/christian/ - Christianity

Religious discussions and spirituality

SAVE THIS FILE: Anon.cafe Fallback File v1.1 (updated 2021-12-13)

Want your event posted here? Requests accepted in this /meta/ thread.

Max message length: 20000

Drag files to upload or
click here to select them

Maximum 5 files / Maximum size: 20.00 MB

Board Rules
More

(used to delete files and postings)


John 3:16 KJV: For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.


Open file (252.01 KB 411x600 wine-grapes-and-bread.jpg)
Anonymous 08/10/2022 (Wed) 14:49:23 No.16005
Can it work with any old wine and bread?
>>16005 Wheaten bread, leaven or unleaven. Wine, made from grapes of the vine.
That rather depends on what you mean by 'any'
aaaaaaaannnyyy old irooooon????
Open file (585.24 KB 1059x1233 ctc.jpg)
>>16005 Are you an ordained priest? Do you think you can just invoke God?
>>16005 Validly ordained priest, wheaten bread, grape wine (WITH alcohol)
I can't consume alcohol for medical reasons.
>>16043 Catholicism teaches that Christ is equally present in both bread and wine so if you partake of only the bread you would be fine.
>>16044 thats convenient. is that what Jesus himself said, or is that what mortal men decided would be a new tradition that should take over from what Jesus himself dictated?
>>16045 He is equally present in both due to the hypostatic union, Christ the Logos took flesh and the body and blood of the eucharist is both of his flesh united to his divinity.
>>16046 Jesus made it patently clear that the wine was his blood and the bread is his body. You can't just make things up as you go along. Either follow what Jesus said, or dont.
>>16047 Catholics commune under both kinds, but is it not you who is allergic? I offer you consolation.
>>16032 >>16036 There are no priests in Christianity >>16044 >>16046 There is as no such thing as transubstantiation
>>16049 >There are no priests in Christianity That doesn't discount that juggling bread and wine without the sanctifying power of the Holy Spirit is a vain act.
>>16050 The sacrament is established by the words of our Lord, not some pagan magic on the soul of some priest of Baal, nor does it consist of a magical transmutation of bread into flesh.
>>16051 If a faithless person (e.g. an actor) recites the words of institution is the sacrament valid?
>>16067 The words are not valid unless a valid minister is uttering them. If a minister is performing the rite they are automatically valid because the grace of the sacrament proceeds from the promise to the believer, not the sanctity of the minister.
>>16080 And that's why I said it's from the Holy Spirit. I don't think anyone believes that grace derives from the unique sanctity of the minister himself.
>>16049 >There are no priests in Christianity There are priests in the Law of Moses. Did God almighty error when he created the priestly class from the Tribe of Levi? NO! Did the Lord God Jesus Christ come to admit error in the Law given to Moses by God and change the law? NO! Did the Lord God Jesus Christ just say idle words when he gave the apostles authority and powers in his name on this earth? Again, NO! Christ is LORD God!
>>16049 >There is as no such thing as transubstantiation God says it's his body and his blood, and if you don't believe the LORD, you don't believe the LORD.
>>16067 No. It is not valid if the person is not ordained or says them in bad faith.
>>16005 It must be bread and wine as Jesus and the Apostles understood them. So, wheaten bread, either leaven or unleavened, and alcoholic grape wine. Anything else is not the appropriate matter.
>>18653 Read Hebrews
>>18653 We are not under the law of Moses pharisee. >>18654 Transubstantiation as taught by Catholics is a thing invented by Aquinas from the pagan philosophy of Aristotle.
>>18674 Christ didn't come to change the law, he came to fulfill it. If you believe your god erred and needed to change the law, you don't believe in God. No, it's in the Council of Trent which makes it infallible Catholic belief. You have to believe it to be a Catholic. Anyone who says it is not the actual body and blood of Christ is an anathema, not just a heretic. Not sure why so many protestants think their god makes mistakes that needed correcting and lies about things like his body and blood, but there it is..
