Tradition can be misleading? So can the Bible.

[justasking4]

DOUBTING THOMAS we walk by faith alone if Jesus says it is His body and blood you better believe Him. If God can raise Lazerus from the dead why couldn’t He change bread and wine into His body and blood and still have it taste like bread and wine??? How dare you think you can truly understand the immensity and unfathomabilty of of He who is pure truth. He who can not decieve or be decieved.

When Jesus raised Lazerus from the dead what was the evidence that Jesus did raise him?

You should doubt what your church tells you about this. When Thomas doubted that Christ rose from the dead what did Jesus do? He gave him the evidence. Thats what you should demand of your church and not allow them to hide behind some kind of mystery. If the bread and wine have truly changed you should be able to detect it.
This is why the Scriptures in I Thessalonians 5:21 exhorts us to:
But examine everything carefully; hold fast to that which is good;

 

[qui_est_ce]

When Jesus raised Lazerus from the dead what was the evidence that Jesus did raise him?

You should doubt what your church tells you about this. When Thomas doubted that Christ rose from the dead what did Jesus do? He gave him the evidence. Thats what you should demand of your church and not allow them to hide behind some kind of mystery. If the bread and wine have truly changed you should be able to detect it.
This is why the Scriptures in I Thessalonians 5:21 exhorts us to:
But examine everything carefully; hold fast to that which is good;

Do you really think some of the greatest theological minds in human history were wrong? They did not examine the evidence, the writings, the traditions? Were not St. Ignatious of Antioch and St. Polycarp students of the Apostles? Were they lying?
1 cor 1:20-25
20Where is the wise man? Where is the scholar? Where is the philosopher of this age? Has not God made foolish the wisdom of the world? 21For since in the wisdom of God the world through its wisdom did not know him, God was pleased through the foolishness of what was preached to save those who believe. 22Jews demand miraculous signs and Greeks look for wisdom, 23but we preach Christ crucified: a stumbling block to Jews and foolishness to Gentiles, 24but to those whom God has called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God and the wisdom of God. 25For the foolishness of God is wiser than man’s wisdom, and the weakness of God is stronger than man’s strength.

Who is foolish? You should be very careful when you tell a Catholic that his Church is hiding the truth, the CC is the fullness of truth, were it not for her, the truth of the teachings of Jesus would not be known to the world. He sent the Holy Spirit, Jesus promised to be with us until the end of time. The CC gave us the people in Latin, then native languages so ALL would know about Jesus. Not just Greeks and Hebrew speaking Jews.

What did Jesus say in Matthew, Mark and Luke at the Last Supper, in each, he took the bread and said this is my body eat, He took the cup, and said, this is my blood drink. In all three cases the bread and wine retained the APPEARANCE of bread and wine, but Jesus and transformed them into his body and blood. EVERY single Gospel speaks of the need to eat his body and drink his blood.

1 cor 11:23-29
23
11 For I received from the Lord what I also handed on to you, that the Lord Jesus, on the night he was handed over, took bread,
24
and, after he had given thanks, broke it and said, “This is my body that is for you. Do this in remembrance of me.”
25
In the same way also the cup, after supper, saying, “This cup is the new covenant in my blood. Do this, as often as you drink it, in remembrance of me.”
26
For as often as you eat this bread and drink the cup, you proclaim the death of the Lord until he comes.
27
Therefore whoever eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord unworthily will have to answer for the body and blood of the Lord. 12
28
A person should examine himself, 13 and so eat the bread and drink the cup.
29
For anyone who eats and drinks without discerning the body, eats and drinks judgment 14 on himself.

Is the Trinity a three-headed person? Is Jesus not true God and true man? How can that be?

 

[justasking4]

qui est ce;3119300]
justasking4
You should doubt what your church tells you about this. When Thomas doubted that Christ rose from the dead what did Jesus do? He gave him the evidence. Thats what you should demand of your church and not allow them to hide behind some kind of mystery. If the bread and wine have truly changed you should be able to detect it.
This is why the Scriptures in I Thessalonians 5:21 exhorts us to:
But examine everything carefully; hold fast to that which is good;

qui est ce
Do you really think some of the greatest theological minds in human history were wrong?

