What dear friend, do you find strange about Catholicism?

[guanophore]

Yea, I KNOW; what I DON"T know is what I am either doing incorrectly OR not doing?

If and WHEN I erase a portion of a quote; it is because space is needed to reply to it. Am I correct in understanding that the space limits [6,000 key strokes] includes the POST we are replying too? This is my understanding at present.

God Bless you, and Thanks,
Pat

If you need space, just don’t take out the coded part. Take out part of the text instead.

Or better, cut your post at a good point, go back to the top of the thread, click “post reply” then paste the remainder of your text into a new post.

“Now it is evident, that in this prophecy [allusion is made] to the bread which our Christ gave us to eat, in remembrance of His being made flesh for the sake of His believers, for whom also He suffered; and to the cup which He gave us to drink, in remembrance of His own blood, with giving of thanks”. Justin Martyr ,Dialogue with Trypho ch 70

Justin still calls them bread and wine but assigns Christ’s presence to them, more like the Orthodox ,or even Luther

Yes. You will not catch me getting hung up on the concept of transubstantiation. I believe that O position is equally valid. What is not accurate is the Calvanist position that denies the Real Presence.

The transmutation is in reference to the food (bread and wine) of the Eucharist ceremony that nourishes us. Something like converting food to become nourishing to or part of our body.

As far as the Mass, thanksgiving is what Martyr witnesses. The prayer is thanksgiving, and thanksgiving over, and* not *to change the elements, or pray that it may “be acceptable”, not that the entire ceremony be "acceptable’’, *not *like a sacrificial offering up to God, which evolved later in history.

I think you are separating the Eucharistic celebration again from it’s roots benhur, and losing the meaning. Eucharist was initiated during the Passover. It is an enacted sacrifice where the Lamb is slain sacrificially then consumed by the faithful.

Perhaps Scott Hahn’s work can help you get this in context?

In his Mass, a" presider", a president, officiates, not a priest, though it may be, but he does not call it priest, twice. The official necessity/regulation of a priest also evolves later.

Blessings

Our modern English word “priest” comes from the NT Grk “presbyter” that was altered when it went into Latin. Traditionally the Elder or most esteemed presbyter presided at the Mass.

It is true that a valid Mass is one that is presided over by a successor of an Apostle (bishop) or his designee (priest). This was necessary to discriminate a valid Mass from an invalid (conducted by heretics).

But whatever safeguards were put in place to preserve the purity of it, it has always been a sacrificial gathering.

 

[guanophore]

The way I see it, it is not logical or fair

Are you now elevating your own sense of logic and fairness to that of God?

 to compare the miracle at Cana with the Last Supper.

First note that it was evident that the water was no longer water but wine. It was perfectly evident to the senses. They did not drink plain water and then try to say that it was now not water, but really wine that just looked and tasted like water. No that is not what happened.

True. The point is that God can make these changes occur.

But in the Catholic miracle you have something that is said to change, but it can't be perceived. It deceives the senses.

No, Eazy, it is no deception. The change is a spiritual one. It can 'be perceived with the eyes of faith, ,but one who comes must believe, and and that God is a rewarder of those who diligently seek.

It pretends to be something it is not.

I guess your argument is with Jesus, who “held himself in his own hands” at the last supper. When He said “this is my body” I guess He was lying, pretending, attempting to deceive"? Honestly, how can you say such a thing?

 Now, Jesus never did a miracle that was not perfectly evident and undeniable.

This is just a very limited perception of God’s miracles, many of which are not “perfectly evident” and plenty were denied.

Why would He now do something that is a lie on the surface?

I would like you to answer your own question. Why did He lie at the last supper? Why did he “lie” to the disciples in Emmaus? Why did He lie to the faithful for 1500 years, until huge numbers broke away from the ancient faith, claiming to believe what has been historically noted to be heresy?

That is really not worthy of God. God is capable of actually changing things in a way we can perceive. It is not hard for Him.

It is not up to us to decide what worthy behavior is for God. This is hubris.

Yes, I agree that it is not hard for God to change things so that we can perceive them with our senses. But He also says “blessed are those who have not seen, yet believe”. There are some things that we are to accept on faith.

For instance, if I am saved, but I still curse and steal and drink, I am not really changed and my alleged salvation is a lie because there is no change. God's work always produces a real change that we can see.

