1. Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Featured The shortcoming of German churches and cathedrals.

Discussion in 'General Religious Debates' started by Jonathan Bailey, Apr 19, 2019.

  1. Landon Caeli

    Landon Caeli What's your stoyle?

    Joined:
    May 12, 2018
    Messages:
    4,729
    Ratings:
    +1,441
    Religion:
    Catholic
    #81 Landon Caeli, Apr 23, 2019
    Last edited: Apr 23, 2019
  2. Deeje

    Deeje Avid Bible Student
    Premium Member

    Joined:
    Jun 20, 2009
    Messages:
    9,733
    Ratings:
    +5,082
    Religion:
    Christian JW
    No link?
     
  3. Landon Caeli

    Landon Caeli What's your stoyle?

    Joined:
    May 12, 2018
    Messages:
    4,729
    Ratings:
    +1,441
    Religion:
    Catholic
    fixed. technical difficulties.
     
  4. Deeje

    Deeje Avid Bible Student
    Premium Member

    Joined:
    Jun 20, 2009
    Messages:
    9,733
    Ratings:
    +5,082
    Religion:
    Christian JW
    Your link was just rambling statements of belief in the Catechism. Way too vague and involved.

    Can you take each doctrine one at a time, perhaps in order of importance.....discuss the origin of the teachings and interpretations of scriptures supporting them.
    ....like.....e.g.
    The trinity......it is one of the most important doctrines of Christendom.....so when it was first introduced?
    Was it an explicit doctrine of scripture?
    Was it taught in the OT? Did Jesus teach it?
    What Bible verses was it based on?
    Are there verses that contradict it? If so, why?
    What does the doctrine tell us about God and his relationship with Jesus Christ?

    How about we start here?
     
  5. Landon Caeli

    Landon Caeli What's your stoyle?

    Joined:
    May 12, 2018
    Messages:
    4,729
    Ratings:
    +1,441
    Religion:
    Catholic
    Because Jesus said to baptize nations in the name of "the Father, and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit"...

    ...This is where, in Matthew 28: 18-19, the existance of a "Holy Trinity" came to exist.

    The three were conjoined by the Word of God in scripture, therefore it is safe and acceptable to consider the three as very closely related... it is scriptural.

    Why do you suppose God wanted the world to know that it is proper to baptize in the name of those three? Surely there must be good reason for being informed on this important information.

    Also, let's consider the Divine nature of being responsible for judging all souls, which Jesus will do. No mere "prophet" could be responsible for such a Divine task.
     
    #85 Landon Caeli, Apr 24, 2019
    Last edited: Apr 24, 2019
  6. Landon Caeli

    Landon Caeli What's your stoyle?

    Joined:
    May 12, 2018
    Messages:
    4,729
    Ratings:
    +1,441
    Religion:
    Catholic
    Also consider:
    CATHOLIC ENCYCLOPEDIA: The Blessed Trinity
     
  7. Deeje

    Deeje Avid Bible Student
    Premium Member

    Joined:
    Jun 20, 2009
    Messages:
    9,733
    Ratings:
    +5,082
    Religion:
    Christian JW
    Thank you, will address this tomorrow. Bed time in Oz.
     
  8. pcarl

    pcarl Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 6, 2005
    Messages:
    3,624
    Ratings:
    +1,474
    Religion:
    Catholic
    Christians continued to attend the synagogue, as they were a cult within Judaism, until we were expelled from the Temple as heretics. And as I stated they met in homes for the Eucharist.

    Neither do we, the Church is the 'people of God', the body of Christ not the building. Nothing new here.
    Church – Like the German word "Kirche" or Dutch "Kerk," the English word "church" etymologically derives from the Greek word κυριακόν (kyriakon), meaning "belonging to the Lord" (at first, "the Lord's people" or "the Lord's community"; only later "the Lord's house"). The equivalent words in Latin (ecclesia), French (eglise), and Spanish (iglesia), and the related English adjective "ecclesial" all derive from the Greek noun ἐκκλησία (ekklesia = "assembly, congregation, gathering"; combining the preposition ἐκ/ek = "out of" and the verb καλέω/kaleo = "to call"). Thus, an "ecclesial" community is literally a group of people "called out" of their homes to "assemble" or "congregate" (gather together) so that they can live and pray and worship together as one community.Originally, ekklesia was a secular term, referring to any gathering or "calling forth" of people to deal with political or juridical matters. In the NT, it designates the community of Christian disciples who gathered at least weekly for common liturgy and prayer. The word "church" is used 114 times in the NT, but only three times in the Gospels (once in Matt 16:18 and twice in Matt 18:17). In the letters attributed to Paul, the word "church" is used 62 times, most often to denote the local Christian community or clusters of communities (Rom 16:4; 1 Cor 1:2, 14:33; 2 Cor 8:18; Gal 1:2; 1 Thess 1:1), or occasionally to refer to the whole church (Gal 1:13; 1 Cor 12:28) in a universal, cosmic sense (Col 1:24; Eph 5:29)

    http://catholic-resources.org/Bible/NT-Theology-Ecclesiology.htm


    Yes, Christianity evolved to meet the needs of the communities, the agape was no longer practical.
    The Encyclopedia of Early Christianity, which represents both catholic and Protestant views, says this about the love feast: "In the history of early Christian practice, however, agape is also a liturgical term. Translated "love-feast" (Jude 12), it springs from the meal that the New Testament variously calls the "breaking of bread" (Acts 2:42-47; 20:7-12) and "Eucharist" (1 Cor. 11:20-34). A core tradition in the early church, the meal explicitly recalls the meals Jesus celebrated with his disciples, especially the Last Supper ... and the post-resurrection meals recounted in Luke 24 and John 20-21." [p. 17]

    http://www.earlychurch.com/LoveFeast.html

    That's why the Jewish Christians fulfilled their Sabbath obligation by going to Temple on the Sabbath and on the Lord's Day, Sunday, the first day of the week, the (eighth day) they gathered for Eucharist.


    This does not mean that Mary's title "Mother of God" infers that she existed before God. Jesus is present from the beginning of time. "In the Beginning was the Word" (Jn 1.1).

    Nice try, but history is history. it is the Church that determined the Canon of Scripture, and as you stated, with the guidance of the Holy Spirit.
     
  9. Deeje

    Deeje Avid Bible Student
    Premium Member

    Joined:
    Jun 20, 2009
    Messages:
    9,733
    Ratings:
    +5,082
    Religion:
    Christian JW
    Where does it say that baptizing "in the name of the Father, Son and holy spirit" necessarily makes a trinity?

    Does the Bible speak of these as separate and necessary parts of the way God accomplishes his will and purpose concerning his creation?

    The Father's place in the scheme of things is supreme. Only the Father is eternal. He is the "first cause" of all other things, both in the invisible realm where he began his creation and in the material realm which came a lot later.

    The Son is God's first creation....before all things, this son was "begotten". To be "begotten, one needs a 'begetter'. He was "begotten" long before he came to the earth.

    According to scripture, the Father employed the agency of his son in everything he did.
    Colossians 1:15-17....Paul, speaking of Jesus, said.....

    "He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of all creation; for in him all things in heaven and on earth were created, things visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or rulers or powers—all things have been created through him and for him. He himself is before all things, and in him all things hold together." (NRSVCE)

    As "firstborn" the pre-human Jesus was brought into existence and he was at his Father's side, not for eternity, because the Son had a "beginning". As "firstborn" he has been in existence longer than any other living thing.

    Again, speaking of Jesus in the Revelation, John wrote.....

    “To the angel of the church in Laodicea write: The Amen, the faithful and true Witness, the Beginning of God’s creation, has this to say:..." (Revelation 3:14 MOUNCE)

    This makes the Son a creation of his Father and completely disproves the trinity. But there is more....

    You have to ignore a lot of scripture to believe that the relationship is closer than what Jesus and his apostles indicated.

    Again we have Paul's words at 1 Corinthians 8:5-6....

    "Indeed, even though there may be so-called gods in heaven or on earth—as in fact there are many gods and many lords— yet for us there is one God, the Father, from whom are all things and for whom we exist, and one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom are all things and through whom we exist." (NRSVCE)

    There was no ambiguity for the apostles.....there is only "one God, the Father" who is not confused with Jesus who is acknowledged as Christ their "Lord" (Master).

    Jesus himself called his Father "the only true God" and said we are to serve "him alone". (John 17:3; Luke 4:8)
     
    #89 Deeje, Apr 24, 2019
    Last edited: Apr 25, 2019
    • Like Like x 1
  10. Deeje

    Deeje Avid Bible Student
    Premium Member

    Joined:
    Jun 20, 2009
    Messages:
    9,733
    Ratings:
    +5,082
    Religion:
    Christian JW
    Those three vital components in the outworking of his purpose need to be understood individually, if one is to serve God acceptably. To fully understand the vital role that each play is vital for Christians.

    So where do we get the idea that the Holy Spirit is a person?

    What is the Holy Spirit? If we go to the OT, we find Moses struggling under the weight of his responsibilities in guiding his nation in the wilderness, so it was suggested that he appoint 70 older, spiritually qualified men to help him carry the load. This is where the operation of God's spirit is interesting.....in all God's dealings with humankind there was balance, so when God gave his spirit to empower his earthly servants, there was not too much or too little. In the case of Moses, God took the portion of the spirit given to Moses and shared it between all the appointed ones.

    Numbers 11:16-17....
    "So the Lord said to Moses, “Gather for me seventy of the elders of Israel, whom you know to be the elders of the people and officers over them; bring them to the tent of meeting, and have them take their place there with you. I will come down and talk with you there; and I will take some of the spirit that is on you and put it on them; and they shall bear the burden of the people along with you so that you will not bear it all by yourself." (NRSVCE)

    The Holy Spirit is God's active force....it is apportioned as needed, so it cannot be a person. In the Bible God and his Christ have personal names......the holy spirit is nameless.

    God is the source of his power, exercised as he wills to accomplish his purpose. The outpouring of the Holy Spirit at Pentecost was shared between 120 disciples, enabling them to do supernatural things, like speaking foreign languages that they had never learned in order to preach the good news to foreign visitors to Jerusalem. (Acts of the Apostles 2:5-8) The holy spirit is a "helper", Jesus said.

    The Bible does not support the Holy Spirit as a third part of a triune godhead. God's spirit is a necessary component in the outworking of His purpose. Jesus was given Holy Spirit at his baptism and could thereafter perform miracles. Before that, he was just Jesus the carpenter's son. The reason why his siblings did not accept him as Messiah was because he was just their older brother. He had no supernatural abilities before his baptism because he was 100% human, not God in a man suit.

    If you understood the mechanics behind the "ransom" you would know why it was not necessary for God to become a human. It would have been like paying a million dollar ransom with 60 quadrillion dollars. Overkill to the max.

    Jesus was not just a prophet......he was God's representative in a unique capacity. Only he had the knowledge and past experience to act as a perfect spokesman for his Father, which is what his title "Logos" suggests. He spoke God's words to man.

    He also has authorization to act as judge.

    Acts 17:29-31.....
    "Since we are God’s offspring, we ought not to think that the deity is like gold, or silver, or stone, an image formed by the art and imagination of mortals. While God has overlooked the times of human ignorance, now he commands all people everywhere to repent, because he has fixed a day on which he will have the world judged in righteousness by a man whom he has appointed, and of this he has given assurance to all by raising him from the dead.” (NRSVCE)

    Jesus has been given authority by his Father to judge the world.

    In Matthew 28:18, just before giving his disciples their commission to preach and make disciples, Jesus said...

    "And Jesus came and said to them, “All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me." (NRSVCE)

    If Jesus was God, why would he need any authority to be "given" to him? This is the post resurrection glorified Jesus speaking.

    After his return to heaven, Jesus still refers to his Father as "my God"....

    Revelation 3:12....

    "If you conquer, I will make you a pillar in the temple of my God; you will never go out of it. I will write on you the name of my God, and the name of the city of my God, the new Jerusalem that comes down from my God out of heaven, and my own new name." (NRSVCE)

    Can one part of God worship an equal part of himself even in heaven?

    Like I said....you have to ignore a lot of scripture to accept the trinity as a Bible teaching. I came to see it as a man-made blasphemy designed by God's enemy to fool people into serving the wrong god. To put any other god in place of the Father, is a breach of the first Commandment. Look how many people in Christendom accept it without question? It forms the foundation for all other beliefs. If the foundation is weak, a building will collapse.
    Any wonder that Jesus said that "few" are on the road to life. (Matthew 7:13-14) and that "many" would acknowledge him as "Lord" but fail to gain his approval. (Matthew 7:21-23) :(

    I see sincere people trying to defend these teachings but it is obvious that they have never considered the real scriptural evidence....I was in that position myself once, but I removed the cotton wool from my ears and actually listened, and the Bible spoke to me louder than any man.

    More to follow.....
     
    #90 Deeje, Apr 24, 2019
    Last edited: Apr 25, 2019
    • Winner Winner x 1
  11. Deeje

    Deeje Avid Bible Student
    Premium Member

    Joined:
    Jun 20, 2009
    Messages:
    9,733
    Ratings:
    +5,082
    Religion:
    Christian JW
    This is one of my favorite parables. Yes.....and when the owner of the vineyard sent his son, they killed him too. This is speaking of the Jews.

    From your link.....

    "And they laid hands on him, thrust him out from the vineyard, and killed him. 40 And now, what will the owner of the vineyard do to those vine-dressers when he returns? 41 They said, He will bring those wretches to a wretched end, and will let out the vineyard to other vine-dressers, who will pay him his due when the season comes. 42 And Jesus said to them, Have you never read those words in the scriptures, The very stone which the builders rejected has become the chief stone at the corner; this is the Lord’s doing, and it is marvellous in our eyes?[7] 43 I tell you, then, that the kingdom of God will be taken away from you, and given to a people which yields the revenues that belong to it. 44 As for the stone, when a man falls against it, he will break his bones; when it falls upon him, it will scatter him like chaff.[8] 45 The chief priests and the Pharisees saw clearly, when they heard his parables, that it was of themselves he was speaking, 46 and would gladly have laid hands on him, but they were afraid of the people, who looked upon him as a prophet.[9]

    Jesus himself is called God's "servant". (Acts 3:13) He is also called an "apostle". (Hebrews 3:1)
    Yes, in heaven he is known as the Archangel Michael. He is Commander in Chief of all the Angels. He has many roles and a few different names. The true God has only one name. (Psalm 83:18 KJV)
    Well, that is a stretch....."the Son of God" is what Jesus called himself. He never said he was "God the Son". Please note the difference. Not once did Jesus ever suggest that he was equal to his own God and Father.

    The Jews accused him of claiming to be God but they were trying to bring an accusation of blasphemy against him, to have an excuse to do away with him. Jesus refuted that accusation. (John 10:31-36)

    Imagine if he had claimed to God?! :eek:.....which he never did. God has many "sons" but he just has one "only begotten".

    What makes Jesus an "only begotten" among many sons? The fact that he is the only direct creation of his Father. As the agency "through" whom all things came into existence, Jesus is the one who created everything else. He was with God as his "Master Workman" from the beginning of creation....(Genesis 1:26)

    Proverbs 8: 22; 30-32....
    "The Lord created me at the beginning of his work"......."then I was beside him, like a master workman; and I was daily delight, rejoicing before him always, 31 rejoicing in his inhabited world and delighting in the sons of men." (RSVCE)

    I see that the Bible answers all the questions we have about everything. Please consider the scriptures that I have quoted from a Catholic Bible. These things are too important to ignore.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  12. Deeje

    Deeje Avid Bible Student
    Premium Member

    Joined:
    Jun 20, 2009
    Messages:
    9,733
    Ratings:
    +5,082
    Religion:
    Christian JW
    According to my research....the Eucharist is not something we find in the Bible celebrated by the first Christians. Jesus instituted the new covenant with a breaking of the Passover bread and a drinking of the Passover wine. He told his disciples to "keep doing this in remembrance of me". It was a sign of the New Covenant's inauguration and that the partakers too, are to give up their own flesh and blood to join Jesus in his Kingdom in heaven. Jesus paved the way for them to follow him later....but not until his return.

    For Christians, this replaced the Passover because it was held on the same date, and was a yearly observance. It had nothing to do with the "love feasts" that some held but which Jesus did not command for his followers. Please don't mix them up.

    Jesus is the symbolic Passover "Lamb" and those who will rule with him in heaven are the only ones authorized to partake of the bread and wine. Those taking this "communion" unworthily will be condemned.

    As Paul wrote...

    1 Corinthians 11:27-29...
    "27 Whoever, therefore, eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty of profaning the body and blood of the Lord. 28 Let a man examine himself, and so eat of the bread and drink of the cup. 29 For any one who eats and drinks without discerning the body eats and drinks judgment upon himself."

    Can you honestly say that those who turn up at church and eat the wafer as a matter of religious ritual will be approved by God? Do they have any real idea about what they are doing or why? And why is there usually no wine offered? Both equally symbolize Christ's sacrifice. You must know that the notion of transubstantiation is not of Biblical origin?

    The Catholic Church alone teaches that the bread and the wine are miraculously transformed into the literal body and blood of Christ. This teaching arose gradually, with the word first being defined and used officially in the 13th century. Imagine, over 400 years after Jesus walked the earth, the church leaders decide to make up doctrines about his mother, his nature, and 1300 years later, the nature of his remembrance. Wasn't it all covered in the scriptures?

    To eat literal human flesh and to drink literal blood are against God's laws. The very thought is repulsive. So how come only Catholicism supports this notion? Doesn't it just mirror all of the other things that are accepted by the RCC but rejected by most other "Christians"? The Reformation was necessary because of the number of excursions into false religious practices made by the RCC...these religious ideas find no Biblical support whatsoever, but seeing as how most people couldn't read a Bible or own one, they got away with murder for centuries.....for most Catholics, this is the only "Christianity" they know.

    Yes, as I said...the church is the people, not the building. So why take so much money for a building when so many of the people are in need? 40% of those who live in Latin America are Catholics.....or are fleeing from there in droves. The Catholic Church is a very wealthy institution....so why is it not concentrating its money where it is needed?
    I see nuns trying to operate soup kitchens for the homeless but are short of funds. Wonderful people but hamstrung by the system....why? I believe Mother Teresa also had trouble getting funds form the church for her work.

    The church seems to confuse the "love feasts" with the Lord's Supper. They are not related at all. Just as "Lent" has no connection with Christ's death. Where will I find Jesus recommending a period of "Lent"?

    " I have applied all this to myself and Apol′los for your benefit, brethren, that you may learn by us not to go beyond what is written, that none of you may be puffed up in favor of one against another." (1 Corinthians 4:6)

    We are told "NOT to go beyond what is written" for a reason and I believe that the RCC provides all the reasons we need to see why.

    No they didn't. The church tried to pass Sunday off as the Sabbath......my former church did too. No one was authorized by God to change the Sabbath day to Sunday. But Christians did not need to observe the Sabbath anyway.

    God had no beginning....remember? Jesus had a beginning because he is "the beginning of creation" by his Father. (See my reply to Landon Caeli above.)

    It is God's word, not the church's. God determined what was to be included in it. He can use whomever he wishes to accomplish his will....even his enemies as he has done in the past. The Bible we have today is not the Catholic Bible anyway. Apocryphal writings are not included because it is apparent from reading them that they do not belong.

    While in some cases they have certain historical value, any claim for canonicity on the part of these writings is without any solid foundation. The evidence points to a closing of the Hebrew canon following the writing of the books of Ezra, Nehemiah, and Malachi in the fifth century B.C.E. The Apocryphal writings were never included in the Jewish canon of inspired Scriptures and do not form part of it today.
     
    #92 Deeje, Apr 25, 2019
    Last edited: Apr 25, 2019
    • Like Like x 1
  13. Landon Caeli

    Landon Caeli What's your stoyle?

    Joined:
    May 12, 2018
    Messages:
    4,729
    Ratings:
    +1,441
    Religion:
    Catholic
    How do you reconcile:
    Hebrews 1:2

    ~and~

    John 1:1
     
  14. Deeje

    Deeje Avid Bible Student
    Premium Member

    Joined:
    Jun 20, 2009
    Messages:
    9,733
    Ratings:
    +5,082
    Religion:
    Christian JW
    Hebrews 1:1-4 (for context)
    "Long ago God spoke to our ancestors in many and various ways by the prophets, but in these last days he has spoken to us by a Son, whom he appointed heir of all things, through whom he also created the worlds. He is the reflection of God’s glory and the exact imprint of God’s very being, and he sustains all things by his powerful word. When he had made purification for sins, he sat down at the right hand of the Majesty on high, having become as much superior to angels as the name he has inherited is more excellent than theirs." (NRSVCE)

    Please read this passage carefully.

    Prophets were appointed by God to guide, direct, and often to correct his ancient people. But during the "last days" of the Jewish system, God did not send his most trusted servant to the Jewish leaders because he already knew that they were incorrigible. He was sent to the "lost sheep" of his nation so he concentrated his efforts to help those who had lost hope.

    The Jews were still God's people because he had not fulfilled his promise to Abraham by providing their Messiah for the blessing of all nations, and until Jesus had completed his mission to offer his life, the Jews remained as his people. Messiah had to come from Abraham's seed....of the tribe of Judah.

    This precious son was entrusted with the lives of all mankind in offering his sinless life in exchange for those who qualified to receive it. It was offered to all, but there were conditions. Faith in Jesus as their redeemer, coupled with a daily (sometimes monumental) effort to combat the sin within all of us. Wilful and deliberate sin is not forgivable. There must be genuine, heartfelt repentance. 'Fessing up' in a box to an equally sinful human and mindlessly reciting repetitive phrases, was never going to absolve anyone. They had to stop deliberate sinning.

    Jesus is appointed as "heir of all things".....which means that he inherits these things......if he is God, how can that be? You can't inherit what you already have.

    Jesus epitomised all that his Father was.....as Paul said...he is the "image" of his Father in that he reflects his Father's personality perfectly, and has been by his Father's side since his creation, learning to be just like him. He is intimately involved in the creation of all things.

    So in Paul's words...."When he had made purification for sins, he sat down at the right hand of the Majesty on high, having become as much superior to angels as the name he has inherited is more excellent than theirs."

    How can you reconcile these words with Jesus being God and equal to him? How can he "become" "superior" to angels, inheriting a name "more excellent than theirs"?...if he is God he already has a position and name that is superior to theirs?

    Those who accept the trinity without question, have never examined the scriptures that show us the impossibility of its claim.

    Once you understand Jesus' true relationship with his Father and reading John 1:1 as the Greek renders it, you will see that "theos" ("god" in Greek) which means "a divine mighty one", you will see that both Jesus and his Father (to a polytheistic people) both meet that description. The Greeks had no word for a single god that didn't have a name....all of their gods had names, but Yahweh, the one God of Israel was no longer addressed by his name....the Jews had stopped using it. So in order to identify this one, nameless God, they used the definite article "ho" ("the").
    So the Greeks identified the God of Israel as "ho theos"...THE God. There are two "gods" in John 1:1, but only one is "ho theos".

    So if John 1:1 was written using the divine name of God, it would read....
    "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with Yahweh, and the Word was a god."

    In verse 14 it says that "the Word became flesh" not "the God".

    If the divine name had been retained, John 1:1 could never have been used to promote something as blasphemous as the trinity. Verse 18 clearly states that "no one has seen God at any time". Realistically, what is that telling you?

    This is what Bible study reveals...not a cursory reading and application of a passage, but looking at the words in their original language and understanding what God's word really says in its entirety, rather than what we want it to say at face value. OK?

    I hope I have explained that clearly enough.
     
  15. pcarl

    pcarl Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 6, 2005
    Messages:
    3,624
    Ratings:
    +1,474
    Religion:
    Catholic
    I suggest your 'research' is rather narrow and faulty.


    'Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him on the last day.(v54

    For my flesh is true food, and my blood is true drink.v55

    The one who feeds on me will have true life because of me. v57

    When His disciples complained, 'this saying is hard', Jesus never said its ok, only symbolic. John.

    Since the Eucharist was the center of early church and follows Jesus' direction, why wouldn't it be? It is you who have know idea and choose to remain ignorant of Church teaching and practice. There is always wine offered. As far as Transubstantiation is concerned, Scripture makes no attempt to explain 'how' Jesus is present, only that the bread is His flesh and the wine His blood. Personally, I think any attempt to explain away Mystery is a mistake. Luther rejected Transubstantiation as explaining away the miraculous.

    I have often enough asserted that I do not argue whether the wine remains wine or not. It is enough for me that Christ’s blood is present; let it be with the wine as God wills. Sooner than have mere wine with the fanatics, I would agree with the pope that there is only blood. (Confession Concerning Christ’s Supper, 1528, Luther’s Works [henceforth, "LW"], Vol. 37, 317)

    [T]he glory of our God is precisely that for our sakes he comes down to the very depths, into human flesh, into the bread, into our mouth, our heart, our bosom . . . (This is My Body, 1527, LW, Vol. 37, 72)

    It is not sound reasoning arbitrarily to associate the sin which St. Paul attributes to eating with remembrance of Christ, of which Paul does not speak. For he does not say, "Who unworthily holds the Lord in remembrance," but "Who unworthily eats and drinks." (Against the Heavenly Prophets in the Matter of Images and Sacraments, 1525; LW, Vol. 40, 183-184)

    In its early three-week form, Lent was the period of intense spiritual and liturgical preparation for catechumens before they were baptized at Easter. Many members of the community imitated this time of preparation with the catechumens. Through the years the practice has evolved. As for following the printed word of Scripture,you totally ignore Scripture when its convenient. Jesus promised the Paraclete , "the Spirit of Truth" who supplies guidance along the way of all truth (16:13). The Johannine Jesus had many things to say that his disciples could never understand in his lifetime (16:12); but then the Paraclete comes and takes those things and declares them (16:15).
    The Paraclete who is present to every time and culture brings no new revelation; rather he takes the revelation of the Word made flesh and declares it anew, facing the things to come.

    However, the Septuagint became the official version of the Bible for the nascent Christian Church. When this happened, its authoritative nature was rejected by the Jewish community. Ironically, the Books of Maccabees survived because they became part of the Christian canon, for otherwise they most certainly would have been lost during the centuries. But once this Christian canonization occurred, these books became lost to the Jewish world for many centuries.
    Why the Maccabees Aren't in the Bible | My Jewish Learning
     
  16. Deeje

    Deeje Avid Bible Student
    Premium Member

    Joined:
    Jun 20, 2009
    Messages:
    9,733
    Ratings:
    +5,082
    Religion:
    Christian JW
    If you read on in John ch 6....

    "When many of his disciples heard it, they said, “This teaching is difficult; who can accept it?” But Jesus, being aware that his disciples were complaining about it, said to them, “Does this offend you? Then what if you were to see the Son of Man ascending to where he was before? It is the spirit that gives life; the flesh is useless. The words that I have spoken to you are spirit and life. But among you there are some who do not believe.”

    Jesus did explain that his words were not literal. He said that they were "spirit and life". If they had been literal, they would have broken God's law. That is why his Jewish disciples were stumbled, but Jesus would never have recommended that anyone break God's law.

    He went on to say.....
    “For this reason I have told you that no one can come to me unless it is granted by the Father.” Because of this many of his disciples turned back and no longer went about with him. So Jesus asked the twelve, “Do you also wish to go away?” Simon Peter answered him, “Lord, to whom can we go? You have the words of eternal life. We have come to believe and know that you are the Holy One of God.” (John 6:60-69 NRSVCE)

    The apostles did not leave with those who took Jesus' words literally, and were offended by them, but realized that he would clarify his words to those who would be granted understanding by the Father.


    It is "spiritual" not literal. The emblems representing his flesh and his blood were offered after the Passover meal.

    Jesus said..
    "While they were eating, Jesus took a loaf of bread, and after blessing it he broke it, gave it to the disciples, and said, “Take, eat; this is my body.Then he took a cup, and after giving thanks he gave it to them, saying, “Drink from it, all of you; for this is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins. I tell you, I will never again drink of this fruit of the vine until that day when I drink it new with you in my Father’s kingdom." (Matthew 26:26-29 NRSVCE)

    Jesus refers to the wine as "the fruit of the vine" so how can it possibly be the literal blood of Christ.....these are clearly symbols representing the sacrifice of Jesus life on our behalf.

    The church seems to confuse the Lord's Supper with the love feasts that some say were occasions when materially prosperous Christians held banquets to which their poor fellow believers were invited. Together, the fatherless, the widows, the rich, and the less fortunate shared a bountiful table in a spirit of brotherhood. A nice thing originally, but it turned into something else because it was never commanded by Jesus or the Apostles. The Bible does not describe these love feasts nor does it indicate how often they were held. (Jude 12)

    Luke 22:19-20...
    "And he took bread, and when he had given thanks he broke it and gave it to them, saying, “This is my body which is given for you. Do this in remembrance of me.” 20 And likewise the cup after supper, saying, “This cup which is poured out for you is the new covenant in my blood."

    This is clearly done after the Lord's Supper....not at the 'love feasts'. It replaces the Passover for Christians because Jesus is symbolically the Passover "Lamb who takes away the sin of the world." The Passover was observed annually, not weekly or daily.

    It matters little what individuals think or believe about this......it is the church's teachings for these many centuries that argues the literalness of belief in 'transubstantiation'. The scriptures clearly state that those who partake of the emblems "unworthily" will be condemned. Partaking unworthily would be living a sinful life, depending on the act of confession to absolve one of confessed sins and then assuming that one's sins are erased for that day or week so that one could partake of the emblems. That's not how Christianity works. One must be living a life every day that merits God's approval. The ones who partake of these emblems are those chosen to rule with Christ in his Kingdom....so their record of dedication and service to God is already established. This formed the basis upon which Jesus judged his apostles worthy....

    Luke 22:28-30
    "...you are the ones who have stuck with me in my trials; 29 and I make a covenant with you, just as my Father has made a covenant with me, for a kingdom, 30 so that you may eat and drink at my table in my Kingdom, and sit on thrones to judge the 12 tribes of Israel."

    These are specially chosen for positions of rulership in God's kingdom. Not all Christians are chosen to be rulers, so those without the "heavenly calling" should not partake of the bread and wine. They are not parties to the New Covenant, but beneficiaries.

    Did the first Christians celebrate Easter? Seriously, this celebration alone is testimony to how far the early church fell away from the truth of Christ's teachings. Will I find the word "Easter" in the Bible? I would not think so, because it is the name of the false deity that was honored at the time of the Spring equinox.
    “Easter” is taken from the goddess of spring, Ostara, a variation of Ishtar or Astarte. Both eggs and rabbits are pagan symbols of fertility, while the wearing of new Easter hats was done by pagans to assure luck in love. Not something Jesus would have approved of.....they didn't even attempt to change the name. Pure paganism grafted over the most important occasion on a Christian's calendar. To me that is disgusting.....how do you think God feels about it?

    The 40-day fast of Lent is said to commemorate the 40-day fast of Christ. Yet, Jesus never commanded his disciples to commemorate his fast, or to imitate it, nor is there any evidence that they did so. The first reliable mention of the 40-day fast before Easter is thought to be in letters of Athanasius, dated 330 C.E. You see the further away the church got from the influence of the apostles, the further away they ventured from the truth.

    Since Jesus fasted following his baptism and not before his death, the fact that some religions observe Lent in the weeks preceding Easter is a bit strange. However, a 40-day fast in the early part of the year was common among ancient Babylonians, Egyptians, and Greeks. The “Christian” custom was evidently borrowed from them. Does that sit well with you?

    "While certain historians grow eloquent in telling of the wars of the Maccabees and would place the Maccabees on a par with the valiant warriors mentioned in the Hebrew Scriptures and in the eleventh chapter of Hebrews, yet the fact remains that the wars of the Maccabees were not fought at Jehovah’s direction, his name was not the paramount issue, divine power was not exercised on their behalf. On the contrary, these were political, patriotic wars, even though the Jews’ religion was involved, and in that respect are to be likened rather to the wars fought by the Swiss, the Dutch and the Americans for freedom.

    The record of the Maccabees graphically underscores the warning Jehovah gave the Jews as to what they could expect if they turned away from serving him, as well as the rule expressed by Christ Jesus, “All those who take the sword will perish by the sword.”—Leviticus, chapter 26; Matt. 26:52"

    The Maccabees or Asmonéans — Watchtower ONLINE LIBRARY
     
  17. pcarl

    pcarl Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 6, 2005
    Messages:
    3,624
    Ratings:
    +1,474
    Religion:
    Catholic
    Christian elements are taken out of the context of the Last Supper, joined together and placed after the disciples' fellowship meal. Meal and Eucharist are linked by the fundamental Christian idea of agape. This mutual agape of the community provides the context for the transforming agape of the community provides the context for the Lord. The actual development of the communities cannot match the ideal vision. The community agape which had meant to open the door to the Lord became an occasion for egoism and unsuitable as a preparation for the meeting with Christ resulting in the separation of the meal and Eucharist, as documented in 1 Cor., and resulting in the final ecclesial form of the sacrament.
    Christian liturgy did not simply originate in the Last Supper. The Lord's gift was not some rigid formula but a living reality open to historical development.

    It is because what is offered is Jesus' flesh and blood that sin makes one unworthy.

    Belief in the real presence long preceded what was to be an 'apt' explanation of how.

    Jesus commissioned the Twelve to 'judge the twelve tribes of Israel', and is unique to them. The Twelve are not replaced when they die.
     
  18. sooda

    sooda Veteran Member

    Joined:
    Feb 18, 2019
    Messages:
    10,081
    Ratings:
    +3,091
    Religion:
    Christian
    Sure looks like JWs exist just to trash the Catholic church.
     
  19. Deeje

    Deeje Avid Bible Student
    Premium Member

    Joined:
    Jun 20, 2009
    Messages:
    9,733
    Ratings:
    +5,082
    Religion:
    Christian JW
    Can we say that sooda exists just to trash the Bible and everyone who disagree with her then?

    I am still trying to figure you out. You are still identifying as a Christian but you seem to have no faith in anything but what you want to believe or have been persuaded to believe by your teachers.

    JW's do what Jesus did...they expose deliberate misinterpretation of the Bible and reveal the blatant religious falsehoods promoted by Christendom. People are free to judge for themselves the veracity of what we say....

    Roman Catholicism is the "mother" of many daughters.....but IMO, they all have one 'father'.
     
    • Informative Informative x 1
Loading...