Only One Truth

[quote]stellar_horizon wrote:
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.

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.[/quote]

Hey, now you’re just plagiarizing my expressions with all this web weaving stuff. Get your own.

You see Stella, I have no problem with the translation you quoted or the translation I quoted. My quote more accurately reflects how the statement was one of representation then literalism. But, with the understanding that Jesus was using a metaphor, your quote works fine also. Doesn’t work the other way round for you though does it? So for some reason a bunch of other bible translators saw fit to use a term that reflected representation out of thin air?

[quote]stellar_horizon wrote:
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.

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! [/quote]

Did Stella just admit he was WRONG? You did it very cryptically but you just admitted they weren’t real people despite trying to give the impression they were in an earlier post. Were you intentionally trying to mislead?

[quote]
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:
http://www.orthodox.net/questions/luke_16_19-31_parable_rich_man_lazarus_22sunape.html[/quote]

This parable of course has meaning. But if the things in this parable actually happen in real life, why wouldn’t Jesus just speak of them that way instead of making up a parable?

No he was not talking about people going to heaven or hell. For one thing, if you believe hell is a place of fiery torment, how would a finger dipped in water and touched to the rich man’s tongue bring any relief?

Jesus is telling this parable to the Pharisees. He is warning them of the fall from their privileged position and the rising up of the humble, spiritually hungry ones they have afflicted and oppressed to divine favor.

I’m going to bed, we’ll talk later good buddy!

[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?[/quote]

So if the writers were definitely inspired, and they passed along their teachings in an oral manner as well as a written, then why would you reject the things they verbally preached? Where in the Bible does it say to only abide by what the Apostles wrote while excluding what the Apostles verbally preached?

YOU’RE OBVIOUSLY MAKING YOUR OWN RULES.

[quote]
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.[/quote]
Were the prophets inspired? Was the prophet Ezekiel, Elijah, Moses, Jeremiah, and Elias inspired? Was St. John the Forerunner inspired? And speaking of the Jews until the time had come to follow the Christ, were they not the chosen people of God? Was it not He who said, “salvation is of the Jews” to the Samaritan woman? Did they not function as a community as did the Orthodox Christian Church in 33 AD up until today?

HOW DO YOU DISTINGUISH SOMEONE WHO IS INSPIRED FROM SOMEONE WHO IS NOT?

[quote]
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.[/quote]

Who developed the canon for the New Testament which you speak of? Was it not the faithful members of the Orthodox Christian clergy? And these same men, which you slanderously claim to be corrupt, was it not also by Divine inspiration that they formulated the Nicene Creed which professes the Christian Faith and the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church? To deny any one of the functions of the First Ecumenical Council of Nicea which (1)refuted the Arian heresy, (2)established the Nicene Creed, and (3)compiled the Bible is ridiculous, yet that’s exactly what you do. You pick and choose when, according to your false rationalizations, the Holy Spirit inspired the 318 Orthodox Christian bishops at Nicea to testify of God’s Truth.

According to you, the Divinely inspired Orthodox Christians bishops of 325 AD lost the grace of the Holy Spirit before rejecting the heresy of Arianism, then they were Divinely inspired by the Holy Spirit to compile the Bible, then again lost the grace of the Holy Spirit when establishing the Nicene Creed. The Bible itself gives no testimony of these matters, yet you draw your own assumptions - thus evident that the Bible does not encompass the entirety of your faith as you relentlessly proclaim.

HOW CAN YOU DISTINGUISH WHEN SOMEONE IS INSPIRED AND WHEN THEY ARE NOT?

