E
estesbob
Guest
I am sorry but you had evidently forgot the first tenant of Sola Scripture. “Scripture is to be taken literally unless doing so supports Catholic doctrine…”
- Status
R
Randy_Carson
Guest
Apostolic Succession is itself a teaching with a sure biblical foundation. Care to start a thread and learn more?
Marriage is optional, so anyone who is not married is still eligible to be an elder. Paul was not married. Was he not an elder or bishop? :yup:
I see that you have misunderstood Hebrews 9-10. This should help:
"Once For All"
By Mark Brumley
catholic.com/thisrock/1990/9006chap.asp
**Is the Mass a Sacrifice? **
By Jason Evert
catholic.com/thisrock/2001/0109sbs.asp
Is the Mass a True Sacrifice?
By Kenneth J. Howell
catholic.com/thisrock/2003/0309sbs.asp
P
PRmerger
Guest
And the 2nd tenet is: “All beliefs must be shown in Scripture, except for the ones we believe which aren’t in Scripture”.
Examples:
- altar calls
- wedding ceremonies
- wedding rings
- “have you been saved?”
- “have you accepted Jesus as your personal Lord and Savior?”
- Wednesday evening Bible studies
R
Randy_Carson
Guest
Jesus is the high priest…no question about that, and we’re all part of the universal priesthood of believers.
You’re simply ignoring a lot of scripture to avoid the plain fact that Jesus established the New Testament ministerial priesthood as a direct parallel of the OT priesthood.
And we know why you do that, don’t we? Because if you acknowledge that Jesus did establish a priesthood, then you have to ask why your own denomination does not have priests…and that’s a slippery slope for you, isn’t it?
R
Randy_Carson
Guest
Including the belief that scripture actually states that all beliefs must be shown in scripture.
R
richardacombs
Guest
Yes, it’s tough being Catholic: we have thousands of years of Scripture, Tradition, and an unbroken chain directly back to the Savior. I thank God every day.
U
UnityofTrinity
Guest
Can you show me where did Jesus said: “This is a bread that symbolize my flesh, eat it”. Then Jesus holds up the cup and said: “This cup symbolize my blood, drink it”. Did Jesus ever said that? No, but Our Lord said: “This is my flesh, eat it in remembrance of me”, then He said: “This is my blood, drink it in remembrance of me”.
Does priest make Jesus appear whenever he wants to? He doesn’t need to, because Jesus is always among His people, He’s omnipresent isn’t He?
By “unscriptural” do you mean that it doesn’t fit with your interpretation? Among 3000 different Protestant denominations how do you know your interpretation is right? In the other word, if you’re a believer of Sola Scriptura, base on what authority do you have to dictate who’s wrong and who’s right? Which practice is biblical and which is not?
R
Randy_Carson
Guest
Sure we can. God is not bound by space or time, and He can be in as many places at one time as He chooses.
Well, yeah, I suppose in one sense he does…Christ chooses to be present in the Eucharist when said properly by a priest. So, you decide how much control the priest has here…
Incorrect. The Eucharist IS the actual body and blood of Christ. So, while the last supper IS spiritual as you say, it is also literal. Both/And not Either/Or.
We don’t. We receive His Body and His Blood. No bread or wine is present.
Incorrect. The Catholic teaching regarding the Eucharist is completely scriptural. It just doesn’t agree with your misinterpretation of scripture.
Maybe it’s just me, but I’m not really feeling the love here, Ralphy. Stop pretending to love us while attacking everything we believe. That’s not why you’re here.
P
PRmerger
Guest
Oh! (This is getting fun!Including the belief that scripture actually states that all beliefs must be shown in scripture.
)And the belief that the book of Hebrews is inspired and the Gospel of the Nazoreans isn’t. Not in the Bible, but it’s ok 'cause I believe it, says the Sola Scripturist.
R
ralphy
Guest
You will have to look at Acts 1:9-11 to see where Jesus is, He left bodily. In Christian love, Ralph.
E
estesbob
Guest
So did Moses and Elijah but they showed up at the Transfiguration. You have very little faith in the power of God, don’t you?
R
ralphy
Guest
Don’t pass over verse 63 in John 6 too quickly, take a good look at it. Jesus said “It is the “Spirit” that gives life, the “flesh” is of no avail; the words I have spoken to you are “spirit” and life”. He was not talking about actually eating His Body and Blood. If you believe that you actually eat His body and drink His blood, where do you get it from. In Christian love, Ralph.
