Featured Continuing Discussions

This thread is for the purpose of continuing some discussion that was cut short with the closing of the/an Original Thread.

I think the Thread was "Traditions" but not really sure, but regardless, feel free to present any responses from any thread here, it is open to all topics. The focus of the OP is allowing those who had intended to continue in discussion the opportunity to do just that.


God bless.

 

Sure. You said...

mjjddh said: ↑

2. Is the wine His blood? Yes. Absolutely.


...and I replied with passages that have an emphasis on the use of the term "blood."

The point I sought to make was that this is a euphemism for death. When Christ spoke of eating His flesh and drinking His blood what He was teaching them was that they needed to believe in His death. And that is how one comes to saving faith in Christ, by believing that Christ died in their stead, rose again, and that He can save them from the penalty of sin.

Consider:


John 6:51

King James Version (KJV)

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.


Christ uses the concept of provision for sustenance for life, contrasting the physical life provided for with manna, and the Living Bread which came down from Heaven. The former was partaken of and those that received are according to Christ dead. Those who partake of the True Bread shall never die. So in view is...the incarnation. God taking upon Himself the form of man. This is the body that would provide that eternal life.

The Blood...represents the death in specificity. Blood is often used to represent death. Here we see the process through which God redeemed man, that is, He came from Heaven, He died on the Cross, and this is what the disciples (who had followed Him because He fed them (v.26)) needed to seek, because while He fed them with physical bread, that was not His mission among men. His mission was to die that men might live eternally.

Now where His Ascension comes into play is that the source of eternal life is seen in the Eternal Indwelling of God in the believer. Christ stated that when the Comforter came, He would be with them forever (contrasted with Christ's departure, for which the disciples sorrowed). Secondly, Christ declared unto them that they knew the Spirit, for He was with them, but would be in them.

This is the life Christ came to bring.

Eternal life is the result of man being brought back into union with God through the Eternal Indwelling, and has nothing to do with the physical frame of man.

Consider:


John 6:50

King James Version (KJV)

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


Christ is not saying here that physical death would be foregone for those who eat of His flesh and drink of His blood. The reference is to eternal life.

The point is still, for me, that Christ is referring to Himself, not physical elements by which His coming, dying, and returning to Heaven would be remembered by. On this last, have you considered that Communion has a primary element of His return?

And that stands in direct contrast to a concept that He is with us physically.

His physical presence will not be in the Memorial of Christ through Communion, but in the Millennial Kingdom:


Matthew 26:28-29

King James Version (KJV)

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.


Do you see the separation between Christ and those who partake of Communion (and I know that sounds odd, lol, I don't mean we are separated from Christ spiritually)? That is the point of the Memorial, to remember His death until He returns. He is here separated from the physical drinking.

Now, consider v.28, and ask yourself, what was shed for many for the remission of sins, the fruit of the vine, or His Own blood? It was His death that brought about remission of sins, that is reiterated countless times in the New Testament, and that is the only source of remission of sins that we will find on an eternal basis in Scripture.

Relationship with Christ begins with believing on Christ, that is eating of His flesh and drinking of His blood.


Continued...

 

Here is what Christ told the disciples prior to His Ascension:

Acts 1

King James Version (KJV)

4 And, being assembled together with them, commanded them that they should not depart from Jerusalem, but wait for the promise of the Father, which, saith he, ye have heard of me.

5 For John truly baptized with water; but ye shall be baptized with the Holy Ghost not many days hence.


The Baptism with the Holy Ghost is our immersion into God. It is at this time we are placed in God, and God in us.

This is the source of eternal life.

Consider:


John 7:38-39

King James Version (KJV)


38 He that believeth on me, as the scripture hath said, out of his belly shall flow rivers of living water.

39 (But this spake he of the Spirit, which they that believe on him should receive: for the Holy Ghost was not yet given; because that Jesus was not yet glorified.)


