The Catholic Church wrong? Part two

[joe370]

…Can you show me any of these doctrines in Paul’s word-for-word teaching that is found only in Catholic Apostolic Oral Tradition and not in the Bible? Yes or No? If no, then you would automatically agree that all of Paul’s gospel can only be found in inspired scripture, and Paul’s gospel in scripture is the ruler by which Catholic Tradition can be judged. Right? Would Paul accept those Catholic doctrines or curse them?

**You want me to believe that everything Paul ever spoke or wrote is contained in scripture? Some of it couldn’t have possibly been passed on by the normal vehicle of teaching of the time –which was oral? WOW! 300 years of persecution and destruction of the Apostolic Church property, and you want me to believe that ALL was preserved –pipe dream my friend! **

**Are you really saying that Paul’s letters are the benchmark/”ruler” by which Catholic Tradition should be judged? WOW, again! Apostolic tradition gave you your bible! If the Apostolic Church can never be vanquished --is guided by the Holy Spirit in perpetuity, and the Apostolic church is in fact the Catholic Church, (if it’s not, please identify it) –then the Apostolic, Catholic Church cannot teach a bogus doctrine –period, unless of course you don’t trust God? **

**The bible says all things are to be judged by the church: “If he refuses to listen to them, tell the church. (Kind of like today; if one breaks the law, it is taken to the judge) If he refuses to listen even to the church, then treat him as you would a Gentile or a tax collector.”
**

**Are you saying, If it is not in Paul’s letters, then Catholic Tradition CAN’T BE TRUSTED??? Even though Jesus said, “…I will build my church, and the gates of the netherworld shall not prevail against it.” You sure are giving Paul, one man, a lot of authority; the same man that deferred to the Apostolic Church, to settle a dispute!
**

**Paul said, Jesus’ Church is the Pillar and Foundation of Truth! So, I think Paul would tell you to listen to Jesus’ Church, because that church is being guided by God in perpetuity, not Paul’s letters!
**

 

[tqualey]

Hi, Joe370

Did I miss something or does our Protestant friend not think there are other books in the NT?

Where does Paul teach that Mary was immaculately conceived?

Where does Paul teach that Mary was assumed into heaven?

Where does Paul teach prayer to Mary or other supposed saints?

Where does Paul teach Mary is the mediatrix of all grace?

Where does Paul teach the veneration of images?

Where does Paul teach Sunday keeping has replaced the Sabbath?

Apparently, Matthew, Mark and the other 7 Authors can not throw any light on these questions - only Paul. How sad for open-minded inquiry

God bless

 

[benedictus2]

Where does Paul teach that Mary was immaculately conceived?

Where does Paul teach that Mary was assumed into heaven?

Where does Paul teach prayer to Mary or other supposed saints?

Where does Paul teach Mary is the mediatrix of all grace?

Where does Paul teach the veneration of images?

Where does Paul teach Sunday keeping has replaced the Sabbath?

…

Hi, Joe370

Did I miss something or does our Protestant friend not think there are other books in the NT?

V
V
Apparently, Matthew, Mark and the other 7 Authors can not throw any light on these questions - only Paul. How sad for open-minded inquiry

Hi Joe and Tom,

This is the one thing that truly perplexes me with Protestants.

If you quote them the Gospels, they counter with Paul. As if Paul is THE authority instead of Christ. I mean they would rather believe what Paul says than believe the words that come straight out of Christ’s mouth.

I think for them, Paul’s words carry much more weight than Christ’s own.

I have noticed that they quote heavily from the epistles and acts but the Gospels get very little mention. Unless of course they can twist its meaning with a reference to the Epistles.

 

[joe370]

A question I cant’ get a straight answer, from any non-Catholic! Why do non-Catholics trust, without reservation, that the C.C.correctly defined the 27 books of the N.T. out of a bevy of competing books, as inerrant; no questions ever asked! Keeping in mind that the bible doesn’t come with a table of contents; the C.C. put that there. Just imagine for a moment, if you will; your are living in the 3rd century and are exposed to the 27 books that you read today, but, there are a myriad of other books, many of them considered to be Sacred Scripture as well. What would you do, to find out which books were Apostolic and which books were not? You would either go to the C.C. and find out --or flounder! Nothing has changed today! The only difference is, the C.C. has provided you with something you didn’t have in the 3rd century --a table of contents --and what do you do? --you take it, throw a KJV sticker on it and claim it is now your sole authority. If it is your sole authority, then shouldn’t you believe the church vis-a-vis other doctrines as well. The same church that authoritatively and infallibly codified/canonized the books of the bible, that you now call your sole authority, should also be the same church you go to, to make authoritative and infallible decisions regarding other important decisions? Rejecting other doctrines that the C.C. defined, such as purgatory, Immaculate Conception, Priesthood, while embracing the doctrines of the bible is an ineptly incongruous, imprecise reasoning model that can only lead to more chaos, such as sola scriptura. You can’t use the excuse that the catholic church was towing the infallible line, thanks to the guidance of the Holy Spirit, right up until the books of the N.T. were defined, and then fell away from Jesus’ salvific plan! To say that is to say that the bible is errant! According to the bible, Jesus’ Apostolic Church can’t fail:

Jesus said nothing would ever defeat His created Apostolic Church, no matter how much corruption the adversary causes.

Jesus said that the Holy Spirit would be a perpetual guiding force in the Apostolic Church. (THAT IS FOREVER, THROUGH EVERY AGE UNTIL JESUS’ RETURN; JESUS DID NOT LEAVE HIS BODY WITHOUT PROTECTION)

Jesus said that the Apostolic Church is His Body, the Church and He is the Head of His Body, the Church; He said It is the House Of the Living God; He said It is the Pillar and Foundation of truth; (all truth can be found in Jesus’ Church) and most importantly, He said that He is the Savior of His One Body (or does Jesus’ have more than one Body) --the Savior of His One Church! If Jesus is the Savior of the Church --it will be saved --wouldn’t you agree! CAN ANY MAN-MADE HOUSE REPLACE THE HOUSE OF THE LIVING GOD? Can any church built by mere men replace the one Church built by Jesus Christ?

With that said, how can anyone, arbitrarily declare that the C.C. failed, when defining one set of doctrines, but precisely hit the nail on the head when defining the doctrines of the N.T.?

I couldn’t answer these simple questions as a former Lutheran --ergo I am a catholic. If any non-Catholic can satisfactorily answer these simple questions, I will renounce Catholicism! If you can’t then why aren’t you a catholic?

 

[benedictus2]

A question I cant’ get a straight answer, from any non-Catholic! Why do non-Catholics trust, without reservation, that the C.C.correctly defined the 27 books of the N.T. out of a bevy of competing books, as inerrant; no questions ever asked! Keeping in mind that the bible doesn’t come with a table of contents; the C.C. put that there.

I have posted the same myself in several threads and you are right. No answer. And yet they cling to their own belief in SS and SF inspite of its defying scripture and logic .

One poster even addressed other matters without fail but kept evading my post on this.

I believe they are in this blissful state of denial.

 

[a_burger]

I can tell you exactly. Having been an evangelical for years it is the understandiing that the Catholics added the books to the Bible. However, when I previously Catholic I didn’t know it either. It is good that there is an aplogetics moving going on in the church instead of the apologizing movement. How about a tract we can passout. We are the original church and we need to educate those of our apostolic church. We don’t change things God established through his saints.

 

[joe370]

If the C.C. is wrong, WHY do non-Catholics embrace the Sacred Tradition, Christmas/Christ Mass of the Catholic Church, then change it, and start celebrating it how they think it should be celebrated?

The World Book Encyclopedia defines “Christmas” as follows: "The word Christmas comes from “Cristes Maesse”, an early English phrase that means “Mass of Christ.” (1) It is interesting to note that the word “Mass”, as used by the Roman Catholics, has traditionally been rejected by the so-called Protestants, such as Lutherans, Baptists, Methodists, Presbyterians, Pentecostals and so on. The word “Mass” is strictly a Catholic word and thus, so is “Christ-Mass.”

I am happy they do, because Jesus would definitely want His flock to be One when celebrating His Birthday, (“I have other sheep that are not of this fold") --but I am also unhappy they do, because they don’t celebrate it the way Jesus intended --the way the early church celebrated it!

Where is the Sacred Tradition of Christmas in the Bible? Where is the word Christmas in the Bible?

The first evidence of the Feast of the Nativity [Christmas] is from Egypt 200 AD.

Where is the date of Jesus birth in the Bible? That too is a Tradition of the C.C., yet non-Catholics have no qualms with December 25th, which again, can be found no where in the bible !!!

Christmas or Christ Mass is a Sacred Catholic Church Tradition; Christmas is a special feast day made to fit the Catholic Church liturgical calendar.

So, again, why do non-Catholics reject Sacred Tradition, yet embrace Christmas, all the while saying the C.C. is wrong? Another question, as a Lutheran I could not answer; I could cite many more examples…

 

[fbl9]

Hi joe370…There is a growing trend among the “bible” beleiveing groups out there to reject christmas celebrations…and even more that reject the Easter celebrations as well.

 

[joe370]

I got an E-mail today that said: For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus [not Mary, not saints, not priests, not the pope]; 1 Timothy
2:5

My response to her and to every non-Catholic at this forum is: If this is the case, then I don’t want to see any non-Catholic in their respective churches being ministered to. Ministers of churches are acting as intercessors/mediators between God and man, and this is forbidden, according to your reasoning.

If the Apostles, including Paul weren’t mediators, what were they?

Definition of mediator: One that mediates, especially one that reconciles differences between disputants.

This brought Paul and Barnabas* into sharp dispute and debate with them**. So Paul and Barnabas were appointed, along with some other believers, to go up to Jerusalem to see the apostles and elders about this question. The church sent them on their way, …When they came to Jerusalem, they were welcomed by the church and the apostles and elders, to whom they reported everything God had done through them. Then some of the believers who belonged to the party of the Pharisees stood up and said, “The Gentiles must be circumcised and required to obey the law of Moses.”** The apostles and elders met to consider this question. **After much discussion, Peter got up and addressed them: "Brothers, you know that some time ago God made a choice among you that the Gentiles might hear from my lips the message of the gospel and believe…"
*

Why should non-Catholics listen to Peter (they certainly don’t listen to his successor now) if Jesus is our one and only mediator to God? I don’t expect an answer from any non-Catholics, just as I didn’t when I asked my sister, who believes her minister is the be all and end all of mediators.

 

[sodak]

A question I cant’ get a straight answer, from any non-Catholic! Why do non-Catholics trust, without reservation, that the C.C.correctly defined the 27 books of the N.T. out of a bevy of competing books, as inerrant; no questions ever asked! Keeping in mind that the bible doesn’t come with a table of contents; the C.C. put that there. Just imagine for a moment, if you will; your are living in the 3rd century and are exposed to the 27 books that you read today, but, there are a myriad of other books, many of them considered to be Sacred Scripture as well. What would you do, to find out which books were Apostolic and which books were not? You would either go to the C.C. and find out --or flounder! Nothing has changed today! The only difference is, the C.C. has provided you with something you didn’t have in the 3rd century --a table of contents --and what do you do? --you take it, throw a KJV sticker on it and claim it is now your sole authority. If it is your sole authority, then shouldn’t you believe the church vis-a-vis other doctrines as well. The same church that authoritatively and infallibly codified/canonized the books of the bible, that you now call your sole authority, should also be the same church you go to, to make authoritative and infallible decisions regarding other important decisions? Rejecting other doctrines that the C.C. defined, such as purgatory, Immaculate Conception, Priesthood, while embracing the doctrines of the bible is an ineptly incongruous, imprecise reasoning model that can only lead to more chaos, such as sola scriptura. You can’t use the excuse that the catholic church was towing the infallible line, thanks to the guidance of the Holy Spirit, right up until the books of the N.T. were defined, and then fell away from Jesus’ salvific plan! To say that is to say that the bible is errant! According to the bible, Jesus’ Apostolic Church can’t fail:

Jesus said nothing would ever defeat His created Apostolic Church, no matter how much corruption the adversary causes.

Jesus said that the Holy Spirit would be a perpetual guiding force in the Apostolic Church. (THAT IS FOREVER, THROUGH EVERY AGE UNTIL JESUS’ RETURN; JESUS DID NOT LEAVE HIS BODY WITHOUT PROTECTION)

Jesus said that the Apostolic Church is His Body, the Church and He is the Head of His Body, the Church; He said It is the House Of the Living God; He said It is the Pillar and Foundation of truth; (all truth can be found in Jesus’ Church) and most importantly, He said that He is the Savior of His One Body (or does Jesus’ have more than one Body) --the Savior of His One Church! If Jesus is the Savior of the Church --it will be saved --wouldn’t you agree! CAN ANY MAN-MADE HOUSE REPLACE THE HOUSE OF THE LIVING GOD? Can any church built by mere men replace the one Church built by Jesus Christ?

With that said, how can anyone, arbitrarily declare that the C.C. failed, when defining one set of doctrines, but precisely hit the nail on the head when defining the doctrines of the N.T.?

I couldn’t answer these simple questions as a former Lutheran --ergo I am a catholic. If any non-Catholic can satisfactorily answer these simple questions, I will renounce Catholicism! If you can’t then why aren’t you a catholic?

The longer I read this forum, it essentially boils down to this one issue: God - ordained Authority. That is the Catholic Church. Almost all of these topics in Apologetics really boil down to that. You either accept Christ at his word, or you don’t.

At least that’s how it boils down in my simple mind.

 

[fbl9]

The longer I read this forum, it essentially boils down to this one issue: God - ordained Authority. That is the Catholic Church. Almost all of these topics in Apologetics really boil down to that. You either accept Christ at his word, or you don’t.

At least that’s how it boils down in my simple mind.

Simple minds must think alike then This is one of the first things that dawned in my blackened mind when i first came back home.

 

[benedictus2]

The longer I read this forum, it essentially boils down to this one issue: God - ordained Authority. That is the Catholic Church. Almost all of these topics in Apologetics really boil down to that. You either accept Christ at his word, or you don’t.

At least that’s how it boils down in my simple mind.

You may see that and I may see that but wait, here it comes, someone saying we can’t take Christ at His Word because of … St Paul.

 

[twb1621]

Hi joe370…There is a growing trend among the “bible” beleiveing groups out there to reject christmas celebrations…and even more that reject the Easter celebrations as well.

From what I have seen, it appears there are a growing number of Protestants who are searching for answers to haunting questions within them regarding their faiths. As though they know something is wrong yet they have been taught that the CC is heretical so they have no idea which way to turn to find out the Truth.
Then you have SOME others who call themselves “born again” who think because they classify themselves as such they have been saved regardless of whatever sins they perform and without the chosen effort to love and offer charity toward others. Its better for those who seek the truth than for those who abuse the Passion and spilled blood of Jesus to a point of arrogance I think. Where would we all be if God could not see what is in a man’s heart? Wow…

 

[benedictus2]

From what I have seen, it appears there are a growing number of Protestants who are searching for answers to haunting questions within them regarding their faiths. As though they know something is wrong yet they have been taught that the CC is heretical so they have no idea which way to turn to find out the Truth.
Then you have SOME others who call themselves “born again” who think because they classify themselves as such they have been saved regardless of whatever sins they perform and without the chosen effort to love and offer charity toward others. Its better for those who seek the truth than for those who abuse the Passion and spilled blood of Jesus to a point of arrogance I think. Where would we all be if God could not see what is in a man’s heart? Wow…

Thank God for His infinite Wisdom in leaving us His Church.

 

[tqualey]

Hi, twb1621,

It is a real blessing that so many Protestants and un-believers are actively searching for the turth. There is an apparent burning in their hearts to know the message of Jesus - and they are not satisfyed with the explanation given by their local pastors thay simply contradict the plain words spoken by Jesus on so many topics. These topics are clearly stated- the need for:

Baptism - actually being initiated as child of God and to cleanse the soul of sin
**Profession of the Trinity **- actually confirming one God in Three Persons
**Eucharist **- actually eating the Body and Blood of Christ (no mere memorial service)
**Holy Orders **- actually having men elevated by ordination to administer the Sacraments of the Catholic Church and preach the Gospel
**Confession **- actually made to a man (ordained Priest taking the place of Christ)
**Confirmation **- actually strengthening us to go forward in our faith, and,
**The Catholic Chruch itself **- as the nursing and nurturing Mother to all of us - with the identified protection of the Holy Spirit and a Christ appointed leader of Peter and his successors to guide and teach us.

