Updated 04:40 pm.EST, Sat November 21, 2009

Society|Fri, Sep. 26 2008 10:17 AM EDT

Churches Fast for Calif. Revival, Marriage Amendment

By Katherine T. Phan|Christian Post Reporter

Hundreds of churches across the nation on Wednesday kicked off a 40-day fast to rally support for the California marriage amendment and to ask God to send revival to a fallen state that is poised to lead the nation in a moral rebellion.

The fast initiative, known as Facedown 40, is being spearheaded by TheCall, a prayer movement of Christian youth that started during the 2004 elections. Participants of the fast and prayer campaign will forgo solid food for 40 days, from Sept. 24 to Nov. 2, leading up to the elections.

Lou Engle, founder of TheCall, will be leading the 40-day fast from San Diego where he will be visiting churches and asking them to join in support for the amendment that would ban same-sex "marriage." California voters head to the polls on Nov. 4

The fast will culminate in a massive prayer rally, TheCall California, on Nov. 1, when a crowd of 100,000 Christian youth is expected to petition God for a spiritual awakening from the Qualcomm Stadium in San Diego.

“Call forth thousands now, those who have found their place in the Rock, and out of that place are committed to war in the spirit for a great awakening in California, our universities, among our children, and in the cultural power centers of our nation,” prayed Engle on Wednesday at the launch of Facedown40.

“God restrain homosexual marriage and send revival to California,” he asked.

On Thursday, the “Yes on 8” campaign also held a live Protect Marriage webcast rally for hundreds of pastors and church leaders to mobilize congregations in support of the measure.

Meanwhile, other fasts and campaigns were launched this week in efforts to protect conservative values.

On the East coast, Matt Lockett with Bound4Life will be leading a 40-day fast in Washington, DC, with a focus on the presidential election and righteous judges on the Supreme Court.

A pro-life fast initiative also launched Wednesday in 179 cities across America. The campaign, 40 Days for Life, consists of 40 days of prayer and fasting, round-the-clock peaceful vigil outside an abortion facility or Planned Parenthood center, and grassroots educational outreach.

"The nation is beginning to undergo a spiritual conversion that will ultimately turn our society away from abortion,” said David Bereit, national campaign director of 40 Days for Life.

“That spiritual change will then be reflected in the political realm, as elected officials will recognize the will of the people and respond accordingly to protect the life of every human – born and pre-born."

Sort by: Newest | Oldest | Agree | Disagree
All comments on this page are subject to our Terms of Use and do not necessarily reflect the views of The Christian Post or its staff.
1 | 2
  • Fri Oct 03, 2008 5:05 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    Holito, I think Whoopie Goldberg made a really good point when she said no one is qualified to be president until they are actually sitting in that seat making the decisions. I went to college to be a teacher, but very quickly found out on my first day when there were 35 sets of eyes on me how little I knew. You can have leadership experience and suck at it, which I believe Sarah Palin has (have you seen the debt she racked up while in office? We can't afford that as a country!) Obama has new ideas and plans on how to implement them. McCain/Palin have the plans of rich supporters at heart.

  • igh »
    Fri Oct 03, 2008 4:56 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 1

    What are the Characteristics of a cult? This is a post i have been wanting to make.

    1. Unswerving loyalty to the pope and his church. (questions are discouraged, fear of ex-communication and subsequent damnation)
    2. Believe that the bread and wine are Truely Christ's body and blood or be excommunicated. (fear of damnation)
    3. Do not question the pope's authority. (Charismatic leader above question no matter what he says or does.)
    4. Whatever the pope says on Scripture is infallible. (God like leader, demands complete obedience.)
    5. Confession of sins to only a priest.(no confession to Christ. Information can be used agaisnt you, fear tactics, blackmail.)
    6. Belief your sins are not paid by Christ, you must continue to take mass, and pray for those in pergatory. (control over the 'flock' also monetary gains.)
    7. Mass is mandatory for forgiveness of sins. (more control)
    8. Holding to the belief 'your church is the only way to God." (hatred of those 'outsiders,' more control.)
    9. Only a catholic priest can give the bread and wine.
    10. All are heretics outside the catholic church.
    11. Chanting the rosary. (mind control)
    12. Only be a priest if celebate. (control)
    13. Doctrinal control. Saying mass in latin, in former times you were not allowed to even read the Bible.

