- Nov 26, 2019
- 11,191
- 5,710
- 49
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- Generic Orthodox Christian
- Marital Status
- Celibate
No you didn’t; your interpretation makes no sense in light of the Institution Narratives of 1 Corinthians and the Synoptics.
Upvote
0
The Rule of faith and practice is not scripture "alone"
- Thread starter LoveofTruth
- Start date
No you didn’t; your interpretation makes no sense in light of the Institution Narratives of 1 Corinthians and the Synoptics.
John 6: 63. “It is the spirit that quickeneth; the flesh profiteth nothing: the words that I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are life.”
Upvote
0
jas3
Active Member
- Jan 21, 2023
- 210
- 104
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- Methodist
- Marital Status
- Married
- Politics
- US-Republican
You were citing Tertullian earlier. Do you not have anyone you can point to in, say, the first thousand years after Christ who shared your interpretation?
And your selection of the King James Bible is one based on something other than the contents of the Bible. So it's inconsistent for you to say that you could only be convinced of something if it were proven from Scripture and nothing else.
There are a plurality of elders, yes. This is attested to in the writings of Irenaeus too. But elders/presbyters were not bishops.
Consider that the headship of a single bishop in a locality is attested to in many cities in just the second century, and several of those are at the very beginning. If those bishops were usurpers, did those usurpations happen independently across the whole Christian world? That seems unlikely.
Upvote
0
Yes they were we read Paul writing to the Ephesians elders who the Holy Ghost made overseers (same word as bishops used in Greek)
Acts 20: 17. And from Miletus he sent to Ephesus, and called the elders of the church. 28. Take heed therefore unto yourselves, and to all the flock, over the which the Holy Ghost hath made you overseers, to feed the church of God, which he hath purchased with his own blood. 29. For I know this, that after my departing shall grievous wolves enter in among you, not sparing the flock. 30. Also of your own selves shall men arise, speaking perverse things, to draw away disciples after them”.
The word “overseers”is 1985 Greek
Overseers- from 1909 and 4649 (in the sense of 1983); a superintendent, i.e. Christian officer in genitive case charge of a (or the) church (literally or figuratively):--bishop, overseer.”
So the elders was who they were, older in the faith, mature. Overseer/ bishop is what they do, they watch over (not Lord over).
Even Peter said he was an elder and told the elders to take the oversight.
1 Peter 5: 1. The elders which are among you I exhort, who am also an elder, and a witness of the sufferings of Christ, and also a partaker of the glory that shall be revealed: 2. Feed the flock of God which is among you, taking the oversight thereof, not by constraint, but willingly; not for filthy lucre, but of a ready mind; 3. Neither as being lords over God's heritage, but being ensamples to the flock.”
The error of moving away from body ministry in Christ where every joint supplies (Ephesians 4:15,16),happened early in the church. We see these men rising up drawing away disciples after themselves early on. Even the Church of Ephesus tried some fakes apostles. Paul dealt with them as well in 2 Corinthians 11 John addresses some.
Last edited:
Upvote
0
- Nov 26, 2019
- 11,191
- 5,710
- 49
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- Generic Orthodox Christian
- Marital Status
- Celibate
Herein you are engaging in eisegesis, taking one verse out of context and attempting to use it to contradict the plain meaning of the previous verses as sustained by the Words of Institution in the other Gospels and 1 Corinthians (and aluded to in other texts). Ergo the verse you quote In no respect negates what He said before that remark, that his flesh is meat indeed, and his blood is drink indeed, or what He said in the institution narratives in the Synoptics and 1 Corinthians, for example:
Matthew 26:26-28
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. 27And he took the cup, and gave thanks, and gave itto 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.
John 6 and the Institution Narratives in Matthew, Mark, Luke and 1 Corinthians ch. 11 reinforce each other, and what is more 1 Corinthians 11:17-34 confirms that the Eucharist is the Body and Blood of our Lord, and the danger of not discerning it as such, or of partaking of it while unworthy, which can cause illness or death, rather than providing the remission of sins promised in Matthew as quoted above, and what is more, it is also made clear that the Eucharist is not an ordinary meal:
17Now in this that I declare unto you I praise you not, that ye come together not for the better, but for the worse. 18For first of all, when ye come together in the church, I hear that there be divisions among you; and I partly believe it. 19For there must be also heresies among you, that they which are approved may be made manifest among you. 20When ye come together therefore into one place, this is not to eat the Lord's supper. 21For in eating every one taketh before other his own supper: and one is hungry, and another is drunken. 22What? have ye not houses to eat and to drink in? or despise ye the church of God, and shame them that have not? What shall I say to you? shall I praise you in this? I praise you not.
