Catholics...

[Keyan Farlander]

So have I - they are. All my Lutheran friends say so too, so there

 

The priest thing is pretty obvious, though. I mean, imagine if anyone could consecrate the Eucharist - there could be terrible abuses of it. Eucharistic ministers are told to make sure the person they give the host to consumes it before walking away (to make sure it is not used wrongly).

[Guest Redwing]

My best friend is Lutheran, so there and ha---she says Lutherans are closer to Baptists than Catholics, plus I attended a private Lutheran school for a year...

 

 

------------------

At last we will reveal ourselves to the Jedi.

At last we will have revenge.

[Keyan Farlander]

Perhaps, but that's not what I said! And anyway, this has nothing to do with anything.

[Guest Rogue 9]

Protestants take Communion as a representation of christs broken body and his blood, in this way we accept his sacrifice for us and honor it, that is my words anyway I'm not all the eloquent

[Guest Conor]

When it comes to the Eucharist, it all comes down to John 6. Was Jesus speaking literally or figuratively?

 

I have had extremely intelligent and well-informed Protestants try to convince me it is symbolic speech, but no matter how hard I try, I can't see how the context of the chapter could be taken as figurative. The reaction of the followers and even the Apostles, and Jesus' reaction to their reactions, show distinctly He meant what He said. "If you do not eat my body and my Blood, you have no life in you."

 

I couldn't say what Lutherans believe today. I have a quote from Luther (not handy, but I can get it within a couple days, as well as other material if necessary) himself where he defends the reality of the body and blood. Plus all the earliest church fathers believed it (I have quotes from them too).

[Guest Ike]

gary, just recall that Jesus did in fact say "eat my flesh" in John 6, not a "representation of my flesh". And if you also recall, most of those who were listening to him actually left after he said all that, and did Jesus correct himself, saying that he only meant for us to eat a "symbol" of his Body and Blood? No he did not.

 

And recall the Last Supper, where Jesus says the words "take and eat, this is my body... this is my blood." It sounds pretty clear from what he said, and from the context that he was in fact speaking literally, not figuratively.

 

 

more tomorrow, it is past my bedtime.

[Keyan Farlander]

Now we'll be in suspense all night!

[K_Kinnison]

I wish i could read Greek, and Hebrew so i wouldn't get tranlations muddled.. but if i use the NIV translation...

 

Jesus took bread, gave thanks and said "This is my body..."

 

If Jesus wanted Bread to be flesh, and Wine to be blood, he cold have easily changed it to flesh/meat, and blood. Since he was both God, and both man. When Jesus spoke to followers (not his dispiles) he spoke in parables. So that the truth would not be revield until his Job was done (dying on the cross) remeber the parable of the Seeds being spread out. and dont be a plant that takes root in shallow soil.

 

The 4 gospels, and the rest of the new testemtn never said "the water changed to blood" or "the bread turned to flesh" so SAYING that it did, is wrong. There is no more nead for Blood, and sacrifices, since God created a Perfect passover lamb to be the Sacrifice to end all sacrifices.

 

The Pharises, and Sabbicis (i knew i spelled them wrong) were similar to how Catholic churches are now. By adding laws, withen God law.

 

for example, if Gods law represented a Circle, and everythign inside of it was what he said we should do. Both the Catholics, and the Pharisies would draw a circle Withen Gods circle so they wouldn't get anywhere near "Gods line you should not cross". And sooner or later, the circle would get so small, you lose the real reason why there are rules in the first place. Unless it is written, it shouldn;t be done, because if you do, you are in danger of beinga false teacher, and be responsible for the Souls you have caused to be lost

 

I have a question for you. Since Jesus died for all of our sins. and we are sinless in Gods eye thru the holy spirt, and babtizum. Why should we still avoid sin?

[Guest Ike]

KK,

 

1. why didn't Jesus just turn it to real flesh and blood in appearance and taste, etc? First of all, it would taste pretty nasty. Second, it requires real faith to believe that something that looks, smells and tastes like bread is in fact the Body and Blood of Christ. Sure, it doesn't say that it turned into flesh and blood, but it doesn't need to. Jesus said, "this is my body", which was the culmination of what he was saying in John 6 to the crowds. What more need he say? If Jesus says "This IS" something, then it is something. I've heard the whole parable excuse as well, but it is weak. Jesus did not speak in ALL parables and his parables were stories that did not relate to him. When Jesus spoke of himself, he did not speak in parables. When he said he would rise again in 3 days, he wasn't speaking in parables. When he said he would die, that was literal. When he said he would come again in glory, that was literal. When he said, "Before Abraham was, I Am", that was literal.

 

Jesus is talking of his flesh and blood as real food and drink. The word he used in John 6 was in fact "masticate" which means to chew. So he really said "You must chew my flesh" in order to have life eternal. That is a pretty vivid image, don't you think?

 

Paul also speaks long about the Eucharist being flesh and blood. "When we eat this flesh, and drink this blood, we proclaim the death of the Lord, until he comes again in glory".

 

2. we are NOT sinless in the eyes of God. I don't know where you got that. Jesus paid the eternal debt for our sins on the cross but that does not mean we are suddenly sinless. We continue to have free will and can choose to sin. baptism wipes all our sin away, but we can still sin afterward and have sin on our soul.

[Deac]

What I meant was that we shouldn't get into arguments over faiths. All forms of God teach us to love, no matter which form you believe in. I believe in the Catholic church's view of God, the God of Abraham and God the Father of Jesus.

[Keyan Farlander]

I may be wrong about this, but I remember from somewhere that a lot of people (the Romans?) were disturbed by the early Church, because they thought at first that it was practicing cannibalism with all the body and blood talk. That is a pretty strong suggestion that the early Church thought it was the true body and blood. This is just something I pulled out of my memory, though, so who knows

[Keyan Farlander]

Originally posted by Deac:

What I meant was that we shouldn't get into arguments over faiths. All forms of God teach us to love, no matter which form you believe in. I believe in the Catholic church's view of God, the God of Abraham and God the Father of Jesus.

 

I think discussing our faiths can be very enlightening, actually. And this isn't an argument, really, just a discussion between cyberfriends

 

[Admiral Odin]

For some reason I don't think that is right and was just a myth the romans made as they hated the christians.

 

------------------

"Dulce bellum inexpertis."

(Sweet is war to those who have never experinced it.) Roman Proverb

[K_Kinnison]

(John 2:19) Jesis answered them (Jews), "Destroy this temple, and I will raise it again in three days"

 

Hmmm.. sounds liek a parable to me. Since the Teachers of the Law thoguht he ment the Building. But we know now after he got put on the cross, that "the Temple" was himself. Sorry Ike, Jesus did talk in parable s about himself..

 

or how about

 

(John 1:51): He (Jesus) then added, "I tell you (disiples) the truth, you shall see heaven open, and the angels of God ascending and descending on the Son of Man"

 

This makes no sense, unles you read Genesis 28:12 -- He (Jacob) had a dream in whch he saw a stairway (or ladder) resting on the earth, with the top reaching to heaven and the angels of GOd were ascending and decending on it

 

Oh look Jesus using another parable talking about himself.

 

When Jesus in John 6:35 says "I am the bread" he is again talking in a parable, and the bread is refering "feeding your spiritr" remember one of hte 3 temptations (Matthew 4:4) Jesus answered, "it is Written: "Man does not live on bread alone, but on every word that comes from the mouth of God." Also look at (Dueteronomy 8:3) "He (THe Lord) humbled you, causing you to hunger and then feeding you with manna, which neither you no your fathers had known, to teach you that man does not liev on bread alone but on every word that comes from the mouth of God" lastly we have (Exodus 16:12) "I (the Lord) have herd the grumbling of the Israelites. Tell them, 'At twilight you will eat meat, and in the morning you will be filled with bread. Then you will know that I am the LORD your God.'"

 

The bread, has allways be a symbol of Gods word. Jesus's bread was differant, in that he was the physically representtation fo GOd word, He was perfect without sin, and a model for everyone to follow.

 

in the End, the bread is really, jsut bread. But the Words used "Take and eat, this is my Body" sybolizes "Gods word" taht we are eating. It is allways bread, and allways has been bread. it is the purpose taht we use it for that makes it special for anyone partakeing in the lord supper.

 

Just like babtizing, the water is not special, you can use normal tap water, but the Words used "I babtize you in the Name of the Father, The son, and the HOly spirit" Make it special for those who belive.

[Keyan Farlander]

Just because Christ did that does not mean it automatically applies to everything about him. That makes no sense. In any case, the apostles and early Church fathers certainly took it literally. In summarizing the teachings of the early Fathers on Christ's Real Presence, renowned Protestant early Church historian J.N.D. Kelly writes: "Eucharistic teaching, it should be understood at the outset, was in general unquestioningly realist, i.e., the consecrated bread and wine were taken to be, and were treated and designated as, the Savior's body and blood."

[JR2000Z]

Jesus did it so we could have limited faith. If He literally change the bread and wine, then every ordained priest somehow have to do the same thing but they obviously cant. If He also change it, we wouldnt have to chooose to follow Him or not because we see the phyical miricle happen every day. Since He (from what I belive in) does transubstantiation, we have faith that every priest has also does transubstantiation or not. Peter believed in it and he became the 1st Pope.

 

 

Jesus just wants us to have a choice to follow him or not and the faith to do so.

[Guest Rogue 9]

Lutheran's are a reformed version of the catholics, there version stems from the recommendations posted by *GASP* Martin Luther (not the civil rights guy), that is why they seem similar, Martin did not believe Catholics had the wrong Idea he just believed the Church was Corrupt wether or not it was I leave for you to decide in your own minds

[Guest Redwing]

I take it you have never heard of the Ninety-five theses? Martin Luther considered himself Catholic, but did NOT agree with a lot of their doctrine. And many Lutherans today believe a lot less than he did.

 

JR2000Z, your standard for "physical miracles" is waaaaaaaaaaaaaay too high. What isn't a miracle?

 

Deac, like KF said, this is just a friendly discussion. None of us has flamed each other or anything like that. If we were going too, we would have already.

 

Ike: Uhhh...baptism wipes our sins away? Baptism is an affirmation of faith, not a substitute for the death of Christ. (**I sense argument coming **)

 

My final point: Jesus never once said "Take (Communion/whatever He would have called it) or you shall not be saved."

 

Think about it.

 

------------------

At last we will reveal ourselves to the Jedi.

At last we will have revenge.

[Keyan Farlander]

Originally posted by Redwing:

My final point: Jesus never once said "Take (Communion/whatever He would have called it) or you shall not be saved."

 

Think about it.

 

"Anyone who does not eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood has no life in him."

 

...

[Guest Zoom Rabbit]

Don't worry. If our religious debates were going to open up into flame warfare, I would have started it by now...

 

Now the 'Bad Government' thread, that still does have a chance of going bad.

[Guest Zoom Rabbit]

The most significant theological question I can come up with: if I cut an earthworm in two, and both halves survive, does each half now have an individual soul?

 

Assuming that earthworms even have souls to begin with...

 

 

[Keyan Farlander]

Your deep, Zoom. Real deep

[Gold leader]

Perhaps earthworms start with 2 souls. Just in case they're cut in half.

[K_Kinnison]

I say if they had souls, God would give them as many as neccesary. Of course they have to have souls to being with. Animals are not held to the same laws and ideals as Man is.

 

Kinda like chinese twins that are joined at birth. As many that are needed.

 

I wish somone would answer my question:

 

If Jesus died for all of our sins, why do we still want to avoid sin?

[Keyan Farlander]

Because embracing sin is to reject the gift of salvation that Christ offers us, making it useless. That means we go to Hell. That sucks. So we...try to avoid that.