Thinkingstuff
Active Member
Just a note catholics defined the latin phrased used in the above quote extermination as expelling. Also Yes it would be great if legalese were not such a part of theology and people were about just the good news.
-
Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
Rep. Patrick Kennedy Denied Communion
- Thread starter Tom Butler
- Start date
BobRyan
Well-Known Member
Purgatory is for the purging of venial sins only - it does not forgive or resolve mortal sin.
If someone dies with mortal sin unforgiven - they are lost - even in Catholic terminology.
in Christ,
Bob
It functioned from the OT and the Apostles who were given direct revelation from Christ. No one today qualifies as an Apostle or hears from God in this manner.
BobRyan
Well-Known Member
Catholics "today" may have refefined it that way - but the 50 million martyrs of the dark ages testify to a much more literal meaning for "exterminate" than some of the smiley-face attempts in modern times would have you believe.
in Christ,
Bob
But, Christ established His CHURCH...promised the Holy Spirit would guide His CHURCH, remind His CHURCH of ALL things. Christ promised to be with His Church until the end of the world and that the gates of Hell would NEVER prevail against His CHURCH...
So It's not that God NEEDS the Church's help, but you can't side step the FACT that Christ sent His Apostles out with His Authority to establish His Church...not to write a instruction manual...
It's Holy Tradition that sustained the Church in the Apostolic era...It's through Holy Tradition that gave us the Bible we read today.
We don't pit Holy Tradition against Holy Scripture, one doesn't usurp the other, one doesn't have any more authority than the other...it's a check and balance...Both Holy tradition and Holy Scripture has complemented each other for Centuries and while the Protestant Church continues to schism on a daily basis...the Orthodox Church continues to be one.
Take Communist Russia...The Communist did everything to wipe out the Russian Orthodox Church...banned Bibles, Banned icons, destroyed Churches, imprisoned priests, deacons and Orthodox Christians...killed thousands of Orthodox Christians including priests and deacons. Even tried to establish a state run Russian Orthodox Church, but it NEVER got off the ground.
How did the Orthodox Russian Church survive without Churches or bibles? Holy Tradition...the Creed, and the Liturgy of the Word...Through the Church God sustained His Church throughout this time of trouble.
In XC
-
And what about after the last of the Apostles died?
Thinkingstuff
Active Member
I could be mistaken. I'm only explaining it how it was explained to me.
Grace&Truth
New Member
Grace&Truth
New Member
Grace&Truth
New Member
Marcia
Active Member
John 6 does not support the Eucharist. First off, it was said without any context to the Last Supper. Secondly, the passage itself tells us what it means to eat this bread -- it means to believe in Him. It is first mentioned in verse 29:
In verse 40, Jesus says:
The people were mad because of Jesus claiming he came from heaven.
Furthermore, several verses in this passage state that belief in Jesus gives eternal life. Therefore, we know that it is not literally eating Jesus that gives eternal life. The eating and drinking are a metaphor.
The people then ask for a sign, and refer to the manna that was given in the desert. Jesus follows this with a statement that God provided this bread, and now, God has provided bread again: Jesus Christ.
In verse 40, Jesus says:
The bread is clearly a metaphor for Jesus, and since the context is believing who Jesus is, eating his flesh and drinking his blood is a metaphor for belief. I have read this passage numerous times in discussing it with Catholics or those considering becoming Catholic, and there is nothing there to support the Eucharist.
The people were mad because of Jesus claiming he came from heaven.
Furthermore, several verses in this passage state that belief in Jesus gives eternal life. Therefore, we know that it is not literally eating Jesus that gives eternal life. The eating and drinking are a metaphor.
"And just for clarification the earliest Apostolic document that we have is the Bible and what ever anyone else (even those who are referred to as the Church Fathers) teaches that is contrary to what the NT writers wrote would be false."
Reply With Quote
I agree, however, you have Ignatius of Antioch that makes it clear that Jesus meant what he said in John 6.
The Paschal Lamb's sacrifice is completed. However, in 1 Cor. 5:8 - But Paul says that we need to celebrate the Eucharistic feast. This means that we need to eat the Lamb. We need to restore communion with God.
Matt. 26:2; Mark 14:12; Luke 22:7 - Jesus' passion is clearly identified with the Passover sacrifice (where lambs were slain and eaten). John 1:29,36; Acts 8:32; 1 Peter 1:19 - Jesus is obviously the Lamb of God who takes away the sins of the world. The Lamb must be sacrificed and eaten.
Have you ever looked at the passover feast of the OT? What did they have to do? They had to consume the lamb. Heb. 9:14 - Jesus offering Himself "without blemish" refers to the unblemished lamb in Exodus 12:5 which had to be eaten.
Matt. 27:45; Mark 15:33; John 19:14 - the Gospel writers confirm Jesus' death at the sixth hour, just when the Passover lambs were sacrificed. Again, this ties Jesus' death to the death of the Passover lambs. Like the Old Covenant, in the New Covenant, the Passover Lamb must be eaten.
To repent of our sins, accept Jesus as savior and be baptized would not make sense if we intend to disregard His command (not suggestion) to 'do this in memory of me'.
Reply With Quote
I agree, however, you have Ignatius of Antioch that makes it clear that Jesus meant what he said in John 6.
The Paschal Lamb's sacrifice is completed. However, in 1 Cor. 5:8 - But Paul says that we need to celebrate the Eucharistic feast. This means that we need to eat the Lamb. We need to restore communion with God.
Matt. 26:2; Mark 14:12; Luke 22:7 - Jesus' passion is clearly identified with the Passover sacrifice (where lambs were slain and eaten). John 1:29,36; Acts 8:32; 1 Peter 1:19 - Jesus is obviously the Lamb of God who takes away the sins of the world. The Lamb must be sacrificed and eaten.
Have you ever looked at the passover feast of the OT? What did they have to do? They had to consume the lamb. Heb. 9:14 - Jesus offering Himself "without blemish" refers to the unblemished lamb in Exodus 12:5 which had to be eaten.
Matt. 27:45; Mark 15:33; John 19:14 - the Gospel writers confirm Jesus' death at the sixth hour, just when the Passover lambs were sacrificed. Again, this ties Jesus' death to the death of the Passover lambs. Like the Old Covenant, in the New Covenant, the Passover Lamb must be eaten.
To repent of our sins, accept Jesus as savior and be baptized would not make sense if we intend to disregard His command (not suggestion) to 'do this in memory of me'.
Last edited by a moderator:
How about, 'this is my body, this is my blood'? That is not in the language of metaphor.
Also, the fact that he repeated Himself four times emphasizes that it is NOT metaphorical. And why did he not correct the disciples who departed because they though he was advocating cannibalism?
Also, Marcia, I think this is an example when drawing on ECF writings is helpful because it is obvious that many Christians have struggled with the meaning of John 6, etc. If you aren't convinced with St. Paul declaring the eucharist to be the body and blood of Christ in Corinthians, Ignatius makes it pretty clear that the bread we break and the cup we drink IS the body and blood of the Lord. He sat at John's feet. I have a hard time believing that he didn't ask John, 'hey, what did you mean in chapter six?' He seems to have a clear understanding. The Church has always had the same understanding.