|
Users viewing this topic:
none
|
|
Login  | |
|
RE: Eucharist... actual body and blood? - 3/14/2008 5:12:33 AM
|
|
|
kelman
Posts: 3889
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Tirno
We're not just considering the RC opinion on this thread, though. That particular RC opinion is relevant since it shows the mindset of the hierarchy of their church.
quote:
We're considering all parts of the Catholic Church. Indeed we are; and, hopefully you consider Protestants churchs part of this "universal" church?
quote:
One priest from the Church that contains only one of the original five apostolic sees is hardly a representation for the whole of Catholicism. LOL......I see you answered my question.
quote:
(To my RC brethren: I mean no disrespect by that statement. I simply want to point out that one priest cannot speak for millions upon millions of Catholics across the globe.) Ah, but their pope can speak for them when he calls the EOC "defective".
quote:
Now, I'm fine with that, and it doesn't say anything about sacrificing Christ continuously. Yet, that is what effectively is being done. And besides, RC claims it is "The sacrificial work of redemption is continually carried out through the sacrifice of the Mass. (Catechism of the Catholic Church 1364, 1405, 1846.)"
It is also insisted that sins, even great offenses, are forgiven at this "unbloody" sacrifice, whereas instead God proclaims Christ died once for sin and without the shedding of blood there is no forgiveness.
quote:
It is not a different sacrifice every time the Mass is said. It is the same one from when Christ died on the cross. Must be a different sacrifice since it is continually offered for different sins. Is this same sacrifice an unbloody sacrifice? Apparently, your church thinks it is even as it make Christ bleed again. And if it isn't a bloody sacrifice, it has no effectiveness, according to God, anyway.
quote:
As for sacrifices, if you'll notice, whenever God talks about not being pleased with sacrifices, it's about when His people do it out of vain observance without having a heart behind what they're doing. God doesn't ban sacrifices in the Scriptures. God is quite clear in the NT with regard to the type of sacrifice He wants - a spiritual one. Just as the Passover feast was to point to Christ on the cross in the future, the communion points back to His accomplishment on the cross in the past. All the feast days were shadows of the true substance.
If the Eucharist is actually His body and the blood would not then the lambs they sacrificed 1500 years before would also be Jesus’ body (before He was born) as John said behold the lamb of God who takes away the sins of the world?
quote:
A Catholic would say that the Malachi passage if fulfilled by the sacrifice of the Eucharist. There is no evidence of that in the Malachi passage since the mass does not answer to this part of the verse which says "for my name shall be great among the heathen, saith the LORD of hosts." God's name is made great among the heathens, iow, people the world over come to believe on Jesus. But this happens only through the preaching of Scripture - not a mass. "So then faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the word of God."
quote:
I am trying to give, along with all my other Catholic brethren here, an accurate description of my views, and the one which I will defend to the death against is that I believe Jesus is re-sacrificed when the Mass is said. I understand you are giving your views as I am giving mine. The problem is much of this "view" does not line up with Scripture. And the fact remains this re-presentation offers Christ over and over again as it portrays Christ in His victimhood. Whereas, Scripture is emphatic - Christ’s sacrifice was not like the animal sacrifice that needs to be done over and over. It was once for all. It satisfied His Father and its effects continue today because He alone is eternal and a perpetual High Priest therefore his work is eternal.
Christ stands today in His second high priestly duty as Mediator - the priesthood-satisfaction and intercession - as described in Hebrews 8:4. The greatest error of all is to insist the Creator is called down to earth by the creature.
By the which will we are sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all. -Hebrews 10:10
_____________________________
“beware lest you lose the substance by grasping at the shadow”
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Eucharist... actual body and blood? - 3/14/2008 9:29:30 AM
|
|
|
lgpreacherman
Posts: 89
Joined: 2/9/2008
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: kelman
quote:
I must say, it intruiges me to think that when we are 2000 years removed from the original writtings living in a different time, culture and context that we understand the scripture better then they did in 100 ad, 200 ad, 300 ad, 400 ad, 500 ad etc... What is intriguing is RC would declare there is no salvation outside of itself. What is intriguing is its monumental ability to err.
