OSAS....Not !

[Merry Menagerie]

*shakes head* How very sad

 

[Klee shay]

What do these verses mean. They demand a verdict.

These verses do not demand a verdict from me - it is for Christ to write his own truth in each and every believer.

56: He who eats my flesh and drinks my blood abides in me

I believe he is referring to everything we take into our body is his flesh and his blood. Every thought we have, every action we take, every sin that we commit and every repentance we make - if we do not injest this sinful life with his flesh and blood, then we are consuming nothing but dust. For man is nothing but dust which God breathed life into.

The flesh and blood of Christ is spiritual for he is now with the Father, who is also in spirit. Does it not say we should worship God in spirit for he is a spirit? Now that Christ has risen to the Father's right hand side, his flesh and blood which was shed and battered on the cross is our spiritual nourishment. When we eat of that we consume the Lord's promise of eternal life.

How are we supposed to consume it though?

"Peace I leave with you, my peace I give unto you: not as the world giveth, give I unto you. Let not your heart be troubled, neither let it be afraid." John 14:27

Not being troubled or afraid in our hearts is consuming his flesh and blood. I could go through a hundred different scriptures where Christ instructs us how to "feel" and not just how to behave. Every word which came out of his mouth, is his flesh and blood now that it has been sacrificed on the cross. When we listen to his words and believe it in our hearts, then we are consuming eternal life according to his grace.

I have given you an account of my understanding of this scripture but it is in no way a verdict of what it actually means. For I believe Christ inspires meaning to all his people according to their walk and what they need.

 

[thessalonian]

What is the importance of the bread and the wine being the real body and blood of Jesus?
And
Why do the Catholic masses that I have witnessed not offer wine with the bread?[/quote]


You have NEVER been to a CAtholic Mass where wine was not offered. I certainly have not and have never heard of such an abuse. You people can't understand the importance of the Mass because of your OSAS doctrine. Grace does not need to be applied to our lives continuously. We don't need manna in the desert of life according to your easy theology. It's all done. But for us Catholics, Christianity is a walk and we need God's grace throughout our lives, which sustains us so that we persevere to the end.



Blessings

 

[thessalonian]

These verses do not demand a verdict from me - it is for Christ to write his own truth in each and every believer.

What? What does "you shall not have life within you means different things to different believers and each one is okay? I hope that is not what you are saying.

I believe he is referring to everything we take into our body is his flesh and his blood.

You know this is the very first time I have heard or read this interprution. It's novel of course but novelty and truth are not synonymous and in fact the scriptures tell us "there is nothing new under the sun" so it is highly suspect.

The flesh and blood of Christ is spiritual for he is now with the Father, who is also in spirit. Does it not say we should worship God in spirit for he is a spirit? Now that Christ has risen to the Father's right hand side, his flesh and blood which was shed and battered on the cross is our spiritual nourishment. When we eat of that we consume the Lord's promise of eternal life.

I do agree that the Eucharist is spiritual food. But are you applying it to every time we eat a twinky.

How are we supposed to consume it though?

Not being troubled or afraid in our hearts is consuming his flesh and blood. I could go through a hundred different scriptures where Christ instructs us how to "feel" and not just how to behave. Every word which came out of his mouth, is his flesh and blood now that it has been sacrificed on the cross. When we listen to his words and believe it in our hearts, then we are consuming eternal life according to his grace.

You can start up your own denomination with this stuff. Collection baskets and all.

I have given you an account of my understanding of this scripture but it is in no way a verdict of what it actually means. For I believe Christ inspires meaning to all his people according to their walk and what they need.

So for me it is literal and that is okay and for you it is something differrent and that is okay? That is relativism my friend. That renders the Bible void of truth. Sorry.

 

[Solo]

What is the importance of the bread and the wine being the real body and blood of Jesus?
And
Why do the Catholic masses that I have witnessed not offer wine with the bread?

You have NEVER been to a CAtholic Mass where wine was not offered. I certainly have not and have never heard of such an abuse. You people can't understand the importance of the Mass because of your OSAS doctrine. Grace does not need to be applied to our lives continuously. We don't need manna in the desert of life according to your easy theology. It's all done. But for us Catholics, Christianity is a walk and we need God's grace throughout our lives, which sustains us so that we persevere to the end.



Blessings

Yes, the Catholic Masses that I have witnessed have only offered the "bread", why not the wine. In fact, on Palm Sunday I was given a wafer and a palm leaf, but no wine. What's with that?

Also, What is the importance of the bread and the wine being the real body and blood of Jesus?

 

[thessalonian]

Yes, the Catholic Masses that I have witnessed have only offered the "bread", why not the wine. In fact, on Palm Sunday I was given a wafer and a palm leaf, but no wine. What's with that?

The priest did not consecrate both the bread and the wine? The offering is on the altar. The wine is not always distrubuted to everyone. But it is offered at every Mass.

Also, What is the importance of the bread and the wine being the real body and blood of Jesus?

I believe I explained this above. It is grace. Food for the journey of life for our souls. It is for our sanctification and for the forgiveness of venial sins. Also with regard to the wine, in the Old Testament we see in Leviticus 10 and 17 that the blood of the animal contianed the life of the animal. It is the life of Christ that we want in us.

blessings

 

[Solo]

Yes, the Catholic Masses that I have witnessed have only offered the "bread", why not the wine. In fact, on Palm Sunday I was given a wafer and a palm leaf, but no wine. What's with that?

The priest did not consecrate both the bread and the wine? The offering is on the altar. The wine is not always distrubuted to everyone. But it is offered at every Mass.

[quote:16dd8]Also, What is the importance of the bread and the wine being the real body and blood of Jesus?

I believe I explained this above. It is grace. Food for the journey of life for our souls. It is for our sanctification and for the forgiveness of venial sins. Also with regard to the wine, in the Old Testament we see in Leviticus 10 and 17 that the blood of the animal contianed the life of the animal. It is the life of Christ that we want in us.

blessings[/quote:16dd8]
There was no wine offered to anyone, and it appears to me that this is important to those who believe as you do; therefore what happens when the wine is not offered? For what reason is the wine not offered?

As far as the Eucharist being "Food for the journey of life for <our> souls", and for the "sanctification and for the forgiveness of venial sins", what happens to one who does not partake of the Eucharist for a week, a month, a year, forever?

Are the venial sins of a person forgiven at the moment of receiving the bread and wine, or just the bread, or just the wine? Are these sins forgiven at that moment, or is it more symbolic?

 

[thessalonian]

There was no wine offered to anyone, and it appears to me that this is important to those who believe as you do; therefore what happens when the wine is not offered? For what reason is the wine not offered?

Well first of all the wine was taken by the priest for the people. But the offering is not offering to people. The Holy Sacrifice of the Mass is offered to the Father. Therin lies the confusion as to when you say the wine was not offered and I say it was. Scripturally their is precedence the wine not being offered to the people always. At the last supper all who partook of it were ministerial priests. The priest MUST always partake of the wine at every Mass. However if you look in Luke 24 with the two men who meet Christ on the road from Jerusalem to Emanaus, the only partake of the bread.

Luke 24
30] When he was at table with them, he took the bread and blessed, and broke it, and gave it to them. [31] And their eyes were opened and they recognized him; and he vanished out of their sight.

No wine is given, though certainly the blood of the Lord is there in Christ himself.

As far as the Eucharist being "Food for the journey of life for <our> souls", and for the "sanctification and for the forgiveness of venial sins", what happens to one who does not partake of the Eucharist for a week, a month, a year, forever?

The Eucharist gives stength. Like if you stop taking food you will spiritually starve and become weak toward sin. I have experienced this myself. Eventually you will likely fall in to mortal sin.

Are the venial sins of a person forgiven at the moment of receiving the bread and wine, or just the bread, or just the wine? Are these sins forgiven at that moment, or is it more symbolic?

When one recieves the Eucharist which is the bread and the wine, one is not recieving two Christ's or two Eucharists. This is the heresy that caused the Council of Trent to disallow the distribution of the wine. We recive one Eucharist in the bread and the wine for a time. The distribution under two forms is the more full sacramental sign but one can recieve the host and recieve the full body, blood, soul, and divinity of Christ because Christ cannot be divided. One can recieve the wine and recieve the full body, blood, soul, and divinity of Christ. The venial sins are forgiven in several ways. One way is by partaking in the Eucharist. That means at the moment the bread is taken or the wine. There is also the problem of spillage with the one that is a part of the reason for it being limited. Though these days it is rare that I attend a Mass where I don't recieve under both species.

By the way, you should have been advised not to partake in our Eucharist. When you do and you say amen you are saying amen to what we believe it is and also to what the Catholic Church teaches. I doudt you would want to do this. The palm leaf is a once a year occurance and is just a commemoration of Jesus ride in to Jersalem on a donkey where the people lay palm brances before him. It is symbolic.

Blessings

 

[thessalonian]

oops

 

[Solo]

There was no wine offered to anyone, and it appears to me that this is important to those who believe as you do; therefore what happens when the wine is not offered? For what reason is the wine not offered?

Well first of all the wine was taken by the priest for the people. But the offering is not offering to people. The Holy Sacrifice of the Mass is offered to the Father. Therin lies the confusion as to when you say the wine was not offered and I say it was. Scripturally their is precedence the wine not being offered to the people always. At the last supper all who partook of it were ministerial priests. The priest MUST always partake of the wine at every Mass. However if you look in Luke 24 with the two men who meet Christ on the road from Jerusalem to Emanaus, the only partake of the bread.

Luke 24
30] When he was at table with them, he took the bread and blessed, and broke it, and gave it to them. [31] And their eyes were opened and they recognized him; and he vanished out of their sight.

No wine is given, though certainly the blood of the Lord is there in Christ himself.

[quote:34cf4]As far as the Eucharist being "Food for the journey of life for <our> souls", and for the "sanctification and for the forgiveness of venial sins", what happens to one who does not partake of the Eucharist for a week, a month, a year, forever?

The Eucharist gives stength. Like if you stop taking food you will spiritually starve and become weak toward sin. I have experienced this myself. Eventually you will likely fall in to mortal sin.

Are the venial sins of a person forgiven at the moment of receiving the bread and wine, or just the bread, or just the wine? Are these sins forgiven at that moment, or is it more symbolic?

When one recieves the Eucharist which is the bread and the wine, one is not recieving two Christ's or two Eucharists. This is the heresy that caused the Council of Trent to disallow the distribution of the wine. We recive one Eucharist in the bread and the wine for a time. The distribution under two forms is the more full sacramental sign but one can recieve the host and recieve the full body, blood, soul, and divinity of Christ because Christ cannot be divided. One can recieve the wine and recieve the full body, blood, soul, and divinity of Christ. The venial sins are forgiven in several ways. One way is by partaking in the Eucharist. That means at the moment the bread is taken or the wine. There is also the problem of spillage with the one that is a part of the reason for it being limited. Though these days it is rare that I attend a Mass where I don't recieve under both species.

By the way, you should have been advised not to partake in our Eucharist. When you do and you say amen you are saying amen to what we believe it is and also to what the Catholic Church teaches. I doudt you would want to do this. The palm leaf is a once a year occurance and is just a commemoration of Jesus ride in to Jersalem on a donkey where the people lay palm brances before him. It is symbolic.

Blessings[/quote:34cf4]
So the sacrifice of the Mass is offered to God but not to the people, and the priest takes the wine for the people; therefore, the people don't have to take the wine.

But John 6 says:

52: The Jews then disputed among themselves, saying, "How can this man give us his flesh to eat?"
53: So Jesus said to them, "Truly, truly, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of man and drink his blood, you have no life in you;
54: he who eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day.
55: For my flesh is food indeed, and my blood is drink indeed.
56: He who eats my flesh and drinks my blood abides in me, and I in him.
57: As the living Father sent me, and I live because of the Father, so he who eats me will live because of me.
58: This is the bread which came down from heaven, not such as the fathers ate and died; he who eats this bread will live for ever."

