On WHAT basis does your Church claim to be the One TRUE-Faith Church of the Bible?
- Status
M
mattp0625
Guest
Ignatius of Antioch clearly writes about maintaining loyalty to the bishop, who properly administers the Eucharist.
M
mattp0625
Guest
Additionally, Acts 11 indicates the disciples of Christ were first called Christians at Antioch, after they fled Jerusalem.
Ignatius was the third bishop at Antioch. He was a direct student of the apostles. He was born in 35 AD and martyred in Rome in 108 AD.
Jesus lived and was crucified approximately between 30 AD and 60 AD.
Ignatius, who was a bishop and wrote about loyalty to the bishop, was one of the originals.
Ignatius was the third bishop at Antioch. He was a direct student of the apostles. He was born in 35 AD and martyred in Rome in 108 AD.
Jesus lived and was crucified approximately between 30 AD and 60 AD.
Ignatius, who was a bishop and wrote about loyalty to the bishop, was one of the originals.
B
benhur
Guest
Wow. …Blessings Abu.
P
PJM
Guest
Might I suggest that you contact a MOD and get the reason, before leaving?
P
PJM
Guest
.
I think one of the differences from most evangelical services today is that the early church was accused of “drowning their babies and eating their God”. The charge of cannabilism although spurious, does attest the belief in the Real Presence.
the REPLY
WOW,
I’ve been away too long
BOTH POST seem to have real issues with them.
guanophore::
What we Catholics receive in the Most Holy Eucharist, is the RISEN & NOW GLORIFIED Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity of God ; therefore the charge of cannibalism is not only wrong, but slanderous.
It flows from a shallow understanding of the the intent and Power of the Almighty.
susanlo:
1st. I’m unsure of the veracity of the statement that “all Christians state they are receiving the body and blood”. Were this true [and it cannot be], then symbols, signs and remembrances would all be negated.
2nd, The reference to **I think the language regarding all types of Eucharist could lead to a misunderstanding. **
The “all types” it would seem would HAVE TO include those who simply deny and choose to not believe the Five authors of the bible. who testify to the reality of the Real Presence. Google: “Eucharistic Miracles”
Mt. 26: 26-28
Mk 14: 22-24
Lk 22:17-20
Jn 6:46-57
47] Amen, amen [TRULY, TRULY] I say unto you: He that believeth in me, hath everlasting life. [48]** I am the bread of life**. [49] Your fathers did eat manna in the desert, and are dead. [50] This is the bread which cometh down from heaven; that if any man eat of it, he may not die. “DIE” here a metaphors for Eternal damnation]
[51]*** I am the living bread which came down from heaven***. [52] If any man eat of this bread, he shall live for ever**; and the bread that I will give, is my flesh, for the life of the world. [5[/COLOR]3] The Jews therefore strove among themselves, saying: How can this man give us his flesh to eat? [Choose to take as anabolism] [54] Then Jesus [GOD] said to them: Amen, amen [TRULY, TRULY]I say unto you: **Except you eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, you shall not have life in you. [55] He that eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, hath everlasting life: and I will raise him up in the last day.
[56] For my flesh is meat indeed: and my blood is drink indeed. [57] He that eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, abideth in me, and I in him**. [AND YHIS DESCRIBES PRECISELY WHAT WE CATHOLICS & ORTHODOX SHARE IN AT EACH MASS]58] As the living Father hath sent me, and I live by the Father;** so he that eateth me, the same also shall live by me**
**NOW A QUESTION 4 U
HOW MIGHT MT, MK, LK, OR JOHN, OR EVEN GOD, BEEN MOE SPECIFIC, MORE PRECISE IN THE LANGUAGE THEY FREELY CHOOSE**?
Paul: 1st Cor 11: 23-30
[23] For I have received of the Lord [GOD] that which also I delivered unto you, that the Lord Jesus, the same night in which he was betrayed,** took bread**. [24] And giving thanks, broke, and said: Take ye, and eat: this is my body, which shall be delivered for you: this do for the commemoration of me. [25] In like manner** also the chalice,** after he had supped, saying: This chalice is the new testament in my blood: this do ye, as often as you shall drink, for the commemoration of me.
[26] For as often as you shall eat this bread, and drink the chalice, you shall shew the death of the Lord, until he come. [27] Therefore whosoever shall eat this bread, or drink the chalice of the Lord unworthily, shall be guilty of the body and of the blood of the Lord. [28] But let a man prove himself: and so let him eat of that bread, and drink of the chalice. [29] For he that eateth and drinketh unworthily, eateth and drinketh judgment to himself, not discerning the body of the Lord. 30] Therefore are there many infirm and weak among you, and many sleep.
