Topic: By Grace Through Faith

[HandmaidenofGod]

If my 'teachings' are different to (or better than, as you think I think) that of the O.C or the early fathers, would it not be possible to reference some of them so I can see who you are referring to and how my understanding differs from theirs?

I might be one you like to refer to as an 'internet troll' or 'swine'. Call me what you like. Think of me what you like. Ridicule and persecution would be more an accurate description of what I have experienced on this site. I Praise the Lord for that.. If there is just 1 person reading this thread and comes to the knowledge of Truth in Jesus Christ then it has been worthwhile. But you have made your opposition to the Truth clear, and again I reference scripture:

1 Corinthians 14:37If any man think himself to be a prophet, or spiritual, let him acknowledge that the things that I write unto you are the commandments of the Lord.38But if any man be ignorant, let him be ignorant.

I wonder what makes you think that our teachings are wrong? Are you familiar with the teachings of the Orthodox Church? Have you studied the Early Church Fathers?

Are you familiar with how the Bible, which you rightly revere, came to be? (Here's a hint: It did not come from heaven leather-bound with the King James translation and the words of Christ in Red.)

You say that if one comes to the knowledge of Christ through your postings, well then Glory to God!

What makes you think that we do not know Christ?

Did you know that in the post-communal hymn of the Orthodox Church, we sing "We have seen the true light, we have received the Heavenly Spirit, we have found the true faith, worshiping the undivided Trinity, who has saved us!"?

Do you know who the Early Church Fathers are and why we pay attention to what they have to say? They aren't just a bunch of old men that we like to quote. There is a reason why we take their words seriously. Do you know why?

I am interested in how much you know about the Prefix Church, that you have come to enlighten us to the truth.

Or is it you, who have come to be enlightened?

I am still waiting for a response to my questions.

I never said so bluntly orthodox teachings are wrong.
I am becoming familiar with the teachings of the orthodox church.
I am reading the ante-nicene fathers.
I am well aware the bible did not come down 'leather bound etc.
Yes, Glory be to God if someone comes to Christ.
I never said you don't know Christ. How do I know you?
No. I didn't know about the post communal hymn, but thanks for sharing.
I am currently reading the ante-nicene fathers.
I am interested in how much I know about the prefix church also - hence I'm here.
Perhaps I have come to be enlightened. Perhaps not.

Thank you for your responses.  You may find reading The Orthodox Church by Timothy Ware to be helpful in your studies.

[ByGracethroughFaith]

If my 'teachings' are different to (or better than, as you think I think) that of the O.C or the early fathers, would it not be possible to reference some of them so I can see who you are referring to and how my understanding differs from theirs?

I might be one you like to refer to as an 'internet troll' or 'swine'. Call me what you like. Think of me what you like. Ridicule and persecution would be more an accurate description of what I have experienced on this site. I Praise the Lord for that.. If there is just 1 person reading this thread and comes to the knowledge of Truth in Jesus Christ then it has been worthwhile. But you have made your opposition to the Truth clear, and again I reference scripture:

1 Corinthians 14:37If any man think himself to be a prophet, or spiritual, let him acknowledge that the things that I write unto you are the commandments of the Lord.38But if any man be ignorant, let him be ignorant.

I wonder what makes you think that our teachings are wrong? Are you familiar with the teachings of the Orthodox Church? Have you studied the Early Church Fathers?

Are you familiar with how the Bible, which you rightly revere, came to be? (Here's a hint: It did not come from heaven leather-bound with the King James translation and the words of Christ in Red.)

You say that if one comes to the knowledge of Christ through your postings, well then Glory to God!

What makes you think that we do not know Christ?

Did you know that in the post-communal hymn of the Orthodox Church, we sing "We have seen the true light, we have received the Heavenly Spirit, we have found the true faith, worshiping the undivided Trinity, who has saved us!"?

Do you know who the Early Church Fathers are and why we pay attention to what they have to say? They aren't just a bunch of old men that we like to quote. There is a reason why we take their words seriously. Do you know why?

I am interested in how much you know about the Prefix Church, that you have come to enlighten us to the truth.

Or is it you, who have come to be enlightened?

I am still waiting for a response to my questions.

I never said so bluntly orthodox teachings are wrong.
I am becoming familiar with the teachings of the orthodox church.
I am reading the ante-nicene fathers.
I am well aware the bible did not come down 'leather bound etc.
Yes, Glory be to God if someone comes to Christ.
I never said you don't know Christ. How do I know you?
No. I didn't know about the post communal hymn, but thanks for sharing.
I am currently reading the ante-nicene fathers.
I am interested in how much I know about the prefix church also - hence I'm here.
Perhaps I have come to be enlightened. Perhaps not.

Thank you for your responses.  You may find reading The Orthodox Church by Timothy Ware to be helpful in your studies.

Not a problem.. I by no means meant to disregard your questions, but as you are probably aware, there are many people tackling me on this thread and I have had a lot to respond to.. I think there are still some questions I have missed but if anyone awaiting my answers is reading this, I will get to them. Perhaps remind me again if possible.

Thanks

[ByGracethroughFaith]

If someone could please help me understand this:

I'm in to Polycarp now, Chapter 10 of his epistle to the Phillipians:

"Stand fast, therefore, in these things, and follow the example of the Lord, being firm and unchangeable in the faith, loving the brotherhood,(56) and being attached to one another, joined together in the truth, exhibiting the meekness of the Lord in your intercourse with one another, and despising no one. When you can do good, defer it not, because "alms delivers from death."

This sounds great really.. Did he quote from Tobit?

It is better to give alms than to lay up gold: for alms delivers from death, and shall purge away all sin. (Tobit 12:8-9; see also Tobit 4:8-10)

Now, just a humble question.. Is there any way of making the above writings work with the below? I might be missing something.

And though I bestow all my goods to feed the poor, and though I give my body to be burned, but have not love, it profits me nothing. (1 Corinthians 13:3)

Thanks

[ByGracethroughFaith]

Covenant theology is classical reformed theology.. Straight out calvinism.

My posts explain how they have erred in their understanding of individual predestination. So no. This is not covenant theology. However, if you were being sarcastic you will already know this.

Now with regard to early church fathers. Lets have a look at Acts 20:29For I know this, that after my departing shall grievous wolves enter in among you, not sparing the flock.30Also of your own selves shall men arise, speaking perverse things, to draw away disciples after them.

I'm not suggesting that they are off the track. However, we were warned. The writings of the early church fathers are not in the canon of scripture. The information provided in my 'long post' and yes, I know its long, comes from the bible not the early church fathers. If this is not good enough for you then theres not alot more I can do.

We know the Holy Fathers spoke copiously from the Scriptures, so what makes your use of the Scriptures different from theirs?

I really don't want to open up a can of worms right here right now.. There is enough going on.. Perhaps I might start a new post.. but if you really respect the early church fathers and hold their teachings as infallible and authoritative just as I do the scriptures, then listen to what Melito - Bishop of Sardis had to say..

So... back to this post. What makes your interpretation of the Scriptures different from (i.e., better than) that of the early Church Fathers? You still haven't answered this question.

I haven't answered that question because it is not my aim to disprove anyones teachings. My aim is to show you how I understand the bible and then for you to prove me wrong using scripture if possible..

But how are you going to prove that you understand the bible better than those who spoke and thought in the language of the NT writings and the Septuagint? I'm assuming that you aren't a Koine speaker so you are working with a translation. From past experience, I have seen many so-called biblical experts do this and come up with some doozies; "teachings" that would have had early Christians tearing out their hair. Even if these so-called experts "understand Greek", as I have heard so many claim, they still manage to understand Greek in a way that is slanted to suit their own preconceptions.

I believe it's no coincidence that early heresies were weeded out by those who understood the language of the text, and that under the guidance of the Holy Spirit an accepted canon was formed, teachings regulated.* That we see a resurgence of heretical, or just plain silly opinions, particularly in groups and individuals that could not even be considered mainstream Protestant, is no surprise when they refuse to have any contact with any Christian ancestral roots. Because it is somehow beneath them to consider that someone else knows better than they do, they struggle to recreate a "Christianity" that no ancient believer would have possibly recognised as anything but gnostic mumbo-jumbo; something that fits their thinking instead of recreating their thinking to fit historical Christianity.

Using Dispensationalism as an example. Some English man sees something in his English translation that the Church has never considered doctrine. It's picked up and carried on in ignorance of that fact and made more important that the doctrines that have come down to us from the very beginning. It's no wonder that a group like the JWs appears out of the Sola Scriptura swamp, completely denying the doctrine of the Trinity because they "don't see the word "Trinity" in their bibles".  

Honestly, I have no axe to grind with you, but I do consider your opinions to be typical of a person who believes that the Holy Spirit is guiding you and you alone to understand the Scripture that was given to you by God, through the Church in the first place. (Yes, men - God works with men - what a shock!)

As Orthodox believers we have the Church for scriptual guidance, that's why we are completely confident that 2Timothy 2:15 belongs in the bible. What you say doesn't gel with what the Church teaches us. So, sorry to say you really are just wasting your time here if your purpose is to convince any Orthodox believer to accept your individual word over that of the historic Church which gives us Scripture and interprets it for us, through the guidance of the Holy Spirit.

*I can think of no better word than regulated. Perhaps someone can suggest something better?

Sorry, I did forget to respond to this also. I definitely, and without doubt, understand your point. Truly.

This may well be the case. And it makes perfect sense to want to stick with something that seems to have continued on throughout the centuries until now. Unbroken. Ancestral roots. Yes.. I'm not against the idea at all - even though it may appear that way.

I suppose, I have to look at it from 3 points of view. Unfortunately, nobody can deny that there are 3 main avenues of belief in Christianity. Of course, we all agree that there is only 1 way and 1 truth though. Not 3. These are Catholicism, Orthodoxy and Protestantism.

