a vine I do not damn myself to hell. But if I eat or drink of the body and blood of Jesus unworthily then I and you too would be on a one way trip to eternal damnation.
I
inkaneer
Guest
Quote:
Originally Posted by inkaneer
Jesus said the Holy Spirit would guide the Church into all truth. Jesus said that He, Himself, would remain with His Church until the end of the age. Do you really think Jesus would go through all that He did and then allow His Church to teach error? Does that make sense to you?
would teach their man made doctrines like sola scriptura and sola fide, etc. But the true church would be protected from teaching error.
Quote:
Originally Posted by inkaneer
No, Jesus gave us the church as a way of knowing what He taught.
Quote:
Originally Posted by inkaneer
But He didn’t. So now you are down to doubting Jesus’ own words and what He meant by them.
“if I am delayed, you may know how one ought to behave in the household of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and bulwark of the truth.”
He calls the church the pillar and bulwark of the truth. Some versions have “pillar and ground” but it makes no difference. Paul is using architectural terms here to say that it is the church that holds up the truth. He, nor anyone else, makes no such claim for scripture. So reject all you want but you are wrong.
Quote:
Originally Posted by inkaneer
That destroys your idea that scripture is the final authority.
Quote:
Originally Posted by inkaneer
Now the final authority is you because you decide what Jesus meant or didn’t mean. You have, in your own mind, become God.
Originally Posted by inkaneer
Jesus said the Holy Spirit would guide the Church into all truth. Jesus said that He, Himself, would remain with His Church until the end of the age. Do you really think Jesus would go through all that He did and then allow His Church to teach error? Does that make sense to you?
Yes there were false teachers but not every teacher that came after Paul were false teachers. In fact Paul instructed Timothy to teach others to follow after them. But Jesus left His Church with a convenient way of knowing who was teaching the Truth and who was a false teacher. It was called Apostolic Succession. That is the pedigree of the Church handed on by the laying on of hands. Today every Catholic bishop can trace his succession back to one of the Apostles. Protestants have no apostolic succession because they severed themselves from the church when they revolted. No bishop separated himself from the church and became protestant. Even the Anglicans have no apostolic succession although there case is different than the other protestants. So the Holy spirit would guide the true church into all truth and the false teachers like Arius, Nestorious, Mani, and on down to Luther, Calvin, Zwinglii, John Smythe,Joseph Smith, etc.
would teach their man made doctrines like sola scriptura and sola fide, etc. But the true church would be protected from teaching error.
Quote:
Originally Posted by inkaneer
No, Jesus gave us the church as a way of knowing what He taught.
Really, well then you would think if that were true then God would find a way that everyone would interpret those scriptures the same. But they don’t. Look at the divisions in protestantism over Baptism. Is it a sacrament or an ordinance? Does it save or do you just get wet? Infant or adult only? Necessary or not? And it goes on. It has been said that two Jews reading the same thing will result in three opinions. But three protestants reading the same scripture will result in a new protestant denomination. The sheer number of protestant denominations in just 500 years should tell you that your logic is totally flawed.
Quote:
Originally Posted by inkaneer
But He didn’t. So now you are down to doubting Jesus’ own words and what He meant by them.
Not my interpretation but you reject the teaching of those early church fathers who were disciples of the Apostles. They never taught what you believe. In fact what you believe is unscriptural. In 1Ti 3:15 Paul writes these words:
“if I am delayed, you may know how one ought to behave in the household of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and bulwark of the truth.”
He calls the church the pillar and bulwark of the truth. Some versions have “pillar and ground” but it makes no difference. Paul is using architectural terms here to say that it is the church that holds up the truth. He, nor anyone else, makes no such claim for scripture. So reject all you want but you are wrong.
Quote:
Originally Posted by inkaneer
That destroys your idea that scripture is the final authority.
Yeah, it does. What’s more your final authoroity is not ascripture but rather your interpretation of scripture. That is why one protestant cannot call another a heretic. Because for both of you your beliefs are based on your individual interpretations of scripture.
Quote:
Originally Posted by inkaneer
Now the final authority is you because you decide what Jesus meant or didn’t mean. You have, in your own mind, become God.
