Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
If you’re not eating Jesus’ literal flesh or drinking his literal blood, then exactly what do you believe
I am literally in study day and night drinking the milk of the word and eating of the flesh of Jesus, the meat of the word.
If I love my neighbor more than myself and I show love where I want to show hate, its because I believed Jesus and took in his own nature of self sacrifice, and that is the point of blood and flesh, we study the meat and take in his nature.
Seriously? Is that not what this entire thread and discussion has been about? You really don't know what we base that belief on?
Have CCCyou, Kathryn, NatesDude, and myself just been typing into the void this whole time?
As I've said. I've seen the proof texts. I get the motivation behind it. I understand the teaching.
I just don't believe it. And that's what the first post asked. In my honest opinion, I believe the doctrine was invented by well-meaning people that thought they had to continue to make sacrifices. They did not to give up the sacerdotal system, because it's what they knew. And it directly contradicts the message of the book of Hebrews.
As I've said. I've seen the proof texts. I get the motivation behind it. I understand the teaching.
I just don't believe it. And that's what the first post asked. In my honest opinion, I believe the doctrine was invented by well-meaning people that thought they had to continue to make sacrifices. They did not to give up the sacerdotal system, because it's what they knew. And it directly contradicts the message of the book of Hebrews.
Where in Hebrews does it state that the priesthood has been 'eliminated'?
As I've said. I've seen the proof texts. I get the motivation behind it. I understand the teaching.
I just don't believe it. And that's what the first post asked. In my honest opinion, I believe the doctrine was invented by well-meaning people that thought they had to continue to make sacrifices. They did not to give up the sacerdotal system, because it's what they knew. And it directly contradicts the message of the book of Hebrews.
What do you base that on? Nothing in Scripture says it, and the apostles certainly didn't teach it.
So then there are no limitations on him as a man? You don't believe he is actually flesh?
Yes. The Lord's Supper that I partake of in my church is much different. I believe I follow the Scriptural command to celebrate it.
Actually the apostles almost certainly taught it, as their successors taught what they learned from the apostles. The bishop who was a direct in person student of John certainly believed he was taught it by the apostle.
You gain make the typical Protestant mistake of " if it ain't in the Bible, it didn't happen. " Lots happened in the years before the Bible was written.
Where in Hebrews does it state that the priesthood has been 'eliminated'?
Have you read Hebrews? The entirety of the book is about how Christ is BETTER. Better than the Law, better than angels, better...better...better.
Hebrews 10:11-14: "And every priest stands daily at his service, offering repeatedly the same sacrifices, which can never take away sins. 12 But when Christ had offered for all time a single sacrifice for sins, he sat down at the right hand of God, 13 waiting from that time until his enemies should be made a footstool for his feet. 14 For by a single offering he has perfected for all time those who are being sanctified."
Now...I know that you'll say that the RCC priests don't make another sacrifice, but merely "re-present" the body of Christ. But it was never for them to do in the first place. Jesus himself offered his body as the sacrifice, then sat down. He is done working. Where the priests never sat down, but had to stand every day...Jesus was one and done. HE is our priest, not a man.
Actually the apostles almost certainly taught it, as their successors taught what they learned from the apostles. The bishop who was a direct in person student of John certainly believed he was taught it by the apostle.
Show me the Scripture, then.
Quote:
You gain make the typical Protestant mistake of " if it ain't in the Bible, it didn't happen. " Lots happened in the years before the Bible was written.
Actually, I take the stance of "if it contradicts what is in the Bible, it's wrong". And it does.
We know from Scripture that there were false teachers entering the church. There is LOTS of ink spent on rebuking those teachings in the NT. It's not difficult to understand how some of the disciples of the apostles fell into error. But many did not. If you care to get into a contest of quoting those Early Church Fathers, I'm sure I can find some to counter the ones you find. But that wouldn't really be profitable.
Actually, I take the stance of "if it contradicts what is in the Bible, it's wrong". And it does.
We know from Scripture that there were false teachers entering the church. There is LOTS of ink spent on rebuking those teachings in the NT. It's not difficult to understand how some of the disciples of the apostles fell into error. But many did not. If you care to get into a contest of quoting those Early Church Fathers, I'm sure I can find some to counter the ones you find. But that wouldn't really be profitable.
You perhaps don't get the humor and irony of demanding "show me the Scripture", when what I would be showing you is what the very people you claim fell into error decided made up the Bible.
If you think the entire first successors of the apostles ALL simultaneously into error and created the churches that today comprise the RCC, EO,OO, then you are naive in the extreme. You show you have no sense of how the Ancient Faiths worked. To alter what the apostles taught was anathema, the quickest way to condemnation. And yet that is what your belief is based on, that the first line of successors to the apostles ALL simultaneously altered what the apostles had taught them. Its laughable, but then its Protestantism .
Nothing you say and try to convince yourself of will ever alter the fact that the Bishop of Antioch who proclaimed the Eucharist to be the flesh and blood of Christ was an actual in person student of John, and who would have learned what he taught from John. When you choose to deny the Eucharist, you choose to deny what the apostles taught. Its really as simple as that. No logical and honest person can reasonably come to the conclusion that the first generation of bishops that learned directly from the apostles all simultaneously fell away from the apostles teachings.
You perhaps don't get the humor and irony of demanding "show me the Scripture", when what I would be showing you is what the very people you claim fell into error decided made up the Bible.
No. I actually believe the Apostles wrote the letters attributed to their names, and they rebuked the heresies that many believe today, and the ones that you think their disciples believed and taught.
Quote:
If you think the entire first successors of the apostles ALL simultaneously into error and created the churches that today comprise the RCC, EO,OO, then you are naive in the extreme. You show you have no sense of how the Ancient Faiths worked. To alter what the apostles taught was anathema, the quickest way to condemnation. And yet that is what your belief is based on, that the first line of successors to the apostles ALL simultaneously altered what the apostles had taught them. Its laughable, but then its Protestantism .
I never said that.
Quote:
Nothing you say and try to convince yourself of will ever alter the fact that the Bishop of Antioch who proclaimed the Eucharist to be the flesh and blood of Christ was an actual in person student of John, and who would have learned what he taught from John. When you choose to deny the Eucharist, you choose to deny what the apostles taught. Its really as simple as that. No logical and honest person can reasonably come to the conclusion that the first generation of bishops that learned directly from the apostles all simultaneously fell away from the apostles teachings.
He was wrong. Just as Peter himself fell into error and was corrected by Paul.
No. I actually believe the Apostles wrote the letters attributed to their names, and they rebuked the heresies that many believe today, and the ones that you think their disciples believed and taught.
To quote you, show me where the Apostles rebuked transsubstantiation.
Quote:
I never said that.
If you believe that all the original churches that hold the same belief on the Eucharist immediately fell into error, then you believe this whether you actually say it or not . Either all the churches believe in transsubstantiation because that’s what the Apostles taught them , or they all simultaneously fell into error as a whole .
Quote:
He was wrong. Just as Peter himself fell into error and was corrected by Paul.
Peter had no one teaching him. Ignatius learned in person with John. You are free to feel he was wrong, but you still can’t alter that what he believed and taught he got from the apostle John. It isn’t the slightest bit reasonable to believe that a guy that learned from years with John, and was regarded as faithful enough to be appointed a Bishop , either didn’t understand such a crucial element of the faith, or simply chose to change it as soon as he was in charge . That isn’t even the slightest bit credible .
You are getting desperate
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
