"Joint Declaration on the Doctrine of Faith" - Has 500 Years Taught Us Nothing?

[Phoneman777]

If the Eucharist is just a piece of bread and a cup of wine – then it IS idolatry. HOWEVER – if it is truly the body and blood of Christ – as HE Himself says it is

It isn't "truly" the body and blood of Christ. In John 6, when the disciples heard Jesus tell them they must "eat My flesh and drink My blood", they were put off, so Jesus clarified what He meant by saying, ...the flesh (the flesh that the people thought He wanted them to eat) profiteth nothing. The WORDS I speak to you, they are spirit and they are life."

"Eating His flesh and drinking His blood" is a metaphor for internalizing the Word of God.

 

[mjrhealth]

Dont know if this has being posted before

September 28th, 2015 | Vol. 186, No. 12 | Asia, Europe, Middle East, and Africa, South Pacific

 

[Marymog]

History lesson. The first three may have differed in some points of doctrine, but they agreed on one thing. That the scriptures are the foundation for faith and practice... Not church tradition that contradicted scripture. They differed in some things because their church, for the previous 1000 years had taught a steadily growing mountain of error... One being that only the church can decide what is truth.

Hi Brakelite........Soooooo based on your theory the Church is not the only one that can decide what the Truth is. Zwingili, Calvin and Luther took the 1,000 year bastardization of truth from The Church and broke it up into 3 truths? Fascinating theory. I am not sure how that works. Can you explain it better?

I know scripture says that the Church is the pillar and foundation of truth. Can you show me where it says that individual man is the pillar and foundation of truth?

Does it bother you that some of the "truths" they kept were Catholic "truths"?

Can you show me a table of contents in Scripture? (the answer is no) Can I show me how thru Tradition The Church decided the table of contents for Scripture? (the answer is yes)

Did you know that it is thru Church Tradition that we "know" who wrote some of the books of the NT?

Curious Mary

 

[Marymog]

Marymog, they all DID receive the same answer: that salvation is by grace through faith in God's promises, not by works...and that the Roman catholic papacy is the Antichrist of prophecy.

Let's not forget that several times two popes reigned, each claiming the other was illegit...or the endless contradictory positions that catholic leaders held and do hold today. Are they listening to Satan, too?

Ummmm....Can you provide evidence that Zwingili thought that the papacy is the antichrist of prophecy? I can't find it!!

Also, I am sure you have been shown and read in scripture the multitude of passages that shows that works are necessary for salvation and that man is not saved by faith alone. Soooooo if Luther, Zwingili and Calvin are teaching the OPPOSITE of what Scripture says, wouldn't that make them and anyone that teaches that same un-biblical theory the antichrist?

Curious Mary

 

[BreadOfLife]

It isn't "truly" the body and blood of Christ. In John 6, when the disciples heard Jesus tell them they must "eat My flesh and drink My blood", they were put off, so Jesus clarified what He meant by saying, ...the flesh (the flesh that the people thought He wanted them to eat) profiteth nothing. The WORDS I speak to you, they are spirit and they are life."

"Eating His flesh and drinking His blood" is a metaphor for internalizing the Word of God.

This is a rather blind, deaf and dumb assessment of Jesus’ words.

WHY on earth would you say that HIS flesh profits us “nothing”? That’s NOT what He said. HIS flesh profits us EVERYTHING. If it weren’t for His sacrifice in the FLESH – YOU wouldn’t have a chance qt eternal life.

When Jesus told the people that the “flesh profits nothing” – He was referring to their HUMAN THINKING. They weren’t thinking as God thinks – but as MAN thinks. They freaked out because they couldn’t handle what He was telling them about consuming His flesh and blood in a sacramental way because they couldn’t see that far ahead – and they certainly weren’t going to stand there and listen to any more of this “nonsense”.

Chances are – Jesus WOULD have explained what He meant but their lack of faith prohibited it. WHY do you think He only explained it to the Apostles at the Last Supper?? Because they DIDN’T walk away from Him (John 6:68).

Unfortunately – YOU represent those who walked away from Him in John 6:66 . . .

 

[Phoneman777]

Ummmm....Can you provide evidence that Zwingili thought that the papacy is the antichrist of prophecy? I can't find it!!