HOW COULD PAUL TEACH AS HE CLEARLY DOES, IF, IF IT WEREN’T THE LITERAL TRUTH?
HOW CAN ONE BRING JUDGMENT [DAMNATION] ON THEMSELVES BY EATING WHAT THEY BELIEVED TO BE JUST ORDINARY BREAD AND WINE? AND HOW CAN ONE “SLEEP” [SPIRITUAL DEATH DAMNATION] FOR HAVING DONE SO.
Once again I ask: HOW could the Apostles or even GOD been more precise in the words THEY freely choose to use:shrug:
God Bless you,
PJM**
P
PJM
Guest
Additional evidence of your great point: READ Jn. 4:23-24:thumbsup:
T
Tomdstone
Guest
.
I think one of the differences from most evangelical services today is that the early church was accused of “drowning their babies and eating their God”. The charge of cannabilism although spurious, does attest the belief in the Real Presence.
the REPLY
WOW,
I’ve been away too long
BOTH POST seem to have real issues with them.
guanophore::
What we Catholics receive in the Most Holy Eucharist, is the RISEN & NOW GLORIFIED Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity of God ; therefore the charge of cannibalism is not only wrong, but slanderous.
It flows from a shallow understanding of the the intent and Power of the Almighty.
susanlo:
1st. I’m unsure of the veracity of the statement that “all Christians state they are receiving the body and blood”. Were this true [and it cannot be], then symbols, signs and remembrances would all be negated.
2nd, The reference to **I think the language regarding all types of Eucharist could lead to a misunderstanding. **
The “all types” it would seem would HAVE TO include those who simply deny and choose to not believe the Five authors of the bible. who testify to the reality of the Real Presence. Google: “Eucharistic Miracles”
Mt. 26: 26-28
Mk 14: 22-24
Lk 22:17-20
Jn 6:46-57
47] Amen, amen [TRULY, TRULY] I say unto you: He that believeth in me, hath everlasting life. [48]** I am the bread of life**. [49] Your fathers did eat manna in the desert, and are dead. [50] This is the bread which cometh down from heaven; that if any man eat of it, he may not die. “DIE” here a metaphors for Eternal damnation]
[51]*** I am the living bread which came down from heaven***. [52] If any man eat of this bread, he shall live for ever**; and the bread that I will give, is my flesh, for the life of the world. [5[/COLOR]**3] The Jews therefore strove among themselves, saying: How can this man give us his flesh to eat? [Choose to take as anabolism] [54] Then Jesus [GOD] said to them: Amen, amen [TRULY, TRULY]I say unto you: **Except you eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, you shall not have life in you. [55] He that eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, hath everlasting life: and I will raise him up in the last day.
[56] For my flesh is meat indeed: and my blood is drink indeed. [57] He that eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, abideth in me, and I in him**. [AND YHIS DESCRIBES PRECISELY WHAT WE CATHOLICS & ORTHODOX SHARE IN AT EACH MASS]58] As the living Father hath sent me, and I live by the Father;** so he that eateth me, the same also shall live by me**
**NOW A QUESTION 4 U
HOW MIGHT MT, MK, LK, OR JOHN, OR EVEN GOD, BEEN MOE SPECIFIC, MORE PRECISE IN THE LANGUAGE THEY FREELY CHOOSE**?
Paul: 1st Cor 11: 23-30
[23] For I have received of the Lord [GOD] that which also I delivered unto you, that the Lord Jesus, the same night in which he was betrayed,** took bread**. [24] And giving thanks, broke, and said: Take ye, and eat: this is my body, which shall be delivered for you: this do for the commemoration of me. [25] In like manner** also the chalice,** after he had supped, saying: This chalice is the new testament in my blood: this do ye, as often as you shall drink, for the commemoration of me.
[26] For as often as you shall eat this bread, and drink the chalice, you shall shew the death of the Lord, until he come. [27] Therefore whosoever shall eat this bread, or drink the chalice of the Lord unworthily, shall be guilty of the body and of the blood of the Lord. [28] But let a man prove himself: and so let him eat of that bread, and drink of the chalice. [29] For he that eateth and drinketh unworthily, eateth and drinketh judgment to himself, not discerning the body of the Lord. 30] Therefore are there many infirm and weak among you, and many sleep.
HOW COULD PAUL TEACH AS HE CLEARLY DOES, IF, IF IT WEREN’T THE LITERAL TRUTH?
