If you do not believe in God, you must not have read the Bible

The "teachings" of Christ is really quite ambiguous in itself?

Well, that explains a lot.

 

Are they not? You seem to be a perfect example of someone who has not completely grasped what He is saying.

Most Christians today, when you ask them what "the teachings of Jesus" are, they'll say, for instance, "The Beatitudes" of Matthew 5-7, or perhaps, "Love thy neighbor", or "Do unto others as you would that they would do unto you",,

But is this all that Jesus taught?

Actually, everything He spoke, in the entirety of the New Testament are His words. So, when we speak of Jesus "teachings", you have to include passages from John's gospel, including all of the verses I've quoted, from chapter 1, 14, 15, etc. Such verses don't speak only of "turning the other cheek", and "loving your neighbor", and "do unto others,,", but of such things as "abide in Me, and I in you",,and "without Me you can do nothing", and "No man comes unto the Father except through Me."

In fact, it would be impossible to separate the "teachings" of Jesus from the man Himself, as His main thrust is that without Him, without His life, nothing we perform amounts to anything, whether it is "from the bible" or not.

God, in the first chapters of Genesis, reveals to us that His plan is not to leave us with "the knowledge of good and evil", even the "good teachings of Jesus". His intention is that we live by the tree of life, signifying God as life in us, as the Spirit of the resurrected Jesus Christ. Without Christ in us, there is no hope. Colossians 1:27 ,,,"Christ in us, the hope of glory". "Glory" is our hope, or in other words, to be in the expression of God, which is glory. Without God's expression, we can be doing many good things, but never fulfill God's heart's desire. This is what religion is. "Doing good", but without God. Where did this "good" come from? Which tree? Is our concept of "good" from an independent assessment, independent of God? Even people who use the bible can act independently of God. This has been proven throughout the ages. Much evil has been done by people who read the bible. Even Satan knows the bible. Those religious ones who crucified the Lord knew the bible. Jesus said that "Those who kill you will think that they are doing God service."

So, the key is not in merely "knowing the bible", but in knowing God's will. This takes more than merely a traditional interpretation. Through proper reading, using one's spirit to pray, and receiving light from the Lord, one can know the will of God. The intellect alone is not adequate. Our whole being needs to be involved, including our heart and our spirit. Paul states, at the end of Ephesians, that our spirit needs to be involved in our prayer and our bible reading, not just our mind.

13 Therefore take up the whole armor of God that you may be able to withstand in the evil day, and having done all, to stand. 14 Stand therefore, having girded your loins with truth and having put on the breastplate of righteousness 15 And having shod your feet with the firm foundation of the gospel of peace; 16 Besides all these, having taken up the shield of faith, with which you will be able to quench all the flaming darts of the evil one. 17 And receive the helmet of salvation and the sword of the Spirit, which Spirit is the word of God, 18 By means of all prayer and petition, praying at every time in spirit and watching unto this in all perseverance and petition concerning all the saints,

("saints" here is not referring to some "special" ones who have "reached sainthood", as Catholicism teaches. All the believers are "saints". The word comes from the word for "sanctification", which means to be separated from the world unto God, the true status of a genuine believer. Read ICorinthians 1:2)

Jesus never said "I come that I might leave you some teachings that you may follow." Instead, He said, as He was ascending, "And lo, I am with you forever". He gave us Himself as our guide, moment by moment, day by day, forever. In every Christian believer, He Himself dwells within, as our Comforter and our Shepherd, guiding us by His life. If we stray from Him, and do something that He doesn't approve, we have an inner "compass" that tells us. We have the way back, through His blood, and our confession. I'm not talking about "going to see the priest". I'm talking about confessing our sins to God directly, as the apostle John admonishes in IJohn, chapter one:

1Joh 1:1 That which was from the beginning, which we have heard, which we have seen with our eyes, which we beheld and our hands handled, concerning the Word of life 2 (And the life was manifested, and we have seen and testify and report to you the eternal life, which was with the Father and was manifested to us); 3 That which we have seen and heard we report also to you that you also may have fellowship with us, and indeed our fellowship is with the Father and with His Son Jesus Christ. 4 And these things we write that our joy may be made full. 5 And this is the message which we have heard from Him and announce to you, that God is light and in Him is no darkness at all. 6 If we say that we have fellowship with Him and yet walk in the darkness, we lie and are not practicing the truth; 7 But if we walk in the light as He is in the light, we have fellowship with one another, and the blood of Jesus His Son cleanses us from every sin. 8 If we say that we do not have sin, we are deceiving ourselves, and the truth is not in us. 9 If we confess our sins, He is faithful and righteous to forgive us our sins and cleanse us from all unrighteousness. 10 If we say that we have not sinned, we make Him a liar, and His word is not in us. 2:1 My little children, these things I write to you that you may not sin. And if anyone sins, we have an Advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the Righteous; 2 And He Himself is the propitiation for our sins, and not for ours only but also for those of the whole world.

 

Just because Jesus had a lot to say does not make his teachings ambiguous, no matter what you believe or say to the contrary.

You are the one who called the teachings of Jesus ambiguous, not I and now, just because I don't find his teachings ambiguous, you say I don't understand his teachings.

If as you say Jesus' teachings are ambiguous, how can you or anyone understand what is ambiguous?

But I say Jesus' teachings are not ambiguous and anyone can come to understand them, if they are truly looking for the truth.

In actuality, one should ask themselves if listening to the ramblings of someone who believes the teachings of Jesus to be ambiguous is of any benefit at all, except for perhaps amusement.

 

Agreed,

What is more clear than "This is my body"?

 

You're equating the "wafer" with Christ's Body?

That's called SUPERSTITION, based on a literal reading of the gospels.

Christ wasn't passing out "wafers", if you really want to get LITERAL about it, by the way.

The bread was only a symbol. Making a tradition of literalism in that instance makes the Spirit as the reality of Christ of no avail. You really are robbing yourselves of the experience of Christ, through your religious tradition.

 

You're hanging onto this word "ambiguous" like a mad-dog with a bone.

Those who do not understand Jesus, and what He said, based on a less than thorough reading of the gospels, and a preference for their own religious traditions, tend to find ambiguity, and resulting confusion in what Jesus said. Some come to terms with this ambiguity by simply discarding those verses they do not prefer, which do not seem to fit into their traditional belief. You are one of those.

Others, who are more vigorous in their search for the truth, do not discard anything that is written, finding reasons for it all, in a "unified theory" approach. I am one of those. I do not choose to discard the verses on the oneness of the three of the Godhead out of a desire for a convenient truth.

But you may choose to ignore the realities of the New Testament, settling instead on convenience of tradition. It may, perhaps, make you feel less uncomfortable to do so.

 

So are believing miracles supersition? Ressurection? The reality of heaven and hell?

Not really a wafer, eh?

John 6, when Christ gives the longest discourse on the Eucharist many leave over the hard teaching that is the reality of the Real Presence.

1 Cor. 11:27-30, where St Paul tells us (and those in Corinth) and if you receive the Body and Blood of Christ unworthily that you profane (literally, murder) the Body and Blood of Christ. How can you murder a symbol? Paul also says that sickness and "falling alseep" (re: death) are the result of receiving unworthily.

 

Are you messing with my mind again? I'm just surprised you found enough it to mess with.

 

John 6 does NOT refer to any "eucharist". Jesus says plainly, that "He who eats Me, He shall live because of Me." This isn't referring to some "magical" transmutation of bread into Christ. Christ IS the bread of God, not some substitute wafer. The bread is SYMBOLIC of the person.

The resurrection was no "miracle", as you put it. Is it too difficult for God, who has power over life and death, to resurrect, by means of His divine life? That life, which by the way, is ETERNAL.

Some day, when what passes for "science" catches up with God's power, God's nature, and God's essence, people will come to the realization that these "miracles" were just facts of science in themselves.

But no, the bread was not God, nor was it Jesus. The bread was just bread. Jesus IS the real bread of God. Not some "magical wafer".

The reason Jesus said "This is My Body,,which is broken for you" is that He needed a physical example to show how the believers would be one by that which they ingested. Even so, by ingesting Christ, by means of the Spirit of Christ, the Spirit of the resurrected Jesus Christ, they would be one in Him, since He would then be in each of them. This is the reality of the Body of Christ, not some religious wafer ritual.

Paul states plainly in Ephesians that the church is the Body of Christ, as Christ dwells in the believers, making them His Body, His expansion, His continuation, His counterpart, His dwelling place, His kingdom.

By calling so much attention to your "Catholic magic tricks", you deny Christ His proper glory, and give credit to "Catholicism". God can't be too happy with that.


And finally, the reason Paul puts so much emphasis on receiving the bread and the wine symbolically is that it is important in its SPIRITUAL significance. It REPRESENTS the body and blood of the Lord. REPRESENTS, again. If you take the bread and the wine unworthily, not recognizing its significance, then you sin. There were those in Corinth that were coming to the table like pigs, feeding at the trough, in the wrong spirit. Those would receive discipline for not discerning the body and blood, meaning not recognizing their true significance.

It is important that we, the believers, do not take the Lord's table with the wrong spirit, not recognizing the death of Christ.

It is not the same as considering the bread to be Christ in actuality. Christ is the Spirit, not a hunk of bread. To go further than this is to bring the Lord down to a superstitious traditional view.

Catholicism, who propagates this kind of foolishness, is guilty of much, for demeaning the Spirit as the reality of Christ.

 

Many things. It isn't clear to me and other Protestants that He was speaking literally rather than metaphorically. The notion that a wafer and a cup of wine are changed into the body and blood of Jesus without changing any of their empirical properties is as hard for non-Catholics to swallow (no pun intended).

 

Another way of seeing this is to ask, if the bread that Jesus offered his disciples at "the last supper" were truly His body, and not merely a metaphor, then was His physical body, still present at that time, handing out the bread, NOT "His body"? Did He have two "bodies"?

Luke 22:19 "And He took a loaf and gave thanks, and He broke it and gave it to them, saying, This is My body which is being given for you; do this in remembrance of Me."

"In REMEMBRANCE of ME",,

Luke 22:20 "And similarly the cup after they had dined, saying, This cup is the new covenant established in My blood, which is being poured out for you."

Symbols, people,, symbols, metaphor.

The Spirit conveys the reality of Christ, not a wafer of bread. The bread is REPRESENTATIVE, for the sake of REMEMBRANCE, not as a way of taking Christ in. A physical symbol can never take the place of the living Spirit of Christ.

 

I prefer "metaphor".

They used to be wafers. You couldn't touch them with your fingers and they'd stick to the roof of your mouth, so you' have to pry them off with your tongue. And that's Jesus?

Some people feel that way about the flag, even though I'm sure they'd recognize it's only a symbol.

 

That is a photo from a Divine Liturgy. They use bread that is not in unleavened "wafer" form.



The Latin Church still uses wafer hosts however some places use thicker ones. The idea behind the touching was that a priests hands were consecrated at ordination, and so his hands were literally blessed to touch the Body and Blood of Christ. Reception on the tongue directly, rather than in the hand, was a way to prevent profanation fo the consecrated hosts.

The circle host also has a rich sumbolism in the manna from heaven, which if i remember correctly, was circular.


Okie, I generally know you views, so I may be preaching to the unconvincable in regards to certain metaphysical points, but...if i can accept that Jesus' body, after his death, was changed in a mysterious way that allowed his to pass through walls, be touched, and to appear "different" to people and then have their eyes opened at the breaking of bread, then I do not think it is that far of a stretch to believe that the bread and wine itself could change into the very nature and being of Christ without changing appearence.

 

I'm speaking historically. It has led to bloodshed. For example the persecutions of Aryans by Trinitarians, and the persecution of Trinitarians by Arians. More importantly, it shifts attention from the core teachings of Jesus to peripheral doctrines that became important when his latter day followers were developing their creeds and doctrines.

 

Jesus being the "bread of life", I found Him while eating breakfast today, along with my eggs. So, I prayed to my loaf, and was greatly blessed.


I think you may have things backwards.

Jesus is the bread of life, not the reverse. To call a piece of bread Jesus the Lord is a bit pantheistic, wouldn't you say?

The question is, who is Jesus today? A piece of bread, or the Spirit of life?

What makes more sense? God as the Great Magician, or God incarnate, becoming a life-giving Spirit?

Paul has something to say on this.

I Corinthians 15:45 So also it is written, ``The first man, Adam, became a living soul''; the last Adam became a life-giving Spirit.

2 Corinthians 3:17 And the Lord is the Spirit ; and where the Spirit of the Lord is , there is freedom.

Phillippians 1:19 For I know that for me this will turn out to salvation through your petition and the bountiful supply of the Spirit of Jesus Christ

Romans 8:9 But you are not in the flesh, but in the spirit, if indeed the Spirit of God dwells in you. Yet if anyone does not have the Spirit of Christ, he is not of Him. 10 But if Christ is in you, though the body is dead because of sin, the spirit is life because of righteousness. 11 And if the Spirit of the One who raised Jesus from the dead dwells in you, He who raised Christ Jesus from the dead will also give life to your mortal bodies through His Spirit who indwells you.

The Spirit, alternately, is called "the Spirit of God", "the Spirit of Christ", "Christ", "the Spirit of the One who raised Jesus from the dead", "His Spirit", "the Holy Spirit", "the Spirit of Jesus Christ", "the Spirit of life", and simply "the Spirit". How many "Spirit"s indwell the believer? Just one. What He is called depends upon the situation, but plainly, this Spirit is the indwelling Christ. To have intimate, sweet fellowship with the the living Jesus Christ is much better than have a "special wafer" on my tongue, that's been "blessed" by the right reverend Father McFarland, or any of the lackies of "the Pontiff".

I suppose when you cubby-hole the Spirit and call Him a "ghost", you may just confuse the issue.

 

Could you point this out to me, historically? I'm not recalling it right now.

 

The Catholic clergy and laity were persecuted for their Trinitarianism by the Visigoth Arians 370-76, who burned them alive in their churches; by the Visigoth Arians in the 5th and 6th centuries, by the Ostrogoth Arians under Theodoric, and by the Vandal Arians under Genseric, who made a special effort to get the Catholic clergy to convert because there weren't enough Arian clergy.

 

In the dark ages there were clergy who didn't believe in God all week long. Basically, if you regard yourself seriously Atheist there was no way to justify the meaning when serious doubts were felt for the life of heresy anywhere else but with the Church.


Of course, I am conceiving the values of the History in HISTORICHEN form of a museum outlook. I did not buffer the empirical evidence of heretics in the Catholic Church.:2thumbsup:

 

All you gotta know is that we munch and crunch on Jesus. Not cymbals.

 

I'm "Jesus Christ" with a profit motive: like Jimmy Swaggart. See if that gets his attention.