ChristiansUnite Forums

I think some of the greatest misinterpretations of the bible come from not knowing Christ's words first. The Holy Spirit is the Holy Ghost of Christ inside us. It is the "counselor, the spirit of truth." It enables us to understand Christ's words. Without it, we just pay lip service to other human beings as having the truth. Every true believer should scrutinize Christ's words first and in LIGHT of his words, we will understand the bible. That is what Paul did. ALL of his writings came from the Holy Spirit and the disciples. He understood the Torah THROUGH the Holy Spirit which contradicted the Jews who did not have the Holy Spirit. If people understood the Holy Spirit through Christ's words, they wouldn't take phrases out of the bible that contradict Christ's words. There would be NO contradictions in the bible. There are many teachings that contradict Christ's words. I don't have any loyalty to any worldly church. Therefore, when i read Christ's words, I BELIEVE THEM. Once i believe them, then I know that I cannot lose my salvation. Other phrases that people quote WITHOUT remembering Christ's words, will be misinterpreted. The teachings of the church CANNOT supercede Christ's words, otherwise we are worshiping the church instead of Christ. Therefore, it is paramount that all true believers know Christ's words BETTER than any church doctrine. Only then will we be able to discern truth from fiction.

Everyone will probably disagree with each other at some point and time. We're not carbon copies of each other.
Just because someone doesn't agree, it doesn't mean that the Holy Spirit is not in them.

Jumping to the conclusion that someone is not saved or not listening to the Holy Spirit because they are in disagreement with you makes it pretty hard to carry on an intelligent conversation.
It makes it hard for you to learn from others and to teach them.

If an interpretation disagrees with any scriptural then the interpretation is faulty. All of scriputre has to agree. That's why it is so important to know Christ's words first. Then the bible will make complete sense to us if it does not contradict Christ's words. A good example is the belief that one can lose his salvation. A person may find a passage in the NT that sounds like we can lose our salvation. But when taken in light of Christ's words, that "no one can snatch them out of my hand," in order for all of scripture to agree, then there must be another meaning. The meaning that does agree with all of scripture is that the true sheep will listen to His voice and cannot be snatched out of His hand. The men, however, who "honor me with their lips but their hearts are far from me", can be snatched out of his hand. There are true teachings and false teachings. True teachings do not contradict any scripture.

How do you know what you believe is really factual?

How do you know that someone hasn't fed you a pack of lies somewhere?

You're willing to slam others for their beliefs but you are unwilling to teach them anything. Why is this?

If you want to teach someone something- or learn something- first of all you need to find out why people believe what they believe and then find a common ground in your beliefs and theirs and go from there.

Slamming others without getting to know them isn't going to help you or them learn anything.

Now, you must have not seen my question to you in the thread "About Protestants" so I'm copying and pasting it here for you:

Heidi and others who support OSAS, please explain 2 Peter 3:9-17:

The Lord is not slow in keeping His promise, as some understand slowness. He is patient with you, not wanting anyone to perish, but everyone to come to repentance.
But the day of the Lord will come like a thief. The Heavens will disappear with a roar; the elements will be destroyed by fire and the earth and everything in it will be laid bare.
Since everything will be destroyed in this way, what kind of people ought you to be? You ought to live holy and Godly lives as you look forward to the day of God and speed its coming. That day will bring about the destruction of the Heavens by fire, and the elements will melt in the heat.
But in keeping with His promise we are looking forward to a new Heaven and a new earth, the home of righteousness.
So then, dear friends, since you are looking forward to this, make every effort to be found spotless, blameless and at peace with Him.
Bear in mind that our Lord's patience means Salvation, just as our dear brother Paul also wrote you with the wisdom that God gave him.
He writes the same way in all his letters, speaking in them of these matters. His letters contian some things that are hard to understand, which ignorant and unstable people distort, as they do the other Scripture, to their own destruction.
Therefore, dear friends, since you already know this, be on your guard so that you may not be carried away by the error of lawless men and fall from your secure position.

BTW Heidi- just because we disagree on this issue, doesn't mean that either one of us doesn't have Salvation. It just means that one or both of us might be getting confused or quoting from the book of 2 Opinions.

Heidi,
I am going to assume that you will agree that the word 'worshipping' and believe in' can mean the same. If so, you are contradicting yourself from the other post on a differenct topic when you stated that you believe in the Apostles Creed. In that Creed is a statement that you "believe in One, Holy, Catholic Church.  If you do in fact believe that then you are worshipping, believing in a Church.  Nothing wrong with that, because that is something believed by all earlier Christians from the beginning. After all, if one believes in Christ, one also believes in the Church. They are the same, are they not, scripturally.

Therefore, the words of the Church can never supercede Christ, can they?

Also, what does II Peter 1:20 mean to you?

Also,  I Timothy 3:15?


You say this is Christ's words. That you mean they are scriptural, right?
If so, can you substantiate that from sources other than your own interpretation. For example can you show from history,. for example, that all Christians believed this belief since the beginning, including the Apostles. If you can then you will have been able to substantiate that it might be All Truth, for all to all for all time which Christ gave to His Apostles and they in turn taught many in the first century and subsequent Christians would have believed and practiced this faith. If you cannot, then it may very well be false. After all, the Truth has not changed. Christ did not give His Apostles one Truth and another one for us in the 21st century.

Ah, no, I didn't say that I believed in the Apostle's creed. I said most people know the Nicene creed and can recite it with their eyes and hearts closed. I also was referring to people who verbalize words and don't know the difference between reciting from the heart or reciting by rote.

Believe in which church? They all disagree with each other. The true church is Christ inside of us. The worldly churches are where people gather together to worship Christ.

My beliefs come from the bible, specifically from Christ's words, unless you believe His words are a pack of lies. What have i said that is not scriptural?  There are many catholic beliefs that are NOT scriptural like calling the pope "Holy Father" venerating Mary, calling Priests Father, adorning the church with Gold and silver, and i'm sure many more that the catholic church made up which neither Christ nor Peter or Paul endorsed. I believe that Jesus is the only way to God. Not through Mary, Peter, Paul, etc. I believe that all of our power comes from God as Jesus said when He said, "I can do nothing without my Father," not from men which is why glorifying any man is not scriptural. I agree with Him that we should not call anyone on earth 'father' as a title because we only have one Father in heaven. My beliefs come from Christ's words. What in His beliefs are confusing to you? What in my beliefs contradict His words? Anything?

Heidi-
How come you won't answer my post #3 in this thread?

What do you mean by unwilling to teach them anything? On another thread, a poster said, "good teaching." I simply keep bringing people back to Christ's words, not the catholic church or idol worshiping. I have explained why I think Jesus's words are true MANY times. Yet only ONE catholic defender has tried to explain what Jesus means by not calling anyone 'father'. I have been slammed for saying we should worship Christ alone and not have false Gods before Him. I have been slammed for scriptural teaching and quoting Jesus's words. In fact most of my quotes have been Jesus's words alone whereas most of the quotes from people who have been bashing me for believing Christ's words have NOT been from His words alone. Can you point me to ANYTHING I've said that is not scriptural? If so, instead of slamming me, please point out why where Jesus said to pray to His mother and call the pope our Holy Father, or even made ANY hint that we should do so. If I get another attack instead of a specific reference from CHRIST alone why we should pray to Mary and call the pope our Holy Father, I will ignore it.  