While I agree with your example, I do not agree with your conclusion. There is much work of God that is evident to the senses, but not all. Scripture teaches us that we are buried with Christ in baptism. We cannot observe this spiritual event, where we are adopted into the Body of Christ, but we accept it by faith. Not everyone who receives the Holy Spirit immediately begins to speak in tongues, but we accept that they have validly received.

It is a mistake to try to squeeze God into our little sensory box. I would say this is exaclty the kind of thinking “in the flesh” that Jesus was referencing in John 6. As he says, the flesh is of no avail. We cannot comprehend the mysteries of the divine with our limited senses.

 

[guanophore]

Could you explain to me what you mean by the above.  I've read it 5 times and I still don't know.

I’m never saved till I draw my last breath.

During this lifetime, we are working out our salvation in fear and trembling. So long as we walk on this earth, the potential remains that we can abandon our faith.

So if I died right now, I’d be saved?

That depends upon whether you are in a state of grace. Have you become a “nominal Catholic”?

Was I not saved a minute before I died?

That depends upon whether you have confessed your sins.

I had a long conversation on this with a Benedictine Brother who teaches the faith and I think we don’t all understand it properly.

We are saved
We are being saved
We will be saved

It means we are saved!

Yes, if a person remains in a state of grace, or right relationship with God. But you know very well that some abandon their baptismal seal/vows.

Some are not “being saved”, and although validly baptized, have not continued to become disciples of Christ.

Those who do not live out their faith can have no expection they will be saved.

Think about it. I know too many people living in doubt when really we should be very joyful.

Fran

I do agree that we are called to be full of joy rather than doubt. One can maintain a state of grace without fear and doubt.

About the change.  I'd have to say that Eazyduzit is correct and that we catholics teach the same concept.  If one is serving God, there will be some change evident.  You know, you shall know a tree by its fruit.  Of course, we all have our own speed and our own path.  But I leave this to you and Eazy.

You are obfuscating the point, Fran. Of course our lives need to be transformed if we are walking with God. But Eazy is claiming that the bread and wine are not transformed into the Real Presence because he cannot perceive this has happened with his senses.

 

[eazyduzit]

I have not followed this for a while. But your statement was interesting when I looked up the passages.

Dear Fran I see we accept both John 6:44 and John 6:54. The issue in these passages is who is the Father. Will leave it there.

God bless and regards Tony

Correction, the 2 parallel verses refered to should have been 40 and 54. My question is: which is literal and which figurative? They both cannot be the same.

 

[eazyduzit]

Not fair?
Not logical?

Bu it was one thing being changed into another that is what the comparison was about.

There is no pretending it does change to the Body and Blood. Jesus did not say here is bread and I pretend it is my Body nor did He say here is the cup that I pretend is my Blood. Jesus said this IS.

Careful this borders on disrespect of our faith. Many walked away just because they could not understand and trust Jesus’ word.

So you decide what is worthy of God

You are never saved until you draw your last breath and are judged. Are you saying you can judge someone else because of what you can see? WOW!

Yes, that is exactly what I’m saying. The water that was changed at Cana was judged to be the best wine. Every miracle of Jesus could be seen and judgement could be made so that no one could deny it.

And yes, the man of God must be able to have discernment about what is worthy of God and what is not from Him. It saves a lot of trouble. For example, there are those who might claim that a certain illness is from God. I would know that’s wrong because it’s not worthy of Him.

 

[fred_conty]

benhur,
thank you for your thoughtful replies.

In your view it seems that truth of what is stated lies in whom I am talking to. So that I can say that truth is different or bends depending on the listener’s philosophy.

Truth is truth for all. Truth dosen’t change because I say something to one person, and then say the same thing to another person. Truth is what it is.
Flesh is what it is and blood is what it is.

And so when Ignatius was quoted twice as saying " flesh of Jesus Christ", to me it is irrevelant to whom he is speaking. The statement stands on its own. The word “flesh” doesn’t change meaning because it is addressed to a specific group … because it is simply flesh.

Although you brought up the idea of sacrifice as juxtapositioned against the supper, that’s a different point not addressed in your post. However Jesus did say “which will be given up for you” in reference to his death on the cross which links this supper to his crucifixion. And this link also establishes again that it is his body and blood at the supper because it is his body and blood given up for them on the cross. Which means they are real just as real as on the cross.

Originally Posted by benhur View Post
Correct, Augustine did not deny a sort of real presence, but it is not in the strictest Catholic transubstantiated idea. Another words, he would not say symbolic only, just as he would not say the bread and wine become His literal body and blood.

So if others before Augustine taught the real presence of the flesh and blood of Christ, then it would seem that Augustine would understand the same. If Augustine said I do not know if it is a symbol and I don’t know if it is real, then what did he think it was. I believe others have pointed out what he did say, and it was Christ’s real presence.

I promised you (new Christians), who have now been baptized, a sermon in which I would explain the sacrament of the Lord’s Table, which you now look upon and of which last night were made participants. You ought to know what you have received, what you are going to receive, and what you ought to receive daily. That bread which you see on the altar, having been sanctified by the Word of God, is the body of Christ. That chalice, or rather, what is in that chalice, having been sanctified by the Word of God, is the blood of Christ…. What you see is the bread and the chalice; that is what your eyes report to you. But what your faith obliges you to accept is that the bread is the body of Christ and the chalice is the blood of Christ (Sermons 227).

The faithful know what I am saying. They know Christ in the breaking of the bread. For not all bread, but only that which receives the blessing of Christ, becomes Christ’s body (Sermons 234, 2).

As far as what occured at Cana and the Last supper, in both instances one substance was changed into another… water into wine … wine into blood.
Jesus said “this is my body” “this is my blood”. One thing was changed into another.

If Jesus had not intended for that bread to change into his body, then why did he bother to say there was a change from bread to body? He could have just said, here take this bread and wine and eat it as a memorial of me, without saying “this is my body” and “this is my blood”. Or this bread is a symbol of my body, but instead he went to the trouble of saying “this is my body”. And memorial does not morph into a symbol. When a grave site is visited the tombstone is a memoral and not a token or symbol…there is a difference. Jesus could have said, …do this in memory of me, without adding … this is my body. The word “is” points to identifying a thing. If I point to a symbol of a dog, or point to a dog, these two things are not equal in meaning, the realities are different. I would not say of a symbol that this is the dog.

In 1Cor, it says

27 So then, whoever eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty of sinning against the body and blood of the Lord.

28 Everyone ought to examine themselves before they eat of the bread and drink from the cup.

29 For those who eat and drink without discerning the body of Christ eat and drink judgment on themselves.

I believe you said that “discerning” has to do with discerning the people as the body of Christ. But look at verse 27 above. It refers to “the BODY and BLOOD of the Lord”. This verse 27 isn’t about the body and blood of the church or other people…but of “the Lord”. And it is of the Body and Blood, and not just the body. The bible never refers to the church as the body and BLOOD of the Lord, but only refers to the body when referring to the church.

I hope that someday you might see this for your enrichment and benefit. For that is why he left it to us … for our endearment to him. And I truely wish that someday this becomes yours so that you too may experience the joy and goodness of his becoming your Emanuel in an intimate way.

 

[TonyBS]

Hi Tony,
I read the link. I don’t understand about the love part at the beginning. Unless it means that we’re not to love anything or anyone more than God because only then can you love everything else. This is also a concept in Christianity. Loving can take you away from God if it’s meant in this sense.

Hi Fran - I hope you have a rewarding Christmas.

Yes this is saying it is to God we give all our Love. It is saying that it is the Heart that finds God and the learning of Man and attachment to worldly pursuits are all veils. It is also saying that Love and Hate are Veils. In this sense it was talking about one way the Jews missed Christ. Love and Hate they already held in their Hearts had obscured the Glory of Christ and because of such love and hate, they wer are bereft of the “Immortal Face”.

As far as saving. Jesus meant us also to be saved in this life. He said the Kingdom is all around us but we do not see it unless we are born again. John 3. He meant for man to be so transformed as to cause a real change in this life. It seems to have happened to a degree. We are much more civil than we were hundreds of years ago. We care more about our fellow humans in the sense that we donate money and food to help out. I don’t think this was in the minds of people in the old times because they had nothing left over and could think only of their own survival.

Yes ye must be Born Again, I also think this was applicable also before the message of Christ. I think that in all ages there are people that care and share. I think when it is at its worst is when God sends His Word

Thus it comes back to what does it mean to be Saved, or Born Again. The Bible is clear, but are we clear in its meaning!