E
estesbob
Guest
I assume you would have been one of the thousands who walked away from him ,shaking their heads and muttering this teaching was too hard
R
ralphy
Guest
It looks like you did not get much from that verse. In Christian love, Ralph.
R
ralphy
Guest
I assume that you then believe that Christ was a “door”, and a "vine’ and a “sheep gate”. In Christian love, Ralph.
R
Randy_Carson
Guest
Nope. This verse fails to support your erroneous position.
**John 6:63: The Spirit Gives Life
**
Many people believe that John 6:63 proves that Jesus was speaking metaphorically about His body and blood in the sixth chapter of John. Does that verse actually support this position? Let’s take a closer look. In verse 63, Jesus said:
“The Spirit gives life; the flesh counts for nothing. The words I have spoken are spirit and they are life.” (John 6:63)
Many who deny the real presence of Christ is the Eucharist take this verse to mean that Jesus was not speaking literally when he commanded us to eat his body and drink his blood. However, this would be a misunderstanding of what Jesus meant when he said, “the flesh counts for nothing.”
First, notice that whenever Jesus referred to his own body and blood, he said “my flesh” or “the flesh of the Son of Man”. Here are the examples:
“This bread is my flesh, which I will give for the life of the world.” (John 6:51)
"Jesus said to them, “I tell you the truth, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you. Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day. For my flesh is real food and my blood is real drink. Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood remains in me, and I in him.” (John 6:53-56)
At this point, the narrative explains that the disciples were on the verge of revolt over this teaching. Jesus tells them that they cannot understand this teaching with their natural minds. Here is the verse in context: “On hearing it, many of his disciples said, ‘This is a hard teaching. Who can accept it?’ Aware that his disciples were grumbling about this, Jesus said to them, ‘Does this offend you? What if you see the Son of Man ascend to where he was before! The Spirit gives life; the flesh counts for nothing. The words I have spoken to you are spirit and they are life.’” (John 6:60-63)
In John 6:63, Jesus uses the phrase “the flesh” instead of “my flesh” or “the flesh of the Son of Man” because he is not talking about his own body; he is referring to man’s natural, unenlightened rational intellect.
Jesus tells the grumbling Jews (who can’t understand how he would give them his flesh to eat) that they cannot grasp it with their natural minds because it is a mystery beyond the ability of “the flesh” to understand. This is the same manner of speaking used by Paul in 1 Corinthians 2 & 3 when he is distinguishing between fleshly or carnal Christians and those who are discern the things of God with their spirits.
Second, it might be worth noting the obvious fact that Jesus cannot be saying that HIS own flesh “counts for nothing”; otherwise, his death upon the cross would be meaningless. Instead, we know that his own body, his flesh, was broken and pierced for our sake; no Christian would deny that. Therefore, since HIS flesh does count for something, he must have been referring to “flesh” other than his own in v. 63.
Thus, the one verse that many non-Catholics cling to as an argument against the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist does not mean what they falsely claim it means. Ironically, their “proof text” points out precisely why they cannot understand the Eucharist: they are using their own flesh or human reasoning instead of their spirits to discern the things of God. Unfortunately, their flesh “counts for nothing”.
L
LilyM
Guest
Again, you’re saying God cannot be omnipresent.
R
Randy_Carson
Guest
Of course we don’t because we understand when Jesus was speaking metaphorically and when He was not…distinctions that you would do well to learn.
Here’s a bit more for you:
Symbolism and Reality in John 6
Taken from Not By Bread Alone by Robert Sungenis (pp. 172-176)
Here is where we need to introduce some important distinctions. Notice that so far in the narrative (John 6:1-47), Jesus has not mentioned the words, “eat,” “drink,” “flesh,” or “blood.” He only says that He is the bread from heaven; the bread of life; and that He came down from heaven to do the will of the Father. Jesus does not use the word, “eat” until verse 50, “flesh” until verse 51, “blood” until verse 53, and “drink” until verse 53. In fact, when Jesus says, “he who believes in me will never be thirsty” (verse 35), the metaphor leads us to think of drinking water, but certainly not of drinking blood. Thus far the Jews are not grumbling about the metaphors “hungry” and “thirsty.” Jesus, at least in this section, is focusing strictly on getting them to believe that He is sent from the Father, yet the people are just not comprehending.
To explain the enigma of unbelief, Jesus begins in verse 37 to make us aware that the Father has not “given” these people to Him. This revelation becomes a continuous thread throughout the discourse, occurring again in verses 44-45 (“no one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws him…”) and 64-65 (“…no one can come to me unless it has been given to him by the Father.”). Yet Jesus also explains that the Father is waiting for men to seek him (verse 35: He who comes to me”; verse 40: “everyone who looks to the Son and believes in him shall have eternal life”; verse 45: “everyone who listens to the Father and learns from him comes to me”). What we learn from this explanation is that personal belief is a dynamic interaction between the Father and those who seek Him. God draws; men respond by believing. It they don’t believe, God will harden them.
Beginning in verse 48, Jesus now sets the stage for the second section of His discourse—the non-symbolic section. Despite the Jews’ objections, He reiterates: “I am the Bread of life,” the same words he had uttered in verse 35. In verse 51, however, He begins for the first time in the discourse, to speak about actually eating this bread. Jesus thus begins the transition from mere spiritual belief to actually partaking of Him physically. In the next verse, he adds that he is “living” bread and that this bread is His “flesh.”
Jesus has not used the words, “eat” and “flesh” in His opening dialogue (verses 25-47). The Jews catch Jesus’ shift in expression and immediately object to His demand that they not only believe in Him, but actually eat His flesh. Verse 52 records: “Then the Jews began to argue sharply among themselves, ‘How can this man give us his flesh to eat?’” Notice that the Jews are not objecting to Jesus’ mention of “bread,” but to His mention of “flesh.”
At this point, some may object that Jesus’ sudden use of “flesh” in verse 51 would not necessarily refer to eating his flesh, since Jesus subsequently says “which I will give for the life of the world.” Naturally, one could plausibly interpret this phrase as referring to the general work of atonement that Christ performed on the cross. The problem with this interpretation, however, is that none of these instance, indeed no passage of the New Testament, ever tells anyone to “eat the flesh” or “drink the blood” of Christ symbolically to attain eternal life.
This is a crucial point, the climax of the whole account. Jesus has only two alternatives: (1) He can go back to use of bread and water as metaphors, such as the metaphors of verse 35 that represent personally believing in Him and the Father, and thus calm the Jews’ fear that He was suggesting they actually eat His flesh; or (2) He can ignore their objections and continue to develop even more emphatically what the Jesus already clearly understand to be a direct command that they literally eat His flesh. The Catholic contention, of course, is that Jesus chooses the latter. He does not tell the Jews that they are misunderstanding Him or that He is still referring to personal belief in Him. Rather, not only does he ignore the Jews’ objection, He adds a more pointed description how they are to eat His flesh which can only confirm that the Jews, in thinking Jesus wants the people of the world to eat His flesh, have indeed understood Him correctly.
Jesus continues to remove all reasonable doubts about His meaning in five more ways: (1) in verse 53, He adds to command to “drink His blood” and “eat the flesh,” and in doing so (2) changes the imagery of drinking spiritual water from verse 35 into that of physically drinking His blood and (3) exchanges the word for “eat” from one that could be interpreted either physically or symbolically to one in which the only meaning is physical; (4) He repeats this new verb form four more times in the next four verses (verses 54-58), thus reinforcing the command to eat Him physically; (5) at the risk of losing His entire following, even His disciples and Apostles, He does not retract or soften His teaching.
L
LilyM
Guest
If Jesus
a) spent a whole chapter of scripture insisting, many times over and most emphatically, that he really and truly was indeed a very door, or a very vine, or a very sheepgate - or indeed any other statement at all - and then
b) repeated the assertion at the Last Supper - and on top of this
c) LET CROWDS OF PEOPLE WALK AWAY because they thought He was crazy and couldn’t accept His saying, just as He does those who thought He was crazy in John 6, and
d) to cap it all, does all this without a word of explanation, without the slightest hint of ‘hang on, don’t walk away, you misunderstand me, when I said xyz I was speaking only in metaphor’
Well yes, then logically one would have to conclude that He was indeed speaking literally about whatever topic He was addressing. He wouldn’t trifle with peoples’ salvation by letting them walk away from Him by deliberately causing a simple and easily-cured misunderstanding!
R
ralphy
Guest
So as far as you are concerned, you are actually eating real flesh, and drinking real blood,right. Where does this supply come from, and is it kept in a church in a little cupboard for days on end, and still be good to eat. The point is that God is spirit, and we worship him in spirit and in truth. When He said that He was the true bread that came down from heaven, why did they not start eating Him then. The RCC takes this to be the center of their belief, as the only way to receive Christ. I did belong to the RCC one time, but came out from there when I read the Bible, and found out the truth as it it written in the Bible. In christian love, Ralph.
- Status