How many deny Jesus Christ in the Eucharist?

[rinnie]

wow

I don’t know what to say.

Yeah, I think that the Romans put Jesus on a cross and killed him. Yes, I do.

Of course you do, because you do not understand the word of God. It wasn’t the romans Larkin it was all if us.

Jesus was not put on the cross because of the Romans, Jesus was put on the cross because of our sins.

You claim you know scripture. As my kids would say yeah right.

Then explain this one to me.

This is not my world if this was my world my people would stand up for me. Not exact words but I am sure you can pick up what I am laying here.

Please read the O.T. then try if you can, to put it into context with the N.T. Larkin. Then you will get the point. Jesus was sent here to do the will of his Father not the Romans for goodness sakes.

You deny God, and you deny thw word of God. If you did not you would stand up for Jesus, but instead you stand against him.

You are either with me. or you are against me! Ring a bell!!!

 

[rinnie]

I did not claim that he rebeled EVERYWHERE or even that he rebelled against God. It’s ok if you don’t see Jesus in part as being a rebel. But, you must admit at least this: he did not always obey gravity or the laws of physics

rebel!

You are kind of funny about this.

So are you! And why would I care about gravity or law of physics. Jesus didn’t it could care less about gravity or the law of physics. He is God. He walked on water and was risen into heaven before the Apostles eyes. Gravity and the laws of physics can’t hold a candle to Jesus for goodness sakes.

Um? What is your point?

 

[larkin31]

So are you! And why would I care about gravity or law of physics. Jesus didn’t it could care less about gravity or the law of physics. He is God. He walked on water and was risen into heaven before the Apostles eyes. Gravity and the laws of physics can’t hold a candle to Jesus for goodness sakes.

Um? What is your point?

That you don’t have a funny bone.

 

[rinnie]

It is a metaphorical word for the process of our finding impetus and purpose in our connections with the world around us and with each other and with our ideas that we project onto our environment and our cosmos.

I do not believe that there is a God or spirit in any supernatural sense. We project that idea out from our minds.

Yeah right!!

 

[Esdra]

What you have done is given me your interpretation of what’s important. (I had asked you not to do that: (I am not asking for your* interpretation* of what’s an important thing and what’s a “little detail”. I am looking for verses that you’ve found that tell us “this is an essential belief for Christians” and “this is a little detail”.)

Saying that "the important things are ‘mere Christianity’ " is itself a man-made tradition, Esdra, as Scripture does not say that ever.

And, how does one know that Malachi 1:11 is not part of the “mere Christianity” principle?

Or that 1 Peter 2:11 is not part of the “mere Christianity” principle?

Well, I think I can’t.

As I have written as my denomination I am “only” an Emergent Baptist…

So I am not that familiar with the bible… I mean knowing verses by heart and stuff.

I will, however, go, as soon as I have time, to a Bible School. And I hope this will help me to get to know Jesus and God’s Word, The Holy Bible better.

I am looking foreward to that and I hope that I will soon have time to go there. I even already know where to go!

Well,
actually, sorry for that, I am fed up with that thread. It is simply too exhausting for me to write over and over again about so difficult topics like this one here… You also have to consider that English isn’t even my mother tongue…

I mean most of my opinion to the OP you can find somewhere in these 1100 posts and acutally, I don’t have more to say… I did my best to state my opinion and I also learned quite a few things about my “old faith” - the RCC by reading your (not only yours, PRmerger, but also those of the other Catholics here!) posts here.

Esdra

 

[rinnie]

That you don’t have a funny bone.

Sorry:blush: I guess you are right. Its just when People deny Christ even question him for that matter it gets me kinda crazy at times.

I just can’t understand it I guess. Guess I am like a Mother Bear protecting her baby. People say I take it too serious sometimes but how can you not take what God is and what he has done for us serious though?

I can kid and joke about ANYTHING but not the word of God. That is Sacred to me.

 

[rinnie]

Well, I think I can’t.

As I have written as my denomination I am “only” an Emergent Baptist…

So I am not that familiar with the bible… I mean knowing verses by heart and stuff.

I will, however, go, as soon as I have time, to a Bible School. And I hope this will help me to get to know Jesus and God’s Word, The Holy Bible better.

I am looking foreward to that and I hope that I will soon have time to go there. I even already know where to go!

Well,
actually, sorry for that, I am fed up with that thread. It is simply too exhausting for me to write over and over again about so difficult topics like this one here… You also have to consider that English isn’t even my mother tongue…

I mean most of my opinion to the OP you can find somewhere in these 1100 posts and acutally, I don’t have more to say… I did my best to state my opinion and I also learned quite a few things about my “old faith” - the RCC by reading your (not only yours, PRmerger, but also those of the other Catholics here!) posts here.

Esdra

That’s whats it’s all about buddy. I am so happy that you learned somethings. Stick around we have alot more to show you.

We have it alot actually in the Catholic Church. Its called renew.

 

[PRmerger]

Well, I think I can’t.

I appreciate your honesty, Esdra.

I think one point that can be taken home today from this thread is that we can not determine what’s a “little detail” and what’s an “essential” belief. Scripture does not tell us.

We can, however, know that God told us to love Him entirely, with our heart and soul, strength and MIND.

When we dialogue about different theological details, it’s trying to love God with our MIND.

We are fulfilling God’s commandment.

 

[rovimax]

Cinette,

What kind of leader were the Jews expecting? They were looking for a polical leader like David, not a spiritual saviour.

Being that the desciples were Jews, we understand the difficulties with them accepting the wine as being the blood of Christ. Why? The Law.

The last supper a Passover meal? Yes

As part of the Passover, the Jews drink 4 cups of red wine calling to mind the four “I wills” (Ex 6:6-7). The cups are symbolic of what God had promised the Isrealites.

1. “I will take you out…” 2. “I will save you…” 3. “I will redeem you…” 4. “I will take you as a nation…”

The afikomen represents Christ. The placing of it in white linen and hiding it during the meal represented the burial of Christ. Bringing it back out after supper represented the resurrection of Christ.

I think we agree that the Passover is a forshadowing of Christ. When Christ died on the cross, saying with His last words “It is finished,” the redemption work was finished. Christ never drank the 4th cup. That is to come when God takes us to be with Him.

Christ, being the host and sacrifice of the Passover, was still teaching his desciples using the same imagery that the Jews related to during their observence of past Passovers. But because Christ was the pesach sacrifice for this Passover, He didn’t reference the afikomen as any future saviour, but as Himself since He was the fulfillment.

The Passover has always been symbolic of what God had done for the Isrealites and what He was going to do for them. It was performed in remembrance.

When Jesus Christ said ‘’ it is finished. ‘’ the redemption is not yet complete. The completion of our redemption is after resurection, Romans 4:25, ‘‘It is finished.’’ means Jesus completed the passover sacrifice.

 

[Norval]

I guess I tend to be a little simplistic or so I’m told. I have always wondered at the fact that Jesus in John 6 repeated himself 4 times (about eating His flesh and drinking his blood) is there any other place in the gospels that he repeated himself four times?
When the disciples left him because of the teaching as “it was too hard”, Jesus did not say to them,“come back, I was only was only speaking symbolically”.
John 6:56 “Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood remains in me and I in him”.I have always connected this to John 15:5-7 or just John 15:5 “** I am the vine you are the branches. Whoever remains in me and I in him will bear much fruit, because without me you cab do nothing**”.
I do not know of any other place in the gospels that explains about “abiding in Jesus”. I also believe that he, Jesus gives us miracles to demonstrate His Word. There have been a hundred or more Eucharistic Miracles documented since His death. Some still exist today like the miracle at Lancino, Italy. It occurred in 723 or 725 and still exists today. It is very interesting in that the flesh has been examined and said to be a thin slice of flesh from the left ventricle of the heart and contains both valves. The blood formed into 5 globules and dried in that fashion. Putting two of the globules on one side of a balance and the other three on the other side they balance perfectly. The globules can be changed around and they always balance perfectly.
Another of my favorites miracles is Theresa Neumann. She went a total of about 35 years without eating only receiving the Eucharist. It is well documented as the Nazis tried to disprove her dependence on the Eucharist. They requested that she be under 24 hour surveillance for ten days. The bishop said no but would okay the surveillance if it was done for fourteen days it was actually done for 15 days. At the beginning of the test period she weighted 121 pounds and at the end of the test she weighed 121 pounds. The only variance she had in weight was on Fridays (forgot to mention she also had the stigmata) on one Friday her weight dropped to 112.5 pounds and the other her weight dropped to 115. By midweek her weight had returned to 121 pounds. She survived the war . She died in 1962. There many other miracles.

God Bless!!!

 

[benedictus2]

How is my heart divided, pray tell?

You can’t make up whether you are agnostic or protetant.

Once you’ve made up your mind, then your arguments will be more coherent.

 

[benedictus2]

larkin31:

How would anyone know? That answer is only a matter of faith. They are all pretty good. I don’t see how one can go too wrong, really. It’s all about working hard, being humble, being kind, being just.

The rest is little details….

You got it, larkin! +++++++++++++++

That’s exactely what I have been saying the last 500 posts in this thread or so!!

Actually wrong. Larkin has not got it at all. But as an agnostic that is not bad.

If Christianity is right (which I hope you will say it is) then Larkin has got it wrong.

We are not called be nice little persons. We are called to be a new creation in Christ. Even before Christ came, there are people who are hard working, humble, kind, just, etc. But Christ STILL HAD TO COME. Why? Because Christ is not just one more guru among many. He is God incarnate. Following Christ is not about following ethical rules. Following Christ is surrendering one’s self to God.

We are not called to just love Chist. We are meant to live life with Christ as the Lord and master of our lives. It means surrending every nook and crany of our souls to Him. It means dethroning the self.

The Gospel (the good news) is not a set of ethical rules. The Gospel is the person of Jesus Christ.

 

[larkin31]

You can’t make up whether you are agnostic or protetant.

Once you’ve made up your mind, then your arguments will be more coherent.

haha

ok

 

[benedictus2]

No, you have not. I keep replying that “inspired” and “inerrant” are not synonyms and that “inspired” does not logically lead to “inerrancy” either. You have offered no definitions to suggest that they are synonymous nor any logcial reasoning to demonstrate that inerrancy must by necessity follow from “inspiration.”

Aaah larkin. I have explain this at the very least twice but let me do it in slow mo.

This kind of post stems from you being the schismatic within yourself that you are.
But let us put aside the agnostic larkin because the agnostic larkin will not comprehend what the power of the Holy Spirit means at all.

So from this point on, I will be addressing Larking the protestant and go on the assumption that you, when you were still protestant believed in the Holy Spirit.
Point1 : So that is the first point. Christians believe the power of the Holy Spirit and that Holy Spirit is the spirit of truth. When He moves hearts, it will always be towards truth because He cannot guide people to anything contrary to his nature which is truth.

Point 2: You said that the Bible is inspired. And I agree with that.

Point 3: If the Bible is inspired, then Christians all agree that the one that did the “inspiring” is the Holy Spirit.

point 4: If the Holy Spirit is the one that did the “inspiring” of the Bible, then the “inspiration” could only towards truth as based on point 1.

Point 5: If the inspiration could only be towards truth, then whatever is being inspired (in this case the Bbile) must be inerrant because as stated on point 1, the guidance of the Holy Spirit is only towards truth.

Pont 6: Now there is a clarification here because we do not claim that the guidance here is towards truth in scientific matters but towards truth in matters of faith and doctrine alone.

