I do believe that your understanding of the body and blood of Christ in the Catholic Eucharist is to your advantage in understanding here. I've looked into things since leaving twi never in my wildest dreams would I think I ever would and it would seem the partaking of is far greater than a symbolic one as I have my lifetime understood it to be. Could it be you have an advantage over myself in understanding fuller this with. And I meant not to derail the subject matter in my explanation.
And yes someday my sister and brother will again be face to face with me.
Kathy...
More specific than what you're saying is an understanding of the re-presentation of the Paschal Mystery (btw the Pasch=the unblemished lamb sacrificed during passover) that happens in the Divine Liturgies (the Latin Mass, as well as the Liturgies of St. Mark, St. James, St. Basil, and other Eastern equivalents). That understanding helps a lot.
Did you ever consider the fact that there is an altar in heaven? (See Rev 6:9, Rev 8:3-5, and others) Why have an altar if there is no sacrifice (any more)?
Did you ever consider the paradox of Christ being portrayed as a Lamb who is standing (thus alive) who appears to have been slain? (Rev 5:6) -- normally when one is slain, one is dead...(yes, I know, God raised Him from the dead...but why, then, is He in heaven still appearing to have been slain?) Did you consider that in 1 Cor 5:7 (Christ our passover is sacrificed for us), the "is sacrificed" is in the aorist tense rather than the past tense?
And, of course, we know it was one sacrifice for all. But its interesting to me that the passover sacrifices depicted in the OT pre-figured a proptiation for sins that HAD happened previously. Any blood sacrifice was of that nature. Yet the sacrifice of the Lamb of God covered ALL sins, past, present, and future.
And then when you consider that when we are baptized, we become members of the mystical Body of Christ...(cf 1 Cor 12)
At that point, the verses that talk about the redemptive nature of suffering, such as Col 1:24 start to make a little sense.
But as I said before, my understanding of it is not such that I can really effectively teach it, its still something that I am mulling in my head. I will say this, though, every time I go to Mass, my appreciation for what goes on at the altar grows, particularly as I come to apprehend the above.
Well prior to my looking I'd never heard the word transubstantiation before. How at the moment of consecration the elements of bread and wine transform into the body and blood of Jesus Christ. Prior to this during communion with twi or my former church it was all symbolic. And symbolism within itself if a good thing of course but with your faith it appears there is a mutual belief that with God there is no confined understanding of time and therefore Christ continues to be a living sacrifice. Continues being the critical word here. I'm floundering at best in my explanation I suspect so please don't reveal the laughter I may cause you but this viewing Christ as continuance has to aid in your understanding such things as suffering. How that can be with and for in ways I've only skimmed I suspect.
You bring up a good point about transubstantiation. And it is a very scriptural point, as well. (cf: Jhn 6:35,6:48, 6:51, 6:53, 1 Cor 10:16, 1 Cor 11:24ff, etc.).
But to the point of suffering, I would have you note an even that happens prior to the actual communion: the Fraction. During the fraction, the celebrant splits the consecrated host (the Body of Christ). (Note that this is done during any of the ancient liturgies, not just the Latin Rite Mass). The surface meaning behind that is that, during the Last Supper, Christ broke the bread and gave it to his disciples. However, beneath the surface though is the broken body (cf: 1 Cor 11:24). What makes that more profound is if you look at Isiah 53:4-5 (Yet it was our infirmities that he bore, our sufferings that he endured, While we thought of him as stricken, as one smitten by God and afflicted. But he was pierced for our offenses, crushed for our sins, Upon him was the chastisement that makes us whole, by his stripes we were healed.). The connections between the divine liturgies and the mystical Body of Christ are tremendous. Again, the meaning of what's written in Col 1:24 and the other verses I cited in my opening post is HUGE when considered in that light.
"the divine liturgies and the mystical Body of Christ "
i think i'd turn that around
the divine Body of Christ....
and the mystical liturgies....
are the words themselves divine?
or is it the thing that's being talked about?
yeah the mystical writings, keeping many chasing
these words and beating them to death till there ain't no
life left in them, just becomes some sort of dictionary
lost is what was said and meant by these men and women
these were people, just like us
CM,
"The Divine Liturgy" is a term that has been used for the liturgy that has been in practice for over 2,000 years, originally passed down by the Apostles. I did not invent the term. "The Divine Liturgies" refer, collectively, to those liturgical services in use by the Catholic churches (The Romans, the Anglicans, the Orthodox, the Assyrians, the Maronites, the Copts). Oh, btw, "Liturgy" means a public service. "Divine Liturgy" would then mean "public service to God."
The "Mystical Body of Christ" refers to the Church. You have, I am sure, read the "Body of Christ" in multiple places. I am sure you have read that this is a mystery (thus mystical).
I hope that helps your understanding. If you google either term, you will note that both are very common usage and hardly something that I made up.
"The Divine Liturgy" is a term that has been used for the liturgy that has been in practice for over 2,000 years, originally passed down by the Apostles. I did not invent the term. "The Divine Liturgies" refer, collectively, to those liturgical services in use by the Catholic churches (The Romans, the Anglicans, the Orthodox, the Assyrians, the Maronites, the Copts). Oh, btw, "Liturgy" means a public service. "Divine Liturgy" would then mean "public service to God."
The "Mystical Body of Christ" refers to the Church. You have, I am sure, read the "Body of Christ" in multiple places. I am sure you have read that this is a mystery (thus mystical).
I hope that helps your understanding. If you google either term, you will note that both are very common usage and hardly something that I made up.
this is guess work at best to say that this term was handed down by the apostles
i won't change the word mystery to mystical for my own benifit
to chalk it off as something that is not attainable to some degree
"the divine liturgies and the mystical Body of Christ "
i think i'd turn that around
the divine Body of Christ....
and the mystical liturgies....
are the words themselves divine?
or is it the thing that's being talked about?
yeah the mystical writings, keeping many chasing
these words and beating them to death till there ain't no
life left in them, just becomes some sort of dictionary
lost is what was said and meant by these men and women
these were people, just like us
Clay,
Your words remind me of things I've felt and said for many years of my life. So in that I feel some familiar with you I suspect. But it wasn't until I felt the substance rather than heard the words that any of it made a hill of difference to me. Words are cheap, but when you feel something inside that you know is real, well words don't matter too much. I imagine you know the same.
Yeah sure they were people like us. Paul was a person like us. But his choice in life was not like me and I can't speak for you Clay as I don't know you. And if you're referring to Catholic doctrine specifically I have put a little bit of time into it as well as other things since leaving twi. I discovered I was incredibly ignorant of the actual doctrine. Things I'd been taught that formed my opinion of that faith as well as others weren't as they should have been. Rather a mild way of saying that I reckon.
You bring up a good point about transubstantiation. And it is a very scriptural point, as well. (cf: Jhn 6:35,6:48, 6:51, 6:53, 1 Cor 10:16, 1 Cor 11:24ff, etc.).
But to the point of suffering, I would have you note an even that happens prior to the actual communion: the Fraction. During the fraction, the celebrant splits the consecrated host (the Body of Christ). (Note that this is done during any of the ancient liturgies, not just the Latin Rite Mass). The surface meaning behind that is that, during the Last Supper, Christ broke the bread and gave it to his disciples. However, beneath the surface though is the broken body (cf: 1 Cor 11:24). What makes that more profound is if you look at Isiah 53:4-5 (Yet it was our infirmities that he bore, our sufferings that he endured, While we thought of him as stricken, as one smitten by God and afflicted. But he was pierced for our offenses, crushed for our sins, Upon him was the chastisement that makes us whole, by his stripes we were healed.). The connections between the divine liturgies and the mystical Body of Christ are tremendous. Again, the meaning of what's written in Col 1:24 and the other verses I cited in my opening post is HUGE when considered in that light.
And I didn't want to get into it...
on edit, correction of some spelling errors.
I'm very grateful you did get into it. And I guess I can take the blame with no resistance.
The point of this suffering still comes back to a continuance for me. I mean if you believe that there could be such an act as consecration then you have to believe the once of something we've been taught was not quite on the mark. And see that is not a small thing. The once of Jesus Christ's death and resurrection was done once and I realize you're not stating otherwise. But this need for there to be such a word as suffer just looks so different to me at this moment. And I'm not sure what the heck it all means yet. But I've seen sufficient scripture to back up things I've been looking at, or in some things looked into the lack of sufficient scripture.
I may want to return to this thought but it will be day after tomorrow probably before I can get back here for more than a quick read and hello.
And I do appreciate that you must have seen I wasn't just screwing with you here and provided me with a reply on things.
My time is tight now but your words are exciting and dangerous both. And I didn't mean to imply ignorance, one can only work with what they have here and that's words. I read them wrong often enough.
But more when I can, sorry to have to leave but it will be late tomorrow night if at all before I've time.
well this is the original question, but answers are not being looked into
yeah Mark..don't try to change my mind..sheesh...
just like you i do have my own mind and mine will be flexible enough
to see things in a different light
you want to take these verses and have them fit into something
that will not fit, rather then seeing what was actually going on
to make verses "fit" into anything is an approach to what was written
that will be and still is missing what they were talking about and doing
why not try to understand them? what they were doing and seeing
instead of taking the words they used and making them a god
you want to understand sufferings then be ready to suffer...
and it will come to you, you cannot force it into a current situation
I have been working the subject of human suffering in the Bible recently. The motivation behind this is that my wife is going through a lot right now. How to make something good out of something that, frankly, sucks.<BR><BR>Anyway, the background on this is that I have examined the lives of a lot of Christian saints throughout history, and in many examples, there are those who have borne great suffering in their lives and some who have voluntarily sacrificed their lives. Of course, we all have encountered some sort of persecution for our faith. <BR><BR>In an effort to keep this to a reasonable length, I'm not going to repeat a bunch of scripture that we already are well familiar with (Job, the foretelling of Christ's sufferings in Isiah, the Passion, etc.) -- but there are a few verses that I find are very revealing on the subject.<BR><BR>The following show that suffering is going to happen:<BR><BR><BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">2 Cor 1:5-6 (NASB) -- For just as the sufferings of Christ are ours in abundance, so also our comfort is abundant through Christ. But if we are afflicted, it is for your comfort and salvation; or if we are comforted, it is for your comfort, which is effective in the patient enduring of the same sufferings which we also suffer; <BR><BR>2 Cor 4:8-10 (NASB) -- {we are} afflicted in every way, but not crushed; perplexed, but not despairing; persecuted, but not forsaken; struck down, but not destroyed; always carrying about in the body the dying of Jesus, so that the life of Jesus also may be manifested in our body. </div></BLOCKQUOTE><BR>I find it interesting that Paul cited the sufferings of Christ are also in us...and that he stated that we are carrying about the body the dying of Jesus (we all know what He went through in his death).<BR><BR>This quote from Peter is also very revealing:<BR><BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">1 Pet 4:13 (NASB) -- but to the degree that you share the sufferings of Christ, keep on rejoicing, so that also at the revelation of His glory you may rejoice with exultation. </div></BLOCKQUOTE><BR><BR>But the following verse absolutely blew me away:<BR><BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Col 1:24 (NASB) -- Now I rejoice in my sufferings for your sake, and in my flesh I do my share on behalf of His body, which is the church, in filling up what is lacking in Christ's afflictions. </div></BLOCKQUOTE><BR>Note the last phrase: filling up what is lacking in Christ's afflictions. Now I thought that nothing was lacking in His afflictions. When I look at that verse through my old Protestant eyes, that makes no sense. Looking at it through Catholic eyes, it makes a little more sense (Protestant theologies have different ontological bases than Catholic theology, imho...Catholic theology is more transcendent, but again, imho). But, still, how could anything He did be lacking and require filling, as is stated in the above verse (and, yes, the word lacking is an accurate translation)? Its sort of tough to accept.<BR><BR>So what about the view of us (collectively) as the Body of Christ?<BR><BR>Consider this verse:<BR><BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Rev 5:6 (NASB) -- And I saw between the throne (with the four living creatures) and the elders a Lamb standing, as if slain, having seven horns and seven eyes, which are the seven Spirits of God, sent out into all the earth. </div></BLOCKQUOTE><BR>A lamb (remember "behold the Lamb of God") standing (if it's standing, that implies that it is alive), as if slain (sort of a paradox there, isn't it?) Does that mean that He is alive but still wounded? (think about Isiah)<BR><BR>Does the Bible really mean that we are the Body of Christ when it says so? What's the implication with our suffering (be it mental, emotional, physical)?<BR><BR>(Yes, this line of thinking requires some metaphysics, I'll admit)<BR><BR>Just some stuff I've been working through...I'd enjoy any comments, mockery, criticism, or whatever...
