OrthodoxChristianity.net
September 20, 2014, 02:03:23 AM *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
News: Reminder: No political discussions in the public fora.  If you do not have access to the private Politics Forum, please send a PM to Fr. George.
 
   Home   Help Calendar Contact Treasury Tags Login Register  
Pages: « 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 »   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: Make God's path straight by being born again  (Read 57077 times) Average Rating: 0
0 Members and 2 Guests are viewing this topic.
tuesdayschild
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Posts: 966



« Reply #1575 on: October 29, 2010, 05:01:47 PM »

Its called apologetic, you make a claim, then support it with reasons why its correct. If you don't want to engage in apologetics, just say so, I won't bother responding to your claims. But if you want to make claims, and then prove they are correct, you gotta focus.

I made my claim. I believe the statement of the Lord: "This is my body." Why do you want me to believe you instead of Him?  Don't evade. Focus!

When I respond to your reasons for a claim, showing they are wrong,  that's not the time to "clam up" and accuse me of being possessed. That's the time to examine my reply, and find the weakness in my counter argument, if any.

If you read back carefully, you will recognize that I was the first to defend you against accusations of demonic possession.

At the core of Orthodox doctrine on the Eucharist, is the basic premise John c. 6 is the Eucharist Christ later taught His disciples.

That is not correct. While similar in imagery and meaning, i.e., analogous that does not make John c. 6 "the Eucharist" or an "explanation of the Eucharist".

It seems to me you are capable of handling both sides of this argument. I don't know why you are here.

I do not believe that I ever quoted John 6. I have no idea why you are introducing it into your dialogue with me, but I am under no compulsion to address it.  I am satisfied with Matt. 26:26, Mark 14:22, Luke 22:19 and 1 Cor. 11:23-24.

Find an apostle linking both contexts together, as you do, then you prove your point. Otherwise these are two separate events, similar in meaning, but one is NOT the explanation of the other.

I did.  St. Paul cites the same event recorded in the Synoptic, the Mystical Supper.
Logged
Alfred Persson
Jesus is LORD, God the Eternal Son
Moderated
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Protestant but no Filioque
Jurisdiction: usa
Posts: 1,207


Primitive Orthodox


« Reply #1576 on: October 29, 2010, 05:02:19 PM »

1 Cor 10:16
    The cup of blessing that we bless, is it not a participation in the blood of Christ? The bread that we break, is it not a participation in the body of Christ? Shocked

A verse out of context is a pretext.

Your argument hinges on the participation being with Christ, but the Greek allows the participation to be in the other direction, with fellow participants.

Context identifies whom we have this sharing with.

17 For we, though many, are one bread and one body; for we all partake of that one bread.

Paul's emphasis is the participation "we all" have together as a group when we partake of the one bread.

This he cites as his reason AGAINST eating foods sacrificed to idols.

18 Observe Israel after the flesh: Are not those who eat of the sacrifices partakers of the altar?
 19 What am I saying then? That an idol is anything, or what is offered to idols is anything?

The sacrifice is not transmuted into the demon's substance or animating principle, Paul expressly says "NO" (Ἀλλ᾽, lit., "but, rather") denying the sacrifice is anything:

 20 Rather (Ἀλλ᾽), that the things which the Gentiles sacrifice they sacrifice to demons and not to God, and I do not want you to have fellowship with demons.

The sharing is with the fellow idolaters, in idolatry and via that, fellowship with demons.

Its not ingesting demonic substance, that is NOT in Paul's thought at all.

Had Paul said eating food sacrificed to demons was participation in demonic substance, THEN your interpretation would be correct. He does not say that however, the sharing Paul has in mind, is idolatrous fellowship, not in a sharing of essence or nature.


 21 You cannot drink the cup of the Lord and the cup of demons; you cannot partake of the Lord's table and of the table of demons.
 22 Or do we provoke the Lord to jealousy? Are we stronger than He?
 (1Co 10:15-22 NKJ)

Paul's warns we not share in idolatrous acts of others, he is not defining the Eucharist as eating Deity itself.

« Last Edit: October 29, 2010, 05:13:47 PM by Alfred Persson » Logged

For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who suppress the truth in unrighteousness, because what may be known of God is manifest in them, for God has shown it to them. (Rom 1:18-19 NKJ)
Alfred Persson
Jesus is LORD, God the Eternal Son
Moderated
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Protestant but no Filioque
Jurisdiction: usa
Posts: 1,207


Primitive Orthodox


« Reply #1577 on: October 29, 2010, 05:34:40 PM »

Its called apologetic, you make a claim, then support it with reasons why its correct. If you don't want to engage in apologetics, just say so, I won't bother responding to your claims. But if you want to make claims, and then prove they are correct, you gotta focus.

I made my claim. I believe the statement of the Lord: "This is my body." Why do you want me to believe you instead of Him?  Don't evade. Focus!

Lets focus.

Christ said this is my body...blood.

But He was still in His body, with its blood.

How do you explain that, there aren't two bodies and bloods of Christ.

Christ literal body (and blood) broke the bread and passed the wine, so how is the bread and wine now His body?

Both cannot be His real body and blood, only one can.

Therefore His words must be figurative...the bread and wine figures refer to His body and blood, the body and blood He would sacrifice in the future.

« Last Edit: October 29, 2010, 05:36:24 PM by Alfred Persson » Logged

For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who suppress the truth in unrighteousness, because what may be known of God is manifest in them, for God has shown it to them. (Rom 1:18-19 NKJ)
biro
Excelsior
Site Supporter
Toumarches
*****
Online Online

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Greek Orthodox
Posts: 13,427


Και κλήρονομον δείξον με, ζωής της αιωνίου

fleem
WWW
« Reply #1578 on: October 29, 2010, 05:40:09 PM »

When Christ multiplied the loaves and fishes, clearly, they were not loaves and fishes, and the people were eating nothing, because it's all a figure of speech, don't you know.  Roll Eyes

When the Lord made manna fall from Heaven to feed the Israelites in the desert, that didn't happen and nobody ate anything; everybody died in the desert, and the rest of the Scriptures are just a novel, because it's all just a figure of speech.

How sad to have such little faith. Ever hear of a little thing called a miracle?
Logged

Charlie Rose: If you could change one thing about the world, what would it be?

Fran Lebowitz: Everything. There is not one thing with which I am satisfied.

http://spcasuncoast.org/
Alfred Persson
Jesus is LORD, God the Eternal Son
Moderated
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Protestant but no Filioque
Jurisdiction: usa
Posts: 1,207


Primitive Orthodox


« Reply #1579 on: October 29, 2010, 05:43:02 PM »

When Christ multiplied the loaves and fishes, clearly, they were not loaves and fishes, and the people were eating nothing, because it's all a figure of speech, don't you know.  Roll Eyes

When the Lord made manna fall from Heaven to feed the Israelites in the desert, that didn't happen and nobody ate anything; everybody died in the desert, and the rest of the Scriptures are just a novel, because it's all just a figure of speech.

How sad to have such little faith. Ever hear of a little thing called a miracle?


No one said eating the loaves and fishes was eating God's substance.

No one said eating the manna was eating God's substance.

Your analogies are non analogous.

Therefore your conclusion non sequitur.
« Last Edit: October 29, 2010, 05:43:28 PM by Alfred Persson » Logged

For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who suppress the truth in unrighteousness, because what may be known of God is manifest in them, for God has shown it to them. (Rom 1:18-19 NKJ)
SolEX01
Toumarches
************
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Greek Orthodox Archdiocese of America, Holy Metropolis of New Jersey
Posts: 11,285


WWW
« Reply #1580 on: October 29, 2010, 05:44:42 PM »

Its called apologetic, you make a claim, then support it with reasons why its correct. If you don't want to engage in apologetics, just say so, I won't bother responding to your claims. But if you want to make claims, and then prove they are correct, you gotta focus.

I made my claim. I believe the statement of the Lord: "This is my body." Why do you want me to believe you instead of Him?  Don't evade. Focus!

Lets focus.

Christ said this is my body...blood.

But He was still in His body, with its blood.

Do you see that Christ was pre-figuring his own Sacrifice for the remission of the Sins and for Life everlasting.  God didn't want to "Trump" Mankind and permitted His Only-Begotten Son to ransom Himself on the Cross.

How do you explain that, there aren't two bodies and bloods of Christ.

What did the Israelites Break in Egypt for the Passover and What did Moses sprinkle over the door of each Israelite household?

Christ literal body (and blood) broke the bread and passed the wine, so how is the bread and wine now His body?

See above.

Both cannot be His real body and blood, only one can.

Yes, only one which was sacrificed on the cross.

Therefore His words must be figurative...the bread and wine figures refer to His body and blood, the body and blood He would sacrifice in the future.

Already answered.  Christ's words were literal.  End of discussion.   Smiley
Logged
bogdan
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Posts: 1,615



« Reply #1581 on: October 29, 2010, 05:49:19 PM »

Its called apologetic, you make a claim, then support it with reasons why its correct. If you don't want to engage in apologetics, just say so, I won't bother responding to your claims. But if you want to make claims, and then prove they are correct, you gotta focus.

I made my claim. I believe the statement of the Lord: "This is my body." Why do you want me to believe you instead of Him?  Don't evade. Focus!

Lets focus.

Christ said this is my body...blood.

But He was still in His body, with its blood.

How do you explain that, there aren't two bodies and bloods of Christ.

Christ literal body (and blood) broke the bread and passed the wine, so how is the bread and wine now His body?

Both cannot be His real body and blood, only one can.

Therefore His words must be figurative...the bread and wine figures refer to His body and blood, the body and blood He would sacrifice in the future.



Why can't they be? Is infinite God limited by finite matter and feeble reasoning?
Logged
JMTRD6
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: GOA / Transitioning to OCA
Posts: 25



« Reply #1582 on: October 29, 2010, 05:55:56 PM »

When Christ multiplied the loaves and fishes, clearly, they were not loaves and fishes, and the people were eating nothing, because it's all a figure of speech, don't you know.  Roll Eyes

When the Lord made manna fall from Heaven to feed the Israelites in the desert, that didn't happen and nobody ate anything; everybody died in the desert, and the rest of the Scriptures are just a novel, because it's all just a figure of speech.

How sad to have such little faith. Ever hear of a little thing called a miracle?


No one said eating the loaves and fishes was eating God's substance.

No one said eating the manna was eating God's substance.

Your analogies are non analogous.

Therefore your conclusion non sequitur.

Alfred, do you set limits on God's ability to create/multiply?  God created all that you see from nothing (I'm pretty sure that we are in agreement on that issue), but you don't believe that he could be present in the bread and wine at the Mystical Supper because Christ had not yet died to his flesh.  So, you believe that he could multiply the fish and the loaves, but he couldn't multiply Christ/himself? 
« Last Edit: October 29, 2010, 06:14:00 PM by JMTRD6 » Logged
bogdan
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Posts: 1,615



« Reply #1583 on: October 29, 2010, 06:10:02 PM »

The Apostles clearly misled their flocks, considering this witness:

"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", ca 80-110 A.D.

Ah, so the Apostles taught St Ignatius it not only is Christ's body and blood, it is his crucified body and blood. The apostles partook of his crucifixion before it even happened. Impossible for man, but simple for God.  
« Last Edit: October 29, 2010, 06:12:58 PM by bogdan » Logged
tuesdayschild
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Posts: 966



« Reply #1584 on: October 29, 2010, 06:17:24 PM »

Its called apologetic, you make a claim, then support it with reasons why its correct. If you don't want to engage in apologetics, just say so, I won't bother responding to your claims. But if you want to make claims, and then prove they are correct, you gotta focus.

I made my claim. I believe the statement of the Lord: "This is my body." Why do you want me to believe you instead of Him?  Don't evade. Focus!

Lets focus.

Christ said this is my body...blood.

But He was still in His body, with its blood.

How do you explain that, there aren't two bodies and bloods of Christ.

Christ literal body (and blood) broke the bread and passed the wine, so how is the bread and wine now His body?

Both cannot be His real body and blood, only one can.

Therefore His words must be figurative...the bread and wine figures refer to His body and blood, the body and blood He would sacrifice in the future.


Yes, indeed. Let's focus.

I do not have to explain "how." I do not have to understand "how." All that is required of me is to believe.

Don't you believe in the impossible Virgin birth?  Don't you believe in the impossible Resurrection?  And yet you disbelieve in this.

How is that you demand that I disbelieve the plain statement of God as recorded in the New Testament?  Are you better that he who said, "This is My body"?  Or have you the charism to rightly divide the word of Truth?

That is what this whole thread is about. Your claim to authority.  I am trying to make this as simple as I can for you.  Please, focus.
Logged
Marc1152
Toumarches
************
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Rocor
Posts: 12,820


Probiotic .. Antibiotic


« Reply #1585 on: October 29, 2010, 06:29:08 PM »

lol ... it's so obvious, Alfred, you have no intentiom whatsoever of listening to, or learning from, anyone here.

And I'd be willing to bet you have made ZERO converts to your views.

So why in the world are you still here, if not just to troll as others have said?

Ummm..he just ordered a recorded lecture by Fr. Seraphim Rose. When you fight with him, it's a waste of bandwidth.

In the lady's defense, Alfred has already stated that he is an unapologetic fighter, after the manner of Christ and the apostles, and that he prefers a heated discussion.

Oh yes, it gives him a perverse pleasure. That does not mean we should participate in his destruction.

BTW...He may have a demon...................... not kidding.

After he said he either disliked, or had discomfort, or something about the Cross, I lean toward that possibility as well.

I am not trying to be too weird here, but there is such a thing. He has violent fantasies when he sees iconic images of the Lord and his Saints. He gets his jollies by fighting. He attacks The Church regularly. He sounds a bit down... Some other things

I am not suggesting his head spins and he spews green stuff. But once in a while we all can become open to attack by a demon or two. It doesn't make you a bad person, it just means you need to push back and resist egging on.

 Alfred, if you are reading this. I think you may be possessed by a Demon. However, I mean that in the nicest possible way. Smiley

So, less fighting on the Internet, more Jesus Prayer if you can manage it. It is Slavic in such situations.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LlFhybmvrY0&feature=related

    
Speaking as a moderator, I really am quite concerned by the depth of your speculation into Alfred's psychological/spiritual makeup. Feel free to argue against his interpretations of Scripture and to call into question his spotty church attendance, since this level of ad hominem is totally appropriate in that it challenges his authority to preach as he does. Speculating that he may be demon possessed, however, strikes me as being well beyond inappropriate, and then to tell him what you think about him on this Internet discussion board. What do you hope to contribute to this discussion by descending to such depths of ad hominem? It certainly does more to discredit you than to discredit him. I am therefore asking you to stop this line of argument now and to apologize to Alfred for being so personal in your assessment of him.

I don't wish to violate any rules but since you have asked me a direct question or two,than I hope it is allowed to answer.

People are motivated by more than mathematical like formulas. There is more to life that adding and subtracting reasons for and reasons against.
For those of us who believe in a spiritual dimension in life we accept that there is a higher level of "being" than just the rational mind. This higher level is the part of our life that exists spiritually which is influenced but many things, not just by how we reason things out in our heads.

Orthodox readily accept the positive side of Spiritual influences, such as the guidance of a Guardian Angle. What is taboo is the flip side. Influences that are unwholesome and egging us on in a negative direction.

So what I hoped to gain is a helping hand to Alfred. I think I have been very courdial with him and given him some support, more than other people if you care to check. This suggestion was not at the end of a long line of insults, it was at the end of a long line of supportive comments to and about him.

I tend to speak the Truth and am not one for political correctness. I have expressed what I think may be so. Avoiding the observation is like avoiding someone who is mentally ill. Due to political correctness, you never say what you really think and the ill person may go without getting help. I think this is like that.
« Last Edit: October 29, 2010, 06:30:33 PM by Marc1152 » Logged

Your idea has been debunked 1000 times already.. Maybe 1001 will be the charm
Tzimis
Site Supporter
Archon
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Greek Orthodox
Jurisdiction: GOA
Posts: 2,374



« Reply #1586 on: October 29, 2010, 06:37:16 PM »

1 Cor 10:16
    The cup of blessing that we bless, is it not a participation in the blood of Christ? The bread that we break, is it not a participation in the body of Christ? Shocked

A verse out of context is a pretext.

Your argument hinges on the participation being with Christ, but the Greek allows the participation to be in the other direction, with fellow participants.
No, it allows for a church in this life time and those in communion with her. The body of Christ is the church and without a body a church can't exist.


Quote
Colossians 1:24 (King James Version)

 24Who now rejoice in my sufferings for you, and fill up that which is behind of the afflictions of Christ in my flesh for his body's sake, which is the church:
« Last Edit: October 29, 2010, 06:50:24 PM by Demetrios G. » Logged

Excellence of character, then, is a state concerned with choice, lying in a mean relative to us, this being determined by reason and in the way in which the man of practical wisdom would determine it. Now it is a mean between two vices, that which depends on excess and that which depends on defect.
Alfred Persson
Jesus is LORD, God the Eternal Son
Moderated
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Protestant but no Filioque
Jurisdiction: usa
Posts: 1,207


Primitive Orthodox


« Reply #1587 on: October 29, 2010, 06:37:33 PM »

Its called apologetic, you make a claim, then support it with reasons why its correct. If you don't want to engage in apologetics, just say so, I won't bother responding to your claims. But if you want to make claims, and then prove they are correct, you gotta focus.

