Featured 'Tradition'

Now, now, utilyan, there was the 1st Baptist Church of Jerusalem. How do I know? Why I read it right here in these very pages, courtesy of one of our fellow posters.

 

Once Constantine took Christendom and made it a state religion in the early fourth religion there was a great uproar. He introduced idolatry. Basically he paganized Christianity.

You just have to look for it. It is not hard to find. It is factual. From one source:
While Constantine supposedly converted to Christianity in 312, he wasn't baptized until on his deathbed 25 years later. In the intervening years he had his wife and eldest son murdered, and from all appearances he continued as a worshipper of the sun god. Long after his supposed conversion he had coins minted with a portrait of himself on one side and a depiction of his “companion, the unconquered Sol [sun]” on the other.

The “Christianity” Constantine endorsed was already considerably different from that practiced by Jesus Christ and the apostles. The emperor accelerated the change by his own hatred of Jews and religious practices he considered Jewish.
https://www.ucg.org/the-good-news/constantines-impact-on-christianity

After centuries of persecution, the destiny of Christianity changed when the Roman emperor Constantine I became Christian. His decision changed the world forever.
Throughout his life, Constantine was prone to supernatural encounters. But in 312, a dream he had before the Battle of Milvian Bridge changed his life. In the dream, God instructed Constantine to use the labarum as his battle standard against his enemies. The labarum consisted of the initial letters of Christ, Chi-Rho, on top of a cross. The labarum was ambiguous. Pagans could also associate this sign with their own beliefs. Constantine knew that in a predominantly pagan empire, it was important to have universal support. With his victory at the Battle of Milvian Bridge, Constantine was henceforth an avowed Christian. He believed that God had enabled him to triumph over Maxentius. The labarum would go on to see active duty in many battles. Meanwhile, future Christian emperors would also attribute victory and defeat to God. 3
http://neobyzantium.com/how-constantine-the-great-influenced-the-development-of-christianity/

Constantine Changed the nature of "Christianity," introduced paganism and superstition," became the "founder" of the RCC. History bears this out to the objective reader. The basic doctrines of the RCC are pagan.

Many of them had some things right. However many or even most of them clung to some error, even heresy which, when all put together, would collectively become the basic doctrinal foundation of the RCC. They introduced heresy into Christianity. Take a look:

All of the “church fathers” were infected with some false doctrine, and most of them were seriously infected. Even the so-called Apostolic Fathers of the second century were teaching the false gospel that baptism, celibacy, and martyrdom provided forgiveness of sin (Howard Vos, Exploring Church History, p. 12). And of the later “fathers”--Clement, Origen, Cyril, Jerome, Ambrose, Augustine, Theodore, and John Chrysostom--the same historian admits: “In their lives and teachings we find the seed plot of almost all that arose later. In germ form appear the dogmas of purgatory, transubstantiation, priestly mediation, baptismal regeneration, and the whole sacramental system” (Vos, p. 25).
Therefore, the “church fathers” are actually the fathers of the Roman Catholic Church. They are the men who laid the foundation of apostasy that produced Romanism and Greek Orthodoxy.
http://www.wayoflife.org/database/church_fathers_a_door_to_rome.html

In the same article above a list of the Church Fathers is given with their respective heresies written underneath
A LOOK AT SOME OF THE CHURCH FATHERS

Acts 17:4 And some of them believed, and consorted with Paul and Silas; and of the devout Greeks a great multitude, and of the chief women not a few.
I don't know their names. They are not recorded. But they believed. And this is well after 50 A.D.

Acts 17:12 Therefore many of them believed; also of honourable women which were Greeks, and of men, not a few.
--Many more believed here.

The method of Paul was spiritual reproduction:
2 Timothy 2:2 And the things that thou hast heard of me among many witnesses, the same commit thou to faithful men, who shall be able to teach others also.
He discipled Timothy who was to teach others. Those that Timothy taught were to teach others. And the pattern continued generation after generation. It is the Word being taught not tradition. Names are not important here.
Paul in his lifetime established over 100 churches. They didn't all fail within his generation. They continued to flourish well past his death.

