Christ's Christianity and Paul's Christianity are Not the Same

  • Welcome to Christian Forums, a Christian Forum that recognizes that all Christians are a work in progress.

    You will need to register to be able to join in fellowship with Christians all over the world.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!

epostle1

Well-Known Member
Sep 24, 2012
3,326
507
113
72
Essex
Faith
Christian
Country
Canada
Now that is a crazy doctrine, and most definitely NOT some Church prophecy a believer is supposed to live under today.

It's not that crazy, vet. Mel was a Jew so Pug passes by 66%.

Gen. 14:18 - this is the first time that the word "priest" is used in Old Testament. Melchizedek is both a priest and a king and he offers a bread and wine sacrifice to God.

Psalm 76:2 - Melchizedek is the king of Salem. Salem is the future Jeru-salem where Jesus, the eternal priest and king, established his new Kingdom and the Eucharistic sacrifice which He offered under the appearance of bread and wine.

Psalm 110:4 - this is the prophecy that Jesus will be the eternal priest and king in the same manner as this mysterious priest Melchizedek. This prophecy requires us to look for an eternal bread and wine sacrifice in the future. This prophecy is fulfilled only by the Eucharistic sacrifice of the Catholic Church.

Gen. 14:18 - remember that Melchizedek's bread and wine offering foreshadowed the sacramental re-presentation of Jesus' offering.

Heb. 5:6, Heb. 5:10; Heb. 6:20; Heb. 7:15, Heb. 7:17 - these verses show that Jesus restores the father-son priesthood after Melchizedek. Jesus is the new priest and King of Jerusalem and feeds the new children of Abraham with His body and blood. This means that His eternal sacrifice is offered in the same manner as the bread and wine offered by Melchizedek in Gen. 14:18. But the bread and wine that Jesus offers is different, just as the Passover Lamb of the New Covenant is different. The bread and wine become His body and blood by the overshadowing of the Holy Spirit.

Heb. 9:12 Jesus enters into heaven, the Holy Place, taking His own blood. How can this be? He wasn't bleeding after the resurrection. This is because He enters into the heavenly sanctuary to mediate the covenant of His body and blood by eternally offering it to the Father. This offering is made present to us in the same manner as Melchizedek's offering, under the appearance of bread and wine.

source

Lot of Biblical proof that Christ did not do away with all of God's laws for His Church. It's the lawless ones today who are trying to say He did. Paul clearly showed the difference in Scripture like 1 Timothy 1, and Galatians 5 with the difference between walking by The Spirit vs. not doing so with walking by the flesh, which he clearly showed can keep one out of God's Kingdom.

Agreed, but lets not confuse this truth with a false dichotomy that we see today called "church v.s. world"

[size="-1"]16. The secular false dichotomy of "church vs. world" has led committed orthodox Christians, by and large, to withdraw from politics, leaving a void filled by pagans, cynics, unscrupulous, and power-hungry. Catholicism offers a framework in which to approach the state and civic responsibility.[/size]

[size="-1"]37. Protestantism tends to oppose matter and spirit, favoring the latter, and is somewhat Gnostic or Docetic in this regard.[/size]

[size="-1"]40. Protestants' excessive mistrust of the flesh ("carnality") often leads to (in evangelicalism or fundamentalism) an absurd legalism (no dancing, drinking, card-playing, rock music, etc.).[/size]

[size="-1"]41. Many Protestants tend to separate life into categories of "spiritual" and "carnal," as if God is not Lord of all of life. It forgets that all non-sinful endeavors are ultimately spiritual.[/size]

[size="-1"]43. Most Protestants regard the Eucharist symbolically, which is contrary to universal Christian Tradition up to 1517, and the Bible (Mt 26:26-28; Jn 6:47-63; 1 Cor 10:14-22; 1 Cor 11:23-30), which hold to the Real Presence (another instance of the antipathy to matter).[/size]
source

Gal 5:16-21

There's also a lot of Bible prophecy about God re-establishing the people of Israel in their old habitations, and their being gathered specifically. God's Word even reveals the nations will STILL exist after Christ's coming (Zech.14).
God is constantly re-establishing his people through cleansing. There already has been a MAJOR house cleaning in the last 40 years, as in the days of Ezekiel.
 

williemac

New Member
Apr 29, 2012
1,094
65
0
Canada
It was a pleasure reading your post.
The Church makes the final ruling binding on all believers, not just one individual community, as you suggest. If a ruling is to be binding on all Christians, then some entity must exist to do the binding. That entity is refereed to as the Magisterium. Without authority you have chaos. Heaven cannot bind an error.

Can a corporation operate without a CEO?
How can our sons and daughters fight a war in the middle if no one is in charge?
Surely, you don't think that disputes were resolved based on the authority of the Holy Spirit utilizing character traits. They (not individuals) had the same authority as Jesus himself. Matt. 10:1 Matt. 10:40 Jesus freely gives His authority to the apostles in order for them to effectively convert the world,



Yes, for his behavior, not his teaching. In other words, Paul does not oppose Peter's teaching, but his failure to live by it.

Gal. 2:11 Gal. 2:12 Gal. 2:13 Gal. 2:14

With this rebuke, Paul is really saying "Peter, you are our leader, you teach infallibly, and yet your conduct is inconsistent with these facts. You of all people!" The verse really underscores, and not diminishes the importance of Peter's leadership in the Church. Infallibility (teaching without error) does not mean impeccability (living without sinning). Peter was the one who taught infallibly on the Gentile's salvation in Acts 10,11.

The Gospels magnify and complement the Epistles. The light has to come from the sun, and pass through the magnifying glass that is close to the object that you want to see. If you hold a magnifying glass up and look at the sun you'll burn your eye out.




Scripture doesn't say Paul learned directly from God. He was called directly by God. There exists in scripture one of two criteria for being a man of God.
1) be called directly by God, followed by signs and wonders
2) be ordained by a higher authority

Paul was called directly by God, followed by signs and wonders.
Paul was ordained by a higher authority with the laying on of hands by a representative of the Church. His ministry started when he could see.
Timothy was being prepped for ordination as bishop.
Moses and angels were called directly by God, followed by signs and wonders.
St. Francis of Assisi was called directly by God, followed by signs and wonders, and he was never ordained.
The Apostles were called by God to preach, not write, and only 3 of them wrote, so the preaching of the other nine is no less holy than the writing of the 3, because they were called directly by God. This is BEFORE Paul was sanctioning the execution of us Christians. Viewing the Gospels through the epistles is a contortion I'm just too old for, I'll get a brain cramp.

It is true that St. Paul spent long periods of time in solitude (not isolation), but totally alone?

Biblegateway search "man of God" This title is never used to mean each and every bible reading believer. You can sift through all 72 results and not find a single usage for any individual believer. Or you can trust me and save yourself the time.



The body is made up of many members who are distinguished one from the other by functions for which they have a fixed structure. In the Body, the bishops have the function of teaching and guiding, and this task they perform through the power of the Spirit who transfuses the whole Body, making each member effective in his function.

The Body is one, and so the episcopate is one, and the unity of the episcopate is achieved through solidarity with the prime source of Episcopal power, the Bishop of Rome. In the Catholic vision the pope teaches in the name of the episcopate and the episcopate teaches in the name of the Church and the Church teaches in the name of Christ, and Christ teaches in the name of God.




