How many former Catholics are here?

[BreadOfLife]

You are right...the definitions for cannibalism and vampirism never change.

We don’t eat literal human tissue – muscle, veins, etc. Jests gave us a sacramental way to consume Him at the Last Supper. We consume His glorified Body and Blood. It’s the SAME body that hung on the cross and bled for our sins. When Jesus said, “This IS my body” and “This IS my blood” (Matth. 26, Mark 14, Luke 22) – He wasn’t pretending.

Paul reiterates this and peaks to the reality of the Eucharist - and the severity of the consequences to those who take this lightly . . .

1 Cor. 11:27-30
“Therefore whoever eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord unworthily will have to answer for the body and blood of the Lord. A person should examine himself, and so eat the bread and drink the cup. For anyone who eats and drinks without discerning the body, eats and drinks judgment on himself. That is why many among you are ill and infirm, and a considerable number are dying.”

This is pretty harsh language for something that non-Catholics claim is only a “symbol”.
It directly correlates to the Bread of Life Discourse in John 6, where Jesus stated in NO uncertain terms:
John 6:52-56
“Amen, amen, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you do not have life within you.
Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him on the last day. For my flesh is true food, and my blood is true drink. Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood remains in me and I in him.”

In FOUR short verses, He tells His disciples THREE times that they must eat His flesh and drink His blood.
THEN, He explains that it is REAL food and REAL drink.

The usual Greek word used for human eating is “phagon”. However, this is NOT the word used in these passages. John uses the word, “trogon”, which means, “to munch or to gnaw “- the way an animal eats. Jesus was again using hyperbole as he often did to drive his point across so that the crowd would understand that he was NOT speaking metaphorically. He meant what he said.

Just as the Paschal Lamb was to be eaten, it is also true for the Lamb of God.
In verse 60, his disciples said, "This saying is hard; who can accept it?"

Did Jesus explain what he "really" meant? NO - He said: "Does this shock you?"
He knew that some couldn’t believe because they didn't have true faith from the Father. They were as disgusted and confused as YOU are – so they walked away from Jesus and returned to their former way of life (John 6:66).

After they left Him - Jesus turns to the Twelve and asked them:
"Do YOU also want to leave?" (John 6:67)

If it was just a "metaphor" - why didn't Jesus explain it to the Twelve like He usually did?
"Cannibalism" and "vampirism", indeed . . .

 

[amigo de christo]

as usual its a log on log battle with this generation .
W hich will give what seems as the vicotory to the HARLOT and all who do sit under her .

 

[BreadOfLife]

Now go and sin no more lest a worse thing come upon you .
ITS time for The preaching OF JESUS and an all out exodus outta sold out systems and churches .
bible time . Oh yeah , bible time .

And yet I see YOU sin on this forum EVERY day as you judge the hearts of your opponents.

Only GOD can judge a person's heart (1 Sam. 6:7, Matt. 7:1). YOUR job as a follower of Christ is to judge a person’s fruit – NOT their heart. Otherwise, you’re just a hypocrite who will be exposed at your Judgement

“Bible Time” doesn’t help you ONE bit if you’re not obeying it . . .

 

[Big Boy Johnson]

And yet I see YOU sin on this forum EVERY day as you judge the hearts of your opponents.

1 Corinthians 5:11-13
But now I have written unto you not to keep company, if any man that is called a brother be a fornicator, or covetous, or an idolater, or a railer, or a drunkard, or an extortioner; with such an one no not to eat.
For what have I to do to judge them also that are without? do not ye judge them that are within?
But them that are without God judgeth. Therefore put away from among yourselves that wicked person.

Catholics are idolaters so Christians should "put away from among yourselves that wicked person"

 

[shepherdsword]

We don’t eat literal human tissue – muscle, veins, etc. Jests gave us a sacramental way to consume Him at the Last Supper. We consume His glorified Body and Blood. It’s the SAME body that hung on the cross and bled for our sins. When Jesus said, “This IS my body” and “This IS my blood” (Matth. 26, Mark 14, Luke 22) – He wasn’t pretending.

It wasn't his glorified body that hung on the cross. He did not receive that until AFTER his resurrection

Paul reiterates this and peaks to the reality of the Eucharist - and the severity of the consequences to those who take this lightly . . .

1 Cor. 11:27-30
“Therefore whoever eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord unworthily will have to answer for the body and blood of the Lord. A person should examine himself, and so eat the bread and drink the cup. For anyone who eats and drinks without discerning the body, eats and drinks judgment on himself. That is why many among you are ill and infirm, and a considerable number are dying.”

This is pretty harsh language for something that non-Catholics claim is only a “symbol”.

You don't understand how powerful this symbol is. It actually brings us into the intimate fellowship of the Trinity. It is a symbolic totality that spans his death, resurrection and glorification. Saying it is "just" a symbol fails to consider this.

It directly correlates to the Bread of Life Discourse in John 6, where Jesus stated in NO uncertain terms:
John 6:52-56
“Amen, amen, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you do not have life within you.
Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him on the last day. For my flesh is true food, and my blood is true drink. Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood remains in me and I in him.”

In FOUR short verses, He tells His disciples THREE times that they must eat His flesh and drink His blood.
THEN, He explains that it is REAL food and REAL drink.

He didn't say "REAL flesh and REAL blood. He was referring to the spiritual life His death imparts and the empowerment his resurrection brings

The usual Greek word used for human eating is “phagon”. However, this is NOT the word used in these passages. John uses the word, “trogon”, which means, “to munch or to gnaw “- the way an animal eats. Jesus was again using hyperbole as he often did to drive his point across so that the crowd would understand that he was NOT speaking metaphorically. He meant what he said.

Just as the Paschal Lamb was to be eaten, it is also true for the Lamb of God.
In verse 60, his disciples said, "This saying is hard; who can accept it?"

Did Jesus explain what he "really" meant? NO - He said: "Does this shock you?"
He knew that some couldn’t believe because they didn't have true faith from the Father. They were as disgusted and confused as YOU are – so they walked away from Jesus and returned to their former way of life (John 6:66).

After they left Him - Jesus turns to the Twelve and asked them:
"Do YOU also want to leave?" (John 6:67)

If it was just a "metaphor" - why didn't Jesus explain it to the Twelve like He usually did?
"Cannibalism" and "vampirism", indeed . . .

If it is literal flesh and blood as you claim then not only is consuming it, cannibalism and vampirism it is also a violation of the law. The law forbid the drinking of blood. This was also one of the few requirements the apostles enforced on the gentiles. Therefor, they could not have been drinking the literal blood of Jesus.

 

[Big Boy Johnson]

If it is literal flesh and blood as you claim then not only is consuming it, cannibalism and vampirism it is also a violation of the law. The law forbid the drinking of blood. This was also one of the few requirements the apostles enforced on the gentiles. Therefor, they could not have been drinking the literal blood of Jesus.

But sadly the catholics will continue believing their priest can do magic and turn the elements in to the actual blood and flesh of Jesus so they can gobble it down is a soda water and some tator chips

 

[Brakelite]

Catholics are under NO obligation to be political followers of the Pope. His role is one moral and spiritual leadership.

Is he not a king? And therefore your king?

That can’t happen – unless YOU believe Jesus is a Liar . . .

- Jesus is Truth itself (John 14:6).
- The Church is the Pillar and Foundation of Truth (1 Tim. 3:15).

One branch of the church falling into apostasy does not make Jesus a liar. The church in Rome was not the only shop in town. And Rome wasn't the only town where there were shops. As Paul said even in his own lifetime, the gospel had been preached to all the known world, and therefore sprouted churches. None of them were denominationally Catholic.

The Catholic Church absolutely does NOT teach this - and I challenge you to show me this in the Catechism.

You have railed against OSAS numerous times on this forum, and I agree with you. OSAS is a dangerous doctrine. People do fall away, albeit it takes a determined hard hearted attitude to resist the holy Spirit. And if people fall away, so can churches. Look at the Laodicean church as a prime example. Wretched, miserable, poor, blind and naked. Except they repent, they will be vomited from the Lord's mouth. What happened to Jesus's promises to Laodicea? Did He lie to them?

 

[BreadOfLife]

1 Corinthians 5:11-13
But now I have written unto you not to keep company, if any man that is called a brother be a fornicator, or covetous, or an idolater, or a railer, or a drunkard, or an extortioner; with such an one no not to eat.
For what have I to do to judge them also that are without? do not ye judge them that are within?
But them that are without God judgeth. Therefore put away from among yourselves that wicked person.

Paul is telling the Corinthians to disassociate with people who are immoral – sexually or otherwise. He didn’t say ANYTHING about judging their hearts or condemning them . . .

Catholics are idolaters so Christians should "put away from among yourselves that wicked person"

An idolator by definition is one who worships someone or something other than God.
We worship God alone – as commanded by GOD Himself . . .