Cardinal Hosius, a Roman Catholic bishop, said in 1551:
"If the truth of religion were to be judged of, by the readiness and chearfulness which a man of any sect shows in suffering, then the opinion and persuasion of no sect can be truer or surer than that of the Anabaptists; since there have been none for these twelve hundred years past, that have been more grievously punished, or that have more cheerfully and steadfastly undergone, and even offered themselves to the most cruel sorts of punishments, than these people."
http://baptisthistoryhomepage.com/hosius.anabaptist.duBarry.html
--A Catholic bishop traces the Baptists right back to time of the Apostles, or at least very close to it.
He lived in the 1500's. He said that these Baptists existed for at least 1200 years before him. That takes us to 200 A.D. or just one hundred years after John's death.
From the same source there are testimonies of others.

Opinions are not worth much, but you are entitled to yours.

I can give evidence for what I believe. Your doctrine is based on mysticism, superstition, and paganism. It cannot be found in the Bible. If it could be found in the Bible, you would be able to demonstrate it. Therefore it is not true Christianity, is it?

 

Utilyan...


Romans 8:9

King James Version (KJV)

9 But ye are not in the flesh, but in the Spirit, if so be that the Spirit of God dwell in you. Now if any man have not the Spirit of Christ, he is none of his.




Please provide the Scripture that states we are "one flesh" with God the Father, God the Son, or God the Holy Spirit.


God bless.

 

You can read about them in Acts 2, also.

Just saying...


God bless.

 

The union is spiritual, Utilyan. It has nothing to do with the physical body of Christ, but His Church.

And when we memorialize His death in Communion, we see two elements, His Body, and His Blood. Do you also say we are one in His Blood as well? That we are "one blood?"

If not...why not?

The Body and Blood that is memorialized represent...His Death.

And you, my friend, were not there on the Cross. Atonement was accomplished by Christ...

...alone.

There was One with Him:


John 16:32

King James Version (KJV)

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.


But it wasn't you. You did not contribute to Eternal Redemption then, and you did not contribute to Eternal Redemption when you were saved, and you do not contribute to Eternal Redemption now.

If you really think you did, or do, then perhaps what element will you add to Communion, because it can't be bread, and it can't be wine. Secondly, just curious as to how you are going to convince the rest of your Catholic brethren this addition is necessary. Third, I would like to know why the Church you trust so much...

...hasn't already added an element to Communion?




God bless.

 

Here I am. But then, I understand that Christ is with us even when we are not partaking of Communion.



Utilyan, would you do me a favor, and in your own words, explain how you understand the "Eucharist?"

Thanks in advance.


God bless.

 

There is no Eucharist, at least not in the Bible, and that is a fact.
It is a pagan practice as can be seen by others The Aztecs of Central America were practicing something similar when Europeans discovered them in the sixteenth century. They had been doing this for centuries:

The Eucharist is mentioned in the Bible and quite extensively. Read the Gospel of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John. In Matthew -- the feeding of the 5,000 (Mt. 14:13-21; Mk. 6:30-44; Lk. 9:10-17 and Jn. 6:1-14.) The feeding of the 4,000 (Mt. 15:32-38, Mk. 8:1-10). Both of these events show how the bread is going to be multiplied and used to serve all of Christ's Church. However, the apostle's and others do not understand this ... yet. We move on to the Gospel of John, Chapter 6. Here, Christ himself, tells us that HE is the true bread from heaven, not the manna in the desert that Moses and the Israelites ate. (Jn. 6:31-33). Now, beginning with Jn. 6:41 -- Jesus states that HE is the bread of life, the living bread and that "if anyone eats of this bread, he will live for ever and the breead which I shall give for the life of the world is my flesh. (Jn. 6:51). He further states in Jn. 6:53-55: Truly, truly, I say to you, unless you eat the fless of the Son of man and drink his blood, you have no life in you; he who eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day." (Emphasis added) FOR MY FLESH IS FOOD INDEED AND MY BLOOD IS DRINK INDEED. Jn. 6:57 - As the living Father sent me, and I live because of the Father, so he who eats me will live because of me." Jn. 58: "he who eats this bread will live forever."

How do we know that he meant this literally? Because when he lost disciples, he did not call them back or say -- this is symbolic. Instead, he turned to the remaining Twelve and asked them if they were going to leave him also. Jn. 6:60 "Many of his disciples, when they heard it, said, "This is a hard saying: who can listen to it?" Jn. 6:66-68 "After this, many of his disciples drew back and no longer walked with him. Jesus said to the Twelve "Will you also go away?" Simon Peter answered him, "lord, to whom shall we go? You have the words of eternal life...." If this were symbolic or not important, Christ would have explained that. He explained many of his parables. Instead, he watched them walk away and then asked if the Twelve were going to leave also.

