The Neverending Story (The Christian Chronicles)

Associated Press ^ | 3/24/01

[Mr. Lucky]

Whether you personally believe or not, do you truly dispute the scriptural authority for transubstantiation?

[Havoc]

There is no scriptural authority for this. Scripture is rather dead set against it. While the spirit of God is omnipresent, Matter is not. So it even fails on logical
basis. Christ is bodily in heaven. Scripture says he will bodily remain there until the end. Trying to say through philosophy that he is bodily present on earth makes God a liar. By definition then, it is blasphemy. And scripture cannot support blasphemy.

Furthermore, the concept of transubstantiation was necessitated by the mass in order to make it possible to
convince people that a sacrifice was being made and that they must attend for forgiveness. This too is full of error. Scripture says the sacrifice ended, one cannot restart a completed sacrifice - it's not a dvd or videotape that you just rewind and hit play again. Furthermore, the supper commissioned by Christ was commissioned with a warning that it not be taken unworthily (ie while in sin or unsaved). Yet the defined purpose of this sacrifice based on philosophy and your own canon law is to cleans one of sin. A paradox - created by philosophy. One cannot partake in sin but one is cleansed of sin by it. God is not the author of confusion - the devil is. So who do you suppose authored this? I'll tell you, the same source that authored the basis for it in a fraudulent church canon law
from the decrees of Same. The earliest known origin of this notion - and it's a forgery. Go ahead and look it up by name. "The decrees of same" I've posted it verbatim here before. I'm sure I can locate it for you again if needbe.

[Havoc]

meant to ping you to 48,362 too

[Havoc]

Yeah, I wish I could talk as good as I type sometimes. Might come in handy for the dating problem LOL

[JHavard]

What do I need to download music and burn a cd?

Mack, I've never burned a CD directly from a website. You either burn from one CD to another, or you have to create a file in your Windows Explorer to put your music in, which will usually be a "WAV" file,even though it was an mp3 when you recorded it.

Once you get it into your "hard drive", when you click on your CD Burner, it should have a small window that looks like your 'windows explorer. You can go into your hard drive from there, and find the music, and when it shows up in the right upper window, you can click and drag it down into the window that has the music listed that you want to record.

Hope this helps. JH :-)

[Mr. Lucky]

Umm, Matthew 26:26 or Mark 14:22 aren't scripture?

[Havoc]

Matthew 26:29 But I say unto you, I will not drink henceforth of this fruit of the vine, until that day when I drink it new with you in my Father's kingdom. Mark 14:25 Verily I say unto you, I will drink no more of the fruit of the vine, until that day that I drink it new in the kingdom of God.

On the contrary, they are scripture; but quoting one bit and ignoring the rest said on the subject is just over the threshold of dishonesty. These two verses show that the wine was still wine. So either he was speaking symbolically, or he was powerless. One of these two choices is not blasphemous. Can you guess which?

[Mr. Lucky]

You'll excuse me if I don't concede that your personal interpretation of Scripture is infallible.

Many of us don't share the belief that Matthew 26:26 is contradicted by Matthew 26:29 or that Mark 14:22 is in conflict with Mark 14:25. The God who made all things is powerful enough to make the fruit of the vine also the blood of Christ. Christ told us He did so and we believe Him.

Your suggestion that believers in the literal word of Christ are dishonest is a curious evangelistic tactic. Good evening.

[CindyDawg]

Becky,

Well, I went to church tonight. It's the first time I have gone since the "preacher visit".

[Havoc]

It's not a matter of personal interpretation. He says wine is blood, then he notes it is still wine. If it is also blood, then why did he neglect to mention it? When he changed water to wine, it stayed wine and was not referred to again as water. Further more, it does not state that he changed the wine into blood. You might read it again because it is no where in there. And as if it were needed at this point, this is no different than any other jewish feast. Bitter herbs are sorrow,.. Wait, did the bitter herbs get changed into sorrow. Mercy me. who made that change. I've never heard bitter herbs weep...