Catechism of the Catholic Church
III. "You Shall Have No Other Gods Before Me"
Idolatry
2112 The first commandment condemns polytheism. It requires man neither to believe in, nor to venerate, other divinities than the one true God. Scripture constantly recalls this rejection of "idols, (of) silver and gold, the work of men's hands. They have mouths, but do not speak; eyes, but do not see." These empty idols make their worshippers empty: "Those who make them are like them; so are all who trust in them." God, however, is the "living God" who gives life and intervenes in history.

Judging by your rotten fruit – YOU need to start telling the truth . . .
Rev. 21:8
But the fearful, and unbelieving, and the abominable, and murderers, and whoremongers, and sorcerers, and idolaters, and ALL LIARS, shall have their part in the lake which burneth with fire and brimstone: which is the second death.

Good luck with that . . .

 

[BreadOfLife]

It wasn't his glorified body that hung on the cross. He did not receive that until AFTER his resurrection

His glorified Body isn’t a ghost. He ate and drank after His Resurrection (Acts 10:41Luke 24:30-43) His body STILL has the wounds of His Crucifixion (John 20:27).

You don't understand how powerful this symbol is. It actually brings us into the intimate fellowship of the Trinity. It is a symbolic totality that spans his death, resurrection and glorification. Saying it is "just" a symbol fails to consider this.

No – it IS just a symbol to you.
To the Early Church – it is Christ Himself . . .

Ignatius of Antioch
Take note of those who hold heterodox opinions on the grace of Jesus Christ which has come to us, and see how contrary their opinions are to the mind of God. . . . They abstain from the Eucharist and from prayer because they do not confess that the Eucharist is the flesh of our Savior Jesus Christ, flesh which suffered for our sins and which that Father, in his goodness, raised up again. They who deny the gift of God are perishing in their disputes (Letter to the Smyrnaeans 6:2-7:1 [A.D. 110]).

Justin Martyr
We call this food Eucharist... For not as common bread nor common drink do we receive these, but since Jesus Christ our Savior was made incarnate by the word of God and had both flesh and blood for our salvation, so too, as we have been taught, the food which has been made into the Eucharist by the Eucharistic prayer set down by him, and by the change of which our blood and flesh is nurtured, is both the flesh and the blood of that incarnated Jesus (First Apology 66 [A.D. 151]).

There’s nothing “holy” or “solemn” about pretending that a piece of bread and a cup of wine are His Body and Blood unless you take HIS word that it IS (Matt. 26, Mark 14, Luke 22) . . .

He didn't say "REAL flesh and REAL blood. He was referring to the spiritual life His death imparts and the empowerment his resurrection brings

The Greek words sarx (flech) and hah'-ee-mah (blood)
He commanded His disciples to trogo (devour) His sarx (flech) and pee'-no (drink) His hah'-ee-mah (blood).

When they were shocked and appalled – He didn’t tell then that He was speaking “metaphorically.” He LET them leave because they had NO faith. And, although they were confused – the Apostles had faith in Him and found out at the Last Supper just HOW they were to carry this out.

Good things come to those who wait. That’s called “Faith” . . .

If it is literal flesh and blood as you claim then not only is consuming it, cannibalism and vampirism it is also a violation of the law. The law forbid the drinking of blood. This was also one of the few requirements the apostles enforced on the gentiles. Therefor, they could not have been drinking the literal blood of Jesus.

What do you NOT understand about the word “Sacramental”?
They weren’t cutting Him open and devouring His flesh and gargling with His blood. He gave them a Sacramental way to accomplish this.

As for consuming blood – do you know WHY it was forbidden?
It’s because the Law states:
Lex. 17:11
For the life of the flesh is in the blood…

Tell me – WHOSE life do we want in us??
The Eucharist is a SACRAMENT – not a horror movie . . .

 

[BreadOfLife]

Is he not a king? And therefore your king?

Nope.
Christ is King.

Just as Joseph was Pharoah’s chief representative and God appointed Moses as HIS representative to His people – the Pope is Christ’s representative. That’s what a Vicar is by definition . . .

One branch of the church falling into apostasy does not make Jesus a liar. The church in Rome was not the only shop in town. And Rome wasn't the only town where there were shops. As Paul said even in his own lifetime, the gospel had been preached to all the known world, and therefore sprouted churches. None of them were denominationally Catholic.

The Catholic Church isn’t a “branch” of Christ’s Church. It’s the Original Tree from which all Protestant and quasi-Christian sects splintered-off - and continue to splinter.

It ALL goes back to the Catholic Church . . .

You have railed against OSAS numerous times on this forum, and I agree with you. OSAS is a dangerous doctrine. People do fall away, albeit it takes a determined hard hearted attitude to resist the holy Spirit. And if people fall away, so can churches. Look at the Laodicean church as a prime example. Wretched, miserable, poor, blind and naked. Except they repent, they will be vomited from the Lord's mouth. What happened to Jesus's promises to Laodicea? Did He lie to them?

The “7 Churches” of Revelation aren’t denominations. They are the ONE Church in different communities that prospered or failed because of the people in those communities. That happens today, as people leave the Church, move away or just become apathetic.

Denominations started with the splintering of the Body of Christ – largely after the Protestant Revolt in the 16th century. The roots of YOUR sect go back to false prophecy in the 1840’s . . .

 

[shepherdsword]

His glorified Body isn’t a ghost. He ate and drank after His Resurrection (Acts 10:41Luke 24:30-43) His body STILL has the wounds of His Crucifixion (John 20:27).

I understand this. My comment about his body on the cross was not yet glorified was due to this statement:

"We don’t eat literal human tissue – muscle, veins, etc. Jests gave us a sacramental way to consume Him at the Last Supper. We consume His glorified Body and Blood. It’s the SAME body that hung on the cross and bled for our sins."

No – it IS just a symbol to you.
To the Early Church – it is Christ Himself . . .

The spiritual presence of Christ is there...just as he is wherever 2 or 3 are gathered in his name. What is NOT present is his literal flesh and blood.

Ignatius of Antioch
Take note of those who hold heterodox opinions on the grace of Jesus Christ which has come to us, and see how contrary their opinions are to the mind of God. . . . They abstain from the Eucharist and from prayer because they do not confess that the Eucharist is the flesh of our Savior Jesus Christ, flesh which suffered for our sins and which that Father, in his goodness, raised up again. They who deny the gift of God are perishing in their disputes (Letter to the Smyrnaeans 6:2-7:1 [A.D. 110]).

Justin Martyr
We call this food Eucharist... For not as common bread nor common drink do we receive these, but since Jesus Christ our Savior was made incarnate by the word of God and had both flesh and blood for our salvation, so too, as we have been taught, the food which has been made into the Eucharist by the Eucharistic prayer set down by him, and by the change of which our blood and flesh is nurtured, is both the flesh and the blood of that incarnated Jesus (First Apology 66 [A.D. 151]).

This is the classic fallacy of an appeal to authority. Just because an ECF agrees doesn't make it true

There’s nothing “holy” or “solemn” about pretending that a piece of bread and a cup of wine are His Body and Blood unless you take HIS word that it IS (Matt. 26, Mark 14, Luke 22) . . .

But that's what you do...pretend it's real flesh and blood. Anyone who eats it knows it is just bread.

The Greek words sarx (flech) and hah'-ee-mah (blood)
He commanded His disciples to trogo (devour) His sarx (flech) and pee'-no (drink) His hah'-ee-mah (blood).

It is just as symbolic in the greek as it is in the English.

When they were shocked and appalled – He didn’t tell then that He was speaking “metaphorically.” He LET them leave because they had NO faith. And, although they were confused – the Apostles had faith in Him and found out at the Last Supper just HOW they were to carry this out.

They were shocked and and appalled because they misunderstood what he was saying, just as you do.

Good things come to those who wait. That’s called “Faith” . . .

What do you NOT understand about the word “Sacramental”?
They weren’t cutting Him open and devouring His flesh and gargling with His blood. He gave them a Sacramental way to accomplish this.

I agree, no one was devouring his actual flesh. They were reaping the spiritual benefits of his death and resurrection. This was accomplished by his spiritual presence at communion....not a literal one.

As for consuming blood – do you know WHY it was forbidden?
It’s because the Law states:
Lex. 17:11
For the life of the flesh is in the blood…

It was also forbidden for gentiles believers to consume blood. One of the few commandments the council in Jerusalem enforced on them

Tell me – WHOSE life do we want in us??
The Eucharist is a SACRAMENT – not a horror movie . . .

I agree, the symbolic communion is an outward sign of an inner manifestation of eternal life.

 

[BreadOfLife]

I understand this. My comment about his body on the cross was not yet glorified was due to this statement:
"We don’t eat literal human tissue – muscle, veins, etc. Jests gave us a sacramental way to consume Him at the Last Supper. We consume His glorified Body and Blood. It’s the SAME body that hung on the cross and bled for our sins."

