Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

From Rome to Christ
Banner of Truth Trust ^ | Gearoid Marley

Posted on 01/03/2012 3:30:48 PM PST by Gamecock

Not many people get the opportunity to attend seminary. In an amazing way I have attended two. The first was training for the Roman Catholic priest­hood in Ireland and the second at a conservative Evangelical seminary in England.

Raised a Catholic . . . but not knowing God Like most boys in the Republic of Ireland in the 1980s, I was brought up a Roman Catholic. My parents taught me to live a good life, say my prayers, and attend mass every Sunday. I believed there was a God, but I didn't know him personally. I prayed as my mother taught me, but I never knew whether or not God was really listening. I attended confession monthly and did many penances. Conscious of my sinfulness, I hoped that God would accept me into heaven if I did enough good works. I tried to live the best life I could. It was like balancing the accounts, hoping that my credits (good works) would cancel my debits (sins). Zealous to please God, I was just eleven years old when I decided to become a Roman Catholic priest. I told the local priest, but he said I would have to wait until I was eighteen before I could enter the seminary.

During my teenage years I got involved in much sinful behaviour. I rebelled against God and disobeyed his commandments. I loved my sin, but I hated that miserable life and started to cry out to God. I realise now that God was working in my heart. He showed me I was a sinner. I longed to be right with him. This became the focus of my life. I knew that I needed to be saved from my sins. I went on a pilgrimage to a famous Roman Catholic shrine. I ate oatcakes, drank black tea, and crawled on my knees around the Stations of the Cross over three days to do penance for my sins. I fasted and meditated but never knew pardon for sin. I wanted to know forgiveness, but how?

Training for the priesthood

At the age of nineteen, and after checking different possible organisations, I finally decided to join the Society of Missions to Africa (SMA). They are a society of priests who live together in small communities in different parts of the world, seeking to convert pagans to the Roman religion. I entered the Roman Catholic Seminary located in Maynooth, County Kildare, Ireland. During my two years at seminary, I learned about religion and philosophy but there were no biblical studies. I attended daily mass and monthly confession but, alas, there was no teaching on forgiveness for sin. We had set times of prayer as a community - morning, evening, and night. I heard many talks that were focused on pleasing God by doing charitable works and buying favour with God through the church. I also heard a lot about how to use psychology to counsel people spiritually. Not once did I hear how to be reconciled to God through Christ who alone could forgive my sins.

I began to read the Bible (a Protestant translation my parents had given to me). As I read it, I asked the priests serious questions about the religious rituals in the Roman Catholic faith, but they couldn't show me any scriptural basis whatsoever for so much of their superstition and their many traditions. I discovered that the Bible does not promote the veneration of Mary as practiced in the Roman Catholic Church. The official teaching of the Roman Church is that Mary does not necessarily answer prayers but rather intercedes on the Catholic's behalf and prays for them. However, the Bible teaches that she is a sinner: in the famous 'Magnificat' she is found praying to God her Saviour. Mary knew she had sinned and we find her rejoicing in God her Saviour, the one conceived in her womb by the Holy Spirit - Jesus Christ her Lord.

I realised that rosaries and prayers to the saints have no scriptural basis. Mary is addressed in Roman Catholic prayers (eg 'O Mary, conceived without sin, pray for us who have recourse to thee'), but the Saviour teaches us to pray to the Father directly. Indeed, the Bible warns us against ritualistic prayer. This described me exactly: outwardly very holy and pious, but inwardly my heart was sinful and corrupt. Also, the Roman Church teaches its followers to pray to the saints. There is a saint for almost every circumstance, such as St Christopher for travel, St Anthony for lost property, St Martin de Porres for healing, St Joseph for the dying, St Vincent de Paul for the poor, and St Jude for lost causes. Unable to find anything in Scripture to support these things, I asked the priests many questions, and I was told that these Church traditions could not be questioned.

I was conscious of my sin and longed to have assurance of salvation. I asked the priests but I was told that we could never be sure of salvation until we died. I was instructed to attend the priest for confession, but I did not find that in Scripture either. The Bible instructs us to confess our sins to God, not to human priests. I also realised that as a priest I would have to hear people's confessions and absolve them. I was confused. How could I forgive other people's sins, when I did not even know forgiveness myself? I now realise that the Lord was lifting the veil from my eyes to show me that true faith and forgiveness for sin is to be found in Christ alone.

Eventually, I left the Roman seminary in 1995. The Society had decided that I was not suitable, but the Lord, through his Word, had shown me the errors of Rome and that I shouldn't continue training for the priesthood. I had entered the seminary thinking that I would find God's answer to my sins. When I left, I thought that I had finished with God - but he hadn't finished with me! Over the next two years I lived in Dublin and continued my search for God. I went to various Protestant churches and also met people from different cults. One cult told me that if I was to be baptized again, then I would be born again. This sounded too much like the Roman Church and its teaching of justification by works, so I had nothing more to do with them.

Going to England

I went to London in preparation for nursing studies. On the first night I met a man who told me how I could know forgiveness for sin. He gave me a leaflet that emphasized the need to trust in Jesus Christ alone. I read this leaflet many times, but still had no peace with God. Although well physically, I became very depressed spiritually.

I knew that I was condemned if I was not converted. The Bible told me that if I did not believe then the wrath of God abode upon me. Then I read 'There is therefore now no condemnation to them which are in Christ Jesus, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit' (Rom. 8:1). This was a constant challenge to me. I was alone in a huge city with no one to turn to for spiritual help. How my heart yearned to be right with God.

While pursuing my nursing studies, I met some students who seemed to know God. I attended their church where the Bible was central to the whole service. The sermon was preached from the Bible - that was something completely new to me. Deep down I knew these people were genuine Christians. I asked many questions and started to attend the church regularly. About this time, a small Christian group was meeting in my halls of residence. I went along aiming to disrupt the meetings, but slowly began to be drawn to Christ. I saw that they had something that I didn't have - peace with God and a real love for Christ. They knew the reality of 'Therefore being justified by faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ' (Rom. 5:1). One of them gave me J. I. Packer's book, Knowing God. I read the book and saw that I too could know God in a personal way.

My conversion

One Sunday morning, 8th February 1998, I was listening to a sermon from Luke 10:30-37 about the Good Samaritan. The preacher spoke of Jesus Christ being like the Good Samaritan - coming to help us in our wretched sinful state - while revealing that the Holy Spirit gives new life to lost sinners. He also urged the listeners to repent of sin and trust in Jesus Christ alone for forgiveness. I called upon Jesus Christ to save me, 'For whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved' (Rom. 10:13). There and then, I knelt down in my room and prayed, 'O God, I know that you have sent your Son Jesus Christ into the world to save sinners. Will you save me? I trust in Christ alone and ask that you would come into my life by the power of your Holy Spirit and make me new.' I felt a huge weight of guilt and sin taken from my heart. As soon as I opened my eyes a deep sense of peace came over me. At that moment I knew that I was a Christian and truly forgiven of all my sins. The Bible became the living Word of God and he was speaking to me as I read. I realised that we are not saved by works but by grace, 'For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God: Not of works, lest any man should boast' (Eph. 2:8,9). I was baptised in London as a believer in September 1998. After my baptism I struggled with temptations and trials, but the Lord was my constant refuge: 'God is our refuge and strength, a very present help in trouble'(Psa. 46:1).

My life as a Christian

On my first visit back to Ireland, I did not know of a Christian church, so I went to mass with my parents. I realised the priest was re-enacting a sacrifice that was accomplished once and for all on the cross of Calvary (Heb. 9:26; 1 Pet. 3:18). For this reason, I couldn't attend the Roman Catholic mass any longer. As a young Irish man, swearing was second nature to me. Very soon after my conversion this dried up. Worldly pursuits like drinking in pubs and going to nightclubs ceased. Prayer and communion with God became a whole new area of experience. I had learned formal rote prayer as a young boy, but now I began truly to pray from my heart. This is still an amazing experience to me: to be able to lift my heart to God as my Father and know that he is listening and will answer my prayers according to his will.

My family were upset that I had left the Roman Catholic faith. At first they thought it was another religious phase I was going through, but they soon realised that this was different. However, the Lord gave me opportunities to share the true gospel with them. About a year later my youngest brother was converted. What joy filled my heart!

Since my conversion, the Lord has taught me so much from his Word. I am especially thankful to one man from the church in London who helped me to study the Bible. We did a complete overview of the Scriptures together, as well as an in-depth study of the doctrines of grace (Calvinism). The glorious truth that God is sovereign in salvation and reaches out in mercy to sinners is truly humbling and amazing. That God, the Creator and Sustainer of the world, should call wretched sinners to himself illustrates his grace. What a joyful day it will be when all his people are united with him in heaven.

Christian service and ministry

About a year after my conversion I was seeking the Lord about serving him. One Lord's Day evening after the service I was praying to the Lord asking him where he wanted me to serve. I read 2 Timothy 3:16-4:5 and was profoundly challenged. I had never studied this portion of God's Word before. It was impressed on me that this was how the Lord wanted me to serve him - to preach the Word. I graduated and worked for a year in the National Treatment Centre for Alcohol and Drugs. Some of the patients were hardened criminals; others were involved in sordid areas of society due to their addictions. I realised the psychological treatment was not dealing with their real problem: their unpardoned sin. I couldn't witness openly to the patients but some enquired what kept me through the difficult times in my life. I told them that it was my faith in the Lord Jesus Christ, and they were amazed. Both my house­mate and a Roman Catholic friend were converted and baptised during this time. It was a great privilege to see the Lord use even me to win sinners to Christ. I conducted a Bible Study in Colossians with some Jehovah's Witnesses. They began to seek Christ but their leaders visited and put an end to it. I pray for these people, that the Lord would open their eyes to his truth. As I taught young boys in a Crusaders Class I soon realized that children can be taught the deep truths of Scripture in a simple, understandable way.

The Lord opened up the way for me to study at London Theological Seminary. The lasting memories of my time there are of the nightly prayer meetings with fellow students and the godly men who taught us theology and prepared us for the ministry.


TOPICS: General Discusssion
KEYWORDS: calvinismisdead; slander; truth; truthforthedeceived
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 201-220221-240241-260 ... 401-417 next last
To: Cronos

It is clear from a CAREFUL reading IN CONTEXT that neither the Lord’s Supper NOR water Baptism are essential for salvation. They are NOT salvific. Those who participated without taking note of the fact that the Lord’s Supper was only for the believer and to be done with great respect — were treating it as a drunken orgy where many went away hungry. (The earliest Lord’s Supper as practiced in the early churches were a MEAL of FELLOWSHIP among BELIEVERS. They were not engaging in anything which was saving them. They were ALREADY saved and were engaging in fellowship.)


221 posted on 01/04/2012 4:36:54 PM PST by JLLH
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 196 | View Replies]

To: Zionist Conspirator

Why do you care about protestant vs Catholic arguments?

Perhaps a discussion of Reform versus Orthodox Judaism might be more up your alley.


222 posted on 01/04/2012 4:46:06 PM PST by conservativguy99
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 205 | View Replies]

To: JLLH

“Characterizing Protestants as stupid and lazy is all sweetness and light, is it??”

Reading skills.

A remark was made that *some people* are too stupid to understand Catholic theology. It was not limited to protestants. I’m sure if you asked, that poster would be glad to explain that *some people* includes many atheists and even Catholics.

It was also remarked that *Calvinism* is the lazy man’s Christianity. That is a remark about Calvinism, not about protestantism in general. Further, in English as used in America today, to say that something is the “lazy man’s” this or that is not an assertion that everyone associated with that thing is lazy.

Compared to the despicable insults routinely hurled by some protestants here, those remarks are indeed sweetness and light.


223 posted on 01/04/2012 5:56:27 PM PST by dsc (Any attempt to move a government to the left is a crime against humanity.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 177 | View Replies]

To: Religion Moderator

I probably would not use it cause it does look too much like the beginning lyrics to a novelty song.

I truly meant no disrespect just that the literal translation may not have made the meaning obvious.


224 posted on 01/04/2012 7:15:05 PM PST by lastchance ("Nisi credideritis, non intelligetis" St. Augustine)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 203 | View Replies]

To: JLLH; Cronos

To take certain Scriptures as saying that would negate many others — and we all know that Scripture does NOT contradict itself!

>>But interpreters CAN contradict themselves.

The divide between the Lutherans and Reformed is a prime example.

Lutherans are far closer to Catholicism on matters such as the sacraments based on the Bible alone than the Reformed.

I read a Reformed dogmatics book today that said Calvin relied on human logic to decide Luther was wrong to argue that God confers grace through the sacraments before faith.

Calvin relied on human reason, actually rationalism, to put God’s actions in a box.


225 posted on 01/04/2012 9:00:10 PM PST by rzman21
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 215 | View Replies]

To: fishtank; conservativguy99
They were either written by an apostle, or under their supervision and approval.

Wrong. When it comes to Revelation and Jude there is valid speculation that the John of Patmos differs from John the Apostle and that Jude's author was not the apostle.

226 posted on 01/04/2012 9:24:45 PM PST by Cronos (Party like it's 12 20, 2012)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 211 | View Replies]

To: fishtank; conservativguy99
Either way, those books were quickly recognized as canonical.

Wrong again. Only the 4 Gospels were universally recognized at the start

Did you know that for most of the Early Christians until the canon was closed in the third century, for most of these, the book of Revelation in fact was NOT in the Bible?

Christian canons start from Marcion's in the first century which tossed out the entire OT and kept only the Pauline Epistles and the Gospel of Luke.

The New Testament was not complete and clear-cut during Apostolic times, indeed, this was not finalized until the 4th century.

in the New Testament itself there is some evidence of a certain diffusion of canonical books: II Peter, iii, 15, 16, supposes its readers to be acquainted with some of St. Paul's Epistles; St. John's Gospel implicitly presupposes the existence of the Synoptics (Matthew, Mark, and Luke). There are no indications in the New Testament of a systematic plan for the distribution of the Apostolic compositions, any more than there is of a definite new Canon bequeathed by the Apostles to the Church, or of a strong self-witness to Divine inspiration.

I repeat -- Only the 4 Gospels were universally recognized at the start -- Irenæus, in his work "Against Heresies" (A.D. 182-88), testifies to the existence of a Tetramorph, or Quadriform Gospel: Matthew, Mark, Luke and John. This is attested to by the Didache (70 AD) and the Epistle of Barnabus

Now the Pauline Epistles -- the majority were also universally recognized as canon, with the exception of Hebrews which was not universally recognized, indeed left out of many canons like the Muratorian Canon.

In fact take the example of the Eastern Syriac Church which left out the Apocalypse and James, Jude, I and II Peter, and the three of John

So your statement is incorrect

227 posted on 01/04/2012 9:33:25 PM PST by Cronos (Party like it's 12 20, 2012)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 211 | View Replies]

To: fishtank; conservativguy99; JLLH
Either way, those books were quickly recognized as canonical.

Quite wrong, the level of historical revisionism among some is incredible.

Origen in the 200s travelled the Christian world and indicated that the ONLY books of the New Testament of the Bible (note again the Bible is a collection of Books) were the Gospels, the thirteen Pauline Epistles, Acts, Apocalypse, I Peter, and I John

The contested writings were Hebrews, II Peter, II and III John, James, Jude,

228 posted on 01/04/2012 9:37:22 PM PST by Cronos (Party like it's 12 20, 2012)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 211 | View Replies]

To: JLLH
I didn't say you were disrespectful, I just say if you demand us to respect your right to interpretation you should respect our Apostolic interpretation.

With respect, your reading of scripture is wrong -- as I gave you enough quotes from above, scripture amply indicates that Eucharist is necessary in Christ's plan of salvation -- why contradict Christ's very own words in John 6:53 Very truly I tell you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you. and John 6:56: Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood remains in me, and I in them.

And, do read scripture that shows how Our Lord tied the forgiveness of sins to faith and Baptism: "Go into all the world and preach the gospel to the whole creation. He who believes and is baptized will be saved."

Why contradict Christ's own words?

He has given it in His own words?

229 posted on 01/04/2012 9:45:44 PM PST by Cronos (Party like it's 12 20, 2012)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 215 | View Replies]

To: Cronos

Correction, Revelation was contested until the late 4th century.

It still is not read in Church by Eastern Orthodox and Catholics of the Byzantine rite.


230 posted on 01/04/2012 9:51:20 PM PST by rzman21
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 228 | View Replies]

To: JLLH
Let's repeat a basic Bible lesson:

  1. What does Jesus say saves us?
    • Matt. 24:13
      13But he that shall endure unto the end, the same shall be saved.

    • Matt 25:31-46 34Then shall the King say unto them on his right hand, Come, ye blessed of my Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world:
      35For I was an hungred, and ye gave me meat: I was thirsty, and ye gave me drink: I was a stranger, and ye took me in:
      36Naked, and ye clothed me: I was sick, and ye visited me: I was in prison, and ye came unto me.

    Jesus says that if you endure to the end you get salvation, that if you helped your fellow man you inherit the kingdom of God (you get salvation) --> note these are HIS own words

  2. 1 Pet. 3:20-21: " It (Baptism )saves you by the resurrection of Jesus Christ"

  3. Note -- also in Acts 16:31 we are told to believe and you will be saved -- so Faith is definitely one of the things needed, yet as you see above, it is not ONLY faith. Remember -- James says "even the demons believe - and shudder" -- it is not faith ALONE that saves


Salvation is by GRACE alone
231 posted on 01/04/2012 9:58:18 PM PST by Cronos (Party like it's 12 20, 2012)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 215 | View Replies]

To: JLLH
Gal 1:8 talks of the Good news of Christ, again referring to the Tetradon Gospels.

No mention of the Epistles whether by Paul or others -- so then your statement but adding to the written word by adding to the Gospel as presented in Scripture is saying that the Letters of Jude, Paul etc. are adding to the Gospel and wrong?

God's Word is Jesus Christ -- the written word that is the Bible is part of the Word but not the entire Word.

The Gospel as we know them and as I pointed out above are among the only parts of the NT canon that were taken universally as canon from Apostolic times. The letter to the Hebrews, for example, was not..

232 posted on 01/04/2012 10:06:56 PM PST by Cronos (Party like it's 12 20, 2012)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 218 | View Replies]

To: JLLH
Gal 1:8 talks of the Good news of Christ, again referring to the Tetradon Gospels.

You said adding to the Gospel while Gal 1:8 talks of preaching another Gospel. There is a difference.

Please read the Bible in entirety and in context.

233 posted on 01/04/2012 10:07:42 PM PST by Cronos (Party like it's 12 20, 2012)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 218 | View Replies]

To: JLLH
It is clear from a CAREFUL reading IN CONTEXT that both the Lord’s Supper AND Baptism through spirit and water are essential for salvation.

why do folks contradict Christ's words?

this is what Jesus said


234 posted on 01/04/2012 10:10:43 PM PST by Cronos (Party like it's 12 20, 2012)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 221 | View Replies]

To: JLLH
It is clear from a CAREFUL reading IN CONTEXT that the Lord’s Supper is essential for salvation

=========================================================================================================================================

John 6:26-69

=========================================================================================================================================

26 Jesus answered, “Very truly I tell you, you are looking for me, not because you saw the signs I performed but because you ate the loaves and had your fill.
27 Do not work for food that spoils, but for food that endures to eternal life, which the Son of Man will give you. For on him God the Father has placed his seal of approval.”

28 Then they asked him, “What must we do to do the works God requires?” 29 Jesus answered, “The work of God is this: to believe in the one he has sent.”
30 So they asked him, “What sign then will you give that we may see it and believe you? What will you do?
31 Our ancestors ate the manna in the wilderness; as it is written: ‘He gave them bread from heaven to eat.’
32 Jesus said to them, “Very truly I tell you, it is not Moses who has given you the bread from heaven, but it is my Father who gives you the true bread from heaven.
33 For the bread of God is the bread that comes down from heaven and gives life to the world.
34 “Sir,” they said, “always give us this bread.”
35 Then Jesus declared, “I am the bread of life. Whoever comes to me will never go hungry, and whoever believes in me will never be thirsty.
36 But as I told you, you have seen me and still you do not believe.
37 All those the Father gives me will come to me, and whoever comes to me I will never drive away.
38 For I have come down from heaven not to do my will but to do the will of him who sent me.
39 And this is the will of him who sent me, that I shall lose none of all those he has given me, but raise them up at the last day.
40 For my Father’s will is that everyone who looks to the Son and believes in him shall have eternal life, and I will raise them up at the last day.”
41 At this the Jews there began to grumble about him because he said, “I am the bread that came down from heaven.”
42 They said, “Is this not Jesus, the son of Joseph, whose father and mother we know? How can he now say, ‘I came down from heaven’?”
43 “Stop grumbling among yourselves,” Jesus answered.
44 “No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws them, and I will raise them up at the last day.
45 It is written in the Prophets: ‘They will all be taught by God.’[b] Everyone who has heard the Father and learned from him comes to me.
46 No one has seen the Father except the one who is from God; only he has seen the Father.
47 Very truly I tell you, the one who believes has eternal life.

48 I am the bread of life.
49 Your ancestors ate the manna in the wilderness, yet they died.
50 But here is the bread that comes down from heaven, which anyone may eat and not die.
51 I am the living bread that came down from heaven. Whoever eats this bread will live forever. This bread is my flesh, which I will give for the life of the world.

52 Then the Jews began to argue sharply among themselves, “How can this man give us his flesh to eat?”
53 Jesus said to them, “Very truly I tell you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you.
54 Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise them up at the last day.
55 For my flesh is real food and my blood is real drink.
56 Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood remains in me, and I in them.
57 Just as the living Father sent me and I live because of the Father, so the one who feeds on me will live because of me.
58 This is the bread that came down from heaven. Your ancestors ate manna and died, but whoever feeds on this bread will live forever.”
59 He said this while teaching in the synagogue in Capernaum.
60 On hearing it, many of his disciples said, “This is a hard teaching. Who can accept it?”
61 Aware that his disciples were grumbling about this, Jesus said to them, “Does this offend you?
62 Then what if you see the Son of Man ascend to where he was before!
63 The Spirit gives life; the flesh counts for nothing. The words I have spoken to you—they are full of the Spirit[c] and life.
64 Yet there are some of you who do not believe.” For Jesus had known from the beginning which of them did not believe and who would betray him.
65 He went on to say, “This is why I told you that no one can come to me unless the Father has enabled them.”
66 From this time many of his disciples turned back and no longer followed him.
67 “You do not want to leave too, do you?” Jesus asked the Twelve
68 Simon Peter answered him, “Lord, to whom shall we go? You have the words of eternal life
69 We have come to believe and to know that you are the Holy One of God.”