Wrong pal, Truth exists outside of your (Edited) which you call conclusions. Truth does not change. What you claim is truth has no relationship to that which the apostles taught and the early church believed. What you call your conclusions are in reality 16th century traditions of men and these bear no resemblance to what the early church taught. In Acts 2:42 we are told that the first Christians “devoted themselves to the apostles’ teaching” long before there was a Bible or a New Testament. From the very beginning, the fullness of Christian teaching was found in the Church as the living embodiment of Christ, not in a book. The teaching Church, with its oral, apostolic tradition, was authoritative. Paul himself gives a quotation from Jesus that was handed down orally to him: “It is more blessed to give than to receive” (Acts 20:35). What you have done is to reject the church established and empowered by Christ and of which Paul calls the pillar and bulwark of the truth. So believe what you will but as for me and my family we will believe the pillar and bulwark of the truth.
W
William_C
Guest
Guess again.
The idea of proof from scripture is certainly NOT a novel idea, but a very scriptural idea.
If you (Edited) read (Edited) the Scripture, you’ll see Jesus and the apostles using proof from Scripture all the time against the Pharisees and Judaisers.
face/palm.
Oh please. You’re guessing what the passage means based upon your Eucharistic presuppositions.
You cannot prove transubstantiation. You can assert it, but that’s it. That’s as far as you can go, and no farther.
You know, I could place before you, or any Catholic, a host consecrated by a priest, and an unconsecrated host, and you couldn’t tell the difference.
There is not argument about Jesus using metaphors in John 6. Jesus did use metaphors . I’ve given the definition of, and the grammatical construction of a metaphor, and it is the exact grammatical construction Jesus uses at the last supper.
You’re too much.
One isn’t damned for partaking in an unworthy manner. You’d know that if you read the scripture instead of apologetics arguments.
There’s no damnation mentioned in that passage, but JUDGMENT, and Paul tells us what that judgment is: weakness, sickness, sleep (v30).
You might want to take note of this: “sleep” is a term for “death” for Christians. Notice in verse 32 that those who partake unworthily are taken out of the world by God before they sin so badly they are judged as the rest of the world. IOW before their salvation can be lost, if that were possible, and it isn’t.
Again, there’s no eternal damnation mentioned in that passage. That comes out of your presuppositions concerning the Eucharist.
W
William_C
Guest
P
PJM
Guest
[1] GREAT question BUT easy to understand:
The term “disciples” refers to 1. ONLY the Apostles 2. Followers in general 3.Leaders and teachers of the New Faith. READ John 6:68-70 to see the Apostles reaction.
Matt.10: 1-8 "And he called to him his twelve disciples and gave them authority over unclean spirits, to cast them out, and to heal every disease and every infirmity.
**The names of the twelve apostles are these: first, Simon, **who is called Peter, and Andrew his brother; James the son of Zeb’edee, and John his brother;
Philip and Bartholomew; Thomas and Matthew the tax collector; James the son of Alphaeus, and Thaddaeus; Simon the Cananaean, and Judas Iscariot, who betrayed him.
These twelve Jesus sent out, charging them, "Go nowhere among the Gentiles, and enter no town of the Samaritans, but go rather to the lost sheep of the house of Israel.
And preach as you go, saying, `The kingdom of heaven is at hand.’ Heal the sick, raise the dead, cleanse lepers, cast out demons. You received without paying, give without pay.
[2] Matt.11: 2 [John thr Baptist: "Now when John heard in prison about the deeds of the Christ, he sent word by his disciples
[3] Matt. 14:12 “And his disciples came and took the body and buried it; and they went and told Jesus.” Matt.18: 1 "At that time the disciples came to Jesus, saying, “Who is the greatest in the kingdom of heaven?” John 15: 8 “By this my Father is glorified, that you bear much fruit, and so prove to be my disciples”
In reading ALL of John Chapter six it becomes very clear that the term “disciples” refers to people who were folloers but not believers. Verses 68-70 clears up the matter that Jesus IS NOT refering to His Apostles here.
God Bless,
pat /PJM
R
R_C
Guest
You are gravely mistaken in making such an assertion.
The Lord does grant some of His little ones, every so often, the sweet gift of perceiving His divine presence in the Holy Eucharist. I can tell you this because it has happened to me, poor sinner, in more than one occasion. I tell this as a simple testimony to the truth, as an anonymous forum user.
I also know that others have received this temporary grace in some occasion.
I will share two examples with you, as justification for my statements.
