Is it ever right for Christians to take one another to court? What is the meaning of “word of wisdom” and “word of knowledge” in the New Testament? Is the church using modern explanations for homosexuality rather than biblical ones? Listen live here 2-4 pm EST, and call into the show at (866) 348 7884 with your questions and comments.
Hour 1:
Dr. Brown’s Bottom Line: There is turmoil around us. There is moral insanity around us, which means be sober, be vigilant, and keep your eyes fixed on the Lord.
Hour 2:
Dr. Brown’s Bottom Line: Righteousness shines! Righteousness cannot be defeated, and truth will never be overcome!
SPECIAL OFFER! THIS WEEK ONLY!
This week, we’re offering two important resources from Dr. Brown, his brand new book, Can You Be Gay and Christian?, and his DVD debate with gay activist (and professing born-again Christian) Harry Knox. You can get both of these key resources for the super low price of just $25! Postage Paid! That’s a $15 savings!
Order Online!
Other Resources:
rockypath1,
You wrote:
“Paul, the didache, Ignatius, Justyn martyr and all the many others should be enough.”
Paul does not teach real presence, as I have demonstrated. The didache does not teach it. Ignatius wrote in the second century and it is in doubt what he teaches about it. Justyn Martyr is late second century.
Some reading our dialogue would probably like to read this:
http://onefold.wordpress.com/early-church-evidence-refutes-real-presence/
Shalom
It is suggested that anyone reading the Bo-rockypath dialogue might want to review ALL the information presented above rather than resorting to the misleading (shoddy) pseudo-scholarship of the onefold website (shoddiness explained above).
😉
It is suggested that anyone that reads the dialogue above remember that rockypath1 does not want to admit that the real presence doctrine does not show up till at least 2 generations after the apostles and that it is based upon the writings and traditions of men instead of the scripture.
Shalom
The Real Presence Eucharistic doctrine is fully explicated by Jesus in John 6 and edified by the undeniable reality that ALL the early Church was Real Presence Eucharistic.
John the apostle taught what Jesus taught straight to Ignatius of Antioch who said:
“They abstain from the Eucharist and from prayer, because they do not admit that the Eucharist is the flesh of our Savior Jesus Christ,..”
and
“Be not deceived, my brethren: If anyone follows a maker of schism [i.e., is a schismatic], he does not inherit the kingdom of God; if anyone walks in strange doctrine [i.e., is a heretic], he has no part in the passion [of Christ]. Take care, then, to use one Eucharist, so that whatever you do, you do according to God: For there is one flesh of our Lord Jesus Christ, and one cup in the union of his blood; one altar, as there is one bishop, with the presbytery and my fellow servants, the deacons” (Letter to the Philadelphians 3:3–4:1 [A.D. 110]).
http://www.catholic.com/blog/tim-staples/is-the-eucharist-truly-jesus-body-and-blood
http://www.catholic.com/tracts/christ-in-the-eucharist
FOR THOSE WHO PREFER AN AUDIO BROADCAST
http://www.catholic.com/speakers/talks/the-eucharist-god%E2%80%99s-extravagant-love-revealed
Eucharistic Miracles
http://www.catholic.com/magazine/articles/eucharistic-miracles-evidence-of-the-real-presence
::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
POST MORTEM
Too much scripture, history and early Church tradition proclaims Real Presence Eucharistic reality to allow it to be brushed aside. God will NOT give those of illwill an unending revelation because they already deny what is given. They want only to follow after their own gods and they will do so no matter how much they are given.
God hardens the hearts of those of illwill. Those who smear and disparage for their purposes will not listen to the Church and create their own reality.
Mat18:17-18
Jesus said, “If he refuses to listen to them, tell it to the church; & if he refuses to listen even to the church, let him be to you as a Gentile & a tax collector.
Blessings to all who, though not Real Presence Eucharistic, still behave with charity and goodwill and attempt good scholarship with integrity.
Renowned Protestant historian of the early Church J. N. D. Kelly, writes:
“Eucharistic teaching, it should be understood at the outset, was in general unquestioningly realist, i.e., the consecrated bread and wine were taken to be, and were treated and designated as, the Savior’s body and blood” (Early Christian Doctrines, 440).
Bo or J.N.D. Kelly (with the voice of entire early Apostolic Church)?
rockypath1,
Some may want to hear see this short video that reveals the blasphemy of the Catholic church in its real presence doctrine:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IWAmfRZwEJk
The issue is not history, but the teachings of scripture. Those things written after the scripture are to be judged by it and not scripture interpreted in a way to approve the traditions and doctrines of men. Whatever any church or church leader, 70 years removed from Messiah, did does not prove orthodoxy. The scripture judges their orthodoxy or not.