Agreed.


When he told them to keep the law, he was teaching them to to be obedient to authority. "Do as they say, not as they do".

John 11:51 John 11:52 God allows Caiaphas to prophesy infallibly, even though he was evil and plotted Jesus' death. God allows sinners to teach infallibly, just as He allows sinners to become saints. As a loving Father, He exalts His children, and is bound by His own justice to give His children a mechanism to know truth from error.




I don't see a contradiction. The degree that you forgive others is the same degree you will be forgiven by. The Lord's Prayer says it; Paul says the same thing. If you mean forgiveness happened at the cross therefore we are automatically forgiven every time we sin, I would call you a heretic. But I know that is not what you mean.




Christian understanding is a synthesis of many beliefs, and Biblical teachings are often interpreted through this background belief which has been synthesized. Such a synthesis may include other facts, not directly related to the contradiction in question, but nevertheless, relevant. When the critic proposes a contradiction, he ought to do so within the context of this background belief. By failing to do this, he merely imposes alien concepts into the text as if they belong. This error is common when the critic tries to cite contradictions related to doctrine or beliefs about the nature of God. For example, orthodox Christians believe in the Trinity. One could argue about this concept elsewhere, but trying to impose contradictions by ignoring Trinitarian belief violates the context provided by the Christian's background belief.​

Or consider a mundane example. Say that Joe is recorded as saying that Sam is not his son. But elsewhere, he is recorded as saying that Sam is his son. An obvious contradiction, right? But what if one's background belief about Joe and Sam includes the belief that Sam is Joe's adopted son? By ignoring the context this belief provides, one perceives contradictions where there are none.​

The critic sometimes assumes that the Biblical accounts are exhaustive in all details and intended to be precise. This is rarely the case. As such, the critic builds on a faulty assumption and perceives contradictions where none exist.​

Also related to the context problem: Let's say that the only records of Joe speaking about Sam are the two cases where he affirms and denies that Sam is his son. Certainly Joe said many other things in his life, but they were not recorded -- including the fact that he adopted a boy and named him Sam.​

Countering Bible Contradictions

I know you have your hands full with others on this subject, but in reply to this post, I have a question to ask concerning your take on forgiveness. Are you of the opinion that through the forgiveness if sin,eternal life is present within the believer in this life, and if so, do you think that it can be lost when a believer sins, only to be restored again when forgiveness is sought and granted?
 

epostle1

Well-Known Member
Sep 24, 2012
3,326
507
113
72
Essex
Faith
Christian
Country
Canada
NOT what they said, but then again you are apt at twisting words into what you want to see. "His own praise", is NOT the same as bragging. You continue to read into the Word, what is NOT there. True eisegesis.

Whether that is the case or not, my signature makes it very clear what versions I use. If your preference is the NAB, then why quote the DR. It is older than the KJV, unless you are using the Challoner revision, which is about 150 years newer than the Authorized Version. The NAB used 50 RCC scholars whereas the NIV used 104 multi-denominational scholars. The bias is definitely on the NAB side.

As I said, all those verses in Galatians refer to the same leadership group, which included Peter, James and John. The fact that you see that in verse 6 and apparently don't in verses 2 and 9 is rather bizarre. Verse 9 clearly shows Peter, James and John, and verse 2 the 'acknowledged leaders', which were also obviously Peter, James and John.

Of course I state that they all had no influence on Paul's message. He said so himself at the end of verse 6. You seem rather lost in just 3 verses in Galatians. Why would you say you agree with verse 2 and 9 being about Peter, James and John, then say you don't agree verse 6 is talking about them, then assert it is talking about them in your argument? Then why do you falsely assert I am claiming Peter, James and John are false believers and I am wrong? You are rather confused my friend.

I went to the link when you posted it the first time, I didn't need to see it again. How do you think I knew what it said?

[/i]

It asserts a RCC opinion and stance, which you obviously agree with as you posted it. I told you why I do not. Instead of quoting what others think, you should study God's actual Word and know what it says, then form an opinion based on proper hermenuetical exegesis.

It's called full disclosure and helps to form a rational perspective of what the Word actually says.

By quoting it, you accept it as fact. A footnote in a Bible translation, as I just said, is full disclosure, NOT an opinion. I'll stop harping when you stop using bad commentaries. I treat anyone who does what you do the same way, RCC or not. The fact is though that this type of acceptance of RCC sanctioned rhetoric is consistent with many RC's I encounter on forums. FYI, the RCC nor the Pope is infallible when it comes to expositing scripture. Jesus said very clearly that is why He sent the Holy Spirit. John 14:26 (NIV)



So you are telling us that you are an ex-protestant? Really? I am anti RCC not anti RC. Big difference. From what I have gathered so far in this thread, I doubt very much you actually KNOW the answer.


You are huffing and puffing because I clearly demonstrated that you are wrong about Gal. 2:6. It does not refer to Peter, James and John, but to 'acknowledged (Pharisaical ) leaders',. That is the crux of my argument and you are unable to refute it with any intellectual rigor. Paul did not teach the Magisterium, he sought affirmation. That much should be clear. You don't like that because it does not suit your man made paradigms. I'll bet you don't even like the title on the Biblegateway page. Paul Accepted by the Apostles. You will have us believe the Apostles were accepted by Paul. The very title of this thread is absurd. Watch you don't get a hernia with those scriptural contortion-isms.

I gave you the answer, you are just too blind to see it. Here it is again.

How Can Catholicism Be True When Catholics Are So Dead?

Do I have to re-post the question?

I know you have your hands full with others on this subject, but in reply to this post, I have a question to ask concerning your take on forgiveness. Are you of the opinion that through the forgiveness if sin,eternal life is present within the believer in this life, and if so, do you think that it can be lost when a believer sins, only to be restored again when forgiveness is sought and granted?

yes
yes
and yes.

Eternal life is present when we eat His Flesh and drink His Blood like He told us to. Paul warns that doing so unworthily might make you sick. Symbols can't make you sick.
 

Stan

New Member
Jul 19, 2012
391
5
0
70
Calgary, Alberta, CA.
You are huffing and puffing because I clearly demonstrated that you are wrong about Gal. 2:6. It does not refer to Peter, James and John, but to 'acknowledged Pharisaical leaders',. That is the crux of my argument and you are unable to refute it with any intellectual rigor. Paul did not teach the Magisterium, he collaborated with it and sought affirmation. You don't like that because it does not suit your man made paradigms. I'll bet you don't even like the title on the Biblegateway page. Paul Accepted by the Apostles. You will have us believe the Apostles were accepted by Paul. The very title of this thread is absurd.

Wow! I suggest you lay off the drugs. Here is what you last wrote;
This is how you read Galatians 2:6
[sup]6 [/sup]As for those who were held in high esteem—(Peter, James and John) whatever they were makes no difference to me; God does not show favoritism—they (Peter, James and John) added nothing to my message.