Yes. Even great minds can be wrong. Would you agree?

qui est ce
They did not examine the evidence, the writings, the traditions? Were not St. Ignatious of Antioch and St. Polycarp students of the Apostles? Were they lying?

Good questions. In the period after the aposltes there was not alot of “heavy theological” discussions going on. It took time for the leaders of the church to “flesh” things out. Notice that the doctrine of incarnation took centuries to develop.
i don’t think most were deliberately lying.

1 cor 1:20-25
20Where is the wise man? Where is the scholar? Where is the philosopher of this age? Has not God made foolish the wisdom of the world? 21For since in the wisdom of God the world through its wisdom did not know him, God was pleased through the foolishness of what was preached to save those who believe. 22Jews demand miraculous signs and Greeks look for wisdom, 23but we preach Christ crucified: a stumbling block to Jews and foolishness to Gentiles, 24but to those whom God has called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God and the wisdom of God. 25For the foolishness of God is wiser than man’s wisdom, and the weakness of God is stronger than man’s strength.

Who is foolish? You should be very careful when you tell a Catholic that his Church is hiding the truth,

I agree. However what i don’t see catholic doing is holding their church accountable for its teachings. The Scriptures are clear that false teachers will come into the church and deceive many. That has happened in the catholic church.

qui est ce
the CC is the fullness of truth,

Not so. It has some truth but it also has errors.

qui est ce
were it not for her, the truth of the teachings of Jesus would not be known to the worldu ntil the end of time.

.
I disagree. God could have used almost any method etc to get His message to the world. He did it in OT times and He could just as easily do so today. No church can ever boast about this kind of thing.

qui est ce
He sent the Holy Spirit, Jesus promised to be with us The CC gave us the people in Latin, then native languages so ALL would know about Jesus. Not just Greeks and Hebrew speaking Jews.

What did Jesus say in Matthew, Mark and Luke at the Last Supper, in each, he took the bread and said this is my body eat, He took the cup, and said, this is my blood drink. In all three cases the bread and wine retained the APPEARANCE of bread and wine, but Jesus and transformed them into his body and blood. EVERY single Gospel speaks of the need to eat his body and drink his blood.

1 cor 11:23-29
23
11 For I received from the Lord what I also handed on to you, that the Lord Jesus, on the night he was handed over, took bread,
24
and, after he had given thanks, broke it and said, “This is my body that is for you. Do this in remembrance of me.”
25
In the same way also the cup, after supper, saying, “This cup is the new covenant in my blood. Do this, as often as you drink it, in remembrance of me.”
26
For as often as you eat this bread and drink the cup, you proclaim the death of the Lord until he comes.
27
Therefore whoever eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord unworthily will have to answer for the body and blood of the Lord. 12
28
A person should examine himself, 13 and so eat the bread and drink the cup.
29
For anyone who eats and drinks without discerning the body, eats and drinks judgment 14 on himself.

Is the Trinity a three-headed person?

No

Is Jesus not true God and true man?

Yes

How can that be?

I think Phillipians 2:6-8 is a good explaniation that helps to explain this.

 

[dconstruct]

qui est ce

Part of the problem here is that you are attempting to confine the nature of God within a rational framework.

God is not a rational concept. If spiritual understanding defies your reasonable sensibilities then welcome to the club. It is not neccesary for God to conform to your reason or logical process. If this seems like an unacceptable proposition to you, then you lack faith in God.

If that is the case, then it is infortunate that you seem to be unable to place faith in a concept of a Divine origin of all creation with whom we share a self-aware state of being.

You do not seem to be someone for whom faith is lacking; you seem to have a lot of faith in your powers of reason to give you an accurate view of your state of being. Given the known limitations of human reason, I would say the faith you put in your logical processes is a little far-fetched…no?

 

[qui_est_ce]

Yes. Even great minds can be wrong. Would you agree?

When so many great minds say the same thing about the same thing, there’s got to be something to it. St. Peter and St. Paul come to mind. Are you telling me that what these early theolgians said was wrong? Or are you telling me that you will selectively choose what to believe of their writings with protestant lenses on?

Good questions. In the period after the aposltes there was not alot of “heavy theological” discussions going on. It took time for the leaders of the church to “flesh” things out. Notice that the doctrine of incarnation took centuries to develop.
i don’t think most were deliberately lying.

