The Resurrection & The Eucharist

So now we have ealgeone giving us “his” definitive interpretation of scripture whereas before metmom keeps repeating “her” definitive interpretation of scripture, and then when asked to explain how come we have every Protestant sect offering us “their” definitive interpretations of scripture, we are treated to the supreme nonsense that all this is the result of different versions of the Bible.

Could you show us somewhere where ealgeone and I have differing interpretations of Scripture?

And who ever said that differing interpretations were a result of differing versions of the Bible?

So while we're at it, how about we compare the Catholic church's Douay-Rheims version of the Bible with some of newer more recently translated versions by the Catholic church.

And of course, we'd find them all perfectly consistent in translation, now wouldn't we? (not)

So please don’t try to justify the thousand of different and conflicting Protestant interpretations of scripture.

Show us some of those. Pick a verse, any verse, of your choosing, and show us the *thousands* of different interpretations that verse has.

Was it not Martin Luther who wrote In his “Commentary On St. John,” “We are compelled to concede to the Catholic Church that they have the Word of God, that we have received It from them, and that without them we should have no knowledge of It at all.”

A little context for RC apologists who use Luther's words to boast of what they do not even know:

You must distinguish between the genuine Christian Church, the true church, and the church which presumes to be the church but is not. The false church has only the appearance, although it also possesses the Christian offices. Even a knave is able to baptize, read the Gospel, go to the Sacrament, and recite the Ten Commandments. All this is and remains proper, but he remains a vile knave and is not to be called a Christian or the Christian Church. No, we say that he is found in the Christian Church just as mouse droppings are found among the pepper or cockleburs among the grain. They merely help to fill the bushel. A body may possess fine, sound, and useful members which man can employ for his various needs; but that same body may also contain perspiration, secretion from the eyes, nasal mucus, scabs, abscesses, and other filth. (LW 23:286-287)

Therefore since this argument is waxing warm in our day, you must be prepared to give this account and reply: the term “Christian Church” has a double meaning, as other words do too. For there is a true and there is a false church. Now show me the true church. The pope claims to be the true church, but how is he going to prove it? He has the Gospel and Baptism; so do we. The issue is: Who has the true Gospel and Baptism, and who the false? The one Christ is the true one, but all heretics fashion a new Christ. Words have double meanings. Every heretic assigns a special meaning to a word, and he also employs the terms used in the divine Word. The term “god,” for example, is given the most manifold meanings. I suppose there are a thousand different gods. Mammon is a god. So are the Order of St. Francis and the Carthusian Order. Everybody has his own peculiar god. Therefore you must be wary. Just as the word “god” really pertains only to the one God but is perverted and applied so variously, thus “Christian Church” is also misused and loosely used. You must pay no attention to them when they say: “Here is the church.” Your answer must be: “I am well aware that there is one Christian Church, and I know the term ‘Christian Church’ very well. But it is news to me that you are that church. You may indeed vaunt that you are the Christian Church, but that beautiful name by itself will not mislead me. I know that the heretics are to deck themselves with the fine name of God, of Christ, and of the Christian Church, and thus deceive the world.” Therefore it is dangerous and suspicious for them boastfully to appropriate the name of the Christian Church, as if this required great skill and everyone before them were ignorant. You must tell them: “If you want to be the church and bear its name, you must prove your title. You must teach correctly, as the holy Christian Church teaches. You must have your life conform to its life. You must manifest your faith and the fruits of faith. Give evidence that you are the Christian Church.” But since they do not administer the episcopal office as it should be administered but persecute whom they will and yet insist on being regarded as pious princes and the Christian Church, we are obliged to say that they are the devil’s church; for the Christian Church does not treat doctrine so wantonly. The heretics frighten and delude many people with their claim to the name “church.” That is what the people in the Gospel did when they said that Christ must come from Bethlehem and when they spurned Him because He had come from Galilee. Our adversaries talk similarly of us today. They deny our claim to be the Christian Church because we come from Galilee or from Wittenberg, and because we will not await their decision. We will tell them: “Lo, there axe Christians also from Galilee and from Nazareth. Just because they believe and proclaim what is displeasing to you, you do not consider them Christians.” We will not wait for their decision, nor will we preach to their liking. Let us preach about the Man who will give us abundance also after this life. If we had preached to suit their taste, we would have become great lords long ago. But—so it is said—there is no gain in that. (LW 23:288-289)

BTW...I only mentioned my education to counter your insulting and derogatory presumptions that all the smart people are now Catholics and that "Protestants" are ignorant of the faith. I can only guess that holding to such inaccuracies would comfort someone who is unsure of their faith. Those who genuinely believe and know why they believe it have no need to be prejudiced and insulting towards others who disagree with them. Absurd "logic" and "vapid" nonsense is quite evident when all one can do is repeat the same verbiage over and over but all the while ignoring the facts being presented that contradict them. Those three monkeys picture comes to mind - or the ostrich with its head in the sand.

