• 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.

Immaculate Conception

Status
Not open for further replies.

Albion

Facilitator
Dec 8, 2004
111,127
33,263
✟584,002.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Anglican
Marital Status
Married
One of us is wrong that is for sure. I have to say to you with all respect that I disagree with you.

Please follow the process with me and I hope it will help you understand what I am saying.
The term "Real Presence," when used by Roman Catholics, refers to Christ's physical presence in the form of the bread and the wine that have been transubstantiated into His literal body and blood.
Is that not correct??????

Now since that is the case, those who take part in this event of transubstantiation, they are in the presence of Christ himself, Catholics and others who do this then worship and adore the elements.
The Mass contains a series of rituals leading up to the Lord's Supper which also contains a reenactment of the sacrifice of Christ.

Furthermore, transubstantiation states that the substance of the elements are miraculously changed even though their appearance is not. In other words, the bread and wine will appear as bread and wine under close scientific examination, but the true substance is mystically the Body and Blood of Christ. Synonymous with Transubstantiation is the doctrine of the Real Presence.

The denominations who practice this doctrine, whether they be RCC, or Othodox or Luthern respond by saying that Jesus had instituted the new and everlasting covenant in which the sacrificed body and blood of Christ was reality. Therefore, because it was a new covenant, it was also the sacrificed body and blood. But this cannot work because the new covenant could not yet be instituted until after the death of Christ as the Scriptures state.

Heb. 9:15-16.................
"And for this reason He is the mediator of a new covenant, in order that since a death has taken place for the redemption of the transgressions that were committed under the first covenant, those who have been called may receive the promise of the eternal inheritance. 16 For where a covenant is, there must of necessity be the death of the one who made it,".
You are essentially correct, but as I have mentioned before, the church needs only to come up with a new term in order to justify any doctrinal change.

In the twentieth century, official RC literature described the Mass as a sacrifice that differed from the sacrifice of the Cross only by being unbloody.

As with other doctrinal changes made in more recent years because the faithful do not believe most of these holdovers from the Middle Ages any longer, a simple change of terminology (to re-presentation of the sacrifice of the Cross) was the way to do it and still keep alive the claim that the church never changes. Nor surprisingly, some members will defend this impossible innovation in the belief that it always was the church's position.
 
Upvote 0

Major1

Well-Known Member
Sep 17, 2016
10,551
2,837
Deland, Florida
✟211,285.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
Okay, much of this is correct, but you are missing a point here. The Mass, in Catholic belief and understanding, is the New Passover; and one cannot fully understand the Mass without a solid understanding of the Passover. Every Passover is a re-presentation of the original Passover, as Ex 12 points out. The language of the rituals used in the Passover, their intent, is to re-present the original Passover. To bring that which happened in the past to the present and to a certain extent to bring that which is in the present back into the past. The Mass is the same. In the Mass the Sacrifice of the Cross is re-presented upon the altar of the Church.

OK. Back to the original position of this thread.....Immaculate Conception of Mary!!!!!

The Immaculate Conception refers to the condition that the Blessed Virgin Mary was free from Original Sin from the very moment of her conception in the womb of her mother.

It was said in comment #408 that.............
"The Pope of Rome does not have the authority to change or invent his own doctrines."

However, is it not true that Pope Pius IX, on December 8, 1854, would declare the Immaculate Conception of Mary a dogma—that is, a doctrine that the Church teaches was revealed by God Himself.

In the Apostolic Constitution Ineffabilis Deus, Pope Pius IX wrote that.........
"We declare, pronounce, and define that the doctrine which holds that the most Blessed Virgin Mary, in the first instance of her conception, by a singular grace and privilege granted by Almighty God, in view of the merits of Jesus Christ, the Savior of the human race, was preserved free from all stain of original sin, is a doctrine revealed by God and therefore to be believed firmly and constantly by all the faithful."

Some of us actually do know and have an understanding of the RCC and its teachings.

Catholics believe Mary was conceived the normal way, but God made her immune from imputed or inherited sin. For as long as she’s been in existence, Mary has been free of sin. The Bible nowhere describes Mary as anything but an ordinary human female whom God chose to be the mother of the Lord Jesus Christ. Mary was undoubtedly a godly woman. Mary was surely a wonderful wife and mother. Jesus definitely loved and cherished His mother. But the Bible gives us no reason to believe that Mary was sinless.
 
