curtpenn said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

curtpenn said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

curtpenn said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Oh the irony:

"This is my body" - "I take Jesus at his literal word"

"..NO LIFE within you" - "obviously we aren't to take that literally".

---

The difference is I embrace the irony and understand we inhabit a space of infinite regression whereas you pretend to know absolutely and consequently pass judgement upon the majority of all Christians who have ever lived.

---

In your case, "embracing the irony" is just your way of preserving your tradition despite the obviously inconsistent and erroneous hermeneutic it is based on, as opposed to what we should be doing, which is to rightly divide the Word of God, and reject or at least subordinate any and all man made tradition that doesn't line up.

You constantly worry about the wrong thing: the issue isn't what the majority does or think, its what's right that matters. I demonstrated a clear inconsistency in your interpretation above. You should be addressing that for your own sake, not attacking me. I'm just the messenger.

---

Don't believe I've ever seen you state your views re salvation. Is saving faith irresistible, prevenient, something else? What do you think makes one a Christian?

---

I've stated it many times. You're just gonna have to pay attention better. Judging by the number of times I had to explain that The Glories of Mary is NOT an obscure text written by an obscure author like you asserted (it was at least three times) it's clear that either you have reading or memory problems; or, you are just so blinded by your nastiness that you just don't want to absorb anything I say.

---

I've asked you directly many times going back for some weeks now to tell us what you believe we must do to be saved and I have never seen you give a direct answer. Sorry if I missed it, but I don't think you have. If I am blinded by my nastiness, then at least we have blindness and nastiness in common.

FWIW, if one were to quiz the average Roman Catholic parishioner as to the prayer and bishop you obsess over, I suspect something less than 1% could tell you anything about them. No way to be certain, but that qualifies as obscure for me. What is your threshold expressed as a percentage?

---

You're just gonna have to go back and find it. I tire from discussing with you. You have no desire to get to the truth, you just want to attack.

You are asking the wrong question. The question is, how many Catholics, including bishops and popes, have beliefs in line with these prayers? Why did the Catholic authorities condone and promote them? Haven't they led to the Marian dogmas, as well as the current push by millions of Catholics, including many bishops, to have a 5th Marian dogma naming Mary as a Co-Redeemer?

You are still, even after I've explained it to you multiple times, ignoring the main point: if these prayers, which are clearly idolatrous and heretical, were condoned and promoted by the Catholic authorities, then it brings their legitimacy with the Holy Spirit into question. Yet it is this authority that Catholics depend on for all their beliefs, including those involving salvation. If you don't see the problem here, then you are blind, whether willfully, or by the devil himself.

Coke Bear said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Answer these questions for me. If John 6 and the Last Supper is/was literal, then:

---

I didn't see an answer to some of my questions concerning tradition and history, but here you go …

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

1. the disciples literally drank Jesus' blood. Isn't this a violation of God's law in Leviticus 17:10-12? "Therefore I have said to the people of Israel, No person among you shall eat blood, neither shall any stranger who sojourns among you eat blood." Why would Jesus have them break this law?

---

As you know, when referring to the 613 Levitical laws, we must always ask if the specific law was a Natural (Moral) law adultery, murder, fornication, etc., Civil law just scales, debt, clothing and hair, etc., and Ceremonial law Festivals, Priestly duties, Atonement, Food and Drink, etc.

Clearly the drinking of blood falls into the Ceremonial law. There is nothing immoral or intrinsically evil about drinking blood. Jesus fulfilled the old laws and is now the new law. The moral laws still remain today.

Finally, Jesus commands us to do this. Just like when he declared all foods clean in Mark 7:19. He would NEVER command us to do something that was evil.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

2. When was Jesus' body broken in sacrifice for our sins? Was it during the Last Supper ("this is my body") when the bread was broken, or was it on the cross during his crucifixion?

---

The bread was broken, but not his BONES. Not sure I get your point here. Is a 'broken body' some sort of Calvinist belief?

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

3. Did Judas Iscariot, who took part in Last Supper, receive eternal life from eating the bread that was Jesus' body, as Jesus promised in John 6? Was Judas saved due to eating the bread?

---

He may have been, HOWEVER, the Church teaches that one can lose salvation, which he may have done with the betrayal of Jesus.

Actually, we do not know for sure Judas' fate. According to the Gospels, (Matthew 26:24 & Mark 14:21) it would have been better if he were never born.

But we know he felt remorse, gave back the money and hanged himself in grief. (Matthew 27:3-5). Christians has wrestled with this for centuries. Quite frankly, I don't think it looks good for him.

---

What difference does it make if it was a ceremonial, civil, or moral law? What makes it ok for Jesus to command his followers to break it? Wouldn't that be a sin?

If the bread was truly his body, then he was sacrificed two times- once at the Last Supper, and then again on the cross. Is this your belief?

In John 17:12, Jesus is praying for his disciples: "While I was with them, I kept them in your name, which you have given me. I have guarded them, and not one of them has been lost except the son of destruction, that the Scripture might be fulfilled." Isn't this talking about Judas Iscariot? If he is saved, then he can not be "lost", or called the "son of destruction" according to Jesus. But if Judas partook in Jesus' flesh at the Last Supper, then according to Jesus' own words in John 6, if taken literally, he should "life in him" and "eternal life". So how do you square this?

Coke Bear said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

This does not falsify the idea that Jesus is speaking figuratively regarding eating and food throughout the book of John, including chapter 6.

---

Where in John 6 is Jesus speaking figuratively?

(Seriously) Try reading The Bread of Life Discourse (john 6:25-70) without your Protestant lens and read it where he is offering His body to us. It makes much more sense that way rather than forcing a "figurative" meaning into the passage. One will understand why the disciples grumbled, left, and never returned.

Then 1 Corinthians 10:16 and 11:27-30 make sense.

---

Do you not know that Jesus said he spoke in parables, i.e. figuratively, "because seeing they do not see, and hearing they do not hear, nor do they understand." This was to fulfill the prophecy of Isaiah. So why would it mean that Jesus was speaking literally in John 6, because many of his disciples left? Jesus specifically stated this would happen.

I could say the EXACT same thing to you: "Where in John 6 is Jesus speaking literally? Try reading the discourse without your Catholic lens. It makes much more sense to read it figuratively, based on all the reasoning I've provided, rather than force a "literal" meaning into the passage".

Your reasoning with I Corinthians 10 and 11 is circular. You've already accepted it is literal, so that is how you're going to read it. It could be read as figurative as well.

Coke Bear said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

If Jesus meant it literally, then the Eucharist is a requirement for salvation, no exceptions....right? ("you have NO LIFE within you").

---

I don't understand why Protestants take such a legalistic stand on their theology. God works outside the sacraments. We don't. To those who know the truth, they are required to accept this. I suppose you don't believe that 13th century Native Americans are NOT in heaven either because they didn't believe Jesus NOR say the sinner's prayer.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

And if so, how do you square this with what Jesus said in verses 40 and 54 above? They're both saying what it takes to be raised up by Jesus to eternal life on the last day - but one says "believing" and the other says "feeding on my flesh". If "feeding on my flesh" is literal, and it is required for salvation, why is he saying that "believing" yields the same result, that is, eternal life?

---

Once again, this is another example of the Protestant 'either/or'. The reality is that it is a BOTH/AND. Ask yourself if you are "believing in" the Son when He says to eat of His flesh and drink His blood.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

And on what basis do you conclude that Jesus makes it clear he meant it literally in John 6 and the Last Supper, when he speaks of "eating", "hunger", "thirst", and "food" figuratively in other passages in John? The Philippian jailer and the house of Cornelius were specifically told what it takes to be saved - and the Eucharist was NOT mentioned. If Jesus is to be taken literally in John 6, then the Eucharist is REQUIRED for salvation, and therefore that would falsify what the jailer and Cornelius were told, right?

---

Was he speaking figuratively? Those that do partake in His Flesh and Blood will never hunger or thirst in HEAVEN when they get there. By your logic, believing in Him should have rendered us as never having hunger or thirst again.

---

If it is BOTH/AND, then the Eucharist is an absolute requirement for salvation, right? Is that what you believe?

If Jesus meant that we'd never hunger or thirst in heaven, then that is a meaningless statement, because no one literally hungers or thirsts anymore after they die, regardless of where they go.

"By your logic, believing in Him should have rendered us as never having hunger or thirst again." - I think you are confused. That is YOUR logic, because you are saying we are to take Jesus' words in John is 6 as literal.

Oldbear83 said:

---

This post brings up something which I think is far more important than intellectual questions.

The Gospel accounts have numerous passages where we are warned to avoid getting complacent, let alone arrogant, about our outcome where God's Judgment is concerned.

Just a sample here:

""Enter through the narrow gate. For wide is the gate and broad is the road that leads to destruction, and many enter through it. But small is the gate and narrow the road that leads to life, and only a few find it."

Matthew 7:13-14

"Make every effort to enter through the narrow door, because many, I tell you, will try to enter and will not be able to"

Luke 13:24

"For by your words you will be acquitted, and by your words you will be condemned."

Matthew 12:37

"Therefore, my dear friends, as you have always obeyednot only in my presence, but now much more in my absencecontinue to work out your salvation with fear and trembling,"

Philippians 2:12



My point is that I see a lot of people using individual verses to support their claim, as well as personal interpretations and tradition. But again looking to Jesus as the exemplar, He took priests and pharisees to task for invalid tradition and wrong interpretation of the Law and the whole of the Torah, in fact. We should learn to avoid that mistake and consider Scripture in toto before claiming authority under it.


With regard to Communion, when I go back to Scripture there are three references where Jesus breaks the bread and calls it his body; Matthew 26:26, Mark 14:22, and Luke 22:19 . In John Chapter 13, we are not told that Jesus told the disciples that the bread they took was HIs body. Instead, Jesus used bread to refer to Judas, as He said

""I am not referring to all of you; I know those I have chosen. But this is to fulfill this passage of Scripture: 'He who shared my bread has turned against me."

John 13:18

Jesus reinforces the point when asked who would betray Him;

"Jesus answered, "It is the one to whom I will give this piece of bread when I have dipped it in the dish." Then, dipping the piece of bread, he gave it to Judas, the son of Simon Iscariot."

John 13:26

So in Matthew 26:26 Jesus says "Take and eat; this is my body.", in Mark 14:22 Jesus says "Take it; this is my body", and in Luke 22:19 Jesus says "This is my body, which is for you; do this in remembrance of me"

Three similar but slightly different passages, but I notice all four were directed to specific people, and I suspect this is more important than the ordinary range of perspectives on an event.

The significance of the bread ranges from intimate relationship with Christ, to remembering our Lord in ceremony, to Judas condemning himself even as he imagined he was showing devotion to the Lord.

John 13:27 says it plainly: " As soon as Judas took the bread, Satan entered into him."

Even as I admit my understanding of Scripture is imperfect, this verse strikes me as a clear warning not to screw around with the things of God.


A minister strong in faith once warned me that we should always pray for Wisdom and Insight before reading, and afterwards as well.

I think that would be a good reminder to us all in this thread.

---

It's really easy to take a non-committal position, but harder to actually pin down on an actual belief. Do you believe that Jesus was saying we must eat his literal flesh? It's either "yes, because....", "no, because...", or "I don't know." What is your position?

For those at home following along (I feel sorry you have endured so much noise for so few moments of insight), my opinion viz a viz Mary the Mother of Jesus is a bit more nuanced than BTD's position.

To a degree, I do not think it is wise for Christians to venerate Mary, for the same reason Christians should not practice any behavior they do not understand. For instance, while there is a scriptural passage which says snakes will not hurt Christians, the context of that verse suggests a specific situation and in any case we are not meant to test God by looking for snake-cuddling time.

In the same way, I can understand that respect and veneration of the disciples and important biblical figures, like Mary, can reflect actual devotion to Christ and not be sinful. But copying the behavior of Roman Catholics without a clear understanding of the difference between veneration and worship can lead some into actually worshipping Mary - I believe the Church of Rome has a deep and serious responsibility to be mindful of how immature believers will see their actions and may go seriously wrong even with a good intent.

Of course, the Protestant denominations have also made their share of blunders. Without going too far into specifics, a lot of churches have seen scandals involving money, sex, and of course hypocrisy can be found depressingly often in even prominent churches. I recall a friend who was a member of the First Baptist Church of Dallas, and so he got married there. Not only did Dr. Criswell, who had promised to perform the wedding, weasel out the evening before and offer an associate in his place, FBC Dallas was the first place where I ever saw a church with a Members Only sign in the main parking lot.

That's not to go after the Southern Baptists but rather make the point that we are all of us sinners, and sometimes the worst wear clerical garb. It's also true that some truly great Christians also took the weight of serving as ministers and pastors. I have written before of Dr. Carey Sayers of Chapelwood UMC in Houston, who served there from 1958 to his retirement in 2003. Dr. Sayers personally checked on every member who missed a service, commonly donated a large part of his salary to charity and made himself available to all who asked for anything. I believe there are many thousands of such saints, known and much loved by our Lord, and I believe these saints come from all denominations and places and generations, including of course Roman Catholics. When I consider such men and women, I am ashamed that I dared to count myself anywhere near their peer, but the Father is more gracious than men.

I believe doctrine matters, for the same reason that exercise and diet matter to one's physical health. But I also believe in the deep patience and forbearance of our Lord when we go astray. Once one confesses their sin to God and asks Christ to enter their life, they will not be lost unless they commit that one unpardonable sin of blaspheming the Holy Spirit. I cannot believe that honest well-intentioned error will ever be considered blasphemy against the Holy Spirit by our Lord.

I also remember that Christ warned us that we would be judged in the way we judge others. That in no way means we should condone deliberate sin, but when a brother goes off the wrong way we should not attack and condemn him, but pray for his reconciliation and - if he will listen - speak in love and humility so they may incline their heart to the Lord.

Much has been made regarding the tradition of the Roman Catholic Church, and I find that a source of both potentially great wisdom but also potentially great harm if we pay more attention than we should to the ways of man instead of God.

Consider, for example, the parable of the rich man and Lazarus the beggar. One thing that I have noticed, is that if you look at the Ten Commandments, it's a little hard to see what commandment was broken by the rich man. He murdered no one, he stole from no one, he was devoted to his family, and so on. The problem of course is that the rich man's sin is obvious, in that he hardened his heart to the suffering of Lazarus.

That is, God did not send the rich man to hell because he broke some statute. The rich man consigned himself to hell because he had no love for Lazarus.

In the same way, I believe God will forgive many foolish things done by people of different beliefs, but not a cold heart or hatred towards someone else who follows Christ.

I believe this point has been made many times by Christ, and is something we should stop and consider before posting out of emotion or ego. In fact, I might even suggest that we pray about our posts before completing theme in this type of thead, as we will influence others according to the heart we show here.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

This post brings up something which I think is far more important than intellectual questions.

The Gospel accounts have numerous passages where we are warned to avoid getting complacent, let alone arrogant, about our outcome where God's Judgment is concerned.

Just a sample here:

""Enter through the narrow gate. For wide is the gate and broad is the road that leads to destruction, and many enter through it. But small is the gate and narrow the road that leads to life, and only a few find it."

Matthew 7:13-14

"Make every effort to enter through the narrow door, because many, I tell you, will try to enter and will not be able to"

Luke 13:24

"For by your words you will be acquitted, and by your words you will be condemned."

Matthew 12:37

"Therefore, my dear friends, as you have always obeyednot only in my presence, but now much more in my absencecontinue to work out your salvation with fear and trembling,"

Philippians 2:12



My point is that I see a lot of people using individual verses to support their claim, as well as personal interpretations and tradition. But again looking to Jesus as the exemplar, He took priests and pharisees to task for invalid tradition and wrong interpretation of the Law and the whole of the Torah, in fact. We should learn to avoid that mistake and consider Scripture in toto before claiming authority under it.


With regard to Communion, when I go back to Scripture there are three references where Jesus breaks the bread and calls it his body; Matthew 26:26, Mark 14:22, and Luke 22:19 . In John Chapter 13, we are not told that Jesus told the disciples that the bread they took was HIs body. Instead, Jesus used bread to refer to Judas, as He said

""I am not referring to all of you; I know those I have chosen. But this is to fulfill this passage of Scripture: 'He who shared my bread has turned against me."

John 13:18

Jesus reinforces the point when asked who would betray Him;

"Jesus answered, "It is the one to whom I will give this piece of bread when I have dipped it in the dish." Then, dipping the piece of bread, he gave it to Judas, the son of Simon Iscariot."

John 13:26

So in Matthew 26:26 Jesus says "Take and eat; this is my body.", in Mark 14:22 Jesus says "Take it; this is my body", and in Luke 22:19 Jesus says "This is my body, which is for you; do this in remembrance of me"

Three similar but slightly different passages, but I notice all four were directed to specific people, and I suspect this is more important than the ordinary range of perspectives on an event.

The significance of the bread ranges from intimate relationship with Christ, to remembering our Lord in ceremony, to Judas condemning himself even as he imagined he was showing devotion to the Lord.

John 13:27 says it plainly: " As soon as Judas took the bread, Satan entered into him."

Even as I admit my understanding of Scripture is imperfect, this verse strikes me as a clear warning not to screw around with the things of God.


A minister strong in faith once warned me that we should always pray for Wisdom and Insight before reading, and afterwards as well.

I think that would be a good reminder to us all in this thread.

---

It's really easy to take a non-committal position, but harder to actually pin down on an actual belief. Do you believe that Jesus was saying we must eat his literal flesh? It's either "yes, because....", "no, because...", or "I don't know." What is your position?

---

No because Jesus said that the things He was saying were Spirit and Life. He was referring to a Spiritual reality. Interesting that those who want to allegorize everything that they shouldn't, want to take Literally, the few places where they shouldn't. Completely backwards. Spiritual blindness iny opinion.

xfrodobagginsx said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

This post brings up something which I think is far more important than intellectual questions.

The Gospel accounts have numerous passages where we are warned to avoid getting complacent, let alone arrogant, about our outcome where God's Judgment is concerned.

Just a sample here:

""Enter through the narrow gate. For wide is the gate and broad is the road that leads to destruction, and many enter through it. But small is the gate and narrow the road that leads to life, and only a few find it."

Matthew 7:13-14

"Make every effort to enter through the narrow door, because many, I tell you, will try to enter and will not be able to"

Luke 13:24

"For by your words you will be acquitted, and by your words you will be condemned."

Matthew 12:37

"Therefore, my dear friends, as you have always obeyednot only in my presence, but now much more in my absencecontinue to work out your salvation with fear and trembling,"

Philippians 2:12



My point is that I see a lot of people using individual verses to support their claim, as well as personal interpretations and tradition. But again looking to Jesus as the exemplar, He took priests and pharisees to task for invalid tradition and wrong interpretation of the Law and the whole of the Torah, in fact. We should learn to avoid that mistake and consider Scripture in toto before claiming authority under it.


With regard to Communion, when I go back to Scripture there are three references where Jesus breaks the bread and calls it his body; Matthew 26:26, Mark 14:22, and Luke 22:19 . In John Chapter 13, we are not told that Jesus told the disciples that the bread they took was HIs body. Instead, Jesus used bread to refer to Judas, as He said

""I am not referring to all of you; I know those I have chosen. But this is to fulfill this passage of Scripture: 'He who shared my bread has turned against me."

John 13:18

Jesus reinforces the point when asked who would betray Him;

"Jesus answered, "It is the one to whom I will give this piece of bread when I have dipped it in the dish." Then, dipping the piece of bread, he gave it to Judas, the son of Simon Iscariot."

John 13:26

So in Matthew 26:26 Jesus says "Take and eat; this is my body.", in Mark 14:22 Jesus says "Take it; this is my body", and in Luke 22:19 Jesus says "This is my body, which is for you; do this in remembrance of me"

Three similar but slightly different passages, but I notice all four were directed to specific people, and I suspect this is more important than the ordinary range of perspectives on an event.

The significance of the bread ranges from intimate relationship with Christ, to remembering our Lord in ceremony, to Judas condemning himself even as he imagined he was showing devotion to the Lord.

John 13:27 says it plainly: " As soon as Judas took the bread, Satan entered into him."

Even as I admit my understanding of Scripture is imperfect, this verse strikes me as a clear warning not to screw around with the things of God.


A minister strong in faith once warned me that we should always pray for Wisdom and Insight before reading, and afterwards as well.

I think that would be a good reminder to us all in this thread.

---

It's really easy to take a non-committal position, but harder to actually pin down on an actual belief. Do you believe that Jesus was saying we must eat his literal flesh? It's either "yes, because....", "no, because...", or "I don't know." What is your position?

---

No because Jesus said that the things He was saying were Spirit and Life. He was referring to a Spiritual reality. Interesting that those who want to allegorize everything that they shouldn't, want to take Literally, the few places where they shouldn't. Completely backwards. Spiritual blindness iny opinion.

---

Exactly, and I'm trying to show how their position is clearly inconsistent with all of scripture as well as with logic and reason. If you take scripture honestly and seriously, you can see it. If you're only interested in preserving your traditions, you'll refuse to.

And thanks for providing an example of how to answer a question directly. OldBear needs this lesson.

Oldbear83 said:

---

For those at home following along (I feel sorry you have endured so much noise for so few moments of insight), my opinion viz a viz Mary the Mother of Jesus is a bit more nuanced than BTD's position.

To a degree, I do not think it is wise for Christians to venerate Mary, for the same reason Christians should not practice any behavior they do not understand. For instance, while there is a scriptural passage which says snakes will not hurt Christians, the context of that verse suggests a specific situation and in any case we are not meant to test God by looking for snake-cuddling time.

In the same way, I can understand that respect and veneration of the disciples and important biblical figures, like Mary, can reflect actual devotion to Christ and not be sinful. But copying the behavior of Roman Catholics without a clear understanding of the difference between veneration and worship can lead some into actually worshipping Mary - I believe the Church of Rome has a deep and serious responsibility to be mindful of how immature believers will see their actions and may go seriously wrong even with a good intent.

Of course, the Protestant denominations have also made their share of blunders. Without going too far into specifics, a lot of churches have seen scandals involving money, sex, and of course hypocrisy can be found depressingly often in even prominent churches. I recall a friend who was a member of the First Baptist Church of Dallas, and so he got married there. Not only did Dr. Criswell, who had promised to perform the wedding, weasel out the evening before and offer an associate in his place, FBC Dallas was the first place where I ever saw a church with a Members Only sign in the main parking lot.

That's not to go after the Southern Baptists but rather make the point that we are all of us sinners, and sometimes the worst wear clerical garb. It's also true that some truly great Christians also took the weight of serving as ministers and pastors. I have written before of Dr. Carey Sayers of Chapelwood UMC in Houston, who served there from 1958 to his retirement in 2003. Dr. Sayers personally checked on every member who missed a service, commonly donated a large part of his salary to charity and made himself available to all who asked for anything. I believe there are many thousands of such saints, known and much loved by our Lord, and I believe these saints come from all denominations and places and generations, including of course Roman Catholics. When I consider such men and women, I am ashamed that I dared to count myself anywhere near their peer, but the Father is more gracious than men.

I believe doctrine matters, for the same reason that exercise and diet matter to one's physical health. But I also believe in the deep patience and forbearance of our Lord when we go astray. Once one confesses their sin to God and asks Christ to enter their life, they will not be lost unless they commit that one unpardonable sin of blaspheming the Holy Spirit. I cannot believe that honest well-intentioned error will ever be considered blasphemy against the Holy Spirit by our Lord.

I also remember that Christ warned us that we would be judged in the way we judge others. That in no way means we should condone deliberate sin, but when a brother goes off the wrong way we should not attack and condemn him, but pray for his reconciliation and - if he will listen - speak in love and humility so they may incline their heart to the Lord.

Much has been made regarding the tradition of the Roman Catholic Church, and I find that a source of both potentially great wisdom but also potentially great harm if we pay more attention than we should to the ways of man instead of God.

Consider, for example, the parable of the rich man and Lazarus the beggar. One thing that I have noticed, is that if you look at the Ten Commandments, it's a little hard to see what commandment was broken by the rich man. He murdered no one, he stole from no one, he was devoted to his family, and so on. The problem of course is that the rich man's sin is obvious, in that he hardened his heart to the suffering of Lazarus.

That is, God did not send the rich man to hell because he broke some statute. The rich man consigned himself to hell because he had no love for Lazarus.

In the same way, I believe God will forgive many foolish things done by people of different beliefs, but not a cold heart or hatred towards someone else who follows Christ.

I believe this point has been made many times by Christ, and is something we should stop and consider before posting out of emotion or ego. In fact, I might even suggest that we pray about our posts before completing theme in this type of thead, as we will influence others according to the heart we show here.

---

Good grief - so you're the one with "insight", while others are just "noise". What an arrogant, self-serving, and completely unaware comment.

NO ONE is saying that "venerating" Mary is wrong, or dishonoring of Jesus. You are deficient in your understanding of this discussion, and what others are saying. The question is, rather, is what they're doing really "venerating" or is it WORSHIP, and is it heretical and idolatrous. We know you aren't even willing to stand up for this truth, and that is troublesome.

And please stop preaching about what we shouldn't be doing, when you are doing those exact things yourself.

BTD speaks with so much anger.

And this to and towards other brothers in Christ.

Coke Bear said:

---

.

As I understand it, as a Western rite Catholic, I would not be allowed to receive communion (or the other (sacraments) from the Orthodox liturgy.
.

---

Correct. Roman Catholics who wish to join Orthodoxy would need to become Catachumens and be baptized by immersion and receive the anointing of Chrismation prior to communion.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

And please stop preaching about what we shouldn't be doing, when you are doing those exact things yourself.

---

From my October 20 post, at 10:08

"For those reading at home, I admit I am having trouble identifying who in this particular spat is doing a better job of reflecting God's Grace and amazing patience.


And before anyone barks back at me that I am no better, I readily agree. My sole defense being that I recognize and admit my limits and failings, and so I am trying to learn and grow, and suggest that we all share that common need.

It's one thing to quote Christ and try to share our experience of Him. It's something else to imagine we speak for Him, or stand in His place."

You ignore what you cannot attack, I know. Nevertheless, I endeavor to remind you of the path forward.

I cannot make you take it. Coercion and threats being your province BTD, as we see in this thread.

Oldbear83 said:

---

BTD speaks with so much anger.

And this to and towards other brothers in Christ.

---

You are so unaware of how hypocritical you are, that it is flat out amazing.

Oldbear83 said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

And please stop preaching about what we shouldn't be doing, when you are doing those exact things yourself.

---

From my October 20 post, at 10:08

"For those reading at home, I admit I am having trouble identifying who in this particular spat is doing a better job of reflecting God's Grace and amazing patience.


And before anyone barks back at me that I am no better, I readily agree. My sole defense being that I recognize and admit my limits and failings, and so I am trying to learn and grow, and suggest that we all share that common need.

It's one thing to quote Christ and try to share our experience of Him. It's something else to imagine we speak for Him, or stand in His place."

You ignore what you cannot attack, I know. Nevertheless, I endeavor to remind you of the path forward.

I cannot make you take it. Coercion and threats being your province BTD, as we see in this thread.

---

Also your post:

"In the same way, I believe God will forgive many foolish things done by people of different beliefs, but not a cold heart or hatred towards someone else who follows Christ. I believe this point has been made many times by Christ, and is something we should stop and consider before posting out of emotion or ego"

......and yet here's your post to me: "You have nothing of Christ in you." And in a direct message to me: "You are Satan". All because I asked a question and criticized you for not answering.

You have attacked me and frodo, while dishing out lies like we were in "rage" and that I have been "demanding", "coercing", and giving you "threats". THREATS? When I asked you for documented proof of this, which would only require you to post the actual comments on this thread where any of us did any of that, you folded like a cheap suit. You provided NOTHING.

You are lying, i.e. bearing false witness about other Christian believers.

Realitybites said:

---

Coke Bear said:

---

.

As I understand it, as a Western rite Catholic, I would not be allowed to receive communion (or the other (sacraments) from the Orthodox liturgy.
.

---

Correct. Roman Catholics who wish to join Orthodoxy would need to become Catachumens and be baptized by immersion and receive the anointing of Chrismation prior to communion.

---

You lost me there. Check your sources. Once baptized, a "second baptism" only gets you wet. It has no salvific properties. Quite frankly, I would be surprised if the Orthodox rejected Christian, valid baptisms. I've never heard this before.

Ephesians 4:5

One Lord, One faith, One Baptism.

You continue to exhibit no Christian qualities, BTD.


Acts 9:1 seems - sadly - to best describe your mood and behavior in this thread.

1 Samuel 16:14 also seems to fit.

I may start referring to you as 'Saul', for accuracy.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

What difference does it make if it was a ceremonial, civil, or moral law? What makes it ok for Jesus to command his followers to break it? Wouldn't that be a sin?

---

Do you follow all the ceremonial and civil laws in the OT? No, of course not. Christ is the fulfillment of those laws. They were no longer valid. Jesus declared foods OK to eat. He commanded them to do it. God cannot make someone do something evil.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

If the bread was truly his body, then he was sacrificed two times- once at the Last Supper, and then again on the cross. Is this your belief?

---

Nope. The Last Supper was an un-bloody sacrifice of His body. It is a re-presentation of His sacrifice on the cross before it happened. Just like at every mass around the world today, when the priest or bishop says the words of institution, Heaven and Earth unite and it is the same sacrifice that took place on Good Friday in 33AD.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

In John 17:12, Jesus is praying for his disciples: "While I was with them, I kept them in your name, which you have given me. I have guarded them, and not one of them has been lost except the son of destruction, that the Scripture might be fulfilled." Isn't this talking about Judas Iscariot? If he is saved, then he can not be "lost", or called the "son of destruction" according to Jesus. But if Judas partook in Jesus' flesh at the Last Supper, then according to Jesus' own words in John 6, if taken literally, he should "life in him" and "eternal life". So how do you square this?

---

Catholics and many other Christians reject the false and unbiblical notion of "Once Saved, Always Saved."

He was saved, mortally sinned and lost his salvation. We do not know 100% what his fate is.

Oldbear83 said:

---

You continue to exhibit no Christian qualities, BTD.


Acts 9:1 seems - sadly - to best describe your mood and behavior in this thread.

1 Samuel 16:14 also seems to fit.

I may start referring to you as 'Saul', for accuracy.

---

You see?!! You continue to attack my Christianity, even after you had JUST preached that we shouldn't! You are a pure hypocrite!

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

If it is BOTH/AND, then the Eucharist is an absolute requirement for salvation, right? Is that what you believe?

If Jesus meant that we'd never hunger or thirst in heaven, then that is a meaningless statement, because no one literally hungers or thirsts anymore after they die, regardless of where they go.

"By your logic, believing in Him should have rendered us as never having hunger or thirst again." - I think you are confused. That is YOUR logic, because you are saying we are to take Jesus' words in John is 6 as literal.

