Amazing Facts bible study guide

[Protestant101]

They train to answer typical Catholic objections to their teachings. MarysRoses

Well; we don’t get on a boat and go for a fancy cruise to do it.

The OP asked if there was anything she should know about how to talk to Adventist; and one thing I would say about that is that if all Catholics talked about us the way you usually do; we wouldn’t spend much time listening. The typical apologetics stuff can be smelled a mile away, by either side!

We have a reason for studying the objections of others:

1Pe 3:15 But sanctify the Lord God in your hearts: and be ready always to give an answer to every man that asketh you a reason of the hope that is in you with meekness and fear:

It is better to be a witness than an apologist.

 

[Patrick_Murebil]

Hi Patrick; I did read all of those former posts, and I do see how Catholics & you have given a detailed explanation of your understanding. It is good to know where people are coming from. I believe that there are still other possibilities to this subject, which have not been covered by any of the explanations yet. After reading the post of another forum member; I decided that I will post a reply to that person later today to start explaining what I mean.

BTW; I didn’t get the feeling that you were trying to “convert” me; although certain other forum members have certainly given it a shot.

Hi Protestant101,

I would love to hear what you think and what your understandings are of John 6, and Jesus saying “This is my body”, This is my blood". What do you think Jesus means when he says, ""I tell you the truth, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you. “54Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day. 55For my flesh is real food and my blood is real drink. 56Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood remains in me, and I in him.”

I look forward to your thoughts. I will respond to our discussion regarding seal and sign, later…I haven’t forgotten

BTW: I would also be interested in your thoughts to what Marsha Adams pointed out in John 6 regarding Jesus referring to the ascension as a sign about the truth/literalness of what he was teaching prior to that verse in John 6. Perhaps your reply to the other person you mention above is her…if not please share your thoughts regarding that!..so I will be patient!

PS: I really do highly recommend “The Hidden Manna”…I know I keep “pushing” that book (I did work summers as a colporteur/literature evangelist in college) , but it goes into scholarly and Biblical detail regarding this subject.

God bless!

 

[Protestant101]

Jesus gave His disciples a sign to prove that he was being literal, note John 6:61, 62: When Jesus knew in himself that his disciples murmured at it, he said unto them, Doth this offend you? What and if ye shall see the Son of man ascend up where he was before?"

The ascension was literal, therefore eating Jesus’ Body and Blood is also literal. Jesus said in Mark 14:22-24 that the bread and wine are His Body and Blood.

Consider this, Matthew, Mark and Luke all include the Last Supper in which Jesus tells them that the bread and wine are His Body and Blood, but John doesn’t. Instead John has in chapter 6 an entire discourse on eating Jesus’ flesh and blood and the sign of the ascension as proof that it is literal, not symbolic.

Hello Marsha; I don’t get why you would class this one, lone verse here in John 6 as definitive proof that “eating Jesus’ body and blood” is literal? Just because the ascension is literal; does not in and of itself prove that the eating of Jesus’ flesh and blood is literal too. It doesn’t just automatically “follow” as you suggest.

I would be interested to see you explain in more detail why your statements above re John 6 would mean that Jesus intended a literal interpretation of the “bread” and the 'wine" here. When you think of some of the literal indications here; which would “follow” if what you say is true; we have a real predicament.

First; if it is literal; the question of cannibalism arises; and vampirism; but even more, the question of salvation becomes a riddle of epic proportions; if what you are saying is true. But in order for me to expand on that; I first need from you a detailed and official Catholic explanation on what is accomplished for the Catholic, when they eat the literal body and blood of Jesus? Why do you think they have to do this? Can a Catholic be saved without eating or drinking this?

 

[Patrick_Murebil]

Hi again Protestant101,

The one thing that we both absolutely agree on is the quote at the bottom of each or your posts…"“Truth is often the opposite of the allegation…” Jesus does not do what the Church says; the Church does what Jesus says"…especially that part I highlighted in red!

