Posted on 03/29/2015 2:11:17 PM PDT by RnMomof7
What's it called when the heretic says something heretical to the heresy?
“To be deep into history is to cease to be Protestant” — John Henry Newman Actually, even RC scholarship provides evidence contrary to RC propaganda which they swallow, while to be deep in Scripture and then in history is to cease to be RC, which is basically invisible in Scripture , if faithful to the that as supreme.
That is part of what i meant by lacking real substantiation. Thanks.
You mean he had to have siblings? Also his mother was married.
Who is Turrantine and why should I care what he thinks?
And why is this posted as religious news when it is a vanity post?
Who was the Blessed Mother married to at the time of Jesus’ death?
You were a cradle Catholic, and yet you still post such silly garbage attributed to the Catholic faith? Yeah, right.
He obviously and clearly didn't have siblings and the comment to which I responded is just an example of people who try to have it both ways and hope no one will notice. If Christ obeyed the Old Testament Law then he had no siblings which is something people who make the argument about Christ obeying all Old Testament Law like to ignore when they make their silly arguments based on their refusal to accept Scripture.
The sacrificial lamb is what is in question and Christ, being that lamb, is different than a mere human being in that He is God in addition to His human form.
Apparently denying the perfection of the Holy Spirit leads Protestants to totally disregarding the fact that Christ is God when they feel like considering Christ as a man only which is far, far, more often than they consider Him to be God incarnate.
All Protestant and Protestant derived doctrine relies ultimately on Self and Self Alone which without fail leads people to considering either the human aspect of Christ or the Holy aspect as if they're seperate when the individual interpreter of Scripture wants them to be and joined when the individual interpreter wants them to be.
People say Christ kept all the Old Testament law but does that mean Scripture is wrong and Christ actually stoned the woman caught in adultry to death? No, of course not. Nor does it mean that Christ violated OT laws other than when it was important to His showing that He was God incarnate just like when He forgave the woman and just like when He said, This is my body to show that partaking of His flesh and blood was unique in spite of His doing so driving away His followers who could only accept Him as Christ if He fit their preconceptions.
Enjoy preconceptions all you like, they clearly do not do justice to Christ being God incarnate but for people who insist the Holy Spirit is imperfect I guess that's not too big a deal.
The Apostles didn't interpret scripture...They wrote it...And there are no apostolic successors...You're wrong on both counts...
2. Ignatius of Antioch (as a child, heard Apostle John) —
Another fable...
“they do not admit that the Eucharist is the flesh of our Savior Jesus Christ, the flesh which suffered for our sins and which the Father, in His graciousness, raised from the dead.”
The writings of Ignatius are forgeries...Any honest Catholic will admit that...
Conclusion: No argument for the “symbol only” theory gained any following among Christians for a 1000 years, and then only after an individualistic interpretation theory took hold in Germany under Luther that ran counter to Scripture: “The Church is the pillar of the truth.” (I Tim 3:15)
Luther put the bible into the common language so Catholics could actually read it...As they read the scriptures, they left your religion, just as they do now...
I like to see this kind of fire-spewing anti-Eucharist rant. That was me a few a years ago, before I converted. “To be deep into history is to cease to be Protestant” — John Henry Newman
So now you cling to the 'widsom' of a flaming homosexual Catholic...
Yer on a roll...
THANK YOU....THANK YOU!!!...After 2,015 years of misinterpretation of the Bible by untold BILLIONS of people....you come along to set Catholicism straight.....just in time too.......you probably have the date for the end of time also.....please let us in on your amazing insight!!!!
The subject of this thread was whether or not the bread and wine of Holy Communion becomes the body and blood of Jesus Christ. You did a bait and switch saying “RC scholarship provides evidence contrary.” That link leads to a different rant on a different subject. I recommend sticking to the anti-Eucharist subject. Learning what and why billions of Christians have believed the doctrine of the Real Presence for nearly 2000 years is a worthwhile project. Why?
1. The Holy Spirit just might have guided them into the truth — just as Jesus promised the disciples that the Holy Spirit “will guide you into all the truth” (John 16:13).
2. Apostle Paul had a definite plan to make sure his successors got the proper interpretation passed along without error: “The things which you have heard from me in the presence of many witnesses, entrust these to faithful men who will be able to teach others also.” (2Tim 2:2)
3. Peter emphasized that the authority to interpret Scripture does not rest solely with the individual: “no prophecy of scripture is of private interpretation.” (2Peter 1:20)
Frankly, you don’t sound like a Protestant. Are you a Jeh. Witness? A Protestant usually brings up Sola Scriptura, Sola Fide, Sola Gratia into their anti-Eucharist argumentation.
See post 51 for my reply. Assertions don’t make arguments. Otherwise, I’m happy you know so much about the early Christians and Newman. It takes several years to read through them (not counting the years to learn Greek and Latin).
For those who want to hear the early Christians in their own words, go here: http://www.ccel.org/fathers.html
I tend to think it's because "Roman Catholic" is some sort of talismanic boogie man to a large part of the evangelical Protestant world, and that's really what this is all about.
Cause usually it's roman catholics who are posting on this board. But if it makes you fell any better the same would apply to any group advocating the false positions of Rome.
John 6:66.
Where exactly is that requirement in the Old Testament that Jesus must assign responsibility for the care of his mother to his siblings and not to someone else?
What? Why do you engage in such reactionary fallacy, as it was you who poster who said you converted and boldly asserted, “To be deep into history is to cease to be Protestant”!
So you expect you can make such a provocative assertion and not be countered? My response was entirely fitting for one is going to pass that propaganda off. Newman whom you quote was not referring simply to Eucharistic beliefs, not did you say that this was the aspect of history that led to your conversion.
Learning what and why billions of Christians have believed the doctrine of the Real Presence for nearly 2000 years is a worthwhile project. Why?
And which is another fallacy, as we most certainly see no record in the life of the not church in Scripture that manifested the Lord's supper as being the central means of grace, around which all else revolved, it being “the source and summit of the Christian faith” in which “the work of our redemption is accomplished,” by which one received spiritual life in themselves by consuming human flesh, so that without which eating one cannot have eternal life (as per RC literalism, of Jn. 6:53,54).
Nor is there any record of pastors distinctively titled "priests" and engaging in any unique sacrificial function, that of turning bread into human flesh and dispensing it to the people, or even dispensing bread as their primary ordained function, versus preaching the word. (2Tim. 4:2) Which is what is said to "nourish" believers. (1Tim. 4:6) and build them up. (Acts 20:32)
Nor do we even come close to knowing what all early church "fathers" taught on this, though most of those we can read of held to some sort of "Real Presence" (apparently originally an Anglican term), but some of which RCs contrive to say what some did not say, in order to support docrtines that latter developed.
Yet they are not Scripture and determinative of doctrine, despite the often falsely cited “unanimous consent” of the fathers.
1. The Holy Spirit just might have guided them into the truth — just as Jesus promised the disciples that the Holy Spirit “will guide you into all the truth” (John 16:13).
Out of which RCs extrapolate the novel premise of perpetuate ensured magisterial infallibility, which nowhere seen or necessary in Scripture for God to provide and preserve Truth. But which promise cults emoploy as well to justify their additions to Scripture.
Yet this promise is not new, as God has engaged in progressive revelation from the beginning, which will go on after the Lord returns, and is not usually realized thru the magisterium, nor does it promise preservation from error, any more than it did for the OT magisterium, even though disobedience was a capital crime. (Dt. 17:8-13)
Nor is the church the supreme authority for what Truth is thru its magisterium, despite the presumption of Rome, as Scripture is, and the church began upon Scriptural substantiation in word and in power.
2. Apostle Paul had a definite plan to make sure his successors got the proper interpretation passed along without error: “The things which you have heard from me in the presence of many witnesses, entrust these to faithful men who will be able to teach others also.” (2Tim 2:2)
More erroneous extrapolation in order to compel Scripture to say what it does not. For this charge was no different than what God charged the pastors in the OT, and does not teach perpetual ensured magisterial infallibility, upon which specious premise RCs have their assurance of Truth.
Instead, God often raised up men from without the magisterium to reprove it and provide and preserve Truth, and thus the church began and faith has been preserved.
3. Peter emphasized that the authority to interpret Scripture does not rest solely with the individual: “no prophecy of scripture is of private interpretation.” (2Peter 1:20)
Which is another fallacious parroted polemic which actually argues against Rome, or at least RCs, being the correct interpreters of Scripture.
For in reality 2Peter 1:20 in not about interpreting Scripture, when it is about how Scriptural prophecy came to be given, which is not a result of mans interpretive wisdom, but instead such were found "Searching what, or what manner of time the Spirit of Christ which was in them did signify, when it testified beforehand the sufferings of Christ, and the glory that should follow." (1 Peter 1:11)
In contrast to being the product of man's wisdom and false prophets and teachers, Peter tells us, "We have also a more sure word of prophecy," "for the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost." (2 Peter 119,:21)
This sets forth Scripture as the "more sure word," not any magisterium of men. And even the claimed "infallible" decrees of popes are not wholly inspired words of God. >
Moreover, unlike 2Pt. 1:20 has been infallibly interpreted by Rome, then this RC interpretation itself is a fallible interpretation, and which RCs engage in all the time in seeking to support Rome, while disallowing that we may do so.
Frankly, you don’t sound like a Protestant. Are you a Jeh. Witness? A Protestant usually brings up Sola Scriptura, Sola Fide, Sola Gratia into their anti-Eucharist argumentation.
Frankly, you seem to have read very little, not even my tag line, which is not what you are going to hear from JW clones, or many RCs either, as both have a organization to "sell" for salvation.
I apologize if i have been too curt, but while i have never seen your here before, i keep getting the same parroted polemics from regulars, which are exposed as specious, and then they do not respond, only to engage in the same routine on another thread. On and on.
John 1:1 states in the beginning was the word and the word was with God and the Word was God. Christ has always been, he was not created.
The Holy Spirit came upon man on the day of Pentecost and the indwelling of the Holy Spirit is a sign of salvation and the grace of God is upon you.
Christ the man had to be 100% without sin to be the perfect sacrifice and Passover Lamb (The Passover Seder is a prophecy of Christ's Death) it is his upholding the law that the chains of the law are broken and we are no longer bound to it.
Honoring your parents, according to Jewish tradition, included caring for them when they were dependent the way they cared for you when you were dependent and not placing responsibility for them on anyone not their child.
Anyone who wants to find more details can easily find them and anyone who prefers their own preconceptions is free to wallow in those preconceptions. Mox Nix.
have a nice day
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.