Featured Mary, Salvation, and Sin Offering

I love this chapter. It's one of my most favorite in the Scripture. But Adonia, do you realize that the Lord Jesus Himself explained His meaning? Jesus says there in verse 63 that the flesh profits nothing. Do you believe Him? It is the Spirit that gives life, and His words are spirit and they are life. So what is the food according to Jesus? And how do we eat it? His words are the food and we eat them by believing.

 

You don't know what a mystery is.
The word "mystery" is used 22 times in the Bible, and all in the NT. None are used in the superstitious and mystical way that you as you use the word.
Here are some definitions of the word "mystery" from some well know Bible scholars:

Watson's Biblical and Theological Dictionary
MYSTERY. The Greek word μυστηριον denotes,
1. Something hidden, or not fully manifest. Thus, 2Th 2:7, we read of the "mystery of iniquity," which began to work in secret, but was not then completely disclosed or manifested.

Easton's Bible Dictionary
Mystery: A truth undiscoverable except by revelation, long hid, now made manifest

Once hidden, now revealed as in Col_1:26 which see. See also Col_2:3. (Robertson)

“Mystery” is a previously hidden truth unveiled by God’s revelation (cf. Rom_16:25; see Mat_13:11 for a list of “mysteries” in the NT). (Walvoord)

Your entire argument is: Deny, Deny, Deny--even to the very denial of history itself. This is not the history forum. However, if you want to debate church history, I would be more than glad to, and so would many others. What you have presented, or more accurately affirmed, is that "Christendom" (meaning the RCC) has always believed in transubstantiation. As long as you define Christendom as Catholicism of course you are right. But that is just arrogance on your part.
First, there have been churches from the time of Christ that have believed otherwise.
Secondly, the RCC didn't even come into existence until the fourth century.
Third, Catholicism is one small part of Christendom.
Fourth, your knowledge of Church history is very narrow, and lacking. Any one of us can show you that there existed many outside of the RCC dozens of denominations that believed contrary to the heresies that the RCC promote. Don't be so smug in your long-held heresies.
Fifth, you simply proclaim this heresy as truth; you can't support it by the Bible. You haven't even tried.

A false accusation. Zwingli had nothing to do with Paul's teaching on the remembrance of the Lord's Supper, as I have demonstrated to you through the Scriptures. Paul explained it very clearly. If it were otherwise you would be able to refute the apostle Paul, but you can't. Your argument is with God, not me.
This is not a historical argument. Either you believe God or the erroneous RCC teaching. Which one?

"This is my body, take ye and eat."
Is it a metaphor, or did they take a chunk of his arm while he was standing before him, and eat it, all the Pharisees and many others being witnesses to this gruesome and gross act of cannibalism? Which one?

First, the word "Eucharist" is never found in the Bible, as the word "sacrament" is never found in the Bible. I have pointed this out to you before.
However the phrase "The Lord's Supper" is found many times, as is the word "ordinance." The command to "remember this" is also found. The RCC "does not rightly teach."
It uses foreign words to teach a foreign doctrine that the apostles never taught.
It is paganism and was introduced by pagans. Google it. Find out the origin. It does not have a Christian origin.
There is no such thing as "the sacrament of the Eucharist" in the Bible. It is pagan in origin.

Read carefully:
The RCC was simply imitating ancient pagan rites:

We find one pagan writer who had intelligence enough to ridicule this senseless ceremonial custom, called "the sacrament." Cicero, some forty years before Christ, shows up the doctrine of the sacrament, or substantiation, in its true light. He asks, "How can a man be so stupid as to imagine that which he eats to be a God?" A writer quoted above says, "Mass, or the sacrifice of bread and wine, was common to many ancient nations." (Anac. vol. ii. p. 62.) According to Alnetonae, the ancient Brahmins had a kind of Eucharist called "prajadam." And the same writer informs us that the ancient Peruvians, "after sacrificing a lamb, mingled his blood with flour, and distributed it among the people." Writers on Grecian mythology relate that Ceres, the goddess of corn, gave her flesh to eat, and that Bacchus, the God of wine, gave blood to drink. Nor is there any evidence that Christ and his followers made a better use, or different use, or a more spiritual application of the sacrament, or ceremonial offering of bread and wine, than the pagans did, though some have claimed this.

http://infidels.org/library/historical/kersey_graves/16/chap27.html

 

Excellent point to remind that this was a Passover celebration.

