The Eucharist of Jesus Christ

The Gospel of John, Chapter Six, The Holy Bible ^ | October 2, AD 2002 | the_doc

[the_doc]

And BTW, I submit that someone whose "scholarship" reveals that only Catholics ever murdered for religion is not worth relying on to tell the truth about anything.

I think I will respond to this one. I will point out to lurkers that you are lying.

In what way are you lying, Dave? Oh, the usual way you guys lie when you can't win an arguments on the merits of your case. You twist what I said.

My point is that I have never said that professed Protestants have never committed murderous atrocities against RCs. (It merely suited you to bluster in your own pretense that I had said such a thing.)

Gosh, it is obvious that some professing Protestants don't know the Lord any more than the typical RC does in our day. Being a Protestant doesn't make a person a real Christian any more than being a Catholic does. I stipulated this IN MY ARTICLE, Dave.

But I was correct in pointing out in one of the subsequent posts that the murderous atrocities committed by the RCC through history drastically outnumber similar crimes committed by unregenerate Protestants.

You need to read the real history of the RCC. You need to get educated.

***

By the same token, I would never say that there have never been closet (or even overt) homosexuals in the supposedly Protestant ministry. But they are relatively rare in the Protestant movement. On the other hand, they are everywhere in the RC priesthood.

Surely you see what I am saying, SD.

So, your lame attempt to justify ignoring my article at the top of this thread doesn't WORK. You actually condemn yourself for your trouble. In other words, you are digging your hole deeper for yourself.

Not a good idea, friend. Deal with the article. It smashes your precious doctrine of transubstantiation.

[the_doc]

Your hubris and self-importance know no bounds.

...spoken like a man who knows exactly what he is talking about (grin).

[RnMomof7]

Wow it is amazing how many places you had to go to refute one mans work

Transubstantiation was not "doctrine" till 1215 when Pope Innocent III made " official "dogma of the church. (it had been debated since the second century)

Then it took 50 years to explain it so it could be swallowed (excuse my metaphor) by the masses

1265 Thomas Aquinas develops an explanation for the Transubstantion doctrine.

So CG...It was not the "common" understanding of the disciples..it was never taught in the doctrinal letters (Epistles)....It is a doctrine of man

[RnMomof7]

** I don't read the_doc's opinions too much when he uses abusive language and says it's necessary to be abusive. I consider it enabling. ***

And what of the words of our Savior?

 
  Mat 23:13   But woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye shut up the kingdom of heaven against men: for ye neither go in [yourselves], neither suffer ye them that are entering to go in.
  
  Mat 23:14   Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye devour widows' houses, and for a pretence make long prayer: therefore ye shall receive the greater damnation.
  
  Mat 23:15   Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye compass sea and land to make one proselyte, and when he is made, ye make him twofold more the child of hell than yourselves.
  
  Mat 23:16   Woe unto you, [ye] blind guides, which say, Whosoever shall swear by the temple, it is nothing; but whosoever shall swear by the gold of the temple, he is a debtor!
  
  Mat 23:17   [Ye] fools and blind: for whether is greater, the gold, or the temple that sanctifieth the gold?
  
  Mat 23:18   And, Whosoever shall swear by the altar, it is nothing; but whosoever sweareth by the gift that is upon it, he is guilty.
  
  Mat 23:19   [Ye] fools and blind: for whether [is] greater, the gift, or the altar that sanctifieth the gift?
  
  Mat 23:20   Whoso therefore shall swear by the altar, sweareth by it, and by all things thereon.
  
  Mat 23:21   And whoso shall swear by the temple, sweareth by it, and by him that dwelleth therein.
  
  Mat 23:22   And he that shall swear by heaven, sweareth by the throne of God, and by him that sitteth thereon.
  
  Mat 23:23   Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye pay tithe of mint and anise and cummin, and have omitted the weightier [matters] of the law, judgment, mercy, and faith: these ought ye to have done, and not to leave the other undone.
  
  Mat 23:24   [Ye] blind guides, which strain at a gnat, and swallow a camel.
  
  Mat 23:25   Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye make clean the outside of the cup and of the platter, but within they are full of extortion and excess.
  
  Mat 23:26   [Thou] blind Pharisee, cleanse first that [which is] within the cup and platter, that the outside of them may be clean also.
  
  Mat 23:27   Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye are like unto whited sepulchres, which indeed appear beautiful outward, but are within full of dead [men's] bones, and of all uncleanness.
  
  Mat 23:28   Even so ye also outwardly appear righteous unto men, but within ye are full of hypocrisy and iniquity.
  
  Mat 23:29   Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! because ye build the tombs of the prophets, and garnish the sepulchres of the righteous,
  
  Mat 23:30   And say, If we had been in the days of our fathers, we would not have been partakers with them in the blood of the prophets.
  
  Mat 23:31   Wherefore ye be witnesses unto yourselves, that ye are the children of them which killed the prophets.
  
  Mat 23:32   Fill ye up then the measure of your fathers.
  
  Mat 23:33   [Ye] serpents, [ye] generation of vipers, how can ye escape the damnation of hell?
  
  Mat 23:34   Wherefore, behold, I send unto you prophets, and wise men, and scribes: and [some] of them ye shall kill and crucify; and [some] of them shall ye scourge in your synagogues, and persecute [them] from city to city:
  
  Mat 23:35   That upon you may come all the righteous blood shed upon the earth, from the blood of righteous Abel unto the blood of Zacharias son of Barachias, whom ye slew between the temple and the altar.


You prevert the gospel xzings when you refuse to confront error
Jesus knew that and addressed .

[Matchett-PI]

"Who are you talking to? If someone didn't post this article, which slanders Catholics, we wouldn't be here right now."

I'm talking to you IF you choose to *feel* that this article "slanders people".

This article refutes Romish dogma.

Romish dogma is the subject --- not *the people* who believe the Romish Dogma.

If you think that the article is not successful in it's refutation of this dogma --- provide your proofs.

If you continue to attack the *person* because you don't like what the person is saying, then I'm sorry, but I will catagorize you in the same camp as those who called Jesus names because they couldn't refute his words.

Sorry. That's just the way it is with those capable of objective critical thinking.

[SoothingDave]

But I was correct in pointing out in one of the subsequent posts that the murderous atrocities committed by the RCC through history drastically outnumber similar crimes committed by unregenerate Protestants.

We disagree on this point. Neither of us is "lying" about it, just one of us is relying on biased sources.

But to bring up only the tragedies of one side is to paint yourself as pure. So spare me how I "misrepresented" what you said. You know damn well that repeating these accusations of Catholic attrocites is done for one reason only -- to make Protestants in the Amen Corner say "oooh those evil Catholics. I'm so glad I'm a pure Protestant."

So just spare all of us. Write your little Scriptural eisegeses, but leave the polemics out of it, OK?

By the same token, I would never say that there have never been closet (or even overt) homosexuals in the supposedly Protestant ministry. But they are relatively rare in the Protestant movement. On the other hand, they are everywhere in the RC priesthood.

LOL. Right. You argue from what you wish would be, rather than from any facts you may have. Protestantism, especially in the 20th Century, is nothing other than the surrender of Christianity to the basest sexual desires.

Who stands for the unborn? Who stands against adultery? Who stands against contraception?

SD

[SoothingDave]

Sorry. That's just the way it is with those capable of objective critical thinking.

Waving bloody shirts is not "objective critical thinking." It is the basest tribalism. It has no place in a reasoned discussion, which this is not.

SD

[Woodkirk]

Since you guys claim that it is the literal body and blood of Christ, why don't you construe every other part of that Last Supper literally as well. When you have the Eucharist, do you go into an upper room? Do you eat the Passover Meal first? Do you pass a loaf of bread with everyone taking a piece? Do you pass the cup of wine? Do you actually sit around a table as this is done?

The RCC has the chutzpa to claim to be "literalists" in interpretation of the Last Supper, but then they ignore the other literal aspects of the situation. If you really were literalists, you would meet the other literal requirements, but you can't so you don't thus you aren't. What is done in the Mass bears no resemblance to the Last Supper and is truly an imaginative creation of those who were far from literal believers.

[PayNoAttentionManBehindCurtain]

You got mail

BigMack

[the_doc]

No, you were LYING.

Now, deal with the article or lose the overall argument by DEFAULT.

[Matchett-PI]

The emotionally immature don't get to call the shots for the rest of us as to what is the definition of "reasoned discussion". Sorry. We're adults, and will make that determination for ourselves.

[RnMomof7]

Roman Catholicism all hinges upon one passage in Scripture about Peter. Their interpretation of that passage reads into every other doctrine about the nature and authority of the Church, which in turn affects all other doctrines because it is the authority by which they forumlate it and to which they appeal in its defense.

There are maybe 4 passages they take literally. They deny the rest of it..Interesting position Fru...It is "Sola Scriptura " for those passages ..the rest well they are subject to error

The proof of the Doctrines of Grace is before our eyes

     Luk 8:9   And his disciples asked him, saying, What might this parable be?   
  Luk 8:10   And he said, Unto you it is given to know the mysteries of the kingdom of God: but to others in parables; that seeing they might not see, and hearing they might not understand.
     Luk 8:11   Now the parable is this: The seed is the word of God.

[RnMomof7]

The Church got its authority from Jesus.

How do you know that Dave? Who told you that ?

Then wrote and compiled the Bible. That's linear.

Thats funny I could have sworn the bible was thev WORD of God delivered by the Holy Spirit ....You have no respect for it..no wonder you think men wrote it

[ThomasMore]

The Romanists on this thread have already admitted that the transubstantiation position has been labeled by its detractors

It's detractors were pagans. Are you one of them.

[Woodkirk]

"Queen of Hell, the Sovereign Mistress of Devils" --- go
ask old Alphonse himself. You know where to reach
him, don't you?

[RnMomof7]

Sitting on every altar in every Catholic Church is one of these "inner chambers" that they call "tabernacles" where the leftover consecrated hosts are stored for later distribution. It is precisely what Jesus referred to here -- a locked closet, a dispensary, a safe place used for storage. Catholics have been conned into believing that Jesus resides in these inner chambers, comes out only for Mass or other ceremonial adoration, then, goes back into hiding again, and all this through the magical powers of the priest. But Jesus said DON'T BELIEVE THEM..

Wow Wood ,excellent observation...He dwells in me and I in Him...remarkable mystery huh?

[ThomasMore]

labeled as "hocus-pocus" by the Protestant Reformers.

Yeah, 1500 years after the fact. You present me with about as much TRUTH as Arius the ArchHeretic.

[RnMomof7]

I believe that Jesus gave the authority to his church and specifically St. Peter to interpret Scripture

Who told you that ? How do you KNOW it is true?

[SoothingDave]

The emotionally immature don't get to call the shots for the rest of us as to what is the definition of "reasoned discussion". Sorry. We're adults, and will make that determination for ourselves.

If being adult means that one sees only evil in others and only good in oneself, then I will stay immature.

SD

[RnMomof7]

"For my flesh is true flesh, and my blood is true drink."

Was He alive when He said that ? Was he inviting them to have an arm or a leg?