It still bugs me

[James Banta]

[nrajeffreturns;146985]Jim, according to your interpretation of the Bible in Matthew 13:33, the kingdom of heaven is like SIN.

So how can I trust your interpretation when it comes to your feelings about Trinitarianism?

Look at the context of the p***age for the answer (I know that is hard for you).. See where Jesus teaches that "The kingdom of heaven is like to a grain of mustard seed"? It means the same thing as the leaven comment.. He means it will grow an fill the whole earth.. The Kingdom of God is not a seed, it is not leaven bread dough.. But like these two things it has grown until it has filled the whole earth.. You ever heard of a simile? That is what you are trying to use to tell me that that leaven bread is not the symbol for evil that it is said to be in the OT and the New.. Remember Jesus inst i tuted the Lord Supper at the P***over meal. There is no leaven bread offered at that meal.. IHS jim

[nrajeffreturns]

But you said that in the Bible, leaven is ALWAYS equated with SIN.

So you need to explain why Jesus would say that His kingdom is like leaven, if leaven is a simile for SIN.

Try to defend your claim with logic (I know that is hard for you)

[theway]

Originally Posted by James Banta

Look at the context of the p***age for the answer (I know that is hard for you).. See where Jesus teaches that "The kingdom of heaven is like to a grain of mustard seed"? It means the same thing as the leaven comment.. He means it will grow an fill the whole earth.. The Kingdom of God is not a seed, it is not leaven bread dough.. But like these two things it has grown until it has filled the whole earth.. You ever heard of a simile? That is what you are trying to use to tell me that that leaven bread is not the symbol for evil that it is said to be in the OT and the New.. Remember Jesus inst i tuted the Lord Supper at the P***over meal. There is no leaven bread offered at that meal.. IHS jim

Actually, I already knew you are wrong when it comes to leaven always meaning sin in the Bible, what I'm more interested in is how you can justify leaven in wine but not in the bread?
Is "sin" OK in the blood of Christ, as long as there is no "sin" in His body?

Face it James, you are not going to win this one. Best to once again just admit you were wrong and that you have no idea what the Bible is saying on any subject.

[James Banta]

Originally Posted by theway

Actually, I already knew you are wrong when it comes to leaven always meaning sin in the Bible, what I'm more interested in is how you can justify leaven in wine but not in the bread?
Is "sin" OK in the blood of Christ, as long as there is no "sin" in His body?

Face it James, you are not going to win this one. Best to once again just admit you were wrong and that you have no idea what the Bible is saying on any subject.

In the OT we are taught that the Priests were not allowed to approach the alter after having used intoxicating drink (Lev 10:9). Because Jesus was acting as High Priest at the Table of His body and blood it is most probable that the wine used was NOT fermented but was the pure wine of the grape. Wine was wine before it was fermented and refereed to as such as Jesus tells us that new Wing should be placed in new bottles so that both the wine and the bottles can be preserved (Matt 9:17).. Therefore unfermented wine was called wine as was fermented wine.. There is no Biblical insistence that the wine of the p***over had to be fermented. In fact because of the prohibition against leaven it is doubtful that the wine of the P***over was fermented.. I agree with your thinking that leaven would be used to symbolize the pure and cleansing blood of Jesus. Since all leaven was prohibited during the P***over that would also include the wine.. So why not conform to the sacrament of the Lord's supper as it is given in the NT? Do you also believe it would be proper to change baptism to become sprinkling, or include infants? You changed the elements of the Lord's supper to meet your needs why not change baptism too.. It costs a lot less to use a baptism bowl than a faunt.. IHS jim

[theway]

Originally Posted by James Banta

In the OT we are taught that the Priests were not allowed to approach the alter after having used intoxicating drink (Lev 10:9). Because Jesus was acting as High Priest at the Table of His body and blood it is most probable that the wine used was NOT fermented but was the pure wine of the grape. Wine was wine before it was fermented and refereed to as such as Jesus tells us that new Wing should be placed in new bottles so that both the wine and the bottles can be preserved (Matt 9:17).. Therefore unfermented wine was called wine as was fermented wine.. There is no Biblical insistence that the wine of the p***over had to be fermented. In fact because of the prohibition against leaven it is doubtful that the wine of the P***over was fermented.. I agree with your thinking that leaven would be used to symbolize the pure and cleansing blood of Jesus. Since all leaven was prohibited during the P***over that would also include the wine.. So why not conform to the sacrament of the Lord's supper as it is given in the NT? Do you also believe it would be proper to change baptism to become sprinkling, or include infants? You changed the elements of the Lord's supper to meet your needs why not change baptism too.. It costs a lot less to use a baptism bowl than a faunt.. IHS jim

Once again James your lack of knowledge about the scriptures erodes your theology.
There is nothing in the scriptures which says that the Sacrement given by Christ was during the P***over. In fact, one gospel makes that impossible. Also subsequent sacraments by the Apostles were not part of a P***over also. Add to that the fact that they had no problem using leaven bread for the sacrament for the first thousand years of the Church.

