What do you want from your church?

But if shortening my posts has you responding to me, I am suddenly encouraged to
lengthen them!

Seriously.....long posts get skipped over. I haven't answered a couple of your long ones
now have I ?

But if "Catholicism" is identical to the same church that Christ founded, then it makes all
the sense in the world for the claims I make! Now, Catholicism can stake a claim to her
origins back to Christ Himself.

Show me another "church" who can make that claim (and you Orthodox types, be quiet
now!

Anyone whose goal is to seek and find a "right church" may never find Christ.
The whole of Catholicism hinges on the possibility that Christ gave Peter authority,
the keys to the kingdom and a position that exceeded even that of the Holy spirit.
What nonsense. Satan offered that same thing to Jesus and he refused it. Now you're
building your whole "Church" around the same syndrome. That alone would be enough
to spook me.

Now, Catholicism can stake a claim to her
origins back to Christ Himself.

So what .....?
My personal affiliation goes even further back....before Catholicism was even a twinkle
in the Pope's eye

Matthew 25:34
Then shall the King say unto them on his right hand, Come, ye blessed of
my Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world.

Show me another "church" who can make that claim (and you Orthodox types, be quiet
now! )

Singer would never seek out a church on the basis of its "firstness". We don't serve an
earthly kingdom, WP. We serve a spiritual God and we are told to worship in spirit and
in truth. Why would I seek a "Popeally correct" church that constantly patted
itself on its back for some earthly endeavor..?

And certainly, the old covenant of Abraham came before Catholicism or
the popes, and before Christ came to earth, which proves......................what?

Proves that God then offered salvation to the Gentiles as well as the Jews by
grace through faith of which I am a partaker.

Not seeing what prompted my response, but I would submit that when man seeks God
and he finds Christ and believes in Him, does not submitting to his teaching and dictates
naturally follow?

Yes, both of them.
Luke 10:27
And he answering said, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul,
and with all thy strength, and with all thy mind; and thy neighbour as thyself.

Or can it be said that if not doing so, man is not seeking God as you think he is?

Sounds like some comment out of the Vatican.

[ May 08, 2003, 09:12 AM: Message edited by: Singer ]

 

Singer replied, where I last said:

But if "Catholicism" is identical to the same church that Christ founded, then it makes all
the sense in the world for the claims I make! Now, Catholicism can stake a claim to her
origins back to Christ Himself.

Show me another "church" who can make that claim (and you Orthodox types, be quiet
now!)

Singer, listen to me real close now, and just maybe you will get it...........

If Christ established a church with the awesome authority I have been speaking of in Matthew 16:18-19, is not seeking out that very same church a pretty good way of finding Christ?

YOu want to "find" Christ without all of the requirements Christ may put upon you that you would then find Him!

Exactly! But it is not a "possibility" but an in your face fact if only you will sit down are veeeeeeeery careeeeeeeeefuly read Matthew 16:18-19.

What is Christ doing here anyway?

Satan offered Jesus the whole world if only Jesus would fall down and worship him.

If you see the same relationship here with Christ establishing His church, a church with an authority (See also Matthew 18:18 and the preceeding reason Christ speaks of disciplining a brother who does not repent) then we are not going to get anywhere.

You want Christ without the emcumberances that go with following Christ.

Now, Catholicism can stake a claim to her origins back to Christ Himself.

???? I have no idea where you are going with this.

Then Singer repeats what I said:

Show me another "church" who can make that claim (and you Orthodox types, be quiet
now!)

Would you seek out the very Church Christ founded? To do so, you also coincidently find the church that "came first." The logic is so obvious yet you avoid it? Incredible indeed!

Why do you avoid the very institution Christ founded and why would you come to believe that staying clear of that institution is somehow "following Christ"?

I have no idea, Singer, and I presume it was a response made by me in reaction to a comment you made that I no longer see and read!

During the old covenant of Abraham, Issac and Moses? Please enlighten me on this, Singer, as I was under the impression that this did not happen until Christ came down to redeem us all.

Not seeing what prompted my response, but I would submit that when man seeks God
and he finds Christ and believes in Him, does not submitting to his teaching and dictates
naturally follow?

If you love the Lord thy God with the same intensity as given above, why is it that you do not completely follow the precepts and commandments of His Divine Son?

Christ established a church with awesome authority for a reason, Singer, and you insist on avoiding it at all costs.