And as far as what belief you share, that's what this is all about. Your revisionist philosophies edit Matthew and Mark to say that Jesus Changed these things when the language in no way supports it. It doesn't say he changed them and it does say that the wine is still wine. Point to me where Jesus says "This bread I've changed into my body and this wine I've changed into my blood". It isn't there. So who told you it was? Based on what? And to what end. See, language exists for a purpose. Assumptions exist to get you in trouble.

Your suggestion that believers in the literal word of Christ are dishonest is a curious evangelistic tactic. Good evening.

Oh please. Nice try but back up the wagon spanky. Literal translation? Belief in literal translation. If you can show me where in the text it says Jesus changed bread to flesh and wine to blood, I'll give you 10 bucks. It isn't there. Based on literall translation, the most that can be said is he referred to them as flesh and blood - not that he turned them into flesh and blood. So given that he returns and notes the wine is still wine and no change is noted, the only thing possible to literally infer is that he is speaking symbolically. I notice you did not offer that the wine is the new covenant. Did he change the wine into the new covenant such that in order to be saved we need to be drunk on grape juice 24/7. Following your logic, that would have to be the proper deduction though it is nowhere in the scripture implied or suggested. Is the wine the content of scripture of the NT - the NT is the verbal representation of what deliniates the new covenant so it must then be that it changed into a book. You might argue it's absurd; but, it's a logical extention of the fallacy invoked by your arguments. So if you please, demonstrate where in the verses it says christ physically changed these things. Because absent that, this is nothing more than a common Jewish feast of rememberance being established. Something Catholicism was pretty much entirely ignorant of when it started playing philosophy games with scripture. Had they learned from the Israelites instead of persecuting the daylights out of them, they might have known better.. though I woulnd't expect the logic to be any less flawed.

[PayNoAttentionManBehindCurtain]

Weellll????

Becky

[the808bass]

Well, my shrubbery project is almost done. I have a couple of fledgling trees growing ever so slowly. I have two large ditches in the backyard which need to be taken care of so that half the yard doesn't wash away. 9 holes to be filled with concrete and wood in preparation for my daughter's swing set. And about 15 piles of straw which have been raked up but not collected. No end in sight. Not sure what the missus has up her sleeve next, but I'm sure it's more manual labor.

Hope everyone here is doing well.

[CindyDawg]

Eddie didn't want me talking to him because "then he'll be back, to apologize ". We have been fussing about this for two weeks. I decided I had had enough from both of them and was going to straighten this mess out tonight. Well, the preacher usually walks right up to talk with me after the service. Tonight he seemed to hesitate and then as I was walking out he told me how happy he was that I was there tonight. I was just waiting for him to say something about my husband. He didn't and seemed relieved when I didn't either. I went looking for a fight tonight but not only did I not speak my peace but I agreed to help one of the seniors serve coffee next Sunday and reaffirmed to the deacon that I would teach a VBS class this summer. I'm such a wimp. I guess I should ask JR to change my name to wimpy dawg huh :'( ?

[PayNoAttentionManBehindCurtain]

Well, I would say it's the two men who are the wimps and have tucked tail:)

Becky

[CindyDawg]

MEN! :')

[biblewonk]

That pap about Mary offering her son the Father was more of the same. This RC re-offering of Jesus to the Father by everyone with robes on is total blashemy. Why I bet, I bet you don't even have to have a college degree to offer Jesus to the Father and call down the moon, no I mean call down his flesh into a wafer. Sorry I'm getting my false religions all screwed up.

[Invincibly Ignorant]

I guess I should ask JR to change my name to wimpy dawg huh

Why not? We already have a Wimpycat. :-)

[Invincibly Ignorant]

You hit your 48,371 right out of the ballpark. :-)

[newgeezer]

You hit your 48,371 right out of the ballpark. :-)

At the risk of appearing to venerate, I totally agree.