From what I have seen, it appears there are a growing number of Protestants who are searching for answers to haunting questions within them regarding their faiths. As though they know something is wrong yet they have been taught that the CC is heretical so they have no idea which way to turn to find out the Truth.

Admittedly, there are some Protestants on this list who only seek to subvert the message of the Gospel, confuse those who are sincerely interested in learning about the CC and confound those list members that respond in good faith - but are simply ignored or re-directed by these insincere posters.

Thanks be to God that there is this list!

God bless.

 

[joe370]

I think a good question for all non-Catholics would be, why should I belong to the church you belong? If they can give a concrete/valid reason, then we should join their church --if they can’t then they should re-think their affiliation! I know this is a thread addressing the question, is the C.C. wrong, but I don’t see why it can’t be a two way street! If each non-Catholic, regardless of denomination can’t give us a legitimate reason as to why they believe their church is the church built by Jesus, then perhaps they would start to lean in a different direction, even if it wasn’t the C.C.; THE POINT IS to focus the attention on the reason WHY a non-Catholic is a member of his/her church? I asked myself that question as a former Lutheran and could not provide a valid answer, once I realized that my church wasn’t built by Jesus; it was built by Martin Luther! Or perhaps that question should be for a different thread…

 

[a_burger]

I believe all Catholics should read a book about the Early Christian Fathers. What was the church first like. We must undrstand the Hebrew sacrifice and then understand where Jesus fits in. He said must must chew his flesh and eat drink his blood. He didn’t say this was symbolic he said it actual. It was such a powerful message that many disciples left him. This brought me back to the Catholic Church. This is the only way to cleanse our sins. Jesus declared no man is good. We must be totally cleansed by the blood and present ourselves with a totally white cloak. There can be no little sins on our perfectly white robe. God does not demand good he demands perfection. Substantiation is the reason the Catholic church is the true church-and through all our human messups-has remaiined loyal in our message.

Find your strentgh in God because we got one heck of a fight very near.

 

[joe370]

The Apostolic Church can’t be wrong on anything regarding matters of faith and morals –regarding the interests of Jesus Christ, and that includes both written Traditions (found in the bible) and oral Traditions (teachings found in the Apostolic Church) FOR THE SIMPLE FACT THAT THE Apostolic Church is Jesus, AKA the Word! If the Apostolic Church failed vis-a-vis just one doctrine, that was passed onto the Apostolic Church, to be disseminated throughout the entire world,** then Jesus Christ failed! **It is just that simple! Everything in the bible was at one time simply, oral Tradition of the Apostles passed on to the next generation and so forth. Eventually, the oral Traditions, pertaining to God, were committed to papyrus (books) to prevent other heretical oral traditions from corrupting the Gospel. This, however did not abrogate the oral Traditions (Apostolic Traditions) of the Apostolic Church, promulgated through the centuries! It would, if the Holy Spirit ever left the Apostolic Church, rendering these oral traditions untrustworthy. However that is not the case according to Holy Scripture!

Here is an example of the Apostolic Church (St. Paul) perpetuating a Tradition that did not come directly from Jesus, (many more can be adduced) but is trustworthy because the Holy Spirit is forever guiding Jesus’ Apostolic Church, and cannot err…

*"Now about virgins: I have no command from the Lord, but I give a judgment as one who by the Lord’s mercy is trustworthy. (Jesus’ Apostolic Church is trustworthy to perpetuate judgments/traditions that have not come from God) --Because of the present crisis, I think that it is good for you to remain as you are. Are you married? Do not seek a divorce. Are you unmarried? Do not look for a wife. But if you do marry, you have not sinned; and if a virgin marries, she has not sinned. But those who marry will face many troubles in this life, and I want to spare you this. What I mean, brothers, is that the time is short. From now on those who have wives should live as if they had none…those who use the things of the world, as if not engrossed in them. For this world in its present form is passing away. I would like you to be free from concern. **An unmarried man is concerned about the Lord’s affairs—how he can please the Lord. **But a married man is concerned about the affairs of this world—how he can please his wife— and his interests are divided. (HENCE THE PRIESTHOOD) An unmarried woman or virgin is concerned about the Lord’s affairs: Her aim is to be devoted to the Lord in both body and spirit. (hence the nunnery) -But a married woman is concerned about the affairs of this world—how she can please her husband. I am saying this for your own good, not to restrict you, but that you may live in a right way in undivided devotion to the Lord. If anyone thinks he is acting improperly toward the virgin he is engaged to, and if she is getting along in years and he feels he ought to marry, he should do as he wants. He is not sinning. They should get married. But the man who has settled the matter in his own mind, who is under no compulsion but has control over his own will, and who has made up his mind not to marry the virgin—this man also does the right thing. So then, he who marries the virgin does right, but he who does not marry her does even better." *1 Corinthians 7:25

If the Apostolic Church was empowered to perpetuate judgments/commands/Traditions that were not directly commanded, from the mouth of Jesus, then the Apostolic Church is still empowered to perpetuate judgments/commands/Traditions that still, are not not directly commanded from the mouth of Jesus, due to the never ending guidance of the Holy Spirit!

The H.S. As per scripture, is still, and always will be the wind beneath the wings, carrying/guiding Jesus’ Mystical Body, the Church through every century until Jesus’ return! That is the very reason why the bible tells us that Jesus’ One Church cant’ fail --why Jesus is the Savior of His Body, the Church! Nothing can cause Jesus’ Church to teach something contrary to Gods WILL, and you MUST accept this proposition if you believe what your Bible teaches! All of the Traditions of the Apostolic Church and all of the traditions of man-made churches --that are not explicitly spelled out in the bible, should be trusted or not trusted, by all Christians, based on the authority of Jesus’ One Apostolic Church, just as, all the Apostolic Traditions of the bible and all the man-made traditions of the bible, that are not explicitly spelled out in the bible, should be trusted or not trusted by all Christians, based again, on the authority of Jesus’ One Apostolic Church. Many other traditions, prior to the canonization of the bible, supported books that didn’t make it into your bible, but were still considered Holy in that time period, but are not now! My point is, if you can trust the Apostolic Church to make an infallible decision vis-a-vis the correct inclusion/exclusion of books in Jesus’ Canon, based upon the touchstone --Sacred Tradition, then you can absolutely trust Her on ALL matters regarding faith and moral, including those things that are not explicitly spelled out in the bible; If you can’t, then you call into question Jesus’ Authority and Power to transfer His authority and power to His Apostolic Church, when Hes said:

“All power in heaven and on earth has been given to me. Go, therefore, and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you. And behold, I am with you always, until the end of the age.”…

 

[joe370]

…If Jesus Christ authorized/empowered His One Apostolic Church to Go, therefore, and make disciples of all nations, teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you, and He told them, I am with you always, until the end of the age, why aren’t you a part of His authoritative/empowered Church?

The rule of faith is Scripture plus Tradition, as manifested in the living teaching authority of the Catholic Church, to which were entrusted the oral teachings of Jesus and the apostles plus the authority to interpret Scripture rightly.

So often I see NON-Catholics declaring things like, God’s holy, unchanging Word as if the teachings of the bible and Jesus are synonymous, even though the bible actually tells us that Jesus is the unchanging Word, (Hebrews 6:17,18 -* "Wherein God, willing more abundantly to shew unto the heirs of promise the immutability of his counsel*) --that the Apostolic Church and Jesus are synonymous! The “Word” of God is not, as most non-Catholics claim, even at this forum --the Bible! As integral/indispensable/irreplaceable as Jesus’ teachings of the bible are, with the proper authority of course, it is not our sole authority, as most non-Catholics seem to think --it is not where our sole salvation can be found! The Hebrew name for Jesus is Yeshua, a name found 27 times in the Hebrew Bible,and we know exactly what His name means. (The name is accented on the second syllable: ye-SHU-a). Yeshua is short for Yehoshua (= Joshua), which means Yahweh is salvation. The bible tells us that the Word is Jesus Christ, Who is Salvation, not the bible:

*In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was with God in the beginning. Through him all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made. In him was life, and that life was the light of men. The light shines in the darkness, but the darkness has not understood it. *John 1

Furthermore, the bible tells us that the Church is Jesus’ Mystical Body, the House of the Living God, the Pillar and Foundation of Truth, with Jesus Christ as the Head and Savior of His Body, the Church! So, if the Church is Jesus’ Mystical Body with Him as the Head of it all, with Him as the Savior of it all, then the Word is in fact the Church, His Body, with Him as the Head of His Body and the Savior of His One Body, not the Holy Bible! Therefore salvation can be found in Jesus’ established Church, not in the Bible.