A brother sins, and refuses council by his brothers, even to the point where the matter is taken to the church for a final disposition. (Matthew 18:17) The final action taken if the brother refuses correction is (gasp!) what we now call excommunication. Note the repeat of the power to "bind and loose" given in verse 18.

Is that not describing a church with authority, as we see given to it in Matthew 16:19?

Note further that Christ is speaking to those men who are to become the "core of authority" within that church, the disciples who are later to be called the chosen 12 - the apostles - and certainly, as they gather together in His name (per verse 20), Jesus will be there among them as well!

This becomes especially telling, as not only is He present among them in this gathering, but in actuality, as they chant the words, "...this is my body..." The Divine Liturgy - the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass!

God bless,

PAX

Bill+†+


Pillar and Foundation of Truth, the Church. (1 Tim 3:15)

 

WP:

You're going to have to shorten your posts or you're going to be talking
to yourself sooner or later.....(like you do at home)

It seems your total emphasis (and only support) is on Matthew 16:18-19 to
justify the authority of the RCC. You mention that in evey post and give that
as the reason for the supremacy of the RCC in every debate.

Just stop and ask yourself who it is that God loves and why He created mankind
in the first place. Consider who Jesus died to save, who is subject to salvation .
Consider what it is that saves and who the bible is written to/for . Ask yourself
who the "Whosoever" is in St John 11: 25,26. Who is subject to be saved by grace
through faith in Eph 2:8 and 9 ? Who is supposed to love in deed and truth in 1 John 3:18.
Who is the "He" in 1 John 5:5 that says "He that believeth that Jesus is the Son
of God overcomes the world"?
Who is the 'whosoever' in Romans 10:13 ("For whosoever calleth on the name of the Lord
shall be saved"?)


With your emphasis on the "church", body of Christ and the Kingdom of God, and
the purpose of creation being for the structuring of the Catholic Church,
I await your response.

This becomes especially telling, as not only is He present among them
in this gathering, but in actuality, as they chant the words, "...this is my
body..." The Divine Liturgy - the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass!

Why didn't the disciples just chew on his body and suck his blood then when
He was with them..? Why didn't Jesus eat his own flesh and drink his own blood
instead of using bread and wine ? If the bread and wine are " Actual" ,
then why didn't they eat and drink the actual when it was right there in
front of them...? Why use a symbol like we do yet today?

 

Singer insisted in his reply:

Matthew 16:18-19 is the "charter text" for the establishment of the church. But it is not the only scripture you will see me quoting.

The trouble is, you will consider this message too long if I post my other favorites....

OK, so now, is this short enough?

God bless,

PAX

Bill+†+


Pillar and Foundation of Truth, the Church. (1 Tim 3:15)

 

Not Long Enough

You can go ahead and respond to this:

Why didn't the disciples just chew on his body and suck his blood
then when He was with them..? Why didn't Jesus eat his own flesh
and drink his own blood instead of using bread and wine ? If the bread
and wine are " Actual" , then why didn't they eat and drink the actual
when it was right there in front of them...? Why use a symbol like we
do yet today?

You learn fast though,WP.....you get an A+ in following orders but you're
still failing in Theology....Bad Bad !!

Keep that "Charter" thing in mind.....Good topic.

Singer

 

Pillar and Foundation of Truth, the Church. (1 Tim 3:15)

Ahhhhh......WP ?

Paul was speaking to Timothy about how to act in church....but there
weren't any Catholic Churches around, so he must have worshipped in
the "catholic" ( universal) church that I belong to.

There may have been a reference to the Catholic Church two verses
later though....1 Tim 4:1. Enjoy

 

Singer responded to my "tagline":

Pillar and Foundation of Truth, the Church. (1 Tim 3:15)

Then, Singer, pray tell me what "church" was Paul refering to?

Speculating on me again, Singer? I tend to think you believe so out of your own prejudices.

I would again challenge you to take the "church" Paul was speaking of and trace her history forward until you get to the present time. And somewhere along the way, I want you to show me how it is that the Catholic Church is not that same church. Show me where the separation took place.

A little documentation would also go a long way, Singer.

Oops, I better quite before this get's too long............

And before I post this, this will be my last message for a shile, as I am going out of town tomorrow, returning Sunday night.

