The Eucharist

leonard03782

Well-known member
I agree, any society formed of humans is going to have problems. One of my main complaints would be that many people on here attack aspects of the Church while shielding themselves by disavowing any association with any Christian body. It's a good tactic but either suggests (a) evasion in not admitting which church one belongs to that can be equally criticised or (b) cowardice in claiming one belongs to no real "visible church" so that one can make up doctrine and practice as they go along and avoid any criticism.

Yes... I agree with that. The thing is though, what your denomination is will skew who you worship.

Ahhh I see you fit in category (b). Catholics are Christians.

Ohhh how did God do that? Did He copy all the manuscripts? If so, He made a lot of copying errors for a deity.
Psalm 12:6–7 (KJV 1900)
6 The words of the Lord are pure words:
As silver tried in a furnace of earth, purified seven times.
7 Thou shalt keep them, O Lord,
Thou shalt preserve them from this generation for ever.
 

balshan

Well-known member
I say this because many people on here don't have to guts to say: "I'm a Calvinist" or "I'm a Baptist" or "I'm a Lutheran", as if there's this blanket term "Christian" that is unaffected by denominational membership. If someone said, "I'm a Lutheran" and then went on to criticise elements in the Catholic Church, the Catholic respondent could then turn the tables and show how the Lutheran Church is equally guilty of them.

Your position is totally parasitic on the Catholic Church. The Church formed the canon, preserved the scriptures, developed the creeds, etc. that is the backbone of Christianity (as a religion). Since the Reformation, there's been nothing but dissolution in the faith as every thread of the Christian garment has been slowly pulled more and more apart.

Nope. Coming from Christ.

No they don't, they just have an inner sensation. The fact that you can't see that it's about Christ and the local church shows this. The local church consists of our brothers and sisters in Christ, therefore they are Christ to us and we are Christ to them. To disdain them for whatever one personally interprets from scripture is a grave problem.
More venting from you of false facts. No one needs to belong to a denomination of any description, the body is not a denomination. People are just honest. I don't belong to a denomination.

Parasitic on the RCC because of the canon and creeds etc. You did not preserve scriptures, the Jewish people with God, preserved it for centuries before your institution even entered the scene. True Christians, with the guidance of the Holy Spirit, have protected copies of scripture even when persecuted by your institution. Your institution wants to pat itself on the back for the things God has done.

Your institution follows man, even when those men have been evil. No you do not follow Jesus. Jesus would have protected the women and children from evil leaders. Your institution didn't.

The bible is not complex when you say we need evil men to interpret it conflicts with the word of God.

Duet 30
11 Now what I am commanding you today is not too difficult for you or beyond your reach. 12 It is not up in heaven, so that you have to ask, “Who will ascend into heaven to get it and proclaim it to us so we may obey it?” 13 Nor is it beyond the sea, so that you have to ask, “Who will cross the sea to get it and proclaim it to us so we may obey it?” 14 No, the word is very near you; it is in your mouth and in your heart so you may obey it.
 

RayneBeau

Well-known member
It is my belief that God has established the office of the Pope as the final authority regarding what we are to believe as Christians. So I do get to say, "So-and-So told me it meant "this or that": so I believed him."
ding - when Paul directs Christians to walk in Christ Jesus after the same fashion in which we received Him, can you see at least this much - that the Christian walk does not honor the thought patterns of worldly wisdom, but instead submits to the
epistemic Lordship of Christ (i.e., His authority in the area of thought and knowledge), and NOT the RCC pope?
 

jonathan_hili

Well-known member
Why should anyone claim to be a Calvinist if they aren't? or a Lutheran if they aren't? because you think they should?

Why do you think every believer must belong to a denom? what denom did the apostles belong to?
True, I'm not saying that believers have to belong to any specific denomination, though this is unavoidable - either you belong to the tradition of a particular denomination or have developed your own.
There are Christians in many different denoms. most likely some non Christians also. There are also Christians who aren't 1 particular denom. I can worship with believers of many different denoms or non denoms.
Agreed. But every denomination will slightly affect what one believes and practices. The claim to being a "Christian" cannot remain uninfluenced by denominational bias.
catholics do that on here to those who are denoms and non denoms.
And rightly so because such problems are endemic to the human condition.
no it didn't. those are lies taught to you by the RCC.

Christianity isn't a religion. those are man made. Christianity is a relationship with Christ.
No they aren't - they are historical facts. I can present historical facts that demonstrate it, can you do likewise for your position?

