curtpenn said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Coke Bear said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

And if the wine was really Jesus' blood, why would Jesus encourage his disciples to break the Levitical law against eating blood?:

"'I will set my face against any Israelite or any foreigner residing among them who eats blood, and I will cut them off from the people.....Therefore I say to the Israelites, "None of you may eat blood, nor may any foreigner residing among you eat blood." (Lev 17:10-12)

Wouldn't that make Jesus a sinner?

---

Nope. In Matthew 15:17-18 Jesus says:

17 "Don't you see that whatever enters the mouth goes into the stomach and then out of the body? 18 But the things that come out of a person's mouth come from the heart, and these defile them.

---

So is Jesus saying that it's ok to break that specific command from God in the Torah?

---

Since Jesus is God He is not bound by Torah is he?

---

Since Jesus is God, He IS bound by the Torah & the rest of His Word. It cannot and will not fail.

xfrodobagginsx said:

---

curtpenn said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Coke Bear said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

And if the wine was really Jesus' blood, why would Jesus encourage his disciples to break the Levitical law against eating blood?:

"'I will set my face against any Israelite or any foreigner residing among them who eats blood, and I will cut them off from the people.....Therefore I say to the Israelites, "None of you may eat blood, nor may any foreigner residing among you eat blood." (Lev 17:10-12)

Wouldn't that make Jesus a sinner?

---

Nope. In Matthew 15:17-18 Jesus says:

17 "Don't you see that whatever enters the mouth goes into the stomach and then out of the body? 18 But the things that come out of a person's mouth come from the heart, and these defile them.

---

So is Jesus saying that it's ok to break that specific command from God in the Torah?

---

Since Jesus is God He is not bound by Torah is he?

---

Since Jesus is God, He IS bound by the Torah & the rest of His Word. It cannot and will not fail.

---

How do they not realize this? If God made a law for the Israelites, and if Jesus is God, then Jesus can not go against Himself and encourage the Israelites to break the very law that he himself made for them. That would mean God is divided against Himself, which means God is broken and will fail.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

xfrodobagginsx said:

---

curtpenn said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Coke Bear said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

And if the wine was really Jesus' blood, why would Jesus encourage his disciples to break the Levitical law against eating blood?:

"'I will set my face against any Israelite or any foreigner residing among them who eats blood, and I will cut them off from the people.....Therefore I say to the Israelites, "None of you may eat blood, nor may any foreigner residing among you eat blood." (Lev 17:10-12)

Wouldn't that make Jesus a sinner?

---

Nope. In Matthew 15:17-18 Jesus says:

17 "Don't you see that whatever enters the mouth goes into the stomach and then out of the body? 18 But the things that come out of a person's mouth come from the heart, and these defile them.

---

So is Jesus saying that it's ok to break that specific command from God in the Torah?

---

Since Jesus is God He is not bound by Torah is he?

---

Since Jesus is God, He IS bound by the Torah & the rest of His Word. It cannot and will not fail.

---

How do they not realize this? If God made a law for the Israelites, and if Jesus is God, then Jesus can not go against Himself and encourage the Israelites to break the very law that he himself made for them. That would mean God is divided against Himself, which means God is broken and will fail.

---

When Jesus fulfilled the Law, He delivered believers from the bondage of the Law. Therefore, we are not under the law, we are under Grace. We don't have the I ey the Mosaic Law.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

How do they not realize this? If God made a law for the Israelites, and if Jesus is God, then Jesus can not go against Himself and encourage the Israelites to break the very law that he himself made for them. That would mean God is divided against Himself, which means God is broken and will fail.

---

Are we still bound by all 613 Levitical Laws? Is Jesus bound bound them?

Coke Bear said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

How do they not realize this? If God made a law for the Israelites, and if Jesus is God, then Jesus can not go against Himself and encourage the Israelites to break the very law that he himself made for them. That would mean God is divided against Himself, which means God is broken and will fail.

---

Are we still bound by all 613 Levitical Laws? Is Jesus bound bound them?

---

Polyester is of the devil, I hear.

Waco1947 said:

---

Coke Bear said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

14th crusade against Protestants

---

Please send a credible link so that I can research it. Please list which Pope authorized this crusade, when, where, and against whom it was fought.

---

the 30 years war. Protestants killed in the name of the pope

---

Which Pope authorized the 30 Year's war? This was a mainly German war between Protestants and Catholics. Please try harder. Better yet, please investigate real history, not false Protestant propaganda that you read on a misinformed website.

Oldbear83 said:

---

Coke Bear said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

How do they not realize this? If God made a law for the Israelites, and if Jesus is God, then Jesus can not go against Himself and encourage the Israelites to break the very law that he himself made for them. That would mean God is divided against Himself, which means God is broken and will fail.

---

Are we still bound by all 613 Levitical Laws? Is Jesus bound bound them?

---

Polyester is of the devil, I hear.

---

In the 70's and early 80's, yes.

Coke Bear said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

Coke Bear said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

14th crusade against Protestants

---

Please send a credible link so that I can research it. Please list which Pope authorized this crusade, when, where, and against whom it was fought.

---

the 30 years war. Protestants killed in the name of the pope

---

Which Pope authorized the 30 Year's war? This was a mainly German war between Protestants and Catholics. Please try harder. Better yet, please investigate real history, not false Protestant propaganda that you read on a misinformed website.

---

Popes granted these "Catholic Warriors " were granted heaven

Waco1947 said:

---

Coke Bear said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

Coke Bear said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

14th crusade against Protestants

---

Please send a credible link so that I can research it. Please list which Pope authorized this crusade, when, where, and against whom it was fought.

---

the 30 years war. Protestants killed in the name of the pope

---

Which Pope authorized the 30 Year's war? This was a mainly German war between Protestants and Catholics. Please try harder. Better yet, please investigate real history, not false Protestant propaganda that you read on a misinformed website.

---

Popes granted these "Catholic Warriors " were granted heaven

---

First, please show me the Catholic document and which Pope "authorized" this.

Second, NO one can "grant Heaven" to anyone.

Your sources for this info are VERY bad.

xfrodobagginsx said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

xfrodobagginsx said:

---

curtpenn said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Coke Bear said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

And if the wine was really Jesus' blood, why would Jesus encourage his disciples to break the Levitical law against eating blood?:

"'I will set my face against any Israelite or any foreigner residing among them who eats blood, and I will cut them off from the people.....Therefore I say to the Israelites, "None of you may eat blood, nor may any foreigner residing among you eat blood." (Lev 17:10-12)

Wouldn't that make Jesus a sinner?

---

Nope. In Matthew 15:17-18 Jesus says:

17 "Don't you see that whatever enters the mouth goes into the stomach and then out of the body? 18 But the things that come out of a person's mouth come from the heart, and these defile them.

---

So is Jesus saying that it's ok to break that specific command from God in the Torah?

---

Since Jesus is God He is not bound by Torah is he?

---

Since Jesus is God, He IS bound by the Torah & the rest of His Word. It cannot and will not fail.

---

How do they not realize this? If God made a law for the Israelites, and if Jesus is God, then Jesus can not go against Himself and encourage the Israelites to break the very law that he himself made for them. That would mean God is divided against Himself, which means God is broken and will fail.

---

When Jesus fulfilled the Law, He delivered believers from the bondage of the Law. Therefore, we are not under the law, we are under Grace. We don't have the I ey the Mosaic Law.

---

Jesus did not fulfill the Law until he said "it is finished" and gave up his life. Until then, he and his disciples were under the Law. The reason we are under Grace now is because Jesus fulfilled the Law perfectly and was the perfect sacrifice for sin. If he had commanded his disciples to break the Law, then he wouldn't have been perfect.

Coke Bear said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

How do they not realize this? If God made a law for the Israelites, and if Jesus is God, then Jesus can not go against Himself and encourage the Israelites to break the very law that he himself made for them. That would mean God is divided against Himself, which means God is broken and will fail.

---

Are we still bound by all 613 Levitical Laws? Is Jesus bound bound them?

---

Were the disciples bound by them? Wasn't Jesus bound by them, in order to fulfill the Law perfectly and be the perfect sacrifice?

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

The question isn't my opinion vs. their opinion, the question is what is the correct understanding. A correct understanding will be consistent with the whole of scripture.

---

The whole of scripture. Great quote, because I don't think that you get the whole of scripture with respect to the Eucharist going back to the OT.
Paul mentions in Hebrews 7:17:

"…You are a priest forever, after the order of Melchizedek."

One of these reasons is the fact that Jesus, just like King Melchizedek (obviously), was not a descendant of Aaron. Similarly, what sacrifice did Melchizedek offer? He offered bread and wine at the altar of the God most high.

In Exodus, not only need the Hebrews have to offer an unblemished, male lamb, spread his blood across the door post, but they were required to EAT the WHOLE lamb. This was critical. If the lamb was too big for a family, they were to get anther family to help them finish it.

The typological links in the OT are always better in the NT. Jesus is the new Adam. Mary is the new Eve. Mary is the new Ark of the Covenant. According to John 1:29, Jesus is the Lamb of God. Jesus is the supernatural manna of the NT.

In John 6, Jesus is using OT covenantal language. Language drawn from the OT testament where there was actually a sacrifice that was shared by the Jewish people at the Passover referring to Himself.

He used that language with Himself with His flesh being true food and His blood being true drink.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

If my "opinion" of John 6 is wrong, then the literal reading of John 6 definitively shows that the Eucharist is an absolute requirement for salvation, regardless of what a person knows. So why don't you believe this?. This reveals an inconsistency/error in either your interpretation or your understanding.

