What do Protestants think about....

greenspun.com : LUSENET : Catholic : One Thread

...The Body and Blood of Jesus. An honest question. I've spent a lot of time understanding the Catholic point of view, which I believe whole heartedly is the CORRECT answer. And suffice it to say, I can, and have defended this doctrine on several levels giving Scripture and Logic. However, although I've vaguely heard why Protestants don't believe in this (like it's spiritual, etc.), I would like to know specifically why Protestants reject the idea that Jesus wasn't using figurative language.

First, I guess I should ask, do Protestants connect Jesus' "hard" teaching in John 6 with the Lords Supper? If not - why? If so, that is how I take it. The Lords Supper is the fulfillment of Jesus' teaching in John 6.

Let's start with this. Okay - so simply looking at John 6 it would appear that maybe, just maybe, I mean it's a stretch, Jesus wasn't really talking about His Body being eaten. But, why would the disciples (who already believed everything else He said - and had accepted him as God) stop following Him? If His words were figurative and meant something other than to Eat His Body, then why would they leave? It had to have been something gravely disgusting or un-palatable (literally or figuratively) for them to leave. If it wasn't literal, what figurative meaning could have caused these people to leave? They already believed He was the Messiah! They had palated all His other figurative teachings. Other times, when disciples didn’t understand, Jesus explained it to them (or just to the 12). But this time, he doesn’t explain anything! He repeats what He says and then turns to the 12 and asks if they will leave too! What was up with this one? If it wasn't literal, what else did it mean that would cause them to leave? Furthermore, if it wasn’t literal, why didn’t Jesus explain it (not even to his 12)!?

Moving on to the 4 Gospels:

If John 6 is easy to explain, then explain what is meant when Jesus passes the bread to His disciples and says, "Take, and eat. This is my BODY which will be given up for you." In what way, figuratively, is bread a symbol for His Body. Is this connected with John 6 or not? I just can't think of any figurative connection that would make sense with anything else. I guess, one could say that we partake in One Loaf of bread symbolizing our unity as the Body of Christ. However, in combination with the other passages, this doesn’t hatch out.

Moving along to Paul's first letter to the Cor. 11:

Paul specifically tells the Church:

“20 Therefore when you meet together, it is not to eat the Lord's Supper,..." (meaning that it should be!)"... 23 For (27) I received from the Lord that which I also delivered to you, that (28) the Lord Jesus in the night in which He was betrayed took bread; 24 and when He had given thanks, He broke it and said, "This is My body, which is for you; do this in remembrance of Me."... 26 For as often as you eat this bread and drink the cup, you proclaim the Lord's death (31) until He comes. 27 Therefore whoever eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner, shall be (32) guilty of the body and the blood of the Lord... 29 For he who eats and drinks, eats and drinks judgment to himself if he does not judge the body rightly. 30 For this reason many among you are weak and sick, and a number (34) sleep.”

Wow! So, IF we are to take eating and drinking Christ’s Body symbolically, like the bread is simply a symbol, then what's up with that!? The Cor. are sick and dying and Paul says it's because they are eating the Lords Supper unworthily! If it was symbolic, why on earth would a just and loving God cast condemnation on them! Where else in the Bible does the Lord cast death and sickness on anyone who merely does a symbolic thing unworthily. Reprimand, even temporary punishment, for sure! But condemnation!? Eternal death!? If this is to be connected somehow with John 6, again, what teaching would this be. If it isn't the unity of the Church through the Body of Christ REALLY, then what figurative teaching could this mean!?

I am simply curious to get the whole, non-vague, specific, answer to why Protestants deny this being a literal teaching?

In Christ.



-- Jake Huether (jake_huether@yahoo.com), December 13, 2002

Answers

bump

-- Jake Huether (jake_huether@yahoo.com), December 13, 2002.

Dear Jake, There is a lot that can be said on this subject, and no doubt will be said, but I only have 10 minutes of my lunch break left, so I'll just address one issue. It is very difficult to say "what Protestants think about" a given doctrinal issue, as there are typically a rather broad range of beliefs among Protestant sects, and some of those beliefs differ more from one another than they do from Catholicism. If you ask an Anglican or a Lutheran if he believes in the real presence of Jesus in the Eucharist, you will certainly get an affirmative answer. They do take this as literal teaching - but not necessarily in precisely the same way Catholics do. To a Lutheran, Jesus is fully present, body and blood, soul and divinity, in the consecrated bread and wine. That little word "in" is a very big word here, for it separates their belief from ours. In Catholic sacramental theology, what WAS bread and wine BECOMES the body and blood of Christ (transubstantiation). After the consecration, there is no longer any bread or wine on the altar. In Lutheran theology, Christ fully enters INTO the bread and wine, or becomes so intimately associated WITH them through the consecration, that in receiving the consecrated bread and wine, one truly and actually receives the body and blood of Christ - but - the consecrated bread is still bread, and the consecrated wine is still wine (consubstantiation). At the opposite end of the spectrum are of course those denominations which have completely done away with any semblance of a "communion service" whatsoever. To them "he who eats my flesh and drinks my blood" means "he who hears my Word and receives my spirit", or some similar interpretation. Between the two extremes though are innumerable versions and interpretations of "communion" or "The Lord's Supper" (few of them use the word "Eucharist"), many varied responses to the command of Christ, "do this in remembrance of Me". Most do not see communion as sacramental, in the same sense we do. Their communion, like their baptism, is something they do, as an expression of their devotion and commitment to God - not something God does for them. It is a response to grace, not a source of grace. In responding to "do this in remembrance of Me", they invariably overemphasize the word "remembrance", claiming that this word indicates a symbolic meaning, a sort of memorial event, like Independence Day, as opposed to an actual perpetuation of a genuine reality. In Catholicism we emphasize the word "this" - do THIS in remembrance of Me - not just some sort of memorial service of your own design, but exactly what I have just done for you. Ever since the first Mass, which Jesus Himself celebrated at the last supper, taking the simultaneous roles of priest and sacrifice, Catholics have responded faithfully to this command.

OK, must go earn my keep. God bless. Paul

-- Paul (PaulCyp@cox.net), December 13, 2002.


Paul is right - take each doctrine of the Catholic Church *separately* from the rest of them, and you will find some Protestant somewhere who accepts it.

If you find one that accepts ALL of them, he or she is probably on his or her way into the Boat! (thank God! :-)

-- Christine L. :-) (christine_lehman@hotmail.com), December 13, 2002.


Hi Jake:

I think since the Church has held this teaching zealously for 2,000 years, it is primarily for two reasons: 1) It comes largely from a spirit of unbelief, or anti-supernatural bias, and 2) That's what Catholics believe so it must NOT be true.

Same is true for the communion of saints doctrine. If you tell some folks that the saints are alive and well and working alongside the Lord, praying and interceding for us down here on planet earth, they look at you like you're nuts. Yet, they claim to be believe in eternal life!

I find it rather humerous that, at least in my experience, I have shared the communion of saints doctrine with folks who categorically deny that that is possible, but yet go to services where they hope to experience "gold dust falling from the heavens," or "gold fillings in their teeth." I'm not kidding. I had a friend who took debris from her car in to a jeweler to see if it was gold dust! (It was not)

Love,

Gail

-- Gail (rothfarms@socket.net), December 13, 2002.


Jake, I am not a Protestant, but I agree with them on this: I accept the wine as Jesus true blood and the bread as Jesus true flesh spiritually. Jews were forbidden to eat human flesh. That is why Jesus saying scandalized them. They thought he meant it literally ( which is the way the Roman Catholic Church believes).See John 6:48- 63. Verse 63 says his words are spirit and life. That means, we must be one with him, not by eating his flesh and blood, which is prohibited, but by becoming one with him spiritually in both mind and action.

Gail, you are right about the communion of saints. My hope is that one day we become one of them to help people get saved.

-- Elpidio gonzalez (egonzalez@srla.org), December 13, 2002.



"They thought he meant it literally ( which is the way the Roman Catholic Church believes).See John 6:48- 63. Verse 63 says his words are spirit and life."

Elpidio, This is exactly right! And this is why the Catholic Church konws she's right! Because those Jews who thought he meant it literally left, yet Jesus didn't stop them.

His saying "...spirit and life" didn't change His literal meaning of it. They [the Jews] thought they had to eat His Body for physical, temporary, nourishment - like the manna in the desert. Jesus says, NO! You must really eat my Body and drink my Blood, but it is for spiritual nourishment and eternal life! So, Jesus' explanation didn't change the real meaning! If this explanation would have changed it to what you stated, then don't you think the Jews would have come back? But the Bible says the left Him and didn't hang out with Him anymore! So, we are to take this to mean that Jesus really meant eating His Body and drinking His Blood!

Elpidio - not to be to blunt, but do you want to do what the Jews did? Leave the Lord!? Like the Apostles said, "where else can we go."

In Christ.

-- Theresa (Rodntee4Jesus@aol.com), December 13, 2002.


Dear Elpidio,

Jesus' statement about eating His flesh and drinking His blood was obviously taken literally by everyone who was listening to Him. How could they take it otherwise, when He had been using stronger and stronger language to drive the point home, finally telling them straight out "My flesh is REAL food, my blood is REAL drink". REAL - the opposite of symbolic. If they were not taking Him literally, why would they have been so scandalized, so horrified, so repulsed, that they had to "leave Him and follow Him no more"? Surely they would not have had such an extreme reaction if they thought He was merely speaking figuratively. So it is clear from the account that they at least THOUGHT He was speaking literally ... which raises an obvious question ... If they thought He was speaking literally, but He actually was not speaking literally, and they were about to walk away from eternal life because of a simple misunderstanding, why did He just sit there and watch them walk away shaking their heads? Why didn't He just clear up the misunderstanding, so this crowd of people would not abandon Him, and the truth which would otherwise have set them free? There is only one possible answer - Jesus did not call them back and explain the misunderstanding because there was no misunderstanding to explain. They understood Him exactly as He meant to be understood, and He was not about to water down the truth, to make it more palatable to them, as modern denominations do today.

-- Paul (PaulCyp@cox.net), December 13, 2002.


"They understood Him exactly as He meant to be understood, and He was not about to water down the truth, to make it more palatable to them."

That's a pretty good point. So when he says if we do not eat His body and drink His blood we shall not have life in us, that's some pretty serious stuff, huh?

I wonder, do people hold this to be true still?

-- Emerald (emerald1@cox.net), December 13, 2002.


In the very beginnings of His public life as He spoke to the people, Christ insisted first and most of all on FAITH. In almost every instance, when He worked wonders Jesus stated, ''Only have faith'' and, ''Your faith has saved you.'' Look at His holy words in the gospel narratives. Always faith!

He was one day going to require of His followers such an awful leap of faith as no man could expect of anyone. This was the revelation He makes to the world in John 6:54.

Just prior to that moment, (Verse 53) the Jews on that account argued with one another, saying, ''How can this man give us his flesh to eat?'' Verse :54-- ''Jesus therefore said to them, Amen Amen, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man, and drink His blood, you shall not have life in you. :55-- He who eats my flesh and drinks my blood has life evrlasting and I will raise him up on the last day. :56-- For my flesh is food indeed and my blood is drink indeed.'' p>Only by unwavering faith could we accept this holy revelation which has nothing in common with our sensible reasonings. It's significant indeed to read in Holy Scripture; the task Jesus took upon Himself from the start. To prepare His people for the astounding truth of His True Presence in the Holy Eucharist. --He asked for our faith only. And why??? Was faith so important otherwise?

-- eugene c. chavez (chavezec@pacbell.net), December 14, 2002.


Dear Emerald, Yes, we do, and we will until the end of time. Peace, Paul

-- Paul (PaulCyp@cox.net), December 14, 2002.


The last post by Theresa was really by me. My mother's computer is set with a cookie - just FYI.

Anyhow. This thread is stearing in the direction opposite from where I wanted it to go. That's not a bad thing: Someone reading might get something out of it that only God meant. However, I would like to drive home the point that I had originally tried to make, and the question I originally wanted to be answered:

We can start another thread explaining what Catholics believe - and we already have. Nonetheless, what I really wanted to know is what Protestants believe (in general). It can only be in general, I realize, because the don't all believe the same thing. The only response I get is that Protestants believe Jesus was being figurative. That's great, but what was His "figurative" meaning! I already know that Protestants (at least most) think that it was "spiritual" or "figurative". But EXPLAIN that! Figuratively WHAT?

Catholics believe it to be literal, and so the there is NO question as to the meaning of it. It was literally what Jesus said, no questions asked, period. But when you say it meant something figurative, or symbolic, then an explanation necessarily has to follow. What did it figurativly mean?

In Christ.

-- Jake Huether (jake_huether@yahoo.com), December 14, 2002.


"My mother's computer is set with a cookie..."

My wife was interested in that whole idea. She's been looking for something else besides me to keep the computer occupied for a while.

-- Emerald (emerald1@cox.net), December 14, 2002.


Hi, Im a Protestant. I will always be a Protestant.

Im sure that an autopsy conducted on the most faithful of Catholics/Epicopals that meets with a sudden death immediatley following Church service will find trace amounts of wine on the lips and a no-yeast bread substance in the stomach. No ancient Jewish DNA will be collected from either area, if it were they could clone him. Jesus would never make it possible for himself to be cloned. He didn't even leave his body here. At least that is my theory.

I'm a Lutheran though so we do take it literally, to an extent. The disciples left Jesus because they had a LACK OF FAITH. The Apostles that stayed, HAD FAITH. It didn't matter what Jesus said AFTER THEY HAD FAITH. They knew he would not steer them wrong. Do you really think that if those false disciples really believed Jesus was God they would just walk away because Jesus tested them after they just cut off part of their son's penis because some guys in funny outfits said God told them to do it? So maybe their is more meaning in what Jesus says sometimes. Jesus is known for being cryptic. It is one the traits that I found most compelling about him. I pay particular attention to his crytpic claims of Being God.

I personally believe that Jesus Christ is present in Communion. So does the rest of the Lutheran Church(es). When Jesus says "happy are those who have washed their robes,(rev. 22:14)" it doesn't mean we have to find a magic well of Jesus bleach and achieve forgiveness through a laundry ritual. I don't know if their is a group out there that actually thinks that. Maybe there is in Utah, I'll have to check.

I have never gotten sick from the sacrament either. As a matter of fact I have found communion to be the most powerful experience in Christianity. I know for sure that I washed my robes BEFORE I had communion though.

There are a lot of denominations that don't even believe in the presence of Christ or in a communion.

One trend does occur in the bible. The Old testament in carnal. The new testament is spiritual; Deliverance from Egypt, deliverance from damnation; bondage in slavery, bondage in sin. Communion was passover. The wine was sybolic of the lamb's blood that physically saved them from the Angel of death in Egypt. Communion is sybolic of the lamb's blood that saved our souls for spiritual life. It won't save your Body though. It is literal and a symbol, that is why Jesus says to do it in rememberance. The act of Salvation already happened.

-- robert (4twells@verizon.net), December 14, 2002.


Here is another reason I don't believe that the bread and wine turn into to DNA carrying human tissue cells. Jesus said 'this my blodd of the NEW covenant.' The old covenent was physical, the new one is spiritual. The old testament saints were physical Jews the new Testament saints became spiritual Jews. Old Testament Circumcission is physical, new testament circumcission is spiritual of the 'heart.' That doesn't mean we need to have our left ventricles cut out.

Peace

-- robert (4twells@verizon.net), December 14, 2002.


Dear Robert,

Quite right. The change is indeed a spiritual change, not a physical change - no-one claims otherwise - but it is still an actual actual. That is where the new traditions of manmade denominations are lacking. Visually, even microscopically, it is still shows all the physical characteristics of bread and wine, but actually and in essence, it has become what Jesus said it would become - His own body and blood given to us as REAL, actual food, not something representing food, and not something representing His body and blood. Disrespect of a mere symbol surely could not bring condemnation upon someone, but disrespect of the Eucharist is a sacrilege committed upon the very body of the Lord, which is why the scriptures say that a person guilty of such an offense brings condemnation upon himself.

Paul

-- Paul (PaulCyp@cox.net), December 15, 2002.



Okay Paul,

It sounds like you think of it the same way I do. I guess I believe that it is an actual eucharist if that is what a eucharist is then. I always thought that transubstantiation meant a transformation of a substance into another but if it is a spiritual tranformation then I guess I agree with that. I don't know if you are right about the condemnation part though. By condemnation you didn't mean damnation did you? If you only meant condemantion I suppose I could go along with that.

Peace

-- robert (4twells@verizon.net), December 15, 2002.


Dear Robert,

By condemnation, I meant what it says in 1 Cor 11:27-29 ...

"Therefore whoever eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner, shall be guilty of the body and the blood of the Lord. A man must examine himself, and only in so doing is he to eat of the bread and drink of the cup. For he who eats and drinks, eats and drinks judgment to himself if he does not judge the body rightly".

Obviously one could not be "guilty of the body and blood of the Lord" simply by handling a piece of bread, no matter how symbolic, inappropriately. Certainly something that is used for a holy purpose, like a Bible or a cross, should be treated with respect. But The Word of God does not say that handling a Bible or cross "unworthily" will bring judgement upon you. In fact, what would such a statement mean? How would one be "worthy" to handle a cross? Or a Bible? Or unworthy to handle them? More to the point, how could "worthiness" possibly relate to the handling of a piece of bread, regardless of what it was to be used, or what it represented? How does one handle mere bread "worthily", or "unworthily"? Clearly, this passage is speaking of something that is far more sacred than any Bible or cross, and certainly a great deal more sacred than any piece of bread. That is why it is sacriligeous to approach the Body of Christ without "judging it rightly", and judging His Sacred Body and Blood to be nothing more than bread and wine is most certainly judging it unrightly. Though the physical appearance does not change, the essence of the Eucharist does change. After the consecration there is no longer any bread or wine on the altar - only the outward appearances of bread and wine. Jesus said "This is My Body", not "This represents my Body". He said "My flesh is REAL food", not "symbolic food". He said "unless you eat of my flesh and drink of my blood, you have no life in you". Of course, I do not say that you are wrong in viewing your communion service as symbolic, for so it is. Without a valid priesthood appointed by Christ, you cannot have the true Eucharist, and a symbolic gesture is the best that is possible. But the true Eucharist, unsurpassed in sacredness, the gift of His actual self, is what Jesus gave his apostles, and commanded them to perpetuate in remembrance of Him. This tremendous and miraculous gift is available to all, in the church He founded for all. We pray that all people may find their way home, and receive the new life and unique grace that are available to them only through reception of His sacred Body and Blood.

-- Paul (PaulCyp@cox.net), December 15, 2002.


Paul,

Once again I am not disagreeing with your definition of the eucharist. that is exactly how we Lutherans view it and consecrate it. It is not mere bread and wine to us either. There is a symbolism to it but it is the true body and blood of Christ. That is what we teach, that is what we believe and that is what we are told when we are recieving it. We just don't believe, as you have now clarified, that it becomes actual human tissues with all the characteristics of such. I did not know Rome had the same view that we did.

I think you are going a little over board in implying that the Roman Church is somehow the only authority in appointing valid leadership. I leave that to the Holy Spirit.

Peace

-- robert (4twells@verizon.net), December 15, 2002.


Our faith is in Christ's holy words, at the expense of our visual observation, Robert.

He said, ''This is my body,'' and not, ''This is meant as equal to my body, only with a spiritual meaning.''

You said you must always be a protestant. If so, maybe you'll refuse to inform yourself of the Catholic Church's comprehensive teaching and explanation of Transubstantiation, the doctrine.

It explains in minute detail all about this mystery; the physical and metaphysical problems and their resolution. We are all thinking men and women here, Robert. Not simply credulous infants who swallow every literal word with superficial indifference to what the EYE plainly sees.

You can easily find out all the Church has been teaching not just now,but since before any university even existed.

What men perceive to be substance and visual reality is a mask. Nothing we ''see'' is truly as we perceive it. Atoms aren't truly solid; but made up of mysterious particles, reducible even smaller into electical charges.

The physical body of Jesus Christ couldn't really be present on twelve million altars simultaneously at one time, could it? No- - under the conditions which we attach to matter! But for God, nothing is impossible.

ur eyes aren't aware of the real nature of E x T E N S I O N. But matter can exist extended over the whole world, yet still be ONE single Person or Body. The same way matter is taken to another stage upon the holy altar. In the mystery of the True Presence, Jesus' body and blood are truly, entirely made present as He LIVES --Body, blood, soul and Divinity; in an extraordinary manner: under the APPEARANCE'' of something which looks the same as before the miracle transformed it; into an altogether different substance. All that remains visible to us is called the ''properties'' of bread, not the substance; and the ''properties'' of wine. DNA and such are properties of a human organism; but wine is seen under different properties. Before our eyes is the appearance, not the substance of bread and wine.

These are consumed by His faithful followers, and they truly EAT of His body and blood.

The body and blood of Our Lord remain truly within us until the moment these properties break down into different ones; such as proteins, enzymes, etc., totally separated from the ordinary properties of the food.

Read up on the apologetics and objections for Transubstantiation, Robert. Make up your mind AFTER you've given it a chance, not from mere bias.

-- eugene c. chavez (chavezec@pacbell.net), December 15, 2002.


Dear Eugene,

I have not been arguing with Paul's explaination. This very response you have attached is immediately following a post I made whcich began with, "ONCE AGAIN I AM NOT DISAGREEING WITH YOU." It sounds like I am being accused of something. What exactly that is I am not quite sure. It seems to me though, at this point that I am the one trying to understand.

Now I am getting two answers. On the one hand it seems Eugene is saying that the bread and wine actually physically transform into human tissues such as flesh and blood although they don't give any appearance to that effect. On the other hand it seems to me that Paul is saying that they transform into Christ's actual body and blood but not on a physical level, leaving the exact effect something of a mystery. Eugene also mentions there is a mystery to it but I don't quite understand what you both percieve. All I want is a simple answer without some sort of accusation against me to back it up like I'm here just to disagree or something. I am not here to disagree with your view of the eucharist. How can I disagree with your view if I can't even get a simple explaination of it?

Eugene does actual bread and wine still exist in the eucharist or is it just an illusion? Is it really actual physical flesh and blood with DNA, hemoglobin, and all the physical charateristics of such but with no way of detecting them?

I am not here to judge your answers. When I said I would always be a protestant I didnt say I "must" always be a protestant. I was going to clarify that my being a protestant doesn't mean that I 'officially' Protest the Roman Church, however I do disagree with some things and therefore have no intent on joining as long as they stand. It was not meant as inflammatory. It was stupid that I said that without clarifying. I apoligize if that is how it came across.

Peace

-- robert (4twells@verizon.net), December 15, 2002.


Dear Robert: No, there is no substance of either bread or wine remaining on the holy altar after the consecration. It's transformed into another substance; Jesus Christ, alive, aware of us and only hidden behind the appearances of another substance.

Don't be a worry-wart, I wasn't attacking you or anybody. My explanation is not quite the explanation Paul offered. As I suggested, read on this subject from the numerous Catholic works that support everything I've tried to say to you. Mind yoU, I'm not saying you'll be convinced by investigating. But you should try to know what the Catholic faith teaches and what it doesn't teach.

Ultimately our faith must dispel doubt. There was a short period in my own past when I doubted; as everyone probably doubts. I can't tell you how badly that affected me. I thought I would never believe again. But, the doubt passed, because my heart opened itself up to God's grace. I prayed; I asked for faith. And the doubt passed away forever. No matter how we spell it the final truth is unknowable except by faith. I believe that's the main reason Christ demanded His followers had to have faith in Him.

After His glorious resurrection and the miracle of His Church coming to pass, no one can any longer doubt His holy Word. To believe in Jesus Christ is to hold His divine words absolutely unimpeachable.

He says, ''This is my body, and the cup of my blood.'' Whoever denies it doesn't believe in Him. --My opinion, if you or any other disagrees, I'll pray for you.

-- eugene c. chavez (chavezec@pacbell.net), December 15, 2002.


Eugene,

I don't doubt Jesus' words either. I accept what he says in faith whether I completely understand it or not. My faith in Jesus Christ cannot be taken away or be subjected to any doubt whatsover. If someone actually proved to me that the bible was wrong or something, that would not effect my faith in Jesus Christ one bit, even though I don't know how they would shake my faith in the bible either.

Thankyou for clarifying your view of the eucharist for me. It seems my initial perception of your belief was fairly accurate. It is closer to what I believe than I thought.

Peace

-- robert (4twells@verizon.net), December 15, 2002.


Which means you have not drifted as far from original Christianity as you thought :-)

-- Paul (PaulCyp@cox.net), December 15, 2002.

touche

-- robert (4twells@verizon.net), December 15, 2002.

Robert:
With all due respect; it isn't just what I believe, or you believe. That might be just superficial, even if it's right.

What counts is what Christ revealed to me and you. There was an intent and purpose to all He taught us; and to find it we must go to the source He gave us. We don't have to trust to blind faith, either.

The holy apostles are the source; His Gospel comes to us only by their Church. All other sources, for all their good intentions, are spurious at least in parts. The holy scriptures are meant to deliver the Gospel; but being silent, they can be misunderstood without guidance.

Non-Catholics have wrongly assumed they would be protected by the Holy Spirit from erroneously reading the Bible. That would have been SUPER! Is it so?

Well; about 30,000 Christian sects around the world are *Bible-Christians*, and yet seem to find no accord in their diverse interpretations of the Bible. It proves what we ought to concede to the Catholic Church without argument.

The Holy Spirit is not out on loan to those 30,000 assemblies who claim to understand the scriptures. He's where Christ plainly said He would be. With the Church of Saint Peter. Only--!

-- eugene c. chavez (chavezec@pacbell.net), December 16, 2002.


Sorry, I haven't read all of the post here, but I would like to reply to my friend Jake.

Let's explore John 6 and the Lord's Supper -

John 6:5 - The people are hungry.

John 6:13 - The people are fed with extra left over.

John 6:15 - Jesus left because he knew the people would want to make him a king.

John 6:24 - The people couldn't find Christ, and kept looking for him.

John 6:26 - Christ tells them that they only looked for him because he feed them the bread, and not because of the miracle itself.

John 6:27 [Labour not for the meat which perisheth], [but for that meat which endureth unto everlasting life, which the Son of man shall give unto you]: for him hath God the Father sealed.

John 6:28 Then said they unto him, What shall we do, that we might work the works of God? [Works for salvation?]

John 6:29 Jesus answered and said unto them, This is the work of God, that ye believe on him whom he hath sent. [Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ and thou shalt be saved!]

John 6:30 - The people DO NOT believe, yet want another sign.

John 6:31 Our fathers did eat manna in the desert; as it is written, He gave them bread from heaven to eat. [It is clear they are looking for literal breath from heaven.]

Joh 6:32 Then Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Moses gave you not that bread from heaven; but [my Father giveth you the true bread from heaven].

Joh 6:33 [For the bread of God is he which cometh down from heaven, and giveth life unto the world].

John 6:34 Then said they unto him, Lord, evermore give us this bread. [They are still wanting literal bread.]

But what is Christ talking about?

