Immaculate Conception

[Extraneous]

You mentioned the chains of religion... I just wonder... I picture exactly what that means in terms of soteriology, sacramentology, and ecclesiology... especially in the area of church discipline.

I just wondered if and hoped that, you find Godly company outside religion's "turf" so to speak.

Yes, i agree, outside the camp is the place to be. I find some fellowship here at CF, but other than that i dont have anything else. I currently dont work, dont go to church, and im struggling with issues in my life. I have been for a long time. I do find some fellowship hear that isn't tainted by the turf war though.

 

[Rick Otto]

Yes, i agree, outside the camp is the place to be. I find some fellowship here at CF, but other than that i dont have anything else. I currently dont work, dont go to church, and im struggling with issues in my life. I have been for a long time. I do find some fellowship hear that isn't tainted by the turf war though.

Great. Here's hoping you get remedy for those issues, soon!

 

[Extraneous]

Great. Here's hoping you get remedy for those issues, soon!

Thanks my brother. Amen.

 

[Extraneous]

Do you know whats more important than submitting to leaders?

Submitting to each other. That is hard to do when we let religion divide us. Thats what paul kept trying to teach us. IN my opinion, forget all the religious stuff and embrace the simplicity in Christ.

 

[Extraneous]

I dont think understanding all the mysteries of the bible is whats important. I believe that what is important is understanding the Lords command to love and to sow to the spirit. To be humble, and to love each other, and to do what is right, thats whats important.
In my opinion, thats what Paul teaches us.

A person who does this, although they may not understand all mysteries, has more understanding than a person who does not do this, though he may have ten theology degrees.

THis, in my humble and fallible opinion, is what it means to follow the spirit.

 

[patricius79]

I meditated on the hidden meaning behind the flesh and blood of the Lord. This seemed so strange to me for so long.

I now believe that its just a simple metaphor. Its not complicated at all. Drinking His blood and eating His flesh simply means that we benefit from His death. Is not a mysterious thing really, just a metaphor.

Have you ever heard the expression "having blood on your hands"? Its another metaphor. Had the Lord used that one we would have easily understood it.


Here is what the Lord meant, i believe, in my opinion.

1 Chronicles 11:19 ... “Should I drink the blood of these men who went at the risk of their lives?” Because they risked their lives to bring it back, David would not drink it.

I believe what the Lord emphasized four times in a row: that we must eat His Flesh and Drink His Blood. And that His Mother is the Immaculate New Eve, the spiritual Mother of the Church.

 

[Extraneous]

I believe what the Lord emphasized four times in a row: that we must eat His Flesh and Drink His Blood. And that His Mother is the Immaculate New Eve, the spiritual Mother of the Church.

The first part yes, the second part no.

 

[PeaceByJesus]

I don't think this qualifies as a gnat:
John 6
53Jesus said to them, “Very truly I tell you, 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 them up at the last day.

There you go again, ignoring what refutes you and asking the same question. But as i said in my brief reply you have ignored,

And as this is just an absolute imperative as other "verily verily" statements, then if the literal view is correct then it has to mean that [concerning] those who do not believe in the Catholic "Real Presence" and consume it, then they have no spiritual life in them.

Which relegates [you] to being in dissent from V2 and akin to SSPV type RCs.

The fact is that only the figurative understanding is what easily and substantively is conflative with the rest of Scripture, as seen here in part by God's grace.​

 

[Extraneous]

In all of Paul's writings, and those of Peter and John, never do we see Mary mentioned as anything but a human being.

I see no mention of Mary in this scripture below, nor any other scripture like it. Abraham is mentioned, but not Mary. Even Abraham is nothing but a mere human. Christ alone is our faith.


Galatians 3:7 Understand, then, that those who have faith are children of Abraham.

15 Brothers and sisters, let me take an example from everyday life. Just as no one can set aside or add to a human covenant that has been duly established, so it is in this case. 16 The promises were spoken to Abraham and to his seed. Scripture does not say “and to seeds,” meaning many people, but “and to your seed,” meaning one person, who is Christ.

 

[PeaceByJesus]

But if it was a metaphor, they would understand. Or Jesus could have corrected their understanding. Which he most certainly did not. .

Wrong, as he most certainly did, but being carnally minded they were unable to perceive it.

Note however that the Lord used figurative language before this without explaining it, or giving much of one, which does not mean such was literal, but they were such extreme statements as to make it obvious that the literal cannot be true. But the Lord purposely often used enigmatic language to entice true seekers to pursue the meaning, which seeking prepares the heart for efficacious receiving, while letting the carnal seekers do on in delusions.

For in Jn. 2, the Lord "Jesus answered and said unto them, Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up," (John 2:19) which was taken literally, and which the Lord did not correct, and ended up being a charge at His trial. But we understand what He meant by what other text says. Likewise we understand how "born of the Spirit" (Jn. 3:7) takes place in the light of other texts.

Then in Jn. 4, the Lord speaks of "living water," which gives everlasting life, a water which would never leave the drinker to thirst again, yet which again was understood as being physical even though it had been subtly inferred to be spiritual, but which is only made clear by reading more of Scriptural revelation.

Then in Jn. 6 in dealing with souls looking for another free lunch, the Lord again uses even more extreme statements, no less than making an absolute imperative (as other "verily verily" statements are) requirement that unless one eats the flesh of the Son of Man and drink His blood, then they have no spiritual life in them. Which thus leaves all the Prots which V2 affirms as being born again to be spiritually dead. Of course, this is were RCs who throw this verse up at us have to dance backpedal when faced with the implications of it.

Moreover, if this is how one obtains spiritual life, then we would see this preached as the means of regeneration, but instead only the metaphysical understanding of eating-receiving is seen, and the Lord's Supper is scarcely manifestly mentioned in the life of the church. Concerning with see here.

But the Lord goes on to teach that living by this "bread" of flesh and blood is analogous to how He lived by the Father, "As the living Father hath sent me, and I live by the Father: so he that eateth me, even he shall live by me." (John 6:57)

And as we must do with prior statements, we must examine other Scripture texts to see how the Lord lived, and therein we see the manner by which the Lord lived by the Father was as per Mt. 4:4: "Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God." (Matthew 4:4)

And thus in Jn. 4 the Lord states -once again (as is prevalent in John) using metaphor - to His disciples "I have meat to eat that ye know not of." But who thought He was referring to physical bread, thus once again using metaphor the Lord explains, "My meat is to do the will of him that sent me, and to finish his work." (John 4:34) and refers to lost souls as crops to be harvested. But here we see how the Lord "lived by His Father, believing with a working faith.

Going back to Jn. 5, the Lord revealed that He would not even be with them physically in the future (note that there is nothing of the Neoplatonic theology of the "real but not bloody" flesh and bloody body, being real though it appears otherwise, yet not being real when it starts to lose the appearance which is contrary to being real)., but that His words are Spirit and life:

What and if ye shall see the Son of man ascend up where he was before? 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 6:62-63)
And as with those who imagined the Lord was referring to the physical Temple, the Lord left the protoCatholics to go their own way, who seemed to have yet imagined that the Lord was sanctioning a form of cannibalism, or otherwise had no heart for further seeking of the Lord who has "the words of eternal life" as saith Peter, not the flesh, eating of which profits nothing spiritually.

But it is only the metaphysical understanding that easily conflates with the rest of Scripture, and John in particular, in which one obtains spiritual and eternal life by believing.

As was explained here a couple pages back before you arrived, and which now requires me to reiterate much.

 

[PeaceByJesus]

Who did that???
Who did that???
Who did that??? If you say "Catholics", I have two thoughts for you. First, if the Church taught it and promoted it, you might be right. But the Church doesn't teach it. Any of it. What someone does in the name of a religion might be different, and often is different, than what the religion teaches as doctrine.

So you are denying that requiring the extermination of heretics and thus taking their property (to be split btwn the church and state) was not church teaching?

Just what do you consider to be church teaching requiring assent (RCs providing conflict answers on this, as do popes).

 

[PeaceByJesus]

One question...if it was simply a metaphor, why did some of his closest friends "go back to their previous lives"? Why would it be such a 'hard saying', if it was just a metaphor?
Everything about Jesus, from his title "Lamb of God" to the town he was born in, to the manger he was born in, suggests food. Certainly spiritual food, but when the Pharisees said that their ancestors ate the manna that came down from heaven, Jesus said that he was the true bread.

See previous reply, while metaphorical use of eating and drinking abounds in Scripture, which the apostles knew, and surely Peter would object to physically consuming Christ, as He did even to Him washing his feet.

David distinctly said drinking water was the blood of men, and thus would not drink it, but poured it out on the ground as an offering to the Lord, as it is forbidden to drink blood.

And the three mighty men brake through the host of the Philistines, and drew water out of the well of Bethlehem, that was by the gate, and took it, and brought it to David: nevertheless he would not drink thereof, but poured it out unto the Lord. And he said, Be it far from me, O Lord, that I should do this: is not this the blood of the men that went in jeopardy of their lives? therefore he would not drink it. (2 Samuel 23:16-17)

To be consistent with their plain-language hermeneutic Caths should also insist this was literal. As well as when God clearly states that the Canaanites were “bread: “Only rebel not ye against the LORD, neither fear ye the people of the land; for they are bread for us” (Num. 14:9)

Other examples of the use of figurative language for eating and drinking include,

The Promised Land was “a land that eateth up the inhabitants thereof.” (Num. 13:32)
David said that his enemies came to “eat up my flesh.” (Ps. 27:2)

And complained that workers of iniquity ”eat up my people as they eat bread , and call not upon the Lord.” (Psalms 14:4)

And the Lord also said, “I will consume man and beast; I will consume the fowls of the heaven, and the fishes of the sea, and the stumblingblocks with the wicked; and I will cut off man from off the land, saith the Lord.” (Zephaniah 1:3)

While even arrows can drink: “I will make mine arrows drunk with blood, and my sword shall devour flesh ; and that with the blood of the slain and of the captives, from the beginning of revenges upon the enemy.' (Deuteronomy 32:42)

But David says the word of God (the Law) was “sweeter also than honey and the honeycomb. (Psalms 19:10)
Another psalmist also declared the word as “sweet:” “How sweet are thy words unto my taste! yea, sweeter than honey to my mouth!” (Psalms 119:103)

Jeremiah likewise proclaimed, “Your words were found. and I ate them. and your word was to me the joy and rejoicing of my heart” (Jer. 15:16)

Ezekiel was told to eat the words, “open thy mouth, and eat that I give thee...” “eat that thou findest; eat this scroll, and go, speak to the house of Israel.” (Ezek. 2:8; 3:1)

John is also commanded, “Take the scroll ... Take it and eat it.” (Rev. 10:8-9 )

And which use of figurative language for Christ and spiritual things abounds in John, using the physical to refer to the spiritual:
• In John 1:29, Jesus is called “the Lamb of God, which taketh away the sin of the world” — but he does not have hoofs and literal physical wool.

• In John 2:19 Jesus is the temple of God: “Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up” — but He is not made of literal stone.

• In John 3:14,15, Jesus is the likened to the serpent in the wilderness (Num. 21) who must “ be lifted up: That whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have eternal” (vs. 14, 15) — but He is not made of literal bronze.

• In John 4:14, Jesus provides living water, that “whosoever drinketh of the water that I shall give him shall never thirst; but the water that I shall give him shall be in him a well of water springing up into everlasting life,” — but which was not literally consumed by mouth.

• In John 7:37 Jesus is the One who promises “ He that believeth on me, as the scripture hath said, out of his belly shall flow rivers of living water” — but believers were not water fountains, but He spoke ”of the Spirit, which they that believe on him should receive.” (John 7:38)

• In Jn. 9:5 Jesus is “the Light of the world” — but who is not blocked by an umbrella.

• In John 10, Jesus is “the door of the sheep,” and “ the good shepherd [who] giveth his life for the sheep”, “that they might have life, and that they might have it more abundantly” vs. 7, 10, 11) — but who again, is not literally an animal with cloven hoofs.

• In John 15, Jesus is the true vine — but who does not physically grow from the ground nor whose fruit is literally physically consumed.

Therefore the metaphorical use of language for eating and drinking is well established, and which the apostles would have been familiar with, and would have understood the Lord's words by, versus as a radical new requirement that contradicted Scripture, and required a metaphysical explanation to justify.

 

[PeaceByJesus]

Are you aware that the pope doesn't own any of his vestments?

The first pope was an apostle, and appointed the successor to Judas (Matthias). Paul, another apostle, appointed bishops everywhere he went. Two, from Scripture, were Timothy and Titus.