    Here are some links that describe cults. Run your own search.

    http://www.cultfaq.org/cultfaq-cult-definition.html

    http://www.bible.org/page.php?page_id=1341

    http://www.prem-rawat-talk.org/forum/uploads/CultCharacteristics.htm

    http://www.letusreason.org/culteac.htm

    http://www.icsahome.com/idx_grp.asp

  • Fri Oct 03, 2008 4:02 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    She is more than ready to be VP; Let's look at her record. 1st she was elected mayor. The people believed she could do the job; Next she was voted governor; the people believed she was capable; Now she is running as vice president. But she is always being compared to Obama as president. Now Obama has never been leader over any form of government. She first ran a town and then a state. Now if I ask a 5th grader which has had the most authority, I wonder who they would say. She has been in two roles of leadership where her decision was final. Obama has to try and obtain a majority rule to do anything. O...what has he done anyway?

    He that is faithful in that which is least is faithful also in much: and he that is unjust in the least is unjust also in much.

  • Thu Oct 02, 2008 2:19 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    And how is this not considered radical Christianity?

  • igh »
    Thu Oct 02, 2008 9:41 am Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    here is a link to Jack Chick's trak on the "Death Cookie."

    http://www.chick.com/reading/tracts/0074/0074_01.asp

  • igh »
    Thu Oct 02, 2008 7:29 am Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    Note: Go through and read all the chapters.

  • igh »
    Thu Oct 02, 2008 7:23 am Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    Here's some good info from Chick Tracks.

    http://www.chick.com/reading/books/153/153_01.asp

  • Wed Oct 01, 2008 8:43 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    tallguy, I want to ask you a serious question about this issue, so please don't think I'm messing with you. How long does Jesus remain in your body after one receives the eucharist? And if one were to receive the Eucharist before Jesus departed their body would there be two of Jesus in their body? And is there a time limit as to when a person can receive the eucharist again or can a person receive it as often as they want say everyday or what about more than once in a day? Now if I remember correctly as a boy I was taught that once I sin I'm can't remember if it had to be a mortal sin or just a venial sin that Christ would depart my body and I would need to recieve the eucharist again. So if I did not commit a sin and went to communion again what would happen?

  • igh »
    Wed Oct 01, 2008 7:21 pm Agree: 1   Disagree: 0

    Now on Fred Flintstone, he had more 'reality' than the catholic cult.

  • igh »
    Wed Oct 01, 2008 7:16 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    You should read John Chapter 6. Jesus is the Bread of Life. This means Trusting him and having Faith in him gives you Eternal life.

    Now drinking human blood and eating a mans flesh is not Scriptural. It is forbidden. God does not lie, so.....
    At last supper Jesus was saying "Remember me with Love when i gave my life for you."

    A very simple thing to do, in the early Church they did it every day i heard. Anyone can do this, anywhere, even without the bread and wine. Does not have to be in Church.

  • Wed Oct 01, 2008 5:57 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    Tallguy1000, Mike2685,

    I want to tell you that I really enjoy our discussions. *grin* I think you guys are wrong, but I like chatting with you. You guys challenge me and I appreciate it.

    Thank you,
    wbmoore

  • Wed Oct 01, 2008 5:15 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    Is it the bishop's responsibility to carve up the body and make those funky little wafers? Or is that only something the almighty Pope is allowed to do?

  • Wed Oct 01, 2008 5:06 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    Wow. Jesus is a BIG man, if his body is used for all the millions of people eating his body. And I thought they couldn't find his body, that He was resurrected. Did He leave his body behind for us to eat? And how much blood can one man have? Well, I guess if his body is big enough to feed millions every week, I suppose it would require lots of blood.

  • Wed Oct 01, 2008 4:37 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    Just a reminder, the topic is: Churches Fast for Calif. Revival, Marriage Amendment.

  • Wed Oct 01, 2008 4:34 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 2

    Igh, again remind me; how old did you say you are?

    Mike is correct; the creation story is just that, A STORY! God may or may not have created the world in 6 days and then He rested. It's more likely that God took thousands of years to create what He created.

    Again Mike is correct. No matter how much you people try to twist and turn the words of Jesus you can't! He said this is my body and blood, and he meant it! He was speaking literally, otherwise, why would the majority have thought He was wacked and walked out on Him. Is this teaching to hard for you too? Will you walk out on Him too? Sounds like you already have.
    Why would Paul have written in Cor11 that "He who eats the flesh and drinks the blood unworthily brings condemnation upon himself"? Paul did not use the word symbol, at least not in my bible. If it was just a symbol would Paul have given us this strong warning? Hardly! So quit slopping your grape juice and cookies around, what you are doing is a sacrilege. Take Heed Wilderness!

