D
dyluck
Guest
I’m sorry, that was honestly a petty statement.
The bible was quoted “before verse numbers” by the first line of the passage.
“My God, my God why have you forsaken me” - Is a prime example of Jesus quoting a Psalm
- Status
The bible was quoted “before verse numbers” by the first line of the passage.
“My God, my God why have you forsaken me” - Is a prime example of Jesus quoting a Psalm
D
Dokimas
Guest
I was not disagreeing with what you think the CC teaches. I was disagreeing with the teaching. I don’t remember the post so I’m not sure of the specifics.
T
tqualey
Guest
Hi, Dyluck,
Actually, Dyluck, that ‘meat’ you served up wasn’t even half-baked… My focus will be on Holy Communion. There are no context problems here. I am, however, hard put to even guess why you omitted all of John 6 in your presentation…
newadvent.org/cathen/05572c.htm (this contains several other links)
newadvent.org/cathen/07402a.htm
catholic.com/library/Institution_of_the_Mass.asp
Let’s take a look at the last link with some detail. Here is what the Catholic Church says about the Mass and there is quite a lot of scripture to back this up…in addition to the teaching authority given to Peter (Matt 16).
“At the Last Supper, on the night he was betrayed, our Savior instituted the Eucharistic Sacrifice of his Body and Blood. He did this in order to perpetuate the sacrifice of the cross throughout the centuries until he should come again, and so to entrust to his beloved spouse, the Church, a memorial of his death and resurrection: a sacrament of love, a sign of unity, a bond of charity, a paschal banquet in which Christ is consumed, the mind is filled with grace, and a pledge of future glory is given to us” (Sacrosanctum Concilium 47).
Even a modestly informed Catholic can set an inquirer right and direct him to biblical accounts of Jesus’ final night with his disciples. Turning to the text, we read, “And he took bread, and when he had given thanks he broke it and gave it to them, saying, ‘This is my body which is given for you. Do this in remembrance of me’” (Luke 22:19).
The Greek here and in the parallel Gospel passages (Matt. 26:26; Mark 14:22) reads: Touto estin to soma mou. Paul’s version differs slightly: Touto mou estin to soma (1 Cor. 11:24). They all translate as “This is my body.” The verb estin is the equivalent of the English “is” and can mean “is really” or “is figuratively.” The usual meaning of estin is the former (check any Greek grammar book), just as, in English, the verb “is” usually is taken literally.
Fundamentalists insist that when Christ says, “This is my body,” he is speaking figuratively. But this interpretation is precluded by Paul’s discussion of the Eucharist in 1 Corinthians 11:23–29 and by the whole tenor of John 6, the chapter where the Eucharist is promised. The Greek word for “body” in John 6:54 is sarx, which means physical flesh, and the word for “eats” (trogon) translates as “gnawing” or “chewing.” This is certainly not the language of metaphor."
The Church teaches that the Mass is the re-presentation of the sacrifice of Calvary, which also is invariably misunderstood by anti-Catholics. The Catholic Church does not teach that the Mass is a re-crucifixion of Christ, who does not suffer and die again in the Mass.
Yet, it is more than just a memorial service. John A. O’Brien, writing in The Faith of Millions, said, “The manner in which the sacrifices are offered is alone different: On the cross Christ really shed his blood and was really slain; in the Mass, however, there is no real shedding of blood, no real death; but the separate consecration of the bread and of the wine symbolizes the separation of the body and blood of Christ and thus symbolizes his death upon the cross. The Mass is the renewal and perpetuation of the sacrifice of the cross in the sense that it offers [Jesus] anew to God . . . and thus commemorates the sacrifice of the cross, reenacts it symbolically and mystically, and applies the fruits of Christ’s death upon the cross to individual human souls. All the efficacy of the Mass is derived, therefore, from the sacrifice of Calvary” (306).
The Catholic Church specifically says Christ does not die again—his death is once for all. It would be something else if the Church were to claim he does die again, but it doesn’t make that claim. Through his intercessory ministry in heaven and through the Mass, Jesus continues to offer himself to his Father as a living sacrifice, and he does so in what the Church specifically states is “an unbloody manner”—one that does not involve a new crucifixion."
I suggest that if you are going to quote Catholic doctrine, you get it straight first.
God bless
Actually, Dyluck, that ‘meat’ you served up wasn’t even half-baked… My focus will be on Holy Communion. There are no context problems here. I am, however, hard put to even guess why you omitted all of John 6 in your presentation…
Here are a couple of Catholic links you may find helpful, Dyluck, in reading about the Eucharist from a Catholic perspective. Considering that you are on CAF, you may actually find it helps you to focus your argument. You really can’t misquote, mispresent and misdefine Catholic teaching and expect not to be called down for it.
newadvent.org/cathen/05572c.htm (this contains several other links)
newadvent.org/cathen/07402a.htm
catholic.com/library/Institution_of_the_Mass.asp
Let’s take a look at the last link with some detail. Here is what the Catholic Church says about the Mass and there is quite a lot of scripture to back this up…in addition to the teaching authority given to Peter (Matt 16).
“At the Last Supper, on the night he was betrayed, our Savior instituted the Eucharistic Sacrifice of his Body and Blood. He did this in order to perpetuate the sacrifice of the cross throughout the centuries until he should come again, and so to entrust to his beloved spouse, the Church, a memorial of his death and resurrection: a sacrament of love, a sign of unity, a bond of charity, a paschal banquet in which Christ is consumed, the mind is filled with grace, and a pledge of future glory is given to us” (Sacrosanctum Concilium 47).
Even a modestly informed Catholic can set an inquirer right and direct him to biblical accounts of Jesus’ final night with his disciples. Turning to the text, we read, “And he took bread, and when he had given thanks he broke it and gave it to them, saying, ‘This is my body which is given for you. Do this in remembrance of me’” (Luke 22:19).
The Greek here and in the parallel Gospel passages (Matt. 26:26; Mark 14:22) reads: Touto estin to soma mou. Paul’s version differs slightly: Touto mou estin to soma (1 Cor. 11:24). They all translate as “This is my body.” The verb estin is the equivalent of the English “is” and can mean “is really” or “is figuratively.” The usual meaning of estin is the former (check any Greek grammar book), just as, in English, the verb “is” usually is taken literally.
Fundamentalists insist that when Christ says, “This is my body,” he is speaking figuratively. But this interpretation is precluded by Paul’s discussion of the Eucharist in 1 Corinthians 11:23–29 and by the whole tenor of John 6, the chapter where the Eucharist is promised. The Greek word for “body” in John 6:54 is sarx, which means physical flesh, and the word for “eats” (trogon) translates as “gnawing” or “chewing.” This is certainly not the language of metaphor."
The Church teaches that the Mass is the re-presentation of the sacrifice of Calvary, which also is invariably misunderstood by anti-Catholics. The Catholic Church does not teach that the Mass is a re-crucifixion of Christ, who does not suffer and die again in the Mass.
Yet, it is more than just a memorial service. John A. O’Brien, writing in The Faith of Millions, said, “The manner in which the sacrifices are offered is alone different: On the cross Christ really shed his blood and was really slain; in the Mass, however, there is no real shedding of blood, no real death; but the separate consecration of the bread and of the wine symbolizes the separation of the body and blood of Christ and thus symbolizes his death upon the cross. The Mass is the renewal and perpetuation of the sacrifice of the cross in the sense that it offers [Jesus] anew to God . . . and thus commemorates the sacrifice of the cross, reenacts it symbolically and mystically, and applies the fruits of Christ’s death upon the cross to individual human souls. All the efficacy of the Mass is derived, therefore, from the sacrifice of Calvary” (306).
The Catholic Church specifically says Christ does not die again—his death is once for all. It would be something else if the Church were to claim he does die again, but it doesn’t make that claim. Through his intercessory ministry in heaven and through the Mass, Jesus continues to offer himself to his Father as a living sacrifice, and he does so in what the Church specifically states is “an unbloody manner”—one that does not involve a new crucifixion."
I suggest that if you are going to quote Catholic doctrine, you get it straight first.
God bless
D
Dokimas
Guest
You give two examples: where’s the 400,000?
Terminology isn’t doctrine, IMO.
Both are in the Bible.
You know what I think the Bible teaches on this. It sure is doctrine. However, there’s not but a few outlooks, not 40,000 different teachings.
