The Eucharist of Jesus Christ

The Gospel of John, Chapter Six, The Holy Bible ^ | October 2, AD 2002 | the_doc

[OrthodoxPresbyterian]

It may take a shock like that to get thru to them, but you probably won't, so all you are effectively doing is throwing what is Holy to the dogs.

Matthew 7:6.... Perhaps. (sigh) Perhaps.

But me, as regards the RCC -- I am still hoping there's still some elect Samaritans to be reached, in this particular kennel (Matthew 15:26-27).

[drstevej]

My comment was reference to Cardinal Law's refusal to remove from ministry priests he knew to have violated boys, hence bearing some clear responsibility. No comment was intended about any one else.

[Matchett-PI]

"You really are a seducer, aren't you?"

Only of those mentioned in 2 Tim. 3:6. LOL

[OrthodoxPresbyterian]

My comment was reference to Cardinal Law's refusal to remove from ministry priests he knew to have violated boys, hence bearing some clear responsibility. No comment was intended about any one else.

Exactly. And that was obvious. To all.

Which is why I don't cotton to Xzins attempt to appeal to your reference to Cardinal Law in his attempt to find himself a fig leaf with which to cover his Ninth-Commandment-breaking slander of deliberately implying that I personally am a pederast, as he "lightheartedly kidded".

Anyway, 'nuff of that.

[drstevej]

When it comes to Geneva in the 16th century you haven't got a clue. Buying a vowel would not help.

You merely suppress the truth so you can continue tossing these revisionistic "cream pies" at Calvinism/Calvinists.

[OrthodoxPresbyterian]

Nothing will take me from the Church that Jesus Christ founded.

Cribbing a Matatics one-liner for my own purposes, ahem....

"Revenge of the Begged Question".

[St.Chuck]

I am not seeking any position of honor in heaven.

You come across as though you have already attained it. What about my post 193 where I "smash, crush, and destroy your interpretation of 2 Tim 3:16-17.

[BlackVeil]

Very thoughtful post, quite different from many of the others on this thread! I agree that the link, with the Eucharist, is faith, and I think that the notion of the spirit transforming matter is key.

At risk of igniting a firestorm, I would observe that the notion of consuming the body of the incarnate God relates, historically, to the Greek mystery religions. Most especially in the cult of Dionysius, the god of shepherds and the god of wine, known as "the good shepherd" and as "the true vine". Some people would say that this invalidates the scriptures, but another interpretation is that God allowed foreshadowings of Christianity in the pagan religions, and so the myth preceeded the reality. Apparently, one notion stressed by the Dionysian initiates is that the death of the body is a necessary part of the re-birth of the soul. Also, that the divine son suffered, and overcame suffering. These profound ideas may have paved the way for the New Testament.

Anyway, I think that Jesus would be very sorry to think that the holy insitution of the Eucharist has led to such hatred! It was not His will, it is the doing of men.

[Matchett-PI]

"Thank you for those quotes from John - especially this one: And the Word said, "Unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you."

You're welcome, but I deliberately included that Scripture from John 6 to see if you would pluck it out from the others and "especially" like that "one". LOL

Remember, you said: "I accept the words of Jesus exactly as they are written in John 6." So how about telling me why you didn't "especially like" the other Scripture I quoted in John 6:

"The words I speak to you [they] are spirit and [they] are life; the flesh profits nothing." [John 6:63]

Then, of course, I would like your comments about these Scriptures, too:

[John 1:1,14]: "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God"

"And the WORD became FLESH and dwelt among us .."

And the Word said: "The flesh profits nothing" But "the words I speak to you [they] are spirit and [they] are life." [John 6:53,63]

[BlackVeil]

I know I can not hold my own with you in a debate. But I can have the deep and abiding faith in my Lord ... Good on you! Peace and blessings, dear Brother. Thanks for putting a post about Christianity ... there were so few of them (grin!)

[Revelation 911]

wonder who isn't? Has this troubled you for some time? :>)

...at what point do I get accused of killing the thread ?

[Matchett-PI]

"You don't think personalities and Christian values have anything to do with one another?"