His Body wasn’t “re-created”. It was glorified, like ours will be. It is in its fullness.
We receive Him in Hid fullness in the Eucharist.

The spiritual presence of Christ is there...just as he is wherever 2 or 3 are gathered in his name. What is NOT present is his literal flesh and blood.

“This IS my body.”
“This IS my blood.”
““This cup IS the new covenant in my blood. “

What part of this do you thin He wasn’t being serious about?
Where does He even imply that He is speaking metaphorically?

This is the classic fallacy of an appeal to authority. Just because an ECF agrees doesn't make it true

And THIS is the problem with the unbiblical tenet of Sola Scriptura. The blocking out and blinding of oneself to ALL historical evidence because it’s “not in the Bible!”

Belief in the Eucharist was the unanimous belief of the first/second century Church.
This is the reason why the pagans accused them of cannibalism, as we read in the 2nd century document, Octavius of Minicius Felix.

But that's what you do...pretend it's real flesh and blood. Anyone who eats it knows it is just bread.

We don't pretend. We believe in Jesus when He tells us:
“This IS my body.”
“This IS my blood.”

It's called,"Faith" . . .

It is just as symbolic in the greek as it is in the English.

WRONG.

Symbolic would be, “I am the door” (John 10:7-9).

Now – if He had said, “I am the door. Amen I tell you, unless you look through the peephole, turn my knob and my hinges open up - you have no life within you” – that would have been different.
However He didn’t say that. He clearly meant it as a metaphor.

When He said we must eat His flesh and drink His blood – He used hyperbolic language (trogo) in order to overtly-stress His point.

They were shocked and and appalled because they misunderstood what he was saying, just as you do.

Really?

Why did He answer the way He did (v. 61)?
Why didn’t He just explain it to them?

I agree, no one was devouring his actual flesh. They were reaping the spiritual benefits of his death and resurrection. This was accomplished by his spiritual presence at communion....not a literal one.

Soooo, why didn’t the Jews just tell God that they were thinking of Him spiritually on Passover? Why did they need to kill a spotless lamb?

We do what is commanded by God . . .

It was also forbidden for gentiles believers to consume blood. One of the few commandments the council in Jerusalem enforced on them

For the SAME reason:
Because the life of the flesh is in the blood.

Once again – WHOSE life do we want in us??

I agree, the symbolic communion is an outward sign of an inner manifestation of eternal life.

Do you even understand WHY it’s called “Holy Communion”??
It’s because we, who partake in the Eucharist, are joined together by faith in what is taught by His Church through His sacred Word. It is a statement of Unity (comm-union).

As a follower of Christ – I don’t understand what “symbolic communion” is . . .

 

[Brakelite]

Nope.
Christ is King.

Just as Joseph was Pharoah’s chief representative and God appointed Moses as HIS representative to His people – the Pope is Christ’s representative. That’s what a Vicar is by definition . . .

The Catholic Church isn’t a “branch” of Christ’s Church. It’s the Original Tree from which all Protestant and quasi-Christian sects splintered-off - and continue to splinter.

It ALL goes back to the Catholic Church . . .

The “7 Churches” of Revelation aren’t denominations. They are the ONE Church in different communities that prospered or failed because of the people in those communities. That happens today, as people leave the Church, move away or just become apathetic.

Denominations started with the splintering of the Body of Christ – largely after the Protestant Revolt in the 16th century. The roots of YOUR sect go back to false prophecy in the 1840’s . . .

There were numerous churches established before the gospel reached Rome. The first church was Jerusalem. The apostles traveled all over, as did numerous disciples, all teaching the same message, establishing churches everywhere they went. Phillip was the genesis for the church in Ethiopia,a Sabbath keeping church that existed long before the church in Rome. Thomas traveled to India and established the StThomas Christians in Goa. , ironically persecuted by the Jesuits 1500 years later. The Celtic church in Britain was established very early through missionaries who hailed from the churches Paul and others established in Galatia, who themselves were of Celtic origins and still traded with their people from centuries before Christ. It was a Celtic missionary school in Bangor Wales that was decimated by Catholic associated armies because they reduced to surrender to demands from Augustine that they submit to Papal authority.

The church in Rome was but one of many. There was NOTHING about Rome that gave it precedence or authority over any of the other churches...nor was there anything particularly special about the bishop of Rome that gave him authority over any other bishop, your church's apostolic so called authority notwithstanding...a concept that was unheard of until centuries later. The scriptures themselves declare equality of believers with Christ Himself as the Head.
The only thing that placed the bishop of Rome as an authority over others was the decree of Justinian* to John in the 6th century. Until then, the bishop of Rome was subject to the civil power, at the time the Goths. Throughout Catholic history, the authority of the Pope over other churches and other bishops was accomplished through force and threats of war and violence.

* In the book of Revelation, we are informed by Jesus that there was to be a persecuting power given great power and authority and a throne by the dragon, who is Satan. Elsewhere in Scripture we are told that this same dragon stood before the woman to devour the Messiah as soon as He was born. Who was it that stood before the Messiah and attempted to kill Him son after His birth? It was Herod, whose power and throne and authority came from pagan Rome. Pagan Rome therefore was the dragon's vehicle through which he operated to oppose Christ and His church. This was born out throughout the ensuing centuries. And the prophecy that explicitly depicted the dragon granting this persecuting power his throne, was accurately fulfilled when the emperor Justinian declared John the Christian bishop over all Christendom. The pipes themselves later extended that power and authority to encompass the entire planet, as well as heaven and hell. And this is Christs church? That's blasphemy.

 

[Brakelite]

Catechism of the Catholic Church
III. "You Shall Have No Other Gods Before Me"
Idolatry
2112 The first commandment condemns polytheism. It requires man neither to believe in, nor to venerate, other divinities than the one true God. Scripture constantly recalls this rejection of "idols, (of) silver and gold, the work of men's hands. They have mouths, but do not speak; eyes, but do not see." These empty idols make their worshippers empty: "Those who make them are like them; so are all who trust in them." God, however, is the "living God" who gives life and intervenes in history.

The justification for retaining statues etc in the church (some of which were totally pagan idols but are now "baptized" Christian statues) reminds me of the incident of the golden calf that Israel bowed down to as Moses was preparing to come down from Sinai with the stone tablets.

“1 And when the people saw that Moses delayed to come down out of the mount, the people gathered themselves together unto Aaron, and said unto him, Up, make us gods, which shall go before us; for as for this Moses, the man that brought us up out of the land of Egypt, we wot not what is become of him. 2 And Aaron said unto them, Break off the golden earrings, which are in the ears of your wives, of your sons, and of your daughters, and bring them unto me. 3 And all the people brake off the golden earrings which were in their ears, and brought them unto Aaron. 4 And he received them at their hand, and fashioned it with a graving tool, after he had made it a molten calf: and they said, These be thy gods, O Israel, which brought thee up out of the land of Egypt. 5 And when Aaron saw it, he built an altar before it; and Aaron made proclamation, and said, To morrow is a feast to the LORD. 6 And they rose up early on the morrow, and offered burnt offerings, and brought peace offerings; and the people sat down to eat and to drink, and rose up to play. ”
Exodus 32:1-6 KJV

Unfeigned Bible

Unfeigned Bible

www.unfeignedbible.app

What's the difference between Aaron's justifying the calf and offering sacrifices to the LORD before the calf, and the Catholic's justification for their statues saying the represent they ones they are praying to?

 

[shepherdsword]

His Body wasn’t “re-created”. It was glorified, like ours will be. It is in its fullness.
We receive Him in Hid fullness in the Eucharist.

Who said his body was recreated? You are attacking a strawman you put up.

“This IS my body.”
“This IS my blood.”
““This cup IS the new covenant in my blood. “

What part of this do you thin He wasn’t being serious about?
Where does He even imply that He is speaking metaphorically?

And THIS is the problem with the unbiblical tenet of Sola Scriptura. The blocking out and blinding of oneself to ALL historical evidence because it’s “not in the Bible!”

And accepting extra-biblical babble is the problem with esteeming tradition on par with scripture.

Belief in the Eucharist was the unanimous belief of the first/second century Church.
This is the reason why the pagans accused them of cannibalism, as we read in the 2nd century document, Octavius of Minicius Felix.

We don't pretend. We believe in Jesus when He tells us:
“This IS my body.”
“This IS my blood.”

It's called,"Faith" . . .

WRONG.

Symbolic would be, “I am the door” (John 10:7-9).

Now – if He had said, “I am the door. Amen I tell you, unless you look through the peephole, turn my knob and my hinges open up - you have no life within you” – that would have been different.
However He didn’t say that. He clearly meant it as a metaphor.

When He said we must eat His flesh and drink His blood – He used hyperbolic language (trogo) in order to overtly-stress His point.

Really?