Catholics claim to be the true church, orthodox and protestants disagree. Orthodox claim to be the true church, catholics and protestants disagree and obviously, the same applies with protestants. So what does a truth seeker do? Just stick with how he was raised? Or does he investigate? If one is to investigate what do we do? Well I suppose we all have our ways of doing that. Some don't want to seek the truth. Often, the truth is hard to accept, but no amount of denying it will change it..

Regulation, as you put it, certainly can keep things uniform. I agree here. But were there are regs, there are always reg breakers. Someone erred along the way, someone broke the rules, hence the schism. Catholics would say you strayed, you would say they strayed. Both have their arguments, but the fact remains. Somebody erred..Then of course came the reformation. Which caused 'protestantism'. Sola fide and sola scriptura.. And from there developed some 33000 denominations alot of those, actually,most of those stemming from a misuse of the bible. (I'm not saying I am perfect, or better at understanding than anyone else btw.)

Now, you said JW's came out of the sola scriptura swamp.. Well yes.. They did. Or at least, thats what they have us believe. But has it not been stomped on? Their bibles, (I can't recall the translation) have been totally mistranslated, blatantly, and virtually re-written by their founder no less. But did the same thing not happen in the early churches? Marcion for example? Did he come out of the sola scriptura swamp? No. But just as Marcions heresies were stomped on, likewise, the JW's teachings have been 'stomped on'. People still believe them, but people believe in buddha too. There are even people who follow Marcions ideas. There was another man, it was basically pentecostalism as it is today but back then. That got stomped on. But its come back.

Now, is it really wrong of me, or any of us, to want to check the teachings of anyone against the bible? Even if it is from the earliest of the earliest christians? Can what they say not be compared to the bible?

In my own experience, reading the bible is not like reading any other book. Its as though the pages are literally alive. Every time I read it I learn more. Things I didn't understand yesterday are understood tomorrow, and more light is revealed. I believe that is the Spirit of God, who works in us through His Word. There are also spiritual gifts that God has given to His people, apostles, evangelists, pastors, teachers and prophets. Just because somebody calls themselves a prophet, or an evangelist, means nothing.. I need to hear what they are teaching, and compare it to the bible. Then we can know whether they are put there by God or not.

Hopefully from this, you might be able to see here that I don't think the truth is revealed to me and me alone, but through teachers, pastors, evangelists, through the churches - both historical and present, and, most importantly, by the Word of God and the Spirit.

Thats how we can discern the errors of the J.W's, mormons and any other branches of protestantism that deny the fundamentals of the Christian faith. i.e. Jesus Christ is God, the doctrine of the Trinity, Christs death and resurrection, His payment for sin, and so on.

My purpose here is not to convince you of anything. Just to humbly learn about your faith and explain the problems that I might have understanding it. Just as you may do the same with me.

Dialogue between believers. Hopefully for the edification of all of us.

[Melodist]

It is better to give alms than to lay up gold: for alms delivers from death, and shall purge away all sin. (Tobit 12:8-9; see also Tobit 4:8-10)

Now, just a humble question.. Is there any way of making the above writings work with the below? I might be missing something.

And though I bestow all my goods to feed the poor, and though I give my body to be burned, but have not love, it profits me nothing. (1 Corinthians 13:3)

Doing something you know to be good, and doing it out of love are not in mutual exclusion to each other, especially when the definition of "love" is an act of self sacrifice for the benefit of someone else, and love covers the mutlitude of sins.

Just a thought.

[genesisone]

Now I am a proponent of the scripture - obviously. But upon the advice of some sensible and polite people on this site I have gone about to read through some of the writings of the ante-nicene fathers. Just to see what they have to say and whether it matches up with the bible.

Anyway, I have been reading the 1st epistle of Clement of Rome - to the Corinthians. This apparently was written around 96.. In the 13 chapter of his epistle, headed 'an appeal to renounce obstinacy and schism' he says;

"My brothers, do let us have a little humility, let us forget our self assertion and braggadocio and stupid quarrelling, and do what the Bible tells us instead. The Holy Spirit says, The wise man is not to brag of his wisdom, nor the strong man of his strength, nor the rich man of his wealth; if a man must boast, he should boast of the Lord, seeking Him out and acting with justice and uprightness".

This is definitely great advice for me. Very encouraging and uplifting. Humility is something I do struggle with and what I am engaging in here on this thread would be hard to argue that I'm not quarrelling..  'Oh wretched man that I am'.. I thank Him for saving me.

Now I understand that there are various canons of scripture compiled over the years from the early church. The canon we have now, perhaps not until the mid 300's? Please correct me if I'm wrong. However, I also understand that the books in the N.T would have been mostly completed in the 1st century, no later than 150. The books and letters that were written were also apparently in circulation at the time of Clement. It is apparent that he was using these himself - at least according to his writings.. Again, please correct me if I'm wrong.

The book I am reading is called 'early christian writings'. Published by penguin. Translated into English.

I bought it a while ago, but haven't read much of it. It was recommended to me by a relative of mine who is 'orthodox'.

Has what Clement said above been translated correctly? Does he not say let us turn to what the bible says? Or have I again misinterpreted something?

To answer this question (simply, I trust without going into the discussion at hand): The version of the ante-Nicene Fathers that I have is The Apostolic Fathers, edited by Jack N. Sparks. The Letter of Clement is translated by Holt H. Graham and Robert M. Grant.

The pertinent point from chapter 13 is "let us be humble and put away all pretension....and let us do what is written" (italics added). As you yourself pointed out, "bible" (sic) is not really accurate. There were many writings in circulation even in the first and second centuries. That's why it took the collective wisdom of the Church under the direction of the Holy Spirit to establish a canon of Scripture. Clement would likely have been familiar with the books that comprise the Septuagint as an Old Testament, and who can know which Apostolic and post-Apostolic writings. His equivalent of our New Testament was not likely the 27 books we list today.

None of us here will argue with the centrality and authority of the Holy Scriptures, but we Orthodox will understand them within the context of the entire Tradition that has been handed down, including the words of St Clement and others. I commend you for digging more deeply.

[Marc1152]

Covenant theology is classical reformed theology.. Straight out calvinism.

My posts explain how they have erred in their understanding of individual predestination. So no. This is not covenant theology. However, if you were being sarcastic you will already know this.

Now with regard to early church fathers. Lets have a look at Acts 20:29For I know this, that after my departing shall grievous wolves enter in among you, not sparing the flock.30Also of your own selves shall men arise, speaking perverse things, to draw away disciples after them.

I'm not suggesting that they are off the track. However, we were warned. The writings of the early church fathers are not in the canon of scripture. The information provided in my 'long post' and yes, I know its long, comes from the bible not the early church fathers. If this is not good enough for you then theres not alot more I can do.

We know the Holy Fathers spoke copiously from the Scriptures, so what makes your use of the Scriptures different from theirs?

I really don't want to open up a can of worms right here right now.. There is enough going on.. Perhaps I might start a new post.. but if you really respect the early church fathers and hold their teachings as infallible and authoritative just as I do the scriptures, then listen to what Melito - Bishop of Sardis had to say..

So... back to this post. What makes your interpretation of the Scriptures different from (i.e., better than) that of the early Church Fathers? You still haven't answered this question.

I haven't answered that question because it is not my aim to disprove anyones teachings. My aim is to show you how I understand the bible and then for you to prove me wrong using scripture if possible..

Sorry if I don't feel like playing that game. I just don't like it when someone comes to this forum thinking he can set the rules for debate. You say, "Prove me wrong." That comes across to me as displaying an attitude of, "I'm right until you can prove me wrong," which is, IMO, a rather arrogant thing to say and a violation of standard burden-of-proof rules. It's also a classic trait of Internet trolls. If you were to say something like, "This is what I believe. Please correct me if I'm wrong," then I think we would be much more responsive to you, since you would be showing an attitude of humility and a willingness to be corrected.

Also, when others do offer evidence that counters your opinion, you would do well to actually engage the rebuttal by articulating a defense against it. I really haven't seen you do that. All I've seen you do is use various dodgeball tactics to brush aside others' genuine attempts to prove you wrong, and then continue pondefecating. That kind of unwillingness to engage us makes it difficult for us to even want to discuss our point of view with you. Forgive my crass way of saying it, but it's like casting pearls before swine only to then watch the swine trample the pearls under their feet.

I apologise. I didn't mean to come onto this forum and set any rules.. if I did, I truly apologise.. If my attitude comes across as 'I'm right until you prove me wrong', again, I apologise.. However, I was not attempting to prove I am right, I should not have used the words 'prove me wrong'.. But like I said, (using the wrong word), I am trying to share my simple understanding of the scripture - and if it be possible, to be corrected. If anything, I am trying to prove that the bible is right my friend.. Not me.

If my 'teachings' are different to (or better than, as you think I think) that of the O.C or the early fathers, would it not be possible to reference some of them so I can see who you are referring to and how my understanding differs from theirs?

I might be one you like to refer to as an 'internet troll' or 'swine'. Call me what you like. Think of me what you like. Ridicule and persecution would be more an accurate description of what I have experienced on this site. I Praise the Lord for that.. If there is just 1 person reading this thread and comes to the knowledge of Truth in Jesus Christ then it has been worthwhile. But you have made your opposition to the Truth clear, and again I reference scripture:

1 Corinthians 14:37If any man think himself to be a prophet, or spiritual, let him acknowledge that the things that I write unto you are the commandments of the Lord.38But if any man be ignorant, let him be ignorant.

A persecution complex is also not a good way to engender good will toward you on this site. No one is persecuting you here, so you can give up that canard right now.

A persecution complex.. I love it! I suppose I'm interpreting all the name calling and belittling the wrong way...

You guys are great!

We love the heretic but reject the heresy.