Umm I'm pretty sure Christianity is a religion. Who said religions are necessarily "man made"? And, even if religions were man made, so what? That doesn't mean that any particular religion is false.
dissolution of what faith? faith in the RCC?

catholics don't know or believe in 'threads of the Christian garment'.... what they know is threads of catholicism, taught to them by the RCC.
The faith handed on from the apostles and a largely united Church.
they have much more than an 'inner sensation'. What do you consider to be an 'inner sensation '? I have an inner sensation by mid - late afternoon if I haven't eaten yet. I also have an inner sensation in the middle of the night when my bladder alarm goes off. Neither of those signal the Holy Spirit in my life.
Why not? What's the difference?
 

mica

Well-known member
mica said:
Why should anyone claim to be a Calvinist if they aren't? or a Lutheran if they aren't? because you think they should?

Why do you think every believer must belong to a denom? what denom did the apostles belong to?

True, I'm not saying that believers have to belong to any specific denomination, though this is unavoidable - either you belong to the tradition of a particular denomination or have developed your own.
...
they don't have to belong to ANY denom. They're already His, His church, His body.

lol! I've avoided it for over 40 yrs - since I was born again. In my early years as a believer I went to 3 different 'churches' each week - 3 different denoms... what they all had in common was - they believed in and followed His word, they taught His word straight from scripture. They all taught the same thing about salvation - being born again. None of them ever taught any different beliefs than the others, added any requirements for salvation (or took any away). None of them taught the rebirth was by water baptism. none of them water baptized anyone who wasn't born again. None of them taught any rules or regulations we were required to believe in and follow unless it was scriptural. none of them taught to pray to humans (dead or alive), that not coming to a service is a mortal sin (or any sin), that the communion bread contained the body/blood of Christ - and they all used bread, not wafers. None of them had a 'supreme' man leader on earth. In the past 20 yrs or so I've had numerous 'teachers' at any given time, from different denoms, one I still have no idea what denom (if any) he is, one's a believing Rabbi, 1 is Baptist and sometimes I listen to a Jewish Rabbi regarding the OT.

what we ALL have in common is trusting Christ as Lord and Savior and believing the truth found within His word. That's our common ground - we're all part of His church, His body.
 

jonathan_hili

Well-known member
Parasitic on the RCC because of the canon and creeds etc. You did not preserve scriptures, the Jewish people with God, preserved it for centuries before your institution even entered the scene. True Christians, with the guidance of the Holy Spirit, have protected copies of scripture even when persecuted by your institution. Your institution wants to pat itself on the back for the things God has done.
So, you don't want to give any credit to the scores of Catholic and Orthodox monks who continually copied scripture to make sure it was accessible to people?

Which "true Christians" protected copies of scripture when persecuted by the Church?
The bible is not complex when you say we need evil men to interpret it conflicts with the word of God.
Oh, okay. So, how do you understand the creation days of Genesis?
 

jonathan_hili

Well-known member
they don't have to belong to ANY denom. They're already His, His church, His body.

lol! I've avoided it for over 40 yrs - since I was born again. In my early years as a believer I went to 3 different 'churches' each week - 3 different denoms... what they all had in common was - they believed in and followed His word, they taught His word straight from scripture. They all taught the same thing about salvation - being born again.
That's because that was their denominational bias. If you were Orthodox or Lutheran or Anglican, you'd say something different.
None of them ever taught any different beliefs than the others, added any requirements for salvation (or took any away). None of them taught the rebirth was by water baptism.
Then they were unbiblical. Christians have believed salvation was by water baptism from day one. Can you show me, from history, churches/denominations that believed otherwise before the 18th century?
None of them taught any rules or regulations we were required to believe in and follow unless it was scriptural.
What about car park regulations?
none of them taught to pray to humans (dead or alive), that not coming to a service is a mortal sin (or any sin), that the communion bread contained the body/blood of Christ - and they all used bread, not wafers. None of them had a 'supreme' man leader on earth.
Yep, more denominational bias.
what we ALL have in common is trusting Christ as Lord and Savior and believing the truth found within His word. That's our common ground - we're all part of His church, His body.
I agree with that. That is definitely common ground for all Christians.
 

balshan

Well-known member
So, you don't want to give any credit to the scores of Catholic and Orthodox monks who continually copied scripture to make sure it was accessible to people?

Which "true Christians" protected copies of scripture when persecuted by the Church?

Oh, okay. So, how do you understand the creation days of Genesis?
No, why God did it all. Your institution has been run by a man for centuries, it throws out scripture it doesn't like and then it wants to take the glory that belongs to God.

True Christians belong to the body of Christ not a denomination.

Well RCs don't have an infallible interpretation on it and seem to be confused at one time they said it was a literal 7 days and now most believe in evolution. So I will be fine whatever interpretation with some RCs no matter what I believe. The story tells us God is the creator of the earth, the universe, humankind and the animal world. That is all I need to know. If I go into every line it is interesting that God had to create light and yet most believers see God as light. But as I said God left us things that we can debate in scripture because He knew man needed to think. But what we need to know for salvation is simple. The salvation plan is explained and how we are to live is clear. You think you are being clever but that is the problem:

1 Cor 1:27

But God chose what is foolish in the world to shame the wise; God chose what is weak in the world to shame the strong

1 Cor 1:20

Where is the one who is wise? Where is the scribe? Where is the debater of this age? Has not God made foolish the wisdom of the world?

I am quoting from the writings of Paul, which we all know from your posts you don't think amount to a hill of beans. There are so many passages which show clearly why the RCC cannot interpret scripture. God shames them.
 

mica

Well-known member
mica said:
they don't have to belong to ANY denom. They're already His, His church, His body.

lol! I've avoided it for over 40 yrs - since I was born again. In my early years as a believer I went to 3 different 'churches' each week - 3 different denoms... what they all had in common was - they believed in and followed His word, they taught His word straight from scripture. They all taught the same thing about salvation - being born again.

That's because that was their denominational bias. If you were Orthodox or Lutheran or Anglican, you'd say something different.
oh, there are Lutherans who teach that also. what you call orthodox and Anglican are often on here tied to catholicism. didn't the RCC break off from one or both of those?

Then they were unbiblical. Christians have believed salvation was by water baptism from day one.
no, they weren't and aren't unbiblical. Catholicism is unbiblical.

If your claim of being born again is based on being water baptized then you aren't born again. your beliefs expose that.

from day one of when? Gen 1.1?

Can you show me, from history, churches/denominations that believed otherwise before the 18th century? ...
That's been shown on here over and over - from scripture. that you don't believe or understand scripture is major catholic failing.

the NT time is prior to the 18th century. start reading it.
 

jonathan_hili

Well-known member
No, why God did it all. Your institution has been run by a man for centuries, it throws out scripture it doesn't like and then it wants to take the glory that belongs to God.
Umm what scripture are you referring to?
Well RCs don't have an infallible interpretation on it and seem to be confused at one time they said it was a literal 7 days and now most believe in evolution. So I will be fine whatever interpretation with some RCs no matter what I believe. The story tells us God is the creator of the earth, the universe, humankind and the animal world. That is all I need to know. If I go into every line it is interesting that God had to create light and yet most believers see God as light. But as I said God left us things that we can debate in scripture because He knew man needed to think. But what we need to know for salvation is simple. The salvation plan is explained and how we are to live is clear.
But the claim was made that scripture was not complex, and yet this question is hotly debated between Christians. If scripture was so simple to understand, there would be little debate.
 

jonathan_hili

Well-known member
from day one of when? Gen 1.1?


That's been shown on here over and over - from scripture. that you don't believe or understand scripture is major catholic failing.

the NT time is prior to the 18th century. start reading it.
From day one of the Christian faith - pretty much all the Church Fathers attest to it.

If it's been shown, it should be pretty simple to just name some Christian churches before the 18th century that held salvation did not ordinarily include water baptism.
 

mica

Well-known member
From day one of the Christian faith - pretty much all the Church Fathers attest to it.

If it's been shown, it should be pretty simple to just name some Christian churches before the 18th century that held salvation did not ordinarily include water baptism.
His church - in NT time.
 

mica

Well-known member
Umm what scripture are you referring to?

But the claim was made that scripture was not complex, and yet this question is hotly debated between Christians. If scripture was so simple to understand, there would be little debate.
no, it isn't. between Christians and many who claim to be Christians (usually because they were water baptized and taught that was the rebirth by false teachers).
 

balshan

Well-known member
Umm what scripture are you referring to?

But the claim was made that scripture was not complex, and yet this question is hotly debated between Christians. If scripture was so simple to understand, there would be little debate.
You have already said Paul does not stand up to your institution's discipline. So Paul is tossed aside for you institution's discipline even though it goes against scripture. You ask what scripture I am referring to, yet, you constantly bring up areas where your institution throws out the Word for its own declarations.

You can say what you like the bulk of scripture is simple and not debated. Let me see do not kill - is clear and simple. Jesus is the way - simple and clear. In the beginning - clear and simple. There are a handful of passages that are complex and that can be read in a number of ways. The problem is more with Western thinkin, because in Eastern thinking there is room for more than one view. The areas of debate do not affect salvation, unless one wants to add to the simple salvation message. This is the problem for your institution it keeps adding to what is a simple message.
 

jonathan_hili

Well-known member
God's word isn't the best evidence? whose is to you - that of the RCC?
It's not the best evidence in this case because we are discussing it precisely. Both parties can pull up scriptural support for their positions and so that might not settle the matter. That's why I want to know what other evidence there is. If the practically universal testimony of the Church throughout history is that water baptism is part of salvation, then that speaks very strongly in its favour.
 

jonathan_hili

Well-known member
no, it isn't. between Christians and many who claim to be Christians (usually because they were water baptized and taught that was the rebirth by false teachers).
How to interpret the "days" of creation in Genesis isn't hotly debated???
 
Top