SPLIT: Questions Catholics Will Not Answer.

[guanophore]

In I Corinthians 15:1-8 Paul does name names. To say that this account in I Corinthians 15 would not be adequate either in a court of law or is not adequate as an historical account means you would have to reject all of ancient and modern historical accounts based on eyewitness accounts

Don’t be ridiculous, ja4! He makes personal greetings, and there were some that were witnesses, but hardly the 500 you claim! Anyway, being in Christ before Paul does not equate to witnessing resurrection.

since historians rely on the same principle as this. Most events in history don’t have this kind of support and yet historians accept historical accounts as being true on far less evidence.

And we have many more centuries on Mary, with names and all!!
Fatima, Lourdes, Guadalupe, etc.

To reject this means you would know nothing about history. Would you be willing to do this?

I have knowledge of history from other sources than those that you rely upon. I accept divine revelation as a reliable source.

“O Timothy, guard what has been entrusted to you.”
1 Tim 6:20

What you are saying is that Timothy failed to guard the Sacred Tradition, and pass it on to faithful men. He failed Paul, and he failed the Apostles, and he failed Jesus. Actually, Jesus was too weak or inattentive to protect His own message.

 

[guanophore]

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.

You are in error again!

It is a mortal sin for a Catholic to kill an enemy of Christ. We are to pray for them, make sacrifices,and give our lives in exchange for theirs, just as He did.

Actually some of my best friends are catholics.

(Edited).

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.

Well, I don’t know which “world” you live in now, but it is clear that it is a world that has a very small idea of God, and is very bigoted.

These forums are limited in the way things are communicated and its quite easy to be misunderstood

I pray that I have misunderstood about your slander, bigotry, calumny and hate toward Catholics.

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.

Indeed. However, you have been given that benefit, and having clarified, have made it clear.

 

[Margarite]

None of them contradicts Scripture, and as you have seen up-thread, there is plenty of warrant for interpreting certain Scriptures as indicative of the Assumption.

Have you actually studied the history of this Dogma – from the Catholic perspective, that is? A good place to start would be the paragraphs 963-975 in the Catechism relating to Mary’s relationship to the Church. This material may be a little too “developed” for you but what the heck. Give it a shot. Another place to explore this would be Munificentissimus Deuswhich proclaimed the dogma for the universal Church.

You keep saying, “That’s not in the Bible.” But Catholics do see it in the Bible. True, we do not see it openly stated in the Bible. But then, we do not see the characterization of the hypostatic union openly stated in the Bible either. Just as Mary “pondered all these things in her heart”, so the Church “ponders all these things in her heart.”

Again, I reiterate: ALL Marian teachings are directly related to the Person of Jesus Christ and illuminate some aspect of His glory. None of it as about Mary as a stand-alone proposition.

Well, if you accept the Immaculate Conception then you must accept the Assumption. It is much easier to prove the IC so I would suggest that we prove that and then move to the Assumption which is easy to prove once one believes in the IC.
I will defend my position either tomorrow or on Monday, for now I am going to bed

 

[Church_Militant]

During the Eucharist, Roman Catholics want to believe that the actual

body of Jesus is what is being eaten and the wine in the cup is actually His blood. Of course this is not to be taken literally. How could Jesus, still present in His own body, say that bread and wine were His body and blood? Jesus told them to commemorate His sacrifice and New Covenant by using the bread and wine as symbols of His body and blood.This is completely false and you cannot produce a single scripture that even implies that Jesus was speaking symbolically about this. I’ve read the Word of God and it’s just not there.

This concept did not originate with the Last Supper as Jews had been celebrating Passover for thousands of years in the same manner. The unleavened bread was a symbol of the bread that did not have time to rise, because their haste in getting away from Pharaoh in their flight from Egypt.

Irrelevant… The Eucharist is not based in Judaism

It was during this meal that Jesus said to them,

(John 6:53-56)This scripture citation did not occur at the last supper.

If you read this verse out of context, it seems that Roman Catholics have a good point that Jesus indicated that you must eat His body and blood. However, Scripture reveals a different meaning when the entire chapter is read in context. Let’s look at John 6 to determine what is truly meant.

The feeding of the 5,000 with bread and fish starts this chapter. It is no coincidence that this event which takes place at the beginning of the chapter is referenced again at the point that Jesus declares Himself to be the bread of life. The crown that had been fed real bread at the beginning of the chapter were back to get another free handout.

This is another place where you attempt to force your interpretation onto the text in order to make it seem to say something other than it does.

The fact is that Jesus did this at that time in order to demonstrate that he can carry out whatever He says, so when He tells us [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.

The Rabbis had quoted Psalms 72:16 to prove that the Messiah, when he came, could outdo Moses with manna from heaven. Jesus, claiming to be the Messiah, offered to give bread for eternal life. (John 6:27) The crowd then asked Jesus,* “What must we do to do the works God requires?” (John 6:28)*

Jesus’ answer was:

"The work of God is this: to believe in the one he has sent." (John 6:29)

He mentioned believing only, not eating.Well obviously anyone who didn’t believe in Him wouldn’t believe in His miraculous presence in the Eucharist.

Yet St. Paul did, as he plainly tells us in 1st Corinthians 11:23-30.

This statement of Jesus makes it clear that he is NOT

referring to physical bread. All who eat physical bread will hunger again. Jesus is declaring Himself to be spiritual bread. Those who “eat” of the spiritual bread by believing in Him will not hunger again. Jesus has clearly defined the “eating” of Himself as “He who comes to me” and the drinking of Himself as **"He who believes in me”. **In this verse, Jesus has defined the entire metaphor as being a symbolic representation of spiritual truth. One can find other examples of “eating” and “drinking” from Jesus’ other sermons.Our Lord didn’t say that, and in fact He made it plain that He was speaking literally when the disciples bailed on him by then asking if the apostles wanted to go too. there is no explanation or qualifying of any kind…just as St. Peter answers Him , "[68] Simon Peter answered him, “Lord, to whom shall we go? You have the words of eternal life;
[69] and we have believed, and have come to know, that you are the Holy One of God.”

Blessed are those who hunger and thirst for righteousness, for they will be filled. (Matthew 5:6)

If anyone believes in Jesus, his spiritual hunger will be satisfied. The Eucharist cannot satisfy one’s physical hunger. Neither can it satisfy one’s spiritual hunger. This hunger can only be satisfied by the living bread (John 6:51),** which is the living Lord Himself**.Irrelevant passage citation…taken out of its context and twisted to apply here to something else.

Obviously, real bread does not come from heaven. It comes from grain grown on the earth. Jesus could only be referring to spiritual bread. The analogy is quite clear that Jesus is the spiritual bread from heaven that gives spiritual (eternal) life.

You err again here in this statement because real bread does indeed come from heaven…and you are twisting that while having just cited the discussion of the Manna in the desert. Bread which did indeed fall from heaven every day.

Jesus talked twice more about believing in Him:

And while you preach this you expect anyone who has the Bible in front of them to ignore the whole rest of the chapter!!?

Any objective reader will see through this tactic of yours.

 

[Church_Militant]

The symbolism is quite clear.

Assertion not supported by scripture.

Your forefathers ate the manna [physical bread] in the desert, yet they died. (John 6:49)

**But here is the bread that comes down from heaven [spiritual bread - Jesus], which a man may eat and not die. (John 6:50)**Yet you just told us that real bread does not come down from heaven, (directly contradicting what Jesus Himself said in verses 32-33). I don’t think your teaching is scripturally accurate.

If you eat the Eucharist, you will still die. It is only by belief that one will live forever. However, if you ”eat” the Bread of Life, you will live forever:

That’s so heavily twisted…

I am the living bread that came down from heaven. If anyone eats of this bread, he will live forever. This bread is my flesh, which I will give for the life of the world." (John 6:51)

Matthew 12:37 For by thy words thou shalt be justified, and by thy words thou shalt be condemned.

You won’t even try to deal with 1st Corinthians 11:23-30 in which St. Paul tells us plainly that the Eucharist is the Body and blood of the Lord.

 

[EJTMJR]

OLD SCHOLAR, Sir, I have been reading this post for the last few nights and I would like to ask you a couple of questions if you don’t mind so that I might try to understand you.

You are a Christian, correct?
Does your faith depend on proof?
So do you believe in the BIBLE ALONE , Sola Scriptura?

If yes, why? Scripture nowhere says it is Church came before Scripture!

Thank you and GOD BLESS.

Correction to above, of course I meant New Testament

 

[fellowChristian]

Bethlehem is where Jesus was born.

It is Hebrew it means "house of bread"

Where did Mary place the baby Jesus?

In a manger.

What does manger mean?

"To Chew"

What do we put in a manger?

Something to eat.

What did Jesus say in John 6?

51"I am the living bread that came down out of heaven; if anyone eats of this bread, he will live forever; and the bread also which I will give for the life of the world is My flesh."

He will live forever?

54"He who** eats My flesh **and **drinks My blood **has eternal life, and I will raise him up on the last day.

How do we abide in Jesus?

56"He who **eats My flesh **and drinks My blood abides in Me, and I in him.

Jesus said eat the flesh of the Son of Man, Not eat the flesh and understand.

 

[fellowChristian]

Sometimes we forget what the cross was made of.

Wood.

From a tree.

At the begining of Genesis we remember another tree.

Genesis 3:17
Then to Adam He said, "Because you have listened to the voice of your wife, and have eaten from the tree about which I commanded you, saying, ‘You shall not eat from it’; Cursed is the ground because of you; In toil you will eat of it All the days of your life.

Adam disobeyed God’s command to not eat from the tree. The first sin. We call Original Sin.This sin is called original because it comes down to us through our origin, or descent, from Adam.

**Romans 5:12 **
Therefore as through one man sin entered into the world and through sin death, and thus death has passed unto all men because all have sinned.

The chief punishments of Adam which we inherit through original sin are: death, suffering, ignorance, and a strong inclination to sin.

**Wisdom 2:24 **
But, by the envy of the devil, death came into the world.

**Genesis 3:19 **
In the sweat of thy face shalt thou eat bread till thou return to the earth, out of which thou wast taken; for dust thou art, and into dust thou shalt return.

Because of Adam’s sin heaven’s doors were closed to us.God the Father promised us someone who would redeem us.

**Genesis 3:15 **
I will put enmities between you and the woman, between your seed and her seed; he shall crush your head, and you shall lie in wait his heel.

Jesus the Christ bore all the sins of the world and sacrificed His life for us. He redeemed us.And God opened the doors to heaven for us.

1 Peter 2:24
24and He Himself bore our sins in His body on the cross, so that we might die to sin and live to righteousness; for by His wounds you were healed.

Galatians 3:13
13Christ redeemed us from the curse of the Law, having become a curse for us–for it is written, **“CURSED IS EVERYONE WHO HANGS ON A TREE”-- **

**1 Corinthians 15:3 **
3For I delivered to you as of first importance what I also received, that **Christ died for our sins **according to the Scriptures,

It had been written in the Old Testament that …
**
Deuteronomy 21:22**
22"If a man has committed a **sin worthy of death **and he is put to death, and you hang him on a tree,

Well Jesus was carrying all our sins on His body.

1 Corinthians 15:22
For as in Adam all die, so also in Christ all will be made alive.

Acts 10:39

39"We are witnesses of all the things He did both in the land of the Jews and in Jerusalem They also put Him to death by hanging Him on a cross.

Through a tree came death, Adam’s sin. And through a tree came life, Jesus’ crucifixion

What grows on a tree?

Fruit.

What do you do with fruit?

You eat it…

 

[fellowChristian]

Why do we still have the Old Testament? What is its purpose?

Saint Augustine said that the Old is revealed in the New and the New is concealed in the Old.

What does that mean? Well if it’s in the New that means it is somewhere in the Old.
Testament that is.

We look at John 6 Jesus says that He is the bread that fell from heaven. He compares Himself with the Manna that fell from Heaven.

We see that in **Exodus 16 **that Manna fell from heaven. What did the people do with that bread? They ate it.