 

DHK, if you look around it’s not too hard to find people who sincerely believe that no man has ever walked on the moon.

It is relatively easy to find people who deny that the Nazi holocaust ever happened.

A little more rare are those people who think Elvis Presley faked his own death and went into hiding for the rest of his life, but they exist in fairly large numbers in their totality.

Likewise, there are a lot of people who sincerely believe that the first Christians held baptistic beliefs and that throughout the Christian era there have always been sects who held to baptistic beliefs. For the most part those same people believe the Catholic church did not come into being until sometime in the Fourth Century.

These people all have a common mindset. They are utterly convinced of the truth of their positions. They are not interested in any facts that contradict those positions. They don’t just disbelieve the true facts, they literally have no interest in learning about them.

You mention J. T. Christian and Thomas Armitage. I’m sure they were decent men but their conclusions about the beliefs of the early church are nothing but their own opinions. I believe Christian even admits as much. And these ideas have been thoroughly debunked by several Baptist historians of the last 75 years.

I can go on but you and your ilk will continue to believe what you want to believe because you want to believe it. Of course any other model of the early Church causes your house of cards to tumble, so in a way you are afraid to look at the truth of the matter.

A pity.

 

And then it is very easy to find those who superstitiously believe that Christ actually gave his body and blood to his disciples, as if they were all cannibalistic. The belief in transubstantiation is both pagan and superstitious. As the evidence states, it predates Christ as pagan in origin.

When did the RCC come into being as the RCC stands as an entity today?
There was no organized "church" in the apostles day; only "churches." In fact there was no such thing as a denomination in the time of the apostles. The RCC did not could not exist.
Baptist churches are independent, especially the ones I attend. In exact opposition to the monster of the organization of the RCC, the independent Baptist church can claim a kinship or an identity with the first century churches because we pattern ourselves after them. You know very well there is no such thing as "the sacrifice of the mass" in the NT.
But the things we have in our service one does find in the Bible. We are a NT, Bible-believing, local church that has patterned itself after NT churches and NT teaching. The RCC has not done so, but rather has amalgamated paganism and Christianity together.

The only mindset the RCC has is in a revised RCC history book. They don't want the truth.

Catholic revisionist has been on the rise in the last 75 years. That is what you meant to say, isn't it?

It is a pity to go on putting your faith in the ECF rather than the Word of God itself.
The ECF were the very ones that introduced most of the error that Christendom now carries as its baggage. What a shame.

 

The history of the RCC is propaganda, and is not true history at all. It is full of lies and it is sanitized.
The Bible has some good condensed truths about the RCC:
Revelation 17:5 And upon her forehead was a name written, MYSTERY, BABYLON THE GREAT, THE MOTHER OF HARLOTS AND ABOMINATIONS OF THE EARTH.
6 And I saw the woman drunken with the blood of the saints, and with the blood of the martyrs of Jesus: and when I saw her, I wondered with great admiration.
--This is what John prophetically saw, and this is what came to pass as the RCC carried out its grisly Crusades, Inquistions, etc. As an organization it has killed and maimed more people than ISIS has, even peace=loving Christians like the Albigenses they carried out a Crusade against and slaughtered them with the utmost cruelty--a terrible act of genocide. They are no better than ISIS of today.

Zwingli persecuted the Baptists. And though he may have differed with Luther, I am not a follower of either. Your objection is just a distraction. You are unable to answer from the Word of God.

Utter nonsense. We follow the Word of God no matter what the rest of the world does. Your beliefs do not affect ours. The RCC was not around at the time of the apostles contrary to the thinking of most Catholics, and you have no evidence that it was. You just keep parroting that line. It is propaganda, and that is all. Either put up or shut up. Give evidence IOW.

You cannot provide evidence of the existence of the RCC during the time of the apostles because it wasn't there. It is simply assumed. There has no evidence been provided. Now stop with the propaganda, provide the evidence, or don't post things that aren't true.

 

A quick perusal of the bible and they will find that the churches written to were, in fact, local. The church at Rome, the church at Ephesus, the church at Colossae, then the 7 churches were local assemblies that Christ addressed in the first 3 chapters of Revelation.

What is sad is that a Baptist, FBC, is actually a RCC. Since when did the FBC...or any Baptist for that matter, accept Roman Catholicism in their ranks?

 

It is true that there is a certain amount of speculation in the Book of Revelation. Having said that we look at the facts presented and we ask ourselves what fits this scenario best.
1. "She" sits on "seven hills"
Revelation 17:9 And here is the mind which hath wisdom. The seven heads are seven mountains, on which the woman sitteth.
--The word "mountains" can be translated "hills," and Rome does sit on seven hills.

2. Revelation 17:6 And I saw the woman drunken with the blood of the saints, and with the blood of the martyrs of Jesus: and when I saw her, I wondered with great admiration.
--As explained before, no religion in the history of mankind has killed more saints of God than the RCC. This is a fact. Just go back and study some non-RCC history, history that hasn't been white-washed by the RCC.

3. The RCC has, from it inception committed immorality both literally and spiritually with pagan rulers, starting with Constantine.

4. Popes are called "holy" but history indicates how immoral they have really been. Thus the accurate picture of the "whore."

5. Revelation 17:1 And there came one of the seven angels which had the seven vials, and talked with me, saying unto me, Come hither; I will shew unto thee the judgment of the great whore that sitteth upon many waters:
--This expression identifies her worldwide reach where she has her tentacles all over the world spreading her false doctrine, She is called the mother of harlots committing spiritual fornication with pagan religions all over the world. Do you remember when the pope entertained the terrorist Yasser Arafat?

I challenge you to look at the many reasons given here:
http://www.wayoflife.org/database/how_revelation_17_pictures.html
If the shoe fits wear it.

No, not at all. I will give you that reason in a minute.

I have this book. Berry lived here in Alberta. He wrote this book shortly after WWII in 1947 using the libraries in Alberta (which are not many available to him. He wanted to produce a text at that time for the public schools that would be suitable enough to teach "World Religions." He didn't have a bone to pick with any one, but there are certain things that must be noted about his character and spiritual condition. At the beginning of chapter 12, page 69, when he starts to talk about Christianity, he says:

"The historicity of Jesus is not definitely established, but the probability is that he is a historical character. Although the Christian era dates from the supposed time of his birth, there is some evidence of error in this date. He was born during the time of Augustus, probably about 4 B.C. in the town of Bethlehem in Judea. ...He never claimed to be the Jewish Messiah, he was hailed by many as such....On a trumped up charge of political conspiracy, they had Jesus tried before the Roman governor, Pontius Pilate. Following the execution his disciples were dispersed, and for a time no more was heard of this sect, but the cross was destined to become a symbol of love rather than disgrace. ...Paul was the real founder of Christianity. "

--This puts things in perspective. He is not a saved man. He reports things as he sees them, but is very biased towards Christianity per se, that is true Biblical Christianity, which he probably knows nothing about.

The rites that he speaks of he observed in the RCC. This is clearly observable. Remember that Canada is mostly a Catholic nation. You quoted only part of the last part on Mithraism. Why didn't you finish that paragraph. You didn't want to condemn yourself, right? Here is the way he concludes that paragraph on page 58 that you started on page 57.

"Mithras is often represented as carrying a lamb on his shoulders, just as Jesus is. Midnight services were found in both services. The virgin mother Isis was easily merged with the virgin mother Mary. Petra, the sacred rock of Mithraism, became Peter, the foundation of the "Christian" Church. (Cf. the New Testament, Mat.16:18). The robe of Mithras, absorbed from the older Osiris cult, was always described as in one piece represented universal light, ..."
--This doesn't describe the Baptist faith, or evangelical Christianity in any way. It is far removed from it. It describes the RCC very closely. We don't have midnight services, worship Mary, and our foundation is not Peter. Only the RCC believes in these things. The RCC is based on paganism, not true Christianity.

He is speaking of the Catholic Church. Those outside of the RCC had nothing to do with paganism as you well know. They repudiated it in all of its forms. It is too bad that you don't.

This type of paganism was introduced into the RCC starting with Constantine in the early 4th century and has been growing ever since. You are a part of it. It does affect your faith. You are a part of this idolatry.

Disobedience to God always affects a person's faith:

2 Corinthians 6:14 Be ye not unequally yoked together with unbelievers: for what fellowship hath righteousness with unrighteousness? and what communion hath light with darkness?
15 And what concord hath Christ with Belial? or what part hath he that believeth with an infidel?
16 And what agreement hath the temple of God with idols? for ye are the temple of the living God; as God hath said, I will dwell in them, and walk in them; and I will be their God, and they shall be my people.
17 Wherefore come out from among them, and be ye separate, saith the Lord, and touch not the unclean thing; and I will receive you,

The RCC is not a Christian Church, and never was. It is full of idolatry, and you are a part of it.