So now it's only the "words in red" that count, and the rest of the Bible doesn't count?

It's becoming quite amusing to watch you dig a deeper and deeper hole for yourself.

In order for the rest of the bible to be interpreted correctly, ebia, it is IMPERATIVE that we know Christ's words first. Idol worshiping is NOT just bowing down to a statue, it is PUTTING OUR FAITH IN SOMEONE ELSE'S INTERPRETAION OF THE BIBLE INSTEAD OF CHRIST'S! That is POEPLE worshiping for it is them to whom you go for the truth. No wonder there is so much confusion as to what is true. You're going to people before God which is what I've been saying all along! The Holy Spirit is the Counselor, the spirit of truth, Jesus 's words. Any time we believe some else has the truth instead of Christ, we are NOT putting Jesus first in our lives, but other people. I expect atheists to disagree with this, but Christians who supposedly worship Christ alone? This only confirms my instincts about who you worship, ebia. You almost sounded disappointed that you even had to READ His words much less understand them first. Do you just recite His words by rote or do you believe them? How can you believe them if you don't know them? Do you even think? Only Jesus has the complete truth, unless you believe ANYONE else BUT Jesus has the truth. In that case, it does not good to read His words because you won't believe them anyway. But I KNOW that He has more truth in Him than any of the apostles and they would be the first to admit that. Again, reading the rest of the bible WITHOUT knowing Christ's words, only leads you to worship the apostles as having the truth before Christ.  That is worshiping them instead of Christ! THAT IS WHY jESUS SAID;  "I am the way, the truth and the life. NO ONE comes to the Father (and not the pope) except through me". It appears that you're the one whose hole is so large you can't even fit Jesus's words into them!

Heidi,


Well, not quite.  To be more precise, the Holy Spirit resides in each Christian. That then makes it possible for us to reside in Christ, His Body, of which He is its Head. That True Church is not divided. Can Christ be divided, thus it has always been One. If you really mean that all churches are worldly, then they cannot be Holy as is His True Church.  I know what you mean, but you need to be more precise in your use of terminology.

Actually, it is not Christ's words or the words that are printed by others led by the Holy Spirit. However, it is the understanding and the interpretation that you have put on those words, which are not aligned to what the Apostles taught regarding them.

Not wanting to get into an argument on every one but there is a vast difference in using the term Father and Holy Father. I don't agree with the idea of the Pope either but that is the difference of adding the word Holy. I will address this specific  word in my other post to you.
Speaking of Mary, we venerate her, and you used the correct word here, because she is the epidomy of obedience. She is also the mother of God, since Christ is God.
Did Jesus specifically tell the Apostles or the early Church that we should not have gold and silver in His Church. He worshipped in the Temple in His day and never once said that when the Church is established that your buildings should not have all this gold like the temple?  Even the Tabernacle of old had gold all over it. Is  there something innate about matter that you dispise?
It is in Scripture, it's just what the interpretation is, and in your case it is mostly you.


That is a loaded statement, Heidi.
First, based on the Bible itself, very plain language, it says that it is not for private interpretation, II Peter 1:20.  It was given to the Apostles, not just one, It was for all Christians from then to now and it has always been the same. Christ left us His Church, starting with the Apostles who were members of that first 'worldly church' to teach His Truth.  The Bible is not the standard, Christ is. He gave us ALL Truth, only some of it is written. None of it was written for the first 20 or so years.
Just what did they believe in?

you may have been saying that, but you do not believe it because your words betray you, nor practice it, doing something the Bible explicitly tells you not to do.  You sincerely believe that you can do a much better job at interpreting than the Holy Spirit did in giving it to the Apostles.
See, it is in the interpretation, but whose. Man's or Christ through the Holy Spirit. It is not the words but what they mean.

It's kind of like witnesses to a crime, or accident, you can have five people see the same thing, but all will have a little
different take on what happened.
        Likewise you can take the Bible, and have five different people read the same passages, and all have a little different understanding, and take on what it means. So which one is right and which ones are wrong? That might explain why there are so many different sects in the protestant faith community.
              Heidi, you've been givin more than ample explanations and biblical verses to point out why we do it,
You've already ignored them, so what are you going to ignore even better?

Again, Christ's words are the FOUNDATION of Christianity! If our beliefs are not based on His words, then they will crumble beneath our feet. Once you KNOW ALL of Christ's words, all you have to do is BELIEVE them! That's it! If you believe ALL of His words, only then will we know how to interpret the bible! Without knowing Christ's words FIRST, there will be as many interpretations of the bible as there are people in the world. Again, where did Christ say that we should pray to His mother or call ANYONE Father, much less our Holy Father? In answering this question, it is extremely necessary not to filtrate your interpretations through the catholic church or the apostles FIRST. Then you are NOT putting Christ's words first.  You are trying to fit His words into their doctrine instead of the other way around. If one's allegiance is to the men in the church before Christ, then you will try to change His words to agree with their doctrine. The beliefs of the apostles are CENTERED around Christ's words. The beliefs of the church should be also or they are worshiping someone other than Christ. Only Christ has the words of eternal life. If people do not believe that, then they are not true Christians. Only after you scrutinize every one of Jesus's words until you understand them will you understand the Old and New Testament. That should be a Christians first priority. Again, where did Jesus say to pray to His mother and call ANYONE our Holy Father? Let's start with Christ's words since His words are the cornerstone of Christianity.

Heidi,

I think that there is a severe gap in understanding.

There is a confusion of these terms:  prayer, intercession, worship and mediation.

Without getting to lengthy, the word pray has not always been a Biblical word. By that I don't mean it is not found in the Bible.  Culturally,. centuries ago, actually only in the last several hundred years has it fallen out of use in the secular realm.
It means simply to 'ask'.  Luke 14:18 "I pray thee excuse me"; Acts 10:48 Cornelius prayed Peter to tarry; Acts 16:9 Macedonian call "Praying to Paul saying, "Come!"; Acts 24:4 Paul to Felix: I pray you give us a
brief hearing"; Genesis 40:14 Joseph to Pharoah’s cupbearer, "I pray thee make mention of me to Pharoah"; Exodus 5:3 Moses to Pharoah "We pray thee permit us to go into the wilderness to sacrifice to the Lord";
2 Kings 2:2 Elijah to Elisha "I pray thee tarry here."

 It is a basic, and undeniably Biblical principle of Christian piety that we pray for our fellow Christians, and that they also pray for us, our prayers being joined together in the worship of God.

Now, just what do we mean by 'praying to the saints'?
Surely not worship. It is simply asking/requesting them to intercede on our behalf. It is a thoroughly Biblical principle. We are commanded to pray for each other and to seek others to pray for or with us. The problem is that they are physcially dead and not with us here on earth in the temporal part of the Church.
The problem Protestants have is understanding who is alive and who is dead, since we should only ask those alive.

 The "dead" are not dead. Luke 9:28-31 Transfiguration, Moses and Elijah talking to Jesus about His impending death in Jerusalem.
 Luke 16:19ff Rich man and Lazarus: Rich man "prays" (begs) Abraham to send Lazarus…
Matt. 22:32 God is the God of the living and not the dead.
 John 15:1ff Vine and the branches. We ALL share a common LIFE in Christ. Death is no longer separation between the living in Christ and the dead in Christ.

 Hebrews 12:1, Rev. 6:9, Rev. 5:8, Rev. 8:3ff. show quite clearly that the saints can and do intercede for us.

Hebrews 12:22-23 Summary of all of the above: "You HAVE COME to Mount Zion, and to the city of the Living God, the heavenly Jerusalem, and to the myriads of angels, to the general assembly, and the Church of the first born who are enrolled in heaven, and to God the judge of all, and the spirits of righteous men made perfect.
 James 5:16: "The effectual fervent prayer of a righteous man accomplishes much." The saints are perfected in heaven and continue to do what they did on earth: offer up prayers and supplications to God on behalf of their brethren in Christ.

The question should be why do we intercede for each other? The theological argument is that man was created to be in communion, communion in Christ specifically.  Part of our nature being in the image of God is communion. Christianity is communion with  one another.  Sharing a common life. We have a three part obligation or fulfillment, It is summed up in the Great Commandment.  You cannot take any one of the three parts away and be complete.
Part of the Protestant problem in modern US is equating the secular and the Biblical. Meaning, the secular is very individualistic, yet that is the greatest sin when it comes to Christianity and the role of man.

Again, Sojourner, where did Christ tell us to pray to Mary and call the pope our Holy Father? You are still taking the catholic doctrine and trying to find words in the bible to justify it. That is worshiping the catholic doctrine FIRST, instead of Christ's words. I truly believe you do not know the difference. Christ talked about the living as opposed to the dead in reference to life in the spirit as opposed to life in the world. He made NO reference to His mother in those passages, nor did He instruct us to call ANYONE 'father, much less our Holy Father except our father in heaven.  He specifically says the opposite, which the catholic church willfully disobeys. Again, you have to read ALL of Christ's words to understand His underlying messages, instead of taking single phrases and fitting them into yours or someone else's interpretations. Then you are worshiping those interpretations first. If you worship Christ first, then you will read His words and BELIEVE them and only then will you look for a doctrine that agrees with HIS words instead of the other way around. You are then worsiping Christ first. I do NOT consider the pope my Holy Father or the catholic doctrine infallible so I can then believe everyone of Jesus's words with no conflict of interest.

Heidi,


Apparently you did not yet read my reply to you about the word, 'Father'.
However, in this post you again revert to your blanket statement about not calling anyone father.  Therefore calling your human father, father, makes you unscriptural.

Here is the problem you are having. You have taken a book called the Bible and made it the sole rule. Yet, that Bible came out of a much larger environment we call Holy Tradition. Not all of Tradition is in the Bible, surely not explicitly.

You and most Protestants look at the Bible for deductive principles whereas the Orthodox look at it inductively. Or, in other words, you are looking for very specific words that will say to do this or to do that.
My explanation on 'invocation of the saints' is a very good example. The Bible has many references that I pointed out, but you are looking for very specific language that says, Jesus said to pray to the saints. Since Mary is a saint, and she is alive in Christ, we can pray to Mary since we cannot ask in person as I would ask you to pray for me, or you I.

Now lets take the matter of the Pope.
To call him father is not wrong. However to call him Holy is since his title is in oppostion to scripture. What the Romans have done in this instance is to put the Pope on the same level as Christ, as head of the Church. We don't need another head, surely a human one. Christ is our Head and rules His Church. The principle is also in violation of the historical understanding of what it means to be 'catholic'.
Rome believes that each bishop is under him in a heirarchy and each local church and diocese is part of the whole of the Roman Church. This is not the meaning of the word catholic.

Each individual, local church is complete. It is Christ's Body complete. We (Orthodox) are united individually as ONE, not as parts that make up a whole as the Romans. Each Bishop is equal, even the heirarchy, the bishops are equal. It is only in the organizational form of the Church that we use the heirarchy. which Protestants use as well.  In fact every denomination has a 'pope' with some kind of title.  Each denomination also believes in the idea that parts make up the whole. Theologically, that means Christ's body is made up of many pieces, divided among the various churches.
The unity Christ is speaking about in the Apostles prayer is precisely our understanding of the Church and its unity which the Apostles have given us through the centuries.
Unity is not union which is the matra of Ecumenism. This is usually the meaning on these boards as well when posters support unity of the churches. Thy have union in mind, not unity of Christ nor the Divine deposit of revelation which He gave to His Apostles.

I can agree with you on the first part regarding the Pope, but obviously if one does not follow even scripture to the letter, but depends on ones own ability to decipher, to interpret then one should not have a conflict. You should be able to develop a very comfortable religion.
It is the 'I' as opposed to the 'we' in Christ, joined as communal Christians on this earth in His Church, submitting wholly to Christ the Head.

If this is all it means to pray "to Mary", could you explain this to me please? Please take note - I am not trying to be argumentative, but there are some things in this which are somewhat disagreeable and I would care to have a better understanding of it. (This may have already been covered in some long ago thread, but I haven't seen it. And please, Lord, let it not open a can of worms). I have a sincere interest...nothing more.


This is called "the 15 Promises of Mary", so first of all, are these words supposed to have been spoken to St. Dominic and blessed Alan (by the way, who is blessed Alan?) by Mary?

Secondly, is this a true belief of Catholics? I mean what is contained in the aforementioned "promises"? I don't want to make any assumptions.

Possibly, this should even be moved to a new thread, cause it's getting off topic.

I don't want to go on and ask any further questions because maybe this "15 Promises" thing isn't part of the Catholic belief, in which case the questions are senseless, but if anyone can answer, and wants to discuss further, perhaps we can move to another thread?

Gracey

Gracey,

I'm Orthodox Catholic and we do not have a Rosary, though we do have a 'prayer chain'. I cannot assist you if you want specific answers to the 15 promises.  

This has not ever been part of the original belief and practice of early Christians. Rome has added much more to it, and made it dogma as well.

Elsewhere I also gave an explanation of the veneration of Mary as we do other saints but Mary more so as she is the Theotokos, mother of God. If you need more, just let me know and I will help you.

From my limited understanding, Orthodox Catholics are a "separate" group with their own doctrine from the Roman Catholics...is this correct? Does the OC fall under the "umbrella" of the RC, or are they completely and totally separate?

Also, this "15 Promises of Mary"....is from the Roman Catholics, then.... from what? the Pope?

I'm sorry - although I have family who are Catholic, and they do have a rosary, but I know very little - most of the masses I had attended as a child were not in english.

Gracey

Are you Actual Eastern Orthodox, or Are you under the Papacy.  Like a Byzantine Catholic or Uniate?

There are many prayer chains which are a good thing. But people in prayer chains do NOT pray TO each other, they pray FOR each other TO God, for it is only God who can ANSWER our prayers. Again, where did Christ say to pray to His mother and call anyone 'father' much less our Holy Father? I'm still awaiting a reply to that question using Christ's words.

When you ask someone to pray for you, you are praying to them in exactly the same way that someone praying to Mary is doing.

However, at the moment you seem to be going out of your way to prove that you don't know what you are talking about; the prayer chains he's talking about are like prayer ropes - vaguely similar to the rosary chain - a counting device to aid in prayer.  Not chains of people.

Sorry ebia, it is you who do not know what you are talking about at all, as usual. You contradicted yourself. You said you are praying for people and to them at the same time. When you pray FOR people, to whom are you addressing your prayers? Are you telling them to help themselves? Who are you asking to help them? If you think they can help themselves, then where does God come into the picture? Or do you think we can make ourselves perfect? That is idol worship. Again, where did Jesus tell us to pray to His mother? Please provide scripture reference. Or do you value your opinion more than his words? It appears that you're the one who's digging a hole so large that it's becoming a bottomless, eternal pit.

Nickolai,

I am Antiochian Eastern Orthodox.

Gracey,

We are totally separate. Prior to the Roman See departing from the Original Church of the first 10 centuries, they were part of us. They are in schism at the moment from the Orthodox having broken communion with the Church. They have retained some of the beliefs and practices but have added both in doctrine and practice from what was given to the Apostles.

Whenever you don't understand what someone says, you just make it up, don't you?

Just stop for a minute and answer this:
What, exactly, does the word prayer mean when used by catholics?

If you can't answer that correctly, then everything you have to say about the matter is based on your misconception.

You did not answer my question, ebia. Again, where did Jesus instruct us to pray to His mother or any person? He DID instruct us how to pray to His Father in heaven. Matthew, 6:6-7, "But when you pray, go into your room, close the door and pray to your Father, who is unseen. Then your Father who sees what is done in secret, will reward you."  Then he teaches HOW to pray and what to pray. His instructions on prayer are quite clear. How do my beliefs contradict his words? When i asked catholics on this forum to pray to me, they said; "why should we pray to you?" It appears that the catholics are VERY confused about what prayer means. Why WOULDN'T they pray to me if prayer is simply asking someone to pray for us?  Christ's words are very simple. If people would simply obey them, there would be NO confusion, and disunity in the churches. But instead, they disobey Him and make up their own rituals, and beliefs. WHY DO THEY DO THAT? What is the purpose behind all of these rituals? Do they think it makes them more holy? Do they not believe that ONLY the blood of Christ makes the holy, or do they think they make themselves holy? Which is it?

Heidi,


Heidi,

We don't think there is confusion. All Orthodox are united in faith and practice. We are One, and Holy as is Christ who is the Church.
Rituals.... since you didn't specifiy I will attempt to explain a few things from the Orthodox Apostolic view. You may go ballistic so hang on.

As I have already explained, man is a communal being. He was not created to be 'individual. He was created in God's image and is the link between the Divine and the Created world. We are a unique creature that has a soul -spirit- divine. yet we also have a body - matter. It was man's obligaton to bring creation, the world to God.
Christ came as an Incarnated Being, also possessing both Divine and Matter in order to bring humankind back into union, body and soul, because of Adams sin which separated us from God. Part of our redemption or salvation was to not only bring victory over death but also provide means wherewith we can become healed within a sick and corrupted state and world.  Because we are human, matter, he uses many material things which aid in that healing. These are called the means of Grace. They are actually all salvic because they aid. These begin with a real, in this world, communal Church, a spiritual entity but also a physical one. Baptism, is a union of divine and matter, use of water, communion, a union of divine and matter, confession- through a bishop, santification through oil, healing through oil, and fasting.

By the way do you fast? Jesus said you must, not an option.

The idea of praying with/to the saints is commanded of us. We do not separate the visible triumphant Church with the militant Church here on earth. We all worship together, we all pray for and with each other.  We are thus communal. We are saved as a community, not as individuals.

Here is a metaphor:  I am as sick as you are in this world. We are all sinners in need of healing. God provided that we have a hospital,(church), doctors, bishops, and lots of differenct medicines to aid in getting me better.

On the other hand you don't want to go to a hospital, Church, you want to do it on your own, have no spiritual father, and are using a lot of immitation medicines, quack medicine and many others are doing the same and nothing seems to change. You scurry from one to another place seeking what you innately feel you need but cannot find.

One can immitate, use the right language, have all the same rules (doctrine) it can look exactly like the real thing but in reality it is a fake.

Protestants, and I know of what I speak, having been a former protestant, do not use any of the means of Grace as specified in the Bible, Not one.
Most only have two and they are simply commemorations as in birthday, or anniversary events. They do not believe any action is taking place in a baptismal event.  It is not an external sign of an internal event, but the event itself.
Communion is the same rather than a participation and a sacrifice. In all cases of all the means of Grace we are either taking Christ into or expelling the disease or a combination of both.

Further, we believe everything is sacramental. This includes our very lives. How can one provide a holy and pleasing sacrifice to God with our lives by not participating in the means He provides to make it so?

That should be enough for you to digest for awhile.

We simply disagree. I have only ONE Father and He is in heaven. I do not pray to Mary because I believe Jesus's words that she is no better or worse than any other human being.  If i fast, i do it privately so it's done for God than for the praises of men. I do not call any priest 'Father", and i believe Jesus's words that the Counselor will be in me forever. Therefore, i can never be snatched out of His hand. He is my Lord and Saviour, not the worldly church. It is to Him I go for the truth, not the pope or any human being. You can be more loyal to your church than to Christ Himself if you like. I am not. The only thing we can agree on is that we disagree. Let's just leave it at that.

People have shown you again and again where these doctrines come from and that they don't contradict scripture.  First they had to correct your misunderstand and prejudicial misrepresentation of the doctrines, but then they have even provided scripture to support it.  You make such a point of relying on scripture yet your posts almost never have any scripture referenced in them and certainly no direct analysis or interpretations offered.  When others offer scripture in support of the correct statement of a doctrine you ignore it and NEVER have a I seen you offer an alternative interpretation in an effort to debate the point.  You always just fall back to repeating your attack such that it appears to be based on purely personal authority and that of course can only come from prejudice and hatred especially when that opinion is clearly shown to be wrong over and over again.

Yay, I'm not the only one.  I'm OCA jurisdiction.

Christos Anesti!

Heidi,

Heidi, I knew we disagreed a long time ago.
What I wanted you to do is support what you are saying, as Micheal has stated. Also, to clarify and explain to you the postion of the Orthodox, of which I am, and not Roman as you keep inferring. There are Roman Catholics on this board that can ably defend themselves, they don't need me.