I made my claim. I believe the statement of the Lord: "This is my body." Why do you want me to believe you instead of Him?  Don't evade. Focus!

Lets focus.

Christ said this is my body...blood.

But He was still in His body, with its blood.

How do you explain that, there aren't two bodies and bloods of Christ.

Christ literal body (and blood) broke the bread and passed the wine, so how is the bread and wine now His body?

Both cannot be His real body and blood, only one can.

Therefore His words must be figurative...the bread and wine figures refer to His body and blood, the body and blood He would sacrifice in the future.


Yes, indeed. Let's focus.

I do not have to explain "how." I do not have to understand "how." All that is required of me is to believe.

Don't you believe in the impossible Virgin birth?  Don't you believe in the impossible Resurrection?  And yet you disbelieve in this.

How is that you demand that I disbelieve the plain statement of God as recorded in the New Testament?  Are you better that he who said, "This is My body"?  Or have you the charism to rightly divide the word of Truth?

That is what this whole thread is about. Your claim to authority.  I am trying to make this as simple as I can for you.  Please, focus.

Analogy fail, the virgin birth, resurrection etc, are presented as miracles, the Eucharist is not.

Its during the passover meal, Christ gives them bread and wine, and says these are His body and blood, but nothing in the context suggests the disciples were aware of any miracle change occurring.

Moreover, the law forbade drinking any kind of blood:

 26 Moreover ye shall eat no manner of blood, whether it be of fowl or of beast, in any of your dwellings.
 27 Whatsoever soul it be that eateth any manner of blood, even that soul shall be cut off from his people.
 (Lev 7:26-27 KJV)

So nothing in the context indicates a miracle.

THAT is the question we must answer, whether the context shows a miracle happening, or not.

You say a miracle happened, but your only proof is your interpretation of Christ's words "this is my body...blood."

I say no miracle happened, and my proof is the fact Christ's words can be interpreted figuratively to refer to the body and blood He would sacrifice for the New Covenant to take effect.

AND Christ calls it the blood of the New Covenant which means it wasn't the blood in His physical body at that time. The Blood of the New Covenant comes into existence when its spilled out for our sins:

 28 "For this is My blood of the new covenant, which is shed for many for the remission of sins. (Mat 26:28 NKJ)

Confirming this, Christ called the wine "the fruit of the vine" after its consecration:

 29 "But I say to you, I will not drink of this fruit of the vine from now on until that day when I drink it new with you in My Father's kingdom." (Mat 26:29 NKJ)

THAT means it didn't become His real blood in any sense of the words.

So Christ's words are clearly figurative, your insistence the phrase is literal doesn't fit the context at all.

Its not a question of believing me, its whether you believe God wrote the Bible to be understood.

If God didn't write the Bible to be understood, if He wrote to confuse us, then He is evil, not good.

As it is impossible God is evil, we can deduce Christ's meaning is figurative, that it is exactly as He says, the wine remained wine and was a symbol of the blood of the New Covenant he would spill in the future.



« Last Edit: October 29, 2010, 06:47:19 PM by Alfred Persson » Logged

For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who suppress the truth in unrighteousness, because what may be known of God is manifest in them, for God has shown it to them. (Rom 1:18-19 NKJ)
mike
Stratopedarches
**************
Offline Offline

Posts: 21,467


WWW
« Reply #1588 on: October 29, 2010, 06:39:29 PM »

I wanted to add "cheval mort" tag to this thread but I was not allowed :/
Logged

Byzantinism
no longer posting here
PeterTheAleut
The Right Blowhard Peter the Furtive of Yetts O'Muckhart
Section Moderator
Protospatharios
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 32,206


Lord, have mercy on the Christians in Mosul!


« Reply #1589 on: October 29, 2010, 06:42:58 PM »

lol ... it's so obvious, Alfred, you have no intentiom whatsoever of listening to, or learning from, anyone here.

And I'd be willing to bet you have made ZERO converts to your views.

So why in the world are you still here, if not just to troll as others have said?

Ummm..he just ordered a recorded lecture by Fr. Seraphim Rose. When you fight with him, it's a waste of bandwidth.

In the lady's defense, Alfred has already stated that he is an unapologetic fighter, after the manner of Christ and the apostles, and that he prefers a heated discussion.

Oh yes, it gives him a perverse pleasure. That does not mean we should participate in his destruction.

BTW...He may have a demon...................... not kidding.

After he said he either disliked, or had discomfort, or something about the Cross, I lean toward that possibility as well.

I am not trying to be too weird here, but there is such a thing. He has violent fantasies when he sees iconic images of the Lord and his Saints. He gets his jollies by fighting. He attacks The Church regularly. He sounds a bit down... Some other things

I am not suggesting his head spins and he spews green stuff. But once in a while we all can become open to attack by a demon or two. It doesn't make you a bad person, it just means you need to push back and resist egging on.

 Alfred, if you are reading this. I think you may be possessed by a Demon. However, I mean that in the nicest possible way. Smiley

So, less fighting on the Internet, more Jesus Prayer if you can manage it. It is Slavic in such situations.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LlFhybmvrY0&feature=related

    
Speaking as a moderator, I really am quite concerned by the depth of your speculation into Alfred's psychological/spiritual makeup. Feel free to argue against his interpretations of Scripture and to call into question his spotty church attendance, since this level of ad hominem is totally appropriate in that it challenges his authority to preach as he does. Speculating that he may be demon possessed, however, strikes me as being well beyond inappropriate, and then to tell him what you think about him on this Internet discussion board. What do you hope to contribute to this discussion by descending to such depths of ad hominem? It certainly does more to discredit you than to discredit him. I am therefore asking you to stop this line of argument now and to apologize to Alfred for being so personal in your assessment of him.

I don't wish to violate any rules but since you have asked me a direct question or two,than I hope it is allowed to answer.
Since you're essentially taking issue in public with a moderatorial directive, I'm not sure the following justification really matters. You should have sent this reply to me in a private message.

People are motivated by more than mathematical like formulas. There is more to life that adding and subtracting reasons for and reasons against.
For those of us who believe in a spiritual dimension in life we accept that there is a higher level of "being" than just the rational mind. This higher level is the part of our life that exists spiritually which is influenced but many things, not just by how we reason things out in our heads.

Orthodox readily accept the positive side of Spiritual influences, such as the guidance of a Guardian Angle. What is taboo is the flip side. Influences that are unwholesome and egging us on in a negative direction.

So what I hoped to gain is a helping hand to Alfred. I think I have been very courdial with him and given him some support, more than other people if you care to check. This suggestion was not at the end of a long line of insults, it was at the end of a long line of supportive comments to and about him.

I tend to speak the Truth and am not one for political correctness. I have expressed what I think may be so. Avoiding the observation is like avoiding someone who is mentally ill. Due to political correctness, you never say what you really think and the ill person may go without getting help. I think this is like that.
If you wish to dispute my action any further, do so only via private message. I will not continue this discussion with you here. Any attempt by you to continue this discussion here on this thread will bring you a formal warning.

From OrthodoxChristianity.net Rules and Regulations
Quote
Respect the mod/admin staff -- The moderators and administrative staff of oc.net keep this place running tidy.  While you don't have to agree with a particular decision they make, we ask that you at least respect it publicly.  If you feel the need to appeal or disagree with a decision that was made, please do so privately via PM.  If you just have general complaints and want to go right to the top, please contact one of the Admins:  Fr. Chris, Fr. Anastasios, or Robert.
« Last Edit: October 29, 2010, 06:50:36 PM by PeterTheAleut » Logged
biro
Excelsior
Site Supporter
Toumarches
*****
Online Online

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Greek Orthodox
Posts: 13,427


Και κλήρονομον δείξον με, ζωής της αιωνίου

fleem
WWW
« Reply #1590 on: October 29, 2010, 06:43:17 PM »

John 6:53

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."



Either you think He was kidding, or you think He was not the Son of Man.

Or, you're per se something other than a Christian. No two ways about it.

That's up to you, if that's what you want to be, but just come out and say it.
« Last Edit: October 29, 2010, 06:45:06 PM by biro » Logged

Charlie Rose: If you could change one thing about the world, what would it be?

Fran Lebowitz: Everything. There is not one thing with which I am satisfied.

http://spcasuncoast.org/
PeterTheAleut
The Right Blowhard Peter the Furtive of Yetts O'Muckhart
Section Moderator
Protospatharios
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 32,206


Lord, have mercy on the Christians in Mosul!


« Reply #1591 on: October 29, 2010, 06:46:45 PM »

I wanted to add "cheval mort" tag to this thread but I was not allowed :/
You can remove one of the existing tags to make room.
Logged
Alfred Persson
Jesus is LORD, God the Eternal Son
Moderated
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Protestant but no Filioque
Jurisdiction: usa
Posts: 1,207


Primitive Orthodox


« Reply #1592 on: October 29, 2010, 06:53:38 PM »

John 6:53

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."



Either you think He was kidding, or you think He was not the Son of Man.

Or, you're per se something other than a Christian. No two ways about it.

That's up to you, if that's what you want to be, but just come out and say it.

Incorrect, as there is another way your argument is a false dilemma as Christ's words could be interpreted precisely as the apostle Peter does in context, to refer to ingesting Jesus entire, not just Him as a good teacher. One must believe also He is the Christ, the Son of the living God...that is, one must believe in the Life clothed by the flesh, Incarnate God:

 68 But Simon Peter answered Him, "Lord, to whom shall we go? You have the words of eternal life.
 69 "Also we have come to believe and know that You are the Christ, the Son of the living God."
 (Joh 6:68-69 NKJ)


« Last Edit: October 29, 2010, 06:55:35 PM by Alfred Persson » Logged

For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who suppress the truth in unrighteousness, because what may be known of God is manifest in them, for God has shown it to them. (Rom 1:18-19 NKJ)
SolEX01
Toumarches
************
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Greek Orthodox Archdiocese of America, Holy Metropolis of New Jersey
Posts: 11,285


WWW
« Reply #1593 on: October 29, 2010, 06:54:58 PM »

Analogy fail, the virgin birth, resurrection etc, are presented as miracles, the Eucharist is not.

Was the parting of the Red Sea, which allowed the Israelites to leave Egypt, a miracle?   Huh

Its during the passover meal, Christ gives them bread and wine, and says these are His body and blood, but nothing in the context suggests the disciples were aware of any miracle change occurring.

Moreover, the law forbade drinking any kind of blood:

There you go again with this Bible Inerrancy fallacy as you use the precursor of the Jewish Kosher dietary standard to deny Christ and deny the Institution of the Eucharist.
Logged
Alfred Persson
Jesus is LORD, God the Eternal Son
Moderated
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Protestant but no Filioque
Jurisdiction: usa
Posts: 1,207


Primitive Orthodox


« Reply #1594 on: October 29, 2010, 06:58:46 PM »

Analogy fail, the virgin birth, resurrection etc, are presented as miracles, the Eucharist is not.

Was the parting of the Red Sea, which allowed the Israelites to leave Egypt, a miracle?  Huh

Its during the passover meal, Christ gives them bread and wine, and says these are His body and blood, but nothing in the context suggests the disciples were aware of any miracle change occurring.

Moreover, the law forbade drinking any kind of blood:

There you go again with this Bible Inerrancy fallacy as you use the precursor of the Jewish Kosher dietary standard to deny Christ and deny the Institution of the Eucharist.

The Eucharist is NOT a miracle, its a memorial.

Until you prove it was a miracle, citing miracles proves nothing for your argument.

As it is right now, you may as well be saying "The virgin birth is a miracle therefore the earth is square."

No, its not. The virgin birth is irrelevant to the shape of the earth.

The parting sea is just as irrelevant to the Eucharist, one is a miracle, the other a memorial.

« Last Edit: October 29, 2010, 07:20:30 PM by Alfred Persson » Logged

For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who suppress the truth in unrighteousness, because what may be known of God is manifest in them, for God has shown it to them. (Rom 1:18-19 NKJ)
SolEX01
Toumarches
************
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Greek Orthodox Archdiocese of America, Holy Metropolis of New Jersey
Posts: 11,285


WWW
« Reply #1595 on: October 29, 2010, 07:24:51 PM »

The Eucharist is NOT a miracle, its a memorial.

You're denying that the Eucharist is a miracle.  You're right in saying that the Eucharist is a memorial; however, the Eucharist is also a Miracle that your darkened Bible Inerrancy belief system is not allowing you to see.

I read in an Orthodox Journal how an imprisoned Romanian Orthodox Priest (who was frequently beaten by his prison guards) performed the Divine Liturgy in his jail cell and used plain water to consecrate the Holy Body and Blood of Jesus Christ.  To me, that is a miracle in and of itself.


Until you prove it was a miracle, citing miracles proves nothing for your argument.

See above.

As it is right now, you may as well be saying "The virgin birth is a miracle therefore the earth is square."

No, its not. The virgin birth is irrelevant to the shape of the earth.

This Bible Inerrancy fueled thread that you started is irrelevant.

The parting sea is just as irrelevant to the Eucharist, one is a miracle, the other not.

That's your Bible Inerrancy derived opinion.
Logged
biro
Excelsior
Site Supporter
Toumarches
*****
Online Online

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Greek Orthodox
Posts: 13,427


Και κλήρονομον δείξον με, ζωής της αιωνίου

fleem
WWW
« Reply #1596 on: October 29, 2010, 07:30:11 PM »

Again, Alfred seems to be missing out on the fact that many if not most Protestants believe in the Presence of Christ in the Eucharist, some through the Real Presence, others through a slightly different explanation of 'how it happens,' but still the Presence. Most of the mainline Protestant denominations tend to explain it by saying that the Holy Spirit comes to bless the bread, with a partial change of the elements, or perhaps no change; in the Orthodox Church, as well as the Roman Catholic Church and the Anglican Church, it is believed that the elements of bread and wine in Holy Communion become the Body and Blood of Christ (the total, Real Presence). Yes, it is a miracle, and yes, it is hard for us human beings to comprehend. So is every other miracle that God's ever done. If you don't like it, you have a lot of people to call: one billion Catholics, 250 million Orthodox, 80 million Anglicans and so on. Better hope your phone plan has a lot of minutes.


John 6

41 The Jews then complained about Him, because He said, “I am the bread which came down from heaven.” 42 And they said, “Is not this Jesus, the son of Joseph, whose father and mother we know? How is it then that He says, ‘I have come down from heaven’?”

43 Jesus therefore answered and said to them, “Do not murmur among yourselves. 44 No one can come to Me unless the Father who sent Me draws him; and I will raise him up at the last day. 45 It is written in the prophets, ‘And they shall all be taught by God.h] 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. 58 This is the bread which came down from heaven—not as your fathers ate the manna, and are dead. He who eats this bread will live forever.”
59 These things He said in the synagogue as He taught in Capernaum.
  
60 Therefore many of His disciples, when they heard this, said, “This is a hard saying; who can understand it?”
61 When Jesus knew in Himself that His disciples complained about this, He said to them, “Does this offend you? 62 What then if you should see the Son of Man ascend where He was before? 63 It is the Spirit who gives life; the flesh profits nothing. The words that I speak to you are spirit, and they are life. 64 But there are some of you who do not believe.” For Jesus knew from the beginning who they were who did not believe, and who would betray Him. 65 And He said, “Therefore I have said to you that no one can come to Me unless it has been granted to him by My Father.”
66 From that time many of His disciples went back and walked with Him no more.

67 Then Jesus said to the twelve, “Do you also want to go away?”
68 But Simon Peter answered Him, “Lord, to whom shall we go? You have the words of eternal life. 69 Also we have come to believe and know that You are the Christ, the Son of the living God.”
70 Jesus answered them, “Did I not choose you, the twelve, and one of you is a devil?” 71 He spoke of Judas Iscariot, the son of Simon, for it was he who would betray Him, being one of the twelve.


1 Corinthians 11:29 For he that eateth and drinketh unworthily, eateth and drinketh damnation to himself, not discerning the Lord's body.


It seems that Alfred may be a Messianic Jew. He has called himself a Christian, but he can't abide the talk of the Truth of the Eucharist as the Lord Himself taught, just like the people of the synagogue in Capernaum.

Who do you want to be with, the Lord, or those who couldn't abide 'this hard saying'?

We know, from Paul, what the early Church really taught: the same thing Jesus did, that the Eucharist is truly His Body and Blood. The truth is the truth, whether you like it or not.
« Last Edit: October 29, 2010, 07:31:39 PM by biro » Logged

Charlie Rose: If you could change one thing about the world, what would it be?

Fran Lebowitz: Everything. There is not one thing with which I am satisfied.

http://spcasuncoast.org/
Melodist
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: The Faith That Established The Universe
Jurisdiction: AOANA
Posts: 2,523



« Reply #1597 on: October 29, 2010, 11:04:57 PM »

Moreover, the law forbade drinking any kind of blood:

Lev 17:11
For the life of the flesh is in the blood: and I have given it to you upon the altar to make an atonement for your souls: for it is the blood that maketh an atonement for the soul.

The Law forbade the drinking of any kind of blood because it represents the life of the creature and belongs to God. Christ gives us His Blood because it is His life which He gives to us as a gift.

The parting sea is just as irrelevant to the Eucharist,

The parting of the red sea occurred after the Passover and was Israel's deliverance out of the bondage of Egypt. John the Baptist proclaimed Christ to be the Lamb of God. Christ was crucified on the day the lambs were being slaughtered in the temple for the Passover. Christ identified the last supper as a Passover meal. He identified the bread and wine as His Body and Blood being offered for the remission of sins. It is through the work of the cross that we are delivered from the bondage of sin and death. The Orthodox still refer to Easter as Pascha, which is a transliteration of the word Pesach - Passover. Paul writes that as often as we do this, we proclaim Christ's death, the true Passover, until He returns. Also in Baptism, which is forshadowed in crossing the red sea, we are buried unto the likeness of His death, which we procaim every liturgy.

one is a miracle, the other not.

Scientist have come with possible explanations to describe how the parting of the red sea happened. One theory is that if the wind blew a certain way it would part the water, which was reproduced in a miniature scale tank. Another theory asserted that what happened was based on the rhythm of the tides in a certain spot. I'm not saying I believe any of these theories are accurate or that it was not a miracle, only that scientists have found ways to reproduce something similar in a test environment.

The transformation of the elements into the Body and Blood of Christ can only be done by the Holy Spirit, and cannot be recorded, reproduced or theorized by any scientist in any lab.
Logged

And FWIW, these are our Fathers too, you know.

Made Perfect in Weakness - Latest Post: The Son of God
Tikhon.of.Colorado
Site Supporter
Archon
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Ruthenian Greek Catholic
Jurisdiction: Eparchy of Pheonix
Posts: 2,362



« Reply #1598 on: October 30, 2010, 02:17:39 AM »

I haven't read all 30-something pages of this, but I wanted to say something to the Original Poster.

I find it sad in modern Protestantism, when all you do is prove people wrong, instead of trying to build up the body of Christ, as you claim to do.  Christ will seperate the sheep and the goats, it's certainly not your job.
Logged

"It is true that I am not always faithful, but I never lose courage, I leave myself in the Arms of Our Lord." - St. Thérèse of Lisieux
Alfred Persson
Jesus is LORD, God the Eternal Son
Moderated
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Protestant but no Filioque
Jurisdiction: usa
Posts: 1,207


Primitive Orthodox


« Reply #1599 on: October 30, 2010, 10:26:50 PM »

The Eucharist is NOT a miracle, its a memorial.

You're denying that the Eucharist is a miracle.  You're right in saying that the Eucharist is a memorial; however, the Eucharist is also a Miracle that your darkened Bible Inerrancy belief system is not allowing you to see.

I read in an Orthodox Journal how an imprisoned Romanian Orthodox Priest (who was frequently beaten by his prison guards) performed the Divine Liturgy in his jail cell and used plain water to consecrate the Holy Body and Blood of Jesus Christ.  To me, that is a miracle in and of itself.


Until you prove it was a miracle, citing miracles proves nothing for your argument.

See above.

As it is right now, you may as well be saying "The virgin birth is a miracle therefore the earth is square."

No, its not. The virgin birth is irrelevant to the shape of the earth.

This Bible Inerrancy fueled thread that you started is irrelevant.

The parting sea is just as irrelevant to the Eucharist, one is a miracle, the other not.

That's your Bible Inerrancy derived opinion.

Incorrect, I claim its not a miracle, pointing to evidence in the text.

A miracle would have initiated gasps of awe, or comments of incredulity...nothing like that occurred.

At the very least, these Jews would have questioned drinking literal blood and asked Jesus to explain why they should:

For the blood of all flesh is its life; and I said to the children of Israel, Ye shall not eat the blood of any flesh, for the life of all flesh is its blood: every one that eats it shall be destroyed. (Lev 17:14 LXE)


ONLY your interpretation requires a miracle happened, not the words themselves because they are clearly figurative as seen by Christ's identifying the wine as "the Blood of the New Covenant", which didn't exist til Calvary, and confirms this by saying it is the "fruit of the vine" AFTER its consecration by our highest Priest:

 24 And He said to them, "This is My blood of the new covenant, which is shed for many.
 25 "Assuredly, I say to you, I will no longer drink of the fruit of the vine until that day when I drink it new in the kingdom of God."
 (Mar 14:24-25 NKJ)

If ever wine were to change into blood it was this time, when the prayer of our miracle working priest consecrated it. Yet NOTHING in the context indicates that happened, it seems to be only your opinion.

Can you cite anything in the context that confirms a miracle happened?



As for the Orthodox Journal story, its irrelevant.

You obsessively protest those who believe in Bible Inerrancy are just stating "their opinion" and evidently conclude that fact alone proves it incorrect.


Do you have any proof your belief in Bible Errancy is not just "your opinion" and therefore correct?
« Last Edit: October 30, 2010, 10:57:58 PM by Alfred Persson » Logged

For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who suppress the truth in unrighteousness, because what may be known of God is manifest in them, for God has shown it to them. (Rom 1:18-19 NKJ)
Manalive
Иоанн
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Russian Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Moscow Patriarchate
Posts: 289


It is later than we think.


« Reply #1600 on: October 30, 2010, 10:46:59 PM »


Analogy fail, the virgin birth, resurrection etc, are presented as miracles, the Eucharist is not.

Its during the passover meal, Christ gives them bread and wine, and says these are His body and blood, but nothing in the context suggests the disciples were aware of any miracle change occurring.

Moreover, the law forbade drinking any kind of blood:


 26 Moreover ye shall eat no manner of blood, whether it be of fowl or of beast, in any of your dwellings.
 27 Whatsoever soul it be that eateth any manner of blood, even that soul shall be cut off from his people.
 (Lev 7:26-27 KJV)

So nothing in the context indicates a miracle.

THAT is the question we must answer, whether the context shows a miracle happening, or not.

You say a miracle happened, but your only proof is your interpretation of Christ's words "this is my body...blood."

I say no miracle happened, and my proof is the fact Christ's words can be interpreted figuratively to refer to the body and blood He would sacrifice for the New Covenant to take effect.

AND Christ calls it the blood of the New Covenant which means it wasn't the blood in His physical body at that time. The Blood of the New Covenant comes into existence when its spilled out for our sins:

 28 "For this is My blood of the new covenant, which is shed for many for the remission of sins. (Mat 26:28 NKJ)

Confirming this, Christ called the wine "the fruit of the vine" after its consecration:

 29 "But I say to you, I will not drink of this fruit of the vine from now on until that day when I drink it new with you in My Father's kingdom." (Mat 26:29 NKJ)

THAT means it didn't become His real blood in any sense of the words.

So Christ's words are clearly figurative, your insistence the phrase is literal doesn't fit the context at all.

Its not a question of believing me, its whether you believe God wrote the Bible to be understood.

If God didn't write the Bible to be understood, if He wrote to confuse us, then He is evil, not good.

As it is impossible God is evil, we can deduce Christ's meaning is figurative, that it is exactly as He says, the wine remained wine and was a symbol of the blood of the New Covenant he would spill in the future.


Why would Christ apply the Eucharist figuratively if drinking blood was against the law anyway? That's like saying: "well, this is against the law, so just do it figuratively", or "it's alright to lay with another man's wife as long as no sex is involved." A sin is a sin whether in thought or deed, no?  You would have to have the metaphysical meaning and the literal meaning of the Eucharist to mean two different things for the philosophy you espouse to make sense.

"Not all flesh is the same, but there is one kind for human beings, another kind of flesh for animals,... There are both heavenly bodies and earthly bodies, but the brightness of the heavenly is one kind and that of the earthly another."- 1 Corinthians 15
Logged

"Lay hold of the pathway... rugged and narrow as it is."- St. John Chrystostom
Alfred Persson
Jesus is LORD, God the Eternal Son
Moderated
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Protestant but no Filioque
Jurisdiction: usa
Posts: 1,207


Primitive Orthodox


« Reply #1601 on: October 30, 2010, 11:04:51 PM »

Why would Christ apply the Eucharist figuratively if drinking blood was against the law anyway? That's like saying: "well, this is against the law, so just do it figuratively", or "it's alright to lay with another man's wife as long as no sex is involved." A sin is a sin whether in thought or deed, no?  You would have to have the metaphysical meaning and the literal meaning of the Eucharist to mean two different things for the philosophy you espouse to make sense.

"Not all flesh is the same, but there is one kind for human beings, another kind of flesh for animals,... There are both heavenly bodies and earthly bodies, but the brightness of the heavenly is one kind and that of the earthly another."- 1 Corinthians 15

Good question...because the Old Testament uses blood figuratively to represent "the life" of the flesh:

LXE  Leviticus 17:14 For the blood of all flesh is its life; and I said to the children of Israel, Ye shall not eat the blood of any flesh, for the life of all flesh is its blood: every one that eats it shall be destroyed. (Lev 17:14 LXE)

By eating the body and blood sacrificed so the New Covenant would become life to mankind, they were communing in that salvation collectively, it was a community remembrance of what precisely saved them all.

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?
(1Co 10:16 NKJ)



They couldn't have seen themselves drinking literal blood, THAT would have been abhorrent to them as it does Jews even today

Compare:

6 As for the living bird, he shall take it, and the cedar wood, and the scarlet, and the hyssop, and shall dip them and the living bird in the blood of the bird that was killed over the running water:
 7 And he shall sprinkle upon him that is to be cleansed from the leprosy seven times, and shall pronounce him clean, and shall let the living bird loose into the open field.
 (Lev 14:6-7 KJV)

Sinners are the leper, cleansed seven times is to be completely cleansed.

We washed in the blood of the lamb, over running water (=God's Spirit), are set free, we are the "living bird."

It was likely this John saw when Christ was pierced:

34 But one of the soldiers with a spear pierced his side, and forthwith came there out blood and water.
 35 And he that saw it bare record, and his record is true: and he knoweth that he saith true, that ye might believe.
 (Joh 19:34-35 KJV)

Reread verse 35. The realization the OT spoke of these things, in symbol, bowled him over, astounded him, he was beside himself in amazement, infallible proof Jesus is of God.
« Last Edit: October 30, 2010, 11:27:09 PM by Alfred Persson » Logged

For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who suppress the truth in unrighteousness, because what may be known of God is manifest in them, for God has shown it to them. (Rom 1:18-19 NKJ)
Melodist
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: The Faith That Established The Universe
Jurisdiction: AOANA
Posts: 2,523



« Reply #1602 on: October 30, 2010, 11:13:58 PM »

At the very least, these Jews would have questioned drinking literal blood and asked Jesus to explain why they should:

He told them why they were to drink it.

"For this is my blood of the new testament, which is shed for many for the remission of sins."

Quote
For the blood of all flesh is its life; and I said to the children of Israel, Ye shall not eat the blood of any flesh, for the life of all flesh is its blood: every one that eats it shall be destroyed. (Lev 17:14 LXE)

I know. I just quoted another verse from this same passage. There is a difference between taking the life of an animal that rightfully belongs to God and accepting the life that Christ offers to us and wants us to receive.
Logged

And FWIW, these are our Fathers too, you know.

Made Perfect in Weakness - Latest Post: The Son of God
Alfred Persson
Jesus is LORD, God the Eternal Son
Moderated
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Protestant but no Filioque
Jurisdiction: usa
Posts: 1,207


Primitive Orthodox


« Reply #1603 on: October 30, 2010, 11:31:56 PM »

At the very least, these Jews would have questioned drinking literal blood and asked Jesus to explain why they should:

He told them why they were to drink it.

"For this is my blood of the new testament, which is shed for many for the remission of sins."

Quote
For the blood of all flesh is its life; and I said to the children of Israel, Ye shall not eat the blood of any flesh, for the life of all flesh is its blood: every one that eats it shall be destroyed. (Lev 17:14 LXE)

I know. I just quoted another verse from this same passage. There is a difference between taking the life of an animal that rightfully belongs to God and accepting the life that Christ offers to us and wants us to receive.



As the blood of the New Testament didn't exist till Calvary, it remained wine precisely as Jesus said it did:

 28 For this is my blood of the new testament, which is shed for many for the remission of sins.
 29 But I say unto you, I will not drink henceforth of this fruit of the vine, until that day when I drink it new with you in my Father's kingdom.
 (Mat 26:28-29 KJV)

You are ignoring Christ's Words. Why would Christ call the wine "blood of the New Covenant" when THAT didn't exist at the time...AND why would He say it was still the "fruit of the vine" even after He consecrated it, if it wasn't?

Answer those two questions please.


As for Lev. 17:14, it says "blood of ANY flesh," so the only way to exclude Christ, is to deny Jesus came in the flesh.
« Last Edit: October 30, 2010, 11:32:41 PM by Alfred Persson » Logged

For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who suppress the truth in unrighteousness, because what may be known of God is manifest in them, for God has shown it to them. (Rom 1:18-19 NKJ)
Alfred Persson
Jesus is LORD, God the Eternal Son
Moderated
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Protestant but no Filioque
Jurisdiction: usa
Posts: 1,207


Primitive Orthodox


« Reply #1604 on: October 30, 2010, 11:41:13 PM »

6 As for the living bird, he shall take it, and the cedar wood, and the scarlet, and the hyssop, and shall dip them and the living bird in the blood of the bird that was killed over the running water:
 7 And he shall sprinkle upon him that is to be cleansed from the leprosy seven times, and shall pronounce him clean, and shall let the living bird loose into the open field.
 (Lev 14:6-7 KJV)

Sinners are the leper, cleansed seven times is to be completely cleansed.

We washed in the blood of the lamb, over running water (=God's Spirit), are set free, we are the "living bird."

It was likely this John saw when Christ was pierced:

34 But one of the soldiers with a spear pierced his side, and forthwith came there out blood and water.
 35 And he that saw it bare record, and his record is true: and he knoweth that he saith true, that ye might believe.
 (Joh 19:34-35 KJV)

Reread verse 35. The realization the OT spoke of these things, in symbol, bowled him over, astounded him, he was beside himself in amazement, infallible proof Jesus is of God.

Consider, at the very instant events indicated Jesus was NOT who He said He is...John is given clarity, a perception into meaning of the OT symbolism of blood, water, sacrifice...and what appeared to be insurmountable proof Jesus is not the Christ, was actually irrefutable proof He is.

Verse 35 has John "beside himself, absolutely bowled over" in astonishment and awe. The contrast couldn't be greater, rather than proving Jesus is not God, HERE BE infallible proof He certainly is Jesus the Christ, the Son of the Living God, God's Anointed One prophesied to come and reconcile all things unto Himself.

It is even so written:

 20 And, having made peace through the blood of his cross, by him to reconcile all things unto himself; by him, I say, whether they be things in earth, or things in heaven.
 21 And you, that were sometime alienated and enemies in your mind by wicked works, yet now hath he reconciled
 (Col 1:20-21 KJV)
« Last Edit: October 30, 2010, 11:56:37 PM by Alfred Persson » Logged

For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who suppress the truth in unrighteousness, because what may be known of God is manifest in them, for God has shown it to them. (Rom 1:18-19 NKJ)
Alfred Persson
Jesus is LORD, God the Eternal Son
Moderated
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Protestant but no Filioque
Jurisdiction: usa
Posts: 1,207


Primitive Orthodox


« Reply #1605 on: October 31, 2010, 12:57:38 AM »

Moreover, the law forbade drinking any kind of blood:

Lev 17:11
For the life of the flesh is in the blood: and I have given it to you upon the altar to make an atonement for your souls: for it is the blood that maketh an atonement for the soul.

The Law forbade the drinking of any kind of blood because it represents the life of the creature and belongs to God. Christ gives us His Blood because it is His life which He gives to us as a gift.

The parting sea is just as irrelevant to the Eucharist,

The parting of the red sea occurred after the Passover and was Israel's deliverance out of the bondage of Egypt. John the Baptist proclaimed Christ to be the Lamb of God. Christ was crucified on the day the lambs were being slaughtered in the temple for the Passover. Christ identified the last supper as a Passover meal. He identified the bread and wine as His Body and Blood being offered for the remission of sins. It is through the work of the cross that we are delivered from the bondage of sin and death. The Orthodox still refer to Easter as Pascha, which is a transliteration of the word Pesach - Passover. Paul writes that as often as we do this, we proclaim Christ's death, the true Passover, until He returns. Also in Baptism, which is forshadowed in crossing the red sea, we are buried unto the likeness of His death, which we procaim every liturgy.

one is a miracle, the other not.

Scientist have come with possible explanations to describe how the parting of the red sea happened. One theory is that if the wind blew a certain way it would part the water, which was reproduced in a miniature scale tank. Another theory asserted that what happened was based on the rhythm of the tides in a certain spot. I'm not saying I believe any of these theories are accurate or that it was not a miracle, only that scientists have found ways to reproduce something similar in a test environment.

The transformation of the elements into the Body and Blood of Christ can only be done by the Holy Spirit, and cannot be recorded, reproduced or theorized by any scientist in any lab.

What blood represents is irrelevant to the explicit command the children of Israel not eat the blood of ANY flesh:

 For the blood of all flesh is its life; and I said to the children of Israel, Ye shall not eat the blood of any flesh, for the life of all flesh is its blood: every one that eats it shall be destroyed. (Lev 17:14 LXE)

The only way eating the blood of Christ's Body is ok, if Jesus didn't come in the flesh.

That is impossible.

Miracles elsewhere are irrelevant because NOTHING shows the Eucharist celebration was a miracle, apart from your interpretation of Christ's words.

In other words, you have no evidence your interpretation is correct.

If it was, the disciples would have reacted to the wine that miraculously became blood and their reaction would be recorded in the NT.

It is special pleading to imagine such an incredible event as wine becoming Christ's blood, and bread His body, that they eat these without protest,  comment, or explanation.

For that to happen would be unlike similar occasions in the Bible. It records their reaction to miracles:

33 Then those who were in the boat came and worshiped Him, saying, "Truly You are the Son of God." (Mat 14:33 NKJ)

12 Immediately he arose, took up the bed, and went out in the presence of them all, so that all were amazed and glorified God, saying, "We never saw anything like this!" (Mar 2:12 NKJ)

37 But they were terrified and frightened, and supposed they had seen a spirit. (Luk 24:37 NKJ)

Nothing in the Eucharist account suggest anything miraculous occurred, NOTHING. If the disciples believed the wine had become blood, they would have reacted.

That is my argument you ignored. Answer how a miracle happened, yet the Bible does not record any response to the miracle.


Other miracles do not prove the Eucharist was a miracle. The scripture does not say it was a miracle, no one reacts to it as they do miracles, the entire seems like a new kind of passover meal, a memorial...not a miracle.


Of course God can do anything He wants, that is not the question at all. Did He do a miracle here, and you have presented no proof He did.







« Last Edit: October 31, 2010, 01:09:01 AM by Alfred Persson » Logged

For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who suppress the truth in unrighteousness, because what may be known of God is manifest in them, for God has shown it to them. (Rom 1:18-19 NKJ)
Ortho_cat
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: AOCA-DWMA
Posts: 5,392



« Reply #1606 on: October 31, 2010, 04:06:44 PM »

Do you celebrate halloween, Alfred?
Logged
SolEX01
Toumarches
************
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Greek Orthodox Archdiocese of America, Holy Metropolis of New Jersey
Posts: 11,285


WWW
« Reply #1607 on: October 31, 2010, 05:23:23 PM »

Alfred, Bible Inerrancy: Trick or Treat?

Happy Halloween
   Smiley
Logged
Rufus
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: GOA
Posts: leet


Nafpliotis with sunglasses and a cigar.


« Reply #1608 on: October 31, 2010, 11:30:52 PM »

And Happy Reformation Day. Today is the day Martin Luther nailed 95 theses to a church door.
Logged
theistgal
Byzantine (Ruthenian) Catholic gadfly
Site Supporter
Archon
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Follower of Jesus Christ
Jurisdiction: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 2,082


don't even go there!


« Reply #1609 on: October 31, 2010, 11:39:57 PM »

"I've created Lutherans!" (Lisa Simpson)
Logged

"Sometimes, you just gotta say, 'OK, I still have nine live, two-headed animals' and move on.'' (owner of Coney Island freak show, upon learning he'd been outbid on a 5-legged puppy)
Alfred Persson
Jesus is LORD, God the Eternal Son
Moderated
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Protestant but no Filioque
Jurisdiction: usa
Posts: 1,207


Primitive Orthodox


« Reply #1610 on: November 01, 2010, 12:59:51 AM »

Do you celebrate halloween, Alfred?

No, but I do hand out candy to the kids.
Logged

For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who suppress the truth in unrighteousness, because what may be known of God is manifest in them, for God has shown it to them. (Rom 1:18-19 NKJ)
Tzimis
Site Supporter
Archon
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Greek Orthodox
Jurisdiction: GOA
Posts: 2,374



« Reply #1611 on: November 01, 2010, 08:40:35 AM »

The burden of proof is on you Alfred. Where in scripture dose it specifically state that the bread and wine are not the blood and body of our lord?
Logged

Excellence of character, then, is a state concerned with choice, lying in a mean relative to us, this being determined by reason and in the way in which the man of practical wisdom would determine it. Now it is a mean between two vices, that which depends on excess and that which depends on defect.
recent convert
Orthodox Chrisitan
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Christian
Jurisdiction: Antiochian (N.A.)
Posts: 1,901


« Reply #1612 on: November 01, 2010, 10:16:29 AM »

His quote from Leviticus matches a  similar belief held in some Jehova's witness circles that donating one's blood is akin to the eating of flesh & blood allegedly along old testament lines.
Logged

Antiochian OC N.A.
tuesdayschild
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Posts: 966



« Reply #1613 on: November 01, 2010, 11:33:48 AM »

Its called apologetic, you make a claim, then support it with reasons why its correct. If you don't want to engage in apologetics, just say so, I won't bother responding to your claims. But if you want to make claims, and then prove they are correct, you gotta focus.

I made my claim. I believe the statement of the Lord: "This is my body." Why do you want me to believe you instead of Him?  Don't evade. Focus!

Lets focus.

Christ said this is my body...blood.

But He was still in His body, with its blood.

How do you explain that, there aren't two bodies and bloods of Christ.

Christ literal body (and blood) broke the bread and passed the wine, so how is the bread and wine now His body?

Both cannot be His real body and blood, only one can.

Therefore His words must be figurative...the bread and wine figures refer to His body and blood, the body and blood He would sacrifice in the future.


Yes, indeed. Let's focus.

I do not have to explain "how." I do not have to understand "how." All that is required of me is to believe.

Don't you believe in the impossible Virgin birth?  Don't you believe in the impossible Resurrection?  And yet you disbelieve in this.

How is that you demand that I disbelieve the plain statement of God as recorded in the New Testament?  Are you better that he who said, "This is My body"?  Or have you the charism to rightly divide the word of Truth?

That is what this whole thread is about. Your claim to authority.  I am trying to make this as simple as I can for you.  Please, focus.

Analogy fail, the virgin birth, resurrection etc, are presented as miracles, the Eucharist is not.

Its during the passover meal, Christ gives them bread and wine, and says these are His body and blood, but nothing in the context suggests the disciples were aware of any miracle change occurring.

Moreover, the law forbade drinking any kind of blood:

 26 Moreover ye shall eat no manner of blood, whether it be of fowl or of beast, in any of your dwellings.
 27 Whatsoever soul it be that eateth any manner of blood, even that soul shall be cut off from his people.
 (Lev 7:26-27 KJV)

So nothing in the context indicates a miracle.

THAT is the question we must answer, whether the context shows a miracle happening, or not.

You say a miracle happened, but your only proof is your interpretation of Christ's words "this is my body...blood."

I say no miracle happened, and my proof is the fact Christ's words can be interpreted figuratively to refer to the body and blood He would sacrifice for the New Covenant to take effect.

AND Christ calls it the blood of the New Covenant which means it wasn't the blood in His physical body at that time. The Blood of the New Covenant comes into existence when its spilled out for our sins:

 28 "For this is My blood of the new covenant, which is shed for many for the remission of sins. (Mat 26:28 NKJ)

Confirming this, Christ called the wine "the fruit of the vine" after its consecration:

 29 "But I say to you, I will not drink of this fruit of the vine from now on until that day when I drink it new with you in My Father's kingdom." (Mat 26:29 NKJ)

THAT means it didn't become His real blood in any sense of the words.

So Christ's words are clearly figurative, your insistence the phrase is literal doesn't fit the context at all.

Its not a question of believing me, its whether you believe God wrote the Bible to be understood.

If God didn't write the Bible to be understood, if He wrote to confuse us, then He is evil, not good.

As it is impossible God is evil, we can deduce Christ's meaning is figurative, that it is exactly as He says, the wine remained wine and was a symbol of the blood of the New Covenant he would spill in the future.






You've got that reply template down to an science, don't you? "Yada yada your analogy fails. Yada yada don't evade. Yada yada focus."

The fact is, Alfred, without the teaching ministry of the Apostolic office - which you ain't got - all a Christian has left is the plain and simple reading of Scripture.  You as much as said so: "Show me one Christian denomination that believes those scriptures as they are written."

"This is My Body" read plainly and simply means "This is My Body."  

"This is My Body" read according to the pastoral teaching of the Apostolic office fully preserved in the Orthodox episcopate means "This is My Body, which manifests the mystical union of Creator and creation that Christians are made worthy to eat and make part of their person, body and soul, in order that they may, by grace, participate in the life of the Holy Trinity (i.e. "that they may be one as we are one: I in them and you in me").

"This is My Body" read according to Alfred Persson means "This is NOT My Body." because Alfred sees paradox as contradiction and denies miracles that challenge his own dogmatic views.

Come back and talk to me when your church grants you the office of teacher, Alfred.

Oh, wait! That's right. Alfred is a Christian who rarely goes to church.  Let's look at that again. I suspect that the reason Alfred consistently refused to tell me when he last attended a church service is the same reason he stalled before finally admitting he rarely attends. He knew a true answer would tarnish his message. I suspect Alfred hasn't attended church in a very long time.

The senior pastor of the church that Alfred claims he belongs to has something to say about Hebrews 10:25, which Alfred claims he remains faithful to:

1) "There is a command there to attend the assembly of Christians."
2) "There is no such thing in the New Testament as a Christian who doesn't belong to some local assembly."
3) "When you stay away, you grow cold. You need that peer pressure, if you will, that spiritual stimulus that comes from the community of Christians."
http://www.biblebb.com/files/macqa/1359-7.htm

Alfred, obey the leaders in your own church before you claim the authority to teach anyone, especially those outside your church.  Seriously. Get off the internet, go back to church, get involved with people face-to-face, Sunday after Sunday. I suspect you would benefit from greater human contact.

When (if) the leadership in your church asks you to teach a Sunday school class, then come back with at least that minimal authority to represent some Christian tradition other than Perssonism.
« Last Edit: November 01, 2010, 11:43:19 AM by tuesdayschild » Logged
theistgal
Byzantine (Ruthenian) Catholic gadfly
Site Supporter
Archon
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Follower of Jesus Christ
Jurisdiction: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 2,082


don't even go there!


« Reply #1614 on: November 01, 2010, 06:49:41 PM »

Alfred, you said Christ couldn't have meant His literal body since He was still alive, and didn't have two bodies.

Tell me, how could the Second Person of the Trinity be present in the flesh on earth *and* at all times still be the omnipresent God?

Answer that and perhaps our beliefs about the Eucharist will make more sense to you.

(Not that theynecessarily have to - I've always liked C.S. Lewis' comment that "Christ told us to 'Take and eat', not 'Take and understand'!".  Smiley )
Logged

"Sometimes, you just gotta say, 'OK, I still have nine live, two-headed animals' and move on.'' (owner of Coney Island freak show, upon learning he'd been outbid on a 5-legged puppy)
biro
Excelsior
Site Supporter
Toumarches
*****
Online Online

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Greek Orthodox
Posts: 13,427


Και κλήρονομον δείξον με, ζωής της αιωνίου

fleem
WWW
« Reply #1615 on: November 01, 2010, 07:08:35 PM »

Alfred seems to miss the fact that the first self-claimed 'sola scriptura'-ist, Martin Luther, did believe in the Real Presence. The Lutherans still do today.

Again, Perssonism is what happens when you sever yourself from the Body of Christ and don't consult or involve yourself on a regular basis with any others, because you trust only yourself. It must be lonely out there.
Logged

Charlie Rose: If you could change one thing about the world, what would it be?

Fran Lebowitz: Everything. There is not one thing with which I am satisfied.

http://spcasuncoast.org/
Rufus
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: GOA
Posts: leet


Nafpliotis with sunglasses and a cigar.


« Reply #1616 on: November 01, 2010, 07:11:22 PM »

Alfred seems to miss the fact that the first self-claimed 'sola scriptura'-ist, Martin Luther, did believe in the Real Presence. The Lutherans still do today.

And the fact that the first Sola Scriptura-ist and the first Figurative Presence-ist came 1500 years into Church history.
« Last Edit: November 01, 2010, 07:11:38 PM by Rufus » Logged
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Warned
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,640



« Reply #1617 on: November 01, 2010, 08:14:49 PM »

Alfred, you said Christ couldn't have meant His literal body since He was still alive, and didn't have two bodies.

Tell me, how could the Second Person of the Trinity be present in the flesh on earth *and* at all times still be the omnipresent God?

Answer that and perhaps our beliefs about the Eucharist will make more sense to you.

(Not that theynecessarily have to - I've always liked C.S. Lewis' comment that "Christ told us to 'Take and eat', not 'Take and understand'!".  Smiley )

Exactly.

Way back when I had free time to play with Alfred, we asked him for his definition of Apostolic IIRC and he cited something from Dr. Pres. Pieper:
You still going with this definition of Apostolic?
Lets see you claim to be in apostolic sucession & yet say that someone (me) who finds an apostolic source as evidence of a veneration practice by apostolic Christians of the remains a martyred apsotolic Christian & that I trust these people as observing proper Christian burial rite as relying on unreliable hearsay?

The Church is Apostolic (ecclesia apostolica) inasmuch as all its members to the Last Day come to faith in Christ through the Word of the Apostles (John 17:20: πιστεύσοντες διὰ λόγου αὐτῶν εἰς ἐμέ) and cling to the Word of the Apostles (Acts 2:42: προσκαρτεροῦντες τῇ διδαχῇ τῶν ἀποστόλων), and this over against all departures from the truth of Scripture. Rom. 16:17: “Avoid them,” namely, those who “cause divisions and offenses contrary to the doctrine which ye have learned.”
Pieper, F. (1999). Vol. 3: Christian Dogmatics (electronic ed.) (411). St. Louis: Concordia Publishing House.
1999? That's only 1900 years too late to be in contact with an Apostle to receive their teaching.
President Pieper also comes nearly 1800 years too late too.

Like you, he was sent by no one sent by the Apostles, hence not sent by Christ, therefore not sent by God.
Odd that you should stand on him as an authority, as he was not only a confessional Lutheran, but one who held "quia subscription" to the Book of Concord, one of the examples of the tradition the Protestants supposedly don't have and don't follow. Roll Eyes
Since Dr. Pieper believed in the real presence, as do any good Lutheran, it shows that Alfred didn't read the Christian Dogmatics he cites. What a suprise. Roll Eyes
Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
Melodist
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: The Faith That Established The Universe
Jurisdiction: AOANA
Posts: 2,523



« Reply #1618 on: November 01, 2010, 09:10:34 PM »

At the very least, these Jews would have questioned drinking literal blood and asked Jesus to explain why they should:

He told them why they were to drink it.

"For this is my blood of the new testament, which is shed for many for the remission of sins."

Quote
For the blood of all flesh is its life; and I said to the children of Israel, Ye shall not eat the blood of any flesh, for the life of all flesh is its blood: every one that eats it shall be destroyed. (Lev 17:14 LXE)

I know. I just quoted another verse from this same passage. There is a difference between taking the life of an animal that rightfully belongs to God and accepting the life that Christ offers to us and wants us to receive.



As the blood of the New Testament didn't exist till Calvary, it remained wine precisely as Jesus said it did:

 28 For this is my blood of the new testament, which is shed for many for the remission of sins.
 29 But I say unto you, I will not drink henceforth of this fruit of the vine, until that day when I drink it new with you in my Father's kingdom.
 (Mat 26:28-29 KJV)

You are ignoring Christ's Words. Why would Christ call the wine "blood of the New Covenant" when THAT didn't exist at the time...

The Lamb was slain before the foundation of the world.

Quote
AND why would He say it was still the "fruit of the vine" even after He consecrated it, if it wasn't?

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

Paul also refers to the cup as being "the communion of the blood of Christ", not "something that only makes us think about the Blood of Christ".

The bread which we break, is it not the communion of the body of Christ?

Paul refers to the Bread as being both "Bread" and "the Body of Christ".

I think someone else here asked who the true "Bread" is, and who the true "Vine" is.

If Christ can change the nature of water into wine with the power of His words, change the nature of sick and injured people to that of being healthy by the power of His words, bring the dead back to life by nothing more than the power of His words, and create all that exists out of nothing by nothing more than the power of His words...

Is it really that impossible for Him to change the nature of bread and wine into His Body and Blood?

Quote
As for Lev. 17:14, it says "blood of ANY flesh," so the only way to exclude Christ, is to deny Jesus came in the flesh.

Lev 17:13
And whatsoever man there be of the children of Israel, or of the strangers that sojourn among you, which hunteth and catcheth any beast or fowl that may be eaten; he shall even pour out the blood thereof, and cover it with dust.

We are to offer the blood to God and not take it for ourselves.
If it is found dead, don't touch it according to the law.
If it is hunted, eat the flesh and offer the blood back to God because the life belongs to God.
If it is offered on the altar, the life belongs to God.

The sacrifice of Christ was for the purpose of us to be able to receive His life which He gives to us.

It's not a denial of His flesh, only a statement of faith that it is only by His flesh that we can recieve His life which He offers to us.
Logged

And FWIW, these are our Fathers too, you know.

Made Perfect in Weakness - Latest Post: The Son of God
Marc1152
Toumarches
************
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Rocor
Posts: 12,820


Probiotic .. Antibiotic


« Reply #1619 on: November 25, 2010, 03:40:04 PM »

Where's Waldo?

Did he split?

Did he make a parting statement or just leave?

I wonder if he listened to the CD of Fr. Seraphim Rose that he said he had purchased.

God Bless Alfred. May he find Peace.
« Last Edit: November 25, 2010, 03:40:37 PM by Marc1152 » Logged

Your idea has been debunked 1000 times already.. Maybe 1001 will be the charm
Tags: Perssonism Troll Apostolic Doctrine Eucharist born again Incarnation cheval mort figurative language going around in circles 
Pages: « 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 »   Go Up
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.18 | SMF © 2013, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!
Page created in 0.221 seconds with 71 queries.