[quote]
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 what particular teachings are you even referring to? The Orthodox Christian Faith is built upon the Rock while your theological system is built upon loose sand. You allege that your entire faith is based upon the Bible, yet in reality your theological system ventures far beyond anything Biblical and is composed of many faulty assumptions. How foolish of you indeed…

[quote]Fishlips wrote:
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…[/quote]

The immortal part of man’s being is the soul by God’s grace. When Lazarus died after 4 days, he was resurrected by Christ and took up the very same earthly body which was miraculously rejuvenated again with his immortal soul. When Jesus Christ resurrected, the boulder to His tomb was rolled away and the only object found within it was His burial garment. He was re-joined together with His Body. The reason nobody recognized Jesus Christ shortly after His resurrection when appearing to His disciples was because He was transfigured and capable of hiding His identity from them (until revealing Himself before the Ascension). Another way Orthodox Christians know it was Christ’s Body (the same one He was crucified with) was because He showed the Apostle Thomas His wound from where the centurion pierced Him in the ribcage.

The soul is immortal by God’s grace. All humans, regardless if they’re saints or sinners, shall be given new bodies in the Second Coming when God Incarnate, the Lord Jesus Christ, judges both the living and the dead, whose kingdom shall have no end. Amen.

[quote]Fishlips wrote:
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?
[/quote]
(1) So a priest wearing vestments when conducting the liturgical services diverts your focus from God? Weird how it does the opposite for everyone else. I appreciate glorifying those whose presence and life is completely dedicated to Jesus Christ. The aroma, the chanting, the iconography, such ambiance isn’t absolutely necessary for worship, but it definitely enhances the human experience by appealing to the senses. Wasn’t it you who acknowledged a page or so ago that the Jews enjoyed their ornate style of worship? What’s wrong with that?

(2) Do you perceive that when the prostitute dipped her hair into that very expensive, fragrant myrrh oil and started wiping Christ’s feet with her hair, she was doing wrong? And how scandalized were some of the Apostles, especially Judas Iscariot, when they pondered how she could’ve spent all that money to give alms to the poor instead, until Jesus Christ reprimanded them for harboring such thoughts.

(3) And relax, the vestments that Orthodox Christian priests wear during the liturgies were once happily donated by parishioners who either bought the garments themselves or provided funds for the clergy to do so. Besides the vestments, the icons, the iconostasis, the altar, the seats, the candle-holders, the incense-dispensers, the chalice, the mortgage… everything is donated by the Orthodox Christian faithful. Heck, who do you think buys the food provisions to feed almost 500 homeless people every other week in my NYC streets? So take from the above Biblical passage and don’t have an evil eye. These aren’t necessary for worship but being that us Orthodox Christians truly prize our clergy for bearing Apostolic lineage and Apostolic teaching, we honor them with high regard.

The Saints throughout the centuries, that’s who.

[quote]stellar_horizon wrote:
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!
Fishlips wrote:
Did Stella just admit he was WRONG? You did it very cryptically but you just admitted they weren’t real people despite trying to give the impression they were in an earlier post. Were you intentionally trying to mislead?
[/quote]
Not at all. I relayed the parable as if it were a reality because there’s a quite genuine message to be learned from it, in contrast to the message you conclude below:

[quote]Fishlips wrote:
This parable of course has meaning. But if the things in this parable actually happen in real life, why wouldn’t Jesus just speak of them that way instead of making up a parable?
[/quote]
Because Jesus Christ speaks metaphorically of an actual place the rich man & Lazarus go while He simultaneously emphasizes that those who wallow in overindulgence and luxury in this life, shall suffer in the next. Conversely, those who suffer yet live righteously in this life, will be comforted by the next. Because the soul is immortal by God’s grace, it will reap what it’s sown in the afterlife.

[quote]Fishlips wrote:
No he was not talking about people going to heaven or hell. For one thing, if you believe hell is a place of fiery torment, how would a finger dipped in water and touched to the rich man’s tongue bring any relief?[/quote]
Although Orthodox Christians don’t believe that hell is an actual place of fiery torment, Jesus Christ is relaying in this parable how people shall be in either heaven or hell on account of their lifestyle and conduct here on earth. Describing the insatiable desire of being relieved by a finger dipped in water metaphorically expresses and magnifies the suffering of those who perish in hell in terms which humans can easily grasp.

