Skip to main content

http://pittsburgh.cbslocal.com...ed-to-crucify-jesus/ 

 

&  

 

http://www.nydailynews.com/new...416753#ixzz2b6oLTZT0

 

The above stories (URL's) are about a find, at a Church in Turkey, that some believe is a part of the Cross that Christ was crucified upon.  The article plainly states that test have to be performed upon the item and that it may or may not be the cross that Christ was Crucified upon but one thing that is not debated is that there was a man, whom we call Jesus Christ, who died on the Cross, Crucified, April 3rd, 33 A.D.  It's interesting how many revert to denying that there was a man that ever walked the earth that correlates to the person Jesus Christ or Yeshua rather than dealing with just who this Man claimed He was, the Son of God, the Messiah and our Savior.   

 

I, for one, do not pin my faith upon artifacts that are found from antiquity.  My fear, for finds like this,  if verified or certified as authentic, is that people will tend to worship the item rather than the person Jesus Christ (Yeshua) whom was crucified for our sins and resurrected and ascended into heaven to return again for His Church.

Be as the Bereans ( Acts 17:11 )

Original Post

Replies sorted oldest to newest

It would be interesting to know just how they came to the conclusion that it was a piece of a cross, and how they figure it was a piece from jesus' cross.

 

From the article:

“It is a piece of a cross, and we think it was (part of the cross on which Jesus was crucified). This stone chest is very important to us. It has a history and is the most important artifact we have unearthed so far.”

RELATED: IS THAT JESUS ON THIS DOG’S REAR END?



Read more: http://www.nydailynews.com/new...416753#ixzz2b74IfxWo

Hi GB,

 

Personally, I would say that it may be a piece of a similar Roman cross that has been preserved; but, I strongly believe it is not the cross upon which Christ died.

 

Why do I say this?  For the same reason that the Ark of the Covenant, Noah's Ark, and the body of Moses will never be found.  If those true items were found -- millions of folks would begin to worship them, instead of worshiping the only valid object of our worship:  God.

An example of that are the many rosaries and crucifixes which are sold every year -- which have a piece of His cross enclosed inside.   If all of these were valid -- the cross of Christ would have had to have been 500 feet high and 200 feet wide.  And, even then, I am not sure it would be sufficient to supply those many millions of rosaries/crucifixes sold supposedly containing a piece of the cross.

 

God bless, have a wonderful, blessed day,

 

Bill

Relics have long been an element of interest for Catholics and criteria for proof of authenticity of relics have consistently been weak and undependable.

 

The story is told of a group of tourists visiting a Vatican museum.  They were told that a skull displayed there was the "skull of St. Peter."  One of the tourists asked about a smaller skull in an adjacent display.  The tour guide advised him that the skull was St. Peter's "when he was a little boy."

 

Calm down, Invictus; it's just a joke!

Originally Posted by Contendah:

Relics have long been an element of interest for Catholics and criteria for proof of authenticity of relics have consistently been weak and undependable.

 

The story is told of a group of tourists visiting a Vatican museum.  They were told that a skull displayed there was the "skull of St. Peter."  One of the tourists asked about a smaller skull in an adjacent display.  The tour guide advised him that the skull was St. Peter's "when he was a little boy."

 

Calm down, Invictus; it's just a joke!

=======================

 

You really get a kick out of making jokes at the expense of your Christian brothers and sisters, don't you?

Originally Posted by smokey1:
Originally Posted by Contendah:

Relics have long been an element of interest for Catholics and criteria for proof of authenticity of relics have consistently been weak and undependable.

 

The story is told of a group of tourists visiting a Vatican museum.  They were told that a skull displayed there was the "skull of St. Peter."  One of the tourists asked about a smaller skull in an adjacent display.  The tour guide advised him that the skull was St. Peter's "when he was a little boy."

 

Calm down, Invictus; it's just a joke!

=======================

 

You really get a kick out of making jokes at the expense of your Christian brothers and sisters, don't you?

___

I get a kick out of discovering and discussing the TRUTH about such things as "holy relics." Check this out, smokey:

 

http://www.museumofhoaxes.com/...medieval_relic_trade

 

How about the alleged bones of Joan of Arc, long in the custody of an archbishop of the Catholic Church, and now revealed to be a total fake?

 

<<<The "relics of Joan of Arc," one of the patron saints of France, are a forgery.

 

A human rib and a cat bone tracing back to ancient Egypt were identified within the bottle allegedly containing her remains.

 

Science can be used to test the legitimacy of religious and other historical artifacts.>>>

 

Read all about these Joanie Phony bones: http://news.discovery.com/hist...n-of-arc-forgery.htm

 

More on the history of relics:

 

<<<Throughout the Middle Ages, there was intense competition between various European religious houses about who had the most impressive relics. Inevitably, relics were stolen and turned up mysteriously at another location, or a cathedral or monastery would be accused by a rival house of holding a fake relic. Worse still, two supposedly genuine relics could be found at different houses. During the fourteenth century, both the towns of Amiens and Constantinople claimed to own the head of St John the Baptist.>>>

 

http://suite101.com/article/th...igious-relics-a64836

 

 

My little story about the two skulls of St. Peter was just a joke, but in the above case, two cities were both claiming to have the head of the same "Saint".

Originally Posted by Contendah:
Originally Posted by smokey1:
Originally Posted by Contendah:

Relics have long been an element of interest for Catholics and criteria for proof of authenticity of relics have consistently been weak and undependable.