Shalom
The above link starts the video toward the end instead of at the beginning for some reason. To hear the whole message you will need to slide the progress bar marker back to the beginning.
Shalom
I heartily recommend Bo’s immediately previous cited YouTube video from Mike Gendron as a shameful and embarrassing example of fundamentalist bible-protestant mischief.
The mockery of the Eucharist (in the unconsecrated “wafer”) is specifically noted as a blemish on the character of Mike Gendron (and his giggling friend) and all fundamentalist bible-only protestants who join themselves to this trash.
Not only is it disrespectful, it is half-baked, quasi-pseudo scholarship. Only a little effort on discerning the history of the early Church will show this.
Protestants of goodwill will be embarrassed and some may even acknowledge the nature of this exhibition.
Peace.
rockypath1,
You are very good at insults…and bad historical deductions. There is no such thing as real presence in any writing within 100 years of Messiah’s death.
rockypath1 believes in the infallibility of and office…a mere man. I believe in the infallibility of YHWH’s word. That word explicitly denies real presence doctrine. Rockypath1 may continue to pile historical record upon historical record showing what the apostate Catholic Church always believed, but it will be piled on the foundation of paganism and traditions of men and not on the real foundation of Messiah and the apostle’s doctrine. Catholics of good will would do well to read for themselves and think for themselves and leave off on the talking points.
Luke 22
19 And he took bread, and gave thanks, and brake it, and gave unto them, saying, This is my body which is given for you: this do in remembrance of me.
20 Likewise also the cup after supper, saying, This cup is the new testament in my blood, which is shed for you.
Please note that this is to be done in remembrance of Messiah, and is thus symbolic in nature. If the “real presence” was indicated, it would not be in remembrance, but in actuality.
What was in the cup? Wine. No blood, but the new covenant in His blood. It was a covenant meal, not a lawful way to enjoy cannibalism and imbibe eternal life.
John 6
63 It is the spirit that quickeneth; the flesh profiteth nothing: the words that I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are life…
67 Then said Jesus unto the twelve, Will ye also go away?
68 Then Simon Peter answered him, Lord, to whom shall we go? thou hast the words of eternal life.
Messiah is not saying to remember Him by eating Him. He is saying to remember Him by eating unleavened bread and and drinking the cup of wine after the Passover dinner, which just happens to be called the cup of salvation/deliverance. A memorial is not the real thing. So let’s do what Messiah said and memorialize Him on the day in the way He said to, and not participate in some pagan magic incantation and cannibalistic mysticism.
Paul is a second witness.
1Co 11:23 For I have received of the Lord that which also I delivered unto you, That the Lord Jesus the same night in which he was betrayed took bread:
24 And 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.
25 After 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.
26 For as often as ye eat this bread, and drink this cup, ye do shew the Lord’s death till he come.
We symbolically show (Literally: announce or declare.) the Messiah’s death until He returns. We do not bring down His flesh and blood, we bring down the message of it. We do not produce the actual flesh and blood of His death. That is a much different type of showing. We do it in remembrance…as a memorial.
This is what the apostles taught. Whatever church “father”, not matter how early, that actually teaches real presence is simply in error. Whatever Church does this, is deceiving us.
Bo,
It is one thing to question the infallibility of papal decrees (lots of Catholics do!) but it is a huge jump to call the church apostate.
I think the Catholic church is wrong, on a number of points, but what church or individual Christian isn’t?
The term “apostate” should be reserved for those who have denounced Jesus and his message. Clearly, the Catholics have not done that.
Bo,
Since you don’t go to a church, what do you do on Sunday mornings? (or Saturday, if the case)
Do you do some sort of home church service?
Most people I know who don’t attend church tend to also blow-off the Sabbath as a ritual but I suspect that you don’t.
(PS I’m not trying to bait you. I don’t know many people as devout as you who aren’t also active in church and I’m honestly curious about how that works for you.)
rockypath,
I couldn’t quite follow all your discussion with Bo but I do have a question for you, since I meet very few people, even Catholics, defend transubstantiation.
Do you believe it in a literal, scientific way?
(Please excuse how yucky this is:)
As in — if a hospital took a stomach pump to a post-communion Christian, the doctors would find human flesh and blood with Jesus’ DNA?
That kind of literal transformation of the bread and wine? Or do you believe in something less literal than that?
Again, I apologize for the unpleasant scenario but that’s my honest question about transubstantiation.
Greg,
I stand by the word apostate. But I also think that your church is the same. Claiming true faith is different than actually having it. We all sin. We do not all teach that sin to others as good doctrine. Speaking the name of “Jesus” is not the same as speaking of the true Messiah.
