Zone1 Early Christians believed that the bread and wine used in the Eucharist were transformed into the body and blood of Christ

Only thing i know of that likes to drink blood is vampires, demons and christians.
:lol:
TN :11_2_1043:

What you eat or drink doesn't matter. I don't know of one church that serves up blood and little chunks of flesh. It is all about remembering. The disciples drank wine and ate bread daily. And remembered daily that Christ's flesh was shredded, and His blood spilled out to permanently cover our sins. You can use whatever you like. It doesn't have to be grape juice and wafers served up in a church once in a while. It is all about remembering what it took to salvage our souls.
We are about to remember our soldier's lives that were sacrificed for us. It isn't necessary for us to join the Army or eat MREs to do that. We use flags to remember them. We use wine and bread to remember Jesus and His sacrifice. :eusa_angel:
 
Last edited:
TN :11_2_1043:

What you eat or drink doesn't matter. I don't know of one church that serves up blood and little chunks of flesh. It is all about remembering. The disciples drank wine and ate bread daily. And remembered daily that Christ's flesh was shredded, and His blood spilled out to permanently cover our sins. You can use whatever you like. It doesn't have to be grape juice and wafers served up in a church once in a while. It is simply about remembering what it took to salvage our souls.
We are about to remember our soldier's lives that were sacrificed for us. It isn't necessary for us to join the Army or eat MREs to do that. We use flags to remember them. We use wine and bread to remember Jesus and Hs sacrifice.
😘
I know. I just like to poke at it. Make believe cannibalism lolz.
 
Scripture does
Not from my interpretation. I don't get that interpretation from scripture anymore than I get the interpretation that men can become gods or that Jesus was just a man.
 
No. We all have our own purpose; our own calling; our unique talents.
You ignore 1 Peter 2:9 then? Here it is in context:

7: So, the honor is for you who believe, but for those who do not believe,

“The stone that the builders rejected
has become the cornerstone", and

“A stone of stumbling,
and a rock of offense.”
They stumble because they disobey the word, as they were destined to do.

9: But you are a chosen race, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, a people for his own possession, that you may proclaim the excellencies of him who called you out of darkness into his marvelous light. 10: Once you were not a people, but now you are God's people; once you had not received mercy, but now you have received mercy.

Can you see what the writer is saying here? Those who do not believe stumble over Jesus because they disobey the Word and do not believe, but believers (the other group) are a chosen race, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, etc. You can claim you're not (I have no idea why you would refuse a title the Bible says you have), but if the Bible says I'm a royal priest, I believe I'm a royal priest. If the Catholic Church wants to create a whole new "special" priesthood aside from what the Bible says, that's on them but it's not Biblical.
 
Not from my interpretation. I don't get that interpretation from scripture anymore than I get the interpretation that men can become gods or that Jesus was just a man.
What do you think 1 Peter 2:9 says then?
 
You ignore 1 Peter 2:9 then? Here it is in context:

7: So, the honor is for you who believe, but for those who do not believe,

“The stone that the builders rejected
has become the cornerstone", and

“A stone of stumbling,
and a rock of offense.”
They stumble because they disobey the word, as they were destined to do.

9: But you are a chosen race, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, a people for his own possession, that you may proclaim the excellencies of him who called you out of darkness into his marvelous light. 10: Once you were not a people, but now you are God's people; once you had not received mercy, but now you have received mercy.

Can you see what the writer is saying here? Those who do not believe stumble over Jesus because they disobey the Word and do not believe, but believers (the other group) are a chosen race, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, etc. You can claim you're not (I have no idea why you would refuse a title the Bible says you have), but if the Bible says I'm a royal priest, I believe I'm a royal priest. If the Catholic Church wants to create a whole new "special" priesthood aside from what the Bible says, that's on them but it's not Biblical.
I already explained why.
 
What do you think 1 Peter 2:9 says then?

THE FIRST LETTER OF PETER​

This letter begins with an address by Peter to Christian communities located in five provinces of Asia Minor (1 Pt 1:1), including areas evangelized by Paul (Acts 16:67; 18:23). Christians there are encouraged to remain faithful to their standards of belief and conduct in spite of threats of persecution. Numerous allusions in the letter suggest that the churches addressed were largely of Gentile composition (1 Pt 1:14, 18; 2:910; 4:34), though considerable use is made of the Old Testament (1 Pt 1:24; 2:67, 910, 22; 3:1012).

