Communion vs Holy Communion

[JesusIsFaithful]

Hi,

Do your writings run contrary to scripture?

Curious Mary

I do not always post things in referring to scripture or christianity but as far as Ignatius goes, the same rule applies to every one that teaches, including me; you are to prove all things by Him with the scriptures as kept in the KJV. By using that Bible as opposed to modern Bibles, believers have a hope in Him to see the actual message He wants us to have to discern good & evil so we can depart from iniquity before the Bridegroom comes.

We are called to be His disciples and not disciples of Ignatius or the RCC or even the Protestant churches, but to be disciples of Jesus Christ.

 

[BreadOfLife]

Paul gave the reason why a bishop should be married and it wasn't to avoid polygamists taking the bishop's position.

1 Timothy 3:4 One that ruleth well his own house, having his children in subjection with all gravity;5 (For if a man know not how to rule his own house, how shall he take care of the church of God?)
Denying what 1 timothy 3:4-5 says and mean is not going to be pleasing to God for you, brother.

Are you serious??
Paul was fine with married Bishops. He simply didn't want polygamous Bishops being ordained.
A polygamous household is NOT the way a house should be ruled. Ergo, Paul wanted men who only had ONE wife - the way it was willed by GOD (Gen. 2:24).

I did not say it was a RE Sacrifice. I said the Mass is presenting the one time sacrifice for sins to be received again and that is the same thing as putting the blood of the Son on par with the blood of goats and bulls that His blood has to be received again as if His blood was not good enough the first time.

WRONG.

As I told you before - Heb. 7:25 says in NO uncertain terms that Jesus livers FOREVER to make intercession for us.
Does this mean that it is NOT "finished"?? OR, is this referring to OUR cooperation with God's grace?

 

[BreadOfLife]

Do tell when the first christians became known as "Catholics" and explain why the church insists that members be known as Catholics? Then maybe you can see why Protestants came about, because believers should not be representing a church and the sacraments as if the RCC is the Good News when they are supposed to be witnesses of the Son in testifying of Him, the Good News to man, so that when people believe in Him, they are saved.

If you cannot see how a church became egocentric and corrupt to enslave the members to man made traditions within, thus voiding the joy of their salvation by doing the sacraments, which was never taught as such by Peter nor His disciples, I cannot help you.

Hopefully, the brethren will pray for you.

The Church established by Jesus Christ and His Apostles came to be known as "The Catholic Church" by the end of the FIRST century.
We know this by the writings of Ignatius, Bishop of Antioch who was a student of the Apostle John. He wrote his Letter to the Smyrnaeans while John was presumably STILL alive:
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. 110]).

You see - he uses terms like "Eucharist" and phrases like "OBEY your clergy". He culminates by giving us the title of Christ's Church: "The Catholic Church". NONE of your Protestant Fathers denied this fact - only the Protestant of today.

Finally - the Church never became "corrupt".
MEN within the Church became corrupt - but we are warned about those in Scripture.

 

[BreadOfLife]

You said: "The Eucharist is not the actual flesh of Jesus and He never said it was his "actual" flesh."
Actual: existing now; current.
Cannibalism: the practice of eating the flesh of one's own species.
Transubstantiation: In the most blessed sacrament of the Eucharist "the body and blood, together with the soul and divinity, of our Lord Jesus Christ and, therefore, the whole Christ is truly, really, and substantially contained." (Council of Trent (1551): DS 1651)
I think the Catholic Church teaches that it is 'actual flesh' .

Yes, but not literally muscle and tissue. He is present in the Eucharist, body blood, soul and divinity - but in a SACRAMENTAL way under that "accidents" of bread and wine.

We are consuming the risen Christ. His Body was NOT the same as our bodies after the Resurrection as it had supernatural abilities.
As Ignatius of Antioch put it:
". . . the Eucharist is the flesh of our Savior Jesus Christ, flesh which suffered for our sins and which that Father, in his goodness, raised up again.

 

[JesusIsFaithful]

Are you serious??
Paul was fine with married Bishops. He simply didn't want polygamous Bishops being ordained.
A polygamous household is NOT the way a house should be ruled. Ergo, Paul wanted men who only had ONE wife - the way it was willed by GOD (Gen. 2:24).

With all of these discussions you are involved in, I can understand how you are losing track of the discussion between you & me, but you were contending that a bishop did not need to be married whereas I was citing scripture that explained why they should be married.