---

I've stated this before, the Eucharist is a requirement for salvation for THOSE who understand. It is the same as those 13th century Native Americans who didn't say the Sinner's prayer or do an altar call could be in heaven.

I'm not why you are so, pardon the pun, hellbent on ABSOULETES, unless it's merely to defend your positions? God 100% justice and MERCY.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

xfrodobagginsx said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

xfrodobagginsx said:

---

curtpenn said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Coke Bear said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

And if the wine was really Jesus' blood, why would Jesus encourage his disciples to break the Levitical law against eating blood?:

"'I will set my face against any Israelite or any foreigner residing among them who eats blood, and I will cut them off from the people.....Therefore I say to the Israelites, "None of you may eat blood, nor may any foreigner residing among you eat blood." (Lev 17:10-12)

Wouldn't that make Jesus a sinner?

---

Nope. In Matthew 15:17-18 Jesus says:

17 "Don't you see that whatever enters the mouth goes into the stomach and then out of the body? 18 But the things that come out of a person's mouth come from the heart, and these defile them.

---

So is Jesus saying that it's ok to break that specific command from God in the Torah?

---

Since Jesus is God He is not bound by Torah is he?

---

Since Jesus is God, He IS bound by the Torah & the rest of His Word. It cannot and will not fail.

---

How do they not realize this? If God made a law for the Israelites, and if Jesus is God, then Jesus can not go against Himself and encourage the Israelites to break the very law that he himself made for them. That would mean God is divided against Himself, which means God is broken and will fail.

---

When Jesus fulfilled the Law, He delivered believers from the bondage of the Law. Therefore, we are not under the law, we are under Grace. We don't have the I ey the Mosaic Law.

---

Jesus did not fulfill the Law until he said "it is finished" and gave up his life. Until then, he and his disciples were under the Law. The reason we are under Grace now is because Jesus fulfilled the Law perfectly and was the perfect sacrifice for sin. If he had commanded his disciples to break the Law, then he wouldn't have been perfect.

---

Exactly

1Co 2:9 But as it is written: Eye has not seen, nor ear heard, Nor have entered into the heart of man The things which God has prepared for those who love Him."

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Were the disciples bound by them? Wasn't Jesus bound by them, in order to fulfill the Law perfectly and be the perfect sacrifice?

---

Did Jesus allow his disciples to pick the grains of wheat on the Sabbath? Did Jesus heal on the Sabbath?

By your theology, these acts would not make Jesus the perfect sacrifice.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Were the disciples bound by them? Wasn't Jesus bound by them, in order to fulfill the Law perfectly and be the perfect sacrifice?

---

Did Jesus allow his disciples to pick the grains of wheat on the Sabbath? Did Jesus heal on the Sabbath?

By your theology, these acts would not make Jesus the perfect sacrifice.

Coke Bear said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

The question isn't my opinion vs. their opinion, the question is what is the correct understanding. A correct understanding will be consistent with the whole of scripture.

---

The whole of scripture. Great quote, because I don't think that you get the whole of scripture with respect to the Eucharist going back to the OT.
Paul mentions in Hebrews 7:17:

"…You are a priest forever, after the order of Melchizedek."

One of these reasons is the fact that Jesus, just like King Melchizedek (obviously), was not a descendant of Aaron. Similarly, what sacrifice did Melchizedek offer? He offered bread and wine at the altar of the God most high.

In Exodus, not only need the Hebrews have to offer an unblemished, male lamb, spread his blood across the door post, but they were required to EAT the WHOLE lamb. This was critical. If the lamb was too big for a family, they were to get anther family to help them finish it.

The typological links in the OT are always better in the NT. Jesus is the new Adam. Mary is the new Eve. Mary is the new Ark of the Covenant. According to John 1:29, Jesus is the Lamb of God. Jesus is the supernatural manna of the NT.

In John 6, Jesus is using OT covenantal language. Language drawn from the OT testament where there was actually a sacrifice that was shared by the Jewish people at the Passover referring to Himself.

He used that language with Himself with His flesh being true food and His blood being true drink.

---

The figurative interpretation of Jesus' words regarding the Eucharist is not inconsistent with either of the typologies you've presented regarding Jesus as being the sacrificial bread, wine, or lamb. Those typologies do not require a literal interpretation.

On the contrary, a literal interpretation IS in conflict with the whole of Scripture, which I have shown in this thread....the most recent example being the Levitical law prohibiting the consumption of blood. I am waiting for the answer to the question of whether Jesus can be a perfect sacrifice for sin if he did not perfectly obey every law in the Torah.

Coke Bear said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

The question isn't my opinion vs. their opinion, the question is what is the correct understanding. A correct understanding will be consistent with the whole of scripture.

---

The typological links in the OT are always better in the NT. Jesus is the new Adam. Mary is the new Eve. Mary is the new Ark of the Covenant. According to John 1:29, Jesus is the Lamb of God. Jesus is the supernatural manna of the NT.