Wrong, Incarnation was believed from the very beginning, until some heretics, like Arius, in 318 forced the Council of Nicea to declare the creed. This was a raucous council. Read about it.

The very first Council at Jerusalem. Acts itselft says
Acts 15:1-7

*1 Some who had come down from Judea were instructing the brothers, “Unless you are circumcised according to the Mosaic practice, you cannot be saved.” 2
2
Because **there arose no little dissension and debate **by Paul and Barnabas with them, it was decided that Paul, Barnabas, and some of the others should go up to Jerusalem to the apostles and presbyters about this question.
35
But some from the party of the Pharisees who had become believers stood up and said, “It is necessary to circumcise them and direct them to observe the Mosaic law.”
6
3The apostles and the presbyters met together to see about this matter.
7
After **much debate **had taken place, Peter got up and said to them, "My brothers, you are well aware that from early days God made his choice among you that through my mouth the Gentiles would hear the word of the gospel and believe. *
Then there was Marcionism, Montanism, Nvatianism (Novatian set himself up as pope against St. Cornelius), Modalism, all in the second century. Church Councils are called when herectics start teaching things contrary to what Christ and Apostolic Tradition taught.

I agree. However what i don’t see catholic doing is holding their church accountable for its teachings. The Scriptures are clear that false teachers will come into the church and deceive many. That has happened in the catholic church.

Wrong. ML, and the subsequent 33,000 + churches of me are false teachers.

You are simply incorrect about no theological discussion in the early church, again, I ask you to read your history.

I disagree. God could have used almost any method etc to get His message to the world. He did it in OT times and He could just as easily do so today.

Yes, and it is the Catholic Church who carries this out.

I think Phillipians 2:6-8 is a good explaniation that helps to explain this.

I was being facecious. If you can accept Trinity, Jesus incarnate, why can’t you accept the Real Presence? If you are a Christian, you must accept that leap of faith that makes you a beliveer. You are very selective about which Apostolic teachings you will accept.

 

[guanophore]

Here is what the word “literally” means—strictly adhering to basic meaning: in a way based on the explicit meaning of a word or text.
Now if i take what Jesus is saying in John 6 literally this would require you to believe that Jesus is teaching a form of canabalism.
This is the only way you could take it on your view.

Yes, and this is why the Roman persecuters said "they eat their god and drowned their children (speaking of baptism). It did not become clear what he meant until the Last Supper, where He showed us how we could physically “eat” Him.

I checked a Vines Expository Dictionary of NT Words and it says that it is used of "metaphorically" of the habit of spiritually feeding on Christ and then makes reference to the passages in John 6. It definitely is not to be taken literally.

I love Vines. This book, more than any other, got me to go to seminary. It introduced me to a love of the Greek, and opened me to a whole new world of understanding. however, this is not a linguistic comment, but a theological one. It says “metaphorically” because it is not possible to accept the Catholic meaning of the words.

There are a number of things going in this passage that they had a very difficult time believing or accepting from Jesus. From the sense of the passage they knew what Jesus was saying but they could not accept it.

Yes, I agree. What is intereresting is that all the disciples of the Apostles had the same understanding as the 12.

The problem with your assertion is that your church has only interpreted less than 20 verses of the entire Bible. That means over 99% of it you can have no true understanding of it since your church has never interpreted it for you.

This is a cognitive distortion on your part, ja4. The Church promulgates the Teaching of Jesus Christ. Some of this is present in the written scripture, some of it is in Sacred Tradition. You are wrong that we can have no “true understanding” of the Word. Jesus is the Word, and His Apostles faithfully learned and preached that Word. We understand what scripture teaches in the light of that Apostolic Teaching, because it was from that preached Word that the scriptures were formed.

Actually this is not a correct usuage of the term. Better to say its figuative or metaphorical since the word means–figurative language: all language that involves figures of speech or symbolism and does not literally represent real things

It is important to understand the metaphorical uses of language also. Jesus is also called a “rock”, vine", “gate” etc. What you are being shown is how the Catholic Church uses this term “literal” vs “literalist”. If you want to believe it is “not correct” that is your perogative. It is a point of view other that your own.

What you have here is a contradiction. When something changes in substance it changes in appearance or in properties. If there is no change then nothing happened. So it is with eucharist.

Well, those of us that belong to the Apostolic faiths call it a “mystery”. So are many things of the spiritual realm that are beyond our human understanding. As I write this, I see that the full moon is up, and the sky is full of stars. I wonder how the “star of Bethlehem” drew the wise men. I cannot fathom how they could follow a star until they found the place where Jesus lay.

If you think that, because you cannot perceive that a change has happened, then it does not, then you are unduly bound to your senses. Imagine how Joseph felt, knowing that Mary was pregnant. He could see the “facts”. The only thing that could pursuade him that a “change” had occurred (the pregnancy was not “man made”) was a divine revelation from God. I am sure that this is what you will need in order to believe.
Christ’s peace.

 

[guanophore]

I didn’t say they were not qualified but that they have only infallibly interpreted less than 20 verses. If i was catholic who wanted to know what the scriptures mean i would find this extremely shocking. This means you really have no understanding what the scriptures mean. This is in reality no better off than the backwater preacher from rural North America

This amounts to calumny, ja4. You are bearing false witness against your brethren. Unless, of course, you do not consider Catholics brethren at all. Catholics have clarity on the meaning of the scriptures, because we have this from the Apostolic Tradition. What is it that causes you to lie against us in this way?
I understand that you have authority problems, and that is why you reject the authority that Jesus appointed. However, why slander those that accept it?

That may be but you don’t have much to stand on in claiming to know what Jesus meant either in His teachings since your church has never infallilby interpreted His teachings for you.

Oh contraire! The Church has most CERTAINLY interpreted Jesus Teachings for us, and for you, all Christendom, and all the world. The Apostles did not fail in their commission, and the Father answered Jesus’ prayer to lead them into all truth.

You have rejected this Teaching, and that is your perogative. That is why one of the other posters said “good luck at the judgement”.

 

[guanophore]

Alan, I have given up on him.

Nay, let none of us do any such thing! What if He had given up on us! Clearly he is here for a reason. He has made it clear that it is not for him to learn, but for him to educate us about our error. I have only been here less than a year, but it seems clear to me that he has not pursuaded any Catholics to leave their faith.

He has asked numerous times how you eat the Body and drink the Blood of Christ, and has been told the same each time. I have no idea what he is doing here, unless sent by God to test our charity!

I offered a free book by Mark P. Shea on how an Evangelical discovered the Real Presence. He’s not interested. At this point, according to his own bible, I must treat him as a pagan or tax collector!

Of course, but one is to love one’s enemies, and pray for those who persecute.

Matthew 18:15-17 "If your brother sins against you, go and show him his fault, just between the two of you. If he listens to you, you have won your brother over. But if he will not listen, take one or two others along, so that ‘every matter may be established by the testimony of two or three witnesses.’ If he refuses to listen to them, tell it to the church; and if he refuses to listen even to the church, treat him as you would a pagan or a tax collector.

justasking4 does not recognize a visible Church of Authority created by Christ. You can “take it to the Church”, but since he believes in no such thing, how can it help?

 

[guanophore]

When Jesus raised Lazerus from the dead what was the evidence that Jesus did raise him?

You should doubt what your church tells you about this.

What do you think the Church is telling us about Lazarus?

When Thomas doubted that Christ rose from the dead what did Jesus do? He gave him the evidence.

I am certain, justasking4, that beyond shadow of doubt, Jesus will give you whatever you need.

Thats what you should demand of your church and not allow them to hide behind some kind of mystery.

This is a statement made from hubris. It is the very arrogance of the serpent in the garden to “demand of” God anything. God has revealed Himself and His will. It is our duty to be receptive to that revelation, and to be obedient to it. It is God’s privilege to “hide behind some kind of mystery”. He is ineffible, and quite beyond our meagre understanding. We can demand all day long to “know” they mystery, but it only shows our arrogance.

If the bread and wine have truly changed you should be able to detect it.

You are right that Jesus did many miracles that were perceptible to the senses. However, He does this because he condescends to us. In fact, there are most of His works that we are not able to detect, or understand. For example, how did the bush Abraham observed burn, yet not be consumed?

This is why the Scriptures in I Thessalonians 5:21 exhorts us to:
But examine everything carefully; hold fast to that which is good;

That which is good must be apprehended by faith, as well as by the senses. What is good?

 

[guanophore]

Yes. Even great minds can be wrong. Would you agree?

Of course! Jesus did not promise that he would keep all “great minds” in the Truth. He only made that promise to those who belonged to Him!

Good questions. In the period after the aposltes there was not alot of “heavy theological” discussions going on. It took time for the leaders of the church to “flesh” things out. Notice that the doctrine of incarnation took centuries to develop.

It is interesting that you perceive this. Such a statement would indicate that you realize that it takes a long time for humans to understand divine revelation.

i don’t think most were deliberately lying.

Let’s get to an agreement about lying, shall we? Since the thread is about “misleading”, this seems to be crucial. I would postulate that lying is a DELIBERATE attempt to deceive another. That means an act of the will. So, if “most were not deliberately lying”, that would mean that they promulgated untruths because they were misled.

I agree. However what i don’t see catholic doing is holding their church accountable for its teachings.

What would this look like, if you could “see” it?

The Scriptures are clear that false teachers will come into the church and deceive many. That has happened in the catholic church.

Again I have to ask, justasking4, what is your purpose here on the fora? Are you trying to convince Catholics that they have been deceived? Are you trying to convince Catholics that the devil had gotten into the Church, and misled all of us?

Not so. It has some truth but it also has errors.

It seems to me that Jesus does not make “errors”.

I disagree. God could have used almost any method etc to get His message to the world. He did it in OT times and He could just as easily do so today. No church can ever boast about this kind of thing.

It is true, as you say, Jesus could have used “almost any method” to get His message to the world. He CHOSE to use fallible men and women to do so. It is not a “boast”, but a fact.

 

[alanjeddy]

When Jesus raised Lazerus from the dead what was the evidence that Jesus did raise him?

You should doubt what your church tells you about this. When Thomas doubted that Christ rose from the dead what did Jesus do? He gave him the evidence. Thats what you should demand of your church and not allow them to hide behind some kind of mystery. If the bread and wine have truly changed you should be able to detect it.
This is why the Scriptures in I Thessalonians 5:21 exhorts us to:
But examine everything carefully; hold fast to that which is good;

I really don’t care to debate with you because your arguments are so weak and feeble. We walk by faith alone you are really beginning to sound lost, What is your IQ? -12 . yOU WILL GET NO FURTHER RESONSES FROM ME.

FAITH IS A GIFT AND MAYBE THIS CHRISTMAS YOU WILL LEARN THAT WE WALK BY FAITH ALONE. i WISH YOU A VERY MERRY CHRISTMAS AND FAREWELL MR DOUBTING THOMAS.

 

[alanjeddy]

Alan, I have given up on him. He has asked numerous times how you eat the Body and drink the Blood of Christ, and has been told the same each time. I have no idea what he is doing here, unless sent by God to test our charity!

I offered a free book by Mark P. Shea on how an Evangelical discovered the Real Presence. He’s not interested. At this point, according to his own bible, I must treat him as a pagan or tax collector!

Matthew 18:15-17 "If your brother sins against you, go and show him his fault, just between the two of you. If he listens to you, you have won your brother over. But if he will not listen, take one or two others along, so that ‘every matter may be established by the testimony of two or three witnesses.’ If he refuses to listen to them, tell it to the church; and if he refuses to listen even to the church, treat him as you would a pagan or a tax collector.

A very merry Christmas and a Blessed new year.

PO18GUY,
I just threw in the towel with him too. I can’t stand his very weak responses and I probably will have to confess where I failed to show self- constraint. I think you are right, he was put here to try our patience and Christian patience. I believe the prince of lies has infiltrated this aplogetic thread for these lies aren’t coming from us brother.

Merry Christmas et pax Domini sit semper tecum. Beati qui ad cenam agni vocati sunt!

 

[qui_est_ce]

FAITH IS A GIFT AND MAYBE THIS CHRISTMAS YOU WILL LEARN THAT WE WALK BY FAITH ALONE.

Faith is a gift freely offered to all. It is up to us to open the eyes of our hearts and accept this gift.