>>18782 >No, it's in the Council of Trent which makes it infallible Catholic belief. The council of Trent erred often, often damningly so, and this is an example. I am not worried about its anathema because it is under the anathema of God given in Galatians 1:8-9 for its false gospel which it promulgated especially when it denied that the sinner is justified by faith alone.
>>18785 Christ said he's send the Holy Ghost to his apostles. He also said the Church will prevail until the end of time. So, the end of the church cannot happen until the start of the end Times. You clearly don't believe Christ. The Council of Trent bears the infallibility of the Pope. Christ the LORD, True God and True Man, said the the species was His body and his blood. You either believe in Christ God, or you don't. I believe.
>>18802 This is quite an incoherent rant, but Lord willing I will try to respond to it biblically >Christ said he's send the Holy Ghost to his apostles. Indeed and He did, and because of His presence they performed great miracles which confirmed the authenticity of their gospel which was anathematized by the council of Trent. What I don't understand is what this has to do with the authority claims of Rome (apart from discrediting them), surely you are not claiming that Trent was His voice are you? Should the acts of Trent be bound after Revelation in my bible? >He also said the Church will prevail until the end of time. So, the end of the church cannot happen until the start of the end Times. >You clearly don't believe Christ. >The Council of Trent bears the infallibility of the Pope. What does the Church of Jesus Christ have to do with the apostate church of Rome? The catholic Church was never an institution (as if Christ was founding a multinational corporation) but is simply the body of true believers in the world, which are united by one Lord, one faith, one baptism, one God and Father of all. The church of Rome however has fallen away from this communion and failed from the faith once delivered to the saints. She possesses neither the substance nor the structure of that ancient church, nothing but the name, she is a ship with every plank torn out and replaced. She repudiated the substance of the faith when she anathematized the gospel of the Reformation, that the sinner is justified by faith alone, instead she teaches a deadly heresy that one is justified before God according to their internal merits and if they do not perform good works and avoid "mortal" sins they shall lose their justification and become cursed because they have ceased to be actually righteous which will need to be restored through the so-called sacrament of penance by confessing to a priest acting in the person of Christ and granting them forgiveness. But the true gospel allowed Paul to conclude "Therefore, having been justified by faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ"; it makes peace between the sinner and his God so that he no longer has to fear His wrath. Because the believer is not judged for his own merits but only those of Jesus Christ it is impossible for him to ever be condemned again, "But to the one who does not work, but believes upon Him who justifies the ungodly, his faith is counted as righteousness, just as David also speaks of the blessing on the man to whom God imputes righteousness apart from works: 'Blessed are those whose lawless deeds have been forgiven, And whose sins have been covered. Blessed is the man to whom the Lord does not impute sin.'" Who in Romanism is an ungodly man who does not work but is counted as righteous for his faith? Even in thought experiment no such man exists. Who is the man to whom the Lord does not impute sin? Even in thought experiment he does not exist. But I tell you against Rome that no matter how ungodly they are no one who trusts in the Lord Jesus will have any of his sins imputed to him, venial or mortal, because the Lord Jesus Christ already suffered the full penalty they merited upon the cross. With regards to its structure, what defense could possibly be made for the church of Rome? Of popes, cardinals, archbishops, bishops, abbots and archdeacons, scripture is absolutely silent. Instead it knows of two offices only: elders and deacons. In Acts 15 apostles and elders met together at the council. In Titus and 1 Timothy the titles of elder and overseer (the Greek word for which degenerated into the word 'bishop') are used interchangeably. Paul greeted the multiple overseers at the church of Philippi, and lastly Peter identified himself as a "fellow elder". Since then Peter was no bishop of Rome (since the office did not exist until after his death, and would not degenerate into the papacy for centuries thereafter) the pope could hardly claim to be his successor. This New Testament form of church government was preserved for a few years after John's death until Ignatius of Antioch innovated the office of bishop (which at that time was still limited to jurisdiction of one church only) which