---

If Jesus is the new Adam, then the new Eve would be his bride, which is his Church. The new Eve would not be his mother. Jesus was not married to his mother. That idea is sick and disturbing.

Also, if Jesus is the new Adam, then Mary can NOT be the new Eve, because Mary gave birth to Jesus. Adam was not birthed from Eve, it was the other way around - EVE CAME FROM ADAM. This belief is turning God's creative order upside down, which is satanic.

And just like how Adam's bride Eve came alive from a piece of Adam (his rib), Jesus, the new Adam, had his bride (us, his Church) arise from a piece of him (his Spirit) which gives us salvation and eternal life.

The belief that Mary is the new Eve gets it completely wrong. Not just wrong, but dare I say heretical.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

The figurative interpretation of Jesus' words regarding the Eucharist is not inconsistent with either of the typologies you've presented regarding Jesus as being the sacrificial bread, wine, or lamb. Those typologies do not require a literal interpretation.

---

This is not correct. We worship the Trinity. We ask Mary and the saints to PRAY for us.

This is your fallible interpretation. History and the scriptures show that you are not correct. The lamb (the sacrifice) was consumed. Just like Jesus (the sacrifice) was consumed.

I'm still waiting for you to refute the passages of the Church fathers.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

On the contrary, a literal interpretation IS in conflict with the whole of Scripture, which I have shown in this thread....the most recent example being the Levitical law prohibiting the consumption of blood. I am waiting for the answer to the question of whether Jesus can be a perfect sacrifice for sin if he did not perfectly obey every law in the Torah.

---

There is no breaking of the Levitical code here. The substance was changed, but the accidents remained the same.

I did answer your post with a question about Jesus and the disciples breaking the sabbath.

Coke Bear said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Were the disciples bound by them? Wasn't Jesus bound by them, in order to fulfill the Law perfectly and be the perfect sacrifice?

---

Did Jesus allow his disciples to pick the grains of wheat on the Sabbath? Did Jesus heal on the Sabbath?

By your theology, these acts would not make Jesus the perfect sacrifice.

---

No, Jesus explains that the Pharisee's rules regarding what constitutes as "work" on the Sabbath came from the Pharisee's own incorrect interpretations and additions to the law. In other words, their rules came from their own traditions, and they were elevating their traditions to the same level as the Law. Sound familiar?

To illustrate: can you show me where in the Torah it is prohibited to pick grains for eating and to heal people on the Sabbath?

I can show you specifically in the Torah where it prohibits the consumption of blood.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

If Jesus is the new Adam, then the new Eve would be his bride, which is his Church. The new Eve would not be his mother. Jesus was not married to his mother. That idea is sick and disturbing.

Also, if Jesus is the new Adam, then Mary can NOT be the new Eve, because Mary gave birth to Jesus. Adam was not birthed from Eve, it was the other way around - EVE CAME FROM ADAM. This belief is turning God's creative order upside down, which is satanic.

And just like how Adam's bride Eve came alive from a piece of Adam (his rib), Jesus, the new Adam, had his bride (us, his Church) arise from a piece of him (his Spirit) which gives us salvation and eternal life.

The belief that Mary is the new Eve gets it completely wrong. Not just wrong, but dare I say heretical.

---

This is because you fail to understand the links to the OT. You are thinking linearly. This is why don't don't accept Mary as Queen of Heaven and Earth.

There is no sexual component here.


Just like evil entered the world thru a virgin, Eve, salvation entered the world thru a virgin, Mary

Eve entered thru Adam and so came sin. God reversed the process and man (Jesus ) came from woman (Mary).
.
Eve listened to a fallen angel and conceived death. Mary listed to the angel and conceived life
.
John tells us that Mary is the new Eve. His Gospel links Genesis and Eve (woman) and Mary (woman) at the wedding feast of Canna and when Jesus gives his mother to the world when he tells the beloved disciple, "Behold, your mother. And then tells his mother, "Woman, behold your son."

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Coke Bear said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Were the disciples bound by them? Wasn't Jesus bound by them, in order to fulfill the Law perfectly and be the perfect sacrifice?

---

Did Jesus allow his disciples to pick the grains of wheat on the Sabbath? Did Jesus heal on the Sabbath?

By your theology, these acts would not make Jesus the perfect sacrifice.

---

No, Jesus explains that the Pharisee's rules regarding what constitutes as "work" on the Sabbath came from the Pharisee's own incorrect interpretations and additions to the law. In other words, their rules came from their own traditions, and they were elevating their traditions to the same level as the Law. Sound familiar?

To illustrate: can you show me where in the Torah it is prohibited to pick grains for eating and to heal people on the Sabbath?

I can show you specifically in the Torah where it prohibits the consumption of blood.

---

The Pharisee's were upset with Jesus and the disciples for doing WORK on the Sabbath.

Once again, the accidents did not change. Only the substances. No breaking of the Levitical laws.