23For I have received of the Lord that which also I delivered unto you, That the Lord Jesus the samenight in which he was betrayed took bread: 24And when he had given thanks, he brake it, and said, Take, eat: this is my body, which is broken for you: this do in remembrance of me. 25After the same manner also he took the cup, when he had supped, saying, This cup is the new testament in my blood: this do ye, as oft as ye drink it, in remembrance of me. 26For as often as ye eat this bread, and drink this cup, ye do shew the Lord's death till he come.
27Wherefore whosoever shall eat this bread, and drink this cup of the Lord, unworthily, shall be guilty of the body and blood of the Lord. 28But let a man examine himself, and so let him eat of thatbread, and drink of that cup. 29For he that eateth and drinketh unworthily, eateth and drinketh damnation to himself, not discerning the Lord's body. 30For this cause many are weak and sickly among you, and many sleep. 31For if we would judge ourselves, we should not be judged. 32But when we are judged, we are chastened of the Lord, that we should not be condemned with the world.
33Wherefore, my brethren, when ye come together to eat, tarry one for another. 34And if any man hunger, let him eat at home; that ye come not together unto condemnation. And the rest will I set in order when I come.
Contrary to what you might think about the Early Church Fathers, they did not invent doctrines on a caprice, but rather followed the teachings of the Apostles which were based on the text, and worked to ensure that the canon of the New Testament reflected the doctrines that had been handed down, which is why works by the Ebionites and the Valentinians, for example, were never even considered for inclusion in the canonical New Testament. Whereas The Shepherd of Hermas, for example, was considered closely, because it reflected the Apostolic kerygma, but it was ultimately excluded because it was of Patristic rather than Apostolic origin, and the Fathers of the Early Church themselves decided that their own Patristic writings should not be included in the New Testament, even where they were doctrinally correct (for this same reason, the writings of St. Ignatius, St. Clement, St. Polycarp and the Protoevangelion of James were excluded, despite all of these being regarded as doctrinally correct). Rather, it was the desire of the Fathers to limit the New Testament itself to include only Apostolic material, but this was not a decision taken to deprecate the Patristic corpus of writings that are consistent with the Apostolic kerygma, which is why no Church Father suggested adopting anything like the Nuda Scriptura advocated by yourself, which appears to exceed even the extreme “neo-Orthodox” position of the Reformed theologian Karl Barth as outlined in his massive work of systematic theology, Church Dogmatics.
Last edited:
Upvote
0
jas3
Active Member
- Jan 21, 2023
- 210
- 104
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- Methodist
- Marital Status
- Married
- Politics
- US-Republican
That doesn't mean the offices were the same. To give a demonstration of this in English, there are many ways in which one can be a "minister." In some cases it implies ordination, in others it's used generally to refer to someone who takes care of others.
No, being an elder was a specific office to which men are appointed, as described in Titus 1:
"For this reason I left you in Crete, that you would set in order what remains and appoint elders in every city as I directed you..."
And yet you say that this same church, which by your argument had fallen into error while the Apostle John was still alive, reliably preserved its manuscripts, correctly determined the consubstantiality of the Son and the Holy Ghost with the Father through its ecumenical councils, correctly translated those manuscripts, correctly determined which books were canonical... This seems like an ad hoc explanation that doesn't take into account how irreconcilable it is with church history.
Upvote
0
No I did not do this. I simply quoted the verse in context. Jesus shows that eating his flesh (literally) would not profit them. The words he speaks are spirit and life. This is right in context with what words he spoke about coming to him and believing on him (eating and drinking)
Even when people hear the gospel 1 Cor. 15:1/4) those are now in words. If we believe the gospel either after hearing the words preached or reading them preached we are saved.
Now you are talking about other verses out of context from this section. Jesus is not speaking about the Lords Supper specifically in John 6.
No John 6 is not speaking about the figurative ritual of the supper or Passover.
I know he is not negating anything in the context I quoted It’s your theology that would see it as a contradiction to your erroneous doctrine. You found yourself out.
Jesus literally died on the cross and was buried and rose again. But we don’t know Christ after the flesh now. By eating spiritual meat and spiritual drink this is by coming to him in our hearts for Christ dwells in our heart by faith and believing on him in your heart for with the heart man believes and we have His word down in our heart which we eat . We are born again by the word of God .