How you got off to polygamy was something I was trying to get back to point on what Paul said and it had nothing to do with making sure there were no polygamous bishops as if that was the reason why a bishop had to be a husband of one wife when Paul said in verse 5 that if they cannot manage their own household, how then can they manage the house of God.

I am sure the requirement for a bishop to be a husband of one wife would keep out a polygamous sinner, but for them to be in that assembly and even considered, they would have had to been saved and to repent of that sinful lifestyle or they could not even be in the assembly to even be considered for bishop.

I am sure that it was a concern to avoid a polygamous bishop, but Paul stated why a bishop should be a husband of one wife and that was about showing he can manage his own house to show he can manage the House of God as Paul said in verse 5.

1 Timothy 3:1This is a true saying, if a man desire the office of a bishop, he desireth a good work. 2 A bishop then must be blameless, the husband of one wife, vigilant, sober, of good behaviour, given to hospitality, apt to teach;3 Not given to wine, no striker, not greedy of filthy lucre; but patient, not a brawler, not covetous;4 One that ruleth well his own house, having his children in subjection with all gravity;5 (For if a man know not how to rule his own house, how shall he take care of the church of God?)

WRONG.

As I told you before - Heb. 7:25 says in NO uncertain terms that Jesus livers FOREVER to make intercession for us.
Does this mean that it is NOT "finished"?? OR, is this referring to OUR cooperation with God's grace?

So had Jesus lied on the cross? No. Then you applying Him making intercessions for us as presenting His one time sacrifice for sins to apply "again" to believers through the Mass has nothing to do with Him interceding on our behalf. By your saying that it does apply is giving certain terms in how Jesus makes intercessions for us... ie only in the Mass and that is WRONG.

Prayer to Him, confessing your sins to Him does it, brother. Not the Mass.

1 John 1:9 If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just to forgive us our sins, and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness.

Looking to a ritual to do it is akin to saying you do not believe confessing to Him will bring the promise from His words that you will be forgiven and cleansed from all unrighteousness.

You have to decide between His words in the N.T. that His disciples wants us to have and believe and the words of the RCC which did not develop their catechism until many hundreds of years later which none of the disciples have taught in the way the RCC is teaching communion to be used for.

The RCC using what Jesus said to the Pharisees rather than what He had said to His disciples should lead you to wonder if the RCC has it wrong.

 

[JesusIsFaithful]

The Church established by Jesus Christ and His Apostles came to be known as "The Catholic Church" by the end of the FIRST century.
We know this by the writings of Ignatius, Bishop of Antioch who was a student of the Apostle John. He wrote his Letter to the Smyrnaeans while John was presumably STILL alive:
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. 110]).

You see - he uses terms like "Eucharist" and phrases like "OBEY your clergy". He culminates by giving us the title of Christ's Church: "The Catholic Church". NONE of your Protestant Fathers denied this fact - only the Protestant of today.

Finally - the Church never became "corrupt".
MEN within the Church became corrupt - but we are warned about those in Scripture.

The problem here is by his own writing, Ignatius of Antioch was not following the apostle John because John did not write any of what Ignatius had written to support what Ignatius was teaching about the Eucharist at all. If the apostle John did not write about the Eucharist, then Ignatius was not following the apostle John, now was he?

 

[Marymog]

You said: "The Eucharist is not the actual flesh of Jesus and He never said it was his "actual" flesh."

Actual: existing now; current.
Cannibalism: the practice of eating the flesh of one's own species.
Transubstantiation: In the most blessed sacrament of the Eucharist "the body and blood, together with the soul and divinity, of our Lord Jesus Christ and, therefore, the whole Christ is truly, really, and substantially contained." (Council of Trent (1551): DS 1651)

I think the Catholic Church teaches that it is 'actual flesh' .

Thank you for your input TT. You make a very valid point. Glad to see you are reading and quoting Catholic beliefs.

Real flesh (skin, muscles, fat etc) would be dripping with blood. Have you ever seen the Eucharist dripping with blood?

Would you agree that Christ's presence under the Eucharistic species is very unique? After all He did say, take and eat for this IS my body. Are you willing to call Him a liar?

Is His presence "real" to you when you are praying or at church or you feel the Holy Spirit moving/speaking to you? Healing people?

Mary

 

[Marymog]

I do not always post things in referring to scripture or christianity but as far as Ignatius goes, the same rule applies to every one that teaches, including me; you are to prove all things by Him with the scriptures as kept in the KJV. By using that Bible as opposed to modern Bibles, believers have a hope in Him to see the actual message He wants us to have to discern good & evil so we can depart from iniquity before the Bridegroom comes.

We are called to be His disciples and not disciples of Ignatius or the RCC or even the Protestant churches, but to be disciples of Jesus Christ.

You really love your KJV....

Where does scripture say "you are to prove all things by Him with the scriptures as kept in the KJV"???

Can you PLEASE answer the original question: Do your writings run contrary to scripture?

Curious Mary

 

[tabletalk]

Thank you for your input TT. You make a very valid point. Glad to see you are reading and quoting Catholic beliefs.

Real flesh (skin, muscles, fat etc) would be dripping with blood. Have you ever seen the Eucharist dripping with blood?

Would you agree that Christ's presence under the Eucharistic species is very unique? After all He did say, take and eat for this IS my body. Are you willing to call Him a liar?

Is His presence "real" to you when you are praying or at church or you feel the Holy Spirit moving/speaking to you? Healing people?

Mary

You said: "Have you ever seen the Eucharist dripping with blood?"
No, but the Catholic Church says it has happened.
"The Eucharistic Miracle of Lanciano, Italy" (Please correct me if this is not 'worthy of belief' by your church.)

For me, the issue regarding 'real presence/transubstantiation' is: Do I worship that object (bread and wine), before or after the words of consecration?
I do not.

You said: "After all He did say, take and eat for this IS my body. Are you willing to call Him a liar?"
Yes, I am calling your god a liar.

 

[JesusIsFaithful]

You really love your KJV....

Where does scripture say "you are to prove all things by Him with the scriptures as kept in the KJV"???

Can you PLEASE answer the original question: Do your writings run contrary to scripture?

Curious Mary[/QUOTE]

Only He can prove that the KJV is the one to rely on for the meat of His words as He did warn believers that there will comea time when you will have to discern by Him who loved Him to keep His words from those that did not love Him to keep His words. John 14:23-24 & John 15:20

Can you PLEASE answer the original question: Do your writings run contrary to scripture?

Curious Mary

Well, if you are going to be obtuse about it, then the answer is.... you decide since it is on you to prove all things by Him.

I trust Him to correct me and He has at times. yep, but that doesn't help you excuse yourself from proving everything by Him.

One time I had assumed that the darkness at His crucifixion meant no light from the sun and the full moon that annually accompany the passover event to ALSO include the lights from the stars, but I was wrong. God would permit the lights from the stars to shine for those at sea to guide them from losing their way, but one historical source did verify that stars were seen that day in that unexplaianable darkness that had engulfed the whole known world at that time. So I had to amend an assumption in my belief of that darkness at His crucifixion when our Creator took the sins of the world upon Himself that He not only felt that temporary separation from the Father on the cross, but the effect was seen in creation temporarily too, signifying that Jesus was and still is the Light of the world; our Creator and now our Redeemer.

So yes, I am open to correction from the Lord in my beliefs and witness of Him. Are you? Or do you just give the job to the RCC to do it for you?

 

[Marymog]

You said: "Have you ever seen the Eucharist dripping with blood?"
No, but the Catholic Church says it has happened.
"The Eucharistic Miracle of Lanciano, Italy" (Please correct me if this is not 'worthy of belief' by your church.)

For me, the issue regarding 'real presence/transubstantiation' is: Do I worship that object (bread and wine), before or after the words of consecration?
I do not.

You said: "After all He did say, take and eat for this IS my body. Are you willing to call Him a liar?"
Yes, I am calling your god a liar.

Thank you.

Do you not believe Eucharistic Miracle at Lanciano or the other Eucharistic miracles like it?

If the Eucharist is dripping with blood wouldn't that suggest it is what Jesus said it was: His flesh and blood?

If it isn't dripping with blood how do you explain what is happening?

You wouldn't worship it before the consecration because it is just unleavened bread. After the consecration it becomes Jesus body/blood. Just like Jesus said.

I find it sad that you are calling Jesus a liar. Can you explain what He meant when He said it IS his body?

Mary

 

[Marymog]

Only He can prove that the KJV is the one to rely on for the meat of His words as He did warn believers that there will comea time when you will have to discern by Him who loved Him to keep His words from those that did not love Him to keep His words. John 14:23-24 & John 15:20

He somehow proved to you that the KJV is the one to rely on. How did He prove that to you?

Curious Mary

 

[JesusIsFaithful]

He somehow proved to you that the KJV is the one to rely on. How did He prove that to you?

Curious Mary

Ask Him by comparing John 16:13 in all Bibles to see if that modern Bible is keeping teh truth in His words when it comes to Romans 8:26-27.

Feel free to read all the posts in that thread, but again, you are to prove everything by Him as He is your personal Good Shepherd too... providing you believe Him to be that for you.

What Is the Truth About the Holy Spirit in John 16:13 in All Bibles?

 

[Marymog]

Ask Him by comparing John 16:13 in all Bibles to see if that modern Bible is keeping teh truth in His words when it comes to Romans 8:26-27.

Feel free to read all the posts in that thread, but again, you are to prove everything by Him as He is your personal Good Shepherd too... providing you believe Him to be that for you.

What Is the Truth About the Holy Spirit in John 16:13 in All Bibles?

Thank you.....I still don't understand how the KJV is better than all the rest but if your theory makes you feel better then so be it.

Love, Mary

 

[JesusIsFaithful]

Thank you.....I still don't understand how the KJV is better than all the rest but if your theory makes you feel better then so be it.

Love, Mary

Like I said.. ask Jesus. You will find out when you trust Him to be your personal Good Shepherd since we can only live this reconciled relationship with God through Jesus Christ. So pray to Him today for wisdom in seeing why the KJV is the one to rely on for keeping His sayings and teh sayings of His disciples without anything contrary in it.

 

[tabletalk]

Thank you.

Do you not believe Eucharistic Miracle at Lanciano or the other Eucharistic miracles like it?

If the Eucharist is dripping with blood wouldn't that suggest it is what Jesus said it was: His flesh and blood?

If it isn't dripping with blood how do you explain what is happening?

You wouldn't worship it before the consecration because it is just unleavened bread. After the consecration it becomes Jesus body/blood. Just like Jesus said.

I find it sad that you are calling Jesus a liar. Can you explain what He meant when He said it IS his body?

Mary

You said: "I find it sad that you are calling Jesus a liar."
Since you mentioned it again I'll repeat: The god you worship, that piece of bread, is a liar.
Here's what your Church does: from 2Corinthians 11: 3. But I fear, lest somehow, as the serpent deceived Eve by his craftiness, so your minds may be corrupted from the simplicity that is in Christ. 4. For if he who comes preaches another Jesus whom we have not preached, or if you receive a different spirit which you have not received, or a different gospel which you have not accepted—you may well put up with it!"

 

[Marymog]

Like I said.. ask Jesus. You will find out when you trust Him to be your personal Good Shepherd since we can only live this reconciled relationship with God through Jesus Christ. So pray to Him today for wisdom in seeing why the KJV is the one to rely on for keeping His sayings and teh sayings of His disciples without anything contrary in it.

I did ask....He said the original Greek version is the best.

Mary

 

[Marymog]

You said: "I find it sad that you are calling Jesus a liar."
Since you mentioned it again I'll repeat: The god you worship, that piece of bread, is a liar.
Here's what your Church does: from 2Corinthians 11: 3. But I fear, lest somehow, as the serpent deceived Eve by his craftiness, so your minds may be corrupted from the simplicity that is in Christ. 4. For if he who comes preaches another Jesus whom we have not preached, or if you receive a different spirit which you have not received, or a different gospel which you have not accepted—you may well put up with it!"

Thank you.

I don't worship bread. I worship Jesus.

Mary

 

[JesusIsFaithful]

I did ask....He said the original Greek version is the best.

Mary

Are you sure you are not imitating anti KJVers sentiments? God knows if you are telling the truth or not. Do consider that.

I do have to consider that you actually believe what you say, if not influenced by antiKJVers, but when Jesus had to show me the KJV as keeping His words while modern Bibles were not ( and I was using the NASB & the NIV ), He never pointed me to the Greek to find the truth in His words.

Look up definition of the Greek of penuma and you will understand why I have a hard time believing anti KJVers when they say that. You have to really rely on Him even moreso to see His message in the context of His words in the Greek and there is no way He would tell you that when He had those who loved Him preserve His words for you in the KJV. John 14:23-24 & John 15:20

 

[JesusIsFaithful]

Thank you.

I don't worship bread. I worship Jesus.

Mary

Then don't receive Jesus again per the Mass by how it does declare His Presence being in the Eucharist when He is already in you. That warning in 2 Corinthians 11:3-4 applies to the Eucharist and not just believers seeking they can receive the Holy Spirit again apart from salvation.