You are fighting way to hard against Jesus and His Church. I will continue to pray for you daily.

Coke Bear said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

If Jesus is the new Adam, then the new Eve would be his bride, which is his Church. The new Eve would not be his mother. Jesus was not married to his mother. That idea is sick and disturbing.

Also, if Jesus is the new Adam, then Mary can NOT be the new Eve, because Mary gave birth to Jesus. Adam was not birthed from Eve, it was the other way around - EVE CAME FROM ADAM. This belief is turning God's creative order upside down, which is satanic.

And just like how Adam's bride Eve came alive from a piece of Adam (his rib), Jesus, the new Adam, had his bride (us, his Church) arise from a piece of him (his Spirit) which gives us salvation and eternal life.

The belief that Mary is the new Eve gets it completely wrong. Not just wrong, but dare I say heretical.

---

This is because you fail to understand the links to the OT. You are thinking linearly. This is why don't don't accept Mary as Queen of Heaven and Earth.

There is no sexual component here.


Just like evil entered the world thru a virgin, Eve, salvation entered the world thru a virgin, Mary

Eve entered thru Adam and so came sin. God reversed the process and man (Jesus ) came from woman (Mary).
.
Eve listened to a fallen angel and conceived death. Mary listed to the angel and conceived life
.
John tells us that Mary is the new Eve. His Gospel links Genesis and Eve (woman) and Mary (woman) at the wedding feast of Canna and when Jesus gives his mother to the world when he tells the beloved disciple, "Behold, your mother. And then tells his mother, "Woman, behold your son."

---

No, I don't accept Mary as the Queen of Heaven, because it is completely unbiblical. Even worse, it is heretical and idolatrous. The only "queen of heaven" in the bible is referring to the pagan godess Ishtar. You are so decieved and in such darkness that you can't see that Roman Mariology is pagan goddess worship reawakened.

John's gospel does not link Eve with Mary. Neither did Jesus give the world Mary as our mother. These are taking way too many liberties with the text and then extrapolating them onto a whole belief system, none of which has any biblical support whatsoever. It was neither taught by Jesus or his disciples, or believed by the early church. This is a later creation of the Catholic Church stemming from their own traditions.

Coke Bear said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Coke Bear said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Were the disciples bound by them? Wasn't Jesus bound by them, in order to fulfill the Law perfectly and be the perfect sacrifice?

---

Did Jesus allow his disciples to pick the grains of wheat on the Sabbath? Did Jesus heal on the Sabbath?

By your theology, these acts would not make Jesus the perfect sacrifice.

---

No, Jesus explains that the Pharisee's rules regarding what constitutes as "work" on the Sabbath came from the Pharisee's own incorrect interpretations and additions to the law. In other words, their rules came from their own traditions, and they were elevating their traditions to the same level as the Law. Sound familiar?

To illustrate: can you show me where in the Torah it is prohibited to pick grains for eating and to heal people on the Sabbath?

I can show you specifically in the Torah where it prohibits the consumption of blood.

---

The Pharisee's were upset with Jesus and the disciples for doing WORK on the Sabbath.

Once again, the accidents did not change. Only the substances. No breaking of the Levitical laws.

You are fighting way to hard against Jesus and His Church. I will continue to pray for you daily.

---

The Pharisees were upset with Jesus for doing what THEY WRONGLY INTERPRETED as "work" and creating their OWN RULES regarding what constitutes as "work", as Jesus explained.

Still waiting on you to produce the actual law from Torah which prohibited picking grains to eat and healing on the Sabbath. Where does it say in the Torah that these constituted as "work"? It doesn't. They were rules created by the Pharisees. Therein lies Jesus' point.

Coke Bear said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

The figurative interpretation of Jesus' words regarding the Eucharist is not inconsistent with either of the typologies you've presented regarding Jesus as being the sacrificial bread, wine, or lamb. Those typologies do not require a literal interpretation.

---

This is not correct. We worship the Trinity. We ask Mary and the saints to PRAY for us.

This is your fallible interpretation. History and the scriptures show that you are not correct. The lamb (the sacrifice) was consumed. Just like Jesus (the sacrifice) was consumed.

I'm still waiting for you to refute the passages of the Church fathers.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

On the contrary, a literal interpretation IS in conflict with the whole of Scripture, which I have shown in this thread....the most recent example being the Levitical law prohibiting the consumption of blood. I am waiting for the answer to the question of whether Jesus can be a perfect sacrifice for sin if he did not perfectly obey every law in the Torah.

---

There is no breaking of the Levitical code here. The substance was changed, but the accidents remained the same.

I did answer your post with a question about Jesus and the disciples breaking the sabbath.

---

You can say you don't worship Mary all you want - but having statues, pictures, and festivals for her, while bowing down to her image and praying, singing hymns, and making offerings to her, and going to her or to saints for things that you should be going only to Jesus for - that is worship. You're just making an artificial distinction without a difference. But Catholics are in complete denial here, so we'll go nowhere in this debate.

I'm not trying to "refute" what the early fathers believed. I'm arguing Scripture, not tradition. I don't know why you think it's relevant for me to refute their passages. It does nothing to invalidate what I'm arguing.

The only way that the Levitical laws wouldn't be broken is if the wine ISN'T blood. But if you're taking Jesus' words literally, then the wine IS his blood - irrespective of accident or substance. It either IS or it ISN'T. The Levitical laws make no distinction between accident and substance. If the disciples truly believed that it was actually Jesus' blood they were going to drink, rather than it being a symbolic, then they most likely would have objected, given that even after Jesus' death and resurrection, Peter objected to Jesus commanding him to "rise, kill, and eat" a bunch of ceremonially unclean animals.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

If Jesus is the new Adam, then the new Eve would be his bride, which is his Church. The new Eve would not be his mother. Jesus was not married to his mother. That idea is sick and disturbing.

Also, if Jesus is the new Adam, then Mary can NOT be the new Eve, because Mary gave birth to Jesus. Adam was not birthed from Eve, it was the other way around - EVE CAME FROM ADAM. This belief is turning God's creative order upside down, which is satanic.

And just like how Adam's bride Eve came alive from a piece of Adam (his rib), Jesus, the new Adam, had his bride (us, his Church) arise from a piece of him (his Spirit) which gives us salvation and eternal life.

The belief that Mary is the new Eve gets it completely wrong. Not just wrong, but dare I say heretical.

---

With regards to the Queen of Heaven, the problem here is imposing a medieval european concept of the queen as the king's wife onto these things.

In the Jewish culture, a Davidic King would have his mother as Queen rather than his wife, because he rarely had one wife, but many wives. Sharing power with many wives would be much too difficult, but he had only one mother and she was given the title of Queen. Almost every time a new king is introduced in 1 and 2 Kings, the king's mother is mentioned. She was a member of the royal court, wore a crown, sat on a throne, and shared in the king's reign (2 Kings 24:12, 15; Jer. 13:1820). She acted as counselor to her son (Prov. 31), an advocate of the people, and as an intercessor for the citizens of the kingdom (1 Kings 2:1720). Since Jesus is a King based on the order of David, it makes sense that His mother would be called Queen.

Psalm 45 depicts Christ as King and at his side is a Queen.

That having been said, much of the second millenium Roman Catholic conception of Mary is a bridge too far for the church of the first millenium. For example, our teaching is that Mary was human as we are and was conceived and born as we are. Her parents were Saints Joachim and Anna. There was no immaculate conception of Mary. We don't open our mouths to utter the phrase "co-redemptrix" as there is only one redeemer of man, that is Christ. We even refer to her as the "Theotokos" or God-Bearer to place the emphasis on Christ's divinity, the trinity, and her obedience to God instead of using her human name. So Orthodoxy - although we honor her and even consider her one of the premier Christians who lived - does not bring such concepts into play.

Realitybites said:

---

Psalm 45 depicts Christ as King and at his side is a Queen.

---

It is my understanding that most non-RCC theologians say the Church is Christ's Queen, as evidenced in Scripture:

Matthew 22:1-4

Luke 12:36

Revelation 19:7-9

Christ also made clear who was his family in Matthew 12:46-50 "For whoever does the will of my Father in Heaven is my brother and sister and mother".

Oldbear83 said:

---

Realitybites said:

---

Psalm 45 depicts Christ as King and at his side is a Queen.

---

It is my understanding that most non-RCC theologians say the Church is Christ's Queen, as evidenced in Scripture:

Matthew 22:1-4

Luke 12:36

Revelation 19:7-9

Christ also made clear who was his family in Matthew 12:46-50 "For whoever does the will of my Father in Heaven is my brother and sister and mother".

---

The Church is the Bride of Christ. The true Church, is not a Denomination. It is made up of true believers who have placed their faith in Christ alone for Salvation, believing that He died and rose again, shedding His blood as a Sacrifice for our sins.

Realitybites said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

If Jesus is the new Adam, then the new Eve would be his bride, which is his Church. The new Eve would not be his mother. Jesus was not married to his mother. That idea is sick and disturbing.

Also, if Jesus is the new Adam, then Mary can NOT be the new Eve, because Mary gave birth to Jesus. Adam was not birthed from Eve, it was the other way around - EVE CAME FROM ADAM. This belief is turning God's creative order upside down, which is satanic.

And just like how Adam's bride Eve came alive from a piece of Adam (his rib), Jesus, the new Adam, had his bride (us, his Church) arise from a piece of him (his Spirit) which gives us salvation and eternal life.

The belief that Mary is the new Eve gets it completely wrong. Not just wrong, but dare I say heretical.

---

With regards to the Queen of Heaven, the problem here is imposing a medieval european concept of the queen as the king's wife onto these things.