 

The story is told of a group of tourists visiting a Vatican museum.  They were told that a skull displayed there was the "skull of St. Peter."  One of the tourists asked about a smaller skull in an adjacent display.  The tour guide advised him that the skull was St. Peter's "when he was a little boy."

 

Calm down, Invictus; it's just a joke!

=======================

 

You really get a kick out of making jokes at the expense of your Christian brothers and sisters, don't you?

___

I get a kick out of discovering and discussing the TRUTH about such things as "holy relics." Check this out, smokey:

 

http://www.museumofhoaxes.com/...medieval_relic_trade

 

How about the alleged bones of Joan of Arc, long in the custody of an archbishop of the Catholic Church, and now revealed to be a total fake?

 

<<<The "relics of Joan of Arc," one of the patron saints of France, are a forgery.

 

A human rib and a cat bone tracing back to ancient Egypt were identified within the bottle allegedly containing her remains.

 

Science can be used to test the legitimacy of religious and other historical artifacts.>>>

 

Read all about these Joanie Phony bones: http://news.discovery.com/hist...n-of-arc-forgery.htm

 

More on the history of relics:

 

<<<Throughout the Middle Ages, there was intense competition between various European religious houses about who had the most impressive relics. Inevitably, relics were stolen and turned up mysteriously at another location, or a cathedral or monastery would be accused by a rival house of holding a fake relic. Worse still, two supposedly genuine relics could be found at different houses. During the fourteenth century, both the towns of Amiens and Constantinople claimed to own the head of St John the Baptist.>>>

 

http://suite101.com/article/th...igious-relics-a64836

 

 

My little story about the two skulls of St. Peter was just a joke, but in the above case, two cities were both claiming to have the head of the same "Saint".

==========

It's a case of fraud or a mistake. So?

Originally Posted by smokey1:
Originally Posted by Contendah:
Originally Posted by smokey1:
Originally Posted by Contendah:

Relics have long been an element of interest for Catholics and criteria for proof of authenticity of relics have consistently been weak and undependable.

 

The story is told of a group of tourists visiting a Vatican museum.  They were told that a skull displayed there was the "skull of St. Peter."  One of the tourists asked about a smaller skull in an adjacent display.  The tour guide advised him that the skull was St. Peter's "when he was a little boy."

 

Calm down, Invictus; it's just a joke!

=======================

 

You really get a kick out of making jokes at the expense of your Christian brothers and sisters, don't you?

___

I get a kick out of discovering and discussing the TRUTH about such things as "holy relics." Check this out, smokey:

 

http://www.museumofhoaxes.com/...medieval_relic_trade

 

How about the alleged bones of Joan of Arc, long in the custody of an archbishop of the Catholic Church, and now revealed to be a total fake?

 

<<<The "relics of Joan of Arc," one of the patron saints of France, are a forgery.

 

A human rib and a cat bone tracing back to ancient Egypt were identified within the bottle allegedly containing her remains.

 

Science can be used to test the legitimacy of religious and other historical artifacts.>>>

 

Read all about these Joanie Phony bones: http://news.discovery.com/hist...n-of-arc-forgery.htm

 

More on the history of relics:

 

<<<Throughout the Middle Ages, there was intense competition between various European religious houses about who had the most impressive relics. Inevitably, relics were stolen and turned up mysteriously at another location, or a cathedral or monastery would be accused by a rival house of holding a fake relic. Worse still, two supposedly genuine relics could be found at different houses. During the fourteenth century, both the towns of Amiens and Constantinople claimed to own the head of St John the Baptist.>>>

 

http://suite101.com/article/th...igious-relics-a64836

 

 

My little story about the two skulls of St. Peter was just a joke, but in the above case, two cities were both claiming to have the head of the same "Saint".

==========

It's a case of fraud or a mistake. So?

*********************************

*********************************

So people should not place confidence in frauds or mistakes.  Had there been any kind of sincere examination of these Medieval claims about relics, they would not have come to be revered by the gullible masses, since they would be known to be false.  The Catholic Church cultivated this silly business of veneration of unproven relics and over time it has proven embarrassing, since so many of them have been shown to be false.

Originally Posted by Contendah:
Originally Posted by smokey1:
Originally Posted by Contendah:
Originally Posted by smokey1:
Originally Posted by Contendah:

Relics have long been an element of interest for Catholics and criteria for proof of authenticity of relics have consistently been weak and undependable.

 

The story is told of a group of tourists visiting a Vatican museum.  They were told that a skull displayed there was the "skull of St. Peter."  One of the tourists asked about a smaller skull in an adjacent display.  The tour guide advised him that the skull was St. Peter's "when he was a little boy."

 

Calm down, Invictus; it's just a joke!

=======================

 

You really get a kick out of making jokes at the expense of your Christian brothers and sisters, don't you?

___

I get a kick out of discovering and discussing the TRUTH about such things as "holy relics." Check this out, smokey:

 

http://www.museumofhoaxes.com/...medieval_relic_trade

 

How about the alleged bones of Joan of Arc, long in the custody of an archbishop of the Catholic Church, and now revealed to be a total fake?

 

<<<The "relics of Joan of Arc," one of the patron saints of France, are a forgery.

 

A human rib and a cat bone tracing back to ancient Egypt were identified within the bottle allegedly containing her remains.