Until we talk,
Patrick Murebil

 

[Marsha_Adams]

Hello Marsha; I don’t get why you would class this one, lone verse here in John 6 as definitive proof that “eating Jesus’ body and blood” is literal? Just because the ascension is literal; does not in and of itself prove that the eating of Jesus’ flesh and blood is literal too. It doesn’t just automatically “follow” as you suggest.

I would be interested to see you explain in more detail why your statements above re John 6 would mean that Jesus intended a literal interpretation of the “bread” and the 'wine" here. When you think of some of the literal indications here; which would “follow” if what you say is true; we have a real predicament.

First; if it is literal; the question of cannibalism arises; and vampirism; but even more, the question of salvation becomes a riddle of epic proportions; if what you are saying is true. But in order for me to expand on that; I first need from you a detailed and official Catholic explanation on what is accomplished for the Catholic, when they eat the literal body and blood of Jesus? Why do you think they have to do this? Can a Catholic be saved without eating or drinking this?

Cannibal: a human being who eats human flesh; an animal that devours its own kind.

Jesus is God, when we eat His flesh we are not eating our own kind.

Vampirism: the actions of a vampire, the body of a dead person believed to come from the grave at night and suck the blood of persons asleep.

When we drink Christ’s blood we are not sucking the blood of a sleeping person, we are receiving the blood of the glorified Christ.

Why do we have to do this? Because Jesus said, “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. Whoso eateth my flesh and drinketh my blood hath eternal life; and I will raise him up at the last day.” John 6:53, 54

Is there a literal resurrection? Then eating the Body and Blood of Christ is also literal. Both acts are contained in the same sentence showing that both are literal.

“As the living Father hath sent me, and I live by the Father:” so he that eateth me, even he shall live by me." John 6:57

Did the Father literally send Jesus to us? Did Jesus literally live by the Father? Yes, of course! Then it follows that the second half of the sentence is also literal - “so he that eateth me, even he shall live by me.”

Read John 6, go through it verse by verse and you will see that there is nothing in that chapter that suggests metaphor.

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

can you explain why this text about “the bread” and ‘the wine" as being the literal description of Jesus’ flesh and blood?

Hi, Protestant 101, It is literal because when God says “this is my body” then it is my body. God created you and I from dust and water just by his word, and here we are: imagine we are created from dirt and water because God spoke his word and created from what was not to what is. Now do you see the dirt and water from whence we were created? For it is the Spirit that gives life. So it is with the bread and wine, to our senses they remain bread and wine, but when God speaks his Word to the bread and wine, they obey for he is the creator. God also ordered Moses to speak to the rock in order for them to recieve living waters in the desert after God ordered Moses to strike the rock once.

So it is with the Eucharist, God striked the shepherd once. Jesus crucified, but before God struck the shepherd, Jesus commanded his apostles to speak to the bread and wine, and from them will be his body and blood, and commanded them to “do this in rememberance of me” (this is the perpetual sacrifice that the old covenant calls for) and most of all take and “Eat my body, and drink my blood” in the new and everlasting covenant. Because were two or more are gathered in my name there “I AM” present.

This takes place only in the Catholic Mass.

P.S cannabalism = to eat flesh from already dead flesh: Jesus is alive and well, he is not dead. So to relate the mystery of the Eucharist to carnal knowledge, will only keep one in the flesh and from entering into the spiritual realities that retain eternal life, not temperal life that leads to death in the flesh.

Peace be with you, great question

 

[Protestant101]

Cannibal: a human being who eats human flesh; an animal that devours its own kind.

Jesus is God, when we eat His flesh we are not eating our own kind.

Vampirism: the actions of a vampire, the body of a dead person believed to come from the grave at night and suck the blood of persons asleep.

When we drink Christ’s blood we are not sucking the blood of a sleeping person, we are receiving the blood of the glorified Christ.

Why do we have to do this? Because Jesus said, “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. Whoso eateth my flesh and drinketh my blood hath eternal life; and I will raise him up at the last day.” John 6:53, 54

Is there a literal resurrection? Then eating the Body and Blood of Christ is also literal. Both acts are contained in the same sentence showing that both are literal.