[nrajeffreturns]

What I found interesting was Jim's agreement with groups of Christians, including many LDS, on the idea that non-alcoholic wine (grape juice) was what was used by Jesus.

This idea gets attacked a lot by Jim's friends at Carm. They insist that the only acceptable stuff for today's Eucharist in Christian churches, is real wine, and unleavened bread, because that's what Jesus used at the last supper. Using anything else is blasphemy and evidence that your church isn't Christian.

So it's cool, but surprising, to see Jim contradicting the usual Carm crowd, and to see him agreeing with the LDS on something.

[James Banta]

Originally Posted by nrajeffreturns

What I found interesting was Jim's agreement with groups of Christians, including many LDS, on the idea that non-alcoholic wine (grape juice) was what was used by Jesus.

This idea gets attacked a lot by Jim's friends at Carm. They insist that the only acceptable stuff for today's Eucharist in Christian churches, is real wine, and unleavened bread, because that's what Jesus used at the last supper. Using anything else is blasphemy and evidence that your church isn't Christian.

So it's cool, but surprising, to see Jim contradicting the usual Carm crowd, and to see him agreeing with the LDS on something.

Did Jesus drink fully fermented wine? I believe that there is no doubt of that. Was fermented wine even available during the p***over? Now that is the question.. Since leaven is a symbol of sin and wickedness, it is doubtful that it would be used in one of the commanded holy feasts unto God.. The Lord even commanded Aaron not to come near the alter after drinking (Lev 10:9).. Why would God allow it at the P***over when it is a clear commandment not to use leaven? Sir brought it up and made a very good point.. I agree.. There was no alcoholic wine served because of the leaven needed to make it.. I don't care what they think on CARM.. I go with the scripture over the desires of any man. It makes no difference, the LDS are far from the example given by Jesus. Unleaven bread and wine.. Not leaven bread and water.. I still ask that if the Lord's supper is so easily modified why can't baptism be modified just as simply? Maybe infant baptism, or baptism by sprinkling is just as authoritative.. Still agree with me? I think the LDS modifications to the celebration of the last Supper is beyond merely being unbiblical is has become out and out Pagan.. IHS jim

[MacG]

Don't know if he did but he could have and been kosher:

http://www.chabad.org/holidays/p***o...with-yeast.htm

[nrajeffreturns]

Originally Posted by James Banta

Since leaven is a symbol of sin and wickedness, it is doubtful that it would be used in one of the commanded holy feasts unto God..

So, Jim, you're accusing most of the Christian churches of the world of being guilty of a serious sin: the sin of breaking the Bible's commandment to avoid leaven in the Eucharist. Are you sure you want to brand 99% of Christianity as being unbiblical?

Back in the year 1820, how many churches used alcoholic wine for their Eucharist? Probably all of them.

So aren't you saying, Jim, that at the time of Joseph Smith's first vision, all of Christianity had gone astray, and had replaced the doctrines of God with doctrines of men??

Wow! What happened to your (and JohnT's) claim that anyone who would make such claims about Christianity is teaching hatred towards Christians????

:0 :O


(P.S. to Mac: thanks for providing some useful info on the subject)

[James Banta]

[nrajeffreturns;147026]So, Jim, you're accusing most of the Christian churches of the world of being guilty of a serious sin: the sin of breaking the Bible's commandment to avoid leaven in the Eucharist. Are you sure you want to brand 99% of Christianity as being unbiblical?

Please show me where you found this statistic? really 99% of all Christian churches use leaven in the celebration of the Lords supper? I have been to many that do use alcoholic wine at the Lord's table and a non alcoholic wine is also offered.. Guess you didn't know that..

Back in the year 1820, how many churches used alcoholic wine for their Eucharist? Probably all of them.

How do you know that were you there?

So aren't you saying, Jim, that at the time of Joseph Smith's first vision, all of Christianity had gone astray, and had replaced the doctrines of God with doctrines of men??

Did the Lord Jesus say that all those that use only non alcoholic wine would be saved or did he say, all those that believe would not perish but have everlasting life? Yes I believe that if a ordinance is going to be preformed it should be done properly. But even if it isn't it should be seen as a sin that is covered by the blood of Christ to all that believe in Him.. The Church was NOT dead even if you are correct and everyone used alcoholic wine. But if someone denies that Jesus is God, the physical image of the invisible God. That His sacrifice for sin isn't sufficient to paid the price of the sin if all who believe. That other Gods beside the God who is the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit exist. That God himself was once a man and became a God though obedience to laws and ordinances.

Is it sin to replace the symbolic elements of the Lords flesh and blood with those that symbolize sin.. I think so.. Does doing so make you anti God? I think not.. But if you do so knowing that leaven is in the bread and in the wine and CALL IT GOOD, you give reason to question id saving faith is within you..

Wow! What happened to your (and JohnT's) claim that anyone who would make such claims about Christianity is teaching hatred towards Christians????

I claim that adding leaven to the elements of the Lord's Supper is sin. Hatred toward Christians seen by the acts of violence against them, even if that violence is just calling them corrupt with nothing to show that they are acting in a corrupt manner.. That makes Smith statement that Christian teaches are corrupt a lie without a firm base in reality. When we say Smith was corrupt we point to his crimes of polygamy, his banking fraud, even his false prophecies, and unbiblical teachings of God's grace and the way that grace is given to men. I short we base it on FACTS.

Using leaven in the performance of the Lord's Supper is just sin in that it is calling the Body, or blood of Jesus an object or sin.. If doing so bugs you as it should ask your bishop to fix the problem and remove leaven from the ordinance. Add in the pure wine of the grape and this sin will disappear from your life. IHS jim

[nrajeffreturns]

Originally Posted by James Banta

Please show me where you found this statistic? really 99% of all Christian churches use leaven in the celebration of the Lords supper? I have been to many that do use alcoholic wine at the Lord's table and a non alcoholic wine is also offered.. Guess you didn't know that..

I was aware that a relative FEW churches offer the OPTION of grape juice for recovering alcoholics who don't want to EVER touch a drop of alcohol. But in all likelihood it's far fewer that use ONLY grape juice because they have BANNED the "evil leaven wine" from their regular communion.

How do you know that were you there?

The way I know that probably no church in 1820 used grape juice, is because I know that the process of pasteurizing grape juice so it wouldn't ferment wasn't invented until 1869.

Pastor Welch was a Wesleyan. Wesleyans thought like you--that only nonalcoholic grape juice should be used for communion. But they didn't exist in 1820. The Wesleyan movement was created in 1843.

To further your education, see the Wikipedia articles on Welch's and on Thomas Bramwell Welch.

In 1820, virtually none of the Christian churches on earth used unfermented grape juice. The Catholic Church REQUIRES that the communion wine be wine, or mustum--grape juice that has at least started to ferment. (Mustum is wine that started to "leaven" and then had the fermentation process stopped)

AFAIK, ZERO Protestant churches had switched to grape juice until AFTER 1820. Even today, the only ones that have such a policy are the United Methodist church, most Baptists, the 7th Day Adventists, and some Reformed/Presbyterian churches offer it as an option.

(According to the wiki article on Eucharist, "The bread and "fruit of the vine" indicated in Matthew, Mark and Luke as the elements of the Lord's Supper[38] are interpreted by many Baptists as unleavened bread (although leavened bread is often used) and, in line with the historical stance of some Baptist groups (since the mid-19th century) against partaking of alcoholic beverages, grape juice, which they commonly refer to simply as "the Cup."

So in the case of the Baptists, switching to grape juice was not because they believed that leaven means sin. It's because many Baptists were part of the Temperance movement that was against recreational alcohol consumption to the point of total abstinence....like the LDS had already done.

Is it sin to replace the symbolic elements of the Lords flesh and blood with those that symbolize sin.. I think so..

So you are saying that the majority of Christian churches of the world "lieth in sin" every time they perform the Eucharist.
Can you imagine what anti-LDS people would say about JOSEPH SMITH if HE had said that the churches of 1820 had changed the biblical way of doing things, and had replaced them with sinful doctrines and ordinances?

Why, they'd say that Joseph Smith was....teaching hatred of Christians!!!

[James Banta]

[nrajeffreturns;147045]I was aware that a relative FEW churches offer the OPTION of grape juice for recovering alcoholics who don't want to EVER touch a drop of alcohol. But in all likelihood it's far fewer that use ONLY grape juice because they have BANNED the "evil leaven wine" from their regular communion.

The way I know that probably no church in 1820 used grape juice, is because I know that the process of pasteurizing grape juice so it wouldn't ferment wasn't invented until 1869.

Pastor Welch was a Wesleyan. Wesleyans thought like you--that only nonalcoholic grape juice should be used for communion. But they didn't exist in 1820. The Wesleyan movement was created in 1843.

To further your education, see the Wikipedia articles on Welch's and on Thomas Bramwell Welch.

In 1820, virtually none of the Christian churches on earth used unfermented grape juice. The Catholic Church REQUIRES that the communion wine be wine, or mustum--grape juice that has at least started to ferment. (Mustum is wine that started to "leaven" and then had the fermentation process stopped)

AFAIK, ZERO Protestant churches had switched to grape juice until AFTER 1820. Even today, the only ones that have such a policy are the United Methodist church, most Baptists, the 7th Day Adventists, and some Reformed/Presbyterian churches offer it as an option.

(According to the wiki article on Eucharist, "The bread and "fruit of the vine" indicated in Matthew, Mark and Luke as the elements of the Lord's Supper[38] are interpreted by many Baptists as unleavened bread (although leavened bread is often used) and, in line with the historical stance of some Baptist groups (since the mid-19th century) against partaking of alcoholic beverages, grape juice, which they commonly refer to simply as "the Cup."

So in the case of the Baptists, switching to grape juice was not because they believed that leaven means sin. It's because many Baptists were part of the Temperance movement that was against recreational alcohol consumption to the point of total abstinence....like the LDS had already done.



So you are saying that the majority of Christian churches of the world "lieth in sin" every time they perform the Eucharist.
Can you imagine what anti-LDS people would say about JOSEPH SMITH if HE had said that the churches of 1820 had changed the biblical way of doing things, and had replaced them with sinful doctrines and ordinances?

Why, they'd say that Joseph Smith was....teaching hatred of Christians!!!

I have attended man Christian Church services and have shared with them at the Lord's table. At each one ONLY unfermented wine was offered. I have been to a few other that have offered both. It is far more common to fine unfermented wine used rather that alcoholic wine.. You make some rather HUGE ***umption in your post. Statements you neither supported with any reference nor could you have any personal knowledge of the facts in question.. I asked how you knew the information about the use of wine was the real truth and you gave me more "I know that probably". That is your ***umption AGAIN. The fact is you DON'T KNOW.. Since you were there and there is no record from ALL the churches that explain what wine they used for communion you are guessing making ***umptions, you have no facts to support those beliefs.. Even in your ***umption that then use of non alcoholic wine had more to do with the Temperance movement than with the requirements of the P***over is your ***umption. How many Baptist churches existed before 1820? I don't know, you don't either. Neither do you know how they celebrated at the Lord's table. Your argument is mote. What is clear is that mormonism used leaven bread and water to symbolize the body and blood of the Lord.. He has access to both water and leaven bread and yet He didn't use them. why do do you.. Let me make an ***umption. You do so because you put little stock is the Body and Blood of Jesus offered as a sacrifice for our sin.. You therefore hate my Lord and by extension His children.. IHS jim

[nrajeffreturns]

Sorry, Jim, but your ***umption about whether the info I taught you is mere ***umption, is itself an ***umption made by you. And since your ***umption is just that--***umption--it should be rejected.

Again, sorry about the need to reject anything you say, but that's the new rules of Jim, apparently....


By the way: Do you remember the recurring accusation against the LDS by your Carm buddies--the one that said the LDS were WRONG to use non-alcoholic ANYTHING in the eucharist "because Jesus used real wine, He had no access to unfermented grape juice because they didn't have refrigerators back then, so anyone who DOESN'T use real wine is guilty of being non-biblical" ?

Remember those threads? What do you say to your Carm buddies NOW?

[James Banta]

Originally Posted by nrajeffreturns

Sorry, Jim, but your ***umption about whether the info I taught you is mere ***umption, is itself an ***umption made by you. And since your ***umption is just that--***umption--it should be rejected.

Again, sorry about the need to reject anything you say, but that's the new rules of Jim, apparently....


By the way: Do you remember the recurring accusation against the LDS by your Carm buddies--the one that said the LDS were WRONG to use non-alcoholic ANYTHING in the eucharist "because Jesus used real wine, He had no access to unfermented grape juice because they didn't have refrigerators back then, so anyone who DOESN'T use real wine is guilty of being non-biblical" ?

Remember those threads? What do you say to your Carm buddies NOW?

