# Was Jesus deliberately ambiguous? #

[joe370]

Soc, regarding my last post I meant: Absolutely no sarcasm intended…HIT THE WRONG KEY, which I am sure you already deduced; just wanted to be safe though; I hate sarcasm when it comes to Jesus Christ. If we are suppose to love even our enemies, how much more should we love our brothers and sisters in Christ!!!

 

[Socrates4Jesus]

SOC,

While you are pretending:

How about instead of being a doubtful protestant trying to “prove” that what the Catholic Church teaches is true before you will accept it, you pretend you are a faithful Catholic trying to prove that what the Catholic Church teaches is false before you will reject it.

I think you will find that the judge is forced to dismiss the case.

Chuck

Charlie Brown, have you been with me for so long and still do not know? I’m no longer a Protestant, and not yet a Catholic. I’m a follower of Christ without a religion. So there’s no pretending about it; i honestly don’t know where to go. For i can only go where the truth leads me, and the only truth i know is that i don’t know, at least not yet.

(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)

 

[Socrates4Jesus]

As you well know; NO!

However they are the leaders, the sheperds, while we remain the sheep.

Everyone is to live, practive and share The Good News, in accordance to what the Pope and magerterium teach as truth. And those of other faith beliefs have a similar responsibility, in accord to there honest understanding of thee truth.

Why?

Because the magisterium is the present tense Word of God. Speaking on behalf of Jesus and with the Power of Jesus, as assured by Jesus.

Love and prayers,

Pat

Not sure i understand. Who are the sheep and who are the shepherds?

 

[Socrates4Jesus]

**
Hey Soc, just a few quick questions before I head out, that might help us resolve the Immaculate conception matter:

**

1. 
   ]* Do you believe that the holy spirit is still guiding the church built by Jesus Christ**, on Pentecost, into all truth?
   
   ]If so, where would one go to find this church built by God, in the world today?
   ] Do you believe that the church built by Jesus, to which He is the head and Savior**, 2000 years ago, in Jerusalem, cannot fall prey to Satan’s endless devices used to attempt to defeat Jesus’ established church?
   ]* Do you believe that the church built by Jesus 2000 years ago cannot fail **to propagate through every century, until Jesus’ return, all that Jesus taught, thanks to the perpetual guidance of the holy spirit, regardless of the devils masquerading as holy men in Jesus’ established church, no doubt through every century, in different parts of the world?
   
   ** These were the questions that eventually brought me back to the church built by Jesus, once I answered them with absolute honesty, removing the shackles of denial, irrationality and impracticality. I know you have to respond to many people here at this thread, so if you get a chance could you answer these questions for me with just one or two sentences.
   
   Thanks friend… **

1. 
   The answers:
   
   1. 
      *]I don’t know.
      *]I don’t know.
      *]I don’t know.
      *]I don’t know.
      
      Perhaps if you tell me why you believe, Joe, then i will know. I’m most intrigued by (3). Would you like to tell me why you believe (3)?
      
      

 

[Socrates4Jesus]

John 6: 48-68
48 I am the bread of life.
49 Your ancestors ate the manna in the desert, but they died;
50 this is the bread that comes down from heaven so that one may eat it and not die.
51 I am the living bread that came down from heaven; whoever eats this bread will live forever; and the bread that I will give is my flesh for the life of the world."
52 The Jews quarreled among themselves, saying, “How can this man give us (his) flesh to eat?”
53 Jesus said to them, “Amen, amen, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you do not have life within you.
54 Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him on the last day.
55 For my flesh is true food, and my blood is true drink.
56 Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood remains in me and I in him.
57 Just as the living Father sent me and I have life because of the Father, so also the one who feeds on me will have life because of me.
58 This is the bread that came down from heaven. Unlike your ancestors who ate and still died, whoever eats this bread will live forever.”
59 These things he said while teaching in the synagogue in Capernaum.
60 Then many of his disciples who were listening said, “This saying is hard; who can accept it?”
61 Since Jesus knew that his disciples were murmuring about this, he said to them, “Does this shock you?
62 What if you were to see the Son of Man ascending to where he was before? 21
63 It is the spirit that gives life, while the flesh is of no avail. The words I have spoken to you are spirit and life.
64 But there are some of you who do not believe.” Jesus knew from the beginning the ones who would not believe and the one who would betray him.
65 And he said, “For this reason I have told you that no one can come to me unless it is granted him by my Father.”
66 As a result of this, many (of) his disciples returned to their former way of life and no longer accompanied him.
67 Jesus then said to the Twelve, “Do you also want to leave?”
68 Simon Peter answered him, "Master, to whom shall we go? You have the words of eternal life.

