Posted on 04/13/2014 7:37:12 AM PDT by CharlesOConnell
A fine young man, a father of children and a professional, approached me at church: "What do you think of that Pope John-Paul? He's no good." Others also didn't like him. I put a magnetic sign on my car, it was met with sneers: 5 pictures of the Pope immediately after being shot, in 1/6th of the space, "In your struggle against sin you have not yet resisted to the point of shedding blood." – Hebrews 12:4
Yet I also didn't like Pope John Paul II, not in himself, but because of the cult of personality around him. I love Pope John Paul, yet I dislike hearing his name appended with "The Great", as if I am expected to join in perpetual enthusiasm about his person, regardless of how well I correspond to his message and mission.
I loved Cardinal Ratzinger, but didn't notice such a rabid welcome for him as Pope Benedict XVI, so I felt freer to attend to Him, even despite controversies like the Regensburg Lecture or various public relations disasters caused by those who sought to manage him. I was happy when his resignation finally thwarted the manipulations of those who were secretly working against him.
Now I have seen enough to ignore those who get all hot and bothered by Pope Francis upsetting the apple cart, instead concentrating on the message of the man himself. If it were all peaches and cream, so that my comfort weren't afflicted by Francis' message, what use would it all be?
Jesus remarked that "foxes have dens and birds of the sky have nests, but the Son of Man has nowhere to rest his head". Matthew 8:20. His followers were ready for him to expel the Romans and restore the Davidic Kingdom. Yet he told them to go out without even taking any money.
Why should we only listen and respond to messages, and messengers, that we like? What use is it, how can Christ's message transform us, if we only hear what confirms us in what we're already doing?
“And yet your argument was “by millions of believers”. If you don’t wish to compare numbers, then don’t claim numbers.”
Your post implied that it was my interpretation alone. I was providing evidence that it was widely shared by many - millions of believers. It is not mine alone. My ekklasia shares this view. Since I do not worship or fellowship at your ekklasia or submit to your leadership, your arguments are irrelevant.
“So, let’s go historical examination. What do you have supporting your view of no real presence in the Holy Eucharist?”
Sorry D-fender. It does not work that way. I am not required to disprove your assertion. You are required to support your truth claim with evidence - assuming you want others to believe you. If you don’t care, fine.
I will add here that we are only having this looooong conversation because you wanted to know exactly how I celebrated the Lord’s Supper, exactly what I did in the privacy and sanctuary of my heartbefore my Lord, when I examined my conscience and relationships and exactly what I examined - apparently wanting me to believe identically to you. I do not.
In short, it appears your dogged posts wanted to say I was wrong and your view was the only one. Then your posts wanted to nitpick about the truth of I Corinthians 11:29 and a particular phrase. Then your posts wanted to accuse me of heresy. Then your posts were not satisfied that I answer to God and not you and not certainly not rome.
I answer to the Father. I must have a clear conscience before Him. I must fulfill His commands to love Him with all my mind. I must study to show myself approved to Him as a believer who has studied His Word and knows how to handle it. I spent four long years in seminary to accomplish this. Languages, history, theology, outlining every book of His Word verse by verse. I didn’t do that for you. I did it to be a faithful servant and know what He desires for us.
In short, you initiated this conversation, apparently to prove I was wrong as I follow my Lord, fulfilling His commands. I am not bound by your opinions or judgment. To my own Lord I stand or fall. In comparison to Him, your opinions are insignificant to me. I am concerned about Him. I am not trying to prove you wrong. The Lord can handle that.
Now you want me to disprove your views. Sorry D-fender. That isn’t up to me. If you simply read the passage in Greek, you will quickly learn you added a word to the passage. If you don’t want to look, fine. If you read from verse 17 onwards, you will learn your view is unsupported by context. If you do not want to read God’s Word, fine.
I wish you the best. Ultimately it is about Him. His glory. His Lordship. Not a church or a group of men or geographic beliefs. Not about me. Not about you.