If you are familiar with the Catholic Church, you do know about Perpetual Adoration of the Holy Eucharist. In one of these chapels of Perpetual Adoration, there is a Tabernacle - that is, you cannot see the consecrated Host. Thus, a light is supposed to be always on when the Holy Eucharist is in the Tabernacle.
On one distinct occasion I walked in the Chapel and the light was off, yet I felt a grip of sheer joy inside my heart along with a great peace. A feeling that I have only experienced in some occasion in front of the Blessed Sacrament, and nowhere else in my life. I then knew that the candle had simply burned out, but the Eucharist was in the Tabernacle. On that day came to taste, like a child who is allowed by his Father to touch the border of the cake with his little fingers, the sweetness of these words:
In another occasion, at the same place, a lady who perhaps was not accustomed at adoration by the Tabernacle walked towards some of us and asked us whether the Lord was present in the Chapel or not - she perhaps expected to see the exposed Blessed Sacrament in a monstrance. I was about to reply when the lady I was talking to turned to her, amazed, and told her: “of course, don’t you feel that He is there?” That spontaneous remark revealed to me that others could discern the Real Presence of the Lord - perhaps not always, but whenever it is His will that it be so. It was a rare gift, but not one reserved for exceptional souls - otherwise an average sinner like me would have never received it.
This is my truthful testimony. Of course, it will be simple to attribute such events to the work of the devil (Mt 12:22-24 ) or perhaps of our imagination (Jn 12:28-29). Discernment of spirits is no easy thing, and I myself make no judgment and simply keep these events in my heart without thinking too much about them, simply giving thanks for having brought me closer to God.
You are free to believe whatever you want. But please, never again tell a bride that she cannot recognize the presence of her beloved bridegroom simply because she is wearing a chaste veil, no matter how rational your conclusion appears to be.
W
William_C
Guest
I know with complete, absolute certaintly that I’m saved forever, and that I will never lose my salvation because I had an incredibly special feeling, all over my body, when I first believed, and that feeling has never left me, but grows ever stronger each time I read the Scripture in which the Lord tells His church that salvation is forever, and cannot be lost.
R
R_C
Guest
I am very glad to read this, and I would never dare to question such a wonderful feeling. I completely agree, because the day the Lord called me I knew that His love was forever, and that he would never let me go.
I also know that God is not tied to His sacraments, and that not knowing or not acknowledging one or some of them cannot preclude us from reaching the heavenly abode with our beloved Lord. After all, through Baptism we are incorporated into the Church, which is the mystical body of Christ.
But I know that it is always a possibility for me to mess up and reject that salvation which the Lord has given me without any conditions the moment I fell in love with Him and acknowledged Him as my Lord and my God. How many of us do it constantly! They don’t just do this by openly offending Him and disobeying Him, but also by not doing His will, which is to love and help each other. If we love God, then we will do all we can to serve Him and help one another.
I see salvation as a personal key on which Christ engraves our name. That key is ours forever, but it is up to us whether or not we receive it from the Lord’s hands. While we could never make that key by ourselves, it is through what we do to one another that we reach out our hand and receive it from the Lord’s hands. If we were to rejoice at the sight of the Lord handing us the key, yet were to remain still, then we would resemble the virgins who knew that their beloved was coming but ran out of light and through their fault were left outside in the darkness. For salvation is forever, but it can be lost.
I
inkaneer
Guest
Quote:
Originally Posted by inkaneer
This idea that something has to be be proven from scripture is both novel [a 16th century invention] as well as unscriptural. It is a tradition of man.
"1 Then said Jesus to the crowds and to his disciples, 2 “The scribes and the Pharisees sit on Moses’ seat; 3 so practice and observe whatever they tell you, but not what they do; for they preach, but do not practice. 4 They bind heavy burdens, hard to bear, and lay them on men’s shoulders; but they themselves will not move them with their finger.”
Look for this ‘Moses’ seat’ in the OT and you will not find it. Yet Jesus tells the crowd they are to practice and observe what the Pharisees tell them. Even in the Old Testament there was a source of authority comparable to the authority of the Church in the NT. But the fact that I want to make is that this disproves your ‘Jesus was a sola scripturist’ idea Now if you can come up with a Bible verse that says we should only accept scripture as authoritative then you will have something. But the wooden stake in the heart of sola scriptura was wriiten by Paul in his second letter to the Thessalonians in which he says:
“So then, brethren, stand firm and hold to the traditions which you were taught by us, either by word of mouth or by letter.” [2 Thess 2:15 RSV]
That is scripture and because it is scripture it is as valid today as it was when Paul first penned it almost 2,000 years ago.