God bless,

PAX

Bill+†+


Et ego dico tibi quia tu es Petrus et super hanc petram
aedificabo ecclesiam meam et portae inferi non praevalebunt
adversum eam et tibi dabo claves regni caelorum et quodcumque
ligaveris super terram erit ligatum in caelis et quodcumque
solveris super terram erit solutum in caelis.
(Matt 16:18-19 From the Latin Vulgate)

 

Then, Singer, pray tell me what "church" was Paul refering to?

Good observation there, WP. You see it is not identifiable per denomination
is it? Ignatius had not given the name "Catholic" to it yet and it would be applying
the Caveman Rule of calling his cart a Ford.....to call this a Catholic Church.

It was merely a "church" of universal (I like to use the term generic) believers of
the gospel of Jesus Christ (which did not include any Catholic dogma yet as it
wasn't established at that time).

There were no "organized by name" churches yet. To call it Catholic would be
a far stretch of the mind.

I want you to show me how it is that the Catholic Church is not that same
church. Show me where the separation took place.

Again I ask..."How could it be separated from something that didn't exist yet"?

Same scenario would be to ask "Show me how it is that the Ford today is not the
improved model of the Caveman's Cart".

Enjoy your weekend. It's raining in Nebraka. I could use a little Florida Sunshine.

Your Friend
Singer

P.S. Your other tagline was shorter

 

It was merely a "church" of universal (I like to use the term generic) believers of the gospel of Jesus Christ (which did not include any Catholic dogma yet as it wasn't established at that time).

Singer, for an intelligent guy, the above statement is beyond silly.

The "dogma" of the Real Presence and of baptismal regeneration is seen in the writings of the second generation of believers after Christ. WHERE did such men as St. Ignatius get such ideas if not from the apostles themselves?

If it was a "universal church", then by implication of that statement, they had a universal set of beliefs which were practiced at each parish, regardless of locality. And this is PRECISELY why the Church came to be referred to as "katholicos", because there was universality of belief and practice.

You also fail to consider that our Lord compared the kingdom to a mustard seed when planted in the earth. Insignificant at first, it grows into "the largest among the trees". This is how the Church started. An insignificant band of cowardly followers were energized by the Holy Spirit and went out to establish the Faith in the whole world. Have you ever heard of the Mar Thoma in South India? That is the Church which St. Thomas started. These men went out and took with them what Jesus the Christ taught them.

Think of how impossible it would be for a dogma which would contradict Christ's teachings to get started, get a foothold and actually infest and corrupt the Church. Those of the "Circumsion Party" tried this in the beginning and were rooted out by the Jerusalem Council. The Faith which was given to the apostles was passed down from one faithful man to the next. Heresies such as Arianism, Nestorianism, Montanism, Donatism, etc., were exposed and cast from the Church.

Yet you seem to think that the Church was filled with men who betrayed Christ almost the second the vapor trails of His ascension disappeared. Are YOU the only faithful Christian in 2000 years. The way you (and other Protestants) talk of the Early Fathers, one would be led to think so.

Cordially in Christ and the Blessed Virgin,

Brother Ed

 

It was merely a "church" of universal (I like to use the term generic)
believers of the gospel of Jesus Christ (which did not include any Catholic
dogma yet as it wasn't established at that time).

Singer, for an intelligent guy, the above statement is beyond silly.

CC......I'm glad you think it sounds foolish. I have a scripture for you:

1 Corinthians 1:27
But God hath chosen the foolish things of the world to confound the wise;
and God hath chosen the weak things of the world to confound the
things which are mighty;

That early church sure wasn't copying Catholic tradition. There wasn't any
Catholic Church to copy. Ford might have borrowed the stone wheel example,
but it can't be said that the stone wheels were Ford. See what I mean?


The "dogma" of the Real Presence and of baptismal regeneration
is seen in the writings of the second generation of believers after Christ.
WHERE did such men as St. Ignatius get such ideas if not from the apostles
themselves?

Let me ask you like I did WP. Why didn't the apostles just pick away at Jesus'
body then and suck his blood? If it is important now to make bread and wine into
actual blood and meat, why didn't they eat Jesus ? Why didn't Jesus just chew on his
own arm? Ignatius was an early father of the RCC.....yes, where do these guys get
their ideas anyhow. Baptismal regeneration would restrict the working of the Holy
Spirit until wet. Not biblical.

If it was a "universal church", then by implication of that statement,
they had a universal set of beliefs which were practiced at each parish,
regardless of locality. And this is PRECISELY why the Church came to be
referred to as "katholicos", because there was universality of belief and practice.

