Acts 4;14
the man was super-naturally, miraculously healed, and the Pharisees "could not contradict the fact or say anything in opposition".........AMPLIFIED BIBLE


a MIRACLE must be obvious, blatant, and in-disputable, EVEN TO THE UN-BELIEVERS..........that's the Bible Way.

but the (so-called) MIRACLE OF TURNING THE WAFER INTO CHRIST is not obvious...........it still looks like a wafer..............it's a fraudulent (alledged) miracle

the RCC must repent of this fraud.

many of the "protestant" Charismatic ministers are claiming great SIGNS, WONDERS, MIRACLES, DIVINE HEALINGS, etc.............but much of that stuff looks like frauds, also

It's SHOW-BIZ!
Entertainment,
sleight of hand, for the gullible

Real Christianity is not fleshly and sexy enough for the carnal people, so, ......the un-regenerated people turn Christianity into a circus act.

Many are called...........Few are chosen.
Many are corrupt.........few are genuine.

Well: "Blessed are those who believe without seeing...."--Jesus

"'Eis' REMAINS 'eis...'--Martin Luther

"This IS My Body......"--Jesus

"'Except ye eat my flesh and drink my blood, you have not life in you'.... Because of this saying many former disciples stopped following Jesus..." John 6:66.

Many disciples left him because they understood His Words to be 'cannibalism' according to their sensibilities. All Jesus had to do was just call after them and say: "Hey guys; I WAS JUST KIDDING!" or "Come on; it's all JUST SYMBOLIC" OR "Really guys; it's JUST A METAPHOR!" I find it interesting that Jesus never back-tracked at all. If people rejected the plain truth, JESUS LET THEM GO.

So here we have it. You either believe Jesus' Words, or you don't. I hope you noticed that the Scripture citing those who reject the Eucharistic understanding of His Words, says THEY LEFT CHRIST! And that Scripture is John 6:66. If you want to worry about the 'number of the beast,' you need look NO FURTHER: YOU EITHER BELIEVE THE WORDS OF JESUS CHRIST OR YOU DON'T. Will you be a Disciple, or follow the 6:66 crowd?

i believe the bible

Jesus said: don't call anyone here on earth father, for you have only one father who is in heaven

this is the easiest verse in the bible to believe and obey, and you have not believed it, nor obeyed it.

ATTENTION dENNIS:

Although my upbringing was in the Protestant realm, I find the Catholic faith to be good example's
of the instructions that our Lord Jesus Christ demonstrated to mankind, regarding the celebration of his
body and shed blood.
I think more Protestant's should review how sincere the Catholic calling is in reference to the
honor placed on the Eucharistic remembrances.
And as far as calling my father (parent-dad) who has been dead for 28 years, something other than
my surname genetic's of the word `father`, I do not and will not stop honoring him . . .
Do you allow your children to call you father ?
Do you consider your father a slang name for the word ' dad ' and the mother a slang name ' mom ' ?
Caution in reference to the word father.
Entire civilizations are based on the honor of the word father in all cultures.
So I believe the interp of Jesus, was clearly not to commit idol worship in our hearts. If the word
father is condemned in the New Testament, then to hell we are headed . . .

God (IHVH) forbid, that . . .

That is a different discussion; DO pay attention, old boy!

However, if you'd like to have that one, please feel free to start a thread on that subject. Don't just disingenuously try to 'misdirect' from the topic at hand.

Some of these comments are so full of hatred and resentment toward the RCC that you have to discount them all together... it seems that correct doctrine is more important than love?

Caneman

why did you call me boy?

are you thinking that you're better than me?

who are you the father of?

who are your children?

are you trying to intimidate us with your intimated superiority?

are you claiming to be the FATHER GOD IN HEAVEN?

why does the pope claim to be the HOLY FATHER?.........THE NAME OF FATHER GOD IN HEAVEN.............the Name of Jesus's God.

why does the pope claim that mary is MOST HOLY?............isn't it true that the FATHER GOD IN HEAVEN is the MOST HOLY?.......(rather than mary)?

don't you want to be Christ-like and humble?

are you promoting the RCC?

1Co 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?
1Co 10:17 For we being many are one bread, and one body: for we are all partakers of that one bread.
1Co 10:18 Behold Israel after the flesh: are not they which eat of the sacrifices partakers of the altar?
1Co 10:19 What say I then? that the idol is any thing, or that which is offered in sacrifice to idols is any thing?
1Co 10:20 But I say, that the things which the Gentiles sacrifice, they sacrifice to devils, and not to God: and I would not that ye should have fellowship with devils.
1Co 10:21 Ye cannot drink the cup of the Lord, and the cup of devils: ye cannot be partakers of the Lord's table, and of the table of devils.
1Co 10:22 Do we provoke the Lord to jealousy? are we stronger than he?
1Co 10:23 All things are lawful for me, but all things are not expedient: all things are lawful for me, but all things edify not.



The LORD'S SUPPER has nothing to do with eating and drinking the LORD'S LITERAL PHYSICAL body and blood.
(drinking literal blood is sin)

it is a "participation in a fellowship (a communion) in the blood and body of Christ".......AMPLIFIED BIBLE

the One Bread represents the Body of Christ.

we Christians are One Body, the Body of Christ

so, we are consuming bread and wine which is not the literal Christ's Body and Blood..........we consume bread and wine which represents Christ's Body and Blood.

I'm a protestant and I too believe that the Eucharist is Jesus's body and blood and not just a symbol of his body and blood. I get the heebee jeebies whenever the pastor calls it a symbol. I wish we still had the depth of meaning in our service that Catholics have.

So are you actually a part of the body of Christ Dennis or just symbolically part of it.

This message makes it clear that it is our partaking of the one bread makes us part of the one body.

It does not say that the one bread REPRESENTS the body of Christ it says it IS the body of Christ. Stop changing the words of scripture.

You can't have it both ways. If you are only symbolically eating the one bread then you are not actually eating the one bread and are therefore not actually part of the body of Christ.

So therefore if you want to be of the Body of Christ you MUST eat of the Body of Christ.

This issue is a matter of great alarm for me as I deeply desire to be of the Body of Christ. So I believe despite the failings of my pastors teaching that I am eating the body of Christ. May God have mercy on my soul.

1 COR 10;16
AMPLIFIED BIBLE


16The cup of blessing [of wine at the Lord's Supper] upon which we ask [God's] blessing, does it not mean [that in drinking it] we participate in and share a fellowship (a communion) in the blood of Christ (the Messiah)? The bread which we break, does it not mean [that in eating it] we participate in and share a fellowship (a communion) in the body of Christ?

17For we [no matter how] numerous we are, are one body, because we all partake of the one Bread [the One Whom the communion bread represents].

18Consider those [physically] people of Israel. Are not those who eat the sacrifices partners of the altar [united in their worship of the same God]?(J)

19What do I imply then? That food offered to idols is [intrinsically changed by the fact and amounts to] anything or that an idol itself is a [living] thing?

20No, I am suggesting that what the pagans sacrifice they offer [in effect] to demons (to evil spiritual powers) and not to God [at all]. I do not want you to fellowship and be partners with diabolical spirits [by eating at their feasts].(K)

21You cannot drink the Lord's cup and the demons' cup. You cannot partake of the Lord's table and the demons' table.

22Shall we thus provoke the Lord to jealousy and anger and indignation? Are we stronger than He [that we should defy Him]?(L)

23All things are legitimate [permissible--and we are free to do anything we please], but not all things are helpful (expedient, profitable, and wholesome). All things are legitimate, but not all things are constructive [to character] and edifying [to spiritual life].

24Let no one then seek his own good and advantage and profit, but [rather] each one of the other [let him seek the welfare of his neighbor].

25[As to meat offered to idols] eat anything that is sold in the meat market without raising any question or investigating on the grounds of conscientious scruples,

26For the [whole] earth is the Lord's and everything that is in it.(M)

27In case one of the unbelievers invites you to a meal and you want to go, eat whatever is served to you without examining into its source because of conscientious scruples.

28But if someone tells you, This has been offered in sacrifice to an idol, do not eat it, out of consideration for the person who informed you, and for conscience's sake--





It says that they ate and drank wine and bread-------not blood and Christ's muscles

and food offered to idols is not........" [intrinsically changed by the fact and amounts to] anything or that an idol itself is a [living] thing"

It also says that the wine and bread ARE the blood and body of Christ.

The bread and the wine despite their physical properties are in spiritual reality the blood and body of Christ.

So just as the Spiritual God when shone into the world was manifested as Jesus Christ. Even though he looked and was 100% flesh and blood he was also 100% fully divine spirit God at the same time. So too with the sanctified bread. That tortured and broken body that languished upon the cross and that shed blood which ran down and spilt upon the ground is an eternal sacrifice which manifests itself and is made real to us through the Eucharist. It is therefore a remembrence of his one time sacrifice. Not a symbolic rememberence but an actual and real remembrence as though we were there in the flesh and experienced his pain. So we share in his sacrifice and absorb and are his sacrifice in reality. By calling the bread and wine symbols we abstract ourselves away from this oneness of sharing in his body.

So although the bread and wine are 100% bread and wine they are also 100% the body and blood of Christ.

Do you agree that Christ is wholly man and wholly God at the same time? Is this not a miracle which you have no evidence of but believe by faith? Why then do you have trouble believing that the sanctified bread and wine is wholly bread and wine and wholly body and blood of Christ?

Mat 26:26 And as they were eating, Jesus took bread, and blessed it, and brake it, and gave it to the disciples, and said, Take, eat; this is my body.
Mat 26:27 And he took the cup, and gave thanks, and gave it to them, saying, Drink ye all of it;
Mat 26:28 For this is my blood of the new testament, which is shed for many for the remission of sins.
Mat 26:29 But I say unto you, I will not drink henceforth of this fruit of the vine, until that day when I drink it new with you in my Father's kingdom.



jesus held the cup and bread in his hand and said .........this is my body and blood..............literally? ........did he cut a hunk of flesh out of himself, and give it to the disciples to eat?


the OT forbids an ISRAELITE from eating/drinking blood.........jesus was/is an ISRAELITE.........so, he never drank blood...........he obeyed the Law PERFECTLY

the pope claims that jesus broke the Law (the pope is teaching heresy)

This is kind of off topic, but it's a question that's been on my mind for forty years. This "wafer" that the Catholics eat, what the heck is it? It doesn't taste like bread, it doesn't take like a cracker, just what the heck do they make that thing of? Do they have a special wafer press in Rome or do they get a license and a press to bake them locally? I'm not being sarcastic, this is just a question from my catholic youth.

i remember reading somewhere, years ago,
the wafers are made of WHEAT..............as in Jesus said.........I AM THE BREAD FROM HEAVEN (BREAD = WHEAT)

and there was a child who was allergic to wheat, so they asked the RCC if they could substitute rice cake for the wheat wafer...........the answer was NO


i'm assuming that (to be most biblical).........the bread/wafer would be WITHOUT LEAVEN.........as in the Passover............(leaven = sin)..........THE DAYS OF UNLEAVENED BREAD
but, since the bread is ONLY SYMBOLIC, perhaps the leavened bread would be acceptable to God (in this dispensation)...........i don't know

the LORD'S SUPPER was near the PREPARATION DAY (preparation for the passover lambs to be killed), so thier bread may have been WITHOUT LEAVEN AT THE ORIGINAL Lord's Supper

our local churches (protestant) often use grape juice (instead of wine) ..........they don't want to be accused of serving alcohol to anyone, especially minors.

Jesus Christ and the Paschal Lamb are a type and shadow of each other. What did the Israelites do with their sacrifice? They ate it, Exodus 12:8.

sojourner

Matthew 6:53

"Jesus said to them, "Amen, amen, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you do not have life within you."

Matthew 6:66

"As a result of this, many of his disciples returned to their former way of life and no longer accompanied him."

Go ahead, read the entire Bread of Life Discourse. I don't know how things could be any clearer.

sojourner

Lemme get this straight...

You are a protestant that believes Roman Catholicism has it right. Right ?

Can any other name brand clergy turn wine into Christ's blood the same way RC claims they can ?

Can any other name brand clergy forgive sins like RC clergy claim they can ?

If you really believe Roman Catholic doctrine, then you really are a Roman Catholic,
whether you know it or not or admit it or not.

You say this by way of insult I see.
If I agree with RC doctrine then why would I be offended to be called a Roman Catholic. I pray that God will consider me a Roman Catholic, a member of the one holy universal apostolic church, on the last day of judgement. It is only a few months since I have come to these understandings. If you go back to the Peter was not a Pope thread you will see that this is about where I started to learn about the RCC doctrines and could not refute them using the scripture or any other sound argument.

It is imperative that when we learn the truth that we must change our beliefs no matter what the personal cost. I am not sure at this stage whether or not I have to leave my protestant church and go to the RCC or not. At some stage I will need to go and find a priest but it has been such a huge personal change for me already so I am just pacing myself a bit and I must admit I am avoiding the issue to some extent which is not good. I expect this will cause massive division and fracture in the life of my home, family and friends. At this stage I am keeping somewhat quiet on the whole issue because like many here my family and friends are not prepared to give RCC teachings the time of day. My parents literally hate and despise the pope and the RCC.

You touched on the role of the priest in turning the bread and wine into the body and blood of christ. This is indeed a matter of grave concern to me because I truly do want to eat the body of Christ and drink his blood.

I wish that my family had been brought up RCC so that I would not have to go through this. This is why I get so angry when I see people on this forum who reject the RCC and despise the birthright which God has given them, not understanding what inestimable value it has.

Sorry if you take my post as an "insult".

If you agree with/believe RC doctrine, then you should not be offended by being considered a RC.

If one truly believes RC doctrine,
then considerable scripture indicates that one should become a RC, pure and simple.

True worshipers must worship "in spirit and truth".

Promoting RC doctrine while claiming to be a Prot just makes you appear fuzzy headed.

No insult intended. That's just the way it is.

Needless to say, but I can't help repeating, RC AND Prot organized religions are saturated with error.

"broad is the path leading to destruction"

You write "At some stage I will need to go and find a priest"

Plainly error and falsehood are rampant in this world.

Ever consider just going in prayer directly to Jesus alone and to scripture alone?

"beware the leaven of the scribes and pharisees"

"Jesus's sheep hear Jesus's voice"

You meant no insult and yet you accuse me of being fuzzy headed and following men and not Jesus and belonging to a denomination which is saturated with error and rampant falsehood, leavened with the doctrine of the scribes and pharisees, and which is on a path leading to destruction.

If that is you when you are NOT making an insult then I'd hate to be around when you actually ARE making an insult.

Let it be noticed that John Prewett does not believe that any Christian should seek counsel from any priest or pastor on religious matters. Those of you who have a meeting with your pastor for advice on the Christian walk are on the path of error, falsehood and on the path that leads to destruction. You are also accused of rejecting Christ as your shepherd and of rejecting the scripture as the guide of your life. So goes the doctrine of John Prewett. What next?

at the Lord's Supper, Jesus did NOT tell the 12 ISRAELITES to drink His (literal) Blood............that is against the MOSAIC LAW

JESUS is NOT a Lawbreaker

Yes he did tell them to drink his blood, Absolutely he did.

John 6:32 Then Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Moses gave you not that bread from heaven; but my Father giveth you the true bread from heaven. 33 For the bread of God is he which cometh down from heaven, and giveth life unto the world. 34 Then said they unto him, Lord, evermore give us this bread. 35 And Jesus said unto them, I am the bread of life: he that cometh to me shall never hunger; and he that believeth on me shall never thirst. 36 But I said unto you, That ye also have seen me, and believe not. 37 All that the Father giveth me shall come to me; and him that cometh to me I will in no wise cast out. 38 For I came down from heaven, not to do mine own will, but the will of him that sent me. 39 And this is the Father's will which hath sent me, that of all which he hath given me I should lose nothing, but should raise it up again at the last day. 40 And this is the will of him that sent me, that every one which seeth the Son, and believeth on him, may have everlasting life: and I will raise him up at the last day. 41 The Jews then murmured at him, because he said, I am the bread which came down from heaven. 42 And they said, Is not this Jesus, the son of Joseph, whose father and mother we know? how is it then that he saith, I came down from heaven? 43 Jesus therefore answered and said unto them, Murmur not among yourselves. 44 No man can come to me, except the Father which hath sent me draw him: and I will raise him up at the last day. 45 It is written in the prophets, And they shall be all taught of God. Every man therefore that hath heard, and hath learned of the Father, cometh unto me. 46 Not that any man hath seen the Father, save he which is of God, he hath seen the Father. 47 Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that believeth on me hath everlasting life. 48 I am that bread of life. 49 Your fathers did eat manna in the wilderness, and are dead. 50 This is the bread which cometh down from heaven, that a man may eat thereof, and not die. 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. 52 The Jews therefore strove among themselves, saying, How can this man give us his flesh to eat? 53 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. 54 Whoso eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, hath eternal life; and I will raise him up at the last day. 55 For my flesh is meat indeed, and my blood is drink indeed. 56 He that eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, dwelleth in me, and I in him. 57 As the living Father hath sent me, and I live by the Father: so he that eateth me, even he shall live by me. 58 This is that bread which came down from heaven: not as your fathers did eat manna, and are dead: he that eateth of this bread shall live for ever. 59 These things said he in the synagogue, as he taught in Capernaum.


So was manna the bread from heaven symbolic bread. No it was real bread. Can symbolic bread sustain you? Of course not. So how then can symbolic bread sustain you for eternity. Jesus said that our bread shall be his flesh given to us for us TO EAT. If you don't drink his blood then you have no life in you. Does symbolic blood give symbolic life. What is symbolic life anyway? I want real and eternal life, therefore I must drink real and eternal blood. How many times does Jesus have to say it before you get the picture. He says EAT MY FLESH and he says DRINK MY BLOOD.

Are you revolted by this Dennis? Does it assault everything you have ever learned. Does it nauseate you. Well I sympathise. I am revolted as well. But where else can I go? If my Lord and Master commands me then I must do his command even though my sensibilities are assaulted. If my Lord and Master commands that I must do it if I am to have eternal life then I am going to do it. Simple as that. Who is greater Moses or Christ? I will be obeying Christ thanks. If you think there is some conflict between Moses and Christ then take it up with Christ. But you want to obey Moses do you? So you say to Jesus "Well Jesus I know that you said that we must drink your blood, but you don't actually mean that do you Lord, what you are really trying to say is that we just drink it symbolically". How do you drink something symbolically. You either drink it or you don't. The whole concept of a symbolic drink is nonsensical.

Of course like you many of Jesus disciples were horribly revolted and many of them departed and rejected Jesus.

John 6:60 Many therefore of his disciples, when they had heard this, said, This is an hard saying; who can hear it? 61 When Jesus knew in himself that his disciples murmured at it, he said unto them, Doth this offend [2] you? 62 What and if ye shall see the Son of man ascend up where he was before? 63 It is the spirit that quickeneth; the flesh profiteth nothing: the words that I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are life. 64 But there are some of you that believe not. For Jesus knew from the beginning who they were that believed not, and who should betray him. 65 And he said, Therefore said I unto you, that no man can come unto me, except it were given unto him of my Father. 66 From that time many of his disciples went back, and walked no more with him. 67 Then said Jesus unto the twelve, Will ye also go away? 68 Then Simon Peter answered him, Lord, to whom shall we go? thou hast the words of eternal life. 69 And we believe and are sure that thou art that Christ, the Son of the living God.

Many disciples rejected him and never followed him again because they could not stomach this teaching. They rejected the Son of the living God, the Christ, the one who has the words of eternal life. Surely you are not going to follow their example Dennis.

I urge you, and all Christians to eat his flesh and drink his blood for the sake of your eternal soul.

Perhaps "old chap" is more to your liking! So, old Chap, I must say you have altogether lost the topic of discussion here. Do you ALWAYS do that when you are losing a debate YOU STARTED?

So do pay attention, and we'll get back to the discussion of the EUCHARIST, which is what you started this thread for. Otherwise, why bother to have 'threads' at all; we can all just post random comments all over the map like you've done here (AGAIN), in an effort to deflect and misdirect.

I'm perfectly willing to have all these discussions, if you can calm yourself enough to start different threads on them. In lieu of that, if you just want to concede you lost your original point ("I win!!!), then we will move on to some of these things........

Jesus is not a Law breaker.
He never told the 12 israelites to drink literal blood.

the wine was a symbol of blood

the RCC is carnal, physical, fleshly, earthly

Christians are heavenly, SPIRITUAL, .........they don't do PHYSICAL SACRIFICES ANYMORE, SINCE JESUS OFFERED THE ONLY ADEQUATE, ONCE-FOR-ALL-TIME SACRIFICE ON THE CROSS

the pope is a blasphemer, and cannot understand the Scriptures..........or he understands the Scriptures and opposes them on purpose.

How can you have "fellowhip" WITH SYMBOLS??? One fellowships with PERSONS. If the Real Presence of Christ is not in the elements, then you are NOT fellowshipping with Him in the Eucharist. You are holding a dead, meaningless, empty ritual; just the sort of thing God says He ABHORS! Make up your mind: Either believe Jesus and 'eat His flesh, and drink His blood' or follow the 6:66 doctrine.

Well, almost all of us in Sacramental churches use the same sort of bread for our hosts. And one wag observed that the real miracle at Eucharist isn't the Presence of Jesus in the elements, but rather that THEY CALL THAT STUFF 'BREAD!'

It is usually the simplest mix of wheat flower, a little salt, and water, which yields a pretty much tasteless bread.....

you're not the FATHER GOD IN HEAVEN!

neither is the pope!

change your name, before it's too late!

Lemme get this straight......

You didn't even know that LOTS of other churches besides the Roman Catholics believe in the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist?

You didn't even know that the Priest DOES NOT 'change the elements;' it is rather God who does so?

You didn't even know that EVERY Sacramental church offers a Sacrament of Confession and Remission?

If you really believe these few things you have mentioned, you are of the 'catholic' faith, but may not be "Roman Catholic." You could be Episcopalian, Anglican, Utrecht Catholic, any of the myriad Orthodox churches, Old Catholic Church in America, Charismatic Episcopal Church, Byzantine Catholic, and the list could go on with at least 100 other names.

The doctrines you mentioned are NOT unique to Rome. Roman Catholicism requires the acceptance of a whole host of other things peculiar jus tto them.

OK. Maybe I have been less than entirely clear. So to help you out, I will start a thread on 'Call no man father' just for you! In fact, I will open the thread, and you can post first. Let's not keep trying to muddy up the waters here, shall we?

PS: Most people still just call me "Leonard;" I hope that is some solace to you.

Thanks for answering part of my question, I always wondered. The second part of my question, I found on the internet. Where does it come from? It used to be baked by nuns in convents. Now that there are not enough nuns to go around, most of them are baked by one company, Cavanaugh baking. Another interesting note, before Vatican II, they were baked to disolve on the tongue, that's the wafer I remember, after that they made it thicker to make it more like bread but apparently still as tasteless. Just a little wafer history...

Reading this,,,
reminds me of Jesus conversation w/ Nicodemus,
who was just as baffled at the idea of being born again.

COMMENTARY VIA crownsevenalphabet:

Thank you Leonard (smile) . . . God bless you . . . and all who are exchanging these profound
discussions of the truth . . . Below I have listed my belief in relationship to : Eucharist/bread-wine/manna

The Spirit promises . . . that it will eat of the hidden manna and receive a new name.

"How natural, then, the allusion to this custom in the words of the text, 'I will give him to eat of the hidden manna!' and having done this, having made him partake of my hospitality, having recognized him as my guest and friend, I will present him with the white stone, and in the stone a new name written, which no man knoweth save he who receiveth it. I will give him a pledge of my friendship, sacred and inviolable, known only to himself."
On the new name, Wesley very appropriately says:- "Jacob, after his victory, gained the new name of Israel. Wouldst thou know what thy new name will be? The way to this is plain - overcome. Till then, all thy inquiries are vain. Thou wilt then read it on the white stone."
http://www.lightministries.com/id204.htm

THE THIRD CHURCH -- PERGAMOS



“And to the angel of the church in Pergamos write: These things saith he which hath the sharp sword with two edges: I know thy works, and where thou dwellest, even where Satan's seat is; and thou holdest fast my name, and hast not denied my faith, even in those days wherein Antipas was my faithful martyr, who was slain among you, where Satan dwelleth. But I have a few things against thee, because thou hast there them that hold the doctrine of Baalim, who taught Balak to cast a stumbling block before the children of Israel, to eat things sacrificed unto idols, and to commit fornication. So hast thou also them that hold the doctrine of the Nicolaitans, which thing I hate. Repent, or else I will come unto thee quickly, and will fight against them with the sword of my mouth. He that hath an ear let him hear what the Spirit saith unto the churches: To him that overcometh will I give to eat of the hidden manna, and will give him a white stone, and in the stone a new name written, which no man knoweth saving he that receiveth it.” Revelation 2:12-17.
http://www.lightministries.com/id204.htm



The following, I found stored in some files on my computer . . .

According to the Bible, the two tablets of stone constituting the "testimony" or evidence of God's covenant with the people (Deuteronomy 31:26) were kept within the Ark itself. The Tanakh states in I Kings 8:9 that there "was nothing in the ark save the two tables of stone". Some see this as contradictory with other verses, claiming the presence of the "pot of manna" (Ex. 16:34), and "Aaron's rod that budded" (Num. 17:25) before the Ark (Heb. 9:4 - in the Ark). The items were placed "before the Ark with the testimony"; the correct meaning of that phrase is open to interpretation.

YES, we will eat of the hidden manna ( real miracle at Eucharist ) . . . and
just as we are told that our new name will be given to us . . . that new
name is connected to the understanding of the Eucharist/bread-wine/manna !
All three (3) are required understandings, of the converted saved priesthood,
that we as Christians should seek God (IHVH) to embrace . . .

Why would the "pot of manna" be kept for the generations to come, if it was not the symbol
of Christ as the true ark (vessel) of salvation for the generations to come ?

First, to quibble a bit, I concede that my pointing out that "Promoting RC doctrine while claiming to be a Prot just makes you appear fuzzy headed" is CLOSE to "accusing" you of being "fuzzy headed".
But it's not quite the same.

It's not a matter of "accusing" you,... as if it were purely personal. As for Prot organized religion being saturated with error,... just the existence of multitudes of disagreeing name brand groups proves the point. And surely no RC needs further proof of error in the Prot camp.

Who says "RC is saturated with error" ? Roman Catholics say it !

I used to read a variety of "Traditionalist" and "Progressive" RC publications. Both sides accuse the other side of major error. Right now you can go to hard core Traditionalist web sites and read lots of condemnation of all the popes since Vatican 2.

In light both scripture and of the plain rampant spiritual error among all brances of orgainized religion,
I plead guilty to your charge of advising people to bypass clergy and go directly to Jesus and scripture for "counsel".

New American Standard Bible (©1995)
Thus says the LORD, "Cursed is the man who trusts in mankind And makes flesh his strength, And whose heart turns away from the LORD.
GOD'S WORD® Translation (©1995)
"This is what the LORD says: Cursed is the person who trusts humans, who makes flesh and blood his strength and whose heart turns away from the LORD.
King James Bible
Thus saith the LORD; Cursed be the man that trusteth in man, and maketh flesh his arm, and whose heart departeth from the LORD.

I confess I have not spent much time studying the doctrines of the many branches of orgainized religion.

I agree that IF the bread/wine were turned into Jesus's flesh/blood, then Jesus would have to have done it AT THE SAYING OF THE RIGHT WORDS BY A "PROPERLY" ORDAINED CLERGYMAN.

[or does Jesus do this miracle for every "tom, dick, and harry" who asks Jesus to do it ?]

Rgarding your listing of some of the old line branches of orgainized religion.

Revelation 17 & 18. "come out of her my people"

1Pe 2:5 Ye also, as lively stones, are built up a spiritual house, an holy priesthood, to offer up spiritual sacrifices, acceptable to God by Jesus Christ.
1Pe 2:9 But ye are a chosen generation, a royal priesthood, an holy nation, a peculiar people; that ye should shew forth the praises of him who hath called you out of darkness into his marvellous light:


EVERY NT believer, every Christian, is a priest.

we don't need an "ordained priest or minister" (ordained by some earthly organization) to do anything for us.

each believer is a priest.........we can do it all. Thank God.

each person can boldly approach the Throne of Grace ..............i don't need to ask another person to approach God in my stead.

Hallelujah!

Heartiest AMEN AND AMENS! to you, Dennis.

The function of the Priest at a Eucharistic service is simply to lead the congregation in worship, just as any other Minister of a church does. Too many people think of the Eucharist as 'the work of the Priest' when the word Liturgy actually means 'the work of the people.'

And , you don't have to be RCC to be a priest.

Come out of her (RCC Babylon) , My people (Christians)
Rev 17-19

In fact liturgy means "public duty" which is quite a different sense than "work of the people". It is ludicrous to teach that we have no need for a priest in our observances. Only a priest can sanctify the sacrament, marry our children, pack us off when we die, baptise us and our children and anoint us when we are sick. If all a priest does is lead the congregation then we could pick any Tom, Dick or Harry to do this. Since Vatican II the laity have been given more tasks to perform during the liturgy. One of the sad effects of this is a casualness which has come into the service. Joking around, talking through the service. A loss of the sacred is a tragedy in our western liturgies. The weakening of the role of the priest, and loss of reverence of the priest is a significant reason for this loss of the sacred.

So which priesthood is this who serves the Lord, day and night. They are priests of the order of Melchisedec.
Christ being the high priest of that order.
Heb 7:12 For the priesthood being changed, there is made of necessity a change also of the law.
21 Thou art a priest for ever after the order of Melchisedec
26 For such an high priest became us, who is holy, harmless, undefiled, separate from sinners, and made higher than the heavens

Now which order has only one member in it. Clearly for the order of Melchisedec to be an order it must have more than one priest but must have many priests. In order for it to be a priesthood it must have many priests. In order for Christ to be a high priest there must be lower priests.

Look at the definitions in the dictionary.
order = A group of persons living under a religious rule
priesthood = priests collectively


The notions advanced by Fr. Onesimus and Dennis Mann are basically alluding to the doctrine of the priesthood of all believers which is a fundamental doctrine of protestantism. It was a necessary invention because without it, it would be impossible to break the power of the pope (which they assumed was a good thing to break). This concept was unheard of before the reformation. If we are all fully fledged priests then we can all go off and form our own fellowships according to our own desires.

In fact the Catholic church always believed in the priesthood of all believers which is based on 1 Peter 2 but the doctrine was perverted by the reformation. The Catholic church agrees that all baptised are priests. Why?
Because they fulfill the definition of a priest which is
"Someone who is an intermediary and who offers a sacrifice on behalf of another"
In our prayers we invoke the body and blood of Christ for the forgiveness of ourselves. We also pray for others and for the world seeking forgiveness for friends and family and for the world as a whole. We are therefore mediators approaching the throne of God boldy seeking to appease him so that he may forgive our sins". The Catholic church refers to this as "the common priesthood of the laity". It is this priesthood which enables the eucharist to be continued as a communion in situations where a priest is unavailable. The laity understand the incompleteness in some deep way of this observance and hunger and pray fervently that God may add labourers to the harvest.

The aberration introduced by the reformation however is that this priesthood is made into a flat structure where every priest is equal in authority, subject to noone except Christ. This is a vile deceit, because the priesthood has always been hierarchichal in nature. Every priest is subject to the priest superior to him. So we have the laity subject to deacons, subject to the parish priest, subject to the bishop, subject to the archbishop, subject to the cardinal, subject to the pope, subject to Christ. This hierarchical structure is the pattern of the church throughout the centuries.
So when we submit to our deacon or our parish priest we are in fact submitting to Christ by virtue of this holy order of Melchisidek. This does not mean that we do not also submit directly to Christ but assuredly when we step outside of this heirarchy it is like appointing ourselves to be pope, taking upon ourselves an office which was not given to us by the higher authority. In the RCC a new priest is ordained by I think it is by three bishops so that there is no confusion that this man is properly ordained.

Proof that God intended a clergy is amply apparent in the NT with references to elders/ministers/presbyters/bishops/apostles all of which perform priestly roles.

The use of priests in the sacrament is documented as early as 90AD by Clement I who wrote
"Since then these things are manifest to us, and we have looked into the depths of the Divine knowledge, we ought to do in order all things which the Master commanded us to perform at appointed times. He commanded us to celebrate Sacrifices and services (the Eucharist), and that it should not be thoughtlessly or disorderly (i.e., 1 Corinth 11: 17-34), but at fixed times and hours. He has Himself fixed by His supreme will the places and persons (the appointed presbyters) whom He desires for these celebrations, in order that all things may be done piously according to His good pleasure, and be acceptable to His will. So then those who offer their oblations at the appointed times are acceptable and blessed, but they follow the laws of the Master and do not sin (i.e., 1 Corinth 11: 27-30). For to the high priest (i.e., the bishop) his proper ministrations are allotted, and to the priests (i.e., the presbyters) the proper place has been appointed, and on the Levites (i.e., the deacons) their proper services have been imposed. The layman is bound by the ordinances for the laity. ....Our sin will not be small if we eject from the episcopate (local church) those who blamelessly and holily have offered its Sacrifices." (1 Clement to the Corinthians 44:4).

The language here shows that the New Testament priesthood was closely modelled according to the Old Testament priesthood.

Excerpts from this post are taken from an excellent article found here http://www.bringyou.to/apologetics/a31.htm

That is incorrect. Any baptized Christian may baptize others. ALL Christian baptizm is valid! Just as all marriages are valid, even those performed by Secular authorities. Why do you think the Catholic Church has a Right Of Blessing of Civil Marriages, rather than requiring folks married before a J.P. to be 'remarried?' Any Christian may anoint others with oil and pray over them in an emergency situation. There are specific Rites which most Liturgical Churches hold ONLY the Clergy can do, but not all 7 sacraments are strictly Priestly or Episcopal functions.

You are correct that SOMEONE must lead in Christian worship, and that leader should be the one pronouncing the Words of Institution, but it is the faith of the people, NOT the condition of the Priest with matters. I think you have forgotten the principle of Ex opere, operatis. And incidentally, the Roman Church itself teaches the Priesthood of All Believers. The Ordained Priesthood merely leads the Christian Priesthood of all believers in their communal worship.

Fr. O,
You said "There are specific Rites which most Liturgical Churches hold ONLY the Clergy can do"
Thankyou, that is my point. Therefore we need a clergy.

I hope that you and Dennis Mann can now agree that an ordained clergy is an essential requirement of the church.

You said "Why do you think the Catholic Church has a Right Of Blessing of Civil Marriages, rather than requiring folks married before a J.P. to be 'remarried?' "

And who performs the Rite Of Blessing of Civil Marriages, is it not the clergy? Which proves my point that we need a clergy.

You said "Any baptized Christian may baptize others. ALL Christian baptizm is valid"
This is not true. Baptism by laity is only permitted where there is a danger of death or else there is no likelihood of finding a priest for some months. Again at the first opportunity the clergy would be examining the circumstances of the baptism before admitting the new christian into the fellowship of the church and adminstering the sacrament to them.

You said "Any Christian may anoint others with oil and pray over them in an emergency situation."
Which is the same as saying that unless there is no time for the priest to get there before death, that a priest must anoint with oil and pray.

It is irresponsible to use these peculiar exceptions to the rule to justify a complete abrogation of the rules.

Exceptions to rules are given out of mercy, not as an excuse for permissiveness and liberalism.

mary was not sinless
she was not a virgin forever
she had other children after jesus
mary is not the MOST HOLY
Fatima was a demon, not mary
all the cathedrals in europe were built to honor mary, not jesus
in the stained glass windows, it says (in latin), SAVE US, O MARY!
the pope claims that he and mary are gods
the pope is not the HOLY FATHER
there were no popes before Constantine the Great
the RCC has murdered millions of people
the RCC has stolen and burned many bibles
the RCC worships, and prays to, the deceased
the RCC claims authority over all the goods in the world, which is stealing
the RCC anathematizes all who dis-agree with her doctrine, then she calls Protestants "brethren" (she contradicts herself)
the RCC helped the Nazis escape to South America after WW2, down the "rat line"
the RCC is REPLACEMENT THEOLOGY (ANTI-SEMITISM), and has persecuted, hated, and murdered millions of jews
the RCC has sold permission to sin (indulgences)

jesus never drank literal blood. (the Law prohibits that)

and on and on and on, endless sins and lies and heresies

i don't believe anything that any RCC says.

Oy! Dennis: How can you be so right on one minute, then jump SOOOO far out into the Twilight Zone? This is quite a mish-mash of facts, rumors, and absolute falsehoods.

At this point, I'm just bowing out of this one.

Because he wasn't right the other minute either.
Dennis Mann is the most consistently wrong people I have ever come across.

i don't believe you

COMMENTARY VIA crownsevenalphabet:

Dennis. . . the understanding of Mary is also, an understanding of the Hebrew Shekinah. Since I am a
Protestant by virtue of my birth family . . . I cannot have the same perception of Mary, as a
Catholic believer would. And also. do you understand how if you were not raised Jewish, that you
cannot understand the feminine of the Shekinah, as a Hebrew born member would ?

In life Dennis, have you noticed in all civilizations, that the feminine (yin) and the masculine (yang)
will play a repeated pattern in world order of tribes and surnames, no matter the
geography?

The wisdom of The Holy Spirit, which Christ promised us would teach us all things. . . repeated
the microcosmic Garden of Eden, theme.

The reason you cannot see this archetype, is based on the pre-conceived notions of the world
being masculine based. When in all reality, it has always been both men and women, who
held the balance of understanding God (IHVH) who set the Garden of Eden, as a
training ground for answer's to the questions like :

Who is Mary ? Why would Mary, the mother of Christ our Messiah, be so important ?

The theme of this deep understanding is a study of the Shekinah and the Holy Spirit,
the comforter, promised by Christ.

Just like we admire people and grant best wishes on birthdates and anniversaries . . .
We can admire the one female, who carried the seed of the Holy Spirit in her
womb . . . If you research the miracles of the Hebrew, in relationship to the
Shekinah and The Jerusalem Temple and Hebrew Tribe's . . . who understood the feminine
aspect of Shekinah, then you will see the reason Mary is important . . .

Let me know, what you find about Shekinah . . .

Mary was a believer, a Saint, a Christian..........but not a god.

the pope said that Mary was/is a god.

COMMENTARY via crownsevenalphabet:

Dennis . . . let us focus on your statement, " Mary was a believer, a Saint, a Christian, but not a god "

Ok, please review this research and let me know what you think :

http://www.dhushara.com/book/torah/shekmes.htm

The Hebrew word used to denominate God in Genesis is Elohim. This
word is a plural formed from the feminine singular ALH (Eloh) by
adding IM to it. Since IM is the termination of the masculine plural,
added to a feminine noun it makes ELOHIM a female potency united to a
male principle, and thus capable of having an offspring.
We are told that the Holy Spirit is essentially masculine, but
the Hebrew word used in the Scriptures to denote spirit is Ruach, a
feminine noun. The Holy Spirit is really the Mother, and thus the
Christian Trinity properly translated should be Father, Son and
Mother.


http://www.js.emory.edu/BLUMENTHAL/ZoharicTexts.html

MALE AND FEMALE, SYBLING AND MATE


Bruria began by quoting: "male and female He created them" (Gen.
1:27). Why "male and female?" When the most hidden will roused itself
and extended itself and created the realm of faith, it was neither he
nor she, but he and she. We have learned that male must dwell with
female so that blessing may exist in all realms. Why is this so? It
is because all of them are both at once, for all appeared in perfect
wholeness from the secret of secrets, and just as the source is male
and female, so are they all.

But when sin increases in the world and the influence of darkness
holds sway, then they separate and become incomplete. When this
happens and either male or female is absent from one vessel, then it
must cling to another vessel so that male and female are returned to
unity and a flame may ignite from their union and cause blessing to
reign above and below.

This is the secret: when the Assembly of Israel and the Holy One,
blessed be He, unite, first she is female and he is male, and finally
all is one. But when the vessels are separated, they may be either
male or female. When sovereignty goes and procures sustenance from
the realm above and suckles her children, then she is mother and
queen; but when sovereignty reigns over them and gives them bountiful
gifts, then he is father and king. And when sin increases and she is
a storm of rage upon them, hers is the blood-red rage of Rachel, as
it is said, "with great wrestlings have I wrestled" (Gen 30:8), "for
the way of women is upon me" (Gen 31:35). This is the rage of the
female. Yet the blue light may also glow red with the rage of David,
as it is said "I have consumed them, and crushed them, that they
could not arise" (Sam II 22:38-39). Understand: each one is king and
queen, mother and father, brother and sister . . .


Dennis:
Throughout scripture these theme's are a continuance. In civilizations, each whether
the Hopi Indian Tribal understandings or the Hebrew Tribal understandings . . . the mother,
as in ' Mary ' archetype, is a required acceptance to see the love, mercy, grace
of the feminine aspect of God (IVHV), our Father.

This is why many Catholic's understand and know that the mother will lead you to the
Son Christ our Messiah and redeemer. Many would never believe without the understanding
of a mother's love . . . helping them bridge from infidel, to ' believer ' in Messiah !

And my belief is close to this perspective.
Have you found any history on the Shekinah ?