Some stuff too heavy for me. But, I do have a bit to add (perhaps). I think I remember learning or reading somewhere that Paul was glad for his suffering because when he was in bonds the Word moved like crazy. When they didn't have Paul around to move the Word for them, the believers finally did it for themselves. His heart was so pure, so gung-ho, that even if it meant he had to die, he would do that gladly so the Word would move and live. Of course, this goes to that famous (infamous?) teaching about Paul going to Jerusalem and did he go in spite of being told not to, or was he receiving revelation to go and suffer? I have to say he was thick-headed. It seems that way to me. He just didn't care what he had to go through if it meant moving the Word. And that's my final answer (I think).
Some stuff too heavy for me. But, I do have a bit to add (perhaps). I think I remember learning or reading somewhere that Paul was glad for his suffering because when he was in bonds the Word moved like crazy. When they didn't have Paul around to move the Word for them, the believers finally did it for themselves. His heart was so pure, so gung-ho, that even if it meant he had to die, he would do that gladly so the Word would move and live. Of course, this goes to that famous (infamous?) teaching about Paul going to Jerusalem and did he go in spite of being told not to, or was he receiving revelation to go and suffer? I have to say he was thick-headed. It seems that way to me. He just didn't care what he had to go through if it meant moving the Word. And that's my final answer (I think).
Are you talking about this one:
Wherein I suffer trouble, as an evil doer, [even] unto bonds; but the word of God is not bound. Therefore I endure all things for the elect's sakes, that they may also obtain the salvation which is in Christ Jesus with eternal glory. [it is] a faithful saying: For if we be dead with [him], we shall also live with [him]: If we suffer, we shall also reign with [him]: if we deny [him], he also will deny us: If we believe not, [yet] he abideth faithful: he cannot deny himself.
(2 Tim 2:9-13 KJV)
for which I suffer hardship even to imprisonment as a criminal; but the word of God is not imprisoned. For this reason I endure all things for the sake of those who are chosen, so that they also may obtain the salvation which is in Christ Jesus {and} with {it} eternal glory. It is a trustworthy statement: For if we died with Him, we will also live with Him; If we endure, we will also reign with Him; If we deny Him, He also will deny us; If we are faithless, He remains faithful, for He cannot deny Himself.
(2 Tim 2:9-13 NASB)
Or this one:
But I would ye should understand, brethren, that the things [which happened] unto me have fallen out rather unto the furtherance of the gospel; So that my bonds in Christ are manifest in all the palace, and in all other [places]; And many of the brethren in the Lord, waxing confident by my bonds, are much more bold to speak the word without fear. Some indeed preach Christ even of envy and strife; and some also of good will: The one preach Christ of contention, not sincerely, supposing to add affliction to my bonds: But the other of love, knowing that I am set for the defence of the gospel. What then? notwithstanding, every way, whether in pretence, or in truth, Christ is preached; and I therein do rejoice, yea, and will rejoice. For I know that this shall turn to my salvation through your prayer, and the supply of the Spirit of Jesus Christ, According to my earnest expectation and [my] hope, that in nothing I shall be ashamed, but [that] with all boldness, as always, [so] now also Christ shall be magnified in my body, whether [it be] by life, or by death. For to me to live [is] Christ, and to die [is] gain. But if I live in the flesh, this [is] the fruit of my labour: yet what I shall choose I wot not. For I am in a strait betwixt two, having a desire to depart, and to be with Christ; which is far better: Nevertheless to abide in the flesh [is] more needful for you. And having this confidence, I know that I shall abide and continue with you all for your furtherance and joy of faith; That your rejoicing may be more abundant in Jesus Christ for me by my coming to you again.
(Phil 2:12-26 KJV)
Now I want you to know, brethren, that my circumstances have turned out for the greater progress of the gospel, so that my imprisonment in {the cause of} Christ has become well known throughout the whole praetorian guard and to everyone else, and that most of the brethren, trusting in the Lord because of my imprisonment, have far more courage to speak the word of God without fear. Some, to be sure, are preaching Christ even from envy and strife, but some also from good will; the latter {do it} out of love, knowing that I am appointed for the defense of the gospel; the former proclaim Christ out of selfish ambition rather than from pure motives, thinking to cause me distress in my imprisonment. What then? Only that in every way, whether in pretense or in truth, Christ is proclaimed; and in this I rejoice. Yes, and I will rejoice, for I know that this will turn out for my deliverance through your prayers and the provision of the Spirit of Jesus Christ, according to my earnest expectation and hope, that I will not be put to shame in anything, but {that} with all boldness, Christ will even now, as always, be exalted in my body, whether by life or by death. For to me, to live is Christ and to die is gain. But if {I am} to live {on} in the flesh, this {will mean} fruitful labor for me; and I do not know which to choose. But I am hard-pressed from both {directions,} having the desire to depart and be with Christ, for {that} is very much better; yet to remain on in the flesh is more necessary for your sake. Convinced of this, I know that I will remain and continue with you all for your progress and joy in the faith, so that your proud confidence in me may abound in Christ Jesus through my coming to you again.
It would appear to me flexibility is quite important to you. And I've read you here and see you're capable of considering things. But your make up my mind what to make a standard or take as truth is to me one of the most dangerous suggestions I could ever personally entertain. NOW (yes in that case it was yelling ;) ) before you go jumping in your head to well understood resources to defend your position let me continue please.
If my knowing inwardly without the benefit or hindrance of words can be trusted, and I say can for a reason, then no amount of a mans words will alter what I already know to be truth within the depths of my heart and soul. So in that yup, 10-4 good buddy cause ya nailed it to the tree on that. BUT (ditto of above) if you are saying whatever form of word formation makes you comfy in your truth is acceptable then man oh man that is one serious set of specs for head butting a wall and inviting the folks that you hang with to join you. I know of no one that I consider sound enough to mandate truth to me. I know of one God, period!
There is some notion out there that Christians are supposed to be exempt from pain and suffering. This notion is held most by young people to whom mortality is a sick fantasy.
TWI and the Word Faith crowd make a big deal about living a safe soft comfortable life, but the Bible is clear that God will use whatever means necessary to bring his people in line. He will not be mocked by his kids.
Recommended Posts
Top Posters In This Topic
16
21
18
4
Popular Days
Sep 26
13
Sep 22
11
Sep 28
9
Sep 24
7
Top Posters In This Topic
ChattyKathy 16 posts
CM 21 posts
markomalley 18 posts
irisheyes 4 posts
Popular Days
Sep 26 2005
13 posts
Sep 22 2005
11 posts
Sep 28 2005
9 posts
Sep 24 2005
7 posts
markomalley
Kathy...
More specific than what you're saying is an understanding of the re-presentation of the Paschal Mystery (btw the Pasch=the unblemished lamb sacrificed during passover) that happens in the Divine Liturgies (the Latin Mass, as well as the Liturgies of St. Mark, St. James, St. Basil, and other Eastern equivalents). That understanding helps a lot.
Did you ever consider the fact that there is an altar in heaven? (See Rev 6:9, Rev 8:3-5, and others) Why have an altar if there is no sacrifice (any more)?
Did you ever consider the paradox of Christ being portrayed as a Lamb who is standing (thus alive) who appears to have been slain? (Rev 5:6) -- normally when one is slain, one is dead...(yes, I know, God raised Him from the dead...but why, then, is He in heaven still appearing to have been slain?) Did you consider that in 1 Cor 5:7 (Christ our passover is sacrificed for us), the "is sacrificed" is in the aorist tense rather than the past tense?