What other way could there possibly be ?

[primuspilus]

A persecution complex.. I love it! I suppose I'm interpreting all the name calling and belittling the wrong way...

You guys are great!

A spade is a spade. Hop off the cross. We dont mean you're evil, just incorrect.

PP

[FatherGiryus]

What do you mean by 'work?'  The Scriptures and Tradition have always held both these concepts.  What exactly is confusing you?

Now, just a humble question.. Is there any way of making the above writings work with the below? I might be missing something.

[PeterTheAleut]

We love the heretic but reject the heresy.

What other way could there possibly be ?

A spade is a spade. Hop off the cross. We dont mean you're evil, just incorrect.

PP

Y'all can get off his back now. I think he got the message.

[primuspilus]

We love the heretic but reject the heresy.

What other way could there possibly be ?

A spade is a spade. Hop off the cross. We dont mean you're evil, just incorrect.

PP

Y'all can get off his back now. I think he got the message.

Yessir

[Riddikulus]

Covenant theology is classical reformed theology.. Straight out calvinism.

My posts explain how they have erred in their understanding of individual predestination. So no. This is not covenant theology. However, if you were being sarcastic you will already know this.

Now with regard to early church fathers. Lets have a look at Acts 20:29For I know this, that after my departing shall grievous wolves enter in among you, not sparing the flock.30Also of your own selves shall men arise, speaking perverse things, to draw away disciples after them.

I'm not suggesting that they are off the track. However, we were warned. The writings of the early church fathers are not in the canon of scripture. The information provided in my 'long post' and yes, I know its long, comes from the bible not the early church fathers. If this is not good enough for you then theres not alot more I can do.

We know the Holy Fathers spoke copiously from the Scriptures, so what makes your use of the Scriptures different from theirs?

I really don't want to open up a can of worms right here right now.. There is enough going on.. Perhaps I might start a new post.. but if you really respect the early church fathers and hold their teachings as infallible and authoritative just as I do the scriptures, then listen to what Melito - Bishop of Sardis had to say..

So... back to this post. What makes your interpretation of the Scriptures different from (i.e., better than) that of the early Church Fathers? You still haven't answered this question.

I haven't answered that question because it is not my aim to disprove anyones teachings. My aim is to show you how I understand the bible and then for you to prove me wrong using scripture if possible..

But how are you going to prove that you understand the bible better than those who spoke and thought in the language of the NT writings and the Septuagint? I'm assuming that you aren't a Koine speaker so you are working with a translation. From past experience, I have seen many so-called biblical experts do this and come up with some doozies; "teachings" that would have had early Christians tearing out their hair. Even if these so-called experts "understand Greek", as I have heard so many claim, they still manage to understand Greek in a way that is slanted to suit their own preconceptions.

I believe it's no coincidence that early heresies were weeded out by those who understood the language of the text, and that under the guidance of the Holy Spirit an accepted canon was formed, teachings regulated.* That we see a resurgence of heretical, or just plain silly opinions, particularly in groups and individuals that could not even be considered mainstream Protestant, is no surprise when they refuse to have any contact with any Christian ancestral roots. Because it is somehow beneath them to consider that someone else knows better than they do, they struggle to recreate a "Christianity" that no ancient believer would have possibly recognised as anything but gnostic mumbo-jumbo; something that fits their thinking instead of recreating their thinking to fit historical Christianity.

Using Dispensationalism as an example. Some English man sees something in his English translation that the Church has never considered doctrine. It's picked up and carried on in ignorance of that fact and made more important that the doctrines that have come down to us from the very beginning. It's no wonder that a group like the JWs appears out of the Sola Scriptura swamp, completely denying the doctrine of the Trinity because they "don't see the word "Trinity" in their bibles".  

Honestly, I have no axe to grind with you, but I do consider your opinions to be typical of a person who believes that the Holy Spirit is guiding you and you alone to understand the Scripture that was given to you by God, through the Church in the first place. (Yes, men - God works with men - what a shock!)

As Orthodox believers we have the Church for scriptual guidance, that's why we are completely confident that 2Timothy 2:15 belongs in the bible. What you say doesn't gel with what the Church teaches us. So, sorry to say you really are just wasting your time here if your purpose is to convince any Orthodox believer to accept your individual word over that of the historic Church which gives us Scripture and interprets it for us, through the guidance of the Holy Spirit.

*I can think of no better word than regulated. Perhaps someone can suggest something better?

Sorry, I did forget to respond to this also. I definitely, and without doubt, understand your point. Truly.

This may well be the case. And it makes perfect sense to want to stick with something that seems to have continued on throughout the centuries until now. Unbroken. Ancestral roots. Yes.. I'm not against the idea at all - even though it may appear that way.

I suppose, I have to look at it from 3 points of view. Unfortunately, nobody can deny that there are 3 main avenues of belief in Christianity. Of course, we all agree that there is only 1 way and 1 truth though. Not 3. These are Catholicism, Orthodoxy and Protestantism.

Catholics claim to be the true church, orthodox and protestants disagree. Orthodox claim to be the true church, catholics and protestants disagree and obviously, the same applies with protestants. So what does a truth seeker do? Just stick with how he was raised? Or does he investigate? If one is to investigate what do we do? Well I suppose we all have our ways of doing that. Some don't want to seek the truth. Often, the truth is hard to accept, but no amount of denying it will change it..

Well, I suppose this is where the language issue came into play for me; along with the history of the Church and the schisms. When I look back, I was on the cusp of converting to Catholicism, but still reading and searching at the time.

Look, I don't want to offend anyone on the forum, but from what I came to understand is that the Western Church, while still a beloved sister of the universal Church, lost contact with the Greek speaking East, for various reasons; barbarians, mainly! This made contact with the East more and more difficult, Greek, which had always been so important to the educated Roman, was increasingly lost to a society that was now ruled by Germanic barbarians; Christians, yes, but not as Phillhellenic as the Greek-admiring Romans. In the chaos that ensued, the Church was affected.

It is my belief and the belief of others that once this connection with the Greek speaking East was lost they were open to the same misunderstandings as any Sola Scriptura advocate today. Communications must have been affected, so that there was not as much opportunity for the Greek speaking Fathers to say "Hang about, that's never been understood that way!" Without this free contact with the other Patriarchs Medieval Catholicism, it seems to the Orthodox, went on a tangent of its own. It took years to lead to a complete break, but we claim (and ok, that's our claim) the Catholics drifted... on a raft, so to speak... cut off from the Universal Church and becoming more and more autonomous due to Germanic influences.

Regulation, as you put it, certainly can keep things uniform. I agree here. But were there are regs, there are always reg breakers. Someone erred along the way, someone broke the rules, hence the schism. Catholics would say you strayed, you would say they strayed. Both have their arguments, but the fact remains. Somebody erred..Then of course came the reformation. Which caused 'protestantism'. Sola fide and sola scriptura.. And from there developed some 33000 denominations alot of those, actually,most of those stemming from a misuse of the bible. (I'm not saying I am perfect, or better at understanding than anyone else btw.)

Well, think about it. With the printing press, came the individual's access to translations in their own tongue. And there, you have a recipe for the Reformation. An oversimplified explanation, I know, but...

Now, you said JW's came out of the sola scriptura swamp.. Well yes.. They did. Or at least, thats what they have us believe. But has it not been stomped on? Their bibles, (I can't recall the translation) have been totally mistranslated, blatantly, and virtually re-written by their founder no less. But did the same thing not happen in the early churches? Marcion for example? Did he come out of the sola scriptura swamp? No. But just as Marcions heresies were stomped on, likewise, the JW's teachings have been 'stomped on'. People still believe them, but people believe in buddha too. There are even people who follow Marcions ideas. There was another man, it was basically pentecostalism as it is today but back then. That got stomped on. But its come back.

But Marcian could be stomped out with everyone having a common language; a common Church. JWs persist in their mistranslations, partly due to ignorance, partly due to arrogance. They refuse to consider themselves bound to look to their ancestors with any need to listen to what they were saying. Like so many of that strain that has come out of the Baptist branch over the last couple of centuries, they would prefer to distort the words of their ancestors and make them liars for their own ends, recreating a Greek unrecognisable to anyone to make their translation "divinely inspired". They have *discovered* that the "pagan ancients", who were only pseudoChristians in corrupt system, were too spiritually blind to realise. This alone, should give one pause before accepting any set of doctrines that are a muddled rehash of what was settled by the Ancient Church.

Now, is it really wrong of me, or any of us, to want to check the teachings of anyone against the bible? Even if it is from the earliest of the earliest christians? Can what they say not be compared to the bible?

How can you do that without a paradigm that sees scripture through their eyes? At best, you can only hope that the guidance you receive is the Holy Spirit and not something more sinister keeping you away from the source of truth.

In my own experience, reading the bible is not like reading any other book. Its as though the pages are literally alive. Every time I read it I learn more. Things I didn't understand yesterday are understood tomorrow, and more light is revealed. I believe that is the Spirit of God, who works in us through His Word. There are also spiritual gifts that God has given to His people, apostles, evangelists, pastors, teachers and prophets. Just because somebody calls themselves a prophet, or an evangelist, means nothing.. I need to hear what they are teaching, and compare it to the bible. Then we can know whether they are put there by God or not.

Reading the bible is no different to reading any other book, if you come to it in translation (not guaranteed to be inspired, for a start), and with preconceptions. Any two people reading a modern book will pick up particular themes that interests them. We each take away from reading what we what to see. The bible is not so different. It's a book. Without context and correct understanding it can be a weapon. I remember in my lost years a lot of contact with my family's church. The whole denomination was Pauline epistle mad. Christ almost faded into the background in favour of preaching Paul and usually in the most moralistic manner that I find completely missing in the NT. So people, do see different things.