    He who eats my flesh and drinks my blood abides in me and I in him. Later on in the book of John - he who does not abide in me will be cut off like branches and thrown into the fires of hell. Take Heed Take Heed Take Heed - I like that one Wilderness, mind if I use it?

  • Wed Oct 01, 2008 8:01 am Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    We cannot claim ignorance to God's commandments and still expect a blessing.
    Hosea 4:
    6 my people are destroyed from lack of knowledge.
    "Because you have rejected knowledge,
    I also reject you as my priests;
    because you have ignored the law of your God,
    I also will ignore your children.

    We cannot expect God to hold us up if we don't follow His word.
    Deuteronomy 28
    1 If you fully obey the LORD your God and carefully follow all his commands I give you today, the LORD your God will set you high above all the nations on earth. 2 All these blessings will come upon you and accompany you if you obey the LORD your God:

    Deuteronomy 28
    15 However, if you do not obey the LORD your God and do not carefully follow all his commands and decrees I am giving you today, all these curses will come upon you and overtake you:

  • Wed Oct 01, 2008 7:48 am Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    As far as the Old Testament goes, much of it I believe to be fabrication.
    I guess you did not read 2 Peter chapter 1.

    19We have also a more sure word of prophecy; whereunto ye do well that ye take heed, as unto a light that shineth in a dark place, until the day dawn, and the day star arise in your hearts:

    20Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation.

    21For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost.

  • igh »
    Tue Sep 30, 2008 3:59 pm Agree: 1   Disagree: 0

    mike2685 wrote:

    "Mike2685 Mon Sep 29, 2008 1:37 pm
    Its bene interpretted though. God did not write it, he challenged people to write it, people who wrote through their worldview. As far as the Old Testament goes, much of it I believe to be fabrication. The New Testament has many models of how to live a good life and follow Christ, and Jesus never once spoke about homosexuality "clearly." "


    Ok what about this from a very very wise man, do you believe it? And I quote:

    "Think Big and Be Big."
    --Fred Flintstone

    YaBa DaBa Doo!

    From the 1st book of Bedrock. I am afraid that the book was lost long ago, and i cannot find reference to it anymore. But it doesn't matter we can take whatever we want of the Bible and call it 'Fabrication' and ignore it.

  • Tue Sep 30, 2008 3:31 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    mike2685, God was around and since His Holy Spirit is responsible for superintending the writing of His Word, we can be sure these accounts were recorded correctly.

  • Tue Sep 30, 2008 1:25 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    I was studying John 6:48-57.
    " 48I am that bread of life.

    49Your fathers did eat manna in the wilderness, and are dead.

    50This is the bread which cometh down from heaven, that a man may eat thereof, and not die.

    51I am the living bread which came down from heaven: if any man eat of this bread, he shall live for ever: and the bread that I will give is my flesh, which I will give for the life of the world.

    52The Jews therefore strove among themselves, saying, How can this man give us his flesh to eat?

    53Then Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, ye have no life in you.

    54Whoso eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, hath eternal life; and I will raise him up at the last day.

    55For my flesh is meat indeed, and my blood is drink indeed.

    56He that eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, dwelleth in me, and I in him.

    57As the living Father hath sent me, and I live by the Father: so he that eateth me, even he shall live by me.

    58This is that bread which came down from heaven: not as your fathers did eat manna, and are dead: he that eateth of this bread shall live for ever."

    The word "eateth" that Jesus used in this scripture is the only place in the only place in the entire New Testament where it is used. "Trogo". Which means to gnaw or chew, with the idea of wearing or corroding.
    It's interesting that the word trogo comes from the word "trauma" meaning "wound", and "tribos" meaning "path".
    The path of the wound? Offer up ourselves a living sacrifice? Take up your cross and follow me? I am crucified with Christ...?
    Any of this sound familiar?
    Jesus was talking about partaking in His suffering.
    The other words for eat in the gospels are this:
    "phago" meaning to eat meat.
    "esthio" meaning to devour, eat, live
    "katesthio" meaning to eat down (used only once as well)

  • Tue Sep 30, 2008 1:04 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    So many practices and beliefs held by the RCC are so anti-scriptural it's not even funny.
    Mary was a sinner, just as you and I are.
    "For ALL have sinned...." And yet, the RCC can't explain away that scripture. No amount of "oral tradition" (in other words "myths") will ever supercede the Word of God.
    So when Jesus broke the bread at the "Last Supper", He was actually literally ripping pieces of His own flesh off? Bleeding into a cup and giving it to his disciples?

  • Tue Sep 30, 2008 11:55 am Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    "but I also believe people write with a worldview "

    When a secretary writes a letter for the boss they put in the letter what the boss wants. They do not go out on their own world view. The word 'inspired' in reference to the Bible is 'breathed'. The Bible says 'God breathed'. Sounds clear it was out of His mouth and down on paper.

    55 means 55. It doesn't mean 60 or 65 or .... I keep telling people around here the signs that say 85 are the Interstate signs and not the speed limit signs. Their choice not to listen has our stretch of I-85 as the 3rd deadliest section of interstate in the USA. Ignoring clearly posted signs has a price.

    The Bible is clear. As for the 'this is my body'...I've already posted to you the greek tense with is a figurative tense of the word. In English you can use the same word to mean many different things both figurative and literal. Not so with Greek. You're a teacher. You know rules of language change from language to language. If you apply the rules to English to a language like Chinesse you get an F for a grade. It's that simple.

    Accept the Greek with it's rules or you will end up with an F for eternity!

  • Tue Sep 30, 2008 9:19 am Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    There is a difference between understanding something as an analogy (particularly when plain reading shows it to be so) and saying something did not happen. One is interpretation, the other is denial.

    I say denial, because you said the part with Noah was fabrication.

    If Christ acted like it was real, literal, as we see in Mt 24:36-41, and it was not, then He lied and God lied. So either the story of Noah can be trusted to have happened like Christ said, or it did not. If it did not, then Jesus of Nazareth is a liar and is not the Christ (who did not lie) and is not God (who can not lie).

    Once you say something HE said was real is not, you move away from interpretation to denial. Once something can be denied, then all of it can and should be denied, as none of it can be trusted. You simply can not have it both ways and be intellectually consistent and intellectually honest.

  • Tue Sep 30, 2008 8:06 am Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    Again, I go back to the original Bible passage I posted of "Unless you eat my body..." which the Catholic church believes is the ordination of the Eucharist, during which Christ is fully present in the bread and wine. How is it that you interpret that part to mean something different, yet if I interpret something rather than read it literally, I must be calling God a liar. I believe that Exodus has its place in the Bible and that God did inspire it, but I think he inspired it as a way of establishing his presence in the world rather than to be taken literally as how the world was created. Had God inspired someone to write "God created Earth, then the other planets and our entire solar system" early Christians would have had no concept of what was being said. If God did not say anything about the other planets in Exodus, should I not believe they are there even though I can see them?

  • Tue Sep 30, 2008 12:08 am Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    If someone does not believe any part of the Bible, then to claim to trust the Bible is intellectually dishonest and inconsistent. You can not have it both ways. This demonstrates a disconnect in the thinking process, this is classic post-modern thinking.

  • Mon Sep 29, 2008 11:58 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    I can trust the Bible WB, you are being quite extremist in your thinking.

    Believer, I do believe the Bible was divinely inspired, but I also believe people write with a worldview (if God had inspired the Bible authors to write about the internet, they would not have been able to as they had no concept or information with which to write.) People are fallible, hence why we have 4 different gospels, each with a slightly different side of the story (however, it is the fact that we have 4 accounts of the same basic story that give me faith it was true. There was no one around to write the story of Adam and Eve or Noah, so they were more stories written down after centuries of being told orally.)

  • Mon Sep 29, 2008 10:00 pm Agree: 1   Disagree: 0

    mike2685, the human writers of the Bible wrote in their own writing style, but they were superintended by God's Holy Spirit as they wrote in order to prevent errors with regards to God's truths in the Word of God. That is why we can make the substantiated claim that in its original autographs the Bible is the God-breathed, inerrant, plenary, Word of God.

  • Mon Sep 29, 2008 7:45 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    If you can not trust the Bible, you have no reason to believe the part about Jesus being sent to die for our sins. So why bother? And if you DO bother, what makes that part more trustworthy than any other? Its logically inconsistent.

