ChristiaNet MallWorld's Largest Christian MallChristian BlogsFree Bible QuizzesFree Ecards and Free Greeting CardsLoans, Debt, Business and Insurance Articles

Condemn Transubstantiation

Does Acts 15:20 condemn the teaching of transubstantiation? "But that we write unto them, that they abstain from pollutions of idols, and from fornication, and from things strangled, and from blood"

Join Our Free Singles and Take The False Traditions Bible Quiz
 ---mima on 10/14/10
     Helpful Blog Vote (1)

Post a New Blog



\\Cluny: "Please see what I have written earlier in this thread about "substance" and "accidents"."

No. Don't you remember what you said?
---jerry6593 on 10/25/10\\

Yes. Why won't you read it?

In the Aristotelian metaphysic which Thomas Aquinas applied to the Eucharist to explain the manner of the change of the bread and wine into the Body and Blood of Christ, the SUBSTANCE (that which makes something what it really is) of the bread and wine is replaced with the SUBSTANCE of the Body and Blood of Christ--the ACCIDENTS (that which we perceive with the senses) of bread and wine remaining.

This is what transsubstantiation actually means--an attempt to explain the manner of the change.
---Cluny on 10/25/10


leej* Ruben - agree with you that many devout people are really superstitious and take what Jesus said literally when he really intended as figuratively.

Consider comparing John 6:40 with 6:54. When you do you will see what we call parallelism.

looks on the son = feeds on my flesh
believes in him = drinks my blood

NOTE that the results are the SAME -has eternal life, and I will raise him up on the last day.

John 6: 35-40 does not mention flesh or blood as you try to do. But on Jhn 6:54-55 does say 'Eat' my Flesh and drink my Blood.
Nice try!
---Ruben on 10/25/10


Ruben: "But those other disciples said "On hearing it, many of his disciples said, "This is a hard teaching. Who can accept it?""v60

No word from Jesus telling them he was speaking in figurative speech"

You should have kept reading. In v63 Jesus clearly states that a spiritual - not a literal - interpretation of these words is meant.

Joh 6:63 ... the words that I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are life.
---jerry6593 on 10/23/10

And Jerry you should had known that the word 'Spirit' is never use symbolioc, so which words give Spirit(Literal) and life verses 54-55!
---Ruben on 10/25/10


jerry6593:

I suppose Cluny decided not to restate his position because he already stated it here twice before. Just look for the word "substance" on this page and you can find it, or scroll down manually - once about halfway down, and once again near the end.
---StrongAxe on 10/25/10


Cluny: "Please see what I have written earlier in this thread about "substance" and "accidents"."

No. Don't you remember what you said?
---jerry6593 on 10/25/10




\\Cluny: Be honest. Can't you tell the difference in taste between raw meat and bread? Between wine and blood? Which do you taste during the Communion Service?
---jerry6593 on 10/24/10\\

Please see what I have written earlier in this thread about "substance" and "accidents".
---Cluny on 10/24/10


If one reads the context of John 6, they will notice that the 5,000 were fed, and the topic was people were following Jesus because He had fed their earthly body. On the other side of the lake He explains the metaphor. He, Jesus, was communicating that He feds the spirit of a person. The context is not even talking about "the Eucharist."
Furthermore, in John chapter 13, which is the "Last Supper," the "Eucharist" isn't mentioned. If that was so vital for eternal life, one would expect it to be explained at that point in John 13. In addition, before they ate the last supper, Jesus said they were already clean.
John is consistent in using metaphors to explain a spiritual reality in contrast to earthly examples.
---Rod4Him on 10/24/10


Cluny: Be honest. Can't you tell the difference in taste between raw meat and bread? Between wine and blood? Which do you taste during the Communion Service?
---jerry6593 on 10/24/10


cluny//I'll take our Lord, God, and Savior Jesus Christ at His holy Word, and simply accept it without trying to explain it away, and make it of none effect by human tradition.

I hold the very same position however, our Lord God and Savior Jesus Christ in His holy word does teach us not to worship bread and that is basically what you have to do if you believe Jesus becomes a piece of bread.

I am happy you agree there is a position differs from yours that can be defended on the basis of Scripture.

1Co 8:8 Food will not commend us to God. We are no worse off if we do not eat, and no better off if we do.

