Her immaculate foot

[thessalonian]

Well CJ I guess if you say it it must be so. :-?

 

[cj]

Well CJ I guess if you say it it must be so. :-?

No Thessalonian, again you are in error. For the proper thought would be, "If what cj says is supported by what scripture say, then I should bring it before the Lord and have Him arbitrate the matter in my heart."


Thessalonian, the problem you have with me is that what I say I can back up with scripture, whether or not you feel my interpretation is correct. But you have a hard time finding scripture to support what you say.

Lets just stick to the scriptures.

In love,
cj

 

[Orthodox Christian]

[quote="Orthodox Christian":b391a]The bible says the Eucharist is the Body and Blood, skeptics be damned.

No OC, the bible says no such thing.

Again you lie.



In love,
cj

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. And he took the cup, and gave thanks, and gave [it] to them, saying, Drink ye all of it; For this is my blood of the new testament, which is shed for many for the remission of sins.

How strange: I read the gospel literally, and the one who allegorizes the very same gospel tells me not that I've misinterpreted the gospel, but that I'm a liar.

Show me the word Eucharist[/quote:b391a]

Gladly.
Luke 22:17
And he took the cup, and gave thanks, and said, Take this, and divide [it] among yourselves:
You recall this being the actions of the Lord on the night He was betrayed. See the words "gave thanks"...in Greek, eucharistas. Is it the Greek term you object to?

and all the so-called doctrines that the apostate institutions have joined to this word, in scripture and I will say that your speaking is true.

Our doctrine says that the Lord gave thanks and said "Take eat, this is my Body." This is because we find this in the scriptures verbatim. We do not define what happens when we bless and give thanks, only that He is in it, as He said.
What about that do you object to?

Until you do, I hold that to declare "The bible says the Eucharist is the Body and Blood, skeptics be damned." is a lie.

Skip the last anathema. Does not the scripture say "This is my Body/Blood?"

See OC, I'm fully aware of what the bible says regarding the body and blood of our Lord, but I am just as fully aware of the gross doctrine that has come out of fallen men and become associated with what the bible says about this matter.

I'm not sure what teaching you are specifically objecting to.

If you leave this matter at what the bible says and not add to it then we will be on the ground of oneness. But when you add to it, such as declaring that the bible says.... "the Eucharist" (which includes all that man has connected to this word)..... is the body and blood of Jesus, then you turn a truth into a lie.

Again, this vagueness of yours does not engender discussion or understanding. Is it His body or not? And if it is, who can define or quantify that?

Orthodox, I absolutely receive you in Christ and the Christ in you, but the rest be damned according to God's will and carried out intention as declared in the bible. This is the same principle God uses for all things; what contains Christ is received, what doesn't is damned.

Likewise, just apply this principle to any teaching of the body and blood of Christ.

I appreciate the spirit and tone of your objection. I myself object to unnecessary, unbiblical, or tortured adornment of simple truth. If you have a specific objection, please feel free to put it forth, and I will respond respectfully, prayerfully, and honestly.

I also receive you in Christ, and may He be glorified in or conversation above the puny intellect of James.

This is the orthodox way.

See, in reality there is no upper case "O" in the word orthodox, for there is only one Name a believer holds to.


I say it again, I fully believe that I am more orthodox in my christian belief than you.


In love,
cj

Perhaps you are more orthodox than I, this is for God to judge. Ortho- straight- doxa- glory. Correct worship, correct glory. As for correct doctrine, let us continue to examine all in the light of scripture.

 

[thessalonian]

Well CJ I guess if you say it it must be so. :-?

No Thessalonian, again you are in error. For the proper thought would be, "If what cj says is supported by what scripture say, then I should bring it before the Lord and have Him arbitrate the matter in my heart."

I have read enough of your posts to know that you have not given the same courtesy you fault me with. I have brought the protestant arguements before the Lord and given them far more consideration that you have ever given the Catholic ones I will bet. From what I can see your rejection is based first on venom.

Thessalonian, the problem you have with me is that what I say I can back up with scripture, whether or not you feel my interpretation is correct. But you have a hard time finding scripture to support what you say.

Lets just stick to the scriptures.

In love,
cj

Just stick to the scriptures? You do? I see more handwaving from you than a queen on a float.
I quote scripture to support my beliefs more than 95% of Protestants. I would even wager I quote it more than you to support my beliefs. You just deny, deny, deny. You bear false witness my good man. Knowing your Bible so well I trust I can assume you know what this means.

 

[cj]

I asked,...... "Show me the word Eucharist."

And OC responds......

Gladly.
Luke 22:17
And he took the cup, and gave thanks, and said, Take this, and divide [it] among yourselves:
You recall this being the actions of the Lord on the night He was betrayed. See the words "gave thanks"...in Greek, eucharistas. Is it the Greek term you object to?

Not at all OC,....... its the capitalizing of the letter "E" of this word, with the definite intention of making it a noun, which is not what the original is.

Which is the typical way of deception for the religionists and the false doctrines, traditions, and forms they hold onto.

The fact is OC, your words have shown the glaring error in what you said, for the word Eucharist is not ever found in the scriptures; unless you also want to say the the phrase "gave thanks" means something in and of itself other than vocalization of one's appreciation for something.

Furthermore, when Jesus "gave thanks" it was not in the eating and drinking that He gave thanks, but in the all-encompassing supply of the Father. The focus was on the Father and His supply, and not the bread and wine.

Jesus gave thanks to the Father.... for..... the bread and wine (the meal), He did not give thanks by participating in the consumption of the bread and wine.

But the false doctrine attempts to make the "eucharisteo/tia " define the form of coming forward and receiving these specific items, which is a lie.

Our doctrine says that the Lord gave thanks and said "Take eat, this is my Body." This is because we find this in the scriptures verbatim. We do not define what happens when we bless and give thanks, only that He is in it, as He said.
What about that do you object to?

I believe that it is in Portugal (or Spain) that a glass-encased shrine can be found, honoring a piece of flesh that is claimed to have come from the Eucharist wafer.

This is how far some will go to preserve a lie.

Jesus is not "in" any piece of man-made product, Jesus is in your regenerated spirit.

The remembrance of Jesus is expressed outwardly and corporately when saints gather together and participate in a symbolic act of this particular meal.

But it is in the remembrance that He is found, and not in the symbolic food.

Skip the last anathema. Does not the scripture say "This is my Body/Blood?"

Sure does, but as Jews, would Christ give fellow Jews human flesh to eat and human blood to drink?

Additionally, the bible absolutely does not say that the Eucharist is the body and blood of Jesus, it says that to "eucharistas" is to give thanks.

In fact, before Jesus dealt with the fish and the loaves He also gave "eucharistas"; and there are many other times other than at the "body and blood" meal that this word is used.

So tell me, when you eat fish and bread do you call it the Eucharist?