Why did He answer the way He did (v. 61)?
Why didn’t He just explain it to them?

Soooo, why didn’t the Jews just tell God that they were thinking of Him spiritually on Passover? Why did they need to kill a spotless lamb?

We do what is commanded by God . . .

For the SAME reason:
Because the life of the flesh is in the blood.

Once again – WHOSE life do we want in us??

Do you even understand WHY it’s called “Holy Communion”??
It’s because we, who partake in the Eucharist, are joined together by faith in what is taught by His Church through His sacred Word. It is a statement of Unity (comm-union).

As a follower of Christ – I don’t understand what “symbolic communion” is . . .

You misunderstand a great many things. Jesus also said that he is the vine and we are the branches. If we abide in him we bear much fruit. Is he an actual vine? Are we actual branches? Do we bear actual fruit? He said he was the door to the sheep. Is he an actual door? He said he if someone destroyed the temple, in three days he would raise it again. Was he talking about Herod's temple? Those around him though so...just as many thought Jesus was speaking of eating his actual flesh.

 

[amigo de christo]

There were numerous churches established before the gospel reached Rome. The first church was Jerusalem. The apostles traveled all over, as did numerous disciples, all teaching the same message, establishing churches everywhere they went. Phillip was the genesis for the church in Ethiopia,a Sabbath keeping church that existed long before the church in Rome. Thomas traveled to India and established the StThomas Christians in Goa. , ironically persecuted by the Jesuits 1500 years later. The Celtic church in Britain was established very early through missionaries who hailed from the churches Paul and others established in Galatia, who themselves were of Celtic origins and still traded with their people from centuries before Christ. It was a Celtic missionary school in Bangor Wales that was decimated by Catholic associated armies because they reduced to surrender to demands from Augustine that they submit to Papal authority.

The church in Rome was but one of many. There was NOTHING about Rome that gave it precedence or authority over any of the other churches...nor was there anything particularly special about the bishop of Rome that gave him authority over any other bishop, your church's apostolic so called authority notwithstanding...a concept that was unheard of until centuries later. The scriptures themselves declare equality of believers with Christ Himself as the Head.
The only thing that placed the bishop of Rome as an authority over others was the decree of Justinian* to John in the 6th century. Until then, the bishop of Rome was subject to the civil power, at the time the Goths. Throughout Catholic history, the authority of the Pope over other churches and other bishops was accomplished through force and threats of war and violence.

* In the book of Revelation, we are informed by Jesus that there was to be a persecuting power given great power and authority and a throne by the dragon, who is Satan. Elsewhere in Scripture we are told that this same dragon stood before the woman to devour the Messiah as soon as He was born. Who was it that stood before the Messiah and attempted to kill Him son after His birth? It was Herod, whose power and throne and authority came from pagan Rome. Pagan Rome therefore was the dragon's vehicle through which he operated to oppose Christ and His church. This was born out throughout the ensuing centuries. And the prophecy that explicitly depicted the dragon granting this persecuting power his throne, was accurately fulfilled when the emperor Justinian declared John the Christian bishop over all Christendom. The pipes themselves later extended that power and authority to encompass the entire planet, as well as heaven and hell. And this is Christs church? That's blasphemy.

As if them popes in any way represent Christ . Its like saying joel osteen does .
They represent only another and that one , as do they , come in its own name .

 

[MonoBiblical]

Sola Scriptura?

It is implied by the importance of writing things down.

OSAS?
[Revelation 21:7]sorry

Infant Dedications?
Denominations?

Infant dedications-- never heard of it. And denominations are not dogma either. It is about teaching. All teaching comes from a written source, even Catholic heresies.

No – it wasn’t revised to say that.

It was revised to say “a virgin shall conceive”. - because of the obvious context.

The Hebrew version of the bible has almah which does not mean virgin.

There are some 65-70 million Catholics in the United States, which is about 22% of the population.

The idea that I must be here on an R-1 Visa because of my Catholic beliefs is absolutely paranoid . . .

It is still a violation of the constitution. It is respecting an establishment of religion, even if they are non-denominational. Conspiracy fact.

 

[BreadOfLife]

There were numerous churches established before the gospel reached Rome. The first church was Jerusalem. The apostles traveled all over, as did numerous disciples, all teaching the same message, establishing churches everywhere they went. Phillip was the genesis for the church in Ethiopia,a Sabbath keeping church that existed long before the church in Rome. Thomas traveled to India and established the StThomas Christians in Goa. , ironically persecuted by the Jesuits 1500 years later. The Celtic church in Britain was established very early through missionaries who hailed from the churches Paul and others established in Galatia, who themselves were of Celtic origins and still traded with their people from centuries before Christ. It was a Celtic missionary school in Bangor Wales that was decimated by Catholic associated armies because they reduced to surrender to demands from Augustine that they submit to Papal authority.

WRONG.

There was ONE Church established in many places – be it Jerusalem, Antioch, Corinth, Ethiopia, etc.
Bu, make NO mistake - it was ONE Church . . .

The church in Rome was but one of many. There was NOTHING about Rome that gave it precedence or authority over any of the other churches...nor was there anything particularly special about the bishop of Rome that gave him authority over any other bishop, your church's apostolic so called authority notwithstanding...a concept that was unheard of until centuries later. The scriptures themselves declare equality of believers with Christ Himself as the Head.
The only thing that placed the bishop of Rome as an authority over others was the decree of Justinian* to John in the 6th century. Until then, the bishop of Rome was subject to the civil power, at the time the Goths. Throughout Catholic history, the authority of the Pope over other churches and other bishops was accomplished through force and threats of war and violence.

Tell that to the first century Church in Corinth, whose clerical issues had to be resolved by Pope Clement I, the Bishop of Rome – yes, the same Clement whom Paul mentions in Phil. 4:3.

Tell that to the 2nd century church when Pope Victor I had to get involved in the Quartodeciman controversy - a Church-wide issue.

This was born out throughout the ensuing centuries. And the prophecy that explicitly depicted the dragon granting this persecuting power his throne, was accurately fulfilled when the emperor Justinian declared John the Christian bishop over all Christendom. The pipes themselves later extended that power and authority to encompass the entire planet, as well as heaven and hell. And this is Christs church? That's blasphemy.

Justinian had nothing to do with the promulgation of the Church. His reign was from the late 5th century to the mid-6th century. The Church had already existed for SIX centuries.

You need to study your history . . .

First came Peter, then Linus, then Cletus, Clement, etc. Irenaeus attests to this in his treatise Against Heresies in the 2nd century. In the Letter of Clement to the Corinthians from the FIRST century, we read of His intervention in the clerical issues happening there and making a decision over that Church.

In the 2nd century, we read Tertullian in his document, De Pudicitia, addressing then Pope Callixtus as “Bishop of Bishops” and “Pontifex Maximus.”

 

[BreadOfLife]

Who said his body was recreated? You are attacking a strawman you put up.

I merely stated that the Eucharist is the glorified body, blood, soul and divinity of Jesus Christ.
YOU’RE the one who has the problem with it – not me . . .

And accepting extra-biblical babble is the problem with esteeming tradition on par with scripture.

Tell that to the Holy Spirit, who commands it through Paul (2 Thess. 2:15) . . .

You misunderstand a great many things. Jesus also said that he is the vine and we are the branches. If we abide in him we bear much fruit. Is he an actual vine? Are we actual branches? Do we bear actual fruit? He said he was the door to the sheep. Is he an actual door? He said he if someone destroyed the temple, in three days he would raise it again. Was he talking about Herod's temple? Those around him though so...just as many thought Jesus was speaking of eating his actual flesh.

First of all – you don’t understand what “communion” means, if you think it is “symbolic”.
Secondly, I already explained the “Door” metaphor, so NO need to re-hash . . .

In ANY of the instances above, did Jesus repeat Himself THREE times to make sure they understood?
Did He say:
“Truly, truly I tell you, I am a vine.”
“Truly I say to you – you are a branch with fruit on it.”

NO – they are clearly metaphors.

When He told them to eat His flesh and drink His blood, He stated in NO uncertain terms:
“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.”

This is tantamount to saying, “I swear to you…”, or, “I say this in all seriousness”
As for the Temple metaphor – we already know what He was talking about His Resurrection.
Well – MOST of us do . . .

 

[BreadOfLife]

The justification for retaining statues etc in the church (some of which were totally pagan idols but are now "baptized" Christian statues) reminds me of the incident of the golden calf that Israel bowed down to as Moses was preparing to come down from Sinai with the stone tablets.

What's the difference between Aaron's justifying the calf and offering sacrifices to the LORD before the calf, and the Catholic's justification for their statues saying the represent they ones they are praying to?

That’s a pretty inane question. The difference is that we don’t offer sacrifices to idols.
As I already educated you from the Catechism – the worship of anyone or anything other than God is idolatry.

For the LAST time, my lying friend –
Catholics worship God – and God alone.