Afraid You’ll be Left Behind? The Rapture Trap.

The National Review ^ | November 18, 2002 | Rod Dreher

[american colleen]

He was standing in his human body when he saId "this is my body" was it his physical body or not?

Hmmm, oh yeah. You must have forgot He is God. He can rise from the dead. He can walk on water. He can change water into wine. He can judge the living and the dead. He can do anything He wants to do. He says exactly what he means.

[ThomasMore]

What's your point, Mom? Election? Don't keep me guessing! My point was fairly clear. It quoted only two of many of the sources from the early fathers that attest to the belief in the transubstantiated (real presence) Eucharist. You show me any references that explicitly refute it and support your interpretation of the scriptures.

Most of the fathers I've read. (front to back) I certainly don't consider Luther a father of the Church. He was a heretic.

If you're trying to prove Calvinist predestination and no free will from the fathers, you won't get me to buy it. These quotes are wrenched out of context. You place Augustine in a predestination definition he never gave and make him a Calvinist, which he never was.

I see the fathers as a whole, not from a predetermined Protestant bias. Fourteen years ago I set out to become either a good catholic or a good protestant. I read the scriptures and then the fathers to see what that was. They always came up as Catholic. That's why I have to reject the newer innovations of the so-called reformers.

[ThomasMore]

BTW not all early Christians believed it was the actual body of Christ...

Show me the writings that dispute it!

[ThomasMore]

Well at least the only book He kissed was the bible

Do you really think the Pope puts the Koran on the same level as the bible? Do you think the pope sees the Koran as revelation? Get real, Mom. You know dang well he doesn't.

[RnMomof7]

Coleen could you tell me how they could have eaten His physical body when he was still in it? This is a key you know to the fact it was a metaphor. "Do this in memory of me"

Eithor it was His actual physical body He was giving them to eat or not..what do you think?

[RnMomof7]

The reason it is important when it became doctrine is before that time it was the option of the Catholic to believe it or not..after that date if you were a Catholic you were bound to believe it..So the early church was not of one voice on that ...and that is significant

BTW I do not think that believing one way or another is a matter of salvation..but you seem to think it is??

[RnMomof7]

Hmmm, oh yeah. You must have forgot He is God. He can rise from the dead. He can walk on water. He can change water into wine. He can judge the living and the dead. He can do anything He wants to do. He says exactly what he means.

Then it was NOT his real flesh and blood (as he was using it) but a spiritual flesh and blood?

[Desdemona]

mom, do you accept ANYTHING on faith? Anything at all?

[RnMomof7]

My point is that you quoted a couple of men that says it was actual body of Christ..and you want me to accept the doctrine based on that ?? I can present proof that the early church believed in predestinated election..but you reject that

Either EVERYTHING the fathers said was absolutley true or they were subject to error ..which is it?

Twenty six years ago I asked God to show me who He was, and who Jesus was...and instead He showed me who I was..a totally unregenerate filthy piece of junk..and when I saw that I fell at His feet ...and said Lord how can you love one such as I?...And in His grace and mercy he saved me. He washed me and justified me and adopted me , He santified me and in His time He will glorify me..

No "church Fathers". The word of God and His Grace..

So now I ask you..How did the apostles eat the physical flesh and blood of Jesus when he was using it?

[RnMomof7]

He kissed it ..the same mouth that takes communion and is supposed to preach the word of God kissed the work of a demon..I do not think that was pleasing to God to honor the work of a devil do you?

     Exd 20:5   Thou shalt not bow down thyself to them, nor serve them: for I the LORD thy God [am] a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth [generation] of them that hate me

There are men (yes like Spurgeon) that I believe would cut their tongue out before doing that ..That kiss grew out of a spiritual confusion and a human desire to be loved and respected of men

But as we were allowed of God to be put in trust with the gospel, even so we speak; not as pleasing men, but God, which trieth our hearts." (I Thessalonians 2:3-4)

[RnMomof7]

Yes I accept alot on faith.."By faith are saved, and that not of ourselves ,but a gift of God"

Des I do not think one is saved or damned by their doctrine on Eucharist..but it is a major difference between the Protestants and Catholics..

I believe it is a spiritual meeting with Christ..and that was what He was teaching .

Earlier Colleen said Jesus never said he did not mean it was His actual body ...so He must have meant it was. So I need to clarify why it would be necessary for Him to say it with words when it was clear to the apostles it could not have been His actual flesh..

All faith is not equal Des..there is a saving faith and non saving faith..so faith is not the "test" correct faith is:>)

[ThomasMore]

I can present proof that the early church believed in predestinated election..but you reject that

You presented no proof...but rather texts wrenched out of context to formulate your Calvinist version of election. I believe in unconditional election, albeit the Thomistic understanding...however, I don't duy the double predestination that you try to sell. And that is what is not in the early fathers.