he advocated for quite zealously and successfully spread across the eastern Church as his epistles prove. However the church of Rome did not adopt the novelty until the middle of the second century, and this is clear in the earliest fathers. Ignatius in his epistle to the Romans leaves out any mention of a bishop entirely, very much unlike his typical style where in his other letters he greets the bishop by name, exalts him, and calls on the church to obey him. In the Shepherd of Hermas Rome is still described as being ruled by a plurality of elders, with no bishop mentioned. It names a Clement as the elder responsible for the church's correspondences, which is how we know the epistle of "the Church of God sojourning at Rome to the Church of God sojourning at Corinth" (known as 1 Clement) is written by him. This epistle is not as medieval Romanism anachronistically interpreted it a pope exercising authority over a foreign church but an elder (or more properly all of the elders of Rome through the hands of one of them) exercising authority over rebellious laymen, commanding them to reinstate the elders which they had just expelled. The chain is cut, there is no link back to Peter. >Christ the LORD, True God and True Man, said the the species was His body and his blood. Christ said nothing about Aristotelian categories of accidents and substance, and nor did anyone else for nearly a thousand years. Transubstantiation is an extremely medieval innovation, which was at first rejected by the Church for the first few hundred years of the concept's existence. What the Lord actually said is that the figures of bread and wine signified His body and blood and all that which He accomplished for us by them, and when He encouraged us to "Do" this it was not for the sins of the living and the dead, but "Do this in remembrance of me". The apostolic interpretation was that the sacrament is a visible proclamation of the gospel, as Paul said "as often as you eat this bread or drink this cup you proclaim the Lord's death till He comes".
>>18824 >What the Lord actually said is that the figures of bread and wine signified His body and blood "for my flesh is true food, and my blood is true drink" John 6 55 Huh. What a weird way to say "this is a symbol"
>>18830 Yeah. The truth and the argument against the Eucharist being the real body and blood of Christ, per the LORD, seems kinda strange. Matthew 26:26-27. ''26 While they were eating, Jesus took bread, and when he had given thanks, he broke it and gave it to his disciples, saying, “Take and eat; this is my body.” 27 Then he took a cup, and when he had given thanks, he gave it to them, saying, “Drink from it, all of you. 28 This is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins. 29 I tell you, I will not drink from this fruit of the vine from now on until that day when I drink it new with you in my Father’s kingdom.” '' I've given up. There was a warning against this in the Council of Basel.
>>18830 Show me where John 6 mentions the Lord's Supper.
>>18836 >Show me where John 6 mentions the Lord's Supper. Show me where Jesus says it's a symbol during the Lord's Supper.
>>18852 I accept your concession. >Show me where Jesus says it's a symbol during the Lord's Supper And when He had taken some bread and given thanks, He broke it and gave it to them, saying, “This is My body which is given for you. Do this in remembrance of Me.” And in the same way He took the cup after they had eaten, saying, “This cup which is poured out for you is the new covenant in My blood." That's where. He did not say "This is my body" and "This is my blood", but "This is my body, which is given for you" and "This is the new covenant in my blood, which is poured out for many". When was His body given for us? When was His blood poured out for us? It was not at the last supper, but on the cross, where the new covenant was inaugurated in His blood. That is why the apostolic interpretation is, as I said, "as often as you eat this bread and drink this cup you proclaim the Lord's death till He come".
>>18862 >I accept your concession Your arrogance is preceded only by your pride. I don't know why I bother to frequent these boards. Let me ask you this, friend. What would convince you that I am correct? What would Jesus have had to say or do for you to believe it wasn't just a symbol? I can point to where Jesus bluntly says "my flesh is true food" and where he says "this [bread] is my body." But you cannot point to where Jesus bluntly says "this bread is a symbol of my body" or "this wine signifies my blood."
>>18863 >Your arrogance is preceded only by your pride What arrogance? What pride? Did I not challenge you and you failed even to pretend to meet it? >What would convince you that I am correct? The testimony of sacred scripture and nothing else. >But you cannot point to where Jesus bluntly says "this bread is a symbol of my body" or "this wine signifies my blood." That's because the Lord's concern was not to refute you.
Open file (88.92 KB 539x552 gondola confused.png)
These read like semantic arguments. I'm confused. I have no idea who is right. I am not as intelligent as I wish I was or previously(?) believed.
>>18864 >Did I not challenge you and you failed even to pretend to meet it? No. You read "I conceed" into my words the same way you read "symbolizes" into Jesus'. You arrogance is visible from your assumptions about what Jesus and I said and meant. Your pride comes from refusing to acknowledge you could be wrong. >The testimony of sacred scripture and nothing else. What a lovely non-answer. Just as I thought. I can admit when I'm wrong; I can tell you specifically what would convince me. You have not, cannot, and will not.
If Christ says the blessed bread is His body, then it is His body. If Christ says the blessed wine is His blood, then it is His blood. And he does in Matthew 26. Those who say otherwise deny Christ. Sorry.
Open file (137.93 KB 483x300 Dionysus.jpg)
>>18862 The cannibalistic obsession of the Romanists is plainly inherited from the Roman mystery cults of Dionysus and syncretized into a Christian guise, and yet they have the gall to call those who rightly despise their pagan abominations heretics.
>>18875 John 6: 53 So Jesus said to them, “Very truly, I tell you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you. 54 Those who eat my flesh and drink my blood have eternal life, and I will raise them up on the last day, 55 for my flesh is true food, and my blood is true drink. Yes. Jesus' words are very pagan, indeed.
>>18875 You sure do know a lot about pagan rituals. I don't think you are really a Christian.
>>18884 That is an incident well before the Last Supper and there is no mention of the words of institution in the Gospel of John. What a curious thing for John to leave out if he believed that Jesus transubstantiated the bread and the wine in the presence of the apostles. It is obviously a metaphor, in line with the other metaphorical imagery of John. You don't believe that Jesus is literally a gate because of His saying "I am the gate" in John 10:9, do you? >>18890 Judge not, that you be not judged (Matthew 7:1)
>>18891 >That is an incident well before the Last Supper Does not the flood pre-figure Baptism? Does not the ark of the covenant pre-figure Mary carrying Jesus? Does not Jesus Himself predict things yet to come, like his own death and resurrection? Being before the Last Supper is no argument against the will of a God outside of time. >there is no mention of the words of institution in the Gospel of John Because John was aware the other Gospels had already been written. Paper and ink were limited in antiquity. John wrote to fill in the gaps the synoptic gospels. John even writes as much: "But there are also many other things that Jesus did..." are we discard all of the unique things in John's Gospel or remove them from the context of Jesus entire ministry because it doesn't line up 1:1 with the others? >It is obviously a metaphor, in line with the other metaphorical imagery of John. Every other time Jesus speaks in metaphors and he is asked to explain himself, Jesus does so. EXCEPT in John 6. Let's read: >48 I am the bread of life. >49 Your ancestors ate the manna in the wilderness, and they died. >50 This is the bread that comes down from heaven, so that one may eat of it and not die. >51 I am the living bread that came down from heaven. Whoever eats of this bread will live forever, and the bread that I will give for the life of the world is my flesh.” Jesus calls himself living bread that is to be eaten. >52 The Jews then disputed among themselves, saying, “How can this man give us his flesh to eat?” Here we see the Jews asking Jesus to explain himself. They understood him literally. They gave Jesus the perfect opportunity to explain the metaphor, as he had done in the past. >53 So Jesus said to them, “Very truly, I tell you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you. And here Jesus says you must eat and drink. Repeating and using the same language. He knows they understood him literally and repeats himself, confirming they understood him correctly. >54 Those who eat my flesh and drink my blood have eternal life, and I will raise them up on the last day, >55 for my flesh is true food, and my blood is true drink. Jesus reiterates, His flesh is true food meant for consumption. Jesus says at least three times you must eat his flesh, which is true food, to have life. Jesus does not say "what i mean by eating flesh is that you believe in me." After he being asked for an explanation, Jesus reiterates: I am the bread. My flesh is food. You must eat. It is uncharacteristically blunt and literal. Jesus even uses a different verb in Greek, meaning something closer to "feast" to drive home the point. But what happens next? >60 When many of his disciples heard it, they said, “This teaching is difficult; who can accept it?” The Jews, confirmed in their understanding, grumble and complain that they cannot accept eating flesh and drinking blood. >61 But Jesus, being aware that his disciples were complaining about it, said to them, “Does this offend you? Again, rejecting the opportunity to explain the metaphor, Jesus rebukes their incredulity. >66 Because of this many of his disciples turned back and no longer went about with him. And they are driven away. Jesus sends them away without a mind because they chose against faith. They chose against understanding "My flesh is true food and my blood is true drink" to mean what Jesus plainly said it meant. >"I am the gate" in John 10:9, do you? t“I am the door” and “I am the vine” make sense as metaphors because Christ is like a door—we go to heaven through him—and he is also like a vine—we get our spiritual sap through him. But Christ takes John 6:35 far beyond symbolism by saying, “For my flesh is food indeed, and my blood is drink indeed” (John 6:55).
>>18891 >Judge not, that you be not judged (Matthew 7:1) Ok ill welcome pagans in open arms <3
>>18870 >No Actually the correct answer was yes, and I accept your concession. >What a lovely non-answer. Just as I thought. I can admit when I'm wrong; I can tell you specifically what would convince me. You have not, cannot, and will not. I accept this concession too >>18899 >Does not the ark of the covenant pre-figure Mary carrying Jesus? No. >Does not the flood pre-figure Baptism? What is the pre-figure here? Did Jesus' words have a meaning which could have possibly been understood by the listeners? Was the meaning that they will live forever if they come lob off his arm and start dining on it? >Every other time Jesus speaks in metaphors and he is asked to explain himself, Jesus does so. EXCEPT in John 6. That's not true, and Jesus dod explain Himself clearly in John 6, specifically in all the verses you conveniently left out. The background for this passage is given before the dialog begins. This crowd is the 5,000 who were fed with 5 loaves and 2 fish. The Lord begins by saying "Truly, truly, I say to you, you seek Me, not because you saw signs, but because you ate of the loaves and were filled. Do not work for the food which perishes, but for the food which endures to eternal life, which the Son of Man will give to you, for on Him the Father, God, set His seal.” This is where eating is introduced in the narrative, and why. It is a metaphor introduced because of the context of the crowd's desire for food, with the intent of redirecting them toward Himself. The purpose is to remove food from the center and put Jesus there instead. "Therefore they said to Him, 'What should we do, so that we may work the works of God?' Jesus answered and said to them, 'This is the work of God, that you believe in Him whom He has sent.'" Now they object that in order to receive the food which does not perish they must believe (not eat) in Him. So they said to Him, “What then do You do for a sign so that we may see, and believe You? What work do You perform? Our fathers ate the manna in the wilderness; as it is written, ‘He gave them bread from heaven to eat.’” They have proven their mind is still on their bellies, to believe in Him they demand a sign that feeds them, even though they just received a sign that fed them. They don't care about Him, their only gods are their bellies. Jesus responds to this insolence by reaffirming His significance, "Truly, truly, I say to you, Moses has not given you the bread from heaven, but My Father gives you the true bread from heaven. For the bread of God is that which comes down from heaven and gives life to the world.” Now this sounds really good to them, so they say "Lord, always give us this bread.” But the Lord Jesus does not satisfy their desire for something to chew on, because His purpose is to put Himself in the center of faith "I am the bread of life. He who comes to Me will never hunger, and he who believes in Me will never thirst. But I said to you that you have seen Me, and yet do not believe. All that the Father gives Me will come to Me, and the one who comes to Me I will never cast out. For I have come down from heaven, not to do My own will, but the will of Him who sent Me. Now this is the will of Him who sent Me, that of all that He has given Me I lose nothing, but raise it up on the last day. For this is the will of My Father, that everyone who sees the Son and believes in Him will have eternal life, and I Myself will raise him up on the last day.” Isn't that a strange discordant shift if His purpose is to talk about eating Him physically? No, it's all consistent, and He has clearly defined what it means to eat Him here: to believe in Him. But the Jews are not eating Him because they do not believe in Him. They start grumbling after He defines the Bread of Life as Himself, because they are not believing. Jesus silences their grumbling by further answering why they don't believe in Him and further emphasizing the value of union with Him, "Stop grumbling among yourselves. No one can come to Me unless the Father who sent Me draws him; and I will raise him up on the last day. It is written in the prophets, ‘And they shall all be taught by God.’ Everyone who has heard and learned from the Father comes to Me. Not that anyone has seen the Father, except the One who is from God; He has seen the Father. Truly, truly, I say to you, he who believes has eternal life. I am the bread of life. Your fathers ate the manna in the wilderness, and they died. This is the bread which comes down from heaven, so that one may eat of it and not die. I am the living bread that came down from heaven; if anyone eats of this bread, he will live forever; and the bread which I will give for the life of the world is My flesh.” That is why they were not believing, because they had not been drawn by the Father to the Son. That's the point of the whole passage, everyone who believes in the Son has eternal life, but nobody will believe in Him unless the Father who sent Him draws them. At the end, when the Jews are turning away, He says "Does this cause you to stumble? What then if you see the Son of Man ascending to where He was before? The Spirit is the One who gives life; the flesh profits nothing; the words that I have spoken to you are spirit and are life. But there are some of you who do not believe.” For Jesus knew from the beginning who they were who did not believe, and who it was that would betray Him. And He was saying, “For this reason I have said to you, that no one can come to Me unless it has been granted him from the Father.” Again, it's about who He is and being united to Him. The flesh profits nothing, His words are spirit and they are life. This had absolutely nothing to do with eating flesh, He Himself said it. >Jesus even uses a different verb in Greek, meaning something closer to "feast" to drive home the point. No the word simply means "eat" which is why all translations render it that way. >t“I am the door” and “I am the vine” make sense as metaphors because Christ is like a door—we go to heaven through him—and he is also like a vine—we get our spiritual sap through him The reason we know these are metaphorical is not because it seems fitting to you, it's because Jesus is telling a parable and identifying the characters, that is the sole meaning of the verb of being in these statements, it identifies the metaphorical character with its antitype. So in the parable of the sheepfold, Jesus is the good shepherd and Jesus is the door, not that He is literally a shepherd walking around with sheep or literally a door made out of wood nailed together but that these characters in the story represent Him. Take a look for example at when He explains the parable of the wheat and the tares, He identifies the characters by saying this is that eg "the field is the world". In the Bread of Life dialog Jesus is identifying Himself with the character of bread which falls out of heaven and gives eternal life to all who eat it. This is what it means when He says "I am the bread of life", He is no more a wheat product than He is a wooden door.
Open file (262.06 KB 1920x1080 I_am_the_bread_of_life.jpg)
>>18908 >This is what it means when He says "I am the bread of life", He is no more a wheat product But I want to believe in impanation and that Jesus incarnates as bread every Sunday! /s
>>18875 Not sure why so many protestants like to deny the Words of Christ, but it's what they do. The matter in the sacrament is the body and blood of Christ, made so by the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass out of bread and wine. It has a supernatural counter part, just like the water in baptism washes the body, the supernatural part washes the soul and leaves a mark saying the baptized belong to Christ. >>18875 An interesting hypothesis that fails because NONE of the people involved were Romans nor were they interested in pagan beliefs in the least. okay, you folks don't believe Christ and ridicule those who do. This was expected.
>>18912 Big difference between denying the lies of Rome and denying the words of Christ.
If it's not done within an Orthodox Church under an Orthodox bishop, it's not a valid sacrament.
>>16005 God does not dwell in temples built by men's hands.
>>18953 God dwells in temples. There is nothing about a temple that excludes God Almighty from being there. God even instructed Moses how to build the first tabernacle. Of course, God is everywhere in this universe. The temples and Churches are for us.
>>19120 Retarded cultist disagreeing with the Word of God.
>>19805 Then tell me the word of God. Start by telling me where the Lord called people retarded, and how you have to be smart like you to obtain heaven. Nope. Christ said come to him as a child, and accept his teaching without question. As a engineer, I know this. I design things and give instructions to the tech so the tech can do his job and build per my design. If they question things too much, then they system won't work. Unless the tech is named "Peterson". That guy knows his stuff. But Peterson comes to me and tells me what he thinks I'm trying to do and what's wrong with it. You don't seem to be Peterson. You think Heaven is only for the pharisees and sadducees who took great pride in changing the Law of Moses in the Torah and perverting it into the law of man in the Talmud, which is a wicked and satanic document. They let pride and arrogance drag them down to hell. God gave us simple instructions for us to follow, these guys thought they were smarter than God.
>>19810 >muh peter
>>19833 Either you believe Matt 16 and John 21, or you don't The Lord wasn't joking wasn't lying, wasn't babbling about rocks and wasn't saying give hay to his flock of Ovis aries My error is that I assumed we could accept the Bible as truth, but there are too many here who are only here to troll the Christians and ridicule the words of the LORD.
>>16043 Not even 1 sip of watered down wine? Come on now.
Tfw i can't get drunk because of my schizophrenia, the medication just soaks up the alcohol and leaves me with paranoia and hallucinations.
>>19854 You shouldn't be getting drunk at the Lord's supper
>>19855 True.
>>16043 most churches have non-alcoholic wine, ask an usher
Did you know that the laity doesn't get the Blood of Christ in the matter of wine with the Eucharist? That's right. Council of Trent, and anyone that says the Eucharist doesn't include the blood of Christ is an anathema. I didn't know that until about a year ago. I guess the CAN include the Blood of Christ, but they say they're worried about spilling a drop of the Blood of Christ. They also explain the difficulty in shipping and keeping the sacramental wine from spoilage. I'll take the angry screams and insults off line, thanks. My faith in humanity has hit a new low today.
>>19876 >Did you know that the laity doesn't get the Blood of Christ in the matter of wine with the Eucharist? No, I didn't, and I still don't. >Take, drink, this is my blood. Do this in remembrance of me
>>19877 And you're saying you don't know because: 1) I only said "Council of Trent" and not "Catholics belief" 2) You reject everything about the Catholic faith 3) You reject all Church councils Trent and after because Trent was about keeping the faithful away from Protestants? 4) You reject all Church councils and all red letter scripture in Matt 16 and John 21? 5) you're not Christian at all and reject the Nicene creed? Not sure where to begin and would like to keep the conversation going, because the board is kinda really slow.
>>19878 I do reject the false Romanist religion, yes. I will obey Christ rather than the Antichrist.
>>19880 You say you obey Christ, but pretend not to understand Christ in Matt 16 and John 21. The Idea that you may have to accept the teachings of Christ rather than the one of 3500 protestant religions that best fits what you want to believe repels you. Look for the true faith first, then believe what they teach. So far, every religion, Catholic, protestant, pagan or Jew, rejects the Church of Christ.
>>19886 Anon, do you know what begging the question is?
>>19886 >Look for the true faith first What if I can't find it :(
>>19897 >What if I can't find it :( I can't find it either. Either we are damned and God has blinded us so we cannot find it, or we're in the end times and the Lord will soon return. Heck of a thing, to hope for the end times so you have a hope of salvation. I'd even be happy with heretics that would give the sacraments. >>19891 >do you know what begging the question is? Begging the question is when you assume the conclusion as a premise to reach the conclusion. However, when you apply that to defend yourself denying the word of the Lord God in Scripture, it's an example of a "fallacy fallacy" wrapped up in a non-statement question. Now you can deny you said anything while saying you have to assume Christ is Lord to prove that he made a pope. Meh. Not many Christians on this board. I think there are more Soros trolls, pagans and godless here than Christians.

Report/Delete/Moderation Forms
Delete
Report

no cookies?