The likeness of God on his throne

[BreadOfLife]

Yes you can answer. You just don't want to. You don't need to 'assume' that I mean Christians that live in Rome. You know what I mean. I have explained it to you that what you call the 'Catholic' Church is just the 'Roman' Church. You know what I mean when I say the Roman Church or Romanist. This makes you not just a 'wordsmity', it makes you an outright liar.

So, when did the churches supreme authority decide to go against Scripture and say the taking of the bread/Body of Christ also included the wine/Blood of Christ? Who, and where came up with it?

When you say you are 'more than willing' you again make yourself a liar. If you were more than willing you wouldn't be hiding as you do.

Stranger

No Stranger - I won't answer you when you denigrate my Church and my beliefs. You are totally incapable of having a charitable conversation.

If you don't want to use the term "Catholic Church" to correctly identify the Church that I belong to - then simply say "YOUR Church" when asking a question about it.

You have been corrected dozens of times about this and yet you refuse to cease and desist of stubbornness. So, unless you are capable of having a charitable conversation - look it up in the Catechism . . .

 

[Stranger]

No Stranger - I won't answer you when you denigrate my Church and my beliefs. You are totally incapable of having a charitable conversation.

If you don't want to use the term "Catholic Church" to correctly identify the Church that I belong to - then simply say "YOUR Church" when asking a question about it.

You have been corrected dozens of times about this and yet you refuse to cease and desist of stubbornness. So, unless you are capable of having a charitable conversation - look it up in the Catechism . . .

You won't answer because you don't like the answer to be revealed. And you have found a place to hide.

I do use the term 'Catholic Church' correctly. It is the Roman Church that has hijacked the term 'Catholic'. If you can't stay in the game cause your feelings are hurt, then get out. You have answered plenty of questions up to this point and it never stopped you. Why now? I will tell you why, cause you yourself don't like the answer. But, there is nothing you can do about it. You have to believe what you are told.

You forget I already looked it up in the Catechism. I'm the one that showed you where it was. Not that you didn't know, but it was plain you were hiding then also. It is not a question of whether or not I can look it up. It's a question of discussing it and you being honest in what it says. Something you are having a hard time with right now.

So, I ask again, when did the Churches supreme authority decide to go against Scripture and say the taking of the bread/Body of Christ also meant you were taking of the wine/Blood also?

Stranger

 

[BreadOfLife]

You won't answer because you don't like the answer to be revealed. And you have found a place to hide.

I do use the term 'Catholic Church' correctly. It is the Roman Church that has hijacked the term 'Catholic'. If you can't stay in the game cause your feelings are hurt, then get out. You have answered plenty of questions up to this point and it never stopped you. Why now? I will tell you why, cause you yourself don't like the answer. But, there is nothing you can do about it. You have to believe what you are told.

You forget I already looked it up in the Catechism. I'm the one that showed you where it was. Not that you didn't know, but it was plain you were hiding then also. It is not a question of whether or not I can look it up. It's a question of discussing it and you being honest in what it says. Something you are having a hard time with right now.

So, I ask again, when did the Churches supreme authority decide to go against Scripture and say the taking of the bread/Body of Christ also meant you were taking of the wine/Blood also?

Okay - then explain to me WHEN this "Roman" Church hijacked the name "Catholic".
Surely you must ave a date - or even a decade when this took place.

As for your last question - the answer is "Never".
The Church never "hijacked" the authority to make this decision. This authority was granted by Jesus Christ Himself (Matt. 16:18-19, Matt. 15:15-18, Luke 10:16, John 16:12-15, John 30:21-23).

Remember - the Church is the pillar and foundation of Truth (1 Tim 3:15) and the FULLNESS of Christ (Heb. 1:22-23). Jesus identified His very SELF with His Church (Acts 9:4-5), so the Church is His mouthpiece.

 

[Stranger]

Okay - then explain to me WHEN this "Roman" Church hijacked the name "Catholic".
Surely you must ave a date - or even a decade when this took place.

As for your last question - the answer is "Never".
The Church never "hijacked" the authority to make this decision. This authority was granted by Jesus Christ Himself (Matt. 16:18-19, Matt. 15:15-18, Luke 10:16, John 16:12-15, John 30:21-23).

Remember - the Church is the pillar and foundation of Truth (1 Tim 3:15) and the FULLNESS of Christ (Heb. 1:22-23). Jesus identified His very SELF with His Church (Acts 9:4-5), so the Church is His mouthpiece.

Nice try wordsmith at trying to change the subject. You don't really accept the Roman Churches refusal to give the laity the wine/Blood, do you? You have no argument that proves taking the bread/Body of Christ involves the wine/Blood also. You don't know what to do. So, you try and change the subject.

You are quite predictable. You should direct your energies towards the reformation of the Roman Church.

And, I haven't forgotten my question that you are struggling to avoid. When did the Churches supreme authority decide to go against Scripture and say the taking of the bread/Body of Christ meant you were partaking of the wine/Blood also? And who decided that?

Stranger

 

[BreadOfLife]

Nice try wordsmith at trying to change the subject. You don't really accept the Roman Churches refusal to give the laity the wine/Blood, do you? You have no argument that proves taking the bread/Body of Christ involves the wine/Blood also. You don't know what to do. So, you try and change the subject.

You are quite predictable. You should direct your energies towards the reformation of the Roman Church.

And, I haven't forgotten my question that you are struggling to avoid. When did the Churches supreme authority decide to go against Scripture and say the taking of the bread/Body of Christ meant you were partaking of the wine/Blood also? And who decided that?

Stranger

Stranger - are really this dense or do you just enjoy blathering on about a subject that I have explained ad nauseam?

The Church doesn't "refuse" giving the cup to communicants. We are offered BOTH species (Body AND Blood) at mass.
What is your problem with that??

As to your last question - this is Sacred (Apostolic) Tradition.

 

[Stranger]

Stranger - are really this dense or do you just enjoy blathering on about a subject that I have explained ad nauseam?

The Church doesn't "refuse" giving the cup to communicants. We are offered BOTH species (Body AND Blood) at mass.
What is your problem with that??

As to your last question - this is Sacred (Apostolic) Tradition.

You haven't explained it. By your own statements you refused to address it because your feelings were hurt when I don't call you by the false name 'Catholic'. Remember?

Offering the cup is not drinking the cup. If offering is all that is required then why do the members of your church eat the bread/Body?

Yes, I am aware that the Romanists believe it because it is 'tradition'. That is not what I asked.

You're still hiding. So again, 'When' did the churches supreme authority decide to go against Scripture and say the taking of the bread/Body of Christ means you are also taking of the wine/Blood. And 'who' decided that?

Did you see those questions? 'When' and 'Who' are the key words.

Stranger

 

[BreadOfLife]

You haven't explained it. By your own statements you refused to address it because your feelings were hurt when I don't call you by the false name 'Catholic'. Remember?

Offering the cup is not drinking the cup. If offering is all that is required then why do the members of your church eat the bread/Body?

Yes, I am aware that the Romanists believe it because it is 'tradition'. That is not what I asked.

You're still hiding. So again, 'When' did the churches supreme authority decide to go against Scripture and say the taking of the bread/Body of Christ means you are also taking of the wine/Blood. And 'who' decided that?

Did you see those questions? 'When' and 'Who' are the key words.

Stranger

It is APOSTOLIC Tradition. It was taught by the Apostles.

BOTH the Body AND Blood are offered at Communion.
Nobody is "forced" to receive Communion.

These are the SAME answers to ALL of the SAME stupid questions you've been asking for several pages no.
Up until now - most of your posts were at least semi-intelligent - if not a bit immature. But now, they're just stupid . . .

 

[Stranger]

It is APOSTOLIC Tradition. It was taught by the Apostles.

BOTH the Body AND Blood are offered at Communion.
Nobody is "forced" to receive Communion.

These are the SAME answers to ALL of the SAME stupid questions you've been asking for several pages no.
Up until now - most of your posts were at least semi-intelligent - if not a bit immature. But now, they're just stupid . . .

No it wasn't. Where was it taught?

Again, offering is not drinking. Being forced to receive the communion is not the issue. Denying the communion of the wine/Blood is. You are the 'wordsmith'. Deceptive. Manipulative. Goodnight, just answer the simple questions.

You offer the same stupid answers to legitimate questions. You offer no answers. You're hiding. You're scared. You have nothing.

Again, 'when' did the churches supreme authority decide to go against Scripture and say the taking of the bread/Body of Christ means you are also taking of the wine/Blood? And, 'who' decided that?

Again, note the 'when' and 'who'. Which you are avoiding because you don't like the answer and so have no answer.

Stranger

 

[BreadOfLife]

No it wasn't. Where was it taught?

Again, offering is not drinking. Being forced to receive the communion is not the issue. Denying the communion of the wine/Blood is. You are the 'wordsmith'. Deceptive. Manipulative. Goodnight, just answer the simple questions.

You offer the same stupid answers to legitimate questions. You offer no answers. You're hiding. You're scared. You have nothing.

Again, 'when' did the churches supreme authority decide to go against Scripture and say the taking of the bread/Body of Christ means you are also taking of the wine/Blood? And, 'who' decided that?

Again, note the 'when' and 'who'. Which you are avoiding because you don't like the answer and so have no answer.
Stranger

No - the only one being "deceptive" here is YOU. I have told you ad nauseam that NOBODY is forced to take communion and EVERYBODY is offered BOTH the Body and the Blood. What part of this answer are you having difficulty with??

As to your last question - I have ALSO answered this repeatedly. It is a matter of Sacred Tradition (2 Thess. 2:15).
I could just as easily ask YOU who began teaching Sola Scriptura because THAT's not in the Bible either . . .

 

[Nomad]

...EVERYBODY is offered BOTH the Body and the Blood. What part of this answer are you having difficulty with??

My father and my wife are Roman Catholic. I've been to many a Mass over my 52 years on this earth, and only the consecrated host is offered to parishioners. When and where exactly did this change? If what you mean by body and blood is simply the consecrated host + transubstantiation, you need to stop being cryptic (dishonest) and say so.

 

[Stranger]

No - the only one being "deceptive" here is YOU. I have told you ad nauseam that NOBODY is forced to take communion and EVERYBODY is offered BOTH the Body and the Blood. What part of this answer are you having difficulty with??

As to your last question - I have ALSO answered this repeatedly. It is a matter of Sacred Tradition (2 Thess. 2:15).
I could just as easily ask YOU who began teaching Sola Scriptura because THAT's not in the Bible either . . .

Being 'forced' was never the issue as you know. You simply try and deceptively divert from the questions you don't want to answer.

Again, even if the wine/Blood is offered, being offered is not the same as drinking. And drinking it is what has to be done to partake of it. (1 Cor. 11:24-25) "Take eat: this is my body...This cup is the new testament in my blood: this do ye, as oft as ye drink it...."

No, you repeatedly hide either because you don't know the answer, or are afraid to own up to the answer, or that you in reality don't like the answer yourself and don't want to try and defend it.

The fact is, the Roman church 'denies' its members the act of partaking of the blood during the ordinance of the Lords Supper. Yet the priests partake of it. The Roman church denies its members the ordinance of the Lords Supper.

Scripture is clear that both the bread and wine are to be ate and drank, not just 'offered'. When did the Roman Church decide to go against Scripture and come up with the fairy tale that for the laity, when they partake of the bread it is the same as taking the wine also. Who decided that?

Stranger

 

[BreadOfLife]

Being 'forced' was never the issue as you know. You simply try and deceptively divert from the questions you don't want to answer.
Again, even if the wine/Blood is offered, being offered is not the same as drinking. And drinking it is what has to be done to partake of it. (1 Cor. 11:24-25) "Take eat: this is my body...This cup is the new testament in my blood: this do ye, as oft as ye drink it...."
No, you repeatedly hide either because you don't know the answer, or are afraid to own up to the answer, or that you in reality don't like the answer yourself and don't want to try and defend it.

The fact is, the Roman church 'denies' its members the act of partaking of the blood during the ordinance of the Lords Supper. Yet the priests partake of it. The Roman church denies its members the ordinance of the Lords Supper.

Scripture is clear that both the bread and wine are to be ate and drank, not just 'offered'. When did the Roman Church decide to go against Scripture and come up with the fairy tale that for the laity, when they partake of the bread it is the same as taking the wine also. Who decided that?

Stranger

Look - if yo're going to continue to lie - then what is the point of this conversations??
I am an Extraordinary Minister of Holy Communion. Not only do I partake of the cup - I offer it to the entire congregation. To make the FALSE claim that the Church "denies" the cup to the congregation is a lie that's not even worthy of YOU - a guy who LOVES to lie . . .

As for your problem with the definition of what the consecrated host and consecrated wine contain - it's not your call. It's the Church's call (Matt. 16:18-19, Matt. 18:15-18, Luke 10:16, John 16:12-15, John 20:21-23).

John 16:12-15
“I have much more to tell you, but you cannot bear it now.
But when he comes, the Spirit of truth, he will guide you to ALL truth. He will not speak on his own, but he will speak what he hears, and will declare to YOU the things that are coming.
He will glorify me, because he will TAKE from what is MINE and declare it to YOU.
Everything that the Father has is MINE; for this reason I told you that he will TAKE from what is MINE and declare it to YOU.

YOU adhere to a canon of Scripture that was declared by the Catholic Church., which is PART of that "ALL Truth" that Jesus was talking about.
Tell me something - WHY do you??