Now, I do find it a bit strange that in Catholicism many believe that we are not saved till the last moment. Could I clarify what I mean?

Yes this requires much self examination. I would think this is applicable as I think we can not honestly say what out heart truly holds. What are our true motives for our Love of God, do the Motives contain self. Thus at our death I am sure our heart portrays what it really holds.

This is why we continually ask for forgiveness and always and I mean always examine our motives for the Love we Claim.

We can be saved at the last moment of life. Augustine said something I like a lot: Many inside the fold are out, and many outside the fold are in. I’m not saying that salvation cannot occur at the very last moment of one’s life. But I also don’t agree that we cannot know now that we are saved, in the sense that it has come to mean today. Saved to be with God at the end of our lives. I believe we can know it. How else could we live a joyous life thinking we might end up away from God’s presence? That would be hell indeed!

They are the toughs we need to examine every moment of the day until the end of our lives.

I would say in my experience we can not know. It is for us to submit to the Will of God, His Laws and serve His Cause with a motive born from the Love of God. What we can not say with 100% assurance is if we understand the purity of our motive. We are part of a world that clouds motives.

So many Catholics I know tell me they cannot know for sure. Then what was the N.T. all about? Why did Paul have so much to say? Why did Jesus have to die?

To bring us to God, to give us the example of the required purity of motive, to go away that He could Return. All the Holy books are about this Love, the Promise, the fulfillment, the Way, the life. It is so wonderful!

Then there are those who feel everyone will be saved in the end. Then there are those who believe being saved is extremely difficult. To me it’s just believing in Jesus and following Him.

God Doeth He Willeth. God gives Faith to who He chooses and withholds from who He Chooses.

Our goal is to “Possess a pure, kindly and radiant heart”, that if God so chooses He may grant us “a sovereignty ancient, imperishable and everlasting”.

“for none knoweth what his own end shall be” means in this life, not the next. As Frank Sinatra said. you could be riding high in April, shot down in May. Yes. I really believe this. Pride is at the base of most sins.Fran

Think of it this way. If Muhammad, the Bab and Baha’u’llah are as they say they are. Then how would this change your thoughts.

This is what we are all faced with and this is as you have said “Pride is at the base of most sins”. All of us have more than this than we know.

God bless all with a wonderful celebration of Christmas. Regards Tony

 

[TonyBS]

Correction, the 2 parallel verses refered to should have been 40 and 54. My question is: which is literal and which figurative? They both cannot be the same.

Yes that is a good Question - This is also a strange thing God has Given us all in scripture, that is many and veiled meanings - There are traditions showing that scripture has at least Seventy meanings and I quote some concepts of this from the web;

The term for this concept of pluralistic interpretation is Shivim panim la-Torah (each verse of Torah has 70 different faces/facets).

All passages can have many explanations, in the Book of Psalms: One thing God has spoken; two things have I heard (Ps. 62:12)

Thus it is recorded: “Every knowledge hath seventy meanings, of which one only is known amongst the people. And when the Qá’im shall arise, He shall reveal unto men all that which remaineth.” He also saith: “We speak one word, and by it we intend one and seventy meanings; each one of these meanings we can explain.” (Baha’u’llah, The Kitab-i-Iqan, p. 254)

Love’s a stranger to earth and heaven too; In him are lunacies seventy-and-two. [Rumi]

Thus

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

54 Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise them up at the last day.

Thus these passages are complimentary, both have hidden meanings and are not as they are seen outwardly. Many meanings we would not be aware of, we can consider what they are portraying.

Both Talk About the Belief, Knowledge and Love of Christ being paramount to being raised up in the last day.

God bless and Regards Tony

 

[Peter_J]

Hi Benhur,

I’ve been following along but don’t have a lot to say on this.

Never the twain shall meet on this one.

I’m told that we have to decide between John 6 verse 44 and 54.

Do you agree?

**Why can’t it be both? **

In my bible, it is.

 

[guanophore]

Yes, that is exactly what I’m saying. The water that was changed at Cana was judged to be the best wine. Every miracle of Jesus could be seen and judgement could be made so that no one could deny it.

Horse hockey eazy. People have been denying the miracles of Jesus since day one! Some who even call themselves Christians have preached that Jesus did not actually multiply the loaves and fish, but talked everyone into sharing what they had!