Eternal life is, again, accomplished first through God taking upon Himself the form of man, dying on the Cross, and then returning to Heaven, at which time He sent the Spirit. Here, we see Christ state that out of the bellies of those that believe would flow rivers of living water. I suggest to you this is a reference primarily to eternal life, though I also see it as a reference to that which results from the Holy Ghost being given after Christ was glorified.

So when we take the truth of the source for eternal life and impose that into physical elements of Communion (and Catholics are not the only ones to do this, so please don't think I'm picking on anyone), we are teaching a different source for eternal life than that which Christ taught.

I will ask this question: do you feel that one does not have eternal life, or cannot be In Christ...until they partake of Communion for the first time?

If so, can I share with you an event in which a man and his house are Baptized with the Holy Ghost, and it is made clear that it is at this time they receive life, and are saved?

And this might seem Long, MJ, but it's really not. Only take a minute to read the Scripture:


Acts 10:39-44

King James Version (KJV)


39 And we are witnesses of all things which he did both in the land of the Jews, and in Jerusalem; whom they slew and hanged on a tree:

40 Him God raised up the third day, and shewed him openly;

41 Not to all the people, but unto witnesses chosen before God, even to us, who did eat and drink with him after he rose from the dead.

42 And he commanded us to preach unto the people, and to testify that it is he which was ordained of God to be the Judge of quick and dead.

43 To him give all the prophets witness, that through his name whosoever believeth in him shall receive remission of sins.

44 While Peter yet spake these words, the Holy Ghost fell on all them which heard the word.


What happens here (and I am sure you are quite familiar with the story) is that Cornelius, a proselyte to Judaism, sends men to Peter according to God's, Peter comes...and preaches the Gospel to them (vv.39-40). While he is yet speaking...the Holy Ghost falls on them.

Now, let's look at Peter's account of the event:


Acts 11:13-18

King James Version (KJV)


13 And he shewed us how he had seen an angel in his house, which stood and said unto him, Send men to Joppa, and call for Simon, whose surname is Peter;

14 Who shall tell thee words, whereby thou and all thy house shall be saved.


Here we see that Cornelius is told to call for Peter, who shall tell him words...by which he and his house shall be saved. That is...the Gospel.



15 And as I began to speak, the Holy Ghost fell on them, as on us at the beginning.


As he speaks, the Holy Ghost falls on them. As He did on them at the beginning (Pentecost).

Now, the Holy Ghost falling on them ois correlated to Cornelius being saved. This is further revealed as we go on:



16 Then remembered I the word of the Lord, how that he said, John indeed baptized with water; but ye shall be baptized with the Holy Ghost.


Now we correlate their being saved, and the Holy Ghost falling on them as He did at Pentecost with...their being Baptized with the Holy Ghost.

Remember just prior to Christ's Ascension, He said the very same thing? "Tarry in Jerusalem and await the Promise of My Father, which ye have hear d of Me. For truly John baptized with water, but...you shall be Baptized with the Holy Ghost not many days hence."

Now let's look at the Gift:


17 Forasmuch then as God gave them the like gift as he did unto us, who believed on the Lord Jesus Christ; what was I, that I could withstand God?


Many will think this refers to their speaking in languages, however, the context here denies that. No mention is made of gifts, but the Gift in view is the very salvation spoken of in v.14, and that Gift is correlated to their hearing the Gospel, believing, and receiving the Holy Ghost. This is further clarified in the next statement, as to what is in view:


18 When they heard these things, they held their peace, and glorified God, saying, Then hath God also to the Gentiles granted repentance unto life.


God has granted unto Gentiles repentance unto Life. That life has as a source the Eternal Indwelling of God, rather than physical elements that can be handled.

One last thing I would ask you to consider: note that the contrast is drawn between John's baptism and being Baptized with the Holy Ghost. John's was a baptism unto repentance, and signified those who were baptized by John had repented. He refused to baptize those whose lives evidenced a lack of repentance, and demanded of them that they "bring forth fruit meet unto repentance."

