katiemygirl
CHRISTIAN
Nothing like a house church! Wish there were more.When I was in the military stationed in Italy, I worshipped and attended Bible studies in people's homes. I enjoyed the experience.
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Wondering About Faith (Ephesians 2)
- Thread starter Spockrates
- Start date
Spockrates
Wonderer.
How about you give me an example of a POPE from the Scriptures? You see, I can't accept anything as truth unless there is Scriptural support. And while you're at it, maybe you could find verses showing how Mary remained a virgin and sinless her entire life?
I think I'd enjoy discussing either topic with you. Please choose one to discuss first.
katiemygirl
CHRISTIAN
That's what I thought. There are no Scriptures to support a pope or you'd have posted them.I think I'd enjoy discussing either topic with you. Please choose one to discuss first.
Actually, we should stick to the thread topic. Or you could start a new one which would bring our catholic friends into the discussion.
As for proof that the Levitical priesthood was abolished, read Hebrews 7. Jesus is our high priest now, and all christians are priests (1 Peter 2:5). If the Scriptures are not enough proof for you, I don't know what would be.
Is there Scriptural support for any priest changing bread to the actual body of Christ and the fruit of the vine to the blood of Jesus? If there is, could you post it? I have never come across any but maybe you know something I don't know.
Are you seriously considering converting to catholicism?
Desert Snake
Veteran Member
So, the person baptizing, is in command of Jesus's actions? when someone is being baptized? Ok great. So, what are your stipulations for a legitimate baptism.
katiemygirl
CHRISTIAN
WHAT? Where or when did I say such a thing?
And do you still maintain that the Pharisees
"did the right thing" by refusing the counsel of God? I see you ignored that part of my post. Probably because you realize what a foolish thing that was to say.
You need to spend some time studying the Bible. It's obvious you have no Bible knowledge. You rely on the teachings of men.
All you seem to be doing is making claims that I have said thing like there is magic in baptismal waters and now you claim I said the person baptizing is in charge of Jesus' actions.
I think my conversation with you is DONE. People like you have no argument, so you put words in other people's posts. Posters like you go on my ignore list.
Last edited:
Spockrates
Wonderer.
No problem. I'm easy. Seems you think the lack of biblical precedent for having one bishop in authority over other bishops is an important reason to reject Catholicism. It's not important to me, personally, so I would not start such a discussion. But as I said, I would enjoy talking about it with you if you feel it is important to you. So please let me know if you start a discussion about it.
To be fair to Catholics, we should consider their real beliefs instead of knocking down some scarecrow and claiming victory. Don't you think?
From what I understand, Catholics believe God--not a priest--makes the bread and wine the body, blood, soul and divinity of Christ. If you agree this is what they believe, then I'll show you what I know about the scriptural evidence for it.
I'm seriously considering going wherever the truth leads me, and I believe you probably are too. Although I suspect that unlike me, you don't believe you have to go looking anywhere, since you are as certain as Atpollard you have already found the truth.
But because I was baptised as an infant in a Catholic Church and later left the church as a teen, Catholics would say I'm thinking about reverting, not converting!
Last edited:
katiemygirl
CHRISTIAN
It's not important to me either until someone makes a claim that a certain teaching, like Pope, is Biblical. Then I ask people to prove their claim.
Who better knows their beliefs than one who was once a catholic? I think being raised in a catholic home and attending parochial school qualifies me for knowing their "real beliefs." Believe me, I spent years examining the doctrine and practices of catholicism.
Then what is the point of the priest?
No, I'm not considering going anywhere. I believe I have arrived. I am still learning, and I am a work in progress. The Bible alone is my guide. I will never revert back to the teachings of men. I love where I am at. I am constantly searching God's word and examining myself. I want to do nothing but be pleasing to God.
At the risk of sounding offensive, and I truly don't mean to be, but I question how any calvinist, who overall are considered to have pretty sound Bible knowledge (even though I may interpret some things differently than they do), ever consider such a false religion as catholicism. Maybe I have given the calvinists too much credit? The ones I have debated seem to know the Scriptures.
Again, at the risk of sounding offensive, I question your Biblical knowledge. How could you have been blown around so much, never coming to a point of truth in all of this time? That makes no sense to me. For me, the Scriptures are so clear and easy to understand. Granted, some things are difficult to understand, but the important things like salvation and how to live a life pleasing to God are simple to comprehend.
I don't really know you or how much time you have invested in the Scriptures or your walk with God. I don't mean to judge you, and I apologize up front if I have insulted you.
PS - Love the strawman image. People on the forum use strawman arguments a lot.....like the poster who said that I believe there is magic in the waters of baptism. Sheesh! That's a mega straw man! LOL
Last edited:
Spockrates
Wonderer.
Understood.
Let's consider these words from the popular Catholic website EWTN:
353. Does this change of bread and wine into the body and blood of Christ continue to be made in the Church?
This change of bread and wine into the body and blood of Christ continues to be made in the Church by Jesus Christ, through the ministry of His priests.
What is the Holy Eucharist?
Notice that it states the change is done by Jesus, but not by the priests. Instead, it is done through the priests.This change of bread and wine into the body and blood of Christ continues to be made in the Church by Jesus Christ, through the ministry of His priests.
What is the Holy Eucharist?
The words remind me of the scripture quoted in the opening post of this discussion:
For it is by grace you are saved, through faith...
(Ephesians 2:8)
(Ephesians 2:8)
And I might be remembering wrong, but I think it was you who argued quite persuasively that grace alone saves us. For we are not saved by faith, but only through faith and also through baptism and other important things.
An example: I'm typing this response on my iPhone. The response is being sent by me, but merely through my iPhone. Were it not for my iPhone, you would never see my reply. But my reply is not the product of some AI (artificial intelligence). It's the result of my own thoughts.
In comparison, Catholics believe the bread and wine is being changed through a priest. But the change is not caused by the priest, as though he had some magical power. The change is instead being caused by Jesus. Were it not for the Son of God, such a miracle would be impossible, just as instantly turning water into wine is impossible. For apart from him we can do nothing, but with him all things are possible.
So I'm still thinking the question to ask is not, "Does the Bible say this is a power men have?" The real question is, "Does the Bible say this is something God does?" Maybe now you agree this is the question I need to answer?
I wish I had your certainty and Christ would increase my wisdom so that my faith would become as sure as your own! And yeah, pictures sometimes speak louder than words, or at least they are easier for some to remember! Maybe that's why Jesus liked telling stories?
So would you like to hear the story of why I'm uncertain what the scriptures say the truth is about the bread and wine? (Not to try to change your mind, but so you may better understand how to change mine.)
Last edited:
katiemygirl
CHRISTIAN
Yes, I would like to hear your thoughts.Understood.
Let's consider these words from the popular Catholic website EWTN:
353. Does this change of bread and wine into the body and blood of Christ continue to be made in the Church?Notice that it states the change is done by Jesus, but not by the priests. Instead, it is done through the priests.
This change of bread and wine into the body and blood of Christ continues to be made in the Church by Jesus Christ, through the ministry of His priests.
What is the Holy Eucharist?
The words remind me of the scripture quoted in the opening post of this discussion:
For it is by grace you are saved, through faith...
(Ephesians 2:8)
And I might be remembering wrong, but I think it was you who argued quite persuasively that grace alone saves us. For we are not saved by faith, but only through faith and also through baptism and other important things.
An example: I'm typing this response on my iPhone. The response is being sent by me, but merely through my iPhone. Were it not for my iPhone, you would never see my reply. But my reply is not the product of some AI (artificial intelligence). It's the result of my own thoughts.
In comparison, Catholics believe the bread and wine is being changed through a priest. But the change is not caused by the priest, as though he had some magical power. The change is instead being caused by Jesus. Were it not for the Son of God, such a miracle would be impossible, just as instantly turning water into wine is impossible. For apart from him we can do nothing, but with him all things are possible.
So I'm still thinking the question to ask is not, "Does the Bible say this is a power men have?" The real question is, "Does the Bible say this is something God does?" Maybe now you agree this is the question I need to answer?
I wish I had your certainty and Christ would increase my wisdom so that my faith would become as sure as your own! And yeah, pictures sometimes speak louder than words, or at least they are easier for some to remember! Maybe that's why Jesus liked telling stories?
So would you like to hear the story of why I'm uncertain what the scriptures say the truth is about the bread and wine? (Not to try to change your mind, but so you may better understand how to change mine.)
But I have some questions for you.
1.Where in the Scriptures does it talk about a change of bread and wine into the actual body and blood of Christ?
2. Where in the Scriptures is this change of bread and wine done by Jesus THROUGH a priest?
3. If you could be transported back in time to 80 A.D., would you be able to attend a Roman Catholic church as it exists today?
4. The RC Church claims that its priests have the power to forgive sins. Do you believe this?
5. Are you willing to accept the traditions (teachings of men) over God's word?
Spockrates
Wonderer.
Thanks for listening and for asking. For lack of a better expression, I'll play "devil's advocate" and answer as a Catholic would--not because I am sure they are right, but because I'd like to see if I can be shown they are wrong. You see, I really don't want to become a Catholic, but I feel I must follow the Truth, wherever he leads me.
At the Last Supper:
26 While they were eating, Jesus took bread, and when he had given thanks, he broke it and gave it to his disciples, saying, “Take and eat; this IS my body.”
27 Then he took a cup, and when he had given thanks, he gave it to them, saying, “Drink from it, all of you. 28 This IS my blood of the covenant,which is poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins."
(Matthew 26, emphasis added)
Catholic interpretation: "This is my [actual] body. ... This is my [actual] blood."
Non-Catholic interpretation: "This is my [symbolic] body. ... This is my [symbolic] blood."
Either interpretation is logical and probable. Only one--or perhaps even both--can be correct. The immediate context itself is not enough to show me what interpretation Jesus intended.Non-Catholic interpretation: "This is my [symbolic] body. ... This is my [symbolic] blood."
Jesus said, "... Do THIS in remembrance of me"
(Luke 22:19). If he was indeed turning the bread and wine into his body and blood, then the THIS we are to do is what he himself did.
Not sure I understand the question. Are you asking if the government of the Catholic Church today is the same as the government of the Church was in the Book of Acts? Or are you asking if the beliefs about the bread and wine are the same? Or are you asking if the practice of a pastor giving the bread and wine to his congregation is the same?
Just a clarification: The current trend is to call their church the Catholic Church. Few Catholics now say they belong to the Roman Catholic Church. Catholic simply means universal.
I'm not sure Catholicism does in fact teach priests have the power to forgive sins. Please cite your source to show this is what Catholicism actually teaches.
Over? No. In accordance with? Yes. One might call the consuming of bread and wine a tradition of God, since Jesus started it!
But not all we need to know about right and wrong is explained in scripture, I think. Let me know if you disagree and would like to consider an example I have in mind.
* * *
Looking forward to your response! But don't feel the need to ask questions every time, if you prefer not to.
Last edited:
Desert Snake
Veteran Member
You seem to be contradicting yourself. If you say that baptism by the church, or water baptism, is necessary to be a Xian, and that Jesus baptizes at the time of the water baptism, then you would be saying, de facto, that water baptism is basically the ritual that saves. So, until you clarify your exact position on baptism, there is no point in going further with this debate.
katiemygirl
CHRISTIAN
Jesus did not say that the bread and fruit of the vine would undergo a change to become His literal body and blood. When Jesus said take, eat and drink, He LITERALLY gave His disciples bread and fruit of the vine.
Even after Jesus said, "this is My blood," He still referred to the contents as fruit of the vine after He prayed (Mt. 26:29).
Paul also refers to the elements of the Lord's Supper as "eat this bread and drink this cup" after they should have been transubstantiated (1 Cor. 11:26). In verses 26-27, Paul calls the loaf "bread" after catholics and orthodox claim the change was supposed to have taken place. Paul never called the bread the literal flesh of Jesus. In 1 Cor. 11:26-28, Paul tells us to "drink the cup." He doesn't say drink the blood.
Jesus instituted the Lord's Supper before He shed His blood on the cross. He spoke of His blood being shed, which had not happened yet. This proves the bread and fruit of the vine to be symbols.
Jesus said, "I am the bread," "I am the vine," "I am the door," "I am the good shepherd." Jesus was none of those things literally. Jesus used these words to describe Himself in metaphorical terms, each having a much deeper meaning.
I cannot understand why catholics and orthodox do not trust that the grace which comes to us by way of Jesus' body and blood cannot be conveyed to us through the symbols of bread and fruit of the vine.
You seem to placing the emphasis of Jesus' words, "Do this in remembrance of Me," onto transubstantiation rather than the death and resurrection of Jesus. Jesus said, "For as often as you eat this bread and drink the cup, you proclaim the Lord's death until He comes " (1Cor. 11:26).
Notice: Jesus says eat this bread and drink this cup. He does not say eat my body and drink my blood.
Could you find a catholic church as it exists today (in all aspects) in 80 A.D.?
Ahhhhh yes, the ever changing catholic church. I don't know about you, but I take Jesus' command to take the Lord's Supper very seriously. I do partake of the bread and fruit of the vine every first day of the week. Did you know that for centuries, right up until abt. 1970, only the priest partook of the fruit of the vine. Never, as a young girl growing up, did I ever once partake of the fruit of the vine. Yet Jesus commanded all of us to remember Him in this way. I am happy to say that the catholic church has backed off some on this. Some places actually do serve it now. But not all do. Can you imagine over riding a direct command of the Lord? Yes, the catholic church is very good at changing her stance on things.
This is directly from the Catholic Catechism, and not from some catholic haters website. You can easily google this for yourself. I have underlined and bolded the relevant parts.
983 Catechesis strives to awaken and nourish in the faithful faith in the incomparable greatness of the risen Christ's gift to his Church: the mission and the power to forgive sins through the ministry of the apostles and their successors:
The Lord wills that his disciples possess a tremendous power: that his lowly servants accomplish in his name all that he did when he was on earth.531
Priests have received from God a power that he has given neither to angels nor to archangels . . . . God above confirms what priests do here below.532
Were there no forgiveness of sins in the Church, there would be no hope of life to come or eternal liberation. Let us thank God who has given his Church such a gift.533
IN BRIEF
984 The Creed links "the forgiveness of sins" with its profession of faith in the Holy Spirit, for the risen Christ entrusted to the apostles the power to forgive sins when he gave them the Holy Spirit.
985 Baptism is the first and chief sacrament of the forgiveness of sins: it unites us to Christ, who died and rose, and gives us the Holy Spirit.
986 By Christ's will, the Church possesses the power to forgive the sins of the baptized and exercises it through bishops and priests normally in the sacrament of Penance.
987 "In the forgiveness of sins, both priests and sacraments are instruments which our Lord Jesus Christ, the only author and liberal giver of salvation, wills to use in order to efface our sins and give us the grace of justification" (Roman Catechism, I, 11, 6).
So are you okay with the catholic church witholding the fruit of the vine from billions of christians over hundreds of years when Jesus clearly commanded us to TAKE, EAT, DRINK to remember Him?
I believe what the Scriptures say. Paul seems to be saying everything we need can be found in the Scriptures. But I'll let you debate this one with him. We have more than enough to talk about here Soc.
"All Scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness; so that the man of God may be adequate, equipped for every good work (2 Tim. 3:16-17)
Spockrates
Wonderer.
Jesus did not say that the bread and fruit of the vine would undergo a change to become His literal body and blood. When Jesus said take, eat and drink, He LITERALLY gave His disciples bread and fruit of the vine.
Even after Jesus said, "this is My blood," He still referred to the contents as fruit of the vine after He prayed (Mt. 26:29).
Paul also refers to the elements of the Lord's Supper as "eat this bread and drink this cup" after they should have been transubstantiated (1 Cor. 11:26). In verses 26-27, Paul calls the loaf "bread" after catholics and orthodox claim the change was supposed to have taken place. Paul never called the bread the literal flesh of Jesus. In 1 Cor. 11:26-28, Paul tells us to "drink the cup." He doesn't say drink the blood.
Jesus instituted the Lord's Supper before He shed His blood on the cross. He spoke of His blood being shed, which had not happened yet. This proves the bread and fruit of the vine to be symbols.
Jesus said, "I am the bread," "I am the vine," "I am the door," "I am the good shepherd." Jesus was none of those things literally. Jesus used these words to describe Himself in metaphorical terms, each having a much deeper meaning.
I cannot understand why catholics and orthodox do not trust that the grace which comes to us by way of Jesus' body and blood cannot be conveyed to us through the symbols of bread and fruit of the vine.
You seem to placing the emphasis of Jesus' words, "Do this in remembrance of Me," onto transubstantiation rather than the death and resurrection of Jesus. Jesus said, "For as often as you eat this bread and drink the cup, you proclaim the Lord's death until He comes " (1Cor. 11:26).
Notice: Jesus says eat this bread and drink this cup. He does not say eat my body and drink my blood.
Could you find a catholic church as it exists today (in all aspects) in 80 A.D.?
Ahhhhh yes, the ever changing catholic church. I don't know about you, but I take Jesus' command to take the Lord's Supper very seriously. I do partake of the bread and fruit of the vine every first day of the week. Did you know that for centuries, right up until abt. 1970, only the priest partook of the fruit of the vine. Never, as a young girl growing up, did I ever once partake of the fruit of the vine. Yet Jesus commanded all of us to remember Him in this way. I am happy to say that the catholic church has backed off some on this. Some places actually do serve it now. But not all do. Can you imagine over riding a direct command of the Lord? Yes, the catholic church is very good at changing her stance on things.
This is directly from the Catholic Catechism, and not from some catholic haters website. You can easily google this for yourself. I have underlined and bolded the relevant parts.
983 Catechesis strives to awaken and nourish in the faithful faith in the incomparable greatness of the risen Christ's gift to his Church: the mission and the power to forgive sins through the ministry of the apostles and their successors:
The Lord wills that his disciples possess a tremendous power: that his lowly servants accomplish in his name all that he did when he was on earth.531
Priests have received from God a power that he has given neither to angels nor to archangels . . . . God above confirms what priests do here below.532
Were there no forgiveness of sins in the Church, there would be no hope of life to come or eternal liberation. Let us thank God who has given his Church such a gift.533
IN BRIEF
984 The Creed links "the forgiveness of sins" with its profession of faith in the Holy Spirit, for the risen Christ entrusted to the apostles the power to forgive sins when he gave them the Holy Spirit.
985 Baptism is the first and chief sacrament of the forgiveness of sins: it unites us to Christ, who died and rose, and gives us the Holy Spirit.
986 By Christ's will, the Church possesses the power to forgive the sins of the baptized and exercises it through bishops and priests normally in the sacrament of Penance.
987 "In the forgiveness of sins, both priests and sacraments are instruments which our Lord Jesus Christ, the only author and liberal giver of salvation, wills to use in order to efface our sins and give us the grace of justification" (Roman Catechism, I, 11, 6).