---

I do take His words as literal. It's a shame that you don't trust Him here.

It seems pretty simple, if one participates in the Eucharist, they will have eternal life where they will never hunger or thirst again.

If you fail to do so, one will end up in hell where they will have hunger and thirst forever.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

You continue to exhibit no Christian qualities, BTD.


Acts 9:1 seems - sadly - to best describe your mood and behavior in this thread.

1 Samuel 16:14 also seems to fit.

I may start referring to you as 'Saul', for accuracy.

---

You see?!! You continue to attack my Christianity, even after you had JUST preached that we shouldn't! You are a pure hypocrite!

---

Only if I was lying. I am not lying at all.

Your anger betrays you often in this thread, you know.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

You continue to exhibit no Christian qualities, BTD.


Acts 9:1 seems - sadly - to best describe your mood and behavior in this thread.

1 Samuel 16:14 also seems to fit.

I may start referring to you as 'Saul', for accuracy.

---

You see?!! You continue to attack my Christianity, even after you had JUST preached that we shouldn't! You are a pure hypocrite! OB is attacking your faith and spirituality which is none of his business. You are defending your faith quite well.

---

Coke Bear said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

What difference does it make if it was a ceremonial, civil, or moral law? What makes it ok for Jesus to command his followers to break it? Wouldn't that be a sin?

---

Do you follow all the ceremonial and civil laws in the OT? No, of course not. Christ is the fulfillment of those laws. They were no longer valid. Jesus declared foods OK to eat. He commanded them to do it. God cannot make someone do something evil.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

If the bread was truly his body, then he was sacrificed two times- once at the Last Supper, and then again on the cross. Is this your belief?

---

Nope. The Last Supper was an un-bloody sacrifice of His body. It is a re-presentation of His sacrifice on the cross before it happened. Just like at every mass around the world today, when the priest or bishop says the words of institution, Heaven and Earth unite and it is the same sacrifice that took place on Good Friday in 33AD.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

In John 17:12, Jesus is praying for his disciples: "While I was with them, I kept them in your name, which you have given me. I have guarded them, and not one of them has been lost except the son of destruction, that the Scripture might be fulfilled." Isn't this talking about Judas Iscariot? If he is saved, then he can not be "lost", or called the "son of destruction" according to Jesus. But if Judas partook in Jesus' flesh at the Last Supper, then according to Jesus' own words in John 6, if taken literally, he should "life in him" and "eternal life". So how do you square this?

---

Catholics and many other Christians reject the false and unbiblical notion of "Once Saved, Always Saved."

He was saved, mortally sinned and lost his salvation. We do not know 100% what his fate is.

---

- in order for Jesus to be the fulfillment of those laws, he had to keep them perfectly. If he breaks them, or encourages others to break them, he is sinning. And he can't be a sinner, if he is to be the perfect sacrifice for sin. While Jesus was alive, the Law remained. Jesus didn't die when he broke the bread.

- Jesus had to die to be the sacrifice for sin. When he broke the bread, he didn't die. Also, if the Last Supper was a sacrifice, then there were TWO sacrifices, the other being on the cross. Scripture says Jesus' body was sacrificed ONCE and for all sin. "And by that will we have been sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ ONCE for all." (Hebrews 10:10) "

- If Judas was saved, and then lost his salvation, then it falsifies Jesus' words in John 6 (if you take it literally): "Whoever feeds on my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I WILL raise him up on the last day......As the living Father sent me, and I live because of the Father, so whoever feeds on me, he also WILL live because of me..... Whoever feeds on this bread WILL live forever."

"WILL live forever..." So if Judas ate the bread which Jesus said was his body, then Jesus is clearly saying he WILL live, not that he might live, so as long as he doesn't lose his salvation.

Waco1947 said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

You continue to exhibit no Christian qualities, BTD.


Acts 9:1 seems - sadly - to best describe your mood and behavior in this thread.

1 Samuel 16:14 also seems to fit.

I may start referring to you as 'Saul', for accuracy.

---

You see?!! You continue to attack my Christianity, even after you had JUST preached that we shouldn't! You are a pure hypocrite! OB is attacking your faith and spirituality which is none of his business. You are defending your faith quite well.

---

---

When a man who does not believe at all in Christ's bodily return from the dead is your supporter, you really should reconsider your position.

Coke Bear said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

If it is BOTH/AND, then the Eucharist is an absolute requirement for salvation, right? Is that what you believe?

If Jesus meant that we'd never hunger or thirst in heaven, then that is a meaningless statement, because no one literally hungers or thirsts anymore after they die, regardless of where they go.

"By your logic, believing in Him should have rendered us as never having hunger or thirst again." - I think you are confused. That is YOUR logic, because you are saying we are to take Jesus' words in John is 6 as literal.

---

I do take His words as literal. It's a shame that you don't trust Him here.

It seems pretty simple, if one participates in the Eucharist, they will have eternal life where they will never hunger or thirst again.

If you fail to do so, one will end up in hell where they will have hunger and thirst forever.

---

Then you must believe the Eucharist is an absolute requirement for salvation, right? I mean, if you take his words as literal like you say. You are avoiding this question.

Oldbear83 said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

You continue to exhibit no Christian qualities, BTD.


Acts 9:1 seems - sadly - to best describe your mood and behavior in this thread.