Matthew 26: 26-28
26 While they were eating, Jesus took bread, said the blessing, broke it, and giving it to his disciples said, “Take and eat; this is my body.”
27 Then he took a cup, gave thanks, 16 and gave it to them, saying, "Drink from it, all of you,
28 for this is my blood of the covenant, which will be shed on behalf of many for the forgiveness of sins.

Mark 14:22-24

22 While they were eating, he took bread, said the blessing, broke it, and gave it to them, and said, “Take it; this is my body.”
23 Then he took a cup, gave thanks, and gave it to them, and they all drank from it.
24 He said to them, "This is my blood of the covenant, which will be shed for many

Luke 22:19-20

19 Then he took the bread, said the blessing, broke it, and gave it to them, saying, “This is my body, which will be given for you; do this in memory of me.”
20 And likewise the cup after they had eaten, saying, "This cup is the new covenant in my blood, which will be shed for you.

1Corinthians 11: 23-30

23 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.
28 A person should examine himself, and so eat the bread and drink the cup.
29 For anyone who eats and drinks without discerning the body, eats and drinks judgment on himself.
30 That is why many among you are ill and infirm, and a considerable number are dying

Notice how 5 different New testament Authors all understood Christ as saying the same words. This is my Body, this is my Blood…

Thanks, PC. If you had to pick one of the five to discuss first, which would you choose?

 

[Socrates4Jesus]

I’d just as soon address those who are actually looking for Catholic answers to their questions, at least at this point.

I can understand that.

 

[Socrates4Jesus]

Hey Soc, this ties in with my post - 572. I enjoyed readying post 580 – the cross examination, and I agree with you when you said:

“Well, i suppose i’d say: “You promised, Lord, that the truth would set me free. You also promised me that if i sought the truth, i would find it. The truth i found was is that your words were unclear. I admit i don’t see how coming to the knowledge of the truth that your words lack clarity could set me free. But i never gave up hope. I never doubted the truth of your words. I never doubted you, only my ability to know what you really meant. If you believe i deserve hell for my ignorance, i accept your judgment. How could i argue with you? Only, i’m sure you understand that this ignorance is not what i wanted, nor was it something i was complacent to have. I did my best, through prayer, dialog, and seeking the truth, to cure my condition. This uncertainty is a disease, but i never stopped looking for the cure.”

You said: *“I never doubted you (Jesus), only my ability to know what you really meant,” *and I thought those words were brimming with honesty, integrity and humility. No one should ever take action in a cause unless they truly believe in the cause, especially when it comes to eternal life. …

Thanks for saying so, Joe!

 

[Socrates4Jesus]

Well forgive me if I don’t have the same affinity for creating a courtroom drama as you do. I’m giving you the information, format it as you will. …

PC,

Yes, i believe i cast you in the wrong role. My mistake! I don’t think you’re comfortable playing the role of my advocate in the courtroom. Trying to prove that the accused is wrong–even to the point of badgering him–is not exactly in good taste for a defense lawyer! The role of prosecutor seems more fitting for you.

 

[Socrates4Jesus]

Dear Soc,

        thanks for the exposition.

i don’t think we should make that inference just the same Soc, if we knew:

• Petie’s essay was an exceptional one and/or

• we know the  gold star is regularly  given  to one pupil  after another, not many at the same time    and /or

• Petie, and only Petie, even received a very particular nickname from the teacher
  related to his present and future behavior and role and/or

• Petie was charged by the teacher to take care of the other pupils, including those with A+,  if the teacher were  to leave.......

