How many deny Jesus Christ in the Eucharist?

[Esdra]

Hi

don’t want to say anything, but dears MODERATORS,

I think it is time to close down this thread.

I think everything is said.

I think you could conclude:

Question: How many deny Jesus Christ in the Eucharist?

Answer: Many non-Catholic denominations do so. And we have seen that nearly all of them argument similar why they do so!

In Christ,
Esdra

 

[rinnie]

No, I don’t.

He “had” to? WHY? You keep claiming this, but you don’t explain it. It’s not logical until you explain your reasoning.

If I tell you that I will lead you to all the baseball stadiums in America, that does not logically mean that we will never get lost, nor even that I will not mistake a football stadium for a baseball stadium. It only means, that in the end, we will make it to all the stadiums. Being led to “all truth” is no different, nor would, say, being led to “all happiness” or “all love.” These do not mean that there is NEVER any unhappiness or hate, but that, in the end, happiness and love will be achieved. It is a statement of reliability and trust, but not of inerrancy along the way. I know that you believe it to be otherwise, but it is not logically so.

Actually if it would be your job to lead me to all baseball stadiums in America it would be logical to believe that you would know where you were going and when you led me I WOULD NOT be lost.

If someone PERFECT and without SIN promised to lead you to all truth it would be logical to believe that the person would indeed keep all of the promises.

Jesus Christ promised that he would led the Church into all truth by the power of the Holy Spirit and that is the PERFECT TRUTH. And when Jesus promised that the Holy Spirit would never fail he did INDEED mean that the Holy Spirit would not fail. SO logically what does that mean, simple logic the Holy Spirt can and will never fail.

Did you ever watch a retarded Child? That my friend is what you call a perfect Child. Why? Because to be perfect in the eyes of God is to not be capable of sin. That is a retarded child. A retarded child (please forgive me all, no offense special needs child etc.) is not capable of sin. It has the mind of a child and completely trusts, and completely loves. In order to be held for deadly sin you must be aware of the sin you make, and do it anyway. But of course in the eyes of this world that child is not perfect. Because this is not a world or pure and unconditional love, this is a world of sin. I had a friend who had a child like that, she said you will never in your life know what it truely means to fill love until you have a child as so. She did not feel it was a punishment from God she considered this child a complete gift from God everyday. All see things different.

But you will never understand the word of God, nor will you believe in it until you learn to become like this Child and trust completely and trust God. You must, like this child trust God with all your heart and soul and mind the way that child trusts his parents or keeper. You must never question God, or his teaching you must obey.

It is only then that you acquire peace and love in your heart, and then can only begin to understand his word.

So if you want simple logic here it is. Jesus said it quite clear, You are either WITH me or you are AGAINST me. You cannot be LUKEWARM. So you either obey the word of God and trust him completely or you are against him and question his word. Pretty simple logic would you not say

 

[Cinette]

No, I don’t.

He “had” to? WHY? You keep claiming this, but you don’t explain it. It’s not logical until you explain your reasoning.

If I tell you that I will lead you to all the baseball stadiums in America, that does not logically mean that we will never get lost, nor even that I will not mistake a football stadium for a baseball stadium. It only means, that in the end, we will make it to all the stadiums. Being led to “all truth” is no different, nor would, say, being led to “all happiness” or “all love.” These do not mean that there is NEVER any unhappiness or hate, but that, in the end, happiness and love will be achieved. It is a statement of reliability and trust, but not of inerrancy along the way. I know that you believe it to be otherwise, but it is not logically so.

*There is noone so BLIND as those who do not LISTEN!

You give an example of you promising to lead one to all the baseball stadiums etc and compare yourself to Jesus, the Son of God!!! You are NOT serious! LOL!

You are a Joker! How old are you by the way?

YOU ARE NOT LOGICAL MY FRIEND!

Blessings
Cinette*

 

[benedictus2]

Did you not read the next two lines of what I wrote?

Are you a liar?

Nope not at a liar. At least not at this moment

I actually did miss the two lines that you wrote. So mea culpa.

So here are your two sentences which actually does not answer the question.
My answer: The same way that people can be inspired and erroneous.
And people wrote the Bible.

You know where the problem lies? in the fact that you are fence sitting. You cannot quite make up your mind whether you are agnostic or protestant.

When you claim that the bible is inspired, then you must hold to a Christian belief that it is inspired. Therefore if we say that it is inspired, only the Holy Spirit could be inspring it. And if you believe in the Holy Spirit then you must believe that He only inspires to truth. Now that is my answer to larkin the protestant.