No doubt you are sincere but it would behoove you to learn how to support what you are saying, then,  I just don't believe that.

Nickolai,

Indeed, He is Risen!

Christ's words support what I believe. That's all I need.

Heidi,

I'm not going to give up on you.

That is fine that you believe what you stated, and that they are your interpretation of that text in Matt. But if you are going to explain to someone why you believe such, saying it is Jesus' words and they point out a possible conflict with their understanding, how are you going to show them why you believe your understanding is correct?

Because my interpretaion does not contradict Paul's or anyone else's words in the bible. Paul never asked us to call him "Father", much less our Holy Father at all! Your interpretation does indeed conflict wit Jesus's words. The passages you quoted were posted to show how they conflict with Jesus's words. Again, if there's a contradiction, then the interpretation is faulty.

Heidi,

It is not a matter of Paul requesting that we call him father.
My interpretation, which is 2000 years old, conflicts with yours but that is not what I am trying to get you to see.

Your last sentence is really what it is all about at this point.
Permit me to role play with you. I'm a person who has not been exposed to the Bible.
You introduce me to the Bible and in a Bible study you explain to me Jesus' words and say that it means, Jesus said, not to call anyone father on earth.

Later we reach the other versus that you know about, and I say, 'how come Paul is using the term father and is calling his forebears, father, why is he saying that we can call him father, and Abraham is called father by the rich man in hades etc.

Now, how would you explain to me that that is not a conflict with your interpretation. To me it would be a conflict unless you could explain somehow that it is not. If you cannot, there is a conflict and your final statement would be true, or your interpretation is faulty.

Leave me and any catholic out of it and see if you can explain it? Remember, I'm not anything, just a struggling pupil of yours and I have a question.

You still haven't a clue about what Jesus or I am talking about, do you? Do you know what the term "title" means? Do you see the distinction between a TITLE and a description? Jesus's WHOLE passage had to do with TITLES!!!! Titles, like DR., FATHER, RABBI, etc. are vastly different than talking ABOUT doctors, priests and fathers.  Titles are specifically DESIGNED to call ATTENTION to one's POSITION in society which is Jesus's WHOLE point!!!!! A friend of mine recently received a Ph.d. He does not WANT to be called "DR." because he is aware of how little he knows. That is humility, NOT pride. That is Jesus's point! Jesus is talking about the MOTIVE of each religious person who takes titles for himself and gives them to others. It is a HIERARCHY DESIGNED to receive honor for being holy. That is the OPPOSITE of all of Jesus's teachings! That is why he included the phrase; "He who exalts himself will be humbled and he who humbles himself will be exalted" in that passage! Jesus is talking SPECIFICALLY to religious leaders and believers. He is not talking to pagans whom he expects to put people on pedestals because they do not know the only true God but instead, wordly gods like people and things.  Jesus is talking only to believers who DO know the one true God. To believers, we are all BROTHERS with only ONE Father.  Jesus says this when one of his discples told him his mother and brothers were waiting for him.  But no, the catholic church disagrees with him. Some people are simply better than others and should be SEEN as holier, so they will have a title. Jesus can't be right. So let's decide for ourselves what our traditions will be.

 But since you can't see how the pope and the church can be wrong (a characteristis of a cult), then you think something like, "well the catholic church HAS to be right because there are so many of them!" Jesus said, "few will be saved." This means that the MAJORITY of the world will be Muslims, Jews, Buddhists, Hindi, and other unbelievers. The majority of the world will be WRONG in their thinking! So why COULDN'T the catholic church be wrong? Or do you simply think they're right because they're infallibe? They blatantly contradict Christ's words in MANY of their teachings.  Jesus said there will be many false teachers. Again, He is right. The catholic church DELIBERATELY ignores Jesus and decides for themselves what we should call each other, because of course, they know better. Their disobedience of Jesus's words is very BLATANT here because Jesus has spelled it out for all the world to see. So what the catholic cult members have to do is desperately try to find somethin else in the bible to change Jesus's meaning. They have no choice because the catholic church is infallibe! Sorry, but there are few passages which are as clear as that one. The true believers who are loyal to Jesus before the pope, can see very clearly the contradiction here. But the one who are loyal to the pope, have no choice but to look for a different meaning. This is why their doctrine is so long!!! Most of it is trying to explain and justify their beliefs. Jesus's message is EXTREMELY simple. The message of the catholic church is EXTREMELY complex and contradictory. No wonder there are more ex-catholics than any other denomination.

This really isn't how you should respond to a bible student.

Yes, I know he/she was "role playing", but how about responding in the same manner?

You could say something like: when Jesus was speaking to the crowd and his disciples about the Pharisees he was making reference to addressing people with title "Father", rather than describing someone as a "father". You see, the word "father" in itself can mean different things, one of those things being "sire" or "male parent". The title "Father" on the other hands connotates a different meaning. That's why it might seem like there are discrepancies in the scripture - because of the meaning of the word, or the context in which it was used.

Now, the point I am making Heidi, is not necessarily that you are wrong, only that the way in which you respond provokes people.

And also:


I really must protest this - you assume that there are not Jewish or Hindu Christians. There most certainly are. You simply cannot lump nationalities together as unbelievers. If you were attempting to list their religions, then you need to learn first what they are. Hindi is the official language (along with English, I believe) of India. Hinduism is probably what you were looking for. Ever heard of an organization called Jews for Jesus?  http://www.jfjonline.org/about/statementoffaith.htm


Gracey

I really don't believe he has a clue of what I'm talking about. It wasn't meant in a mean tone, but a factual tone. It was simply an acknoweldgement of reality. I have explained this over and over and over again in the tone you described to no avail. Then it hit me, that he doesnt' understand at all what I've been saying. That's when I use capital letters to emphasize what I used to describe in the terms you have described. If you condiser me teaching to bible students, do bible students endlessly tell their teachers that they're contradicting themselves? How long do you think a "teacher" will put up with that?

Whose reality? Yours, of course - what you believe. Which, in fact, doesn't make it reality (at least from that other person's point of view).

Actually, Heidi, it's apparent to me that he/she does understand what you are saying. Because that person doesn't agree with you, doesn't mean they don't understand.


If you want to become an accomplished and trusted teacher, then for quite a long time - remember, "long-suffering".

How do you wish to be known? As someone who simply rants about the same things over and over again, or as a student of the Word who is patient and willing to explain in a clear and concise way what they believe and why? Now, understand that I am not saying "seek the rightousness of men" - only that if people come to think of you as a good teacher, they are certainly more willing to discuss, listen and learn about the Word. The word of God is sharper than a two-edged sword, so we don't need to be.

blessings
Gracey

The reality I'm talking about, Gracey, is the reality that we do not agree. That seems pretty evident, does it not?

If that person does understand what I'm saying and doesn't agree, then he thinks Paul and Jesus are contradicting each other. I do not. I have explained in detail the difference between a title and a description. Otheriwse, Paul is contradicting Jesus.