The chapter of John Chapter 6 lists the following:
Bread of Life - 2 times
Bread from Heaven - 5 times
Living Bread - 2 times
Bread - 3 times
Bread of God - 1
food - 1
Eat - 5 times (this is said in relation to "Bread and Him)
Flesh -- (again some form of consuming his flesh)
Drink - 4 times
blood - 3 times

This is a total of 23 times that Christ refers to himself as the Bread and that we must consume him or his blood as drink and we must drink him.

Let's jump to St. Paul. If the Eucharist was not the body and blood of Christ and if we were not to consume it as such -- in other words, if it were a mere symbol then it would not matter what state our souls are in when we participate in it. However, in 1 Cor. 10:14 - 17 Paul writes, "I speak as to sensible men, judge for yourself what I say. The cup of blessing which we bless, is it not a participation in the blood of Christ? The bread which we break, is it not a participation in the body of Christ? Because there is one bread, we who are many are one body, for we all partake of the one bread." Then, in 1 Cor. 11:23 - 26. St. Paul writes: "For I received from the Lord, what I also delivered to you, that the Lord Jesus on the night when he was betrayed took bread, and when had given thanks, he broke it, and said, "This is my body which is for you. Do this in remembrance of me." In the same way also, the chalice, after supper, saying, "This chalice is the new covenant in my blood. Do this as often as you drink it, in remembrance of me. For as often as you eat this bread and drink the chalice, you proclaim the Lord's death until he comes." Now, here's the important part:

1 Cor. 11:27: (Emphasis added) Whoever, therefore, eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty of profaning the body and blood of the Lord. If this not truly the body and blood of Christ, then it could not be profaned. Furthermore, he goes on to write in verse 29: "For any one who eats and drinks without discerning the body east and drinks judgment upon himself."

As for your other issues with the Catholic Church, a good reading of secular history will show you that the Catholic Church was the only Church in town and that it did not begin with Constantine -- he legalized it at that time. The New Testament Canon was compiled, debated and ratified at the Councils of Hippo - 393 C.E., Council of Carthage C.E, the Council of Second Nicea in 787 C.E., Florence in 1440 and Trent in 1525 in response to the Reformation and Martin Luther's biblical changes.

I hope this helped clarify why Catholic's believe as we do regarding the Eucharist and where we find it in the Bible.

 

Hello MJ, and welcome to the Forum, I hope your time here will be blessed and that you in turn will be a blessing to those here.

The question that has to be answered is "What does Christ mean when He states men must eat of His flesh and drink of His blood?'

I think that is made clear here:


John 6:51-53

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.

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.



In view is Christ's death, which is memorialized in Communion. We do not partake of just the bread, nor just the wine, but both, the two representing the fact that He died.

That it is a memorial is seen here:

Let's look at the original 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.


Now I would ask you these questions:


1. Is the bread Christ passes His body?

2. Is the wine His blood?

3. Are either...the New Covenant?


Do you, as a Catholic, think you maintain your Covenant relationship with God through Communion on an eternal and spiritual basis?

Do you, as a Catholic, think that the literal flesh of Christ, represented in the bread, is actually in that bread passed among your fellow congregants?

The basic teaching of John 6 is that physical bread sustains...physical life. Note v.53 above, where we see that except a man eat of His flesh, he has no life in Him. Yet you say...

The bread multiplied...

...has nothing to do with the Death of Christ.

It is physical, even as the manna is physical, yet left the partakers...dead:


John 6:49-50

King James Version (KJV)


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.


I would also like to ask, if the bread of the feeding of the multitudes is "the Eucharist," then could you explain to me what you, as a Catholic, suggest the fish represents?

Could you tell me why there is no mention of what these people drank?

Lastly, if you don't mind, could you, in a few short words of your own, describe your understanding of Transubstantiation. This would be of interest to me, and I think might help to look at the meaning of Christ's statements in regards to Himself being the True Bread.

Again, welcome to the forum.


God bless.

 

Spiritual is a greater reality then physical.

