ForgotPassword?
Sign Up
Search this Topic:
Forum Jump
Posts: 694
11/18/11 4:13 PM
And one more thing dear CLA, I am not your separated sister, the Roman Catholic church kicked out the TRUE CHRISTIANS, so it is they and their counter parts that have LEFT OUR FIRST LOVE, JESUS CHRIST not us. In fact, the LORD brought me out of Roman Catholicism and brought me into HIS OTHER FOLD. John 10 and back to HIM who should be everyone's FIRST LOVE.
PSST, do you gobble your hubby? Well if you don't eat him, you have no business claiming you eat JESUS. Do you commemorate your wedding day? Then celebrate the MEMORIAL OF JESUS death on the cross for you, by REMEMBERING what HE DID on that cross, and the blood HE shed to save your soul.No amount of RELIGIOUS RITUAL, cannibalism, or baby baptism will get one into heaven. Quite the contrary.
Interact
Posts: 2456
11/18/11 5:27 PM
CEO
chooselifealways wrote:cheezit01 wrote:chooselifealways wrote:And Transubtantion is certainly not a false doctrine. It was given to the Apostles by Christ Himself. Following apostolic Tradition, is the priesthood. Jesus made it very clear what the apostles were to do. Transubstantion is not reincarnation. Jesus becomes present in the Eucharist after speaking the words He intoned at the Last Supper.No Evangelical Christian that I know of believes that. I certainly don't, as you well know. But what I'd really like to know is this. Let's assume for a moment that every Evangelical church and Christian on the face of the earth is wrong and the Catholic church is right. Just what, EXACTLY, does it do for you?It changes nothing for me. And I categorically do not believe that at the Last Judgement there will be different circles of heaven, based on disagreed doctrine. So, as brethren, we are only separated by the things of this world. I'm sure there will be non-Christians taken up with Jesus if they have not learned of Him (like Saudi Arabians - Think of it as Muslim Camp). And there will those crying "Lord, Lord," who will not make it in the gate at all. I'm pretty sure Jim Jones is not going to go the way of his followers in eternity. Most of the People's Temple members were disenfranchised members of society, living on the fringe, and headed down to Guyana in search of a better life and freedom to worship. We all know that Jim Jones was a monster, so it's a pretty safe bet he won't be our neighbor in Heaven. Neither will David Koresh, Joseph Smith and Thomas Gumbleton. Across the board there have been scams and lies, but the grace lies in that Jesus will Judge us, not our neighbors. The people I worry most about are the people who cannot accept the trinitarian nature of God. God is the Father, God is the Son, and God is the Holy Spirit. That's all you need to know to be true. I do still believe that I am not going to leave this world stainless, and I suspect the most surprising thing that evangelicals will encounter is a thorough washing, just like the Catholics. I have a good friend (a very dear friend) who believes that Jesus was not fully human and fully divine at His conception, kind of like Glorybe. These are the people we should be reaching out to.I'm kinda leaning on the Scientologists peeking in the gates with their tinfoil hats on...
cheezit01 wrote:chooselifealways wrote:And Transubtantion is certainly not a false doctrine. It was given to the Apostles by Christ Himself. Following apostolic Tradition, is the priesthood. Jesus made it very clear what the apostles were to do. Transubstantion is not reincarnation. Jesus becomes present in the Eucharist after speaking the words He intoned at the Last Supper.No Evangelical Christian that I know of believes that. I certainly don't, as you well know. But what I'd really like to know is this. Let's assume for a moment that every Evangelical church and Christian on the face of the earth is wrong and the Catholic church is right. Just what, EXACTLY, does it do for you?
chooselifealways wrote:And Transubtantion is certainly not a false doctrine. It was given to the Apostles by Christ Himself. Following apostolic Tradition, is the priesthood. Jesus made it very clear what the apostles were to do. Transubstantion is not reincarnation. Jesus becomes present in the Eucharist after speaking the words He intoned at the Last Supper.