Those who genuinely believe and know why they believe it have no need to be prejudiced and insulting towards others who disagree with them.

You may want to check out some of the indirect Ad Homs coming from your side of the aisle aimed at a number of Catholics on this thread including myself.

You may want to check out some of the indirect Ad Homs coming from your side of the aisle aimed at a number of Catholics on this thread including myself.

I know what you're driving at but wouldn't it be something if the Catholics in the RF were calm, reasonable and charitable all. the. time.?

You know, sort of a living witness to "Charity is patient, is kind: charity envieth not, dealeth not perversely; is not puffed up; Is not ambitious, seeketh not her own, is not provoked to anger, thinketh no evil; Rejoiceth not in iniquity, but rejoiceth with the truth; Beareth all things, believeth all things, hopeth all things, endureth all things."

After reading so many of the absurd, negative, and rude comments for the non-Catholics I have to wonder if we are being to polite to them.

I am constantly reminded of the friend of mine whose grandfather was an Iowa mule trainer. He used to say the first step in training a mule was to get a 2x4.....

I am not saying that they are all mules, but some bray more than others.

Not saying non-Catholics are dogs, but, beat a barking dog enough and he’s gonna flip out. You may have to risk getting bit from time to time in order to save a growling hound. I’m not directing this at you but so often the message gets lost in the method.

Yes, Our Lord laid down the Law on occasion, so there’s no need to post your list Elsie, but He’s God after all and yes, we’re supposed to be Christ-like... but look at it this way:

Don’t we want non-Catholics to have what we have? Why would they want to be like a bunch of sour cranks?

Your worship of the Catholic Church is obvious to me.

Boatbums post 398:I am proud to be a "Bible Christian". I have a BA degree in Biblical Education and Theology I sacrificed and worked hard for. I see that as a badge of honor and laugh at those who would try to make it something wrong or undesirable.

Will boatbums now be subjected to scorn and derision, or that is reserved for Catholics that have earned degrees in Theology/ Religion?

Only because you don't know the difference...As you said, you learned about religion...The theology you know apparently is Catholic theology...Catholic church history, etc...All that, sans bible...

Along with those things, boatbums clearly knows bible...And is a Christian to boot (indwelt with the Holy Spirit)...

There is no comparison between boatbum's education and yours...

Although we disagree on some things I must say you have class!

Only because you don't know the difference...As you said, you learned about religion...The theology you know apparently is Catholic theology...Catholic church history, etc...All that, sans bible...

Really, you can make this claim because you attended all the classes I attended, you sat through all the lectures and participated ion the discussions, read all the books INCLUDING THE BIBLE, studied the New Testament in Greek. You really did all these things because I don't recall seeing you in any of them.

No mortal, sinful man could do this.

The Mana provided to the Israelites was made by God. The Catholic Communion Wafer does not appear on the ground by God’s command. It is made by the hand of man.

Why, thank you!

Well yeah, cause true “Biblical Christianity” is Catholicism. Sorry, I couldn’t help myself.

Then why do Catholics so many acts in direct disobedience to the Bible (aka - God’s Word)?

Well said!

"The Mana provided to the Israelites was made by God. The Catholic Communion Wafer does not appear on the ground by God’s command. It is made by the hand of man."

I see what you're saying here, really I do.

But Catholics would argue that when it is consecrated, there is a triple miracle:

The substance of the wheaten host is entirely gone, zot, not there;
the substance of the Real Presence of Christ, Body-Blood-Soul-Divinity, is there, and
The appearance and "accidents" of the wheaten host and the grape wine remain unchanged.

Now, that's kinda hard to explain (scratches head) and the terms "substance" and "accidents" are used in a specialized philosophical sense (which is pretty much out of my league)--- but not to get tangled up in a buncha words, the point is that what we receive in Communion is not that host that came out of a cardboard box from the "Host Supply Inc, Makers of Fine Hosts Since 1962" --- that's been annihilated ---but rather, what we're receiving is Himself.

Or to put it in even simpler terms:

He says "This is My Body."

We say, "Amen."

That's it.

Unbelief in the Eucharist, is unbelief in what the Resurrection is all about.

Jesus never said “be Holy for the wafer is Holy.”

He said “be Holy for I am Holy.”

Catholics would be better off focusing on the Savior and not a symbol.

So then, is the Douay Rheims Bible wrong for translating John 3 with *born again*, mr. greek scholar?

So what do Catholics do about the Scripture verse that talks about Christ dwelling in our hearts through faith and that God does not dwell in temples made by human hands but in us, who are the temple of the Holy Spirit?

Since He’s in us already through faith, then what’s the point of ingesting Him?