Featured Catholicism is not compatible with Christianity

In that broad sense your Catholic too DHK.
(assuming your Baptist)

Anglicans branched off the Roman Catholics.
Baptists branched off the Anglicans.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Smyth_(Baptist_minister)

^the first Baptist was a ordained Anglican priest. And then he ditched the religion he started to be a Mennonite. Mennonites were started by Menno Simons, he was a Catholic priest.



The point being real simple, who taught you?

Cause who ever taught him has to have the story straight so on and so forth all the way to Jesus Christ.


Is there any living person who has the faith more correct if not equal to how you got it? is there a website or something that shows all your teachings?

 

I couldn't tell if that is a Yes or NO.

1 Corinthians 10
16Is not the cup of blessing which we bless a sharing in the blood of Christ? Is not the bread which we break a sharing in the body of Christ?

Answer Paul. Yes or No. Thank You.

I promise I won't bite.

 

You have never read a Baptist History Book, have you. Wikipedia is not a good source here.
Baptists existed long before the Reformation. Their "distinctives" (that which makes them disctinct from the other Christians) were found in the Anabaptists, and then in many others who were known by different names throughout the centuries all the way down to the apostles. God never left himself without a witness. The gospel has always been preserved, and that through believers like the Baptists who have preserved both the scriptures and the gospel message.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Smyth_(Baptist_minister)

Menno Simons was the founder of the Mennonites, not the Baptists.

I have been in the ministry for almost 40 years now. Most of my education has been either in the pastorate or on the mission-field. Before that time I had 8 years of post-secondary education in various fields. The major part of my education has been through my study in the ministry, as I study God's Word in preparation to serve others, being guided by His Spirit.

 

OW! That hurt!!! Just kidding.

No. Not the way you are reading it, no.

I had shown you the Greek word haima for body and Greek word soma for blood which can be taken in two ways. literally, or figuratively.

You are reading it one way as literally and I am reading it in context as meaning the other way as figuratively. Since in context, Paul is warning the readers to flee idolatry, then treating the bread and the wine as an idol as if His Presence is in them is what you should be fleeing from.

So in no way would Paul say flee idolatry and then start treating the bread and the wine as an idol.

 

I agree with not worshiping idols. Can you elaborate on the possible Yes as you would understand read it?

Maybe provide info on this verse too:

1 Corinthians 11
27Therefore whoever eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner, shall be guilty of the body and the blood of the Lord.

 

I still don't know what your faith is. Maybe you can tell me.

Are you the last living disciple of Jesus Christ?

Is there anyone alive a proper source of the perfect understanding of the bible?

 

I am a Baptist, (Independent Fundamental Baptist), and as such take the Bible literally and as the inspired Word of God.

No, we are all fallible. The Bible urges us all to study praying for guidance from the Holy Spirit.
The first requirement is to be born again, that one might be indwelt with the Holy Spirit. Without the indwelling presence of the Holy Spirit it is impossible to have a proper understanding of the Bible.
Then and only then can one pray for guidance and understanding.

Here, however is a very good example from the Scriptures.

Acts 17:11 These were more noble than those in Thessalonica, in that they received the word with all readiness of mind, and searched the scriptures daily, whether those things were so.

Paul came from Thessalonica to Berea. He commended the believers of Berea because they didn't take the words or the message of Paul at face value, even though he was a great and well known teacher.
They took their scriptures, the Old Testaments, and searched them to verify if the NT message that Paul was preaching was true. That is our obligation. Check and see from the Word of God (not the ECF), that if what we say is true. The Bible is our authority, and that is what Paul commended the Bereans for.

 

Go to this link below:

http://www.sacrednamebible.com/kjvstrongs/B46C010.htm

Scroll down to the Greek words in the Greek texts mirroring verse 16 in English.

Then click on the second line of the first Greek text for "blood" of that verse, and you should find this definition for haima.

"of uncertain derivation; blood, literally (of men or animals), figuratively (the juice of grapes) or specially (the atoning blood of Christ); by implication, bloodshed, also kindred:--blood."

Then clicking on the back arrow in the upper left hand corner of that web page, look at verse 16 again and then click on the third line on the third Greek text and you should find the definition for soma.

"from swzw - sozo 4982; the body (as a sound whole), used in a very wide application, literally or figuratively:--bodily, body, slave."

As for deciding how to read that figuratively rather than literally, Paul started off this topic telling readers to flee idolatry in verse 14, and it has everything to do with what he was talking about in regards to communion in verse 21 because the idol is mentioned again there in verse 19.

1 Corinthians 10:14 Wherefore, my dearly beloved, flee from idolatry. 15 I speak as to wise men; judge ye what I say. 16 The cup of blessing which we bless, is it not the communion of the blood of Christ? The bread which we break, is it not the communion of the body of Christ? 17 For we being many are one bread, and one body: for we are all partakers of that one bread. 18 Behold Israel after the flesh: are not they which eat of the sacrifices partakers of the altar? 19 What say I then? that the idol is any thing, or that which is offered in sacrifice to idols is any thing? 20 But I say, that the things which the Gentiles sacrifice, they sacrifice to devils, and not to God: and I would not that ye should have fellowship with devils. 21 Ye cannot drink the cup of the Lord, and the cup of devils: ye cannot be partakers of the Lord's table, and of the table of devils. 22 Do we provoke the Lord to jealousy? are we stronger than he?

So Paul warned believers to flee communion when it is turned into idols of having the presence of "god" in them that was offered to be received as a sacrifice.

1 Corinthians 11
27Therefore whoever eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner, shall be guilty of the body and the blood of the Lord.

If you agree with not worshiping idols, then consider what an idol is; an inanimate object that believes to have the presence of "god" in it.

That would be eating the bread and drinking the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner.

Jesus Christ is in you. It is redundant & apostasy to receive Him again in any form, spirit-wise as well as physically with His presence in food.

2 Corinthians 11:3 But I fear, lest by any means, as the serpent beguiled Eve through his subtilty, so your minds should be corrupted from the simplicity that is in Christ. 4 For if he that cometh preacheth another Jesus, whom we have not preached, or if ye receive another spirit, which ye have not received,.....

 

For clarity's sake. You believe Jesus drinks grape juice rather then wine? Laugh

 

I believe when Jesus said wine, He had meant wine.

And no, it does not matter if you use grape juice when it is supposed to be symbolic for the purpose of remembering what He has done for us in having bought us with a price and sealed as His.

1 Corinthians 6:19 What? know ye not that your body is the temple of the Holy Ghost which is in you, which ye have of God, and ye are not your own? 20 For ye are bought with a price: therefore glorify God in your body, and in your spirit, which are God's.

Colossians 1:20 And, having made peace through the blood of his cross, by him to reconcile all things unto himself; by him, I say, whether they be things in earth, or things in heaven. 21 And you, that were sometime alienated and enemies in your mind by wicked works, yet now hath he reconciled 22 In the body of his flesh through death, to present you holy and unblameable and unreproveable in his sight: 23 If ye continue in the faith grounded and settled, and be not moved away from the hope of the gospel, which ye have heard, and which was preached to every creature which is under heaven; whereof I Paul am made a minister;

How will He present us holy, unblameable, and unreprovaeble in His sight by the blood of the cross in the body of his flesh through death? If you continue in the faith that you are saved.

Micah 6:8 He hath shewed thee, O man, what is good; and what doth the Lord require of thee, but to do justly, and to love mercy, and to walk humbly with thy God?

 

You believe Jesus said "this is my grape juice of the new testament, pour out for many for the forgiveness of sin."

Jesus poured out his grape juice at the cross correct?

 

Let me start off with a personal example. Often I meet others for coffee at a small coffee shop. They also sell "cider" there, a hot apple drink, refreshing in the winter time (certainly non-alcoholic). One time, when traveling through Germany I stopped at a kiosk and saw that they had cider. I was about to order some when I realized it was fermented, that is an alcoholic beverage. Since I abstain from all alcoholic beverages that wouldn't have done me much good. It is the same word, but has two meanings: alcoholic and non-alcoholic.

Both the Greek word "oinos" and the Hebrew word "yayin" are the same way: fermented or unfermented juice. That which "ferments" is yeast or leaven, also symbolic of sin and false doctrine in the Bible. I do not believe Christ would use something that symbolizes sin and false doctrine to refer to himself. Does that make any sense at all?
Nor do I believe that he would create an alcoholic beverage for weak individuals (such as recovering alcoholics) at a wedding party. Does that make sense? Would he make something that would cause others to sin?

Just with those two arguments in mind, no I don't believe it was a fermented drink but an unfermented drink. But you are entitled to your own opinion.

 

Brother utilyan,

Did Jesus pour His actual blood in the cup for His disciples to drink? He was there. He could have easily done it instead of using wine.

But I would use the KJV so that we know in what tense that communion was to be taken.

Matthew 26:27 And he took the cup, and gave thanks, and gave it to them, saying, Drink ye all of it; 28 For this is my blood of the new testament, which is shed for many for the remission of sins. 29 But I say unto you, I will not drink henceforth of this fruit of the vine, until that day when I drink it new with you in my Father's kingdom.

Jesus is to shed His blood one time for many for the remission of sins. He is not shedding His blood every time when you take communion.

Did you read verse 29 in full? The fruit of the wine which Jesus said He will not drink "again" until that day He drinks it new with His disciples in His Father's kingdom. So I read "blood" as meaning symbolic of the new Testament since they all had wine, including Jesus.

 

You said when you read 1 Corinthians 10 you read it figuratively

1 Corinthians 10
1 Corinthians 10
16Is not the cup of blessing which we bless a sharing in the blood of Christ? Is not the bread which we break a sharing in the body of Christ?


He could have said is not the wine/grape juice which we bless a sharing the grape juice of Christ?
A sensless metaphor/symbolism especially in light of Is not the bread we break a sharing in the "BREAD" of Christ?


Your already conceding enough when you say Jesus says its the blood of the new testament rather then the grape juice of the new testament.

So what is Jesus and Paul repeating and idolizing What exactly are Jesus and Paul DOING in communion?

They are not re-nailing him on the cross. Not representing, not sacrificing or re-sacrificing. With all the bad motives out the picture. What is the good thing being done here.

 

If you agree that I am taking the haima aka blood and the soma aka body as figuratively as defined as the other choice for how it is used in the verses, then the wine in the cup is symbolic of the blood of the new testament just as in the breaking of the bread is symbolic of His body on the cross.

They are not idolizing if they are using haima and soma in a figuratively sense of the word.

Telling every one to do this in remembrance of Him of what He has done for us in having purchased us; in having ransomed us.

1 Corinthians 11:26 For as often as ye eat this bread, and drink this cup, ye do shew the Lord's death till he come.

Remembering what He has done in having redeemed us.

It is doing communion in an unworthy manner as if He had not redeemed us.

 

The problem for you 'symbolic only, ordinance loving Baptists' is that no one believed the way you do in the early church. DHK will say, "how do you know were you there? No, but there would be writings indicating some controversy over the Eucharist, and I will repeat it over and over, nobody believed the way you do! If they had there would be writings to indicate this symbolic only belief. DHK probably believes there WERE writings indicating Bible Believing Christians really believe in us Symbolic belief of the bread and the grape juice but those evil Catholics destroyed those writings. Although the gnostics writings were never destroyed. hmmmmmmm.

The early Church clearly believed in the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist (as pointed out by Irenaeus, Justin Martyr, and others), and that has been Church teaching since the beginning. It seems that even early Reformers believed in the Real Presence, and some modern Protestants still believe in some type of Real Presence, though not exactly as the Church teaches. The more common Protestant view seems to be that the Eucharist is only a symbol. When did this kind of teaching/belief begin? You're going to say please ignore all the writing of the early church.You're going to say it is fairly caught in scripture but it obviously is not! Just the opposite. And, if the early church really believe the way you do, again I ask you, why wasn't somebody saying so in the writings of the early church???

 

Yes, it was the Protestants like yourselves, who had brought this symbolic gesture out. It was not the first Reformers since many of them, even Luther, accepted the real presence of Jesus in the Eucharist. The problem with Protestants (Baptists and others) was later on they wanted to distant themselves from Catholic teachings, so the real presence is one area where they started to change. For me the teaching is very simple, if you will understand these important principals. When we receive the Lord Jesus in the Sacrament of His Body and Blood the Lord gives us another gift to be imparted into us. He gives to us another Deposit of the Holy Spirit so that at every reception of the Holy Eucharist the presence of the Holy Spirit actually increases in you. I have personally experienced it.

 

However, too many Catholics are not taught how to experience Jesus in the Liturgy. If we were taught to experience Jesus early on we would rock this world back to God. The problem in Church and it is the same as it is in the Orthodox Church is this lack of understanding to experience Jesus. I thought it was only a Catholic problem because they tend to teach too much theory before trying to experience God but the Mass and the Divine Liturgy are the cornerstones of our Faith why are we not using it as building blocks for our youth and children to come to experience the delights of the Lord!

 

I'm not sure when the purely memorialist stance arose in some parts of Protestantism such as you Baptists. Baptists originally believed in Calvin's doctrine of the Eucharist -- not exactly the physical presence as taught in the Catholic Church, but a belief that faithful communicants truly commune with the Body and Blood and receive the graces of the passion and resurrection. This they received not because of a change in the substance of the elements but a lifting up into heaven through the Holy Spirit -- so they were not actually memorialists who believe the entire meal is only symbolic and not a means of sacramental grace. A few Baptists might still believe in that, but not many. I'd think it was a relatively recent occurrence in Baptist history but that's just my suspicion. I know the Baptists on this board will deny any such thing.

 

Says you! Third and fourth Maccabees are expanded books of Maccabees which the Catholic Church has never said our are not inspired but are not part of the Latin Rite lectionary. 'Unity does not necessarily mean uniformity'. Again, do all IFB churches have the same 'worship style'? No, I know full well you don't. Using your reasoning, you have no unity. Again, you say Eastern Catholics 'don't believe in'. Once again, you show your ignorance about Catholic Christians. It isn't a matter of 'not believing in' styles of prayer or worship but preferences. But, hey, you used to insists there were no such thing as married priests within the Catholic Church and accused me of lying when I told you were wrong. You are now posting a link that proves how wrong you were then and yet I know you will never apologize for accusing me of lying. As ole' Catholic hater, Rand of http://www.iconbusters.com/iconbusters/index.htm fame (known as 'Protestant' on this board) would never apologize to or admit to a Catholic that he was wrong about anything about Catholicism either. To quote Rand: "It's what you do!" Rand (Protestant) can be seen to this day posting a lie about a 'so-called' quote about the Pope and he get away with it on this board. Because, anything anti-Catholic is allowed here no matter how false it is. Don't believe me? Check out 'Protestants" signature to every post he puts up on the BB "God is not a divine being." Pope Francis, USA Today, Oct. 28, 2014.
Now, is that actually what the Pope said? Absolutely not! Let's finish the sentence of what the Pope actually said: " “God is not a divine being or a magician, but the Creator who brought everything to life,” But, Rand can continually post that on the BB because: 'any enemy of my enemy is my friend', right DHK?