You were saying that Jesus couldn't be in two places at once. She pointed out how this was irreflective of God.

So Jesus took the bread, his flesh then became the bread while he was sitting at the table physically. He passed the bread around, the diciples literally ate his flesh and drank his blood and we're saved. Again, if you believe that, it's cool by me. I dont. My other points still stand aswell.

I believe accepting Jesus Christ is how one gains everlasting life. Accepting Christ and maintaining your faith in Him is how one is saved, to say this is not true... well...

What were your points?



Catholics would respond by pointing out that doing as Christ commanded is part of maintaining our faith.

That may be, and that may not. I cannot change your mind, as much as you can change my mind, I simply ask to look at my reasoning and ask God about it. after all He's the only one that knows the true answer. Oh but real quick you said: "I promise you it will end badly." I would suggest you to read this in your bible: (Matt 5:34-37), & (James 4:14,15). It's never too late to learn something new. P.S. I know the door swings both ways.



Well, whether you fully believe in God's grace or not, I don't think it's relative. but do you agree that only by Christ' crucified, is anyone saved? (cleansed of sin)

While I was waiting for my message to pass through, (I'm not trusted on the site yet, I think that it's after 50.. posts..? *unsure*) I decided to look at other peoples stuff that they posted on here, and found this one article posted by "Starflite" first just read it for the laugh of it. then you'll see a little of what I'm trying to say, in it.

I. Introduction
A local newspaper had a Sunday morning religion section that contained, among other things, letters to the editor about various religious issues. Most weeks these letters were pretty innocuous, but one Sunday something was printed that became quite controversial.


A man wrote:
I quit going to church this year. I decided that listening to sermons week after week was a stupid thing to do. After all, I went to church for more than 40 years and during my lifetime I probably heard 5,000 sermons. I can only remember about five of them. What a waste of time.
—Bored and Busy


This sparked a fury of incoming letters. Some people wrote that sermons do make a difference, while others sided with Bored and Busy’s opinion that they were basically meaningless and unnecessary.


Finally, one letter was printed that ended the debate:


I quit eating this year. Thanks to Bored and Busy’s insights, I decided that eating week after week was a stupid thing to do. After all, I have been eating for more than 40 years and during my lifetime I probably have eaten 5,000 meals. I can only remember about five of them. What a waste of time.
—Starved and Stupid

p.s. I'm not sure if copying and pasting, someone else's post is allowed on this site, but I guess if it's not they'll just delete it.

Those were all my origional points. They seemed to be taken in a different direction by debaters.

And Protestants would not disagree with this. Maintaining faith and accepting Christ are two different things however. Salvation comes through the acceptance of Christ, by eating the bread of life metaphorically (John 6:35) Not the physical eating of the bread and drinking of wine. However, if we do eat the physical bread and wine to follow the symbolism of what Jesus did for us that is fine.

(NIV) John 6: 47 I tell you the truth, he who believes has everlasting life. 48I am the bread of life. 49Your forefathers ate the manna in the desert, yet they died. 50But here is the bread that comes down from heaven, which a man may eat and not die. 51I am the living bread that came down from heaven. If anyone eats of this bread, he will live forever. This bread is my flesh, which I will give for the life of the world."

52Then the Jews began to argue sharply among themselves, "How can this man give us his flesh to eat?"

53Jesus said to them, "I tell you the truth, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you. 54Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day. 55For my flesh is real food and my blood is real drink. 56Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood remains in me, and I in him. 57Just as the living Father sent me and I live because of the Father, so the one who feeds on me will live because of me. 58This is the bread that came down from heaven. Your forefathers ate manna and died, but he who feeds on this bread will live forever."
----
The first line "he who believes has everlasting life 48 I am the bread of life" Shows the symbolism that if we accept Jesus Christ or believe in Him which is stated throughout the Bible we will have everlasting life. If Jesus is really saying that there are other means to eternal salvation it is in complete contradiction of verses 47 and 48, so for the sake of not contradicting one must take the rest metaphorically.

Christ was limited by time and space in the flesh. Christ can only be in one place at a time in the flesh and blood. You can argue God's omnipresence all you want, but Christ submitted himself unto the flesh. It's equal to you guys trying to say that Jesus could not have died because you can't kill God. He died because he submitted himself to flesh and blood, incarnate.


I'm sorry. It does not say Jesus at fish with them at all.

This post has been edited by God-Sent: Oct 13 2009, 11:55 PM

Christ was true God as well as true man. He could walk on water, multiply matter, instantly eradicate disease, control the weather, and otherwise circumvent the laws of nature. Why is bilocation such a doozy?



Here's a better verse:
But while they yet believed not, and wondered for joy, he said: Have you any thing to eat? And they offered him a piece of a broiled fish, and a honeycomb. And when he had eaten before them, taking the remains, he gave to them. (Luke 24:41-43)

I don't get it though, what's the relevance?

This post has been edited by Maria_AMDG: Oct 14 2009, 06:49 PM

This post.
Lol, I almost forgot, had to go back and refresh my memory on the discussion.

Or obviously Christ is meaning "If you believe, you will do." They aren't in contradiction. Otherwise how are we to interpret "He who loves me keeps my commandments"? (Cannot remember the verse right now)

If you accept Jesus Christ and believe in your heart that he is your lord and savior you are saved. No two ways about it.

However, I can see one drifting away from their beliefs or losing faith. That is a whole nother issue in itself.

I believe that following Jesus' comandments (as Bryce I believe stated ealier) is comming to Jesus. It is an act of accepting him into your heart. You are doing as you told him. This is where your salvation is worked out, humblely submitting to the path that God has pathed for us.

And also just think out powerful it would be if it really were Jesus' whole being in the Eucharist. This grace is a saving grace, as are many others. Sure, it is not the only thing that saves, but surely it helps on the journey to salvation. It aids and strengthens our faith. As we Catholics like to say, "The Eucharist is the source and summit of our faith."


I'd sugest that you reread what this topic is about John 6: 53-58

I believe this is also made very clear in the words of Jesus himself.

Also, the point about remembrence. It's acutally interesting because that is the same word used when refering to God remembering the rainbow. It is not in God's nature to forget, but whenever He sees the rainbow, he "remembers" the Covenate he made with Noah. How is this possible. It is because the word remember in this case is refering to renew or to make afresh. It is not just remembering what Jesus did. It is an act of renewal and re-representation of our covenent through Jesus' suffering and death.


This point is debatable about them not literally eatng the Flesh of Christ. I can quote things from 100 AD where apologitics are trying to explain how when they eat the flesh of Christ (and they believe it literally) how they are not being cannables, so I would disagree and say that those who first heard the Gosple acutally did, after Christ's death take part in the Eucharist.

This point is easily countered by the fact that the man on the cross next to him did not eat that bread. However he accepted Jesus and was saved. Someone on their death bed can accept Jesus and be saved. I can accept Jesus and be saved.

After the acceptance of Jesus out of the love for Christ one will want to do their best to please God. As a Christian I will continue to do my best to live for Christ in everything I do and I know that God is working in my life whether I eat bread or not. I have accepted the "bread of life" and am now living for Him, I will continue to praise Him and do the will of the father.

first off; AMEN!!!

second, that's kind of how I think too, and Zabby, thank-you for still being here, I love reading your replies! I still disagree with you on some things, but still brotherly love you! after all, if it weren't for correction no one would grow, right? well I think on this subject, (if you'll let me diverge for a minute) it's kind of like the question: "Which came first; the chicken or the egg?" see the way I believe is that, once you get saved, if you have truly tasted and seen, of God's glory, then you will want, to do whatever He asks of you, one of these things being; "Follow My commandments". now you know that it is written: "faith without works is dead", and it's true! because if you are not wanting, and doing the works that God calls you to, then you probably don't truly have faith in Him, because if you did, then you would. And you know that you're saved when you start following His commandments. That in a nut shell what I believe.
However from what you've said, (correct if I misread) you believe that by following His commandments, you will then be saved. however the relevancy, to this, according to my question I don't think it matters that much, so I'll ask it again;

When were the apostles saved? (cleansed of sin), or I guess it would be better to ask:
When were Jesus' 12 disciples saved? (cleansed of sin)

That formula isn't found in Scripture. Nor has Christianity historically understood salvation to be a one-time event, but a process.



This really doesn't take into account the idea or ordinary and extraordinary necessities. The person who can do as Christ commands but doesn't is not the same as the person who would do as Christ commands but can't.

Ah, you see this is where I believe you are missrepresenting or missunderstanding my ideas. You see, although I believe the Eucharist is a very central part of salvation, I do not refute the fact that people can be saved in other ways. God set up a path for all humans. He set up the Sacraments through Jesus' commandments and actions, but he is not limited by these. It has always been best expressed by saying, "The sacraments are bound to salvation, but salvation is not bound by the sacraments." God may save whomever he wishes. It is His will that is done in all of this, but he has insituded a Church and the sacraments to aid us in reaching that place of salvation. Although you guys probably will not agree with me, I think that the Catholic Church has done a pretty good job spreading the faith and perseving it because it consitutes about 3 billion people and hasn't changed in 2,000 years. I can't see any other denomination being able to do that in the long run (but that's just be being proud of who I am ).


My friend, I realize that from your prosepective you miss out on nothing, but I can promise you that there is a level of faith that I have that you can never understand. There is such an intament relationship that comes from the Eucharist and the other sacraments that I could never begin to explain to you. It always pains me when I think about it and realize exactly what you guys are missing out on. There is so much that comes from a liturgy, from the Eucharist. It is amazing. It's a feeling of being connected to both the past, present and future at the same time. It is a joining of heaven and earth. It is to truely be at the banquet table of the Lord, but also to be on the moutain of Calvery. It is the most exhillerating joy and the most devistaing sorrow at the same time, but that's enough from me on this. I could go on for hours and still never be able to truely discribe to you what exactly the Eucharist is to me, so I'll stop.


I believe you are missunderstanding me. I understand that I can come across very legalistic over these forums. That is not what I believe acutally. I think it is a two way street. God catches your heart or a little bit of it at least and then you start to follow Him and do His commandments. The more you obey Him and do as He wants, the more you fall in love with Him and the closer you are to perfection (aka salvation). It starts with a free choice to follow Him (a yes or no moment, which I believe you guys would call that salvation), but it continues after that with the life you live. The more you follow Him, the more you fall in love with Him. It's not about a moment of being saved because truely it is about loving our Lord and following in his ways. It is a two way streets that Works aid faith and faith aids works. There is no chicken and the egg for they produce each other.


Well being saved, in my opinion, is different from being cleansed of sin. I'd guess they were cleansed of sin at their baptisms just like everyone else is.

First, I dont want to sound argumentitive because I'm pretty sure you want to end this converstion lol. But Protestants are Protestants because we didn't agree with some of the Catholic ideals after Catholicism took off. Main reason why we are younger.


But thats where you need to be careful mate. God has worked wonders in my life and continues to do so. God is always helping me and showing me the way and I never doubt for a second His existance because of what He is doing for me and what He has done. I believe we share the same love for God as eachother, so I'll end this aswell by saying I believe that God loves us both and is looking to shed His light in both of our lives regardless of the title we give ourselves. We have both accepted Christ therefore we are both saved, if I misinterprited a verse in the Bible I know that I'll be forgiven, however, I do believe my interpritation to be the correct one. I'm sure we're both saved, and I'm glad you share that love for Christ that I do.

Actually it is: (Romans 10:9) "that if you confess with your mouth the Lord Jesus and believe in your heart that God has raised Him from the dead, you will be saved."



Ok, well I know what my next board is going to be about! but, let's for now, try and stick to the subject, not because I wouldn't enjoy that subject! but, because bible interpretations can go on forever! I think that's what the bible refers to as: "endless genealogies". ok, your reply was; "when they were baptized", well, you know as well as I do, that there are two baptisms; one done in calibration (water), and one down with the holy spirit. which one are you referring to? (God willing; I'm not going to guess, because last time I guessed what you meant, I apparently utterly failed. )

Hmm.. the water one. Once again, I believe things differently then you do when it comes to Baptisim. I believe that a Baptism is the outward sign of inward grace. I believe that the outward act of being baptized cleanes a person from Orignal sin. It gives them the Holy Spirit as a guide and a mentor. It imprints on their very soul the grace that a person needs in order live a christian life. The fruits of the Spirit are transfered in the baptism. Although, I know that you only believe to be a symbolic thing of accepting Christ, I honestly believe that a baptism serves a deeper and more important purpose. As for the baptism of the Holy Spirit, I believe if you're refering to Pentecost, then I believe that to be something else completely. That would be Confirmation and I can discuss that if you would like me to.

Yes, if you do these things, you will be saved. But, you shouldn't be reading it as "Once you do these things" but as "As long as you continue to do these things." See the "if you." If you stop, then that won't happen. If you continue, it will. Hence the idea that its a formula of "Do this and then you'll have been saved" isn't found except through a misconstruction of Paul's words here.

I read both your responses, and I think the real inquiry is; what is the truth, and that's a pickle isn't it? Obviously if we all knew the truth, we wouldn't still be here discussing it. but what is it? where does it come from? is there more than one.. truth? well no, that doesn't make since, there can't be more than one truth, otherwise it wouldn't be The Truth*unsure*

but where does it come from..? does it come from the elders in the church? Well no it can't because remember in Job, the youngest is the one who actually knew the truth, but does that mean it comes from the youth? Well no, the elders are the ones who studied long and know the truth...

But what is it?
about a year ago, this illustration came to me, and I think it does a pretty good job of answering that, here it is:
"There's a man standing in the middle of the road, and there's a truck coming at him, a big old semi-truck coming at 40miles an hour! Now there's a man standing on the sidewalk, the man on the sidewalk yells out to the man in the road "Dude! get out of the road!; there's a truck coming at you!!!" and the man in the road turns to him, patiently enough, and points to the truck and says; "I do not believe that, that truck exists." "

Well what's going to happen? is the truck going to magically disappear? No, despite variables, the truck is going to hit him and he is going to die, why? Because it does matter what you believe it doesn't change reality, and reality is the truth. (Now it's true he could have had God help him and survive, I'm not doubting that! but you really think that God is on this persons side?)
so I guess the real question is; How do you identify the Truth? *unsure* That's the real pickle.

Now you know as I do the scriptures that say that, if you are in Christ, then you are a member of the body of Christ, and the body though it had many members, and each member has it's own function, still the whole body agrees as one, if it didn't then it would not be a complete body, there would be parts that would be paralyzed. So I ask how can there be contentions in the same body, and it still function? That doesn't make since, imagine if your blood clotting system was in disagreement, you would bleed to death. Idk about you but that scares me. I personally rest well in the peace that God gave me, in knowledge, and wisdom, that if I should die tonight, or tomorrow, or fifty years from now, because I am saved past, present and future, that even if I should go crazy, or get amnesia, and forget all of my teachings, that still when I die, I should feast with the lord, that day!
but now for when in the flesh, can there be disagreements, in the same body? (I am referring to the church, and in so doing referring to the people in the church) Well yeah there can, but will it function properly if there are? I highly doubt it, we serve a wise God, not an idiot.

so I ask you to not just dismiss these things as disagreements, that can't be agreed on, because we are of different religions, because our God did not create religion, HE created the Truth. and of those there is only one!

P.S. Now this letter took me 2 hours to write and I'm tired, my time isn't set right on here, I'm actually an hour ahead, that's why my profile says that I've been recently viewing the help boards. Because I don't know how to change it. :/ but I'm going to bed now, I have church in the morning, so God willing, I'll talk to you tomorrow. God bless!!

P.P.S. Oh! and I almost forgot, I hate it when people don't quote scripture, so if you want to read up on the body thing, it's in (1 Corinthians 12: ) uhh pretty much the entire chapter. So God bless again!

@DDOG059

The main points I got from your post were:
1) There is only one Truth for all men
2) The Church of Christ must be united in that Truth or it cannot function as a true Body
3) Truth is important whether one accepts it or not, so disagreements are not petty things

If we also look at the fact that
4) the system of private interpretation has led to widespread doctrinal discord within Christianity

then do you recognize the need for an objective, impersonal, and infallible means of discerning the Truth for all men?

@Maria_AMDG

(This will be easy for the board to inspect) Yes.

Now, is there a point you're trying to make? *unsure*

Yes, Maria is making a point here. Allow me to fill in the next art.

What do we trust to be this infallible, visible authority? If it can't be ourselves just hoping the Holy Spirit leading us (for this has caused the multifarious splitting of churches in Protestantism), what then?

Why do you add two unrelated things?

What two unrelated things? Private interpretation and ecclesiastical history? Doctrines help cause what happens in those religions which consider themselves Christian, so unless you mean to say my relating of cause (Sola Scriptura) to effect (endless disagreement) is wrong, I have no idea what you're talking about.

This post has been edited by AquinasD: Oct 19 2009, 04:28 PM