Consider, that Christ in you has been the bread of life throughout all the ages. To those who spiritually eat and drink of him inwardly as well. But he had to come in the flesh and to die on the cross and be buried and ride again for our sins. But we don’t know him in the physical now.
1 Corinthians 10: 3. And did all eat the same spiritual meat; 4. And did all drink the same spiritual drink: for they drank of that spiritual Rock that followed them: and that Rock was Christ.”
Also consider,
2 Corinthians 5: 16. Wherefore henceforth know we no man after the flesh: yea, though we have known Christ after the flesh, yet now henceforth know we him no more. 17. Therefore if any man be in Christ, he is a new creature: old things are passed away; behold, all things are become new.”
And
John 15: 3. Now ye are clean through the word which I have spoken unto you. 4. Abide in me, and I in you. As the branch cannot bear fruit of itself, except it abide in the vine; no more can ye, except ye abide in me. 5. I am the vine, ye are the branches: He that abideth in me, and I in him, the same bringeth forth much fruit: for without me ye can do nothing.”
Said before the cross (though not without it. In time) and not speaking of the supper here.
They did not discern the reason for the remembrance meal of bread and the cup and so it had no meaning to them and they were not remembering the poor and acting as without love or as part of the body of Christ. They also did not discern the Lord’s body, that body being the believers as them body of Christ also. They were sinning against the weaker brothers and selfish and drunk at them supper (some).
As we read
1 Corinthians 10: 17. For we being many are one bread, and one body: for we are all partakers of that one bread.”
Believers also eat the word in a spiritual way and we already read of spiritual meat and spiritual drink
Consider,
1 Peter 2: 2, 3 “As newborn babes, desire the sincere milk of the word, that ye may grow thereby: 3 If so be ye have tasted that the Lord is gracious.”
Hebrews 5: 14. But strong meat belongeth to them that are of full age, even those who by reason of use have their senses exercised to discern both good and evil.”
Luke 4: 4. And Jesus answered him, saying, It is written, That man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word of God.”
Jeremiah 15: 16. Thy words were found, and I did eat them; and thy word was unto me the joy and rejoicing of mine heart: for I am called by thy name, O LORD God of hosts.”
Last edited:
Upvote
0
- Apr 11, 2005
- 72,844
- 9,381
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- Catholic
- Marital Status
- Private
Not to oppose forcefully, but no, no you really did not prove anything about eating the Lord's true Flesh and Blood simply taking a verse totally out of context.
The Liturgist quoted a very succinct, warning about taking the Body and Blood as common or unworthily.
But did you read it?
Upvote
0
- Apr 11, 2005
- 72,844
- 9,381
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- Catholic
- Marital Status
- Private
This is considered cherry picking FWIW.
The Douay Rheims Bible.
Koine Greek uses the terms grinding and chewing His Flesh... BTW
John 6:
51 I am the living bread which came down from heaven. 52 If any man eat of this bread, he shall live for ever; and the bread that I will give, is my flesh, for the life of the world. 53 The Jews therefore strove among themselves, saying: How can this man give us his flesh to eat? 54 Then Jesus said to them: 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. 55 He that eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, hath everlasting life: and I will raise him up in the last day.
61 Many therefore of his disciples, hearing it, said: This saying is hard, and who can hear it? 62 But Jesus, knowing in himself, that his disciples murmured at this, said to them: Doth this scandalize you? 63 If then you shall see the Son of man ascend up where he was before? 64 It is the spirit that quickeneth: the flesh profiteth nothing. The words that I have spoken to you, are spirit and life. 65 But there are some of you that believe not. For Jesus knew from the beginning, who they were that did not believe, and who he was, that would betray him.
[63] "If then you shall see": Christ by mentioning his ascension, by this instance of his power and divinity, would confirm the truth of what he had before asserted; and at the same time correct their gross apprehension of eating his flesh, and drinking his blood, in a vulgar and carnal manner, by letting them know he should take his whole body living with him to heaven; and consequently not suffer it to be as they supposed, divided, mangled, and consumed upon earth.
[64] "The flesh profiteth nothing": Dead flesh separated from the spirit, in the gross manner they supposed they were to eat his flesh, would profit nothing. Neither doth man's flesh, that is to say, man's natural and carnal apprehension, (which refuses to be subject to the spirit, and words of Christ,) profit any thing. But it would be the height of blasphemy, to say the living flesh of Christ (which we receive in the blessed sacrament, with his spirit, that is, with his soul and divinity) profiteth nothing. For if Christ's flesh had profited us nothing, he would never have taken flesh for us, nor died in the flesh for us.