That is why you cannot say that the Bible is inspired by the Holy Spirit and yet be errnoeous because then you would be contradicting yourself.

Now this second position of yours "he same way that people can be inspired and erroneous. And people wrote the Bible. " is a major contradiction.

To claim belief in inspiration of the Holy spirit is Christian and therefore the lines of reasoning that follow from that is different (as I have already explained to you in a previosu post). To say that people wrote the Bible so therefore can be erroneous is valid only from an agnostic viewpoint. So you are in contradiction within yourself here.

Another important point : When you say that "people can be inspired and erroneous" you have to clarify that. Are they erroneous in the matters that they were inspired in, or erroneous in the other matters that they were NOT inspired in.

Example: The Church can make an error in matters of politics or science but there is no claim of inspiration from the Holy Spirit in that field. So that they make errors in these areas have no bearing at all her claim to infallibility in matters of faith and doctrine.

(I wonder if there is still that agnostic / protestant battle still waging inside which is why your posts meander this way and that).

I think once you’ve really jumped from that fence, then your arguments will be more coherent.

And another error you keep falling into is the mixing up of your definition of terms. The inerrancy that we speak of in terms of truth as it pertains to the Christian faith is not the same kind of error as in making a behavioral mistake.

 

[rinnie]

I was thinking last night and this came to me. It is all in the perfect prayer is it not.

Our Father who art in heaven …Give us THIS day our DAILY BREAD.

Thy Kingdom Come. What does that mean? Quite simple this is the Kingdom of Christ. He said to Peter to you Peter I give the keys to the kingdom. What you bind on earth is bound in heaven. To deny Christ in the Eucharist would be denying his death and Res. on the Cross.

What other Church is there that you can go to daily and receive daily bread sent down from heaven?

Another example of Christ in the Eucharist. Is it not the covenant God made with us.

In the O.T. was not the Old Cov. that animals would be killed and offered up in a common meal. Since the beginning of time all was made between us and God in covenants.

Jesus established forever a meal in Gods Presence. His REAL PRESENCE, for the Eucharist is indeed the Lords Super (1 Cor 11:20) You really need to read this many times to really understand it.

Jn 6:53 Unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have not life in you.

Go throught the O.T until the days of Christ and in every oath and Cov. you will find a trace of the New Cov. to come.

God asked Abraham to sacrafice his son. What did he do? DId he not offer up his son as a sacrifice. But what did God do, he let Abraham’s son live did he not. But offered up his own SON JESUS CHRIST.

How can anyone deny the presence of Christ in the Eucharist is beyond me.

1 Cor 5:3 Pretty much sums it up does it not. How can anyone deny this.

For my part however DISTANT I AM PHYSICALLY, I AM PRESENT in SPRIIT and have already condemned the man wo behaved in this way, just as though I were present in PERSON.

WHEN YOU HAVE GATHERED IN THE NAME OF OUR LORD JESUS, WITH THE PRESENCE OF MY SPIRIT AND IN THE POWER OF OUR LORD JESUS.

We are all gathered around at Table in the Catholic Church. Are we not. This is my body which have been given up for you, this is my blood. When you walk into a CC you will see us all gathered around the Table of our Lord. What is the center of ANY Catholic Church. THe Tabernacle. OR should I say TABLEnacle.

Did Jesus or did in not promise us that he is indeed Present at this moment. THis is my Body, this IS my Blood.

I cannot see how many refuse to see this. And I will never understand why many will deny it. How?

1 Cor 11:23 For the Tradition I have received form the Lord and also HANDED down to you …

 

[PRmerger]

I think once you’ve really jumped from that fence, then your arguments will be more coherent.

Yes, larkin is still trying to find his way, as he admits in the post below from another thread. He also admits he contradicts himself frequently. While this admission may be honest, it makes an intelligent discourse quite difficult. One cannot know exactly what it is he believes. We are arguing against a quixotic windmill. Against shadows and clouds which change at every minute.

It also shows that he really does not know, quite yet, exactly what it is he believes.

Hence the protestant/agnostic schizophrenia.

larkin31:

To help with this and shorten your investigation: I am a full sinner, only occasionally repentant, both humble about my shortcomings and arrogant about my intelligence.** I will, in the next week, contradict myself,** be rude a few times, and forget half of what I write. But when I write it, I mean it, and I am not here to score little points against Catholics.** I am here to discover my way,** which is primarily by finding contrasts in this case.

(Bold mine; original post here)

 

[benedictus2]

Did you not read the next two lines of what I wrote?

Are you a liar?

Having made the above post, I would like to re-iterate that the subject of infallibity I have already addressed before and you are not being asked to accept it on matter of faith but on matter of logic.

And the matter of logic is valid only if I am answering Larkin the protestant because we have a common ground from which to start, the common ground being the Bible.

So bearing in mind that this is addressed to Larkin the protestant who holds that the Bible is inerrant (because it is inspired ) therefore the passage in the Bible where jesus says the gates of hell will not prevail and promises to be guided into truth by the Holy Spirit must be true since Jesus is God. And on this rests the claim for infallibility.

Now of course that kind of reasoning will not hold true for Larkin the agnostic. We first have to cross the agnostic barrier, move to Theism, move to Christianity and only then can we make the case for infallibility.

So jump off the fence and debate from one position.

Actually you can debate from both positions so long as you don’t mix the arguments for both sides in one statement.

 

[larkin31]

Having made the above post, I would like to re-iterate that the subject of infallibity I have already addressed before and you are not being asked to accept it on matter of faith but on matter of logic.

And the matter of logic is valid only if I am answering Larkin the protestant because we have a common ground from which to start, the common ground being the Bible.

So bearing in mind that this is addressed to Larkin the protestant who holds that the Bible is inerrant (because it is inspired ) therefore the passage in the Bible where jesus says the gates of hell will not prevail and promises to be guided into truth by the Holy Spirit must be true since Jesus is God. And on this rests the claim for infallibility.

Now of course that kind of reasoning will not hold true for Larkin the agnostic. We first have to cross the agnostic barrier, move to Theism, move to Christianity and only then can we make the case for infallibility.

So jump off the fence and debate from one position.

Actually you can debate from both positions so long as you don’t mix the arguments for both sides in one statement.

Not all Protestants hold that the Bible is inerrant. On what grounds do you make this claim? “Inspired” and “inerrant” are not synonyms.

 

[rinnie]

Not all Protestants hold that the Bible is inerrant. On what grounds do you make this claim? “Inspired” and “inerrant” are not synonyms.

That is why they are called Protestants. They protest the teaching’s of the CC. Which is indeed the gospel!! The bible was written by the Church by the power of the Holy Spirit. Catholic’s believe the word of God and believe that the CHurch is indeed the Living Christ. ITs quite simple actually

 

[shawn38]

That is all very well and good. But it still does not address my point that our redemption was not “finished” until Jesus Christ rose from the dead. So therefore, it cannot have been redemption that was meant by the “It” in “It” is finished.

Sorry about the delay responding. I’ve been quite busy.

The redemption was finished on the cross. The resurrection proved Christ’s defeat over sin and death. Together they fulfilled the promise of the gospel.

newadvent.org/cathen/12681a.htm
In the New Testament, redemption is specifically that of man from sin by Christ’s death.
Redemption means either strictly deliverance by payment of a price or ransom, or simply deliverance by power, as from oppression, violence, captivity, etc.

 

[benedictus2]

Sorry about the delay responding. I’ve been quite busy.

The redemption was finished on the cross. The resurrection proved Christ’s defeat over sin and death. Together they fulfilled the promise of the gospel.

newadvent.org/cathen/12681a.htm
In the New Testament, redemption is specifically that of man from sin by Christ’s death.
Redemption means either strictly deliverance by payment of a price or ransom, or simply deliverance by power, as from oppression, violence, captivity, etc.

But if Christ had not risen, then we would not have been redeemed for it is necessary for him to conquer death to do that. If he had not risen, he would not have conquered death so there would not have been redemption.

Furthermore, from the same link you provided above.
"In the New Testament, redemption is specifically that of man from sin by Christ’s death. "

When Jesus drank the sour wine, He had not died yet.

 

[benedictus2]

Not all Protestants hold that the Bible is inerrant. On what grounds do you make this claim? “Inspired” and “inerrant” are not synonyms.

Maan, that is why I asked you before, can the Holy Spirit inspire to error? We are claiming here that it is the Holy Spirit that is doing the inspiring. Can He inspire to error? The consequence of error (the lie) is sin, can the Holy Spirit actually lead us to do evil?

I think you might not have read my other reply to you on post 1153.

 

[shawn38]

So you do believe then that Jesus started a church and then left it to flounder with thousands of different interpretations?

Christ gave us the Holy Spirit so to guide us all into truth.

Yes, indeed. Why would Jesus have chosen 12 sinful men to go an preach his gospel?

Rom 3:10 As it is written: "There is no one righteous, not even one;
Rom 3:23 for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God,

but:
Eph 2:13 But now in Christ Jesus you who once were far away have been brought near through the blood of Christ.

Eph 4:11 It was He who gave some to be apostles, some to be prophets, some to be evangelists, and some to be pastors and teachers, **12 to prepare God’s people for works of service, so that the body of Christ may be built up **13until we all reach unity in the faith and in the knowledge of the Son of God and become mature, attaining to the whole measure of the fullness of Christ.

 

[benedictus2]

Christ gave us the Holy Spirit so to guide us all into truth.

As I posted on the follow up thread to this, there is currently another thread discussing the ordination of a lesbian bishop in the Anglican Church.

The Anglican Church has made a statement that they have “discerned” that the homosexual union is holy.

Do you think they were being led to that conclusion by the Holy Spirit?

Were the Davidian and People’s Temple cults guided by the Holy Spirit in the formulation of their beliefs?

 

[larkin31]

As I posted on the follow up thread to this, there is currently another thread discussing the ordination of a lesbian bishop in the Anglican Church.

The Anglican Church has made a statement that they have “discerned” that the homosexual union is holy.

Do you think they were being led to that conclusion by the Holy Spirit?
Maybe. How can one know? MAny different religions make this same claim. As long as the behavior is not criminal, we have to allow it. That is the way with religious freedom.

Were the Davidian and People’s Temple cults guided by the Holy Spirit in the formulation of their beliefs?

Koresh claimed to be answering to God, but I hope that it was not true. He was a criminal either way. Weren’t the Peoples’ Temple folks following aliens?

 

[KathleenGee]

Benedictus2,

Thanks for your help with Larkin…I perceived him coming from several points yet wanting to work from logic.

My point is the Bible is made up of people, many of whom were not logical. I believe your construct is history, the message and the mission.

 

[larkin31]

Maan, that is why I asked you before, can the Holy Spirit inspire to error? We are claiming here that it is the Holy Spirit that is doing the inspiring. Can He inspire to error? The consequence of error (the lie) is sin, can the Holy Spirit actually lead us to do evil?

I think you might not have read my other reply to you on post 1153.

Humans have erred under God’s inspiration from the very first couple. I am not claiming that the inspiration CAUSED the error, but rather that the error happens DESPITE the inspiration. It ALWAYS has. cf Moses. cf Peter. cf Noah. cf Saul/Paul. cf other disciples and Biblical figures. The Bible gives no evidence of a world or church or person free from error, and makes no claim that any institution will be free from error.

 

[shawn38]

Well that is not what Jesus referred to when He said the gates of hell will not prevail.

If you want consistency throughout the Bible, the Lord has always been the Rock or Chief cornerstone.

Well no, because Jesus had not made Him rock then yet.

Sure He did.

Made the rock unless you’re trying to say Peter became the rock after Christ died.
Matt 16:18 And I tell you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of Hades will not overcome it.

Jesus tells Peter he will deny Him.
Matt 26:34“I tell you the truth,” Jesus answered, “this very night, before the rooster crows, you will disown me three times.”

etc.

 

[benedictus2]

Maybe. How can one know? MAny different religions make this same claim. As long as the behavior is not criminal, we have to allow it. That is the way with religious freedom.

You are answering as an agnostic. Therefore your answer is not valid.

Koresh claimed to be answering to God, but I hope that it was not true. He was a criminal either way. Weren’t the Peoples’ Temple folks following aliens?

Exactly my point. Not everyone can possibly be inspired by the Holy Spirit.

The protestant claim is we are all inspired.

I think it would help the discussion if you will make up your mind which side of the fence you will be coming from.

 

[benedictus2]

If you want consistency throughout the Bible, the Lord has always been the Rock or Chief cornerstone.

According to Jesus Himself it was Peter. And I am not arguing with God. If He said so, it must be so. God said let there be light and there was light. Jesus said Lazarus come out and Lazarus came out. Jesus said Peter you are rock …

Sure He did. Made the rock unless you’re trying to say Peter became the rock after Christ died.
Matt 16:18 And I tell you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of Hades will not overcome it.

Sorry, I meant Jesus had not built His church then. That will come at Pentecost. But you are right, he is none the less the rock even though the church has not been built yet.

Jesus tells Peter he will deny Him.
Matt 26:34“I tell you the truth,” Jesus answered, “this very night, before the rooster crows, you will disown me three times.”
etc.

Yes, that is true. And how interesting that is that knowing this He still chose him to be the rock upon which to build His Church.

There’s a beautiful saying that fits here perfectly: God does not call the able, he enables the called.

He knew Peter’s weakness, that is why He said He prayed for him that when he has turned he will strengthen the others.