Both personality and temperament are God-given individual qualities.

"Christian values" are a different subject all together.

It is a given that some personalities and temperaments will clash. The shy, timid and retiring types don't *relate* to the gregarious, assertive / aggressive types, etc.

Only when emotional immaturity is added into the mix will there be problems with "opposites" getting along.

So if the thin-skinned emotion-driven can't control their emotional knee-jerk reactions to things they read here, and can't stop trying to regulate behavior they disapprove of, it would behoove them to drop off the thread and leave the debate to the more calm, reasoned, objective mentalities.

One size does not fit all. If you can't face that fact, why hang around and get mad every time your leveling tactics are resisted. Join the nicey-nice ladies' forum or some other forum where you won't get your feelings hurt.

[the_doc]

You come across as though you have already attained it.

Well, at least I don't permit you to call me HOLY FATHER (ha!).

You resent my dogmatic, uncompromising way of argumentation. The funny thing is, I actually FOLLOW the Scriptures' warnings about not usurping the place of Almighty God in the Temple of God and about receiving adoration which belongs only to Jesus Christ. On the other hand, you don't see anything wrong with the Pope making dogmatic and uncomplromising pronouncements--despite the fact that your Pope is clearly in EXPLICIT AND FLAGRANT VIOLATION OF THE SCRIPTURES.

Oh, I know you say that the Pope "interprets" the Scriptures. Well, pardon me for stating the obvious, but that's like saying the Supreme Court Justices in New Jersey and Florida are "interpreting the law"!

So, come on, St. Chuck, wake up. The institution of the Papacy is one gigantic violation of the Bible. The only reason why you can't see this is because your Papacy is protected by demonic power--which power also operates in your soul by virtue of your carnal prejudices.

(I'm sure you'll love that one.)

What about my post 193 where I "smash, crush, and destroy your interpretation of 2 Tim 3:16-17.

Well, I read your post and typed a response. But my browser locked up and I lost the draft. So, we will just have to put off your embarrassment (grin).

No kidding, you need to re-think what is going on. Demonic deception is immeasurably more profound than you have realized. Reprobation is a very real and pervasive problem for the children of Adam.

God is not like you think He is. Jesus Christ is not like you think He is.

[Matchett-PI]

Thanks for doubling the evasion. That's all the rope I'll need to give you. LOL

[the_doc]

"Revenge of the Begged Question"

Very appropriate quip.

Aside to sandyeggo: Do you see why OP said that? It's ultimately because you are presuming that the RCC is the Church the Jesus built, even as we are earnestly warning you that it's NOT.

You are responding that you will not hear our warnings to the effect that the RCC is NOT the Church Jesus built--on the grounds that you will not forsake your confidence in the Church that Jesus built.

Oh, great. (Step back from this whole thing and look at the picture again. Don't you see anything fishy here?)

[OrthodoxPresbyterian]

Oh, I know you say that the Pope "interprets" the Scriptures.

Yeah, but if you can't read the Text, how can you read the Gloss?

I'm just wondering... if regenerate Christians are not "qualified" to read the Bible with understanding, what makes the proclamations of the RCC so much more easily intelligible and understandable?

Is it, perhaps, because RCC theological language is so invariably clear, unambiguous, and explicit on all subjects??

If it is asserted that the Bible is more-or-less hopelessly unintelligible to the eyes of prayerful, regenerate Christians, how is it that RCC proclamations are so easily intelligible to those very same eyes??

(with apologies to BibChr for plagiarizing his arguments... assuming that I was able to understand what I read of his arguments, that is!!)

best, op

[Matchett-PI]

"Thanks for putting a post about Christianity ... there were so few of them (grin!)"

We're highly honored to have the likes of you two spiritual giants condescending to hang out with us low-life wino, glutton, evil scum-of-the-earth, unchristian-types for a while. (grin)

[drstevej]

I was going to reply to your post, but I am not confident that I can read you rightly. I have a freep mail into JPII asking him to tell me what you just posted.

Their argument is like the person who shouts "There is no truth" and expects you to agree that this is true!