I hope that this makes sense to you. Here in Australia it is just around 7:30am and the heat is already broken through the "I British, I know, but I simply can't bear this heat" barrier. And if I've really made a hash of this, you could add cognitive decline to the heat factor!  

[Shiny]

Covenant theology is classical reformed theology.. Straight out calvinism.

My posts explain how they have erred in their understanding of individual predestination. So no. This is not covenant theology. However, if you were being sarcastic you will already know this.

Now with regard to early church fathers. Lets have a look at Acts 20:29For I know this, that after my departing shall grievous wolves enter in among you, not sparing the flock.30Also of your own selves shall men arise, speaking perverse things, to draw away disciples after them.

I'm not suggesting that they are off the track. However, we were warned. The writings of the early church fathers are not in the canon of scripture. The information provided in my 'long post' and yes, I know its long, comes from the bible not the early church fathers. If this is not good enough for you then theres not alot more I can do.

We know the Holy Fathers spoke copiously from the Scriptures, so what makes your use of the Scriptures different from theirs?

I really don't want to open up a can of worms right here right now.. There is enough going on.. Perhaps I might start a new post.. but if you really respect the early church fathers and hold their teachings as infallible and authoritative just as I do the scriptures, then listen to what Melito - Bishop of Sardis had to say..

So... back to this post. What makes your interpretation of the Scriptures different from (i.e., better than) that of the early Church Fathers? You still haven't answered this question.

I haven't answered that question because it is not my aim to disprove anyones teachings. My aim is to show you how I understand the bible and then for you to prove me wrong using scripture if possible..

Sorry if I don't feel like playing that game. I just don't like it when someone comes to this forum thinking he can set the rules for debate. You say, "Prove me wrong." That comes across to me as displaying an attitude of, "I'm right until you can prove me wrong," which is, IMO, a rather arrogant thing to say and a violation of standard burden-of-proof rules. It's also a classic trait of Internet trolls. If you were to say something like, "This is what I believe. Please correct me if I'm wrong," then I think we would be much more responsive to you, since you would be showing an attitude of humility and a willingness to be corrected.

Also, when others do offer evidence that counters your opinion, you would do well to actually engage the rebuttal by articulating a defense against it. I really haven't seen you do that. All I've seen you do is use various dodgeball tactics to brush aside others' genuine attempts to prove you wrong, and then continue pondefecating. That kind of unwillingness to engage us makes it difficult for us to even want to discuss our point of view with you. Forgive my crass way of saying it, but it's like casting pearls before swine only to then watch the swine trample the pearls under their feet.

I apologise. I didn't mean to come onto this forum and set any rules.. if I did, I truly apologise.. If my attitude comes across as 'I'm right until you prove me wrong', again, I apologise.. However, I was not attempting to prove I am right, I should not have used the words 'prove me wrong'.. But like I said, (using the wrong word), I am trying to share my simple understanding of the scripture - and if it be possible, to be corrected. If anything, I am trying to prove that the bible is right my friend.. Not me.

If my 'teachings' are different to (or better than, as you think I think) that of the O.C or the early fathers, would it not be possible to reference some of them so I can see who you are referring to and how my understanding differs from theirs?

I might be one you like to refer to as an 'internet troll' or 'swine'. Call me what you like. Think of me what you like. Ridicule and persecution would be more an accurate description of what I have experienced on this site. I Praise the Lord for that.. If there is just 1 person reading this thread and comes to the knowledge of Truth in Jesus Christ then it has been worthwhile. But you have made your opposition to the Truth clear, and again I reference scripture:

1 Corinthians 14:37If any man think himself to be a prophet, or spiritual, let him acknowledge that the things that I write unto you are the commandments of the Lord.38But if any man be ignorant, let him be ignorant.

A persecution complex is also not a good way to engender good will toward you on this site. No one is persecuting you here, so you can give up that canard right now.

A persecution complex.. I love it! I suppose I'm interpreting all the name calling and belittling the wrong way...

You guys are great!

He who is without sin among you, let him be the first to throw a stone at her

[Marc1152]

first off that has nothing to do with the invisible church, Secondly no one has neglected the fact that Theosis is a personal struggle, however as a community we celebrate the sacraments, Not to mention you cannot progress through much of Theosis without community. ALSO If you paid a little bit of attention you would notice they are called monastic communities. One monk is anothers neighbor...

It has everything to do with the church - and whether it is visible or invisible. Salvation is personal. No one attains salvation by being a part of a certain or particular 'group'. Many would have us all believe this but it is not so. Salvation is personal. We then commune with other believers all of the time.. Anywhere and everywhere.. Members of the Body of Christ. 24 hr/day, 7 day a week church.

Pardon my lack of attention. Monks, monastics, however you would like to refer to them.. I'm not particularly familiar with them. They are people just like me and you. They choose to do whatever they like to do.

And Peter, do you defend yourself with the 'why just focus on this verse' routine? Ofcourse it is not the only verse that talks of Salvation. The church is the issue in this thread is it not? I used this verse to question a post written to suggest we need to work out our salvation in community - and I used it to compare what this person said and what the Word of God says about it..

In my first post did I not quote 1 Corinthians 3:16? “Know ye not that ye are the temple of God, and that the Spirit of God dwelleth in you?”

And

1 Corinthians 6:19What? know ye not that your body is the temple of the Holy Ghost which is in you, which ye have of God, and ye are not your own?
20For ye are bought with a price: therefore glorify God in your body, and in your spirit, which are God's.

Can we focus on these verses also? Or do they also have nothing to do with the Church?



Fixed quote tags  -PtA

It has everything to do with the church - and whether it is visible or invisible. Salvation is personal. No one attains salvation by being a part of a certain or particular 'group'. Many would have us all believe this but it is not so. Salvation is personal. We then commune with other believers all of the time.. Anywhere and everywhere.. Members of the Body of Christ. 24 hr/day, 7 day a week church.


A couple of years ago I had a co-worker  make a comment to me along the lines of the Church is everywhere 24/7.

I was leaving to go to a weekday liturgy. She said something like: "My Church is everywhere. This office is a Church to me"

I stopped and decided to pick up the glove. I said "Hmmmm...I don't see an alter here. Where's do you put the confessional? Where is the choir? Is there a Priest that will drop by later?"

She snarled, I snarled.. So much for ecumenical dialogue.

The base assumption running through all of this is that we are Spirits trapped in a mundane physical body. We do not as Orthodox see the physical World as essentially evil. We see it as fallen, which is very different.

 That line of march has not played out very well for those groups who take it to it's logical conclusion, gnostics and others like Christian Science folks.  Buyer beware

[HandmaidenofGod]

A couple of years ago I had a co-worker  make a comment to me along the lines of the Church is everywhere 24/7.

I was leaving to go to a weekday liturgy. She said something like: "My Church is everywhere. This office is a Church to me"

I stopped and decided to pick up the glove. I said "Hmmmm...I don't see an alter here. Where's do you put the confessional? Where is the choir? Is there a Priest that will drop by later?"

She snarled, I snarled.. So much for ecumenical dialogue.

The base assumption running through all of this is that we are Spirits trapped in a mundane physical body. We do not as Orthodox see the physical World as essentially evil. We see it as fallen, which is very different.

 That line of march has not played out very well for those groups who take it to it's logical conclusion, gnostics and others like Christian Science folks.  Buyer beware

I've heard other say something similar, "I don't need to go to Church, I can talk to God wherever I want." My stepfather always says he doesn't need to go to Church, all he needs to do is take a walk in the woods to talk to God.

It's true, we don't need to go to a physical Church to talk to pray, we can pray anywhere, anytime. St. Paul tells us to pray without ceasing.

Some ascetics have actually mastered that, amazingly enough.

But we don't go to Church just to pray, although that it is part of it. We go for fellowship with other Christians, education through the reading of scripture and the homily, and of course the Eucharist, something we can't partake of by ourselves.

There is also something particularly uplifting about corporate worship that we just don't get when we are home alone in our prayer corner. My sister says that when she goes to Church on Sunday morning, it's like someone hits the "reset" button in her, and she can begin the week anew.

Also, as humans, we designate activities to certain places. After all, we can exercise at home or in the woods, but how many of us have gym memberships? (And how many of us don't use them! lol)

Sure, my stepfather could go in the woods to talk to God. But in the 9 years I've known him, I've never seen him go out for a hike once.

[ByGracethroughFaith]

It is better to give alms than to lay up gold: for alms delivers from death, and shall purge away all sin. (Tobit 12:8-9; see also Tobit 4:8-10)

Now, just a humble question.. Is there any way of making the above writings work with the below? I might be missing something.

And though I bestow all my goods to feed the poor, and though I give my body to be burned, but have not love, it profits me nothing. (1 Corinthians 13:3)

Doing something you know to be good, and doing it out of love are not in mutual exclusion to each other, especially when the definition of "love" is an act of self sacrifice for the benefit of someone else, and love covers the mutlitude of sins.

Just a thought.

Melodist.. Thanks for the thought. I'll share my thoughts and then ask you a question.

When I see this verse, it clearly says that it IS possible to

1.bestow all my goods to feed the poor yet have not love
2. give my body to be burned yet have not love

If I do the above things (or really an good work I imagine?) without love, it profits me nothing.

Can you see why I find it difficult to see what you're saying? Your'e saying they are not mutually exclusive, yet the scripture says they are..

[Melodist]

Doing something you know to be good, and doing it out of love are not in mutual exclusion to each other, especially when the definition of "love" is an act of self sacrifice for the benefit of someone else, and love covers the mutlitude of sins.

Just a thought.

Melodist.. Thanks for the thought. I'll share my thoughts and then ask you a question.

When I see this verse, it clearly says that it IS possible to

1.bestow all my goods to feed the poor yet have not love
2. give my body to be burned yet have not love

If I do the above things (or really an good work I imagine?) without love, it profits me nothing.