According to this scripture by your literal understanding, one must eat Jesus flesh and drink Jesus blood or else there is no life in one.

Is this sacrifice of the Mass offered to God done for the remission of sins? If so, why wasn't Jesus' actual sacrifice upon the cross good enough?

 

[thessalonian]

According to this scripture by your literal understanding, one must eat Jesus flesh and drink Jesus blood or else there is no life in one.

Nice try. Everyone recieves the cup at some point in their lives. As you noted, the verse does not specify time frame. I have shown at least one event recongized as Eucharistic by the Church Fathers, where the wine was not given by the Lord himself. If it were overly problematice that both were not given each time I would trust that he would not have done this. You cannot divide Christ. There is not two Christ's, one in the cup and another in the host. Neither species is lacking.

Is this sacrifice of the Mass offered to God done for the remission of sins? If so, why wasn't Jesus' actual sacrifice upon the cross good enough?

Red herring. The Mass is that same sacrifice reeepresented. So you cannot talk about the Mass apart from Christ on the Cross as you try to separate them. The Mass is that sacrifice brought forward in an unbloody manner such that we can participate in it's benefits. Namely grace. I know you can't know exactly how this happens and so you will reject it. For you God must be bounded and explained such that there is no mystery about him. But such a God is not an infinite God and is therefore a false one.

blessings

 

[Solo]

According to this scripture by your literal understanding, one must eat Jesus flesh and drink Jesus blood or else there is no life in one.

Nice try. Everyone recieves the cup at some point in their lives. As you noted, the verse does not specify time frame. I have shown at least one event recongized as Eucharistic by the Church Fathers, where the wine was not given by the Lord himself. If it were overly problematice that both were not given each time I would trust that he would not have done this. You cannot divide Christ. There is not two Christ's, one in the cup and another in the host. Neither species is lacking.

[quote:ad1c9]Is this sacrifice of the Mass offered to God done for the remission of sins? If so, why wasn't Jesus' actual sacrifice upon the cross good enough?

Red herring. The Mass is that same sacrifice reeepresented. So you cannot talk about the Mass apart from Christ on the Cross as you try to separate them. The Mass is that sacrifice brought forward in an unbloody manner such that we can participate in it's benefits. Namely grace. I know you can't know exactly how this happens and so you will reject it. For you God must be bounded and explained such that there is no mystery about him. But such a God is not an infinite God and is therefore a false one.

blessings[/quote:ad1c9]
So without participation in the Eucharist one will burn in hell?

Must one participate only once in their life, or must one participate each time the sins build up that will send them to hell?

Can the priest eat the bread and drink the wine in my place and I will still go to heaven, or must I eat the bread and let him drink the wine, or I drink the wine and the priest eat the bread. I am assuming by your previous post that the consumption of one or the other is all one needs as the sins build up in ones life, yes?

 

[thessalonian]

So without participation in the Eucharist one will burn in hell?

Not for all that long. Just an eternal eternity. Seriously. There are four groups involved in the story in John 6 besides Jesus. Those who were Jews who rejected him outright from the start. They took his words literally and he did not contradict them but only stated it more emphatically.
Those who were his disciples and turned and walked away after his emphatic words about the nature of the sacrament. Then there were his 12 who stayed with him. Of course one of them interestingly enough walked out on him at the first Eucharist, the last supper. A sign that initially he did reject Jesus words but kept it to himself. This one was even prophesied in John 6 as Jesus said "Did I not chose you, and yet one of you is a devil". The betrayer is identified in Matt 26 as Judas.

There is one more group in John 6 which can be discussed. Those who were not there and did not hear the words right from the Savior's mouth. Man is accountable for the word of God that he hears and acts on. These whom did not hear, or perhaps did not have the grace to understand we do not judge. In fact, I see no reason to leave it up to anyone but God to figure out who specifically is going to hell. But I can say this, resisting his words when you know in your heart they are true and lie to yourself is a damnable offense and those who do so will in fact spend an eternity in hell.

Must one participate only once in their life, or must one participate each time the sins build up that will send them to hell?

Well, neglect of the sacrament leads to sin because the sacrament gives strenght against sin. The concern is eventually falling in to mortal sin for which the Eucharist would be taken sacralidgously and in that even would be condemnatory. See 1 Cor 11 v. 27. It is not that venial sins build up and at some point they kill the soul. It is that weakness sets in and the sinful nature overtakes the spirit and the sinner sins gravely.

Can the priest eat the bread and drink the wine in my place and I will still go to heaven, or must I eat the bread and let him drink the wine, or I drink the wine and the priest eat the bread. I am assuming by your previous post that the consumption of one or the other is all one needs as the sins build up in ones life, yes?

Consumption of one or the other is all that is needed to remove one's sins. One must not abstain from both.

Blessings

 

[Merry Menagerie]

Thessalonian - God leads people to different understandings to get them through different things in their life. For one, he gives them the understanding to help them through a traumatic experience, for another he gives a different understanding to help them through a good one.

With each and every person we all work from ignorance at any given time. We work from what WE believe is right at the time.

Tell me, Thessalonian, are there things that you used to believe before that you don't believe now? Are there things that you used to agree with that you no longer agree? Would you say that these changes in these beliefs came from God? Would you say that back when you used to believe something, and you no longer now...that you were judged by God back then and that if you died that you would go to hell because of your belief came from the only knowledge you had at the time?

What kind of a God do you serve? That he would judge those who are ignorant of the full knowledge of his truth and are only doing or believing what he has allowed them to do or believe for the time being?

I don't look at you and think..."Gee Thessalonian is believing a false doctrine so I hope they don't go to hell" Rather I think that you are only believing on what you believe is correct at this time. God will judge you by what you know...he can't very well judge you by what you don't know right?

Relax! Hey we may not 'get' what it is that you think we should 'get' but I live and breath for God...I hunger and thirst for his knowledge and God will only give me the knowledge that I need to know to get me through what I need to get through at any given time. If he gave his children 'all knowledge' what would we do with it? What would we do with this knowledge if we had it? But as we learn and grow, God sees who and what he can trust with HIS knowledge and he gives it too us based on who we are and what we do wth it.

Once upon a time I used to believe something that, I look back now, I think 'gee what a moron' LOL But then I think, that God brought me to that position for a reason and he brought me out for a reason too. For HIS PURPOSE. Not for mine and not for yours!! In HIS good timing he revealed whatever it was for me to know to bring me into the position I am in now.

We must not be impatient with this in other people, however, just because other people aren't 'getting', what you perceive, as an understanding of the word of God...doesn't mean they won't and it doesn't have to be immediately either. For all we know, the seeds have been planted and God could be watering it and fertilising it as we speak! We all need to trust this and stand back and allow God to do the revealing in the person and to bring them to an understanding that HE wants them to have for the purpose that HE has for their life.

 

[fiat]

First, Jesus indicated that His statement should not be taken in a materialistic sense when He said, “The words that I speak to you are spirit, and they are life†(John 6:63).
If your interpretation is correct, then Christ, speaking of himself would have been telling his disciples that his own flesh was "of no avail." Impossible! If that were true, then he would be making his own Incarnation, physical death, and Resurrection unimportant. The flesh of our Lord availeth a great deal!The context makes it clear that "flesh" does not refer to Christ, but to our inclination to think on a human level. The use of the word "spirit" is NEVER used in Scripture to indicate symbolism. It makes far more sense to interpret that line as meaning that these "difficult sayings" of Christ must be understood by faith. Third, He was not speaking of physical life, but “eternal life†(John 6:54).
He tells the crowd quite clearly what it is they must DO to have eternal life. "Truly, truly, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of man and drink his blood, you have no life in you; he who eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day. For my flesh is food indeed, and my blood is drink indeed. He who eats my flesh and drinks my blood abides in me, and I in him" (John 6:53–56).