In **John 19 **we read…

**14 It was the day of Preparation of Passover Week, about the sixth hour.
“Here is your king,” Pilate said to the Jews. **

Jesus is about to be crucifed while preparation for the Passover is taking place. What do they do at a Passover meal?

They eat it.

John 1:29
The next day John saw Jesus coming toward him and said, "Look, the Lamb of God, who takes away the sin of the world!

Funny how John calls Jesus a lamb?! What do you do with a lamb?** You eat it**.

When was the first Passover meal?
In Exodus 12.
What did they have to do?

Old ---------------------------------->** New**

1.Take unblemished male lamb.----------------------------------------> Jesus

**2.**The whole assembly of the congregation of Israel is to kill it.--------------------> Crucify Him

**3.**Take the blood and put it on the two doorposts---------------------------> The cross

4.They shall eat the flesh--------------------------------------------->Eucharist

**Eucharist is Greek it means “Thanksgiving”

What do we do at Thanksgiving?**

We eat it.

These are for people who have a hard time understanding Scripture. Sort of a “connect the dots” thing.

 

[savedsinner]

(cont’d)

I tell you the truth, he who believes has everlasting life. I am the bread of life. (John 6:47-48)

Jesus clearly states that those who believe have everlasting life and that He is the “bread” that gives that life. It has nothing to do with the Eucharist and nothing to do with eating. It is an earthly example comparing physical bread for physical life with heavenly bread(Jesus Himself) for eternal life. The symbolism is quite clear.

Your forefathers ate the manna [physical bread] in the desert, yet they died. (John 6:49)

But here is the bread that comes down from heaven [spiritual bread - Jesus], which a man may eat and not die. (John 6:50)

If you eat the Eucharist, you will still die. It is only by belief that one will live forever. However, if you ”eat” the Bread of Life, you will live forever:

I am the living bread that came down from heaven. If anyone eats of this bread, he will live forever. This bread is my flesh, which I will give for the life of the world." (John 6:51)

Jesus was speaking of spiritual truths and not physical ones.

If you look closer to the bread of life discourse in John chapter 6, you will see that it is broken down into two parts. Each part starts with the pharase “I am the bread of life”

Part 1 is the call to faith in Jesus which starts with John 6:35
Jesus said to them, "I am the bread of life; he who comes to me shall not hunger, and he who believes in me shall never thirst.

Part 2 is the call to the Eucharist which starts with John 6:48
I am the bread of life.
In the second section, Jesus is quite clear that you must eat his body, the greek word used is “gnaw” to tear apart meat, which is not a symbolic word.

Jesus then goes on in verse 63 to say:
It is the spirit that gives life, the flesh is of no avail; the words that I have spoken to you are spirit and life.

Jesus say’s that the words he has spoken are spirit, that is Heavenly or from God. He is not saying that they are symbolic, because that is not what spirit means there.
And just what are the words which he is referring to which he has spoken in the previous verses?

That we must eat his body and drink his blood to gain eternal life.

The whole chapter 6 must be kept in the context of the Passover, where Jesus is the Lamb of God which will be offered to the world.
John 6:4
Now the Passover, the feast of the Jews, was at hand.

And what would happen during the Passover a year or so later?

Jesus would offer up his body with the words:
This is my body, eat it, and this is my blood drink it.

If your interpretation of this all being symbolic, could you please quote me the Church fathers also teaching this?
The only quotes I can find is that they believe in the real presence of the Eucharist.

 

[Pier]

But why bother with the Bible if you don’t believe it?

This isn’t a true statement, OS -

Where did I say this, or anything that could be misconstrued or twisted into meaning this?

 

[Pier]

Why do we still have the Old Testament? What is its purpose?

Saint Augustine said that the Old is revealed in the New and the New is concealed in the Old.

What does that mean? Well if it’s in the New that means it is somewhere in the Old.
Testament that is.

We look at John 6 Jesus says that He is the bread that fell from heaven. He compares Himself with the Manna that fell from Heaven.

We see that in **Exodus 16 **that Manna fell from heaven. What did the people do with that bread? They ate it.