NOW, you comeback and say the exact opposite? Plus you add the word 'Pharisaical', that is not even in the verse. Unfortunately this is typical of people like you. You seem to understand basic English, but you don't seem to comprehend God's word. I assume you are now quoting from other works but have decided to make them appear as your own thoughts. Have you ever heard the old saying; "What a tangled web we weave, when we practice to deceive." I'm sure it is very hard to keep track of other's thoughts, when they are NOT your own and you have not really appropriated them.
From Paul's own perspective in Galatians, he recalls these events and says in his OWN words, ACKNOWLEDGED leaders. He does NOT use the word Pharisaical. Again you practice eisegesis unabashedly. Paul is telling this story of how not only was he accepted by the Apostolic leadership when he went to Jerusalem, but that he recognized and acknowledged their status as the leaders of the church there and that his ministry was to be to the Gentiles as Peter's was to the Jews.
Paul states in verse 4 and 5 what the reason was for what he said in verse 3. End of story, it has no further bearing or context with the subsequent scriptures in that chapter.

Eternal life is present when we eat His Flesh and drink His Blood like He told us to. Paul warns that doing so unworthily might make you sick. Symbols can't make you sick.

Ahh the old RCC 'transubstantiation' doctrine. I'm always amazed when I encounter this view. So let's take a look at the scriptures involved.
Matthew 26: 26-29


[sup] [/sup]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.”
Then he took a cup, and when he had given thanks, he gave it to them, saying, “Drink from it, all of you. [sup] [/sup]This is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins. [sup] [/sup]I tell you, I will not drink from this fruit of the vine from now on until that day when I drink it new with you in my Father’s kingdom.”

God's word says it is bread and fruit of the vine (wine).

1 Corinthians 11:23-25

For I received from the Lord what I also passed on to you: The Lord Jesus, on the night he was betrayed, took bread, [sup] [/sup]and when he had given thanks, he broke it and said, “This is my body, which is for you; do this in remembrance of me.” [sup] [/sup]In the same way, after supper he took the cup, saying, “This cup is the new covenant in my blood; do this, whenever you drink it, in remembrance of me.”


This is always a problem for people who do not recognize the allegorical nature in scripture like this. There is not precedent at all to drink blood or eat flesh in the Bible. As a matter of fact the Bible specifically forbids drinking blood. If Jesus came to fulfill the law, why would He go against it?
If transubstantiation is actually what the scriptures and Jesus teach here, and is in fact the proper context, then we have to also believe that verse 30 is literally talking about a small hill made of olives!




 

epostle1

Well-Known Member
Sep 24, 2012
3,326
507
113
72
Essex
Faith
Christian
Country
Canada
Wow! I suggest you lay off the drugs. Here is what you last wrote;


NOW, you comeback and say the exact opposite? Plus you add the word 'Pharisaical', that is not even in the verse. Unfortunately this is typical of people like you. You seem to understand basic English, but you don't seem to comprehend God's word. I assume you are now quoting from other works but have decided to make them appear as your own thoughts. Have you ever heard the old saying; "What a tangled web we weave, when we practice to deceive." I'm sure it is very hard to keep track of other's thoughts, when they are NOT your own and you have not really appropriated them.
From Paul's own perspective in Galatians, he recalls these events and says in his OWN words, ACKNOWLEDGED leaders. He does NOT use the word Pharisaical. Again you practice eisegesis unabashedly. Paul is telling this story of how not only was he accepted by the Apostolic leadership when he went to Jerusalem, but that he recognized and acknowledged their status as the leaders of the church there and that his ministry was to be to the Gentiles as Peter's was to the Jews.
Paul states in verse 4 and 5 what the reason was for what he said in verse 3. End of story, it has no further bearing or context with the subsequent scriptures in that chapter.



Ahh the old RCC 'transubstantiation' doctrine. I'm always amazed when I encounter this view. So let's take a look at the scriptures involved.
Matthew 26: 26-29


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.”
Then he took a cup, and when he had given thanks, he gave it to them, saying, “Drink from it, all of you. [sup] [/sup]This is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins. [sup] [/sup]I tell you, I will not drink from this fruit of the vine from now on until that day when I drink it new with you in my Father’s kingdom.”

God's word says it is bread and fruit of the vine (wine).

1 Corinthians 11:23-25

For I received from the Lord what I also passed on to you: The Lord Jesus, on the night he was betrayed, took bread, [sup] [/sup]and when he had given thanks, he broke it and said, “This is my body, which is for you; do this in remembrance of me.” [sup] [/sup]In the same way, after supper he took the cup, saying, “This cup is the new covenant in my blood; do this, whenever you drink it, in remembrance of me.”


This is always a problem for people who do not recognize the allegorical nature in scripture like this. There is not precedent at all to drink blood or eat flesh in the Bible. As a matter of fact the Bible specifically forbids drinking blood. If Jesus came to fulfill the law, why would He go against it?
If transubstantiation is actually what the scriptures and Jesus teach here, and is in fact the proper context, then we have to also believe that verse 30 is literally talking about a small hill made of olives!

Stan. Calm down, and put on your glasses. Clearly we have a misunderstanding of the word “you”. I’ll alter the formatting to make it easier for you to see it. Look at my quote you quoted:

This is how you read Galatians 2:6 (second person singular, not second person plural)
[sup]6 [/sup]As for those who were held in high esteem—(Peter, James and John) whatever they were makes no difference to me; God does not show favoritism—they (Peter, James and John) added nothing to my message.

I said my words are in italics. Click here and find it.


Galatians 2 http://www.biblegate...#38;version=NIV

New International Version (NIV) (my words in italics)
Paul Accepted by the Apostles
Those words, (Peter, James and John) that you are ranting about are not in italics. They are not my words. It is how YOU read the passage. Your words, not mine. Is that supposed to be one of those "tricks" you accused me of ? or will you humbly admit you made a mistake?

Would you like some gnat soup to go with your camel burger?

I am happy to see you don't think that Paul went lecturing Peter, James and John on how to be leaders the way some think.

I would be happy to discuss The Real Substantial Presence of Jesus in the Eucharist, but first, would you mind sharing with me the reasons for your leaving the Church at such a young age? Were your parents too strict or too lax? Did close friends take you out or bring you in? Axehead admits his Catholic father was an alcoholic and blames the RCC for it. He doesn't have a religious problem, he has a developmental problem and I have tried to steer him to get the right kind of help, and not out of malice. Do you blame the Church because your parents were less than perfect? I sense that you have suffered some kind of injury in the past and it would help in my discussion with you to have a better understanding of who I am talking to. Please send me a private message. I do not want some pharisee accusing me of promoting.
 

Xian Pugilist

New Member
Aug 4, 2012
231
10
0
[/color]
It's not that crazy, vet. Mel was a Jew so Pug passes by 66%.

Gen. 14:18 - this is the first time that the word "priest" is used in Old Testament. Melchizedek is both a priest and a king and he offers a bread and wine sacrifice to God.

Psalm 76:2 - Melchizedek is the king of Salem. Salem is the future Jeru-salem where Jesus, the eternal priest and king, established his new Kingdom and the Eucharistic sacrifice which He offered under the appearance of bread and wine.

Psalm 110:4 - this is the prophecy that Jesus will be the eternal priest and king in the same manner as this mysterious priest Melchizedek. This prophecy requires us to look for an eternal bread and wine sacrifice in the future. This prophecy is fulfilled only by the Eucharistic sacrifice of the Catholic Church.

Gen. 14:18 - remember that Melchizedek's bread and wine offering foreshadowed the sacramental re-presentation of Jesus' offering.

