Salvation loss. Is it possible?

[BreadOfLife]

no prob, then you should have no prob answering why Christ did not just hack off an arm and drain some blood into a cup then lol.

On thenight when He was betrayed, the Lord Jesus took bread, 24gave thanks, broke it, and said,y “This is My body, which isz for you. Do this inremembrance of Me.”aa

and btw i do not mean to condemn a meaningful ritual, done "as oft as ye gather," iow 3 times a year, but communion is def something that is meant spiritually and not literally, or else "took bread" and "said, This is My body" when His Body was right there with Him cannot be made to make logical sense.

Your moronic comment about Jesus's severed arm aside - He showed the Apostles how to consume His flesh and drink His blood SACRAMENTALLY at the Last Supper.

Also - Acts 2:46 says explicitly that they early Church met DAILY - not "3 times" a year.

 

[BreadOfLife]

Since I have already answered your question twice, it begs the question: What do you really want to know?

Perhaps you could be more clear and less belligerent.

Uhhhhh, no. All you have done is dodge the question.

YOU made the following statement:
"And all who are saved shall wear the robes of righteousness. But you have not given robes to all, but to one."

I have asked you several times to explain it and all you did was give a verse of Scripture that doesn't answer YOUR statement.
Since you don't seem to be able to address the question as I have asked it 5 times now - I'll make it simple enough for a 1st grader to understand:
Can you explain what your comments means as it pertains to the Catholic Church??

Can you answer that, please?

 

[Marymog]

no prob, then you should have no prob answering why Christ did not just hack off an arm and drain some blood into a cup then lol.

On thenight when He was betrayed, the Lord Jesus took bread, 24gave thanks, broke it, and said,y “This is My body, which isz for you. Do this inremembrance of Me.”aa

and btw i do not mean to condemn a meaningful ritual, done "as oft as ye gather," iow 3 times a year, but communion is def something that is meant spiritually and not literally, or else "took bread" and "said, This is My body" when His Body was right there with Him cannot be made to make logical sense.

Dear sir,

Jesus said it was his body and blood, not me. Your not arguing with me, your arguing with Him.

Obviously Jesus did not feel the need to hack off his arm and drain blood into a cup to articulate or prove his Real Presence. What he said (this is my body and blood) is good enough for me. Why isn't what He said good enough for you?

Miracles don't make logical sense either but you still believe in them when they happen. Don't you?

Curious Mary

 

[ScottA]

Hello Scott....I couldn't agree more and I know there are a few others here who would also....I saw a bit of a reference above to a Robe of Salvation......I am not 100% certain but isn't it described as The Gown of salvation and then The Robes ( plural ) of Righteousness ? One thing I did find out, is that we are actually wearing a garment, one that we are given by the Lord, this garment can be cleaned ( as He showed me once )....For a human man to take it upon himself to put on what only God can give, I am not fond of, also didn't Jesus make reference to having to go to a Kings palace to see men in fine red and purple robes ? Hardly appropriate for a servant of The Lord..... :) Pia

Indeed. I was referring to the robe of righteousness which comes in the judgement, which if we can receive it, is not future, but "finished."

 

[ScottA]

What was hidden in the OT is revealed in the NT. It doesn't mean sever your roots, which Protestantism has done by abandoning the "shadows of things to come" before Christ.
Here is the correct verse.
Colossians 2:16 Therefore do not let anyone condemn you in matters of food and drink or of observing festivals, new moons, or sabbaths. 17 These are only a shadow of what is to come, but the substance belongs to Christ. You mock the pope's vestments worn to celebrate the Epiphany, fixed on externals and ignoring the substance. But you haven't a clue what the substance is.

C. S. Lewis, the famous Anglican writer, once wrote:

The very possibility of progress demands that there should be an unchanging element . . . the positive historical statements made by Christianity have the power . . . of receiving, without intrinsic change, the increasing complexity of meaning which increasing knowledge puts into them.

Read more at Development of Doctrine: A Corruption of Biblical Teaching?

I do not speak for or against the labels which you seem unable to depart from. But on the contrary, Christians have not abandoned the shadows, but press on out of darkness. But these shadows, you did not even see as darkness. For if you did, you would not continue to embrace and dwell in them.

But since you make the point. Please describe what you see as the substance which belongs to Christ.

 

[Stranger]

This is a nonsensical and lazy response.

I never said that Babylon was Jerusalem. Babylon in New Testament terms applies to pagan Rome.
Peter was never in Iraq. He was crucified on Vatican Hill and buried there. He was writing from Rome.

I have given you both Scriptural equivalents between Babylon and Rome as well as extrabilical sources making the SAME comparison.

Do you nave ANY evidence other than your silly opinions??
I didn't think so . . .

Oh? Babylon in the New Testament applies to pagan Rome?

Well, let's read (1 Peter 5:13) in light of that. " The church that is at pagan Rome, elected together with you, saluteth you; and so doth Marcus my son."

Somehow that doesn't sound right, does it?

Stranger

 

[ScottA]

What part of my question are you having difficulty with?
You didn't answer anything. All you did was post a verse of Scripture - but that doesn't explain the comment YOU made:
In post #935 - YOU made the following moronic statement:
"And all who are saved shall wear the robes of righteousness. But you have not given robes to all, but to one."

I'll simplify this so that a 1st grader can understand and ask it differently:
Explain your statement above.

How's that?

I spoke in plain and simple English. What part are you needing an explanation for?

 

[ScottA]

Uhhhhh, no. All you have done is dodge the question.

YOU made the following statement:
"And all who are saved shall wear the robes of righteousness. But you have not given robes to all, but to one."

I have asked you several times to explain it and all you did was give a verse of Scripture that doesn't answer YOUR statement.
Since you don't seem to be able to address the question as I have asked it 5 times now - I'll make it simple enough for a 1st grader to understand:
Can you explain what your comments means as it pertains to the Catholic Church??

Can you answer that, please?

You seem to be stuttering, forgetting that you already commented on this post.

But you have given a greater indication of what it is you are not understanding about what I said. So I will explain that part which pertains to the Catholic church, as you have asked:

You made bold the part that pertains to the Catholic church. Your ears must have been burning.

The robes of righteousness are the only robes spoken of as being a part of the church age, those that come via the righteousness of Christ in the judgement. But the Catholic church (and others) have taken it upon themselves to disperse their owe worldly finery in reverence to men, committing the same sin as the evil generation to whom Christ said: “Woe to you lawyers! For you have taken away the key of knowledge. You did not enter in yourselves, and those who were entering in you hindered.”

This the Catholic church does by way of physical glory, rather than spiritual, which is the robe of righteous through Christ, whose kingdom is not of this world. But what was to be a shadow of things to come, should have ended when Christ became our new High Priest and sent that robe of righteous, the Holy Spirit. So, now, not knowing the times, many do not enter into that righteousness, and worse, some (especially the Catholic church) hinder those who would enter in, if they were not preached to from the ways of darkness.

 

[BreadOfLife]

I spoke in plain and simple English. What part are you needing an explanation for?

You explained nothing.
Explain your statement in your OWN words:
"And all who are saved shall wear the robes of righteousness. But you have not given robes to all, but to one."

WHO is the "One" you are talking about??
Is that simple enough for you to understand??

 

[BreadOfLife]

You seem to be stuttering, forgetting that you already commented on this post.

But you have given a greater indication of what it is you are not understanding about what I said. So I will explain that part which pertains to the Catholic church, as you have asked:

You made bold the part that pertains to the Catholic church. Your ears must have been burning.

The robes of righteousness are the only robes spoken of as being a part of the church age, those that come from via the righteousness of Christ in the judgement. But the Catholic church (and others) have taken it upon themselves to disperse their owe worldly finery in reverence to men, committing the same sin as the evil generation to whom Christ said: “Woe to you lawyers! For you have taken away the key of knowledge. You did not enter in yourselves, and those who were entering in you hindered.”

This the Catholic church does by way of physical glory, rather than spiritual, which is the robe of righteous through Christ, whose kingdom is not of this world. But what was to be a shadow of things to come, should have ended when Christ became our new High Priest and sent that robe of righteous, the Holy Spirit. So, now, not knowing the times, many do not enter into that righteousness, and worse, some (especially the Catholic church) hinder those who would enter in, if they were not preached to from the ways of darkness.

See post #1029 and try to keep your confused gobbldygook out of it.

 

[ScottA]

You explained nothing.
Explain your statement in your OWN words:
"And all who are saved shall wear the robes of righteousness. But you have not given robes to all, but to one."

WHO is the "One" you are talking about??
Is that simple enough for you to understand??

"Who" have we been talking about?

 

[BreadOfLife]

"Who" have we been talking about?

Sooooo, you're just going to continue with your stupid riddles instead of just answering the question I've asked about 10 times now??

 

[ScottA]

See post #1029 and try to keep your confused gobbldygook out of it.

See post #1028.

 

[ScottA]

Sooooo, you're just going to continue with your stupid riddles instead of just answering the question I've asked about 10 times now??

No, I'm just messing with you - which you totally deserve. See post #1028.

 

[BreadOfLife]

No, I'm just messing with you - which you totally deserve. See post #1028.

I already did.
Now, can you just answer the question?

 

[ScottA]

I already did.
Now, can you just answer the question?

What do I have to do, quote myself, to show you the answer I already gave you?

I don't thinks so.

 

[BreadOfLife]

What do I have to do, quote myself, to show you the answer I already gave you?

I don't thinks so.

Well, after about a dozen or so attempts at trying to get you to explain your moronic claim - it's painfully obvious that you stuck your foot in your mouth and can't figure how to get out of it. Consider yourself exposed.

Next time you make an anti-Catholic remark - make sure you can back it up . . .

 

[ScottA]

Well, after about a dozen or so attempts at trying to get you to explain your moronic claim - it's painfully obvious that you stuck your foot in your mouth and can't figure how to get out of it. Consider yourself exposed.

Next time you make an anti-Catholic remark - make sure you can back it up . . .

So...perhaps all that bold and red text is you actually showing that you yourself have trouble seeing. Because I did answer you, and you are acting like what I wrote is not there, when it is.

Again, post #1028 4th and 5th paragraphs.

Perhaps you could have someone read it to you.

 

[bbyrd009]

but communion is def something that is meant spiritually and not literally, or else "took bread" and "said, This is My body" when His Body was right there with Him cannot be made to make logical sense.

Jesus said it was his body and blood

yes, Christ said the bread was His Body, as He was standing there in His flesh body, which should be a signal to one that some signifying is going on. BAM take it however seems right to you ok, take it completely literally if you like, i have no objection.

 

[bbyrd009]

Why isn't what He said good enough for you?

it is not that, Mary; it is that Christ is speaking on more than one level, and these obvious prevarications are signposts that a spiritual message is being delivered. If you believe that ritual communion is good enough--despite the warnings about making communion profane by doing it every day or week or whatever--and the spiritual implications, "eat and drink Christ," are not, then bam go with that ok.