 |
| Mircea Eliade - Journal I - Alice Bailey references are on page 160 of this book. |
At teatime, Mme. Froebe tells me about visions experienced by
certain eccentric guests, among them Alice Bailey, who saw a monk
repeatedly entering the window on the right (all this happened in the
room where we're staying, on the second floor, the room in which I'm
writing this) . Alice Bailey (what an able adventuress! I met her in
London in 1940; my Polish translator-God only knows what her name
was; and what an intelligent, likable, informed woman !- gave me a
letter of recommendation, and Alice Bailey invited me to dinner. She
was with her husband- a nonentity-and a friend , a tremendously
voluble American woman, probably her patroness, because she paid for
the dinner. Alice Bailey conducted a school of " initiation by correspondence"
with a rather high tuition; she had published a number of
books-unreadable, and absolutely worthless)-Alice Bailey evoked
her master and protector in Tibet, with whom she was in regular
communication through telepathy; and with the aid of a ritual she
expelled the shade of that mysterious monk who kept coming in the
window. After that, Mme. Froebe adds, the monk visited the room next
door, where a young Dutch Quaker was staying; he would come at 2:00
A. M. Since the young man's room was directly over Mme. Froebe's
bedroom, she would hear him jump out of bed and turn on the light. He
would start reading aloud from the Bible. I don't know what sins that
monk bad committed, but on hearing the words of the Bible he would
disappear.
Well, that was interesting, although Eliade's religious scholarship fails to impress me -- he was obviously a hanger-on himself at Eranos, the institute co-founded by Olga Froebe and Alice Bailey. HOWEVER, I was amused and could related to something else related in this book -- his difficulty in finishing a plethora of projects:
18 May
I've written nothing in this notebook for several weeks because
I have been totally immersed in analyzing, classifying, and completing
the materials on shamanism, gathered in the last nine years. Every day,
at the Musee de I 'Homme. Have opened the notebook in order to record
that today I received the corrected proof copy of Le Mythe de l' eternel
re tour.
25 May
Am continuing to work, day and night, on shamanism. Sometimes
I feel almost crushed by the massive Soviet ethnographic
production. And since I can't see a problem clearly until I see it whole,
I keep putting off writing until the last moment, until I've verified even
the smallest detail (verifications which often are futile because I can't
use them; at most, I content myself with an allusion in a footnote).
Another danger: sometimes my "enthusiasm" is exhausted in the
research itself, and when I decide to write it up, I compose somewhat
reluctantly, hastily, using only a small part of the documentation I've
collected and spent days mulling over. (page 90, Mircea Journal I)
Well, I've similar problems. I've been almost totally immersed (besides my remaining law practice) with ANALYZING, CLASSIFYING, and COMPLETING . . . It has dawned on me that I've been in this struggle for now nearly 35 years since 1981. That's five years longer than the religious wars ending in the Treaty of Westphalia lasted in Europe!
I do think I have things computer organized now to the point where writing and accurate referencing will proceed smoothly. Pray for me. I've had health issues recently that has also served to somewhat slow me in this process. I've amassed tremendous materials on General Vallely and Michael Aquino -- that backburnered projecd continues.
Thanks for your patience and stay tuned.
CONSTANCE
500 comments:
«Oldest ‹Older 201 – 400 of 500 Newer› Newest»Ignatius is not in the Scriptures, HIS TESTIMONY AS TO WHAT PEOPLE BELIEVED EXISTS IN WRITING, THESE WERE THE FIRST AND SECOND GENERATION CONVERTS, THAT SHOULD TELL YOU SOMETHING.
Paul warns that those who eat and drink the bread and wine WITHOUT PERCEIVING THE BODY OF THE LORD eat and drink judgement to themselves. I Cor. 11:29
no one denied the Eucharist was the Body and Blood of Christ throughout all church history in Europe and Asia before the Reformation AND LUTHER DID NOT DENY IT except heretics who also denied the full humanity of Christ, or His physical not merely spiritual Resurrection, or denied His full divinity or believed other heretical things.
Denial of the Real Presence was NO PART OF THE REFORMATION NO PART OF PROTESTANTISM until the ungodly Calvin and Zwingli especially the latter gained control of everyone's mentality.
What does that tell you? YOU ARE THE ONE FOLLOWING TRADITIONS OF MEN.
Anonymous said @ 5:26 PM …
“I have defended the Holy Eucharist FROM THE BIBLE ONLY! Now it is your turn to quote the exact passage IN THE BIBLE where it clearly and specifically states that Jesus didn't literally mean EXACTLY WHAT HE SAID. Jesus never indicated that He was speaking symbolically or metaphorically - not even when some of His followers began to leave Him.”
Anonymous:
The very passage that you refer to in John chapter 6 proves that Christ was referring to the SPIRITUAL meaning of His words, rather than that of the PHYSICAL eating of His actual flesh.
"It is the spirit that quickeneth; the flesh profiteth nothing: the words that I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are life." John 6:63
Furthermore, on this same subject, Christ specifically establishes the Lord’s Supper as a MEMORIAL to Him, and not one in which the PHYSICAL eating of such was conducive or necessary for salvation:
“And he took bread, and gave thanks, and brake it, and gave unto them, saying, This is my body which is given for you: this do in remembrance of me.” Luke 22:19 (Same verse repeated again in I Corinthians 11:24-26.
In John chapter 6, beginning in verse 22 (where this passage really begins), Jesus was speaking to skeptical, unbelieving Jews that had actually experienced the miracle of the feeding of the five thousand (verse 26) “Ye seek me, not because ye saw the miracles, but because ye did eat of the loaves, and were filled.” This entire discourse was one in which Christ declared Himself to the Jews as being the SPIRITUAL “bread of life,” and not one in which one would benefit by simply eating a PHYSICAL wafer.
Again, "It is the spirit that quickeneth; the flesh profiteth nothing: the words that I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are life." John 6:63
Nowhere in Scripture will you find that the Lord’s Supper involves a “priest” that magically transforms a piece of bread into the actual body, blood and divinity of Jesus Christ. NOWHERE! This is nothing other than an invention of Rome that is used in order to establish Rome's unique power over its people. By duping their people into believing that they are “receiving Christ” by eating a wafer transformed by a priest via the mass is pure heresy, and will save no one! It is THEIR "gospel" ... and it is NOT the true gospel of Christ!
RayB you are ignoring something important, exemplified in the contrasting history of Judas and the rest of the Apostles. you can be personally running around with and ordained even by Jesus Christ Himself, or, in a modern setting, eat His Body and Blood, and this will do you no good if you do not also "eat" His words and model yourself on His examples. (which ranged given what was appropriate from gentle to turning over tables and whipping people and very gentle words and very sharp denunciations and name calling like "generation of vipers" it depended on what was appropriate and He has a long fuse.)
And conversely, if you are not able to get baptized (thief on the cross) or you are not able to ever eat His Body and Blood, you nonetheless if you truly acknowledge and learn from Him are remembered in His Kingdom.
you are forgetting that when people were offended at the more overtly cannibalistic statement and started leaving HE DID NOT SAY HE DIDN'T MEAN IT LITERALLY, but He ALSO made it clear that mere proximity to and/or eating of His flesh did not in itself guarantee you the Kingdom if you don't also spiritually eat His words (which contain enough rejection of too narrowly a physical issues of life focus to make one pause about political issues).
Its not either/or. its both.
Christine Erikson (aka Justina) said...
"Ignatius is not in the Scriptures, HIS TESTIMONY AS TO WHAT PEOPLE BELIEVED EXISTS IN WRITING, THESE WERE THE FIRST AND SECOND GENERATION CONVERTS, THAT SHOULD TELL YOU SOMETHING."
That may mean something to you, it means absolutely nothing to me, nor should it to ANY believer, because the validity of human accounts outside the Scriptures are worthless (when it comes to ESTABLISHING doctrines and practices). I challenged you to supply proof for your assertion by providing the passages of Scripture. Of course, I knew you wouldn't be able to, because I knew none exists.
You, along with others, continue to cite Luther as if his position on this amounts to some degree of "proof." First, I am not a disciple of Luther, nor am I of ANY man. Luther himself regretfully stated towards the end of his life that he "made too much of this." Second, Luther was simply wrong on this and was opposed by nearly ALL of the Reformers.
Having said that, the Reformers or anyone else for that matter, are not my authority, the Scriptures are.
the priest doesn't magically transform anything. At his request GOD makes the transformation. Bread and wine are sacrificed to God, this is called the unbloody sacrifice, and He returns this to us as Jesus' Body and Blood.
now, RayB, you need to consider the gnostic heresy, which denied the goodness of the material creation, to the point of denying that God would stoop to become flesh, and denied Jesus' full humanity (as distinct from some variants that took the opposite approach, more arian in tone).
Are you not working from the same presupposition of God not being involved in or working through matter, except you HAVE to acknowledge the Incarnation (but don't you kinda feel a teeny bit uncomfortable about it in your heart of hearts if you have a gnostic hidden element in your heart?) and the sheer physicality of the REsurrection and His being permanently physical (but don't you feel kinda uncomfortable a teeny bit with that or prefer to speculate about His being eventually not so physical 8if you have a gnostic hidden element in your heart?)
and isn't precisely this sort of thing the real driver behind the denial that God could make bread and wine into the Body and Blood of Christ?
RayB,
you are following the opinions of men in that you deny the Eucharist. Because it was men who were otherwise sort of orthodox who denied this, along with the first deniers of this WHO ALSO DENIED THE INCARNATION AND/OR RESURRECTION AND/OR FULL DIVINITY OF CHRIST AND/OR FULL DIVINITY OF THE HOLY SPIRIT.
that is the company you and the reformers keep.
so Luther apostasized somewhat, eh, what of it? THE ONLY REASON YOU DENY THE EUCHARIST IS BECAUSE OF TRADITIONS OF MEN DEVELOPED RECENTLY IN THE PAST SEVERAL CENTURIES WHICH YOU HAVE GORGED YOURSELF ON. Without that you would read the Scripture at face value. Paul's warning shows two things, that the Eucharist was done at the end of a meal just like it was at the Last Supper, and Eucharistic fasting is not the original style, though I obey the discipline, AND THAT THERE IS SOMETHING SENTIENT IN THE BREAD AND WINE WHICH CAN BE OFFENDED WHEN YOU EAT WITHOUT SEEING IT AS JESUS' BODY AND BLOOD, AND MAY TAKE ACTION AGAINST YOU.
"That may mean something to you, it means absolutely nothing to me, nor should it to ANY believer, because the validity of human accounts outside the Scriptures are worthless (when it comes to ESTABLISHING doctrines and practices)."
Then why do you allow the validity of human accounts outside of the Scriptures, those accounts of the Reformers, as to what the Scriptures said or meant? All this comes from people who, lacking faith and being overly rationalistic (the spawn of RC scholasticism, I'm afraid, Susanna, and its final spawn is the atheist enlightment because reason is exalted overmuch) instead of seeking help about their spiritual disability ran with their own exaltation of their finite minds over the Scriptures and what everyone from AD 33 on (except heretics who denied the Incarnation and/or Resurrection and/or full divinity of Christ) saw as the obvious plain meaning of Scripture.
it is not about human accounts outside of Scripture to establish something so much as, Scripture says something that you say means one thing and I say means another.
To resolve this, what did those say who were close to the Apostles, what teaching had they received from Apostles or from those appointed and taught by Apostles? those opinions should settle the matter.
But you are taking human accounts - the personal views of men who exalted their finite minds over the infinite mind of God - to establish doctrine and practice.
RayB said
Re: The very passage that you refer to in John chapter 6 proves that Christ was referring to the SPIRITUAL meaning of His words, rather than that of the PHYSICAL eating of His actual flesh.
It proves no such thing - especially in light of the fact that the some of the disciples left Jesus when He told them that unless they ate of His flesh and drank of His blood they would have no life......and Jesus did not revise His statement to pander to their offended sensibilities. His listeners were stupefied because they understood Jesus literally—and correctly. He meant exactly what He said in a literal sense.
********************************************************
Re: "In John chapter 6, beginning in verse 22 (where this passage really begins), Jesus was speaking to skeptical, unbelieving Jews that had actually experienced the miracle of the feeding of the five thousand (verse 26) “Ye seek me, not because ye saw the miracles, but because ye did eat of the loaves, and were filled.” This entire discourse was one in which Christ declared Himself to the Jews as being the SPIRITUAL “bread of life,” and not one in which one would benefit by simply eating a PHYSICAL wafer.
That is exactly what was so disgraceful about the behavior of those disciples who left Jesus after He told them that they would have to eat His flesh and drink His blood in order to have life everlasting. After actually witnessing the miracles wrought by our Lord, they still refused to take Him at His word.
Jesus DID NOT SAY that He was the "spiritual" BREAD OF LIFE. He said I AM THE BREAD OF LIFE....PERIOD.
And again, if Jesus could feed five thousand people with five loaves and two fishes, change water into wine, heal the sick, raise the dead and rise from the dead Himself, He could certainly perform the miracle of changing bread and wine into His body, blood soul and divinity. The disciples who walked away did so immediately after He told them that unless they ate of His flesh and drank of His blood, they would have no life. The Gospel is as clear as can be on this.
"After this, many of His disciples drew back...." We get the impression that the vast majority of them said, "This is just too much." "...and no longer went about with him. And Jesus turned to the twelve;" he didn't apologize. He didn't say, "Now that we're down to twelve, I'll tell you what I REALLY meant." He didn't say that at all. In fact he is perfectly willing for this obstacle to remain scandalous even to the twelve........even to unbelievers of modern times. "Do you also wish to go away?" But "Simon Peter answered him, 'Lord, to whom shall we go?'" Almost implying we would leave if there was somebody else that we could trust more than you because what you said is rather baffling. But he says, "To whom shall we go? You have the words of eternal life. And we have believed and have come to know that you are the Holy One of God."
On other occasions when there was confusion, Christ explained just what he meant (cf. Matt. 16:5–12). Here, where any misunderstanding would be fatal, there was no effort by Jesus to correct. Instead, he repeated himself for greater emphasis.
**************************************************
Re: "Nowhere in Scripture will you find that the Lord’s Supper involves a “priest” that magically transforms a piece of bread into the actual body, blood and divinity of Jesus Christ. NOWHERE!"
It certainly DOES involve a "priest." It involves CHRIST THE HIGH PRIEST - according to the order of Melchizedek - Who MIRACULOUSLY transforms the bread and wine into His body, blood, soul and divinity when He says THIS IS MY BODY.....THIS IS MY BLOOD.......after which He instructed his disciples to continue doing likewise.
**************************************************************
Attacks on the Eucharist show that Protestants are not always literalists.
"We have a great high priest who has gone through the heavens, Jesus the Son of God” (Hebrews 4:14).
This is great! All these Anonymous, I call Annoyments!
You are nothing stealth bed-sheet bombers, hardly worth engaging!
Come out and show yourself already!
The NSA already has your router's IP address and they know your name, why can't we?
It would be much easier with your name than calling you by the time of day that you choose to 'show up'.
Additionally you'd be more likely to hold more civil engagements?
Just a thought.
Dan Bryan,
thank you.
" They imagine they have extracted all their doctrines from the study of the Bible. Anyone who questions them must be anti-Bible and, consequently, anti-Christ.
Of course this is untrue. No one sits down by himself with a Bible and invents Protestant Fundamentalism whole-cloth. They are told what to think by others and they then impose those beliefs on the reading of the Bible. Somehow what they are told is so effective (and deceptive) that the neophyte Fundie is left thinking he got it all from "the word of God." It is only later, when the essential weakness of Fundamentalism becomes clear to him, that the Fundie remembers what really happened.
I know how it was for me; at least I remember it clearly now. I began reading the Bible without external influences. I had a hard time figuring it all out, but I distinctly remember the strong impression that Jesus wanted me to change my ways and do good for people. It was only later, when I started attending a Southern Baptist church with a friend, that I started to "see" all the things I was supposed to see. It was then I became really complacent. I knew I was already "saved." The doing good for people could wait until I felt "moved by the Spirit," or until I got around to it.
The "word" for me became whatever I imagined it was. The difficult passages, like the entire second chapter of James, I simply ignored. Of course, once I acquired a Scofield Reference Bible, I had all the answers! Scofield's notes became like inspired text for me.
I was genuinely sincere; I really wanted to follow Jesus; but I was really deeply deceived and confused.
It sure was an easy "gospel," though: just believe and that's it; it was done, in the bag.
Orthodoxy is a lot tougher.
The modern westerner also rejects all ritual. Ritual seems so primitive, so physical. The Fundamentalist cannot see any ritual as truly spiritual. For them salvation is all in your head. How can one actually get grace in baptism or the Eucharist?
It takes a real "reformation" for them to understand the truth." http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php?topic=589.0
Dan Brian, what is your phone number? I'll phone you openly with mine...
Now, I don't know if your reference at 2:11 AM includes my anonymous comment also but if you're unsure about the content you can rest assured that everything I have written has been provided by Chritine herself!
She is the Kim Jong Un of this blogspot, feeling herself powerful as she nukes us with gnostic nonsense and showers us with demonic garbage and her heresies here.
5:26
But you've quoted what He meant right above!
"It is the Spirit who gives life; the flesh profits nothing. The WORDS THAT I SPEAK TO YOU ARE SPIRIT; and they are life."
He said: "When you do this, do it IN REMEMBRANCE OF ME."
Yes it is hard to understand. Even the Apostles wrestled with it.
He is The Word of God.
Indeed the real presence of the Lord is in the bread and the wine. It turns out that the Spirit of God is more "real" than flesh.
He had already said to them the He is the Bread of Life. He is the manna that fell from heaven.
He had also told them that He is the water of life that when one drinks it they will never thirst again.
He had told them that He is the Door. Is that a literal door?
He is the lilly of the valley. Is that a literal flower?
He is the bright morning star. Is that a literal star?
He is the Lion of the tribe of Judah. Is He a literal Lion?
He is the Lamb slain before the foundation of the world. Is He a literal Lamb?
He is the High Priest of the Order of Melchisadec.
He is alpha and omega.
He is the author and finisher of the faith.
I think that what we need to understand is that the things of the Spirit of God, which we
think are intangible and ephemeral, are in fact much MORE REAL in every sense; in effect,
in power, in practice and in truth.
"_Not by my might, says He, but by my spirit."
There are far too many here who give themselves over to the nature of a cannibal! Transubstantiation is a doctrine of devils of the worst kind: those who preach it are an abhorrence and an anathema, knowing nothing of God nor the greatness and utter completion of His True Sacrifice for us. Yes, His body was given up for us: once and for all on the cross! We partake in communion, IN SPIRIT,which remains bread and wine, in REMEMBRANCE of Him!
Paul is right! When Jesus Christ our Lord and Savior said, "I am the Door", He didn't mean He was made of oak or pine with a brass handle and hinges... only the unhinged among us could believe and disseminate such abhorrent heresy and blasphemy as transubstantiation or consubstantiation!
It is even a shame to have to discuss such things and grieves one's spirit, yet such must be done in order to correct and rebuke as necessary!
Praise be to God! When He said, "It is finished!", I believe Him rather than the vain traditions of men: don't you?
paul 7:31 said:
Re: "Indeed the real presence of the Lord is in the bread and the wine. It turns out that the Spirit of God is more "real" than flesh."
The Lord is not PARTLY present in the consecrated bread and wine. He is WHOLLY present. He is always the INCARNATE WORD - even as the Risen Lord......body, blood, soul divinity....undivided. Since it is a great mystery, we are not asked to understand it. We are asked to believe it - simply because Jesus said so.
Again, Jesus is truly God and truly man.....even as the Risen Lord. I am not saying that anyone is doing this here, but to KNOWINGLY sever Christ is to embrace the spirit of the antichrist.
Regarding metaphorical comparisons, the disciples didn't walk away from Jesus when He told them He is the door, etc.
However,according to the Gospels, they DID begin to walk away from Jesus when He said 'I am the living bread which came down from heaven; if any one eats of this bread, he will live for ever; and the bread which I shall give for the life of the world is my flesh.' The Jews then disputed among themselves, saying, ‘How can this man give us his flesh to eat?’" (John 6:51–52).
This is because unlike the other comparisons which WERE metaphors and understood by the disciples to be such, the statement "I am the living bread which came down from heaven; if any one eats of this bread, he will live for ever; and the bread which I shall give for the life of the world is my flesh." was not only intended by Jesus to be literal but it was also understood - correctly - by the disciples to be literal as well. Nowhere in the Gospels does it clearly and unequivocally state that Jesus later amended what He said in order to dissuade the disciples from leaving Him. Biblical interpretations to the contrary gloss over this very important fact and simply ASSUME that Jesus was speaking metaphorically.
And that begs the question: Was Jesus speaking "metaphorically" in the Gospels when He unequivocally indicated that He was God?
As for the appeal to John 6:63: "It is the spirit that gives life, the flesh is of no avail; the words that I have spoken to you are spirit and life." They say this means that eating real flesh is a waste. But does this make sense?
Are we to understand that Christ had just commanded his disciples to eat his flesh, then said their doing so would be pointless? Is that what "the flesh is of no avail" means? "Eat my flesh, but you’ll find it’s a waste of time"—is that what he was saying? Hardly.
The fact is that Christ’s flesh avails much! If it were of no avail, then the Son of God incarnated for no reason, he died for no reason, and he rose from the dead for no reason. Christ’s flesh profits us more than anyone else’s in the world. If it profits us nothing, so that the incarnation, death, and resurrection of Christ are of no avail, then "your faith is futile and you are still in your sins. Then those also who have fallen asleep in Christ have perished" (1 Cor. 15:17b–18).
paul said: "He is The Word of God."
Yes. He is the WORD MADE FLESH.
Paul wrote to the Corinthians: "The cup of blessing which we bless, is it not a participation in the blood of Christ? The bread which we break, is it not a participation in the body of Christ?" (1 Cor. 10:16).
So when we receive Communion, we actually participate in the body and blood of Christ ( under the appearance of bread and wine ), not just eat SYMBOLS of them.
Paul also said, "Therefore whoever eats the bread and drinks the cup of the Lord unworthily will have to answer for the body and blood of the Lord. . . . For any one who eats and drinks without discerning the body, eats and drinks judgment on himself" (1 Cor. 11:27, 29).
"To answer for the body and blood" of someone meant to be guilty of a crime as serious as homicide. How could eating mere bread and wine "unworthily" be so serious? Paul’s comment makes sense only if the bread and wine became the real body and blood of Christ.
Christ's statement "The words I have spoken to you are spirit" does not mean "What I have just said is symbolic." The word "spirit" is never used that way in the Bible. The line means that what Christ has said will be understood only through faith; only by the power of the Spirit and the drawing of the Father (cf. John 6:37, 44–45, 65).
Anon. 8:43 said:
"There are far too many here who give themselves over to the nature of a cannibal!"
**************************
This is exactly the thinking of those who walked away from Jesus!
Dan Bryan, just wondering........does knowing Christine Erikson's name keep her from being any less annoying to this blog? And the anonymous who puts the extra and unnecessary personally directed blasts in his words should stop that and just let scripture refute what he sees as error if he has such a good point to make, because it is annoying also. Does not fit speaking of these holy matters.
Chritsine, I feel sorry for you that you have run the gamit in the religious realm and still miss the truth by miles. What church have you not missed in all your spiritual wanderings? You are very influenced by the externals, after all, as is evidenced by your streams of religiosity to this topic and all others. The Lord's Word (Jesus is the Word, as Paul rightly engaged this understanding in his post) is discerned by the Holy Spirit to a humbled believing heart and mind, and you make it-as you always do-about how you have "figured it all out" through your "experiences". That is not biblical faith no matter how much or what brand of religion you throw at it!
Paul, I sure appreciate your response @ 7:31 AM. Short and right to the point.
Thanks.
Anonymous @ 9:55 AM ...
Those that "walked away from Jesus" were "those" Jews that FOLLOWED Him across the sea after witnessing for themselves the feeding of the five thousand. READ the entire chapter of John 6. In John 6: 26 Jesus said to THESE Jews: "Jesus answered them and said, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Ye seek me, NOT because ye saw the miracles, but because ye did eat of the loaves, and were filled." These "disciples" (i.e. "followers") were the same that departed from him in John 6:66 ... because they were told by Christ that His offering was far greater than the physical needs that they wanted for themselves. In a very real sense, this entire passage is teaching against the liberal, "social gospel," and is rather teaching the true Gospel that is found in the totality of Christ alone.
The anti-christ spirit is highlighted in John 6:66 (666).
The 'bread crowd' walked away with their bellys full of actual bread. Peter said to Jesus: You have the words of eternal life. Words. Eternal. His.....they are Spirit and they are Life. Love it! My mind and heart are "chewin'" it all up!
Anonymous said...7:26 AM
Dan Brian, what is your phone number? I'll phone you openly with mine...
Anonymous said...10:48 AM
Dan Bryan, just wondering........does knowing Christine Erikson......
I do not know Christine, but there are not 3 or 4 of her with the same name.
Are there two Anonymous here or am I replying to one person? This is the annoyance, nothing sacred or profane, just annoyance.
This is not my blog, so I will leave it at that.
and now for something completely different. https://www.technocracy.news/index.php/2016/01/27/five-ways-know-al-gore-running-global-warming-racket/
and I heard somewhere that he has major stock holding in the company(is) that would manage the cap and trade carbon credit thing, talk about conflict of interest.
RayB
"These "disciples" (i.e. "followers") were the same that departed from him in John 6:66 ... because they were told by Christ that His offering was far greater than the physical needs that they wanted for themselves. In a very real sense, this entire passage is teaching against the liberal, "social gospel," and is rather teaching the true Gospel that is found in the totality of Christ alone."
the bible is deeper than you allow. There are many things to be extracted from it, including that in many passages there are several messages. you have unpacked only one, and the bigger picture of that passage is that the totality of Christ alone requires good works as James warns and Christ warns in His depiction of the Last Judgement when He casts off those who call Him Lord but never helped anyone and were as if they had seen Him in trouble and scorned Him.
Luke 6:46 "And why call ye me, Lord, Lord, and do not the things which I say?"
Matt. 7:21 "Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven."
Galatians is explicitly written against keeping the works of the law of MOSES, circumcision, permanent food restrictions, Sabbaths, etc., not against the works we must do in service to Jesus Christ, if we believe we will obey Him. The Greek word for "faith" is belief that affects action.
Hebrews describing "faith is the substance," etc. goes on to show works of faith, WORKS ACTIONS WORDS, and "substance" in Elizabethan English is not some material you are made of or some force or etheric fluid you project like charismatics think, but is substrate, the foundation you take your STANCE on SUBstrate STANCE substance.
Standing, founded on the foundation of belief in JEsus Christ you are able to serve Him.
And of course, YOU IGNORE THE WHOLE PASSAGES DETAILS, "that His offering was far greater than the physical needs that they wanted for themselves" AS YOU PUT IT, INCLUDES HIS FLESH AND BLOOD (you are what you eat, get infused with His essence).
And that when they were upset with this, HE DID NOT QUALIFY THE STATEMENT WITH TALK OF ONLY SPIRITUAL MEANING.
When you put all the relevant verses together, IGNORING NOTHING, SPIRITUALIZING NOTHING, you get the picture that His words are life and so is His flesh, and you need both, and with HIs words, believing them you will eat His flesh and blood without failing to perceive it as such, which failure to perceive it as such Paul warns brings guilt and judgement, and you will do His works.
And that those who believe Him, though circumstances prevent their baptism and chrismation and partaking of His Body and Blood in the Eucharist nonetheless are not lost. (thief on the Cross.)
This discussion about Communion is a very good one, in spite of the shrillness of some.
There is a depth to the Catholic view of Communion, as expressed well in Anon. 9:30 and 9:41, that is missing in most Protestant churches today.
As a Protestant, I must say it has been my observation (which is external, I admit, and only the LORD knows the heart) that most of us do NOT take as seriously as we ought the partaking in Communion. The bread and wine (or grape juice, for you Baptists, heh heh), MUST CONTAIN THE VERY PRESENCE AND NATURE OF CHRIST IN MORE THAN JUST A SYMBOLIC WAY, if we are to take Jesus at His word. This was instituted by Christ for a reason. If you truly believe that during Communion you are "becoming one with" the One who died for your sins, because of His supernatural, miraculous presence somehow in the bread and wine, you will most definitely NOT take it lightly, and will refuse Communion until you know for sure you have dealt with in your heart anything that our Lord might call sin. "For what communion does light have with darkness?" Or, what communion can Christ have with a professed follower of His who harbors sin? This is the crux of the matter, isn't it? Pretty serious stuff, isn't it? Hence the warnings to the Corinthians about eating and drinking damnation upon themselves. Not many things in scripture carry that warning. This, in and of itself, places Communion in a special category.
Because of this, the "tradition" of Transubstantiation (which isn't even a "tradition of men") ends up bringing people closer to God, not driving them further away. Any tradition that REALLY AND TRULY brings people closer to Jesus and keeps them there is a GOOD tradition, yes? Even the man-made ones, as long as they achieve that goal. So lets stop railing against tradition if it is something that keeps the faith alive in the Church, or something that helps bring us closer to God, and keeps us from falling into the enemy's hands.
If you take on a more serious understanding of Holy Communion, or the Eucharist (which Transubstantiation achieves, in my opinion), you will necessarily take a more serious view of your own spiritual life and condition, and your relationship to the LORD will benefit.
Marko,
Your post makes a lot of sense.
I'm personally going to change my way of thinking about it, and
pray about it in earnest both now and the next time I take Communion.
But, I've got to say; I won't be joining the Roman Church any time soon, and I believe
that this subject will be the one that is used as an ultimatum when they have
their planned "All Religions are One" "Jubilee of Jubilees in October of 2017.
At that point they are planning to "forgive" the Protestants for their last 500 years of
the "sin" of not being Roman Catholic, ON THE CONDITION that we all denounce
Protestantism and join their One World church, to include Muslims, Buddhists, Hindus,
Jains and probably even witches.
I say "come out of her my people and do not partake in her sins"
Yes Jesus taught and preached in the Temple in his day. It's true that he honored that
temple and those leaders even though he knew them to be a brood of vipers.
It's also true that they were the ones who murdered him. And it's also true that
when he gave the Sermon on the Mount, and when he fed the five thousand, and
when he fed the other thousands, and when he gave his Olivet Discourse, and
when He had the Last Supper, and when He was transfigured,...all these events were
out away from that temple; SEPARATE, often in a desert place. And at those times
The Scribes and the Pharisees and the leaders of the temple just had to come out
to Him. Holiness is always separate; set aside.
I say Viva Martin Luther and Viva Sola Scriptura.
I don't believe that there is anything sacred about man-made traditions.
Marko said @ 6:00 PM ...
"If you take on a more serious understanding of Holy Communion, or the Eucharist (which Transubstantiation achieves, in my opinion), you will necessarily take a more serious view of your own spiritual life and condition, and your relationship to the LORD will benefit."
You are missing a very fundamental point, and that is, by the taking of the Eucharist, Catholics believe that this is, FOR THEM, what is meant by "receiving Christ." This process constitutes the essence of what THEY believe the "gospel" to be. Over and over and over again, Catholics morph in and out of a state of grace. Their salvation is NEVER secure, and it is totally dependent upon their relationship with THEIR CHURCH and the administration of its Sacraments. Regarding the Eucharist, Rome denies the one and only true sacrifice that Christ accomplished on the cross. The "mass" is officially termed to be the "SACRIFICE of the Mass" ... meaning ... that Christ is ACTUALLY sacrificed again, and again, and again AT EVERY MASS said in every single RC church. Again, with the re-sacrifice of Christ via the Mass, Rome denies that Christ's suffering, sacrifice and shed blood was "insufficient" to pay for the sins of His people.
Personally, I have known literally hundreds of Catholics in my life time. I have never known a single one that has expressed a true, secure hope that is found only in the Lord Jesus Christ. What they typically express is a vague, unsure, "hope" that they will be "good enough" when the end comes. They feel this way, because this is precisely what their "church" teaches! Christ came to set the captives free. Rome desires to keep them slaves to their Sacramental system that only THEY can administer. Rome's system actually serves as a road block to the true Christ of the Scriptures.
God's Word warns against religious men presenting themselves as "ministers of righteousness" but who are in fact, nothing other than deceptive agents of the Devil himself. Christ Himself warned "... Take heed that no man deceive you. For many shall come in my name, saying, I am Christ; and shall deceive many." Matt. 24:4,5
Paul,
If that happens (the RC Church forging a unified world religion), then I'd bet that there will be as many people leaving it as would be joining it. At least, I'd hope that would be the case.
Who knows? Maybe there is one final schism to take place, as the true Church separates itself from all it was comfortable with. This will take place among Protestants, Catholics, Orthodox - wherever there are Christians following Jesus - the REAL Jesus, not the false one the world will be embracing at that time.
Well, what I gathered from Marko's post was a nice, heaping helping of cozy up,....lukewarmness......
I'll stick with what the dying thief on the cross next to Jesus did. He repented, called Him Lord, and humbly asked to be part of His kingdom...nothing more and nothing less. That is all I needed for eternal salvation....and in love and worship, I gladly remember HIM (not about my warm and fuzzies) when those simple elements of communion are before me.
Jesus answered that thief (and this one, too) all I needed to hear.
And Jesus didn't select his Apostles from the leaders of the temple, (who would have been the equivalent
of our modern PhD's and Professor "experts"), at least not until he selected Saul of Tarsus. Saul, who then
denounced his accumulated worldly knowledge, and referred to it as so much dung, compared to the
Gospel of Jesus.
This is the Roman Churchs' well cultivated image: that they are the scholastic ones who have poured
over the Scriptures more than anyone else, and that they know this stuff so much more than any simple
common man ever could, which is Gnosticism defined, and which is pretty much the same thing that can
be said about the Jewish "sages" and Rabbis with their Talmud and Kabballah and secret oral tradition,
all "for insiders only".
You were writing your 7:05 PM response to Paul's 6:49 PM post when I wrote my 7:07 PM answer to you, Marko. I did not agree with that response, but reading the above comeback @ 7:05 PM, I believe you are right on in saying that if (but I say when) that big compromise happens, there will be some (who knows how many? God knows) that will be coming out of all the denominations to align themselves with the true Lord and Christ. God has many yet to be fully known who have not bowed the knee to "baal".
Lets not forget this mighty gathering, and notice that the only ones missing are
the Protestants, with the exception of the Lutherans who are only partly represented.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=plfEiPT6FlQ
Christine tells us her "stuff" that she has gotten from the "inside track", too.
Her "head knowledge" needs a heart change----hers, and perhaps, several others, whoever they are??
God can and will do the heart work necessary for that, provided these folks yield themselves to Him for it.
Thanks RayB at 7:00 PM.
Have seen the same thing with a number of my own dear family members.
Sola Scriptura ROCKS!!!
Sacred Tradition Rolls...........
And MCE's tradition of delusions has rolled so far she proposes a type of Kabbalah content, which she heartily mixes in with Eastern Orthodox doctrine!
anon 8:20,
if someone hadn't dragged the usual false accusations up I wouldn't have dealt with this. then you complain of hearing this. YOUR IGNORANCE OF KABBALAH SHOWS IN THE LAST STATEMENT. THIS HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH IT.
"spiritual warfare 101" which someone says doesn't exist, and you flunk, was a sarcastic remark. But one Christian paper on spiritual warfare (which is only partly "spiritual advice" and has mostly to do with exorcism of people or places) was titled that I found later.
Frankly, you anonymice sound like a pack of materialists. I'm surprised you're not arguing for atheism.
http://www.elconfidencialdigital.com/politica/Felipe-Gonzalez-Javier-Solana-concentracion_0_2645135482.html
Constance, this is notable.
"Frankly, you anonymice sound like a pack of materialists. I'm surprised you're not arguing for atheism."
Well, we are not surprised by your arguing in favor of your occult/new age extrabiblical/unbiblical "knowledge" (at every given opportunity). I am just reading along with what others have written to refute you, and see that whoever they are, they have you pegged.
To Anonymous @ 8:23 PM ...
Thank you for your post to me.
It is always difficult to see people that are blinded by the lies of man-made religious systems that offer very little other than slavery to the religious leaders. When dealing with people that are victims of this religious tyranny, I liken it to being in a dry, hot, desert where people are dying of thirst, and the offer is made to them of an endless supply of refreshing water (i.e. living waters), and they refuse. The only thing we are called upon to do is be a witness, both in speech and in our actions, and, in love, humbly declare the unadulterated truth that will hopefully result in setting them free.
I have always taken no small amount of comfort regarding this issue from the following passage (along with others like it):
"I have planted, Apollos watered; but God gave the increase. So then neither is he that planteth any thing, neither he that watereth; but God that giveth the increase."
I Corinthians 3:6,7
they really haven't refuted a thing, or shown any evidence of knowledge about exorcism and related matters. just slung insults and labels. I don't argue at every given opportunity, someone brings it up and I deal with it. If you'd keep your mouths shut you wouldn't hear it. I have repeatedly shown that the specifics the new agers exploit are not what the new agers make them out to be. you throw away a weapon you could use on them, stripping what little they have of usefulness.
"the pestilence that walks at night" referenced in the psalms supports the existence of some of this. Not having to be afraid, is like David thanking God for protecting him by keeping his enemies from him until he could destroy his enemies. Those who have psychic attack or an occult practices background or some long term link to someone are often in for a fight once they accept Jesus. It is rarely as simple as "accept Jesus."
As for RayB and anonymous, your salvation doesn't depend on you being certain of it. And being too certain might blind you to things about yourself that could get you flogged when Christ comes back. Or worse. Matt. 24:42-51
I Cor. 5:10 "For we must all appear before the judgment seat of Christ; that every one may receive the things done in his body, according to that he hath done, whether it be good or bad." THIS WAS ADDRESSED TO CHRISTIANS.
"you throw away a weapon you could use on them, stripping what little they have of usefulness."
Your "weapons" are powerless. You can't punch your way out of a wet paper bag spiritually speaking. Your own documented on-going bondages (you think we need to know so much excruciating detail about) are proof you need God's power in your own life and yet you tell others how to come and go?? Maybe you can handle yourself in the physical since you are an amazon woman (according to you), but really, who cares?
The battle is the Lord's. We are to engage with Him through prayer to bring down strongholds and all high things that lift themselves up against Him. And actually confront evil with the most powerful thing ever-the Word of God-yet we are not to be confrontational in our attitudes. That is how you go about things, though. I pray against the very spirit you presume to spread here. All the big "talk"...you talk it (evil) all up and glorify all the wrong things--not God. You don't speak for Him and you don't serve Him in a manner that befits a true trust in Him or you would agree with God's recommendations. Your own words are proof against you.
from your talk it is obviously more about dealing with PEOPLE not dealing with ENTITIES or spirits. (not be confrontational in your attitude? when you are dealing with something usually invisible you better be confrontational. you don't ask the devil or a psychic or anything else to leave pretty please you attack and that includes if your mind tends to drift into borderline trance reverie they can use, pop some St. John's Wort and burn some benzoin to strengthen your boundaries and restore your sanity. harmless woolgathering is exactly what can trigger access. most of the time it is the thoughts of the beings not their persons. The other night it was almost "real," probably because they knew I had scheduled a house blessing. Which blocks them out a lot more. you impress me not one bit. My problems have been decreasing.
Like I said, when there is any real bondage that is not of mere ideas but persons, human or otherwise, breaking away from them to Jesus usually involves a protracted fight. JESUS IS MORE POWERFUL SO YOU CAN DO IT.
The weapons I spoke of are the weapons of argument to break down the new age propaganda. charas? they don't have location right. open them? even new agers are finding problems with kundalini and open chakras going wrong. THAT IS AN OPPORTUNITY TO CHALLENGE THE VALIDITY OF THEIR PRACTICES. nibiru? nothing can live on that thing. and sitchin lied a lot, it didn't cause the Flood. Bible miracles including disasters are divine intervention. not naturally caused. http://sitchiniswrong.org aliens? why should anything they say have validity because they look weird and are from elsewhere?
you see how your approach is bible says this isn't real, and it DOESN'T SAY ANYTHING MUCH ONE WAY OR ANOTHER when you should say chanelling is boundary violation and proof whatever is doing it is evil regardless of apparent nice content of message.
I don't need to be an amazon just know the medical implications of impact on specific weak points of the body.
One time St. Anthony was fighting demons and it was stressing him out. And he called on Jesus to help and the demons left. And he asked Jesus why He didn't help before, and the answer was "I wanted to watch you fight" or something like that, difficult as it was, it was worse for the demons because a mere human was standing them down, even if he took a physical level blow now and then, because the human had God backing him up. Consider the reason Job was allowed to suffer, to make a fool of the devil.
"your salvation doesn't depend on you being certain of it"
No, mine depends upon the Promise maker and Promise keeper, not me, so you speak only for yourself. Maybe you live with uncertainty (trusting in you), but I don't.
I know Whom I have believed and am persuaded that He is able to keep that which I've committed, unto Him against that Day. Do you dislike that I have the peace, freedom and rest of belonging (though certainly undeserved) in the beloved of God? The Father grants His mercy to anyone who surrenders to Him in repentance and faith in His own son, Jesus. He breaks our chains when we give them to Him.
I'm thankful I am sealed by the Lord's Spirit, Who is the guarantee. get a concordance and look these verses up for yourself and examine to see if you truly are in the faith.
@ 4:20 PM
You have a spiritual plague of demons right there in your own head.
You do not have salvation in Christ.
"The other night it was almost "real," probably because they knew I had scheduled a house blessing"
If you want a blessing on the place then you better move out of it,,,,,,,or come to Christ Jesus get saved.
Susanna,
Would you please explain the difference between heresy and syncretism? Is the difference between them a difference in degree or a differences in kind?
Thank you
anon 4:42,
how do you treat others? do you give to the poor? are you either celibate or monogamous? there are various issues for which we will be judged by Christ Himself, remember His descriptions of the Last Judgement. It is not a matter of trusting myself but watching myself to be sure I am not deceiving myself. yes you and I are sealed unto the day of redemption of the body (resurrection), but you and I will be held accountable for what we did with the salvation given to us. sanctification, justification, regeneration, whatever you want to call it. "work out your salvation with fear and trembling" Paul said, put that in a search with bible added to the words and it will show you where it is.
"One time St. Anthony was fighting demons and it was stressing him out. And he called on Jesus to help and the demons left. And he asked Jesus why He didn't help before, and the answer was difficult as it was, it was worse for the demons because a mere human was standing them down, even if he took a physical level blow now and then, because the human had God backing him up. Consider the reason Job was allowed to suffer, to make a fool of the devil."
""I wanted to watch you fight" or something like that,""
Utterly bogus.
Ms. Erikson, you should stay off the internet and actually read and believe the Bible if that is the best you can come up with. No wonder you are plagued with the demonic. Look at what you believe rather than God's Word.
You are no Bible scholar. Not even remotely.
God's Word does not in any way contradict that incident. the whole thing about
what Job went through was to make a fool of the devil. or do you ignore the opening scenes as mere poetry and human speculation written in?
Anonymous 5:38 PM
Religious syncretism is ALWAYS heretical, but not all heresies necessarily involve syncretism.
A basic definition of heresy, according to Merriam-Webster’s Collegiate Dictionary, is “adherence to a religious opinion contrary to church dogma.” A second definition is “dissent or deviation from a dominant theory, opinion, or practice.” It is any provocative belief or theory that is strongly at variance with established beliefs or customs.
Syncretism is the COMBINING of different, often contradictory beliefs.....such as Christianity and Hinduism......or Christianity and paganism......or Judaism and Buddhism.....
Gnosticism was an early form of syncretism that challenged the beliefs of early Christians by way of its dualism, its emanationism and its strong pantheistic strain according to which everything in the universe is somehow all or a part of god. Simon Magus( Magus = magician) appears as one of the early proponents of Gnosticism and is even considered to have been one of the founders of Christian Gnosticism.
Heresy is derived from a Greek word that originally meant "choice" or "thing chosen." The word "heresy" is usually used within a Christian, Jewish, or Islamic context, and implies slightly different meanings in each. The founder or leader of a heretical movement is called a heresiarch, while individuals who espouse heresy or commit heresy are known as heretics. Heresiology is the study of heresy.
From a Catholic point of view, heresy began with Simon Magus who is called the "father of all heretics." After receiving baptism, Simon Magus apostatized. Strictly speaking, a heretic is a baptized Catholic who chooses to deviate from Catholic teaching.
While Martin Luther, Calvin, et al were heretics according to that definition, those who were later BORN into the Protestant denominations are not heretics because they did not CHOOSE the non-Catholic Christian denominations into which they were born. They are referred to as "material schismatics" and are considered by Catholics to be authentic Christians by virtue of their Trinitarian Baptism ("in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost") which all authentic Trinitarian Christians - Catholic and Protestant - hold in common.
I would not presume to speak for Protestants, but it may be that a "heretic" by their definition would likewise be a Protestant who chooses to espouse beliefs that go contrary to the beliefs of his particular Christian denomination.
A heretical belief by a Protestant - as for a Catholic - COULD be syncretism. Or it could be a denial of Protestant dogmas such as the "five solas." In any case, the person could not be called a "heretic" in the strictest sense of the term unless he CHOSE to deviate from the Protestant beliefs that he once held.
I hope you have found this helpful.
6:20 PM
The deep theology that goes on in the book of Job does not read like your comic book narritives.
She's a comic book version of the Bagavadgita, the manmade traditions of Constantinople and Rome, the Kabbalah and Benny Creme's aka Helena Blavatsky's Resident spirit master teachings from Mars!
Kristine Reichsohn (aka Jestina),
you owe Dorothy an apology!
When Susanna said above that she would not presume to speak for Protestants, I realized that I may have been presuming to speak for Catholics, as I tried to represent or defend some Catholic views in areas where I think they do not contradict the Word of God. My apologies to those Catholics here who took my comments as being presumptuous.
RayB, and all the other anonymous out there who have legitimate concerns with the Roman Catholic Church: All I would like to see from you is some level of grace, no matter how small, extended to those in the Catholic Church who love and worship and adore and rely upon for their salvation the same Jesus that you love and worship and adore and rely upon for your salvation. Not everyone in the Catholic church is a cannibalistic heathen, insisting on crucifying our Lord every time they take Communion.
As Susanna said above, not all Protestants are currently looked upon by the Catholic Church as heretics or lost people without Christ, because they were not the ones who instituted the schismatic belief system they were born into and under which they worship and practice their faith. Can you not also graciously say that there may be Catholics who love and worship Christ, and just might belong to Him, even though they have decided to do so in a system that you find as problematic as Catholics find Protestantism?
Both the Protestants and Catholics have their problems. Both have leaders who have some pretty major problems. Is that not to be expected? The enemy has does a pretty good job of corrupting both, in the eyes of the world, and, I presume, in the eyes of God. They also both contain true believers and pretend believers. We can argue all day which contains the higher number of each, but in the fight against the enemy, who goes about liking a roaring lion seeking whomever he can to devour, why can't we can be ALLIES IN THE FAITH - the one, true faith centered in Jesus Christ?
Whoever is not against Him is for Him. Jesus said that. Can a practicing Catholic really and truly belong to Jesus? I say yes. But I'm not the judge, am I? And neither are you. That is His call, on that great Day that is coming. But for some, that Day will not be so great. Some will be pretty surprised, thinking they had their Get Out of Hell card, and they will be wrong. You and I are NOT in the position to say one way or the other who is who, here and now. We can guess, and try to figure it out by the fruit people bear, but only God knows the heart. And it comes back to something I said earlier. Expect to be treated by God on that day the same way you have treated others - His children in some cases, when you thought they weren't! Wow... what a mistake to make. Not as bad as the other one though, where you think you're His but you aren't. I hope nobody here fits into that category.
Can't you see that what I'm trying to ask you to do is NOT to embrace syncretism, but to embrace others whose PRACTICE of faith may be different, but whose OBJECT of faith is the same? And in the end, it's the Object of our faith, the Author and Finisher of our faith, that matters - Jesus Christ, King of Kings, and Lord of Lords.
In Service to the King, I am,
Marko
2 Peter 1:3-11
"Not everyone in the Catholic church is a cannibalistic heathen,"
in other words some are secretly unbelievers in the Eucharist who, by eating the bread without perceiving the Body are, Paul warns eating judgement against themselves
"insisting on crucifying our Lord every time they take Communion."
I don't think that is official Catholic doctrine anyway, it is not His Body and Blood that are sacrificed but the bread and wine which God then turns into His Body and Blood.
Anonymous Anonymous said...5:26 PM
To whom it may concern:
26And as they were eating, Jesus took bread, and blessed it, and brake it, and gave it to the disciples, and said, Take, eat; THIS IS MY BODY. 27
And he took the cup, and gave thanks, and gave it to them, saying, Drink ye all of it; 28For THIS IS MY BLOOD of the new testament, which is shed for many for the remission of sins. Matthew 26:26-28 KJV
Jesus then said in the next verse...........
From now on, I tell you, I shall never again drink wine until the day I drink the new wine with you in the kingdom of my Father.' Matthew 26:29
The first question for the anonymous is why did Jesus say he would not drink wine, if in fact he had not considered the first wine/Eucharist not to be in-fact his actual blood?
The second question for the anonymous is, if in fact it was the Lord's blood did he drain it from his own veins pre-mortem? Or was it mystically drawn from the cross through some space/time continuum? Did he likewise extract his flesh in a similar manner?
1st for me, Jesus answered the question when he said he would not drink of the WINE again until he comes into the Kingdom of his father. Additionally he spoke of the New Wine, which depicts something better than that of flesh and blood, but something of the Spirit.
2nd for me, is that God would not countermand his own explicit laws of not eating/drinking blood, as God is not a God of confusion (Babylon).
3rd it is a matter of faith that one believes it is the blood and flesh of Jesus. Scientifically proven:
http://newsthump.com/2013/03/03/vatican-reeling-as-dna-tests-show-communion-wafers-contain-0-christ/
OR it is NOT, Scientifically proven:
http://newsthump.com/2013/03/03/vatican-reeling-as-dna-tests-show-communion-wafers-contain-0-christ/
Marko said...
"Can't you see that what I'm trying to ask you to do is NOT to embrace syncretism, but to embrace others whose PRACTICE of faith may be different, but whose OBJECT of faith is the same? And in the end, it's the Object of our faith, the Author and Finisher of our faith, that matters - Jesus Christ, King of Kings, and Lord of Lords."
Marko, I believe you presented a good summation.
Romans 14:14-23
.......... for whatsoever is not of faith is sin.
Marko,
I don’t doubt that you are sincere, otherwise, you wouldn’t have taken the time to write such a thoughtful and somewhat lengthy post.
This is really not an issue of “Protestantism” vs “Catholicism.” For instance, the term Protestantism is not a Biblical term, and was one that even the Reformers held with disdain. The same can be said for the “Puritans.” That term was one in which their enemies applied as a derogatory label. While I can’t speak for others, I consider myself simply a Bible believing Christian. My argument is with the hierarchy of the Catholic Church that has promulgated and abundance of falsehood in order to keep their people under spiritual bondage via legal obedience to their Sacramental system.
I and others have stated in numerous posts the “problems” with Roman Catholic doctrine & practices. I won’t go into that further at this time. The question here is; does truth matter? Or more precisely, for the sake of some perceived “unity,” should God’s truth be sacrificed? Here are just few examples for consideration from God’s word:
(continued)
“… it was needful for me to write unto you, and exhort you that ye should earnestly contend for the faith which was once delivered unto the saints.” Jude 3
“Now I beseech you, brethren, mark them which cause divisions and offences contrary to the doctrine which ye have learned; and avoid them. For they that are such serve not our Lord Jesus Christ, but their own belly; and by good words and fair speeches deceive the hearts of the simple.” Romans 16:17, 18
“… but there be some that trouble you, and would pervert the gospel of Christ. But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed. As we said before, so say I now again, If any man preach any other gospel unto you than that ye have received, let him be accursed.” Galatians 1:7-9
Were the writers “lacking in grace” when God inspired these men to write these verses?
Either the gospel of Christ as presented clearly in Scripture is true and that of Roman Catholicism is false, or, that which is presented in the Scriptures is false and Roman Catholicism is true. The two cannot be reconciled. The only way error can have union with truth is when truth is sacrificed.
Jesus said "in remembrance of Me"
When I remember my own mother now that she has passed away, do I need to rehash her actual death every time I think about her then? I am thankful at her remembrance-her memory makes me think of what her life meant and the things she did with her life. Sure there is a certain wave of momentary sadness but it would be morbid to keep concentrated on the dying part again and again.
When it comes to the Lord, I can think on the body and blood of Jesus that accomplished something amazing in my (our) behalf long, long ago. It is humbling and joyful at the same time that that salvation work still stands as powerful against sin in it's utter forgiveness and as finished to make me a new creature as Jesus Himself said it was on that day. So now at it's rememberance I think on what it accomplished, not needing to invoke that power to work my salvation again but be thankful it was done.....and is done. Do some, without really realizing it, want to keep Jesus dead then? What purpose does that serve> He arose from the grave and he lives as coming King! Shouldn't we concentrate on that?
"1st for me, Jesus answered the question when he said he would not drink of the WINE again until he comes into the Kingdom of his father...."
this might support consubstiation, which seemed to be expressed by some early Father, rather than full transubstantiation, that it is and contains but still is also bread and wine.
It might also mean He would not be drinking COMMUNION wine that was His Blood after this until He came in His Kingdom.
"2nd for me, is that God would not countermand his own explicit laws of not eating/drinking blood, as God is not a God of confusion (Babylon)."
This appears to make sense but ignores something. ALL references to not eating blood, to not eating meat that hasn't had some of the blood poured out to God during the death (or just after if hunted?) are IN CONTEXT OF THE BLOOD OF THE DEAD.
Christ was alive that first Eucharist. No Eucharist was performed while He was dead.
Christ was alive again before the next Eucharist. Christ is alive now. Christ will always be physically alive.
To Dan Bryan,
Regarding this link ...
OR it is NOT, Scientifically proven:
http://newsthump.com/2013/03/03/vatican-reeling-as-dna-tests-show-communion-wafers-contain-0-christ/
The great English preacher Charles Spurgeon made this exact point over 150 years ago. He knew of course that there was no material "change" to the wafer. Roman Catholicism has always insisted the wafer is changed into the actual "body, blood, soul and divinity" of Jesus Christ. On numerous occasions, Spurgeon openly challenged the RCC to submit to a scientific "test" to see if there was any change to the wafer. Of course, those challenges were never met, because the "change" is nothing other than a RCC hoax used to fool the people into believing the priest actually has the power to perform this feat. Without the Eucharist, the entire RCC system falls apart, because the Eucharist, by their own admission, is the "sacrament" that sets them apart from everyone else.
"Do some, without really realizing it, want to keep Jesus dead then? What purpose does that serve> He arose from the grave and he lives as coming King! Shouldn't we concentrate on that?"
so speaks a "bible believer???"
I Cor. 11:26 "FOR AS OFTEN AS YE EAT THIS BREAD, AND DRINK THIS CUP, YE DO SHEW THE LORD'S DEATH TILL HE COME."
Jesus is not killed over and over, HIS LIVING FLESH AND LIVING BLOOD ARE ADDED TO THE BREAD AND WINE OR THEY ARE TRANSFORMED INTO THEM.
RayB YOU ASSUME the verses you quote were directed/are directable at RC. from the perspective of RC and EO they are somewhat directable at you, although you share with us (I assume) belief in Jesus as fully God become fully man without the divinity being diminished or the humanity made more than human died for our sins came back physically and permanently to life as the basis of our relationship with God.
as for faith only, "faith without works is dead" said James and faith is the basis of works the foundation the works are done on, Hebrews chapters 11. Entire chapter.
your loathing of preplanned worship style if that is the problem is pride. The Bible focuses on the most important and gives a brief mention of the services mention is made of David arranging the services according to order Psalms are labeled some as for specific liturgical purpose, a liturgy with incense and lamps is shown going on in Revelation in heaven and the Holy Liturgy aka Mass is a reflection on earth of what is in Heaven.
An example of things being left out that were common knowledge is that John's Gospel written after Eucharistic communion was already in use, does not mention the bread and wine, because the reader already knew that happened from Apostolic practice and from the Synoptic Gospels written earlier.
Paul's warning about NOT PERCEIVING THE BODY OF THE LORD should settle the matter. This is not about a mere agape dinner, but the Eucharist, because in the pattern Christ showed the Eucharist was done after the common dinner, it was later that Eucharistic fasting developed.
as for http://newsthump.com/2013/03/03/vatican-reeling-as-dna-tests-show-communion-wafers-contain-0-christ/ the content of the article shows it is obviously some kind of joke, and I doubt any RC or ORthodox Church would give up a host or a communion mixed bread and wine for testing. Even so, such a failure to show DNA would be the result of the DNA being part of the "accidents" or incidentals of the bread and wine.
Since the bread in both cases is handled by bare hands, it is likely the priest's DNA would be on it, so some DNA would show in a test, another reason to reject this story. Several would have handled the bread before it was consecrated.
The transformation at Lanciano, lifting the veil and showing the reality permanently is significant. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miracle_of_Lanciano
http://www.therealpresence.org/eucharst/mir/lanciano.html this was preschism, and the Eucharistic miracles of RC since then have not been this extreme usually.
The tendency of protestants to scoff at miracles is an inheritance of rationalism as in cult of human reason, and only by a choice retains belief in miracle recorded in the Bible. (Of course there have been frauds.)
http://newsthump.com/ a glance at this shows it is a parody news site, like The Onion.
This is perplexing because based on commentary here it seems like some may have more faith in their part to do communion to eat the bread & drink the cup than have the faith to simply trust the salvation wrought on the actual cross of the Lord that was His part? Their part or His part-------which one paid the price of forgiveness?
The Body and Blood of the Lord was given there at the cross 2000 years ago.....I'm sure we have all heard of it. That was when and that was where---so it is why there was..and is...salvation available for us today. Communion is just symbolic of that and way after the fact. It is a response and expression to what was already done. Not something ongoing. (like leaving Jesus hanging there). Those with faith in God before the cross happened were saved by faith, looking forward to it before the fact, (pictured in the old testament sacrifices) and those who live after the cross happened, look back to the ultimate that Jesus did to sum up everything that the old letter of the law and sacrifices could not complete. It is finished is what Jesus said. Why not trust what he began and certainly finished? The Father did. He accepted Jesus' blood price long time ago, shouldn't we simply accept that too?
okay gang, this is Christine Erikson, I forgot that I had signed into Mike's gmail account to download the new AVG tuneup program and didn't sign out before I got back here. OOPS.
All mike tinge posts are mine. will correct this now.
As or communion vs. faith in the Cross, taking communion is part of getting close to Christ, affirming that Death and Resurrection and the New Covenant that the Old Covenant looked forward to, and growing in Christ if we cooperate with that.
The wizard of Oz curtain in which MCE cloaked her "Resident Seer" has been drawn back to reveal none other than her live-in lover, little old Mike Tinge!
Lol
You are quite cunning and manipulative then, @ 12:25 AM.
So Mike Tinge cannot speak for himself? I get it. You do all the talking and thinking for him, too....
Do you have whips and chains over there to keep your upper hand...or maybe just amazon enough to keep him submissive??
What a sick and ungodly dynamic in your abode.
"New Covenant that the Old Covenant looked forward to"
Using my biblical knowledge and understanding to help explain yourself aren't you? Why don't you get your own understanding from the Holy Spirit like I did, instead of parroting mine?
Have seen you do this before a number of times.
You are very manipulative, very weird and scarily so..."Mike Tinge"...
anon 10:43
I don't parrot you that statement is a standard one throughout protestant bible exposition and some RC and EO.
I am not manipulative I am a slob and if I were manipulative I wouldn't have apologized for the error in fact I would have created a bunch of identities and thrown in anon or two.
and as for those who think they "expose" me no you don't to expose you gotta drag in stuff you found elsewhere and go aha, this is what she is up to elsewhere what you did is use the ammunition I supplied here, and denounced it. And you did so manipulatively and deceptively, falsely accusing me despite how many times I showed what deconstructing New AGe and set breaking adds up to.
Not so fast. You are working the innocence angle as badly as you post.
You manipulate subjects here very often----using your name, or in this case your accidental freudian slip ;) .
Has the same effect.
You use others words to continue to work the topics to what you think is your advantage. The truth doesn't get in your way!
You parrot the internet and whomever.
anon 11:47
you must be very delusional to think that anyone yourself included does not work from things they already know yourself included. as for using others words I put quotes where it is a quote or refer and it is called STAYING ON TOPIC. I would kick you off because of your arrogance and rudeness if this were my blog regardless of your position on things. I think everything you do is to your advantage, and that you are dishonest and you accuse others of what is true of yourself. Remember what Jesus said about getting the log out of your own eye before you try to correct someone else.
Blogger Mike Tinge said... okay gang, this is Christine Erikson
I must apologize to all the Anonymous as there is more than one Christine.
So Christine, who is this Mike Tinge if he is not you, but yet he is you?
What does the Amy Tinge have to say about this?
Dan, here's what happened. Mike had decided to renew the AVG tune Up program which makes computers run better. So he told me (that's HE TOLD ME, all you who are reading) to log into his gmail account, and get the key and hit the download link and install it on my computer. okay so I did that. then a bunch of other things happened, including Mike yelling at me about how long it was taking to install or something and I bumbled over to landoverbaptistchurch.org to find out about what the yahoo link about demons in your colon was about and had a real good laugh. Various distractions later I was posting as usual not looking at my sig line since it is automatic so I don't have to check spelling.
At some point I noticed the wrong name on my posts and apologized. the rest is history.
Blogger or BlogSpot is a google product, once you are logged into google from any of its products you are logged in period as whoever you logged in by. I don't check my gmail much so didn't think to log out with all the distractions here.
"I don't parrot you that statement is a standard one throughout"
That is just one of the problems I have with your posts. You have set up your own standard rather than factually actually adhere to what scripture itself says in word, theme, and in progressive unfolding, front to back. You work both ends against the middle in your arguments and long lectures to maintain your religious leanings (that are all over the map as you disclosed earlier in this thread, so it is no wonder that you get tripped up in instances such as this, (whoever you think you are and what you supposedly "believe" at this moment of life).
at 12:14 PM: You continue to be the distraction here.
Demons in your gut would be distracting.
anon 12:20
the reason it is a standard phrase or concept however phrased is because it is biblical and people for the past almost 2,000 years have been reading the bible and thinking in its categories. you didn't just start doing that out of all the generations of Christians who were apparently heathens that didn't get it right because they aren't you, and bible reading and application didn't start with the Reformation.
I didn't say I did. It is you who is all over the map about what the standards in Scripture are. The very point I'm making.
Just a thought:
Every time I read these words in the Bible about how He said this is my body and this is my blood,
_I am reading. I am reading the words out of a particular book. The words on the page go into my
eyes and into my brain and, in the case of these words, they go into my soul and spirit.
I ingest the words and I digest the words, and the words nourish me.
The words of the Bible are Christ Himself, the Word of God, who is also the bread of life and the image of the
invisible God. These words and these words alone are the words of life.
No other food is like that.
You are what you eat.
Viva Sola Sciptura.
Scriptura
anon 12:34
I m not all over the map on the contrary it is the Bible that is all over your map because you think in rigid categories that are artificial constructs only partly biblical. I've been following and digesting the Bible for years. one of the first things I noticed when I first turned permanently to Christ (aka got saved), is that the list of various protestant denominations I read showed that they ALL had deviations from the Bible as much as RC had which is why I never joined any church just attended where Jesus was the focus not denominational distinctives, until I found EO. And I hadn't read the Bible straight through yet by then either, just a quick check showed me.
And every time I hear the Gospel of Jesus Christ being preached by a true
Bible believing servant of God, I drink the words in and I drink deeply and
the words flow in through my brain and into my belly. Then,
for a while, I'm full and need to process it all and digest it and take it up
into my bloodstream, where it heals me and changes me.
It seems to me that there are three ways to eat; the mouth, the eyes and
the ears.
If someone reads the Bible every day, that would be a daily sacrifice.
If someone praises and thanks God every day, that would be a daily
sacrifice.
Thank you Paul @ 12:40 and 12:59 PM for saying exactly what I understand and know is right and true personally. My heart and mind "chew up" and "swallow" the truths found only in the Word of God (for it is the only purely true thing available to us) so into my inner man, my core, is the healing stream of Words that the Holy Spirit Alone knows how to administer to me. To show me how to work this out in real time in real ways. All else falls short, but not the Holy Word of God that makes up in those entire 66 books.
That is why Christine Erikson's high-mindedness, (in the multitude of words there lacketh not sin-error), and many times absolute flippancy with it, is distasteful to me.
I have read the Bible for 40 years and wake up to be greeted by the Lord from within it's pages nearly every single day and pray much of it back to Him as praises and thanks with requests to see His direction from it. Book by book, chapter by chapter, verse by verse. No other way to start a day in my thinking.
There is no good thing within me (Romans 7)--but God's Word hidden in my heart that I might not sin against Him (and others), is the only good thing going for me and the work is still going on. How thankful I am for that.
Viva Sola Scriptura, Amen.
Marko, 9:02 PM
Re:When Susanna said above that she would not presume to speak for Protestants, I realized that I may have been presuming to speak for Catholics, as I tried to represent or defend some Catholic views in areas where I think they do not contradict the Word of God. My apologies to those Catholics here who took my comments as being presumptuous.
There was absolutely nothing that you said that I would have taken as being presumptuous. What you said was well said!
Blogger Mike Tinge 9:48 PM...
RE: I don't think that is official Catholic doctrine anyway, it is not His Body and Blood that are sacrificed but the bread and wine which God then turns into His Body and Blood.
You have it partly right.
The Mass is first and foremost, a sacrifice of praise (adoration) and thanksgiving. No less than He did on Calvary, in the Mass Jesus continues to offer Himself to the heavenly Father. Since the highest form of honor to God is sacrifice, the Mass is a continuation of Christ's sacrifice of praise and gratitude to God the Father.
But, whereas on Calvary, this sacrificial adoration was bloody, causing Christ's physical death by crucifixion, in the Mass the same Jesus is now sacrificing Himself in an unbloody manner because he is now glorified, immortal, and incapable of suffering or dying in His own physical person.
Why is the Mass a true sacrifice? Because in the Mass the same Jesus Christ who offered Himself on Calvary in a bloody manner now offers Himself on the altar in an unbloody manner.
The Victim is the same, namely the Savior in His human nature, with His true Body and Blood, and His human free will. Only the manner of offering is different. On the Cross, the sacrifice was bloody; in the Mass it is unbloody because Christ is now in His glorified state. But the heart of sacrifice is the voluntary, total offering of oneself to God. Christ makes this voluntary offering in every Mass, signified by the separate consecration of the bread and wine into the Body and Blood of the Redeemer.
Dan Bryan 9:59 P.M.
Re: "The first question for the anonymous is why did Jesus say he would not drink wine, if in fact he had not considered the first wine/Eucharist not to be in-fact his actual blood?"
The first Eucharist was in fact Christ's actual body and blood under the form of bread and wine because Jesus the High Priest consecrated the bread and wine in the same unbloody manner that it is sacramentally consecrated today in the Roman and Orthodox Catholic communions. Jesus was able to do this because He is not only truly man, He is truly God.
At that time, the bread and wine were changed into the Body and Blood of Christ by Christ Himself. Although the bread and wine still appeared to be bread and wine, they were, by divine power, actually changed into His Body and Blood.
How can we know this?
It requires faith. It is a mystery which, like love, we will never fully understand in this life.
**********************************************************************************
Re: 2nd for me, is that God would not countermand his own explicit laws of not eating/drinking blood, as God is not a God of confusion (Babylon).
Indeed, Leviticus 17:14 seems to categorically prohibit the eating of flesh with the blood or the drinking of the blood of any creature:
And it might apply if the Eucharist involved the drinking of blood under the FORM of blood. But it does not.
In the Eucharist, we eat the flesh and drink the blood of Jesus Christ under the FORMS of bread and wine. No flesh is consumed in the form of flesh (i.e., true flesh and blood is eaten, but not in a carnal sense).
*********************************************************************************
Re: 3rd it is a matter of faith that one believes it is the blood and flesh of Jesus.
http://newsthump.com/2013/03/03/vatican-reeling-as-dna-tests-show-communion-wafers-contain-0-christ/
That is correct. It is ultimately a matter of faith based on divine revelation.
And faith is not demonstrable knowledge...that is, not something that can be scientifically proven. DNA testing of a consecrated host will not reveal flesh and blood in the FORM of flesh and blood. It will reveal the consecrated host to be bread and wine.
Dear 8:44 PM.
That is complicated what you are explaining.
Isn't it a whole lot easier, just better, to simply take Jesus at his word and take the bread and the cup of communion and regard it as just the wonderfully symbolic remembrance of HIM that he spoke of? Something as simple as a piece of bread to eat and a cup to drink like we do when we gather after the funeral of a loved one to eat and share our memories? What a precious time that is with that comfort in the remembering. Jesus did not lay heavy burdens upon his disciples. He did not give them tortured answers. That is what the Pharisees were known for. He let them know what he thought of their many hoops for people to jump through to get to God. He said simple things such as 'come to ME'...'remember ME', so in all the explaining from you and others it all seems to lose focus the more you talk it and work it. Sorry, but taking the things of God and turning them wrong side out until the whole thing becomes complicated brings distortion to it-just trying to hard and like trying to fix what isn't even broken. (some people "fix" things till they are broken!) Jesus was so wonderful, approachable and humble, children flocked to him. The childlike in heart and mind still do, because they just want to be near Jesus.
8:44
"to simply take Jesus at his word and take the bread and the cup of communion and regard it as just the wonderfully symbolic remembrance of HIM that he spoke of? "
but He DID NOT SAY that the bread and wine were a wonderfully symbolic remembrance of Him, He said THIS IS MY BODY and THIS IS MY BLOOD and DO THIS IN REMEMBRANCE OF ME
The ceremony is to be done in remembrance of Him. He didn't say This is the remembrance He said do this action of taking the bread and wine having recited these statements over them (He took the bread and wine and said things then said to DO THIS what He had just done and said in remembrance of Him, that would also rule out doing it in remembrance of anyone else or claiming the bread and wine were one's own body and blood in some heretical guru leader personality cult).
as for symbol, we use the term to mean an empty sign which signifies points to something that itself is not but merely describes it. This is not what Greek symbolon is about.
The Symbolon does not merely represent but EMBODIES what it refers to. That is why the Creed is called "the Symbol of the Faith" it IS the faith it EMBODIES the faith.
It seemed puzzling to me to call it that, because it was not an image which a symbol usually is but words written out or recited. Until I read about this meaning of symbol, that it is the thing it refers to to some extent.
The bread and wine, once consecrated, are embodying the Body and Blood of Christ, much more so than merely referring to these.
The change is not made so much by the power of the priest as by the power of God. In EO we kept the epiclesis the invocation to The Holy Spirit to make the transformation, after the words of institution in RC the notion of priest as icon of Christ got much stronger and concomitantly the concept of cause shifted from direct divine intervention to the action of the priest using power received at his ordination. This is why the Mass changed to have no epiclesis except a half hearted whatnot asking God to bless the bread and wine that it might become the Body and Blood of Christ, but apparently given Eucharistic miracles after the schism this does happen, whether directly or through the priest, but those miracles are not as extreme as the pre schism Lanciano Miracle.
"but He DID NOT SAY that the bread and wine were a wonderfully symbolic remembrance of Him, He said THIS IS MY BODY and THIS IS MY BLOOD"
Yet he also said that he was a door (John 10:9) and a shepherd (10:11) despite never having kept sheep in a field. This raises the question of how materially he meant these words.
Jews were strictly forbidden to eat blood (Leviticus 3:17), so he cannot have meant it at the Last Supper, which set the pattern. This prohibition was extended to Christians in Acts 15.
St Paul's warning about the dire consequences of taking Communion lightly show that it is an act which extends into the supernatural, a sacrament: let there be no doubt about that. But do the supernatural aspects reside in changes to the elements (bread and wine), or in the act of a person taking Communion? If this is a miracle involving the elements, it is the opposite of every other miracle in scripture - events in which your senses tell you that something extraordinary has been done. The Catholic church calls the asserted change ‘transubstantiation,’ by which it means that the ‘substance’ of the bread and the wine has changed, although the ‘accidents’ of its appearance (its physics and biochemistry) have not. The notions of substance and accident were first made explicit by ancient Greek philosophers and can be illustrated by an example: a pen is a writing implement which conveys ink to a nib; that is the ‘substance’ of what a pen is. Its brand, its color, its length are ‘accidents’ of any particular pen. But the physics and biochemistry, its smell, color and taste, are not accidents, for something that did not smell or taste like human blood, or which was not red, would not even be called ‘blood’. So they are clearly of its substance. And these do not change during Catholic Mass. I therefore do not believe in transubstantiation. It is true that we can be fooled by illusions or by our sinful nature, but we still see the world in the same way as its Creator does, because we are in his image.
Moreover Christ said that we were to do this every time a meal involving bread and red wine was held among Christians (1 Cor 11:25), so he did not mean to restrict it to occasions on which an ordained priest is present - yet they are supposedly the only people who can call for transubstantiation.
The medieval Catholic philosophers who formalised the notion of transubstantiation on an Aristotelian basis ardently denied the notion of atomism, which they regarded as fatal to their doctrine; see, for example, Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologiae, III, Q.75. Atomism is the notion that matter is not indefinitely indivisible and is universally accepted today as a discovery of science. Catholics still hold to transubstantiation even though Aquinas' arguments can now be used against it.
Let protestants continue to hold their Communions open to Catholics, and hope that Catholics will give genuine response to these arguments. We all worship Jesus Christ, crucified died and risen, God the Son.
anon 4:13
""but He DID NOT SAY that the bread and wine were a wonderfully symbolic remembrance of Him, He said THIS IS MY BODY and THIS IS MY BLOOD"
Yet he also said that he was a door (John 10:9) and a shepherd (10:11) despite never having kept sheep in a field. This raises the question of how materially he meant these words."
HE SAID THESE IN A DIFFERENT CONTEXT THAN THE LAST SUPPER, AND IN THESE EXAMPLES SPOKE OF HIMSELF WHO IS OBVIOUSLY NOT A DOOR PHYSICALLY, ETC., BUT IN THE LAST SUPPER HE INSTEAD OF SAYING "I AM THE BREAD OF LIFE" SAID THAT THE BREAD WAS HIS BODY.
"Jews were strictly forbidden to eat blood (Leviticus 3:17), so he cannot have meant it at the Last Supper, which set the pattern. This prohibition was extended to Christians in Acts 15."
I HAVE ALREADY ADDRESSED THIS. ALWAYS THE CONTEXT OF THE RULE IS THE BLOOD OF THE DEAD NOT THE BLOOD OF THE LIVING.
"St Paul's warning about the dire consequences of taking Communion lightly show that it is an act which extends into the supernatural, a sacrament: let there be no doubt about that. But do the supernatural aspects reside in changes to the elements (bread and wine), or in the act of a person taking Communion?"
ST. PAUL'S WARNINGS RELATE TO PERCEIVING OR NOT PERCEIVING THE BODY OF THE LORD.
IF THERE IS NO CHANGE THEN HOW IS PERCEIVING THE BODY OF THE LORD ANYTHIHNG BUT DELUSION?
transubstantiation is an attempt to rationally comprehend what the Orthodox call a Mystery and "transformation" and do not attempt to comprehend it. The transubstantiation thing is not merely the transformation, but a rationale of how this is physically rationally possible, when at what point how why the change occurs.
Roman Catholic scholasticism is the parent of rationalism and grandparent of enlightenment atheism. the errors of Protestantism also come from this.
TRANSUBSTANTIATION IN THE SENSE OF TRANSFORMATION WAS NOT DEVELOPED BY MEDIEVAL RC, IT WAS THERE ALL ALONG AND MENTIONED BY ST. IGNATIUS OF ANTIOCH, WHOSE LIFE SPAN OVERLAPPED THAT OF THE APOSTLE JOHN, MAKING THE CLAIM HE WAS TAUGHT BY HIM CREDIBLE.
transubstantiation in the scholastic sense outlined above, an effort to reduce divine mystery to finite comprehendibility of course was a western phenomenon.
now, it is very unlikely that the bread and wine of the protestants who deny this do in fact change. there is no request to God to make it happen nor belief it occurs.
Christine, this is 4.13pm. There is no need to capitalize entire sentences. You do not feel more strongly than everybody else about these things.
The Masai tribe in Africa drink blood that they have tapped off cattle. This practice is probably as old as the prohibition on ingesting blood in Leviticus. Do you consider that this is acceptable practice? Surely if God regarded it as OK then he would have explained the exception? Certainly it isn't wholesome in our culture: only human vampires do it.
To see the body of Christ on earth today, look rather at the church (Colossians 1:24, 1 Corinthians 12, Ephesians 4:11-12). That, in context, is the meaning of 1 Cor 11:29 about rightly ‘discerning the body’; notice that there is no analogous statement about ‘recognising the blood.’
Please address my point that the smell, color and taste, are not 'accidents' (in the philosophical sense of 'substance' or 'accident'), for something that did not smell or taste like human blood, or which was not red, would not even be called blood. These things are of the substance of blood rather than accidents, and that is why I reject transubstantiation.
I meant 4.13am, not pm!
anon 6:03
caps are to draw attention to content that is easily skimmed in regular text. it is very hard to work up italics.
I know of the Masai. Yes, this would be an acceptable practice, and there is no reason Leviticus should have mentioned it, because ALL reference to blood is in context of food animals, which are usually DEAD. The blood is the life and is to be poured out to God, we don't get to view the entire animal as unlimitedly ours each kill would in theory be a blood sacrifice to God, though the freedom to do this as such officially had to be curtailed to a priesthood because false gods and demons were being sacrificed to and fed.
Which reminds me of the vampire issue - God said somewhere He would starve the "gods." which He did. over time, the practice of blood sacrifice lessened, and nowdays is more limited geographically than in the days of Israel. He said He did not have need of bulls and goats if He were hungry He would tell no one because all the cattle on a thousand hills are His. WHAT DO YOU THINK HE WAS COUNTERACTING TO?
If it was a mere fantasy that the demons in the idols or connected to them or drawn by the sacrifices were not being fed in some paranormal way, would God not have told them that? But He didn't. The problem is both apostasy, and secondarily the feeding of entities. in Deuteronomy or Leviticus we are told not to make cuttings on ourselves for the dead. some funeral customs involved self slashing. While this may look like mere extreme grief, it would also fit earlier notions of feeding the dead - which gets them into a real bad habit.
Back to the issue at hand. From Noah to Moses to Acts chapter 15, the issue was blood from the DEAD not from the living. the Masai behavior developed during a
time of lack of water I think. It is localized there, not something you see most places I think I only read of this being there. There was no reason to address the issue to the Hebrews since they wouldn't be there, and the custom hadn't developed yet anyway.
Again, the whole focus was style of killing. that some blood be lost. (you can't get every trace out so that's not the issue.) Where no death occurs, the animal's
life essence isn't being lost entirely and some going with the extracted blood is not the same as all of it gone from the animals except what is still in the blood.
Different situation. I think a lot of the problem of Bible understanding comes from the chapter and verse thing, giving an illusion of fragmentation where there properly is none. it is a coherent whole. some things are standalone statements or issues, others are context driven.
I have heard that remark about discerning the body means the mystical body of Christ, the Church, but it also called a vine, a building, a bride, and Jesus didn't even hint at such a thing when doing the first Eucharist.
smell color and taste ARE "accidents" or incidentals. an accident is not substance, which transubstantiation and transformation doctrine say has changed.
If Paul was talking about the body in the sense he does in those other places, he would not have done so prefacing it with the words of institution. This starts with the agape meal, but ends with the Eucharist as Jesus did at the Last Supper. Paul doesn't need to reference the Blood as well as the Body to make the point, the whole context is Eucharist and therefore if he were going to talk about being one body he would have used this perceiving the Body phrase earlier in talking about misconduct at the preceding meal.
a good example of accidents being changed is "white gold" in this by adding another substance to the gold. there is nothing supernatural here of course. and of something being a totally different substance, but the same accidents, various synthetic perfumes copies of real essences but without a trace of them.
Christine,
When in doubt just double down with the sheer volume of words.
Which reminds me of vampires...
Oh and "_God said somewhere that he would starve the yada yada yada"
Where did he say that Christine? Nowhere? Yes nowhere, ah, okey.
The thing to do with a mystery of God is guess, or just invent stuff
out your butt and dress it all up with words words words, convoluted
and swirling around; endless words, pointless in an enormously pointless
voyage to Confusionland and then your work is done, right Ms Babble?
This is so rich:
"The change is not made so much by the power of the priest as by the power of God. In EO we kept the epiclesis the invocation to The Holy Spirit to make the transformation, after the words of institution in RC the notion of priest as icon of Christ got much stronger and concomitantly the concept of cause shifted from direct divine intervention to the action of the priest using power received at his ordination. This is why the Mass changed to have no epiclesis except a half hearted whatnot asking God to bless the bread and wine that it might become the Body and Blood of Christ, but apparently given Eucharistic miracles after the schism this does happen, whether directly or through the priest, but those miracles are not as extreme as the pre schism Lanciano Miracle.
" a half hearted whatnot.." wow.
You are a JAMMER on the blog and that's all you are.
Christine Katzn Jammer.
Jamming isn't just an unrehearsed bit of music by off duty musicians,
it's a well thought out technique to undermine and confuse any
issue on any blog site. In legal parlance it's called Obfuscation
and I'm kind of surprised that Constance doesn't permanently
shut you off.
"smell color and taste ARE "accidents" or incidentals. an accident is not substance"
Not so, Christine. Something that doesn't smell, look and taste like blood simply isn't called blood; people call it something else. And whatever is part of the definition of a thing is part of its substance, not accidental. (Accidents of blood are whether it is congealed or still running, what species of animal it is from, what concentration of red cells it has, etc.) Ergo no transubstantiation.
I go on the air in 10 minutes now and will be continuing my discussion from last week that many of you found signficant. Join us at TMERadio.com.
Constance
Constance won't shut off the Pharisees, she loves them.
It's believers she has a cold heart toward.
More examples of why Ms. Erikson's "business" here is so distasteful. It equals monkey business, with a ton of busy yelling words making points going nowhere. She is either shooting blanks or flat misses the target!!!! The bible calls it again........In the multitude of words there lacketh not sin. She is sinning right and left and so proud she does not recognize how badly she misrepresents the Lord. She leads away from Christ rather than point right to Him.
Shame, shame.
It is MCE speaking with that big mouth full of marbles syndrome, again.
Yeah, it's rich ;) --- don't we all know how blessed we are that she frequents here?
She's even impetulent enough to use the account of that old 'ex?' Satanist, her live in lover and Clairvoyant Mike Cringe, or whatever it is...
Seems MCE's got a real old hareem going on down there at 128... with hillbilly Narco -Rick, (was he thrown off that there trailer park by folks concerned for their families?), Mike (who is Amy?) who has spent his years conjuring up devils and still dabbles in scrying the fortunes of the future (resident seer ((unlike MCE, I refuse to capitalize this vile nom de plume for her live in legion)), etc)!
Anonymous 9:42 P.M. said:
"Isn't it a whole lot easier, just better, to simply take Jesus at his word and take the bread and the cup of communion and regard it as just the wonderfully symbolic remembrance of HIM that he spoke of?"
*****************************
"Easier" and "better" than what?
This is exactly what Roman Catholic and Orthodox Catholic Christians do.....take Jesus at His word....as did the Apostles who chose to remain with Jesus even after hearing what they regarded as a "hard teaching".....
Jesus said what He said and a whole lot of Scripture has to be "amended" or glossed over in order to make it appear that Jesus didn't LITERALLY mean what he said about eating His flesh and drinking His blood.
We cannot separate the "remembrance" part of the Eucharistic teaching from WHAT is actually being remembered. Not only remembered, but also BEING MADE PRESENT....Christ's Sacrifice on Calvary.
St. Luke quotes the same words of our Savior (Luke 22: 19) in his account of the Last Supper. The Greek word used for remembrance, in both passages is anamnesis, which includes not only the English meaning of the word (i.e., to recall or remember) but also implies that the THING to be “remembered” is “an otherworldly reality that is MADE PRESENT to the one ‘remembering.’”
Thus when Jesus says “Do this in remembrance of me,” he is asking for more than mere recall, but rather re-presentation and continuation in an unbloody manner with the assurance that He will be with them just as he was with the Apostles at the Last Supper in the transformed sacrificial bread and wine. Paul instructs us:
This means that whoever eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord unworthily sins against the body and the blood of the Lord. A man should examine himself first; only then should he eat of the bread and drink of the cup (1 Corinthians 11:28).
Clearly Paul is not talking about just a "memorial" of the Last Supper, because to underline the holiness of the Eucharist he adds (in the same solemn tone Jesus used to explain the Eucharist to the unbelieving disciples in the synagogue in John 6):
"He who eats and drinks without recognizing the body eats and drinks a judgment on himself" (1 Corinthians 11:29).
Paul is clear that the Eucharist requires Christian believers TO BELIEVE.
Moreover, when Paul tells them, “You cannot drink the cup of the Lord and the cup of demons” (1 Corinthians 10: 21), he is saying the union with one Lord in the Eucharist prohibits participation in the rituals of other gods (the cup of demons).
Again, before the Last Supper, Jesus had said to the disciples:
"Amen, amen I say unto you: Except you eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, you shall not have life in you." John 6:53
I don't think that negative judgement should be passed on non-Catholic Christians who do not agree with this teaching on the Eucharist/communion. But on the other hand, it is blatently false and grossly unfair for non-Catholics to claim that the Catholic teaching on the Eucharist is "un-Biblical."
It is not the Pope who "invented" the teaching on the Sacrament of the Holy Eucharist. It is Christ Himself who instituted this Sacrament as clearly recorded in the Bible. What we need to know about it can be found right in the Bible.
Not once has anything BUT the Bible been referred to by Catholics discussing the Eucharist here!
Anonymous 4:13 AM said
"But do the supernatural aspects reside in changes to the elements (bread and wine), or in the act of a person taking Communion?"
Catholics believe that the supernatural aspects reside in miraculous CHANGES to the elements in such a way as to allow the changes to remain invisible and a matter of faith in Christ's word. We really don't need to refer to philosophy or physics in order to understand this. We simply need to refer to the Scriptures which do not say that the bread and wine ceased to appear to be anything other than bread and wine after Jesus said the words "This is my Body....." "This is my Blood" at the Last Supper.
************************************
Re: But the physics and biochemistry, its smell, color and taste, are not accidents, for something that did not smell or taste like human blood, or which was not red, would not even be called ‘blood’. So they are clearly of its substance. And these do not change during Catholic Mass.
This is exactly why Catholics believe it to be both a mystery and a miracle. We are talking about the RISEN LORD here......."bread from heaven."
****************************************************
Re: ........ so he did not mean to restrict it to occasions on which an ordained priest is present - yet they are supposedly the only people who can call for transubstantiation.
Prior to the Reformation, can you please cite instances in which the bread and wine were legitimately consecrated by someone who was not a Sacramentally ordained priest and not in the Apostolic succession? The faculties of a Sacramentally ordained priest by which he is allowed to administer the Sacraments are delegated to him by his bishop who is in the Apostolic Succession.
***************************************
Re: The medieval Catholic philosophers who formalised the notion of transubstantiation on an Aristotelian basis ardently denied the notion of atomism, which they regarded as fatal to their doctrine;
It was Wycliff who seems to have employed his conception of spatio-temporal indivisibles in arguing that the traditional doctrine of transubstantiation was, as normally held, impossible, arguing that the indivisibility of temporal units, as well as the eternality of divine knowledge, made the annihilation of created substance impossible.
The traditional Judeo-Christian teaching is that God created "ex nihilo." So if it is possible for God to "exnihilate" ( bring forth from nothing ) so it is likewise possible for God to annihilate substances that he Himself created. But it is important to understand that only God can do this by way of a SUPERNATURAL act because in the natural order of things, the natural law is that "matter can neither be created nor destroyed."
This is why transubstantiation echoes creation.
Also, theoretically, all matter is homogeneous, or in the scholastic sense, all elements can be changed into one another. Even if that were to turn out to be the case, transubstantiation is the MIRACULOUS change of the bread and wine into the body and blood of the RISEN LORD whose body is differently related to space and time.......similar to the way in which the bodies of the saved will be differently related to space and time at the Resurrection.
The risen body will no longer be subject to constant change, e.g. of growth or aging, as in this life. While the risen body will be the same body as we have now, it will be brought back in a vastly changed condition. The bodies of all (the elect and the damned) will be INCORRUPTIBLE, i.e. no longer subject to death and corruption as they are now. The soul was created immortal; after the general resurrection the body too will be immortal to the joy of the elect and the anguish of the condemned.
The "Resurrection of the Body" is a matter of faith....and is included in both the Bible and the Creeds.
Dear 11:16 AM
I say this: May God bless you with His discernment and peace just as I, myself, want to be blessed..
You do what you do and for your reasons, ok then...and...I will simply go to Jesus everyday (that does not even have to have bread or a cup each time) but only my communion with Him in prayer and supplication and thanksgiving, with His Word on my lap to teach me His will and His ways--and every so often make it a special point to remember HIM by way of those sweet elements (not sacraments because JESUS is The Sacrament) taken up in the company of others with like mind and heart to honor the Lord to the edification of myself and those other saints. And yes, I said saints---have already become one because in oneness with Him (as He said in John 17), Jesus has made me His own beloved by his broken Body and spilt Blood in my behalf, for I repented before His cross (decades ago) to give Him my heart, soul, mind, and strength for His use in this earthy trek I am on. I was washed clean in the Blood of the Lamb and saved and sealed with His Spirit, with a work of His still going on within me, that includes more repenting so I can lay aside every weight and follow Him more closely.
You answer to God like I do, so enjoy your faith. I certainly do!
One more thing:
Theologically and philosophically, what we understand as "nothing"
is "pure potentiality."
Theologically, God....He Who IS.... is Pure Actuality.
Creatures who "become" are both actual and potential.
Pure potentiality - a.k.a. "nothing" is "that to which God can give being but does not."
Actually, this is the best reply to the radical cosmic dualism of certain Gnostics who postulate the existence of "two gods"......a "good god" and a "bad god."
Anonymous 12:16 P.M.
If this is your sincere belief then even though we might disagree on the Sacrament of the Holy Eucharist, we still agree that our salvation is to be found ONLY in Jesus Christ who is truly God and truly Man.
May God bless you as well with His discernment and His peace! I myself have been richly blessed and am deeply grateful to God for all His blessings. His will is my peace.
Anonymous 4:13 AM said
Let protestants continue to hold their Communions open to Catholics, and hope that Catholics will give genuine response to these arguments. We all worship Jesus Christ, crucified died and risen, God the Son.
***********************
Thank you and well said.
But just to clarify.....the Roman Catholic and Orthodox Catholic prohibition of intercommunion except under certain extraordinary conditions is not because we begrudge Protestants a seat at our communion table.
It is because we would be giving a FALSE SIGN (pretending to agree where we disagree) if we were to allow intercommunion. It would be precisely an instance of the kind of false ecumenism everyone so often complains about here on this blog.
Better for Christians of various denominations to agree to cooperate together for the sake of those Christian truths which they do agree on in hopes that the Holy Spirit will one day bring about a true "Reunion of Christendom."
"Oh and "_God said somewhere that he would starve the yada yada yada"
Where did he say that Christine? Nowhere? Yes nowhere"
Zephaniah 2:11 "The LORD will be terrible unto them: for he will famish all the gods of the earth; and men shall worship him, every one from his place, even all the isles of the heathen" (famish = starve)
amon 9:43
"Something that doesn't smell, look and taste like blood simply isn't called blood; people call it something else. And whatever is part of the definition of a thing is part of its substance, not accidental. (Accidents of blood are whether it is congealed or still running, what species of animal it is from, what concentration of red cells it has, etc.) Ergo no transubstantiation."
wrong. that is not how the term is used (and what it is called, what people call it,
isn't the issue.)
"Aristotle made a distinction between the essential and accidental properties of a thing. For example, a chair can be made of wood or metal, but this is accidental to its being a chair: that is, it is still a chair regardless of the material from which it is made.[2] To put this in technical terms, an accident is a property which has no necessary connection to the essence of the thing being described.[3][4][5]...The nine kinds of accidents according to Aristotle are quantity, quality, relation, habitus, time, location, situation (or position), action, and passion ("being acted on"). Together with "substance", these nine kinds of accidents constitute the ten fundamental categories of Aristotle's ontology.[6]
Catholic theologians such as Thomas Aquinas have employed the Aristotelian concepts of substance and accident in articulating the theology of the Eucharist, particularly the transubstantiation of bread and wine into body and blood. According to this tradition, the accidents of the appearance of bread and wine do not change, but the substance changes from bread and wine to the Body and Blood of Christ." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Accident_(philosophy)
Christine,
I have never once seen you unconditionally apologize here to those you have offended, insulted and falsely accused, such as Paul, Rich in Medford, Physicist, Constance, Dorothy, and many others.
Why don't you take this opportunity to clean your reputation here and repent? Why not unequivocally apologize to those you have wronged here, renounce your false beliefs in chakras, psychic vampires, Cities on Mars, illuminating ether jello, and denounce and reject the antics of the resident seer which have blinded and bewitched you.
Christine speaks all yadayadayadayadayada......into infinity.
And none of it passes the smell test.
Does this blog have any duct tape handy?
"Moreover Christ said that we were to do this every time a meal involving bread and red wine was held among Christians (1 Cor 11:25), so he did not mean to restrict it to occasions on which an ordained priest is present - yet they are supposedly the only people who can call for transubstantiation."
Christ did not say " we were to do this every time a meal involving bread and red wine was held among Christians (1 Cor 11:25)" The context is a special meal, which was done AFTER the regular meal, since this institution was done AFTER they had eaten already at the Last Supper, and this issue is addressed by Paul AFTER he addresses the issue of hogging all at a potluck preceding the Eucharist. context, people, context.
either transubstantiation (total change of all substance leaving only the appearances that the physical means can see of bread and wine) or consubstantiation (bread and wine remain with Christ's Body and Blood added in so that it is now His Body and Blood like coffee is still coffee when you add cinnamon) was the teaching of the first generation of believers after the Apostles, so this must be the correct interpretation.
Ignatius was taught by the Apostle John and his lifetime overlapped that of John's making the claim credible. (AD 35 or 50 to AD 98 or 108)
Irenaeus was taught by Polycarp who was taught by John.
Justin Martyr was taught by an aged man who would have been old enough to have heard an Apostle or be taught by one taught by an Apostle.
two out of the Middle East and one out of Europe, teach that the bread and wine are the Body and Blood of Christ, Ignatius mentioning some heretics who will not participate in the Eucharist because they deny this transformation.
So this interpretation way precedes both the Roman Catholic Church as it is recognizable now and beginning to be c. AD 800, and way wayyy precedes Wycliffe and Calvin. (Luther kept this truth for a while but slacked off apparently later.)
A likely source for this Eucharistic heresy, is scholasticism run amok morphed into rationalism plus the underground influence of the bogomil heresy, which like the cathars/albigensianism their western most manifestation denied the goodness of the physical creation, ascribed that to a "bad god," and of course wouldn't buy it that God would operated through matter in the Eucharist. Assuming they even accepted that Christ was physical and not illusorily physical like docetist gnostic thought, but I don't recall if Bogomils though docetically.
"Seems MCE's got a real old hareem going on down there at 128... with hillbilly Narco -Rick, (was he thrown off that there trailer park by folks concerned for their families?), "
who is Narco-Rick? one of the people you got on the list at an address I was at from a company that tells you everyone who was ever at the address over several years? or ever got mail there even if not there (Amy Mike's daughter in Minnesota never been at the address but mail regarding her student loan was sent there because Mike was co signer Mike and I don't have sex so who cares if we live together and I won't discuss this any more.) where is 128 whatever street? the addresses I have had don't include that street address number.
It's high time you apologise, MCE
What a vile thing you have written at 128, MCE! It is too disgraceful to repeat...
You should be thoroughly ashamed of yourself. You need cleansing from your legions urgently!
Disgraceful! You should be ashamed of yourself!
anonymice 1:34 and 1:39,
God has delivered you into my hand. On one page, easy to check, you have engaged in false accusation of me as saying something vile. whatever it was, was deleted by me and what it was was denying I ever falsely accused anyone. that is not "vile." If I was going to write something "vile" I wouldn't have deleted it. and this is exactly the kind of FALSE ACCUSATION I have been subjected to for years, so I wouldn't until recently delete to rewrite if there was a spelling error or left something out because you I guess claimed I wrote obscenities when I had not but had deleted for a rewrite.
"I have never once seen you unconditionally apologize here to those you have offended, insulted and falsely accused, such as Paul, Rich in Medford, Physicist, Constance, Dorothy, and many others. "
I HAVE NEVER FALSELY ACCUSED ANYONE. I have made a couple of errors and apologized when I could see the error. I HAVE NEVER ACCUSED CONSTANCE OF ANYTHING, and disagreeing that the antichrist has to arise out of Europe ergo Solana can't be it (unless he relocated first) is not accusing her of anything.
"Why don't you take this opportunity to clean your reputation here and repent? Why not unequivocally apologize to those you have wronged here, renounce your false beliefs in chakras, psychic vampires, Cities on Mars, illuminating ether jello, and denounce and reject the antics of the resident seer which have blinded and bewitched you."
resident seer merely clarifies difference between reality and excess visual thinking run amok under stress. Some kinds of not quite visible presence are so extreme that there is no question as to whether it is real or imaginary or something sent to my mind without being personally present.
I have wronged no one here I have called out dishonesty, ignorance and willful twisting of words and slander. My contention that some things are not wrong merely because incorrect but in fact real and dangerous is not wronging you and is the same as many discernment sites AND WHAT ANYONE WHO CAME OUT OF THE OCCULT TO JESUS CHRIST WILL TELL YOU.
I have suspected for years that you who yell the loudest are a witch who is afraid people will identify and use your weak points against you or at least a new ager afraid his or her income will falter if people stop buying goods and/or services from you because someone here will cue them that new age views on chakras and energy work and auras are dead wrong and pragmatically bad for you. The typical fundamentalist Christian won't deal with you, but a lot of non Christians and semi Christians like the charismatics might think twice about dealing with you. That in turn would weaken or prevent contamination.
Everything you write is vile and contaminated with the doctrines of demons, Chritine!
Who are you trying to kid?
"you who yell the loudest"
When one throws a rock into a pack of dogs it is the one who gets hits that yells the loudest.
None louder than you, Mary Christine Erikson (aka Justina).
None.
Your victimhood does not play well to this crowd. You lay blame at the feet of anyone, everyone else....(even your deceased mom gets dragged from time to time into your constant frays)
But!.......Rich of Medford went to Constance about one specific person being too unpleasant and difficult for this blog, and why he did not want to post here, and stayed away for a long, long time.
That one specific person is you.
You win the prize!
Are ya happy now?
So you didn't falsely accuse Paul then, Chritine? You didn't pretend to offer apology which you immediately used as a springboard from which to launch into further false accusation against him?
Oh yes you did, you Sorcerer consulting New Age Heretic!
anon 3:14
as I said about paul IF I am wrong I apologize IF I AM NOT WRONG I DON'T APOLOGIZE and ONLY GOD AND PAUL THEREFORE KNOW IF PAUL IS APOLOGIZED TO.
personally it is my opinion he is a liar. the nasty tone, posting signature and the first attempt to change to capital p then giving up screams its paul from here. I posted the entire thing so others could draw their own conclusions.
BTW why do you leave the s out of Christine all the time? And Mike doesn't tell fortunes or prognosticate, just looks and sees what is in front of him unless it isn't there, and can feel out a situation over the phone. There is no fortune telling.
You are more than economical with the truth, Chritine!
You DID falsely accuse Paul, you have offended and insulted many others here too, including Constance, Dorothy, Rich in Medford, Physicist, and many many more!
What you wrote (and have since conveniently deleted) at 128 was vile and and a disgrace to even repeat here!
anon 3:27
you are a liar. I did not write anything vile at 1:28 and you know that. I posted at 1:28 a short statement WHICH IS IN THE 1:54 post then deleted to wait to post later after more rocks got thrown.
as for the rock throwing analogy, that merely shows the rock thrower is evil. not the dog who was hit. I really don't care about your opinions, since you have repeatedly disgraced yourself as have most anonymice and one or two named ones over the years. I do care about false information circulating, and about the effort to derail the attack on new age bait that would render it useless to the new age.
The latter pattern is why I think you are new age, and desperate to shut down information showing that the few things they can use to impress in fact DO NOT support their doctrines.
you are in the category of people who think that flat earth and heliocentrism are "doctrines" of God and round earth and geocentrism are doctrines of devils!
"BTW why do you leave the s out of Christine all the time?"
Consult your resident seer. He should be able to 'see' why.
http://dailycaller.com/2016/01/28/300-scientists-want-noaa-to-stop-hiding-its-global-warming-data/ and suggest it violated federal laws in altering data to obscure the 15 (more than that) year lack of warming increase.
"BTW why do you leave the s out of Christine all the time?"
Because there is nothing Christ-like about the way you treat people here, so it would be wrong to call you anything which you don't deserve because you are evidently a child of the Devil as is your scrying resident seer! Moreover, Chritine suits you far better, or better still, Cretine!
Even worse than how she treats people here, is how she treats the truth.
"...you are in the category of people who think that flat earth and heliocentrism are "doctrines" of God and round earth and geocentrism are doctrines of devils!"
You are falsely accusing me, Chritine!
I believe what the Holy Scriptures tell me, and they tell me the Earth is round (spherical).
If you had spent less time dabbling in the Bagavadgita, being bewitched by Mike the Scryer, entrenched in the man-made traditions of Constantinople and Rome, less time in here spreading your doctrines of devils and hateful vitriol, and actually read the Holy Scriptures as you pretend you do but obviously don't, then you would not have made such a vile false accusation!
In Isaiah 40:22, we learn: "God sits above the circle of the Earth..."
You are an accuser of the brethren and I rebuke you in Jesus ' Name!
I said you are in that CATEGORY whether you actually believe such nonsense or not is another matter. Given your propensity for false accusation I wouldn't be surprised if you do think the earth is a round flat object. Flat earthers argue from the Bible also, saying round doesn't mean globe, just flat like a plate.
you are the accuser of the brethren here, and defender of New Age claims that the oddities they exploit support the additional ideas they present. which they don't.
I rebuke you in Jesus Name.
Christine,
This is Anon@9.43am responding to your reply of 12.58pm. (NB I have not posted anything since 9.43am.) I wrote, "Something that doesn't smell, look and taste like blood simply isn't called blood; people call it something else. And whatever is part of the definition of a thing is part of its substance, not accidental... Ergo no transubstantiation."
You replied: "wrong. that is not how the term is used (and what it is called, what people call it, isn't the issue.) Aristotle made a distinction between the essential and accidental properties of a thing. For example...[chair example] The nine kinds of accidents according to Aristotle are..."
I understand the distinction between substance and accidents of something (and gave my own example involving a pen at 4.13am), and I respect Aristotle's intellect; but by pointing out that something wouldn't even be called blood if it didn't smell, taste and have the color of blood then I'm short-circuiting his categories of accident. This is a decisive argument that these things are of the substance of blood, not its accidents. If you disagree, please explain why. And since the small and taste of what is in the cup at Catholic Eucharist does not change at consecration, I do not believe in transubstantiation.
PS to 12.14pm: if you believe that the change is invisible then it is not a change to the substance of the wine, for the reason I've just stated. You may certainly hold that change occurs as a matter of faith BUT (1) it should not be called transubstantiation (ie change to the substance of the wine), and (2) it is a matter of concern that it is the opposite of every other miracle in scripture, all of which gobsmacked people by their visibility. This argument has nothing to do with Aquinas or Wyclif, by the way. You also asked: "Prior to the Reformation, can you please cite instances in which the bread and wine were legitimately consecrated by someone who was not a Sacramentally ordained priest and not in the Apostolic succession?" The point is that in 1 Cor 11:25 Christ instructs every meal at a (exclusively) Christian table involving bread and wine to be a Communion. To be obedient to his command, household meals would have to involve Communion, obviously at the beginning. And there couldn't be an ordained priest in every household every evening, could there?
All the extra organized religion stuff is torturous and a real turnoff.
And reading Cristine Erikson's posts works like knockout drops.
This blog is suffering the effects of too much religion...and way too much Cristine.
anon 5:54
"these things are of the substance of blood, not its accidents. If you disagree, please explain why"
two words: Hoxsey genes. the substance of a creature includes its DNA which is the main driver of its accidents. But there are other genes once thought "junk DNA" which control the expression of the genes. Under normal conditions, the controller genes are on, and the DNA at issue expresses. But if the gene is switched off, the particular gene is part of the creature's substance, but not part of its appearance or behavior, because the expression of the gene is prevented.
Here you would have an example of something that might totally not resemble what it is supposed to look like, though it has the genes for it.
Aristotle's categories are what the idea of "accidents" remaining but substance changing. So to deal with the doctrine you have to keep those definitions. In that case, the substance of bread and wine has been replaced with flesh and blood substance, but the appearance (incl. chemical testing) is that of bread and wine. this is not the same thing as the gene example but there's a loose enough similarity you can see what is at issue.
" Christ instructs every meal at a (exclusively) Christian table involving bread and wine to be a Communion. To be obedient to his command, household meals would have to involve Communion, obviously at the beginning. And there couldn't be an ordained priest in every household every evening, could there?"
are you part of the Viola Barna scene? there is a presupposition you are reading in, and changing Scripture to say what it does not say. and your presentation has the gentle quality that deceives so easily. soothing. er, no.
Christ addressed the Apostles in the context of a special meal, a Passover Seder. this is not a normal family meal.
To this was added the Eucharist. Since He rose on Sunday and He is our Passover, Jesus is the Lamb that takes away the sin of the world, it follows that the proper time for this, the ideal time to "do this in remembrance of Me" is on Sunday.
Likewise, Paul first addressed behavior at the common meal and THEN attitudes regarding the Eucharist so these are SEPARATE events on the same date and same time.
you are engaging in something like circular reasoning. presupposing what you would prove. Nowhere is there anything resembling a statement that all family meals have to have a Eucharist. To the Apostles He gave power and this to some extent was passed on to those they chose.
another point proving this, is that they would have ALREADY eaten bread and drunk wine during the initial meal, and AFTER that Jesus took bread and wine and designated them as His Body and Blood. Do this is about do this ceremony, not do all meals. This wasn't the meal this was a SEPARATE meal.
Christine, this is Anon@5.54pm. In 1 Corinthians 11:25 Christ is reported saying to the disciples "Do this every time you drink it, in remembrance of me." We have to discuss what "every time" means. We agree that it does not mean every time a believer drinks red wine. I say it means every time a meal includes bread and red wine at an exclusively Christian table. You say it is in the context of the Passover but you do not say it is to be restricted to an annual event among Christians in the springtime; you say it is at every deliberate re-enactment of the Passover. This is close to a circular argument: Communion is to be restricted to services of Holy Communion. Your view is at least as arbitrary as mine and simply to assert it without saying why your understanding of context is right and mine is wrong is illegitimate.
I'm sorry but I regard your response regarding substance and accident simply to be incoherent. I'll leave it there.
Viola and Barna spout certainties about how the early or rather earliest churches operated, and cite sources whose words they twist and they misrepresent them. A classic example is treating Dura-Europa house church as only a house despite it having been renovated to knock out walls and be a bigger meeting room. not a normal dwelling though the priest or president of the congregation of that town might have slept and kept Scriptures in the one small remaining separate room. Contra Pagan Christianity Countering the Pseudohistory of Frank Viola & George Barna Albert McIlhenny goes into many details.
I recall reading a reference (may be included in this book I don't recall) that after one of the persecutions stopped Christians could rebuild churches, which apparently had been built during the prior time of peace before that persecution and after the previous one. so much for no specially dedicated buildings for worship! The model of worship bequeathed to them had the earthly Temple and the heavenly temple Paul speaks of in Hebrews as its model. The earthly Temple was to in some way reproduce the heavenly.
"I say it means every time a meal includes bread and red wine at an exclusively Christian table. "
you say. but the context rules that out. Jesus and the Apostles had ALREADY eaten and drunk and THEN He took some remaining bread and wine and consecrated it. "THIS" that was to be drunk in a state of mind of remembering Him was that left over and consecrated wine.
NOTHING ABOUT THAT MEAL WAS A NORMAL MEAL. it was a PASSOVER SEDER. that in itself ruins your theory.
"every time you drink it" refers to the wine that has been consecrated, not to the previous wine, because if it means what you, not Scripture just you, say then Jesus would have said "this is My Body....this is My Blood" at the start, NOT AFTER they had already eaten and drunk. But He didn't.
Again that was not a normal meal. That was a Passover meal. A Religious ritual. not dinner time.
"you say it is at every deliberate re-enactment of the Passover"
there you go twisting things to fit your desired outcome. I DID NOT SAY ANYTHING RESEMBLING THAT.
That meal was PAssover. PAssover is not kept by Christians, each Sunday is a mini easter (for western minds and ears) or mini PAscha. We keep after the Jews' Passover our own Passover PAscha in Greek which is Jesus' Resurrection.
What I said was, that that meal NOT being a normal dinner but a ritual meal cannot be viewed as relevant to normal dinner. which means that whatever every time means, it doesn't relate to a normal meal that isn't a ritual.
Secondly, AFTER the meal had been eaten or partly eaten Mark 14:23 Matt. 26:26 "as they were eating," not BEFORE they started but AFTER they had already been eating and drinking was when He instituted the Eucharist.
Now, the Eucharist could be done at any time. But the most typical time would be on Sunday (or Saturday night if Sunday was tied up in work early, which is why Constantine had made Sunday work free to aid Christians to attend church in the morning. It has been argued he did this before the miraculous sign, but his mother was a Christian so if it is true this preceded his conversion it was likely the influence of his mother.)
Because Sunday is the day The Lord Jesus Christ rose.
So actual PAscha, and each Sunday, always a ritual context, but NOT a standard meal.
I dare you to tell me yet again it is a standard anytime Christian only present meal and worse yet that I had said that.
RITUAL is the context. Ritual of the Passover, and Acts and II Cor. mentions meeting on the first day of the week, the latter mention as a taken for granted standard thing.
Passover re enacted the conditions of escape from Egypt, eat it with shoes on, travelling clothes, bitter herbs and no leaven because there wasn't time then to leaven the bread. But there was only one time they left Egypt.
the Eucharist re enacts something about the Crucifixion and God provides the Lamb turning the bread and wine into that. But there was only one time Christ suffered and died.
all of this is ritual, pagans didn't invent ritual out of demonized fleshliness, they took pre existing things and warped them, added blasphemy and apostasy, and either eradicated or twisted out of recognizability almost various things. Thus the Trinity was viewed as triads of gods who were not unified and were not YHWH.
Anonymous 5:54 P.M said
"If you believe that the change is invisible then it is not a change to the substance of the wine, for the reason I've just stated. You may certainly hold that change occurs as a matter of faith BUT (1) it should not be called transubstantiation (ie change to the substance of the wine)"
I do not accept that it would not be a change to the substance of the wine (and bread)merely because the change is invisible. This might be valid in terms of the natural law, but not if Jesus transcends the natural law in such a way as to cause the change to occur invisibly....by way of a MIRACLE.
I believe that such a change does occur....miraculously....because Jesus said so. It is called transubstiantion because it is a miraculous invisible change in the SUBSTANCE of the bread and wine into the substance of the body and blood of our Lord but not its physical appearance. Scientific testing will show the consecrated bread and wine as still appearing to be bread and wine.
But then, transubstantiation is not properly a subject for scientific demonstration. It is a matter of faith....and faith is not demonstrable knowledge. As St. Paul said "We walk by faith and not by sight." 2 Corinthians 5:7
********************
Re: "It is a matter of concern that it is the opposite of every other miracle in scripture, all of which gobsmacked people by their visibility."
Transubstantiation is not intended to "gobsmack people" by its visibility. As a Sacrament, it is in a way a visible sign of invisible grace but the change itself takes place invisibly and is a matter of faith in the unequivocal words of Jesus at the Last Supper that the bread and wine are His body and blood.
cont.
cont..
Re: "The point is that in 1 Cor 11:25 Christ instructs every meal at a (exclusively) Christian table involving bread and wine to be a Communion. "
1 Cor. 11:25 isn't talking about "every meal at a ( exclusively ) Christian table." He was referring to the specific Sacramental meal instituted by Christ at the Last Supper as the replacement for the traditional Passover meal, where ONLY JESUS' APOSTLES were present.
According to the Catholic interpretation, it was at the Last Supper that Jesus also made his Apostles priests, by giving them the command (and with the command, the power) to do what he had just done. "Do this," he said, "in remembrance of Me" (Luke 22:20).
In Roman Catholicism, the ordained priesthood and the common priesthood (or priesthood of all the baptized faithful) are different in function and essence.
The Catholic Church teaches that when a man participates in the ordained priesthood by way of receiving the Sacrament of Holy Orders, he participates in the priesthood of Christ Himself and acts in persona Christi Capitis, in the person of Christ, the Head of His Body, the Church.
From Scripture we learn that the Apostles appointed others by an external rite (imposition of hands), conferring inward grace.
In the Acts of the Apostles we read of one of the first (if not the first) ordinations by the Apostles:
"And the plan met the approval of the whole multitude, and they chose Stephen, a man full of faith and of the Holy Spirit, and Philip and Prochorus and Nicanor and Timon and Parmenas and Nicholas, a proselyte from Antioch. These they set before the Apostles, and after they had prayed they laid their hands upon them."
(Acts 6:5-6)
It was as deacons that these men were ordained, not yet as priests. But it gives us the picture of the Apostles sharing, and passing on to others, the sacred power which Jesus had bestowed upon them.
As time went on, the Apostles consecrated more bishops to carry on their work. These bishops in turn ordained other bishops and priests, and these bishops in their turn, still others.
One notable way in which the sacrament of Holy Orders differs from the other sacraments is the fact that Holy Orders can be administered only by a bishop. Only a bishop, as successor to the Apostles, has the power to ordain priests. An ordinary priest cannot pass his power on to another. The bishop alone has the complete fullness of the priesthood, with the power to confirm and to ordain—to pass the power of the priesthood on to others in the sacrament of Holy Orders.
In any case, this is what Catholics believe about the priesthood and why they believe it.
Moreover, the Didache, written at the close of the first century, instructs the Church to “break bread” each Sunday, describes it as the sacrifice predicted in Malachi, and gives liturgical instructions on the prayers over the bread and wine.[ 124] So we now see this practice may well go back to the end of the Apostolic age if not earlier. Nor are they correct in placing the term “Eucharist” at that late period. It is used by the Didache, Ignatius of
Antioch, and Justin Martyr and the matter of fact way it is presented presumes it was a common term by then. This is not surprising given it is from the Greek of the New Testament account (The Greek term for “give thanks” is eucharista). Thus at almost every level, Viola and Barna get it wrong. Whatever the reason for the separation of the bread and cup from the general meal, there was never any indication that the other food was of any importance. Nor did any Christian of the first few centuries ever describe it as a mere gathering for a dinner in someone's home. Whatever Viola and Barna may have been describing, it was not the Lord's Supper.
McIlhenny, Albert (2015-08-09). Contra Pagan Christianity: Countering the Psuedohistory of Frank Viola & George Barna (A Christian Response to Jesus Mythicism Book 11) (Kindle Locations 1337-1346)
Lies + deception from NASA
Babylon Working:
Saturday, January 30, 2016 post
Parablesblog.blogspot.com
Christine 10:07 PM said,
"Whatever the reason for the separation of the bread and cup from the general meal, there was never any indication that the other food was of any importance. Nor did any Christian of the first few centuries ever describe it as a mere gathering for a dinner in someone's home."
Viola and Barna may have been describing what was known historically as the "agape feast" which was distinct from the Lord's Supper.
The Agape meal was separated from the Mass very early on, was eventually excluded from churches DUE TO ABUSES and died out between the sixth and eighth centuries.
Historically, they were funeral feasts celebrated in memory of the dead and were presided over by the bishop.
