Why water into wine?

[Stranger]

Nice try, but no cigar . . .

The Church in Rome doesn't have to be mentioned every time there uiis an issue or commendation regarding ANY Parish.
The 7 Churches in Asia, along with the Churches at Corinth, Philippi, Thessalonica, Antioch and Jerusalem, were parishes.

If the issue does all the way up the ladder - then the Church in Rome would be mentioned.
Otherwise - there is no need.

Wow!...It is not that the church at Rome is not mentioned 'every' time. It is that it is 'never' mentioned, except when Paul wrote to the church at Rome. Wow...you would think if the church at Roman was really 'catholic' there would be a little more authority given to it in the Scripture. But, wow...there is none.

Oh, the first council in (Acts 15) was high enough to reach 'Rome'? Sure. Yet you always want to claim certain power to the councils of the church. Yet Rome played no role in the first one. The Roman Church is nothing more than the church at Rome that greedily wanted to exercise sole authority over all the churches. Yet Scripture ignores this and says nothing of the Roman church except when Paul wrote to them. Wow.

Stranger

 

[BreadOfLife]

Wow!...It is not that the church at Rome is not mentioned 'every' time. It is that it is 'never' mentioned, except when Paul wrote to the church at Rome. Wow...you would think if the church at Roman was really 'catholic' there would be a little more authority given to it in the Scripture. But, wow...there is none.

Oh, the first council in (Acts 15) was high enough to reach 'Rome'? Sure. Yet you always want to claim certain power to the councils of the church. Yet Rome played no role in the first one. The Roman Church is nothing more than the church at Rome that greedily wanted to exercise sole authority over all the churches. Yet Scripture ignores this and says nothing of the Roman church except when Paul wrote to them. Wow.

Stranger

The Council of Jerusalem should have been in Rome??
Time for a little Bible lesson . . .

Paul and Peter had not yet journeyed to Rome. There was no Bishopric set up in Rome yet.
Kind of difficult to have a headquarters - when the Head isn't there yet, eh??

The Church at Rome wasn't the primary Church in the Church's infancy.
It BECAME the Primary Church - as we read the words from Irenaeus:

Irenaeus
But since it would be too long to enumerate in such a volume as this the succession of all the churches, we shall confound all those who, in whatever manner, whether through self-satisfaction or vainglory, or through blindness and wicked opinion, assemble other than where it is proper, by pointing out here the successions of the bishops of the greatest and most ancient church known to all, founded and organized at Rome by the two most glorious apostles, Peter and Paul, that church which has the tradition and the faith which comes down to us after having been announced to men by the apostles. With that church, because of its superior origin, all the churches must agree, that is, all the faithful in the whole world, and it is in her that the faithful everywhere have maintained the apostolic tradition (Against Heresies 3:3:2 [inter A.D. 180-190]).

 

[amadeus]

Sorry to disagree but there are some problems for you in the Greek text in John 6.

In the Bread of Life Discourse (John 6:25-71), our Lord emphatically states that unless we eat his flesh and drink his Blood, we have no life within us. He goes on to say “For my flesh is true food, and my blood is true drink.” It is interesting to note that the usual Greek word used for human eating is “phagon”, however, this is not the word used in these passages. St. John uses the word, “trogon”, which means, to munch or to gnaw - like an animal. Jesus was again using hyperbole as he often did to drive his point across so that the crowd would understand that he was not speaking metaphorically. He meant what he said.

I don't think that using Greek is going to be meaningful to me. I have never studied it at all.

Most of us are dependent on others in some measure to do the translating from the original languages to a language we understand. For many years I translated documents into English from German and Spanish as part of my job so I do have an idea of how easy it is to lead someone astray by a wrong translation. However, I simply have to trust God in this.

While the study of scripture can be a logical thing, logic will not always give us the correct answers. A person does not have to be a professional theologian or to have a brain on the level of an Einstein to please God. A person does not have to understand everything correctly as he is growing toward God, if he has charity [love in many translations] as described in I Corinthians chapter 13. A lot smart people have no charity and don't even understand what it is... insofar as God's definition is concerned.

A person of average or below average intelligence as men measure intelligence can walk closer to God than who those according to the flesh are smarter and/or better educated simply because they don't have so many stumbling blocks in their own heads.

Later, John 6:66, goes on to say, “As a result of this, many of his disciples returned to their former way of life and no longer accompanied him.”
This marks the only time in Scripture where Jesus’ disciples left him for doctrinal reasons. They simply couldn’t handle what Jesus was telling them.

What does Jesus do after this?? He turns to the Apostles - NOT to explain anything, but simply to ask, "Do you ALSO want to leave?"

Jesus' position to me was clear. He was not going to compromise to keep anyone. He did not really want or even expect them all to leave, but if they had done so he would have simply walked on alone.

There is another problem for you at the Last Supper.
Here, Jesus blesses the bread and wine and states that they are now his FLESH and BLOOD. He doesn't say that His Word is His flesh and blood - nor does He say that what He is holding in His hands is a "SYMBOL" of His flesh and blood.

We simply cannot get around the fact that Jesus was instituting the Eucharist - His flesh and blood.
Just as the Jewish Paschal Lamb was to be devoured - so is our Paschal Lamb, Jesus.

The Word is already his flesh as per John 1:14

As to partaking of the natural communion as presented by either Catholics or Protestants, I have no problem with doing that so long as the intention in doing it is clearly understood and the limitations of doing it. I believe that eating the flesh of Jesus and drinking his blood is more important than partaking of our carnal meat and potatoes and water. They are more important because they nourish the new inner man, while the carnal foods nourish only the flesh and blood body which is already dying and will die no matter how well we care for it.

Eating Jesus is consuming the Word of God and when it is quickened to us it becomes a Living part of us, even as eating dead beef will become a living part of our carnal bodies. The former is eternal while the latter is in part of our correct response as good stewards caring for the lump of flesh we call our body. Our stewardship will end and the old body will be gone to the dust.

I look at the whole thing which is the whole vision of God. Consider that the eating a bit of natural bread and drinking a bit of natural fruit of the grape which Jesus gave his disciples was something that occurred before his death and resurrection and the pouring out of the Holy Spirit.

The Passover lamb first eaten in Egypt was not the real thing but a type or shadow of that which was to come. Jesus also presented to his immediate followers with another type of shadow of that which was to come. The real thing would not be available until the Holy Spirit was available from that day of Pentecost described in Acts chapter 2.

The Spirit was necessary to bring the flesh to Life within us. Until Jesus had finished his work on the cross and had risen from the dead and the Holy Ghost could be in each person this quickening in each of us was not possible. Now it is, but it is no longer a symbolic type or shadow, but the real thing.

Give God the glory!

 

[bbyrd009]

"We simply cannot get around the fact that Jesus was instituting the Eucharist - His flesh and blood."

well, we also cannot get around the fact that had He meant that literally, then was His chance. The ritual is not the real thing, unless you then agree that anyone who takes ritual communion is automatically accepted into the kingdom, seems to me. Is that generally accepted as true?

Also, all of the "offense" being taken at the time is ignored or rendered moot if all Christ was doing was instituting a ritual, isn't it? Or then what is the offense recorded for, what is the point?

 

[mjrhealth]

Decrees were issued forbidding anybody to own renegade copies because of the perversions and errors contained in them.
These perversions led to the Protestant Revolt. and this is why the Canon was officially closed at the Council of Trent.

Do your homework, for crying out loud . .

Still trying to justify a lie, Just imagine what would happen if the people got a copy of the english translation of the bible. One man changed it all, showed teh corrupt catholic church, showed how even today it stands in opposition to God, and so they all left and started there own. Just like the bible says, she is teh mother of all harlots, for all these protestant churches are just as corrupt as she is. You see they all know you dont have teh truth, because even now you still "shout". at everyone, its in your nature to beat them down.

Yes your "church" didnt want them to know, would not let them have "Jesus" for themselves, still even today they like the Israelite are slaves to pharaoh, and still she wont let His people go so they can serve Him.

See BOL no one is listening to you any more..

 

[Stranger]

The Council of Jerusalem should have been in Rome??
Time for a little Bible lesson . . .

Paul and Peter had not yet journeyed to Rome. There was no Bishopric set up in Rome yet.
Kind of difficult to have a headquarters - when the Head isn't there yet, eh??

The Church at Rome wasn't the primary Church in the Church's infancy.
It BECAME the Primary Church - as we read the words from Irenaeus:

Irenaeus
But since it would be too long to enumerate in such a volume as this the succession of all the churches, we shall confound all those who, in whatever manner, whether through self-satisfaction or vainglory, or through blindness and wicked opinion, assemble other than where it is proper, by pointing out here the successions of the bishops of the greatest and most ancient church known to all, founded and organized at Rome by the two most glorious apostles, Peter and Paul, that church which has the tradition and the faith which comes down to us after having been announced to men by the apostles. With that church, because of its superior origin, all the churches must agree, that is, all the faithful in the whole world, and it is in her that the faithful everywhere have maintained the apostolic tradition (Against Heresies 3:3:2 [inter A.D. 180-190]).

Should have been in Rome? Says you. Not the Scripture. Yeah, you wish it had been in Rome. The church at Rome was never the primary church in Scripture. You and the Romans wish it was, but it wasn't.

The church at Rome already existed. It doesn't matter that Peter and Paul hadn't gotten there. And Peter never got there....only in Romes imagination. Sure, Rome became 'primary' outside of Scripture...not in the Scripture. I find no book of Irenaeus in the Scriptures. Have yall added that also?

Stranger

 

[pastor marty]

Have you ever wondered why Jesus changed water into wine as His first miracle?

When you think of it, the majority of the people at the wedding didn’t even know he did it. The servants knew and perhaps His disciples did, but certainly the festive crowd didn’t. So what was the reason for that? Why not heel 10 lepers? That would have been spectacular. Or, what about delivering a demonized individual? That could have been more sensational. Better still, Jesus could have raised a dead person. Now that’s what I call dramatic.

Nope, Jesus changed water into wine. Hmm! Is there maybe more to that than meets the eye. Let’s have a look.

When the wine ran out, Jesus told the servant to fill 6 waterpots with water. We are told that these pots were made of stone. In this command we can glean four pieces of information.

The number 6,
The Waterpots, which were made of
Stone, and then
The Water

Numbers in scripture are significant. They are there for a reason. In our story, the number 6 symbolizes MAN who was created on the 6 day. It is also found elsewhere in scripture. Such as in (Revelation 13:18|) when identifying the MAN of sin with 666.

Waterpots = Containers or vessels. These also relate to MAN who often is identified as a vessel. See (1Thess. 4:4, 1Peter 3:7)

Stone – Note that the scriptures do not characterize the waterpots as made of clay which was the most common at the time. These waterpots are specifically made of stone which, for us, should remind us of the heart of MAN, a heart of stone that changes to a heart of flesh at the touch of the Master. (2Cor. 3:3)

Finally, the water signifies the life of MAN as explained by Jesus to Nicodemus. People must be born of water and of Spirit. (John 3:5)

So what we are seeing in this miracle is an allegory of what the ministry of Jesus is all about. He came to transform these vessels of stone and water into vessel of flesh and fill them with the presence of His Spirit, which in this case is depicted as the New Wine. This can be done through Hid death and resurrection which by the way was on the third day. Did you notice, in verse 1, when this wedding celebration occurred?

Yes, He could have He could have healed ten lepers showing His power over sickness and pain, he could have rebuke a demon showing His power over evil and His enemy or He could have raised the dead proving He was greater than death, the destiny of sinners. However, Jesus came for a higher purpose. That purpose was redemption which eventually would cover all kinds of miracles. So He changed water into wine.

The final noteworthy item in this story is the servants conduct. These servants are likened unto us, who in faith and obedience, follow through at the words of Jesus and received the miracle of changed water into wine. However, we are also called to take that new wine of the Spirit and pour it into the lives of others. We are to become the Bordeaux of benevolence, the Merlots of mercy and the Rosées of reconciliation.

Have you ever wondered why Jesus changed water into wine as His first miracle?

When you think of it, the majority of the people at the wedding didn’t even know he did it. The servants knew and perhaps His disciples did, but certainly the festive crowd didn’t. So what was the reason for that? Why not heel 10 lepers? That would have been spectacular. Or, what about delivering a demonized individual? That could have been more sensational. Better still, Jesus could have raised a dead person. Now that’s what I call dramatic.

Nope, Jesus changed water into wine. Hmm! Is there maybe more to that than meets the eye. Let’s have a look.

When the wine ran out, Jesus told the servant to fill 6 waterpots with water. We are told that these pots were made of stone. In this command we can glean four pieces of information.

The number 6,
The Waterpots, which were made of
Stone, and then
The Water

Numbers in scripture are significant. They are there for a reason. In our story, the number 6 symbolizes MAN who was created on the 6 day. It is also found elsewhere in scripture. Such as in (Revelation 13:18|) when identifying the MAN of sin with 666.

Waterpots = Containers or vessels. These also relate to MAN who often is identified as a vessel. See (1Thess. 4:4, 1Peter 3:7)

Stone – Note that the scriptures do not characterize the waterpots as made of clay which was the most common at the time. These waterpots are specifically made of stone which, for us, should remind us of the heart of MAN, a heart of stone that changes to a heart of flesh at the touch of the Master. (2Cor. 3:3)

Finally, the water signifies the life of MAN as explained by Jesus to Nicodemus. People must be born of water and of Spirit. (John 3:5)

So what we are seeing in this miracle is an allegory of what the ministry of Jesus is all about. He came to transform these vessels of stone and water into vessel of flesh and fill them with the presence of His Spirit, which in this case is depicted as the New Wine. This can be done through Hid death and resurrection which by the way was on the third day. Did you notice, in verse 1, when this wedding celebration occurred?

Yes, He could have He could have healed ten lepers showing His power over sickness and pain, he could have rebuke a demon showing His power over evil and His enemy or He could have raised the dead proving He was greater than death, the destiny of sinners. However, Jesus came for a higher purpose. That purpose was redemption which eventually would cover all kinds of miracles. So He changed water into wine.

The final noteworthy item in this story is the servants conduct. These servants are likened unto us, who in faith and obedience, follow through at the words of Jesus and received the miracle of changed water into wine. However, we are also called to take that new wine of the Spirit and pour it into the lives of others. We are to become the Bordeaux of benevolence, the Merlots of mercy and the Rosées of reconciliation.

 

[pastor marty]

Have you ever wondered why Jesus changed water into wine as His first miracle?

When you think of it, the majority of the people at the wedding didn’t even know he did it. The servants knew and perhaps His disciples did, but certainly the festive crowd didn’t. So what was the reason for that? Why not heel 10 lepers? That would have been spectacular. Or, what about delivering a demonized individual? That could have been more sensational. Better still, Jesus could have raised a dead person. Now that’s what I call dramatic.

Nope, Jesus changed water into wine. Hmm! Is there maybe more to that than meets the eye. Let’s have a look.

When the wine ran out, Jesus told the servant to fill 6 waterpots with water. We are told that these pots were made of stone. In this command we can glean four pieces of information.

The number 6,
The Waterpots, which were made of
Stone, and then
The Water

Numbers in scripture are significant. They are there for a reason. In our story, the number 6 symbolizes MAN who was created on the 6 day. It is also found elsewhere in scripture. Such as in (Revelation 13:18|) when identifying the MAN of sin with 666.

Waterpots = Containers or vessels. These also relate to MAN who often is identified as a vessel. See (1Thess. 4:4, 1Peter 3:7)

Stone – Note that the scriptures do not characterize the waterpots as made of clay which was the most common at the time. These waterpots are specifically made of stone which, for us, should remind us of the heart of MAN, a heart of stone that changes to a heart of flesh at the touch of the Master. (2Cor. 3:3)

Finally, the water signifies the life of MAN as explained by Jesus to Nicodemus. People must be born of water and of Spirit. (John 3:5)

So what we are seeing in this miracle is an allegory of what the ministry of Jesus is all about. He came to transform these vessels of stone and water into vessel of flesh and fill them with the presence of His Spirit, which in this case is depicted as the New Wine. This can be done through Hid death and resurrection which by the way was on the third day. Did you notice, in verse 1, when this wedding celebration occurred?

Yes, He could have He could have healed ten lepers showing His power over sickness and pain, he could have rebuke a demon showing His power over evil and His enemy or He could have raised the dead proving He was greater than death, the destiny of sinners. However, Jesus came for a higher purpose. That purpose was redemption which eventually would cover all kinds of miracles. So He changed water into wine.

The final noteworthy item in this story is the servants conduct. These servants are likened unto us, who in faith and obedience, follow through at the words of Jesus and received the miracle of changed water into wine. However, we are also called to take that new wine of the Spirit and pour it into the lives of others. We are to become the Bordeaux of benevolence, the Merlots of mercy and the Rosées of reconciliation.

After 50 yrs, of blowing Roman sandal dust offof sneeze-inducing scrolls,it's nice 2 NO that somebody else is gettin'it rite.Yer my 'Heros" Kudoz,hep-cats ! "Shalom Beracah Adonoi Selah" (Heb.) Gods peace&blessing upon U,amen ! Awe Gee;I got NO likes,& the bikers used 2 toss me in the pond 2 shut me up, What did St. Paul say ? "If they ain't tryin' 2 tar&feather U, yer doin' it wrong !"

 

[BreadOfLife]

Should have been in Rome? Says you. Not the Scripture. Yeah, you wish it had been in Rome. The church at Rome was never the primary church in Scripture. You and the Romans wish it was, but it wasn't.

The church at Rome already existed. It doesn't matter that Peter and Paul hadn't gotten there. And Peter never got there....only in Romes imagination. Sure, Rome became 'primary' outside of Scripture...not in the Scripture. I find no book of Irenaeus in the Scriptures. Have yall added that also?

Stranger

This is the dumbest argument I've ever heard.

The Protestant Revolt wasn't in the New Testament either - but that doesn't mean it didn't happen.
The Bible wasn't written in Latin or English - but it certainly was later.
The "Incarnation" isn't mentioned by name in the Bible - but it's a core belief of Christianity.
The Scriptures weren't called "The Bible" in the New Testament - but that's what we call it now - ain't it, sparky?

YOUR argument that the Church in Rome was NOT the Primary Church is overwhelmingly squashed by history - as is your pathetic claim that Peter was "never" is Rome.

 

[BreadOfLife]

Still trying to justify a lie, Just imagine what would happen if the people got a copy of the english translation of the bible. One man changed it all, showed teh corrupt catholic church, showed how even today it stands in opposition to God, and so they all left and started there own. Just like the bible says, she is teh mother of all harlots, for all these protestant churches are just as corrupt as she is. You see they all know you dont have teh truth, because even now you still "shout". at everyone, its in your nature to beat them down.

Yes your "church" didnt want them to know, would not let them have "Jesus" for themselves, still even today they like the Israelite are slaves to pharaoh, and still she wont let His people go so they can serve Him.

See BOL no one is listening to you any more..

YOU certainly are - or you wouldn't keep responding, Einstein . . .

Anyway - it looks like you need to do some homework. Read, Where We Got The Bible by the Protestant author Rev. Henry Graham - who DID do his homework and converted to the Catholic Church before finishing his book. Graham lays out the facts about how there were MANY vernacular translations before Wycliffe and Tyndale's heretical versions.

Tyndale's - his heresy had NOTHING to do with translating the Bible into English - but his gross errors in doing so. As a matter of fact - he was tried for heresy years BEFORE he came out with his translation.

Years earlier - John Wycliffe produced an English translation that was FULL or heretical errors as well.
Both Catholic and secular authorities condemned it.

Do your homework and THINK before responding.
Oh, that's right - "NO ONE" is listening to me anymore . . .

 

[BreadOfLife]

well, we also cannot get around the fact that had He meant that literally, then was His chance. The ritual is not the real thing, unless you then agree that anyone who takes ritual communion is automatically accepted into the kingdom, seems to me. Is that generally accepted as true?

Also, all of the "offense" being taken at the time is ignored or rendered moot if all Christ was doing was instituting a ritual, isn't it? Or then what is the offense recorded for, what is the point?

Ummm, He DID mean it and He DID take His chance at telling His followers.
Unfortunately - they were a lot like YOU guys on this forum and wouldn't believe Him.

Not sure what you mean in the rest of your post.
The Bread of Life Discourse in John 6 is NOT that difficult to believe or understand - IF it has been granted to you by the Father - like Jesus said (John 6:65).

 

[mjrhealth]

Do your homework and THINK before responding.
Oh, that's right - "NO ONE" is listening to me anymore . . .

And why should they, all you do it call everyone hypocrits as so many have pointed out to you, and please do your homework. The catholic church never wrote the text fro the bible the simply took what was already written and translated it into a language that the "laiety" could not read "latin" reserved for all those ivory tower religious people. So please BOL do some research and actually take note of what your church is and where it comes from, It is built on a lie, so it cannot have the truth, A bad tree cannot bare good fruit, and good fruit your church does not have.

 

[BreadOfLife]

I don't think that using Greek is going to be meaningful to me. I have never studied it at all.

Most of us are dependent on others in some measure to do the translating from the original languages to a language we understand. For many years I translated documents into English from German and Spanish as part of my job so I do have an idea of how easy it is to lead someone astray by a wrong translation. However, I simply have to trust God in this.

While the study of scripture can be a logical thing, logic will not always give us the correct answers. A person does not have to be a professional theologian or to have a brain on the level of an Einstein to please God. A person does not have to understand everything correctly as he is growing toward God, if he has charity [love in many translations] as described in I Corinthians chapter 13. A lot smart people have no charity and don't even understand what it is... insofar as God's definition is concerned.

A person of average or below average intelligence as men measure intelligence can walk closer to God than who those according to the flesh are smarter and/or better educated simply because they don't have so many stumbling blocks in their own heads.



Jesus' position to me was clear. He was not going to compromise to keep anyone. He did not really want or even expect them all to leave, but if they had done so he would have simply walked on alone.



The Word is already his flesh as per John 1:14

As to partaking of the natural communion as presented by either Catholics or Protestants, I have no problem with doing that so long as the intention in doing it is clearly understood and the limitations of doing it. I believe that eating the flesh of Jesus and drinking his blood is more important than partaking of our carnal meat and potatoes and water. They are more important because they nourish the new inner man, while the carnal foods nourish only the flesh and blood body which is already dying and will die no matter how well we care for it.

Eating Jesus is consuming the Word of God and when it is quickened to us it becomes a Living part of us, even as eating dead beef will become a living part of our carnal bodies. The former is eternal while the latter is in part of our correct response as good stewards caring for the lump of flesh we call our body. Our stewardship will end and the old body will be gone to the dust.

I look at the whole thing which is the whole vision of God. Consider that the eating a bit of natural bread and drinking a bit of natural fruit of the grape which Jesus gave his disciples was something that occurred before his death and resurrection and the pouring out of the Holy Spirit.

The Passover lamb first eaten in Egypt was not the real thing but a type or shadow of that which was to come. Jesus also presented to his immediate followers with another type of shadow of that which was to come. The real thing would not be available until the Holy Spirit was available from that day of Pentecost described in Acts chapter 2.

The Spirit was necessary to bring the flesh to Life within us. Until Jesus had finished his work on the cross and had risen from the dead and the Holy Ghost could be in each person this quickening in each of us was not possible. Now it is, but it is no longer a symbolic type or shadow, but the real thing.

Give God the glory!

Sorry Amadeus - you can't just jettison the linguistic implications of the Greek text. The NT was written in Greek for a reason - which is known only to God.

In John 6, Jesus is abundantly clear that He is talking about his flesh and His blood - and NOT His word when He says we must eat and drink. As I stated before - John even uses the word for the way an animal rips apart his food (Trogon) to drive the point home. If Jesus was speaking metaphorically, as YOU claim - John would have used the word for HUMAN eating (Phagon) - or the word "consume" (katanalóno).

When His followers abandoned Him in verse 66 - He doesn't stop them or explain to them what He "really" meant. He simply turns to His Apostles and asks THEM if they also want to leave.

As I stated before - at the Last Supper - he SHOWS them how to consume His flesh and blood in a Sacramental way.
He doesn't talk about symbols or metaphors when He tells them in no uncertain terms, "This IS my Body" and , "This IS my Bood."

When you read the writings of 1st century historians like Pliny, Josephus and Tacitus - you see that the Early Christians were accused of being "Cannibals" because of their belief in the Real Presence of the Eucharist. They were put to death for this.

The belief in the Real Presence was UNANIMOUSLY taught by the Early Church from the 1st century on. Ignatius of Antioch wrote of it while his teacher, the Apostle John was presumably STILL alive. They had NO problem with this teaching - and neither did your Protestant Fathers.

I wonder why all of YOU have a problem with it now??

 

[BreadOfLife]

And why should they, all you do it call everyone hypocrits as so many have pointed out to you, and please do your homework. The catholic church never wrote the text fro the bible the simply took what was already written and translated it into a language that the "laiety" could not read "latin" reserved for all those ivory tower religious people. So please BOL do some research and actually take note of what your church is and where it comes from, It is built on a lie, so it cannot have the truth, A bad tree cannot bare good fruit, and good fruit your church does not have.

Good grief - crack open a history book.
Pathetic . . .

 

[mjrhealth]

Good grief - crack open a history book.
Pathetic . . .

YEs please do, I have read many and not one paints the RC church in good light.

 

[Stranger]

This is the dumbest argument I've ever heard.

The Protestant Revolt wasn't in the New Testament either - but that doesn't mean it didn't happen.
The Bible wasn't written in Latin or English - but it certainly was later.
The "Incarnation" isn't mentioned by name in the Bible - but it's a core belief of Christianity.
The Scriptures weren't called "The Bible" in the New Testament - but that's what we call it now - ain't it, sparky?

YOUR argument that the Church in Rome was NOT the Primary Church is overwhelmingly squashed by history - as is your pathetic claim that Peter was "never" is Rome.

My argument, as you have just proven, with all your examples, is that the Roman Church was not the primary church in Scripture. It never had the lead. If any church did it would have been the church at Antioch. That was the church Paul always went back to and reported to.

I admit the Roman church later gained control over all the churches and christians. That is however a wrong control.

All those individual churches mentioned in the Scriptures and the risen Jesus Christ when giving His revelation to John, never said a word about Peter or the authority of the Roman church over these churches. And He had both good and bad things to say about them. Makes you wonder why....but not really.

Stranger

 

[bbyrd009]

YEs please do, I have read many and not one paints the RC church in good light.

"If they ain't tryin' 2 tar&feather U, yer doin' it wrong !"

 

[amadeus]

Sorry Amadeus - you can't just jettison the linguistic implications of the Greek text. The NT was written in Greek for a reason - which is known only to God.

Jettison? No, all I said was I had never studied it. Can a person only clearly understand God if he becomes an expert in the original languages in which the text was written? I would certainly think not.

God speaks to a person's heart. You say God's reason for using that language was known only to Him. That is undoubtedly so, but that does not mean I am wrong and you are right. It means only that God is right and He will speak to a person's heart in accord with where that person is in respect to God. This could be good as it was for David who as a shepherd boy was more of a soldier that all of those who wore their heavy metal armor carried their heavy weapons. His soldiering was learned in communication with the Lord, in spite of what he did not know. Remember what his son Solomon wrote under inspiration:

"Every way of a man is right in his own eyes: but the LORD pondereth the hearts." Prov 21:2

That rightness includes how I consider myself and how you consider yourself. Neither of us is likely to change unless God does the changing. As we are open to Him and we desire to be changed where it is necessary, will He not do it?

If we never seriously consider the possibility that we are wrong on any point, are we not effectively blocking God by leaving Him on the outside? I could describe several specific areas in my walk that God has changed drastically since I first knew of Him. These changes occurred during a period of more than 60 years of my life. Do I expect Him to change me again? What I hope for is that He will help me keep my heart open to whatever He has for me... including any changes that are necessary for me to become more pleasing to Him.

In John 6, Jesus is abundantly clear that He is talking about his flesh and His blood - and NOT His word when He says we must eat and drink. As I stated before - John even uses the word for the way an animal rips apart his food (Trogon) to drive the point home. If Jesus was speaking metaphorically, as YOU claim - John would have used the word for HUMAN eating (Phagon) - or the word "consume" (katanalóno).

When His followers abandoned Him in verse 66 - He doesn't stop them or explain to them what He "really" meant. He simply turns to His Apostles and asks THEM if they also want to leave.

As I stated before - at the Last Supper - he SHOWS them how to consume His flesh and blood in a Sacramental way.
He doesn't talk about symbols or metaphors when He tells them in no uncertain terms, "This IS my Body" and , "This IS my Bood."

When you read the writings of 1st century historians like Pliny, Josephus and Tacitus - you see that the Early Christians were accused of being "Cannibals" because of their belief in the Real Presence of the Eucharist. They were put to death for this.

The belief in the Real Presence was UNANIMOUSLY taught by the Early Church from the 1st century on. Ignatius of Antioch wrote of it while his teacher, the Apostle John was presumably STILL alive. They had NO problem with this teaching - and neither did your Protestant Fathers.

I wonder why all of YOU have a problem with it now??

My friend, people are not all so logically minded as you seem to be. God created the logic which man uses and He understands well the presumptions that a man uses as premises on which to build something through that logic. If the premises are amiss, then the conclusion will also be amiss. Any good scientist would agree with that. Look at the history of man's science and see how many times he has changed basic premises in order to move forward. Often those who instigated such changes were themselves in their lifetimes never favorably acknowledged for what they found. Too often quite the contrary was what was seen!

Unanimous or even majority belief is hardly a basis for deciding what is or is not God's truth. All we have to do is look at the life of Jesus as a man about 2000 years ago. Where did the majority of the well studied Jewish leaders stand on the issue of Jesus?

Don't jump too quickly to say that it is not the same. It really is because in both cases [the Jews then or the Christians now] we are speaking of men who have like most men throughout history insisted that their way was the right way even though today we may understand or believe that they were working against God.

Even the Apostle Paul who was an in a student of the Bible [OT of course] was strongly opposed to God although he did not know until he met Jesus on the road to Damascus.

So all of this is not saying you are wrong and I am right. While, of course, I believe this to be the case, my point is that only God gives the increase. If you are right and my heart is open to God, He will let me know what I need to know to change or be changed. And you...?

 

[BreadOfLife]

Jettison? No, all I said was I had never studied it. Can a person only clearly understand God if he becomes an expert in the original languages in which the text was written? I would certainly think not.

God speaks to a person's heart. You say God's reason for using that language was known only to Him. That is undoubtedly so, but that does not mean I am wrong and you are right. It means only that God is right and He will speak to a person's heart in accord with where that person is in respect to God. This could be good as it was for David who as a shepherd boy was more of a soldier that all of those who wore their heavy metal armor carried their heavy weapons. His soldiering was learned in communication with the Lord, in spite of what he did not know. Remember what his son Solomon wrote under inspiration:

"Every way of a man is right in his own eyes: but the LORD pondereth the hearts." Prov 21:2

That rightness includes how I consider myself and how you consider yourself. Neither of us is likely to change unless God does the changing. As we are open to Him and we desire to be changed where it is necessary, will He not do it?

If we never seriously consider the possibility that we are wrong on any point, are we not effectively blocking God by leaving Him on the outside? I could describe several specific areas in my walk that God has changed drastically since I first knew of Him. These changes occurred during a period of more than 60 years of my life. Do I expect Him to change me again? What I hope for is that He will help me keep my heart open to whatever He has for me... including any changes that are necessary for me to become more pleasing to Him.

My friend, people are not all so logically minded as you seem to be. God created the logic which man uses and He understands well the presumptions that a man uses as premises on which to build something through that logic. If the premises are amiss, then the conclusion will also be amiss. Any good scientist would agree with that. Look at the history of man's science and see how many times he has changed basic premises in order to move forward. Often those who instigated such changes were themselves in their lifetimes never favorably acknowledged for what they found. Too often quite the contrary was what was seen!

Unanimous or even majority belief is hardly a basis for deciding what is or is not God's truth. All we have to do is look at the life of Jesus as a man about 2000 years ago. Where did the majority of the well studied Jewish leaders stand on the issue of Jesus?

Don't jump too quickly to say that it is not the same. It really is because in both cases [the Jews then or the Christians now] we are speaking of men who have like most men throughout history insisted that their way was the right way even though today we may understand or believe that they were working against God.

Even the Apostle Paul who was an in a student of the Bible [OT of course] was strongly opposed to God although he did not know until he met Jesus on the road to Damascus.

So all of this is not saying you are wrong and I am right. While, of course, I believe this to be the case, my point is that only God gives the increase. If you are right and my heart is open to God, He will let me know what I need to know to change or be changed. And you...?

It's not about ME being right - it's about Christ's Church is right.

The ideas that YOU are espousing are relatively new in the span of Christian history. As I stated before - even your Protestant Fathers didn't believe what you are saying. They held strongly to the belief in the Real Presence in the Eucharist.

Think about it - the rejection of the Real Presence came about over 1500 years after the dawn of the Church. YOU reject it based on your own "feeling" - but not on the language in which the text proof was written. Yes, God peaks to our hearts - but through an understanding of His Word. If two people understand it differently - then, at least ONE of them is wrong.

The unanimity of this belief in the Early Church IS important because it shows the consistency f this teaching. The Apostles taught it to their congregations, who taught it to theirs and so on.

Was Jesus joking when he told His Apostles that the Holy Spirit would guide His Church to ALL truth (John 16:12-15) and that the gates of Hell would not prevail against it (Matt. 16:18)?

 

[aspen]

My argument, as you have just proven, with all your examples, is that the Roman Church was not the primary church in Scripture. It never had the lead. If any church did it would have been the church at Antioch. That was the church Paul always went back to and reported to.

I admit the Roman church later gained control over all the churches and christians. That is however a wrong control.

All those individual churches mentioned in the Scriptures and the risen Jesus Christ when giving His revelation to John, never said a word about Peter or the authority of the Roman church over these churches. And He had both good and bad things to say about them. Makes you wonder why....but not really.

Stranger

The churches were not in competition. The entire collective was Catholic