 

[BreadOfLife]

My father and my wife are Roman Catholic. I've been to many a Mass over my 52 years on this earth, and only the consecrated host is offered to parishioners. When and where exactly did this change? If what you mean by body and blood is simply the consecrated host + transubstantiation, you need to stop being cryptic (dishonest) and say so.

Not being "dishonest" at ALL.

I have repeatedly stated that I am an Extraordinary Minister of Holy Communion - and I not only partake of the cup - I offer it to the entire congregation.

 

[Stranger]

Look - if yo're going to continue to lie - then what is the point of this conversations??
I am an Extraordinary Minister of Holy Communion. Not only do I partake of the cup - I offer it to the entire congregation. To make the FALSE claim that the Church "denies" the cup to the congregation is a lie that's not even worthy of YOU - a guy who LOVES to lie . . .

As for your problem with the definition of what the consecrated host and consecrated wine contain - it's not your call. It's the Church's call (Matt. 16:18-19, Matt. 18:15-18, Luke 10:16, John 16:12-15, John 20:21-23).

John 16:12-15
“I have much more to tell you, but you cannot bear it now.
But when he comes, the Spirit of truth, he will guide you to ALL truth. He will not speak on his own, but he will speak what he hears, and will declare to YOU the things that are coming.
He will glorify me, because he will TAKE from what is MINE and declare it to YOU.
Everything that the Father has is MINE; for this reason I told you that he will TAKE from what is MINE and declare it to YOU.

YOU adhere to a canon of Scripture that was declared by the Catholic Church., which is PART of that "ALL Truth" that Jesus was talking about.
Tell me something - WHY do you??

Pay attention. Offering is not partaking.

Do you eat the bread/Body? Do you drink the wine/Blood?

Your congregation only eats the bread/Body. You deny them the wine/Blood.

If I am lying then just tell me that your congregation drinks the same wine/Blood you do. Don't maintain your lies of the congregation being offered the wine/Blood. That is just Roman double talk. And don't say that the wine/Blood is in the bread/Body they are given. That is just an outright lie.

(1 Cor. 11:24-25) "Take eat: this is my body" "This cup is the new testament in my blood: this do ye as oft as ye drink it, in remembrance of me." Nothing said about 'offering' the bread or wine here. Eating and drinking are necessary.

The Roman Church denies its people the ordinance of the Lord's supper. Only the priest is given it.

When and who in the Roman Church determined to go against Scripture and say that the congregation could eat the bread and that was the same as drinking the wine?

Stranger

 

[BreadOfLife]

Pay attention. Offering is not partaking.
Do you eat the bread/Body? Do you drink the wine/Blood?

Your congregation only eats the bread/Body. You deny them the wine/Blood.

If I am lying then just tell me that your congregation drinks the same wine/Blood you do. Don't maintain your lies of the congregation being offered the wine/Blood. That is just Roman double talk. And don't say that the wine/Blood is in the bread/Body they are given. That is just an outright lie.

(1 Cor. 11:24-25) "Take eat: this is my body" "This cup is the new testament in my blood: this do ye as oft as ye drink it, in remembrance of me." Nothing said about 'offering' the bread or wine here. Eating and drinking are necessary.

The Roman Church denies its people the ordinance of the Lord's supper. Only the priest is given it.

When and who in the Roman Church determined to go against Scripture and say that the congregation could eat the bread and that was the same as drinking the wine?
Stranger

Why do you keep lying when you know I'm going to nail you on it every time??
You keep making the false claim that the Church "denies" the cup to the congregation - even AFTER I educated you on the fat that it doesn't.

As to your second asinine comment in RED - try this:
Bite off a chunk of your arm and PROVE to that you were able to do this WITHOUT any blood being present.

Finally - your third moronic claim in RED is just as stupid and dishonest as your first . . .

 

[Stranger]

Why do you keep lying when you know I'm going to nail you on it every time??
You keep making the false claim that the Church "denies" the cup to the congregation - even AFTER I educated you on the fat that it doesn't.

As to your second asinine comment in RED - try this:
Bite off a chunk of your arm and PROVE to that you were able to do this WITHOUT any blood being present.

Finally - your third moronic claim in RED is just as stupid and dishonest as your first . . .

All you have educated me on is how to hide, dodge, and lie. I will pass on that.

Then, if it is all the same, why do the priests 'drink' the wine/Blood? Why don't your congregation get to drink like the priests do?

(1 Cor. 11:25) "...as oft as ye drink it...." Go ahead and lie to yourself as you are lying to me that eating is the same as drinking. Romanist nonsense. And people believe this?

The Roman church refuses its congregation the ordinance of the Lords Supper. Yet it allows its priests to partake of it. What an abomination that is.