Kelman,
let me say this AGAIN I am not Roman Catholic this is not about Roman Catholic doctrine but about the Eucahrist as a church catholic teaching.
quote:
I occured to me the other day that everyone who thinks they understand the bible better without the teaching of the church are essentially Samaritans. What a very odd "occurrence" for you to have. You do realize, don't you, that Samaritans were essentially heathens?[/qoute]
Interesting how you don't want to be judged as being in or out but you will judge the Samaritans. Christ did not seen to thing the woman at the well to be a heathen and He implied that ti did not matter if the Worship of god happened on Mount Gerezim or the Temple Mount but salvation still came from the Jews.
quote:
Teaching is important and we would be foolish to ignore theologians of past and present. But, there is no reason to assume your church has more truth than any other or that it is more capable of teaching than any other. In fact, it appears they are less capable since they have for a doctrine that which makes them think they actually do it infallibly. And since this is a very great error, it has invariably led to further great errors on their part. And again I am not Roman Catholic but is it not essentially what you are doing in these forums when you argue against a topic you are assuming you have the truth and we (little 'c') catholic christians are wrong?
quote:
The hierarchy of the church of Jesus' day did not believe Him, in fact, hated Him so much they killed Him. And later, they threw His disciples out of their church. And many years later history repeated itself insofar as another church also threw out those who were bringing truth. The Church did not throw any one out people willingly left. Luther never wanted the Leave the Catholic church it was those around him who left while he was holed up in the Castle at Wartburg.
quote:
Christ reviled the hierarchy of the church of His day as they laid heavy burdens upon the people, contrary to the will of God. Christ told this hierarchy "But in vain they do worship me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men." and "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 yet Christ did not leave the synogouge and temple system, he stayed and participated as a active member
quote:
And yet Jesus said salvation comes from the Jews. Yes, because the Messiah came from the Jews. And, the oracles of God were given to them. And who is it that ignores this fact by adding to the oracles of God given to the Jews?
quote:
I am NOT syaing the the writtings of the church fathers are scripture however the Jews did not believe the writting of the prophets to be "scripture" persay Huh? Where do you get the Jews didn't believe the writings of the prophets were anything but Holy Scripture? .....you sure don't get that from Scripture. Both Christ and the Apostles affirmed the writings of the prophets were Holy Scripture.
Well since the Jews has no Canonical scriptures until well after the church was established what was and was not scripture was up in the air for the Jews.
quote:
However, the Jews had the Torah and the interpretations on the prophets where the Samaritans had only the Torah. And it was precisely these oral "interpretations" by the hierarchy of the church of Christ's day that He condemned.
this just does not even deserve a comment
quote:
Today we can choose to be Samaritans or Jews, since Christ was a Jew and Said that salvation is from the Jews I choose to think and believe as a Jew would rather then as a Samaritans would. Although why you'd want to I don't know, you're welcome to emulate the self-same Jews who did not believe Jesus Christ. I'll cast my lot with the humble Samaritans' reaction to the Word of God - they believed it.
There is a point where analogies break down! just as many Jews as Samaritans followed after CHrist. Come on Kelman you know that I am refering to the approach to scripture and tradition. And by the way CHrist did not have a propblem with Traditions he had a propblem when the church leaders did not follow but expected the people to follow.
_____________________________
There are not over a hundred people in the United States who hate the Catholic Church. There are millions, however, who hate what they wrongly believe to be the Catholic Church.
Bishop Fulton J. Sheen
www.iccec.com
www.cechome.com
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Eucharist... actual body and blood? - 3/14/2008 11:15:41 AM
|
|
|
Papa-san
Posts: 995
Joined: 4/12/2006
Status: offline
|
quote:
quote:
quote:
quote:
However, the Jews had the Torah and the interpretations on the prophets where the Samaritans had only the Torah.
And it was precisely these oral "interpretations" by the hierarchy of the church of Christ's day that He condemned.
this just does not even deserve a comment
It does deserve a comment, because it is altogether accuratequote:
... you know that I am refering to the approach to scripture and tradition. And by the way CHrist did not have a propblem with Traditions he had a propblem when the church leaders did not follow but expected the people to follow. Jesus had a HUGE problem with their traditions. He considered them to be heretical. What you speak of is a part of it... He despised the fact that they built all these man-made traditions. Then they required the people to follow them even though God had no part in making them... So it was just added insult that they didn't follow them themselves...
Pharises + an occaisional vague mention of Jesus = Orthodoxy
_____________________________
"Discernment demands that we should hold biblical convictions with the most fervent tenacity" John MacArthur
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Eucharist... actual body and blood? - 3/16/2008 4:18:12 AM
|
|
|
kelman
Posts: 3889
Status: offline
|
quote:
quote:
quote:
ORIGINAL: lgpreacherman
I must say, it intruiges me to think that when we are 2000 years removed from the original writtings living in a different time, culture and context that we understand the scripture better then they did in 100 ad, 200 ad, 300 ad, 400 ad, 500 ad etc...
What is intriguing is RC would declare there is no salvation outside of itself. What is intriguing is its monumental ability to err.
Kelman, let me say this AGAIN I am not Roman Catholic this is not about Roman Catholic doctrine but about the Eucahrist as a church catholic teaching. Sorry, sometimes it’s hard to keep the players straight. Are you EOC or Anglican? Apparently, each have different teachings on the subject at hand.
quote:
Interesting how you don't want to be judged as being in or out but you will judge the Samaritans. What do you mean by "judged as being in or out"? In or out of what? Anyway, it's not a matter of "judging" the Samaritans but one of knowledge of Scripture. Read 2Kings 17:24-41 for information on the idolatrous Samaritans.
quote:
Christ did not seen to thing the woman at the well to be a heathen and He implied that ti did not matter if the Worship of god happened on Mount Gerezim or the Temple Mount but salvation still came from the Jews. Christ did more than "imply" the woman was a heathen when He told her "Ye worship ye know not what: we know what we worship:". Here Christ is repeating the same idea found in 2Kings where it is said of the Samaritans they "knew not the manner of the God of the land".
quote:
quote:
Teaching is important and we would be foolish to ignore theologians of past and present. But, there is no reason to assume your church has more truth than any other or that it is more capable of teaching than any other. In fact, it appears they are less capable since they have for a doctrine that which makes them think they actually do it infallibly. And since this is a very great error, it has invariably led to further great errors on their part. And again I am not Roman Catholic but is it not essentially what you are doing in these forums when you argue against a topic you are assuming you have the truth and we (little 'c') catholic christians are wrong? Don’t get your meaning…what is it that I am “essentially doing”? Not doing anything but arguing my beliefs against yours. Isn’t that what these forums are all about? Or do you think they are only for those who agree with each other?
In addition, I don't claim infallibility as some churches do. Nor would I give any credence to those who do make such a claim; or, to those, who while claiming ECFs are not inspired, treat them as though they are.
quote:
quote:
The hierarchy of the church of Jesus' day did not believe Him, in fact, hated Him so much they killed Him. And later, they threw His disciples out of their church. And many years later history repeated itself insofar as another church also threw out those who were bringing truth. The Church did not throw any one out people willingly left. Luther never wanted the Leave the Catholic church it was those around him who left while he was holed up in the Castle at Wartburg. Luther was thrown out just as the Jews threw out the Apostles. Ya gotta laugh at this one "holed up...." If he wasn't "holed up.." and RC was successful in capturing him they would've murdered him too.
quote:
And yet Christ did not leave the synogouge and temple system, he stayed and participated as a active member True, up to a point; still, neither Christ or the Apostles obeyed the man-made laws of the hierarchy. They obeyed only the written Scripture and Christ was always quick to point out the heresies of the Temple leaders. Still, eventually they were thrown out as were the reformers.
quote:
Well since the Jews has no Canonical scriptures until well after the church was established what was and was not scripture was up in the air for the Jews. No, it was never "up in the air". There is not one place in Scripture where it is suggested the Jews didn't know precisely what was included in their Bible – always the exact opposite, in fact. God says He "committed" His oracles to the Jews. It could not be "commited" to the Jews if they didn't know what it was that was being "commited". To "commit" in the Greek means to think to be true, to have confidence in, to be persuaded of. The OT books/oralcles were commited to the Jews(Romans 3:2); and, the OT Fathers received the "lively oracles" from God(Acts 7:38).
quote:
quote:
And it was precisely these oral "interpretations" by the hierarchy of the church of Christ's day that He condemned. this just does not even deserve a comment Sure it should warrant a comment since it is the gospel truth. The oral traditions of the Jews became as important, actually more important, than God’s inspired words….and this Christ condemned.
quote:
There is a point where analogies break down! just as many Jews as Samaritans followed after CHrist. Come on Kelman you know that I am refering to the approach to scripture and tradition. Okay, you're right, analogies are never perfect. As the Bible says the Samaritans were basically heathens so their approach to Scripture is interesting. Their worship had become idolatrous; and for this reason Christ told them “they knew not what they worshipped”.
quote:
And by the way CHrist did not have a propblem with Traditions he had a propblem when the church leaders did not follow but expected the people to follow. Sorry, according to Scripture, that is incorrect. It was precisely the making of binding burdensome laws established by the church hierarchy which Christ said prevented the leaders and those who follow them from entering heaven.
"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."
"Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye compass sea and land to make one proselyte, and when he is made, ye make him twofold more the child of hell than yourselves."
"For they bind heavy burdens and grievous to be borne, and lay them on men's shoulders; but they themselves will not move them with one of their fingers."
_____________________________
“beware lest you lose the substance by grasping at the shadow”
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Eucharist... actual body and blood? - 3/16/2008 8:24:46 AM
|
|
|
facedown
Posts: 907
Joined: 4/12/2005
From: the urban desert
Status: offline
|
kelman
i suppose what i was looking for was is reconcilliation on the following:
you believe that the elements still maintain the same chemical composition. if analyzied in a lab, it's still "bread" and "wine". even without a scientific study - it still tastes, looks, feels, and smells like the elements.
i don't think anyone would argue with this.
however, liturgical churches also affirm that when one partakes of the elements, one is partaking of the life and blood of christ. some use language of transubstintiation, others consubstintiation, and still others are more elusive, but all affirm that christ is "literally" present.
even you seem to affirm that one is somehow communing with god (though exactly what that means to you, remains a little uncertain). but you do suggest that it is not merely a "symbol", even though you seem to demand that things are as they were before. that any notion of mysticism is out of the question.
regardless - you (symbolic), rome (transubstantiation), lutheran (consubstantiation), the east and anglican (mystery) all would say that if you took it to the lab, it's chemical makeup remains the same. and all seem to use some language to suggest that one is actually communing with christ.
::
is this one of those issues where there is no "consequence"? is this a relative issue in your understanding?
_____________________________
-| those who say, don't know. those who know, don't say |-
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Eucharist... actual body and blood? - 3/16/2008 8:26:07 AM
|
|
|
facedown
Posts: 907
Joined: 4/12/2005
From: the urban desert
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: facedown
papa-san
you don't have any thoughts on what the consequences are of folks who believe in a "real presence"? if it's not your concern, why do you care? why do you talk on forums trying to correct what you believe is a "false teaching"? what are the consequences of folks who put their faith in "false teachings"?
nor do you have any thoughts on a time frame as to when the euchrarist was turned into a "ritual". i'm really not suprised; however, you shouldn't make statements that your unwilling to back up. other wise, it's really of no consquence.
what does god "require"? to do justice, to love kindness, and to walk humbly with god.
the lord doesn't take delight in burnt offerings. nor is god served by human hands.
where do you believe the "heavens" are?
are you a reconstructionist?
_____________________________
-| those who say, don't know. those who know, don't say |-
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Eucharist... actual body and blood? - 3/16/2008 5:33:44 PM
|
|
|
Odeliya
Posts: 2390
Joined: 8/10/2005
Status: offline
|
quote:
If I did not have someone to teach/correct me then I could be leading many astray. This is why ordination and the episcopate are important.
Not a guarantee of anything. All that hasn’t prevented Ep-s from ordaining gays, Catholics from molesting kids on a major scale and covering it up and going unbiblical with tons of their practices; Major protst. churches with the similar hierarchical structure from turning local churches into full blown social clubs.
quote:
If I were your pastor I would be there to lead anc correct you, but now I need someone to lead and correct me thats my bishop, now the bishop needs someone to lead and correct him that is the arch bishop and so on.
That works well in theory but not always, rather rarely, in reality. Current system of church hierarchy haven’t prevented abuses of faith, antichristian teachings and phariseeism in CC or modern organized Christianity in general.
Bishop and his boss and the boss of the boss and the top superviser are all humans. They all are prone to mistakes.
quote:
If I am an independent pastor with no backing no oversight then I am free to so what every I want. No one can reign in an independent if he goes astray .
Yes, errors happen in all denoms.
But no, indie churches do not exist in a vacuum – there a lot of control going on, more on a democratic basis, not vertically as much as horizontally, like brothers do.
And that system works better even in secular society( while neither is perfect compare democratic US or UK with Iraq ) 
_____________________________
Proverbs XI:14 Where no counsel is, the people fall: but in the multitude of counselors there is safety.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Eucharist... actual body and blood? - 3/16/2008 7:33:32 PM
|
|
|
Papa-san
Posts: 995
Joined: 4/12/2006
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: facedown
are you a reconstructionist?
I don't know... What constitutes a reconstructionalist?