Jesus was immersed wasn’t He? Is He our example? Again only a few variations, not 40,000
D
Dokimas
Guest
Actually, it’s quite reaonable of Dyluck to conclude this. Too many ‘important’ doctrines are based on one verse. Care, indeed, should be taken before one makes a doctrine out of one verse in light of what Dyluck said, if it contradicts the rest of the Bible. God does not contradict Himself, as you know.
D
Dokimas
Guest
I’ve askesd similar questions before, like did Jesus actually mean to cut of a hand or pluck out an eye?You guys are writing too fast for me to respond
Before I respond briefly (as I am at work and difficult to get into detail like I normally like to do), I know what you said about Protestants and “metaphorically”.
You say in your post that I will thinkg that its metaphorically speaking.
Let me ask you something.
When Jesus said that he was the vine and we are the branch, are you litterally a branch and Jesus litterally a vine, or was he talking in a metaphorical sense?
Just food for thought.
Also, please tell me what the different metaphorical meanings to “Bread” / “food” are used in Catholic teachings? i.e. what about the bread. “you cannot live off of bread alone”.
Deuteronomy 8:3
He humbled you, causing you to hunger and then feeding you with manna, which neither you nor your fathers had known, to teach you that man does not live on bread alone but on every word that comes from the mouth of the LORD. - hmmmmmmm
What about “milk” in this statement: Hebrews 5:12-13 ?
N
Nicea325
Guest
Likewise to your question! And I did not ask you,if Jesus quoted scripture…did I? You are a believer everything must be clearly stated in the Bible or else it is false. No where does the Bible teach about explicitly.
T
tqualey
Guest
Hi, Dyluck,
This is an excellent quote from 2Tim 2:15…
Let’s explore it a bit more.
Here we have a vast gulf of disagreement on the Eucharist. This is no minor item that can be ignored and dismissed - this is essential to the Catholic faith, and, to be honest, to all of those who claim to be Christians.
There is all that material I gave you on John 6 that has Chrsit laying the foundation for what He is going to do on the Night Before He Died. Then we have the written statements of Matthew, Mark and Luke who all identify that Christ said that the apparent Bread and Wine He was holding was actually His Body, Blood, Human Soul and Divinity - it was HIM - and He is giving Himself to His Apostles to eat and drink. Then you have St. Paul warning people about not going to the Eucharist unworthily - for they will be condemned (not for a metaphor) but for the Body and Blood of the Lord.
The Catholic Church has the written Word of God that it established in the Canon (the Bible) in about 400AD. Prior to this, we have the Apostolic Tradition that the Consecrated Bread and Wine is the Body of the Lord. We also have the teachings of the Early Church Fathers who praised and honored the Eucharist as the Body and Blood of Christ under the appearance of common bread and wine. The there are the malcontents in the 16th Century who disputed Christ Words, Apostolic Tradition - and established the traditions of men that have tried to debase the Eucharist with grape juice and crackers, saying it is just a ceremony or a memorial and showing callous indifference to the Scripture they claim to hold so dear.
Did Christ appear to Martin or John and tell them He was mistaken or misquoted and that He never meant to give us Body and Blood - that would be crazy (the 1st Century Jews were right all along!
)? Nope, Christ knew what He was doing the Night Before He Died.
So, it would appear to me, Dyluck, that this major part of scripture has NOT be handled very well at all by those who claim to follow Christ, yet disregard His very words.
God bless
This is an excellent quote from 2Tim 2:15…
Let’s explore it a bit more.What do you think, “…accurately handling the word of truth…” means?
Here we have a vast gulf of disagreement on the Eucharist. This is no minor item that can be ignored and dismissed - this is essential to the Catholic faith, and, to be honest, to all of those who claim to be Christians.
There is all that material I gave you on John 6 that has Chrsit laying the foundation for what He is going to do on the Night Before He Died. Then we have the written statements of Matthew, Mark and Luke who all identify that Christ said that the apparent Bread and Wine He was holding was actually His Body, Blood, Human Soul and Divinity - it was HIM - and He is giving Himself to His Apostles to eat and drink. Then you have St. Paul warning people about not going to the Eucharist unworthily - for they will be condemned (not for a metaphor) but for the Body and Blood of the Lord.