Point 7: Based on all of the above, we can say that if the Bbile is inspired by the Holy Spirit, ergo it must be inerrant in matters of faith and doctrine.

Now digest that and rebut from there.

And please, rebut only from the point of view of the protestant Larkin because as I have show in previous posts, discussing inspirations of the Holy Spirit with agnostics is invalid.

I also keep repeating that the Bible is full of holy persons (I have listed them) who even while working with God’s inspiration (serving his will on earth) commit errors.

I conclusively rebutted that line in a previous post. I suggest you respond to that post rather than rehashing the same argument like a broken record.

I have even responded to the “all truth” line about the Church with a paragraph of rebuttal directly on the topic. That is no dance.

No you have not. And this is where the problem is. When we talk about the “all truth” about the Church, you cannot argue from agnosticism because we are already taking the inspired inerrancy of the Bible as a given. If you rebut this along protestant lines like the others have, then your post will make sense. At this stage it is just standard illogical agnostic nonsense.

So, until you actually produce here some deductive or inductive reasoning of your own, then you should not make the claim that you have shown “with a clear logic” anything at all.

Actually I have. That you have failed to understand it is well…

 

[benedictus2]

haha

ok

By that I presume that from now on you will be arguing from the protestant camp? That would make for a clearer logic on your part.

 

[larkin31]

Point1 : So that is the first point. Christians believe the power of the Holy Spirit and that Holy Spirit is the spirit of truth. When He moves hearts, it will always be towards truth because He cannot guide people to anything contrary to his nature which is truth…

There is no evidence to show that this premise is true. There is not need to go further with your logic until you demonstrate HOW this premise is true.

 

[larkin31]

By that I presume that from now on you will be arguing from the protestant camp? That would make for a clearer logic on your part.

no, it means I don’t care what you think of me

back to the subject, please

 

[benedictus2]

no, it means I don’t care what you think of me

back to the subject, please

I don’t care what I think of you either (hope you get the funny side of that) so long as your posts are logical, coherent and to the point of the post you are addressing.

Yes, now back to the subject. Good.

 

[Esdra]

"esdra:

larkin31:

How would anyone know? That answer is only a matter of faith. They are all pretty good. I don’t see how one can go too wrong, really. It’s all about working hard, being humble, being kind, being just.** The rest is little details…**

.
You got it, larkin! +++++++++++++++

That’s exactely what I have been saying the last 500 posts in this thread or so!!

Actually wrong. Larkin has not got it at all. But as an agnostic that is not bad.

If Christianity is right (which I hope you will say it is) then Larkin has got it wrong.

Christianity IS right yes, otherwise I wouldn’t be here proclaiming His name!

We are not called be nice little persons. We are called to be a new creation in Christ. Even before Christ came, there are people who are hard working, humble, kind, just, etc. But Christ STILL HAD TO COME. Why? Because Christ is not just one more guru among many. He is God incarnate. Following Christ is not about following ethical rules. Following Christ is surrendering one’s self to God.

Nevertheless this is important!

We are not called to just love Chist. We are meant to live life with Christ as the Lord and master of our lives. It means surrending every nook and crany of our souls to Him. It means dethroning the self.

You are right.

The Gospel (the good news) is not a set of ethical rules. The Gospel is the person of Jesus Christ.** → AMEN. **

However, I think there is a missunderstanding going on. For me the sentence written in bold now (cf. larkin’s quote in this one) was my point. The other I think I rather marked accidentally. Although it is never the less important.

In Christ,
Esdra

 

[KathleenGee]

Becoming a Christian is a personal encounter with Jesus Christ. That is my point, that faith in Christ is not about logic.

But everything taught about Christ by the Catholic Church has proven in my life of over 60 years, that it is indeed correct. The purpose of doctrines are not man made ideas, but truth that define who Christ is and to eradicate heresies about Him.