The Apostles and the forgiving of sin.

[Adonia]

The accurate account is given in the gospels as Judas threw the money into the temple it is obvious he could not have purchased the land for himself.

In Acts it says:
Act 1:18 Now this man purchased a field with the reward of iniquity; and falling headlong, he burst asunder in the midst, and all his bowels gushed out.
--What happened as recorded here?
Though Judas did not buy the field directly he did so indirectly for it was his money that paid for and it was purchased in his name.
Matthew 27 also records that he went out and hanged himself, which he did. The account in Acts simply adds some of the more gruesome details to that without contradiction.
--"falling headlong, he burst asunder in the midst, and all his bowels gushed out."

"Falling headlong," that is as he fell when he was hung, he burst asunder. His intestines quickly became swollen and distended after being hung and "burst asunder."

Or,
(CEV) Then Judas bought some land with the money he was given for doing that evil thing. He fell headfirst into the field. His body burst open, and all his insides came out.

The Bible doesn't contradict itself. If there are difficult passages then study them until you find the answer to the seeming contradiction has been solved. It is not the Bible that contradicts itself, it is man that rebels against what God is saying in His Word.

Of course you would say that there are no contradictions, but you would have quite a different answer when it comes to the Scriptures and Jesus's "Real Presence" in the Holy Eucharist wouldn't you? And this time in reverse no less!

Jesus says several times in the Scriptures that "This is my Body" and This is my Blood", an assertion as bold and clear a statement if there ever was (which of course you reject). You cite such passages as "I am the vine" or "I am the door" to disprove this - passages that have nothing whatsoever to do with what Jesus was saying about his body and blood and the Eucharist.

In the previous instance about Judas's death and the two actual different accounts however, you give the benefit of the doubt to say they both mean the same thing, while in the instance of Jesus's "Real Presence" when every scripture verse concerning this is virtually the same, you go out of your way to say such a thing couldn't possibly be.

But really, one needs to go to the correct Scripture verse THAT SUSTAINS Jesus's claim and what the Apostles actually believed about this issue. In 1 Cor 11 27-29 it says: "So then, whoever eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty of sinning against the body and blood of the Lord. 28 Everyone ought to examine themselves before they eat of the bread and drink from the cup. 29 For those who eat and drink without discerning the body of Christ eat and drink judgment on themselves". Good grief, could the writer have been any clearer than what was actually meant? And what he meant?

As you like to say, Scripture proves Scripture and here is St. Paul proving Jesus's claim in a clear and unambiguous manner. Look, if you can get this simple biblical truth so wrong, any other biblical interpretations you make should be viewed with extreme suspicion.

 

[DHK]

Of course you would say that there are no contradictions, but you would have quite a different answer when it comes to the Scriptures and Jesus's "Real Presence" in the Holy Eucharist wouldn't you? And this time in reverse no less!

There are no contradictions.
If you believe there are contradictions in God's holy Word then it is evidence that you do not believe it.
It is also evidence that since you do not believe His Word, you do not believe the Author, and therefore are an "unbeliever," as are most Catholics.
Like most unbelievers you are questioning God's Word and questioning God himself.

Jesus says several times in the Scriptures that "This is my Body" and This is my Blood", an assertion as bold and clear a statement if there ever was (which of course you reject). You cite such passages as "I am the vine" or "I am the door" to disprove this - passages that have nothing whatsoever to do with what Jesus was saying about his body and blood and the Eucharist.

It is a matter of grammar, both in Greek and in English. If you don't understand grammar then it is you with a problem not me.
These are all metaphors:
I am the door.
I am the vine.
This is my blood.
This is my body.

When Jesus stood before the disciples were they confused? Did Christ look like a door? Did they knock on him? Did he open and shut for them? Was he a literal door? No. This is a metaphor. It is not a simile (a comparison using "like" or "as") but a metaphor:
"a figure of speech in which a word or phrase is applied to an object or action to which it is not literally applicable."
Ex. "You are a nut."

Jesus said: "I am the vine." Were his disciples confused by the metaphor? No.
Jesus said: "This is my blood." Were his disciples confused by the metaphor? No.
--But you are confused. Jesus was not bleeding. He did not offer them blood. He was standing right before them. He had already used a number of other metaphors. This one was not any different. The other metaphors had to do with believing and eternal life.
What did this one have to do with?
Matthew 26:26 And as they were eating, Jesus took bread, and blessed it, and brake it, and gave it to the disciples, and said, Take, eat; this is my body.
27 And he took the cup, and gave thanks, and gave it to them, saying, Drink ye all of it;
28 For this is my blood of the new testament, which is shed for many for the remission of sins.
--At no point did the disciples give any indication that they believed that the actual body standing before them was nothing more than a body, the body of Christ. What Christ offered them was bread and wine. Christ was there. These two elements did not turn into the person standing in front of them, and why would they think it would? Christ was there, with them, visibly in the flesh.
The bread and wine were both symbolic and metaphoric of his body and blood which in the future would be the one sacrifice that would end all sacrifices. He would die and shed his blood. And when that would happen all who would believe in him would have forgiveness of sins.
This is what it says:
28 For this is my blood of the new testament, which is shed for many for the remission of sins.
--This is the same message behind the other metaphors:
I am the door; the light; the way; the vine; etc. They all lead to the same thing--believe on Him and you shall have forgiveness of sins. They are all metaphors.

In the previous instance about Judas's death and the two actual different accounts however, you give the benefit of the doubt to say they both mean the same thing, while in the instance of Jesus's "Real Presence" when every scripture verse concerning this is virtually the same, you go out of your way to say such a thing couldn't possibly be.

In the account of Judas one is dealing with history and historical accuracies. One simply must harmonize the two accounts.
In Matthew 26 one must take the words of Jesus and compare what he has said here with the other similar statements he has said. The context in which he has said this is also important.

But really, one needs to go to the correct Scripture verse THAT SUSTAINS Jesus's claim and what the Apostles actually believed about this issue. In 1 Cor 11 27-29 it says: "So then, whoever eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty of sinning against the body and blood of the Lord. 28 Everyone ought to examine themselves before they eat of the bread and drink from the cup. 29 For those who eat and drink without discerning the body of Christ eat and drink judgment on themselves". Good grief, could the writer have been any clearer than what was actually meant? And what he meant?

What does it mean "to eat the bread or drink the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner"?
That person, it goes on to say will be guilty of "sinning against the body and blood of the Lord."
How does that happen? What does it mean. How serious is it?
You quoted up until vs. 29.
Verse 30 says:
1 Corinthians 11:30 For this cause many are weak and sickly among you, and many sleep.
--The punishment that some of those that ate "unworthily" brought among themselves was that some were weak, some were sick, and God had killed some. (slept means dead).

You question God's Word. You question the Author. If you are not a true believer in Christ then you partake unworthily and put yourself under the judgment of God. Yes the meaning is very clear. But you are not reading it.

As you like to say, Scripture proves Scripture and here is St. Paul proving Jesus's claim in a clear and unambiguous manner. Look, if you can get this simple biblical truth so wrong, any other biblical interpretations you make should be viewed with extreme suspicion.

I don't have anything wrong.
First, the Bible nowhere teaches the heresy of transubstantiation.
The elements of the Lord's table are symbolic. There is no magic in them; nothing mystical, nothing that makes you more holy. This is not a superstitious pagan ceremony.
Nothing turns one element into another. There is no such superstition. Such a belief is rooted in paganism. Hindus believe in similar things.
Bread remains bread and wine remains wine. The RCC priest has no special powers. Sorry to disappoint you.

 

[Adonia]

There are no contradictions.
If you believe there are contradictions in God's holy Word then it is evidence that you do not believe it.
It is also evidence that since you do not believe His Word, you do not believe the Author, and therefore are an "unbeliever," as are most Catholics.
Like most unbelievers you are questioning God's Word and questioning God himself.


It is a matter of grammar, both in Greek and in English. If you don't understand grammar then it is you with a problem not me.
These are all metaphors:
I am the door.
I am the vine.
This is my blood.
This is my body.

When Jesus stood before the disciples were they confused? Did Christ look like a door? Did they knock on him? Did he open and shut for them? Was he a literal door? No. This is a metaphor. It is not a simile (a comparison using "like" or "as") but a metaphor:
"a figure of speech in which a word or phrase is applied to an object or action to which it is not literally applicable."
Ex. "You are a nut."

Jesus said: "I am the vine." Were his disciples confused by the metaphor? No.
Jesus said: "This is my blood." Were his disciples confused by the metaphor? No.
--But you are confused. Jesus was not bleeding. He did not offer them blood. He was standing right before them. He had already used a number of other metaphors. This one was not any different. The other metaphors had to do with believing and eternal life.
What did this one have to do with?
Matthew 26:26 And as they were eating, Jesus took bread, and blessed it, and brake it, and gave it to the disciples, and said, Take, eat; this is my body.
27 And he took the cup, and gave thanks, and gave it to them, saying, Drink ye all of it;
28 For this is my blood of the new testament, which is shed for many for the remission of sins.
--At no point did the disciples give any indication that they believed that the actual body standing before them was nothing more than a body, the body of Christ. What Christ offered them was bread and wine. Christ was there. These two elements did not turn into the person standing in front of them, and why would they think it would? Christ was there, with them, visibly in the flesh.
The bread and wine were both symbolic and metaphoric of his body and blood which in the future would be the one sacrifice that would end all sacrifices. He would die and shed his blood. And when that would happen all who would believe in him would have forgiveness of sins.
This is what it says:
28 For this is my blood of the new testament, which is shed for many for the remission of sins.
--This is the same message behind the other metaphors:
I am the door; the light; the way; the vine; etc. They all lead to the same thing--believe on Him and you shall have forgiveness of sins. They are all metaphors.

In the account of Judas one is dealing with history and historical accuracies. One simply must harmonize the two accounts.
In Matthew 26 one must take the words of Jesus and compare what he has said here with the other similar statements he has said. The context in which he has said this is also important.


What does it mean "to eat the bread or drink the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner"?
That person, it goes on to say will be guilty of "sinning against the body and blood of the Lord."
How does that happen? What does it mean. How serious is it?
You quoted up until vs. 29.
Verse 30 says:
1 Corinthians 11:30 For this cause many are weak and sickly among you, and many sleep.
--The punishment that some of those that ate "unworthily" brought among themselves was that some were weak, some were sick, and God had killed some. (slept means dead).

You question God's Word. You question the Author. If you are not a true believer in Christ then you partake unworthily and put yourself under the judgment of God. Yes the meaning is very clear. But you are not reading it.


I don't have anything wrong.
First, the Bible nowhere teaches the heresy of transubstantiation.
The elements of the Lord's table are symbolic. There is no magic in them; nothing mystical, nothing that makes you more holy. This is not a superstitious pagan ceremony.
Nothing turns one element into another. There is no such superstition. Such a belief is rooted in paganism. Hindus believe in similar things.
Bread remains bread and wine remains wine. The RCC priest has no special powers. Sorry to disappoint you.

Any contradiction in the Scriptures would never cause me to lose my faith in any way. The two explanations I offered from the Scriptures of the same incident as written do indeed differ. As for the Holy Eucharist, there have been many theologians from the beginning of the newly emerging Christian Church that disagree with you on the matter and I side with them. Yours is the new interpretation which reared it's heretical head sometime in the 15th century (Zwingli I believe), not the one that existed from the 1st century onwards till then when all of Christendom believed it. No, it is not pagan in any way, shape, manner, or form, but the authentic orthodox Christian belief and one day the Lord will set you straight in person.

You say our claim is not true, but it's quite ironic that the Satanists of today always require a validly consecrated host to perform their Satanic rituals. Maybe you should inform them of their error in thinking that the Eucharist means something (you could suggest grape juice and crackers as a substitute).

 

[steaver]

As for the Holy Eucharist, there have been many theologians from the beginning of the newly emerging Christian Church that disagree with you on the matter and I side with them.

Isn't it true that as a Catholic you have no choice but to side with the RCC, thus, studying the Scriptures to show thyself approved really is pointless for a Catholic, No?. Just believe what the RCC says I am to believe and that is that. Let me ask you a question, is it possible the RCC is wrong in it's interpretations of Scripture?

 

[DHK]

Any contradiction in the Scriptures would never cause me to lose my faith in any way.

What are you talking about? There is no contradiction in the Scripture!
But there are many times that you contradict the scriptures. In fact there are many times that the RCC Catechism contradicts the Scriptures, thus pointing people to hell, just as the Pharisees did. That is why Jesus condemned them when he said:

Matthew 23:13 But woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye shut up the kingdom of heaven against men: for ye neither go in yourselves, neither suffer ye them that are entering to go in.
--And thus the RCC does exactly the same thing and shall receive the same condemnation.

Go to your Catechism, and look up "new birth" or "born again" and see what it says. Study carefully and find out what the RCC believes on one of the most important doctrines in the Bible.
What does Jesus say on this doctrine, the doctrine of "regeneration."
John 3:3 Jesus answered and said unto him, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God.

John 3:5 Jesus answered, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.

John 3:7 Marvel not that I said unto thee, Ye must be born again.
--Three times in these seven verses he commands Nicodemus or tells him that he must be born again. Without the new birth he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.
Now one thing is plain to see. The new birth is not baptism. There is no baptism involved in the new birth. It is spiritual not physical. It is by the Holy Spirit. Thus if the RCC is wrong here, all the Catholics of the world are condemned and on their way to Hell because they believe that the water of baptism saves them, and not Christ.
Is that what you believe? Is it baptism or Christ? What saves? Your eternal destiny rests on this one question. We know what the RCC teaches and what the Bible teaches and both are opposed to each other.

The two explanations I offered from the Scriptures of the same incident as written do indeed differ.

In reference to Judas Iscariot they are the same incident. One gives more detail than the other.
In your explanation you demonstrate that you don't believe the details of the Bible. That is all. Are you out to show people that you are an unbeliever instead of trying to reconcile Biblical facts? Really?

As for the Holy Eucharist, there have been many theologians from the beginning of the newly emerging Christian Church that disagree with you on the matter and I side with them.

One man standing alone with God makes a majority.
Though all the world stand together, but stand against God, they still stand wrong.
Do I care about those who are in error. Yes I care. They need to be saved.

Yours is the new interpretation which reared it's heretical head sometime in the 15th century (Zwingli I believe), not the one that existed from the 1st century onwards till then when all of Christendom believed it. No, it is not pagan in any way, shape, manner, or form, but the authentic orthodox Christian belief and one day the Lord will set you straight in person.

You don't know your church history. Are you ignorant of all history except that of indoctrinated RCC history who have not the truth of the Word of God? Believers of early centuries believed the same as I, and there is plenty of evidence to demonstrate that.
--Look in your Bible.
1 Corinthians 11:2 Now I praise you, brethren, that ye remember me in all things, and keep the ordinances, as I delivered them to you.
--It is evident that the Lord's Supper, expounded on in the last half of this chapter, is an ordinance, and that the elements thereof are symbolic. It is not called a sacrament; it is called an ordinance. In fact these RCC terms: Eucharist, sacrament, liturgy, etc. are not found in the Bible.

You say our claim is not true, but it's quite ironic that the Satanists of today always require a validly consecrated host to perform their Satanic rituals. Maybe you should inform them of their error in thinking that the Eucharist means something (you could suggest grape juice and crackers as a substitute).

Satanists do as they will do. Will you also follow their rites?
There is no such thing as a Eucharist. It is not found in the Bible.

If you want to know the truth about the elements of the Lord's Supper I will tell you.
Yes, we use grape juice. We also use unleavened bread.

The Bible says:
Matthew 16:6 Then Jesus said unto them, Take heed and beware of the leaven of the Pharisees and of the Sadducees.
Matthew 16:11 How is it that ye do not understand that I spake it not to you concerning bread, that ye should beware of the leaven of the Pharisees and of the Sadducees?
Matthew 16:12 Then understood they how that he bade them not beware of the leaven of bread, but of the doctrine of the Pharisees and of the Sadducees.
--Beware of the doctrine of the Pharisees and of the Saduducees, and of the RCC (today's model).

Leaven in the Bible is symbolic of sin, and sinful doctrine.
Thus when the Passover was held it was always held without leaven, or unleavened bread.
When we celebrate the Lord's Table we make sure that we used unleavened bread, because of what the leaven represents.

In like manner, wine is fermented grape juice. That is, the leaven in it has caused it to ferment. It is corrupted. It is a symbol of corruption just as much as the leavened bread is. How could wine possibly represent something so pure as the blood of the Lord Jesus Christ when it is such a corrupted beverage.

The wisest man that ever lived, apart from Christ said:
Proverbs 23:31 Look not thou upon the wine when it is red, when it giveth his colour in the cup, when it moveth itself aright.
--Don't even look at, much less drink it. When? When it starts moving, that is fermenting or turning from grape juice into fermented wine.
Why? The rest of the chapter, which you can read for yourself, gives the reason why.

 

[Zenas]

Isn't it true that as a Catholic you have no choice but to side with the RCC, thus, studying the Scriptures to show thyself approved really is pointless for a Catholic, No?. Just believe what the RCC says I am to believe and that is that. Let me ask you a question, is it possible the RCC is wrong in it's interpretations of Scripture?

You ask, “Is it possible the RCC is wrong in its interpretations of Scripture?” You might as well ask, “Is it possible Jesus was wrong in His promises?” Jesus said, “But when He, the Spirit of truth comes, He will guide you into all the truth . . . .” John 16:13. Note who Jesus was addressing in this discourse—the 11 disciples who would in a few weeks become the nucleus of His Church. This was not a promise made to you and me, it was a promise to the Church, the same church that subsists today as the Roman Catholic Church. The RCC does not interpret Scripture, the Holy Spirit interprets Scripture through Christ’s Church.

 

[Adonia]

What are you talking about? There is no contradiction in the Scripture!
But there are many times that you contradict the scriptures. In fact there are many times that the RCC Catechism contradicts the Scriptures, thus pointing people to hell, just as the Pharisees did. That is why Jesus condemned them when he said:

Matthew 23:13 But woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye shut up the kingdom of heaven against men: for ye neither go in yourselves, neither suffer ye them that are entering to go in.
--And thus the RCC does exactly the same thing and shall receive the same condemnation.

Go to your Catechism, and look up "new birth" or "born again" and see what it says. Study carefully and find out what the RCC believes on one of the most important doctrines in the Bible.
What does Jesus say on this doctrine, the doctrine of "regeneration."
John 3:3 Jesus answered and said unto him, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God.

John 3:5 Jesus answered, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.

John 3:7 Marvel not that I said unto thee, Ye must be born again.
--Three times in these seven verses he commands Nicodemus or tells him that he must be born again. Without the new birth he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.
Now one thing is plain to see. The new birth is not baptism. There is no baptism involved in the new birth. It is spiritual not physical. It is by the Holy Spirit. Thus if the RCC is wrong here, all the Catholics of the world are condemned and on their way to Hell because they believe that the water of baptism saves them, and not Christ.
Is that what you believe? Is it baptism or Christ? What saves? Your eternal destiny rests on this one question. We know what the RCC teaches and what the Bible teaches and both are opposed to each other.

In reference to Judas Iscariot they are the same incident. One gives more detail than the other.
In your explanation you demonstrate that you don't believe the details of the Bible. That is all. Are you out to show people that you are an unbeliever instead of trying to reconcile Biblical facts? Really?

One man standing alone with God makes a majority.
Though all the world stand together, but stand against God, they still stand wrong.
Do I care about those who are in error. Yes I care. They need to be saved.

You don't know your church history. Are you ignorant of all history except that of indoctrinated RCC history who have not the truth of the Word of God? Believers of early centuries believed the same as I, and there is plenty of evidence to demonstrate that.
--Look in your Bible.
1 Corinthians 11:2 Now I praise you, brethren, that ye remember me in all things, and keep the ordinances, as I delivered them to you.
--It is evident that the Lord's Supper, expounded on in the last half of this chapter, is an ordinance, and that the elements thereof are symbolic. It is not called a sacrament; it is called an ordinance. In fact these RCC terms: Eucharist, sacrament, liturgy, etc. are not found in the Bible.


Satanists do as they will do. Will you also follow their rites?
There is no such thing as a Eucharist. It is not found in the Bible.

If you want to know the truth about the elements of the Lord's Supper I will tell you.
Yes, we use grape juice. We also use unleavened bread.

The Bible says:
Matthew 16:6 Then Jesus said unto them, Take heed and beware of the leaven of the Pharisees and of the Sadducees.
Matthew 16:11 How is it that ye do not understand that I spake it not to you concerning bread, that ye should beware of the leaven of the Pharisees and of the Sadducees?
Matthew 16:12 Then understood they how that he bade them not beware of the leaven of bread, but of the doctrine of the Pharisees and of the Sadducees.
--Beware of the doctrine of the Pharisees and of the Saduducees, and of the RCC (today's model).

Leaven in the Bible is symbolic of sin, and sinful doctrine.
Thus when the Passover was held it was always held without leaven, or unleavened bread.
When we celebrate the Lord's Table we make sure that we used unleavened bread, because of what the leaven represents.

In like manner, wine is fermented grape juice. That is, the leaven in it has caused it to ferment. It is corrupted. It is a symbol of corruption just as much as the leavened bread is. How could wine possibly represent something so pure as the blood of the Lord Jesus Christ when it is such a corrupted beverage.

The wisest man that ever lived, apart from Christ said:
Proverbs 23:31 Look not thou upon the wine when it is red, when it giveth his colour in the cup, when it moveth itself aright.
--Don't even look at, much less drink it. When? When it starts moving, that is fermenting or turning from grape juice into fermented wine.
Why? The rest of the chapter, which you can read for yourself, gives the reason why.

I don't know my Church history? I think you don't know the true history of the Christian Church whose ways of worship most closely resembles the Latin Rite Church of today. You need to look up what St. Justin Martyr says about this and see how closely your sect matches up. Perhaps you should do a thorough study of the Early Church Fathers and see what the newly emerging One Universal (Catholic) Church was all about and what it was actually teaching.

As for wine being a corruption, where do you come up with such things? Wine is the "fruit of the vine", a phrase that is mentioned often in the Scriptures and it was the thing that Jesus drank his whole life and one of the two elements that when combined become the Holy Eucharist (his body and blood). The only thing unclean (corruptible) is what can come out of men's mouths - not foodstuffs that go in. Wine is wine, indeed the result of the fermentation of grapes and anything else is simply grape juice.

At Cana, Jesus's first miracle was the turning of water into wine, not grape juice. (And you can be sure he most probably drank some).

In Luke 7: 33-34 Jesus said: “For John the Baptist has come eating no bread and drinking no wine, and you say, ‘He has a demon.’ The Son of Man has come eating and drinking, and you say, ‘Look at him! A glutton and a drunkard, a friend of tax collectors and sinners!’” (He was not referencing drinking grape juice here either)

The Passover celebration which Jesus attended during his lifetime would also have commonly included wine. The Scriptures as I said before use the term “fruit of the vine” as in Matt 26: 27-29; Mark 14:23-25; Luke 22:17-18.

Jesus warned against drunkenness and gluttony, not normal eating and drinking - and wine was not in any way something evil.

 

[DHK]

I don't know my Church history? I think you don't know the true history of the Christian Church whose ways of worship most closely resembles the Latin Rite Church of today. You need to look up what St. Justin Martyr says about this and see how closely your sect matches up. Perhaps you should do a thorough study of the Early Church Fathers and see what the newly emerging One Universal (Catholic) Church was all about and what it was actually teaching.

You are using the Latin Rite church as your default for true, accurate and closest to the original, whereas it is one of the churches that is further from the truth when compared to all the others. Evangelical churches are far closer to the truth than the Latin rite Church. There was no church in the NT that was liturgical, and Latin, though the official language of Rome, was more of a business language, not the lingua franca of the day. Churches, even in Rome would probably still speak in Greek, the universal language of the Empire. The RCC did not exist in the first century.

For an example of worship look at Acts 20:
Acts 20:7 And upon the first day of the week, when the disciples came together to break bread, Paul preached unto them, ready to depart on the morrow; and continued his speech until midnight.
Acts 20:11 ..., and had broken bread, and eaten, and talked a long while, even till break of day, so he departed.
--That service lasted about 12 hours. Most of it was taken up with the preaching of the Word of God.
I know what Justin Martyr says. I don't have to read him. What is necessary to read is the Word of God and that is where you lack knowledge.

As for wine being a corruption, where do you come up with such things?

Read carefully. It is the leaven that is the symbol of corruption, and I quoted scripture to that effect. You have heard of the feast of Unleavened bread have you not?
Leaven was symbolic of sin, false doctrine, and uncleanness. "Put the leaven out from among you." Leaven (i.e. yeast) is symbolic of sin or false doctrine and therefore would never be used by the disciples or early believers in the Lord's Supper to represent the purity of the body and blood of the Lord Jesus Christ who was without sin. How could that be? It would be blasphemous!!

Wine is the "fruit of the vine",

The fruit of the vine is grape juice. After it is fermented it is considered wine.

a phrase that is mentioned often in the Scriptures and it was the thing that Jesus drank his whole life and one of the two elements that when combined become the Holy Eucharist (his body and blood).

You are confused, obviously. The word for wine can translated either fermented wine or unfermented wine, in the same way our word "cider" is used today. Cider sold here is a drink made from apples. In Germany it is fermented or alcoholic. The same word is used: one is alcoholic and the other is not. The same is true of the word "wine." Context determines its meaning.

The only thing unclean (corruptible) is what can come out of men's mouths - not foodstuffs that go in.

Why did Jesus say: "Beware of the LEAVEN of the Pharisees if it is not unclean?

At Cana, Jesus's first miracle was the turning of water into wine, not grape juice. (And you can be sure he most probably drank some).

It was grape juice.

In Luke 7: 33-34 Jesus said: “For John the Baptist has come eating no bread and drinking no wine, and you say, ‘He has a demon.’ The Son of Man has come eating and drinking, and you say, ‘Look at him! A glutton and a drunkard, a friend of tax collectors and sinners!’” (He was not referencing drinking grape juice here either)

Yes, no matter what they did they falsely accused them. Do you really think that John and Jesus were out wandering the streets drunk. Shame!

The Passover celebration which Jesus attended during his lifetime would also have commonly included wine. The Scriptures as I said before use the term “fruit of the vine” as in Matt 26: 27-29; Mark 14:23-25; Luke 22:17-18.

Fruit of the vine is fruit--fresh juice.

Jesus warned against drunkenness and gluttony, not normal eating and drinking - and wine was not in any way something evil.

In 1Cor.11, which is what I was expounding God was judging the Corinthians because they were coming to the Lord's Table unworthily. They were not examining themselves. God had caused some to be sick, and even killed others. What does it mean to come before the table "unworthily"? One is unworthy to partake of the Lord's Table if they do not know Christ as their Savior and if they are not living for him.

 

[Adonia]

You are using the Latin Rite church as your default for true, accurate and closest to the original, whereas it is one of the churches that is further from the truth when compared to all the others. Evangelical churches are far closer to the truth than the Latin rite Church. There was no church in the NT that was liturgical, and Latin, though the official language of Rome, was more of a business language, not the lingua franca of the day. Churches, even in Rome would probably still speak in Greek, the universal language of the Empire. The RCC did not exist in the first century.

For an example of worship look at Acts 20:
Acts 20:7 And upon the first day of the week, when the disciples came together to break bread, Paul preached unto them, ready to depart on the morrow; and continued his speech until midnight.
Acts 20:11 ..., and had broken bread, and eaten, and talked a long while, even till break of day, so he departed.
--That service lasted about 12 hours. Most of it was taken up with the preaching of the Word of God.
I know what Justin Martyr says. I don't have to read him. What is necessary to read is the Word of God and that is where you lack knowledge.


Read carefully. It is the leaven that is the symbol of corruption, and I quoted scripture to that effect. You have heard of the feast of Unleavened bread have you not?
Leaven was symbolic of sin, false doctrine, and uncleanness. "Put the leaven out from among you." Leaven (i.e. yeast) is symbolic of sin or false doctrine and therefore would never be used by the disciples or early believers in the Lord's Supper to represent the purity of the body and blood of the Lord Jesus Christ who was without sin. How could that be? It would be blasphemous!!


The fruit of the vine is grape juice. After it is fermented it is considered wine.

You are confused, obviously. The word for wine can translated either fermented wine or unfermented wine, in the same way our word "cider" is used today. Cider sold here is a drink made from apples. In Germany it is fermented or alcoholic. The same word is used: one is alcoholic and the other is not. The same is true of the word "wine." Context determines its meaning.

Why did Jesus say: "Beware of the LEAVEN of the Pharisees if it is not unclean?

It was grape juice.

Yes, no matter what they did they falsely accused them. Do you really think that John and Jesus were out wandering the streets drunk. Shame!


Fruit of the vine is fruit--fresh juice.


In 1Cor.11, which is what I was expounding God was judging the Corinthians because they were coming to the Lord's Table unworthily. They were not examining themselves. God had caused some to be sick, and even killed others. What does it mean to come before the table "unworthily"? One is unworthy to partake of the Lord's Table if they do not know Christ as their Savior and if they are not living for him.

Most of what you just wrote here is complete and utter balderdash!

From the first apology in defense of the Christians (100 to 165 AD) St. Justin Martyr wrote :

“No one may share the Eucharist with us unless he believes that what we teach is true, unless he is washed in the regenerating waters of baptism for the remission of his sins, and unless he lives in accordance with the principles given us by Christ".

'We do not consume the eucharistic bread and wine as if it were ordinary food and drink, for we have been taught that as Jesus Christ our Saviour became a man of flesh and blood by the power of the Word of God, so also the food that our flesh and blood assimilates for its nourishment becomes the flesh and blood of the incarnate Jesus by the power of his own words contained in the prayer of thanksgiving".

"The apostles, in their recollections, which are called gospels, handed down to us what Jesus commanded them to do. They tell us that he took bread, gave thanks and said: Do this in memory of me. This is my body. In the same way he took the cup, he gave thanks and said: This is my blood. The Lord gave this command to them alone. Ever since then we have constantly reminded one another of these things. The rich among us help the poor and we are always united. For all that we receive we praise the Creator of the universe through his Son Jesus Christ and through the Holy Spirit".

"On Sunday we have a common assembly of all our members, whether they live in the city or the outlying districts. The recollections of the apostles or the writings of the prophets are read, as long as there is time. When the reader has finished, the president of the assembly speaks to us; he urges everyone to imitate the examples of virtue we have heard in the readings. Then we all stand up together and pray".

"On the conclusion of our prayer, bread and wine and water are brought forward. The president offers prayers and gives thanks to the best of his ability, and the people give assent by saying, “Amen.” The eucharist is distributed, everyone present communicates, and the deacons take it to those who are absent".

"The wealthy, if they wish, may make a contribution, and they themselves decide the amount. The collection is placed in the custody of the president, who uses it to help the orphans and widows and all who for any reason are in distress, whether because they are sick, in prison, or away from home. In a word, he takes care of all who are in need".

"We hold our common assembly on Sunday because it is the first day of the week, the day on which God put darkness and chaos to flight and created the world, and because on that same day our saviour Jesus Christ rose from the dead. For he was crucified on Friday and on Sunday he appeared to his apostles and disciples and taught them the things that we have passed on for your consideration."

This is the truth about the worship practice of Christians of the One Universal (Catholic) Christian Church in the 2nd Century. Bread and Wine are used, not crackers and grape juice!

And that is how we do it today, not in some way thought up by men in the 15th century, but how the Scriptures tell us and how the early Christians continued on with the very same way. You are wrong, simply and terribly wrong on this particular issue. How you can continue to reject this unvarnished truth is beyond me.

 

[Adonia]

You are using the Latin Rite church as your default for true, accurate and closest to the original, whereas it is one of the churches that is further from the truth when compared to all the others. Evangelical churches are far closer to the truth than the Latin rite Church. There was no church in the NT that was liturgical, and Latin, though the official language of Rome, was more of a business language, not the lingua franca of the day. Churches, even in Rome would probably still speak in Greek, the universal language of the Empire. The RCC did not exist in the first century.

For an example of worship look at Acts 20:
Acts 20:7 And upon the first day of the week, when the disciples came together to break bread, Paul preached unto them, ready to depart on the morrow; and continued his speech until midnight.
Acts 20:11 ..., and had broken bread, and eaten, and talked a long while, even till break of day, so he departed.
--That service lasted about 12 hours. Most of it was taken up with the preaching of the Word of God.
I know what Justin Martyr says. I don't have to read him. What is necessary to read is the Word of God and that is where you lack knowledge.


Read carefully. It is the leaven that is the symbol of corruption, and I quoted scripture to that effect. You have heard of the feast of Unleavened bread have you not?
Leaven was symbolic of sin, false doctrine, and uncleanness. "Put the leaven out from among you." Leaven (i.e. yeast) is symbolic of sin or false doctrine and therefore would never be used by the disciples or early believers in the Lord's Supper to represent the purity of the body and blood of the Lord Jesus Christ who was without sin. How could that be? It would be blasphemous!!


The fruit of the vine is grape juice. After it is fermented it is considered wine.

You are confused, obviously. The word for wine can translated either fermented wine or unfermented wine, in the same way our word "cider" is used today. Cider sold here is a drink made from apples. In Germany it is fermented or alcoholic. The same word is used: one is alcoholic and the other is not. The same is true of the word "wine." Context determines its meaning.

Why did Jesus say: "Beware of the LEAVEN of the Pharisees if it is not unclean?

It was grape juice.

Yes, no matter what they did they falsely accused them. Do you really think that John and Jesus were out wandering the streets drunk. Shame!


Fruit of the vine is fruit--fresh juice.


In 1Cor.11, which is what I was expounding God was judging the Corinthians because they were coming to the Lord's Table unworthily. They were not examining themselves. God had caused some to be sick, and even killed others. What does it mean to come before the table "unworthily"? One is unworthy to partake of the Lord's Table if they do not know Christ as their Savior and if they are not living for him.

And I never said or meant that Jesus was running around drunk just because I cited that particular passage. It was an example to show you that he himself said he was a wine drinker, but it was others who were calling him a drunkard. So don't make assumptions because you are totally wrong.

As for wine, you are the one who is confused. Wine is just that - wine - fermented grape juice. Unfermented grapes or grape liquid is called grape juice and it is not now or has ever been known as wine. Please don't insult my intelligence as you strive to make the Scriptures fit what your viewpoint is on this issue. You have been taught a falsehood concerning this.

As for cider, again you are confused. Alcoholic cider is known as "hard cider" and non-alcoholic cider is just plain "cider".

As for the Eucharistic host, we use unleavened flour to make them. We are totally in accordance with the Scriptures on this.

 

[steaver]

This was not a promise made to you and me, it was a promise to the Church, the same church that subsists today as the Roman Catholic Church.

And therein lies the foundation error which is the bases for the RCC's claim that it is thee "Church" of Jesus Christ. You have zero biblical evidence that this commission given to the eleven, and then afterwards to Paul, went any further than these twelve. Once these twelve completed writing the Gospel and the NT instructions for believers, this specific commission to record the Truth was complete. Jesus Christ never commissioned a line of "Interpreters". The NT actually needs no private or "Church" "interpreting" rather believers are instructed to "rightly divide the word of truth". It is the Scripture which interprets itself through the study of using proper hermeneutics.

 

[DHK]

Most of what you just wrote here is complete and utter balderdash!

From the first apology in defense of the Christians (100 to 165 AD) St. Justin Martyr wrote :

“No one may share the Eucharist with us unless he believes that what we teach is true, unless he is washed in the regenerating waters of baptism for the remission of his sins, and unless he lives in accordance with the principles given us by Christ".

One can find many quotes from j. Martyr, many of them seemingly contradictory.
Here are some things to remember.
First, he wrote in Greek. What we read are translations. Meaning is always lost in translation. There is no such thing as "the Eucharist" in the Bible. Obviously he is wrong on this point. Wherever he obtains this word and the concept that goes with it, it is not in the Bible.
Second, our authority is the Bible not J. Martyr. The ECF do not prove any thing.
However, to show you how ambiguous some of his writings may be let's examine one that I gleaned first from Wikipedia, but that they quoted directly from his first apology:

Justin's statements in his First Apology are some of the earliest Christian expressions on the Eucharist.

"And this food is called among us Εὐχαριστία [the Eucharist] ... For not as common bread and common drink do we receive these; but in like manner as Jesus Christ our Saviour, having been made flesh by the Word of God, had both flesh and blood for our salvation, so likewise have we been taught that the food which is blessed by the prayer of His word, and from which our blood and flesh by transmutation are nourished, is the flesh and blood of that Jesus who was made flesh."

First I examined the NT for this word "euxarisia" It is not there. The closest relative is euxaristia. It is close but not the same. It is used 15 times in the NT, and each time it is translated "thanksgiving," "thanks," or "thankfulness." The Bible knows nothing of a "eucharist" per se. It isn't there, not in Greek; not in English.
Second, Martyr is speaking of the Lord's Table not Mass. He is not speaking of "transubstantiation."
Third, The bread and "drink" (not wine), are not common. Why? They have been set apart for a special purpose. They represent symbolically in like manner, both the flesh and blood of the Lord Jesus Christ.
The word "transmutation" means "change." The only way a person is changed is, as Martyr says, "by prayer of His Word," which probably should be more accurately translated "prayer and his word.
Otherwise you know very well, that our our blood and flesh are NOT changed by partaking of the Lord Supper or the elements of the Lord's Table. To admit to such would be to believe in superstition. But to believe that prayer and the Word of God can change a person, then that is a true doctrine.
Most of the error of the early church entered through the ECF. Thus our authority is the Word of God, not Martyr or any of the others.

"The apostles, in their recollections, which are called gospels, handed down to us what Jesus commanded them to do. They tell us that he took bread, gave thanks and said: Do this in memory of me.

All purely symbolic. Do in remembrance of me. "In remembrance" and that is all.

You need to remember metaphors. Here is something to help you:
https://scontent-sea1-1.xx.fbcdn.ne...=09682c7dd74e31688a7018e52c614b19&oe=579E03A5

This is my body. In the same way he took the cup, he gave thanks and said: This is my blood. The Lord gave this command to them alone. Ever since then we have constantly reminded one another of these things. The rich among us help the poor and we are always united. For all that we receive we praise the Creator of the universe through his Son Jesus Christ and through the Holy Spirit".

Since they were not cannibals, "the body" and the "bread", were symbolic--one of the other. I do hope you understand that. No one saw any of the disciples eat a chunk of Jesus' arm.

"On Sunday we have a common assembly of all our members, whether they live in the city or the outlying districts. The recollections of the apostles or the writings of the prophets are read, as long as there is time. When the reader has finished, the president of the assembly speaks to us; he urges everyone to imitate the examples of virtue we have heard in the readings. Then we all stand up together and pray".

That is called liturgy. It is what Jesus condemned. The Lord condemned it in the OT as well. There came a point when he refused their sacrifices and their worship. It was all in vain.
Why? Here is the answer he gave:
Isaiah 64:6 But we are all as an unclean thing, and all our righteousnesses are as filthy rags; and we all do fade as a leaf; and our iniquities, like the wind, have taken us away.
--Your righteousnesses and your worship are as filthy rags to him. He doesn't even want to touch it. They are good for nothing; they are to be thrown away. The Hebrew word here for "filthy rag" is very strong. Let me give you a translation that demonstrates what he is actually getting at.

The Literal translation says:
(LITV) But we are all as the unclean thing, and all our righteousnesses are as a menstruation cloth. And we all fade as a leaf, and like the wind our iniquities take us away.
--It was as dirty and filthy as a cloth could get, and only good for throwing out and burning as they had to do in that day. That is what God compares the good works of the unsaved to, or those that are not right with God.

"On the conclusion of our prayer, bread and wine and water are brought forward. The president offers prayers and gives thanks to the best of his ability, and the people give assent by saying, “Amen.” The eucharist is distributed

, everyone present communicates, and the deacons take it to those who are absent".

That is quite trick to take the elements of the Lord's table to those that are absent. Do they fly through the air on witches' brooms (like Bewitched) ??
There is no "Eucharist."
From Dictionary.com

the sacrament of Holy Communion; the sacrifice of the Mass; the Lord's Supper.

There is no "eucharist" and no "sacrament" in the Bible. So why continue to do things that are "anti-Bible"? The Lord's Table is an ordinance, which is a word used in the Bible. And the elements are purely symbolic. Your entire "liturgy" is not Biblical.

[quote[]"The wealthy, if they wish, may make a contribution, and they themselves decide the amount. The collection is placed in the custody of the president, who uses it to help the orphans and widows and all who for any reason are in distress, whether because they are sick, in prison, or away from home. In a word, he takes care of all who are in need".

That is a good gesture.

"We hold our common assembly on Sunday because it is the first day of the week, the day on which God put darkness and chaos to flight and created the world, and because on that same day our saviour Jesus Christ rose from the dead. For he was crucified on Friday and on Sunday he appeared to his apostles and disciples and taught them the things that we have passed on for your consideration."

I am a missionary. Meeting on Sunday is more cultural than anything. Those are good reasons and there is nothing to be condemned for it. OTOH, it is not commanded in Scripture.
Romans 14:5 One man esteemeth one day above another: another esteemeth every day alike. Let every man be fully persuaded in his own mind.
---There are many Christians in this world today, who out of necessity, must meet on another day for worship.

This is the truth about the worship practice of Christians of the One Universal (Catholic) Christian Church in the 2nd Century. Bread and Wine are used, not crackers and grape juice!

There is no universal church. It does not exist.
Leaven is symbolic of sin and corrupt doctrine. It would not symbolize the purity of our Lord. That would be blasphemy.

And that is how we do it today, not in some way thought up by men in the 15th century, but how the Scriptures tell us and how the early Christians continued on with the very same way. You are wrong, simply and terribly wrong on this particular issue. How you can continue to reject this unvarnished truth is beyond me.

I would rather follow the Bible than the tradition of man.

 

[DHK]

As for cider, again you are confused. Alcoholic cider is known as "hard cider" and non-alcoholic cider is just plain "cider".

If I go to Second Cup, a cafe known for its coffee, and order a cider I will be served a hot apple drink. I have done it.
I stopped in Germany once on my way home from the mission field. I stopped at a kiosk and asked for a "cider." I was about to get an alcoholic beverage, and when I realized that, I politely refused realizing it was something I could not drink.
Yes, "cider is cider" and "wine is wine," both either alcoholic or non-alcoholic or fermented or non-fermented depending on the context in which they are used. If you don't understand that you need to do some Bible study.