Quote:
Originally Posted by inkaneer
The Bible is a Catholic liturgical book not some crash course in christianity for dummies. Those books that protestants accept as inspired owe their place in the scriptures because Catholic bishops in the fourth and early fifth centuries said they
were. Before 348 AD there was no agreement on the NT canon. It was only in 348AD that the Catholic bishop Athanasius set down the 27 books that we call the New Testament. And never, in the early days of the church, was sola scriptura ever held or taught.
Also, there are no “reformed” churches. There are denominations [they are not churches] who may think they reformed something but they “reformed” nothing. Their so called “reformation” only substituted man made traditions for the truthful doctrines of God. They were founded by heretics from the true faith that Jesus gave to the church trough His Apostles.
Originally Posted by inkaneer
This idea that something has to be be proven from scripture is both novel [a 16th century invention] as well as unscriptural. It is a tradition of man.
Aaah you make the classic protestant mistake. You assume that since Jesus and the NT writers quoted scripture then they must be sola scripturists and thus they provide a basis for that failed doctrine of man. But I will remind you that we Catholics will quote scripture also and we are not sola scripturists. To further rebuke your claim I will remind you that Jesus used Jewish tradition that was not written, let alone written in Jewish scripture. In Matthew 23:1-4, Jesus speaks of a source of authority that is not in scripture.
"1 Then said Jesus to the crowds and to his disciples, 2 “The scribes and the Pharisees sit on Moses’ seat; 3 so practice and observe whatever they tell you, but not what they do; for they preach, but do not practice. 4 They bind heavy burdens, hard to bear, and lay them on men’s shoulders; but they themselves will not move them with their finger.”
Look for this ‘Moses’ seat’ in the OT and you will not find it. Yet Jesus tells the crowd they are to practice and observe what the Pharisees tell them. Even in the Old Testament there was a source of authority comparable to the authority of the Church in the NT. But the fact that I want to make is that this disproves your ‘Jesus was a sola scripturist’ idea Now if you can come up with a Bible verse that says we should only accept scripture as authoritative then you will have something. But the wooden stake in the heart of sola scriptura was wriiten by Paul in his second letter to the Thessalonians in which he says:
“So then, brethren, stand firm and hold to the traditions which you were taught by us, either by word of mouth or by letter.” [2 Thess 2:15 RSV]
That is scripture and because it is scripture it is as valid today as it was when Paul first penned it almost 2,000 years ago.
Quote:
Originally Posted by inkaneer
The Bible is a Catholic liturgical book not some crash course in christianity for dummies. Those books that protestants accept as inspired owe their place in the scriptures because Catholic bishops in the fourth and early fifth centuries said they
were. Before 348 AD there was no agreement on the NT canon. It was only in 348AD that the Catholic bishop Athanasius set down the 27 books that we call the New Testament. And never, in the early days of the church, was sola scriptura ever held or taught.
Also, there are no “reformed” churches. There are denominations [they are not churches] who may think they reformed something but they “reformed” nothing. Their so called “reformation” only substituted man made traditions for the truthful doctrines of God. They were founded by heretics from the true faith that Jesus gave to the church trough His Apostles.
Touched a nerve with that one didn’t I?