 

Science can be used to test the legitimacy of religious and other historical artifacts.>>>

 

Read all about these Joanie Phony bones: http://news.discovery.com/hist...n-of-arc-forgery.htm

 

More on the history of relics:

 

<<<Throughout the Middle Ages, there was intense competition between various European religious houses about who had the most impressive relics. Inevitably, relics were stolen and turned up mysteriously at another location, or a cathedral or monastery would be accused by a rival house of holding a fake relic. Worse still, two supposedly genuine relics could be found at different houses. During the fourteenth century, both the towns of Amiens and Constantinople claimed to own the head of St John the Baptist.>>>

 

http://suite101.com/article/th...igious-relics-a64836

 

 

My little story about the two skulls of St. Peter was just a joke, but in the above case, two cities were both claiming to have the head of the same "Saint".

==========

It's a case of fraud or a mistake. So?

*********************************

*********************************

So people should not place confidence in frauds or mistakes.  Had there been any kind of sincere examination of these Medieval claims about relics, they would not have come to be revered by the gullible masses, since they would be known to be false.  The Catholic Church cultivated this silly business of veneration of unproven relics and over time it has proven embarrassing, since so many of them have been shown to be false.

=====================

Maybe the church should hire the guy who warned the good citizens of Florence about the dreaded Amish Heaters . 

Originally Posted by semiannualchick:
Originally Posted by CrustyMac:

I told you people I have a limited supply of slivers of Jesus' cross.  Send $19.99 and a SASE to me an you could have one for your very own collection.

_________

You will surely pray over it first?

_____________________

For an extra $5.99 we will gladly take your prayer requests.

Some added history of the Cross.

 

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.

In the year 312 A.D., almost 300 years later, while Constantine, who had not yet converted to Christianity, was in combat with Maxentius for the throne of the Roman Empire, he prayed to the Lord God of the Christians to help him in his battle.  In answer to his prayer, a sign appeared in the sky.  A luminous cross was seen with the words "BY THIS SIGN YOU WILL CONQUER" (in Latin, "IN HOC SIGNO VINCES") inscribed on it.

Constantine won the battle over Maxentius.  Indebted to God for his victory at the Milvian Bridge on October 28, 312, Constantine commanded that the Sign of Christianity be placed on the Roman standards and on the shields of all the soldiers.

Then, on September 14, 326, Emperor Constantine’s mother, St. Helena, found in Jerusalem the True Cross on which Jesus was crucified.

 

The rest of it.

 

http://www.truecrosschurch.org/index.cfm?load=page&page=186 

 

Hi Vic,

 

And, thus you have the history of the Roman Catholic church, begun about 312 AD by Constantine and his mother.

 

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?

 

God bless, have a wonderful, blessed day,

 

Bill

Bible-Reading

Attachments

Images (1)
  • Bible-Reading
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...
quote:   Originally Posted by Nathan Evans:
Still waiting for any proof of a non-denominational, pre-constantine church, Bill.  The Catholic Church was founded at Pentecost, celebrated Mass in the catacombs, write the New Testament, etc etc!  We have a continuous line of leaders from peter to francis!  Deny the truth all you want! Praised be Jesus forever!

Hi Nathan,

 

My Friend, if you enjoy living in a deluded frame of mind, so be it.  This is the church which, according to Scripture, began on that Day of Pentecost 33 AD:

 

Acts 2:41-42, "So then, those who had received his word were baptized; and that day there were added about three thousand souls.  They were continually devoting themselves to the apostles' teaching and to fellowship, to the breaking of bread and to prayer."

That is the church begun that day -- and I see no fancy robes, no statues or icons, no Eucharist, no candles to buy and light for the dead, no papal designation,  and no papal succession.  

 

All I see is 3000 plus believers gathering for teaching, fellowship, sharing of bread, and prayer.  By George, that sounds more like a Baptist church than a liturgical Roman Catholic church.

 

But, then, we both know that church had NO denomination; it was on the body of believers.

 

Later, man began to play with the church -- dividing the body of Christ into different denominations and churches.   Christ began the perfect church; man corrupted It.  And a large part of that corruption began in Rome and continues in Rome -- until this day.

 

A good example of that type of church can be found in 2 Timothy:

 

2 Timothy 4:3-4, "For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine; but wanting to have their ears tickled, they will accumulate for themselves teachers in accordance to their own desires, and will turn away their ears from the truth and will turn aside to myths."

 

I can find no better example of the Roman Catholic church than that.

 

Now, before you and others can start screaming, "You hate the Roman Catholic church!" -- please keep in mind that I do not start discussions about the Roman Catholic church.  I merely respond to you and others when you post an unBiblical Roman Catholic teaching or doctrine.  At that time, I will respond with answers taken from the Bible. 

 

When I refute your teachings, I do it with Scripture references.   When you refute my posts, it is most often with such comments as, "That is not true" or "You are being nasty" or "You just hate the Roman Catholic church" or some other inane comment -- but, seldom, if ever, with a Scripture reference AND with an explanation of why, Biblically, what you teach is true.

 

If you cannot show your theology based upon the Bible, the Big 66 -- then, you have an erroneous theology.

 

God bless, have a wonderful, blessed day,

 

Bill

Bible - Read Me

Attachments

Images (1)
  • Bible - Read Me

Hi VP,

 

You are still stuck in that "John 6 Is The Eucharist" mode of thinking.   Let me give you a few facts to consider:

 

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.

 

God bless, have a wonderful, blessed day,

 

Bill

Bible Inspired By God

Attachments

Images (1)
  • Bible Inspired By God
Originally Posted by vplee123:
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...
--------------------------------
Billie boy is nothing but a nattering nabob of negativity... Not worthy of reading...
 

 

I agree wholeheartedly. I thought maybe he would recognize how he is damaging the Body of Christ- by creating such conflict among Christians- but, no cigar. He is one of those people who make you want to bang your head against a wall. And will never admit there is another way of thinking- that IS biblical. Back on block, as he truly damages my spirit. It's a beautiful gift our Lord has given us, and to argue about it is simply wrong.

Hi VP,

 

The apostle Paul teaches in Acts 17:11 that we, all believers, should test the teachings of all teachers (Christians) against Scripture, to test if what is being taught is true.   That is written in Scripture. 

 

So, should we do as we are told in Scripture and test the teacher and the teaching -- or not?

 

That is what I do, I test what you and others write -- against what is written in Scripture.  I give you the Scripture reference and what I believe it teaches.  Then, we leave it up to those reading to test both you and me, and what we are teaching -- against Scripture.  They are to do this to keep all teachings Scriptural.  Do you have a problem with that?

 

And, if we all do this -- we will find that most of the Roman Catholic doctrines and teachings which are posted -- are NOT Scriptural, not found in the Bible, the Big 66.

 

By following the teachings of Paul in Acts 17:11 -- how am I damaging the body of Christ?

 

Paul intended that admonition as a way for all Christian believers to grow more mature in their knowledge of God's Word, the Bible.   Was Paul wrong in what he wrote?   Am I wrong in following his instructions and testing what you teach?   And, I encourage all our Forum Friends to test what I write against Scripture. 

 

When anyone feels that I am wrong; please show me the error, supported by a Scriptural explanation of why it is wrong.   You have my word that when I am proven wrong, from Scripture, I will immediately accept that and make adjustments in what I write.

 

If we are not learning daily, we are not growing.   And, if we are not growing in our knowledge of God's Written Word, we are becoming stagnant believers.  The word for that is atrophy -- to grow useless through lack of use.  That is what happens with any muscle not used, especially the spiritual brain.   So, let's test what everyone writes on our forum, especially me, and let's all continue to grow daily in God's Word.

 

God bless, have a wonderful, blessed day,

 

Bill

Bible - Protection-Correction-Direction

Attachments

Images (1)
  • Bible - Protection-Correction-Direction
Last edited by Bill Gray
Originally Posted by Dove of Peace:
Billie boy is nothing but a nattering nabob of negativity... Not worthy of reading...
_______
Originally Posted by vplee123:
I agree wholeheartedly. I thought maybe he would recognize how he is damaging the Body of Christ- 
Back on block, as he truly damages my spirit. It's a beautiful gift our Lord has given us, and to argue about it is simply wrong.
_______
Bill is best on block. I like the way most people is, or has been, ignoring his post. The discussions are much better w/o any of his quotes. He brings on discord, & I rather have serious discussions than see arguments with him.

Bill is one of those people that’s ready to argue & fight. He loves to stir up strife, usually due to envy, he loves power & control, glory & honor, & if he doesn’t get those things from the people on this forum, he will attack anyone that speaks against him.

I always thought the responsibility of a Christian was to edify, and/or build up each other, not tear them down and/or make fun of them. Not only that, but think about those that aren’t saved and/or confused, & has questions that’s on the outside reading the discord that Bill stirs up on here.

 

Proverbs 6:18-19 says “A heart that deviseth wicked imaginations, feet that be swift in running to mischief. A false witness that speaketh lies, and he that soweth discord among brethren.“

Causing problems, turning anyone off to any kind of religion is what Bill does for Satan. You have to admit he does it very well.

 

V, Bill will never recognize the damage he's doing as wrong, because that's what he wants to do. He is a child of Satan & he is supposed to create conflict among Christians, or anyone. Most of you probably think I see Bill as working for Satan because I dislike him but that's not true. If you read the Bible, what Bill is doing is not the work of Christ.

 

quote: Originally Posted by CrustyMac:
quote: Originally Posted by Bill Gray:

And, if we all do this -- we will find that most of the Roman Catholic doctrines and teachings which are posted -- are NOT Scriptural, not found in the Bible, the Big 66.

Most?  Over 50% of Roman Catholicism is wrong?
Hi Crusty,

 

I will not put a number on it -- but, yes, I do believe that most of the Roman Catholic doctrines and teachings which we discuss on this forum are erroneous.

 

To list a few:  Mariology, i.e., virtually everything they teach about Mary -- born sinless, remained a virgin, was taken into heaven without death, was the Mother of God, praying to her instead of to God, etc.   As I said, virtually every Mariology teaching is erroneous. 

 

She was a very blessed woman, fully human in all ways, chosen by God to be the human womb through which the human nature of Jesus would be born.  This to fulfill Scripture that He would be like His human brethren in all ways.

 

Others:  The Eucharist, purgatory, salvation is a process and not a one time event,  buying masses to help dead people out of the supposed purgatory, blessing and worshiping statues and icons -- the list goes on and on -- all unBiblical.

 

But, my Friend, if YOU can refute this from Scripture -- please do.  For we are told in Acts 17:11 to test the teachings and the teachers.  Not that I consider myself a teacher, but more a thought provoker -- but, please do apply that to me also; test what I write against Scripture. 

 

And, if you find me wrong -- please, do show me the Scripture verse or passage showing that I am wrong, along with YOUR explanation of why my writing is wrong, based upon that Scripture reference.  When I do err, I will truly appreciate your help in correcting that mistake.

 

God bless, have a wonderful, blessed day,

 

Bill

 

2 Timothy 2-15 - STUDY

Attachments

Images (1)
  • 2 Timothy 2-15 - STUDY
Last edited by Bill Gray
quote:  Originally Posted by Jennifer Bestworking:

That's what all of you need to do, just stop bothering with him.

Hi Jennifer Best,

 

My Friend, you are true to form -- and true to your religion, atheism, when you encourage others to ignore and block all who will share the Gospel of Jesus Christ and the Written Word of God.   I would expect no more, nor any less, from you.  The Bible tells us all about you, your friends, and your attempts to defeat the Word of God:

 

1 Corinthians 1:18-20, "For the message of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God.  For it is written: 'I will destroy the wisdom of the wise, and bring to nothing the understanding of the prudent.'  Where is the wise?  Where is the scribe?  Where is the disputer of this age?  Has not God made foolish the wisdom of this world?' "

2 Corinthians 4:3-4, "And even if our Gospel is veiled, it is veiled to those who are perishing, in whose case the god of this world has blinded the minds of the unbelieving so that they might not see the light of the Gospel of the glory of Christ, who is the image of God."

2 Corinthians 2:14-17, "But thanks be to God, who always leads us in triumph in Christ, and manifests through us the sweet aroma of the knowledge of Him in every place.  For we are a fragrance of Christ to God among those who are being saved and among those who are perishing; to the one (the unbeliever)an aroma from death to death, to the other (the believer)an aroma from life to life.  And who is adequate for these things?  For we are not like many, peddling the word of God, but as from sincerity, but as from God, we speak in Christ in the sight of God."

 

Yes, my Friend, it is truly YOUR desire, based upon you religion of atheism, that all believers who will share the Word of God, the Gospel of Jesus Christ -- be blocked, be ignored, be driven out.  For the Word of God is bitter to your taste and does not fit, nor accommodate, your worldly desires and secular beliefs.

 

We read about that also in Scripture:

 

2 Timothy 4:3-4, "For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine; but wanting to have their ears tickled, they will accumulate for themselves teachers in accordance to their own desires, and will turn away their ears from the truth and will turn aside to myths."

 

So, my Friend, you just keep working it for your leader, the prince of this world -- for, in doing so, you are choosing an eternity of self-inflicted destruction with him.  Yet, as long as you are still breathing, you still have time to turn from that self-destructive path and turn to follow Christ.   You might want to give some really serious thought to that option.

 

Of course, I know that you and all your friends have me on Block -- you will not be reading this.  But, I have written this post to show the error of your atheistic ways to other readers who are not afraid of the Word of  God.

 

God bless, have a wonderful, blessed day,

 

Bill

Satan's Greatest Fear

Attachments

Images (1)
  • Satan's Greatest Fear
Originally Posted by Bill Gray:
quote: Originally Posted by CrustyMac:
quote: Originally Posted by Bill Gray:

And, if we all do this -- we will find that most of the Roman Catholic doctrines and teachings which are posted -- are NOT Scriptural, not found in the Bible, the Big 66.

Most?  Over 50% of Roman Catholicism is wrong?
Hi Crusty,

 

I will not put a number on it -- but, yes, I do believe that most of the Roman Catholic doctrines and teachings which we discuss on this forum are erroneous.

 

To list a few:  Mariology, i.e., virtually everything they teach about Mary -- born sinless, remained a virgin, was taken into heaven without death, was the Mother of God, praying to her instead of to God, etc.   As I said, virtually every Mariology teaching is erroneous. 

 

She was a very blessed woman, fully human in all ways, chosen by God to be the human womb through which the human nature of Jesus would be born.  This to fulfill Scripture that He would be like His human brethren in all ways.

 

Others:  The Eucharist, purgatory, salvation is a process and not a one time event,  buying masses to help dead people out of the supposed purgatory, blessing and worshiping statues and icons -- the list goes on and on -- all unBiblical.

 

But, my Friend, if YOU can refute this from Scripture -- please do.  For we are told in Acts 17:11 to test the teachings and the teachers.  Not that I consider myself a teacher, but more a thought provoker -- but, please do apply that to me also; test what I write against Scripture. 

 

And, if you find me wrong -- please, do show me the Scripture verse or passage showing that I am wrong, along with YOUR explanation of why my writing is wrong, based upon that Scripture reference.  When I do err, I will truly appreciate your help in correcting that mistake.

 

God bless, have a wonderful, blessed day,

 

Bill

 

 

__________________

You claim to be a writer, yet for some reason you keep saying "most" and meaning some ambiguous number?  Most = greater than 50%.  Or are you now back-peddling when you say "most of what we discuss", meaning all that you find wrong with Catholicism?  If you are going to make statements like this, you need to be able to back them up.  Otherwise, you look ridiculous, as usual.

 

The Catholics on the forum keep showing you their biblical interpretations.  I am in your camp on most of the subjects you bring up regarding Catholicism, but you do in fact ignore those areas that suit you. 

 

Take the "Eucharist" passage in John.  If you take the Bible literally, you have accept that this passage confirms the Euchrist as the Catholics understand it.  You are failing to make your case based on a time difference.  Did Jesus change his mind, or did he contradict himself?  Which?

Hi Crusty,

 

You tell me, "Take the 'Eucharist' passage in John.  If you take the Bible literally, you have accept that this passage confirms the Euchrist as the Catholics understand it.  You are failing to make your case based on a time difference.  Did Jesus change his mind, or did he contradict himself?  Which?"

 

My Friend, I would love to have YOU explain how one can find the Eucharist in any part of John 6.  Just because the Vatican says it -- does not make it true.

 

In trying to fit the Eucharist, or the correct wording, the Lord's Supper or Communion into John 6 -- first you have to explain how the Lord's Supper occurred in Capernaum, and not in Jerusalem where the Passover was always held.  The event in John 6 most certainly happened in Capernaum -- the day following His miracle of feeding the 5000.

 

You also will have to explain how Jesus and His disciples were having the Last Supper many months BEFORE the His Triumphal Entry and His last Passover, at which time He instituted the Lord's Supper as an ordinance through which we are to remember HIm until He returns.. 

 

As you can see, although John 6 has some similar wording and phrases -- there is no way anyone can twist Scripture to make the Lord's Supper occur in John 6.  And, if not the Lord's Supper -- no Eucharist in John 6.

 

Do YOU have a better explanation?   If so, I truly would love to have you explain it to me.

 

God bless, have a wonderful, blessed day,

 

Bill

.

The following can't be disproven or you don't believe the words of Jesus.

 

1 Corinthians 10: 16-17

16

The cup of blessing that we bless, is it not a participation in the blood of Christ? The bread that we break, is it not a participation in the body of Christ?

17

Because the loaf of bread is one, we, though many, are one body, for we all partake of the one loaf.

 

1 Cor 11: 23-29

23

  For I received from the Lord what I also handed on to you, that the Lord Jesus, on the night he was handed over, took bread,

24

and, after he had given thanks, broke it and said, "This is my body that is for you. Do this in remembrance of me."

25

In the same way also the cup, after supper, saying, "This cup is the new covenant in my blood. Do this, as often as you drink it, in remembrance of me."

26

For as often as you eat this bread and drink the cup, you proclaim the death of the Lord until he comes.

27

Therefore whoever eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord unworthily will have to answer for the body and blood of the Lord. 12

28

A person should examine himself, 13 and so eat the bread and drink the cup.

29

For anyone who eats and drinks without discerning the body, eats and drinks judgment 14 on himself.

 

St. Paul is speaking literal about the Eucharist. Just like St. Ignatius writing

in about 105 AD, said the following about those who did not believe

this to be literal: "Heretics abstain from the Eucharist and from prayer,

because they do not confess that the Eucharist is the flesh of our

Saviour Jesus Christ.

 

This same Ignatius, who was the Bishop of Antioch

and ordained by the Apostle John, was shortly thereafter martyred in the

circus in Rome where he was fed to lions before a cheering crowd. When we

say the bread and wine literally become the body and blood of Jesus Christ,

what we mean to say is that both species contain all of the properties of

Jesus Christ.

 

The bread literally becomes the body of Jesus Christ. The wine

literally becomes the blood. Now, Jesus Christ is living, and therefore his body

and blood cannot be separated. So to partake of just one species is to partake

of the whole and complete Christ -- body and blood, humanity, together with

his soul and divinity.

 

Hi Vic,

 

You are right that Jesus Christ does teach us, and instruct us, as He instituted the ordinance of Communion, the Lord's Supper --  in 1 Corinthians 11:25, and also in Luke 22:19:

 

1 Corinthians 11:25, "In the same way He took the cup also after supper, saying, 'This cup is the new covenant in My blood; do this, as often as you drink it, in remembrance of Me.' "

Luke 22:19, "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.' "

No matter how the Vatican wants to stretch the teachings found in John 6 -- the Lord's Supper (or what you call the Eucharist) is NOT found there.

 

John 6:24, "So when the crowd saw that Jesus was not there, nor His disciples, they themselves got into the small boats, and came to Capernaum seeking Jesus."

 

Notice that this event, which followed the feeding of the 5000 the day before, happens in Capernaum -- not in Jerusalem where Christ instituted the Lord's Supper before His last Passover.

John 6:26-27, "Jesus answered them and said, 'Truly, truly, I say to you, you seek Me, not because you saw signs, but because you ate of the loaves and were filled.  Do not work for the food which perishes, but for the food which endures to eternal life, which the Son of Man will give to you, for on Him the Father, God, has set His seal.' "

 

The crowd saw the miracle of Him feeding the 5000 and wanted more freebies.

 

John 6:30-35, "Therefore they said to Him, 'What sign will You perform then, that we may see it and believe You? What work will You do?  Our fathers ate the manna in the desert; as it is written, "He gave them bread from heaven to eat.' " 

John 6:32-33, "Then Jesus said to them, 'Most assuredly, I say to you, Moses did not give you the bread from heaven, but For the bread of God is He (Jesus Christ, spiritual manna)who comes down from heaven and gives life to the world.' "

John 6:34-38, "Then they said to Him, 'Lord, give us this bread always.'   And Jesus said to them, 'Iam the bread of lifeHe who comes to Me shall never hunger, and he who believes in Me shall never thirst.  But I said to you that you have seen Me and yet do not believe.  All that the Father gives Me will come to Me, and the one who comes to Me I will by no means cast out.  For I have come down from heaven, not to do My own will, but the will of Him who sent Me.' "

 

Here, Jesus is clearly comparing the physical manna sent from God to the Israelites, daily, while they were in the wilderness.  Yet, that physical manna perished and had to be replenished daily.

 

Then, Jesus tells them that He is the spiritual food, the spiritual manna, which brings eternal life which will never decay.

 

NO EUCHARIST, or even the Lord's Supper, found anywhere in John 6.

 

Can YOU show us the Eucharist, or Lord's Supper in John 6?   Not just common words and phrases; but, the actual institution of the Lord's Supper? 

 

No, you cannot -- for this event happened in Capernaum, not Jerusalem where all Passovers were celebrated -- and this event happened months before His Triumphal Entry and last Passover.

 

Let's all practice Acts 17:11.

 

God bless, have a blessed day,

 

Bill

Bible - Read Me

Attachments

Images (1)
  • Bible - Read Me
Originally Posted by Bill Gray:

Hi Vic,

 

You are right that Jesus Christ does teach us, and instruct us, as He instituted the ordinance of Communion, the Lord's Supper --  in 1 Corinthians 11:25, and also in Luke 22:19:

 

1 Corinthians 11:25, "In the same way He took the cup also after supper, saying, 'This cup is the new covenant in My blood; do this, as often as you drink it, in remembrance of Me.' "

Luke 22:19, "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.' "

No matter how the Vatican wants to stretch the teachings found in John 6 -- the Lord's Supper (or what you call the Eucharist) is NOT found there.

 

John 6:24, "So when the crowd saw that Jesus was not there, nor His disciples, they themselves got into the small boats, and came to Capernaum seeking Jesus."

 

Notice that this event, which followed the feeding of the 5000 the day before, happens in Capernaum -- not in Jerusalem where Christ instituted the Lord's Supper before His last Passover.

John 6:26-27, "Jesus answered them and said, 'Truly, truly, I say to you, you seek Me, not because you saw signs, but because you ate of the loaves and were filled.  Do not work for the food which perishes, but for the food which endures to eternal life, which the Son of Man will give to you, for on Him the Father, God, has set His seal.' "

 

The crowd saw the miracle of Him feeding the 5000 and wanted more freebies.

 

John 6:30-35, "Therefore they said to Him, 'What sign will You perform then, that we may see it and believe You? What work will You do?  Our fathers ate the manna in the desert; as it is written, "He gave them bread from heaven to eat.' " 

John 6:32-33, "Then Jesus said to them, 'Most assuredly, I say to you, Moses did not give you the bread from heaven, but .  For the bread of God is He (Jesus Christ, spiritual manna)who comes down from heaven and gives life to the world.' "

John 6:34-38, "Then they said to Him, 'Lord, give us this bread always.'   And Jesus said to them, 'Iam the bread of life.  He who comes to Me shall never hunger, and he who believes in Me shall never thirst.  But I said to you that you have seen Me and yet do not believe.  All that the Father gives Me will come to Me, and the one who comes to Me I will by no means cast out.  For I have come down from heaven, not to do My own will, but the will of Him who sent Me.' "

 

Here, Jesus is clearly comparing the physical manna sent from God to the Israelites, daily, while they were in the wilderness.  Yet, that physical manna perished and had to be replenished daily.

 

Then, Jesus tells them that He is the spiritual food, the spiritual manna, which brings eternal life which will never decay.

 

NO EUCHARIST, or even the Lord's Supper, found anywhere in John 6.

 

Can YOU show us the Eucharist, or Lord's Supper in John 6?   Not just common words and phrases; but, the actual institution of the Lord's Supper? 

 

No, you cannot -- for this event happened in Capernaum, not Jerusalem where all Passovers were celebrated -- and this event happened months before His Triumphal Entry and last Passover.

 

Let's all practice Acts 17:11.

 

God bless, have a blessed day,

 

Bill

Bible - Read Me

 

I have all assurance that the most sure thing that we most likely can ALL agree on is that not ALL of us will agree on most anything or everything.  With that said, all agreed or not, the only scriptures that Christ (Yeshua) ( and no I'm not locked into that Torrah seeker or other groups but just using reason and fact that Jesus (English rendering) never heard the name Jesus during His life or ministry but I have all assurance and faith that He has no problem being called Jesus) now back to the thought .... The only Scriptures that were around or used by Christ and the Disciples or even the Church early Church was that of the Torah and Jewish scriptures.  This really shouldn't be a problem since the Old Testament and New Testament agree and correlate on teachings, prophecy and dogma.  The New Testament or parts of what it contains surely was around in the early Church as much is based upon the writings of Paul, Peter and others contemporary to Christ.  

 

I cannot say, or will I say, with all authority that "V" is 100% right or "Bill" is 100% right but rather I will say that I'm fairly certain that Christ would not condone the atmosphere of aggression and tone that tends to more pit Christian against Christian in an adversarial position rather than looking at the overall meaning of the sacriment or act itself and why He did as He did.  

 

Christ, in His ministry, (my opinion mind you) reached out across boundaries and barriers to reach people who were seeking answers as to just who He was and why He was there and reconciling themselves unto their Creator and their God.  While this forum is a good avenue which we all can dispute and discuss scripture and various doctrines or relate and reinforce our own beliefs and positions and educate others who may seek answers I doubt that continually taking such a rigid "I'm Right Always" attitude or a "your always wrong" attitude accomplishes any of our common goals, as Christians which should be to reach some form of Christian maturity among ourselves.  

 

Remember folks that even among the earliest Churches, in common homes and dirt walls, early believers did not always agree together and there was disputes involving doctrines and personal beliefs.  Paul addressed many of these throughout his own writings and especially in Romans Chapter 14.  I think that Romans 14 is one passage that each Christian should take to heart quite often just as the 13rh chapter of 1 Corinthians.  (1 Cor 13) and the First three Chapters of 1 John.  

 

Yes there are MANY issues that Christ, Paul, Peter and the apostles conveyed to the Early Church and many things that Christians (a great many if not most who were Converted Jews) wanted to know about their Messiah that they had waited so long for.  I think that one of the most common themes and lessons that all the Apostles and Christ tried to covey to ALL CHRISTIANS was LOVE.  To let all believers know that through whatever disputes and divisions we might have that the overall LOVE that permeates us all, through and in God's Holy Spirit, is far more important than most anything else.  WHY?  For one the more we learn to Love the more mature we become and the closer (my opinion again) to becoming what God intended for His children/creation to become as they are led to that destination through and by the other doctrinal teachings contained within the scriptures.

 

Remember in the most basic message to non-believers LOVE was right present .. "For God so Loved the world".  The basic and principal message (OF SALVATION) throughout whether delivered personally by Christ or by the Disciples didn't go through a lengthy list of thou shalt nots or condemnations of what all the person did but rather acknowledgement that God (who didn't have a reason to) LOVED US so much that HE, Himself, became sacrifice for us, to atone for and justify ALL those sins and shortcomings we have and continue to have in the flesh so that we (mankind) could avoid the set determined penalty of death for sins and be reconciled unto God Himself through His Holy Spirit.

 

Why do you think that harmony and general attitude of Love is so important among fellow believers?  I believe it's because WE are God's Ministry and God's outreach unto the world around us and we don't do a very good job of showing and demonstrating the Love, Peace, and unity of God when we are so at each other just as if we were not saved in the first place.  Presenting one's opinion/belief and why we believe as we do is fine as we seek to teach and train others and make them disciples (more mature teaching less mature to become mature) we often don't take the time to realize that we have a far ways to progress and go ourselves before we seek to help others.  Romans 14 is a very good Chapter for those who seek to minister and interact with other Christians with whom we do not always agree on doctrine with.

 

My own opinions mind you. ... Ohh! one other opinion.  It does one very little good to READ the Scriptures when we remain or stay deaf to them.  Our greatest gain is to read them, discern, them, study and understand them through and with prayer and the Holy Spirit's ministry and help then apply them unto our lives and DEMONSTRATE them unto others in and by our lives that we live.  By doing such and so we also are a ministry unto the world and people around us as they see humans doing things that are not typical but that are possible only with the guidance and power of God's Holy Spirit working within and through us.

 

Last edited by gbrk

With regard to interpretations of Scriptures and teachings of Christ and the Disciples.  How many times do we spend countless of hours and time locked in disputes and arguments which do more to open a path unto Satan or demonic powers to take advantage of?  Yes it is of prime importance as we seek to bring ourselves closer unto God (God the Father/Son/Holy Spirit) and understand His Will for our lives to also be intellectual and smart enough to understand that the very wellspring of Scriptures or the very WORD of God and Source of Scriptures dwells inside each of us IF we are truly Saved and one with Christ.  God's Holy Spirit (God Himself in Holy Spirit form) dwelling within our own bodies as a ministry unto us verifying that we are truly saved and changed, a "new" person and reborn.  That very person, God's Holy Spirit, God wrote (inspired) the very scriptures that so many of us argue over. 

 

So often we spend much time in conflict rather than looking inward and in prayer seeking for God to reveal unto us what God's very Will is for us and asking God to TEACH unto us what the Scriptures mean (FOR US and TO US) and how we can then be used of God for the advancement of His own Will and Kingdom.  

 

Each disciple, apostle, Minister, Priest, Bishop, Deacon, individual Christian is given power and a gift through and by God's Holy Spirit and each of us make up universally the true CHURCH of God through which God lives and relates unto mankind and the world.  Yes the scriptures are important and yield much information for us and a great much of that information is very personal in nature as related to each of us through God's Holy Spirit.  We are to defend the faith and the message of the Cross and yes defend it against lies and deceptions that the adversary will use to attempt to taint the message.  There are antiChrist out there and there are those opposed to God out there that seek destruction of the faith so yes we are to defend the faith and be strong in the faith but as we do so we should be more aware that we are to hold ourselves far more in a critical eye than anyone around us.  

 

I fully believe that God does give words of wisdom and missions unto various believers but I also believe that there are those who go out and without listening to what God is saying unto them, by His Holy Spirit ,seek to pave a path as they see fit and rather than listening to what God wants they tell God what they are going to do.  I am saying this not to be critical for we all can fail and fall into that rut or that position but rather I beseech each to continue, through prayer, to be open and receptive to that which God wants for each of us, through God's Holy Spirit that He gave unto us freely upon our conversion, upon our rebirth and our Salvation through Christ shed blood on the Cross.  It is through faith that we were saved and we should all strive to maintain a daily life that allows God's Holy Spirit to minister unto us, as God intended, rather than allow our lives to fill up with sinful disobedience and rebellion which clouds our relationship and communion with God's Spirit.  

 

Again this is my own opinion and by no means is it directed to or unto any specific person here on the forum but unto all Christians in general (including myself whom is certainly as polluted and sinful as any of us).

Add Reply

Post

Untitled Document
×
×
×
×
Link copied to your clipboard.
×