And, of course, we know it was one sacrifice for all. But its interesting to me that the passover sacrifices depicted in the OT pre-figured a proptiation for sins that HAD happened previously. Any blood sacrifice was of that nature. Yet the sacrifice of the Lamb of God covered ALL sins, past, present, and future.
And then when you consider that when we are baptized, we become members of the mystical Body of Christ...(cf 1 Cor 12)
At that point, the verses that talk about the redemptive nature of suffering, such as Col 1:24 start to make a little sense.
But as I said before, my understanding of it is not such that I can really effectively teach it, its still something that I am mulling in my head. I will say this, though, every time I go to Mass, my appreciation for what goes on at the altar grows, particularly as I come to apprehend the above.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
ChattyKathy
Well prior to my looking I'd never heard the word transubstantiation before. How at the moment of consecration the elements of bread and wine transform into the body and blood of Jesus Christ. Prior to this during communion with twi or my former church it was all symbolic. And symbolism within itself if a good thing of course but with your faith it appears there is a mutual belief that with God there is no confined understanding of time and therefore Christ continues to be a living sacrifice. Continues being the critical word here. I'm floundering at best in my explanation I suspect so please don't reveal the laughter I may cause you but this viewing Christ as continuance has to aid in your understanding such things as suffering. How that can be with and for in ways I've only skimmed I suspect.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
markomalley
You bring up a good point about transubstantiation. And it is a very scriptural point, as well. (cf: Jhn 6:35,6:48, 6:51, 6:53, 1 Cor 10:16, 1 Cor 11:24ff, etc.).
But to the point of suffering, I would have you note an even that happens prior to the actual communion: the Fraction. During the fraction, the celebrant splits the consecrated host (the Body of Christ). (Note that this is done during any of the ancient liturgies, not just the Latin Rite Mass). The surface meaning behind that is that, during the Last Supper, Christ broke the bread and gave it to his disciples. However, beneath the surface though is the broken body (cf: 1 Cor 11:24). What makes that more profound is if you look at Isiah 53:4-5 (Yet it was our infirmities that he bore, our sufferings that he endured, While we thought of him as stricken, as one smitten by God and afflicted. But he was pierced for our offenses, crushed for our sins, Upon him was the chastisement that makes us whole, by his stripes we were healed.). The connections between the divine liturgies and the mystical Body of Christ are tremendous. Again, the meaning of what's written in Col 1:24 and the other verses I cited in my opening post is HUGE when considered in that light.
And I didn't want to get into it...
on edit, correction of some spelling errors.
Edited by MarkLink to comment
Share on other sites
CM
"the divine liturgies and the mystical Body of Christ "
i think i'd turn that around
the divine Body of Christ....
and the mystical liturgies....
are the words themselves divine?
or is it the thing that's being talked about?
yeah the mystical writings, keeping many chasing
these words and beating them to death till there ain't no
life left in them, just becomes some sort of dictionary
lost is what was said and meant by these men and women
these were people, just like us
Edited by CMLink to comment
Share on other sites
markomalley
CM,
"The Divine Liturgy" is a term that has been used for the liturgy that has been in practice for over 2,000 years, originally passed down by the Apostles. I did not invent the term. "The Divine Liturgies" refer, collectively, to those liturgical services in use by the Catholic churches (The Romans, the Anglicans, the Orthodox, the Assyrians, the Maronites, the Copts). Oh, btw, "Liturgy" means a public service. "Divine Liturgy" would then mean "public service to God."
The "Mystical Body of Christ" refers to the Church. You have, I am sure, read the "Body of Christ" in multiple places. I am sure you have read that this is a mystery (thus mystical).
I hope that helps your understanding. If you google either term, you will note that both are very common usage and hardly something that I made up.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
CM
i understand what you are saying mark
but you are not getting the point
which is ok with me
i'll try to say it better
however people have termed what someone has said
does not change what they were talking about
i am interested in what they were talking about
not taking their words and hanging them on the wall to worship
these people had no advantage over anyone else
what they saw, heard and talked about is still here
Edited by CMLink to comment
Share on other sites
markomalley
I got the point long ago, the first time you ever posted a question like that to me CM.
But, nevertheless, the point of all this is the adoration of God Almighty. Giving Him the due to which He is entitled in the way in which He directed.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
CM
this is guess work at best to say that this term was handed down by the apostles
i won't change the word mystery to mystical for my own benifit
to chalk it off as something that is not attainable to some degree
apparently they knew what they were talking about
Link to comment
Share on other sites
ChattyKathy
Clay,
Your words remind me of things I've felt and said for many years of my life. So in that I feel some familiar with you I suspect. But it wasn't until I felt the substance rather than heard the words that any of it made a hill of difference to me. Words are cheap, but when you feel something inside that you know is real, well words don't matter too much. I imagine you know the same.
Yeah sure they were people like us. Paul was a person like us. But his choice in life was not like me and I can't speak for you Clay as I don't know you. And if you're referring to Catholic doctrine specifically I have put a little bit of time into it as well as other things since leaving twi. I discovered I was incredibly ignorant of the actual doctrine. Things I'd been taught that formed my opinion of that faith as well as others weren't as they should have been. Rather a mild way of saying that I reckon.
I'm very grateful you did get into it. And I guess I can take the blame with no resistance.
The point of this suffering still comes back to a continuance for me. I mean if you believe that there could be such an act as consecration then you have to believe the once of something we've been taught was not quite on the mark. And see that is not a small thing. The once of Jesus Christ's death and resurrection was done once and I realize you're not stating otherwise. But this need for there to be such a word as suffer just looks so different to me at this moment. And I'm not sure what the heck it all means yet. But I've seen sufficient scripture to back up things I've been looking at, or in some things looked into the lack of sufficient scripture.
I may want to return to this thought but it will be day after tomorrow probably before I can get back here for more than a quick read and hello.
And I do appreciate that you must have seen I wasn't just screwing with you here and provided me with a reply on things.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
CM
not trying to argue different doctrines here
i do know more then you may think
i'm just trying my best to point out
that i nor anyone else should enslave themselves
to what other people have said
but rather to see for myself
and make up my own mind what to
make a standard or take as truth
and i remain flexible because new things
are discovered all the time....
Link to comment
Share on other sites
ChattyKathy
Clay,
My time is tight now but your words are exciting and dangerous both. And I didn't mean to imply ignorance, one can only work with what they have here and that's words. I read them wrong often enough.
But more when I can, sorry to have to leave but it will be late tomorrow night if at all before I've time.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
CM
QUOTE(CM @ Sep 26 2005, 10:39 PM)
i understand what you are saying mark
but you are not getting the point
which is ok with me
i'll try to say it better
however people have termed what someone has said
does not change what they were talking about
i am interested in what they were talking about
not taking their words and hanging them on the wall to worship
these people had no advantage over anyone else
what they saw, heard and talked about is still here
Then your reply is this-
I got the point long ago, the first time you ever posted a question like that to me CM.
But, nevertheless, the point of all this is the adoration of God Almighty. Giving Him the due to which He is entitled in the way in which He directed.
i don't see where i'm questioning you Mark
no problem Kathy i'm cool
we're all cool man! :)
Link to comment
Share on other sites
CM
and please don't take the font size as yelling
i can barely read the regular font
i'll try the #1 font to sound better...
hmmm...looks about the same as 2
Edited by CMLink to comment
Share on other sites
markomalley
OK, fair enough. I'm not asking you to change something in your mind at all.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
ChattyKathy
I'm a bit confused as to what the question is still but good morning nonetheless. And Clay, cool on the no problems.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
CM
well this is the original question, but answers are not being looked into
yeah Mark..don't try to change my mind..sheesh...
just like you i do have my own mind and mine will be flexible enough
to see things in a different light
you want to take these verses and have them fit into something
that will not fit, rather then seeing what was actually going on
to make verses "fit" into anything is an approach to what was written
that will be and still is missing what they were talking about and doing
why not try to understand them? what they were doing and seeing
instead of taking the words they used and making them a god
you want to understand sufferings then be ready to suffer...