But lets get back to the Eucharist. Show me the fathers that rejected the real presence and upheld your theology.

[Desdemona]

All faith is not equal Des..there is a saving faith and non saving faith..so faith is not the "test" correct faith is:>)

Would you expand this thought, please.

Earlier Colleen said Jesus never said he did not mean it was His actual body ...so He must have meant it was. So I need to clarify why it would be necessary for Him to say it with words when it was clear to the apostles it could not have been His actual flesh..

Jesus is God. If He says it's His Flesh, it's His Flesh. Who are we to contradict Him?

[RnMomof7]

All faith is not equal Des..there is a saving faith and non saving faith..so faith is not the "test" correct faith is:>)
Would you expand this thought, please.

Faith is the vehicle  that takes you to the destination. Faith in and of itself does not save..it is the object of the faith that saves

We would both agree that the hindi is not saved by his faith in a cow..he has a non saving faith..

The kind of faith that saves is a gift of God

In English we have two words, "faith" and "belief," "Belief" is assent to testimony; "faith" includes both assent and trust.But it must be belief and trust in the correct "thing". or it doesn't save..it is an empty faith..

[american colleen]

Earlier Colleen said Jesus never said he did not mean it was His actual body ...

Huh? I know I confuse myself, but please don't help me by mangling my words!

Jesus Christ is God Incarnate! He can do anything! He can create human beings! He can hear the prayers of billions of people at the same time - in different languages yet! When He broke the bread, gave it to His disciples and said "This is my body, which WILL be given up for you; do this in memory of me" - I believe Him.

[Desdemona]

I think where we all seem to be parting ways is what constitutes the "correct" person(s) in which to have faith.

And whether or not to accept mysteries on faith.

It's all a matter of faith, and how we practice that faith. And as Jesus said that it is not faith alone that which saves, I cannot accept that faith and acceptence of Christ as savior ALONE brings salvation. And we cannot know on earth whether or not we have achieved this.

[american colleen]

Then it was NOT his real flesh and blood (as he was using it) but a spiritual flesh and blood?

No, that is what you interpret His words as meaning. I take His words at face value. He says what He means, nothing more, nothing less. He was talking to you when He said "It is the Spirit that gives life while the flesh is of no avail" - meaning, understand my words in the [Holy] Spirit, not with your human mind.

What about St. Paul? He took His Saviour's words at face value as well.

1 Corinthians 10:16-17 says "Brothers and sisters: the cup of blessing we bless, is it not a participation in the Blood of Christ? The bread we break, is it not a participation in the Body of Christ?".

1 Corinthians 10:29 says "...because a person who eats and drinks without recognizing the Body is eating and drinking his own condemnation".

St. Paul also wrote: "Whosoever shall eat this bread, or drink the chalice of the Lord unworthily shall be guilty of the Body and of the Blood of the Lord" How can someone be guilty if these are only symbols?

Strong words for something that is only a symbol.

[RnMomof7]

Jesus is God. If He says it's His Flesh, it's His Flesh. Who are we to contradict Him?

As I told Colleen , He also says He is the vine, the door , and living waters..are we to doubt that ?

Jesus taught in words and pictures that the Jews understood

They knew manna.., they knew of the OT teachings of the false shepherds, they understood the principle of the sheep door, They understood thirst..and that water was necessary for life..they knew that the vine was a symbol of Israel...Jesus taught from their common knowlege and culture

So when he taught in John 6 , He was telling them in words they would understand that He was God

At the Last Supper he was repeating that, but with a special twist

When the Jews, from the time of Abraham cut a covenant (where we get cut a deal from) , they slayed an animal and then both parties walked through the divided animals with the understanding that if either broke the covenant that is what would happen to the breaker..it was a kind of holy warning ,sealed in the blood of the animal. After that ceremony they sat and broke bread together to seal the covenant.

The last supper was such a ceremony .It was to mark the covenant....Mat 26:28 For this is my blood of the new testament, which is shed for many for the remission of sins.

We are still all waiting to dirnk that final cup with Him..

[Desdemona]

Well, as Christianity is a matter of free will, you are free to think what you want, but theologians, far more educated and knowledgible than me have said otherwise. I concur with them.

I disagree.

[RnMomof7]

Well, as Christianity is a matter of free will, you are free to think what you want, but theologians, far more educated and knowledgible than me have said otherwise. I concur with them.

I do not understand your point..would you explain it?? I was not talking about Theology I was talking about personal faith ..how does what you say apply?