Posts: 5733
Posts: 8
11/18/11 7:55 PM
chooselifealways wrote:And one more thing dear CLA, I am not your separated sister, the Roman Catholic church kicked out the TRUE CHRISTIANS, so it is they and their counter parts that have LEFT OUR FIRST LOVE, JESUS CHRIST not us. In fact, the LORD brought me out of Roman Catholicism and brought me into HIS OTHER FOLD. John 10 and back to HIM who should be everyone's FIRST LOVE.I believe you become a better Christian by going where you are fed. I see no sin in that. Unless of course you end up an atheist or Scientologist.PSST, do you gobble your hubby? Well if you don't eat him, you have no business claiming you eat JESUS. Do you commemorate your wedding day? Then celebrate the MEMORIAL OF JESUS death on the cross for you, by REMEMBERING what HE DID on that cross, and the blood HE shed to save your soul.No amount of RELIGIOUS RITUAL, cannibalism, or baby baptism will get one into heaven. Quite the contrary.Religious cannibalism was practiced widely among the Incan and the Mayan communities. That is legitimate cannibalization. We do not cannibalize each other. The tradition of baptizing babies started I believe in the 1st century AD, so that a whole family would be welcomed into the arms of Christ. People didn't live that long to begin with, and during times of war, the parents wanted everyone in their families baptize and consecrated to God.
Posts: 1793
11/19/11 3:03 PM
Transubstantiation is a doctrine that cannot be proven either by a clear reading of Scripture or by the senses God has given each individual. Scientifically it is impossible that if the shape, color, flavor, odor, texture and constitution of the bread and wine remain the same, the bread can be said in any sense to have turned into the body and blood of Jesus Christ during a Mass. All empirical evidence supports the fact that no change whatsoever takes place. So how do intelligent doctors, lawyers, accountants and other non-professional Roman Catholics, convince themselves otherwise?They can't, so Rome reverts to "its a matter of faith." To disbelieve this abhorrent doctrine the Roman Catholic is told they are in mortal sin and to die without repenting of that mortal sin will land that Roman Catholic in hell for eternity.
What is even worse is this doctrine which is the "pinnacle of the Catholic faith and to be proven false the Roman religion collapses into nothingness," the theory of transubstantiation rests on the unscientific theories of the Greek philosopher Aristotle (384-322 BC). Prior to Christ’s birth, and a long time before the advent of modern science, Aristotle taught that all matter consists of two parts: accidents (outward appearance perceived by the senses) and substance (inward essence which the mind grasps and which constitutes essential reality). Based on this ancient misunderstanding of the nature of things, Rome says that at the point of consecration in the Mass, the substance of the bread and wine change, while the accidents remain the same. This scientifically flawed theory constitutes a ‘mystery’ that hundreds of millions of Roman Catholics believe by ‘faith’, while their every outward sense denies it.
11/19/11 3:37 PM
11/19/11 7:43 PM
XrcTim wrote:Transubstantiation is a doctrine that cannot be proven either by a clear reading of Scripture or by the senses God has given each individual. Scientifically it is impossible that if the shape, color, flavor, odor, texture and constitution of the bread and wine remain the same, the bread can be said in any sense to have turned into the body and blood of Jesus Christ during a Mass. All empirical evidence supports the fact that no change whatsoever takes place. So how do intelligent doctors, lawyers, accountants and other non-professional Roman Catholics, convince themselves otherwise?They can't, so Rome reverts to "its a matter of faith." To disbelieve this abhorrent doctrine the Roman Catholic is told they are in mortal sin and to die without repenting of that mortal sin will land that Roman Catholic in hell for eternity. What is even worse is this doctrine which is the "pinnacle of the Catholic faith and to be proven false the Roman religion collapses into nothingness," the theory of transubstantiation rests on the unscientific theories of the Greek philosopher Aristotle (384-322 BC). Prior to Christ’s birth, and a long time before the advent of modern science, Aristotle taught that all matter consists of two parts: accidents (outward appearance perceived by the senses) and substance (inward essence which the mind grasps and which constitutes essential reality). Based on this ancient misunderstanding of the nature of things, Rome says that at the point of consecration in the Mass, the substance of the bread and wine change, while the accidents remain the same. This scientifically flawed theory constitutes a ‘mystery’ that hundreds of millions of Roman Catholics believe by ‘faith’, while their every outward sense denies it.
11/20/11 1:31 PM
cheezit01 wrote:chooselifealways wrote:cheezit01 wrote:chooselifealways wrote:And Transubtantion is certainly not a false doctrine. It was given to the Apostles by Christ Himself. Following apostolic Tradition, is the priesthood. Jesus made it very clear what the apostles were to do. Transubstantion is not reincarnation. Jesus becomes present in the Eucharist after speaking the words He intoned at the Last Supper.No Evangelical Christian that I know of believes that. I certainly don't, as you well know. But what I'd really like to know is this. Let's assume for a moment that every Evangelical church and Christian on the face of the earth is wrong and the Catholic church is right. Just what, EXACTLY, does it do for you?It changes nothing for me. And I categorically do not believe that at the Last Judgement there will be different circles of heaven, based on disagreed doctrine. So, as brethren, we are only separated by the things of this world. I'm sure there will be non-Christians taken up with Jesus if they have not learned of Him (like Saudi Arabians - Think of it as Muslim Camp). And there will those crying "Lord, Lord," who will not make it in the gate at all. I'm pretty sure Jim Jones is not going to go the way of his followers in eternity. Most of the People's Temple members were disenfranchised members of society, living on the fringe, and headed down to Guyana in search of a better life and freedom to worship. We all know that Jim Jones was a monster, so it's a pretty safe bet he won't be our neighbor in Heaven. Neither will David Koresh, Joseph Smith and Thomas Gumbleton. Across the board there have been scams and lies, but the grace lies in that Jesus will Judge us, not our neighbors. The people I worry most about are the people who cannot accept the trinitarian nature of God. God is the Father, God is the Son, and God is the Holy Spirit. That's all you need to know to be true. I do still believe that I am not going to leave this world stainless, and I suspect the most surprising thing that evangelicals will encounter is a thorough washing, just like the Catholics. I have a good friend (a very dear friend) who believes that Jesus was not fully human and fully divine at His conception, kind of like Glorybe. These are the people we should be reaching out to.I'm kinda leaning on the Scientologists peeking in the gates with their tinfoil hats on...Maybe I could have been a little clearer. When I said "Just what, EXACTLY, does it do for you?", what I meant was since Catholics believe that the wafer becomes the actual body of Christ, what does eating the wafer do for you when you eat it?
11/20/11 2:10 PM
11/20/11 2:29 PM
Sorry, cheez, I misunderstood what you were asking. When we receive the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ in the Most Blessed Sacrament of the altar, we are to be Christ bearers. This is where reality and appearance show their difference. The substance of the bread and wine do not change in appearance, but in reality it IS Jesus Christ.Our bodies become the tabernacle of Christ in the world. We are all called by Jesus, but not everybody listens.
11/20/11 2:48 PM
11/20/11 2:51 PM
11/20/11 3:07 PM
ryld wrote:You forgot to add that your church also teaches that the eating of the wafer also forgives sin, which therefore, makes it a sin offering, when Paul quite clearly said there is no longer any sin offering. That would include the original sin offering which is not a continual offering, but a finished offering proven by the fact that Jesus Christ resurrected from the dead--that is no longer dead, no longer on a cross to be "re-presented". "Re-presenting" that same sin offering is re-presenting a dead "christ" because He was dead on the cross. That would be called "eating the sacrifice of the dead" AKA Balaam's Doctrine. Calvary is not duplicated in some timeless place to be "made present". There is only one Calvary. Calvary exists on this real earth, where once our Savior offered His real flesh, but now Calvary no longer has a cross on it with that sin offering still hanging there dead waiting to be "re-presented" so people can eat it. No, the flesh of Jesus Christ is very real, taking up real space, and remains seated at the right hand of His Father until His enemies are made His footstool and until all things are restored. Last I checked, those things have not been completed. No, His body cannot be in two places at once--only His Spirit is omnipresent, not His body. His body is human and human bodies simply cannot be in two places at once, nor do they reincarnate into a different form or "accident". He is fully human and His body subject to the same conditions in those regards as ours are. To state otherwise, is making Christ's flesh no longer a real actual human body that looks like a human body, but a spiritual essence that reincarnates into a wafer. Ancient Gnostics are the ones who taught that His body was only spiritual and not real. Saying His body changes in form is tantamount to saying the same thing. Plus His Word specifically states that He will only return physically a second time, not a cazillion times, and in the same body with the same scars, not a different form or "accident", and that when He returns, He will visibly descend from Heaven, not invisibly to enter into a wafer (as I said, making His real body spiritual so that He can be brought down from Heaven to become a wafer on earth, is no different than the Gnostics who said that His body was spiritual).
11/20/11 3:13 PM
Definition of OBFUSCATEtransitive verb1 a : darken b : to make obscure <obfuscate the issue> 2 : confuse <obfuscate the reader> intransitive verb : to be evasive, unclear, or confusing
11/20/11 3:31 PM
chooselifealways wrote:Ruth, the Anglican Church was created when Henry VIII declared himself the Supreme Head of the Church of England. That title still belongs to the monarchy, and QE2 is currently holding that position.
11/20/11 4:29 PM
chooselifealways wrote:ryld wrote:You forgot to add that your church also teaches that the eating of the wafer also forgives sin, which therefore, makes it a sin offering, when Paul quite clearly said there is no longer any sin offering. That would include the original sin offering which is not a continual offering, but a finished offering proven by the fact that Jesus Christ resurrected from the dead--that is no longer dead, no longer on a cross to be "re-presented". "Re-presenting" that same sin offering is re-presenting a dead "christ" because He was dead on the cross. That would be called "eating the sacrifice of the dead" AKA Balaam's Doctrine. Calvary is not duplicated in some timeless place to be "made present". There is only one Calvary. Calvary exists on this real earth, where once our Savior offered His real flesh, but now Calvary no longer has a cross on it with that sin offering still hanging there dead waiting to be "re-presented" so people can eat it. No, the flesh of Jesus Christ is very real, taking up real space, and remains seated at the right hand of His Father until His enemies are made His footstool and until all things are restored. Last I checked, those things have not been completed. No, His body cannot be in two places at once--only His Spirit is omnipresent, not His body. His body is human and human bodies simply cannot be in two places at once, nor do they reincarnate into a different form or "accident". He is fully human and His body subject to the same conditions in those regards as ours are. To state otherwise, is making Christ's flesh no longer a real actual human body that looks like a human body, but a spiritual essence that reincarnates into a wafer. Ancient Gnostics are the ones who taught that His body was only spiritual and not real. Saying His body changes in form is tantamount to saying the same thing. Plus His Word specifically states that He will only return physically a second time, not a cazillion times, and in the same body with the same scars, not a different form or "accident", and that when He returns, He will visibly descend from Heaven, not invisibly to enter into a wafer (as I said, making His real body spiritual so that He can be brought down from Heaven to become a wafer on earth, is no different than the Gnostics who said that His body was spiritual).Um, no. Not at all. Paul warned the Corinthians in his first letter of the danger of receiving the Body and Blood of Christ unworthily;1 Corinthians 11:27 "Therefore, whoever eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty of sinning against the body and blood of the Lord."
18For first of all, when ye come together in the church, I hear that there be divisions among you; and I partly believe it.
19For there must be also heresies among you, that they which are approved may be made manifest among you.
20When ye come together therefore into one place, this is not to eat the Lord's supper.
21For in eating every one taketh before other his own supper: and one is hungry, and another is drunken. 1 Cor. 11
As we can see, their heresies made the Supper no longer the Lord's Supper, but a sham. Therefore, they were eating it unworthily--that is to say, they were not worthy to eat it because only true believers were supposed to eat it--not false ones guided by heresies which denied the Gospel. Notice carefully Paul's calling out their "hunger"--clearly showing that some were coming after having fasted. Notice also some were getting drunk. These two practices were pagan practices which they did when eating their sacrifices of the dead. To prepare to eat such sacrifices, they would "purify" themselves by fasting. Then when they attended the sacrifice, they would behave in an orgiastic way: eating to excess and drinking themselves drunk. The fact that there were those among the congregation that behaved this way, proved that they thought the Supper was another sacrifice of the dead to be eaten. Therefore, being actually unbelievers following such a heretical view of the Gospel, they were not worthy to participate in the Supper. In fact, Paul says that for them to participate in the Supper is WORSE than when they were just plain pagans, that they come together "for the worse". Next notice what Paul quotes Jesus Christ as having said about the cup:
25After the same manner also he took the cup, when he had supped, saying, this cup is the new testament in my blood: this do ye, as oft as ye drink it, in remembrance of me. 1 Cor. 11
He doesn't say that the cup is the blood of Christ. He says the cup is the "new testament" in the blood. The wine is the New Testament IN His blood--not THE blood. Therefore, he who eats and drinks the Supper with this kind of belief--as your church does believing it is the actual blood of Christ--is not worthy to participate in it because they are an unbeliever--a pagan following heresies.
Furthermore, your church does indeed say that eating the wafer forgives sin, even though you deny it. If it therefore forgives sin, it is then a sacrifice for sin, and if Rome claims it is the same sacrifice as that which was at Calvary, what pray tell was that sacrifice? The body and blood of Jesus Christ was the sacrifice for sin. Therefore, if Rome says the wafer is the same as that sacrifice, then it is the sacrifice for sin. This is why you cannot use that verse you used about being "worthy", since as your own church teaches, SIN IS FORGIVEN WHEN IT IS EATEN.
Fr. Adam, Is it true that our venial sins are forgiven when we receive the Eucharist? Signed, (Parishioner)
Fr. Adam,
Is it true that our venial sins are forgiven when we receive the Eucharist?
Signed, (Parishioner)
11/20/11 5:04 PM
ryld wrote:chooselifealways wrote:ryld wrote:You forgot to add that your church also teaches that the eating of the wafer also forgives sin, which therefore, makes it a sin offering, when Paul quite clearly said there is no longer any sin offering. That would include the original sin offering which is not a continual offering, but a finished offering proven by the fact that Jesus Christ resurrected from the dead--that is no longer dead, no longer on a cross to be "re-presented". "Re-presenting" that same sin offering is re-presenting a dead "christ" because He was dead on the cross. That would be called "eating the sacrifice of the dead" AKA Balaam's Doctrine. Calvary is not duplicated in some timeless place to be "made present". There is only one Calvary. Calvary exists on this real earth, where once our Savior offered His real flesh, but now Calvary no longer has a cross on it with that sin offering still hanging there dead waiting to be "re-presented" so people can eat it. No, the flesh of Jesus Christ is very real, taking up real space, and remains seated at the right hand of His Father until His enemies are made His footstool and until all things are restored. Last I checked, those things have not been completed. No, His body cannot be in two places at once--only His Spirit is omnipresent, not His body. His body is human and human bodies simply cannot be in two places at once, nor do they reincarnate into a different form or "accident". He is fully human and His body subject to the same conditions in those regards as ours are. To state otherwise, is making Christ's flesh no longer a real actual human body that looks like a human body, but a spiritual essence that reincarnates into a wafer. Ancient Gnostics are the ones who taught that His body was only spiritual and not real. Saying His body changes in form is tantamount to saying the same thing. Plus His Word specifically states that He will only return physically a second time, not a cazillion times, and in the same body with the same scars, not a different form or "accident", and that when He returns, He will visibly descend from Heaven, not invisibly to enter into a wafer (as I said, making His real body spiritual so that He can be brought down from Heaven to become a wafer on earth, is no different than the Gnostics who said that His body was spiritual).Um, no. Not at all. Paul warned the Corinthians in his first letter of the danger of receiving the Body and Blood of Christ unworthily;1 Corinthians 11:27 "Therefore, whoever eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty of sinning against the body and blood of the Lord." Which you are quoting out of context. The unworthiness is referring to unconverted "believers" who were still walking in their pagan traditions. Why not quote the verse which makes it clear?17Now in this that I declare unto you I praise you not, that ye come together not for the better, but for the worse. 18For first of all, when ye come together in the church, I hear that there be divisions among you; and I partly believe it. 19For there must be also heresies among you, that they which are approved may be made manifest among you. 20When ye come together therefore into one place, this is not to eat the Lord's supper. 21For in eating every one taketh before other his own supper: and one is hungry, and another is drunken. 1 Cor. 11As we can see, their heresies made the Supper no longer the Lord's Supper, but a sham. Therefore, they were eating it unworthily--that is to say, they were not worthy to eat it because only true believers were supposed to eat it--not false ones guided by heresies which denied the Gospel. Notice carefully Paul's calling out their "hunger"--clearly showing that some were coming after having fasted. Notice also some were getting drunk. These two practices were pagan practices which they did when eating their sacrifices of the dead. To prepare to eat such sacrifices, they would "purify" themselves by fasting. Then when they attended the sacrifice, they would behave in an orgiastic way: eating to excess and drinking themselves drunk. The fact that there were those among the congregation that behaved this way, proved that they thought the Supper was another sacrifice of the dead to be eaten. Therefore, being actually unbelievers following such a heretical view of the Gospel, they were not worthy to participate in the Supper. In fact, Paul says that for them to participate in the Supper is WORSE than when they were just plain pagans, that they come together "for the worse". Next notice what Paul quotes Jesus Christ as having said about the cup: 25After the same manner also he took the cup, when he had supped, saying, this cup is the new testament in my blood: this do ye, as oft as ye drink it, in remembrance of me. 1 Cor. 11He doesn't say that the cup is the blood of Christ. He says the cup is the "new testament" in the blood. The wine is the New Testament IN His blood--not THE blood. Therefore, he who eats and drinks the Supper with this kind of belief--as your church does believing it is the actual blood of Christ--is not worthy to participate in it because they are an unbeliever--a pagan following heresies. Furthermore, your church does indeed say that eating the wafer forgives sin, even though you deny it. If it therefore forgives sin, it is then a sacrifice for sin, and if Rome claims it is the same sacrifice as that which was at Calvary, what pray tell was that sacrifice? The body and blood of Jesus Christ was the sacrifice for sin. Therefore, if Rome says the wafer is the same as that sacrifice, then it is the sacrifice for sin. This is why you cannot use that verse you used about being "worthy", since as your own church teaches, SIN IS FORGIVEN WHEN IT IS EATEN. Here is a quote from this site:http://www.withouthavings...ns&catid=53:grab-bag Fr. Adam, Is it true that our venial sins are forgiven when we receive the Eucharist? Signed, (Parishioner) "Yes, it is true that our everyday faults are forgiven whenever we receive the Eucharist. We know that Christ’s blood was poured out for the forgiveness of our sins (Lk 22:19-20), and that the healing power of the Eucharist forgives us of the sins we daily commit (CCC 1366, Heb 9:13-14). "Here is another:http://www.therealpresence.org/eucharst/a.html "A final effect of Communion is to remove the personal guilt of venial sins, and the temporal punishment due to forgiven sins."And here:http://theeucharist.wordp...rist-and-reconciliation/ "Lord, as we gather to offer our gifts confident in your love, make us holy by sharing your life with us and by this Eucharist forgive our sins."(Emphasis is not mine.)Here is another:http://www.beginningcatholic.com/communion.html"However, the reception of the Holy Eucharist will forgive venial sin—presuming of course that the communicant has sorrow for his venial sins. "(Emphasis not mine.) It is clear that your church teaches that the eating of the wafer does in fact FORGIVE SIN. If this were true, and if as you say, that is not so, that by "worthy" Paul was referring to eating it without sin, then how could anyone ever eat the Supper if they had any sin and therefore be "unworthy"? If they go to confession first to be forgiven, then they eat the Supper in a "worthy" manner, what is there to forgive? The simple answer is: that it just isn't at all what Rome says it is. There is no more sacrifice for sin, just as Paul said, and eating in an "unworthy" manner is referring to eating the Supper with these pagan heresies in one's heart, that it is a sacrifice of a dead god, a perpetual victim immolated so that the people could eat his flesh and blood. This is a pagan concept. It is the eating of the sacrifice of the dead. It is the Doctrine of Balaam. Repent, for you are on the road to death.
11/20/11 5:06 PM
7Neither be ye idolaters, as were some of them; as it is written, The people sat down to eat and drink, and rose up to play.
8Neither let us commit fornication, as some of them committed, and fell in one day three and twenty thousand.
9Neither let us tempt Christ, as some of them also tempted, and were destroyed of serpents.
10Neither murmur ye, as some of them also murmured, and were destroyed of the destroyer.
11Now all these things happened unto them for examples: and they are written for our admonition, upon whom the ends of the world are come.
12Wherefore let him that thinketh he standeth take heed lest he fall.
13There hath no temptation taken you but such as is common to man: but God is faithful, who will not suffer you to be tempted above that ye are able; but will with the temptation also make a way to escape, that ye may be able to bear it.
14Wherefore, my dearly beloved, flee from idolatry. 1 Cor. 10
What is Paul's meaning behind "him that thinketh he standeth take heed lest he fall"? Paul is speaking of falling away into IDOLATRY, the same kind of idolatry committed by the Israelites. He is telling them to examine just what it is that they believed lest it be idolatry. Why, why is Paul saying all this, then in the very next chapter he talks about the heresies going on in regard to the Supper. This is not just some disjointed speeches Paul is giving here. There is a clear and methodical outline to what Paul is saying, and the theme of what he is saying is "FLEE IDOLATRY".
5And that he was seen of Cephas, then of the twelve:
6After that, he was seen of above five hundred brethren at once; of whom the greater part remain unto this present, but some are fallen asleep.
7After that, he was seen of James; then of all the apostles.
8And last of all he was seen of me also, as of one born out of due time.
9For I am the least of the apostles, that am not meet to be called an apostle, because I persecuted the church of God.
10But by the grace of God I am what I am: and his grace which was bestowed upon me was not in vain; but I laboured more abundantly than they all: yet not I, but the grace of God which was with me.
11Therefore whether it were I or they, so we preach, and so ye believed.
12Now if Christ be preached that he rose from the dead, how say some among you that there is no resurrection of the dead? 1 Cor. 15
No true believer would say that there is no resurrection of the dead, but apparently there were some among them that believed this. And given the fact that Paul had to repeat the circumstances of Jesus Christ's resurrection, their saying there was no resurrection included the resurrection of Jesus Christ. These were FALSE believers, who believed something other than the Gospel that had been preached to them by Paul, choosing to believe those false apostles which Paul would address in his second letter to them.
Next, we must ask ourselves why these false believers who professed Jesus Christ, who ate the Supper, did not believe Jesus Christ resurrected. The answer is very simple. Their old god(s) never resurrected--they reincarnated. Therefore, these false believers believed in a different Jesus Christ--one who did not resurrect from the dead, but one who reincarnated--in the Supper elements, just as their old god(s) had done. This is evident by the portion of Paul's writing speaking about their question about what form one would have who resurrects (15:35). And this was just after Paul said this:
34Awake to righteousness, and sin not; for some have not the knowledge of God: I speak this to your shame. (v. 34)
All of that congregation were professed believers of Jesus Christ, but not all of them were genuine believers. Some believed in another "christ" manufactured according to their old traditions. There is plenty of evidence in their letters to show this. This is why Paul rebuked them by saying "some have not the knowledge of God". A true believer does not just know the I AM, but he is known by the I AM. It is only those who say, Lord, Lord, but do not know Him to whom He says, Go away, I never knew you.
Now Romanism has--so to speak--the best of both worlds. They do not deny the resurrection on the surface, something which is rife within Romanism--claiming a truth, but belying that truth by their tradition, just as the Pharisees did. By having retained the tradition of reincarnation, this is tantamount to denying the resurrection. This is the very reason that Romanists dwell so much on a still-suffering-on-the cross "Christ". As long as Romanists continue to believe in the Supper elements being the actual flesh, blood, and divinity of Jesus Christ, they shall remain at the cross where only death was. They shall not be able to get beyond the grave to the Resurrection.
11/20/11 6:56 PM
1Co 6:9 (KJV) Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind, 10 Nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners, shall inherit the kingdom of God. 11 And such were some of you: but ye are washed, but ye are sanctified, but ye are justified in the name of the Lord Jesus, and by the Spirit of our God.
Posts: 5355
11/21/11 6:56 AM
ryld wrote: You forgot to add that your church also teaches that the eating of the wafer also forgives sin, which therefore, makes it a sin offering, when Paul quite clearly said there is no longer any sin offering. That would include the original sin offering which is not a continual offering, but a finished offering proven by the fact that Jesus Christ resurrected from the dead--that is no longer dead, no longer on a cross to be "re-presented". "Re-presenting" that same sin offering is re-presenting a dead "christ" because He was dead on the cross. That would be called "eating the sacrifice of the dead" AKA Balaam's Doctrine. Calvary is not duplicated in some timeless place to be "made present". There is only one Calvary. Calvary exists on this real earth, where once our Savior offered His real flesh, but now Calvary no longer has a cross on it with that sin offering still hanging there dead waiting to be "re-presented" so people can eat it. No, the flesh of Jesus Christ is very real, taking up real space, and remains seated at the right hand of His Father until His enemies are made His footstool and until all things are restored. Last I checked, those things have not been completed. No, His body cannot be in two places at once--only His Spirit is omnipresent, not His body. His body is human and human bodies simply cannot be in two places at once, nor do they reincarnate into a different form or "accident". He is fully human and His body subject to the same conditions in those regards as ours are. To state otherwise, is making Christ's flesh no longer a real actual human body that looks like a human body, but a spiritual essence that reincarnates into a wafer. Ancient Gnostics are the ones who taught that His body was only spiritual and not real. Saying His body changes in form is tantamount to saying the same thing. Plus His Word specifically states that He will only return physically a second time, not a cazillion times, and in the same body with the same scars, not a different form or "accident", and that when He returns, He will visibly descend from Heaven, not invisibly to enter into a wafer (as I said, making His real body spiritual so that He can be brought down from Heaven to become a wafer on earth, is no different than the Gnostics who said that His body was spiritual).
Psalms 118:8 It is better to trust in the LORD than to put confidence in man. =================================================== Scarlet Chord Ministries Isa 1:18
Share This