And bread is not spiritual food and no magic man can change it into something it is not.
---leej on 10/23/10


Ruben: "But those other disciples said "On hearing it, many of his disciples said, "This is a hard teaching. Who can accept it?""v60

No word from Jesus telling them he was speaking in figurative speech"

You should have kept reading. In v63 Jesus clearly states that a spiritual - not a literal - interpretation of these words is meant.

Joh 6:63 ... the words that I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are life.
---jerry6593 on 10/23/10




Acts 15:20 & 15:29 & 21:25 confirm consumption of animal blood is forbidden Lev. 17:10-14

transubstantiation is from pagan mirtha cult and unsupported by Holy Scripture

Apostles never observed this pagan ritual

idolatry of eucharist is evident when one understands it as presented to the deceived as to be worshiped with supreme adoration

FURTHER the on-going multiple times DAILY sacrifice (or killing of Christ at EVERY pagan mass) is completely foreign to Word of God which STATES Christ sacrifice was finished ONCE for all John 19:30, Heb 10 & 11

pagan ritual of transubstantiation REJECTS Biblical Christ replacing Him with another Christ 2Corin 11:4
---Rhonda on 10/23/10


You believe what you want to, leej.

I'll take our Lord, God, and Savior Jesus Christ at His holy Word, and simply accept it without trying to explain it away, and make it of none effect by human tradition.
---Cluny on 10/22/10


Ruben - agree with you that many devout people are really superstitious and take what Jesus said literally when he really intended as figuratively.

Consider comparing John 6:40 with 6:54. When you do you will see what we call parallelism.

looks on the son = feeds on my flesh
believes in him = drinks my blood

NOTE that the results are the SAME -has eternal life, and I will raise him up on the last day.


Thus Jesus is not talking about a ritualistic act but about believing in his atoning death on man's behalf.


Reference:Light in the Darkness, Studies in the gospel of John by Homer Kent, p.108.
---leej on 10/22/10


leej* Much of what Jesus taught was in figures of speech.

Are you saying in John 6:51 where Jesus says " This Bread is my Flesh which I will give to the world" That was a figure of speech and not his Flesh on the cross?

leej* Joh 16:29 His disciples said, 'Ah, now you are speaking plainly and not using figurative speech'!

But those other disciples said "On hearing it, many of his disciples said, "This is a hard teaching. Who can accept it?""v60

No word from Jesus telling them he was speaking in figurative speech, in fact he let them walk away, didn't he! maybe had they waited 4 chapters later he might had told them:)
---Ruben on 10/22/10


\\That was the problems with the Jewish unbelievers, they did take Him literally.\\

Fortunately, so did the believers.

And so do they to this day.
---Cluny on 10/22/10


leej, Yes, the Jews who were offended by YAHUSHUA's statement that "Whoso eateth (My) Flesh and drinketh (My) Blood..." took His saying LITERALLY, and that is why they were offended. They were, indeed, thinking in terms of Cannibalism. That's why they were repulsed and offended. They could not discern nor understand YAHUSHUA's meaning of the statement. It was, maybe "figure of speech" is not the best terminology, but, it was a "Metaphor"(?) of a deeper meaning, which those offended Jews could not understand. The meaning involves an Intimacy so close with YAHUSHUA that it's LIKE "eating His Flesh and drinking His Blood". A close Intimacy and Fellowship with Him.
---Gordon on 10/22/10


Read These Insightful Articles About Home Equity Loans


Would most of the Jews have "walked with Jesus no more" over a figure of speech?

That was the problems with the Jewish unbelievers, they did take Him literally.

John 10:6 This figure of speech Jesus used with them, but they did not understand what he was saying to them.

Much of what Jesus taught was in figures of speech.

John 16:25 I have said these things to you in figures of speech. The hour is coming when I will no longer speak to you in figures of speech but will tell you plainly about the Father.

But the disciples acknowledged that -

Joh 16:29 His disciples said, 'Ah, now you are speaking plainly and not using figurative speech'!
---leej on 10/21/10


\\ He did not mean to LITERALLY eat His Flesh and drink His Blood. It was a kind of "figure of speech", a thing done quite abit in the Hebrew language. \\

Would most of the Jews have "walked with Jesus no more" over a figure of speech?

Did Jesus say, "You do not understand." in John 6, or did He keep repeating it in different words.
---Cluny on 10/21/10


When you do an object lesson to children, you may use physical things represent something intangible. For example to teach about the resurrection you might have some nails buried in some earth and pass a magnet over it to draw the nails up out of the earth. The nails "are" the dead. The earth "is" the grave. The magnet "is" God calling forth the dead. So it was with Jesus. He was using the common items on the table at the time to represent what his sacrifice would be like.

Imagine him picking up a piece of whole bread, tearing it and saying "This is my body which is broken for you." What a powerfull illustration!
---Bruce5656 on 10/21/10


StrongAxe, I understand that the Bread and Wine taken in "Communion", etc. is Sacred. It is a very INTIMATE partaking. More so than what a number of Christians probably give credit for. And, should never be taken lightly, nor done while living in unforgiveness and/or sin. And, now, if all THAT is what is meant by the Roman Catholic church, then, she needs to make a much better effort in making that crystal clear to all around. Because the way she words it, it sounds like a type of Heretical, Re-Sacrificial cannibalism. And it's not just something that the Catholic Priest, etc., directs over. For the Communion can be taken when at home ALONE, with a small group and anytime, anywhere. NO PRIEST NEEDED.
---Gordon on 10/21/10


Read These Insightful Articles About Interest Rates


StrongAxe, When YAHUSHUA said to His Disciples to take, eat and drink of the Bread and Wine for (they) were His Body and Blood. He did not mean that literally. When YAHUSHUA declared in JOHN 6:54 that "Whoso eateth My Flesh, and drinketh My Blood, hath Eternal Life..." He did not mean to LITERALLY eat His Flesh and drink His Blood. It was a kind of "figure of speech", a thing done quite abit in the Hebrew language. Likewise, to say that the Bread and Wine "is (His) Body and Blood" is equally a "figure of speech. The Bread and Wine were not literally His Body and Blood. Nor does it get mysteriously turned into such when resided over by a Priest.
---Gordon on 10/21/10


\\Okay STRONGAXE, then either the Bread and Wine are His Body and Blood, or they're not. There cannot be a "No, it's not but, yet, it is" answer. The answer is black or white. NO or YES. Which are you saying, then, that it is?
---Gordon on 10/20/10\\

I've been saying YES.

However, re StronAxe's latest posting, I think I understand his question. To paraphrase it, "Do the words "This is My Body...." actually change the elements, or do they announce a change that has already taken place by their previous blessing?"
---Cluny on 10/21/10


Gordon:

Jesus said they are, so they are. Any questions?

You can apply any particular interpretation of the verb "to be" that seems appropriate.
---StrongAxe on 10/21/10


Okay STRONGAXE, then either the Bread and Wine are His Body and Blood, or they're not. There cannot be a "No, it's not but, yet, it is" answer. The answer is black or white. NO or YES. Which are you saying, then, that it is?
---Gordon on 10/20/10


Send a Free Thinking of You Ecard


MarkV, A-men. The annual passover started in Moses' day, where they took a firstling sheep without spot or blemish, and sacrificed it and took of it's blood to mark the lintel over the door and the two sides of the door, and when the death angel seen the blood he would "passover" that house, but when he did not see the blood he would enter into that house and slay the firstborn son. Jesus is the Passover Lamb of God, sacrificed for us, and when his blood is applied to our lives the death angel will passover us, but he will enter into those without the blood to destroy.
---Eloy on 10/20/10


Jesus did not say "this becomes my body". He said "this is my body". This suggests that was acknowleding a correspondence that already existed, rather than causing a transformation that would create a new one that did not exist before.
---StrongAxe on 10/20/10


Eloy, that was a great answer you gave. You did a good job. I believe that when people start saying Jesus was this or that, they do not realize they are changing the deity of Christ. He is not a rock, or sheep, or a piece of bread. And a piece of bread does not turn into Christ. Neither does the wine turn to His blood. They should understand those words for Cluny once said to Catherine, I believe, that those words were "Anthropomorphismes" Instances in which God is referred to as if He were a man. In this case as if He was like a sheep, or like a rock, or like a piece of bread, but not literally. If He did turn to bread, we would not have a Trinity but four in One Godhead. And if a rock as five in One Godhead.
---MarkV. on 10/20/10