We keep YHWH’s 7th day Sabbath and His feast days and spend hours reading scripture, discussing it and worshiping in song and prayer. We take the day completely off and spend time together enjoying YHWH’s creation…esp. each other. Sometimes we have other families over to participate in either the fun and fellowship or the worship time or both.
Bo,
My church is only apostate if you have added “anti-gay” to the salvation.
I don’t consider that apostasy but it is arguably heresy. (I personally, try to be conservative about using that label as well.).
But the RCs don’t like the gays either — what makes them apostate in your mind?
2.
Thanks for answering my question.
It sounds like you draw somewhat from the Jewish sabbath tradition minus the attending synagogue.
Which feasts do you celebrate? The Christian one? I can’t imagine your boss giving you 50 days off for the feast of Pentecost. 😉
Even though I don’t ritually celebrate Sabbath beyond attending church, I do try to respect the spirit of the Sabbath and keep the rest of the day restful.
Ironically, when I was a pastor, the Sabbath was the least restful day for me. It left me exhausted!
Greg,
We keep the feasts of YHWH. The ones that Messiah kept. The only ones found in the Bible. Leviticus 23 outlines them. We also keep the sighted new moons and some of us keep Chanukah and Purim. The actual count of days off of work is around 70 days a year. Unless you count the middle days of the feasts which would add about 10 more days off, but they are not actually sabbaths. That we know of, we do not borrow from the Jewish idea. We simply read what the scripture says and put it into practice. When we gather with others, it usually includes eating together like the early church.
Any church that preaches a different “Jesus” or different gospel than Paul preached or that is shown in the gospels is apostate. So yes, those churches that accept abortion or gay lifestyle or that teach salvation that is bestowed by works or practices idol worship by another name or that incorporate paganism into its worship are apostate…scripturally speaking. There are probably people in those churches that are still saved, but the system is the harlot of Babylon and her daughters. It is time to come out and be holy to YHWH.
>> those churches that accept abortion or gay lifestyle … are apostate … scripturally speaking.
NOT scripturally speaking. Bo speaking.
Huge difference.
Anyone know what happened to Van?
Did he just quit coming here or did Dr. Brown ban him?
>> those churches that accept abortion or gay lifestyle
In an odd way — you and I agree on a narrow point.
I also think the bible condemns a gay lifestyle.
I just don’t think that “lifestyle” is loving, monogamous gay marriage. I think it is pederasty and temple prostitution.
Greg,
The problem is that committed homosex is exactly what states will cause one to forfeit their inheritance in the kingdom. This sin or that sin can be forgiven, a continuous lifestyle of sin proves that we do not really believe in the real Messiah and do not have His Spirit of grace. So what of those that preach, “Peace, peace when there is no peace” to those that are in the predicament of rebelling against YHWH via committed homosex? Do they not cause more harm than those that are involved in the sinful lifestyle?
Lu 17:2 It were better for him that a millstone were hanged about his neck, and he cast into the sea, than that he should offend one of these little ones.
In case you are wondering…causing someone to stumble or offending them, as it is used in scripture, does not mean hurting their feelings by calling sin, sin. It means helping them to sin…tripping them from walking in paths of righteousness. That is what you are doing, Greg. You are helping homosexuals to sin and encouraging them to continue in it. And your church that agrees with you is apostate.
bo
Bo said, “rockypath1 believes in the infallibility of and office…a mere man. I believe in the infallibility of YHWH’s word. That word explicitly denies real presence doctrine. ”
You do realize Moses was virtually infallible in his pronouncements. And the prophets, what of them. So when Jesus says I give the keys…what you bind on earth…is bound in heaven.
Further statements are just bluster with no backing.
One can not have the entire early Church believing in Real Presence Eucharistic celebration (with very, very, very early history documentation) without it obviously being part of a HOLY ORAL TRADITION. You know, from Jesus through the apostles to the Church. Oh and with a little help form the Holy Spirit.
John 14:26
But the Advocate, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my name, will teach you all things and will remind you of everything I have said to you.
None of the early Jewish Christians supported your form of latterday worship. NONE.
I showed you much from scripture which gave the roots why the Lord’s day became the new day of rest. And your silence was deafening.
Believe selectively and in anti-biblical disobedience if you choose. But THAT is not a choice any person should make
Bo,
>Lu 17:2 It were better for him that a millstone were hanged about his neck, and he cast into the sea, than that he should offend one of these little ones.
Ironically, this is the verse I would show you, ase wll.
I firmly believe that the church’s unbiblical anti-gay stance is causing millions of Americans — especially young people — to stumble.
All the polls would back me up on this, BTW. Millions of Americans are leaving the church because they perceive us (correctly, I believe) to be bigots.
The evangelical church as being anti-gay to salvation itself.
So, a whole generation is rejecting the gospel because of our unbiblical, anti-gay bigotry.
This, I believe, is the stumble caused by the church’s stance on the gays. And it is a very real one.
I know you don’t believe this — but sometimes society leads the church on moral issues. Especially the conservative church. They did it on acceptance of the Jews. Society led the church on slavery, segregation and inter-marriage. Society led the church on suffrage and equality for women. And, now, society is leading the church on equality for our LGBT brothers and sisters.
>>The evangelical church as being anti-gay to salvation itself.
The Evangelical church has _added_ being anti-gay to salvation itself.
rockypath and Bo,
>>I showed you much from scripture which gave the roots why the Lord’s day became the new day of rest. And your silence was deafening.
Here is my question about that issue:
Since the creation account (and, of course, creation itself) long preceded the Gregorian calendar isn’t it impossible to know which “day” the Lord rested on?
Yes, it was the seventh but maybe God started creating on Tuesday!
Sorry if this comes across as silly but this whole debate strikes me as a little silly.
I say — pick a day to worship and rest and enjoy it. No need to be legalistic about it. Sunday works for me because that’s when my church meets. In some Muslim countries, my church met on Friday because Sunday was a working day. That was fine, too.
rockypath1,
I didn’t know that you wanted me to give a rebuttal to your statements on Sabbath being changed to Sunday. I thought it was kind of a rant. I saw nothing in your post about it that had any substance worth much, if any, rebutting and it might get us called on the carper for being off topic. I will reread it and give it a shot. I do not know where the post is. Can you point me too it, please?
Shalom
Rockypath,
I am really curious about your answer to my question about transubstantiation.
Do you believe it is a literal _scientific_ phenomenon? I mean, something that happens on a molecular level.
I’m not asking this as a trick question. (But, it seems fairly easy to prove or disprove.)
Like most Christians, (I assume) I view it as a spiritual ritual outside the realm of science.
I suppose I have an even more important question — why is the doctrine of transubstantiation so important to you? Is not a spiritual reality enough? Is there a reason it also has to be material and literal?
Bo
You said, “You are very good at insults…and bad historical deductions.”
And yet YOU have not hesitated for a minute to declare the Catholic Church (the early Church) “apostate” and the Whore of Babylon. And in support of your views you offer a profoundly malformed YouTube presentation showing Mike Gendron mocking the Eucharist.
And you call me insulting? For what?
For saying Gendron was “shameful and embarrassing” and an example of fundamentalist bible-protestant mischief”
This kind of mischief from bible-only protestants is indeed rampant on Youtube and typically so juvenile you would think a person of the simplest education would recognize it for what it is – False Witness. But not so. Many lap it up. And the fuel of this false witness is Ill-Will.
I believe Dr. Brown addresses the issue of ill-will of one bible-Christian group against another as being shocking and unacceptable. I hope to see him acknowledge the stench of anti-Catholic persecution from bible-Christians. Or is this an acceptable form of persecution. It is in fact a broad and deep phenomenon across YouTube and that means the world. And seems to be acceptable to the rank and file bible Christian – though most may not partake actively.
Gendrons, mockery and disrespect for the beliefs of others is disgusting.
If you choose Larraine Boettner, Alex Hyslop and Jack Chick as your mentors then you WILL lose most of your credibility. That’s your choice.
But I will false assumptions and false history as legitimate part of any debate.
So you are being held accountable to a higher standard of integrity and good scholarship and honorable behavior. You may not be used to this.
Would one expect anything but goodwill, respect, pure scholarship, integrity and credibility from a follower of Jesus (Yeshua)? You tell me.
Bo I know and discern good scholarship and a basic amount of goodwill. Sadly, I cannot say that I see these in your work here.
Rockypath,
>>I believe Dr. Brown addresses the issue of ill-will of one bible-Christian group against another as being shocking and unacceptable. I hope to see him acknowledge the stench of anti-Catholic persecution from bible-Christians.
Some of the best things I have heard on “Line of Fire” is Dr. Brown speaking of church unity.
He said this repeatedly in his debates with John MacArthur.
But I think there are limits to this Christian unity. As a liberal Christian, I certainly feel excluded.
Have you heard Dr. Brown make exclusionary comments about Catholics? I don’t remember any but it’s not something I would be sensitive too.
>>Gendrons, mockery and disrespect for the beliefs of others is disgusting.
“Gendrons”? I couldn’t even find that one using Google!
Even if it is not a real word — it should be! 😉
Greg Allen
Transubstantiation is that reality of the bread and wine truly, truly becoming the flesh and blood of our Lord Jesus under the remaining form of bread and wine.
And this believed only with the eyes of faith and not possibly by an electron scanning microprobe?
Who can believe such a thing as the Real Presence. It is absurd and ridiculous. Right?
But Jesus gave this and therefore we believe.
Jesus also gave authority to the Church to discern this (Mat 16) and therefore we believe.
Jesus was unequivocal in John 6 and this is edified by the fact that entire early Church was Real Presence Eucharist. And therefore WE believe.
We believe because the apostles MUST have taught this reality and because the Holy Spirit was sent to guide us to all truth.
John 14:26
But the Advocate, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my name, will teach you all things and will remind you of everything I have said to you.
And so we are obedient to a most difficult reality. Accomplished by the Holy Spirit.
What did Peter say to Jesus after the unfaithful disciples left Jesus?
67 So Jesus asked the twelve, “Do you also wish to go away?” 68 Simon Peter answered him, “Lord, to whom can we go? You have the words of eternal life. 69 We have come to believe and know that you are the Holy One of God.
Peter was stunned and bewildered but was obedient until the Last Supper revelation and Pentecost came a full understanding.
Apostolic teaching brought this to the early Church and to those who TODAY remain obedient to that HOLY tradition.
How can we leave THIS then?
Greg,
You wrote:
“Since the creation account (and, of course, creation itself) long preceded the Gregorian calendar isn’t it impossible to know which “day” the Lord rested on?
Yes, it was the seventh but maybe God started creating on Tuesday!
Sorry if this comes across as silly but this whole debate strikes me as a little silly.”
Actually it is not silly but a dire situation. Since YHWH commanded us to keep His Sabbath holy right alongside not committing adultery and not committing murder and spoke it audibly to millions of witnesses, He is pretty serious about it.
No time has been lost or days of the week mixed up in calendar changes. YHWH laid it out clearly at Creation that He set the seventh day apart and blessed it. During the Exodus about 2500 years later, YHWH miraculously proved for 40 years what day the seventh was by not providing manna on that day. He commanded that we keep that day because of His example. He did not say to take one in seven off of work.
Messiah, who was YHWH in the flesh, did not sin in the slightest. He never said that the Jews were keeping the wrong day, but that they had messed up how it was kept. So everything was in order until 2000 years ago. Since then, Jews all over the world have made very certain to keep the correct day and the with the change to a seven day week in Rome beginning from Agustus, we have the whole western world keeping track of time quite well. When our calendar was changed from the Julian to the Gregorian, no change in the day of the week was made. So we know that, at least from the Exodus till now, that we are correct and we know that YHWH remembered when He rested at the end of creation.
He spoke from the mount that we should now remember that very day of the week and keep it set apart (Holy like He made it) from the others by not working, and giving our family, our workers and our animals a day off on that exact day.
Keeping the Sabbath holy is a distinctive mark of YHWH being our master instead of us doing things our own way. When we do it differently, we are showing who our master is. Sunday being our sabbath shows our pagan roots…and that the Catholic Church is our master. Protestants that continue to keep Sunday instead of the Seventh day are still doing obeisance to the Pope in this area. It is certain that Messiah never changed the Sabbath to Sunday, nor did any apostle.
The early church kept the Sabbath. And Sunday was instituted by the Roman Catholic Church much later.
“William Cave wrote “… the Sabbath or ‘Saturday’ (for so the word sabbatum is constantly used in the writings of the fathers, when speaking of it as it relates to Christians) was held by them in great veneration, and especially in the Eastern parts honoured with all the public solemnities of religion. This is plain, not only from some passages in Ignatius and Clemens’s Constitutions, but from writers of more unquestionable credit and authority. Athanasius, bishop of Alexandria, tells us that they assembled on Saturdays… to worship Jesus Christ, the Lord of the Sabbath.”[15]
15. Cave, Primitive Christianity: or the Religion of the Ancient Christians in the First Ages of the Gospel. 1840, revised edition by H. Cary. Oxford, London, pp. 84–85).”
-http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polycarp
Rocky,
>>Transubstantiation is that reality of the bread and wine truly, truly becoming the flesh and blood of our Lord Jesus under the remaining form of bread and wine.
>> And this believed only with the eyes of faith and not possibly by an electron scanning microprobe?
I think you answered my question by saying.. “under the remaining form of bread and wine” and “not possibly by an electron scanning microprobe”
In other words — not scientifically true.
I, myself, can still accept your view of transubstantiation as being “true.”
I get into arguments with my atheist friends all the time over “truth.” Science is only one kind of truth. In a way, it’s the most primitive truth. But, it’s all they got.