And yes, the man of God must be able to have discernment about what is worthy of God and what is not from Him. It saves a lot of trouble. For example, there are those who might claim that a certain illness is from God. I would know that’s wrong because it’s not worthy of Him.

Well, Man of God, you have become your own Pope. Why are you here at CAF?

In my bible, it is.

 

[fbl9]

Yes, that is exactly what I’m saying. The water that was changed at Cana was judged to be the best wine. Every miracle of Jesus could be seen and judgement could be made so that no one could deny it.

And yes, the man of God must be able to have discernment about what is worthy of God and what is not from Him. It saves a lot of trouble. For example, there are those who might claim that a certain illness is from God. I would know that’s wrong because it’s not worthy of Him.

Was it not written…performed these miracles so that you would see and believe, blessed are those who believe and have not seen…

 

[Peter_J]

Well, Man of God, you have become your own Pope. Why are you here at CAF?

Emoticon acknowledged!

As to the question that I quoted above, I’m reminded of what was once told to someone who was reluctant to join: don’t worry, there’s always room for one more.

 

[Reuben_J]

The way I see it, it is not logical or fair to compare the miracle at Cana with the Last Supper.
First note that it was evident that the water was no longer water but wine. It was perfectly evident to the senses. They did not drink plain water and then try to say that it was now not water, but really wine that just looked and tasted like water. No that is not what happened.

But in the Catholic miracle you have something that is said to change, but it can’t be perceived. It deceives the senses. It pretends to be something it is not. Now, Jesus never did a miracle that was not perfectly evident and undeniable. Why would He now do something that is a lie on the surface? That is really not worthy of God. God is capable of actually changing things in a way we can perceive. It is not hard for Him.

For instance, if I am saved, but I still curse and steal and drink, I am not really changed and my alleged salvation is a lie because there is no change. God’s work always produces a real change that we can see.

Shalom,
Jerry

I know you try to explain your dispute on the transubstantiation. I have not heard this argument before, to be frank. Sorry, I don’t understand it or maybe it is because we see miracle differently.

The Eucharist is perhaps the greatest miracle - that we can tangibly hold God in the palm of our hand and be one with Him in the flesh.

It is a miracle to be believed in faith. Why? Because Jesus said so himself. We believe that those whom he had commissioned to do so, would be able to do even greater thing. …

Could the priest during the consecration, called upon Jesus to perform the miracle of changing the bread to his body? We believe it could happen. Thus it is a miracle, the same as when Jesus said the bread was his body during the last supper.

Do we need proof of this? There were many proof, along the centuries in the Church that the host really turned into flesh and blood. Would that change thing much? Maybe yes, maybe no. But we don’t really need that miracle, though it is nice to have one. Similarly, when people saw the many miracles performed by Jesus, yet there were many who also did not believe.

Ultimately, it is about faith. Do one has the faith to believe in miracles? Perhaps not much but little would still do. The rest the Lord will multiply.

 

[eazyduzit]

I know you try to explain your dispute on the transubstantiation. I have not heard this argument before, to be frank. Sorry, I don’t understand it or maybe it is because we see miracle differently.

The Eucharist is perhaps the greatest miracle - that we can tangibly hold God in the palm of our hand and be one with Him in the flesh.

It is a miracle to be believed in faith. Why? Because Jesus said so himself. We believe that those whom he had commissioned to do so, would be able to do even greater thing. …

Could the priest during the consecration, called upon Jesus to perform the miracle of changing the bread to his body? We believe it could happen. Thus it is a miracle, the same as when Jesus said the bread was his body during the last supper.

Do we need proof of this? There were many proof, along the centuries in the Church that the host really turned into flesh and blood. Would that change thing much? Maybe yes, maybe no. But we don’t really need that miracle, though it isy nice to have one. Similarly, when people saw the many miracles performed by Jesus, yet there were many who also did not believe.

Ultimately, it is about faith. Do one has the faith to believe in miracles? Perhaps not much but little would still do. The rest the Lord will multiply.

It is one thing to believe for a miracle. It is another to believe someone’s word that a miracle has occurred if there is no evidence.

 

[frangiuliano115]

I like to say that we’re here to discuss and not to argue. I’ve had this experience myself…

The Mass and transubstantiation of the host is crucial and pivital to catholocism - not so to protestantism. So of course we’re going to have this great divide.