In **John 19 **we read…

**14 It was the day of Preparation of Passover Week, about the sixth hour.
“Here is your king,” Pilate said to the Jews. **

Jesus is about to be crucifed while preparation for the Passover is taking place. What do they do at a Passover meal?

They eat it.

John 1:29
The next day John saw Jesus coming toward him and said, "Look, the Lamb of God, who takes away the sin of the world!

Funny how John calls Jesus a lamb?! What do you do with a lamb?** You eat it**.

When was the first Passover meal?
In Exodus 12.
What did they have to do?

Old ---------------------------------->** New**

1.Take unblemished male lamb.----------------------------------------> Jesus

**2.**The whole assembly of the congregation of Israel is to kill it.--------------------> Crucify Him

**3.**Take the blood and put it on the two doorposts---------------------------> The cross

4.They shall eat the flesh--------------------------------------------->Eucharist

**Eucharist is Greek it means “Thanksgiving”

What do we do at Thanksgiving?**

We eat it.

These are for people who have a hard time understanding Scripture. Sort of a “connect the dots” thing.

Excellent posts, fellowChristian…

Amen.

 

[wisdomseeker]

During the Eucharist, Roman Catholics want to believe that the actual body of Jesus is what is being eaten and the wine in the cup is actually His blood. Of course this is not to be taken literally. How could Jesus, still present in His own body, say that bread and wine were His body and blood? Jesus told them to commemorate His sacrifice and New Covenant by using the bread and wine as symbols of His body and blood.

This concept did not originate with the Last Supper as Jews had been celebrating Passover for thousands of years in the same manner. The unleavened bread was a symbol of the bread that did not have time to rise, because their haste in getting away from Pharaoh in their flight from Egypt.

During the Passover meal, Jews use Matzahs in a certain form, striped and pierced, which is designed to represent Jesus, as prophesied by Isaiah. After the meal, the “buried” matzah is “resurrected”, which was foretold in the prophecies.

It was during this meal that 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 yourselves. "He who eats 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. "He who eats My flesh and drinks My blood abides in Me, and I in him. (John 6:53-56)

If you read this verse out of context, it seems that Roman Catholics have a good point that Jesus indicated that you must eat His body and blood. However, Scripture reveals a different meaning when the entire chapter is read in context. Let’s look at John 6 to determine what is truly meant.

The feeding of the 5,000 with bread and fish starts this chapter. It is no coincidence that this event which takes place at the beginning of the chapter is referenced again at the point that Jesus declares Himself to be the bread of life. The crown that had been fed real bread at the beginning of the chapter were back to get another free handout. Jesus said:

"I tell you the truth, you are looking for me, not because you saw miraculous signs but because you ate the loaves and had your fill. (John 6:26)

The Rabbis had quoted Psalms 72:16 to prove that the Messiah, when he came, could outdo Moses with manna from heaven. Jesus, claiming to be the Messiah, offered to give bread for eternal life. (John 6:27) The crowd then asked Jesus,* “What must we do to do the works God requires?” (John 6:28)* Jesus’ answer was:

"The work of God is this: to believe in the one he has sent." (John 6:29)

He mentioned believing only, not eating.

Then they discussed a miraculous sign and the manna God had given them in the desert (a reference to what the rabbis had said about the Messiah). **Jesus declared Himself to be the true bread out of heaven (John 6:32-33). **The Jews asked for this bread, demonstrating that they did not understand that Jesus was giving them an earthly metaphor for a spiritual truth. Jesus’ response was to define the metaphor:

"I am the bread of life. He who comes to me will never go hungry, and he who believes in me will never be thirsty. (John 6:35)

This statement of Jesus makes it clear that he is NOT referring to physical bread. All who eat physical bread will hunger again. Jesus is declaring Himself to be spiritual bread. Those who “eat” of the spiritual bread by believing in Him will not hunger again. Jesus has clearly defined the “eating” of Himself as “He who comes to me” and the drinking of Himself as **"He who believes in me”. **In this verse, Jesus has defined the entire metaphor as being a symbolic representation of spiritual truth. One can find other examples of “eating” and “drinking” from Jesus’ other sermons.

