Replies

"But the Bible was written by the Jews and the early Catholics. Those celebrating the Holy Eucharist as Christ had instructed them to do "in memory of me" at the Last Supper."

It was not written by "Catholics". And no I don't engage in imaginary cannibalism. Literally eating flesh and drinking blood is taboo. It's SYMPBOLIC. You are not to literally imagine you are consuming His body.

Pointing out truth is not "bashing".

It was not written by "Catholics".

The Bible as a whole was not compiled until the late 4th century and then it was compiled by a Catholic saint (St. Jerome) at the request of a Catholic pope (St. Damasus).

Literally eating flesh and drinking blood is taboo. It's SYMPBOLIC. You are not to literally imagine you are consuming His body.

"I am the living bread which came down from heaven: if any man eat of this bread, he shall live for ever: and the bread that I will give is my flesh, which I will give for the life of the world. The Jews therefore strove among themselves, saying, How can this man give us [his] flesh to eat? Then Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, ye have no life in you. Whoso eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, hath eternal life; and I will raise him up at the last day. For my flesh is meat indeed, and my blood is drink indeed. He that eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, dwelleth in me, and I in him." - John 6:51-56

If Jesus said "Do this in remembrance of Me," why would He establish an "empty" sacrament? The Eucharist is Christ's Body and Blood. It is not a "representation" of it or anything less than His actual Body and Blood. Jesus lost many disciples when he stated that they would have to eat His Body and drink His Blood (John 6:60, 66). Yet He did not "call back" these disciples stating "I was just speaking figuratively." He let them leave. Why? If He had been speaking figuratively, He would have called them back and "explained" the doctrine, wouldn't He have?

It was not written by "Catholics".

Of course it was. The New Testament at least. As a Bible-only Christian, you'd certainly agree that Christ founded His Church during His ministry on Earth. The Apostles and especially St. Peter were the foundation of that Church. The first members and first leaders. And of course that Church was the Catholic Church. The Apostles St. Matthew and St. John wrote half of the Gospels. Mark was an assistant to St. Peter. James, John, and Peter wrote several Epistles and John wrote Revelations. Most of the rest was written by St. Paul who though not an original Apostle, was certainly in line with them and was a respected leader of the early Church. Again, this being the Catholic Church.

Of course, over the first few centuries the Catholic Church took these Scriptures, preached them, protected them, made copies of them, and eventually met to decide definitively which documents were legitimate Scripture and which were not.

I'd think you'd have to agree with everything I've said. The only hang-up is whether or not these men were Catholics.

Of course, Protestantism didn't actually appear until around 1400-1500 years after the Scriptures were written. So really it is our book and the Protestants came and incorporated most of it into their own belief system.