Your latest post indicates you don't wish to argue your assertion here anymore.
You are required to support your truth claim with evidence
The historical record. I think you are well aware of it and that's why your post indicates a wish to withdraw from it. Which is it?
Oh please, that's specious at best; I questioned your claims about Holy Eucharist. And I still am.
“we are only having this looooong conversation because you wanted to know exactly how I celebrated the Lord’s Supper,exactly what I did in the privacy...”
I was having a conversation on the thread before you interjected your questions.
I do not care if you consider my pointing your actions out specious or not. It remains that my most intimate time before the Lord is none of your business.
You interjected your views. When we post on a public forum, we should expect to defend our views.
I don’t care about your “intimate time”. If you wish to use that as an excuse to avoid defending your positions, so be it.
I answered the questions you have been haranguing another here with, in full.
If you don't have the critical thinking skills necessary to figure it out -- don't expect me to dance to your tune.
As a hint, the long note was addressed to a post prior to when the Inquisitor treatment was turned onto myself.
Start there.
Every word I wrote --trammels you in while answering both interrogatories.
If you still are having problems, try this link -->#111, see part (2).
“The historical record. I think you are well aware of it and that’s why your post indicates a wish to withdraw from it. Which is it? “
I’ve examined the historical record via original sources during my four years of seminary. I find it is not an unbroken record. For this reason, I do not believe it withstands scrutiny. That is my informed opinion. This was my response to your claims about Church Fathers and an unbroken chain from the Apostles.
My view is much more pointed. The passage in I Corinthians does not support the position you seem to want to impose on me (via your specific posts). I pointed out why I do not believe it, based on context and Greek language. You do not appear either conversant or perhaps desirous of checking either for whatever reason. Your call.
No problem.
Here is where you interjected yourself into an ongoing conversation, insisting I tell you how I celebrated the Lord’s Supper:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/religion/3143889/posts?page=67#67
“I don’t care about your “intimate time”.”
An astounding statement in the context of the discussion of I Corinthians 11:29!
Good luck!
Show the breaks then. Show the Christian fathers writing against the real presence in the Holy Eucharist.
I pointed out why I do not believe it, based on context and Greek language.
You think the Greek fathers were not aware of the context? You discovered this that they missed?
Your position is just not credible.
And here is you interjecting your view of the Holy Eucharist:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/religion/3143889/posts?page=67#59
If you post your views in a public forum, don’t expect to be able to claim it off limits.
“Show the breaks then. Show the Christian fathers writing against the real presence in the Holy Eucharist.”
Don’t have to. It is my personal studied belief, as I stated. I am not trying to convince you at all.
“You think the Greek fathers were not aware of the context? You discovered this that they missed?”
Don’t care what they did or did not do. They stand or fall before God without my opinion or judgment. I also stand or fall before God. I control that.
“Your position is just not credible.”
Fortunately, I am fulfilling God’s commands for me and don’t worry about your opinion or judgment.
Still you do not answer the simple question you replied to answer.
If one has a problem answering, one has a problem with the question.
Don't have to or can't? When one is asked to prove their assertion and replies 'don't have to', the logical conclusion is 'can't.'
don’t worry about your opinion or judgment.
And I don't worry about yours. We're in a public forum. You are free to make statements and refuse to defend them under claim not to care about anyone else's opinion.
However, this is not a convincing argument for your position.
“However, this is not a convincing argument for your position. “
I have no desire to “convince you.” Never have since the first time you insisted on knowing what I did during the Lord’s Supper.
If you want to find someone to have a fight with, I’m sure you can find that on many threads. This is FR after all.
I bid you well. Go fight.
Ah, of course, you wish to attack other’s views and not have to defend your own.
There’s a word for that.
I feel sorry for abused wives everywhere.
Perhaps you could confess it to a priest? Maybe he could help you learn how to stop.
Or call the cops, if need be --whatever the case may be.
Obvious dodges are just that - obvious.
Do you have anything you would care to add concerning discernment of the body? It was integral to question which you asked (of another) concerning as you put it "the Real Presence", yet you seem to not have been willing to come to any agreement upon that aspect of the wider discussion, nor have offered anything of your own to the contrary, leaving us all to guess, while you demand answers to yet more questions.
Was my own expose' as to discernment of the body not enough answer? What of the links? And from catholic legate as they call themselves --- what would you imagine they were speaking of there?
So just what is it that you are seeking? Do you not know yourself what He said to do in memory of Him, or need instruction on how to chew?
See here Article XXIX. Of the Wicked, which eat not the Body of Christ in the use of the Lord's Supper and be responsible for knowing...
Or have your questions been as 21st century Inquisition, not intended to seek discussion or information either, but instead the questioning a seeking out of how to bring or establish some unspoken charge of theological crime -- of others (those pesky, other-than-Roman Catholic- Christians) having improper thoughts concerning the body of Christ?
If otherwise, you are in honest search for answers, then let us first establish precisely what it is we are talking about.
To assist us in reaching that precision, there is a question I will ask you to ask yourself. It is;
This flesh & blood said to be Real Presence in Eucharist; is that flesh and blood human, or (here's the meat of the question>---> has that flesh & blood which was His own human form been transformed in the Heavenlies to be that of Spirit? John 4:24
Chew on that, as the saying goes, then let me know and we can proceed from there.
First, and obviously, the answer to the question you entered the discussion to answer. The question is: Do what in memory of Him? Your answer was: "This do" in memory of Him.
Not a real answer.
The rest of your post obfuscates, avoids and goes off on other tangents. Tangents are fine - if one first answers the most pertinent question. Until then tangents are merely deflections.
The point of the question is to reveal the problems in wrong answers. Some try to have it that doing something "in memory of" means you don't really do it. Some try to substitute the memory of for the doing itself.
Some try to substitute something else entirely for what is to be done - as we saw in the conversation with the previous poster.
Applying the wrong interpretation in answering the question reveals the problem by being reduced to absurdity.
I think this is likely why their answer is avoided by some.
"The words I have spoken to you are spirit and they are life" to quote the Son of man John 6:63
62 And the high priest arose and said to Him, “Do You answer nothing? What is it these men testify against You?”All my answers have been more real than any you have provided--- which are none, for you bring nothing other than accusation while also engaging in every thing you accuse others of -- like obfuscation and the providing of non-answers, etc.63 But Jesus kept silent. And the high priest answered and said to Him, “I put You under oath by the living God: Tell us if You are the Christ, the Son of God!”
64 Jesus said to him, “It is as you said. Nevertheless, I say to you, hereafter you will see the Son of Man sitting at the right hand of the Power, and coming on the clouds of heaven.”
Drop the Inquisition game. You are losing here. (much as that "game" helped to bring about the loss of Roman Catholic "power" in Europe, and now, far beyond Europe)
If you brought to my face the same style of Inquisition as you do here --- there would be blood, for you do force wrath in your manner of questioning.
But that must all you've got left -->trying to get a rise out of others, trying to get their blood up to anger --- or else you would have brought something else.
So that's how the "defenders" of Roman Catholicism do it when they've been defeated? Take on the mantle of the Sanhedrin, and beat the prisoner? What next? An actual blind-fold (rather than just the figurative one) and demands to "prophesy! who struck you!?!"???
Tear the others down anyway possible, I see is the method.
Does it become apparent now what "religion" can do (to the body of Christ) much as the Sanhedrin did when their own self-conceptions of "authority" were challenged? [I ask the mute walls]
Consume it. Eat it. This do in memory of Him.
There's your answer. Do you need further instruction?
Now the question otherwise posed to you was this;
Don't come back until you have answer for that.
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.