Blessed are those who hunger and thirst for righteousness, for they will be filled. (Matthew 5:6)

If anyone believes in Jesus, his spiritual hunger will be satisfied. The Eucharist cannot satisfy one’s physical hunger. Neither can it satisfy one’s spiritual hunger. This hunger can only be satisfied by the living bread (John 6:51),** which is the living Lord Himself**.

After John 6:35, Jesus again makes the claim that they must believe in Him:

But as I told you, you have seen me and still you do not believe. (John 6:36)

For my Father’s will is that everyone who looks to the Son and believes in him shall have eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day." (John 6:40)

Four times Jesus told the unbelievers they must believe in Him, yet they still don’t get it! The Jews started complaining again that Jesus claimed to be bread from heaven (John 6:42-43).

Obviously, real bread does not come from heaven. It comes from grain grown on the earth. Jesus could only be referring to spiritual bread. The analogy is quite clear that Jesus is the spiritual bread from heaven that gives spiritual (eternal) life. Physical bread gives physical life. Spiritual bread gives spiritual life. Jesus talked twice more about believing in Him:
"No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws him, and I will raise him up at the last day. (John 6:44)

(cont’d)

 

[fellowChristian]

The feeding of the 5,000 with bread and fish starts this chapter. It is **no coincidence **that this event which takes place at the **beginning of the chapter **is referenced again at the point that Jesus declares Himself to be the bread of life.

I agree! All Catholic’s should!
It shows that Jesus being God could continue to feed us His flesh without ever running out!

"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 yourselves. "He who **eats 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. "He who eats My flesh and drinks My blood abides in Me, and I in him. (John 6:53-56)

True meaning Real.

Jesus is declaring Himself to be spiritual bread. Those who “eat” of the spiritual bread by believing in Him will not hunger again.

**That is not in the Bible.

Jesus never said “spiritual bread”.

From the time of Christ all the way down through every generation Catholics have believed in Jesus being present in the Eucharist. Even when Martin Luther started his own church he taught about Jesus being in the Eucharist.

On whose authority do you teach this?
**

 

[wisdomseeker]

(cont’d)

I tell you the truth, he who believes has everlasting life. I am the bread of life. (John 6:47-48)

Jesus clearly states that those who believe have everlasting life and that He is the “bread” that gives that life. It has nothing to do with the Eucharist and nothing to do with eating. It is an earthly example comparing physical bread for physical life with heavenly bread(Jesus Himself) for eternal life. The symbolism is quite clear.

Your forefathers ate the manna [physical bread] in the desert, yet they died. (John 6:49)

But here is the bread that comes down from heaven [spiritual bread - Jesus], which a man may eat and not die. (John 6:50)

If you eat the Eucharist, you will still die. It is only by belief that one will live forever. However, if you ”eat” the Bread of Life, you will live forever:

I am the living bread that came down from heaven. If anyone eats of this bread, he will live forever. This bread is my flesh, which I will give for the life of the world." (John 6:51)

Jesus was speaking of spiritual truths and not physical ones.[/quot

If you want just believe you can. but i tell you, how do you believe if you do not do anything to proof you believe it. Abraham did not just believe he showed that he believed by offering his only son as sacrifice. do you see the point? also i can sense arrogance in you. for you are not but from yesterday and you claim to know more than an ancient church that have been here for over 2000 years. if you believe in Jesus as you say you believe, why don’t you believe when Jesus said I will build my Church (not churches) and the gates of hell will not prevail against. have you even tried to find where this church is? what this passage means? or you are just going by what you hear from those who rebelled against Jesus church years ago? sleep on this.

[COLOR=“Red”]

" Understanding is the reward of faith, therefore seek not to understand what you believe but believe that you may understand". St Augustine

 

[guanophore]

Don’t infants get baptized very quickly after birth? If so, then they fail to beleive which is essential to salvation.

Since baptism applies to both sexes how did this work for circumcision? Girls weren’t circumcised were they?

Infants are baptized on the basis of the faith of the parents and Godparents. Promises are made to raise them in the faith. There was a dedication ceremony for girls, and a bas mitzva when they came to the age of reason, to personally affirm the participation in the Covenant into which they were brought by birth.

