• Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.

  • CF has always been a site that welcomes people from different backgrounds and beliefs to participate in discussion and even debate. That is the nature of its ministry. In view of recent events emotions are running very high. We need to remind people of some basic principles in debating on this site. We need to be civil when we express differences in opinion. No personal attacks. Avoid you, your statements. Don't characterize an entire political party with comparisons to Fascism or Communism or other extreme movements that committed atrocities. CF is not the place for broad brush or blanket statements about groups and political parties. Put the broad brushes and blankets away when you come to CF, better yet, put them in the incinerator. Debate had no place for them. We need to remember that people that commit acts of violence represent themselves or a small extreme faction.

why I believe in the Eucharist

Status
Not open for further replies.

Albion

Facilitator
Dec 8, 2004
111,127
33,264
✟584,012.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Anglican
Marital Status
Married
What all this meaningless tit-for-tat shows is that there is, after all, no absolute way of knowing if Jesus meant the words he spoke at the Last Supper literally or elsewise.

So....does it matter awfully much to any of us that other Christians are on the opposite side of the fence with this matter? If so, why?
 
Upvote 0

calluna

Regular Member
Apr 23, 2008
2,237
114
✟25,394.00
Faith
Anglican
Marital Status
Private
What all this meaningless tit-for-tat shows is that there is, after all, no absolute way of knowing if Jesus meant the words he spoke at the Last Supper literally or elsewise.

It does? Maybe the 'tit-for-tat' shows that we understand exactly what Jesus meant.
 
Upvote 0

Albion

Facilitator
Dec 8, 2004
111,127
33,264
✟584,012.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Anglican
Marital Status
Married
It does? Maybe the 'tit-for-tat' shows that we understand exactly what Jesus meant.[/size]

Except that we represent about six different views on that. But on the other hand, if it means that we are not supposed to over-theologize every last thing, but just observe the Lord's Supper, you could be right.
 
Upvote 0

calluna

Regular Member
Apr 23, 2008
2,237
114
✟25,394.00
Faith
Anglican
Marital Status
Private
Except that we represent about six different views on that.
Six? How many sides does that fence have? And of course it would be very naive indeed to suppose that people always say what they mean, especially in matters 'Christian'.

But on the other hand, if it means that we are not supposed to over-theologize every last thing, but just observe the Lord's Supper, you could be right.
So the Vatican's hierarchs will be visiting the Plymouth Brethren for Breaking of Bread, instead of Mass?
 
Upvote 0

chestertonrules

Well-Known Member
Dec 17, 2007
8,747
515
Texas
✟11,733.00
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
John 6
Jesus said to them, "I tell you the truth, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you. 54Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day. 55For my flesh is real food and my blood is real drink.

John 20
21Again Jesus said, "Peace be with you! As the Father has sent me, I am sending you." 22And with that he breathed on them and said, "Receive the Holy Spirit. 23If you forgive anyone his sins, they are forgiven; if you do not forgive them, they are not forgiven."

1 Timothy 3
15if I am delayed, you will know how people ought to conduct themselves in God's household, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and foundation of the truth.

2 Thes 2
15So then, brothers, stand firm and hold to the teachings we passed on to you, whether by word of mouth or by letter.

Matthew 16

17Jesus replied, "Blessed are you, Simon son of Jonah, for this was not revealed to you by man, but by my Father in heaven. 18And I tell you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of Hades will not overcome it. 19I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven; whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven." 20Then he warned his disciples not to tell anyone that he was the Christ.
 
Upvote 0

chestertonrules

Well-Known Member
Dec 17, 2007
8,747
515
Texas
✟11,733.00
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
What all this meaningless tit-for-tat shows is that there is, after all, no absolute way of knowing if Jesus meant the words he spoke at the Last Supper literally or elsewise.

So....does it matter awfully much to any of us that other Christians are on the opposite side of the fence with this matter? If so, why?
I think discerning the truth is vital.

If you believe the bible is the word of God, you must believe that Christians should have the correct interpretation of the following, among other verses:

John 6
Jesus said to them, "I tell you the truth, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you. 54Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day. 55For my flesh is real food and my blood is real drink.
 
Upvote 0

calluna

Regular Member
Apr 23, 2008
2,237
114
✟25,394.00
Faith
Anglican
Marital Status
Private
I think discerning the truth is vital.

If you believe the bible is the word of God, you must believe that Christians should have the correct interpretation of the following, among other verses:

John 6
Jesus said to them, "I tell you the truth, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you. 54Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day. 55For my flesh is real food and my blood is real drink.
Which of course must be figurative flesh and blood.
 
Upvote 0

chestertonrules

Well-Known Member
Dec 17, 2007
8,747
515
Texas
✟11,733.00
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
Which of course must be figurative flesh and blood.
Why, because that is how you interpret it?

Based on what authority?

Why should I believe you above Paul, St. Ignatius, St. Justyn Martyr, St. Augustine, St. Thomas Aquinas, etc.?
 
Upvote 0

calluna

Regular Member
Apr 23, 2008
2,237
114
✟25,394.00
Faith
Anglican
Marital Status
Private
Why, because that is how you interpret it?

Based on what authority?
Logic. Plain common sense, that the world has passed by, in its fear of the truth.

Why should I believe you above Paul
Paul agrees with me.

St. Ignatius, St. Justyn Martyr, St. Augustine, St. Thomas Aquinas, etc.?
Why are they not in the RC canon?
 
Upvote 0

chestertonrules

Well-Known Member
Dec 17, 2007
8,747
515
Texas
✟11,733.00
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
Logic. Plain common sense, that the world has passed by, in its fear of the truth.

Paul agrees with me.

Why are they not in the RC canon?
Like I said, your interpretation. Most Christians in the world interpret the bible differently than you do. What is your source of authority? You own understanding?

Paul said that if you partake of the eucharist without discerning(recognizing) the body that you bring condemnation on yourself. Paul does not agree with you.

The early Church fathers are quoted throughout the catechism.
 
Upvote 0

calluna

Regular Member
Apr 23, 2008
2,237
114
✟25,394.00
Faith
Anglican
Marital Status
Private
Like I said, your interpretation. Most Christians in the world interpret the bible differently than you do.
Protestants say that people who are merely water baptised aren't Christians at all. In any case, argumentum ad numerum is a classic false argument.

Paul said that if you partake of the eucharist without discerning(recognizing) the body that you bring condemnation on yourself.
Quite right, too.

The early Church fathers are quoted throughout the catechism.
Even more reason to wonder why these people are not in the RC canon.
 
Upvote 0

Epiphanygirl

Don't De-Rock Me
Oct 6, 2004
7,016
977
Behind you :)
✟11,873.00
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
I have as much authority as Justin, or Ignatius, if he existed.

Why are these guys not in the RC canon?
Then prove that what you are staing has been taught by the Apostles, handed down through the generations...in writing through ECF's........then we can talk......until then:wave:

You are trying to argue that the Early Christians had it wrong from the "get go".......if that is so.........then you are basically saying that Christ lied........and that the Gates of hell prevailed..................no thanks
 
Upvote 0

Albion

Facilitator
Dec 8, 2004
111,127
33,264
✟584,012.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Anglican
Marital Status
Married
Then prove that what you are staing has been taught by the Apostles, handed down through the generations...in writing through ECF's........then we can talk......until then:wave:

I also disagree with the one-man approach to doctrine, but if the RCC doesn't have to prove its doctrines really are handed down from the Apostles--but only claim it--why should he be held to a different standard? ;)

You are trying to argue that the Early Christians had it wrong from the "get go".......if that is so.........then you are basically saying that Christ lied........and that the Gates of hell prevailed..................no thanks

No, that's a misunderstanding of "gates of hell prevailed," which has been discussed and set right many times before on these forums. Your church and just about every other church has changed its beliefs on something or other over time. If what you are saying were true, there'd be NO Christian Church that has not had the gates of hell prevail against it. Paul wrote to a number of churches that had problems, in the belief that he could straighten them out. Your view is that they were all apostate since any error would mean that the gates of hell would have prevailed. He didn't think that.

The point here is that prevail doesn't mean "no mistake or disagreements ever;" it means that hell will not WIN OUT over the Church of Christ (which, obviously, it has not).
 
Upvote 0
Status
Not open for further replies.