I call it ***umption when no reference is given.. If one is given, and was just that man's opinion, I still call it ***umption. That is all you provided, ***umption. provide a biblical source for your beliefs or tell me that none exist.. I don't hardly attend Carm at all.. There are plenty of solid Christian witnesses there to take care of the duties of defending the faith.. Does it matter what anyone says when the Lord through His word has the last word? That No leaven is to be used in the P***over.. But mormonism has decided That water may replace wine even though wine is very easy to come by in the United States. You replaced the unleaven bread with leaven again even though unleaven bread is widely available.. Do you need me to show you where you can find these articles in the store. I know I have seen everything you need at Smith's. Why argue, just be obedient.. You seem to agree that using leaven is wrong. So don't allow it.. If they continue to offer it and won't hear you, refuse it. Don't you believe you have the authority to conduct your own sacrament? Do it right.. IHS jim

[nrajeffreturns]

Jim, we have Jesus' own words saying that He doesn't care whether we use leavened or unleavened bread in our sacrament. Sometimes we use unleavened bread. But we know that it's not MANDATORY.

That's good enough for us. Sorry His words aren't good enough for you.

[RealFakeHair]

Originally Posted by nrajeffreturns

Jim, we have Jesus' own words saying that He doesn't care whether we use leavened or unleavened bread in our sacrament. Sometimes we use unleavened bread. But we know that it's not MANDATORY.

That's good enough for us. Sorry His words aren't good enough for you.

Unleavened or cheese crackers it is still made of wheat, but water over wine, I still don't get that one. I mean Joe wanted something different is my guess,

[Libby]

Originally Posted by nrajeffreturns

Jim, we have Jesus' own words saying that He doesn't care whether we use leavened or unleavened bread in our sacrament. Sometimes we use unleavened bread. But we know that it's not MANDATORY.

That's good enough for us. Sorry His words aren't good enough for you.

The Christian Reformed Church, hubby and I have been attending, uses leavened bread. I'm pretty sure no one here would consider this church a "cult".

[Libby]

Okay, some of the LDS may consider it a cult! LOL

[Snow Patrol]

Originally Posted by Libby

Okay, some of the LDS may consider it a cult! LOL

Libby, I doubt any of the LDS would, but I imagine there are a couple of christians here that might. :-)

[Pa Pa]

Originally Posted by James Banta

Today we were visiting a man in the hospital. Two very nice LDS men came in and gave the patient the elements of the LDS sacrament.. That's where I start to have trouble.. It's not that these men weren't committed to their church it is the elements themselves.. Levin bread, a symbol of sin, being the subst i tute for the body of the Lord? Mere water being used as a subst i tute for His blood? Is this a problem for anyone else? IHS jim

Why do you care what others do, Jim.

Wow, I listed as the final post on about 20 straight threads...the board is so dead, why do you opposers of Mormons spend so much wasted time here?

[James Banta]

Originally Posted by Pa Pa

Why do you care what others do, Jim.

Wow, I listed as the final post on about 20 straight threads...the board is so dead, why do you opposers of Mormons spend so much wasted time here?

Do you hear yourself.. That the Board is dead and that we "opposers" spend a so much time here.. Which is it Papa, is the board dead or are we spending a lot of time here? IHS jim

[nrajeffreturns]

Originally Posted by James Banta

Do you hear yourself.. That the Board is dead and that we "opposers" spend a so much time here.. Which is it Papa, is the board dead or are we spending a lot of time here? IHS jim

It's both, of course. If you are a paramedic and you find a dead patient but you spend an hour every day trying to resuscitate that patient, the patient is dead, AND you are wasting your time trying to breathe life into it.

[RealFakeHair]

Originally Posted by nrajeffreturns

It's both, of course. If you are a paramedic and you find a dead patient but you spend an hour every day trying to resuscitate that patient, the patient is dead, AND you are wasting your time trying to breathe life into it.

That is the way it is with my golf game, but that's another story.
However as one of God's paramedics I feel I must try and revive the spiritual dead LDSinc. patient. Don Coyote, and me have alot in common, but as long as there are windmills...

[nrajeffreturns]

But the issue isn't whether LDS people are spiritually dead--it's whether THIS FORUM is dying or dead due to a lack of "nutrition."

Giving CPR to a corpse isn't usually effective.

[RealFakeHair]

Originally Posted by nrajeffreturns

But the issue isn't whether LDS people are spiritually dead--it's whether THIS FORUM is dying or dead due to a lack of "nutrition."

Giving CPR to a corpse isn't usually effective.

Funny thing, I just read the other day where doctors will soon be able to revive the dead hours after their last breath. Which also reminds me there might be hope for my love life, but I'll save that for later.....