Catholics, and the Eucharist.

[Max Kennedy]

OK then Max: you, reading your Bible with the help of the Holy Spirit, have come up with a different take on baptism than Grace&Truth, who also reads his/her Bible with the help of the Holy Spirit. Doubtless you will say that G&T is wrong and doubtless s/he will say the same of you. Now, the question for the rest of us in the class: how the heck are we meant to judge which of you is right? OR....maybe what you're doing is not the best way to do it....

Reading Job, it is God that judges who is right.

We sit at the feet of God, learning from him. When we make a personal mistake, he corrects us, or rebukes us if it is serious enough, as a teacher and a Father.

There is only one thing you need to understand. How to be saved. Everything else is pretty much your daily walk. Meaning, you shouldn't be judging how I understand because its the understanding I have from God so far. How we ought to discuss things is a different matter, but the bible talks about the simplicity of the gospel (2Co 11:3). So it isn't necessary to confuse it in personal understandings. Although the impression from many church charters might be that the bible was primarly given to create them, the bible was actually primarly given for people to read and apply to their lives.

 

[chadman]

If you can not distinguish the differenence between the Holy Spirit, and your own thinking, then I think you should reconsider whether you are hell bound or not.

20,000+ denominations had better get to reconsidering whether they are hell bound then...it's obvious somebody isn't distinguishing.

You need to be born again to be saved.

But of course. Is this up for debate again? LOL.

 

[Earth Wind and Fire]

Allot of people reading Job these days....wonder why that particular scripture is so intriguing.

 

[Earth Wind and Fire]

Think I will write my own Christian book...lets see here

The book of Job, Prayer of Jabez, Left Behind, Purpose Driven Guide to Christians in 2010.

What do you think, will it sell? :laugh:

 

[chadman]

Think I will write my own Christian book...lets see here

The book of Job, Prayer of Jabez, Left Behind, Purpose Driven Guide to Christians in 2010.

What do you think, will it sell? :laugh:

Of course it will sell.

A pagan visiting a typical Christian book store these days, might wonder if the Bible really does contain all truth - as it is clear, we need hundreds of books to both tell us how to understand what it 'really' means, and then 'how' to actually do what is in the Bible.

Next time you peruse a Christian book store - read the many rows of book titles, and then ask yourself this question - 'Do Christians actually know what is in the Bible and do they understand it?'

 

[Earth Wind and Fire]

Of course it will sell.

A pagan visiting a typical Christian book store these days, might wonder if the Bible really does contain all truth - as it is clear, we need hundreds of books to both tell us how to understand what it 'really' means, and then 'how' to actually do what is in the Bible.

Next time you peruse a Christian book store - read the many rows of book titles, and then ask yourself this question - 'Do Christians actually know what is in the Bible and do they understand it?'

Great idea dude, I will add wiccans to it & provide broader readership. That equals Ka Ching at the point of purchase counter :thumbs:

 

[Max Kennedy]

20,000+ denominations had better get to reconsidering whether they are hell bound then...it's obvious somebody isn't distinguishing.

And God says pretty clearly that Babylon and her harlot daughters are going down. Which doesn't change a thing about your own relationship with God.

 

[chadman]

And God says pretty clearly that Babylon and her harlot daughters are going down. Which doesn't change a thing about your own relationship with God.

I wouldn't stretch to the conclusion that all these splits and thoudsands of denomonations are 'harlots of Babylon' and going to hell.

I would conclude however, that men do not distinguish very well using their 'personal' system - the Holy Spirit from their own personal bias and own personal inner voice. It's obvious.

I am not telling you to doubt your inspired truth. I am sure yours is spot on.

 

[Grace&Truth]

Yes I do understand this. And again what they teach is that the Eucharist is a continuation of the one sacrifice or a re-offering or if you will a continual offering of Jesus. And yes I understand that the scriptures in Hebrews are referring to the Jewish sacrifice. But the point is that Jesus fulfilled the sacrifice by the sacrifice of Himself. This one sacrifice was the one offering for sin, so therefore, any such teaching that claims there is a continual sacrifice or a continual offering is contrary to the clear teaching of these verses. Jesus in His humanity cannot be on all the altars at all time, a human body can only be in one location at one time (Which also proves that at the Last supper the bread and wine could not possibly have been present and His disciples would have understood this to be figurative of His body and blood that would be sacrificed once on the cross) and these verses clearly teach that Jesus (bodily) is at the right hand of the Father advocating for us not being continuation of the sacrifice or re-presented or contiunally offered on earthy altars. Also there is no longer the office of a priest other then the High Priest who is Jesus Himself forever which means it (the priesthood) is not handed down to anyone else. Every Saved Believer is said to be a priest in the sense that we bring a sacrifice of praise to the Father and can come boldly to the throne God by (or through) the one sacrifice of Christ.[/COLOR]

From "The New Saint Joseph Baltimore Catechism"
The Holy Eucharist is a sacrament and a sacrifice. In the Holy Eucharist, under the appearance of bread and wine, the Lord Jesus is contained, offered and received. Pg. 162

Christ gives us His own body and blood in the Holy Eucharist:
First, to be offered as a sacrifice commemorationg and renewing for all time the sacrifice of the cross.
Second, to be received by the faithful in Holy Communion.
Third, to remain ever on our altars as proof of His love for us, and to be worshiped by us. Pg.166

No to all of the above.