 

[guanophore]

You believe baptism is essential to salvation. Correct?

We believe that Jesus meant what he said at the last commission “teaching them to observe ALL that I have commanded”. No exceptions

Your church

You say things like this because you do not discern that THERE IS ONLY ONE CHURCH, and you are trying to distance yourself from Catholics because of your hatred of our beliefs.

baptizes infants with salvation in mind and the washing away of original sin. Correct?

Correct. Raise up a child in th eway that they should go.

Lets assume i’m correct.

Don’t you always?

Take infant baptism. If we take just a plain reading of what is required before baptism is belief. The Scriptures are clear that a person must first repent and believe then comes baptism. The **problem you have **with infant baptism is apparent in that they cannot believe.

Here you are again trying to put problems onto Catholics that really belong to yourself. If you have a problem with infant baptism, at least own it, and don’t try to give it to someone else!

We also know there are no specific and explicit examples from Scripture that shows this. i’m also aware of the arguments from whole households but this is extremely weak and problematic. Circumcison also is not a good example to use in support of either since there **are to many differences between the **2 rites.

I am very curious what this means, but it probably belongs in another thread.

 

[guanophore]

What makes best sense for the way we should take it --literally or figuatively?

Yes. having to choose is an error born of Fundamentalism.

Does Jesus say anything about the bread He is about to give them is from heaven at the account? Does He say anything to remind them of John 6?

There is no need. The Apostles understood what the passover was all about. Since Jn. 6 was not written yet for at least a half a century, I doubt it. He passed on all they needed to know orally, then promised the HS would lead them into all truth.

Depends on the church. Remember there are over 30,000 to choose from…

Statements like this make it appear that you are gleeful about the fracturing in the Body, and in your blindness, promote it.

 

[wisdomseeker]

[SIGN]Ask Roman Catholics these questions and see how many answers you get. I’m betting you get ignored…[/SIGN]

You can get all the answers you want at this website: Newmans apologetics: the four marks of the church. God bless.

 

[T_Cone3]

justasking4

**

The RCC claims to have given the church the Bible in 397 AD, yet many different versions of it were still being accepted and circulated long after. Why? Isn’t the church infallible?

Why do Roman Catholics always use 2 Timothy 2:2; 3:14 as Biblical proof that extra-biblical oral tradition is to be followed through apostolic succession, when tradition says Timothy became the bishop of Ephesians, which through succession, is now part of the Greek Orthodox church and not the Roman Catholic Church? If 2 Timothy 2:2 proves apostolic succession, then this proves that the Roman Catholic Church is not part of that succession.

If the personal illumination of the Holy Spirit upon each believer to understand the Bible is not a valid method of determining truth because of the many denominations that use this approach, then does it not follow that apostolic succession and oral church traditions are likewise invalid because the RCC and Orthodox Churches are two denominations that use this method, yet are not in agreement on doctrine? Does this prove that both methods are wrong and a third method, one which we and the apostolic church practiced must be the correct method?

**

OK, First things first. In regards to the Bible. There are different translations of the bible, also called versions of the bible. It’s just a matter of what language they were translated into, but they generally mean the same thing. Don’t try to focus so much on the words themselves as on the message. Another thing with versions of the bible, who gave king James authority to write his own? would you go buy a George Bush bible if he translated one? I wouldn’t.

The Greek Orthodox and other orthodox, ie serbian, do have traditions, if you talk to any you will know that. Maybe you should pop in to one and talk to the priest.

My question about other churches too is who founded them? If you trace them back, you will find that a single person founded them, but no one said they can do this, they just did it. There are differences in Roman catholic, eastern catholic, orthodox churches, but the message is still the same, the focus on the Eucharist is the most important thing. As it should be in your life. We are united in what we celebrate, but our expressions of that faith are a little different. I recommend checking out a Tridentine mass (an old Latin Mass).

The Church may declare certain things differently from time to time, but you’re missing the big picture. They don’t change major doctrine on Jesus, mary, or anything. It’s little things. but who cares about those little things. Does it matter who wrote those books, not as much as it matters that they were inspired to be writen by God. Don’t sweat the little things. Go with God