Jesus isn't Catholic

[justbyfaith]

@BreadOfLife,

No response?

 

[Behold]

And again – you FAILED to answer the question.
I asked you WHO created the Catholic Church – and WHEN it was created.

Remember, Einstein – YOU are the one who said it was “created by liars” – so SURELY, you must know WHO and WHEN.

If you’re going to continue to dodge these kinds of questions – perhaps you should stop putting your foot in your mouth with such regularity . . .

You mean other then the devil?
So, you are you asking me to give you the Catholic Lying Tradition or the actual history of the cult of Mary that created the Dark ages?
Hummmmm.
Lets try this
Well, for about 250+ yrs Christianity was banned by Rome. And along came Constantine who felt he could unite everyone under a religion.
His problem was that he was never actually a believer.

So, that'll work as your answer, unless you want to rework history as all catholics do, and try to state that it started with Jesus, then Peter took it from there, ect ect, = false.

 

[Behold]

Which is exactly what happens when we receive the Eucharist.
The Groom giving Himself to His bride, and she receiving Him..
The two made one flesh...

That's Catholicism.
Jesus wasn't a catholic, so, he didnt teach that ideology.
wHat Jesus taught is "do this in remembrance of me", the symbolic.

Obviously he was not giving his literal life for the Apostles in the upper room, during the Last Supper.
That came later, as a reality on the Cross and in the Tomb.
Eating the cookie is symbolic.
Trying to pretend it isn't is a cult.

 

[BreadOfLife]

You are an incoherent nutcase.....I have no other words for you at this time....you are the living example of why many die-hard RCs cannot do scripture and context together...next to impossible..and you know why...your religion gets in the way of your brain and thinking....later on then BOL....APAK

If you can't refute my Scriptural proof - just say so.
No need for name-calling
. .

 

[BreadOfLife]

Nope. They are taught clearly in the word of the Lord.

And as I've shown you - they're NOT.

 

[BreadOfLife]

Our cooperation is guaranteed by the sealing of the Holy Spirit. For it is God who works within us both to will and to do according to His good pleasure (Philippians 2:13). And, he also causeth us to walk in His statutes and in His judgments (Ezekiel 36:25-27). And, He who began a good work in me will be faithful to complete it until the day of Jesus Christ (Philippians 1:6).

I will...

continue to believe in Him...
continue to abide in Him (for ever)...
continue to do His will...
continue to endure in faith...

Because He has changed me on the inside so that it is in my very nature to do these things. For I have been "born again".

I am a new creature in Christ (2 Corinthians 5:17 (kjv)).

WRONG.

Our cooperation with God’s grace is made possible – but it is NOT guaranteed.

This is the reason for the DOZENS of Biblical warnings not to fall away and LOSE it all.

God NEVER coerces those whom He loves.

 

[BreadOfLife]

You capitalized "He". Are you speaking of Jesus? Jesus has to cooperate with God's grace in order to continue to have salvation?

This illustrates my point quite nicely; for it should be clear that those who are born again of the Holy Spirit are in Christ (1 John 5:20).

There is an utter ridiculousness in your statement that Jesus has to cooperate with God's grace in order to continue to be saved. It is written,

Rev 1:18, I am he that liveth, and was dead; and, behold, I am alive for evermore, Amen; and have the keys of hell and of death.

Now, I'm certain that you rightly interpret this verse to mean that Jesus can never die again.

How is it, then, that you do not interpret verses that say similar things about the believer, to mean the same thing?

For example,

Jhn 11:25, Jesus said unto her, I am the resurrection, and the life: he that believeth in me, though he were dead, yet shall he live:
Jhn 11:26, And whosoever liveth and believeth in me shall never die. Believest thou this?
Jhn 11:27, She saith unto him, Yea, Lord: I believe that thou art the Christ, the Son of God, which should come into the world.

Clearly, this is speaking of spiritual life and death; for there are many throughout church history who have "lived and believed in Him" who also died physically. Jesus told Peter (John 21:18-19) and Peter told the church (2 Peter 1:14-15) that he would die physically and therefore eternal life does not mean that a man will never physically die, but that his last breath on earth will be his first breath in heaven. Therefore our eternal life is our spiritual life.

"He” was just a typo.

I was showing you that the verses you presented are conditional on our cooperation.

He that believes . . .
He that endures . . .
He that DOES the will of God . . .