Joh 6:35 And Jesus said unto them, [I am the bread of life: he that cometh to me shall never hunger]; and [he that believeth on me shall never thirst].

------------

"Never thirst", Who is the LIVING WATER?

Jeremiah 17:13 O LORD, the hope of Israel, all that forsake thee shall be ashamed, and they that depart from me shall be written in the earth, because they have forsaken [the LORD, the fountain of living waters].

Now pay CLOSE ATTENTION here:

Joh 7:37-39 In the last day, that great day of the feast, [Jesus stood and cried, saying, If any man thirst, let him come unto me, and drink]. [He that believeth on me, as the scripture hath said, out of his belly shall flow rivers of living water]. (But [this spake he of the Spirit], which they that believe on him should receive: for the Holy Ghost was not yet given; because that Jesus was not yet glorified.)

The "living water" of Christ was Spirit. [Remember this!]

------------

What about the "bread of life"?

John 1:1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.

John 1:14 And [the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us], (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth.

Matthew 4:4 But he answered and said, [It is written, Man shall not live by bread alone], but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God. [Remember this!]

------------

John 6:36 But I said unto you, That ye also have seen me, and believe not.

The men that looked all over for him, did not even believe him, but searched for the literal bread from heaven as a sign.

John 6:37 [All that the Father giveth me shall come to me]; and him that cometh to me I will in no wise cast out. [Election? Who choses who?]

John 6:40 And this is the will of him that sent me, that every one which seeth the Son, and believeth on him, may have everlasting life: and I will raise him up at the last day.

John 6:41 The Jews then murmured at him, because he said, I am the bread which came down from heaven.

They were confused, by taking him to mean that he was the literal manna that the people ate in the Old Testament.

John 6:32 Then Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Moses gave you not that bread from heaven; but [my Father giveth you the true bread from heaven]. [Talking about God sent him - "the Word was made flesh".]

John 6:33 For the bread of God is he which cometh down from heaven, and giveth life unto the world. ["Man can not live by [physical] bread alone", but we must believe on the Lord Jesus Christ to receive eternal life! Surely he is not saying to manna from heaven "giventh life unto the world".]

Christ repeats himself:

John 6:47 Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that believeth on me hath everlasting life. John 6:48 I am that bread of life.

---- Here is where he begins to lose people, because they are still thinking in the literal since of bread!

John 6:49 Your fathers did eat manna in the wilderness, and are dead. John 6:50 This is the bread which cometh down from heaven, that a man may eat thereof, and not die.

Joh 6:51 I 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].

------------

Joh 10:15 As the Father knoweth me, even so know I the Father: and [I lay down my life for the sheep].

Eph 5:30 For [we are members of his body, of his flesh, and of his bones]. Eph 5:32 This is a great mystery: but I speak concerning Christ and the church.

------------

John 6:52 The Jews therefore strove among themselves, saying, How can this man give us his flesh to eat? [They are still thinking in the literal sense - because JEWS REQUIRE A SIGN.]

Joh 6:53 Then 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. Joh 6:54 Whoso eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, hath eternal life; and I will raise him up at the last day. Joh 6:55 For my flesh is meat indeed, and my blood is drink indeed.

Taking this literally - would send ALL of the Old Testaments saints to Hell. When did they eat the literal body and blood of Christ? Also, what about the LIVING WATER mentioned earlier?

John 6:56 He that eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, dwelleth in me, and I in him. [A key verse!]

------------

Romans 12:5 So [we, being many, are one body in Christ], and every one members one of another.

1co 12:27 Now [ye are the body of Christ], and members in particular.

Ephesians 4:12 For the perfecting of the saints, for the work of the ministry, for [the edifying of the body of Christ]:

------------

John 6:60 Many therefore of his disciples, when they had heard this, said, This is an hard saying; who can hear it?

For they also took him literally!

**

Joh 6:63 [It is the spirit that quickeneth]; [the flesh profiteth nothing]: [the words that I speak unto you, they are spirit], and they are life.

**

He ESTABLISHES that he is speaking SPIRITUALLY - Wow, just like he did about the Living Water.

"It is the spirit that quickeneth" - 1 Corinthians 15:45 And so it is written, The first man Adam was made a living soul; [the last Adam was made a quickening spirit].

"the flesh profiteth nothing" - So why would he want them to eat his literal flesh? Do you remember his flesh was in the likeness of man's sinful flesh?

Romans 8:3 For what the law could not do, in that it was weak through the flesh, [God sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh], and for sin, condemned sin in the flesh: Romans 8:4 That the righteousness of the law might be fulfilled in us, who [walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit].

And again we see "walk after the Spirit".

------------

John 6:64 But there are some of you that believe not. For Jesus knew from the beginning who they were that believed not, and who should betray him.

It is CLEAR that some followed Jesus, but truely DID NOT believe! Judas WAS NEVER A BORN AGAIN BELIEVER!

John 6:65 And he said, Therefore said I unto you, that [no man can come unto me, except it were given unto him of my Father].

Again we have election? Who choses who?

Why didn't the twelve leave?

John 6:70 Jesus answered them, [Have not I chosen you twelve], and one of you is a devil?

John 17:12 While I was with them in the world, [I kept them in thy name: those that thou gavest me I have kept], and [none of them is lost, but the son of perdition]; [that the scripture might be fulfilled].

------------

I know I have bored probably some of you, but this lengthy post was necessary to prove my point with Scripture. Just note the other things Jesus is considered and called - yet - you do not take literally.

John 10:9 I am the door:

John 15:5 I am the vine, ye are the branches:

Revelation 22:16 I am the root and the offspring of David, and the bright and morning star.

------------

And where does the Living Water come in with the literal flesh and blood of Christ? He didn't tell the woman at the well to eat his flesh and drink his blood, but to ask for living water.

Well, this is enough for tonight.

God Bless!

-- Tim (tlw97@cox.net), December 16, 2002.


Eugene,

dude, I'm not here to argue with your never ending saga of deliverence o' thy lost sheep from the 30,000+ protestant denominations. There really is only ONE protestant denomination. The 30,000+ are protestant of protestant. the P of P have at least in common their protest of Christ's presence in communion. As a matter of fact the ELCA (evangelical lutheran church of america), which I renounce, has affirmed the COUNCIL of TRENT and basically has teamed up with Rome once again. How they are still protestant I have no idea.

There are differences in the Roman Church over the years also. It has not remained the same Church. There are currently at least 3 "Catholic" churches, Four if you count the Pope of Buckingham Palace. None of them are as old as the Coptic Church, which is by far the oldest Church in the world.

-- robert (4twells@verizon.net), December 16, 2002.


Tim,

Great! Thanks for the response… For sure, I know now two things: 1) You believe that Jesus is talking “Spiritually”. 2) You don’t believe what the Catholic Church teaches. However, I am still in the dark about what the “Spiritual” meaning IS! Can you give me a brief explanation of Jesus’ “Spiritual” meaning. What is the “bread of life”? Is it his Words, or is it believing in Him? If the “bread from heaven” is his Teachings, then how is this connected to the Lords Supper? “Take and eat; This is My Body which will be given up for you”.

I will respond to a couple of the statements:

“Joh 6:35 And Jesus said unto them, [I am the bread of life: he that cometh to me shall never hunger]; and [he that believeth on me shall never thirst]. ------------ "Never thirst", Who is the LIVING WATER?”

Jesus isn’t using the “Living Water” analogy again, because He makes it clear in the following sentences that hunger and thirst are connected with His Body and BLOOD. So it is the BLOOD that will cause them never to thirst.

“Now pay CLOSE ATTENTION here: Joh 7:37-39 In the last day, that great day of the feast, [Jesus stood and cried, saying, If any man thirst, let him come unto me, and drink]. [He that believeth on me, as the scripture hath said, out of his belly shall flow rivers of living water]. (But [this spake he of the Spirit], which they that believe on him should receive: for the Holy Ghost was not yet given; because that Jesus was not yet glorified.) The "living water" of Christ was Spirit. [Remember this!]”

Exactly! Jesus plays no games. He straight out tells them that He is referring to His Spirit. So, now we know the connection with the “Living Water” and the Spirit. However, where’s the “figurative” connection with His Body and Blood!? There is no other figurative connection (like the water / Spirit).

“Matthew 4:4 But he answered and said, [It is written, Man shall not live by bread alone], but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God. [Remember this!]”

This is out of context. The “bread” Jesus refers to here is not the “Bread” he refers to in John 6. You’ll see…

“John 6:36 But I said unto you, That ye also have seen me, and believe not. The men that looked all over for him, did not even believe him, but searched for the literal bread from heaven as a sign.”

Agreed.

“John 6:41 The Jews then murmured at him, because he said, I am the bread which came down from heaven. They were confused, by taking him to mean that he was the literal manna that the people ate in the Old Testament.”

Agreed.

“John 6:32 Then Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Moses gave you not that bread from heaven; but [my Father giveth you the true bread from heaven]. [Talking about God sent him - "the Word was made flesh".]”

So, we see Jesus saying He (in the flesh) is the True Bread from Heaven.

“John 6:33 For the bread of God is he which cometh down from heaven, and giveth life unto the world. ["Man can not live by [physical] bread alone", but we must believe on the Lord Jesus Christ to receive eternal life! Surely he is not saying to manna from heaven "giventh life unto the world".]”

Jesus came down from heaven to give us life. Now, I take it that you believe He gave us life through His teachings. This is why you believe that the “bread from heaven” is His teachings or His Words. Well, though that is a part of it, it isn’t necessarily what He meant. Jesus came down and the way in which he gave us life was to place His Body on the Alter of the Cross, as a sacrifice. So, it indeed was Christ’s REAL PHYSICAL flesh that gave us life! Through His sacrifice. And, do you remember in the OT, the Passover sacrifice that gave life to the Israelites? What was the sacrifice? An unblemished male LAMB with no broken bones. And what did they do after they sacrificed the LAMB in “memory” of the Passover? Did they eat a symbolic substance in place of the LAMB? NO!!! They ate the LAMB itself!

“Christ repeats himself: John 6:47 Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that believeth on me hath everlasting life. John 6:48 I am that bread of life.”

What does “believe” mean in this context? Since Jesus just finished telling them He is the Bread come down from Heaven, Jesus is saying, if you believe in Me (what I say), then you will believe that My Body is True meat, and My Blood True Drink. It is this that will give you everlasting Life.

“Here is where he begins to lose people, because they are still thinking in the literal since of bread!”

Agreed! And don’t you think that Jesus wouldn’t want to lose them? And so, if He didn’t want to lose them, wouldn’t He explain Himself better!? Like, “wait guys – I didn’t mean it literally. You don’t REALLY have to eat my flesh!” But, NO! Jesus continues to tell them…

“John 6:49 Your fathers did eat manna in the wilderness, and are dead. John 6:50 This is the bread which cometh down from heaven, that a man may eat thereof, and not die.”

Why? Because the manna was only for physical nourishment. Real bread for physical hunger. Jesus, the Bread of Life, will nourish us Spiritually! Real Bread for Spiritual Hunger. So, you see, “Spiritual” doesn’t mean it isn’t LITERAL! His flesh and Blood wont give us everlasting physical nourishment, His real flesh and blood will give us everlasting Spiritual Life (in this world and the next!).

“Joh 6:51 I 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]. Joh 10:15 As the Father knoweth me, even so know I the Father: and [I lay down my life for the sheep].”

Note: I lay down my life… He will become the Lamb of God, the New Covenant Passover Sacrifice!

“John 6:52 The Jews therefore strove among themselves, saying, How can this man give us his flesh to eat? [They are still thinking in the literal sense - because JEWS REQUIRE A SIGN.]”

Agreed! But they are thinking, Jesus wants us to eat His Body and drink His Blood in a cannibalistic way! For physical nourishment. Little did they know: It was a non-bloody, non-cannibalistic way – instituted with the Apostles at the Last Supper! And it would be for Spiritual nourishment.

Did Jesus tell them, don’t leave, don’t argue amongst yourselves. You really don’t have to eat my flesh and blood! Lets see what He says next…

“Joh 6:53 Then 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. Joh 6:54 Whoso eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, hath eternal life; and I will raise him up at the last day. Joh 6:55 For my flesh is meat indeed, and my blood is drink indeed.”

Wow! So Jesus tells them two more times, “My Flesh is meat INDEED!” Not “my Flesh is meat SYMBOLICALLY”. “INDEED”.

“Taking this literally - would send ALL of the Old Testaments saints to Hell.”

Not so! They were with God in the OLD TESTAMENT Covenant, which was bound by circumcision and the O.T. Passover! They had eaten the Old Testament lamb! They were saved by holding the OT Covenant with God!

“When did they eat the literal body and blood of Christ?”

They didn’t have to, because their saving sacrifice was the Passover lamb, and their covenant with God was bound by their circumcision. Christ’s Death saved them, by the opening of the Gates of Heaven, but they had already passed the test (so to speak).

“Also, what about the LIVING WATER mentioned earlier?”

As we noted earlier, the LIVING WATER is the Spirit of God. And I’m sure you know that the Spirit was God and was With God since the beginning. So, the OT folks also drank of the Living Water (the Spirit). However, they didn’t drink, nor did they need to, of Christ’s Life Giving Blood (the Blood of the NEW Covenant).

“John 6:56 He that eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, dwelleth in me, and I in him. [A key verse!]”

“A key verse” Amen to that! When we eat and drink our Lord, at the Eucharist He dwells in us Physically and Spiritually!

“Romans 12:5 So [we, being many, are one body in Christ], and every one members one of another.”

How, you might ask? Through the sharing of the Body and Blood of Christ. They were doing it in Corinth. They had to be doing it in Rome!

“John 6:60 Many therefore of his disciples, when they had heard this, said, This is an hard saying; who can hear it? For they also took him literally!”

Exactly! They took Him literally, yet they couldn’t believe! What did the Apostles say, “Where else can we go?” “You have the words of everlasting life”. In other words, “You don’t lie, and we know you are God. So, although we don’t know how this can be (eating your body and blood), we will still follow you.” And at the Last Supper this was shown to them, how it would take place!

“Joh 6:63 [It is the spirit that quickeneth]; [the flesh profiteth nothing]: [the words that I speak unto you, they are spirit], and they are life.”

Amen! Here is where Jesus tells them, My Body and Blood aren’t eaten for cannibalistic physical hunger! My Body and Blood are to be eaten (literally) for Spirit and Life!

“He ESTABLISHES that he is speaking SPIRITUALLY - Wow, just like he did about the Living Water.”

Not “just” like he did! The Living Water, He gave a direct analogy Water = Spirit. This when he says “Spirit”, He is saying that you must EAT and DRINK REALLY for Spiritual nourishment. How can you look past what Jesus had just spoken. My flesh is meat INDEED and my blood drink INDEED! So, right after Jesus tells us this, then He changes His mind? NO! His flesh is meat INDEED, but not for our physical hunger – for our Spiritual hunger!

"the flesh profiteth nothing" - So why would he want them to eat his literal flesh?”

He didn’t say, “my flesh profiteth nothing”. That would be stupid of Him. Jesus’ flesh is EVERYTHING for us. His flesh is our salvation, because His Flesh was nailed to the Cross! He is talking about our flesh. The Jews are thinking that He is saying they have to eat His Body for their physical fleshly nourishment. Not so! The Jews were wrong. Jesus says, the flesh is of no avail. He wants them to eat His Body for Spiritual nourishment, because it is the spirit that lasts for ever!

“Do you remember his flesh was in the likeness of man's sinful flesh?”

Yup, in the LIKENESS. It was LIKE our flesh, in all ways except SIN. His Purity – LIKE the finite purity of the Passover lamb – was INFINITE. Therefore, Jesus’ sacrifice, since it was of infinite purity, was infinitely perfect!

“Romans 8:3 For what the law could not do, in that it was weak through the flesh, [God sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh], and for sin, condemned sin in the flesh: Romans 8:4 That the righteousness of the law might be fulfilled in us, who [walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit]. And again we see "walk after the Spirit".”

Yes, Tim. However, No where dose it say that for Spiritual nourishment we eat Spiritual / figurative / symbolic food. Jesus says, My flesh is for Spiritual nourishment, but you still have to eat it physically and really! Don’t you see, Tim. We believe what you are saying, all except that you cannot except that it is for REAL. They Jews were a step below, because they couldn’t believe that it was real AND they also couldn’t see the Spiritual connection. You see the Spiritual connection, yet you still don’t believe Jesus was being literal. He said, “my flesh is meat INDEED”. We, Catholics, see the Spiritual connection, and like the Apostles, we believe Jesus was being literal. And when we get to the supper, we see how it is True!

“Just note the other things Jesus is considered and called - yet - you do not take literally. John 10:9 I am the door: John 15:5 I am the vine, ye are the branches: Revelation 22:16 I am the root and the offspring of David, and the bright and morning star.”

Yes, however, unlike John 6, Jesus explains these figurative (analogy) connections, and we are able to see their meaning. John 6 is clearly literal.

Also, to note, it is obvious that people still had questions about this – especially after Jesus ascended into Heaven. How were their questions answered? Well, they went to the Church (like the Corinthians), and the Apostles explained it to them. And when the Apostles died, who did the doubters go to? They went to the successors of the Apostles, those that had been taught by them and knew. Where do we go, now? Still, the Church – the only Authority (sent by God) guaranteed to interpret Scripture Correctly. We may or may not interpret the Scripture correctly, but the Church is guaranteed to!

“And where does the Living Water come in with the literal flesh and blood of Christ? He didn't tell the woman at the well to eat his flesh and drink his blood, but to ask for living water.”

And the Living Water was the Spirit, and had she asked for the living Water, she would have been compelled to believe in Jesus, and to accept His teachings (one of which was to eat and drink His Body and Blood).

Thanks, Tim, for the explanation.

In Christ.

-- Jake Huether (jake_huether@yahoo.com), December 16, 2002.


Jesus said "I am the door"; "I am the vine, you are the branches"; "I am the gate to the sheepfold"; "I am the bright morning star". Christians whose traditions require them to reject the original Christian doctrine of the true presence of Jesus in the Eucharist frequently point to such passages as supposed proof that direct statements by Jesus are not always to be taken literally. Supposedly, the fact that "I am the Vine" is not to be taken literally lends support to their claim that "This is My Body" is likewise symbolic. However, these other statements by Jesus, listed above, are obviously analogies, and an analogy, by definition, is not meant to be taken literally. How do we know that these statements are analogies, while "This is My Body" is not an analogy? An analogy must have a logical and obvious basis for comparison. In other words, when we read a statement of the form "A is B", and we recognize that the statement is not literally true, then we may suspect that there is an analogical meaning. However, the statement is not a good analogy unless we can immediately say "A is like B because ...". When we read "I am the door", we say immediately "Jesus is like a door because we enter through a door, and we enter eternal life through Him". Good analogy! When we read "I am the vine, you are the branches", the analogical meaning just jumps out at us, it is so clear. An analogy that has to be explained is a poor analogy. Jesus was a master of analogy. All his parables were complex analogies. So, when Jesus picked up a dinner roll at the Last Supper and said "this is my body", we might question whether this statement too was intended as an analogy. And so we immediately say "ok, a piece of bread is like a human body because ...". Hmmmm .... I don't know about you, but nothing jumps right out at me. If Jesus was trying to make an analogy here, he wasn't up to his usual form. If He had held up a piece of meat, there might have been some basis for comparison, though still pretty dubious. But there simply is nothing about an ordinary piece of bread that lends itself to any logical, obvious comparison to a human body. So we must conclude that analogy was not Jesus' purpose here. Of course, He had already indicated that, when He said "My flesh is REAL food, my blood REAL drink".

-- Paul (PaulCyp@cox.net), December 16, 2002.

Robert:
Tough having to hop-scotch over all that followed your last post. You make some irrelevant observations there, I think. Instead of arguing there's just ONE protestant denomination, (a point I wouldn't argue with-- they're generically indistinguishable) you might consider what it was I stated. I said all 30,000 sects believe the inerrancy of ONLY one thing on earth-- the Bible.

Yet: there are at least hundreds of discordant or contrary renditions of Bible truth in the midst of some thousands of Bible-reading denominations.

It wouldn't matter except each one claims the strong support of the same Holy Spirit! They all claim an accurate knowledge of Christ's message, without reaching any accord. Where is the Holy Spirit?

They also want us to believe the Church is a vast aglommeration of the same sects, faceless and invisible. No unity, but One Body? Christ made it plain; there is to be One flock and One Shepherd. One definition of Bible passages and scriptural coherency. It simply isn't going to happen outside the Church Christ founded, Robert. He sent the Holy Spirit to abide in the Catholic Church. She is one in teaching, One in faith, One origin-- apostolic; and universal-- Catholic.

Holy is what she IS; though that raises the hackles of so many fundamentalist Bible-Christians who call her a whore (just one of those myriad infallible Holy Spirit-filled interpretations of the Bible)-- which would be high comedy if it weren't blasphemous and crude.

The Holy Spirit didn't get lost. He abides in the same Church which saved souls 2,000 years ago.--

No-- Copts aren't an older version of the Church. The Coptic elements were among our first heretical sects. They do not pre-date the Church of Peter and Paul.

-- eugene c. chavez (chavezec@pacbell.net), December 16, 2002.


Eugene,

I am willing to see it from your point of view. I don't deny that it may appear as though the number of protestant denominations prove errancy and a lack of unity but it all depends on how you look at it.

See it from my point of view. It is not my intent to cast down criticisms and condemnations on the Roman Church. It does however look hypocritical to say that only the Roman Church has any guidance or Authority from the Holy Spirit. Was it the Holy Spirit that directed the Church to burn people alive for the reason of the week? Was it the Holy Spirit that directed the Roman Church to jab people in the eyes with hot pokers, or disembowel them, or cut the tongues out of people based on rumors or wild accusations? Was it the Holy Spirit that later bowed to exteranl pressures and decided that wasn't such a good idea? Was it the Holy Spirit that Divided the Roman Church into East and West? Was it the Holy Spirit that guided Rome to endorse the excommunication of animals and insects? Was it the Holy Spirit that guided the Roman Church to sell indulgences? Was it the Holy Spirit that giuded the Church to tell its soldiers that dying for the Church's cause earns you entrance into heaven?

I'm sure that the Roman Church teaches many things that aren't true and did not originally teach.

If you like being a Catholic, more power to You. I just don't think that an organization of men, an e-mail adress, a website, is responsible passing out the authority of Holy Spirit. Does that mean that anyone who claims they are lead by the Holy Spirit is? Paul said no. But he also didn't say that the truth to that claim was determined by the adress on his membership card.

Peace

-- robert (4twells@verizon.net), December 16, 2002.


Oh Man!
Opened up the floodgates, hmm?

No the Holy Spirit is who guards the Church's holy doctrine from corruption and mistakes. Nothing can enter the accumulated deposit of faith without a vetting; the divine spell-checker. Lol!

All the various atrocities and broken commandments you note are,
1.) Mostly fabricated by some who have written the history books. Keep in mind, the English defeated the Spanish Armada, Catholicism had faded from Britain, and the victors get to dictate the way it happened. Many other strange things were underfoot, in which the Church's role was tainted unjustly.
2.) Or, they came about not by Church involvement, but by circumvention of the Church's strict authority, as evil men pulled the strings.
3.) By civil, not Church power. We have no modern parallels to compare to some of the states that consented to brutal methods of enforcement, Robert. You have to realise what the day-to-day barbarism of a past age justified; total insensitivity. Your only modern analogy is the totalitarian state. Consider that this is not driven by religious motivation either. Very likely the middle ages weren't; but Catholics still take the blame. They were in the wrong place at the wrong time.

And-- all things considered, if the Church has blame in those things, and it became current history and is true; what keeps the Church afloat? Isn't the sheer perseverance of the faith some vindication over the long haul? Rotten fruit decays and decomposes, Robert. It doesn't spring back to life without a soul. You have to face a fact; the faith is above all spiritual. It can't be stamped out. Think over these things. Pray, and then meditate!

-- eugene c. chavez (chavezec@pacbell.net), December 16, 2002.


It was not my intent to chastize Rome. No organization, Godly or not, is perfect as Rome has demonstrated.

Don't tell me though that Rome did not have the ultimate authority over secular powers in Europe. They were given Direct authority from the Roman Emperor. The Pope was the Emperor of Europe. The King's were his subjects. Hitler's Third Reich was Hitler's Romantic Fantasy as the Third In succession of Iron Fist governments over all of Europe. It just so happened to begin with his idea of the First Reich, The Holy Roman Empire. I don't think the English brainwashed him to think that Rome was the grandiose master Authority in Europe. He knew it just like everyone else.

The Popes and their Councils have added dogmas and new doctrines all throughout the ages. The Roman Church of today teaches a lot more than it did in 1100.

'What keeps the Catholic Church afloat if all that is true?' All of it is true. Why would it fall apart though if you can so easily listen to and believe the Church's denial of History. You almost sound as though you are willing to except those facts and on that basis why should it make you leave and thus the Church fall apart? Simple, it shouldn't. Mistakes were made. I simply call on the Church to practice what it preaches and confess that they blew it, big time, more than a few times. Admit that history is true. Why is it so much easier for the Church to adhere to its version of the truth surrounding the early formation of the Roman authority but can't recal the events of 400 years ago? I'm not asking for an apology. You yourself said that it isn't important what happened, only what was taught. So what's the big deal? IT LOOKS BAD. IT IS EMBARRASSING. That is the big deal.

The Watchtower (Jehovah's witnesses) knows that it claimed Armageddon would happen in 1914. It never brings this up though or educates its new leadership on the subject. Because it is embarrasing. How can they stay afloat? My how fast almost 0% of its loyal following know anything of this. It did decimate the population when it failed in 1914. Since the Watchtower didn't retain its membership through torture it took a couple years to pick up the pieces, but not everyone lost the faith when it happened. "It was simply fallible men." They of course claim to be the sole Channel of God's communication to Earth.

Protestants don't claim to have that distinction. If they do they are probably some cult. Nearly all the cults have that distinction.

-- robert (4twells@verizon.net), December 16, 2002.


You seem changed, Robert. For a few posts there, all you said was kind and understanding. Since I gave your voice some credibility, you soft-pedalled. Now comes your real face. Not a friend of the Catholic Church.

No problem, Sir. It's better to be frank. Our Lord had opposition too. His work is never finished, and we bear with insults for His sake. We aren't here for the happiness.

For the record, I have truth with which to dispute your cooked-up mythomania. If it would silence you, I'd let you see it. But my best judgment tells me not to offer you a soap-box. There are already a few others throwing bottles at me in this forum. Adding you to the bash would be foolish. I'll simply consider you another lost cause and pretend I never met you.

-- eugene c. chavez (chavezec@pacbell.net), December 16, 2002.


It isn't my fault that historical facts are insulting to you. I have not used historical facts to condemn, in any way denounce or reduce the authority of the Roman Church to a status below any other Christian Church. I am forced to use history to demonostrate the purpose of checks and balances, refute Roman claims to having some sort of superior authority over Christianity.

I am not an enemy to the Church of Rome. If my opinion of The Roman Chuch being no better than a Baptist church makes me an enemy to you that is your bigotry not mine. My only goal in this thread has been benevolent. If you doubting the supreme authority of Rome somehow makes you question your salvation OR MINE you only prove my point. I am a freind of the Roman Church. If my freindship is not accepted because I have the audacity to not agree with every last hair the Vatican splits then it is not me who is being unreasonable. The Roman Church has a long history of calling freindlies its enemies because it has an ego. Nobody's salvation is dependant on the approval of sinful men no matter how much the Holy Mother is offended by that notion. No offense.

-- robert (4twells@verizon.net), December 17, 2002.


It was to one Chuch and one Church only that Christ granted authority - the Church over which Simon Peter was appointed shepherd ("feed my lambs ... feed my sheep") and given the keys (the universal symbol of authority) and full teaching authority ("whatsoever you bind on earth is bound in haven"). There is no logical reason whatsoever to assume that any other Christian Church has any authority at all, since Christ never even authorized the existence of such churches.

-- Paul (PaulCyp@cox.net), December 17, 2002.

Twelve Apostles implies confederation. Not an endorsement of Papal despotism. The ultimate Authority rested with 12 Apostles. Peter did not give Paul his authority so that shoots down your claim right there. Paul's authority came directly from Christ. That is no different then when Congregations popup without direct establishment from a historical source. This happened in the first century and Paul endorsed it when it did. He didn't tell them to submit a request for membership into Christianity.

By your logic the Roman Church should repent of its usurpings and division from the Orthodoxy and return to the echumenical Unity with the Catholic Church. You can't hold such logic over our heads. It is hypocritical to say that Jesus gave Rome the supreme authority over Christianty in 1054. You can't even prove that Jesus' definition of Church meant something like the Vatican and the Pope. The word "Church" that you use was ecclesia. Ecclesia in no way implies a hierarchial government type institution. All it means is a gathering of Brothers in Christ.

Christ has one body of believers. That is his body. His body is not defined by some human authority. Christ is the Authority. Jesus never said:

'Go forth and baptize the nations in the Name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit making sure they know that in 1054 A.D. when Rome decides it is the supreme authority commanding my name, and its pride breaks the echumenisism, that I totally endorse them and if you don't recognize their authority well that's too bad. I told Peter that I will build my Church on this Rock so that proves that you ought to listen to the New Church That was founded in 1054 or pay the price. remember you must repent, believe in my sacrifice and acknowledge that after Rome makes a new Church that is it. You can't do it again even If you are bringing people to me because Rome's pride cannot suffer itself to take something back.'

No he didn't say that. Jesus didn't say anything that gives Rome, a new organization in the same Body of Christ, anymore authority than any other new organizations in the Body of Christ that do what Rome did.

Rome doesn't even care about converting the Orthodox anymore. It is a 1000 year old problem that was created by Rome. Rome is actually the daughter of the Orthodox. Rome set the standard for unity though, and it was Rome that spawned 30,000+ protestant denominations. Most of which are virtually identaical with the exception that they have no common chain of command.

Rome simply has no claim to being the one hierarchial authority at dispensing truth. The printing press released God's word on to the faithful and Rome's children can thank Prostestant reformers for that, not Holy Mother Church.

-- robert (4twells@verizon.net), December 17, 2002.


correction, I said that all ecclesia means is brothers in Christ. That is not the literal defintion, that is how it is used in its application to our understanding of the word church.

Im sure you know it means "called out ones." Still that proves my point that it refers to the MEMBERS not some esoteric refference to an infallible leadership.

-- robert (4twells@verizon.net), December 17, 2002.


Okay Jake,

Now, let me speak concerning the Lord's Supper.

--

** Luke 22:15 And he said unto them, With desire I have desired to eat this passover with you before I suffer: 22:16 For I say unto you, I will not any more eat thereof, until it be fulfilled in the kingdom of God.

[remember this]

--

** Matthew 26:27 And he took the cup, and gave thanks, and gave it to them, saying, Drink ye all of it; 26:28 For this is my blood of the new testament, which is shed for many for the remission of sins. 26:29 But I say unto you, [I will not drink henceforth of this fruit of the vine, until that day when I drink it new with you in my Father's kingdom.]

** Mark 14:23 And he took the cup, and when he had given thanks, he gave it to them: and they all drank of it. 14:24 And he said unto them, This is my blood of the new testament, which is shed for many. 14:25 Verily I say unto you, [I will drink no more of the fruit of the vine, until that day that I drink it new in the kingdom of God.]

** Luke 22:17 And he took the cup, and gave thanks, and said, Take this, and divide it among yourselves: 22:18 For I say unto you, [I will not drink of the fruit of the vine, until the kingdom of God shall come.] 22:20 Likewise also the cup after supper, saying, This cup is the new testament in my blood, which is shed for you.

** 1 Corinthians 11:25 After the same manner also he took the cup, when he had supped, saying, This cup is the new testament in my blood: this do ye, as oft as ye drink it, in remembrance of me.

[If this is the literal blood of Christ, why does Christ call it the fruit of the vine and say He is also going to drink it "in the kingdom of God"? Why must Christ drink his own blood?

--

** Matthew 26:26 And as they were eating, Jesus took bread, and blessed it, and brake it, and gave it to the disciples, and said, Take, eat; this is my body.

** Mark 14:22 And as they did eat, Jesus took bread, and blessed, and brake it, and gave to them, and said, Take, eat: this is my body.

** Luke 22:19 And he took bread, and gave thanks, and brake it, and gave unto them, saying, This is my body which is given for you: this do in remembrance of me.

** 1 Corinthians 11:23 For I have received of the Lord that which also I delivered unto you, That the Lord Jesus the same night in which he was betrayed took bread: 11:24 And when he had given thanks, he brake it, and said, Take, eat: this is my body, which is broken for you: this do in remembrance of me.

[So, if he literally meant that the bread was his body, and he broke it, then why did he go to the cross? Why not put the bread on it. Don't laugh, it would be the same according to your belief, would it not?]

--

1 Corinthians 11:26 For as often as ye eat this bread, and drink this cup, ye do show the Lord's death till he come.

[We are supposed to do it in remembrance, just like the passover was remembrance - it wasn't that God was going to keep slaying the first born over and over again.]

--

What was the passover?

Exodus 12:12 For I will pass through the land of Egypt this night, and will smite all the firstborn in the land of Egypt, both man and beast; and against all the gods of Egypt I will execute judgment: I am the LORD. 12:13 And the blood shall be to you for a token upon the houses where ye are: and when I see the blood, I will pass over you, and the plague shall not be upon you to destroy you, when I smite the land of Egypt. 12:14 And this day shall be unto you for [a memorial]; and ye shall keep it a feast to the LORD throughout your generations; ye shall keep it a feast by an ordinance for ever.

This is exactly like the endtime judgement of Christ when he comes to earth:

Matthew 25:31 When the Son of man shall come in his glory, and all the holy angels with him, then shall he sit upon the throne of his glory: 25:32 And before him shall be gathered all nations: and he shall separate them one from another, as a shepherd divideth his sheep from the goats: 25:33 And he shall set the sheep on his right hand, but the goats on the left.

And like the passover, what will save us the eating of flesh or the covering of blood.

Ephesians 1:7 In whom we have redemption through his blood, the forgiveness of sins, according to the riches of his grace;

So, what do these verses mean?

1 Corinthians 11:29 For he that eateth and drinketh unworthily, eateth and drinketh damnation to himself, not discerning the Lord's body. 11:30 For this cause many are weak and sickly among you, and many sleep.

It is clear by the next verse:

1 Corinthians 11:31 For if we would judge ourselves, we should not be judged.

The act of taking the Lord's Support to REMEMBER [not reproduce] what Christ has done for us should cause us to humbly come to him and repent if we have or are rebelling against God. If we just take of it like it means nothing, then we are making light what Christ did for us. God will judge us for that!

This has nothing to do with eating real flesh and drinking real blood. If so, then that means Christ will drink his own blood in the kingdom of God. Yet you wish to denie this. Of course, because that makes even less sense.

Again I say, if Christ turned the bread and wine into the literal body and blood of himself - they it could have been nailed to the cross instead of him. I don't think so! It is time to backup and regroup... :)

May God Bless His Word!

-- Tim (tlw97@cox.net), December 17, 2002.


[So, if he literally meant that the bread was his body, and he broke it, then why did he go to the cross? Why not put the bread on it. Don't laugh, it would be the same according to your belief, would it not?]

That makes no sense, Tim! If the bread and wine become His Body and Blood, then it WAS He who was on the Cross. Let me rephrase what you said correctly, and you will see how it doesn’t make any sense:

“So, if he literally meant that the bread was his body, and he broke it, then why did he go to the cross? Why not put “HIM” on it?” You see? You conveniently placed “the bread” there so that it would seem like it was “bread”. In reality, if the bread really does become His body (which it does) then it WAS He that was on the Cross!

Because the Body and Blood of Jesus in the Eucharist (at the consecration of the bread and wine) IS the resurrected Body of Christ. By His death we now have this Sacrament. It would make no sense to eat and drink the Body and Blood of Christ in remembrance of what? We do this in remembrance of Christ’s death and resurrection! Christ said in the Last Supper, “this IS my body, which WILL be given up for you.” Not, “has” been given up. “WILL be given up”.

“1 Corinthians 11:26 For as often as ye eat this bread, and drink this cup, ye do show the Lord's death till he come. [We are supposed to do it in remembrance, just like the passover was remembrance - it wasn't that God was going to keep slaying the first born over and over again.]”

Exactly, Tim. You’re getting it! “just like the Passover”. And at the Passover, what did they eat in remembrance? Was it a symbolic substance, which was meant to represent the lamb they just sacrificed? NO! It WAS the REAL lambs meat that they sacrificed. So, if they were to eat the Passover lamb in remembrance of the Passover, then wouldn’t it make sense to remember the Lords death and resurrection by eating his real flesh!? Jesus gave us this gift of Himself so that we can be with Him and in Him Spiritually AND physically!

When I think about my Lord and Savior, and I think of what I would do if I saw Him, it all makes perfect sense. If Jesus were in front of me, I would want to hug Him so deeply as to press myself into Him, and He into me. Don’t you feel that way when you really love someone? You want to squeeze them so hard as to unite you and that person. Well, the Eucharist is just that: Jesus Loved us SOOO much that He left Himself here for us to be united physically. I don’t need to “squeeze” him to attempt unity – which cannot happen simply by hugging someone. Actual unity between my body and His is achieved through the consumption of the Body of Christ in the Eucharist! And it also makes sense that He is our Bridegroom and we are the Bride, His Church! Our earthly marriages are a Sacramental sign of our Heavenly Marriage to Christ. How does a bride become one (physically and spiritually) with the bridegroom? The marriage act (sex). But since we cannot all make love (like that) with Christ, it is fitting that He is to be IN us Physically as well since we are bride and Bridegroom!

“And like the passover, what will save us the eating of flesh or the covering of blood.”

Both! If the Israelites didn’t ALSO eat of the flesh of the lamb, they were doomed! They had to do Both!

“It is clear by the next verse: 1 Corinthians 11:31 For if we would judge ourselves, we should not be judged. The act of taking the Lord's Support to REMEMBER [not reproduce]…”

Pause: Don’t put words in our doctrine, Tim. We do NOT “reproduce” Christ’s death and resurrection. Hid death and resurrection IS REMEMBERED when we consecrate the bread and wine. It isn’t a NEW sacrifice! It is the same sacrifice that took place 2000 years ago. I know that it may be confusing, the way I explain it. You should honestly look at what the Church fathers say about it. There is tons of good stuff written about this.

“…what Christ has done for us should cause us to humbly come to him and repent if we have or are rebelling against God. If we just take of it like it means nothing, then we are making light what Christ did for us. God will judge us for that!”

So, from that verse, you gather that God was judging them for not repenting and coming humbly to Him. That’s it!?

Here it is again: “For he that eateth and drinketh unworthily, eateth and drinketh damnation to himself.”

Sure looks like Paul’s talking about eating and drinking? So, yes, they will be judged for not repenting, etc. But in particular, in this case, in order to EAT and DRINK of the Lord Supper, they should repent, etc. Or they will EAT and DRINK damnation to himself. They will be guilty of the BODY and BLOOD of Jesus! Would they be guilty of the Body and Blood of Jesus for simply eating a symbol? Don’t think so.

“This has nothing to do with eating real flesh and drinking real blood. If so, then that means Christ will drink his own blood in the kingdom of God. Yet you wish to denie this. Of course, because that makes even less sense.”

No, We deny “this” because it is out of context. Christ wasn’t referring to the consecrated wine (His Blood). This was a gift to us on earth. When we get to heaven, there are no need for Sacraments, this on in particular – because we will be with Jesus in heaven. I’m not saying that I have a complete grasp on what Jesus meant when He said this – the last sentence, that is. There is quite a lot to be said about it if you do a search. However, I want to show you that in no way does it conflict with the bread and wine becoming for us the Body and Blood of Jesus. There are a few things to consider: Do you think Jesus was referring to real wine when He said this? Okay, lets say He was talking about real wine. Is there physical eating and drinking in heaven? NO! So, when Jesus said this, he might not have been referring to his Body and Blood NOR bread and wine. So, if you are using this as an argument that it was bread and wine that they were sharing at the Lords Supper, then it still would not make sense. Even much less sense when you consider that Jesus drank of the “fruit of the vine” while he was on the Cross. Coincidentally? this was the last cup of the Passover meal, which officially “ended” the sacrifice – his death. This fact, that Jesus drank of the fruit of the vine on the Cross, indicates to us that when He said “cup” it wasn’t referring to a real drink. Likewise, when He prayed in the garden of Gethsemane, He asked His Father to let THIS “cup” pass. Which cup?

HERE is an explanation that I found interesting – though I don’t know if it is true.

Okay, let’s say that He meant it like He said it – that He wouldn’t drink wine until His Father’s Kingdom comes, then there are also a few options. It has been argued that the sour wine He drank on the Cross really wasn’t wine – which would mean that Jesus will drink the cup when the Kingdom of Heaven comes (just exactly as He said). This still doesn’t mean that the Blood of Christ wasn’t what they drank that night. Jesus was referring to wine in the future, but he had already said (this is my Blood) for the current cup they were about to drink. The other option is that the sour wine was indeed fruit of the vine, and if he meant it literally (real wine) that would mean that the Kingdom of His Father had come (what this means – I do not know). But this still doesn’t mean that the third cup (the one which was blessed and consecrated) didn’t become the Blood of Christ.

“Again I say, if Christ turned the bread and wine into the literal body and blood of himself - they it could have been nailed to the cross instead of him. I don't think so! It is time to backup and regroup... :)”

Again, Jesus WAS on the Cross, and so you can say then that it was indeed the CONSECRATED bread that was on the Cross. That’s it, Tim. The Bread which came down from Heaven WAS on the Cross. You poke fun (out of ignorance I presume) that the “bread” could be nailed to the Cross. Yet you forget that once the “bread” is consecrated, it is no longer bread but the Body of Christ – Who WAS on the Cross!

In Christ.

-- Jake Huether (jake_huether@yahoo.com), December 18, 2002.


Hahaha!''Twelve Apostles implies confederation. Not an endorsement of Papal despotism.''

Confederates! Not the 12 apostles, 12 confederates! Despot--

Not Shepherd! (John 21 :15- :17) Despot.

The first despot, ''robert'' --requested himself crucified with his feet pointing upward to heaven; because he didn't feel worthy of dying in such a way that he could ever compare himself to Christ our Saviour. He is the glorious saint who took the keys of the kingdom of heaven from the Son of God --And you pipsqueaks dare say he could be despotic?

You'll never enter heaven without repenting for this grave offense against Peter. You are the First Confederated Group of Numbskulls and that post proved it! Lol!

-- eugene c. chavez (chavezec@pacbell.net), December 18, 2002.




-- (^@^.^), December 18, 2002.

I have both enjoyed the first few responses, (Paul got the Protestant attitudes correct and seems to be well informed) and have skipped most of the rest. I may return once I find a bible quote or two.

I would like to show a protestant response to the Bible that I enjoyed.

As this illistrates some protestant thinking, it is somewhat on topic.

One local preacher was looking on that verse where Christ said something like "Father make them all one as you and I are one.". He was impressed. He is now on a campaign to make all the churches value each other as they value themselves. Not just respect, which I had given up on, but value. His words are "you should die for my church and I should die for yours." Right now he has only a few, maybe only 2 churches on his track. Maybe in 20 years he will have something that the Catholic Church will have to talk to, maybe not.

Direct action, testing inspiration to see if it works, good faith, immediate feedback, persistance, basically this may draw some people to Christ. And if it does, God Bless him.

I was going for the lesser, respect. I would like that when a great Christian of any Christian faith dies, all would mourn. I would like it that when a Great Christian leader falls, all would respond. Alas, I suspect that it really is too much to ask. But this man is going to give it a try, and I wish him well. I feel that Christianity will be better if he succeeds.

Sean

-- Sean Cleary (seanearlyaug@juno.com), December 19, 2002.


That's all very cheering, Sean. Especially in this Christmas season. Include everybody. Everybody is more than welcome.

His words are "you should die for my church and I should die for yours." Right now he has only a few, maybe only 2 churches on his track.

More to the point, we should all be willing to die for Christ's church. Which Church came from Jesus Christ? I can appreciate your local preacher's good will. But not his false church. --I say false with no disrespect; I just mean not genuinely given us by Jesus Christ.

-- eugene c. chavez (chavezec@pacbell.net), December 19, 2002.


Should we be willing to die for ANY brother or sister in Christ? Remember the Church of Christ is made of Believers, not a religion called Roman Catholic.

Joh 15:12 This is my commandment, That ye love one another, as I have loved you. Joh 15:13 Greater love hath no man than this, that a man lay down his life for his friends.

Joh 15:14 Ye are my friends, if ye do whatsoever I command you.

--

Who ever is saved by the grace of God through the blood of Jesus Christ is a Christian and a part of the Church of Christ!

Think about it!

-- Tim (tlw97@cox.net), December 20, 2002.


Tim, I have been told by Baptists that they are taught in your denomination that we Catholics "crucify Christ" again and again each time we celebrate the mass by our sacrament of the Eucharist..that Baptists perceive the concept of transfiguration of the bread and wine as literally killing Christ again and again, and hold it to be an "abomination". Would you say that this is a true teaching of your church, or is this a teaching of some other "Baptist" denomination? I am curious as to why a person who is a Baptist would hang out on a Catholic forum since every single person I have ever met who claims to be a Baptist has said to me that Catholics are cultists who are doomed to hell, etc. I have also noted that every internet site where people say they are affiliated with your church often have links to click on, denouncing the Catholic church. So perhaps you can understand my curiousity here...I have read with great interest your responses, and am amazed that you APPEAR to leave out what your church teaches about Catholic beliefs..are you just being tactful? Or am I misinformed and there are more "Baptist" churches than I am aware of with different teachings about the Catholic church?

-- lesley (martchas@hotmail.com), December 21, 2002.

Upon reflection, I must amend my statement, I have one friend who is a Baptist who says I am not going to hell because I am Catholic.

-- lesley (martchas@hotmail.com), December 21, 2002.

Two comments on your slick return, Tim.

''Should we be willing to die for ANY brother or sister in Christ? Remember the Church of Christ is made of Believers, not a religion called Roman Catholic.''

A good and faithful Catholic would lay down his life if called upon. To save the minister you talk of here, or to save his whole congregation, you included. --BUT, not die for his ''faith''. His ''church'' suggests that his belief is worth dying for. (He may believe a number of truths worth dying for, but not a ''church''. As to your lofty remonstrance, ''Remember, -- the Church is made of believers, not a religion called Roman Catholic.''

You aren't believers as the faith requires, Tim. You may believe many good parts of the Gospel. I sincerely hope you reach salvation on the strength of a partial faith. But if you deny the Catholic Church (it's not Roman) you deny the very Church Christ left on earth for YOU! So, you turn away from what Christ gave you for the sanctification of your immortal soul.

The Church is NOT made up of ''believers''. Believers come true and false. There is wholehearted, informed belief and there's false belief.

The Church of the apostles is made up of divinely informed TRUE believers. Come and believe what she teaches, and be a True Believer.

You use a slightly pejorative term, ''a religion called Roman Catholic.'' What if we said, you're from a ''religion called ''Bible Christians'' -- ??? Just to dismiss it?

You can't dismiss the Catholic faith, Tim. The Church gave you a Bible for the gospel and your belief in the truth. But you can't find the whole truth within that Bible. You delude yourselves in the very passages where Christ placed YOU under the protection of His Holy Church, to follow after false ''Bible Christians'' --

-- eugene c. chavez (chavezec@pacbell.net), December 21, 2002.


/

-- eugene c. chavez (chavezec@pacbell.net), December 21, 2002.

lesley,

Let me see if I can explain myself, I do not want to speak for every Baptist [because I am sure a lot of them have different views].

"Tim, I have been told by Baptists that they are taught in your denomination that we Catholics "crucify Christ" again and again each time we celebrate the mass by our sacrament of the Eucharist." - this is true.

"I am curious as to why a person who is a Baptist would hang out on a Catholic forum since every single person I have ever met who claims to be a Baptist has said to me that Catholics are cultists who are doomed to hell, etc."

I first came to this forum because I heard that the popes used to have a writing on their headdress that meant 666 and such [please NO ONE restart that posting!], so I posted a site here and asked was this true or not. Since then I have been, I guess you could call it, debating with other Catholics here. I have had some good times, with people that don't get too fired up at me. :) And I have learned a lot of what Catholics truly believe.

About my church, our preacher and such usually never say anything about other religions from the pulpit and such. Maybe just a quick sentence or so every once in a while - and not just about Catholics. But I have never heard him say all Catholics are going to Hell.

But, me personally, can't and won't believe that ALL Catholics are going to Hell. That would be an unScriptural statement. I do believe that some of the doctrines that Catholics teach are incorrect - of course I do or I would be a Catholic and not a Baptist. :)

I believe that some of the Catholics are saved, just as I believe that some Baptist are lost. Being a member of a religion does not get us into Heaven. The grace of God given to us through the precious blood of Jesus Christ unto the forgiveness of sins saves our souls that were once bound for Hell.

I believe that the Holy Spirit deals with a person and gives them the faith to trust in Christ. The individual repents, accepts Christ with that faith and are instantly Born Again - into the Church and Body of Christ - which is IMPOSSIBLE to get out, because we are bought with a price, sealed by the Holy Spirit, and kept by the power of God.

Once saved, does this mean that the individual will be perfect and never be in error - No. God has proved to us this by countless examples in the Bible.

Therefore what I conclude is, that although I believe that some of the doctrines of Catholics are incorrect and could send people to Hell, I do not believe that all who hold an incorrect doctrine is doomed to Hell.

Let me give one example: [but you must look at it as a protestant view point, as I believe baptism should be done, but is not necessary for salvation - it is an act of obedience - and to note, yes if someone is REALLY SAVED they should want to get baptised.]

I the Spirit of God lead someone to salvation today, they trusted in Jesus Christ by faith, and asked God to save their soul. I believe they are instantly saved. Let's say they are a member of the Church of Christ and they believe they MUST be baptized to receive salvation. Although they believe they must get baptized to have salvation [which infact salvation has already taken place before baptisim], that belief does not unsave them nor does it doom them to Hell. They are just in error. I believe the Holy Spirit will show that to them, yet they could still reject it - But ARE STILL JUST AS SAVED. - BUT - If the person has never really put their Faith in the sacrafice of Christ and is trusting in the baptism to save them. They WILL go to Hell, for trusting in something other than Christ himself - ALONE.

But, as long as someone is alive, God can deal with them! Thank God! We all have things in our life we need to change!

God judges the hearts of men, we can only judge the outward actions. That is why some that [profess] to be Christians will be saddly rejected at the judgment. Not that they were once Christians because God allowed them to do Christian things [and lost it], but that they NEVER WERE Christians in the first place.

Hope this helps, and Eugene - thanks for the bold. :)

When I write BELIEVER I consider it to be of the Truth, I consider a believer of a lie - A LIAR, not a BELIEVER.

Ro 3:4 God forbid: yea, let God be true, but every man a liar; as it is written, That thou mightest be justified in thy sayings, and mightest overcome when thou art judged.

God Bless!

-- Tim, the Baptist (tlw97@cox.net), December 21, 2002.


Thank you Tim for your honest reply..now I have a much clearer idea of why you are here and where you are coming from. I sincerely hope that you were not offended by my curiosity. My own background is that of a person born into the Catholic faith, became an agnostic in my 20's after Vatican 2, (sigh, some folks cannot handle change), moved to Protestant Fundamentalism in my 40s, and back to the Catholic church in my 50's where I am now...what a circular journey! It was a necessary one for me, since I was a rather stubborn, willful young woman who had to learn the hard way...LOL..yet, God was patient with me. Anyway, thank you again. I pray that you will keep listening to folks here. God bless you.

-- lesley (martchas@hotmail.com), December 21, 2002.

Tim,
For the sake of clarity and not because I agree with this: ''Therefore what I conclude is, that although I believe that some of the doctrines of Catholics are incorrect and could send people to Hell, I do not believe that all who hold an incorrect doctrine is doomed to Hell.''

Explain this statement. And; if i might-- let me suggest, we NEVER conclude. Conclude is saying there's nothing more to say. Only Christ concludes; and in the Holy Spirit, Christ's Church.

-- eugene c. chavez (chavezec@pacbell.net), December 21, 2002.


Dear Tim,

You say: I believe that some of the Catholics are saved, just as I believe that some Baptist are lost. Being a member of a religion does not get us into Heaven.

A: Amen to that!

You say: I believe that some of the doctrines of Catholics are incorrect and could send people to Hell, I do not believe that all who hold an incorrect doctrine is doomed to Hell.

A: How is that possible? I assume a given doctrine could "send one to Hell" only if one accepted and believed it. Therefore, how is it possible that a given "Catholic doctrine", which is therefore presumably accepted by all Catholics, could send some Catholics to Hell, but not others? Also, if Catholicism includes doctrines that send people to Hell, did all Christians for 1,000 years after Christ go to Hell, since they were all Catholics? Also, since history plainly shows us that the Catholic Church is the first Christian Church, how do these "false Catholic doctrines" fit in with the promise of Jesus to His Church, "The Holy Spirit will guide you to all truth"? Was Jesus wrong? Also, since all Christians for 1,000 years after Christ were Catholic, how is it possible that those Christians, who can trace their origins directly to Christ, had false doctrines, but a traditiion started by men in the 17th century has the true doctrine? Where did they get it, since the Catholic Church was the only place it could possibly have existed until then?

You say: I believe baptism should be done, but is not necessary for salvation.

A: Do you accept the Bible as the inerrant Word of God, as Catholics do? The Bible says that you cannot enter the kingdom without being born of both water and the Spirit. Is not "being in the kingdom" the same thing as "being saved"? You say that being saved should make you want to be baptized. The Word says if you are not baptized, you cannot be saved. Which is it?