Ephesians 5
31FOR THIS REASON A MAN SHALL LEAVE HIS FATHER AND MOTHER AND SHALL BE JOINED TO HIS WIFE, AND THE TWO SHALL BECOME ONE FLESH. 32This mystery is great; but I am speaking with reference to Christ and the church.

He is telling you he speaks in reference to Christ and the Church.

 

Like I said your claiming some early church fathers are right, But you can't name one.

You can't name one living person who had the correct faith.

Not until a Anglican priest named John Smyth invented your faith 1600 years later and then he left it! He ended up abandoning the Baptist faith after he invented it. LOL.

 

My claim is that the Bible is right and the ECF are wrong. Therefore trust God's Word, not the ECF who also have the reputation of introducing most of the present heresies that we now have.
Did you not read the information in the Link I gave you?
http://www.wayoflife.org/database/church_fathers_a_door_to_rome.html

I am living; I have the right faith. This is a Baptist Board. Most here have the right faith. What are you talking about?

There were many Baptists before Smyth. You know that already.
I have given you plenty of evidence even from the mouth of a Catholic bishop. If you choose to reject the evidence set before that is your choice.

 

Hi Darrell:

You've asked some good questions and ones that I haven't considered. I am going to offer a quick answer then reply more in-depth in the next couple of days. However, I ask for your patience. I leave on Saturday for a trip across country with three of my grandchildren and I have much to do tomorrow.

1. Is the bread Christ passes His body? If this is asking -- is the host truly the body of Christ? Yes. Absolutely.

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

3. Are either...the New Covenant? Yes. Absolutely.

Do you, as a Catholic, think you maintain your Covenant relationship with God through Communion on an eternal and spiritual basis?

Do you, as a Catholic, think that the literal flesh of Christ, represented in the bread, is actually in that bread passed among your fellow congregants? Literally? yes and no. The host retains it's appearance and molecular makeup of unleavened bread nor does the wine change it's composition. BUT -- they both do change and become the body and blood of Christ. How? In Jn. 6:62 - 64 -- this is after many of Christ's disciples say that this is a hard saying and asking who can listen to it. Jesus says, "do you take offense at this? Then what if you were to see the Son of man ascending where he was before? it is the Spirit that gives life, the flesh is of no avail; the words that I have spoken to you are Spirit and life. But there are some of you that do not believe."

I'll answer more tomorrow or within the next few days.

Take care and God Bless.

Sherry



The basic teaching of John 6 is that physical bread sustains...physical life. Note v.53 above, where we see that except a man eat of His flesh, he has no life in Him. Yet you say...

 

What makes your interpretation of scripture right compared to PEOPLE WHO SPOKE WITH AND PERSONALLY TAUGHT by APOSTLES?

You don't even have a bible. You didn't walk to a library and say ok this book.....this book....this book.

Someone did it FOR YOU. And you swear THAT SOMEONE is totally wrong about the faith.

You would swear Anglicans got the faith all wrong.......But you use a ANGLICAN KING JAMES bible.

Its just ridiculous circular reasoning.

I think you just wearing the team jersey never really think for yourself, cause you could care less if a Calvinist , Muslim or Catholic is in the house as long as he's wearing the Baptist T-shirt somehow we're right even though none of us agree with each other.

And Jesus Christ couldn't keep an organization together for two weeks. But you guys been around for decades changing your mind ever other year and oh we are the real deal we still got the church together. HA!

There should be like a Baptist wheel of fortune/twister game. Where you spin an arrow on each belief.

You know theres a Baptist out there who thinks you are going to hell cause you don't agree with him. Both swear they are more biblical then the other. What a mess.

 

We got in scripture a church system. The holy word of scripture gives a system.

This system has to be trash because scripture teaches it right?

1 timothy 3
1It is a trustworthy statement: if any man aspires to the office of overseer, it is a fine work he desires to do. 2An overseer, then, must be above reproach, the husband of one wife, temperate, prudent, respectable, hospitable, able to teach, 3not addicted to wine or pugnacious, but gentle, peaceable, free from the love of money. 4He must be one who manages his own household well, keeping his children under control with all dignity 5(but if a man does not know how to manage his own household, how will he take care of the church of God?), 6and not a new convert, so that he will not become conceited and fall into the condemnation incurred by the devil. 7And he must have a good reputation with those outside the church, so that he will not fall into reproach and the snare of the devil.

Titus 1:7
7For the overseer must be above reproach as God’s steward, not self-willed, not quick-tempered, not addicted to wine, not pugnacious, not fond of sordid gain, 8but hospitable, loving what is good, sensible, just, devout, self-controlled, 9holding fast the faithful word which is in accordance with the teaching, so that he will be able both to exhort in sound doctrine and to refute those who contradict.


If the bible says this is the way to do things.....maybe its right? nah can't be.

Thing is you only have to admit this was done ONCE. And you already have a early church father who is a bishop preaching the "wrong" stuff.

Ignatius of Antioch, Took Peter's office and was taught by John the apostle.

Legend is he is the kid Jesus had on his knee when he said be humble as this child.

"Consider how contrary to the mind of God are the heterodox in regard to the grace of God which has come to us. They have no regard for charity, none for the widow, the orphan, the oppressed, none for the man in prison, the hungry or the thirsty. They abstain from the Eucharist and from prayer, because they do not admit that the Eucharist is the flesh of our Savior Jesus Christ, the flesh which suffered for our sins and which the Father, in His graciousness, raised from the dead."
"Letter to the Smyrnaeans", paragraph 6. circa 80-110 A.D


The apostles may still be alive!

But no they got it wrong till 2000 years later somewhere in the united states, Uncle Buford read the bible after his first altar call.

Yeah I don't think so.

 

Understood, but...it has nothing to do with physical flesh, Utilyan, our physical flesh still awaits redemption.

Our union with God is spiritual, not physical. Our union with God has nothing to do with the flesh, because we are born of God, which is not an event that can be witnessed by the human eye. It is not an event that happens repeatedly, nor is it something that happens temporarily.

The quote above certainly speaks of two becoming one, but Paul does not negate the spiritual nature of this union by using marriage as a picture of the Church being one with Christ.


God bless.

 

No ruxh, and you guys have a great time.

But it is not. This is the Passover meal, and this event takes place under the Covenant of Law. The New Covenant would not be established properly until first Christ died, then arose, returned to Heaven, and sent the Promised Spirit.

This is why He states "Do this in remembrance."

And what we remember when we partake of Communion is His death. It is His death which brought about Eternal Redemption:


Hebrews 9:12-15

King James Version (KJV)


12 Neither by the blood of goats and calves, but by his own blood he entered in once into the holy place, having obtained eternal redemption for us.

13 For if the blood of bulls and of goats, and the ashes of an heifer sprinkling the unclean, sanctifieth to the purifying of the flesh:

14 How much more shall the blood of Christ, who through the eternal Spirit offered himself without spot to God, purge your conscience from dead works to serve the living God?

15 And for this cause he is the mediator of the new testament, that by means of death, for the redemption of the transgressions that were under the first testament, they which are called might receive the promise of eternal inheritance.


The euphemism "blood" is defined as death in v.15. Throughout the entire New Testament we see use of this euphemism, and it is not in reference to His literal blood coursing through His veins, for if His "blood" (in that respect) saved, then Christ need not have died.

This is a basic teaching we see going back to the Garden, in which Adam and Eve received a covering for their sin, in which I think we can safely say that an animal or animals died. Then we see Abel bring of his flock and "the fat thereof," familiar terminology in the Law concerning animals sacrificed.

It is summed up like this:


Leviticus 17:11

King James Version (KJV)

11 For the life of the flesh is in the blood: and I have given it to you upon the altar to make an atonement for your souls: for it is the blood that maketh an atonement for the soul.


Thus it is the life taken which is in view. It was not a matter of sin being atoned for in this temporary provision given by God through bloodletting, it was necessary that the sacrifice die. We do not separate the "blood" from the "flesh," which is seen in the memorial of Christ's death, but flesh and blood are represented, and I think this is to make sure that it was clear to those remembering Christ's Sacrifice that...He died.

We don't have groups that only remember the blood, and we don't have groups that only remember the flesh. It's always both, the two representing His death.


Hebrews 9:22

King James Version (KJV)

22 And almost all things are by the law purged with blood; and without shedding of blood is no remission.


Again, I would point out that the "Last Supper" is a ceremony within the Law (though it precedes the Law), and that Christ was made under the Law (Galatians 4:4), and perfectly fulfilled the Law. If we say that He is literally saying "This is my flesh, this is my blood," then we have to equally conclude that partaking of Christ (from a spiritual standpoint, and in relation to the New Covenant) was accomplished through obedience to the Law, and by keeping the Feasts.

