Did Jesus Start the Catholic Church?

[rev_kevin]

benedictus2;7541217]
Question is how do we know that Jesus was speaking Aramaic when He was talking to Peter? The clue is in the opening address. He refers to Peter as Simon bar Jonah. Bar is Aramaic for son.

In Hebrew, The Word For Son Is Bar And In Aramic Its ‘’ Ben ‘’ Or Ibn . So The Original LanguageOf TheBible Was Syria Or Arabic , AndLater It Became Aramic Or Hebrew.

 

[fbl9]

Ya

This isn’t worth answering.

snip…
Why would you need to renew your baptismal vows. When I was Catholic the priest would walk around the congragation sprinkling water on them at the Easter vigil, a baptism so to say. So why do you need to renew your baptismal vows if, as you say, "It is contrary to the Teachings of the Aposltes. One Baptism, it says in Scripture, and in the creeds."
snip
l]

Why can one be re-baptised.? It serves no purpose.
What does this endelible mark look like? Could you describe it’s essence?
At what point are the words proper to baptism spoken? At no point, so your assumption that sprinkling of holy water is a re-baptism is incorrect.

 

[PbloPicasso]

Why would you need to renew your baptismal vows. When I was Catholic the priest would walk around the congragation sprinkling water on them at the Easter vigil, a baptism so to say. So why do you need to renew your baptismal vows if, as you say, "It is contrary to the Teachings of the Aposltes. One Baptism, it says in Scripture, and in the creeds."

You know, Kevin, I used to wonder about this too. However, what I didn’t realize, until I attended my 2 youngest children’s Catholic Christian baptism for the first time ever I would have said something similar. The “renewal” isn’t a second baptism. It’s like with someone “renews their vows of marriage”. There are promises made as parents for the children, whether they are old enough or not. I baptized my oldest son, now 16. When we first started studying Catholicism I was afraid he’d choose not to convert. We gave him that option because he was already baptized by his own choice. And this last sentence could be elaborated on greatly because I’ve seen grown adults that chose to be baptized as a young child, 11 or so, and still felt that the baptism didn’t stick or something like that. Sermons were often about such topics in our church community. I know baptist that didn’t believe their baptism was valid so they approached the alter (oh the irony) to get baptized right.

Anyway, the vows include renouncing Satan and stuff like that. We are reminding ourselves what we chose to do because of our baptism. Our parents first make the decision for us and later we choose to follow through with it or not. No where in the bible does it come even close to saying we must remember our baptism. But it is nice to remember it like my children. And to have pictures of it also helps. If, for any reason, they ever question their baptism, we’re headed to the local pool or bathtub and I’m dunking them, “baptizing” them, completely to rid any doubt, that was only induced by Protestants.

Hope that helps.

 

[guanophore]

See this is where I disagree. How can the parents/community faith determine if you are a Christian?

They can’t.

How did the Jew determine if a baby born to them was supposed to be part of the Covenant?

Jesus is the baptizer. Jesus said to suffer the little children to come unto Him, for of such is the Kingdom. We come to Him in baptism. Through it, we are made members of His One Body.

How can the parents/community make that most important decission for you?

How can they NOT! We make all kinds of decisions for our children - medical care, dental care, immunizations, education, etc, etc. Why leave the one thing with eternal consequence undone?

Acts 2:39
39 For the promise is for you, for your children,

How can the parents/community say that a infant accepts Christ?

How could the Jews say that the infant who was circumcised would accept the covenant into which they were brought forth?

I went through the **liturgy of infant baptism **and it seem to me that the parents are saying they will raise the child according to the CC teachings. To me its about the parents conferming that they will raise their child in a Catholic/Christian manner. Its the parents that say the child will accept Christ. Once again, how can the parents make that kind of important decission for the child?

The parents promise to raise the child in the Lord. That is all they can do. If the child decides to depart when they come of age, that is their decision.

Why would you need to renew your baptismal vows. When I was Catholic the priest would walk around the congragation sprinkling water on them at the Easter vigil, a baptism so to say. So why do you need to renew your baptismal vows if, as you say, "It is contrary to the Teachings of the Aposltes. One Baptism, it says in Scripture, and in the creeds."

The water is a reminder of the baptismal font in which we were buried with Christ. Some of us renew our baptismal vows every day, but it is done liturgically at least once a year. It is an opportunity for us to remember who we are as baptized persons, and that we are to live out that faith into which we were baptized.

Dutch scholars who contributed to the Oosthoeks Encyclopedie held that the name Caiaphas was a corruption of ‘Cephas’, which they regarded as the nickname, meaning ‘rock’, of both the high priest Joseph and the apostle Simon.17 Others, among whom Allegro, have suggested that ‘Caiaphas’/‘Caiphas’ was the original form, stemming from the Arabic word qā’ifun, meaning ‘investigator, prognosticator’18 or ‘fortune-teller’, and that ‘Cephas’ was either a dialectal version or an adapted form – alluding to the meaning ‘rock’ – of the variant ‘Caiphas’.
So, it is possible that ‘Cephas’ at some point was the nickname of the high priest Joseph.
Therefore, when John wrote that Jesus gave Simon the name Cephas, John’s intention may have been to express that Jesus gave Simon the name and function of the high priest.

Hmmmm

It is interesting that none of those who were present understood it that way.

The name Rock – “Cephas” and “Caiphas” interchangeable
Not a proper name
The Greek word Kēphas (Khfaj spelled kappa-eta-phi–alpha–sigma) is a transliteration into Greek letters of the Aramaic word Keypha ()pyk spelled caph-yod-peh-aleph = kyp’) for ‘rock’, for John explains in his Greek Gospel that Simon’s new name Kēphas means ‘rock’ (and is translated into ‘Petros’)

1. …] we have no verified usage of Keypha as an Aramaic name prior to the NT usage. 2) We do in fact have a few cases of TITLES being translated from Semitic languages into Greek:Mashiach/Christos; Thomas/Didymus; Abba/Pater; etc. So, the move from Keypha to Petros is by no means without parallel in early Christianity. 3) All indications are that Keypha arose NOT as a name but as a title or nickname (i.e., either a formal or informal sobriquet).

15 In the Greek text of Matt 26,3.57 Luke 3,2 John 11,49 18,13 Acts 4,besides ‘Kaiaphas’ also ‘Kaiphas’ appears.
E.g.: eij de tij ec autwn Kaiafaj (Kaifaj: P45,75vid D it vgcl sa ac2) John 11,49, and en gar penqeroj tou Kaiafa ( Kaifa: C D it vgcl sa ac2 pbo) John 18,13. In John 18,14.24.28 only Kaiafaj is found. The Vulgate uses only ‘Caiphas’ (Matt 26,3.57; Luke 3,2; John 11,49 18,13.14.24.28; Acts 4,6). [NA27 (Novum Testamentum Graece, Stuttgart 27. ausgabe 1993, 8. Druck 2001]
16 Jos., J.Ant. 18,2,2: “and when he (Simon, the son of Camithus) had possessed that dignity (of high priest) no longer than a year, Joseph Caiaphas was made his successor.” 18,4,3: “Besides which, he also deprived Joseph, who was also called Caiaphas, of the high priesthood”.
17Oosthoeks Encyclopedie (Utrecht 1968) 8, p. 328 at “Kefas”
18 According to Allegro Kaiapha(s) is a Greek transliteration of the Arabic word qā’ifun, which means ‘investigator, prognosticator; physiognomist’ and is the participle of the Arabic verb qāfa, meaning ‘follow; examine, investigate’
(J.M. ALLEGRO, The Dead Sea Scrolls and the Christian Myth (1979, 2nd revised American edition: New York 1992) p.
212-13, 236-37).
www.jesusking.info/Paul’s%20Cephas%20is%20Caiphas%2004-01-2009.pdf

Not sure what point you are trying to make, kev. Do you not believe that Jesus called Peter Cephas?