You say: "trusting in the baptism to save them"

A: Obviously baptism does not automatically save anyone - otherwise all Catholics would be saved. But the Bible makes it clear that baptism is a necessary condition for salvation, just as faith and good works are. None of these things can save you apart from Christ; but they are all required elements of accepting salvation BY Christ, which is why you cannot be saved without faith, without works, or without baptism.

You say: I do believe that some Catholic doctrines are wrong. Otherwise I would be a Catholic, not a Baptist.

A: Yes, of course. And you are also not a Methodist, Anglican, Pentacostal, Lutheran, Congregationalist, Presbyterian, Episcopalian, Mennonite, Adventist, Nazarene, Christian Scientist, etc., etc. So, I assume you also believe that some of the doctrines of each of these churches is wrong. Therefore - what authority supports your apparent belief that the teachings of your Baptist church are correct, while the teachings of every other church are wrong? And please - don't say the Bible, because that is the same authority claimed by each of the churches mentioned above, plus thousands of others. If you are claiming to have greater authority than they have, you will have to designate a source of authority above and beyond that which they claim.

In Christ, Paul

-- Paul (PaulCyp@cox.net), December 21, 2002.


Topping for Tim.

-- (Needing@Baptist.Reply), December 22, 2002.

Come on Eugene, do you just like to say something negative toward alll of my comments - this is childish...

"let me suggest, we NEVER conclude. Conclude is saying there's nothing more to say. Only Christ concludes;"

I said "Therefore what I conclude is, that although I believe..." - this is [1] my statement and [2] my belief, therefore I am able to conclude [there's nothing more to say] with it. This has nothing to do with the Words of Christ, doctrines, and or Scripture.

Relax!

Paul,

Let me try to answer your questions:

1] "You say: I believe that some of the doctrines of Catholics are incorrect and could send people to Hell, I do not believe that all who hold an incorrect doctrine is doomed to Hell. A: How is that possible?"

I explained it in my last post, but let me try again.

Again, let's take baptisim [please look at it through my eyes just for a moment to help you understand what I am saying].

[a] I do not believe baptisim saves us, but is an act of obedience; which means I believe that someone who is truly saved will want to get baptized, but that they are already saved and don't need it to get saved or stay saved.

[b] I do believe that the Spirit of God comes into the heart of a person and gives them the faith to believe on Jesus Christ, which enables them to repent and receive the gift of God through the shed blood of Jesus Christ; and therefore saves their soul from Hell.

Okay, now that I have said that, this is the example:

Let's say there are two people. [1] person feels the power of the Holy Spirit and puts their faith in Jesus Christ and is saved. Once saved, then believe it is being obedient to get baptized and everyone is telling them that they should, so they do so. This person is saved. Because they got baptized? No. Because they put their faith in Christ. [2] person feels the emotions of the moments and everyone is telling them that they need to get baptized to get saved. They get baptized and therefore trust in the baptisim for salvation. This person will go to Hell - UNLESS - they one day put the faith in Christ Jesus!

I hope I have made myself clear. But, probably haven't.

--

2] "Also, if Catholicism includes doctrines that send people to Hell, did all Christians for 1,000 years after Christ go to Hell, since they were all Catholics?"

a] Not all were Roman Catholics as you would like to believe.

b] Most of the Catholics didn't believe what most Catholics believe today. History proves it again and again.

--

3] "Bible says that you cannot enter the kingdom without being born of both water and the Spirit."

Let's take a look at the Book!

Joh 3:3 Jesus answered and said unto him, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, [Except a man be born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God.] Joh 3:4 Nicodemus saith unto him, [How can a man be born when he is old? can he enter the second time into his mother's womb, and be born?]

Joh 3:5 Jesus answered, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, [Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.]

Joh 3:6 [That which is born of the flesh is flesh; and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit.] Joh 3:7 Marvel not that I said unto thee, Ye must be born again.

I believe, again, Christ explains himself. To enter into the kingdom a person must be born of the flesh and born of the Spirit.

Why do I believe this, and not baptisim? For 2 reasons.

[1] Where does Christ put the emphasis? In believing!

Joh 3:18 [He that believeth on him is not condemned]: but [he that believeth not is condemned already, because he hath not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God]. ** condemned and not condemned WITHOUT baptism.

[2] It is a "like figure" to the death, burial, and resurrection of Jesus Christ - not the death, burial, and resurrection of Jesus Christ.

1pe 3:21 The [like figure] whereunto even baptism doth also now save us (not the putting away of the filth of the flesh, but the answer of a good conscience toward God,) by the resurrection of Jesus Christ:

--

3] "Obviously baptism does not automatically save anyone - otherwise all Catholics would be saved. But the Bible makes it clear that baptism is a necessary condition for salvation, just as faith and good works are."

This is one place where Catholics contradict themselves.

[1] you say that baptism does not automatically save anyone

[2] you say that if someone has the "desire" of baptism it does save them

[3] you say that without it you can't be saved

Well, which one is it? I can't be all three - that makes no sense, and definitly isn't Scriptural.

And explain to me these verses, if good works is necessary for salvation - DON'T quote James, just explain these verses:

Ro 4:4 Now to him that worketh is the reward not reckoned of grace, but of debt. Ro 4:5 But to him that worketh not, but believeth on him that justifieth the ungodly, his faith is counted for righteousness.

** righteousness with no baptisim?

--

4] "Therefore - what authority supports your apparent belief that the teachings of your Baptist church are correct, while the teachings of every other church are wrong?"

All I can say is the Scripture and the Holy Spirit!

How can you claim that you are right and Baptist aren't? Because the Catholic Church says so? Of course!

[1] The Scriptures can't be right unless the Catholic Church says so.

[2] Your beliefs can't be right unless the Catholic Church says so.

[3] Your actions can't be right unless the Catholic Church says so.

[4] Tradition can't be right unless the Catholic Church says so.

Hmmm... In with the Catholic Church and out with Christ and Scripture! What ashame!

Think about guys! Give me a honestly reply to what I have presented here today!

God Bless! Really!

-- Tim, the Baptist (tlw97@cox.net), December 23, 2002.


Jake,

Just a quick look at one of your statments, and I hope to get to the rest.

"Is there physical eating and drinking in heaven? NO!"

What is manna?

Ps 78:23 Though he had commanded the clouds from above, and opened the doors of heaven, Ps 78:24 And had rained down manna upon them to eat, and had given them of the corn of heaven. Ps 78:25 [Man did eat angels' food]: he sent them meat to the full.

So, angels eat or don't eat? Is God a liar?

Re 19:9 And he saith unto me, Write, Blessed are they which are called unto the marriage supper of the Lamb. And he saith unto me, These are the true sayings of God.

What is this?

Later, Good night!

-- Tim, the Baptist (tlw97@cox.net), December 23, 2002.


Interesting, Tim.

However, we must remember, that Angels are pure spirits. That is, they are not physical entities like us, who must be sustained physically. We too when we die and are purified, become "like angels". We become pure spirits (completely spiritual), until the resurrection of the Body. So, while God is not a liar. I don't think He meant literally that Manna was the very same food the angels ate. And the "wedding feast" isn't how we imagine (sitting in front of a smorgas board, etc.). Again this is out of context. There is some real powerful analogies used by God: Manna being “angels food” and the Wedding “feast” are two. We know for sure that we cannot take these to mean that there is real physical “food” in heaven. Our food and feast will be spiritual.

“What eye has not seen, and ear has not heard, and what has not entered the human heart, what God has prepared for those who love Him.” 1Cor2:9.

We have no idea what it will be like! For sure it won’t be like it is now.

Hope others are able to chime in about this.

Hey, Tim! In case I don't write between now and then... Merry Christmas. May God abundantly bless you and your family.

In Christ.

-- Jake_huether (jake_huether@yahoo.com), December 23, 2002.


Tim,

You continue to give us glimpses of how terrible it can be when Christians think that they can interpret the Bible on their own, without the Catholic Church and Sacred Tradition to guide them. In your case, the situation is worse than for some Protestants, because you couple a misinterpretation of verses with an inability to reason logically.

Paul showed you something very clear in the item you marked "3]", above, but it went right over your head. You missed the whole point and tried to say that Catholics contradict themselves. That was really sad.

Well, Tim, I'm going to leave almost all your various errors for others to fix, and I will just concentrate on one -- the one that "blew my mind" more than the rest.

You are the first person I have ever encountered who takes verse 25 of Psalm 78 literally, causing you to require us to believe that angels actually eat food! [I have heard of "fundamentalist literalism" before, and you are living out that label here (but not, of course, when reading John 6).]

Listen up, Tim. Angels are pure spirits. They have no bodies, so they don't need to eat and are incapable of eating. (God can allow them to visit us in what appear to be bodies, but they are not real bodies, and they disappear when no longer needed to satisfy humans' sense of sight.)

With this in mind, we can know that the words of Psalm 78:25 -- "Man ate of the bread of the angels ..." -- do not refer to something eaten by angels, but rather something (manna) that seems to have been delivered by angels, since it came from heaven.

Tim, have you not realized by now that you are not going to trip educated Catholics up? Whenever your beliefs disagree with ours, we have good explanations to show that you are wrong, and what we believe can be seen in the writings of Catholics from the first 500 years of the Christian era. When you contradict us, your beliefs can never be shown in those early writings, because you are just making them up as you go along. That is one sad way for you to try to do God's will! I sincerely hope that you will soon realize that you are just spinning your wheels and, if moving at all, you are drifting backwards, further and further from the truth. Let's face it, Tim. God is calling you to become a Catholic.

God bless you.
John

-- (jfgecik@hotmail.com), December 23, 2002.


Jake H and I posted our messages almost simultaneously, which accounts for the partial overlap of subject matter. Another coincidence, just like yesterday with me and David S. Verrrrry interesting. JFG

-- (jfgecik@hotmail.com), December 23, 2002.

Hmmmmmmmmm I wonder ... An angel is pure spirit and therefore has the ability to pass through solid materials. Manna is physical matter, and therefore is not able to pass through solid materials. If an angel ate manna, and then passed through a solid wall, would the manna be left behind on the outside of the wall? I wonder ... since an angel has no hands, how would it raise the food to its mou ... oops! - it has no mouth either. No stomach. Also, what would be the point of its eating, since the only purpose of ingesting food is nourishment of the physical body, its cells and tissues, and an angel has no physical body, no tissues, no cells. Questions like these are rather silly, in and of themselves, but they still provide us with valid guidelines in the interpretation of scripture. Truth does not contradict truth. Therefore scripture does not contradict the essential, objectively real characteristics which define what God has created, either spiritual or physical/biological. Simplistic interpretational guesses based on nothing but the bare face of the text will most often be faulty. This is why we look to the Church, which possesses not only the guaranteed inspiration of the Holy Spirit, which is the principal assurance of accuracy, but also the necessary means to ensure full consideration all the historical, cultural, linguistic, theological, doctrinal, Traditional, rational, and philosophical truths which bear on the meaning of a passage.

Another biblical evidence you might also consider - When Jesus appeared to the Apostles after His Resurrection, they were at first terrified, thinking it was a ghost (a spirit). He calmed their fears by taking a piece of fish and eating it in their presence. Then they knew they were looking at the physical Jesus, for they knew spirits do not eat.

Peace! Paul

-- Paul (PaulCyp@cox.net), December 23, 2002.


Dear Tim,

To my question: "What authority supports your apparent belief that the teachings of your Baptist church are correct, while the teachings of every other church are wrong?"

You replied: All I can say is the Scripture and the Holy Spirit!

... which of course is exactly what I knew you would say. There is nothing else you can say, since your founders rejected the real source of authority Jesus Christ provided. This puts you in a rather precarious situation I think. You have already said that if your beliefs agreed with those of another church, you would belong to that church (logical enough). Therefore, you apparently believe that all churches which you don't belong to have at least some false beliefs (am I correct so far?).

And now you are saying that the only authority you can claim for your Baptist beliefs is the exact same authority that every other Protestant church claims for their beliefs - the very authority under which they have developed their "false beliefs". How then can you reasonably claim that your church has received true beliefs using the very same source of authority which has led every other denominational church into false beliefs?

The only way you can claim greater authority for your own denomination is to show a different, and higher source of doctrinal authority than they have. But, you cannot. Therefore, it would seem that the only honest conclusions would have to be: (1) that the authority you have cited is inadequate to lead any church to the fullness of truth; (2) that your beliefs have no more authority behind them than the beliefs of any other Protestant denomination; and (3) that therefore, some of your beliefs must be false, just as theirs are. None of these churches therefore could be the Church founded by Jesus Christ, since Jesus promised His Church that the Holy Spirit would guide them into ALL truth.

-- Paul (PaulCyp@cox.net), December 23, 2002.


Amen, Paul!


Please, Tim, read and re-read Paul's message very carefully.
With God's help, the "scales" will then fall away from your eyes. You will then be halfway home -- realizing that "sola scriptura" is untenable. You will cast it aside and never touch it again.

What will be the other half of your journey home? It will be your looking at the Christian bodies that reject "sola scriptura" and determining which of them was founded by Jesus and still retains the fullness of the truth. Do you know the names of those Christian bodies?
JFG

-- (jfgecik@Hotmail.com), December 24, 2002.


Tim, I gotta agree with these guys. Your reasoning is weak dude. Just cos the manna came from heaven, doesn't mean that it was angel's food. It shows that God was the source of their supply, their nourishment. It's actually a good picture, sorta connected with when Jesus was on the mount with the barley loaves and fish and looked up to heaven (this acknowledges God as the source). Would u have preferred if the manna had appeared from the ground ? Here's a link u might like to read about angels...

Click here to see

-- Oliver Fischer (spicenut@excite.com), December 25, 2002.


Paul,

You make fun, but apparently you do not know what angels can do.

Ge 3:24 So he drove out the man; and he placed at the east of the garden of Eden Cherubims, and a flaming sword which turned every way, to keep the way of the tree of life.

Ge 32:24 And Jacob was left alone; and there wrestled a man with him until the breaking of the day. Ge 32:25 And when he saw that he prevailed not against him, he touched the hollow of his thigh; and the hollow of Jacob's thigh was out of joint, as he wrestled with him. Ge 32:26 And he said, Let me go, for the day breaketh. And he said, I will not let thee go, except thou bless me. Ge 32:27 And he said unto him, What is thy name? And he said, Jacob. Ge 32:28 And he said, Thy name shall be called no more Jacob, but Israel: for as a prince hast thou power with God and with men, and hast prevailed.

2ch 32:21 And the LORD sent an angel, which cut off all the mighty men of valour, and the leaders and captains in the camp of the king of Assyria. So he returned with shame of face to his own land. And when he was come into the house of his god, they that came forth of his own bowels slew him there with the sword.

-- Tim, the Baptist (tlw97@cox.net), January 03, 2003.


Oliver,

"Your reasoning is weak dude."

I just take Scripture to be 100% true - so whether the manna came from heaven or not doesn't matter - it clearly says,

Ps 78:23 Though he had commanded the clouds from above, and opened the doors of heaven, Ps 78:24 And had rained down manna upon them to eat, and had given them of the corn of heaven. Ps 78:25 Man did eat angels' food: he sent them meat to the full.

-- Tim, the Baptist (tlw97@cox.net), January 03, 2003.


Tim,

Do you really believe that God created the universe in six literal EARTH days? Why would he do that? Why would the infinite God base the timing of the entire creation on the period of rotation of one tiny planet, in one solar system, in one galaxy among millions, that hadn't even been created yet?? Is God controlled by His creation? Is this minute pebble that we live on so important that it controls God? Are you aware that a DAY does not equal 24 hours anywhere in the universe but here? And that the very concept of "DAY" doesn't even exist except on the surface of a planet? was earth God's base of operations in creating the universe?

Do you really take every verse of scripture as literal truth? Do you have all your body parts? The Bible says that if your hand causes you to sin, you are to cut if off and throw it away. If your eye causes you to sin, you are to pluck it out and throw it away. Do you follow this direct Biblical command, Tim? If not, why not?

Do you take the following verses as literal truth, Tim?: "This IS My Body"; "This IS My Blood"; "Whose sins YOU forgive, they are forgiven them"; "the Church of the living God, the pillar and foundation of truth".

In Christ, Paul

-- Paul (PaulCyp@cox.net), January 04, 2003.


Tim,

Here in lies the confusion for me. How is it that you know when the Bible is to be taken figurative or literal? Do you just read the Bible and whatever seems to you to be literal, then you take it as such, and if it seems to you to be figurative, then you take it that way. Or does someone help you with the interpretation? It seems to me (but hopefully I'm wrong) that you base this decision on what the Catholic Church believes. If the Catholic Church says that it is literal, then to you say it is figurative. If the Catholic Church says it is figurative, you take it as literal. Again, I hope that my perception of this is wrong.

So, this comes down to the question: Do you really think Angels ate (or continue to eat) manna, as it is the "angel's food"?

I would like you to consider this: Okay, from scripture, if we take the above posted passages to be literal (whether they really are meant to be or not), then we should say that angels CAN do physical things (like fight with humans or whatever). Now we agree for the sake of argument, angles CAN do physical things. Still, though, Tim, what we are talking about is EATING. Eating is a physical necessity. Therefore, it wouldn't be a matter of whether they CAN eat or not, but rather that they NEED to eat. Do angels really NEED to eat? NO! They could, but what would the NEED be? In the passages you quoted the angels (if we take them literal) engaged in physical activities, but they weren't necessary for the sustainment of the angles existence. In the passage about Manna, there was no NEED for them to eat the manna in order for the Israelites to eat it.

Manna was merely called "angels food" because God gave it to them (i.e. it came from heaven).

[continued]

-- Jake Huether (jake_huether@yahoo.com), January 04, 2003.


Please, Tim, don't take our word for it. Look up a few writings on this topic. I'm sure you could even find some Church Father's writings on this. We aren't saying this to be argumentative. This is what the Church teaches, and certainly what the early Christians believed!

As a side thought - did you know that EVEN Luther believed in the True Presence of Christ in the Eucharist!?

It was only when Protestants began to really PROTEST (i.e rebell) against the Catholic Church that they began to deny this doctrine.

It's sad, but I think Luther, and probably many reformers, truly had it in their hearts to do good. After all, Luther was rightly upset at the abuse of indulgences, which were later corrected anyway (he simply made the mistake of not correcting it from inside the Church, patiently). It was a little bit later that real renegade / rebellious reformers meant real intentional harm by snowballing the “reform” into such age old teachings as the Body and Blood of Christ.

Tim, I’d like your view on what was wrong with the Catholic Church at the time of Luther. Aside from abuses (like that of indulgences), what major doctrinal errors were there? If these “doctrinal errors” were so obvious, then why didn’t Luther (or anyone else) see them before? Why was it only AFTER there was a separate “Lutheran” religion (outside the guiding boundaries of the Church) that so much “reform” began? And finally – and try to be as honest as possible, had Luther not left the Church, do you think that a) there would still be an abuse of indulgences, and b) would there be as many (if at all any) Protestant denominations?

In Christ.

-- Jake Huether (jake_huether@yahoo.com), January 04, 2003.


Hey Jake,

"How is it that you know when the Bible is to be taken figurative or literal?"

Let me re-post here what I just posted @ New Testament Scripture, do you agree or disagree?, to explain my belief.

--

There is a difference between the "Genesis account" and the "John account" in discussion. Let me explain:

With the Scripture of creation, it is the same everywhere it is mention. Literally six days and such. No other Scripture explains it any other way like it is meant spiritual, parable, or anything but literal.

On the contrary, I believe John 6 does - although as noted before in other posts - Catholics disagree. I understand that you do, but since you asked why I don't take John 6 literal, please hear me out.

Genesis 2:4 These are the generations of the heavens and of the earth when they were created, in the day that the LORD God made the earth and the heavens,

But, in John 6, we have a KEY VERSE which explains that Jesus IS NOT speaking literally, but SPIRITUALLY.

John 6:63 It is the spirit that quickeneth; the flesh profiteth nothing: the words that I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are life.

So, it is not as if I just decide what to take literally and what not to take literally. I use Scripture to show me what to take literal and what to take Spiritual.

Christ CLEARLY says "the words that I speak unto you, they are spirit" and He said that "the flesh profiteth nothing".

Now, I know you probably do not agree with my "interpretation", but that is why I see the Genesis account as literal and the John account as Spiritual.

--

I will continue... with the rest of your post...

-- Tim, the Baptist (tlw97@cox.net), January 06, 2003.


Jake - continued...

I do not based my beliefs to contradict Catholic beliefs. I honestly didn't know that Catholics did not believe in the literal Genesis account of creation. I base my belief on Scripture.

--

"Do you really think Angels ate (or continue to eat) manna, as it is the "angel's food"?" - Why not? You can not prove with Scripture or otherwise that angels did not and do eat. And with the verses of the "supper of the Lamb", how can one claim we won't be eating in Heaven?

--

"Manna was merely called "angels food" because God gave it to them (i.e. it came from heaven)." - this is both your opinion and can not be proven either.

--

"As a side thought - did you know that EVEN Luther believed in the True Presence of Christ in the Eucharist!?" - chuckle, I have two comments for this:

1] He didn't believe the same as Catholics do.

2] Just because he believed it, doesn't make it fact [now does it?].

--

"I’d like your view on what was wrong with the Catholic Church at the time of Luther." - I will comment later on this.

God Bless and it is good to talk with you again!

-- Tim, the Baptist (tlw97@cox.net), January 07, 2003.


“But, in John 6, we have a KEY VERSE which explains that Jesus IS NOT speaking literally, but SPIRITUALLY. John 6:63 It is the spirit that quickeneth; the flesh profiteth nothing: the words that I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are life.”

So, what I noticed in your post, Tim, was that you used “Spiritually” interchangeably with “figuratively”. As I tried to explain earlier, Catholics have no doubt He was talking Spiritually! That is, His flesh for us IS Spiritual nourishment. However, the fact that His flesh is food for our spirit doesn’t negate the other fact that He meant us to LITERALLY consume His Holy Flesh! When He said the flesh profiteth nothing, He was telling them that physical hunger (which they had) would pass. If Jesus was referring to His own flesh it would make no sense whatsoever! His Holy Flesh did profeteth something, It freed us from the bonds of sin!

So, John 6:63 doesn’t say anything about not literally eating Christ’s Flesh, it simply means that it is not for our physical nourishment.

-- Jake Huether (jake_huether@yahoo.com), January 07, 2003.


“"As a side thought - did you know that EVEN Luther believed in the True Presence of Christ in the Eucharist!?" - chuckle, I have two comments for this: 1] He didn't believe the same as Catholics do. 2] Just because he believed it, doesn't make it fact [now does it?].”

My point was not that because he believed it, it’s true. My point was that even he, who started the reform, didn’t try to reform this!

Tim, explain to me why it took so long for all those millions and billions of Christians to “discover” nearly 1500 years later that Christ was talking “figuratively”? Were Christians that naďve for over a thousand years?

In Christ -

Good to hear from you too! I hope your holiday went well.

-- Jake Huether (jake_huether@yahoo.com), January 07, 2003.


Jake,

"When He said the flesh profiteth nothing, He was telling them that physical hunger (which they had) would pass." - this is your opinion "interpretation" and maybe the Catholic Churches too, but not necessarily Scripturally fact. Prove that Christ wasn't saying that eating His literal flesh would "profit nothing" and that he was talking Spiritual as He does in:

Luke 4:4 And Jesus answered him, saying, It is written, That man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word of God.

"His Holy Flesh did profeteth something, It freed us from the bonds of sin!"

Actually it was His sinless blood in the cross which cleanses us from all unrighteous.

Matthew 26:28 For this is my blood of the new testament, which is shed for many for the remission of sins.

--

"Tim, explain to me why it took so long for all those millions and billions of Christians to “discover” nearly 1500 years later that Christ was talking “figuratively”?"

If you look at history, you will see why the majority of the teachings and works came from the Catholic Church and not much was heard from other Christians around the world. It wasn't because there wasn't anyone else, I can promise you.

God Bless!

-- Tim, the Baptist (tlw97@cox.net), January 07, 2003.


Eugene,

"there is no scriptural source that tells you one key verse will subvert another, in cases of lieral vs. figurative interpretation. As a substantiation, maybe. Not to dumb down the Word of God; that's blasphemous!"

So, you are saying it is "blasphemous" for me to use Scripture to decide what I take literal and figurative - but - it is okay for you to obey the Catholic Church in deciding? So again you have decided the Catholic Church is above Scripture.

"In fact, all Bible verse is susceptible to distortion, by one whose agenda can't bear the truth."

May it is you who is following the "agenda" of the Catholic Church and not the truth at all. Have you ever thought about that?

You try very hard to twist everything I say and believe to mean that I just want to be opposite of the Catholic Church. Why? Even when I tell you that I didn't know that the Catholic Church didn't believe the same as me on the Genesis account, you write:

"you didn't even know the Catholic interpretation until today. If you HAD known, your own one would necessarily oppose the Catholic Church."

You are just babbling Eugene...Not even making a point, but just making sure everyone looks at me as someone that hates or wants to disagree with everything the Catholic Church teaches. Why?

As for 2 Peter 3:8, are you sure you want to get into that? Creation tells us a lot about how the world is going to end.

But, also remember: Paslm 90:4 For a thousand years in thy sight are but as yesterday when it is past, and as a watch in the night.

-- please continue --

-- Tim, the Baptist (tlw97@cox.net), January 07, 2003.


Eugene,

Creation: 6 days - 1 day of rest

The start of 24 hours: Genesis 1:14 And God said, Let there be lights in the firmament of the heaven to divide the day from the night; and let them be for signs, and for seasons, and for days, and years:

Scripture compares creation of 6 days labor and 1 day rest to man's work week:

Ex 20:11 For in six days the LORD made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day: wherefore the LORD blessed the sabbath day, and hallowed it.

Scripture uses: 2 Peter 3:8 But, beloved, be not ignorant of this one thing, that one day is with the Lord as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day.

to compare the 6 days of creation and 1 day of rest to the 6,000 years of earth and the 1,000 years Christ reigns on earth after the 7 years of tribulation.

Do you believe:

Mr 13:26 And then shall they see the Son of man coming in the clouds with great power and glory.

Let's look at this:

Matthew 17:1 And [after six days] Jesus taketh Peter, James, and John his brother, and bringeth them up into an high mountain apart, Matthew 17:2 And was [transfigured before them]: and his face did shine as the sun, and his raiment was white as the light.

Matthew 17:3 And, behold, [there appeared unto them Moses and Elias talking with him].

Why Moses and Elias [Elijah]?

Revelation 11:3 And [I will give power unto my two witnesses], and they shall prophesy a thousand two hundred and threescore days, clothed in sackcloth.

Hmmm... That should be enough for now - for I am sure Eugene you will disagree with all of it.

May God Bless His Word!

-- Tim, the Baptist (tlw97@cox.net), January 07, 2003.


John,

"Only the Catholic Church, which Jesus founded, has the required authority and infallibility." - where do you find this is Scripture?

If this is true, then why have many Catholics within the Church disagree on issues? Which ones were fallible and which were infallible?

"AUTHORITY and INFALLIBILITY" - you are right, this is the difference between you and I. I place it in Scripture with the aid of the Holy Spirit and Christ living in every Born Again Believer. You put it in the Catholic Church alone with no need of Scripture or personal Holy Spirit or Christ work in the individuals. Or, let me say it appears that way. For the Spirit doesn't need to work in every individual, but just the ones running the Catholic Church, and everyone should just follow their words. Am I wrong?

And as for the word catholic - it was not used at the beginning for the Roman Catholic Church, it was used to explain that the universal teachings of Scripture and of Christ were supposed to be the same everywhere - therefore making all the churches unified and the teachings of Christ universal. Unified with teaching, not with a pope though.

-------

Eugene,

"Let Him speak straightforwardly out of the Scripture; don't SPIN His Holy Words!" - then take the creation account literal and don't put a spin on it. :)

God Bless!

-- Tim, the Baptist (tlw97@cox.net), January 07, 2003.


Give me Scripture to:

1] Who or What has AUTHORITY?

2] Who or What is INFALLIBLE?

Thanks!

-- Tim, the Baptist (tlw97@cox.net), January 07, 2003.


1] Who or What has AUTHORITY?

"I give unto you the keys to my kingdom"

2] Who or What is INFALLIBLE?

"whatsoever you bind on earth is bound in heaven"

Now Tim, could you provide a scripture which says that scripture has AUTHORITY apart from the Church?

-- Paul (PaulCyp@cox.net), January 08, 2003.


[If this is true, then why have many Catholics within the Church disagree on issues? Which ones were fallible and which were infallible?]

Are you serious?? Infallibility describes the official teaching of the Church, not the acceptance of that teaching by individuals!

[AUTHORITY and INFALLIBILITY" - I place it in Scripture with the aid of the Holy Spirit and Christ living in every Born Again Believer. Am I wrong?]

Well Tim, let's see - Jesus said that all people were to belong to the one Church He founded, and that they were to be united in belief and in worship. Your system has produced thousands of conflicting churches, all contradicting the beliefs of one another, with no sense of unity in belief, worship, or authority. So yes, I would have to say that a tradition which produces exactly the opposite of the stated plan of God is WRONG.

[it was used to explain that the universal teachings of Scripture and of Christ were supposed to be the same everywhere - therefore making all the churches unified and the teachings of Christ universal. Unified with teaching, not with a pope though]

Exactly! Unity and universality were to be the marks of Christ's Church, and indeed they are! Your tradition has proven that such unity is impossible without a Pope - and yet, while you state that Christianity is "supposed to be the same everywhere", you still cling stubbornly, after 450 years of constant failure and fragmentation, to the unteneble notion that you are going to find such unity without the Pope. None so blind as those who choose blindness! How obvious it is that unity cannot exist without real authority; and how obvious it is that the disunity in your tradition is the direct result of rejection of real authority.

-- Paul (PaulCyp@cox.net), January 08, 2003.


Tim:
My post is deleted; but anyway you got to read it. Fine.

Your reply, ''--You are just babbling Eugene...Not even making a point, but just making sure ***everyone looks at me as someone*** that hates or wants to disagree with everything the Catholic Church teaches. Why?''

I wasn't asking others to look at you in any way at all, Tim. ***--poor me!--*** --Come on! I was appealing only to your own conscience. You say babbling?

Some one who hates or wants to disagree with everything the Catholic Church teaches. --Why?

No, maybe not HATE, but you have your Baptist interpretations owing to the fact you're in direct opposition to an ancient Church coming down (purportedly, to you) from the apostles. She claims power to make the proper interpretation of scripture. You claim power to make a different interpretation. Why?

It becomes crucial to your sectarian belief that all her claims to apostolic authority be rejected. Otherwise, the Baptist is in error. You defend your church.

How? By changing the true meanings of Christ's words, when they seem in any way to uphold Catholic doctrine.

-- eugene c. chavez (chavezec@pacbell.net), January 08, 2003.


Cont.
Remember, I say these things to make you examine your conscience. Think about your motivations. Are you after truth, or after just a repudiation of Catholic doctrine? Is it only coincidental that you MUST dismiss as false each verse in support of Catholic doctrine found in Chapter 6 of John's gospel? You cite what? --a ''KEY verse'', ''the flesh profits nothing.''--Because, otherwise, the doctrine of the Eucharist-- KEY to Catholic faith --is more than evidently scriptural. John 6 as a unit can't stand for the Baptist Church, which denies the authenticity of the Catholic faith! So, you must selectively find a loophole by which to SPIN Christ's entire discourse.

DESPITE waht Jake Heuther plainly showed you:

Jesus allowed many of His erstwhile disciples to ''walk no more with Him--'' rather than parse His own words, ''Unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man, and drink His blood, you will not have life in you.'' Christ didn't mince His words. It stands forever. But not for the Baptists; they have no truck with Catholic doctrine. So-- any interpretation of this chapter MUST be bowdlerized and made NEUTRAL.

This is why I appeal to your conscience, Tim. Ask yourself. What is the truth? Is it what upholds Catholic faith after all? Or will you continue denying the Church; in favor of a Baptist sripture interpretation?

-- eugene c. chavez (chavezec@pacbell.net), January 08, 2003.


Tim; only the truth, remember?
WHY? --Eugene, don't SPIN His Holy Words!" - then take the creation account literal and don't put a spin on it. :) ''Smiley.''

I haven't. But the book of Genesis makes a very disputable statement, which challenges man's reason under the circumstances. SIX 24 hour days? --Yet Peter makes this inspired revelation: To God the day is as a thousand years. Literally a thousand?-- A THOUSAND years is as A SINGLE DAY-- Literally one day?

The meanings behind words like one day, six days-- are mysteries, Tim. We believe the words-- we don't always understand them. If we always knew & understood, with explicit understanding, --then why have FAITH?

God reveals some things; He doesn't ask us to understand. He demands our faith, because He owes us nothing explicit. We believe and cannot understand. No one even understands the nature of time. But we see words; and we THINK we understand.
Human wisdom is only folly to God.

-- eugene c. chavez (chavezec@pacbell.net), January 08, 2003.


In this same train of thought:
Christ says, ''Eat my flesh, drink my blood.'' (John 6.)

Certain of His disciples find this to be ''hard words.'' They walk with Him no longer.

He said it and meant it. We are to take it literally--ON FAITH. That's how He explained, your eyes will not explain this mystery, but by faith you will understand: ''The flesh profits nothing.''

At the Last Supper, faith again shows us the literal meaning of: ''Take and eat of this; this is my Body;''

We know by faith that is literally so, and we believe. But our eyes would never have given us the truth; ''the flesh profits nothing.'' Faith does!

We know God's word is truth; and we accept this revelation, again, on Christian faith. Paul clearly accepts it; he says: He who eats and drinks unworthily without distinguishing ---=SEEING -- - the body, eats and drinks judgment to himself.'' (1 Cor 2 :29.) His faith was perfect; and he demanded of the Corinthians too; their complete faith in the words of Jesus Christ.

-- eugene c. chavez (chavezec@pacbell.net), January 08, 2003.




-- eugene c. chavez (chavezec@pacbell.net), January 08, 2003.

OFF ital

-- eugene c. chavez (chavezec@pacbell.net), January 08, 2003.

[In a January 7 post, above, Tim begins to address me (seemingly out of the blue) about "authority and infallibility. The reason he did that was because he was referring to a message of mine that was subsequently deleted. Here is most of what I told him in that (now missing) message (the only 01/07 message of mine that I had retained on my disk):]

Tim, you wrote:

"If you look at history, you will see why the majority of the teachings and works came from the Catholic Church and not much was heard from other Christians around the world. It wasn't because there wasn't anyone else, I can promise you."

How can you "promise" such a thing? You cannot deliver, on the promise, because you have no facts. You have only hopes. You hope that there were Christians other than Catholics in the first millennium -- but there were none. You cannot present any evidence, because no evidence ever existed. Please try to be honest, even though it may be painful to do so.

[concluded below]

-- (jfgecik@hotmail.com), January 08, 2003.


Tim, you also wrote:
"this is your opinion 'interpretation' and maybe the Catholic Churches too, but not necessarily Scripturally fact."

It is long past time for you to stop avoiding the key truth here. I tried to engage you in this a few weeks ago, but you ignored me...
If an "interpretation" is "the Catholic Church's" interpretation, it IS "necessarily ... fact."

You can issue proof-texts till you're blue in the face, and you can declare your private interpretations till the cows come home, but they are all basically worthless, because you are 100% lacking in authority and infallibility. Only the Catholic Church, which Jesus founded, has the required authority and infallibility.

You should drop all the individual arguments about transubstantiation, creation, salvation, etc., and get busy on the subject that takes care of the whole ball of wax -- authority and infallibility. Once you solve that (as so many converts [Baptist and otherwise] have solved it), everything else is small potatoes and falls right into place. Please give it a try, OK?

God bless you.
John

-- (jfgecik@hotmail.com), January 08, 2003.


Paul,

For now, I would like to comment on one thing regarding Authority and Infallibilty.

************ start of quote

"1] Who or What has AUTHORITY? "I give unto you the keys to my kingdom"

2] Who or What is INFALLIBLE?

"whatsoever you bind on earth is bound in heaven"

Now Tim, could you provide a scripture which says that scripture has AUTHORITY apart from the Church?

************ end of quote

For the sake of argument, lets take what you are saying in Matthew 16 is Christ making Peter the "rock of the Church".

Mt 16:18 And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.

Now, let's take a look at what you suppose:

Mt 16:19 And I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.

We see "thee" and "thou", which is referring to Peter "thou art Peter".

So, if you are referring that :

AUTHORITY = "I give unto you the keys to my kingdom"

INFALLIBLE = "whatsoever you bind on earth is bound in heaven"

--

Then you have both given Peter AUTHORITY and INFALLIBILTY, but I fail to see where you find Scripture that claims this has pasted down from Peter to another. For it doesn't say the Church will that the AUTHORITY and INFALLIBILTY, but Peter will.

--

Help me out here? Where is the Scripture?

-- Tim, the Baptist (tlw97@cox.net), January 09, 2003.


Paul,

"Jesus said that all people were to belong to the one Church He founded, and that they were to be united in belief and in worship."

If might help to understand that, but reading these verses.

Eph 4:11 And he gave some, apostles; and some, prophets; and some, evangelists; and some, pastors and teachers; Eph 4:12 For the perfecting of the saints, for the work of the ministry, for the edifying of the [body of Christ]: Eph 4:13 Till we all come in the unity of the faith, and of the knowledge of the Son of God, unto a perfect man, unto the measure of the stature of the fulness of Christ:

God Bless!

-- Tim, the Baptist (tlw97@cox.net), January 09, 2003.


"Then you have both given Peter AUTHORITY and INFALLIBILTY, but I fail to see where you find Scripture that claims this has pasted down from Peter to another. For it doesn't say the Church will that the AUTHORITY and INFALLIBILTY, but Peter will."

If He wasn't refering to the Church (which Peter was the foudation for - upon YOU I will build my Church), then it wouldn't make much sense.

Why would God give Peter Authority and Infallibility when starting His Church, but then have this Authority and Infallibility pass away with Peter?

Another way to look at it is - okay, so say that God gave Peter the Authority and Infallibility and not the Church... Then, wouldn't Peter have the Authority and Infallibility to select his successor and hand him the Authority and Infallibility. Since it would be an infallible choice, then that successor would indeed have the very same Authority and Infallibility, right? Hmmm...

Jesus also told Peter and the Apostles, "As the Father Has sent me, so I send you." Therefore, since Jesus Gave Peter the Authority - under the Command of God isn't Peter to do as Jesus did and give the Authority to someone else? Also, What about, "...and if he refuses to listen to them, tell it to the Church. And if he refuses to listen EVEN to the Church (not Peter, but THE CHURCH) then treat him as a Gentile and a tax collector."

In Christ.

-- Jake Huether (jake_huether@yahoo.com), January 09, 2003.


Jake,

"Another way to look at it is - okay, so say that God gave Peter the Authority and Infallibility and not the Church... Then, wouldn't Peter have the Authority and Infallibility to select his successor and hand him the Authority and Infallibility."

You are adding words to the Scripture to support your beliefs - that are not there.

"Therefore, since Jesus Gave Peter the Authority - under the Command of God isn't Peter to do as Jesus did and give the Authority to someone else?"

Again you are just adding words to the Scripture to support your beliefs. Is Peter equal with Christ?

"What about, "...and if he refuses to listen to them, tell it to the Church. And if he refuses to listen EVEN to the Church (not Peter, but THE CHURCH) then treat him as a Gentile and a tax collector.""

This is out of context Jake, and you know it.

Must I note that if Peter was AUTHORITY and INFALLIBLE, then why did Paul have to correct him?

-----

in·fal·li·ble [ in fállb’l ] - incapable of making a mistake

-----

So, are we to believe that the Catholic Church and Peter are infallible [yet we see he wasn't], yet the Scripture is not [only because one tries to claim the Words of God are only contained in Scripture]? So only the Catholic Church is infallible? We have seen in history, the Catholic Church has also made mistakes - so then who or what is INFALLIBLE, again I ask?

-- Tim, the Baptist (tlw97@cox.net), January 09, 2003.


Friends,
It's hard for Tim the Baptist to deny that once more, in order to disqualify a claim of the Catholic Church (this time to continuity), he's strapped unless he bowdlerizes a verse somewhere out of the Word of God. It's the typical SPIN; if a passage backs up Catholicism, reach for a counterfeit interpretation & grit your teeth.

All authority given Saint Peter is obviously passed in succession to a new man for the lifetime of the church. Just as the Holy Spirit was sent us forever; not as a temporary stop-gap. Or, till ''all come in the unity of the faith, and of the knowledge of the Son of God, unto a perfect man, unto the measure of the stature of the fulness of Christ'' (Eph 4:13.) The verse in Eph. is nothing related to the Primacy of Peter; but to the Mystical Body of Christ. That is an ongoing mystery of itself; we were born 2,000 years after Saint Paul, and he was speaking of you and me as well as those Christians of Ephesus.

Tim shouldn't even ASK for biblical proof, if this is his idea of it.

-- eugene c. chavez (chavezec@pacbell.net), January 09, 2003.


Well Eugene,

If you don't have any Scriptural proof for what you believe, then why even use the Scripture [ie. Bible] at all? That seems pointless.

To add words to Scripture to prove a point does not make it fact - but shows that you regard your belief more than Scripture.

Think about it. No where in Scripture does it even come close to saying that Peter acted as a Pope, nor does it claim that he passed down the power that you claim he received from Christ. Why wouldn't he pass it down to another disciple or even Paul?

With the Holy Spirit - there is no need for a man to have total Authority and Infallibility - those are reserved for Christ!

Remember who it is that works in us - it isn't the Pope but Christ and the Holy Spirit.

-- Tim, the Baptist (tlw97@cox.net), January 09, 2003.


Please remember, Tim-- the Holy Spirit is indeed infallible. It is on His infallible authority that both the Bible and the Catholic Church are taken in faith.

If we reject the authority of the Holy Spirit to sustain the Church without error, then the Bible also is suspect. You can't have ONE aspect of the Holy Spirit's faultless assistance and deny another one.

>>>>>>><<<<<<<<

As for personal error, infallible men we aren't. The Pope can SIN; but he will not sustain an erroneous doctrine EVER. Our Church is a sheepfold-- we aren't gods, we're LAMBS. But the Shepherd is appointed by Christ; and has been promised divine protection until the end of the world. Not from human faults; from misleading the flock of Jesus, the chief Shepherd.

-- eugene c. chavez (chavezec@pacbell.net), January 09, 2003.


Tim-- You ask:

''Why wouldn't he pass it down to another disciple or even Paul?'' --A good question. Historically we can see he did; we have un unbroken line of Popes all the way back to Saint Peter. The bishops of Rome. Saint Paul wasn't called to be Pope. He was never bishop of Rome. The Bible doesn't contradict this; and I'm not adding any words to the Bible. You are asking the Bible to contradict HISTORY.

-- eugene c. chavez (chavezec@pacbell.net), January 09, 2003.


Dear Tim,

Jesus did not give gifts to the Apostles - he gave gifts to the Church. Nothing that He gave to the Church was on a temporary basis. Every gift He bestowed on the Church was meant to last until the end of time, just like the Church itself - the Holy Spirit, the Eucharist, the priesthood, the episcopacy, the Vicar of Christ, the keys to the kingdom, the sacraments, the power to forgive sins, the power to bind and loose, the power of miracles, the charisms of the Holy Spirit, the mission to make disciples of all peoples. All of these gifts have been passed on from one generation of the Church to the next, and will continue to be passed on until the end of time. If these gifts bestowed on the Church by Christ were to pass away, so would the Church. And that cannot happen, by divine decree.

In contrast, manmade churches which lack these gifts come and go every month of the year.

-- Paul (PaulCyp@cox.net), January 09, 2003.


Tim,

Then you have both given Peter AUTHORITY and INFALLIBILTY, but I fail to see where you find Scripture that claims this has pasted down from Peter to another. For it doesn't say the Church will that the AUTHORITY and INFALLIBILTY, but Peter will.

Look at it from the other side of the coin. Jesus was starting ONE church to last forever, and said the gates of hell would not prevail against it. WHY would Jesus just give AUTHORITY to one man and let it stop? You don't believe Jesus did things for no reason, do you, so what purpose would it serve?

Tim, in the South there were Protestants who supported slavery, and some who opposed it. Who wass right? They both quote the Bible as their source. We can all misinterpret scripture, that is why it makes SENSE for the Church to have AUTHORITY so that there is a perpetual correct interpretation of Scripture for us, so we can all understand the meaning in God's word. Why do YOU think Christ would want us to begin having INCORRECT interpretation of His word starting immediately after the death of Peter?!

You are also overlooking that we are told to follow Tradition (oral) as well as written. Oral Tradition is passed down through the Catholic church. Looking at the Bible only, you do not have access to this. My answer to where "in Scripture" these answers could be found is that it is in Tradition, not the written work of the Bible. We are commanded to follow this too, Tim, not just turn our back on it.

Frank

-- Someone (ChimingIn@twocents.cam), January 10, 2003.


"Must I note that if Peter was AUTHORITY and INFALLIBLE, then why did Paul have to correct him?"

Must I note that INFALLIBLE doesn't mean PERFECT. Tim, we've already discussed infallibility with you. It is obvious that you don't really care to understand it, or you would engrave it in your memory. The Popes, EVEN PETER, are sinners. The are protected by the Holy Spirit (infallible) when teaching on faith and morals. Paul corrected Peter when Peter was ACTING bad (not teaching). I mean - on the flip side of the coin, what a powerful Pope he was to recognize an error in his actions and take advice from his comrad!

No one is saying that Peter or any other Pope was perfect (or sinnless if you will). They ALL were sinners, and they all will be sinners in the future! However, just as Jesus told His Church (at the time, the apostles), John 16:13, "But when He, [John 14:17] the Spirit of truth, comes, He will [John 14:26] guide you into all the truth; for He will not speak on His own initiative, but whatever He hears, He will speak; and He will disclose to you what is to come.", we can see that when the Pope and His Bishops speak on Morals and Faith the Holy Spirit will guide them.

-- Jake Huether (jake_huether@yahoo.com), January 10, 2003.


Tim the Baptist said, ''To add words to Scripture to prove a point does not make it fact - but shows that you regard your belief more than Scripture.''

Tim, however, demands Scripture for all the facts; even if Scripture says many facts were never written at all. --John 21, :25

''. . . many other things that Jesus did, but if every one of these should be written, not even the world itself, I think, could hold the books that would have to be written.''Amen!''

We all accept the Bible's inerrancy, Tim. But is the Bible now ''all the books that have ever been written,'' to reclaim everything we know from Jesus Christ?

We have lost NOTHING WHATEVER of the teachings of Jesus Christ! Would you believe NOTHING? Everything He taught the apostles is contained in the deposit of faith; given us in the Church and safeguarded for posterity by the holy Spirit. We know this, because God is PERFECT.

The Holy Bible comprises a substantial part of this everythingTim thinks we ''regard (our)your belief more than Scripture''. But that's not so. Our belief isn't what we believe. We believe the Holy Spirit who inspired the Bible and ALSO guarded the faith of the apostles. We believe the Church on the same authority. God gave us this Church.

-- eugene c. chavez (chavezec@pacbell.net), January 10, 2003.


Eugene,

"If we reject the authority of the Holy Spirit to sustain the Church without error, then the Bible also is suspect."

Well, Paul has already claimed that the Bible is not inerrant - so, by your on words "the [Catholic] Church is suspect" of also not being without error.

" You can't have ONE aspect of the Holy Spirit's faultless assistance and deny another one."

--

"the Shepherd is appointed by Christ" - you only claim Peter.

Eph 4:11 And he gave some, apostles; and some, prophets; and some, evangelists; and some, pastors and teachers;

Eph 4:12 For the perfecting of the saints, for the work of the ministry, for the edifying of the body of Christ:

Again, we see no mention of pope, so if that was the command of God, then why wouldn't it be mentioned at least once in Scripture?

--

"You are asking the Bible to contradict HISTORY."

The history you claim, just doesn't match the presented teachings within the Scripture, Eugene. If it were so, Peter would have mentioned it. And what about the other apostles passing down their power?

--

"We all accept the Bible's inerrancy, Tim."

Don't say "we", because not all Catholics apparently agree with that.

continue...

-- Tim, the Baptist (tlw97@cox.net), January 10, 2003.


Paul,

"Jesus did not give gifts to the Apostles - he gave gifts to the Church."

What? Not all of the Christians [which are the Church of Christ] were able write Scripture nor where able to perform all of the miracles that they did.

--

"the power to forgive sins"

Lu 5:21 And the scribes and the Pharisees began to reason, saying, Who is this which speaketh blasphemies? Who can forgive sins, but God alone?

Lu 5:22 But when Jesus perceived their thoughts, he answering said unto them, What reason ye in your hearts?

Lu 5:23 Whether is easier, to say, Thy sins be forgiven thee; or to say, Rise up and walk?

Lu 5:24 But that ye may know that the Son of man hath power upon earth to forgive sins, (he said unto the sick of the palsy,) I say unto thee, Arise, and take up thy couch, and go into thine house.

* NO man has power to forgive sin, but Christ!

--

"All of these gifts have been passed on from one generation of the Church to the next, and will continue to be passed on until the end of time."

This is your opinion, but can not be held as fact - because there is NO Scripture proving it.

continue...

-- Tim, the Baptist (tlw97@cox.net), January 10, 2003.


Frank,

"My answer to where "in Scripture" these answers could be found is that it is in Tradition, not the written work of the Bible."

Christ never puts tradition equal with Scripture - Christ did condemn some traditions but never Scripture - therefore we can be assured that tradition can cause us to go wrong, but Scripture can not. God put Scripture above His own name, but never did so with tradition. I say if it isn't contain in Scripture, then [1] it wasn't important enough for us to know, [2] it can't be proven unless you can use Scripture.

----------

Jake,

"Must I note that INFALLIBLE doesn't mean PERFECT."

in·fal·li·ble - incapable of making a mistake

in·ca·pa·ble - lacking the ability, character, or strength required to do something

--

For your Scriptures in John, I used them to explain the Holy Spirit working in individuals, and someone posted that those verses were only for the apostles. [maybe I'm wrong] - but if so, then the Pope doesn't get to "use those verses" either. :)

----------

God Bless!

-- Tim, the Baptist (tlw97@cox.net), January 10, 2003.


You have to show where in scripture we have a command to arrange facts according to scripture, Tim. The scripture never said only a scriptural command or teaching was Christian. The scripture plainly supports Christian Tradition. Not Pharisee tradition from the Old Testament; the apostle's Sacred Tradition. Christ's teachings which come to the Church both as Tradition and in Scripture. We have the scripture to back it up- you have no scripture requiring Sola Scriptura.

Facts are facts, in or out of scripture. The first Pope was Peter. You deny it, you deny scripture AND Sacred Tradition.

-- eugene c. chavez (chavezec@pacbell.net), January 10, 2003.


Dear Tim the Baptist:
Here's quoting two of your statements,

"You are asking the Bible to contradict HISTORY."

The history you claim, just doesn't match the presented teachings within the Scripture, Eugene.

Tim: we refer to actual history, from the days of the apostles right up to this day. There has always been a successor to Peter, as bishop of Rome. Why should scripture tell us who the new bishops of Rome were in 1500, when the protestant ''reformation'' started? I'm surprised you can't grasp the difference between HISTORICAL facts, and the recorded events which take place in the Bible.

''If it were so, Peter would have mentioned it.'' OH? Peter died a martyr. He had no part of selecting his successor. That was an action of his fellow bishops, working in cooperation with the Holy Spirit. It happens every time a Pope dies, Tim. AND-- It doesn't get recorded in the Bible! That isn't what the Bible is for. And what about the other apostles passing down their power?''

Their ''power'' is a work of the Holy Spirit. In fact, it IS passed down. --Bishops have authority given them in the laying on of hands; today just as it was in the Acts of the Apostles. But, they are not the Popes. They are not the Vicar of Christ; that post is passed on only in Rome, where Peter was bishop. / YES-- IT IS ALL HISTORICAL for 2,000+ years now. The Catholic Church is the Church Peter headed until he died.

Tim: Do you have any idea; in what manner Saint Peter was martyred? Would you tell me how the Baptists describe Peter's martyrdom? Have you read any story on the subject? --Please relate that to us.

-- eugene c. chavez (chavezec@pacbell.net), January 10, 2003.


off I

-- eugene c. chavez (chavezec@pacbell.net), January 10, 2003.

OFF B!

-- eugene c. chavez (chavezec@pacbell.net), January 10, 2003.

Tim,

Look at it from the other side of the coin. Jesus was starting ONE church to last forever, and said the gates of hell would not prevail against it. WHY would Jesus just give AUTHORITY to one man and let it stop? You don't believe Jesus did things for no reason, do you, so what purpose would it serve?

Tim, in the South there were Protestants who supported slavery, and some who opposed it. Who wass right? They both quote the Bible as their source. We can all misinterpret scripture, that is why it makes SENSE for the Church to have AUTHORITY so that there is a perpetual correct interpretation of Scripture for us, so we can all understand the meaning in God's word. Why do YOU think Christ would want us to begin having INCORRECT interpretation of His word starting immediately after the death of Peter?!

This is the part of my question I'd like you to answer. The actual questions are in italics above, the rest is background so you know *why* I'm asking.

Frank

-- Someone (ChimingIn@twocents.cam), January 11, 2003.


I wonder why Tim is side-stepping your direct question, Frank? It must not be one with an answer neatly written in his Bible. But-- did Tim never use his own brains?

Is there a passage in scripture that forbids Tim to look at the truth impartially?

Answer Frank's question, Tim. Otherwise, you might as well admit all your time was wasted here as a Baptist. It's time to become a believer-- a Catholic.

-- eugene c. chavez (chavezec@pacbell.net), January 11, 2003.


Very well Frank and Eugene,

"WHY would Jesus just give AUTHORITY to one man and let it stop?"

I suggest why would Jesus give HIS AUTHORITY to any man to pass down to other fallible men? Christ is the only infallible man ever to live.