Upvote 0

Major1

Well-Known Member
Sep 17, 2016
10,551
2,837
Deland, Florida
✟211,285.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
Exactly. They don't concern themselves overmuch with the beliefs of others outside themselves. It was in the context of knowing what Protestants or Catholics believe, not in knowing what they believe.

I guess that there is a difference there. For you I mean, not foe me.
 
  • Optimistic
Reactions: FenderTL5
Upvote 0

Major1

Well-Known Member
Sep 17, 2016
10,551
2,837
Deland, Florida
✟211,285.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
You are essentially correct, but as I have mentioned before, the church needs only to come up with a new term in order to justify any doctrinal change.

In the twentieth century, official RC literature described the Mass as a sacrifice that differed from the sacrifice of the Cross only by being unbloody.

As with other doctrinal changes made in more recent years because the faithful do not believe most of these holdovers from the Middle Ages any longer, a simple change of terminology (to re-presentation of the sacrifice of the Cross) was the way to do it and still keep alive the claim that the church never changes. Nor surprisingly, some members will defend this impossible innovation in the belief that it always was the church's position.

I agree with you.
 
Upvote 0

All4Christ

✙ The Handmaid of God Laura ✙
CF Senior Ambassador
Site Supporter
Mar 11, 2003
11,796
8,175
PA
Visit site
✟1,187,029.00
Country
United States
Gender
Female
Faith
Eastern Orthodox
Marital Status
Married
I guess that there is a difference there. For you I mean, not foe me.
No matter what you think about those in her parish, Anastasia is very well versed in theology of many different denominations and churches.

(Also, I'm guessing there are plenty of individuals at your church that don't know the ins and outs of Orthodox theology. Does that make them not know what they believe? Of course not. They don't need to know what other churches believe to know what they believe themselves).

Please consider the implications of what you say and consider you may not know as much about our faith as we do.
 
Upvote 0

All4Christ

✙ The Handmaid of God Laura ✙
CF Senior Ambassador
Site Supporter
Mar 11, 2003
11,796
8,175
PA
Visit site
✟1,187,029.00
Country
United States
Gender
Female
Faith
Eastern Orthodox
Marital Status
Married
Ok, I'm stepping out of this thread for now. I'll keep posting in your thread in TT @Erose . It's not beneficial to keep posting here now though.

Blessings to you all.
 
  • Prayers
Reactions: Major1
Upvote 0

Major1

Well-Known Member
Sep 17, 2016
10,551
2,837
Deland, Florida
✟211,285.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
No matter what you think about those in her parish, Anastasia is very well versed in theology of many different denominations and churches.

(Also, I'm guessing there are plenty of individuals at your church that don't know the ins and outs of Orthodox theology. Does that make them not know what they believe? Of course not. They don't need to know what other churches believe to know what they believe themselves).

Please consider the implications of what you say and consider you may not know as much about our faith as we do.

Thank you for the advice. However I did not say that she was unaware of anything.

I only responded to her ACTUAL words and nothing else.

I would also say that the people in the church I attend are very educated in the Bible. It is our workbook and we have Bible study classes 3 times a week. One of those classes is "What other Faiths Believe".
 
Upvote 0

Major1

Well-Known Member
Sep 17, 2016
10,551
2,837
Deland, Florida
✟211,285.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
Ok, I'm stepping out of this thread for now. I'll keep posting in your thread in TT @Erose . It's not beneficial to keep posting here now though.

Blessings to you all.

God bless you and I hope you will be well.
 
  • Friendly
Reactions: All4Christ
Upvote 0

~Anastasia~

† Handmaid of God †
Dec 1, 2013
31,129
17,440
Florida panhandle, USA
✟930,345.00
Country
United States
Gender
Female
Faith
Eastern Orthodox
Marital Status
Married
Thank you for the advice. However I did not say that she was unaware of anything.

I only responded to her ACTUAL words and nothing else.

I would also say that the people in the church I attend are very educated in the Bible. It is our workbook and we have Bible study classes 3 times a week. One of those classes is "What other Faiths Believe".

Wonderful for you. Though I have my doubts if your workbook is teaching you correctly what Orthodoxy believes.

But ... as I said, those in my parish were born and raised with the complete faith handed down undiluted and unconfused by all the varieties of Protestantism, or what we view as changes instituted by Catholicism.

The Apostles were unaware of all sorts of Protestantism as well. That does not mean they did not know their faith.

You are charging, somehow, that we don't know what we believe because we don't study the ways others have departed. That makes no sense. And please don't misrepresent what I've said, because that is all I've said - that they don't look for what we would see to be a very great problem - divisions and factions and lack of unity in truth and departures into doctrines of error. As I said, they are good folks who think good of everyone else, and how you wish to turn that into ignorance of our faith as handed down by the Apostles and/or something negative, does not speak well of you.

But I would prefer to think you simply don't understand, in which case you could be excused.
 
Upvote 0

amariselle

Jesus Never Fails
Sep 28, 2004
6,648
4,201
The Great Northern Wilderness
✟75,570.00
Country
United States
Gender
Female
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
CA-Conservatives
Your 'rightly dividing' does not remotely address why some of Jesus' disciples left Him.

In fact it does. Scripture tells us that the Jews were forbidden to drink blood. The disciples took Jesus literally and did not understand that He was speaking a parable at that time. Hence, they believed that He was advocating the literal drinking of His blood and the literal eating of His flesh (cannibalism)

Here's what I posted again:

These are the words Jesus spoke after feeding the 5,000.

26 "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.

27 Labour not for the meat which perisheth, but for that meat which endureth unto everlasting life, which the Son of man shall give unto you: for him hath God the Father sealed.'"

28 "Then said they unto him, 'What shall we do, that we might work the works of God?'"

29 "Jesus answered and said unto them,
'This is the work of God, that ye believe on him whom he hath sent.'

30 "They said therefore unto him, 'What sign shewest thou then, that we may see, and believe thee? what dost thou work?

31 Our fathers did eat manna in the desert; as it is written, He gave them bread from heaven to eat.'"

32 "Then Jesus said unto them, 'Verily, verily, I say unto you, Moses gave you not that bread from heaven; but my Father giveth you the true bread from heaven.

33 For the bread of God is he which cometh down from heaven, and giveth life unto the world.'"

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.

36 But I said unto you, That ye also have seen me, and believe not.

37 All that the Father giveth me shall come to me; and him that cometh to me I will in no wise cast out.

38 For I came down from heaven, not to do mine own will, but the will of him that sent me.

39 And this is the Father's will which hath sent me, that of all which he hath given me I should lose nothing, but should raise it up again at the last day.

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.'"

41 "The Jews then murmured at him, because he said, 'I am the bread which came down from heaven.'"

42 "And they said, 'Is not this Jesus, the son of Joseph, whose father and mother we know? how is it then that he saith, I came down from heaven?'"

43 "Jesus therefore answered and said unto them, 'Murmur not among yourselves.

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.

46 Not that any man hath seen the Father, save he which is of God, he hath seen the Father.

47 Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that believeth on me hath everlasting life.

48 I am that bread of life.

49 Your fathers did eat manna in the wilderness, and are dead.

50 This is the bread which cometh down from heaven, that a man may eat thereof, and not die.

51 I am the living bread which came down from heaven: if any man eat of this bread, he shall live for ever: and the bread that I will give is my flesh, which I will give for the life of the world.'"

52 "The Jews therefore strove among themselves, saying, 'How can this man give us his flesh to eat?'"

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.

55 For my flesh is meat indeed, and my blood is drink indeed.

56 He that eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, dwelleth in me, and I in him.

57 As the living Father hath sent me, and I live by the Father: so he that eateth me, even he shall live by me.

58 This is that bread which came down from heaven: not as your fathers did eat manna, and are dead: he that eateth of this bread shall live for ever.'"

59 "These things said he in the synagogue, as he taught in Capernaum.

60 Many therefore of his disciples, when they had heard this, said, 'This is an hard saying; who can hear it?'"

61 "When Jesus knew in himself that his disciples murmured at it, he said unto them, 'Doth this offend you?

62 What and if ye shall see the Son of man ascend up where he was before?

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.'" - John 6:26-63

Jesus was telling a parable here. He did not mean, of course, that He was or is literal bread or that, therefore, people should eat His literal flesh or drink His literal blood. (And indeed, none of His disciples ever did so). He was telling them that salvation is found in Him alone, and that salvation would be made possible by His coming sacrifice on the cross (where He offered His body and blood).

He is equating belief/faith in Him (by which people are saved and will not perish eternally, but have everlasting life) to the act of eating. This is a parable, teaching a spiritual truth and not meant to be taken literally. We also know this because the Jews were in fact forbidden to eat/drink blood, and cannibalism is abhorrent to God.

In telling this parable, as an example, he refers to the ancestors of those present who ate manna in the wilderness (a type of shadow of Christ) but still perished, saying He is the true bread from heaven. Those who ate the manna still perished, but those who "eat" (believe) in Him will never die. (They will have eternal life).

Unfortunately, many did not understand this parable and the spiritual truth it conveys at the time Jesus first taught it either, thus they actually thought He was advocating cannibalism. Even His disciples were put off and offended. (As would be anyone who thought Jesus was speaking literally).

Jesus also told a similar parable to the Samaritan woman at the well. (John 4) He quite often spoke in parables, as we know, using physical things to convey spiritual truth.

This is why we need to rightly divide the word of truth.
 
  • Agree
Reactions: Major1
Upvote 0

Major1

Well-Known Member
Sep 17, 2016
10,551
2,837
Deland, Florida
✟211,285.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
Wonderful for you. Though I have my doubts if your workbook is teaching you correctly what Orthodoxy believes.

But ... as I said, those in my parish were born and raised with the complete faith handed down undiluted and unconfused by all the varieties of Protestantism, or what we view as changes instituted by Catholicism.

The Apostles were unaware of all sorts of Protestantism as well. That does not mean they did not know their faith.

You are charging, somehow, that we don't know what we believe because we don't study the ways others have departed. That makes no sense. And please don't misrepresent what I've said, because that is all I've said - that they don't look for what we would see to be a very great problem - divisions and factions and lack of unity in truth and departures into doctrines of error. As I said, they are good folks who think good of everyone else, and how you wish to turn that into ignorance of our faith as handed down by the Apostles and/or something negative, does not speak well of you.

But I would prefer to think you simply don't understand, in which case you could be excused.

Please, lets be clear. I am not looking for an argument with you. I only responded to what you actually said. If that has rubbed you the wrong way, I apologize. All anyone has to do is go back and look and you will see that you admitted something which I found to be odd, no more and no less.

I did not go looking for you in any way. I am sure you have wonderful friends and church members as I have no clue. Again, you were the one who posted their abilities not me.
 
Upvote 0

ViaCrucis

Confessional Lutheran
Oct 2, 2011
39,628
29,209
Pacific Northwest
✟816,667.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Lutheran
Marital Status
In Relationship
Politics
US-Others
More derailing here, but in all honesty I'm at a loss for words here. I find it so amazing how people get things so wrong at times. The Bible does teach transubstantiation because Jesus takes up bread and says THIS IS MY BODY. That is a fundamental change that has occurred. The bread we eat is either common bread or Jesus Christ's flesh. Not both. That isn't complicated philosophy that is just common sense.

Jesus says "This is My body" not "The substance of this bread has transmuted into My body while retaining only the accidents of bread".

-CryptoLutheran
 
Upvote 0

prodromos

Senior Veteran
Site Supporter
Nov 28, 2003
23,797
14,248
59
Sydney, Straya
✟1,428,198.00
Country
Australia
Gender
Male
Faith
Eastern Orthodox
Marital Status
Married
In fact it does. Scripture tells us that the Jews were forbidden to drink blood. The disciples took Jesus literally and did not understand that He was speaking a parable at that time. Hence, they believed that He was advocating the literal drinking of His blood and the literal eating of His flesh (cannibalism)
No it doesn't. When Jesus taught using parables He always explained its meaning to His disciples. Not so in this case, yet you are willing to believe that Christ the Good Shepherd allowed some of His sheep to leave the fold over a misunderstanding?
Eating Christ's flesh and drinking His blood is not cannibalism because Christ's flesh is not dead human flesh and suffers no loss through its consumption. Likewise with Christ's blood, we drink precisely because the life is in it, and it suffers no loss through its consumption.
The disciples were thinking carnally as you do, assuming Christ meant for them to tear flesh off His arms. That is what Christ meant when he said the flesh profits nothing. He certainly wasn't speaking of His flesh, God forbid, no He was speaking of the carnal mindset that could not comprehend any other way of doing what Christ said they needed to.
 
  • Agree
Reactions: ViaCrucis
Upvote 0

~Anastasia~

† Handmaid of God †
Dec 1, 2013
31,129
17,440
Florida panhandle, USA
✟930,345.00
Country
United States
Gender
Female
Faith
Eastern Orthodox
Marital Status
Married
Please, lets be clear. I am not looking for an argument with you. I only responded to what you actually said. If that has rubbed you the wrong way, I apologize. All anyone has to do is go back and look and you will see that you admitted something which I found to be odd, no more and no less.

I did not go looking for you in any way. I am sure you have wonderful friends and church members as I have no clue. Again, you were the one who posted their abilities not me.
Forgive me if I came across a wrong way. I'm running errands and have appts today so I was replying too quickly sometimes.

I'm not upset, and not looking to argue either.

Perhaps we should just agree to disagree.

Looking at things from your point of view, if you are a Protestant Christian in the US, particularly if your denomination is one that has evolved through several steps along the way, then I'm sure from such a point of view it probably seems irresponsible to fail to be informed about different theologies. I guess I can understand that.

But if I can ask you to do the same, you might be able to see what I've actually been saying. If you can imagine that one of the Apostles established a church, and everything was handed down through generations, with the emphasis being to continue unity of doctrine, and nothing was changed, and there was no Reformation that ever happened ... can you understand why it wouldn't be essential to study and understand what another Church, far away, who had some differences in belief, and went on to produce more divisions?

In Greece where they came from, there were no Protestants. There was only the Church, as it had always been. And they grew up devoted to their faith, and thinking good of others at the same time, believing them all to be equally devoted to God and not embroiled in serious error.

I'm reminded of a story told by one of the teachers of our Church, one of my favorites, and a man with a very sweet spirit. Maybe it will help explain, why we think it better to focus on whatsoever is good, pure, lovely, of good report ...

St. Paisios: Be the Bee and not the Fly


Some people tell me that they are scandalized because they see many things wrong in the Church. I tell them that if you ask a fly, “Are there any flowers in this area?” it will say, “I don’t know about flowers, but over there in that heap of rubbish you can find all the filth you want.” And it will go on to list all the unclean things it has been to.

Now, if you ask a honeybee, “Have you seen any unclean things in this area?” it will reply, “Unclean things? No, I have not seen any; the place here is full of the most fragrant flowers.” And it will go on to name all the flowers of the garden or the meadow.

You see, the fly only knows where the unclean things are, while the honeybee knows where the beautiful iris or hyacinth is.

As I have come to understand, some people resemble the honeybee and some resemble the fly. Those who resemble the fly seek to find evil in every circumstance and are preoccupied with it; they see no good anywhere. But those who resemble the honeybee only see the good in everything they see. The stupid person thinks stupidly and takes everything in the wrong way, whereas the person who has good thoughts, no matter what he sees, no matter what you tell him, maintains a positive and good thought.

+ St. Paisios of Mt. Athos, “Good and Evil Thoughts,” Spiritual Counsels III: Spiritual Struggle
 
Upvote 0

amariselle

Jesus Never Fails
Sep 28, 2004
6,648
4,201
The Great Northern Wilderness
✟75,570.00
Country
United States
Gender
Female
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
CA-Conservatives
No it doesn't. When Jesus taught using parables He always explained its meaning to His disciples. Not so in this case, yet you are willing to believe that Christ the Good Shepherd allowed some of His sheep to leave the fold over a misunderstanding?
Eating Christ's flesh and drinking His blood is not cannibalism because Christ's flesh is not dead human flesh and suffers no loss through its consumption. Likewise with Christ's blood, we drink precisely because the life is in it, and it suffers no loss through its consumption.
The disciples were thinking carnally as you do, assuming Christ meant for them to tear flesh off His arms. That is what Christ meant when he said the flesh profits nothing. He certainly wasn't speaking of His flesh, God forbid, no He was speaking of the carnal mindset that could not comprehend any other way of doing what Christ said they needed to.

Believe as you like. The entire context makes it clear that He was teaching a parable.

I do wonder why so many have a hard time accepting that fact in this particular instance, when no one believes that Jesus is a literal door/gate, a literal shepherd who cares for literal sheep, a literal vine, literal bread, a literal lamb, gives us literal water etc.

Parables were a major and consistent part of Jesus' earthly ministry. He often used physical, earthly things that His listeners were familiar with to convey a spiritual truth.
 
  • Prayers
Reactions: FenderTL5
Upvote 0

prodromos

Senior Veteran
Site Supporter
Nov 28, 2003
23,797
14,248
59
Sydney, Straya
✟1,428,198.00
Country
Australia
Gender
Male
Faith
Eastern Orthodox
Marital Status
Married
Believe as you like. The entire context makes it clear that He was teaching a parable.
Quite the contrary.
I do wonder why so many have a hard time accepting that fact in this particular instance, when no one believes that Jesus is a literal door/gate, a literal shepherd who cares for literal sheep, a literal vine, literal bread, a literal lamb, gives us literal water etc.
I wonder why so many have a hard time distinguishing the difference between "I am the door" and "This is my body". He was not pointing to a physical door in the former but took bread in His hand in the latter. Standards of English literacy seem to be falling lower every year.
Parables were a major and consistent part of Jesus' earthly ministry. He often used physical, earthly things that His listeners were familiar with to convey a spiritual truth.
Absolutely, but the expressions and terms used in this instance are not like those Jesus used in His parables. The only figurative use of the expression "eating someone's flesh" in Hebrew culture was extremely negative, and we can be certain Christ was not telling His disciples to destroy Him.
 
Upvote 0

amariselle

Jesus Never Fails
Sep 28, 2004
6,648
4,201
The Great Northern Wilderness
✟75,570.00
Country
United States
Gender
Female
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
CA-Conservatives
Quite the contrary.

I wonder why so many have a hard time distinguishing the difference between "I am the door" and "This is my body". He was not pointing to a physical door in the former but took bread in His hand in the latter. Standards of English literacy seem to be falling lower every year.

Absolutely, but the expressions and terms used in this instance are not like those Jesus used in His parables. The only figurative use of the expression "eating someone's flesh" in Hebrew culture was extremely negative, and we can be certain Christ was not telling His disciples to destroy Him.

Clearly we are not going to agree on this. However, you may also remember, Jesus was not actually holding bread when He spoke this parable. I think you're referring to the Passover meal He shared with His disciples, but that was simply Him confirming, once again, the parable (and more importantly the spiritual truth of it) that He had spoken earlier.

We are saved by believing in Him.
 
Upvote 0

HighCherub

Active Member
Jul 20, 2017
361
158
37
Richmond, VA
✟4,182.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Calvinist
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Republican
The Immaculate Conception is a universal belief that exists between Protestants and Catholics.

It follows directly with the Virgin Mary.

There's only one thing Catholics and Protestants disagree on with Mary, and it's the 'Sinless Mary'

There's only one being who walked this Earth without sin_
 
Upvote 0

prodromos

Senior Veteran
Site Supporter
Nov 28, 2003
23,797
14,248
59
Sydney, Straya
✟1,428,198.00
Country
Australia
Gender
Male
Faith
Eastern Orthodox
Marital Status
Married
We are saved by believing in Him
Believing in Christ involves a lot of different things.
  • Eating His flesh and drinking His blood. John 6:51-58
  • Doing God's will. Matthew 25:31-40
  • Repenting. (Too many verses to list)
  • Being baptised. Mark 16:16, Romans 6:3-4, Galatians 3:27 and more.
 
Upvote 0
Status
Not open for further replies.