1. Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!

Wouldn't you want to be blessed by Jesus Himself?

Discussion in 'Free-For-All Archives' started by CatholicConvert, May 29, 2003.

  1. Singer

    Singer New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 20, 2002
    Messages:
    1,343
    Likes Received:
    0
    Originally posted by Singer:
    Why would he tell them one thing and imply a different meaning for us
    today?


    Quite simple. He didn't.


    Not so fast, Grant. He didn't stand there and let the apostles chew on his armpits.
    He had a body and he had bread and wine. Which did He offer them to eat ?

    Originally posted by Singer:
    If the diciples were eating his body and blood as he handed out the bread
    and wine, then why did Christ still have a body when they got done...? In
    Nebraska we call
    this " having your cake and eating it too" !!


    First off, you fail to realize that God is omnipresent. He is everywhere.
    You cannot diminish Christ. Christ is TRUE GOD and TRUE MAN, and His
    two natures are permanently united. Thus, God the Son is omnipresent.
    Now, taking this into account, and reading the story of the multiplication of
    loaves (John 6), just before Christ commands that we eat His Flesh
    and drink His Blood, it all makes quite a bit of sense. There were only so
    many loaves, but suddenly, from that limited number, a virtually infinite
    number arose (considering had there been infinite people, the bread would
    still have satisfied them all).


    You skipped over my question, Grant. You gave me a booklearned response.
    I don't contest the True God, True Man, omnipresent, everywhere theory.
    I still want to know why Jesus still had an intact body left after they supposedly
    ate his actual body...as you preach today.

    Originally posted by Singer:
    No they didn't eat His body........ He was still there and intact, not bleeding,
    not missing an arm when they got done eating the very thing that you
    contend was his body. Am I missing the description of the word ''Actual" or
    what ?


    Again, you force an interpretation that does not exist in the text.
    And you doubting the very being of God, that He is omnipotent, and can do anything and everything, which includes re-presenting His very Self to His disciples at the
    table, even while He was standing in their presence.


    I don't force an interpretation, I'm a common sense type of guy who can't understand
    why Catholicism insists they are eating his actual body when any bozo knows that they
    are not. How can you say that I doubt the being of God ? Re-presenting is the same as
    representing and that is exactly what the bread and wine are. (Representations).
    We have them in politics...they are the voice of the people, Not the people themselves;
    they are the visible place-taker of the real authority. Same with the emblems.

    Originally posted by Singer:
    To prove YOUR views, you need to show how they ate his body when his
    body was still there....uneaten .


    So, what you just admitted is that your view, like mine, is unprovable, and
    based only on our faith in God's Holy Word. Which makes you no more
    correct than anyone else, especially since the Word of God is not subject
    to individual interpretation.


    Thanks for backing off a bit, Grant. I agree that our views are not provable except for how
    we interpret scripture. This means that YOUR view is also not provable as you say.
    That would also be the case with your early Catholic fathers....their views would be no more
    on base than yours or mine. They were subject to the same plan of salvation as you and I and
    they did not write the bible and therefore were not inspired writers either.

    I didn't realize that faith in God and His ways depended on our level of intelligence
    and understanding


    I've been called ignorant, unwilling, unlearned, unintelligent and downright stupid for not
    "understanding" what Catholics promote here on the internet. I'm glad you see it differently.
    I agree that my understanding of Catholicism has no effect on my faith in God.

    I see. Since millions don't believe, that means we are wrong. Too bad
    for you that Christ predicted that would happen, when He told the Jews
    that they must eat His flesh, and they said, and told Him that this was
    a hard saying...who can accept it? And then they walked away. Man, that
    is starting to ring some bells in modern times...


    You just said your interpretation in these matters is no better than mine.
    And if the ''hard saying'' was not about the flesh and blood, then Catholicism
    takes a hit. Matthew 16:12 shows that Jesus was referring to the leaven of the
    Pharisees and NOT of the bread.

    Nor will I back down from my position to appease your desire for "rationalizing" God's
    Word


    I wouldn't expect you to Grant, as you think your salvation depends on it.

    Singer
     
  2. C.S. Murphy

    C.S. Murphy New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 10, 2002
    Messages:
    2,302
    Likes Received:
    0
    ****Murph** I am not certain who bob is and what he has doen to offend you but your remarks seem unnecessary. I suggest you tone it down just a tad. I am also curious about the comments about high priest. You stated high priesthood and then regular priesthood, I must be a confused puppy too because I don't understand can you provide scriptural teaching for me on the subject?
     
  3. Singer

    Singer New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 20, 2002
    Messages:
    1,343
    Likes Received:
    0
    (Rakka Rage)

    how do you re-present the sacrifice that Jesus made? i was not aware that
    Jesus work needed to be re-applied before it could be applied to our lives
    today? did your priest tell you that?

    (Thes)
    To those who do not believe no explanation is good enough.

    (Singer)

    Bad answer, Thes.
    Hinging on...."Pathetic Answer"
    [​IMG]
     
  4. CatholicConvert

    CatholicConvert New Member

    Joined:
    Jun 15, 2001
    Messages:
    1,958
    Likes Received:
    0
    That is the kind of sorry answer that used to drive me JUST WILD as a Protestant. I reapeat again, the Roman rite is in a very sorry state at this time, and the above response is one of literally thousands of proofs I could give you.

    "Man, WHO catechized YOU?" would be the question I am dying to ask this airhead. But, sadly, I think that a great majority of Catholics really don't take the Faith very seriously at all. I base this on surveys which have shown that as high a number as 70% of Roman Catholics no longer believe in the Real Presence in the Blessed Sacrament of the Eucharist.

    No need to aplogize. I don't understand it either, and that person with whom you talked is in for a rude awakening at the Judgement Seat of Christ on the Last Day.

    In Calvinist theology, there is a term called "common grace". It is defined as that kindness of God to all of His creation because of the nature of His love. We see it in Christ's words where He states "...for He maketh the sun to shine upon both the good and the evil..."

    A blessing, however, as I see it (my understanding only) is a special calling down of God's grace and mercy upon the one being blessed, so that God is called upon to perform for this one mercy and grace above that "common grace" by which all mankind recieve good things.

    Here are two definitions from the Catholic Encyclopedia. Hope they are helpful.

    BLESSING

    APOSTOLIC BLESSING

    BTW -- sorry to ask, but I forgot. Do I remember that you are an X Catholic?

    Cordially in Christ,

    Brother Ed
     
  5. GraceSaves

    GraceSaves New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 15, 2002
    Messages:
    2,631
    Likes Received:
    0
    how do you re-present the sacrifice that Jesus made? i was not aware that Jesus work needed to be re-applied before it could be applied to our lives today? did your priest tell you that? </font>[/QUOTE]Rakka, do you or do you not believe that you must accept Jesus Christ as your Lord and Savior to be saved? If not, then ignore the rest of this post.

    If so, then you admit that you must actively participate in your salvation by receiving it. Christ died for all, but not all go to Heaven. Therefore, while the sacrifice is complete and perfect, there must be individual application to each, individual saint. You're not saved becasuse you were born; you were saved because you were born again. Thus, it makes logical since that the sacrifice of Christ has to be APPLIED in present time, even though the act was completed 2000 years ago.

    God bless,

    Grant
     
  6. GraceSaves

    GraceSaves New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 15, 2002
    Messages:
    2,631
    Likes Received:
    0
    I will ask that you do not misquote me. I never said we are "SAVED" by faith and nothing more. I said our knowledge and relationship with Christ is one based on faith. That's what I said. Do not twist my words to make yourself look more correct.

    This is not the discussion at hand. It has little to no relevance to it, since we're not discussing the benefits of the Eucharist, but rather whether or not it is what Christ instituted. Make another topic if you want that.

    Thanks for the distraction, but again, this is not the discussion.

    Since Jesus Christ never said that we are saved by faith alone, PLUS that this is not the discussion at hand, I really wonder at your motive/agenda here.

    Yes, let's make this about me, instead of the topic. And when you actively reject the Eucharist, you actively reject Jesus Christ, who IS the Eucharist.

    God bless,

    Grant
     
  7. GraceSaves

    GraceSaves New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 15, 2002
    Messages:
    2,631
    Likes Received:
    0
    Thank you for judging the inner me. I never denounced the English language; I stated that the original intent is partially not accounted for, without the context of sacrifice. And you are correct: the KJV of the Bible is not a perfect translation. How about "Jehovah?"

    No, it's quite an old one, actually.

    Opinion. There is not an ounce of historical or contextual fact in the above statement.

    Your young grandchildren, God bless them, are being taught that it is symbolic from their earliest church experiences. I'm not surprised they would believe differently.

    Because God is infinite, and Jesus Christ, the man is also FULLY God, Jesus Christ is infinite, and His body can be infinitely distrubted. Again, this was the purpose for the multiplication of loaves miracle just before the Bread of Life discourse.

    God bless,

    Grant
     
  8. thessalonian

    thessalonian New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 11, 2003
    Messages:
    1,767
    Likes Received:
    0
    Mock and ridicule without trying to understand why what was said was said. Nothing new. Why bother is the point.

    [​IMG] [​IMG] [​IMG]
     
  9. GraceSaves

    GraceSaves New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 15, 2002
    Messages:
    2,631
    Likes Received:
    0
    This is the same as aruging how Jesus is God when God is in Heaven. HE IS OMNIPRESENT. He can be standing before them and present in the form of bread and wine at the same time. He is God, after all.

    So by giving you a "booklearned response" I skipped your question? WHA? No, I don't think so. And secondly, that is not a "booklearned response." I wrote that while at work this afternoon, using my ol' noggin. Do not accuse me of what you do not know.

    Why don't you ask God that, since He is the One Who instituted it? Frankly, I don't question His judgement and Wisdom; I simply enjoy it. There is no other human answer except that this is the way He decided to do it. That is good enough for me.


    Your argument fails once again, and yet you keep repeating it. THE COMMON SENSE MAN IS THE TYPE WHO REJECTS GOD, because GOD DOES NOT MAKE COMMON SENSE. He defies all human logic and understanding! This is why many did not believe that Jesus was the Christ, because it took a leap of faith!

    What happened to trusting the English language? Re-presentation and representation are not the same thing. Re-present means an actually second presenting. Represent means something standing in for the original. Would you like to argue about words like "recreation" and "re-creation" too?

    So you believe that in the Lord's Supper, the bread and wine are filling in for Jesus Christ? Your analogy is not very good.

    No, because my interpretation is not a private one, but that of Apostolic Tradition.

    You are effectively arguing that it is impossible to determine absolute Truth from the Bible, since you claim that there is no private interpretation, and yet no one can claim to have the TRUE interpretation. Incredible.

    No offense, but in just another recent thread, you attacked Catholics for throwing pity parties. Please practice what you preach.

    I never agreed to that.

    I never said that. I said neither side could be PROVEN, which it can't, because it is a matter of faith. Please do not misquote me.

    More forcing of interpretation.

    I believe in Jesus Christ, the Son of God. He is present in the Eucharist. Your bet my salvation depends on believing in Him.

    God bless,

    Grant
     
  10. Singer

    Singer New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 20, 2002
    Messages:
    1,343
    Likes Received:
    0
    (Grant)

    I believe in Jesus Christ, the Son of God. He is present in the Eucharist. Your bet my
    salvation depends on believing in Him.


    (Grant's answer to Rakka)

    Rakka, do you or do you not believe that you must accept Jesus Christ as
    your Lord and Savior to be saved? If not, then ignore the rest of this post.

    If so, then you admit that you must actively participate in your salvation
    by receiving it. Christ died for all, but not all go to Heaven. Therefore, while
    the sacrifice is complete and perfect, there must be individual application
    to each, individual saint. You're not saved becasuse you were born; you
    were saved because you were born again. Thus, it makes logical since that
    the sacrifice of Christ has to be APPLIED in present time, even though the
    act was completed 2000 years ago.


    Excuse me Grant, but you do not prove up to being a good Catholic if you
    promote "accepting Jesus Christ as your Lord and Savior". That is Protestant
    talk if I ever heard it.. !!

    I almost feel sorry for the Webmasters here for putting up with our jamming and
    fingerpointing, so I'll concentrate on "believing". Many times I've seen Catholics
    refer to "Baptism Saves" or at least that believing requires actions that hinge on
    joining the RCC. How can you all of a sudden promote "accepting Jesus as Lord
    and Savior " when your brothers denounce that feat ?

    Look at this comment from a Catholic Writer and poster on another forum..
    " Nowhere will you find that simply believing in Jesus will save you, but rather we
    will gain eternal life through perseverence in good works."


    You seem to disagree with his statement, Grant.
    Remember the "Baptism saves" promotions on this board ?
    You seem to disagree with that too.

    Are you aware of the "baptism by desire" belief of Catholics?
    Here is how it was described to me :
    "It is a bit like “baptism of desire.” The Church has always taught that those
    can be saved without water baptism who would be baptized if they knew
    of its necessity and had opportunity. "


    That's saying that [just wanting] to be baptized (Catholic) is enough to gain salvation.
    There are yet more horror stories .
    Singer
     
  11. BobRyan

    BobRyan Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 27, 2002
    Messages:
    32,913
    Likes Received:
    71
    Faith:
    Non Baptist Christian
    As pointed out already in Heb 10:11 "EVERY Priest ministers DAILY" and in fact in Hebrews 7 the context is not "only the High Priest" neither are there "two priesthoods" ever listed in the Bible. The point is argued in Heb 7 for the entire TRIBE of Levi and contrasting that with the tribe of Judah from which Christ came. Paul notes "for the one of whom these things are spoken belongs to Another Tribe" Heb 7:13 "from which NO one as Officiated at the Altar".

    This is a reference to the priesthood - and there was only one.

    There is only "the priesthood" Levites that were descendants of Aaron. From among them - the Highpriest was selected but there was no separate "highpriesthood" as you suppose that tow different priesthoods are in effect on earth in scripture.

    Which is why Heb 8 declares that Christ would NOT be a priest if He were on earth. The argument is not "He would be Highpriest but would not be a priest since we all believe that highpriests are not priests". Your argument does not hold.

    The point remains - Christ incarnated as a child - a son of a carpenter - is not the same as going to a Catholic priest today. Rather - as we are told in Heb 4:16 "Come boldly before the throne of Grace" - we come directly to God through Christ. No need to seek a third party on earth. Heb 10:11

    Even the Catholic Historian Thomas Bokenkotter admits that the NT church "refused to have priests" in the first century.

    In Christ,

    Bob
     
  12. CatholicConvert

    CatholicConvert New Member

    Joined:
    Jun 15, 2001
    Messages:
    1,958
    Likes Received:
    0
    Really!! :eek:

    Well, since all priests are equal in your eyes and there is no difference between the high priesthood and the regular Levitical priesthood, let's get aboard the good ship Enterprise, have Mr. Spock set the controls for BC 3194 and check this out.

    Oh, there's a Levitical priest now. Let's check out your theory:

    "Hi Mr. Priest. Say would you do us a favor and go in the Holiest of All and offer a sacrifice?"

    "WHAAAAAAAAT????? Do you think I'm crazy??? I wouldn't have one ankle in there and I'd be DEAD!! What makes you think that I would even entertain such an idea??"

    "Well, I have this acquaintence who says that there is no such thing as a separate priesthood, that it is all one priesthood with no difference, so I just assumed that you could do the same thing a high priest does."

    Your friend doesn't know his head from a knish. Yes, there is only one tribe from which priests are taken, but the office of the high priest is a special office separate from the rest of us and that only offers YOM KIPPUR.

    That's not my argument at all. My argument is that Hebrews is talking about Christ as the Great High Priest, not as a regular priest. Every non Catholic with an axe to grind against the Church goes to that verse in Hebrews about "one sacrifice" and "one mediator" and tries to use it to state that the priesthood is finished on earth. The office of high priest is, but not the offices of mediatorial priests.

    How does this:

    Heb 10:11 And every priest standeth daily ministering and offering oftentimes the same sacrifices, which can never take away sins:

    have anything to do with not going to a "third party?"

    In the first century, the Church was new and trying to establish what it would be like as the new people of the New Covenant. The Church did not spring from the side of Christ complete and ready to go. Have you ever heard of "growth?" Things which are newborn have to develope and mature into perfection. Bokenkotter's statement means nothing.
     
  13. Singer

    Singer New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 20, 2002
    Messages:
    1,343
    Likes Received:
    0
    The Church did not spring from the side of Christ complete and ready to
    go. Have you ever heard of "growth?" Things which are newborn
    have to develope and mature into perfection.


    Were those Christians who were receiving salvation during this time of
    developement .receiving an incomplete salvation much like you
    would contend that Protestants do today ?

    (Consider this may have been a time span of over 400 years)
     
  14. CatholicConvert

    CatholicConvert New Member

    Joined:
    Jun 15, 2001
    Messages:
    1,958
    Likes Received:
    0
    Singer....

    I continue to be stunned by your statements and how little understanding you show.

    There is a profound difference between the salvational work of our Lord in its application and the growth of the Church as an administrative body.

    The same thing could be said about the Jews. Was Abraham really and truly a Jew, since he had no temple for worship? Was he really and truly a Jew since there was no Jerusalem in his day?

    These things came later, as the kingdom grew and prospered, but the relationship of faith which Abraham had with God was not affected by the lack of externalities which came with the growth into perfection of the kingdom. Likewise, the first Christians didn't have complete liturgical texts, complete understanding of every facet of the Christian faith.....heck, they didn't even have a complete BIBLE....which you Prots say is an absolute necessity for salvation yet they somehow got "saved" didn't they?

    Stop trying to make mountains out of theological molehills.

    If Protestants are receiving an "incomplete salvation" as you propose, it is because they have rejected that which God established upon the earth -- the Church -- which is the covenantal kingdom wherein the grace of the Sacraments is located. One can recieve all grace from God even through the infant and unformed Church of the first century, but one cannot recieve all graces outside the Church.
     
  15. BobRyan

    BobRyan Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 27, 2002
    Messages:
    32,913
    Likes Received:
    71
    Faith:
    Non Baptist Christian
    There is no concept of "two priesthoods" any more than there are "two clergy's" simply by having hierarchy's in church leadership. There are not "three Godheads" simply because we see a hierarchy in John 16 and different roles for different members of the Godhead.

    Your point - fails.

    quote:Bob
    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Which is why Heb 8 declares that Christ would NOT be a priest if He were on earth. The argument is not "He would be high priest but would not be a priest since we all believe that high priests are not priests". Your argument does not hold.
    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The argument in Hebrews is explicity over the issue of the "Tribe of Levi" being priests and the fact that Christ it NOT from that tribe.

    Note - that Priests (which means High Priests as well SINCE they are taken from among the Priests) - are ALL from that Tribe.

    This has already been pointed out. You are ignoring that point of Hebrews 7 because it does not fit with the way you had hoped things would turn out in the chapter.

    How can you blame the devastating argument that Hebrews 7 is making to your point "on Catholic Axe grinders"??

    Read the text. It is an argument over the entire priesthood "of the TRIBE of Levi" based on the issue of "Tribe" affiliation.

    Then it makes the further Devastating point that with the CHANGE in Law regarding Priesthood Tribal affilation "There is ALSO a change in priesthood".

    Impossible to miss. And ALL the priests "mediate" before as Moses pointed out to Aaron with his TWO sons.


    quote:
    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    The point remains - Christ incarnated as a child -a son of a carpenter - is not the same as going to a Catholic priest today. Rather - as we are told in Heb 4:16 "Come boldly before the throne of Grace" - we come directly to God through Christ. No need to seek a third party on earth. Heb 10:11
    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Here we have the DAILY ministry of the priesthood - (of the Tribe of Levi and descended from Aaron). The priesthood is shown on a DAILY basis to be mediating. Paul is arguing that we no longer need that third party - mediating. That now it is God Himself - Jesus Christ - the "ONE MEDIATOR between God and Man" by which we now "Come BOLDLY before the throne of Grace" - as Paul points out. That is a contrast. And yes - to ignore it - is to go to a third party mediator.


    BTW I agree that the church evolved to the point of being the Catholic Church - over the centuries.

    In Christ,

    Bob
     
  16. CatholicConvert

    CatholicConvert New Member

    Joined:
    Jun 15, 2001
    Messages:
    1,958
    Likes Received:
    0
    Well, I'd like to discuss this more thoroughly, Bob. Suppose you and I get a thread started -- Let's just call it Hebrews 7 and the priesthood and go from there, one verse at a time.

    Let's work to stay on target (Hebrews and the priesthood) and tear apart these ideas.

    I'll start it.
     
  17. BobRyan

    BobRyan Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 27, 2002
    Messages:
    32,913
    Likes Received:
    71
    Faith:
    Non Baptist Christian
    Sounds like a good idea.

    Let's do it.

    In Christ,

    Bob
     
  18. Singer

    Singer New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 20, 2002
    Messages:
    1,343
    Likes Received:
    0
    If Protestants are receiving an "incomplete salvation" as you propose, it
    is because they have rejected that which God established upon the earth
    -- the Church -- which is the covenantal kingdom wherein the grace of the
    Sacraments is located. One can recieve all grace from God even through the
    infant and unformed Church of the first century, but one
    cannot recieve all graces outside the Church.


    The "incomplete salvation" is not my term.....it's a Catholic concoction.

    What graces might I be withheld from by not being within the "Church".?
    It definitely isn't salvation as Catholicism agrees that I am saved (although
    in an incomplete way) whatever that means.

    Would that mean I have one foot in heaven and one in hell? ;)

    [ June 01, 2003, 09:10 PM: Message edited by: Singer ]
     
  19. CatholicConvert

    CatholicConvert New Member

    Joined:
    Jun 15, 2001
    Messages:
    1,958
    Likes Received:
    0
    It would mean that you are missing the blessings of the Sacraments which Christ established upon earth for the sanctification of the believer. If you are happy without them, you will probably never know what you are missing then.
     
  20. Singer

    Singer New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 20, 2002
    Messages:
    1,343
    Likes Received:
    0
    Whatever they are might only benefit me if I were involved in Catholicism and
    while I'm on this earth.....to make me a better Catholic. There could be no
    eternal advantage to joining certain activities. It didn't keep the thief on
    the cross or the thousands upon thousands who were saved in bible times
    without involvement in the Catholic Church out of heaven.

    If I ever join a church, I'd never pick one that made exclusive claims and
    after two years of internet exposure I see that I just can't swallow all the
    eratic claims of the RCC.

    As Catholics ironically DO admit, we who are born again (have accepted
    Christ) are heavenbound. It's just a shame that conversations ever go beyond
    that great truth.
     
Loading...