"Why do YOU think Christ would want us to begin having INCORRECT interpretation of His word starting immediately after the death of Peter?!"

The reason for INCORRECT interpretation is not the fault of Christ nor is it because we do not have a Pope [or 1 key Shepherd]. INCORRECT interpretation comes from holding to ones own ideas over Scripture and what the Holy Spirit shows us. Regardless of who says it or where it comes from, Truth remains true and Lies remain false.

It is the same that Catholics here have claimed before. If you read something in Scripture and have an idea - test it with the Catholic Church and they differ - you decide whether to believe the Catholic Church or yourself. But I suggest you test it not against the Catholic Church, but with other Scripture with the help of prayer and listening to the Holy Spirit.

"We can all misinterpret scripture, that is why it makes SENSE for the Church to have AUTHORITY so that there is a perpetual correct interpretation of Scripture for us, so we can all understand the meaning in God's word."

True: "We can all misinterpret scripture" including the Pope, whether you believe it or not.

False: "that is why it makes SENSE for the Church to have AUTHORITY so that there is a perpetual correct interpretation of Scripture for us".

It makes SENSE that God sent the Holy Spirit to "guide [us] into all truth".

continue...

-- Tim, the Baptist (tlw97@cox.net), January 11, 2003.


To put your trust in the Catholic Church and in a Pope is to put your faith in man:

Ps 118:8 It is better to trust in the LORD than to put confidence in man.

Ps 146:3 Put not your trust in princes, nor in the son of man, in whom there is no help.

You trust that the Holy Spirit will lead the Catholic Church, why not trust Him to lead you?

Christ has said he will never leave us:

Heb 13:5 Let your conversation be without covetousness; and be content with such things as ye have: for he hath said, [I will never leave thee, nor forsake thee].

He also said that he works in us:

Php 1:6 Being confident of this very thing, that he which hath begun a good work in you will perform it until the day of Jesus Christ:

Eph 1:13 In whom ye also trusted, after that ye heard the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation: in whom also after that ye believed, ye were sealed with that holy Spirit of promise, Eph 1:14 Which is the earnest of our inheritance until the redemption of the purchased possession, unto the praise of his glory.

God Bless!

-- Tim, the Baptist (tlw97@cox.net), January 11, 2003.


Dear Tim:
You repeatedly come back to verses out of Paul's epistles, as if they will bear out your ideas. But all these verses do is bear out the doctrines of the Catholic Church. Saint Paul wrote to the first Christians who made up the infant Catholic Church. It's logical he would say to them that God has begun a good work in them; they're in the true Church. He isn't converting the Phillipians, he's congratulating--exhorting and encouraging good Catholics!

I quote you: ''You trust that the Holy Spirit will lead the Catholic Church, why not trust Him to lead you?'' He leads me IN the Church, Tim. If I leave the Holy Church of Christ & His apostles, scripture study is no longer under the protection of the Holy Spirit. Not when there's a controversy; since only the Church can settle controversy (Matt 16 :18-19 and Matt 18 :17). NOT by cross- references of disparate bible verse!

OK, you can prove the birth of Christ in Bethlehem. Just reading, without the Holy Spirit to say so. But--a glaring example: you perversely deny the truth of an entire chapter of John's gospel! (John 6.) The Holy Spirit has been IGNORED because you reject His Church!

-- eugene c. chavez (chavezec@pacbell.net), January 11, 2003.


Hey Tim:

Here is a very direct question:

Is it your view that the Holy Spirit is the author of the divisions in the Protestant Church?

Thanks,

Gail

-- Gail (rothfarms@socket.net), January 11, 2003.


Tim,

"WHY would Jesus just give AUTHORITY to one man and let it stop?"

I suggest why would Jesus give HIS AUTHORITY to any man to pass down to other fallible men? Christ is the only infallible man ever to live.

I really don't see how we can have a meaningful discussion on this if you don't believe that Christ could or would pass down AUTHORITY to someone. For example, you claim to believe in Scripture, but who decided which books were inspired and which weren't? Do you think the Shepherd of Hermas was inspired? Maccabees 1-4? If not why not?

They were used by some in the early church, and the Catholic church with the guidance of the Holy Spirit decided that they were uninspired, so Catholics don't use them. If you don't believe in Authority, there's no reason for you to believe ANY of the Bible is inspired, or that books that were dropped from the Bible were uninspired. How do you answer this?

Also, why do you use the "abbreviated" Scripture that Martin Luther proposed rather than the TRUE Scripture passed down from the Catholic Church?

Frank

P.S. I don't know if what I'm saying above is clear, so one more time. If Christ DIDN'T pass down his AUTHORITY, how do you know what's true and what isn't? (Again, you can't say "Scripture" because Christ didn't write any. The only reason we have the "Scripture" we do is from accepting the Authority of His church.

-- Someone (ChimingIn@twocents.cam), January 11, 2003.


Eugene,

"Saint Paul wrote to the first Christians who made up the infant Catholic Church."

This is where we differ Eugene. You believe that the Catholic Church is the Church of Christ. I believe that every Christian makes up the Church, which is the body of Christ.

"I quote you: ''You trust that the Holy Spirit will lead the Catholic Church, why not trust Him to lead you?'' He leads me IN the Church, Tim."

So, you trust the Holy Spirit to lead the Catholic Church and the Catholic Church must lead you. I believe the Holy Spirit shows the truth to every Christian.

"the birth of Christ in Bethlehem" - is taught literally in Scripture.

"you perversely deny the truth of an entire chapter of John's gospel! (John 6.)" - it is you who denies that verse concerning what Christ spoke was spiritual, where I believe it means what he was talking about was spiritual and not literal.

continue...

-- Tim, the Baptist (tlw97@cox.net), January 11, 2003.


Gail,

"Is it your view that the Holy Spirit is the author of the divisions in the Protestant Church?" - No

This is what I believe. I believe, according to Scripture, the Holy Spirit works in every Christian and shows them the truth. It is what the Christian does with this truth, that causes the "divisions". If someone tells you a truth and you denie it and hold to your own ideas, then your ideas will be wrong, but you could cause others to believe it as truth. Understand?

So, the Holy Spirit hasn't and doesn't not cause "divisions" in truth, but man which claims to have truth, but does not.

-------

Someone,

"If Christ DIDN'T pass down his AUTHORITY, how do you know what's true and what isn't?"

For one to say they have the same Authority which Christ has or had, is different from having the Holy Spirit work in the lives of men to write Scripture and claim it as Scripture.

And if the Scripture is inspired, does that mean it contains errors or does not contain errors?

God Bless!

-- Tim, the Baptist (tlw97@cox.net), January 11, 2003.


Tim,
:This is where we differ Eugene. You believe that the Catholic Church is the Church of Christ.

Reply:-- Is the Church Christ founded in 30 A.D. a ''mythical'' unidentifiable church; or is it a Church which is led by 12 apostles & all their disciples; with various outposts in the Roman Empire from the first years on? I ask, what has become, Tim-- of the Church in Rome? The one to whom Paul wrote his holy epistle to the Romans, (Word of God). Has that church slid off the face of the earth? Or is it the Church whose first bishop was the apostle Peter? And the church you now consider extinct?

Why does scripture have an epistle to the Romans? So you could claim the Catholic Church --the Church in ROME, never existed? It's the very same Church you now deny! It is the Holy See of Peter-- over all the other churches except the HERETICAL offshoots. Offshoots which number, among 30,000 others, the Baptist church. It's scripturally certain as well as historically accurate.

''I believe that every Christian makes up the Church.''--Says the baptist.

Reply: --Not the heretical Christian, Tim. --Only the Christian who is faithful to the teachings of Christ through His apostles. The Church allows no heretical teachers. Sorry.

-- eugene c. chavez (chavezec@pacbell.net), January 11, 2003.


"Every Christian" cannot make up The Church, or the Church is thereby divided against itself. One Church cannot include conflicting and contradictory teachings. Jesus said a kingdom divided against itself cannot stand. The Church has stood strong for 2,000 years precisely because its truth remains undivided and pure.

-- Paul (PaulCyp@cox.net), January 11, 2003.

Would Tim make something clear?
We see my own charges: ''You perversely deny the truth of an entire chapter of John's gospel! (John 6.) Tim replies, - ''It is you who denies that verse concerning what Christ spoke was spiritual, where I believe it means what he was talking about was spiritual and not literal.

Which of our interpretations is true? Is it the word of one man, Tim the Baptist? He's determined the Holy Spirit makes his interpretation The Word of God ! OK. How come?

/ / /

He reads a Bible, determines that John, chapter 6 can't possibly corroborate a Catholic doctrine held for almost 2,000 years (they are idolaters.) and that makes his interpretation --The Holy Spirit's!

Is that a little self-serving? Maybe so, he says. But we are not bound by what any CHURCH may teach us. There is no CHURCH; except where I say there's a Church!

Now we see on what grounds Tim the Baptist determines that John chapter 6 ''Eat my flesh, and Drink my blood,'' is appropriately ''figurative''. Jesus was blowing smoke at us, in John chapter 6 !!! And the Holy Spirit??? He agrees with the Baptist church! Lol!

-- eugene c. chavez (chavezec@pacbell.net), January 11, 2003.


Unfortunately the Baptist tradition had not yet gotten underway when the biblical writers said that the Church is "the pillar and foundation of truth". Seems then that they must have been referring to some other Church, one that existed at that time, one which today can demonstrate a 2,000 year history.

-- Paul (PaulCyp@cox.net), January 11, 2003.

Eugene,

For the moment, since you keep bringing up John 6, let me give you a few more Scriptures I would like for you to explain to me.

Mt 4:3-4 And when the tempter came to him, he said, If thou be the Son of God, command that these stones be made bread. But he answered and said, It is written, Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God.

Job 23:12 Neither have I gone back from the commandment of his lips; I have esteemed the words of his mouth more than my necessary food.

Jer 15:16 Thy words were found, and I did eat them; and thy word was unto me the joy and rejoicing of mine heart: for I am called by thy name, O LORD God of hosts.

Eze 3:1-4 Moreover he said unto me, Son of man [Christ], eat that thou findest; eat this roll, and go speak unto the house of Israel. So I opened my mouth, and he caused me to eat that roll. And he said unto me, Son of man, cause thy belly to eat, and fill thy bowels with this roll that I give thee. Then did I eat it; and it was in my mouth as honey for sweetness. And he said unto me, Son of man, go, get thee unto the house of Israel, and speak with my words unto them.

Re 10:9-10 And I went unto the angel, and said unto him, Give me the little book. And he said unto me, Take it, and eat it up; and it shall make thy belly bitter, but it shall be in thy mouth sweet as honey. And I took the little book out of the angel's hand, and ate it up; and it was in my mouth sweet as honey: and as soon as I had eaten it, my belly was bitter.

I will get to the rest of you and Paul's posts later.

God Bless His Words!

-- Tim, the Baptist (tlw97@cox.net), January 11, 2003.


Tim,
Our Lord said to the Jews: ''I am the bread of life. Your fathers ate (bread from heaven) the manna in the desert and have died.''

So Christ knew well what bread signifies for life. He says nevertheless, ''I am the bread that came down from heaven.''

He is bread without which we have no life. His Word isn't the bread. Jesus is the bread; He declares it in plain words. We cannot eat a word; but Christ gives His own flesh. (John 6 :57) You can't get around it, Tim. When the symbolic sense is intended, there's no ambiguity. When Jesus says ''Eat my flesh; drink my blood-- ''

There is no symbolic sense apparent.

Unless you're determined to deny a Catholic doctrine almost 2,000 years in force.

-- eugene c. chavez (chavezec@pacbell.net), January 11, 2003.


Hey Tim,

You said, "This is what I believe. I believe, according to Scripture, the Holy Spirit works in every Christian and shows them the truth. It is what the Christian does with this truth, that causes the "divisions". If someone tells you a truth and you denie it and hold to your own ideas, then your ideas will be wrong, but you could cause others to believe it as truth. Understand?"

Yes, Tim, I understand perfectly. You have very nicely defined the underlying foundation of the Protestant Reformation -- Subjectivism!

Your interpretation, as well as anyone else's, apart from the "Church which is the foundation of the truth," can, at best, offer a subjective interpretation of scripture!

Now, I just have one more question: Can you say with 100% certainty that your interpretation of scripture is accurate?

Okay, gotta go,

Love,

Gail

-- Gail (rothfarms@socket.net), January 12, 2003.


Eugene,

"Is the Church Christ founded in 30 A.D. a ''mythical'' unidentifiable church; or is it a Church which is led by 12 apostles & all their disciples; with various outposts in the Roman Empire from the first years on? I ask, what has become, Tim-- of the Church in Rome?"

You are mistaken if you think that the Catholic Church of Rome was founded in 30 A.D. by the Christ or the apostles and Poped by Peter. Let's take a look a some churches in Scripture.

Ga 1:22 And was unknown by face unto the [churches of Judaea] which were in Christ:

Ac 2:5 And there were [dwelling at Jerusalem] Jews, devout men, out of every nation under heaven. Ac 2:47 Praising God, and having favour with all the people. And [the Lord added to the church daily] such as should be saved.

What church is this?

Ac 7:37 This is that [Moses], which said unto the children of Israel, A prophet shall the Lord your God raise up unto you of your brethren, like unto me; him shall ye hear. Ac 7:38 [This is he, that was in the church] in the wilderness with the angel which spake to him in the mount Sina, and with our fathers: who received the lively oracles to give unto us:

What church is this?

Ac 8:1 And Saul was consenting unto his death. And at that time there was a great persecution against [the church which was at Jerusalem]; and they were all scattered abroad throughout the regions of Judaea and Samaria, except the apostles.

Ac 9:31 Then had [the churches rest throughout all Judaea and Galilee and Samaria], and were edified; and walking in the fear of the Lord, and in the comfort of the Holy Ghost, were multiplied.

continue...

-- Tim, the Baptist (tlw97@cox.net), January 12, 2003.


Ac 11:26 And when he had found him, he brought him unto Antioch. And it came to pass, that a whole year they assembled themselves with the church, and taught much people. And the disciples were called Christians first in Antioch.

Not Rome?

There are so many churches mentioned in Scripture, and I don't see any of them being run from Rome or looking to Rome for guidance. Churches are places where Christians meet, but The Church is the all Christians in the Body of Christ.

Eph 5:30 For we are members of his body, of his flesh, and of his bones.

I do find these verses about Rome,

Ac 18:2 And found a certain Jew named Aquila, born in Pontus, lately come from Italy, with his wife Priscilla; (because that Claudius had commanded all Jews to depart from Rome:) and came unto them.

Ac 19:21 After these things were ended, [Paul] purposed in the spirit, when he had passed through Macedonia and Achaia, to go to Jerusalem, saying, After I have been there, [I must also see Rome].

Infact, who does Christ send to Rome? Peter? Nope. Paul.

Ac 23:11 And the night following the Lord stood by him, and said, Be of good cheer, Paul: for as thou hast testified of me in Jerusalem, so must thou bear witness also at Rome.

God Bless!

-- Tim, the Baptist (tlw97@cox.net), January 12, 2003.


Paul, ""Every Christian" cannot make up The Church, or the Church is thereby divided against itself. One Church cannot include conflicting and contradictory teachings." Eph 4:11 And he gave some, apostles; and some, prophets; and some, evangelists; and some, pastors and teachers;
Eph 4:12 For the perfecting of the saints, for the work of the ministry, for the edifying of the body of Christ:
Eph 4:13 Till we all come in the unity of the faith, and of the knowledge of the Son of God, unto a perfect man, unto the measure of the stature of the fulness of Christ:
Eph 4:14 That we henceforth be no more children, tossed to and fro, and carried about with every wind of doctrine, by the sleight of men, and cunning craftiness, whereby they lie in wait to deceive;
Eph 4:15 But speaking the truth in love, may grow up into him in all things, which is the head, even Christ:
Eph 4:16 From whom the whole body fitly joined together and compacted by that which every joint supplieth, according to the effectual working in the measure of every part, maketh increase of the body unto the edifying of itself in love.
Scripture is a Wonderful thing! God Bless!

-- Tim, the Baptist (tlw97@cox.net), January 12, 2003.

Eugene,

"He is bread without which we have no life. His Word isn't the bread. Jesus is the bread; He declares it in plain words. We cannot eat a word; but Christ gives His own flesh. (John 6 :57) You can't get around it, Tim."

So, you say we can not literally eat a book, but even though the Scripture says not to eat or drink blood, it is okay for us to drink the blood of Christ. Wouldn't that be Christ contraditing what is in Scripture? I do believe so.

Your grounds of belief "seem" to be founded on personal thought than any fact of Scripture.

Just think about it, Eugene. Why would Christ want us to do something to remember Him by, which He teaches in Scripture no to do?

-- Tim, the Baptist (tlw97@cox.net), January 12, 2003.


Gail,

"Can you say with 100% certainty that your interpretation of scripture is accurate?"

There is Scripture that I believe I have 100% accuracy in some of my beliefs [but not alone, many here would like to believe it is just Tim sitting at his desk reading the Scripture all alone and thinking everything he wants to be errant, but that is not so.] I listen to preaching, I read books, and match both up with Scripture - and pray to ask the Holy Spirit to show me the Truth. But, I am also sure that I hold beliefs that may vary from person to person, that I am not 100% convinced about. Therefore, I do not teach them nor do I hold someone in error if they do not agree - unless I can see from Scripture they are totally off key.

I ask you. How do you know what you believe to be 100% accurate? Is it because the Catholic Church tells you it is, or is it because it is in Scripture and the Holy Spirit has shown you?

Regardless of who teaches Truth, it is Truth. And if a Christian searches the Scripture they will see Truth, with the guidance of the Holy Spirit of God. Again, WE ERR when we do not listen to the Spirit of God.

God Bless!

-- Tim, the Baptist (tlw97@cox.net), January 12, 2003.


Tim:
Just because you say: ''There are so many churches mentioned in Scripture, and I don't see any of them being run from Rome or looking to Rome for guidance. Churches are places where Christians meet, but The Church is the all Christians in the Body of Christ.
Eph 5:30 For we are members of his body, of his flesh, and of his bones.''
)))))))))))))) ((((((((((((

How is this contrary to the Catholic faith? everybody will understand by the words of Christ in Matt 16:18 Christ did'nt found ''many churches''. One Church is all Christ founded-- the aggregate outposts not just in Judea, or outside of Palestine and Asia Minor. One Church, the ''universal'' Church comprised of all her ''universal'' --CATHOLIC means universal, --believers scattered in the ancient world. ALL recognizing Peter as their superior. The POPE!

Did you think Christ founded a slew of churches; each autonomous? That is plainly contrary to scripture.

Since Peter is appointed by Jesus (whether or not you follow) the place where Peter died is his outpost, his mission. That happened to be Rome. His successor in that bishopric is the new leader of all Christians.

You maintain the Church is the Christians in the Body of Christ. Perfectly correct! The Catholic Church. Not a heretical offshoot with no authority to teach. Which makes denominations of non- Catholics OUTSIDE Christ's mystical Body; or at most, fallen- away Catholics. Christ didn't found a variety of Christian denominations, Tim.

By itself that should long ago have caused you to question the so-called ''Baptist Church''-- a church Christ never founded.

-- eugene c. chavez (chavezec@pacbell.net), January 12, 2003.


''--Scripture says not to eat or drink blood, it is okay for us to drink the blood of Christ?''

Christ Our Holy Redeemer said-- ''Unless you EAT the flesh of the Son of Man, and DRINK His blood, you shall NOT have life in you.'' (John 6:54)

Which clearly means you have to rethink the way you've bowdlerized the word of God. I didn't write it; Saint John wrote it. Was John the evangelist contradicting the word of God? No-- YOU ARE, Tim.

Jesus didn't say, ''Unless you drink a SYMBOL of my blood.'' And the OT law is not speaking of Jesus' blood, but the blood of animals. A little more intellectual honesty, Tim. --Please!

-- eugene c. chavez (chavezec@pacbell.net), January 12, 2003.


Eugene,

You completely avoid my post, Eugene.

1] Paul was called to Rome, not Peter.

Ac 23:11 And the night following the Lord stood by him, and said, Be of good cheer, Paul: for as thou hast testified of me in Jerusalem, so must thou bear witness also at Rome.

2] Paul makes himself equal with Peter.

2co 12:11 I am become a fool in glorying; ye have compelled me: for I ought to have been commended of you: for in nothing am I behind the very chiefest apostles, though I be nothing.

3] No where does Scripture claim that Peter was set up in Rome, nor does it claim that he was Pope, or instructed all of the churches from Rome.

If you have Scripture, let me see it.

God Bless!

-- Tim, the Baptist (tlw97@cox.net), January 12, 2003.


Eugene,

P.S.

The reason the O.T. was talking about animals, was they weren't trying to eat people back then... :)

If it were okay to eat people, I am sure that would still include not drinking their blood.

-- Tim, the Baptist (tlw97@cox.net), January 12, 2003.


Hi Tim,

I believe divine revelation is revealed through Scripture (of course), and the holy traditions taught by the rock-solid Church of all ages! If I come across a doctrine (in the Church) that I have trouble with, I pray and ask the Holy Spirit to enlighten me. He has never failed to transform dogma into living supernatural realities! I have to tell you, Tim, in all honesty, these doctrines of the Church which seem so bizarre to the Protestant, are edifying jewels of amazing brilliance and dimension, enriching by walk with Jesus Christ, and giving me a heavenly perspective.

What you said about only teaching what you KNOW to be absolute truth from scripture, would surely seem to limit your doctrine. What doctrines do you hold to which you believe are 100% accurate, i.e., infallible? (You don't have to give me the scriptural support, I am really just trying to find some commonalities between your beliefs and ours).

Thanks,

Gail

P.S. One of things that frustrated me so while a Protestant is that every church has a set of "infallible truths" they teach with vigor, i.e., their distinctive doctrine. But I found I could not completely agree with any of their assertions, and furthermore found it nonsensical to DIVIDE over them. Truly, the divisions that have resulted from man's "private revelations" are not only a scandal, a mockery, and a source of great confusion to the nonbeliever, but has been the precipitating factor in enormous bloodshed; Christians killing Christians (post-Reformation)! Does Bruce Shelley's book elaborate on the Peasant Wars and the dozens, if not hundreds, of wars that were sparked in Europe by the Reformation? (I read that book along time ago, lent it to someone, and never got it back!)

-- Gail (rothfarms@socket.net), January 12, 2003.


Dear Tim,
Why don't you read Christ's words in John 6 as He spoke them? You would, if they weren't proof we have His flesh for eating and His blood for drinking. Strange you try to say ''I'' avoided your post, when that item in John 6 is too hot for you to handle.

You lined up a few arguments against Peter having been in Rome. But it is historically certain; even to protestant Bible ''scholars'' he died there during Nero's persecutions. He was already the Head apostle; and would have been so even in another place. but, it

-- eugene c. chavez (chavezec@pacbell.net), January 12, 2003.


Darn, I touched submit accidentally
Peter had the authority of Christ; and that's scripturally certain. That Paul was ''equal'' is OK by me; but Paul wasn't given the grace of being a Pope. He was a travelling missionary apostle.

Paul also died in Rome, a martyr. He was beheaded there; because a Roman citizen couldn't be crucified. When Paul died, he was succeeded only by another missionary apostle-- one with no leadership capacity over the Church.

But Peter's successor was bishop for that Church-- to whom Paul had written the epistle to the Romans.

That Church remains in Rome to this day. With the present bishop, His Holiness John Paul II. You can't stop her, Tim! The Church survived persecutions, the Caesars, heresies, schism, apostates, and assassins (John Paul II was shot at point blank!) Can you tell us the manner in which the holy apostle Peter was martyred??? Please tell us what you were taught, in the Baptist denomination.

-- eugene c. chavez (chavezec@pacbell.net), January 12, 2003.


Why is it that when a Protestants insist that Peter was "first among equals", they always emphasize the word "equals", suggesting that Peter had no special authority beyond that of the other Apostles, and simply ignore the word "first"? It is quite correct to say that peter was first among equals, just as the Pope is today. The Church has only three levels of ordained clergy - deacons, priests, and bishops. The Bishop of Rome is indeed a bishop, and when he speaks of the episcopacy, he often refers to them as "my brother Bishops". He has no greater fullness of Holy Orders than any other bishop, so all bishops are therefore "equals". However, various bishops are called to various functions in the Church, and are gifted by the Holy Spirit with graces and charisms appropriate to their particular calling. Since the Bishop of Rome is called to stand as Vicar of Christ, and visible head of the Universal Church, he has been given those gifts which make it possible for him to fulfill that mission - particularly the charisms of authority and infallibility, without which the Church would be doomed to denominationalism. So, the fact that bishops are all "equal" does not negate the fact that one bishop alone holds the Keys to the Kingdom - just as one Apostle alone held them - and is therefore clearly FIRST among equals.

-- Paul (PaulCyp@cox.net), January 12, 2003.

Another item that Tim saw too hot to handle:

He didn't answer my question, ''What happened to the Church which was in Rome; all the while Paul was writing his epistle to the Romans?'' He must have expected that Church to survive; since in the letter he states this Church's faith was celebrated all over the world (Rom 1, :8).

Has that Church slid off the face of the earth, Tim? Might it not be in the vicinity of the Vatican states; with a large Basilica there or thereabouts? What do Baptists believe about the Church Paul wrote to? Is that only a phantom church; with no Pope? Because-- it seems very scriptural to me.

-- eugene c. chavez (chavezec@pacbell.net), January 12, 2003.


“To put your trust in the Catholic Church and in a Pope is to put your faith in man:”

We’ve been over this before – but you keep playing it, as if we didn’t hear you the first time. Tim, we trust only Christ! However, because we Trust in Christ, we by necessity must trust His Church! Don’t you see. If you trust Christ, you have to trust His Holy Words, “the gates of hell will not prevail against it [His Church]. So, yes, we trust in the Church and in the Pope, but ONLY because we first put our trust in Christ!

“So, you trust the Holy Spirit to lead the Catholic Church and the Catholic Church must lead you. I believe the Holy Spirit shows the truth to every Christian.”

How can this be true when every Protestant Christian believes something different!? Is the Holy Spirit Divided?

“where I believe it means what he was talking about was spiritual and not literal.”

We’ve also talked about this, Tim. There is no distinction for you between Spiritual and figurative. For us, Jesus was talking Spiritually, yet literally. That is, His Body and Blood are not for our physical need but for our Spiritual need.

-- Jake Huether (jake_huether@yahoo.com), January 13, 2003.


“Mt 4:3-4 And when the tempter came to him, he said, If thou be the Son of God, command that these stones be made bread. But he answered and said, It is written, Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God.”

Again, this is in reference to physical hunger. We can’t live on bread along (physically). But the Bread which Christ gives is His Flesh for the [Spiritual] life of the world.

“Job 23:12 Neither have I gone back from the commandment of his lips; I have esteemed the words of his mouth more than my necessary food.”

Tim, we aren’t talking about eating Christ’s Body and Blood for physical nourishment! It is for our Spiritual edification!

“Jer 15:16 Thy words were found, and I did eat them; and thy word was unto me the joy and rejoicing of mine heart: for I am called by thy name, O LORD God of hosts.”