Fourth, He called Himself the “bread of life†(John 6:48) and contrasted this with the physical bread the Jews ate in the wilderness (John 6:58).
Thessalonian answered this already. For a time being, he was speaking metaphorically. Then He switched, and the crowds began to murmur among themselves...

Fifth, He used the figure of “eating†His flesh in parallel with the idea of “abiding†in Him (John 15:4-5), which is another figure of speech. Neither figure is to be taken literally.
So we are not really tabernacles of the Most High?
For two and six...

if we look at the definition of cannibalism, we find that the following phrase is central to it: "eating the flesh of human beings". this phrase, while one sentence, actually says three things:

1. the flesh of a human being is being eaten, as opposed to washed or marked on, or some other action.
2. what is being eaten is flesh, as opposed to bone or grass, or some other substance.
3. the flesh being eaten is of a human being, as opposed to flesh of an animal or a fish, or some other creature.

these three statements comprise the essence of cannibalism. thus, in order for the Eucharistic celebration to be cannibalistic, it must fulfill these requirements. however, it fulfills none of them.

in cannibalism, the substance is flesh, the flesh is of a human being, and the action made upon the substance is "eating." in the Eucharistic celebration, the substance is Body, Blood, Soul, Divinity. this substance is not of a mere human being, but of Jesus Christ, who is True God and True Man. finally, there is no action made upon the substance. instead, the action is made upon bread and wine. put another way, in consuming the Eucharistic elements, the physical mechanisms of eating injure only the accidents of bread and wine. the process of consuming the host doesn't involve ripping and tearing Christ's body, despite its substantial presence.

From a friend at phatmass.com

 

[Klee shay]

What? What does "you shall not have life within you means different things to different believers and each one is okay? I hope that is not what you are saying.

I do not understand if you're asking me a question or making a comment?
I would like to answer, "I hope that is not what you are saying", however you've asked another question prior to that with half your inverted commas indicating an unfinished quote.

If you're quoting from scripture it may help if you show me where it is in the bible. Just so I know where you're coming from and there are no misunderstandings.

You know this is the very first time I have heard or read this interprution. It's novel of course but novelty and truth are not synonymous and in fact the scriptures tell us "there is nothing new under the sun" so it is highly suspect.

Everything is novel and suspect until you understand it better; and that's the way it should be. If we did not question that which we think we understand, how can the Lord reveal himself to us any clearer?

It is alright to question the Lord; for he never tires of reaffirming his love and devotion for us.

I do agree that the Eucharist is spiritual food. But are you applying it to every time we eat a twinky.

How are we supposed to consume it though?

How did you put it..."there is nothing new under the sun". Except through the new creation in Christ however. Would you deny Christ his ability to make new creations?

If one would eat bread as if it was Christ's flesh and drink wine as if it was Christ's blood - why wouldn't a twinky take on the same meaning if one believes it in their hearts? If you've ever struggled to have food on your plate, you would not turn up your nose at the importance of a twinky if the Lord put it before you on the day that you were hungry.

People eat out of rubbish cans and rubbish tips all over the world. Are they not to eat what is before them with the same reverence to the Lord as someone who can afford bread and wine?

You can start up your own denomination with this stuff. Collection baskets and all.

May I remind you of your offence you have claimed, that people demean and belittle your Catholicism. Does this sentence make you any more righteous than those you accuse?

So for me it is literal and that is okay and for you it is something differrent and that is okay? That is relativism my friend. That renders the Bible void of truth. Sorry.

Would you deny Christ any part of his body; even if it did not belong to your denomination or understanding?

The difference between what you understand and what I do, is that I allow for Christ to reveal himself in more than just what I perceive as his hand. Why? Because what do I understand in comparrison to what God understands. We can swap theology all day long, but it is God who is God and we will never understand Him fully until Jesus raises us up on the last day.

Can you not perceive the Lord in anything I say?

 

[thessalonian]

What? Are you saying "you shall not have life within you" means different things to different believers and each one is okay? I hope that is not what you are saying.

I do not understand if you're asking me a question or making a comment?
I would like to answer, "I hope that is not what you are saying", however you've asked another question prior to that with half your inverted commas indicating an unfinished quote.

I believe I quoted it in it's entirety above and thought you might be able to keep it in your head but here it is for you.

John 6
53: So Jesus said to them, "Truly, truly, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of man and drink his blood, you have no life in you;

Now answer the question.

If you're quoting from scripture it may help if you show me where it is in the bible. Just so I know where you're coming from and there are no misunderstandings.

I did this above.

Everything is novel and suspect until you understand it better; and that's the way it should be. If we did not question that which we think we understand, how can the Lord reveal himself to us any clearer?

This is why there are thousands upon thousands of denominations and men and men and women and women walking down isles with little flower girls walking behind them these days. This is why Christians kill their babies and why planned parenthood can find a "christian" chaplin.

It is alright to question the Lord; for he never tires of reaffirming his love and devotion for us.

I am fine with questioning the Lord, but when the result is anything and everything that is of man. It seems you are trying to say that conflicting truths can both be true and to be kind this is total nonsense.

I do agree that the Eucharist is spiritual food. But are you applying it to every time we eat a twinky.

This is so ridiculous it needs no response.

How did you put it..."there is nothing new under the sun". Except through the new creation in Christ however. Would you deny Christ his ability to make new creations?

The faith was delivered once for all to the saints.

Jude 1
3: Beloved, being very eager to write to you of our common salvation, I found it necessary to write appealing to you to contend for the faith which was once for all delivered to the saints.

The implications of what you say is that we all reinvent it for ourselves.

If one would eat bread as if it was Christ's flesh and drink wine as if it was Christ's blood - why wouldn't a twinky take on the same meaning if one believes it in their hearts? If you've ever struggled to have food on your plate, you would not turn up your nose at the importance of a twinky if the Lord put it before you on the day that you were hungry.

People eat out of rubbish cans and rubbish tips all over the world. Are they not to eat what is before them with the same reverence to the Lord as someone who can afford bread and wine?

[quote:ad6b6]You can start up your own denomination with this stuff. Collection baskets and all.

May I remind you of your offence you have claimed, that people demean and belittle your Catholicism. Does this sentence make you any more righteous than those you accuse?[/quote:ad6b6]

Well if you really believe this nonsense then okay. I'm sorry.

[quote:ad6b6]So for me it is literal and that is okay and for you it is something differrent and that is okay? That is relativism my friend. That renders the Bible void of truth. Sorry.

Would you deny Christ any part of his body; even if it did not belong to your denomination or understanding?[/quote:ad6b6]

There are reasons why I believe that some who are not formally Catholic MAY actually be members of the body. It is not because of a denial of the truth. I do not have to do scriptural gymnastics to say that things that conflict are true or one belief in one person is true while another contradictory one in another is true. One may be truly and invincibly ignorant of some truth. But both are not true and the truth can be known or we make Christ a liar.

The difference between what you understand and what I do, is that I allow for Christ to reveal himself in more than just what I perceive as his hand. Why? Because what do I understand in comparrison to what God understands. We can swap theology all day long, but it is God who is God and we will never understand Him fully until Jesus raises us up on the last day.

God told us how he saves man in his holy book and through the Church which is the "pillar and support of the truth" 1 Tim 3:15. Anyone else (you) is just winging it.

Blessings

Can you not perceive the Lord in anything I say?[/quote] :-?

 

[Klee shay]

53: So Jesus said to them, "Truly, truly, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of man and drink his blood, you have no life in you;

This does not have to be literal to have the same meaning Christ intended his flesh and blood to "represent".

Are you saying "you shall not have life within you" means different things to different believers and each one is okay?

Let me answer this with another scritpure. "But Jesus beheld them, and said unto them, With men this is impossible; but with God all things are possible". Matthew 19:26

Are you saying the Lord is lying about who can obtain eternal life, simply because to you it is impossible to understand "life within you" outside what you know? God is bigger than that.

Klee shay wrote:
[quote:c0a8b]Everything is novel and suspect until you understand it better; and that's the way it should be. If we did not question that which we think we understand, how can the Lord reveal himself to us any clearer?

This is why there are thousands upon thousands of denominations and men and men and women and women walking down isles with little flower girls walking behind them these days. This is why Christians kill their babies and why planned parenthood can find a "christian" chaplin.[/quote:c0a8b]

Really? It's the only reason? Once again...God is bigger than what you understand.

I am fine with questioning the Lord, but when the result is anything and everything that is of man.

Who penned the scriptures? Who were the Apostles? Who translated the scriptures? Who picked which scriptures would be published in one bible? Who preaches to the people in the pews? Who presides over mass? Would that be...man?

You are treading very closely to sounding like a hypocrite. For any religion is the result of man's handiwork. God inspired it may have been but the end result was still brought about by man.

It seems you are trying to say that conflicting truths can both be true and to be kind this is total nonsense.

Conflicting to you maybe, but not to those who are free to love God outside the confines of religion. Did you know it is possible to love God without religion telling you how to?

Thessalonian wrote:
[quote:c0a8b]I do agree that the Eucharist is spiritual food. But are you applying it to every time we eat a twinky.

This is so ridiculous it needs no response.[/quote:c0a8b]

Are you aware that you are saying your own words are ridiculous? It is your words that you are criticising here.

The faith was delivered once for all to the saints.

Since when did God only do things once when it comes to faith? Are you saying Christ cannot create new creations beyond your understanding?

The implications of what you say is that we all reinvent it for ourselves.

No, that is what you say. What is reality for the believer is that Christ reinvents his creations (us) for himself - for his purpose. What do you think happens when we surrender our will to the Lord? Does he not create new things of the old?

Well if you really believe this nonsense then okay. I'm sorry.

Gee thanks. I can tell you really meant that.

I do not have to do scriptural gymnastics to say that things that conflict are true or one belief in one person is true while another contradictory one in another is true. One may be truly and invincibly ignorant of some truth. But both are not true and the truth can be known or we make Christ a liar.

Man commenting on religion doesn't count for truth either.

God told us how he saves man in his holy book and through the Church which is the "pillar and support of the truth" 1 Tim 3:15. Anyone else (you) is just winging it.

Poor Timothy. If only he'd realise what mankind would do to the Lord's church. He spoke the truth then but how things can change. I'm glad to be "anyone else". I'm glad to be winging it with the Lord. No, I don't have an organisation to suckle my scriptural understanding from. I have God instead and he'll breach any limitation mankind throws at him.

Come fly with me...come fly...come fly; a-waaay... :angel:

 

[thessalonian]

God is bigger than the boogie man. :smt034 :smt035 Ever watch Veggie Tales? Sorry, I can't have a serious conversation with you any more. Your out to lunch. :crazyeyes: I will pray for your conversion to truth. That is to the word truth that means something. :

 

[Merry Menagerie]

And you think that your understanding that is dictated to you by a bunch of 'men' is the truth do you?

I was once like you. I was once a slave to religion as well. I knew nothing else but what I was taught. I knew nothing else but the interpretation that 'man' indoctinated me with. Who needs the Holy Spirit when you have 'so-called' men of God telling you what to do and what to believe? Why do you need to rely on God when you can just fall back on religion and use it as a crutch for your failings?

Did you know it is possible to love God without religion telling you how to?

Yes and it feels WONDERFUL!!!

Oh and BTW just so you know, in case you haven't heard but Jesus died and was risen again as a 'spirit' therefore he is no longer flesh and blood. Flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God. Therefore when I partake in His flesh and His blood it is also spiritual...just like he is!

Oh the joy of not being oppressed by limited understanding!