The contents following the address both inspire and admonish these “chosen sojourners” (1 Pt 1:1) who, in seeking to live as God’s people, feel an alienation from their previous religious roots and the society around them. Appeal is made to Christ’s resurrection and the future hope it provides (1 Pt 1:35) and to the experience of baptism as new birth (1 Pt 1:3, 2325; 3:21). The suffering and death of Christ serve as both source of salvation and example (1 Pt 1:19; 2:2125; 3:18). What Christians are in Christ, as a people who have received mercy and are to proclaim and live according to God’s call (1 Pt 2:910), is repeatedly spelled out for all sorts of situations in society (1 Pt 2:1117), work (even as slaves, 1 Pt 2:1820), the home (1 Pt 3:17), and general conduct (1 Pt 3:812; 4:111). But over all hangs the possibility of suffering as a Christian (1 Pt 3:1317). In 1 Pt 4:1219 persecution is described as already occurring, so that some have supposed the letter was addressed both to places where such a “trial by fire” was already present and to places where it might break out.

The letter constantly mingles moral exhortation (paraklēsis) with its catechetical summaries of mercies in Christ. Encouragement to fidelity in spite of suffering is based upon a vision of the meaning of Christian existence. The emphasis on baptism and allusions to various features of the baptismal liturgy suggest that the author has incorporated into his exposition numerous homiletic, credal, hymnic, and sacramental elements of the baptismal rite that had become traditional at an early date.

From Irenaeus in the late second century until modern times, Christian tradition regarded Peter the apostle as author of this document. Since he was martyred at Rome during the persecution of Nero between A.D. 64 and 67, it was supposed that the letter was written from Rome shortly before his death. This is supported by its reference to “Babylon” (1 Pt 5:13), a code name for Rome in the early church.

Some modern scholars, however, on the basis of a number of features that they consider incompatible with Petrine authenticity, regard the letter as the work of a later Christian writer. Such features include the cultivated Greek in which it is written, difficult to attribute to a Galilean fisherman, together with its use of the Greek Septuagint translation when citing the Old Testament; the similarity in both thought and expression to the Pauline literature; and the allusions to widespread persecution of Christians, which did not occur until at least the reign of Domitian (A.D. 81–96). In this view the letter would date from the end of the first century or even the beginning of the second, when there is evidence for persecution of Christians in Asia Minor (the letter of Pliny the Younger to Trajan, A.D. 111–12).

Other scholars believe, however, that these objections can be met by appeal to use of a secretary, Silvanus, mentioned in 1 Pt 5:12. Such secretaries often gave literary expression to the author’s thoughts in their own style and language. The persecutions may refer to local harassment rather than to systematic repression by the state. Hence there is nothing in the document incompatible with Petrine authorship in the 60s.

Still other scholars take a middle position. The many literary contacts with the Pauline literature, James, and 1 John suggest a common fund of traditional formulations rather than direct dependence upon Paul. Such liturgical and catechetical traditions must have been very ancient and in some cases of Palestinian origin.

Yet it is unlikely that Peter addressed a letter to the Gentile churches of Asia Minor while Paul was still alive. This suggests a period after the death of the two apostles, perhaps A.D. 70–90. The author would be a disciple of Peter in Rome, representing a Petrine group that served as a bridge between the Palestinian origins of Christianity and its flowering in the Gentile world. The problem addressed would not be official persecution but the difficulty of living the Christian life in a hostile, secular environment that espoused different values and subjected the Christian minority to ridicule and oppression.

The principal divisions of the First Letter of Peter are the following:

  1. Address (1:12)
  2. The Gift and Call of God in Baptism (1:32:10)
  3. The Christian in a Hostile World (2:114:11)
  4. Advice to the Persecuted (4:125:11)
  5. Conclusion (5:1214)

In short you are reading way too much into a letter that was intended to encourage Christians to remain faithful to their standards of belief and conduct in spite of threats of persecution.​

 

THE FIRST LETTER OF PETER​

This letter begins with an address by Peter to Christian communities located in five provinces of Asia Minor (1 Pt 1:1), including areas evangelized by Paul (Acts 16:67; 18:23). Christians there are encouraged to remain faithful to their standards of belief and conduct in spite of threats of persecution. Numerous allusions in the letter suggest that the churches addressed were largely of Gentile composition (1 Pt 1:14, 18; 2:910; 4:34), though considerable use is made of the Old Testament (1 Pt 1:24; 2:67, 910, 22; 3:1012).

The contents following the address both inspire and admonish these “chosen sojourners” (1 Pt 1:1) who, in seeking to live as God’s people, feel an alienation from their previous religious roots and the society around them. Appeal is made to Christ’s resurrection and the future hope it provides (1 Pt 1:35) and to the experience of baptism as new birth (1 Pt 1:3, 2325; 3:21). The suffering and death of Christ serve as both source of salvation and example (1 Pt 1:19; 2:2125; 3:18). What Christians are in Christ, as a people who have received mercy and are to proclaim and live according to God’s call (1 Pt 2:910), is repeatedly spelled out for all sorts of situations in society (1 Pt 2:1117), work (even as slaves, 1 Pt 2:1820), the home (1 Pt 3:17), and general conduct (1 Pt 3:812; 4:111). But over all hangs the possibility of suffering as a Christian (1 Pt 3:1317). In 1 Pt 4:1219 persecution is described as already occurring, so that some have supposed the letter was addressed both to places where such a “trial by fire” was already present and to places where it might break out.