This is figurative, like, “I ate up all that he said”. In other words, I listened to it all. But Christ specifically tells us to eat and drink His Body and Blood, Not his words!

-- Jake Huether (jake_huether@yahoo.com), January 13, 2003.


Also Tim, you keep stating that no one can be infallible, yet you do not deny that the “inspired” Scriptures were infallibly chosen. Therefore, you believe that those individuals who chose which Scriptures were to be placed in the Bible were infallible, because they were guided by the Spirit. This is exactly what we believe. Why do you deny that one could likewise be guided by the Spirit now? We don’t deny that the Pope can be fallible (when not speaking on faith and morals). We believe he is infallible only when teaching thus.

Also, interestingly enough, you believe that St. John, St. Peter, St. Paul, St. Luke, etc. were all infallible (but it is clear that they were sinners) – otherwise how could you believe what they wrote was true? So, you are telling us that infallibility was only available for those who were writing the Scripture and for those who chose which Scripture to be placed in the Bible? But once everything was written and everything was chosen, then infallibility by inspiration of the Spirit ceased to exist? It is interesting to me that you do believe in Catholic doctrine– but only when it is necessary to defend Protestant doctrine. If you don’t think the Pope can be infallible while teaching on faith and morals, then how on earth do you believe that early Church fathers (who were Catholic) could choose which Scripture was inspired? Besides that – how could you believe that all the Scripture writers were inspired. They were sinners too, Tim – do you doubt that? Yet they wrote and did things infallibly. Why not now? Because if you decided to believe it, you would have to throw out what your Pastor is teaching you about the Catholic Church!? Tim, please think about this.

-- Jake Huether (jake_huether@yahoo.com), January 13, 2003.


Jake,

He couldn't *quite* believe that, because he believes the books comprising the Bible were in error for 1200 or so years (assuming of course he uses the edited Bible of the Protestants). So really he believes that the councils at Hippo and Carthage *weren't* inspired, but that Martin Luther WAS! That would be a better thing for him to explain, why Jesus would let His church use errant Scripture for 1200+ years, and then give the True Scripture to one fallible man.

Pretty interesting, but not for me.

Frank

-- Someone (ChimingIn@twocents.cam), January 13, 2003.


Hi Frank:

I think the typical Protestant belief is that the Holy Spirit inspired the Catholic bishops in the fourth century to canonize the N.T., but that the Holy Spirit then inspired the Protestants in the 16th century to un-canonize the deuterocanicals! I know, it defies logic. But that is their position.

Also, with regard to the pope, I really cannot understand the vengeance cast at the papacy. EVERY organization, whether it be secular or religious has SOMEONE in charge. Why shouldn't the Church be allowed to have someone in charge as well?

It is interesting that the Protestants in the Reformation hated the papacy so much that they preferred State authority OVER the papacy, and in fact fought many wars in that regard. They were so vehemently opposed to the Church, that they actually preferred a secular government to that of the Church, and in fact tipped their hats in homage to kings, literally placing that king as their spiritual head! (Sounds like the work of that rascally devil to me!)

Gotta go,

Gail

-- Gail (rothfarms@socket.net), January 13, 2003.


Eugene,

"the apostle's Sacred Tradition."

Okay, let's stay on this point for a moment, shall we? I believe the Apostle's tradition which you speak of was merely the same Scripture which they wrote, yet was taught before it was written for everyone to have.

But, for the sake of argument: Let's say that "the apostle's Sacred Tradition" is different from Scripture. Okay. Well, it had to have all been said BEFORE the apostles died. So, why does the Catholic Church seem to come out with new teachings and call it "the apostle's Sacred Tradition"? That doesn't make any sense to me. The Catholic Church has not been the same for 2000 years, and please don't try to claim it has. History disproves it. It "the apostle's Sacred Tradition" where so, it should have been passed down in the centuries and been published along with the Latin Vulgate. Doesn't that make sense? Does to me.

"The first Pope was Peter. You deny it, you deny scripture AND Sacred Tradition."

Even if I was to consider Peter to be a Pope or leader of all the churches of his day - there still remains no Scriptural proof that his power and/or authority was passed down to any other. That has been falsely drawn from Scripture being misinterpreted. And I believe in your heart, you know it.

Heb 4:12 For the word of God is quick, and powerful, and sharper than any twoedged sword, piercing even to the dividing asunder of soul and spirit, and of the joints and marrow, and is a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart.

continue...

-- Tim, the Baptist (tlw97@cox.net), January 13, 2003.


"There has always been a successor to Peter, as bishop of Rome."

That wasn't created till Leo and he was number 45. And "on 30 October 451, however, the same council [council of Chalcedon] gave the bishop of Constantinople, as bishop of New Rome, authority equal to Leo's." So, there a Pope of the East and a Pope of the West. Two heads of one Church?

"Peter died a martyr. He had no part of selecting his successor. That was an action of his fellow bishops, working in cooperation with the Holy Spirit."

FACT: "Peter died a martyr."

OPINION: "He had no part of selecting his successor. That was an action of his fellow bishops, working in cooperation with the Holy Spirit."

Don't you think that Peter could have picked one before he died. I am sure they didn't just grab him and kill him right away. Wasn't Peter cruxcified upside down on a cross?

continue...

-- Tim, the Baptist (tlw97@cox.net), January 13, 2003.


"Why don't you read Christ's words in John 6 as He spoke them?"

Joh 6:53 Then 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.

Okay, are you happy? lol!

Now, please read these verses for me:

Joh 6:48 I am that bread of life.

Joh 6:63 It is the spirit that quickeneth; the flesh profiteth nothing: the words that I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are life.

Wait, check out this verse:

Joh 6:35 And Jesus said unto them, I am the bread of life: he that cometh to me shall never hunger; and he that believeth on me shall never thirst.

Do you still get hungry and thirsty after eating the body and blood of Christ? Why? Don't you take this verse literal too?

continue...

-- Tim, the Baptist (tlw97@cox.net), January 13, 2003.


As a side note:

Joh 6:39-40 And this is the Father's will which hath sent me, that of all which he hath given me I should lose nothing, but should raise it up again at the last day. And this is the will of him that sent me, that every one which seeth the Son, and believeth on him, may have everlasting life: and I will raise him up at the last day.

It is impossible once a person is saved, to loose it or go to Hell.

--

"''What happened to the Church which was in Rome; all the while Paul was writing his epistle to the Romans?'' He must have expected that Church to survive; since in the letter he states this Church's faith was celebrated all over the world (Rom 1, :8)."

To survive, maybe. To rule as the Roman Catholic Church, I doubt it. I do not denie a church in Rome, I denie a Roman Catholic Church built from Peter that oversees all of the churches of the world, taking on the job of the Holy Spirit.

God Bless!

-- Tim, the Baptist (tlw97@cox.net), January 13, 2003.


Gail,

"What doctrines do you hold to which you believe are 100% accurate, i.e., infallible? (You don't have to give me the scriptural support, I am really just trying to find some commonalities between your beliefs and ours)."

I don't study the Scripture to contradict Catholic doctrines. That would be pointless. I study Scripture, pray, and ask the Holy Spirit to show me the Truth - regardless of who it agrees or disagrees with. I am not playing a Protestant against Catholic role. So, I do not want to just write down all of my beliefs and then have a mass suicide rush of posts that I will have to try to defend. If we come across something here, you will see my side, I'm sure. And maybe we will actually agree on some things. :)

"One of things that frustrated me so while a Protestant is that every church has a set of "infallible truths" they teach with vigor, i.e., their distinctive doctrine. But I found I could not completely agree with any of their assertions, and furthermore found it nonsensical to DIVIDE over them."

I found these statements very interesting Gail. Let me ask you honestly; You write: "I found I could not completely agree with any of their assertions". So, when you found that you could not agree completely with them, you left? But, what happens when you disagree with the Catholic teachings? Don't try to tell me that you have always 100% agreed with the Catholic teaching from the very moment you read it - even if you had other ideas after reading Scripture yourself.

"I think the typical Protestant belief is that the Holy Spirit inspired the Catholic bishops in the fourth century to canonize the N.T., but that the Holy Spirit then inspired the Protestants in the 16th century to un-canonize the deuterocanicals!"

Sorry, but I have never heard of this before.

continue...

-- Tim, the Baptist (tlw97@cox.net), January 13, 2003.


And as for "It is interesting that the Protestants in the Reformation hated the papacy so much that they preferred State authority OVER the papacy, and in fact fought many wars in that regard." - maybe it was because the Catholic Church was created by men that wanted power, which did what they wanted to do, when they wanted to do and use God's name to make it okay.

------------

Jake,

Christ is the Word.

The writing and/or choosing of Scripture does not make the Catholic Church nor the men infallible. It makes the Holy Spirit infallible in working in their hearts and minds to do the will of God Almighty.

There are no new revelations, which are not contained in the Scripture. So, there is no need for any other infallible traditions or additions to the Scripture.

The Catholic dream is to consider every godly man of history to be a Roman Catholic. That is both incorrect and just a hope and wish. You know that isn't true Jake. The word catholic was used because the churches around the world were universally preaching the Word of God - not listening to a Pope in the Roman Catholic Church.

As for "Because if you decided to believe it, you would have to throw out what your Pastor is teaching you about the Catholic Church!?" - I have told you here before, I pastor does not teach or preach against the Roman Catholic Church. He may mention one thing or so every once in a while - but he is told using all of his time to curse the Catholic Church. Good grief.

continue...

-- Tim, the Baptist (tlw97@cox.net), January 13, 2003.


Frank,

Do you realize that not all Catholic fathers agreed with the Scripture additions which the Catholic Church included? Did you also know that the added books contain errors, which the Old and New Testaments do not? Did you know?

------------

God Bless and good night!

-- Tim, the Baptist (tlw97@cox.net), January 13, 2003.


Tim,

Astounding statement! Can you show me your abbreviated "Bible" before the Catholic Church codified it? If not on what do you base your assertion?

Frank

-- Someone (ChimingIn@twocents.cam), January 14, 2003.


Tim writes:

"It is impossible once a person is saved, to loose it or go to Hell."

This is just not Biblical. If it were, we Christians wouldn't need the warning:

Philippians 2:12 - "Therefore, my beloved, as you have always obeyed, so now, not only as in my presence but much more in my absence, work out your own salvation with fear and trembling."

Further, a good parable that discredits this theory is the Prodigal Son. In this parable, the son was living in his father's house. He rejected his father for a life of sin. He then repented and came back to his father. He had his inheritance...he lost it...he got it back.

Our Lord is the "Good shepherd." We can be part of His flock, we can get lost, and we can be found again. When we are lost, Our Lord calls to us. We hear His voice and come back to Him.

John 10:14, - "[Jesus says] 'I am the good shepherd; I know my own and my own know me,'"

Matthew 18:12 - "'If a man has a hundred sheep, and one of them has gone astray, does he not leave the ninety-nine on the mountains and go in search of the one that went astray? And if he finds it, truly, I say to you, he rejoices over it more than over the ninety-nine that never went astray.'"

We sinners are with the Good Shepherd...and we go astray (sin)...and He searches for us.

In Christ,

Mateo

-- (MattElFeo@netscape.net), January 14, 2003.


Hi Tim:

You said, "I found these statements very interesting Gail. Let me ask you honestly; You write: "I found I could not completely agree with any of their assertions". So, when you found that you could not agree completely with them, you left?"

We attended a Word of Faith Church for four years. I find that doctrine wholly materialistic, hedonistic and contrary to the gospel. It also produces selfishness, which of course is sin. The focus is always on "what Jesus can do for ME!"

We checked into numerous churches. Assembly of God (which I love) puts so much emphasis on speaking in tongues, that it trumps the more noble gift -- charity. I noticed that the people seem to think of that gift as a "badge of honor." But the preacher at our local AG is DYNAMITE!

We don't agree with Presbyterians and their cold doctrine of predestination. We don't agree with Baptists that you are eternally secure after you "pray the prayer." Most of the remaining churches in our area are so liberal as to deny the virgin birth! So that's out!

We visited one church where I swear we were expecting them to get a bag of snakes out (it was pentecostal to the maximum degree). We ran out of their like our rearends were on fire, threw the kiddos in the back, locked the doors, and screeched out of the parking lot.

***********

-- Gail (rothfarms@socket.net), January 14, 2003.


Wesleyan. Their views of sanctification are quite close to catholocism, however they believe that you don't receive the gift of the Holy Spirit until you are completely sanctified, which I totally disagree with. You cannot get sanctified without the the Holy Spirit. Actually, we were at that church for a year. The problem there was that the board of directors were all from the same family. The pastors (3) comprised a father and two sons! A little too nepotistic for us!

Gotta Go,

Gail

P.S. It never occurred to me that you would have so many infallible doctrines that you wouldn't be able to easily and quickly name them! It wasn't a trap, I promise! I just figured they would be simple, straightforward dogmas. But you're probably wise in keeping them to yourself.

-- Gail (rothfarms@socket.net), January 14, 2003.


Ok quick answer to the original question of this thread. Metaphors do exist. 8-)

Now to answer to question a bit more fairly, I will explain this. Let us suppose we are right there now with Jesus at the last supper, and he is trying to show to us, what is going to take place (which is his crucifixion), and in his explanation he takes the bread and says "You see this ?" , starts breaking it and says "this is my body" , showing that he's going to be put to death by great pain. Then takes the wine, showing that his blood will be shed. Had Jesus been crucified by this stage ? No. Was that his actual body ? No. It was bread and wine. Is it possible to use such language without lying ?

Absolutely. Metaphorical language is used throughout the bible. Just as Christ said I am the pasture, does this mean Christ was green grass for cows to eat ? No he was talking about Himself in a spiritual sense, that we as His sheep can be well nourished by his life.

Somehow you believe that priests learnt some special incantation that allows bread to change into flesh, wine to blood. Where do you think they learnt these incantations from ? Do you think that after the supper ended, Jesus said "Now come over here and I'll show you how I did it... if you whisper blah blah blah, hey presto, it'll change the bread to flesh and wine to blood." Do you believe in this sorcery ? Do you know what the bible speaks about sorcery ? What i'd like to know is why if you have such a tough time accepting that it could in fact be spiritual than literal, why can you not accept the 6 day account of Genesis as being 6 literal days ? Exodus clearly confirms by saying "For in 6 days, God created the heavens and the earth." Is this verse literal or spiritual ? What do you have to say about that verse in Exodus ?

-- Oliver Fischer (spicenut@excite.com), January 14, 2003.


Dear Oliver,

I would be fascinated to know how picking up a dinner roll and saying "This is MY Body" would show that he's going to be put to death by great pain???. Sorry, I don't see the connection. Furthermore, He had already prepared the Apostles for this moment by teaching them "My flesh is real food; my blood is real drink" ... "unless you eat of my flesh and drink of my blood, you have no life in you". What Jesus did and said at the Last Supper was not a new teaching to the Apostles. It was simply the final explanation of teaching they had been hearing for three years, and had already fully accepted - which is why they showed no surprise or confusion when Jesus said "This is My Body". Also, if this act on the part of Jesus was simply a prediction of His death, why did He then command the Apostles to "do this in remembrance of Me"? What would be accomplished by their restating this prediction until the end of time? And, if it was no more than that, why does Paul tell us that "whoever eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner shall be guilty of the body and the blood of the Lord" (Corinthians 11:27)? How would repeating a prediction of His death make us guilty of His Body and Blood? And for that matter, why would one have to be "worthy" to simply restate such a prediction?? Looks to me like there's a lot more here than you are capable of perceiving.

continued ...........

-- Paul (PaulCyp@cox.net), January 14, 2003.


You are correct in stating that the reference to pasture is an analogy. And, like any good analogy (Jesus was a master of analogy), the point of comparison is obvious, just as you explained it. Every good analogy must have such an obvious point of comparison. He is the vine and we are the branches BECAUSE the branches receive life from their connection to the vine. Obvious. So, if Jesus was speaking analogically at the Last Supper, please complete this analogy for me ... A dinner roll is like a human body BECAUSE ... ??? Maybe it's obvious to you, but not to me. If Jesus was attempting an analogy here, He wasn't up to His usual form.

The prayer that priests say during the consecration of the Eucharist is the exact same "incantation" Jesus used at the Last Supper. It must be so - otherwise priests would be disobeying the direct command of God - "DO THIS (what I have just done) in remembrance of Me". Does your Church obey this divine command ... Or disobey it?

continued ............

-- Paul (PaulCyp@cox.net), January 14, 2003.


If you read your Bible, you will find that the charges of sorcery were brought against those who attempted to purchase or counterfeit the genuine, God-given priestly and miraculous powers of the Apostles. Your question about "spiritual vs. literal" is meaningless, as the change of bread and wine into the Body and Blood of Christ is BOTH spiritual AND literal. It ACTUALLY happens, in a SPIRITUAL (not physical) way.

Concerning the verse in Genesis, it is absurd to think that God would base the creation of the entire universe on the period of revolution of one little planet, in one solar system, in one galaxie among millions, that hadn't even been created yet! Are you aware that earth is not God's center of operations? Are you aware that 24 hours is not a day anywhere in the universe except on the surface of this one little rock where we live? Are we so egocentric that we think God based the creation of the universe on earth time?? Sorry, but it didn't happen that way. Besides, we know it didn't, through science.

-- Paul (PaulCyp@cox.net), January 14, 2003.


Frank,

"Can you show me your abbreviated "Bible" before the Catholic Church codified it? If not on what do you base your assertion?"

"Jews in Palestine in the early years of Christianity had a canon corresponding to the thirty-nine books of the Protestant Old Testament. Jesus referred to this list when he spoke of the law of Moses, the prophets, and the psalms (Luke 24:44)" -- Church History in Plain Language [AD 90]

Lu 24:44 And he said unto them, These are the words which I spake unto you, while I was yet with you, that all things must be fulfilled, which were written in the law of Moses, and in the prophets, and in the psalms, concerning me.

Where is the Apocrypha?

"Believers in the eastern portion of the Roman Empire, nearest Palestine, tended to agree with the Jews in that area. In the West, however, Christians received the Apocrypha as part of the canon of Scripture." -- Church History in Plain Language

"Even though certain church fathers spoke approvingly of the Apocryha, there were other early church fathers - notably Origin, Jerome, Athanasius, and Cyril of Jerusalem - that denied their inspiration and canonicity." -- Ron Rhodes

1co 4:6 And these things, brethren, I have in a figure transferred to myself and to Apollos for your sakes; that ye might learn in us not to think of men above that which is written, that no one of you be puffed up for one against another.

God Bless!

-- Tim, the Baptist (tlw97@cox.net), January 15, 2003.


Mateo,

Who saves a sinner and who keeps them? The sinner or the power of God?

Eph 1:13-14 In whom ye also trusted, after that ye heard the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation: in whom also after that ye believed, ye were sealed with that holy Spirit of promise, Which is the earnest of our inheritance until the redemption of the purchased possession, unto the praise of his glory.

Eph 4:30 And grieve not the holy Spirit of God, whereby ye are sealed unto the day of redemption.

1pe 1:3-5 Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, which according to his abundant mercy hath begotten us again unto a lively hope by the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead, To an inheritance incorruptible, and undefiled, and that fadeth not away, reserved in heaven for you, Who are kept by the power of God through faith unto salvation ready to be revealed in the last time.

Ro 8:34-35 Who is he that condemneth? It is Christ that died, yea rather, that is risen again, who is even at the right hand of God, who also maketh intercession for us. Who shall separate us from the love of Christ? shall tribulation, or distress, or persecution, or famine, or nakedness, or peril, or sword?

continue...

-- Tim, the Baptist (tlw97@cox.net), January 15, 2003.


Mateo,

Ro 8:38-39 For I am persuaded, that neither death, nor life, nor angels, nor principalities, nor powers, nor things present, nor things to come, Nor height, nor depth, nor any other creature, shall be able to separate us from the love of God, which is in Christ Jesus our Lord.

Php 1:6 Being confident of this very thing, that he which hath begun a good work in you will perform it until the day of Jesus Christ:

Mt 19:26 But Jesus beheld them, and said unto them, With men this is impossible; but with God all things are possible.

And just a note, if you believe you can lose your salvation - you can not get it back:

Heb 6:4-6 For it is impossible for those who were once enlightened, and have tasted of the heavenly gift, and were made partakers of the Holy Ghost, And have tasted the good word of God, and the powers of the world to come, If they shall fall away, to renew them again unto repentance; seeing they crucify to themselves the Son of God afresh, and put him to an open shame.

God Bless!

-- Tim, the Baptist (tlw97@cox.net), January 15, 2003.


Gail,

"We visited one church where I swear we were expecting them to get a bag of snakes out (it was pentecostal to the maximum degree). We ran out of their like our rearends were on fire, threw the kiddos in the back, locked the doors, and screeched out of the parking lot."

lol!

Let me spend a moment with your comment, "pray the prayer". I know what you mean. It seems like churches all over today are preaching "Just believe, just believe" - there is no change in the individual's heart whatsoever, but they "prayed the prayer". I ask what prayer is that? I do not find a salvation prayer in the Scripture at all. This not what I believe at all. This is why I believe that I can claim both Paul and James:

Ro 4:2 For if Abraham were justified by works, he hath whereof to glory; but not before God. Ro 4:5 But to him that worketh not, but believeth on him that justifieth the ungodly, his faith is counted for righteousness.

Jas 2:21 Was not Abraham our father justified by works, when he had offered Isaac his son upon the altar?

I believe that God gives the individual sinner the grace which leads to faith. With this new faith and salvation, the spirit of the sinner is made alive and he is born again. As a Christian, the Holy Spirit indwells within them and Christ works in them. Therefore it is faith which saves, but leads to good works. That is why James says:

Jas 2:18 Yea, a man may say, Thou hast faith, and I have works: show me thy faith without thy works, and I will show thee my faith by my works.

To say you are a Christian, a son of God, but do not have the appearance of the Holy Spirit and Christ working in your life - you are as lost as any other person that is without God.

"Wesleyan" - I have never heard of this group. At least I don't think so.

God Bless!

-- Tim, the Baptist (tlw97@cox.net), January 15, 2003.


There is some good stuff in your post Oliver - keep searching the Scriptures, and ask God to give you the Truth and keep you from misconceptions! As we all should.

Now Paul,

"Concerning the verse in Genesis, it is absurd to think that God would base the creation of the entire universe on the period of revolution of one little planet, in one solar system, in one galaxie among millions, that hadn't even been created yet!"

Why not? Mankind is the point of view for God, Scripture, and Jesus Christ. Why didn't Jesus visit the other planets or galaxies then?

"Are you aware that earth is not God's center of operations?"

Then what is?

"Are you aware that 24 hours is not a day anywhere in the universe except on the surface of this one little rock where we live? Are we so egocentric that we think God based the creation of the universe on earth time?? Sorry, but it didn't happen that way. Besides, we know it didn't, through science."

You are trying to give science fact and Scripture fiction. I am sorry to hear that Paul, and I believe you are sadly mistaken. Infact, so mistaken that you consider it "earth time", when actually it is God who has created time itself for us.

Ge 1:14 And God said, Let there be lights in the firmament of the heaven to divide the day from the night; and let them be for signs, and for seasons, and for days, and years:

What is God's main goal then Paul? Does it deal with earth and people or science, stars, and the planets? Please tell me.

Joh 3:16 For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.

God Bless! We need to get back to the Book!

-- Tim, the Baptist (tlw97@cox.net), January 15, 2003.


Tim,

Can you show me your abbreviated "Bible" before the Catholic Church codified it? If not on what do you base your assertion?"

"Jews in Palestine in the early years of Christianity had a canon corresponding to the thirty-nine books of the Protestant Old Testament. Jesus referred to this list when he spoke of the law of Moses, the prophets, and the psalms (Luke 24:44)" -- Church History in Plain Language [AD 90]

I think Mr. Shelley was trying harder to make his "point" than to be accurate... If you'll look at the list above from Luke, he left out ~20 books even in the Protestant Bible (the Historical books and poetic & wisom books). Are you saying these are unispired? LOL, that list applies as much to me as you.

Actually, before the Pharisaical Council of Javneh in AD 90, there was NO fixed number of books in the Jewish "Canon". All believed the books of the Torah to be inspired, but beyond that there was quite a variation in what different factions believed to be inspired (for example the Hebrew speaking Jews in Palestine only recognized 24 books. After the time of Christ and after the destruction of the Temple in AD 70 the Jews in Palestine formalized their canon. At the council of Javneh they decided that only texts that could be found in the original Hebrew could be included. One *possible* reason for this is that the Septuagint or "Greek Bible" used by the Christians of the time DID include the Deuterocanonical books! So when you are going with Martin Luther's Bible, you are really following the Jews who decided which books were inspired AFTER the time of Christ, and NOT going with the books used in the earliest Christian Bible we have. Furthermore, with the finding of the Dead Sea Scrolls, there IS evidence of fragments of some of these books in Hebrew. If these had been present in AD 90 in Palestine, they would have been included as well.

Cont

-- Someone (ChimingIn@twocents.cam), January 15, 2003.


Where is the Apocrypha?

One group of Jews was NOT present at the council in AD 90, as far as we know, the Ethiopian Jews. They continue to use all these books, and treat them as inspired to this day.

There you have it Tim. The truth is there were Jews using these books as inspired prior to the time of Christ, and they continue to do so today. The Jews YOU follow decided which books were inspired after the Crucifixion of Christ... Think about it. When you follow the path of Martin Luther, you are following someone who DENIED SCRIPTURE! Good luck.

Frank

-- Someone (ChimingIn@twocents.cam), January 15, 2003.


off

-- Someone (ChimingIn@twocents.cam), January 15, 2003.

“Joh 6:63 It is the spirit that quickeneth; the flesh profiteth nothing: the words that I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are life. Wait, check out this verse: Joh 6:35 And Jesus said unto them, I am the bread of life: he that cometh to me shall never hunger; and he that believeth on me shall never thirst. Do you still get hungry and thirsty after eating the body and blood of Christ? Why? Don't you take this verse literal too?”

! Tim, I’m getting frustrated with you. I’ve told you already: We don’t take eating His Body and Blood to for our physical nourishment. That is what Christ meant when He said, “the flesh profiteth nothing.” We eat and drink His Body and Blood for our Spiritual nourishment. We REALLY eat and drink His Body and Blood for our Spiritual nourishment! Please try to remember this! And actually – there have indeed been cases in which Saints have survived Spiritually AND physically on the Eucharist alone! Look up St. Rita. And if you read about Theresa Noimen (Sp?), she survived for years on the Body of Christ alone!

-- Jake Huether (jake_huether@yahoo.com), January 15, 2003.


“Now to answer to question a bit more fairly, I will explain this. Let us suppose we are right there now with Jesus at the last supper, and he is trying to show to us, what is going to take place (which is his crucifixion), and in his explanation he takes the bread and says "You see this ?" , starts breaking it and says "this is my body" , showing that he's going to be put to death by great pain. Then takes the wine, showing that his blood will be shed. Had Jesus been crucified by this stage ? No. Was that his actual body ? No. It was bread and wine. Is it possible to use such language without lying ?”