That is a stark contrast from God granting repentance...unto life.

And that Life is the Life Christ is teaching in John 6.

Now the primary point of all this is this: eternal life is not something that involves a process that holds requirements to be met in order for that process to occur, salvation in Christ is an immediate process that, when it occurs, grants unto the believer eternal life. Communion does not add to that event in our lives, because that Life is granted, and has it's source in the Eternal Indwelling of God, which takes place at the moment of conversion.

In this story we see a proselyte unto Judaism saved, and this salvation is brought about by the preaching of the Gospel, which they believed, and when they did...the Holy Ghost fell on them. They are Baptized with the Holy Ghost, or...immersed into God at this very moment.


Continued...

 

On the contrary, His teaching is specific...do not seek after that which is physical. Read the Chapter again, MJ, and note that the physical bread (manna) is contrasted, not with the elements of Communion, but with the True Bread which came down from Heaven.

There is a significant difference between my question...

2. If it is the Spirit that gives life (and we know He is the One Who does this (John 7:38-39)), how can we impose into physical elements that same life bestowing quality?

...and theirs: I am not rejecting what Christ is teaching, but expounding upon it. The disciples that turned back and walked with Him no more rejected His teaching because they did not understand what eating of His flesh and drinking of His blood meant.

And the disciples that stay understand...


John 6:67-69

King James Version (KJV)


67 Then said Jesus unto the twelve, Will ye also go away?

68 Then Simon Peter answered him, Lord, to whom shall we go? thou hast the words of eternal life.

69 And we believe and are sure that thou art that Christ, the Son of the living God.


Salvation in Christ demands one believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of the Living God.

Now I ask you, MJ, can one enter into a relationship with God by which they can worthily partake of Communion (as opposed to those among the Corinthians who did not)...apart from first believing on the Christ, the Son of the Living God?

If we impose life-giving properties to physical elements rather than life-giving properties from God Himself, then we would have to conclude that eternal life is obtained simply by partaking of Communion, and that is not the case.

Eating of His flesh and drinking of His blood refers to believing on Christ Himself, which is contrasted between those disciples that turn back, and those that remain. They confess Christ in the limited amount of revelation they have, which is the divinely revealed understanding that Jesus is the Christ the Son of the Living God. That is the very purpose for which the Spirit of God is sent by Christ:


John 16:7-9

King James Version (KJV)


7 Nevertheless I tell you the truth; It is expedient for you that I go away: for if I go not away, the Comforter will not come unto you; but if I depart, I will send him unto you.

8 And when he is come, he will reprove the world of sin, and of righteousness, and of judgment:

9 Of sin, because they believe not on me;


The Comforter was sent for the express purpose of bringing unbelievers under conviction. I highlight sin here because we see that the conviction is upon unbelievers, those who do not believe on Christ...yet.

Now, I ask you, if you seek to speak about Christ to someone, what do you tell them? Do you speak about Communion? Or His death in their stead?


Continued...

 

If Communion bestows eternal life, then we have to change Christ's teaching to "He who eats the flesh of the Son of Man and drinks His blood...has the potential for eternal life, and I might raise him up at the last day, as long as he eats and drinks worthily."

Eating of His flesh and drinking of His blood means to believe on Him as the Christ sent from God, and that His death was in our stead, taking upon Himself the penalty that the Holy Ghost, the Comforter, convinces us is our fate apart from Him.

If that were true, then Christ is Himself partaking, which He said He would not do until the Millennial Kingdom.

The same word is used here:


Hebrews 10

King James Version (KJV)


1 For the law having a shadow of good things to come, and not the very image of the things, can never with those sacrifices which they offered year by year continually make the comers thereunto perfect.

2 For then would they not have ceased to be offered? because that the worshippers once purged should have had no more conscience of sins.

3 But in those sacrifices there is a remembrance again made of sins every year.


The blue is a link to Strong's, and you can go there to see the four times it is used.

In this passage we have in view the sacrifices, (implied in v.1-2) and the remembrance. When the sacrifice was offered...can we say that sacrifice was the sin? No, the sacrifice calls to remembrance the sin which is the purpose for the sacrifice.

So too, when we partake of Communion, is that the Sacrifice of Christ? No, it pictures His Sacrifice, just as the sacrifices of the Law (and prior to the establishment of the Covenant of Law) pictured the Sacrifice of Christ.

When the Passover was celebrated, was there a threat of death for not partaking? No, because it was memorial. It was not the original Passover, and the event of Passover was not taking place.


Luke 22:19-20

King James Version (KJV)


19 And he took bread, and gave thanks, and brake it, and gave unto them, saying, This is my body which is given for you: this do in remembrance of me.

20 Likewise also the cup after supper, saying, This cup is the new testament in my blood, which is shed for you.


Now think about this: are we breaking the Body of Christ when we partake of Communion? Do we inflict upon Him, again, that which He suffered?

No, we remember that which He suffered, and we remember that He died.

There is nothing in the relevant passages that suggest that we do this, or suggest that the Cross is relived through Communion. It is a remembrance.

And most will recognize this as a memorial, that the events are not spiritually being repeated. Passover has a specific time in history when this event took place, just the Cross of Christ does.


Exodus 12:12-14

King James Version (KJV)


12 For I will pass through the land of Egypt this night, and will smite all the firstborn in the land of Egypt, both man and beast; and against all the gods of Egypt I will execute judgment: I am the Lord.

13 And the blood shall be to you for a token upon the houses where ye are: and when I see the blood, I will pass over you, and the plague shall not be upon you to destroy you, when I smite the land of Egypt.

14 And this day shall be unto you for a memorial; and ye shall keep it a feast to the Lord throughout your generations; ye shall keep it a feast by an ordinance for ever.


It simply means a memorial, MJ. The events are not repeated. Christ is not once again offered up in sacrifice, He Himself having said "...it is finished."

This...


Hebrews 10:10-14

King James Version (KJV)


10 By the which will we are sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all.

11 And every priest standeth daily ministering and offering oftentimes the same sacrifices, which can never take away sins:

12 But this man, after he had offered one sacrifice for sins for ever, sat down on the right hand of God;

13 From henceforth expecting till his enemies be made his footstool.

14 For by one offering he hath perfected for ever them that are sanctified.


...is rendered meaningless by a concept that the Sacrifice of Christ is not a Completed Work.

We partake of Communion in memorial.

There is no imputation of life-giving benefit from partaking of that which is physical. It is only in partaking of the Spiritual that Eternal Life is bestowed, and when it is bestowed, as the Writer states above, it is for ever.

We are set apart unto God once ("for all" is an insertion, it is not in the Greek text) by the Sacrifice of Christ. The Writer makes it clear that Sacrifice was a once offered Sacrifice that has eternal result. It brings the believer remission of sins completely (this is what the word translated "perfect" means) and there is no more need for further sacrifice:


Hebrews 10:15-18

King James Version (KJV)


15 Whereof the Holy Ghost also is a witness to us: for after that he had said before,

16 This is the covenant that I will make with them after those days, saith the Lord, I will put my laws into their hearts, and in their minds will I write them;

17 And their sins and iniquities will I remember no more.

18 Now where remission of these is, there is no more offering for sin.


Here we see the New Covenant said to be fulfilled (established), now compare that to Christ's statement:

Luke 22:19-20

King James Version (KJV)


19 And he took bread, and gave thanks, and brake it, and gave unto them, saying, This is my body which is given for you: this do in remembrance of me.

20 Likewise also the cup after supper, saying, This cup is the new testament in my blood, which is shed for you.



What God has done is, as Christ states in Acts 1:4, established the New Covenant through the Blood, the Death...of Christ.

His promise to us, MJ< is that in that day, the day in which He would establish this New Covenant...He would forgive our sins completely, and...forever.

That remission of sins is not based on remembering that Christ died for us, but as Scripture always teaches, whether in Prophecy, or in Fulfillment, is that remission of sins is accomplished through the actual death of Christ in our stead.

We cannot contribute to His Work on the Cross, we can only...

...remember what He did for us.


Hey, thanks for the response, MJ. Again, welcome to the forum, and don't hesitate to start a thread of your own, so those here might be able to interact with you concerning things that your heart leans to. This is a debate forum, so if things seem to get a little hostile...don't worry about it, lol. Religious beliefs is the single-most volatile subject known to man, and being we (mankind) have a shared trait that we get upset if someone dare suggest we are wrong about anything, lol, sometimes tempers fly. This is, in my estimation, a great place for God to help us learn self control, and in the meantime, we might accidentally help each other understand our antagonists better.


God bless.

 

Who exactly are you speaking to, Utilyan?

You need to quote whoever it is you are talking to so they know what is directed to who.

What point is it talking about the "kindest soul" when these kinds of remarks are made? Is this how the "kindest soul" has led you to be...kind? lol


God bless.

 

Could be, but how is that relevant?

You begin by disdaining my own comprehension skills then...

...proceed to give a contradicting statement.

Let's look at it:

And...?

John 6 is a focal Chapter in understanding what it means to eat of His flesh and drink of His blood.

And there is nothing about Communion in John 6.

The exact opposite is taught, that physical bread does not provide eternal life.

You then go on to contradict yourself in establishing that the disciples...have no clue as to what Christ is speaking of.

The disciples did not understand what the True Vine was, as apparently...neither do you.

Did the Disciples abide in Christ?

You might read John 14-17 again if you think they did.

But I'll make it easy for you, my friend:


John 16:28-32

King James Version (KJV)


28 I came forth from the Father, and am come into the world: again, I leave the world, and go to the Father.

29 His disciples said unto him, Lo, now speakest thou plainly, and speakest no proverb.

30 Now are we sure that thou knowest all things, and needest not that any man should ask thee: by this we believe that thou camest forth from God.

31 Jesus answered them, Do ye now believe?

32 Behold, the hour cometh, yea, is now come, that ye shall be scattered, every man to his own, and shall leave me alone: and yet I am not alone, because the Father is with me.


Now what is that again about...

...?

Do you see how contradictory your statement in this post is? You are once again teaching two things, lol.

They did not abide in the True Vine...yet. Because the True Vine is the means of relationship with God through Christ which is contrasted with the provision they had at the time Christ is teaching them: the Covenant of Law.

The True Vine would become available when Christ died, arose...and returned to Heaven.

So how do you ascribe to the disciples...understanding of these things? They had no such understanding.

They did have revealed to them that Jesus was the Christ, the Son of God, yet they had not had revealed to them the Mystery of the Gospel.

Here is Christ preaching the Gospel to the disciples, and the reaction from Peter:


Matthew 16:20-23

King James Version (KJV)


20 Then charged he his disciples that they should tell no man that he was Jesus the Christ.

21 From that time forth began Jesus to shew unto his disciples, how that he must go unto Jerusalem, and suffer many things of the elders and chief priests and scribes, and be killed, and be raised again the third day.

22 Then Peter took him, and began to rebuke him, saying, Be it far from thee, Lord: this shall not be unto thee.

23 But he turned, and said unto Peter, Get thee behind me, Satan: thou art an offence unto me: for thou savourest not the things that be of God, but those that be of men.


Peter is in opposition to the very Gospel of Christ preached by Christ Himself.

Peter would...

1. Take up a sword and seek to, with physical means, keep Christ from the Cross in the Garden (John 18:11);

2. Deny with cursing that he doesn't even know Christ after He has been taken (Matthew 2672);

3. Refuse to believe Christ arose as He said He would (Mark 16:9-14), as would all of the disciples;

4. Still show a carnal understanding of Christ even up to the Day of Ascension (Acts 1:6).


Now tell me again about...