 

[guanophore]

In Hebrew, The Word For Son Is Bar And In Aramic Its ‘’ Ben ‘’ Or Ibn . So The Original LanguageOf TheBible Was Syria Or Arabic , AndLater It Became Aramic Or Hebrew.

That’s quite a jumpo to make, Kev. Are you talking about the OT Scripture?

I don’t think you can substantiate such a claim.

Jesus spoke several languages, as is evident my his converse with many cultures. However, He was raised in Galilee, and spoke primarily Aramaic.

And history gives us testimony that the Gospel of Matthew, written for the Jews, was penned in Aramiac.

 

[benedictus2]

In Hebrew, The Word For Son Is Bar And In Aramic Its ‘’ Ben ‘’ Or Ibn . So The Original LanguageOf TheBible Was Syria Or Arabic , AndLater It Became Aramic Or Hebrew.

Actually Bar is is Aramaic, Ben is Hebrew so you’ve got it the other way around.

Jesus spoke Aramaic as can be attested to by the number of Aramaic words that have been carried over even into the Greek Translation. That in itself is actually interesting. Why did the Greek writers not completely translate everything into Greek and leave out the Aramaic. It seems the Holy Spirit wants us to know that Jesus spoke Aramaic.

 

[rev_kevin]

guanophore;7544833]
How did the Jew determine if a baby born to them was supposed to be part of the Covenant?

You did not answer my question.

Jesus is the baptizer. Jesus said to suffer the little children to come unto Him, for of such is the Kingdom. We come to Him in baptism. Through it, we are made members of His One Body.

You said it, “little children” Children of the age or reasonable to make their own decisions about being baptized. A infant is not a child per-say.

How can they NOT! We make all kinds of decisions for our children - medical care, dental care, immunizations, education, etc, etc. Why leave the one thing with eternal consequence undone?

Sure we make all kind of decisions for our children but the one that we cannot make for them is the one about accepting Christ. No one can make that most important decision for them.

How could the Jews say that the infant who was circumcised would accept the covenant into which they were brought forth?

Again did not answer my question.

The parents promise to raise the child in the Lord. That is all they can do. If the child decides to depart when they come of age, that is their decision.

But can’t they do that without baptism?

The water is a reminder of the baptismal font in which we were buried with Christ. Some of us renew our baptismal vows every day, but it is done liturgically at least once a year. It is an opportunity for us to remember who we are as baptized persons, and that we are to live out that faith into which we were baptized.

Thats your way of renewing your baptism. Our way is “dunking.”

Do you not believe that Jesus called Peter Cephas?

Of course I believe he called Simon Kephas. But why?

 

[benedictus2]

Dutch scholars who contributed to the Oosthoeks Encyclopedie held that the name Caiaphas was a corruption of ‘Cephas’, which they regarded as the nickname, meaning ‘rock’, of both the high priest Joseph and the apostle Simon.17 Others, among whom Allegro, have suggested that ‘Caiaphas’/‘Caiphas’ was the original form, stemming from the Arabic word qā’ifun, meaning ‘investigator, prognosticator’18 or ‘fortune-teller’, and that ‘Cephas’ was either a dialectal version or an adapted form – alluding to the meaning ‘rock’ – of the variant ‘Caiphas’. So, it is possible that ‘Cephas’ at some point was the nickname of the high priest Joseph.

This has nothing to do with whether Peter was the rock Jesus reffered to when He said upon this rock I will build my Church.

Very unlikely.
Therefore, when John wrote that Jesus gave Simon the name Cephas, John’s intention may have been to express that Jesus gave Simon the name and function of the high priest.

Hardly since the Gospel says it translates to Peter. Since Cephas is Rock therefore Peter means rock.