The letter constantly mingles moral exhortation (paraklēsis) with its catechetical summaries of mercies in Christ. Encouragement to fidelity in spite of suffering is based upon a vision of the meaning of Christian existence. The emphasis on baptism and allusions to various features of the baptismal liturgy suggest that the author has incorporated into his exposition numerous homiletic, credal, hymnic, and sacramental elements of the baptismal rite that had become traditional at an early date.

From Irenaeus in the late second century until modern times, Christian tradition regarded Peter the apostle as author of this document. Since he was martyred at Rome during the persecution of Nero between A.D. 64 and 67, it was supposed that the letter was written from Rome shortly before his death. This is supported by its reference to “Babylon” (1 Pt 5:13), a code name for Rome in the early church.

Some modern scholars, however, on the basis of a number of features that they consider incompatible with Petrine authenticity, regard the letter as the work of a later Christian writer. Such features include the cultivated Greek in which it is written, difficult to attribute to a Galilean fisherman, together with its use of the Greek Septuagint translation when citing the Old Testament; the similarity in both thought and expression to the Pauline literature; and the allusions to widespread persecution of Christians, which did not occur until at least the reign of Domitian (A.D. 81–96). In this view the letter would date from the end of the first century or even the beginning of the second, when there is evidence for persecution of Christians in Asia Minor (the letter of Pliny the Younger to Trajan, A.D. 111–12).

Other scholars believe, however, that these objections can be met by appeal to use of a secretary, Silvanus, mentioned in 1 Pt 5:12. Such secretaries often gave literary expression to the author’s thoughts in their own style and language. The persecutions may refer to local harassment rather than to systematic repression by the state. Hence there is nothing in the document incompatible with Petrine authorship in the 60s.

Still other scholars take a middle position. The many literary contacts with the Pauline literature, James, and 1 John suggest a common fund of traditional formulations rather than direct dependence upon Paul. Such liturgical and catechetical traditions must have been very ancient and in some cases of Palestinian origin.

Yet it is unlikely that Peter addressed a letter to the Gentile churches of Asia Minor while Paul was still alive. This suggests a period after the death of the two apostles, perhaps A.D. 70–90. The author would be a disciple of Peter in Rome, representing a Petrine group that served as a bridge between the Palestinian origins of Christianity and its flowering in the Gentile world. The problem addressed would not be official persecution but the difficulty of living the Christian life in a hostile, secular environment that espoused different values and subjected the Christian minority to ridicule and oppression.

The principal divisions of the First Letter of Peter are the following:

  1. Address (1:12)
  2. The Gift and Call of God in Baptism (1:32:10)
  3. The Christian in a Hostile World (2:114:11)
  4. Advice to the Persecuted (4:125:11)
  5. Conclusion (5:1214)

In short you are reading way too much into a letter that was intended to encourage Christians to remain faithful to their standards of belief and conduct in spite of threats of persecution.​

Are you trying to say that the passage does NOT intend to tell believers that they are a royal priesthood? Tell me, from your quote, what that particular part of the passage says.
 
Are you trying to say that the passage does NOT intend to tell believers that they are a royal priesthood? Tell me, from your quote, what that particular part of the passage says.
That is correct. You are taking that passage out of context from the letter Peter wrote. That letter was written to encourage Christians to remain faithful to their standards of belief and conduct in spite of threats of persecution.

We all aren't priests but we can all be witnesses and serve as examples for others.
 
15th post
Don't refuse a title God says you have.
Don't forget the different duties within the title of Royal Priesthood, which (in Exodus) God promised to those who serve him. The Royal Priesthood is a call to serve others. You seem to think this puts a 'special priesthood' above Royal Priesthood. It does not. It identifies the duties of this part of the priesthood. Other duties are teaching, healing, visiting those in prison, lending a hand in any number of ways. One of these duties/assignments in the Catholic faith is a special priesthood who serve the Royal Priesthood. Different parts of the same Body which we have gone over and over and over again.

No one is refusing a title--that accusation is a spin and twist and beneath every Christian.
 
God gave you a brain for a reason.
Yes, He absolutely did, and that brain is capable of understanding what Scripture says when God reveals deeper things, things that man layers on top of the rock solid, simple truths of the Gospel.
 
Yes, He absolutely did, and that brain is capable of understanding what Scripture says when God reveals deeper things, things that man layers on top of the rock solid, simple truths of the Gospel.
Not when you take passages out of context. The LDS say scripture tells them they can become gods. That too is an example of taking scripture out of context.
 
Yes, He absolutely did, and that brain is capable of understanding what Scripture says when God reveals deeper things, things that man layers on top of the rock solid, simple truths of the Gospel.
How exactly have you served as a priest? What are your duties?
 
Back
Top Bottom