In the Jewish culture, a Davidic King would have his mother as Queen rather than his wife, because he rarely had one wife, but many wives. Sharing power with many wives would be much too difficult, but he had only one mother and she was given the title of Queen. Almost every time a new king is introduced in 1 and 2 Kings, the king's mother is mentioned. She was a member of the royal court, wore a crown, sat on a throne, and shared in the king's reign (2 Kings 24:12, 15; Jer. 13:1820). She acted as counselor to her son (Prov. 31), an advocate of the people, and as an intercessor for the citizens of the kingdom (1 Kings 2:1720). Since Jesus is a King based on the order of David, it makes sense that His mother would be called Queen.

Psalm 45 depicts Christ as King and at his side is a Queen.

That having been said, much of the second millenium Roman Catholic conception of Mary is a bridge too far for the church of the first millenium. For example, our teaching is that Mary was human as we are and was conceived and born as we are. Her parents were Saints Joachim and Anna. There was no immaculate conception of Mary. We don't open our mouths to utter the phrase "co-redemptrix" as there is only one redeemer of man, that is Christ. We even refer to her as the "Theotokos" or God-Bearer to place the emphasis on Christ's divinity, the trinity, and her obedience to God instead of using her human name. So Orthodoxy - although we honor her and even consider her one of the premier Christians who lived - does not bring such concepts into play.

---

Orthodoxy, if you've presented it correctly, apparently is a lot more consistent with scripture than the beliefs of the RCC at least with regard to Mary.

In Israel, the mothers of kings were called "Queen mothers". They were not Queens in their own right. There was only one Queen in Israel (Athaliah) who was completely evil - she killed her own grandsons so she could seize the throne, and then she instituted Baal worship.

But regardless of whether or not mothers of Davidic kings were called "queens" - there is no reference to Mary in the bible as the "Queen of Heaven". The only "queen of heaven" in the bible was a pagan goddess that the Israelites were worshiping, thereby incurring the wrath of God. It completely baffles me how anyone who calls themself a "christian" can feel the slightest bit comfortable with "venerating" anything that is called by the same name, or anything CLOSE to resembling it. How this doesn't raise red flags in their hearts is beyond me. It's just like those prayers to Mary in The Glories of Mary which are fully condoned and promoted by the RCC, which called Mary "the god of this world" - a title given to Satan in the bible. The more important issue here is how this doesn't raise serious questions among Catholics about the inspiration behind these beliefs, and whether or not the authority they submit to, the RCC, is really being moved by the Holy Spirit.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Orthodoxy, if you've presented it correctly, apparently is a lot more consistent with scripture than the beliefs of the RCC at least with regard to Mary.

---

Well, we were the only stewards of the Bible for the first millennium of Christianity... And being former SBC, when I went looking for the original church I certainly wasn't going to join one that contradicted scripture. Our church - the only one in town that remained open during Covid - has grown like a weed, doubling in size since then. (I asked the priest about it and his answer was pretty simple: God told us to do this, and it wasn't a conditional command. If you can't trust Him to protect you from a respiratory virus for a couple of hours once a week while you are doing what He told you to, you might reconsider the whole raising the dead thing.) While we have some converts from the RCC, most like myself are former evangelicals of some flavor. You might have heard the saying "putting the fun in fundamentalism"... I like to think of Orthodoxy as "putting the -damentalism in fundamentalism."

Quote:

---

How this doesn't raise serious questions among Catholics about the inspiration behind these beliefs, and whether or not the authority they submit to, the RCC, is really being moved by the Holy Spirit.

---

What strikes me about many of the Roman Catholics I have spoken to is the absolute devotion they have to the institutional bureaucracy of the RCC. If asked "is there anything that would make you leave" a lot of them say "no"... And if the cognitive dissonance becomes too great they simply drop out of the Christian faith altogether.

Just this week the RCC announced that it would baptize trannies, allow them to serve as Godparents, and baptize the children of gays. If you can't smell the sulfur in declarations like that I don't know what to say. Part of the problem is that much of the west has only received the RCC/Protestant version of history that traces the origin of the RCC to Peter instead of its establishment in 1054 AD. So mistakenly thinking that they are in the original church they are less attuned to the idea that the gates of hell have very much prevailed against Rome. They are also less attuned to the idea that an entire patriarchate can vanish through disobedience to God as the seven churches of Revelation tell us (both as geographic locations and archetypes). Within Orthodoxy, Constantinople itself is in danger of this as it pursues close relations with the Vatican. Of course in the protestant side of the house we are seeing many denominations dry up and blow away in real time.

Coke Bear said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

Coke Bear said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

Coke Bear said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

14th crusade against Protestants

---

Please send a credible link so that I can research it. Please list which Pope authorized this crusade, when, where, and against whom it was fought.

---

the 30 years war. Protestants killed in the name of the pope

---

Which Pope authorized the 30 Year's war? This was a mainly German war between Protestants and Catholics. Please try harder. Better yet, please investigate real history, not false Protestant propaganda that you read on a misinformed website.

---

Popes granted these "Catholic Warriors " were granted heaven

---

First, please show me the Catholic document and which Pope "authorized" this.

Second, NO one can "grant Heaven" to anyone.

Your sources for this info are VERY bad.

---

Research your own Catholic history. It is quite evident Popes granted heaven to crusaders
"Pope Urban denigrated the Muslims, exaggerating stories of their anti-Christian acts, and promised absolution and remission of sins for all who died in the service of Christ." History Channel

Waco1947 said:

---

Coke Bear said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

Coke Bear said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

Coke Bear said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

14th crusade against Protestants

---

Please send a credible link so that I can research it. Please list which Pope authorized this crusade, when, where, and against whom it was fought.

---

the 30 years war. Protestants killed in the name of the pope

---

Which Pope authorized the 30 Year's war? This was a mainly German war between Protestants and Catholics. Please try harder. Better yet, please investigate real history, not false Protestant propaganda that you read on a misinformed website.

---

Popes granted these "Catholic Warriors " were granted heaven

---

First, please show me the Catholic document and which Pope "authorized" this.

Second, NO one can "grant Heaven" to anyone.

Your sources for this info are VERY bad.

---

Research your own Catholic history. It is quite evident Popes granted heaven to crusaders
"Pope Urban denigrated the Muslims, exaggerating stories of their anti-Christian acts, and promised absolution and remission of sins for all who died in the service of Christ." History Channel

---

Are you seriously getting your research from the History Channel? Why don't you contact TMZ next?

Seriously you mentioned something about the "14th crusade".

Poor Urban was the pope during the first crusade when the Byzantine emperor pleaded for help because Christian pilgrims were being killed in the Holy Lands.

He did grant indulgences for those who served. They paid their own way. They did help recapture lands that belonged to Christians.

Those lands would be lost and won for several hundred years.

Pope Urban could not have been the Pope during a so-called 14th crusade.

Bless your heart. Your scatter shootings are worse than xfrodox.

Coke Bear said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

Coke Bear said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

Coke Bear said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

Coke Bear said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

14th crusade against Protestants

---

Please send a credible link so that I can research it. Please list which Pope authorized this crusade, when, where, and against whom it was fought.

---

the 30 years war. Protestants killed in the name of the pope

---

Which Pope authorized the 30 Year's war? This was a mainly German war between Protestants and Catholics. Please try harder. Better yet, please investigate real history, not false Protestant propaganda that you read on a misinformed website.

---

Popes granted these "Catholic Warriors " were granted heaven

---

First, please show me the Catholic document and which Pope "authorized" this.

Second, NO one can "grant Heaven" to anyone.

Your sources for this info are VERY bad.

---

Research your own Catholic history. It is quite evident Popes granted heaven to crusaders
"Pope Urban denigrated the Muslims, exaggerating stories of their anti-Christian acts, and promised absolution and remission of sins for all who died in the service of Christ." History Channel

---

Are you seriously getting your research from the History Channel? Why don't you contact TMZ next?

Seriously you mentioned something about the "14th crusade".

Poor Urban was the pope during the first crusade when the Byzantine emperor pleaded for help because Christian pilgrims were being killed in the Holy Lands.

He did grant indulgences for those who served. They paid their own way. They did help recapture lands that belonged to Christians.

Those lands would be lost and won for several hundred years.

Pope Urban could not have been the Pope during a so-called 14th crusade.

Bless your heart. Your scatter shootings are worse than xfrodox.

---

Lot of words there, but bottom line a number of popes very definitely sold wars of conquest for spiritual coin.

Kind of ignored where Jesus said His Kingdom is not of this world ,,,

Oldbear83 said:

---

Lot of words there, but bottom line a number of popes very definitely sold wars of conquest for spiritual coin.

Kind of ignored where Jesus said His Kingdom is not of this world ,,,

---

Couple quick points here,,,

IIRC, Waco stated that millions of Protestants were killed by the Church in the "14th crusade". I called him on false propaganda.

Second, he then conflated the killing of Protestants with the 1st crusade (against Muslims) who were killing Christians in the Holy Land.

Finally, please list the Popes that "definitely sold wars of conquest for spiritual coin" so that I can research this.

I fully recognize that that the Church has had several bad Popes. They, like every one else are not impeccable.

With respect to the crusades, my understanding is that the warriors typically paid their way. The notion that the Crusades was a money grab for Crusaders is propaganda spread after the "reformation". A book that help explains this is called "The Glory of the Crusades by Steve Weidenkopf. With thorough research, author Steve Weidenkoph debunks many of the false beliefs that have been spread through the last several centuries.

You are quibbling on details, Coke Bear. There is no doubt at all, however, that the Popes did murder innocent people.

I have said before and do so now, that every denomination has sins of shame, but please, this fact is egregious and really has no defense.