John the Baptist born without sin

[Rulkiewicz]

Do you have a Scripture verse to back up that qualification? Romans 3:23 says that “all have sinned.” It does not say that “all who were conceived by a man and a woman have sinned.”

**All **includes Mary.

 

[NotWorthy]

Jesus is our Passover Lamb (1 Cor 5:7-8)

You want to believe that you need a physical bread to sustain your (eternal) life. You have the exact same carnal feelings and understand of the communion bread as the Jews did in John 6. Read that chapter again. The Jews wanted a PSYCHIAL bread, just like their forefathers ate. They wanted mana from heaven.

When Jesus said I am the living bread, you must eat my flesh… what did those Jews do? John 6:66… They walked with him no more. Because they were still thinking carnally, they wanted physical bread to eat for everlasting life. Jesus said unless you eat my flesh and drink my blood you have no (eternal) life in you.

Those Jews were thinking carnally. They we not thinking spiritually. Jesus said his kingdom is not of this world. It’s not physical or carnal, it’s spiritual.

Shortly after they left Jesus, He turned to his disciples and asked if they too would leave… and what did they say? “Never, because you (Jesus) have the **words **of eternal life” (notice he didn’t save flesh and blood)

What does this flesh and blood have to do with anything? Read on the Jewish tradition of passover. After the meal, the leader of the Seder presents the Afikomen, which is a piece of the passover lamb. The members of the Passover feast ate of the Afikomen in remembrance of the slain Passover Lamb that has pushed back the sins of the Jews. This is the custom of the time, and still is today, except the Jews can no longer sacrifice lambs, but instead use a piece of matzah as the afikomen.

But when Jesus presented the afikomen, he wasn’t holding a piece of the passover lamb, he held a piece of bread (matzah). By him stating “This is my body” he told his disciples that HE IS THE PASSOVER LAMB, and with the shedding of HIS blood, all sins are forgiven, not just pushed back.

Read about the Passover Seder regarding the 4 cups of wine. There are four cups which represent the four promises from God to the Jews from Exodus 6:6-7:

1. I will take you out
2. I will save you
3. I will redeem you
4. I will take you as a nation

The first two cups are drunk before the meal, and the 3rd and 4th are drunk after the meal. After the meal, Jesus took the 3rd cup, the cup of redemption, and said “This is my Blood” Jesus was saying that His blood was the redeeming promise for God. We are redeemed by Jesus’ blood.

The Jews of the time completely understood the symbolic reference that Jesus was making. We are to still hold these traditions in remembrance of Him, but it’s not as important how often we do it, what’s important is THAT we do it. Paul as “as **often **as thee…” (1 Cor 11:26)

You can re-spin this as much as you want. But there are two things you need to consider:

1)The Jews understood Jesus carnally, which is why they walked away. Unlike every other time in John’s Gospel, when the audience misunderstood Jesus, either Jesus clarifies or the author does (for the reader).

Jesus didn’t stop them from leaving and claim they are taking him too literally. John did not clarify that Jesus was speaking symbolically. They left the matzo ball out there just hanging.

1. Every other Christian generation understood Jesus to be speaking literally. St. Polycarp, who spent decades with John the Apostle, who wrote John’s Gospel and could pretty accurately clear up any mis-conceptions our good Polycarp could have had, understood this to mean the Real Presence.

St. Ignatius, who also studied under John and Peter, understood this to mean the Real Presence.

Both of these saints probably asked, at least once or twice, what John meant when he wrote of that scene in chapter 6.

Now, fast forward 1500 years to a group of people that:’
a) don’t know the Apostles
b) don’t speak Greek fluently
c) don’t have access to any of the other writings of the times

Who do you think I’m going to trust, and who do you think I’m just going to lump into the afore-mentioned (and accursed) “traditions of men”?

 

[NotWorthy]

There is a line. And it has drastially strayed from the church that Peter built on the Day of Pentecost.

Where is that line? You stated rather emphatically that the power to “bind and loose” died with Peter. You have a source of truth - the Bible. Where in the Bible does it stay that. You seem to have withdrawn from that “line in the sand” somewhat from your original statement. Please redraw the line.

Are the topics and practices of the Catholic church taught in the bible, or even in the 1st century?

Yes, thank you! Every one.

Do you baptize infants like the 1st century Church?
Do you pray for the dead like the 1st century Church?
Do you confess to a priest for the forgiveness of your sins like the 1st century Church?
Are you partaking in the Real Presence in your Eucharist like the 1st century Church?
Do you believe that the Mass (or whatever you call your church service) is a Sacrifice like the 1st century Church?

If you don’t do all of these, then you are being rather flippant and short-sighted to accuse Catholics of changing their teachings and traditions, for these have been taught for 2000 years, and only after the “Deformation” did man-made religious sects drop these traditions.

 

[NotWorthy]

**All **includes Mary.

Jesus is fully Man, is he not. “All” should include Jesus, unless you don’t believe in the Incarnation.

Maybe, however, Paul is talking in generalities.

For instance, in Romans 3:10, he says

As it is written, There is none righteous, no, not one:

How can he make this claim when Luke tells us of Zechariah and Elizabeth in 1:6

Both were righteous in the eyes of God, observing all the commandments and ordinances of the Lord blamelessly.

I think you guys tend to focus on single verses and use them blindly, whereas you should take Scripture as a whole.

It’s that whole “forest and the trees” thing, in my opinion.

 

[Rulkiewicz]

You can re-spin this as much as you want. But there are two things you need to consider:

1)The Jews understood Jesus carnally, which is why they walked away. Unlike every other time in John’s Gospel, when the audience misunderstood Jesus, either Jesus clarifies or the author does (for the reader).

Jesus didn’t stop them from leaving and claim they are taking him too literally. John did not clarify that Jesus was speaking symbolically. They left the matzo ball out there just hanging.

1. Every other Christian generation understood Jesus to be speaking literally. St. Polycarp, who spent decades with John the Apostle, who wrote John’s Gospel and could pretty accurately clear up any mis-conceptions our good Polycarp could have had, understood this to mean the Real Presence.

St. Ignatius, who also studied under John and Peter, understood this to mean the Real Presence.

Both of these saints probably asked, at least once or twice, what John meant when he wrote of that scene in chapter 6.

Now, fast forward 1500 years to a group of people that:’
a) don’t know the Apostles
b) don’t speak Greek fluently
c) don’t have access to any of the other writings of the times

Who do you think I’m going to trust, and who do you think I’m just going to lump into the afore-mentioned (and accursed) “traditions of men”?

Again, Peter told Jesus that Jesus had the Words of life, not the flesh and blood. Communion does not save.

 

[Rulkiewicz]

Where is that line? You stated rather emphatically that the power to “bind and loose” died with Peter. You have a source of truth - the Bible. Where in the Bible does it stay that. You seem to have withdrawn from that “line in the sand” somewhat from your original statement. Please redraw the line.

Yes, thank you! Every one.

Do you baptize infants like the 1st century Church?
Do you pray for the dead like the 1st century Church?
Do you confess to a priest for the forgiveness of your sins like the 1st century Church?
Are you partaking in the Real Presence in your Eucharist like the 1st century Church?
Do you believe that the Mass (or whatever you call your church service) is a Sacrifice like the 1st century Church?

If you don’t do all of these, then you are being rather flippant and short-sighted to accuse Catholics of changing their teachings and traditions, for these have been taught for 2000 years, and only after the “Deformation” did man-made religious sects drop these traditions.

**Do you baptize infants like the 1st century Church? **
No. Jesus said those who believe and are baptised are saved. Tell me, can infants believe? Just because “houses” were baptisped and Polycarp said he’s been serving the Lord for 80+ years doesn’t mean he was baptised as an infant. That’s your persumption.
Do you pray for the dead like the 1st century Church?
I pray to God that his will be done.
**Do you confess to a priest for the forgiveness of your sins like the 1st century Church?**No, I pray to God, only he can forgive sins. Remember, Jesus is the medeator between God and Man, not the Catholic Church.
Are you partaking in the Real Presence in your Eucharist like the 1st century Church?
I’m not sure what you mean by “Real Presence”, but we do partake in communion.
Do you believe that the Mass (or whatever you call your church service) is a Sacrifice like the 1st century Church?
It is an honor to serve the Lord!

 

[Rulkiewicz]

Jesus is fully Man, is he not. “All” should include Jesus, unless you don’t believe in the Incarnation.

Maybe, however, Paul is talking in generalities.

For instance, in Romans 3:10, he says How can he make this claim when Luke tells us of Zechariah and Elizabeth in 1:6 I think you guys tend to focus on single verses and use them blindly, whereas you should take Scripture as a whole.

It’s that whole “forest and the trees” thing, in my opinion.

Jesus was fully man, and fully God. He was no mere man.

 

[Rulkiewicz]

Where is that line? You stated rather emphatically that the power to “bind and loose” died with Peter. You have a source of truth - the Bible. Where in the Bible does it stay that. You seem to have withdrawn from that “line in the sand” somewhat from your original statement. Please redraw the line.

The Apostles setup the church. They drew the line:

1 Cor 4:6: Jesus said, “upon this rock I will build My church” and Paul warned: “in building the church, do not exceed scripture!”

Luke 1:1-4: Luke begins by mentioning uninspired gospels by Christians, then the oral tradition of the apostles and concludes that scripture alone will allow Theophilus to know for certain what the truth is.

Matthew 4:1-11. Three times Jesus was tempted by the Devil and each time Jesus replied exactly the same three dangerous words that defeated the Devil: “IT IS WRITTEN” Read it for yourself! If any one could have used oral tradition, it was Jesus, yet he chose the only safe and sure way to defeat Satan: Scripture. We just with that the Roman Catholic and Orthodox churches held scripture alone in the same high regard!

2 Timothy 3:16-17: No matter how traditionalists twist it, it still says that scripture alone is all-sufficient to equip us for EVERY good work.

Acts 17:11-12: Even though the apostles were inspired with genuine oral revelation, they always directed people to the scriptures for the final determination of truth. Oral tradition is worthless without the witness of scripture!

 

[NotWorthy]

Again, Peter told Jesus that Jesus had the Words of life, not the flesh and blood. Communion does not save.

Yes, Peter had no clue what Jesus was talking about, and that is evident in his words.
“Master, to whom else would we turn? For you have the words of everlasting life”. That does NOT mean Peter said, “Hey, Jesus, we know you can’t be talking about REAL flesh and blood, because that would be just whack”.

Let me ask you something, Rulki. To eat my flesh, using the words that Jesus used, when taking literally meant to “gnaw and munch on Jesus’ bones”. You’re partially right. The average Jew would have really had to have made a leap of faith to overcome the revulsion that Jesus’ words would have brought on.

But, if the words were taking symbolically, then Jesus’ words meant, “You must revile and loathe me to gain eternal life”. That would have been even more “hard to swallow”. This is probably why the Jews were so confused.

“Let’s see, if he’s talking literally, then ‘oooooohhhhh!’. But if he’s talking symbolically, why does he want us to hate him”?

So, Rulki, if you can explain away this symbolic meaning to “eat my flesh”, in other words, you must hate and revile Jesus in order to gain eternal life, then I may listen closer to the rest of your reasoning.

 

[NotWorthy]

**Do you baptize infants like the 1st century Church? **
No. Jesus said those who believe and are baptised are saved. Tell me, can infants believe? Just because “houses” were baptisped and Polycarp said he’s been serving the Lord for 80+ years doesn’t mean he was baptised as an infant. That’s your persumption.

No, my friend, archaeological proof shows that the 1st century practice of infant baptism was a part of the Church. It’s you guys in the 16th century that did away with this Apostolic Tradition.

Do you pray for the dead like the 1st century Church?
I pray to God that his will be done.

As do I. But my prayers include His Will for the souls in Purgatory. When was the last time you and your fellow Christians honored the 2000 year tradition of the Church to pray for the dead souls in Purgatory?

**Do you confess to a priest for the forgiveness of your sins like the 1st century Church?**No, I pray to God, only he can forgive sins. Remember, Jesus is the medeator between God and Man, not the Catholic Church.

So, you reject yet another 2000 year Tradition of the Church. Wow! 0 for 3!

Are you partaking in the Real Presence in your Eucharist like the 1st century Church?
I’m not sure what you mean by “Real Presence”, but we do partake in communion.

But you already tipped your hand here, my friend. Catholics have taught for 2000 years that Jesus is phsically present in the Eucharist, that you guys consume simply “as a memorial”. I chaulk that up as 0 for 4.

Do you believe that the Mass (or whatever you call your church service) is a Sacrifice like the 1st century Church?
It is an honor to serve the Lord!

Yes, it is, Praise God!!! But the Mass is a re-presentation of Jesus’ Sacrifice on the Cross, just as the Church as taught for 2000 years. I’ll await your answer before I call “0 for 5”!

 

[Rulkiewicz]

Yes, Peter had no clue what Jesus was talking about, and that is evident in his words.
“Master, to whom else would we turn? For you have the words of everlasting life”. That does NOT mean Peter said, “Hey, Jesus, we know you can’t be talking about REAL flesh and blood, because that would be just whack”.

Let me ask you something, Rulki. To eat my flesh, using the words that Jesus used, when taking literally meant to “gnaw and munch on Jesus’ bones”. You’re partially right. The average Jew would have really had to have made a leap of faith to overcome the revulsion that Jesus’ words would have brought on.

But, if the words were taking symbolically, then Jesus’ words meant, “You must revile and loathe me to gain eternal life”. That would have been even more “hard to swallow”. This is probably why the Jews were so confused.

“Let’s see, if he’s talking literally, then ‘oooooohhhhh!’. But if he’s talking symbolically, why does he want us to hate him”?

So, Rulki, if you can explain away this symbolic meaning to “eat my flesh”, in other words, you must hate and revile Jesus in order to gain eternal life, then I may listen closer to the rest of your reasoning.

Symbolicly, exactly.

“Eating Jesus’ flesh” and “Drinking Jesus’ blood” is found on the night of Passover. I posted a bit on that earlier.

Jesus is the Passover lamb. It all boils down to that. When the breaking of his body, and the shedding of his blood, sins are no longer pushed back, but they are forgiven. Those who eat his flesh and drink his blood have everlasting life. But it doesn’t stop there. We must be born of water and of the Spirit, and believe and be baptised, and receive his Holy Spirit, as mentioned in John, Mark and Acts.

 

[NotWorthy]

Jesus was fully man, and fully God. He was no mere man.

So if Jesus was fully man, then would He classify under “All”?

But yet, you ignore the rest of my post. How convenient.

notworthy:

Maybe, however, Paul is talking in generalities.

For instance, in Romans 3:10, he says How can he make this claim when Luke tells us of Zechariah and Elizabeth in 1:6 I think you guys tend to focus on single verses and use them blindly, whereas you should take Scripture as a whole.

It’s that whole “forest and the trees” thing, in my opinion.

 

[NotWorthy]

Symbolicly, exactly.

“Eating Jesus’ flesh” and “Drinking Jesus’ blood” is found on the night of Passover. I posted a bit on that earlier.

Jesus is the Passover lamb. It all boils down to that. When the breaking of his body, and the shedding of his blood, sins are no longer pushed back, but they are forgiven. Those who eat his flesh and drink his blood have everlasting life. But it doesn’t stop there. We must be born of water and of the Spirit, and believe and be baptised, and receive his Holy Spirit, as mentioned in John, Mark and Acts.

Wow! You’ve said that before!

And again, in your attempt to sweep it away as being symbolic (because those crazy Catholics simply can’t be right on this!), you ignored the rest of my post.

Notworthy:

But, if the words were taking symbolically, then Jesus’ words meant, “You must revile and loathe me to gain eternal life”. That would have been even more “hard to swallow”. This is probably why the Jews were so confused.

“Let’s see, if he’s talking literally, then ‘oooooohhhhh!’. But if he’s talking symbolically, why does he want us to hate him”?

So, Rulki, if you can explain away this symbolic meaning to “eat my flesh”, in other words, you must hate and revile Jesus in order to gain eternal life, then I may listen closer to the rest of your reasoning.

 

[Joe_5859]

**All **includes Mary.

But not Jesus?

 

[Rulkiewicz]

No, my friend, archaeological proof shows that the 1st century practice of infant baptism was a part of the Church. It’s you guys in the 16th century that did away with this Apostolic Tradition.
As do I. But my prayers include His Will for the souls in Purgatory. When was the last time you and your fellow Christians honored the 2000 year tradition of the Church to pray for the dead souls in Purgatory?
So, you reject yet another 2000 year Tradition of the Church. Wow! 0 for 3!
But you already tipped your hand here, my friend. Catholics have taught for 2000 years that Jesus is phsically present in the Eucharist, that you guys consume simply “as a memorial”. I chaulk that up as 0 for 4.
Yes, it is, Praise God!!! But the Mass is a re-presentation of Jesus’ Sacrifice on the Cross, just as the Church as taught for 2000 years. I’ll await your answer before I call “0 for 5”!

Chalk it up 0 / X all you want.

Again, Jesus said those who “BELIEVE” and are baptised will be saved. Do infants believe when they are baptised? No.

Purgatory, an unbiblical teaching, was adopted from the Orphic cult. (Bernstein & Green,History of Civilication p. 78).

Communion, again… see the post on the Passover.

I don’t see a parallel on mass being a re-presentation of Jesus’ sacrifice.

 

[Rulkiewicz]

But not Jesus?

Of course not. It Jesus was a sinner, he wouldn’t be our saviour.

 

[Joe_5859]

Of course not. It Jesus was a sinner, he wouldn’t be our saviour.

But where’s your scriptural justification for not including Jesus as part of the “all”? You made the claim that “all” only referred to those human beings “conceived of both man and woman”. But the verse you cited makes no such stipulation.

 

[Rulkiewicz]

So if Jesus was fully man, then would He classify under “All”?

But yet, you ignore the rest of my post. How convenient.

Which post?

 

[NotWorthy]

The Apostles setup the church. They drew the line:

1 Cor 4:6: Jesus said, “upon this rock I will build My church” and Paul warned: “in building the church, do not exceed scripture!”

And Scripture tells us the Church has the right to “loose and bind”. You see, Rulki, it’s Scriptural!!!

Luke 1:1-4: Luke begins by mentioning uninspired gospels by Christians, then the oral tradition of the apostles and concludes that scripture alone will allow Theophilus to know for certain what the truth is.

Where does Luke make this claim. It is evident that you are taking this far too literally, for Luke didn’t write “all that Jesus taught”, or else Luke would have covered what was in John’s Gospel. “Forest and trees, Rulki!”

Matthew 4:1-11. Three times Jesus was tempted by the Devil and each time Jesus replied exactly the same three dangerous words that defeated the Devil: “IT IS WRITTEN” Read it for yourself! If any one could have used oral tradition, it was Jesus, yet he chose the only safe and sure way to defeat Satan: Scripture. We just with that the Roman Catholic and Orthodox churches held scripture alone in the same high regard!

Jesus combats mis-used Scripture with Scripture - something the Catholic Church has been doing for 2000 years. Jesus also combatted Satan without Scripture, mind you. Don’t take one scene and build a whole theology out of it.

Read Matthew 18:18 one more time. Ask yourself what Paul meant when he called the Church, “the pillar and bulwark of Truth”.

Also (and you know I couldn’t pass this by!) The Roman Catholic Church does not regard Scripture in a high regard?!? You ought to get down on your knees and thank God for having the Roman Catholic Church (the Bride of Christ - forever pure!) protect and venerate the Scriptures (as She had done), or you wouldn’t know a thing about Christ or His Church! This is imbecilic to make this claim, my brother!

2 Timothy 3:16-17: No matter how traditionalists twist it, it still says that scripture alone is all-sufficient to equip us for EVERY good work.

No, it doesn’t. It says it is profitable. “Profitable” is not ALL THAT IS NECESSARY. The twisting, I believe, is coming from your end of the rope.

Acts 17:11-12: Even though the apostles were inspired with genuine oral revelation, they always directed people to the scriptures for the final determination of truth. Oral tradition is worthless without the witness of scripture!

Oral Tradition preceded Scripture.

Do you think the Apostles sat around and waited for all the Gospels and Epistles to be written before they set about building the Church?

 

[NotWorthy]

Which post?

The post I repeated on #51.