and it will come to you, you cannot force it into a current situation
it seems you may have lost this joy of learning
i hope not
Link to comment
Share on other sites
irisheyes
Some stuff too heavy for me. But, I do have a bit to add (perhaps). I think I remember learning or reading somewhere that Paul was glad for his suffering because when he was in bonds the Word moved like crazy. When they didn't have Paul around to move the Word for them, the believers finally did it for themselves. His heart was so pure, so gung-ho, that even if it meant he had to die, he would do that gladly so the Word would move and live. Of course, this goes to that famous (infamous?) teaching about Paul going to Jerusalem and did he go in spite of being told not to, or was he receiving revelation to go and suffer? I have to say he was thick-headed. It seems that way to me. He just didn't care what he had to go through if it meant moving the Word. And that's my final answer (I think).
Link to comment
Share on other sites
markomalley
Are you talking about this one:
Or this one:
Either way, you bring up a good point.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
ChattyKathy
I'm at a bump in the road on this stuff. But I'm still reading y'all.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
ChattyKathy
It would appear to me flexibility is quite important to you. And I've read you here and see you're capable of considering things. But your make up my mind what to make a standard or take as truth is to me one of the most dangerous suggestions I could ever personally entertain. NOW (yes in that case it was yelling ;) ) before you go jumping in your head to well understood resources to defend your position let me continue please.
If my knowing inwardly without the benefit or hindrance of words can be trusted, and I say can for a reason, then no amount of a mans words will alter what I already know to be truth within the depths of my heart and soul. So in that yup, 10-4 good buddy cause ya nailed it to the tree on that. BUT (ditto of above) if you are saying whatever form of word formation makes you comfy in your truth is acceptable then man oh man that is one serious set of specs for head butting a wall and inviting the folks that you hang with to join you. I know of no one that I consider sound enough to mandate truth to me. I know of one God, period!
Link to comment
Share on other sites
def59
There is some notion out there that Christians are supposed to be exempt from pain and suffering. This notion is held most by young people to whom mortality is a sick fantasy.
TWI and the Word Faith crowd make a big deal about living a safe soft comfortable life, but the Bible is clear that God will use whatever means necessary to bring his people in line. He will not be mocked by his kids.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
CM
yeah Kathy that's how i feel about it
but i do listen and consider
and it's when the words meet with that God
in your mind, and pieces start coming together
so i've listened and listened and seen it happen
slowly at first like a little candle
then a burning inside
noone could handle all of what God has to show us
a little at a time then a lot then a little
so these words i listen for will meet together with the Christ
and understanding is there and wisdom must be used
there are words that don't give this life
there are words that are just the breeze blowing
there are words that stir the God inside
this is the seeing for myself in the mind
gets to have a choice because it's there in view
flexible yes because it gets bigger and brings along
that which you have already seen
bringing it together in the heart
and transforms it into greater truth
so "make up my mind what to make a standard or take as truth"
is not some stone that cannot be moved
like "this is what i believe and i'll believe it till i die" sort of thing
more of a daily thing, even moment by moment
Edited by CMLink to comment
Share on other sites
CM
so to take the words af men
and for them to bring forth life requires the Christ
so i don't take the words of men including
those who wrote what we now know as scriptures
and call it the truth till i see it myself without a doubt
which is faith...and attainable now as it was then
and these scriptures that were written so long ago
will be words of life as it lives in me or someone else
it's the words of the living that i listen to
i have the bible in my head already
i know the promises
i know what it says about what Jesus did for us
i know what it says about what we are supposed to already have
but i must see it for real here and now
and not be fooling myself into thinking i have what i don't
if Christ is real, if Christ is in us
it must be something that can be known without a book
and faith comes by hearing...
so i listen to those who are talking
and i know that it's a mystery
therefore i have to think for myself the best i can
and search out words wether they are spiritual
and trust that God will reveal it
there is no separation between Christ and God
and this is in us....
how ready is the ear to hear and the eye to see
Link to comment
Share on other sites
CM
and it has to be simple
or i would never get it
i don't think you have to be a scholar
heart, love....a desire..looking
love most of all
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.