- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Coaching Changes
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: Ecumenism - Is it happening??
Posted on 9/16/24 at 7:04 pm to Champagne
Posted on 9/16/24 at 7:04 pm to Champagne
quote:
If you don't eat the literal Flesh of our Lord Jesus Christ in the Sacrament of the Eucharist you "have no life in you." I didn't say this. Jesus did. That's how I feel.
Champagne, I think you understand I believe that the gospels are fan fiction from one of the early sects of Christians who believed in the beloved firstborn of creation (the highest ranking archangel) being killed/sacrificed in heaven and earning his name of “Jesus” after his death and resurrection which both took place in heaven.
For reference 1 Cor 2:8 has Paul describing the demons in the lowest heaven killing Jesus as part of a secret plan that the demons (archons of this aeon) didn’t know about.
Reference also Hebrews 9:11-12 which describe how Jesus who was God’s high priest in the heavenly temple was sacrificed and killed in this heavenly temple. The writer of Hebrews makes no mention of Jesus being on earth, and explicitly states he was in heaven and he died in heaven at the temple in heaven. The writer makes no mention of Romans or Jews killing Jesus because that story hadn’t yet been invented.
Can we agree that the Israelites and Jews were prohibited from consuming blood? I’m sure you believe Jesus was the high priest of the order of Melchizedek because that’s what the Bible says. In Genesis, Melchizedek celebrates with Abraham with bread and wine. Whoever wrote the gospel according to Matthew believed that Christians should follow every dot and tittle of the law - the old covenant that prohibited blood consumption. Do you think it’s possible that the story of eating the body and blood was meant to be symbolic instead of literal? Maybe drinking wine and eating bread in his memory is what “Jesus” wanted?
It’s like the term “eating fruit”. Like for example in the Song of Solomon the two lovers eat each other’s fruit and taste each others nectar. I don’t think the woman literally had pomegranates for ears and doves for eyes and a neck like a gazelle or whatever. There’s a lot of symbolism. How can you be certain that the Eucharist is supposed to be the literal blood and body of Jesus?
2
Posted on 9/16/24 at 7:14 pm to bayoubengals88
He is an illegitimate Pope.
Posted on 9/16/24 at 7:27 pm to Bjorn Cyborg
quote:Some (the majority) will get sucked in…
Why? It's never going to happen.
Posted on 9/16/24 at 7:33 pm to FooManChoo
quote:
I'm personally not concerned by this because the Scriptures do not teach this.
I am not sure what scriptures you read, but Jesus himself taught the real presence. He lost thousands of followers after revealing the nature of the eucharist. Does "take this and eat, this is my body given up for you" not ring a bell fo you?
Posted on 9/16/24 at 7:43 pm to Squirrelmeister
You’re very knowledgeable about the Holy Scriptures.
Please let me know where you base YOUR interpretations. Is it from a systemic theology course? From your denomination’s tenets? Or do you claim sole inspiration from the Holy Spirit to interpret? Or just your own intellect and personal intuition?
Please let me know where you base YOUR interpretations. Is it from a systemic theology course? From your denomination’s tenets? Or do you claim sole inspiration from the Holy Spirit to interpret? Or just your own intellect and personal intuition?
This post was edited on 9/16/24 at 7:47 pm
Posted on 9/16/24 at 7:49 pm to LeeeroyJenkins
quote:
You’re very knowledgeable about the Holy Scriptures.
Please let me know where you base YOUR interpretations. Is it from a systemic theology course? From your denomination’s tenets? Or do you claim sole inspiration from the Holy Spirit to interpret?
Don't take his bait
Posted on 9/16/24 at 7:49 pm to Knartfocker
quote:Yes and no. They aren't "coded" per se but these things are only understood truly due to the enlightenment of the Spirit of God.
If the source is God, were the epistles also coded so that only His people could understand?
The natural person does not accept the things of the Spirit of God, for they are folly to him, and he is not able to understand them because they are spiritually discerned. -1 Cor. 2:14
Posted on 9/16/24 at 7:53 pm to Mid Iowa Tiger
quote:Did you read my comments on John 6? Apparently not.
I am not sure what scriptures you read, but Jesus himself taught the real presence. He lost thousands of followers after revealing the nature of the eucharist. Does "take this and eat, this is my body given up for you" not ring a bell fo you?
Jesus lost followers and had people try to stone Him for what He said a lot. In John 6, Jesus called the thousands of followers out for their desire for more physical food (He had just performed a miracle to feed them all the day before) and when He told them that they had to eat of Him (spiritually) rather than seeking to fill their bellies, they left.
As I said before, Jesus used word pictures a lot, especially in John, to describe the salvation He brings to His people. He offered the Samaritan woman at the well "living water" (He was talking about Himself) and she thought He was talking about literal water. Likewise, Catholics think that Jesus was talking about His literal body when He was talking about the salvation He brings to those who are hungry.
Posted on 9/16/24 at 8:07 pm to bayoubengals88
I’m sure I’m oversimplifying, but isn’t Calvinism (Presbyterian theology) based off of the doctrines of St. Augustine? This ecumenical dialogue can surely detect a bridge there.
Posted on 9/16/24 at 8:13 pm to bkhrph
Calvin leaned heavily on Bernard of Clairveaux and Augustine to an extent, yes.
I’d argue that Roman Catholic soteriology, properly understood, is splitting hairs with Calvinistic soteriology, properly understood. Aquinas is a bridge too.
I’m a Presbyterian who isn’t shy about the hope of conditional morality or annihilationism, so I’m not a great sample. These are personal opinions and not terribly important.
I’d argue that Roman Catholic soteriology, properly understood, is splitting hairs with Calvinistic soteriology, properly understood. Aquinas is a bridge too.
I’m a Presbyterian who isn’t shy about the hope of conditional morality or annihilationism, so I’m not a great sample. These are personal opinions and not terribly important.
Posted on 9/16/24 at 8:14 pm to LeeeroyJenkins
quote:
Or just your own intellect and personal intuition?
Haven't read the banter, but IMO, no matter one's education, genetics or upbringing, the filter of one's "own intellect and personal intuition" always determines one's ultimate perceptive bubble.
Albeit, Biblical literalists believe that "you have no need that any man teach you anything, for the ANNOINTING (of the Holy Spirit of Truth) ye receive shall teach you of all things". I believe that this is a real Spiritual power.
Christians choose to believe that, LJ, and like the philosopher William James posited in his essay "The Will to Believe", there are things that only become tangible and real if belief is embraced. Firstly.
"He that seeks to know God, MUST FIRST BELIEVE that God exists". We live in a Subjective Universe, wherein at a particular point of the evolutionary learning process, we become "ripe to harvest" and are able to question and recognize the Knowledge of the Truth of God. No Belief=no God=no Self, at some point in time. Children of God inherently know this via their "intuition". That is fair, as we and all determine our own fate, according to the Universal Spiritual Law. God gave us a shot and it's up to us what we make of it.
To each their own. I only seek to control my own reality, and could care less to overrule or "build on another's foundation...", but I know that Evil, ignorance and the many flaws of the human psyche won't lend due respect in this particular version or 'parallel universe'. It'll be a dog fight till the Good Lord separates "the wheat from the tares". Good enough.
Posted on 9/16/24 at 8:16 pm to LeeeroyJenkins
It's really kind of depressing watching Christians tear into each other in threads like this.
Posted on 9/16/24 at 8:21 pm to FooManChoo
quote:
Jesus lost followers and had people try to stone Him for what He said a lot
You’re being disingenuous. They are not one and the same…the people trying to stone Christ were not His followers.
Nowhere else in the Gospels does it talk specifically about the DISCIPLES of Christ during His time on earth turning back and walking with Him no more, except in relation to His COMMAND to take and EAT of His body and DRINK of His blood.
Your interpretations postulated on here never existed in the East nor the West until the 1600s…even Luther and Calvin (both heretics on many issues) believed in the Sacrament of the Eucharist.
What AUTHORITY of the Church are you basing your theology on?
Posted on 9/16/24 at 8:21 pm to bayoubengals88
Google/Duck Duck Go/Brave ....
Black Pope
White Pope
Start there.
Black Pope
White Pope
Start there.
Posted on 9/16/24 at 8:30 pm to LeeeroyJenkins
quote:
Nowhere else in the Gospels does it talk specifically about the DISCIPLES of Christ during His time on earth turning back and walking with Him no more, except in relation to His COMMAND to take and EAT of His body and DRINK of His blood.
Doesn't vanilla wafers and cherry Kool aid once a year qualify as following his command ?
Posted on 9/16/24 at 8:34 pm to LeeeroyJenkins
quote:
LeeeroyJenkins
As a fellow Orthodox Christian and someone who's decided to engage in meaningless polemics on the Poliboard, my advice is to lay off. I've gotten heated and on the offensive in a lot of these kinds of threads and all that ends up happening is the arguments become scriptural ping pong, going back and forth for tens of pages with the atheists jeering and commentating on the sidelines until Chicken nukes the thread.
I get where you're coming from, though. I get super excited about Orthodox theology, too.
Posted on 9/16/24 at 8:35 pm to RiverCityTider
quote:
It's really kind of depressing watching Christians tear into each other in threads like this.
Self-affiliated titles don’t make up for false doctrines. Too many lies and false gospel teachings postulated by self-appointed teachers/preachers with absolutely no oversight and accountability. Protestantism is “every man a pope”…do as what seems right to you the individual based on your OWN interpretation of the Holy Scriptures.
We have a Supreme Court that constantly reinterprets case law yet somehow some guy sitting in the back pew has Divine revelation on Scripture taken out of context?
That is not the Church which Christ laid His life down for and over which He is Lord as He sits at the right hand of the Father.
Posted on 9/16/24 at 8:38 pm to Knartfocker
Thanks for the insight. I appreciate it and will do better to stay silent on such issues and pray for them instead.
Posted on 9/16/24 at 9:18 pm to bayoubengals88
The sitting Pope is a heretic.
Posted on 9/16/24 at 9:24 pm to LeeeroyJenkins
quote:
Please let me know where you base YOUR interpretations.
I normally use the ESV. I like that it uses the Septuagint and Dead Sea Scrolls to correct the base text derived from the Masoretic Text. I read scholarly books, listen to university lectures, listen to podcasts, and I dig down into the Greek and Hebrew to get to the original meanings and intent that translators have screwed up with their personal beliefs rather than writing what the text says. My favorite theist writer is probably the late Dr. Michael Heiser, while my favorite atheist writer would be Dr. Richard Carrier. My favorite podcast is “Dragons in Genesis” by a guy named Jason Foux - I think he is from Houma, LA.
quote:
From your denomination’s tenets?
I don’t belong to a denomination. I’m an atheist, but I don’t worship Charles Darwin or Richard Dawkins or anyone or anything. Whatever I read or hear, I don’t just believe it, but I fact check it using historical resources and the Bible itself.
quote:
Or do you claim sole inspiration from the Holy Spirit to interpret?
I do not.
quote:
Or just your own intellect and personal intuition?
Intuition is what made me into a non-believer but it wasn’t until adulthood that I began studying. I happen to be blessed in terms of IQ by natural selection and random chance. I tested in the 99.9 percentile as a child. Both my parents are highly intelligent and educated so I’m sure they gave me some good genes but also nurtured me. I was raised Catholic and went to church on every holy day of obligation, fasted during lent, and all of that Catholic stuff. My mom was the believer but my dad put on a good show coming to church with us. By the time I was about 10 though I had serious doubts that any of Christianity was real. By the time I was 12 or so I considered myself agnostic, and at 14 around the time I was forced to do confirmation I was a full fledged atheist. I can remember it like it was yesterday when playing 13-year old baseball allstars our coach did the “our lady of victory pray for us” chant… I remember looking around at all my deluded friends (my coaches and fellow players) that actually believed in the Christian god or that Mary was going to protect them from injury or help us win. To be honest I was a little jealous of them. I took some religion classes at LSU years ago but it’s been about the last 3-4 years that I started really studying. I actually think it might have been a Michael Heiser presentation I ran across the kickstarted me. As boring as I found church/mass to be, I found that studying the Bible and the ancient historical context was extremely fascinating.
Page 7 of 9
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News