Only One Truth

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
502

[quote]extol7extol wrote:
What I wanted to know was where did you get the notion of your definition of “evil”? Did you read
it in a book by some philosopher? Is it just “common sense”? In other words, I get “my definition” of evil from the Bible. From where do you get your particular definition as stated above?
[/quote]

I gave it some thought.

Could you indicate how the Bible defines evil?

Can I invoke Godwin’s Law and declare this thread ended?

What does it matter how Hitler saw evil or good? It has no relevance to how I define it.

Whether he thought he was doing good or evil; and whether he deemed it necessary or not, that changes nothing about how I see and define it.

[quote]“No. Hitler’s actions were NOT necessary at all. They were downright barbaric!” Hitler, answering you according to your own terms, according to your own standard of “truth”, could reply to you by saying:

“Truth is relative pal. And the values that you and I hold dear are different. Your values are true for you, and my values are true for me. Moreover, we humans are really just bags of chemicals. Thus, what one chemical does to another is morally irrelevant.”[/quote]

Cool trick that you can know a dead man’s mind.

[quote]
pookie wrote:
Murder for murder’s sake is wrong.

Says who? You? I know because the Bible says so. You, on the other hand cannot appeal to the Bible since you reject it as the Word of the true and living God. To whom do you appeal? To what do you appeal?[/quote]

Says who? Says me. You asked for MY views on rape and murder. Those are MY views.

Are you really that dumb, or are you just flailing wildly because you can’t find any solid arguments?

Your bible is just another book. You can take any definition you want from it; those definition are no more “right” than mine. They just come from somewhere else.

[quote]By the way, your statement: “Murder for murder’s sake is wrong”, is a very dogmatic statement. I’m
not the only dogmatist here. [/quote]

It’s not dogma you idiot, IT’S MY FUCKING OPINION THAT YOU’D JUST ASKED ME FOR!

Look man, if you can’t follow the discussion between two OF YOUR OWN messages, we’ll just forget it.

Maybe try again when you’re out of high school…

[quote]pookie wrote:
There are many absolute truths in mathematics. But like I said before, if you’re dealing with more abstract concepts, I don’t think you can establish absolute truths. At least not in the way you can in mathematics.

You stated above: “I don’t think you can establish absolute truths.” Is this statement, a statement of absolute truth? [/quote]

No, I stated above: “…if you’re dealing with more abstract concepts, I don’t think you can establish absolute truths.” You just take part of it and run with it. You can respond to a sentence if you want, just take the whole thing. The part BEFORE the comma is there because it’s important.

Let me try: You stated above: “I get my… evil from the Bible.” I’m sure you do, there plenty of it. Do you prefer boiling kids, or is lapidation your favorite way to kill someone?

You’re playing semantics games that are both A) irrelevent and B) wrong. Read your last sentence up there and think about it for a bit…

Just so you’re not confused, it’s this one:

“The absolute truth that there are no absolute truths that can be established.”

Is it an absolute truth? If so, then what it says is wrong.

If not, then it’s not an absolute truth. And wrong.

You’ll probably find Philosophy 101 quite an ordeal if you ever make it there.

Evil as you believe God would see it, if there was actually such a being.

I’ll try to explain it with simple words. Mr. Phelps, using your book of “absolute” truth, pursues and harasses homosexuals and anyone who associates any way with them.

The very defition of an absolute is that there is no way to see it differently.

I can prove to you that there are an infinite number of prime numbers and there is no way you’ll ever be able to refute it.

On the other hand, your “absolute” bible is interpreted by just about everyone to allow them to use it to support just about any view and then claim that THEIR view is the right, absolutely correct one.

Even here, on this thread, there’s a bunch of Christian who can’t agree on a whole bunch of things… reread pages 1 to 21 is there’s any doubt.

There we go. You don’t expect me to believe the bible is true, yet you’d expect me to accept it as a source of absolute truth. Do you see the problem with your reasoning?

As for false religionists; you claim that of all the thousands of religions around the world, they are all wrong, except yours?