Read this in context -- verses 30 to 35: the people asked Jesus for a sign, saying that Moses gave them manna in the desert. If Jesus (according to them) was aspiring to the level of Moses, He should do something as big as that.

and Jesus says something strange to them -- He says Moses didn't give you bread, My father did, and bread that comes down from heaven. Then He says that HE is the bread of life, HE is the manna -- and manna was to be eaten.

The people around Him made the same mistake you did, which is to think he was speaking as a metaphor.

Yet Jesus REPEATED the same thing, saying
48 I am the bread of life. 49 Your ancestors ate the manna in the wilderness, yet they died.
50 But here is the bread that comes down from heaven, which anyone may eat and not die.
51 I am the living bread that came down from heaven. Whoever eats this bread will live forever. This bread is my flesh, which I will give for the life of the world.”
And now the crowd is openly rebellious saying “How can this man give us his flesh to eat?”
And
53 Jesus said to them, “Very truly I tell you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you.
54 Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise them up at the last day.
55 For my flesh is real food and my blood is real drink.
56 Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood remains in me, and I in them.
57 Just as the living Father sent me and I live because of the Father, so the one who feeds on me will live because of me.
58 This is the bread that came down from heaven. Your ancestors ate manna and died, but whoever feeds on this bread will live forever.
Note -- Jesus doesn't clear up the Metaphor, like he did in Matt. 16:5–12
5 When they went across the lake, the disciples forgot to take bread.
6 “Be careful,” Jesus said to them. “Be on your guard against the yeast of the Pharisees and Sadducees.”
7 They discussed this among themselves and said, “It is because we didn’t bring any bread.”
8 Aware of their discussion, Jesus asked, “You of little faith, why are you talking among yourselves about having no bread?
9 Do you still not understand? Don’t you remember the five loaves for the five thousand, and how many basketfuls you gathered?
10 Or the seven loaves for the four thousand, and how many basketfuls you gathered?
11 How is it you don’t understand that I was not talking to you about bread? But be on your guard against the yeast of the Pharisees and Sadducees.”
12 Then they understood that he was not telling them to guard against the yeast used in bread, but against the teaching of the Pharisees and Sadducees.
So, Jesus DOES indicate when it is a metaphor and when it isn't.
In this case, look at the reaction of his DISCIPLES, people who had heard his teachings for so long and followed him
60 On hearing it, many of his disciples said, “This is a hard teaching. Who can accept it?”...

66 From this time many of his disciples turned back and no longer followed him.
This is NOT A MERE symbol or metaphor, or coming and having faith in the Lord or some kind of metphor for believing in Christ because of the reaction of the Jews and the very language -- to eat one's flesh and drink the blood means to do violence on some one. To drink a persons blood means a serious threat of injury.So, if you believe that this was just a metphor, you mean to say that Christ is rewarding people for crucifying Him?!! That's nonsensical, sorry.
235 posted on 01/05/2012 12:55:23 AM PST by Cronos (Party like it's 12 20, 2012)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 221 | View Replies]

To: JLLH
Read IN CONTEXT with the Bible as a whole where Paul's writings to the Corinthians (1 Cor. 10:16)
6 Is not the cup of thanksgiving for which we give thanks a participation in the blood of Christ? And is not the bread that we break a participation in the body of Christ?
and also 1 Cor 11:27-29
27 So then, whoever eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty of sinning against the body and blood of the Lord.
28 Everyone ought to examine themselves before they eat of the bread and drink from the cup.
29 For those who eat and drink without discerning the body of Christ eat and drink judgment on themselves.
Martin Luther too believed it -- he said that Who, but the devil, has granted such license of wresting the words of the holy Scripture? Who ever read in the Scriptures, that my body is the same as the sign of my body? or, that is is the same as it signifies? What language in the world ever spoke so? It is only then the devil, that imposes upon us by these fanatical men. --> only Calvin/Zwingli turned around what Christ had said
236 posted on 01/05/2012 12:57:01 AM PST by Cronos (Party like it's 12 20, 2012)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 221 | View Replies]