I'm not sure what teaching you are specifically objecting to.

The one that teaches that the "e" in eucharistas is to be capitalized.

Again, this vagueness of yours does not engender discussion or understanding. Is it His body or not? And if it is, who can define or quantify that?

No, it is not, it is His giving of thanks.

I appreciate the spirit and tone of your objection. I myself object to unnecessary, unbiblical, or tortured adornment of simple truth. If you have a specific objection, please feel free to put it forth, and I will respond respectfully, prayerfully, and honestly.

I also receive you in Christ, and may He be glorified in or conversation above the puny intellect of James.

I have no "objection" OC, I am simply pointing out the truth about the false teaching that attempts to make something appear to be what it isn't.

Or in other words, deceptive teaching.

Perhaps you are more orthodox than I, this is for God to judge. Ortho- straight- doxa- glory. Correct worship, correct glory. As for correct doctrine, let us continue to examine all in the light of scripture.

How clever OC,....... but take better note of what I said. Or in other words, try and be honest to the context within which something is said;

"I am more orthodox in my christian belief than you."

Since Greek is not the language we are speaking here on these boards, it is normal for me to use words according to their present and widely understood meaning. The word orthodox is one such word, and is generally understood to mean something along the lines of "original", "earliest", "first", "initial", etc.

It is certainly not understood as correct worship/correct glory.

Furthermore, regarding its relationship to doctrine,......

"The word orthodoxy, from the Greek ortho ('right', 'correct') and doxa ('thought', 'teaching'), is typically used to refer to the correct theological or doctrinal observance of religion, as determined by some overseeing body. The term did not conventially exist with any degree of formality (in the sense in which it is now used) prior to the advent of Christianity in the Greek-speaking world, though the word does occasionally show up in ancient literature in other, somewhat similar contexts...."

Now you could contend that this is "orthodoxy" and not "orthodox", but I really thought we were beyond this silliness.


OC, I only ever use the phrase "more orthodox that you" when I'm speaking with you. Its my way of repositioning the falsity of your claim "Orthodox Christian."

Fact is, there really is no such thing as a orthodox Christian, for a Christian is just Christ expressed in and through men.

And Christ is just Christ.


But back to the Eucharist thing,.... its as erroneous as any false doctrine to come out of religion.

You know, one day I was attending a first communion at a Romanist synagogue and after it I got into a conversation with a "deacon" who was telling people not to stand on the stage to take photos.

Anyway, when asked why he said because it was holy ground. Yet I noticed he had no problem standing on it, so I asked him if the shoes he was wearing were holy shoes. One thing led to another and eventually our conversation got around to the wafer host matter. It came out that the box that held the wafers was kept in a room next to the platform and I asked him what would happen if I tried to go see this box in which that which would play host to Jesus was kept. His answer is that he would stop me physically, even if it meant fighting me.

I just shook my head as I walked away from this poor man, one who in ignorance thought he was rich.



See OC, I fully understand the motive behind the capitalizing of the "E", it so Satan can continue to kill, steal, and destroy.

Much like Satan does with the capitalizing of the letters "Catholic", "Orthodox", "Evangelical", "Prostestant", "Lutheren", and on and on.


In love,
cj

 

[Lewis]

You know, one day I was attending a first communion at a Romanist synagogue and after it I got into a conversation with a "deacon" who was telling people not to stand on the stage to take photos.

Anyway, when asked why he said because it was holy ground. Yet I noticed he had no problem standing on it, so I asked him if the shoes he was wearing were holy shoes.

:D
That was funny, the first laugh, that I had today.

 

[Orthodox Christian]

I asked,...... "Show me the word Eucharist."

And OC responds......

Gladly.
Luke 22:17
And he took the cup, and gave thanks, and said, Take this, and divide [it] among yourselves:
You recall this being the actions of the Lord on the night He was betrayed. See the words "gave thanks"...in Greek, eucharistas. Is it the Greek term you object to?

Not at all OC,....... its the capitalizing of the letter "E" of this word, with the definite intention of making it a noun, which is not what the original is.

The "original" had neither capital or miniscule- nor had it punctuation or even breaks between the words. Bear in mind the expression "Eucharist" is capitalized because it is found to be what the action was called by both Christ and Paul (remember 1 Corintians 11? eucharistas, He gave thanks). It's name, given since then has been "Lord's Supper" (not scriptural), Last Supper (also not scriptural, for it was not the last, but the first), Communion (descriptive, not verbatim scripture).
No, CJ, your argument is completely foolish and utterly defeated.

Which is the typical way of deception for the religionists and the false doctrines, traditions, and forms they hold onto.

A typical manner of deception these days is to appeal to common ignorance- an argument you've used again here.

The fact is OC, your words have shown the glaring error in what you said, for the word Eucharist is not ever found in the scriptures; unless you also want to say the the phrase "gave thanks" means something in and of itself other than vocalization of one's appreciation for something.

See above- your own embarrassing ignorance is the element exposed here. You cannot do spell lames and punctuation corrections on a language which had neither punctuation nor rules of capitalization. As to whether it is appropriate to capitalize an action instituted by the Lord, such as Holy Matrimony- well, that's a matter of opinion, of how much reverence one will apply to the grace of Christ acting in the world.

Furthermore, when Jesus "gave thanks" it was not in the eating and drinking that He gave thanks, but in the all-encompassing supply of the Father. The focus was on the Father and His supply, and not the bread and wine.

Is that what you wish to call the Eucharist- The All-Encompassing Supply of the Father?
Whatever floats your boat. Of course, our name is biblical, yours is interpretive.

Now who's the religionist, the one who quotes scripture, or the one who insists that others quote him on the scripture?
The answer is obvious.

Jesus gave thanks to the Father.... for..... the bread and wine (the meal), He did not give thanks by participating in the consumption of the bread and wine.

But the false doctrine attempts to make the "eucharisteo/tia " define the form of coming forward and receiving these specific items, which is a lie.

Did the apostles eat of the bread and the Cup, or did they not? You need concern yourself with that, not your vain imaginations on what Christ does with His ration.

Our doctrine says that the Lord gave thanks and said "Take eat, this is my Body." This is because we find this in the scriptures verbatim. We do not define what happens when we bless and give thanks, only that He is in it, as He said.
What about that do you object to?

I believe that it is in Portugal (or Spain) that a glass-encased shrine can be found, honoring a piece of flesh that is claimed to have come from the Eucharist wafer.

This is how far some will go to preserve a lie.

Apparently, you object to nothing that I said, only to some arcane practice in some remote place that has nothing to do with the Orthodox Church nor this conversation.
Way to miss the mark with vigor.

Jesus is not "in" any piece of man-made product, Jesus is in your regenerated spirit.

The remembrance of Jesus is expressed outwardly and corporately when saints gather together and participate in a symbolic act of this particular meal.