“As the living Father hath sent me, and I live by the Father:” so he that eateth me, even he shall live by me." John 6:57

Did the Father literally send Jesus to us? Did Jesus literally live by the Father? Yes, of course! Then it follows that the second half of the sentence is also literal - “so he that eateth me, even he shall live by me.”

Read John 6, go through it verse by verse and you will see that there is nothing in that chapter that suggests metaphor.

Thanks for the dictionary lessons in basic English. They don’t really prove how the text in John 6 is “proof” of the bread and the wine being literal. Just because the bread and the wine and the resurrection are mentioned “in the same sentence” does not mean that both are literal. You say that there is nothing in the “whole chapter” to suggest metaphor" or symbolism, yet, is this really true? What about the rest of the Bible? You have overlooked many important texts which would clearly show the symbolism Jesus used here in the use of words like “bread” and “wine.”

 

[mercygate]

Thanks for the dictionary lessons in basic English. They don’t really prove how the text in John 6 is “proof” of the bread and the wine being literal. Just because the bread and the wine and the resurrection are mentioned “in the same sentence” does not mean that both are literal. You say that there is nothing in the “whole chapter” to suggest metaphor" or symbolism, yet, is this really true? What about the rest of the Bible? You have overlooked many important texts which would clearly show the symbolism Jesus used here in the use of words like “bread” and “wine.”

Catholic sacramental theology in no way denies the use of the words “bread” and “wine” in a symbolic way. Catholic sacramental theology even speaks of the bread and wine in the Eucharistic celebration as symbols of Our Lord’s Body and Blood. We DO, however, maintain that to be consistent with His words at the last supper, and in consistency of the earliest teaching of the Church, recorded in the Fathers from the early second Century, that this bread and wine are not “ordinary” but are the very Body and Blood of Our Lord.

Moreover, a sensitive reading of Hebrews 10 indicates that the writer is referring to the Real Presence of Christ when he warns “How much worse punishment do you think will be deserved by the man who has spurned the Son of God, and profaned the blood of the covenant by which he was sanctified, and outraged the Spirit of grace?”

Since the whole book of Hebrews can be read as an encouragement to Christians tempted to neglect meeting together on “the day” – the Lord’s day – and since what Christians did on “the day” was offer the Holy Sacrifice, and since the ONLY place Our Lord uses the word “covenant” is at the last supper where he calls “this” not only “my blood” but the “blood of the new and everlasting covenant” it is by no means a stretch to believe that the Eucharistic wine becomes “my blood of the new and everlasting covenant.” It is REAL. It is a symbol but it is a symbol that is and does what it symbolizes: bring those who partake of it in faith into the “everlasting covenant.”

 

[Richard_Kastner]

And if you are to study the words “sign” and “seal” in the bible, you will find in the OT that the sabbath was a sign between God and the Jews. The sabbath is nowhere in the bible referred to as the seal of God. In fact if you study what the bible says about God’s seal…it is over and over again talking about the Holy Spirit being sent from God and recived by those who believe in Jesus…even for Jesus at his baptism. Show me from the Bible, scriptures that say otherwise. Forget the Chruch fathers and Ellen G. White…show me from the scripture.

God bless,
Patrick Murebil

I was just browsing around this thread and this post caught my eye. I would like to share part of an arcticle from Michael Scheifler’s Bible Light websight.

The seal of a king contains three things, first the name, second his title or claim to authority, and thirdly, the region of his rule. Henry VIII, King of Britain, Wales and Scotland for example. What is the purpose of a King’s seal? The Bible tells us clearly:

1. Dan 6:15 Then these men assembled unto the king, and said unto the king, Know, O king, that the law of the Medes and Persians is, That no decree nor statute which the king establisheth may be changed.
   Dan 6:16 Then the king commanded, and they brought Daniel, and cast him into the den of lions. Now the king spake and said unto Daniel, Thy God whom thou servest continually, he will deliver thee.
   Dan 6:17 And a stone was brought, and laid upon the mouth of the den; and the king sealed it with his own signet, and with the signet of his lords; that the purpose might not be changed concerning Daniel.
   So the seal of the King is a statement that his decree is not to be changed, not to be changed by anyone.
   Rom 4:11 And he received the sign of circumcision, a seal of the righteousness of the faith which he had yet being uncircumcised: that he might be the father of all them that believe, though they be not circumcised; that righteousness might be imputed unto them also:
   Note that the sign of circumcision is also a seal of righteousness. A sign and a seal are synonymous.
   Isa 8:16 Bind up the testimony, seal the law among my disciples.
   Neh 9:38 And because of all this we make a sure covenant, and write it; and our princes, Levites, and priests, seal unto it.
   …
   Neh 10:29 They clave to their brethren, their nobles, and entered into a curse, and into an oath, to walk in God’s law, which was given by Moses the servant of God, and to observe and do all the commandments of the LORD our Lord, and his judgments and his statutes;
   2 Tim 2:19 Nevertheless the foundation of God standeth sure, having this seal, The Lord knoweth them that are his. And, Let every one that nameth the name of Christ depart from iniquity.
   1 John 2:4 He that saith, I know him, and keepeth not his commandments, is a liar, and the truth is not in him.
   To depart from iniquity is to keep God’s law. The disciples of God, those who know, and are known by God, and call on the name of Christ, are sealed with His law. The seal of God is in His law, so clearly this is a symbolic seal, not a literal one.
   Ezek 20:12 Moreover also I gave them my sabbaths, to be a sign between me and them, that they might know that I am the LORD that sanctify them.
   Ezek 20:20 And hallow my sabbaths; and they shall be a sign between me and you, that ye may know that I am the LORD your God.
   Exo 31:13 Speak thou also unto the children of Israel, saying, Verily my sabbaths ye shall keep: for it is a sign between me and you throughout your generations; that ye may know that I am the LORD that doth sanctify you.
   Exo 31:16 Wherefore the children of Israel shall keep the sabbath, to observe the sabbath throughout their generations, for a perpetual covenant.
   Exo 31:17 It is a sign between me and the children of Israel for ever: for in six days the LORD made heaven and earth, and on the seventh day he rested, and was refreshed.
   So the sabbath is a sign of God, or His seal, representing His authority as Creator. Now look at the 4th Commandment as found in Exodus.
   Exo 20:8 Remember the sabbath day, to keep it holy.
   Exo 20:9 Six days shalt thou labour, and do all thy work:
   Exo 20:10 But the seventh day is the sabbath of the LORD thy God: in it thou shalt not do any work, thou, nor thy son, nor thy daughter, thy manservant, nor thy maidservant, nor thy cattle, nor thy stranger that is within thy gates:
   Exo 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.
   Notice that we can find the seal of God in verse 11.
   The name given: the Lord
   His title: Creator
   His domain: heaven and earth to include all inhabitants

Hope this helps In Christ Richard

 

[Protestant101]

Catholic sacramental theology in no way denies the use of the words “bread” and “wine” in a symbolic way. Catholic sacramental theology even speaks of the bread and wine in the Eucharistic celebration as symbols of Our Lord’s Body and Blood. We DO, however, maintain that to be consistent with His words at the last supper, and in consistency of the earliest teaching of the Church, recorded in the Fathers from the early second Century, that this bread and wine are not “ordinary” but are the very Body and Blood of Our Lord.

Moreover, a sensitive reading of Hebrews 10 indicates that the writer is referring to the Real Presence of Christ when he warns “How much worse punishment do you think will be deserved by the man who has spurned the Son of God, and profaned the blood of the covenant by which he was sanctified, and outraged the Spirit of grace?”

Since the whole book of Hebrews can be read as an encouragement to Christians tempted to neglect meeting together on “the day” – the Lord’s day – and since what Christians did on “the day” was offer the Holy Sacrifice, and since the ONLY place Our Lord uses the word “covenant” is at the last supper where he calls “this” not only “my blood” but the “blood of the new and everlasting covenant” it is by no means a stretch to believe that the Eucharistic wine becomes “my blood of the new and everlasting covenant.” It is REAL. It is a symbol but it is a symbol that is and does what it symbolizes: bring those who partake of it in faith into the “everlasting covenant.”

First, you state that "the wine BECOMES the “blood” of Jesus, yet the text does not state that it BECOMES but that IT IS. "take…eat…drink…this IS…neither the “bread” nor the “wine” becomes anything for it already is that when it is used for “communion;” or “mass.” This alone would signify that they are to symbolize the “flesh” and the “blood” of Jesus. But there are many other indicators to disprove the Catholic “sacramental theology” of the “Eucharist.”

While I can understand that many sincere Catholics do connect with God during their “Eucharist;” it does not follow that what they teach about the bread and the wine is true.

In the above; you also state how that the bread and the wine are BOTH symbol and literal. This is a new twist which I have not yet heard Catholics say before. Is there any chance that you could show me more official Catholic writings which would explain that point? I would be interested to look into that.

 

[fbl9]

First, you state that "the wine BECOMES the “blood” of Jesus, yet the text does not state that it BECOMES but that IT IS. "take…eat…drink…this IS…neither the “bread” nor the “wine” becomes anything for it already is that when it is used for “communion;” or “mass.” This alone would signify that they are to symbolize the “flesh” and the “blood” of Jesus. But there are many other indicators to disprove the Catholic “sacramental theology” of the “Eucharist.”

While I can understand that many sincere Catholics do connect with God during their “Eucharist;” it does not follow that what they teach about the bread and the wine is true.

In the above; you also state how that the bread and the wine are BOTH symbol and literal. This is a new twist which I have not yet heard Catholics say before. Is there any chance that you could show me more official Catholic writings which would explain that point? I would be interested to look into that.

fine go ahead and reject Christ don’t balme us catholics when Christ looks at you and says “i do not know you”

 

[Protestant101]

fine go ahead and reject Christ don’t balme us catholics when Christ looks at you and says “i do not know you”

I am not rejecting Christ; I am asking questions. Can you answer any of them?

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

First, you state that "the wine BECOMES the “blood” of Jesus, yet the text does not state that it BECOMES but that IT IS. "take…eat…drink…this IS…neither the “bread” nor the “wine” becomes anything for it already is that when it is used for “communion;” or “mass.” This alone would signify that they are to symbolize the “flesh” and the “blood” of Jesus.

Gabriel of 12
**Your twisting words Protestant101 be careful; Here’s the explanation your asking for. The bread and wine are symbols of the body and blood of Jesus (before the words of consecration).

In the Catholic Mass at the words of consecration according to the commandments of Jesus to be conducted by his apostles and their successors who are in the Catholic church, at the words of Jesus, when Jesus is present before all in the Mass states " This is my body" “This is my blood” the host is consecrated and is the body, blood, soul and divinty of our lord Jesus Christ. Not because the Catholic church says it is, it is because God said it is, and the Catholic church has been obeying God in the Eucharist since the last supper.

Now the bread and wine are symbols of the body and blood of Jesus to those who do not rightly discern the body and blood of Jesus, as you believe Protestant101, because you deny his true presence, Jesus cannot be in your communion service, only in the way you believe symbolically. I never heard of a symbolic Jesus, or a symbolic spirit in scripture. Yet you believe the bread and wine are symbols of Jesus body and blood. John 6 never states this bread symbolizes my body, or blood symbolizes wine. Besides you have no consecrated Priests from the apostolic succession to consecrate the bread and wine and “do in rememberance of me” commandment from Jesus.**

Protestant101
But there are many other indicators to disprove the Catholic “sacramental theology” of the “Eucharist.”

Gabriel of 12
Protestant 101 you are not making promises you cannot keep are you? Could you please, please display your indicators from scripture to disprove the Catholic “sacramental theology” of the “Eucharist”. Or are you just crying wolf?

Protestant101
While I can understand that many sincere Catholics do connect with God during their “Eucharist;” it does not follow that what they teach about the bread and the wine is true.

Gabriel of 12
Your walking a very thin line for one who does not believe in the true presence of Jesus Christ, and judge others who do believe in the true presence, because you cannot connect with a symbolic God, please do not pass judgment on the souls who do. What Catholics teach about the bread and wine is believed it is true, not because man says it is, because Jesus says it is true. Jesus never says the bread and wine symbolize his body and blood, this is not scripture teaching or first century Christian teaching.

Protestant101
In the above; you also state how that the bread and the wine are BOTH symbol and literal. This is a new twist which I have not yet heard Catholics say before. Is there any chance that you could show me more official Catholic writings which would explain that point? I would be interested to look into that.

Gabriel of 12
**Protestant101, your wolf in sheeps clothing is really getting revealed here. For one the explanation about bread and wine before the words of consecration, are called symbols, or signs, in official teachings. These terms are not to be confused with the Consecrated Eucharist which is the true presence of Jesus body,blood, soul and divinity. This is what, one like you on the outside looking in, you take the church’s 2000 year old teaching and look for ways to distort the teaching by word play, as you do your own teachings. Keep these techniques out of the Catholic church. Read them with unprejudiced or preconcieved judgement, these are not needed, for they possess the Spirit and Truth of God. Try this Protestant 101 and maybe, God will speak to you heart, instead of you trying to find him in the mind of knowledge.

Peace be with you**

 

[mercygate]

First, you state that "the wine BECOMES the “blood” of Jesus, yet the text does not state that it BECOMES but that IT IS. "take…eat…drink…this IS…neither the “bread” nor the “wine” becomes anything for it already is that when it is used for “communion;” or “mass.” This alone would signify that they are to symbolize the “flesh” and the “blood” of Jesus. But there are many other indicators to disprove the Catholic “sacramental theology” of the “Eucharist.”

The bread and wine are not the Body and Blood of Christ until they are offered in the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass, the very sacrifice of Calvary into which we enter through the power of the Holy Spirit. They become the Body and Blood of Christ during the Eucharist when the Holy Spirit effects the transformation of the SUBSTANCE (not the PHYSICS, as by now you know) of the elements. Before the Mass, they are mere signs/symbols. A Sacrament, by definition in Catholic sacramental theology is an “effective” sign. It IS or it DOES what it signifies. That is how something is BOTH a sign (water in baptism) and the effector of what it does in the sacrament.

While I can understand that many sincere Catholics do connect with God during their “Eucharist;” it does not follow that what they teach about the bread and the wine is true.

We are not looking for your affirmation. This is our faith. Nobody’s trying to sell you anything. We are just trying to explain what we believe.

In the above; you also state how that the bread and the wine are BOTH symbol and literal. This is a new twist which I have not yet heard Catholics say before. Is there any chance that you could show me more official Catholic writings which would explain that point? I would be interested to look into that.

Any elementary catechism starts from the position that we have “signs and symbols” that are, in their sacramental use, more than signs. And in the case of the Eucharist, they fulfill our Lord’s commandment: “Do this in remembrance of me.” Do what? Take and eat His Body. Not JUST a hunk of bread but His Sacred Body and Blood.

The Eucharistic prayer has a section called the “Epiklesis” – or calling down – of the Holy Spirit. From that point on through the actual words of institution, we believe that the Holy Spirit makes present the covenant sacrifice fulfilled through Our Lord’s Passion and Resurrection. This could not happen without the Resurrection.

Because we believe Our Lord’s words so completely, we worship Him in the Blessed Sacrament because we know that He is fully present there in a particular way in which he is not present elsewhere. This is by no means what our brother Jack T. Chick refers to as “cookie worship”. It is the Lord. Discerning Him under the sign is a gift of faith.

 

[Richard_Kastner]

4Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image, or any likeness of any thing that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth.

5Thou shalt not bow down thyself to them, nor serve them: for I the LORD thy God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation of them that hate me;

Here is the second commandment a commandment which the Catholic church denies for obvious reasons. The simple truth is that bowing down to this false bread god of the “eucharist” is blasphemy. The idea that a man can create God and encapsulate Him in this little bread wafer is ludicrous.
In Christ Richard

 

[mercygate]

Here is the second commandment a commandment which the Catholic church denies for obvious reasons. The simple truth is that bowing down to this false bread god of the “eucharist” is blasphemy. The idea that a man can create God and encapsulate Him in this little bread wafer is ludicrous.

In Christ Richard

The Catholic Church denies nothing.

The Catholic Church does not believe that “man can create and encapsulate” God in a wafer. You cannot possibly believe that our theology is that incredibly inept. Never mind. Millions do believe this drivel. I would suggest to you that with two thousand years of some of the greatest minds and souls in the history of the human race applying their faith and intellect to this subject, that perhaps there is more to this than you have yet considered.

Stop reading Jack Chick and pick up some Thomas Aquinas.

It is not “man” who effects the Sacramental Presence of Our Lord. It is the Holy Spirit. “Man” merely does what Our Lord has commanded: Do this in rembrance of me.

 

[adrift]

4Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image, or any likeness of any thing that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth.

5Thou shalt not bow down thyself to them, nor serve them: for I the LORD thy God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation of them that hate me;

Here is the second commandment a commandment which the Catholic church denies for obvious reasons. The simple truth is that bowing down to this false bread god of the “eucharist” is blasphemy. The idea that a man can create God and encapsulate Him in this little bread wafer is ludicrous.

                                  In Christ Richard

How do you know that this is the second commandment? The Bible doesn’t number them.
Jesus commanded it. So you don’t believe in Jesus who allowed others to bow down to Him. He said THIS IS my body. You misrepresent what Catholics believe that is breaking the word “Thou shalt not bear false witness” In fact, your whole post is a false.

 

[Protestant101]

How do you know that this is the second commandment? The Bible doesn’t number them.
Jesus commanded it. So you don’t believe in Jesus who allowed others to bow down to Him. He said THIS IS my body. You misrepresent what Catholics believe that is breaking the word “Thou shalt not bear false witness” In fact, your whole post is a false.

Nobody is bearing “false witness.” Must the Catholics on this forum continue with the mental charade of viciously characterizing all Protestants who do not see things the same as them? The purpose of this particular forum is to COMPARE AND CONTRAST beliefs. Most of us are courteous enough to keep it to the forums intended for this purpose, so please dispense with this kind of “apologetics name calling.” I am quite sick of this kind of thing, and am considering leaving this forum because of it. If you think a belief is from Satan fine; but you don’t have to get personal about it. Too many here are doing this to Protestants, it makes me wonder just how much “truth” is here.

 

[adrift]

Nobody is bearing “false witness.” Must the Catholics on this forum continue with the mental charade of viciously characterizing all Protestants who do not see things the same as them? The purpose of this particular forum is to COMPARE AND CONTRAST beliefs. Most of us are courteous enough to keep it to the forums intended for this purpose, so please dispense with this kind of “apologetics name calling.” I am quite sick of this kind of thing, and am considering leaving this forum because of it. If you think a belief is from Satan fine; but you don’t have to get personal about it. Too many here are doing this to Protestants, it makes me wonder just how much “truth” is here.

I am curious. You accuse me of name calling. What name did I call him. I never said his belief was from Satan. This is what he said:

Here is the second commandment a commandment which the Catholic church denies for obvious reasons. The simple truth is that bowing down to this false bread god of the “eucharist” is blasphemy. The idea that a man can create God and encapsulate Him in this little bread wafer is ludicrous.

This is a false accusation and he was quoting the commandments what I did was remind him of another commandment. How come you weren’t upset with his name calling? Why didn’t you mention his attack?

 

[Protestant101]

How come you weren’t upset with his name calling? Why didn’t you mention his attack?

You Catholics always find an excuse to blame someone else for your abuses. I want no part of it anymore.