I
inkaneer
Guest
Quote:
Originally Posted by inkaneer
In reviewing my original post I tried to add to it but the time to edit expired on me. Iwanted to add that while we accept these teachings on faith that faith is grounded in the constant teaching of the Apostles and their successors. What we teach today is the same as what was taught in the Apostolic Age. Paul writes in his letter to the Corinthians that to eat the body of Christ unworthily is to eat damnation:
“23 For I have received of the Lord that which also I delivered unto you, That the Lord Jesus the same night in which he was betrayed took bread: 24 And when he had given thanks, he brake it, and said, Take, eat: this is my body, which is broken for you: this do in remembrance of me. 25 After the same manner also he took the cup, when he had supped, saying, This cup is the new testament in my blood: this do ye, as oft as ye drink it, in remembrance of me. 26 For as often as ye eat this bread, and drink this cup, ye do shew the Lord’s death till he come. 27 Wherefore whosoever shall eat this bread, and drink this cup of the Lord, unworthily, shall be guilty of the body and blood of the Lord. 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.” [1 Cor 11:23-29 KJV]
Now this is scripture so we must accept it as true. Paul says he received this from Jesus and not someone else. So again what Paul received is true. He then reiterates the Last Supper sequence spoken by Jesus. Paul does not think this is a metaphor for he states that anyone who eats the body of Jesus unworthily is guilty of the body and blood of Jesus. He is referring to those who crucified Jesus. They were the ones guilty ofHis body and blood but those who eat the body and drink the cup unworthily are in the same boat. And he strengthens that by saying they eat and drink their own damnation. There is no way that Paul is talking about some metaphor. Not when you are speaking or damning yourself by just eating bread. Here having unconfessed mortal sin makes one “unworthy”.
“28 For it has seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us to lay upon you no greater burden than these necessary things: 29 that you abstain from what has been sacrificed to idols and from blood and from what is strangled and from unchastity. If you keep yourselves from these, you will do well. Farewell.”
Notice no appeal to scripture here. The Apostles claimed a direct inspiration from the Holy Spirit. The sola scripturists [Judiacizers] lost.
Quote:
Originally Posted by inkaneer
Not so. The substance of the bread [its essence] changes [transubstantiates] The accidents stay the same. Accidents are those things that we can see, touch, taste, hear, etc. These remain the same but the actual essence changes.
Originally Posted by inkaneer
In reviewing my original post I tried to add to it but the time to edit expired on me. Iwanted to add that while we accept these teachings on faith that faith is grounded in the constant teaching of the Apostles and their successors. What we teach today is the same as what was taught in the Apostolic Age. Paul writes in his letter to the Corinthians that to eat the body of Christ unworthily is to eat damnation:
“23 For I have received of the Lord that which also I delivered unto you, That the Lord Jesus the same night in which he was betrayed took bread: 24 And when he had given thanks, he brake it, and said, Take, eat: this is my body, which is broken for you: this do in remembrance of me. 25 After the same manner also he took the cup, when he had supped, saying, This cup is the new testament in my blood: this do ye, as oft as ye drink it, in remembrance of me. 26 For as often as ye eat this bread, and drink this cup, ye do shew the Lord’s death till he come. 27 Wherefore whosoever shall eat this bread, and drink this cup of the Lord, unworthily, shall be guilty of the body and blood of the Lord. 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.” [1 Cor 11:23-29 KJV]
Now this is scripture so we must accept it as true. Paul says he received this from Jesus and not someone else. So again what Paul received is true. He then reiterates the Last Supper sequence spoken by Jesus. Paul does not think this is a metaphor for he states that anyone who eats the body of Jesus unworthily is guilty of the body and blood of Jesus. He is referring to those who crucified Jesus. They were the ones guilty ofHis body and blood but those who eat the body and drink the cup unworthily are in the same boat. And he strengthens that by saying they eat and drink their own damnation. There is no way that Paul is talking about some metaphor. Not when you are speaking or damning yourself by just eating bread. Here having unconfessed mortal sin makes one “unworthy”.
Wrong pal, Just as Jesus told the Jews that there was an OT seat of authority that Moses occupied and that seat of authority continued after him to even Jesus’s time when the Pharisees occupied it. So to there is a seat of authority in the NT that Peter occupied and that authority continued after his martyrdom. This is attested to by scripture. Mathew 16:18-19 is the NT perfection of Isaiah 22:22 to include the keys of the kingdom. In Acts the church in Antioch appealled to the Apostles in Jerusalem to settle a problem there with the Judiacizers. If you recall it was the Judiacizers who appealled to scripture. But the apostles did not consult scripture. Instead their response was recorded in Acts 15:28-29:
“28 For it has seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us to lay upon you no greater burden than these necessary things: 29 that you abstain from what has been sacrificed to idols and from blood and from what is strangled and from unchastity. If you keep yourselves from these, you will do well. Farewell.”
Notice no appeal to scripture here. The Apostles claimed a direct inspiration from the Holy Spirit. The sola scripturists [Judiacizers] lost.