I hope this can help

Bless you
P7

P7:

It took a little searching, but i found your original post.



And i still think they are extremely good points to which it is worth returning! If you recall, i originally thought i did not know:

1. 
   *]whether Petie’s **essay **was better than the others, or
   *]whether the **gold star **is given to everyone who gets an A+, or only to one who is the teacher’s pet, or
   *]whether receiving such a nick name has anything to do with Petie being the teacher’s pet, or
   *]whether Petie was the **only student **given the task of tutoring the other students.
   
   By way of analogy i said the same was true of Peter. I did not know:
   
   1. 
      *]whether Peter’s **revelation **was any better than the others and more deserving of such a reward (for one might say that John, who was brave enough to risk arrest by standing at Jesus’ cross, was a better man than Peter, who coward behind closed doors and wept like a child when Christ needed him most), or
      *]whether the Keys to the Kingdom are given only to Peter (for Christ was speaking only to him when He also bestowed the authority to bind and loose, but this authority belongs to all of the Apostles and not only Peter), or
      *]whether receiving such an **alias **has anything to do with Peter being Jesus’ favored Apostle (for Jesus called James and his brother John the Sons of Thunder as a testimony of their zeal and bravery), or
      *]whether Peter was the only Apostle given the task of caring for other Christians (for, it seems to me, caring for Jesus’ sheep is not only the job of Peter, but also the job of EVERY Apostle, AND every Christian, to boot)!
      
      But now i’d say that, after much discussion, you and Chuck, and others helped me see the truth of (1). Peter’s revelation really WAS the most important revelation in establishing the Catholic Church! It is the foundational truth on which it stands. (Even Evangelicals admit that. In fact, that’s how they interpret Jesus’ words in Matthew 16.) So i’m encouraged that your suggestion of how to proceed has reaped a treasure of truth, and i’d like to keep digging, if you are not too weary to continue. Perhaps we will dig up more!
      
      
      
      If you are want, and if you think it a good idea to proceed with the other three, please tell me which you would like to consider first–(2), (3), or (4). And if you have already responded to (2), (3) and (4), it might be good enough to briefly summarize your response to one of them, for i’ve forgotten what you might have said.
      
      

 

[paul_c]

Thanks, PC. If you had to pick one of the five to discuss first, which would you choose?

The fact that all of them are so consistent in their wording and message is very important , as well, don’t you think. Consider them instead as a group. All of them say that the bread is his body and the wine is his blood. St. John elaborates on this by saying that if you don’t eat his body and drink his blood, you have no place in heaven. He further states that many could not accept this teaching and left, clearing demonstrating that they didn’t think it was just a metaphor. St. Paul’s elaboration is that if you partake unworthily, you bring condemnation on yourself and that’s why many are sick and dying. This also demonstrates that it is more than just bread and wine that you are partaking of.

 

[paul_c]

PC,

Yes, i believe i cast you in the wrong role. My mistake! I don’t think you’re comfortable playing the role of my advocate in the courtroom. Trying to prove that the accused is wrong–even to the point of badgering him–is not exactly in good taste for a defense lawyer! The role of prosecutor seems more fitting for you.

I am not a lawyer. I have no interest in defending or prosecuting you. I am merely trying to give you Catholic Answers to your questions and to point you in the right direction. I can do no more. I’m sorry if you think I am badgering you. Frankly, there are many times where I think you are more interested in playing debating games than actually searching for the truth, but perhaps that is uncharitable and doesn’t take into account your unique personality. You’ve made almost 5000 post on this forum. Do you think you are making any real progress toward finding the truth? .