To: JLLH
The earliest Lord’s Supper as practiced in the early churches were a MEAL of FELLOWSHIP among BELIEVERS. They were not engaging in anything which was saving them

Err.. no, read Luke 22:19-20 This is my body which is given for you:...1 Cor 11:26 shows that this was no mere fellowship: 26For as often as ye eat this bread, and drink this cup, ye do shew the Lord's death till he come.

the Earliest Christians also said any consideration of this as just a metaphor was false -- Ignatius of Antioch (disciple of Apotle John) wrote in AD 110 wrote about heretics who abstain from the Eucharist and from prayer, because they do not confess that the Eucharist is the flesh of our Savior Jesus Christ, flesh which suffered for our sins and which the Father, in his goodness, raised up again" (Letter to the SMyrnaens). The earliest Christians beleived this to be the ACTUAL body of Christ. Why, they were also accused by pagans of being cannibals and Justin MArtyr had to write a defence to the Emperor saying "Not as common bread or common drink do we receive these; but since Jesus Christ our Savior was made incarnate by the word of God and had both flesh and blood for our salvation, so too, 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 the blood of that incarnated Jesus"

in view of this overwhelming evidence from scripture and supplemented by the practise and belief of the earliest Christians, we can only say that there IS the Real presence of Christ in the Eucharist.

237 posted on 01/05/2012 1:01:01 AM PST by Cronos (Party like it's 12 20, 2012)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 221 | View Replies]

To: rzman21; JLLH; fishtank

Thanks for the correction — yes,fishtank, your statement “those books were quickly recognized as canonical” is wrong — Apocalypse/Revelation is the best example of why your statement is incorrect.


238 posted on 01/05/2012 1:07:04 AM PST by Cronos (Party like it's 12 20, 2012)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 230 | View Replies]

To: JLLH
were treating it as a drunken orgy where many went away hungry

errr... where do you get that? st Paul says the unworthy recipient is "guilty of body and of the blood of the Lord". The only way of a grievous offense against Christ Himself is if the true Body and the true Blood of Christ are really present in the Eucharist.

In fact take the writings of Justin Martyr to Primus (Emperor) Marcus Aurelius in teh 2nd century AD -- Christians were accused of being cannibals because we ate the body and drank the blood of Christ. Why would we be accused of this if this was not our theology? Why would the martyrs not say "aha, it's just a symbol" -- because to these Early Christians and to the majority of Christians today, this is REAL, the Real presence in the eucharist

239 posted on 01/05/2012 1:24:38 AM PST by Cronos (Party like it's 12 20, 2012)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 221 | View Replies]

To: JLLH
Justin Martyr's Apologies goes on to say
And this food is called among us Εὐχαριστία [the Eucharist], of which no one is allowed to partake but the man who believes that the things which we teach are true, and who has been washed with the washing that is for the remission of sins, and unto regeneration, and who is so living as Christ has enjoined.

For not as common bread and common drink do we receive these; but in like manner as Jesus Christ our Saviour, having been made flesh by the Word of God, had both flesh and blood for our salvation, so likewise have we been taught that the food which is blessed by the prayer of His word, and from which our blood and flesh by transmutation are nourished, is the flesh and blood of that Jesus who was made flesh.
This, JLLH is what the Earliest believers, the Early Church (which continues todays as the One Holy Apostolic Church: East and West) believed in -- "the food which is blessed by the prayer of His word, and from which our blood and flesh by transmutation are nourished, is the flesh and blood of that Jesus who was made flesh."
240 posted on 01/05/2012 1:28:34 AM PST by Cronos (Party like it's 12 20, 2012)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 221 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 201-220221-240241-260 ... 401-417 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson