How does Marian devotion save?

  • Thread starter Thread starter GreatScott7
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Tomster said:
Moondweller,

In the Gospel of St. John, chapter 6, verse 66, we read: “After this many of his disciples drew back and no longer went with him.”

What was the reason for this?
Click to expand...
They took His words literally. Many still continue to fall into that same error.
Also, please give us your fallible opinion on the meaning of 1 Corinthians 11:27-28
Click to expand...
Suffice for me to say that Paul says “eats the BREAD and drink the CUP.” One can be guilty of what they represent. Paul is not teaching transubstantiation here.
 
Tomster said:
Are they forthcoming or haven’t you found a suitable extra-biblical reference yet?
Click to expand...
Neither, I’m still waiting to read your “official” commentary on the Bible written by your “official” interpreters. Do you have it on order?
 
moondweller said:
They took His words literally. Many still continue to fall into that same error.
Click to expand...
The ones who stayed took Him literally too. What’s your point?
Suffice for me to say that Paul says “eats the BREAD and drink the CUP.” One can be guilty of what they represent. Paul is not teaching transubstantiation here.
Click to expand...
 
moondweller said:
They took His words literally. Many still continue to fall into that same error.Suffice for me to say that Paul says “eats the BREAD and drink the CUP.” One can be guilty of what they represent. Paul is not teaching transubstantiation here.
Click to expand...
You are correct, they took His words literally. Did Jesus, then, do or say anything to those assembled to try and convince them not to take his words literally?

What you fail to see is that part of verse 27 represented by the ellipsis is crucial. It reads: “shall be guilty of the body and blood of the Lord”. To be guilty of someone’s body and blood is revile him. One can hardly revile baked flour or fermented grape juice.
 
moondweller said:
Neither, I’m still waiting to read your “official” commentary on the Bible written by your “official” interpreters. Do you have it on order?
Click to expand...
BTW - What need have you to read my official commentary on the Bible written by my official interpreters? You are the self proclaimed illumined one. Grace us with your illuminations if you please.
 
moondweller said:
Neither, I’m still waiting to read your “official” commentary on the Bible written by your “official” interpreters. Do you have it on order?
Click to expand...
I have repeatedly asked you to LITERALLY interpret the verses I provided. If we were playing baseball you would be back on the bench. You didn’t even go down swinging. You just stood there like a house by the side of the road. What a pity for a self proclaimed, illumined, literalist, interpreter of Scripture as yourself. You should have been able to give the correct interpretations immediately. It’s been over week and still no reply. 🍿

One more question if you please. Are we suppossed to take you seriously? Honestly . . . :rolleyes:
 
Tomster said:
I have repeatedly asked you to LITERALLY interpret the verses I provided. If we were playing baseball you would be back on the bench. You didn’t even go down swinging. You just stood there like a house by the side of the road. What a pity for a self proclaimed, illumined, literalist, interpreter of Scripture as yourself. You should have been able to give the correct interpretations immediately.
Click to expand...
And you’ll be the judge as to the “correctness.” **LOL **

Hey, here’s a good idea, write for me your interpretation of each verse in the Book of Hebrews. And then after that, the Book of Romans. And then after that…
It’s been over week and still no reply.
Click to expand...
Are you delusional? You really think I’m going to spend time on a long list like that? LOL Especially in light of your comment below:
One more question if you please. Are we suppossed to take you seriously? Honestly . . . :rolleyes:
Click to expand...
And you think I would take your list seriously? Honestly? :whacky:
 
Tomster said:
BTW - What need have you to read my official commentary on the Bible written by my official interpreters? You are the self proclaimed illumined one. Grace us with your illuminations if you please.
Click to expand...
Well, the Catholic stance on this thread is that there must be “official” interpreters of the Scriptures. So I’m asking for the “official” commentary by these “official” interpreters. You have no other source by which to judge whether or not my interpretation of your list of verses is correct. Unless you’re claiming to actually be one of those “official” (infallible) interpreters. Are you? If not, then provide for me the “official” “Book of Interpretation.” And I must assume this "official" book is quite ancient, else your church would have been in Scriptural darkness for many years. And if there is no such book, then what does that say?
 
moondweller said:
Well, the Catholic stance on this thread is that there must be “official” interpreters of the Scriptures. So I’m asking for the “official” commentary by these “official” interpreters. You have no other source by which to judge whether or not my interpretation of your list of verses is correct. Unless you’re claiming to actually be one of those “official” (infallible) interpreters. Are you? If not, then provide for me the “official” “Book of Interpretation.” And I must assume this "official" book is quite ancient, else your church would have been in Scriptural darkness for many years. And if there is no such book, then what does that say?
Click to expand...
I think it says that you haven’t asked the right questions.
 
I know what extrabiblical doctrines evolved over time and were accepted as dogma in the Western and Eastern churches of Christendom. But you have yet to prove that the Apostles themselves taught those dogmas,* i.e.,* that they’re of Apostolic origin.
 
Tomster said:
At the Last Supper? Absolutely!
Click to expand...
And yet He was reclined at table with them in His human body with its blood running through its veins providing Him with life and, being fully human, can only be in one place at one time. And the other amazing thing is that after His death and burial He rose from the dead not with His body of humility, but a glorified body. A body which can NEVER experience death again and in which He presently exercises His perpetual High Priesthood in heaven on behalf of the saved on earth. Hence, He possesses a body which cannot be continually sacrificed. And it’s based on the fact of His glorified body that the true believer is given this glorious truth:Phil 3:20-21 “For our citizenship is in heaven, from which also we eagerly wait for a Savior, the Lord Jesus Christ;* who will transform the body of our humble state into conformity with the body of His glory**, by the exertion of the power that He has even to subject all things to Himself*.”
 
Like I said, the sophistry is deafening. He takes the Bible literally when it suits him to, like a typical Protestant anti-Catholic. Otherwise, then the “Spirit moves him to a non-literal interpretation.”

Novelties and nonsense.
 
Amen. Little wonder Protestantism has done so much damage to Christendom. When any armchair scholar can declare himself both pope and Magisterium, the true pope and Magisterium will invariably be ignored.
 
Lycorth said:
Like I said, the sophistry is deafening. He takes the Bible literally when it suits him to, like a typical Protestant anti-Catholic. Otherwise, then the “Spirit moves him to a non-literal interpretation.”

Novelties and nonsense.
Click to expand...
No, actually it’s the text itself that determines it. Just like you’d read any other literature. 😃 When the literal makes sense, seek no other sense. In the case of Christ’s words at the Last Supper, the literal makes no sense, hence, one must seek another. IOW, He was speaking figuratively/symbolically. There’s no mystery there.
 
Lycorth said:
Like I said, the sophistry is deafening. He takes the Bible literally when it suits him to, like a typical Protestant anti-Catholic.
Click to expand...
How does taking the Scriptures literally when it makes sense automatically brand someone “anti-Catholic?” IOW, if anyone disagrees with your interpretation he’s “anti-Catholic?”
 
I didn’t say it was on par with other literature. It’s God’s Word. I said you interpret it like any other literature. Otherwise, Scripture is subordinate to the reader, not the reader subordinate to Scripture.
 
moondweller said:
No, actually it’s the text itself that determines it. Just like you’d read any other literature. 😃 When the literal makes sense, seek no other sense. In the case of Christ’s words at the Last Supper, the literal makes no sense, hence, one must seek another. IOW, He was speaking figuratively/symbolically. There’s no mystery there.
Click to expand...
Because you think it makes no sense doesn’t mean it is so, otherwise that would be clear to every Protestant.

It is not, therefore it is not.
moondweller said:
How does taking the Scriptures literally when it makes sense automatically brand someone “anti-Catholic?” IOW, if anyone disagrees with your interpretation he’s “anti-Catholic?”
Click to expand...
You are clearly anti-Catholic. You think the Church is man-made, made-up, and wrong about the Faith it was instituted to defend. That’s anti-Catholicism.

The fact you keep insisting that Church teaching we cite are “our” teachings (as if we made them up ourselves) is part of the proof.
moondweller said:
I didn’t say it was on par with other literature. It’s God’s Word. I said you interpret it like any other literature. Otherwise, Scripture is subordinate to the reader, not the reader subordinate to Scripture.
Click to expand...
Yet a few posts ago you clearly said that you interpret Scripture like any other literature…
moondweller said:
No, actually it’s the text itself that determines it. Just like you’d read any other literature.
Click to expand...
Clearly implying that if something makes sense to the reader, then that’s how God intended it to be taken, but if something doesn’t make sense, then God must not have meant it that way.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top