SPLIT: Questions Catholics Will Not Answer.

[justasking4]

Keep arguing against it and I feel sure that you’ll find out, okay?

Seriously though, I have no problem whatever with the Assumption of the Blessed Virgin, as I point out in the following article that I wrote about 2 years ago.
Reasons Why I Believe in The Blessed Virgin Mary’s Assumption

And this is one of the very serious problems with n-C theology, they have established a literal “tradition of men” that significantly alters the salvation message that they preach and introduces error into their teachings.

I’m glad you chose that passage as an example. Now watch and read carefully.

Your citation: and the Catholic Church would agree with that so far as it goes, but let me show you where the real problem is in your theology.

You say: but I want to know by what authority you alter the gospel message and edit out as “not core” beliefs what follows after that passage?

It reads as follows: 5] and that he appeared to Cephas, then to the twelve.
6] Then he appeared to more than five hundred brethren at one time, most of whom are still alive, though some have fallen asleep.
7] Then he appeared to James, then to all the apostles.
8] Last of all, as to one untimely born, he appeared also to me. Reading them in their context certainly shows that St. Paul included all of the latter in with the former as to things that Paul specifically says are, I preached to you the gospel, which you received, in which you stand,
2] by which you are saved, if you hold it fast – unless you believed in vain.
3] For I delivered to you as of first importance what I also received,
I don’t think that you can justify this.

As i’ve said i’m bit dense. Can you clarify what your point is with passages and what you think i’m saying? That would help me tremendously…

 

[guanophore]

i read your references and it still does not change the bare essential of what it takes to be saved as Paul states in Romans 10.

I think this is a major point of difference between Catholics and Evangelicals/Fundamentalists. You seem to want the “bare essentials” where Catholics want the fullness of truth. You are willing to fasten on one small passage, and see that it contains the wholenss,a nd Catholics prefer to take the whole Bible together with all it’s parts. Excising verses in isolation from the whole leads to misinterpretations and misunderstandings.

How a person lives and follows Christ are also important but without explicit repentance of sins and believing Christ died for those sins and rose again you are not saved no matter how righteous and good a life a person lives.

I agree with this, and I think this passage does say something important about salvation. It is no less important than John 6, however.
Thi

 

[guanophore]

How i wish it were as simple as you make it sound here. If you read church history for example you will find a number of different opinions and a vast number of things that Jesus taught and in many cases don’t agree.

You say these kinds of things because you cannot discern the Body of Christ. You do not understand the difference between the Holy Church and the fallible people that are joined to her. You don’t understand that people’s individual misunderstandings of what Jesus taught does not change or take away from what He taught.

Even though the witnesses are all dead it still does not change the facts and the support of those facts. This is how we must approach historical questions. For example the assination of Lincoln is still a fact even though all people who lived during the period are all dead. It was true then and it will be true a billion years from now that Lincoln was assinated in 1863.

Yes. But this is what we have been telling you for the better part of a year about the Apostolic Succession and Sacred Tradition, and you can’t accept it.

Let me ask you. Her assumption is mentioned over 300 years after the event with no evidence to back this claim up. Does the mere fact this was mentioned over 300 years after the event with no documentation trouble you?

Let me ask you…It was over 300 years before the decision was made which books should be included in the NT. Does that trouble you? If not, why not? And why does that decision, which came from the same source, not trouble you when the other one does?

Would you believe if someone made a claim to today that a pope that lived and died 300 years ago was assumed into heaven because they found no evidence for his body?

No.

That’s what i’m asking catholics. Must a catholic believe for example that Mary was assumed into heaven to be saved?

If one does not believe in the assumption,the one does not believe in Jesus’ teaching about the resurrection, and if that is the case, they are not really Catholic, since being Catholic means accepting ALL the teachings of Jesus (not just pick and choose). I won’t go so far as to say that such a person could not be saved, but invicible ignorance is more and more difficult.

If the individual passages used to support a doctrine are not interpreted correctly within the contexts in which they appear you won’t have the truth.

I couldn’t agree more! The difference is that I know the context is the Catholic church, by and for whom those scriptures were written. Taking them out of the Church is taking them out of context.

Claiming to “Catholics interpret scripture as a whole. We consider that they are all part of one whole Divine Revelation.” is not enough to say you have the truth. The parts must also support the conclusions and that is where John 6 as doesn’t help you.

Well, we see it differently!

 You are correct the John was present at both events but we don't see him tying the 2 together as the catholic church tries to.

That is the job of the Church. That is why Jesus founded the Church.

In fact i can’t think of anyone else in the letters that use John 6 in support of the eucharist either. Can you?

