B
benedictus2
Guest
Scripture is not part of Jesus. Scripture is ABOUT JESUS.
Protestants: Do you believe that Christ is truly present in the communion elements of bread and wine?
- Status
R
Realcatholicgk
Guest
**
Hi Nancy,**
Oh By The Way I Beleive God Is Present In Any Church Service Where They Teach Of Jesus
He is there whenever two or more are gather in His name. That doesn’t mean anything, except that He is there in Spirit. He isn’t bestowing any graces on the people. He is just there. His 7 sacraments give grace. many Protestant groups only have two and one of them is phoney: Jesus gave his followers the power 2,000 years ago, not less than 500 years ago! Jesus won’t come physically to feed His sheep without an apostolic successor.
And Live As He Said, said The Sinners Prayer, confessed Their Sins, repented, was Baptised, and Recieve Holy Communion, and Believe. john;3:16
You can do all those things and still not be saved! But if you aren’t Catholic you can’t even do all those things!
“Then said Jesus to them again, Peace be unto you: as my Father hath sent me, even so send I you. And when he had said this, he breathed on them, and saith unto them, Receive ye the Holy Ghost: Whose soever sins ye remit, they are remitted unto them; and whose soever sins ye retain, they are retained.” John 20: 21-23 See? Only the apostolic successors have that power not counterfeit groups who make their own rules and distort Jesus’ real teachings to suit their selfish desires.
The Lord Loves A Variety. thats Why We Are All Different.
Actually he doesn’t! Jesus made one Church. The body of Christ, Protestant groupos are a cancerous growth on the body which is lead by Jesus Himself. You have free will you can be saved or deny Jesus and His teachings and possibly loss your soul! It is your choice. I pray you choice Jesus and His real church!
would You Marry You?
**
Well my wife of 40 years might get pissed but send a picture, I’ll get back to you!Oh, do you have a fishing boat? **
God Be With You Nancy
**And also with you. May He open your eyes and fill your life with His love!
God Bless**
N
nancy_dalrymple
Guest
Asoulis aliving bodyoftheearthyouarethearth
R
Realcatholicgk
Guest
**Hi there,did you know that satan can completly mesmorise others? That is something to realy think about isnt it?
Hi nancy,
Yes it is. So please read the below s-l-o-w-l-y it could save your soul! The catholic chuch is 2,000 years old! The greatest method of deception is to counterfeit. And the master of counterfeit and deception is Satan. The Bible in 2 Corinthians 11:14-15 warns of Satan’s counterfeit: “And no marvel; for Satan himself is transformed into an angel of light. Therefore it is no great thing if his ministers also be transformed as the ministers of righteousness;. . .” Isaiah 14: 14 tells of Satan’s ultimate counterfeit: “. . . I will BE LIKE the most High.”
And when Protestants get to judgment It is my fear that Matt 7:22 will be what they hear from Jesus. "Many will say to me on that day, ‘Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name, and in your name drive out demons and perform many miracles?’ Then I will tell them plainly, ‘I never knew you. Away from me, you evildoers!’
At the last supper, it was a Passover meal where Jews drank wine-. Mark 14:22-23. Sure, the devil can completly mesmorize others and make them think grape juice is the same as wine.
God Bless**
N
nancy_dalrymple
Guest
What about people that can’t drink wine because of medication or maybe they are alcoholics and just can’t? What do they do? Nancy**
Hi nancy,
Yes it is. So please read the below s-l-o-w-l-y it could save your soul! The catholic chuch is 2,000 years old! The greatest method of deception is to counterfeit. And the master of counterfeit and deception is Satan. The Bible in 2 Corinthians 11:14-15 warns of Satan’s counterfeit: “And no marvel; for Satan himself is transformed into an angel of light. Therefore it is no great thing if his ministers also be transformed as the ministers of righteousness;. . .” Isaiah 14: 14 tells of Satan’s ultimate counterfeit: “. . . I will BE LIKE the most High.”
And when Protestants get to judgment It is my fear that Matt 7:22 will be what they hear from Jesus. "Many will say to me on that day, ‘Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name, and in your name drive out demons and perform many miracles?’ Then I will tell them plainly, ‘I never knew you. Away from me, you evildoers!’
