@gt1085 Just caught a liar. Jesus proclaimed Himself as the Lord of the Sabbath. “Then He (Jesus) said to them, ‘The Son of Man (Jesus) is lord of the Sabbath.” [Lk. 6:5] Therefore, it is up to Jesus to determine what can and what cannot be done on the Sabbath.“Now that day was a Sabbath. So the Jews said to the man who had been cured, ‘It is the Sabbath; it is not lawful for you to carry your mat.’ But he answered them, ‘The man who made me well said to me, ‘Take up your matt and walk.’”
@rocky60191 About what?Sabbath was made only for Hebrew Israelite.Then if others want too follow Him(Jesus) Elohim,but does not say worship Him on sunday.
@stinkygeorgia1 The Last Supper was a Passover feast, which required participants to eat the sacrificial lamb. There was no baby sheep in the Upper Room. Jesus is the Lamb of God. God's word does what it says (Jesus is God). These facts, along with the John6 discourse reveal that Jesus actually turned the bread and wine into His flesh and blood so we can all participate in the New Covenant Passover. Calvary began in the Upper room. He commanded the Apostles to do this same change of substance.
God is offended by receiving Him on "dirty" hands(ONLY priest can touch Him) in the Holy Eucharist!
Only accepted by Heaven form of receiving living Heart of Jesus Christ in the Eucharist of the Catholic Church is into our mouth and on our both knees!
say what you want world at the end of day we kown in our soul we cry out for jesus so you want live porverty and sin and hate then go ahead.if you want a better life say this words jesus come into my heart and be my lord and savior i thank for what you did at the cross for i want to love you are something new in jesus name we pray amen you are now save and eirs and co eirs of the kingdom of heaven now go and to a pentocostal church and begin to live bette life i love all and jesus loves you :)
So is the host the real body and the wine real blood? If you take this as literally than then if you scratch the host does blood come out? No it does not. So it not really his flesh and blood. So it is the spiritual flesh and blood of Jesus. If you dishonor the body and blood you have disrespected Jesus, God's Son. If you think it is symbol, you have disrespected Jesus just the same. So either way, it is dangerous to take communion in an unworthy manner. Presence/symbol Jesus is God.
Christ was clear, if you take "all" of his sayings. He is the "lamb" of God, the "bread" of Life, the "water" of which whoever partakes, will never thirst, the "door", the "gate", the "truth", etc. All these things REPRESENT his various provisions for us. He gave his real "flesh" and his real "blood" on Calvary. That actual, ONE TIME FOREVER sacrifice is what we must partake of, through faith, for our Salvation; not the MANY TIMES CONSTANTLY sacrifice of the mass, real "bread" and real "wine".
@JONAH222NCSGAZ you need to learn your Jewish lineage. Just as Jews, when celebrating the Passover, don't think of it as re-enacting over & over, but as stepping out of time into the event itself, so Catholics & Orthodox think of the Last Supper , the Crucifixion & the Mass/Divine Liturgy as All AS The SAME EVENT under different forms. Thus, nothing is repeated, rather we step out of time into Eternity to be at Jesus' Most Holy Sacrifice.
@burkardhanis Sir, there is no need to "step out of time into Eternity". Today, November 22, 2010, the Lord Jesus Christ is REALLY and TRULY PRESENT in heaven. He still retains that SAME body, albeit IMMORTAL, of @2000 years ago. Whatever metaphysical belief is held by "Jews, Catholics, and Orthodox", the REALITY is that ONLY ONE REAL BLOOD SACRIFICE, can SAVE, i.e. the ACTUAL and HISTORICAL sacrifice of Christ at Calvary. We have access to the Father, NOW, via Christ's REAL PRESENCE in heaven.
@JONAH222NCSGAZ You are correct in so far as what you are saying. But, the post I was responding to, said we sacrifice over and over, rather than the One Time upon the Cross. If you choose not to deal with the metaphysical aspects, fine. But the poster I responded to needed to understand what happens during the Celebration of the Divine Liturgy, whether in a Catholic or Orthodox Christian service. Peace...see you in Heaven.
Excellent study of the apostolic faith of the early church that sadly some Protestants rejects. Lutherans and Anglicans also believe that Christ is truly presence in the holy eucharist and require that all baptized Christians believe in the real presence before communing. Not only is Christ's true body and blood actually present but the sacrament is a sacred mystery that involves forgiveness of sins, life and salvation. Lutherans refer to it as the holy medicine.
arguing from silence was referring to your comment that no one laid hands on matthias. Laying on of hands was used in both testament to give authority
@theruteger arguing from silence was referring to your comment that no one laid hands on matthias. Laying on of hands was used in both testament to give authority
I never said that it was not. I said and I quote, "No (Apostle) ever transferred his (Apostlolic authority) to anyone. That is why you can't give any examples from the Bible of it happening because it is just one more Catholic tradition
E.g. Paul gave Timothy authority and Titus but neither were Apostles.
@ttsqas the authority of the apostles office was only given to Matthias, the bishops of today are the successors of the apostles, but not the apostles themselves. Only Catholics, Orthodox, and a handfull of prots claim to have this
@theruteger Thank you for your opinion but neither Jesus or the Apostles taught that bishops succede the Apostles. I base what I believe on what Jesus and the Apostles taught not on the opinions of others and not on the writings of those who Jesus did not choose to establish the church.
1. The Apostles could not ordain "any bishops of today" (who you say are Apostles' successors), for the obvious reason that the Apostles would have to be alive to do that.
2. One does not become another's successor just because they were ordained by them.
Are the bishops ordained by your sect's pope his successors? Let me answer that for you..................NO!
@ttsqas: The pope ordains the bishops, in a similar fashion to how peter laid on his hands on various peoples who also became bishops. One of these peoples, Linus, became his successor after his death.
@RockyBalboa211 I am aware of how the Pope ordains bishops and how the Apostles oradainded bishops. I am also aware that the bishops that the Apostles ordained did not become their "successors". Apostles succeded Apostles as Matthias succeded Judas. Bishops succeded bishops not Apostles.
@theruteger Acts1:16 Men and brethren, this scripture must needs have been fulfilled, which the Holy Ghost by the mouth of David spake before concerning Judas, which was guide to them that took Jesus. I must note that according to the Apostles own words it was yet God who made the choice and that there was no laying of hands by the other Apostles involved which Catholic tradition erroneously claims is necessary
@theruteger "@ttsqas arguing from silence? " What are you serious? I am at work. And you were doing so well. No Apostle ever transferred his Apostlolic authority to anyone. That is why you can't give any examples from the Bible of it happening because it is just one more Catholic tradition
@theruteger So I'll say it yet again; as you yourself know very well every single major tradition of the custom type (so there is no more games), such as circumcsion, tithing, the Sabbath, (every other one from the OT), baptism, the memorial bread and wine, that God has given to his people at anytime that has not been written NONE! Though this fact stares you and other Catholics in the face and Protestants you ignore it to your own demise.
@ttsqas The bible does not give much description on how the circumcision is to go, or what prayers are to be done. The bible does not go into much detail on what is permitted on the sabbath. Jews observe oral traditions for the specifics on these. The bible does not give us much detail on how to have worship, other than "breaking bread" and praying and perhaps a homily
@theruteger More lies. God gave Israel very specific and detailed information whenever he required detail. You obviously have not read the book of Leviticus. Contrary to both Catholic and protestant traditiion if God did not give specific details none was required.
@OrthodoxCatholic1 Phago "can be" is not the same as "trogo cannot be" you assume way too much. The Apostles never taught that the memorial bread and wine were actually Jesus' body and it is not. It is symbolic only. Jesus in the end explained exactly what he meant here John 6:63 "It is the spirit that quickeneth; the flesh profiteth nothing: the words that I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are life. 64But there are some of you that believe not." His words he says are life.
@theruteger Paul taught that they sybolized his body and blood. If they were his body and blood literally people would taste flesh and blood and see flesh and blood. If they see and taste bread and wine than that is what is literally there.
@ttsqas if you eat something the Presence of God is upon, then the Presence of God goes inside you. Paul did not teach they SYMBOLISM Christ, Paul does seem to say they do SYMBOLIZE Christian unity. Paul says also that is a SACRIFICE
@theruteger If you eat something that the presence of God is on and the presence of God goes into you. That still means that God did not become whatit was he was on or you never would say , "if you eat (something)", you would say "if you eat God".
@OrthodoxCatholic1 Also if Jesus was talking about them eating the memorial bread and wine they would have done that with no problem. He said nothing of it here. If he were talking about his flesh literally then he would have had the disciples eat his flesh literally. Why would he need bread and wine if he meant literally? Literal is literal. He should have given them pieces of his flesh right then. There is also no evidence that the disciples believed this or they would have said
@ttsqas Jesus chose to do so via bread and wine. Jesus said to do this in memory of me, if Jesus pulled off his leg and gave it to them, well he could not go to the cross
no time in the new testament is trogo used for metaphorical eating, but phago is like in Revelation 19:18, unless you want to say the angel means would should eat kings
@theruteger What rule in greek grammar can you cite that states that "trogo" can only be used to mean literal eating or that it cannot be used to mean figurative eating? Let me save you the trouble there is none.
@OrthodoxCatholic1 You are trying to say that because a word which is only used 6 times in the NT was never used elsewhere metaphorically it cannot be so used. That is just lie and nothing more and you know it. Now if i show you were a word is used once metaphoically you'll change to some other reason why he had to speaking literally.
I am not pretending to know Greek, I used a lexicon and concordance, all present active participle nominative singular masculine end with "omega nu" like trogon and esthion. present active participle nominative singular masculine is used 884 times in the New testament, the KJV translates them with different tenses
@OrthodoxCatholic1 And right up till the flood. Once again the principles that you use to form your conclusions are not sound; they are not conclusive by any means. The Bible clearly states that Jesus dies for our sins. One does not have to make the types of assumptions that you are regarding whether Jesus was speaking literally or not. Contrary to what Catholism teaches one can rattionally and logically come to another conclusion, as I have just shown.
@OrthodoxCatholic1 Furthermore the Apostles would not have been so silent on such an important issue as this. Look at how the writer of Hebrews disects the priesthood of Jesus with such precision and clarity. There is no way that something important would hinge on "he used trogo instead of phago". Also the assertion that Paul would not have treated this so seriously in 1 Corinthians 11 unless unless Christ spoke literally in John6 is a foolish assumption.
@OrthodoxCatholic1 It is a ridiculous and false assumption that the Apostle Paul a Jew from a religion rich in symbolism would have not taken the bread and wine seriously unless they were literal. This is an outright lie and a very obvious one now.
both trogon and esthion are the "present active participle nominative singular masculine" the only difference between the two is they are completely different words
@OrthodoxCatholic1 Hebrews makes it clear that many things within under the Levitical priesthood were symbolic and yet the were to be taken serious. The blood from animals which symbolized Christ's blood where they treated seriously? YES!
The ark of the covenant was it taken seriously? YES! The tabernacle was it taken seriously? YES!
@theruteger You said, "the Ark itself the bible say HAD the presence of the LORD on it" Right which proves my point. Those things under the Levitical priesthoos were symbolic of the actual thing in heaven. The were symbolic and yet God's presence was there. So even if the bread and wine are symbolic (which they are), God's presence is still there. So by your own words something does not have to be literal for God's presence to be upon it. The bread and wine are symbolic like the Ark.
@ttsqas God's presence was REALLY on the Ark, just like in Communion, so its not a pure symbol since God's presence is REALLY there. If anything this proves my point
@theruteger No, "upon" something is not being it. It says that he was on the Ark not that he became the Ark. God's presence has been on men are you suggesting that he became them? Like you own words said, hi presence was on the Ark which the writer of Hebrews makes clear was symbolic of the actual things in heaven. God's presence is on the bread and wine which are symbolic.
@ttsqas the Old Testament rites were called shadows of the things to Come, the reality belongs to Christ, Christ gave us Communion, and its not a shadow.
@theruteger No it says that the things on this earth are a shadow of the things in heaven. Water, wood, bread, and wine are things on this earth. The bread and wine in communion are not in heaven.
@ttsqas food and drink or with regard to a festival or new moon or sabbath- Col 2:16, communion is NOT an old testament ritual, the rituals of the OT were shadows
@theruteger communion uses eartly things not things from heaven. It is therefore symbolic. If it were not symbolic then there would be no need for them. Jesus would just come down and give everyone a portion of his flesh and blood. That would be literal. Literal is literal.
@theruteger Why would need bread and wine if they are not symbolic? Do you taste flesh or bread wine or blood when you partake? Do you see bread or wine blood or wine when you partake?
@ttsqas He choose to, perhaps because bread looks kinda like skin on flesh, and there is some symbolism for the matzah used, wine looks a lot like blood. Regardless of reason, God choose this to be present in
@theruteger I want to stop here and first say I appreciate you politeness. Though we disagree you have been respectful unlike many other Catholics and Protestants I have spoken with. I realize that these matters are serious to many and that these discussions can somethimes get heated. Thanks again
@theruteger I look to the 1st century church which the book of Acts and the Epistles show us what they practiced and what the Apostles taught. If I was a 100B.C. Jew and wanted to know whether we were following God's laws or man's, I would look back to the Torah when God gave us those laws and from the man he used to give them to us. I would not be intersted in the Talmud or the historical writing because it is not them that Israel was founded upon.
@ttsqas In the days of Nehemiah the Torah had to be interpreted, Jesus interpreted the Torah. You still need to rely on a particular interpretation of the Torah. I believe the Catholic Church was given the ability to interpret the Scriptures, otherwise we would all believe different things since a myriad of beliefs can be taken from the same books as seen today
@theruteger In the days of Nehemiah the Holy Spirit had not been given; it has now. Jesus said that the Holy Spirit would teach us and it does. Nehemiah did not add any thing to the Torah he added no new traditions or commanments. The Catholic church has not just interpreted the Bible they have added doctrines and traditions to it. The true church would only hold to the Apostle's traditions not add more of its own.
@ttsqas people had the Spirit in the Old Testament and New, people are given the interpretation in the NT too, Acts 8 the eunuch gets isaiah 53 explained. The bible says to obey both written and oral tradition, we hold to the Apostles tradition. Yet sometimes there are issues that come up that did not exist in their time that we have to answer like cloning
@theruteger The eunuch was not a Christian yet and did not have the Spirit. The Bible does not say hold both the oral and written traditions. The Bible say to Hold to the oral and written traditions (of the Apostles). The apostles are not here so we can no longer recieve oral traditions from them only written. Notice also that you cannot name one single major traditional custom like the Ten Commandments, circumcision, tithing, or the Sabbath which was not eventually written.
@theruteger Acts 1:24And they prayed, and said, Thou, Lord, which knowest the hearts of all men, shew whether of these two thou hast chosen, 25That he may take part of this ministry and apostleship, from which Judas by transgression fell, that he might go to his own place. 26And they gave forth their lots; and the lot fell upon Matthias; and he was numbered with the eleven apostles.
So we see that it was yet God according to the Apostles who made the selection.
@theruteger That is an interesting assertion that "They do not have to be called apostles". Given the overwhelming eveidence in scripture I will continue to believe otherwise. The scripture calls them Apostles so I agree. If it did not then I cannot accept a man's opinion that they were.
@theruteger Regarding traditions; as I said "you cannot name one single major traditional custom like the Ten Commandments, circumcision, tithing, or the Sabbath which was not eventually written." Nothing that you posted changes this fact. Which is why you attempted to shift from the custom form of tradition which have to be practiced or performed like circumcision, tithing, baptism, the memorial bread and wine etc.
@theruteger True Jesus did make the church the authority but that church was not called the Catholic church, it had no name. That Paul laid hands on Timothy is true because the Bible says so. That Timothy was then an Apostle is false because nowhere does the Bible say that. Neither Timothy or Titus or Barnabus were ever call Apostles in the Bible.
@theruteger I did not mean to include Barnabas in that list. I was at work and typing quicky in between. God through his Holy Spirit specifically chose Barnabas and Paul to be Apostles. Acts 13:2 "As they ministered to the Lord, and fasted, the Holy Ghost said, Separate me Barnabas and Saul for the work whereunto I have called them." Which proves my point God not Apostles appointed Apostles. The only exception was Mathias but that was to replace Judas according to prophecy.
@ttsqas Jesus made the Church the authority, the NT says the Church is the pillar and foundation of truth. Jesus gave authority to the Apostles,. Apostolic succession is taught in the bible since they practiced it, Paul had hands laid on him, timothy on him. That is how authority was transferred since the OT
@theruteger The Apostles did not teach Apostolic succession. The Apostles did nto teach that they had to administer communion. In Paul's letter to the Corinthian church he instructs them on communion but he was not there and if another Apostle was there he there would have been not reason for Paul's letter.
@ttsqas ordinarily it tastes just like wine and bread, there are some exceptions to this where a literal transformation takes place. But we understand the Presence of the Eucharist to be Substantial and Spiritual, so it still appears and tastes like bread and wine
@theruteger Well, Jesus told us to partake of communion and I do. He told us to examine ourselves before hand and I do. I have obeyed his command and will continue to do so.
@theruteger Nor did it say that the Ark became God and yet His presence was on it. So neither does the bread and wine have to become Jesus for his presence to be on them. Thanks for pointing that scripture out to me. I am going to use it aslo in a upcoming video series on this topic. So the bread and wine are smbolic and Jesus presence is on them.
@theruteger That is the difference between me and Catholics. The writer of Hebrews did not agree with Catholics that symbolic things are as you say "just symbolic'. I do not take lighly anything that is symbolic of my Lord and savior Jesus Christ. That is why I no that it is a lie to assume that Paul would not have said what he said in 1Corinthians 11 is communion was symbolic. It only means nothing to Catholics if it is symbolic so they assume that everyone else has the same attitude.
@theruteger It is obvious to me that it is a symbol. Or it would be needed. Literal things don't need anything else. Christ turn a few fish and loaves into many. If it is literal why would we need bread and wine? Why?
"phago" is in the present active participle nominative singular masculine in matthew 11:18-9, Mark 1:6, Mark 14:18, Luke 7:33-34, Romans 14:3,6, 1 Cor 11:29....they all appear as "esthion" not "trogo"
@OrthodoxCatholic1 “esthion” is translated to “eating” there in Mat 11:18-19, not eateth as in John 6:54, 56-58 “ 56He that eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, dwelleth in me, and I in him. So according to you Jesus could have said, “ 5He that (eating) my flesh, and drinketh my blood, dwelleth in me, and I in him.” You speak so much about things not making no sense to you; well do I even need to say it?
@OrthodoxCatholic1 Here is another one of your examples, Mark 1:6 “6And John was clothed with camel's hair, and with a girdle of a skin about his loins; and he did eat locusts and wild honey;” Here “ethios” is translated to “eat”. So it makes more sense to you for Jesus to have said “5He that (eat) my flesh, and drinketh my blood, dwelleth in me, and I in him.” than “eateth” or “eats” my flesh?
@OrthodoxCatholic1 Do you see the problem? You would rather deny the truth that proper grammer dictated that trogos be used because of the tense and the words which preceded and followed it. You claim that trogo is only used to denote “gnawing or chewing” which is a ridiculous point because I chew every time I eat; don’t you?
@OrthodoxCatholic1 Don’t forget John 13:18 which proves that this claim is false. “18I speak not of you all: I know whom I have chosen: but that the scripture may be fulfilled, He that eateth bread with me hath lifted up his heel against me. Note the all familiar “He that” preceding eateth(trogos) just like in John 6:54, 56, 57, 58
@OrthodoxCatholic1 "@ttsqas trogo is used because he was intimately involved in the meal " That is your errouneous opinion because in Matthew 24:38 It says that they were "eating" and trogo is used. Before this it says "in the (days that were before the flood) they were eating and drinking:, this does not depict anyone intimately involved in a meal like you claim "He that eateth my flesh does". In Mat 24:38 he is talking about them eating prior to the flood.
@OrthodoxCatholic1 Now look at Mat 24:38 “ 38For as in the days that were before the flood they were eating and drinking, marrying and giving in marriage, until the day that Noe entered into the ark,” here trogo is used in a totally different context altogether being translated into “eating”. This proves that trogo is not exclusively used in the context that you have claimed.
@OrthodoxCatholic1 The words eat, eats, or ate convey the same meaning in the end but different tense dictate which one is used. By the way by what method do you consume your food? Do you chew? Do you gnaw? Or does your food just slide down your throat into your belly?
The Jews understood he was talking about ACTUAL eating, he does not correct them if they were misunderstanding, He actually goes on to affirm their understanding by saying "amen amen" that they must TROGO his flesh
@OrthodoxCatholic1 It does not matter whether he was speaking about eating bread. You said that if a ritual resulted from a statement he made then he was speaking literally. This very principle is the one you gave as proof that he was speaking literally about eating his flesh; not that he "speaks about eating his flesh but that he spoke about eating his flesh and that a ritual was then established
@OrthodoxCatholic1 You then said, "because Jesus did not institiute a vine, shepher, door, salt, or light ritual those should all be taken as figuratively.” It is obvious that of these things from your own words neither a door, vine, or light are eaten. Therefore it is abvious that whether he spoke of these things being eaten had nothing to do with the principle you used to determine whether Jesus was speaking literally or figuratively.
@OrthodoxCatholic1 Thanks for the discussion. Though you have evaded my questions I am about to answer your question regarding Jesus use of trogo and phago. Afterwards that will conclude this exchange on my part. You have provided me with what I needed to know. God bless you
@ttsqas "Though you have evaded my questions " <<<you made statements not questions. Jesus declared his body to be the Bread of Life, we receive this at the eucharist
@OrthodoxCatholic1 From one hour ago...@OrthodoxCatholic1 Oh no my friend, you first address the issues I have raised regarding the inconsistency in the clear principles you stated that you used to determine whether Jesus was speaking figuratively or not. You have just tried to side step that altogether."
@ttsqas Yes thats the literal meaning of the word, but when the Church refers to the Eucharist Holy Communion is almost exclusively referred to in the Early Church writings
@OrthodoxCatholic1 The early church writings are in the Bible and in it eucharist means thanksgiving. It was not a tradition or doctrine of the Apostles or the early church to refer to the eucharist as anything other than thanksgiving.
@ttsqas "They abstain from the Eucharist and from prayer, because they confess not the Eucharist to be the flesh of our Saviour Jesus Christ,"-Ignatius of Antioch, Epistle to Smyrnaeans (c.A.D. 110)....."the food which has been made into the Eucharist by the Eucharistic prayer set down by him"-Justin Martyr 1Apology 66 (cAD151)......"baked bread receives the Word of God and becomes the Eucharist, the body of Christ"-Irenaeus, Adversus Haereses Book 4 (cAD 189)...etc QED
@ttsqas And I am still waiting for an answer to my question. You may want to read the 6th chapter of John again before answering. Pay close attention to when "eat" is used and when "eateth" is used. Then reference the lexicon of your choice and the answer will become obvious.
@OrthodoxCatholic1 I repeat; If I were to write, Unless you eat my bread you will be hungry. If I also wrote; He that "eats" my bread will not be hungry. Why did I use "eats", instead of "eat" in the second sentence?
Or ar you going to continue to run from my questions?
@OrthodoxCatholic1 I used you to show why Jesus used phago when he said "Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, ye have no life in you." and He to show why he could not use phago but propre grammer dictated that he use trogo. This is evident by the translation into "eateth" which is the same as "eats". It would have been grammatically incorrect to say " He that (eat) my flesh, and drinketh my blood, dwelleth in me, and I in him."
@ttsqas I do not see how this makes sense at all....trogo and phago are completely different words. trogo in verse 54 is present active participle nominative singular masculine of the word, Phago has this exact same voice,tense conjugation 11 times....If Jesus wanted to say "phago" in verse 54 he would have said esthion
@OrthodoxCatholic1 You say that Jesus could have used “esthion” in place of “trogo”, and use Mat 11:18-19 as an example. Mat 11:18-19 reads, “18For John came neither eating nor drinking, and they say, He hath a devil. 19The Son of man came eating and drinking, and they say, Behold a man gluttonous, and a winebibber, a friend of publicans and sinners. But wisdom is justified of her children. Cont’d
@OrthodoxCatholic1 For you to suggest that Jesus could have said "He that (eat) my flesh, and drinketh my blood, dwelleth in me, and I in him", is ridiculous. You took an issue of simple grammar and twisted it into some false doctrine going beyond scripture and attributing more to a choice of words than was ever there.
@OrthodoxCatholic1 trogo is used 6 times in the NT; times in John and once in Matthew 24:38, and once in John 13:18. Look at what John 13:18 says "I speak not of you all: I know whom I have chosen: but that the scripture may be fulfilled, He that eateth bread with me hath lifted up his heel against me. " trogo is used here to and for the same reason; it is used because "he" is used and when he, she, it must be followed by same type of verb and usually the present tense adds an "s" hence eateth.
@OrthodoxCatholic1 Search you lexicon of choice and you will find that trogo is a "present active participle" this is why it was used instead of Phago after the pronoun "he" because he followed by "that" is present tense. "He that eateth my flesh" is present tense whereas "ye did eat", "your father did eat", "that a man may eat", "if any man eat" and "except you eat", are not.
Acts 20:29For I know this, that after my departing shall grievous wolves enter in among you, not sparing the flock. 30Also of your own selves shall men arise, speaking perverse things, to draw away disciples after them.
2Thess 2:15Therefore, brethren, stand fast, and hold the traditions which ye have been taught, whether by word, or our epistle. Note the he says Have been taught and "our epistles". No eucharist as in catholic tradition was in their epistles.
@OrthodoxCatholic1 Answer this; If I were to write, Unless you eat my bread you will be hungry. If I also wrote; He that "eats" my bread will not be hungry. Why did I use "eats", instead of "eat" in the second sentence?
@OrthodoxCatholic1 Oh but you cannot understand why "trogo" was used whenever a pronoun was used in the 6th chapter of John? It was simply grammatically correct. Nothing more nothing less. And it does mean something that Peter was there when Jesus gave thanks in Luke 22 and he yet did not start any tradition of changing eucharist to mean anything other than thanksgiving.
This is not Jesus in the picture that some european,or that italian guy.
gt1085 2 days ago
@gt1085 Just caught a liar. Jesus proclaimed Himself as the Lord of the Sabbath. “Then He (Jesus) said to them, ‘The Son of Man (Jesus) is lord of the Sabbath.” [Lk. 6:5] Therefore, it is up to Jesus to determine what can and what cannot be done on the Sabbath.“Now that day was a Sabbath. So the Jews said to the man who had been cured, ‘It is the Sabbath; it is not lawful for you to carry your mat.’ But he answered them, ‘The man who made me well said to me, ‘Take up your matt and walk.’”
rocky60191 1 day ago
@rocky60191 About what?Sabbath was made only for Hebrew Israelite.Then if others want too follow Him(Jesus) Elohim,but does not say worship Him on sunday.
gt1085 1 day ago
@gt1085 Come on, man: Jesus is God incarnate. Don't you know this? Why can't we worship our God?
rocky60191 23 hours ago
@rocky60191 I am not saying that thier is only 1 God Almighty that is the Hebrew Israelites God.What god you worship on sunday?
gt1085 23 hours ago
There is only 1 God that is God of the Hebrew Israelites.There is No other God but Him.
gt1085 2 days ago
Well all the picture`s are Demons and that never happen with the europeans or catholics that do not know Him.
gt1085 3 weeks ago
Catholics are Demons
gt1085 3 weeks ago
@gt1085 Hi, there. I am a Catholic. Am I a Demon? Please explain. O.K?
rocky60191 2 days ago
@rocky60191 if you go to church on sunday it is not the Sabbath day which the Lord told us to keep Holy,sunday is a day of worship to satan.thats it.
gt1085 2 days ago
@gt1085 I guess you a Jew. Am I right?
rocky60191 2 days ago
@rocky60191 Hebrew Israelite,Yes Jew.The guy in th e picture i don`t no who he his he looked european?
gt1085 2 days ago
Thankyou for this video.. connecting the dots for a better understanding of the Catholic faith!! Godbless you!!
donnawanna100 3 months ago
@donnawanna100 Catholic have No faith in God nor can they hold Fellowship or worship[ Him on sunday i do understand catholics it is why i am not one.
gt1085 2 days ago
@gt1085 Hello my Jewish friend,how do you read this יהודה ? Please translate for all to see. Thanks.
rocky60191 2 days ago
@donnawanna100 No Problem.Everyone need to beware of wolf in sheep cloth.
gt1085 2 days ago
There is no hope in the Eucharist. It is a lie.
stinkygeorgia1 7 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@stinkygeorgia1
"There is no hope in the Eucharist. It is a lie. "
Thats exactly what Satan says... and stinkygeorgia is his prophet.
MrJamesthecatholic 4 months ago
@stinkygeorgia1 The Last Supper was a Passover feast, which required participants to eat the sacrificial lamb. There was no baby sheep in the Upper Room. Jesus is the Lamb of God. God's word does what it says (Jesus is God). These facts, along with the John6 discourse reveal that Jesus actually turned the bread and wine into His flesh and blood so we can all participate in the New Covenant Passover. Calvary began in the Upper room. He commanded the Apostles to do this same change of substance.
AmericanBerean 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
sorry for last comments i was hacked
xXBlacHawk117X 9 months ago
sorry for last comments i was hacked
xXBlacHawk117X 9 months ago
IM SORRY TO TELL YOU JESUS DID NOT EXIST HE WAS NOT BORN THE UNIVERSE DID NOT JUST
xXBlacHawk117X 9 months ago
@xXBlacHawk117X
WE ARE SORRY FOR YOU AS YOU WILL NOT BE EXISTING SOON AND SPEND REST OF ETERNITY -LONG TIME IN THE HELL IF YOU DON`T REPENT AND STOP SINNING NOW!!!
JezusSlave 9 months ago
@JezusSlave and hell sonds pretty good right about now
xXBlacHawk117X 9 months ago
Respond to this video...
do u have a probleM with videogames there entertainment
xXBlacHawk117X 9 months ago
@JezusSlave dont push it on me
xXBlacHawk117X 9 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
God is offended by receiving Him on "dirty" hands(ONLY priest can touch Him) in the Holy Eucharist!
Only accepted by Heaven form of receiving living Heart of Jesus Christ in the Eucharist of the Catholic Church is into our mouth and on our both knees!
God bless you and be brave
JezusSlave 10 months ago
@JezusSlave what fucking god
xXBlacHawk117X 9 months ago
@xXBlacHawk117X play your stupid, useless games and don`t speak about God as you don`t know Him and deny history as uneducated ignorant!!!
JezusSlave 9 months ago
@JezusSlave truth be told i do believe in god i just have a problem with organized religion
xXBlacHawk117X 9 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
say what you want world at the end of day we kown in our soul we cry out for jesus so you want live porverty and sin and hate then go ahead.if you want a better life say this words jesus come into my heart and be my lord and savior i thank for what you did at the cross for i want to love you are something new in jesus name we pray amen you are now save and eirs and co eirs of the kingdom of heaven now go and to a pentocostal church and begin to live bette life i love all and jesus loves you :)
brotheredward1 10 months ago
So is the host the real body and the wine real blood? If you take this as literally than then if you scratch the host does blood come out? No it does not. So it not really his flesh and blood. So it is the spiritual flesh and blood of Jesus. If you dishonor the body and blood you have disrespected Jesus, God's Son. If you think it is symbol, you have disrespected Jesus just the same. So either way, it is dangerous to take communion in an unworthy manner. Presence/symbol Jesus is God.
MrJeffhvass 11 months ago
Yeah that is what we catholics call it "believe"..Protestants may oppose that because they are quite straight-forward
sushant1241 11 months ago
Here is what I have said to many:
You don't have to ask my Priest, if Jesus is truly present, body/blood/soul/divinity
in the Eucharist, at every Mass.
You don't need to ask your Pastor, either.
Just ask God if its true. He will reveal the truth.
To my amazement, very, very, very few of them actually seek God in Prayer.
They simply don't want the answer.
They want to debate us, but are afraid of asking God, for Truth.
Ask God. All Truth comes from him !
vitoinomaha 1 year ago
Christ was clear, if you take "all" of his sayings. He is the "lamb" of God, the "bread" of Life, the "water" of which whoever partakes, will never thirst, the "door", the "gate", the "truth", etc. All these things REPRESENT his various provisions for us. He gave his real "flesh" and his real "blood" on Calvary. That actual, ONE TIME FOREVER sacrifice is what we must partake of, through faith, for our Salvation; not the MANY TIMES CONSTANTLY sacrifice of the mass, real "bread" and real "wine".
JONAH222NCSGAZ 1 year ago
@JONAH222NCSGAZ you need to learn your Jewish lineage. Just as Jews, when celebrating the Passover, don't think of it as re-enacting over & over, but as stepping out of time into the event itself, so Catholics & Orthodox think of the Last Supper , the Crucifixion & the Mass/Divine Liturgy as All AS The SAME EVENT under different forms. Thus, nothing is repeated, rather we step out of time into Eternity to be at Jesus' Most Holy Sacrifice.
burkardhanis 1 year ago
@burkardhanis Sir, there is no need to "step out of time into Eternity". Today, November 22, 2010, the Lord Jesus Christ is REALLY and TRULY PRESENT in heaven. He still retains that SAME body, albeit IMMORTAL, of @2000 years ago. Whatever metaphysical belief is held by "Jews, Catholics, and Orthodox", the REALITY is that ONLY ONE REAL BLOOD SACRIFICE, can SAVE, i.e. the ACTUAL and HISTORICAL sacrifice of Christ at Calvary. We have access to the Father, NOW, via Christ's REAL PRESENCE in heaven.
JONAH222NCSGAZ 1 year ago
@JONAH222NCSGAZ You are correct in so far as what you are saying. But, the post I was responding to, said we sacrifice over and over, rather than the One Time upon the Cross. If you choose not to deal with the metaphysical aspects, fine. But the poster I responded to needed to understand what happens during the Celebration of the Divine Liturgy, whether in a Catholic or Orthodox Christian service. Peace...see you in Heaven.
burkardhanis 1 year ago
Excellent study of the apostolic faith of the early church that sadly some Protestants rejects. Lutherans and Anglicans also believe that Christ is truly presence in the holy eucharist and require that all baptized Christians believe in the real presence before communing. Not only is Christ's true body and blood actually present but the sacrament is a sacred mystery that involves forgiveness of sins, life and salvation. Lutherans refer to it as the holy medicine.
ccarlosincali 1 year ago
arguing from silence was referring to your comment that no one laid hands on matthias. Laying on of hands was used in both testament to give authority
theruteger 1 year ago
@theruteger arguing from silence was referring to your comment that no one laid hands on matthias. Laying on of hands was used in both testament to give authority
I never said that it was not. I said and I quote, "No (Apostle) ever transferred his (Apostlolic authority) to anyone. That is why you can't give any examples from the Bible of it happening because it is just one more Catholic tradition
E.g. Paul gave Timothy authority and Titus but neither were Apostles.
ttsqas 1 year ago
@ttsqas the authority of the apostles office was only given to Matthias, the bishops of today are the successors of the apostles, but not the apostles themselves. Only Catholics, Orthodox, and a handfull of prots claim to have this
theruteger 1 year ago
@theruteger Thank you for your opinion but neither Jesus or the Apostles taught that bishops succede the Apostles. I base what I believe on what Jesus and the Apostles taught not on the opinions of others and not on the writings of those who Jesus did not choose to establish the church.
ttsqas 1 year ago
@ttsqas The Apostles ordained them, therefore they are their sucessors
theruteger 1 year ago
@theruteger 1.
1. The Apostles could not ordain "any bishops of today" (who you say are Apostles' successors), for the obvious reason that the Apostles would have to be alive to do that.
2. One does not become another's successor just because they were ordained by them.
Are the bishops ordained by your sect's pope his successors? Let me answer that for you..................NO!
ttsqas 1 year ago
@ttsqas: The pope ordains the bishops, in a similar fashion to how peter laid on his hands on various peoples who also became bishops. One of these peoples, Linus, became his successor after his death.
RockyBalboa211 1 year ago
@RockyBalboa211 I am aware of how the Pope ordains bishops and how the Apostles oradainded bishops. I am also aware that the bishops that the Apostles ordained did not become their "successors". Apostles succeded Apostles as Matthias succeded Judas. Bishops succeded bishops not Apostles.
ttsqas 1 year ago
"The apostles Barnabas and Paul "-Acts 14:14
theruteger 1 year ago
@theruteger Acts1:16 Men and brethren, this scripture must needs have been fulfilled, which the Holy Ghost by the mouth of David spake before concerning Judas, which was guide to them that took Jesus. I must note that according to the Apostles own words it was yet God who made the choice and that there was no laying of hands by the other Apostles involved which Catholic tradition erroneously claims is necessary
ttsqas 1 year ago
@ttsqas arguing from silence?
theruteger 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@theruteger "@ttsqas arguing from silence? " What are you serious? I am at work. And you were doing so well. No Apostle ever transferred his Apostlolic authority to anyone. That is why you can't give any examples from the Bible of it happening because it is just one more Catholic tradition
ttsqas 1 year ago
@theruteger So I'll say it yet again; as you yourself know very well every single major tradition of the custom type (so there is no more games), such as circumcsion, tithing, the Sabbath, (every other one from the OT), baptism, the memorial bread and wine, that God has given to his people at anytime that has not been written NONE! Though this fact stares you and other Catholics in the face and Protestants you ignore it to your own demise.
ttsqas 1 year ago
@ttsqas The bible does not give much description on how the circumcision is to go, or what prayers are to be done. The bible does not go into much detail on what is permitted on the sabbath. Jews observe oral traditions for the specifics on these. The bible does not give us much detail on how to have worship, other than "breaking bread" and praying and perhaps a homily
theruteger 1 year ago
Comment removed
ttsqas 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@theruteger More lies. God gave Israel very specific and detailed information whenever he required detail. You obviously have not read the book of Leviticus. Contrary to both Catholic and protestant traditiion if God did not give specific details none was required.
ttsqas 1 year ago
greekbible lexicon and strongs mention phago can be metaphorical, while no metaphorical meaning is listed for trogo
...trogo.. 1) to gnaw, crunch, chew raw vegetables or fruits (as nuts, almonds) 1a) of animals feeding 1b) of men 2) to eat
phago/estion... 1) to eat 2) to eat (consume) a thing 2a) to take food, eat a meal 3) metaph. to devour, consume
notice the later lists 'metaphor".
OrthodoxCatholic1 1 year ago
@OrthodoxCatholic1 Phago "can be" is not the same as "trogo cannot be" you assume way too much. The Apostles never taught that the memorial bread and wine were actually Jesus' body and it is not. It is symbolic only. Jesus in the end explained exactly what he meant here John 6:63 "It is the spirit that quickeneth; the flesh profiteth nothing: the words that I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are life. 64But there are some of you that believe not." His words he says are life.
ttsqas 1 year ago
@ttsqas pAUL TAUGHT THEY ARE THE BODY AND BLOOD, Jesus' words are life.
theruteger 1 year ago
@theruteger Paul taught that they sybolized his body and blood. If they were his body and blood literally people would taste flesh and blood and see flesh and blood. If they see and taste bread and wine than that is what is literally there.
ttsqas 1 year ago
@ttsqas if you eat something the Presence of God is upon, then the Presence of God goes inside you. Paul did not teach they SYMBOLISM Christ, Paul does seem to say they do SYMBOLIZE Christian unity. Paul says also that is a SACRIFICE
theruteger 1 year ago
Comment removed
ttsqas 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@theruteger If you eat something that the presence of God is on and the presence of God goes into you. That still means that God did not become whatit was he was on or you never would say , "if you eat (something)", you would say "if you eat God".
ttsqas 1 year ago
@OrthodoxCatholic1 Also if Jesus was talking about them eating the memorial bread and wine they would have done that with no problem. He said nothing of it here. If he were talking about his flesh literally then he would have had the disciples eat his flesh literally. Why would he need bread and wine if he meant literally? Literal is literal. He should have given them pieces of his flesh right then. There is also no evidence that the disciples believed this or they would have said
ttsqas 1 year ago
@ttsqas Jesus chose to do so via bread and wine. Jesus said to do this in memory of me, if Jesus pulled off his leg and gave it to them, well he could not go to the cross
theruteger 1 year ago
@OrthodoxCatholic1 "Lord shall we eat your flesh now that they have gone?" The Apostles didn't believe such nonsense
ttsqas 1 year ago
no time in the new testament is trogo used for metaphorical eating, but phago is like in Revelation 19:18, unless you want to say the angel means would should eat kings
OrthodoxCatholic1 1 year ago
@OrthodoxCatholic1 So you are say that in greek grammer trogo can only be used for literal eating? That is a lie and you know it.
Facts:
1. trogo is only used 6 times in the NT
2. There are many occasion with literal eating and trogo is not used
so your point is meanling less.
ttsqas 1 year ago
@ttsqas yes phago can mean literal eating, but not exclusively, trogo does however
theruteger 1 year ago
@theruteger What rule in greek grammar can you cite that states that "trogo" can only be used to mean literal eating or that it cannot be used to mean figurative eating? Let me save you the trouble there is none.
ttsqas 1 year ago
@OrthodoxCatholic1 You are trying to say that because a word which is only used 6 times in the NT was never used elsewhere metaphorically it cannot be so used. That is just lie and nothing more and you know it. Now if i show you were a word is used once metaphoically you'll change to some other reason why he had to speaking literally.
ttsqas 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@ttsqas go ahead and show me one time
theruteger 1 year ago
I am not pretending to know Greek, I used a lexicon and concordance, all present active participle nominative singular masculine end with "omega nu" like trogon and esthion. present active participle nominative singular masculine is used 884 times in the New testament, the KJV translates them with different tenses
OrthodoxCatholic1 1 year ago
@OrthodoxCatholic1 And right up till the flood. Once again the principles that you use to form your conclusions are not sound; they are not conclusive by any means. The Bible clearly states that Jesus dies for our sins. One does not have to make the types of assumptions that you are regarding whether Jesus was speaking literally or not. Contrary to what Catholism teaches one can rattionally and logically come to another conclusion, as I have just shown.
ttsqas 1 year ago
@OrthodoxCatholic1 Furthermore the Apostles would not have been so silent on such an important issue as this. Look at how the writer of Hebrews disects the priesthood of Jesus with such precision and clarity. There is no way that something important would hinge on "he used trogo instead of phago". Also the assertion that Paul would not have treated this so seriously in 1 Corinthians 11 unless unless Christ spoke literally in John6 is a foolish assumption.
ttsqas 1 year ago
@OrthodoxCatholic1 It is a ridiculous and false assumption that the Apostle Paul a Jew from a religion rich in symbolism would have not taken the bread and wine seriously unless they were literal. This is an outright lie and a very obvious one now.
ttsqas 1 year ago
both trogon and esthion are the "present active participle nominative singular masculine" the only difference between the two is they are completely different words
OrthodoxCatholic1 1 year ago
@OrthodoxCatholic1 Hebrews makes it clear that many things within under the Levitical priesthood were symbolic and yet the were to be taken serious. The blood from animals which symbolized Christ's blood where they treated seriously? YES!
The ark of the covenant was it taken seriously? YES! The tabernacle was it taken seriously? YES!
ttsqas 1 year ago
@ttsqas The ark of the Covenant had God's presence, the Levite offerings were supposed to be atonements
theruteger 1 year ago
@theruteger The Ark itself was symbolic.The obvious fact that the Levite offereings were atonements does not change the fact that they were symbolic.
ttsqas 1 year ago
@ttsqas the Ark itself the bible say HAD the presence of the LORD on it
theruteger 1 year ago
@theruteger You said, "the Ark itself the bible say HAD the presence of the LORD on it" Right which proves my point. Those things under the Levitical priesthoos were symbolic of the actual thing in heaven. The were symbolic and yet God's presence was there. So even if the bread and wine are symbolic (which they are), God's presence is still there. So by your own words something does not have to be literal for God's presence to be upon it. The bread and wine are symbolic like the Ark.
ttsqas 1 year ago
@ttsqas God's presence was REALLY on the Ark, just like in Communion, so its not a pure symbol since God's presence is REALLY there. If anything this proves my point
theruteger 1 year ago
@theruteger No, "upon" something is not being it. It says that he was on the Ark not that he became the Ark. God's presence has been on men are you suggesting that he became them? Like you own words said, hi presence was on the Ark which the writer of Hebrews makes clear was symbolic of the actual things in heaven. God's presence is on the bread and wine which are symbolic.
ttsqas 1 year ago
@ttsqas the Old Testament rites were called shadows of the things to Come, the reality belongs to Christ, Christ gave us Communion, and its not a shadow.
theruteger 1 year ago
@theruteger No it says that the things on this earth are a shadow of the things in heaven. Water, wood, bread, and wine are things on this earth. The bread and wine in communion are not in heaven.
ttsqas 1 year ago
@ttsqas food and drink or with regard to a festival or new moon or sabbath- Col 2:16, communion is NOT an old testament ritual, the rituals of the OT were shadows
theruteger 1 year ago
@theruteger communion uses eartly things not things from heaven. It is therefore symbolic. If it were not symbolic then there would be no need for them. Jesus would just come down and give everyone a portion of his flesh and blood. That would be literal. Literal is literal.
ttsqas 1 year ago
@theruteger Why would need bread and wine if they are not symbolic? Do you taste flesh or bread wine or blood when you partake? Do you see bread or wine blood or wine when you partake?
ttsqas 1 year ago
@ttsqas He choose to, perhaps because bread looks kinda like skin on flesh, and there is some symbolism for the matzah used, wine looks a lot like blood. Regardless of reason, God choose this to be present in
theruteger 1 year ago
@theruteger I want to stop here and first say I appreciate you politeness. Though we disagree you have been respectful unlike many other Catholics and Protestants I have spoken with. I realize that these matters are serious to many and that these discussions can somethimes get heated. Thanks again
ttsqas 1 year ago
@ttsqas ok, sure, God bless
theruteger 1 year ago
Comment removed
ttsqas 1 year ago
@theruteger I look to the 1st century church which the book of Acts and the Epistles show us what they practiced and what the Apostles taught. If I was a 100B.C. Jew and wanted to know whether we were following God's laws or man's, I would look back to the Torah when God gave us those laws and from the man he used to give them to us. I would not be intersted in the Talmud or the historical writing because it is not them that Israel was founded upon.
ttsqas 1 year ago
@ttsqas In the days of Nehemiah the Torah had to be interpreted, Jesus interpreted the Torah. You still need to rely on a particular interpretation of the Torah. I believe the Catholic Church was given the ability to interpret the Scriptures, otherwise we would all believe different things since a myriad of beliefs can be taken from the same books as seen today
theruteger 1 year ago
@theruteger In the days of Nehemiah the Holy Spirit had not been given; it has now. Jesus said that the Holy Spirit would teach us and it does. Nehemiah did not add any thing to the Torah he added no new traditions or commanments. The Catholic church has not just interpreted the Bible they have added doctrines and traditions to it. The true church would only hold to the Apostle's traditions not add more of its own.
ttsqas 1 year ago
@ttsqas people had the Spirit in the Old Testament and New, people are given the interpretation in the NT too, Acts 8 the eunuch gets isaiah 53 explained. The bible says to obey both written and oral tradition, we hold to the Apostles tradition. Yet sometimes there are issues that come up that did not exist in their time that we have to answer like cloning
theruteger 1 year ago
@theruteger The eunuch was not a Christian yet and did not have the Spirit. The Bible does not say hold both the oral and written traditions. The Bible say to Hold to the oral and written traditions (of the Apostles). The apostles are not here so we can no longer recieve oral traditions from them only written. Notice also that you cannot name one single major traditional custom like the Ten Commandments, circumcision, tithing, or the Sabbath which was not eventually written.
ttsqas 1 year ago
@ttsqas Paul quotes Jewish tradition, so does Jude. There had to be traditions on sabbath keeping since the Torah is vague on what is considered rest
theruteger 1 year ago
@theruteger Acts 1:24And they prayed, and said, Thou, Lord, which knowest the hearts of all men, shew whether of these two thou hast chosen, 25That he may take part of this ministry and apostleship, from which Judas by transgression fell, that he might go to his own place. 26And they gave forth their lots; and the lot fell upon Matthias; and he was numbered with the eleven apostles.
So we see that it was yet God according to the Apostles who made the selection.
ttsqas 1 year ago
@ttsqas no problem.
theruteger 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@theruteger That is an interesting assertion that "They do not have to be called apostles". Given the overwhelming eveidence in scripture I will continue to believe otherwise. The scripture calls them Apostles so I agree. If it did not then I cannot accept a man's opinion that they were.
ttsqas 1 year ago
@theruteger Regarding traditions; as I said "you cannot name one single major traditional custom like the Ten Commandments, circumcision, tithing, or the Sabbath which was not eventually written." Nothing that you posted changes this fact. Which is why you attempted to shift from the custom form of tradition which have to be practiced or performed like circumcision, tithing, baptism, the memorial bread and wine etc.
ttsqas 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@theruteger True Jesus did make the church the authority but that church was not called the Catholic church, it had no name. That Paul laid hands on Timothy is true because the Bible says so. That Timothy was then an Apostle is false because nowhere does the Bible say that. Neither Timothy or Titus or Barnabus were ever call Apostles in the Bible.
ttsqas 1 year ago
@ttsqas They do not have to be called apostles, however Barnabas is called an apostle in the bible.
theruteger 1 year ago
@theruteger I did not mean to include Barnabas in that list. I was at work and typing quicky in between. God through his Holy Spirit specifically chose Barnabas and Paul to be Apostles. Acts 13:2 "As they ministered to the Lord, and fasted, the Holy Ghost said, Separate me Barnabas and Saul for the work whereunto I have called them." Which proves my point God not Apostles appointed Apostles. The only exception was Mathias but that was to replace Judas according to prophecy.
ttsqas 1 year ago
@ttsqas God still required laying on of hands to transfer authority, as He did in the Old Testament. Everyone believes you must be called
theruteger 1 year ago
@ttsqas Jesus made the Church the authority, the NT says the Church is the pillar and foundation of truth. Jesus gave authority to the Apostles,. Apostolic succession is taught in the bible since they practiced it, Paul had hands laid on him, timothy on him. That is how authority was transferred since the OT
theruteger 1 year ago
Comment removed
ttsqas 1 year ago
@theruteger The Apostles did not teach Apostolic succession. The Apostles did nto teach that they had to administer communion. In Paul's letter to the Corinthian church he instructs them on communion but he was not there and if another Apostle was there he there would have been not reason for Paul's letter.
ttsqas 1 year ago
@ttsqas ordinarily it tastes just like wine and bread, there are some exceptions to this where a literal transformation takes place. But we understand the Presence of the Eucharist to be Substantial and Spiritual, so it still appears and tastes like bread and wine
theruteger 1 year ago
@theruteger Well, Jesus told us to partake of communion and I do. He told us to examine ourselves before hand and I do. I have obeyed his command and will continue to do so.
ttsqas 1 year ago
@ttsqas That would be another topic...how has true communion, historical christians hold you need apostolic sucession to truly receive it
theruteger 1 year ago
Comment removed
ttsqas 1 year ago
@theruteger Nor did it say that the Ark became God and yet His presence was on it. So neither does the bread and wine have to become Jesus for his presence to be on them. Thanks for pointing that scripture out to me. I am going to use it aslo in a upcoming video series on this topic. So the bread and wine are smbolic and Jesus presence is on them.
ttsqas 1 year ago
@ttsqas "So the bread and wine are smbolic and Jesus presence is on them. " <---fine, this is better than saying its only symbolic
theruteger 1 year ago
@theruteger That is the difference between me and Catholics. The writer of Hebrews did not agree with Catholics that symbolic things are as you say "just symbolic'. I do not take lighly anything that is symbolic of my Lord and savior Jesus Christ. That is why I no that it is a lie to assume that Paul would not have said what he said in 1Corinthians 11 is communion was symbolic. It only means nothing to Catholics if it is symbolic so they assume that everyone else has the same attitude.
ttsqas 1 year ago
@ttsqas the Bible NEVER calls communion some thing that is Just symbolic, the bible had words for symbols, antitypes etc, doesnt use it for communion
theruteger 1 year ago
@theruteger it does not have to call it symbolic it is obvious that it is
ttsqas 1 year ago
@ttsqas it is obvious it is not just a symbol
theruteger 1 year ago
@theruteger It is obvious to me that it is a symbol. Or it would be needed. Literal things don't need anything else. Christ turn a few fish and loaves into many. If it is literal why would we need bread and wine? Why?
ttsqas 1 year ago
@ttsqas Because that is what He CHOOSE
theruteger 1 year ago
@theruteger Or rather do you see ans taste bread or flesh?
ttsqas 1 year ago
Comment removed
Noffy1111 1 year ago
"phago" is in the present active participle nominative singular masculine in matthew 11:18-9, Mark 1:6, Mark 14:18, Luke 7:33-34, Romans 14:3,6, 1 Cor 11:29....they all appear as "esthion" not "trogo"
OrthodoxCatholic1 1 year ago
Comment removed
ttsqas 1 year ago
@OrthodoxCatholic1 “esthion” is translated to “eating” there in Mat 11:18-19, not eateth as in John 6:54, 56-58 “ 56He that eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, dwelleth in me, and I in him. So according to you Jesus could have said, “ 5He that (eating) my flesh, and drinketh my blood, dwelleth in me, and I in him.” You speak so much about things not making no sense to you; well do I even need to say it?
ttsqas 1 year ago
@ttsqas in Greek in John 6:54 trogon literally is "one chewing" not "chews"
OrthodoxCatholic1 1 year ago
@OrthodoxCatholic1 Here is another one of your examples, Mark 1:6 “6And John was clothed with camel's hair, and with a girdle of a skin about his loins; and he did eat locusts and wild honey;” Here “ethios” is translated to “eat”. So it makes more sense to you for Jesus to have said “5He that (eat) my flesh, and drinketh my blood, dwelleth in me, and I in him.” than “eateth” or “eats” my flesh?
ttsqas 1 year ago
@OrthodoxCatholic1 Do you see the problem? You would rather deny the truth that proper grammer dictated that trogos be used because of the tense and the words which preceded and followed it. You claim that trogo is only used to denote “gnawing or chewing” which is a ridiculous point because I chew every time I eat; don’t you?
ttsqas 1 year ago
@OrthodoxCatholic1 Don’t forget John 13:18 which proves that this claim is false. “18I speak not of you all: I know whom I have chosen: but that the scripture may be fulfilled, He that eateth bread with me hath lifted up his heel against me. Note the all familiar “He that” preceding eateth(trogos) just like in John 6:54, 56, 57, 58
ttsqas 1 year ago
@ttsqas trogo is used because he was intimately involved in the meal
OrthodoxCatholic1 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@OrthodoxCatholic1 "@ttsqas trogo is used because he was intimately involved in the meal " That is your errouneous opinion because in Matthew 24:38 It says that they were "eating" and trogo is used. Before this it says "in the (days that were before the flood) they were eating and drinking:, this does not depict anyone intimately involved in a meal like you claim "He that eateth my flesh does". In Mat 24:38 he is talking about them eating prior to the flood.
ttsqas 1 year ago
@OrthodoxCatholic1 Now look at Mat 24:38 “ 38For as in the days that were before the flood they were eating and drinking, marrying and giving in marriage, until the day that Noe entered into the ark,” here trogo is used in a totally different context altogether being translated into “eating”. This proves that trogo is not exclusively used in the context that you have claimed.
ttsqas 1 year ago
@OrthodoxCatholic1 The words eat, eats, or ate convey the same meaning in the end but different tense dictate which one is used. By the way by what method do you consume your food? Do you chew? Do you gnaw? Or does your food just slide down your throat into your belly?
ttsqas 1 year ago
The Jews understood he was talking about ACTUAL eating, he does not correct them if they were misunderstanding, He actually goes on to affirm their understanding by saying "amen amen" that they must TROGO his flesh
OrthodoxCatholic1 1 year ago
@OrthodoxCatholic1 It does not matter whether he was speaking about eating bread. You said that if a ritual resulted from a statement he made then he was speaking literally. This very principle is the one you gave as proof that he was speaking literally about eating his flesh; not that he "speaks about eating his flesh but that he spoke about eating his flesh and that a ritual was then established
ttsqas 1 year ago
@OrthodoxCatholic1 You then said, "because Jesus did not institiute a vine, shepher, door, salt, or light ritual those should all be taken as figuratively.” It is obvious that of these things from your own words neither a door, vine, or light are eaten. Therefore it is abvious that whether he spoke of these things being eaten had nothing to do with the principle you used to determine whether Jesus was speaking literally or figuratively.
ttsqas 1 year ago
@ttsqas i never recall mentioning a door or vine or light as having to be eaten
OrthodoxCatholic1 1 year ago
@OrthodoxCatholic1 Thanks for the discussion. Though you have evaded my questions I am about to answer your question regarding Jesus use of trogo and phago. Afterwards that will conclude this exchange on my part. You have provided me with what I needed to know. God bless you
ttsqas 1 year ago
@ttsqas "Though you have evaded my questions " <<<you made statements not questions. Jesus declared his body to be the Bread of Life, we receive this at the eucharist
OrthodoxCatholic1 1 year ago
@OrthodoxCatholic1 Then you evaded my statements. Yet your doctrine has been found faulty as you well know. God bless you.
ttsqas 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@OrthodoxCatholic1 From one hour ago...@OrthodoxCatholic1 Oh no my friend, you first address the issues I have raised regarding the inconsistency in the clear principles you stated that you used to determine whether Jesus was speaking figuratively or not. You have just tried to side step that altogether."
ttsqas 1 year ago
@OrthodoxCatholic1 Perhaps not a question but a request for a response is just as good. Playing ignorant does not suit you well.
ttsqas 1 year ago
@ttsqas Bread of Life=Jesus Flesh=Eucharist, we ate His flesh in the eucharist.
OrthodoxCatholic1 1 year ago
@OrthodoxCatholic1 Eucharist = thanksgiving whenever it is used by the Apostles or the early church.
ttsqas 1 year ago
@ttsqas Yes thats the literal meaning of the word, but when the Church refers to the Eucharist Holy Communion is almost exclusively referred to in the Early Church writings
OrthodoxCatholic1 1 year ago
@OrthodoxCatholic1 The early church writings are in the Bible and in it eucharist means thanksgiving. It was not a tradition or doctrine of the Apostles or the early church to refer to the eucharist as anything other than thanksgiving.
ttsqas 1 year ago
@ttsqas "They abstain from the Eucharist and from prayer, because they confess not the Eucharist to be the flesh of our Saviour Jesus Christ,"-Ignatius of Antioch, Epistle to Smyrnaeans (c.A.D. 110)....."the food which has been made into the Eucharist by the Eucharistic prayer set down by him"-Justin Martyr 1Apology 66 (cAD151)......"baked bread receives the Word of God and becomes the Eucharist, the body of Christ"-Irenaeus, Adversus Haereses Book 4 (cAD 189)...etc QED
OrthodoxCatholic1 1 year ago
@OrthodoxCatholic1 And which Apostle wrote that epistles? Oh none of them.
ttsqas 1 year ago
@ttsqas And I am still waiting for an answer to my question. You may want to read the 6th chapter of John again before answering. Pay close attention to when "eat" is used and when "eateth" is used. Then reference the lexicon of your choice and the answer will become obvious.
ttsqas 1 year ago
@ttsqas you said early church. I showed you.
OrthodoxCatholic1 1 year ago
@OrthodoxCatholic1 I repeat; If I were to write, Unless you eat my bread you will be hungry. If I also wrote; He that "eats" my bread will not be hungry. Why did I use "eats", instead of "eat" in the second sentence?
Or ar you going to continue to run from my questions?
ttsqas 1 year ago
@ttsqas Because you changed the subject of the sentence from 'you' to 'one' so the conjugation of "to eat" changes from "eat" to "eats"
OrthodoxCatholic1 1 year ago
@OrthodoxCatholic1 I used you to show why Jesus used phago when he said "Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, ye have no life in you." and He to show why he could not use phago but propre grammer dictated that he use trogo. This is evident by the translation into "eateth" which is the same as "eats". It would have been grammatically incorrect to say " He that (eat) my flesh, and drinketh my blood, dwelleth in me, and I in him."
ttsqas 1 year ago
@ttsqas I do not see how this makes sense at all....trogo and phago are completely different words. trogo in verse 54 is present active participle nominative singular masculine of the word, Phago has this exact same voice,tense conjugation 11 times....If Jesus wanted to say "phago" in verse 54 he would have said esthion
OrthodoxCatholic1 1 year ago
@OrthodoxCatholic1 You say that Jesus could have used “esthion” in place of “trogo”, and use Mat 11:18-19 as an example. Mat 11:18-19 reads, “18For John came neither eating nor drinking, and they say, He hath a devil. 19The Son of man came eating and drinking, and they say, Behold a man gluttonous, and a winebibber, a friend of publicans and sinners. But wisdom is justified of her children. Cont’d
ttsqas 1 year ago
@OrthodoxCatholic1 For you to suggest that Jesus could have said "He that (eat) my flesh, and drinketh my blood, dwelleth in me, and I in him", is ridiculous. You took an issue of simple grammar and twisted it into some false doctrine going beyond scripture and attributing more to a choice of words than was ever there.
ttsqas 1 year ago
Comment removed
ttsqas 1 year ago
@OrthodoxCatholic1 trogo is used 6 times in the NT; times in John and once in Matthew 24:38, and once in John 13:18. Look at what John 13:18 says "I speak not of you all: I know whom I have chosen: but that the scripture may be fulfilled, He that eateth bread with me hath lifted up his heel against me. " trogo is used here to and for the same reason; it is used because "he" is used and when he, she, it must be followed by same type of verb and usually the present tense adds an "s" hence eateth.
ttsqas 1 year ago
@OrthodoxCatholic1 Search you lexicon of choice and you will find that trogo is a "present active participle" this is why it was used instead of Phago after the pronoun "he" because he followed by "that" is present tense. "He that eateth my flesh" is present tense whereas "ye did eat", "your father did eat", "that a man may eat", "if any man eat" and "except you eat", are not.
ttsqas 1 year ago
@OrthodoxCatholic1
Acts 20:29For I know this, that after my departing shall grievous wolves enter in among you, not sparing the flock. 30Also of your own selves shall men arise, speaking perverse things, to draw away disciples after them.
2Thess 2:15Therefore, brethren, stand fast, and hold the traditions which ye have been taught, whether by word, or our epistle. Note the he says Have been taught and "our epistles". No eucharist as in catholic tradition was in their epistles.
ttsqas 1 year ago
@ttsqas that proves nothing, Jesus gave thanks in Luke 22 so we call Communion t he eucharist
OrthodoxCatholic1 1 year ago
@OrthodoxCatholic1 And I mean when eat or eateth are used by Jesus in the 6th chapter of John. I'll give you a chance to answer before I do.
ttsqas 1 year ago
@OrthodoxCatholic1 So it is not just the literal meaning of the word it is the traditional use of the word by the Apostles and the early church.
ttsqas 1 year ago
@OrthodoxCatholic1 Answer this; If I were to write, Unless you eat my bread you will be hungry. If I also wrote; He that "eats" my bread will not be hungry. Why did I use "eats", instead of "eat" in the second sentence?
ttsqas 1 year ago
@ttsqas "I eat" "you eat" "he eats"...because thats how you conjugate it in english
OrthodoxCatholic1 1 year ago
@OrthodoxCatholic1 Here I'll even give you a hint; Pronoun verb agreement.
ttsqas 1 year ago
@OrthodoxCatholic1 Oh but you cannot understand why "trogo" was used whenever a pronoun was used in the 6th chapter of John? It was simply grammatically correct. Nothing more nothing less. And it does mean something that Peter was there when Jesus gave thanks in Luke 22 and he yet did not start any tradition of changing eucharist to mean anything other than thanksgiving.
ttsqas 1 year ago
@ttsqas no idea what this proves. No idea why you have a problem with calling it the eucharist either
OrthodoxCatholic1 1 year ago
If trogo did not have any special meaning then why did Jesus change from phago to trogo? was he bored?
OrthodoxCatholic1 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@OrthodoxCatholic1 Then I will answer your question. Fair is fair.
ttsqas 1 year ago