The Lord's Supper-bear with me-what's the point

[Feedmysheep]

I don’t follow the early church fathers… it’s the Catholic church who exalts them as proof they are correct, I take my teachings from the writings of the apostles who were moved by the holy spirit as they wrote.

Peter warned that false teachers would arise and soon… it was already happening as they were writing the letters to the churches. How do you know that the Catholic church wasn’t a by-product of that rebellion?

“Be on guard for yourselves and for all the flock, among which the Holy Spirit has made you overseers, to shepherd the church of God which He purchased with His own blood.I know that after my departure savage wolves will come in among you, not sparing the flock; and* from among your own selves men will arise,* speaking perverse things, to draw away the disciples after them. Therefore be on the alert, remembering that night and day for a period of three years I did not cease to admonish each one with tears. nd now I commend you to God and to the word of His grace, which is able to build [you] up and to give [you] the inheritance among all those who are sanctified” Acts 20:28-32

First Timothy 4:1 says, “The Spirit speaketh expressly that, in the latter times, some shall depart from the faith, giving heed to seducing spirits.” Most of us don’t talk to seducing spirits, but you’ve heard their propaganda coming out of false prophets, their mouthpieces. The doctrines they teach are not those of distorted men; they are the doctrines of demons (1 Tim. 4:1).

We must test the spirits and the Churches and hold up their doctrines to God’s word. For me, the Catholic churches teaches fall way short of scripture and I don’t believe that tradition is a good enough excuse for it.

sigh

Ok, see, you keep coming back, poking and poking, then you cry foul and get defensive when people actually ask you to look at your beliefs.

You say you listen to the Apostles. Ok, which ones? Clearly, not St. John, who has Jesus say over and over that His flesh is bread. Over and over again in situations where people LEAVE HIM BECAUSE OF THIS.

People did not depart from Him when he referred to Himself as a door, or a vine, or a mother hen. They departed from Him when He said His flesh was food and we were to eat it.

You clearly don’t listen to St. Paul- in fact, you go to great scriptural contortions to IGNORE the fact that he teaches that Jesus’ flesh is real food. You make up some insanely convoluted excuse as to why entire verses in 1 Corinthians simply don’t matter. It’s like watching my husband look for the mayo in the fridge. It’s right in front of him, yet he can’t see it.

So which Apostles are you listening to, exactly?

To say that the Catholic church falls way short of Scripture is laughable, at best, since one would assume you’re aware that it is precisely that Church which was guided by the Holy Spirit in canonizing the books of the Bible.

Of course, after reading some of your theology, I’m sure you have some excuse as to how the Bible came from some other, non-Catholic source.

But you cannot keep posting here, unloading the most misguided things, and then get defensive when people challenge them as you did during our previous exchange on this thread.

p.s. saying that wolves were going to arise “and soon”, and then to bold St. Peter’s words about how they were going to come “after his departure” as proof is simply another example of your misguided theology. After all, Martin Luther, John Calvin, and the pastor of your particular Protestant community all came after St. Peter’s departure, correct?

 

[wisdomseeker]

I don’t follow the early church fathers… it’s the Catholic church who exalts them as proof they are correct, I take my teachings from the writings of the apostles who were moved by the holy spirit as they wrote.

Peter warned that false teachers would arise and soon… it was already happening as they were writing the letters to the churches. How do you know that the Catholic church wasn’t a by-product of that rebellion?

“Be on guard for yourselves and for all the flock, among which the Holy Spirit has made you overseers, to shepherd the church of God which He purchased with His own blood.I know that after my departure savage wolves will come in among you, not sparing the flock; and* from among your own selves men will arise,* speaking perverse things, to draw away the disciples after them. Therefore be on the alert, remembering that night and day for a period of three years I did not cease to admonish each one with tears. nd now I commend you to God and to the word of His grace, which is able to build [you] up and to give [you] the inheritance among all those who are sanctified” Acts 20:28-32

First Timothy 4:1 says, “The Spirit speaketh expressly that, in the latter times, some shall depart from the faith, giving heed to seducing spirits.” Most of us don’t talk to seducing spirits, but you’ve heard their propaganda coming out of false prophets, their mouthpieces. The doctrines they teach are not those of distorted men; they are the doctrines of demons (1 Tim. 4:1).

We must test the spirits and the Churches and hold up their doctrines to God’s word. For me, the Catholic churches teaches fall way short of scripture and I don’t believe that tradition is a good enough excuse for it.

the Church was warned of false teachings and false prophets… which we see hapenning from the beginning and the CC has been fighting them all. these were people who walked away from the Church and begin preaching another gospel just like we see hapenning today. if you had courage to look at history you would realize this, but since you choose to ignore history then you have no idea.

