BAPTISM SAVES, FOR THE REMISSION OF SINS"

[Jane_Doe22]

Let me ask it a different way.

You said that "God declares truth". So I ask you Jane Doe, WHO has God declared this Truth to?

You accused the CC of having non-biblical and false doctrines.

You stated that Calvin was a false teacher.

You made it clear that you know what heretical doctrine leads people away from Christ.

You stated you have come to these conclusions by an EXTREMELY thorough studying of scripture, prayer, different doctrine, different religious texts and examining the fruits of different beliefs. Further saying that you studied the beliefs of multiple denominations but not because you were looking for the Truth.

So I have to ask you Jane Doe: How do you know the CC has non-biblical and false doctrines? To KNOW what is false you would have to know what is True. Who revealed the Truth to you?

You have declared Calvin a false teacher. If you KNOW he is a false teacher then you must know who is teaching the Truth? You must KNOW when know when you hear the Truth? How is this revealed to you?

Since you KNOW what a heretical doctrine you must know what a non-heretical doctrine is. How do you discern the two?

You have thoroughly studied all these things and prayed about it. Good for you. That's how it should be done. So have thousands of other men. Explain to me why your conclusion at the end of your studying and prayer differ from that of Calvin (a false teacher) or the men of the CC (who's conclusions created false/heretical doctrines) or the men of the Baptist church etc. etc.? Why does your Truth pre-empt everyone else's truth?

Curious and patient Mary

Again, what is your motivation here-- why are you asking?
Are you asking out of seeing/me love? Or is this just staging for another proselytizing attempt?
I'm not Catholic. I'm not going to be Catholic ever. You pushing that only backfires.

 

[Marymog]

Symbols are what is used in parables to give a likeness of the subject using another object. So, to answer your question: In this case, the two words (parable and symbol) mean the same thing.

I am not misunderstanding, I understand perfectly well. On the contrary, you are taking Him literally, when that was not how He meant it. And that was the error also of the Jews - they took what He said literally also, and walked away. You, on the other hand, have not walked away, but have confused the object of His comments with the subject as if they are one and the same...when they are not.

Thank you Scott.

A parable is a fictitious story told to make a point. Are you suggesting that when Jesus said, "This is my body/blood..." he was telling a fictitious story? He was making a parable?

You are right. The Jews took Him literally and walked away. Did Jesus chase after them and say to them, "wait, wait, I didn't mean it as you think. I meant it as a parable, a symbol. Let me explain"? No Scott, He did not chase after them because they did not misunderstand him. He was being literal and they KNEW it. The Apostles took him literally also.

Who made the right decision? The Apostles that stayed with Him or the Jews that walked away?

Bible study and Historical Mary

 

[ScottA]

Could you look up John 6:54 in the Greek and explain it?
What does the word eat mean?
I wonder if it means the same in the Aramaic....
I wonder what language Jesus was speaking at the last supper?
Hebrew?

Yes. I'm confused ....

Thayer's Greek Lexicon
τρώγω; to gnaw, crunch, chew raw vegetables or fruits (as nuts, almonds, etc.): ἄγρωστιν, of mules, Homer, Odyssey 6, 90, and often in other writers of animals feeding; also of men from Herodotus down (as σῦκα, Herodotus 1, 71; βότρυς, Aristophanes eqq. 1077; blackberries, the Epistle of Barnabas 7, 8 [ET] (where see Harnack, Cunningham, Müller); κρόμυον, μετά δεῖπνον, Xenophon, conv. 4, 8); universally, to eat

But...I would caution: Jesus came fulfilling the word of prophecy to speak in parables, then Paul referred to such as speaking in [different] tongues in need of translation and spiritual discernment. Meaning, that all these writings are subject to the confounding of all language by God at the tower of Babel. Also, we live not in the time of the first fold brought by Christ, but the second...which is not under the first Adam, but the Last, whom is Christ, a life-giving spirit. As such, these things are not literature, but are spirit.

 

[H. Richard]

OUR ARK: (the “in Christ” doctrine)

2 Cor 1:19-22
19 For the Son of God, Jesus Christ, who was preached among you by us-- by me, Silvanus, and Timothy-- was not Yes and No, but in Him was Yes.
20 For all the promises of God in Him are Yes, and in Him Amen, to the glory of God through us.
21 Now He who establishes us with you ""in Christ"" and has anointed us is God,
22 who also has sealed us and given us the Spirit in our hearts as a guarantee.
(NKJ)

I look at the words ""in Christ"" and think of them in reference to Noah and the flood.