You are closely related to both gnostics and atheists in your position on this matter. Your incredulity does not change the scripture. I believe He was literally crucified and rose forever- I belive a literal whale swallowed Jonah, and I believe that Christ is literally in the communion of the Church, as He said it was.

"Regenerated spirit" is an unscriptural amalgam of New agey sounding words, put forth to cover your lack of belief in the miraculous. Everything is spiritualized in your view, and the physical world untouched. We believe that He is returning and returning and invading and inhabiting, through things as base as bread and wine, and as divine as human soul and body.

Skip the last anathema. Does not the scripture say "This is my Body/Blood?"

Sure does, but as Jews, would Christ give fellow Jews human flesh to eat and human blood to drink?

Consult John 6 for your answer. The truth of the matter still alienates the proud, the arrogant, and the irreverent.

Additionally, the bible absolutely does not say that the Eucharist is the body and blood of Jesus, it says that to "eucharistas" is to give thanks.

In fact, before Jesus dealt with the fish and the loaves He also gave "eucharistas"; and there are many other times other than at the "body and blood" meal that this word is used. So tell me, when you eat fish and bread do you call it the Eucharist?

Your arrogance has been overtaken by your ignorance. What fish is there in a Passover Seder? Why did Christ long to eat the meal with the apostles, as He said? Because it wasn't about food and drink- it was about a New Covenant in His blood, a betrothal cup drank until the actual Wedding Supper can be eaten.

And you claim to have a Semitic background?

Even to this day, the Jews break the matzoh in three, and look for the ofekomen (I have come). No fish, partner, but the giving of thanks is for the memorial to His coming- past, present, future. His coming in the flesh, not in some gnostic spiritualized symbolic gobbledy-gook.

I'm not sure what teaching you are specifically objecting to.

The one that teaches that the "e" in eucharistas is to be capitalized.

Objection noted, and appropriately disposed.

Again, this vagueness of yours does not engender discussion or understanding. Is it His body or not? And if it is, who can define or quantify that?

No, it is not, it is His giving of thanks.

And here I thought you were a literalist. Is Calvin more orthodox than the Orthodox? I don't think so. More agnostic? Yes.

I appreciate the spirit and tone of your objection. I myself object to unnecessary, unbiblical, or tortured adornment of simple truth. If you have a specific objection, please feel free to put it forth, and I will respond respectfully, prayerfully, and honestly.

I also receive you in Christ, and may He be glorified in or conversation above the puny intellect of James.

I have no "objection" OC, I am simply pointing out the truth about the false teaching that attempts to make something appear to be what it isn't.

Or in other words, deceptive teaching.

Calvin and Zwingli have made your argument, and did a better job of ding so, some 500 years ago. They were wrong, and so are you.

Perhaps you are more orthodox than I, this is for God to judge. Ortho- straight- doxa- glory. Correct worship, correct glory. As for correct doctrine, let us continue to examine all in the light of scripture.

How clever OC,....... but take better note of what I said. Or in other words, try and be honest to the context within which something is said;

"I am more orthodox in my christian belief than you."

Since Greek is not the language we are speaking here on these boards, it is normal for me to use words according to their present and widely understood meaning. The word orthodox is one such word, and is generally understood to mean something along the lines of "original", "earliest", "first", "initial", etc.

Essentially, admitting ignorance as you have, you should shut up and learn, not tell us what we mean by words we've used for 2000 years. K? Great.

It is certainly not understood as correct worship/correct glory.

Furthermore, regarding its relationship to doctrine,......

"The word orthodoxy, from the Greek ortho ('right', 'correct') and doxa ('thought', 'teaching'), is typically used to refer to the correct theological or doctrinal observance of religion, as determined by some overseeing body. The term did not conventially exist with any degree of formality (in the sense in which it is now used) prior to the advent of Christianity in the Greek-speaking world, though the word does occasionally show up in ancient literature in other, somewhat similar contexts...."

Now you could contend that this is "orthodoxy" and not "orthodox", but I really thought we were beyond this silliness.

How great the fortune of those here that they can benefit from the actual meaning of terms, rather than the imputed meanings given by the ignorant. 'Christian' once meant one who both believed and did as Christ did- now it means religious system. I'm happy to point out the more ancient meaning there as well. Set your pride aside and learn something, Clyde.

What is needed on this thread also is someone who is well versed in ancient Hebrew and Hebraic customs, so that we can appreciate fully the context of the eucharistic celebration instituted by Christ. I will gladly yield the floor to somone of such expertise.

OC, I only ever use the phrase "more orthodox that you" when I'm speaking with you. Its my way of repositioning the falsity of your claim "Orthodox Christian."

In other words, SHAMELESS SELF-PROMOTION on your part. Hell, I knew that. When I use the term "Orthodox Christian," I mean it in the sense that Paul did when he referred to himself as doulos (bond slave). I am a bondslave of the Lord, not of my own prideful, self-promoting opinion-wielding such as you exemplify daily.

Fact is, there really is no such thing as a orthodox Christian, for a Christian is just Christ expressed in and through men.

And Christ is just Christ.

Christ established a Church, which you hate and malign. My orthodoxy is found in submitting myself to His authority, including but not exclusively that found on the earth. Your so-called orthodoxy is so-called by you. Where are your 2 or three witnesses? Let us examine your claims in the light of scripture.

But back to the Eucharist thing,.... its as erroneous as any false doctrine to come out of religion.

You know, one day I was attending a first communion at a Romanist synagogue and after it I got into a conversation with a "deacon" who was telling people not to stand on the stage to take photos.

Anyway, when asked why he said because it was holy ground. Yet I noticed he had no problem standing on it, so I asked him if the shoes he was wearing were holy shoes. One thing led to another and eventually our conversation got around to the wafer host matter. It came out that the box that held the wafers was kept in a room next to the platform and I asked him what would happen if I tried to go see this box in which that which would play host to Jesus was kept. His answer is that he would stop me physically, even if it meant fighting me.

I just shook my head as I walked away from this poor man, one who in ignorance thought he was rich.

I see you have the same rapport with people in real life as you do here. I have never asked a question, as a guest in someone else's house, which led them to take such a defensive posture with me.

What sort of person causes a scene at someone else's celebration? A pig, ladies and gentlemen, a selfish and obnoxious rectum. I'm sure you feel justified in your action, though, as you brag of it here.

If you had insited on coming back to our altar, I would NOT resist you physically, for to do so would be self-contradictory (participating in the unholy with the unrighteous, in defense of the holy). Not that I haven't encountered antagonistic and socially impaired people such as yourself during church meetings- I have. There are fools and haters everywhere.

When at the house of another Christian, I honor their requests so as to not scandalize Christ. You really ought consider this approach.

See OC, I fully understand the motive behind the capitalizing of the "E", it so Satan can continue to kill, steal, and destroy.

Much like Satan does with the capitalizing of the letters "Catholic", "Orthodox", "Evangelical", "Prostestant", "Lutheren", and on and on.

Satan, the Lord of punctuation? I think he was much more active in your irrevernent and rude disrespect of a first communion than he ever is in the typing of letters.

In love,
cj

You must be a real treat, pissing on people's important events and so forth in the name of Christ.

 

[Vic C.]

In other words, SHAMELESS SELF-PROMOTION on your part. H*ll, I knew that. When I use the term "Orthodox Christian," I mean it in the sense that Paul did when he referred to himself as doulos (bond slave). I am a bondslave of the Lord, not of my own prideful, self-promoting opinion-wielding such as you exemplify daily. ...

... You must be a real treat, p*ssing on people's important events and so forth in the name of Christ.

So this is the way we conduct ourselves on a Christian Forum and in the name of the Orthodox Church and then using the foul language in the same sentence where you use the word Christ?

:o

I have no further comments other than to please refrain from using such language; if not for yourself, at least for those of us who have to read your posts.

Thank you. :-?

 

[thessalonian]

Satan capitalizes? Captialization is against the Bible? : Man, that's nutz. I hear more and more ridiculous claimes by non Catholics every day to puff themselves up over others, going beyond what is written.

 

[Orthodox Christian]

In other words, SHAMELESS SELF-PROMOTION on your part. H*ll, I knew that. When I use the term "Orthodox Christian," I mean it in the sense that Paul did when he referred to himself as doulos (bond slave). I am a bondslave of the Lord, not of my own prideful, self-promoting opinion-wielding such as you exemplify daily. ...

... You must be a real treat, p*ssing on people's important events and so forth in the name of Christ.

So this is the way we conduct ourselves on a Christian Forum and in the name of the Orthodox Church and then using the foul language in the same sentence where you use the word Christ?

:o

I have no further comments other than to please refrain from using such language; if not for yourself, at least for those of us who have to read your posts.

Thank you. :-?

Let the reader judge between me and thee: what is the greater sin-

mild off-color language

or a 'man' disrupting a first communion, an event for an 8 or 9 year-old and their family.

It would seem that the latter is obviously more heinous...

Yet, I see in my signature the symbol of His suffering and ultimate triumph, and I am reminded that I sign my posts as if He was inspiring them...and I am cut to the heart, knowing that Christ does not so conduct Himself. I have, therefore, sinned against heaven, and repent.
I shall not edit my words, but leave them as a testimony to my weakness.

Thanks to Vic for the rebuke. It is an act of faith and kindness to rebuke a friend in folly by appealing to their conscience.

Edited on Friday, Oct 14

 

[thessalonian]

I certainly wouldn't want to be caught blaspheming and degrading the body, blood, soul, and divinity of our Lord. Better stay away from any cloud for the next few days.

 

[cj]

The "original" had neither capital or miniscule- nor had it punctuation or even breaks between the words. Bear in mind the expression "Eucharist" is capitalized because it is found to be what the action was called by both Christ and Paul (remember 1 Corintians 11? eucharistas, He gave thanks). It's name, given since then has been "Lord's Supper" (not scriptural), Last Supper (also not scriptural, for it was not the last, but the first), Communion (descriptive, not verbatim scripture).
No, CJ, your argument is completely foolish and utterly defeated.

Absolutely not OC, you present nothing other than more nonesense.

There was simply not intention of the writer for the word to mean anything other than the giving of thanks for provision.


Oh,....... by the way,........ those who I gather with refer to the meeting as the Lord's table meeting. Which it is a remembance of.

Think about it OC,.... the Lord's table, and not the Lord's Supper, or the Last Supper, or Communion, or Eucharist,.... just a meeting that remembers His meeting with the apostles at which they gave.... thanks..... broke bread and drank wine.

Tell me, was it not the Lord who made it all possible? Was it not His table set before the saints?

A typical manner of deception these days is to appeal to common ignorance- an argument you've used again here.

Then you must hold yourself in more ignorance as you cannot refute it.

See above- your own embarrassing ignorance is the element exposed here. You cannot do spell lames and punctuation corrections on a language which had neither punctuation nor rules of capitalization. As to whether it is appropriate to capitalize an action instituted by the Lord, such as Holy Matrimony- well, that's a matter of opinion, of how much reverence one will apply to the grace of Christ acting in the world.

Absolutely it a matter of opinion,......... fellow slave.

But tell me, since when do we slaves hold to our opinion?

Right here you take liberty where none is given, and you do so for your own gain and not the Lord's gain.

This is why the religionist are referred to as theives by the Lord.

Is that what you wish to call the Eucharist- The All-Encompassing Supply of the Father?
Whatever floats your boat. Of course, our name is biblical, yours is interpretive.

You worship that which is absolutely unbiblical OC, and have proven so with your own words regarding the Eucharist being a development of you opinion and not something held in the scriptures.

Now who's the religionist, the one who quotes scripture, or the one who insists that others quote him on the scripture?
The answer is obvious.

You continue to sound foolish OC,....... nowhere in scripture is there any support for the false doctrine you hold to.

Did the apostles eat of the bread and the Cup, or did they not? You need concern yourself with that, not your vain imaginations on what Christ does with His ration.

You missed the point OC,.... when Jesus gave thanks (eucharistas) He did so for all things that the Father had provided. The eating of the bread and the drinking of the wine came after.

Our doctrine says that the Lord gave thanks and said "Take eat, this is my Body." This is because we find this in the scriptures verbatim. We do not define what happens when we bless and give thanks, only that He is in it, as He said.
What about that do you object to?

I believe that it is in Portugal (or Spain) that a glass-encased shrine can be found, honoring a piece of flesh that is claimed to have come from the Eucharist wafer.

This is how far some will go to preserve a lie.

Apparently, you object to nothing that I said, only to some arcane practice in some remote place that has nothing to do with the Orthodox Church nor this conversation.
Way to miss the mark with vigor.[/quote]

After all that I have said you make this silly meaninless remark.

You are closely related to both gnostics and atheists in your position on this matter. Your incredulity does not change the scripture. I believe He was literally crucified and rose forever- I belive a literal whale swallowed Jonah, and I believe that Christ is literally in the communion of the Church, as He said it was.

And this literal communion is in our regenerated spirit, just as the scriptures clearly say.

Communion is a living thing, your beloved anti-Christ Eucharist is as dead as the lies you ttempt to perpetuate in your speaking.

As for you remarks about me being close to Gnostics and atheists,..... it exposes your desperation stemming from having no truth to support this lie you speak of.

"Regenerated spirit" is an unscriptural amalgam of New agey sounding words, put forth to cover your lack of belief in the miraculous.

You get worse by the second,...... silly fellow, regeneration is about as miraculous as it gets.

As for the term "regenerated spirit" being unscriptural,..... lets allow scripture to answer. But please,..... note that unlike the way of the anti-Christ religionists, such as the Orthodox,..... I have not capitalize the phrase.

To scripture oh darkened one,....

John  3 : 6,

"That which is born of the flesh is flesh, and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit.

The first Spirit mentioned here is the divine Spirit, the Holy Spirit of God, and the second spirit is the human spirit, the regenerated spirit of man. Regeneration is accomplished in the human spirit by the Holy Spirit of God with God's life, the uncreated eternal life. Thus, to be regenerated is to have the divine, eternal life mingled one with the human, natural life, as the new source and new element of a new person.

1 Peter  1 : 3

"Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who according to His great mercy has regenerated us unto a living hope through the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead,..."

Regeneration, like redemption and justification, is an aspect of God's full salvation. Redemption and justification solve our problem with God and reconcile us to God; regeneration enlivens us with God's life, bringing us into a relationship of life, an organic union, with God.

Hence, regeneration issues and results in a living hope. Such regeneration is accomplished through the resurrection of Christ from the dead. "The resurrection of Christ, bringing in life and the gift of the life-giving Spirit, is that which potentiates the new birth into a living hope" (Alford).

Romans  8 : 9

".... But you are not in the flesh, but in the spirit, if indeed the Spirit of God dwells in you. Yet if anyone does not have the Spirit of Christ, he is not of Him."

1 Corinthians 6:17

"But he who is joined to the Lord is one spirit."

1 Corinthians 5:5

"To deliver such a one to Satan for the destruction of his flesh, that his spirit may be saved in the day of the Lord."


And there is much more in scripture regrding this matter.


All believers have a regenerated spirit OC.

Everything is spiritualized in your view, and the physical world untouched. We believe that He is returning and returning and invading and inhabiting, through things as base as bread and wine, and as divine as human soul and body.

I know you do, but beliving it does not make it the truth.

Jesus has come to dwell in a man's regenerated spirit,...... what more do you want Him to do.

How assinine is it to think that after having God come to dwell in all His fullness in you, you still have need of Him entering into you via a piece of man-made bread.

Yet its understandable, as it serves the purpose of meeting your natural need to make the false claim to having done something for your salvation.

Consult John 6 for your answer. The truth of the matter still alienates the proud, the arrogant, and the irreverent.

Believe what you want, Jesus would not give men human flesh to eat and blood to drink.

Your arrogance has been overtaken by your ignorance. What fish is there in a Passover Seder? Why did Christ long to eat the meal with the apostles, as He said? Because it wasn't about food and drink- it was about a New Covenant in His blood, a betrothal cup drank until the actual Wedding Supper can be eaten.

Poor OC, you missed my point again..... tell me, how many times is the word eucharistas used in the NT? Only for describing the Lord's table meeting? No, it is used in other places to describe when He gave thanks, such as when He dealt with the fish and the loaves of bread.

Why have you attempted to change what I was speaking of? I never said that the symbolism in the bread and wine is not of the Passover and the New Covenant.

Don't lie and place words in my mouth.

And you claim to have a Semitic background?

I claim nothing but Christ, my human background is what it is.

Even to this day, the Jews break the matzoh in three, and look for the ofekomen (I have come). No fish, partner, but the giving of thanks is for the memorial to His coming- past, present, future. His coming in the flesh, not in some gnostic spiritualized symbolic gobbledy-gook.

Blind one,...... go research the context of the other verses where the word eucharistas was used in the NT, and then come back and tell us what you found.

Objection noted, and appropriately disposed.

Only by your ignorance/blindness. The fact remains, your beloved Eucharist is a lie from the pit of hell.

Calvin and Zwingli have made your argument, and did a better job of ding so, some 500 years ago. They were wrong, and so are you.

You are blind to the truth contained in scriptures, as exposes in your speaking throughout these boards.

You worship little pictures with kisses, and uphold the teachings of Satan.

Given the foundation you stand upon, I am happy that in your "sight" you call me wrong.

Essentially, admitting ignorance as you have, you should shut up and learn, not tell us what we mean by words we've used for 2000 years. K? Great.

Actually, its not quite been two thousand years of use,.... but hey, I guess any lie is acceptable in your circles.

How great the fortune of those here that they can benefit from the actual meaning of terms, rather than the imputed meanings given by the ignorant. 'Christian' once meant one who both believed and did as Christ did- now it means religious system. I'm happy to point out the more ancient meaning there as well. Set your pride aside and learn something, Clyde.

So you benefit from the meaning of a word huh,.... poor you.

As a saved person I gain all my benefit from a Living Person, He who is the reality of God's word.

You worship your word, I'll worship this Person.

What is needed on this thread also is someone who is well versed in ancient Hebrew and Hebraic customs, so that we can appreciate fully the context of the eucharistic celebration instituted by Christ. I will gladly yield the floor to somone of such expertise.

"the eucharistic celebration"....... meaning, the celebration of giving thanks?

Cause that's what it would mean if honestly understood.

So you celebrate your thanks-giving huh,....... this is what I mean, you turn the spotlight on what you can do.

Your words again OC,.... they end up shooting you in the foot.

In other words, SHAMELESS SELF-PROMOTION on your part. Hell, I knew that. When I use the term "Orthodox Christian," I mean it in the sense that Paul did when he referred to himself as doulos (bond slave). I am a bondslave of the Lord, not of my own prideful, self-promoting opinion-wielding such as you exemplify daily.

Your darkness is deep, and another brother in the Lord has confirmed it.

Christ established a Church, which you hate and malign.

I'd expect Satan would say the same,..... but praise the Lord, He is greater than all our faults, and proves Satan to be a liar.

My orthodoxy is found in submitting myself to His authority, including but not exclusively that found on the earth.

You submit yourself for sure, but you lie with the counterfeit and not the reality.

Your so-called orthodoxy is so-called by you. Where are your 2 or three witnesses? Let us examine your claims in the light of scripture.

If it were possible for you to do so we would have had improvement already, but you show no willingness to receive the truth of scripture.

As for my witnesses, the Lord knows. And unlike you, I have no need of carrying a false witness before me.

I see you have the same rapport with people in real life as you do here. I have never asked a question, as a guest in someone else's house, which led them to take such a defensive posture with me.

Yet, we have the pattern of Paul to follow.

But of course, you're ignorant of Paul and his ways.

Silly fellow, the issue of the confrontation was that two of the children who were participating in that unholy ritual are now saved and have no respect for any of the religious lie.

But lets continue and expose you some more....

What sort of person causes a scene at someone else's celebration? A pig, ladies and gentlemen, a selfish and obnoxious rectum. I'm sure you feel justified in your action, though, as you brag of it here.

"A pig",..... did you just call me a "pig"? And a rectum huh? A pig and a rectum. A selfish rectum at that.

My, how well acquainted with pigs and rectums you must be.

You're funny OC,.... but lets continue.....

If you had insited on coming back to our altar, I would NOT resist you physically, for to do so would be self-contradictory (participating in the unholy with the unrighteous, in defense of the holy). Not that I haven't encountered antagonistic and socially impaired people such as yourself during church meetings- I have. There are fools and haters everywhere.

When at the house of another Christian, I honor their requests so as to not scandalize Christ. You really ought consider this approach.

Okay, now that you ended the inflicting of insults on your own person, exposing to all that you are unable to maintain control of even the simple social things, lets give a little more of the story....

See, the man who was acting like a fool already had a history with the father of the kids I went to see. In fact, it was only when this father stood on the STAIRS of the stage that the foolish man decided to come and remove the father and his children from this position on the stairs. Others had taken photos on the stage itself without having anything said to them.


As for my "causing a scene",...... foolish OC, only few other people noticed my conversation with the foolish man, my wife who knows me well, the wife of the father who was next to my wife, and the children. And my conversation lasted all of thirty seconds.

So much for your "scene".

Wrong and strong,... its the way of you religionist.

Satan, the Lord of punctuation? I think he was much more active in your irrevernent and rude disrespect of a first communion than he ever is in the typing of letters.

Well, what should I expect but more darkness out of your darkness.

You must be a real treat, pissing on people's important events and so forth in the name of Christ.

Wait until the Lord returns and does far worse to your beloved apostate institution.

In love,
cj

 

[cj]

Let the reader judge between me and thee: what is the greater sin-

mild off-color language

or a 'man' disrupting a first communion, an event for an 8 or 9 year-old and their family.

Thing is oh darkened one, the "man" did no such disrupting.

Now you have a problem, cause you're all on your own with your "mild off-color language.

It would seem that the latter is obviously more heinous...

Well, there you go getting into deep doody with your opinions again.

Yet, I see in my signature the symbol of His suffering and ultimate triumph, and I am reminded that I sign my posts as if He was inspiring them...

Puff yourself up as much as you like OC, its your head that won't fit through the door, not mine.

OC, your expressed ignorance is what we suffer, not your silly vanity name.

... and I am cut to the heart, knowing that Christ does not so conduct Himself. I have, therefore, sinned against heaven, and repent.
I shall not edit my words, but leave them as a testimony to my weakness.

Thanks to Vic for the rebuke. It is an act of faith and kindness to rebuke a friend in folly by appealing to their conscience.

Unfortunately, the delete button does not remove the error of your ways from God book.

And your repenting is only as valid as its source.


In love,
cj

 

[Orthodox Christian]

There ought to be a law against a reply this long and this vapid.
Oh yes, there is. See ToS regarding post etiquette. I know you can't be bothered with following the rules like the rest of us, so I post that simply as a matter of record. My replies in red, yours in vain...or, more accurately, vanity.

The "original" had neither capital or miniscule- nor had it punctuation or even breaks between the words. Bear in mind the expression "Eucharist" is capitalized because it is found to be what the action was called by both Christ and Paul (remember 1 Corintians 11? eucharistas, He gave thanks). It's name, given since then has been "Lord's Supper" (not scriptural), Last Supper (also not scriptural, for it was not the last, but the first), Communion (descriptive, not verbatim scripture).
No, CJ, your argument is completely foolish and utterly defeated.

Absolutely not OC, you present nothing other than more nonesense.
Vain "no it's not," the argument of an adolescent

There was simply not intention of the writer for the word to mean anything other than the giving of thanks for provision.
Just as we give thanks for the gifts of God, which come down from the Father of Lights.


Oh,....... by the way,........ those who I gather with refer to the meeting as the Lord's table meeting. Which it is a remembance of.
So what? I don't care what you and the Illuminati refer to your empty ritual as.

Think about it OC,.... the Lord's table, and not the Lord's Supper, or the Last Supper, or Communion, or Eucharist,.... just a meeting that remembers His meeting with the apostles at which they gave.... thanks..... broke bread and drank wine.
That's not the way Paul presents it, that's not the way Christ presents it. So you and your friends meet at Denny's and have crackers and grape juice. Woopdedoo.

Tell me, was it not the Lord who made it all possible? Was it not His table set before the saints?
Every table is His, but His Body is holy, and it ain't set on every table. Perhaps you could learn as Paul said to 'discern' this

[quote="Orthodox Christian":5b010]A typical manner of deception these days is to appeal to common ignorance- an argument you've used again here.

Then you must hold yourself in more ignorance as you cannot refute it.
I could hit you over the head with Mahogany and you'd swear it was Red Oak. Your feeble arguments have been crushed like the rotten grapes they make Night Train out of.

See above- your own embarrassing ignorance is the element exposed here. You cannot do spell lames and punctuation corrections on a language which had neither punctuation nor rules of capitalization. As to whether it is appropriate to capitalize an action instituted by the Lord, such as Holy Matrimony- well, that's a matter of opinion, of how much reverence one will apply to the grace of Christ acting in the world.

Absolutely it a matter of opinion,......... fellow slave.

But tell me, since when do we slaves hold to our opinion?

Right here you take liberty where none is given, and you do so for your own gain and not the Lord's gain.
Says the heretic who takes liberty to call it 'the Lord's table.
This is why the religionist are referred to as theives by the Lord.
I don't think of you as a thief, I think of you as one who dwells in outer darkness gnashing

Is that what you wish to call the Eucharist- The All-Encompassing Supply of the Father?
Whatever floats your boat. Of course, our name is biblical, yours is interpretive.

You worship that which is absolutely unbiblical OC, and have proven so with your own words regarding the Eucharist being a development of you opinion and not something held in the scriptures.
Empty chatter

Now who's the religionist, the one who quotes scripture, or the one who insists that others quote him on the scripture?
The answer is obvious.

You continue to sound foolish OC,....... nowhere in scripture is there any support for the false doctrine you hold to.
More empty chatter

Did the apostles eat of the bread and the Cup, or did they not? You need concern yourself with that, not your vain imaginations on what Christ does with His ration.

You missed the point OC,.... when Jesus gave thanks (eucharistas) He did so for all things that the Father had provided. The eating of the bread and the drinking of the wine came after.
Again you display your monumental ignorance of Semitic culture and ways, o claimed Jew. What prayer is said in Seder for the wine? What prayer would be said in betrothal? Do you have a sliver of a clue? No, obviously not.

Our doctrine says that the Lord gave thanks and said "Take eat, this is my Body." This is because we find this in the scriptures verbatim. We do not define what happens when we bless and give thanks, only that He is in it, as He said.
What about that do you object to?

I believe that it is in Portugal (or Spain) that a glass-encased shrine can be found, honoring a piece of flesh that is claimed to have come from the Eucharist wafer.

