Only One Truth

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
522

Stella you are missing the point so badly. I see in your way of reasoning how the Pharisees reasoned upon hearing Jesus teaching: “When by now the festival was half over, Jesus went up into the temple and began teaching.” Therefore the Jews fell to wondering, saying: “How does this man have a knowledge of letters, when he has not studied at the schools?” (No I am not equating myself to him, but the situation is similar)

A proper understanding is not found by being a Ph.D. The Pharisees knew the Law inside and out yet were condemned by Jesus. Why? They didn’t ‘get it’. Their knowledge meant nothing because they missed the whole point of the Law. The common people accepted what Jesus was teaching. I don’t think too many of them had nor required Ph.D.'s to understand his teachings.
If you can’t use the bible to make your point, then you had better ask yourself why? You say you believe in additional instruction not included in the bible yet not contradictory to it. So you should easily be able to make your point within the confines of scripture.

Please, by all means, mention 1 unsubstantiated claim I have made. I have noticed you generally jump past my ‘commentaries’ on the scriptures. I am left to surmise it is because you can not rebut the sound reasoning.

523

mertdawg asked this, but I’ll re-iterate. Since you don’t believe the Orthodox Christian authors of Holy Scriptures had any authority but you hold to the notion that their writings were Divinely inspired, if Peter, Paul, John, Mark, Luke, Matthew and James appeared right in front of you and began preaching the Faith, you’d call them heretics? How reasonable is that?

You deny the Divine inspiration of the authors who wrote the Holy Scriptures but you glorify their writings? Where in the Bible does it teach anyone to do that? Do you realize who the Apostles even were? Do you know by what power they preached? Do you also deny the Divine inspiration of the Orthodox Christian Church since She compiled the Holy Scriptures? How reasonable is that?

524

[quote]stellar_horizon wrote:
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.
Fishlips wrote:
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.
Fishlips wrote:
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.[/quote]

Fishlips, do yourself a favor and purchase a dictionary:

Main Entry: reincanation
Function: noun
1a:the action of reincarnating : the state of being reincarnated
1b:rebirth in new bodies or forms of life; especially : a rebirth of a soul in a new human body
2:a fresh embodiment

Before you snake around my point, you’re stating now that once you die, that’s it, while in a prior post you said that God can raise you up if He so chooses to later on. You made a reference to that with the dust to dust passage. You were ascribing to the concept of reincarnation, so quit playing yourself.

525

[quote]stellar_horizon wrote:
POST 1
pookie wrote:
As it is, you need churches and clergy and a whole bureaucratic apparatus just to try and preserve whatever version of God you imagine is the right one; as do all other religions.
Fishlips wrote:
Does that even resemble the simple form of worship Jesus was trying to teach people? A lot of meaningless tradition and pomp. Many of the original Christians who had converted from Judaism had to be counselled about the necessity to leave completely behind the Jewish form of worship with all its grandeur because they really liked the ornateness(even a word?) of the Jewish way rather than the simple and humble worship of the Christians.
POST 2
stellar_horizon wrote:
And before you judge how ridiculous it was for Jews to follow a “bureaucratic apparatus”, reflect upon how a hierarchy existed in Judaism in the Old Testament (ie. the high priest). The Apostles were no different. They became the bishops who elevated presbyters in the Church to cater to the needs of the faithful. To call the holy traditions of the Jews meaningless as well as those which the Apostles passed on to the faithful is inexcusable.
Fishlips wrote:
Those were pookie’s words.

Fishlips, you can pin the tail on the donkey, but from the above posts you clearly respond to pookie’s notion in an agreeable fashion. You yourself infer to the hierarchy of clergy as meaningless tradition and pomp. Those weren’t pookie’s words, they were yours. No offense, but don’t be a snake in the grass that needs to get stomped on.[/quote]

I am steadily finding all your diatribes. Yes I was in agreement, to an extent, with pookie concerning much meaningless tradition and pomp which exists within the clergy. You don’t think there’s any? Do you somehow believe you can then go and quote other’s expression as mine if I seem to agree with them? I think you know my point.

The Jewish organizational structure was, in part, an object lesson in the role Jesus would play in the future re: high priest. ‘Christ came as a high priest’ Heb. 9:11. ‘The Law has become our tutor leading to Christ’ Gal. 3:24 The entire Jewish system was designed to prepare the Jews for the arrival of the Messiah. There ‘system’ had a purpose. But by the time Jesus arrived it was far from what it was originally meant to be and was rejected. For Christianity, we know the apostles played a special role in the development of the early congregations along with ‘older men’, ‘overseers’ 1 Tim. 3:1, and ‘ministerial servants’ 1 Tim. 3:8. So there certainly was a structure but it pales in comparison to many of the outlandish procedures and garb of today’s clergy and churches.

526

[quote]stellar_horizon wrote:
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?

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.[/quote]

You seriously need to let some fresh air into your computer room Stella. It is incomprehensible how you continue to close your eyes to very direct, scriptural responses to your inquiries. Once again here you go, please make sure you have your glasses on. “I received from the Lord that which I also handed on to you, that the Lord Jesus in the night in which he was going to be handed over took a loaf and, after giving thanks, he broke it and said: ‘This means my body which is in your behalf. Keep doing this in remembrance of me.’ He did likewise respecting the cup also, after he had the evening meal, saying: 'This cup means the new covenant by virtue of my blood. Keep doing this, as often as you drink it, in remembrance of me.” 1 Cor 11:23-25

But of course this doesn’t say what you want it to say so you won’t consider it. You’re all too predictable.

527

LOOK EVERYONE! I MAKE A SIMPLE REQUEST AND FISHLIPS AGAIN FAILS TO MEET THE CHALLENGE!

[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:
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.[/quote]
NICE GOING!

So you failed to establish one passage or even a phrase from scripture to support your stance that the Eucharist is not the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ; instead you bombard me with more irrelevant commentary. And yet you call my reason into question. Here are four passages which clearly state that the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ indeed comprises the Eucharist. No commentary needed.

St. Luke 22:19
“And he took bread, and gave thanks, and brake it, and gave unto them, saying, This is my body which is given for you: this do in remembrance of me. Likewise also the cup after supper, saying, This cup is the new testament in my blood, which is shed for you.”

St. John 6:51
“I am the living bread which came down from heaven: if any man eat of this bread, he shall live for ever: and the bread that I will give is my flesh, which I will give for the life of the world. The Jews therefore strove among themselves, saying, How can this man give us flesh to eat? Then Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, ye have no life in you. Whoso eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, hath eternal life; and I will raise him up at the last day. For my flesh is meat indeed, and my blood is drink indeed. He that eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, dwelleth in me, and I in him.”

1 Corinthians 10:16
“The cup of blessing which we bless, is it not the communion of the blood of Christ? The bread which we break, is it not the communion of the body of Christ? For we being many are one bread, and one body: for we are all partakers of that one bread.”

1 Corinthians 11:23
“For I have received of the Lord that which also I delivered unto you, that the Lord Jesus the same night in which he was betrayed took bread: And when he had given thanks, he brake it, and said, Take, eat: this is my body, which is broken for you: this do in remembrance of me. After the same manner also he took the cup, when he had supped, saying, This cup is the new testament in my blood: this do ye, as oft as ye drink it, in remembrance of me. For as often as ye eat this bread, and drink this cup, ye do shew the Lord’s death till he come. Wherefore whosoever shall eat this bread, and drink this cup of the Lord, unworthily, shall be guilty of the body and blood of the Lord. But let a man examine himself, and so let him eat of that bread, and drink of that cup. For he that eateth and drinketh unworthily, eateth and drinketh damnation to himself, not discerning the Lord’s body.”

Let’s go to the final authority for our conclusion:
The tradition of interpretation of the Orthodox Christian Church (who wrote and compiled the Bible) adheres to the teachings that the Eucharist is the actual Body and Blood of Jesus Christ, contrary to the assertion of Fishlips. The early Church Fathers established manuscripts which also bore the same testimony throughout the centuries. To teach otherwise is heretical.

528

[quote]stellar_horizon wrote:
mertdawg asked this, but I’ll re-iterate. Since you don’t believe the Orthodox Christian authors of Holy Scriptures had any authority but you hold to the notion that their writings were Divinely inspired, if Peter, Paul, John, Mark, Luke, Matthew and James appeared right in front of you and began preaching the Faith, you’d call them heretics? How reasonable is that?

You deny the Divine inspiration of the authors who wrote the Holy Scriptures but you glorify their writings? Where in the Bible does it teach anyone to do that? Do you realize who the Apostles even were? Do you know by what power they preached? Do you also deny the Divine inspiration of the Orthodox Christian Church since She compiled the Holy Scriptures? How reasonable is that?[/quote]

Again, and again, and again, I ask: where do you get this absolute CRAP you post? Do you just make up what you THINK people say? How many times have I said that all scripture is inspired? Multiple times. Then the writers were definitely inspired. Are you following?

Now where you seem to want to blend things I will make the very necessary distinction for you. A very important point which, no doubt, has never even occured to you is that on multiple occasions, recorded in the bible, God has used individuals who did NOT have his approval to do his will. Case in point, the Babylonians. God used the Babylonians to bring punishment upon his people and destroy Jerusalem in 607BCE. Were the Babylonians inspired? NO. God simply used them to do his will but then later destroyed them. Another example, the Pharisees. These men were allowed to administer the affairs of the Jewish nation which until Jesus rejected them were God’s chosen people. Jesus himself said to listen to them. Were they inspired? NO. God condemned them also. How many times would you like me to smack you in the face with evidence that just because the men of the council of Nicea brought the bible together into one volume didn’t make them inspired? They had no choice what books would be in the bible. God had the bible written and those men would not have been allowed to corrupt his word. There was ample evidence for which books belonged in the bible canon and they could never have gotten away with included or excluding the individual writings which were clearly inspired. They then, unfortunately, firmly established hugely erroneus teachings already having crept into the church incorporated from pagan sources which are the most damning evidence these men were certainly not inspired. Remember, one does not have to be 100% wrong to be rejected. Just as you would reject a glass of 99% pure water and 1% cyanide so these men, although doing some good things, showed they were not from God and can not be considered inspired.

But of course, according to the great Stella, this is all irrelevant commentary. How foolish of me…

529

[quote]stellar_horizon wrote:
stellar_horizon wrote:
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.
Fishlips wrote:
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.
Fishlips wrote:
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.

Fishlips, do yourself a favor and purchase a dictionary:

Main Entry: reincanation
Function: noun
1a:the action of reincarnating : the state of being reincarnated
1b:rebirth in new bodies or forms of life; especially : a rebirth of a soul in a new human body
2:a fresh embodiment

Before you snake around my point, you’re stating now that once you die, that’s it, while in a prior post you said that God can raise you up if He so chooses to later on. You made a reference to that with the dust to dust passage. You were ascribing to the concept of reincarnation, so quit playing yourself.[/quote]

I am sure if you talked to many others who believe in the idea of reincarnation you would end up with a number of different ideas in addition to this dictionary definition of what reincarnation is.

The idea, in the majority of people’s minds of which I was referring, centres around a ‘cycle’ of rebirths by some immortal part of the being. I will apologize if, in this instance, I was not clear enough. However in your quoting of my comments above you pose them as a contradiction when they all go hand in hand. As I said, if you die that’s it unless God gives you your life back. It happened to our very Lord Christ Jesus. How do you think Jesus appeared to his followers after his resurrection? Where did his body come from? Recall that his apostles did not recognize him, therefore his body was different.

How do you think Lazarus was resurrected? He was in the tomb for 4 days and his sister said how his body would smell at that point. Obviously nature had taken it’s course with his body but that didn’t prevent Jesus from restoring his body to proper function in his resurrection.

Let me know if this is still more irrelevant commentary or if I’m still playing, I’d love to know…

530

[quote]Fishlips wrote:
stellar_horizon wrote:
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.[/quote]

Yes Christ used metaphores, but how can you say that you do not INTERPRET? It sounds like a lot of real interpretation to me. Even if we have a common understanding what it means to say I am the vine you are the branches, would Christ use a metaphore if it didn’t contain even more meaning than the simple words themselves? Interpretation means to read meaning between the words.

My flesh (sarx=literally muscle tissue! not soma-body) is TRULY meat-again used to refer to animal tissue used for sustenance)

531

[quote]Fishlips wrote:
Again, and again, and again, I ask: where do you get this absolute CRAP you post? Do you just make up what you THINK people say? How many times have I said that all scripture is inspired? Multiple times. Then the writers were definitely inspired. Are you following?

Now where you seem to want to blend things I will make the very necessary distinction for you. A very important point which, no doubt, has never even occured to you is that on multiple occasions, recorded in the bible, God has used individuals who did NOT have his approval to do his will. Case in point, the Babylonians. God used the Babylonians to bring punishment upon his people and destroy Jerusalem in 607BCE. Were the Babylonians inspired? NO. God simply used them to do his will but then later destroyed them. Another example, the Pharisees. These men were allowed to administer the affairs of the Jewish nation which until Jesus rejected them were God’s chosen people. Jesus himself said to listen to them. Were they inspired? NO. God condemned them also. How many times would you like me to smack you in the face with evidence that just because the men of the council of Nicea brought the bible together into one volume didn’t make them inspired? They had no choice what books would be in the bible. God had the bible written and those men would not have been allowed to corrupt his word. There was ample evidence for which books belonged in the bible canon and they could never have gotten away with included or excluding the individual writings which were clearly inspired. They then, unfortunately, firmly established hugely erroneus teachings already having crept into the church incorporated from pagan sources which are the most damning evidence these men were certainly not inspired. Remember, one does not have to be 100% wrong to be rejected. Just as you would reject a glass of 99% pure water and 1% cyanide so these men, although doing some good things, showed they were not from God and can not be considered inspired.

But of course, according to the great Stella, this is all irrelevant commentary. How foolish of me… [/quote]

And was James the author of the Epistle inspired when he wrote the liturgy which he said was told him by his brother Christ face to face-before he wrote the Epistle itself and before the Gospels were crafted as the Torah readings of that liturgy?

532

Stella, you seriously may be insane. Not just deluded, but stark raving mad. Print some of this out and take it to the priest of your ORTHODOX CHURCH, THE ONE, THE ONLY, THE TRUTH IN THE MIDDLE OF A MILLION LIES. I think he’ll probably agree you may need some professional help.

533

[quote]stellar_horizon wrote:
LOOK EVERYONE! I MAKE A SIMPLE REQUEST AND FISHLIPS AGAIN FAILS TO MEET THE CHALLENGE!
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:
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.
NICE GOING!

So you failed to establish one passage or even a phrase from scripture to support your stance that the Eucharist is not the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ; instead you bombard me with more irrelevant commentary. And yet you call my reason into question. Here are four passages which clearly state that the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ indeed comprises the Eucharist. No commentary needed.

Passage #1
St. Luke 22:19
“And he took bread, and gave thanks, and brake it, and gave unto them, saying, This is my body which is given for you: this do in remembrance of me. Likewise also the cup after supper, saying, This cup is the new testament in my blood, which is shed for you.”

Passage #2
St. John 6:51
“I am the living bread which came down from heaven: if any man eat of this bread, he shall live for ever: and the bread that I will give is my flesh, which I will give for the life of the world. The Jews therefore strove among themselves, saying, How can this man give us flesh to eat? Then Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, ye have no life in you. Whoso eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, hath eternal life; and I will raise him up at the last day. For my flesh is meat indeed, and my blood is drink indeed. He that eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, dwelleth in me, and I in him.”

Passage #3
1 Corinthians 10:16
“The cup of blessing which we bless, is it not the communion of the blood of Christ? The bread which we break, is it not the communion of the body of Christ? For we being many are one bread, and one body: for we are all partakers of that one bread.”

Passage #4
1 Corinthians 11:23
“For I have received of the Lord that which also I delivered unto you, that the Lord Jesus the same night in which he was betrayed took bread: And when he had given thanks, he brake it, and said, Take, eat: this is my body, which is broken for you: this do in remembrance of me. After the same manner also he took the cup, when he had supped, saying, This cup is the new testament in my blood: this do ye, as oft as ye drink it, in remembrance of me. For as often as ye eat this bread, and drink this cup, ye do shew the Lord’s death till he come. Wherefore whosoever shall eat this bread, and drink this cup of the Lord, unworthily, shall be guilty of the body and blood of the Lord. But let a man examine himself, and so let him eat of that bread, and drink of that cup. For he that eateth and drinketh unworthily, eateth and drinketh damnation to himself, not discerning the Lord’s body.”

Let’s go to the final authority for our conclusion:
The tradition of interpretation of the Orthodox Christian Church (who wrote and compiled the Bible) adheres to the teachings that the Eucharist is the actual Body and Blood of Jesus Christ, contrary to the assertion of Fishlips. The early Church Fathers established manuscripts which also bore the same testimony throughout the centuries. To teach otherwise is heretical.
[/quote]

Oh man, sometimes I think you’re just kidding me on. LOVE THE ALL CAPS MY FRIEND!

Luke 22:19 Also, he took a loaf, gave thanks, broke it, and gave it to them, saying: “This means my body which is to be given in YOUR behalf. Keep doing this in remembrance of me.”?Also, the cup in the same way after they had the evening meal, he saying: “This cup means the new covenant by virtue of my blood, which is to be poured out in YOUR behalf.”

I agree fully with John 6:51 as a METAPHOR. But, please, don’t stop so soon. Look further in this same chapter to verse 57: “Just as the living Father sent me forth and I live BECAUSE of the Father, he also that feeds on me, even that one will live BECAUSE of me.” WOW! No commentary from me, can’t wait to see how you respond to it.

1 Cor. 10:16: “The cup of blessing which we bless, is it not a sharing in the blood of the Christ? The loaf which we break, is it not a sharing in the body of the Christ??Because there is one loaf, we, although many, are one body, for we are all partaking of that one loaf.”

Evidently somehow all the apostles and others were one body at that moment of writing. Doesn’t make a whole lotta sense now when taken literally does it?

1 Cor. 11:23-29: “For I received from the Lord that which I also handed on to YOU, that the Lord Jesus in the night in which he was going to be handed over took a loaf?and, after giving thanks, he broke it and said: “This means my body which is in YOUR behalf. Keep doing this in remembrance of me.” He did likewise respecting the cup also, after he had the evening meal, saying: “This cup means the new covenant by virtue of my blood. Keep doing this, as often as YOU drink it, in remembrance of me.” For as often as YOU eat this loaf and drink this cup, YOU keep proclaiming the death of the Lord, until he arrives. ?Consequently whoever eats the loaf or drinks the cup of the Lord unworthily will be guilty respecting the body and the blood of the Lord.?First let a man approve himself after scrutiny, and thus let him eat of the loaf and drink of the cup. For he that eats and drinks eats and drinks judgment against himself if he does not discern the body.”

Now what part of Jesus body was he feeding them? Must have been a bloody spectacle as Jesus had to rip a part of his flesh off his then living body. Wonder how he managed to get his blood out of his veins and into the cup?

534

[quote]Fishlips wrote:
Oh and in case you missed it, Jesus story about the Rich Man and Lazarus was an ILLUSTRATION! They weren’t actual people.[/quote]

In your heretical theological system, if the parable of the rich man and Lazarus was real, your theological foundation would crack right down the middle! Nonetheless, the concept behind the parable is very real, otherwise Jesus Christ would never have taught it. Jesus Christ clearly warns us about the dangers of overindulgence and worldly comfort as well as negligence to provide alms to the needy and the suffering as this can lead to one’s final destination in hell. None of Christ’s parables were empty. With your rejection of the soul’s immortality and other recent posts, you seem to deny that there’s an actual heaven and a hell.

For any interested readers, the parable of the rich man and Lazarus can be examined according to the Orthodox Christian interpretation here:

535

[quote]mertdawg wrote:
Fishlips wrote:
stellar_horizon wrote:
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.

Yes Christ used metaphores, but how can you say that you do not INTERPRET? It sounds like a lot of real interpretation to me. Even if we have a common understanding what it means to say I am the vine you are the branches, would Christ use a metaphore if it didn’t contain even more meaning than the simple words themselves? Interpretation means to read meaning between the words.

My flesh (sarx=literally muscle tissue! not soma-body) is TRULY meat-again used to refer to animal tissue used for sustenance)

[/quote]

Mert you are much more pleasant to talk with. To interpret, I think we can agree, is to give the scriptures your own take on things. Unacceptable. I let the scriptures interpret themselves. While the bible in it’s entirety is stand-alone, scriptures will often require the use of other scriptures and our ‘power of reason’ to make their meaning clear. If one has then come to an improper understanding, there will be conflict with other scriptural expressions leading the honest person to reevaluate.

When the apostles ate the bread and wine with Jesus they were still under the Law. That being so, if they were truly eating flesh and blood they would stand condemned to death. That is unarguable. It could not have been anything more than bread and wine.

In short, one can not interpret the bible to their own liking. The bible itself will expose their incorrect interpretation.

Bring up one example of some of my reasoning/interpreting of scripture that you disagree with and believe is erroneus. Be clear as to why you think my ‘commentary’ is wrong.

536

[quote]Fishlips wrote:
For Christianity, we know the apostles played a special role in the development of the early congregations along with ‘older men’, ‘overseers’ 1 Tim. 3:1, and ‘ministerial servants’ 1 Tim. 3:8. So there certainly was a structure but it pales in comparison to many of the outlandish procedures and garb of today’s clergy and churches.[/quote]

What’s your point then? So all of a sudden Fishlips gets to judge what traditions Christians shall keep and which traditions they’ll get rid of? How arrogant and prideful to reason away what Jesus Christ Himself instituted! What a classic attitude - an attitude which every heretic since the inception of the Orthodox Christian Church (est. 33 AD) has also shared.

Good goin!

537

[quote]mertdawg wrote:
Fishlips wrote:
Again, and again, and again, I ask: where do you get this absolute CRAP you post? Do you just make up what you THINK people say? How many times have I said that all scripture is inspired? Multiple times. Then the writers were definitely inspired. Are you following?

Now where you seem to want to blend things I will make the very necessary distinction for you. A very important point which, no doubt, has never even occured to you is that on multiple occasions, recorded in the bible, God has used individuals who did NOT have his approval to do his will. Case in point, the Babylonians. God used the Babylonians to bring punishment upon his people and destroy Jerusalem in 607BCE. Were the Babylonians inspired? NO. God simply used them to do his will but then later destroyed them. Another example, the Pharisees. These men were allowed to administer the affairs of the Jewish nation which until Jesus rejected them were God’s chosen people. Jesus himself said to listen to them. Were they inspired? NO. God condemned them also. How many times would you like me to smack you in the face with evidence that just because the men of the council of Nicea brought the bible together into one volume didn’t make them inspired? They had no choice what books would be in the bible. God had the bible written and those men would not have been allowed to corrupt his word. There was ample evidence for which books belonged in the bible canon and they could never have gotten away with included or excluding the individual writings which were clearly inspired. They then, unfortunately, firmly established hugely erroneus teachings already having crept into the church incorporated from pagan sources which are the most damning evidence these men were certainly not inspired. Remember, one does not have to be 100% wrong to be rejected. Just as you would reject a glass of 99% pure water and 1% cyanide so these men, although doing some good things, showed they were not from God and can not be considered inspired.

But of course, according to the great Stella, this is all irrelevant commentary. How foolish of me…

And was James the author of the Epistle inspired when he wrote the liturgy which he said was told him by his brother Christ face to face-before he wrote the Epistle itself and before the Gospels were crafted as the Torah readings of that liturgy?

[/quote]

Not really clear on what your asking here.

538

[quote]stellar_horizon wrote:
Fishlips wrote:
For Christianity, we know the apostles played a special role in the development of the early congregations along with ‘older men’, ‘overseers’ 1 Tim. 3:1, and ‘ministerial servants’ 1 Tim. 3:8. So there certainly was a structure but it pales in comparison to many of the outlandish procedures and garb of today’s clergy and churches.

What’s your point then? So all of a sudden Fishlips gets to judge what traditions Christians shall keep and which traditions they’ll get rid of? How arrogant and prideful to reason away what Jesus Christ Himself instituted! What a classic attitude - an attitude which every heretic since the inception of the Orthodox Christian Church (est. 33 AD) has also shared.

Good goin!
[/quote]

Nope, just usin’ the bible. There’s nothing wrong with tradition in itself. It’s when, as Jesus said, it makes the word of God invalid by their maintenance and when they are falsely put up as being inspired by Christ and a necessary part of worship.(Kinda like what you just said above.) As well as when things such as the vestments of the priests/bishops etc. are designed to bring so much attention to themselves. If you’ll recall Jesus would blend in with crowds because he kept obviously an average, plain look. Remember when the mob came to arrest him in the Garden of Gethsemane, Judas had to betray him with a kiss so they would know who to arrest. Why can’t your church just stick to the lessons Jesus left in his example?

You really need to get out of the dark ages. Who uses the term heretic anymore?

539

[quote]Fishlips wrote:
Stella you are missing the point so badly. I see in your way of reasoning how the Pharisees reasoned upon hearing Jesus teaching: “When by now the festival was half over, Jesus went up into the temple and began teaching.” Therefore the Jews fell to wondering, saying: “How does this man have a knowledge of letters, when he has not studied at the schools?” (No I am not equating myself to him, but the situation is similar)

A proper understanding is not found by being a Ph.D. The Pharisees knew the Law inside and out yet were condemned by Jesus. Why? They didn’t ‘get it’. Their knowledge meant nothing because they missed the whole point of the Law. The common people accepted what Jesus was teaching. I don’t think too many of them had nor required Ph.D.'s to understand his teachings.
If you can’t use the bible to make your point, then you had better ask yourself why? You say you believe in additional instruction not included in the bible yet not contradictory to it. So you should easily be able to make your point within the confines of scripture.[/quote]

I miss the point? The reason I cited a PhD graduate of Yale in a previous post was to back up my statement that the Orthodox Christian Church is the New Testament Church, something which you deny without providing any support or evidence against. I had no intention of leading that reference into a dialogue about the Jewish Law, so I have no idea why you’re flying off on a tangent. The reference was meant to be historical moreso than theological. The reason Thomas Oden converted to the Orthodox Christian Faith is because he discovered that it was the New Testament Church of Christ (est. 33 AD), the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church. So either get your facts straight or hush up!

I kindly posted the Nicene Creed which CLEARLY speaks of the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church but you make no comment of that. You want to stick with your delusions like a Mormon would, “well, the church must have fell away because I’m not part of it”… You’re right that you’re not part of it, otherwise you wouldn’t be here preaching heresy. But you’re wrong that it fell away.

The true Church of Christ is alive and well, with or without you.
na na na na na…

540

[quote]pookie wrote:
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]

It has all the relevance in the world. Take a different hypothetical example:

If someone steals from you, and you get mad about it, then my hypothetical thief will say to you,

“Hey hypocrite, We adhere to the same philosophy. And that philosophy is: Do what is right in our own eyes.
You say I am doing evil when I steal from you. I say I am doing good when I steal from you. If you condemn me, you must also condemn yourself, for BOTH of us are seeing and defining good and evil by the same autonomous standard.”

[quote]pookie wrote:
Cool trick that you can know a dead man’s mind.[/quote]

Couldn’t you tell that the illustration was hypothetical? I randomly chose Hitler in order to show you where your atheistic position leads: To chaos and foolishness. I had my hypothetical Hitler apply your own standard to yourself to show you it is utterly foolish.

[quote]pookie wrote:
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?[/quote]

Nope. You’re just too stupid, and dumber than a bag of rocks to see the incoherence of the atheist position. The reason I ask “says who?” is because the atheist viewpoint cannot consistenly allow for moral absolutes like “murder and rape are wrong.” You are stealing from the Biblical world view by saying that murder and rape are wrong:

13"(for not the hearers of the law are just in the sight of God, but the doers of the law will be justified; 14 for when Gentiles, who do not have the law, by nature do the things in the law, these, although not having the law, are a law to themselves, 15 who show the work of the law written in their hearts, their conscience also bearing witness, and between themselves their thoughts accusing or else excusing them) 16 in the day when God will judge the secrets of men by Jesus Christ, according to my gospel.
(Romans 2:13-16).

Verse 15 gives the reason why you say murder and rape are wrong. The work of the law of God is written in your heart. Of course, you suppress this truth, and thus you are without excuse.

But if you would yell out: “WHEN I SAY MURDER AND RAPE ARE WRONG, IT IS JUST MY OPINION, YOU ASKED ME MY OPINION YOU IDIOT!” Just an opinion? In that case one opinion and/or definition is no more right then another one, therefore if your of the opinion that rape and murder are okay, then that is equally valid.

Why should the rape and murder raise any ethical problems for the atheist? In a godless (a-theist) universe, what one ‘ape’ does to another ‘ape’ is morally irrelevant–making it just as easy to commend rape and murder as to condemn it. If there is no God, there is no law giver, and so nothing is essentially good or evil. In the absence of ethical or moral absolutes, words like right and wrong or good and evil, have no meaning. The atheist does not have any real answers for the questions raised by rape and murder; and if he would remain consistent with himself, he would realize that he has no reason to raise any questions in the first place.

The key word is consistent. You are not consistent with your atheistic position. Despite your professed atheism, you know better. God says that you know better. Thus, you are an undiscerning fool, and He has left you without excuse:

“For God’s wrath is revealed from Heaven on all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, holding the truth in unrighteousness,
because the thing known of God is clearly known within them, for God revealed it to them. For the unseen things of Him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things made, both His eternal power and Godhead, for them to be without excuse.Because knowing God, they did not glorify Him as God, nor were thankful. But they became vain in their reasonings, and their undiscerning heart was darkened.
Professing to be wise, they became foolish and changed the glory of the incorruptible God into a likeness of an image of corruptible man, and of birds, and four-footed animals, and creeping things” (Romans 1:18-23).

The Bible says the following about what a fool says: “The fool has said in his heart, There is no God!” (Psalm 53:1)
Thus, one definition of a fool is you. So, is this aforementioned definition more right than yours? Less right? God, through the psalmist, says that you are a fool to say there is no God. If you say that you are not a fool, but very wise to say there is no God, then will you say both of these polar opposites are in some irrational and incoherent way, no more “right” than one another? If you say that the definition given in Psalm 53:1 is wrong, then you contradict yourself when you say that no definition is more “right” than another. Might I suggest a logic 101 course?

[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.[/quote]

Sorry about misreading and misquoting you. What is your idea of an abstract concept? Are murder and rape abstract concepts? Is it a statement of absolute truth to say that murder and rape are “evil”?

Is the concept of “God exists”, an abstract concept, while the concept of “God does not exist”, a non-abstract concept?

When you assert that there is no God, aren’t you establishing an absolute truth? When I assert that there is a God, am I establishing an absolute truth? Let’s see how consistent/inconsistent you are.

You OUGHT to believe that the Word of Christ is true. You OUGHT to believe that what Christ says is true. But you do not, and thus show yourself to be a liar, just like your father the devil. It’s BECAUSE Christ speaks the truth that you do not believe that He is “I AM” (i.e., God):

55 And you have not known Him; but I know Him, And if I say that I do not know Him, I shall be like you, a liar. But I know Him, and I keep His Word.
56 Your father Abraham leaped for joy that he should see My day, and he saw, and rejoiced.
57 Then the Jews said to Him, You do not yet have fifty years, and have You seen Abraham?
58 Jesus said to them, Truly, truly, I say to you, Before Abraham came to be, I AM!" (John 8:55-58)

42 Then Jesus said to them, If God were your Father, you would love Me, for I went forth and have come from God. For I have not come from Myself, but that One sent Me.
43 Why do you not know My speech? It is because you are not able to hear My Word.
44 You are of the Devil as father, and the lusts of your father you desire to do. That one was a murderer from the beginning, and he has not stood in the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he speaks a lie, he speaks from his own, because he is a liar, and the father of it.
45 And because I speak the truth, you do not believe Me.
46 ? Who of you reproves Me concerning sin? But if I speak truth, why do you not believe Me?
47 The one who is of God hears the Words of God; for this reason you do not hear, because you are not of God" (John 8:42-47).

541

[quote]Fishlips wrote:
You seriously need to let some fresh air into your computer room Stella. It is incomprehensible how you continue to close your eyes to very direct, scriptural responses to your inquiries. Once again here you go, please make sure you have your glasses on. “I received from the Lord that which I also handed on to you, that the Lord Jesus in the night in which he was going to be handed over took a loaf and, after giving thanks, he broke it and said: ‘This means my body which is in your behalf. Keep doing this in remembrance of me.’ He did likewise respecting the cup also, after he had the evening meal, saying: 'This cup means the new covenant by virtue of my blood. Keep doing this, as often as you drink it, in remembrance of me.” 1 Cor 11:23-25

But of course this doesn’t say what you want it to say so you won’t consider it. You’re all too predictable.[/quote]

The scriptures are not indicated in that fashion. You’ve added your own words. Have you no reverence? Was it not you who said that anyone who alters the words of the Bible, even one iota, shall be afflicted by the plagues mentioned in Revelations? What a terrible web you’re starting to weave.