Upvote
0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums
No, it is rightly dividing the word the spiritual things are only understood by spiritual men the natural man cannot know them they are spiritually discerned.
Jesus often spoke in a spiritual way and one time he said to sone to
Matthew 16: 6. Then Jesus said unto them, Take heed and beware of the leaven of the Pharisees and of the Sadducees. 7. And they reasoned among themselves, saying, It is because we have taken no bread. 8. Which when Jesus perceived, he said unto them, O ye of little faith, why reason ye among yourselves, because ye have brought no bread?… 11. How is it that ye do not understand that I spake it not to you concerning bread, that ye should beware of the leaven of the Pharisees and of the Sadducees? 12. Then understood they how that he bade them not beware of the leaven of bread, but of the doctrine of the Pharisees and of the Sadducees.”
Jesus spoke of spiritual truth here and they thought he was talking about natural bread.
Eat is eating in Greek. When we eat we chew on something. But as usual, Jesus is not talking about actually eating his flesh standing in front of them. Or drinking his literal blood right there, the Jews were forbidden to drink blood. Which is interesting. Do you believe that the cup (which most Catholics do not drink here in Canada) is literally now the blood of Christ? Literally. Do you believe the literal blood in the cup is to be for all to drink? If sone by do most not drink it? And in the old abd New Testamebt blood is forbidden to drink.
But Jesus is the bread from heaven, not as the manna in the wilderness (the little white cakes in Moses time) but he spoke of spiritually eating the word he spoke and he was also to physically die on the cross once for sin and the gospel would be preached and those who believe that gospel are saved (1 Cor 25:1-4 KJV) so to add to that saving gospel anything else would make another gospel and then read Galatians 1 for that warming. Notice in the gospel that no Lords supper remembrance or water baptism or wearing scapulars etc was added for salvation to the gospel.
We can eat spiritual meat and drink spiritual drink as I showed in scripture. We don’t just eat physically.
What do you suppose spiritual meat is?
What do you suppose “thy word was found and I did eat” means?
How do we feed ourselves on the milk of the word or taste and see that the Lord is good?
Where is the seed (the word of God/Christ) sown?
Jesus said this about eating and drinking
John 6: 34. Then said they unto him, Lord, evermore give us this bread. 35. And Jesus said unto them, I am the bread of life: he that cometh to me shall never hunger; and he that believeth on me shall never thirst. 40. And this is the will of him that sent me, that every one which seeth the Son, and believeth on him, may have everlasting life: and I will raise him up at the last day. 44. No man can come to me, except the Father which hath sent me draw him: and I will raise him up at the last day. 45. It is written in the prophets, And they shall be all taught of God. Every man therefore that hath heard, and hath learned of the Father, cometh unto me. 47. Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that believeth on me hath everlasting life.”
And Jesus is not talking about the Passover supper here. And to “see” the Son of God abd know who Jesus is, is only by revelation of the Father. Many saw him physically but only believers saw him spiritually . Many heard him physically but only believers heard him spiritually and had His word abiding in them.
His physical incarnation once as God manifest in the flesh happened in time and he died and rise again. Now we don’t know him after the flesh as Paul wrote (by the Spirit) and neither shall they say lo here is Christ or there is Christ( as sone now say in the supper and the bread and cup) .Christ shall (future tense) appear a second time at the second coming.
But as far as eating “spiritual meat” this is the issue and what do you think “spiritual meat” and “spiritual drink” is that all them saints of all time have eaten?
And Jesus said blessed are those who do hunger abd thirst after righteousness, for they shall be filled.
The kingdom of God is not meat and drink but as we read,
Romans 14: 17. “For the kingdom of God is not meat and drink; but righteousness, and peace, and joy in the Holy Ghost.”
Last edited:
Upvote
0
- Apr 11, 2005
- 72,844
- 9,381
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- Catholic
- Marital Status
- Private
[/QUOTE]
And quite possibly this is to be directed back to those who deny the very truth of why the disciples walked away.
Not a couple, but all His disciples.
He then asked His Apostles if they were going.
He did not apologize, back down, explain it, nor fret over them going.
Because... and follow me here.... because akin to your thinking they found it impossible.
This is identical to your thinking or your posts.
It is impossible, therefore.... [fill in the blanks]
You completely and 100% missed the point. And like the others, would have walked away and in fact you have from the Church who has the Body and Blood.
REAL Food and Drink, or you will have no life in you.
So if you want to be wise as the Holy Spirit is the life in one, you MUST partake. But only worthily.
Otherwise; it's just mere symbolism and encroaching if not stampeding on the spiritual understanding.
Jesus said in Greek - MAKE this a sacrifice present.
Not do this in memory of Me.
This is NOT splitting hairs, it is what it is.
People deny the Lord's capabilities and His power all the time.
[/QUOTE]
Upvote
0
- Apr 11, 2005
- 72,844
- 9,381
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- Catholic
- Marital Status
- Private
To follow a verse here or there would and is the inclination to be like the weed that is choked out because it grows, but separating the verses all too often divides the fullness.
1. Timothy keep the oral teachings/tradition.
2. Every Sunday they broke the Bread.
However; the most fascinating aspect of folks who follow Bible only are completely following the Pope, though imperfectly.
Who was the one with authority to decide what ought to be canon in 382 AD.
1. Timothy keep the oral teachings/tradition.
2. Every Sunday they broke the Bread.
However; the most fascinating aspect of folks who follow Bible only are completely following the Pope, though imperfectly.
Who was the one with authority to decide what ought to be canon in 382 AD.
Upvote
0
You have not answered this verse about all believers being one bread and one body.
1 Corinthians 10: 17. “For we being many are one bread, and one body: for we are all partakers of that one bread”
Believers are the Lords body also the body of Christ and sone don’t discern this and the working of the body and how we should have the sane care one for another and not neglect the poor and weak among us. If we are believers we love one another as we read,
1 Corinthians 12: 13. For by one Spirit are we all baptized into one body, whether we be Jews or Gentiles, whether we be bond or free; and have been all made to drink into one Spirit. 14. For the body is not one member, but many…20. But now are they many members, yet but one body….25 That there should be no schism in the body; but that the members should have the same care one for another…27. Now ye are the body of Christ, and members in particular.”
Ephesians 1: 22. And hath put all things under his feet, and gave him to be the head over all things to the church, 23. Which is his body, the fulness of him that filleth all in all.”
1 Corinthians 11: 33. Wherefore, my brethren, when ye come together to eat, tarry one for another. 34. And if any man hunger, let him eat at home; that ye come not together unto condemnation. And the rest will I set in order when I come.”
Upvote
0
- Apr 11, 2005
- 72,844
- 9,381
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- Catholic
- Marital Status
- Private
Ok, you want it...?
Then be ready for it.
MANY are invited and few will come.
If you do NOT eat My Flesh and Drink My Blood you have no life.
Those few who believe - and receive - that's what it means.
The beleivers.
Not the wresting of scriptures, as warned by Peter, but the faithful to what was the deposit of faith then and shall be til the end of time.
Here's a solemn thought, when the Church is fallen the world shall cease.
Upvote
0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums
And quite possibly this is to be directed back to those who deny the very truth of why the disciples walked away.
Not a couple, but all His disciples.
He then asked His Apostles if they were going.
He did not apologize, back down, explain it, nor fret over them going.
Because... and follow me here.... because akin to your thinking they found it impossible.
This is identical to your thinking or your posts.
It is impossible, therefore.... [fill in the blanks]
You completely and 100% missed the point. And like the others, would have walked away and in fact you have from the Church who has the Body and Blood.
REAL Food and Drink, or you will have no life in you.
So if you want to be wise as the Holy Spirit is the life in one, you MUST partake. But only worthily.
Otherwise; it's just mere symbolism and encroaching if not stampeding on the spiritual understanding.
Jesus said in Greek - MAKE this a sacrifice present.
Not do this in memory of Me.
This is NOT splitting hairs, it is what it is.
People deny the Lord's capabilities and His power all the time.
[/QUOTE]
[/QUOTE]
Totally wrong , you miss the entire meaning.
“The bread which we break” was said by Paul, he did not say this literal flesh now which we break.
To worship bread is idolatry to many Christian’s. We worship God in spirit and in truth abd no idolater shall enter the kingdom of God. As scripture shows 1 Cor. 6:9,10 (KJV)
Not a couple, but all His disciples.
He then asked His Apostles if they were going.
He did not apologize, back down, explain it, nor fret over them going.
Because... and follow me here.... because akin to your thinking they found it impossible.
This is identical to your thinking or your posts.