The Catholic Church has the written Word of God that it established in the Canon (the Bible) in about 400AD. Prior to this, we have the Apostolic Tradition that the Consecrated Bread and Wine is the Body of the Lord. We also have the teachings of the Early Church Fathers who praised and honored the Eucharist as the Body and Blood of Christ under the appearance of common bread and wine. The there are the malcontents in the 16th Century who disputed Christ Words, Apostolic Tradition - and established the traditions of men that have tried to debase the Eucharist with grape juice and crackers, saying it is just a ceremony or a memorial and showing callous indifference to the Scripture they claim to hold so dear.
Did Christ appear to Martin or John and tell them He was mistaken or misquoted and that He never meant to give us Body and Blood - that would be crazy (the 1st Century Jews were right all along!
)? Nope, Christ knew what He was doing the Night Before He Died.So, it would appear to me, Dyluck, that this major part of scripture has NOT be handled very well at all by those who claim to follow Christ, yet disregard His very words.
God bless
D
dyluck
Guest
Here are a couple of Catholic links you may find helpful, Dyluck, in reading about the Eucharist from a Catholic perspective. Considering that you are on CAF, you may actually find it helps you to focus your argument. You really can’t misquote, mispresent and misdefine Catholic teaching and expect not to be called down for it.Hi, Dyluck,
Actually, Dyluck, that ‘meat’ you served up wasn’t even half-baked… My focus will be on Holy Communion. There are no context problems here. I am, however, hard put to even guess why you omitted all of John 6 in your presentation…
newadvent.org/cathen/05572c.htm (this contains several other links)
newadvent.org/cathen/07402a.htm
catholic.com/library/Institution_of_the_Mass.asp
Let’s take a look at the last link with some detail. Here is what the Catholic Church says about the Mass and there is quite a lot of scripture to back this up…in addition to the teaching authority given to Peter (Matt 16).
“At the Last Supper, on the night he was betrayed, our Savior instituted the Eucharistic Sacrifice of his Body and Blood. He did this in order to perpetuate the sacrifice of the cross throughout the centuries until he should come again, and so to entrust to his beloved spouse, the Church, a memorial of his death and resurrection: a sacrament of love, a sign of unity, a bond of charity, a paschal banquet in which Christ is consumed, the mind is filled with grace, and a pledge of future glory is given to us” (Sacrosanctum Concilium 47).
Even a modestly informed Catholic can set an inquirer right and direct him to biblical accounts of Jesus’ final night with his disciples. Turning to the text, we read, “And he took bread, and when he had given thanks he broke it and gave it to them, saying, ‘This is my body which is given for you. Do this in remembrance of me’” (Luke 22:19).
The Greek here and in the parallel Gospel passages (Matt. 26:26; Mark 14:22) reads: Touto estin to soma mou. Paul’s version differs slightly: Touto mou estin to soma (1 Cor. 11:24). They all translate as “This is my body.” The verb estin is the equivalent of the English “is” and can mean “is really” or “is figuratively.” The usual meaning of estin is the former (check any Greek grammar book), just as, in English, the verb “is” usually is taken literally.
Fundamentalists insist that when Christ says, “This is my body,” he is speaking figuratively. But this interpretation is precluded by Paul’s discussion of the Eucharist in 1 Corinthians 11:23–29 and by the whole tenor of John 6, the chapter where the Eucharist is promised. The Greek word for “body” in John 6:54 is sarx, which means physical flesh, and the word for “eats” (trogon) translates as “gnawing” or “chewing.” This is certainly not the language of metaphor."
The Church teaches that the Mass is the re-presentation of the sacrifice of Calvary, which also is invariably misunderstood by anti-Catholics. The Catholic Church does not teach that the Mass is a re-crucifixion of Christ, who does not suffer and die again in the Mass.
Yet, it is more than just a memorial service. John A. O’Brien, writing in The Faith of Millions, said, “The manner in which the sacrifices are offered is alone different: On the cross Christ really shed his blood and was really slain; in the Mass, however, there is no real shedding of blood, no real death; but the separate consecration of the bread and of the wine symbolizes the separation of the body and blood of Christ and thus symbolizes his death upon the cross. The Mass is the renewal and perpetuation of the sacrifice of the cross in the sense that it offers [Jesus] anew to God . . . and thus commemorates the sacrifice of the cross, reenacts it symbolically and mystically, and applies the fruits of Christ’s death upon the cross to individual human souls. All the efficacy of the Mass is derived, therefore, from the sacrifice of Calvary” (306).
The Catholic Church specifically says Christ does not die again—his death is once for all. It would be something else if the Church were to claim he does die again, but it doesn’t make that claim. Through his intercessory ministry in heaven and through the Mass, Jesus continues to offer himself to his Father as a living sacrifice, and he does so in what the Church specifically states is “an unbloody manner”—one that does not involve a new crucifixion."
I suggest that if you are going to quote Catholic doctrine, you get it straight first.
God bless
Fair enough, I will attempt to quote accurately and target responces to statements.
Honestly, it is difficult as there are publishings of catholic dogma that differ from one another slightly and don’t know which one to focus on necissairly so please forgive my ignorance. i.e. some believe in baby baptism and some do not.
I agree that communion is a celebration and remembering of christ’s death on the cross and what that really means for us (our only salvation). At the end of the day both catholics and protestants celebrate the eucharist for the same end goal. Doing it rememberence of Christ and as a command from Jesus.
The following doesn’t sit quite right, can you go into further detail about this statement? “The Mass is the renewal and perpetuation of the sacrifice of the cross*]… namely this part—> * in the sense that it offers [Jesus] anew to God . . .”.
Thanks
N
Nicea325
Guest
Quote:
Originally Posted by PRmerger
Let’s just talk about Baptism:
Some say it’s an ordinance. (Baptists)
Some say it’s a sacrament. (Lutherans)
Those are doctrinal differences.
Quote:
Some say it must be done using a Trinitarian formula. (Methodists)
Some say it must be done only in Jesus’ name. (Oneness Pentecostalists)
Those are doctrinal differences as well.
Quote:
Some practice infant baptism. (Episcopalians)
Some say one must wait until you are an adult. (Grace Community Church)
Those are doctrinal differences as well.
Quote:
However…
Some say it has to be done by immersion.(Seventh Day Adventists)
Some say it doesn’t matter, as long as water is involved. (Presbyterian)
Those are differences in practice.
Originally Posted by PRmerger
Let’s just talk about Baptism:
Some say it’s an ordinance. (Baptists)
Some say it’s a sacrament. (Lutherans)
Those are doctrinal differences.
Nonetheless, Baptists and Lutherans consider it doctrine. Both differ on the affects and meaning of baptism and as to WHO may receive baptism. Is that terminology or doctrine?
Quote:
Some say it must be done using a Trinitarian formula. (Methodists)
Some say it must be done only in Jesus’ name. (Oneness Pentecostalists)
Those are doctrinal differences as well.
Really? I know Jesus said: baptize them in the name of the Father,the Son, and the Holy Spirit. Where does Jesus say: baptize them my name only?
Quote:
Some practice infant baptism. (Episcopalians)
Some say one must wait until you are an adult. (Grace Community Church)
Those are doctrinal differences as well.
A ‘few’ looks is only one out of many different doctrinal belefs,which can lead to 40,000 different teachings? Most people I know who are coming into the RCC were baptized under the Trinitarian Formula,but they differ a lot on other issues,hence 40,000 different churches/teachings. I had a man who attended a church who baptized adults only over 30 and with water and blood? Terminology or doctrine?
Quote:
However…
Some say it has to be done by immersion.(Seventh Day Adventists)
Some say it doesn’t matter, as long as water is involved. (Presbyterian)
Those are differences in practice.
Yes,but where did Jesus or the Apostles state that is the ONLY valid method? And the RCC also immerses people and I bet the majority are not even aware of it.
D
dyluck
Guest
hmmm did you not ask the question that the bible doesn’t say anything about quoting numbers and verses?
This is true it does not; however, my reply was an example that they didn’t use numbers and verses but did quote other scripture to backup what they were saying by quoting the supporting verse itself. I believe the practicality is proof enough you should back up scriptrue with scripture to make sure you aren’t going on some crazy tangent and making up doctrine for instance.
What do you mean by “teach about explicitly”?
T
tqualey
Guest
Hi, Dyluck,
Well, let’s see what we can do here… First of all, check out this link: catholic.com/library/pillar.asp This will give you an excellent ‘Cliff’s Notes’ version of many Catholic beliefs. Now to your specific question.
