T
- Status
A
Atemi
Guest
Yes, of course. Quite a few times.
O
Odell
Guest
Atemi could yoiu respond to my post 50 please.
T
teachccd
Guest
And you believe that Justin Martyr taught a symbolic Communion?? What were you reading??
A
Atemi
Guest
What on earth are you talking about?
LOL.
Please cite the post where I said Justin Martyr taught a symbolic communion.
Don’t bother. You can’t.
Sigh.
…
A
Atemi
Guest
Billy Graham is not the topic of this thread.I find this offensive for Catholicism has been selling Jesus long before Billy Grahm ever came along.
And If Billy sells Jesus then you must believe all Billy teaches right?
1)Billy Graham believes the killing of unborn babies is sometimes ok. In The Billy Graham Christian Worker’s Handbook (copyright 1997 edition
sonds like something Jesus would saywwjd
I bet you dont believe all he teaches I could go on and on and I bet you would not agree with half of his teachings
- GRAHAM BELIEVES MEN CAN BE SAVED APART FROM NAME OF CHRIST
So where is the leaders of your Church that should of been telling us this is wrong? Oh yeah your church didnt excist.But ours did and we instructed the people who belived as you.
All off topic stuff.
Fruit of the vine, Odell.
O
Odell
Guest
I can see 'billy being off topic but you did say he sells Jesus and Scott does not I had to put my 2 cents in.
but this was said by you
The problem is Protestants teach against the body and blood because there is a Church that teaches it. That same Church tought it 2000 years ago. Do you not think that people would protest against this so called false teaching back then as you do now?
that is a bad question because ofcourse you do. But do you have the proof?
(2 Thess 3:6) “We instruct you brothers in the name of Jesus Christ to shun any brother who conducts himself in a disorderly way and not according to the TRADITION they received from us.”
(1 Timothy 1:3) “Instuct certain people not to teach false doctrines”
according to you our teachings are false. Paul Instructs the leaders of the Church to instruct people like us who have false teachings.
So where is the leaders of your Church that should of been telling us this is wrong? Oh yeah your church didnt excist. But ours did and we instructed the people who belived as you.
We have the proof of your false doctrine do you have proof of our supposed false doctrine?
WE HAVE NOT SEEN IT YET
The bottom line is if you cant show us that your church taught againtst what we show pople have always believed then what proof do you have of anything? why should we believe anything you say.
This was on topic I would like a response.
but this was said by you
I responded with
The problem is Protestants teach against the body and blood because there is a Church that teaches it. That same Church tought it 2000 years ago. Do you not think that people would protest against this so called false teaching back then as you do now?
that is a bad question because ofcourse you do. But do you have the proof?
(2 Thess 3:6) “We instruct you brothers in the name of Jesus Christ to shun any brother who conducts himself in a disorderly way and not according to the TRADITION they received from us.”
(1 Timothy 1:3) “Instuct certain people not to teach false doctrines”
according to you our teachings are false. Paul Instructs the leaders of the Church to instruct people like us who have false teachings.
So where is the leaders of your Church that should of been telling us this is wrong? Oh yeah your church didnt excist. But ours did and we instructed the people who belived as you.
We have the proof of your false doctrine do you have proof of our supposed false doctrine?
WE HAVE NOT SEEN IT YET
The bottom line is if you cant show us that your church taught againtst what we show pople have always believed then what proof do you have of anything? why should we believe anything you say.
This was on topic I would like a response.
T
teachccd
Guest
Your Quote from post #6:
"I guess our Lord is only taken literally when one wants.
So He says that it is His blood and He is being literal.
But when He then says that it is wine, and He is only speaking metaphorically and doesn’t mean it.
This is the only time you will here wine being called wine metaphorically.
The fact is that the Holy Spirit identified the consecrated elements as both bread and wine.
We can take Him at His Word or not, IMV."
This is not what Justin Martyr taught. What in the world are you talking about???
Conversation ended…
R
Randy_Carson
Guest
Gee, he’s had two people break off discussions with him in one day. Wonder why? :banghead:Conversation ended…
T
teachccd
Guest
Three guesses and the first two don’t count??
A
Atemi
Guest
In case you missed it, I was referring specifically to our Lord, Jesus Christ here.
And what did you claim earlier?
“And you believe that Justin Martyr taught a symbolic Communion?? What were you reading??”
Last time I checked, Justin Martyr was not Jesus Christ.
Please pay better attention to the posts.
…
T
teachccd
Guest
No, Justin Martyr is the Early Church Father who in the year 150 A.D. wrote and described the Catholic Mass and fully explains the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist as Catholics still believe today. So, if I’m not mistaken then, you also believe this and are Catholic??
You should pay better attention to the Early Church Fathers. If you are not 100% Catholic then you have a lot of work ahead of you. Many try to make the ECF’s protestant and I just have to LOL…
The Eucharist is our Lord Jesus Christ and the Catholic Church is the body of our Lord Jesus Christ and it is within that body that Justin Martyr and many who defended the faith live…God Bless…teachccd
R
Randy_Carson
Guest
Atemi is a former Catholic.No, Justin Martyr is the Early Church Father who in the year 150 A.D. wrote and described the Catholic Mass and fully explains the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist as Catholics still believe today. So, if I’m not mistaken then, you also believe this and are Catholic??
You should pay better attention to the Early Church Fathers. If you are not 100% Catholic then you have a lot of work ahead of you. Many try to make the ECF’s protestant and I just have to LOL…
The Eucharist is our Lord Jesus Christ and the Catholic Church is the body of our Lord Jesus Christ and it is within that body that Justin Martyr and many who defended the faith live…God Bless…teachccd
R
runandsew
Guest
Scott Hahn said that he had found Jesus in his teens, and now he has found the Church that Jesus established in the Roman Catholic Church, if that is what you mean.Exactly.
Except one man “sells” Jesus Christ and another “sells” Roman Catholicism.
But I know full well that you equate the two.
I am glad that you have a relationship with Jesus, and that is great if that is all you want from him, but he left us so much more, he left us a family, we are now sons and daughters of God through baptism, brothers and sisters of Christ, and we live this family relationship through his Church which he established. We find the fullest and richest fulfillment of this family unit in the Roman Catholic Church.
The New Testament shows us that Jesus established a church, He placed the Apostles in charge of His church, and He sent his Apostles out into the world to spread the Gospel. The Church is the body of Christ and Jesus is the head of this body.
John 13:20
“I tell you the truth, whoever accepts anyone I send accepts me; and whoever accepts me accepts the one who sent me.”
These “anyone I send” people that Jesus is talking about are the members from his church. So if Mr. Hahn seems to be focusing on “Roman Catholicism” to you, it is that he is trying to share the Church with others. The fullness of our relationship with Jesus is experienced inside the Church. I am not saying that you can’t have this relationship outside the church, but you will find the fullness of faith only inside the Church.
Anything outside it is a scaled down version, but if that satisfies you, then so be it.
T
teachccd
Guest
So many times we are so busy “evangelizing” those outside the church we ignore those already in our home. Who was with Atemi and ignored the signs of his departure? Sometimes, I know, free will takes wings and nothing helps. But those most negative about Catholicism seem to be former Catholics because their questions were never satisfactorily answered. Thank you, Randy and God Bless…teachccd
T
teachccd
Guest
Very well put…
R
runandsew
Guest
If Jesus said in Matthew 26:29
I tell you, I will not drink of this fruit of the vine from now on until that day when I drink it anew with you in my Father’s kingdom."
They why did he drink it on the Cross?
John 19:29-30
A jar of wine vinegar was there, so they soaked a sponge in it, put the sponge on a stalk of the hyssop plant, and lifted it to Jesus’ lips. When he had received the drink, Jesus said, “It is finished.” With that, he bowed his head and gave up his spirit
Scott Hahn says that it was the 4th and final cup of the Passover celebration, and this was the completion of Passover. Jesus was the Passover sacrifice, and that when we now celebrate the passover we eat his body and drink his blood, therefore renewing the “New Covenant”, just as the Jews renewed their covenant with God by eating the passover lamb.