It is impossible, therefore.... [fill in the blanks]
You completely and 100% missed the point. And like the others, would have walked away and in fact you have from the Church who has the Body and Blood.
REAL Food and Drink, or you will have no life in you.
So if you want to be wise as the Holy Spirit is the life in one, you MUST partake. But only worthily.
Otherwise; it's just mere symbolism and encroaching if not stampeding on the spiritual understanding.
Jesus said in Greek - MAKE this a sacrifice present.
Not do this in memory of Me.
This is NOT splitting hairs, it is what it is.
People deny the Lord's capabilities and His power all the time.
[/QUOTE]
[/QUOTE]
Totally wrong , you miss the entire meaning.
“The bread which we break” was said by Paul, he did not say this literal flesh now which we break.
To worship bread is idolatry to many Christian’s. We worship God in spirit and in truth abd no idolater shall enter the kingdom of God. As scripture shows 1 Cor. 6:9,10 (KJV)
Upvote
0
The verse actually says this
John 6: 53. Then Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, ye have no life in you. 54. Whoso eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, hath eternal life; and I will raise him up at the last day…56. He that eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, dwelleth in me, and I in him.”
“Psalm 34: 8. O taste and see that the LORD is good: blessed is the man that trusteth in him.”
The life in you is the key. Christ who is our life dwells in our hearts by faith: he is the true Light that lighteth every man only those who come to the light (come to him) inwardly. This is not speaking of the supper but the spiritual reality in Christ that all the saints of all time had. Abraham had the seed (Christ) in him and all OT saints did eat the sane spiritual meat and spiritual drink for they drank of that Spiritual Rock that followed them and that Rock was Christ.
Jesus said that the flesh profiteth nothing but the words he spoke they were spirit and they were life. So if we are born again by the word of God being born of the spirit, then this comes by hearing and hearing by the word of God.
And no man can come to Jesus simply by eating the literal supper they come by the Father inwardly drawing them and teaching them first.
The gospel is 1 Corinthians 15:1-4 and no Lord’s supper or water baptism is added to that or any other works of man or rituals it is by grace through faith we are saved. To add anything else is another gospel for salvation.
Last edited:
Upvote
0
- Apr 11, 2005
- 72,844
- 9,381
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- Catholic
- Marital Status
- Private
The truth is truth.
You want it an exact statement when what I said says what it means.
How to get to Him?
He didn't wait 1500 years to finally impart truth.
If the Lord could come back and clarify He would say I do it once for all time.
I don't mince words.
I do not change.
Upvote
0
- Apr 11, 2005
- 72,844
- 9,381
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- Catholic
- Marital Status
- Private
Well, I suppose the only way you know scriptures is by your guess work.
For it was imparted throughout centuries it literally is HIS Flesh and Blood and as such, is Holy and therefore, we worship.
READ the successors of the prelates, and teachers within the ONE Church.
Scientists have studied miracles of the Eucharist - without knowledge [pathologists/histologists] of what they were studying to state it is Tissue [literally] of a man's heart left ventricle Who was brutally beaten with type A+ Blood.
How do you worship Him?
By not only questioning His works, His words and His teachings He imparted secretly for 40 days after His Rising...... for us - and removing not only child like trust and faith but wresting scriptures via your own chosen thinking.
He said - Make this a SACRIFICE PRESENT.
He literally said in Greek - you MUST Chew and Grind my Flesh.
Are you calling Him a liar??
I think the people listening to Him speak knew what He was saying. That's why they said 'Who can hear this...?'
Why would the Apostles write this if it were not only a fact, but how people had NO faith in what was to come...
He spoke literally. Not figuratively as folks would like to surmise today lacking the original teachings carried throughout history.
Upvote
0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums
No, it’s only by the Spirit and revelation and consider these verses to understand
1 Corinthians 2: 11. For what man knoweth the things of a man, save the spirit of man which is in him? even so the things of God knoweth no man, but the Spirit of God. 12. Now we have received, not the spirit of the world, but the spirit which is of God; that we might know the things that are freely given to us of God. ..14. But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned. 15. But he that is spiritual judgeth all things, yet he himself is judged of no man.”
1 John 2: 20. But ye have an unction from the Holy One, and ye know all things…27. But the anointing which ye have received of him abideth in you, and ye need not that any man teach you: but as the same anointing teacheth you of all things, and is truth, and is no lie, and even as it hath taught you, ye shall abide in him.”
Last edited:
Upvote
0
Similar threads