Amen, and a blessed Christmas to all. :angel1:

 

[DLC]

The Catholic notion of Tradition is often dismissed with an upturned nose and a haughtily proclaimed “Traditions can be twisted.” This is usually followed by “I go by the Bible ALONE.”

Just how do anti-Catholics manage to presume that the Bible ALONE can’t also be twisted? I see it all the time–the Bible is and has been used to support every crazy thing under the sun.

I think the answer is simple: it’s just another double-standard applied to Catholics. Discuss.

This is true if one does not have an ifallible guide. The teaching magesterium in infallible since they are mere men. We must have an infallible guide and we do. John 16:13-15
3 "But when He, the Spirit of truth, comes, He will guide you into all the truth; for He will not speak on His own initiative, but whatever He hears, He will speak; and He will disclose to you what is to come. 14 "He will glorify Me, for He will take of Mine and will disclose it to you. 15 " All things that the Father has are Mine; therefore I said that He takes of Mine and will disclose it to you.
NASU

 

[justasking4]

qui est ce;3119778]

Quote:
Originally Posted by justasking4
Yes. Even great minds can be wrong. Would you agree?
qui est ce
When so many great minds say the same thing about the same thing, there’s got to be something to it. St. Peter and St. Paul come to mind. Are you telling me that what these early theolgians said was wrong?

No. There writings are Scripture. However keep in mind that Peter himself was wrong about a number of things in the Scriptures. He was rebuked by Jesus and Paul for being wrong.

Or are you telling me that you will selectively choose what to believe of their writings with protestant lenses on?

We must take things on a case by case basis. I approach the Scriptures are being inspired-inerrant. Only they alone are. From them i compare what men and churches teach and if what they do teach is not in sync with Scripture it is not binding. Thats why for example i reject the marian claims.

 

[justasking4]

qui est ce;3119778]

Originally Posted by justasking4
Good questions. In the period after the aposltes there was not alot of “heavy theological” discussions going on. It took time for the leaders of the church to “flesh” things out. Notice that the doctrine of incarnation took centuries to develop.
i don’t think most were deliberately lying.
qui est ce
Wrong, Incarnation was believed from the very beginning, until some heretics, like Arius, in 318 forced the Council of Nicea to declare the creed. This was a raucous council. Read about it.

Not so. It took time before the early truly understood what the incarnation implied and how to formulate it.

The very first Council at Jerusalem. Acts itselft says
Acts 15:1-7

1 Some who had come down from Judea were instructing the brothers, “Unless you are circumcised according to the Mosaic practice, you cannot be saved.” 2
2
Because there arose no little dissension and debate by Paul and Barnabas with them, it was decided that Paul, Barnabas, and some of the others should go up to Jerusalem to the apostles and presbyters about this question.
35
But some from the party of the Pharisees who had become believers stood up and said, “It is necessary to circumcise them and direct them to observe the Mosaic law.”
6
3The apostles and the presbyters met together to see about this matter.
7
After much debate had taken place, Peter got up and said to them, "My brothers, you are well aware that from early days God made his choice among you that through my mouth the Gentiles would hear the word of the gospel and believe.
Then there was Marcionism, Montanism, Nvatianism (Novatian set himself up as pope against St. Cornelius), Modalism, all in the second century. Church Councils are called when herectics start teaching things contrary to what Christ and Apostolic Tradition taught.

Were the Vatican councils 1+2 called for these very reasons i.e. heresy?

Quote:
Originally Posted by justasking4
I agree. However what i don’t see catholic doing is holding their church accountable for its teachings. The Scriptures are clear that false teachers will come into the church and deceive many. That has happened in the catholic church.
qui est ce
Wrong. ML, and the subsequent 33,000 + churches of me are false teachers.

Have you ever compared the doctrinal statements of 4-5 protestant churches in your area and seen anything them that is false? If so, what?

qui est ce
You are simply incorrect about no theological discussion in the early church, again, I ask you to read your history.

I didn’t say this. I said–“In the period after the aposltes there was **not alot of “heavy theological” discussions **going on.”

Quote:
Originally Posted by justasking4

I disagree. God could have used almost any method etc to get His message to the world. He did it in OT times and He could just as easily do so today.
qui est ce
Yes, and it is the Catholic Church who carries this out.

Quote:
Originally Posted by justasking4

I think Phillipians 2:6-8 is a good explaniation that helps to explain this.
qui est ce
I was being facecious. If you can accept Trinity, Jesus incarnate, why can’t you accept the Real Presence? If you are a Christian, you must accept that leap of faith that makes you a beliveer. You are very selective about which Apostolic teachings you will accept.

The Real Presence doctrine of the catholic church lacks proper scriptural support i.e. the scriptures don’t teach it.

---

 

[alanjeddy]

The Real Presence doctrine of the catholic church lacks proper scriptural support i.e. the scriptures don’t teach it.

---

HELLO MCF LY ANYBODY HOME??? TRY JOHN 6

 

[qui_est_ce]

Not so. It took time before the early truly understood what the incarnation implied and how to formulate it.

What part of John 1:14, and the word was made flesh and dwelt among us is unclear? It was unclear to heretics, which is way it was reiterated at the Council of Nicea, 325.

Were the Vatican councils 1+2 called for these very reasons i.e. heresy?

I did not say Councils were called for heresy ALONE.

Have you ever compared the doctrinal statements of 4-5 protestant churches in your area and seen anything them that is false? If so, what?

This has been answered to you already. I’ll bet you can guess what follows: The Lutheran church next door believes in Sola Scriptura and Sola Fides, but infant Baptism. They also believe in the Real Presence, although not in the same way as Catholics. The Baptist Church a mile away does not believe in the RP, infant baptism, their understanding of the salvific powers of baptism differ from Catholic and Lutheran. They also believe in OSAS, which our neighboring Lutheran church and Catholics do not hold. Then there is the Pentecostal church about a mile a way, Christian Science, Kingdom Hall, and Church of Latter Day Saints. (lot of churches her on STL). You tell me, do you believe in Mormanism, JW? Baptist? Which one holds your views? Which tradition do you follow? ML, Calvin, Anabaptist?

I didn’t say this. I said–“In the period after the aposltes there was **not alot of “heavy theological” discussions **going on.”

“Since there was NO SMALL debate on this matter” is not heavy theological discussion?

The Real Presence doctrine of the catholic church lacks proper scriptural support i.e. the scriptures don’t teach it.

Well, all I can say to this is you don’t take the Bible and John 6 seriously. It is YOU who refuse to believe what has been believed for over 2,000 years by Catholics.

You are also saying the great minds of Jesus, the Apostles, St. Polycarp, Eusubius, St. Justyn Martyr, St Ignatius of Antioch, St. Irenaeus, Tertuliian, St. Augstine, and St. Thomas of Aquinas were all wrong on this point.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Persecution_of_early_Christians_by_the_Romans
“On a more social, practical level, Christians were distrusted in part because of the secret and misunderstood nature of their worship. Words like “love feast” and talk of “eating Christ’s flesh” sounded understandably suspicious to the pagans, and Christians were suspected of cannibalism, incest, orgies, and all sorts of immorality”

The Catholic Church, which existed before the Bible was compiled and translated into Latin, believed in the Real Presence. How can you say it is not Scriptural, unless you have your heart hardened because you hate to admit Catholics are right about this?

 

[guanophore]

The Real Presence doctrine of the catholic church lacks proper scriptural support i.e. the scriptures don’t teach it.

---

HELLO MCF LY ANYBODY HOME??? TRY JOHN 6

We went thru John 6 at length in another thread. He does not see that it is connected at all the the last supper.

 

[justasking4]

Part 1

qui est ce;3121206]

Quote:
Originally Posted by justasking4
Not so. It took time before the early truly understood what the incarnation implied and how to formulate it.
qui est ce
What part of John 1:14, and the word was made flesh and dwelt among us is unclear? It was unclear to heretics, which is way it was reiterated at the Council of Nicea, 325.

Its my understanding that their was much debate what the incarnation entailed. For example what does it mean in the Christ “emptied” Himself in Philippians 2:7?
This was no small matter for the church to deal with.

Quote:
Originally Posted by justasking4

Were the Vatican councils 1+2 called for these very reasons i.e. heresy?
qui est ce
I did not say Councils were called for heresy ALONE.

Did these councils deal with heresies though? If so what were they?