Transubstantiation is a false doctrine because Jesus is not a liar: In Mt 26:29 after Jesus had said, "this is my blood" and prayed, he still referred to the contents as, "fruit of the vine". If transubstantiation of the juice into blood had occurred, as both Roman Catholic and Orthodox churches say it was at this time, then Jesus would never have referred to it as "fruit of the vine' but rather "blood"...
@kiwichristian2009 ...This proves that when Jesus said "take eat & drink" he LITERALLY gave them bread and juice. In like manner, Paul also refers to the elements of the Lord's Supper as "eat this bread and drink the cup" in 1 Cor 11:26 after they should be transubstantiated.
St Paul claims the real presence of Christ in the Eucharist, (1 Corinth 10:16) "The chalice of benediction which we bless, is it not the communion of the blood of Christ? And the bread which we break, is it not the partaking of the body of the Lord? For we, being many, are one bread, one body: all that partake of one bread."
@kiwichristian2009 "Fruit of the vine" These words, by the account of Luke 22:18, were not spoken of the sacramental cup, but of the wine that was drunk with the paschal lamb. Though the sacramental cup might also be called the fruit of the vine, because it was consecrated from wine, and retains the likeness, and all the accidents or qualities of wine.
Must Christ be continually sacrificed in the mass, or was His blood sacrifice on the cross 100% sufficient to pay for all our sins for ever? In John19:30 Jesus said, "IT IS FINISHED", which in the Greek is "Tetelestai" meaning "to make an END, to ACCOMPLISH, to COMPLETE something, not mearly to end it, but to bring it to perfection or its intended goal."
Why? In my opinion, as we pray we pray in spirit not in flesh. Symbolism is understanding and finding meaning (which I find it to be fleshy). Passover is in the spirit and it is taken in the spirit. GOD is Spirit and in spirit it is taken as prayer. This is my understandment based on the fact that I concider prayer to be more than repetive which their is no connection or forthought of what is scripted, it is the actual glorification and Honor and Glory of Jesus Crist our Savior.
Jesus specifically said that the eating of the bread and drinking of the wine was to be a memorial of his sacrifice for the salvation of the world. Our believing in him as our Lord and our keeping his commandments are the intended meaning of the memorial service. We are to observe it to remind us of him as our Lord and as our Savior.
@mpenaco , St Paul on the Eucharist "Whoever, therefore, eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty of profaning the body and blood of the Lord. Let a man examine himself, and so eat of the bread and drink of the cup. For any one who eats and drinks without discerning the body eats and drinks judgment upon himself." (1 Cor 11:27-29)." How can you be guilty of the Body and Blood of Christ, if it is just symbolic Food and Drink?
@hockeyrulesus Student of the Apostle John, St Ignatius of Antioch, said 110AD "They abstain from the Eucharist and from prayer, because they confess not the Eucharist to be the flesh of our Saviour Jesus Christ"
@hockeyrulesus Jesus says this in John 6:35: "I am the bread of life. He who comes to me will never go hungry, and he who believes in me will never be thirsty.” Notice that He did not say "He who eats me will never go hungry, and he who drinks my blood will never be thirsty". He said "He who COMES TO ME.." and "he who BELIEVES IN ME...". Jesus refers to Himself in many ways. In John 10:9, He says ""I am the gate; whoever enters through me will be saved." In John 15:1 He says
@mpenaco Yes, Christ used metaphor's when teaching, but not always. John 6:55 Jesus says " For my flesh is food indeed, and my blood is drink indeed". ---- This is not the language of symbolism. Jesus repeats it over and over (verses 53-56) in the clearest possible language. Everyone there took Jesus literally, including the Apostles, and walked away. In the Bible whenever the Apostles misunderstood Jesus, Jesus corrects them. In this passage Jesus does not.
@hockeyrulesus ... ": “I am the true vine”. All these are to convey the message that Jesus Christ is the ONLY way to heaven so that everything He says we must listen to and obey.
Did the Apostles believe in the Eucharist? "Whoever, therefore, eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty of profaning the body and blood of the Lord. Let a man examine himself, and so eat of the bread and drink of the cup. For any one who eats and drinks without discerning the body eats and drinks JUDGEMENT UPON HIMSELF." (1 Cor 11:27-29)."
How can you be guilty of the Body and Blood of Christ, if it is just symbolic Food and Drink?
@mpenaco The Last Supper was a Passover feast, which required participants to eat the sacrificial lamb. There was no baby sheep mentioned 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 and this New Passover feast ended on the cross.
@AmericanBerean Jn. 4:34 "My food," said Jesus, "is to do the will of him who sent me and to finish his work." He also said in Jn. 18:11: "Put your sword away! Shall I not drink the cup the Father has given me?" To Jesus, the food and drink that matters in God's kingdom is the keeping of the Father's will, not the eating and drinking of anything material. To believe and to do everything that he commanded is what Jesus meant when he talks about eating his flesh and drinking his blood.
@mpenaco Jn4:34, in context, is not about "food" Jesus provides to us. Read the whole chapter. It's about His own mission on earth. Jn18:11 can refer to both the "cup of suffering" and to the 4th cup of the Passover feast they just came from. That 4th cup is the Cup of Consummation of the Passover ritual and Jesus finally drank it while dying on the Cross. The sponge with sour wine was given to Him, he drank, then said "It is finished." Calvary began with Passover Feast which ended on the Cross.
@AmericanBerean 1/2: Just as Jesus' message in John 4 is not to be understood literally, his command to eat this bread and drink this wine is not to be taken literally. He said it clearly that the celebration is to be a memorial, a remembrance of his sacrifice for the salvation of God's people. We are to remember him and everything that he said everytime we share in the breaking of the bread.
@mpenaco In the context of Judaism, memorial is more than mere "remembrance". It is a participation in an event that happened once in the past. The original language wording (in the Gospels and in OT references of the Passover memorial) connotes that Jesus instituted a sacrificial offering, not a mere "calling to mind" event. This means that once-in-the-past sacrifice is made present (not repeated) whenever it's memorial is celebrated.
Your interpretation is valid as a 2nd-ary, complementary one
@AmericanBerean But Christ is now in heaven, sitting at the right hand of God. Is he coming at every mass to be sacrificed again? The truth of Scripture is that Christ lives in us. He is in the hearts of those he redeemed by his blood. He does not reside in inanimate things like bread and wine kept in tabernacles. Christ lives in you and his kingdom is within you.
@AmericanBerean 2/2:The belief that Christ is physically present in the bread and wine runs contrary to the teachings of Christ himself and the apostles about what is important in the God's kingdom. Scripture says that man does not live by bread alone but by every word that comes from the mouth of God; that God's kingdom is not about eating or drinking but righteousness in the Spirit. Christ is now in glory and he will not return to be sacrificed again and again.
@mpenaco Have you seen the writings of the early Christians on this matter? If you explore them, you will see that the Real Presence has been believed and taught by the Christian Church since the beginning. Ignatius,Justin Martyr,Irenaeus,Clement,Tertullian,Cyprian,Cyril,Hilary, and more preached the Real Presence.
@AmericanBerean The writings of the early Christians are important to the faith but they are subordinate to what God had revealed through the prophets and the apostles. What is important to God is that we keep his commandments like worshiping no other gods, not making graven images for worship, protecting the least of our brothers and sisters, etc. The washing of our sins is a past event which Christ fulfilled by his sacrifice at the cross. Let's not make him do it again and again.
@mpenaco Not only did the Apostles teach the Real Presence in the Eucharist orally to the Early Christians, it can be seen in the writings of Paul. St Paul said "Whoever, therefore, eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty of profaning the body and blood of the Lord. Let a man examine himself, and so eat of the bread and drink of the cup. For any one who eats and drinks without discerning the body eats and drinks judgment upon himself." (1 Cor 11:27-29).
@hockeyrulesus If you eat the bread and drink the wine without knowing what the memorial stands for or worse, if you do not believe that Christ died to save God's people, then you are desecrating the memory of Christ's sacrifice and hence, invite judgment upon yourself. Again, as Christ proclaims, it is a memorial and we do it to remember him and everything he did for us. But Christ's sacrifice was already completed. He is not coming to be sacrificed again, to be eaten or to be drunk.
@mpenaco Indeed, He is not sacrificed again. As I said, a memorial of this nature manifests, makes present in the here and now, that once-in-the-past event. That is God's power at work. Jesus said "Do this...". He thus commanded and empowered the apostles (and by extension their successors) to do to this same change of substance of the bread and wine, so all Christians of all times and all places can participate in that one sacrificial New Passover event.
@AmericanBerean The apostles did this as Jesus instructed - to serve as a memorial for the great love and sacrifice God had done for his people. But none of the apostles ever claimed that there is a change in substance and form of the bread and wine as they do this. It is the belief of the RCC fathers that such a change occurs but neither Jesus nor the apostles taught that.
1) If your interpretation was correct, the correct wording of (1Cor 11:27-29) should have been, [ Whoever, therefore, eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty of profaning the (MEMORY OF THE) body and blood of the Lord.] It doesn't say that.
2) Do you honestly think that someone who doesn't know what the "Memorial" stands for, and eats and drinks ordinary wine is guilty of the Blood of Christ? A little harsh don't you think?
1) If you can show me from Scripture that Jesus or any of the apostles taught that the physical substance of the bread changes into the body of Christ and the wine into his blood, then I will gladly embrace the catholic teaching on this.
2) Harsh by your standard but righteous by God's standard. Jesus said it clearly: "Do this in memory of me". If you eat the bread and drink the wine for any reason other than what Christ prescribes, then you eat and drink judgment on yourself.
1)The Apostles letters don't discuss the Eucharist in detail, but Jesus does over and over again in the Gospels. (John 6:55) Jesus says " For my flesh is food indeed, and my blood is drink indeed". If everyone, including the Apostles took Him literally, why didn't Jesus correct them, as he ALWAYS did? Why did Jesus compare His flesh and Blood to literal food (MANNA) that feed the Israelite's? John 6 is crystal clear.
@hockeyrulesus In John 6:55, if Jesus was asking his apostles to literally eat his body and drink his blood, then he would be contradicting himself for in v. 63 he says "The Spirit gives life; the flesh counts for nothing."
1) Even thought the letters of the Apostles don't go into detail about the real presence, (1Cor 10:16) does say clearly the Wine that is blessed is the Blood of Christ, and the Bread is partaking of the Body of Christ. " The chalice of benediction which we bless, is it not the communion of the blood of Christ? And the bread which we break, is it not the partaking of the body of the Lord?" If you choose to deny it, it is not because you don't see it in scripture, but lack of Faith
@hockeyrulesus If Jesus meant for his body to be eaten and his blood to be drunk, then he should have offered his own body and blood to his apostles to be eaten and drunk instead of the bread and wine. But he didn't do that because the intended message of that last supper was to establish a memorial service which Christ commanded his apostles to be observed by them and by others who follow him for all time until he returns.
@mpenaco "to establish a memorial service which Christ commanded his apostles to be observed"
Yes, and "memorial" in Biblical context means the original event is actualized with the participants. It is not our modern notion of remembrance. The original event is made present in the here and now.
John6:63 means our material eyes can't perceive Him in the eucharist, but our spiritual eyes can. It can't refer to Jesus' flesh because His flesh, dead on a cross, paid for our sins.
@AmericanBerean "Yes, and "memorial" in Biblical context means the original event is actualized with the participants."
How can you "actualize" an event which already happened? Besides, Jesus was quite specific in saying "do this in REMEMBRANCE of me". We are commanded NOT to make the event happen again but to REMEMBER him as we perform the ceremony of the breaking of the bread. Having the right appreciation of Jesus' sacrifice and knowing that he did it for our sake is what is being asked.
@mpenaco As I stated previously, The original language wording (in the Gospels and in OT references of the Passover memorial) connotes that Jesus instituted a sacrificial offering, not a mere "calling to mind" event. Moses' command to celebrate the Passover feast described that they would experience that one-time event, even though in our linear, unidirectional, timeline they were not there for the original event. It's God's power enabling them to participate. Just so, with the New Passover.
@AmericanBerean The important truth of Scripture is that God will ultimately judge us according to our obedience / disobedience to his commandments - particularly those that pertain to our poor brothers and sisters. Christ will say "whatever you do to the least of my brothers you do it to me". He will never judge us based on our belief about the bread and wine offered during mass. This does not matter to God but what your priests are doing to those poor orphans matters to God.
@mpenaco It does matter, to the extent that He commands us to obey His words. He tells us the New Passover is a participation in His body and blood, not symbol.
Pervert priests will indeed answer to God. But their misdeeds do not determine the veracity of the RCC because the fact is, they are violating Church laws, not expressing them. Their are plenty of perverts among the other denominations, even "Bible Churches", but that doesn't mean the Bible is wrong. Don't throw rocks in a glass house.
@AmericanBerean 1/2: I still believe it is a memorial so we do not forget the love of God for his people. As for those pervert priests in the RCC, the big problem is not that those priests became bad because there are always bad people in any organization. The problem is that the RCC which sees the Bible as the word of God is deliberately disregarding the commandments given by God to Moses and the warning of Paul to the Ephesian church concerning acts of immorality within the church.
@AmericanBerean 2/2: While both Moses and Paul mandate ex-communication for a church member who commit sexual immorality, the RCC hides its own pervert priests from prosecution and recycles them to other parishes. Victims had to resort to civilian courts to seek justice. The Bible is never wrong. But the RCC is guilty of violating Jesus' most important command: "whatever you do to the least of these brothers of mine, you do it to me."
@mpenaco Yes, some men in various levels of the hierarchy, but not the RCC as a whole, are complicit in crimes. But their misbehavior is exactly the OPPOSITE of RCC doctrines and dogmas, which are Biblical principals.
Martin Luther had some legitimate gripes with the Church of that day, and maybe today there needs to be some shaking up, but not to the extent of condemning the whole institution. There are issues, but the gates of Hell will not prevail against this Church Jesus founded.
@AmericanBerean Doctrines and dogmas are a reflection or extension of God's word given to the prophets and the apostles. If they are from God, then they are powerful like a two-edged sword and are able to change the hearts and desires of those priests who tried to commit evil acts on helpless kids. Decades of abuse will tell us that those doctrines and dogmas that your church is following have no power and unable to change the evil chararacters of certain priests who celebrate masses weekly.
@mpenaco Once again, the problem is not the doctrines. It is that we are, by nature humans. Besides, our Church has only become more "Protestant-like" since Vatican II. So it really speaks volumes more about Protestantism than anything. The scandals are awful. But they are also rare. They are even rarer still in Traditionalist and Eastern Catholic parishes. On the other hand, scandal in Protestantism - such as when a parishioner's interpretation conflicts with his pastor's - is common.
@SorokChyetirye The problem is not the doctrines? Let's see. One RCC doctrine says one human being in the person of Mary was conceived without sin, born without sin and lived without sin. Scripture on the other hand says "all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God" and that "I was born in sin. In sin my mother conceived me." Either Scripture is lying or RCC is going against Scripture. Scripture does not lie so RCC must be wrong.
@mpenaco Have all people committed actual sins? Consider a child below the age of reason. By definition he can’t sin, since sinning requires the ability to reason and the ability to intend to sin. We also know of another very prominent exception to the rule: Jesus. So if Romans 3 includes an exception for the New Adam (Jesus), one may argue that an exception for the New Eve (Mary) can also be made. Now considering all these points, Romans 3 is not to be taken literally.
@AmericanBerean There needs to be some shaking up you are correct and that shaking up should include not only people but the doctrines and dogmas of the church as well that are contrary to the teachings of Christ, the prophets and the apostles.
@mpenaco So, the misbehavior of these bad men, you bring up, in no way nullifies the divine, sacrificial, renewing nature of the sacrament Jesus instituted in the Upper Room: the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass.
@AmericanBerean Jesus said "you will know them by their fruits". If the RCC dogmas and doctrines about Mary, papal infllibility, purgatory, etc. are from God, then 10 years of immersion on these dogmas and doctrines should produce solid spiritual foundation that cannot be shaken for your priests. Rampant immorality around the world should be a clear testimony to all that these dogmas and doctrines are not from God.
@mpenaco Says the man who is a member of one of 30,000 rivalling, squabbling, competitive "churches" who cannot fully agree on what Christ taught. 10 to 20% of whom have a pastor who has philandered with at least one female member of his congregation.
All men are sinners, even you and your pastor and his daddy. Ad hominem attacks do justice to no one. Let's stick to the theology instead of pointing out the obvious: that all men fall short of the glory of God.
@SorokChyetirye So you admit it yourself: "All men are sinners, even you and your pastor and his daddy." So why continue to blindly follow and promote a doctrine that promotes a human as sinless?
@mpenaco If Christ had been born of a sinful woman, a woman enslaved to sin, His flesh would also have been sinful, and His human nature would have to be subservient to His divine. But we don't teach that, Catholic, or Protestant. We teach that Christ was 100% human and 100% divine. So, it makes sense for the flesh of Christ to come from a woman who was not even conceived a sinner, but who was cleaned of sin before conception. That is one reason.
@mpenaco I am not educated enough to speak on this authoritatively. But I can say this: Jerome's Vulgate, the Mother of All Translations up until the Dead Sea Scrolls were found, says "plena gratia" in reference to Our Lady. It only says that in one other place in the Bible: John 1:14 states that Jesus, the Word (Verbum) is full of grace and truth ("plenum gratiae et veritatis"). Surely you can see the connection and see that Mary was full of the grace Christ had?
@SorokChyetirye But your connection is wrong because Mary herself admitted that she needed a savior clearly telling us that she was a sinner for who needs saving other than a sinner? Remember, Jesus saving grace is for the sinner, not for a non-sinner. Salvation before a person commits a sin is nowhere taught in Scripture.
@mpenaco Nonetheless, this does not negate the idea that Mary could have been conceived free of original sin (as original sin is a mark on the SOUL, not the body); she could have been cleaned of it before conception.
All the same, there are Catholics far more knowledgable in the saints and their writings than I am. If you really want to find out what the saints thought, I might suggest going to the Catholic Answers forums.
@SorokChyetirye The idea that Mary could have been conceived free of original sin is just that: an idea. But the truth of Scripture completely destroys that idea when it proclaims that "all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God"
@mpenaco And common sense destroys that when we see liberal Protestants and lapsed Catholics having abortions and leaving their premature children, hardly even able to see or move on their own some of them, to die of exposure. What sin did they commit to deserve to be killed by their own mothers?
@SorokChyetirye 1/2: Our standard of right and wrong must be the word of God, not the teachings and practices of any religious group. Comparing yourself with other religions does not make you right with God. You must judge your behavior against the infallible word of God, the Scripture. If other religions think killing unborn babies is acceptable, that's too bad and they will answer to God for that. But how about your religion?
@SorokChyetirye 2/2: You promote a mere creature as sinless, infallible, and you make graven images for worship in complete disregard for God's commandments and the teachings of Christ, the prophets and the apostles. While God's word prescribes ex-communication for church members guilty of sexual immorality, you hide them and move them from parish to parish. Victims are seeking justice from civilian courts because they cannot find it in the church.
@mpenaco Another is that Mary WAS saved, but before she even reached Earth. It's akin to two people. One sees a puddle and falls into it, and Christ picks them up and cleans them. The other sees the puddle, but Christ prevents her from even falling into it. The latter is what the Immaculate Conception is like.
@SorokChyetirye The salvation that Christ gave is for those who have sinned. All of us have sinned that's why we need Christ. Nowhere in Scripture does it speak of Christ saving someone from falling into sin. Christ's atonement is for the washing away of sins, not preventing from falling into it because we already are in it.
@mpenaco Babies die in innocence without having committed a sin once. Christ saves us from those kinds of sins, yes. But he also saves us from original sin in baptism - or, if you like, from birth all of us lack saving grace. Christ gives us that saving grace in baptism. Is it so impossible for Christ to baptise a soul in Heaven?
Also, it says nothing about Sola Scriptura or Sola Fide in the Bible, yet you seem perfectly placated to that belief.
God's grace can produce a solid foundation only when a man cooperates with it. Pervert priests have pushed away grace and disobeyed RCC doctrines & laws, and hence do these bad things. "Rampant immorality" is false. It is statistically rare, though one is too many.
By your logic we should conclude that the Bible is not from God, since perverts are probably present amidst all Christian organizations.
@AmericanBerean Another bad teaching: "God's grace can produce a solid foundation only when a man cooperates with it."
Is man's cooperation needed to accomplish God's plan of salvation? Scripture is clear: "So then it is not of him that willeth, nor of him that runneth, but of God that sheweth mercy." Rom. 9:16
@AmericanBerean Evil has no doubt, infiltrated the RCC so deeply that even the priesthood has not been spared. If the RCC is the true church of God, we know this will never happen because Christ himself promised that the gates of hell shall not prevail against his true church.
@mpenaco Christ's promise did not say every cleric of His Church would be a good guy. His promise means His Church will never teach error as divine truth.
"All have sinned..." excludes Jesus, and infants/unborn. If there's two exceptions there can be more. All Christians, who persevere, will become sinless eventually (after death). Mary simply received that purification retroactively, because God knew she would be a willing instrument of His plans. Your objection is only about timing.
@AmericanBerean Jesus being God is not an included in Paul's statement that all have sinned. But infants and the unborn are very much included according to Scripture:
Ps. 51:5
Surely I was sinful at birth, sinful from the time my mother conceived me.
@mpenaco "All have sinned" does mean all humans are born under the curse of Adam, by default children of Satan. Through faith and baptism we are made God's children, the primary effect of Original Sin is removed. But we still have the tendancy to sin (secondary effect of Orig. Sin). We'll have that removed after we die.
With Mary, these were done at conception. ("My soul magnifies the Lord...He has done great things to me" Luke1) God's grace did this, else she would've had the curse.
@AmericanBerean The belief that Mary received purification retroactively is purely human teaching which Scripture denies. Even the famous Catholic Peter Lombard disputes it:
Peter Lombard: "But this is asked on what account and whence is it that Mary was conceived without original sin? We say this was impossible."
@mpenaco Perhaps a few Catholic individuals disputed the idea, but the remaining of those writing on it believed in it... Hippolytus,Origen,Ephraim, Ambrose,Augustine,Proclus.
@AmericanBerean St. Paul and the inspired psalmist certainly dispute the idea of a sinless human being. As previously quoted, Paul proclaims without exception that "all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God". Equally forceful is the Psalmist's words "I was born in sin. In sin my mother conceived me." Were they lying when they said those words?
@mpenaco The Psalmist said "I", not "every human being". Paul's statement has an exception (Jesus) so another is not contradictory. Jude 24 indicates God can preserve someone from sinning. No one but Mary was named "full of grace" by an angel. No one else was "overshadowed" by the Spirit as it overshadowed the Ark of the Covenant. No one else's soul magnifies the Lord. No one else is called blessed by all generations.
Mary played a unique role in God's plan, so He saved her, prebirth.
@AmericanBerean So you think the Psalmist was speaking only for himself when he professed sinfulness from conception? You think any human can honestly say before God "I was NOT born in sin"? Sorry to say but that, I believe is plain arrogance and devoid of any truth. Scripture makes it plain that God uses sinners to accomplish his plan of salvation. From Abraham down to the last apostle, no one can claim sinlessness on account of God's grace and blessing.
@AmericanBerean Scripture gives numerous accounts of people God used to accomplish his plan of salvation. They, like Mary played unique roles in that plan. Abraham has his unique role; Moses has his important unique part; Elijah, David, Peter, Paul, John, Matthew. They all have important roles in God's plan. But one thing common to all of them is that they were all sinners before God came to them. But that's not a hindrance for God to use them. Mary was no different.
@mpenaco Those men played important roles, but Mary was quite different, her role was utterly unlike and superior to theirs. None other was so intimately touched by divinity as in bearing God incarnate. God's presence on Mt Horeb made it (an inanimate thing) a holy place (Ex3:5). The Ark of the Covenant was holy as well. Being the God-bearer, the Ark of the New Covenant, Mary would've been quite holy indeed, because God incarnate was within her. God preserved her from sin for this.
@AmericanBerean 1/2: In terms of the extent of their sacrifice, I believe the apostles' role far exceeded that of Mary. The tests to the apostles' faith far exceeded the tests on Mary's faith as they had to endure physical torture, humiliation and the constant threat to their own lives. Mary did not have to suffer stoning, being fed to wild beasts and being used as human candles. The apostles' roles were, without a doubt, superior to that of Mary's roles.
@mpenaco No, indeed, brother... Can you imagine the how you would suffer if someone grabbed your beloved son, whipped him, scourged him, beat him to the brink of death, then hammered nails through his hands and feet to hang him on a cross? Imagine your own suffering, watching your own son asphyxiate slowly and painfully over hours. Mary suffered more than the Apostles, their own physical suffering doesn't compare to her maternal emotional suffering.
@AmericanBerean The relationship that binds Jesus to his disciples is far greater than that between mother and son. To Paul, John, Peter and the rest of the apostles, Jesus was more than just a friend or a brother. He was to them, their savior, the messiah, the Son of the living God. What you just described are purely the physical and emotional suffering of a mother grieving the loss of her son. But the loss suffered by the apostles was far, far greater.
@mpenaco Are you saying that Jesus wasn't Mary's Savior, Messiah, Son of the living God? So, in addition to her physical and emotional suffering, wasn't Jesus also these things too?
@hockeyrulesus Jesus was Mary's savior as she expressly proclaims "my soul rejoices in God my savior". It is the RCC that tries to make salvation unnecessary for Mary by proclaiming she was sinless at conception and throughout all her life, thereby eliminating the need for a savior.
@mpenaco I disagree. Mary was the FIRST Christian. His FIRST disciple. It's a logical inference. So, she suffered loss in the manner of the Apostles in ADDITION to the mother's agony of seeing her son brutalized.
Besides that, Mary and Jesus' mother-son relationship must have been more than any other mother-son in history, due to the natures of persons involved. Her suffering would then have been orders of magnitude greater than any other mother's, in that situation.
@AmericanBerean 1/3: If Mary's role is as important as you described, then why can't her very own son acknowledge that and recognize her as his own mother when confronted about it in front of a crowd?
1st instance: A crowd was sitting around him, and they told him, “Your mother and brothers are outside looking for you.” “Who are my mother and my brothers?” he asked.
Then he looked at those seated in a circle around him and said,
@mpenaco He did not downplay His mother, he was upplaying the other, demonstrating the significance of faith & obedience. Mary was both mother and disciple, therefore doubly blessed. Luke11:28 the word "rather" does not mean "instead". The greek word here properly means "therefore really indeed" (Strong's 3304).
@AmericanBerean The RCC promotes a lot of beliefs which Scripture does not support. It promotes calling Mary "mother of God" and "mother of the Church". The problem is, not a single passage in Scripture do we find Jesus in his entire ministry calling Mary his mother. None of the apostles calls Mary "mother of the church". There is no command anywhere in Scripture to call Mary "mother of the church". So why should we believe this teaching as truth?
Jesus, from the Cross, said to John "Behold your mother", and to Mary, "Behold your son". The plain meaning is to care for His mother since her only son would be gone. Another level of meaning is that John here represents all disciples and so Mary becomes the mother of all Christians (the Church).
Mary bore Jesus. Jesus is God. Therefore, Mary is the Mother of God.
The Church is the body of Christ, so she's the Mother of the Church.
@AmericanBerean So when Jesus says to John "behold your mother" you think John represents ALL christians but when the psalmist says "I was born in sin" you think the psalmist was speaking solely for himself and not about all humanity. hmmmm, I seem to detect a double standard here.
@mpenaco The Psalmist may speak about all of us, including Mary. However, when Mary's soul took flesh and became carnally, physically human, in the womb, she was without any stain of sin. Before her conception, it is possible she had the mark of original sin all mankind bears. The point is, Mary's FLESH was not corrupted by sin so that the Child Jesus would not be corrupted physically as a man, either
@AmericanBerean However vigorously you claim that Mary is sole the mother of God and the sole mother of the Church, Jesus expressly denies it by saying his mother are those who keep the commandments of God. So that makes all of us who keep God's commandments Jesus' mother, brother and sister. That makes Mary's claim to motherhood NOT exclusive but the same as the rest of God's people.
@AmericanBerean I think the problem with your belief is that you fail to distinguish between the temporal and the eternal. Yes it is true that Mary was the mother of Jesus and since Jesus is God, we can say that Mary is the mother of God. But since Jesus made a clear statement that his mother are those who keep the will of God, a truth is clearly revealed to us that the earthly motherhood of Mary is not what makes Mary Jesus' mother but her obedience to God's commands.
@AmericanBerean God the Father is spoken of in Scripture. God the Son is also in Scripture. God the Holy Spirit is taught in Scripture. That makes the doctrine of the Trinity Scriptural. But nothing in Scripture supports the idea that Mary is the mother of the church. The best that we can say about Mary besides being the earthly mother of Jesus is that she is a child of God, a member of Christ's body, the Church. We know that because she obeyed God's commands.
@AmericanBerean 2/3: “Here are my mother and my brothers! Whoever does God’s will is my brother and sister and mother.” Mark 3:32-35
2nd instance: As Jesus was saying these things, a woman in the crowd called out, “Blessed is the mother who gave you birth and nursed you.” He replied, “Blessed rather are those who hear the word of God and obey it.” Luke 11:27-28
@mpenaco Neither of these quotes downplay his mother spiritually, but rather in terms of heredity. People valued family a lot back then because they were family - not because they loved God. Christ's family, however, is the whole human race. His favourites are those who love Him and keep His commands, not those of His bloodline. Mary was nothing short of His obedient servant, so it stands to good reason Christ loved His mother, not because she bore Him, but because she loved Him.
@SorokChyetirye God loves his people not because they love Him but because God chooses to. God's love is not based on our love for Him. If this was so, then God would love no one because all of us have become God's enemies on account of our sins. Jesus loves Mary no doubt but not because Mary loved him first. Jesus' love for his people has no pre-condition. He came to save us at a time when we were all his enemies, Mary included.
@AmericanBerean If the magnitude of Mary's suffering for the faith was greater than that of the apostles, how would you explain these statements from Jesus which seem to downplay Mary's importance as (1) his mother and (2) a blessed person.
@AmericanBerean 2/2: The best evidence that the apostles' roles are far more superior to that of Mary's comes from Jesus himself when he pointed to his disciples and said "Here are my mother and my brothers! Whoever does God's will is my brother and sister and mother." Mk. 3:34-35.
@mpenaco It does not necessarily downplay it, though. In fact, Christ shows love for His mother on the cross when he gives John, His disciple whom He loved to His mother, and His mother to this disciple in John 19:26-27. That was caring for you mother, to make sure she has a young man to care for her if you, her son, are dying.
@SorokChyetirye The important point in Jesus' statements is that our blessedness in heaven and our relationship to Jesus as mother, brother or sister is not based on our biological connection to him but on our obedience to God's commands. That's the reason why Jesus had to rebuke those who tried to magnify Mary as being blessed and being his mother. For Jesus, real blessedness is when you keep the will of God, not magnifying Mary.
@mpenaco Our love of Mary comes only from our love of God. In His own glorification, Christ also glorifies His mother. Any dogma we have on her only stems from our dogmas about Christ! And it is a vile Protestant lie that Christ's Mother should be a slave to sin. Because Christ is fully human IN ALL THINGS EXCEPT SIN. And His humanness came from Mary, NOT God who is Divine. Therefore, Mary necessarily had to be removed from original sin when she, A HUMAN NOT A GOD, became incarnate.
@mpenaco If he teaches that he is not a Catholic. If you do not believe this, you do not wholly share the faith, famous or not.
Scripture does not deny that one can be saved from sins before conception. Since original sin is a mark on the SOUL and not the body, conception is not technically required to be saved from one's sins.
@SorokChyetirye Is there any human existence before conception? Were there sins committed before you were conceived? What was there to save before Mary was conceived? Jesus' coming was to save sinners and since everyone who came into existence has sinned, then Jesus came for all of them. Saving Mary BEFORE she was conceived is pure nonsense and totally devoid of any truth. No one needs saving before existence.
@AmericanBerean So your church teaches that infants and the unborn are without sin? So the Psalmist was wrong in saying "in sin my mother conceived me"? And God was guilty of pre-judging and hating Esau before he was born?
@mpenaco Infants are free from personal sin, but are subject to Original Sin.That is what the Psalmist is referring to. Original Sin is washed away by baptism, even in the infant. But the stain, the tendancy to sin, is still there. They are just not culpable until old enough to know right/wrong.
God does not pre-judge. God knew that Esau would eventually sell his birthright for a bowl of stew. That's how little Esau cared for it. God didn't hate Esau, He just loved him less than Jacob.
@AmericanBerean 1/2: Two things: First, Paul's statement that all have sinned and the Psalmist's statement that we are sinners right from conception are true even for infants because, as you admitted, we all have original sin in us. And we are all culpable and are deserving of death because of that sin.
@mpenaco We are deserving of death because of Original Sin. All are subject to the effects of Original Sin, the primary one is separation from God's family. Once baptized, even infants, that primary effect is undone, but the secondary effects are still there, ie tendancy to sin, which we do.
Sinful acts are not necessarily sins. Anyone mentally unable to discern right/wrong is not fully accountable for their sinful acts.
@AmericanBerean Even your own system of beliefs does not allow for anyone to be without sin from conception. RCC teaches that once baptized, the effect of original sin is erased. That goes without saying that before baptism, everyone has that effect of original sin in him or her. And that makes us all sinners at conception and at birth, just as the psalmist proclaimed.
@mpenaco We are all born with original sin, and this is removed at Baptism, in Mary's case, original sin was removed at conception. Christ CAN NOT be born of a sinful woman, Mary was the vessel, and the vessel was pure. For Catholics, this doctrine is a true as the doctrine of the Trinity. If you read (Luke 1:46) kjv, "And my spirit hath rejoiced in God my Savior." Rejoiced is a past tense, and notice "God my Savior", elsewhere in the NT, Christ' is named as savior. God saved her at conception.
@hockeyrulesus If Mary was conceived without original sin and lived without any sin, then that makes her perfect and fit to be the sacrifice for man's sin. But Scripture expressly denies the existence of any human who is perfect and sinless in every way. "As it is written: "There is no one righteous, not even one." Rom. 3:10. "I wept and wept because no one was found who was worthy to open the scroll or look inside." Rev. 5:4.
@mpenaco Mary, though sinless, could not have been a worthy sacrifice for man's sin, because she was a mere human, and it was grace, not her own inherent power, that made her sinless. An infinite debt was owed and only one who is inherently of infinite value could pay it... hence, the incarnation of the Son of God.
Rom 3:10 is in the context of one's inherent righteousness. Humans have none, not even Mary. God's proactivity caused Mary's sinlessness.
@AmericanBerean Being blameless(spotless) was the sole requirement to qualifiy as the "sacrificial lamb" to appease God's anger over man's sin. Jesus was perfectly human like Mary but why did he and not Mary qualified for the job? Because Jesus was spotless while Mary like the rest of us, was mired in sin. And yet, RCC disregards this truth and continues to promote Mary as immaculate and sinless. This, I believe is a big lie.
@mpenaco The debt owed to God by mankind (due to Original Sin and all personal sins) was infinite in magnitude. NO merely human being (ie Mary) could ever qualify to repay it, no matter how blessed by God. Only an infinite being could repay it. Only Jesus "qualified for the job" because only He was the God-Man. And it wasn't just to "appease God's anger". Justice must be done.
@mpenaco But He inherited His flesh from Mary, not God. God is divine, not human. If Christ had inherited the sins of the flesh from His mother, He would not be God; He would be an abomination, and He could not in all fullness be fully human and fully divine; His divne nature would always be suppressing His sinful humanity. So out of necessity, Mary's flesh, which is what Christ inherited from her, must have been pure and free from the stain of sin.
@SorokChyetirye Applying your logic to Mary, we can reason that Mary's parents must be pure as well otherwise Mary would have inherited their sins. Her grandparents and great grandparents must be sinless also to keep Mary from getting the stain of original sin. Ultimately, Adam and Eve must be sinless to keep Mary pure and spotless. I hope you see the absurdity of this doctrine of immaculate conception.
@mpenaco You do realise that none of us were supposed to be borne to original sin, anyway, right? It is God's right to save a person from original sin if He so chooses, even before birth. Since original sin is merely another name for a complete lack of saving grace, it is certainly possible God gave Mary the necessary saving grace she needed before she was conceived. Your lack of faith is appalling.
@SorokChyetirye Anything is possible with God but we are specifically told in Scriptures that all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God without any exception and that we are all conceived and born in sin so why insist on the belief that Mary was sinless? You say it is possible for God to keep Mary from getting original sin but I say it is also possible for God to keep Jesus from getting any sin despite Mary's sinful nature.
@mpenaco Were does it say there are no exceptions? I can name one that even you would agree is an exception, JESUS, born fully human. So, there are exceptions, and that's the point Catholic's are making.
@hockeyrulesus The statement "all have sinned..." applies to man alone and Jesus being God, is not covered by that rule. Your own Catholic saint Augustine upholds this: "He, Christ, alone being made a man but remaining God never had any sin nor did He take on flesh of sin, though He took flesh of the sin of His mother." If a saint like Augustine admits Mary's sinfulness, why can't you?
@mpenaco Jesus is fully God and fully man. To believe anything else is to not be a Christian and to deny a fundamental teaching all Christians have professed to believe. The passage you cite, actually affirms the doctrine of Mary's Immaculate Conception. If Christ's flesh was sinless (there is no doubt it was), than how could its progenitor (Mary) be sinful? Saint Augustine was not perfect. None of the Church Fathers were. He also taught that mathematics were evil. ;-)
@mpenaco And as history shows, we've never affirmed that to be true, either. But what Augustine has said that is true has stood the test of time, and is believed by all Christians for all ages. For example all of use are born in original sin. (Or as the Orthodox would say, we are born without grace.) Baptism cleanses us of this original sin and of all other sins (i.e, it gives us saving grace). These things Augustine taught, and these things have always been believed.
@mpenaco No, it doesn't. She is a CREATION, while Christ is the CREATOR. That is also an important distinction. It was necessary not only that an unblemished sacrifice be made to God, but also that GOD DIE FOR MAN'S SINS. Only by God's grace is there anything good about Mary, much less any sinlessness. But even she needed Christ's help to be sinless; He is the only one who is completely unblemished and able to make the sacrifice by His very nature as the one who always was. Mary cannot do that.
@SorokChyetirye Why would Mary need Christ to be sinless if she was sinless from the first moment of her existence? Did Christ come to earth for the sinless or for the sinners? You say Christ is the only one who is completely unblemished but you promote Mary as "immaculate" . Do you know what immaculate means? A simple glance at a dictionary will tell you that immaculate means "having no stain or blemish"; pure; containing no flaw or error; spotlessly clean. Don't be deceived my friend.
@mpenaco There is a difference between EXISTENCE and INCARNATION. Mary became INCARNATE without sin. We do not know that her SOUL always existed without the stain of original sin.
@mpenaco And yet when we look at the history of the Christian Church, it makes no sense to say Mary was full of sin, especially when we consider the dogmas all Christians (not including Bible-only heretics) have believed: Perpetual Virginity (affirmed since 533), Christ's virgin birth (325), Mary is the Mother of God (431), Mary's Dormition (believed since the 300s), and the Immaculate Conception (which even Luther believed).
@SorokChyetirye What good is your knowledge of church history if the very word of God denies it? If the so-called church history says Mary was sinless, do you accept it as truth even though Scripture says otherwise? Do you put your faith more on the writings of fallen men than on the inspired teachings of the prophets and the apostles? Whose word do you trust, man's or God's?
@mpenaco Because, I put more faith in the truths that have been always taught, since the Apostles, who KNEW Jesus in FLESH and BLOOD, rather than the interpretations of an individual 2 millenia removed from the actual events of the Bible and interpreting it through his narrow, American interpretation of the world. In other words, I trust the Apostles, and those they trusted with the Truth, rather than some random GUY who read about Jesus from a Book. Atheists do that, too.
@mpenaco The Bible is the inspired Word of God. A powerful weapon. Claymores are also powerful weapons. But in the wrong hands, both of these weapons can end up causing much undue suffering to people. Private interpretation has probably caused the needless injury of many souls who could have just started at the Apostles and walked their way to Pope Benedict. Or Bartholomew I. Either way, private interpretation is unChristian and unBiblical.
@mpenaco To fly in the face of history is to fly in the face of God. No one, not even Jesus, said our beliefs are not to be historically consistent. Just the opposite in fact: "till heaven and earth pass, one jot, or one tittle shall not pass of the law, till all be fulfilled." (Matt. 5:18 D-RB) Yet you and all other "sola" heretics would do away with what all Christians, even Luther, believed in until the 1500s. This includes saying that Mary was not "Kecharitomene" (full of grace).
@SorokChyetirye Does full of grace mean sinless? There are a number of grace-filled individuals in Scripture but none of them claimed sinlessness. To attribute sinlessness to Mary is to make God a liar who claims that no one is righteous, not even one and that we are all conceived and born in sin.
@mpenaco To be full of sin is essentially to be completely without grace. Grace and sin are polar opposites; you cannot be full of grace and have any sin. God's grace, after all, is what justifies and saves a man, not his faith nor his works. Only in one other place, John 1:14, can you find "full of grace". And there, Saint John speaks of Christ's glory as being "full of grace". There is no one else "full of grace". Also, Rom 3:23 means that all are CAPABLE of sin, not that all HAVE.
@mpenaco Consider infants, for example. How have they sinned? They haven't. Also, Saint Paul said in Rom 5:12 that death spread to all men. BUT what about Enoch and Elijah, who never died? "All" does not always mean "all" when St. Paul is speaking. ;)
@SorokChyetirye But Jesus expressly warned his followers against those who follow traditions even from respected religious authorities. RCC teachings throughout history are full of these kinds of traditions which Jesus himself refers to as traditions of men. Following them is like following the blind.
@mpenaco Your ignorance is astounding. The Pharisees DID NOT FOLLOW the Traditions they taught! They were hypocrites!! The problem is not TRADITION, but HYPOCRISY. Also, PROVE that the RCC teaches the traditions of men are Doctrine or dogma, and maybe I will believe you. But you have no proof; you're the blind one because you neither follow men nor God. You follow what YOU think Scripture means, and not what God meant it to mean!
@SorokChyetirye Sorry, but I think it is you who is showing your ignorance of Scripture. Christ specifically accused the Pharisees that they have replaced God's word with their traditions which Christ calls "traditions of men". "You have let go of the commands of God and are holding on to the traditions of men." Mk. 7:8. Contrary to what you posted, the Pharisees followed their traditions but those are false traditions according to Christ.
@mpenaco Maybe the problem is not the Church, but your vanity in thinking YOU, some random guy, can interpret Scripture like someone who learned from the Apostles himself. Yes, it has been 2000 years. But for 2000 years we've been teaching the same things the Apostles taught. Yes, we are men who keep Christ's Church alive. Christ works through these earthen vessels called men. He's been doing it for 5000 years or more. Have you really lost your faith in God's ability to preserve Truth?
@SorokChyetirye The problem is even a grade schooler understands what Psalm 51:5 means and what Romans 3:23 is saying without need for any interpretation. But you who profess to know church history refuses to accept the clear meaning of these passages. You want the Bible to say something else to fit your bogus tradition.
@SorokChyetirye "But for 2000 years we've been teaching the same things the Apostles taught."
Really? Which apostle taught that Mary is immaculate? Which apostle taught that the pope is infallible when speaking about faith and morals? Which apostle taught that there is purgatory? Which apostle taught that we are to make graven images of saints to aid in worship?
@SorokChyetirye "Yes, we are men who keep Christ's Church alive."
I highly doubt that. Your church cannot even impose discipline on priests who molest helpless children according to the clear teachings of Scripture, how much more for keeping Christ's Church alive? If Christ will ask your church today "whatever you do to the least of these brothers of mine?" Will your child-molesting priests be able to say "yes Lord we take good care of them"?
@AmericanBerean 2/2: Secondly, Scripture is clear that God hated Esau not because of acts he would do after he was born. He hated Esau so that God's purpose in election might stand: not by works but by Him who calls. Esau's selling of his birthright to Jacob had nothing to do with God's decision to hate him. Was God unfair? Not a bit. Esau, like the rest of us, was guilty of original sin and deserved the punishment of death. God had every reason to hate him before he was born.
@mpenaco Esau selling his birthright had everything to do with it.
In that culture the firstborn, by default, was heir to the father's position as head of the family. If Esau didn't show unworthiness he would not have been usurped.
But God works with what He's got, His plans always go on despite the poor material He works with.
God loves even those outside His family, that's why He sent Jesus.
@hockeyrulesus The teaching that the merits of Christ's sacrifice is applied to the sinner as he eats the bread and drinks the wine during mass is a false one. Scripture makes it clear that it is the Holy Spirit that dispenses all God's gifts to His people, including the gift of Christ's sacrifice. The role of the Church is to go and make disciples of all the nations - in other words, preach the Gospel. The handing out of the spiritual gifts is handled by God himself, through the Holy Spirit.
@mpenaco And also, (1Cor 10:16) " The chalice of benediction which we bless, is it not the communion of the blood of Christ? And the bread which we break, is it not the partaking of the body of the Lord?"
These words clearly state THE BREAD (Eucharist), IS PARTAKING IN THE BODY OF THE LORD, NOT A REMEMBRANCE OF HIS BODY, BUT LITERALLY!
@hockeyrulesus The food that Christ prescribes for his people is the spiritual nourishment that God provides, not physical bread and wine. It is the same "food" that he "ate" which is TO DO THE WILL OF THE FATHER. For him to say that his body remains in the bread and wine and that to eat and drink it is the way of atonement is so against what he clearly proclaimed to his disciples. The harmful effect of this teaching is the belief that we are healed by eating the bread and drinking the wine.
@mpenaco Yes, the sacrifice that paid for all the world's sins was a one-time event in the past. But the application of the merits of that sacrifice is ongoing, until the Final Judgement. It is applied to us when we first come to salvation. It is applied to us throughout our lives as we sin and repent. It is applied to us after death to wash away any lingering attachments to sin we may have had when we died (this we call purgatory, where His Blood makes us holy enough to see God's face.)
@AmericanBerean 1/2: The application of the merits of Jesus' sacrifice is ongoing and being applied to God's people by the Holy Spirit as He gives life to our dead soul and in the process, changing our natures from law-breakers to law-abiding children of God. Your statement that the merits of Christ's sacrifice is applied throughout our lives as we sin and repent is revealing of a major flaw in your theology. The application of Christ's sacrifice on us changes our nature, empowering us...
@AmericanBerean 2/2: to obey God's commandments and resist the temptation to sin. It is applied only once and because it is the power of God, it changes us and makes us disciples of Christ, co-workers with him in making disciples of all nations. To suggest that the merits are applied over and over again indicates a weakness in the power of Christ's atonement. Are we not more than conquerors?
@AmericanBerean The teaching about purgatory is an attempt to embarrass Christ and his ability to cleanse us from our sins. Scripture teaches that our acceptance and profession of Jesus Christ as our Lord and Savior and our repentance from our sins assure us of our place in heaven. Jesus' sacrifice is imputed on us and our sins at that instant is washed away. This is what happened to Zaccheus who was assured salvation by no less than Jesus himself after he professed his sins.
Transubstantiation is a false doctrine because Jesus is not a liar: In Mt 26:29 after Jesus had said, "this is my blood" and prayed, he still referred to the contents as, "fruit of the vine". If transubstantiation of the juice into blood had occurred, as both Roman Catholic and Orthodox churches say it was at this time, then Jesus would never have referred to it as "fruit of the vine' but rather "blood"...
kiwichristian2009 2 months ago
@kiwichristian2009 ...This proves that when Jesus said "take eat & drink" he LITERALLY gave them bread and juice. In like manner, Paul also refers to the elements of the Lord's Supper as "eat this bread and drink the cup" in 1 Cor 11:26 after they should be transubstantiated.
kiwichristian2009 2 months ago
@kiwichristian2009
St Paul claims the real presence of Christ in the Eucharist, (1 Corinth 10:16) "The chalice of benediction which we bless, is it not the communion of the blood of Christ? And the bread which we break, is it not the partaking of the body of the Lord? For we, being many, are one bread, one body: all that partake of one bread."
Did that answer your question?
hockeyrulesus 2 months ago
@kiwichristian2009 "Fruit of the vine" These words, by the account of Luke 22:18, were not spoken of the sacramental cup, but of the wine that was drunk with the paschal lamb. Though the sacramental cup might also be called the fruit of the vine, because it was consecrated from wine, and retains the likeness, and all the accidents or qualities of wine.
hockeyrulesus 2 months ago
Must Christ be continually sacrificed in the mass, or was His blood sacrifice on the cross 100% sufficient to pay for all our sins for ever? In John19:30 Jesus said, "IT IS FINISHED", which in the Greek is "Tetelestai" meaning "to make an END, to ACCOMPLISH, to COMPLETE something, not mearly to end it, but to bring it to perfection or its intended goal."
kiwichristian2009 2 months ago
@kiwichristian2009 Christ was sacrificed once, and eternal, and anyone can partake of it
hockeyrulesus 2 months ago
Why? In my opinion, as we pray we pray in spirit not in flesh. Symbolism is understanding and finding meaning (which I find it to be fleshy). Passover is in the spirit and it is taken in the spirit. GOD is Spirit and in spirit it is taken as prayer. This is my understandment based on the fact that I concider prayer to be more than repetive which their is no connection or forthought of what is scripted, it is the actual glorification and Honor and Glory of Jesus Crist our Savior.
Richard90221 1 year ago
Jesus specifically said that the eating of the bread and drinking of the wine was to be a memorial of his sacrifice for the salvation of the world. Our believing in him as our Lord and our keeping his commandments are the intended meaning of the memorial service. We are to observe it to remind us of him as our Lord and as our Savior.
mpenaco 1 year ago
@mpenaco , St Paul on the Eucharist "Whoever, therefore, eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty of profaning the body and blood of the Lord. Let a man examine himself, and so eat of the bread and drink of the cup. For any one who eats and drinks without discerning the body eats and drinks judgment upon himself." (1 Cor 11:27-29)." How can you be guilty of the Body and Blood of Christ, if it is just symbolic Food and Drink?
hockeyrulesus 1 year ago
@hockeyrulesus Student of the Apostle John, St Ignatius of Antioch, said 110AD "They abstain from the Eucharist and from prayer, because they confess not the Eucharist to be the flesh of our Saviour Jesus Christ"
hockeyrulesus 1 year ago
@hockeyrulesus Jesus says this in John 6:35: "I am the bread of life. He who comes to me will never go hungry, and he who believes in me will never be thirsty.” Notice that He did not say "He who eats me will never go hungry, and he who drinks my blood will never be thirsty". He said "He who COMES TO ME.." and "he who BELIEVES IN ME...". Jesus refers to Himself in many ways. In John 10:9, He says ""I am the gate; whoever enters through me will be saved." In John 15:1 He says
mpenaco 1 year ago
@mpenaco Yes, Christ used metaphor's when teaching, but not always. John 6:55 Jesus says " For my flesh is food indeed, and my blood is drink indeed". ---- This is not the language of symbolism. Jesus repeats it over and over (verses 53-56) in the clearest possible language. Everyone there took Jesus literally, including the Apostles, and walked away. In the Bible whenever the Apostles misunderstood Jesus, Jesus corrects them. In this passage Jesus does not.
hockeyrulesus 1 year ago
@hockeyrulesus ... ": “I am the true vine”. All these are to convey the message that Jesus Christ is the ONLY way to heaven so that everything He says we must listen to and obey.
mpenaco 1 year ago
@mpenaco
Did the Apostles believe in the Eucharist? "Whoever, therefore, eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty of profaning the body and blood of the Lord. Let a man examine himself, and so eat of the bread and drink of the cup. For any one who eats and drinks without discerning the body eats and drinks JUDGEMENT UPON HIMSELF." (1 Cor 11:27-29)."
How can you be guilty of the Body and Blood of Christ, if it is just symbolic Food and Drink?
hockeyrulesus 1 year ago
@mpenaco The Last Supper was a Passover feast, which required participants to eat the sacrificial lamb. There was no baby sheep mentioned 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 and this New Passover feast ended on the cross.
AmericanBerean 3 months ago in playlist More videos from hockeyrulesus
@AmericanBerean Jn. 4:34 "My food," said Jesus, "is to do the will of him who sent me and to finish his work." He also said in Jn. 18:11: "Put your sword away! Shall I not drink the cup the Father has given me?" To Jesus, the food and drink that matters in God's kingdom is the keeping of the Father's will, not the eating and drinking of anything material. To believe and to do everything that he commanded is what Jesus meant when he talks about eating his flesh and drinking his blood.
mpenaco 3 months ago
@mpenaco Jn4:34, in context, is not about "food" Jesus provides to us. Read the whole chapter. It's about His own mission on earth. Jn18:11 can refer to both the "cup of suffering" and to the 4th cup of the Passover feast they just came from. That 4th cup is the Cup of Consummation of the Passover ritual and Jesus finally drank it while dying on the Cross. The sponge with sour wine was given to Him, he drank, then said "It is finished." Calvary began with Passover Feast which ended on the Cross.
AmericanBerean 3 months ago
@AmericanBerean 1/2: Just as Jesus' message in John 4 is not to be understood literally, his command to eat this bread and drink this wine is not to be taken literally. He said it clearly that the celebration is to be a memorial, a remembrance of his sacrifice for the salvation of God's people. We are to remember him and everything that he said everytime we share in the breaking of the bread.
mpenaco 3 months ago
@mpenaco In the context of Judaism, memorial is more than mere "remembrance". It is a participation in an event that happened once in the past. The original language wording (in the Gospels and in OT references of the Passover memorial) connotes that Jesus instituted a sacrificial offering, not a mere "calling to mind" event. This means that once-in-the-past sacrifice is made present (not repeated) whenever it's memorial is celebrated.
Your interpretation is valid as a 2nd-ary, complementary one
AmericanBerean 3 months ago
@AmericanBerean But Christ is now in heaven, sitting at the right hand of God. Is he coming at every mass to be sacrificed again? The truth of Scripture is that Christ lives in us. He is in the hearts of those he redeemed by his blood. He does not reside in inanimate things like bread and wine kept in tabernacles. Christ lives in you and his kingdom is within you.
mpenaco 3 months ago
@AmericanBerean 2/2:The belief that Christ is physically present in the bread and wine runs contrary to the teachings of Christ himself and the apostles about what is important in the God's kingdom. Scripture says that man does not live by bread alone but by every word that comes from the mouth of God; that God's kingdom is not about eating or drinking but righteousness in the Spirit. Christ is now in glory and he will not return to be sacrificed again and again.
mpenaco 3 months ago
@mpenaco Have you seen the writings of the early Christians on this matter? If you explore them, you will see that the Real Presence has been believed and taught by the Christian Church since the beginning. Ignatius,Justin Martyr,Irenaeus,Clement,Tertullian,Cyprian,Cyril,Hilary, and more preached the Real Presence.
Who, in the past has promoted your view?
AmericanBerean 3 months ago
@AmericanBerean The writings of the early Christians are important to the faith but they are subordinate to what God had revealed through the prophets and the apostles. What is important to God is that we keep his commandments like worshiping no other gods, not making graven images for worship, protecting the least of our brothers and sisters, etc. The washing of our sins is a past event which Christ fulfilled by his sacrifice at the cross. Let's not make him do it again and again.
mpenaco 3 months ago
@mpenaco Not only did the Apostles teach the Real Presence in the Eucharist orally to the Early Christians, it can be seen in the writings of Paul. St Paul said "Whoever, therefore, eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty of profaning the body and blood of the Lord. Let a man examine himself, and so eat of the bread and drink of the cup. For any one who eats and drinks without discerning the body eats and drinks judgment upon himself." (1 Cor 11:27-29).
hockeyrulesus 3 months ago
@hockeyrulesus If you eat the bread and drink the wine without knowing what the memorial stands for or worse, if you do not believe that Christ died to save God's people, then you are desecrating the memory of Christ's sacrifice and hence, invite judgment upon yourself. Again, as Christ proclaims, it is a memorial and we do it to remember him and everything he did for us. But Christ's sacrifice was already completed. He is not coming to be sacrificed again, to be eaten or to be drunk.
mpenaco 3 months ago
@mpenaco Indeed, He is not sacrificed again. As I said, a memorial of this nature manifests, makes present in the here and now, that once-in-the-past event. That is God's power at work. Jesus said "Do this...". He thus commanded and empowered the apostles (and by extension their successors) to do to this same change of substance of the bread and wine, so all Christians of all times and all places can participate in that one sacrificial New Passover event.
AmericanBerean 3 months ago
@AmericanBerean The apostles did this as Jesus instructed - to serve as a memorial for the great love and sacrifice God had done for his people. But none of the apostles ever claimed that there is a change in substance and form of the bread and wine as they do this. It is the belief of the RCC fathers that such a change occurs but neither Jesus nor the apostles taught that.
mpenaco 3 months ago
@mpenaco
1) If your interpretation was correct, the correct wording of (1Cor 11:27-29) should have been, [ Whoever, therefore, eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty of profaning the (MEMORY OF THE) body and blood of the Lord.] It doesn't say that.
2) Do you honestly think that someone who doesn't know what the "Memorial" stands for, and eats and drinks ordinary wine is guilty of the Blood of Christ? A little harsh don't you think?
hockeyrulesus 3 months ago
@hockeyrulesus
1) If you can show me from Scripture that Jesus or any of the apostles taught that the physical substance of the bread changes into the body of Christ and the wine into his blood, then I will gladly embrace the catholic teaching on this.
2) Harsh by your standard but righteous by God's standard. Jesus said it clearly: "Do this in memory of me". If you eat the bread and drink the wine for any reason other than what Christ prescribes, then you eat and drink judgment on yourself.
mpenaco 3 months ago
@mpenaco 1/2
1)The Apostles letters don't discuss the Eucharist in detail, but Jesus does over and over again in the Gospels. (John 6:55) Jesus says " For my flesh is food indeed, and my blood is drink indeed". If everyone, including the Apostles took Him literally, why didn't Jesus correct them, as he ALWAYS did? Why did Jesus compare His flesh and Blood to literal food (MANNA) that feed the Israelite's? John 6 is crystal clear.
hockeyrulesus 3 months ago
@hockeyrulesus In John 6:55, if Jesus was asking his apostles to literally eat his body and drink his blood, then he would be contradicting himself for in v. 63 he says "The Spirit gives life; the flesh counts for nothing."
mpenaco 3 months ago
@mpenaco 2/2
1) Even thought the letters of the Apostles don't go into detail about the real presence, (1Cor 10:16) does say clearly the Wine that is blessed is the Blood of Christ, and the Bread is partaking of the Body of Christ. " The chalice of benediction which we bless, is it not the communion of the blood of Christ? And the bread which we break, is it not the partaking of the body of the Lord?" If you choose to deny it, it is not because you don't see it in scripture, but lack of Faith
hockeyrulesus 3 months ago
@hockeyrulesus If Jesus meant for his body to be eaten and his blood to be drunk, then he should have offered his own body and blood to his apostles to be eaten and drunk instead of the bread and wine. But he didn't do that because the intended message of that last supper was to establish a memorial service which Christ commanded his apostles to be observed by them and by others who follow him for all time until he returns.
mpenaco 3 months ago
@mpenaco "to establish a memorial service which Christ commanded his apostles to be observed"
Yes, and "memorial" in Biblical context means the original event is actualized with the participants. It is not our modern notion of remembrance. The original event is made present in the here and now.
John6:63 means our material eyes can't perceive Him in the eucharist, but our spiritual eyes can. It can't refer to Jesus' flesh because His flesh, dead on a cross, paid for our sins.
AmericanBerean 3 months ago
@AmericanBerean "Yes, and "memorial" in Biblical context means the original event is actualized with the participants."
How can you "actualize" an event which already happened? Besides, Jesus was quite specific in saying "do this in REMEMBRANCE of me". We are commanded NOT to make the event happen again but to REMEMBER him as we perform the ceremony of the breaking of the bread. Having the right appreciation of Jesus' sacrifice and knowing that he did it for our sake is what is being asked.
mpenaco 3 months ago
@mpenaco As I stated previously, The original language wording (in the Gospels and in OT references of the Passover memorial) connotes that Jesus instituted a sacrificial offering, not a mere "calling to mind" event. Moses' command to celebrate the Passover feast described that they would experience that one-time event, even though in our linear, unidirectional, timeline they were not there for the original event. It's God's power enabling them to participate. Just so, with the New Passover.
AmericanBerean 3 months ago
@AmericanBerean The important truth of Scripture is that God will ultimately judge us according to our obedience / disobedience to his commandments - particularly those that pertain to our poor brothers and sisters. Christ will say "whatever you do to the least of my brothers you do it to me". He will never judge us based on our belief about the bread and wine offered during mass. This does not matter to God but what your priests are doing to those poor orphans matters to God.
mpenaco 3 months ago
@mpenaco It does matter, to the extent that He commands us to obey His words. He tells us the New Passover is a participation in His body and blood, not symbol.
Pervert priests will indeed answer to God. But their misdeeds do not determine the veracity of the RCC because the fact is, they are violating Church laws, not expressing them. Their are plenty of perverts among the other denominations, even "Bible Churches", but that doesn't mean the Bible is wrong. Don't throw rocks in a glass house.
AmericanBerean 3 months ago
@AmericanBerean 1/2: I still believe it is a memorial so we do not forget the love of God for his people. As for those pervert priests in the RCC, the big problem is not that those priests became bad because there are always bad people in any organization. The problem is that the RCC which sees the Bible as the word of God is deliberately disregarding the commandments given by God to Moses and the warning of Paul to the Ephesian church concerning acts of immorality within the church.
mpenaco 3 months ago
@AmericanBerean 2/2: While both Moses and Paul mandate ex-communication for a church member who commit sexual immorality, the RCC hides its own pervert priests from prosecution and recycles them to other parishes. Victims had to resort to civilian courts to seek justice. The Bible is never wrong. But the RCC is guilty of violating Jesus' most important command: "whatever you do to the least of these brothers of mine, you do it to me."
mpenaco 3 months ago
@mpenaco Yes, some men in various levels of the hierarchy, but not the RCC as a whole, are complicit in crimes. But their misbehavior is exactly the OPPOSITE of RCC doctrines and dogmas, which are Biblical principals.
Martin Luther had some legitimate gripes with the Church of that day, and maybe today there needs to be some shaking up, but not to the extent of condemning the whole institution. There are issues, but the gates of Hell will not prevail against this Church Jesus founded.
AmericanBerean 2 months ago 2
@AmericanBerean Doctrines and dogmas are a reflection or extension of God's word given to the prophets and the apostles. If they are from God, then they are powerful like a two-edged sword and are able to change the hearts and desires of those priests who tried to commit evil acts on helpless kids. Decades of abuse will tell us that those doctrines and dogmas that your church is following have no power and unable to change the evil chararacters of certain priests who celebrate masses weekly.
mpenaco 2 months ago
@mpenaco Once again, the problem is not the doctrines. It is that we are, by nature humans. Besides, our Church has only become more "Protestant-like" since Vatican II. So it really speaks volumes more about Protestantism than anything. The scandals are awful. But they are also rare. They are even rarer still in Traditionalist and Eastern Catholic parishes. On the other hand, scandal in Protestantism - such as when a parishioner's interpretation conflicts with his pastor's - is common.
SorokChyetirye 2 months ago
@SorokChyetirye The problem is not the doctrines? Let's see. One RCC doctrine says one human being in the person of Mary was conceived without sin, born without sin and lived without sin. Scripture on the other hand says "all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God" and that "I was born in sin. In sin my mother conceived me." Either Scripture is lying or RCC is going against Scripture. Scripture does not lie so RCC must be wrong.
mpenaco 2 months ago
@mpenaco Have all people committed actual sins? Consider a child below the age of reason. By definition he can’t sin, since sinning requires the ability to reason and the ability to intend to sin. We also know of another very prominent exception to the rule: Jesus. So if Romans 3 includes an exception for the New Adam (Jesus), one may argue that an exception for the New Eve (Mary) can also be made. Now considering all these points, Romans 3 is not to be taken literally.
hockeyrulesus 2 months ago
@AmericanBerean There needs to be some shaking up you are correct and that shaking up should include not only people but the doctrines and dogmas of the church as well that are contrary to the teachings of Christ, the prophets and the apostles.
mpenaco 2 months ago
@mpenaco So, the misbehavior of these bad men, you bring up, in no way nullifies the divine, sacrificial, renewing nature of the sacrament Jesus instituted in the Upper Room: the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass.
AmericanBerean 2 months ago
@AmericanBerean Jesus said "you will know them by their fruits". If the RCC dogmas and doctrines about Mary, papal infllibility, purgatory, etc. are from God, then 10 years of immersion on these dogmas and doctrines should produce solid spiritual foundation that cannot be shaken for your priests. Rampant immorality around the world should be a clear testimony to all that these dogmas and doctrines are not from God.
mpenaco 2 months ago
@mpenaco Says the man who is a member of one of 30,000 rivalling, squabbling, competitive "churches" who cannot fully agree on what Christ taught. 10 to 20% of whom have a pastor who has philandered with at least one female member of his congregation.
All men are sinners, even you and your pastor and his daddy. Ad hominem attacks do justice to no one. Let's stick to the theology instead of pointing out the obvious: that all men fall short of the glory of God.
SorokChyetirye 2 months ago
@SorokChyetirye So you admit it yourself: "All men are sinners, even you and your pastor and his daddy." So why continue to blindly follow and promote a doctrine that promotes a human as sinless?
mpenaco 2 months ago
@mpenaco If Christ had been born of a sinful woman, a woman enslaved to sin, His flesh would also have been sinful, and His human nature would have to be subservient to His divine. But we don't teach that, Catholic, or Protestant. We teach that Christ was 100% human and 100% divine. So, it makes sense for the flesh of Christ to come from a woman who was not even conceived a sinner, but who was cleaned of sin before conception. That is one reason.
SorokChyetirye 2 months ago
@SorokChyetirye Even your very own saints disagree with you.
Augustine Bishop of Hippo: "He, Christ, alone being made
a man but remaining God never had any sin nor did He
take on flesh of sin, though He took flesh of the
sin of His mother."
Thomas Aquinas: "Only a sinner needs a Savior, and Mary
must have been a sinner since she stated, "My spirit
rejoices in God my Savior."
mpenaco 2 months ago
@mpenaco I am not educated enough to speak on this authoritatively. But I can say this: Jerome's Vulgate, the Mother of All Translations up until the Dead Sea Scrolls were found, says "plena gratia" in reference to Our Lady. It only says that in one other place in the Bible: John 1:14 states that Jesus, the Word (Verbum) is full of grace and truth ("plenum gratiae et veritatis"). Surely you can see the connection and see that Mary was full of the grace Christ had?
SorokChyetirye 2 months ago
@SorokChyetirye But your connection is wrong because Mary herself admitted that she needed a savior clearly telling us that she was a sinner for who needs saving other than a sinner? Remember, Jesus saving grace is for the sinner, not for a non-sinner. Salvation before a person commits a sin is nowhere taught in Scripture.
mpenaco 2 months ago
@mpenaco Nonetheless, this does not negate the idea that Mary could have been conceived free of original sin (as original sin is a mark on the SOUL, not the body); she could have been cleaned of it before conception.
All the same, there are Catholics far more knowledgable in the saints and their writings than I am. If you really want to find out what the saints thought, I might suggest going to the Catholic Answers forums.
SorokChyetirye 2 months ago
@SorokChyetirye The idea that Mary could have been conceived free of original sin is just that: an idea. But the truth of Scripture completely destroys that idea when it proclaims that "all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God"
mpenaco 2 months ago
@mpenaco And common sense destroys that when we see liberal Protestants and lapsed Catholics having abortions and leaving their premature children, hardly even able to see or move on their own some of them, to die of exposure. What sin did they commit to deserve to be killed by their own mothers?
What sin did THEY commit?!
SorokChyetirye 2 months ago
@SorokChyetirye 1/2: Our standard of right and wrong must be the word of God, not the teachings and practices of any religious group. Comparing yourself with other religions does not make you right with God. You must judge your behavior against the infallible word of God, the Scripture. If other religions think killing unborn babies is acceptable, that's too bad and they will answer to God for that. But how about your religion?
mpenaco 2 months ago
@SorokChyetirye 2/2: You promote a mere creature as sinless, infallible, and you make graven images for worship in complete disregard for God's commandments and the teachings of Christ, the prophets and the apostles. While God's word prescribes ex-communication for church members guilty of sexual immorality, you hide them and move them from parish to parish. Victims are seeking justice from civilian courts because they cannot find it in the church.
mpenaco 2 months ago
@mpenaco Another is that Mary WAS saved, but before she even reached Earth. It's akin to two people. One sees a puddle and falls into it, and Christ picks them up and cleans them. The other sees the puddle, but Christ prevents her from even falling into it. The latter is what the Immaculate Conception is like.
SorokChyetirye 2 months ago
@SorokChyetirye The salvation that Christ gave is for those who have sinned. All of us have sinned that's why we need Christ. Nowhere in Scripture does it speak of Christ saving someone from falling into sin. Christ's atonement is for the washing away of sins, not preventing from falling into it because we already are in it.
mpenaco 2 months ago
@mpenaco Babies die in innocence without having committed a sin once. Christ saves us from those kinds of sins, yes. But he also saves us from original sin in baptism - or, if you like, from birth all of us lack saving grace. Christ gives us that saving grace in baptism. Is it so impossible for Christ to baptise a soul in Heaven?
Also, it says nothing about Sola Scriptura or Sola Fide in the Bible, yet you seem perfectly placated to that belief.
SorokChyetirye 2 months ago
@mpenaco "10 years of immersion..."
God's grace can produce a solid foundation only when a man cooperates with it. Pervert priests have pushed away grace and disobeyed RCC doctrines & laws, and hence do these bad things. "Rampant immorality" is false. It is statistically rare, though one is too many.
By your logic we should conclude that the Bible is not from God, since perverts are probably present amidst all Christian organizations.
AmericanBerean 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@AmericanBerean Another bad teaching: "God's grace can produce a solid foundation only when a man cooperates with it."
Is man's cooperation needed to accomplish God's plan of salvation? Scripture is clear: "So then it is not of him that willeth, nor of him that runneth, but of God that sheweth mercy." Rom. 9:16
mpenaco 2 months ago
@AmericanBerean Evil has no doubt, infiltrated the RCC so deeply that even the priesthood has not been spared. If the RCC is the true church of God, we know this will never happen because Christ himself promised that the gates of hell shall not prevail against his true church.
mpenaco 2 months ago
@mpenaco Christ's promise did not say every cleric of His Church would be a good guy. His promise means His Church will never teach error as divine truth.
"All have sinned..." excludes Jesus, and infants/unborn. If there's two exceptions there can be more. All Christians, who persevere, will become sinless eventually (after death). Mary simply received that purification retroactively, because God knew she would be a willing instrument of His plans. Your objection is only about timing.
AmericanBerean 2 months ago
@AmericanBerean Jesus being God is not an included in Paul's statement that all have sinned. But infants and the unborn are very much included according to Scripture:
Ps. 51:5
Surely I was sinful at birth, sinful from the time my mother conceived me.
mpenaco 2 months ago
@mpenaco "All have sinned" does mean all humans are born under the curse of Adam, by default children of Satan. Through faith and baptism we are made God's children, the primary effect of Original Sin is removed. But we still have the tendancy to sin (secondary effect of Orig. Sin). We'll have that removed after we die.
With Mary, these were done at conception. ("My soul magnifies the Lord...He has done great things to me" Luke1) God's grace did this, else she would've had the curse.
AmericanBerean 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@AmericanBerean you say: "All have sinned" does mean all humans are born under the curse of Adam, by default children of Satan.
But Scripture says we are all conceived and born under the curse of the original sin of Adam.
"For as in Adam all die, so in Christ all will be made alive." 1 Cor. 15:22
As it is written: "There is no one righteous, not even one" Rom. 3:10
mpenaco 2 months ago
@AmericanBerean The belief that Mary received purification retroactively is purely human teaching which Scripture denies. Even the famous Catholic Peter Lombard disputes it:
Peter Lombard: "But this is asked on what account and whence is it that Mary was conceived without original sin? We say this was impossible."
mpenaco 2 months ago
@mpenaco Perhaps a few Catholic individuals disputed the idea, but the remaining of those writing on it believed in it... Hippolytus,Origen,Ephraim, Ambrose,Augustine,Proclus.
AmericanBerean 2 months ago
@AmericanBerean St. Paul and the inspired psalmist certainly dispute the idea of a sinless human being. As previously quoted, Paul proclaims without exception that "all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God". Equally forceful is the Psalmist's words "I was born in sin. In sin my mother conceived me." Were they lying when they said those words?
mpenaco 2 months ago
@mpenaco The Psalmist said "I", not "every human being". Paul's statement has an exception (Jesus) so another is not contradictory. Jude 24 indicates God can preserve someone from sinning. No one but Mary was named "full of grace" by an angel. No one else was "overshadowed" by the Spirit as it overshadowed the Ark of the Covenant. No one else's soul magnifies the Lord. No one else is called blessed by all generations.
Mary played a unique role in God's plan, so He saved her, prebirth.
AmericanBerean 2 months ago
@AmericanBerean So you think the Psalmist was speaking only for himself when he professed sinfulness from conception? You think any human can honestly say before God "I was NOT born in sin"? Sorry to say but that, I believe is plain arrogance and devoid of any truth. Scripture makes it plain that God uses sinners to accomplish his plan of salvation. From Abraham down to the last apostle, no one can claim sinlessness on account of God's grace and blessing.
mpenaco 2 months ago
@AmericanBerean Scripture gives numerous accounts of people God used to accomplish his plan of salvation. They, like Mary played unique roles in that plan. Abraham has his unique role; Moses has his important unique part; Elijah, David, Peter, Paul, John, Matthew. They all have important roles in God's plan. But one thing common to all of them is that they were all sinners before God came to them. But that's not a hindrance for God to use them. Mary was no different.
mpenaco 2 months ago
@mpenaco Those men played important roles, but Mary was quite different, her role was utterly unlike and superior to theirs. None other was so intimately touched by divinity as in bearing God incarnate. God's presence on Mt Horeb made it (an inanimate thing) a holy place (Ex3:5). The Ark of the Covenant was holy as well. Being the God-bearer, the Ark of the New Covenant, Mary would've been quite holy indeed, because God incarnate was within her. God preserved her from sin for this.
AmericanBerean 2 months ago
@AmericanBerean 1/2: In terms of the extent of their sacrifice, I believe the apostles' role far exceeded that of Mary. The tests to the apostles' faith far exceeded the tests on Mary's faith as they had to endure physical torture, humiliation and the constant threat to their own lives. Mary did not have to suffer stoning, being fed to wild beasts and being used as human candles. The apostles' roles were, without a doubt, superior to that of Mary's roles.
mpenaco 2 months ago
@mpenaco No, indeed, brother... Can you imagine the how you would suffer if someone grabbed your beloved son, whipped him, scourged him, beat him to the brink of death, then hammered nails through his hands and feet to hang him on a cross? Imagine your own suffering, watching your own son asphyxiate slowly and painfully over hours. Mary suffered more than the Apostles, their own physical suffering doesn't compare to her maternal emotional suffering.
AmericanBerean 2 months ago
@AmericanBerean The relationship that binds Jesus to his disciples is far greater than that between mother and son. To Paul, John, Peter and the rest of the apostles, Jesus was more than just a friend or a brother. He was to them, their savior, the messiah, the Son of the living God. What you just described are purely the physical and emotional suffering of a mother grieving the loss of her son. But the loss suffered by the apostles was far, far greater.
mpenaco 2 months ago
@mpenaco Are you saying that Jesus wasn't Mary's Savior, Messiah, Son of the living God? So, in addition to her physical and emotional suffering, wasn't Jesus also these things too?
hockeyrulesus 2 months ago
@hockeyrulesus Mary was saved by Jesus, retroactively at conception, to do the role God planned for her.
AmericanBerean 2 months ago
@AmericanBerean woops, misread the recipient there...
AmericanBerean 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@AmericanBerean "Mary was saved by Jesus, retroactively at conception, to do the role God planned for her."
Where is this in Holy Scripture?
mpenaco 2 months ago
@hockeyrulesus Jesus was Mary's savior as she expressly proclaims "my soul rejoices in God my savior". It is the RCC that tries to make salvation unnecessary for Mary by proclaiming she was sinless at conception and throughout all her life, thereby eliminating the need for a savior.
mpenaco 2 months ago
@mpenaco I disagree. Mary was the FIRST Christian. His FIRST disciple. It's a logical inference. So, she suffered loss in the manner of the Apostles in ADDITION to the mother's agony of seeing her son brutalized.
Besides that, Mary and Jesus' mother-son relationship must have been more than any other mother-son in history, due to the natures of persons involved. Her suffering would then have been orders of magnitude greater than any other mother's, in that situation.
AmericanBerean 2 months ago
@AmericanBerean 1/3: If Mary's role is as important as you described, then why can't her very own son acknowledge that and recognize her as his own mother when confronted about it in front of a crowd?
1st instance: A crowd was sitting around him, and they told him, “Your mother and brothers are outside looking for you.” “Who are my mother and my brothers?” he asked.
Then he looked at those seated in a circle around him and said,
mpenaco 2 months ago
@mpenaco He did not downplay His mother, he was upplaying the other, demonstrating the significance of faith & obedience. Mary was both mother and disciple, therefore doubly blessed. Luke11:28 the word "rather" does not mean "instead". The greek word here properly means "therefore really indeed" (Strong's 3304).
AmericanBerean 2 months ago
@AmericanBerean The RCC promotes a lot of beliefs which Scripture does not support. It promotes calling Mary "mother of God" and "mother of the Church". The problem is, not a single passage in Scripture do we find Jesus in his entire ministry calling Mary his mother. None of the apostles calls Mary "mother of the church". There is no command anywhere in Scripture to call Mary "mother of the church". So why should we believe this teaching as truth?
mpenaco 2 months ago
@mpenaco Scripture tells us both these things...
Jesus, from the Cross, said to John "Behold your mother", and to Mary, "Behold your son". The plain meaning is to care for His mother since her only son would be gone. Another level of meaning is that John here represents all disciples and so Mary becomes the mother of all Christians (the Church).
Mary bore Jesus. Jesus is God. Therefore, Mary is the Mother of God.
The Church is the body of Christ, so she's the Mother of the Church.
AmericanBerean 2 months ago
@AmericanBerean So when Jesus says to John "behold your mother" you think John represents ALL christians but when the psalmist says "I was born in sin" you think the psalmist was speaking solely for himself and not about all humanity. hmmmm, I seem to detect a double standard here.
mpenaco 2 months ago
@mpenaco The Psalmist may speak about all of us, including Mary. However, when Mary's soul took flesh and became carnally, physically human, in the womb, she was without any stain of sin. Before her conception, it is possible she had the mark of original sin all mankind bears. The point is, Mary's FLESH was not corrupted by sin so that the Child Jesus would not be corrupted physically as a man, either
SorokChyetirye 2 months ago
@AmericanBerean However vigorously you claim that Mary is sole the mother of God and the sole mother of the Church, Jesus expressly denies it by saying his mother are those who keep the commandments of God. So that makes all of us who keep God's commandments Jesus' mother, brother and sister. That makes Mary's claim to motherhood NOT exclusive but the same as the rest of God's people.
mpenaco 2 months ago
Comment removed
mpenaco 2 months ago
@AmericanBerean I think the problem with your belief is that you fail to distinguish between the temporal and the eternal. Yes it is true that Mary was the mother of Jesus and since Jesus is God, we can say that Mary is the mother of God. But since Jesus made a clear statement that his mother are those who keep the will of God, a truth is clearly revealed to us that the earthly motherhood of Mary is not what makes Mary Jesus' mother but her obedience to God's commands.
mpenaco 2 months ago
@mpenaco "trinity" is also not in Scripture but you believe in the 3-person-1-nature existance of God (I hope).
"rapture" is also not in Scripture, but you probably believe in that, too.
AmericanBerean 2 months ago
@AmericanBerean God the Father is spoken of in Scripture. God the Son is also in Scripture. God the Holy Spirit is taught in Scripture. That makes the doctrine of the Trinity Scriptural. But nothing in Scripture supports the idea that Mary is the mother of the church. The best that we can say about Mary besides being the earthly mother of Jesus is that she is a child of God, a member of Christ's body, the Church. We know that because she obeyed God's commands.
mpenaco 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@AmericanBerean So you believe in the rapture theory? May I know your scriptural basis for it? When do you think it will happen?
mpenaco 2 months ago
@AmericanBerean 2/3: “Here are my mother and my brothers! Whoever does God’s will is my brother and sister and mother.” Mark 3:32-35
2nd instance: As Jesus was saying these things, a woman in the crowd called out, “Blessed is the mother who gave you birth and nursed you.” He replied, “Blessed rather are those who hear the word of God and obey it.” Luke 11:27-28
mpenaco 2 months ago
@mpenaco Neither of these quotes downplay his mother spiritually, but rather in terms of heredity. People valued family a lot back then because they were family - not because they loved God. Christ's family, however, is the whole human race. His favourites are those who love Him and keep His commands, not those of His bloodline. Mary was nothing short of His obedient servant, so it stands to good reason Christ loved His mother, not because she bore Him, but because she loved Him.
SorokChyetirye 2 months ago
@SorokChyetirye God loves his people not because they love Him but because God chooses to. God's love is not based on our love for Him. If this was so, then God would love no one because all of us have become God's enemies on account of our sins. Jesus loves Mary no doubt but not because Mary loved him first. Jesus' love for his people has no pre-condition. He came to save us at a time when we were all his enemies, Mary included.
mpenaco 2 months ago
@AmericanBerean If the magnitude of Mary's suffering for the faith was greater than that of the apostles, how would you explain these statements from Jesus which seem to downplay Mary's importance as (1) his mother and (2) a blessed person.
mpenaco 2 months ago
@AmericanBerean 2/2: The best evidence that the apostles' roles are far more superior to that of Mary's comes from Jesus himself when he pointed to his disciples and said "Here are my mother and my brothers! Whoever does God's will is my brother and sister and mother." Mk. 3:34-35.
This he said right in the presence of Mary.
mpenaco 2 months ago
@mpenaco It does not necessarily downplay it, though. In fact, Christ shows love for His mother on the cross when he gives John, His disciple whom He loved to His mother, and His mother to this disciple in John 19:26-27. That was caring for you mother, to make sure she has a young man to care for her if you, her son, are dying.
SorokChyetirye 2 months ago
@SorokChyetirye The important point in Jesus' statements is that our blessedness in heaven and our relationship to Jesus as mother, brother or sister is not based on our biological connection to him but on our obedience to God's commands. That's the reason why Jesus had to rebuke those who tried to magnify Mary as being blessed and being his mother. For Jesus, real blessedness is when you keep the will of God, not magnifying Mary.
mpenaco 2 months ago
@mpenaco Our love of Mary comes only from our love of God. In His own glorification, Christ also glorifies His mother. Any dogma we have on her only stems from our dogmas about Christ! And it is a vile Protestant lie that Christ's Mother should be a slave to sin. Because Christ is fully human IN ALL THINGS EXCEPT SIN. And His humanness came from Mary, NOT God who is Divine. Therefore, Mary necessarily had to be removed from original sin when she, A HUMAN NOT A GOD, became incarnate.
SorokChyetirye 2 months ago
@mpenaco If he teaches that he is not a Catholic. If you do not believe this, you do not wholly share the faith, famous or not.
Scripture does not deny that one can be saved from sins before conception. Since original sin is a mark on the SOUL and not the body, conception is not technically required to be saved from one's sins.
SorokChyetirye 2 months ago
@SorokChyetirye Is there any human existence before conception? Were there sins committed before you were conceived? What was there to save before Mary was conceived? Jesus' coming was to save sinners and since everyone who came into existence has sinned, then Jesus came for all of them. Saving Mary BEFORE she was conceived is pure nonsense and totally devoid of any truth. No one needs saving before existence.
mpenaco 2 months ago
@AmericanBerean So your church teaches that infants and the unborn are without sin? So the Psalmist was wrong in saying "in sin my mother conceived me"? And God was guilty of pre-judging and hating Esau before he was born?
mpenaco 2 months ago
@mpenaco Infants are free from personal sin, but are subject to Original Sin.That is what the Psalmist is referring to. Original Sin is washed away by baptism, even in the infant. But the stain, the tendancy to sin, is still there. They are just not culpable until old enough to know right/wrong.
God does not pre-judge. God knew that Esau would eventually sell his birthright for a bowl of stew. That's how little Esau cared for it. God didn't hate Esau, He just loved him less than Jacob.
AmericanBerean 2 months ago
@AmericanBerean 1/2: Two things: First, Paul's statement that all have sinned and the Psalmist's statement that we are sinners right from conception are true even for infants because, as you admitted, we all have original sin in us. And we are all culpable and are deserving of death because of that sin.
mpenaco 2 months ago
@mpenaco We are deserving of death because of Original Sin. All are subject to the effects of Original Sin, the primary one is separation from God's family. Once baptized, even infants, that primary effect is undone, but the secondary effects are still there, ie tendancy to sin, which we do.
Sinful acts are not necessarily sins. Anyone mentally unable to discern right/wrong is not fully accountable for their sinful acts.
AmericanBerean 2 months ago
@AmericanBerean Even your own system of beliefs does not allow for anyone to be without sin from conception. RCC teaches that once baptized, the effect of original sin is erased. That goes without saying that before baptism, everyone has that effect of original sin in him or her. And that makes us all sinners at conception and at birth, just as the psalmist proclaimed.
mpenaco 2 months ago
@mpenaco We are all born with original sin, and this is removed at Baptism, in Mary's case, original sin was removed at conception. Christ CAN NOT be born of a sinful woman, Mary was the vessel, and the vessel was pure. For Catholics, this doctrine is a true as the doctrine of the Trinity. If you read (Luke 1:46) kjv, "And my spirit hath rejoiced in God my Savior." Rejoiced is a past tense, and notice "God my Savior", elsewhere in the NT, Christ' is named as savior. God saved her at conception.
hockeyrulesus 2 months ago
@hockeyrulesus If Mary was conceived without original sin and lived without any sin, then that makes her perfect and fit to be the sacrifice for man's sin. But Scripture expressly denies the existence of any human who is perfect and sinless in every way. "As it is written: "There is no one righteous, not even one." Rom. 3:10. "I wept and wept because no one was found who was worthy to open the scroll or look inside." Rev. 5:4.
mpenaco 2 months ago
@mpenaco Mary, though sinless, could not have been a worthy sacrifice for man's sin, because she was a mere human, and it was grace, not her own inherent power, that made her sinless. An infinite debt was owed and only one who is inherently of infinite value could pay it... hence, the incarnation of the Son of God.
Rom 3:10 is in the context of one's inherent righteousness. Humans have none, not even Mary. God's proactivity caused Mary's sinlessness.
AmericanBerean 2 months ago
@AmericanBerean Being blameless(spotless) was the sole requirement to qualifiy as the "sacrificial lamb" to appease God's anger over man's sin. Jesus was perfectly human like Mary but why did he and not Mary qualified for the job? Because Jesus was spotless while Mary like the rest of us, was mired in sin. And yet, RCC disregards this truth and continues to promote Mary as immaculate and sinless. This, I believe is a big lie.
mpenaco 2 months ago
@mpenaco The debt owed to God by mankind (due to Original Sin and all personal sins) was infinite in magnitude. NO merely human being (ie Mary) could ever qualify to repay it, no matter how blessed by God. Only an infinite being could repay it. Only Jesus "qualified for the job" because only He was the God-Man. And it wasn't just to "appease God's anger". Justice must be done.
AmericanBerean 2 months ago
@mpenaco But He inherited His flesh from Mary, not God. God is divine, not human. If Christ had inherited the sins of the flesh from His mother, He would not be God; He would be an abomination, and He could not in all fullness be fully human and fully divine; His divne nature would always be suppressing His sinful humanity. So out of necessity, Mary's flesh, which is what Christ inherited from her, must have been pure and free from the stain of sin.
SorokChyetirye 2 months ago
@SorokChyetirye Applying your logic to Mary, we can reason that Mary's parents must be pure as well otherwise Mary would have inherited their sins. Her grandparents and great grandparents must be sinless also to keep Mary from getting the stain of original sin. Ultimately, Adam and Eve must be sinless to keep Mary pure and spotless. I hope you see the absurdity of this doctrine of immaculate conception.
mpenaco 2 months ago
@mpenaco You do realise that none of us were supposed to be borne to original sin, anyway, right? It is God's right to save a person from original sin if He so chooses, even before birth. Since original sin is merely another name for a complete lack of saving grace, it is certainly possible God gave Mary the necessary saving grace she needed before she was conceived. Your lack of faith is appalling.
SorokChyetirye 2 months ago
@SorokChyetirye Anything is possible with God but we are specifically told in Scriptures that all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God without any exception and that we are all conceived and born in sin so why insist on the belief that Mary was sinless? You say it is possible for God to keep Mary from getting original sin but I say it is also possible for God to keep Jesus from getting any sin despite Mary's sinful nature.
mpenaco 2 months ago
@mpenaco Were does it say there are no exceptions? I can name one that even you would agree is an exception, JESUS, born fully human. So, there are exceptions, and that's the point Catholic's are making.
hockeyrulesus 2 months ago
@hockeyrulesus The statement "all have sinned..." applies to man alone and Jesus being God, is not covered by that rule. Your own Catholic saint Augustine upholds this: "He, Christ, alone being made a man but remaining God never had any sin nor did He take on flesh of sin, though He took flesh of the sin of His mother." If a saint like Augustine admits Mary's sinfulness, why can't you?
mpenaco 2 months ago
@mpenaco Jesus is fully God and fully man. To believe anything else is to not be a Christian and to deny a fundamental teaching all Christians have professed to believe. The passage you cite, actually affirms the doctrine of Mary's Immaculate Conception. If Christ's flesh was sinless (there is no doubt it was), than how could its progenitor (Mary) be sinful? Saint Augustine was not perfect. None of the Church Fathers were. He also taught that mathematics were evil. ;-)
SorokChyetirye 2 months ago
@mpenaco And as history shows, we've never affirmed that to be true, either. But what Augustine has said that is true has stood the test of time, and is believed by all Christians for all ages. For example all of use are born in original sin. (Or as the Orthodox would say, we are born without grace.) Baptism cleanses us of this original sin and of all other sins (i.e, it gives us saving grace). These things Augustine taught, and these things have always been believed.
SorokChyetirye 2 months ago
@mpenaco No, it doesn't. She is a CREATION, while Christ is the CREATOR. That is also an important distinction. It was necessary not only that an unblemished sacrifice be made to God, but also that GOD DIE FOR MAN'S SINS. Only by God's grace is there anything good about Mary, much less any sinlessness. But even she needed Christ's help to be sinless; He is the only one who is completely unblemished and able to make the sacrifice by His very nature as the one who always was. Mary cannot do that.
SorokChyetirye 2 months ago
@SorokChyetirye Why would Mary need Christ to be sinless if she was sinless from the first moment of her existence? Did Christ come to earth for the sinless or for the sinners? You say Christ is the only one who is completely unblemished but you promote Mary as "immaculate" . Do you know what immaculate means? A simple glance at a dictionary will tell you that immaculate means "having no stain or blemish"; pure; containing no flaw or error; spotlessly clean. Don't be deceived my friend.
mpenaco 2 months ago
@mpenaco There is a difference between EXISTENCE and INCARNATION. Mary became INCARNATE without sin. We do not know that her SOUL always existed without the stain of original sin.
SorokChyetirye 2 months ago
@SorokChyetirye "Mary became INCARNATE without sin."
Says who? Certainly not Jesus, not the prophets, not the apostles, and certainly not Mary for she expressly confessed that she needed a savior.
mpenaco 2 months ago
@mpenaco And yet when we look at the history of the Christian Church, it makes no sense to say Mary was full of sin, especially when we consider the dogmas all Christians (not including Bible-only heretics) have believed: Perpetual Virginity (affirmed since 533), Christ's virgin birth (325), Mary is the Mother of God (431), Mary's Dormition (believed since the 300s), and the Immaculate Conception (which even Luther believed).
SorokChyetirye 2 months ago
@SorokChyetirye What good is your knowledge of church history if the very word of God denies it? If the so-called church history says Mary was sinless, do you accept it as truth even though Scripture says otherwise? Do you put your faith more on the writings of fallen men than on the inspired teachings of the prophets and the apostles? Whose word do you trust, man's or God's?
mpenaco 2 months ago
@mpenaco Because, I put more faith in the truths that have been always taught, since the Apostles, who KNEW Jesus in FLESH and BLOOD, rather than the interpretations of an individual 2 millenia removed from the actual events of the Bible and interpreting it through his narrow, American interpretation of the world. In other words, I trust the Apostles, and those they trusted with the Truth, rather than some random GUY who read about Jesus from a Book. Atheists do that, too.
SorokChyetirye 2 months ago
@mpenaco The Bible is the inspired Word of God. A powerful weapon. Claymores are also powerful weapons. But in the wrong hands, both of these weapons can end up causing much undue suffering to people. Private interpretation has probably caused the needless injury of many souls who could have just started at the Apostles and walked their way to Pope Benedict. Or Bartholomew I. Either way, private interpretation is unChristian and unBiblical.
SorokChyetirye 2 months ago
@mpenaco To fly in the face of history is to fly in the face of God. No one, not even Jesus, said our beliefs are not to be historically consistent. Just the opposite in fact: "till heaven and earth pass, one jot, or one tittle shall not pass of the law, till all be fulfilled." (Matt. 5:18 D-RB) Yet you and all other "sola" heretics would do away with what all Christians, even Luther, believed in until the 1500s. This includes saying that Mary was not "Kecharitomene" (full of grace).
SorokChyetirye 2 months ago
@SorokChyetirye Does full of grace mean sinless? There are a number of grace-filled individuals in Scripture but none of them claimed sinlessness. To attribute sinlessness to Mary is to make God a liar who claims that no one is righteous, not even one and that we are all conceived and born in sin.
mpenaco 2 months ago
@mpenaco To be full of sin is essentially to be completely without grace. Grace and sin are polar opposites; you cannot be full of grace and have any sin. God's grace, after all, is what justifies and saves a man, not his faith nor his works. Only in one other place, John 1:14, can you find "full of grace". And there, Saint John speaks of Christ's glory as being "full of grace". There is no one else "full of grace". Also, Rom 3:23 means that all are CAPABLE of sin, not that all HAVE.
SorokChyetirye 2 months ago
@mpenaco Consider infants, for example. How have they sinned? They haven't. Also, Saint Paul said in Rom 5:12 that death spread to all men. BUT what about Enoch and Elijah, who never died? "All" does not always mean "all" when St. Paul is speaking. ;)
SorokChyetirye 2 months ago
@SorokChyetirye But Jesus expressly warned his followers against those who follow traditions even from respected religious authorities. RCC teachings throughout history are full of these kinds of traditions which Jesus himself refers to as traditions of men. Following them is like following the blind.
mpenaco 2 months ago
@mpenaco Your ignorance is astounding. The Pharisees DID NOT FOLLOW the Traditions they taught! They were hypocrites!! The problem is not TRADITION, but HYPOCRISY. Also, PROVE that the RCC teaches the traditions of men are Doctrine or dogma, and maybe I will believe you. But you have no proof; you're the blind one because you neither follow men nor God. You follow what YOU think Scripture means, and not what God meant it to mean!
SorokChyetirye 2 months ago
@SorokChyetirye Sorry, but I think it is you who is showing your ignorance of Scripture. Christ specifically accused the Pharisees that they have replaced God's word with their traditions which Christ calls "traditions of men". "You have let go of the commands of God and are holding on to the traditions of men." Mk. 7:8. Contrary to what you posted, the Pharisees followed their traditions but those are false traditions according to Christ.
mpenaco 2 months ago
@mpenaco Maybe the problem is not the Church, but your vanity in thinking YOU, some random guy, can interpret Scripture like someone who learned from the Apostles himself. Yes, it has been 2000 years. But for 2000 years we've been teaching the same things the Apostles taught. Yes, we are men who keep Christ's Church alive. Christ works through these earthen vessels called men. He's been doing it for 5000 years or more. Have you really lost your faith in God's ability to preserve Truth?
SorokChyetirye 2 months ago
@SorokChyetirye The problem is even a grade schooler understands what Psalm 51:5 means and what Romans 3:23 is saying without need for any interpretation. But you who profess to know church history refuses to accept the clear meaning of these passages. You want the Bible to say something else to fit your bogus tradition.
mpenaco 2 months ago
@SorokChyetirye "But for 2000 years we've been teaching the same things the Apostles taught."
Really? Which apostle taught that Mary is immaculate? Which apostle taught that the pope is infallible when speaking about faith and morals? Which apostle taught that there is purgatory? Which apostle taught that we are to make graven images of saints to aid in worship?
mpenaco 2 months ago
@SorokChyetirye "Yes, we are men who keep Christ's Church alive."
I highly doubt that. Your church cannot even impose discipline on priests who molest helpless children according to the clear teachings of Scripture, how much more for keeping Christ's Church alive? If Christ will ask your church today "whatever you do to the least of these brothers of mine?" Will your child-molesting priests be able to say "yes Lord we take good care of them"?
mpenaco 2 months ago
@mpenaco But her flesh, out of necessity, had to.
SorokChyetirye 2 months ago
@AmericanBerean 2/2: Secondly, Scripture is clear that God hated Esau not because of acts he would do after he was born. He hated Esau so that God's purpose in election might stand: not by works but by Him who calls. Esau's selling of his birthright to Jacob had nothing to do with God's decision to hate him. Was God unfair? Not a bit. Esau, like the rest of us, was guilty of original sin and deserved the punishment of death. God had every reason to hate him before he was born.
mpenaco 2 months ago
@mpenaco Esau selling his birthright had everything to do with it.
In that culture the firstborn, by default, was heir to the father's position as head of the family. If Esau didn't show unworthiness he would not have been usurped.
But God works with what He's got, His plans always go on despite the poor material He works with.
God loves even those outside His family, that's why He sent Jesus.
AmericanBerean 2 months ago
@hockeyrulesus The teaching that the merits of Christ's sacrifice is applied to the sinner as he eats the bread and drinks the wine during mass is a false one. Scripture makes it clear that it is the Holy Spirit that dispenses all God's gifts to His people, including the gift of Christ's sacrifice. The role of the Church is to go and make disciples of all the nations - in other words, preach the Gospel. The handing out of the spiritual gifts is handled by God himself, through the Holy Spirit.
mpenaco 3 months ago
@mpenaco And also, (1Cor 10:16) " The chalice of benediction which we bless, is it not the communion of the blood of Christ? And the bread which we break, is it not the partaking of the body of the Lord?"
These words clearly state THE BREAD (Eucharist), IS PARTAKING IN THE BODY OF THE LORD, NOT A REMEMBRANCE OF HIS BODY, BUT LITERALLY!
hockeyrulesus 3 months ago
@hockeyrulesus The food that Christ prescribes for his people is the spiritual nourishment that God provides, not physical bread and wine. It is the same "food" that he "ate" which is TO DO THE WILL OF THE FATHER. For him to say that his body remains in the bread and wine and that to eat and drink it is the way of atonement is so against what he clearly proclaimed to his disciples. The harmful effect of this teaching is the belief that we are healed by eating the bread and drinking the wine.
mpenaco 3 months ago
@mpenaco Yes, the sacrifice that paid for all the world's sins was a one-time event in the past. But the application of the merits of that sacrifice is ongoing, until the Final Judgement. It is applied to us when we first come to salvation. It is applied to us throughout our lives as we sin and repent. It is applied to us after death to wash away any lingering attachments to sin we may have had when we died (this we call purgatory, where His Blood makes us holy enough to see God's face.)
AmericanBerean 3 months ago
@AmericanBerean 1/2: The application of the merits of Jesus' sacrifice is ongoing and being applied to God's people by the Holy Spirit as He gives life to our dead soul and in the process, changing our natures from law-breakers to law-abiding children of God. Your statement that the merits of Christ's sacrifice is applied throughout our lives as we sin and repent is revealing of a major flaw in your theology. The application of Christ's sacrifice on us changes our nature, empowering us...
mpenaco 3 months ago
@AmericanBerean 2/2: to obey God's commandments and resist the temptation to sin. It is applied only once and because it is the power of God, it changes us and makes us disciples of Christ, co-workers with him in making disciples of all nations. To suggest that the merits are applied over and over again indicates a weakness in the power of Christ's atonement. Are we not more than conquerors?
mpenaco 3 months ago
@AmericanBerean The teaching about purgatory is an attempt to embarrass Christ and his ability to cleanse us from our sins. Scripture teaches that our acceptance and profession of Jesus Christ as our Lord and Savior and our repentance from our sins assure us of our place in heaven. Jesus' sacrifice is imputed on us and our sins at that instant is washed away. This is what happened to Zaccheus who was assured salvation by no less than Jesus himself after he professed his sins.
mpenaco 3 months ago