Could you provide the Scripture for that statement?

The REAL PRESENCE was sent after the Lord returned to Heaven, Utilyan, not by men placing physical bread and wine in the hands of other men:


John 14

King James Version (KJV)


15 If ye love me, keep my commandments.

16 And I will pray the Father, and he shall give you another Comforter, that he may abide with you for ever;

17 Even the Spirit of truth; whom the world cannot receive, because it seeth him not, neither knoweth him: but ye know him; for he dwelleth with you, and shall be in you.

18 I will not leave you comfortless: I will come to you.


It occurs when we are eternally indwelt by God.


20 At that day ye shall know that I am in my Father, and ye in me, and I in you.

21 He that hath my commandments, and keepeth them, he it is that loveth me: and he that loveth me shall be loved of my Father, and I will love him, and will manifest myself to him.

22 Judas saith unto him, not Iscariot, Lord, how is it that thou wilt manifest thyself unto us, and not unto the world?

23 Jesus answered and said unto him, If a man love me, he will keep my words: and my Father will love him, and we will come unto him, and make our abode with him.


Here is when the Disciples will come to understand that which was taught of Christ:


26 But the Comforter, which is the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send in my name, he shall teach you all things, and bring all things to your remembrance, whatsoever I have said unto you.


Here is an example of that happening:


Acts 11:13-18

King James Version (KJV)


13 And he shewed us how he had seen an angel in his house, which stood and said unto him, Send men to Joppa, and call for Simon, whose surname is Peter;

14 Who shall tell thee words, whereby thou and all thy house shall be saved.

15 And as I began to speak, the Holy Ghost fell on them, as on us at the beginning.

16 Then remembered I the word of the Lord, how that he said, John indeed baptized with water; but ye shall be baptized with the Holy Ghost.


See the correlation between the Promised Spirit and understanding? Paul teaches about this in 1 Corinthians 2 extensively.

Are you seriously going to use the confusion of the disciples that turned away from Christ...as a proof that the Lord is not talking about His death? lol

And to teach that Communion is in view?

I don't see the disciples saying "To Whom shall we go, you have the rituals of life," but...


John 6:68

Then Simon Peter answered him, Lord, to whom shall we go? thou hast the words of eternal life.


Continued...

 

Crazy?

There is clearly a declaration of understanding of Who Christ is, and it is to His words that they remain focused on as the source for understanding.

The disciples who turn back make the same mistake you do, in thinking that Christ is literally speaking about eating and drinking something physically.

In view is His death.

Now do you want to deny that eternal life has as a source the Coming of Christ, His death, burial and Resurrection, His ascension, and His sending of the Comforter?

That is what you are doing, my friend.

While Christ's presence is truly among us in Communion, so is His presence when we are not taking Communion. So is His presence when we are not even at church.

Just thought you might to know that.

No-one does, because the Mystery of the Gospel is revealed through the Comforter.


1 Corinthians 2:5-10

King James Version (KJV)


5 That your faith should not stand in the wisdom of men, but in the power of God.

6 Howbeit we speak wisdom among them that are perfect: yet not the wisdom of this world, nor of the princes of this world, that come to nought:

7 But we speak the wisdom of God in a mystery, even the hidden wisdom, which God ordained before the world unto our glory:

8 Which none of the princes of this world knew: for had they known it, they would not have crucified the Lord of glory.

9 But as it is written, Eye hath not seen, nor ear heard, neither have entered into the heart of man, the things which God hath prepared for them that love him.

10 But God hath revealed them unto us by his Spirit: for the Spirit searcheth all things, yea, the deep things of God.



Romans 16:24-26

King James Version (KJV)


24 The grace of our Lord Jesus Christ be with you all. Amen.

25 Now to him that is of power to stablish you according to my gospel, and the preaching of Jesus Christ, according to the revelation of the mystery, which was kept secret since the world began,

26 But now is made manifest, and by the scriptures of the prophets, according to the commandment of the everlasting God, made known to all nations for the obedience of faith:

?