I am not a teacher nor do I wish to be known as one. Jesus said we have only ONE teacher, and again, I agree with Him. We are all brothers. It is you who insinunated I was a teacher. I responded to your analogy. On the contrary, it is you who sounds like a teacher. You are instructing me how to behave. My role model is Christ. He did not compromise the truth to spare people their feelings. Again, he was very clear, firm, and sometimes harsh. He did not kill people with kindness to earn the praises of men. He simply called a spade a spade.  He actually called people evil, condemned them to hell, a brood of vipers, confronted their sin, and told the Jews that the blood of this generation will fall on their shoulders for their unbelief. He did this in the spirit of love and truth,so that they may receive eternal life which IS true love, not specifically to hurt them. That is my motive also. My motive is not undermine people for the sake of undermining them. It is to show that only the teachings which lead us back to Christ ALONE are the true teachings. I hate evil, sin, but love the sinners. When you understand that, you will be able to distinguish real love from of flattery.

are you refering to yourself as a "teacher"?


Mat 23:8   "But do not be called Rabbi; for One is your Teacher, and you are all brothers.
Mat 23:9   "Do not call {anyone} on earth your father; for One is your Father, He who is in heaven.
Mat 23:10   "Do not be called leaders; for One is your Leader, {that is,} Christ.
Mat 23:11   "But the greatest among you shall be your servant.


this verse says we shouldn't call men teacher, father or master. you are trying to be a teacher but it says that One is our teacher...are you trying to be that One?

see this is where the whole argument falls apart... christ here is really trying to show us that the greatest among us shall be our servant, which is what the catholic priesthood is all about service.

mike

I just explained that, Blaine, in the post before yours.

No, that did not seem to be the reality you spoke of in your other post, but thank you for clarifying.


Then what are you doing? If you are not trying to instruct others in the way of the bible, then what are you doing? It doesn't appear to be conversation....

If you so truly believe the words of Christ Jesus our Lord, then you will wish to be known as a teacher:

Mat 5:19   Therefore whoever shall relax one of these commandments, the least, and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of Heaven. But whoever shall do and teach them, the same shall be called great in the kingdom of Heaven.

Mat 28:19  Therefore go and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit,

And from Timothy:

1Ti 2:7  To this I am ordained a preacher and an apostle (I speak the truth in Christ, I do not lie), a teacher of the nations, in faith and truth.
2Ti 1:11 to which I am appointed a preacher and an apostle and a teacher of the nations.
2Ti 1:12 For this cause I also suffer these things; but I am not ashamed, for I know whom I have believed, and I am persuaded that He is able to guard My deposit unto that Day.


It is the bible that instructs us how to behave:

2Ti 2:24 But the servant of the Lord must not strive, but to be gentle to all, apt to teach, patient,


To a certain degree you are correct in that he was harsh - indeed with the Pharisees, but you will seldom find that behaviour when he was trying to teach.

I don't disagree with everything you say, some things I certainly do, others, not, but I take issue with your disrespect of others.


Your "motive" may be what you say, but your methods belie the fact that you are not exhibiting this love, nor the fruits of the spirit. Actions can become a very clear indicator of just what our motives are. The bible does not hesitate to tell us that we should be more than just hearers of the word, but doers of the word.


I agree, each one of us must not take totally to heart what a man says; prove all things against scripture.

I happen to understand quite well the difference between real love and flattery. How? Once, I was you.

Gracey

I am simply passing on Christ's words who is our teacher. These aren't my words, they're His! That's why if anything any of us says does not agree with his words, then they are false teachings.

Why do I have to be a teacher to believe His words? It isn't ME who I want people to look at, it's Christ! I'm simply a tool that he uses just like you are. If people learn through me, then they are being drawn by God. I've said the exact same thing to atheists who aren't interested at all. Therefore, it is not me who teaches, but the Holy Spirit that works in all of us. As long as the Holy Spirit leads me, God's work will be accomplished to the degree that He is using me. Any teaching that is intended to glorify ourselves is fostering the sin of pride.  

No you're not.  You're not only passing on Christ's words in your posts.  Your telling us what you think they mean.  If you truly only believed what Christ said you probably wouldn't have any limbs now, or eyes.  You are giving us your interpretation of Christ's words along with Christ's words    


So He is just using you as a tool?  So that everyone on earth can be a tool?  Do you see where your interpretation lands you.  You're now a robot who can not decide anything for yourself.  You can't recognise good from evil on your own and you are helpless.  That's not how God created us.  It's NOT how He works.  

Because we are all to be teachers of the Word. Christ's own words say so. "Teacher" as a title (or Rabbi) is different than being a teacher of the word.


Peace children.

But yes, Nickolai - we are vessels, some of us even broken vessels which God fills and uses, when we allow it. The problem is many of us refuse to allow Him to work through us.

Gracey

Sorry, Nick, but I'm actually the ONLY one here who is passing on Christ's words EXACTLYas they were written, "Do not call anyone on the earth 'father'." Period. Amen.  I believe those words. It is others, rather, who are trying to change those words into something else, especially the catholic church! I also am passing on the words "And do not call anyone on earth 'teacher, for you have only one teacher." Once again it s you who are trying to change His words. I believe them verbatim!

Be careful, Heidi, else they begin quoting the parables, which none of us can take verbatim.

Keep on, my dear.

Gracey

Actually, none of the words I've quoted are parables. Jesus tells us which are parables and which are not. His parables are also true. Every single word.

Heidi,

Heidi, Heidi, Heidi....

How can you do it.

Here is a post just above:

You don't really believe them verbatin at all.  How could you. You just told at least two people in other posts that it only refers to 'titles' and only religious titles. Do you not realize
that you are contradicting yourself. Determine what it means for you and then consistantly stick to it, don't speak out of both sides of your mouth.

The ONLY one?
Gee, that sounds like the same thing you accuse the pope and cult leaders of doing.

so you believe this verbatim??

Mat 26:26 And as they were eating, Jesus took bread, and blessed [it], and brake [it], and gave [it] to the disciples, and said, Take, eat; this is my body.  


 Mat 26:27 And he took the cup, and gave thanks, and gave [it] to them, saying, Drink ye all of it;  


 Mat 26:28 For this is my blood of the new testament, which is shed for many for the remission of sins.  

mike

The wine and bread represent Jesus's body. Jesus was sealing the covenant of His body, given for us. He had not died yet so no one could eat His flesh and drink His blood while He was alive. Since none of his words contradict each other, when taken in conjunction with His words that He is the bread of life, all who eat His flesh and drink His blood will inherit eternal life, the bread and wine are to be done in remembrance of Him. Receiving His body inside us in the form of the Holy Spirit is literally eating His flesh and drinking His blood. I was accused of not passing on Christ's words. Again, I believe every word He said.

You keep saying that Eating the Body and Blood of Christ means that the Holy Spirit of CHrist lives in us.  But the Holy Spirit does not belong to Jesus.  Jesus and the Holy Spirit are two seperate persons.  Just as the Father is NOT the Son.  The Holy Spirit is NOT the Son.  The Holy Spirit Being in us is seperate from Christ in us.  We obtain Christ in us through the Eucharist and only the Eucharist.  The only way this can work is if we take Christ at his word when He says "This IS my Body" and "This IS my Blood".  These are Words of Christ that you don't seem to profess.    

Gal., 2:20, "For I no longer live, but Christ lives in me." Read the last several pages of the gospel of John, Nick. "On that day you will realize that I am in my Father and you are in me and I am in you." Habbukuk said, "Woe to the person who says; 'wood come to life!'" You cannot get life from a worldly ceremony, or worldly items. Christ is alive and well and dwells in the bodies and hearts of His believers. All you have to do is BELIEVE HIS WORDS. If you want to believe ALL of his words, you also have to believe him when he said; "I am the bread of life. Your forefathers ate the manna in the desert, yet they died. But here is the bread that came down from heaven, which a man may eat and not die. I AM THE LIVING BREAD THAT CAME DOWN FROM HEAVEN. IF ANYONE EATS THIS BREAD, HE WILL LIVE FOREVER. THIS BREAD IS MY FLESH, WHICH I WILL GIVE FOR THE LIFE OF THE WORLD." He goes on to say, "I tell you the truth, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink His blood, you have no life in you. Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life and i will raise him up at the last day." Once you BELIEVE this, you will understand what communion represents. You have to take into consideration ALL of his words, not just one passage.

You've mistaken what I said Heidi - I said that they (meaning other posters) would begin quoting the parables to you. You can't possibly take the parables "verbatim" and get any real meaning.

You can, however, quote the parables verbatim. It simply means to repeat the words as they were spoken (or written). Which is perfectly fine to do, but if you don't also understand the meaning of them, they are useless to quote - otherwise, what would people make of oh, say the parable of the prodigal son? A nice story, but without some other meaning it doesn't mean much. You understand the difference?

He also said things like:

Mar 4:9  And He said to them, He who has ears to hear, let him hear.

Well, almost everybody has ears, but not everybody hears. There's more meaning to those words than just what is written the way it stands. Deaf people have ears, but they can't hear, even if they want to. If we want to understand them, we have to attach a meaning to them. What is the meaning? Christ is telling us to not just listen, but to "hear" (in otherwords to understand). You see the difference?

The parables were not meant to be read without understanding:

Mar 4:11  And He said to them, To you it is given to know the mystery of the kingdom of God. But to those outside, all these things are given in parables
Mar 4:12  so that seeing they may see, and not perceive; and hearing they may hear, and not understand; lest at any time they should be converted, and their sins should be forgiven them.
Mar 4:23  If any man has ears to hear, let him hear.

And, He also warns us:
 
Mar 4:24  And He said to them, Take heed what you hear. With that measure which you measure, it shall be measured to you. And to you who hear, more shall be given


You may believe that statement, but it simply isn't true. You are also adding your own understanding to them, as in this case:


This is your interpretation of the act of communion. These are not his words, exactly, but these are:


If you leave it at that without any explanation, then you are not using any interpretation. But as soon as you begin to explain what they mean, the "verbatim" ends.

It does appear that it usually to boil down to semantics.


Peace
Gracey

ps: Heidi, you do understand that typing in all capital letters means you are yelling? If you want to to add emphasis to something without yelling, try using the italics or bold function instead. At least peeps won't think you are yelling all the time.

If I take Christ at His word.  EVERY SINGLE verse you gave supports literal communion.

Gracey, you have to believe ALL of his words, verbatim, not just a few passages here and there. When you see that he also said many words about eating his flesh and drinking his blood you will see that he meant to eat both his living body and the bread and wine. The words in the parables are also true. It is true that if someone does not have ears he cannot hear. My point is that if you believe his words first, then understanding will follow.

Heidi, do you understand what verbatim means? Perhaps that's our problem:

it means to repeat something word for word. (which has nothing to do with belief). That's something the Pharisees would have done - repeated the scriptures without belief.

All of us can repeat the scriptures word for word (using the bible, naturally) but what good will that do?

I see that you've said
I suppose that's a possiblity. However, I certainly didn't "believe" the passages I quoted in my previous post, until I understood them.

It is possible, you know, that understanding doesn't fall on us all in the same way. Try to make room for that thought. We, each of us, learn in a different way. It seems to be that the spirit teaches us in the way which we learn best.

Gracey

That's why the greatest enemy of God is unbelief which comes from satan. But the more we read His words, the more obvious they will become. They will leap out at us clear as a bell and we then wonder why we didn't see the obvious before. That is simply Satan trying to deceive us. But we can't battle Satan on our own. All we do is to keep asking God to bring us into belief for He is the only one who gives us the power over the devil. The Holy Spirit in us is battling the devil for us. That's because without the Holy Spirit, our father is the devil. We are either ruled by Satan or the Holy Spirit. Again, Jesus said; "The work of Gos is this; to believe in the one he sent." That is ALL we have to do. He does the rest!

how can you say you believe every word he said when you just explain away every word he said? you say that the bread and wine were not his flesh and blood but he says it was. you say the body in us is the holy spirit but i cannot find scriptural support for this anywhere. show me where in scripture it says the body of christ is the holy spirit. otherwise you are a false teacher.

mike

precicely  you have to take into account all his words, which is why the concept of the real presence  has been taught from the beginning. every thing you just posted only support the real presence in the eucharist. oh verbatim.

mike

I see nothing wrong with the Eucharist as long as one REMEMBERS that it is Christ's body in the form of the Holy Spirit that is inside of us. The ceremony alone does not give us eteral life as some people think. It is simply a remembrance, as Christ said, of God living in us.

of course the ceremony alone does not give us eternal life. if one goes through the ceremony without believing they may be in danger of hell.  

1Cr 11:29 For he that eateth and drinketh unworthily, eateth and drinketh damnation to himself, not discerning the Lord's body.

as for your claim that christ means his spirit when he says body, i thing this would be a very wrong tradition to start.

I take it you dont blieve Him when he said; "I tell you the truth, unless you eat the flesh of the son of Man and drink his bloood, you will have no life in you." Or, "I am the bread of life. Your forefathers ate the manna in the desert, yet they died. But here is the bread that comes down from heaven, which a man may eat and not die. I am the living bread that came down from heaven. If anyone eats of this bread, he will live forever. This bread is my flesh, which I will give for the life of the world." Or "For I no longer live but Christ lives in me." Or, "On that day you will realize that I am in my Father and you are in me and I am in you." Or, "I tell you the truth, unless you change and become like little children, you will never enter the kingdom of heaven." A child would read this passage and see that Jesus said we have to eat his flesh and believe it. Adults would say, "no he must means something else." But those of us who have Christ in us know exactly what he means!

heidi

first these verses are separated by a lot of  scripture. please keep your verses in context. as to you your initial question yes i believe...."I tell you the truth, unless you eat the flesh of the son of Man and drink his blood, you will have no life in you."  he defines what his flesh is..."I am the bread of life. Your forefathers ate the manna in the desert, yet they died. But here is the bread that comes down from heaven, which a man may eat and not die. I am the living bread that came down from heaven. If anyone eats of this bread, he will live forever. This bread is my flesh, which I will give for the life of the world." and he defines both at the last supper... take this bread..it is my body, take this cup it is my blood.