When and who in the Roman church decided to go against Scripture and claim that the taking of the bread/Body of Christ is the same as drinking the wine/Blood?

Stranger

 

[BreadOfLife]

All you have educated me on is how to hide, dodge, and lie. I will pass on that.

Then, if it is all the same, why do the priests 'drink' the wine/Blood? Why don't your congregation get to drink like the priests do?

(1 Cor. 11:25) "...as oft as ye drink it...." Go ahead and lie to yourself as you are lying to me that eating is the same as drinking. Romanist nonsense. And people believe this?

The Roman church refuses its congregation the ordinance of the Lords Supper. Yet it allows its priests to partake of it. What an abomination that is.

When and who in the Roman church decided to go against Scripture and claim that the taking of the bread/Body of Christ is the same as drinking the wine/Blood?

Stranger

I'm done discussing this subject with you until you stop lying.
I have told you repeatedly that the congregation DOES get to drink from the cup but you refuse to accept this answer.

All I can say at this point is - grow up Stranger.
As for me it's time to heed Scripture regarding this conversation . . .

Proverbs 26:4
Do not answer a fool according to his folly, or you yourself will be just like him.

 

[Stranger]

I'm done discussing this subject with you until you stop lying.
I have told you repeatedly that the congregation DOES get to drink from the cup but you refuse to accept this answer.

All I can say at this point is - grow up Stranger.
As for me it's time to heed Scripture regarding this conversation . . .

Proverbs 26:4
Do not answer a fool according to his folly, or you yourself will be just like him.

No, you haven't told me that the Roman congregation gets to drink of the wine/Blood of Christ. You have told me that they get the wine/Blood through the bread/Body they eat. And you have told me that you offer the wine/Blood but you have not told me they drink of it.

Now that I show you Scripture, (1 Cor. 11:25), that proves the necessity of 'drinking' it, you decide to use the term 'drinking'. Of course based on all that you have said thus far, what you mean by 'drinking' is that they 'drink' when they eat the bread/Body of Christ.

Apparently, growing up means I should accept your lies. I refuse to accept your lies, which are the lies of your church. Rome denies the Lord's Supper to it's congregation as they do not get to partake of the wine/Blood of Christ. They have concocted a lie about the wine/Blood being in the bread/Body of Christ for the congregation, yet the priests drink of the cup.

'Who' and 'when' did the Roman Church develop this lie about the wine/Blood being in the bread/Body for the congregation? Why don't the priests just eat the bread? Your avatar depicts the lie you have bought into and in furthering it's cause.

Stranger

 

[gruni]

Ummm, talk about "foolish" thinking.

The Son came down to take the form of man because God in Heaven is NOT in the form of man (Phil. 2:7).
Jesus said that the Father is Spirit. He didn't say that that the Father "has" a spirit. He lacks a body entirely.

You really lack understanding: ... why the need of the Holy Spirit? If God is everywhere and can be all things, why the need of the Spirit? Thats because the Spirit is God and without it God cannot be God... hence we have the Father, Son(not talking about the Son) and Holy Spirit. It is the Spirit that Goes every where, that's why Jesus couldn't stay on the Earth because He will be limited, but with the Holy Spirit He will be every where at all times, that's the power of the Godhead.. As Apostle Paul said in 1 Cor 15:40 that there're bodies Celestial and bodies terrestrial. There's a natural body and a spiritual body. Even John Saw the Father on His throne in revelation same as Ezekiel and other prophets.. Ezekiel saw a visible because no man sees God physically and lives.. the book of Enoch is a very Good source but you catholics removed it from the canons.. Well we have it and it's amazing...

 

[Robert Gwin]

It is stated numerous times that "God is an all consuming fire" and many believers will take that literally. But when Ezekiel describes his actual appearance as basically a consuming fire in the form of a man sitting on a throne, they will do a complete 180 and claim its not literal.

Which one is it, is God like an all consuming fire with a tangible form or not??



I see now that its his "appearance of a man" that people have a problem with. Ezekiel says this is the likeness of the glory of the LORD, whereas the "oracles" pretending to know more about the supernatural than what is written will claim otherwise. This looks to me like a another classic case of certain believers wanting to have their cake and eat it too. I'll take the word of God as the authority on this matter. I'll believe the Bible when it states we are made in his image. This is one of the few artists depictions of his vision that I have seen that actually got it right to any meaningful degree.

As opposed to the typical depiction of a white bearded guy.........

Or the white formless blob.........new ager's and gnostic's love this depiction

.....

Much of the Bible is not literal, and no one knows what God looks like, as no one has ever seen Him.