Many times when one will bring up Mathew 7:21:
“Not everyone who says to me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter the kingdom of heaven, but only the one who does the will of my Father who is in heaven”

I’ll ask, What IS the will of the Father? Have received many different answers. But the right one, of course, is found in John 6:40:
For my Father’s will is that everyone who looks to the Son and believes in him shall have eternal life, and I will raise them up at the last day."

The will of the father is that we, simply, believe in His Son and FOLLOW His Son. I won’t repeat for the umpteenth time what believe means. I think everyone here knows.

Okay.

So now you move on to verse 53 and 58:
So Jesus said to them, “Truly, truly, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink His blood, you have no life in yourselves. 54“He who eats My flesh and drinks My blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up on the last day. 55“For My flesh is true food, and My blood is true drink. 56“He who eats My flesh and drinks My blood abides in Me, and I in him. 57“As the living Father sent Me, and I live because of the Father, so he who eats Me, he also will live because of Me. 58“This is the bread which came down out of heaven; not as the fathers ate and died; he who eats this bread will live forever.”

Well, you know. If I were reading the bible for the first time, I’d kind of think that I had to choose between the two.
Is salvation due to believing in the Christ, or is it due to eating and drinking of Him?
And if it were the second, what exactly does eating and drinking of Him mean exactly?

I’m always brought back by verse 60 and 66 and 67:
Therefore many of His disciples, when they heard this said, “This is a difficult statement; who can listen to it?” 61But Jesus, conscious that His disciples grumbled at this, said to them, “Does this cause you to stumble? 62“What then if you see the Son of Man ascending to where He was before? 63“It is the Spirit who gives life; the flesh profits nothing; the words that I have spoken to you are spirit and are life. 64“But there are some of you who do not believe.” For Jesus knew from the beginning who they were who did not believe, and who it was that would betray Him. 65And He was saying, “For this reason I have said to you, that no one can come to Me unless it has been granted him from the Father.”
Peter’s Confession of Faith

  66As a result of this many of His disciples withdrew and were not walking with Him anymore. 67So Jesus said to the twelve, “You do not want to go away also, do you?” 68Simon Peter answered Him, “Lord, to whom shall we go? You have words of eternal life.

So it seems that what Jesus was saying was literal but difficult to understand or to accept. So some disciples walked away. What is important to me about this is that Jesus didn’t stop them. He let them go. If they had misunderstood, He would have stopped them.

If Eazyduzit could address this… I’d be interested in understanding.

Now it could be said that John was the most spiritual of the apostles and that He understood Jesus in a way the others didn’t. I’ll stop there.

I do understand what he’s saying about miracles and the perception of miracles and their visibility. Jesus’ miracles were always for the glorification of God the Father. At the raising of Lazarus He said:

John 11:4
When he heard this, Jesus said, “This sickness will not end in death. No, it is for God’s glory so that God’s Son may be glorified through it.”

John 11:41, 42
So they removed the stone. Then Jesus raised His eyes, and said, “Father, I thank You that You have heard Me. 42“I knew that You always hear Me; but because of the people standing around I said it, so that they may believe that You sent Me.”

Every miracle He performed was very visible to the crowd.

Fran
P.S. Who is verse 64 speaking of??

 

[frangiuliano115]

Was it not written…performed these miracles so that you would see and believe, blessed are those who believe and have not seen…

Jesus was talking about the people who weren’t there to WITNESS the miracle - like you and I for instance. And others of that time that were not present. Blessed are we because we are able to believe even if we have NOT witnessed any miracle.

Of course, trusting in Jesus is in itself a miracle!

Fran

 

[frangiuliano115]

Hi Fran - I hope you have a rewarding Christmas.

Yes this is saying it is to God we give all our Love. It is saying that it is the Heart that finds God and the learning of Man and attachment to worldly pursuits are all veils. It is also saying that Love and Hate are Veils. In this sense it was talking about one way the Jews missed Christ. Love and Hate they already held in their Hearts had obscured the Glory of Christ and because of such love and hate, they wer are bereft of the “Immortal Face”.

Yes ye must be Born Again, I also think this was applicable also before the message of Christ. I think that in all ages there are people that care and share. I think when it is at its worst is when God sends His Word

Thus it comes back to what does it mean to be Saved, or Born Again. The Bible is clear, but are we clear in its meaning!

Yes this requires much self examination. I would think this is applicable as I think we can not honestly say what out heart truly holds. What are our true motives for our Love of God, do the Motives contain self. Thus at our death I am sure our heart portrays what it really holds.

This is why we continually ask for forgiveness and always and I mean always examine our motives for the Love we Claim.

They are the toughs we need to examine every moment of the day until the end of our lives.

I would say in my experience we can not know. It is for us to submit to the Will of God, His Laws and serve His Cause with a motive born from the Love of God. What we can not say with 100% assurance is if we understand the purity of our motive. We are part of a world that clouds motives.

To bring us to God, to give us the example of the required purity of motive, to go away that He could Return. All the Holy books are about this Love, the Promise, the fulfillment, the Way, the life. It is so wonderful!

God Doeth He Willeth. God gives Faith to who He chooses and withholds from who He Chooses.

Our goal is to “Possess a pure, kindly and radiant heart”, that if God so chooses He may grant us “a sovereignty ancient, imperishable and everlasting”.

Think of it this way. If Muhammad, the Bab and Baha’u’llah are as they say they are. Then how would this change your thoughts.

This is what we are all faced with and this is as you have said “Pride is at the base of most sins”. All of us have more than this than we know.

God bless all with a wonderful celebration of Christmas. Regards Tony

I find your wording of concepts so interesting. Like veils for instance. We also say that materialism can keep you away from God. How? I like pretty things. But do I love them? No. Some people love things. We say we love our car. But we don’t really mean LOVE. But some people DO mean love! It’s much easier to perceive and see material things than to perceive and see God. So these things could be called a veil. Something that comes between us and God and let’s us see Him less or in an obscure way. Yes. It could even be loving someone. That love could take you away from God. I guess we could say that any worldly love is a veil.

If God sends His best at the worst times, NOW would be a good time! I tend to shy away from the book of Daniel and also Revelation because I find them difficult to understand. It would seem that many times throughout history we have come to what would seem to have been the end of times. There is one big difference, however. Now we have the means to really end this earth! Before the means did not exist. So I feel we are closer now. Some Jewish sects have the timing down to “weeks”. It is rather disconcerting how the timing of the bible is precise. But I don’t know a lot about this.

At the end of your post your speaking of the Providence of God. I think we’ve discussed this before. God will do what He willeth. He is God. I must say, though, that from reading scripture, it does seem to me that we could have assurance of our salvation.

John 20:30-31
Jesus performed many other signs in the presence of his disciples, which are not recorded in this book. 31 But these are written that you may believe[a] that Jesus is the Messiah, the Son of God, and that by believing you may have life in his name.

1 John 5:13
I write these things to you who believe in the name of the Son of God so that you may know that you have eternal life.

Fran

 

[Peter_J]

It is one thing to believe for a miracle. It is another to believe someone’s word that a miracle has occurred if there is no evidence.

The way I see it, it is not logical or fair to compare the miracle at Cana with the Last Supper.
First note that it was evident that the water was no longer water but wine. It was perfectly evident to the senses. They did not drink plain water and then try to say that it was now not water, but really wine that just looked and tasted like water. No that is not what happened.

But in the Catholic miracle you have something that is said to change, but it can’t be perceived. It deceives the senses. It pretends to be something it is not. Now, Jesus never did a miracle that was not perfectly evident and undeniable. Why would He now do something that is a lie on the surface? That is really not worthy of God. God is capable of actually changing things in a way we can perceive. It is not hard for Him.

For instance, if I am saved, but I still curse and steal and drink, I am not really changed and my alleged salvation is a lie because there is no change. God’s work always produces a real change that we can see.

Shalom,
Jerry

The same kinds of arguments can be made against e.g. praying in tongues.

 

[Memaw]

I was reading a Wikipedia article that said that Juan Diego and Catherine of Alexandria never existed. They said that there is no evidence for their existence and that they are basically legends/myths. Any help with this?

I know that the Catholic church has canonized them but was there any proof that they existed?

The Catholic Church does NOT Canonize a myth, God Bless, Memaw

 

[JustaServant]

The Catholic Church does NOT Canonize a myth, God Bless, Memaw

HE didn’t say it was a myth, he said Wikipedia said it was a myth.