Heb. 5:6, Heb. 5:10; Heb. 6:20; Heb. 7:15, Heb. 7:17 - these verses show that Jesus restores the father-son priesthood after Melchizedek. Jesus is the new priest and King of Jerusalem and feeds the new children of Abraham with His body and blood. This means that His eternal sacrifice is offered in the same manner as the bread and wine offered by Melchizedek in Gen. 14:18. But the bread and wine that Jesus offers is different, just as the Passover Lamb of the New Covenant is different. The bread and wine become His body and blood by the overshadowing of the Holy Spirit.

Heb. 9:12 Jesus enters into heaven, the Holy Place, taking His own blood. How can this be? He wasn't bleeding after the resurrection. This is because He enters into the heavenly sanctuary to mediate the covenant of His body and blood by eternally offering it to the Father. This offering is made present to us in the same manner as Melchizedek's offering, under the appearance of bread and wine.

source



Agreed, but lets not confuse this truth with a false dichotomy that we see today called "church v.s. world"

16. The secular false dichotomy of "church vs. world" has led committed orthodox Christians, by and large, to withdraw from politics, leaving a void filled by pagans, cynics, unscrupulous, and power-hungry. Catholicism offers a framework in which to approach the state and civic responsibility.

37. Protestantism tends to oppose matter and spirit, favoring the latter, and is somewhat Gnostic or Docetic in this regard.

40. Protestants' excessive mistrust of the flesh ("carnality") often leads to (in evangelicalism or fundamentalism) an absurd legalism (no dancing, drinking, card-playing, rock music, etc.).

41. Many Protestants tend to separate life into categories of "spiritual" and "carnal," as if God is not Lord of all of life. It forgets that all non-sinful endeavors are ultimately spiritual.

43. Most Protestants regard the Eucharist symbolically, which is contrary to universal Christian Tradition up to 1517, and the Bible (Mt 26:26-28; Jn 6:47-63; 1 Cor 10:14-22; 1 Cor 11:23-30), which hold to the Real Presence (another instance of the antipathy to matter).
source


God is constantly re-establishing his people through cleansing. There already has been a MAJOR house cleaning in the last 40 years, as in the days of Ezekiel.

There were no jews when Mel lived. They came after Israel was born.

Apparently I am not a good Xian. I don't have to bash Rome nor bash Gays and I let the Bible dictate my beliefs vs using my beliefs to interpret the bible. I should get out of this chat since it went from Paul vs Christ to rome bashing. I dont' play well withg others in this environment.
 

williemac

New Member
Apr 29, 2012
1,094
65
0
Canada
[/color][/color][/font]

yes
yes
and yes.

Eternal life is present when we eat His Flesh and drink His Blood like He told us to. Paul warns that doing so unworthily might make you sick. Symbols can't make you sick.
Thank you for answering my questions, which were ( I know you have your hands full with others on this subject, but in reply to this post, I have a question to ask concerning your take on forgiveness. Are you of the opinion that through the forgiveness if sin,eternal life is present within the believer in this life, and if so, do you think that it can be lost when a believer sins, only to be restored again when forgiveness is sought and granted?)

So you say yes. Well, I suspected as much. I doubt you will be open to correction, but if you will endulge me, I will show you from scripture how your postion is untrue.
It can be seen in the 6th chapter of Hebrews. There, the writer informs them that it is not necessary to revisit the foundational teachings. He then explains why that is. in vs 4, he begins to reveal something he refers to as an impossibility. For those who were once enlightened, have tasted the heavenly gift, and became partakers of the Holy Spirit...vs 5." and have tasted the good word of God and the powers of the age to come".. vs6.."if they fall away, (impossible) to renew them again to repentance, since they crucify again for themselves the Son of God, and put Him to open shame" .

I read this passage to the shame of all teachers who insist that one can fall away over and over through sin, and requires forgiveness over and over. The word "impossible" has been used. Eternal life is given one time. If it is lost, it is impossible for the person to get it back again. This is why the foundation need only be laid one time. This should be good news for everyone. It should be a source of assurance and peace to the heart. However, many don't allow themselves to accept it at face value.

At this point, 1John 1:9 comes into play as an objection . I would respond firstly, that scripture cannot contradict scripture. So what do we do with 1John? We should realize that the passage is a description of what is required of a person in order to be saved. They muist acknowledge their sin, and not deny that sin exists, as was a common teaching in that day. But then, we can as well, simply go to the next verse, 1John 2:1, that tells us what happens if we sin; we have an advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous, No mention of going back to God for re-forgiveness. 1John 1:9 is meant as a one-time experience.
You want a heretic teaching? Try the one that claims save-lost-saved-lost, over and over for the believer. This whole practice of going to the preacher or to God, to get forgiveness over and over, is simply a stronghold that robs the church of both power and joy in the Lord. "in Him we HAVE redemption through His blood, the forgiveness of sin" (Eph.1:7)

Under the old covenant, the sacrifices were offered continually, because they could not take away sin. The author of Hebrews demonstrated that the ONE sacrifice for sin was offered by Christ (10:12-14) and by it we are perfected forever.

The sacrement of communion is meant merely as a rememberance, not as a method. No matter what you have been told, the emblems do not literally become the actual body and blood of our Lord. They are a symbol, as they were given to be. We partake of His flesh and blood by faith. We are partakers by faith. It is faith that is constantly under attack in the Christian community, by false doctrines. It has been this way from the beginning.

Symbols most certainly cannot make a person sick. But partaking of them in unbelief or insincerity most certainly can. Judgment is mentioned. This has been and always will be a matter of the heart. Deception has made communion an excercise of tradition, putting all the emphasis on the physical, and pure superstition.
I'll be away for a week. Sorry I cannot continue this more. Howie
 

Stan

New Member
Jul 19, 2012
391
5
0
70
Calgary, Alberta, CA.
Stan. Calm down, and put on your glasses. Clearly we have a misunderstanding of the word “you”. I’ll alter the formatting to make it easier for you to see it. Look at my quote you quoted:


Don't worry, I'm calm but I do see what you were doing. You might try NOT making assumptions about what I do and frame them as a direction on how I should read a phrase. Your snarky attitude is getting a little tiresome.
Yes you are right, that is how I read the scripture. Your link doesn't provide the text so why don't you try this again and tell us how you read those three verses in Gal 2? Are you saying they don't all relate to the same leaders? If so, who are who?


I would be happy to discuss The Real Substantial Presence of Jesus in the Eucharist, but first, would you mind sharing with me the reasons for your leaving the Church at such a young age? Were your parents too strict or too lax? Did close friends take you out or bring you in? Axehead admits his Catholic father was an alcoholic and blames the RCC for it. He doesn't have a religious problem, he has a developmental problem and I have tried to steer him to get the right kind of help, and not out of malice. Do you blame the Church because your parents were less than perfect? I sense that you have suffered some kind of injury in the past and it would help in my discussion with you to have a better understanding of who I am talking to. Please send me a private message. I do not want some pharisee accusing me of promoting.

I've said my piece about transubstantiation, and if you have a response go ahead and post it, but please try to keep it within the framework of the Bible, and not RCC dogma.
I have no desire at all to discuss why I left the RCC. Suffice it to say they were NOT relative to my life in the least little bit.