Just a couple of clarifications - there is no Catholic site that would discredit or disbelieve infant baptism. If you have found a site that says this - believe me, this IS NOT a Catholic site.
“At the end of the day…” Catholics and protestants are miles apart on the Eucharist. Honest. Catholics believe this is REALLY CHRIST - Physically on the altar, while protestants do not believe Christ’s words and think they only have common food in front of them. Honest, I can not see any way to even begin bridging this chasm, given the two positions. Catholics believe as they do because of three basic considerations: 1- the actual Apostolic Tradition which preceeded Scripture, 2- the written words of Scripture, and 3- the Early Church Fathers - men who were closest in time and geography to where Christ lived and taught.
Christ has risen - and is beyond the context of time, or geography or anyother consideration that we humans use to describe things. Christ could move through walls to meet with His cowardly Apostles - and eat honey and fish to show that He is real. Christ is also the Obedient Son of the Father, and Second Person of the Blessed Trinity. The separate consecration of the Bread and Wine, symbolizes the death of Christ on the Cross where He shed His Last Drop of Blood. Each day the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass is celebrated throughout the world - and common bread and wine is newly consecrated into the Body, Blood, Human Soul and Divinity of Christ - “Do this in rememberance of Me”. Christ’s physical and bloody death on the Cross was in obedience to His Father’s Will - and this UN-bloody sacrifice done thousands of times each day throughout the world, that makes Christ physically present on the altar and this is also a pleasing offering of the Son to His Father.
Christ becomes physically present at the consecration, where the ordained priest takes the role of Christ to perform this miracle - changing common bread and wine into Christ. Catholics are invited to receive Christ - to take Him into their bodies as food, and we are one with Christ. This is pleasing to His Father, too.
There are better ways of answering your question - and, I would hope that others on the list would lend their hand to providing an answer … and correcting any mistakes I may have made.
God bless
Well, let’s see what we can do here… First of all, check out this link: catholic.com/library/pillar.asp This will give you an excellent ‘Cliff’s Notes’ version of many Catholic beliefs. Now to your specific question.
Thanks
Just a couple of clarifications - there is no Catholic site that would discredit or disbelieve infant baptism. If you have found a site that says this - believe me, this IS NOT a Catholic site.
“At the end of the day…” Catholics and protestants are miles apart on the Eucharist. Honest. Catholics believe this is REALLY CHRIST - Physically on the altar, while protestants do not believe Christ’s words and think they only have common food in front of them. Honest, I can not see any way to even begin bridging this chasm, given the two positions. Catholics believe as they do because of three basic considerations: 1- the actual Apostolic Tradition which preceeded Scripture, 2- the written words of Scripture, and 3- the Early Church Fathers - men who were closest in time and geography to where Christ lived and taught.
Christ has risen - and is beyond the context of time, or geography or anyother consideration that we humans use to describe things. Christ could move through walls to meet with His cowardly Apostles - and eat honey and fish to show that He is real. Christ is also the Obedient Son of the Father, and Second Person of the Blessed Trinity. The separate consecration of the Bread and Wine, symbolizes the death of Christ on the Cross where He shed His Last Drop of Blood. Each day the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass is celebrated throughout the world - and common bread and wine is newly consecrated into the Body, Blood, Human Soul and Divinity of Christ - “Do this in rememberance of Me”. Christ’s physical and bloody death on the Cross was in obedience to His Father’s Will - and this UN-bloody sacrifice done thousands of times each day throughout the world, that makes Christ physically present on the altar and this is also a pleasing offering of the Son to His Father.
Christ becomes physically present at the consecration, where the ordained priest takes the role of Christ to perform this miracle - changing common bread and wine into Christ. Catholics are invited to receive Christ - to take Him into their bodies as food, and we are one with Christ. This is pleasing to His Father, too.
There are better ways of answering your question - and, I would hope that others on the list would lend their hand to providing an answer … and correcting any mistakes I may have made.
God bless
P
PRmerger
Guest
I hope that you’re not saying that every reference in Scripture is a metaphor, are you?You guys are writing too fast for me to respond
Before I respond briefly (as I am at work and difficult to get into detail like I normally like to do), I know what you said about Protestants and “metaphorically”.
You say in your post that I will thinkg that its metaphorically speaking.
Let me ask you something.