I am a follower of Christ... That is all
_____________________________
"Discernment demands that we should hold biblical convictions with the most fervent tenacity" John MacArthur
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Eucharist... actual body and blood? - 3/16/2008 10:27:24 PM
|
|
|
Ps103
Posts: 11691
Joined: 4/16/2005
From: Here, now
Status: offline
|
MODERATOR'S NOTE :: ATTENTION PLEASE
A reminder of the topic of this thread:
quote:
This topic is neverending. So as to help keep things from constantly being repeated or asked we've decided to create a perpetual discussion on the topic.
Another item of constant contention between faiths... the Lord's supper, Eucharist, Communion.
Discuss the differences on this point of doctrine.
Please do not reply to this message within the Community.
Please email Community@salemwebnetwork.com with questions, comments, or concerns.
Please do not send me PMs regarding this message.
_____________________________
Fasten your seatbelts...it's going to be a bumpy night.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Eucharist... actual body and blood? - 3/17/2008 3:11:39 AM
|
|
|
kelman
Posts: 3889
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: facedown
however, liturgical churches also affirm that when one partakes of the elements, one is partaking of the life and blood of christ. some use language of transubstintiation, others consubstintiation, and still others are more elusive, but all affirm that christ is "literally" present. I would disagree, if by literally present, you mean Christ is somehow physically present in, under or around the elements.
quote:
even you seem to affirm that one is somehow communing with god (though exactly what that means to you, remains a little uncertain). but you do suggest that it is not merely a "symbol", even though you seem to demand that things are as they were before. that any notion of mysticism is out of the question. God uses the symbols of the bread and wine to recreate a remembrance in the mind of His children the magnificent demonstration of His love, mercy and grace toward them. I see this as a "communion" with God, though, this does not require a literal, physical presence of Christ.
quote:
regardless - you (symbolic), rome (transubstantiation), lutheran (consubstantiation), the east and anglican (mystery) all would say that if you took it to the lab, it's chemical makeup remains the same. and all seem to use some language to suggest that one is actually communing with christ.
is this one of those issues where there is no "consequence"? is this a relative issue in your understanding? We are not saved by our doctrines; but, obviously there are some doctrines which would hinder salvation. Because one believes Christ to be literally physically present is probably not one of them. I say "probably" because some of the beliefs surrounding this doctrine are problematical.
quote:
where do you believe the "heavens" are? You’ve asked this a few times. Tell me, where and what do you believe the “heavens” to be? God's essence, of course, is everywhere, He fills the heavens and the earth. Still, Scripture indicates that the "high and holy One" dwells in a palace or presence-chamber.
_____________________________
“beware lest you lose the substance by grasping at the shadow”
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Eucharist... actual body and blood? - 3/17/2008 7:15:37 AM
|
|
|
facedown
Posts: 907
Joined: 4/12/2005
From: the urban desert
Status: offline
|
kelman
quote:
I would disagree, if by literally present, you mean Christ is somehow physically present in, under or around the elements.
what are you actually disagreeing with? that christ is "literally" present? the statement just prior to what you quoted from my post suggested that i'm unaware of anyone who would argue against the fact that should consecrated elements be taken to the lab, their chemical construction would be shown to be the same as unconsecrated bread. even recognizing this, in the statement you quoted, i suggested that liturgical churches affirm that jesus is literally present.
with alll that in mind, what do you disagree with? is it because your understanding is that jesus is in some sort of physical body, residing on a throne, in some far off place and because he is there, he cannot be here?
even if that's the case (which i'm assuming it is based on your postings), it still doesn't seem to recognize that we affirm the eschatological hope and vision which embraces "jesus on a throne" and yet is still "here" with us, among us, and in us (literally).
yes, god uses the gifts of his good earth as signs to teach us, to guide us, and to remind us. however, communion with christ is quite plainly "literal" - i'm reminded of one of his teachings: abide in me, and i will abide in you. what does this mean to you? that as with your impression of the eucharist, it's symbolic, not literal?
i'm confused as to your phrase "hinder salvation"....it seems to evoke an image of lesser and greater christians, almost an analogy with the masonic lodge where there are numerous degrees of masons, some are 'hindered' and others based on a variety of issues are allowed to be promoted and given more specific, 'right', or 'secret' knowledge.
though, i must admit, that i am well-hearted in your lack of condemnation.
where do i beleive that the heavens are? like you, i understand scripture to use this sort of language to describe the abode of god. and though as you note, there is some imagry of god being in a "chamber" in various apocolyptic writings, the witness of scripture affirms that god is not far from any of us, that we must ascend - that god is here, now, and truly present. god is throughout, but is not, all that is created.
_____________________________
-| those who say, don't know. those who know, don't say |-
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Eucharist... actual body and blood? - 3/17/2008 7:22:10 AM
|
|
|
facedown
Posts: 907
Joined: 4/12/2005
From: the urban desert
Status: offline
|
papa-san
i must admit, i'm a little discouraged that you picked one question to respond to...
for clarification, a reconstructionist is one who essentially beleives that the "church" had somehow "disappeared" sometime after the apostle john's final writing, and was for the most part "not present" for at least 1,500 years, and is now being reconstructed - thus, 1,500 years (or more if one includes much of the church for the past 500 years or so) of the life of the church is not to be trusted, looked towards, or even fellowshiped with, as it was/is not the "true church".
i see some evidence of this in your postings about the eucharist, which is why i asked.
are you like kelman, one who does not condemn those with views other than yourself about the eucharist? or do you take a much stronger stand against any notion that affirms a literal communion with christ? are those who affirm what you would call a "false teaching" false-christians as well?
_____________________________
-| those who say, don't know. those who know, don't say |-
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Eucharist... actual body and blood? - 3/18/2008 2:43:17 AM
|
|
|
kelman
Posts: 3889
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: facedown
quote:
ORIGINAL: kelman
I would disagree, if by literally present, you mean Christ is somehow physically present in, under or around the elements.
what are you actually disagreeing with? that christ is "literally" present? I disagree with you if you mean Christ is literally physically present. Christ is present by virtue of the Holy Spirit as He indwells the believer.
quote:
the statement just prior to what you quoted from my post suggested that i'm unaware of anyone who would argue against the fact that should consecrated elements be taken to the lab, their chemical construction would be shown to be the same as unconsecrated bread. even recognizing this, in the statement you quoted, i suggested that liturgical churches affirm that jesus is literally present. As you've said, there are differing views. So if one of these views proposes, that while the elements are chemically unaltered, they contain the PHYSICAL flesh, blood and soul of Jesus Christ, it is this I disagree with.
quote:
with alll that in mind, what do you disagree with? Hopefully I answered that above.
quote:
is it because your understanding is that jesus is in some sort of physical body, .....and you don't believe Christ has "some sort of physical body?
quote:
residing on a throne, in some far off place and because he is there, he cannot be here? Yes, since the Lord's body (which apparently you don't think exists, is in "some far off place" which it seems you also do not think exists) is there it cannot be here.
quote:
and yet is still "here" with us, among us, and in us (literally). No, Christ's physical body is not literally in you.
quote:
i'm reminded of one of his teachings: abide in me, and i will abide in you. what does this mean to you? that as with your impression of the eucharist, it's symbolic, not literal? As I've said before Christ is present in the believer by virtue of the indwelling of the Holy Spirit. Christ's body is not in the believer. Any number of verses attests to the fact that it is the Spirit of God, the Spirit of Christ which indwells the believer (Rom 8:9).
quote:
i'm confused as to your phrase "hinder salvation"....it seems to evoke an image of lesser and greater christians, almost an analogy with the masonic lodge where there are numerous degrees of masons, some are 'hindered' and others based on a variety of issues are allowed to be promoted and given more specific, 'right', or 'secret' knowledge. No, I’m not talking about secret handshakes :)
I realize we have a different understanding of what it means to be saved or even how one becomes saved. With that in mind, still I’ll ask, is it your intention to say you believe all those who sit in the local churches are actually saved?
quote:
where do i beleive that the heavens are? like you, i understand scripture to use this sort of language to describe the abode of god. and though as you note, there is some imagry of god being in a "chamber" in various apocolyptic writings, the witness of scripture affirms that god is not far from any of us, that we must ascend - that god is here, now, and truly present. god is throughout, but is not, all that is created. We agree God is present in all the world and within the believer. It seems, though, we disagree God actually inhabits a “place” called heaven. He is said, in some respects, to be more especially in some places than in others. The Bible speaks of God dwelling in the land of Israel above all other lands, in Jerusalem above all other cities, in the temple above all other buildings in the city, in the holy of holies above all other apartments of the temple, on the mercy seat over the ark of the covenant above all other places in the holy of holies.
But heaven is His dwelling-place above all other places in the universe; and all those places in which He was said to dwell were types of this. Heaven is a part of creation that God has built to be the place of His presence, His dwelling place forever as He gloriously manifests Himself to all eternity.
_____________________________
“beware lest you lose the substance by grasping at the shadow”
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Eucharist... actual body and blood? - 3/18/2008 6:21:42 AM
|
|
|
facedown
Posts: 907
Joined: 4/12/2005
From: the urban desert
Status: offline
|
kelman
quote:
So if one of these views proposes, that while the elements are chemically unaltered, they contain the PHYSICAL flesh, blood and soul of Jesus Christ, it is this I disagree with
right. so what do you think this means - that the elements are chemically unaltered, but that christ is literally present? certainly, they cannot mean the same thing you would mean, so do you think that maybe something else is affot?
i mean, maybe there reallly isn't anything to actually disagree with, except the words used to paint this picture?
if by "physicial" you mean that it is something one could place under a microscope, or run a variety of tests in a lab, then no.
throughout the gospels and the new testament, the scriptures speak of christ's *literal* presence here - there is no indication that it is by viture, or mediated. certainly, there are other passges that suggest the spirit of god has been "sent", indwells, etc - but these passage doen't negate the other. in addition, if our christology affirms trinitarian theology, then some of what you seem to be suggesting by physicality and locality are simply impossible.
quote:
is it your intention to say you believe all those who sit in the local churches are actually saved?
kelman, i have no clue who is "saved" and who isn't. but i imagine yes, there are folks in the local churches who are saved, are being saved, and will be saved - same goes for folks elsewhere. i guess what caught my attention in your question was the use of the word "all".
i'm not sure that futhering the talk of heaven in this thread is appropriate, but am more than willing to engage in it elsewhere.
pax
_____________________________
-| those who say, don't know. those who know, don't say |-
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Eucharist... actual body and blood? - 3/18/2008 12:53:00 PM
|
|
|
Papa-san
Posts: 995
Joined: 4/12/2006
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: facedown
papa-san
i must admit, i'm a little discouraged that you picked one question to respond to... This I understand... I find many times that my challenging questions get passed over so that irrelevant things get answered.quote:
for clarification, a reconstructionist is one who essentially beleives that the "church" had somehow "disappeared" sometime after the apostle john's final writing, and was for the most part "not present" for at least 1,500 years, and is now being reconstructed - thus, 1,500 years (or more if one includes much of the church for the past 500 years or so) of the life of the church is not to be trusted, looked towards, or even fellowshiped with, as it was/is not the "true church". Then I definitely am not a reconstructionalist. It has been in existence ever since Pentecost. However, as the years passed, it changed more and more from what Jesus Christ said it was supposed to be. By the end of the second or third century, the leaders had it messed up beyond repair. Things just kept changing more and more until it manifested itself as the thing the Catholics (all Orthodox, actually) call the 'church', even though it's similarity to what was established at Pentecost is all but gone. So, in answer to your question, it was never gone... just wrong...quote:
i see some evidence of this in your postings about the eucharist, which is why i asked.
are you like kelman, one who does not condemn those with views other than yourself about the eucharist? or do you take a much stronger stand against any notion that affirms a literal communion with christ? are those who affirm what you would call a "false teaching" false-christians as well?
I don't condemn anyone. Every human on this planet is equally entitled to hold their personal views and beliefs. Who am I to judge anyone? I'll call a spade a spade, but I don't judge anyone for it. As far as judging, I am the only one I'll condemn, and I imagine I screw even that up a lot anyways...
As far as the eucharist goes, I follow what scripture says about it and don't try to inject my will or fantasies into it. Jesus was alive and well when He did the last supper with His apostles. Nowhere in scripture does it say He had bite-marks in Him afterwards, so He obviously meant what He said figuratively. It was yet another metaphorical example much like a parable to make it easier for His followers to understand. Even so, humans couldn't quite handle it, so they made it into something different than He made it. It's just one proof of many that shows the old orthodox church(s) isn't what so many millions think it is.
That's why someone had to come along and do some correction, and that's where the Protestants come in. (Yet, just like people, they have done the same thing themselves in different areas, and that's why there is so much divisiveness amongst so many denominations.) Very few are willing to take Gods word at face value as He intended. Too many people feel they need to have concrete answers to every question in scripture. Evidently God wanted us to just not know a few things. We know all we need to even if many of our questions aren't answered. We get into trouble when we try to formulate answers from theory instead of from scripture... Orthodoxy has stacked up quite a pile of theoretical 'proofs' That's why their doctrines differ so greatly from Gods word... But, at the heart of it, they seem to believe that Jesus was who and what He said He was, so I believe they are probably a part of the body of Christ.
_____________________________
"Discernment demands that we should hold biblical convictions with the most fervent tenacity" John MacArthur
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Eucharist... actual body and blood? - 3/18/2008 1:45:46 PM
|
|
|
MichiganCatholic
Posts: 68
Joined: 2/23/2008
Status: offline
|
Papa-san,
I like your comment about the bite marks. I'll never look at pictures of the Last Supper the same!
In my experience, it is often our evangelical brothers who act as if every answer is in the Bible, clear as day, and anyone with a 5th grade education can read and see it. Ironically, it's the Catholic usually saying things like, "it's figurative," "look at the context," "don't take it literally," etc. When the Bible says God created the world in seven days, contrary to everything we learn from science, evangelicals say "there it is in the Bible!", but when Catholics interpret "this is my body" as "this is my body" evangelicals act like we're stupid.
< Message edited by MichiganCatholic -- 3/18/2008 1:52:40 PM >
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Eucharist... actual body and blood? - 3/18/2008 1:54:33 PM
|
|
|
texastweet
Posts: 376
Joined: 4/13/2005
Status: offline
|
quote:
Then I definitely am not a reconstructionalist.
quote:
it was never gone... just wrong...messed up beyond repair...
So beyond repair and being wrong doesn't mean it was gone? Your own words expose yourself as a reconstructionalist. Your view of history is just a little fuzzy, but what the heck it must make you feel better...
Otis
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Eucharist... actual body and blood? - 3/18/2008 4:49:01 PM
|
|
|
Papa-san
Posts: 995
Joined: 4/12/2006
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: texastweet
quote:
Then I definitely am not a reconstructionalist.
quote:
it was never gone... just wrong...messed up beyond repair...
So beyond repair and being wrong doesn't mean it was gone? Your own words expose yourself as a reconstructionalist. Your view of history is just a little fuzzy, but what the heck it must make you feel better...
Otis
You speak as though being a reconstructionalist is a bad thing... Why? Maybe I can be seen that way. That's OK, cause SOMEBODY has to fix it! The definition I was given said that they believe it was GONE for a period of time. I don't believe it was gone, just twisted...
No, being wrong and messed up beyond repair doesn't mean gone: God promised He would provide us with His word, and He (obviously) is good for His word. As long as that remains in existence, the 'Church' can do whatever it wants to. (and it has) But, through it all, His word remains pure, and is used by us to know when 'churches' are teaching bad doctrine and heretical views.
My view of history is crystal clear, and I'm not viewing the twisted thing through stained-glass(es). Trust me... It doesn't make me feel better... It usually makes me very, very sad...
< Message edited by Papa-san -- 3/18/2008 4:55:14 PM >
_____________________________
"Discernment demands that we should hold biblical convictions with the most fervent tenacity" John MacArthur
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Eucharist... actual body and blood? - 3/18/2008 5:00:42 PM
|
|
|
Papa-san
Posts: 995
Joined: 4/12/2006
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: MichiganCatholic
Papa-san,
I like your comment about the bite marks. I'll never look at pictures of the Last Supper the same!
In my experience, it is often our evangelical brothers who act as if every answer is in the Bible, clear as day, and anyone with a 5th grade education can read and see it. Ironically, it's the Catholic usually saying things like, "it's figurative," "look at the context," "don't take it literally," etc. When the Bible says God created the world in seven days, contrary to everything we learn from science, evangelicals say "there it is in the Bible!", but when Catholics interpret "this is my body" as "this is my body" evangelicals act like we're stupid.
I guess this is where I differ from many of our evangelical brothers. The Bible does NOT contain ALL the answers. However, those things that it does not answer are NOT to be used to build doctrine upon, because the answers we need are ALL found in there. (If it isn't crystal clear, we don't need to worry our selves about it.)
I guess it's hard for me to understand how some day I will be present within a man who is sowing seed... But Jesus said so... must mean it was literal, so we can bank on it!
Oh... wit a minute... I think he said this to give us a mental picture that we humans could understand... Exactly like when He said "This is My Body"...
(Sorry... tex set me off a bit...)
< Message edited by Papa-san -- 3/18/2008 5:08:26 PM >
_____________________________
"Discernment demands that we should hold biblical convictions with the most fervent tenacity" John MacArthur
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Eucharist... actual body and blood? - 3/18/2008 11:28:24 PM
|
|
|
texastweet
Posts: 376
Joined: 4/13/2005
Status: offline
< | | |
Forum Tools
Printable Version