Jesus is called the "Lamb of God", but that does not mean he turns into a lamb walking on all fours. Jesus said we are to partake of the passover communion "in memory" of his personal sacrifice (Lk.22:17-20). When the disciples did not understand Jesus' spiritual words when he said, "eat my flesh and drink my blood", he explained, "The Spirit whom makes being alive, the flesh profits not nothing: the words which I talk to you, are spirit and life, stands". When the apostles got up from the table and left with Jesus, none had bits of Jesus in their teeth and neither were bites of flesh taken out of Jesus' body: for that is false doctrine and sin.
---Eloy on 10/19/10


Read These Insightful Articles About Internet Marketing


\\Indeed we "partake of him" but it has nothing to do with whether or not we drink wine.
---Bruce5656 on 10/19/10\\


The cup of blessing which we bless, is it not the communion of the blood of Christ? The bread which we break, is it not the communion of the body of Christ?

1 Cor 10:16
---Cluny on 10/19/10


StrongAxe

It was a rhetorical question. Like I said. Jesus always meant what he said. He did not always say what he meant. Indeed we "partake of him" but it has nothing to do with whether or not we drink wine.
---Bruce5656 on 10/19/10


\\I often quote the "I am the vine" metaphor in contrast with the fact that nobody ever made Jesus wine out of Jesus grapes\\

Did you know that the ancient Christian exegesis of this passage was used to PROVE that the bread and wine are changed into the Body and Blood of Christ?
---Cluny on 10/19/10


Gordon:

Yes, I know the difference between literalism and metaphor. Jesus used metaphors freqently, and I often quote the "I am the vine" metaphor in contrast with the fact that nobody ever made Jesus wine out of Jesus grapes, nor made furniture out of Jesus wood (so he was not LITERALLY a vine). Yet, in terms of relationships, metaphorically speaking, he is a vine and we are branches of that vine.

So when he is speaking of the bread being his flesh, it may not "literally" be human meat, but we are "effectively" partaking of him.
---StrongAxe on 10/19/10


Read These Insightful Articles About Life Insurance


---StrongAxe some would say, and I agree, that the reason you came out of the RCC was because you were called out by no less than Almighty God. This does not mean that some individual Catholics are not saved but Almighty God has a something for you to do that requires freedom from regimental, stiff, formalism. In other words God desires you to be more free than the Roman Catholic Church would let you be!

Scripture Revelation 18:4
" And I heard another voice from heaven, saying, Come out of her, my people, that ye be not partakers of her sins, and that ye receive not of her plagues."
---mima on 10/19/10


StrongAxe, But, can you not discern what is meant to be taken literal and what is meant as Metaphor? As another Brother has pointed out, here...YAHUSHUA said that He is the True VINE. Well, why, then, is His Body not sprouting Grapes and Leaves? YAHUSHUA said that He is the DOOR. Is He a solid, flat piece of Wood suspended by hinges on a doorway?? Even Satan knows how to take the very Words that GOD speaks, Word-for-Word, and plant a completely different meaning to the Words into a person's mind until they believe the twisted meaning. Remember Eve in the Garden with the Serpent, and what happened to her...? The Serpent quoted GOD's Words to Eve, but, accented them with Doubt.
---Gordon on 10/19/10


Bruce5656:

Note that when Jesus said this, he was making an observation, basically "if you follow me, you risk being at odds with your family". He was NOT making a command "thou shalt be at war with your parents", which would directly contradict one of the Ten Commandents.

I was raised Roman Catholic. I went through a period of agnosticism (and several other isms) but at age 20 I became a Christian by choice, and this ended up causing some friction with my parents. So, yes, to some extent, I have experienced that passage.
---StrongAxe on 10/18/10


StrongAxe "You can try to infer whatever you like about what you think Jesus MEANT. I would rather go by what he actually SAID."

How is your relationship with your parents? Jesus SAID:Matthew 10:34-36, "Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword. For I am come to set a man at variance against his father, and the daughter against her mother, and the daughter in law against her mother in law. And a man's foes shall be they of his own household."

Jesus always meant what he said. He did not always say what he meant. Think about it.
---Bruce5656 on 10/18/10


Read These Insightful Articles About Make Money


Gordon:

Jesus said "Take, eat, this is my body." (Matthew 26:26, Mark 14:22, Luke 22:19). He did NOT say "Take, eat, this represents my body."

You can try to infer whatever you like about what you think Jesus MEANT. I would rather go by what he actually SAID.
---StrongAxe on 10/18/10


StrongAxe, That is not at all what YAHUSHUA menat, nor said, when He told us to partake of the Bread and Wine in REMEMBERANCE of Him. The Bread and Wine do not even "spiritually" become the Flesh-and-Blood of YAHUSHUA. I know you do not see this, because of the way you're believing, but, to believe the way you do elevates the actual Bread and Wine themselves on a higher level than they belong, and it, IN TURN, takes more of the focus away from the real Blood Sacrifice of YAHUSHUA. The Bread and Wine are only Tokens that we are to eat and consume, while we remember what YAHUSHUA did for us on the Cross, including all that it means for us and Him.
---Gordon on 10/18/10


Bruce ... No it does not!
---alan8566_of_uk on 10/18/10


Alan,Does this sound like the Prostant point of view?

from the Catholic Encylopedia:

"Catholic theology: (from SACRIFICE OF THE MASS: Catholic Encylopedia)
The mass is propitiatory sacrifice to be offered for both the living and the dead for for sins, punishments, satisfactions, and other necessities... Any one that says that the Mass is only a sacrifice of praise and thanksgiving is cursed... It is as much a sacrifice as was the OT sacrifice of bulls and goats with out which Christianity would be inferior not only to the Old Testament, but even to the poorest form of natural religion... The mass is nothing else than the unbloody reproduction of the Sacrifice of the Cross. it is the sacrifice of the God-Man Himself."
---Bruce5656 on 10/17/10


Read These Insightful Articles About Rehab Treatments


\\Cluny ... What you seem to be saying is that transubstatiation means that the bread and wine do not physically become the Body and Blood, but that as we eat and drink them, we receive the spiritual Body & Blood.

If that's the case, and if the RCC teaches the same ... I can't see what all the argument is about, because how does that differ from any Protestant view?
---alan8566_of_uk on 10/17/10\\

Transubstantiation does not mean that the bread and wine become SPIRITUALLY the Body and Blood of Christ, but SUBSTANTIALLY (see what I said about substance and accidents).
---Cluny on 10/17/10


I notice all the scriptures you quoted were from the New Testament. The thief could not have been aware of them, since he was living under the Old Testament law, and the New Testament was not written until long after Jesus (and the thief) were crucified.
---StrongAxe on 10/17/10
I really wish you wound not go there.
I know that you know better.

Isaiah 53:6 All we like sheep have gone astray, we have turned every one to his own way, and the LORD hath laid on him the iniquity of us all.

1 Kings 8:46 If they sin against thee, (for there is no man that sinneth not, and thou be angry with them, and deliver them to the enemy, so that they carry them away captives unto the land of the enemy, far or near,
---francis on 10/17/10


francis:

If the thief had taken the Ten Commandments seriously, he would not have committed a serious theft.

While nobody can keep all of the law all of the time, it's possible to keep some of the law all of the time. Most people go through their lives without ever committing murder or adultery, for example. And many never steal.

I notice all the scriptures you quoted were from the New Testament. The thief could not have been aware of them, since he was living under the Old Testament law, and the New Testament was not written until long after Jesus (and the thief) were crucified.
---StrongAxe on 10/17/10


Cluny ... What you seem to be saying is that transubstatiation means that the bread and wine do not physically become the Body and Blood, but that as we eat and drink them, we receive the spiritual Body & Blood.

If that's the case, and if the RCC teaches the same ... I can't see what all the argument is about, because how does that differ from any Protestant view?
---alan8566_of_uk on 10/17/10


Read These Insightful Articles About Stocks


\\Fortunately the Pew survey indicates that most Roman Catholics hold the bread and wine to be only symbolic.
---leej on 10/16/10\\

What the Pew survey shows is that most Roman Catholics believe neither what the Bible nor their church teaches.
---Cluny on 10/16/10


"You believe what you want to believe, Elder.
I'll believe our Lord Jesus Christ and His holy Word."
Cluny
At least you didn't deny that you were giving/supporting RCC doctrine. By the way Jesus nor the Holy Word teaches what you are trying to push.
---Elder on 10/16/10


I would say that Satan is laughing at God in that believers have been made to believe that God becomes a bread crumb to be worshiped at the mumbling of a priest.

Fortunately the Pew survey indicates that most Roman Catholics hold the bread and wine to be only symbolic.
---leej on 10/16/10


A quick explanation of what the philosophical terms "substance" and "accidents" mean in this context, as some people don't seem to understand this use.