You see what I mean? Everyone, when they aren’t guided, will come up with their own ideas about what it means. Do you believe there is a connection hear with John 6? Or is John 6 a different Metaphor? “My Body is REAL food, and my Blood REAL drink.” Metaphor?????

-- Jake Huether (jake_huether@yahoo.com), January 15, 2003.


“Absolutely. Metaphorical language is used throughout the bible. Just as Christ said I am the pasture, does this mean Christ was green grass for cows to eat ? No he was talking about Himself in a spiritual sense, that we as His sheep can be well nourished by his life.”

I think Paul (the poster) presented a good explanation, and a “rule of thumb” for finding “metaphors”. If it has a clear metaphorical connection to something (like the pasture for sheep, vine and branches, shepherd and sheep, etc.) then it probably is a Metaphor. If it doesn’t have a clear metaphoric connection – and when the person who is making the statement says it isn’t, then it probably isn’t. Also, one has to know the environment and the vernacular of the time. “Eat my Body and drink my Blood”, if taken metaphorically, would be an insult. It can ONLY be taken literally. Moreover, if one simply looks into history, one would see that for 1500 years Eucharist has been shared with the knowledge that it is the Body and Blood of Christ, no questions asked. There might have been small groups of people, scattered hither and thither, who disagreed. But they were clearly in contradiction to what the Apostles had believed. Or do you think that the Apostles were mistaken too? Only in the 16th century were we “enlightened” to the “truth” that it was only a symbol?

And just for your info, Oliver, the Priest doesn’t say some magical phrase. As Paul previously pointed out, the words he speaks are exactly the same as the Scripture you read.

-- Jake Huether (jake_huether@yahoo.com), January 15, 2003.


Tim, on the Creation:

"Genesis 1: (1) In the beginning (2) God (3) created the heavens and the earth. 2 The earth was [1] (4) formless and void, and (5) darkness was over the surface of the deep, and (6) the Spirit of God (7) was [2] moving over the surface of the waters. 3 Then (8) God said, "Let there be light"; and there was light… 16 God made the two great lights, the (24) greater light to govern the day, and the lesser light to govern the night; He made (25) the stars also. 17 (26) God placed them in the expanse of the heavens to give light on the earth, 18 and to (27) govern the day and the night, and to separate the light from the darkness; and God saw that it was good."

So we see that God created the heavens (presumably the planets), and the Earth. And He then created light. But is it the same light we see now? Lets read further... Then He created the Sun and the Moon (the two lights). So, if it is scientifically proven that the earth revolves around the Sun, then how could a day be 24hrs before the 4th day, if there was no sun? And to an extent even light in these passages is metaphoric, as far as we understand light now. The sun is actually the only source of light. The moon reflects the suns light.

-- Jake Huether (jake_huether@yahoo.com), January 15, 2003.


And this should be a good indication that the "days" in Genesis aren't days that we understand.

In Gen. 1:26 God creates man on the 6th day AFTER He had already created animals and plants, but in Gen 2:7 God creates man first, then He caused plants to grow, and later He formed animals! Well, which was it? Please don't answer that it isn't important. It is important, because it shows that Genesis isn't a detailed account of the physical and scientific process of how the Earth formed. It is a poetic and metaphoric account of the Creation.

Also indicative of this symbolism... Did God mess up when he "tried" to create a helpmate for the man? It took Him ALL the species of animals before deciding on a woman to be right?

-- Jake Huether (jake_huether@yahoo.com), January 15, 2003.


Hey Tim:

The Wesleyans are named after "John Wesley" who was founder of the Methodist church. He was Anglican (from England) and came to America preaching up a firestorm revival that swept all across the U.S. Anyway, The Wesleyan Church and the Church of the Nazarene are identical in doctrine, and are offshoots from methodism. Their thrust of doctrine is HOLINESS! That's why we liked them so much! But anyway, Charles and John Wesley, sons of Suzanne Wesley who had NINETEEN children, were both well known revivalists. You will find many of their hymms in Protestant hymnals even today!

Bye,

Gail

-- Gail (rothfarms@socket.net), January 15, 2003.


Ok Paul I think it was who was saying that the transubsiatation is spiritual and not physical. Ok let me try to understand u here for a second... so you're saying that after all the words spoken by the priest, the bread and wine are not really the physical body and blood of Jesus, but spiritually speaking they are ? Tim, did u pick up on this as well ? If they're saying what I think they're saying then it actually makes it sound closer to what Tim and I are talking about.

If the bread and wine are only Christ's body and blood in the spiritual sense, then they are not the literal (which would be physical) body and blood of Jesus Christ. Therefore, when Jesus was speaking concerning the bread and wine, he was indeed speaking spiritually and not literally.

Let's not beat around the bush here, either it's the literal body and blood or it is not. Tim and I have been saying all along it's not. And, believe you me, we're quite happy with saying that they are spiritually speaking, the body and blood, but you don't need to speak hocus pocus to change anything. Christ didn't.

You quoted : "unless you eat of my flesh and drink of my blood, you have no life in you" Let's look at the Catholic interpretation of this verse and examine its implications. The Catholic teaching is that unless we partake of the Eucharist of the actual literal body and blood of Jesus Christ, then you will have no life in you. Now, let us take this even further... Catholics baptise infants, but do infants partake of the Eucharist ?

Also, I remember as a Catholic, children were never given the wine to drink, only the host. So if they didn't partake of the flesh AND blood, does that mean that infants don't have Christ's life in them, and children don't have Christ's life either ?

Is Christ's life a physical matter or a spiritual matter ?

-- Oliver Fischer (spicenut@excite.com), January 15, 2003.


Oliver,

Not to speak for Paul, but the host is the real, physical Body of Christ, not some spiritual idea of the Body of Christ. I hope this answers your question.

Also, the host maintains the outward appearance of bread, while having it's true substance altered. Therefore, one could perform any test one could dream up and still see physical bread, but in actuality, it's Christ's body. (If this makes you uncomfortable, try and show me the physical correlate of the soul to the body).

Frank

-- Someone (ChimingIn@twocents.cam), January 15, 2003.


Dear Oliver and Frank,

There are a number of terms being used in this discussion that need some clarification.

First, the term "literal". We could substitute "actual" for this term - and in the present context we could also substitute "real" or "genuine".

Secondly, the term "spiritual".

And thirdly, "physical".

I think we all agree that physical and spiritual are distinct concepts. The difficulty here is in relating these two terms to the terms in the first group. Either a spiritual change or a physical change is an "actual" change, if it really happened. In other words, either a spiritual change or a physical change can "literally" take place. "Literal" and "spiritual" are not opposites. "Literal" and "physical" and not synonyms.

Therefore, yes, the bread and wine do become the literal (actual, real, genuine) Body and Blood of Jesus Christ during the consecration. But they do not become the physical Body and Blood of Christ, or you would see a human body lying there. The actual, literal change that takes place is a spiritual one, not a physical one. Physically, nothing happens to the bread and wine. Physically they are still bread and wine. But actually, they have become the literal Body and Blood of the risen Savior, under the physical appearances of bread and wine.

-- Paul (PaulCyp@cox.net), January 15, 2003.


The teaching of the Church is that the consecrated bread becomes the fullness of the risen Savior - body, blood, soul, and divinity. Likewise the consecrated wine becomes the fullness of Jesus. Therefore, in receiving the Eucharist under EITHER species, you receive the total fullness of Jesus - nothing less than you receive in the Eucharist under both species.

-- Paul (PaulCyp@cox.net), January 15, 2003.


Frank (Someone),

"I think Mr. Shelley was trying harder to make his "point" than to be accurate... If you'll look at the list above from Luke, he left out ~20 books even in the Protestant Bible (the Historical books and poetic & wisom books). Are you saying these are unispired? LOL, that list applies as much to me as you."

Please show me a list of these books, not covered in Luke 24:44. "(the Historical books and poetic & wisom books)"

Lu 24:44 And he said unto them, These are the words which I spake unto you, while I was yet with you, that all things must be fulfilled, which were written in the law of Moses, and in the prophets, and in the psalms, concerning me.

--

"One *possible* reason for this is that the Septuagint or "Greek Bible" used by the Christians of the time DID include the Deuterocanonical books!"

"We know of no Septuagint manuscripts earlier than the fourth century that contain the Apocrypha, suggesting that the Apocrypha was not in the original Septuagint. -- It is highly revealing that the apostles quoted from the first-century Septuagint, yet there is not a single quote from the Apocrypha in their writings. -- This could mean one of two things: It could mean that the Apocrypha was simply not in the first-century Septuagint (which is what the historical evidence seems to suggest), or it could mean that if it was i nthe first-century Septuagint, it was ignored by the apostles because they knew it did not truly belong in the canon of Scripture." -- Ron Rhodes

continue...

-- Tim, the Baptist (tlw97@cox.net), January 15, 2003.


Frank (Someone),

--

Again, the problem with the Apocrypha - It contains errors. How can documents which contain errors be inspired by the Holy infallible Spirit of God? Don't tell me "Because men wrote them" - Men run the Catholic Church, yet you claim that it is infallible in the teachings of Christ.

--

"When you follow the path of Martin Luther, you are following someone who DENIED SCRIPTURE!"

I don't think you know anything about Martin Luther. He believed that the Scripture was the sole source of Authority, which the Holy Spirit uses to save, teach, and lead the Christian. He believed it so much, that when he didn't really want to agree with Scripture, he claimed that the Holy Spirit knew more than him and he would just accept it.

God Bless

-- Tim, the Baptist (tlw97@cox.net), January 15, 2003.


Jake,

I understand what you are trying to claim, but I also see what Scripture teaches.

Let's look at what you are saying here.

"We don’t take eating His Body and Blood to for our physical nourishment." - yet you believe you are eating the literal body and blood of Jesus Christ. Am I right?

Then why do you denie:

Joh 6:35 And Jesus said unto them, I am the bread of life: he that cometh to me shall never hunger; and he that believeth on me shall never thirst.

Why is it that you try to divide these verses into meaning different? Was Christ talking literal here? If you come to him and eat his flesh, you will not be hungry anymore? Why not?

--

"But they were clearly in contradiction to what the Apostles had believed."

I personally do not believe that the Apostles believed what you believe. And further more, you can not prove that they did by Scripture. It is just a hope that they did. For it makes all the since in the world, to ask "why would Christ give his apostles his flesh and blood to eat, before he even went to the cross"?

That, my friend, doesn't make any sense.

continue...

-- Tim, the Baptist (tlw97@cox.net), January 15, 2003.


Jake,

As for "If it has a clear metaphorical connection to something (like the pasture for sheep, vine and branches, shepherd and sheep, etc.) then it probably is a Metaphor." - this is an opinion Jake. It is your choice to believe here it not speaking literally, but when Christ speaks as if he is bread and wine - that is literal. Opinion, but not Scripturally grounded. As you like to tell me, one verse used out of context does not prove a point nor make it fact.

--

As concerning creation (Genesis), you may want to reread it before you comment on it.

"And He then created light." - nope, he doesn't say he created it.

Ge 1:3 And God said, Let there be light: and there was light.

Ge 1:5 And God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And the evening and the morning were the first day.

So, what is a day? What is a night?

These lights are made:

Ge 1:16 And God made two great lights; the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night: he made the stars also.

--

"In Gen. 1:26 God creates man on the 6th day AFTER He had already created animals and plants, but in Gen 2:7 God creates man first, then He caused plants to grow, and later He formed animals! "

Here is where you really misunderstand Scripture. Honestly, Jake, take a look:

GENESIS 1

DAY 3 - grass, plants, etc.

DAY 5 - water and air animals

DAY 6 - land animals THEN man

continue...

-- Tim, the Baptist (tlw97@cox.net), January 15, 2003.


Jake,

GENESIS 2

Ge 2:7 And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul.

Ge 2:8 And the LORD God planted a garden eastward in Eden; and there he put the man whom he had formed.

Ge 2:9 And out of the ground made the LORD God to grow every tree that is pleasant to the sight, and good for food; the tree of life also in the midst of the garden, and the tree of knowledge of good and evil.

[1] The garden is different from DAY 3 of creation.

I can see where you might get confused:

Ge 2:18 And the LORD God said, It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him an help meet for him. Ge 2:19 And out of the ground the LORD God formed every beast of the field, and every fowl of the air; and brought them unto Adam to see what he would call them: and whatsoever Adam called every living creature, that was the name thereof. Ge 2:20 And Adam gave names to all cattle, and to the fowl of the air, and to every beast of the field; but for Adam there was not found an help meet for him. Ge 2:21 And the LORD God caused a deep sleep to fall upon Adam, and he slept: and he took one of his ribs, and closed up the flesh instead thereof; Ge 2:22 And the rib, which the LORD God had taken from man, made he a woman, and brought her unto the man.

continue...

-- Tim, the Baptist (tlw97@cox.net), January 15, 2003.


Jake,

VERSE 18 - is telling us that God said Adam needed a help meet.

VERSES 19, 20 - simply explains that God had created all of the animals and such, but in them, there was no help meet for Adam.

VERSES 21,22 - God makes Adam a help meet.

Hope this helps. Don't look at this as a Protestant teaching, but a fact given to us in Scripture. It is so clear.

" It took Him ALL the species of animals before deciding on a woman to be right?"

It's called the plan [or council] of God.

God Bless!

-- Tim, the Baptist (tlw97@cox.net), January 15, 2003.


Paul,

"Therefore, yes, the bread and wine do become the literal (actual, real, genuine) Body and Blood of Jesus Christ during the consecration."

If this is so, then let me bring up another Catholic teaching I have received here, and ponder this question.

It has been said that Mary had to be sinless to contain the body of God [Christ] within her. Is this not what I have been told here by the Catholic teaching?

They how is it that the sinful man [every partaker of the literal body and blood of Christ [God] can contain it?

Hmmmm... Ever think of that?

God Bless!

-- Tim, the Baptist (tlw97@cox.net), January 15, 2003.


Dear Tim,

Yes I have thought of that - a long time ago. It is inadequate to say that "Mary had to be sinless to CONTAIN the body of God [Christ] within her". Mary was not a CONTAINER for the body of Christ. She was His parent! She gave birth to Him, enabling Him to become the Savior of the world. The offspring possesses the characteristics of the parents. That's why Jesus was both God and man. If Mary had been a sinner, then Jesus would have been both the sinless God - the one against whom all sin is ultimately committed - and simultaneously a sinner who rebels against the will of God, which is His own will! - a patent impossibility. We, in contrast, are not the parents of God. We do not pass on to Him our traits. Rather, in consuming Him, allowing Him to become physically part of our very being, we take on His traits. His traits lead to eternal life, which is why He said we would not have life unless we received the Eucharist.

-- Paul (PaulCyp@cox.net), January 15, 2003.


Tim,

Running low on time, will get back tomorrow.

Frank

-- Someone (ChimingIn@twocents.cam), January 16, 2003.


"Again, the problem with the Apocrypha - It contains errors. How can documents which contain errors be inspired by the Holy infallible Spirit of God? Don't tell me "Because men wrote them" - Men run the Catholic Church, yet you claim that it is infallible in the teachings of Christ."

Tim, Who told you that they contain errors? How do you know that they have errors? Is it because they aren't contained in YOUR Bible? Who took them out? And lastly, how do you know for sure that the person that took them out was more inspired then the person who originally kept them in?

"Joh 6:35 And Jesus said unto them, I am the bread of life: he that cometh to me shall never hunger; and he that believeth on me shall never thirst."

I don't deny it, Tim. We understand it to mean that we will never Spiritually hunger, or Spiritually thirst. It goes right along the lings of, "man does not live on bread along" (that is real bread). Or, "the words I speak are Spirit and Life". He gave us His PHYSICAL Body and Blood for our Spiritual nourishment.

-- Jake Huether (jake_huether@yahoo.com), January 16, 2003.


“As concerning creation (Genesis), you may want to reread it before you comment on it.”

That’s pretty arrogant to say, Tim. I have read it, and I quoted the exact same passages! I stated (in my own words that God created light). So, are you denying that God created light. It says right there! “Let there be light. And there was light” So, that isn’t creation Tim?

Tim, you teach me as though you have some authority, but you are no better than I. Why is it that you “claim” to have the right way of looking at it, but my way is wrong. We’ve both read it! Can’t you see, Tim. Not everyone thinks like you. Not one person thinks quite like the next. And that is exactly why Christ left an Authoritative Church!

In Christ.

-- Jake Huether (jake_huether@yahoo.com), January 16, 2003.


Tim, it seems like you stake your whole life and faith on the bible, and only the bible. Who put those books together, men that's who. How do you know that you can trust these guys? Furthermore, how do you know that you can trust Tim?

Look , at Roe vs Wade. Seven men found a right to privacy in the Constitution, that no one ever found before. Impartial? Like heck ! Agenda, thats what.

That is why we need an infallible church.

-- Ed Richards (loztra@yahoo.com), January 16, 2003.


Jake,

"Tim, you teach me as though you have some authority, but you are no better than I."

I don't want to come across as trying to teach you. I just believe the Scripture 100% and put my faith in it - where you trust the Catholic Church to have the answers, whether found or not found in Scripture.

I look at it as you tell your view and I tell mine. I don't want anyone to think that I am better than them, but to trust in the Scripture. Scripture is infallible, I am not. I hope that people will take what I claim and check it out for themselves. Do not take my word nor the Catholic Churches' word, but match it with Scripture and take the Word of God.

I will be gone till Sunday, I hope to get to your other posts then.

----------

Ed Richards,

"Tim, it seems like you stake your whole life and faith on the bible, and only the bible. Who put those books together, men that's who. How do you know that you can trust these guys? Furthermore, how do you know that you can trust Tim? "

Let me ask you this? I am not making fun, but asking a honest question.

Take what you told me above, and think about this:

Why do you trust the Catholic Church, because the Catholic Church has told you that is what you are supposed to do? I ask:

"[Ed], it seems like you stake your whole life and faith on the [Catholic Church], and only the [Catholic teachings]. Who put those [Churches and teachings] together, men that's who."

God Bless!

-- Tim, the Baptist (tlw97@cox.net), January 16, 2003.


Tim,

Please show me a list of these books, not covered in Luke 24:44. "(the Historical books and poetic & wisom books)"

Lu 24:44 And he said unto them, These are the words which I spake unto you, while I was yet with you, that all things must be fulfilled, which were written in the law of Moses, and in the prophets, and in the psalms, concerning me.

I don't want to type them all, but for example, Judges, Ruth, Kings, Tobit Judith, Eshter, Chronicles, etc. Are they prophets, psalms, or Torah to you?

"If Christ DIDN'T pass down his AUTHORITY, how do you know what's true and what isn't?"

For one to say they have the same Authority which Christ has or had, is different from having the Holy Spirit work in the lives of men to write Scripture and claim it as Scripture.

Tim, how can you say this? You yourself DENY some books are scripture, yet men wrote them and they were claimed as scripture. Other books were used early on and deleted by the Catholic Church as not being scripture (Martin Luther wanted to get rid of James in the New Testament too, if I remember right, but did give credit to Christ's church for forming the NT canon). Do you believe every individual has the right to determine if something is "Scripture" or not? If not, who do you think does have the right to do so SPECIFICALLY, not just "men who blah blah", and WHY do they have the right to determine if something is Scripture and you do not?

Did you also know that the added books contain errors, which the Old and New Testaments do not? Did you know?

What errors are you talking about, or in other words what was God's message in those passages and how do you believe He failed to make it?

Frank

-- Someone (ChimingIn@twocents.cam), January 16, 2003.


Dear Tim. Yes, exactly, men put those books together. Men inspired by the Holy Ghost. Then for 1200 years after that men, (monks) copied those books, over and over again. The press in 1400 A. D, Made that job a lot easier, but from 350 or so to 1400. It was hanwriting. Protestant, Baptist, monks, no indeed. Catholic monks.

-- Ed Richards (loztra@yahoo.com), January 17, 2003.

Frank,

I will do more research with "I don't want to type them all, but for example, Judges, Ruth, Kings, Tobit Judith, Eshter, Chronicles, etc. Are they prophets, psalms, or Torah to you?" - for both your sake and mine.

As for:

"What errors are you talking about, or in other words what was God's message in those passages and how do you believe He failed to make it?"

1] Do you believe that the Scriptures are inerrant and infallible? Y or N.

2a] If yes, then that means they can not contain any errors? Y or No.

2b] If no, then who determines which is inerrant and which is errant?

--

in·er·rant - incapable of making a mistake

in·fal·li·ble - incapable of making a mistake

--

Let's look at one simple history error. You say "that is just history, not doctrine" - I asked was the Scripture inerrant.

Tobit 1:15 [NAB] - But when Shalmaneser died and his son Sennacherib* succeeded him as king, the roads to Media became unsafe, so I could no longer go there.

* Sennacherib (705-681 BC): the son of Sargon (722-705 BC); neither was descended form Shalmaneser. Inconsistencies such as this point to the fact that the Book of Tobit is a religious novel. - Quoted from the NAB, Student Edition

A "religious novel"? What in the world is it doing in the Holy inspired, infallible, inerrant Word of God?

-----

Ed Richards,

Wycliffe translated the Bible into English in 1384. But there were Bibles in other languages before that, besides Latin, Greek, and Hebrew - and they were not all Roman Catholic.

------------

God Bless!

-- Tim, the Baptist (tlw97@cox.net), January 21, 2003.


Dear Tim, the point I am trying to make is that the bible was exclusively in the hands of Catholics, long before Wycliff, or anyone else was around. The bible is certainly the inerrant word of God, but it is only as good as the official interpreter. That is why we have so many sects, all claiming that tere are thecorrect ones.

-- Ed Richards (loztra@aol.com), January 21, 2003.

Dear Tim,

The Catholic Church had translated the Bible into fourteen languages, including English, before Luther was born! The heretical version of Wycliffe was not the first English version, nor was it a genuine version, which is why the Church burned it, to protect the purity of the scriptures, which is its mission, and its mission alone.

-- Paul (PaulCyp@cox.net), January 21, 2003.


Here is some excerpts from homilies given by St. Ephraim:

St. Ephraim (about 306 A.D.-373 A.D.) Ephraim was born in a Christian household in Nisibis in Mesopatamia about 306 A.D. and took up a life at Edessa where he won fame as a teacher, a battler against heresy and an ascetic. Known for saintly qualities he was ordained to the diaconate before the year 338 A.D. Some speculate he later advanced to the priesthood. He was a prolific writer, using a variety of poetic forms and writing in Syrian, winning the title "lyre of the Holy Spirit." He was said to have received his diaconate from St. Basil in Cappadocia and to have been an influence on him despite his short visit there, but this is not certain. He battled against Manichean, Marcionite and Aryan heresies. His poetic testimony to the faith of the Church is highly esteemed indeed.

Homilies [4, 1] "Simon, My follower, I have made you the foundation of the holy Church. I betimes called you Peter [Kefa or Rock], because you will support all its buildings. You are the inspector of those who will build on earth a Church for Me. If they should wish to build what is false, you, the foundation will condemn them. You are the head of the fountain from which my teaching flows, you are the chief of My disciples. Through you I will give drink to all peoples. Yours is that life-giving sweetness which I dispense. I have chosen you to be, as it were, the first-born in My institution, and so that, as the heir, you may be executor of my treasures. I have given you the keys of my kingdom. Behold I have given you authority over all My treasures!"

-- Jake Huether (jake_huether@yahoo.com), January 22, 2003.


[4, 4] "Our Lord Jesus took in His hands what in the beginning was only bread; and He blessed it and signed it, and made it holy in the name of the Father and in the name of the Spirit; and He broke it and in gracious kindness He distributed to all of His disciples one by one. He broke it and in His gracious kindness He distributed it to all of His disciples one by one. He called the bread His living Body, and did Himself fill it with Jesus and the Holy Spirit. "And extending His hand, He gave them the bread which His right hand had made holy: 'Take, all of you eat this, which My word has made holy. Do not regard as bread that which I have given you; but take, eat this Bread, and do not scatter the crumbs; for what I have called my Body, that it is indeed. One particle from its crumbs is able to sanctify thousands and thousands, and is sufficent to afford life to those who eat of it. Take, eat, entertaining no doubt of faith, because this is my Body, and whoever eats it in belief, because this is My Body, and whoever eats it in belief eats in it Fire and Spirit. But if any doubters eat of it, for him it will be only bread. And whoever eats in belief the Bread made holy in My name, if he be pure, he will be preserved in his purity; and if he be a sinner, he will be forgiven.' But if anyone despise it or reject it or treat it with ignominy, it may be taken as a certainty that he treats with ignominy the Son, who called it and actually made it to be His Body."

-- Jake Huether (jake_huether@yahoo.com), January 22, 2003.

[4, 6] "After the disciples had eaten the new and holy Bread, and when they understood by faith that they had eaten of Christ's body, Christ went on to explain and to give them the whole Sacrament. He took and mixed a cup of wine. Then He blessed it, and signed it, and made it holy, declaring that it was His own Blood, which was about to be poured out . . . Christ commanded them to drink, and He explained to them that the cup which they were drinking was His own Blood: 'This is truly My Blood, which is shed for all of you. Take, all of you, drink of this, because it is a new covenant in My Blood. As you have seen Me do, do you also in My memory. Whenever you are gathered together in My name in Churches everywhere, do what I have done, in memory of Me. Eat My Body, and drink My Blood, a covenant new and old.'"

In Christ.

-- Jake Huether (jake_huether@yahoo.com), January 22, 2003.


From St. Justin Martyr (105-165 AD):

We call this food Eucharist; and no one else is permitted to partake of it, except one who has been washed in the washing [baptism] which is for the remission of sins and for regeneration [2 Pet 3:21], and is thereby living as Christ has enjoined. For not as common bread or common drink do we receive these; but since Jesus Christ our savior was made incarnate by the word of God and had both flesh and blood for our salvation, so too, as we have been taught, the food which has been made into the Eucharist by the Eucharistic prayer set down by Him [see 1 Cor 11: 23-26; Lk 22; 19] and by the change of which our blood and flesh is nourished is both the flesh and blood of the incarnated Jesus [see John 6: 53-56].

The apostles, in the Memoirs which they produced, which we called Gospels, have thus passed on that which was enjoined upon them: that Jesus took bread and, having given thanks, said, 'Do this in remembrance of Me; this is My Body' [Lk 22:19; Mt 26:26; Mk 14: 22: 1 Cor 11: 23-24]. And in like manner, taking the cup, and having given thanks, He said, 'This is my Blood' [Lk 22:20; Mt 26: 27-28; Mk 14:24; 1 Cor 11: 25]. And He imparted this to them only. The evil demons, however, have passed on its imitation in the mysteries of Mithra [pagan cult]. For as you know or are able to learn, bread and a cup of water together with certain incantations are used in imitation to the mystic rites."

-- Jake Huether (jake_huether@yahoo.com), January 22, 2003.


So, was St. Justin, who learned by listening to the Apostles (first hand), mistaken?

Or was he using "symbolism" too?

-- Jake Huether (jake_huether@yahoo.com), January 22, 2003.


Moderation questions? read the FAQ