Make it clear that the "Church" (RCC) is not what was referred to as
"katholicos". It was the early church (universal ...generic) bodies of
organized worshippers who were around way before the RCC was
organized that were the "katholicos"...(No kin of Catholic)..!! Yes,
their standards were universal and did not include much of what Catholics
practice today.

Ford and Catholic are both proper nouns that had a dated origin.
Stone wheels and Faith were around along time before those two were.


You also fail to consider that our Lord compared the kingdom to a
mustard seed when planted in the earth. Insignificant at first, it grows
into "the largest among the trees". This is how the Church started. An
insignificant band of cowardly followers were energized by the Holy Spirit
and went out to establish the Faith in the whole world. Have you ever
heard of the Mar Thoma in South India? That is the Church which St. Thomas
started. These men went out and took with them what Jesus the Christ
taught them.

I hope you didn't insinuate that the RCC Church "established the Faith"......A
few individuals did establish the RCC however. And the 'kingdom' is not
the Catholic Church. Don't misinterpret it as that.


Yet you seem to think that the Church was filled with men who betrayed
Christ almost the second the vapor trails of His ascension disappeared. Are YOU
the only faithful Christian in 2000 years. The way you (and other Protestants)
talk of the Early Fathers, one would be led to think so.

Note that the ''Early Fathers'' were around a long time before Catholicism was.
Other groups of worshippers who Jesus referred to as "If they are not against us,
they are for us" operated at the same time. Paul was constantly rebuking those in
the early churches for their misgivings. If they were Catholics, then you see how
they were failing from the start.

Rather, the Catholic Church did not receive a mandate from God to carry
on the work that Jesus started. That work was begun in Abraham's time and
has a longer history than Catholicism by a few thousand years. It is
called the "Gospel" and it works in the hearts of man....not through a church.

Galatians 3:8 And the scripture, foreseeing that God would justify
the heathen through faith, preached before the gospel unto Abraham,
[saying], In thee shall all nations be blessed.

We are blessed through our early church father, Abraham and the gospel
was around even prior to that. Jesus didn't start a church to bless
with a newfound gospel. That had been done centuries before and it was
not a denomination or a church He started. He only continued to promote
the gospel of His own life, death and resurrection that was evident from
the foundation of the world. As Galatians said; justification was to be through
faith.....and He did not mean faith in a denomination that would come about
through struggle to obtain superiority in the world today . (RCC).

*Don't tell WP that this post is so long.!!

 

Sorry, I almost missed this, when you said in response to what I said:

Then, Singer, pray tell me what "church" was Paul refering to?

Good observation there, WP. You see it is not identifiable per denomination
is it? Ignatius had not given the name "Catholic" to it yet and it would be applying
the Caveman Rule of calling his cart a Ford.....to call this a Catholic Church.

No, there was no denominations at all then, was there, Singer? The problem for you is, there were no other "denominations" for about 800 years (or about until the 9th century, with the Orthodox schism) and so I ask you, Singer, how is it that the church existed so long, being so "catholic" in it's foundations, per the readings of the early church fathers (if you have the gumption to read them) that would make them anything other them what your "Protestantant" mentality would have them?

It was merely a "church" of universal (I like to use the term generic) believers of
the gospel of Jesus Christ (which did not include any Catholic dogma yet as it
wasn't established at that time).

Then how do you identify this so called "generic" chruch that has been so illusive to others, yet you seem to have a finger on that existed?

There were no "organized by name" churches yet. To call it Catholic would be
a far stretch of the mind.

That is simple, because it was in it's primitive stage. But as influence waxed, it them became very dominant in society, and in the known civilized world. To then attach the term "catholic," which bothers you so much, does what to attaching that title to the very same church Christ founded?

I last said:

I want you to show me how it is that the Catholic Church is not that same
church. Show me where the separation took place.

Again I ask..."How could it be separated from something that didn't exist yet"?

Same scenario would be to ask "Show me how it is that the Ford today is not the
improved model of the Caveman's Cart".

Enjoy your weekend. It's raining in Nebraka. I could use a little Florida Sunshine.

Hope the tornado's avoided your household!

Oh, you asked a question: Well, that "Caveman's cart" did not have an internal combustion engine attached to it, just like the old covenant of the Old Testament still awaited the Messiah as promised, who would start the new covenant of Christ!

See how simple that wasa!

P.S. Your other tagline was shorter

Well, what does it take to avoid exceeding your attention span, hummmmmmmmmmm?

God bless,

PAX

Bill+†+


Pillar and Foundation of Truth, the Church. (1 Tim 3:15)

 

I have enough attention span to wait for your answer to this:

Why didn't the disciples just chew on his body and suck his blood
then when He was with them..? Why didn't Jesus eat his own flesh
and drink his own blood instead of using bread and wine ? If the bread
and wine are " Actual" , then why didn't they eat and drink the actual
when it was right there in front of them...? Why use a symbol like we
do yet today?

Peace

 

Singer replied:

I have enough attention span to wait for your answer to this:

Why didn't the disciples just chew on his body and suck his blood
then when He was with them..? Why didn't Jesus eat his own flesh
and drink his own blood instead of using bread and wine ? If the bread
and wine are " Actual" , then why didn't they eat and drink the actual
when it was right there in front of them...? Why use a symbol like we
do yet today?

The answer is quite simple, really, since we know they did no such thing. At the end of the "Bread of Life discourse" of John, chapter 6, Peter and the apostles simply continued to believe in Him, even while they had not the slightest idea how it is that they were going to partake of His body and blood.

And He solved their delima quite nicely, at the Last Supper!

But, to go back and look at your question again, I can also say, they indeed DID eat His body and drink His blood! But not canibalistically, His natural body and blood, but rather supernaturally, as it must be if what was formerly bread and wine is no longer bread and wine but now His body and blood, even while it still looks, feels, tastes, smells, and digests like bread and wine (the "accidents" of bread and wine) but is now His body and blood.

Hard to believe? Yes indeed! It takes a great leap of faith, just like the Jews and some of His own disciples could not do - to accept it with no other evidence but in pure faith.

And that is what "separated the men from the boys" in the discourse of John chapter 6.

And as Peter said, in reply to Jesus, who asked, "Do you also want to leave?" Peter replied, "Master, to whom shall we go? You have the words of eternal life. We have come to believe and are convinced that you are the Holy One of God."

Do you see Peter understanding exactly what Christ has done here? Now a whit of a clue!

Do you see Peter and the rest of the apostles knawing on his body, Singer? Not at all! They are still stunned in what He has told then, to have the mystery revealed on the last night before He was betrayed.

Oh, what a great leap of faith that My Lord would come to me physically for a little while, while he also comes to me spiriturally into my heart.

This morning, I whispered a little prayer as I left from the communion rail, with the host still fresh on my tongue - Lord, you have come to me in your body and blood for a little while, so now Dear Lord, enter into my heart to stay forever!

God bless,

PAX

Bill+†+


Pillar and Foundation of Truth, the Church. (1 Tim 3:15)

 

WP.......
Yes, I see where you answered my question now...on this thread.

But, to go back and look at your question again, I can also say,
they indeed DID eat His body and drink His blood! But not canibalistically,
His natural body and blood, but rather supernaturally, as it must be if what
was formerly bread and wine is no longer bread and wine but now His body
and blood, even while it still looks, feels, tastes, smells, and digests like bread
and wine (the "accidents" of bread and wine) but is now His body and
blood.

That was a fabricated answer WP...with no bible basis or even common sense.
Protestants partake of the emblems supernaturally too....it's called Symbolism.
You're solution might have come from the Vatican itself. Do Catholics really
preach that stuff ?

And as Peter said, in reply to Jesus, who asked, "Do you also want to leave?"
Peter replied, "Master, to whom shall we go? You have the words of eternal
life. We have come to believe and are convinced that you are the
Holy One of God."

The topic in the whole scene that day was the apostle's questioning who he really was.
It was not over the blood and body that some left him. It was over the fact that they
weren't "convinced that you are the Holy One of God" ....(like you said above).

It's still that way today. People abandon Him because they don't think He's
authentic. They are not indifferent to Jesus on the basis of the blood/body issue.

Blood/body is not the Gospel message as much as you might like to think.
Realizing a "one true church" is not the Good news.
Creation does not revolve around the Catholic Church.

Jesus as our savior by grace through faith....That is the Message.!!

Please don't tell me that the Vatican teaches that the "Church" is the
Good News that is to be preached throughout the world. Please .
I don't have much more respect to loose, but that may set me into a
rage

 

Singer replied, where I said (concerning the Eucharist):

But, to go back and look at your question again, I can also say,
they indeed DID eat His body and drink His blood! But not canibalistically,
His natural body and blood, but rather supernaturally, as it must be if what
was formerly bread and wine is no longer bread and wine but now His body
and blood, even while it still looks, feels, tastes, smells, and digests like bread
and wine (the "accidents" of bread and wine) but is now His body and
blood.

That was a fabricated answer WP...with no bible basis or even common sense.
Protestants partake of the emblems supernaturally too....it's called Symbolism.
You're solution might have come from the Vatican itself. Do Catholics really
preach that stuff ?

Fabricated from what, Singer?

Not "bible based"? My exegesis of John chapter 6 does not qualify in your mind?

And as Peter said, in reply to Jesus, who asked, "Do you also want to leave?"
Peter replied, "Master, to whom shall we go? You have the words of eternal
life. We have come to believe and are convinced that you are the
Holy One of God."

The topic in the whole scene that day was the apostle's questioning who he really was.
It was not over the blood and body that some left him. It was over the fact that they
weren't "convinced that you are the Holy One of God" ....(like you said above).

Ah, Singer, Jesus asks the apostles "Do you also want to leave?" It's about a most profound statement concering eating his body and drinking his blood that the Jews and some of His own disciples leave Him!

There in no doubt in my mind that Peter knew exactly who He was!

Talk about fabrication.................

It's still that way today. People abandon Him because they don't think He's
authentic. They are not indifferent to Jesus on the basis of the blood/body issue.

Singer, look at me now; in John 6, people abandoned Him because they did not abide by His teaching, pure and simple! The authentication of
Jesus is not the point here, but rather the rather radical and startling words He used concerning the eating and drinking of His body and blood!

Blood/body is not the Gospel message as much as you might like to think.
Realizing a "one true church" is not the Good news.
Creation does not revolve around the Catholic Church.

Singer, is not the discourse we are discussing in John chapter 6 an important part of the gospel message? Is not the testimony of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John the gospel message of the New Testament? And is not John, chapter 6, a part of John's gospel message?

Oh, how wonderful it must be to pick and choose what you want to believe in the gospel message and reject what you don't like.

Sounds like the Jews and some of His own disciples who rejected Him over a part of His message they did not like!

Jesus as our savior by grace through faith....That is the Message.!!

AMEN, Singer! But you are over-simplifying the Message! You want your own little pat definition of what that gospel message is without accepting all that Jesus says and commands us to do!

Please don't tell me that the Vatican teaches that the "Church" is the
Good News that is to be preached throughout the world. Please .

The Church itself is not the "good news" per se, but is rather the promulgator of that good news as Jesus had intended for the Church He established!

And the glorious history of the missionary efforts of Holy Mother Church gives testimony to the accomplishments in this promulgation in the world that is now considered an open "mission field" for the Fundamentalists. Go figure...

I don't have much more respect to loose, but that may set me into a rage

Does my statement throw you into a rage? If so, I will pray for you at Mass this morning...

God bless,

PAX

Bill+†+


Christus Vincit! Christus Regnat! Christus Imperat!

 

But, to go back and look at your question again, I can also say,
they indeed DID eat His body and drink His blood! But not canibalistically,
His natural body and blood, but rather supernaturally, as it must be if what
was formerly bread and wine is no longer bread and wine but now His body
and blood, even while it still looks, feels, tastes, smells, and digests like bread
and wine (the "accidents" of bread and wine) but is now His body and
blood.

That's a lame answer, Paxman. You have one more chance.
Why didn't they just eat his flesh and blood when it was there in front of them...?

Ah, Singer, Jesus asks the apostles "Do you also want to leave?" It's
about a most profound statement concering eating his body and drinking
his blood that the Jews and some of His own disciples leave Him!

Disagree. Sorry.

Singer, look at me now; in John 6, people abandoned Him because they
did not abide by His teaching, pure and simple! The authentication of
Jesus is not the point here, but rather the rather radical and startling
words He used concerning the eating and drinking of His body and blood!

Disagree. Sorry. It was because they didn't believe He was worthy of the claims He made.
That's why they killed him in the end...they thought he was an impostor.

The Church itself is not the "good news" per se, but is rather the promulgator
of that good news as Jesus had intended for the Church He established!

And the glorious history of the missionary efforts of Holy Mother Church
gives testimony to the accomplishments in this promulgation in the world
that is now considered an open "mission field" for the Fundamentalists. Go figure...