These can ALL be summed up by, “He who cooperates with God’s grace will have everlasting life.”

 

[Marymog]

.....
wHat Jesus taught is "do this in remembrance of me", the symbolic.....

Ummmm.....Sooooo when Jesus said "This IS my body/blood" he really meant is was a symbol?

Soooo why didn't he say "this is a symbol of my body/blood"?

How did Paul get it wrong when he rhetorically asked: The cup of blessing that we bless, is it not a sharing in the blood of Christ? The bread that we break, is it not a sharing in the body of Christ?

Who should I believe...Paul or you and your 500 year tradition?

 

[BreadOfLife]

You mean other then the devil?
So, you are you asking me to give you the Catholic Lying Tradition or the actual history of the cult of Mary that created the Dark ages?
Hummmmm.
Lets try this
Well, for about 250+ yrs Christianity was banned by Rome. And along came Constantine who felt he could unite everyone under a religion.
His problem was that he was never actually a believer.

So, that'll work as your answer, unless you want to rework history as all catholics do, and try to state that it started with Jesus, then Peter took it from there, ect ect, = false.

That’s what I thought you’d say.

Every historically-bankrupt person I’ve ever spoken to has the same answer: “Constantine started the Catholic Church.”
Time for another history lesson, junior . . .

The Catholic Church was started by Jesus Chris (Matt. 16:18-19. It was actually being called “The Catholic church” as a title by the end of the FIRST century. We know this by the writings of Early Church Fathers like Ignatius of Antioch, who was a disciple of the Apostle John.

On his way to martyrdom in Rome, Ignatius wrote letters to 7 churches. In his Letter to the Smyrnaeans, he wrote the following:

Ignatius of Antioch
See that ye all obey your bishop, even as Jesus Christ does the Father, and the presbytery as ye would the apostles; and reverence the deacons, as being the institution of God. Let no man do anything connected with the Church without the bishop. Let that be deemed a proper Eucharist, which is [administered] either by the bishop, or by one to whom he has entrusted it. Wherever the bishop shall appear, there let the multitude [of the people] also be; even as, wherever Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church (Epistle to the Smyrnaeans 8 [A.D. 107]).

Gee – “obeying” Bishops and clergy, talk of the “Eucharist” and then the FINAL blow, “the Catholic Church”. Ummmmmm, WHICH Church does that sound like??

Later that SAME century, we have another document called The Martyrdom of Polycarp. Here is an excerpt from that document:

“Now, as soon as he had ceased praying, having made mention of all that had at any time come in contact with him, both small and great, illustrious and obscure, as well as the whole Catholic Church throughout the world, the time of his departure having arrived…”

This is not a mere description of the church – but “Catholic” is used as a TITLE here.

The term “Catholic Church” comes from Acts 9:31. The phrase in Greek is as follows
"Ekklesia kata holos"

Ekklesia (assembly/church)
Kata (according to)
Holos (concerning the whole, throughout)

If the phrase in the Martyrdom of Polycarp were used as a mere description, it would make NO sense. It would read something like this:
“…as well as the whole according to throughout Church throughout the world,…”

Ummmmm, Ignatius of Antioch died about 200 years before Constantine was even born.
Consider yourself historically-spanked . . .

Game.
SET
MATCH.

 

[Berserk]

S

That’s what I thought you’d say.

Every historically-bankrupt person I’ve ever spoken to has the same answer: “Constantine started the Catholic Church.”
Time for another history lesson, junior . . .

The Catholic Church was started by Jesus Chris (Matt. 16:18-19. It was actually being called “The Catholic church” as a title by the end of the FIRST century. We know this by the writings of Early Church Fathers like Ignatius of Antioch, who was a disciple of the Apostle John.

On his way to martyrdom in Rome, Ignatius wrote letters to 7 churches. In his Letter to the Smyrnaeans, he wrote the following:

Ignatius of Antioch
See that ye all obey your bishop, even as Jesus Christ does the Father, and the presbytery as ye would the apostles; and reverence the deacons, as being the institution of God. Let no man do anything connected with the Church without the bishop. Let that be deemed a proper Eucharist, which is [administered] either by the bishop, or by one to whom he has entrusted it. Wherever the bishop shall appear, there let the multitude [of the people] also be; even as, wherever Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church (Epistle to the Smyrnaeans 8 [A.D. 107]).

Gee – “obeying” Bishops and clergy, talk of the “Eucharist” and then the FINAL blow, “the Catholic Church”. Ummmmmm, WHICH Church does that sound like??

Later that SAME century, we have another document called The Martyrdom of Polycarp. Here is an excerpt from that document:

“Now, as soon as he had ceased praying, having made mention of all that had at any time come in contact with him, both small and great, illustrious and obscure, as well as the whole Catholic Church throughout the world, the time of his departure having arrived…”

This is not a mere description of the church – but “Catholic” is used as a TITLE here.

The term “Catholic Church” comes from Acts 9:31. The phrase in Greek is as follows
"Ekklesia kata holos"

Ekklesia (assembly/church)
Kata (according to)
Holos (concerning the whole, throughout)

If the phrase in the Martyrdom of Polycarp were used as a mere description, it would make NO sense. It would read something like this:
“…as well as the whole according to throughout Church throughout the world,…”

Ummmmm, Ignatius of Antioch died about 200 years before Constantine was even born.
Consider yourself historically-spanked . . .

Game.
SET
MATCH.

 

[Berserk]

Bread of Life,

I grew up in an evangelical church in which "the Protestant League" met regularly on Sunday afternoons. I recall as a young boy asking their leader what they talked about in their meetings and he shocked me with his reply. He said, "Oh, we talk about how nuns get pregnant in convents--stuff like that." That answer sparked my awareness of just how bigoted many evangelicals are towards Catholics. Evangelicals act as if the Holy Spirit deserted the Church after the age of the apostles and only returned after the Protestant Reformation. Nothing illustrates their myopic bigotry more than their disinterest in learning how an informed Catholic might justify Catholic distinctives on biblical grounds.

I have 4 pointed questions about the Eucharist for my evangelical colleagues:
If Jesus' Eucharistic language was merely symbolic, why wouldn't He explain this to the large group of disciples who took offense at this crude language and deserted Him (John 6:66)? A simple explanation would have removed the offense.
Why does Jesus identify the Eucharistic act as a means by which He comes to abide in them (6:56)?
Why does Jesus use crude language like "real food, "real drink," and "eat me" to describe what happens in the Eucharistic act (6:55-57)?
Why does Paul warn that the penalty for failure to "discern the body" during holy Communion can be sickness and even death (1 Cor 11:29-30)?

 

[justbyfaith]

And as I've shown you - they're NOT.

You have not shown me that.

That’s what I thought you’d say.

Every historically-bankrupt person I’ve ever spoken to has the same answer: “Constantine started the Catholic Church.”
Time for another history lesson, junior . . .

The Catholic Church was started by Jesus Chris (Matt. 16:18-19. It was actually being called “The Catholic church” as a title by the end of the FIRST century. We know this by the writings of Early Church Fathers like Ignatius of Antioch, who was a disciple of the Apostle John.

On his way to martyrdom in Rome, Ignatius wrote letters to 7 churches. In his Letter to the Smyrnaeans, he wrote the following:

Ignatius of Antioch
See that ye all obey your bishop, even as Jesus Christ does the Father, and the presbytery as ye would the apostles; and reverence the deacons, as being the institution of God. Let no man do anything connected with the Church without the bishop. Let that be deemed a proper Eucharist, which is [administered] either by the bishop, or by one to whom he has entrusted it. Wherever the bishop shall appear, there let the multitude [of the people] also be; even as, wherever Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church (Epistle to the Smyrnaeans 8 [A.D. 107]).

Gee – “obeying” Bishops and clergy, talk of the “Eucharist” and then the FINAL blow, “the Catholic Church”. Ummmmmm, WHICH Church does that sound like??

Later that SAME century, we have another document called The Martyrdom of Polycarp. Here is an excerpt from that document:

“Now, as soon as he had ceased praying, having made mention of all that had at any time come in contact with him, both small and great, illustrious and obscure, as well as the whole Catholic Church throughout the world, the time of his departure having arrived…”

This is not a mere description of the church – but “Catholic” is used as a TITLE here.

The term “Catholic Church” comes from Acts 9:31. The phrase in Greek is as follows
"Ekklesia kata holos"

Ekklesia (assembly/church)
Kata (according to)
Holos (concerning the whole, throughout)

If the phrase in the Martyrdom of Polycarp were used as a mere description, it would make NO sense. It would read something like this:
“…as well as the whole according to throughout Church throughout the world,…”

Ummmmm, Ignatius of Antioch died about 200 years before Constantine was even born.
Consider yourself historically-spanked . . .

Game.
SET
MATCH.

I have to say that I'm offended that you didn't call him a liar like you did to me, over the same statement.

I hope it's because you learned your lesson over calling people liars. If so, that means you won't be calling anyone a liar from now on.

But if not, I think you owe me an apology. For you singled me out to call me a liar and then didn't do the same thing to the enxt person who spoke the same piece of information.

 

[Taken]

Jesus isn't Catholic
OP ^

Right!

 

[justbyfaith]

WRONG.

Our cooperation with God’s grace is made possible – but it is NOT guaranteed.

This is the reason for the DOZENS of Biblical warnings not to fall away and LOSE it all.

God NEVER coerces those whom He loves.

You have still failed to answer my contention that the one who believeth on Him hath everlasting life.

Have you considered what it means that their life is everlasting?

It is not temporal.

If the life being spoken of could come to an end, Jesus would have qualified His statement by saying that it may be temporal.

But He didn't. He said,

Jhn 6:47, Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that believeth on me hath everlasting life.

You can scratch that Verily, verily, I say unto you if the life that is given might be temporal.

The fact that Jesus called it everlasting means that it can never come to an end.

Because if it ever comes to an end, it is not everlasting but temporal life. And therefore Jesus was lying when He said that it is everlasting.

 

[Taken]

Ummmm.....Sooooo when Jesus said "This IS my body/blood" he really meant is was a symbol?

Soooo why didn't he say "this is a symbol of my body/blood"?

He didn't need to...since Jesus already Said His Flesh (Body) is the Living Bread that came down from Heaven.

Without Eating His Flesh Body or Drinking His Blood...Jesus Accepted a man Eating bread and drinking wine As being sufficient for the man to Agree with Jesus' Offering.

(Seems like they didn't have secretary to fax over a Contract in INK on Paper...with Jesus' Offering and a man's Signature to reveal the Agreement) ...!

Glory to God,
Taken

 

[APAK]

If you can't refute my Scriptural proof - just say so.
No need for name-calling
. .

I refuted it already and have done so several times before...need glasses?.. I cannot help you if you are still in denial

 

[Philip James]

That's Catholicism

Indeed, it is!
(Eph 5:31-32)

And ALL are welcome to come to the wedding feast of the Lamb of God!

The Spirit and the bride say, "Come." Let the hearer say, "Come." Let the one who thirsts come forward, and the one who wants it receive the gift of life-giving water

 

[justbyfaith]

@BreadOfLife,

No response?

You have still failed to answer my contention that the one who believeth on Him hath everlasting life.

Have you considered what it means that their life is everlasting?

It is not temporal.

If the life being spoken of could come to an end, Jesus would have qualified His statement by saying that it may be temporal.

But He didn't. He said,

Jhn 6:47, Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that believeth on me hath everlasting life.

You can scratch that Verily, verily, I say unto you if the life that is given might be temporal.

The fact that Jesus called it everlasting means that it can never come to an end.

Because if it ever comes to an end, it is not everlasting but temporal life. And therefore Jesus was lying when He said that it is everlasting.

 

[BreadOfLife]

I refuted it already and have done so several times before...need glasses?.. I cannot help you if you are still in denial

Please point me to the post where you "refuted" my Scriptural argument.
This should be fun . . .

 

[APAK]

Please point me to the post where you "refuted" my Scriptural argument.
This should be fun . . .

BOL, are you kidding me. I just refuted your argument concerning Hebrews 10... that never speaks to losing salvation, and you now say it will be fun to refute you on this subject, AGAIN. Again, are you kidding me. Remember you never could present any evidence to refute me? Did I miss it somewhere? I don;t think so. NOT doing it again. I refuted your claim already BOL. You have nothing to say except this will be fun, again.

I'll leave you to yourself BOL because I don't think you ever considered what I just presented or took it seriously, forgot what I said/wrote, or you are seriously delusional.

Until you can present real understandable, scriptural evidence and/or an intellectual and rational argument to rebut me on this subject of Hebrews 10 that does not speak to loss of salvation, I'm done on this subject with you. So don't bother answering to me on this subject if you cannot deliver. Your track record suggests you cannot.

If I don't answer you again on this subject you shall know then why.

Blessings from the Lord, my Messiah, Yahshua

APAK