And Paul makes it clear this is not so. The Writer of Hebrews spends a great deal of time contrasting the First Covenant (the Covenant of Law) with the New Covenant, and denies any possibility that we can impose into the Law the benefits that were bestowed to men when the New Covenant was established.

Now think about the Passover, and ask yourself if the Passover (originally and that memorial that was instituted under Law) equates to the actual Sacrifice of Christ. If you say yes, then why was it necessary for Christ to come from Heaven, die, rise again, and establish the New Covenant?

The animal that stood in the place of those saved in the original Passover, and the animals that died in every following Passover...could not take away the sins of the world. It was a picture of that Sacrifice that would. That is the bread and wine, the flesh and body of the Last Supper. Christ expounds upon this ceremony, and in saying "...this is my body...this is my blood," He is showing their representation formerly of His death. But the death was still...the animal. The elements of the Passover have to be kept distinct. It was not the bread and wine that stood as the element of death, but the animal.

One more passage to consider:


Hebrews 10:1-4

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.

4 For it is not possible that the blood of bulls and of goats should take away sins.


Again, we can see a parallel between the sacrifices of the Law with Christ, and the bottom line is that in view is His sacrifice, not the elements of memorial. When Passover was celebrated, they did not skip the sacrifice, nor could they, because that sacrifice was the prescribed method. And in general, if those sacrifices could take away sins and make the "comer thereunto (the worshipper)" perfect (complete), then would not the sacrifices have ceased?

But Christ's Sacrifice did take away sins, and that Sacrifice (His death) did make the comer thereunto perfect...for ever (Hebrews 10:14). That is why we do not still sacrifice. No animal need die in our stead to "cover" our sins, because Christ's death in our stead takes them away (removes the Penalty for sin).

The primary point being, it is not the bread and wine of Communion that brings about relationship with God, but His death itself, which is memorialized in Communion. Just as the Passover Lamb of the original Passover was memorialized in the Law. The lambs slain did not continue to liberate the Hebrew People from the death that came upon Egypt, right? Nor does remembrance of Christ's death continue to liberate men from the Penalty for sins, because, as we are told...


Hebrews 10:14

King James Version (KJV)

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


Place that perfection (completion) in relation to what he states about the sacrifices of the Law, and you will understand he is saying that His death was a one-time offering that made complete the end to which it served, which was to take away sins.

And I Know this was a little long, so I will break this up to make it easier for you to respond.


Continued...

 

Again, I have to disagree, we are clearly told that it is taken in remembrance, and it is that which is remembered that is important.

That is...His death.

Consider:


Colossians 1:14

King James Version (KJV)

14 In whom we have redemption through his blood, even the forgiveness of sins:


As shown in the previous post, remission of sins is made complete in Christ for those that are sanctified by His Sacrifice. Here, I ask you, were we redeemed by the literal blood flowing through His veins, or is this a reference to His death?

Consider this statement again:


Hebrews 9:12 ; 15

King James Version (KJV)

12 Neither by the blood of goats and calves, but by his own blood he entered in once into the holy place, having obtained eternal redemption for us.


15 And for this cause he is the mediator of the new testament, that by means of death, for the redemption of the transgressions that were under the first testament, they which are called might receive the promise of eternal inheritance.


Communion represents the death of Christ.

Consider the New and Living Way:


Hebrews 10:19-20

King James Version (KJV)


19 Having therefore, brethren, boldness to enter into the holiest by the blood of Jesus,

20 By a new and living way, which he hath consecrated for us, through the veil, that is to say, his flesh;


Both flesh and blood represent His death.

Now let's go back to the text in the original posts of our discussion:


John 6:51-53

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.

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.


What He is saying is that except one believe upon His death...they have no life. Read the chapter again and note that prior to this flesh and blood, all that was available to men were physical elements. And we do not equate the physical elements given under Law with salvation, nor do we equate the physical elements of Communion with salvation. What we equate with salvation is Christ literally dying on the Cross in the stead of the sinner,. taking upon Himself the death that we have earned. Just as an animal would have thrust on them the penalty for he sin/s the sacrifice was offered for, even so Christ had thrust upon Himself our sin.


Continued...

 

The New Covenant is a spiritual and eternal Covenant, not established upon physical elements, but established with the realities that physical elements often represent. The sacrifices under Law and prior to the Law (i.e., Abel, Noah, Abraham, Job offered up sacrifice) were physical, earthly representations of Christ's death. The bread and wine which are partaken of are also physical elements representing the reality.

But the reality remains the Sacrifice of Christ. His death.

Hebrews is the best Book for a believer to understand the difference between the shadow, figure, type, and parable of the Law versus the Heavenly Realities realized in Christ. The Priesthood, Tabernacle, and all provision (i.e., remission of sin, entrance to God, ability and understanding of the believer) all stood as representations of the Promise/s of God in regards to Redemption. Men did not receive Eternal Redemption by offering up animals and having their sin debt payed, thus enabling them to be in relationship with God on an eternal basis.

Just as partaking of the Passover meal did not maintain the First Covenant, even so partaking of Communion does not maintain the New Covenant. What maintains the New Covenant relationship is our union with God, which is accomplished by the believer being placed into Christ, rather than the believer being obligated to observe a ceremony in order to maintain that relationship.

I want you to think about this. And I will pose a few more questions which I think will help to put your statement into a perspective that relates to Communion:

1. How does Christ ascending back to Heaven have anything to do with physical bread or wine?

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?

3. If the flesh avails nothing, how do we relate that to a physical eating of "bread" and a physical drinking of "wine?"

4. Is Christ telling them that they must believe in Communion, or is He telling them they must believe on His death?

5. When we partake of Communion, are we remembering His death as He commanded the disciples, or is Christ's death once again occuring?

Take your time.

You guys be safe in your travels.

God bless.

 

Does the Catholic Church still sell indulgences, Utilyan?


God bless.

 

They weren't taught by the apostles. That is where you are mistaken. Only two of them were influenced by the Apostle: Justin Martyr, and Ignatius. The fact that they came in contact with the Apostle John does not guarantee orthodoxy in doctrine. That is obvious.
Even Peter went off the rails and became hypocritical siding with the heresy of the legalistic Jews. He had to be soundly rebuked by the Apostle Paul in Gal.2:11,

Galatians 2:11 But when Peter was come to Antioch, I withstood him to the face, because he was to be blamed.

You will find that the rest of the ECF were born 125,150 A.D. etc. well after the lives of the apostles were over. They were not taught by the apostles.

You are right. I do not have A Bible; I have dozens of the them. I am blessed in that way. I am a missionary. I go to nations where the Bible is scarce and many people don't have a Bible. Count your blessings; not your unbelief, and sarcasm.

The Holy Spirit wrote the Bible. Did he do it by faith? He inspired prophets of the Old Testament and apostles of the NT to write what God wanted them to write. What has that got to do with faith?

2 Peter 1:21 For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost.

2 Timothy 3:16 All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:

I believe the KJV is still the most accurate translation we have today, but I am not bound to that translation. One might say it is my "default." There are reasons for that. Since the time I was saved, I memorized scripture from it. I am well acquainted with it. Therefore I have no reason to change. However, if you have read my posts you should have observed by now that I have posted using many other translations for comparison sake. I am not tied to one translation.

On your part, through ignorance perhaps.

Again, you don't think your posts through or research them. The difference between a Calvinist and a non-Cal is quite a minor issue. But the one who teaches salvation is by works (the RCC), and other heretical doctrines such as purgatory, indulgences, praying to the dead (like Mary), and so much more, is more like a cult than Christianity. Baptizing to wash away sins is what the Hindus do. It is pure superstition. Transubstantiation comes from paganism.

So do the J.W's and Mormons. Your doctrine has changed throughout the ages. It comes from paganism and cannot be found in the Bible, and therefore is not Christian. Whereas everything we believe is based on the Bible, God's revelation to mankind.

Again, the Bible is our foundation and Jesus is our head. Not for you.
You know little of what the Bible says and are opposed to the teachings of Jesus.

The same can be said about liberal vs conservative Catholics.
But you have your unsubstantiated, anecdotal and slanderous opinions. They remain that way until you provide the evidence.

Jesus said: Except a man be born again he cannot enter into the Kingdom of God.
Have you been born again? How? When? Are you sure then you will enter into God's Kingdom?