Noah was told by God to build an Ark. It was built by human hands (Noah’s hands). The waters of God‘s wrath in the flood did not touch Noah and those with him. Noah, by his choice, obeyed God and went into the Ark he had built. --- The waters of the flood were the judgment of God on a sinful world full of sinful people. That does not mean that Noah was sinless. It means Noah believed what God told him.

Today there is another Ark. It is “”NOT”” built by human hands. It is built by the hands (will) of God. - Man can not go into the Ark that God has built by his own efforts (will). He must be placed in God’s Ark (Jesus) by God (the Holy Spirit). God places a person in the Ark (Jesus) He built when that person places their faith, trust and confidence in Jesus’ work on the cross to save him/her. -- This Ark that God has built carries those in it safely over the sins “THEY” commit in their flesh. Their sins can not touch them since they have been atoned (paid) for by the blood of Jesus on the cross.

Jesus Christ is OUR ARK, and just as those in Noah's Ark were kept from the waters of the flood, we who are placed ""in Christ,"" by God, and are kept from the judgment of the law. If we are not ""in Christ"" the law condemns us.

The act of water baptism by man will not save anyone and if their faith is in their act of water baptism they are not saved

 

[GodsGrace]

Thayer's Greek Lexicon
τρώγω; to gnaw, crunch, chew raw vegetables or fruits (as nuts, almonds, etc.): ἄγρωστιν, of mules, Homer, Odyssey 6, 90, and often in other writers of animals feeding; also of men from Herodotus down (as σῦκα, Herodotus 1, 71; βότρυς, Aristophanes eqq. 1077; blackberries, the Epistle of Barnabas 7, 8 [ET] (where see Harnack, Cunningham, Müller); κρόμυον, μετά δεῖπνον, Xenophon, conv. 4, 8); universally, to eat

But...I would caution: Jesus came fulfilling the word of prophecy to speak in parables, then Paul referred to such as speaking in [different] tongues in need of translation and spiritual discernment. Meaning, that all these writings are subject to the confounding of all language by God at the tower of Babel. Also, we live not in the time of the first fold brought by Christ, but the second...which is not under the first Adam, but the Last, whom is Christ, a life-giving spirit. As such, these things are not literature, but are spirit.

Thanks.

 

[ScottA]

Thank you Scott.

A parable is a fictitious story told to make a point. Are you suggesting that when Jesus said, "This is my body/blood..." he was telling a fictitious story? He was making a parable?

You are right. The Jews took Him literally and walked away. Did Jesus chase after them and say to them, "wait, wait, I didn't mean it as you think. I meant it as a parable, a symbol. Let me explain"? No Scott, He did not chase after them because they did not misunderstand him. He was being literal and they KNEW it. The Apostles took him literally also.

Who made the right decision? The Apostles that stayed with Him or the Jews that walked away?

Bible study and Historical Mary

You are contradicting yourself. You say that I am right, but then build a case for how you are convinced that I am wrong. Which is it - what do you mean to be saying?

Regardless, yes, not only was what Jesus said a fictitious story, but all that is manifest in the world is also. All is a "created" "image" of things on high - a revelation. Only the kingdom of heaven is real. This was confirmed by Christ, quoting the Father, saying, "As it is written, I will not speak to them, except in parables."

Which does not mean He did not speak the truth - He did, but in parables.

 

[Marymog]

Again, what is your motivation here-- why are you asking?
Are you asking out of seeing/me love? Or is this just staging for another proselytizing attempt?
I'm not Catholic. I'm not going to be Catholic ever. You pushing that only backfires.

Lol....Thank you Jane.

I knew you wouldn't answer but I figured I would try. You love to ask questions but can't answer them....

When you tell the Calvinist on this website that Calvin was a false teacher you do that out of love????.... But if Marymog tells you or anyone else on this website that they are teaching is false that's not kosher with you...... There's a word for that.....

When you tell us Catholics that we believe/follow false teachings and doctrines I feel showered with your respect and love......NOT.... But if I tell you that you have a false doctrine you ask if I am doing it out of love....What is that word I am looking for hyposkite, no that's not it, hippiecrite....nope, nope.....hypokrite.....dang no, sounds like that though.

Your killing me Jane......your killing me with you condescending and I am holier, more loving, more knowledgeable than you attitude.

Patient Mary

 

[GodsGrace]

Thank you Scott.

A parable is a fictitious story told to make a point. Are you suggesting that when Jesus said, "This is my body/blood..." he was telling a fictitious story? He was making a parable?

You are right. The Jews took Him literally and walked away. Did Jesus chase after them and say to them, "wait, wait, I didn't mean it as you think. I meant it as a parable, a symbol. Let me explain"? No Scott, He did not chase after them because they did not misunderstand him. He was being literal and they KNEW it. The Apostles took him literally also.

Who made the right decision? The Apostles that stayed with Him or the Jews that walked away?

Bible study and Historical Mary

Good point....He let them go.
I should do a study on the ECF.

 

[Jane_Doe22]

Lol....Thank you Jane.

I knew you wouldn't answer but I figured I would try. You love to ask questions but can't answer them....

When you tell the Calvinist on this website that Calvin was a false teacher you do that out of love????.... But if Marymog tells you or anyone else on this website that they are teaching is false that's not kosher with you...... There's a word for that.....

When you tell us Catholics that we believe/follow false teachings and doctrines I feel showered with your respect and love......NOT.... But if I tell you that you have a false doctrine you ask if I am doing it out of love....What is that word I am looking for hyposkite, no that's not it, hippiecrite....nope, nope.....hypokrite.....dang no, sounds like that though.

Your killing me Jane......your killing me with you condescending and I am holier, more loving, more knowledgeable than you attitude.

Patient Mary

Mary, what is your motivation for asking?

If you motivation is proselytizing (which I suspect), I am not going to answer because that's just going to go badly with 1) you being frustrated that I reject Catholicism and 2) me being frustrated with Catholic salesman. I'd rather skip that whole circus.

If you motivation is to learn about me withOUT any proselytizing agenda (which is my motivation here), then things will go better.

 

[Marymog]

You are contradicting yourself. You say that I am right, but then build a case for how you are convinced that I am wrong. Which is it - what do you mean to be saying?

Regardless, yes, not only was what Jesus said a fictitious story, but all that is manifest in the world is also. All is a "created" "image" of things on high - a revelation. Only the kingdom of heaven is real. This was confirmed by Christ, quoting the Father, saying, "As it is written, I will not speak to them, except in parables."

2nd Try: Who made the right decision? The Apostles that stayed with Him or the Jews that walked away?

Curious and Patient Mary

 

[Marymog]

Mary, what is your motivation for asking?

If you motivation is proselytizing (which I suspect), I am not going to answer because that's just going to go badly with 1) you being frustrated that I reject Catholicism and 2) me being frustrated with Catholic salesman. I'd rather skip that whole circus.

If you motivation is to learn about me withOUT any proselytizing agenda (which is my motivation here), then things will go better.

What is your motivation for telling all of us that Calvin is a false teacher and that the CC has false/un-biblical doctrine?

I know your not going to answer because you feel superior to everyone else. That's fine. That is why I am self proclaimed.....Patient Mary

 

[Jane_Doe22]

What is your motivation for telling all of us that Calvin is a false teacher and that the CC has false/un-biblical doctrine?

I know your not going to answer because you feel superior to everyone else. That's fine. That is why I am self proclaimed.....Patient Mary

Mary, you are coming off as a salesman. I don't want to deal with salesmen.

If you have some other motivation than to try to make me Catholic, please let me know.

 

[ScottA]

2nd Try: Who made the right decision? The Apostles that stayed with Him or the Jews that walked away?

Curious and Patient Mary

I was just going to comment, but first things should be first, and you were getting ahead of yourself.

The Jews made the wrong decision. But that does not mean that the church adopted the right understanding after the apostles themselves did not even understand. But it is a good point to reference, because if you will read on, Jesus declares that all of what He said was spirit. Thus, to think that He meant His actual flesh and blood and the elements, after He said "the flesh profits nothing", is just foolishness.

 

[GodsGrace]

I was just going to comment, but first things should be first, and you were getting ahead of yourself.

The Jews made the wrong decision. But that does not mean that the church adopted the right understanding after the apostles themselves did not even understand. But it is a good point to reference, because if you will read on, Jesus declares that all of what He said was spirit. Thus, to think that He meant His actual flesh and blood and the elements, after He said "the flesh profits nothing", is just foolishness.

Didn't even Luther believe in transubstantiation?
I seem to remember that he did.....not sure.

 

[GodsGrace]

Mary, you are coming off as a salesman. I don't want to deal with salesmen.

If you have some other motivation than to try to make me Catholic, please let me know.

Oh for goodness sake...
Mary is not a sales person.
She's stating her beliefs, which she is allowed to have.
Why is She prosylitizing and not you?
Just say you don't wish to speak to her if that's the case.

 

[Jane_Doe22]

Oh for goodness sake...
Mary is not a sales person.
She's stating her beliefs, which she is allowed to have.
Why is She prosylitizing and not you?
Just say you don't wish to speak to her if that's the case.

Every conversation I have with Mary, her only motivation seems to be prosylitizing (yes, that is a salesman when a person doesn't stop after someone says "no thank you"). I have no interest in prosylitizing (giving or receiving). Rather, I talk on here simply to have a respectful conversation with other. Hence my direct question to Mary as to her motivation.

 

[GodsGrace]

Every conversation I have with Mary, her only motivation seems to be prosylitizing (yes, that is a salesman when a person doesn't stop after someone says "no thank you"). I have no interest in prosylitizing (giving or receiving). Rather, I talk on here simply to have a respectful conversation with other. Hence my direct question to Mary as to her motivation.

It just would have been more interesting and knowledge-giving if you had answered....now the conversation is lost.

 

[Jane_Doe22]

It just would have been more interesting and knowledge-giving if you had answered....now the conversation is lost.

I did answer the first 3 dozen questions from her, always to have the response be prosylitizing, even after I repeatedly said "no thank you". Now I'm really tired of opening opening up just to be met with more prosylitizing. It feels like every time I open the front door to be friendly, a salesman tries to step into my house expressly uninvited. I honestly do love and respect much about Catholicism, but I'm not going to open the door for this particular person.

Christians don't have to be salesman. We can talk and share our love of God while honestly not pushing beliefs on anyone and listening to others (including when someone says "no thanks you"). Many of us on the forum do, and I've had great conversations with them (including you, GG).

 

[ScottA]

Didn't even Luther believe in transubstantiation?
I seem to remember that he did.....not sure.

I am not sure either.

 

[GodsGrace]

I am not sure either.

I found this....I do seem to remember learning this (not from the net)...
It does seem that Martin Luther believed in some type of transubstantiation..or the Real Presence -- I don't really understand the difference.

I just wish I could make up my mind about this...



The Eucharist in the Lutheran Church (also called the Mass, the Sacrament of the Altar, the Lord's Supper, the Lord's Table, Holy Communion, the Breaking of the Bread and the Blessed Sacrament[1][2]) refers to the liturgical commemoration of the Last Supper. Lutherans believe in the real presence of Christ in the Eucharist, affirming the doctrine of sacramental union, "in which the body and blood of Christ are truly and substantially (vere et substantialiter) present, offered, and received with (cum) the bread and wine."[3]

source: Eucharist in Lutheranism - Wikipedia


In the Protestant Reformation, the doctrine of transubstantiation became a matter of much controversy. Martin Luther held that "It is not the doctrine of transubstantiation which is to be believed, but simply that Christ really is present at the Eucharist".[27] In his "On the Babylonian Captivity of the Church" (published on 6 October 1520) Luther wrote:

Therefore, it is an absurd and unheard-of juggling with words, to understand "bread" to mean "the form, or accidents of bread," and "wine" to mean "the form, or accidents of wine." Why do they not also understand all other things to mean their forms, or accidents? Even if this might be done with all other things, it would yet not be right thus to emasculate the words of God and arbitrarily to empty them of their meaning.
Moreover, the Church had the true faith for more than twelve hundred years, during which time the holy Fathers never once mentioned this transubstantiation — certainly, a monstrous word for a monstrous idea — until the pseudo-philosophy of Aristotle became rampant in the Church these last three hundred years. During these centuries many other things have been wrongly defined, for example, that the Divine essence neither is begotten nor begets, that the soul is the substantial form of the human body, and the like assertions, which are made without reason or sense, as the Cardinal of Cambray himself admits.[28]
In his 1528 Confession Concerning Christ's Supper he wrote:

Why then should we not much more say in the Supper, "This is my body", even though bread and body are two distinct substances, and the word "this" indicates the bread? Here, too, out of two kinds of objects a union has taken place, which I shall call a "sacramental union", because Christ's body and the bread are given to us as a sacrament. This is not a natural or personal union, as is the case with God and Christ. It is also perhaps a different union from that which the dove has with the Holy Spirit, and the flame with the angel, but it is also assuredly a sacramental union.[29]
What Luther thus called a "sacramental union" is often erroneously called consubstantiation by non-Lutherans. In "On the Babylonian Captivity", Luther upheld belief in the Real Presence of Jesus and, in his 1523 treatise The Adoration of the Sacrament, defended adoration of the body and blood of Christ in the Eucharist.

source: Transubstantiation - Wikipedia