Why would you think this is relevant?

The Lord implies He is crazy?

Could you find another Catholic that would agree with you, Utilyan? lol

If you think false arguments help the confusion you are teaching you are sadly mistaken.

Finish this statement: "Better to keep your mouth shut and let everyone think you are a fool than to open it..."

Nothing in what I said implied understanding to anyone in the Chapter. I frequently point out that the Gospel of Jesus Christ is the Hidden Wisdom of God, not revealed in past Ages, and John 6 takes place during the Age of Law.

C'mon, Utilyan, think before you speak. Examine what is actually being said by your antagonist.

See how your reasoning bring you to such an irrelevant statement? This has nothing to do with what is being discussed.

And here we see another example of the consequences of your Doctrine: because you don't really care what Scripture sttates, and think what you think has significance...

...you continuously present nonsensical and irrelevant posts such as this one.

You think natural men, not having received the Spirit of God...actually love Christ.

Great, I guess Peter was just giving an object lesson in what not to do when he rejected the Gospel given him directly from Christ, tried to cut off a man's head, and cursed, denying he even knew who the Lord was.

So you go with that, Utilyan, and I will go with what the Word of God actually teaches.

Well, Christ gave you that Scripture for a reason. Not to make it subject to your whim, nor to publicly contradict yourself in trying to both deny the importance of Scripture and to equally use it when it is convenient.

Consider:


2 Peter 3:15-16

King James Version (KJV)

15 And account that the longsuffering of our Lord is salvation; even as our beloved brother Paul also according to the wisdom given unto him hath written unto you;

16 As also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things; in which are some things hard to be understood, which they that are unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other scriptures, unto their own destruction.


Now, if you are going to respond to something I say, I just ask that you quote me, so I can be notified that you have responded, thus giving me the opportunity to respond myself.

I also ask that you address the topic of what I said, rather than use it as a springboard for your false doctrine.

That's not a lot to ask, is it?


God bless.

 

Passover is the "real deal?"

Okay, Utilyan, you go ahead and celebrate Passover, and I will celebrate the One Passover prophetically memorialized.

I will not respond to any more posts except you quote the poster you are responding to, and I would just suggest to the other members here that they do the same.

When you can show that you actually want to have a discussion, then I will address the doctrine you hold.

That you do not understand that Christ died in our stead on a specific day in time, and that this Sacrifice was a one-time event which according to His Own statement brought sacrifice to an end...

...is sad.


God bless.

God bless.

 

Again we see the typical deflection of those who cannot address the points raised to them.

It is a cult-like tendency to think that one only has to speak at people, never answering any questions posed to their doctrine.

Well, I apologize to those who might be interested in discussing the issues for nonsensical posts like these, random, irrelevant, and a clear avoidance of the issues which shows their doctrine is not Biblical.


God bless.

 

Actually he was addressing unscriptural tradition.

I read it, agreed with what he had to say.




God bless.

 

Kind of doubtful. Most of the doctrine you teach doesn't correlate to Catholic Doctrine.

It seems the association is vague.

What would be novel is simply addressing the focal issues.

Check it out. Since you claim to be Catholic it would be a good idea to know what it is they actually believe.

Me, a question?

MWAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAA...


...oh, sorry, lost my head there.

Yeah, I can usually scrounge up a few.

Sorry, young padawan, the public record shows this to be delusions of grandeur.

Doesn't just look like it...it is.

Okay, 72 degrees.

Here it is: have you always presented confused ideas about Catholic Doctrine and Practice?

Sorry to hear that.

However, you could check out the link you supplied and, after having come to a better understanding of Catholic Doctrine, we might be able to debate the errors that are withinh their teachings.

Until then, I would probably prefer to go back to the original topic, which is not Caholic Doctrine, but Christian Doctrine. Your aversion to the Word of God hinders that usually, even though you appeal to it when it is convenient to your teaching, but, we might be able to work through that.


God bless.