Piece of Christ cross found?

gbrk, you seem to know what the Bible says/doesn't say. Going by what the Bible says a Christian is, do you honestly see Bill Gray as a Christian?

Hi GB,

 

You commented on my last post; but, quiet honestly I cannot tell if you agree or disagree with what I wrote regarding John 6.

 

So, let me ask you:  Do you believe that Jesus is instituting the Lord's Supper in John 6?

 

What is your interpretation of John 6?

 

God bless, have a wonderful, blessed day,

 

Bill

gb, answer semi's question first.

First of all, as it is with each one here or that I meet or interact with in person, whatever feelings or inclinations I have about a person runs into several areas ... personally, spiritually etc which all work to determine what form of communications I have with that person.  That doesn't mean I won't talk to people I disagree with but rather than with fellow Christians I might talk using more spiritual terms and verses and scriptures (if it's a theological discussion) whereas if I know or suspect the person is not a Christian or is opposed to preaching or spiritual dialog then I may speak about philosophical things but not throw a bunch of Scriptures at them that I know they don't believe in in the first place.

 

Regarding the specific question about Bill; If Bill (or anyone else for that matter, on here) says and professes to be a Christian I will, out of respect for that person, accept their declaration on face value.  As for my own personal feelings as to if a person is saved or not (if that is the question) then certainly the overt/visible acts and actions (fruits as the Bible refers to them as)  of that person serve to help any Christian to determine if another person's life mirrors that which they represent or state verbally.   

 

As a Christian I never feel it's my responsibility to "judge" anyone as to their eternal destination and state and if I fail in this I hope to be called upon it and apologize for going against my own principals and beliefs.  Practically though, I admit, we all make judgments about others and even Scriptures recognize that we, as Christians, are to make judgments as to what doctrine others are teaching and bring to us.  The point (I believe) here is for governing our own reaction to it and protection to/from what is being taught and to judge to rebuke the doctrine or how we are to receive it.  Not to make, though, judgments as some Religious/Christian leader or representative outward toward another as to their own relationship with Christ/God etc. 

 

I do not believe that in any instance Christ/God instructs us to be Judge over another as to their sins, lifestyle, or eternal state in a condemning way as to as if we are better than another or doing anything better or superior to another.  I fully believe our example here should be Christ Himself.  Most of Christ most rebuking terms and language was more directed toward those who claimed to be religious and on the "right side" than toward sinners seeking help or toward those caught up in sinfulness.  Christ ( I believe ) was much more stern and forceful toward those who harmed others by using their religion in a way that was 100% contrary to what the Scriptures actually taught.  Again I fully believe that Romans 14 plays a very direct roll here.

 

I know this does not answer your question and frankly I (as myself) would not be or feel comfortable making any statement other than to acknowledge what the specific person says they are or believe.  If Bill was curious what I believe or feel about him then I'm willing to share my personal opinion about areas I might feel betrays what he's trying to do or how I personally believe he could improve his witness.   NOW regarding a question about a specific act or action that a person does I would feel more comfortable and able to address.  I hope that makes sense or that I said that in a way it can be understood as to what I meant.  I feel, tough,  that many well-meaning Christians (myself included) at times become blindsided to things we do and don't realize that our own actions at times betray the very witness that we are trying to present unto others.  

 

 

Hi GB,

 

Basically, you took the long way around saying what we both agree upon -- that only the person and God knows if a person is a true believer.  I believe Billy Graham is a Christian believer; I believe that Charles Stanley is a Christian believer; I believe that Greg Laurie and Chuck Smith are Christian believers.   But, even though their Christian witnesses tells me they are believers -- I cannot say with 100% absolute certainty that is true.  Yet, I do believe I will meet them all in heaven one day.

 

We are not called to make that judgment; only to share the Gospel with all people -- and let the Holy Spirit work within each of us.

 

And, to my Friends Vic and Chick (you two should cut a record:  Vic and Chick) -- even though I stumble every day in my Christian walk, even though I praise God every day knowing that I am a "forgiven sinner" -- I have peace with God (Romans 5:1) for I know that Jesus Christ is my Lord and Savior, and that I do have a saving relationship with Him.

 

That said, GB, I will appreciate if you will answer my previous post, shown here:

 

You commented on my last post; but, quiet honestly I cannot tell if you agree or disagree with what I wrote regarding John 6.

 

So, let me ask you:  Do you believe that Jesus is instituting the Lord's Supper in John 6?

 

What is your interpretation of John 6?

 

God bless, have a wonderful, blessed day,

 

Bill

Gbrk, that was a wonderful and insightful post. ;-) thanks- I think many needed to hear that (I know I sure did)

My apologies for taking so long to respond but I was not trying to avoid it.

 

First let me say in your question, right or wrong, I almost sensed a challenge or some sort of desire to establish a confrontation as if you had already preconceived what I was going to say.  Somehow I felt or got the impression that you wanted me to assume an adversarial position but as I said that may be wrong and if so forgive me for that injustice done you.

 

While on the topic though this question shouldn't even be a part of this topic/discussion but became a part of it out of some seeming desire of an attack on the Catholic Church/belief.  I say this from one of your first few post under this topic when you posted the following:

"Bills post follows:

---

 

 

---

 

 While it may be a legitimate question to ask for the source of a quote there are plenty of books and material out there by various experts, critics, and studied people who reference many diverse sources and materials.  It's also very reasonable to question someone's belief or statement but all too many times, whether you intend it or not, your questioning appears or seems more like an inquisition whereby it will be followed by a trip to the woodshed.  Could be you are also always expecting a highly combative response and thus feel your in a constant battle and fight.  There is nothing wrong with explaining your faith or beliefs or why you believe the way you don't but most of the time ( IT SEEMS) rather than explaining the reason for your beliefs you choose to explain why or where everyone else is WRONG!  Also quite often you also seem on some personal vendetta against the Catholic Church and all of it's believers.  Yes we all know and recognize that there are many doctrinal differences between protestants and Catholics is there ever a point where we just agree, for reason of a higher cause, to disagree respecting that each have very valid and relevant reasons we believe as we do and rather than continually waging verbal war of words and aggression.  

 

If there is a specific Dogma that we are arguing or disagreeing about do you not think it more profitable and/or even reasonable to pray about what and how to respond, then respond then pray that if someone is wrong that God's Holy Spirit will work to reveal it unto them?  Is there ever a point that we continually test our own convictions and reinforce why we believe as we do and re-confirm that unto ourselves.

 

Now back to your question:

 

I never really saw or read where anyone, other than you, injected John 6 as being the Last Supper or instituting the Sacrament of the Last Supper. Christ last supper was recorded and addressed in Luke 22.  I can though see where a person would look to John 6 as containing the principal thought behind Christ instructions to eat of his body and drink of His blood for the very same though, and meanings, occur ( I believe ) both places but served two separate events and reasons for stating it. A complete study and understanding of John 6 could surely enhance ones reading and study of the Lords Supper event recorded in Luke 22.  

 

So as for where John 6 and the Lords supper come into conflict or correlation I can only look to you for it seems that you are the one who actually injected it into this topic for it's only in your post that I have seen statements addressing it or bringing it up but then it's also very possible that I missed someone's post as I surveyed this topic and if I did miss it somewhere else, under someone else's post then forgive me.  Also if you were referring to another topic or had that in your thinking or mind when you responded and brought in John 6 and the Last Supper then it would have been more helpful to have that topic to see but surely you can also see some how Luke 22 could be enhanced by the passage and thoughts in John 6 without having to say one instituted the other.  Surely (to me) the same thoughts were in Christ Mind about what the flesh/bread wine/blood meant or was to mean for the future Church and Christians to come.

 

 

Certainly not ignoring your very thoughtful reply and I thank you for your kind, generous words but I was just expressing my sincere thoughts regarding our (collective use of our referring to many posters and forum members) tendencies to so often get caught up in more of our disagreements than the core things we agree upon and (often I do as well) lose sight of our ultimate goal (or what it should be) to concentrate on some personal agenda, if there was or is one.  

 

Thanks again.

HI GB,

 

You tell me, "First let me say in your question, right or wrong, I almost sensed a challenge or some sort of desire to establish a confrontation as if you had already preconceived what I was going to say.   Somehow I felt or got the impression that you wanted me to assume an adversarial position but as I said that may be wrong and if so forgive me for that injustice done you."

 

No, there was no adversarial thought or intent intended when I asked your input on John 6.  As a matter of fact, I thought you and I would agree on the interpretation of that Scripture passage -- for neither of us has a vested interest in making that passage about the Eucharist. 

 

While I realize that you and I have been on opposite sides of issues which involve liberal theology versus conservative theology -- I did not envision that entering into the question of John 6 and what Jesus was teaching at that time.  

 

Then, you suggest, "While on the topic though this question shouldn't even be a part of this topic/discussion but became a part of it out of some seeming desire of an attack on the Catholic Church/belief."

 

And, you tell me, "I never really saw or read where anyone, other than you, injected John 6 as being the Last Supper or instituting the Sacrament of the Last Supper."

 

Once again, no that is not and was not my intent.  I do not inject Roman Catholic teachings and doctrines into discussion; but, I do reply and refute many of their doctrines when they inject them into discussions.

 

I did not introduce John 6 and the Eucharist into this discussion.  VP did that yesterday:

VP:   1 day ago:  "Yep - and as often as he says stuff like "if the bible says it, I believe it" -- he doesn't mean that -- he denies the institution of he Eucharist -- one of the clearest passages in the bible.  "This IS my body"  But Bill chooses not to believe Jesus -- despite Jesus clarifying, repeating, and watching several people stop following Him because of this difficult teaching. So to me, this blows all credibility.  The bible says it, and he denies it.  Not someone I'd take my cues or advice from..."

 

VP, and other Roman Catholics, have repeatedly used John 6 as their proof text for the Eucharist being found in John 6.   So, there is no doubt she was referring to John 6 here.  And, to further prove that, she mentions the disciples, i.e., those who had been following Jesus for various reasons, including getting more miracles like the feeding of the 5000 which occurred the day before this event in John 6 happened in Capernaum.  That is in John 6:60-65 and does not appear in the Synoptic Gospels.   So, VP could only be referring to John 6 -- and is the one who introduced John 6 and the Eucharist into this discussion.

 

But, since that has been done; I am really interested in your interpretation of John 6.  No, this is not a challenge; it is just that I am interested in seeing how other non-Roman Catholics interpret that passage. 

 

This is my response to VP yesterday regarding my interpretation of John 6:

 

1.  The so-called Eucharist is supposedly based upon the Last Supper which occurred just prior to Christ's final Passover in Jerusalem.   I believe we can all agree that is true; that Communion, what you call the Eucharist, is based upon that Upper Room meal just before Passover, in Jerusalem.

 

2.  The event in John 6 occurred, NOT in Jerusalem, but in Capernaum.  And, it occurred months before His last Passover.

 

3.  This event happened the day after Christ fed the 5000 on the eastern side of the Sea of Galilee.

 

4.  That crowd of 5000 which He had fed with the five barley loaves and two fish -- followed Him to Capernaum -- wanting to get more freebies, i.e., miracles, from this miracle worker.

 

5.  Christ took this opportunity to compare Himself as spiritual food sent from God which will never perish -- with the perishable physical food, manna, which God had sent from heaven to feed the Israelites in the wilderness.

 

6.  Yes, Christ did speak of His body and blood being able to save all people.  And, the words He  used were similar to those He used in Luke 22:19 when He said,

 

Luke 22:19-20, "And when He had taken some bread and given thanks, He broke it and gave it to them, saying,'This is My body which is given for you; do this in remembrance of Me.'  And in the same way He took the cup after they had eaten, saying, 'This cup which is poured out for you is the new covenant in My blood.' "

 

But, many events occurred between the message He gave in Capernaum to the 5000 He had fed -- and His Triumphant Entry into Jerusalem prior to the Last Supper.

 

So, my Friend, just because Jesus Christ used similar wording in John 6 -- that is your only support for the Eucharist.   While Luke 22:19 clearly, at the time of the Last Supper, is when Christ instituted the ordinance of Communion.  He left us two ordinances, Communion to do in remembrance of Him until He returns -- and, Baptism, which we do as part of our public confession of faith in Him.

 

If you will truly be honest with yourself, you will have to admit that the Sacrament of the Eucharist -- is not Biblical.

 

GB, my Friend, I look forward to reading your thoughts on John 6.

 

God bless, have a wonderful, blessed day,

 

Bill

Hi GB,

 

You tell me, "Could be you are also always expecting a highly combative response and thus feel your in a constant battle and fight.  There is nothing wrong with explaining your faith or beliefs or why you believe the way you don't but most of the time ( IT SEEMS) rather than explaining the reason for your beliefs you choose to explain why or where everyone else is WRONG!" 

 

Once again, I do not attack the Roman Catholic church or its people.  But, I will refute and/or challenge anyone, Roman Catholic or Protestant, who posts a false or unBiblical teaching. 

 

Vic posted from an article I assume was taken from a Roman Catholic web site or article.  The article stated that after the body of Christ was taken from the cross, the cross was then taken down and buried.  Personally, I have never heard that or read that.  So, I asked Vic for verification of that statement:

 

But, where do you find the proof of the statement:  "When the Body of Jesus was removed from the Cross, to prevent His followers from finding it, the Cross was thrown in a ditch or well, and then covered with stones and earth"?   Is that somewhere in the Roman Catholic Bible?

 

That is not an attack; that is a request for verification.  I would make the same challenge of anyone posting something as fact -- which has not been verified.

 

We all know the story of Jesus at the well meeting the Woman of Samaria.  It is a well know Biblical story.  About ten years ago, a pastor was teaching on that passage and began to add his speculation about what Jesus and the woman said, did, and felt -- facts that were not in the Bible.

 

If he had begun by telling us that this was merely his thoughts on that event; I would have had no problem with him.  But, the way he taught it -- it was as though this was the factual event.  He was wrong.  Not in speculating about the event; but in not telling folks that he was speculating. 

 

What is the problem with that?  Well, for new believers, or believers who are not mature in their knowledge of God's Word -- that can lead to false understandings of His Word.   If it is in the Bible, we declare it.  If it is not in the Bible, we talk about it, we discuss it -- but, we do NOT declare it as God's Word.

 

You tell me, ". . . but most of the time ( IT SEEMS) rather than explaining the reason for your beliefs you choose to explain why or where everyone else is WRONG!" 

 

If you will notice, when I challenge someone -- I will use Bible references to challenge or refute what they have written.  So, what I am doing is what Paul tells us to do in Acts 17:11, test the teacher and the teaching against Scripture.   This should be done regardless of who is writing or teaching -- you, me, or any of our Forum Friends.  Test us and our teachings against Scripture to see if what we have said is true, Scripturally.

 

So, if I challenge someone and suggest that what they have written is wrong, I will do it from Scripture.  If you, or anyone else, feels that I have interpreted that Scripture in error -- I beg you to point this out to me.  But, please do NOT just say, "You are wrong!" -- and walk away.

 

If my interpretation is wrong; show me the correct interpretation and why you believe that interpretation to be true.  In this manner, we ALL can grow more mature in our knowledge of God's Word.

