BAPTISM SAVES, FOR THE REMISSION OF SINS"

[Marymog]

Thanks for reminding me about the cannabilism.
AND the ECF's.
I go back and forth...it makes me crrrrazy!
I envy catholics that are so sure of this.
Don't know why I have to be so cerebral....

Hi GG,

Your welcome. I can't find any other historical writings suggesting that 1st century Christians believed anything but the Real Presence in the bread. Their beliefs/practice mirror scripture sooooooo I trust they know better then the men of the Reformation. I admit The Church needed reforming and new leadership but the reformers went to far on doctrine.

The reason a Catholic should be "so sure of this" (Real Presence) is because The Church teaches it and Scripture says The Church is the pillar and foundation of truth. Furthermore, as alluded to earlier, historically it is the only belief that the earliest Christians held and this belief, as we can see in the letters of the ECF's, is passed down via Apostolic Tradition.

Mary

 

[GodsGrace]

The Lord's Supper doesn't have to literally turn into flesh and blood to be critically important.

Do you know Catholic doctrine? (or dogma in this case).
If you did, you'd know why IT IS important!

 

[BreadOfLife]

And just how do you suggest that one actually sit down to a solemn meal and literally eat the flesh of Christ that has not been seen for 2000 years?

Please use bold and CAPITAL text to answer so everyone can understand your mind perfectly!

It amazes me how a person like YOU can profess that God simply spoke and the universe leapt into existence – yet you DON’Tthink He has the power to turn bread and wine into the Body and Blood of Christ.

I find your lack of faith ASTONISHING.
Pathetic – but astonishing, nonetheless . . .

 

[ScottA]

I don't think we'll know who's wrong till we get to heaven.
Jesus sounded pretty literal....OTOH, it's difficult to understand how this could be...but with God all things are possible.

Jesus was literal in a worldly sense, but just as He said, "My words are spirit."

 

[BreadOfLife]

The Lord's Supper doesn't have to literally turn into flesh and blood to be critically important.

WRONG.
It absolutely does -because Jesus said so.

 

[ScottA]

Only a blind fool can not see that Scripture shows us HOW we can eat his body and drink his blood (something He said we MUST do).

Jesus SHOWED us HOW to do that at the Last Supper.

I thank you Jesus for showing us how to fulfill your words in the Bread of Life discourse and in The Lords Prayer: If anyone eats of this bread, he will live forever. And the bread that I will give for the life of the world is my flesh. Give us this day our daily bread. You then took bread, broke it and gave it to us, saying, “This IS my body, which is given for you. Do this in remembrance of me.

I thank the 1st century Christians for writing down HOW they fulfilled the demands of Jesus by writing Day by day, as they spent much time together in the temple, they broke bread. And for Paul for reminding us that if we eat this bread in an unworthy manner we bring damnation upon ourselves.

Sadly some twist scripture to their own destruction and do not have faith that you are in fact present in the bread as you said when holding bread in your hand "This IS my body".


Bible study Mary

The foolishness that He was referring to was not to hear and understand when He said, "My words are spirit", and then turn and think He meant His actual body and blood, after He also said, "The flesh profits nothing."

Foolish is the flesh.

 

[ScottA]

It amazes me how a person like YOU can profess that God simply spoke and the universe leapt into existence – yet you DON’Tthink He has the power to turn bread and wine into the Body and Blood of Christ.

I find your lack of faith ASTONISHING.
Pathetic – but astonishing, nonetheless . . .

It is not a matter of faith, but of hearing and understanding when He said, "My words are spirit", and "The flesh profits nothing"...and then having the ability to reconcile it all with the whole word of God.

What is astonishing, is how learned people can hear His explanation and still not understand that He meant these things spiritually...and then go and make it all a matter of the flesh and the world like the sacrificing of bulls and goats for millennia against the better counsel of scripture.

Hook, line, and sinker.

 

[BreadOfLife]

The foolishness that He was referring to was not to hear and understand when He said, "My words are spirit", and then turn and think He meant His actual body and blood, after He also said, "The flesh profits nothing."

Foolish is the flesh.

“The flesh profits nothing” is NOT referring to CHRIST’S flesh – which profits us EVERYTHING.
It was because of His sacrifice in the FLESH that we are redeemed.

He was speaking about the inability of the people who were grumbling to understand what He was saying in John 6 because they were NOT thinking spiritually – sacramentally. They were imagining that Jesus wanted them to perform cannibalism right there. He was rebukingthem and telling them that THEIR fleshly thinking profits nothing.

 

[BreadOfLife]

It is not a matter of faith, but of hearing and understanding when He said, "My words are spirit", and "The flesh profits nothing"...and then having the ability to reconcile it all with the whole word of God.

What is astonishing, is how learned people can hear His explanation and still not understand that He meant these things spiritually...and then go and make it all a matter of the flesh and the world like the sacrificing of bulls and goats for millennia against the better counsel of scripture.

Hook, line, and sinker.

Read post #408.

 

[Jane_Doe22]

Do you know Catholic doctrine? (or dogma in this case).
If you did, you'd know why IT IS important!

I know Catholic doctrine and dogma. I just find it faulty in this regard.
Again: The Lord's Supper doesn't have to literally turn into flesh and blood to be critically important. It is very faulty thinking to set up the false dichotomy "it has to literally be flesh or it's not important."

 

[ScottA]

“The flesh profits nothing” is NOT referring to CHRIST’S flesh – which profits us EVERYTHING.
It was because of His sacrifice in the FLESH that we are redeemed.

He was speaking about the inability of the people who were grumbling to understand what He was saying in John 6 because they were NOT thinking spiritually – sacramentally. They were imagining that Jesus wanted them to perform cannibalism right there. He was rebukingthem and telling them that THEIR fleshly thinking profits nothing.

No...He was correct to say, "The flesh profits nothing", and you error to say that it does. This you do for not understanding the matter was completely spiritual. It was not His flesh that profited, but His spirit.

And now you yourself advocate cannibalism, thinking you are spiritual. Which I asked you about, but you could not answer.

 

[Marymog]

The foolishness that He was referring to was not to hear and understand when He said, "My words are spirit", and then turn and think He meant His actual body and blood, after He also said, "The flesh profits nothing."

Foolish is the flesh.

Lol....your killing me Scott. Matthew 23 has NOTHING to do with the bread of life discourse in the book of John. Why do you twist scripture?

Who taught you that? You should run from that person because they are a false prophet.

Mary

 

[ScottA]

Lol....your killing me Scott. Matthew 23 has NOTHING to do with the bread of life discourse in the book of John. Why do you twist scripture?

Who taught you that? You should run from that person because they are a false prophet.

Mary

Jesus taught all these things, and yet you would have me run from the Holy Spirit who taught me.

But it is the religious doctrine that you seem to prefer that I would run from.

 

[Marymog]

It is not a matter of faith, but of hearing and understanding when He said, "My words are spirit", and "The flesh profits nothing"...and then having the ability to reconcile it all with the whole word of God.

What is astonishing, is how learned people can hear His explanation and still not understand that He meant these things spiritually...and then go and make it all a matter of the flesh and the world like the sacrificing of bulls and goats for millennia against the better counsel of scripture.

Hook, line, and sinker.

Dear, dear Scott. Do you not see your hypocrisy?? You say it is astonishing how learned people can...hook line sinker etc. and then repeat a theory that's been around for 500 years from "learned people".

The "learned people" that disagree with your theory lived in the 1st-2nd century. They had the voices of the Apostles still ringing in their ears.

The "learned people" you got your theory from lived in the 16th century.

Which is more credible?

Historical Mary

 

[Marymog]

Jesus taught all these things, and yet you would have me run from the Holy Spirit who taught me.

But it is the religious doctrine that you seem to prefer that I would run from.

No Scott. I am trying to get you to run from whoever is teaching you your bizarre interpretation of scripture.

If you believe the Holy Spirit is teaching you then why did the Holy Spirit teach other men something completely OPPOSITE of what you believe?

Is the Holy Spirit confused or are you???

Curious Mary

 

[BreadOfLife]

No...He was correct to say, "The flesh profits nothing", and you error to say that it does. This you do for not understanding the matter was completely spiritual. It was not His flesh that profited, but His spirit.

And now you yourself advocate cannibalism, thinking you are spiritual. Which I asked you about, but you could not answer.

WRONG.

Your line of reasoning doesn't make one SRED of sense, given the context of what the people were grumbling about - and what Jesus asked the Apostles.

In verse 66, it shows that a large number of His disciples left because they could NOT handle what Jesus was telling them. This marks the ONLY time in the Gospel that His followers left Him for doctrinal reasons.

Did Jesus stop them? Did He explain what He was REALLY talking about so they wouldn't leave??
NO. He simply turned to the Twelve and asked, "Do you ALSO want to leave."

No explanation about "symbolism" or "metaphors".
He MEANT what He said.

 

[Marymog]

Jesus taught all these things, and yet you would have me run from the Holy Spirit who taught me.

But it is the religious doctrine that you seem to prefer that I would run from.

What is a "religious doctrine"?? That makes no sense.

You read scripture and interpret one way and believe you interpreted it correctly because you had guidance from the Holy Spirit.

Someone else reads scripture (i.e. Clement of Rome who walked and talked with the Apostles) and interprets it OPPOSITE of you (2,000 years before you) and you call his interpretation "religious doctrine" and say he is wrong and you are right.

Can you not see how ridiculous your logic is and why it is hard to take you serious????

Curious Mary

 

[BreadOfLife]

I know Catholic doctrine and dogma. I just find it faulty in this regard.
Again: The Lord's Supper doesn't have to literally turn into flesh and blood to be critically important. It is very faulty thinking to set up the false dichotomy "it has to literally be flesh or it's not important."

Really??
Please explain Catholic doctrine and dogma regarding the Eucharist.

 

[Marymog]

I know Catholic doctrine and dogma. I just find it faulty in this regard.
Again: The Lord's Supper doesn't have to literally turn into flesh and blood to be critically important. It is very faulty thinking to set up the false dichotomy "it has to literally be flesh or it's not important."

LOL....everyone else is wrong and you are right.....

I say that it is very faulty thinking to believe you are right and everyone else is wrong. By your own admittance you only read others teachings to learn ABOUT them and what they got wrong, not to learn the truth. You only need to learn about others doctrines/beliefs so you can relate to them because you already know the truth...don't you?

Mary

 

[ScottA]

Dear, dear Scott. Do you not see your hypocrisy?? You say it is astonishing how learned people can...hook line sinker etc. and then repeat a theory that's been around for 500 years from "learned people".

The "learned people" that disagree with your theory lived in the 1st-2nd century. They had the voices of the Apostles still ringing in their ears.

The "learned people" you got your theory from lived in the 16th century.

Which is more credible?

Historical Mary

As I told you...I got my information from the Holy Spirit. Which 100% accurate compared with the fallible apostles and church leaders: Jesus Himself called Peter Satan, and was somewhat against 5 out of the 7 churches of Revelation.

And having to repeat myself to you, makes me question your ability to comprehend what is written, even from me, let alone from God.