  • Mon Sep 29, 2008 7:11 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 1

    If He knew it was not literal, yet acted like it was, then He deceived people - lied by implication. But this is a sin.
    Leviticus 19:11
    11 Do not steal. Do not lie. Do not deceive one another.

    Even Balaam knew that God does not lie.
    Numbers 23:19
    God is not a man, that he should lie, nor a son of man, that he should change his mind. Does he speak and then not act? Does he promise and not fulfill?

    Paul knew God does not lie:
    Titus 1:2 a faith and knowledge resting on the hope of eternal life, which God, who does not lie, promised before the beginning of time,

    The author of Hebrews also knew God can not lie:
    Hebrews 6:18
    God did this so that, by two unchangeable things in which it is impossible for God to lie, we who have fled to take hold of the hope offered to us may be greatly encouraged.

    Yet, Jesus Christ said He was God.
    John 10:30-33
    30 I and the Father are one." 31 Again the Jews picked up stones to stone him, 32 but Jesus said to them, "I have shown you many great miracles from the Father. For which of these do you stone me?" 33 "We are not stoning you for any of these," replied the Jews, "but for blasphemy, because you, a mere man, claim to be God."

    Matthew 26:63-64
    63But Jesus remained silent. The high priest said to him, "I charge you under oath by the living God: Tell us if you are the Christ, the Son of God." 64 "Yes, it is as you say," Jesus replied. "But I say to all of you: In the future you will see the Son of Man sitting at the right hand of the Mighty One and coming on the clouds of heaven."

    We also know He did not sin.
    Hebrews 4:15
    For we do not have a high priest who is unable to sympathize with our weaknesses, but we have one who has been tempted in every way, just as we are - yet was without sin.

    So if He acted as if something was true and literal, but it was not, then He deceived us, then He sinned and He is not God, nor is He the Christ.

    When you pick and choose which verses to accept as being from God and which ones not, then you find the Bible falls apart rather quickly. Either God breathed it into being or He did not. If He did not, then God is not all powerful and not loving (otherwise He would have given us a written record we could trust) and everything about the Bible must be considered with suspicion and each part must be proven beyond a shadow of a doubt.

  • Mon Sep 29, 2008 6:51 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    Perhaps he knew the people he was speaking to knew nothing of a solar system or that the Earth was not the only thing in God's creation. He would have sounded crazy had he said "well you all evolved from monkeys, to be honest."

  • Mon Sep 29, 2008 3:32 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    So if Christ acted like it was literal, how can someone who claims to admit to believe Christ is God (one of the trinity) think he knows better than Christ?

  • Mon Sep 29, 2008 1:37 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 2

    Its bene interpretted though. God did not write it, he challenged people to write it, people who wrote through their worldview. As far as the Old Testament goes, much of it I believe to be fabrication. The New Testament has many models of how to live a good life and follow Christ, and Jesus never once spoke about homosexuality "clearly."

  • Mon Sep 29, 2008 1:09 pm Agree: 1   Disagree: 0

    "I do not call God a liar because I interpret differently than you do"

    It's not your interpretation that I am addressing. It's your ignoring what is clearly stated because it says your lifestyle is wrong that I am addressing.

    The Bible is very clear about what God thinks of homosexuality. The father of communism said the US Constitution was the best document for ruling a people as long as it was interpreted and implemented correctly. In short, he believed that America was not living up to our Constitution and that his ideas were the right ones.

    You're free to believe what you want but I tend to just accept what's written as it is written. Either it's God's word or it's not.

  • Mon Sep 29, 2008 11:18 am Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    The bible, at its roots, is a book. All books will be interpretted differently. I do not call God a liar because I interpret differently than you do, and it does not shake my faith or make me any less Christian than you. We all have different beliefs, and there are many sects of Christianity, all with different beliefs. Who is to say my beliefs trump yours, or so on? That is a debate that will not end until Jesus comes again, but until then, I'd appreciate you not saying that I am calling God a liar.

  • Mon Sep 29, 2008 10:29 am Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    It looks like the "Adam and Steve" mystery has been solved:
    http://www.pugbus.net/artman/publish/20080922_11_adamsteve.shtml

  • Mon Sep 29, 2008 10:17 am Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    If Noah was not to be taken literally, why would Jesus, who was there (being God), take them literally?