[quote]
Jesus is telling this parable to the Pharisees. He is warning them of the fall from their privileged position and the rising up of the humble, spiritually hungry ones they have afflicted and oppressed to divine favor.[/quote]
Interesting. That might be a possibility but only in addition to the message that Jesus Christ was clearly preaching the final disposition of heaven & hell to those in His presence. Often times, parables can be peeled like the layers of an onion and certain truths become increasingly evident to those whom God bestows His grace. Perhaps the Pharisees understood the parable in shallow terms (such as those which you suggest) while the righteous followers rejoiced at their travails since being enlightened by this parable in its deepest core, for their humble lifestyles would not be in vain and their efforts would not go unrewarded after death.

Fishlips, your response was quite the fabrication. How long will you persist in this delusion? I have no personal vendetta with you, but you refuse to believe what’s right there in front of you. Everything I’ve written is backed up by clear evidence, contrary to your posts which are riddled with long commentaries that have no decisive scriptural support; scriptures that you desperately twist according to your own private interpretation which is outside the framework of the Church in which the Bible was written. Remember, I don’t need the Bible to back up every dogma on the Orthodox Christian Church; it’s not the entire expression of my Faith. It was you who argued that every dogma that needs to be known is clearly outlined in the Bible.

To this day, the Orthodox Christian Church, which theologians acknowledge as the original Church of Jesus Christ, continues to ordain the clergy according to this tradition. There was never a time when Apostolic succession suddenly just sprung into practice in the Orthodox Christian Church. It was there from the very beginning.
(2) Early Church manuscripts dating back to 96 AD clearly express that Apostolic succession was a tradition which the early Church followed and taught.

The concepts of the Holy Trinity as well as the Eucharist have also been established in a likewise fashion. If these dogmas are fallible (as you assert), than why on earth did the Apostles and their successors continue to practice and teach them to the faithful? You call these traditions meaningless in direct opposition to the plea of the Apostles and the early Church, and that’s ok. You have the right to deviate from Apostolic teachings and practices, but don’t claim that you belong to the true Church.

They didn’t teach them.

St. Clement Of Rome (The Epistle Of Clement To The Corinthians, c. 96 AD)
Through Our Lord Jesus Christ our Apostles knew that there would be strife over the office of episcopacy. Accordingly, since they had obtained a perfect foreknowledge of this, they appointed those men already mentioned. And they afterwards gave instructions that when those men would fall asleep, other approved men should succeed them in their ministry. Therefore, we are of the opinion that those appointed by the Apostles, or afterwards by other acclaimed men, with the consent of the whole church, and who have blamelessly served the flock of Christ in a humble, peaceable, and disinterested spirit, and have for a long time possessed the good opinion of all, cannot be justly dismissed from the ministry.

St. Irenaeus (Against All Heresies, c. 180 AD)
When we refer them to that tradition which originates from the Apostles, which is preserved by means of the succession of presbyters in the churches, they object to tradition, saying that they themselves are wiser not merely than the presbyters, but than even the Apostles.

Therefore, it is within the power of all in every church who may wish to see the truth to examine clearly the tradition of the Apostles manifested throughout the whole world. And we are in a position to reckon up those who were instituted bishops in the churches by the Apostles, and the succession of these men to our own times… For if the Apostles had known hidden mysteries…they would have delivered them especially to those to whom they were also committing the churches themselves. For they were desirous that these men should be very perfect and blameless in all things, whom also they were leaving behind as their successors, delivering up their own place of government to these men.

"In this order, and by this succession, the ecclesiastical tradition from the Apostles, and the preaching of the truth, have come down to us. And this is most abundant proof that there is one and the same life-giving faith, which has been preserved in the church from the Apostles until now, and handed down in truth."

"It is necessary to obey the presbyters who are in the Church - those who, as I have shown, possess the succession from the Apostles. For those presbyters, together with the succession of the bishops, have received the certain gift of truth, according to the good pleasure of the Father. But we should hold in suspicion others who depart from the primitive succession and assemble themselves together in any place whatsoever. For they are either heretics or perverse minds, or else they are schismatics who are puffed up and self-pleasing… Therefore, it behooves us to keep aloof from all such persons and to adhere to those who, as I have already observed, hold the doctrine of the Apostles."

St. Hippolytus (Refutation Of All Heresies, c. 225 AD)
No one will refute these heretics except the Holy Spirit bequeathed unto the Church, which the Apostles - having received in the first instance - have transmitted to those who have rightly believed. But we, as being their successors and as participators in this grace, high priesthood, and office of teaching - as well as being reputed guardians of the Church - must not be found deficient in vigilance.

St. Cyprian Of Carthage (Letter To Magnus, c. 250 AD)
"He cannot be reckoned as a bishop who succeeds no one. For he has despised the evangelical and apostolic traditions, springing from himself. For he who has not been ordained in the Church can neither have nor hold to the Church in any way… How can he be esteemed a pastor, who succeeds to no one, but begins from himself? For the true shepherd remains and presides over the Church of God by successive ordination. Therefore, the other one becomes a stranger and a profane person, an enemy of the Lord’s peace."

Seventh Council Of Carthage (c. 256 AD)
“The words of our Lord Jesus Christ are plain that He sent His Apostles and gave to them alone the power that had been given to Him by His Father. And we have succeeded to them, governing the Lord’s Church with the same power.”

Fishlips, I’m simply alerting you in advance that I’m gathering information to refute your theology on the Eucharist with quotes from Patristic writings. I’ve been courteous enough to post 4 Biblical passages in the exact context by which they’re written, without adding or subtracting any words or phrases; each bearing a literal word-for-word interpretation. I’ve also stressed that your tradition of interpretation is severely flawed, a tradition which you can not defend other than by arguing is based upon “common sense” or “reason”, attributes others on this thread also argue comprise their basis of interpretation as well.

How can it be that so many argue their interpretation of scriptures is based on common sense & reason yet we see such wide variation in actual interpretations to the same passages? Is it possible that common sense is inefficient in discerning the scriptures? I believe you’ve already conceded to that in a whispering tone…

Either way, as I’ve proven the dogma of Apostolic succession, I’m ready to put the dogma of the Eucharist to the final round of debate. If you concede ahead of time, I’ll refrain from publically embarassing you. Either focus your attention upon the mystery of the Eucharist or concede. Either way, I 'll be ready to move on to other mysteries or doctrines of the Christian Church or those of other faiths.

Till we post again…

[quote]Fishlips wrote:
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.
[/quote]
And yet he says my flesh is TRULY meat. So I guess you need to decide which of Jesus statements is more to your liking?

Whoops!

[quote]Fishlips wrote:
You see Stella, I have no problem with the translation you quoted or the translation I quoted. My quote more accurately reflects how the statement was one of representation then literalism. But, with the understanding that Jesus was using a metaphor, your quote works fine also. Doesn’t work the other way round for you though does it? So for some reason a bunch of other bible translators saw fit to use a term that reflected representation out of thin air?

[/quote]

Not true. You only demonstrated that the verb “to be” could MEAN “to mean” in some instances.

[quote]Fishlips wrote:
mertdawg wrote:
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?

Not really clear on what your asking here. [/quote]

Go back a page to my links about the Liturgy of Saint James circa 50 AD. He claimed that Jesus gave him the words of the Liturgy-the first part of which was meant to instruct new converts. Then, some time later the Gospels were produced to BE the equivalent of the Torah reading in that Liturgy-AND NOTHING MORE!

[quote]doogie wrote:
Stella, you seriously may be insane. Not just deluded, but stark raving mad. [/quote]

They say I walk around like got an “S” on my chest
Naw, that’s a semi-auto, and a vest on my chest. Oh wait that’s stellar for you.

remember that these will be the type of people that you will be dealing with.

laters pk

[quote]Fishlips wrote:
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.
[/quote]

Don’t you get it! The whole reason for the prohibition against eating blood in the Torah was a foreshadowing of Christ’s sacrifice. IT WAS
I-D-O-L-O-T-R-Y to put animal blood in the place of Christ’s blood.