From the catachism based on the Vatican II council. There is an emphasis on making present the original sacrifice rather than re-sacrifice. Big difference in theology. Once this is understood the verses in Hebrews become irrelevant because they apply to a re-sacrifice and maintaining judaic sacrificial law. All of that has been completed.

1362 The Eucharist is the memorial of Christ's Passover, the making present and the sacramental offering of his unique sacrifice, in the liturgy of the Church which is his Body. In all the Eucharistic Prayers we find after the words of institution a prayer called the anamnesis or memorial.

1363 In the sense of Sacred Scripture the memorial is not merely the recollection of past events but the proclamation of the mighty works wrought by God for men.184 In the liturgical celebration of these events, they become in a certain way present and real. This is how Israel understands its liberation from Egypt: every time Passover is celebrated, the Exodus events are made present to the memory of believers so that they may conform their lives to them.

1364 In the New Testament, the memorial takes on new meaning. When the Church celebrates the Eucharist, she commemorates Christ's Passover, and it is made present the sacrifice Christ offered once for all on the cross remains ever present.185 "As often as the sacrifice of the Cross by which 'Christ our Pasch has been sacrificed' is celebrated on the altar, the work of our redemption is carried out."186 ...The Eucharist is thus a sacrifice because it re-presents (makes present) the sacrifice of the cross...The sacrifice of Christ and the sacrifice of the Eucharist are one single sacrifice:

No to what is being taught above. All of Chapters 5-10 in Hebrews are completely contrary to any such teaching of a continuation of the one true sacrifice. The sacrifice was finished on the cross. How much plainer can it be said then this:

Heb 9:24 For Christ is not entered into the holy places made with hands, which are the figures of the true; but into heaven itself, now to appear in the presence of God for us:
Heb 9:25 Nor yet that he should offer himself often, as the high priest entereth into the holy place every year with blood of others;
Heb 9:26 For then must he often have suffered since the foundation of the world: but now once in the end of the world hath he appeared to put away sin by the sacrifice of himself.
Heb 9:28 So Christ was once offered to bear the sins of many; and unto them that look for him shall he appear the second time without sin unto salvation.

Heb 10:12 But this man, after he had offered one sacrifice for sins for ever, sat down on the right hand of God;
Heb 10:13 From henceforth expecting till his enemies be made his footstool.
Heb 10:14 For by one offering he hath perfected for ever them that are sanctified.


Also I have a quick question (not to debate). It is said that Mary's mother is (I believe) St. Ann. Is this based on tradition or is she mentioned somewhere in the early historical documents, and if so can you tell me where, or give me a link about her. Thanks!

 

[Zenas]

Also I have a quick question (not to debate). It is said that Mary's mother is (I believe) St. Ann. Is this based on tradition or is she mentioned somewhere in the early historical documents, and if so can you tell me where, or give me a link about her. Thanks!

Mary certainly had a mother and her contemporaries certainly knew who she was. However, I believe the earliest written record of Mary's parents is found in an ancient writing called the Protoevangelium of James, probably written in the Second Century.

 

[Earth Wind and Fire]

Shouldn't RED be reserved for Jesus

 

[Grace&Truth]

Mary certainly had a mother and her contemporaries certainly knew who she was. However, I believe the earliest written record of Mary's parents is found in an ancient writing called the Protoevangelium of James, probably written in the Second Century.

Thanks!!!!

 

[BobRyan]

.

I'm going to make it short, I do not wish to bore people with long detailed essays on doctrinal issues. Although I will be referencing, the writing I am basing the structure of my argument upon, at the end of the writing.


1. "‘I am the living bread which came down from heaven; if any one eats of this bread, he will live for ever; and the bread which I shall give for the life of the world is my flesh.’ The Jews then disputed among themselves, saying, ‘How can this man give us his flesh to eat?’" (John 6:51–52).

His listeners were stupefied because now they understood Jesus literally—and correctly. He again repeated his words, but with even greater emphasis, and introduced the statement about drinking his blood: (John 6:53–56).

Notice that Jesus made no attempt to soften what he said, no attempt to correct "misunderstandings," for there were none. Our Lord’s listeners understood him perfectly well. They no longer thought he was speaking metaphorically. If they had, if they mistook what he said, why no correction?

In John 6 Jesus leaves off the symbolism by stating flatly that eating flesh and blood is worthless -- "my WORDS are Spirit and are LIFE".

In John 6 the "FaithLESS" disciples take Christ "too literally" claiming that they cannot go over and bite him!

In John 6 the faithFULL disciples DO NOT bite Christ.

In John 6 Christ does not say "SOME DAY in the FUTURE I will be the bread that comes down from heaven. Some day in the FUTURE my flesh will be food" he claims it is already fact.

Which is true if you accept this as a statement about the WORDS of Christ -- in fact John introduced his entire Gospel with this truth "the WORD became flesh".

And again in Rev 19 John declares Christ to be the "WORD of God"

in Christ,

Bob