    Matthew 24:36-41
    36 "No one knows about that day or hour, not even the angels in heaven, nor the Son, but only the Father. 37 As it was in the days of Noah, so it will be at the coming of the Son of Man. 38For in the days before the flood, people were eating and drinking, marrying and giving in marriage, up to the day Noah entered the ark; 39and they knew nothing about what would happen until the flood came and took them all away. That is how it will be at the coming of the Son of Man. 40Two men will be in the field; one will be taken and the other left. 41Two women will be grinding with a hand mill; one will be taken and the other left.

  • Mon Sep 29, 2008 9:18 am Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    Genesis 9:29
    Altogether, Noah lived 950 years, and then he died.

    You can believe God or not. These are not made up names. These people really lived. By choosing to not believe God, you call Him a liar. By choosing to not believe God, you put Him in a box and try to limit His power and the effects of your chosen sins.

    If you don't believe in Adam and Eve, or Noah, why believe anything in the Bible at all?

  • Mon Sep 29, 2008 7:32 am Agree: 1   Disagree: 2

    OK, so the question I have asked believer many times on this issue: its OK for you to choose to take that verse figuratively, but I can't take the creation story or Noah's Ark as a figurative story talking about God's power or place in our lives? Believer says Noah lived to almost 1,000, which is nonsensical. Adam and Eve's children would have had to have incestual relationships for the first few generations in order to have enough children to populate the entire earth, and even at that, it wouldn't explain how we have evolved into such different looking races.

  • Sun Sep 28, 2008 11:47 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    Now we will look at where Paul calls Jesus Christ our Passover Lamb, 1 Corinthians 5:1-8. Note that Paul is calling the Corinthian church to task for the immorality present among its members. Not only that, they were boasting about it. He tells them they are to remove the old yeast-filled (sinful malice and wickedness) bread and be new bread without sin. Christ is our Passover Lamb, and so we are to keep the Passover with bread without yeast - bread of sincerity and truth. Note, Jesus was not a lamb. The people were not bread. This is an analogy, a symbol of the spiritual truth.

    Now let us look at the passage where Paul speaks of the Lord's Supper, 1 Corinthians 11:20-34. Notice in 1 Corinthians 11:20-22 that He is speaking of propriety. He complains of how the church acts when they come together for the Lord's Supper - they are thoughtless and getting drunk and not ensuring everyone has the opportunity to participate. Paul reminds them they have homes in which to eat, and this is not a normal meal, but a solemn remembrance of what Christ did. Then he moves on, in verses 23-26, to the reason for the Lord's Supper, it is a reminder of what Christ did for us. By eating the Lord's Supper, we proclaim the Lord's death until He comes. Then, in verses 27-33, Paul tells us that we are to be in a condition of spiritual righteousness to eat the Lord's Supper, and tells us that we must take it with propriety, waiting for everyone to have the bread to be able to eat it together. We must recognize what Christ has done for us.

    So, when Jesus said it was His body and blood, He was speaking euphemistically. It was an analogy. His body was sacrificed, and His blood spilled. The bread and wine were used as analogies of the fact that we must remember the need to take in, to believe, the fact that Christ suffered and died for our sins.

    But the difference between whether the Lord's Supper makes us cannibals who are truly eating flesh and drinking blood or not and Adam and Eve is that we have the genealogy of Adam's descendants to Christ. If Adam was just a story, we would have no such genealogy. So feel free to call God (who said Adam was the first man) a liar by saying Adam and Eve is just a story. But the truth is, you're wrong. You put yourself in God's place by doing so.

  • Sun Sep 28, 2008 11:41 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    Christ said we need to eat his flesh and drink his blood. What did He mean?

    The key is in John 6:26-52. Notice this passage begins with Jesus just having fed five thousand. He used the fact that he had just fed the crowd bread to move them towards thinking about eternal life. When they responded with the fact that Moses had given their ancestors manna, Jesus told them it was not Moses, but God. Then He went on to say in verse 35, He said, "I am the bread of life. He who comes to me will never go hungry, and he who believes in me will never be thirsty". Obviously people who come to Christ still need to eat and drink. So although HE is the living Bread from heaven, He was speaking spiritually. We see this in verse 40, "For my Father's will is that everyone who looks to the Son and believes in him shall have eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day." He picks this up again in verse 47, saying "I tell you the truth, he who believes has everlasting life." He continues using the analogy by stating He is the bread of life sent by God (as opposed to the manna sent to their ancestors) and people must eat Him (meaning they must believe in Him) to have eternal life. Jesus used a physical analogy to speak to a spiritual truth. Just as manna was sent by God, so too was Jesus. Just as the people needed to eat the manna sent by God to physically live, they must believe Jesus was sent by God to spiritually live.