I'm a promulgator too and I operate just fine without the socalled "Church".
I'm a gentile...remember? And salvation was offered to me. There must be
a detour that you missed somewhere along your search for life, Paxman.
Keep your eyes upon Jesus...did you forget that part maybe?

 

Singer replied, where I last said:

But, to go back and look at your question again, I can also say,
they indeed DID eat His body and drink His blood! But not canibalistically,
His natural body and blood, but rather supernaturally, as it must be if what
was formerly bread and wine is no longer bread and wine but now His body
and blood, even while it still looks, feels, tastes, smells, and digests like bread
and wine (the "accidents" of bread and wine) but is now His body and blood.

And what is the reply I get?..............

That's a lame answer, Paxman. You have one more chance.
Why didn't they just eat his flesh and blood when it was there in front of them...?

<Sigh!> I suppose because Jesus did not bare his arms and legs for them to chew on! Singer, they are not going to knaw on His natural flesh, and you know that! Even the Livitical laws prohibit cannabalism, including the drinking of blood, either animal or human!

Jesus is testing their faith in revulsion of His words harking to a seemingly cannabilistic act, for which the Jew and some of His disciples abandon Him then and there!

Peter (there is that wonderful name again!) and the rest of the apostles simply took Him on faith, the solve a delimma that is resolved at the Last Supper!

I last said:

Ah, Singer, Jesus asks the apostles "Do you also want to leave?" It's
about a most profound statement concering eating his body and drinking
his blood that the Jews and some of His own disciples leave Him!

Disagree. Sorry.

Getting tired, aren't you?

Singer, look at me now; in John 6, people abandoned Him because they
did not abide by His teaching, pure and simple! The authentication of
Jesus is not the point here, but rather the rather radical and startling
words He used concerning the eating and drinking of His body and blood!

Disagree. Sorry. It was because they didn't believe He was worthy of the claims He made.
That's why they killed him in the end...they thought he was an impostor.

And all this time, they accepted without protest, the idea of "eating His flesh and drinking His blood." Incredible!

The Church itself is not the "good news" per se, but is rather the promulgator
of that good news as Jesus had intended for the Church He established!

And the glorious history of the missionary efforts of Holy Mother Church
gives testimony to the accomplishments in this promulgation in the world
that is now considered an open "mission field" for the Fundamentalists. Go figure...

I'm a promulgator too and I operate just fine without the socalled "Church".
I'm a gentile...remember? And salvation was offered to me. There must be
a detour that you missed somewhere along your search for life, Paxman.
Keep your eyes upon Jesus...did you forget that part maybe?

Oh yes, I keep forgetting - You are your own "church" and your own "pope."

Good luck!

God bless,

PAX

Bill+†+


Christus Vincit! Christus Regnat! Christus Imperat!

 

But, to go back and look at your question again, I can also say,
they indeed DID eat His body and drink His blood! But not canibalistically,
His natural body and blood, but rather supernaturally, as it must be if what
was formerly bread and wine is no longer bread and wine but now His body
and blood, even while it still looks, feels, tastes, smells, and digests like bread
and wine (the "accidents" of bread and wine) but is now His body and blood.

I suppose because Jesus did not bare his arms and legs for them to
chew on! Singer, they are not going to knaw on His natural flesh,
and you know that! Even the Livitical laws prohibit cannabalism, including
the drinking of blood, either animal or human!

Then what's the big fuss over making it the ACTUAL body and blood of Jesus
nowdays when they didn't when it was available. Catholicism's adamant insistence
to make it ACTUAL all of a sudden falls through the knotholes when confronted with
the possibility. Now it's all of a sudden SUPERNATURAL!!! So you're eating
SUPERNATURAL ACTUAL Blood....okay, I'm catching on...(I think).

Anybody got an inkling of what this guy's talking about...?

 

Singer said:

Anybody got an inkling of what this guy's talking about...?

Have a nice day, Singer. I don't think going further will produce very much.

I fall short of the glory of God, therefore please pray for me, a sinner...

God bless,

PAX

Bill+†+


Regina Angelorum, ora pro nobis!

 

UPDATE !!

To the body and blood issue; Grant offered another word (Accidental).

Now we have Accidental Supernatural Actual .

I am slowly "getting it", Pacman. Is that the work of the Holy Spirit....?

Prayers,

Singer

p.s.
Have a nice day, Singer. I don't think going further will produce very much.

AMEN and AMEN !!