Posted on 03/24/2008 3:36:37 PM PDT by annalex
I say again . . .
Nutty RC edifice cult reps
CANNOT AUTHENTICALLY
sing the precious hymn with the line . . .
ALL PRAISE TO JESUS CHRIST ALONE
. . .
Methinks God is not very impressed with doubleminded “praise.”
“I say again . . .
Nutty RC edifice cult reps
CANNOT AUTHENTICALLY”
Writing childish insults over and over again does not make it true. Nor does writing things real big or in caps lol.
I guess you’ve forgotten . . .
“nutty cult” I got from one of your fiercest own.
LOL.
I guess the shoe is not so comfortable on the other foot.
Tough tacos.
The nutty RC cult edifice made so much of the bed . . . they can learn to lie in it.
“Tough tacos.
The nutty RC cult edifice made so much of the bed . . . they can learn to lie in it.”
More evidence of your advanced theology lol.
“...when I was a child, I spake as a child..”
“John 6:53-58, 66-67 (Read the Word of Jesus Christ)
“So Jesus said to them, ‘Truly, truly, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of man and drink his blood, you have no life in you; he who eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day. For my flesh is food indeed, and my blood is drink indeed. He who eats my flesh and drinks my blood abides in me and I in him”
“Could it be stated more clearly than this by Christ?...”
Great, now how soon after making this statement did Jesus make it so the audience could literally, “eat his flesh...and drink his blood”? This discourse took place a good year before the last supper so when was this flesh eating and blood drinking to take place since it was of eternal importance?
At the last supper, Jesus ate the bread and drank the wine after blessing them, did he eat his own flesh or drink his own blood? Just when did this common meal take on the mystical element since Jesus seems to say in John 6 that the participation in the meal was supposed to be taking place at that time?
Thanks for adding points to my Heavenly account with the personal assault.
Much appreciated.
ROTFLOL!
Gosh, I PRAY you read some Calvin and learn about what he said concerning the Lord's Supper and how Rome destroys its meaning and turns the grace of God into a vile ceremony of pure pagan mysticism.
In this way are refuted not only the fiction of the Papists concerning transubstantiation, but all the gross figments and futile quibbles which either derogate from his celestial glory or are in some degree repugnant to the reality of his human nature. For we deem it no less absurd to place Christ under the bread or couple him with the bread, than to transubstantiate the bread into his body. 25. The Body of Christ Locally in Heaven And that no ambiguity may remain when we say that Christ is to be sought in heaven, the expression implies and is understood by us to intimate distance of place. For though philosophically speaking there is no place above the skies, yet as the body of Christ, bearing the nature and mode of a human body, is finite and is contained in heaven as its place, it is necessarily as distant from us in point of space as heaven is from earth. 26. Christ Not to be Adored in the Bread If it is not lawful to affix Christ in our imagination to the bread and the wine, much less is it lawful to worship him in the bread. For although the bread is held forth to us as a symbol and pledge of the communion which we have with Christ, yet as it is a sign and not the thing itself, and has not the thing either included in it or fixed to it, those who turn their minds towards it, with the view of worshipping Christ, make an idol of it.24. Transubstantiation and other Follies
Rome's tendancy is to "make an idol" out of everything.
There's LOTS more by Calvin on the Lord's Supper and the pagan error of Rome. If you'd like me to post it, just hollar. In part, the greatness of Calvin was due to the fact he wasn't some cloistered monk chained to the decaying foibles of Rome; he was a lawyer and he knew how to put forth a logical argument from the evidence found in Scripture.
And as for your earlier question, when Jesus said "eat of this, my body," was He still standing in front of the apostles? Yes, he was. Therefore the bread and wine He consecrated were not His ACTUAL blood and body, but a spiritual representation of the actual sacrifice He was about to make on our behalf on the cross.
Christ said He was the Good Shepherd and we are His sheep. Are you covered in wool and do you walk on four legs? Are you an actual lamb, or a spiritual lamb?
"It is the spirit that quickeneth; the flesh profiteth nothing: the words that I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are life." -- John 6:63
Rome has always had a difficult time differentiating between the temporal and the spiritual. Rome most often errs on the side of the temporal. Resist that failing, and know your salvation has been accomplished by Christ alone and is spiritually-discerned by the gift of the indwelling Holy Spirit.
If God so wills.
Why would someone make our Lord Jesus Christ a liar, and mock His request, His invitation, His gift to us?
One would think poor Jean Cauvin was playing for the opposing team.
lol.
Traditions of Men
And yet you follow the instruction of Jean Cauvin and the Roman Catholic Church follows the instructions of Christ at the Last Supper.
Sometimes irony can be so ironic!
At the last supper, Jesus ate the bread and drank the wine after blessing them, did he eat his own flesh or drink his own blood? Just when did this common meal take on the mystical element since Jesus seems to say in John 6 that the participation in the meal was supposed to be taking place at that time?
Ah, the sweet logic of the quickened mind.
INDEED. Thx.
John 6:53-58, 66-67 (Read the Word of Jesus Christ)
“So Jesus said to them, ‘Truly, truly, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of man and drink his blood, you have no life in you; he who eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day. For my flesh is food indeed, and my blood is drink indeed. He who eats my flesh and drinks my blood abides in me and I in him.
” This discourse took place a good year before the last supper so when was this flesh eating and blood drinking to take place since it was of eternal importance?”
You have no debate with me. You debate Christ himself. It is a mystery, but it is clear that Chris did not say, “do this as a symbol to remember me” at the Last Supper, he requests that we do it. If you believe that Jesus didn’t mean what he said, that is up to you.
“At the last supper, Jesus ate the bread and drank the wine after blessing them, did he eat his own flesh or drink his own blood?”
Clearly.
” Just when did this common meal take on the mystical element”
It was no common meal. It was Christ’s last meal with His Apostles. He tells them of his fate, and requests that they eat and drink Him, the Body of Christ, in remembrance of Him....a common meal eh?
Is it Sola Christus or sola scriptura?
“Gosh, I PRAY you read some Calvin and learn about what he said concerning the Lord’s Supper and how Rome destroys its meaning and turns the grace of God into a vile ceremony of pure pagan mysticism.”
Calvin did indeed believe in the Eucharist at one point. When he was pulled away from Christ’s Church, he then developed HIS OWN rules, throwing Christ’s aside.
If you wish to read and take Calvin’s word over the Word of Christ, that is on you Doc.
So maybe it's really Sola Christus or Sola Cauvinus.
I think I'll pass on the egotistical French lawyer and stick with our Lord and Savior.
“Is it Sola Christus or sola scriptura?”
Apparently it is both lol, with the exemptions so put forth by Joseph Smith....errr a Calvin.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.