But despite the death of the apostle James, (Acts 12;1,2) there are no other apostolic successors save for Judas, which was to maintain the original we, (cf. Rv. 21:14) and which was the non-Roman, non-political OT method of casting lots.

Meanwhile Rome's so-called apostolic successors even fail of the qualifications and credentials of manifest Biblical apostles. (Acts 1:21,22; 1Cor. 9:1; Gal. 1:11,12; 2Cor. 6:1-0; 12:12) So do I.

 

[PeaceByJesus]

Communion with the dead has nothing to do with speaking to the dead or praying to the dead, or consulting or whispering or muttering. Besides "communion with the dead" speaks of their physical bodies, not their immortal souls.

Yes, deceased believers (not just "saints) are with the Lord now, (Phil. 1:21-23; 2Co. 5:8) as would all living souls be if the Lord returned, (1Thes. 4:17) but only God is shown able to hear from Heaven all the prayers to that realm, and the Holy Spirit provides absolutely zero prayers or offering addressed to anyone else in Heaven but the Lord - except by pagans - while providing approx. 200 to the Lord.

The silence is deafening, but consistent with unique Divine attributes, leaving Caths to try to extrapolate support for their pagan practice (which some late Jews copied) out of a faulty analogy of earthly relations.

 

[PeaceByJesus]

The sign of an apostle, bishop or priest is that he had hands laid on him by one who had authority to do so.

You mean an apostle must lay hands on an apostle for one to be ordained, and they also concurrently ordained priests as well?

 

[PeaceByJesus]

The Church of Christ has always believed that Christ's Flesh is true food, and that Mary is the Immaculate Mother of God.

WRONG! You keep insisting on making the church of Rome to uniquely be that of the NT church, which is utterly untenable, as shown.

If Rome was the NT church then it would have those things i delineated, but which are utterly absent.

And simply repeating your refuted mantra is akin to cultic devotees.

 

[Root of Jesse]

So you are denying that requiring the extermination of heretics and thus taking their property (to be split btwn the church and state) was not church teaching?

I'm denying that the Church 'required the extermination of heretics'.

Just what do you consider to be church teaching requiring assent (RCs providing conflict answers on this, as do popes).

Assent to what? Molestation of children? The Church, when she discovered the problem, sought advice from many avenues, which is why there were conflicting answers. The advice mostly given by psychologists, was to put them in rehab, and after a period, to put them back into the population. The Church listened to the secular world, which was, admittedly, a bad idea. They should have handled it internally, placing offending priests effectively in prison, in monasteries, where anyone who was there unwillingly would be in prison. For example, place an American offender in a French monastery in the mountains, where strict silence and isolation are emphasized, along with hard work and daily prayer. And leave them there.

 

[Root of Jesse]

Completely unresponsive.

See previous reply, while metaphorical use of eating and drinking abounds in Scripture, which the apostles knew, and surely Peter would object to physically consuming Christ, as He did even to Him washing his feet.

David distinctly said drinking water was the blood of men, and thus would not drink it, but poured it out on the ground as an offering to the Lord, as it is forbidden to drink blood.

And the three mighty men brake through the host of the Philistines, and drew water out of the well of Bethlehem, that was by the gate, and took it, and brought it to David: nevertheless he would not drink thereof, but poured it out unto the Lord. And he said, Be it far from me, O Lord, that I should do this: is not this the blood of the men that went in jeopardy of their lives? therefore he would not drink it. (2 Samuel 23:16-17)

To be consistent with their plain-language hermeneutic Caths should also insist this was literal. As well as when God clearly states that the Canaanites were “bread: “Only rebel not ye against the LORD, neither fear ye the people of the land; for they are bread for us” (Num. 14:9)

Other examples of the use of figurative language for eating and drinking include,

The Promised Land was “a land that eateth up the inhabitants thereof.” (Num. 13:32)
David said that his enemies came to “eat up my flesh.” (Ps. 27:2)

And complained that workers of iniquity ”eat up my people as they eat bread , and call not upon the Lord.” (Psalms 14:4)

And the Lord also said, “I will consume man and beast; I will consume the fowls of the heaven, and the fishes of the sea, and the stumblingblocks with the wicked; and I will cut off man from off the land, saith the Lord.” (Zephaniah 1:3)