Quote:
Originally Posted by inkaneer
Not so. The substance of the bread [its essence] changes [transubstantiates] The accidents stay the same. Accidents are those things that we can see, touch, taste, hear, etc. These remain the same but the actual essence changes.
Corect, It would look, taste, feel, the same. In fact all of our material senses would discern no difference. But our material senses are limited to detecting the accidents of something and not the essence of something. The essence is the same as the substance. That is why the word is TRANSUBSTANTIATION and not TRANSACCIDENTIATION. You make the same mistake as the Jews and the disciples who left Jesus in John 6.
I
inkaneer
Guest
Quote:
Originally Posted by inkaneer
There is no difference though in Jesus words. Neither are metaphors as you would like to believe. Paul’s words completely destroys that argument.
Quote:
Originally Posted by inkaneer
You don’t damn yourself to hell because of a metaphor… But if I eat or drink of the body and blood of Jesus unworthily then I and you too would be on a one way trip to eternal damnation.
"For he that eateth and drinketh unworthily, eateth and drinketh damnation to himself, not discerning the Lord’s body. "
Did you get that last part, …not discerning the Lord’s body"? Paul is saying that bread is actually the Lord’s Body. Consuming the Eucharist unworthily [with mortal sin on one’s soul] damns one to hell because it is a profanation of the Lord.
Furthermore Paul uses the Greek word krioma when he speaks of damnation or condemnation. But when speaking of righteous judgment he uses the word dikaiokrisiða [Romans 2:5 ] and for judgement in general the Greek word gnwñmh
[1Co 1:10].
As for your point about verse 30 which states:
“30 For this cause many are weak and sickly among you, and many sleep.”
We have to ask what is this “cause” does this this verse refer to. The answer is that it refers to verse 29 which states:
“29 For he that eateth and drinketh unworthily, eateth and drinketh damnation to himself, not discerning the Lord’s body.”
So according to you eating bread and drinking wine unworthily [whatever that means to you] causes you to be weak, sickly and die. Your position is preposterous for it means that Jesus told the apostles at the Last Supper to eat the bread and drink the wine because he wanted them to be weak, sleepy and dead.
Originally Posted by inkaneer
There is no difference though in Jesus words. Neither are metaphors as you would like to believe. Paul’s words completely destroys that argument.
Paul did not think so. His revealation came directly from Jesus and he said that the bread was the body of Christ.
Quote:
Originally Posted by inkaneer
You don’t damn yourself to hell because of a metaphor… But if I eat or drink of the body and blood of Jesus unworthily then I and you too would be on a one way trip to eternal damnation.
The KJV translates the Greek as damnation. Now this favorite version of protestants is hardly a Cathlic translation. In addition look at 1Co 11:29 where in Paul writes:
"For he that eateth and drinketh unworthily, eateth and drinketh damnation to himself, not discerning the Lord’s body. "
Did you get that last part, …not discerning the Lord’s body"? Paul is saying that bread is actually the Lord’s Body. Consuming the Eucharist unworthily [with mortal sin on one’s soul] damns one to hell because it is a profanation of the Lord.
Furthermore Paul uses the Greek word krioma when he speaks of damnation or condemnation. But when speaking of righteous judgment he uses the word dikaiokrisiða [Romans 2:5 ] and for judgement in general the Greek word gnwñmh
[1Co 1:10].
As for your point about verse 30 which states:
“30 For this cause many are weak and sickly among you, and many sleep.”
We have to ask what is this “cause” does this this verse refer to. The answer is that it refers to verse 29 which states:
“29 For he that eateth and drinketh unworthily, eateth and drinketh damnation to himself, not discerning the Lord’s body.”
So according to you eating bread and drinking wine unworthily [whatever that means to you] causes you to be weak, sickly and die. Your position is preposterous for it means that Jesus told the apostles at the Last Supper to eat the bread and drink the wine because he wanted them to be weak, sleepy and dead.
M
Michael_Francis
Guest
(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)
Please maintain a demeanor or mutual charity and respect or this thread will be closed and more citations issued.
See the link in my sig line below for more info.
Please maintain a demeanor or mutual charity and respect or this thread will be closed and more citations issued.
See the link in my sig line below for more info.
F
Farsight001
Guest
I’ve had that feeling like 20 times before.
I
inkaneer
Guest
I hope, for your sake, that one day that incredible feeling grows so strong that it guides you into the church established by Jesus Christ.
- Status