How should the church service be structured

[Marymog]

Does your holy wafer get digested or does it go to heaven from your intestines, bypassing the rear?

Since you teach you eat Jesus(transubstantiation), then you obviously poop Jesus.

Wow, the RCC never thought of that, huh?

No wonder you think of his mother Mary as the head of him.

While they were eating, Jesus took bread, and when he had given thanks, he broke it and gave it to his disciples, saying, "Take and eat; this is my body."

Did the Apostles "poop Jesus"?

Curious Mary

 

[Marymog]

When the ROMAN Catholic Church started it.

What OR who was The Church before it was "the ROMAN Catholic Church"?

Curious Mary

 

[Truther]

What OR who was The Church before it was "the ROMAN Catholic Church"?

Curious Mary

It was a nameless church defined by it's doctrine and experience only.

This was seen from beginning at Acts 2 through the Epistles.

If any church does not duplicate the same doctrine and experience of the church starting in Acts 2, it is not that church but a kinda club of sorts.

 

[Truther]

While they were eating, Jesus took bread, and when he had given thanks, he broke it and gave it to his disciples, saying, "Take and eat; this is my body."

Did the Apostles "poop Jesus"?

Curious Mary

He was symbolizing the bread.

Just like the pascha lamb symbolized Christ at all passover feasts.

It was never the literal Jesus.

 

[Truther]

He said to the Apostles, ""Take and eat; this is my body."

Did the Apostles "ingest him"? Or did Jesus lie to them?

How does one receive the Holy Ghost?

Curious Mary

Good question.

The "eating" of Jesus was symbolic of the pascha lamb being slain and ingested per Exodus etc.

Jesus was never interested in being "eaten", but at Pentecost, he entered them in a new and different way....


2 And when the day of Pentecost was fully come, they were all with one accord in one place.

2 And suddenly there came a sound from heaven as of a rushing mighty wind, and it filled all the house where they were sitting.

3 And there appeared unto them cloven tongues like as of fire, and it sat upon each of them.

4 And they were all filled with the Holy Ghost, and began to speak with other tongues, as the Spirit gave them utterance.


You see, there was no room for dessert(eating Jesus).

 

[Truther]

I didn't say that.....:)

Great.

Glad you think the RCC was nowhere to be found in the 1st century.

 

[Truther]

Watching you say all of this to Christ as He judges you ought to be interesting.
I hope they have popcorn for the rest of us who are watching . . .

I think His judgement would be on those that think they are defecating the remnants of Jesus' body on Monday, rather that being infilled with Him the proper way per Acts 2.

 

[Truther]

Yup - that's precisely the kind of ignorant drivel I thought you'd say.
Time to be humiliated again . . .

Ummmm - as I educated you earlier - Ignatius of Antioch was writing about the "Eucharist" about TWO HUNDRED years BEFORE Constantine:
Ignatius of Antioch
Follow your bishop, every one of you, as obediently as Jesus Christ followed the Father. Obey your clergy too as you would the apostles; give your deacons the same reverence that you would to a command of God. Make sure that no step affecting the Church is ever taken by anyone without the bishop’s sanction. The sole Eucharist you should consider valid is one that is celebrated by the bishop himself, or by some person authorized by him. Where the bishop is to be seen, there let all his people be; just as, wherever Jesus Christ is present, there is the Catholic Church (Letter to the Smyrneans 8:2 [A.D. 107]).

All Constantine did was to make Christianity legal. He didn't make it the "religion of Rome" - he simply legalized it in his Edict of Milan.

Finally, Einstein - it would be kind of difficult for Constantine to have been a Pope since he wasn't even a Catholic until he was Baptized - on his DEATHBED. Don't you EVER tire of being proven wrong??

You REALLLLLY need to study your history, sparky . . .

Question: was that fella a writer of the Bible?

Also, does Acts or history record him officially instituting this replacement for the Holy Ghost infilling per Acts 2 in the churches?

Also, do we have his 2000 year old original writings, or are they...copies?

Also, since he is an infallible RCC commentator, are his writings the "word of God"?

