Guest Angeledei Posted November 5, 2003 Share Posted November 5, 2003 Thanks Yod. It's on page five, to spare the lengthy post again Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest yod Posted November 5, 2003 Share Posted November 5, 2003 OK...I'm getting this thread mixed up with the other one that went real long...still this is a lot and the question seems vague but I'll take a stab at it. This is the only record we have of any of Christ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ovedya Posted November 5, 2003 Group: Royal Member Followers: 3 Topic Count: 375 Topics Per Day: 0.05 Content Count: 11,400 Content Per Day: 1.44 Reputation: 125 Days Won: 0 Joined: 08/30/2002 Status: Offline Birthday: 08/14/1971 Share Posted November 5, 2003 You know what - it's your turn. I have asked these questions TWICE now and NO ONE will touch it! Wonder why....hhhhmmmmm. I shall repeat them and see if ANY of you will even give it a second glance, although I have my suspicions as to why no one is answering them As I also have my suspicions why no one has answered my points. But let's not shift gears just yet. Since you brought up your adoration of Michael the Archangel, I think it's up to you to qualify your statements. You agree with the definition of devotion, and you have already said that you are devoted to Michael the Archangel. I want to know if you are devoted to him just I indicated above. I would further like to know what causes you to be devoted to an angel of any kind. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Angeledei Posted November 5, 2003 Share Posted November 5, 2003 I'm sorry but NO MAN can be taken over the scriptures no matter how sincere and genuinely they believe what they "think". With so many different denominations personally interpreting Sacred Scripture - is this not exactly what you are talking about? Yod - first, let me thank you for your answers! You answered them in the way that Protestants do see these questions and I am appreciative of you taking a stab at it. The only thing I want to expound on a little is the last question if you are willing.... Were there "other" christians who only celebrated the Holy Eucharist as a "memorial" in symbolic terms only? If so, what documentation do you have of this? There is a mountain of evidence (just by reading the early Church Fathers) that they did indeed celebrate the Holy Eucharist in the intent that Christ is truly present in the Sacrament and NOT to be confused with the seder meal. We are talking about the early christians celebrating the SACRIFICE of the Mass. I will only quote one and would like your thoughts on St. Ignatius' words: St. Ignatius of Antioch wrote letters to the christian communities around the time of 110 A.D. They are addressed to Christian communities he presided over as bishop. He speaks of the Eucharistic mystery in mystical terms saying, "Therefore arm yourselves with gentleness, renew yourselves in faith, which is the Flesh of the Lord, and in charity, which is the Blood of Jesus Christ." His most famous passage says: I am God Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Angeledei Posted November 5, 2003 Share Posted November 5, 2003 Thus, it was surely a good thing to take the section of the Passover seder and repeat it as a memorial more often than once a year. Paul certainly recognized this and was probably very instrumental in teaching this to gentiles because it was such a good object lesson. but you can be assured that the "Followers of the Way" or "Nazarites" (the jewish christians who were rejected by gentiles) understood the symbolic meaning. One last thing: Where do you get this theory from? If Scripture, where? If early church history; where or who implied this. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest yod Posted November 5, 2003 Share Posted November 5, 2003 Thus, it was surely a good thing to take the section of the Passover seder and repeat it as a memorial more often than once a year. Paul certainly recognized this and was probably very instrumental in teaching this to gentiles because it was such a good object lesson. but you can be assured that the "Followers of the Way" or "Nazarites" (the jewish christians who were rejected by gentiles) understood the symbolic meaning. One last thing: Where do you get this theory from? If Scripture, where? If early church history; where or who implied this. Paul speaks of "Christ our Passover" so he certainly must have knowledge of the church celebrating this new liturgical rite. I deduced the reasons on my own because there is no definitive explanation of how/why this was started. Having read what you just posted about Ignatius, I honestly still don't see why you think he is speaking of a literal transformation. There are many metaphorical passages which are spoken as if literal in the Bible. I don't see his words emphatically talking about bread being actual flesh anymore than Jesus saying "I am the water of life" and turning Himself into a fountain. The Nazarites existed into the 13th Century. There is a Catholic priest living in Austria (Peter something?) who wrote a history of Catholic/Jewish relations when he was a bishop in England. I wish I could recall his name at the moment...but I can't. Anyway, it is a historical fact that the jewish believers continued to be jewish and this caused extreme problems with the gentiles...especially in Antioch and the church at Rome. If you take an overview of the book of Romans you will see that this is it's very purpose! The first few chapters deal with jews who think they are justified by their heritage and the last chapters deal with gentiles who have become arrogant against the jews by thinking that they have become the new "chosen" people. Another bad teaching that early church fathers propogated and the RCC expanded. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Angeledei Posted November 5, 2003 Share Posted November 5, 2003 Since you brought up your adoration of Michael the Archangel, I think it's up to you to qualify your statements. *sigh* My words were this: I have a particular devotion to St. Michael the Archangel. Some might misconstrue your words to think that I "adore" St. Michael in the way that Christ should be "adored" or "worshipped". Next, I want to throw a verse out there: Genesis 18:2. "And when he had lifted up his eyes, there appeared to him three men standing near to him: and as soon as he saw them, he ran to meet them from the door of his tent, and adored down to the ground." (Latin Vulgate: "cumque elevasset oculos apparuerunt ei tres viri stantes propter eum quos cum vidisset cucurrit in occursum eorum de ostio tabernaculi et adoravit in terra.") So, perhaps your word "adored" may NOT be out of context afterall. ok - so back to your claim of "suspiscion" as to why I did not answer your question, which, by the way, I did if you go back a few pages, but apparently not to your liking. You agree with the definition of devotion, and you have already said that you are devoted to Michael the Archangel. I want to know if you are devoted to him just I indicated above. I would further like to know what causes you to be devoted to an angel of any kind. Did not God create the angels? Do you not have a devotion to anyone in particular? Your mother, father, children etc...? Are not parents completely devoted to their children? If God says that what He created is good (just read the first chapter of Genesis) than why would I *not* have a devotion to something God created that is good? St. Francis of Assisi had a great devotion to God's creatures because He recognized God's hand in creation through them. Angels are mentined 103 times in the Old Testament and 175 times in the New Testament. I think the important thing to remember is the difference between devotion and worship. Everything has their place, as God intended. Do you have a point with these questions? Are you suggesting I am wrong in having a devotion to St. Michael or were you just curious? Daniel 12:1-4 1 But at that time shall Michael rise up, the great prince, who standeth for the children of thy people: and a time shall come, such as never was from the time that nations began, even until that time. And at that time shall thy people be saved, every one that shall be found written in the book. 2 And many of those that sleep in the dust of the earth, shall awake: some unto life everlasting, and others unto reproach, to see it always. 3 But they that are learned, shall shine as the brightness of the firmament: and they that instruct many to justice, as stars for all eternity. 4 But thou, O Daniel, shut up the words, and seal the book, even to the time appointed: many shall pass over, and knowledge shall be manifold. St. Michael the Archangel The Jews regarded Michael as the special protector of Israel, and in Christian usage he became the protector of the church. In the prayers after low mass, he is accordingly invoked to be 'our safeguard against the wickedness and snares of the devil,' and is referred to as the 'captain of the Heavenly Host' because of what John tells us about him in the Apocalypse (12:7 to 9:): "And there was war in heaven. Michael and his angels fought against the dragon... And the great dragon was cast out, that old serpent called the Devil and Satan, which deceiveth the whole world: he was cast out into the earth, and his angels were cast out with him." In the offertory anthem of the mass for the dead, Michael is charged with the care of all departed souls that he "the holy standard bearer (may) introduce them to the holy light, which thou didst promise of old to Abraham and to his seed." The main feast is, of course, (September 29th), but on May 8th a lesser feast is observed to commemorate the appearance of St. Michael on the summit of Mount Gargano in Apulia during the time of Pope Gelasius (492-6). I hope I answered your question thoroughly. Let me know if you want to know anything else. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Angeledei Posted November 5, 2003 Share Posted November 5, 2003 Having read what you just posted about Ignatius, I honestly still don't see why you think he is speaking of a literal transformation. There are many metaphorical passages which are spoken as if literal in the Bible. I don't see his words emphatically talking about bread being actual flesh anymore than Jesus saying "I am the water of life" and turning Himself into a fountain. Yod - I honestly can say I haven't read up on what you were speaking of the "Nazarites" but I will try and research it because I am curious as to their existence. Anyway, it is pretty clear that the celebration of the Mass has always been. Let me refer some more examples. What do you deduce of what these early Fathers have to say? Justin Martyr, circa A.D. 150, who said: "For we do not receive these things as though they were ordinary food and drink... the food over which the thanksgiving has been spoken becomes the flesh and blood of the incarnate Jesus in order to nourish and transform our flesh and blood." St. Justin called this food Eucharist, thanksgiving or blessing, just as he called baptismal washing "enlightenment". For him this was a real and powerful act of God. For St. Ignatius, who died in 107 A.D., "thought of the Church as a Eucharistic society which only realized its true nature when it celebrated the Supper of the Lord, receiving His Body and Blood in the Sacrament." Justine Martyr - "This food we call the Eucharist, of which no one is allowed to partake except one who believes that the things we teach are true, and has received the washing for forgiveness of sins and for rebirth, and who lives as Christ handed down to us. For we do not receive these things as common bread or common drink; but as Jesus Christ our Savior being incarnate by God's Word took flesh and blood for our salvation, so also we have been taught that the food consecrated by the Word of prayer which comes from him, from which our flesh and blood are nourished by transformation, is the flesh and blood of that incarnate Jesus." " First Apology", Ch. 66, inter A.D. 148-155. "God has therefore announced in advance that all the sacrifices offered in His name, which Jesus Christ offered, that is, in the Eucharist of the Bread and of the Chalice, which are offered by us Christians in every part of the world, are pleasing to Him." "Dialogue with Trypho", Ch. 117, circa 130-160 A.D. ST. IRENAEUS OF LYONS - "So then, if the mixed cup and the manufactured bread receive the Word of God and become the Eucharist, that is to say, the Blood and Body of Christ, which fortify and build up the substance of our flesh, how can these people claim that the flesh is incapable of receiving God's gift of eternal life, when it is nourished by Christ's Blood and Body and is His member? As the blessed apostle says in his letter to the Ephesians, 'For we are members of His Body, of His flesh and of His bones' (Eph. 5:30). He is not talking about some kind of 'spiritual' and 'invisible' man, 'for a spirit does not have flesh an bones' (Lk. 24:39). No, he is talking of the organism possessed by a real human being, composed of flesh and nerves and bones. It is this which is nourished by the cup which is His Blood, and is fortified by the bread which is His Body. The stem of the vine takes root in the earth and eventually bears fruit, and 'the grain of wheat falls into the earth' (Jn. 12:24), dissolves, rises again, multiplied by the all-containing Spirit of God, and finally after skilled processing, is put to human use. These two then receive the Word of God and become the Eucharist, which is the Body and Blood of Christ." -"Five Books on the Unmasking and Refutation of the Falsely So can I ask you this: Were these christians wrong? I sincerely would like to know what you think because you offer good insight Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Catsmeow Posted November 5, 2003 Group: Royal Member Followers: 0 Topic Count: 439 Topics Per Day: 0.06 Content Count: 7,315 Content Per Day: 0.93 Reputation: 356 Days Won: 0 Joined: 11/21/2002 Status: Offline Share Posted November 5, 2003 I admit I haven't gone through the many long posts in this thread...but perhaps I can interject here. Regarding whether the Communion is literally transformed into the "elements" of the physical Christ or not...I just wonder - what bearing it has. I have seen the Holy Spirit's presence indwelling both Catholic and Evangelical believer alike. Angeladei and I were touched by Him around the same time of day one day and were called to make peace with each other. He speaks to EACH of us...whether we dunk or sprinkle. Whether we believe the Eucharist is real flesh or symbolic...it seems that regardless of this, those who follow Jesus Christ are still "in Him" and joined in fellowship by His Spirit. Why is this whole thing an issue then? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jesusislord Posted November 5, 2003 Group: Advanced Member Followers: 1 Topic Count: 55 Topics Per Day: 0.01 Content Count: 251 Content Per Day: 0.03 Reputation: 2 Days Won: 0 Joined: 10/05/2003 Status: Offline Birthday: 10/31/1943 Share Posted November 5, 2003 i guess we will not know if all of these are right or worng.. until we get to heaven..... however i am sure tired of this evil spirit of CONFLICT and STRIFE THAT see in these threads..... Down to right out blasphemist behaviour on both sides....... the snide remarks that indicate we are not saved ...... what according to the word we are........ IF you repent as the word says...... and believe ON THE NAME OF JESUS CHRIST...... DO WE NEED ANYTHING MORE. FOR SALVATION NOT ACCORDING TO THE WORD........ GOD BLESS YOU ALL Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts