knock knock...no it hasn't.  That's what I tried to tell you...you do NOT have ears to hear Lula.  The Jews are still awaiting their Messiah.  It will be Christ and it will be exactly as Zechariah wrote about in Chap 12:

"and I will pour upon the house of David (this means Jews) and upon the inhabitants of Jerusalem, (not Rome) the spirit of grace and of supplications and they shall look upon me (CHrist) whom they have pierced and they shall mourn for him as one mourns for his only son, (Israel has NOT done this yet) and shall be in bitterness for him as one this is in bitterness for his firstborn.  In that day shall there be a great mourning in Jerusalem as the mourning of Hadadrimmon in the valley of Megiddon.  And the land shall mourn every family apart the family of the house of David apart and their wives apart the family of the house of Nathan apart (all very Jewish) The family of the house of Levi apart and their wives apart; the family of Shimel apart and their wives apart....etc

if you continue into Chap 13 you have to admit (if you weren't so blind) this HAS NOT HAPPENED YET!  He will come back and be the Messiah they have been waiting for.  God is a God of second chances even though you don't want to believe this because you don't want the Jews to be the center of God's will again.  You remind me much of Jonah who pouted after God saved Nineveh.   He hated the people of Nineveh and wanted God's wrath to pour over them and destroy them because of his intense hatred for the people.  Instead God saved them exactly what Jonah was afraid would happen. 

Read Psalm 2.  When did these things happen?  When did the nations break with a rod of iron?  Into pieces?  When did what John wrote of in Revelation 2 and 19 (which I quoted) happen? 

When did Christ on the white horse come out of heaven to make war on the earth?  When did all the nations get smitten with the sword? 

We have NOT seen the wrath of God poured out on this earth yet.  It will be worse than in Noah's day.  Worse.  When did this happen?  I believe we are starting to see birth pangs today.  The end is near.  The wars, the quakes, the diseases, the anger of mankind on each other, the signs in the animal kingdom are all signs that are telling us that we are close.  God's cup of wrath must be close to full. 

You are allowing yourself to be deceived if you believe it's already happened.  Christ himself said it will be unlike any other day in past history.  We have yet to see the wrath of Almighty God unleashed. 

Agree. God's Salvation plan starts in earthly Jerusalem (with the Old Covenant fulfilled in the New Covenant in Christ's death, resurrection and Ascension)  and ends with heavenly New Jeruslem in eternity.

No.  He did not come the first time as King.  He came as Savior.  The second time he comes will be as King.  He will sit on the seat of David as promised to David (2 Sam 7:12-16.)  That's what the Davidic covenant is all about.  The Jews wanted a King to rule over them and free them from Rome.  They wanted the Messiah promised thru all the prophets.  Jesus was that King but they did not accept this kingship.  He didn't come the way they expected so they rejected him. They were looking for another King DAvid. 

"When Jesus therefore perceived that they would come and take him by force to make him a king he departed again into a mountain himself alone."  John 6:15

If Jesus did do what they expected, the Gentiles would never have been reached.  Salvation was of the Jews.  It was ONLY because of their blindness (God allowed) that we are even having this discussion today.  All part of God's plan that goes all the way back to Abraham.  "all nations would be blessed" not just Israel. 

Remember the story of the Gentile woman who said "even the dogs get the crumbs from the master's table."  She wanted what the Jews were getting.  She wanted salvation and recognized He was the Messiah the Jews were waiting for. 

"And behold you shall conceive in your womb and bring forth a son and shall call his name Jesus.  He shall be great and shall be called the Son of the Highest and the Lord God shall give unto him the throne of his father David; and he shall reign over the House of Jacob for ever; and of his kingdom there shall be no end."  Luke 1:31-33. 

As the Davidic Messiah Jesus will reign over the house of Jacob which will happen in the millennial kingdom.  This promise is not now being fulfilled simply because the church is NOT the house of Jacob and Christ is presently at the right hand of the father which is NEVER equated with the throne of David. 

Jehoiachin, king of Judah was taken into captivity by Nebuchadnessar in 597 B.C.  A curse was pronounced on him that none of his descendants would prosper sitting on the throne of David.  Had Jesus been the natural son of Joseph He could not have been successful on the throne of DAvid because of this curse.  But since Jesus came through Mary's Lineage, He was not affected by this curse.  JEsus came thru the line of Nathan (Mary's line) not his brother Solomon (Joseph's line).  It's amazing when you look at the geneologies and what transpired.  Satan corrupted the line thinking the Messiah would never be and God paved the way turning something evil into something good as per usual. 

You need to read 2 Samuel 7:12-16 for the background on the Davidic Covenant for one thing. 

lula posts:

kfc posts:

Apoc. 2:26-28, "He who conquers and keeps my works until the end, I will give him power over nations, 27 and he shall rule them with a rod of iron, as when earthen pots are broken in pieces, even as I myself have received power from my Father, 28 and I will give him the morning star."

Apoc. 2 is the letter to the Church of Thyatira which is the smallest of the 7 cities.  It's here that Jesus introduces Himself as "the Son of God", the one and only time this phrase appears in the Apocalypse. The reason for this special title at this particular place is due to its connection to Ps. 2:7-9. "The Lord hath said to me: thou art my son, this day have I begotten thee. 8 Aks of me, and I will give thee the Gentiles for thy inheritance, and the utmost parts of the earth for thy possession. Him power over the nations. 9 Thou shalt rule them with a rod of iron and shalt break them in pieces like a potter's vessel."

With Christ's First Advent, Ps. 2:7-9 has already been fulfilled and is being fulfilled. Well we know that Jesus has been given authority to rule over all the nations of the earth and heaven too. St. Matt. 28:18. "And Jesus said to them, All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me." So, 40 days after His Resurrection, Jesus ascended into Heaven and rules over His kingdom from the right hand of the Father. Apoc. 12:5, He's ruling now in Heaven with a "rod of iron". St.matt. 28:19 Christ gives His authority to the Apostles and their successors to make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in His name. So, Christians (the kingdom of Christ) rule with Him over the nations (Eph. 2:6) and at the end of the world, time and history, will continue to rule with Him in Heaven Apoc. 20:4-6.

Their present obedience on earth will allow the ruling powers in heaven to deal with the deteriorated spiritual condition in Thyratia becasue they have gone on too long and have spread to the nations, that is, to the rest of Asia Minor. Now, what's the message of Apoc. 2: 26-28 for us today? If one can show that he is faithful in small matters of a local church, he will be accounted worthy to rule with Christ over all the nations, from the first century until the end of the world. St.Luke 16:10 sums it up..."He that is faithful in that which is least is faithful also in that which is greater. And we see in Apoc. 20:4, faithful Christians will reign with Christ for a "thousand years". They WILL be judging their persecuters both now and in the future Apoc. 6:9-10; 1Co. 6:2-3; St.Matt. 19:28, and Ps. 2:1-5.  

No, the Last Supper has nothing to do with this pagan concept of eucharist.  The last Supper was a Passover Sedar.  The eucharist you speak of comes from Mithras worship. "The Original Roman Empire Flag had on it Mithras, the sun god.  Hold that thought.  Missa, is latin for departed and was spoken at the end of Catholic mass so it seems that the liturgical procedure stems from that.  Mass existed before RCC for it was what the pagan priests of Mithraism called their mass of the dead.  This was a 'sacra-mental' ritual of animal and human sacrifices on an indoor altar with the pagan worshippers assembled in 2 rows of benches with a center aisle (wow looks familiar).  Head pagan priest would lead this on the other end.  The word abracadabra was used during the Mithraic Mass wehn they changed a sun-shaped disc of bread into the sun and ate it (wow sounds familiar).  The Catholic priest does the same thing except he says 'hoc est corpus meum' which came about the phrase hocus-pocus which was used for any sleight of hand. The Mandaeans (Augustine was one before he converted.  These are sun worshippers.) also had something similar to the 7 sacraments.  They had baptism because they felt that baptism was necessary to fend off impurity.  They had communion sacrements with a disc representing the sun which was offered in the rememberance of the dead (this sounds familiar).  Man and Woman would take an unbreakable vow.  Priest had a holy order."

You can go to ANY encyclopedia and look up Mithras and see the similarities between their 7 sacrements and rcc's.  eucharist = pagan.

Also, you said that revelation 2:26 has something to do with the 'church'.  You keep forgetting the golden rule of intrepretation (this is not just used for Scripture it is used when you interpret anything). 

" When the plain sense of Scripture makes common sense, seek no other sense; therefore, take every word, at its primary, ordinary, usual, literal meaning unless the facts of the immediate context, studied in the light of related passages and axiomatic and fundamental truths, indicate clearly otherwise.     The sum and substance of this most important rule is that one should take every statement of the Scriptures at its plain face value, unless there are indications that a figurative or metaphorical meaning was intended by the original writer. In other words, one is to take the Scriptures as they are written and is not to attempt to read into the Sacred Writings his own ideas or the thoughts of men."

OK, I understand better now ..I was confused with the way you phrased it.

Having said that, let's be more clear . At the beginning of Christ's 3 year public ministry, He didn't want to be known as "King" per se. That's for sure. He kept telling those for whom He performed miracles, etc. not to tell anyone. Jesus fled from those who wanted to make Him king becasue they had an earthbound view of His mission St.John 6: 14-15 when it was spiritual all along.  

Later on before Pilate, Christ explained that His Kingship "is not of this world." Which is true and neither is His Chruch, the Kingdom of Christ .....we are in the world but not of the world. According to St. Augustine, Christ was not King of Israel for exacting trubute or arming a host of men with swords, but Christ was King of Israel to rule souls, to counsel them for eternal life, to bring to the kingdom of heaven those that believe, hope and love. Christ has to reign first and foremost in our soul. 

But, as far as His Kingship, this changed at the end of His ministry. I'm referring to the Messias Christ's triumphal entry into Jerusalem on what we call Palm Sunday. This is when the prophecies of Zacharais 9:9, Is. 40:9 and Ps. 118:26 were fulfilled by Christ.

 The crowd took branches from the palm trees and laid them out for Him to pass over saying, "Hosanna Blessed is He who comes in the name of the Lord, even the King of Israel". Ps. 118:26. So, here they were indeed acclaiming Jesus as Messias underlining His royalty. The Messias is the King of Israel par excellence. And Jesus sitting on an ass, "as it is written,

Fear not, daughter of Zion, behold your King is coming, siting on an ass's colt." His disciples didn't understand this at first but did when Jesus was glorified then they remembered that this had been written of Jesus and had been done to Him.

TPP

Yup, Our Lord Jesus Christ said scoffers would come.

The Last Supper occurred on Thrusday evening the day before Christ was crucified.  It was the meal taken by Jesus with His disciples in which He instituted the Blessed Eucharist both as a sacrifice and as a Sacrament. As a Sacrifice it was completed on Calvary and perpetuated in the Holy Mass. As the second , it is given in Holy Communion and by this new rite, the sacrifices of the Old Law were superceded and for ever done away with.

I'm positive Christ knew what He was doing at the Last Supper when He instituted the Eucharistic sacrifice of His Body and Blood. The Euchaaristic Mass was instituted at the Last Supper. Anyone can turn to the text and read these infallible words, "Then He took bread, and blessed and broke it, and gave it to them, saying, "this is My body, given for you.... take and eat...do this for a commemmoration of Me.

There is absolutely nothing pagan about it. He did it in order to perpetuate the sacrifice of the Cross throughout hte centuries untiil He should come again. He institued the Eucharist so as to entrust to His beloved spouse, the Chruch, a memorial of His death and resurrection, a sacrament of love, a sign of unity, a paschal banquet in which CHrist is consumed. Read St.John 6. When we eat this "Bread of Life" which is Christ's very Flesh and Blood, we receive His grace.

I don't care how many "similiarities" you find out there. Christ is the Real Thing and at Holy Communion I receive Him.

You have to keep in mind that what CHrist was yesterday, and is today, He remains forever. Heb. 13:8.

Yes, my point is that Jesus was not doing the euchraist.  He was doing a Sedar because that would be the Jewish thing to do and not some pagan religion concept.  I am not disagree with communion here.  What I am in disagreement is the concept of eucharist which is pagan and comes from Mithras which was largely a Roman religion and what a surprise you follow doctrine that has roots in this pagan practrice.

The text say nothing about the euchraist again you violate the golden rule and interject other man's opinion.  What Jesus said was take this bread for this is my body and take this wine for this is my blood and do this in rememberance of me.  During the Passover Sedar you would act like you were back right before G-D liberated you from Egypt and remember what happened.  G-D always reminded the Israelites of their years in bondage and how they were liberated from those years and Jesus was saying the samething here remember all that and this for I AM THE TRUTH AND THE TRUTH shall set you free.

OK...so you go by this "Golden rule of interpretation".  What can I say? What the "plain sense of Scripture" is to you according to your own private interpretation will be something very different to the next person's "plain sense of Scripture". This is why there are hundreads of varieties of Protestantism each variety containing some truths mixed up with its' own particular errors. If you give me any doctrine taught by one Protestant Church there is another which denies it. Your "Golden Rule of interpretating Scripture" ends up in confusion and error.

Protestantism in general says that Scripture is its own sufficient guide to salvation, although Scripture itself says it's not. Go figure. Protestantism denies the authority of the Chruch established by Christ. It has no sacfifice of the Mass. It does not believe in Confession, rejects Purgatory, and some of its advocates refuse to believe in Hell...and I could go on and on and on.

When it comes to understanding what Sacred Scripture means, the Christ's Church is my guide and interpreter.

leauki posts:

You've got things backwards here. The identity of the CC is indissolubly linked with a continuous identity of doctrine, worshjip, and discipline. The so-called "Roformation" involved the abolution of essential doctrines, worship, and discipline substituting completely different and humanly invented alternatives.

Christ promised His Chruch would not fail. The Protestant Reformers said it did fail. Instead of protesting merely against the bad lives of some Catholics, and even of some priests, they went too far and protested against the Chruchas such, asserting that Christ had failed to keep His promise concerning it. This was a protest against Christ who had promised to be with His Chruch till the end of the world. Protest as much as you like against individual abuses in the Chruch, but no man has the right to set up his own church.

The Chruch eventually reformed herself of the abuses..that came about at the Council of Trent.

Most Protestants know little about Luther. He was an apostate priest. I have no respect for him at all. All of the Protestant churches that were established exist becasue men frrogated to themselves the right to coin new doctrines and set up churches of their own.

Again, if you say so, but they are not priests like that of the Aaronic priesthood who were consecrated for the altar by competant authorities who had a Divine commission to exercise levitical requirements.

No. Not rabbis.

The date of the origin of the synagogue is obscure but Jewish historians say it had its beginning during the Babylonian Captivity that is over 1,000 years after the Aaronic priesthood, sacrifices and sanctuary containing the Holy of Holies were institutued.

Jews didn't have ministers known as rabbis for over 3,000 years.  The designation as rabbis originated during the first century of the Christian era, when there were no longer Jewish priests, Mosaic sacrifices, or Temple. The pubils of Johanan B. Zakki who "abrogated" the already abrogated "sacrifices and laws of levitical purification"  substitutuin gprayers in the synagogue  were the first to assume that title after, "ordination".

Before the Christian era, Rabbi was merely a title of respect, addressed by Jewish pupils to their teachers, and by Jews generally to men more learned than themselves. Rabbi is a Palestinian title which means "My Master" as Rab is a Babylonian title given to doctors of the Law and Rabboni, (as Christ was called St. John 20:16), is an Aramaic title which means "My Lord Master." 

The Synagague cannot take the place of the Temple becasue it lacks the Holy of Holies and the sacrifices....which is another difference between Old Judaism and Modern Judaism.  

Current Judaism is neither holy nor the religion given by God but rather was established by Jews...so this is another difference between the two.  

The holy religion that God gave through Moses is no more as there is no Temple, no sacrifices, no ALtar, etc.

We can know because Abraham found the city of Salem with an already organised religion loyal to G-d. That didn't happen within Abraham's life time (by all accounts he lived for "only" 175 years). It takes many (normal) generations for a city to grow, choose a city god, and create a religion with priesthood around him.

The religion must have spread from there too because Moses found a (Arab) tribe that also worshipped the god of Salem and married the daughter of one of their priests.

Clearly G-d wouldn't leave Abraham and his descendants alone, would He?

Clearly when the (Canaanite) people of Salem already worshipped G-d (and possibly the bedouins south of the city did too) Abraham was still in Assyria (northern Iraq) and hadn't even started his journey to Canaan.

I assume this is why G-d told Abraham to travel that far. That's why the "holy land" was the holy land: it was the place where G-d was already worshipped whereas other lands and cities worshipped other gods.

They are Aaronic priests. What do you think Kohanim are???

Yet it is well over 500 years before the event you said divided "Old Testament Judaism" from modern Judaism.

Jews still don't have "ministers known as rabbis". You misunderstand what a rabbi is. A rabbis is not a priest, elder, or minister ("servant"). A rabbi is a teacher.

The title "rav" ("great one") for a teacher predates the events we are talking about by over a thousand years. If I recall correctly it was used in ancient Assyrian in that sense long before Moses and Aaron were even born.

Your entire comparison of the two disctint "Judaisms" you see is based on your complete ignorance of the Jewish religion and Jewish history, let alone the history of the words involved if you recall the discussion about the difference between "priest" and "elder".

In "modern" Judaism AND in "Old Testament Judaism", a priest is a priest (and has duties only when there is a Temple or Tabernacle) and a rabbi is a rabbi. Neither is an elder or minister (which is Latin for "servant").

Yes, that's exactly true about Jewish expectations.

And I said the same a few replies ago about what Jews expected of a Messiah.

That was exactly the situation Jesus was born into.

I can imagine that this is true. The gentiles (Romans and Greeks at the time) certainly wouldn't have followed Simon Bar Kochba.

There was a definite choice between coming as a warrior king and being accepted by the Jews and coming asa , as you call it, "savior" and impress the gentiles.

Perhaps it was a mechanism to save the gentiles by removing the opportunity of a Jewish victory (under the real Messiah's rule) which would have condemned all of Israel's enemies (then most everyone) to a bad place. This way the gentiles can find G-d before the king of Israel sits on his throne. Maybe...

What do you mean "another"?

Neither is that renewed repetition of your thesis a "difference" and nor is it "another".

You keep going on claiming that A and A are different based on the vast amount of evidence you brought up, namely:

1. You claim A and A are different.

2. You argue that since A and A are different (based on your claim), one of them was not created by X.

3. You claim that "another difference" between A and A is that one of them was not created by X.

You CANNOT prove a thesis by claiming the thesis itself as evidence. That's one thing.

You also CANNOT count something you deduce from the thesis as evidence for the thesis. That's another thing.

And, finally, you CANNOT claim that this deduction from your own fantasy constitutes a second piece of evidence, since there was no first.

Using your "logic" you could "prove" absolutely anything:

1. "All cars are red." (Unproven thesis not yet proven.)

2. Since all cars a red, no cars are green. (Deduction from unproven thesis, NOT evidence for the thesis.)

3. The absence of green cars is more evidence that all cars are red. (Neither "evidence" since it's a deduction from point 2. And not "more" since there was no evidence in points 1 or 2 either.)

Or this:

1. "Lula prays to Satan."

2. Since Lula prays to Satan, Lula does not pray to G-d.

3. The fact that Lula does not pray to G-d is more evidence that Lula prays to Satan.

Gee, isn't that how the inquisition worked?

Either way, if "Old Testament Judaism" and current Judaism are different based on your argument, then all cars a red and you are a Satan worshipper. Have fun with that or revise your argument.

lula posts:

kfc posts 319

Jesus said this at His trial when He was answering Pilate. According to the DR and KJV it reads, "....My kingdom is not of this world..." 

Again, any one can read Scripture but most often they don't understand it's correct meaning...and that's what is soooo important. Remember in Acts. the Ethiopian who was reading Isaias and didn't understand it? He needed help from a man of the Chruch....St. Philip the deacon in the Church interpreted it for him and afterwards preached Christ and then baptized the Ethiopian.

My concordance contains so many references to "the kingdom of Heaven" or "the Kingdom of God" which is the same thing.

In the OT, the Kingdom of God is the Jewish people. They were His people and He was their King for whom the earthly king was but a vicegerent. It also means the governance of Israel by God. later, taught by the prophets the Jews began to look forward to a new kingdom to come. Daniel 7:14, 18, 25 and 27 come to mind. This expectancy was at its height at the time of Our Lord's arrival. St.John the Baptist preached that the Kingdom of God is at hand. St.John 3:1-3.  The Kingdom is "at hand"....We know from St.John that means the time has nearly arrived when the Messias will appear and will found His kingdom. This rules out the future 1,000 year Messianic kingdom after Christ's Second Coming.

 In the NT, Our Lord's own teachings are full of references to the kingdom of God (or kingdom of Heaven in St.Matt. in deference to the reluctance of the Jews to pronounce God's name.).

I will give you the phrase has several distinct meanings. The spiritual rule of God, the kingdom of grace, the future eternal kingdom of Heaven, The kingdom of Christ which is the Church, a spiritual not a temperal rule. The kingdom of Heaven proclaimed by Our Lord is not purely a celestial thing in the future. As St.John the Baptist is warning...it was at hand, meaning it began in this world at the Incarnation really. It is here and now, existing as a spiritual power, the ruling of God in the Mystical Body of the Church. It will be perfected and come to its complete fullness at the end of time.

I totally Agree.

lula posts:

LEAUKI posts:

All this proves is that you live up to the Jewish reputation of being a debating society...I give red meat and you quibble and hair-split and otherwise offer off-the wall nonsense. You are playing games and I'm not interested in doing that.

Last time...2 points: Biblical Judaism is not in accord with modern Judaism because the Temple, of Jerusalem, the Aaronic priesthood and the Mosaic sacrifices exist no more. they came to an end during the first century of the CHristian era as all Rabbis know. Mosaic Judaism ended over 2,000 years ago with the fulfillment of its prophecies in the birth, life, works, death and resurrection, and Ascension of the promised Messias. Christianity became the reality, the completion, the fulfillment of the Holy things Judaism foreshadowed.

Lula, just give examples of the alleged differences or be done with it.

Your semantic games are just annoying.

I agree with this Lula.  Judaism was the types and shadows of Christ who was the body to these shadows.  Where you're missing the mark is that God is going to once again turn to the Jews and give them a second chance.  You cut them off forgetting that "mercy triumps over judgment."    That's why I compared you to Jonah who relished in the thought of the destruction of the Assyrians only to be discouraged when God forgave them instead. 

Micah says:

"He will turn again; he will have compassion upon us; he will subdue our iniquities and  will cast ALL THEIR SINS into the depths of the sea.  You will perform the truth to Jacob (Jew) and the mercy to Abraham which you have sworn to our fathers from the days of old."  7:15

Despite their unfaithfulness there is an unconditional promise to Abraham.  Enacted with the Davidic covenant Israel will be restored as a nation and the people to the land originally promised to Abraham. 

no it doesn't.  There will be a "physical" 1,000 year rule with the Messiah according to Rev 20.  Right now, yes, he's ruling in each believer's heart "spiritually" but that's not what I'm talking about.  Besides all that that's been well over 2,000 years now.  The Millennium is 1,000 years and is still future.  Last I knew that's what Millennium means.  Not 2,000 plus.  God could have written 2,000 quite easily if he meant it to be what you're saying.  He didn't.  So you're attempting (with the teachings of the RCC) to make a square peg fit into a round hole and it' doesn't fit. 

You never answered all my questions in #326 other to say in a blanket statement "it all happened in the first coming."  You never answer the point blank questions Lula.   You skirt around them with long responses that don't directly answer the questions. 

I understand all this Lula.  Yes.  He is OUR king but HE did not come to take the throne of David as promised yet.  That is for the second coming.  That's when the Jews will accept him as a whole nation.  That's when "all Israel will be saved."  That's when he will turn back to the Jews and fullfill the Davidic Covenant physically as well as spiritually.  He will be the ONE KING over ALL THE Nations. 

@ The Peoples Party

AMEN to all you wrote here especially response #330. 

Yep.  I've been saying all along that the RCC is filled with a mixture of Christianity and Paganism. The best lies have truth woven into them.  Lula can't see it because she's wearing protective lenses thinking it's a good thing when in fact it's blinding her to the truth of God's revealed WORD. 

Exactly.  It's the number one rule of interpretation.  Lula violates this all over the place.  That's why the RCC NEVER exposits scripture.  They are totally topical.  If a preacher (Catholic or otherwise) tends to do this it's a very big red flag.  You can take scripture topically and make it anything you choose it to be.  It's the favorite way to twist scripture. 

There are rules/principles are for interpreting or understanding any language.  THESE RULES ARE APPLIED TO THEM.  One of the first and primary one is usually called the 'Golden Rule of Interpretation' is to take every word at its primary, ordinary, usual, literal meaning unless the facts of the context indicate otherwise.' This rule is recognized by logicians, grammarians and rhetoricians as the true criterion by which one must be governed. When guided by this principle, one cannot go far afield, but if it is ignored, one roams at will and can never know whether he has interpreted the Word of God correctly.  LOGICIANS (maybe you need to interject some of that) grammarians, and rhetoricians ALL USE THIS AS THE MAIN POINT!

Lula, I hope your Mithras worship is going well.  You seem to think that the rcc is some how united?  Within 2 months, I have talked to over a dozen fathers and several bishops who believe in reincarnation.  That number of goes up astronomicallly when you ask about hell and if it exists ( a lot will say no).  Then there is the charsmatic catholics.  I haven't even hit on the issue of homosexuality; homosexuals and being a father, homosexuals marriages.  Yes, yes it so very 'united'.

red meat?  All I have seen is doctrine and conjecture in the discourse on your part.  You should use Scripture and use less MSG (doctrine) because Scripture doesn't need any flavoring.

Speaking of your beloved doctrine. Mithra's cave-temple on the Vatican Hill (wait doesn't someone claim that to be a holy place and its no longer mithras who do, hmmmm I wonder who) seized by christians in 376 ad offered a lot of "goodies".  "The Mithraic high priest's title of pater, patrum which became papa, or pope. The Mithraic holy father wore a red cap and garment and a ring and carried a shepherd's staff.  Mithra's biships wore a mithra or miter as their badge of office. Mithraists commemorated the sun-god's ascension by eating a mizd, a sun-shaped bun embossed with sword of Mithra.  The roman catholic church adapted this/continues this with the mizd (Latin missa English mass) wafer to retain its sun-shape although not even Episcopalian counterpart do that. "(Encarta)  As the sun hits this sun shaped wafer Mithra is interjecting himself into the bread and the wine wow, sounds like  the euchraist.  That's where all that non-sense came from.  Again, I hope your mithras worship is going fine and dandy because the living G-D doesn't need any of those additives.

You rather take pagan traditions instead what G-D was doing.  Yeshua (aka Jesus) was doing here was a Passover Sedar.  That 'last supper' was just a portion of it when HE took the 3rd or 4th cup and said those words.  Again Yeshua (Jesus) WAS OBSERVING THE PASSOVER and HE TOLD US TO REMEMBER HIS DEATH WHENEVER WE OBSERVE PASSOVER. Since HE was Jewish HE HAD NO CONCEPT OF THIS PAGAN eucharist (that is what I am discussing here and p.s. with the 'church' positioning of the last supper there is no way Jesus could have spent 3 days in the grave WHICH ACCORDING to Scripture HE DID). It appears that you rather take traditions of men and pagan things. Oh wait, that's because you believe that the 'church' super-seded the old, so Lula you should do yourself a favor if you hadn't already and just tear out that old done away with testament because don't you know that the 'church' has replaced what those old smelly Jews have done.

LULA POSTS:

TPP posts 330

Regarding the highlighted....You are wrong, TPP, very wrong. The plain, the common and the literal sense of Scripture teaches that the Holy Eucharist is the Real Presence of Christ. The Eucharist is 100% from Christ and not from paganism.

kfc posts 344

Really? Number one rule huh? You have proven you are inconsistent in following your own rule then. You're quite the literalist when it comes to certain passages of the Apocalypse, but when it comes to my Lord Jesus' own explicit words in St. John 6, you sing the "it's symbolic" tune. With St.John 6, the common sense, plain sense and the literal sense is forced to take a back seat to your already held Protestant views that have been programmed without let up that all things Catholic must be condemned. 

Concerning the Holy Eucharist, the Lord did not leave us orphans during the "thousand year" Millennial Church age. He founded His Church which is "the pillar and bulwark of truth" and literally gives us Himself through the Holy Eucharist, the Bread of Life. The Apostles and Christ's earliest disciples certainly knew this. 1Cor.11: 23-27 quotes verbatim the Eucharist already in use in the Apostolic liturgy.

23 For I have received of the Lord that which also I delivered unto you, that the Lord Jesus, the same night in which he was betrayed, took bread. 24 And giving thanks, broke, and said: Take ye, and eat: this is my body, which shall be delivered for you: this do for the commemoration of me. 25 In like manner also the chalice, after he had supped, saying: This chalice is the new testament in my blood: this do ye, as often as you shall drink, for the commemoration of me.

26 For as often as you shall eat this bread, and drink the chalice, you shall shew the death of the Lord, until he come. 27 Therefore whosoever shall eat this bread, or drink  the chalice of the Lord unworthily, shall be guilt of the body and of the blood of the Lord. 28 But let a man prove himself: and so let him eat of that bread, and drink of the chalice. 29 For he that eateth and drinketh unworthily, eateth and drinketh judgment to himself, not discerning the body of the Lord. 30 Therefore are there many infirm and weak among you, and many sleep.

TPP posts:

kfc posts 344

TPP

KFC posts:

You are not the first and won’t be the last to reject the Holy Eucharist.  Christ knew some did not believe. Remember it’s here in St. John 6:64, that Judas fell away. “After this many of His disciples drew back and no longer went about with Him.”  6:66. (Interesting 3 numbers huh?).

You don’t believe in the literal Real Presence of our Lord in the Holy Eucharist, but now go even further saying the Eucharist is pagan. With that, you're not kickin for Christ, you're kickin' Christ.

And what you've been saying all along about the Church is wrong, but I know you are only repeating the contradicitons of Protestantism itself of which you have been programmed without let-up.

The Blessed Eucharist is the sacramental presence of Christ Himself in the CC and goes to the heart of Catholicism. As a matter of fact, there is no true Christianity without the Eucharist any more than there is without the Incarnation itself.  

In their eagerness to attack the Church, false charges have been made as the Eucharist is pagan and the Chruch and Catholicism is mixed with paganism....

A couple of points.

You're describing what's known as the pagan religions, particularly the Babylonian cults, that came into the Roman Empire from the East a few centuries before Christ. They all seem to have arisen through personifications of nature particulary birth and death as seen in the cycles of the seasons. Mithraism was widespread during the first centuries of Christianity chiefly amongst the pagan Roman soldiers.  

Since these pagan cults had superficial similiarties to Catholicism thePP implies the false argument of descent. Mithraism had in its rites a symolic banquet of bread and water. But this wasn't sacramental in the Christian sense and had no similiarity with the Sacrament of the Holy Eucharist any more than any partaking of bread and water under any other conceivable circumstances. THePP assertions are entirely untrue. The early Christian rite was based upon the offering of Melchisedech which was of bread and wine, not bread and water and never, ever did the early Chruch substitute water for wine in this Sacramental rite. They knew quite well that water would be an invalid substance for the purposes of the Eucharist and that the very substances used by Christ Himself had to be used.   

The first Christians were Jews and they would have never accepted pagan rites which they hated and held in the utmost abomination. Christ Himself promised the Eucharist while at the synagogue in Capharnaum and at the Last Supper He instituted the Eucharist. Read St.John 6: 25-70 Christ's discourse on the Bread of Life wher Christ promises to nousish mankind with the Divine soul-saving food of His own Flesh and Blood. He was telling the Jews that "I am the living bread which came down from heaven; if anyone eats of this bread, he will live forever; and the bread which I shall give for the life of the world is my flesh.....For my flesh is food indeed, and my blood is drink indeed."

My Lord Jesus repeated it and repeated it laying greater stress on the literal sense. At first the Jews thought he meant it  metaphorically. Then after Jesus summarized, the Jews asked how can this man give us His flesh to eat? This is the point when they took Jesus at His word. They were stupified for they understood Jesus literally and correctly. Verse 60, many of them found it to be a "hard saying" they left.

Jesus asked the Apostles if they would also go. And St.Peter answered, "....you have the words of eternal life and we have believed..."  At that time, they certainly didn't understand exactly what CHrist meant, but they accepted it becasue they believed in Christ and that's what we Catholics do as well.

But how could the faithful partake of His true living Flesh and Blood? Well, search the Scriptures...and you'll learn exactly how Christ intended to give His Flesh and Blood to the faithful to eat and drink...the full explanaton is found in the account of the Last Supper. St>Matt. 26:26-28; St.Mark 14:22-24; St.Luke 22:19-20.

These passages speak of the bread and wine which the OT predicted that Christ would offer a true sacrifice to God in bread and wine, that He would use those elements. Gen. 14:18 Melchisedech offered sacrifice under the form of bread and wine and Ps. 109 predicted that Christ would be a priest according to the order of Melchisedech.

I agree.  But where we differ is you believe that the beginnings of the RCC and these Jews are one and the same.  They are NOT.  The RCC stole Christianity from these early Christians.  They made it into a big business and shut down all competing business.  It was NEVER meant to be like that.  Christianity is about followers of Christ coming together and worshipping him in unity.  It was never supposed to be this big denomination business that the RCC made it out to be.  Jesus said by their fruits you can know them.  Today the Pope is admitting that the persecution of the RCC is because of their own sins from inside.  This is NOT Christ's church Lula.  You've been duped! 

Paul wrote to the Colossians about this subject saying they needed to go nowhere else.  John in his letters to the 7 churches in Revelation warned the churches not to go into paganism but it says they did.  You can see how the new churches stayed pure for a while and then they let in the false teachings (RCC) when it says: 

 "I know your works and where you dwell even where Satan's seat is (ROME) and you hold fast my name and have not denied my faith even in those days wherein Antipas was my faithful martyr who was slain among you where Satan dwells.  But I have a few things against you because you hold the doctrine of Balaam who taught Balac to cast a stumblingblock before the children of Israel to eat things sacrificed to idols and to commit fornication.  So you also have them that hold the doctrine of the Nicolatians which I hate."  Rev 3:13-15

Peter mentions this as well in his letter 2 Peter 2:15-19:

"WHich have forsaken the right way and are gone astray following the way of Balaam the son of Bosor who loved the wages of unrighteousness But was rebuked for his iniquity the dumb ass speaking with man's voice forbad the madness of the prophet.  These are wells without water clouds that are carried with a tempest to whom the mist of darkness is reserved for ever.  For when they speak great swelling words of vanity they allure though the lusts of the flesh through much wantoness those that were clean escaped from them who live in error.  While they promise them liberty they themselves are the servants of corruption for of whom a man is overcome of the same is he brought in bondage". 

The way of Balaam is the covetousness of one who hires himself to do religious work for personal gain.  We know now that for centuries homosexual priests hid from the world under the umbrella of the RCC.  There they could go about and practice their fornication secretly and no one would know because of the great power over the people they wielded. Now it's all crashing down because now they don't have to hide anymore.  You can be a homosexual in the open today.  No need to become a priest to practice this lifestyle.  That's why there is such a shortage of priests today.

This way is contrasted with the right way. Wells without water is the barrenness of the false teachers mocks the thirsty soul who sincerely wants to learn God's way from them.  The mists like the false teachers seem to promise refreshment but in reality do no good.  I think Peter was talking about the beginnings of the RCC here even though it wasn't to begin for another three centuries.  This was the under current. 

I doesn't say Judas fell away here.  You're "adding" to scripture.  You keep bringing up John Chap 6 but you do not understand it.  You only read it thru the lenses of the RCC.  You completely time and time again dismiss the context of Chapts 4-7 and the fact that Jesus said quite clearly:

"...the words that I speak to you they ARE SPIRIT, and they are life."  6:63

He's coming right out plain as day saying these words are spiritual.  He's saying it's NOT Carnal.  You're taking it as carnal when it was never meant to be.  The soul CANNOT be nourished by material food.  Soul is NOT material.  It's spirit he's talking Lula.  You've got it backwards.   You dance all around that verse omitting every time you bring up the "eucharist." 

What you're doing is teaching paganism.  This is part of the RCC's pagan beliefs mixed in with Christianity. The scriptures are clear that there is to be NO eating of blood but that is exactly what the RCC teaches in their version of the "eucharist."  It's cannibilism.  That's why some fell away.  They thought Christ was talking about eating blood and flesh (like you).  That was abhorrant to a Jew.  Remember who Christ is speaking to.  This is very important.  The Jews wouldn't touch blood.  Even the women going thru their menstral cycles were considered unclean and here you have Jesus saying "eat blood?"  Are you crazy they are thinking and they walked.    

I notice you love to quote the scriptures all around John 6 but keep omitting v63.  You dance around it constantly.  Can't you see this?     

leauki posts:

Catholicism is Christianity. Christianity is the religion of the one, holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church of Christ.

Christ established only one religion that speaks with His authority.....that has domiciled itself everywhere on earth.....that teaches His doctrines that are everywhere the same in essence....that exists inseparably with  Christ and the trunk of a body exists with its head.

Catholicism is the system of faith and morals revealed by God to man through Jesus Christ Who founded a Catholic Chruch as a depository of that revelation.

Christian is the name first given to the followers of my Lord Jesus Christ at Antioch Acts. 11:26. Since the rise of Protestantism, the name has been used in so many different senses as to have becme almost meaningless.