Is there any chance that all these ancient writing from extra Biblical persons are made up by RCC monks?

Only fake news and propaganda exists in modern times, but never in ancient times?


Sola scriptura!!!

 

[BreadOfLife]

I think His judgement would be on those that think they are defecating the remnants of Jesus' body on Monday, rather that being infilled with Him the proper way per Acts 2.

Yup, I hope they have popcorn . . .

 

[BreadOfLife]

Question: was that fella a writer of the Bible?

Also, does Acts or history record him officially instituting this replacement for the Holy Ghost infilling per Acts 2 in the churches?

Also, do we have his 2000 year old original writings, or are they...copies?

Also, since he is an infallible RCC commentator, are his writings the "word of God"?

Is there any chance that all these ancient writing from extra Biblical persons are made up by RCC monks?

Only fake news and propaganda exists in modern times, but never in ancient times?

Sola scriptura!!!

No – but being a student of the apostle John and a martyr for Christ – he knew the Gospel in a more intensely intimate way that YOU ever will, given your spiritual pride and abject ignorance of Chhrist. He’s not infallible – he is a 1st century Bishop of Christ’s church and a historical witness to HOW the faith was practiced back then.

And, WHO said that the Eucharist is a “replacement” for the indwelling of the Holy Spirit??

Certainly NOT the Catholic Church – sooooo, NOT really sure where you’re getting YOUR “fake” news . . .

Finally – as to the 16th century man-made invention of “Sola Scriptura that you so proudly hail – how about showing us where the Bible makes this claim. Please show me – FROM SCRIPTURE – where Scripture is our “Sole” Authority.

If you can do that – I will leave the Catholic Church today and join YOUR sect.

 

[BreadOfLife]

Glad you think the RCC was nowhere to be found in the 1st century.

No such thing as the "RCC" - but the Catholic Church was there . . .

 

[Marymog]

It was a nameless church defined by it's doctrine and experience only.

This was seen from beginning at Acts 2 through the Epistles.

If any church does not duplicate the same doctrine and experience of the church starting in Acts 2, it is not that church but a kinda club of sorts.

Thank you.

Ignatius of Antioch wrote around A.D. 107 that the Church was Catholic. So I will pretend with you that The Church was not called ‘Catholic’ and was “nameless” until several hundred years later.

What happened to all those “nameless church(es)” (Jerusalem, Antioch etc.) when Constantine came into power and ‘created' the Catholic Church? Did they fold into this ‘new’ Roman Catholic Church? Or did they keep their own identity with their own doctrine seperate from the ‘new’ Catholic Church?

In your opinion what current church, in the year 2020, duplicates the same doctrine and experience of the church starting in Acts 2?

 

[Marymog]

He was symbolizing the bread.

Just like the pascha lamb symbolized Christ at all passover feasts.

It was never the literal Jesus.

OK...you don’t believe what he said. I, and billions of other Christians, do believe what He said when he said This IS my body!

 

[Marymog]

Good question.

The "eating" of Jesus was symbolic of the pascha lamb being slain and ingested per Exodus etc.

Jesus was never interested in being "eaten", but at Pentecost, he entered them in a new and different way....


2 And when the day of Pentecost was fully come, they were all with one accord in one place.

2 And suddenly there came a sound from heaven as of a rushing mighty wind, and it filled all the house where they were sitting.

3 And there appeared unto them cloven tongues like as of fire, and it sat upon each of them.

4 And they were all filled with the Holy Ghost, and began to speak with other tongues, as the Spirit gave them utterance.


You see, there was no room for dessert(eating Jesus).

No, I don’t “see” what you mean.

Did you know you are repeating a 500 year teaching of the Protestant revolution? Why don’t you follow what The Church has taught for 2,000 years: it IS His body, just like He said it was?

 

[Marymog]

Great.

Glad you think the RCC was nowhere to be found in the 1st century.

Christian history shows that The Church was universal (which means catholic) in the first century. At the time Rome, which is where Peter and Paul were, was recognized as The city where The Church was being led from BECAUSE Peter and Paul were there.