While even arrows can drink: “I will make mine arrows drunk with blood, and my sword shall devour flesh ; and that with the blood of the slain and of the captives, from the beginning of revenges upon the enemy.' (Deuteronomy 32:42)

But David says the word of God (the Law) was “sweeter also than honey and the honeycomb. (Psalms 19:10)
Another psalmist also declared the word as “sweet:” “How sweet are thy words unto my taste! yea, sweeter than honey to my mouth!” (Psalms 119:103)

Jeremiah likewise proclaimed, “Your words were found. and I ate them. and your word was to me the joy and rejoicing of my heart” (Jer. 15:16)

Ezekiel was told to eat the words, “open thy mouth, and eat that I give thee...” “eat that thou findest; eat this scroll, and go, speak to the house of Israel.” (Ezek. 2:8; 3:1)

John is also commanded, “Take the scroll ... Take it and eat it.” (Rev. 10:8-9 )

And which use of figurative language for Christ and spiritual things abounds in John, using the physical to refer to the spiritual:
• In John 1:29, Jesus is called “the Lamb of God, which taketh away the sin of the world” — but he does not have hoofs and literal physical wool.

• In John 2:19 Jesus is the temple of God: “Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up” — but He is not made of literal stone.

• In John 3:14,15, Jesus is the likened to the serpent in the wilderness (Num. 21) who must “ be lifted up: That whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have eternal” (vs. 14, 15) — but He is not made of literal bronze.

• In John 4:14, Jesus provides living water, that “whosoever drinketh of the water that I shall give him shall never thirst; but the water that I shall give him shall be in him a well of water springing up into everlasting life,” — but which was not literally consumed by mouth.

• In John 7:37 Jesus is the One who promises “ He that believeth on me, as the scripture hath said, out of his belly shall flow rivers of living water” — but believers were not water fountains, but He spoke ”of the Spirit, which they that believe on him should receive.” (John 7:38)

• In Jn. 9:5 Jesus is “the Light of the world” — but who is not blocked by an umbrella.

• In John 10, Jesus is “the door of the sheep,” and “ the good shepherd [who] giveth his life for the sheep”, “that they might have life, and that they might have it more abundantly” vs. 7, 10, 11) — but who again, is not literally an animal with cloven hoofs.

• In John 15, Jesus is the true vine — but who does not physically grow from the ground nor whose fruit is literally physically consumed.

Therefore the metaphorical use of language for eating and drinking is well established, and which the apostles would have been familiar with, and would have understood the Lord's words by, versus as a radical new requirement that contradicted Scripture, and required a metaphysical explanation to justify.

 

[Root of Jesse]

But despite the death of the apostle James, (Acts 12;1,2) there are no other apostolic successors save for Judas, which was to maintain the original we, (cf. Rv. 21:14) and which was the non-Roman, non-political OT method of casting lots.

But there are. The apostle James was buried in Northwestern Spain, and enshrined in Compostela, Spain. You don't read in Scripture about the other Apostolic Successors because the Bible, almost exclusively, speaks of only the first generation of the Christian Church. The apostles prayed to the Holy Spirit for guidance before casting lots, so the Holy Spirit was involved in the process.

Meanwhile Rome's so-called apostolic successors even fail of the qualifications and credentials of manifest Biblical apostles. (Acts 1:21,22; 1Cor. 9:1; Gal. 1:11,12; 2Cor. 6:1-0; 12:12) So do I.

In what way?

 

[Root of Jesse]

Yes, deceased believers (not just "saints) are with the Lord now, (Phil. 1:21-23; 2Co. 5:8) as would all living souls be if the Lord returned, (1Thes. 4:17) but only God is shown able to hear from Heaven all the prayers to that realm, and the Holy Spirit provides absolutely zero prayers or offering addressed to anyone else in Heaven but the Lord - except by pagans - while providing approx. 200 to the Lord.

Incorrect. In heaven, in Revelation, those in heaven, the saints, are seen in Revelation 8:3-4, sending the prayers of the living to God.

The silence is deafening, but consistent with unique Divine attributes, leaving Caths to try to extrapolate support for their pagan practice (which some late Jews copied) out of a faulty analogy of earthly relations.

That, again, would be wrong. You may disagree with our interpretation, which is ancient, but you cannot declare it's pagan.