Can you see why I find it difficult to see what you're saying? Your'e saying they are not mutually exclusive, yet the scripture says they are..

Scripture doesn't say that they are mutually exclusive, only that it is possible to have one without the other. Christ said that someone can have no greater love than to lay down their life for someone, yet if this action is done without love, then it profits nothing. Not all giving is done out of love. It can be done for pride and recognition, it can be done expecting something in return, it can be done for any number of reasons. Christian charity is done out of love (they are actually the same word biblically speaking) as a reflection of the love that God has shown us. It is in being conformed to Christ by acting out of love for the benefit of others that our acts of charity bring us any profit at all. And biblically speaking, love isn't something that you feel, but something that you do. Also the sheep on Christ's right hand were given glory for the acts of charity that they had done where the goats on the left received condemnation for their failure to to do such things when given the opportunity.

Or as you said..

If I do the above things (or really an good work I imagine?) without love, it profits me nothing.

They must be done without love in order to profit nothing. That means that with love, they are profitable. The same passage you cite says that faith that can move mountains profits nothing without love, does this mean that faith and love are mutually exclusive to each other?

[ByGracethroughFaith]

When trying to understand the eucharist - as it is called in the orthodox and catholic churches, we need to continue reading past verse 58 to see what is really meant here.. There appears to be a gross misunderstanding on the disciples behalf resulting in them 'walking no longer with Him'.(v66.)

I think the confusion began right here and is written in John 6.

John 6:59These things said he in the synagogue, as he taught in Capernaum.60Many therefore of his disciples, when they had heard this, said, This is an hard saying; who can hear it?61When Jesus knew in himself that his disciples murmured at it, he said unto them, Doth this offend you?62What and if ye shall see the Son of man ascend up where he was before?63It is the spirit that quickeneth; the flesh profiteth nothing: the words that I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are life.64But there are some of you that believe not. For Jesus knew from the beginning who they were that believed not, and who should betray him.65And he said, Therefore said I unto you, that no man can come unto me, except it were given unto him of my Father.66From that time many of his disciples went back, and walked no more with him.67Then said Jesus unto the twelve, Will ye also go away?68Then Simon Peter answered him, Lord, to whom shall we go? thou hast the words of eternal life.

Now the Bible tells us that His Words are what we live on. Matthew 4:4 - But he(Jesus)answered and said, It is written, Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceeds out of the mouth of God.

Unfortunately, it has been misunderstood from the time of John 6. But these verses say that someone who does not truly BELIEVE Christ, can not understand spiritual things.

"For Jesus knew from the beginning who they were that believed not, and who should betray him.. " Disciples - betrayed Jesus. Disciples, misunderstood Jesus. That may sound disrespectful to some, but I mean no disrespect. I'm just trying to state the facts.

[LBK]

Now the Bible tells us that His Words are what we live on.

The Bible, indeed Christ Himself, also says: Unless you eat My body and drink My blood, you have no life in you. Try again, BGTF.

[FountainPen]

When trying to understand the eucharist - as it is called in the orthodox and catholic churches, we need to continue reading past verse 58 to see what is really meant here.. There appears to be a gross misunderstanding on the disciples behalf resulting in them 'walking no longer with Him'.(v66.)

I think the confusion began right here and is written in John 6.

John 6:59These things said he in the synagogue, as he taught in Capernaum.60Many therefore of his disciples, when they had heard this, said, This is an hard saying; who can hear it?61When Jesus knew in himself that his disciples murmured at it, he said unto them, Doth this offend you?62What and if ye shall see the Son of man ascend up where he was before?63It is the spirit that quickeneth; the flesh profiteth nothing: the words that I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are life.64But there are some of you that believe not. For Jesus knew from the beginning who they were that believed not, and who should betray him.65And he said, Therefore said I unto you, that no man can come unto me, except it were given unto him of my Father.66From that time many of his disciples went back, and walked no more with him.67Then said Jesus unto the twelve, Will ye also go away?68Then Simon Peter answered him, Lord, to whom shall we go? thou hast the words of eternal life.

Now the Bible tells us that His Words are what we live on. Matthew 4:4 - But he(Jesus)answered and said, It is written, Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceeds out of the mouth of God.

Unfortunately, it has been misunderstood from the time of John 6. But these verses say that someone who does not truly BELIEVE Christ, can not understand spiritual things.

"For Jesus knew from the beginning who they were that believed not, and who should betray him.. " Disciples - betrayed Jesus. Disciples, misunderstood Jesus. That may sound disrespectful to some, but I mean no disrespect. I'm just trying to state the facts.

I agree with you about the Orthodox/Catholic misunderstanding of the verses and i would add that though scripture says that we live on every word, it doesn't say that's all that sustains us.

However, if we agree that they have misunderstood the bread and the wine, surely in the many years before the reformation, we would have to agree then that the gates of hell did prevail against the church and suffered the entire church to believe 'another gospel'? That's the claim of Orthodoxy anyway.

My guess is that because the verses in Matthew 16 are misunderstood, about Peter and the "rock" that the church is being built upon (revelation) then that answers the above quandry for me anyway.

Christ is building His church on the revelation of who He is, something that flesh and blood cannot reveal to people, that's what the gates of hell cannot prevail against.

[ByGracethroughFaith]

Now the Bible tells us that His Words are what we live on.

The Bible, indeed Christ Himself, also says: Unless you eat My body and drink My blood, you have no life in you. Try again, BGTF.

"the words I have spoken to you are spirit" (6:63). As with each of the seven miracles in John’s Gospel, Jesus uses the miracle to convey a spiritual truth. Here in John 6 Jesus has just multiplied the loaves and fish and uses an analogy to teach the necessity of spiritual nourishment. This is consistent with His teaching on how we are to worship God. "God is Spirit and His worshippers must worship in spirit and in truth" (John 4:24).

As we worship Christ He is present spiritually, not physically. In fact, Jesus can only be bodily present at one place at one time. His omnipresence refers only to His spirit. It is impossible for Christ to be bodily present in thousands of Catholic and orthodox Churches around the world. When Jesus is received spiritually, one time in the heart, there is no need to receive him physically, over and over again in the stomach.

Jesus began the discourse by saying whoever comes to Him and believes in Him will not hunger or thirst. Thus the eating and drinking are symbolic of coming to Him in faith.

Then Jesus declared, "I am the bread of life. He who comes to me will never go hungry, and he who believes in me will never be thirsty.

There is another serious problem for those who fail to recognise Jesus analogy. They must realize that after they have consumed the physical body of Christ, it then decomposes during the digestive cycle. This goes against God’s promise to never let His Holy Son see decay (Acts 2:27).

It is clear from the Scriptures that the words referring to the eating and drinking of the body and blood of Jesus are to be understood in a spiritual, not physical sense. Worshipping a wafer carries the same consequence for Catholics and Orthodox as worshipping a golden calf did for the Israelites.

[ByGracethroughFaith]

It is not enough for us to to know about Jesus. We'd better make sure that he knows US. In Matthew chapter seven we see a group of hellbound religious people who want to get into the kingdom, but Jesus told them, "I never KNEW you." We must know the Lord ACCORDING TO HIS WORD, not according to our leaders.

Isaiah 9:16 For the leaders of this people cause them to err; and they that are led of them are destroyed.
Matthew 15:14 Let them alone: they be blind leaders of the blind. And if the blind lead the blind, both shall fall into the ditch.

[ByGracethroughFaith]

Jesus' flesh is food because his flesh was crucified on the cross to pay for our death penalty of hell and the lake of fire--this is eternal death. If we repent and believe in the death, burial, and resurrection of Jesus Christ and obey him according to his word, we will not experience spiritual death. We will go to heaven--this is eternal life. Believing/internalizing/eating this fact gives us eternal life. We need physical bread to stay alive, we need belief in Him and his sacrifice (spiritual bread) so that we can live forever.

What about the blood? Jesus' blood is lifesaving drink indeed because without the shedding of blood, there is no remission (forgiveness) of sins. We need blood, the blood of Jesus alone. The blood forgives our sins and washes them away forever so that we can live with a holy and just God who NEVER sins and will not live with sin. Hebrews 9:22 says that blood is required in order to get forgiveness of sins/remission,

"And almost all things are by the law purged with blood; and without shedding of blood is no remission."

Once again, if we accept Jesus, internalize him, we eat him, we have ETERNAL LIFE. The people were talking about physical life, Jesus was talking about SPIRITUAL life. Look back at the passage--when asked what we have to do to do the works of God, Jesus said,

"He that BELIEVETH on me hath everlasting LIFE."
When we believe on Jesus Christ, he actually lives inside of us, never to be purged like physical bread.

Because I believe, Jesus lives in me.

[ByGracethroughFaith]

 "How can this man give us his flesh to eat?" They are still thinking about physical life and physical bread. Jesus is talking about spiritual life and spiritual bread. He has told them over and over that the work of God is to believe on him and they repeatedly refuse to believe on him and persist in seeking physical bread.

In v. 55, Jesus said, "My flesh is meat indeed, and my blood is drink indeed." Many people were offended at the thought of what they perceived as cannibalism. Because of their unbelief, they were still thinking in the physical realm.

What about the disciples that left him? Was it because they had to literally eat his flesh and drink his blood? No! They left because just like the others they did not believe in the Lord. Because they did not believe, they could not understand what Jesus was saying (see I Cor 2:14).

[ByGracethroughFaith]

In verse 63, Jesus asked the disciples that murmured, "Doth this offend you? It is the SPIRIT that quickeneth (gives life); THE FLESH PROFITETH NOTHING: the words that I speak unto you, THEY ARE SPIRIT, and they are life." He told them plainly that he was not talking literally. He said, "...the words that I speak unto you, THEY ARE SPIRIT." He also told them here that the physical flesh profits NOTHING! The heretical doctrine of transubstantiation and the eucharist is a direct contradiction to the word of God for it says that this supposedly transubstantiated bread does profit.

This is a Roman Catholic institution, Orthodox practice it also, but when the catholics teach the eucharist they purposely leave out verses 63-64 when claiming that John 6 is about the eucharist. The word, "eucharist" is not even in the Bible. There is no concept of the eucharist in Bible--but there is in pagan religion.

Straight exposition from the Bible. We are talking about the difference between life and death here. It would behoove any Catholic or Orthodox to check this out and decide if they want to continue trusting the eucharist for their eternal life instead of trusting the real Jesus who loves them and died for them.

[PeterTheAleut]

In verse 63, Jesus asked the disciples that murmured, "Doth this offend you? It is the SPIRIT that quickeneth (gives life); THE FLESH PROFITETH NOTHING: the words that I speak unto you, THEY ARE SPIRIT, and they are life." He told them plainly that he was not talking literally. He said, "...the words that I speak unto you, THEY ARE SPIRIT." He also told them here that the physical flesh profits NOTHING! The heretical doctrine of transubstantiation and the eucharist is a direct contradiction to the word of God for it says that this supposedly transubstantiated bread does profit.

This is a Roman Catholic institution, Orthodox practice it also, but when the catholics teach the eucharist they purposely leave out verses 63-64 when claiming that John 6 is about the eucharist. The word, "eucharist" is not even in the Bible. There is no concept of the eucharist in Bible--but there is in pagan religion.

Oh, but this is where you're wrong. Eucharist is essentially Greek for "giving thanks", and the giving of thanks is one of the main themes seen on almost every page of the New Testament.

[PeterTheAleut]

It is better to give alms than to lay up gold: for alms delivers from death, and shall purge away all sin. (Tobit 12:8-9; see also Tobit 4:8-10)

Now, just a humble question.. Is there any way of making the above writings work with the below? I might be missing something.

And though I bestow all my goods to feed the poor, and though I give my body to be burned, but have not love, it profits me nothing. (1 Corinthians 13:3)

Doing something you know to be good, and doing it out of love are not in mutual exclusion to each other, especially when the definition of "love" is an act of self sacrifice for the benefit of someone else, and love covers the mutlitude of sins.

Just a thought.

Melodist.. Thanks for the thought. I'll share my thoughts and then ask you a question.

When I see this verse, it clearly says that it IS possible to

1.bestow all my goods to feed the poor yet have not love
2. give my body to be burned yet have not love

If I do the above things (or really an good work I imagine?) without love, it profits me nothing.

Can you see why I find it difficult to see what you're saying? Your'e saying they are not mutually exclusive, yet the scripture says they are..

How do the verses you point out logically call love and the performing of works of mercy mutually exclusive? To prove mutual exclusivity by definition, you must prove that one who performs works of mercy has no love, and that one who has love does not perform works of mercy. If it's possible to perform works of mercy AND have love, then your logic is refuted. It seems to me you're creating a false dichotomy where there really is none.

[FountainPen]

There is another serious problem for those who fail to recognise Jesus analogy. They must realize that after they have consumed the physical body of Christ, it then decomposes during the digestive cycle. This goes against God’s promise to never let His Holy Son see decay (Acts 2:27).

In verse 63, Jesus asked the disciples that murmured, "Doth this offend you? It is the SPIRIT that quickeneth (gives life); THE FLESH PROFITETH NOTHING: the words that I speak unto you, THEY ARE SPIRIT, and they are life." He told them plainly that he was not talking literally. He said, "...the words that I speak unto you, THEY ARE SPIRIT." He also told them here that the physical flesh profits NOTHING! The heretical doctrine of transubstantiation and the eucharist is a direct contradiction to the word of God for it says that this supposedly transubstantiated bread does profit.

I've never seen an adequate response to these points at all BGTF.

[PeterTheAleut]

In verse 63, Jesus asked the disciples that murmured, "Doth this offend you? It is the SPIRIT that quickeneth (gives life); THE FLESH PROFITETH NOTHING: the words that I speak unto you, THEY ARE SPIRIT, and they are life." He told them plainly that he was not talking literally. He said, "...the words that I speak unto you, THEY ARE SPIRIT." He also told them here that the physical flesh profits NOTHING! The heretical doctrine of transubstantiation and the eucharist is a direct contradiction to the word of God for it says that this supposedly transubstantiated bread does profit.

It's a contradiction to the Scriptures to say the Eucharist profits us ONLY if the consecrated bread and wine are actually NOT the Body and Blood of Christ, but I see no reason in the Scriptures to believe that this is necessarily true. Now, can you tell us why we should trust your interpretation of the Scriptures and not that which has been handed on to us from the ancient Church? What you're preaching is certainly NOT from the Scriptures alone.

We had very similar arguments with a guy named Alfred Persson, hence the reason why some have taken to calling you that name. You might do well to read the arguments we posted against his twisting of Scripture, how he responded, and what ultimately happened to him. I think you may learn a lot that will profit you.

[FormerReformer]

As we worship Christ He is present spiritually, not physically. In fact, Jesus can only be bodily present at one place at one time. His omnipresence refers only to His spirit. It is impossible for Christ to be bodily present in thousands of Catholic and orthodox Churches around the world. When Jesus is received spiritually, one time in the heart, there is no need to receive him physically, over and over again in the stomach.

Scriptural reference for "receiving Jesus spiritually, one time in the heart", please?

There is another serious problem for those who fail to recognise Jesus analogy. They must realize that after they have consumed the physical body of Christ, it then decomposes during the digestive cycle. This goes against God’s promise to never let His Holy Son see decay (Acts 2:27).

We have to realize that? It seems to me there's only one person here who is thinking physically and not spiritually- the Orthodox position is that when we eat Him it is He who does the consuming. This spiritual food is not digested then eliminated, it spreads to every part of our bodies and souls, quickening eternal life and drawing us closer to Him and each other.

This is a Roman Catholic institution, Orthodox practice it also, but when the catholics teach the eucharist they purposely leave out verses 63-64 when claiming that John 6 is about the eucharist. The word, "eucharist" is not even in the Bible. There is no concept of the eucharist in Bible--but there is in pagan religion.

Oh, but this is where you're wrong. Eucharist is essentially Greek for "giving thanks", and the giving of thanks is one of the main themes seen on almost every page of the New Testament.

Starting with Mark 14:23 "καὶ λαβὼν ποτήριον εὐχαριστήσας ἔδωκεν αὐτοῖς, καὶ ἔπιον ἐξ αὐτοῦ πάντες". "And he took the cup, and when he had given thanks, he gave it to them: and they all drank of it." So, not only is BGTF wrong about the concept of the Eucharist, he's also wrong about the word Eucharist.

In verse 63, Jesus asked the disciples that murmured, "Doth this offend you? It is the SPIRIT that quickeneth (gives life); THE FLESH PROFITETH NOTHING: the words that I speak unto you, THEY ARE SPIRIT, and they are life." He told them plainly that he was not talking literally. He said, "...the words that I speak unto you, THEY ARE SPIRIT." He also told them here that the physical flesh profits NOTHING! The heretical doctrine of transubstantiation and the eucharist is a direct contradiction to the word of God for it says that this supposedly transubstantiated bread does profit.

Let's see... "the words I speak... are Spirit" does not equal "This is my Body, but only if interpreted metaphorically and in no sense whatsoever a real way". Indeed, by denying that Christ's words at the Institution aren't meant to be taken literally you are not placing the Spiritual above the physical, you are saying that which is Spiritual is only metaphorical, that is to say, that the Spirit is not real.

[FatherGiryus]

Where did you get your physiological training?   

Seriously, digestion begins with absorption, not decay.  Defecation is made up of those things not absorbed.

However, I think the both of you are confusing the Orthodox position with the RCC.  He do not have 'transubstantiation.'  We have always maintained that it is a Mystery how the bread and wine can be Body and Blood, just as it is a Mystery how Baptism can effect such a change in us.

Now, as to you reference to John 6, the term 'flesh' (Greek sarx) is used to refer to Jesus' Body.  Is it without 'profit?'  If so, did He die in vain?  After all, He did die in the flesh, didn't He.  The Incarnation is important, isn't it?

I'm sorry, but you are missing the entire point of his words: in this paragraph, He was talking about the difference between the manna and His Body.  Manna was a physical (fleshly) food, whereas His Body is a spiritual food, but that does not make it non-material.  You are reading into His words a polarity that is not there.  Otherwise, He would not have needed to institute the Last Supper, correct?  We merely could read the Scriptures and they would suffice.

Instead, He institutes Baptism (with real water, not just words!), Chrismation (with real oil, not just words!), the Eucharist (with real bread and wine, not just words!)... do you see the pattern?

There is another serious problem for those who fail to recognise Jesus analogy. They must realize that after they have consumed the physical body of Christ, it then decomposes during the digestive cycle. This goes against God’s promise to never let His Holy Son see decay (Acts 2:27).

In verse 63, Jesus asked the disciples that murmured, "Doth this offend you? It is the SPIRIT that quickeneth (gives life); THE FLESH PROFITETH NOTHING: the words that I speak unto you, THEY ARE SPIRIT, and they are life." He told them plainly that he was not talking literally. He said, "...the words that I speak unto you, THEY ARE SPIRIT." He also told them here that the physical flesh profits NOTHING! The heretical doctrine of transubstantiation and the eucharist is a direct contradiction to the word of God for it says that this supposedly transubstantiated bread does profit.

I've never seen an adequate response to these points at all BGTF.

[FatherGiryus]

So, you are saying that the Church exists without people, as some kind of ideal?

<snip>
However, if we agree that they have misunderstood the bread and the wine, surely in the many years before the reformation, we would have to agree then that the gates of hell did prevail against the church and suffered the entire church to believe 'another gospel'? That's the claim of Orthodoxy anyway.

My guess is that because the verses in Matthew 16 are misunderstood, about Peter and the "rock" that the church is being built upon (revelation) then that answers the above quandry for me anyway.

Christ is building His church on the revelation of who He is, something that flesh and blood cannot reveal to people, that's what the gates of hell cannot prevail against.

[FatherGiryus]

But, dear one, I do read the Bible and I read these words and I see the Eucharist right there in the hands of our Lord.  I see His commandment to eat and drink... Him!  These commandments I follow, and yet you say I sin?

Yes, it is more than bread and wine, it is what he says it is, His Body and Blood.  How... I can't say.  I can't explain even how the brain works (neither can scientists, for that matter) yet I know that it exists and that it 'works.'  I would not say that because I cannot understand how a ball of fat and nerves can think and hold a million memories, then it must not exist!

The mysteries of God are witnessed in the Scripture, but the Scripture does not explain them.  This is the gulf between us: you are reading into the Scriptures things that are not there, ideas that came later out of the reformation.

This Platonic idea that spirit and material are opposites does not wash with us.  The point of John 6 is that physical food is not enough: we need spiritual food, with is spiritual AND physical, not merely one or the other.  Christ provides both.He does not nourish only one part of us, but the body He fashioned for us as much as the soul and the spirit.

In verse 63, Jesus asked the disciples that murmured, "Doth this offend you? It is the SPIRIT that quickeneth (gives life); THE FLESH PROFITETH NOTHING: the words that I speak unto you, THEY ARE SPIRIT, and they are life." He told them plainly that he was not talking literally. He said, "...the words that I speak unto you, THEY ARE SPIRIT." He also told them here that the physical flesh profits NOTHING! The heretical doctrine of transubstantiation and the eucharist is a direct contradiction to the word of God for it says that this supposedly transubstantiated bread does profit.

This is a Roman Catholic institution, Orthodox practice it also, but when the catholics teach the eucharist they purposely leave out verses 63-64 when claiming that John 6 is about the eucharist. The word, "eucharist" is not even in the Bible. There is no concept of the eucharist in Bible--but there is in pagan religion.

Straight exposition from the Bible. We are talking about the difference between life and death here. It would behoove any Catholic or Orthodox to check this out and decide if they want to continue trusting the eucharist for their eternal life instead of trusting the real Jesus who loves them and died for them.

[HandmaidenofGod]

When trying to understand the eucharist - as it is called in the orthodox and catholic churches, we need to continue reading past verse 58 to see what is really meant here.. There appears to be a gross misunderstanding on the disciples behalf resulting in them 'walking no longer with Him'.(v66.)

It's interesting, because you are not the first on this board to come and try to enlighten us about this "misunderstanding." In fact, there are several threads on this forum that address this very topic.

I am going to share with you a post I made in response to the same accusation a while back.

The post is from the thread "This Food We Call the Eucharist". I believe it would be profitable for you to read the thread, as it addresses the Orthodox beliefs regarding the Eucharist, and the Protestant mis-interpretation of our beliefs.

The post below starts with a quote from another poster on this forum who expressed a similar concern to yours. I picked up on it, created a thread to address it, and the rest, as they say, is history.

I didn't really misunderstand you, but maybe I was being just a little bit naughty. You see, we also think Christ is present, but spiritually.
One of us is misunderstanding what actually happens at the Eucharist, but I do not believe that the true blessing which God gives is dependent on our correct and accurate theological understanding. If you are right, I am sure we too partake of his body and blood; if we are right, I am equally sure you partake of the blessings won by his body and blood given for us all at Calvary.

I thought this topic worth examining, thus I created this thread. 

In the above statement you are saying that one of us is misunderstanding the true meaning of the Eucharist, but it doesn’t matter who is right or who is wrong, for God will bless us both because of it. That is relativism my friend, something that endangers our very soul.

Up for discussion is not whether or not Christ instituted the Lord’s Supper (or as we know it, the Mystical Supper), but whether or not it is the body and blood of Christ.

Let us examine the Orthodox understanding of the Eucharist, and what role it plays in our walk with Christ.
The Orthodox Church believes that during the Divine Liturgy, the Eucharistic gifts of bread and wine become for us the body and blood of Christ. This is in accordance with Scripture and Holy Tradition.

Consider the following verses:

John 6:52-57 (New King James Version)
52 The Jews therefore quarreled among themselves, saying, “How can this Man give us His flesh to eat?”
53 Then Jesus said to them, “Most assuredly, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink His blood, you have no life in you. 54 Whoever eats My flesh and drinks My blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day. 55 For My flesh is food indeed, and My blood is drink indeed. 56 He who eats My flesh and drinks My blood abides in Me, and I in him. 57 As the living Father sent Me, and I live because of the Father, so he who feeds on Me will live because of Me.

If the Eucharist were intended to just be a “remembrance” or a memorial tribute to Christ’s sacrifice on the cross, why would Christ promise eternal life to whomever partook of His body and His blood? Christ is speaking in quite literal terms here. He even says, “My flesh is food indeed, and My blood is drink indeed.” (v. 55) Christ came down to restore man back to its original form before the fall. How can man be restored if he does not partake of the Living God? Christ clearly states that if God is to abide in us, we must partake of His body and blood, “He who eats My flesh and drinks My blood abides in Me, and I in him.” (v. 56)

1 Corinthians 10:16-17 (New King James Version)
16 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? 17 For we, though many, are one bread and one body; for we all partake of that one bread.

1 Corinthians 11:26-28 (New King James Version)
26 For as often as you eat this bread and drink this cup, you proclaim the Lord’s death till He comes.
27 Therefore whoever eats this bread or drinks this cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty of the body and blood of the Lord. 28 But let a man examine himself, and so let him eat of the bread and drink of the cup.

St. Paul was not present when Christ instituted the Mystical Supper, yet he understands the gravity of the sacrament. It’s so serious, that he warns the Corinthians that “whoever eats this bread or drinks this cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty of the body and blood of the Lord.” (v. 27)

Guilty of crucifying Christ?! That’s a pretty heavy charge for abusing something that is just a “memorial.” 

Also, notice that St. Paul doesn’t refer to the elements strictly as bread and wine, but rather as “the blood of Christ” and the “body of Christ” in 1 Corinthians 10:16, and as “cup of the Lord” in 1 Corinthians 11:27.

Now, many times Protestants like to pull the verse from the book of Luke to prove that the Mystical Supper is “just a memorial.”
 

Luke 22:19-20 (New King James Version)
19 And He took bread, gave thanks and broke it, and gave it to them, saying, “This is My body which is given for you; do this in remembrance of Me.”
20 Likewise He also took the cup after supper, saying, “This cup is the new covenant in My blood, which is shed for you.

The Orthodox Church recognizes that we do partake of the Eucharist in remembrance of Christ. Just not the way you think we do. Consider this quote from OCA.org (http://www.oca.org/OCchapter.asp?SID=2&ID=103):

Remembering Christ, and offering all things to God in and through him, the Church is filled with the presence of the Holy Spirit. At the Divine Liturgy, the Holy Spirit comes "upon us and upon the gifts here offered." Everything is filled with the Kingdom of God. In God's Kingdom nothing is forgotten. All is remembered, and is thereby made alive. Thus, at this moment in the Divine Liturgy the faithful, remembering Christ, remember all men and all things in him, especially Christ's mother, the Holy Theotokos, and all of the saints… It is necessary to remember once again that remembrance in the Orthodox Church, and particularly the remembrance of God and by God, has a very special meaning. According to the Orthodox Faith, expressed and revealed in the Bible and the Liturgy, divine remembrance means glory and life, while divine forgetfulness means corruption and death. In Christ, God remembers man and his world. Remembering Christ, man remembers God and his Kingdom. Thus the remembrances of the Divine Liturgy are themselves a form of living communion between heaven and earth.

Furthermore, in every Divine Liturgy, we don’t just remember and commemorate Christ’s death; we remember His entire LIFE. Consider these prayers said during the Epiklesis (where the priest asks the Holy Spirit to come down and transform the gifts):

Priest : Together with these blessed powers, merciful Master, we also proclaim and say: You are holy and most holy, You and Your only begotten Son and Your Holy Spirit. You are holy and most holy, and sublime is Your glory. You so loved Your world that You gave Your only begotten Son so that whoever believes in Him should not perish, but have eternal life. He came and fulfilled the divine plan for us. On the night when He was delivered up, or rather when He gave Himself up for the life of the world, He took bread in His holy, pure, and blameless hands, gave thanks, blessed, sanctified, broke and gave it to His holy disciples and apostles, saying:

Take, eat, this is my Body which is broken for you for the forgiveness of sins.

People: Amen.

Priest : Likewise, after supper, He took the cup, saying:

Drink of it all of you; this is my Blood of the new Covenant which is shed for you and for many for the forgiveness of sins.

People:  Amen.

Priest : Remembering, therefore, this command of the Savior, and all that came to pass for our sake, the cross, the tomb, the resurrection on the third day, the ascension into heaven, the enthronement at the right hand of the Father, and the second, glorious coming,

Now, one may say, “well that’s all well and good, but Christ didn’t REALLY mean it was His body and blood. After all, when He said “I am the door” in John 10:7 He didn’t mean He was a wooden plank!”

And this is true. Christ isn’t a wooden plank.  But if you look at the verse of “the door” in context, the Bible tells us that Christ was speaking in allegorical terms.

John 10:6-10 (New King James Version)
6 Jesus used this illustration, but they did not understand the things which He spoke to them.
7 Then Jesus said to them again, “Most assuredly, I say to you, I am the door of the sheep. 8 All who ever came before Me[a] are thieves and robbers, but the sheep did not hear them. 9 I am the door. If anyone enters by Me, he will be saved, and will go in and out and find pasture. 10 The thief does not come except to steal, and to kill, and to destroy. I have come that they may have life, and that they may have it more abundantly.

Furthermore, the Church has never inferred that Christ was a door. On the other hand, the Church has always believed that the bread and wine ARE transformed into the body and blood of Christ.

Consider the following quotes from the Early Church Fathers:

"Consider how contrary to the mind of God are the heterodox in regard to the grace of God which has come to us. They have no regard for charity, none for the widow, the orphan, the oppressed, none for the man in prison, the hungry or the thirsty. They abstain from the Eucharist and from prayer, because they do not admit that the Eucharist is the flesh of our Savior Jesus Christ, the flesh which suffered for our sins and which the Father, in His graciousness, raised from the dead."

St. Ignatius of Antioch "Letter to the Smyrnaeans", paragraph 6. circa 80-110 A.D.

"This food we call the Eucharist, of which no one is allowed to partake except one who believes that the things we teach are true, and has received the washing for forgiveness of sins and for rebirth, and who lives as Christ handed down to us. For we do not receive these things as common bread or common drink; but as Jesus Christ our Savior being incarnate by God's Word took flesh and blood for our salvation, so also we have been taught that the food consecrated by the Word of prayer which comes from him, from which our flesh and blood are nourished by transformation, is the flesh and blood of that incarnate Jesus."

St. Justin Martyr "First Apology", Ch. 66, inter A.D. 148-155.

In Conclusion, partaking of the body and blood of Christ and understanding the meaning of the Eucharist is not just a nice tradition held in the Church, rather it is something that is critical to our salvation. This is a belief that is both in accordance with Scripture and Holy Tradition.

Your thoughts?

And so, now the ball is in your court. What are your thoughts?

As Fountain Pen pointed out, if you are right, that means that until Zwingli came along, the Church had the wrong interpretation of the Eucharist. That means that in addition to the Apostles, the Early Church Fathers, Luther, Calvin, and all those involved in the Reformation of the Church of England had it wrong, and Zwingli was the first to get it right.

Would Christ really allow His Church, His Bride, to be dissuaded for that long?

Me thinks not.

[katherineofdixie]

Christ is building His church on the revelation of who He is, something that flesh and blood cannot reveal to people, that's what the gates of hell cannot prevail against.

I'm pretty sure you didn't mean by this that the Incarnation was unnecessary? Because that's what it sounds like.

[HandmaidenofGod]

The heretical doctrine of transubstantiation and the eucharist is a direct contradiction to the word of God for it says that this supposedly transubstantiated bread does profit. This is a Roman Catholic institution, Orthodox practice it also,

No we don't. Please, don't educate us on our beliefs.

We are well aware of them, thank you.

The Orthodox Church has intentionally never come out with such a doctrine. It becomes the body and blood of Christ. How that happens is a mystery.

If you're going to state what the Orthodox Church teaches, at least have the decency to cite a source.

Straight exposition from the Bible. We are talking about the difference between life and death here. It would behoove any Catholic or Orthodox to check this out and decide if they want to continue trusting the eucharist for their eternal life instead of trusting the real Jesus who loves them and died for them.

Again, you are misinterpreting and misstating both Orthodox and Catholic teaching here.

Seriously, where are you getting this stuff from? Can you cite a page in Catholic catechism or quote a page from the Early Church Fathers that professes such babble?

Where have we ever stated that we do not believe in Christ? Where have we ever stated that we do not believe He is the path to salvation?

Frankly, I am insulted by your insinuation and misrepresentation of our faith. If you want to disagree with what we believe, that is fine. But disagree with what we actually believe. Not what you THINK we believe.

Dispute the facts, not the fiction that is in your head.

[PeterTheAleut]

There is another serious problem for those who fail to recognise Jesus analogy. They must realize that after they have consumed the physical body of Christ, it then decomposes during the digestive cycle. This goes against God’s promise to never let His Holy Son see decay (Acts 2:27).

In verse 63, Jesus asked the disciples that murmured, "Doth this offend you? It is the SPIRIT that quickeneth (gives life); THE FLESH PROFITETH NOTHING: the words that I speak unto you, THEY ARE SPIRIT, and they are life." He told them plainly that he was not talking literally. He said, "...the words that I speak unto you, THEY ARE SPIRIT." He also told them here that the physical flesh profits NOTHING! The heretical doctrine of transubstantiation and the eucharist is a direct contradiction to the word of God for it says that this supposedly transubstantiated bread does profit.

I've never seen an adequate response to these points at all BGTF.

A question for you and BGTF both: Your dichotomy between spirit and flesh within the Person of Jesus Christ, where do you find it in the Bible?

[Volnutt]

And yet we are redeemed by the blood of Jesus. If "the flesh profits nothing" means what you claim it to mean here then Christ coming and suffering in the flesh is entirely pointless.

The divinized, resurrected flesh of Christ does not digest and it is not eliminated. It is consumed in a miraculous way according to Orthodoxy. In the same way Jesus was able to appear in locked rooms and to hide his appearance and be lifted into the heavens, so this also is possible with God.

[primuspilus]

it is impossible for Christ

Anytime this is said one should be very wary. My friend, you have a more fundamental problem.

PP

[PeterTheAleut]

it is impossible for Christ

Anytime this is said one should be very wary. My friend, you have a more fundamental problem.

PP

Indeed! I saw in his post a projection of the limitations of our pre-resurrection earthly flesh onto the deified post-resurrection flesh of our Savior (the glorified flesh that defied that inconvenient law of physics that keeps us from "walking" through locked doors or big stones).

[Volnutt]

When trying to understand the eucharist - as it is called in the orthodox and catholic churches, we need to continue reading past verse 58 to see what is really meant here.. There appears to be a gross misunderstanding on the disciples behalf resulting in them 'walking no longer with Him'.(v66.)

I think the confusion began right here and is written in John 6.

John 6:59These things said he in the synagogue, as he taught in Capernaum.60Many therefore of his disciples, when they had heard this, said, This is an hard saying; who can hear it?61When Jesus knew in himself that his disciples murmured at it, he said unto them, Doth this offend you?62What and if ye shall see the Son of man ascend up where he was before?63It is the spirit that quickeneth; the flesh profiteth nothing: the words that I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are life.64But there are some of you that believe not. For Jesus knew from the beginning who they were that believed not, and who should betray him.65And he said, Therefore said I unto you, that no man can come unto me, except it were given unto him of my Father.66From that time many of his disciples went back, and walked no more with him.67Then said Jesus unto the twelve, Will ye also go away?68Then Simon Peter answered him, Lord, to whom shall we go? thou hast the words of eternal life.

Now the Bible tells us that His Words are what we live on. Matthew 4:4 - But he(Jesus)answered and said, It is written, Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceeds out of the mouth of God.

Unfortunately, it has been misunderstood from the time of John 6. But these verses say that someone who does not truly BELIEVE Christ, can not understand spiritual things.

"For Jesus knew from the beginning who they were that believed not, and who should betray him.. " Disciples - betrayed Jesus. Disciples, misunderstood Jesus. That may sound disrespectful to some, but I mean no disrespect. I'm just trying to state the facts.

I agree with you about the Orthodox/Catholic misunderstanding of the verses and i would add that though scripture says that we live on every word, it doesn't say that's all that sustains us.

However, if we agree that they have misunderstood the bread and the wine, surely in the many years before the reformation, we would have to agree then that the gates of hell did prevail against the church and suffered the entire church to believe 'another gospel'? That's the claim of Orthodoxy anyway.

If nobody believes in Christ, then yes the gates of Hell have triumphed. I don't see how that verse can be made to say anything else.

Furthermore, if you do recognize that nobody believed in a symbolic Eucharist prior to the Reformation, why do you believe in it? Surely going against the unanimous known witness of the church for 1500 years is not a good idea, even if you are right about what's at stake here a la' Matthew 16.

[primuspilus]

This is always the problem when you try to scholasicize God. He doesn't need men's logical conclusions.

NOTE: If an RC's took that as alsight against them (the s-word), it was not. I just had no other way to explain my thoughts on the matter. So sorry

PP

[witega]

it is impossible for Christ

Anytime this is said one should be very wary. My friend, you have a more fundamental problem.

PP

Indeed! I saw in his post a projection of the limitations of our pre-resurrection earthly flesh onto the deified post-resurrection flesh of our Savior (the glorified flesh that defied that inconvenient law of physics that keeps us from "walking" through locked doors or big stones).

Or the miracle of the fishes and the loaves (which many Fathers directly associate with Communion). The fish and the loaves didn't even have to be deified themselves for Almighty God to ignore the limitations of the laws of physics.

Really, before this discussiong goes further we should establish--ByGraceThroughFaith, do you believe that Jesus Christ was actually God Himself? And do you belief that God is omnipotent or limited?

[primuspilus]

it is impossible for Christ

Anytime this is said one should be very wary. My friend, you have a more fundamental problem.

PP

Indeed! I saw in his post a projection of the limitations of our pre-resurrection earthly flesh onto the deified post-resurrection flesh of our Savior (the glorified flesh that defied that inconvenient law of physics that keeps us from "walking" through locked doors or big stones).

Or the miracle of the fishes and the loaves (which many Fathers directly associate with Communion). The fish and the loaves didn't even have to be deified themselves for Almighty God to ignore the limitations of the laws of physics.

Really, before this discussiong goes further we should establish--ByGraceThroughFaith, do you believe that Jesus Christ was actually God Himself? And do you belief that God is omnipotent or limited?

Good question.

PP

[primuspilus]

**could not modify**

I do find it ironic that those who state Bible alone, but then pick and choose what is to be taken literally and what is not.


PP