BTW, making conciliatory gestures like this, only rings true when you actually let people see a bit of who you really are. Your profile does not do that so don't expect to many people to feel any compunction to open up to you.
 

epostle1

Well-Known Member
Sep 24, 2012
3,326
507
113
72
Essex
Faith
Christian
Country
Canada
Thank you for answering my questions, which were ( I know you have your hands full with others on this subject, but in reply to this post, I have a question to ask concerning your take on forgiveness. Are you of the opinion that through the forgiveness if sin,eternal life is present within the believer in this life, and if so, do you think that it can be lost when a believer sins, only to be restored again when forgiveness is sought and granted?)

So you say yes. Well, I suspected as much. I doubt you will be open to correction, but if you will endulge me, I will show you from scripture how your postion is untrue.
It can be seen in the 6th chapter of Hebrews. There, the writer informs them that it is not necessary to revisit the foundational teachings. He then explains why that is. in vs 4, he begins to reveal something he refers to as an impossibility. For those who were once enlightened, have tasted the heavenly gift, and became partakers of the Holy Spirit...vs 5." and have tasted the good word of God and the powers of the age to come".. vs6.."if they fall away, (impossible) to renew them again to repentance, since they crucify again for themselves the Son of God, and put Him to open shame" .

I read this passage to the shame of all teachers who insist that one can fall away over and over through sin, and requires forgiveness over and over. The word "impossible" has been used. Eternal life is given one time. If it is lost, it is impossible for the person to get it back again. This is why the foundation need only be laid one time. This should be good news for everyone. It should be a source of assurance and peace to the heart. However, many don't allow themselves to accept it at face value.

At this point, 1John 1:9 comes into play as an objection . I would respond firstly, that scripture cannot contradict scripture. So what do we do with 1John? We should realize that the passage is a description of what is required of a person in order to be saved. They muist acknowledge their sin, and not deny that sin exists, as was a common teaching in that day. But then, we can as well, simply go to the next verse, 1John 2:1, that tells us what happens if we sin; we have an advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous, No mention of going back to God for re-forgiveness. 1John 1:9 is meant as a one-time experience.
You want a heretic teaching? Try the one that claims save-lost-saved-lost, over and over for the believer. This whole practice of going to the preacher or to God, to get forgiveness over and over, is simply a stronghold that robs the church of both power and joy in the Lord. "in Him we HAVE redemption through His blood, the forgiveness of sin" (Eph.1:7)

Under the old covenant, the sacrifices were offered continually, because they could not take away sin. The author of Hebrews demonstrated that the ONE sacrifice for sin was offered by Christ (10:12-14) and by it we are perfected forever.

The sacrement of communion is meant merely as a rememberance, not as a method. No matter what you have been told, the emblems do not literally become the actual body and blood of our Lord. They are a symbol, as they were given to be. We partake of His flesh and blood by faith. We are partakers by faith. It is faith that is constantly under attack in the Christian community, by false doctrines. It has been this way from the beginning.

Symbols most certainly cannot make a person sick. But partaking of them in unbelief or insincerity most certainly can. Judgment is mentioned. This has been and always will be a matter of the heart. Deception has made communion an excercise of tradition, putting all the emphasis on the physical, and pure superstition.
I'll be away for a week. Sorry I cannot continue this more. Howie
Howie, you want to discuss 6 subjects

Predestination to grace vs predestination to glory
Eternal Salvation
Forensic or imputed righteousness vs an inner transformation
Forgiveness
Half the book of Hebrews
the real absence vs The Real Substantial Presence of Jesus in the Eucharist

It will take me two weeks to offer a Catholic perspective, I should have it all ready for you in 2 weeks when you said you will be back.
:lol: :D :p
 

lawrance

New Member
Mar 30, 2011
738
19
0
Tenants....what tenants? I'm sorry but I think you are mixing up two parables. Jews are from Judah and Judah was made up of the Tribe of Judah and Benjamin. These two united as a result of being loyal to the House of David. Later on, Levi became a part of Judah. Israel was made up of the rest of the tribes. These tribes split from The House of David, under the reign of Jeroboam. It was after the Babylonian exile that all the tribes came back together to form the nation of Israel.
FYI, they all come from Isaac as descendants. I get sick of people who should know these rather simple and well known historical facts, and yet go off on some strange tangent.



Actually this assertion about Paul NOT learning directly from Jesus, is NOT correct. Please read 2Cor 12:1-10
Well you want to hide from the truth. why don't you go study why Jacob got the name Israel ? as that is what it's all about, as the rest is just rubbish if you do not understand why. the historical facts are just that and that's all, and even a fool can understand that.
Tenants ? remember in the vineyard ? God sent his Son ? does that ring a bell to you or not ? Who vomited them out ? why is it that the Arabs came in ?
 

epostle1

Well-Known Member
Sep 24, 2012
3,326
507
113
72
Essex
Faith
Christian
Country
Canada
[/color]

Don't worry, I'm calm but I do see what you were doing. You might try NOT making assumptions about what I do and frame them as a direction on how I should read a phrase. Your snarky attitude is getting a little tiresome.
Yes you are right, that is how I read the scripture. Your link doesn't provide the text so why don't you try this again and tell us how you read those three verses in Gal 2? Are you saying they don't all relate to the same leaders? If so, who are who?




I've said my piece about transubstantiation, and if you have a response go ahead and post it, but please try to keep it within the framework of the Bible, and not RCC dogma.
I have no desire at all to discuss why I left the RCC. Suffice it to say they were NOT relative to my life in the least little bit.

BTW, making conciliatory gestures like this, only rings true when you actually let people see a bit of who you really are. Your profile does not do that so don't expect to many people to feel any compunction to open up to you.
Let's make a deal, Stan. You give me the verse that says all doctrines must be explicitly found in the Bible to be accepted, (a doctrine or principle of non-Catholic/born-again-spirit-filled/evangelical/non-denominational/Protestant Christians) and if you can do that, I'll quit being a Catholic and join your church. If you can't, all you have to do is promise to keep an open mind.

God's word says it is bread and fruit of the vine (wine).

John 10:7 - Protestants point out that Jesus did speak metaphorically about Himself in other places in Scripture. For example, here Jesus says, "I am the door." But in this case, no one asked Jesus if He was literally made of wood. They understood him metaphorically.

John 15:1, John 15:5 - here is another example, where Jesus says, "I am the vine." Again, no one asked Jesus if He was literally a vine.

In John 6, Jesus' disciples did ask about His literal speech (that this bread was His flesh which must be eaten). He confirmed that His flesh and blood were food and drink indeed. Many disciples understood Him and left Him.

Here is the punch line:

Matt. 26:29; Mark 14:25; Luke 22:18 Jesus says He will not drink of the fruit of the vine until He drinks it new in the kingdom. You (Stan) may try to use this verse (because Jesus said fruit of the vine) to prove the wine cannot be His blood. But the Greek word for fruit is genneema which literally means that which is generated from the vine. In John 15:1,5 Jesus says I am the vine. So fruit of the vine can also mean Jesus blood. In 1 Cor. 11:26-27, Paul also used bread and the body of the Lord interchangeably in the same sentence. Also, see Matt. 3:7; Matt.12:34; Matt.23:33 for examples were genneema means birth or generation.

Rom. 14:14-18; 1 Cor. 8:1-13; 1 Tim. 4:3 You (Stan) argue that drinking blood and eating certain sacrificed meats were prohibited in the New Testament, so Jesus would have never commanded us to consume His body and blood. But these verses prove them wrong, showing that Paul taught all foods, even meat offered to idols, strangled, or with blood, could be consumed by the Christian if it didnt bother the brothers conscience and were consumed with thanksgiving to God.

MUST SEE - Mystery of the Catholic Eucharist and the Ancient Jewish 'Bread of the Presence' pt.1

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hyOFHQzVRio
 

williemac

New Member
Apr 29, 2012
1,094
65
0
Canada
Howie, you want to discuss 6 subjects

Predestination to grace vs predestination to glory
Eternal Salvation
Forensic or imputed righteousness vs an inner transformation
Forgiveness
Half the book of Hebrews
the real absence vs The Real Substantial Presence of Jesus in the Eucharist

It will take me two weeks to offer a Catholic perspective, I should have it all ready for you in 2 weeks when you said you will be back.
:lol: :D :p
Thank you. However, I have studied all these things for more than half of my 58 year lifetime. Do not think you are dealing with a novice here. As far as the real substantial presence of Christ in the Eucharist, go to the book of Acts and read how every person there who recieved the Holy Spirit did so by the hearing of faith alone, as Paul reminded the Galatians. If you must know, the Holy Spirit is He who brings us the inner experience of the presence of both the Father and Son. In Rev.3:20,21, Jesus simply said "I stand at the door and knock", and urged the hearers to open the door and let Him in. No mention of any Eucharist in these examples. As well, Rom.10:9,10 does not instruct us to take communion for salvation. It has always been a matter of faith alone. As the theif on the cross found out, and as Jesus Himself revealed in John 3:16. Salvation is not a matter of ritual, but a matter of faith. The indwelling presence of God has never been a matter of ritual, but a matter of faith. PERIOD. But go ahead, bring it on. I have also my own testimony of these things. I am a Spirit filled believer, and received that baptism by the laying on of hands and prayer, through faith. The Spirit does not come and go, and neither does my salvation ( eternal life). He who has the Son HAS LIFE!! This is not maintained by ritual of rememberance, but by faith. sincerely, Howie
 
  • Like
Reactions: Stan and dragonfly

dragonfly

Well-Known Member
Apr 19, 2012
1,882
141
63
UK
Thank you. However, I have studied all these things for more than half of my 58 year lifetime. Do not think you are dealing with a novice here. As far as the real substantial presence of Christ in the Eucharist, go to the book of Acts and read how every person there who recieved the Holy Spirit did so by the hearing of faith alone, as Paul reminded the Galatians. If you must know, the Holy Spirit is He who brings us the inner experience of the presence of both the Father and Son. In Rev.3:20,21, Jesus simply said "I stand at the door and knock", and urged the hearers to open the door and let Him in. No mention of any Eucharist in these examples. As well, Rom.10:9,10 does not instruct us to take communion for salvation. It has always been a matter of faith alone. As the theif on the cross found out, and as Jesus Himself revealed in John 3:16. Salvation is not a matter of ritual, but a matter of faith. The indwelling presence of God has never been a matter of ritual, but a matter of faith. PERIOD. But go ahead, bring it on. I have also my own testimony of these things. I am a Spirit filled believer, and received that baptism by the laying on of hands and prayer, through faith. The Spirit does not come and go, and neither does my salvation ( eternal life). He who has the Son HAS LIFE!! This is not maintained by ritual of rememberance, but by faith.

Hello Howie,

Very well said!
16679.gif
 

Stan

New Member
Jul 19, 2012
391
5
0
70
Calgary, Alberta, CA.
Well you want to hide from the truth. why don't you go study why Jacob got the name Israel ? as that is what it's all about, as the rest is just rubbish if you do not understand why. the historical facts are just that and that's all, and even a fool can understand that.
Tenants ? remember in the vineyard ? God sent his Son ? does that ring a bell to you or not ? Who vomited them out ? why is it that the Arabs came in ?


You are all over the place. I have no idea what you are on about. Make a point using the actual scripture that pertains to your point or don't bother responding to me.
 

epostle1

Well-Known Member
Sep 24, 2012
3,326
507
113
72
Essex
Faith
Christian
Country
Canada
Thank you. However, I have studied all these things for more than half of my 58 year lifetime. Do not think you are dealing with a novice here. As far as the real substantial presence of Christ in the Eucharist, go to the book of Acts and read how every person there who recieved the Holy Spirit did so by the hearing of faith alone, as Paul reminded the Galatians.

It is impossible to please God without faith. Paul teaches justification by faith, that is not the issue here. Paul never teaches justification by faith alone. Neither does James. Neither does any Apostle. Faith alone is not in Acts. In fact, there is only one place in scripture where you find the words "faith alone", where it is refuted- James 2:24. Some Bibles have "faith alone" in Romans 3:28. That is because Martin Luther added the word "alone" to support his false doctrine. He did worse than that to the Bible, but that is another topic.

The Book of Acts does not give a comprehensive treatise on any one doctrinal issue. Its a book about the acts of the Apostles. But there is mention of the Eucharist.

Acts 2:42 - from the Church's inception, apostolic tradition included celebrating the Eucharist (the "breaking of the bread") to fulfill Jesus' command "do this in remembrance of me."

Acts 20:28 - Paul charges the Church elders to "feed" the Church of the Lord, that is, with the flesh and blood of Christ.

Acts 9:4-5; Acts 9:22:8; Acts 9 26:14-15 Jesus asks Saul, Why are you persecuting me? when Saul was persecuting the Church. Jesus and the Church are one body (Bridegroom and Bride), and we are one with Jesus through His flesh and blood (the Eucharist).

In these verses, (and many others) the Church is defined as an extension of the Incarnation united in the Eucharist.

If you must know, the Holy Spirit is He who brings us the inner experience of the presence of both the Father and Son. In Rev.3:20,21, Jesus simply said "I stand at the door and knock", and urged the hearers to open the door and let Him in. No mention of any Eucharist in these examples.

Would you accept more examples? The Wedding Feast of the Lamb is a primary theme in Revelation.

As well, Rom.10:9,10 does not instruct us to take communion for salvation.

It does not instruct us to be baptized either.

It has always been a matter of faith alone.

see above

As the theif on the cross found out, and as Jesus Himself revealed in John 3:16.

What does this have to do with the Eucharist?

Salvation is not a matter of ritual, but a matter of faith.

Ritual is natural to all human beings. Any fellowship, group or bless-me-club that denies all forms of ritual end up making their own rituals anyway. Of course salvation is a matter of faith.


The indwelling presence of God has never been a matter of ritual, but a matter of faith. PERIOD. But go ahead, bring it on. I have also my own testimony of these things. I am a Spirit filled believer, and received that baptism by the laying on of hands and prayer, through faith. The Spirit does not come and go, and neither does my salvation ( eternal life). He who has the Son HAS LIFE!! This is not maintained by ritual of rememberance, but by faith. sincerely, Howie
You received the Holy Spirit when you were baptized. You received the Holy Spirit in all the little events in your life that finally led up to the point when you "got saved". (predestination to grace) You received the Holy Spirit with the laying on of hands. Finally, you will be predestined to glory by persevering to the end by conforming your will to Christ's will.

I admire Christians who have a dynamic "born again" experience, they may undergo an emotional upheaval or they may not. they may experience dramatic changes to their lives from that point on. Some will backslide. But accepting Jesus as savior is not the biblical definition of "born again". You must be baptized with water and the Spirit. "spirit" is never symbolic in scripture, and regarding baptism, nowhere in scripture is water separated from spirit.

I don't want to get into the hair splitting of when, how and what the Holy Spirit has to do with infant baptism, confirmation, and transubstantiation, or I'll be here all day. Let it suffice to say that I am a Charismatic Catholic, I have been "baptized" (in your terminology) in the Holy Spirit 40 years ago, I do pray in tongues, I have had visions and locutions, I have received prophecy from an internationally renowned non-Catholic prophet, (Pastor Russ Moyer, Eagle World Wide Ministries) and just because I am Catholic, that does not make me your enemy.
 

Stan

New Member
Jul 19, 2012
391
5
0
70
Calgary, Alberta, CA.
Let's make a deal, Stan. You give me the verse that says all doctrines must be explicitly found in the Bible to be accepted, (a doctrine or principle of non-Catholic/born-again-spirit-filled/evangelical/non-denominational/Protestant Christians) and if you can do that, I'll quit being a Catholic and join your church. If you can't, all you have to do is promise to keep an open mind.
Even if I did, you would turn it around. I recognize a permanently deluded RC when I encounter one. The commonality of most forums like this, is that the Bible is the gage of God's will, and the final authority of our understanding. Not everything that we are taught by the Holy Spirit may be IN the Bible but the truth of that teaching IS. The Bible will NEVER contradict what the Holy Spirit teaches us and vice-versa. The problem with keeping an OPEN mind is that it ends up getting filled with all kinds of garbage.Ephesians 4:11-16 (NIV)
John 10:7 - Protestants point out that Jesus did speak metaphorically about Himself in other places in Scripture. For example, here Jesus says, "I am the door." But in this case, no one asked Jesus if He was literally made of wood. They understood him metaphorically.John 15:1, John 15:5 - here is another example, where Jesus says, "I am the vine." Again, no one asked Jesus if He was literally a vine.In John 6, Jesus' disciples did ask about His literal speech (that this bread was His flesh which must be eaten). He confirmed that His flesh and blood were food and drink indeed. Many disciples understood Him and left Him.
This only confirms to me that you recognize metaphorical text when you want to and discard it in order to promote your RCC doctrine. Again the practice of eisegesis. Jesus always spoke to the public in parables/metaphors. Luke 8:10 (NIV)John 6:25-59 is Jesus teaching publicly in the synagogue in Capernaum, so it obviously could not be literal teaching or what He said in Luke 8 would be a lie. Again you mislead about the disciples, because in John 6:60 (NIV) it shows MANY of His disciples could NOT accept it. Thus, they did NOT understand. They DID think He was being literal. John 6:64-66 (NIV) explains this and shows who actually left and who stayed.
Matt. 26:29; Mark 14:25; Luke 22:18 Jesus says He will not drink of the fruit of the vine until He drinks it new in the kingdom. You (Stan) may try to use this verse (because Jesus said fruit of the vine) to prove the wine cannot be His blood. But the Greek word for fruit is genneema which literally means that which is generated from the vine. In John 15:1,5 Jesus says I am the vine. So fruit of the vine can also mean Jesus blood. In 1 Cor. 11:26-27, Paul also used bread and the body of the Lord interchangeably in the same sentence. Also, see Matt. 3:7; Matt.12:34; Matt.23:33 for examples were genneema means birth or generation. Rom. 14:14-18; 1 Cor. 8:1-13; 1 Tim. 4:3 You (Stan) argue that drinking blood and eating certain sacrificed meats were prohibited in the New Testament, so Jesus would have never commanded us to consume His body and blood. But these verses prove them wrong, showing that Paul taught all foods, even meat offered to idols, strangled, or with blood, could be consumed by the Christian if it didnt bother the brothers conscience and were consumed with thanksgiving to God.
Again you mislead. The Greek word IS genēma, which is a neutre noun and connotes product, fruit, harvest. The entymology of this word is gennaō, a verb which connotes;1) of men who fathered children
a) to be born​
b ) to be begotten​
1) of women giving birth to children​
2) metaph.
a) to engender, cause to arise, excite​
b ) in a Jewish sense, of one who brings others over to his way of life, to convert someone​
c) of God making Christ his son​
d) of God making men his sons through faith in Christ's work​
Obviously for any person using sound exegesis, this is used in a metaphorical sense, NOT a literal one.You admonish people to use the quote tool and yet you do NOT. I never said anything about meat sacrificed to idols. I said;
There is no precedent at all to drink blood or eat flesh in the Bible. As a matter of fact the Bible specifically forbids drinking blood.
FYI, Acts 15:28-29 (NIV) specifically shows what the leadership had prayerfully decided on this issue, based on the HOLY SPIRIT leading them. Cannibalism (eating flesh) is also spoken against and is something Jesus would NOT advocate.
Paul writes a whole chapter about this subject of food sacrificed to idols. 1 Cor 8:13 (NIV) , is his summation. Again you mislead in your practice of eisegesis. Your habit of continually ADDING to God's word is extremely dishonest, to say the least.You have been properly instructed.
 

epostle1

Well-Known Member
Sep 24, 2012
3,326
507
113
72
Essex
Faith
Christian
Country
Canada
Even if I did, you would turn it around.

How can I turn around a verse that does not exist? I would think that a principle as important as that would be somewhere in scripture, but it isn't. It's not even inferred, suggested, or hinted at. It's your doctrine, not mine. Let me break it down for you using simple logic that anyone can understand:

If a person says, “There are no moral absolutes.” That person is in logical trouble because that very statement is a moral absolute. He is saying it is a moral absolute that there are no moral absolutes. This system self-destructs. It cannot be true regardless how popular it is in North America today. What he is really saying is…there are no moral absolutes, except this one.

Another example: “All generalizations are false”. This is a generalization in itself. It too self-destructs. What a person is really saying here is “all generalizations are false, except for this one.

"Only doctrines explicitly grounded in the teaching of the Bible are trustworthy.” This concept is self-destructive, and is not found in scripture. Unless you can find a scripture that explicitly says this, which you can’t, then you must re-phrase it to say: "Only doctrines explicitly grounded in the teaching of the Bible are trustworthy, except this one.”
You are in a logically invalid position here as is most of Protestantism.

1 Tim 3:16 doesn't specify this concept. "All scripture is inspired..." does not mean "only scripture is inspired."

I recognize a permanently deluded RC when I encounter one.

yup, nothing like "Christian" dialogue. :rolleyes:


The commonality of most forums like this, is that the Bible is the gage of God's will, and the final authority of our understanding.
OHHH!!! Is THAT why everyone agrees with each other!!! :lol: :D :p


Not everything that we are taught by the Holy Spirit may be IN the Bible but the truth of that teaching IS.
Not everything that we are taught by the Holy Spirit may be IN the Bible but the truth of that teaching IS.

Agreed. When Catholics call this call this Sacred Tradition, they are falsely accused of adding to the Bible, but when you say it, it means the Holy Spirit infallibly teaches "ME".