** The name Rock – “Cephas” and “Caiphas” interchangeable**
Not a proper name
The Greek word Kēphas (Khfaj spelled kappa-eta-phi–alpha–sigma) is a transliteration into Greek letters of the Aramaic word Keypha ()pyk spelled caph-yod-peh-aleph = kyp’) **for ‘rock’, for John explains in his Greek Gospel that Simon’s new name Kēphas means ‘rock’ (**and is translated into ‘Petros’)

Exactly John is saying Simon’s name is to be Cephas which means Rock therefore not pebble or stone but rock.
**
Can we therefore now agree that Peter means rock and not pebble or stone so that we can move on?**

 

[rev_kevin]

benedictus2;7544878]

Actually Bar is is Aramaic, Ben is Hebrew so you’ve got it the other way around.

Strong’s Number: 1123
And
Link to Concordance Name/ Pronunciation: (Aramaic) corresponding to ‘ben’
Description: (1121):–child,** son**, young.
.

Jesus spoke Aramaic as can be attested to by the number of Aramaic words that have been carried over even into the Greek Translation. That in itself is actually interesting. Why did the Greek writers not completely translate everything into Greek and leave out the Aramaic. It seems the Holy Spirit wants us to know that Jesus spoke Aramaic.

Never disputed that Jesus spoke Aramaic. He probably spoke Greek also.

 

[rev_kevin]

benedictus2;7544901]
**
Can we therefore now agree that Peter means rock and not pebble or stone so that we can move on?**

OK it means rock. But what size rock? lol

 

[rev_kevin]

fbl9;7544813]Why can one be re-baptised.? It serves no purpose.

Ok so what’s the harm?

What does this endelible mark look like? Could you describe it’s essence?

It looks like a big **“G” **across your forehead. Its to show that you belong to God.

At what point are the words proper to baptism spoken?

It depends.

At no point, so your assumption that sprinkling of holy water is a re-baptism is incorrect.

Then what is it?

 

[guanophore]

You did not answer my question.

No, I did not. It is based upon a false premise. It assumes that a person must make an adult decision prior to baptism, but that is not the pattern of circumcision, which it replaces.

You said it, “little children” Children of the age or reasonable to make their own decisions about being baptized. A infant is not a child per-say.

I think if you check the Gk. here you will find the word translated “little children” is paidion (pahee-dee’-on)i.e. (properly,) an infant, or (by extension) a half-grown boy or girl; figuratively, an immature Christian:

Parents make all the important decisions regarding the rearing of their children. Why would Christian parents refuse the command of the Lord to bring their children to Him?

Why do you reject the Apostolic Teaching that baptism is circucision under the New Covenant?

Sure we make all kind of decisions for our children but the one that we cannot make for them is the one about accepting Christ. No one can make that most important decision for them.

You are right. We can bring them to the Lord in baptism, raise them in the faith, but for each one, a time will come when they must choose to live out their baptism, or abandon the faith into which they were born. It was the same for Jews who were circumcised.

Again did not answer my question.

Again it is based upon a false premise. The infant born to believing parents was assumed to be given by God to them and was to be consecrated to Him, and raised as a child of the covenant. When the child came of age, they had the choice to embrace that covenant on their own.

But can’t they do that without baptism?

It is much more difficult. You see, the Apostles taught that baptism transfers the soul from the Kingdom of darkness into the Kingdom of light. Through it, the power of bondage to sin is broken, and the recipient no longer must be a slave to sin. Baptism is the beginning of the walk with Christ. By and through it, the person is sealed with the promised Holy Spirit, who is the guarantee of our inheritance, until we acquire posession of it. This is only a small amount of what baptism accomplishes. Why would someone want to try to raise a child within the bondage of sin when they could have it washed away in baptism?

Thats your way of renewing your baptism. Our way is “dunking.”

I understand. But we also received the Apostolic Teaching that there is only ONE BAPTISM. The practice of again baptizing is based upon the premise that the first baptism was not valid.

Of course I believe he called Simon Kephas. But why?

Because Kephas was the name Jesus gave him. Jesus grafted Peter into Himself, making his cowardly tendencies into rocky ones. All of the Apostles taught that Peter was the Rock, by virtue of His grace. This was the understanding of the Church for 1500 years. One would think, that if the disciples misunderstood Jesus, that He would have corrected them.

 

[guanophore]

Ok so what’s the harm?]/quote]

It is a repudiation of the Apostolic Teaching, a gross and flagrant refusal of the Apostle’s creed.
rev kevin;7544929:

It looks like a big **“G” **

across your forehead. Its to show that you belong to God.

LOL.

Is there some reason you think He would not write such a G on an infant?

Didn’t the Jews get a mark, also?

Then what is it?

It is a reminder of the waters of baptism, in which we are buried with Christ.

 

[rev_kevin]

guanophore;7544932]No, I did not. It is based upon a false premise. It assumes that a person must make an adult decision prior to baptism, but that is not the pattern of circumcision, which it replaces.

Why is it a false premise. Because it goes against your teachings?

I think if you check the Gk. here you will find the word translated “little children” is paidion (pahee-dee’-on)i.e. (properly,) an infant, or (by extension) a half-grown boy or girl; figuratively, an immature Christian:

:tiphat:

Parents make all the important decisions regarding the rearing of their children. Why would Christian parents refuse the command of the Lord to bring their children to Him?

Because its up to the individual. Jesus was PRESENTED to God by his parents not baptized.
Why did Jesus wait until he was older to be baptized?

Why do you reject the Apostolic Teaching that baptism is circucision under the New Covenant?

You are right. We can bring them to the Lord in baptism, raise them in the faith, but for each one, a time will come when they must choose to live out their baptism, or abandon the faith into which they were born. It was the same for Jews who were circumcised.

Thats not what I said. I said: Originally Posted by rev kevin
Sure we make all kind of decisions for our children but the one that we cannot make for them is the one about accepting Christ. No one can make that most important decision for them.

Again it is based upon a false premise. The infant born to believing parents was assumed to be given by God to them and was to be consecrated to Him, and raised as a child of the covenant. When the child came of age, they had the choice to embrace that covenant on their own.

Again with the false permise.

It is much more difficult. You see, the Apostles taught that baptism transfers the soul from the Kingdom of darkness into the Kingdom of light. Through it, the power of bondage to sin is broken, and the recipient no longer must be a slave to sin. Baptism is the beginning of the walk with Christ. By and through it, the person is sealed with the promised Holy Spirit, who is the guarantee of our inheritance, until we acquire posession of it. This is only a small amount of what baptism accomplishes. Why would someone want to try to raise a child within the bondage of sin when they could have it washed away in baptism?

What bondage of sin? Jesus paid the price of that sin already.

I understand. But we also received the Apostolic Teaching that there is only ONE BAPTISM. The practice of again baptizing is based upon the premise that the first baptism was not valid.

Not all the time its not.

Because Kephas was the name Jesus gave him. Jesus grafted Peter into Himself, making his cowardly tendencies into rocky ones. All of the Apostles taught that Peter was the Rock, by virtue of His grace. This was the understanding of the Church for 1500 years. One would think, that if the disciples misunderstood Jesus, that He would have corrected them.

Nothing says if they misunderstood him or understood him about this. I’m not saying Peter wasn’t called Rock but for what reason?

 

[rev_kevin]

guanophore;7544945]

Ok so what’s the harm?

It is a repudiation of the Apostolic Teaching, a gross and flagrant refusal of the Apostle’s creed

 

[benedictus2]

OK it means rock. But what size rock? lol

Well that is beside the point. Rock means rock. I am sure Aramaic has a word for stone.

Because now that we agree that it means Rock, we can read the text properly.

Jesus said “So I say to you, you are Rock and upon this rock I will build my Church”.

It is now very clear that Jesus was referring to the Rock that is Peter when He said that upon this rock, I will build my church.

 

[benedictus2]

Strong’s Number: 1123
And
Link to Concordance Name/ Pronunciation: (Aramaic) corresponding to ‘ben’
Description: (1121):–child,** son**, young.

Exactly corresponding to ben. So bar is Aramaic and ben is the Hebrew equivalent.

I refer you to Strong’s Hebrew Bible as well on this link
htmlbible.com/sacrednamebiblecom/kjvstrongs/STRHEB11.htm

ben - from ‘banah’ (1129); a son (as a builder of the family name)

 

[tqualey]

Hi, Rev Kev,

I realize you disagree - but, note: Guanophore gave you historical and theological reasons why infants are baptized. You only doubt and question how this can be done. There is a significant difference between HOW these opposing positions are determined.

And, in answer to, “HOW can the parents/community say…” anything involving the infant tht the infant hasn’t yet chosen - consider safety. Infants may want to sleep in a prone position (on their abdomen) - but research has found that there is less chance of them choking or suffocating if they are in a supine position (on their back). Parents make many such choices involving breast feeding, foods to be started, types of clothing to be worn, etc. Communiities make similar decisions like involving immunization schedules, and in the case of suspected abuse, to advocate for the infant so that if necessary s/he can be removed from the home for safety reasons. Parents can also be criminally prosecuted for not providing for the safety of the infant. And, all of these examples are just on the natural level. How much more so on the supernatural level.

When Christ founded His Church on Peter, He built upon the Laws and Traditions of the Jewish Faith. What happens is, Christ raises the bar! So, instead of merely not committing adultery one is not to look with lust on another. Christ commanded that the Apostles go out and preach and baptize the world (Matt 28:16-20). Like a Good Parent - He is acting for our Eternal Safety - for we are all to be Children of God… and members of the Church He founded on Peter (and, that would be the Catholic Church).

The covenant given by God to Abraham involved a physical act on the males - you were literally correct in saying females were not circumcised in this command (you just failed to realize that females benefitted by being part of the family). Circumcision, perfomred on the 8th day left no pernanent mark of the soul. Baptism, however, marks the soul in a special way as it cleanses it from sin. That special mark identifies us a Children of God and Members of His Church.

While there are those who rale about the decision made to be Baptized in the Catholic Church - the real decision was not made by the infant or by the parents - but, through the promptings of the Holy Spirit. While you may try various actions - like multiple baptism - to try and have some other outcome, it is to no avail. A good deed has been done for you, now how you respond/react to it is your choice. But, as has been pointed out by many posters - “…there is but one baptism…”

Baptismal vows are repeated at Easter time - not because they were about to ‘expire’ or the ‘warranty’ was coming to an end - but, to renew in the heart and mind of each baptized individual just what gracious event took place when they were made Children of God. By analogy, many married people publicly renew their wedding vows within the context of the Mass during certain anniversaries. These vows were not about to expire. What is being done is a public proclamation of th e commitment that has been made by this man and woman. Nothing is added to the reality of the baptism or marriage by renewing the vows - these public renewals are focused on the unity of the Christian Community in union with Vicar of Christ on Earth (Benedict XVI).

Finally, I think Benedictus2 gave you an excellent rebuttal involving Christ actually changing Simon’s name to Rock and then later building His Church - the Catholic Church - on this Rock.

But, you know what … if Christ wanted to build His Church of a pebble - don’t you think He could? Do you think that the parable Christ gave of the mustard seed (Luke 13:18-21) is only intended for farmers or roosting birds?

Now, I realize that you will not resond to this - as you have failed to respond to other posts. But, this post is not for you alone - but, for all those who are wondering if Crhist started the Catholic Church. And, as you know, He did. The only real issue is what do you plan on doing with this informaiton. Embracing man-made religions and the traditions of men because the Church of Christ (Catholic Church) has failed from time to time is truly throwing the Baby out with the bath water! PbloPicasso brought up the problem of quitting Christ because of Judas’ betrayal, or Peter’s three-time denial, or the other ten for fleeing in the Garden. Step back (from your current situation) and look at the Big Picture of a Loving Christ Who gave us the Catholic Church as the vehicle for our salvation.

God bless

See this is where I disagree. How can the parents/community faith determine if you are a Christian? How can the parents/community make that most important decission for you? How can the parents/community say that a infant accepts Christ? I went through the **liturgy of infant baptism **and it seem to me that the parents are saying they will raise the child according to the CC teachings. To me its about the parents conferming that they will raise their child in a Catholic/Christian manner. Its the parents that say the child will accept Christ. Once again, how can the parents make that kind of important decission for the child?

Why would you need to renew your baptismal vows. When I was Catholic the priest would walk around the congragation sprinkling water on them at the Easter vigil, a baptism so to say. So why do you need to renew your baptismal vows if, as you say, "It is contrary to the Teachings of the Aposltes. One Baptism, it says in Scripture, and in the creeds."

 

[fbl9]

Ok so what’s the harm?

It looks like a big **“G” **across your forehead. Its to show that you belong to God.

It depends.

Then what is it?

guanophore already answered for me.

very funny, since you have not the understanding of what happens to the soul when it is baptised, the soul becomes alive for it was dead in trespass of orginal sin. do you deny the doctrine of orginal sin?
A renewal of promises is not a baptism. remeber at no point are the words proper to baptism spoken.

 

[rinnie]

See here again, you are doing a very protestant practice of taking a verse or half a verse and coming up with a whole exegesis on it.

When Christ said that His Body is the Temple He did not mean what you are making it mean. Perhaps you can dig out a commentary on this.

The Church is His Mystical Body. The Person of Christ is more than His Mystical Body anymore than Rinnie’s body is the totality of Rinnie. You are more than just your physical body so we cannot say Rinnie is her body.

Please, please, please Rinnie, instead of arguing with me just follow my advice and ask an apologist or a priest. Pass your exegesis by them if you do not believe me. Continuing this way gets us nowhere.

Do not rely on your own understanding. That is what you have been doing with regards this issue all along. I have asked you to ask someone else but to date it seems you have not done that but prefer to keep sticking to your own.

What more comentary do you want, Jesus said plain as day, just because you can’t see it is no reason to call me names and throw your rants and rages. I said I would explain it, actually I have tried numerous ways and times.

All Salvation comes from Jesus Christ. He has saved us by his physical body which he gave up for us on the Cross for our sins,

Thats it, Done deal. we are saved. We are baptised free from sin, end of story. ALmost!!

Then comes sin, again, we sin again then we lose the salvation he gave up for us, Now how do we get it back. The same way. From Jesus Christ. He promised he would not leave us orphans, he left us something. His Mystical Body the Eucharist. It is by his Mystical Body which he makes his presense to us by his bread and wine, which becomes his True Body and Blood, All we have to do is repent, ask for forgiveness and we can re-unite ourselves with him ONCE AGAIN in the Eucharist where he makes his presence. As usual just l like before in his Fathers House.

Now who is Jesus Christ, simple the second person of the Trinity. Who is the Eucharist? Simple the actual Jesus Christ. Human and Divine. I said he is just as much alive today and powerful in his Mystical Body as when he revealed to us his Physical Body. I said there is no difference, And I still mean it.

As Jesus told Thomas you believe because you have seen, blessed are those who believe and do not see.

Who was Saul persecuting the Physical body of Jesus or his Mystical Body his Church which he gave up his Physical body for. Did Jesus not say that our body is made up of many parts.

Now you show me where Jesus or any Church teaching for that fact ever said that because Jesus revealed to us his Physical body and his Mystical Body he is no longer the 2nd Person of the Trinity, and that when his Physical body died that ceased. Please show me now. Thats all I ask! You never show me where I am wrong, you just continue to accuse me of being wrong, you call me names, you say I don’t listen, I teach lies, I am stuborn …

I mean you didn’t accuse me of being a protestant, but then again didn’t you

Please show me where his human nature was ever separated from his Divine nature. I was taught that is impossible. And then show me how his Divine nature separated him from his Human Nature, Does he not sit Body and Soul and the right hand of his Father in heaven.

Did he not raise BODY and SOUL, Is he not going to come back BODY AND SOUL the same way,