Greg,
Do not let rockhpath1 fool you. No apostle taught real presence. It is well over a 100 years after Messiah that such an idea surfaces somewhat. It is pagan at its roots.
The word of YHWH explicitly denies real presence doctrine. Rockypath1 may continue to pile historical record upon historical record showing what the apostate Catholic Church always believed, but it will be piled on the foundation of paganism and traditions of men and not on the real foundation of Messiah and the apostle’s doctrine. Catholics of good will would do well to read for themselves and think for themselves and leave off on the talking points.
Luke 22
19 And he took bread, and gave thanks, and brake it, and gave unto them, saying, This is my body which is given for you: this do in remembrance of me.
20 Likewise also the cup after supper, saying, This cup is the new testament in my blood, which is shed for you.
Please note that this is to be done in remembrance of Messiah, and is thus symbolic in nature. If the “real presence” was indicated, it would not be in remembrance, but in actuality.
What was in the cup? Wine. No blood, but the new covenant in His blood. It was a covenant meal, not a lawful way to enjoy cannibalism and imbibe eternal life.
John 6
63 It is the spirit that quickeneth; the flesh profiteth nothing: the words that I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are life…
67 Then said Jesus unto the twelve, Will ye also go away?
68 Then Simon Peter answered him, Lord, to whom shall we go? thou hast the words of eternal life.
Messiah is not saying to remember Him by eating Him. He is saying to remember Him by eating unleavened bread and and drinking the cup of wine after the Passover dinner, which just happens to be called the cup of salvation/deliverance. A memorial is not the real thing. So let’s do what Messiah said and memorialize Him on the day in the way He said to, and not participate in some pagan magic incantation and cannibalistic mysticism.
Paul is a second witness.
1Co 11:23 For I have received of the Lord that which also I delivered unto you, That the Lord Jesus the same night in which he was betrayed took bread:
24 And 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.
25 After 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.
26 For as often as ye eat this bread, and drink this cup, ye do shew the Lord’s death till he come.
We symbolically show (Literally: announce or declare.) the Messiah’s death until He returns. We do not bring down His flesh and blood, we bring down the message of it. We do not produce the actual flesh and blood of His death. That is a much different type of showing. We do it in remembrance…as a memorial.
This is what the apostles taught. Whatever church “father”, not matter how early, that actually teaches real presence is simply in error. Whatever Church does this, is deceiving us.
Matthew 26
29 But I say unto you, I will not drink henceforth of this fruit of the vine, until that day when I drink it new with you in my Father’s kingdom.
Mr 14:25 Verily I say unto you, I will drink no more of the fruit of the vine, until that day that I drink it new in the kingdom of God.
Please note that Messiah does not say that the liquid in the cup is now blood, but still wine…the fruit of the vine. He will drink it again in the kingdom when He returns to rule and reign.
Bo,
I can’t debate you on this issue since I really don’t know much about it. But I do have questions.
Are you really suggesting that, since the very creation of Adam, humans kept track of a seven day week? With calendars and everything?
I just assumed that all those thousands of years ago, they tracked time with the new moons and seasons but didn’t have weekends and work weeks.
My second — isn’t “sabbath” a practice rather than a day?
Like “devotions” or “prayer” or “fasting” “worshipping” “feasts” etc ? Those things are also the Lord’s, right?
Bo and Rocky,
I had to dig into my memory but here are the verses my first church used to justify meeting on Sunday:
Romans 14:5–6
5 One person considers one day more sacred than another; another considers every day alike. Each of them should be fully convinced in their own mind. 6 Whoever regards one day as special does so to the Lord.
And
Colossians 2:16–17
16 Therefore do not let anyone judge you by what you eat or drink, or with regard to a religious festival,f a New Moon celebration or a Sabbath day.h 17 These are a shadow of the things that were to come; the reality, however, is found in Christ.
Does not this give you two freedom to respectfully rest on different days?
Greg,
I think man kept track. Even if man lost track of the days, YHWH kept track of time and proclaimed His Sabbath via 40 years of miracles. The Jews kept track of when that was at least from that point on and the rest of the western world for the last 2000 years.
YHWH has very day specific feasts. Feasting is a practice. The feast of tabernacles is celebrated on exact days of the Biblical calendar. Resting is a practice. Resting on the day that YHWH calls THE SABBATH is what He asks of us though. Even the English idea of “feast” is not what the Hebrew word means. “Moed” means “appointment.” And appointment happens at a certain time and place.
Ex 16:29 See, for that the LORD hath given you the sabbath, therefore he giveth you on the sixth day the bread of two days; abide ye every man in his place, let no man go out of his place on the seventh day.
Ex 20:8 Remember the sabbath day, to keep it holy.
Eze 20:20 And hallow my sabbaths; and they shall be a sign between me and you, that ye may know that I am the LORD your God.
Bo,
>>Do not let rockhpath1 fool you. No apostle taught real presence. It is well over a 100 years after Messiah that such an idea surfaces somewhat.
It depends on what “real” means — right?
When Jesus promises: “For where two or three gather in my name, there am I with them.”
Is Jesus’ presence “real” in your mind?
My church has 1,500 members, so we always can get more than two together for communion! 😉
As for the pagan connections with Catholicism — I think all church attending Christians need to be humble about that.
We have more paganism in our church that we realize — from wedding rituals, to our views of angels and demons, to the day we celebrate Christmas, Easter candy, … even to the drinking songs in our hymnals.
I suppose you think you’ve purged all paganism by giving-up church and just meeting in your home. And, maybe you have. But it wouldn’t surprise me if a church historian or sociologist could look at what you personally do and find some pagan influences.
Greg,
Messiah directly said that He would be in the midst of any two apostles when they made a decision regarding the church. He does not say that His “real presence” is in the bread and wine.
Greg,
Truly, Dr Brown restores my faith in non-Catholic believers. I respect his integrity and his goodwill.
After spending a lot of time contesting with anti-Catholics on some very corrupt Youtube sites I was becoming fairly cynical about some very bizarre false witness.
:::::::::::::::::::::::::
But Greg,
Sexual purity is a requirement for all Christians and is not acceptable outside marriage. So should homosexuals be permitted to marry (in the church) and be given God’s blessing here. Are we not called to stand against the world and the devil and not live according to its ever-changing moral relativity.
Homosexuality is against the natural law and therefore could not be of God. Those who SEEM to be in this condition from early onset are called to a higher form of obedience. And this means chastity, as difficult as that seems and as harsh as it may seem.
Much of the bible-Christian world does not regard obedience and discipline and the call to holiness (sanctification) as part of the legitimate Christian faith any more. This is what Dr. Brown himself speaks out against in his activity against Hypergrace. This is close to Catholic teaching also.
As sexual abstinence is often used as a bludgeon to hit the Catholic Church’s requirements for the priesthood (with respect to sexual misconduct), an overall antipathy for it “as unhealthy” now seems part of the bible-only culture.
There seems a growing unwillingness by the bible-only camp to be obedient to His will in other areas too and these show a tendency to be overreaching, all-inclusive, over-tolerant and too accepting.
Several assemblies including the Southern Baptists and the Seventh Day Adventist, now find it acceptable for an abortion option even though it is couched in cautionary but highly liberalized excuse-giving language. Murder of the unborn – who would of thought it possible in these assemblies. And encouraging the young in this way.
This ALL without recourse to the damage it is incurring in the souls of those who are given permission (encouragement) to sin.
Misguided sympathy.
Well, Bo. You have out-debated me on this one.
I’m not being snarky — you obviously know way more about this than I do.
And in the spirit of Colossians 2:16, I bless you in it.
From what little I know about you — it seems that Sabbath and feasts are very meaningful for you.
It’s the same for my devout Jewish friends and, in the few times they’ve included me, it struck me as a very beautiful thing.
rocky,
Just when we were having a moment of ecumenical unity, you dumped gays and abortion on me!
I’m the lightening rod here, on that issue, and I’ve argued your points many times before. (Effectively and biblically, I believe.)
But, I gather that you think the bible’s commandment for Christian unity should include the Catholics but not gay Christians nor we liberals who love them.
At least your circle of unity is getting bigger!
Bo
>>Messiah directly said that He would be in the midst of any two apostles when they made a decision regarding the church.
Oh, Bo, your argument just jumped the shark on that one.
Saying that Matthew 18:20 applies to solely to church business meetings and only between original apostles is WAY out of the mainstream.
>> He does not say that His “real presence” is in the bread and wine.
Again, it depends on what ‘real’ means. Does it mean really present in bodily form? Or does it mean in in spirit — as through the Holy Spirit. Or something else?
Depending on what you mean by “real presence” — I may agree with you.
Greg,
SABBATH CHANGE?
SEE this other Dr. Brown site where Bo and myself continued our discussion.
http://www.lineoffireradio.com/2012/01/17/is-mary-really-the-mother-of-god/comment-page-5/#comment-886247
Much of it compiled from various sources on why the Sabbath was changed to the Lord’s day Sunday.
I also gave information on the apostolic action of laying of hands towards elders (presbyteroi (priest) and episcopoi (bishosps). This is the real biblical reality,
Eucharistic Consecration is the reason the priesthood was needed and developed and was given by the laying on of hands. The written tradition (bible) regarding the laying on of hands is clear enough and was further ingrained via the apostolic oral teachings (traditions) that the early Church received.