The Bible will NEVER contradict what the Holy Spirit teaches us and vice-versa.

I agree that there are no contradictions in the Bible, but you haven't defined who "us" is. What you really mean is, "the Holy Spirit teaches ME". You are an authority unto yourself.

A few words on that whole "perspicuity (clearness) of Scripture" thing: it is a classic case of stapling on a purely human idea to the Tradition and elevating it to the level of equality with the word of God. It works like this: the enthusiast for the doctrine of the "perspicuity of Scripture" reasons "God always does what is best. Having a Bible that is perspicuous is best. Therefore, God has done that."​
(You can play that game with anything you like, by the way: "God always does what is best. Having the gift of tongues is best. Therefore, God demands all believers have the gift of tongues." "God always does what is best. Health and wealth are best. Therefore, God wills all believers to be healthy and wealthy.")​

You can always find some sort of biblical justification for your pet idea. Didn’t Paul thank God that he spoke in tongues more than anybody (1 Cor 14:18)? Doesn’t Scripture say of the righteous man that whatever he does prospers (Psalm 1:3)? Doesn’t it say that the command of the Lord is clear (Psalm 19:9)? QED! And with sufficient will power or ego, you can trumpet your pet idea as the Revealed Will of God Almighty, denouncing anybody who questions your pet theory, not as somebody who questions your pet theory, but as an enemy of God who "rails away" at God Almighty, while "The child of God knows better." It's a very cozy way to congratulate yourself.​

The thing is, the perspicuity of Scripture is one of those ideas, like Marxism, that is the result of theory run amuck and removed entirely from the laboratory of real life. Basically, it’s a creation myth that was fadged up in order to get rid of the need for the Catholic Magisterium. The reasoning was archetypally fallacious. It went like this: God always does what is best. Communicating his revelation in the form of a book of pellucid clarity is best. Therefore, that’s what he must have done. Otherwise, you condemn the Bible to the dreadful prospect of being interpreted by the Church and, worse still, by a Magisterium that sometimes directly contradicts what I am quite certain it must mean.​

Since the whole project of the Reformation consisted of insisting that wherever the Church’s Magisterium taught things not believed by A Man and His Bible, the Church was wrong, maintaining that creation myth was absolutely essential.​
The problem is, doing that requires the believer in the perspicuity of Scripture to resolutely shut his eyes to the constant blandishments and encroachments of reality, reason, common sense, experience, and the very testimony of Scripture itself.​
To this is often made the reply that “We walk by faith, not by sight.” True enough, but faith never contradicts reason, whereas the doctrine of the perspicuity of Scripture achieves this feat on a daily basis.​

Make no mistake: Christianity has room for doctrines that can't be empirically verified. The doctrine of the Trinity is a classic example. We believe it because God revealed it to us through Christ and his Holy Church. There's no scientific demonstration of it. Neither is there scientific disproof of it. It's not open to empirical investigation. You either trust God and his Church on this or you don't. All arguments against it can be refuted by reason. But it can't be proven by reason alone.​


The problem with keeping an OPEN mind is that it ends up getting filled with all kinds of garbage.Ephesians 4:11-16 (NIV)[/color]This only confirms to me that you recognize metaphorical text when you want to and discard it in order to promote your RCC doctrine.

Ephesians 4 says nothing about committing intellectual suicide. It affirms that the Church is hierarchical. You use this verse to suggest I am deceitful and scheming to give yourself religious credibility when you have no answer to my questions. I am not promoting CC doctrine, I am defending and explaining what has been asked of me. If I wanted to promote any doctrine, I would open new threads with accurate titles of the topic. If I am promoting beyond defending and explaining (where CC doctrines are being attacked or misrepresented), then report me.

I recognize literal text when it appears, and Jesus always explains his metaphorical devices. I have used common sense and scripture to distinguish literal from metaphorical. I am not twisting scripture to support a man made system.

Again the practice of eisegesis. Jesus always spoke to the public in parables/metaphors. Luke 8:10 (NIV)John 6:25-59 is Jesus teaching publicly in the synagogue in Capernaum, so it obviously could not be literal teaching or what He said in Luke 8 would be a lie. Again you mislead about the disciples, because in John 6:60 (NIV) it shows MANY of His disciples could NOT accept it. Thus, they did NOT understand. They DID think He was being literal. John 6:64-66 (NIV) explains this and shows who actually left and who stayed.Again you mislead. The Greek word IS genēma, which is a neutre noun and connotes product, fruit, harvest. The entymology of this word is gennaō, a verb which connotes;1) of men who fathered children
a) to be born​
b ) to be begotten​
1) of women giving birth to children​
2) metaph.


a) to engender, cause to arise, excite​
b ) in a Jewish sense, of one who brings others over to his way of life, to convert someone​
c) of God making Christ his son​
d) of God making men his sons through faith in Christ's work​
I said it can mean His Blood. I didn't say it had to. Scroll up. I underlined it for a reason. This proves you can only see what you want it to read.

Obviously for any person using sound exegesis, this is used in a metaphorical sense, NOT a literal one.You admonish people to use the quote tool and yet you do NOT. I never said anything about meat sacrificed to idols. I said;FYI, Acts 15:28-29 (NIV) specifically shows what the leadership had prayerfully decided on this issue, based on the HOLY SPIRIT leading them. Cannibalism (eating flesh) is also spoken against and is something Jesus would NOT advocate.

Can mean does not mean "must mean". Of course it is used in a metaphorical sense. I never said it didn't.​

Paul writes a whole chapter about this subject of food sacrificed to idols. 1 Cor 8:13 (NIV) , is his summation. Again you mislead in your practice of eisegesis. Your habit of continually ADDING to God's word is extremely dishonest, to say the least.You have been properly instructed.
The bread and wine before consecration is bread and wine. No Apostle used used food sacrificed to idols for the Toda sacrice. . You are not making any sense. Actually, the apostate Jews told the pagan Romans the Christians were eating human flesh, which was appauling the Romans and anyone else with half a brain. Why do you think the pagan Romans were executing Christians? They were a political threat to Ceasar??? What was so special about the Bread of the Presence? Can't you get You tube on your computer? (post 191) It explains the Bread of the Presence of the Old Testament. Don't you believe the Old Testament?

gotquestions.gorg is so biased it's ridiculous. It's hate speech. PERIOD.

Acts 15:28-29 has nothing to do with the Eucharist. It was a letter to the Gentiles to obstain from a list of foods because it was upsetting the Jewish Christians. Acts 15:24 The Gentile Christains had no problem eating food sacrificed to idols (that they probably purchased from the pagans) because they were thanking God for it. To Gentiles, strangling birds was the normal means of slaughtering them. It still is in some countries. The Christian Jews were totally appauled by the Christian Gentiles. The matter had to be settled. Eating of any un-kosher meat was a temporary measure for those cities mentioned. Acts 15:23 It was a local ruling, not a universal one. This ruling was later rescinded when the Jews matured, (but you won't find that in the Bible). If not, the ban would still be applied and I would miss out on my favorite steak.

Lastly, James 15:27 gives equal authority by "word of mouth" .as the letter.

Stan, please shorten your posts. I try to give the best possible answer and I can bulldoze as well as you can, so lets try to make them shorter. I get really sore sitting here for so long.