I will meditate upon it. He certainly does it most extensively, because he had the longest period of time to pray on it before writing.

 

[justasking4]

Church Militant;3240080]Keep arguing against it and I feel sure that you’ll find out, okay?

Seriously though, I have no problem whatever with the Assumption of the Blessed Virgin, as I point out in the following article that I wrote about 2 years ago.
Reasons Why I Believe in The Blessed Virgin Mary’s Assumption

i read through your article and i’m aware of the reasons you use to believe in her assumption. The problem with it is that you are using assumptions and possiblities as proof that it did indeed happen. This is not evidence for your case. Even though something may be rational to believe does not mean its true. Thats why you need to ask yourself where the historical evidence of the eyewitness accounts are from the 1st century.
Let me encourage you to use I Corinthians 15:1-8 as your criteria in determing Mary’s supposed assumption. Ask yourself:
1- who were the eyewitnesses?
2- what is the date of the the first account?
3- when is her assumption first mentioned?

Keep in mind that I Corinthians was written probably before 60 AD which would put it within 30 years of the resurrection itself.
This is why the NT is so powerful as a historical document in support of the faith.

 

[Church_Militant]

Would you happen to have the passage where is states that you must recieve the Eucharist to be saved?

Certainly! John 6: [53] 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;
[54] he who eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day.
[55] For my flesh is food indeed, and my blood is drink indeed.
[56] He who eats my flesh and drinks my blood abides in me, and I in him.

 

[justasking4]

guanophore;3240159]I think this is a major point of difference between Catholics and Evangelicals/Fundamentalists. You seem to want the “bare essentials” where Catholics want the fullness of truth. You are willing to fasten on one small passage, and see that it contains the wholenss,a nd Catholics prefer to take the whole Bible together with all it’s parts. Excising verses in isolation from the whole leads to misinterpretations and misunderstandings.

My responses are not intended to be a full and complete understanding of salvation. I started out with the most basic and fundamental issue. Other things that others have brought up are important also.

 

[justasking4]

Certainly! John 6: [53] 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;
[54] he who eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day.
[55] For my flesh is food indeed, and my blood is drink indeed.
[56] He who eats my flesh and drinks my blood abides in me, and I in him.

i’m going to put neck out again and i problably be accused again of not listening etc. But here goes.
What do you think the major themes of John 6 are?

 

[Church_Militant]

I don’t know how many times i have thought to myself that i’m so grateful that i don’t live next door to so many catholics on this forum. I don’t think i would be alive today if i did.

That’s funny, I know I’ve said the self same thing about so many n-Cs/a-Cs I have encountered here and other places on the net.

Actually some of my best friends are catholics. I actually like catholics like you and others who are passionate and believe they are right and try to argue for it. That’s not that common in my world.

Let’s just say that I learned the hard way. My Testimony.

These forums are limited in the way things are communicated and its quite easy to be misunderstood given that we can’t ask questions for clarifications as we do in verbal communication. I find its better to give the benefit of doubt and be charitable with people rather than assume the worst or evil intentions. That i believe is the way of Christ.

Yep! I agree with you. I expect the best of you and all those I post with …right up until they prove me wrong.

I try to be as clear and concise as possible in what I post, but know what you mean.

 

[guanophore]

i get the impression you don’t like me. I wonder why???

It is not you, we don’t know you. It is the attitude and beliefs reflected in your posts. You have demonstrated a gross anticatholic and hateful prejudice that is painful. You tear at the Church, because you don’t perceive that you are a member of Her. You bring slander, accusation, and calumny here.

Anyway, what blatant lies are you referring to? Can you give me a couple of examples?

Don’t tempt me! I saved them in a file, and will post them on every thread!!!

 

[Mannyfit75]

What do you think the major themes of John 6 are?

The summary of John 6:35-69. That Jesus is the Bread of Life that we must eat his flesh and drink his blood so he can remain in us and we in him. That is the major theme.

 

[justasking4]

That’s funny, I know I’ve said the self same thing about so many n-Cs/a-Cs I have encountered here and other places on the net.Let’s just say that I learned the hard way. My Testimony. Yep! I agree with you. I expect the best of you and all those I post with …right up until they prove me wrong.

I try to be as clear and concise as possible in what I post, but know what you mean.

Your one of the few i have enjoyed discussing with and have learned quite a bit. You have a fortitude in your responses that i hope other catholics here would emulate.

 

[Church_Militant]

As i’ve said i’m bit dense. Can you clarify what your point is with passages and what you think i’m saying? That would help me tremendously…

Okay…glad to!

What I mean is that when you chose to cite only the first 4 verses of that passage you made a editorial decision that failed to include all that St. Paul plainly says. This exclusion of part of something that St. Paul says is an important part of the Gospel is (IMO) a serious flaw in n-C theology…

I believe that it is wrong for n-Cs to pretty much arbitrarily designate some things as “core” and blow off others like and I honestly believe it constitutes a different and deficient gospel that Paul condemns in Galatians.

Is that better?

 

[justasking4]

It is not you, we don’t know you. It is the attitude and beliefs reflected in your posts. You have demonstrated a gross anticatholic and hateful prejudice that is painful. You tear at the Church, because you don’t perceive that you are a member of Her. You bring slander, accusation, and calumny here.

Don’t tempt me! I saved them in a file, and will post them on every thread!!!

i have to hand it to you. You have probably done more to turn people against me than any other.

 

[Church_Militant]

Your one of the few i have enjoyed discussing with and have learned quite a bit. You have a fortitude in your responses that i hope other catholics here would emulate.

:blushing: Thanks. I am an unworthy servant. I have only done what is expected of me. (Luke 17:10)

 

[justasking4]

Church Militant;3240371]
Originally Posted by justasking4
As i’ve said i’m bit dense. Can you clarify what your point is with passages and what you think i’m saying? That would help me tremendously…

Church Militant
Okay…glad to!

What I mean is that when you chose to cite only the first 4 verses of that passage you made a editorial decision that failed to include all that St. Paul plainly says. This exclusion of part of something that St. Paul says is an important part of the Gospel is (IMO) a serious flaw in n-C theology…

If i was making a full presentation of what the gospel is i would have said a lot more. i like to keep my responses brief (2-3 sentences). What does Paul say in I Cor 15 that should have been included for an essential of salvation?

I believe that it is wrong for n-Cs to pretty much arbitrarily designate some things as “core” and blow off others like and I honestly believe it constitutes a different and deficient gospel that Paul condemns in Galatians.

i’m confused. It seems you are saying somthing here with your encounters with others. As i said above i was not making a full presentation of the gospel and what it all entails.

Is that better?

Yes.

 

[jmcrae]

i’m going to put neck out again and i problably be accused again of not listening etc. But here goes.
What do you think the major themes of John 6 are?

They are the various aspects of the Eucharist.

The multiplication of the loaves and fishes in the first section shows us how it is that Jesus’ body and blood, soul and divinity can be multiplied across time and space into every Catholic Church that exists, has existed, or will ever exist.

The walking on the water reminds us of the Creation, when the Holy Spirit moved upon the face of the waters. This shows us that Jesus is God the Creator; that His use of the word “is” or “to be” is a creative action - something comes to be that did not exist before.

 

[Church_Militant]

I’m going to put neck out again and i probably be accused again of not listening etc. But here goes.
What do you think the major themes of John 6 are?

:ehh: I really see only the Eucharist and the Real Presence there and here’s why.

In verses 1-15 Our Lord performs the miracle of multiplying the loaves and fishes. Notice that this is something that any rational person would tell you is completely impossible, right? Yet Our Lord does it and and even has 12 baskets full of loaves left over to boot. He just makes it so.

Then in verses 16-21 Our Lord does another miracle that any rational person will again tell you is flat out impossible in that he literally walks on the water out onto the lake to reach the apostles in their boat, and then once in the boat He rapid transports them all to the shore at their destination. I get the distinct impression that Jesus is building up to something with all this, okay?

Then the rest of the chapter is where Our Lord begins to speak to the people of the greatest miracle that occurs every day in Catholic Churches all over the planet.

It’s interesting that all those disciples called it a hard saying and bailed when they had already seen that this guy could do pretty much whatever He chose to. I really believe the other two miracles were to demonstrate that to everyone concerned, and is probably one of the major reasons that none of the apostles bailed except Judas, but that betrayal was already in process and the Lord knew it.

My point is that I believe that the whole chapter is set up to show why believers who accept those first two, should accept the Bread of Life discourse with faith informed by them.

As you can see in my article The Eucharist IS Scriptural I believe that Jesus was indeed speaking to them literally and that rejecting this teaching is one of the truly serious errors of n-C theology and a great loss to them. That rejection opposes the Word of God as well as the plain sense of the ECF letter of Ignatius of Antioch to the church at Smyrna and I really don’t understand how they can do that. Even when I was in n-C faith communities and they finally had communion, I was never confused into thinking for a moment that I was partaking of the body and blood of the Lord. As John Wesley’s father told him on his deathbed, “the inner witness of the Holy Spirit”, y’know?
I hope this helps, and feel free to PM or e-mail me if you’d like to get into this privately. I have no problem with that.

 

[justasking4]

:ehh: I really see only the Eucharist and the Real Presence there and here’s why.

In verses 1-15 Our Lord performs the miracle of multiplying the loaves and fishes. Notice that this is something that any rational person would tell you is completely impossible, right? Yet Our Lord does it and and even has 12 baskets full of loaves left over to boot. He just makes it so.

Then in verses 16-21 Our Lord does another miracle that any rational person will again tell you is flat out impossible in that he literally walks on the water out onto the lake to reach the apostles in their boat, and then once in the boat He rapid transports them all to the shore at their destination. I get the distinct impression that Jesus is building up to something with all this, okay?

Then the rest of the chapter is where Our Lord begins to speak to the people of the greatest miracle that occurs every day in Catholic Churches all over the planet.

It’s interesting that all those disciples called it a hard saying and bailed when they had already seen that this guy could do pretty much whatever He chose to. I really believe the other two miracles were to demonstrate that to everyone concerned, and is probably one of the major reasons that none of the apostles bailed except Judas, but that betrayal was already in process and the Lord knew it.

My point is that I believe that the whole chapter is set up to show why believers who accept those first two, should accept the Bread of Life discourse with faith informed by them.

As you can see in my article The Eucharist IS Scriptural I believe that Jesus was indeed speaking to them literally and that rejecting this teaching is one of the truly serious errors of n-C theology and a great loss to them. That rejection opposes the Word of God as well as the plain sense of the ECF letter of Ignatius of Antioch to the church at Smyrna and I really don’t understand how they can do that. Even when I was in n-C faith communities and they finally had communion, I was never confused into thinking for a moment that I was partaking of the body and blood of the Lord. As John Wesley’s father told him on his deathbed, “the inner witness of the Holy Spirit”, y’know?
I hope this helps, and feel free to PM or e-mail me if you’d like to get into this privately. I have no problem with that.

Let me ask you a couple of questions in regards to John 6:
1- verse 27-- what is the “food which endures to eternal life”?
If you have access to a NT greek lexicon how does it define the word?

2-verse 33-35 speaks of bread that comes down from heaven that gives life. Where in the last supper accounts does Jesus say anything about the bread coming down from heaven that He gives them?

3- Is there any place in John 6 where the passover is mentioned?

Ps-- thanks for the invite to email you. I will need to decline for now since i have only a limited amount of time and (this is not against you personally) but i don’t trust people on this forum and i don’t want anyone to be to be able to trace where i live.

 

[Schabel]

Let me ask you a couple of questions in regards to John 6:
1- verse 27-- what is the “food which endures to eternal life”?
If you have access to a NT greek lexicon how does it define the word?

brosis
from the base of 977; (abstractly) eating (literally or figuratively); by extension (concretely) food (literally or figuratively):–eating, food, meat.
So?

2-verse 33-35 speaks of bread that comes down from heaven that gives life. Where in the last supper accounts does Jesus say anything about the bread coming down from heaven that He gives them?

He has already told us this in John 6:41, 50, 51, and 58. HE is the bread which came down from Heaven. Then, Jesus in the Last Supper accounts says “This IS My Body.”

Don’t you guys preach to let scripture interpret scripture?

3- Is there any place in John 6 where the passover is mentioned?

Yes. 6:4.

 

[Church_Militant]

If i was making a full presentation of what the gospel is i would have said a lot more. i like to keep my responses brief (2-3 sentences). What does Paul say in I Cor 15 that should have been included for an essential of salvation?

Paul apparently felt that all the things that happened after the resurrection were as important to presenting the fullness of truth of the gospel.

For example, we Catholics believe that except for under the most extraordinary circumstances, one is born again and washes away their sins by being baptized and so Baptism is a necessary part of the salvation process, not an option that one can neglect. This is part of the reason that i cite acts 2:38 and 22:16 in my article on the different gospel. I mean, if that is what the apostles preached under the influence of the fullness of the Holy Spirit, I have to see the general n-C practice of marginalizing it as something that a believer should do, but will not imperil their soul to neglect. That doesn’t seem to be the teaching of the New Testament nor of the Early Church. Further, I believe that oversimplifying the Gospel of Salvation like that is seriously wrong and very dangerous. After all, James 3:1 says, Let not many of you become teachers, my brethren, for you know that we who teach shall be judged with greater strictness.

i’m confused. It seems you are saying somthing here with your encounters with others. As i said above i was not making a full presentation of the gospel and what it all entails.

I’m sorry, I am actually saying that I have these issues with all of n-C salvation messages that I have encountered so far. I was simply using your post as exemplary of that thinking.