It seems to me that this would continue the beliefs and practices from the Old Testament into the New Testament more closely than having a communion service that we just remember Jesus with a cracker and cup of juice.
With the Apostolic Church fathers writing about the “real presence” of the Eucharist, and the fact that they were either taught by the Apostles, or by someone who was taught by the Apostles, I would say that their testimony would closely mirror what the New Testament writers believed when they wrote about the last supper and the “breaking of the bread”.
I guess it is easy for some of us some 2,000 years later to disregard what they wrote about the Eucharist, since it might go against what we have been taught, but if they did not believe that it was the blood and body of Jesus, then why did they write it that way?
I tell you, I will not drink of this fruit of the vine from now on until that day when I drink it anew with you in my Father’s kingdom."
They why did he drink it on the Cross?
John 19:29-30
A jar of wine vinegar was there, so they soaked a sponge in it, put the sponge on a stalk of the hyssop plant, and lifted it to Jesus’ lips. When he had received the drink, Jesus said, “It is finished.” With that, he bowed his head and gave up his spirit
Scott Hahn says that it was the 4th and final cup of the Passover celebration, and this was the completion of Passover. Jesus was the Passover sacrifice, and that when we now celebrate the passover we eat his body and drink his blood, therefore renewing the “New Covenant”, just as the Jews renewed their covenant with God by eating the passover lamb.
It seems to me that this would continue the beliefs and practices from the Old Testament into the New Testament more closely than having a communion service that we just remember Jesus with a cracker and cup of juice.
With the Apostolic Church fathers writing about the “real presence” of the Eucharist, and the fact that they were either taught by the Apostles, or by someone who was taught by the Apostles, I would say that their testimony would closely mirror what the New Testament writers believed when they wrote about the last supper and the “breaking of the bread”.
I guess it is easy for some of us some 2,000 years later to disregard what they wrote about the Eucharist, since it might go against what we have been taught, but if they did not believe that it was the blood and body of Jesus, then why did they write it that way?
V
VociMike
Guest
Ahh, because what he said he would not drink until in his Father’s kingdom was not actual wine (which, as you say, he did drink on the cross). So if not actual wine, what substance was he speaking of at the Last Supper that he would not drink?
J
JohnPaul0
Guest
Wow! A fellar asks a question, goes away fer a few days, and looky what happens!
Atemi,
I appreciate your early statement about Catholics seeming to take Our Lord literally in one case but not in the other. That’s why I asked the question. However, I do believe that Jesus was either referring to the appearance of the contents of the cup, or He may have been speaking of drinking the wine generally at the meal.
Here’s another cut at it, Atemi. As you say, Jesus often speaks metaphorically. Well, in v. 29 He does not call the contents “wine.” Instead, He calls the contents “fruit of the vine.” In a sense, even the Eucharistic Precious Blood can be considered to be the “fruit of the vine” because the originating matter–the unconsecrated wine–came from the vine. Catholics would say that the fruit then was transformed, yet transsubstantiation could be viewed as just another step in the production process:
grape->wine->Blood of Christ.
Peace,
JohnPaul
Atemi,
I appreciate your early statement about Catholics seeming to take Our Lord literally in one case but not in the other. That’s why I asked the question. However, I do believe that Jesus was either referring to the appearance of the contents of the cup, or He may have been speaking of drinking the wine generally at the meal.
Here’s another cut at it, Atemi. As you say, Jesus often speaks metaphorically. Well, in v. 29 He does not call the contents “wine.” Instead, He calls the contents “fruit of the vine.” In a sense, even the Eucharistic Precious Blood can be considered to be the “fruit of the vine” because the originating matter–the unconsecrated wine–came from the vine. Catholics would say that the fruit then was transformed, yet transsubstantiation could be viewed as just another step in the production process:
grape->wine->Blood of Christ.
Peace,
JohnPaul
- Status