Posted on 04/23/2013 1:31:08 PM PDT by Brian Kopp DPM
But what you know is wrong. You don't understand Greek or Aramaic. You are just making things up.
Well yeah, when you actually look at the language and context, that IS what Jesus said.
I, on the other hand, DO understand Greek and Aramaic (the latter less so), and SA is quite right in what he's saying.
I do not make things up. I do not lie. I do not fabricate things out of air just to make a point. Everything I've said is supported by Scripture and language texts.
I do not condemn Catholics. But I will not belong to an organization that willfully misinterprets Scripture.
81. On equally unbiblical grounds, Protestantism opposes law to grace.
Not only do Protestants oppose law to grace, so does Jesus Christ...
You're just going to hurt yourself posting that trash put out by your religion...
Joh 1:17 For the law was given by Moses, but grace and truth came by Jesus Christ.
Rom 6:14 For sin shall not have dominion over you: for ye are not under the law, but under grace.
Gal 2:21 I do not frustrate the grace of God: for if righteousness come by the law, then Christ is dead in vain.
Gal 5:4 Christ is become of no effect unto you, whosoever of you are justified by the law; ye are fallen from grace.
You really ought to spend some time in the scriptures before you jump off the deep end and contradict God...
Well just post that Aramaic bible then so we can all see what Jesus really said...Or does that exclusively belong to the Catholic religion??? Or maybe it doesn't and never did exist???
Read it whole. Not piecemeal.
Prove it. Show me where I am wrong.
Get serious.
Are you saying Jesus spoke Greek to Peter?
To understand the Greek you need need to understand the Aramaic, and how it translates.
As to the breaking of the bread, it takes place right before the Communion. Usually (always?) the Agnus Dei is said or sung as the bread is broken.
If you are actually drinking blood and eating flesh, by breaking bread then you would be ripping Jesus body apart before you eat it...Is that why you guys don't take it that far???
If you really want to understand this, in light of the fact that the breaking is part of the Mass, you will do best to start here and read the next ten questions, especially Q.75, Q.76, and Q.77, and most especially Q. 77, Article 7. Whether the sacramental species are broken in this sacrament?
This is all in the public domain. Anybody who wants to know what we teach BEFORE he attacks it, can find it out with a little work.
The Bible wasn't written as the definitive Christian belief system. For the first several hundred years of the Christian faith, THERE WAS NO BIBLE. But the faith was taught by the Church. Yes, the Catholic Church, which gave us the Bible.
It wasn't until the 1500's and the heresy of the Reformation that a 'new' Chritianity was established.
A few questions:
1) Where did Jesus give instructions that the Christian faith should be based exclusively on a book?
2) Where did Jesus tell His apostles to write anything down and compile it into an authoritative book?
3) Where in the New Testament do the apostles tell future generations that the Christian faith will be based solely on a book?
Well, you could if what you say was accurate, Scripural and convincing. You haven't so far.
It really wouldn't matter. You do not believe that "This is my Body" means 'This is my Body"
Let’s look at the Greek
Estin- is 3rd person singular active indicative
Mat 3:17 and behold, a voice out of the heavens, saying, "This is My beloved Son, in whom I am well-pleased."
Mat 3:17 kai idou fwnh ek twn ouranwn legousa outov estin o uiov mou o agaphtov en w eudokhsa
So, is Jesus the Son of God, or does he represent the son of God?
Mat 17:5 While he was still speaking, behold, a bright cloud overshadowed them; and behold, a voice out of the cloud, saying, "This is My beloved Son, with whom I am well-pleased; listen to Him!"
Mat 17:5 eti autou lalountov idou nefelh fwteinh epeskiasen autouv kai idou fwnh ek thv nefelhv legousa outov estin o uiov mou o agaphtov en w eudokhsa tsbautou akouete aautou
Again, is Jesus the Son of God, or does he represent the son of God?
Mat 26:26 And while they were eating, Jesus took some bread, and after a blessing, He broke it and gave it to the disciples, and said, "Take, eat; this is My body."
Mat 26:26 esqiontwn de autwn labwn o ihsouv ton arton kai euxaristhsav euloghsav eklasen kai douv edidou toiv maqhtaiv tsbkai eipen labete fagete touto estin to swma mou
This is the same estin. By what logic do you change the estin here to mean ‘represents’? There is no logic to support your tradition.
Mat 26:28 for this is My blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many for forgiveness of sins.
Mat 26:28 touto gar estin to aima mou to thv kainhv diaqhkhv to peri pollwn ekxunnomenon ekxunomenon eiv afesin amartiwn
This is the same estin. By what logic do you change the estin here to mean ‘represents’? There is no logic to support your tradition.
Mar 14:22 And while they were eating, He took some bread, and after a blessing He broke it; and gave it to them, and said, "Take; this is My body."
Mar 14:22 kai esqiontwn autwn labwn o ihsouv arton euloghsav eklasen kai edwken autoiv kai eipen labete fagete touto estin to swma mou
This is the same estin. By what logic do you change the estin here to mean ‘represents’? There is no logic to support your tradition.
Mar 14:24 And He said to them, "This is My blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many.
Mar 14:24 kai eipen autoiv touto estin to aima mou tsbto thv kainhv diaqhkhv to ekxunnomenon uper peri pollwn ekxunomenon
This is the same estin. By what logic do you change the estin here to mean ‘represents’? There is no logic to support your tradition.
Jeremiah 5:21
That clearly describes you, my FRiend.
Your “150 reasons” reminds me of the book put out back in the 1980’s called “88 Reasons the rapture will take place in 1988.” ALL 88 reasons were wrong, as are yours.
The RCC is an impostor masquerading as the true church, a form of paganized Christianity, a totalitarian Machiavellian institution with a long history of persecuting Christians who refuse to be subservient to the Pope.
Their form of totalitaianism in the name of Christ is of the same sort as Hitler and Stalin. The very antithesis of what America is all about. America is about FREEDOM not totalitarian oppression, secular or religious.
The Pilgrims and Puritans came to this land to seek freedom from the Kings, emperors, and popes, of Europe. Yet here we have it thrown in our face continually on this, a supposedly freedom loving conservative site. Go figure.
But Peter the Rock is Scripture. Your belief is not what Scripture says. That is the beauty of the "reformation" - everyone can believe what they want to believe. "Heresy is Us"
Scripture clearly calls Peter the rock upon which the church will be built. If it meant what you believe, why doesn't Scripture say what you want it to mean?
he is getting his way, soon there will be no religion allowed outside of the walls of the church anyway
sounds very cultish to say “we are the only true Christians”
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.