    Now let us look at the verses associated with the Passover, which have come to be known as the Lord's Supper. First, we see it was indeed the day the Passover lamb was to be sacrificed in Mark 14:12 (cp. Luke 22:7-8). Second, we see it was the Passover meal in Matthew 26:17 (cp. Luke 22:7-8). Third, we see that Jesus said the bread was His body and the wine was His blood in Matthew 26:26-29 (cp Mark 14:22-25, Luke 22:17-20).

    But here is something the Catholic church misses: He called the wine what it was, "fruit of the vine" AFTER He called it His blood of the covenant. If it was truly His blood, why would He call it wine after He said it was His blood? Notice also, at this point, His body had not yet been given in sacrifice, nor had his blood been spilled, for the forgiveness of sins. If He had been speaking literally, His sacrifice would not have been necessary. Yet, we know it WAS necessary that he suffer and die, that His blood be spilled and His body be sacrificed. So this was yet another analogy, a symbol, of what was necessary for people who believe to have eternal life. In Luke 22:17-20, we see the reason for the Lord's Supper, we see that He added "do this in remembrance of me" in verse 19. This was to be a remembrance of Jesus and what He did for those who believe. This is a physical reminder of the physical death of Christ that was needed so that those who believe could have spiritual life.

  • Sun Sep 28, 2008 9:43 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    People, quit flagging Mike. He might be wrong, but he has a right to post here. His posts are MUCH less offensive than what others have posted.

  • Sun Sep 28, 2008 9:42 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    Paul wrote repeatedly about Adam.

    1 Corinthians 15:45
    So it is written: "The first man Adam became a living being"; the last Adam, a life-giving spirit.

    Romans 5:12-17
    12 Therefore, just as sin entered the world through one man, and death through sin, and in this way death came to all men, because all sinned- 13 for before the law was given, sin was in the world. But sin is not taken into account when there is no law. 14 Nevertheless, death reigned from the time of Adam to the time of Moses, even over those who did not sin by breaking a command, as did Adam, who was a pattern of the one to come. 15 But the gift is not like the trespass. For if the many died by the trespass of the one man, how much more did God's grace and the gift that came by the grace of the one man, Jesus Christ, overflow to the many! 16 Again, the gift of God is not like the result of the one man's sin: The judgment followed one sin and brought condemnation, but the gift followed many trespasses and brought justification. 17 For if, by the trespass of the one man, death reigned through that one man, how much more will those who receive God's abundant provision of grace and of the gift of righteousness reign in life through the one man, Jesus Christ.

    You see Mike, you are placing yourself in God's place by deciding you don't believe in the story of Adam and Eve. This is exactly what happened in Romans 1. People are created things. When we put our thoughts in the place of God's then we put ourselves in the place of God in our lives.

    Romans 1:22-25
    22 Although they claimed to be wise, they became fools 23 and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images made to look like mortal man and birds and animals and reptiles. 24 Therefore God gave them over in the sinful desires of their hearts to sexual impurity for the degrading of their bodies with one another. 25 They exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and worshiped and served created things rather than the Creator - who is forever praised. Amen.

    You pick and choose what to believe. Therefore, what makes you think you have any basis for belief in Christ? You don't. You believe what you want to believe, not what God has written in the Bible. If you dont trust God, you are not saved.

  • Sun Sep 28, 2008 9:30 pm Agree: 1   Disagree: 0

    WB, I do believe in God, actually, you have no grounds to say that I don't. If I don't believe in your Bible as you do, then I don't believe in God? How's about this: I believe unless you go to Catholic Mass for the Eucharist every Sunday, you are choosing to disobey Christ's orders and shall not go to heaven. If you don't believe that, I guess you don't believe in God.

  • Sun Sep 28, 2008 9:28 pm Agree: 1   Disagree: 1

    Cute, I've been flagged again. Is someone afraid I've what I'm saying? I asked you a question: How do you interpret the quote "Unless you eat my body and drink my blood, you shall not have life within you."