1. ACCIDENTS mean the qualities of something that can be perceived by the senses: smell, taste, touch, weight, color, and the like. This word also applies to what microscopic and laboratory analysis reveal.

2. SUBSTANCE refers to something intangible that makes the object what it is in itself: "breadness" or "wineness", for lack of better words.

"Transusbstantiation" means that the SUBSTANCE of the bread is replaced by the SUBSTANCE of something else, but the accidents of bread remain the same.
---Cluny on 10/16/10


Read These Insightful Articles About Diabetes


Whatever reverence the thief on the cross had for the Law of Moses, Jewish Tradition, John, or Jesus, he obviously didn't respect them TOO much, or he wouldn't have broken one of the Ten Commandments and committed theft .
---StrongAxe on 10/15/10

I honestly cannot believe that you said that. are you kidding?


Romans 3:23 For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God,
1 John 1:8 If we say that we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us.

1 John 1:9 If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just to forgive us [our] sins, and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness.
---francis on 10/16/10


Gordon:

I believe, as a matter of physics and chemistry, bread and wine remain bread and wine (and any scientific tests verify this). To believe they become actual flesh and blood in every way contradicts all evidence, or uses the word "become" in a way different than we use in every other context.

But as a matter of divine law, they become flesh and blood. Eating them has the same legal effects as eating Jesus's flesh and blood.

If you spoke to an ambassador, for example, it was the same as "speaking to the king", because even though he was physically the ambassador, as a matter of law, anything said to him was the same as saying it to the king, and anything he said was the same as the king saying it.
---StrongAxe on 10/16/10


StrongAxe, I thought, from the way you worded things, that you were promoting Transubstantiation. I thought you were saying that (because) YAHUSHUA (JESUS) said in JOHN 6:53-56 "...Whoso eateth My Flesh, and drinketh My Blood, hath Eternal Life..." that THAT was supposed to validate and Scripturally back up the doctrine of Transubstantiation. If not, what are your views, exactly, concerning this doctrine?
---Gordon on 10/15/10


Ruben, REPENTANCE is not a "work". Repentance is a Decision that simply has to be made and then carried out in order to be able to receive Forgiveness and Salvation. Repentance is the act of turning away from sin. A person has to turn from their sin(s) in order to be in the condition to begin to walk in GOD's Ways and to enter Heaven. Any doctrine that says that one does not have to repent as a part of receiving Eternal Life in Heaven is a false doctrine from Satan, the ultimate Liar.
---Gordon on 10/15/10


Read These Insightful Articles About Depression


In addition to calling Himself the Bread of Life, Jesus also said in the Gospel of John, "Destroy this Temple," calling Himself a temple.
"water that I will give him will become in him a well of water springing up to eternal life," calling Himself water.
"..lift up your eyes and look on the fields, that they are white for harvest." I guess Jesus wanted wheat picked.
Speaking of John the Baptist, "He was the lamp that was burning and was shining.. Now John is a lamp.
I am the Light of the world.
I am the door. Jesus is a door now.
I am the good shepherd.
I am the true vine,
all Metaphors from John.
Those that worship God must worship Him in spirit and in truth.
---Rod4Him on 10/15/10


francis:

Whatever reverence the thief on the cross had for the Law of Moses, Jewish Tradition, John, or Jesus, he obviously didn't respect them TOO much, or he wouldn't have broken one of the Ten Commandments and committed theft (and it must have been a pretty serious one to warrant the death penalty).
---StrongAxe on 10/15/10


\\What we are hearing from two false RCC supporters is that your salvation is based upon you eating human flesh and drinking human blood.\\

You believe what you want to believe, Elder.

I'll believe our Lord Jesus Christ and His holy Word.

And what exactly does the repentant thief (traditionally named St. Dismas) have to do with this thread?
---Cluny on 10/15/10


What do we really know about the theif on the cross?

1: Was he baptized in John's baptism?
2: Was he baptized by one of Jesus disciples?
3: Was he a pharasee?
4: Was he a scribe?
5: What made him call Jesus lord, did they have a prior meeting?
6: How did he know that jesus would die and rise again and inherit a kingdom?
7: What exactly did he know about God ( the father)
8: He obviously fears( reverend) God, when did he make his last sacrifice?

Luke 23:40 But the other answering rebuked him, saying, Dost not thou fear God, seeing thou art in the same condemnation?

Luke 23:42 And he said unto Jesus, Lord, remember me when thou comest into thy kingdom.
---francis on 10/15/10


Read These Insightful Articles About Bible Study


The one-man Jesus told that he would join him in Paradise that day had no works(keeping of the sacraments) to his credit. He did however have repentance(_the changing of his mind about Christ) to his credit that repentance and calling on the name of the Lord was enough to guarantee his entry into Paradise.
---mima on 10/15/10

Mima,

Repent is a (work), which the thief did.
---Ruben on 10/15/10


I would really like to know how these two are related?

"But that we write unto them, that they abstain from pollutions of idols, and from fornication, and from things strangled, and from blood" and "the teaching of transubstantiation"does not appear to have a single thing in commo.

I can see no connection.
---francis on 10/15/10


What we are hearing from two false RCC supporters is that your salvation is based upon you eating human flesh and drinking human blood. It makes no difference where or how it becomes so. This is a demonic practice. These two would lead you astray and be comfortable in doing it.
Their idea is that Jesus Himself ate His own flesh and drank His own blood.
Scripture is very plain the Lord's supper is to be done in rememberence of His sacrifice. Those practicing sin and/or lost are not to partake of it, I Cor 11:20-34.
---Elder on 10/15/10


The Logos said, "Let there be light," and there was light.

In His incarnation, He said to the sick, "Be healed," and they were healed.

He said, "Your sins are forgiven you," and they were.

He said, "Demons, begone," and they departed.

He said to blind eyes, deaf ears, and lepers, "Be opened, be unstopped, be cleansed," and so it happened.

He said to paralytics, "Arise! Take up your bed and walk," and it was done.

He said to the dead, "Wake up! Come forth!" and they did.

He said over bread and wine, "This is My Body. This is My Blood."

If you believe that NOTHING happened, your faith is stronger than mine.
---Cluny on 10/15/10


Read These Insightful Articles About Bible Verses


When Jesus said "this is my body" he had to be speaking figuratively, since he was physically standing before them whole.

Many are basing their Christian faith on keeping certain sacraments.

The one-man Jesus told that he would join him in Paradise that day had no works(keeping of the sacraments) to his credit. He did however have repentance(_the changing of his mind about Christ) to his credit that repentance and calling on the name of the Lord was enough to guarantee his entry into Paradise.
---mima on 10/15/10


\\StrongAxe, What foolishness! The Lord YAHUSHUA did not mean anything of the sort of "LITERALLY eating His Flesh and drinking His Blood". His Saying meant that we are to fully partake of His Being in a Spiritual, Mental and Emotional way\\

In other words, when Jesus said, "This is My Body," you say He meant, "This is NOT My Body."
---Cluny on 10/15/10


Gordon:

What part of what I said was foolishness?
1) I quoted what Jesus said
2) I said that we can't ignore what he said

If you think that either of these two things are foolish (what Jesus said, or that we should listen to what he said), you seriously need to consider just WHAT it is that you base your Christian faith on (If not on Jesus, then on who else?)

On the other hand, if you think it's something else I was implying, you are reading between the lines. If you are going to criticize me, please criticize what I acually said, not what I didn't.
---StrongAxe on 10/15/10


StrongAxe, What foolishness! The Lord YAHUSHUA did not mean anything of the sort of "LITERALLY eating His Flesh and drinking His Blood". His Saying meant that we are to fully partake of His Being in a Spiritual, Mental and Emotional way. Live for Him, INCLUDING the laying down of our physical bodies as "living sacrifices" in order to follow His Holy Spirit instead of our fleshly, sinful desires. We are also to be certain that we believe that He is the Son of GOD come in the Flesh and that He shed His Holy Blood for all, for "whomsoever will". One thing it DOES NOT mean is that somehow the Bread and Wine literally and "mystically" transform into the real Flesh and Blood of YAHUSHUA!
---Gordon on 10/15/10


Read These Insightful Articles About Arthritis


"Does Acts 15:20 condemn the teaching of transubstantiation?" No.
That verse has nothing to do with that teaching.
As to whether or not "transubstantiation" actually occurs...Mat 9:29>Rom. 14:23
"According to your faith, be it unto you. For whatsoever [is] not of faith is sin."
---josef on 10/15/10


\\So then, can we say that a loaf of bread and a bottle of wine was crucified for our sins?\\

This is a straw man argument, as well as being blasphemous, and hence does not really deserve a reply.

The Orthodox teaching is that by the action of the Holy Spirit, bread and wine are changed into the Body and Blood of the Lamb of God Who was crucified and rose from the dead for us.
---Cluny on 10/15/10


We need to understand what Transubstantiation actually means. It primary definition is orthodox, however, it's latin version of it is not.

However,the Apostolic doctrine passed along by the Holy Apostles and the God-Bearing Fathers is this: The bread and wine, the Holy Gifts, during the Eucharistic ceremony, after the invocation of the Holy Spirit, becomes, in a unexplained matter, the Body and Blood of Christ for "the remission of sins and eternal life unto a safeguard for body and soul and for such as partake worthily thereof and with faith" ( Saint John of Damascus).

Please read 1 Cor 10:16-22 and 1 Cor 11:17-31. Most Protestants have a corrupt Eucharistic understanding because of Ullrich Zwingli.

In IC.XC.,
---Ignatius on 10/14/10


"That the bread and wine DO become the Body and Blood of Christ was never doubted until the Protestant Reformation."
Cluny
So then, can we say that a loaf of bread and a bottle of wine was crucified for our sins?
Wow! What a disgrace of the sacrifice of Christ that is allowed to be proclaimed by those who would distort what is really true.
---Elder on 10/14/10


Read These Insightful Articles About Asthma


St. Ignatius of Antioch was the little child the Lord Jesus held in His lap when He said, "Suffer the little children to come unto Me...."

In his letters, St. Ignatius warned people to have nothing to do with heretics who "deny that the Eucharist is the flesh of our Savior Jesus Christ."
---Cluny on 10/14/10


Acts 15:20 has nothing to do with transubstantiation.
---Peter on 10/14/10


We can get decoyed with what God does not have us thinking about. Our *attention* belongs with Him.
---Bill on 10/14/10


I wonder how many people know what the term "transubstantiation" actually means.

It's an attempt to explain, in terms of Aritotelian metaphysics, just HOW the bread and wine become the Body and Blood of our Lord, God, and Savior Jesus Christ: specifically that the SUBSTANCE of the bread and wine are replaced by the SUBSTANCE of the Body and Blood of Christ, the ACCIDENTS remaining the same. (Substance and accidents have technical meanings here.)

That the bread and wine DO become the Body and Blood of Christ was never doubted until the Protestant Reformation.
---Cluny on 10/14/10


Read These Insightful Articles About Cholesterol


Gordon:

Acts 15:20 condemns various pagan practices that Judaism also condemns. Eating of blood is one of them.

John 6:53 (also 6:54, 6:56)
"Then Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, ye have no life in you."

You can say what you like about cannibalism, and you can believe that the bread and wine actually become the flesh and blood, or that they don't, but you can't deny what Jesus himself actually said on the subject.
---StrongAxe on 10/14/10


No, it doesn't, mima.

\\... only a Symbol\\

The Greek word "symbolos" means to bring together TWO realities. In Greek, the language of the NT, the symbol was in fact the thing so signified.
'
\\ meant to be consumed in REMEMBERANCE\\

The Greek word "anmenesis" is not a mere mental remembrance, but an actual making present of what is being commemorated.

\\ of the One-Time Blood Scacrifice YAHUSHUA made on the Cross.\\

The "sacrifice of Christ" in ancient Christian thought is MORE than the Cross.

\\ To actually eat someone's flesh and blood is called CANNIBALISM. \\

Cannibalism is one of the charges brought against Christians in the first 300 years.
---Cluny on 10/14/10


Well, yes it does. The Bread and Wine/Grape Juice is only a Symbol meant to be consumed in REMEMBERANCE of the One-Time Blood Scacrifice YAHUSHUA made on the Cross. To actually eat someone's flesh and blood is called CANNIBALISM. And, Satanists perform rituals of cannibalism in their "worship" services. What in the world does that tell us?! YAHUSHUA's Sacrifice on the Cross was meant to be, and was, a One-Time Event. NEVER TO BE REPEATED. One Time of shedding His Holy Blood is all that GOD required. So, to offer up "Jesus" as a sacrifice over and over and over again is HERESY.
---Gordon on 10/14/10


Copyright© 1996-2015 ChristiaNet®. All Rights Reserved.