Did Jesus say we have to have a full feast or did he say to eat the bread in remembrance?
Who founded your church?
- Thread starter theefaith
- Start date
-
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!
Philip James
Well-Known Member
Illuminator
Well-Known Member
Both our definitions are essentially the same. You are arguing for the sake of arguing and wasting my time. Who founded your church? | Page 130 | Christian Forums @ Christianity Board
Illuminator
Well-Known Member
We don't condemn to hell everyone who, through no fault of their own, have never heard the Gospel, and live according to their conscience.. Your god is a legalistic monster, that makes your fundamentalism dangerous.
DECLARATION ON THE RELATION OF THE CHURCH TO NON-CHRISTIAN RELIGIONS
No. They differ in at several major ways:
1) I do not add the requirement of any religious rituals. I don't see a baptized baby as a Christian at all. Rather, a person has to choose to follow Christ. That's not to say I don't think religious rituals are important (I certainly do!), but they are something a person does as part of their walk following Christ.
2) I do not add a theology test as part of the requirements (aka your "you must be Trinitarian"). For example, a JW strives to follow Christ and is indeed a Christian. I have major major disagreements with JW theology, but a person is not made a Christian by their ability to ace a theology test. Improving one's understanding of God is something a person does on their walk with Christ.
3) I acknowledge a person's right to choose to follow and have a changing relationship with Christ. For example, if a person choose to denounce a group, I acknowledge that and don't consider them part of it.
This is the Catholic contradiction. They will literally say you can not be saved without certain works, and then their popes will act like anyone can be saved, even if they don't believe in Jesus.
Brakelite
Well-Known Member
But you do absolutely condemn those who by using their God given conscience choose a different path than Rome by following scripture as they understand it, trusting in the holy Spirit to guide and lead them into truth. They do not believe that a pope has authority over all Christendom. Nor do they believe the Pope has civil authority over government. They believe scripture, and are therefore according to Rome, enemies to order and global peace. They are fundamentalists as you described above, and dangerous fanatics. How dare they have a direct line of communication with Jesus without a priestly mediator.
The final enemy to global Catholicism and the papal monolithic super power...a faithful remnant who keep the commandments of God and have the faith of Jesus. How appropriate. See Revelation 12:17 and Revelation 14:12.
Philip James
Well-Known Member
hmm, i would guess, about the time the Church was planted in Italy, Spain and Gaul...
Peace!
Philip James
Well-Known Member
'the truth is established on the testimony of 2 or 3 witnesses...'
The Church in Rome, the Church in Alexandria and the Church in Constantinople are 3, 2000 year old living witnesses to the Bread of Life discourse being about the Eucharist...
Where is the 2000 year old Christian community that says otherwise?
Here's another passage about the Eucharist:
For from the rising of the sun, even to its setting, my name is great among the nations; And everywhere they bring sacrifice to my name, and a pure offering; For great is my name among the nations, says the LORD of hosts.
Peace!
The verses about Jesus being the bread of life are not about a sacrament.
40For my Father's will is that everyone who looks to the Son and believes in him shall have eternal life, and I will raise him up on the last day.
54Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up on the last day.
Open your spiritual eyes!
The words in verse 54 are a metaphorical way of referring to the words in verse 40.
And If John meant for his readers to understand that eternal life came through the sacrament, it would seem strange for him to add this discourse and not also add Jesus' words during the Passover meal in order to give his readers an understanding of the actual practice.
Besides which, obviously not everyone who takes communion will ultimately be saved.
Philip James
Well-Known Member
For this is the will of my Father, that everyone who sees the Son and believes in him may have eternal life, and I shall raise him (on) the last day."
Rather, the Eucharist allows all to fulfill what is promised here... Can one who does not believe see Him?
Open your eyes indeed...
His readers already had an understanding of the practice. The Eucharist had been celebrated for decades before St. John wrote his Gospel.
Obviously? hmmm...
but I don't think anyone maintained otherwise... In fact the Church teaches (as Paul did!) that to partake unworthily is to eat and drink condemnation on oneself...
Peace!
Illuminator
Well-Known Member
Protestant baptisms, when done under the trinitarian formula, as most Protestants do, are accepted as valid in the eyes of the Catholic Church. Get over it.
Last edited:
Brakelite
Well-Known Member
Who cares whether the CC accepts any baptism as valid or not? It makes absolutely no difference in their standing before God whether the CC church approves.
You are ignoring my central point that the definitions you’re using are hose posted by the Catholic Church and accepted by Catholics. Everyone else can and do use different definitions.
For example: I do not considered a baptized baby to be a Christian.
I do acknowledge the Christianity of adults whom proclaim love of Christ (including non-Trinitairians). An unbaptized person whom loves Christ is a Christian. I don’t consider an person whom used to attend the Catholic Church but now denounced in person to be Catholic.
Again: my central point is the definitions you are using are not remotely universally used.
Last edited:
Behold
Well-Known Member
I'm not "anti-water",.....
I've been water baptized. And i can baptize you...
Thats not the issue.
The issue is when you have cults running around and their total emphasis is on WATER and not on THE CROSS or The BLOOD of Jesus.
See, a cult, is the devil's determined doctrine to try to avoid the Blood of Jesus.
To put that in the background, or to hide it completely, by making what isn't important, the main thing.
That what Satan does.
His goal is to get rid of the BLood of Jesus as the CENTERPIECE of Christianity, and replace it with water, bread, works, mary...
And so, he has his people on Forums ranting and raving and freaking out, about WATER and everything else, except the CROSS AND THE BLOOD of Jesus.
40For my Father's will is that everyone who looks to the Son and believes in him shall have eternal life, and I will raise him up on the last day.
54Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up on the last day.
If this is referring to the Eucharist, it would mean that if anyone takes it, they are eternally saved. Period, no exceptions. Therefore it has to have a different meaning and the meaning is right there in verse 40, spelled out for us.
Similar threads
