frienduff thaylorde Posted November 7, 2017 Group: Mars Hill Followers: 17 Topic Count: 18 Topics Per Day: 0.01 Content Count: 13,256 Content Per Day: 5.33 Reputation: 1 Days Won: 62 Joined: 07/07/2017 Status: Offline Birthday: 03/25/1972 Share Posted November 7, 2017 NO they did not really like benedict very much. BUT that is because HE was a far more BIBLCAL on CERTAIN THINGS. the world is done with any reminder of the truth. Its not that I support benedict . But yalls got the most dangerous prophet known to man ON TOP NOW. yalls needs to flee that man fast . Why not just start over in the bible. I mean ponder this at least. You know the jehovas and Mormons , they make claims THEIR MEN were OF GOD . Can we at least agree that those two groups are in fact dead wrong. now emergent church and others like prosperity , they too claim to be OF GOD , yet you got to know deep down THEY AINT. so my question is . HOW DOES ONE TRULY KNOW their LEADER IS OF GOD. cant all them groups be right , in fact none of them are. WHEN I witnessed to a Jehovah lady , and the SPIRIT gave me timothy three sixteen , that talks about HOW GOD was manifest in the flesh AND that they had forgotten to take it out of THIER OWN BIBLE..................old school, the lady froze and could say nothing , nothing . However instead of repenting , you KNOW what she mangaged to squeak out . SHE DID NOT say , well your wrong. HOW COULD SHE , it is in their bible too. SHE KNEW, ,SHE KNEW at that moment . BUT what did she say...............WELL if JEHOVAH wants our watch tower society to know it , HE WILL REVEAL THIS TO THEM. SHE STAYED TIED TO HER LEADERS. okay , Mormons have done this too, so have many in many faiths . WHAT is my point. well , lets examine something . IF the POPE is truly hearing FROM GOD . HOW COME so many popes have not only contradicted the bible BUT THEMSELVES......................OLD SCHOOOL its a trap . GET out of it. I am not leading you into one a denomination . I aint saying BE a protestant I aint saying be a Baptist. THE CHURCHES are in shambles. THE ONLY way we going to KNOW if we are truly FOLLWING GOD , GET BACK IN THAT BIBLE FAST old school FAST . please . please . please . HERE IT IS AGAIN OLD SCHOOL. now read slowly and come respond . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Heleadethme Posted November 7, 2017 Group: Royal Member Followers: 15 Topic Count: 13 Topics Per Day: 0.01 Content Count: 3,371 Content Per Day: 1.36 Reputation: 3,268 Days Won: 5 Joined: 07/10/2017 Status: Offline Share Posted November 7, 2017 8 minutes ago, frienduff thaylorde said: Exactly. some see the communion as a remission of sins or whatever. Truly it is to simply be done in remembrance of What Christ did for us. Not to mention they live evil , yet think drinking of that cup and eating of that bread somehow saves them. WHEN in fact the saving was DONE by Christ alone. HE did tell us to do it in remembrance of Him. And, in the sixth chapter he was not talking about the communion , HE was talking about HIM. as in COMING to HIM to EVEN HAVE LIFE to eat of HIM, HIS sayings , feed on them. But just as many other scrips the institution of the machine has changed many meanings to suit their own traditions . Amen......we re-member His death. We eat from a table that some don't have the right to eat........need to be washed in the blood before we eat at the Lord's table. Most catholics are not, sadly. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OldSchool2 Posted November 7, 2017 Group: Royal Member Followers: 7 Topic Count: 701 Topics Per Day: 0.13 Content Count: 7,511 Content Per Day: 1.35 Reputation: 1,759 Days Won: 0 Joined: 01/16/2009 Status: Offline Birthday: 02/18/1955 Share Posted November 7, 2017 6 hours ago, Heleadethme said: There is a warning against eating and drinking unworthily. There is also a warning against not eating and drinking (John 6:53). Or is your answer to never celebrate the Lord's Supper out of fear in the same way that a pious Jew would use "lord" in lieu of Yahweh so as never to mispronounce his name? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OldSchool2 Posted November 7, 2017 Group: Royal Member Followers: 7 Topic Count: 701 Topics Per Day: 0.13 Content Count: 7,511 Content Per Day: 1.35 Reputation: 1,759 Days Won: 0 Joined: 01/16/2009 Status: Offline Birthday: 02/18/1955 Share Posted November 7, 2017 3 hours ago, B3L13v3R said: Yep, I "was" many years ago.... How old were you then? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OldSchool2 Posted November 7, 2017 Group: Royal Member Followers: 7 Topic Count: 701 Topics Per Day: 0.13 Content Count: 7,511 Content Per Day: 1.35 Reputation: 1,759 Days Won: 0 Joined: 01/16/2009 Status: Offline Birthday: 02/18/1955 Share Posted November 7, 2017 2 hours ago, Butero said: Nice try, but I am too educated in the facts. I have a 1611 KJV Bible, and the only difference between that and the Authorized Version is the old English spelling, and the fact they placed the Apocrypha in the center. There were a couple of publishing errors, not translation errors, that have been corrected.... Corrected by multiple revisions as error is error. And 300 words found in the KJV no longer bear the same meaning because language changes over time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OldSchool2 Posted November 7, 2017 Group: Royal Member Followers: 7 Topic Count: 701 Topics Per Day: 0.13 Content Count: 7,511 Content Per Day: 1.35 Reputation: 1,759 Days Won: 0 Joined: 01/16/2009 Status: Offline Birthday: 02/18/1955 Share Posted November 7, 2017 2 hours ago, Butero said: It never says anywhere that the reason they were not to eat blood has anything to do with not offending Jews... "... we should write and tell them to abstain from food polluted by idols, from sexual immorality, from the meat of strangled animals, and from blood. For Moses has been proclaimed in every city from ancient times and is read in the synagogues on every Sabbath" (Acts 15:20-21). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OldSchool2 Posted November 7, 2017 Group: Royal Member Followers: 7 Topic Count: 701 Topics Per Day: 0.13 Content Count: 7,511 Content Per Day: 1.35 Reputation: 1,759 Days Won: 0 Joined: 01/16/2009 Status: Offline Birthday: 02/18/1955 Share Posted November 7, 2017 2 hours ago, frienduff thaylorde said: Very good question OLD SCHOOL. very good. the answer is HECK NO he was not . So let us all go and do likewise. the sixth chapter it taken out of context by Catholics.... ... Jesus said to them, "I tell you the truth, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you. Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day. For my flesh is real food and my blood is real drink. Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood remains in me, and I in him. Just as the living Father sent me and I live because of the Father, so the one who feeds on me will live because of me." (John 6:53-57) Is that enough context for you, or should I cut and paste the entire chapter? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Butero Posted November 7, 2017 Share Posted November 7, 2017 30 minutes ago, OldSchool2 said: Corrected by multiple revisions as error is error. And 300 words found in the KJV no longer bear the same meaning because language changes over time. They are not translation errors. Publishers make mistakes. I have a Bible in my truck with a spelling error. That is not a translation error, and if in the next edition they correct it, that is not a translation revision. The idea that there have been all these revisions is a falsehood put out by defenders of the modern English abominations. How about posting the 300 words so we can see them. I don't believe you. I believe that if we looked up those words you speak of in an unabridged Dictionary, they would include the original meanings found in the KJV Bible. It just so happens that I have an unabridged Dictionary, so have at it. I am happy to correct this lie too. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Butero Posted November 7, 2017 Share Posted November 7, 2017 30 minutes ago, OldSchool2 said: "... we should write and tell them to abstain from food polluted by idols, from sexual immorality, from the meat of strangled animals, and from blood. For Moses has been proclaimed in every city from ancient times and is read in the synagogues on every Sabbath" (Acts 15:20-21). They were specifically told that they are not to eat blood. Those are things that the Apostles said were necessary for the gentiles to observe. They were told not to worry about circumcision and other such things, and Moses is preached in the synagogues every Sabbath day. Most of the believing gentiles would attend the services at the synagogue on Saturday and would have a Christian meeting on Sunday. That is how the tradition of meeting on the first day of the week began. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Butero Posted November 7, 2017 Share Posted November 7, 2017 7 hours ago, OldSchool2 said: "Truly, truly, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you" (John 6:53). Thank you so much for posting this. It goes back to a point I made earlier about Catholics. They believe that you must literally eat the flesh of Christ and drink his blood to be saved. As such, they believe only Catholics and perhaps a handful of others that take communion in that manner are saved. We are supposed to accept Catholics as fellow Christians, but they don't accept most of us as Christians because we don't literally eat the flesh of Christ and drink his blood. We partake of bread and wine or grape juice. In reality, Catholics are only eating bread and drinking juice or wine, but they are deceived into thinking it changes into real blood and flesh. There is one other point I wish to make. When Jesus made that comment, he hadn't been to the cross yet. Partaking of communion had not yet begun, but he still insisted that unless they drink his blood and eat his flesh, they couldn't be saved. It can't be in the literal sense, and it can't even be the partaking of communion he is speaking of. He is speaking of having faith in the Son of Man and the blood he would shed on the cross, and his body that would die on the cross and later be resurrected. He is speaking of the fact we must believe on the finished work of the cross to be saved. He is not saying we must take communion to be saved. That is a serious error. It is putting faith in eating a wafer and drinking wine or grape juice to save you in addition to faith. It means the finished work on the cross was not enough to save us. It is really no different than saying one must be baptized and circumcised to be saved, in addition to believing on Jesus. The man that was saved on the cross beside Jesus never took communion. How was he saved? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts