Why Do We Take The Bible Literally ?

[SyCarl]

SyCarl,

It’s handy for you that you have had time to study the entire New Testament, or at least all the Gospels, in the time since I have posted that information.

Since I don’t have the same superhuman skills, it will take me more time to study them. Don’t depend on my agreeing with you or take the lack of an immediate response as some sort of tacit agreement.

It would be refreshing to see someone take something offered up in the spirit in which it was offered, instead of using it as another means to rip and tear. But that’s not on my head. Good luck with that.

I did not mean to rip and tear but what you raised, while it may be a new argument to you, is really quite an old argument that has been used many times on these forums and elsewhere. I should not have assumed that you knew this. However the answer I gave remains valid.

 

[MelanieAnne]

I did not mean to rip and tear but what you raised, while it may be a new argument to you, is really quite an old argument that has been used many times on these forums and elsewhere. I should not have assumed that you knew this. However the answer I gave remains valid.

You missed the point, again. Have a nice life. CLICK.

 

[SyCarl]

You missed the point, again. Have a nice life. CLICK.

Please explain the point I have missed. Seriously, I did not mean to be offensive and, if I was, I apologize.

 

[MariaG]

Are you protestants here to learn about christs church aka the catholic church or are you here to amuse us with ignorant uneducated remarks and misconstrude interpretations of the bible? Your not going to convince catholics to go astray from christs church so either enter the sight to learn or move on!

Are you here to help be a good witness for Christ and the Catholic CHurch or just throw around insults in your frustration?

This site is to educate, but you cannot expect everyone to hear what we beleive to be the truth and say, “of course”!

Patience is a virtue. Practice it here on these forums:thumbsup:

Respectfully,
Maria

 

[MariaG]

I would add
Matt13:10And the disciples came, and said unto him, Why speakest thou unto them in parables? 11He answered and said unto them, Because it is given unto you to know the mysteries of the kingdom of heaven, but to them it is not given. 12For whosoever hath, to him shall be given, and he shall have more abundance: but whosoever hath not, from him shall be taken away even that he hath. 13Therefore speak I to them in parables: because they seeing see not; and hearing they hear not, neither do they understand. 14And in them is fulfilled the prophecy of Esaias, which saith, By hearing ye shall hear, and shall not understand; and seeing ye shall see, and shall not perceive: 15For this people’s heart is waxed gross, and their ears are dull of hearing, and their eyes they have closed; lest at any time they should see with their eyes and hear with their ears, and should understand with their heart, and should be converted, and I should heal them. 16But blessed are your eyes, for they see: and your ears, for they hear. 17For verily I say unto you, That many prophets and righteous men have desired to see those things which ye see, and have not seen them; and to hear those things which ye hear, and have not heard them.

34All these things spake Jesus unto the multitude in parables; and without a parable spake he not unto them:

Also, in Jn 6:53 Jesus says: Then Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, ye have no life in you. And in verse 63 He tells us exactly what He means 63It is the spirit that quickeneth; the flesh profiteth nothing: the words that I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are life. So Jesus is telling us that it is His words that we are to digest and understand and it is His words that give us life. The flesh of the son of man is explained in Jn 1:14And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth. When He says in verse 63 that the flesh profiteth nothing He is talking of the spirit of the world or sin
Rom7:25I thank God through Jesus Christ our Lord. So then with the mind I myself serve the law of God; but with the flesh the law of sin.
Rom8:8So then they that are in the flesh cannot please God.

We must digest the WORD OF GOD because it is through the WORD OF GOD that we are saved Jn17: 17Sanctify them through thy truth: thy word is truth. And it is only through Jesus THE WORD OF GOD that we attain eternal life.Jn14:6Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me.

In Christ Richard

Hi Richard

I am not as eloquent as some on this, but it seems as if your argument is dealt with here, in the faith tract Christ in the Eucharist down at “their main argument”

What say you?

God Bless,
Maria

 

[MariaG]

Please explain the point I have missed. Seriously, I did not mean to be offensive and, if I was, I apologize.

I think some get flustered when they can’t counter an argument

I may not be able to counter all your arguments, but that doesn’t mean there isn’t one

Although, it almost appeared to me that your fellow protestant may have posted one himself unintentionally, which was that Christ explained that he did not in fact intend all to understand.

God Bless,
Maria

 

[jake23]

I would add
Matt13:10And the disciples came, and said unto him, Why speakest thou unto them in parables? 11He answered and said unto them, Because it is given unto you to know the mysteries of the kingdom of heaven, but to them it is not given. 12For whosoever hath, to him shall be given, and he shall have more abundance: but whosoever hath not, from him shall be taken away even that he hath. 13Therefore speak I to them in parables: because they seeing see not; and hearing they hear not, neither do they understand. 14And in them is fulfilled the prophecy of Esaias, which saith, By hearing ye shall hear, and shall not understand; and seeing ye shall see, and shall not perceive: 15For this people’s heart is waxed gross, and their ears are dull of hearing, and their eyes they have closed; lest at any time they should see with their eyes and hear with their ears, and should understand with their heart, and should be converted, and I should heal them. 16But blessed are your eyes, for they see: and your ears, for they hear. 17For verily I say unto you, That many prophets and righteous men have desired to see those things which ye see, and have not seen them; and to hear those things which ye hear, and have not heard them.

34All these things spake Jesus unto the multitude in parables; and without a parable spake he not unto them:

Also, in Jn 6:53 Jesus says: Then Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, ye have no life in you. And in verse 63 He tells us exactly what He means 63It is the spirit that quickeneth; the flesh profiteth nothing: the words that I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are life. So Jesus is telling us that it is His words that we are to digest and understand and it is His words that give us life. The flesh of the son of man is explained in Jn 1:14And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth. When He says in verse 63 that the flesh profiteth nothing He is talking of the spirit of the world or sin
Rom7:25I thank God through Jesus Christ our Lord. So then with the mind I myself serve the law of God; but with the flesh the law of sin.
Rom8:8So then they that are in the flesh cannot please God.

We must digest the WORD OF GOD because it is through the WORD OF GOD that we are saved Jn17: 17Sanctify them through thy truth: thy word is truth. And it is only through Jesus THE WORD OF GOD that we attain eternal life.Jn14:6Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me.

In Christ Richard

Yes richard poeple like me saw and heard christ with an open heart and came home to the catholic church! I pray that you will do the same!

 

[MelanieAnne]

I think some get flustered when they can’t counter an argument

I may not be able to counter all your arguments, but that doesn’t mean there isn’t one

Although, it almost appeared to me that your fellow protestant may have posted one himself unintentionally, which was that Christ explained that he did not in fact intend all to understand.

God Bless,
Maria

Hi Maria,

I think SyCarl was talking to me in the post that you quoted. When I discern that a discussion will not be productive, I do not continue. It is not from lack of an ability to counter an argument as you have suggested, but instead it is a desire to use time and resources productively.

Reasoned, civil discourse is interesting and can be enjoyable. Sometimes it appears that certain posters are here not to have reasoned, civil discourse, but instead are here to fight, just for the sake of fighting, some are here to attempt to convert others to their way of thinking/believing. Some posters can be extremely uncivil and unreasonable in the process. I have no interest whatsoever in continuing to engage such persons.

I only have so much time, so I choose to ignore such individuals ~ I often will use the “ignore” feature to do so ~ and devote myself to more productive and uplifting pursuits. Some persons consider this choice to be a sign of inability or fear. I am not fooled by such suggestions, which are actually only provocations designed to continue the unproductive discourse. The choice to take myself out of such discussions is, instead, a choice made out of a disinterest in unproductive activity.

Hope this helps!

 

[Richard_Kastner]

Hi Richard

I am not as eloquent as some on this, but it seems as if your argument is dealt with here, in the faith tract Christ in the Eucharist down at “their main argument”

What say you?

God Bless,
Maria

Hi Maria, I was just rereading some of these posts and I saw your “what say you” at the end of this post and I thought I had better respond. First of all here is a site you might find interesting.
www.piney.com/FathClemPedIVIb.html
As for the arcticle you post. It has some serious flaws. Under the heading “Again and Again” It states: The Jews then disputed among themselves, saying, ‘How can this man give us his flesh to eat?’" (John 6:51–52).

His listeners were stupefied because now they understood Jesus literally—and correctly." Well they obviously didn’t understand Him correctly because it says that “they walked no more with Him” The only ones that stayed were the twelve.

Under the heading No Corrections is this:" Notice that Jesus made no attempt to soften what he said, no attempt to correct “misunderstandings,” for there were none. Our Lord’s listeners understood him perfectly well. They no longer thought he was speaking metaphorically. If they had, if they mistook what he said, why no correction?"

Of coarse He didn’t make any corrections because He didn’t make any mistakes. He said exactly what He wanted to say and they mistook Him and as a result walked no more with Him. As to why He didn’t call them back and explain to them what He meant, refer to Matt13:10-17 which I posted previosly

Under "Merely Figurative? It states:
They quote John 6:35: “Jesus said to them, ‘I am the bread of life; he who comes to me shall not hunger, and he who believes in me shall never thirst.’” They claim that coming to him is bread, having faith in him is drink. Thus, eating his flesh and blood merely means believing in Christ.

As if beleiving in Christ were a small thing. Hear this well Maria. Our eternal destiny hangs on wether or not we “merely” believe in Jesus.
Then there is this:
But there is a problem with that interpretation. As Fr. John A. O’Brien explains, “The phrase ‘to eat the flesh and drink the blood,’ when used figuratively among the Jews, as among the Arabs of today, meant to inflict upon a person some serious injury, especially by calumny or by false accusation. To interpret the phrase figuratively then would be to make our Lord promise life everlasting to the culprit for slandering and hating him, which would reduce the whole passage to utter nonsense” (O’Brien, The Faith of Millions, 215). For an example of this use, see Micah 3:3.
Who is this so called fr. Obrien and why does he get to say what is the only thing Jesus could have meant if He were talking figuratively. What Jesus meant by eating His flesh was digesting His words Jn 1:14
I’m going to sign off for now. It’s getting late. I’ll pick it up tomorrow.

In Christ Richard

 

[jake23]

Hi Maria, I was just rereading some of these posts and I saw your “what say you” at the end of this post and I thought I had better respond. First of all here is a site you might find interesting.
www.piney.com/FathClemPedIVIb.html
As for the arcticle you post. It has some serious flaws. Under the heading “Again and Again” It states: The Jews then disputed among themselves, saying, ‘How can this man give us his flesh to eat?’" (John 6:51–52).

His listeners were stupefied because now they understood Jesus literally—and correctly." Well they obviously didn’t understand Him correctly because it says that “they walked no more with Him” The only ones that stayed were the twelve.

Under the heading No Corrections is this:" Notice that Jesus made no attempt to soften what he said, no attempt to correct “misunderstandings,” for there were none. Our Lord’s listeners understood him perfectly well. They no longer thought he was speaking metaphorically. If they had, if they mistook what he said, why no correction?"

Of coarse He didn’t make any corrections because He didn’t make any mistakes. He said exactly what He wanted to say and they mistook Him and as a result walked no more with Him. As to why He didn’t call them back and explain to them what He meant, refer to Matt13:10-17 which I posted previosly

Under "Merely Figurative? It states:
They quote John 6:35: “Jesus said to them, ‘I am the bread of life; he who comes to me shall not hunger, and he who believes in me shall never thirst.’” They claim that coming to him is bread, having faith in him is drink. Thus, eating his flesh and blood merely means believing in Christ.

As if beleiving in Christ were a small thing. Hear this well Maria. Our eternal destiny hangs on wether or not we “merely” believe in Jesus.
Then there is this:
But there is a problem with that interpretation. As Fr. John A. O’Brien explains, “The phrase ‘to eat the flesh and drink the blood,’ when used figuratively among the Jews, as among the Arabs of today, meant to inflict upon a person some serious injury, especially by calumny or by false accusation. To interpret the phrase figuratively then would be to make our Lord promise life everlasting to the culprit for slandering and hating him, which would reduce the whole passage to utter nonsense” (O’Brien, The Faith of Millions, 215). For an example of this use, see Micah 3:3.
Who is this so called fr. Obrien and why does he get to say what is the only thing Jesus could have meant if He were talking figuratively. What Jesus meant by eating His flesh was digesting His words Jn 1:14
I’m going to sign off for now. It’s getting late. I’ll pick it up tomorrow.

In Christ Richard

Wow rich I didn’t know that you got a degree in biblical history and language like fr. Obrian and other priests? Where I’d you get your degree at since you know the interpretations? Yes christ meant literally that’s why people would call the first christians canabalist. You would know that if you studied eastern history!

 

[Richard_Kastner]

Wow rich I didn’t know that you got a degree in biblical history and language like fr. Obrian and other priests? Where I’d you get your degree at since you know the interpretations? Yes christ meant literally that’s why people would call the first christians canabalist. You would know that if you studied eastern history!

What’s your point brother.

In Christ Richard

 

[jake23]

What’s your point brother.

In Christ Richard

You are interpreting without aprant knowledge of history! It is vain of a person to pick up the bible and assume the meanings are what you interpret personally! The historical texts show the catholic rituals to be correct. Theres nothing to imply different besides opinion without any evidence! What little evidence we have implies the catholic way! Anything else is vain ignorance of man!

 

[Richard_Kastner]

I don’t think that I am going to critique this whole article but I would like to say something about “Their Main Argument”
Here is the first paragraph
For Fundamentalist writers, the scriptural argument is capped by an appeal to John 6:63: “It is the spirit that gives life, the flesh is of no avail; the words that I have spoken to you are spirit and life.” They say this means that eating real flesh is a waste. But does this make sense?
Notice what I have underlined. The writer of this article says: “They say” I’m assuming he means every fundamentalist or evangelical who has ever written or dialoged on this subject says that Jesus is talking about real flesh. This is just the most ridiculous statement I have ever seen. I have never seen anyone use this assertiopn on either side of the question. Therefore this just is not true. Further now that I think about it. If you are Catholic and take these verses literally this argument must refer to your view. In other words Jesus can’t “mean” something other that the actual words that He spoke. So when the writer of this article says:
In John 6:63 “flesh profits nothing” refers to mankind’s inclination to think using only what their natural human reason would tell them rather than what God would tell them.
He is arguing against himself because according to the literalist veiw “flesh” cannot "refer to anything but flesh.

In Christ Richard

 

[Richard_Kastner]

You are interpreting without aprant knowledge of history! It is vain of a person to pick up the bible and assume the meanings are what you interpret personally! The historical texts show the catholic rituals to be correct. Theres nothing to imply different besides opinion without any evidence! What little evidence we have implies the catholic way! Anything else is vain ignorance of man!

I’m not assuming anything. If you will go back and look at my posts I use the bible extensively. This is not my personal interpretation. I use the bible to explain the bible. What historical texts are you talking about? And who really cares what historical texts say. They are the words of man and as such are flawed. By Catholic rituals I’m assuming you mean the ritual of the eucharist. And as I have shown in previous posts there is quite a bit that not only implies, but flat out states a different and true way.

Jake, Did you read that last statement before you posted it. What you are saying is that anything but the “histoical texts” is “vain ignorance of man” I don’t know what you think the bible is but it certainly is not the vain ignorance of man. It is THE WORD OF GOD.

In Christ Richard

 

[jake23]

I’m not assuming anything. If you will go back and look at my posts I use the bible extensively. This is not my personal interpretation. I use the bible to explain the bible. What historical texts are you talking about? And who really cares what historical texts say. They are the words of man and as such are flawed. By Catholic rituals I’m assuming you mean the ritual of the eucharist. And as I have shown in previous posts there is quite a bit that not only implies, but flat out states a different and true way.

Jake, Did you read that last statement before you posted it. What you are saying is that anything but the “histoical texts” is “vain ignorance of man” I don’t know what you think the bible is but it certainly is not the vain ignorance of man. It is THE WORD OF GOD.

In Christ Richard

Wow! Right over your head!good luck with your bible reading!

 

[maryrev12]

I’m not assuming anything. If you will go back and look at my posts I use the bible extensively. This is not my personal interpretation. I use the bible to explain the bible. What historical texts are you talking about? And who really cares what historical texts say. They are the words of man and as such are flawed. By Catholic rituals I’m assuming you mean the ritual of the eucharist. And as I have shown in previous posts there is quite a bit that not only implies, but flat out states a different and true way.

Jake, Did you read that last statement before you posted it. What you are saying is that anything but the “histoical texts” is “vain ignorance of man” I don’t know what you think the bible is but it certainly is not the vain ignorance of man. It is THE WORD OF GOD.

In Christ Richard

Jesus is the passover Lamb of God. Crucial to the ritual of the passover is YOU EAT THE Lamb.

Animal sacrifice today seems absurd- yet for thousands of years it was practiced by our Lord’s chosen people. Similarly it is difficult to understand why the Lord chose to offer himself humbly as our passover lamb. God’s mercy knows no end!

READ THIS

zuserver2.star.ucl.ac.uk/~vgg/rc/aplgtc/hahn/m4/ech.html

and may God bless you and pull the veil from your eyes. If you pray sincerely about this the Lord will reveal it to you. He wants you to belong to His body.

 

[Richard_Kastner]

Jesus is the passover Lamb of God. Crucial to the ritual of the passover is YOU EAT THE Lamb.

Animal sacrifice today seems absurd- yet for thousands of years it was practiced by our Lord’s chosen people. Similarly it is difficult to understand why the Lord chose to offer himself humbly as our passover lamb. God’s mercy knows no end!

READ THIS

zuserver2.star.ucl.ac.uk/~vgg/rc/aplgtc/hahn/m4/ech.html

and may God bless you and pull the veil from your eyes. If you pray sincerely about this the Lord will reveal it to you. He wants you to belong to His body.

A few paragraphs into the introduction is about all I could take of your article, but it was enough to show just how skewed the Catholic idea of the sacrifice of Jesus really is and how it is in total conflict with the word of God. Here is a snipet from the article

So in the Eucharist Our Lord Jesus Christ body and blood, soul and divinity is offered to the Father continually in an unbloody manner.

Notice what I have underlined and if you will read these bible passages from Hebrews 9&10

1For the law having a shadow of good things to come, and not the very image of the things, can never with those sacrifices which they offered year by year continually make the comers thereunto perfect. 2For then would they not have ceased to be offered? because that the worshippers once purged should have had no more conscience of sins. 3But in those sacrifices there is a remembrance again made of sins every year. 4For it is not possible that the blood of bulls and of goats should take away sins. 5Wherefore when he cometh into the world, he saith, Sacrifice and offering thou wouldest not, but a body hast thou prepared me: 6In burnt offerings and sacrifices for sin thou hast had no pleasure. 7Then said I, Lo, I come (in the volume of the book it is written of me,) to do thy will, O God. 8Above when he said, Sacrifice and offering and burnt offerings and offering for sin thou wouldest not, neither hadst pleasure therein; which are offered by the law; 9Then said he, Lo, I come to do thy will, O God. He taketh away the first, that he may establish the second.
10By the which will we are sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all.

20Saying, This is the blood of the testament which God hath enjoined unto you. 21Moreover he sprinkled with blood both the tabernacle, and all the vessels of the ministry. 22And almost all things are by the law purged with blood; and without shedding of blood is no remission.

If you will notice what I have underlined in these verses. As you see Jesus sacrifice was made once for all. Jesus set aside His divinity and became a man for one reason to be sacrificed on the cross ONCE FOR ALL. and in Hebrews 10 we see that without the shedding of blood there is no remission of sins. So if this is true and it is because it is the word of God. What value is your Catholic sacrifice?

In Christ Richard

 

[maryrev12]

A few paragraphs into the introduction is about all I could take of your article, but it was enough to show just how skewed the Catholic idea of the sacrifice of Jesus really is and how it is in total conflict with the word of God. Here is a snipet from the article

So in the Eucharist Our Lord Jesus Christ body and blood, soul and divinity is offered to the Father continually in an unbloody manner.

Notice what I have underlined and if you will read these bible passages from Hebrews 9&10

1For the law having a shadow of good things to come, and not the very image of the things, can never with those sacrifices which they offered year by year continually make the comers thereunto perfect. 2For then would they not have ceased to be offered? because that the worshippers once purged should have had no more conscience of sins. 3But in those sacrifices there is a remembrance again made of sins every year. 4For it is not possible that the blood of bulls and of goats should take away sins. 5Wherefore when he cometh into the world, he saith, Sacrifice and offering thou wouldest not, but a body hast thou prepared me: 6In burnt offerings and sacrifices for sin thou hast had no pleasure. 7Then said I, Lo, I come (in the volume of the book it is written of me,) to do thy will, O God. 8Above when he said, Sacrifice and offering and burnt offerings and offering for sin thou wouldest not, neither hadst pleasure therein; which are offered by the law; 9Then said he, Lo, I come to do thy will, O God. He taketh away the first, that he may establish the second.
10By the which will we are sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all.

20Saying, This is the blood of the testament which God hath enjoined unto you. 21Moreover he sprinkled with blood both the tabernacle, and all the vessels of the ministry. 22And almost all things are by the law purged with blood; and without shedding of blood is no remission.

If you will notice what I have underlined in these verses. As you see Jesus sacrifice was made once for all. Jesus set aside His divinity and became a man for one reason to be sacrificed on the cross ONCE FOR ALL. and in Hebrews 10 we see that without the shedding of blood there is no remission of sins. So if this is true and it is because it is the word of God. What value is your Catholic sacrifice?

In Christ Richard

TITUS

56-2:11 For the grace of God that bringeth salvation hath appeared to all men,

I’m sorry you didn’t read it all. It wasn’t that long. The phrase “once for all” can be taken the way you take it or the way it was intended. The sacrifices being offered by the Jewish people were multiple sacrifices yearly. "Once for all meant exactly what it says… Christ sacrifice was offered once for all the other sacrifices… no other sacrifices are necessary.

How else can we as members of his body take part in this sacrifice? For the passover feast as it was also called the sacrifice was consumed at passover. We are invited to the feast - each mass. It is an eternal sacrifice- what does eternal mean? Even we 2000 years later can take part in the passover!

read the whole thing!
In Christ

 

[ncgolf]

So in the Eucharist Our Lord Jesus Christ body and blood, soul and divinity is offered to the Father continually in an unbloody manner.

Notice what I have underlined and if you will read these bible passages from Hebrews 9&10

1For the law having a shadow of good things to come, and not the very image of the things, can never with those sacrifices which they offered year by year continually make the comers thereunto perfect. 2For then would they not have ceased to be offered? because that the worshippers once purged should have had no more conscience of sins. 3But in those sacrifices there is a remembrance again made of sins every year. 4For it is not possible that the blood of bulls and of goats should take away sins. 5Wherefore when he cometh into the world, he saith, Sacrifice and offering thou wouldest not, but a body hast thou prepared me: 6In burnt offerings and sacrifices for sin thou hast had no pleasure. 7Then said I, Lo, I come (in the volume of the book it is written of me,) to do thy will, O God. 8Above when he said, Sacrifice and offering and burnt offerings and offering for sin thou wouldest not, neither hadst pleasure therein; which are offered by the law; 9Then said he, Lo, I come to do thy will, O God. He taketh away the first, that he may establish the second.
10By the which will we are sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all.

20Saying, This is the blood of the testament which God hath enjoined unto you. 21Moreover he sprinkled with blood both the tabernacle, and all the vessels of the ministry. 22And almost all things are by the law purged with blood; and without shedding of blood is no remission.

If you will notice what I have underlined in these verses. As you see Jesus sacrifice was made once for all.

No one disputes Christ died once on the cross.

Nothing in your underlined passages contradict the teachings of the Catholic Church. Now given the lens of the way you were taught to interpret these passages … they do seem to be in conflict.

Catholics follow the Apostolic teachings … the Apostles teach us in the what the Lord has commanded. If you do not use the Apostles as your teachers then you do not follow as Christ instructed.

Matthew 28:19-20
19 Go, therefore, and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the holy Spirit,
20 teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you. And behold, I am with you always, until the end of the age."

Luke 24
30 And it happened that, while he was with them at table, he took bread, said the blessing, broke it, and gave it to them.
31 With that their eyes were opened and they recognized him, but he vanished from their sight.

The “blessing” spoke by Christ are the words from the Last Supper … This is my body. Look at the results of eating this bread … their eyes are opened.

This is but one of the observances left by Christ to be taught and passed on.

Jesus set aside His divinity and became a man for one reason to be sacrificed on the cross ONCE FOR ALL.

This may be heresy … the divinity and humanity coexisted fully in the person of Jesus Christ. The divinity was not set aside and is no way supported by Scripture.

Hebrews 10 we see that without the shedding of blood there is no remission of sins.

You are correct … but only the blood of Christ.

So if this is true and it is because it is the word of God. What value is your Catholic sacrifice?

It is precisely because of who the offering is … Jesus is not re-sacrificed and in no way is this taught by the Catholic Church. The one sacrifice is made present by the words of “blessing” left by Christ.

I can see that if the Apostolic teachers are not your guide then this would seem to be in conflict with your views.

 

[MelanieAnne]

NCGolf ~ it may help you to understand the views of someone like Kastner when you understand that such persons find the Catholic understanding of the Eucharist to be blasphemous. I’m not making this up, because he’s stated as much, and has used words like “blasphemous” to describe the Eucharist, on this forum. His is a Protestant and his understanding of the Eucharist virulently anti-“Real Presence” or anti “Transubstantiation” (which are distinguishable concepts).

Luckily for Protestants we only find their views lacking in the Fullness of Truth. We don’t find the need to behave the same way

We know that all Christians have some measure of Truth, just not all of it. They can choose to subsist on some remnant of Truth or they can have it all. It’s available. Kastner and others like him (and I’m not criticizing anyone personally, just using examples) can stay within the safe confines of their Protestant views or they can have the Fullness of Truth, which requires them to grow and discover new things, even tho’ those things are actually very ancient because they go back to the earliest days of the Church.

It’s actually the early Church that they’re missing because much of Sacred Tradition comes from there. They reject all of that, even though it originally comes from the Apostles. It’s their choice and they definitely have a choice. They can accept or continue to reject, but they cannot change the facts.

The Early Church preserved the teachings of Christ even before things were written down. When you confine yourself to only those things in writing i.e. the Bible, even the abbreviated Protestant version) and only those writings that haven’t been discarded, you miss out. Protestants miss out not only on the books of the Bible that they rejected but also on all the teachings of the Apostles from the earliest times.

In the end, it’s often a function of learning. When people learn about the Early Church and read the writings of the Early Church Fathers, they realize the truth and come home. Of course if someone deliberately refuses such information, it makes it much more difficult for them.