:knight2: :knight2: :knight1:

 

[myredeemerlives]

I’d rather be ignorant to your church history (which I’m not by the way) than to be ignorant of scripture’s authority. Nowhere do I see Jesus instituting Sacred Tradition, in fact, he speaks against it in Matthew 15.

I answer your eat my flesh argument ALL THE TIME and yet I keep getting hit with it regardless.

We are saved by the grace of God, not by eating Jesus’ flesh and drinking His blood. Yes, Jesus said we are to partake in communion and eat of His flesh and blood in rememberance of His pouring out His blood for us and eat His flesh in rememberance of His body being broken. But I’m not so nuts to think he meant it literally. I stand with Martin Luther, as a heretic of the Church, proudly… and the holy spirit in me witnesses to the truth.

 

[Tonks40]

I’d rather be ignorant to your church history (which I’m not by the way) than to be ignorant of scripture’s authority. Nowhere do I see Jesus instituting Sacred Tradition, in fact, he speaks against it in Matthew 15.

I answer your eat my flesh argument ALL THE TIME and yet I keep getting hit with it regardless.

We are saved by the grace of God, not by eating Jesus’ flesh and drinking His blood. Yes, Jesus said we are to partake in communion and eat of His flesh and blood in rememberance of His pouring out His blood for us and eat His flesh in rememberance of His body being broken. But I’m not so nuts to think he meant it literally. I stand with Martin Luther, as a heretic of the Church, proudly… and the holy spirit in me witnesses to the truth.

Your pride won’t get you where you want to be.

So as a firm supporter of ML, you do realize that he believed in the Real Presence in the Eucharist, right? The reason why we keep “hitting you over the head” with John 6 is because what Christ spoke was Truth…not some shabby resemblance of some intangible notion that eating bread and drinking wine will bring up some memory of Him. We are asked by Him to live in Him…and He in turn lives in us. The Eucharist brings this actual reality into fruition - as He promised in Scripture.

 

[myredeemerlives]

Your pride won’t get you where you want to be.

So as a firm supporter of ML, you do realize that he believed in the Real Presence in the Eucharist, right? The reason why we keep “hitting you over the head” with John 6 is because what Christ spoke was Truth…not some shabby resemblance of some intangible notion that eating bread and drinking wine will bring up some memory of Him. We are asked by Him to live in Him…and He in turn lives in us. The Eucharist brings this actual reality into fruition - as He promised in Scripture.

Pride? How do you work out that you think I’m prideful?

You can tell me a million times that you believe what the church has taught you to be true and hammer me a million times over the head with it but you forget… I’ve been where you are.

Have you been where I am? No, you haven’t. So how do you know I haven’t found something bigger than the eucharist? You call me prideful and blind, and yet you don’t look at your own churches teaching with anything but rose coloured glasses.

 

[bpbasilphx]

Protestants say that the Lord’s Supper is just a symbol. What would be the point of Jesus instituting a symbol to remember Him? Couldn’t we just read the Bible, or pray? Why use items such as bread and wine/grape juice

**The Greek word “symbolos” is not a mere empty sign standing alone. The word means “a bringing together”, in this case of two realites.

The “symbol” in Greek is actually the thing symbolized.**

 

[myredeemerlives]

Protestants say that the Lord’s Supper is just a symbol. What would be the point of Jesus instituting a symbol to remember Him? Couldn’t we just read the Bible, or pray? Why use items such as bread and wine/grape juice

The Greek word “symbolos” is not a mere empty sign standing alone. The word means “a bringing together”, in this case of two realites.

The “symbol” in Greek is actually the thing symbolized.

The point IS because he didn’t leave the Lord’s supper to dispense His grace, he just wanted us to remember that He died on the cross for our sins so we can feel GRATEFUL for it.

Just a side note: I’ve asked Admin to resign me. So, bye to all.

 

[Tonks40]

Pride? How do you work out that you think I’m prideful?

Er, because you said you PROUDLY stand with Martin Luther in your post…

You can tell me a million times that you believe what the church has taught you to be true and hammer me a million times over the head with it but you forget… I’ve been where you are.

Have you been where I am? No, you haven’t. So how do you know I haven’t found something bigger than the eucharist? You call me prideful and blind, and yet you don’t look at your own churches teaching with anything but rose coloured glasses.

No, I don’t know where you’ve been, though I do know you did leave the Church.

Before you leave…consider the possibilities. Christ promised a new reality, did He not? Well, then, why not the reality that He continues to be with us, Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity? Wouldn’t that be wonderful if it was true? Is He limited to just tokens of remembrance, or can He transform the spiritual into the real for us to hold and take a grasp of?

Our concern for you is that you may not benefit from believing in the Fullness of the Christian faith. We fear that your understand is woefully short-sighted. We’re not trying to stifle your understanding of Christ…rather, we hope that you can expand upon your understandings to see how great the expanse of God’s plan is for us, both in this world and in the next. Yes, think you’ve been there and done that, and your current understanding is the final word on it. Your faith is a continuous journey - one which we hope can find you standing at the gates of Heaven.

