← Autodidact Archive · Original Dissent · JoseyWales

take this multiple choice test, a MUST read !

Thread ID: 16694 | Posts: 126 | Started: 2005-02-10

JoseyWales [OP]

2005-02-10 17:08 | User Profile

HISTORY TEST Please pause a moment, reflect back, and take the following multiple choice test. The facts and events are actual cuts from current and past history.

Do you remember?

The event which made national headlines when a statue of the Ten Commandments was removed from the Alabama state courthouse as a result of a lawsuit filed by a. Southern White Christian males b. Jay Lenno c. A Muslim male extremist between the ages of 17 and 40 d. Jews
The NAACP (National Association of Colored People) was started and continues to be funded by a. Bill Cosby b. Sitting Bull c. Muslim male extremists mostly between the ages of 17 and 40 d. Jews
On Septermber 11, 2001 as planes crashed into the world trade center, there were five men seen filming the events, laughing and high-fiving each other. They were a. The Smurfs b. Southern White Christian males c. Muslim male extremists mostly between the ages of 17 and 40 d. Jews
The (ADL)Anti Defimation League is one of the biggest opponents of Christmas traditions such as manger scenes. The ADL was founded and run by a. Captain Kangaroo b. Billy Graham c. Muslim male extremists mostly between the ages of 17 and 40 d. Jews
The member of congress responsible for the 1965 Immigration Act, which has had the single largest impact on the demographics of our country was a. John Dillinger b. A Southern White Christian male c. A Muslim male extremist between the ages of 17 and 40 d. Jewish Congressman Emmanuel Celler [D-NY]
Several of our country's founding fathers including Ben Franklin and George Washington warned us about a. Richard Simmons b. Grandma Moses c. Muslim male extremists mostly between the ages of 17 and 40 d. Jews
The Co-founder of the SPLC (Southern Poverty Law Center), one of the largest supporters of "affirmative action" was started in the 1960's by Moris Dees and Mr. Levin. Mr Levin is a. A cartoon character b. Mexican c. Muslim male extremist between the ages of 17 and 40 d. Jewish
On June 8, 1967, the American naval intelligence-gathering ship USS LIBERTY was attacked by a. Mr. Rogers b. Hillary Clinton, to distract attention from Wild Bill' s women problems c. Muslim male extremists mostly between the ages of 17 and 40 d. Israeli Jews
Disney at one time was associated with movies and cartoons that portrayed patriotisim and family values. Whats the difference between the founder, Walt Disney and the current owner of several years now, Michael Eisner ? a. Walt liked corn bread and sweet peas, Mr. Eisner likes kosher dill pickles b. one is a Muslim male extremist between the ages of 17 and 40 c. none, both are from Kansas d. Mr. Eisner is Jewish
Every year our congress "spends" large amounts of our tax dollars on foriegn aid. One of the largest recipients of that money is also the importer of an estimated 3000 female sex slaves per month. That country is a. Canada b. Mexico c. India d. Israel
Among the largest critics of the recent movie "The Passion of the Christ" starring Mel Gibson, was a. Bugs Bunny, Wiley E. Coyote, Daffy Duck and Elmer Fudd b. The Supreme Court of Florida c. Muslim male extremists mostly between the ages of 17 and 40 d. Jewish organizations
Many countries gaurd their borders from illegal immigration. Today its estimated that upwards of three million illegal aliens cross our southern border every year at a huge cost to the American taxpayer. Of the most vocal and active groups that oppose measures, mentioned previously, to stem the tide of illegal aliens are a. Southern White Christian males b. Italians c. Muslim male extremists between the ages of 17 and 40 d. Jews

Nope, .....I really don't see a pattern here to justify profiling, do you? If you answered (d) to all of the above, you must therefore be a "nazithatwantstokillsixmillionjews"! Why is it that what used to be taken for granted is now deemed hateful, racist or insensitive ? Protecting our borders is "insensitive" to the needs of mexicans. Celebrating traditional holidays such as Christmas and Easter has become openly critisized. Questioning where our tax money is sent is also hateful and insensitive. Who is behind all of these things ? Dont look, you might not like the answer.

Let's send this to as many people as we can so that the Moris Dees and other dunder-headed attorneys along with Federal Justices that want to thwart common sense, feel doubly ashamed of themselves - if they have any such sense. As the writer of the award winning story "Forrest Gump" so aptly put it, "Stupid is as stupid does."

And most important of all, dont ask too many questions about these things, you might not like the answer.

Recluse

2005-02-10 18:07 | User Profile

I just posted this on another board this morning, in a conversation about an Alex Jones-style talk show host who was wasting everyone's time with all that black helicopter nonsense:

You know, all that "Bilderbergers" and "CFR" stuff is a distraction, IMO. I don't know how many of the neocons who got us into this War for Israel are members of the CFR, but I know what tribe most of them belong to, and I don't know how many people in AIPAC (American Israel Public Affairs Committee) are Bilderbergers, but I know what tribe they all belong to, and I don't know if that reptilian POS that I saw on ESPN yesterday who was screaming about too many White people in the stands at baseball games was a member of the Trilateral Commission, but I'm 99% sure he was Jewish. In other words, I don't have to go looking for secret societies to see who's making war on my people, they're right in my face, all day, every day.

Petr

2005-02-10 18:57 | User Profile

Just a little nit-picking-fact-checking:

[COLOR=DarkRed][I][B]"One of the largest recipients of that money is also the importer of an estimated 3000 female sex slaves per month."[/B][/I][/COLOR]

I think this is a considerable exaggeration (and thank God for that!) - I think the real figure is 3000 [B]per year[/B].

Petr

mwdallas

2005-02-10 19:00 | User Profile

[QUOTE]You know, all that "Bilderbergers" and "CFR" stuff is a distraction, IMO. I don't know how many of the neocons who got us into this War for Israel are members of the CFR[/QUOTE]

One of the effects that the Jewish community has on its host is the severing of ties between the elite and the rest of the host community. The common folk are no longer to exercise social control over the elite, many of whom -- in the absence of moral-code enforcement mechanisms -- succumb to the temptations to seek unlimited wealth and power. Rhodes's Round Table, the CFR, etc. may be seen as the products of Jewish influence in that sense.

travis

2005-02-11 02:38 | User Profile

[QUOTE=Recluse]black helicopter nonsense:

You know, all that "Bilderbergers" and "CFR" stuff is a distraction, IMO.[/QUOTE] No, it's not a distraction, it's stratified enlightenment. Once the sheep become aware of the CFR, Bilderbergers, Trilateral etc..etc... the next logical step is to ask, who makes it all possible? And why are these powers not figting amongst themselves? Why doesn't the mass media ever say anything much about this? Then they will figure out who the real beneficiary of secret societies is....the one secret society that rules them all....organized Jewry.

Righteous Fist

2005-02-11 04:42 | User Profile

I know a small number of Jewish dudes who are deeply religious and oppose all of the actions attributed to Jews above. Is it possible that a real Jew with genuine piety would not do those things, and that those who have only believe in money and are not real Jews in a sense?

Also, where can one find out more with regards to question 6, what the founding fathers said about Jewish people?

:nerd:

Franco

2005-02-11 05:08 | User Profile

Also, where can one find out more with regards to question 6, what the founding fathers said about Jewish people?

:nerd:[/QUOTE]

I actually think that this would benefit you more:

[url]http://www.vanguardnewsnetwork.com/2004b/mjc1h.htm[/url]

Jack Cassidy

2005-02-11 05:23 | User Profile

Also, where can one find out more with regards to question 6, what the founding fathers said about Jewish people?

:nerd:[/QUOTE] I think I am speaking for myself here, but I think there is a radical difference between serious religious Jews and those who are ethnically Hebrew (or less than [ultra-]/orthodox). And I would go further and say that many of the people who are now downright hostile to Israel policies and Zionism-- including me -- would have a 175-180 degree change in position if those behind Zionism and Israeli policies where doing so out of some staunch religious commitment (as opposed to some consumate ethnocentrism).

Recluse

2005-02-11 08:06 | User Profile

[QUOTE=travis]No, it's not a distraction, it's stratified enlightenment. Once the sheep become aware of the CFR, Bilderbergers, Trilateral etc..etc... the next logical step is to ask, who makes it all possible? And why are these powers not figting amongst themselves? Why doesn't the mass media ever say anything much about this? Then they will figure out who the real beneficiary of secret societies is....the one secret society that rules them all....organized Jewry.[/QUOTE]

Well, you have a lot more faith in the Lemming's ability to figure things out than I do. I certainly don't think that that's the intention of the black helicopter activists - I think that most of them are just afraid of the consequences of saying the J word.

Quantrill

2005-02-11 16:16 | User Profile

[QUOTE=Righteous Fist]I know a small number of Jewish dudes who are deeply religious and oppose all of the actions attributed to Jews above. Is it possible that a real Jew with genuine piety would not do those things, and that those who have only believe in money and are not real Jews in a sense?[/QUOTE] As far as the definitions go, Jews who only believe in money are still considered Jews by the Jews themselves. Jews who are atheists are still considered Jews by the Jews themselves. The only way a Jew can be kicked out of Jewry is by becoming a Christian. But more importantly, it actually matters very little whether a Jew is religious or not. Jews, quite often perhaps subconsciously, do what they think is good for the Jews. They are the people that shall dwell apart. They were without a homeland for 2000 years, yet they still maintained their identity. A group couldn't do that if it didn't consider its own interests paramount. A culturally sound, ethnically homogenous, white, Christian society is bad for Jews, or at least they perceive it to be. Therefore, Jews will always comprise a cultural, ethnic, religious, and moral fifth column within a white, Christian society, period. I am not saying that they are genetically inferior, and I am not saying that they are intrinsically evil. The simple fact is that the interests of Jews and white Christian societies are in conflict, and this must be addressed frankly.

SCRIPTURESEZ

2005-02-11 16:40 | User Profile

There is no scripture that presents this view.

Please see Romans 11

One new man out of 2.

If one becomes baptized in Yeshua Jesus name one is still the same outwardly but has received a spiritual impartation.

It would be like washing a chicken and it turns into a buffalo because it got baptized. Can't happen.

Quantrill

2005-02-11 16:43 | User Profile

[QUOTE=SCRIPTURESEZ]There is no scripture that presents this view.[/QUOTE] No kiddin'. But since I was talking about Jewish perceptions of who is and who is not a Jew, and Jews don't believe in New Testament, I'm not sure what your point is.

MadScienceType

2005-02-11 16:48 | User Profile

Also, where can one find out more with regards to question 6, what the founding fathers said about Jewish people?[/QUOTE]

RF,

That's a good question and it deserves a serious answer. Keep in mind that I'm only speaking for myself here, but the way I see it, your pious Jews who "would not do those things" are in a relative minority, far outweighed by the power and influence of their noxious, neo-con kin. It is admirable that you can take folks as individuals, as I try to do as much as possible, but that doesn't outweigh the fact that Jews have done a tremendous amount of damage to Western society in pursuit of their own ethnic ends. That is a generalization, a word's that been maligned as something incorrect and somewhat "dirty" but that doesn't make it any less true. I mean, not every pair of Blacks is a Carr brothers waiting to happen, but there are enough instances of similar events to make even the likes of Jesse Jackson steer clear when he sees them on the street. No, not every Jew is a cartoon Shylock, rubbing his hands together with glee as he anticipates the arrival of the latest check from his "Girls Gone Anal" website showing up at his condo maildrop, but there are a lot who do in fact corrode society away in a similar fashion, the way a penny disappears when you drop it in battery acid.

Essentially, Jews are a special-interest group with their own ethnic axe to grind, no different than Whites having group interests, it's just that the actions of the former in pursuit of that goal are to be excused, nay celebrated, while the latter are not even acknowledged and result in punishment for even hinting at that such interests exist. For instance, why is the Wall being built in Israel (with our tax dollars!) being hailed as a "necessary" security step, while a Wall of similar scope on *our * Southern border is decried as a racist monstrosity? I'm sure you've seen it on FR, where the heavy-handed censorship is but one example of such double-standards.

I would further say that your pious Jews, concerned as they are for the actions of their ethnic cousins, would, when push comes to shove, side with their kin. As well they should, I would just like to see Whites afforded the same courtesy. Since that's not likely forthcoming, I will have to fight the group I see preventing White group interests from coalescing, and that most often, is Jews. It is not for nothing that they are sometimes called "The People of the Double Standard."

You may want to check out the works of Kevin MacDonald, a professor who has done extensive research into the group tactics of Jews in furthering their own interests. He's a bit dry, but he's definitely not a foaming-at-the-mouth Nazi, though he's been derided as such on the likes of FR. The fact that even dry, uncritical observation of Jewish behavior is lumped into the same category as neo-Nazism should tell you something.

Looking back, I can see that I've probably haven't done justice in trying to convey some ideas to you with any sense, but I hope at least the effort has shown you that this isn't some irrational obsession with everyone who has a problem with overall Jewish behavior. Personally, I don't believe the sun rises and sets on the idea that the Jews are soley responsible for all our problems. That's like Blacks claiming that Whitey Racism is responsible for everything wrong with 'em, similar to every time a Jew stubs his toe is, you guessed it, "anti-Semitism." However, the biggest roadblock to our solving our own problems is a lack of White cohesion, and Jews are the ones with the biggest role in maintaining that roadblock, though you'll have to convince yourself if that's true or not.

Lastly, I know some of the Nazi-like rhetoric that can sometimes appear here (and is legion elsewhere) is probably loathsome to you, but bear in mind that Whites are getting justifiably angry, and some of the less eloquent or rational among us do not always express that anger in the most tactful of ways. It's likely, unfortunately, that the longer the double-standards and penalties on White organization go on, the less eloquent and rational the debate is likely to get. I will leave you with the words of one who is more eloquent and may help you understand where I'm coming from (with apologies for the quote-snatching):

On the other hand, I've seen, a number of times, otherwise-aracial types willing to meet us halfway if the topic is restricted to measurable malign Jewish influence in the here and now - neocons, AIPAC, MTV, even abstract examples like dominating public discourse through subversion - only to see the light flicker and die when the door-to-door Mein Kampf salesman, smelling a live one, begins to unload the full Protocol on them before the initial sale is buttoned up. You'll have one coming around on the dual citizens whispering in Bush's ear, only to lose him utterly by trying to pad the order blaming Jews for Communism, capitalism, feminism, ritual murder, white slavery and oh, yeah, didja know Salk and Einstein were charlatans who conned white men out of their theories in a crooked faro game? By the time you're pointing out cloud-formations that look exactly like Franz Boas, they're long gone in a cloud of dust, and you've been talking to yourself for the past forty-five minutes

"If you want to know who is in control of society, just look for who you're not allowed to criticize" is what it boils down to, and while there are quite a few groups like that in the modern-day West, I only see one that is placed far above the others in terms of insulation from hearing criticism.

P.S. Can't help you on number 6 above, since a lot of those quotes are fabricated, unfortunately, but seized upon by some the way a starving man crashes a Golden Corral buffet.

SCRIPTURESEZ

2005-02-11 20:08 | User Profile

You have these ideas from the teaching of men (or worse)

If you knew the scriptures and had the teaching and instruction of God, you would have a different view.

I chose life and to believe in Jesus for he was the door to the Torah and the knowledge of the Messiah Jesus.

I tell you again, there is no way none zero that you can know who is Jewish, ethnically or otherwise.

No one knows this but God.

But I know Jesus is a Jew.

Quantrill

2005-02-11 20:13 | User Profile

[QUOTE=SCRIPTURESEZ] I chose life and to believe in Jesus for he was the door to the Torah and the knowledge of the Messiah Jesus.[/QUOTE] You've got this pretty much exactly backward, which seems to be common among Judaizers. The Torah is useful exactly insofar as it is a door to Jesus. Jesus is not useful simply as a door to the Torah. You might want to turn off the 700 Club and read some R L Dabney or St Augustine.

SCRIPTURESEZ

2005-02-11 20:31 | User Profile

God does not change.

Matthew 5:17 "Do not think that I came to abolish the Torah or the Prophets; I did not come to abolish, but to fulfill.

you have the teachings of men not of God

Texas Dissident

2005-02-11 20:36 | User Profile

[QUOTE=Quantrill]The Torah is useful exactly insofar as it is a door to Jesus.[/QUOTE]

Beautiful, Quantrill.

Quantrill

2005-02-11 20:42 | User Profile

[QUOTE=SCRIPTURESEZ]God does not change.

Matthew 5:17 "Do not think that I came to abolish the Torah or the Prophets; I did not come to abolish, but to fulfill.

you have the teachings of men not of God[/QUOTE] This verse always gets dragged out. The word used is 'fulfill', not 'continue'. Fulfill, v. --To bring to an end; complete. If you have fulfilled an obligation, then you no longer have the obligation. If Jesus fulfilled the Torah and the Prophets, then He completed them. I think you're the one following the teachings of men.

SCRIPTURESEZ

2005-02-11 23:14 | User Profile

This verse means that Jesus will tell you how to keep the Torah and your only access to the Torah, the teaching and instruction of God was through Jesus being

God does not change. For you to say that Jesus did away with the torah by completing it, then you are saying that the Torah, the law was changed and we can ignore it. You are saying then there was something wrong with the giver.

Jesus is the Torah.

Hebrews 8:8 [color=#8b0000]8 For finding fault with them, He says, "BEHOLD, DAYS ARE COMING, SAYS ADONAI, WHEN I WILL ACCOMPLISH A RENEWED COVENANT WITH THE HOUSE OF YISRAEL(ephraim) AND THE HOUSE OF YEHUDAH;[/color]

Jesus says. [color=darkred]Matthew 5:18 For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled.[/color]

Jesus, the Messiah, The word, the law, the torah, the memra of God.

[color=darkred]John 1:1 ÃÂ¶In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. 2 The same was in the beginning with God. 3 All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made. 4 In him was life; and the life was the light of men. 5 ÃÂ¶And the light shineth in darkness; and the darkness comprehended it not.[/color]

[color=black]And again it is written: (caps are in the translation for those of you who buy into that sort of thing)[/color]

[color=darkred]Hebrews 7[/color] [color=darkred]28 For the Torah appoints men as high priests who are weak, but the word of the oath, which came later than the Torah, appoints a Son Who has been brought to the goal forever.[/color] [color=darkred]Hebrews 8[/color] [color=darkred]1 Now the summary concerning what has been said is this: we have such a High Priest, Who has sat down at the right hand of the throne of the Majesty in Heaven, 2 a Servant in the Sanctuary and in the true Tabernacle, which the Lord pitched, not man. 3 For every high priest is appointed to bring both offerings and sacrifices, wherefore it is necessary that this High Priest also has something to bring. 4 Now if He were on Earth, He would not be a priest at all, since there are already those who bring the offerings according to the Torah; 5 who serve unto an example and shadow of the Heavenly things, just as Moshe was warned by God when he was about to erect the Tabernacle, saying, "SEE THAT YOU MAKE EVERYTHING ACCORDING TO THE PATTERN WHICH WAS SHOWN TO YOU ON THE MOUNTAIN." 6 But now He has obtained a more excellent service, by as much as He is also the Mediator of a better covenant which has been enacted as Torah on better promises. 7 For if the first had been faultless, there would have been no place sought for a second. 8 For finding fault with them, He says, "BEHOLD, DAYS ARE COMING, SAYS ADONAI, WHEN I WILL ACCOMPLISH A RENEWED COVENANT WITH THE HOUSE OF YISRAEL AND THE HOUSE OF YEHUDAH; 9 "NOT LIKE THE COVENANT THAT I MADE WITH THEIR FATHERS ON THE DAY WHEN I TOOK THEM BY THE HAND OUT OF THE LAND OF MITZRAYIM, FOR THEY DID NOT CONTINUE IN MY COVENANT, AND I PAID NO ATTENTION TO THEM, SAYS ADONAI. 10 "FOR THIS IS THE COVENANT THAT I WILL GRANT WITH THE HOUSE OF YISRAEL AFTER THOSE DAYS, SAYS ADONAI, I WILL PUT MY TORAHS INTO THEIR MINDS, AND I WILL INSCRIBE THEM UPON THEIR HEARTS. AND I WILL BE THEIR GOD AND THEY SHALL BE MY PEOPLE." 11 "AND THEY SHALL NOT TEACH EVERYONE HIS fellow CITIZEN, AND EVERYONE HIS BROTHER SAYING, `KNOW ADONAI,ÃÂ´ FOR ALL SHALL KNOW ME, FROM THE LEAST OF THEM TO THE GREATEST OF THEM. 12 "FOR I WILL BE MERCIFUL TO THEIR UNRIGHTEOUSNESS, AND I WILL REMEMBER THEIR SINS NO MORE." 13 In saying, "renewed," He has made the first old, and whatever is becoming old and aging is ready to disappear. [/color]

[color=darkred][color=black]God does not change. [/color][/color] [color=darkred] [color=#000000]Jesus, the Messiah, The word, the law, the torah, the memra of God.[/color]

[color=#000000]And he came for the lost sheep of the house of Israel, Ephraim and Judah.[/color] [/color] [color=darkred][color=black]And now after 3,500 years we have the knowledge of the Torah and The Messiah[/color][/color] [color=darkred][color=#000000][/color][/color] [color=darkred][color=darkred]Revelation 14:12 Here is the patient endurance of the saints who keep the commandments of God and their faith in Yeshua.[/color][/color] [color=black]So what commands do you follow? What do you say scripture is?[/color]

And Again it is written:

[color=darkred]Ezekiel 44:23 And they shall teach my people the difference between the holy and profane, and cause them to discern between the unclean and the clean.[/color] [color=#8b0000]24 And in controversy they shall stand in judgment; and they shall judge it according to my judgments: and they shall keep my laws and my statutes in all mine assemblies; and they shall hallow my sabbaths.[/color]

[color=black]pork is unclean[/color] Saturday is the Sabbath Day Feast of Tabernacles Passover First Fruits and so on art the Sabbaths as well

[color=darkred]Genesis 1:14Genesis 1:14 ÃÂ¶And God said, Let there be lights in the firmament of the heaven to divide the day from the night; and let them be for signs, and for seasons, and for days, and years:[/color]

In the Hebrew seasons is moedim, appointed times meaning sabbaths.

GOD DOES NOT CHANGE

[color=darkred][color=darkred]

[/color][/color]

Quantrill

2005-02-12 00:31 | User Profile

[QUOTE=SCRIPTURESEZ]This verse means that Jesus will tell you how to keep the Torah and your only access to the Torah, the teaching and instruction of God was through Jesus being You've still got it exactly backward, buddy. JESUS is the point of the exercise. HE is the God-man. HE is the one who came, suffered, died, and was resurrected so that we may have eternal life. He did NOT come so that we can have 'access to the Torah' whatever that even means.

[quote=SCRIPTURESEZ]God does not change. For you to say that Jesus did away with the torah by completing it, then you are saying that the Torah, the law was changed and we can ignore it. You are saying then there was something wrong with the giver. No, I'm not saying that at all. One more time for the cheap seats, the Torah was FULFILLED, not done away with. That means that the Old Testament law served its purpose of providing a covenant people into which the Messiah could be born, and now it is no longer necessary. It didn't fail, it didn't change, it wasn't abolished. It succeeded, and THUS is now no longer necessary.

[quote=SCRIPTURESEZ]Jesus is the Torah. This is patently false. Following this logic, then what was the point of the Incarnation? The Jews already had the Torah, and if Jesus is the Torah, then they already had Jesus, right? So what was the point of him showing up to be crucified?

[QUOTE=SCRIPTURESEZ][color=black]So what commands do you follow? What do you say scripture is? The same ones Christians have followed for 2000 years, instead of this Judaizing heresy that you are advocating. [/color]

Righteous Fist

2005-02-12 02:50 | User Profile

Quantrill and MadScienceType

I am indebted for your excellent answers. While I am still crazy for my pious Jews, neither of you two said anything that I cannot totally agree with. No doubt we have to look at the Jewish people as a group with interests that are not necessarily aligned with the rest of Americans. MadScienceType you said when push comes to shove even a pious Jew will side with other Jews. I will add also that they are also more likely to admit that than the others.

White nationalism as long as critical analysis of Jewish group behavior has definitely been categorized as nazism or anti-semitism. From reading the posts of you two gentlemen however, it seems that you basically have similar ideas as I do: that hate is not good, but that we have to look realistically at the interests and competition going on.. spread information and be wary of censorship.

Quantrill, you said "I am not saying that they are genetically inferior, and I am not saying that they are intrinsically evil." I have a weird take on this I'm not sure if you'll agree with.. but let me try it- actually Jews tend to be very good.. but that fact actually leads them to corruption. Because they often gain the hearts and trust of other people. But then when they have too much influence and power they succumb to greed and corruption.

MadScienceType, with regards to blacks, I have had a very positive experience growing up in majority black neighborhoods. A very high percentage of them understood me better than most people, and when it came time to back each other up, they have always proven to be the most trustworthy friends. Black-white competition/rivalry might become heated in the future.. I don't know. But for now at least, I hope that these two groups can be the majority in this country. I see this as America and am very very very opposed to Mexicanization.

Franco Thanks, those quotes are very interesting.

Franco

2005-02-12 04:14 | User Profile

[QUOTE=Righteous Fist]Quantrill and MadScienceType

Franco Thanks, those quotes are very interesting.[/QUOTE]

Your post is rather worrisome to me. But of course, I have been a WN for awhile now, so that is not surprising, really.

Jews, like Blacks, must be thought of in a collective manner. Most people know at least one "good" Jew or Black. But that doesn't change the fact that, as a race, Jews have caused much trouble for the West, just as Blacks have.

This essay: [ [url]http://www.vanguardnewsnetwork.com/2005/StaffLightforNations.htm[/url] ][it is the Linder-edited version]

was written for people like you. I hope that you read it. In fact, I will also post it in its own thread so that newbies can better see it.

I hope that you stick around here at OD and learn from the various posters here [many of whom were 'traditional conservatives' before coming here].

Righteous Fist

2005-02-12 05:00 | User Profile

Franco

Thanks for being candid about your view that you found my previous post was "worriesome".

No doubt we are a motley bunch on here.. and its awkward that we face each other having, as we do, some strkingly different experiences and political/philosophical assumptions. But we are also brothers, and I find it is an interesting twist of fate that someone such as myself will be on here breaking bread with some folks including people Americans are taught to think of as hate mongers.

However, the fact that we are together in this forum suggests something about things going on in the country- which the forum I was on before is merely a part of. So its not a coincidence. And in my belief there is something we must do together if there is any hope of saving our country.. and yes perhaps even our race.

So, both of us will face uneasiness dealing with the other. But being open about that will help us share our insights.. which is crucial to overcoming those who would benefit from us being suspicious and resentful of each other.

I will never give up my awe and respect for all parts of the human family. However, I am open to the idea that we might have to oppose some at one time or another for survival reasons. It is a sad fact of human nature. Like was said about Jews in the article you recommended to me- an "inborn tendency of Jews to engage in behavior they believe will ensure their group's safety, no matter its effect on the gentiles they live among".. I believe this is an inborn trait of all human beings. Therefore, I am reading and paying attention to the points made in such writings. But I am doing so, oddly enough, out of a presumption of equality rather than hate.

But this is an awesome challenge we face. And like I said before, I don't believe its a coincidence, but we may have to join forces and share views. One of our views may show to be the truth. But perhaps there is a greater truth that awaits to be born out of our interaction which neither of us can yet imagine. So I pray we will all be open minded, contemplating each others' points and experiences.

Franco

2005-02-12 05:58 | User Profile

[QUOTE]But we are also brothers, and I find it is an interesting twist of fate that someone such as myself will be on here breaking bread with some folks including people Americans are taught to think of as hate mongers.[/QUOTE]

Upon reflection, maybe you shouldn't read the main VNN website just yet [just read the essay in the URL above]. Because if you read the VNN main site, you, being maybe more mild-mannered than other ODers, might be turned off by what you read. So maybe just read that essay at VNN and nothing else - yet. You may not be "ready" for that "type" of stuff yet. :cool:

[edited]

Righteous Fist

2005-02-12 06:35 | User Profile

[QUOTE=Franco]You may not be "ready" for that "type" of stuff yet. :cool: [/QUOTE]

Since the sold-out "conservatives", through their site foolrepublic.com has labled me a "racist troll", I find myself in your camp! I hope that despite what might come across to you as mild-manneredness on my part, I will still be welcome as one among the [B] lost tribes of the white race [/B]. Anyway, the more there are on here like me, the wider an audience there will be that will be exposed to the VNN type of views. I believe there is a lot of important information there... even though I have different views on some fundamental things, as you know.

Franco

2005-02-12 07:16 | User Profile

[QUOTE=Righteous Fist]Since the sold-out "conservatives", through their site foolrepublic.com has labled me a "racist troll", I find myself in your camp! I hope that despite what might come across to you as mild-manneredness on my part, I will still be welcome as one among the [B] lost tribes of the white race [/B]. Anyway, the more there are on here like me, the wider an audience there will be that will be exposed to the VNN type of views. I believe there is a lot of important information there... even though I have different views on some fundamental things, as you know.[/QUOTE]

Yes, I understand.

Welcome to OD! :smile:

Texas Dissident

2005-02-12 08:22 | User Profile

You guys are gettin' me all choked up and misty eyed.

RF,

Your views remind me much more than a little bit of my own back in 2000 and 2001 before and during my forced exodus from mainstream republican party conservatism and FR. Several factors converged at that time to lead me where I make my stand to this day. Buchanan going Reform was pretty significant, as well as my take on illegal immigration, which the RNC and FR made quite clear was not going to be on the table for discussion.

I still consider myself as having the same core paleo-con values as I did back then, but during those brief months of wandering through the political wilderness someone tipped me off to a book by Kevin MacDonald called 'The Culture of Critique'. We have a review of it posted [url=http://www.originaldissent.com/forums/showthread.php?t=555]Here[/url]. Looking back now I think that one book did more to alter my perspective on political/ideological matters, particularly on how ethnicity informs and directs 'true' conservatism. Of course great men like Sam Francis and others were writing of this years before my awakening, but for me it wasn't until MacDonald's 'C of C' that the lightbulb truly came on. Bottom line, I urge you to read it with an open mind and follow it up with David Duke's 'My Awakening'.

As far as the various members and sundry ideologies found here at OD, if I may praise our little cyber home a bit, I think we are fairly unique amongst all the political-oriented boards out there on the greater Right. First, we were blessed with some real smart guys in our early days that helped define the tone and ideas presented and discussed here. Second, in a sense we've blazed our own trail in-between mainstream-type conservatives, who invariably denounce us a bigoted racists, and the strident, hard-core racialists, who denounce us as soft and flacid, too scared to 'name the jew' and other such nonsense. Perhaps that is due to some of our prominent members pig-headed stubborness, I don't know. I do know that over the long-haul of 4 years running in cyber-space we've had ups and downs, but we're still here alive and kicking and in my opinion, doing better than ever.

Go figure.

Righteous Fist

2005-02-12 08:56 | User Profile

Thanks for letting me know about Professor MacDonald. Skimming over the review as well as some stuff around the net gives me the impression that his work is definitely worth checking out. :nerd: :thumbsup:

Righteous Fist

2005-02-12 10:33 | User Profile

After looking around more, and reading a portion of the preface of "The Culture of Critique" I do have some comments/impressions though..

Seems like he is writing without hate or resentment of the Jewish people, and I agree on the need to analyze the control and influence they have had in the United States. However, I hope his work will not be over-used: especially with regards to the immigration problem. Some Jewish people might have an interest in open borders, and play an influential role in that regard. However, we have to keep in mind that the blame is properly put on [I]all[/I] people who are profiting and seeking to continue the mexicanization of the United States. We should not allow ourselves to be sidetracked going after one segment of one group, no matter how powerful they may be. Perhaps even more need is to focus on the non-Jews who are involved; what motivates them and how can they be stopped. All the people involved, and all of their reasons must be noted and analyzed.. And we must come up with the serum or serums to stop them in their tracks.

Quantrill

2005-02-12 14:28 | User Profile

[QUOTE=Righteous Fist]However, I hope his work will not be over-used: especially with regards to the immigration problem. Some Jewish people might have an interest in open borders, and play an influential role in that regard. However, we have to keep in mind that the blame is properly put on all people who are profiting and seeking to continue the mexicanization of the United States. RF, Jewish support for the immigration deluge is important, crucial, and well-documented. Is it solely their fault? No, of course not. However, we need to look honestly at what they have traditionally perceived as their interests, and how they have affected the interests of white American Christians. Jewish support was a necessary cause of the current immigration wave, but it was not a sufficient cause. In other words, without Jewish support, it never would have happened; but it also wouldn't have happened with only Jewish support. So, no, it is not solely their fault. That doesn't mean we should forget the first part of the sentence however -- without Jewish support, it never would have happened.

[quote=Righteous Fist]We should not allow ourselves to be sidetracked going after one segment of one group, no matter how powerful they may be.[/QUOTE] There is plenty of blame to go around for the state of the West today, and I don't think you would find anyone on this forum who thinks otherwise. However, once you understand that Jews were the necessary cause of the Mexican invasion, then you will realize that facing this fact head-on and honestly is not getting 'sidetracked' at all. Indeed, it is vital.

Quantrill

2005-02-12 14:47 | User Profile

[QUOTE=Righteous Fist]MadScienceType you said when push comes to shove even a pious Jew will side with other Jews. I will add also that they are also more likely to admit that than the others. RF- I would urge you to read a book by Israel Shahak called [url="http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0745308198/qid=1108218582/sr=8-1/ref=pd_bbs_1/102-6596385-5745761?v=glance&s=books&n=507846"]Jewish History, Jewish Religion[/url]. He is a Jew himself, and he writes about aspects of the Jewish faith that are normally kept out of view of the gentiles. He is writes from a liberal persective, but he has some very interesting insights into the religious behaviour of Jews. Check it out.

[QUOTE=Righteous Fist]From reading the posts of you two gentlemen however, it seems that you basically have similar ideas as I do: that hate is not good, but that we have to look realistically at the interests and competition going on.. spread information and be wary of censorship. Exactly, RF. I bear no ill will towards anyone, but I do want what is best for the West. I don't know if you ever read Vdare.com, but Steve Sailor made a very interesting point a while ago. He said that a race is basically just a very extended family. That's really all it is. All other white people look somewhat like you, because at some level they are all related to you. Christianity says that you should certainly not dislike or hate other people's children and wives (in fact you should love them), but that your primary responsibility is to take care of your own children and wives. You feed and clothe your own family before you help another family.

"But if any provide not for his own, and specially for those of his own house, he hath denied the faith, and is worse than an infidel." 1Tim 5:8

Using the definition of race above, then, it makes sense, and it is in fact a Christian duty, to want what is best for your family, kith, kin, and, yes, race. Let me reiterate once again, that this does not imply hatred for anyone else. Do you have to hate your neighbor's family in order to love your own? Do you have to hate someone else's nation to love your own? No, of course not. The fact that loyalty to tribe and nation, a feeling that is both natural and virtuous, has been so thoroughly maligned in our modern age shows just how rotten our culture has become.

SCRIPTURESEZ

2005-02-12 18:35 | User Profile

God Has Not Changed This is what I have noticed from many postings on this website. If you don't even know what the Torah is then how can you speak against it?

What I see on these postings is fear not faith.

Hate not Love

Yet Ephesians 6:12 teach us that our fight is not against flesh but against spiritual wickedness.

God tells us to hear His Voice. Exodus 19:5

You say the law has been fulfilled by Jesus, therefore it still applies to you.

You are not reading the scripture or hearing God's voice, but are only listening to the teachings of men!

Let us reason together.

Think about this for a minute.

God does not change.

Scripture says:

[color=#8b0000][/color] [color=#8b0000]See Ezekial 37 of the dry bones.[/color]

Jesus says. [color=darkred]Matthew 5:18 For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled.[/color] [color=#8b0000][/color]

[color=#8b0000]What all has been fulfilled? Do you see the perfect has come?[/color]

Jesus, the Messiah, The word, the law, the torah, the memra of God.

[color=black]And again it is written: (caps are in the translation for those of you who buy into that sort of thing)[/color]

[color=darkred]Hebrews 7[/color] [color=darkred]28 For the Torah appoints men as high priests who are weak, but the word of the oath, which came later than the Torah, appoints a Son Who has been brought to the goal forever.[/color] [color=darkred]Hebrews 8[/color] [color=darkred]1 Now the summary concerning what has been said is this: we have such a High Priest, Who has sat down at the right hand of the throne of the Majesty in Heaven, 2 a Servant in the Sanctuary and in the true Tabernacle, which the Lord pitched, not man. 3 For every high priest is appointed to bring both offerings and sacrifices, wherefore it is necessary that this High Priest also has something to bring. 4 Now if He were on Earth, He would not be a priest at all, since there are already those who bring the offerings according to the Torah; 5 who serve unto an example and shadow of the Heavenly things, just as Moshe was warned by God when he was about to erect the Tabernacle, saying, "SEE THAT YOU MAKE EVERYTHING ACCORDING TO THE PATTERN WHICH WAS SHOWN TO YOU ON THE MOUNTAIN." 6 But now He has obtained a more excellent service, by as much as He is also the Mediator of a better covenant which has been enacted as Torah on better promises. 7 For if the first had been faultless, there would have been no place sought for a second. 8 For finding fault with [font=Arial Black][color=red]them[/color][/font], He says, "BEHOLD, DAYS ARE COMING, SAYS ADONAI, WHEN I WILL ACCOMPLISH A RENEWED COVENANT WITH THE HOUSE OF YISRAEL AND THE HOUSE OF YEHUDAH; 9 "NOT LIKE THE COVENANT THAT I MADE WITH THEIR FATHERS ON THE DAY WHEN I TOOK THEM BY THE HAND OUT OF THE LAND OF MITZRAYIM, FOR THEY DID NOT CONTINUE IN MY COVENANT, AND I PAID NO ATTENTION TO THEM, SAYS ADONAI. 10 "FOR THIS IS THE COVENANT THAT I WILL GRANT WITH THE HOUSE OF YISRAEL AFTER THOSE DAYS, SAYS ADONAI, I WILL PUT MY TORAHS INTO THEIR MINDS, AND I WILL INSCRIBE THEM UPON THEIR HEARTS. AND I WILL BE THEIR GOD AND THEY SHALL BE MY PEOPLE." 11 "AND THEY SHALL NOT TEACH EVERYONE HIS fellow CITIZEN, AND EVERYONE HIS BROTHER SAYING, `KNOW ADONAI,ÃÂ´ FOR ALL SHALL KNOW ME, FROM THE LEAST OF THEM TO THE GREATEST OF THEM. 12 "FOR I WILL BE MERCIFUL TO THEIR UNRIGHTEOUSNESS, AND I WILL REMEMBER THEIR SINS NO MORE." 13 In saying, "renewed," He has made the first old, and whatever is becoming old and aging is ready to disappear. [/color]

[color=darkred][color=black]God does not change. [/color][/color] [color=darkred] [color=#000000]Jesus, the Messiah, The word, the law, the torah, the memra of God.[/color]

[color=#000000]And he came for the lost sheep of the house of Israel, Ephraim and Judah.[/color] [/color] [color=darkred][color=black]And now after 3,500 years we have the knowledge of the Torah and The Messiah[/color][/color] [color=darkred][color=#000000][/color][/color] [color=darkred][color=darkred]Revelation 14:12 Here is the patient endurance of the saints who keep the commandments of God and their faith in Yeshua.[/color][/color] [color=#8b0000][/color] [color=black]So what commands do you follow? What do you say scripture is?[/color]

And Again it is written:

[color=black]pork is unclean[/color] Saturday is the Sabbath Day Feast of Tabernacles Passover First Fruits and so on art the Sabbaths as well

In the Hebrew seasons is moedim, appointed times meaning sabbaths.

See Leviticus

GOD DOES NOT CHANGE

The fruit of the Spirit is Joy Peace Love Brotherly Kindness Charity and so on there is no commandments against these.

commands, law, memra, torah, teaching instruction of God Yeshua

Jesus

This is one and the same and the CREATOR as GOD

But we have had our roots of our faith ripped away from us by church fathers, by Constantine by Rabbinics that is not the same as Jesus

Jesus is a RABBI a teacher of the LAW, He is the Law made flesh, he is a Priest on the Order of Melechzadik, on which there is no beginning and no end.

And now in this day, after 3,500 years here is the people with the knowledge of the Torah and the Messiah a nation of priests on the order of Malki-Tzedek[size=3][color=#008080] Psalm 110:4 [/color][/size][size=3] [/size]

[QUOTE=Quantrill]You've still got it exactly backward, buddy. JESUS is the point of the exercise. HE is the God-man. HE is the one who came, suffered, died, and was resurrected so that we may have eternal life. He did NOT come so that we can have 'access to the Torah' whatever that even means.

No, I'm not saying that at all. One more time for the cheap seats, the Torah was FULFILLED, not done away with. That means that the Old Testament law served its purpose of providing a covenant people into which the Messiah could be born, and now it is no longer necessary. It didn't fail, it didn't change, it wasn't abolished. It succeeded, and THUS is now no longer necessary.

This is patently false. Following this logic, then what was the point of the Incarnation? The Jews already had the Torah, and if Jesus is the Torah, then they already had Jesus, right? So what was the point of him showing up to be crucified?

The same ones Christians have followed for 2000 years, instead of this Judaizing heresy that you are advocating. [/color][/QUOTE]

Righteous Fist

2005-02-12 19:46 | User Profile

Quantrill:

I think I would view the necessary cause more broadly; that [I]anyone[/I] would betray this country and its people by swamping it with mexican hordes and profit thereby, and nay even quash the hearts of Americans with guilt-trip propaganda... and even more ludicrous, cause them to have esteem for their invaders.

But I would agree that Jewish involvement is very significant, and maybe even that its vital to pay attention to. Maybe in the future I will think more closely to how you do than this.. I'm still in learning mode here.

The book by Shahak looks interesting. By the comments on Amazon- quite controversial. Thanks for the recommendation! :nerd: :cheers:

SCRIPTURESEZ

2005-02-12 20:42 | User Profile

Qauntrill:

Furthermore

[color=#008080][font=Arial][size=3][color=black]1Co 5:8[/color][/size][/font][/color][color=black][font=Arial][size=3] Therefore let us keep the feast, not with old yeast, neither with the yeast of malice and wickedness, but with the matzah of sincerity and truth.[/size][/font][/color] [color=black][font=Arial][size=3][/size][/font][/color] [color=black][font=Arial][size=3][/size][/font][/color] [color=black][font=Arial]Paul (Rav Shaul) wrote this after Yeshua Jesus is crucified and risen. What feast is he talking about? [/font][/color] [color=black][font=Arial][/font][/color] [color=black][font=Arial]So you think the Torah has been done away with because of Jesus?[/font][/color] [color=black][font=Arial][/font][/color] [color=black][font=Arial]Why are we being told to Keep this Feast?
[/font][/color]

Walter Yannis

2005-02-12 21:07 | User Profile

[QUOTE=Righteous Fist]After looking around more, and reading a portion of the preface of "The Culture of Critique" I do have some comments/impressions though..

I could have written that about five years ago.

Culture of Critique was probably the straw that broke the camel's back for me. I've been an anti-Semite ever since. Read it when if first came out.

The thing to keep in mind about the Jews is that they're a "necessary, but not sufficient, cause."

The Jews were a necessary, but not sufficient, cause of the "Russian" Revolution and all the millions of its victims.

It's the same with our suicidal immigration policy. The Jews are far from its only beneficiaries, but certainly the 1965 Act would not have passed without them. They're an amazing people. Such subversive genius. We just can't understand what a whirlwind of destructive energy they embody.

You stike me as a smart fellow with an open mind, and that's all anybody can really ask for. I urge you to read with an open mind everything posted at this webpage:

[URL=http://home.ddc.net/ygg/]Yggdrasil[/URL]

This man's writings clearly and concisely describe our predicament, and the role of Jews in all of this.

I urge you to continue on with an open mind. I promise you the same in return.

Ponce

2005-02-12 21:11 | User Profile

Christianity, love and hate....... did you guys know that the Catholic church in the name of God has killed more people than all the wars that we have had up till now? Think about it, is this "love?".

Like everything else with time it changes and what was good at one time is bad now and what is bad now will good later.

Can't hardly wait till the people find out the truth of "good" in the so called loving Jews (Zionists).

SCRIPTURESEZ

2005-02-12 21:13 | User Profile

If you are anti-semitic then you are anti-christ because you have a Jewish Saviour.

SCRIPTURESEZ

2005-02-12 21:17 | User Profile

Ponce

So you think those murderers are Christians?

That they were doing the word of God?

They say the Torah has been done away with and sure enough they acted it out.

Petr

2005-02-12 21:23 | User Profile

Israel Shahak's "[I]Jewish History, Jewish Religion[/I]" can be found free online here:

[url]http://www.abbc.net/islam/english/books/jewhis/jewhis1.htm[/url]

It is written from a humanistic perspective, but contains goodies like this:

[COLOR=DarkRed]"There is yet another misconception about Judaism which is particularly common among Christians, or people heavily influenced by Christian tradition and culture. [B]This is the misleading idea that Judaism is a 'biblical religion'; that the Old Testament has in Judaism the same central place and legal authority which the Bible has for Protestant or even Catholic Christianity[/B].

"Again, this is connected with the question of interpretation. We have seen that in matters of belief there is great latitude. Exactly the opposite holds with respect to the legal interpretation of sacred texts. Here the interpretation is rigidly fixed - but by the Talmud rather than by the Bible itself.12 Many, perhaps most, biblical verses prescribing religious acts and obligations are 'understood' by classical Judaism, and by present-:lay Orthodoxy, in a sense which is quite distinct from, or even contrary to, their literal meaning as understood by Christian or other readers of the Old Testament, who only see the plain text. The same division exists at present in Israel between those educated in Jewish religious schools and those educated in 'secular' Hebrew schools, where on the whole the plain meaning of the Old Testament is taught."

"This important point can only be understood through examples. It will be noted that the changes in meaning do not all go in the same direction from the point of view of ethics, as the term is understood now. Apologetics of Judaism claim that [B]the interpretation of the Bible, originated by the Pharisees and fixed in the Talmud[/B], is always more liberal than the literal sense. But some of the examples below show that this is far from being the case.

(1) Let us start with the Decalogue itself. The Eighth Commandment, Thou shalt not steal' (Exodus, 20:15), is taken to be a prohibition against 'stealing' (that is, kidnapping) a Jewish person. The reason is that according to the Talmud all acts forbidden by the Decalogue are capital offenses. Stealing property is not a capital offense (while kidnapping of Gentiles by Jews is allowed by talmudic law) - hence the interpretation. A virtually identical sentence - 'Ye shall not steal' (Leviticus, 19:11) - is however allowed to have its literal meaning.

(2) The famous verse 'Eye for eye, tooth for tooth' etc. (Exodus, 21:24) is taken to mean 'eye-money for eye', that is payment of a fine rather than physical retribution.

B Here is a notorious case of turning the literal meaning into its exact opposite. The biblical text plainly warns against following the bandwagon in an unjust cause: thou shalt not follow a multitude to do evil; neither shalt thou speak in a cause to decline after many to wrest judgment' (Exodus, 23:2). The last words of this sentence - 'Decline after many to wrest judgment' - are torn out of their context and interpreted as an injunction to follow the majority.[/B]

(4) The verse 'Thou shalt not seethe a kid in his mother's milk' (Exodus, 23:19) is interpreted as a ban on mixing any kind of meat with any milk or milk product. Since the same verse is repeated in two other places in the Pentateuch, the mere repetition is taken to be a treble ban, forbidding a Jew (i) to eat such a mixture, (ii) to cook it for any purpose and (iii) to enjoy or benefit from it in any way.13

(5 ) In numerous cases general terms such as 'thy fellow', 'stranger', or even 'man' are taken to have an exelusivist chauvinistic meaning. The famous verse 'thou shalt love thy fellow14 as thyself (Leviticus, 19:18) is understood by classical (and present-day Orthodox) Judaism as an injunction to love one's fellow Jew, not any fellow human. Similarly, the verse 'neither shalt thou stand against the blood of thy fellow' (ibid., 16) is supposed to mean that one must not stand idly by when the life ('blood') of a fellow Jew is in danger; but, as will be seen in Chapter 5, a Jew is in general forbidden to save the life of a Gentile, because 'he is not thy fellow'. The generous injunction to leave the gleanings of one's field and vineyard 'for the poor and the stranger' (ibid., 9-10) is interpreted as referring exclusively to the Jewish poor and to converts to Judaism. The taboo laws relating to corpses begin with the verse 'This is the law, when a man dieth in a tent: all that come into the tent ... shall be unclean seven days' (Numbers~, 19:16). But the word 'man' (adam) is taken to mean 'Jew', so that only a Jewish corpse is taboo (that is, both 'unclean' and sacred). Based on this interpretation, pious Jews have a tremendous magic reverence towards Jewish corpses and Jewish cemeteries, but have no respect towards non-Jewish corpses and cemeteries. Thus hundreds of Muslim cemeteries have been utterly destroyed in Israel (in one case in order to make room for the Tel-Aviv Hilton) but there was a great outcry because the Jewish cemetery on the Mount of Olives was damaged under Jordanian rule. Examples of this kind are too numerous to quote. Some of the inhuman consequences of this type of interpretation will be discussed in Chapter 5.

B Finally, consider one of the most beautiful prophetic passages, Isaiah's magnificent condemnation of hypocrisy and empty ritual, and exhortation to common decency. One verse (Isaiah, 1:15) in this passage is: 'And when ye spread forth your hands, I will hide mine eyes from you; yea, when ye make many prayers, I will not hear: your hands are full of blood.' Since Jewish priests 'spread their hands' when blessing the people during service, this verse is supposed to mean that a priest who commits accidental homicide is disqualified from 'spreading his hands' in blessing (even if repentant) because they are 'full of blood'. [/B]

"It is quite clear even from these examples that when Orthodox Jews today (or all Jews before about 1780) read the Bible, they are reading a very different book, with a totally different meaning, from the Bible as read by non-Jews or non-Orthodox Jews. This distinction applies even in Israel, although both parties read the text in Hebrew. Experience, particularly since 1967, has repeatedly corroborated this. Many Jews in Israel (and elsewhere), who are not Orthodox and have little detailed knowledge of the Jewish religion, have tried to shame Orthodox Israelis (or right-wingers who are strongly influenced by religion) out of their inhuman attitude towards the Palestinians, by quoting at them verses from the Bible in their plain humane sense. [B]It was always found, however, that such arguments do not have the slightest effect on those who follow classical Judaism; they simply do not understand what is being said to them, because to them the biblical text means something quite different than to everyone else.[/B]

" If such a communication gap exists in Israel, where people read Hebrew and can readily obtain correct information if they wish, one can imagine how deep is the misconception abroad, say among people educated in the Christian tradition. [B]In fact, the more such a person reads the Bible, the less he or she knows about Orthodox Judaism. For the latter regards the Old Testament as a text of immutable sacred formulas, whose recitation is an act of great merit, but whose meaning is wholly determined elsewhere[/B]. [/COLOR]

[url]http://www.abbc.net/islam/english/books/jewhis/jewhis3.htm[/url]

Petr

Walter Yannis

2005-02-12 21:25 | User Profile

[QUOTE=SCRIPTURESEZ]If you are anti-semitic then you are anti-christ because you have a Jewish Saviour.[/QUOTE]

I'm using the term "anti-Semite" in its colloquial usage here - any criticism of Jews, or even public acknowledgement of their power, wealth and influence now constitutes "anti-Semitism" in the current vernacular. Or pointing out their collective role in the Russian Revolution and our own Sexual Revolution. "No one would speak of him for fear of the Jews" as the Bible puts it. That's how the term is currently defined, and I see no reason not to embrace it for everyday usage, because it describes well enough my feelings about most Jews today.

I think that a more accurate term would be "anti-Pharisee." Most Ashkenazi are self-acknowledged Pharisees. This is freely admitted by every religious Jew I've ever met (and I know a number of them). The Talmud - the Jews' authoritative book - grew directly from Phariseism.

Jesus was the original "anti-Pharisee", and so naturally as one of His followers I too am an enemy of the Pharisees. And the feeling's mutual - our modern day Pharisees don't like Jesus or His followers very much either. In fact, the Talmud teaches that Jesus was a sorcerer whom the Pharisees killed for heresy, and that he is now being boiled for eternity in exrement in hell. Talk about your basic hate literature, but that's a discussion for another day.

I hasten to add that not all Jews accept the Talmud, including the Karaites especially, who rely exclusively only on what we'd call the OT without reference to the Talmud's interpretation. I have no quarrel with the Karaites. And historically European countries distinguished between the Christ-hating Ashkenazi-Pharisees and the Karaites. I read recently that Catherine the Great granted them special privileges. I think that the Nazis did too, somebody please correct me if I'm wrong.

Anyway, an "anti-Semite" today is defined as anybody who questions Jewish power, wealth and influence, and so by that broad definition I proudly claim the title of "anti-Semite." Hey, if Mel Gibson is an anti-Semite (and he is by that definition, since he made a movie glorifying the Jews' enemy, Christ), then I'm proud to be counted in the same company.

People who know me (including the oldtimers here) know that I wish Jews well, and insist only that they admit they're not Americans and return to their true country, Israel. But then again, objectively speaking, that just makes me a good Zionist like Ariel Sharon. But then again, that doesn't matter. What does matter is that I'm a gentile, and even though I advise the same things that Ariel Sharon and Theodore Herzl wanted, my calling attention to the Jews and their horrifically destructive influence here makes me an anti-Semite.

To which I say amen. And amen.

SCRIPTURESEZ

2005-02-12 21:34 | User Profile

What we see right now is through the filter of hellnesim. This is a roman-greco culture.

Do you ever wonder why these "jews" you mention say that about Jesus?

Because the "church" went around telling the world the Torah was done away with by Jesus.

Scriptures do not support this.

The "church" went around saying that Passover is done away with.

Scriptures do not support this.

And you can't see why these "jews" are saying that Jesus cannot be the Messian? That's is incredible.

I ask you then what you think Paul means? What is he kidding?

[font=Arial]And again we are told:[/font]

[size=3][color=#008080]Eph 6:12[/color][/size][size=3] For our wrestling is not against flesh and blood, but against the principalities, against the powers, against the world's rulers of the darkness of this age, and against the spiritual forces of wickedness in the heavenly places.

[/size][color=black][font=Arial][size=1]Either you can believe the Word of God (John1:1) or not, or you can continue to be deceived by the teachings of men. (or worse)[/size] [/font][/color]

Walter Yannis

2005-02-12 21:47 | User Profile

[QUOTE]Do you ever wonder why these "jews" you mention say that about Jesus?

Because the "church" went around telling the world the Torah was done away with by Jesus. [/QUOTE]

Are you suggesting that the Talmud's teachings about the Son of God - including that his mother was a slut and that he's being boiled in exrement for all eternity - is justified?

If so, that's an interesting opinion for a "Christian", I must say.

Also, you're wrong about the Church saying the Torah was done away with. It was incorporated in toto into the Christian canon. St. Peter instructed Christians to study the Scriptures.

There was a fellow in the early Church named Marcion who wanted to do away with the OT, but the Church condemned him as a heretic.

Walter

SCRIPTURESEZ

2005-02-12 21:52 | User Profile

So what Feast is Paul talking about and why were we not keeping it?

Who really with any feeling wants anyone anywhere to be boiled in anything? When is such a thing justified?

That's not my point.

But I tell you that John Crysostom was angry because the people were going to celebrate the Feasts of the Lord as they were commanded to and not the pagan feasts.

Walter Yannis

2005-02-12 22:02 | User Profile

[QUOTE]And you can't see why these "jews" are saying that Jesus cannot be the Messian? That's is incredible.

I ask you then what you think Paul means? What is he kidding?

1Co 5:8 Therefore let us keep the feast, not with old yeast, neither with the yeast of malice and wickedness, but with the matzah of sincerity and truth.[/QUOTE]

Jesus was the fulfillment of both the Law of the Torah and the Prophets. The Gospels make this explicit in His glorioius Transfiguration.

Christ is the Word of God. He was the Torah. He was and is quite literally a walking, talking Torah with ears.

[QUOTE]So what Feast is Paul talking about and why were we not keeping it?[/QUOTE]

Excellent question. The answer is that Paul is talking about the Eucharist, and we are keeping it.

As Christ embodied the Torah and the Prophets, he also was quite literally the Passover. He was the new Paschal Lamb, as the Scriptures refer to Him many times. He instituted a new Passover on Holy Thursday, where He became the sacrificial Lamb for the whole world. This is the Sacrament of the Eucharist, in which He made His Flesh our spiritual food and His blood our spiritual drink. Paul makes this clear in his reference to "not the old yeast." This was a new thing, a new Passover - the Sacrament of His Body.

[QUOTE]And again we are told:

Eph 6:12 For our wrestling is not against flesh and blood, but against the principalities, against the powers, against the world's rulers of the darkness of this age, and against the spiritual forces of wickedness in the heavenly places. [/QUOTE]

Amen to that. Which is why we must join in the fight against His enemies, the Pharisees, the sons of Satan, who are largely (but not completely, as noted above) coterminous with modern day Jews. We must fight the evil of the Talmud, for it is inspired directly by the Satan.

Remember that Christ's struggle against the Pharisees and all they stood for continues on to this day, and will continue until He returns.

We cannot claim fealty to Christ if we side with His enemies - the very Jews who "killed the Lord Jesus, and the prophets" as the blessed Paul put it.

SCRIPTURESEZ

2005-02-12 22:23 | User Profile

That is error.

The Feast Paul speaks of here is the Feast of Firstfruits.

But you are not keeping it, nor Passover, or anything else.

Eucharist is pagan and of pagan origins. Do you see that men have changed the Feasts? The work of the Adversary

Yet not one Jot and Tittle of the Law has passed away.

Think about it for a minute. Where is the Eucharist in the OT?

Did Jesus read the new testament (new covenant writings) or what was he reading down there at the shul?

What are the commands in the Rev 14:12

Does it seem possible to you there is something funny going on?

Ask Jesus, he will tell you.

Petr

2005-02-12 22:27 | User Profile

[I][B] - "Eucharist is pagan and of pagan origins." [/B] [/I]

Your Judaizing heresy is becoming more and more obvious - you don't have to believe in transubstantiation to realize that.

What other NT doctrines do you consider to have pagan origins - the full divinity of Jesus Christ, perhaps?

Petr

SCRIPTURESEZ

2005-02-12 22:34 | User Profile

I asked you for scriptures to support the Eucharist in the Old Testament.

I know Jesus is God. as in John 1:1

Here is Scripture on Passover and Unleavend Bread as the Word (Jesus, the Torah, the memra of the Lord commands:)

[size=3][color=#008080][font=Arial]Lev 23:4[/font][/color][/size][font=Arial] These [color=#808080]are[/color][/font][font=Arial] the [color=#ffffff]feasts[/color] of the LORD, [color=#808080]even[/color][/font][font=Arial] holy convocations, which ye shall proclaim in their seasons. [/font]

[color=#008080][font=Arial]Lev 23:5[/font][/color][font=Arial] In the fourteenth [color=#808080]day[/color][/font][font=Arial] of the first month at even [color=#808080]is[/color][/font][font=Arial] the LORD'S passover. [/font]

[color=#008080][font=Arial]Lev 23:6[/font][/color][font=Arial] And on the fifteenth day of the same month [color=#808080]is[/color][/font][size=3][font=Arial][size=2] the feast of unleavened bread unto the LORD: seven days ye must eat unleavened bread. [/size][/font][/size] [size=3][font=Arial][size=2][/size][/font][/size] [size=3][font=Arial][size=2][/size][/font][/size] [size=3][font=Arial][size=2][/size][/font]

[/size]

Walter Yannis

2005-02-12 22:38 | User Profile

[QUOTE=SCRIPTURESEZ]I asked you for scriptures to support the Eucharist in the Old Testament.

I know Jesus is God. as in John 1:1

[/QUOTE]

There's an inconsistency here.

You accept the NT's authority as to His Divinity, yet you reject its authority as to Him being the Bread of Life. Real Drink and Real Food.

Why is that?

SCRIPTURESEZ

2005-02-12 22:52 | User Profile

I am uncertain what you mean.

Was he not the Rock in the desert in the Wilderness in which they drew water?

Who was the pillar of Fire at night and the Cloud by day?

Who was voice in the burning bush?

Who is the Angel of the Lord who spoke to Abraham and called him out of his fathers land, kin, and relgion?

One in the same Jesus Christ, Yeshua Ha Mashiach The Living Word who Tabernacles in us.

Walter Yannis

2005-02-12 22:55 | User Profile

[QUOTE=SCRIPTURESEZ]I am uncertain what you mean.

Was he not the Rock in the desert in the Wilderness in which they drew water?

Who was the pillar of Fire at night and the Cloud by day?

Who was voice in the burning bush?

Who is the Angel of the Lord who spoke to Abraham and called him out of his fathers land, kin, and relgion?

One in the same Jesus Christ, Yeshua Ha Mashiach The Living Word who Tabernacles in us.[/QUOTE]

Who is the Bread of Life?

SCRIPTURESEZ

2005-02-12 23:06 | User Profile

Jesus is the Bread of life, the creator , the word, our Saviour, Elohim, Adonai, El Gibbor, El Raphai

Our provider, our healer, the lover of our soul, the Bridegroom, the Redeemer, The Messiah, the exact representation of God on Earth, The light of world, The Father, The Son, The Holy Spirt

He who tabernacles with us, He who made us from the earth and Breathed the Sprit of Life into us, who gave us the teaching and instruction so we would live more abundantly. The Giver of the Law.

Jesus the Wonderful Counselor, The Sar Shalom, The Prince of Peace

Scripture Says so: John 1:1

Petr

2005-02-12 23:10 | User Profile

[B][I] - "You accept the NT's authority as to His Divinity, yet you reject its authority as to Him being the Bread of Life. Real Drink and Real Food."[/I][/B]

I can also use Scripture to refute the doctrine of transsubtantiation and the sacrifice of the Mass, Walter.

[COLOR=Indigo]"But let us hear more. Paul says, “[B]By one oblation hath he made perfect forever them which are sanctified[/B]” (Heb. 10:14). And also, “[B]Remission [/B] [B]of sins once gotten, there resteth no more sacrifice[/B]” (Heb. 10:18). They will not avoid Paul’s words, although they say Paul speaks of the Levitical sacrifice. No, Papists! he excludes all manner of sacrifice, saying, [I]Nulla amplius restat Oblatio[/I], “[B]No more sacrifice resteth[/B].” And thereto testifies Jesus Christ himself upon the cross, saying, [I]Consummatum est [/I] [“[B]It is finished[/B]”] (John 19:30): that is, whatever is required for pacifying my Father’s wrath justly moved against sin; whatever is necessary for reconciliation of mankind to the favour of my eternal Father; and whatever the purgation of the sins of the whole world required, is now completed and ended, so that no further sacrifice rests for sin." [/COLOR]

(from "[I]A Vindication of the Doctrine that the Sacrifice of the Mass is Idolatry[/I]" (1550) by [B]John Knox [/B])

[url]http://www.all-of-grace.org/pub/others/knoxmass.html[/url]

This works against [B]both[/B] the Catholic doctrine of the sacrifice of the Mass [B]and [/B] the Judaizing claim that Temple sacrifices are still needed!

[COLOR=Red][B]Matthew 5:18:"For assuredly, I say to you, till heaven and earth pass away, one jot or one tittle will by no means pass from the law till all is fulfilled."[/B][/COLOR]

And when was it fulfilled? When Lord Jesus declared: "[I]It is finished[/I]" on the Calvary, that's when!

Scripturesez, why hold onto only feasts? Do you think we should build a new temple in Jerusalem, since Torah clearly demands an ongoing sacrifice, and if not, why not?

Petr

Walter Yannis

2005-02-13 07:39 | User Profile

Petr:

Christ's followers balked at this teaching from the very beginning. John makes this explicit in chapter 6 of his Gospel.

Christ insists that we eat his flesh and drink his blood, which is "indeed" flesh and blood. Our Lord could not make this point more clearly.

Notice that when his followers FINALLY GET what he's saying - that they must literally become cannibals and FEED ON HIS FLESH - they leave. It's too much for them.

This docrine is the thing that separates the men from the boys, so to speak. It is "hard to hear." Many, many of Christ's followers left Him over this point, including Knox.

The Lutherans have the Real Presence, God bless them. Calvin ended the mass in Geneva, and thereby ended Christianity there.

[QUOTE]John 6 48I am that bread of life.

49Your fathers did eat manna in the wilderness, and are dead.

50This is the bread which cometh down from heaven, that a man may eat thereof, and not die.

51I am the living bread which came down from heaven: if any man eat of this bread, he shall live for ever: and the bread that I will give is my flesh, which I will give for the life of the world.

52The Jews therefore strove among themselves, saying, How can this man give us his flesh to eat?

53Then Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, ye have no life in you.

54Whoso eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, hath eternal life; and I will raise him up at the last day.

55For my flesh is meat indeed, and my blood is drink indeed.

56He that eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, dwelleth in me, and I in him.

57As the living Father hath sent me, and I live by the Father: so he that eateth me, even he shall live by me.

58This is that bread which came down from heaven: not as your fathers did eat manna, and are dead: he that eateth of this bread shall live for ever.

59These things said he in the synagogue, as he taught in Capernaum.

60Many therefore of his disciples, when they had heard this, said, This is an hard saying; who can hear it?

61When Jesus knew in himself that his disciples murmured at it, he said unto them, Doth this offend you?

62What and if ye shall see the Son of man ascend up where he was before?

63It is the spirit that quickeneth; the flesh profiteth nothing: the words that I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are life.

64But there are some of you that believe not. For Jesus knew from the beginning who they were that believed not, and who should betray him.

65And he said, Therefore said I unto you, that no man can come unto me, except it were given unto him of my Father.

66From that time many of his disciples went back, and walked no more with him.

67Then said Jesus unto the twelve, Will ye also go away?

68Then Simon Peter answered him, Lord, to whom shall we go? thou hast the words of eternal life.

69And we believe and are sure that thou art that Christ, the Son of the living God.

70Jesus answered them, Have not I chosen you twelve, and one of you is a devil?

71He spake of Judas Iscariot the son of Simon: for he it was that should betray him, being one of the twelve.[/QUOTE]

Texas Dissident

2005-02-13 09:03 | User Profile

Luke 22:14-20

And when the hour came, he reclined at table, and the apostles with him. And he said to them, "I have earnestly desired to eat this Passover with you before I suffer. For I tell you I will not eat it until it is fulfilled in the kingdom of God." And he took a cup, and when he had given thanks he said, "Take this, and divide it among yourselves. For I tell you that from now on I will not drink of the fruit of the vine until the kingdom of God comes." And he took bread, and when he had given thanks, he broke it and gave it to them, saying, "This is my body, which is given for you. Do this in remembrance of me." And likewise the cup after they had eaten, saying, "This cup that is poured out for you is the new covenant in my blood."

1 Corinthians 11:23-27

For I received from the Lord what I also delivered to you, that the Lord Jesus on the night when he was betrayed took bread, and when he had given thanks, he broke it, and said, "This is my body which is for you. Do this in remembrance of me." In the same way also he took the cup, after supper, saying, "This cup is the new covenant in my blood. Do this, as often as you drink it, in remembrance of me." For as often as you eat this bread and drink the cup, you proclaim the Lord's death until he comes. 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.

Now, what is the Sacrament of the Altar?

Answer: It is the true body and blood of our Lord Jesus Christ, in and under the bread and wine which we Christians are commanded by the Word of Christ to eat and to drink. 9] And as we have said of Baptism that it is not simple water, so here also we say the Sacrament is bread and wine, but not mere bread and wine, such as are ordinarily served at the table, but bread and wine comprehended in, and connected with, the Word of God.

It is the Word (I say) which makes and distinguishes this Sacrament, so that it is not mere bread and wine, but is, and is called, the body and blood of Christ. For it is said: Accedat verbum ad elementum, et fit sacramentum. If the Word be joined to the element, it becomes a Sacrament. This saying of St. Augustine is so properly and so well put that he has scarcely said anything better. The Word must make a Sacrament of the element, else it remains a mere element. 11] Now, it is not the word or ordinance of a prince or emperor, but of the sublime Majesty, at whose feet all creatures should fall, and affirm it is as He says, and accept it with all reverence, fear, and humility.

With this Word you can strengthen your conscience and say: If a hundred thousand devils, together with all fanatics, should rush forward, crying, How can bread and wine be the body and blood of Christ? etc., I know that all spirits and scholars together are not as wise as is the Divine Majesty in His little finger. 13] Now here stands the Word of Christ: Take, eat; this is My body; Drink ye all of it; this is the new testament in My blood, etc. Here we abide, and would like to see those who will constitute themselves His masters, and make it different from what He has spoken. It is true, indeed, that if you take away the Word or regard it without the words, you have nothing but mere bread and wine. 14] But if the words remain with them, as they shall and must, then, in virtue of the same, it is truly the body and blood of Christ. For as the lips of Christ say and speak, so it is, as He can never lie or deceive.

from Martin Luther's 'Large Catechism'

Petr

2005-02-13 12:09 | User Profile

Tex, does your denomination believe that Lord's Supper is a form of sacrifice, i.e. a new form of temple service?

The epistle to Hebrews says there is [B]no more sacrifice [/B] after the once-and-for-all process at the Calvary.

The Levitical propiation sacrifices are done away with, and our prayers are the new form of thanking sacrifices.

John Knox writes:

[COLOR=Red][B]"The Supper of the Lord is the gift of Jesus Christ, in which we should laud the infinite mercy of God. The Mass is a sacrifice which we offer unto God, for doing whereof we allege God should love and commend us." [/B] [/COLOR]

Knox should know - he was a former Roman Catholic priest.

"[B]in remembrance of me[/B]..." THAT'S it's real purpose.

[I]"Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, ye have no life in you. Whoso eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, hath eternal life; and I will raise him up at the last day." John 6:53-54 [/I]

Jesus is speaking spiritually, just like when He said that He would knock over the temple and build it again in three days.

Right before making that statement, Jesus said:

[I]"... For the bread of God is he which cometh down from heaven, and giveth life unto the world. Then said they unto him, Lord, [B]evermore give us this bread[/B]. And Jesus said unto them, I am the bread of life: he that [B]cometh to me[/B] shall never hunger; and he that [B]believeth[/B] on me shall never thirst." John 6:33-35 [/I]

Eternal life comes through believing in Jesus Christ, not eating His body.

[I]"And this is the will of him that sent me, that every one which seeth the Son, and [B]believeth[/B] on him, may have everlasting life..." John 6:40 [/I]

Again, Jesus points out that eternal life comes through believing in Him.

[I]"It is [B]the spirit that quickeneth; the flesh profiteth nothing[/B]: the words that I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are life." John 6:63 [/I]

The re-institution of temple sacrifices in the form of a Mass is ironically the ultimate act of Judaizing!

Petr

Walter Yannis

2005-02-13 14:33 | User Profile

[QUOTE=Petr]The re-institution of temple sacrifices in the form of a Mass is ironically the ultimate act of Judaizing!

[/QUOTE]

St. John also wrote Revelation.

The word "revelation" there I am told means "unveiling" which relates directly the sundering of the veil in the Temple. (Mt 27:51) The tearing of the veil that separated the Holy of Holies from ordinary Temple worshipers meant a number of things, but for John it clearly meant the instutution of a new worship in which all Christians would have the privelege reserved for the high priest in Temple worship.

He presages His dissertation on the Eucharist in John 6 just a little bit before that, as He talks to the pagan woman (get that, He's addressing us gentiles):

[QUOTE]John 4:23 But the hour cometh, and now is, when the true worshippers shall worship the Father in spirit and in truth: for the Father seeketh such to worship him. 24God is a Spirit: and they that worship him must worship him in spirit and in truth. [/QUOTE]

John 6 then describes the Eucharistic center of that worship - His true followers will feed on His flesh and drink His blood.

St. John's addendum to his Gospel - Revelation - "reveals" the spiritual reality underlying this new worship, the Mass. The new worship is now "in spirit and truth" and replaced forever the Temple worship.

God is a Spirit, and Christ tells us. Every Mass is our renewed entry into that spiritual world where He dwells and where there is no time. In the Mass we enter into God's eternal present where Herod seeks to kill the child Saviour, the blood of the Lamb washes us clean, His saints chant "holy holy holy," Satan and his legions are cast down into hell, and Mary is crowned Queen of Heaven.

Knox forgets that God is a Spirit and that time doesn't rule Him as it did John Knox. Knox is making the same mistake as those who can't understand how free will could be reconciled with predestination. But it's only an issue from our mortal point of view, stuck as we are in the flow of time. God is the unmoving center, and time itself is but His creature. We lack all perspective when we say that God must experience existence as we do, in a flow from one point to the next along the axis of time. It's a child's mistake, frankly. Luther doesn't make that mistake, it would seem, since he read Augustine so carefully.

Knox thus confuses each Mass with being a "new sacrifice" as if Christ is killed all over again. But that's silly. Each Mass isn't a new Calvary objectively speaking, it is rather another instance of [I]our experiencing [/I] the single and Eternal Sacrifice of Christ, made once and for all and sufficient for our salvation. To repeat, we don't kill Him again and again and again with these repeated human sacrifices necessary to our salvation, but rather we experience His death on Calvary and resurrection anew, truly "in remembrance of Him."

At Mass we re-enter eternity, and worship God in the Spirit, and in the Truth.

Satan wants to prevent us from doing that, and he hates the Mass with an unbending fury. His first strategic objective is to stop the Mass, to revile it, to turn Christians from it. There are tactical advantages here as well. John 6 shows that even Christ's disciples abandoned Him when He told them that they must eat His body and drink His blood in this new worship of God that would replace Temple worship. Only the twelve remained, and one of them was a traitor. Christ really is asking us to look foolish to the world here. It's an absurdity - no, it's a horror - to proclaim our cannibalism. He requires this of us.

The new worship that would allow all of God's children to stand in the Holy of Holies and to worship Him, a Spirit, directly in His Spirit.

This is the essence of the Christian relgion, IMHO.

I edit to add this from St. Paul, who makes it abundantly clear that the Eucharist is not just a sort of memorial service involving bread and wine.

[QUOTE]1 Corinthians 11:23For 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:

24And when he had given thanks, he brake it, and said, Take, eat: this is my body, which is broken for you: this do in remembrance of me.

25After the same manner also he took the cup, when he had supped, saying, this cup is the new testament in my blood: this do ye, as oft as ye drink it, in remembrance of me.

26For as often as ye eat this bread, and drink this cup, ye do shew the Lord's death till he come.

27Wherefore whosoever shall eat this bread, and drink this cup of the Lord, unworthily, shall be guilty of the body and blood of the Lord.

28But let a man examine himself, and so let him eat of that bread, and drink of that cup.

29For he that eateth and drinketh unworthily, eateth and drinketh damnation to himself, [B]not discerning the Lord's body[/B].

30For this cause many are weak and sickly among you, and many sleep.[/QUOTE]

Petr: was Paul judaizing when he warned people about making the very mistake Knox urged upon us: thinking that we're not actually eating the flesh of the Lord?

Petr

2005-02-13 15:26 | User Profile

Another case of "Judaization" within the Catholic church is upholding the categorical boundary between priests and laymen - why are only officially consecrated priests capable of performing the Mass, when Jesus Christ declared that "[I]For where two or three are gathered together in my name, there am I in the midst of them[/I] (Matthew 18:20)?

[COLOR=Indigo][U]1 Peter 2:5[/U]: Ye also, as lively stones, are built up a spiritual house, [B]an holy priesthood, to offer up spiritual sacrifices[/B], acceptable to God by Jesus Christ.

[U]1 Peter 2:9[/U]: But ye are a chosen generation, [B]a royal priesthood[/B], an holy nation, a peculiar people; that ye should shew forth the praises of him who hath called you out of darkness into his marvellous light; 2:10 Which in time past were not a people, but are now the people of God: which had not obtained mercy, but now have obtained mercy. [/COLOR]

[COLOR=DarkRed][U]Revelation 1:5[/U]: And from Jesus Christ, who is the faithful witness, and the first begotten of the dead, and the prince of the kings of the earth. Unto him that loved us, and washed us from our sins in his own blood, 1:6 [B]And hath made us kings and priests unto God and his Father[/B]; to him be glory and dominion for ever and ever. Amen.

[U]Revelation 5:9[/U]: And they sung a new song, saying, Thou art worthy to take the book, and to open the seals thereof: for thou wast slain, and hast redeemed us to God by thy blood out of every kindred, and tongue, and people, and nation; 5:10 [B]And hast made us unto our God kings and priests[/B]: and we shall reign on the earth. [/COLOR]

Walter Yannis

2005-02-13 15:43 | User Profile

Petr: You accuse the Church of judiazing heresy. I will adress these charges, but one at a time.

Let's first finish with the charge that the Mass is judiazing because it amounts to Temple worship.

I addressed that above, do you understand my point?

Petr

2005-02-13 16:04 | User Profile

[B][I] - "I edit to add this from St. Paul, who makes it abundantly clear that the Eucharist is not just a sort of memorial service involving bread and wine."[/I][/B]

I read that passage in just an opposite manner - the [B]material [/B] substances are still just bread ([I]eat this bread[/I]) and wine ([I]drink this cup[/I]).

[I]27Wherefore whosoever shall eat this bread, and drink this cup of the Lord, unworthily, shall be guilty of the body and blood of the Lord.

28But let a man examine himself, and so let him eat of that bread, and drink of that cup.

29For he that eateth and drinketh unworthily, eateth and drinketh damnation to himself, [B]not discerning the Lord's body[/B]. [/I]

[B]Before [/B] this passage you quoted Paul says in 1 Corinthians 11:

[I]"11:20 When ye come together therefore into one place, this is not to eat the Lord's supper. 11:21 For in eating every one taketh before other his own supper: and one is hungry, and another is drunken. 11:22 What? have ye not houses to eat and to drink in? or despise ye the church of God, and shame them that have not? What shall I say to you? shall I praise you in this? I praise you not. "[/I]

And [B]after[/B] the passage he says:

[I]"11:33 Wherefore, my brethren, when ye come together to eat, tarry one for another. 11:34 And if any man hunger, let him eat at home; that ye come not together unto condemnation. And the rest will I set in order when I come."[/I]

Sorry to say, but considering the context, it seems that Paul may be merely speaking about something as prosaic as [B]rude behavior [/B] among the congregation that has gathered together for the Lord's Supper - it's not about doubting the doctrine of transsubtantiation at all!

Lord's Body is the congregation of believers. Elsewhere Paul uses a metaphor where Jesus is [B]the head [/B] of this body:

[COLOR=Blue][B]Colossians 1:18: And he (Jesus) is the head of the body, the church: [/B] [/COLOR]

[B][COLOR=Indigo]1 Corinthians 12:12: For as the body is one, and hath many members, and all the members of that one body, being many, are one body: so also is Christ. 12:13 For by one Spirit are we all baptized into one body, whether we be Jews or Gentiles, whether we be bond or free; and have been all made to drink into one Spirit. [/COLOR] [/B]

Petr

Walter Yannis

2005-02-13 16:13 | User Profile

[QUOTE=Petr][B][I] - "I edit to add this from St. Paul, who makes it abundantly clear that the Eucharist is not just a sort of memorial service involving bread and wine."[/I][/B]

Petr[/QUOTE]

I see no way around John 6.

How could the Lord have made it any more explicit than He did?

I'm told that the Greek in John 6 uses very concrete verbs that makes it even less ambiguous.

How do you see this in terms of John 6?

Petr

2005-02-13 16:18 | User Profile

It is very evident from 1 Corinthians 11 that in the first century, Lord's Suppers were [B]real meals[/B], not just one cookie and a sip of wine.

Petr

Walter Yannis

2005-02-13 16:19 | User Profile

Jesus Himself ordained the priesthood.

[QUOTE]John 20:21Then said Jesus to them again, Peace be unto you: as my Father hath sent me, even so send I you.

22And when he had said this, he breathed on them, and saith unto them, Receive ye the Holy Ghost:

23Whose soever sins ye remit, they are remitted unto them; and whose soever sins ye retain, they are retained. [/QUOTE]

[URL=http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/11279a.htm]Catholic Encyclopedia:[/URL]

[QUOTE]The Apostles received their power from Christ: "as the Father hath sent me, I also send you" (John, xx, 21). Christ possessed fullness of power in virtue of His priesthood--of His office as Redeemer and Mediator. He merited the grace which freed man from the bondage of sin, which grace is applied to man mediately by the Sacrifice of the Eucharist and immediately by the sacraments. He gave His Apostles the power to offer the Sacrifice (Luke, xxii, 19), and dispense the sacraments (Matt., xxviii, 18; John, xx, 22, 23); thus making them priests. It is true that every Christian receives sanctifying grace which confers on him a priesthood. Even as Israel under the Old dispensation was to God "a priestly kingdom" (Exod., xix, 4-6), thus under the New, all Christians are "a kingly priesthood" (I Pet., ii, 9); but now as then the special and sacramental priesthood strengthens and perfects the universal priesthood (cf. II Cor., iii, 3, 6; Rom., xv, 16). [/QUOTE]

Walter Yannis

2005-02-13 16:25 | User Profile

[QUOTE=Petr]It is very evident from 1 Corinthians 11 that in the first century, Lord's Suppers were [B]real meals[/B], not just one cookie and a sip of wine.

Petr[/QUOTE]

Quite to the contrary, Paul says that these ARE NOT the Lord's supper:

[QUOTE]1 Corinthians 11:20When ye come together therefore into one place, [B]this is not to eat the Lord's supper. [/B] 21For in eating every one taketh before other his own supper: and one is hungry, and another is drunken.

[B]22What? have ye not houses to eat and to drink in? or despise ye the church of God, and shame them that have not? what shall I say to you? shall I praise you in this? I praise you not. [/B] [/QUOTE]

Paul then goes on to explain just what the Lord's Supper is, contrasting it with these less formal get togethers, and emphasizing the spiritual damage attendant upon not observing the Eucharist with sufficient gravity:

[QUOTE] 23For 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: 24And when he had given thanks, he brake it, and said, Take, eat: this is my body, which is broken for you: this do in remembrance of me.

25After the same manner also he took the cup, when he had supped, saying, this cup is the new testament in my blood: this do ye, as oft as ye drink it, in remembrance of me.

26For as often as ye eat this bread, and drink this cup, ye do shew the Lord's death till he come.

27Wherefore whosoever shall eat this bread, and drink this cup of the Lord, unworthily, shall be guilty of the body and blood of the Lord.

28But let a man examine himself, and so let him eat of that bread, and drink of that cup.

29For he that eateth and drinketh unworthily, eateth and drinketh damnation to himself, not discerning the Lord's body. [/QUOTE]

Respectfully, you reach exactly the wrong conclusion. Paul is saying that the Lord's Supper is one thing, getting together for fellowship is something altogether different.

SCRIPTURESEZ

2005-02-13 16:34 | User Profile

Please note: I know this can be a difficult subject for some. It is not my in tention to hurt anyone but I have strongly worded my message out of Love for you.

Your responses are error again brought on by the TEACHINGS of Men like Knox.

Did you ask JESUS? Yeshua. (Yeshusa in Hebrew is salvation)

You do not believe Moses, Nor Yeshua but you believe KnoX and such.

Flesh and Blood is a hebrew saying. It has nothing to do with cannibalism!

It is taking on the words of THIS RABBI YESHUA and his Fulfilled teaching of the LAW.! To listent to HIS voice. Jesus the WORD made Flesh. The others ran back to their own RABBIS. The went back to the teachings of men. They could not understand Yeshua. They were not the called out ones, the ekklesia, the church. They did the opposite of Abraham they went back to their homes, their forefathers religion, their idols. They did not want the relationship with Jesus. They would not listen or talk to him.

They went to talk to other humans, to knox to crysostom to rabbis to priests as do you. Do you ask Jesu/Yeshua?

No! You beleive the lies of your forefathers. You insist on replacing the Festivals of the Lord with your own MASS.

We all and I mean all of us in the world have had the knowledge of God's commands ripped away from us.

You do not beleive the SCRIPTURES You believe the roman catholic church!

You have a fine way of doing your traditions and not the word of God There is no other Mediator between God and Man and that is Jesus

Heaven does not come by your obervance.

You are in transgression of the LAW, which is sin

You do not believe Isaiah or Jeremiah

Isaiah 65

[color=darkred][font=Arial][size=1]Isa 65:1[/size][/font][font=Georgia][size=3][font=Arial][size=1] I am inquired of by those who didn't ask; I am found by those who didn't seek me: I said, See me, see me, to a nation that was not called by my name.[/size][/font]

[/size][/font][/color][font=Georgia][size=3][color=darkred]Isa 65:2 I have spread out my hands all the day to a rebellious people, who walk in a way that is not good, after their own thoughts; [/color]

[color=darkred]Isa 65:3 a people who provoke me to my face continually, sacrificing in gardens, and burning incense on bricks; [/color]

[color=darkred]Isa 65:4 who sit among the graves, and lodge in the secret places; who eat pig's flesh, and broth of abominable things is in their vessels; [/color]

[color=darkred]Isa 65:5 who say, Stand by yourself, don't come near to me, for I am holier than you. These are a smoke in my nose, a fire that burns all the day. [/color]

[color=darkred]Isa 65:6 Behold, it is written before me: I will not keep silence, but will recompense, yes, I will recompense into their bosom, [/color]

[color=darkred]Isa 65:7 your own iniquities, and the iniquities of your fathers together, says the LORD, who have burned incense on the mountains, and blasphemed me on the hills; therefore will I first measure their work into their bosom. [/color]

[color=darkred]Isa 65:8 Thus says the LORD, As the new wine is found in the cluster, and one says, Don't destroy it, for a blessing is in it: so will I do for my servants' sake, that I may not destroy them all. [/color]

[color=darkred]Isa 65:9 I will bring forth a seed out of Ya`akov, and out of Yehudah an inheritor of my mountains; and my chosen shall inherit it, and my servants shall dwell there. [/color]

[color=darkred]Isa 65:10 Sharon shall be a fold of flocks, and the valley of `Akhor a place for herds to lie down in, for my people who have sought me. [/color]

[color=darkred]Isa 65:11 But you who forsake the LORD, who forget my holy mountain, who prepare a table for Fortune, and who fill up mixed wine to Destiny; [/color]

[color=darkred]Isa 65:12 I will destine you to the sword, and you shall all bow down to the slaughter; because when I called, you did not answer; when I spoke, you did not hear; but you did that which was evil in my eyes, and chose that in which I didn't delight. [/color]

[color=darkred]Isa 65:13 Therefore thus says the Lord GOD, Behold, my servants shall eat, but you shall be hungry; behold, my servants shall drink, but you shall be thirsty; behold, my servants shall rejoice, but you shall be disappointed; [/color]

[color=darkred]Isa 65:14 behold, my servants shall sing for joy of heart, but you shall cry for sorrow of heart, and shall wail for vexation of spirit.[/color]

[/size][/font][font=Arial][size=1][color=darkred]Jeremiah 10[/color][/size][/font]

[color=darkred][font=Arial][size=1]Jer 10:1[/size][/font][font=Arial][size=1] Hear the word which the LORD speaks to you, house of Yisra'el! [/size][/font][/color]

[color=darkred][font=Arial][size=1]Jer 10:2[/size][/font][font=Arial][size=1] Thus says the LORD, "Don't learn the way of the nations, and don't be dismayed at the signs of the sky; for the nations are dismayed at them. [/size][/font][/color]

[color=darkred][font=Arial][size=1]Jer 10:3[/size][/font][font=Arial][size=1] For the customs of the peoples are vanity; for one cuts a tree out of the forest, the work of the hands of the workman with the axe. [/size][/font][/color]

[color=darkred][font=Arial][size=1]Jer 10:4[/size][/font][font=Arial][size=1] They deck it with silver and with gold; they fasten it with nails and with hammers, that it not move. [/size][/font][/color]

[color=darkred][font=Arial][size=1]Jer 10:5[/size][/font][font=Arial][size=1] They are like a palm tree, of turned work, and don't speak: they must be carried, because they can't go. Don't be afraid of them; for they can't do evil, neither is it in them to do good." [/size][/font][/color]

[color=darkred][font=Arial][size=1]Jer 10:6[/size][/font][size=3][font=Arial][size=1] There is none like you, LORD; you are great, and your name is great in might.[/size][/font] [/size][/color] [size=3][color=darkred][/color][/size] [size=3][/size] [size=3][font=Arial][size=1]There is your pork, there is your xmas trees there's your mass.[/size][/font] [/size] [size=3][/size] [size=1][color=black]But you beleive in luther, crysostom, pope, kings, dukes, duchess, the media your neighbors, your wives, your girlfriends, you dentist, your attorneys,[/color][/size] [size=3][size=1][color=black]but will not beleive Scripture, nor the prohpets nor the writings. Or know what they are or care[/color][/size].[/size] [size=3][/size] [size=1]Doctrines of demons.[/size] [size=1][/size] [size=1]How many churches are you going to on Sunday (which is not the sabbath day) who do not teach or speak of healing, tongues, prophecy? They just tell you or thats all been done away with?[/size] [size=1][/size] [size=1]How many churches now are there where they are teaching you to make cakes to the queen of heaven, to walk the labyrinth, to pray to Mary and other dead people (necromancy)? Where you can't dance or sing or give a Word of God? We just cannot afford these sorts of teachings any more.[/size] [size=1][/size] [size=3][color=#008080][size=1][color=darkred]Jer 10:21[/color][/size][/color][/size][size=1][color=darkred] For the shepherds are become brutish, and have not inquired of the LORD: therefore they have not prospered, and all their flocks are scattered. [/color][/size]

[size=1][color=darkred][/color][/size] [size=1][/size] [size=1]And then there is images, and statutes, of Mary and Jesus and Peter etc[/size] [size=1][/size] [size=1][size=3][color=#008080][font=Arial][size=1][color=darkred]Lev 26:1[/color][/size][/font][/color][/size][font=Arial][size=1][color=darkred] "'You shall make for yourselves no idols, neither shall you raise up an engraved image or a pillar, neither shall you place any figured stone in your land, to bow down to it: for I am the LORD your God[/color][/size][/font] [font=Arial][size=1][color=#8b0000][/color][/size][/font] [font=Arial][size=1][color=#8b0000][/color][/size][/font] [font=Arial][size=1][color=black]The churches are full of them. Crosses sacred hearts and on and on.[/color][/size][/font] [font=Arial][size=1][/size][/font] [font=Arial][size=1][/size][/font] [/size][size=3][size=3][color=#008080][font=Arial][size=1][color=darkred]Exodus 12:14[/color][/size][/font][/color][/size][size=1][color=darkred][font=Arial] This day shall be to you for a memorial, and you shall keep it a feast to the LORD: throughout your generations you shall keep it a feast[/font][font=Arial] by an ordinance forever.[/font][/color][/size][size=3] [/size][/size][size=1][/size] [size=1][color=red]Again You do not beleive Yeshua was at the Feast of Tabernacles, and at Hannukah, and yet the Scriptures says so!! [/color][/size] [size=1][color=red][/color][/size] [size=1][color=red]These things are the predictor of HIM and HE is in all of them.[/color][/size] [size=1][color=#ff0000][/color][/size] [size=1][color=black]AGAIN GOD DOES NOT CHANGE NOR DOES THE COMMAND OF FOREVER.[/color][/size] [size=3][color=#008080][font=Arial][size=1][color=darkred]Lev 23:41[/color][/size][/font][/color][/size][size=1][color=darkred][font=Arial] You shall keep it a feast[/font][font=Arial] to the LORD seven days in the year: it is a statute forever throughout your generations; you shall keep it in the seventh month.[/font][/color][/size][size=3]

[/size][size=1][color=#ff0000][/color][/size] [size=1][color=#ff0000][/color][/size] [size=1][/size] [size=1]If it's good enough for Jesus and Paul and Matthew Mark Luke and John etc its good enough for me.[/size] [size=1][/size] [size=1][color=darkred][font=Arial]Eze 20:7[size=1] I said to them, Cast you away every man the abominations of his eyes, and don't defile yourselves with the idols of Egypt; I am the LORD your God.[/size][/font][size=3] [/size][/color][/size] [size=3][/size] [size=1]Satan wants you to continue mass that good ole sun worship, with images and blood and cannialbalism. That is not worshipping him in Spirit and in Truth when you won't keep the Feasts of the Lord![/size] [size=1][/size] [size=1][/size] [size=1][color=#8b0000]Eze 14:7[size=1] For everyone of the house of Yisra'el, or of the strangers who sojourn in Yisra'el, who separates himself from me, and takes his idols into his heart, and puts the stumbling block of his iniquity before his face, and comes to the prophet to inquire for himself of me; I the LORD will answer him by myself:[/size][/color][/size] [size=1][color=#8b0000][/color][/size] [size=1][color=#8b0000][/color][/size] [size=1]And not one of you can answer me what are the commands of God as mentioned in Rev 14:12[/size] [size=1][/size] [size=1]Finally, Yeshua is God. Hear his voice. He is called the fulfillment so ask him how the commands as written in the Torah (Pentateuch) apply to you.[/size] [size=1][/size] [size=1]That's what fulfillment means. [/size] [size=1][/size] [size=1]And the prophets said:[/size] [size=1][/size]

[size=3][color=#008080][size=1]Mal 4:4[/size][/color][/size][size=1] "Remember the Torah of Moshe my servant, which I commanded to him in Chorev for all Yisra'el, even statutes and ordinances. [/size]

[color=#008080][size=1]Mal 4:5[/size][/color][size=1] Behold, I will send you Eliyahu the prophet before the great and terrible day of the LORD comes. [/size]

[color=#008080][size=1]Mal 4:6[/size][/color][size=3][size=1] He will turn the hearts of the fathers to the children, and the hearts of the children to their fathers, lest I come and strike the earth with a curse."[/size]

[/size][size=1]The fathers are not your human fathers, but Abraham, Isaac and Jacob.[/size] [size=1][/size] [size=1]Jews ( so hated by you) one and all. [/size] [size=1][/size] [size=1][/size] [size=1]After 3,500 years, here I am one of those children. [/size] [size=1][size=3][color=#008080][font=Arial][size=1][color=darkred]Eze 36:19[/color][/size][/font][/color][/size][color=darkred][font=Arial][size=1] and I scattered them among the nations, and they were dispersed through the countries: according to their way and according to their doings I judged them. [/size]

[/font][/color][/size][size=1][size=3][size=1][color=darkred]Jer 31:10[/color][/size][/size][size=1][color=darkred] Hear the word of the LORD, you nations, and declare it in the islands afar off; and say, He who scattered Yisra'el will gather him, and keep him, as shepherd does his flock.[/color][/size] [/size][size=1][color=darkred][size=3][color=#008080][size=1][color=darkred]Joh 11:52[/color][/size][/color][/size][color=darkred][size=1] and not for the nation only, but that he might also gather together into one the children of God who are scattered[/size][size=1] abroad.[/size][/color][color=#000000][size=3] [/size]

[/color][/color][/size][size=1][/size] [size=1][/size] [size=1][/size]

[size=3][/size] [size=3][/size] [size=3][/size] [size=3][/size]

Walter Yannis

2005-02-13 16:40 | User Profile

[QUOTE=SCRIPTURESEZ]You do not beleive the SCRIPTURES You believe the roman catholic church! [/QUOTE]

Sophistry.

The traditional churches are the source of the Scriptures. If the authority of that tradition is denied, then the Scriptures themselves cannot stand.

And besides, I took pains to meet my Protestant brothers in Christ on their home field of Scripture. It's not like I'm not backing up what I'm saying, and what I understand the RCC proclaims, without direct reference to Scripture.

You don't address my questions. You talk past me.

Just for the record, are you a woman?

You sure argue like a chick.

Petr

2005-02-13 16:46 | User Profile

[I][B] - "but [U]now as then [/U] the special and sacramental priesthood strengthens and perfects the universal priesthood (cf. II Cor., iii, 3, 6; Rom., xv, 16)." [/B] [/I]

Like is said, the Catholic church is following the model of the old covenant on this issue, not the new one.

[COLOR=Indigo][B]23:8 But be not ye called Rabbi: for one is your Master, even Christ; and all ye are brethren. 23:9 [U]And call no man your father upon the earth[/U]: for one is your Father, which is in heaven. 23:10 Neither be ye called masters: for one is your Master, even Christ. [/B] [/COLOR]

This is part of Jesus Christ's attack on false religious teachers in Matthew 23.

And these Scripture quotes (2 Corinthians 3:3,6 and Romans 15:16) do not say anything about the existence of some distinctive sacerdotal class.

Here's some quotations on the universal priesthood:

[COLOR=Indigo]"As Dr. R. Laird Harris writes, "[B]First century Christianity had no priests. The New Testament nowhere uses the word to describe a leader in Christian service[/B]."9 But this glorious doctrine was gradually replaced by sacerdotalism beginning in the third century, especially by Cyprian (d. 258), Bishop of Carthage. Cyprian treated "[B]all the passages in the Old Testament which refer to the privileges, the sanctions, the duties, and the responsibilities of the Aaronic priesthood, as applying to the officers of the Christian Church[/B]."10 He [B][I]completely failed [/I] [/B] to grasp the central thesis of the Epistle to the Hebrews. He was blind to the fact that "the only High Priest under the Gospel recognized by the apostolic writings, is our Lord Himself"11 and not a solitary bishop of the church.

...

"We also agree completely with Rousas J. Rushdoony's statement: "[I]The purpose of the church should not be to bring men into subjection to the church, but rather to train them into a royal priesthood capable of bringing the world into subjection to Christ the King. . . . The church has by and large paid lip service to the priesthood of all believers, because its hierarchy has distrusted the implications of the doctrine, and because it has seen the church as an end in itself, not as an instrument."[/I]16 [/COLOR]

[url]http://www.dcn.davis.ca.us/~gvcc/articles/Priesthood.html[/url]

Petr

SCRIPTURESEZ

2005-02-13 16:57 | User Profile

Wake up you are in error.

You have nothing but the doctrines of Men of human teaching of demonic origin.

You can't answer me. So you try to insult.

What are the commands as mentioned in Rev 14:12

How can you define them you do not know them.

You can't answer about Isaiah or Ezekial Or the Feasts of the Lord.

SCRIPTURESEZ

2005-02-13 17:02 | User Profile

Furthermore:

If you were hearing from God from Yeshua, you would be keeping the Festivals of the Lord, guaranteed.

You refuse to hear me as well. You talk past me.

Walter Yannis

2005-02-13 19:18 | User Profile

[QUOTE=SCRIPTURESEZ]Furthermore:

If you were hearing from God from Yeshua, you would be keeping the Festivals of the Lord, guaranteed.

You refuse to hear me as well. You talk past me.[/QUOTE]

Do you eat Christ's flesh?

If so, please tell me how.

If not, please tell me how you claim to have life in you.

Walter Yannis

2005-02-13 19:30 | User Profile

[QUOTE=Petr][I][B]Like is said, the Catholic church is following the model of the old covenant on this issue, not the new one. [/COLOR]

[url]http://www.dcn.davis.ca.us/~gvcc/articles/Priesthood.html[/url]

Petr[/QUOTE]

Petr, the entire NT "follows the model" of the OT.

The NT is incomprehensible without all the foreshadowings of the OT.

Christ is the Passover Lamb.

Christ is the Law.

Christ is the fulfillment of the Prophets.

Christ is Manna. (Bread from Heaven).

Mary is the embodiement of the Ark of the Covenant that contained (I love this) the Law and manna. Do you see? Mary is the embodiment of the great thing only hinted at in the OT. She carried in her womb the living, breathing Law Himself, who is also the Bread from Heaven. Thus, for example, in Luke with have an intertextual interplay with the OT passages where David dances before the Ark.

This is name but a few. The point is that the NT is to be read intertextually with the OT. The references back to the OT text are clear enough in their general outlines at least.

Now, most relevantly to the current discussion, [U]Christ's body is the Temple[/U]. Stop and consider that. Christ equated His Body with the Temple. If the old worship was of the Temple, then the new worship was of His Body. Do you see how the Sacrament of His Body comports perfectly with His statement that he would "raise the Temple in three days?". His Body is the Temple, and the new worship "in Spirit and in Truth" He promised in John 4 is the Sacrament of His Body.

I'm just floored by how Heaven planned and executed it so perfectly.

It isn't "judaizing" precisely because it fulfilled - and superceded - the old Jewish worship. The Church is the New Israel - the new nation that inherited the promise.

As to the question of priests, you seem to be suggesting that the early Church allowed all Christians to say Mass. Please refer to the article I posted - tradition holds otherwise.

Walter

Petr

2005-02-13 19:56 | User Profile

[B][I] - "Mary is the embodiement of the Ark of the Covenant that contained (I love this) the Law and manna. Do you see? Mary is the embodiment of the great thing only hinted at in the OT. She carried in her womb the living, breathing Law Himself, who is also the Bread from Heaven." [/I] [/B]

Don't you even get me started on Mariolatry.

[COLOR=Red][B]Luke 1:46 And Mary said, My soul doth magnify the Lord, 1:47 And my spirit hath rejoiced in God my Saviour. [/B] [/COLOR]

Is she was sinless, what did she need a Saviour for?

Petr

Walter Yannis

2005-02-13 20:03 | User Profile

[QUOTE=Petr][B][I] - "Mary is the embodiement of the Ark of the Covenant that contained (I love this) the Law and manna. Do you see? Mary is the embodiment of the great thing only hinted at in the OT. She carried in her womb the living, breathing Law Himself, who is also the Bread from Heaven." [/I] [/B] Petr[/QUOTE]

You're changing the subject. One issue at a time, please.

The point is that the OT foreshadowed the great things that became manifest in the NT.

Leaving the Mary issue aside, do you see my point about the new worship?

Petr

2005-02-13 20:27 | User Profile

[B][I] - "Leaving the Mary issue aside, do you see my point about the new worship?"[/I][/B]

The Epistle of Hebrews makes it very clear that the sacrifice of Jesus Christ was a one-time deal, [B]never to be repeated[/B].

[COLOR=DarkRed]Hebrews 9:11-12:

But Christ came as High Priest of the good things to come, with the greater and more perfect tabernacle not made with hands, that is, not of this creation. Not with the blood of goats and calves, but with His own blood He entered the Most Holy Place [B]once for all[/B], having obtained eternal redemption.

Hebrews 10:1-3:

For the law, having a shadow of the good things to come, and not the very image of the things, can never with these same sacrifices, which [B]they offer continually year by year[/B], make those who approach perfect. For then would they not have ceased to be offered? For the worshipers, [SIZE=3][B]once purified, [/B] [/SIZE] would have had no more consciousness of sins. [B]But in those sacrifices there is a reminder of sins every year[/B].

Hebrews 10:11-14:

[B]And every priest stands ministering daily and offering repeatedly the same sacrifices, which can never take away sins[/B]. But this Man, after He had offered [SIZE=3][B]one sacrifice for sins forever[/B], [/SIZE] sat down at the right hand of God, From that time waiting till His enemies are made His footstool. [B]For by one offering He has perfected forever those who are being sanctified.[/B]

Hebrews 10:18:

[B]Now where there is remission of these, [SIZE=3]there is no longer an offering for sin[/SIZE]. [/B] [/COLOR]

You refused my spiritual interpretation of John 6, but gave me this very sentimental spiritualization to refute the very clear words of Hebrews:

[I]God is a Spirit, and Christ tells us. Every Mass is our renewed entry into that spiritual world where He dwells and where there is no time. In the Mass we enter into God's eternal present where Herod seeks to kill the child Saviour, the blood of the Lamb washes us clean, His saints chant "holy holy holy," Satan and his legions are cast down into hell, and Mary is crowned Queen of Heaven.

Knox thus confuses each Mass with being a "new sacrifice" as if Christ is killed all over again. But that's silly. Each Mass isn't a new Calvary objectively speaking, it is rather another instance of our experiencing the single and Eternal Sacrifice of Christ, made once and for all and sufficient for our salvation. To repeat, we don't kill Him again and again and again with these repeated human sacrifices necessary to our salvation, but rather we experience His death on Calvary and resurrection anew, truly "in remembrance of Him."[/I]

Petr

2005-02-13 20:37 | User Profile

Ah, forgot one: [COLOR=DarkRed] Hebrews 9:23-28:

Therefore it was necessary that the copies of the things in the heavens should be purified with these, but the heavenly things themselves with better sacrifices than these. For Christ has not entered the holy places made with hands, which are copies of the true, but into heaven itself, now to appear in the presence of God for us; [SIZE=3] [B]Not that He should offer Himself often, as the high priest enters the Most Holy Place every year with blood of another-- [/B] [B]He then would have had to suffer often since the foundation of the world[/B]; [/SIZE] but [B]now[/B], [B][SIZE=3]once[/SIZE] at the end of the ages, He has appeared to put away sin by the sacrifice of Himself[/B]. [B][U]And as it is appointed for men to die once[/U], but after this the judgment, [U]So Christ was offered once to bear the sins of many[/U]. [/B] To those who eagerly wait for Him He will appear a second time, apart from sin, for salvation. [/COLOR]

Walter Yannis

2005-02-13 21:02 | User Profile

[QUOTE=Petr]Ah, forgot one: [COLOR=DarkRed] Hebrews 9:23-28:

I addressed this question. Christ died once - there was indeed a single and sufficient sacrifice. Indeed as Paul said He does not offer Himself often. But the fact that we as temporal creatures experience His death and resurrection many times in no way changes that. God lives in the eternal present. We enter His timeless space at every Mass. We live in time and so we change times and places as we experience the eternal. He doesn't because He is the eternal.

Knox's argument is sophomoric at best. It turns upon the notion that God is subject to time, a patent absurdity, since time is His creation. And then it flatly contradicts the plain meaning of John 6 that we must eat Christ's Body or have no life in us.

I then showed that the new worship of John 4 in the Temple of His Body that superceded the Temple in Jerusalem.

Your interpretation fails to address the very clear statement of Christ Himself that we either eat His body and drink His blood - which is meat indeed and drink indeed - or we have no life in us. So please address the questions I posed to Scripturesez above directly.

Do you eat Christ's Body?

If yes, how?

If no, how is it that you claim to have His life in you in view of John 6?

Petr

2005-02-13 21:19 | User Profile

[B][I] - "Do you eat Christ's Body?"[/I][/B]

Spare my from your manipulative inquiries.

I have participated in the Lord's Supper in a congregation of fellow believers, and I tend to believe that it is a spiritual figure, for the Word says that Jesus Christ will not return physically on earth until at the end of days to judge the world - [B]the Holy Spirit [/B] will do His work down here until then.

[COLOR=Indigo]John 6:63:

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

I do not believe that Catholic priests have powers to physically drag the Lord of Glory from His celestial throne whenever they please.

[COLOR=Indigo][I]6:58 This is that bread which came down from heaven: not as your fathers did eat manna, and are dead: he that eateth of this bread shall live for ever. [/I] [/COLOR]

Do you insist reading this verse completely literally? Then why is mortality among Catholics who have partaken in the Eucharist 100 %? Shouldn't they live for ever?

After the Second Coming, Lord's Supper will be no longer be needed - after all, it's been written: "[I]For as often as ye eat this bread, and drink this cup, ye do shew the Lord's death [B]till he come[/B]. "[/I]

Petr

2005-02-13 21:57 | User Profile

Here would seem to be a quite good definition of "Real Presence":

[COLOR=Blue]First. Together with Holy Scripture, I assert [U][B]the real presence [/B] [/U] of Christ, personally, at His [B]Sacraments[/B] and in His [B]Word[/B] and [B]through His [U]Spirit[/U][/B]. Exactly that assertion of the omnipresence there of the Son of God, impels me to deny His physical presence in and under the sacramental elements, or even in the Bible as His Holy Word. Christ Himself insists against any view of a merely `local presence' either in Jerusalem or in Samaria: "God is Spirit; and they that worship Him, [B]must [/B] worship Him in spirit and in truth." John 4:20-26. [/COLOR]

[COLOR=Blue]Second. Long before the incarnation of God the Son, He was indeed [U][B]really present[/B][/U] at the Old Testament preachings of His Word and at the [U][B]administration of His Sacraments[/B] [/U] of Circumcision and of the Passover. Moreover, such presence must have been [U][B]Spirit-ual [/B] [/U] and could not have been fleshly or physical. For the Son had then not yet become flesh. [/COLOR]

[url]http://www.spiritone.com/~wing/nontrans.htm[/url]

Another interesting quotation from this link:

[COLOR=Indigo]"As even Gelasius Bishop of Rome observed in A.D. 490: "[B]By the Sacraments we are made partakers of the divine nature, and yet the substance and nature of bread and wine do not cease to be in them.[/B]""[/COLOR]

Petr

2005-02-13 22:50 | User Profile

[COLOR=DarkRed]6/30/02

[B]Justin Martyr [/B] explains that the eucharist is a sacrifice only in the sense of Hebrews 13:15, only in the sense of offering prayers and thanksgiving:

"[I]Accordingly, God, anticipating all the sacrifices which we offer through this name, and which Jesus the Christ enjoined us to offer, i.e., in the Eucharist of the bread and the cup, and which are presented by Christians in all places throughout the world, bears witness that they are well-pleasing to Him. But He utterly rejects those presented by you and by those priests of yours, saying, 'And I will not accept your sacrifices at your hands; for from the rising of the sun to its setting my name is glorified among the Gentiles (He says); but ye profane it.' Yet even now, in your love of contention, you assert that God does not accept the sacrifices of those who dwelt then in Jerusalem, and were called Israelites; but says that He is pleased with the prayers of the individuals of that nation then dispersed, and calls their prayers sacrifices. [B]Now, that prayers and giving of thanks, when offered by worthy men, are the only perfect and well-pleasing sacrifices to God, I also admit. For such alone Christians have undertaken to offer, [/B] [B]and in the remembrance effected by their solid and liquid food, whereby the suffering of the Son of God which He endured is brought to mind[/B], whose name the high priests of your nation and your teachers have caused to be profaned and blasphemed over all the earth. But these filthy garments, which have been put by you on all who have become Christians by the name of Jesus, God shows shall be taken away from us, when He shall raise all men from the dead, and appoint some to be incorruptible, immortal, and free from sorrow in the everlasting and imperishable kingdom; but shall send others away to the everlasting punishment of fire. But as to you and your teachers deceiving yourselves when you interpret what the Scripture says as referring to those of your nation then in dispersion, and maintain that their prayers and sacrifices offered in every place are pure and well-pleasing, learn that you are speaking falsely, and trying by all means to cheat yourselves: for, first of all, not even now does your nation extend from the rising to the setting of the sun, but there are nations among which none of your race ever dwelt. For there is not one single race of men, whether barbarians, or Greeks, or whatever they may be called, nomads, or vagrants, or herdsmen living in tents, among whom prayers and giving of thanks are not offered through the name of the crucified Jesus. And then, as the Scriptures show, at the time when Malachi wrote this, your dispersion over all the earth, which now exists, had not taken place[/I]."

B[/B][/COLOR]

[url]http://www.ntrmin.org/catholic_but_not_roman_catholic_01.htm[/url]

[COLOR=Indigo]3/17/03

In addition to rejecting the Roman Catholic definition of the sacrificial nature of the eucharist, [B]Eusebius[/B] also seems to have rejected the concept of a physical presence. He writes:

[I]"And the fulfilment of the oracle is truly wondrous, to one who recognizes how our Saviour Jesus the Christ of God even now performs through His ministers even today sacrifices after the manner of Melchizedek's. For just as he, who was priest of the Gentiles, is not represented as offering outward sacrifices, but as blessing Abraham only with wine and bread, in exactly the same way our Lord and Saviour Himself first, and then all His priests among all nations, perform [B]the spiritual sacrifice [/B] according to the customs of the Church, and [B]with wine and bread darkly express the mysteries of His Body and saving Blood[/B]." [/I]

B[/B][/COLOR]

[url]http://www.ntrmin.org/catholic_but_not_roman_catholic_04.htm[/url]

[COLOR=Blue]6/10/02

"[I]For even after the consecration the mystic symbols [of the eucharist] are not deprived of their own nature; they remain in their former substance figure and form; they are visible and tangible as they were before[/I]." [B] - Theodoret (Dialogues, 2)[/B][/COLOR]

[url]http://www.ntrmin.org/catholic_but_not_roman_catholic_01.htm[/url]

Walter Yannis

2005-02-14 06:03 | User Profile

[QUOTE][QUOTE=Petr][B][I] - "Do you eat Christ's Body?"[/I][/B]

Spare my from your manipulative inquiries. [/QUOTE]

There's nothing manipulative about it. It is the very heart of the argument.

[QUOTE]I have participated in the Lord's Supper in a congregation of fellow believers, and I tend to believe that it is a spiritual figure, for the Word says that Jesus Christ will not return physically on earth until at the end of days to judge the world - [B]the Holy Spirit [/B] will do His work down here until then.[/QUOTE]

Christ says unambiguously that He is Bread, and that His followers must eat His flesh or have no life in them.

You continue to evade this straightforward and thoroughly pertinent question.

A simple yes or no answer will suffice. No, it is required. Christ demanded His followers in John 6 to answer yes or no to the doctrine of the Real Presence. I want to stand with the Apostles and answer yes. Respectfully, you seem to find Christ's insistence that His followers feed on His flesh distasteful, and so like His other disciples you seem to be leaning toward parting ways with Him on that point.

I have an atheist friend who razzes me about this. He says that it's no surprise they crucified Jesus since He was running around telling people they had to eat His flesh and was obviously mentally unbalanced. And from my friend's worldly point of view, that's absolutely correct. It is among the most scandalous and foolish doctrines ever dreamt up by anybody anywhere. Yet, Christ requires His followers to take a humiliating leap of faith and proclaim before the world that we eat His Ressurected Flesh. Literally. And then He looks at us in John 6 and asks us to declare whether we're in or out.

I hope that I can answer with Peter that I have to say yes, because I have nowhere else to go.

That's what I'm asking you. Do you say yes or no to Christ's question to Peter in John 6?

[QUOTE][COLOR=Indigo]John 6:63:

[I]"It is the spirit that quickeneth; [B]the flesh profiteth nothing[/B]: the words that I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are life."[/I][/COLOR][/QUOTE]

That's exactly right, and supports fully the traditional teaching of the Eucharist.

Christ is the Word of God. God is a Spirit. The Eucharist is of the Spirit. It is not of the flesh except that our bodily senses perceive it to be bread and wine while in substance it is flesh and blood. It is "our spiritual food."

[QUOTE]1 Corinthians 10:3They all ate the same [B]spiritual food [/B] 4and drank the same [B]spiritual drink[/B]; for they drank from the spiritual rock that accompanied them, and that [B]rock was Christ[/B]. [/QUOTE] [QUOTE]I do not believe that Catholic priests have powers to physically drag the Lord of Glory from His celestial throne whenever they please.[/QUOTE]

First, Christ Himself ordained the Apostles by breathing the Spirit into them. As "as I send you, so shall you send others" thereby establishing Apostolic Succession.

Second, the priest doesn't "drag God down whenever he wants" (that's putting things rather crudely Petr, let's keep this on a higher plane) - the Spirit that Christ breathed into the Apostles does that through the priest. The priest is merely an unworthy vessel.

[COLOR=Indigo][I]6:58 This is that bread which came down from heaven: not as your fathers did eat manna, and are dead: he that eateth of this bread shall live for ever. [/I] [/COLOR]

[QUOTE]Do you insist reading this verse completely literally? Then why is mortality among Catholics who have partaken in the Eucharist 100 %? Shouldn't they live for ever?[/QUOTE]

Why yes, I do insist upon reading it literally. Don't you? I would assume that Protestants would tend strongly to do so, Sola Scriptura and all.

As to your second point, they [B]do live forever[/B], at least one would so hope. I mean, really, Petr. Are you suggesting that read literally Christ is promising us an escape from death in this world? Come on. You're grasping at straws here.

After all, He Himself died an earthly death, but He defeated that earthly death by rising from the dead. He's inviting us to do the same in Him. He's saying that our souls will live forever and that we'll join Him in the resurrection if we enter into full spiritual Communion with Him during our sojourn here on Earth.

Petr, I respectfully suggest that you're confuse the Spirit with the flesh and the temporal with the eternal. There's a distinction there that needs to be maintained.

[QUOTE]After the Second Coming, Lord's Supper will be no longer be needed - after all, it's been written: "[I]For as often as ye eat this bread, and drink this cup, ye do shew the Lord's death [B]till he come[/B]. "[/I][/QUOTE]

I believe that's true. The Eucharist is His presence among us for while He's away.

But I don't see your point here. This verse would seem to strongly reinforce the traditional Catholic (and Orthodox) view that the Eucharist is necessary (and commanded by Christ Himself) until the Second Coming.

Are you suggesting that this verse means that the fact that the Eucharist will no longer be needed after the Second Coming necessarily implies that it is not needed now?

Texas Dissident

2005-02-14 08:53 | User Profile

[QUOTE=Petr]Tex, does your denomination believe that Lord's Supper is a form of sacrifice, i.e. a new form of temple service?[/QUOTE]

In short, no, but we do believe in the divine presence.

From 'Theology and Practice of The LORD'S SUPPER, Part I: A Report of the Commission on Theology and Church Relations of the Lutheran Church--Missouri Synod' - May 1983:

The Testimony of Holy Scripture

The Real Presence

The clear claim of Christ in Holy Scripture is that His true body and blood are truly present and distributed to those who eat. [5] All four Scriptural accounts (Matt. 26:26-29; Mark 14:22-25; Luke 22:15-20; 1 Cor. 11:23-26) assert: "This is my body." "This is my blood of the covenant" (Matthew and Mark). "This cup is the new covenant in my blood" (Luke and Paul).

Scriptural passages other than the words of institution forthrightly teach the Real Presence. St. Paul writes in I Cor. 10:16: "The cup of blessing which we bless, is it not a participation in the blood of Christ? The bread which we break, is it not a participation in the body of Christ?" Or, again, in 1 Cor. 11:27: "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."

A Biblical view of the Real Presence rejects two aberrations. On the one hand, it is wrong to reject Christ's clear words simply because our fallen human reason cannot fully understand how it comes to pass. Any effort to make the "This is" something less than a clear word, as Reformed theology does by denying the real presence of the body and blood of Christ on earth, is a departure from Christ's words. On the other hand, it is also fruitless to engage in theories about how the body and blood are present in, with, and under the bread and wine. A dogma such as transubstantiation, as generally taught by Roman Catholicism, is not set forth by Scripture.

The Atonement

The institution of the Lord's Supper is based on Christ's atonement. By His work of atonement the Lord sacrificed Himself for the sins of all people. This action was completed in its entirety when our Lord uttered the words "It is finished!" [7]

In the words of institution Jesus openly asserts that His blood is being poured out" (Matt. 26:28; Mark 14:24; Luke 22:20) and that His body is being "given" (Luke 22:19). Both terms underscore the sacrificial nature of His death. Further, the words of institution contain the important reference "for many" (Matt. 26:28; Mark 14:24) or "for you" (Luke 22:19). Jesus now presents His body and blood in bread and wine as the means of divine grace "for the forgiveness of sins" (Matt. 26:28). With His body and blood in the sacrament, He thereby bestows all the blessings and benefits of the atonement (Heb. 9:14-16).

Walter Yannis

2005-02-14 12:14 | User Profile

[QUOTE=Texas Dissident]A Biblical view of the Real Presence rejects two aberrations. On the one hand, it is wrong to reject Christ's clear words simply because our fallen human reason cannot fully understand how it comes to pass. Any effort to make the "This is" something less than a clear word, as Reformed theology does by denying the real presence of the body and blood of Christ on earth, is a departure from Christ's words. On the other hand, it is also fruitless to engage in theories about how the body and blood are present in, with, and under the bread and wine. A dogma such as transubstantiation, as generally taught by Roman Catholicism, is not set forth by Scripture. :[/QUOTE]

I think that's not far from the Catholic position.

I note that this says that the Calvinists are wrong to deny the Real Presence in the sense that the Eucharist really "is" the body of Christ, and that Scripture compels us to take that on faith even though we don't really understand it.

But I also observe that it doesn't say that the RC doctrine of transubstantion is wrong per se and disproven by the Scriptures, but rather that it's just pointless speculation that the Scriptures do not require and should therefore be left alone and as I said simply taken on faith.

Which I guess is fair enough if one doesn't accept the Magisterial charism of the Church.

I think the Orthodox would mostly agree with the passage above, perhaps one of our Orthodox brothers could comment on that.

Lutherans and Catholics aren't so far apart on this issue.

SCRIPTURESEZ

2005-02-14 12:58 | User Profile

Jesus never told anyone to be a cannibal. That's unclean. Dead human bodies are unclean. Torah says so. Drinking blood is unclean, one does not actually drink real blood. The life is in the blood is what He is trying to say.

Eating his flesh and drinking his blood:

We are to be like Jesus. We are to take on his Teachings. Eat his words, drink his life, He is The TORAH, which is meant to guide you and keep you safe, right down to food you eat and keep clean. He presents himself, not only for the forgiveness of sins in [color=darkred]God's eyes[/color], and the [color=darkred]sinners concscience[/color] his mind and is heart is washed clean.

Those guys that fled, they wanted the teachings of their own Rabbis, not Yeshua the Rabbi. They did not want to take on the perfection of the LORD.

For example: Because Yeshua tells them they find out they could not even look at a woman and [color=darkred]think[/color] lust,the[color=darkred] ultimate strict intrepration of the LAW, the Torah as given by the Living Torah, The giver.[/color]

[color=#8b0000]When you are saying the Torah is not to be followed, in selected parts, you are saying there is something wrong with the Giver, Yeshua.[/color]

Again, you have a hellenistic mind set, and you are reading a Jewish book, with Jewish-Hebraic idoms of the day. You are innocent. Who has ever dared tell you differently?

I am interested in why you don't beleive the scriptures?

God does not change. That should be a clue.

[color=black][size=1][size=3][color=#ff0000][/color][/size][/size][/color][color=black][size=1][size=3][color=#ff0000][size=3][color=#008080][size=1][color=darkred]Luk 22:8[/color][/size][/color][/size][color=black][size=1][color=darkred] Jesus sent Peter and John, saying, "Go and prepare the Passover meal[size=3][color=#ff0000] [size=1]for us, so we can eat it."[/size]

[/color][/size][/color][/size][/color][/color][/size][/size][/color]He was at a passover seder. But you don't keep it, so you have no idea that it is all about Jesus.

I don't see anyone address hearing from the Lord.

I see no one can tell me what are the commands in Rev 14:12 because you don't know.

[size=3][color=#008080][font=Arial][size=1][color=darkred]Rev 14:12[/color][/size][/font][/color][/size][size=3][font=Arial][size=1][color=darkred] Here is the endurance of the saints, who keep the commandments of God and the faith in Jesus."[/color][/size][/font] [/size] [size=3][/size] [size=3] [/size]

Petr

2005-02-14 13:21 | User Profile

[COLOR=DarkRed][B][I] - "Respectfully, you seem to find Christ's insistence that His followers feed on His flesh distasteful, and so like His other disciples you seem to be leaning toward parting ways with Him on that point."[/I][/B][/COLOR]

Let me assure that I have no aesthetic prejudices whatsoever against gorging the physical flesh and blood of my Savior.

I simply do not consider the doctrine of transubtanstiation and sacrifice of the Mass to be theologically tenable.

[COLOR=DarkRed][I][B]- "It is among the most scandalous and foolish doctrines ever dreamt up by anybody anywhere. Yet, Christ requires His followers to take a humiliating leap of faith and proclaim before the world that we eat His Ressurected Flesh"[/B][/I][/COLOR]

I could easily dream up something even more scandalous or foolish, so don't flatter yourself on that one. Also, just because some doctrine requires lots of faith, or make-believe, doesn't necessarily make it any more true.

I'd say that transubtanstiation is, at the bottom of it, a very [I]materialistic, mechanistic[/I] doctrine [B]masquerading[/B] as a deep spiritual mystery.

[COLOR=DarkRed][B][I]- "As to your second point, they do live forever, at least one would so hope. I mean, really, Petr. Are you suggesting that read literally Christ is promising us an escape from death in this world? Come on. You're grasping at straws here."[/I][/B][/COLOR]

Am I? In this sentence, you want to read the part of Jesus being bread [B]absolutely [/B] literally, but you [B]don't[/B] want to read the part of living forever literally - even when is specifically contrasted to ancient Israelites who [B]did[/B] die physical deaths.

[COLOR=Indigo][I]"6:58 This is that bread which came down from heaven: not as your fathers did eat manna, and are dead: he that eateth of this bread shall live for ever."[/I][/COLOR]

I am just asking you to be consistent in your exegesis.

[COLOR=DarkRed][I][B]- "First, Christ Himself ordained the Apostles by breathing the Spirit into them. As "as I send you, so shall you send others" thereby establishing Apostolic Succession."[/B][/I][/COLOR]

Did He? How can you prove that He was not talking about ALL His followers collectively, and not just some separate sacerdotal caste? You are reading this verse through Catholic lenses.

And do Roman Catholics accept the Masses performed by Eastern Orthodox priests (who also claim apostolic succession) as valid?

Petr

Walter Yannis

2005-02-14 13:38 | User Profile

[QUOTE][QUOTE][COLOR=DarkRed][B][I]- [QUOTE]"As to your second point, they do live forever, at least one would so hope. I mean, really, Petr. Are you suggesting that read literally Christ is promising us an escape from death in this world? Come on. You're grasping at straws here."[/I][/B][/COLOR][/QUOTE] Am I? In this sentence, you want to read the part of Jesus being bread [B]absolutely [/B] literally, but you [B]don't[/B] want to read the part of living forever literally - even when is specifically contrasted to ancient Israelites who [B]did[/B] die physical deaths.

[COLOR=Indigo][I]"6:58 This is that bread which came down from heaven: not as your fathers did eat manna, and are dead: he that eateth of this bread shall live for ever."[/I][/COLOR][/QUOTE] I am just asking you to be consistent in your exegesis.[/QUOTE]

Petr[/QUOTE]

It is completely consistent, because I do read just as literally the promise of eternal life as I do the "this is my body" language. I see no conflict there.

Just as the statement that "this is my body" is literally true but difficult to comprehend given the elements' physical attributes remaining those of bread and wine, so too is the promise of eternal life literally true but difficult to understand given the fact of our inevitable bodily death.

Both are literally true, both are very hard to accept. But Scripture requires us to accept both on faith as the price of being a follower of Christ.

As to transubstantion, I think that the Lutheran position is the more reasonable dissenting position from the Protestant perspective. You may find St. Thomas's exegesis unconvincing, and that's okay. I agree that Scripture doesn't compel Thomas's conclusion that the substance being transformed while the sensible attributes remain unchange, but it clearly is plausible. Since Lutherans don't accept the magisterial authority of the Church then I'll have to accept that they don't believe in Thomas's great formulation of the Sacrament of the Body, even as I join them in believing in the Real Presence - somehow, someway true. Like the promise of eternal life itself.

But in contrast the Scriptures do compel assent to Christ's words that "this is my body" and that we have no life in us unless we submit to that.

I note your resort to tradition in Scriptural interpretation above, and I appreciate that greatly. [URL=The Orthodox, Catholic, Anglican and Lutheran churches all accept the Real Presence in one form or another. [URL=http://www.therealpresence.org/eucharst/father/a5.html]]Here's a link [/URL] that discusses nicely the early Church's unity on that. I suspect that the author confuses somewhat the terms "real presence" and "transubstantiation" but there's some good stuff there.

I note also that the Orthodox, Catholic, Anglican and Lutheran churches all accept the Real Presence in one formulation or another. The traditional Churches are in broad agreement on this central doctrine, a fact that comforts me greatly.

Walter Yannis

2005-02-14 14:12 | User Profile

[QUOTE][SCRIPTURESEZ]Jesus never told anyone to be a cannibal. [/QUOTE]

Not so, he says in John 6 that we must eat His body and drink His blood. I'd call that cannibalism. At least a spiritual sort of endocannibalism.

[QUOTE]That's unclean. Dead human bodies are unclean. Torah says so. Drinking blood is unclean, one does not actually drink real blood. [/QUOTE]

Christ's resurrected body is not dead.

He commands us to eat His body and drink His blood.

Scripture says so.

See John 6.

[QUOTE]The life is in the blood is what He is trying to say.[/QUOTE]

I didn't understand that. What do you mean that life is in the blood?

And why is it that you don't take Christ's words in John 6 literally, especially when He went to all those pains to impress upon his listeners that they were to take them literally? I thought you took the Scriptures at face value. What's up with that?

Here's another question for you:

Did his listeners in John 6 take Christ literally when He said they had to eat His body and drink His blood?

[QUOTE]Eating his flesh and drinking his blood:

We are to be like Jesus. We are to take on his Teachings. Eat his words, drink his life, He is The TORAH, [/QUOTE]

Very good. That's exactly right. We take on His teachings, including the very "hard to hear" teaching that "this is my body." We eat His words but - and here's the rub - HE IS HIS WORDS because as you say HE IS THE TORAH. In a very real sense in the Eucharist we are tearing pages from the Torah and eating them. Flannery O'Connor had a short story on that. She gets the imagery right.

[QUOTE]Those guys that fled, they wanted the teachings of their own Rabbis, not Yeshua the Rabbi. They did not want to take on the perfection of the LORD.[/QUOTE]

No, my friend. They fled - and this couldn't be clearer - because they found Christ's insistence to eat His flesh - ahem! - unpalatable. They said "this is a hard saying" and they left.

Clearly they took Christ's words to eat His body and drink His blood (food INDEED, drink INDEED) quite literally indeed.

And note that after they left Christ didn't run after the bulk of his disciples and ask them to come back because it was all just nice symbology. Oh, no indeed He did not. In fact, He was left standing there with only His 12, and He had to ask them whether they'd freak out an leave too.

The disciples that left took it literally. The 12 took it literally.

So must we.

[QUOTE][color=#8b0000]When you are saying the Torah is not to be followed, in selected parts, you are saying there is something wrong with the Giver, Yeshua.[/color] [/QUOTE]

I don't know why you say that. We must keep the Ten Commandments, for example. That is the heart of the Torah.

Christ and the Church did away with other Jewish religious practices, including the dietary laws and circumscision. Christ changed a number of ancillary points in the old Law, including forbidding divorce, allowing good works on the Sabbath, eating with unwashed hands, and so forth. The Church then with its authority to make celestial law (as you bind on Earth so shall it be bound in Heaven, and as ye loose on Earth so shall it be loosed in Heaven) did away with circumscision, changed the sabbath from Saturday to the eigth day (Sunday), and abolished all of the dietary laws except for eating food offerred to idols.

That's all in the Scriptures, too. I really don't understand where you're coming from on this.

You may find this interesting:

[URL=http://www.talmudunmasked.com/]Talmud Unmasked[/URL]

Texas Dissident

2005-02-14 15:06 | User Profile

[QUOTE=Walter Yannis]I note that this says that the Calvinists are wrong to deny the Real Presence in the sense that the Eucharist really "is" the body of Christ, and that Scripture compels us to take that on faith even though we don't really understand it.

Yes.

But I also observe that it doesn't say that the RC doctrine of transubstantion is wrong per se and disproven by the Scriptures, but rather that it's just pointless speculation that the Scriptures do not require and should therefore be left alone and as I said simply taken on faith.

Again, yes. How exactly Christ's body and blood comes to us in the bread and wine is a divine mystery that we must accept on faith. We read, understand and accept Christ's words in their plain and straight-forward meaning and do not try to go any 'further' explaining it.

Lutherans and Catholics aren't so far apart on this issue.[/QUOTE]

I think on this issue Catholics, Orthodox and Lutherans are much closer to each other than any of us are to the Sacramentarians.

Texas Dissident

2005-02-14 15:08 | User Profile

[QUOTE=SCRIPTURESEZ]Jesus never told anyone to be a cannibal. That's unclean. Dead human bodies are unclean. Torah says so. Drinking blood is unclean, one does not actually drink real blood. The life is in the blood is what He is trying to say.[/QUOTE]

[url]http://www.lcms.org/pages/internal.asp?NavID=2619[/url]

The prohibition of ingesting blood found in the Old Testament (Deut. 12:16, 23-25) is not part of the moral law which can never be abolished. But it is part of the ceremonial law that has been abrogated at the coming of the Christ. For example, when Jesus healed on the Sabbath and when He allowed His disciples to work unlawfully on the Sabbath (Matt. 12:1-13), Jesus said that He was Lord of the Sabbath, etc. Thus the prohibition of eating of blood of the Old Testament no longer is in force for the New Testament Christian.

Paul, by inspiration of the Holy Spirit, taught the same thing. Read the entire chapter of Romans 14, particularly verse 14: "As one who is in the Lord Jesus, I am fully convinced that no food is unclean in itself." Also read Col. 2:16-17. Again, the forbidding of eating blood is not a law that leads or binds New Testament Christians.

The Council at Jerusalem (Acts 15), in consideration of the strong feelings of the new Jewish believers who had detested the eating of blood most of their lives, requested the Gentile believers to abstain out of love and not offend the still tender feelings the Jewish believers had. It would be better for them not to eat blood than to offend the Jewish believers. The considerate course to follow was to avoid eating blood. But that provision was only temporary. It was not meant to govern the actions of New Testament Christians for all time, as we see from Romans 14 and Colossians 2:16-17.

It should not bother us that Christ commanded us to eat His body and blood, but we should gladly obey and be close to Jesus in that way and to receive His forgiveness and strength. His command to "do this" clears us from any accusation of cannibalism. Jesus paid the ultimate sacrifice once and for all with His death, and thus cannot ever be sacrificed again.

"For God was pleased to have all His fullness dwell in Him (Jesus), and through Him to reconcile to Himself all things, whether things on earth or things in heaven, by making peace through His blood, shed on the cross." (Col. 1:26) That's the power of His blood.

Walter Yannis

2005-02-14 16:30 | User Profile

[QUOTE=Texas DissidentHis command to "do this" clears us from any accusation of cannibalism. [/QUOTE]

Great post, and I see what you're saying.

But why say it "clears us" from an "accusation of cannibalism?"

Why not proudly plead guilty to the charge?

Boasting in the Lord and all that.

MadScienceType

2005-02-14 17:32 | User Profile

RF,

I apologize for coming back to this thread late, but I did want to respond to you.

MadScienceType, with regards to blacks, I have had a very positive experience growing up in majority black neighborhoods. A very high percentage of them understood me better than most people, and when it came time to back each other up, they have always proven to be the most trustworthy friends.

That's fair enough. I know a Black guy I'd trust my life to, but again, that's taking a look at individuals and applying the experience to a group. I think CarolontheWeb (Carol Ward) summed it up nicely when she said (I'm paraphrasing here) "I could get along famously with a Walter Williams, but I would still be in danger from his kids, his kids' friends, their relatives..." You see where I'm going with this? All historical evidence points to the wisdom of of Jefferson's words when he said...

"Nothing is more certainly written in the book of fate than that these people are to be free. Nor is it less certain that the two races, equally free, cannot live in the same government. Nature, habit, opinion has drawn indelible lines of distinction between them."

The fact is, the two races are different and they do not get along, in the main. We can discuss why that's so, but it remains a fact that we do no one a service by ignoring.

[quote=Righteous Fist]No doubt we have to look at the Jewish people as a group with interests that are not necessarily aligned with the rest of Americans. MadScienceType you said when push comes to shove even a pious Jew will side with other Jews. I will add also that they are also more likely to admit that than the others.

While pious Jews may be more willing to admit this than others, it goes back to my observation that you'll never see them on the TV, explaining this to the masses. My entire point is that if Jews have interests as an organized ethnic group protecting the welfare of their own "extended family" (a metaphor I wholeheartedly agree with. Nice job Quantrill) by any means necessary, then I point out that Whites do as well. The Jews have made it plain that they do not intend to allow us to organize or even recognize those interests. That tells me that they are the group I need be most concerned about.

To return to the issue about hate, the word is rapidly losing all meaning. You mentioned spreading information. That is now classified as "hate" by Jews in high places who presume to tell us what's best for us. You, RF, are now a "hater" by the new definition, as you recently found out at FR. It doesn't matter how much you protest that you are not, you will forever be tarred with that brush as long as you persist in asking questions about issues the system would rather let die. Eventually, though, if you give a dog a bad name, he will answer to it! :thumbsup: Short term, Big Momma Jim has solved the problem of "insubordination" at FR, but long term, he's opened up a whole new can of worms for himself and his masters. (Yes, I have no doubt he's owned like a prison bitch)

Anyway, allow me to extend a belated welcome to OD for my part. I'm glad you're here and open-minded enough to give us the benefit of the doubt and see that we have more uniting us than dividing us. I hope you'll stay a while and maybe we can learn each other a few things in the interim. Take care.

SCRIPTURESEZ

2005-02-15 07:10 | User Profile

[size=3][color=#008080][font=Arial][size=1][color=black]Lev 3:17[/color][/size][/font][/color][/size][size=1][color=black][font=Arial] "'It shall be a perpetual statute throughout your generations in all your dwellings, that you shall eat neither fat nor blood[/font][font=Arial].'"[/font][/color][/size][size=3]

[/size][size=3][color=#008080][font=Arial][size=1][color=black]Lev 7:26[/color][/size][/font][/color][/size][size=1][color=black][font=Arial] You shall not eat any blood[/font][/color][font=Arial][color=black], whether it is of bird or of animal, in any of your dwellings.[/color][/font][/size][size=3]

[/size][size=3][color=#008080][size=1][color=black]Lev 7:27[/color][/size][/color][/size][size=1][color=black] Whoever it is who eats any blood, that soul shall be cut off from his people.'"[/color][/size][size=3]

[/size][size=3][color=#008080][font=Arial][size=1][color=black]Lev 17:11[/color][/size][/font][/color][/size][color=black][font=Arial][size=1] For the life of the flesh is in the blood; and I have given it to you on the altar to make atonement for your souls: for it is the blood that makes atonement by reason of the life. [/size][/font][/color]

[color=black][font=Arial][size=1]No, we can't drink blood.[/size][/font][/color]

[font=Arial][size=1]The Law the Torah cannot be done away with: It is written:[/size][/font]

[size=3][color=#008080][size=1][color=black]Heb 10:28[/color][/size][/color][/size][size=1][color=black] A man who disregards the Torah of Moshe dies without compassion on the word of two or three witnesses. [/color][/size]

[size=1][color=black]Heb 10:29[/color][/size][size=3][size=1][color=black] How much worse punishment, do you think, will he be judged worthy of, who has trodden under foot the Son of God, and has counted the blood of the covenant with which he was sanctified an unholy thing, and has insulted the Spirit of grace?[/color][/size]

[/size]

[font=Arial][size=1]The food laws remain. There are no scriptures anywhere saying anything such thing.[/size][/font] [font=Arial][size=1]That is the teaching of humans.[/size][/font]

[font=Arial][size=1]Basically, think about it. If God does not change and Jesus is God, why why why would he change food laws? Just so the unlearned can say He is not God? [/size][/font] [font=Arial][size=1]Well that is exactly what he says.[/size][/font]

[font=Arial][size=1]Example: Paul talks about food, [color=red]he is talking about clean food[/color]. Example. Pork is not clean food. Paul is a JEW a Hebrew of Hebrews. [/size][/font]

[font=Arial][size=1]If God does not change, so why did he change is Sabbaths? Where is the Scripture?[/size][/font]

[font=Arial][size=1]There are none!!! Saturday is still the Sabbath. Jesus did not do away with any of it.[/size][/font] [font=Arial][size=1]Not even healing! [/size][/font] [font=Arial][size=1]Jesus heals, Is 53: By his stripes we were healed.[/size][/font]

[font=Arial][size=1]Jesus has not done away with the Festivals of the Lord:[/size][/font]

[size=3][color=#008080][size=1][color=black]Isa 66:23[/color][/size][/color][/size][size=1][color=black] It shall happen, that from one new moon[/color][color=black] to another, and from one Shabbat to another, shall all flesh come to worship before me, says the LORD.[/color][/size] [size=3]I mean think, man, what is Jesus doing at PASSOVER?[/size] [size=3]Why not just dye Easter Eggs and be done with it?[/size]

[size=1]Where am I coming from on this?[/size] [size=1]I beleive the words of God. I want to celebrate the true Feasts of the Lord, as a Remembrance and of Him, not those false festivals based on paganism and done on the wrong day!!!![/size]

[size=1]Will the Temple be restored? Yes, Ezekiel 40:5 Did the animal sacrifices take away sin, no. [/size]

[size=3][color=#008080][size=1][color=black]Heb 10:1[/color][/size][/color][/size][size=1][color=black] For the Torah, having a shadow of the good to come, not the very image of the things, can never with the same sacrifices year by year, which they offer continually, make perfect those who draw near. [/color][/size]

[size=1][color=black]Heb 10:2[/color][color=black] Or else wouldn't they have ceased to be offered, because the worshippers, having been once cleansed, would have had no more consciousness of sins? [/color][/size]

[size=1][color=black]Heb 10:3[/color][color=black] But in those sacrifices there is yearly reminder of sins. [/color][/size]

[size=1][color=black]Heb 10:4[/color][color=black] For it is impossible that the blood of bulls and goats should take away sins. [/color][/size]

[size=1][color=black]Heb 10:5[/color][color=black] Therefore when he comes into the world, he says, "Sacrifice and offering you didn't desire, but you prepared a body for me; [/color][/size]

[size=1][color=black]Heb 10:6[/color][color=black] You had no pleasure in whole burnt offerings and sacrifices for sin. [/color][/size]

[size=1][color=black]Heb 10:7[/color][color=black] Then I said, 'Behold, I have come (in the scroll of the book it is written of me) to do your will, O God.'" [/color][/size]

[size=1][color=black]Heb 10:8[/color][color=black] Previously saying, "Sacrifices and offerings and whole burnt offerings and sacrifices for sin you didn't desire, neither had pleasure in them" (those which are offered according to the Torah), [/color][/size]

[size=1][color=black]Heb 10:9[/color][color=black] then he has said, "Behold, I have come to do your will." He takes away the first, that he may establish the second, [/color][/size]

[size=1][color=black]Heb 10:10[/color][color=black] by which will we have been sanctified through the offering of the body of Yeshua the Messiah once for all. [/color][/size]

[size=1][color=black]Heb 10:11[/color][color=black] Every Kohen indeed stands day by day serving and often offering the same sacrifices, which can never take away sins, [/color][/size]

[size=1][color=black]Heb 10:12[/color][color=black] but he, when he had offered one sacrifice for sins forever, sat down on the right hand of God; [/color][/size]

[size=1]The temple will be restored, the Torah is not done away with, but is a shadow for the good things that were done, and in those sacrifices, there is a yearly reminder of sins. [/size]

[size=1]Remember, there is no Temple right now, so no animal sacrifices. But there are still the Festivals of the Lord, which are shadows of good thing that were done and yet to come, they are a reminder of sins and what Jesus did for us.[/size]

[size=1]The 10 Commandments are just indexes to the rest of the Commandments.[/size]

[size=1]It was the translators of the Bible that inserted that title, keep on reading.[/size]

[size=1]You notice the narrative stops because people became afraid. (and who wouldn't) and then read on.[/size]

[size=1]The Noahide laws were decided upon for the gentiles coming into the faith of Yeshua to ease them in to following the Torah, as instructed and Guided by Yeshua God the Father The Son The Holy Ghost.[/size]

[size=1]I believe God says what he means. [/size]

[size=1]He does not change.[/size]

[size=1]By the way, did the church (mistranslation again) start in Acts? or in the Wilderness? [/size]

[size=3][color=#008080][size=1]Act 7:38[/size][/color][/size][size=1] This is he who was in the assembly in the wilderness with the angel that spoke to him on Mount Sinai, and with our fathers, who received living oracles to give to us, [/size]

[color=#008080][size=1]Act 7:39[/size][/color][size=3][size=1] to whom our fathers wouldn't be obedient, but rejected him, and turned back in their hearts to Egypt,[/size] [/size]

[size=3][size=1]Is easter not based on egyptian god? It certainly is.[/size] [/size]

[size=3][size=1]History repeats.[/size]

[/size]

[size=1]We are the called out ones, like Abraham. For us to get out of our forefathers relgion, traditions, kin. Like Joseph to remove our EGYPTIAN clothes so our brothers can see us.[/size]

[size=1]After all this, can you define for me now what are the commands as in Rev 14:12[/size]

[size=1]Here I am after 3500 years and I was given the knowledge of the Torah and the Messiah. So do many others, Jew and gentiles alike. [/size]

[size=1]Paul writes:

[size=3][color=#008080][size=1][color=black]1Co 10:1[/color][/size][/color][/size][size=1][color=black] Now I would not have you ignorant, brothers, that our fathers were all under the cloud, and all passed through the sea; [/color][/size]

[color=black][size=1]1Co 10:2[/size][size=1] and were all immersed into Moshe in the cloud and in the sea; [/size][/color]

[color=black][size=1]1Co 10:3[/size][size=1] and all ate the same spiritual food; [/size][/color]

[color=black][size=1]1Co 10:4[/size][size=1] and all drank the same spiritual drink. For they drank of a spiritual rock that followed them, and the rock was Messiah. [/size][/color]

[size=1][color=black]As you can see they had the Torah and the Messiah. Were they not given the Torah at Mt. Sinai? Did they not know the Messiah? YES[/color][/size]

[/size]

[size=1]This is a Jewish book, Jesus is a JEW Heb 7:14[/size]

[size=3][color=#008080][font=Arial][size=1]Heb 7:14[/size][/font][/color][/size][font=Arial][size=1] For it is evident that our Lord has sprung out of Yehudah, about which tribe Moshe spoke nothing concerning priesthood. [/size][/font]

[color=#008080][font=Arial][size=1]Heb 7:15[/size][/font][/color][font=Arial][size=1] This is yet more abundantly evident, if after the likeness of Malki-Tzedek there arises another Kohen, [/size][/font]

[color=#008080][font=Arial][size=1]Heb 7:16[/size][/font][/color][font=Arial][size=1] who has been made, not after the Torah of a fleshly mitzvah, but after the power of an endless life: [/size][/font]

[color=#008080][font=Arial][size=1]Heb 7:17[/size][/font][/color][font=Arial][size=1] for it is testified, "You are a Kohen forever, according to the order of Malki-Tzedek." [/size][/font]

[color=#008080][font=Arial][size=1]Heb 7:18[/size][/font][/color][font=Arial][size=1] For there is an annulling of a foregoing mitzvah because of its weakness and uselessness [/size][/font]

[color=#008080][font=Arial][size=1]Heb 7:19[/size][/font][/color][font=Arial][size=1] (for the Torah made nothing perfect), and a bringing in of a better hope, through which we draw near to God. [/size][/font]

[size=1][font=Arial]It is written: God himself will put his Spirit in us and we will keep the Torah[/font][/size] [size=1][font=Arial] [/font][size=3][color=#008080][font=Arial][size=1][color=black]Eze 36:26[/color][/size][/font][/color][/size][font=Arial][size=1][color=black] A new heart also will I give you, and a new spirit will I put within you; and I will take away the stony heart out of your flesh, and I will give you a heart of flesh. [/color][/size][/font] [size=1][font=Arial][color=black]Eze 36:27[/color][/font][font=Arial][color=black] I will put my Spirit within you, and cause you to [color=red]walk in my statutes, and you shall keep my ordinances, and do them. [/color][/color][/font][/size]

[/size]and again

[size=3][color=#008080][size=1][color=black]Jer 31:31[/color][/size][/color][/size][size=1][color=black] Behold, the days come, says the LORD, that I will make a new covenant with the house of Yisra'el, and with the house of Yehudah: [/color][/size]

[size=1][color=black]Jer 31:32[/color][color=black] not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day that I took them by the hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt; which my covenant they broke, although I was a husband to them, says the LORD. [/color][/size]

[size=1][color=black]Jer 31:33[/color][color=black] But this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Yisra'el after those days, says the LORD: I will put my law in their inward parts, and in their heart will I write it; and I will be their God, and they shall be my people: [/color][/size]

[size=1][color=black]Jer 31:34[/color][color=black] and they shall teach no more every man his neighbor, and every man his brother, saying, Know the LORD; for they shall all know me, from the least of them to the greatest of them, says the LORD: for I will forgive their iniquity, and their sin will I remember no more. [/color][/size]

[size=1][color=black]Jer 31:35[/color][color=black] Thus says the LORD, who gives the sun for a light by day, and the ordinances of the moon and of the stars for a light by night, who stirs up the sea, so that the waves of it roar; the LORD of Armies is his name: [/color][/size]

[size=1][color=black]Jer 31:36[/color][color=black] If these [color=darkred][color=red]ordinances depart from before me[/color], [/color]says the LORD, then the seed of Yisra'el also shall cease from being a nation before me forever. [/color][/size]

[size=1]And again:[/size]

[size=3][color=#008080][size=1][color=black]Eze 22:26[/color][/size][/color][/size][color=black][size=1] Her Kohanim have done violence to my law, and have profaned my holy things: they have made no distinction between the holy and the common, neither have they caused men to discern between the unclean and the clean, and have hid their eyes from my Shabbatot, and I am profaned among them.[/size][/color]

[color=black][size=3][size=1]and again[/size][/size][/color] [color=black][size=3][size=1][/size][/size][/color] [color=black][size=3][size=3][color=#008080][size=1][color=red]Eze 44:23[/color][/size][/color][/size][size=1][color=red] They shall teach my people the difference between the holy and the common, and cause them to discern between the unclean and the clean.[/color][/size]

[size=1]God Does Not Change.[/size]

[size=1]And again:[/size]

[size=1]

[size=3][color=#008080][size=1][color=black]Exo 19:5[/color][/size][/color][/size][size=1][color=black] Now therefore, if you will indeed obey my voice, and keep my covenant, then you shall be my own possession from among all peoples; for all the earth is mine; [/color][/size]

[color=black][size=1]Exo 19:6[/size][size=1] and you shall be to me a kingdom of Kohanim, and a holy nation.' These are the words which you shall speak to the children of Yisra'el."[/size][/color]

[/size][size=1]And you would hate Jewish People? You don't believe the word of God.[/size]

[size=1][size=3][color=#008080][font=Arial][size=1][color=black]1Co 10:32[/color][/size][/font][/color][/size][font=Arial][size=1][color=black] Give no occasions for stumbling, either to Jews, or to Greeks, or to the assembly of God; [/color][/size][/font]

[font=Arial][size=1]Pray for the Jewish people, pray for the Peace of Jerusalem[/size] [/font][/size][size=3]

[/size][/size][/color]

[size=3] [/size]

[color=black][font=Arial] [/font][/color][QUOTE=Walter Yannis]Not so, he says in John 6 that we must eat His body and drink His blood. I'd call that cannibalism. At least a spiritual sort of endocannibalism.

Christ's resurrected body is not dead.

He commands us to eat His body and drink His blood.

Scripture says so.

See John 6.

I didn't understand that. What do you mean that life is in the blood?

Here's another question for you:

Did his listeners in John 6 take Christ literally when He said they had to eat His body and drink His blood?

No, my friend. They fled - and this couldn't be clearer - because they found Christ's insistence to eat His flesh - ahem! - unpalatable. They said "this is a hard saying" and they left.

Clearly they took Christ's words to eat His body and drink His blood (food INDEED, drink INDEED) quite literally indeed.

The disciples that left took it literally. The 12 took it literally.

So must we.

I don't know why you say that. We must keep the Ten Commandments, for example. That is the heart of the Torah.

That's all in the Scriptures, too. I really don't understand where you're coming from on this.

You may find this interesting:

[url="http://www.talmudunmasked.com/"]Talmud Unmasked[/url][/QUOTE]

Walter Yannis

2005-02-15 12:13 | User Profile

[URL=http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/08537a.htm]Judaizers[/URL] (From Greek Ioudaizo, to adopt Jewish customs -- Esth., viii, 17; Gal., ii, 14).

A party of Jewish Christians in the Early Church, who either held that circumcision and the observance of the Mosaic Law were necessary for salvation and in consequence wished to impose them on the Gentile converts, or who at least considered them as still obligatory on the Jewish Christians. Although the Apostles had received the command to announce the Gospel to all the nations, they and their associates addressed themselves at first only to Jews, converts to Judaism, and Samaritans, that is to those who were circumcised and observed the law of Moses. The converts, and the Apostles with them, continued to conform to Jewish customs: they observed the distinction between legally clean and unclean food, refused to eat with Gentiles or to enter their houses, etc. (Acts, x, 14, 28; xi, 3). At Jerusalem they frequented the Temple and took part in Jewish religious life as of old (Acts, ii, 46; iii, 1; xxi, 20-26), so that, judged from external appearances, they seemed to be merely a new Jewish sect distinguished by the union and charity existing among its members. The Mosaic ceremonial law was not to be permanent indeed, but the time had not yet come for abolishing its observance. The intense attachment which the Jews had for it, amounting to fanaticism in the case of the Pharisees, would have forbidden such a step, had the Apostles contemplated it, as it would have been tantamount to shutting the door of the Church to the Jews.

But sooner or later the Gospel was also to reach the Gentiles, and then the delicate question must immediately arise: What was their position with respect to the Law? Were they bound to observe it? And if not, what conduct should the Jews hold towards them? Should the Jews waive such points of the Law as were a barrier to free relations between Jew and Gentile? To the mind of most Palestinian Jews, and especially of the zealots, only two solutions would present themselves as possible. Either the Gentile converts must accept the Law, or its provisions must be enforced against them as against the other uncircumcised. But national sentiment, as well as love for the Law, would impel them to prefer the first. And yet neither solution was admissible, if the Church was to embrace all nations and not remain a national institution. The Gentiles would never have accepted circumcision with the heavy yoke of Mosaism, nor would they have consented to occupy an inferior position with regard to the Jews, as they necessarily must, if these regarded them as unclean and declined to eat with them or even to enter their houses. Under such conditions it was easy to foresee that the admission of the Gentiles must provoke a crisis, which would clear the situation. When the brethren at Jerusalem, among whom probably were already converts of the sect of the Pharisees, learned that Peter had admitted Cornelius and his household to baptism without subjecting them to circumcision, they loudly expostulated with him (Acts, xi, 1-3). The cause assigned for their complaints is that he "had gone in to men uncircumcised and had eaten with them", but the underlying reason was that he had dispensed with circumcision. However, as the case was an exceptional one, where the will of God was manifested be miraculous circumstances, Peter found little difficulty in quieting the dissatisfaction (Acts, xi, 4-18). But new conversions soon gave rise to far more serious trouble, which for a time threatened to produce a schism in the Church.

COUNCIL OF JERUSALEM (A.D. 50 OR 51)

The persecution that broke out at the time of St. Stephen's martyrdom providentially hastened the hour when the Gospel was to be preached also to the Gentiles. Some natives of Cyprus and Cyrene, driven from Jerusalem by the persecution, went to Antioch, and there began to preach not only to the Jews, but also to the Greeks. Their action was probably prompted by the example set by Peter at Caesarea, which their more liberal views as Hellenists would naturally dispose them to follow. With the help of Barnabas, whom the Apostles sent on hearing that a great number of Gentiles were converted to the Lord at Antioch, and of the former persecutor Saul, a flourishing church, largely Gentile, was established there (Acts, xi, 20 sqq.). Soon after (between A.D. 45-49) Saul, now called Paul, and Barnabas founded the South Galatian churches of Antioch in Pisidia, Iconium, Derbe, and Perge, thus increasing the Gentile converts (Acts, xiii, 13 -- xiv, 24). Seeing the Gentile element growing so large and threatening the outnumber the Jewish, the zealots of the Law took alarm. Both their national pride and their religious sentiment were shocked. They welcomed the accession of the Gentiles, but the Jewish complexion of the Church must be maintained, the Law and the Gospel must go hand in hand, and the new converts must be Jews as well as Christians. Some went down to Antioch and preached to the Gentile Christians that unless they received circumcision, which as a matter of course would carry with it the observance of the other Mosaic prescriptions, they could not be saved (Acts, xv, 1). As these men appealed to the authority of the Apostles in support of their views, a delegation, including Paul, Barnabas, and Titus, was sent to Jerusalem to lay the matter before the Apostles, that their decision might set at rest the disquieted minds of the Christians at Antioch (Acts, xv, 2).

In a private interview which Paul had with Peter, James (the brother of the Lord), and John, the Apostles then present at Jerusalem, they approved his teaching and recognized his special mission to the Gentiles (Gal., ii, 1-9). But to still the clamours of the converts from Pharisaism who demanded that the Gentile converts "must be circumcised and be commanded to observe the Law of Moses", the matter was discussed in a public meeting. Peter arose and after recalling how Cornelius and his household, though uncircumcised, had received the Holy Ghost as well as they themselves, declared that as salvation is by the grace of the Lord Jesus Christ, the yoke of the Law, which even the Jews found exceedingly heavy, should not be imposed on the Gentile converts. James after him voiced the same sentiment, but asked that the Gentiles should observe these four points, namely "that they refrain themselves from the pollutions of idols, and from fornication, and from things strangled, and from blood". His suggestion was adopted and, with slight change in the wording, incorporated in the decree which "the apostles and ancients, with the whole church" sent to the churches of Syria and Cilicia through two delegates, Judas and Silas, who were to accompany Paul and Barnabas on their return. "Forasmuch as we have heard," so ran the decree, "that some going out from us have troubled you with words, subverting your souls: to whom we gave no commandment;. . .it hath seemed good to the Holy Ghost and to us, to lay no further burden upon you than these necessary things: that you abstain from things sacrificed to idols, and from blood, and from things strangled, and from fornication [by which marriages within certain degrees of kindred are probably meant]; from which things keeping yourselves you shall do well" (Acts, xv, 5-29). These four prohibitions were imposed for the sake of charity and union. As they forbade practices which were held in special abhorrence by all the Jews, their observance was necessary to avoid shocking the Jewish brethren and to make free intercourse between the two classes of Christians possible. This is the drift of the somewhat obscure reason which St. James adduced in favour of his proposition: "For Moses of old time hath in every city them that preach him in the synagogues, where he is read every sabbath." The four things forbidden are severely prohibited in Lev., xvii, xviii, not only to the Israelites, but also to the Gentiles living among them. Hence the Jewish Christians, who heard these injunctions read in the synagogues, would be scandalized if they were not observed by their Gentile brethren. By the decree of the Apostles the cause of Christian liberty was won against the narrow Judaizers, and the way smoothed for the conversion of the nations. The victory was emphasized by St. Paul's refusal to allow Titus to be circumcised even as a pure concession to the extremists (Gal., ii, 2-5).

THE INCIDENT AT ANTIOCH

The decision of Jerusalem regarded the Gentiles alone, since the only question before the council was whether circumcision and the observance of the Mosaic Law were to be imposed on the Gentiles. Nothing was decided with regard to the observance of the Law by the Jews. Still even they were implicitly and in principle freed from its obligations. For, if the legal observances were not necessary for salvation, the Jew was no more bound by them than the Gentile. Nor was anything explicitly decided as to the relations which were to subsist between the Jews and the Gentiles. Such a decision was not demanded by the circumstances, since at Antioch the two classes lived together in harmony before the arrival of the mischief-makers. The Jews of the Dispersion were less particular than those of Palestine, and very likely some arrangement had been reached by which the Jewish Christians could without scruple eat with their Gentile brethren at the agape. However, the promulgation of the four prohibitions, which were intended to facilitate relations, implied that Jew and Gentile could freely meet. Hence when Peter came to Antioch shortly after the council, he, no less than Paul and Barnabas and the others, "did eat with the Gentiles" (Gal., ii, 12). But the absence of any explicit declaration gave the Judaizers an opportunity to begin a new agitation, which, if successful, would have rendered the decree of Jerusalem nugatory. Foiled in their first attempt, they now insisted that the law of not eating with the Gentiles be strictly observed by all Jews. They very likely expected to reach by indirect methods, what they could not obtain directly. Some zealots came from Jerusalem to Antioch. Nothing warrants the assertion that they were sent by St. James to oppose St. Paul, or to enforce the separation of the Jewish from the Gentile Christians, much less to promulgate a modification of the decree of Jerusalem. If they were sent by St. James -- pro tou elthein tinas apo Iakobou -- probably means simply that they were of James's entourage -- they came on some other commission.

On their arrival Peter, who up to this had eaten with the Gentiles, "withdrew and separated himself, fearing them who were of the circumcision", and by his example drew with him not only the other Jews, but even Barnabas, Paul's fellow-labourer. Foreseeing the consequences of such conduct, Paul publicly rebuked him, because he "walked not uprightly according to the truth of the Gospel". "If thou being a Jew," he said to him, "livest after the manner of the Gentiles, and not as the Jews do, how dost thou compel the Gentiles to live as do the Jews?" This incident has been made much of by Baur and his school as showing the existence of two primitive forms of Christianity, Petrinism and Paulinism, at war with each other. But anyone, who will look at the facts without preconceived theory, must see that between Peter and Paul there was no difference in principles, but merely a difference as to the practical conduct to be followed under the circumstances. "Conversationis fuit vitium non praedicationis", as Tertullian happily expresses it. That Peter's principles were the same as those of Paul, is shown by his conduct at the time of Cornelius's conversion, by the position he took at the council of Jerusalem, and by his manner of living prior to the arrival of the Judaizers. Paul, on the other hand, not only did not object to the observance of the Mosaic Law, as long as it did not interfere with the liberty of the Gentiles, but he conformed to its prescriptions when occasion required (I Cor., ix, 20). Thus he shortly after circumcised Timothy (Acts, xvi, 1-3), and he was in the very act of observing the Mosaic ritual when he was arrested at Jerusalem (Acts, xxi, 26 sqq.). The difference between them was that Peter, recently come from Jerusalem, thought only of not wounding the susceptibility of the zealots there, and was thus betrayed into a course of action apparently at variance with his own teaching and calculated to promote the designs the Judaizers; whereas Paul, not preoccupied with such a consideration and with more experience among the Gentiles, took a broader and truer view of the matter. He saw that Peter's example would promote the movement to avoid close relations with the Gentiles, which was only an indirect way of forcing Jewish customs upon them. He saw, too, that if such a policy were pursued, the hope of converting the Gentiles must be abandoned. Hence his bold and energetic action. St. Paul's account of the incident leaves no doubt that St. Peter saw the justice of the rebuke. (In the above account Gal., ii, 1-10, is with the large majority of commentators taken to refer to the Council of Jerusalem, and the incident at Antioch is consequently placed after the council. Some few interpreters, however, refer Gal., ii, 1-10, to the time of St. Paul's journey mentioned in Acts, xi,28-30 [A.D. 44], and place the dispute at Antioch before the council.)

THE JUDAIZERS IN OTHER CHURCHES

After the foregoing events the Judaizers could do little mischief in Syria. But they could carry their agitation to the distant churches founded by St. Paul, where the facts were less well known; and this they attempted to do. The two Epistles to the Corinthians give good reason to believe that they were at work at Corinth. The party or rather faction of Cephas (I Cor., i, 12) very probably consisted of Judaizers. They do not seem, however, to have gone beyond belittling St. Paul's authority and person, and sowing distrust towards him (cf. I Cor., ix, 1-5; II Cor., xi, 5-12; xii, 11-12; i, 17-20; x, 10-13). For while he has much to say in his own defence, he does not attack the views of the Judaizers, as he would certainly have done had they been openly preached. His two letters and his subsequent visit to Corinth put an end to the party's machinations. In the meantime (supposing Gal. To have been written soon after I and II Cor., as it very probably was) Judaizing emissaries had penetrated into the Galatian churches, whether North or South Galatian matters little here (see GALATIANS, EPISTLE TO THE), and by their skillful maneuvers had almost succeeded in persuading the Galatians, or at any rate many of them, into accepting circumcision. As at Corinth they attacked St. Paul's authority and person. He was only a secondary Apostle, subordinate to the Twelve, from whom he had received his instruction in the Faith and from whom he held his mission. To his teaching they opposed the practice and teaching of the pillars of the Church, of those who had conversed with the Lord (Gal., ii, 2 sqq.). He was a time-server, changing his teaching and conduct according to circumstances with the view of ingratiating himself with men (Gal., i, 10; v, 11). They argued that circumcision had been instituted as a sign of an eternal alliance between God and Israel: if the Galatians then wished to have a share in this alliance, with its blessings, if they wished to be in the full sense of the term Christians, they must accept circumcision (Gal., iii, 3 sq.; v, 2). They did not however insist, it would seem, in the observance of the whole Law (v, 3).

On hearing the news of the threatened defection of the churches which he had founded at such cost to himself, St. Paul hastily indited the vigorous Epistle to the Galatians, in which he meets the accusations and arguments of his opponents step by step, and uses all his powers of persuasion to induce his neophytes to stand fast and not to be held again under the yoke of bondage. The letter, as far as we know, produced the desired effect. In spite of its resemblance to the Epistle to the Galatians, the Epistle to the Romans is not, as has been asserted, a polemical writing directed against the Judaizing party at Rome. The whole tone of the Epistle shows this (cf. in particular i, 5-8, 11-12; xv, 14; xvi, 19). If he refers to the Jewish Christians of Rome, it is only to exhort the Gentiles to bear with these weak brethren and to avoid whatever might scandalize them (xiv, 1-23). He would not have shown such forbearance towards the Judaizers, nor spoken of them in such gentle tones. His purpose in treating of the uselessness of circumcision and legal observances was to forewarn and forearm the Romans against the Judaizing disturbers, should they reach the capital, as he had reason to fear (Rom., xvi, 17-18). After their attempt in Galatia, St. Paul's opponents seem to have relaxed their activity, for in his later letters he rarely alludes to them. In the Epistle to the Philippians he warns against them in very severe terms: "Beware of dogs, beware of evil-workers, beware of the concision" (Phil., iii, 2). They do not seem, however, to have been active in that church at the time. Beyond this only two allusions are found -- one in I Tim., i, 6-7: "From which things some going astray, are turned aside unto vain babbling: desiring to be teachers of the law, understanding neither the things they say, nor whereof they affirm"; the other in Tit., iii, 9: "Avoid foolish questions, and genealogies, and contentions, and strivings about the law. For they are unprofitable things and vain."

FINAL HISTORY

With the disappearance of the Jewish-Christian community of Jerusalem at the time of the rebellion (A.D. 67-70), the question about circumcision and the observance of the Law ceased to be of any importance in the Church, and soon became a dead issue. At the beginning of the second century St. Ignatius of Antioch, it is true, still warns against Judaizers (Magnes., x, 3; viii, 1; Philad., vi, 1), but the danger was probably more a memory than a reality. During the rebellion the mass of the Jewish Christians of Palestine retired beyond the Jordan, where they gradually lost touch with the Gentiles and in the course of time split up into several sects. St. Justin (about 140) distinguishes two kinds of Jewish Christians: those who observe the Law of Moses, but do not require its observance of others -- with these he would hold communion, though in this all his contemporaries did not agree with him -- and those who believe the Mosaic Law to be obligatory on all, whom he considers heretics (Dial. Cum Tryph., 47). If Justin is describing the Jewish Christians of his day, as he appears to do, they had changed little since Apostolic times. The accounts of later Fathers show them divided into three main sects: (a) the Nazarenes, who, while observing the Mosaic Law, seem to have been orthodox. They admitted the Divinity of Christ and the virginal birth; (b) the Ebionites, who denied the Divinity of Christ and virginal birth, and considered St. Paul as an apostate. It should be noted, however, that though the Fathers restrict the name Ebionite to the heretical Jewish Christians, the name was common to all; (c) an offshoot of the last infected with Gnosticism (cf. art. EBIONITES). After the middle of the fifth century the Jewish Christians disappear from history.

Walter Yannis

2005-02-15 12:30 | User Profile

[URL=http://]Summa Theologica[/URL]

Whether the body of Christ be in this sacrament in very truth, or merely as in a figure or sign? Objection 1. It seems that the body of Christ is not in this sacrament in very truth, but only as in a figure, or sign. For it is written (John 6:54) that when our Lord had uttered these words: "Except you eat the flesh of the Son of Man, and drink His blood," etc., "Many of His disciples on hearing it said: 'this is a hard saying'": to whom He rejoined: "It is the spirit that quickeneth; the flesh profiteth nothing": as if He were to say, according to Augustine's exposition on Ps. 4 [On Ps. 98:9]: "Give a spiritual meaning to what I have said. You are not to eat this body which you see, nor to drink the blood which they who crucify Me are to spill. It is a mystery that I put before you: in its spiritual sense it will quicken you; but the flesh profiteth nothing."

Objection 2. Further, our Lord said (Mt. 28:20): "Behold I am with you all days even to the consummation of the world." Now in explaining this, Augustine makes this observation (Tract. xxx in Joan.): "The Lord is on high until the world be ended; nevertheless the truth of the Lord is here with us; for the body, in which He rose again, must be in one place; but His truth is spread abroad everywhere." Therefore, the body of Christ is not in this sacrament in very truth, but only as in a sign.

Objection 3. Further, no body can be in several places at the one time. For this does not even belong to an angel; since for the same reason it could be everywhere. But Christ's is a true body, and it is in heaven. Consequently, it seems that it is not in very truth in the sacrament of the altar, but only as in a sign.

Objection 4. Further, the Church's sacraments are ordained for the profit of the faithful. But according to Gregory in a certain Homily (xxviii in Evang.), the ruler is rebuked "for demanding Christ's bodily presence." Moreover the apostles were prevented from receiving the Holy Ghost because they were attached to His bodily presence, as Augustine says on John 16:7: "Except I go, the Paraclete will not come to you" (Tract. xciv in Joan.). Therefore Christ is not in the sacrament of the altar according to His bodily presence.

On the contrary, Hilary says (De Trin. viii): "There is no room for doubt regarding the truth of Christ's body and blood; for now by our Lord's own declaring and by our faith His flesh is truly food, and His blood is truly drink." And Ambrose says (De Sacram. vi): "As the Lord Jesus Christ is God's true Son so is it Christ's true flesh which we take, and His true blood which we drink."

I answer that, The presence of Christ's true body and blood in this sacrament cannot be detected by sense, nor understanding, but by faith alone, which rests upon Divine authority. Hence, on Lk. 22:19: "This is My body which shall be delivered up for you," Cyril says: "Doubt not whether this be true; but take rather the Saviour's words with faith; for since He is the Truth, He lieth not."

Now this is suitable, first for the perfection of the New Law. For, the sacrifices of the Old Law contained only in figure that true sacrifice of Christ's Passion, according to Heb. 10:1: "For the law having a shadow of the good things to come, not the very image of the things." And therefore it was necessary that the sacrifice of the New Law instituted by Christ should have something more, namely, that it should contain Christ Himself crucified, not merely in signification or figure, but also in very truth. And therefore this sacrament which contains Christ Himself, as Dionysius says (Eccl. Hier. iii), is perfective of all the other sacraments, in which Christ's virtue is participated.

Secondly, this belongs to Christ's love, out of which for our salvation He assumed a true body of our nature. And because it is the special feature of friendship to live together with friends, as the Philosopher says (Ethic. ix), He promises us His bodily presence as a reward, saying (Mt. 24:28): "Where the body is, there shall the eagles be gathered together." Yet meanwhile in our pilgrimage He does not deprive us of His bodily presence; but unites us with Himself in this sacrament through the truth of His body and blood. Hence (John 6:57) he says: "He that eateth My flesh, and drinketh My blood, abideth in Me, and I in him." Hence this sacrament is the sign of supreme charity, and the uplifter of our hope, from such familiar union of Christ with us.

Thirdly, it belongs to the perfection of faith, which concerns His humanity just as it does His Godhead, according to John 14:1: "You believe in God, believe also in Me." And since faith is of things unseen, as Christ shows us His Godhead invisibly, so also in this sacrament He shows us His flesh in an invisible manner.

Some men accordingly, not paying heed to these things, have contended that Christ's body and blood are not in this sacrament except as in a sign, a thing to be rejected as heretical, since it is contrary to Christ's words. Hence Berengarius, who had been the first deviser of this heresy, was afterwards forced to withdraw his error, and to acknowledge the truth of the faith.

Reply to Objection 1. From this authority the aforesaid heretics have taken occasion to err from evilly understanding Augustine's words. For when Augustine says: "You are not to eat this body which you see," he means not to exclude the truth of Christ's body, but that it was not to be eaten in this species in which it was seen by them. And by the words: "It is a mystery that I put before you; in its spiritual sense it will quicken you," he intends not that the body of Christ is in this sacrament merely according to mystical signification, but "spiritually," that is, invisibly, and by the power of the spirit. Hence (Tract. xxvii), expounding John 6:64: "the flesh profiteth nothing," he says: "Yea, but as they understood it, for they understood that the flesh was to be eaten as it is divided piecemeal in a dead body, or as sold in the shambles, not as it is quickened by the spirit . . . Let the spirit draw nigh to the flesh . . . then the flesh profiteth very much: for if the flesh profiteth nothing, the Word had not been made flesh, that It might dwell among us."

Reply to Objection 2. That saying of Augustine and all others like it are to be understood of Christ's body as it is beheld in its proper species; according as our Lord Himself says (Mt. 26:11): "But Me you have not always." Nevertheless He is invisibly under the species of this sacrament, wherever this sacrament is performed.

Reply to Objection 3. Christ's body is not in this sacrament in the same way as a body is in a place, which by its dimensions is commensurate with the place; but in a special manner which is proper to this sacrament. Hence we say that Christ's body is upon many altars, not as in different places, but "sacramentally": and thereby we do not understand that Christ is there only as in a sign, although a sacrament is a kind of sign; but that Christ's body is here after a fashion proper to this sacrament, as stated above.

Reply to Objection 4. This argument holds good of Christ's bodily presence, as He is present after the manner of a body, that is, as it is in its visible appearance, but not as it is spiritually, that is, invisibly, after the manner and by the virtue of the spirit. Hence Augustine (Tract. xxvii in Joan.) says: "If thou hast understood" Christ's words spiritually concerning His flesh, "they are spirit and life to thee; if thou hast understood them carnally, they are also spirit and life, but not to thee."

Texas Dissident

2005-02-15 15:24 | User Profile

[QUOTE=SCRIPTURESEZ]Blood, Sabbaths, Gods Laws remain in effect for all.[/QUOTE]

I might reply to some of your heresy, Scripturesez, but I find it impossible to read your text. Why don't you just make plain your case in normal text?

vytis

2005-02-15 15:48 | User Profile

Walter Yannis....For whatever it's worth I am very proud of you! :thumbsup:

'The Armour of God begins with Truth'

Ponce

2005-02-15 17:05 | User Profile

What is all holy molly talk leadig to ?

And like a book I would love to see.

                     [SIZE=4]The End [/SIZE]

MadScienceType

2005-02-15 17:44 | User Profile

Would it be okay to take/move the dueling to the proper forum? I'm not blasting the content, but rather the way it makes the thread hard to read, especially with SCRIPTURESEZ's weird formatting to beat the band.

Texas Dissident

2005-02-15 18:04 | User Profile

[QUOTE=MadScienceType]Would it be okay to take/move the dueling to the proper forum? I'm not blasting the content, but rather the way it makes the thread hard to read, especially with SCRIPTURESEZ's weird formatting to beat the band.[/QUOTE]

I just found a good article to centralize this discussion a bit. I'll post it shortly in the Christendom forum.

SCRIPTURESEZ

2005-02-15 22:24 | User Profile

[font=Book Antiqua][size=3][color=black]The Law The Torah is not done away with.[/color] [/size][/font]

[color=black][font=Book Antiqua][size=3]Yeshua Jesus is the Torah , The Law, The word made flesh. John 1:1[/size][/font][/color]

[font=Book Antiqua][size=3]Correct?[/size][/font]

[font=Book Antiqua][size=3][/size][/font]

[font=Book Antiqua][size=3]God does not change, correct? Is there something wrong with the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob?[/size][/font]

[font=Book Antiqua][size=3] [/size][/font]

[color=black][font=Book Antiqua][size=3]If you are saying that Yeshua/Jesus has done away with the Law, you are saying there is something wrong with the Lawgiver, that the first covenenat was not good enough.<?xml:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" />[/size][/font][/color]

[font=Book Antiqua][size=3][/size][/font][font=Book Antiqua][size=3][/size][/font]

[font=Book Antiqua][size=3] [/size][/font]

[color=black][font=Book Antiqua][size=3]But scriptures do not bear out this teaching at all but the scripture says:[/size][/font][/color]

[font=Book Antiqua][size=3][/size][/font][font=Book Antiqua][size=3][/size][/font]

[font=Book Antiqua][size=3] ^{[color=#333366]Hebrews 8:8[/color]}[/size][/font] [font=Book Antiqua][size=3][color=#333366]But God found fault with the people and said^{[[url="http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/#fen-NIV-30085a"][color=#0000ff]a[/color][/url]]}: Ã¢â¬ÅThe time is coming, declares the Lord, when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah[/color] [/size][/font] [font=Book Antiqua][size=3][/size][/font]

[color=#333366][font=Book Antiqua][size=3]And it is written:[/size][/font][/color]

[font=Book Antiqua][size=3][/size][/font][font=Book Antiqua][size=3][/size][/font]

[font=Book Antiqua][size=3] [color=black]Eze 36:26 A new heart also will I give you, and a new spirit will I put within you; and I will take away the stony heart out of your flesh, and I will give you a heart of flesh. [/color][/size][/font][color=black]

[/color][font=Book Antiqua][size=3][color=black]Eze 36:27 I will put my Spirit within you, and cause you to [/color][color=red]walk in my statutes, and you shall keep my ordinances, and do them.[/color][/size][/font]

[font=Book Antiqua][size=3][/size][/font][font=Book Antiqua][size=3][/size][/font]

[font=Book Antiqua][size=3] [/size][/font]

[color=black][font=Book Antiqua][size=3]Yeshua is the spirit that will guide and make clear the law as it applies to you.[/size][/font][/color]

[font=Book Antiqua][size=3][/size][/font][font=Book Antiqua][size=3][color=black]You will listen to His voice and He will tell you.[/color][/size][/font]

Petr

2005-02-19 22:35 | User Profile

Walter, I'd like to inquire one thing from you:

You're a traditional Roman Catholic, right? Do you happen to celebrate the Mass in a pre-Vatican II manner where laymen are not allowed to drink the wine, the Blood of Christ?

If so, how do you square that with these clear words of the Gospel:

[COLOR=Blue][B]Matthew 26:27-28:

Then He took the cup, and gave thanks, and gave it to them, saying, "[U]Drink from it, all of you[/U]. For this is My blood of the new covenant, which is shed for many for the remission of sins. [/B] [/COLOR]

Petr

Walter Yannis

2005-02-20 08:32 | User Profile

[QUOTE=Petr]Walter, I'd like to inquire one thing from you:

You're a traditional Roman Catholic, right? Do you happen to celebrate the Mass in a pre-Vatican II manner where laymen are not allowed to drink the wine, the Blood of Christ?

If so, how do you square that with these clear words of the Gospel:

[COLOR=Blue][B]Matthew 26:27-28:

Petr[/QUOTE]

The Catholic Church has always taught that both the body and blood are present in both elements.

I probably didn't phrase that exactly, but that's basically the concept.

SCRIPTURESEZ

2005-02-20 14:25 | User Profile

Jesus Christ gave the Torah, The Law, on Mt. Sinai, and gave it to Moses.

How then can you say Jesus came to do away with the LAW? The Torah, the teaching and instruction of Himself as the Word made Flesh?

Walter Yannis

2005-02-20 14:54 | User Profile

[QUOTE=SCRIPTURESEZ]Jesus Christ gave the Torah, The Law, on Mt. Sinai, and gave it to Moses.

How then can you say Jesus came to do away with the LAW? The Torah, the teaching and instruction of Himself as the Word made Flesh?[/QUOTE]

I never said He came to do away with the law.

What are you talking about?

SCRIPTURESEZ

2005-02-20 15:05 | User Profile

Keeping the Feasts and Festivals of the Lord is part of the LAW.

The Torah.

The commands FOREVER.

Walter Yannis

2005-02-20 16:17 | User Profile

[QUOTE=SCRIPTURESEZ]Keeping the Feasts and Festivals of the Lord is part of the LAW.

The Torah.

The commands FOREVER.[/QUOTE]

Just as all of the Law and the Prophets were embodied in Christ (not abolished, but incorporated into Himself) so too the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass incorporates all of the old festivals and feasts without abolishing them.

Before Christ we didn't see Him in Whom all the Law and Prophets consisted. But now we do see Him, Who is the Law and the Prophets, and much, much more.

Christ, the Son of God, likewise revealed that the old feasts and festivals were foreshadows of new worship in the Sacrament of His Body.

You mistake INCORPORATION for ABOLITION.

The Passover exists, for example, as a sign and symbol of the Mass. It was fulfiled in the Mass. It was subsumed, not abolished.

Do you see my point, Sez?

SCRIPTURESEZ

2005-02-20 17:03 | User Profile

Passover is a Feast to you forever. There is no scripture to incorporate into your festival and then to hold it on the Wrong day as well.

If you know Jesus is the Law made flesh and written upon your hearts, why are you not Keeping the Feasts? Or the Sabbath?

Walter Yannis

2005-02-20 18:24 | User Profile

[QUOTE=SCRIPTURESEZ]Passover is a Feast to you forever. There is no scripture to incorporate into your festival and then to hold it on the Wrong day as well.

If you know Jesus is the Law made flesh and written upon your hearts, why are you not Keeping the Feasts? Or the Sabbath?[/QUOTE]

[QUOTE]John 2:19Jesus answered them, Ã¢â¬ÅDestroy this temple, and I will raise it again in three days.Ã¢â¬Â

20The Jews replied, Ã¢â¬ÅIt has taken fortysix years to build this temple, and you are going to raise it in three days?Ã¢â¬Â [B]21But the temple he had spoken of was his body.[/B] 22After he was raised from the dead, his disciples recalled what he had said. Then they believed the Scripture and the words that Jesus had spoken. [/QUOTE]

Worship of God was prescribed for the Temple. Jesus says that the old Temple - the old worship - will be destroyed, and that the new Temple - the new worship - will be of His Body.

Petr

2005-02-20 18:44 | User Profile

[COLOR=Indigo][I][B] - "The Catholic Church has always taught that both the body and blood are present in both elements."[/B][/I][/COLOR]

And taken liberties with a very clear Biblical commandment on how to celebrate the Eucharist by denying the cup from the laymen.

This was also not how the early church celebrated the Last Supper:

[B][COLOR=Blue][COLOR=Indigo]"And when the president has given thanks, and all the people have expressed their assent, those who are called by us deacons give to [U]each of those present to partake of the bread and wine [/U] [U]mixed with water [/U] over which the thanksgiving was pronounced, and to those who are absent they carry away a portion."[/COLOR][/COLOR][/B]

(THE FIRST APOLOGY OF JUSTIN MARTYR)

[url]http://www.ccel.org/fathers/ANF-01/just/justinapology1.html#Section66[/url]

So, you're a pre-Vatican II Catholic then?

Petr

Walter Yannis

2005-02-20 18:47 | User Profile

[QUOTE=Petr][COLOR=Indigo][I][B] - "The Catholic Church has always taught that both the body and blood are present in both elements."[/B][/I][/COLOR]

And taken liberties with a very clear Biblical commandment on how to celebrate the Eucharist by denying the cup from the laymen.

This was also not how the early church celebrated the Last Supper:

(THE FIRST APOLOGY OF JUSTIN MARTYR)

Petr[/QUOTE]

It's interesting that you resort to extra biblical sources for authority.

You're starting to sound like a Catholic, Petr.

I prefer the Latin Tridentine High Mass.

SCRIPTURESEZ

2005-02-20 18:52 | User Profile

[size=1]What has the destruction of the Second Temple to do with not celebrating Passover? With "incorporating" The Feasts of the Lord into a celebration made up by men, where we are told to dye easter eggs and celebrate it on the wrong day![/size] [size=1][/size] [size=1]Incorporating means blending in. You are telling me it is ok to blend in and disguise the Holy with the Pagan (easter) [/size] [size=1][/size] [size=1]Therefore, you are saying it is okay to do away with the command:[/size] [size=1][color=darkred]Num 9:2 "The Israelites are to observe the Passover at its appointed time.[/color] [/size] [size=1][color=#008080][color=darkred]Lev 23:5[/color][/color][color=darkred] The Passover[/color][color=darkred] to the LORD comes in the first month, at twilight on the fourteenth day of the month.[/color] [/size] [size=1] [size=1][color=black]And Again[/color][/size] [size=1][color=darkred]Malachi 4:4-6Mal 4:4 "Remember the Torah of Moshe my servant, which I commanded to him in Chorev for all Yisra'el, even statutes and ordinances.[/color] [/size] [size=1][/size] [size=1][color=black]And yet you turn to pastors and priests and teachers who go against the scriputre:[/color][/size] [size=1][color=darkred]Eze 44:23 They must teach My people the difference between the holy and the common, and explain to them the difference between the clean and the unclean. [/color][/size] [size=1][color=#8b0000][/color][/size] [size=1][color=black]Because your teachers don't know the difference.[/color][/size] [/size]

[size=1]act 20:29-31 [/size]

[color=#008080][size=1][color=darkred]Act 20:29[/color][/size][/color][size=1][color=darkred] I know that after my departure savage wolves will come in among you, not sparing the flock. [/color][/size]

[size=1][color=darkred]Act 20:30[/color][color=darkred] And men from among yourselves will rise up with deviant doctrines to lure the disciples into following them. [/color][/size]

[size=1][color=darkred]Act 20:31[/color][color=darkred] Therefore be on the alert, remembering that night and day for three years I did not stop warning each one of you with tears. [/color][/size] [size=1][color=#8b0000][/color][/size] [size=1][color=darkred]H[/color][color=darkred]eb 10:26[/color][color=darkred] For if we deliberately sin after receiving the knowledge of the truth, there no longer remains a sacrifice for sins, [/color][/size] [size=1][color=darkred]Heb 10:27[/color][color=darkred] but a terrifying expectation of judgment, and the fury of a fire about to consume the adversaries. [/color][/size] [size=1][color=#8b0000][/color][/size] [size=1][color=darkred]Heb 10:28[/color][color=darkred] If anyone disregards Moses' law, he dies without mercy, based on the testimony of two or three witnesses.

[/color][/size][size=1][color=darkred] [/color][/size][color=#8b0000][/color] [size=1][color=darkred][/color][/size] [size=3][/size] [size=3][/size] [size=3] [/size]

Walter Yannis

2005-02-20 19:03 | User Profile

Sez:

Scripture refers to Christ as the "Lamb of God" many, many times.

What does that mean to you?

It seems clear to me that Scripture is saying the Christ is literally the Passover Lamb. Just as the blood of the lamb in the OT saved the Israelites from death, so too does the blood of Jesus - the Lamb of God - save us.

The OT prefigured the things that were to come. The things of the OT that you seem so attached to are just shadows of the glorious realities revealed in Christ.

You're pouring new wine into old wineskins, Sez.

Petr

2005-02-20 19:05 | User Profile

[I][B] - "It's interesting that you resort to extra biblical sources for authority."[/B][/I]

And yet I always keep in mind that they are secondary, inferior sources compared to the Bible.

Church fathers like Ignatius and Polycarp agreed that their doctrinal authority was nothing like that of original apostles:

[COLOR=Blue][B]"I do not enjoin you, as Peter and Paul did. They were Apostles, I am a convict; they were free, but I am a slave to this very hour."[/B][/COLOR]

(Ignatius' Epistle to Romans, 4:3)

[url]http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/text/ignatius-romans-lightfoot.html[/url]

[COLOR=Navy][B]These things, brethren, I write unto you concerning righteousness, [U]not because I laid this charge upon myself[/U], but because ye invited me. [U]For neither am I, nor is any other like unto me, able to follow the wisdom of the blessed and glorious Paul[/U], who when he came among you taught face to face with the men of that day the word which concerneth truth carefully and surely; [/B] [/COLOR]

(Letter of Polycarp, chapter 3)

[url]http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/text/polycarp-lightfoot.html[/url]

I'm happen to be for "[B]sola[/B] scriptura", not for "[B]solo[/B] scriptura".

That difference is ably discussed in here:

[SIZE=4]Sola Scriptura Extremis[/SIZE]

[SIZE=3][B][I]How an Important Doctrine is Misunderstood and Abused[/I][/B][/SIZE]

[url]http://www.tektonics.org/qt/solex.html[/url]

Petr

Walter Yannis

2005-02-20 19:11 | User Profile

[QUOTE=Petr][I][B] - "It's interesting that you resort to extra biblical sources for authority."[/B][/I]

And yet I always keep in mind that they are secondary, inferior sources compared to the Bible.

Petr[/QUOTE]

Fair enough. Doctrine is Scriptural interpretation, but in interpreting the Scriptures we must look to the dueteronomic literature of the early Church. While there will always be disagreements among us, so long as we keep close to the Church Fathers in however we construe the Scriptures, then there is little for us to disagree about.

Certainly we won't wander as far from the Truth as has brother (or is it sister?) Sez.

SCRIPTURESEZ

2005-02-20 20:10 | User Profile

You do not believe the commands of Jesus and so you will not longer keep them.

You beleive the teachings of the early chruch fathers, and you are removing Jesus from the face of the earth and the memory of men, becuase you are disguising Him in festivals based on paganism.

You don't know what is clean and unclean because you have no faith in the Word or the Voice of Jesus neither do your priests or your pastors. God does not change.

Jesus is the Passover Lamb. Who told you to celebrate it differently?

But you call him an easter egg. On the wrong day as well.

You are in grave error.

Petr

2005-02-21 01:02 | User Profile

[COLOR=Navy][I][B] - "But you call him an easter egg. On the wrong day as well."[/B][/I][/COLOR]

I'm starting to get annoyed with these strawman accusations of yours - I don't happen to paint any easter eggs.

Tell me, to what religious sect were you born into? I don't think you were born as this kind of Judaizer you are now.

Petr

SCRIPTURESEZ

2005-02-21 01:09 | User Profile

No accusations whatsoever, statement of fact. Dyeing easter eggs, easter egg hunts all are a part of Easter, no?

[size=1][font=Arial][color=#008080]Joh 15:10[/color] [color=#ff0000]If you keep My commands you will remain in My love, just as I have kept My Father's commands and remain in His love.[/color][/font][/size] [size=1][font=Arial][color=#ff0000][/color][/font][/size] [size=1][font=Arial][color=#ff0000][color=black]There are no commands to keep easter.[/color] [/color][/font][/size]

Robert

2005-02-21 01:16 | User Profile

Petr, I agree with your assessment of Scriptursez. He's obviously some sort of Jew or Judaizer pretending to be a Christian. I've seen a few websites here and there by individuals pushing his sort of doctrines.

SCRIPTURESEZ

2005-02-21 01:19 | User Profile

What scripture do you base that on?

Robert

2005-02-21 01:28 | User Profile

Scripturesez, read the book of Galatians.

SCRIPTURESEZ

2005-02-21 01:32 | User Profile

Where is it in Galatians not to keep the Fesitivals of the Lord? We are not commanded by Jesus to break the Sabbath and Sabbaths, but to keep it.

Where are you saying in Galatians Paul is telling you to get involved with easter?

Robert

2005-02-21 01:41 | User Profile

Scripturesez, you just don't get it. Several of us have explained it to you, but you keep coming up with these nonsense arguments.

SCRIPTURESEZ

2005-02-21 01:52 | User Profile

You have no scriptural proof whatsoever, you are still saying that Jesus did away with the commands to keep the Feasts and Festivals. You listen to men and do not read the Scriptures.

Jesus is the Law made flesh it has been written on your hearts and you are to ask Jesus how to keep it and read the Scriptures.

You can't explain what you don't know.

I am asking you to show me where in the book of Galatians Jesus commands you not to keep Passover but to keep another festival?

We are not under the law, but the law is in us.

That is we don't need to be saved by the works of the law but by belief in Jesus.

There is not scripture saying we don't need to keep all of Gods commands as they are forever, and that is because we will want to and know that it is for our benefit to do so. Cursing and Blessing are outlined

You insist to me to say that there is something wrong with the commands to keep the Festivals and the food laws and the Sabbath?

Here for instance, Paul says that if you become circumised just to get saved and get the blessing, it will not work, but you need to have faith like Abraham who then became circumcised. Do you see the difference?

Jesus gave us access to the Torah

Petr

2005-02-21 01:55 | User Profile

[I][B] - "Jesus gave us access to the Torah"[/B][/I]

NO! The Torah gave us access to Jesus!

Petr

SCRIPTURESEZ

2005-02-21 02:02 | User Profile

He died to give gentiles access to the Torah. The Torah has been written on hearts and minds.

Well then why do you not keep the commands as applied to you? Why do tell others that we don't need to keep the Sabbaths etc?

God does not change, but it appears you are tyring to change His Word, and not keep the commands.

Scripture says:

[size=3][color=#008080][size=1][color=black]Rev 12:17[/color][/size][/color][/size][color=black][size=1] And the dragon was wroth with the woman, and went to make war [color=black]with the remnant of her seed, which keep the commandments of God, and have the testimony of Jesus Christ.[/color] [/size][/color] [color=black][size=1][/size][/color] [color=black] [/color]

Walter Yannis

2005-02-21 06:24 | User Profile

[QUOTE=Robert]Petr, I agree with your assessment of Scriptursez. He's obviously some sort of Jew or Judaizer pretending to be a Christian. I've seen a few websites here and there by individuals pushing his sort of doctrines.[/QUOTE]

Maybe Sez = Raina? :shocking:

Petr

2005-02-21 10:41 | User Profile

[I][B] - "Maybe Sez = Raina?"[/B][/I]

If so, she is a truly skillful actor - I have seen her already imitating many worldly characters, but this would be the first time I'd see her as a believer - although a bit (ahem) "confused" one...

Petr

SCRIPTURESEZ

2005-02-21 14:09 | User Profile

I am like the Oringal Original Dissenter on this board. It seems like you haven't had anyone actually shake you up in quite awhile!

I have not seen any scriptural answer. I tell you if you cannot handle me, you cannot handle what is to come.

I say again, Jesus fulfilled the law, but not one jot or title passed away.

Not one Sabbath which is Saturday, not one Feast or Fesitival, be it Passover, or Hannukah, or Rosh Ha Shannah or Yom Kippur.

There is nothing whatsover in the Bible commanding you to get involved in Xmas, Easter, New Years, Valentines, April Fools, Halloween, etc.

But you are commanded to keep the Feasts of the Lord Forever.

This is the time of the Spirit of Elijah will make way for the Restoration of the House of David.

[size=3][color=#008080]

[size=3][color=#008080][font=Arial][size=1][color=black]Mal 4:4[/color][/size][/font][/color][/size][size=1][font=Arial][color=black] Remember ye the law of Moses my servant, which I commanded unto him in Horeb for all Israel, with[/color][color=black] the statutes and judgments. [/color][/font][/size]

[size=1][font=Arial][color=black]Mal 4:5[/color][color=black] Behold, I will send you Elijah the prophet before the coming of the great and dreadful day of the LORD: [/color][/font][/size]

[size=1][font=Arial][color=black]Mal 4:6[/color][color=black] And he shall turn the heart of the fathers to the children, and the heart of the children to their fathers, lest I come and smite the earth with a curse. [/color][/font][/size]

I wonder if you realize that the New Covenant writers did not have a copy of the New Covenant? The Scriptures they are speaking of is the Old Covenant, The Torah (Pentatuch) The Prophets and the Writings. Psalms. So the law they are referring to is the First 5 books of the Bible The Law as given to Moses. Therefore that is the Law that Jesus fulfilled but did not do away with. So when one looks at these writings, The Lord Jesus who is God will tell you how the apply to you.

And The Fathers of the children are Abraham, Isaac and Jacob.

[/color][/size][size=3][color=#008080][size=3][color=#008080][font=Arial][size=1][color=black]Mat 17:10[/color][/size][/font][/color][/size][font=Arial][size=1][color=black] So the disciples questioned Him, "Why then do the scribes say that Elijah must come first?" [/color][/size][/font][/color][/size] [size=3][color=#008080][font=Arial][size=1][color=black]Mat 17:11[/color][/size][/font][/color][/size][color=black][font=Arial][size=1] "Elijah is coming and will restore everything," He replied. [/size][/font][/color] [size=1][font=Arial][color=black]Mat 17:12[/color][color=black] "But I tell you: Elijah has already come, and they didn't recognize him. On the contrary, they did whatever they pleased to him. In the same way the Son of Man is going to suffer at their hands."

[/color][/font][/size][font=Arial][/font]