 

With that said, I am still very interested in your thoughts on John 6.

 

God bless, have a wonderful, blessed day,

 

Bill         

gbrk, billie is just trying to tell you how wrong you are..........

Bill, regarding my comments to you, about the adversarial tone or perception of going on the attack against the Catholic Church I'm not attempting to make a dogmatic accusation but rather trying to say while the intent may not be so the impression often comes across that it is so and thus effects and often controls the responses you receive in return, responses of a defensive nature or return attacks.  The reasoning for even mentioning it (on my part) is to say maybe a step back and further analysis or reconsideration of wording or methods might illicit a different response or reply.  As I said it was just an impression which might not be the one you meant to achieve but was the one I had and obviously I am not Catholic so not biased in anyway that might cause me to feel that way otherwise.  

 

I'll accept your statement and word as you say it but regarding V's personal belief or feelings on the Sacrament of the Lords Supper or Catholic Eucharist I haven't read her basis for her beliefs nor can I say that I have done personal study as to where the Catholic Church bases it's verification of that Sacrament.  I very much believe though that it certainly would come from the institution, from Christ own lips where He instructs the disciples to (and to teach) "

Luke 22:19 (New International Version)
And he took bread, gave thanks and broke it, and gave it to them, saying, "This is my body given for you; do this in remembrance of me."

 "   

 

You will just have to accept my statement and word that I have not been privy to the other conversations, regarding this topic on the forum, but my statement that it appeared to derive from your post was solely based upon this particular context of this particular thread/topic and saying that "V" was alluding to this particular passage in John 6 to support her belief for it has to be accepted as an assumption on your part (correct or not) because on my part I have not seen anything to reinforce it or refute it on other threads and topics.  Again I'm only relating what was apparent to me only going on what I had at hand to base those opinions or judgments upon.   Again she may base her beliefs upon that passage or even the Church may but in order for me to accept it I really would have to see it or observe it myself or it's strictly second hand or potentially spurious information which, again, is why I attributed it unto you as injecting it.  Again your justification for doing so may be valid but I did not have the resources, at this point, to make that decision otherwise.

Back to John Chapter 6

 

Since you ask my specific opinions regarding this passage I will present it as just that, my opinion, my belief, as to what this chapter says or it's basis within Scriptures.  Bear in mind I look at these scriptures as what they are, a documentation of (as I see it) a historical occurrence, in this case Christ earthly ministry among  the peoples of the area and Christ sermon unto them as well as His instructions and teachings to the disciples.  

 

This chapter is also one of the larger Chapters and thus has several things which could be commented upon but I will though choose the one I believe applies to the discussion at hand or what specific area I believe you are wanting me to comment on so if I miss the point or do not comment on the portion you desire then just let me know.

 

Jesus, in his earthly ministry had a habit of traveling around proclaiming and preaching of the coming Kingdom of God, addressing people's needs, and preaching the gospel.  Some of Jesus very sermons are recorded in the Gospels so if we are to accept that they were faithfully recorded it can be seen as if we were there following along or observing it ourselves.  Otherwise we can take it as being delivered to us second hand as from someone who was there first hand and making sure that it was copied and delivered faithfully, as Christ gave it.  Some of those Sermons are 

 

The gospels record several of Jesus' sermons, including (as John MacArthur records) the Sermon on the Mount (Matt. 5-7), the commissioning of the twelve apostles (Matt. 10), the kingdom parables (Matt. 13), the childlikeness of the believer (Matt. 18), the Olivet Discourse (Matt. 24-25), the teaching on the Son's equality with the Father (John 5:19-47), and the Upper Room Discourse (John 14-17).

 

This chapter of John also supplies us with the words of Christ delivered in some of His sermons along with His teachings.  We also see the response from those that witnessed it or of many of them and from that Christ correction and clarification.  John 6:22-59 is one of Christ sermons where he contrast the SPIRITUAL with the PHYSICAL needs of mankind.  Verses 22-29, along with the story of the miraculous feeding of the five thousand (vv. 1-21), set the stage for the Bread of Life Discourse, while verses 60-71 describe its aftermath and allow for the clarification unto all of us and the readers of John's words and John's teachings.  We can literally put ourselves in the Disciples shoes as the words are delivered unto us in our current day Bible/Scriptures.  Bear in mind these Scriptures are just recordings of what transpired in time and not the actual Scriptures that Christ and the disciples taught from.  They would have used the Old Testament scriptures and therefore  the illustration used was from the books of Moses and the feeding of the people of Israel.  Christ then clarifies and uses the example of physical fulfillment of needs that reoccur on a daily basis and need filling on a daily basis to the Spiritual lesson of Mankind's Spiritual need for HIM, for Salvation, and the purpose of Christ coming sacrifice on the Cross so mankind and the Jews could see and accept him as the promised Messiah who would become a Perfect Sacrificial Lamb for mankind.  

The Jews and the Romans, greeks, and other non-Jews had several problems with this though and while the root of some of the problems was a failure to understand that Christ was speaking figuratively, in a Spiritual sense, they assumed it was a literal physical sense therefore cannibalism.  The Jews main problem was Christ proclaiming Himself to be God's Son, literally the promised Messiah among them now. Christ is preaching the meeting of mankind's most important need, their Spiritual needs for a Savior where as many there were recognized as just following for a free meal and thus missing out and failing to comprehend the Spiritual significance of comparisons to the manna distributed in the dessert by Moses and from God.

 

As with many scriptures and passages there are many diverse directions that analysis of this passage can be taken but in an attempt to be brief I will just say that it's very similar in nature to that found in John 3 where the Spiritual is taught but the Physical gets in the way as with Nicodemus and the process of being reborn.  Again Christ talking in a Spiritual sense and the receivers being blinded by tying themselves to a Physical sense and meaning.  Here in John 6 with Christ explanation of Himself as God's Spiritual Manna to meet mankind's ultimate Spiritual needs and His Blood He (Christ) is setting the very basis for the instructions of the Last Supper where the command is actually given unto the Disciples to take to the Church and fellow believers and thus we can understand better and clearly why Christ used those very words and terms associating His Body (Flesh) and His Blood with the physical food and wine that was consumed.  During the Last Supper there was not the need, as here, to provide clarification and instruction for this same instruction and clarification carried right through to the meal in the upper room.  

 

It is also a telling passage in John 6:65 which indicates God's ministry unto mankind where He, God, through His Holy Spirit enables mankind or physical man to grasp and understand Spiritual truths and Spiritual meaning of Scripture and see the truth in Christ Teachings.  Many though were blinded and caught up, as they are today, by the Physical and by earthly things rather than looking for Christ and the source of their needs they allow various things to become a block for them.  Even Christ own closest followers, many of them anyway John 6:60-71 could not comprehend these teachings even though they were disciples or close followers of Christ reached surely through His Earthly ministry and with many the turning point was maybe not one issue but many and with others it might have been only one.  Either way, again, this is tied to and points to the Last Supper as Christ solidifies the 12 and also identifies that He knows the one that will come and identify Him, for those who He foreknew would be coming for Him.  

 

So while this passage does not institute the Lords Supper unto the Church and Disciples it certainly has a basis in it for the language and teachings point directly to that coming time in the upper room on that special night (see John 6:70)  and the same subject and topic need not be retaught or redefined unto the Disciples for it was surely done at this time and place.   And while I don't see the Sacrament instituted in this passage at this time I fully see it explained and clarified and pointing to the very night and place and subject of the initiation of the Sacrament that would be ordained and instituted, by Christ, as documented in the Gospel at other locations in other parallel Gospels and while John doesn't fully document the Last Supper as say Matthew or Luke he does reveal teachings and dialog and events that are clarified moreso than in the other Gospels in John 13 and we can take the Gospels, again together, to clarify and reinforce each other tied together and cemented and knitted together with God's Holy Spirit's direction and ministry that is provided to us.  

 

Again the message and truth of the Gospel the many diverse teachings and meanings often are missed by many because they are blocked by similar obstacles that blocked some of Christ disciples from seeing and understanding and of some of the Jews from realizing the promised Messiah among them.  Many today miss blessings because they do not allow the Holy Spirit to minister unto them in the way Christ meant but we allow physical things and earthly things to get in the way and to be a barrier between us and a clean, sin free relationship with God's Holy Spirt. 

 

That is not to say God's Holy Spirit abandons us, far from it, but that we cloud and dirty the relationship with our own actions and failures and thus are not responsive to God's Will, God's teaching and instruction of His Word and the great elaboration, clarification, and revealing of additional Spiritual truths and teachings contained within and among the surface teachings and material available to us within the Scriptures, both Old and New Testaments.  

 

And at this point I'll end my (personal opinion) comment upon this passage or section of John 6.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Well surely Bill and I do disagree on certain things and I also fully believe Bill misjudges me for while he claims and submits that I am very liberal in my theology I would say that's far from it.  I can only atone and answer for myself and my own attempts to reach a level of Spiritual Maturity that I believe God wants me to be at and also present myself a willing tool to be used at His discretion and Will.  

 

I can but say I am mostly comfortable with many of my doctrinal positions while I have fairly certainty about many I always remain open and knowledgable that I'm far from perfect and very subject to error, being human, thus continually and constantly seeking for God's Holy Spirit to minister unto my personal needs among which one being to make me uncomfortable about areas that I error and to reinforce and reveal unto me that which He (God) seeks for me to know and understand.  

 

I don't see the Bible as some stagnant book that sets on a shelf or that is opened and often used as a weapon against someone but rather I see the Bible, God's word, as ALIVE, as Magical and as miraculous being constantly revealed in and through God's Holy Spirit being like a prism with light shining through (as a comparison).  God's meaning is like that when the Holy Spirit is involved and active in a Christian's life.  like light through a prism diverges into many several different parts the Word of God can be expanded via and through the Holy Spirit unto a particular Christian and from one passage a great host of applications can come and be derived all depending upon what God has for that certain individual but all also contingent upon that individual and each of our personal relationship with God the Father and the Holy Spirit.  

 

No doubt Bill and I will disagree again even though in reality we, more so than most on here, worship in a Church that most likely carries the same name over the door (i.e. Baptist).  In truth I worship in many Churches, listen to many diverse pastors and teachers and while I choose to worship, mostly, in a Baptist Church, I by no means believe everything I hear there.  It is just that I feel more comfortable there and God has chosen to provide me more growth in that environment and the Church I choose to worship in is also different than many Southern Baptist it also is very fundamental and very Conservative regardless of what Bill has convinced himself of.  

 

I have also associated myself with and worshiped and studied from with other churches such as the Catholic, Church of Christ, Christian, Methodist, Presbyterian and others so I would hope no one would try and pigeon hole me or paint me into one specific bias.  I fully believe that God's Kingdom is far more massive and wondrous than most allow themselves to know and realize and that usually we (Christians) are our own worst enemy and blockage when it comes to being the witness and person that God intends for us to be unto the world around us, both fellow brothers and those whom are outside.

 

I very much believe that each Christian and those whom portray themselves to be such, should continually be testing themselves and comparing themselves to the Fruits of God's Holy Spirits as outlined in Galatians 5:22-25 for those are the attributes of having God's Holy Spirit within and the closer we are to and with God through His Holy Spirit the more we will show and reveal and demonstrate those very Fruits (Attributes) of the Spirit that are mentioned.  For those that don't see those attributes and fruits within our lives then it's very good cause to reflect on where our failings are that influence those not showing up and revealing themselves.  My own opinion mind you!

"And then there's maude"

Hi GB,

 

All that said, let's cut to the chase regarding John 6:

 

Do you believe that Christ instituted the Lord's Supper at that time, months before the Passover, in the city of Capernaum?

 

Or, did He institute the Lord's Supper in the city of Jerusalem on the day prior to the Passover?

 

God bless, have a wonderful, blessed day,

 

Bill

If Bill Gray is what the Bible calls a Christian, then God/Jesus is a bigger fool than Bill is.

Bill,   I provided what I thought was a very lengthy, complete, analysis (regarding what I believe John 6 says)  as requested.  There is plenty of details within my remarks to glean whatever answers you desire as to what I believe John 6 says and it's purpose, which I believe is to document part of Christ ministry and one of  His sermons and teachings.  Furthermore that the importance of it, or the section I addressed, was that there was Spiritual meaning in His (Christ) words that was the crux of the message rather than the physical.

 

I honestly don't know what degree of credibility you grant toward me, when it comes to my analysis of the Scriptures but neither I, nor (I'm sure) many others, here believe you have a sincere desire in the asking of that question. I fully believe there is a motive, that you have, in asking that question for you want to insert me within your personal argument of words regarding some other discussion that has to do with your statements about the Catholic Church or what, you say, some other forum member believes or has reportedly said yet I have no first hand knowledge or any of it.

 

I entered this conversation, explained my personal opinion, as to what purpose John 6 served within the passage when he wrote/penned what was recorded, at your request to share MY OWN opinion. I did not enter this discussion or present my opinion to join in on some attack on the Catholic Church's doctrine or to have what I put be turned into someone else's words or to be used as a tool for some purpose I do not wish to participate in.  

 

I'm sorry,  it just appears  (note I said appears, not a statement of fact but saying that my impression in reading it) that there is a motive far from genuine interest in my opinion in you asking this last question for I surely provided elaborate enough explanation to allow anyone, that has a sincere desire, to know what I believe John 6 does.  I do not seek to be drawn into some argument or disagreement you are currently in that has roots in a topic that I have neither read, participated in, or am aware of in a first hand way.  I responded, regarding my analysis of or opinion of John 6 here, in this thread, because you ask what I thought was a sincere request to know my opinion about it.  Now I don't think you cared, really , to know what I thought about it, but rather desired to, somehow, continue some purpose from a previous thread/conversation.  

 

IF there are others who have a followup question or I have not been complete in my personal (as in my opinion) analysis of John 6 then i'll certainly entertain additional questions but I believe I was complete enough that anyone could glean what I believe about that passage.  When it comes to talking about purportedly found pieces of the cross (and I do not believe that they honestly found it, but also give enough skepticism that it potentially could be)  I don't see where an analysis of John 6 even has merit in this conversation or thread for it happens prior to Christ Crucifixion and has no relation to the cross.

 

I don't mind answering genuine questions, that seek my opinion but I fully do not seek this as a genuine question of curiosity and I feel I have already provided a very complete analysis.  

Hi GB,

 

Your answer may be in your lengthy response; but, I could not find it.    NO, I am not trying to put you in the middle.  I am merely interested in knowing how you, a fellow believer, view this Scripture passage.

 

Simply put, do you believe that John 6 is a record of Jesus instituting the Lord's Supper?  At this point, I am not asking for a "complete analysis" -- just a simple answer.

 

I would appreciate a simple yes or no answer -- and then we will drop this dialogue.

 

God bless, have a wonderful, blessed day,

 

Bill

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

Hey Gb... Welcome to the club... I suspect you are now considered a member of the cabal...

Joking aside, while your words appear to have been lost on the individual who asked your opinion, they are much appreciated by me and, I suspect, the majority here.

Your thoughtful analysis of the scripture and your detailed account of what you believe it means is refreshing... Most appreciated is your care to not offend anyone and to point out repeatedly that you were expressing your interpretation only...

Thank you for your time and efforts for those of us who wish true, reasoned dialog.

 

I had a piece of the True Cross.  I mixed it in with some mesquite and some hickory for a BBQ I recently cooked.

 

it was heavenly.

 

DF

Yes! Gb, I also appreciate your very thoughtful comments. Bill is baiting you, and I dare say his intentions are not noble. He is trying to back you into a corner. Probably trying to enlist you as an ally on his war on Catholicism

Hey nsns, good to see ya... But that was a little tacky..;(

Well Bill if my response was so long as you not to be able to glean any answer to a question you might have then it is a very good indication that you most likely didn't read much of it at all and therefore was either not sincere in wanting to know my thoughts about it (for the chapter, 6 that is, is a very long chapter itself) and I still believe your motive is not so genuine and innocent in asking.  

 

If you are asking my beliefs about the Sacrament of the Last Supper I very much believe Christ instituted this for His Church as a continual reminder not only of how our Salvation came about but the fact that it could have only come through Him and was a gift from God the Father to meet our Spiritual needs.  I don't see how anyone would not find the very words of Christ, spoken at His own Last (Passover) supper instructing the disciples to continue to do this as the most significant proof to turn to.  

 

If someone wishes to use John 6 though to elaborate on the Spiritual meaning of the act itself clarifying that it is symbolic of a Spiritual truth and use John 6 to amplify and clarify Christ meaning for His specific terms then that could be also understood as the exact same meaning, example, and terms are used both places.  I have thus answered your questions in my first response and all along and if you are just wanting a quick one word or two word response to a question as you ask here then you were very deceptive in your approach to me and wasted ( no not wasted really ) my time and effort in compiling a response to explain my particular belief and opinion about John 6.  That, I thought, was what you were asking and not just a simple question about when Jesus gave a specific instruction which is already answered in another section of Scripture.  While it may have been a waste of my time responding to something that apparently you never were sincere in asking, it was not a waste, at last I don't see it that way, from the response of some of the others so apparently someone took time to read my response so it was not typed and relayed in vain. 

 

If you wish to, again, assert that there is a claim that the Sacrament was instituted here in John 6 then I would ask, of you, to supply background and evidence as to why you believe that or where that is asserted for I've not seen anyone in this thread, other than you, bring up that assertion other than to assign it to or as a Catholic justification or attribute it to another member of whom I have not personally seen it made by that person.  

 

I will redirect you to a post, under this section, earlier where I brought up Romans 14 and elaborated upon it.  Both people were Christians and both believed far different (seemingly opposite things) about a certain doctrine.  The overwhelming instruction (as I see it) by Paul was for them to be respectful of each other and for the one who was comfortable with their (correct) understanding of the doctrine not to cause the one who had not reached that point in their studies and maturity yet to fall into sin for both were just as diligent in serving their master/Lord.

 

Do YOU not see some parallels between this whole thread and what it's turned into and the instructions Paul gave us in Romans 14?  One other comment, Bill, I know this was a long response and not a simple one or two word reply to your quoted question about but I also do not feel remorseful in elaborating on my reply as I've do no different than you have on other occasions when ask to provide a very concise and short answer only to spend an elaborate (as I have) amount of time over explaining ones answer to avoid confusion or potential misunderstanding.  

Hi VP,

 

How can asking a simple Bible question of GB, or anyone, be baiting them?   I asked him a straightforward question:   "Simply put, do you believe that John 6 is a record of Jesus instituting the Lord's Supper?"

 

How is that baiting?

 

Let me ask you, or any of my Roman Catholic Friends, three questions:  

 

1.  Was the Lord's Supper instituted on the eve of the Passover?

 

2.  Was the Lord's Supper instituted in Capernaum or in Jerusalem?

 

3.  If it was done on the eve of the Passover, and if it was done in Jerusalem -- then how could the Lord's Supper be found in John 6?

 

Those are simple, straightforward Bible questions.   Will you answer them -- or are you afraid to answer them?

 

God bless, have a wonderful, blessed day,

 

Bill

Allow me to reply for "V" here.

Here is your question, as you typed it above " "Simply put, do you believe that John 6 is a record of Jesus instituting the Lord's Supper?""

 

This question would be very valid IF you (the asking person that ask this specific question) actually believed themselves that John 6 is Christ instituting the Lords Supper.  That would not be baiting but simply asking.  What you did though was inject this thought into this thread in the first place assigning it to another member or group then at the same time attempting to refute it.  Then with your request asking me to explain my interpretation of John 6 and what I thought about it you later actually reveal a desire to only know ONE very specific question rather than my actual belief about the passage as was first ask.   It's very easy to suspect that I'm being baited and lured into a discussion that I was not a part of in the first place.    

 

Even when I answered, actually, your condensed question (within my analysis), you were evident in revealing that you were not interested in even reading my response but only wanted to use my words to make a point that you had already decided to make either deflecting the argument back upon me as if I was taking your position, or taking something that I had written for one purpose and use it for a totally different purpose.

 

Short version:  If you were the one who believed that John 6 instituted the Sacrament then your question would be legit and fair as worded.  If though you did not believe that and worded the question as you did then it was surely an attempt to bait me into a discussion or disagreement that I never was a part of in the first place.

 

You were pretty clear in steering me toward analysis of John 6 with emphasis on the Lords Supper, which I answered, but the baiting part is trying to get me to answer a question that wasn't ask but rather was assigned, by you, upon another person or Church and that's trying to insert me into a conversation I never was in or was not privy to.  In that way it was a bit disingenuous in nature.

 

 

Thank you GBRK, Bill, I am quite sure you know my position on the institution of the Holy Eucharist, at te last supper. After all, did you not spend 20 years in the Catholic Church? And attend catechism classes? Indeed you should be well versed in the catholic teaching regarding the Eucharist. You chose to turn from it, that's neither here nor there: the institution of the Eucharist remains the same. Forever and ever amen. Blessed be God forever!

Hi GB,

In my post to VP, I wrote:

Hi VP,   How can asking a simple Bible question of GB, or anyone, be baiting them?   I asked him a straightforward question:   "Simply put, do you believe that John 6 is a record of Jesus instituting the Lord's Supper?"

How is that baiting?

Let me ask you, or any of my Roman Catholic Friends, three questions:

1.  Was the Lord's Supper instituted on the eve of the Passover?

2.  Was the Lord's Supper instituted in Capernaum or in Jerusalem?

3.  If it was done on the eve of the Passover, and if it was done in Jerusalem -- then how could the Lord's Supper be found in John 6?

Those are simple, straightforward Bible questions.   Will you answer them -- or are you afraid to answer them?   God bless, have a wonderful, blessed day,   Bill

 

And, you reply, "Allow me to reply for "V" here.   Here is your question, as you typed it above  "Simply put, do you believe that John 6 is a record of Jesus instituting the Lord's Supper?"

This question would be very valid IF you (the asking person that ask this specific question) actually believed themselves that John 6 is Christ instituting the Lords Supper.  That would not be baiting but simply asking. "

I disagree.  It does not matter how the person asking the question believes; it is simply a straightforward Bible question which any fairly mature believer should be able to answer.  Even a person not mature in God's Word should be able to read that passage and, from the facts presented there, answer that question.

Yes, that is exactly the question I asked of VP, or anyone else.   Why, because she, Vic, and others have staunchly declared John 6 to be the Scripture passage where Jesus Christ instituted the Lord's Supper, which they call the Eucharist.  I have shown them, from Scripture, a number of times why John 6 CANNOT be speaking of the Lord's Supper.

Why?  Because this event occurred the day after He fed the 5000 on the eastern s**** of the Sea of Galilee and then left with His disciples for Capernaum.  The event in John 6 occurs in Capernaum, not Jerusalem.  And, this event occurred months before the Passover where He did institute the Lord's Supper.

So, why did I ask this question of you?  Personally, I am interested in hearing the interpretation of any Christian believer, not just Roman Catholics, for John 6.  Since you are a Christian believer, I asked you.  If I asked you to explain John 3:16 -- would that be baiting you?  Of course not.  Regardless of which Scripture passage we would discuss, it would not be baiting to ask for another person's interpretation.

And, the only people who would be hesitant to answer would be those who have built an erroneous doctrine upon that Scripture passage, as have the Roman Catholics -- or a person who does not really understand what the passage is teaching.

Then, you tell me, again, "What you did though was inject this thought into this thread in the first place assigning it to another member or group then at the same time attempting to refute it."

If you recall, I answered this false accusation yesterday.  This is from that post:

I did not introduce John 6 and the Eucharist into this discussion.  VP did that yesterday:

VP:   1 day ago:  "Yep - and as often as he says stuff like "if the bible says it, I believe it" -- he doesn't mean that -- he denies the institution of he Eucharist -- one of the clearest passages in the bible.  "This IS my body" But Bill chooses not to believe Jesus -- despite Jesus clarifying, repeating, and watching several people stop following Him because of this difficult teaching. So to me, this blows all credibility.  The bible says it, and he denies it.  Not someone I'd take my cues or advice from..."

 

VP, and other Roman Catholics, have repeatedly used John 6 as their proof text for the Eucharist being found in John 6. So, there is no doubt she was referring to John 6 here.  And, to further prove that, she mentions the disciples, i.e., those who had been following Jesus for various reasons, including getting more miracles like the feeding of the 5000 which occurred the day before this event in John 6 happened in Capernaum.  That is in John 6:60-65 and does not appear in the Synoptic Gospels.   So, VP could only be referring to John 6 -- and is the one who introduced John 6 and the Eucharist into this discussion.

GB, it seems that you have a burr under your saddle when I post.  While I do disagree with many of your Liberal theology beliefs; this particular issue should have nothing to do with being Liberal or Conservative.  It is an honest question on the interpretation of a Scripture passage.

You tell me that you answered my question.  But, I will be honest -- if you did, you buried it so deep in all your verbiage that I doubt if God Himself could find it.

However, my Friend, if you cannot answer the question, "Do you believe that John 6 is a record of Jesus instituting the Lord's Supper?" -- not a problem.  It would seem to me that you are hiding behind our previous disagreement and using that to avoid this question.

Let me suggest one last thing regarding Bible questions.   If we all agreed 100% on the interpretation of all Scripture -- there would be no basis for discussions.  And, without Bible discussions, how would we all grow more mature in our knowledge of God's Word?

So, when I ask you a question, or you ask me one -- that is not baiting; that is discussing Scripture.  We do not have to agree to have a discussion.

God bless, have a wonderful, blessed day,

Bill

Bill, you write:

GB, it seems that you have a burr under your saddle when I post.  While I do disagree with many of your Liberal theology beliefs; this particular issue should have nothing to do with being Liberal or Conservative.  It is an honest question on the interpretation of a Scripture passage.

 

 

 

Bill I have no problem explaining to you where my problems with you are but the main ones are:

• In the past being a part of your facebook page or personal blogs without my knowledge and permission being represented by your own biased opinion, of me, with regards to post that were on this board.  Then after several times asking to be taken out I was advised I was still referred to so that was certainly a problem I had with you.
• Being continually misJUDGED by you according to your own prejudiced biases that I am of a liberal theology and, if I remember correctly, even to the point of associating me with seeker doctrines both of which are not only wrong but continually perpetrated by you on this forum.
• As a Christian who believes very strongly that we (Christians) are to be a light, reflecting the attributes of Christ Himself, and showing the Love of God unto a lost world you continually JUDGE people and individuals and show them not a loving forgiving Savior seeking to meet and solve needs but represent a harsh judge declaring verdicts and proclaiming every other Christian, who differs with you, as being some negative connotation outside of the Will of God or part of come cabal seeking to bring you, as God's only truly authorized representative, down.   I have always said I felt, my opinion, my thought based upon your approach and attitude toward people that you do the Cause of Christ HARM which, as a Christian, bothers me greatly as it is just another obstacle to overcome.  Dealing with the wiles and attacks of Satan and his demonic forces are hard enough but then I feel, I believe, that you provide him a outlet to rob people of the conviction that God's Holy Spirit may be using to reach them.  Rather than instill curiosity about what you may have you instill resentment, anger, and defensiveness in others which distracts them from potential Spiritual forces that are or possibly are working on them.  The Spiritual is hampered because the fleshly is inflamed.  The approach, again my opinion, is very ineffective and wrong and frankly, as I said, I believe damages the Cause of Christ.

Those are the three main problems I have right off the bat that makes it very difficult to approach you and your replies or post without a great deal of skepticism.  While your and my theology may actually be the closest of any forum members here I pray and hope our approach is vastly far apart.  Yes there are doctrinal issues that we continue to disagree on but the above bulleted items stand out so prominently that, just like many of your attempts to inject a message into the newsgroup, the negatives totally cover up and destroy the good you attempt to achieve and every time you seem incapable of listening and comprehending or just don't care to listen and consider other's opinions.

 

Does that somewhat explain the "burr" you perceive?  

 

 

 

Hi GB,

 

Okay.  First, regarding me, in the past, using Religion Forum pseudonyms, i.e., phony names, in my posts on other venues -- guilty.  But, as soon as several of you complained -- I stopped it and have not done that since.  Yet, since they are phony posting names, pseudonyms, NO ONE could ever know the real person's identity.  Personally, I believe that was just a smoke screen -- but, I did change it when you complained.

 

Second, you say that I have judged you for your theology.  No, I have just stated that you do appear to be in the Liberal Theology column, while I am in the Conservative Theology column.   Both are saved, it is just the one knows it, and the other may not be sure.

 

Third, you tell me that I have judged you, then you tell me, "I have always said I felt, my opinion, my thought based upon your approach and attitude toward people that you do the Cause of Christ HARM."

 

Hmmm, is that Liberal Theology speak for:  Don't Be Judgmental!

 

It would seem that YOU have judged ME rather harshly.

 

Now, let's get back to the question I have been asking you.   Will you answer the question, or will you continue to dance around it, accusing me of trying to bait you?

 

"Do you believe that John 6 is a record of Jesus instituting the Lord's Supper?"

 

If so, why?  If not, why?

 

God bless, have a wonderful, blessed day,

 

Bill

 

SSDP and TAK

Yes, GB, you have spoken truth!!!!! And no, you do not ever come across in the same manner. Your posts are always honest, thoughtful and kind.

Call it what you want Bill, Names, ID's, pseudonyms whatever they point to a specific person here and I will accept your statement that you have now removed all that content that was not the case immediately after it was made known or I was misinformed as there was a period of time, after knowledge of it was revealed, that it continued to be up there.  It's also still apparent that you don't sense the error in doing that but feel or believe yourself justified because it somehow doesn't identify the person specifically and quite frankly there doesn't seem to be the least bit of remorse over the act but rather being revealed.  As Christians we should be above talking behind one's back (whether it's using their real name or not)  The harm is does is that it pre-biases and prejudges others, according to your own biases, toward other Christians here and IF one of them happens to come over here to read they come biased, by you, and frankly our very words and thoughts are misrepresented from what they are actually which is deception, and wrong.