Do you know who Clement of Rome was?

 

[Illuminator]

This pamphlet, compiled a mere 60 years after the Protestant Revolt, shows clearly the disastrous results of private interpretation. The Catholic author Christoph Rasperger lists a total of 200 interpretations by Protestants of the words of Our Lord “This is My Body.”

Matt. 26:26-28; Mark. 14:22,24; Luke 22;19-20; 1 Cor. 11:24-25 – Jesus says, this IS my body and blood. Jesus does not say, this is a symbol of my body and blood.

Matt. 26:26; Mark. 14:22; Luke 22:19-20 – the Greek phrase is “Touto estin to soma mou.” This phraseology means “this is actually” or “this is really” my body and blood.

1 Cor. 11:24 – the same translation is used by Paul – “touto mou estin to soma.” The statement is “this is really” my body and blood. Nowhere in Scripture does God ever declare something without making it so.

Matt. 26:26; Mark. 14:22; Luke 22:19 – to deny the 2,000 year-old Catholic understanding of the Eucharist, Protestants must argue that Jesus was really saying “this represents (not is) my body and blood.” However, Aramaic, the language that Jesus spoke, had over 30 words for “represent,” but Jesus did not use any of them. He used the Aramaic word for “estin” which means “is.”

Matt. 26:28; Mark. 14:24; Luke 22:20 – Jesus’ use of “poured out” in reference to His blood also emphasizes the reality of its presence.

Exodus 24:8 – Jesus emphasizes the reality of His actual blood being present by using Moses’ statement “blood of the covenant.”

1 Cor. 10:16 – Paul asks the question, “the cup of blessing and the bread of which we partake, is it not an actual participation in Christ’s body and blood?” Is Paul really asking because He, the divinely inspired writer, does not understand? No, of course not. Paul’s questions are obviously rhetorical. This IS the actual body and blood. Further, the Greek word “koinonia” describes an actual, not symbolic participation in the body and blood.

 

[BreadOfLife]

No – but being a student of the apostle John and a martyr for Christ – he knew the Gospel in a more intensely intimate way that YOU ever will, given your spiritual pride and abject ignorance of Chhrist. He’s not infallible – he is a 1st century Bishop of Christ’s church and a historical witness to HOW the faith was practiced back then.

And, WHO said that the Eucharist is a “replacement” for the indwelling of the Holy Spirit??

Certainly NOT the Catholic Church – sooooo, NOT really sure where you’re getting YOUR “fake” news . . .

Finally – as to the 16th century man-made invention of “Sola Scriptura that you so proudly hail – how about showing us where the Bible makes this claim. Please show me – FROM SCRIPTURE – where Scripture is our “Sole” Authority.

If you can do that – I will leave the Catholic Church today and join YOUR sect.

CRICKETS . . .

 

[Marymog]

Question: was that fella a writer of the Bible?


Sola scriptura!!!

Sola Scriptura was a theory brought forth by the men of the Protestant revolution. Who was the fella that invented "sola Scriptura?

Why do you follow the "fella" that invented sola Scriptura but not the "fella" who lived closest to the time of Christ?

Curious Mary

PS....Here is a little insight from your own PROTESTANT friends The Danger of Sola Scriptura | Bible.org

 

[Truther]

Sola Scriptura was a theory brought forth by the men of the Protestant revolution. Who was the fella that invented "sola Scriptura?

Why do you follow the "fella" that invented sola Scriptura but not the "fella" who lived closest to the time of Christ?

Curious Mary

PS....Here is a little insight from your own PROTESTANT friends The Danger of Sola Scriptura | Bible.org

Sola scriptura simply means no commentary.

Scripture will save you but commentary can damn you.

 

[Truther]

Christian history shows that The Church was universal (which means catholic) in the first century. At the time Rome, which is where Peter and Paul were, was recognized as The city where The Church was being led from BECAUSE Peter and Paul were there.

Do you know who Clement of Rome was?

No, is his name in the scripture?