 

[joe370]

hey a burger…

You said: He said must must chew his flesh and eat drink his blood. He didn’t say this was symbolic he said it actual. It was such a powerful message that many disciples left him. This brought me back to the Catholic Church.

It was key to bringing me to the C.C. as well.

Like you said, in regards to eating flesh and drinking blood, the word used in v. 54 to eat (and three other places) is trogo…

Transliterated Word Phonetic Spelling
Trogo tro’-go
Parts of Speech TDNT
Verb 8:236,1191
Definition

To gnaw, crunch, chew raw vegetables or fruits (as nuts, almonds)

…It is not the normal word used for eating. It literally means to gnaw or chew, thus emphasizing the literalness of the chewing. To those non-Catholics (Protestants) who mock the implications the Holy Eucharist, I will throw out a challenge to you. Show me one time where the word (to eat or chew, trogo) in the Greek is used symbolically anywhere in the New Testament, the Old Testament, the Septuagint, or even in ancient secular literature. If every time it is used in the bible and ancient literature, in a literal sense, we must use it that way in exegeting John 6. If it has never been used in the way that Protestants impose on John 6, then the figurative sense of eating flesh can not be possible.

If Jesus said, …he who eats (chews or gnaws) my sacrificial lamb and drinks my sacrificial wine has eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day— protestants would be doing just that, for there is absolutely no symbolism in those words!!!

If protestants are correct in their supposition that Jesus was speaking symbolically in John 6 and Paul was speaking symbolically when he said,* whoever eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord** in an unworthy manner, shall be guilty of the body and the blood of the Lord. ** (if bread and wine are mere symbols, how is this even possible?) --But a man must examine himself, and in so doing he is to eat of the bread and drink of the cup. For he who eats and drinks, eats and drinks judgment to himself if he does not judge the body rightly* -----then ALL those Christians that belonged to the C.C. for 1500, and ALL those Christians that belonged to the E.O.C. for 500 years prior to the protestant reformation were eating and drinking judgment to himself/herself. **Or **does it make more sense that protestants are eating and drinking judgment to themselves, by eating the bread and drinking the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner?

Think about it before you answer!!!

*"…he who eats (chews or gnaws --to drive His point home) my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day."
*

The Bible does mention “to eat someone’s flesh” and “to drink someone’s blood” symbolically, but in those passages, it means something completely different than Protestants want it to: it means to slander someone, to assault a person; to revile them (Micah 3:3, Psalm 27:2; Isaiah 9:18-20, for example). So, even if Jesus did speak symbolically, he would be saying, “You have to revile me to get to Heaven,”, not a very plausible explanation. The passages themselves show it:

Psalm 27:2 When the WICKED CAME AGAINST ME to EAT UP MY FLESH, my ENEMIES AND FOES, they stumbled and fell.

Micah 3:1-4 - 1 And I said: Hear, you heads of Jacob and rulers of the house of Israel! Is it not for you to know justice? 2 YOU WHO HATE THE GOOD AND LOVE THE EVIL, who tear the skin from off my people, and their flesh from off their bones; 3 who EAT THE FLESH OF MY PEOPLE, and flay their skin from off them, and break their bones in pieces, and chop them up like meat in a kettle, like flesh in a caldron. 4 Then they will cry to the LORD, but he will not answer them; he will hide his face from them at that time, because THEY HAVE MADE THEIR DEEDS EVIL.

Isaiah 9:18-20 - 18 For WICKEDNESS BURNS LIKE A FIRE, it consumes briers and thorns; it kindles the thickets of the forest, and they roll upward in a column of smoke. 19 Through the wrath of the LORD of hosts the land is burned, and the people are like fuel for the fire; no man spares his brother. 20 They snatch on the right, but are STILL HUNGRY, AND THEY DEVOUR ON THE LEFT, but are not satisfied; each devours his neighbor’s flesh,

If the non-Catholics understanding that Jesus is being figurative is to be believed, we would have to say that in order to inherit eternal life, one must revile Jesus, and do evil deeds, and be wicked toward him. This makes no sense to me!