This is NOT rocket science. Jesus meant for us to receive the written and oral traditions from the apostles for ALL generations.
This disobedience to the Church is a marvel to behold.
rockypath,
Thanks for the link but I think I’m going to bow-out on this discussion.
I believe that the Colossians 2 passage I cited earlier gives us all freedom to respectfully disagree on this.
I would also heed the many verses cautioning us against legalism.
I believe in the spirit and value of sabbath rest and worship. Lots of people must work on Sunday — including pastors! — and if they want to take their sabboth on another day, I’m pretty sure God is good with that.
Greg,
I hope I did not leave you with the impression that we should not love those with homosexual tendencies. Anyone who is liberal or conservative should love them.
But this is not to say we can accept active homosexuality. Just as we cannot accept an active heterosexual lifestyle (outside marriage).
Sin is a reality that cannot be accepted for the sake of four score and 20 years of life when salvation is for an eternity.
Allowing for homosexual activity as part of the faith is false compassion.
Do you believe in sin?
Can you not see the subversion of human nature in this. Sex is for procreation and obviously was created for this.
And then there is the problem of redefinition of marriage and the family and the “liberal” rights of homosexual adoption.
Abortion is a more obvious sin. I hope that is not acceptable to you under any circumstances.
And by the way. I was called to live for many, many, many celibate years in my youth and later in my middle ages. I felt that faith called me to a celibate life (and NO masturbation) during those times and I was fully capable of doing this. And this with a pretty healthy sexual drive too. Believe me. No exaggeration there. Been there done that.
Rocky >>This is NOT rocket science. Jesus meant for us to receive the written and oral traditions from the apostles for ALL generations.
It might be more complicated than rocket science. Seriously.
I do think we Christians are to receive his teachings as transmitted through the bible.
I do think we are to respect the wisdom and traditions of previous generations.
I suspect that most Christians would also agree. Even us liberal ones!
But, beyond that… it gets incredibly complicated.
For example, these days I’m a Anglo-Catholic but not a Roman Catholic Which oral tradition do I follow? Yours? Do you then ignore the traditions of my church?
What about the Eastern orthodox who have no Catholicism in them at all but are as apostolic as your church?
It gets very complicated very fast. Worse than rocket science? Maybe!
Greg,
The Sabbath thing is not an issue for me as I believe there was real and authoritative reasons as I gave. Bo thinks otherwise and seems totally to have missed ALL the scriptural references for the change that I gave in that other posting.
Peace.
Rocky,
Dr. Brown has hinted at banning me from this site for disagreeing with him on the gay issue. He views it as a personal attack on him.
So, forgive me for not responding to you. If you go back and search, I have _many times_ addressed every issue you raise — with the bible, church history, logic, morality, science.
And I haven’t convinced a single person here!
As for celibacy — I did the same. I married later in life and my wife was my first. And, it was not easy!
That puts you and I in a very small group, BTW.
I was a youth minister in a couple of different conservative churchess and had a sense of how many teens and their parents were celebrate before marriage. We’d have lessons and testimonies on sex and you could pretty easily figure it out.
Not many fully succeed in waiting for marriage– even among the loudest advocates for celibacy.
I’m looking back on my last post and am appalled at may poor spelling and grammar — so maybe it’s time to call it a day.
I’ll blame the three cups of coffee 😉
Have a blessed day, everyone.
Greg,
I took pains to say the holy Apostolic traditions. Those received from Jesus directly from the apostles. Those that came later are more correctly defined as the traditions of men.
The Orthodox and the Catholic teachings both apostolic. The Orthodox at the very least held the Bishop of Rome as first among equals. But in history the Bishop of Rome was from the onset believed to hold the keys of Peter.
I discussed this either on this site or the other Dr. Brown one I gave.
There has just got to be a blend of believing the written apostolic tradition and the oral early Church affirmation. The Real Presence Eucharist affirmation proclaims the reality of oral tradition. It edifies what was taught by Jesus in John 6 and in the last supper passages.
If one does not bow to this rule – the early Church authority – you end up with one revelation but with a cacophony of interpretations. Tens of thousands even, and growing.
Bo’s interpretation is just one. And it one that is even farther away from the early church than most. And there seems to be an ever growing number of bizarre assemblies rising up.
This Hypergrace (OSAS) thing is totally out there too.
Greg,
The only thing I can say about posting on YouTube instead of this venue is that it allows one to go back the next day and actually re-edit and restate what one was trying (incoherently) to say the previous day.
peace.