the church

[God's Truth]

I very seriously doubt that Jesus would espouse cannibalism. How gross a teaching is that? Undoubtedly, he was teaching with SYMBOLS. The bread STOOD FOR his body, and the wine STOOD FOR his blood. He didn't mean it LITERALLY! Good grief!

Check this out: When I was in the hospital a few months back, a priest came in to see my next-bed-over neighbor. She had her two sons there as well. The priest began to present the Eucharist emblems, and oops! he discovered he only had A HALF of a wafer! (I was laughing to myself!) So he divided that half wafer into three pieces.

Now, be real. That piece of Jesus' body was lying around in his pocket for so long he didn't even remember that he had only a HALF? And then he ripped it into three pieces? Did he really think he had Jesus' body in his pocket? Those priests probably LAUGH at what they convince their parishioners of!

I think they believe it.

 

[KingdomRose]

Read this passage:

Matthew 16:13 When Jesus came to the region of Caesarea Philippi, he asked his disciples, “Who do people say the Son of Man is?” 14 They replied, “Some say John the Baptist; others say Elijah; and still others, Jeremiah or one of the prophets.” 15 “But what about you?” he asked. “Who do you say I am?” 16 Simon Peter answered, “You are the Messiah, the Son of the living God.” 17 Jesus replied, “Blessed are you, Simon son of Jonah, for this was not revealed to you by flesh and blood, but by my Father in heaven. 18 And I tell you that you are Peter,and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of Hades will not overcome it.


Did you read how Jesus says on this rock I will build my church.

The church is Jesus' body.

Those saved become a part of Jesus' body.

Jesus is saying that he would build his body with true worshipers, those who worship in spirit and in truth. Peter had truth revealed to him by the Spirit.

See how Jesus says the gates of Hades will not overcome it?

Yes, and he wasn't talking about the RCC.

 

[KingdomRose]

Did you see how Jesus says the gates of Hades will not overcome it?

Think about that for awhile.

I will show you how this is not a church building.

The gates of Hades will not overcome it.

Jesus went to Hades after he died on the cross, he went there to preach the gospel to the spirits there.

The gates of Hades could not keep Jesus there.

Jesus was raised from the dead.

The church Jesus was speaking about was his body.

Jesus was dead for three days. THEN he was raised up again. THEN he went to the "spirits in prison." Those "spirits" were obviously the DEMONS---the angels that disobeyed and fell from their approved standing with God. (See IPeter 3:18-20....make sure you read verse 20! Also Genesis 6:2; 2Peter 2:4,5; Jude 6.)

"Hades" was simply Jesus' GRAVE. He was in his grave for three days, and then he went in the spirit to talk to the fallen angels who were in a FIGURATIVE prison: a spiritually dark condition.

 

[God's Truth]

Yes, and he wasn't talking about the RCC.

That's right.

Jesus was talking about his body, the church.

 

[brewmama]

i didn't read the rest of your post. i was rather struck by this first comment! How can you have the Real Presence if you do not consecrate the hosts and turn the bread/wine into the body/blood of Christ?

that makes no sense at all. And also, i believe you are wrong. I believe the Orthodox do believe in Transubstantiation

Why don't you read the rest of my post, then we can discuss it. And I never said we don't consecrate it.

 

[KingdomRose]

So you believe that even though the disciples spent the entire day with Jesus and discussed Scriptures in depth, they did NOT recognize Him at all until He " took bread, and blessed it, and brake, and gave to them. And their eyes were opened, and they knew him" was just a casual meal, and you think I'm grasping at straws?! :rotfl:

Yes that was a regular meal. No mention of wine. No mention of "eating" his flesh. They recognized him after the meal because of what he was saying to them. They didn't recognize him at first because when he was resurrected he was resurrected "in the spirit" (I Peter 3:18; I Corinthians 15:45) and thus he didn't look exactly the same when he materialized a physical body so he could walk with the disciples to Emmaus.

 

[KingdomRose]

yeh, i can relate to the, uh.. frustration or whatever. It is really sad, though, when you think of it.. how far from the True Church Protestants are. that 500-year gap is not their fault. It is Luther's fault. He was a mere human but many act like he was--well, fill in the blanks.. some new savior or something..

sigh.. ignorance!

what is it good for?

(you know, that 70s song..)

Yeah! WAR! Huh! What is it good for??? Absolutely nothin'! (But doesn't your Church support it?)

 

[KingdomRose]

I think they believe it.

Then why did he have Jesus' body in his pocket and only a shredded piece of it? Please.

I guess he didn't think too much of Jesus.

 

[jamie]

Jesus was dead for three days. THEN he was raised up again. THEN he went to the "spirits in prison." Those "spirits" were obviously the DEMONS---the ...the angels that disobeyed and fell from their approved standing with God.

Jesus preached to the disobedient angels in the days of Noah while the ark was being prepared.
(1 Peter 3:18-20)

 

[KingdomRose]

Jesus preached to the disobedient angels in the days of Noah while the ark was being prepared.
(1 Peter 3:18-20)

No he didn't. It was after he was resurrected.

 

[jamie]

No he didn't. It was after he was resurrected.

...who formerly were disobedient, when once the Divine longsuffering waited in the days of Noah, while the ark was being prepared, in which a few, that is, eight souls, were saved through water. (1 Peter 3:20)​

You should have read verse 20.

:readthis:

 

[csuguy]

Jesus addressed Simon in Hebrew as Simon bar Jonah. I don't believe Jesus then switched languages and addressed Simon and the disciples with him in Greek. I believe he continued in Hebrew and addressed all of them as peter, which in Hebrew refers to firstborn.

that you shall set apart to the LORD all that open the womb, that is, every firstborn that comes from an animal which you have; the males shall be the LORD’s. (Exodus 13:12)​

The word "open" and the word "firstborn" are peter.

Jesus is the firstborn of all the firstborn into the kingdom of God. The rest of the firstborn will enter the kingdom at Jesus' coming to establish his kingdom over all the earth.

We are the church of the firstborn. (Hebrews 12:22-23)

Maybe, maybe not. It could be that the author translated the hebrew word 'Cephas' that was used by Jesus into the Greek 'Petros' for his Greek speaking audience. He is also referred to as Cephas after all.

At any rate, if we accept 1 Peter 2 then there is nothing wrong with accepting that Peter is a stone of the church - just not the corner stone. He is as much a stone of the church as we are today, if we truly live as followers of Christ at any rate.

 

[csuguy]

I very seriously doubt that Jesus would espouse cannibalism. How gross a teaching is that? Undoubtedly, he was teaching with SYMBOLS. The bread STOOD FOR his body, and the wine STOOD FOR his blood. He didn't mean it LITERALLY! Good grief!

Check this out: When I was in the hospital a few months back, a priest came in to see my next-bed-over neighbor. She had her two sons there as well. The priest began to present the Eucharist emblems, and oops! he discovered he only had A HALF of a wafer! (I was laughing to myself!) So he divided that half wafer into three pieces.

Now, be real. That piece of Jesus' body was lying around in his pocket for so long he didn't even remember that he had only a HALF? And then he ripped it into three pieces? Did he really think he had Jesus' body in his pocket? Those priests probably LAUGH at what they convince their parishioners of!

Indeed - one of the accusations that the enemies of the Early Church put forth was this idea that this was cannabilism. The Church Fathers refuted them and established it was symbolic.

 

[Nihilo]

I very seriously doubt that Jesus would espouse cannibalism. How gross a teaching is that? Undoubtedly, he was teaching with SYMBOLS. The bread STOOD FOR his body, and the wine STOOD FOR his blood. He didn't mean it LITERALLY! Good grief!

Check this out: When I was in the hospital a few months back, a priest came in to see my next-bed-over neighbor. She had her two sons there as well. The priest began to present the Eucharist emblems, and oops! he discovered he only had A HALF of a wafer! (I was laughing to myself!) So he divided that half wafer into three pieces.

Now, be real. That piece of Jesus' body was lying around in his pocket for so long he didn't even remember that he had only a HALF? And then he ripped it into three pieces? Did he really think he had Jesus' body in his pocket? Those priests probably LAUGH at what they convince their parishioners of!

Are you of the opinion that our Lord Jesus Christ was unaware of Leviticus 17:11-14 when He said John 6:53-56?
Because I'm not.
I believe He knew very well Leviticus 17:11-14 when He said John 6:53-56.
And that means something very important.
And I don't think that you really understand it.

 

[brewmama]

Yes that was a regular meal. No mention of wine. No mention of "eating" his flesh. They recognized him after the meal because of what he was saying to them. They didn't recognize him at first because when he was resurrected he was resurrected "in the spirit" (I Peter 3:18; I Corinthians 15:45) and thus he didn't look exactly the same when he materialized a physical body so he could walk with the disciples to Emmaus.

You have to really twist things around to avoid the very clear point of that story- which is that the eucharist enables us to recognize Christ even more than reading the Scriptures, but I know that's what you do. You are changing it quite a bit, for example it wasn't "after the meal" that they recognized Him, it was when He took bread, and blessed it, and brake, and gave to them. And their eyes were opened.

What did He say to them "after the meal," as opposed to what He said to them all day long? Nothing in the Scriptures about it. Total twisting on your part.

 

[brewmama]

Indeed - one of the accusations that the enemies of the Early Church put forth was this idea that this was cannabilism. The Church Fathers established it was symbolic.

They most certainly did not.

 

[brewmama]

Then why did he have Jesus' body in his pocket and only a shredded piece of it? Please.

I guess he didn't think too much of Jesus.

You are clueless as to how the host is handled and maintained, at least in our Church.

 

[God's Truth]

Then why did he have Jesus' body in his pocket and only a shredded piece of it? Please.

I guess he didn't think too much of Jesus.

Maybe he thinks he is so holy, being the one that turned the wafers into the real flesh of Jesus in the first place.

 

[God's Truth]

Jesus was dead for three days. THEN he was raised up again. THEN he went to the "spirits in prison."

You are mixed up. The scriptures say that when Jesus died on the cross he went to prison in the Spirit.

Those "spirits" were obviously the DEMONS---the angels that disobeyed and fell from their approved standing with God. (See IPeter 3:18-20....make sure you read verse 20! Also Genesis 6:2; 2Peter 2:4,5; Jude 6.)

Why would Jesus preach the gospel to demons so they could obey?

The demons are not offered salvation.

You are speaking much error.

 

[csuguy]

They most certainly did not.

Because they didn't teach things like this at all...

"Elsewhere the Lord, in the Gospel according to John, brought this out by symbols, when He said: 'Eat ye my flesh, and drink my blood,' describing distinctly by metaphor the drinkable properties of faith and the promise, by means of which the Church, like a human being consisting of many members, is refreshed and grows, is welded together and compacted of both,--of faith, which is the body, and of hope, which is the soul; as also the Lord of flesh and blood. For in reality the blood of faith is hope, in which faith is held as by a vital principle."--(Clement of Alexandria, The Instructor, 1:6)


"In what manner do you think the Lord drank when He became man for our sakes? As shamelessly as we? Was it not with decorum and propriety? Was it not deliberately? For rest assured, He Himself also partook of wine; for He, too, was man. And He blessed the wine, saying, 'Take, drink: this is my blood'--the blood of the vine. He figuratively calls the Word 'shed for many, for the remission of sins'--the holy stream of gladness. And that he who drinks ought to observe moderation, He clearly showed by what He taught at feasts. For He did not teach affected by wine. And that it was wine which was the thing blessed, He showed again, when He said to His disciples, 'I will not drink of the fruit of this vine, till I drink it with you in the kingdom of my Father.'" (Clement of Alexandria, The Instructor, 2:2)

​