So are you okay with the catholic church witholding the fruit of the vine from billions of christians over hundreds of years when Jesus clearly commanded us to TAKE, EAT, DRINK to remember Him?
I believe what the Scriptures say. Paul seems to be saying everything we need can be found in the Scriptures. But I'll let you debate this one with him. We have more than enough to talk about here Soc.
"All Scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness; so that the man of God may be adequate, equipped for every good work (2 Tim. 3:16-17)
Good reply. Making me think. Thanks.
So it's off topic, but I don't mind changing the topic. I guess the question to ask is this: Do you want to keep the discussion pretty much between us with only perhaps some interruptions by keeping it here? Or do you want to possibly open it up to a larger group by me starting a new discussion thread? I'm good either way.
katiemygirl
CHRISTIAN
I like it as is. I'd still like answers to the few questions I asked in this last post, especially the one about the church in 80 A.D. I had a really good reason for asking that question. I'd also like you to address my other points as well.Good reply. Making me think. Thanks.
So it's off topic, but I don't mind changing the topic. I guess the question to ask is this: Do you want to keep the discussion pretty much between us with only perhaps some interruptions by keeping it here? Or do you want to open it up to a larger group by me starting a new discussion thread? I'm good either way.
After I posted to you, I was thinking. If the catholic church believes that the bread and fruit of the vine are the actual body and blood of Jesus, then how could they, in good conscience, deprive so many of partaking the blood of Jesus for more than 600 years?
In 1415, the Council of Constance decreed that only the bread should be administered to the people, and that the priest should drink the wine for the people. This practice was/is contrary to divine scripture.
Spockrates
Wonderer.
OK. Do you have an online source to confirm this? I will answer the other question as soon as I'm able. Good discussion! Looking forward to continuing it.
Last edited:
Spockrates
Wonderer.
So what you have here are several different topics of discussion. To make it easy, I will reply to each one separately. It will be a lot of work for both of us to discuss so many topics in one discussion thread, but I'm game.Jesus did not say that the bread and fruit of the vine would undergo a change to become His literal body and blood. When Jesus said take, eat and drink, He LITERALLY gave His disciples bread and fruit of the vine.
Even after Jesus said, "this is My blood," He still referred to the contents as fruit of the vine after He prayed (Mt. 26:29).
Paul also refers to the elements of the Lord's Supper as "eat this bread and drink this cup" after they should have been transubstantiated (1 Cor. 11:26). In verses 26-27, Paul calls the loaf "bread" after catholics and orthodox claim the change was supposed to have taken place. Paul never called the bread the literal flesh of Jesus. In 1 Cor. 11:26-28, Paul tells us to "drink the cup." He doesn't say drink the blood.
Jesus instituted the Lord's Supper before He shed His blood on the cross. He spoke of His blood being shed, which had not happened yet. This proves the bread and fruit of the vine to be symbols.
Jesus said, "I am the bread," "I am the vine," "I am the door," "I am the good shepherd." Jesus was none of those things literally. Jesus used these words to describe Himself in metaphorical terms, each having a much deeper meaning.
I cannot understand why catholics and orthodox do not trust that the grace which comes to us by way of Jesus' body and blood cannot be conveyed to us through the symbols of bread and fruit of the vine.
You seem to placing the emphasis of Jesus' words, "Do this in remembrance of Me," onto transubstantiation rather than the death and resurrection of Jesus. Jesus said, "For as often as you eat this bread and drink the cup, you proclaim the Lord's death until He comes " (1Cor. 11:26).
Notice: Jesus says eat this bread and drink this cup. He does not say eat my body and drink my blood.
Could you find a catholic church as it exists today (in all aspects) in 80 A.D.?
Ahhhhh yes, the ever changing catholic church. I don't know about you, but I take Jesus' command to take the Lord's Supper very seriously. I do partake of the bread and fruit of the vine every first day of the week. Did you know that for centuries, right up until abt. 1970, only the priest partook of the fruit of the vine. Never, as a young girl growing up, did I ever once partake of the fruit of the vine. Yet Jesus commanded all of us to remember Him in this way. I am happy to say that the catholic church has backed off some on this. Some places actually do serve it now. But not all do. Can you imagine over riding a direct command of the Lord? Yes, the catholic church is very good at changing her stance on things.
This is directly from the Catholic Catechism, and not from some catholic haters website. You can easily google this for yourself. I have underlined and bolded the relevant parts.
983 Catechesis strives to awaken and nourish in the faithful faith in the incomparable greatness of the risen Christ's gift to his Church: the mission and the power to forgive sins through the ministry of the apostles and their successors:
The Lord wills that his disciples possess a tremendous power: that his lowly servants accomplish in his name all that he did when he was on earth.531
Priests have received from God a power that he has given neither to angels nor to archangels . . . . God above confirms what priests do here below.532
Were there no forgiveness of sins in the Church, there would be no hope of life to come or eternal liberation. Let us thank God who has given his Church such a gift.533
IN BRIEF
984 The Creed links "the forgiveness of sins" with its profession of faith in the Holy Spirit, for the risen Christ entrusted to the apostles the power to forgive sins when he gave them the Holy Spirit.
985 Baptism is the first and chief sacrament of the forgiveness of sins: it unites us to Christ, who died and rose, and gives us the Holy Spirit.
986 By Christ's will, the Church possesses the power to forgive the sins of the baptized and exercises it through bishops and priests normally in the sacrament of Penance.
987 "In the forgiveness of sins, both priests and sacraments are instruments which our Lord Jesus Christ, the only author and liberal giver of salvation, wills to use in order to efface our sins and give us the grace of justification" (Roman Catechism, I, 11, 6).
So are you okay with the catholic church witholding the fruit of the vine from billions of christians over hundreds of years when Jesus clearly commanded us to TAKE, EAT, DRINK to remember Him?
I believe what the Scriptures say. Paul seems to be saying everything we need can be found in the Scriptures. But I'll let you debate this one with him. We have more than enough to talk about here Soc.
"All Scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness; so that the man of God may be adequate, equipped for every good work (2 Tim. 3:16-17)
Spockrates
Wonderer.
Since churches are made up of people, I'd say no church in existence today is the same as it was 24 hours ago.
There was an Ancient Greek philosopher Epicurus who said, "It is impossible for a man to step in the same river twice. For the river he steps in a second time has changed, so it is no longer the same river. The man, too has changed and is no longer the same man he was when he stepped in the river before." (BTW, Socrates said many people of Ephesus were followers of Epicurean philosophy. I imagine there were still many who believed in it when Paul wrote his letter to the church, there.)
Epicurus - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Since not even the same church can be the same--in every aspect--today as it was the day before, obviously no church in existence today can ever possibly be the same as a church of A.D. 80! So the answer to your question must be no.
Last edited:
Spockrates
Wonderer.
Do you partake by drinking wine or grape juice?
Spockrates
Wonderer.
Please answer me these two questions, first. Then I promise to respond:
When Paul wrote, "By grace you are saved, through faith..." (Ephesians 2:8), did he mean we are saved by faith, or through faith? What is the difference between being saved by faith and being saved through faith?
Spockrates
Wonderer.
I believe what the Scriptures say. Paul seems to be saying everything we need can be found in the Scriptures. But I'll let you debate this one with him. We have more than enough to talk about here Soc.
"All Scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness; so that the man of God may be adequate, equipped for every good work (2 Tim. 3:16-17)
OK, here is just one of many things I have in mind to show not all we need to know about pleasing God is explicitly contained in the pages of the Bible:
I'm unable to find anything in the scriptures about the morality--or lack thereof--of cloning human beings. Please point out a chapter and verse that explains whether as a Christian, I should be for or against it.