 

It's not a good Christian witness for us, all Christians and it does taint all Christians for we each represent, collectively, Christ Body and are to mirror Christ to those who may come in here actually seeking Spiritual advice, information, and or to discuss religion among us and frankly (although social media wasn't available then) I don't see those actions being that of what Christ would have done.   I'm not chastising you all over again but rather mention it to reveal a part of the source of the "burr" that you have brought up.

 

Second:  NO (unless I'm sadly wrong which if so I will gladly apologize) you have never said appear to be in the liberal column but you have pronounced continually me associated with "liberal" theology as some negative thing.  From the strict standpoint of liberal/conservative I am not on the liberal side, I do believe in the Blood of Christ I do believe in eternal punishment, I do not believe in a works salvation, I believe, as far as dogma, most that you adhere to and seem to follow.  I DO DISAGREE and believe you to be in error to the timing (timing only) of the Rapture and believe you misinterpret the scriptures associated with the Olivet Discourse and the Rapture but not the fact of it.  I am not aligned with the Seeker mind of thought and fully support the teaching of a Sacrificed Christ on the Cross whose blood atones for our sins so I do not shy away from the Blood, I do not say there will not be a Judgment or that Judgment awaits us all but rather I say I am not the one to judge people's actions or sins.  

 

We Christians are to judge our own actions, we are to judge the doctrines taught us and preached among us, we are NOT to be those OUTSIDE the faith's JUDGE and judge them though and that is what I accuse you of doing so many times which drives a wedge and could potentially effect the Holy Spirit's ministry of Conviction to another.  When our fleshly, human, defense mechanisms are raised and fully functioning we are not open to reason at times but react in defense modes only and it was my assertion that you so many times effect others in your chosen method of approach and thus make your own efforts to relay information and testify ineffective or negate having someone actually hear what you really wish to say.

 

BACK TO JOHN 6.   I have re-read TWICE my reply to you and YES I DO ANSWER your question specifically in TWO paragraphs, at least two, within that reply.  Given you ask me to reply, I took my time and efforts to, you either don't care to read it or don't want to so I will not reply other than I already have where I definitly did answer your question specifically as to the Lords Supper/Eucharist and Christ's implementation of it.  Furthermore I additionally, since your last reply, visited some Catholic sites, as I am not as aware of their teachings and what I read essentially mirrored what I wrote about John 6.  

 

So the answer IS in my reply and frankly, as with relation to you, it was a wasted amount of time composing it, as apparently you haven't read it or care to read it even though your answer is plainly in there and IF you continue to refuse to read it and continue to ask I will later repost a portion of it where and which indicates my direct answer to you which will reveal, unto you and all others, that the answer was and is there plainly for you to read but that even though you ask me to comment on it you apparently had other intentions or desires.

 

So care to actually read it and tell me how I answered your question for I PLAINLY STATE whether the Eucharist/Lords Supper is instituted in and with John 6.  I will also say that my answer mirrors or agrees with the Catholic teaching that I found other places on the web.

 

such as:  

http://www.ewtn.com/faith/teachings/euchc2.htm

http://www.scripturecatholic.com/the_eucharist.html

http://www.ewtn.com/faith/teachings/eucha1a.htm

 

Now I haven't taken the time to completely research every referenced scripture to see where the teacher is taking the reader but I read enough to see that they, this particular Catholic teacher, taught essentially the SAME thing I said in my post on John 6.

 

Frankly I do not see the problem or inconsistency that you are trying to say exist.  You have made reference to "V"'s post on here but I am not aware of "V"'s post on other topics from where you seem to be pulling from and I don't see specific reference to John 6 from her post on here.  Rather what I see is your insistence that she is using John 6 to implement the Eucharist and I haven't, myself, read any of her words on here that proclaim that.

 

I must thought admit some purpose in my reply, such as this, unto you, to a simple yes/no question even though I do say, and others I believe can attest (if they read my reply) that I answered plainly and directly your question.  I have taken an inordinate amount of space to say little with a huge amount of words.  I also have replied to a simple yes/no question, a question that request such concise replies with such lengthy dialog and explanation even to the point of exhaustion all to prove one point.   I have done unto you what you continuously do unto others only I have not been near as lengthy or exhaustive as you get sometimes in your replies to people when they request such simple replies or short information.  You have the same type questions ask of you many times that you answer, or don't answer, but respond with exhaustive replies that are laborious to read and glean meaning from.  Sometimes the best reply is an example and thus the reply i have given you, to your yes/no question, mirrors your response to many on many other topics. 

 

Now your turn.  You say it appears my theology is liberal, and I think you associated me, before, with the seeker theology, so what exactly about what I have said is liberal in nature?  I realize that many, in Christ day, accused Him of adulteration of their Scriptures and being radical/liberal.  While I can be in error, at times, I'm certainly not perfect or beyond reproach, please reveal to me the places where my theology is so Liberal, or meets your definition of Liberal.   Also did you ever find my reply to your initial question in my reply on John 6?  Did you even read it after I took time to reply to you?  Honestly?   Did you actually read it?

 

gbrk, do you really believe you are going to get a straight, honest, & decent reply from Billy? He will accuse you, blame you, talk down to you, & say you are not a Christian. He is not a Christian, he is doing the work Satan gave him to do. It's his place to cause strife, conflict, anger, & anything else he can cause. You would do well to block him. Discussions goes much better when you don't have to read/see his post.

Hi GB,

 

You tell me, "Call it what you want Bill, Names, ID's, pseudonyms whatever they point to a specific person here and I will accept your statement that you have now removed all that content.   That was not the case immediately after it was made known or I was misinformed as there was a period of time, after knowledge of it was revealed, that it continued to be up there."

 

My Friend, this is the URL to view all my Facebook Notes.  Please feel free to look them over and, I promise you, if you find any that still contain your pseudonym, your phony posting name -- please give me the link to that offending post and I will remove your phony name.

 

https://www.facebook.com/bill.gray.5?sk=notes

 

Then, you tell me, "Second:  NO (unless I'm sadly wrong which if so I will gladly apologize) you have never said appear to be in the liberal column but you have pronounced continually me associated with "liberal" theology as some negative thing."

 

Personally, in my mind, espsousing and embracing a Liberal Theology -- is a negative thing.  Not that it implies that a Liberal Christian is not a saved Christian; only that, most often, that Liberal Christian has no "eternal security" in Christ -- for he/she spends their whole mortal life in fear of committing that "one sin" which will cause him/her to lose their salvation.  

 

Or, they believe that they must WORK for their salvation -- and, if a person is saved by works, how can anyone KNOW when he/she has worked enough to gain and keep salvation?  What if, upon death, that person finds that he/she is "one work short" of gaining entry into heaven, what then, hell?

 

Whereas, on the other hand, because I believe, no, I KNOW -- that the Bible teaches a Conservative Theology I HAVE "eternal security" in Christ.  Why?  Because He has given me a promise, "He who believes HAS eternal life" (John 6:47) -- and I believe Him.

 

And, finally, you tell me, "BACK TO JOHN 6.   I have re-read TWICE my reply to you and YES I DO ANSWER your question specifically in TWO paragraphs, at least two, within that reply."

 

Well, my Friend, with your long verbiage written in book length paragraphs -- I still have not found the answer which you say is there.

 

Maybe, for the sake of a simpleton like me -- you will graciously copy/paste just that answer omitting the lengthy verbiage surrounding it.  That way we have something solid to discuss.

 

However, since you have stated in this post that you agree with the Roman Catholic doctrine of the Eucharist -- I suppose that is the answer.

 

However, let me point out one error in your long verbiage.  Many times, in numerous posts, VP, Vic, Nathan, et al, have very specifically declared that John 6 is where Jesus Christ instituted the Lord's Supper. 

 

They totally ignore the fact that this event occurred months before His last Passover -- and it occurred in Capernaum, not in Jerusalem.  We know from the three Synoptic Gospels that, just prior to the last Passover, Christ made His Triumphal Entery into Jerusalem.  That evening He and His apostles ate a Passover meal, i.e., the Last Supper, in the Upper Room.  And, later that evening He was taken prisoner which led to His crucifixion.

 

All these facts, our Roman Catholic Friends just ignore as they put on their Vatican blinders -- and keep declaring John 6 as their proof text for the Eucharist.  And, now, it seems that you join them in that erroneous belief. 

 

If I am wrong, please correct me.  But, when you tell me, "I will also say that my answer mirrors or agrees with the Catholic teaching that I found other places on the web" -- I have to believe that you have joined the ranks of the Roman Catholics in supporting this erroneous teaching of the Eucharist.

 

Okay, now it is time to for YOU to declare that I hate you, that I hate the Roman Catholic church, and that I hate all Roman Catholics.  Wrong!  I hate no one.  But, I do hate erroneous teachings which attempt to disguise themselves as Biblical teachings.

 

And, I do have many Roman Catholic Friends and Family whom I love very much.   But, when asked about their Roman Catholic erroneous doctrines -- I do have to tell them that those teachings are not Biblical.

 

God bless, have a wonderful, blessed day,

 

Bill

Hi Vic,

 

Yes, my Friend, very often the truth is surprising -- to those who walk most frequently in the darkness of false teachings.

 

God bless, have a wonderful, blessed day,

 

Bill

Now for my reply:

 

First I never went to your facebook page or any personal blogs in the first place but found out from others who had and saw me referenced there.  The basis I used to suggest my request were never met was more in your replies to me and my request more than anything. If you say they are all gone I'll accept you word for it.  -- the matter is closed for my part now ----

 

Regarding the Liberal accusation I still remain curious as to where you got or what you base that I am liberal upon.  I have never exposed that any person, power, sin, could rob (take away) a person, of their salvation ( never )!    The ONLY caveat I will add here is that while I remain steadfast assured, by Scripture and God's promise, that my salvation is kept secure in the power of God's Holy Spirit the ONLY question and concern I have regarding this is when a person, individual, the Christian makes a heartfelt, mental and faithful decision to renounce their faith in Christ, denying Christ whether or not God and the Scriptures consider that as Blasphemy of the Holy Spirit and potentially that Christian renounce and deny Christ once they have acknowledged Him.   I will only say in that regard I am still participating in personal study and prayer about that.  As a Christian, as a person who is effected and influenced by the Holy Spirit's ministry I cannot conceive of anyone having the assurance of the Holy Spirit then turning their back upon Christ.

 

While I very much could and rely upon the thought that the person never was Saved and reborn in the first place I do conceded there is room, in Scriptures, where the reference is to tasted the gifts of the Holy Spirit, to re-research ones initial stand.  As for external powers, Satan, demonic, sins committed etc I don't have any concern or doubts but only from the standpoint of when or IF the Christian willingly renounces Christ.  Since it's not my place to judge if they were saved in the first place my only thought regarding this condition is that the person involved puts themselves in very severe jeopardy  of physical death or extreme rebuke of the Father. 

 

---

---

 

Now back to John 6.  Bill it is your own personal BIAS that blinds you regarding this.  I said that I referenced several Catholic URLs about the Eucharist and what i read mirrored, pretty much, what I commented about it.  I also said IT WAS THERE in the words but apparently you don't care to read them even though you ask for a reply.

 

OHH!  And about that statement you made.  The one here: 

Well, my Friend, with your long verbiage written in book length paragraphs -- I still have not found the answer which you say is there.

 

I dare say for a great many on this forum that is an exponential rise of hypocrisy for it seems you have a policy of doing that to a great many questions you are ask to answer or reply to, in fact you have, so it seems, perfected the art and I am only a novice in my attempt to demonstrate (by doing so myself) what it may feel like or seem like to someone who ask a question.

---

---

 Now my short answer to you is to copy/paste my response from my reply that directly answers your question.  The replies that you somehow indicate are not there and that i never said.  Here they are repeated from my comments on John 6:

 

One instance (in the reply) where I answer your question directly:

 

So while this passage does not institute the Lords Supper unto the Church and Disciples it certainly has a basis in it for the language and teachings point directly to that coming time in the upper room on that special night (see John 6:70)  and the same subject and topic need not be retaught or redefined unto the Disciples for it was surely done at this time and place.

 

Another location where I answer the question directly:

And while I don't see the Sacrament instituted in this passage at this time I fully see it explained and clarified and pointing to the very night and place and subject of the initiation of the Sacrament that would be ordained and instituted, by Christ, as documented in the Gospel at other locations in other parallel Gospels and while John doesn't fully document the Last Supper as say Matthew or Luke he does reveal teachings and dialog and events that are clarified moreso than in the other Gospels in John 13 and we can take the Gospels, again together, to clarify and reinforce each other tied together and cemented and knitted together with God's Holy Spirit's direction and ministry that is provided to us.

---

 YOU (Bill) again, in the above reply stated:

However, since you have stated in this post that you agree with the Roman Catholic doctrine of the Eucharist -- I suppose that is the answer.

 How Judgmental, AND WRONG! of you Bill.  Not only did I not say it but I couldn't find anywhere that the Roman Catholics said it .. please see the references below.

---

 

Now from the Roman Catholic websites I actually took the time to check from:

#1 http://www.ewtn.com/faith/teachings/euchc2.htm

we have the following:

With this in mind, let's look at Scripture. Luke 22, verse 15, our Lord says, "I have earnestly desired to eat this Passover with you." So we are assured that the Last Supper in the Upper Room was a Passover meal. In Mark 14, verses 22 through 26, we hear the words of institution, "And as they were eating He took bread and blessed and broke it and gave it to them and said, 'Take, this is my body.' And He took a cup and when He had given thanks, He gave it to them and they drank all of it and He said to them, 'This is my blood of the New Covenant which is poured out for many. Truly I say to you, I shall not drink again of the fruit of the vine until that day when I drink it new in the kingdom of God.'"

 

I don't see them pointing to John 6 saying that is where Christ instituted it?  Later in that same page they do point to John 6 but only as a clarification/explanation as to what Christ meant with His words, not the actual institution as you state they believe.

 

Catholic reference #2: http://www.scripturecatholic.com/the_eucharist.html

b). Jesus Institutes the Eucharist / More Proofs of the Real Presence

Matt. 26:26-28; Mark. 14:22,24; Luke 22;19-20; 1 Cor. 11:24-25 - Jesus says, this IS my body and blood. Jesus does not say, this is a symbol of my body and blood.

 

Again the institution of it is pointed to the Gospels exactly where Christ did it in the Upper Room and not as you keep saying they believe.  Why do you persist in this deception?

 

3rd Catholic reference: http://www.ewtn.com/faith/teachings/eucha1a.htm

344. When did Christ institute the Holy Eucharist?

Christ instituted the Holy Eucharist at the Last Supper, the night before He died.

(a) About a year before the Last Supper Our Lord promised to give us the Holy Eucharist. This promise is related in the sixth chapter of the Gospel according to Saint John. The fulfillment of this promise took place at the Last Supper.

 

Exact-a-mundo  This is essentially what I said also.  John 6 was expanding on what Christ meant exactly by the symbolism of His Body and Blood and our need to consume it.  Christ set the grounds for where He would institute the Sacrament, not institute it but explain it, set a basis to understand it.  There is NO WHERE I saw or read where Catholics (on this forum or in Catholic literature or writing) said the sacrament was INSTITUTED in John 6.  The ONLY PLACE IT IS where it says it is in YOUR WRITING where you make that assertion and assign it unto them.   WHY??