1 Samuel 16:14 also seems to fit.

I may start referring to you as 'Saul', for accuracy.

---

You see?!! You continue to attack my Christianity, even after you had JUST preached that we shouldn't! You are a pure hypocrite! OB is attacking your faith and spirituality which is none of his business. You are defending your faith quite well.

---

---

When a man who does not believe at all in the bodily return from the dead of Christ is your supporter, you really should reconsider your position.

---

Or, look at it this way. If even he notices you are in the wrong, then you must be REALLY in the wrong. Waco47 is correct here.

The question you should really be asking is: if the people whose faith I'm supporting don't recognize those prayers to Mary as being heretical and idolatrous, then what does that say about me and my discernment?

So you have aligned with a self-proclaimed minister and abortion promoter who won't say where he preaches, and an evangelist who does not attend organized worship services.

OK ...

Good luck with that, Saul.

Oldbear83 said:

---

So you have aligned with a self-proclaimed minister and abortion promoter who won't say where he preaches, and an evangelist who does not attend organized worship services.

OK ...

Good luck with that, Saul.

---

Ad hominem fallacy. Just because you don't agree with their views on other things, or their worship practices, doesn't mean that what they're saying in this one particular instance is false. If Hitler agrees with you that 1+1=2, it doesn't mean that you're wrong. This is elementary logic.

In this case, they're correct, hypocrite.

Coke Bear said:

---

Realitybites said:

---

Coke Bear said:

---

.

As I understand it, as a Western rite Catholic, I would not be allowed to receive communion (or the other (sacraments) from the Orthodox liturgy.
.

---

Correct. Roman Catholics who wish to join Orthodoxy would need to become Catachumens and be baptized by immersion and receive the anointing of Chrismation prior to communion.

---

You lost me there. Check your sources. Once baptized, a "second baptism" only gets you wet. It has no salvific properties. Quite frankly, I would be surprised if the Orthodox rejected Christian, valid baptisms. I've never heard this before.

Ephesians 4:5

One Lord, One faith, One Baptism.

---

While there are certainly instances where economia is granted, typically reception through chrismation alone occurs only if the catachumen is coming from a place where baptism is through immersion in the name of the trinity.

Your last word tells me you were talking to yourself, Saul.

Inadvertently, but definitely.

Again, good luck with your walk forward. Can't say I see much joy or peace in your life, so I hope you find those eventually.

Realitybites said:

---

Coke Bear said:

---

Realitybites said:

---

Coke Bear said:

---

.

As I understand it, as a Western rite Catholic, I would not be allowed to receive communion (or the other (sacraments) from the Orthodox liturgy.
.

---

Correct. Roman Catholics who wish to join Orthodoxy would need to become Catachumens and be baptized by immersion and receive the anointing of Chrismation prior to communion.

---

You lost me there. Check your sources. Once baptized, a "second baptism" only gets you wet. It has no salvific properties. Quite frankly, I would be surprised if the Orthodox rejected Christian, valid baptisms. I've never heard this before.

Ephesians 4:5

One Lord, One faith, One Baptism.

---

While there are certainly instances where economia is granted, typically reception through chrismation alone occurs only if the catachumen is coming from a place where baptism is through immersion in the name of the trinity.

---

The Didache lists immersion, pouring, and sprinkling as valid baptisms.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Coke Bear said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

If it is BOTH/AND, then the Eucharist is an absolute requirement for salvation, right? Is that what you believe?

If Jesus meant that we'd never hunger or thirst in heaven, then that is a meaningless statement, because no one literally hungers or thirsts anymore after they die, regardless of where they go.

"By your logic, believing in Him should have rendered us as never having hunger or thirst again." - I think you are confused. That is YOUR logic, because you are saying we are to take Jesus' words in John is 6 as literal.

---

I do take His words as literal. It's a shame that you don't trust Him here.

It seems pretty simple, if one participates in the Eucharist, they will have eternal life where they will never hunger or thirst again.

If you fail to do so, one will end up in hell where they will have hunger and thirst forever.

---

Then you must believe the Eucharist is an absolute requirement for salvation, right? I mean, if you take his words as literal like you say. You are avoiding this question.

---

I'm not avoiding the question. I have answered it in a previous post. it is ordinarily required for those that are aware of it.

The actual text of the Didache says "But if you have not either, pour out water thrice upon the head into the name of Father and Son and Holy Spirit."

So there's not a lot of wiggle room for voluntarily abandoning the ordinary form of baptism and adopting sprinkling as regular practice.

Realitybites said:

---

The actual text of the Didache says "But if you have not either, pour out water thrice upon the head into the name of Father and Son and Holy Spirit."

So there's not a lot of wiggle room for voluntarily abandoning the ordinary form of baptism and adopting sprinkling as regular practice.

---

I didn't want to post the entire passage from the Didache concerning baptism. I wanted to post only the principles.

IIRC the Church views sprinkling as illicit, but valid. Some parishes in the west are reverting back to immersion.

" the Church views sprinkling as illicit, but valid"

That is, the Roman Catholics view, say, the Methodists as rebels, huh?

Oldbear83 said:

---

" the Church views sprinkling as illicit, but valid"

That is, the Roman Catholics view, say, the Methodists as rebels, huh?

---

What is the argument for sprinkling vs immersion?