Continue to walk with Christ…and God Bless!

 

[mdcpensive1]

I’d rather be ignorant to your church history (which I’m not by the way) than to be ignorant of scripture’s authority. Nowhere do I see Jesus instituting Sacred Tradition, in fact, he speaks against it in Matthew 15.

I answer your eat my flesh argument ALL THE TIME and yet I keep getting hit with it regardless.

We are saved by the grace of God, not by eating Jesus’ flesh and drinking His blood. Yes, Jesus said we are to partake in communion and eat of His flesh and blood in rememberance of His pouring out His blood for us and eat His flesh in rememberance of His body being broken. But I’m not so nuts to think he meant it literally. I stand with Martin Luther, as a heretic of the Church, proudly… and the holy spirit in me witnesses to the truth.

If you would like to have a conversation about what you just said I would be happy to give you some information about the Catholic Church and scripture that you may not be aware of.

In Matthew 15 you are correct when Jesus spoke about not following traditions. The problem with your interpretation is that He was not speaking of Traditions in the future Church which are His direct teachings handed down but of those disciplines put on the chosen people in the Old Testament that did not keep with the spirit of His message. The Mosaic/Deuteronomic laws had provisions that were to be followed to be in union with the Old Covenant. Many pharisees added some of their own which were the ones Christ was talking about in Matt 15.

Next you say we are saved by grace which is true. What you do is say this is contrary to eating the Eucharist. It is not. It is a wonderful source of graces. You cannot pit grace against the Eucharist. It doesn’t work in any argument.

Next you say that the Eucharist is a symbol not a reality. If it were just a symbol, then in 1Cor 11 we would not be guilty of such an offense for not taking seriously a symbol. Guilt would be about a reality, not a symbol.

The Jews took Him literally since they knew about the Levitical requirement not to drink blood (Lev 3:17). This is why they left (John 6:60). They knew He meant His real Body and Real Blood and did not know the new thrust into the New Covenant.

Many Jews at the time of Jesus were well aware of the words of scripture. Modern day scholars know the Gospel of John is divided into four sections, or “books” that give the meanings. Chapter 6 is in the book of signs which is a book that shows the explanations or proofs of the faith. If the Eucharist was just symbolic and included in the book of signs then the readers would have been doubtful of the reality of the Eucharist because it was in the wrong book. If it was in the wrong book, then the Gospel could also be doubted because of the error. The writers of the Gospel knew this and knew their audience and it was included in the correct book because it belongs there. The Eucharist is real, not symbolic.

I hope this gives you a taste of information you may never have had. I also hope this is prayerfully considered before a reply. I am just one with you that has had his eyes opened to see the glory of God.

mdcpensive1

 

[wisdomseeker]

I’d rather be ignorant to your church history (which I’m not by the way) than to be ignorant of scripture’s authority. Nowhere do I see Jesus instituting Sacred Tradition, in fact, he speaks against it in Matthew 15.

I answer your eat my flesh argument ALL THE TIME and yet I keep getting hit with it regardless.

We are saved by the grace of God, not by eating Jesus’ flesh and drinking His blood. Yes, Jesus said we are to partake in communion and eat of His flesh and blood in rememberance of His pouring out His blood for us and eat His flesh in rememberance of His body being broken. But I’m not so nuts to think he meant it literally. I stand with Martin Luther, as a heretic of the Church, proudly… and the holy spirit in me witnesses to the truth.

oh dear! ignorant of Scriptures. i dont know what you mean by this but you show no understand of Scriptures here. if you ignore history, how can you even understand Scriptures since Scriptures are recorded history.

to understand Scriptures you must believe what the Lord said.
do you believe what Jesus said? “and you are Peter and upon this rock I will built my Church and the gates of hell will not prevail against.” do you even know what this means? or you choose to ignore the importance of Jesus Word here?

do you know the importance of these words?: One Church, One faith, One baptism, One Lord. do you know what this means?

do you ignore the fact that after the apostles left, the Church continued to exist? therefore history continued with the ordained men by the apostles. christianity continued to grow. How did they do it? there many other writings that you choose to ignore. all because you are afraid to discovery that the CC is indeed the Church that Jesus intended it to be.
i know because i have a protestant friend that does the same as you, she refuses to go back in history too. she rejects the early christian writings. she has been brain washed. she has been conditioned to believe that the SS is all she needs.

make no mistake, the Bible cannot be understood apart from the Church. you think you can. but i bet, you can find many writings that does not fit your pattern of faith. any honest protestant who seeks the Truth has found this out and became Catholic.

Scott Hahn said one time. those who are finding the CC are most theologians and pastors.

:byzsoc: