A look at Matthew 16 vs dogma

[Thinkingstuff]

Yes, in fact, I use the same logic with the Roman Catholic movie. Or any other drawing or image of Jesus or otherwise. I have seen the movie based on the Gospel of John and consider it idolatrous. Yes, pictures of Jesus in Bibles are idolatry and abomination. We are not to make images of God.

They are worshipping the object because they believe the lie that the elements have turned into the flesh and blood of Jesus. So they worship it, and call it the host. But whether in this, or in a bowing as many Roman Catholcis do before idols supposed to be mary, or some so-called saint, or a crucifix with the image of a dead man supposed to be Jesus, whether they kneel or bow or genuflect, they offer worship at the idol.

This is idolatry.

At least you're consistent. You and muslims have this in common for them no pictures of the prophet. For you no pictures of anything because you feel it is all idolatry. I respect your view. I, however, consider this type of thinking to be extreme. I catagorized (this is personally so that you understand) this type of view along side with the KJO crowd. Both are extreme in the sense I view the amish as being extreme. However, I respect the amish for their dedication and I respect you for your dedication to what you believe. I just disagree with you and this application of what the bible says. So, we'll have to agree to disagree on this point.

 

[Dr. Walter]

I completely understand how Rome misinterprets John 6 but are you saying that you accept the doctrine of transubstantiation? When Jesus spoke John 6 and when he instituted the Lord's Supper later in Matthew 26 his blood was still flowing in his own uncrucified body when he said "this is by my blood" and "this is my body." Therefore what was in the cup and the unleavened bread could not have been his flesh or blood LITERALLY. When they drank the wine and ate the bread they could not have been drinking and eating Christ LITERALLY as he was still standing there in his LITERAL body with his LITERAL blood still flowing through his veins.

Second, the Law of God forbid the drinking of literal blood (Lev. 17:17) and so did the New Testament church (Acts 15).

Third, Jesus used the same kind of language "This is..." elsewhere "I am the door...vine....light...shepherd....etc" and yet never intended his readers to understand he was a LITERAL "door" or "vine"or etc.

This is the common use of language to convey a metaphor - or "this represents" my body and blood or I am representative of a door, vine, ect.

Last, in John 6 Jesus defines the terms "eat" and "drink" to be metaphors of believing in him or PARTAKING OF HIM BY FAITH before he made the statement that Rome abuses in John 6:60:

"And Jesus said unto them, I am the bread of life: he that cometh to me shall never hunger; and he that believeth on me shall never thirst."

Notice what quenches both "thirst" and "hunger"? "he that BELIEVETH on me". Thus he establishes the metaphor before using the langauge in verse 60.

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

Again, he introduces the bread of life (v. 48) by the act of "believeth on me hath everlasting life" thus defining how they partake of "that bread" in order to obtain "life."

The "bread" he is speaking about is not the bread used in the Lord's Supper which is "unleavened" but the sweet tasting "manna" that fell in the wilderness. When he says "I am that bread" or "manna" he did not mean for them to understand this LITERALLY as that is not true literally - He is literally a human being not bread.

However, this is just the beginning of the Biblical problems with the Roman misinterpretation of John 6 and the bread in the Lord's supper. The Scriptures demand that Christ offered him up as a sacrifice "ONCE" and unlike the Levitical preists who are reoffering up sacrifices that Christ has "sat down" as our High Preist signifying that his ONE offering "ONCE FOR ALL" is completely sufficient. Rome in the mass recrucifies Christ over and over again denying the finished work at Calvary and thus brings Christ to open shame (Heb. 4:6).

I am only stating my belief in what Jesus himself said as recorded in scripture, and that which the Church has taught and believed from its beginning. If I had to defend it, this is how I would begin...

The bread of life discourse begins in John 6:22, and the first point to address is the discussion of the heavenly bread. Jesus makes the point that as the Father sent manna from heaven for the physical nourishment of the Israelites, he has sent Jesus for the spiritual nourishment of the world. When Jesus announced this (6:41), the Jews murmured because he said that he had come down from heaven, not because he said that he was like bread. They understood his symbolic statement regarding the origin of the manna, and were scandalized by what it implied: "Is this not Jesus, the son of Joseph, whose father and mother we know? How does he now say, ‘I have come down from heaven?’" (6:42).

Beginning in verse 43, Jesus replies to these objections. At the completion of his answer (6:51), he speaks of a bread that he is yet to give. The Jews’ understand that he is now speaking in a literal sense, and so they object, "How can this man give us his flesh to eat?" So the Jews first objected because of what Jesus’ initial words meant symbolically, and now they object to what his second statement means literally. Had Jesus been speaking in a metaphorical sense here, this would be the perfect point to clarify his intentions.

Matthew 16:5–12 is one such example where Jesus’ listeners thought that he was speaking in a literal sense, and he had to correct them. In this passage, Christ was warning the disciples of the leaven of the Pharisees and Sadducees. The disciples concluded that he was speaking of the bread they had forgotten to bring for their journey. In seeing their confusion, Jesus had to reiterate that he was not speaking literally of bread.

Keeping this in mind, look how Jesus answers the Jews’ objections in John 6:53–58: "Truly, truly, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of man and drink his blood, you have no life in you. . . . For my flesh is food indeed, and my flesh is drink indeed." These words would hardly quell the Jew’s fear that Jesus spoke literally. Following this, many of his disciples said, "This is a hard saying; who can listen to it?"(6:60). At this point, we witness the only place in Scripture where anyone leaves Jesus for a doctrinal reason. Had Jesus been speaking metaphorically, what would have been so hard for the disciples to accept?

Peace!

 

[ReformedBaptist]

Nowhere did I say that. Strawman alert!



But the Catholics believe that the bread and wine become the Body and Blood of Christ. So my point is that, if you believe that Jesus is present in your worship services, why do you not fall down on your knees and worship Him? If you don't believe the He is present, then simply say so - I am not casting judgement either way.



We are all brothers and sisters in Christ! You may not like it, but - well - there it is.



Too much information...

Peace!

I consider a person who defends the papal lie of transubtantiation as equal to the one who is participating in it.

I worship Jesus Christ in spirit and in truth. What the papists worship is wafer and some wine they believe is the flesh and blood of Jesus, which it is not. They worship a lie.

Only those who are true Christians are my brother and sister and mother and father in Christ Jesus. While God's grace may have saved some Roman Catholic, and thus be my brother, God would have done this despite the papacy and not because of it. The papacy as a whole is Antichrist.

While the papacy wants to lay its claim and supremecy over me, claim to be Christ and the true Church, it does not make it so. Nor do I for one instant submit myself to a pope as the head of the church. It is the head of the false church, that Antichristian church, and Antichrist foretold of in the Scripture, and of which I am in total opposition and protest against.

 

[ReformedBaptist]

At least you're consistent. You and muslims have this in common for them no pictures of the prophet. For you no pictures of anything because you feel it is all idolatry. I respect your view. I, however, consider this type of thinking to be extreme. I catagorized (this is personally so that you understand) this type of view along side with the KJO crowd. Both are extreme in the sense I view the amish as being extreme. However, I respect the amish for their dedication and I respect you for your dedication to what you believe. I just disagree with you and this application of what the bible says. So, we'll have to agree to disagree on this point.

True Christians will be viewed more and more as extremists and do as you have done, and malign us and compare us to pagans. But, in fact, there is nothing more radical or extreme to this view than that of the Reformation. And I think they were thought to be radicals as well. It is not we who are extremists my friend, but you who have moved away from the Scriptures.

 

[Dr. Walter]

True Christians will be viewed more and more as extremists and do as you have done, and malign us and compare us to pagans. But, in fact, there is nothing more radical or extreme to this view than that of the Reformation. And I think they were thought to be radicals as well. It is not we who are extremists my friend, but you who have moved away from the Scriptures.

The crucifix is a piece of metal or wood and there is nothing unclean of itself. I think a better approach is to ask what is the motive of the Roman Catholic and how does the Roman Catholic veiw and/or treat this piece of wood or metal? Idolatry is any visible/invisible object that represents God in the human mind because it LIMITS God to the representative object. It is any visible/invisible object that receives veneration that belongs to God as it comes in between God and the worshipper of God.

If a person is looking at that piece of wood/metal as a MEDIUM between them or God or REPRESENTATIVE of Christ or treats that peice of metal/wood with the veneration that belongs to God then it is indeed an idol.

However, if a person views it without any regard other than a SYMBOL of the cross then nothing is wrong and no principle of Scripture has been violated.

 

[Thinkingstuff]

I completely understand how Rome misinterprets John 6 but are you saying that you accept the doctrine of transubstantiation? When Jesus spoke John 6 and when he instituted the Lord's Supper later in Matthew 26 his blood was still flowing in his own uncrucified body when he said "this is by my blood" and "this is my body." Therefore what was in the cup and the unleavened bread could not have been his flesh or blood LITERALLY. When they drank the wine and ate the bread they could not have been drinking and eating Christ LITERALLY as he was still standing there in his LITERAL body with his LITERAL blood still flowing through his veins.

Second, the Law of God forbid the drinking of literal blood (Lev. 17:17) and so did the New Testament church (Acts 15).

Third, Jesus used the same kind of language "This is..." else where "I am the door...vine....light...shepherd....etc" and yet never intended his readers to understand he was a LITERAL "door" or "vine"or etc.

This is the common use of language to convey a metaphor - or "this represents" my body and blood or I am representative of a door, vine, ect.

Last, in John 6 Jesus defines the terms "eat" and "drink" to be metaphors of believing in him or PARTAKING OF HIM BY FAITH before he made the statement that Rome abuses in John 6:60:

"And Jesus said unto them, I am the bread of life: he that cometh to me shall never hunger; and he that believeth on me shall never thirst."

Notice what quenches both "thirst" and "hunger"? "he that BELIEVETH on me". Thus he establishes the metaphor before using the langauge in verse 60.

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

Again, he introduces the bread of life (v. 48) by the act of "believeth on me hath everlasting life" thus defining how they partake of "that bread" in order to obtain "life."

The "bread" he is speaking about is no the bread used in the Lord's Supper which is "unleavened" but about the sweet tasting "manna" that fell in the wilderness. When he says "I am that bread" or "manna" he did not mean for them to understand this LITERALLY as that is not true literally - He is literally a human being not bread.

However, this is just the beginning of the Biblical problems with the Roman misinterpretation of John 6 and the bread in the Lord's supper. The Scriptures demand that Christ offered him up as a sacrifice "ONCE" and unlike the Levitical preists who are reoffering up sacrifices that Christ has "sat down" as our High Preist signifying that his ONE offering "ONCE FOR ALL" is completely sufficient. Rome in the mass recrucifies Christ over and over again denying the finished work at Calvary and thus brings Christ to open shame (Heb. 4:6).

The problem with your analysis is your failure at understanding the Catholic dogma of Transubstantiation.

A lot of Catholic thinking is based on Aquinas systematic theology. Aquinas was studied in Aristolian philosophy and so when speaking about substance it was understood not in our modern context of Substance but a closer to platonic view. Thus

A substance is characterized by its properties, but, according to those who believe in substances, it is more than the collection of the properties it possesses, it is the thing which possesses them. So the mind is not just a collection of thoughts, but is that which thinks, an immaterial substance over and above its immaterial states.

And thus we conclude that

Properties are the properties of objects

. This was plato. So now to Aristotle substance or essence for his (greek: ousia) So in particular view he held that

concludes that a particular substance is a combination of both matter and form

and he further concludes that

the matter of the house is its potentiality and the form is its actuality

So following this view the actuality or the substance has been changed (Kienesis) while the matter remains the same or the accidents. There is no change in this however the substance has according to the dogma of Transubstantiation. There for your accusation of actually breaking the command for drinking blood fails as the accidents aren't blood but bread and wine.
Also you accusation that they "re-crucify" Christ is also misunderstood by the doctrine. The term "Anamnesis" from "rememberance" has the connotation of remembering to make present. or more literally "loss of forgetfulness". So its offering that same sacrifice that occured 2,000 + years ago which is what they are doing not again crucifying the lord but loosing forgetfulness about it and making the memories present here and now. The participation takes the Participant back in time (so to speak not literally) to that one sacrifice. Like the original broadcast being replayed again and again.

 

[Thinkingstuff]

True Christians will be viewed more and more as extremists and do as you have done, and malign us and compare us to pagans. But, in fact, there is nothing more radical or extreme to this view than that of the Reformation. And I think they were thought to be radicals as well. It is not we who are extremists my friend, but you who have moved away from the Scriptures.

That is untrue. You need to study the reformation. Europe was in need of reformation and most wanted it. The question is what form was it to take? It took several different forms not all agreed with each other. Also there was a political stake and the European princes wanted absolute authority over religion as well. which is why Northern germany, Sweden, Norway, England, Denmark, and France supported reformed ideas and established the very foundations of nation states. A few reformers were considered extreme. I think Zwigli was one. But he had sexual issues and problems and made many errors. Luther had an extreme personality yet he was of the popular opinion in Northern Germany.
I have not moved away from the scriptures but take them in total. I sorry you feel only your particular sect of KJO people who abhore picture portrayals of the scritpures are the only christians in the world. But that is between you and God. I'll let it rest there in his hands.

 

[Dr. Walter]

I understand the philosphical THEORY they present to convince FOOLS to believe it has any validity in justifying their practice and use of scriptures. This is what the scriptures calls "vain philosophy" of men. The term "vain" means EMPTY/VOID of truth.

Cut away all the philsophical garbage and the bottom line is that they believe they are drinking Christ's blood and eating his body and as such they violate God's command not to drink blood as that is what they are doing in their own mind.

You know very well they refer to the mass as the "sacrifice" of Christ in connection with actual impartation of "grace" in that "sacrifice. That voids their definition of "remembrance" as there is MORE than mere remembrance but actual grace being imparted.

Your so intense upon presenting the VAIN Roman speculative reasonings to support their heresies that you miss what they are ACTUALLY teaching and saying.

.

The problem with your analysis is your failure at understanding the Catholic dogma of Transubstantiation.

A lot of Catholic thinking is based on Aquinas systematic theology. Aquinas was studied in Aristolian philosophy and so when speaking about substance it was understood not in our modern context of Substance but a closer to platonic view. Thus And thus we conclude that . This was plato. So now to Aristotle substance or essence for his (greek: ousia) So in particular view he held that and he further concludes that So following this view the actuality or the substance has been changed (Kienesis) while the matter remains the same or the accidents. There is no change in this however the substance has according to the dogma of Transubstantiation. There for your accusation of actually breaking the command for drinking blood fails as the accidents aren't blood but bread and wine.
Also you accusation that they "re-crucify" Christ is also misunderstood by the doctrine. The term "Anamnesis" from "rememberance" has the connotation of remembering to make present. or more literally "loss of forgetfulness". So its offering that same sacrifice that occured 2,000 + years ago which is what they are doing not again crucifying the lord but loosing forgetfulness about it and making the memories present here and now. The participation takes the Participant back in time (so to speak not literally) to that one sacrifice. Like the original broadcast being replayed again and again.

 

[ReformedBaptist]

The crucifix is a piece of metal or wood and there is nothing unclean of itself. I think a better approach is to ask what is the motive of the Roman Catholic and how does the Roman Catholic veiw and/or treat this piece of wood or metal? Idolatry is any visible/invisible object that represents God in the human mind because it LIMITS God to the representative object. It is any visible/invisible object that receives veneration that belongs to God as it comes in between God and the worshipper of God.

If a person is looking at that piece of wood/metal as a MEDIUM between them or God or REPRESENTATIVE of Christ or treats that peice of metal/wood with the veneration that belongs to God then it is indeed an idol.

However, if a person views it without any regard other than a SYMBOL of the cross then nothing is wrong and no principle of Scripture has been violated.

The entire Reformation is against your view.

 

[Thinkingstuff]

I understand the philosphical THEORY they present to convince FOOLS to believe it has any validity in justifying their practice and use of scriptures. This is what the scriptures calls "vain philosophy" of men. The term "vain" means EMPTY/VOID of truth.

Cut away all the philsophical garbage and the bottom line is that they believe they are drinking Christ's blood and eating his body and as such they violate God's command not to drink blood as that is what they are doing in their own mind.

You know very well they refer to the mass as the "sacrifice" of Christ in connection with actual impartation of "grace" in that "sacrifice. That voids their definition of "remembrance" as there is MORE than mere remembrance but actual grace being imparted.

Your so intense upon presenting the VAIN Roman speculative reasonings to support their heresies that you miss what they are ACTUALLY teaching and saying.

.

I'm personally not disagreeing with you on this point about the philosophy of man. However, I point it out to show that the accusations were inaccurate. There is no action against the prohibition of the drinking of blood because of their view. There is no "re-sacrificing" going on. Which is my point. You can argue that aristotlian philosophy has no place trying to help the believer understand scripture. Ok fine. Many say the same thing about textual criticism. But if you develope a contrary argument do it with valid points. They believe they are eating and drinking the essence of Christ body, blood and divinity. In their perception its the intake of God into themselves like how we view the indwelling of the Holy Spirit. For them its communion with Christ himself. So the accusation of breaking the law is a shallow one.

 

[ReformedBaptist]

That is untrue. You need to study the reformation. Europe was in need of reformation and most wanted it. The question is what form was it to take? It took several different forms not all agreed with each other. Also there was a political stake and the European princes wanted absolute authority over religion as well. which is why Northern germany, Sweden, Norway, England, Denmark, and France supported reformed ideas and established the very foundations of nation states. A few reformers were considered extreme. I think Zwigli was one. But he had sexual issues and problems and made many errors. Luther had an extreme personality yet he was of the popular opinion in Northern Germany.
I have not moved away from the scriptures but take them in total. I sorry you feel only your particular sect of KJO people who abhore picture portrayals of the scritpures are the only christians in the world. But that is between you and God. I'll let it rest there in his hands.

I have studied the Reformation, and your assessment of it shows me you have studied liberals and modernists who have recontructed a history that suits their own fancy.

The Reformation was a revival. It was God's blow to the papal power and He greatly wounded the beast.

Your calumny of me referring to me as a "sect of KJO people" as people who abhor portayals of the Scriptures, and that I think we are the only Christians in the world shows your disdain and even hatred of God's people.

I agree with the Word of God that we should make no graven image of Him. Some try to rationalize this away by using Jesus. But I cannot separate His Divinity from His Humanity. Jesus is God in the flesh. So, the command to His people is not to make an image of Him.

As for what I believe are the true Christians in the world, they are those who are God's elect, whom He chose before the world began, which in the course of due time is pleased to call to Himself, regenerate, justify, sanctify and glorify. All who are born of the living God, who are born again, or born from above, are the children of God.

There are also false Christians, or false brethren, who say they are "jews" but are not, but are of the synogogue of satan. There is now and has been for some time, that false church, the Antichrist system, which is the papacy, that makes war against CHrist's Church, and is drunk with their blood, who reigns over the kings of the earth, that has decieved the whole world.

 

[Thinkingstuff]

The entire Reformation is against your view.

Again you are wrong. Just read some history. There were tons of reformers many suffered and died, many did not. Many left the Catholic Church, Many did not. Erasimus who you can thank for the TR which your sect holds to never left the Catholic Church. But we was of reformed mind as were many in Europe at that time. You might be supprised that even Francis of Assisi was a reformer as well that didn't leave. Politics were essential to the reformation. The princes wanted absolute rule just read what they say and what luther said

Luther justified his opposition to the rebels on three grounds. First, in choosing violence over lawful submission to the secular government, they were ignoring Christ's counsel to "Render unto Caesar the things that are Caesar's"; St. Paul had written in his epistle to the Romans 13:1-7 that all authorities are appointed by God and therefore should not be resisted. This reference from the Bible forms the foundation for the doctrine known as the Divine Right of Kings, or, in the German case, the divine right of the princes -Mullett, 166

 

[ReformedBaptist]

Again you are wrong. Just read some history. There were tons of reformers many suffered and died, many did not. Many left the Catholic Church, Many did not. Erasimus who you can thank for the TR which your sect holds to never left the Catholic Church. But we was of reformed mind as were many in Europe at that time. You might be supprised that even Francis of Assisi was a reformer as well that didn't leave. Politics were essential to the reformation. The princes wanted absolute rule just read what they say and what luther said

Your false accusations and hatred of CHristians is appaling. What sect do you suppose I am a part of, pray tell?

Also, as I said, your views of history are derived from liberals. Michael Mullet? Really?

 

[Dr. Walter]

I'm personally not disagreeing with you on this point about the philosophy of man. However, I point it out to show that the accusations were inaccurate. There is no action against the prohibition of the drinking of blood because of their view. There is no "re-sacrificing" going on. Which is my point. You can argue that aristotlian philosophy has no place trying to help the believer understand scripture. Ok fine. Many say the same thing about textual criticism. But if you develope a contrary argument do it with valid points. They believe they are eating and drinking the essence of Christ body, blood and divinity. In their perception its the intake of God into themselves like how we view the indwelling of the Holy Spirit. For them its communion with Christ himself. So the accusation of breaking the law is a shallow one.

Look, when they call it a "sacrifice" that is a Biblical term with Biblical content that no amount of philosophical speculation can overturn. In addition, when they attribute the impartation of grace to that "sacrifice" it is no longer something that is merely brought to remembrance as any SYMBOL can do that. Indeed, whether they admit it or you admit it, they are recrucifying Christ at every mass IF the Bible is the final authority for the definition of a sacrifice and definition of grace.

The ONLY reason you are rejecting my arguments as valid, is because you are approaching this subject from the perspective of their MENTAL DISTORTION of the scriptures rather than from the Scriptures and/or from what the ACTUAL REALITY of what they are teaching in contrast to what the ACTUAL REALITY of what the scriptures teach.

You are right that I am not approaching it from their defense but from their actual conclusions in contrast to the Scriptural teaching.

 

[Thinkingstuff]

Your false accusations and hatred of CHristians is appaling. What sect do you suppose I am a part of, pray tell?

Also, as I said, your views of history are derived from liberals. Michael Mullet? Really?

the sect that believes in KJO, No pictoral or any representations of scriptures or the stories there in. I also suspect women only wear dresses and have their heads covered. and the group that believes any one who doesn't believe exactly as you do aren't saved. However, though I use sect I don't mean cult. I mean a sect of christianity as I believe you are christian. Though you may not believe the same about me. And Michael Mullet is an accepted historian probably fair to more sides that you are. And He's not the Only one with his views on the reformation. I think your view is entirely one sided (not God's btw) which is never how history works. There are all sorts of facets and directions and there was a political direction the reformation took. What was the first thing the Northern German princes did when they separated from the Catholic church? The confiscated wealthy monestary and their properties and increased their coffers. Much like Henry VIII.
How about Sheldon?

Martin Luther made a radical break with traditional Christian theology and Catholic church polity by leveling the institutional hierarchy through "the priesthood of all believers," and by separating church and state in this world. By defining the state purely as a "hangman," charged with establishing worldly peace through punishment of crime, and considering the church as primarily concerned with spiritual matters unrelated to politics, Luther effectively sundered the secular authority from the ecclesiastical and placed the church under the governance of the state.

 

[Thinkingstuff]

Look, when they call it a "sacrifice" that is a Biblical term with Biblical content that no amount of philosophical speculation can overturn. In addition, when they attribute the impartation of grace to that "sacrifice" it is no longer something that is merely brought to remembrance as any SYMBOL can do that. Indeed, whether they admit it or you admit it, they are recrucifying Christ at every mass IF the Bible is the final authority for the definition of a sacrifice and definition of grace.

The ONLY reason you are rejecting my arguments as valid, is because you are approaching this subject from the perspective of their MENTAL DISTORTION of the scriptures rather than from the Scriptures and/or from what the ACTUAL REALITY of what they are teaching in contrast to what the ACTUAL REALITY of what the scriptures teach.

You are right that I am not approaching it from their defense but from their actual conclusions in contrast to the Scriptural teaching.

Look Dr. Walter I call Calvary a sacrifice as well. Does that mean I just re-crucified Jesus? No I becon back to that time that Jesus died once for us all. And the Catholics believe they upholding that one same sacrifice. Sorry that re-sacrificing thing doesn't work. And that is not the reason I reject your arguments. Your argument is based on what you think they are doing based on your particular bias. They believe entirely differently and so there is no meeting of the minds. What they actually believe is what I bring up. Your best argument so far with regard to this is that Aristotlan philosophy is inadiquate to determine scritpures with. I agree with that which questions defining Eucharist through Transubstantiation. Next you have to get past the Orthodox view of "it is his presence but we're not sure in what way it is" debate to finally get to the point of representation or literal?

 

[Dr. Walter]

the sect that believes in KJO, No pictoral or any representations of scriptures or the stories there in. I also suspect women only wear dresses and have their heads covered. and the group that believes any one who doesn't believe exactly as you do aren't saved. However, though I use sect I don't mean cult. I mean a sect of christianity as I believe you are christian. Though you may not believe the same about me. And Michael Mullet is an accepted historian probably fair to more sides that you are. And He's not the Only one with his views on the reformation. I think your view is entirely one sided (not God's btw) which is never how history works. There are all sorts of facets and directions and there was a political direction the reformation took. What was the first thing the Northern German princes did when they separated from the Catholic church? The confiscated wealthy monestary and their properties and increased their coffers. Much like Henry VIII.

There is room for Christian liberty in things the scriptures do not address or does not address clearly. However, mediums to approach God or to represent God or treated as God is not one of those things of Christian liberty. When Aaaron formed a golden calf, he did not believe what he formed with His hands was literaly that which went before them in a pillar of fire by night and cloud by day. He simply formed something to visibly represent God as a visible medium to direct their veneration toward. However, that was idolatry as it restricted God's Being to time and space, thus misrepresenting, distorting, perverting Who He is. We have one mediator between God and man and that is Jesus Christ, not a peice of wood or metal or statues of Mary or pictures around the chapel that you stand before and pray to. These things violate the precepts and principles of Scripture and are forms of idolatry.

 

[Thinkingstuff]

There is room for Christian liberty in things the scriptures do not address or does not address clearly. However, mediums to approach God or to represent God or treated as God is not one of those things of Christian liberty. When Aaaron formed a golden calf, he did not believe what he formed with His hands was literaly that which went before them in a pillar of fire by night and cloud by day. He simply formed something to visibly represent God as a visible medium to direct their veneration toward. However, that was idolatry as it restricted God's Being to time and space, thus misrepresenting, distorting, perverting Who He is. We have one mediator between God and man and that is Jesus Christ, not a peice of wood or metal or statues of Mary or pictures around the chapel that you stand before and pray to. These things violate the precepts and principles of Scripture and are forms of idolatry.

Aaron did not create the Calf to represent God Almighty. He re-created Bat and Egyptian deity or maybe the Summarian goddess Ninisina. It was a total break from Moses. I don't disagree with you about the mediator, but I have no problem with images as long as they aren't the object of worship. I can see a movie about Jesus and am moved to think about an pray to Jesus. I have no problem with that.

 

[BillySunday1935]

I completely understand how Rome misinterprets John 6 but are you saying that you accept the doctrine of transubstantiation? When Jesus spoke John 6 and when he instituted the Lord's Supper later in Matthew 26 his blood was still flowing in his own uncrucified body when he said "this is by my blood" and "this is my body." Therefore what was in the cup and the unleavened bread could not have been his flesh or blood LITERALLY. When they drank the wine and ate the bread they could not have been drinking and eating Christ LITERALLY as he was still standing there in his LITERAL body with his LITERAL blood still flowing through his veins.

Well, people of His day also had a problem with believing that Jesus was the Son of God in the Flesh, so I'm not surprised by your position on the subject.

Second, the Law of God forbid the drinking of literal blood (Lev. 17:17) and so did the New Testament church (Acts 15).

Jesus came to fulfill the law.

Third, Jesus used the same kind of language "This is..." elsewhere "I am the door...vine....light...shepherd....etc" and yet never intended his readers to understand he was a LITERAL "door" or "vine"or etc. This is the common use of language to convey a metaphor - or "this represents" my body and blood or I am representative of a door, vine, ect.

Yes and He always explained that metaphorical language after he used it. Yet, in the bread of life discourse, he does not. In fact, when the disciples leave him after hearing that "hard" statement, rather than turning to them and saying "what guys... its just a methaphor", he turns to the apostles and asks if they will leave him as well.

No one understood Jesus to be speaking literally when he said that he was a door. The narrative does not continue with, "And his disciples murmured about this, saying, ‘How can he be a door? Where are his hinges? We do not see a doorknob.’ Jesus answered them, ‘Amen, Amen, I say to you, I am a door, and my chest is real wood, and my hips are real hinges.’" This is absurd, but it illustrates how shocking Jesus’ words were when he said that his flesh was real food and his blood real drink. He is God after all...

Last, in John 6 Jesus defines the terms "eat" and "drink" to be metaphors of believing in him or PARTAKING OF HIM BY FAITH before he made the statement that Rome abuses in John 6:60:

"And Jesus said unto them, I am the bread of life: he that cometh to me shall never hunger; and he that believeth on me shall never thirst."

Notice what quenches both "thirst" and "hunger"? "he that BELIEVETH on me". Thus he establishes the metaphor before using the langauge in verse 60.

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

Again, he introduces the bread of life (v. 48) by the act of "believeth on me hath everlasting life" thus defining how they partake of "that bread" in order to obtain "life."

The "bread" he is speaking about is not the bread used in the Lord's Supper which is "unleavened" but the sweet tasting "manna" that fell in the wilderness. When he says "I am that bread" or "manna" he did not mean for them to understand this LITERALLY as that is not true literally - He is literally a human being not bread."

Just bread huh? Then Paul must have been confused where he says, in 1 Corinthians 11:27, that if one eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner he will be guilty of the body and blood of the Lord. In a Semitic culture, to be guilty of another’s body and blood is to be guilty of murder. Yet how could one be guilty of murder if the bread is merely a symbol of Christ? Paul goes on to say that some are dying because of this.

1) How does one eat bread and drink wine in an unworthy manner? I mean, its just bread for cryin' out loud.

2) How is it that partaking of mere bread and wine in an unworthy manner can cause one to become sick or even die?

Oh wait... Paul was just using a metaphor here.

However, this is just the beginning of the Biblical problems with the Roman misinterpretation of John 6 and the bread in the Lord's supper. The Scriptures demand that Christ offered him up as a sacrifice "ONCE" and unlike the Levitical preists who are reoffering up sacrifices that Christ has "sat down" as our High Preist signifying that his ONE offering "ONCE FOR ALL" is completely sufficient. Rome in the mass recrucifies Christ over and over again denying the finished work at Calvary and thus brings Christ to open shame (Heb. 4:6).

You are completely wrong on this! Catholics re-present the once and for all sacrifice they do not re-sacrific Him. You might wish to look at the Jewish meaning of the word "memorial" in the sense of the passover.

Peace!

 

[DHK]

Are you serious DHK? A crucifix, the pictoral representations of the stations of the cross. They are just that pictoral representation of the attoning sacrifice of Jesus Christ. These are no different than and image on tv or a painting. As far as praying to. My father never prayed to a crucifix. My father does not pray to the stations of the cross. What he does do is pray to God and reflect and meditate on the stories and the greater mystery that these images represent. I can look at a painting which reminds me of (one of my favorites) Jesus praying in the garden at Gethsemane. It brings me to reflect on how Jesus was anxios about his future suffering enough that he sweated blood. How as a sinless person he begged God to take away the up coming suffering that we would have to endure. And how in obedience to the will of God the Father, Jesus submitted himself to a terrible death for our sakes. Now is that praying to the picture? God forbid! But the picture does cause me to reflect and pray to God.

I posted this late yesterday and three to four pages have gone by since. Oh well.
When I grew up as a Catholic the Ten Commandments were deliberately altered. There were three that related to God and seven that related to man. This command was deliberately omitted:

Exodus 20:4 Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image, or any likeness of any thing that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth:

To make up for the Ten, the last commandment, "Thou shalt not covet," was split in two: Thou shalt not covet thy neighbor's wife; and Thou shalt not covet thy neighbor's goods. Quite ingenuous for those that were never taught from a Bible and were discouraged from even owning one, don't you think?

The reason is obvious why the verse and the commandment was omitted. The RCC makes graven images all the time, contrary to the Word of God, contrary even to the Ten Commandments. The context is: Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image (of me) ! The context is of God. God does not want idols. He does not want images of Him made. That is the context of the verse. So before going on the typical wild goose chase of most Catholics that I encounter--images of people, images of cars, images or representations of almost anything--it is speaking of God.
A crucifix is an image of God, unless Christ is just a good man, and is not deity. If Christ is God then it is an image of God. Thou shalt make unto me any image or any likeness thereof. That includes Christ.

Secondly, and this is another command separate from the previous, thou shalt not bow down to them. Not only shalt thou make them, thou shalt not bow down to them.

The tradition in the Catholic Church I was from was like this.
Upon entering the church one would bless oneself with holy water. (Blessings come only from God. This in and of itself is unbiblical). And there is no such thing as holy water.
Second, before entering the pew where one would sit, one would genuflect before the large crucifix hanging at the front of the church. There is the idolatry. Genuflection is falling down on one knee. It is a type of bowing--bowing before the idol of Jesus every time one goes to church.
Has this idolatrous practice changed yet?

Pictorial representations, wooden representations, metallic representations of God are all wrong. What did you think Exodus 20:4 meant, or did the RCC cut it out of your Bible too?

Jeremiah 10:2-6 Thus saith the LORD, Learn not the way of the heathen, and be not dismayed at the signs of heaven; for the heathen are dismayed at them. For the customs of the people are vain: for one cutteth a tree out of the forest, the work of the hands of the workman, with the axe. They deck it with silver and with gold; they fasten it with nails and with hammers, that it move not. They are upright as the palm tree, but speak not: they must needs be borne, because they cannot go. Be not afraid of them; for they cannot do evil, neither also is it in them to do good. Forasmuch as there is none like unto thee, O LORD; thou art great, and thy name is great in might.

Learn not the way of the heathen. The crucifix at the front of the Catholic Church or the one at the end of the rosary that is cut out of the forest, the work of the hands of the workman...speaks not: they must needs be borne, because they cannot go. Be not afraid of them; for they cannot do evil, neither also is it in them to do good.
--Jeremiah spoke of such things 2,700 years ago; and Moses condemned it 3,400 years ago.