  • Sun Sep 28, 2008 9:27 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    God believes in the Adam and Eve story.
    Hosea 6:7
    Like Adam, they have broken the covenant - they were unfaithful to me there.

    Moses believed in the Adam and Eve story.
    Genesis 5:5
    Altogether, Adam lived 930 years, and then he died.

    Luke believed in the Adam and Eve story.
    Luke 3:38
    the son of Kenan, the son of Enosh, the son of Seth, the son of Adam, the son of God.

    Paul believed in the Adam and Eve story.
    1 Timothy 2:13
    For Adam was formed first, then Eve.

    Jude believed in the Adam and Eve story,
    Jude 1:14
    Enoch, the seventh from Adam, prophesied about these men: "See, the Lord is coming with thousands upon thousands of his holy ones

    Anyone who does not believe the Adam and Eve story does not believe God. If you don't believe God, what makes you think the Gospels are accurate? you have no basis for belief in Christ and so you aren't saved, since one must believe He exists, and that He loves the world so much that He sent His one and only begotten Son to die for their sins.

  • Sun Sep 28, 2008 6:22 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    "I don't believe the creation story is real,"

    So, you don't believe the Bible is God's word. Either it is or it isn't. It's real simple. The Bible is not a buffet where you get to pick and choose. That's the same as having a manual at work and saying "I don't believe section one so I'm going to do my job based on what I think". Anyone who understands well written manuals knows that's insubordinate. Companies have stuff written down for a reason. So does God.

  • Sun Sep 28, 2008 2:38 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    mike2685, I heard a preacher share this about Adam and Eve, God did not create Eve from a bone in Adam's foot so he could lord over her nor did He create her from a bone in Adam's head so she could lord over him, but rather He created her from a rib from Adam's side so they could walk together through life side by side. Granted God's desire is for wives to submit to their husband's, but He also desires for husband's to love their wives as Christ loved the Church and gave His life for the Church. That being true I don't see anywhere that husbands are supposed to dominate their wives.

  • Sun Sep 28, 2008 2:32 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    DP, Man having spiritual headship in the home was established by God in Genesis 2 prior to the sin of Adam and Eve, but if we think about it there is a possibility Eve never would have sinned if Adam would have acted as the spiritual head of their marriage when she was confronted by Satan and if she would have looked to Adam as the spiritual head of their marriage.

  • Sun Sep 28, 2008 2:07 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    If you're a biblical literalist, sure. I don't believe the creation story is real, hence, I don't believe Adam and Eve established man's dominance over women.

  • Sun Sep 28, 2008 12:20 pm Agree: 1   Disagree: 0

    "So women were created for man's every whim?"

    Actually, it wasn't until they got kicked out of the garden that man ruled over woman. Until then, there was no issue. They were one in every respect. In fact, Genesis says we will create man and we will create him both male and female. Please note it refers to the singular as man and woman.

    If a husband treats a wife (or a wife treats a husband) in a manner that they would not want to be treated then they have done wrong.

    The purpose of marriage as given in the New Testament is as an example of the relationship between Christ and the Church. Submissive is a behavior ... it is not a determination of value. People 'submit' to their employer all the time (for money) yet that is expected. Still, somehow showing the same level of respect to a husband is 'demeaning'. Hogwash.

    Satan doesn't want a healthy example of the relationship between Christ and the Church so he has all kinds of knockoffs such as femenism and homosexuality. It is simply to undermine the clear example God gave to show the relationship between Christ and the Church.

Please help us to monitor our message boards by flagging comments that are unlawful, harmful, threatening, abusive, harassing, defamatory, vulgar, obscene, libelous, hateful, or racially, ethnically or otherwise objectionable.
Contact Us if you have any questions, comments, or concerns.
Comment on this story
ID Password

Don't have a Christian Post ID? Signing up is easy. Click Here

  • icon1
  • icon2
  • icon3
  • icon4
  • icon5
The Christian Post reserves the right to terminate the account of any User who violates our Terms of Use.
Advertisement
Advertisement
CP Shopping
  • Jewelry
  • Health
  • Gifts
  • Music
  • Coins

Bracelets | Chains | Crosses | Earrings | Gemstone |

Featured contents & Giveaways
Joolwe :
Cross-pendant necklace
Zondervan

Struggling to succeed in the Nashville music scene, talented singer/songwriter Parker James finds the competition fierce even deadly. A young woman's murder, industry corruption, a

Featured Advertiser Links