The Council of Laodicea (363) forbade the clergy and laity who should be present at an agape to make it a means of supply, or to take food away from it, at the same time that it forbade the setting up of tables in the churches. In the fifth century the agape becomes of infrequent occurrence, and between the sixth and the eighth it disappears altogether from the churches.
One thing that seems to have been established beyond question is that the agape was never a universal institution. If found in one place, there is not so much as a trace of it in another, nor any reason to suppose that it ever existed there.
********************
".....Among the Jews, averse by taste and reason to all foreign customs, we find what amounts to a funeral banquet, if not the rite itself; the Jewish colonies of the Dispersion, less impervious to surrounding influences, adopted the practice of fraternal banquets. If we study the texts relative to the Supper, the last solemn meal taken by Our Lord with His disciples, we shall find that it was the Passover Supper, with the changes wrought by time on the primitive ritual, since it took place in the evening, and the guests reclined at the table.
cont.
cont.
As the liturgical meal draws to a close, the Host introduces a new rite, and bids those present repeat it when He shall have ceased to be with them. This done, they sing the customary hymn and withdraw. Such is the meal that Our Lord would have renewed, but it is plain that He did not command the repetition of the Passover Supper during the year, since it could have no meaning except on the Feast itself.
Now the first chapters of the Acts of the Apostles state that the repast of the Breaking of Bread took place very often, perhaps daily. That which was repeated was, therefore, not the liturgical feast of the Jewish ritual, but the event introduced by Our Lord into this feast when, after the drinking of the fourth cup, He instituted the Breaking of Bread, the Eucharist. To what degree this new rite, repeated by the faithful, departed from the rite and formula of the Passover Supper, we have no means, at the present time, of determining. It is probable, however, that, in repeating the Eucharist, it was deemed fit to preserve certain portions of the Passover Supper, as much out of respect for what had taken place in the Coenaculum as from the impossibility of breaking roughly with the Jewish Passover rite, so intimately linked by the circumstances with the Eucharistic one.
This, at its origin, is clearly marked as funerary in its intention, a fact attested by the most ancient testimonies that have come down to us. Our Lord, in instituting the Eucharist, used these words: "As often as you shall eat this Bread and drink this chalice, you shall show forth the Lord's Death". Nothing could be clearer. Our Lord chose the means generally used in His time, namely: the funeral banquet, to bind together those who remained faithful to the memory of Him who had gone. We must, however, be on our guard against associating the thought of sadness with the Eucharistic Supper, regarded in this light. If the memory of the Master's Passion made the commemoration of these last hours in any measure sad, the glorious thought of the Resurrection gave this meeting of the brethren its joyous aspect. The Christian assembly was held in the evening, and was continued far into the night. The supper, preaching, common prayer, the breaking of bread, took up several hours; the meeting began on Saturday and ended on Sunday, thus passing from the commemoration of the sad hours to that of the triumphant moment of the Resurrection, and the Eucharistic feast in very truth "showed forth the Lord's Death", as it will "until He come". Our Lord's command was understood and obeyed........"
http://www.catholic.com/encyclopedia/agape-custom
P.S. Christine 10:07
AGAPE
Definition
The most distinctively Christian form of love. Used by Christ to describe the love among the persons of the Trinity, it is also the love he commanded his followers to have for one another (John 13:34-35). It is totally selfless love, which seeks not one' own advantage but only to benefit or share with another.
As a proper noun, Agape is the so-called love feast celebrated in the early Church (I Corinthians 11:20-22, 33-34). At first these were often joined with the Eucharistic liturgy but in time were separated from the Mass because of the disorder and scandal they provoked. Legislation against the Agape was passed by the Council of Carthage (397), and by the eighth century the practice disappeared. Since the Second Vatican Council a limited use of the Agape had been encouraged (Decree on the Apostolate of Lay People, 8). (Etym. Greek agap_, love.)
http://www.catholicculture.org/culture/library/dictionary/index.cfm?id=31698
Christine Erikson (aka Justina) said @ 1:26 PM ...
"Mike and I don't have sex so who cares if we live together and I won't discuss this any more.)”
Christina vs God’s Word:
Christina: “… who cares if we live together.”
God’s Word: “Abstain from all appearance of evil.” I Thessalonians 5:22
I’ve known many religious people like “Christina” that are VERY vocal (most unfortunate) about their religious convictions, but, their life proclaims a very different message. If it is one thing the world of unbelievers can spot in an instant is a religious hypocrite.
It is because of people like this that the cause of Christ is severely damaged.
New Age? What's that? Forget about what is happening to people dying because of what others say is God's word. Obviously God couldn't care less as long as someone gets the words right and passes it on, then someone gets the credit. God lives in some academic community I suppose, where I don't know. He has nothing to do with what goes on here on earth. More important is missionary work about pie in the sky and who gets credit and who is opposed. New Age, well that takes serious work to understand what is going on, and who has time for that when the Big Picture is interpreting God's words.
Dear 8.17pm,
You wrote: "I do not accept that it would not be a change to the substance of the wine (and bread)merely because the change is invisible... It is called transubstiantion because it is a miraculous invisible change in the SUBSTANCE of the bread and wine into the substance of the body and blood of our Lord but not its physical appearance."
But its physical appearance is part of its substantial aspect, not its accidental aspects. That is proven by the fact that if it had different physical aspects (I mentioned specifically color, taste, smell) then it would not even be called wine; it would be called something else.
Anon@5.54pm
anon 6:43,
you are confusing subjective with objective. it doesn't matter what it would be called it matters what it is, and something could have the taste smell etc. of wine and not in fact be wine. just a good mimic.
again, the terminology in play is aristotlean. and in that terminology what you are equating with substance are accidents, and "substance" is only one of the aristotlean accidents. or distinct from it depending on how this is applied.
in extreme virtual reality or in the case of identical twins, something could have all the accidents of you, but not be you. In the case of identical twins, DNA would pass as you.
Anonymous 6:43 P.M.
Re: "But its physical appearance is part of its substantial aspect, not its accidental aspects."
************************************
According to the natural law, you are absolutely correct except fore the fact that
in theology, physical appearance is called "accident."
The important notion in defining "accident" is that it exists in, or inheres in, an underlying subject. (The single exception is the mystery of the Eucharist, where, by divine power, the accidents (physical appearance) of bread and wine exist without an underlying subject.) Accidents are thus always distinct from substance, which is their source of being. If there were no rational animal, there would be no foundation for the properties of speech and laughter or the accidents of tall, brave, musical, etc.
Normally, the accidents (physical appearance) of a thing indicate its substance; the color and taste of bread lead us to make the unsurprising inference that it is bread.
Transubstantiation is therefore believed to be miraculous - that is, altogether outside of the ordinary course of nature, because in this mysterious conversion the accidents or characteristics of bread and wine continue to remain while the inner substance, the essential reality, comes to be entirely different.
To repeat the definition of "transubstantiation"..... it is the official Roman Catholic definition referring to the change that takes place during the sacrament of Holy Communion (Eucharist). This change involves the substances of bread and wine being turned MIRACULOUSLY into the substance of Christ himself.
The underlying essence of these elements is changed, and they retain only the appearance, taste, and texture of bread and wine. Catholic doctrine holds that the Godhead is indivisible, so every particle or drop thus changed is wholly identical IN SUBSTANCE with the divinity, body, and blood of the Savior.
This definition revolves around a distinction between, on the one hand, an essence or “substance” – that which is transformed into the “body and blood of Christ” and, on the other hand, a physical appearance (called the “accident” in theological parlance) - in this case, the visible bread/communion wafers and wine.
At the consecration of the Eucharist - Roman Catholics believe that by the power of the priest’s invocation in combination with a dispensation of grace - the substance/essence, but not the appearance, of the bread and wine becomes the body, blood, soul and divinity of Christ.
P.S. 6:43 P.M.
The Roman Catholic Church has always taught that the bread and wine becomes the body and blood of Jesus.
How this happens is a mystery.
The term "transubstantiation" was applied by the Scholastics to indicate a change in "substance" (a philosophical term that refers to the essence (Greek: ousia) of a thing). Jesus is more than "spiritually" present under the form of bread and wine, he is "substantially" present meaning that his essence, his nature, his substance is present.
Thus, we have two miracles: substance without accident (Jesus present under the form of bread and wine) and accidents without substance (THE APPEARANCE OF THE BREAD AND WINE WITHOUT THE SUBSTANCE OF THE BREAD AND WINE). That is, what appears to be bread and wine is, in fact, no longer bread or wine -- it is the body and blood of Jesus.
For whomever and Christine who feel such "need" to dissect these spiritual frogs under a microscope here at what Constance used to think, I would ask, can't you move your brain numbing conversation some place else and let other topics come forward?
How about going over to the wolf den (that information graveyard) and have at it.
The mystery is why has Constance not banned Christine from her blog? It comes back to life when the infowolf leaves.
anon 5:26 said
"The whole point of being Almighty is that God can do anything He wants!"
exactly.
So, does God the Father change the bread and wine into the body and blood of Jesus when the "priest" is a flaming
Sodomite, which is altogether common these days?
How does that work?
What if he's just a bi-sexual?
What if he's only interested in young boys? Does it still miraculously Transubstantiate?
Because I need to hear the long winded high minded intellectual erudite
explanation for this automatic thing that supposedly happens.
Bravo!!!!!
Paul,
When people keep rejecting the simple explanation, that it's "a mystery" (and mysteries are certainly biblical - "I show you a mystery"..."Mystery Babylon"... etc), then all that's left is a long-winded, high-minded, intellectual erudite explanation.
I bet what God wants is for you to simply shut up MCE.
You have made sport long enough out of this topic, also.
The bible says, "oh taste and see that the Lord is good."
When you talk anything bible it becomes about as tasty and satisfying as chewing sawdust.
No love, worship or glory goes to Him when you post. In fact, you have the opposite effect when handling his word.
paul,
the miracle is not done by the priest but by God. it is not based on the priest's virtue or lack thereof. theoretically it shouldn't depend on his faith, especially if the epiclesis (invocation to The Holy Spirit) is involved. research the donatist issue.
basically if your salvation or relationship to God depends on the quality of the person who baptized you, then you can be doubt if you are baptized because the chain can have been broken at any point back to those the Apostles baptized due to sin. Donatism held that sacraments could not be performed validly by a priest in sin. However, James or John warns that "teachers" would be subject to more severe judgement, and Jesus has some serious warnings for those who were to feed their fellow servants and didn't. Read through the parables about returning masters and the Last Judgement.
@ 9:09 PM I meant: you should have the opposite effect...
(:06
I guess so.
But now I feel awful. I really do, because I have brothers and sisters whom I know without a doubt are sincere Christians,
and who are Roman Catholics, but who have let their religion overtake their relationship with God through His son Jesus.
I didn't want to say that but it hangs over every word of Theology and Philosophy; How many Sodomite Priests does there need to be before a person realizes that religion is not the goal. It's the figleaf over our nakedness, but salvation is about Jesus.
It's about Jesus.
If and when my particular denomination goes wildly off the rails I hope I will have the courage to leave it behind and follow Jesus. I am not redeemed by any denomination, no matter how old and established it may be. I was saved by Jesus, the Savior.
He can be followed without any denomination, though I wouldn't recommend it. We should have a home and a sancuary on this hostile planet away from the world, where we can thank him and praise him, loudly if we want to, or quietly, but praise and
thank him in every way.
These are not normal times any more.
Come out of her my people and do not partake in her sins. It's happening to Methodists too, I know.
Cling to Jesus. Fasten yourself to him and don't let Go, like Ruth and Naomi. Like Peter.
Pope Francis Said to Bless Human-Animal Chimeras
www.technologyreview.com/news/546246/pope-francis-said-to-bless-human-animal-chimeras/
Yes to what you said, Paul.
Christine,
You go research donatists.
You said:
"the miracle is not done by the priest but by God"
You know dang well that the "priest" has to wave his hands over the perfectly
round wafers, (which is nothing like broken bread),
and say a few Latin things and then it's automatically transformed, so no, God
doesn't do it the priest does it, or God doesn't do it without the priest.
OR God doesn't do it at all.
He could if he wanted to but the God I know from reading the Bible doesn't
contradict himself and He is always faithful and true to his word and he hates Sodomites,
who are probably the number one enemy of God in the entire Bible. It seems
that idolatry and Gnosticism invariably lead to Sodomy, for some reason.
You're telling me that God performs this miracle every day through Sodomites..???
I don't believe that. And you must be even crazier than I thought.
"You know dang well that the "priest" has to wave his hands over the perfectly
round wafers, (which is nothing like broken bread),
and say a few Latin things and then it's automatically transformed, so no, God
doesn't do it the priest does it, or God doesn't do it without the priest.
OR God doesn't do it at all."
in baptism, which I assume you accept as a legitimate sacrament, and which all churches agree can be done by anyone in an emergency, the baptizer moves hands (which hold onto the baptize) down into and out of water, while saying something about he baptizes this person in the NAme of The Father and of The Son and of The Holy Spirit.
if you found out whoever baptized you was a sodomite, would you figure you had to get rebaptized? were you baptized into that person and his virtue or lack thereof or into Christ? on Whose word were you baptized by Whose word is it stated as necessary?
"He could if he wanted to but the God I know from reading the Bible doesn't
contradict himself and He is always faithful and true to his word and he hates Sodomites,
who are probably the number one enemy of God in the entire Bible"
entire Bible. take a look at the sins of the priests sons of Eli I think it was that finally brought judgement on Israel and the Ark being taken by the Philistines, during which time the false god of the philistines was discomforted and so were those people, and Eli's sons killed, his wife went into labor I think she died but the boy survived continuing the priestly lineage. This included sexual sins they were doing and violations of the laws about sacrificed meat. sodomy is not mentioned but fornication sure is and you can probably assume adultery.
now, were the sacrifices and cleansings God ordained were to be done by the priests rendered invalid and of none effect? when someone brought a sin offering and did not participate in the sins of the priests did God scorn the sin offering? no indication of that.
God will deal with and help His people and deal with those unrighteous who are supposed to be His means of helping the people. The sins of the levitical priesthood did not invalidate the ceremonies. The statements by God of hating festivals and sacrifices should be read in context, which is a denunciation of habitual sinning and keeping up externals and figuring to clear the slate with God with offerings and keep sinning some more. gaming the system.
Do you think God will keep sacraments from HIs followers now because the administering priests are unworthy?
One of the reasons I chose EO over RC, is that issue of validity of sacraments. with RC ordinations depending on consecrations which dead end in a man whose record of consecration is unknown this raises questions. If the sedevacantist position is correct, most bishops and priests are not valid. therefore neither are their sacraments. (Of course John 23 was a valid bishop before he was pope even if his papacy was an antipapacy gotten by threat to make Siri reject the papacy.)
With RC there is no epiclesis and a lot depends on form AND INTENT of the priest. This raises questions also.
With EO the epiclesis is made after all actions and words of institution, and The Holy SPirit fills up what is lacking in the priest's worthiness, faith or intent. This was a MAJOR issue for me, once the combative crew at the yahoo egroup malachimartin (as distinct from malachimartinetc) had hashed out all the issues.
Christine,,,you need help, seriously!
Sodomy is fornication!
All sex of any kind outside of a man and woman bound in holy matrimony is fornication.
What Sodomy spiritually pictures is anti-genesis-the mandate of male and female made He them to go and multiply in all the earth.
It is even more graphically against God from that standpoint so it is a true barometer of just how fallen away from God a person, even any nation that has turned a blind eye to it is.
It is very interesting that in Noah's day (according to ancient Hebrew texts) that just before the flood of the entire earth, sodomites demanded marriage thinking they would be sanctifying themselves in these 'relationships'.
Things have come full circle haven't they?
You have not a clue about the ministry of the Holy Spirit, Mary Christine Erikson.
We are made in God's image and He made us for relationship with Himself. The man and the woman make a complete picture of something deeply spiritual. Homosexuality flies right in the very face of that. God ordained the sexes for His purpose and mankind, when as brute beasts in lust, run as far with that as they can, then we see the extremes going off the charts-again-as in the days of Noah.
It is time for You to act, O LORD, for they have made void your law. Ps 119:126
anon 10:12
fornication includes sodomy, and adultery, but sodomy is beyond fornication in evil. heterosexual fornication is at least not abnormal in the act itself, but sodomy is abnormal in the act itself, regardless of affection regardless of whether a legal marriage occurred and you can raise issues of heterosexual anal sex as being abnormal hence prohibitable. such can and does happen in the context of heterosexual marriage.
Shut up Christine. That's enough out of you. The issue of fornication was sufficiently addressed.
You have, at the very least, the appearance of that evil in your own home not being married to the "all seeing guy".
he isn't all seeing. the sight depends on a mutation of cells and its development is blocked when the smallpox vaccine is given before one is adult, which is probably why you got so little of it showing up.
I'm not having sex with him. Most people think we are legally married. So we are not giving a bad example. I would suggest you be careful handing out your kind of advice to couples in such states and DC where the older system of common law marriage still exists, you could set them up for bigamy charges if they separate without formal divorce and remarry if they have met the state requirements for common law marriage.
Paul didn't argue about non Christian ceremonial or the live together a year and a day format that his converts who were married had.
abstaining from appearance of evil is not about what might offend someone else (and you can't avoid fitting someone's concept of wrong) but rather avoiding everything that is dubious, not only the obviously evil but what you have doubts about.
http://www.gotquestions.org/appearance-of-evil.html exegesis here draws on implications of the Greek and the context, a good way to tell if an exegesis is correct or not.
http://newyork.cbslocal.com/2016/01/29/tech-tattoos-chaotic-moon/
"now, were the sacrifices and cleansings God ordained were to be done by the priests rendered invalid and of none effect? "
Well gee Christine; He saw to it that the temple was destroyed and Jerusalem was destroyed and the people were either gone into slavery, killed by famine, killed by the sword, or killed by disease, and this happened over and over again, and as far as it not involving sodomy, I have a feeling that a lot of things are not described in detail simply for decency's sake, but that it's safe to assume that given the descriptions we do have, that sodomy was the cause.
Do you understand marriage? The two become one flesh? Is that just a baby being born? I'm sure I really don't fully grasp it.
Do you understand baptism? I don't, but I believe in it. I don't find it until John the Baptist, hundreds of years after Malachi.
Do you understand the blood sacrifices? Why did God require that, in so many different ways, with different animals and birds,
and didn't He make it known to the world even before Moses? I don't understand it.
What about the Priestly garments? The Ephod. The Ark of the covenant. Badger skins on the roof of the Tabernacle? OK.
Do you understand communion? I don't, but I do believe in it. I do believe that when I'm reading the Bible, I'm eating and drinking in Jesus, and I'm sure that He is speaking to us right now from 2000 years away. "When you do this..."
God hasn't explained everything to us yet. That's why it's called faith.
anon 11:48
""now, were the sacrifices and cleansings God ordained were to be done by the priests rendered invalid and of none effect? "
Well gee Christine; He saw to it that the temple was destroyed and Jerusalem was destroyed and the people were either gone into slavery, killed by famine, killed by the sword, or killed by disease, and this happened over and over again, and as far as it not involving sodomy, I have a feeling that a lot of things are not described in detail simply for decency's sake, but that it's safe to assume that given the descriptions we do have, that sodomy was the cause."
you didn't get my question at all. WERE THE CEREMONIES GOD ORDERED MADE OF NO EFFECT, EVEN FOR THE SINCERE WORSHIPPER, BY THE UNWORTHINESS OF THE PRIEST WHO ADMINISTERED THE SACRIFICE?
that is not about what God did to punish the people and priests and leaders and social elites who were evil after centuries of patience in some case.
that question is about, did a person who made a sin offering go away cleansed or not? did a person who had made the required offerings for various reasons including first fruits and cleansing after giving birth, and circumcision itself, come away unclean and uncircumcised (in effect) because the priest was evil?
you didn't even come close to dealing with that. But that is the issue raised by the question of sodomite RC priests (not a full half of them even) and that is the issue raised by bringing "the entire Bible" and God not contradicting Himself into the matter.
God does not contradict Himself. If the sacraments of the Mosaic Covenant were valid regardless of the priesthood being contaminated with personal sins, then neither are those of the New Covenant in Christ, the Melchizedec priesthood.
"Do you understand marriage? The two become one flesh? Is that just a baby being born? I'm sure I really don't fully grasp it."
The sex act automatically creates the one flesh condition, regardless of context, married or unmarried, and even when done with a prostitute. I Cor. 6:16 and context.
Precisely why as Paul says, when a man fornicates he sins against his own flesh, unlike any other sin which is always outside of his body.
"Do you understand baptism? I don't, but I believe in it. I don't find it until John the Baptist, hundreds of years after Malachi.
Do you understand the blood sacrifices? Why did God require that, in so many different ways, with different animals and birds,
and didn't He make it known to the world even before Moses? I don't understand it.
What about the Priestly garments? The Ephod. The Ark of the covenant. Badger skins on the roof of the Tabernacle? OK.
Do you understand communion? I don't, but I do believe in it. I do believe that when I'm reading the Bible, I'm eating and drinking in Jesus, and I'm sure that He is speaking to us right now from 2000 years away. "When you do this..."
God hasn't explained everything to us yet. That's why it's called faith."
YEs we spiritually eat and drink Christ when we eat and drink His words, and we also physically eat and drink Him in the Eucharist. its not either/or, its both.
"then neither are those of the New Covenant in Christ, the Melchizedec priesthood."
should read "then neither are those of the NEw Covenant in Christ, the Mechizedec priesthood, rendered invalid by the unworthiness of the priest."
Dear 7.56pm,
You wrote: "According to the natural law, you are absolutely correct except fore the fact that in theology, physical appearance is called "accident.""
But it isn't - because if it appeared different then it would not be called the same thing. This is the point that you are not engaging with.
If you wish to assert that a change takes place which humans cannot perceive such that bread and wine become Christ's flesh and blood then, as the claim is not falsifiable, I have no objection to that; we can simply disagree and accept that there is no way whatsoever for either of us to assert that the other is wrong. Please note that that cuts both ways, though: you are not free to assert that my position is wrong either.
But what you cannot do is call that change a change to its substance. If you wish to call it transubstantiation then you are using the notion of substance differently from the meaning which Aristotle himself gave. Does that not worry you?
Anon@6.43pm
"But it isn't - because if it appeared different then it would not be called the same thing. This is the point that you are not engaging with."
What YOU are not engaging with is that it is not about what people would call it, it is not about what anyone thinks. Which as we know can be quite different from what a thing is.
"If you wish to assert that a change takes place which humans cannot perceive such that bread and wine become Christ's flesh and blood then, as the claim is not falsifiable, I have no objection to that; "
That is what is claimed. but since "Aristotle made a distinction between the essential and accidental properties of a thing. For example, a chair can be made of wood or metal, but this is accidental to its being a chair: that is, it is still a chair regardless of the material from which it is made.[2] To put this in technical terms, an accident is a property which has no necessary connection to the essence of the thing being described.[3][4][5]To take another example, all bachelors are unmarried: this is a necessary or essential property of what it means to be a bachelor. A particular bachelor may have brown hair, but this would be a property particular to that individual, and with respect to his bachelorhood it would be an accidental property. And this distinction is independent of experimental verification: even if for some reason all the unmarried men with non-brown hair were killed, and every single existent bachelor had brown hair, the property of having brown hair would still be accidental, since it would still be logically possible for a bachelor to have hair of another color.
The nine kinds of accidents according to Aristotle are quantity, quality, relation, habitus, time, location, situation (or position), action, and passion ("being acted on"). Together with "substance", these nine kinds of accidents constitute the ten fundamental categories of Aristotle's ontology.[6] " https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Accident_(philosophy)
you don't really understand what the Aristotlean categories are. the substance remains the same though accidents differ.
in this case, it is blood and flesh with the accidents of bread and wine.
in a few miracles the veil has been lifted, and the flesh and blood are evident as flesh and blood, or at least blood. Lanciano is the most extreme case WITH THE DRIED BLOOD CLOTS HAVING THE CHEMICAL QUALITIES OF FRESH BLOOD AFTER OVER 1,000
YEARS, which is impossible.
Chritine,
you continue to deny, lie and falsely accuse at 4:15PM, I am surprised you haven't deleted that post too in an effort to cover your wolf tracks as usual!
"I said you are in that CATEGORY whether you actually believe such nonsense or not is another matter... I wouldn't be surprised if you do think the earth is a round flat object. Flat earthers argue from the Bible also, saying round doesn't mean globe, just flat like a plate."
Again you are falsely accusing me, Chritine (as you have again done here this weekend against Paul!), not only can you produce no evidence (persuasive or conclusive), as there is not any, but you ignore the fact that I wrote, "I believe what the Holy Scriptures tell me, and they tell me the Earth is round (spherical)", did you get that last bit, Cretine? S P H E R I C A L!
http://www.christiananswers.net/q-eden/edn-c015.html
Now, the only one with not only the propensity but also the audacity to engage in a barrage of false accusation against Christian brethren and others here is you, Infowoof!
"...you are the accuser of the brethren here, and defender of New Age claims that the oddities they exploit support the additional ideas they present..."
A typical tactic employed by narcisists such as yourself, Cretine, is known as projection. If you had any backbone, any Christian humility, any shame or conscience, you would turn that mirror back towards you and take a long hard look at yourself, but alas you don't!
The only one spreading New Age and occult ideas here, replete with tones of blasphemy, is yourself! What, with claims of chakras in Ecclesiastes 12, promotion of vampires, living out of wedlock with Mike, an ex?Satanist who continues to dabble in the occult, scrying the future, etc, and you call your resident seer (which you capitalize as though he were your god), men from Mars and Nibiru, etc, etc, etc!
You are a devil, Chritine, a false accuser of the brethren, I suspect an agent provocateur for the New Age , and a fornicator with witchcraft!
The Lord Jesus Christ rebuke you!
"God does not contradict Himself. If the sacraments of the Mosaic Covenant were valid regardless of the priesthood being contaminated with personal sins, then neither are those of the New Covenant in Christ, the Melchizedec priesthood."
"...if they were valid then...then they must be valid now?
This is you quoting you, so this is becoming ridiculous, but you said this after telling me that I didn't understand your question
when I DID understand your question but you didn't understand my answer. He destroyed the temple more than once!
You seem to think that you've made the point that the sacrifices were all valid even when the priests were evil. You didn't make the point, you just stated it like it was a given fact, as only a grandiose person would.
Again, says who, Christine? Says you.
You say that the sacrifices were still valid even when the Priests were evil, then to confuse the issue further you add confusion to confusion by building on a wrong premise, by implying that the New Testament "priests" (RC) are of the Order of Melchisadec. Says who? I've never even heard that the RC priests are of the order of Melchisadec. As far as I can tell Jesus is the only priest, the High Priest of the Order of Melchisadec. He's the only priest we need for the last 2000 years.
I answered you clearly to say that NO THEY WEREN'T valid, back then or now.
Who says they were valid?
You do, you pompous deluded whacko.
Dear Christine,
This is Anon@3.43am. My comment made at that time was directed to Anon@7.46pm, although you too are obviously free to engage with it. I am not going to engage with you on the subject of transubstantiation, however.
Paul said:
"As far as I can tell Jesus is the only priest, the High Priest of the Order of Melchisadec. He's the only priest we need for the last 2000 years."
You are 100% correct, Christ and Christ alone is our High Priest, and the HEAD OF THE CHURCH, not that usurper in Rome. I saw a post in here recently by one of our (apparently) Catholic friends that attempting to make the case that Melchisadec was a type that was somehow tied into the establishment of the Catholic priesthood. The misuse of scripture is astounding by the RCC. I have been re-reading "The Glories of Mary" written by a canonized "saint" Alphonsus Liguori (available as a free PDF online). Over and over again, Liguori miss applies Scripture that is referring to Christ by stating "it is the interpretation of the Church" that this is referring to MARY!
If anyone doesn't believe that the RCC does not indeed worship Mary, they need to read this book. Just another in a very long list of heresies by the RCC.
And so.........Jesus came and offered the worthy sacrifice because all previous fell short.
Apparently Co!e<4)f%j Erikson aka justina does not even remotely get this.
I don't want to spell Jesus' name Christ in her name either, because she displays anything and everything but Him!
Paul's words totally refute you there typing from your wolf den (the disinformation station).
"Do you understand marriage? The two become one flesh? Is that just a baby being born? I'm sure I really don't fully grasp it."
She is very relationally challenged. Knows nothing of godly submission to a husband, knows nothing about mothering, knows nothing about true surrender of intellect, emotions, body and will to the mind of God, (that is the Word of GOD) that is given freely to us--as just what it is to be--unsearchable to the finite--but received by faith. She needs to be quiet before God and learn herself but the last thing she will ever do is be quiet (ponder in her heart as Mary example shows us)
Her "high-mindedness" is merely a fleshly mind (flesh anything is enmity against God) proving why we must be born again by The Spirit of Jesus Christ-that is the supreme relationship the Lord is all about. The finite does not fully grasp the Infinite but she proudly believes she can! (and must teach us uneducated morons ;) ). She can peddle her religious papers and "creditials" elsewhere.
anon 5:56 am
so according to you, if an honest worshipper of God, one of the few thousand that God had reserved to Himself and who had not worshipped baal, was to bring one of the periodically required sacrifices to the priest and brought his son to be circumcised, and the required cleansing sacrifice for the mother of his son after childbirth, and a freewill offering, and his first fruits,
because of the unworthiness of the priest, this man supposedly by your theory was as far as God was concerned in arrears on his required sacrifices, his wife was still in the uncleanness of childbirth, and his son was uncircumcised.
And if an unworthy priest sanctified the holy water of cleansing made from the ashes of a red heifer and water and some other thing or two, then one of these who were loyal to God and had touched a dead body and came obeying the Law to get cleansed from this contact remained unclean.
you really are man focused not God focused.
yes Luguori is a problem and dead wrong, he was a real mariolator and ramped up the focus. The EO is not like this except for some exceptions but not officially. And as far as "the interpretation of the church" being that those Christ oriented verses applied to Mary, I suspect it was his and one or two others' interpretation that got accepted over time.
I am very dubious of Marian visions and I don't recall if any showed her standing on a snake, but you will see statues like this. this is because of the Genesis verse that LXX, Samaritan AND MASORETIC say says her SEED (Christ) would crush the serpent's head, but JEROME MISTRANLATED IT INTO LATIN as saying the WOMAN would crush the serpent's head.
Jerome had no basis for doing this. Either a demonic hallucination of what he was looking at on paper or whatever, or his own deliberate decision to mistranslate into Latin. Jerome was heavily focused on Mary, and liked Origen a bit too much.
A whole segment of RC theology or Mariology is based on a flat out lie of a mistranlator.
the Douay-Rheims English RC Bible has this mistranslation in it, but the modern one doesn't, which caused someone on an RC forum to ask questions about this. Sometimes those modern translations aren't that bad. (I had to post this separately after thinking of it after posting the previous one, instead of delete rewrite and repost as I was doing for a while, since the liar is back who says I post vile things and then delete them.)
Have you ever noticed all of the statues of "saints" and "Mary", etc. in a Catholic Church, etc.? Have you ever read that the Bible expressly forbids "graven images, or any likeness of any thing that is in heaven above ...?" Read it for yourself as stated (see below) in the Second Commandment, or better yet, read it in Exodus 20:4. Being that their images is in direct conflict with the Word of God, what is the Roman Catholic Church's response? SIMPLY CHANGE THE WORD OF GOD by removing the entire passage dealing with images that is in the Second Commandment, THAT'S HOW!
Second Commandment of "Catholicism" ...
"You shall not take the name of the LORD, your God, in vain."
Second Commandment as accurately recorded in the King James Authorized Version:
"Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image, or any likeness above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth. Thou shalt not bow down thyself to them, nor serve them." Exodus 20:4
Do you still think there is no difference between Biblical Christianity and the Roman Catholic Church?
"you really are man focused not God focused."
This is pathetic of you and you have it all backwards. SolLook at yourself, blind guide with that deafening clang, clang, clang.
You are a foolish Galatian stuck in the old law and not believing the new testament (and that thinking introduced gnosticism which you have swallowed hook, line, and sinker as now the repackaged new age belief system). No matter how much bible you think you are throwing at it, you have missed Jesus by miles. Jesus came and made the old way obsolete (fulfilled it to the letter) at the cost of His Worthy Sinless Body and Blood, and you stay stuck in all the former things?
You better hit fast forward in the things of God and quit the pharisee teaching that Jesus outdid. (they didn't like it--and you don't either or you would move on and move up to right thinking on Christ himself.
I can see why the RCC tried to suppress the printing of Bibles in the 1500's. They feared for their stranglehold on the masses.
They still don't, or didn't when I was young, ever recommend or encourage personal Bible study without the "facilitation" of a priest.
_Can't let these fools read it for themselves. They might stumble on to where Jesus says that the Holy Ghost will guide you in all truth...
The party line is still that anyone and everyone will come up with a personal interpretation at the expense of truth. They say that all the Protestant denominations have their own idiosynchratic definitions and doctrines, but that's a lie. We all recite the Apostles Creed every week. Denominational differences are superficial in general; one eshews music without words, another baptises by sprinkling as opposed to full emersion, as opposed to semi emersion. One takes Communion every week. Another only once a month etc etc.
Denominational names are just that: names. The word denomination means "name" Should we all have the same last name? Should we all, from every corner of the earth, have the same taste in music? Should we only listen to Baroque organ music and lyrics by Handel or Bach? Is piano alright? Should we all agree that the Pope is infallable in all matters of official church doctrine? What if the Pope is a Sodomite?
I think this one probably is. I should follow him to the ends of the earth anyway?
Mary? Mary died sometime after Jesus and she no doubt rests in perfect peace awaiting the resurrection like everyone else (with the exceptions of Enoch and Elijah and of course Jesus), when she will be rewarded with a crown of glory as the most blessed among women.
RayB
Ever notice that the context of no graven images is such that it is about making them in order to worship them and is therefore part of the no other gods first commandment?
Ever notice "thou shalt make two cherubim of gold, of beaten work shalt thou make them in the two ends of the mercy seat," Ex. 25:18
and "thou shalt make the tabernacle with ten curtains.....with cherubim of cunning work shalt thou make them." Exodus 26:2
And the priest's robe "beneath upon the hem of it thou shalt make pomegranates of blue, and of purple, and of scarlet...." Exodus 28:33.
Since God doesn't contradict Himself, it follows that the no graven images rule is about idolatry not about iconography.
Ever notice that alleged differences between prot and RC are in fact that prot uses Exodus version while RC uses Deuteronomy version, and that numbering coveting of wife separate from coveting of goods and servants puts her and adultery issues and lusting in one's heart after another's wife in a separate category from coveting other things, and adultery is in a separate category from theft?
I appreciate you, Paul, my brother in the Lord and defender of the faith once delivered to the saints.
The pharisees in their old idolatry need to repent or take cover!
And we are saints already, indwelt by the Holy Spirit-----our teacher as to the mind of God, without somebody else's say-so but because Jesus says so in His upper room discourse.
The ground is level at the foot of the cross but some like to make a show of the flesh in the religious spirit of the pharisee. I hope they renounce all like Saul of Taurus and become like Paul, the man who knew all was dung, save Christ.
paul said
"The party line is still that anyone and everyone will come up with a personal interpretation at the expense of truth. They say that all the Protestant denominations have their own idiosynchratic definitions and doctrines, but that's a lie."
no it isn't you differ on free will vs. predestination, on Eucharistic theory (Lutheran vs. Calvinist) on what baptism does, on tongues etc., on church organization (ecclesiology), on whether some sacraments usually included in the lessened version of Protestantism are sacraments or not, on what and how Christ did on the Cross, on what He did or didn't do while dead, on eschatology and on some modes of behavior.
When you recite the Creed sometimes it is with the filioque that The Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father AND THE SON. This was added illicitly by the Roman section of the ORthodox Church one of the things rebuked by the east and contributing to the schism when Rome left us. it is not only illicit but invalid since against Christ's words in John's Gospel.
In addition to the reasonably orthodox protestant churches, the various heresies JW, Mormon and Unitarian and SDA and ahellslew of others even worse including occasional misuse by devil worshippers of the Bible to various purposes including "honor your father and mother" to keep kids from questioning the party line, take the same tack you do re RC and the Bible and personal interpretation.
IF you just grab a few verses and run with them, you can get into trouble. IF you read the whole thing over and over keeping the previous material in mind as you move through it and compare with others doing the same and pray you will get a different effect more compatible with Orthodoxy.
Oh here come Miss Filioque again.
Our resident expert on everything and her favorite smoke bomb.
You're like the jellyfish that sends out a cloud of thick black ink and confuses the big fish that swims nearby.
I know, let's have another three week round of you dissecting and belaboring that subject, can we? Because I know it's
still fresh in your mind and we all know that you have it all figured out.
As far as Heresies, you just listed, and called them Heresies, That's what we call them too. That must be what the RCC calls
such groups as El Muerte, the cult of death who claim that they're RC. And there are plenty of others.
I'm Protestant, but if I were RC, I'd be begging you not to defend me.
As far as the list of differences of doctrine that you "pounced" on, Just because the RCC has decided
which way each of those nearly unanswerable questions should be officially answered, that doesn't mean that the RCC
position is correct and it also doesn't mean that all RCC's agree on them.
By the way Christine, you mentioned just a little bit back how when you became a EO, that that's when you actually read the Bible in it's entirety. That's odd because I remember you stating matter of factly about five years ago how you had read it through three times then, which was before you became a EO. Huh...
What's up with that?
I think somebody is a pathological liar.
"By the way Christine, you mentioned just a little bit back how when you became a EO, that that's when you actually read the Bible in it's entirety. That's odd because I remember you stating matter of factly about five years ago how you had read it through three times then, which was before you became a EO. Huh..."
you recall wrong. I never said the second statement it was never even in my mind. I said that on three occasions prior several years prior in fact, I had read the Bible straight through and the things there validated points I had been uncomfortable with due to my protestant background. A classic example is relics, Elisha's bones brought a dead man back to life. most relics don't do this, of course. some do nothing visible at all it is spiritual help.
The giving of the binding and loosing ability to all the apostles after the resurrection and in some circumstances to a whole congregation, shows that Peter's keys of the kingdom were the first set handed out and other copies given the rest of the Apostles.
the sloppy attitude of protestants to eating meat with blood in it (wringing a chicken's neck instead of chopping the head off) was definitely rebuked but I had noticed that before, Acts chapter 15.
It was some time after that that a combination of practical experience with Holy Water and the reputation for effective exorcism and taking the matter seriously by RC and the historical facts and filioque issue and some other things led me to choose EO over RC when I decided to go the liturgical church route.
Christine: In the original Hebrew of Genesis 3:15, the seed that bruises the serpent’s head is male in gender; this is a glimpse forward to Jesus Christ, born of woman. But Catholic tradition takes the bruiser of the snake to be female, and to be a reference to Mary. I've not checked whether this error is traceable to the Greek Septuagint or the Latin Vulgate.
Post a Comment