Do you realize that you’re 1 religion away from seeing things my way?

Why don’t you define your God so that we can argue about the same imaginary being?

I hadn’t been acquainted with the “Puppet Master” version of God yet.

[quote]God is displaying His power and wrath in the Pharaoh. “For the Scripture says to Pharaoh, “For this very thing I raised you up, so that I might display My power in you, and so that My name might be publicized in all the earth.” So, then, to whom He desires, He shows mercy. And to whom He desires, He hardens” (Romans 9:17-18). Note that God is NOT fighting, or struggling with the Pharaoh. God is not showing Pharaoh that He is merely stronger than he is. This would not show God’s power. Almighty God over against poor little Pharaoh? This does not reveal God’s power. God does not want to show that He is stronger. A man could do that.

When God says that He is displaying His power in the Pharaoh by hardening him in order to destroy him as a vessel of wrath, He is showing that He alone is God, and that there is no power outside Him and that He does all His good pleasure. Do you get it now? [/quote]

Zzzzzzzz…

Are you sure?

Besides, all quotes in your previous message begin with “pookie wrote:” So if you’re answering someone else at the same time, you might want to make it a bit clearer. I for one, would like to skip over as much of your crap as I can.

Thanks.

503

[quote]mertdawg wrote:
Pookie, you asked for the differences between the Romans as Orthodox. I listed some back a page (or maybe 2 now) Just wondering if you got a chance to see them.[/quote]

Yup. And except for papal infallibility (which I find simply ridiculous) the rest do not appear as very important issues to me…

[quote]Also on the topic of sin-sin is anything that becomes an obsession-that occupies your mind or body. For example, looking at a picture of a naked woman or whatever is not a sin, but spending 2 hours a day looking for porn on the internet would be. It would begin to become mental pollution and I suspect become less “satisfying” itself over time. This is how cleverly Satan tempts us. Many other addictions fall into this category.

So there are addictive sins which pollute the mind and body.

Just because two people consent, does not mean that they do not harm one another’s bodies and minds, or that you can not harm your own.[/quote]

Your view on “sin” makes sense. I don’t call it “sin”, but I agree that an obsessive behavior (porn or otherwise) that interferes with more important responsabilities is a bad thing.

As for the consent; of course two people can harm each other, or I can harm myself. But unless those actions have negative repercussions on others non-consenting parties, I don’t feel justified in trying to prevent it.

504

extol7extol,
I do not believe in the God whom you preach. I do not believe in a God who predestines some of his creation to go to heaven, while he predestines the rest to burn in hell. This is not the Jesus Christ which the early Church preached. This is not the Jesus Christ of the Orthodox Christian Church.

As far as Calvinsim goes, you twice cited Hodge’s doctrines, which if I may add, are heterodox. Then you appeal to Augustine’s patristic authority without acknowledging that he recanted a significant portion of his dogmas on the Christian Faith before dieing. Unfortunately for the Roman Catholics as well as the Protestants in the west, it was more convenient to defer matters of the Faith to a Latin-speaking Father since they did not have a firm understanding of the Greek-speaking Fathers of the east. Thus they clung to Augustine’s teachings and hailed them as being the reconstructed foundation of their faiths. Meanwhile, the Orthodox Christian Church never based its dogmas or doctrines on the speculation or reasonings of one man, but rather convened councils to elaborate on any matters of the Faith by the power of the Holy Spirit. Furthemore, by associating me with the beliefs of Augustine, you prove to have no knowledge of the Orthodox Christian Faith.

Last but not least, I’ll again underline the fact that the tradition by which you interpret the Bible is erroneous. There’s only one right way to interpret the Holy Scriptures, so make sure your future interpretations coincide with those of the Orthodox Christian Church; for the Bible was produced and compiled within Her framework and none other.

Peace be with you.

505

[quote]pookie wrote:
I hadn’t been acquainted with the “Puppet Master” version of God yet.
[/quote]
This is precisely the reason I’ve warned atheists to stand clear of Roman Catholics and Protestants. The false theology they preach is not of God and to undue the damage could take years to unlearn. With their erroneous interpretations of the Bible, they actually turn people away from the Truth. Atheism sprouted up in Western Europe exactly because of heretical Christian dogmas and doctrines like this “Puppet Master” version of God.

If I was stuck with a God who controls my thoughts, life, and will, only to have predestined me for an eternity in hell, I’d become an atheist too! No matter how many times I’ve said it, I’ll say it again - heresy is of the devil. The devil’s plan is to turn as many humans as he can away from the true Christian Faith, Orthodox Christianity. He does this by any means necessary, even by introducing heretical concepts into the minds of the Christian faithful.

Yet again, everyone’s been warned.
Peace be with all.

506

[quote]extol7extol wrote:
What’s interesting is that you desire to defend the freedom of man to control his own life (as does Pookie). While I desire to defend the Biblical doctrine of the absolute Sovereignty and freedom of God. That is, it is God who controls what man does, and what man wills. It is God who determines a person’s destiny. Those for whom Christ died, it is heaven and those for whom Christ did not die, it is hell.[/quote]

Orthodox Christianity preaches that God died for every man; Luciferians, atheists, Protestants, Orthodox Christians, Jehovah’s Witnesses, etc. God has no favorites. If God controls our destiny, then why are we taught to fight against sin? If God will predestine his favorites for heaven and the predominant majority to hell, then why is He so eager to have us change our ways for the better? Why does God preach the need for repentance?

These are rhetorical questions. Your statements are invalid and are not founded upon the true Christian Faith.

507

[quote]pookie wrote:
Your view on “sin” makes sense. I don’t call it “sin”, but I agree that an obsessive behavior (porn or otherwise) that interferes with more important responsabilities is a bad thing.[/quote]
Sin is not only an obsessive behavior but a deficient state of spiritual welfare. Sin may or may not manifest itself into an action, let alone an obsessive behavior or passion.

sequence of sin:
ascent → desire → action → passion

(1) The first step is that sin ascends into the human mind/heart, possibly as a logismos sent by demons or a sensational experience being recycled back into our conscious memory store. This is where temptation has its origins. The role of the Christian is to protect his mind/heart like a fortress against a barrage of evil thoughts or fantasies.

[quote]As those within a castle see the enemy storming over the plains, the draw bridge must be elevated and the archers are to be positioned atop the towers to stand guard and defend the perimeter. The trebuchets must be assembled and prepared to catapult boulders upon the bumrushing hordes.
[/quote]
(2) The second step is that sin gains power & momentum by desire if temptation is willfully entertained and not combatted. This is where temptation eventually anchors itself in the mind/heart and can not be uprooted without internal strife.

[quote]If the castle provides no defense and fails to seal its perimeter, then the enemy hordes will burst in thru the gates. The hordes will blow their horns and call upon their flanks of cataphracts to swoop in and unleash havoc to the castle. The centurions and hoplites must then be summoned to keep the enemy at bay. Depending on how weak or strong the enemy is as compared to the castle’s infantry, that shall determine who wins the battle and how long it will last. That’s why it’s critical to never allow the enemy to infiltrate the castle in the first place!
[/quote]
(3) The third step of action is where a man loses the battle of desire and commits a sin with the body.

[quote]If the castle’s infantry is slaughtered by the hordes, the enemy implements the use of battering rams to smash against the doors to the king’s palace where he’s being defended by an elite rank of imperial guards.
[/quote]
(4) The fourth step of passion is where sin reaches the zenith of power and man has fallen into any action with fierce addiction.[quote]
The enemy hordes have slaughtered the imperial guard, ransacked the palace, dethroned the king from authority, and have forced the castle’s villagers into slavery.
[/quote]
It’s critical that humans combat sin in its birthplace, the ascent. Prayer & fasting are two weapons of spiritual warfare for the Christian. Through prayer, the archers of the castle are equipped with arrows that pierce the enemy from farther ranges, the centurions have lighter swords of finer cast metal, and the imperial guard have longer spears and lighter yet more versatile battle axes. Fasting improves the armor of all the castle troops and supplies the defenders with extra large shields of stronger quality.

Sin must be combatted at all four levels.

508

Put another way, sin is like a cold virus which must be gradually dispelled from the body. The actions of sin which are so clearly evident in humanity (ie. murder, theft, lies, sexual immorality) are merely symtpoms of the sin alive within us. A man can appear spiritually healthy on an external level by exhibiting good morals & values by abstaining from all of the above actions, but that’s merely analogous to a cold virus brewing under the surface which does not yield the features of a runny nose, wheezing cough, a soar throat, or sinus congestion. Given the appropriate circumstance, these symptoms of sin as well as the cold virus will readily expose themselves. Simply refraining from the above actions does not indicate good spiritual health, nor does the absence of symptoms indicate good physical health.

The laws, teachings, commandments, traditions, and practices of the Orthodox Christian Church (as passed down from generation to generation from Jesus Christ and the Twelve Apostles) can be summed up as therapies which heal man from the sickness of spiritual maladies. In this sense, the Orthodox Christian Church is a hospital for the spiritually sick, and Jesus Christ serves as the Head Physician.

St. Matthew 9:10
Now it happened, as Jesus sat at the table in the house, that behold, many tax collectors and sinners came and sat down with Him and His disciples. And when the Pharisees saw it, they said to His disciples, “Why does your Teacher eat with tax collectors and sinners?” When Jesus heard that, He said to them, “Those who are well have no need of a physician, but those who are sick. But go and learn what this means: ‘I desire mercy and not sacrifice.’ For I did not come to call the righteous, but sinners, to repentance.”

Peace be with all.

509

[quote]stellar_horizon wrote:
As far as Calvinsim goes, you twice cited Hodge’s doctrines, which if I may add, are heterodox. Then you appeal to Augustine’s patristic authority without acknowledging that he recanted a significant portion of his dogmas on the Christian Faith before dieing.[/quote]

Yes, I agree that Hodge’s doctrine is heterodox. He is a very popular Calvinist theologian, and I cited him to show I was not a “Calvinist.”

As for appealing to Augustine: In the quote of Hodge, Hodge implied that he was an “Augustinian.” Hodge was a Protestant (Presbyterian), so I doubt his mention of Augustine had anything to do with “patristic authority.” In short, I did not appeal to Augustine. I gave a quote by Hodge, who happened to mention Augustine.

510

[quote]stellar_horizon wrote:
Furthemore, by associating me with the beliefs of Augustine, you prove to have no knowledge of the Orthodox Christian Faith.
[/quote]

I do admit that I have only a little knowledge of what you call the “Orthodox Christian Faith.” Yet I was not associating you with Augustine at all. I did not even mention Augustine. The only mention of Augustine was the mention by Charles Hodge in the quote I provided.

511

My oh my! I go away and we have pages of additional postings. Stella I have never seen someone with so much knowledge yet so little understanding. You manage to completely misunderstand my posts, which are more than clear, and then talk as if I’m referring to YOUR church’s writings as a basis of authority.

I don’t see the Orthodox church as being anything more than a misguided religion. There was one road Christ preached and your religion is one that forked away. Your claims to a direct link to the teachings of Jesus and the apostles ring hollow when they deviate from those original teachings. So no, I’m not ever referring to what your church wrote. I’m referring to the inspired bible which, first and foremost, has God as it’s authority not any of the writers.

But let’s deal with this subject first:

[quote]stellar_horizon wrote:
Fishlips wrote:
There are many others ideas that are put forth as sine qua non also that have no basis in scripture. Why would the bible speak of a resurrection if we never really died? This subject is a biggie. Virtually everyone the world over, religious and non-religious, has some measure of belief in a part of us that lives on after death. The bible teaches no such thing. The original understanding of the soul was not as something seperate from the body. It IS the living creature, animal or man. You ARE a soul. Again, an immortal soul is a pagan idea adopted by the early deviating churches. Now this is not to say once we die that’s it for eternity. But if we are to live again, either in heaven or on earth, it is only because God gives us life again. It is understood that our consciousness, our thoughts - who we are - is simply made up of cells, chemicals, neurotransmitters and electricity.(without getting into quantum physics, basically physical things yeah, yeah I know electricity isn’t physical but let’s not get into semantics) We once did not exist and we go back to that state. Gen. 3:19 ‘For dust you are and to dust you will return.’ Imagine that! Over 3500 years ago, Moses knew exactly what we know today. We are made up of elements of the earth and that’s about it. The only way we may live again, is if God makes us again. Just like Job asked ‘If an able-bodied man dies can he live again?’ Job 14:14. We were made once, He can do it again. (He doesn’t have a hand in making every person, he put a process of life in place that perpetuates itself)For those who will be in heaven they are made again in another form. I guess kinda like water going from liquid to gas. Same individual, different form.

What you’re preaching is reincarnation. You’re saying that the soul of man is not immortal by God’s grace and that we fade away into non-existence only to be resuscitated into another creature which may or may not be human. That’s heresy! It was never taught that way by the Apostles or by Jesus Christ. In fact, if you review the scriptures on Lazarus and the wealthy man, it was said that the wealthy man was suffering after death even though his body was 6-feet under. [/quote]

Stella, stella, stella…
Do you even know what the teaching of reincarnation is? It is closely linked to your belief in an immortal soul. That your ‘soul’ lives on after death and inhabits another creature human or not, to put it briefly. If you cared to read what I actually wrote I said once you die that’s it.

If it were not for God giving you your life back you would never exist again. And it would only ever be as a human again or as who we are but with a spirit body now. And it would happen like we just fell asleep then woke up, no remembering past lives mumbo jumbo. Not even close to reincarnation as you can see. Unfortunately you chose to see what you wanted to see.

Oh and in case you missed it, Jesus story about the Rich Man and Lazarus was an ILLUSTRATION! They weren’t actual people.

[quote]
You definitely don’t belong to the Orthodox Christian Church, so why in the world do you accept the Bible as being divinely inspired? The Orthodox Christian Church has never taught any of the things you’re posting here, but you prize their writings as being sufficient for a righteous living?

I’m quite baffled. The more you post, the further you alienate yourself from anything Christian, yet you hail a Christian guide as being the sole object of authority on faith… That’s not very reasonable now is it?[/quote]
Again, see my introductory comments. You’ve hardly proven yourself a good judge of ‘reason’.

512

[quote]stellar_horizon wrote:
Fishlips, without any added commentary, please post the scriptural evidence which supports your stance that the Eucharist is not the actual Body and Blood of Jesus Christ.[/quote]

Hmmmm, no commentary from me allowed yet I have to read through posts ad nauseum of commentary that you wish to add, it’s just expressed by someone else. You already know I only hold the bible up as authority yet you continue to post expressions from UNINSPIRED sources. For someone who has said that his church put the bible together in 325 why wouldn’t they include the writings of these individuals you have quoted? Might it be that their writings are obviously not inspired and do not belong in the bible?

513

Please consider the following if you have time. Feel free to debate the merits of the sources of course, but there are a lot more where they came from many being from esteemed universities. Together, they basically show evidence that the Christians began practicing the Liturgy IMMEDIATELY after pentechost as taught to James the Lord’s brother by Jesus. It is the prototype of our Liturgy with most of the prayers being verbatum. (And by the way, if you find a Lutheran, Episcopalian or Roman Liturgy book from pre vatican II the Service is virtually identical.

Now we have a clear apostolic succession of Bishops of Jerusalem from James to today which no historian contends.

It’s called connecting the dots.

http://www.britishorthodox.org/stjames.shtml

http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/07090100.htm

http://stjj.org/stjames.html

514

[quote]extol7extol wrote:
I do admit that I have only a little knowledge of what you call the “Orthodox Christian Faith.” Yet I was not associating you with Augustine at all. I did not even mention Augustine. The only mention of Augustine was the mention by Charles Hodge in the quote I provided.[/quote]

I must apologize to you. In haste to disassociate the Orthodox Christian Faith from Augustinian theology, I lost focus. I agree that Calvinist theology is heretical, but I still maintain that ultimately yours is too.

Peace be with you.

515

So my question is when did the Orthodox branch off as you say fishlips? Maybe you consider James to be the first heretic? Except for his Epistle that is.

Also, note the place for the Gospel readings which were produced somewhat AFTER the liturgy was in practiced as they were written by the apostles for the EXPRESS PURPOSE of being part of the liturgy.

516

[quote]Fishlips wrote:
You manage to completely misunderstand my posts, which are more than clear, and then talk as if I’m referring to YOUR church’s writings as a basis of authority.[/quote]

Ok, let’s start from square one again. The Bible was produced and compiled by the Orthodox Christian Church in 325 AD. This Church was known as the One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church. The same Church which produced and compiled the Bible in 325 AD at the Council of Nicea also established the Nicene Creed.
http://www.fatheralexander.org/booklets/english/creed.htm

The Nicene Creed:
[i]I believe in one God, the Father Almighty, Maker of heaven and earth, and of all things visible and invisible.

And in one Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God, the Only-begotten, begotten of the Father before all ages; Light of Light: true God of true God; begotten, not made; of one essence with the Father; by Whom all things were made: Who for us men, and for our salvation, came down from heaven, and was incarnate of the Holy Spirit and the Virgin Mary, and became man; And was crucified for us under Pontius Pilate, and suffered, and was buried; And arose again on the third day according to the Scriptures; And ascended into Heaven, and sitteth at the right hand of the Father; And shall come again, with glory, to judge both the living and the dead; Whose kingdom shall have no end.

And in the Holy Spirit, the Lord, the Giver of Life; Who proceeds from the Father; Who with the Father and the Son together is worshipped and glorified; Who spake by the prophets. In One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church. I confess one baptism for the remission of sins. I look for the resurrection of the dead, And the life of the age to come. Amen.[/i]

Question:
Are you in agreement so far?

517

[quote]pookie wrote:It’s not dogma you idiot, IT’S MY FUCKING OPINION THAT YOU’D JUST ASKED ME FOR!

Look man, if you can’t follow the discussion between two OF YOUR OWN messages, we’ll just forget it.

Maybe try again when you’re out of high school…[/quote]

Whoa. Psy-cho. Look man, you need to go and look in that book called the dictionary and see that there is more than one definition for the word “dogma.”

An opinion can be asserted dogmatically. A dogma can be considered as an established opinion (see definition directly below). You also dogmatically asserted your opinion that I’m an idiot, you idiot.

Main Entry: dog?ma
Pronunciation: 'dog-m&, 'd?g-
Function: noun
Inflected Form(s): plural dogmas also dog?ma?ta /-m&-t&/
Etymology: Latin dogmat-, dogma, from Greek, from dokein to seem – more at DECENT
1 a : something held as an established opinion; especially : a definite authoritative tenet b : a code of such tenets c : a point of view or tenet put forth as authoritative without adequate grounds
2 : a doctrine or body of doctrines concerning faith or morals formally stated and authoritatively proclaimed by a church.

Main Entry: opin?ion
Pronunciation: &-'pin-y&n
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English, from Middle French, from Latin opinion-, opinio, from opinari
1 a : a view, judgment, or appraisal formed in the mind about a particular matter b : APPROVAL, ESTEEM
2 a : belief stronger than impression and less strong than positive knowledge b : a generally held view
3 a : a formal expression of judgment or advice by an expert b : the formal expression (as by a judge, court, or referee) of the legal reasons and principles upon which a legal decision is based

  • opin?ioned /-y&nd/ adjective
    synonyms OPINION, VIEW, BELIEF, CONVICTION, PERSUASION, SENTIMENT mean a judgment one holds as true. OPINION implies a conclusion thought out yet open to dispute . VIEW suggests a subjective opinion . BELIEF implies often deliberate acceptance and intellectual assent <a firm belief in her party’s platform>. CONVICTION applies to a firmly and seriously held belief . PERSUASION suggests a belief grounded on assurance (as by evidence) of its truth . SENTIMENT suggests a settled opinion reflective of one’s feelings .
518

[quote]Fishlips wrote:
I don’t see the Orthodox church as being anything more than a misguided religion. There was one road Christ preached and your religion is one that forked away. Your claims to a direct link to the teachings of Jesus and the apostles ring hollow when they deviate from those original teachings. So no, I’m not ever referring to what your church wrote. I’m referring to the inspired bible which, first and foremost, has God as it’s authority not any of the writers.[/quote]

Orthodox Christianity is a misguided religion? Orthodox Christianity forked away? Orthodox Christian teachings deviated from Jesus Christ and the Apostles? That’s not what a PhD graduate of Yale University Thomas Oden reports; a convert to Orthodox Christianity from Judaism:

Who are you trying to fool? You make lots of unsubstantiated claims Fishlips. I’ll ask you once again to exhibit some evidence or stop talking hogwash. If you need research from contemporary theologians or historians so you can connect the dots, let me know. I’d be happy to get you tons of sources and books for you to puchase. And before you ask for it, here’s evidence that the Orthodox Christian Church is the original Church of Jesus Christ & the Apostles. Best wishes.

Tree of Churches

Tree of Churches
http://www.saintignatiuschurch.org/timeline.html
Tree of Churches
http://philtar.ucsm.ac.uk/encyclopedia/christ/east/index.html
The Church is Visible and One
http://www.orthodoxinfo.com/inquirers/church.pdf
15 articles on The Church
http://www.orthodoxinfo.com/general/gen_church.aspx
What is Orthodoxy?

519

[quote]stellar_horizon wrote:
Fishlips, without any added commentary, please post the scriptural evidence which supports your stance that the Eucharist is not the actual Body and Blood of Jesus Christ.[/quote]

New Catholic Encyclopedia (1967) cautions: "We should not rely too heavily on the literalness of the words ‘This is my body’ or ‘This is my blood.’ . . . For in phrases such as ‘the harvest is the end of the world’ (Mt 13.39) or ‘I am the true vine’ (Jn 15.1) the [verb “to be”] means only to signify or represent.

Jesus often used metaphors and similes. For example, he said: “I am the door of the sheep.” “I am the vine, you are the branches.” (John 10:7; 15:5) If viewed literally, such statements become nonsensical. They must be understood in harmony with the impression that they made upon their hearers.

Therefore the expression ‘This IS my body’ is interchangeable with ‘This MEANS my body’ which is expressed in other translations. The first is simply a metaphor.

520

[quote]stellar_horizon wrote:
Question:
Are you in agreement so far?
[/quote]

No.

521

[quote]stellar_horizon wrote:
Fishlips, without any added commentary, please post the scriptural evidence which supports your stance that the Eucharist is not the actual Body and Blood of Jesus Christ.
Fishlips wrote:
Hmmmm, no commentary from me allowed yet I have to read through posts ad nauseum of commentary that you wish to add, it’s just expressed by someone else. You already know I only hold the bible up as authority yet you continue to post expressions from UNINSPIRED sources. For someone who has said that his church put the bible together in 325 why wouldn’t they include the writings of these individuals you have quoted? Might it be that their writings are obviously not inspired and do not belong in the bible?[/quote]

It’s so funny how you beat around the bush. You waste more time deflecting my questions with more irrelevant commentary than on actually answering them or conceding defeat. Find me a scripture from the Bible that the Eucharist is not the actual Body and Blood of Jesus Christ or leave the thread. All I’m asking you to do is play by the rules; nothing more, nothing less. I don’t think that’s being unreasonable.