Posted on 11/29/2014 2:59:15 PM PST by Arthur McGowan
I recently had a few young men looking to join the Catholic Church. Their math teacher told them that if they join the Catholic Church, they'll go to Hell.
When you leap to the least intelligent, least charitable interpretation of a person’s words—i.e., “Gotcha!”—and do it repeatedly, are you actually engaging in a conversation?
So you admit you are blindly following your religion...
Yep...like a good little catholic....never questioning a thing they are told.
It's the reason they have the false teachings they do.
However, if catholics were honest they would have to admit it is they who have continually drifted further from the truth. Just see the evolution of the teachings regarding Mary.
AG: That is exactly the position I have been arguing for. That is exactly why they left.
Maybe some background on what the Eucharist is will help the discussion. From gotquestions.org.
Answer: For Catholics, the Holy Eucharist / Catholic Mass is considered the most important and highest form of prayer. In fact, attending Mass is an obligation, under penalty of mortal sin, each Sunday and on certain other Holy Days of Obligation. The Mass is divided into two sections, the Liturgy of the Word and the Liturgy of the Eucharist. The Liturgy of the Word consists of two readings (one from the Old Testament and one from the New Testament), the Responsorial Psalm, the Gospel reading, the homily (or sermon), and general intercessions (also called petitions).
The center of the Mass is its second part, the Liturgy of the Holy Eucharist. During this time, Catholics share in the body and blood of Jesus in the form of the bread and wine passed out to the congregation. According to the Bible, this is done in remembrance of Christ (1 Corinthians 11:23-25; cf. Luke 22:18-20 and Matthew 26:26-28). However, according to the Catechism of the Catholic Church, paragraph 1366, "The Eucharist is thus a sacrifice because it re-presents (makes present) the sacrifice of the cross, because it is its memorial and because it applies its fruit." The catechism continues in paragraph 1367:
The sacrifice of Christ and the sacrifice of the Holy Eucharist are one single sacrifice: "The victim is one and the same: the same now offers through the ministry of priests, who then offered himself on the cross; only the manner of offering is different." "And since in this divine sacrifice which is celebrated in the Mass, the same Christ who offered himself once in a bloody manner on the altar of the cross is contained and is offered in an unbloody manner . . . this sacrifice is truly propitiatory."
In the book of Malachi, the prophet predicts elimination of the old sacrificial system and the institution of a new sacrifice: "I have no pleasure in you, says the Lord of hosts, and I will not accept an offering from your hand. For from the rising of the sun to its setting my name will be great among the nations, and in every place incense will be offered to my name, and a pure offering. For my name will be great among the nations, says the Lord of hosts" (Malachi 1:10-11). This means that God will one day be glorified among the Gentiles, who will make pure offerings to Him in all places. The Catholics see this as the Eucharist. However, the apostle Paul seems to have a different slant on it: "I appeal to you therefore, brothers, by the mercies of God, to present your bodies as a living sacrifice, holy and acceptable to God, which is your spiritual worship" (Romans 12:1). The Eucharist can only be offered in select places: churches consecrated and blessed according to Catholic canon law. The idea of offering our bodies as living sacrifices fits better with the language of the prediction, which says that the sacrifices will be offered "in every place."
The Roman Catholic Church believes that the bread and wine of the Holy Eucharist become the actual body and blood of Jesus. They attempt to support their system of thought with passages such as John 6:32-58; Matthew 26:26; Luke 22:17-23; and 1 Corinthians 11:24-25. In A.D. 1551, the Counsel of Trent officially stated, "By the consecration of the bread and wine there takes place a change of the whole substance of the bread into the substance of the body of Christ our Lord and of the whole substance of the wine into the substance of his blood. This change the holy Catholic Church has fittingly and properly called transubstantiation" (Session XIII, chapter IV; cf. canon II). By sharing in the Eucharistic meal, the Church teaches that Catholics are fulfilling John 6:53: "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 you."
What does that really mean? Jesus goes on to say that "it is the Spirit who gives life; the flesh is of no avail. The words that I have spoken to you are spirit and life" (John 6:63-64). So, if "the flesh is of no avail," why would we have to eat Jesus' flesh in order to have eternal life? It does not make sense, until Jesus tells us that the words He speaks are "spirit." Jesus is saying that this is not a literal teaching, but a spiritual one. The language ties in perfectly with the aforementioned statement of the apostle Paul: "Present your bodies as a living sacrifice, holy and acceptable to God, which is your spiritual worship" (Romans 12:1).
In Jewish thought, bread was equated with the Torah, and "eating of it" was reading and understanding the covenant of God (cf. Deuteronomy 8:3). For example, the apocryphal book of Sirach states, "'He who eats of me will hunger still, he who drinks of me will thirst for more; he who obeys me will not be put to shame, he who serves me will never fail.' All this is true of the book of Most High's covenant, the law which Moses commanded us as an inheritance for the community of Jacob" (Sirach 24:20-22). Quoting from Sirach here is not endorsing it as Scripture; it only serves to illustrate how the Jewish people thought of Mosaic Law. It is important to understand the equating of bread with the Torah to appreciate Jesus' real point.
In John 6, Jesus is actually telling the crowd that He is superior to the Torah (cf. John 6:49-51) and the entire Mosaic system of Law. The passage from Sirach states that those who eat of the Law will "hunger still" and "thirst for more"; this language is mirrored by Jesus when He says, "He who comes to Me will never be hungry, he who believes in Me will never be thirsty" (John 6:35). Jesus is not commanding people to literally eat His flesh and drink His blood, He is telling them the core of all Christian doctrine: belief in Jesus Himself ("The work of God is this: to believe in the One He has sent," John 6:29, emphasis added). Therefore, the Catholic interpretation of John 6 is unbiblical.
Second, there is a very clear analogy in John 6 to the days of Moses and the eating of manna. In the days of Moses, manna was God’s provision for food for the Israelites as they wandered in the wilderness. In John 6, however, Jesus claimed to be the true manna, the bread of heaven. With this statement Jesus claimed to be God’s full provision for salvation. Manna was God’s provision of deliverance from starvation. Jesus is God’s provision of deliverance from damnation. Just as the manna had to be consumed to preserve the lives of the Israelites, so Jesus has to be consumed (fully received by faith) for salvation to be received.
It is very clear that Jesus referred to Himself as the Bread of Life and encouraged His followers to eat of His flesh in John 6. But we do not need to conclude that Jesus was teaching what the Catholics have referred to as transubstantiation. The Lord’s Supper / Christian communion / Holy Eucharist had not been instituted yet. Jesus did not institute the Holy Eucharist / Mass / Lord's Supper until John chapter 13. Therefore, to read the Lord’s Supper into John 6 is unwarranted. As suggested above, it is best to understand this passage in light of coming to Jesus, in faith, for salvation. When we receive Him as Savior, placing our full trust in Him, we are “consuming His flesh” and “drinking His blood.” His body was broken (at His death) and His blood was shed to provide for our salvation. 1 Corinthians 11:26, “For whenever you eat this bread and drink this cup, you proclaim the Lord's death until He comes.”
Whether the Catholic definition of Holy Eucharist is a "re-sacrifice" of Christ or a "re-offering" of Christ's sacrifice, the concept is unbiblical. Christ does not need to be re-sacrificed. Christ's sacrifice does not need to be re-offered. Hebrews 7:27 declares, "Unlike the other high priests, He (Jesus) does not need to offer sacrifices day after day, first for his own sins, and then for the sins of the people. He sacrificed for their sins ONCE for all when He offered Himself." Similarly, 1 Peter 3:18 exclaims, "For Christ died for sins ONCE for all, the righteous for the unrighteous, to bring you to God..." Christ's once-for-all death on the cross was sufficient to atone for all of our sins (1 John 2:2). Therefore, Christ's sacrifice does not need to be re-offered. Instead, Christ's sacrifice is to be received by faith (John 1:12; 3:16). Eating Christ's flesh and drinking His blood are symbols of fully receiving His sacrifice on our behalf, by grace through
Read more: http://www.gotquestions.org/Holy-Eucharist.html#ixzz3Kn7wSUWS
As this discussion has been going on well before us, we're going to have to agree to disagree. Somebody is right and somebody is wrong. One understanding is biblical and one is not.
I pray God reveals His truth to us all.
Nothing keeps people in line more than the fear of an eternal punishment in an eternal hellfire for temporary sins.
We all sin but God is just and forgiving and the ONLY thing he requires is sincere repentance. No sacrifices are needed because 1) Human sacrifice is utterly abhorrent to God, (This means Jesus)and 2 )We die for our own sins. NO ONE can atone for us and no one can die for us.
The “New” Testament is irrelevant to me. It completely negates the Hebrew Scriptures so anything the “New” Testament says means nothing.
But the punishment is only temporary. It’s very much like Purgatory. Souls are ‘cleansed’ before going to Heaven. No punishment is pleasant but it’s not eternal.
False, that is not what Christ says.
But the claim that Jesus was NOT commanding that we eat his flesh and drink his blood, but only that we believe in him brings us right back to the question: Why did Jesus allow thousands of people to walk away under the FALSE impression that he was commanding that we eat his flesh and drink his blood? Why would he commit the sin of preaching in such a misleading way that people were revolted and driven away from believing in him?
Is the word “flesh” used in the exactly the same sense in all the verses you quoted? Is the “flesh” that means the “natural man not under the influence of grace” what Jesus meant when speaking of HIS OWN “flesh.” Was Jesus calling himself a “natural, sinful man not under the influence of the Holy Spirit”? Is that tenable? Is the word translated “flesh” even the same word in the Greek?
In the same discourse, Jesus says that eating his flesh is necessary for us to have eternal life, and later says “the flesh availeth not.”
Clearly, it is absurd to say that “flesh” is in both uses the same concept. “Flesh” that causes eternal life is clearly not the same “flesh” that “availeth not.”
Jesus said we must eat his flesh in order to have eternal life. Did he then, minutes later, intend to say: “Oh, by the way, the flesh I’ve been telling you is necessary for eternal is useless.”
I do not care what he said. It is completely irrelevant because I do not adhere to anything your failed/false messiah and idolatrous man god said.
Well, Luther wanted to throw out James for saying things like that, because he preferred the writings of Paul, but does this mean you prefer the opinion of Paul (taken out of context) to what Jesus actually says? Just wondering.
Alas, most of the people telling others they are going to hell are like ignorant children who have to bully others to feel they are superior to someone else. Jesus has a story about this type: comparing the publican and the Pharisee.
I can think of a few people I hope are in hell: Stalin, Mao, PolPot etc. Yet I remember a haunting sci fi story by a famous Jewish writer that ends with Hitler painting the walls with roses in the afterlife, i.e. being healed and purified so he can enter heaven...sounds like purgatory to me, but then, as a doc, I see a lot of different people, and most of them sin due to weaknesses, many are atheists because they believed in false things told to them by anti Christians, or because they are bitter against God for losing a loved one.
there is evil in the world, and Christians are not the only ones who see a place of punishment for those who commit terrible crimes.
So when I see a local politician here in the Philippines die and get buried in honor while I know he or she has stolen millions of pesos from money meant to help the poor, or ordered his political rivals or the local newspaper reporter murdered for making this public, it makes me hope they will get some type of punishment: either a very long time in purgatory or even in hell.
Jesus told us that about the end of the age in the final judgment following the end times. Those verses are from Matthew 25 which is part of His discourse in Matthew 24-25 about the signs of the end times.
That sheep and goats judgment is not for those who have been saved.
Those who are born from above followers of Jesus, have already been judged.
Paul's writings are Scripture. Even Peter called Paul's writings "Scripture".
They are not Paul's "opinion's".
If you believe Jesus is God, then I think his words have priorities.
If you believe the bible is a magic book in which to cherry pick verses out to smite the heathen, then fine. But at least try to read Jesus’ opinions once in awhile.
Many have walked away from Christ when the invitation is given. The account of the rich young ruler comes to mind. He met Jesus face to face and yet walked away.
If we keep it in context it stems from a lack of belief. The Jews did not want to believe that the Son of Joseph was their Savior.
This whole passage, along with others in John, is about Jesus saying we must have faith in Him as the way to Heaven. As He told Nicodemous, you must be born again. I know that means something different to the catholic. But it's all about faith. Jesus made that clear from the beginning in this text. (John 6:22-67)
I'll have to check the specific word for flesh, but I recall reading the commentaries on this and they were indicating the phrase in question was to be figurative. This stems from 6:63.
I appreciate the good discussion.
If you believe the bible is a magic book in which to cherry pick verses out to smite the heathen, then fine. But at least try to read Jesus’ opinions once in awhile.
And just WHERE are Jesus' words found?
In the BIBLE.
I am constantly amazed at the Catholics disrespect of the very word of God by their almost universal and continual failure to capitalize the word Bible.
In addition to thinking that the Bible is a *magic* book and that Jesus' words are *opinions*.
Sheesh, no wonder Catholics don't hold God breathed, Holy Spirit inspired Scripture in any regard and consider the ramblings of men, aka, the *church fathers* and *sacred tradition* to be equal to Scripture.
Until and unless Catholics take the word of God seriously enough to give it the consideration it is due by it's very nature, then they will never come to a knowledge of the truth found in it.
But Jesus did not DECEIVE the Rich Young Man.
The problem with all attempts to make Jesus’ words figurative is that they put Jesus in the position of UNNECESSARILY scandalizing thousands of people—which is a SIN.
Again, this is all about faith. The people didn't want to believe Jesus was the Son of God. Recall He's speaking in the Temple when all this is happening.
What you're saying is that Jesus is advocating cannabalism. Does that make sense? That He's advocating drinking blood? Against OT Law? That's what was blowing their minds. This exchange between Jesus and the disciples captures what He was saying.
John 6:63-68
The Spirit gives life; the flesh counts for nothing. The words I have spoken to you—they are full of the Spirit and life.
64Yet there are some of you who do not believe.” For Jesus had known from the beginning which of them did not believe and who would betray him.
65He went on to say, “This is why I told you that no one can come to me unless the Father has enabled them.”
66From this time many of his disciples turned back and no longer followed him.
67“You do not want to leave too, do you?” Jesus asked the Twelve.
68Simon Peter answered him, “Lord, to whom shall we go? You have the words of eternal life.
69We have come to believe and to know that you are the Holy One of God.”
Peter understood it was about faith...."we have come to believe and to know that You are the Holy One of God."
That's what the passage is all about.
Have you come to believe?
Do you know that Jesus is the Holy One of God?
You continue to ignore what the crowd SAID before they left.
They left because Jesus commanded them to eat his body and drink his blood. They SAID: How can this man give us his flesh to eat and his blood to drink?
Jesus never corrected what they SAID they heard him saying.
Which means Jesus SINNED by causing an unnecessary scandal.
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.