HOW CAN ONE BRING JUDGMENT [DAMNATION] ON THEMSELVES BY EATING WHAT THEY BELIEVED TO BE JUST ORDINARY BREAD AND WINE? AND HOW CAN ONE “SLEEP” [SPIRITUAL DEATH DAMNATION] FOR HAVING DONE SO.
Once again I ask: HOW could the Apostles or even GOD been more precise in the words THEY freely choose to use:shrug:
God Bless you,
PJMSome things in the Bible are to be taken metaphorically and not literally. For example, it is writtenthat unless you hate your mother and father, you cannot be a disciple of Christ. Or it is written to call no man father. Most people do not take these sayings literally. Similarly some Protestants take the words of Consecration and the saying that - in order to be saved you must eat the Body and the Blood - as metaphorical expressions. Even Catholics will say that baptised babies who have not received the Eucharist will go to heaven and will be saved.
G
guanophore
Guest
We are not allowed to question any moderator decisions, and mods are not allowed to disclose personal interactions with other members.
What is important to know is that there is a process before banning occurs. A member gets a warning, or more than one, and counseling/redirection. There are opportunities to correct it and sometimes these opportunities are not taken. Sometimes members are argumentative with the mods, or adamant they will not change their opinion/position/attitude. There might also be a suspension prior to a banning during which a member may reconsider their approach.
All of these things happen privately and behind the scenes, so sometimes a banning may seem sudden, and we don’t see any reason in the current thread, but the individual may have had a history of infractions, or had violations on other threads.
As to “re-evaluating one’s own acceptance”, I don’t think anyone need be concerned about being accepted here, or not. Read the forum rules and follow them. If you don’t, someone will let you know, either another member, or a moderator. Most of us here are in a growth process and can learn from our mistakes.
G
guanophore
Guest
this is true! I thought you may have abandoned your very interesting thread.I’'ve been away too long
BOTH POST seem to have real issues with them.
Of course it does! But these comments were written by Pagans who knew nothing of the faith, and were looking for ways to accuse the brethren. They understood there was a ritual during which Christians claimed to “eat their God” or consume the Body and Blood of Christ. They translated this into a form of cannibalism.
Christians did not “drown their infants” either, but if all a Pagan heard was that infants were buried with Christ in Baptism they might think so.
I am just making the point that these historical references to early church beliefs, though wrong and slanderous, still attest to the reality of Christian beliefs and practices.
S
susanlo
Guest
D
Don_Ruggero
Guest
It’s very important to understand that the words for priests then available had two distinct meanings. The term that would be used for a priest in the Jewish temple indicates a ministry that is by lineal descent. If you’re the Jewish son of a Jewish priest you’re a priest. Otherwise, you’re not and cannot be
Every Jewish person knew this and understood this terminology. Applying it to someone who has been chosen to help the ἐπίσκοπος would make absolutely no sense. It would be absurd. It would a misrepresentation
The other term for priest is the term for a priest at a temple of a local deity. That term also would be completely unsuitable in the apostolic Church and the sub apostolic Church, for this office of assisting the ἐπίσκοπος
Hence we end up with the term πρεσβύτερος to accompany ἐπίσκοπος and who also have a relationship with the διάκονος
As the number of converts from Judaism falls & their presence and influence wanes, as the rupture between those who are following The Way and are disciples of The Nazarene becomes more in evidence relative to the Jewish people. As the temple is physically destroyed & the round of priestly service there ceases. As the synagogue communities disassociate themselves from Christians, it becomes ever more and more apparent that we are realities apart. We lose our status with Rome as a licit or legal religion that we had as a sect of Judaism, and the persecution overwhelms us
More and more, people are coming into the Εκκλησία without in any way passing through Judaism…and so the taboos for language become much lessened. The use of Jewish terms from the past become less and less problematic. There are fewer people to object. The institution of the temple is crushed and it ceases to function. Christianity appropriates terms that more informed listeners would likely object to or raise issues about
Speaking of the Bishop as “the High Priest,” as we find in the letters of Saint Ignatius of Antioch, become more comprehensible to the community at the beginning of the second century in a way they would not 40 or 50 years previous. Terminology from the Hebrew Scriptures begins to be adopted where it can apply to a new reality…hence Presbyter begins to transmigrate into Priest. We see the beginning of “type” and “foreshadowing” beginning to emerge, which the Patristics will develop
It is, however, very dangerous to say that when early (read sub-apostolic church) Christians said “Presbyter” they meant “Priest.” When they said Presbyter they meant Presbyter. It was a technical title, if fluid in meaning. What we speak of as Presbyter in one moment in time is the reality that is spoken of as Priest at another, later, moment in time…but we have to be cautious
We must never think that the Church of Peter and Paul will have – or could comprehend – terminology which is canonised decades and even centuries after the deaths of these men and after the first generation. We can’t speak of them as though our canon law or our theological terms or our ecclesiology would’ve made sense to them or been known to them. Their concepts will be markedly different, as any reputable contemporary theologian & ecclesiologist would declare
M
mattp0625
Guest
Ignatius of Antioch did write of a hierarchy within the church. He wrote that deacons and presbyters are to assist the bishop, who presides over all things done in harmony with God and administers the proper Eucharist. These things are done in place of the apostles.
W
Wannano
Guest
Thank you!! Your entry here has immediately stimulated me into wanting to hear more. I had all but given up hearing closed minded arguements. I would love to hear more from your perspective. The time frame of Constantine and the centuries following would be of special interest to me. Maybe I will get brave enough to start a new thread and hope for your contibutions!
P
PJM
Guest
I’m responding 1st.to benhur here
The CC has no choice but to consider the reformation [revolution is more apt], as a heresy. Certainly we profess to believe in One True God, and most agree on the issue of Christian Baptism {Jn 3:5 & Mt 28:19}.
But not comprehended by the Protestant community is a full understanding of just WHAT being a God-believer actually means. Both logically and morally it has to mean understanding CORRECTLY ALL that Jesus taught NOT open to self interpretations], then accepting them all and integrating them fully into our lives.
There is not a single example in the entire bible were God; Yahweh or Jesus ever permitted other faith beliefs other than His Own. So on what basis do you stake your claim?
guanophore; said:
P
PJM
Guest
THANKS for the info:thumbsup:
P
PJM
Guest
Thanks again,
My bride of 49 years and I travel alot in the summer months and do not have regulat internet access.
God Bless you,
PJM
G
guanophore
Guest
Jesus was talking about unspiritual/carnal thinking. If one takes this literally, then one would have to espouse the concept that Jesus was speaking of His own flesh, which would make his sacrifice on the cross “to no avail”.
yes, the original eucharistic gatherings were after the meal, just as the first one occurred after the Passover meal. They were behaving badly at the meal as well, but the eating and drinking of judgment upon oneself for not discerning the Body and Blood can only happen if the Body and Blood are present.
These are instructions about the common meal. The following passage applies to the Eucharist.
27Wherefore whosoever shall eat the bread or drink the cup of the Lord unworthily, shall be guilty of the body and the blood of the Lord. 28But let a man prove himself, and so let him eat of the bread, and drink of the cup. 29For he that eateth and drinketh, eateth and drinketh judgment unto himself, if he discern not the body. 30For this cause many among you are weak and sickly, and not a few sleep. 31But if we discerned ourselves, we should not be judged. 32But when we are judged, we are chastened of the Lord, that we may not be condemned with the world.
How is one guilty of that which is not present? Or only metaphorically present?
How do you explain that all those churches planted by Apostles believed in the Real presence?
S
susanlo
Guest
They were eating the bread and drinking the cup in a way that was disrespectful to the body of believers. (1 Corinthians 10:17 Because there is one loaf, we, who are many, are one body, for we all share the one loaf.) The commentaries I am looking at biblehub.com say that they aren’t recognizing the significance of the memorial meal and are not displaying worthiness of participating in this rite which is supposed to celebrate the new covenant in Jesus’ blood. I am not a Bible scholar, but that’s what I get out of it. I don’t think the content of what they eat affects whether they are guilty of behaving “unworthily” of Christ’s sacrifice.
I don’t believe that they did. At least they did not believe in transubstantiation at first. Last year I read a lot of the early literature that was claimed to display evidence of belief either for or against transubstantiation. I found that J.N.D. Kelly sums it up well on pp. 440-449 (archive.org/stream/pdfy-CY7YNVnvFwggDjnT/103911481-J-N-D-Kelly-Early-Christian-Doctrines#page/n451/mode/2up) about how the conversion theory began in the 4th century by some (including Cyril of Jerusalem and Ambrose who clearly speak of a change of substance). The little I read seems to be reflected in what he explains well. I believe many scholars would agree with his analysis of the early writings.
S
Starwarsfan2
Guest
You are half correct , they didn’t accept transubstantiation , however , they did believe in the real presence .
Keep the faith , Starwars
- Status