Protestant disinfo debunked-Catholics are also Christians

reply to post by truejew


Okay, who was the prince in 70AD?? History records nothing about an Arab prince in Jerusalem in 70 AD.Titus Vespasian was neither a prince or an Arab.

Originally posted by NOTurTypical
reply to post by adjensen

 

If you want to believe it turns into blood and flesh, then have at it. We both drink the same wine and eat the same unleavened crackers. For Pete's sake the thief on the cross partook of neither and wasn't baptized. Christians fight over the sillyist things.

I agree, and my issue with LoneWolf is not the difference between our perspectives, but the attitude of insulting the belief. Referring to the Catholic/Orthodox/Lutheran Eucharistic beliefs as being "some disgusting vampiric ritual" is uncalled for, and recalls the typical atheist insult of the resurrected Christ as being "zombie Jesus".

Though it is one of the key reasons that I had for converting to the Roman Catholic church, I do not believe that one need believe in the real presence of Christ to benefit from communion -- whether actually partaking of the body and blood, or taking the opportunity to recall his sacrifice, being closer to Christ can never be a bad thing.

Originally posted by NOTurTypical
reply to post by adjensen

 

If you want to believe it turns into blood and flesh, then have at it. We both drink the same wine and eat the same unleavened crackers. For Pete's sake the thief on the cross partook of neither and wasn't baptized. Christians fight over the sillyist things.

With Love, (lol)

NuT

Well I agree, and i'm not trying to argue for the sake of arguing, but you have to take in scripture and think about who and what he is and what he is saying. The Word made flesh, breaking bread at the last supper. It was about the second covenant, which makes us like Abraham where our faith is counted for righteousness.

reply to post by adjensen


Well, there are a lot of things that I can agree with you on, but when it comes to communion, I do have disputes. I apologize for making the vampiric statements, but that is how I view doing these things in the literal. I just cannot reconcile actually eating his flesh and drinking his blood and the reason why is because that stuff does come from pagans. Cannibalistic peoples eat the flesh of their enemies they slay in battle or capture in rituals to gain their power, sexual virility or knowledge. So then we rely on having to consume him over and over again versus, faith and if that then what is the point in having faith at all if we can just eat him and be done with it?

Originally posted by lonewolf19792000
Cannibalistic peoples eat the flesh of their enemies they slay in battle or capture in rituals to gain their power, sexual virility or knowledge.

I think that there is a tendency to accept or reject too many things on the basis of some connection to beliefs that exist in prior or other societies. So far as I know, neither Jews nor Romans were cannibals, and I don't think that any Christian views Christ as an enemy who needs to be consumed, so simply because there are some similarities, I don't see that a core Christian belief needs to be rejected. That would be like rejecting prayer or singing hymns because the Hindus had the Vedas long prior to Christianity.

In other words, if one takes communion with beliefs/intentions that have nothing to do with cannibalistic views, then any perceived association is irrelevant.

So then we rely on having to consume him over and over again versus, faith and if that then what is the point in having faith at all if we can just eat him and be done with it?

In the Catholic church, communion is a sacrament -- an infusion of God's grace into a person, and why would that not be considered a good thing? You are saved through Christ, not through communion, so I don't know that anyone relies on it, in that sense.

On a personal note, as I said, this is one of the key reasons that I converted, and that hinged on two points -- first, I recognized that it was a core aspect of early Christian community, and I missed that in my somewhat disconnected Methodist "open communion." Secondly, I relish any opportunity to be drawn closer to Christ and, for me, personally, that is manifested in Eucharistic adoration, once a week, and taking the Eucharist, on any given day, as well as prayer and the daily study of scripture.

reply to post by adjensen

In the Catholic church, communion is a sacrament -- an infusion of God's grace into a person, and why would that not be considered a good thing? You are saved through Christ, not through communion, so I don't know that anyone relies on it, in that sense.

We're already infused with his grace, that comes with accepting him and that his death would bring us rest. That's why communion was symbolic, it was a foreshadowing of the second covenant about to begin. Even the Gospels themselves are a foreshadowing leading up to the second covenant at the cross. I suppose we can agree to disagree and let this controversial matter rest. I wouldn't even want to imagine the nightmare a early Council would have been like.

reply to post by lonewolf19792000

I wouldn't even want to imagine the nightmare a early Council would have been like.

On the plus side, we're less likely to start a war over our differences

Originally posted by NOTurTypical
reply to post by adjensen

 

If you want to believe it turns into blood and flesh, then have at it. We both drink the same wine and eat the same unleavened crackers. For Pete's sake the thief on the cross partook of neither and wasn't baptized. Christians fight over the sillyist things.

With Love, (lol)

NuT

Major difference, you all consume bread and wine, sometimes juice and crackers.

Protestants REJECT Christ's presence in the Eucharist because you all cannot confect it. Do you see? You have NO New Covenant Ministerial Priesthood NTT. NO Apostolic Succession.

Try to understand, Christ's presence in the Eucharist is NOT cannibalism. It is higher, the Eucharist is SUPERNATURAL. Christ is truly present, all of Him in the consecrated bread and wine. God can do anything, we agree on this fact.

The Eucharist is the summit of the faith. God is going to show the world during the Great Warning. He wants you to believe in His presence in the Eucharist.

Again, I just recently shared this coincidence, tee hee, go look at the Catholic Bible www.drbo.org...
Then, look at the KJV Bible. God is trying to get your attention. John 6:66 in the KJV is verse where those who disbelieved Jesus, walked away. The Catholic Bible, the same verse is John 6:67. Catholics believe in the Eucharist. 6:66 is whose number?

Ignatius, 3rd Bishop of Antioch used the term Eucharist. Look in the written Word, the first Christians referred to the Eucharist as "break bread" or "breaking the bread."

reply to post by colbe


Okay, well if that's what you want to believe go for it. I'm fine with that.

Originally posted by lonewolf19792000
reply to post by adjensen

 

In the Catholic church, communion is a sacrament -- an infusion of God's grace into a person, and why would that not be considered a good thing? You are saved through Christ, not through communion, so I don't know that anyone relies on it, in that sense.

We're already infused with his grace, that comes with accepting him and that his death would bring us rest. That's why communion was symbolic, it was a foreshadowing of the second covenant about to begin. Even the Gospels themselves are a foreshadowing leading up to the second covenant at the cross. I suppose we can agree to disagree and let this controversial matter rest. I wouldn't even want to imagine the nightmare a early Council would have been like.

lonewolf,

One receive God's presence, "His grace" in your soul at water Baptism, Baptism removes Original Sin. Revelation tells you God cannot be where sin is. After water Baptism, one can lose God's grace, His presence in your soul when you commit a mortal sin.

This is why Jesus established Sacramental Confession (John 20:23), to restore "His grace" in the soul. Non-Catholic Christians, from the heart, with true contrition must confess their sins to God personally. Our differences now but we will all believe the same "soon" says prophecy. Alleluia.

The Early Church Fathers, some taught by the Apostles all proclaimed "born again" is water Baptism. Protestantism came along centuries later with the "altar call" definition of "Born Again." The one time accepting Jesus as your personal Lord and Savior maybe a moment of conversion, it doesn't save you or fit Christ's meaning of Born Again in John 3. Jesus explained to Nicodemus and read further, John 3:22 tells you Our Lord went out with the Apostles and BAPTIZED.


God bless you,

colbe

Originally posted by NOTurTypical
reply to post by colbe

 

Okay, well if that's what you want to believe go for it. I'm fine with that.

I thought Our Lord's prayer to the Father was/is that we all believe the same? I am not going to limit God, like in the beginning of Christianity, it is going to happen so says prophecy.

If you had a choice, juice and crackers or receiving God Himself, what would you choose? Your upbringing is stopping you now. You don't see yet but when God shows you personally in the NDE like Great Warning (Rev 6:15-17, 1 Cor 3:13), you will change, MO.

Did you know, a holy person, it might of been a priest or a Canadian apologist, one of them, he had a vision of Protestants rushing past their Catholic brothers and sisters to receive the most Holy Eucharist.



love,

colbe

Originally posted by NOTurTypical
reply to post by colbe

 

Ezekiel, Jesus , John, Paul and Jeremiah all speak of a third temple. In fact, when you read the dimensions of it you know it's certainly not Solomon's or Herod's temple.

Thanks, I'll look, do you have the verses?

Didn't a ruler, I forget his name try to rebuild the Temple? God stopped Him in a big way. God does not want a third Temple, this is the New Covenant. And why would the anti-Christ and his fellas skip 2000 years of Christianity to rebuild the Jewish Temple? Makes no sense.

Originally posted by NOTurTypical
reply to post by truejew

 

Okay, who was the prince in 70AD?? History records nothing about an Arab prince in Jerusalem in 70 AD.Titus Vespasian was neither a prince or an Arab.

The title of prince was referring to his position as leader of his people. I do not see anything that says that the prince would be Arab.

Originally posted by adjensen

I agree, and my issue with LoneWolf is not the difference between our perspectives, but the attitude of insulting the belief.

Of course, you have no problem with insulting others beliefs.

Originally posted by adjensen
reply to post by lonewolf19792000

 

I wouldn't even want to imagine the nightmare a early Council would have been like.

On the plus side, we're less likely to start a war over our differences

History would disagree.

Originally posted by truejew

Originally posted by NOTurTypical
reply to post by truejew

 

Okay, who was the prince in 70AD?? History records nothing about an Arab prince in Jerusalem in 70 AD.Titus Vespasian was neither a prince or an Arab.

The title of prince was referring to his position as leader of his people. I do not see anything that says that the prince would be Arab.

No, a prince is a prince. Leaders are called Kings by the Holy Spirit in scripture. And he must be an Arab because the Roman legions who laid siege in Jerusalem and burned the temple were Arab-Roman legions. The Emperor didn't march 4 legions to Jerusalem from Rome.

Originally posted by colbe

Originally posted by NOTurTypical
reply to post by colbe

 

Okay, well if that's what you want to believe go for it. I'm fine with that.

I thought Our Lord's prayer to the Father was/is that we all believe the same? I am not going to limit God, like in the beginning of Christianity, it is going to happen so says prophecy.

If you had a choice, juice and crackers or receiving God Himself, what would you choose? Your upbringing is stopping you now. You don't see yet but when God shows you personally in the NDE like Great Warning (Rev 6:15-17, 1 Cor 3:13), you will change, MO.

Did you know, a holy person, it might of been a priest or a Canadian apologist, one of them, he had a vision of Protestants rushing past their Catholic brothers and sisters to receive the most Holy Eucharist.



love,

colbe

Again, believe what you want to, I'm not here to change what you feel is right. Your faith is between you and the Lord.

reply to post by colbe

Protestants REJECT Christ's presence in the Eucharist because you all cannot confect it.

As I noted earlier, not all Protestants reject it, they just view it differently -- Lutherans, for example, believe in Consubstantiation, rather than Transubstantiation, that Christ is present, but that the bread and wine are also present, and that unused bread and wine no longer has Christ's presence. Anglicans vary from those who have a Catholic view (Transubstantiation) to those that have a Reformed view (essentially, that Christ is "around", in spirit, but has nothing to do with the actual elements.) The Methodists kind of throw up their hands and say "he's there, we're not sure how."

So it's a diverse landscape, Colbe, don't make the assumption that all Protestants are of the same mind (on this, or any other issue, lol.)

Originally posted by truejew

Originally posted by adjensen

I agree, and my issue with LoneWolf is not the difference between our perspectives, but the attitude of insulting the belief.

Of course, you have no problem with insulting others beliefs.

I criticize your beliefs, it's your problem if you take that criticism as an insult.

History would disagree.

I believe you missed my point that, unlike Councils of the past, which erupted in schism and resulted in war, neither LoneWolf nor I have a standing army, and, thus, we are unlikely to start a war over our disagreement.

You really need to work on that reading comprehension.

Originally posted by NOTurTypical

Originally posted by truejew

Originally posted by NOTurTypical
reply to post by truejew

 

Okay, who was the prince in 70AD?? History records nothing about an Arab prince in Jerusalem in 70 AD.Titus Vespasian was neither a prince or an Arab.

The title of prince was referring to his position as leader of his people. I do not see anything that says that the prince would be Arab.

No, a prince is a prince. Leaders are called Kings by the Holy Spirit in scripture. And he must be an Arab because the Roman legions who laid siege in Jerusalem and burned the temple were Arab-Roman legions. The Emperor didn't march 4 legions to Jerusalem from Rome.

The Hebrew that is translated as "prince" is Strong's #5057 and means "commander".

Can you show Scripture for this prince being Arab?