 

[Socrates4Jesus]

The fact that all of them are so consistent in their wording and message is very important , as well, don’t you think. Consider them instead as a group. All of them say that the bread is his body and the wine is his blood. St. John elaborates on this by saying that if you don’t eat his body and drink his blood, you have no place in heaven. He further states that many could not accept this teaching and left, clearing demonstrating that they didn’t think it was just a metaphor. St. Paul’s elaboration is that if you partake unworthily, you bring condemnation on yourself and that’s why many are sick and dying. This also demonstrates that it is more than just bread and wine that you are partaking of.

OK, then, let me choose one (for my concern is that i’d be biting off more than i can chew by trying to discuss all of them at the same time):
While they were eating, Jesus took bread, said the blessing, broke it, and giving it to his disciples said, “Take and eat; this is my body.”
Then he took a cup, gave thanks, and gave it to them, saying, “Drink from it, all of you, for this is my blood of the covenant, which will be shed on behalf of many for the forgiveness of sins.”

(Matthew 26:26-28)

Please correct me if i’m wrong, but i believe you believe that Jesus’ words mean this:While they were eating, Jesus took bread, said the blessing, broke it, and giving it to his disciples said, “Take and eat; this is my** [actual] body."
Then he took a cup, gave thanks, and gave it to them, saying, "Drink from it, all of you, for this is my [actual]** blood of the covenant, which will be shed on behalf of many for the forgiveness of sins.”

(Matthew 26:26-28)

Is this the actual meaning of His words?

 

[paul_c]

OK, then, let me choose one (for my concern is that i’d be biting off more than i can chew by trying to discuss all of them at the same time):
While they were eating, Jesus took bread, said the blessing, broke it, and giving it to his disciples said, “Take and eat; this is my body.”
Then he took a cup, gave thanks, and gave it to them, saying, “Drink from it, all of you, for this is my blood of the covenant, which will be shed on behalf of many for the forgiveness of sins.”

(Matthew 26:26-28)

Please correct me if i’m wrong, but i believe you believe that Jesus’ words mean this:While they were eating, Jesus took bread, said the blessing, broke it, and giving it to his disciples said, “Take and eat; this is my** [actual] body."
Then he took a cup, gave thanks, and gave it to them, saying, "Drink from it, all of you, for this is my [actual]** blood of the covenant, which will be shed on behalf of many for the forgiveness of sins.”

(Matthew 26:26-28)

Is this the actual meaning of His words?

yes. Jesus is actually present in the eucharist and when we eat the eucharist, Jesus becomes part of us physically and spiritually and we gain the graces of being joined with him. It is much more than just a symbol, which is why St. Paul is so clear about being partaking of the eucharist worthily. We believe that if you have separated yourself God through mortal sin, than you must first reconcile with him sacramentally, before partaking of the eucharist. The fact that we are joining with Christ is brought out more clearly in 1Corinthians 10:16 -17
16 The cup of blessing that we bless, is it not a participation in the blood of Christ? The bread that we break, is it not a participation in the body of Christ?
17 Because the loaf of bread is one, we, though many, are one body, for we all partake of the one loaf.

And this is why in John 6, those that don’t join with Christ through the eucharist have no place with him in heaven.

 

[Socrates4Jesus]

yes. Jesus is actually present in the eucharist and when we eat the eucharist, Jesus becomes part of us physically and spiritually and we gain the graces of being joined with him. It is much more than just a symbol, which is why St. Paul is so clear about being partaking of the eucharist worthily. We believe that if you have separated yourself God through mortal sin, than you must first reconcile with him sacramentally, before partaking of the eucharist. The fact that we are joining with Christ is brought out more clearly in 1Corinthians 10:16 -17
16 The cup of blessing that we bless, is it not a participation in the blood of Christ? The bread that we break, is it not a participation in the body of Christ?
17 Because the loaf of bread is one, we, though many, are one body, for we all partake of the one loaf.

And this is why in John 6, those that don’t join with Christ through the eucharist have no place with him in heaven.

Perhaps you are correct about Paul’s meaning. If so, then i trust you will be able to convince me next. But first, let me ask you this: Some say that Jesus actually meant this:While they were eating, Jesus took bread, said the blessing, broke it, and giving it to his disciples said, “Take and eat; this is ** [like] **my body.”
Then he took a cup, gave thanks, and gave it to them, saying, “Drink from it, all of you, for this is **[like] **myblood of the covenant, which will be shed on behalf of many for the forgiveness of sins.”

(Matthew 26:26-28)
Would you say that this is an honest mistake to make? Or do you think it illogical, irrational, and unreasonable to believe that Jesus meant this rather than the interpretation you hold?

 

[paul_c]

Perhaps you are correct about Paul’s meaning. If so, then i trust you will be able to convince me next. But first, let me ask you this: Some say that Jesus actually meant this:While they were eating, Jesus took bread, said the blessing, broke it, and giving it to his disciples said, “Take and eat; this is ** [like] **my body.”
Then he took a cup, gave thanks, and gave it to them, saying, “Drink from it, all of you, for this is **[like] **myblood of the covenant, which will be shed on behalf of many for the forgiveness of sins.”

(Matthew 26:26-28)
Would you say that this is an honest mistake to make? Or do you think it illogical, irrational, and unreasonable to believe that Jesus meant this rather than the interpretation you hold?

Adding the word “like” to the scripture changes its meaning. It takes it from describing the real presence in the eucharist to making it something much less. It’s not an honest mistake in my view. Its a deliberate attempt to change the clear meaning given to us by the Son of God. This is not how St. Paul understands it. Nor is it how the disgruntled disciples in John 6 understood it either, otherwise, why would they have left. In fact, I’ll bet you can’t find a single reference that sees it as “like” in the first 1600 years of Christianity. In fact, I’ll ask you the question, Where is the first reference to Matthew 26 that substitutes “like” into the text?

 

[utunumsint]

Please correct me if i’m wrong, but i believe you believe that Jesus’ words mean this:
While they were eating, Jesus took bread, said the blessing, broke it, and giving it to his disciples said, “Take and eat; this is my [actual] body.”
Then he took a cup, gave thanks, and gave it to them, saying, “Drink from it, all of you, for this is my [actual] blood of the covenant, which will be shed on behalf of many for the forgiveness of sins.”

(Matthew 26:26-28)

Do you mean his body is actually bread and his blood is actually wine? I can see heresy number 3670 coming on. LOL

God bless,
Ut

 

[utunumsint]

Does ignorant mean illiterate? If it does, then how did illiterate John and Matthew–to name two–write their gospels?

Mathew was a tax collector. It was his job to know how to read and write and count. As for John, from all accounts, he would have been one of the youngest apostles. It could very well be that he learned how to read and write at some other point in his carreer among the Greeks in Ephesus.

Right, adults had little time–although some of them *made *the time. Children, however, did have time to learn to read the Torah. But don’t take my word for it. Let’s consult an expert:The Pharisees, who were the democratic inheritors of the religious ideas of the “Men of the Great Synagogue,” also adopted as their motto the obligation to “raise up many disciples and build a fence around the Torah.” When they finally succeeded, under the leadership of Simeon ben Shetach, in wrestling control of the Sanhedrin from the priestly aristocratic Sadducees about 150 years before the destruction of the Second Temple, they proclaimed to the people that the Torah was the heritage not just of the priestly elite, but also of every single person “in the congregation of Jacob.” Accordingly, they established what amounted to obligatory universal and free religious education for the young in every Jewish community–an event unprecedented in all history and one the was not duplicated anywhere until the introduction of free elementary schools in the United States during the nineteenth century.

Nathan Ausubel, *
The Book of Jewish Knowledge* - An Encyclopedia of Judaism and the Jewish People, Covering All Elements of Jewish Life from Biblical Times to the Present
Crown Publishers, Inc., New York

He makes some pretty big statments based on a few quotes from the Mishnas. I’m not denying that there was education. Mostlly this education would have been of the oral sort learned during festivals, and in Synagogues. It was the primary responsibility of the Father of each household to provide for this kind of education to their children. But is says nothing about the formal learning of reading and writing. If anything Hebrew was almost strictly relegated to the priestly class.