"When the Swiss Reformer Huldrych Zwingli became the pastor of the Grossmünster in Zurich (1518) he began to preach ideas on reforming the Catholic Church. Zwingli, who was a Catholic priest before he became a Reformer, often referred to the Pope as the Antichrist. He wrote: "I know that in it works the might and power of the Devil, that is, of the Antichrist".[74] (from Wikipedia)

Also, I am sure you have been shown and read in scripture the multitude of passages that shows that works are necessary for salvation and that man is not saved by faith alone.

Please, "not faith alone" refers to faith that does not produce works, because if Jesus is in the heart, good works will as assuredly spring forth from that saint as does sweet water from a good well or good fruit from a good tree.

 

[Phoneman777]

This is a rather blind, deaf and dumb assessment of Jesus’ words.

WHY on earth would you say that HIS flesh profits us “nothing”? That’s NOT what He said. HIS flesh profits us EVERYTHING. If it weren’t for His sacrifice in the FLESH – YOU wouldn’t have a chance qt eternal life.

When Jesus told the people that the “flesh profits nothing” – He was referring to their HUMAN THINKING. They weren’t thinking as God thinks – but as MAN thinks. They freaked out because they couldn’t handle what He was telling them about consuming His flesh and blood in a sacramental way because they couldn’t see that far ahead – and they certainly weren’t going to stand there and listen to any more of this “nonsense”.

Chances are – Jesus WOULD have explained what He meant but their lack of faith prohibited it. WHY do you think He only explained it to the Apostles at the Last Supper?? Because they DIDN’T walk away from Him (John 6:68).

Unfortunately – YOU represent those who walked away from Him in John 6:66 . . .

Wrong, it is papists like yourself who represent the crowd who walked away in that they likewise believed Jesus spoke literally, not having Holy Spirit discernment that He was speaking figuratively.

LITERALLY eating His flesh and LITERALLY drinking His blood profiteth nothing is what He meant.

At the Last Supper, was there any mention of a transubstantiation?
At the home of His disciples in Emmaus?
At any point in Scripture whatsoever?

It is a made up false doctrine by catholic leadership that the bread and booze become "the actual body and blood of Christ". An examination of the chemical makeup of so called "transubstantiated" bread and booze will reveal only one thing: it yet remains nothing but bread and booze.

By papists' logic, Matthew 13:39, John 1:29, and Judges 9:8 means that at the end of the world angels will come with celestial Weed-eaters to kill the crabgrass, Jesus was a quadruped, wool-bearing mammal, and at one time trees appointed delegate members to the DNC - the Dogwood National Committee

 

[Phoneman777]

View attachment 5179 Dont know if this has being posted before

"...and all the world wondered after the Beast."

 

[BreadOfLife]

Wrong, it is papists like yourself who represent the crowd who walked away in that they likewise believed Jesus spoke literally, not having Holy Spirit discernment that He was speaking figuratively.

LITERALLY eating His flesh and LITERALLY drinking His blood profiteth nothing is what He meant.

At the Last Supper, was there any mention of a transubstantiation?
At the home of His disciples in Emmaus?
At any point in Scripture whatsoever?

It is a made up false doctrine by catholic leadership that the bread and booze become "the actual body and blood of Christ". An examination of the chemical makeup of so called "transubstantiated" bread and booze will reveal only one thing: it yet remains nothing but bread and booze.

By papists' logic, Matthew 13:39, John 1:29, and Judges 9:8 means that at the end of the world angels will come with celestial Weed-eaters to kill the crabgrass, Jesus was a quadruped, wool-bearing mammal, and at one time trees appointed delegate members to the DNC - the Dogwood National Committee

WRONG, as usual, sparky.

At the Last supper - did Jesus say, "This IS my body" and "This IS my blood"??
OR, did He say, "This is a SYMBOL of my body" and "This is only my blood in a metaphorical sense"??

The people whom YOU represent in John 6:66 who left were thinking like humans. they thought He was talking about cannibalism and NOT consuming Him sacramentally.
The Apostles had NO idea what He was talking about - but they gave Him the BENEFIT OF THE DOUBT.
See the difference, Einstein??

YOU are not willing to give God the benefit of the doubt because of your pathetic lack of faith . . .

 

[Marymog]

"When the Swiss Reformer Huldrych Zwingli became the pastor of the Grossmünster in Zurich (1518) he began to preach ideas on reforming the Catholic Church. Zwingli, who was a Catholic priest before he became a Reformer, often referred to the Pope as the Antichrist. He wrote: "I know that in it works the might and power of the Devil, that is, of the Antichrist".[74] (from Wikipedia)

Thank you....I was unable to find it.

Quick question.....If the Pope (or the seat of the Papacy) is the Antichrist then does that not mean that the antichrist is winning souls and Jesus is losing souls since there are sooooo many Catholics?

Also, the Churches that have doctrines/practices/beliefs that mirror the CC.....would they not be antichrist also???

Curious Mary

 

[Marymog]

Wrong, it is papists like yourself who represent the crowd who walked away in that they likewise believed Jesus spoke literally, not having Holy Spirit discernment that He was speaking figuratively.

LITERALLY eating His flesh and LITERALLY drinking His blood profiteth nothing is what He meant.

Who taught you this bizarre twisiting of scripture???

You are suggesting that even though Jesus said MULTIPLE TIMES we must eat His flesh and drink his blood and the Jews were so appalled by what he said that they walked away Jesus then said.....NEVER MIND....I was tricking you....My flesh profit nothing.

Then, just before his death, he says this IS my body and blood.....but he didn’t really mean that either???? He was tricking us??? Lying to us???

Simple question: Why do you accept the 500 year teaching of men instead of the 2,000 year teaching of the Church?

Curious Mary

 

[Phoneman777]

WRONG, as usual, sparky.

At the Last supper - did Jesus say, "This IS my body" and "This IS my blood"??
OR, did He say, "This is a SYMBOL of my body" and "This is only my blood in a metaphorical sense"??

The people whom YOU represent in John 6:66 who left were thinking like humans. they thought He was talking about cannibalism and NOT consuming Him sacramentally.
The Apostles had NO idea what He was talking about - but they gave Him the BENEFIT OF THE DOUBT.
See the difference, Einstein??

YOU are not willing to give God the benefit of the doubt because of your pathetic lack of faith . . .

By papists' logic, Matthew 13:39, John 1:29, and Judges 9:8 means that at the end of the world angels will come with celestial Weed-eaters to kill the crabgrass, Jesus was a quadruped, wool-bearing mammal, and at one time trees appointed delegate members to the DNC - the Dogwood National Committee

 

[Phoneman777]

Thank you....I was unable to find it.

Quick question.....If the Pope (or the seat of the Papacy) is the Antichrist then does that not mean that the antichrist is winning souls and Jesus is losing souls since there are sooooo many Catholics?

Also, the Churches that have doctrines/practices/beliefs that mirror the CC.....would they not be antichrist also???

Curious Mary

God says, "Come out of her ("Mystery Babylon the Great, the Mother of harlots": the catholic church) MY PEOPLE..."

This means God has His people in "Babylon", but He is calling them out of her. I do not presume to judge the ratio of saints:sinners in Babylon, but I woud presume it to be low.

As far as doctrines/beliefs/practices, any such that appear Biblical have an unBiblical aspect assigned to them by Rome. For instance, they teach Jesus came "in the flesh", but they teach since Mary's flesh was "unfallen", then Jesus' flesh was also "unfallen", which is not Biblical. He had the SAME fallen flesh as we, yet "though He were a Son, yet learned He obedience by the things which He suffered;And being made perfect, He became the author of eternal salvation unto all them that obey Him."

Unfallen flesh doesn't need to "learn obedience" - it's very nature is to obey. Jesus proved that we also in fallen flesh can learn to live by His grace obedient to the law. Catholicism bases its entire doctrine of intercession by investing Jesus with unfallen flesh and cutting off all access to Him without a mediator priest, Mary, etc.

 

[BreadOfLife]

By papists' logic, Matthew 13:39, John 1:29, and Judges 9:8 means that at the end of the world angels will come with celestial Weed-eaters to kill the crabgrass, Jesus was a quadruped, wool-bearing mammal, and at one time trees appointed delegate members to the DNC - the Dogwood National Committee

Which just proves that YOU don't understand that Scripture is not always symbolic.
Many times, you simply need to take it at face value - but it's common beginner's blunder . . .

 

[BreadOfLife]

God says, "Come out of her ("Mystery Babylon the Great, the Mother of harlots": the catholic church) MY PEOPLE..."

This means God has His people in "Babylon", but He is calling them out of her. I do not presume to judge the ratio of saints:sinners in Babylon, but I woud presume it to be low.

As far as doctrines/beliefs/practices, any such that appear Biblical have an unBiblical aspect assigned to them by Rome. For instance, they teach Jesus came "in the flesh", but they teach since Mary's flesh was "unfallen", then Jesus' flesh was also "unfallen", which is not Biblical. He had the SAME fallen flesh as we, yet "though He were a Son, yet learned He obedience by the things which He suffered;And being made perfect, He became the author of eternal salvation unto all them that obey Him."

Unfallen flesh doesn't need to "learn obedience" - it's very nature is to obey. Jesus proved that we also in fallen flesh can learn to live by His grace obedient to the law. Catholicism bases its entire doctrine of intercession by investing Jesus with unfallen flesh and cutting off all access to Him without a mediator priest, Mary, etc.

Care to substantiate that comment in RED?

If Mary was born of "unfallen" flesh, then she would have never died.
The Church doesn't teach that she never died, Einstein.

Anyway - show me the official teaching behind your comment in RED.

 

[Marymog]

God says, "Come out of her ("Mystery Babylon the Great, the Mother of harlots": the catholic church) MY PEOPLE..."

This means God has His people in "Babylon", but He is calling them out of her. I do not presume to judge the ratio of saints:sinners in Babylon, but I woud presume it to be low.

As far as doctrines/beliefs/practices, any such that appear Biblical have an unBiblical aspect assigned to them by Rome. For instance, they teach Jesus came "in the flesh", but they teach since Mary's flesh was "unfallen", then Jesus' flesh was also "unfallen", which is not Biblical. He had the SAME fallen flesh as we, yet "though He were a Son, yet learned He obedience by the things which He suffered;And being made perfect, He became the author of eternal salvation unto all them that obey Him."

Unfallen flesh doesn't need to "learn obedience" - it's very nature is to obey. Jesus proved that we also in fallen flesh can learn to live by His grace obedient to the law. Catholicism bases its entire doctrine of intercession by investing Jesus with unfallen flesh and cutting off all access to Him without a mediator priest, Mary, etc.

Thanks for your opinion.

Are you going to answer my questions or continue to bloviate??

Patient Mary

PS....love how in your very first sentence you added words to Scripture to fit your theory....That's how the anti-Christ works.

 

[Phoneman777]

Thanks for your opinion.

Are you going to answer my questions or continue to bloviate??

Patient Mary

PS....love how in your very first sentence you added words to Scripture to fit your theory....That's how the anti-Christ works.

Two things:
1. What was the question?
2. It's called "commentary" which is perfectly acceptable practice as long as it agrees with Scripture.

 

[Phoneman777]

Which just proves that YOU don't understand that Scripture is not always symbolic.
Many times, you simply need to take it at face value - but it's common beginner's blunder . . .

Dead Bread, as one who sincerely believes that when a pedophile priest says the Latin equivalent of "hocus pocus", a dead bread wafer and alcoholic booze turns into the "literal body and blood of Christ" - you are hardly in any position to criticize another's ability to appraise what is literal and what is symbolic.

 

[BreadOfLife]

Dead Bread, as one who sincerely believes that when a pedophile priest says the Latin equivalent of "hocus pocus", a dead bread wafer and alcoholic booze turns into the "literal body and blood of Christ" - you are hardly in any position to criticize another's ability to appraise what is literal and what is symbolic.

And according to YOUR moronic interpretation of Scripture where EVERYTHING is “symbolic” – Jesus never really walked the face of the earth. He was just a figment of everybody’s imagination. This is the heresy of Docetism – that Jesus was just a phantom – an illusion who was only a spiritual being and NOT a fleshly being.

It was an idiotic, anti-Biblical heresy when it was invented in the 2nd century – and it’s just as idiotic being spewed from YOUR mouth in the 21st century.

The funny thing that YOU in your complete ignorance of history don’t understand is that you’re just echoing the objections of pagan Rome when they accused the Early Christians of everything from worshiping bread to cannibalism.

Congratulations, sparky . . .

 

[Marymog]

Two things:
1. What was the question?
2. It's called "commentary" which is perfectly acceptable practice as long as it agrees with Scripture.

Questions on post #730 and 731

Commentary defined (Merriam Webster): an expression of opinion

Mary

PS....@nancy thinks I don't post in the debate forum