When Jesus said that he was the vine and we are the branch, are you litterally a branch and Jesus litterally a vine, or was he talking in a metaphorical sense?
Just food for thought.
Also, please tell me what the different metaphorical meanings to “Bread” / “food” are used in Catholic teachings? i.e. what about the bread. “you cannot live off of bread alone”.
Deuteronomy 8:3
He humbled you, causing you to hunger and then feeding you with manna, which neither you nor your fathers had known, to teach you that man does not live on bread alone but on every word that comes from the mouth of the LORD. - hmmmmmmm
What about “milk” in this statement: Hebrews 5:12-13 ?
P
PRmerger
Guest
PRmerger said:
However,*** not a single verse*** says what you were asked to provide: something which says this:
“if it does not line up with the rest of scripture then, perhaps, you are taking the 1 verse out of context.” Not even close!
I find it quite curious how liberal you are in applying Scriptures to your paradigm–you can say, “well, it doesn’t exactly say that you have to have another Scripture verse to support your 1 verse”…but look at all these verses…
Yet you are adamantine about having to find the word “assumption” or “purgatory” in the Bible.
Quite curious indeed!
dyluck responded with these verses:
To which all Catholics respond with a hearty “Amen!”
However,*** not a single verse*** says what you were asked to provide: something which says this:
“if it does not line up with the rest of scripture then, perhaps, you are taking the 1 verse out of context.” Not even close!
I find it quite curious how liberal you are in applying Scriptures to your paradigm–you can say, “well, it doesn’t exactly say that you have to have another Scripture verse to support your 1 verse”…but look at all these verses…
Yet you are adamantine about having to find the word “assumption” or “purgatory” in the Bible.
Quite curious indeed!
P
PRmerger
Guest
Ok.
You agree that it was the Holy Spirit that inspired some men to write infallibly the Gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John. We don’t say that these men are infallible of their own accord–but only by the guidance of the Spirit of God.
Similarly, that’s what the CC teaches about the Magisterium of the Church. It is not infallible of its own accord, but only by guidance of the Spirit of God.
P
PRmerger
Guest
Do the math, Dokimas. Take this, plus all the other doctrinal differences and it’s possible to get*** hundreds of thousands*** of different permutations.
Also, you added an extra zero in your post above.
If “ordinance” and “sacrament” were synonymous then you’d be correct. But there are huge DOCTRINAL differences between the two terms.
So what does God want us to do? Baptize in Jesus’ name or baptize using the Trinitarian formula?
If you say you don’t know, that’s part of the chaos and confusion that arises from leaving the deposit of faith left to you by the Apostles. You get confused and don’t know.
Doki, clearly I am not saying that on every doctrine there’s 40,000 different teachings. :whacky:
And your saying it “sure is doctrine” is your man-made, fallible, non-authoritative opinion. Obviously, other Christians believe differently.
If you’re going to say that you follow the example of how Jesus was baptized, does your church baptize in a river? Specifically, the river Jordan where Jesus was baptized?
And I hope you understand this very important point–it’s silly for you to keep saying on each issue there are not 40,000 different understandings of each issue. No one here is saying that.
What we are saying is that there’s 40,000 different understandings (or, I’ll even say “only” 33,000 different understandings) of God’s Revelation. So different that people will LEAVE one denomination and either form their own or find another one that conforms to their own understanding. :sad_yes:
P
PRmerger
Guest
So where’s this found in the Bible, that you have to base doctrines on more than one verse?
N
Nicea325
Guest
You think what I asked you is silly,but you mentioned as well about “verse 1…” is also silly,which is my point.
Yes,many Bible-Only folks truly believe: If cannot find the term in the Bible,then it is false. The point is being the Bible does not teach or claim doctrines/dogmas must be explicitly defined or explained. Does the Bible explicitly define the three distinct persons of the Trinity? nope! The Church did that for us and thus we have the doctrine of the Trinity.
D
Dokimas
Guest
I apologize for keeping you off topic. Sorry.
My baptism: As adult believer; immersed, in a swimming pool. Compared to Jesus: 2 out of 4.
CC baptism: infant, sprinkling, in church. Compared to Jesus: 0 out of 3
Since both are found in the Bible, they are both correct.
P
PRmerger
Guest
What verse tells you that you have to get 2 out of 4 correct?
- Status