I believe that this concept of universal education is a big stretch, and assumes very much on the type and quality of the education received. It also hugely underestimates the issues of poverty and social stratification.

If you’d like, I can recommend some reading for you on these issues, as well as some contrary scholarly opinions on this so called universal education as beind derived mostly from sectarian bias. But I’m not sure you would find them wise enough.

God bless,
Ut

 

[clmowry]

Charlie Brown, have you been with me for so long and still do not know? I’m no longer a Protestant, and not yet a Catholic. I’m a follower of Christ without a religion. So there’s no pretending about it; i honestly don’t know where to go. For i can only go where the truth leads me, and the only truth i know is that i don’t know, at least not yet.

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_Lolznv8QL...AAAM/x0hNDdI6iiY/s320/linus-charlie-brown.jpg

Yeah I “knew” that, in fact, what I “thought I knew” was that you were swimming your way across that old river.

For some reason you kept coming up in my thoughts so I came back after my long absence from the forums to see how you were progressing.

But instead of watching you enjoy your swim, I see you’re stuck in the current treading water, and seem to be afraid you might drown!

In any case, I did not mean to imply you were “pretending” about your beliefs, if that’s what you picked up, then my apologies, I was referring to was the “court room” role play.

What I was trying to suggest is that you pursue your investigation taking on the role of “a faithful Catholic” trying to disprove Catholicism. If you can really “get into character”, it might provide a different perspective in you search for the truth.

Some times looking at a statue from a different angle can give you a whole different opinion of its beauty.

Chuck

 

[joe370]

Originally Posted by joe370 View Post

Hey Soc, just a few quick questions before I head out, that might help us resolve the Immaculate conception matter:

1. Do you believe that the holy spirit is still guiding the church built by Jesus Christ, on Pentecost, into all truth?
2. If so, where would one go to find this church built by God, in the world today?
3. Do you believe that the church built by Jesus, to which He is the head and Savior, 2000 years ago, in Jerusalem, cannot fall prey to Satan’s endless devices used to attempt to defeat Jesus’ established church?
4. Do you believe that the church built by Jesus 2000 years ago cannot fail to propagate through every century, until Jesus’ return, all that Jesus taught, thanks to the perpetual guidance of the holy spirit, regardless of the devils masquerading as holy men in Jesus’ established church, no doubt through every century, in different parts of the world?

These were the questions that eventually brought me back to the church built by Jesus, once I answered them with absolute honesty, removing the shackles of denial, irrationality and impracticality. I know you have to respond to many people here at this thread, so if you get a chance could you answer these questions for me with just one or two sentences.

Thanks friend…

The answers:

1. 
   *]I don’t know.
   *]I don’t know.
   *]I don’t know.
   *]I don’t know.
   
   Perhaps if you tell me why you believe, Joe, then i will know. I’m most intrigued by (3). Would you like to tell me why you believe (3)?
   
   

1. 
   Soc, first, let me ask you one very important question: do you believe that Jesus Christ is your Savior; if so —**why? ** Or is your answer: I don’t know??? Perhaps if you tell me why you believe, then I can convince my brother, who needs proof, as opposed to faith! His anwer to this question is: I don’t know!
   
   I believe what I believe because it takes infinitely more faith to be an atheist/agonostic, and after my exhaustive study of all the different world religions, Christianity is the only religion that makes any sense to me, and the message of the Gospel just seems to ring true, e.g.:
   
   James 1:27 This is pure and undefiled religion in the sight of our God and Father, to visit orphans and widows in their distress, and to keep oneself unstained by the world.
   
   What really sealed the deal for me were the apparitions of Garabandal, to 4 ignorant *(and when I say ignorant I mean: lacking in knowledge or training; unlearned; lacking worldly information and lacking information as to a particular subject or fact) *- eleven year old girls, from 1961-1965; they seem to be bringing my brother around as well. It has definitely rekindled his faith.
   
   Thank you for responding to parts of my posts; still looking forward to your response to the other questions that I have asked.

 

[PJM]

=joe370-Hey Soc, this ties in with my post - 572. I enjoyed readying post 580 – the cross examination and I agree with you when you said:

You said: * “I never doubted you (Jesus), only my ability to know what you really meant,” * and I thought those words were brimming with honesty, integrity and humility. No one should ever take action in a cause unless they truly believe in the cause, especially when it comes to eternal life. The following was the reason you gave (just as you did in that other enjoyable thread you started, that went the distance) - for not embracing the eastern orthodox/catholic interpretation of John, Matthew, Mark, Luke and Corinthians:

” Well; I’m not so sure Jesus was speaking literally. It seems to me that eating the flesh and drinking the blood of someone is a metaphor that was used extensively in the Old Testament–a metaphor that would have been readily recognized by Jesus’ Jewish audience. To threaten to drink someone’s blood or devour his flesh was symbolic of threatening to kill him. In John, chapter 6, Jesus might have been saying this: Unless the Jewish people put him to death, they would have no chance of receiving eternal life.”

Friend, your position is typical of a faith lacking and highly humanistic culture, which like very large waves control to roll over us. To the point of nearly drowning us.

One or two pages back I wrote an extensive two part post to “Soc” explaining:

1. No true Christian can reasonably say they believe in a Triune God, believe that Jesus too is God and not agree that “IF GOD WANTED TO DO THIS” God certainly has the unlimited power to in fact accomplish it.
2. So the issue seems to be can one establish such a reason. I believe that I in fact did just that in these two post. So if you are really seeking truth and understanding, go back and read them.
3. The Catholic Mass was already formatted much as it still is today by the year 150. Centered around the Eucharistic Miracle. [Which by the way is accomplished by God Himself] through the hands of His priest.
4. Volumes of historical data from Early Church Father beginning with the Apostles and the bible itself attest to the full AND very active [to the point of offering there very life’s] in support of the Doctronial belief.
5. Google “Eucharistic Miracles” for further evidence

For the first 300 years of Christianity, know one ever subscribed to your interpretation of the Eucharist… For 1500 years of Christianity, know one ever subscribed to your interpretation of the Eucharist… For the next 500 plus years of Christianity, to the present, know one ever subscribed to your interpretation of the Eucharist, including all of the reformers that spearheaded the protestant reformation and the myriad churches that were spawned from said reformation, which should have, ideally, simply supplanted the catholic church with just one reformed church, built by man as opposed to God, instead of giving way to the sad and hopeless fracture we see in the protestant churches today, which by the way I still consider, as does the C.C., a part of Jesus’ mystical Body to which He is the head and savior, just not in the fullness of faith. Now, if *” Jesus might have been saying: Unless the Jewish people put him to death, they would have no chance of receiving eternal life,” * then Jesus the Christ Who is God and the Holy Spirit, Who is God, guiding Jesus’ established church *] “until the end of time," * not only ] failed miserably to guide Jesus’ established church into all truth, but is actually guilty/responsible for steering Jesus’ established church into Eucharistic idolatry for the past 2000 years, if in fact the bread and wine are no more than mere bead and wine, once bleSeed. Based on your exclusive theoretical interpretation: over the span of 2000 years, ] not one Christian grasped the meaning of:

• “Amen, amen, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you do not have life within you. Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him on the last day. For my flesh is true food, and my blood is true drink”?

“My flesh is real food; my blood is real drink…” *

Soc, how do you reconcile this?

Look forward to hearing from you my friend, regarding this post and post 572, when you get the chance of course!

As always, God bless

While God does remain the shepherd of all of His flocks, it is not the identical same relationship Christ Has with His catholic Church, especially and specifically as it relates to the Seven sacraments and the single truth on all matters of Faith and Morals, which like [all Seven] Sacraments reside on in the Catholic Church.

Also as point of clarification it was NOT “The Jews” [ALONE] who crucified Christ. Because He died for each and all of us, ALL OF US had an active role in our Lord’s Death. The “Jew’s” were only the fulfillers of the prophesies. The ones who carried it out.

Love and prayers,