An open letter to Budge

[Eutychus]

[quote] You act like we condone this or keep ourselves hidden from all this. We understand that its not the Church that has these issues, [u]The church is protected against the gates of hell.[/u][/quote]

Silly slogans, unrelated to REALITY, that allow you to NOT SEE, what the ENTIRE WORLD BUT YOU SEES.

Notwithstanding that your BASIC understanding of the WORD "church" is totally wrong, EKKLESIA never meant ONE UNIFIED DENOMINATION, didn't then, doesn't now. And by the way, just how WOULD you know IF "hell prevailed" since your DEFINITION is that it cannot?

By the way, tootsie, IF you had read the bible, and IF you had understood things, HELL does prevail against most of those professing to be Christians.

[quote]Lu 18:8
....[b]when the Son of man cometh, shall he find faith on the earth?[/b][/quote]

Keep it up, the clergy actually depend upon your staying this unaware of reality concerning them.

[i]{ by the way, just how MANY studies done by Roman Catholics DOES it take, to convince you that you have the ONLY church in the world, that is NOW run with perhaps a majority of sodomites in leadership positions? Just wondering....}[/i]

[stbernardLT]

Eutychus, please tell me why I should accept your understanding of bible verses overthe other protestants I know. How do you know you are correct in what you are stating. Aren't all baptized Christians led by the Spirit and able to undersatnd scripture (according to the protestant movement). Why are you right and they wrong. Especially on matters of Salvation. (and don't give me that 90% agreement carp) Does God favor you above everyone else.

PLEASE ANSWER. Without bringing up any attcks against Catholics. Just answer why your interpretation is the correct one.

[cmotherofpirl]

[quote name='Budge' post='1056456' date='Sep 4 2006, 10:45 AM']1Ti 3:2 A bishop then must be blameless,[u] the husband of one wife[/u], vigilant, sober, of good behaviour, given to hospitality, apt to teach;[/size]
[/quote]

You are seriously not trying to say that being married stops a man from engaging in homosex ??
Or that a married man cannot commit adultry or child abuse?
and you call us ostriches???

[quote name='Eutychus' post='1056697' date='Sep 4 2006, 05:57 PM']
Silly slogans, unrelated to REALITY, that allow you to NOT SEE, what the ENTIRE WORLD BUT YOU SEES.

Notwithstanding that your BASIC understanding of the WORD "church" is totally wrong, EKKLESIA never meant ONE UNIFIED DENOMINATION, didn't then, doesn't now. And by the way, just how WOULD you know IF "hell prevailed" since your DEFINITION is that it cannot?

By the way, tootsie, IF you had read the bible, and IF you had understood things, HELL does prevail against most of those professing to be Christians.
Keep it up, the clergy actually depend upon your staying this unaware of reality concerning them.

[i]{ by the way, just how MANY studies done by Roman Catholics DOES it take, to convince you that you have the ONLY church in the world, that is NOW run with perhaps a majority of sodomites in leadership positions? Just wondering....}[/i]
[/quote]
And what are your qualifications that your understanding of what a word means is correct and ours is wrong? Not withstanding our definition is 2000 years old?

[Eutychus]

[quote]Just answer why your interpretation is the correct one. [/quote]

I do believe I didn't even DO any interpretation, really.

I tend to let the verses speak PLAINLY and CLEARLY for themselves.

I find the Holy Spirit { the real author of scripture } is a much more eloquent teacher than I could ever aspire to be.

[quote]And what are your qualifications that your understanding of what a word means is correct and ours is wrong? Not withstanding our definition is 2000 years old?[/quote]

Just use a Greek Lexicon for goodness sake.

[quote]1577. [b]ekklesia[/b]

Search for G1577 in KJVSL

ekklhsia ekklesia ek-klay-see'-ah

from a compound of 1537 and a derivative of 2564;[u] a calling out, i.e. (concretely) a popular meeting, especially a religious congregation[/u] (Jewish synagogue, or Christian community of members on earth or saints in heaven or both):--assembly, church.

See Greek 1537
See Greek 2564[/quote]

Note. A CALLING OUT, assembly, LOCAL church. It never meant WORLDWIDE SOLITARY DENOMINATION, even Jesus Himself, when using the word in Revelation, EKKLESIA, was VERY CLEAR that He was writing to the CHURCH**ES** of ASIA, note the plual, note the individual address, and NOT TO the *CHURCH IN ASIA*

I rest my case on simple dictionary use, and simple bible exegesis backed by many MANY examples where EACH church, was a LOCAL congregation, with DIFFERENT leadership, DIFFERENT issues, and DIFFERING understandings of the bible.

Edited September 5, 2006 by Eutychus

[homeschoolmom]

[quote name='Eutychus' post='1056803' date='Sep 4 2006, 07:56 PM']
I do believe I didn't even DO any interpretation, really.

I tend to let the verses speak PLAINLY and CLEARLY for themselves.

I find the Holy Spirit { the real author of scripture } is a much more eloquent teacher than I could ever aspire to be.
[/quote]
Amen brother! It's good that the Scriptures are clear.

53Jesus said to them, "I tell you the truth, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you. 54Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day. 55For my flesh is real food and my blood is real drink. 56Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood remains in me, and I in him. 57Just as the living Father sent me and I live because of the Father, so the one who feeds on me will live because of me. 58This is the bread that came down from heaven. Your forefathers ate manna and died, but he who feeds on this bread will live forever." 59He said this while teaching in the synagogue in Capernaum.

John 6

[Eutychus]

[quote name='homeschoolmom' post='1056807' date='Sep 4 2006, 06:00 PM']
Amen brother! It's good that the Scriptures are clear.

53Jesus said to them, "I tell you the truth, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you. 54Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day. 55For my flesh is real food and my blood is real drink. 56Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood remains in me, and I in him. 57Just as the living Father sent me and I live because of the Father, so the one who feeds on me will live because of me. 58This is the bread that came down from heaven. Your forefathers ate manna and died, but he who feeds on this bread will live forever." 59He said this while teaching in the synagogue in Capernaum.

John 6
[/quote]

I noticed you TRUNCATED the passage, snipping out the BEGINNING and the END.

You know, where Jesus sets up the scene about MANNA and bread from above, then ANSWERS the entire discourse in line #63? VERY dishonest exegesis, or rather, INVENTIVE EISEGIS to snip out the former, the answer, take the middle and twist it into a command to engage in cannibalism.

This is what you do NOT WANT TO SEE...

[quote]Joh 6:63

It is the spirit that quickeneth;[b] [u]the flesh profiteth nothing: the words that I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are life.[/u][/b][/quote]

Besides, at the first Jerusalem council, where Peter Paul and the other apostles were ALL present, they instructed all new Gentile Converts, to REFRAIN FROM BLOOD. Now would they have done that IF they had honestly believed they were in fact quaffing real blood after the magic show you call Transubstantiation?

Hardly.

[chris]

[quote]Silly slogans, unrelated to REALITY, that allow you to NOT SEE, what the ENTIRE WORLD BUT YOU SEES[/quote]

Sometimes, slogans help alittle.

So then the Boy Scouts are wrong for utilizing the slogan: Doing a good turn daily. That pretty close to reality if you ask me.

Your slogans and propaganda are just the same way. You condem me for the same instances that you press upon us.

Condeming me for slogans that are historically christian. Yet, you and your counter-part Budge twist scripture and utilize it to make us out to be pagan.

[cmotherofpirl]

[quote name='Eutychus' post='1056813' date='Sep 4 2006, 09:07 PM']
I noticed you TRUNCATED the passage, snipping out the BEGINNING and the END.

You know, where Jesus sets up the scene about MANNA and bread from above, then ANSWERS the entire discourse in line #63? VERY dishonest exegesis, or rather, INVENTIVE EISEGIS to snip out the former, the answer, take the middle and twist it into a command to engage in cannibalism.

This is what you do NOT WANT TO SEE...
Besides, at the first Jerusalem council, where Peter Paul and the other apostles were ALL present, they instructed all new Gentile Converts, to REFRAIN FROM BLOOD. Now would they have done that IF they had honestly believed they were in fact quaffing real blood after the magic show you call Transubstantiation?

Hardly.
[/quote]
So everybody got it wrong for the last 2000 years, and you are here to save us???
Interesting to know you are a scriptural authority and can interpret it correectly for everyone...

[journeyman]

[quote name='Eutychus' post='1056813' date='Sep 4 2006, 07:07 PM']
I noticed you TRUNCATED the passage, snipping out the BEGINNING and the END.

You know, where Jesus sets up the scene about MANNA and bread from above, then ANSWERS the entire discourse in line #63? VERY dishonest exegesis, or rather, INVENTIVE EISEGIS to snip out the former, the answer, take the middle and twist it into a command to engage in cannibalism.

This is what you do NOT WANT TO SEE...
Besides, at the first Jerusalem council, where Peter Paul and the other apostles were ALL present, they instructed all new Gentile Converts, to REFRAIN FROM BLOOD. Now would they have done that IF they had honestly believed they were in fact quaffing real blood after the magic show you call Transubstantiation?

Hardly.
[/quote]


another truncated scriptural passage - it's the latter half of the gospel reading for last Sunday from the Catholic lectionary - when I read your post, I thought it might be relevant . . .

[quote]
“Well did Isaiah prophesy about you hypocrites, as it is written:
This people honors me with their lips,
but their hearts are far from me;
in vain do they worship me,
teaching as doctrines human precepts.
You disregard God’s commandment but cling to human tradition.”

He summoned the crowd again and said to them,
“Hear me, all of you, and understand.
Nothing that enters one from outside can defile that person;
but the things that come out from within are what defile.

“From within people, from their hearts,
come evil thoughts, unchastity, theft, murder,
adultery, greed, malice, deceit,
licentiousness, envy, blasphemy, arrogance, folly.
All these evils come from within and they defile.”

from Mark 7
[/quote]

[stbernardLT]

Let's try this again:

Luke 22:19-20:
Then He took the bread, said the blessing, broke it, and gave it to them; saying, "This is my body, which will be given for you, do this in memory of me." And likewise the cup after they had eaten, saying, "This cup is the new convenant in my blood, which will be shed for you."

Take it for what it is, is what you say. You have no need for interpretation. So exactly how do you get anything about symbolism from the word IS.

Don't give me other reference verses or out of context stuff because that would simply be using other verses to interpret this one.

What do these two verses say?

[Eutychus]

Sigh.

This takes about an HOUR to walk someone through this, and {pearls before swine...comes to mind} so the work needed is something I really don't feel moved to do this early in the morning.

Suffice it to say, I LOATH "proof texting" { stringing together disjointed verses to "prove" your STARTING assertion is biblical } meaning the WHOLE COUNSEL of God is never brought to bear on the topic at hand.

First of all, the "Last Supper" believe it or not, was NOT the "Last Supper" but a "Pasah Meal" { Passover to us Gentiles } and during that meal, Jesus used it as a "Teaching Lesson" to show the Apostles that the Passover Meal, had ALWAYS BEEN about Him, and what HE would do the next day. Every aspect of the Passover is a forshadowing of Jesus, and He used that meal to show them that.

Just as in John 6, when Jesus showed the Jews that the Ma'ana { What is It? } was a foreshadowing.

Both are extended teaching lessons, just as after his crucifixition, Jesus appeared to two disciples on the road to Emmaus to do the following: { read Luke 1 to 30 } but the key line is this one...

[quote]Lu 24:27
[color="#660000"]
[b]And beginning at Moses and all the prophets, he expounded unto them in all the scriptures the things concerning himself.[/b][/color][/quote]

Now without actually getting your nose out of church DOGMA's, and opening your mind to the full sweep of history, Jewish practice, and the ENTIRE bible that points to Jesus, you will continue to MISS out the "teaching lessons" that Jesus's entire life practice constititutes.

I could go on and on, but again, the work to cast pearls isn't in me this morning.

HOWEVER, if anyone here, actually cares one iota, and really wants to learn more, and do it the EASY WAY, I highly recommend this DVD movie, after veiwing it, and the key scene, the Passover Dinner the first year AFTER Jesus died, you will be much the better for having done so.

[img]http://www.christiananswers.net/catalog/passover-dvd-front.jpg[/img]

You can watch snippets online here:

[url="http://www.christiananswers.net/catalog/passover-vs.html"]MOVIE ONLINE TO PREVIEW[/url]

[rkwright]

if all this is true... why does not only the Catholic Church believed in the True Presenece but also every eastern Church, all of which do not have ANY of the problems you have posted?

Protestants are the ONLY Christian demonination that do not believe in the True Pressence.

Were all the Roman Catholics decieved for 2000 years? And the Eastern Orthodox Churches as well, even though they haven't been apart of the Catholic Church since 1056??

In the world view, protestantism has little tradition or backing to make any of the claims you are making.

Edited September 5, 2006 by rkwright

[Aloysius]

oh dear eutychus, descended from on high to mingle with us commoners of lesser intellects... please teach us!



sheesh all this condescending is really unbecoming of someone who calls themself a Christian.

so anyway... ekklesia-- a church-- an assembly-- or as you insist a "calling out" (I generally just use the term 'assembly' because it's probably what the jewish writers understood it as because that's what the jewish religion had-- 'assemblies', " עדה" or "eydah", the sacred writers of the New Testament were coming from that language and culture, and picked out the word "ekklesia" from koine greek to convey the same meaning)

the Catholic Church defines "church" in many different ways; there is the Church as a whole referring to the worldwide (and in heaven) communion of all believers drawn together by its common belief in the essentials of Christianity by the apostolic teaching authority. then, there are 23 sui juris churches throughout the world which are all their own individual "churches". These all come together in unity (as the Father is one with the Son, so too do these Churches unite with one other Church which is equal to them, the Roman Church, to bring an essential unity) under one Church, but they are each properly called their own Church. Then there are individual dioceses, each properly known as a "church". Then there are individual parishes, each proplery known as a "church".

So you see, your proof-text in Revelation where Christ talks to the Seven Churches does not exclude our Church structure from being similar to the Church structure of the New Testament Church.

moreover, there are many proofs that the early Church saw itself as one church and only one church, spreading accross the world. A prayer from the Didache (written between AD 80 - AD 110):

"Remember, Lord, Thy Church, to deliver it from all evil and to make it perfect in Thy love, and gather it from the four winds, sanctified for Thy kingdom which Thou have prepared for it"

sounds like one united worldwide thing they were talking about there, using the word "ekkelsia", or "assembly"

but everyibe appears now to be on the topic of the Eucharist. Catholics know full well that it was a passover meal... you say that as if it is some great revelation which will teach us the error of our ways. showing that it is a teaching moment to show the fulfillment of the Old Testament proves nothing: we know that! We know it shows that the passover meal was always about Christ. but this to us even more proves that He wants us to eat His true flesh. For He is identified as the "Lamb of God" by John the Baptist, and the passover calls for the eating of the lamb's flesh. moreover, again from the didache let me quote one passage to show even more how this breaking of the bread done in remembrance of Him is considered a sacrifice of Him:

[quote]But every Lord's day gather yourselves together, and break bread, and give thanksgiving after having confessed your transgressions, that your sacrifice may be pure. But let no one who is at odds with his fellow come together with you, until they be reconciled, that your sacrifice may not be profaned. For this is that which was spoken by the Lord: "In every place and time offer to me a pure sacrifice; for I am a great King, says the Lord, and my name is wonderful among the nations."[/quote]

they saw this as a true and substantial fulfillment of this passage, a true and substantial sacrifice offered in every place. every sunday.

anyway, I actually believe I saw that movie and thought it was pretty good. didn't convince me in any way shape or form that there was no substantial sacrifice of Christ in each and every breaking of the bread on every sunday since Christ first did it, but it was good for learning more about every facet of the Old Testament that Christ fulfilled.

[cmotherofpirl]

[quote name='Eutychus' post='1057015' date='Sep 5 2006, 09:36 AM']
Sigh.

This takes about an HOUR to walk someone through this, and {pearls before swine...comes to mind} so the work needed is something I really don't feel moved to do this early in the morning.

Suffice it to say, I LOATH "proof texting" { stringing together disjointed verses to "prove" your STARTING assertion is biblical } meaning the WHOLE COUNSEL of God is never brought to bear on the topic at hand.

First of all, the "Last Supper" believe it or not, was NOT the "Last Supper" but a "Pasah Meal" { Passover to us Gentiles } and during that meal, Jesus used it as a "Teaching Lesson" to show the Apostles that the Passover Meal, had ALWAYS BEEN about Him, and what HE would do the next day. Every aspect of the Passover is a forshadowing of Jesus, and He used that meal to show them that.

Just as in John 6, when Jesus showed the Jews that the Ma'ana { What is It? } was a foreshadowing.

Both are extended teaching lessons, just as after his crucifixition, Jesus appeared to two disciples on the road to Emmaus to do the following: { read Luke 1 to 30 } but the key line is this one...
Now without actually getting your nose out of church DOGMA's, and opening your mind to the full sweep of history, Jewish practice, and the ENTIRE bible that points to Jesus, you will continue to MISS out the "teaching lessons" that Jesus's entire life practice constititutes.

I could go on and on, but again, the work to cast pearls isn't in me this morning.

HOWEVER, if anyone here, actually cares one iota, and really wants to learn more, and do it the EASY WAY, I highly recommend this DVD movie, after veiwing it, and the key scene, the Passover Dinner the first year AFTER Jesus died, you will be much the better for having done so.

[img]http://www.christiananswers.net/catalog/passover-dvd-front.jpg[/img]

You can watch snippets online here:

[url="http://www.christiananswers.net/catalog/passover-vs.html"]MOVIE ONLINE TO PREVIEW[/url]
[/quote]
So whose authority gives any validity to this interpretation?

[stbernardLT]

[quote name='Eutychus' post='1057015' date='Sep 5 2006, 08:36 AM']
Sigh.

This takes about an HOUR to walk someone through this, and {pearls before swine...comes to mind} so the work needed is something I really don't feel moved to do this early in the morning.

Suffice it to say, I LOATH "proof texting" { stringing together disjointed verses to "prove" your STARTING assertion is biblical } meaning the WHOLE COUNSEL of God is never brought to bear on the topic at hand.

First of all, the "Last Supper" believe it or not, was NOT the "Last Supper" but a "Pasah Meal" { Passover to us Gentiles } and during that meal, Jesus used it as a "Teaching Lesson" to show the Apostles that the Passover Meal, had ALWAYS BEEN about Him, and what HE would do the next day. Every aspect of the Passover is a forshadowing of Jesus, and He used that meal to show them that.

Just as in John 6, when Jesus showed the Jews that the Ma'ana { What is It? } was a foreshadowing.

Both are extended teaching lessons, just as after his crucifixition, Jesus appeared to two disciples on the road to Emmaus to do the following: { read Luke 1 to 30 } but the key line is this one...
Now without actually getting your nose out of church DOGMA's, and opening your mind to the full sweep of history, Jewish practice, and the ENTIRE bible that points to Jesus, you will continue to MISS out the "teaching lessons" that Jesus's entire life practice constititutes.

I could go on and on, but again, the work to cast pearls isn't in me this morning.

HOWEVER, if anyone here, actually cares one iota, and really wants to learn more, and do it the EASY WAY, I highly recommend this DVD movie, after veiwing it, and the key scene, the Passover Dinner the first year AFTER Jesus died, you will be much the better for having done so.

[img]http://www.christiananswers.net/catalog/passover-dvd-front.jpg[/img]

You can watch snippets online here:

[url="http://www.christiananswers.net/catalog/passover-vs.html"]MOVIE ONLINE TO PREVIEW[/url]
[/quote]

Sounds like an interpretation to me.