At the last supper, it was a Passover meal where Jews drank wine-. Mark 14:22-23. Sure, the devil can completly mesmorize others and make them think grape juice is the same as wine.
God Bless**
B
benedictus2
Guest
They don’t have to drink wine. They can receive the bread alone and they will be recieving Christ entire whole in the bread. Body, Soul and Divinity.
R
Realcatholicgk
Guest
**Hi Nancy,
The Body of Christ (The Host) is His complete body which includes His blood. Also the Wine is His complete body which includes His flesh!
I am a non-drinking alcoholic and also take medication which can’t be taken with alcohol. The small amount of wine consumed doesn’t effect me. I am not drinking wine, I am consuming the blood of my savior.
Click On: Learn about Communion
God Bless**
B
benedictus2
Guest
I am shocked.!!! I will have to tell your wife that you are actually considering this. She’ll probably hang you upside down with a fishing line.would You Marry You?
**Well my wife of 40 years might get pissed but send a picture, I’ll get back to you!
R
Realcatholicgk
Guest
**I am shocked.!!! I will have to tell your wife that you are actually considering this. She’ll probably hang you upside down with a fishing line.
Hi ben,
You can call my wife and tell her. (555) 463-7283
I have a good woman.
She doesn’t mind cleaning the fish I catch!
I also catch people for Jesus, God cleans them! I guess I am just a fisherman at heart! Nancy actually seems to want to learn. Isn’t that refreshing? I noticed she was baptised a christian in the Catholic faith. I don’t know if she was ever taught anything about the real faith. it doesn’t seem so! I often wonder if Protestants even realize that they are actually members of the Catholic church through their baptism? That is if it was done correctly. I bet a majority don’t.
God Bless!**
C
Church_Militant
Guest
Which is definitely what the Catholic Church has taught for all of it’s 2,000 years.You listen here! If your a Christian you should know John:1:1 Jesus came not only to save but he was and is the very word of God. The Bible is the inspired word of God look it up Nancy
I am most certainly a Christian. I believe the very same things that the New Testament teaches and that the earliest Christian martyrs gave their lives for. Take a look.
THE MARTYRDOM OF THE HOLY POLYCARP and The Epistle of Ignatius to the Smyrnaeans
You’ll notice that they hold to the self same teachings that we Catholics do. Probably because they were both close friends and disciples of St. John the apostle and bishops of their respective churches. Please read carefully what they say because these two men got their teachings directly from the apostle John and they make some statements that are pretty clear as to what they believe and gave their lives for that faith.
Yor profile says that you began life as a Catholic. You’ll notice that St. Polycarp did as well.
St. Ignatius of Antioch has some things to say in his 7th and 8th chapters that directly relate to this discussion and I urge you to check that out. Ignatius was thrown to wild animals for believing those things.
Pax Domini sit semper vobiscum.
(The peace of the Lord be always with you)
C
Church_Militant
Guest
They receive the Eucharist under one species.
Also, I suspect that there is special grace for those who need it in these cases.
I am very grateful that I can receive Our Lord so intimately within me as He promised.
B
benedictus2
Guest
Don’t tell them that. They might want to find a way to get un-baptized.
J
joe370
Guest
Hey NC…
**
If I separate the carnal from the spiritual, then --I will be on target? I thought I did. To eat and drink is not to be understood carnally; Jesus earthly, corruptible body and blood were not to be consumed; are we in agreement vis-a-vis that point?
Once Jesus conquered death, and appeared to His Followers, and then Ascended into Heaven, His followers, finally, knew for certain, that He wasn’t speaking carnally —right? He was speaking spiritually; the spirit is life; we are commanded by Jesus to eat and drink His Glorified Body, in the form of bread and wine. Their “fathers” had to eat the bread, while wandering in the desert, to sustain their mortal, corruptible life, just as everyone is to eat the new bread that came down from heaven (Jesus) --to sustain their immortal, incorruptible bodies.
Our fathers ate the manna in the wilderness; as it is written, ‘He gave them bread from heaven to eat…
Jesus’ followers believed their fathers, actually had to eat (ingest/digest) the bread in order to live.
…but my Father gives you the true bread from heaven. For the bread of God is he who comes down from heaven and gives life to the world.” They said to him, “Sir, give us this bread always.”
They literally believed that Jesus was talking about bread, akin to the bread given to their fathers (ingested/digested).
…So the Jews grumbled about him, because he said, “I am the bread that came down from heaven…Your fathers ate the manna in the wilderness, and they died. This is the bread that comes down from heaven, so that one may eat of it and not die.
Why did they grumble? What is the difference between eating manna, which can’t save, and eating the bread that comes down from heaven, which can save, so that one may eat of it and not die.
The word eat, in both instances, means exactly the same thing; that is the very reason why His followers are grumbling; they believe Him; you don’t; my sister doesn’t?
I am the living bread that came down from heaven. If anyone eats of this bread, he will live forever.
And the bread that I will give for the life of the world is my flesh.” The Jews then disputed among themselves, saying, “How can this man give us his flesh to eat?”
I know I would have been shocked, especially if I were a Jew; to use the word eat in a metaphorical sense, was to revile someone. If they were to interpret, eat, that way, they would be, even more confused, e.g. --Why is Jesus asking us to revile Him, as if He were our enemy. However, they don’t even consider the metaphorical interpretation of --“eat my flesh.” They clearly interpret, “eat my flesh,” in a literal sense --that is why they are grumbling. So, what does Jesus do, to set the record straight? He bolsters His convictions; He reiterates, that what they are thinking is in fact what He is saying:
So Jesus said to them, “Truly, truly, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, **you have no life in you. **
Whoever feeds on my flesh and drinks my blood** has eternal life,** and I will raise him up on the last day.
For my** flesh is true food**, and my blood is true drink. Whoever feeds on my flesh and drinks my blood abides in me, and I in him.
As the living Father sent me, and I live because of the Father, so whoever feeds on me, he also will **live because of me. **This is the bread that came down from heaven, not like the bread the fathers ate and died. Whoever feeds on this bread will live forever.”
He doesn’t say, who ever feeds on the word of God; if He meant that, He would have said that --right? If His followers were to interpret it that way, why would they walk away from such a harmless teaching? Instead of grumbling, they would be celebrating the idea of metaphorically feeding on Jesus’ teachings, for His teachings would lead to eternal life; all would be ecstatic. Sadly, that’s not how the events transpired. 
**
**
I’m not sure what you are talking about!
If I separate the carnal from the spiritual, then --I will be on target? I thought I did. To eat and drink is not to be understood carnally; Jesus earthly, corruptible body and blood were not to be consumed; are we in agreement vis-a-vis that point?Once Jesus conquered death, and appeared to His Followers, and then Ascended into Heaven, His followers, finally, knew for certain, that He wasn’t speaking carnally —right? He was speaking spiritually; the spirit is life; we are commanded by Jesus to eat and drink His Glorified Body, in the form of bread and wine. Their “fathers” had to eat the bread, while wandering in the desert, to sustain their mortal, corruptible life, just as everyone is to eat the new bread that came down from heaven (Jesus) --to sustain their immortal, incorruptible bodies.
Our fathers ate the manna in the wilderness; as it is written, ‘He gave them bread from heaven to eat…
Jesus’ followers believed their fathers, actually had to eat (ingest/digest) the bread in order to live.
…but my Father gives you the true bread from heaven. For the bread of God is he who comes down from heaven and gives life to the world.” They said to him, “Sir, give us this bread always.”
They literally believed that Jesus was talking about bread, akin to the bread given to their fathers (ingested/digested).
…So the Jews grumbled about him, because he said, “I am the bread that came down from heaven…Your fathers ate the manna in the wilderness, and they died. This is the bread that comes down from heaven, so that one may eat of it and not die.
Why did they grumble? What is the difference between eating manna, which can’t save, and eating the bread that comes down from heaven, which can save, so that one may eat of it and not die.
The word eat, in both instances, means exactly the same thing; that is the very reason why His followers are grumbling; they believe Him; you don’t; my sister doesn’t?
I am the living bread that came down from heaven. If anyone eats of this bread, he will live forever.
And the bread that I will give for the life of the world is my flesh.” The Jews then disputed among themselves, saying, “How can this man give us his flesh to eat?”
I know I would have been shocked, especially if I were a Jew; to use the word eat in a metaphorical sense, was to revile someone. If they were to interpret, eat, that way, they would be, even more confused, e.g. --Why is Jesus asking us to revile Him, as if He were our enemy.
However, they don’t even consider the metaphorical interpretation of --“eat my flesh.” They clearly interpret, “eat my flesh,” in a literal sense --that is why they are grumbling. So, what does Jesus do, to set the record straight? He bolsters His convictions; He reiterates, that what they are thinking is in fact what He is saying:So Jesus said to them, “Truly, truly, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, **you have no life in you. **
Whoever feeds on my flesh and drinks my blood** has eternal life,** and I will raise him up on the last day.
For my** flesh is true food**, and my blood is true drink. Whoever feeds on my flesh and drinks my blood abides in me, and I in him.
As the living Father sent me, and I live because of the Father, so whoever feeds on me, he also will **live because of me. **This is the bread that came down from heaven, not like the bread the fathers ate and died. Whoever feeds on this bread will live forever.”
He doesn’t say, who ever feeds on the word of God; if He meant that, He would have said that --right?
If His followers were to interpret it that way, why would they walk away from such a harmless teaching? Instead of grumbling, they would be celebrating the idea of metaphorically feeding on Jesus’ teachings, for His teachings would lead to eternal life; all would be ecstatic. Sadly, that’s not how the events transpired. **
J
joe370
Guest
**Everyone overlooks two things. 1) the term “eat”, euphemism… **
I’m not seeing the euphemism, and neither did the grumblers, I am afraid to say?
**…in the Jewish mind would be an intense understanding of something, to be immersed into it to the point where eating and drinking it day and night. Like we are told to do in learning the Bible, which most people do not. **
But, you seem to be missing one crucial point —and it is plain as day --Jesus’ followers --the grumblers, aren’t interpreting the words, (eat my flesh, drink my blood, whoever feeds on me…) – euphemistically; quite the contrary; they are grossed out!
**2) What is the way to salvation? a heart of repentance, believing on the Lord by faith through Christ. **
Yup and yup!
If you look at John 6 the terms of believe, coming to , behold are used, then Jesus already knows who will and won’t believe…
Yes, Jesus already knows who will not believe Him, when He says:
“Truly, truly, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, **you have no life in you. **
That is the context…
**…and so he makes the statement even harder for them to believe…kind of like let’s get rid of all these unbelievers right now…
**
Really???
If Jesus was speaking euphemistically --His followers, including the Apostles, would be happy as a clams, for this teaching wouldn’t challenge their Jewish beliefs --right or wrong?
…so I’ll put it another way that they could never handle.
Why would Jesus intentionally obfuscate His followers? After all, He was there to redeem them; He loves them?
The remainder understood and believed and if for no other reason, Jesus tells us the manner in which He spoke…in spirit and truth.
They believed Jesus, (albeit in a confused state) --up to that point, when He said:
“Truly, truly, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, **you have no life in you. **
Bottom line --If Jesus was speaking metaphorically/euphemistically/symbolically --He would have said so, and unity would have reigned, not chaos and confusion. Jesus, according to the bible, wants everyone to think in harmony; He abhors division and dissension; He wants all to be one, as He and His Father are One.
Jesus said, “I Am” the Door…yet they don’t believe he is literally a door.
Jesus said, “I Am” the True Vine…yet, they don’t think He is literally a vine.
Jesus said, "I am the vine, you are the branches…yet, they don’t believe Jesus is literally calling them branches.
Jesus said, …unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, **you have no life in you… **
Just for a moment, imagine that Jesus was speaking literally when He said:
…unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you….they believe He is speaking literally, hence the grumbling…
What else could He possibly say to convey this literal interpretation? Perhaps He could have said, not my corruptible, mortal flesh --my glorified Body, once I am raised from the dead. Then they would have really thought He was off His rocker, at this stage of the game. Jesus knew when they would be prepared to embrace this mysterious doctrine, and that is the very reason why, everyone in the Apostolic Church, in its infancy —believed.
If it was to be interpreted euphemistically, surely Pentecost --the Holy Spirit, infused in their minds and souls, would have cleared up the matter once and for all, just as Jesus died once and FOR ALL!
If you still don’t agree with me --that’s cool; we will just have to agree to disagree, like I do with my sister.
God bless NC…
I’m not seeing the euphemism, and neither did the grumblers, I am afraid to say?
**…in the Jewish mind would be an intense understanding of something, to be immersed into it to the point where eating and drinking it day and night. Like we are told to do in learning the Bible, which most people do not. **
But, you seem to be missing one crucial point —and it is plain as day --Jesus’ followers --the grumblers, aren’t interpreting the words, (eat my flesh, drink my blood, whoever feeds on me…) – euphemistically; quite the contrary; they are grossed out!
**2) What is the way to salvation? a heart of repentance, believing on the Lord by faith through Christ. **
Yup and yup!
If you look at John 6 the terms of believe, coming to , behold are used, then Jesus already knows who will and won’t believe…
Yes, Jesus already knows who will not believe Him, when He says:
“Truly, truly, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, **you have no life in you. **
That is the context…
**…and so he makes the statement even harder for them to believe…kind of like let’s get rid of all these unbelievers right now…
**
Really???
If Jesus was speaking euphemistically --His followers, including the Apostles, would be happy as a clams, for this teaching wouldn’t challenge their Jewish beliefs --right or wrong?
…so I’ll put it another way that they could never handle.
Why would Jesus intentionally obfuscate His followers? After all, He was there to redeem them; He loves them?
The remainder understood and believed and if for no other reason, Jesus tells us the manner in which He spoke…in spirit and truth.
They believed Jesus, (albeit in a confused state) --up to that point, when He said:
“Truly, truly, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, **you have no life in you. **
Bottom line --If Jesus was speaking metaphorically/euphemistically/symbolically --He would have said so, and unity would have reigned, not chaos and confusion. Jesus, according to the bible, wants everyone to think in harmony; He abhors division and dissension; He wants all to be one, as He and His Father are One.
Jesus said, “I Am” the Door…yet they don’t believe he is literally a door.
Jesus said, “I Am” the True Vine…yet, they don’t think He is literally a vine.
Jesus said, "I am the vine, you are the branches…yet, they don’t believe Jesus is literally calling them branches.
Jesus said, …unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, **you have no life in you… **
Just for a moment, imagine that Jesus was speaking literally when He said:
…unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you….they believe He is speaking literally, hence the grumbling…
What else could He possibly say to convey this literal interpretation? Perhaps He could have said, not my corruptible, mortal flesh --my glorified Body, once I am raised from the dead. Then they would have really thought He was off His rocker, at this stage of the game. Jesus knew when they would be prepared to embrace this mysterious doctrine, and that is the very reason why, everyone in the Apostolic Church, in its infancy —believed.
If it was to be interpreted euphemistically, surely Pentecost --the Holy Spirit, infused in their minds and souls, would have cleared up the matter once and for all, just as Jesus died once and FOR ALL!
If you still don’t agree with me --that’s cool; we will just have to agree to disagree, like I do with my sister.
God bless NC…
J
joe370
Guest
Sorry about post 834; I accidentally hit submit reply, before I was finished; the finished product is at post 849 and 850…
B
benedictus2
Guest
I don’t know who you are responding to ( I am assuming Tqualey) but I don’t think he is name calling.
Going by your posts, you are the one who do not have a leg to stand on. You do not respond to our posts and you keep raising the same points over and over again even when it has already been addressed.
B
benedictus2
Guest
True. But in the case of the Church, unity is Truth because as you so kindly mentioned a few posts ago, in John 17.20-21 Christ prayed for unity.
That we may be one as Him and His Father are one.
If unity is God’s,. DISUNITY obviously GOES AGAINST GOD’S WILL.
And another thing you must remember is that he established only one (1) Church not serveral churches.
He did not write a book nor did he ask anyone to write a book about him. Rather the books that you so revere today was written within the heart of the Catholic Church under the guidance of the Holy Spirit.
P
Protestant101
Guest
Conversely, we have “Popeolatry” rife within catholicism, who count their Pope as superior in authority to the Bible; which by the way you cannot separate from Jesus.
Jesus and His Word are one and the same parcel - a complete whole. He is present in His Word - through His Word. The only thing you have to really “prove” your point about John 6 is the Pope’s say so, and under the circunstances you are forced to claim “church authority” to support your claims about Jesus being a piece of bread when the priest so decides at Mass. Protestants claim Bible authority.
J
joe370
Guest
P101 you said…
**[Conversely, we have “Popeolatry” rife within catholicism, who count him as superior in authority to the Bible…
**
Just for the record catholics love the bible; we read it everyday; it nourishes us --strengthens us, metaphorically --just as the Eucharist does, literally. Take the C.C. OUT OF HISTORY AND YOU CAN KISS YOUR BIBLE --BYE BYE–THAT MY FRIEND IN CHRIST IS A FACT.
So, you are an advocate of sola scriptura via private interpretation --now we are getting somewhere. However I will wait for your confirmation.
**…which by the way you cannot separate from Jesus. **
Why would we; The bible Is comprised of Jesus’ teachings; the C.C. CANONIZED IT; we cherish our bibles.
**Jesus and His Word are one and the same parcel - a complete whole.
**
Au contraire! The bible tells me and you, that His Church is His Body with Him as the Head and Savior of His Body; the Word is Christ and Christ is the Church, according to your bible?
The only thing you have to really “prove” your point about John 6 is the Pope’s say so, and under the circunstances you are forced to claim “church authority” to support your claims about Jesus being a piece of bread when the priest so decides at Mass. Protestants claim Bible authority.
**
Excellent opportunity to delve into the matter of authority --again…
Originally Posted by Protestant101 View Post
The Bible is God’s voice speaking to us, just as surely as though we could hear it with our ears.
2 Peter 1:20 says:
Know this first of all, that there is no prophecy of scripture that is a matter of personal interpretation,
for no prophecy ever came through human will; but rather human beings moved by the holy Spirit spoke under the influence of God.
If you can’t interpret Holy Scripture and I can’t interpret Holy Scripture, who can, authoritatively, interpret Holy Scripture?
If Holy Scripture is God’s voice speaking to us, just as surely as though we could hear it with our ears, then why are there so many people hearing something different vis-a-vis any one doctrine? Why aren’t you and I on the same page, vis-a-vis the Eucharist?
You belong to one church, I belong to another church, my sister and father, both belong to different churches; I could go on and on; My point is, what gives any of these churches (US) --the right to interpret Holy Scripture?
You and I, as brothers in Christ, are told by Paul to take unresolvable issues, e.g. the Eucharist, or any unresolvable issue, for that matter --to the Church --to adjudicate differences/controversies. I guess, the first thing you and I have to do, is figure out where that church is located; is it my sisters church; is it your church; is it my church? Where in the heck is Jesus’ church --the one He built circa 33 AD? Once we do that, we can finally put an end to this difference of opinion --perhaps…
Looking forward to your response…
**[Conversely, we have “Popeolatry” rife within catholicism, who count him as superior in authority to the Bible…
**
Just for the record catholics love the bible; we read it everyday; it nourishes us --strengthens us, metaphorically --just as the Eucharist does, literally. Take the C.C. OUT OF HISTORY AND YOU CAN KISS YOUR BIBLE --BYE BYE–THAT MY FRIEND IN CHRIST IS A FACT.
So, you are an advocate of sola scriptura via private interpretation --now we are getting somewhere. However I will wait for your confirmation.
**…which by the way you cannot separate from Jesus. **
Why would we; The bible Is comprised of Jesus’ teachings; the C.C. CANONIZED IT; we cherish our bibles.
**Jesus and His Word are one and the same parcel - a complete whole.
**
Au contraire! The bible tells me and you, that His Church is His Body with Him as the Head and Savior of His Body; the Word is Christ and Christ is the Church, according to your bible?
The only thing you have to really “prove” your point about John 6 is the Pope’s say so, and under the circunstances you are forced to claim “church authority” to support your claims about Jesus being a piece of bread when the priest so decides at Mass. Protestants claim Bible authority.
**
Excellent opportunity to delve into the matter of authority --again…
Originally Posted by Protestant101 View Post
The Bible is God’s voice speaking to us, just as surely as though we could hear it with our ears.
2 Peter 1:20 says:
Know this first of all, that there is no prophecy of scripture that is a matter of personal interpretation,
for no prophecy ever came through human will; but rather human beings moved by the holy Spirit spoke under the influence of God.
If you can’t interpret Holy Scripture and I can’t interpret Holy Scripture, who can, authoritatively, interpret Holy Scripture?
If Holy Scripture is God’s voice speaking to us, just as surely as though we could hear it with our ears, then why are there so many people hearing something different vis-a-vis any one doctrine? Why aren’t you and I on the same page, vis-a-vis the Eucharist?
You belong to one church, I belong to another church, my sister and father, both belong to different churches; I could go on and on; My point is, what gives any of these churches (US) --the right to interpret Holy Scripture?
You and I, as brothers in Christ, are told by Paul to take unresolvable issues, e.g. the Eucharist, or any unresolvable issue, for that matter --to the Church --to adjudicate differences/controversies. I guess, the first thing you and I have to do, is figure out where that church is located; is it my sisters church; is it your church; is it my church? Where in the heck is Jesus’ church --the one He built circa 33 AD? Once we do that, we can finally put an end to this difference of opinion --perhaps…
Looking forward to your response…
T
tqualey
Guest
Hi, Nancy,
I’m getting a bit confused…
Jesus, the Word made Flesh, the Second Person of the Blessed Trinity, suffered, died, was burried and rose again on the third day for our Salvation. And, He did this without once ever writing anything down on paper (making marks in the sand does not count (John 8:1-11)).
Jesus ascends to His Father, Pentecost and the descent of the Holy Spirit, Peter preaches the first real sermon and thousands are converted and Baptized - and sitll, nothing is known to be written at this time.
Actual written documents happen sometime between 60 - 95A.D. the Books of the NT were written - but the Canon was set until the 4th Century. There were a lot of documents out there - some were good, but not inspired, while others were not so good counterfeits
So, the Bible (as one usually thinks of it) did not exist for several hundred years after the birth of Christ. This creates a gap that must be addressed - just how did folks back then know about the saving actions of Christ? The answer comes from the same group that brought you the bible to begin with: the Catholic Church.
The CC not only kept the Word of God alive through teaching and the traditions taught by Paul and the other Apostles (2Tim 1:13-14) it also explained the Word of God (2Pet 1:20) so that God’s message would be clear.
You are on this site because, I think, you are interested in the Catholic Faith. Before you read your Bible - say a prayer to the Holy Spirit to open your heart and mind to God’s Word. Prayerful reading and reflecting on what you read is very important - and, something I am sure you are already doing.
God bless
I’m getting a bit confused…
With what appeared to be banter… I had thought there was some kind of exaggeration or joke … but, now, I am just not too sure what is being intended… and I guess I just did not get it.No I said it is the LIVING Word of God AS in Christ.Why is that so strange to you? Did you look up those Words of Christ I asked you to look up? Yes Jesus is the Word just what Ive been trying to say to you. Nancy
Jesus, the Word made Flesh, the Second Person of the Blessed Trinity, suffered, died, was burried and rose again on the third day for our Salvation. And, He did this without once ever writing anything down on paper (making marks in the sand does not count
(John 8:1-11)).Jesus ascends to His Father, Pentecost and the descent of the Holy Spirit, Peter preaches the first real sermon and thousands are converted and Baptized - and sitll, nothing is known to be written at this time.
Actual written documents happen sometime between 60 - 95A.D. the Books of the NT were written - but the Canon was set until the 4th Century. There were a lot of documents out there - some were good, but not inspired, while others were not so good counterfeits
So, the Bible (as one usually thinks of it) did not exist for several hundred years after the birth of Christ. This creates a gap that must be addressed - just how did folks back then know about the saving actions of Christ? The answer comes from the same group that brought you the bible to begin with: the Catholic Church.The CC not only kept the Word of God alive through teaching and the traditions taught by Paul and the other Apostles (2Tim 1:13-14) it also explained the Word of God (2Pet 1:20) so that God’s message would be clear.
You are on this site because, I think, you are interested in the Catholic Faith. Before you read your Bible - say a prayer to the Holy Spirit to open your heart and mind to God’s Word. Prayerful reading and reflecting on what you read is very important - and, something I am sure you are already doing.
God bless
- Status