thus i believe the real presence of the eucharist just like christians have from the day christ initiated this sacrament.

on the other hand there were people that could not accept what christ was saying in john 6. apparently you are one of them?

mike

But there's one huge idfference between our understanding. You believe the wafer IS His body instead of REPRESENTING His body. Habbukuk said; "Woe to the person who said; 'wood come to life!" We cannot get life from worldly food, only the Holy Spirit. I believe his words when he says 'I am the bread of life"! I also believe Paul in Gal. 2:20, when he said; For it is no longer I who live but CHRIST WHO LIVES IN ME." Was he lying? "I am in my Father and you are in me and I am in you." What do you think the Holy Spirit is? Why is it synonymous with the Holy Ghost? At the last supper, Jesus instructed his disciples to "do this in REMEMBRANCE of me." Tell me, Blain, what does eating bread and dinking wine indicate we should remember? Why eating and drinking? Jesus made a huge point of telling us that we have to eat HIS flesh and drink HIS blood, LONG before the last supper. I've known He is in me since the day I received the Holy Spirit. I've already eaten His flesh and drunk his blood. Communion only reminds me of that, which is Jesus's whole point.

There is a huge difference alright, we believe it is His body, because that is what He said it is. He didn't say this symbolizes or represents my body, He said "this IS my body".
Why is it that your so dead set on the whole father thing, you keep saying "because He said it", but when He say's "this IS my body", you think He means it symbolically?
  All the Christians from the time of Christ knew what he meant, and all have followed this teaching up until the last
few hundred years, when certain individuals and their followers
decided they knew more than everyone else, including the early christians.
          If he didn't mean it literally, then why didn't He stop
the followers who left due to it being too hard to accept? He could have stopped them and said " i only mean this symbolically" but he didn't did He? When Nicodemus misunderstood Jesus, He corrected him, when the samaritan women misunderstood Him at the well, he corrected her didn't
He? Why not in this case? More than likely because He meant
what he said.
               It shows your misunderstanding by your statement
"we can not get life from worldly food", we know that it is not
worldly food, but the body and blood of our Lord and Savior, Jesus Christ. It couldn't be any clearer what He meant by all this, but again this is what happens when things are taken out of context.

look if you want to start a tradition based on this personal interpretation you are 100 percent free to do so. i will continue to put my trust in Christ by listening to those he sent to teach.



no he was not lying? how could you even get that from these 2 verses that are not even related.


i haven't a clue what you are talking about???? the fact that christ is in us has nothing to do with whether or not the eucharist is real or not. you are hodgepodging scriptures together in typical fundamentalist fashion.



well think about it heidi. get your bible out and look at what it says in that passage of scripture. what does he tell them to do? eat this bread and drink this cup. why? because it is his body and blood.


sure he did, just like he made a big point about his death and resurrection before it happened.  he made a point about it because he was letting them know that he was the lamb for sacrifice. he was letting them know the truth.


sure he is in you, that is not in conflict with the eucharist. i was baptised before i had the eucharist. the spirit, i believe came into me then and i had not had the eucharist. i think that in the end you may just have some misconceptions about sacraments and the eucharist in general.

mike

So you DON'T believe His words when he said; "I am the bread of live. He who eats this will never die." He wasn't holding bread in His hand when He said that, Rich. Do you or do you not believe Him when He said; "Unless you eat the flseh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you"? Yes or no.

Yes Heidi i do believe Him. That is why i believe that it Is the body and blood of our Savior. Where do you get that i don't believe His words, it is you that is not reading everything He and the apostles said about the institution of the eucharist and what it means.
  ST. Ignatius(110 AD)
 " heretics abstain from Eucharist and from prayer, because
they do not confess that the Eucharist is the flesh of our Savior Jesus Christ".
 St. Justin Martyr (150 AD)
   " not as common bread nor common drink do we receive
these; but as we have been taught, the food which has been made into the Eucharist by the Eucharistic prayer set down by
Him, and by the change of which our blood and flesh is nourished, is both the flesh and blood of that incarnated Jesus".
    St. Cyril of Jerusalem (350 AD)
"He himself, therfore , having declared and said of the bread, '
this is my body' who will dare any longer doubt? And when He Himself has affirmed and said 'this is my blood', who can ever hesitate and say it is not His blood?"
 ST. Cyril again,
     " Do not, therefore, regard the bread and wine as simply that, for they are, according to the Master's declaration,
the body and blood of Christ. Even though the senses suggest to you the other, let faith make you firm. Do not judge in this matter by taste, but be fully assured by faith, not doubting that you have been deemed worthy of the body and blood of Christ".
  So Heidi i believe every word He said about this, it is you that apparently does not. Why do you insist on telling everyone what they think and believe, and i'm not talking about just the Catholics either.
         Again i'll ask you to please take some time to study
what the early Christians taught and belived,(and i'm not talking about the ones from 1500-present). You'll find it doesn't really resemble what you've been led to believe Christianity is. There are volumes of writings from more of the Saints and early Church fathers, much like those above and from the same time frame, check them out. Hmm, but maybe
that's why you don't want to, it doesn't mesh w/ your interpretations.

Do you also believe His words when He said; "Unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drinkg his blood, you wil have no life in you?" He had no bread and wine when He said that. Do you believe His words when He said;" On that day, you will realize that I am in the Father and you are in me and I am in you"?

And Heidi, You should probably know that Ignatius learned dirsctly under St. John. (The writer of the Gospel of John)
 

It is St. Igatius then who is apparently the heretic. I believe each and every one of Christ's words. I believe we have to eat the body of Christ and drink His blood to have life in us. I also see the bread and wine as his body and blood but am doing it in REMEMBRANCE of Christ. His real body and blood are in me in the form of the Holy Ghost beause we can't get life from bread and wine, only from the SPIRIT. Communion is simply a remembrance of Him. I have eternal life through His spirit in me which NO ONE can EVER snatch out of my heart, not from performing a ceremony. I perform the ceremony out of LOVE for Him. For if we have not love, then ALL the sacrements and "good works" are meaningless!

I want to make this even clearer so there is no misunderstanding about what He's saying. The Holy Spirit IS the body and blood of Christ inside of us. That is why it also called the Holy Ghost and referred to as a "He". Gal. 2:20, "For it is no longer I who live, but Christ who lives in me."  I only perform communion as a token of remembrance out of love for what He has done for me.

Heidi,

A few questions to clarify a few things.

Do you think that Ignatius is a heretic, wrong in his understanding because he differs with your interpretation?

If it is your interpretation, how would that be different from the way you think that he has derived his interpretation?

If you say that you were led by the Holy Spirit and therefore your interpretation is correct, how do you know that Ignatius has not claimed the same thing?

If he in fact has made that claim, then who is correct? You or he?

Do you know how to determine who is correct?