This is how far some will go to preserve a lie.

Apparently, you object to nothing that I said, only to some arcane practice in some remote place that has nothing to do with the Orthodox Church nor this conversation.
Way to miss the mark with vigor.[/quote:5b010]

After all that I have said you make this silly meaninless remark.
After all you have said and been owned for, you still talk more.

You are closely related to both gnostics and atheists in your position on this matter. Your incredulity does not change the scripture. I believe He was literally crucified and rose forever- I belive a literal whale swallowed Jonah, and I believe that Christ is literally in the communion of the Church, as He said it was.

And this literal communion is in our regenerated spirit, just as the scriptures clearly say.
So sez the gnostic. The commune with God is of the whole man, tripartite. Do you not know that your body is the Temple of the Holy Spirit? Do you not know that your mind also is to be captive to Christ? You are a gnostic fool.

Communion is a living thing, your beloved anti-Christ Eucharist is as dead as the lies you ttempt to perpetuate in your speaking.
I'm told by atheists that I worship an imaginary God and a Resurrection that didn't happen. To the Pit with your so-called knowledge.
As for you remarks about me being close to Gnostics and atheists,..... it exposes your desperation stemming from having no truth to support this lie you speak of.
I have demonstrated clearly that you are gnostic in your beliefs, a party to both Marcionistic and Montanistic beliefs. In short, you are anathema, a pariah.

"Regenerated spirit" is an unscriptural amalgam of New agey sounding words, put forth to cover your lack of belief in the miraculous.

You get worse by the second,...... silly fellow, regeneration is about as miraculous as it gets.
No, Montanus, Incarnation is as miraculous as it gets

As for the term "regenerated spirit" being unscriptural,..... lets allow scripture to answer. But please,..... note that unlike the way of the anti-Christ religionists, such as the Orthodox,..... I have not capitalize the phrase.

To scripture oh darkened one,....

John  3 : 6,

"That which is born of the flesh is flesh, and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit.

The first Spirit mentioned here is the divine Spirit, the Holy Spirit of God, and the second spirit is the human spirit, the regenerated spirit of man. Regeneration is accomplished in the human spirit by the Holy Spirit of God with God's life, the uncreated eternal life. Thus, to be regenerated is to have the divine, eternal life mingled one with the human, natural life, as the new source and new element of a new person.

1 Peter  1 : 3

"Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who according to His great mercy has regenerated us unto a living hope through the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead,..."

Regeneration, like redemption and justification, is an aspect of God's full salvation. Redemption and justification solve our problem with God and reconcile us to God; regeneration enlivens us with God's life, bringing us into a relationship of life, an organic union, with God.

Hence, regeneration issues and results in a living hope. Such regeneration is accomplished through the resurrection of Christ from the dead. "The resurrection of Christ, bringing in life and the gift of the life-giving Spirit, is that which potentiates the new birth into a living hope" (Alford).

Romans  8 : 9

".... But you are not in the flesh, but in the spirit, if indeed the Spirit of God dwells in you. Yet if anyone does not have the Spirit of Christ, he is not of Him."

1 Corinthians 6:17

"But he who is joined to the Lord is one spirit."

1 Corinthians 5:5

"To deliver such a one to Satan for the destruction of his flesh, that his spirit may be saved in the day of the Lord."


And there is much more in scripture regrding this matter.


All believers have a regenerated spirit OC.
What a load of tripe. "regenerated spirit" is not found in scripture. Sorry, your gnosticism is showing. It is regenerated man- body, soul and spirit, that is of concern.

Everything is spiritualized in your view, and the physical world untouched. We believe that He is returning and returning and invading and inhabiting, through things as base as bread and wine, and as divine as human soul and body.

I know you do, but beliving it does not make it the truth.
Hi, atheist. I've spoken to you in many forms before, but your message is always the same.

Jesus has come to dwell in a man's regenerated spirit,...... what more do you want Him to do.
It is not what I want, but His will, to redeem all of creation, and the whole man.

How assinine is it to think that after having God come to dwell in all His fullness in you, you still have need of Him entering into you via a piece of man-made bread.
How arrogant and ignorant of you to overlook the scripture and deny the power of it.

Yet its understandable, as it serves the purpose of meeting your natural need to make the false claim to having done something for your salvation.
On the contrary, it is Him who does it all

Consult John 6 for your answer. The truth of the matter still alienates the proud, the arrogant, and the irreverent.

Believe what you want, Jesus would not give men human flesh to eat and blood to drink.
Who said it's human flesh and blood we consume? Not us.

Your arrogance has been overtaken by your ignorance. What fish is there in a Passover Seder? Why did Christ long to eat the meal with the apostles, as He said? Because it wasn't about food and drink- it was about a New Covenant in His blood, a betrothal cup drank until the actual Wedding Supper can be eaten.

Poor OC, you missed my point again..... tell me, how many times is the word eucharistas used in the NT? Only for describing the Lord's table meeting? No, it is used in other places to describe when He gave thanks, such as when He dealt with the fish and the loaves of bread.

Why have you attempted to change what I was speaking of? I never said that the symbolism in the bread and wine is not of the Passover and the New Covenant.

Don't lie and place words in my mouth.
He still multiplies the food and drink of man miraculously. I needn't place lies in your mouth, it is already so filled to overflowing.

And you claim to have a Semitic background?

I claim nothing but Christ, my human background is what it is.
Whatever. I merely point out your foolish ignorance, you make it manifest, the credit belongs to you alone.

Even to this day, the Jews break the matzoh in three, and look for the ofekomen (I have come). No fish, partner, but the giving of thanks is for the memorial to His coming- past, present, future. His coming in the flesh, not in some gnostic spiritualized symbolic gobbledy-gook.

Blind one,...... go research the context of the other verses where the word eucharistas was used in the NT, and then come back and tell us what you found.
I needn't do so. He didn't make up a special word for the event, He demonstrated the form and intent. Get a clue.
Oh, small niggling matter, the term root is eucharisteo, the specific term used is eucharistisas/eucharistisen, not eucharistas

Objection noted, and appropriately disposed.

Only by your ignorance/blindness. The fact remains, your beloved Eucharist is a lie from the pit of hell.
Woe unto them that call evil good, and good evil; that put darkness for light, and light for darkness; that put bitter for sweet, and sweet for bitter! Woe unto [them that are] wise in their own eyes, and prudent in their own sight!

Calvin and Zwingli have made your argument, and did a better job of ding so, some 500 years ago. They were wrong, and so are you.

You are blind to the truth contained in scriptures, as exposes in your speaking throughout these boards.

You worship little pictures with kisses, and uphold the teachings of Satan.
No, I oppose your teachings, Satan.

Given the foundation you stand upon, I am happy that in your "sight" you call me wrong.
I declare only that which is manifest and apparent. It don't take a rocket scientist to interpret the smell of your rotten fruit.

Essentially, admitting ignorance as you have, you should shut up and learn, not tell us what we mean by words we've used for 2000 years. K? Great.

Actually, its not quite been two thousand years of use,.... but hey, I guess any lie is acceptable in your circles.
In truth, the term orthodoxa has been around much longer than two thousand years. And none of your lies are acceptable in my circles.

How great the fortune of those here that they can benefit from the actual meaning of terms, rather than the imputed meanings given by the ignorant. 'Christian' once meant one who both believed and did as Christ did- now it means religious system. I'm happy to point out the more ancient meaning there as well. Set your pride aside and learn something, Clyde.

So you benefit from the meaning of a word huh,.... poor you.

As a saved person I gain all my benefit from a Living Person, He who is the reality of God's word.

You worship your word, I'll worship this Person.
Dunce, I said that it is YOU who could benefit from understanding a word. I've moved beyond such elementary things.

What is needed on this thread also is someone who is well versed in ancient Hebrew and Hebraic customs, so that we can appreciate fully the context of the eucharistic celebration instituted by Christ. I will gladly yield the floor to somone of such expertise.

"the eucharistic celebration"....... meaning, the celebration of giving thanks?

Cause that's what it would mean if honestly understood.

So you celebrate your thanks-giving huh,....... this is what I mean, you turn the spotlight on what you can do.
What a limp, impotent counter-argument. The obvious answer is that we celebrate His goodness by giving thanks.

Your words again OC,.... they end up shooting you in the foot.
Would that be the foot of mine that has been broken off in your posterior daily?

In other words, SHAMELESS SELF-PROMOTION on your part. Hell, I knew that. When I use the term "Orthodox Christian," I mean it in the sense that Paul did when he referred to himself as doulos (bond slave). I am a bondslave of the Lord, not of my own prideful, self-promoting opinion-wielding such as you exemplify daily.

Your darkness is deep, and another brother in the Lord has confirmed it.
Ah, again, the appeal to ignorance. If two hillbillies confirm marriage to cousins is ideal, I eye their opinion with skepticism.

Christ established a Church, which you hate and malign.

I'd expect Satan would say the same,..... but praise the Lord, He is greater than all our faults, and proves Satan to be a liar.
You still hate the Church, and yes, your words are being proved to be of your father.

My orthodoxy is found in submitting myself to His authority, including but not exclusively that found on the earth.

You submit yourself for sure, but you lie with the counterfeit and not the reality.
Further empty chatter

Your so-called orthodoxy is so-called by you. Where are your 2 or three witnesses? Let us examine your claims in the light of scripture.

If it were possible for you to do so we would have had improvement already, but you show no willingness to receive the truth of scripture.

As for my witnesses, the Lord knows. And unlike you, I have no need of carrying a false witness before me.
No, you do an adequate job of holding forth as a lying spirit all on your own.

I see you have the same rapport with people in real life as you do here. I have never asked a question, as a guest in someone else's house, which led them to take such a defensive posture with me.

Yet, we have the pattern of Paul to follow.

But of course, you're ignorant of Paul and his ways.

Silly fellow, the issue of the confrontation was that two of the children who were participating in that unholy ritual are now saved and have no respect for any of the religious lie.
How does that millstone around your neck feel? Is it cumbersome?

But lets continue and expose you some more....

What sort of person causes a scene at someone else's celebration? A pig, ladies and gentlemen, a selfish and obnoxious rectum. I'm sure you feel justified in your action, though, as you brag of it here.

"A pig",..... did you just call me a "pig"? And a rectum huh? A pig and a rectum. A selfish rectum at that.
Selfish and obnoxious pig rectum, yes, that is how I would describe one who does what you did.

My, how well acquainted with pigs and rectums you must be.

You're funny OC,.... but lets continue.....
I am funny, you're not. We know that already. But I'm not kidding- what you did and brag of is detestable

If you had insited on coming back to our altar, I would NOT resist you physically, for to do so would be self-contradictory (participating in the unholy with the unrighteous, in defense of the holy). Not that I haven't encountered antagonistic and socially impaired people such as yourself during church meetings- I have. There are fools and haters everywhere.

When at the house of another Christian, I honor their requests so as to not scandalize Christ. You really ought consider this approach.

Okay, now that you ended the inflicting of insults on your own person, exposing to all that you are unable to maintain control of even the simple social things, lets give a little more of the story....

See, the man who was acting like a fool already had a history with the father of the kids I went to see. In fact, it was only when this father stood on the STAIRS of the stage that the foolish man decided to come and remove the father and his children from this position on the stairs. Others had taken photos on the stage itself without having anything said to them.


As for my "causing a scene",...... foolish OC, only few other people noticed my conversation with the foolish man, my wife who knows me well, the wife of the father who was next to my wife, and the children. And my conversation lasted all of thirty seconds.

So much for your "scene".

Wrong and strong,... its the way of you religionist.
I'm sure you were justified in your own mind. I know your type.

Satan, the Lord of punctuation? I think he was much more active in your irrevernent and rude disrespect of a first communion than he ever is in the typing of letters.

Well, what should I expect but more darkness out of your darkness.
Lord, you are redundant and unimaginative.

You must be a real treat, pissing on people's important events and so forth in the name of Christ.

Wait until the Lord returns and does far worse to your beloved apostate institution.

In love,
cj[/quote]
Jesus ain't a hillbilly, son, I don't expect Him to pee on any fires. In the day of His returning, we'll all be ablaze, and we will see what comes through that fire.

 

[Vic C.]

There ought to be a law against a reply this long and this vapid.
Oh yes, there is. See ToS regarding post etiquette....

You mean this one?

Rule 13 - Posting Etiquette:
Please keep the posts down to a respectable length. You stand a better chance of getting your point across. People may not want to read them if they are too long...

 

[Vic C.]

cj, inflamatory remarks will only cause responses of the same. I'm warning you to take the rules I posted below to heart or else further warnings and actions will be taken.

To OC and the rest: the same applies to everyone else. This is a Christian community, not Armageddon. Lets stop treating these Forums like a battlefield.

The last few post of this thread have been stricken and the topic will be locked if it continues.

Thank you.

Rule 2 - No Flaming:
You will not post any messages that harass, insult, belittle, threaten or flame another member or guest. This will include misquoting another member out of context. You may discuss another member's beliefs but there will be no personal attacks on the member himself or herself.
*Amended to include* .... Any person(s) who comes to these forums to attack Christianity or Christians personally will be banned based on the discretion of the Admins & Mods.

Rule 6 - No Trolling:
You will not post anything that disrupts the peace and harmony of this forum. Don't make inflammatory remarks just to get a response. This will also include posts that put down Christianity in general or any posts considered as blasphemy by staff (this is a CHRISTIAN FORUMS site).
You won't be labeled as a troll if your post has substance.