Also, the interpretation of the term “to be” as “means” only demonstrates that words are ambiguous. Which Greek verb should have been used instead? And which verbs were used in Aramaic in Matthew and Mark. Is, stands for, equals, means? Why didn’t he use the aramaic word which in Greek would mean for “represents/symbolizes?” He expressely didn’t. What does “This bread means my body” mean? You can’t say represents or symbolizes.

REMEMBER that coine Greek was a limited language. Words need to be used for multiple purposes.

Just a teaser here, not meaning to get overly semantic but:

If “this means my body” means this “represents”, but is not equivalent to my body then:

“a certain Greek verb” means “means”
only means that it represents but is not equivalent to the word “means” and may very well BE “is”

[quote]Fishlips wrote:
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.
[/quote]

Matthew 12: 5-7
Have you not read in the Torah that every Sabbath the priests in the temple actually break the Sabbath Law? I tell you there is something here greater than the temple.

[quote]Fishlips wrote:
How do you think Jesus appeared to his followers after his resurrection?
[/quote]

As different from our human flesh and blood as from bread and wine.

[quote]pkradgreek wrote:
doogie wrote:
Stella, you seriously may be insane. Not just deluded, but stark raving mad.

They say I walk around like got an “S” on my chest
Naw, that’s a semi-auto, and a vest on my chest. Oh wait that’s stellar for you.

remember that these will be the type of people that you will be dealing with.

laters pk[/quote]

highlights of things to come:
(a)Sig Sauer P228
(b)Benelli M3 Super 90
(c)A-15 Assault

wondering if I’ll get to pack any de@gLe_PoWe|2

hehe : )

mertdawg,
It’s disappointingly common, yet ultimately damning in every case, how the heterodox derive heretical interpretations from the Bible. Everything to them must become carnal and sensational and the spirituality of the Christian Faith suffocates under their deviant belief systems. For instance, Fishlips continues to trust in the power of reason to decipher the scriptures; reason which leads to speculation which often chokes out the seed of faith.

[quote]Fishlips wrote:
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.”
Fishlips wrote:
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?[/quote]
Why must every aspect of the Christian Faith make sense to Fishlips for him to accept it? His unbelief precedes him. Indeed the Apostles were one body. They were one body of faithful Apostles who converged upon a mysterious experience which the human mind is unable to fathom. The Eucharist mystically unifies Christians spiritually, yet Fishlips persists in filtering these events in a fleshly manner. When properly understood in a spiritual manner, this passage is harmonious with a literal interpretation.

[quote]
Fishlips wrote:
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.”
Fishlips wrote:
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?[/quote]
Yet another example where Fishlips harbors doubts because of his fleshly manner of Bible interpretation. Jesus Christ is sharing Himself mystically. Jesus Christ is whole and delivers His Body and Blood to the Apostles without the need to rip off His appendages. Or does Fishlips deny that God has the power to do so?

St. John the Forerunner
…God is able to raise up children to Abraham from these stones.”

I believe. Perhaps Fishlips does not.

Peace be with you brother in the Faith!

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

Fishlips wrote:
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.”
Fishlips wrote:
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?
Yet another example where Fishlips harbors doubts because of his fleshly manner of Bible interpretation. Jesus Christ is sharing Himself mystically. Jesus Christ is whole and delivers His Body and Blood to the Apostles without the need to rip off His appendages. Or does Fishlips deny that God has the power to do so?

[/quote]

Yes I have to agree. It when viewing these two examples. We have here an inconsistency in his argument which goes like this:

  1. If it doesn’t “make sense” for a literal interpretation, its a metaphor.

  2. If it supports the proposition of the Eucharist being Chris’t true body and blood it doesn’t “make sense”-right? because after all that would be impossible!

  3. Therefore: if it supports the proposition of the Eucharist being Christ’s true body and blood it must be a metaphor.

If there were a quote of Christ in the bible that went like this:

Look guys-in the future, some heretics are going to suggest that I’m just using a metaphor here, so I want to make it clear what I mean. This bread and wine will be for you my glorified body-in a completely NON-Metaphorical way not this crude earthly stuff you perceive with your senses, but the perfect, incorruptible body of the son of God!

Heretic’s interpretation:

It’s so obvious you dullards! He called it bread and then called it his body. Well, something can’t be bread and body at the same time! It doesn’t make sense. When he said it his body in a non-metaphorical way, he was using the word non-metaphorical as a metaphor. He didn’t mean it wasn’t non-metaphorical, but that it kind of different than a metaphore, but clearly some other kind of figure of speech. Also, when he said he want’s it to be clear what he means, he didn’t mean “means” he mean’t a meaning more like meaning a meaning of “representative meaning”

Someone a while back said that the genealogies recorded in Mathew and Luke contradicted. Here is my response to that asinine assertion. If said person(s) has left the thread, no matter:

The design of God the Holy Spirit in one of the Gospels (i.e., Mathew, Luke, etc.) is not the same as His design in another Gospel while relating to the same fact–yet some would have them all give the same turn (i.e., chronology, etc.) to their narratives. They make bold and ignorant assumptions because of differences. They declare them to be irreconcilable and contradictory to each other. They ignorantly assume for example that all the gospel writers are giving a chronological order of events. Anyways…

The genealogy given in Mathew 1:16 is given according to the law, by Solomon, the son of David, and by Jacob, the father of Joseph, the husband of Mary; And the other (Luke 3:23-38), is his genealogy according to nature, by Nathan, another son of David, and by Heli, the father of Mary.

A couple of reasons why atheists and skeptics like to see contradictions in the aforementioned Biblical texts, is because they a priori reject the virgin birth and the truth that Jesus Christ is God-man (i.e., really and truly God as well as really and truly human).

For if Jesus had not been virgin-born and if the genetic seed of Joseph were in Him, Jesus could not have been the Messiah, because He would have been of the lineage of Jechoniah, thus violating Jeremiah 22:30). Through the lineage of David, Solomon, down through Jechoniah to Joseph, God established for Jesus a legal title to David’s throne–but without placing Jesus in Jechoniah’s bloodline. Only through Mary, as recorded in Luke, is Jesus the actual, genetic son of David.

The Bible makes it very clear that Jesus was not the genetic son of Joseph. Luke wrote, “And Jesus Himself began to be about thirty years of age, being (as was supposed) the son of Joseph.”

In sum, the two different and complimentary genealogies are two lineages: Mathew presents Jesus’ legal claim as Messiah to David’s throne by way of His adoptive father’s lineage; the one in Luke presents His birthright as Messiah and heir to David’s throne by way of His bloodline through Mary, His birth mother.

The atheists and skepics have been sufficiently refuted and should now hang their heads in shame. And though they may keep on jabbering away, their mouths have already been stopped.

[quote]extol7extol wrote:
Someone a while back said that the genealogies recorded in Mathew and Luke contradicted. Here is my response to that asinine assertion. If said person(s) has left the thread, no matter:[/quote]

Ok, here are a few more to keep you busy for awhile. Riddle us this:

Gospel Contradictions:

  1. How many generations were there between Abraham to David? Matthew 1:17 lists fourteen generations. Matthew 1:2 lists thirteen generations.

  2. Is Paul lying? In Acts 20:35 Paul told people “to remember the words of the Lord Jesus, how he said, ‘It is more blessed to give than to receive.’” Since Jesus never made such a biblical statement, isn’t Paul guilty of deception?

  3. When did the leper become not a leper? (Matthew 8:13 & 8:14) Jesus healed the leper before visiting the house. (Mark 1:29-30 & 1:40-42) Jesus healed the leper after visiting Simon Peter’s house.

  4. Who approached Jesus? (Matthew 8:5-7) The Centurion approached Jesus, beseeching help for a sick servant. (Luke 7:3 & 7:6-7) The Centurion did not approach Jesus. He sent friends and elders of the Jews.

  5. Was she dead or just dying? (Matthew 9:18) He asked for help, saying his daughter was already dead. (Luke 8:41-42) Jairus approached Jesus for help, because his daughter was dying.

  6. Just what did Jesus instruct them to take? (Matthew 10:10) Jesus instructed them not to take a staff, not to wear sandals. (Mark 6:8-9) Jesus instructed his disciples to wear sandals and take a staff on their journey.

  7. When did John find out Jesus was the Messiah? (Matthew 11:2-3) While imprisoned. John the Baptist sent followers to Jesus to inquire if Jesus was the messiah. (Luke 7:18-22) While imprisoned. John the Baptist sent followers to Jesus to inquire if Jesus was the Messiah. (John 1 :29-34,36) John already knew Jesus was the Messiah.

  8. Who made the request? (Matthew 20:20-21) Their mother requested that James and John, Zebedee’s children, should sit beside Jesus in his Kingdom. (Mark 10:35-37) James and John, Zebedee’s children, requested that they should sit beside Jesus in his Kingdom.

  9. What animals were brought to Jesus? (Matthew 21:2-7) two of the disciples brought Jesus an ass and a colt from the village of Bethphage. (Mark 11:2-7) They brought him only a colt.

  10. When did the fig tree hear of its doom? (Matthew 21:17-19) Jesus cursed the fig tree after purging the temple. (Mark 11:14-15 & 20) He cursed it before the purging.

  11. When did the fig tree keel? (Matthew 21:9) The fig tree withered immediately. and the disciples registered surprise then and there. (Mark 11:12-14 & 20) The morning after Jesus cursed the fig tree, the disciples noticed it had withered and expressed astonishment.

  12. Was John the Baptist Elias? “This is Elias which was to come.” Matthew 11:14 “And they asked him, what then? Art thou Elias? And he said I am not.” John l:21

  13. Who was the father of Joseph? Matthew 1:16 The father of Joseph was Jacob. Luke 3 :23 The father of Joseph was Heli. Christians shall try to LIE and tell you that one is the heritage of Mary and the other Joseph. This is utter bullshit, the Hebrew and Greek cultures NEVER regarded the bloodline of the mother. They were patriarchal societies which only concerned themselves with paternal lineage.

  14. How many generations were there from the Babylon captivity to Christ? Matthew 1:17 Fourteen generations, Matthew 1:12-16 Thirteen generations.

  15. Matthew 2:15, 19 & 21-23 The infant Christ was taken into Egypt. Luke 2:22 & 39 The infant Christ was NOT taken to Egypt.

  16. Matthew 5:1-2 Christ preached his first sermon on the mount. Luke 6:17 & 20 Christ preached his first sermon in the plain.

  17. John was in prison when Jesus went into Galilee. Mark 1:14 John was not in prison when Jesus went into Galilee. John 1:43 & 3:22-24

  18. What was the nationality of the woman who besought Jesus? Matthew 15:22 “And behold, a woman of Canaan came out of the same coasts, and cried unto him, Have mercy on me, 0 Lord, thou son of David; my daughter is grievously vexed with a devil.” Mark 7:26 “The woman was a Greek, a Syrophenician by nation, and she besought him that he would cast forth the devil out of her daughter.”

  19. How many blind men besought Jesus? Matthew 20:30 Two blind men. Luke 18:35-38 Only one blind man.

  20. Where did the devil take Jesus first? (Matthew 4:5-8) The Devil took Jesus first to the parapet of the temple, then to a high place to view all the Kingdoms of the world. (Luke 4:5-9) The Devil took Jesus first to a high place to view the kingdoms, then to the parapet of the temple.

  21. Can one pray in public? (Matthew 6:5-6) Jesus condemned public prayer. (1 Timothy 2:8) Paul encouraged public prayer.

  22. If we decide to do good works, should those works be seen? Matthew 5:16 “Let your light so shine before men that they may see your good works.” 1 Peter 2:12 “Having your conversation honest among the Gentiles: that … they may by your good works, which they shall behold, glorify God in the day of visitation.” This contradicts: Matthew 6:1-4 “Take heed that ye do not your alms before men, to be seen of them…that thine alms may be in secret.” Matthew 23:3-5 “Do not ye after their [Pharisees’] works … all their works they do for to be seen of men.”

  23. Who did Jesus tell the Lord’s Prayer to? (Matthew 5:1, 6:9-13 & 7:28) Jesus delivered the Lord’s Prayer during the Sermon on the Mount before the multitudes. (Luke 11:1-4) He delivered it before the disciples alone, and not as part of the Sermon on the Mount.

  24. When was Christ crucified? Mark 15:25 “And it was the third hour and they crucified him.” John 19:14-15 “And it was the preparation of the Passover, and about the sixth hour; and he saith unto the Jews, Behold your king…Shall I crucify your king?” John 19:14-15.

  25. The two thieves reviled Christ. (Matthew 27:44 & Mark 15:32) Only one of the thieves reviled Christ. Luke 23:39-40.

  26. In 1 Corinthians 1:17 (“For Christ sent me [Paul] not to baptize but to preach the gospel”) Paul said Jesus was wrong when he said in Matthew 28:19 “Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them…” Clearly one of these people is wrong, either way, it’s a contradiction.

  27. When did Satan enter Judas? Satan entered into Judas while at the supper. John 13:27 Satan entered Judas before the supper. Luke 23:3-4 & 7

  28. How many women came to the sepulcher? John 20:1 Only one woman went, Mary Magdalene. Matthew 28:1 Mary Magdalene and the “other Mary” (Jesus’ mother) went.

  29. Mark 16:2 It was sunrise when the two women went to the sepulcher. John 20:1 It was still dark (before sunrise) when Mary Magdalene went alone to the sepulcher.

  30. There were two angels seen by the women at the sepulcher and they were standing up. Luke 24:4 There was only one angel seen and he was sitting down. Mark 28:2-5

  31. How many angels were within the sepulcher? John 20:11-12 two, Mark 16:5 one.

  32. The Holy Ghost bestowed at Pentecost. Acts 1:5-8 & 2:1-4 The holy Ghost bestowed before Pentecost. John 20:22

  33. Where did Jesus first appear to the eleven disciples? In a room in Jerusalem. Luke 24:32-37 On a mountain in Galilee. Matthew 28:15-17

  34. Where did Christ ascend from? From Mount Olivet. Acts 1:9-12 From Bethany. Luke 24:50-51

  35. Can all sins be forgiven? (Acts 13:39) All sins can be forgiven. Great, I’m happy to know God is so merciful, but wait (Mark 3:29) Cursing or blaspheming the Holy Spirit is unforgivable.

  36. The Elijah mystery: (Malachi 4:5) Elijah must return before the final days of the world. (Matthew 11:12-14) Jesus said that John the Baptist was Elijah. (Matthew 17:12- 13) Jesus insists that Elijah has already come, and everyone understood him to mean John the Baptist. (Mark 9:13) Jesus insists that Elijah has already come. (John 1:21) John the Baptist maintained that he was not Elijah.

  37. Who purchased the potter’s field? Acts 1:18 The field was purchased by Judas. John 20:1 The potter’s field was purchased by the chief priests.

  38. Paul’s attendants heard the miraculous voice and stood speechless. Acts 9:7 Paul’s attendants did not hear the voice and were prostrate. Acts 22:9 & 26:14

  39. Who bought the Sepulcher? Jacob, Josh 24:32 Abraham, Acts 7:16

  40. Was it lawful for the Jews to put Christ to death? “The Jews answered him, we have a law, and by our law he ought to die.” John 19:7 “The Jews therefore said unto him, It is not lawful for us to put any man to death.” John 18:31

  41. Has anyone ascended up to heaven? Elijah went up to heaven: “And Elijah went up by a whirlwind into heaven.” 2 Kings 2:11 “No man hath ascended up to heaven but he that came down from heaven, even the son of man.” John 3:13

  42. Is scripture inspired by God? “all scripture is given by inspiration of God.” 2 Timothy 3:16 compared to: “But I speak this by permission and not by commandment.” 1 Corinthians 7:6 “But to the rest speak I, not the Lord.” 1 Corinthians 7:12 “That which I speak, I speak it not after the Lord” 2 Corinthians.