Protest-Alarmist

Hi to all our Forum Friends,

 

If ever Bible teaching held truth -- the diatribe which began this discussion is proof of it:

 

Micah 7:13, "And the earth will become desolate because of her inhabitants, On account of the fruit of their deeds."

Luke 8:14, "The seed which fell among the thorns, these are the ones who have heard, and as they go on their way they are choked with worries and riches and pleasures of this life, and bring no fruit to maturity."

Colossians 1:10, "So that you will walk in a manner worthy of the Lord, to please Him in all respects, bearing fruit in every good work and increasing in the knowledge of God."

Matthew 7:16, "You will know them by their fruits.  Grapes are not gathered from thorn bushes nor figs from thistles, are they?"

 

The tone of that initial post indicates that the fruit has gone bad.  My Friend, civil discussions are much more productive.

 

God bless, have a wonderful, blessed day,

 

Bill

.

Yes, God made everything that lives on the earth including the animals. In the beginning, the Bible says, "God said, 'Let the land produce living creatures according to their kinds: livestock, creatures that move along the ground, and wild animals....' And it was so" (Genesis 1:24).

 

And yes, the Bible commands us to take care of the animals under our care. One of the signs of a righteous man, the Bible says, is that he takes care of his animals (see Proverbs 12:10). Even the animal of an enemy was to be treated kindly: "If you come across your enemy's ox or donkey wandering off, be sure to take it back to him" (Exodus 23:4).

 

One reason God commanded His people to rest one day out of seven was so their animals would be refreshed (see Exodus 23:12).

 

In fact, the Bible says we must never treat any part of God's creation with contempt. When we do, we are indirectly treating our Creator with contempt. Instead, God calls us to be stewards or trustees of His creation, and the Bible reminds us that we are responsible to Him for the way we treat it. We've often forgotten this but it's still true, and when we ignore it we not only hurt God's creation but we also hurt ourselves.

 

Most of all, however, God calls us to put Him first in our lives. He loves us, and our greatest calling is to respond to His love by opening our hearts and lives to His Son, Jesus Christ.

 

Billy Graham said this one time or another.........

Yes! All living things are part of His creation! And all should be rightly cared for. SO WHAT if we choose to say a blessing over our animals? Is this taking away from anyone? No. Just giving glory to God in ALL His creation, and blessing their lives. Good grief- my children love our annual "blessing of the animals" celebration- it is sweet to teach them that God loves His animals too.

___

There is NOTHING in Matthew 7:6 which even hints at the notion that Jesus was speaking of Gentiles.  Ignoring the context is a common fault of those who, like you, resort to bogus hermeneutics in a failed attempt to argue against the obvious.

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

hermen...-what?

hermen...-what? 

 

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

Herman munster boss. Munster, jes like de cheese but not spelt de same.

-------------------------------------
Not even a good try contendah, you don't know hermeneutics from

 hemorrhoids. Even the protestants (the ones that don't lie) agree Jesus

or anyone else uses the word Dog in that  context is referring to Gentiles.

 

The hint is how and/or when the word is used.

So how is the word dog used in Mark 7: 27-29..?

 

27

He said to her, "Let the children be fed first. ⁹ For it is not right to take the

food of the children and throw it to the dogs."

28

She replied and said to him, "Lord, even the dogs under the table eat the

children's scraps."

29

Then he said to her, "For saying this, you may go. The demon has gone

out of your daughter."

 

Hi all,

 

Let's take a look at that Scripture passage:

 

From:  http://www.blueletterbible.org...tthew&ar=Mat_7_6

 

Matthew 7:6, "Do not give what is holy to dogs, and do not throw your pearls before swine, or they will trample them under their feet, and turn and tear you to pieces."

 

3. (6) Balancing love with discernment.

 

"Do not give what is holy to the dogs; nor cast your pearls before swine, lest they trample them under their feet, and turn and tear you in pieces."

 

a. Do not give what is holy to the dogs:  Dogs and swine in this context are those who are hostile to the Gospel.  Our love for others must not blind us to their hardened rejection of the Gospel.

 

b. Nor cast your pearls before swine:  Our pearls of the precious Gospel may only confuse unbelievers, who are blinded to the truth by the god of this age (2 Corinthians 4:4) and may only expose the Gospel to their ridicule.

 

i. Of course, Jesus did not say this to discourage us from sharing the Gospel.  He says this to call us to discernment, and to encourage us to look for prepared hearts.

 

I find it interesting that my NASB Study Bible has a side reference for this Scripture passage.  That reference is to a passage in Proverbs:

 

Proverbs 9:7-9, "He who corrects a scoffer gets dishonor for himself, And he who reproves a wicked man gets insults for himself.  Do not reprove a scoffer, or he will hate you, Reprove a wise man and he will love you.  Give instruction to a wise man and he will be still wiser, Teach a righteous man and he will increase his learning."

 

That is amazing, King Solomon, long before Christ came to earth as incarnate God -- knew about some of my Religion Forum Cabal Friends and their lack of ability to have a dialogue without using insulting names and denigrating comments.  Wow!   Now who can deny the validity of the Bible? 

 

God bless, have a wonderfui, blessed day,

 

Bill

 

Hi Vic,

 

Let's take a closer look at the Scripture passage you suggest in Mark 7.  Here Jesus Christ meets a Syrophoenician woman, a Gentile woman, who is not yet a believer -- but, who believes that the Lord can heal her daughter who is demon possessed.  The woman not truly understanding that Christ is really God -- is being led by the Holy Spirit to seek Him to help her daughter.

 

Mark 7:25-30, "But after hearing of Him, a woman whose little daughter had an unclean spirit immediately came and fell at His feet.  Now the woman was a Gentile, of the Syrophoenician race. And she kept asking Him to cast the demon out of her daughter.  And He was saying to her, 'Let the children be satisfied first, for it is not good to take the children's bread and throw it to the dogs.'   But she answered and said to Him, 'Yes, Lord, but even the dogs under the table feed on the children's crumbs.'  And He said to her, 'Because of this answer go; the demon has gone out of your daughter.'  And going back to her home, she found the child lying on the bed, the demon having left."

 

From:  http://www.blueletterbible.org...Mark&ar=Mar_7_25

 

2. (27-30) Jesus responds to the woman’s request.

 

But Jesus said to her, “Let the children be filled first, for it is not good to take the children’s bread and throw it to the little dogs.” And she answered and said to Him, “Yes, Lord, yet even the little dogs under the table eat from the children’s crumbs.” Then He said to her, “For this saying go your way; the demon has gone out of your daughter.” And when she had come to her house, she found the demon gone out, and her daughter lying on the bed.

 

a. Let the children be filled first, for it is not good to take the children’s bread and throw it to the little dogs:  Jesus seems to discourage the woman, reminding her that the children (the Jewish people) get priority over the little dogs (Gentiles like her).

 

i. In that day, Jews often called Gentiles “dogs” in a very derogatory way.  “The dog was not the well-loved guardian that it is to-day; more commonly it was the symbol of dishonour.  To the Greek, the word dog meant a shameless and audacious woman; it was used exactly with the connotation that we use the word ***** to-day.  To the Jews it was equally a term of contempt.” (Barclay)

 

ii. Yet Jesus did not use the normal word for “dogs.”  Instead He softened it into little dogs - essentially, reminding the woman of her place as a Gentile, yet not wanting to push her completely away.  “In Greek, diminutives are characteristically affectionate. Jesus took the sting out of the word.” (Barclay)

 

b. Yes, Lord, yet even the little dogs under the table eat from the children’s crumbs: The woman responds with great faith.  First, she accepted her low place before Jesus by not debating the reference to little dogs.  Second, she asked Jesus to deal with her on her own low level (even the little dogs under the table eat).  She therefore received from Jesus.

 

i. We need to see the power of coming to God as we are, and letting Him make true His promises to those weak and unclean.  If the woman had responded, “Who are you calling a dog?” she would not have received from Jesus what her daughter needed.  Her humble, faith-filled submission to Jesus brought the victory.

 

ii. “Nothing appealed to our blessed Lord more than faith coupled with humility.” (Ironside) Some people come to God with a kind of faith, but without humility.  Others come to God with a kind of humility, but without faith. But if the two are combined it is a powerful thing before God.

 

iii. Clarke praises the prayer of this woman showing it has nine notable features: “1. It is short; 2. humble; 3. full of faith; 4. fervent; 5. modest; 6. respectful; 7. rational; 8. relying only on the mercy of God; 9. persevering.”

 

Vic, my Friend, as we can see from this Scripture passage and this commentary explanation, Jesus was not calling the woman a "dog" in a derogatory manner -- but, instead was speaking softly to her, drawing her to HImself.   She became a believer.   And, in this both the woman and her daughter were healed by Jesus Christ -- both physically and spiritually.

 

God bless, have a wonderful, blessed day,

 

Bill

------------
So Contendah, you are Bible ignorant or you're a liar.

The Bible has many examples this and here is one more.

Philippians 3:2

[2] Beware of dogs, beware of evil workers, beware of the concision.

 

The Latin Vulgate (Biblia Sacra Vulgata) Clementine Version

Translation from Greek and other languages into Latin by

Saint Jerome, about 382 A.D.

New Testament was first published by the English College at Rheims

in 1582 A.D.

Pope Damasus assembled the first list of books of the Bible at the Roman

Council in 382 A.D. He commissioned St.  Jerome to translate the original

Greek and Hebrew texts into Latin, which became known as the Latin

Vulgate Bible and was declared by the Church to be the only authentic and

official version, in 1546.  

 

The DR New Testament was first published by the English College at

Rheims in 1582 A.D.   The DR Old Testament was first published by the

English College at Douay in 1609 A.D.   The first King James Version was

not published until 1611.  This online DRV contains all 73 books, including

the seven Deutero-Canonical books (erroneously called Apocrypha by

Protestants).   These seven books were included in the 1611 KJV,

but not in later KJV Bibles.   

 

St. Jerome considered the seven Deutero-Canonical books to be NOT

inspired by God, but he was commissioned by Pope Damasus to translate

all 73 books into Latin.  Pope Damasus considered the 7 DC books to be

inspired by God.  Later in 1946, after the finding of the dead-sea scrolls,

it was discovered that these 7 DC books were used by the Jews in

Alexandria, even in their services. 

This verifies that Pope Damasus was correct.

 

It is interesting to note that the Palestinian Jews did not accept the 7 DC

books for their version of Holy Scriptures and neither did they accept any

of the New Testament.  Unfortunately, the Protestants base their Bible on

this version which comes from a people who did not accept Jesus Christ

as the Messiah.

 

 

Hi Vic,

 

Whoever the writer is that you copy/pasted from, he was a wee bit mixed up.  He/she tells us:

 

St. Jerome considered the seven Deutero-Canonical books to be NOT inspired by God, but he was commissioned by Pope Damasus to translate all 73 books into Latin.  Pope Damasus considered the 7 DC books to be inspired by God.

 

More accurately, that should read:

 

St. Jerome considered the seven Deutero-Canonical books to be NOT inspired by God, but he was commissioned FORCED by Pope Damasus to translate all 73 books into Latin.  Pope Damasus considered NEEDED the 7 DC books to be (BELIEVED TO BE) inspired by God.

 

And, why did Pope Damascus NEED the Apocrypha to be included in the Roman Catholic Bible?  Because without those Apocrypha books -- most of the Roman Catholic doctrines, traditions, and teachings would fall flat.  Without the Apocrypha -- there would be no Roman Catholic church.

 

That is why the Pope forced Jerome to include them.

 

God bless, have a wonderful, blessed day,

 

Bill

 

Okay, Vic, we will play your silly game!

 

Whoever the writer is that you copy/pasted from, he was a wee bit mixed up.  He/she tells us:

 

St. Jerome considered the seven Deutero-Canonical books to be NOT inspired by God, but he was commissioned by Pope Damasus to translate all 73 books into Latin.  Pope Damasus considered the 7 DC books to be inspired by God.

 

More accurately, that should read:

 

St. Jerome considered the seven Deutero-Canonical books to be NOT inspired by God, but he was commissioned FORCED by Pope Damasus to translate all 73 books into Latin.  Pope Damasus considered NEEDED the 7 DC books to be (BELIEVED TO BE) inspired by God.

 

And, why did Pope Damascus NEED the Apocrypha to be included in the Roman Catholic Bible?  Because without those Apocrypha books -- most of the Roman Catholic doctrines, traditions, and teachings would fall flat.  Without the Apocrypha -- there would be no Roman Catholic church.

 

That is why the Pope forced Jerome to include them.

 

God bless, have a wonderful, blessed day,

 

Bill

.

Do Not keep Harassing me billie, You have had your say now go stick

your nose up someone else's Butt. You annoying little *** with your lying six

year old obsessive needy affliction. I'm not playing games with you, until

you push too far, and you're pushing too far.

 

 You're one very extremist coward.

 

 

Not to mention that there are a lot of dogs that i like better than most people, and most dogs are far more deserving of being 'blessed' than most people.  

Okay, Vic, we will CONTINUE TO play your silly game!

 

Whoever the writer is that you copy/pasted from, he was a wee bit mixed up.  He/she tells us:

 

St. Jerome considered the seven Deutero-Canonical books to be NOT inspired by God, but he was commissioned by Pope Damasus to translate all 73 books into Latin.  Pope Damasus considered the 7 DC books to be inspired by God.

 

More accurately, that should read:

 

St. Jerome considered the seven Deutero-Canonical books to be NOT inspired by God, but he was commissioned FORCED by Pope Damasus to translate all 73 books into Latin.  Pope Damasus considered NEEDED the 7 DC books to be (BELIEVED TO BE) inspired by God.

 

And, why did Pope Damascus NEED the Apocrypha to be included in the Roman Catholic Bible?  Because without those Apocrypha books -- most of the Roman Catholic doctrines, traditions, and teachings would fall flat.  Without the Apocrypha -- there would be no Roman Catholic church.

 

That is why the Pope forced Jerome to include them.

 

God bless, have a wonderful, blessed day,

 

Bill

The roman catholic church existed since pentecost. It is in no way dependent on the apocrypha for anything, let alone its existence. Bill often makes this claim however. He never states where in the apocrypha any Catholic doctrine is based, he just continues to make an unsupported claim. Fortunately, his claims cannot stand in the light of the truth. I have repeatedly disproven his lie, but the lie continues. Praised be Jesus forever!

Hi Nathan,

 

You are infamous for making strong, bold statements -- with only your word as support.  At least, when I make a statement regarding God, theology, etc. -- I support what I believe with Scripture.  Until you start doing that -- all you have is huffing and puffing.

 

Yes, a large part of the Roman Catholic teachings and doctrines come from either the Apocrypha or a misreading of Scripture; but, mostly from the Apocrypha.   Most of your Mariology teachings, your purgatory teachings, etc., all come from the Apocrypha. 

 

And, your Eucharist doctrine comes from a total misreading of John 6.   i have demonstrated that to you a number of times; specifically that John 6 takes place in Capernaum, not Jerusalem where the real Lord's Last Supper was eaten, and is months before His final Passover.  Enough said.

 

God bless, have a wondeful, blessed day,

 

Bill

Which book of the apocrypha? You keep saying that, but cite no proof! And we follow the 2,000 year correct interpretation of John 6! Jesus meant what He said literally. And at the Last Supper, He gave us the means to do what He said. The apostles believed Him, Paul believed Him and wrote of the Eucharist, the Church has had continuous belief! You take something meant literally, and treat it as symbolic. You take the symbolic language in revelation literally. You have demonstrated error, and that is all! That is why you makes so many mistakes in trying to interpret scripture. You have no authority. The Catholic Church, which wrote the new testament, has that authority, and the Holy Spirit to guide it. Once again, please cite any passage from the apocrypha that allegedly is the basis for catholic dogma. Praised be Jesus forever!

Hi Nathan,

 

No, my Friend, I do not need to cite the Apocrypha; I need only show that most Roman Catholic doctrines and teachings are NOT in the Bible, which is very evident since no Roman Catholic can site the Scripture references and explain them proving those doctrines/teachings.

 

You say that your interpretation explains how the Eucharist is found in John 6.  Okay, then how do you explain away the fact that Jesus is in Capernaum, not Jerusalem, during John 6 -- and how you explain the time lapse between this trip to Capernaum and the Last Supper months later in Jerusalem.   How does your interpretation explain those minor discrepancies?

 

God bless, have a wonderful, blessed day,

 

Bill

Nathan, Purgatory is taught in the New Testament as well as in the

Old Testament. Don't worry about billie, the idiot doesn't know the

difference between Hades and Heaven.

Hi Vic,

 

Unless you can show it in Scripture, you, too, are just huffing and puffing.  Please show us in Scripture where we can find purgatory -- or any of the other erroneous Roman Catholic teachings.

 

God bless, have a wonderful, blessed day,

 

Bill

---------
You've been shown many times before and all you do is lie, twist the truth.

 

It's time to stop throwing Pearls to a lying ignorant bible monkey pig/swine.

 

I can attest to that as well. Over the past years, every single argument that bill gray has had against the Catholic Church has been answered. It's the same old merry-go-round he is playing. Anyone interested can look through the archives. I, for one, refuse to enter into this nonsense dialogue with bill gray (again). It's all been done, it's all been said and written before, and it has been demonstrated that his distain for the Catholic Church stems from his own immaturity and lack of spiritual discipline/maturity. Bill, my advice to you is to stop antagonizing and worrying about the Catholic Church. It doesn't concern you. You believe that all professed Christians will be "raptured up"- so, as Catholics, we are all "just fine" in that department. We don't need you to save us. Go help somebody- go live out Christianity instead of wasting so much time railing against a church that you don't understand

Actually, Bill, if you are going to make an accusation, you should provide proof. Or at least try to, since your accusation is without merit. But try anyway. And i have repeatedly shown the new testament source for each of the Catholic truths that you deny. Just because you prefer your interpretation to that of the Church's interpretation, that doesn't mean that the Church is wrong. How could it be, when it is guided by the Holy Spirit and preserved from error? Praised be Jesus forever!

And as for John 6, and Jesus being in Capernum, so what! Is Jesus bound by time? The apostles, paul, the church fathers, augustine, thomas aquinas, and the holy spirit agree with the catholic church's interpretation. You disagree. Your disagreement carries zero weight. I'll continue to believe that Jesus meant what He said. Believing Jesus is better than believing Bill Gray! Praised be Jesus forever!

Hi Nathan,

 

I would have responded sooner to your post -- but, for the past day and a half, I have been fighting a nasty virus.  You can read about it on Facebook at: "DID YOU MISS ME? - Virus Warning!"  https://www.facebook.com/notes/bill-gray/did-you-miss-me-virus-warning/593591057353718?ref=notif&notif_t=like

 

Matter of fact, I would suggest that all who use Windows PC, especially Windows 7, take a look at this Facebook Note.  It might save you a big headache.

 

So, back to your point.  It seems that when you cannot use Scripture to prove your position -- you just throw out Scripture?   It matters a great deal that the events in John 6 happens months before the Passover -- and happened in Capernaum, and not Jerusalem.  That event in John 6 had NOTHING to do with the Last Supper, which is where your church gets its doctrine of the Eucharist.  

 

And, the Scripture passages in the Synoptic Gospels which do relate the Last Supper -- show Jesus Christ telling us to take the elements in REMEMBRANCE of HIm -- not to eat His body and drink His blood.

 

You tell me, "The apostles, paul, the church fathers, augustine, thomas aquinas, and the holy spirit agree with the catholic church's interpretation."

 

Please show us from Scripture where Paul supports the doctrine of the Eucharist, or Mariology, or any other Roman Catholic erroneous doctrine.   And, the others you name -- they are only Papal lackeys.  What they say and write do not determine Scripture, nor Christian doctrine.

 

God bless, have a wonderful, blessed day,

 

Bill

Bill writes:  And, the Scripture passages in the Synoptic Gospels which do relate the Last Supper -- show Jesus Christ telling us to take the elements in REMEMBRANCE of Him -- not to eat His body and drink His blood.

 

This is an incorrect statement.  Mark 14:22 says:  And whilst they were eating, Jesus took bread; and blessing, broke, and gave to them, and said: Take ye. This is my body. [23] And having taken the chalice, giving thanks, he gave it to them. And they all drank of it. [24] And he said to them: This is my blood of the new testament.

 

Luke 22:19 says:  And taking bread, he gave thanks, and brake; and gave to them, saying: This is my body, which is given for you.

 

Matthew 26:26 says:  "And whilst they were at supper, Jesus took bread, and blessed, and broke: and gave to his disciples, and said: Take ye, and eat. This is my body.:

 

The Synoptics agree:  This is my body: Jesus does not say, This is the figure of my body, but This is my body. Jesus institutes the Eucharist, giving the means to do what He said in John 6.  

 

Paul wrote to the Corinthians: "The cup of blessing which we bless, is it not a participation in the blood of Christ? The bread which we break, is it not a participation in the body of Christ?" (1 Cor. 10:16). So when we receive Communion, we actually participate in the body and blood of Christ, not just eat symbols of them. Paul also said, "Therefore whoever eats the bread and drinks the cup of the Lord unworthily will have to answer for the body and blood of the Lord. . . . For any one who eats and drinks without discerning the body, eats and drinks judgment on himself" (1 Cor. 11:27, 29). "To answer for the body and blood" of someone meant to be guilty of a crime as serious as homicide. How could eating mere bread and wine "unworthily" be so serious? Paul’s comment makes sense only if the bread and wine became the real body and blood of Christ. 

 

Ignatius of Antioch, who had been a disciple of the apostle John and who wrote a letter to the Smyrnaeans about A.D. 110, said, referring to "those who hold heterodox opinions," that "they abstain from the Eucharist and from prayer, because they do not confess that the Eucharist is the flesh of our Savior Jesus Christ, flesh which suffered for our sins and which the Father, in his goodness, raised up again" (6:2, 7:1). 

 

The Bible, Jesus, Paul, the Church Fathers, and all the papal lackeys agree:  BILL IS WRONG again!! Praised be Jesus forever!!!

___

Your ignorance concerning this term is not surprising, since you applications of the interpretive science of hermeneutics are so often flawed.

 

And don't you have a DICTIONARY or know how to use the many online dictionaries?

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

What??

Hi Nathan,

 

My Friend, you are trying to pick a few words out of the middle of a Scripture verse or passage, out of context, and twist them into proving your erroneous doctrine.  Let's look at the full passages and see what they really tell us:

 

First, let's look at the Synoptic Gospels:

 

Matthew 26:26-29, "While they were eating, Jesus took some bread, and after a blessing, He broke it and gave it to the disciples, and said, 'Take, eat; this is My body.'  (27) And when He had taken a cup and given thanks, He gave it to them, saying, 'Drink from it, all of you; (28) for this is My blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many for forgiveness of sins.  (29) But I say to you, I will not drink of this fruit of the vine from now on until that day when I drink it new with you in My Father's kingdom.' "

Mark 14:22-25, "While they were eating, He took some bread, and after a blessing He broke it, and gave it to them, and said, 'Take it; this is My body.'  (23) And when He had taken a cup and given thanks, He gave it to them, and they all drank from it.  (24) And He said to them, 'This is My blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many.  (25) Truly I say to you, I will never again drink of the fruit of the vine until that day when I drink it new in the kingdom of God.' "

 

Now, is Jesus telling us that HE is going to eat His own body and drink His own blood.  Of course not, for we see that HE tells us they are drinking "the fruit of the vine" -- in other words, they and HE are drinking wine -- NOT HIS BLOOD.

 

And, of course, Jesus clears it all up in Luke 22:19 where He tells us to do this "in remembrance of Him" -- not have Him for dinner.

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.' "

 

Nathan, you quote 1 Corinthians 10:16 -- so, let's look at the full passage.  By the way, in this passage Paul is warning the Corinthians against participating in idol feasts and idol worship; a warning that Roman Catholics should take to heart.

 

1 Corinthians 10:14-19, "Therefore, my beloved, flee from idolatry.  (15) I speak as to wise men; you judge what I say.  (16) Is not the cup of blessing which we bless a sharing in the blood of Christ?  Is not the bread which we break a sharing in the body of Christ?  (17) Since there is one bread, we who are many are one body; for we all partake of the one bread.  (18) Look at the nation Israel; are not those who eat the sacrifices sharers in the altar?  (19) What do I mean then? That a thing sacrificed to idols is anything, or that an idol is anything?"

 

Paul is warning the Corinthians against worshiping idols when Christ has made Himself the "once for all" sacrifice for the atonement of all who, by grace, through faith in His finished work (John 19:30) on the cross -- will believe and receive His "free gift" of eternal life.

 

Then, you pick a few words out of 1 Corinthians 11 and attempt to twist them.  So, let's take a look at the full passage:

 

1 Corinthians 11:23-27 For I received from the Lord that which I also delivered to you, that the Lord Jesus in the night in which He was betrayed took bread; (24) and when He had given thanks, He broke it and said, 'This is My body, which is for you; do this in remembrance of Me.'  (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.'  (26) For as often as you eat this bread and drink the cup, you proclaim the Lord's death until He comes.  (27) Therefore whoever eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner, shall be guilty of the body and the blood of the Lord."

Once again, we find Christ telling us to "do this in remembrance of Me" -- not "have Me for dinner."

 

You also referenced 1 Corinthians 11:29:

 

1 Corinthians 11:28-32, "But a man must examine himself, and in so doing he is to eat of the bread and drink of the cup.  (29) For he who eats and drinks, eats and drinks judgment to himself if he does not judge the body rightly.  (30) For this reason many among you are weak and sick, and a number sleep.  (31) But if we judged ourselves rightly, we would not be judged.  (32) But when we are judged, we are disciplined by the Lord so that we will not be condemned along with the world."

 

What is Paul teaching us in this passage?   For this, let me refer us to a teaching in the commentary on 1 Corinthians 11 written by David Guzik, past Director of the Calvary Chapel College in Germany.  

 

http://www.blueletterbible.org...ans&ar=1Cr_11_29

 

a. Whoever eats this bread or drinks this cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty of the body and blood of the Lord:  Paul is warning the Corinthian Christians to treat the Lord’s Supper with reverence, and to practice it in a spirit of self-examination. However, this is not written with the thought of excluding ourselves from the table, but of preparing us to receive with the right heart.

 

i. The King James Version of 1 Corinthians 11:27 has caused some misunderstanding in this regard: Wherefore whosoever shall eat this bread, and drink this cup of the Lord, unworthily, shall be guilty of the body and blood of the Lord.  The wording of unworthily has made some Christians believe they had to “make themselves worthy” to receive communion, or if they had sinned, they were unworthy to come and remember what Jesus had done on the cross for them.

 

ii. This is a serious misunderstanding, because if anyone needs to remember the work of Jesus on the cross, it is the one who has sinned!  When we are repentant, our sin should drive us to our Savior, not away from Him!  However, if a Christian is in sin, and stubbornly unrepentant, they are mocking what Jesus did on the cross to cleanse them from their sin.

 

iii. We can never really make ourselves “worthy” of what Jesus did for us on the cross. He did it because of His great love, not because some of us were so worthy. So, as we take the bread and cup, we should not stare at the floor, or struggle to achieve some sort of spiritual feeling.  We should simply open our heart to Jesus and recognize His presence with us – in fact, in us!

 

b. Poole on as often as you eat this bread and drink this cup:  “From hence it appears, that the bread and wine is not (as papists say) transubstantiated, or turned into the very substance of the flesh and blood of Christ, when the communicants eat it and drink it.  It is still the same bread and cup it was.”

 

c. Let a man examine himself:  Again, not in a morbid display of self-checking to see if we are worthy of what Jesus did for us; but in a honest appraisal to see if, as we receive communion, we are conducting ourselves in way honoring to the Lord.

 

i. The idea is plain: examine yourself, but then let him eat of that bread and drink of that cup.  The idea is not to keep people away from the table of communion, but to prepare them to receive it in the right way.

 

The commentary continues:

 

a. Eats and drinks judgment to himself: Irreverant conduct at the Lord’s table invites God’s corrective discipline; so we should judge ourselves so we would not be judged. If we will discipline ourselves, the Lord will not need to do it with His hand of correction!

 

i. The words not discerning the Lord’s body have been used by Roman Catholics to support their doctrine of transubstantiation.  Their thinking is, “see, the Corinthians did not understand they were actually receiving the real body and the real blood of Jesus, and that is why they were guilty.”  But this is a very narrow foundation, that a huge building has been built upon!  It is just as easy – and just as valid – to see the Lord’s body as a reference to the church family, and it was the lack of respect and love for the church family that was causing the problems of selfishness among the Corinthian Christians.

 

So, Nathan, my Friend -- we see that when we examine the fuller passages -- they have a much different meaning -- and not your teaching of the Eucharist.

 

Let's end by once again examining John 6:

 

In John 6:1-14 Jesus is feeding the 5000 on the eastern bank of the Sea of Galilee.

 

In John 6:15-21 Jesus and His apostles travel by boat, after His walk on water, to the town of Capernaum on the western bank of the Sea of Galilee.

 

John 6:22, the verse begins with, "The next day the crowd that stood on the other side of the sea. . . "   The next day refers to the day after He had fed the 5000.

 

In John 6:22 and forward, Jesus teaches, in the city of Capernaun,  His discourse on the bread of life -- teaching that, as God had sent manna (physical food) from heaven to feed the Israelites in the wilderness -- God has now sent spiritual food, His Son, to offer eternal life to all who, by grace, through faith in His work finished on the cross (John 19:30) -- will believe and receive Him as Lord and Savior.

 

John 6 has absolutely NOTHING to do with the Last Supper, Communion, or what you call the Eucharist.  He is comparing the physical food sent by God from heaven (manna) to save His chosen people physically -- to the spiritual food sent by God from heaven (Himself) to offer salvation to ALL His people.

 

So, my Friend, I pray this gives you a much more clear understanding of those Scripture passages which you have chosen to use as proof text for your erroneous doctrine of the Eucharist.

 

God bless, have a wonderful, blessed day,

 

Bill

 

Hi folks,

 

Since Vic finds it difficult to get past his copy/paste posts -- all he has the ability to do when anyone offers an intelligent analysis of those posts -- is to repost the same copy/paste over and over and over.

 

So, to get past this childish antic -- just take one step above his ranting and you will see my response to the false and erroneous Roman Catholic doctrine of the Eucharist.

 

God bless, have a wonderful, blessed day,

 

Bill

 

 

CHEERS FOR THE COPY/PASTE KING,

OVER AND OVER AND OVER -- THE LIMIT OF HIS ABILITIES!

 

 

Hi Vic,

 

ONCE AGAIN!

Rather than reinvent the wheel -- let me just show you what I just finished writing in response to Nathan on the same subject:

 

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

 

Hi Nathan,

 

My Friend, you are trying to pick a few words out of the middle of a Scripture verse or passage, out of context, and twist them into proving your erroneous doctrine.  Let's look at the full passages and see what they really tell us:

 

First, let's look at the Synoptic Gospels:

 

Matthew 26:26-29, "While they were eating, Jesus took some bread, and after a blessing, He broke it and gave it to the disciples, and said, 'Take, eat; this is My body.'  (27) And when He had taken a cup and given thanks, He gave it to them, saying, 'Drink from it, all of you; (28) for this is My blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many for forgiveness of sins.  (29) But I say to you, I will not drink of this fruit of the vine from now on until that day when I drink it new with you in My Father's kingdom.' "

Mark 14:22-25, "While they were eating, He took some bread, and after a blessing He broke it, and gave it to them, and said, 'Take it; this is My body.'  (23) And when He had taken a cup and given thanks, He gave it to them, and they all drank from it.  (24) And He said to them, 'This is My blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many.  (25) Truly I say to you, I will never again drink of the fruit of the vine until that day when I drink it new in the kingdom of God.' "

 

Now, is Jesus telling us that HE is going to eat His own body and drink His own blood.  Of course not, for we see that HE tells us they are drinking "the fruit of the vine" -- in other words, they and HE are drinking wine -- NOT HIS BLOOD.

 

And, of course, Jesus clears it all up in Luke 22:19 where He tells us to do this "in remembrance of Him" -- not have Him for dinner.

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.' "

 

Nathan, you quote 1 Corinthians 10:16 -- so, let's look at the full passage.  By the way, in this passage Paul is warning the Corinthians against participating in idol feasts and idol worship; a warning that Roman Catholics should take to heart.

 

1 Corinthians 10:14-19, "Therefore, my beloved, flee from idolatry.  (15) I speak as to wise men; you judge what I say.  (16) Is not the cup of blessing which we bless a sharing in the blood of Christ?  Is not the bread which we break a sharing in the body of Christ?  (17) Since there is one bread, we who are many are one body; for we all partake of the one bread.  (18) Look at the nation Israel; are not those who eat the sacrifices sharers in the altar?  (19) What do I mean then? That a thing sacrificed to idols is anything, or that an idol is anything?"

 

Paul is warning the Corinthians against worshiping idols when Christ has made Himself the "once for all" sacrifice for the atonement of all who, by grace, through faith in His finished work (John 19:30) on the cross -- will believe and receive His "free gift" of eternal life.

 

Then, you pick a few words out of 1 Corinthians 11 and attempt to twist them.  So, let's take a look at the full passage:

 

1 Corinthians 11:23-27 For I received from the Lord that which I also delivered to you, that the Lord Jesus in the night in which He was betrayed took bread; (24) and when He had given thanks, He broke it and said, 'This is My body, which is for you; do this in remembrance of Me.'  (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.'  (26) For as often as you eat this bread and drink the cup, you proclaim the Lord's death until He comes.  (27) Therefore whoever eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner, shall be guilty of the body and the blood of the Lord."

Once again, we find Christ telling us to "do this in remembrance of Me" -- not "have Me for dinner."

 

You also referenced 1 Corinthians 11:29:

 

1 Corinthians 11:28-32, "But a man must examine himself, and in so doing he is to eat of the bread and drink of the cup.  (29) For he who eats and drinks, eats and drinks judgment to himself if he does not judge the body rightly.  (30) For this reason many among you are weak and sick, and a number sleep.  (31) But if we judged ourselves rightly, we would not be judged.  (32) But when we are judged, we are disciplined by the Lord so that we will not be condemned along with the world."

 

What is Paul teaching us in this passage?   For this, let me refer us to a teaching in the commentary on 1 Corinthians 11 written by David Guzik, past Director of the Calvary Chapel College in Germany.  

 

http://www.blueletterbible.org...ans&ar=1Cr_11_29

 

a. Whoever eats this bread or drinks this cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty of the body and blood of the Lord:  Paul is warning the Corinthian Christians to treat the Lord’s Supper with reverence, and to practice it in a spirit of self-examination. However, this is not written with the thought of excluding ourselves from the table, but of preparing us to receive with the right heart.

 

i. The King James Version of 1 Corinthians 11:27 has caused some misunderstanding in this regard: Wherefore whosoever shall eat this bread, and drink this cup of the Lord, unworthily, shall be guilty of the body and blood of the Lord.  The wording of unworthily has made some Christians believe they had to “make themselves worthy” to receive communion, or if they had sinned, they were unworthy to come and remember what Jesus had done on the cross for them.

 

ii. This is a serious misunderstanding, because if anyone needs to remember the work of Jesus on the cross, it is the one who has sinned!  When we are repentant, our sin should drive us to our Savior, not away from Him!  However, if a Christian is in sin, and stubbornly unrepentant, they are mocking what Jesus did on the cross to cleanse them from their sin.

 

iii. We can never really make ourselves “worthy” of what Jesus did for us on the cross. He did it because of His great love, not because some of us were so worthy. So, as we take the bread and cup, we should not stare at the floor, or struggle to achieve some sort of spiritual feeling.  We should simply open our heart to Jesus and recognize His presence with us – in fact, in us!

 

b. Poole on as often as you eat this bread and drink this cup:  “From hence it appears, that the bread and wine is not (as papists say) transubstantiated, or turned into the very substance of the flesh and blood of Christ, when the communicants eat it and drink it.  It is still the same bread and cup it was.”

 

c. Let a man examine himself:  Again, not in a morbid display of self-checking to see if we are worthy of what Jesus did for us; but in a honest appraisal to see if, as we receive communion, we are conducting ourselves in way honoring to the Lord.

 

i. The idea is plain: examine yourself, but then let him eat of that bread and drink of that cup.  The idea is not to keep people away from the table of communion, but to prepare them to receive it in the right way.

 

The commentary continues:

 

a. Eats and drinks judgment to himself: Irreverant conduct at the Lord’s table invites God’s corrective discipline; so we should judge ourselves so we would not be judged. If we will discipline ourselves, the Lord will not need to do it with His hand of correction!

 

i. The words not discerning the Lord’s body have been used by Roman Catholics to support their doctrine of transubstantiation.  Their thinking is, “see, the Corinthians did not understand they were actually receiving the real body and the real blood of Jesus, and that is why they were guilty.”  But this is a very narrow foundation, that a huge building has been built upon!  It is just as easy – and just as valid – to see the Lord’s body as a reference to the church family, and it was the lack of respect and love for the church family that was causing the problems of selfishness among the Corinthian Christians.

 

So, Nathan, my Friend -- we see that when we examine the fuller passages -- they have a much different meaning -- and not your teaching of the Eucharist.

 

Let's end by once again examining John 6:

 

In John 6:1-14 Jesus is feeding the 5000 on the eastern bank of the Sea of Galilee.

 

In John 6:15-21 Jesus and His apostles travel by boat, after His walk on water, to the town of Capernaum on the western bank of the Sea of Galilee.

 

John 6:22, the verse begins with, "The next day the crowd that stood on the other side of the sea. . . "   The next day refers to the day after He had fed the 5000.

 

In John 6:22 and forward, Jesus teaches, in the city of Capernaun,  His discourse on the bread of life -- teaching that, as God had sent manna (physical food) from heaven to feed the Israelites in the wilderness -- God has now sent spiritual food, His Son, to offer eternal life to all who, by grace, through faith in His work finished on the cross (John 19:30) -- will believe and receive Him as Lord and Savior.

 

John 6 has absolutely NOTHING to do with the Last Supper, Communion, or what you call the Eucharist.  He is comparing the physical food sent by God from heaven (manna) to save His chosen people physically -- to the spiritual food sent by God from heaven (Himself) to offer salvation to ALL His people.

 

So, my Friend, I pray this gives you a much more clear understanding of those Scripture passages which you have chosen to use as proof text for your erroneous doctrine of the Eucharist.

 

God bless, have a wonderful, blessed day,

 

Bill